|
CLUSTERING
AND OPEN SPACE (COS)
VISION
STATEMENT
"We
must make every piece of space do double and triple duty,
and we have all the tools and precedents we need. With
ingenuity, we can make the smaller spaces seem larger;
we can find ways to link them and to emphasize their continuities;
we can make them far more accessible to people, and if
not to the foot at least to the eye. It is the effect
of open space we are seeking, not just the space, and
with this approach a given acreage of open spaces can
be knit into a pattern more pleasing, more useful, and
seemingly more expansive than a far greater acreage laid
out in conventional fashion."
William
H. Whyte, The Last Landscape.
GUIDING
PRINCIPLES
- Balance
residential growth with the protection of significant
environmental features.
- Create
land use regulations that provide for flexibility, predictability,
promotion of environmentally sensitive land use patterns
and insurance of efficient provision of infrastructure
and public services.
- Ensure
a continuous linked open space system.
- Protect
rural character and unencumbered viewsheds to the Front
Range in the Tri-Lakes Planning Area.
During
the ten-year period between 1989-1999, the Tri-Lakes area
developed at a rapid annual rate averaging around 8 percent.
Under a similar growth scenario that assumes densities
will be consistent with existing zoning, the planning
area can be expected to approach build-out within the
next 10 to 30 years with a population between 40,000 to
50,000 people.
Much
of the present development occurred over the past 30 years
with land use patterns based largely on an Euclidean zoning
model where land is subdivided into equal-sized lots.
The purpose of clustering development and Transfer or
Purchase of Development Rights (TDR or PDR) is to encourage
efficiencies in land use and to preserve open space.
In
as much as open space pertains to land use as related
to recreation and the overall visual quality of the planning
area it should be considered in conjunction with development.
It can maximize benefits to wildlife, preserve sensitive
ecology including wetlands and riparian areas, and offer
protection from natural hazards such as flooding. It also
serves to preserve the visual character of the natural
landscape and/or long unobstructed viewsheds to the Front
Range.
BACKGROUND
Since the Colorado subdivision
law that was passed in 1973, there has been a steady trend
toward subdivision for much of the state. The Tri-Lakes
Area typifies the type of land use activity that many
communities are now questioning because of the loss of
land with rural, agrarian character to more urban-scale
developments.
Often
residents move to rural areas to escape urban areas and
are then surprised when they learn that these properties
are being subdivided. The trend toward subdivision of
rural lands has accelerated in the Planning Area since
the adoption of the 1983 Tri-Lakes Plan resulting in a
substantial increase in the number of subdivisions with
minimum-sized rural lots. Many residents have expressed
concern over the acceleration of this trend and indicated
an urgency to identify and preserve large tracts of open
space.
Fortunately
there is a significant amount of publicly owned accessible
land bordering Tri-Lakes on the west. However, there is
little designated open space within the planning area.
It is also recognized that the open space lands bordering
Tri-lakes are primarily alpine forest and do not incorporate
the high plains landscapes associated with the Old West.
Unlike
many Colorado counties with rapid growth rates, El Paso
County does not have a plan to ensure protection of environmentally
sensitive areas or to permanently preserve open space.
Lakes and shorelines are not protected from development
or preserved for the use by area residents. Wetlands and
riparian habitats are often lost during construction,
wildlife corridors are not seriously considered as part
of the development review process, and there is no plan
that specifically addresses preservation of open space.
Priority
open space land were identified in the County's adopted
Parks Master Plan (1997). This designation merely identifies
potential desirable sites and does not plan for their
preservation or confer any specific plan for regulatory
control and should not be interpreted to mean any given
area will ultimately be designated and protected as open
space. Most often these lands have been prioritized because
they possess significant environmental, picturesque, historic
or cultural values.
