Eastern County Zoning Plan
Provided by the El Paso County Planning Division - March 19, 1999

P-98-028
EASTERN COUNTY ZONING PLAN

In accordance with Board of County Commissioners' direction, the Planning Division, serving as staff to the Planning Commission, is proposing a Zoning Plan for the remaining unzoned areas of unincorporated El Paso County. The affected areas comprise a total of about 890 square miles located in eastern El Paso County. A revised version of the A-35 (Agricultural) Zone District is recommended for most of the area, with the RR-3 (Rural Residential) or A-1 (Agricultural) District recommended for certain previously subdivided properties. Conceptual endorsement of a follow-up (Phase II) process consisting of additional planning and Land Development Code revisions is also recommended as part of this action.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Phase I of the two-phase Zoning Plan described in the Zoning Plan report which follows was approved by the Planning Commission (5-4 - Commissioners Jambura, Mason, Peterson-Falcone, Salute, and Brown voting in favor; Commissioners Bebb, Campbell, Gilland and Hilton voting in opposition).

Ms. Peterson-Falcone based her motion on the issue that approval will implement the Master Plan (reference pages 17 and 82 of the Comment Agenda that specifically addresses zoning issues and the Master Plan); also that there has been a material change in the character of the area (referencing a 44% increase in five years of unzoned dwelling units) and surrounding zoning and the requirement of subdivision zoning. She said, in her opinion, the zoning issue is a management tool rather than a regulation; and, when talking about participatory land use planning, zoning is the only way to reconcile that.

Mr. Gilland said he voted against approval, not because he is opposed to the zoning but objects to "pushing it through at such a rapid rate." He said he would like to see a little more intense work proposed for that zoning in the area, more work on the Small Area Plans. He said, in his opinion, just doing an overall blanket zoning is pushing it through too fast.

Mr. Bebb agreed and said between 1994 and the present "we could have come up with something better than a blanket zone for the whole area."

Mr. Campbell agreed and said "we should try harder to enforce the rules we have already before we decide to come up with some more regulations.

Mr. Hilton said those were his feelings as well.

Mr. Jambura said he voted in favor because he believes "we need to get that zoned so that we don't have people coming in there and doing irresponsible developments. The land owners of today are grandfathered in and protected. That doesn't mean that somebody couldn't come in, or you sell your property and a new developer use what's already out there. Overall, I really think that blanket zoning is the first step in that direction. It allows everybody here to get together again and work the Small Area Plan so you still have a say in what's going to go on out there. This particular step does not preclude you from further input."

Mr. Salute said he believes "the Planning Division, through the several meetings with the residents, has made the necessary changes to the proposed zoning district to accommodate most of the concerns that apply specifically to zoning - not about the government. Though I recommend approval at this time, I believe there is a lot of work to do in Phase 2 - implementation - some residents may experience some hardship, even when that's completed; however I believe there are mechanisms in the process [in place], such as the legal nonconforming status, Use Subject to Special Review, waiver requests and even requests for rezoning, which residents can use to minimize if not eliminate any hardships the adopted zoning is going to cause. In the future I, for one, would be very receptive to accommodating these requests as they are brought forward to this Planning Commission.

Mr. Brown declined to comment.

SPEAKING FOR: Jimmie Brewer, Co-Chair of Working Committee; Carl Payne, member of the Working Committee; Delbert Wait, Foxx Springs Ranch and member of Fort Carson fire department; Felix Atencio, owner of 80 acres; Bob Cordova, member of the Working Committee; Charles Graff, planning and development consultant representing Paul Tchang who owns approximately 2,600 acres and will be submitting a request for development in the near future; Catherine Rodriquez.

SPEAKING AGAINST: Vance Forepaugh, Co-Chair of the Working Committee; Wayne Field, owner of agricultural and residential property; Chuck Bergsten, owner of 80 acres west of Calhan; Rich Williams; Lea Dillon-Combs, owner of 70 acres south of Yoder; David Goss; Leonard Wilson, owner of rental property in Falcon; Kris Rineck, owner of 35+ acres near Calhan; Barbara Fillmore, resident in the northeastern part of the County; Peg Muldoon, owner of five acres in an unzoned subdivision; Cheryl Gilland (?); J.B. McNamee (?), Peyton Ranches area; Phil Braam; Mary Meisman, Dundee Ranch; Will Hathcock; Jerry Fields, south of Rush; Ed Pence (?); Eileen Gregory, Peyton Ranches; Annie Petkus; Paul Ferguson, Peyton community; Larry Carlson; Steve Ippolito; Paul Sherba; Tom Reynolds; Howard Hall; Lorna Hoyle; Ricco Hill, Yoder resident; Craig Raygor, Calhan resident; Carolyn Myers; Betty Beedy, County Commissioner.

Comments for and against are summarized in the Minutes, included as a Supplemental Packet.

NOTES:
A. Agenda items:
BCR-99-001
LDC-99-001
LDC-99-002
LDC-99-003
appear as separate items in the Comment Agenda, but should be considered integral parts of this overall Zoning Plan.

B. Included in this Zoning Plan Report are several numbered and identified attachments. Additionally, the report refers to a number of separate exhibits, single copies of which will be available at the hearing.

C. A reduced copy of the Zoning Plan map is included as a separate attachment.

I. SUMMARY of BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' DIRECTION, PLANNING COMMISSION ROLE and BOARD OPTIONS

A. Board Direction

On November 12, 1998, following an advertised Work Session which occurred on October 19, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners took formal action to direct staff to propose a Zoning Plan for the remaining unzoned areas of Eastern El Paso County using the withdrawn 1994 Plan as a general basis. Staff was further directed to develop the Plan with "maximum public participation and consultation" and to bring the Plan to the Board of County Commissioners after it was considered "as scheduled by the Planning Commission."

On or about December 8, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners clarified their preferred schedule in conjunction with discussion of whether or not to formally constitute the proposed Eastern County Working Committee. The dates of:
Tuesday, March 9, 1999, - Special Planning Commission
Thursday, March 25, 1999 - Board of County Commissioners

were ultimately established by the Planning Director in consultation with the Board of County Commissioners, Planning Commission Chair and County legal staff.

B. Role of the Planning Commission

The role of the Planning Commission in the development and consideration of this Zoning Plan was very significant. Although much of the leg work is accomplished by staff and Committees, it is the Planning Commission which ultimately has the responsibility to ". . . upon order by the board of county commissioners. . . make a zoning plan zoning all or any part of the unincorporated territory within such county. . . " (refer to C.R.S. 30-28-111 and 112 (Attachment #4) for complete text). Following certification of this Plan to the County Commissioners their responsibility is to take final action on it. Given its critical role in this process the Planning Division endeavored to keep the Planning Commission informed of progress on the Plan by means of monthly updates provided at the November 1998, December 1998, January 1999 and February 1999 regular meetings.

C. As will be further described by County legal staff, the Board has several options for action. These are discussed in more detail in the Zoning Plan report.

1. Approval of the Zoning Plan as proposed.

This is the recommendation of Planning Division staff. A draft approval Resolution is enclosed as Attachment #1.

2. Approval of the Zoning Plan with minor changes (Slight modifications of Districts applied, effective dates, etc.).

The approval Resolution would need to be specifically modified.

3. Approval of the Zoning Plan with substantial changes.

In this case the approval Resolution would need to be specifically modified with the changes referred back to the Planning Commission for its reconsideration.

4. Continuance
Pursuant to Chapter IV, Section 3 of the Land Development Code, the Board has the option of postponing this item to a certain date or occurrence. If postponement is to a certain date, prior notice should be deemed adequate. If a date certain is not set, property owners will need to be re-notified.

5. Denial of the Zoning Plan

A draft Resolution is included as Attachment #2. If the Plan is denied the Planning Division suggests the finding that it is not necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of County residents. In approving a motion for denial the Board may direct the Planning Division and Planning Commission to undertake a different zoning action.

D. Eastern County Field Trip

Most members of the Planning Commission and County Commissioners Bremer and Beedy participated in a field trip to the Eastern County conducted by Planning Division staff on February 23, 1999. This trip was conducted as an official meeting of the Planning Commission. An itinerary and summary minutes of this meeting are attached - Attachment #5.

E. Key Elements of the Plan

Following an extensive process, the key elements of the Zoning Plan recommended by the Planning Division staff are as follows. The Plan consists of a two-phase process. Phase I actions would be formally approved and be effective immediately upon Board of County Commissioners' adoption or as otherwise provided. Phase II steps would be endorsed in concept only, in recognition that future Planning Commissions and Boards cannot be bound to specific future actions.

Phase I - Initial Actions

1) Zone all currently unzoned areas of the unincorporated County effective immediately.

a. Apply revised A-35 (Agricultural) District to most areas.
b. Apply A-1 (Agricultural) District to unzoned subdivisions in eastern part of unzoned area.
c. Apply RR-3 (Rural Residential) District to unzoned subdivisions in the Falcon/ Peyton area.

2) Substantially amend the A-35 District and Section 35.6 - Home Occupation

a. Allow additional uses; modify requirements.
b. Allow one additional residential unit for any purpose.
c. Allow rural home occupations as accessory uses.

