Kolwicz v. City of Boulder, 74--242
| Decision Date | 28 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--242,74--242 |
| Citation | 538 P.2d 482,36 Colo.App. 142 |
| Parties | Sandra G. KOLWICZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Roger H. Olson, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BOULDER, a Municipal Corporation, and Robert G. Westdyke, Coordinator of Public Facilities of the City of Boulder, Defendants-Appellees. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Ruth M. Wright, Marvin B. Woolf, Boulder, for plaintiff-appellant.
Walter L. Wagenhals, City Atty., Richard D. Lynton, Asst. City Atty., Boulder, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiff Sandra G. Kolwicz appeals the judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendants, City of Boulder and Robert G. Westdyke, as Coordinator of Public Facilities of Boulder. We affirm.
In 1969, Boulder's city council adopted an ordinance entitled 'Flood Plain Regulations' (§§ 37--1201 through 1211 of the Boulder Revised Code), which restricts use of land in the area which would be inundated by a 100-year flood, referred to herein as the 'flood plain.' This area is subdivided into a 'floodway area' and a 'flood storage area,' defined by the regulations as:
The regulations specify that: '(T)he extent of both the floodway district and the flood storage district shall be set forth and delineated upon official maps which shall be approved by motion of the city council.' Included also are provisions for permitted uses, standards and conditions of use in the floodway and in the flood storage areas, and standards and conditions for nonconforming uses and for floodproofing. The coodinator is made responsible for administering the regulations.
Although the official flood plain map was adopted by ordinance in April 1971, no official map has been developed or approved by the city council specifically delineating the floodway and the flood storage areas within the flood plain. Since 1971, some building permits have been issued and some buildings have been erected within the flood plain on floodproofing conditions imposed by the coordinator.
Concerned by the failure of the city council to approve and adopt an official map delineating the areas, plaintiffs commenced this action in December 1973. They asked the court: (1) To direct the coordinator to carry out the duties required of him to delineate the floodway and the flood storage areas; (2) to set reasonable deadlines for delineating the areas and having them adopted by the city council on official maps; (3) to declare that Boulder has authority to refrain from issuing building permits for property located in the flood plain pending delineation and adoption of floodway and flood storage areas; and (4) of enjoin Boulder from issuing permits pending the same. In their answer, the defendants move to dismiss because of plaintiffs' lack of standing to bring such an action and for failure to state a claim.
After filing the action, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Boulder from issuing any additional building permits for construction of structures within the flood plain pending the final determination of this action. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the court made detailed findings and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to justify an injunction.
Before the second day of this hearing, plaintiffs moved for leave to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Bayou Liquors, Inc. v. City of Casper, 94-254
...The decided cases support this view and, in their rationale, they demonstrate the soundness of the rule. E.g., Kolwicz v. City of Boulder, 36 Colo.App. 142, 538 P.2d 482 (1975); Greer v. Lewiston Golf & Country Club, Inc., 81 Idaho 393, 342 P.2d 719 (1959); Asendorf v. Common School Dist. N......
-
Norris v. Grimsley
...grounds for complaint above and beyond that of any complaining resident of the Rocky Ford community. See generally Kolwicz v. Boulder, 36 Colo.App. 142, 538 P.2d 482 (1975). Certainly she is no more aggrieved than would be the owner or manager of a business located in the neighborhood. The ......
-
Cottonwood Farms v. Board of County Com'rs of Jefferson County, 84CA1003
...thousands of other residents" in Jefferson County; therefore, they have no standing to bring the first claim. Kolwicz v. City of Boulder, 36 Colo.App. 142, 538 P.2d 482 (1975). See also Board of County Commissioners v. City of Thornton, Furthermore, even if plaintiffs did have standing to c......
-
Destafano v. Grabrian
...have been denied. We do not agree. Considering the motions as being for summary judgment under C.R.C.P. 56, see Kolwicz v. City of Boulder, 36 Colo.App. 142, 538 P.2d 482 (1975), we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed Robert's claims and Edna's I. Robert's Claims Section 13-20-......
-
Preparation of the Appeal from an Administrative Decision
...covered by a city ordinance). 15. Clark v. Colorado Springs, 162 Colo. 593, 428 P.2d 359. 16. See Kolwicz v. Boulder, ___ Colo. App. ___, 538 P.2d 482; see also Pueblo v. Flanders, 122 Colo. 571, 225 P.2d 832 (a taxpayer had no standing to challenge a municipal decision to provide fire prot......