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:

Preliminary issue spotting,
Identifying potential regulatory approaches to address the issues identified, and
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.

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.

Comments

Cancel

Add comment

Erica Apr 7 2026 at 12:16PM on page 4

Question

Hello!
Does the LDC Assessment address concern for reducing the amount of new HOA and covenant community's that are built?

If not, is that something that we could get included into conversations?

Citizen Mar 4 2026 at 8:50PM on page 18

Suggestion

What is done at pedestrian scale is in the noise compared to the impact of uncontrolled commercial lighting. There will never be a dark sky until commercial lighting is brought into the 21st century. Parking lots lighting should have a height limit and if necessary more fixtures not enormously tall fixtures in the name of "safety" There is also no need for building-height free-standing signs or lighted signs on the sides of buildings. As an example, the new King Super in Flying Horse has lighted signage on the east side. No traffic comes from the east. It is a residential neighborhood. Modern consumers and travelers know where they are going before they leave the house. They've checked it out on line. They exit the highway and make turns based on what Google tells them. There is no need for all this large-scale lighted commercial signage.

Citizen Mar 4 2026 at 3:57PM on page 15

Suggestion

Commercial lighting and signage standards need to be completely revised in order to protect Dark Skies, the view-scape and people and animal health. Large lighted signs are eyesores in the view-scape, unnecessary to attract business, a driving hazard due to distracted driving and detrimental to human and animal health because it is never dark. There need to be mandatory height restrictions for any freestanding or pole-mounted and limits to the size of light signs on buildings. Tall lights are not needed for parking lot safety. Lower lights spaced more closely together provide the same degree of safety. Most importantly, business do not need signage to attract customers. Last century. The motoring public uses automated software tools to plan their routes and determine what businesses are along their route. Local people know where businesses are located and how to get there. Travelers exit the highway when Google tells them to. Not because they saw a sign. Private property rights end at the property line. The property rights of others should also be respected and excessive and garish lighting destroy quality of life for people and animals. Again, Douglas County has a much better control of this and it hasn't hurt development there at all.

KM 1 Feb 15 2026 at 10:21AM on page 13

Suggestion

Usable common open space should be required. Often "open space" and "conservation" is land that is unsuitable for development and too steep, too marshy, too small, too narrow, too fragmented to be an actual benefit to anyone other than "square filling" the open space requirment. Also, things like retention basins with a path around them should not be allowed to count as open space.

KM 1 Feb 15 2026 at 10:16AM on page 13

Suggestion

The affect of a PUD on the exising adjacent neighbors and business needs to be included in the approval process. Whatever is offered in the way of "community amenities" needs to include what is offered to the existing neighbors and businesses. They should be net gainers from any PUD approval. Their quality of life and quite enjoyment has to be preserved.

KM 1 Feb 15 2026 at 10:12AM on page 13

Suggestion

PUDS should be REQUIRED to comply with the existing zoning of the land. Otherwise, this is a way to escape zoning limitations and unfair to existing residents and businesses. Changing requirements after the fact affects the quality of life for all nearby neighbors and businesses. It is unfair and could be construed a taking of their land as quite enjoyment is affected.

KM Feb 14 2026 at 3:16PM on page 9

Suggestion

Once land is sold to developers, it is lost to open space acquisition. It is either developed or becomes too expensive to buy back. El Paso County needs a long-range land acquisition strategic plan to ensure there is adequate open space to support the growing population and to preserve the view-scapes and natural beauty of the area. Douglas County has done a much better job at this and it hasn't hurt their growth at all.

KM Feb 14 2026 at 3:11PM on page 9

Suggestion

Too much focus on trails. Everyone in the county, young, old, abled, disabled can use a developed park with parking, bathrooms and picnic areas. Trails tend to be a niche use used by people with lots of leisure, whose jobs allow flexibility on when and where hours are worked and who are fit. They tend not to support working families, small children, the disabled or the elderly.

KM Feb 14 2026 at 3:08PM on page 9

Suggestion

All County parks should be available to and serve all residents in the county not just the residents in the immediate area of the park. This should be rewritten so that it is clear that "individual" sites and "community" mean that it is individual to the best use of the site to serve the most citizens. Otherwise, it is open to abuse to be used as the basis for an exclusionary development policy. For instance, Fox Run is a County Park and should be developed so that everyone in the county can enjoy the park and the views from the park. It is not an exclusive private park for the immediate residents.

KM Feb 14 2026 at 3:03PM on page 9

Suggestion

This is a specious concern. The County does not develop or pay for water infrastructure. Therefore it looks as if it is being used an excuse to push for denser housing to maximize developer profits. The cost of water infrastructure is paid by the developer, water districts, municipalities, and the residents. The County should focus on the special district approval process to ensure it operates as the law intended - to pay for the cost of development. Instead, lax oversight by county officials has led to special districts that service as permanent profit-making entities for developers. For example, the number of special districts that through accrued interest are deeper in debt 20 years after the development was built out than when they started. A Douglas County study found that their taxpayers owed special districts almost $1 Billion of which more than 40% was accrued interest on the original debt.

KM Feb 14 2026 at 2:41PM on page 17

Suggestion

This would move critical decision making on key areas affecting all residents' quality of life into an unaccountable, hidden, opaque process. Poor air quality, inadequate drainage, clear cutting properties in the name of wildfire "mitigation", all directly impact current development and residents. Existing residents and property owners, who would be directly affected by the decision would be unaware and unable to influence the process. Over-matched county planners would be reliant on developer's input. This process should be accountable to the citizens. Developers decision making is grounded in maximizing profit. They do not live with the consequences of their assertions.

KM Feb 14 2026 at 2:31PM on page 17

Suggestion

Inadequate parking is a quality-of-life issue affecting nearby properties through over-crowding and parking over-flow. It also directly impacts road congestion and air pollution as vehicles idle waiting for the next open spot or endlessly circle the area roads. The county should continue to have a standards-based mandatory parking space criteria. Allowing the "market" to determine appropriate parking is code for allowing the developer to decide. Quite naturally, this is a dollar driven decision as they themselves do not live with the consequences of their decision.

KM Feb 14 2026 at 2:24PM on page 17

Suggestion

This will directly impact the quality of life of existing residents and businesses. How will "narrower buffer strips and alternative land-efficient buffering" protect them from intrusive noise, ugly view-scapes, trash, noxious smells, crowded roads, insufficient parking overflowing onto their land. Any change that allows narrower buffers or alternative buffering must also spell out that these must meet the same level of protection as existing buffering requirements.

KM Feb 14 2026 at 11:59AM on page 4

Suggestion

This paragraph should be revised to state the specific problems to be eliminated by ending "overregulating" Too often, "Over-regulating" is used perjoratively to disparage any regulation or limits on what someone desires to do. In addition, its use here is vague and subjective. It is an elastic a term that can be easily manipulated and abused.

Kylie Oct 2 2025 at 8:44AM on page 4

Suggestion

Module 1 refers to specific sections of ECM, change this to refer to ECM and not sections due to ECM being updated

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.

View all