3) Extend the effective date of building permit compliance for all currently unzoned parcels to one year from the approval of zoning (specifically to April 3, 2000).

Phase II - Follow-up Activities and Actions

1) Form Eastern County Plan Citizens Advisory Committee to help develop a Small Area Plan (SAP) for the far eastern part of the County not currently covered by a SAP.

2) Also form a larger advisory committee representing the entire Eastern County to assist in the following Code changes and resolutions for potential action by the Board within one year of the date of approval of zoning:

a) Clarification and restatement of the 1973 Board resolution regarding the building permit exemption for agricultural buildings in all applicable zone districts.

b) Further revisions of the A-35 zone district to include additional exemptions from the building permit requirement and other changes that reflect additional study and experience.

c) Creation of a Rural Commercial (RC) zone district.

d) Creation of a Rural Mobile Home Park (RMHP) zone district.

e) Potential expansion of the rural home occupation definition and possible addition of a rural home occupation as a Use Subject to Special Review in the A-1 (Agricultural) District.

f) Development of an administrative process and criteria for further extension of the exemption from building permit requirements for structures under construction at the time of zoning.

F. Legal Advertisement And Public Notification: The Board hearing for this item was legally advertised in the Gazette on February 23, 1999, consistent with State Statute. A copy of the Zoning Plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission was certified to the Board of County Commissioners and made available for public inspection at least fourteen (14) days prior to this hearing in accordance with C.R.S. 30-28-112. Complete documentation of this and other notification efforts is included in the report.

This Zoning Plan was prepared and processed in accordance with the "County-Initiated Zoning Procedures" included in Chapter IV, Section 3 of the Land Development Code.

I. INTRODUCTION INCLUDING DEFINITION OF STUDY AREA

II. BRIEF COMPREHENSIVE ZONING HISTORY OF EL PASO COUNTY

A. Background

B. 1994 Zoning Plan

III. GENERAL SUMMARY OF UNZONED PARCELS

IV. MAPS AND ANNOTATED PARCEL LIST

V. SUMMARY OF ZONING AND BUILDING PERMIT STATUS IN OTHER COLORADO COUNTIES

A. Zoning in Adjoining Counties

B. Zoning and Building Permit Status Throughout Colorado

VI. MASTER PLAN ANALYSIS

A. Introduction

B. County-Wide Policy Plan (1998)

C. Ellicott Valley Comprehensive Plan (1988)

D. Black Forest Preservation Plan Update (1987)

E. Falcon/ Peyton Comprehensive Plan (1993)

F. Highway 94 Comprehensive Plan (1985)

G. South Central Comprehensive Plan (1988)

H. Major Transportation Corridors Plan (1987) as amended

I. El Paso County Wildlife Habitat Maps and Descriptors (1996)

J. El Paso County Master Plan for the Extraction of Commercial Mineral Deposits (1996)

VII. SKETCH PLAN AREAS

A. Introduction

B. Cherokee Crossing

C. Woodmen Hills

D. Santa Fe Springs

E. The Trails

F. Peyton Pines

G. Peyton Ranches

H. Sunset Village

VIII. UNZONED SUBDIVISIONS

A. Introduction

B. Antelope Acres

C. Equestrian Country

D. Falcon Hills

E. Falcon Ranches

F. Foxx Springs Ranch

G. Foxx Valley Ranch

H. Peyton Ranches

I. Richardson

IX. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. Municipalities and Town Sites:

X. ANALYSIS OF "EDGES" OF AREA TO BE ZONED

A. Adjoining counties

B. Zoning area boundary

XI. ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO LOT AREA

XII. ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS ON ONE PROPERTY

A. General Summary

B. Rural Mobile Homes Parks

XIII. NON-RESIDENTIAL USES

A. Introduction

B. Mining Operations

C. Junk Yards/ Vehicle Salvage and Storage Yards

XIV. BUILDING PERMIT REGULATIONS

XV. EXISTING REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT

A. Introduction

  B Relationship of Subdivision to Zoning

  C. Rubbish Ordinance

  D. Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations

E. State Electrical Inspections

F. Floodplain Regulations

G. Solid Waste Enforcement

XVI. NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION PROCESS

A. Introduction

B. Legal Advertisement

C. Mailings

D. Telephone/ e-mail/ walk-in inquiries

E. Media Coverage

F. County Web Page

G. Working Committee Meetings

H. Other Meetings

I. Letters and Faxes

XVII. EASTERN COUNTY WORKING COMMITTEE

A. Introduction

B. Background

C. Summary of Meetings

XVIII. PUBLIC INFORMATION/ INPUT MEETINGS

A. Introduction

B. Meeting Summaries

XIX. SURVEY OF UNZONED PROPERTY OWNERS

A. Introduction

B. Specific Responses

C. Potential Limitations

XX. PROPOSED ZONING PLAN

A. Introduction

B. A-35 (Agricultural) District

C. RR-3 (Rural Residential) District

D. A-1 (Agricultural) District

E. Rural Home Occupations

F. Application of Area Building Code

G. Phase II - Steps

H. Other Alternatives

XXI. Planning Division COMMENTS

XXII. BASIC OPTIONS FOR ACTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

A. Approval

B. Alternative Options

C. Disapproval of this Zoning Plan with reasons given.

XXIII. RATIONALE FOR Planning Division RECOMMENDATION

XXIV. Planning Division RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION INCLUDING DEFINITION OF STUDY AREA

For the purposes of analysis the Planning Division defined an "unzoned study area" which encompasses all parts of the eastern County which have not been part of previous comprehensive zonings. The boundaries of this 946 square mile study area are depicted in the map on the following page. Within the study area boundaries are two small municipalities (Calhan and Ramah) and approxi-mately 75 square miles of previously zoned areas or public rights-of-way. Incorporated areas and previously zoned property will not be directly affected by this action.

II. BRIEF COMPREHENSIVE ZONING HISTORY

A. Background

Zoning was first applied to a portion of unincorporated El Paso County in 1942 when the Board of County Commissioners adopted a Zoning Resolution and applied zoning to the area surrounding the City of Colorado Springs. In 1955 zoning was applied to the Tri-Lakes and western Black Forest areas. Zoning was adopted for the remainder of western El Paso County through several incremental actions during the 1960's. In all of these cases, a forestry or agricultural zone was the predominant district used. These districts typically had a five (5) acre minimum lot area requirement.

The most recent major County-initiated comprehensive zoning actions occurred in 1983. In April of that year the 100 square mile High-way 94 Planning Area was zoned A-4 (Agricultural). The A-4 district is now known as the RR-3 (Rural Residential) district. This zoning was applied on the recommendation of staff and a citizens' advisory com-mittee in response to the flurry of development planning activity which was occurring in response to plans to build what is now the Schriever Air Force Base. This zoning decision was quite controversial, and the pro-cess involved a number of public meetings. The Planning Commis-sion recommended in favor of the zoning plan by a vote of 5-4, and the zoning was subsequently approved by a unanimous vote of the Commissioners. In November of 1983 a 205 square mile area in the south central part of the County was zoned A-35 (Agricultural) by a unanimous vote of the Commis-sioners. Three (3) public meetings were conducted in the Han-over area prior to this vote. One major impetus for this action related to concerns that the area was being studied by the State for possible location of a hazardous waste disposal facility. The A-35 zone district was developed and refined during this process. The A-4 zone district was concurrently applied to all parcels of less than 35 acres in this area.

In 1975 a citizens' committee in the eastern County recommended a "High Plains System of Land Use." This system would not require traditional zoning or building permits, but would require a property owner to apply through the County Land Use Administrator for a change in land use. Input from neighbors would have a big part in this process. There was concern about the legality of this process and limited support from residents in the area. No formal action was taken on this system.

During 1984 and 1985 the Planning Division did some work on a survey of eastern County land uses in anticipation of coming up with a zoning plan. Some informational meetings were held. Further work was not authorized by the Board of County Commissioners and a formal zoning plan was not developed.

In 1993/ 1994 the Planning Division prepared a detailed Zoning Plan for the Eastern County following Board direction. As further described in II, B. below, this Plan was withdrawn by the Board of County Commissioners in April of 1994.

Since 1972, the County Commissioners have required that any property which is subdivided also be zoned. This action was taken concurrently with Colorado Senate Bill 35 (1972) which required counties to adopt subdivision regulations. Subject to a few exceptions, subdivision should occur any time new parcels of less than 35 acres are created. This regulation has resulted in the pattern of partial zoning which has emerged in the eastern part of the County. Building permits have been required for most non-agricultural buildings in zoned areas since at least 1973.

B. 1994 Zoning Plan

On April 14, 1994, prior to conducting a full hearing, the Board of County Commissioners took action to formally withdraw a Plan which would have applied zoning to all then unzoned unincorporated areas. The Planning Commission had approved the Plan unanimously (9-0) at their January 18, 1994, meeting. A single copy of the 1994 Plan map and report will be presented as exhibits at the hearing.

Although mailings were done and a number of public meetings were held the 1994 Zoning Plan was essentially prepared by Planning Division staff without benefit of a formal committee process. However, the Plan was preceded by careful analysis and establishment of criteria. The debate was very contentious and revolved primarily around the issue of whether or not to zone rather than around any details of the actual Zoning Plan.