The
trend toward smaller-lot rural subdivision with zoning
changes and increased densities is changing the character
of the planning area from one that was rural to one that
is becoming more suburban-like. Although the 1983 Tri-Lakes
Comprehensive Plan recommended rural residential 5-acre
minimum densities in the eastern portions of the Planning
Area, the Plan is a non-regulatory document and
is not strictly adhered to by the Board of County Commissioners.
Many requests for rezoning have been supported within
the rural and rural-residential areas of the Planning
Area. Rezoning to allow for PUD's or other zoning that
allows for greater densities and smaller lot sizes have
been approved when development plans meet the County's
2.5 acres subdivision requirements for individual septic
systems, a generalized definition for rural-residential
which does not clearly specify lot size, and/or a service
provider has agreed to extend central services.
While
transitional areas are recommended to provide a buffer
between differing land uses and densities or protect the
character of the adjacent properties, they have in some
cases been waved. Even if implemented they are generally
fenced and do not provide adequate habitat to sustain
the areas wildlife.
Open
space is also highly desirable in non-residential areas
and high densities residential areas, such as areas paralleling
the I-25 corridor. Clustering concepts for these areas
would most likely be quite different than for the medium
and low-density residential areas of Tri-Lakes. Due to
the presents of I-25 and the potential for conflict with
wildlife, special consideration for wildlife corridors
would merit consideration.
Cluster
Development
While cluster development is not specifically defined
in the 1983 document, it is understood to mean the concentration
of units (typically residential) on part of a property
combined with permanent protection of the remaining land
as open space. A limited version of clustering can be
accommodated through the incorporation of increased building
setbacks and the designation of "no-build" areas
within otherwise developable lots. More substantial clustering
can ordinarily be achieved when larger open space tracts
are set aside as part of the overall development plan.
Cluster
development is a land use strategy advocated in the
1983 Tri-Lakes Plan but not practiced to any degree up
to this point. Clustering involves the internal transfer
of density within a development in order to preserve open
space and/or rural character. Transfer or Purchase of
Development Rights (TDR or PDR) includes land use strategies
that allow for the transfer of the right to develop property
from one parcel to another though a market or credit system.
By allowing lower densities or more open space preservation
in targeted areas, densities in other targeted areas may
be increased. The purpose of this section is to describe
potential options for Tri-Lakes and to recommend preferred
strategies.
Advantages:
Under the most likely scenarios for the rates and densities
of development in the Tri-Lakes area, a large majority
of all the available land in the planning area can be
expected to be absorbed for development within a 20-year
planning horizon. Large privately-held areas which do
remain undeveloped beyond the Year 2020 will probably
only exist in situations where the property owner chooses
not to fully participate in the development market. When
properly used, clustering can result in the permanent
preservation of open space, protection of sensitive natural
areas, avoidance of natural hazards, preservation of agricultural
character, opportunities for passive recreation, and enhancement
of scenic viewsheds in areas which would otherwise be
completely developed. Clustering can also be expected
to reduce the overall need for infrastructure such as
roads and the consequential environmental and fiscal impact
of development. Ideally, clustering should reduce the
total miles of roads and utility lines necessary for development.
Constraints:
Clustering has not been used more due to a combination
of factors. These include lack of incentives in the form
of density bonus* , the absence, until recently,
of a legitimate PUD** (Planned Unit Development) zoning
option, minimum lot sizes required for septic systems
and what could be termed market impediments. These impediments
are:
Lack
of Incentives
The County zoning and subdivision regulations do not
include any specific incentives to encourage clustering.
Typically, these come in the form of a density bonus.
Under this scenario, a developer who gets 2 dwelling
units per acre under conventional zoning, could theoretically
qualify for 3 units per acre if the units were to be
located on a smaller portion of the property. In order
for density bonuses to work as a vehicle to preserve
open space, the County would have to develop a clearly
defined plan with standards to assure consistency.
