Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/2010

Home

, ~ ~. .~ ~ I f .. b . ".1 , . '1 i f I I J. ". i .:~ . ,. '.: ." , , . . , i 4 i I '~f . f I: i i r r ~ (t) '_'-.-:~~.;:-,.-;7.:.' "l-. . ,..... . Zoning Bulletin January 25,2010 IVolume41 No.2 C' '-, b . , , . ". .....-. -.. '. '. The District orily subrillrted to the County an application for loca- , tion and extent revieW: ',the County refused topro~ess the DistriCes application, because it had not first. sought modification. of the PUD. . The District then filed a complaint in district coUrt. Finding there were 'no material issues of fact in dispute~ a,Iiddedd,- ing, the matter on the.Iaw alone, the district court granted sUinmary . judgment in favor of the District. The court determined that the Dis- trict Was "a public entity not subject' to zoning regulations [pursuant . " to S 30-28-110(1)(c)]." Since a PUD was a form of zoning, the court concluded that the District was not subjectto the PUD Act. and needed . only to comply with the location and extent review Process under the , Planning Act. ' The County appeaJed. . The court of appeals affirmed the district cojlrt's ruling. The Supreme'Court of Colorado granted certiorari. The c;ourt's Decision: Judgtnent of the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Colorado held that: (1) the "override author- ity of political subdivisions with special statutory purposes, codified in [S] 30-28-110(1) of the Planning Act, is applicable to the PUD Act"; and (2) "[a] statutory county may not refuse to process an otherwise complete application for location and extent review of a public proj- ect on the basis that the applicant political subdivision must first seek modification of a PUD." As to this case specifically, the court conclud- ed that: (1) the District was not required to. seek .amendment to the PUD in order to construct the new fire station; and (2) the county did not have the authority to prohibit the District from locating the fire station in the PUD. In So holding, the court determined that "the provisions of the PUD Act function as a type of zoning regulation, not as a substitute for zon- . ing that operates separate and apart from the Planning Act." Also, the court emphasized that "the General Assembly intended the PUD Act. . to function' as a supplement to the Planning Act, not as a replacement . for it." 'Thus, "the General Assembly intended the PUD Act to function within the requirements of the Planning Act," including, the political subdivision override authority provided by the Planning Act. ' The County had relied upon ~e 'pOO Act's modification' provi- sion, S 24-67-106(3)(b), to support its position that the District was required to seek modification of the POO. That provision provided that: "[N]o substantial modification, removal or release of the pro- visions of the plan by the countY or municipality shall be permit- ted except upon a finding by the county or rimnicipality... that the modification, removal, or release is consistent with the [POO]!" The court found' that provision was not explicitly made applicable to other political subdivisions ("except where the political subdivision @ 2010 Thomson Reuters 11 . .... ';j" .. ,.' ~ ,: '~ . ~. .~ :. ..- .:.,.~ '. .t' ~ :- .-':~. .."'. 11 ' I , 'I 'I :1 .1 ' ;1 '! ,j :11 . ..."-j '" ';'1-"",- ..... : ! , I ; i i II i i .1 I 1 I i r ! '. 75