The 1994 Plan proposed the use of the County's existing A-35 (Agricultural) District for most unzoned areas, but also recommended extensive use of the RR-3 (Rural Residential) District in the Black Forest, Falcon/ Peyton and Ellicott areas based on adopted Master Plan elements and existing development patterns. PBD (Planned Business) District zoning was proposed for certain properties with existing commercial uses in the vicinity of the Peyton or Ellicott town sites. A set of sixteen (16) discrete criteria were developed by the Planning Division to guide the choice of zone districts used in 1994. While most of these criteria remain valid, they have basically been supplanted by a similar plan which will rely on a combination of Code revisions and market-driven zone change requests to accomplish much of the same expected results. As described later in this report the 1999 Zoning Plan recommends a substantial scaling back of the proposed RR-3 (Rural Residential) District area, no application of commercial zone districts in the first phase and substantial revisions to the A-35 (Agricultural) Zone District.

III. GENERAL SUMMARY OF UNZONED PARCELS

As of March 15, 1999 there were approximately 4,322 parcels in the unzoned portion of the County. Unzoned property accounts for approximately 560,000 acres or about 875 square miles, comprising 40% of all the land in the County. The statistical analysis which follows in this report reflects a total of 582,587 acres because of the inclusion of several large partially-zoned parcels. Of the parcels in the unzoned areas, approxi-mately 3,339 parcels are 35.00 acres or more, 704 parcels are between 5.00 acres and 34.99 acres, 98 parcels between 2.5 and 4.99 acres, and 175 parcels are between 0 and 2.49 acres. Many of these very small parcels are clustered within the town site of Peyton, in the vicinity of the Town of Ramah or are located near the unincorporated communities of Rush, Yoder and Ellicott. Only about 700 unzoned parcels could be charac-terized as "rural residential" with the vast majority of unzoned land characterized as having large rural parcel sizes (35 acres or more). The Planning Division informally defines rural residential areas as those characterized by lots ranging between 2.5 and 10.00 acres and used primarily for residential purposes. The big change between 1994 and the present has been in the area of creation of 35 - 40 acre parcels. Table 1 indicates that the total 582,587 unzoned acres fall into the following generalized Assessor's use categories:

Use	Parcels	%	Acres	%
Agriculture	2,016	46.65	440,058	75.54
Vacant	714	16.52	23,799	4.09
Residential	1,382	31.98	38,955	6.69
Public	156	3.61	77,472	13.30
Non-Profit	23	0.53	66	0.01
Commercial	24	0.56	1,452	0.25
Trailer Court	7	0.16	785	0.13
Totals	4,322		582,587

Source: El Paso County Planning Division using Assessor's Data 3/99
Includes split parcels.

Category	Total Parcels	Percent
0.01 - 0.99Acres	105	2.4
1.0 - 2.49 Acres	70	1.6
2.5 - 4.99 Acres	98	2.3
5.0 - 34.99 Acres	704	16.3
35.00 - 49.99 Acres	1,846	42.7
50+ Acres	1,493	34.5
No size given	6	0.1
Total	4,322

Source: El Paso County from Assessor's Records March 1999
Includes split parcels.

As the table denotes, a small percentage of the unzoned land is "developed" with the majority of the land being either agricultural and/or State owned.

According to the Assessor's records there are a total of about 3,084 dwelling units on unzoned property as of late 1998. This compares with only 2,025 unzoned dwelling units in late 1993.

The population of the unzoned area in late 1998 was estimated at about 8,500 persons compared with about 5,000 in 1990. A summary of population estimates in the study area is included in Table 3 below:

	Unzoned Areas	Calhan	Ramah	Zoned Areas	Total Study Area
Dwelling Units	3,084	313	55	2,300	5,752
Persons/ DU	2.90	2.29	2.07	3.00	2.90
Vac. Factor	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95
Population Estimate	8,496	680	120	6,555	15,851
	54%	4%	1%	41%	100%

Source: El Paso County Planning Division March 1999
Includes spilt parcels.

IV. MAPS AND ANNOTATED PARCEL LIST

A map showing proposed zone districts has been prepared to accompany this report and zoning plan. Additional maps showing existing zoning and areas of detail will be available at the hearing.

In performing the analysis of unzoned parcels and preparing a proposed zoning plan, staff utilized an Assessor's file comprised of all identified currently unzoned properties as of March 15, 1999. These lists were sorted by tax schedule number, parcel size and alphabetically by owner to expedite analysis and response to property owners. The list sorted by tax schedule number has been annotated to identify parcel-specific zoning recommendations. This list will be provided as a single exhibit at the hearing.

V. SUMMARY OF ZONING AND BUILDING PERMIT STATUS IN OTHER COLORADO COUNTIES

A. Zoning in Adjoining Counties

All of the Counties which adjoin El Paso County are entirely zoned. There may be an exception with certain federal lands in Fremont County. Table 4 below summarizes the zoning and building permit status of the four counties which directly adjoin El Paso County's unzoned area.

County	Predominant Adjoining District	Minimum Lot Area	Bulding Permits
Elbert	A - (Agriculture)	35 Acres	Yes
Lincoln	Agriculture*	35 Acres	? Yes
Crowley	Agricultural - A	1/2 Acre	Yes
Pueblo	A-1 (Agricultural)	40 Acres	Yes

* Not sure of precise name of district.
Source: El Paso County Planning Division telephone and mail contacts 1994.

B. Zoning and Building Permit Status Throughout Colorado

1. Introduction

In late 1993 and early 1994 the Planning Division gathered data on the zoning and building permit status of the then remaining 62 counties in the State. The data was gathered through a combination of a mail-back survey and a telephone survey. Each county was asked whether their county was zoned and if building permits were required. Additional information was gathered on several of the counties as well. All responses were summarized in a table included as an attachment to the 1994 Zoning Plan. In October of 1998 the Planning Division re-contacted only those counties that were not zoned in 1994 for the purposes of providing an update.

2. Zoning Status

In 1994 a total of 10 of the 62 counties were not zoned. One of the 10, Gunnison County, utilized a fairly complex House Bill 1041 permit process (C.R.S. 24-65.1-101 - Areas and Activities of State Interest) as a substitute for zoning. La Plata County uses a "District Planning Commis-sion" system in place of zoning. Of the remaining eight counties, one was partially zoned at that time with comprehensive zoning under considera-tion. In addition, zoning was apparently under consideration "to some degree" in at least one of the entirely unzoned counties. Seven of the 62 counties fell into the category of being entirely unzoned or having no system for controlling land uses. With one exception, all of these unzoned counties were located along the east, south and west borders of the State. Between 1994 and the present time three (3) additional counties have adopted some form of zoning, although it is noteworthy that Montezuma County's zoning system is somewhat voluntary. This leaves a total of four (4) remaining unzoned counties. Together, they have a 1997 population of 51,991 of which 14,099 of those persons are located within zoned cities or towns. Table 5 below summarizes the zoning status of counties in Colorado. A presentation map will be available depicting the zoning status of Colorado counties.

Category	Number
Entirely Zoned prior to 1994	52*
Non-Zoning Permit System	4
Zoned since 1994	2**
Not Zoned (Unincorporated Areas)	4
Partially Zoned	2***
Total	64

* Including Broomfield
** Not Including Montezuma County
*** Includes El Paso County and Montezuma County

3. Rural Zone Districts

Most of the zoned counties were asked in 1994 to specify the zone district(s) it predominantly applies to its more rural areas. Rural zoning approaches turn out to be quite variable, but almost all counties have one or more zones for agricultural uses. Minimum required lot areas for these zone districts vary from 1/2 acre through 160 acres with 35 acres being the most common standard. Most of the larger lot agricultural zone districts include some accommodation for additional dwelling units on the same property.

4. Summary

The vast majority of the counties in Colorado are entirely zoned at this time. Most of these require building permits of some sort. The types of zones applied to rural areas are quite variable, but many of these districts are reasonably comparable to El Paso County's A-35 (Agricultural) zone. The data on other counties dramatically demonstrates that lack of zoning is the exception and not the rule, even among much less populated and urbanized counties.

VI. MASTER PLAN ANALYSIS

A. Introduction

This section provides a review and analysis of the elements of the El Paso County Master Plan which are most applicable to this proposed zoning action. It is important to reconcile any comprehensive zoning program with the Master Plan, because it is intended to provide a land use planning framework for the County. Colorado case law includes "furtherance of an adopted land use plan" as one of the four possible findings which are needed to justify a zoning or zone change decision. However, it should also be pointed out that County Commissioners are empowered to deviate from the adopted Master Plan through their zoning actions.