2)
Previous Lack of a legitimate PUD zone district
With or without a density bonus system, one way
of implementing clustering is through a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) zone district that allows property
owners to customize their land use options without being
constrained by the lot size or the land uses required
in conventional zone districts. A PUD can also allow
greater flexibility to better address critical issues
such as maintenance of common open space. One of the
concerns with the PUD is that it is being use to maximize
the intensity of land uses while not providing for open
space as defined in this Plan.
Minimum
lot sizes for septic systems
In areas not served by central sewer systems, the County
has strict requirements for all new lots to be a minimum
of 2.5 acres. This limits the options for clustering
in more rural areas, especially if there is an opportunity
to obtain 2.5-acre zoning without the need to cluster.
Alternately, in areas with poor percolation rates or
other constraints for septic system development, it
may be difficult to design lots as small as 2.5-acres
in order to implement a clustering plan.
3)
Market and Administrative Impediments
As a general observation, it would appear that many
customers in the residential market would rather own
and individually control as much land as they can afford,
rather than give some of it up as common open space.
Additionally, clustering options are complicated by
the need for precise definitions and interpretations,
the necessity of more front-end planning and the need
to provide for the administration and maintenance of
common areas. Also, neighbors in a rural setting may
not support "clustering" in all cases, especially
if the areas of more concentrated uses are large or
adjoin existing rural residential areas.
Clustering
in Douglas County
Douglas
County currently incorporates two different approaches
to clustering, one for its rural areas (generally located
in the southern part of the County adjoining the Tri-Lakes
area) and the other for more urban areas, most of which
are located in the northern part of that county. Douglas
County's Rural Site Plan is available as an alternative
to the standard 35-acre development which is the maximum
density allowed in much of southern Douglas County. Essentially,
it is an overlay district which provides clustering flexibility,
but does not otherwise change the requirements of the
underlying 35-acre zoning. With this alternative, property
owners can obtain a maximum aggregate parcel bonus of
up to 40% for a combination of activities which include
paving all internal roads, preserving at least 50% of
all land in a conservation easement, and eliminating fencing
in certain areas. The regulation itself includes a lot
of detail, but the bottom line is that the corresponding
average net lot area is still in excess of 20 acres.
For
rural residential and urban areas, Douglas County provides
a Design Enhancement Overlay System as an option.
This option allows the property owner to create the gross
number of lots allowed by the underlying zoning provided
he/she sets aside of a minimum or 30% of the total property.
In other words, the owner of 100 acres in a 5-acre zone
would be entitled to 20 lots averaging 3.5-acres in area,
provided that at least 30 acres were set aside as open
space. For higher proportions of open space, an actual
density bonus is applied (10% more lots for 40% open space
and 20% more lots for 50% open space). Under this scenario,
the property owner could create up to 24 lots approximately
2.5-acres in size if 50% of the property were to be set
aside as open space. Douglas County's regulations presume
entitlements to lots based on the gross acreage of the
property divided by the minimum lot size allowed in the
zone district, rather than on the basis of the maximum
number of developable lots that can fit on a parcel after
netting out roads and other requirements which subtract
from the available land.
Purchase
or Transfer of Development Rights
Unlike
clustering, which essentially transfers densities and/or
shifts the location of structures within a development,
transfer of development rights (TDR) is a regulatory mechanism
which allows development rights to be forfeited in one
part of a larger planning area and used as credits for
higher density in other areas. Under a full TDR system
development rights can be severed from properties and
exchanged though a market system. Areas which are eligible
for reduced densities are commonly labeled as "sending
areas" while areas eligible for higher densities
are known as "receiving areas".
Potential
Advantages of TDR
The
obvious advantage of a TDR system is that is can be used
to preserve more open and agricultural character in a
large area without relying on the pure application of
regulatory limits. In other words, a property owner can
be at least partially compensated for a share of lost
opportunity to develop his or her property at a higher
density. Additionally, because TDR is not limited to a
given parcel or development, it can theoretically have
a broader land use impact. Entire areas can be designated
for preservation of agricultural character or lower density.
