×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Code Assessment

Issues Identification and Annotated Outline

We are always trying to enhance our website and make the information available to all. Accommodations or modifications will be available for people unable to access the complex content. To request reasonable accommodations or modifications, to report inaccessible technology or broken links and website issues please send the request/information to plnweb@elpasoco.com or call 719-520-6300.

 

The purpose of the LDC Issues Identification and Annotated Outline (Code Assessment) is to establish a framework for the LDC update. The Code Assessment is focused on:

  1. Preliminary issue spotting,
  2. Identifying potential regulatory approaches to address the issues identified, and
  3. Creating an organizational framework to ensure that the code drafting process is comprehensive.

The Code Assessment will not be revised following community input on the issues and options presented; instead, detailed drafting approaches and responses to community-based suggestions will be incorporated into the LDC drafting process and reflected in the follow-up discussion with each draft of the LDC. Community input will be welcome throughout the project and will be requested as part of the project drafting milestones.
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Comment Drag

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Add comment

Jason Meyer Feb 27 2025 at 3:00PM on page 22

Suggestion
This would be appreciated.

Jason Meyer Feb 27 2025 at 2:58PM on page 18

Suggestion
Supporting this would go a long way to promote conservation and support the El Paso County Parks Master Plan. May also open up opportunities for land conveyances in lieu of fees, and more substantial regional trail corridors to both conserve our natural resources while expanding access to citizens.

Jason Meyer Feb 27 2025 at 2:55PM on page 18

Suggestion
Night sky protection is becoming an important part of natural resource protections. El Paso County Parks has been converting lighting to dark sky friendly fixtures and identifying critical areas to light.

Jason Meyer Feb 27 2025 at 2:28PM on page 16

Suggestion
Agree this should be addressed to provide clarity to applicants, referral agencies, and citizens.
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment

Jason Meyer Feb 27 2025 at 2:25PM on page 13

Suggestion
Support adding this district for County-owned parks and open space. Also support non-county as well. Cities, State, and other organizations had open space in unincorporated areas.

Jason Meyer Feb 27 2025 at 2:19PM on page 6

Suggestion
El Paso County Parks Master Plan

Jennifer Dec 15 2024 at 8:47AM on page 6

Suggestion
It is a dangerous step to not revise a document. Useful documents are valued and updated on a regular basis. This statement is troublesome; it will lead to a lengthy backlog of attachments and will increase the cost of growth in the long run.

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 10:37AM on page 24

Does the mean that there no standards for site layout, mobility and connectivity, and landscaping requirements for either rural or small town development. What are you considering small towns?

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 10:35AM on page 20

These need to match the purpose of the 1041 regulations, which may have different definitions than those in the code. the 1041 Regulations have different or expanded definitions, additional report requirements, different permit issuance and adoption requirements than the normal LDC.

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 10:31AM on page 19

Question
how does the county know who the tenants are?

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 10:30AM on page 19

Having the submittal requirements outside of the code works fine, if the code provides the basis for the submittal. examples-raptor study, archeological study, paleontological study. Are they required everywhere, or only in specific areas

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 10:22AM on page 17

Great Idea. We were politically unsuccessful in doing this in the past

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 10:19AM on page 15

Question
Concerns that accessory living quarters and accessory dwellings may conflict with either water and sanitation districts connection requirements and fees, and especially with the State Engineers and water court/augmentation plan requirements. Should there be a confirmation before the use is allowed?

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 10:14AM on page 14

What kind of targeted flexibility are you thinking, especially if state law and federal law conflict? examples- illegal substantances, wetlands.

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 10:11AM on page 14

Question
important to define. Could this mean tiny homes, duplexes or ADU's in urban single zones if you have the square footage. Allowed uses in many zones, even if they don't have the well permit or septic square footage?

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 10:07AM on page 13

Will there be a zone like the city's for a small lot development, or that matches the "midtown" development standards?

How will you address potential changes in a PUD if a statute or definition changes occur, especially if that was contrary to initial developers intent?

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 10:01AM on page 13

Question
Does the county have a priority associated with architectural guidelines?

