Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/1997

Home

Z.B. August 10,1997 - Page 5 The board correctly consulted the municipal bylaws to determine if the project met the density requirements. The future-land-use map and related docu- ments referred to the municipal bylaws, and the municipal bylaws' density requirements didn't restrict the project from being approved. Though the project would have a "substantial regional impact," nothing in the regional plan suggested the such projects would require an alteration in the plan's density limitations. In addition, the plan didn't specifically require projects such as MBL's to be located in growth centers. By containing the word "should," the plan encouraged such planning, but did not mandate it. see also: In re Molgano, 653 A.2d 775 (1994). see also: In re Killington, Ltd., 616 A.2d 244 (1992). .~ I~ Zoning Violation - Is new owner bound by town's agreement with previous owner? Town of Grand Lake v. Lanzi, 937 P.2d 785 (Colorado) 1997 The Joneses owned a shopping center in Grand Lake, Colo. The town amended its zoning ordinance, requiring all retail and commer- cial buildings to have one off-street parking space for every 250 square feet of leasable area. Because the Joneses' shopping center had been built before the amendment, it became a nonconforming use. According to the amendment, however, nonconforming properties would have to begin providing off-street spaces or pay a parking fee if their buildings were enlarged. The ordinance also stated that each day of noncompliance would be considered a separate offense. In 1986, the Joneses renovated the center, increasing the center's square footage and the available leasable space. As part of the project, the Joneses signed a parking agreement with the town, stating the center would provide off-street parking in accordance with the parking ordinance. In addition, the J oneses agreed to provide parking on a nearby lot. At the time they made the parking agreement, the J oneses had two separate deeds to the property, owing money to several lenders. The Joneses defaulted on the loans, so the lenders foreclosed on the property. According to a statute, a fore- closure produced the result that "such title shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances recorded or filed subsequent to the recording or filing of the lien." Lanzi eventually bought the center, fully aware of the parking agreement made between the Joneses and the town. In 1990, shopping-center customers were denied access to park on the second lot. The town cited Lanzi for violating the parking ordinance, but dismissed the charges after parking access was restored to the la' In 1992, the town demanded that Lanzi provide the required parking or pay $2,500 for each off-street parking space not provided. When Lanzi refused to comply with the town's ultimatum, the town asked a court to enforce the parking ordinance. The town asked for judgment without a trial. It said the Joneses' agreement