Potential
Disadvantages of TDR
There
are several requirements which need to be in place for
a full TDR system to work. First, there needs to be a
system of land development regulations in place in order
to allow the system to work. Achievement of the maximum
results from a TDR system will be limited to some degree
by the fact that the basic zoning for much of the County
allows one dwelling unit per five acres as a use by right.
Additionally, if a property owner has the option of obtaining
higher density in either the sending or receiving areas
through other avenues in the land development process,
no real market is created and the system will fail either
legally or practically. Secondly, suitable "receiving
areas" need to be identified. Often, this creates
a difficulty because of either practical physical constraints
or public opposition. Thirdly, for the reasons outlined
above, TDR systems are difficult to implement in areas
such as Tri-Lakes where there is more than one jurisdiction
responsible for land use control. Finally, El Paso County
has not traditionally had the staff and resources to implement
such a system.
Purchase
of Development Rights Option***
A
much more simplified version of TDR is a system where
rights cannot be marketed, but they can be paid for and
severed from the land. Essentially this is equivalent
to paying a property owner for the right to put a conservation
easement on this land. As with TDR, a purchase of development
rights system works best when there is more certainty
in the regulatory system. This allows the value of the
development rights to be better established. However,
unlike TDR, calculations can be made on a property-specific
basis and there is no need to designate sending areas.
When
a developer requests a zoning change to increase density,
often they will include infrastructure improvements and
other development give-backs as part of the their request.
When open space has been included as part of a development
request, it will usually be designated for a planned activity,
such as playing fields or a golf course. Implicit in this
type of land dedication is a scheduled-type of recreational
activity requiring a level of sustainable maintenance.
It is often argued that land is too valuable to be set
aside as undeveloped open space and that active use will
assure the ongoing maintenance of land.
While
there may be some merit to this argument, the vision of
this Plan is to preserve open space as natural environs
in an undeveloped state.
ISSUE
COS.1: CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS
Current
zoning for rural residential development outlines the
provision for subdividing property into 2.5 or 5 acre
lots but it does not provide creative alternatives to
this parceling of land into equal sized units. The argument
over what size lot constitutes rural must consider the
fact that both 2.5 and 5-acre parcel size subdivisions
are infrastructure intensive and result in:
Inefficient
Growth Patterns & Service Provisions
New development is comprised primarily of low density
residential tracts. This type of development pattern,
if left to continue into the future, is inconsistent
with the Plan's goals for adequate and efficient provision
of public facilities, interferes with compact municipal
growth patterns, loads County roads with erratic traffic
and commuter patterns, and burdens the County as a whole.
Loss
of Agricultural Lands & Open Space
Land valuable for agriculture, wildlife habitat, flood
control and other natural resources may be jeopardized.
In addition, the County has consistently lost agricultural
operations to both development pressure and annexations.
Rural
Character & Visual Impact
There has been a perceived loss of rural character and
visual intrusion to the scenic qualities of the Planning
Area due to an inconsistency in scale between new and
existing development and the siting of development on
ridges and other prominent landscape features.
Lack
of Predictability in the Development Process There
has been a perceived lack of predictability with respect
to when and where development should occur in the Tri-Lakes
Area, caused in part by discretionary review process
and regulatory criteria.
Clustering
has not been more predominant due to a combination of
factors. These include lack of incentives in the form
of density bonus****, the absence, until recently,
of a legitimate PUD (Planned Unit Development) zoning
option, minimum lot sizes required for septic systems
and what could be termed market impediments.
GOAL
To
encourage preservation of open space through creative
planning and land use techniques such as clustering.
OBJECTIVES
COS.1.1
Encourage land use techniques such as cluster development
and density transfer to preserve larger tracts of open
space.
COS.1.2
Strictly adhere to densities implied under existing
zoning and consider clustering plans only if they are
otherwise clearly consistent with the goals, policies,
and implementation strategies as set for by the 1999 Tri-Lakes
Comprehensive Plan.