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 9:59AM on page 11

See previous comments.Its now 30 years since they have been declared obsolete

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 9:57AM on page 11

These two districts are very important, if you can define them appropriately

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 9:55AM on page 10

Retiring districts is a good thing. When you retire commercial districts, be careful about medical marijuana land uses, and assure people that this does lead to a platting requirement.

Combining the RT and F makes sense if you can resolve the lot size and setback issues.

RR0.5 and RS20,000 can be combined if you can solve anything animal issues and non-conformities

Retiring the R4 is a bit more problematic. Perhaps the proposed mixed use might work, except for meadowlake

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 9:48AM on page 5

The 1041 regulations are an appendix on purpose. The definitions here are specific to the 1041 regulations and may not match the code definitions.

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 9:46AM on page 4

what is production agriculture. We chose not to call out prime land since they were so few

mark Gebhart Oct 1 2024 at 9:45AM on page 5

What is considered production agriculture? We did not call out prime farm lands, since there are so few.

Kevin Sep 30 2024 at 5:00PM on page 18

Suggestion
Allow for homeowners of small lots to have a simplified process (of course while meeting all state statue requirements). May people who just want to subdivide for their kids or something simple end up spending the same time and money as a large subdivision.

Kevin Sep 30 2024 at 4:58PM on page 17

Suggestion
Allow state and federal jurisdictions to run within their jurisdiction and not over regulate.

Anonymous Sep 30 2024 at 4:30PM on page 13

doesn't this assume that there is no option to shift from residential to commercial or industrial to commercial zoning type uses?

Anonymous Sep 30 2024 at 4:27PM on page 13

I dont think "conservation design" should be a requirement, but it should be encouraged and recognized to support smart neighborhood development

Anonymous Sep 30 2024 at 4:23PM on page 13

the PUD should continue to have the flexibility to be submitted as a preliminary plan as well.

Anonymous Sep 30 2024 at 4:15PM on page 12

Question
Would the county consider partnering with regional stakeholders to define, explore and implement water system opportunities in a way of creating new housing and development options?

Herbert Sep 28 2024 at 11:54AM on page 4

Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) is still in place. None of these changes/upgrades being made will allow a financial exactment, regardless of title, increase to be placed on any of the El Paso County residents.
in reply to Kevin Curry's comment

Anonymous Sep 23 2024 at 6:20PM on page 11

Would that mean if you were to purchase 40 acres parcel with 3 acre feet of water rights you would allow a builder to apply for permits to build on 2.5 acres a home and take water from that 3 acre feet of water that the land comes with. Where would the additional water come from for the other homes he plans on building?
in reply to Justin Johnston's comment

Anonymous Sep 23 2024 at 6:15PM on page 24

Suggestion
I agree if someone were to request a change in the zoning, I feel that we in the local market area should be notified and a special meeting called so we can voice our objections to the proposed water usages. We, who live out here, pride ourselves on saving our la ds for our future generations and the water quality as well. We do not want it wasted just for the sake of new developments when there is othere water sources available. We are a rural area and would like to keep our family lifestyle with that.
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment

Anonymous Sep 23 2024 at 6:07PM on page 13

Question
What about the state trust lands that are currently in El Paso County. Currently there is a large tract just west of my home on Big Springs Rd and Calhan Hwy running to Hwy 94 to Hwy 94 to Baggett Rd and then north again to Big Springs Rd. There are a few parcels privately owned in there but most of the land is now a State Land Trust. What about that piece? Will that affect the growth in my area?

Kevin Curry Sep 23 2024 at 2:46PM on page 11

Suggestion
To help protect existing land owner rights, add a requirement for density transitions between developments of different densities. A good rule of thumb would be to say that density on the border of a lower density development must be no more than 1/2 of the bordering density (e.g., if a new development is to abut one with RR-5 zoning, then require that the bordering properties of the new development be at least 2.5 acres).

Kevin Curry Sep 23 2024 at 2:42PM on page 10

"Development by right" is not, and should not, be included in the LDC. Development is only a "right" when it occurs at the current zoning density. Any development that requires rezoning, should never be considered a "right" of the developer because it would preclude existing homeowner input.