The County Master Plan is comprised of the County-Wide Policy Plan (1998) as amended to include a series of approximately eight Small Areas Plans, topical elements, Sketch Plans and drainage basin planning studies. The elements which are most applicable to the unzoned area are as follows:

- County-Wide Policy Plan (adopted in 1998)
- Ellicott Valley Comprehensive Plan (1988)
- Black Forest Preservation Plan Update (1987)
- Falcon/Peyton Comprehensive Plan (1993)

- Major Transportation Corridors Plan (1987) as amended
- El Paso County Wildlife Habitat Maps and Descriptors (1996)
- El Paso County Master Plan for the Extraction of Commercial Mineral Deposits (1996)

Elements which directly adjoin unzoned areas include:

- Highway 94 Comprehensive Plan (1985)
- South Central Comprehensive Plan (1988)

The vicinity map included at the beginning of this report delineates the boundaries of these planning elements as they relate to the unzoned area. An additional Small Area Plan Boundary Map is included as Attachment #6. There are no adopted Master Drainage Basin Planning Studies in-cluded within or adjoining currently unzoned properties. However, the general boundaries of basins have been determined for the unzoned area and a plan is close to completion for the Falcon Basin in the Woodmen Hills area. This delineation and naming study is also adopted as part of the Master Plan.

B. County-Wide Policy Plan (1998)

The recently adopted County-Wide Policy Plan provides a general policy framework which compliments the more detailed Small Area Plans and topical elements which typically address site-specific land use issues and related topics. Because there is no adopted area plan for the far-eastern part of the County, the Policy Plan, to a degree, provides a substitute function in this area. The most relevant sections of the Policy Plan to the zoning issue are as follows:

1.0 Small Area Plans

(These policies reinforce the key role of SAPs in providing land use guidance specific to the unique circumstances and conditions in particular sub-areas of the County. The Black Forest, Falcon/ Peyton and Ellicott Plans provide this function for the Zoning Plan.)

6.5 Growth and Land Use - Rural and Agricultural Areas

(This subsection of the Policy Plan addresses a number of land use issues specific to more rural areas. This entire subsection is excerpted as Attachment #7. The issue statement in this sub-section captures many of the sometimes competing values which have been articulated in the zoning debate.)

Chapter II. B. Implementation Programs

(Statements in this section concerning zoning were one of the more controversial elements of the Policy Plan. Key statements include:

"b) Comprehensively zone or rezone those areas of the County for which specific zoning is recommended in Small Area Plans."

"c) Consider zoning for the balance of the unzoned eastern portion of the County only with the explicit direction of a majority of the Board of County Commissioners. This effort should be based on a plan developed in full coordination with a representative group of affected property owners.")

The Planning Division believes this proposed Zoning Plan is consistent with the County-Wide Policy Plan but notes that the extent of the representative committee process was limited due to time constraints and the sensitivity of the issue.

C. Ellicott Valley Comprehensive Plan (1988)

The Ellicott Plan addresses 198 square miles, most of which are included within the west-central part of the unzoned area. This planning document did not advocate specific land uses or densities for specific areas. Area residents would like to see more of an employment base developed within the Ellicott area. The Plan recommends that develop-ments be approved within a "growth management context". This requires phased planning and development to accommodate and guarantee all necessary facilities and services. The Ellicott Plan also delineates a system of major expressways and arterial corridors which should be protected for future use.

The following policies are most applicable to this proposed zoning action:

"1.9 - Provide for phased zoning of sketch planned urban density growth centers so the use relationships can be defined, but discourage large-scale zonings or rezonings which are speculative in nature."

"4.3 - Discourage spot commercial zoning as well as clearly speculative commercial zoning."

"4.4 - Encourage the continued development of the inter-section of State Highway 94 and Ellicott Highway as a com-mercial and industrial community center."

"4.5 - Limit potential commercial developments in rural resi-dential areas to those which meet the convenience and specialty needs of local residents."

"5.2 - Encourage industrial uses with potentially adverse impact, to locate in planned industrial parks which are sufficiently separated from other develop-ment."

Although the Ellicott Valley Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC) discussed the topic of comprehensive zoning and conducted a public information meeting on the subject, they ultimately did not take a position on this issue in the Plan. Among CAC members there was some preference for the RR-3 (then A-4) District as compared to the A-35 District. The rationale offered was that the RR-3 district seemed less permissive related to certain uses of concern. Uses of concern included kennels, hog farms and dairy farms. Staff would note that hog and dairy farms now require a 35 acre minimum lot area in either zone. Kennels are a principally permitted use in the A-35 zone while they require a Use Per-mitted by Special Review permit in the RR-3 district.

Staff's position is that initial application of the A-35 zone to most of the Ellicott Planning Area at this time is a reasonable interpretation of the Ellicott Plan. Future rezonings to categories including the proposed Rural Commercial and Rural Mobile Home Park zone could be appropriate.

D. Black Forest Preservation Plan Update (1987)

The most recent update of the Black Forest Plan carried forward specific zoning recom-mendations from the 1974 version of this document. These are to zone the Northeast Area (Planning Unit #7) A-35 and to zone the unzoned portions of Planning Units #8 and #9 (Meridian- Eastonville Corridor and Southeastern Mixed Use Area) A-4 (Agri-cultural), now RR-3.

The zoning plan as presented is herein consistent with these recommendations although initial use of the A-35 zone south of McCune Road was not contemplated in the Black Forest Plan. It should be noted that part of Planning Unit #8 is now included within the Falcon/Peyton Planning Area.

E. Falcon/Peyton Comprehensive Plan (1993)

The Falcon/Peyton Planning Area includes about 153 square miles located in the northwest portion of the unzoned area. This Plan makes recommendations regarding specific zone districts and land uses for the planning area. The primary zone districts recommended are the RR-3, in keeping with the large number of rural residential subdivisions in the western section of the area, and the A-35 which is consistent with the large area of open, agricultural land in the eastern section of the planning area. Some commercial zoning is suggested for the Falcon and Peyton town sites. The planning area was divided into eight planning units for the purpose of addressing specific physical and cultural characteristics and as a framework for land use recommendations. The Planning Units are graphically depicted on the Concept Plan. Primary concerns of area residents are with protecting the natural systems of the area (water resources in particular) as new development is considered, following a overall development concept in managing growth which is sensitive to the rural lifestyle valued by many area residents and developing a coherent, multi-modal transportation system. The Plan identifies certain roadway corridors which should be preserved for use as future expressways.

The following policies are most applicable to this proposed zoning action:

"C.2.a. - Discourage the proliferation of scattered small urban-density or rural-residential developments which may not achieve the critical mass or scale necessary to coexist with future surrounding uses."

"C.2.b. - Mobile home subdivision zone districts should only be approved if they are associated with an integrated development plan which is, in turn, consistent with the land use scenarios contained in this Plan. These districts should ideally not be located on major transportation corridors to avoid creating traffic congestion problems. Particular attention should be paid to guarantee the availability of requisite services, water-related impacts, school impacts and adequacy of visual mitigation."

"C.2.i. - Recreational vehicle park or subdivision zone districts should only be approved after proper consideration is given to site location, traffic, provision of utility and service concerns."

"C.2.j. - Some light commercial/industrial development at the Meadow Lake Airport would be supported as long as safety and utility service issues are adequately addressed by the Meadow Lake Airport Association."

"C.2.1. - Zoning in the unzoned parts of the planning area should be encouraged since lack of zoning makes it difficult to implement Master Plan policies and difficult to prevent undesirable land uses from occurring."

"C.2.m. - Provide for the phased zoning of sketch planned projects so that use relationships can be defined, but discourage large-scale zonings or rezonings which are speculative in nature."

"C.2.n. - Residents should be encouraged to bring existing substandard size lots into compliance with the thresholds established in the County's nonconforming lot of record and merger by contiguity regulations. Board of Adjustment lot area variances should only be supported in cases where a clear and unavoidable hardship is demonstrated."

"C.2.p. - Allow nodes of higher density residential, commercial and industrial development only in those areas specifically designated on the Concept Plan."

The Planning Division's recommendation to initially use the A-35 (Agricultural) District for most of the Falcon/ Peyton area may not appear to be fully consistent with adopted plan. However, the intent is to use the A-35 as a "holding zone" in the southwestern parts of the area. RR-3 (Rural Residential) District applications in this area can occur based on the desires of individual property owners.

F. Highway 94 Comprehensive Plan (1985)

This planning area adjoins the unzoned area to the west. In response to development pressures related to the construction of the Consolidated Space Operations Center (now Shriever Air Force Base) the Highway 94 Citizens' Advisory Committee recom-mended zoning of their entire 100 square mile planning area prior to completion of a compre-hensive plan. This A-4 (now RR-3) zoning was established by the Board in April of 1983. The Highway 94 Plan used a concept map approach to advocate development of a potentially large Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC) associated with the Shriever Air Base. Along its eastern tier, this Plan recommends preservation of agricultural character with the allowance for low density residential uses.

One policy of the Highway 94 plan which has some "extraterritorial" significance is the following:

"4. Commercial activities which serve the rural eastern portion of the planning area should be encouraged to locate in Ellicott."

It should be noted that the easternmost two mile wide strip of the Highway 94 area was subsequently annexed into the Ellicott Planning Area. One reason for this was a response to concerns from the residents of the Ellicott Valley that if the Highway 94 Plan were implemented, there would be no higher-density development within their area.

By proposing A-35 zoning along the Highway 94/ Ellicott Planning Area boundary line, this zoning plan would balance the competing aspects of both plans. Subsequently higher density rezonings would need to occur to fully implement the Ellicott Plan as it relates to the town center area. The Highway 94 Plan is currently under revision. A Board-appointed Citizens Advisory Committee is assisting staff in this effort.