COS.1.3
Consider further study to develop a County-wide clustering
and open space plan.
COS.1.4
Encourage public access onto open space lands, or
a portion thereof, and consider access on a case by case
basis.
COS.1.5
Consider open space as one method to buffer transitional
land uses and ensure that they are maintained in a mutually
agreeable manner.
COS.1.6
Discourage development in stream channels, near water
features, or within wildlife migration corridors.
COS.1.7
Strongly discourage clustering on open ridge tops.
PROPOSED
ACTIONS
COS.1.8
Amend the El Paso County Land Development Code and
Subdivision Regulation to incorporate regulatory actions
to preserve open space.
- The
EPCPUD regulations should be amended to achieve consistency
with the goals, objectives and policies of the Tri-Lakes
Plan.
- Submittal
of a PUD Impact Report that determines whether a land
use proposal can achieve a compatible mixture of residential
and open space by protecting scenic and environmentally
sensitive areas while providing for residential uses
on a portion of the property.
COS.1.9
Amend the county's land use regulations to permit
a transferable development rights process.
COS.1.10
Permanently preserve open space in its natural state
or as continuing agricultural operations. "Permanent"
preservation of the property must be supported by adequate
legal and regulatory mechanisms, such as, the recording
of conservation easements against the affected property
COS.1.11
Require assurances that adequate maintenance and management
of open space will be provided through the preparation
and recording of maintenance agreements and other appropriate
means.
COS.1.12
Allow a lot-density bonus over and above allowable
densities as permitted under the existing zoning, for
additional property that is preserved as open space and/or
agricultural land. Reduce the total number of lots in
a clustering plan for any development, including buildings,
roads and/or activities, which will or may occur in designated
open space areas. Special exceptions may be considered
for justifiable uses in open spaces that are associated
with working ranches, non-residential, and high-density
residential areas.
COS.1.13
Maximize benefits to wildlife, preserve sensitive
ecology including wetlands and riparian areas, and offer
protection from natural hazards such as flooding in preserved
open spaces.
COS.1.14
Preserve the visual character of the natural landscape
and/or long unobstructed viewsheds to the Front Range
in preserved open spaces.
COS.1.15
Do not accommodate any facilities (such as roads,
athletic fields, or utilities) in preserved open space
areas. As an example, full credit should not be given
for an area which can reasonably be expected to be needed
for future additional road right-of-way.
COS.1.16
Only very limited ancillary uses should be allowed
if full credit is given for open space. Active uses, such
as golf courses, athletic fields, larger community/recreation
buildings, roads, engineered drainage facilities, etc.
should be accounted for either as conditions of approval
for development or in terms of additional open space requirements
which would reduced the overall density credits.
COS.1.17
Eligible open space areas may or may not be accessible
to the public depending on sensitive ecology or ownership.
However, integration into a regional system of open space
with a public trail connection either through or around
the open space is encouraged and more desirable.
ISSUE
COS 2 OPEN SPACE
Open
space is neither defined in the County's Land Development
Code or in the County Parks Department's Master Plan,
though they do define conditions for preservation of open
space. Due to the varied nature of the entire County,
it would be difficult to develop a standard for open space
that sufficiently addressed the overall need for it in
the County. The lack of a definition severely limits future
options available to obtain and preserve portions of open
space on the remaining parcels of unplanned land in Tri-Lakes
Currently,
in the County's Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan, there
are two conditions for the preservation of open space:
1.
Land in a natural state to be preserved in an undisturbed
condition in perpetuity.
2.
Primarily natural, but which may also be used for the
location of improvements such as easements and/or rights-of-way
that do not significantly impact these lands, pursuant
to El Paso County Parks Department policy.
While
the first condition is acceptable for Tri-Lakes, the second
condition which allows for the potential of open space
to be used as a bank for future infrastructure, is not
acceptable to those involved in this planning document.