Kevin Curry Sep 23 2024 at 2:39PM on page 9

This only works if the overall density of the development is unchanged, and the LDC should reflect that if higher density is permitted in one part of a land area, the overall density itself must not change. For example, if a 10 acre plot is zoned RR0.5, then 20 units would be allowed. Permitting a 5DU/acre density in one part of the 10 acres would allow the 20 units to be built on just 2 acres, reducing water usage. But developers would then want to apply for rezoning or development on the other 8 acres, thereby increasing water usage. The LDC should clarify that localized higher densities must still comply with the overall density of the plot of land in question.

Justin Johnston Sep 23 2024 at 9:32AM on page 24

Question
Would like to see specifics of any upcoming changes and participate whenever possible for Chapter 15. Would it be possible to set up a quick meeting?

Desiree Schultz Sep 23 2024 at 9:03AM on page 1

Suggestion
I would like to continue my petition for the current Public Works facility in Peyton to be moved elsewhere to a more conducive location, particularly so that property to be put toward its highest and best use as a town park. The current use is detrimental to the character of our community, as it sits at the gateway to the Peyton townsite and is industrial in nature. As a town park, it would add desirable charm to the efforts of local community members to create a vibrant historic shopping district. It would also directly impact the Rock Island Recreational Trail in a positive way, by being able to provide parking, restrooms and drinking fountains. It could commemorate the historic use of the property as a Rock Island Railroad depot and could provide a fun place to have a railroad-themed playground and picnic spot for locals and travelers along Highway 24. It could also benefit the shopping district by being able to host some of the yearly events we currently put on as an outreach to the entire county. To an economically struggling rural area, there is no way to quantify all this could mean to the town of Peyton.

Marna Sep 13 2024 at 9:06AM on page 10

Question
I have a question about zoning districts. We are in an unincorporated rural area of the county so we do not have any one person or group of people who are responsible for making certain our tax dollars are spent for their intended purpose. One major concern at this time is our fire protection district. I have been told that the City of Colorado Springs intends to annex a 10 mile wide strip along hwy #94 as city property. Is this a possibility? If not, what is your recommendation for correcting problems that currently exist within our fire protection district?

Marna Sep 13 2024 at 8:58AM on page 12

Suggestion
I live in Ellicott where we have a 10.75 acre community park that is owned by The Ellicott Bee Hive a 501c3 organization. We would love to see improvements to our park which is funded by donations. Our eventual plan is to build a community center on this property. Please consider this in Rural Center planning.

Test Sep 12 2024 at 5:01PM on page 1

Suggestion
Public Comment Test

Justin Sep 12 2024 at 2:50PM on page 20

Suggestion
It would also be helpful to streamline the WSEO Process.

Justin Sep 12 2024 at 2:38PM on page 18

Suggestion
TDR anyone?

Justin Sep 12 2024 at 2:37PM on page 17

Suggestion
This is the reason that we should have a maximum regulation. This community has a problem with our impervious surfaces and runoff.

Justin Sep 12 2024 at 2:29PM on page 16

This would be helpful.

Justin Sep 12 2024 at 12:33PM on page 13

Suggestion
There needs to be an R-T (10000) or so, there are entire neighborhoods in Cascade that "Need" a BOA application to do anything to their property.

Justin Sep 12 2024 at 12:18PM on page 11

Suggestion
I would love to see F-5, RR-5, A-5, and R-T combined into one 5-acre minimum district with different (Character) overlays. Having F-5 turn into an RR-5 or something else with a forestry preservation overlay would make a big difference to some of our citizen groups in Black Forest.

Justin Sep 12 2024 at 11:42AM on page 6

It says 2007 earlier.

Justin Sep 12 2024 at 11:41AM on page 4

This says 2007 it says 2006 later.

Justin Sep 12 2024 at 11:30AM on page 4

Suggestion
Can this be written to apply administrative updates to the ever-changing state and federal mandates?
View all