G. South Central Comprehensive Plan (1988)

Most of the eastern part of the South Central Planning area was zoned A-35 in November of 1983. A primary motivation for zoning this area was to provide enhanced options for local land use control in the event south central El Paso County was chosen as the location for a Statewide hazardous waste disposal facility. Zoning occurred well before the South Central comprehensive planning process was initiated.

The South Central Plan actually adjoins the unzoned area only along one 7 mile long tier two miles east of Peyton Highway. This Plan acknowledges the limited near term development potential for much of its planning area. However, the Plan also recognizes the area's potential attraction for certain locally unwanted land uses (LULU's) given its low population density. The document addresses the possibility that Peyton Highway may eventually be developed as a Statewide multi-use transportation and utility corridor.

The current zoning plan recommends A-35 zoning for all areas in proximity to the South Central Area. This should provide consistency with that plan.

H. Major Transportation Corridors Plan (1987) (as amended)

The County's Major Corridors Plan delineates the general alignments of expressway and arterial roadways for the purpose of right-of-way preservation. Exact alignments are not determined, and segments will not be upgraded until development actually occurs. No construction time frame is assumed. The County's official version of this plan does not extend into the majority of the currently unzoned area. However, extensions of the primary map have been included in both the Ellicott and Falcon/Peyton Plans.

The Major Corridors Plan depicts Highways 24 and 94, Meridian Road, Peyton Highway, Bradley Road, and Squirrel Creek Road as potential expressways. Calhan and Ellicott Highways and Judge Orr and Enoch Roads are given expressway classification in Small Area Plans. A finer grid of arterial roadways is defined within this system of express-ways.

In the unzoned area, it is not anticipated that most of these corridors will be needed at full design for several decades. If and when they are developed, it is certain that correspondingly higher densities will occur in some areas. However, until development patterns begin to emerge and these alignments become finalized, the recommended zoning approach is to apply large lot "holding zones" in most cases. By inherently limiting the number of potential accesses, the A-35 zone does the best job of pre-serving options for a fully functional transportation system.

I. El Paso County Wildlife Habitat Maps and Descriptors (1996)

This map and corresponding document depict and describe the present and historical ranges of a number of important wildlife species in the County. The maps are combined to designate areas of low, moderate and high potential impacts to wildlife. There are some potential high impact areas in the unzoned area. These include riparian corridors. Larger moderate impact areas are associated with antelope range.

The approach of this zoning plan is to recommend A-35 zoning in the majority of the unzoned area, particularly in association with major alluvial stream corridors. This will provide a maximum opportunity to evaluate potential wildlife impacts through more specific future rezoning actions.

J. El Paso County Master Plan for the Extraction of Commercial Mineral Deposits (1996)

The purpose of the County Mineral Master Plan as it is now adopted is to preserve access to designated commercial mineral deposits in accordance with the 1973 Preservation of Commercial Mineral Deposits Act. In addition to requiring the adoption of a Mineral Master Plan, this Act further provides that "no board of county commis-sioners shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance, or other official action or inaction, permit the use of any area containing a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such a deposit by an extractor". The 1996 Mineral Resources Plan includes a number of policies which serve to both preserve opportunities for mining and minimize environmental impacts.

The County's "Potential Commercial Mineral Deposits Map" depicts large areas of floodplain and upland deposits across the eastern County. The Mineral Master Plan update makes it clear that not all of this sand is needed for the economic develop-ment of the County. The map also depicts a band of potentially strippable coal associated with the Laramie Formation, some additional lower quality strippable to the north, and refractory clay deposits to the south of Calhan.

This current zoning plan accommodates the Mineral Master Plan by recommending A-35 zoning for most areas underlain by potential commercial deposits. This will allow more site-specific Master Plan consistency determinations to be made based upon subsequent rezoning applications. Mining is allowed as a Use Subject to Special Review in all zone districts including the A-35 (Agricultural) District.

In the absence of zoning, mining operations area required to obtain a State Reclamation Permit, but local land use approval is not required

VII. SKETCH PLAN AREAS

A. Introduction

Sketch Plans are used to conceptually plan large developments which ordinarily have a combination of mixed uses or project phases and are the first step in the zoning and subdivision process. Sketch plans typically include recommendations for proposed land uses and zone districts. Although the Board of County Commissioners is not legally bound to approve zoning in Sketch Planned areas, these documents are ordinarily used as the basis for zoning decisions.

Upon approval of sketch plans by the Board of County Commis-sioners, the next step for the subdivider is to submit zone change peti-tions and preliminary plans to the Planning Commission in conformance with the approved sketch plan. Approval of sketch plans does not guarantee subsequent approval of any zoning request.

A total of seven sketch planned areas are included in the larger unzoned study area. With one exception, all these areas are currently zoned. The zone districts currently in place for these sketch plan areas were not changed as part of this zoning plan. Current zoning of the sketch planned areas and proposed uses were considered as one determinant in the zoning of the properties surrounding the sketch plans.

B. Cherokee Crossing is located north of Judge Orr Road just east of Falcon with a total of approximately 1100 acres. It is currently zoned RR-2 but there has been no develop-ment at the site. The zoning being proposed for the currently unzoned surrounding area is A-35.

C. Woodmen Hills has a total of 1200 acres and is located off of Meridian Road just north of the Falcon town site. It is zoned predominantly RR-1 (Rural Residential) in the residential areas to the north and PBC (Planned Business Center) District for the designated commercial area to the south. This project is under very active development with on the order of 500 residential lots in the platting stage and a large commercial center under development. The proposed zoning for the surrounding unzoned properties is A-35 (Agricultural) District. In this area this would operate as a holding zone.

D. Santa Fe Springs is a large sketch planned area (5600 acres) located mainly south of Judge Orr Road just east of Falcon. While a variety of urban density uses have been proposed for the site, no development has occurred. Part of the property was zoned PUD (Planned Unit Develop-ment) with the remainder placed in a holding zone of RR-3. Due to lack of development action may be taken to change the PUD zoning back to RR-3 pursuant to one of the conditions of approval. The sur-rounding zoning being proposed is A-35. The Cherokee Crossing Sketch Plan area immediately to the east has RR-2 zoning.

E. The Trails has a total of 1600 acres and is located off of Latigo and Meridian Roads. Most of the property is zoned RR-3 with some RR-2 (Rural Residential) District, com-mercial and open space zoning as well. The project is partially developed. The suggested zoning of surrounding unzoned property is a combination of A-35 and RR-3.

F. Peyton Pines is located just north of the Peyton town site off of Peyton Highway. It has a total 1800 acres and is currently zoned RR-3. The proposed zoning for the surrounding land is A-35.

G. Peyton Ranches consists primarily of 10-acre lots and is currently unzoned except for small areas which have been replatted. The RR-3 zone district is proposed for subdivision consistent with the existing rural residential development which is primarily built out.

H. Sunset Village is a large planned area located in the south central portion of the study area about six miles south of Ellicott. It is currently zoned for a variety of uses including medium to high density residential and some commercial and open space. A small part of this project has been platted and residential development has taken place over the past two years. The suggested zoning for the surrounding land is A-35.

VIII. UNZONED SUBDIVISIONS

A. Introduction

The El Paso County Subdivision Regulations and amendments are authorized by the Colorado Revised Statutes and apply to all of the unincorporated territory in El Paso County.

Beginning in 1972 with the passage of Colorado House Bill 35, land which is divided to create parcels of less than 35 acres has to go through the legal subdivision process in all but a few specified cases. Prior to that time, the requirements were not as restrictive with subdivisions being defined as the creation of five or more lots.

All lands that are subdivided in unincorporated El Paso County must be zoned according to the El Paso County Zoning Regulations.

There are currently about 130 zoned subdivisions in the otherwise unzoned portion of the County. About 25 of these have been platted since 1994. Their specific zoning status is depicted on the existing zoning presentation graphic which has been prepared in association with this report. The majority of these subdivisions are zoned RR-3, several others being zoned A-1(Agricultural).

The unzoned "subdivisions" listed below were either created prior to the implementation of the 1972 subdivision regulations or contain parcels of 35 acres or greater and are, therefore, exempt from the regulations. Foxx Valley and Foxx Springs Ranch are not technically subdivisions.

B. Antelope Acres is located south of Ellicott and is a subdivision of mainly five-acre tracts. The proposed zoning for this subdivision is A-1 (Agricultural) District.

C. Equestrian Country is located east of the town of Peyton on Highway 24. The proposed zoning for this subdivision is A-1 (Agricultural) District.

D. Falcon Hills is located just south of the town of Falcon. This is primarily a rural residential 5 acre tract neighborhood. The suggested zoning is RR-3 (Rural Residential) District.

E. Falcon Ranches, located south of the Falcon town site, is also a rural residential area of mainly 5 acre tracts. The recommended zoning for this subdivision is RR-3 (Rural Residential) District.

F. Foxx Springs Ranch is in the southern section of the unzoned area and the proposed zoning is A-35. This is a development made up of largely 35 acre parcels. Although this is platted, it is not technically a subdivision under Senate Bill 35 and was not reviewed by the County.

G. Foxx Valley Ranch, which is also not technically a subdivision, is located in the south central portion of the unzoned area and is made up of generally 35 acre parcels. The A-35 zone district is recommended for this subdivision.

