Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-104 (2026)

Implementation of article

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Any county with respect to territory within the unincorporated portion of the county or any municipality with respect to territory within its corporate limits may authorize planned unit developments by enacting a resolution or ordinance which:

(a) Refers to this article;

(b) Includes a statement of objectives of development;

(c) Designates the board, which may be a commission, board, or the governing body of the county or municipality, authorized to review planned unit development applications as set forth in this article;

(d) Sets forth standards of development consistent with the provisions of section 24-67- 105;

(e) Sets forth the procedures pertaining to the application for, hearing on, and tentative and final approval of a planned unit development which shall afford procedural due process to interested parties. The resolution or ordinance shall establish maximum time periods within which any application shall be reviewed and approved, disapproved, or conditionally approved. At least one public hearing shall be held by the board designated pursuant to paragraph (c) of this subsection (1) prior to approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of a planned unit development. Public notice of the public hearing shall be given in the manner prescribed by section 30-28-116 or 31-23-304, C.R.S., whichever is applicable, for the amendment of zoning resolutions and ordinances. Written notice of the public hearing shall be delivered or mailed, first-class postage prepaid, at least fifteen days prior to the public hearing to adjoining landowners.

(f) Requires a finding by the county or municipality that such plan is in general conformity with any master plan or comprehensive plan for the county or municipality.

(2) The enactment of the resolution or ordinance provided for in this section and the enactment of any amendment thereto shall be in accordance with the procedures required for the adoption of an amendment to a zoning resolution or ordinance as prescribed by section 30-28- 116 or 31-23-305, C.R.S., whichever is applicable.

Source: L. 72: p. 509, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 106-6-4. L. 75: (1)(e) and (2) amended, p. 1270, § 6, effective July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009). · cites it 10× “5) of this subsection (3), no substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan by the county or municipality shall be permitted except upon a finding by the county or municipality, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the…”

Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 12× “§§ 24-67-104, 24-67-106(3)(b), C.R.S.2008.”

Canyon Area Residents for the Env't v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 172 P.3d 905 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 9× “CARE also contends the Board erred in approving the application without properly considering the requirements of § 24-67-104, C.R.S.2005. Again, we agree.”

Beaver Meadows v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985). · cites it 6× “§§ 24-67-104, -105, 10 C.R.S. (1982). PUD regulations adopted by a county may differ from those applicable under general zoning and subdivision regulations as long as the PUD requirements substantially comply with the subdivision provisions of part 1 of article 28 of title 30 C.”

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1996). · cites it 6× “§ 24-67-104(1)®, 10 C.R.S. (1982); Larimer County Planned Unit Development Regulations, §§ 11(F), VI(D)(8).”

Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Colorado Arlberg Club, 762 P.2d 146 (Colo. 1988). · cites it 2× “See §§ 24-67-104 and -106, 10 C.R.S. (1982) (county may authorize and amend PUD's in unincorporated portion of county; municipality has that authority within its corporate limits).”

Whatley v. Summit Cnty. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs, 77 P.3d 793 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “Section 24-67-106(3) of the PUD Act requires that, before an amendment may be approved, the provisions of § 24-67-104(1)(e), C.R.S.2002, must be followed.”

Wolf Creek Ski Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 170 P.3d 821 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “See § 24-67-104(1)(e), C.R.8.2007 (the county resolution must set "forth the procedures pertaining to the application for, hearing on, and tentative and final approval of a planned unit development which shall afford procedural due process to interested parties").”

Friends of the Black Forest Pres. Plan, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of El Paso Cnty., 2016 COA 54 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “The division looked to section 24-67-104(1)(f), C.R.S. 2015, of the Planned Unit Development Act of 1972, which explicitly states that a county or municipality must find that a PUD is in general conformity with any master plan or comprehensive plan for the county or municipality…”

Tiffany Kavanaugh in her Off. capacity as Telluride Town Clerk v. Telluride Locals Coalition Petitioners' Comm.; Matthew Hintermeister; Ian Wilson; Daniel Aurand; & Brighton Props., LLC, a Colorado Ltd. Liab. Co.., 2026 CO 47 (Colo. 2026). · cites it 5× “§ 24-67-104. For instance, it must include the permitted density or intensity of land use, minimum number of units or acres required, and the sequence of development.”

Friends of the Black Forest Pres. Plan, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of El Paso Cnty., Colorado, 2016 COA 54 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “The division looked to section 24-67-104(1)(f), C.R.S. 2015, of the Planned Unit Development Act of 1972, which explicitly states that a county or municipality must find that a PUD is in general conformity with any master plan or comprehensive plan for the county or municipality…”

Whatley v. Summit Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 77 P.3d 793 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “2002, titled "Enforcement and modification of provisions of the plan," provides, in part: No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan by the county or municipality shall be permitted except upon a [specified] finding by the county or…”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-104(1) — 1 case

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1996). “§ 24-67-104(1)®, 10 C.R.S. (1982); Larimer County Planned Unit Development Regulations, §§ 11(F), VI(D)(8).”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-104(1)(a) — 2 cases

Tiffany Kavanaugh in her Off. capacity as Telluride Town Clerk v. Telluride Locals Coalition Petitioners' Comm.; Matthew Hintermeister; Ian Wilson; Daniel Aurand; & Brighton Props., LLC, a Colorado Ltd. Liab. Co.., 2026 CO 47 (Colo. 2026). “§ 24-67-104. For instance, it must include the permitted density or intensity of land use, minimum number of units or acres required, and the sequence of development.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-104(1)(e) — 5 cases

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009). “5) of this subsection (3), no substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan by the county or municipality shall be permitted except upon a finding by the county or municipality, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the…”

Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “§§ 24-67-104, 24-67-106(3)(b), C.R.S.2008.”

Whatley v. Summit Cnty. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs, 77 P.3d 793 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “Section 24-67-106(3) of the PUD Act requires that, before an amendment may be approved, the provisions of § 24-67-104(1)(e), C.R.S.2002, must be followed.”

Whatley v. Summit Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 77 P.3d 793 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “2002, titled "Enforcement and modification of provisions of the plan," provides, in part: No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan by the county or municipality shall be permitted except upon a [specified] finding by the county or…”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-104(1)(f) — 7 cases

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1996). “§ 24-67-104(1)®, 10 C.R.S. (1982); Larimer County Planned Unit Development Regulations, §§ 11(F), VI(D)(8).”

Canyon Area Residents for the Env't v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 172 P.3d 905 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “CARE also contends the Board erred in approving the application without properly considering the requirements of § 24-67-104, C.R.S.2005. Again, we agree.”

Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “§§ 24-67-104, 24-67-106(3)(b), C.R.S.2008.”

Beaver Meadows v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985). “§§ 24-67-104, -105, 10 C.R.S. (1982). PUD regulations adopted by a county may differ from those applicable under general zoning and subdivision regulations as long as the PUD requirements substantially comply with the subdivision provisions of part 1 of article 28 of title 30 C.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-104(l)(e) — 2 cases

Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “§§ 24-67-104, 24-67-106(3)(b), C.R.S.2008.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-104(l)(f) — 2 cases

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1996). “§ 24-67-104(1)®, 10 C.R.S. (1982); Larimer County Planned Unit Development Regulations, §§ 11(F), VI(D)(8).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.