Priority open space land was identified in the County's
adopted Parks Master Plan. This designation does not confer
any additional regulatory control and should not be interpreted
to mean any given area will ultimately be designated and
protected as open space. Most often these lands have been
prioritized because they possess significant environmental,
scenic, historic or cultural values. Facilities and properties
identified in the planning area include:
- Ben
Lomand Mountain/Elephant Rock
- Cherry
Creek Trail
- Fox
Run Trail which would connect the New Santa Fe Trail
to Fox Run Park
- Forest
Lakes
- Fox
Run Grassland
In
addition to these properties, the Tri-Lakes Citizen's
Advisory Committee also recommends the following lakes
as priorities for open space preservation:
- Palmer
Lake
- Monument
Lake
- Lake
Woodmoor
- Forest
Lakes
Tri-Lakes
Definition for Open Space
In
Tri-Lakes, open space is defined differently from land
reserved or developed for recreational purposes.
Open
space is not limited to land accessible to the public.
They can include lands held in public ownership and accessible
to the public, environmentally sensitive lands held in
public ownership but not accessible to the public, and
privately owned land. Generally, privately owned open
space is not accessible to the public but still has significant
visual open space value. While privately owned open space
without public access has significant visual value, integration
into the regional trails and open space system is most
desirable.
The
Tri-Lakes definition for open space is as follows:
A
parcel or area of land which is primarily unimproved and
may be in public or private ownership and which may contain
significant natural features such as a sensitive habitat,
stream beds, valley bottoms, flood plain, steeply sloping
topography, or significant visual landscape. The term
is intended to designate areas which warrant preservation.
The
definition emphasizes:
a.
Open space areas are in a natural or nearly natural
state.
b.
Open space areas contain significant natural aesthetic,
or cultural features worthy of protection.
c.
Open space is permanently protected, not a temporary
designation for vacant lands.
These
three criteria characterize open space in the Tri-Lakes
area. When applied to the planning area's total inventory
of parklands, the importance of public open space becomes
more apparent. The open space is primarily portions of
Fox Run Park, Monument Lake, Woodmoor Lake, Palmer Lake,
and dedicated common areas within subdivisions.
Golf
courses, cemeteries, neighborhood parks, and community
parks that are developed with turf grass, playground equipment,
playing fields, swimming pools, or other types of facilities
or structures are also not included in this definition.
Whereas the primary purpose of developed parks is active
recreational use, open space areas are designed to preserve
the natural landscape. Particular types of recreation,
such as hiking, running, bicycling, swimming, horseback
riding, fishing, and hunting may be ideally suited to
certain open space areas. Uses purposed in preserved open
space must be compatible with the protection of the natural
environment.
GOAL:
To preserve diverse examples of open space in
the Tri-lakes Planning Area.
OBJECTIVES
COS.2.1
Support the Tri-lakes definition for open space.
COS.2.2
Consider area lakes a priority for open space acquisition,
and take steps to ensure that lakes are preserved, maintained
and available for public access.
COS.2.3
Consider large undeveloped parcels of land as potential
open space opportunities.
COS.2.4
Consider all available options for the acquisition
of open space.
COS.2.5
Consider open space acquisition in exchange for density
bonuses in the subdivision process.
COS.2.6
Consider incentives, such as conservation easements,
to encourage private dedication of open space.
COS.2.7
Consider land dedication to the County for open space,
if it meets established criteria as defined in this Plan.
PROPOSED
OPTIONS
COS.2.8
Initiate a study resulting in a county-wide open space
plan.
COS.2.9
Incorporate a provision in the El Paso County Land
Development Code and/or Subdivision Regulations for the
dedication of open space as a condition for increasing
densities over existing zoning.
COS.2.10
Incorporate bio-diverse landscapes in the open space
inventory.
*
Density Bonus generally refers to an increase in the number
of lots allowed under the existing zoning.
**
Density Bonus generally refers to an increase in the number
of lots allowed under the existing zoning.
|