H. Peyton Ranches, made up of primarily 5 to 20 acre tracts, is located just north of the town site of Peyton. As noted above, the RR-3 zoning is suggested for this subdivision.

I. Richardson subdivision is located southeast of the Falcon town site. The recommended zoning is RR-3 since this is an area made up of mainly 5 acre tracts.

IX. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. Municipalities and Town Sites:

The study area for this zoning plan includes two municipalities and approximately five unincorporated town sites. Large scale inset maps have been prepared for the purpose of analyzing the parcel sizes and uses within most of these areas. These inset maps are also used to more clearly delineate the zoning being proposed for the unzoned and unincorporated property in and around these sites.

1. Municipalities:

a. Calhan - Calhan is the largest town in the eastern County with a 1990 population of about 560 and an estimated current population of about 700. It is primarily a farming and ranching community being the site of many regional activities such as the County Fairgrounds. A range of commercial and retail uses can be found in the town. Calhan is incor-porated and unzoned. Only the land surrounding the town is being considered for zoning.

Even though there are some smaller unincorporated parcels surrounding the town, the Planning Division is recommending the use of the A-35 zone for all areas adjoining the town at this time.

b. Ramah - The incorporated town of Ramah is located in the northernmost part of the County almost on the Elbert County line. It has a population of approximately 100. Since it is incorporated, the town itself was not considered for zoning. Most of the land immediately adjacent to Ramah was proposed for an RR-3 zone district in 1994 because there are numerous small town lots which are unincorporated. However, in the 1999 Plan the A-35 District is proposed for these lots. These lots may be nonconforming pursuant to Section 35.2 of the Land Development Code.

2. Community Centers and Town Sites:

a. Ellicott - Proposed zoning for the Ellicott community center and surrounding area is A-35 at this time. However, in keeping with the fact that Ellicott serves as a regional commer-cial center and the Ellicott Valley Comprehensive Plan encourages commercial uses to be located in the Ellicott area eventual rezonings to commercial categories will be in order.

b. Yoder - The recommended zoning for Yoder is A-35. A few existing commercial business in the Yoder town site will be legally nonconforming. Other than a few small tracts in the town site proper, most of the land in the Yoder area is held in very large tracts. In the future Yoder may be an appropriate site for selective rezonings to the contemplated Rural Commercial (RC) Zone District.

c. Rush - The proposed zoning for Rush is A-35. In 1994 the PBD zoning had been proposed on parcels with existing commercial uses. The majority of the parcels in the Rush area are large. Rural Commercial zoning may be appropriate in the future.

d. Peyton - The town site of Peyton is located on Highway 24 about 10 miles into the unzoned study area. Peyton itself has a population of approximately 200 with a much larger rural residential population in the vicinity. The town site is platted into many small lots. There are a few commercial uses as well as a school and fire station. Several rural residential subdivisions with RR-3 zoning are located in the vicinity of the town. The town site is recommended for the A-35 District at this time. It is recognized that future site-specific rezonings will be appropriate to bring the area more into consistency with the adopted Falcon/Peyton Comprehensive Plan. Some rural commercial zone changes can be expected.

X. ANALYSIS OF "EDGES" OF AREA TO BE ZONED

A. Adjoining counties - The following four counties adjoin the unzoned portion of El Paso County: Elbert to the north and northeast, Lincoln to the east, Crowley to the southeast and Pueblo to the south. The predominant zoning district in these counties adjacent to El Paso County is an agricultural zoning district requiring 35 or 40 acre tracts, with one exception of Crowley County which has a 1/2 acre lot area minimum. The proposed zoning plan recommends A-35 (Agricultural) District zoning along this entire perimeter.

B. Zoning area boundary - The zoning area boundary adjoins zoned land in El Paso County. The land along the western boundary is zoned either A-35 along the southern half of the boundary or RR-3 along the northern half of the boundary. The land adjoining the southern portion of the unzoned area is primarily open ranch land. The land adjoining the northern part of the unzoned area boundary is primarily rural residential.

XI. ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO LOT AREA

In the 1994 zoning analysis, particular attention was paid to the relationship of the proposed zoning plan to parcel sizes. An effort was made to reduce the number of nonconforming lots which will be created while at the same time preserving the comprehensive integrity of the zoning plan.

Of the total 4,322 identified unzoned parcels a total of 977 are listed by the Assessor as being under 35.00 acres in area, and, therefore, having the potential for being nonconforming in terms of lot area. The status of these smaller lots was summarized in Table 2.

About 175 unzoned parcels are less than 2.5 acres. This is the current minimum requirement for any newly created lot not served by individual well and septic systems. Essentially all of these lots will be substandard size parcels under this proposed zoning. Pursuant to Section 35.2 of the Land Development Code, substandard size parcels are addressed. There are three (3) ways a substandard size parcel may obtain nonconforming lot of record status. The basis for nonconforming lot status is generally determined by parcel size. The three (3) ways are as follows:

1) Automatic nonconforming lot status - 4.75 acres or greater parcel size.
2) Administrative review for nonconforming lot status - one acre to less than 4.75 acre parcel size.
3) Board of Adjustment lot area variance approval - less than one acre parcel size.

Approximately 50 - 60 of these smaller parcels are owned by a public entity such as the County, the Towns of Ramah or Calhan, Mountain View Electric, El Paso County Telephone, fire districts or school districts. Some of the remaining 120 lots of less than 2.5 acres are in common ownerships. These lots are distributed around the planning area, but are con-centrated in the vicinity of the Peyton town site and the Town of Ramah. Addi-tionally, about 40 of these remaining 120 lots of less than 2.5 acres are at least one acre in size. This might allow them to be built on without a Board of Adjustment variance pursuant to the County's nonconforming lot of record pro-visions.

An additional 98 unzoned parcels fall within the range from 2.5 to 4.99 acres. About 12 of these parcels are either publicly owned or are owned by religious institu-tions. About 60 of the remaining lots in this category are at least 4.75 acres in area. Most of these are "section line lots" which allows them to conform with zoning as a result of a special provision in the Land Development Code. The remaining lots in this category would almost certainly qualify as legally noncon-forming under Section 35.2 of the Code, providing they are not illegal subdivi-sions.

A total of about 704 parcels fall within the category of lots between 5.0 and 34.99 acres. Of these, approximately 400 are proposed to be zoned A-35 (Agricultural) District, making them nonconforming in terms of lot area. However, about 130 of these parcels appear to have been created after the County adopted Subdivision Regulations in 1972. A number of these lots may, therefore, have been illegally created. The legally created lots between five and 34.99 acres would be considered nonconforming lots of record under Section 35.2 of the Land Development Code.

In summary, of the total of approximately 977 unzoned parcels of less than 35.00 acres in area, close to 600 will be fully conforming under the zoning proposed for them. Most of the other legally created parcels will qualify as buildable under the County's nonconforming lot of record provisions. There will only be about 80 or so "substandard" size privately held lots which will require a full Board of Adjust-ment hearing and approval prior to issuance of any building permit.

XII. ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS ON ONE PROPERTY

A. General Summary

Table 6 describes the distribution of dwelling units identified in the unzoned area. This data is based on Assessor's records from late 1998. In at least some cases additional residences are likely to exist, but have not yet been picked up in the records. As noted in the table over half the unzoned properties have no dwelling unit. Most of the 355 properties which contain two units would be zoned to the revised A-35 (Agricultural) District and would, therefore, be fully conforming. Many of the approximately 147 properties with three or more dwellings (about 800 total units) would be considered legally nonconforming if these uses were otherwise established in accordance with applicable regulations. In some cases (where the multiple units are used by either agricultural employees) they would be fully conforming.

# of Dwelling Units	Parcels	Total Units
0	2,260	0
1	1,560	1,560
2	355	710
3	89	267
4	34	136
5	14	70
8	1	8
9	1	9
12	1	12
18	1	18
20	1	20
38	1	38
42	1	42
46	1	46
50	1	50
86	1	86
Totals	4,322	3,084

Source: El Paso County Assessor's Records and Planning Division March 1999 Data
Includes split parcels.

B. Rural Mobile Home Parks

The County Assessor's Office identifies a total of seven (7) different unzoned properties as "trailer courts." These properties contain between four (4) and eight-six (86) units each. Not included in these figures are approximately fifty (50) other properties with four (4) or more dwelling units. At least one (1) additional large "rural mobile home park" is under development at the current time. These "parks" cover a wide range from loose assemblings of trailers to what are actually state-of-the-art manufactured housing developments. Many, but not all of these rural mobile home parks are located in the Ellicott area.

Since late 1993, the total number of dwelling units on parcels with four (4) or more units has increased substantially.

Mobile homes account for many of these multiple detached dwelling units. On properties with five (5) or more dwelling units, almost all the units are mobile homes.

These larger mobile home "parks" will become legally nonconforming in terms of maintaining an equal number of units on these sites. However, they will not be allowed to expand until and unless either a variance is granted or a Rural Mobile Home Park Zone is established and applied to the given property.

Many well permits will allow service of up to three (3) homes from a single well. Ordinarily only two residential units can be connected to the same septic system.

XIII. NON-RESIDENTIAL USES

A. Introduction

Although residential and agricultural uses predominate in the unzoned area, a variety of other non-residential uses do occur. Many of the higher profile or more intense commercial uses were proposed for the PBD (Planned Business) District zones in 1994. The modified Zoning Plan does not recommend any commercial zones at this time in favor of developing a new Rural Commercial (RC) District. Until this zone is created existing large commercial uses will generally be allowed as legally nonconforming, but will not have the ability to substantially expand until and unless they are rezoned to a commercial category. Some small-scale businesses will be allowable as principally permitted uses in the areas proposed for agricultural and rural residential uses. Also, certain limited businesses will be allowable as rural home occupations. These uses and/or businesses, not otherwise included above, will generally become legally nonconforming.

B. Mining Operations

Within the currently unzoned area there are approximately eighteen (18) mining operations, with permits from the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB). These are distributed widely across the area. The majority are smaller sand and gravel operations used by the Department of Transportation. There are also three (3) privately operated clay mines, two (2) of which are quite extensive. All of these operations will be considered legally nonconforming within legal limitations. It should also be noted that mining is allowed in all County zone districts as a Use Per-mitted by Special Review. Therefore, the application of zoning will not entirely preclude the opportunity to mine any currently unzoned unincor-porated property.

C. Junk Yards/ Vehicle Salvage and Storage Yards

Staff have identified approximately half a dozen larger junk yard or vehicle storage uses in the unzoned area. There are also numerous smaller operations of this type. These uses are scattered throughout the unzoned area, primarily to the north of Highway 94. Most of the operations are located on properties proposed for A-35 (Agricultural) District zoning. Assuming these are legally established businesses, these uses would be considered legally nonconforming at their scale of operation at the time of zoning. Staff is hesitant to recommend industrial zoning for these types of uses at this time. Part of the rationale for this position is that many of the uses within these industrial zones require the additional step of Special Use review. It would be most reasonable to handle these cases individually through applications initiated by property owners.

XIV. BUILDING PERMIT REGULATIONS

Since 1973 El Paso County has required that structures on all duly zoned properties conform with the County Building Code. Agricultural buildings are exempt from building permit requirements by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners as allowed through State Statute. The requirement for building permits will, therefore, be one of the more significant impacts of zoning. The building permit system is described in an attached handout.

XV. EXISTING REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT

A. Introduction

The extent of land use related regulation and enforcement in the currently unzoned area is necessarily limited due to lack of zoning. However, there are some regulations relating to land use which may pertain to properties regardless of their zoning status.

B Relationship of Subdivision to Zoning

As noted in Section I. of this report, zoning is required as a condition of subdivision in unincorporated El Paso County. This means that creating parcels of less than 35 acres will continue to require the establishment of zoning regardless of the action taken on this Zoning Plan. However, staff would note that there are a variety of ways parcels of 35 acres may end up getting created in a manner which is exempt from zoning regula-tions.

C. Rubbish Ordinance

In September of 1989 the Board of County Commissioners adopted an "Ordinance Concerning the Accumulation Of Rubbish". This ordinance generally prohibits the accumulation of rubbish and applies to unincor-porated properties where the County has jurisdiction regardless of zoning status. However, two classes of property are specifically exempted. These are industrial tracts of ten (10) or more acres and any agricultural parcels. The terms "agricultural land" and "industrial tract" are specifically defined in the ordinance, but generally, all land classified by the Assessor as being in either of these categories would be exempt. The majority of the tax parcels and the vast majority of the total land in the unzoned area is exempt from the Rubbish Ordinance because it is assessed in an agri-cultural category. This agricultural exemption is re-quired through State statute. The term "rubbish" is rather broadly defined.

D. Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations (Septic System Permits)

Septic system permits are technically required for all permanent dwelling units and for certain other buildings regardless of zoning status. Septic system regulation and enforcement is the responsibility of the El Paso County Department of Health and Environment. In most cases it is acceptable to connect up to two (2) dwelling units to a single system. Adding any additional units ordinarily triggers a much more complicated State permitting system because a threshold of 2,000 gallons per day is exceeded. There has been quite a bit of dialogue concerning the level of septic system compliance in the unzoned area. Based on numbers provided by the El Paso County Department of Health and Environment in 1994 it would appear that the overall level of compliance is fairly reasonable. It is understood that there are some cases of unpermitted systems and others where the system is being used beyond its permitted capacity.

Staff would note that the lack of zoning and building permits does provide one less point at which to check for compliance.

Recently rural mobile home park operators have been successful in getting numerous two-unit individual systems permitted on a single larger property. A combination of requirements at least theoretically allow up to 32 mobile home units on 40 acres under some circumstances.

E. State Electrical Inspections

The electric utilities which service the unzoned area (Mountain View and Southeast Colorado Power Association) will not normally provide electricity to a structure unless the owner can provide a copy of the required State electrical permit. These inspections are performed by a State inspector. For electrical systems, State electrical inspections essentially amount to the same thing as local building permit inspections. Normally, it is up to the electric utility to communicate this requirement to the property owner.

Additionally, Mountain View Electric has a line extension policy which requires evidence of installation of a well and septic system along with a valid building permit (if applicable) before they will extend power. The purpose of this requirement is not so much to regulate land use as it is to protect their investment.

F. Floodplain Regulations

El Paso County's Floodplain Regulations are administered through the Regional Building Department under the Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency (FEMA). Technically, these regulations apply in all areas of the County, incorporated, zoned and unzoned. In the absence of zoning and building permit requirements, it is difficult to administer these regulations within the unzoned area.

G. Solid Waste Enforcement

The State Solid Waste Act and the County's Certificate of Designation (CD) regulations are enforceable on unzoned property. Basically, it is illegal to operate a landfill or large scrap tire facility on a property without State technical review and County approval. The County's Certificate of Designation regulations require zoning as a condition of licensing for these facilities. There are provisions for the burial of one's own trash on one's own property in certain circumstances.

XVI. NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS

A. Introduction

The notification and public input process for this Zoning Plan was considerable. It consisted of but was not limited to the following activities, most of which are discussed separately in this report:

B. Legal Advertisement

A legal advertisement was published in the Gazette on February 23, 1999, and subsequently in the El Paso County Advertiser & News on February 24, 1999; and the Ranchland News on February 25, 1999.

C. Mailings

1) A postcard was mailed to 3,130 unzoned property owners of record on February 3, 1999, notifying them of the two (2) public meetings, this Planning Commission hearing and the Board of County Commissioners' hearing.

2) On or about February 22, 1999, a letter and survey was mailed to these same owners reminding them of the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners' hearings. The survey is discussed separately.

3) On or about February 26, 1999, the Planning Division notified owners of zoned property adjoining unzoned property (copy attached).

4) On or about February 23, 1999, the Planning Division notified owners of property currently zoned A-35 (Agricultural) District of the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners' hearings and included a copy of the proposed A-35 District.

D. Telephone/ e-mail/ walk-in inquiries

Over the course of the process staff has received an untotaled number of telephone, e-mail and walk-in inquiries about the Zoning Plan.

E. Media Coverage

1) This issue has been covered several times as leading articles in the Gazette with some coverage of the Zoning Plan itself provided in these stories. Numerous editorials or letters to the Editor have been run in this paper.

2) The Ranchland News has covered this issue extensively through both reporting and coverage of the details of the proposed Plan. Numerous letters to the Editor have been printed. Other regional newspapers such as the Black Forest News have also reported on the planning process and meetings.

3) Some television news coverage has been provided and this subject has been discussed at length in some talk-radio shows. In both these cases, substantive details of the Zoning Plan were ordinarily not presented.

F. County Web Page

The Eastern County zoning issue has been a featured topic on the County's web page almost two months with periodic updates provided. This web address was provided in all of the mailings referred to in paragraph B. The "Table of Contents" for this page is included as Attachment #8. In the month of February 1999 this site had a total of 393 hits, 223 of which went at least as far as the two-phase summary of the Zoning Plan.

G. Working Committee Meetings

These Committee meetings were attended by an average of 50 - 100 other individuals who used them as an opportunity to either express their views, monitor the process or ask informal questions of staff.

H. Other Meetings

Staff made the offer to various groups to discuss this topic. Informal presentations were made to the Housing & Building Association, and the Black Forest Land Use Committee. Staff have also met with several individuals representing many different interests and areas of concern.

I. Letters and Faxes

Staff has received several dozen letters and faxes concerning zoning. A copy of these will be available as an exhibit. Additionally, several hundred letters, most opposed to zoning, have been provided directly to the Board of County Commissioners and were submitted as an Exhibit at the Planning Commission hearing.

XVII. Eastern County Working Committee

A. Introduction

The El Paso County Planning Division has relied significantly on the Working Committee process as a semi-formal means of presenting the proposed Zoning Plan and acquiring input. This input has resulted in substantial changes to the 1994 version of the Zoning Plan.

B. Background

This Committee had its origins in a suggestion by Commissioner Betty Beedy to convene a balanced group of ten (10) "anti-zoning" residents and ten (10) who were "pro-zoning." In November of 1998 Commissioner Beedy provided a list of the anti-zoning contingent and asked Rush, Colorado, resident, Jimmie Brewer, to identify those members in favor of some form of zoning.

El Paso County Planning Division staff initially met with this group at a meeting convened at Swink Hall in Calhan on the evening of November 30, 1998.

On December 7, 1998, Commissioner Beedy asked the Board of County Commissioners to formally appoint this Committee. After discussion a majority of the Board declined to formally appoint the Committee. One reason given was the Committee membership was not established through the standard process under which the Board of County Commissioners operates for creating such committees. However, the Board encouraged Planning Division staff to work with this group in developing and modifying the Zoning Plan. A list of Committee members is included as Attachment #9.

Altogether the Working Committee held a total of five (5) meetings, with other sub-committee meetings occurring at private residences. All of the main meetings were held at Swink Hall in Calhan and were public meetings. Mr. Ed Rankin of Coldwell Banker Realty offered his services as impartial meeting facilitator. Mr. Vance Forepaugh was selected as chair of the anti-zoning group and Mr. Jimmie Brewer was selected as pro-zoning chair. Ken Rowberg and/or Carl Schueler attended all formal meetings. Rolf Philipsen of Regional Building Department was available for all but one meeting. Commissioner Beedy played an active role in all meetings. County Commissioner Chuck Brown attended most of the January 25, 1999, meeting as an observer. Planning Division staff assisted with but did not take minutes. A fairly complete set of minutes is available as a separate exhibit.

C. Summary of Meetings

November 30, 1998
Staff presented an initial Zoning Plan to the group which had not yet organized into a Committee. The Plan recommended certain modifications to the A-35 District, delay of building permit requirements until December 31, 1999, and introduction of a Rural Mobile Home Park, Rural Commercial and intermediate density zone districts. No minutes were taken.

December 7, 1998
Board of County Commissioners action to recognize but not formally approve the Committee.

December 14, 1998
At this meeting Commissioner Beedy explained that the Committee was not formalized. The Planning Division explained their position on the Zoning Plan, provided handouts, took questions and discussed the schedule. Mr. Philipsen also answered questions. Formal minutes were taken and are attached.

January 4, 1999
Full Committee meeting at which procedures were clarified, hearing schedule was described and the need for a two-phase process explained. Ken Rowberg explained the A-35 and RR-3 zones and responded to numerous questions. Mr. Philipsen responded to others. Other questions were turned in on note cards, with responses provided later by the Planning Division. The two sides agreed to meet separately and come back with suggestions.

January 5, 1999
Carl Schueler e-mailed or faxed specific questions to the co-chairs. A copy of these questions and responses is included in Attachment #10.

January 11, 1999
Meeting held with pro-zoning side not in attendance because they were meeting on their own. Most of the time was spent responding to questions from the audience.

January 19, 1999
Full Committee meeting. Rolf Philipsen spent much of the meeting responding to questions on building permits. There was also considerable discussion of the pro-zoning side's comments on the revised A-35 District and the anti-zoning side's proposal for a new H-35 ("Holding-35") zone district (Attachment #11). This district would be very permissive but require a 35-acre minimum lot area. Conversely, the pro-zoning side preferred the existing A-35 District with only minor modifications. Most Committee members preferred application of a 35-acre district rather than a five-acre district, assuming they had to have some zoning. There was also support for use of the A-1 rather than the RR-3 District in Ellicott, if a five-acre zone were used in that area. Minutes are available for this meeting.

January 25, 1999
At this meeting the Planning Division staff presented a modified Zoning Plan which is essentially the same as the one now being presented. It proposes use of a revised and more permissive A-35 zone in all but previously subdivided areas and allowance for "rural home occupations" as accessory uses. Numerous detailed questions were answered by staff, many of which pertained to specific properties or situations and whether a use would be allowed in the zone and/or be legally nonconforming. The dates for the upcoming public meetings were announced. Staff also responded to questions and comments.

XVIII. Public Information/ Input Meetings

A. Introduction

Staff had initially proposed up to four (4) public information/ input meetings to be held in the eastern County to explain the Plan once finalized and to solicit input. These were to be held in Peyton, Calhan, Ellicott and Rush. However, due to school basketball schedules only the Calhan and Ellicott meetings could be held. These meetings were as follows:

Ellicott Middle/ High School - Friday, February 19, 1999 - 6:30 - 9:30 p.m.
Calhan School - Monday, February 22, 1999 - 6:30 - 9:30 p.m.

Currently unzoned property owners of record (3,100+) were provided two separate notices of these meetings. The dates were also reported in various newspapers. The moderator for each meeting was Mr. Ed Rankin who again agreed to conduct proceedings impartially.

B. Meeting Summaries

Staff/ Commissioner participation at each meeting included the following:
Betty Beedy - Commissioner District 2
Duncan Bremer - Commissioner District 1 (Ellicott only)
John Bass - County Assessor           (Calhan only)
Ken Rowberg, Planning Division
Carl Schueler, Planning Division
Charlene O'Driscoll, Planning Division
Elaine Nelson, Planning Division           (Ellicott only)
Rolf Philipsen, Regional Building Department
Mike McCarthy, El Paso County Department of Health and Environment          (Ellicott only)
Lori Doanne, El Paso County Department of Health and Environment (Calhan only)

One hundred to one hundred fifty (100 - 150) persons attended each meeting which began with a discussion of the procedures, followed by a staff presentation of the Zoning Plan. The meetings were then opened up for questions and comments. Time was available at the end for individual discussions. A copy of the meeting handout is included as Attachment #12. At the Calhan meeting, John Bass began the formal part of the meeting by describing the requirements needed to justify an agricultural property tax assessment. A copy of his handout is also included as Attachment #13.

Input at the meetings ran the gamut between general value statements and very detailed property-specific zoning questions.

Several individuals asked why zoning is being proposed when the majority do not want it. Others believed it should be put to a vote. Additional concerns were expressed about adverse impacts to affordable housing. Despite attempts to clarify this issue a number of individuals expressed a concern that property taxes would increase as a result of zoning. Staff did acknowledge that there may be an issue where the zoning on a less-than-35-acre parcel will not allow establishment of certain full-scale agricultural operations. Technically, this could prevent a small property owner from having a chance to obtain an agricultural assessment.

It was apparent that most attendees were opposed to zoning. However, some individuals did express support for zoning, in some cases privately. It is also noteworthy to staff that the vast majority of attendees indicated they had been Eastern County residents since at least 1994.

XIX. SURVEY OF UNZONED PROPERTY OWNERS

A. Introduction

On February 22, and February 23, 1999, the Planning Division mailed approximately 3,130 copies of a one-page return-postage-paid survey to unzoned property owners using the Assessor's records for addresses. A copy of this survey is included as Attachment #14. As of March 17, 1999, a summary of responses is as follows:

March 17, 1999

Total Surveys completed	1,149	37%
Returned as undeliverable	42	1%
Not Returned as of 3/4/99	1,939	62%
Total	3,130	100%

Responses to the first questions were:

Favor the Zoning Plan	267	23%
Support Zoning but not this Plan	93	8%
Oppose any type of zoning	781	68%
No Response	8	1%
Total	1,149	100%

B. Specific Responses

When asked to provide one reason either in favor of or opposed to the Zoning Plan, those opposed gave the following reasons:

1)	Do not like being told what to do on land	189
2)	Do not want more government	195
3)	Like area the way it is	53
4)	Hurts people economically; housing affordability	44
5)	Should enforce existing regulations	78
6)	Plan is being forced on us	46
7)	Bought property in area because it had no zoning	87
8)	Cost of permits/ compliance	64
9)	Other	201
10)	No response	104

Those in favor of zoning cited the following reasons:

1)	To preserve property values; adverse economic impacts from surrounding properties	61
2)	Some regulation and planning needed in response to growth pressures	51
3)	To help clean up the area; trashy land uses	104
4)	Specific objectionable use on neighboring property	6
5)	Health and safety concerns, water contamination, well and septic	50
6)	Too many trailer parks, trailers	11
7)	Substandard housing and buildings	35
8)	Would like some control of neighboring uses	9
9)	Other	32
10)	No response	59

Respondents were also asked to provide any additional comments. Planning Division identified the following general areas of response:

1)	Personal example in support of zoning	46
2)	Personal example against zoning	77
3)	Support of Commissioner(s) for zoning	7
4)	Support of Commissioner(s) against zoning	8
5)	Should enforce existing regulations	60
6)	Allow people to vote	42
7)	Too much government	89
8)	Moved to eastern County because it is unzoned	16
9)	Reiterate support for zoning; too late already	1
10)	Decline in quality of life/ concerns with growth	22
11)	Other	311

Respondents were also asked to check off how much total property they owned. As indicated in Table 7 below, there was some correlation between the amount of property owner and relative support or opposition to zoning. Property owners small parcels are most averse to zoning, while more of those with larger ownerships (50+ acres) tend to support zoning. However, in all parcel categories the majority do not support zoning.

Category	Percent for Zoning Plan	Percent Against Zoning Plan
Less than 5 Acres	14%	61%
5 - 34 Acres	18%	74%
35 - 49 Acres	24%	72%
50+ Acres	27%	62%
Other	0%	100%

NOTE: Numbers do not total 100% because the category "Support Some Form of Zoning but Not this Plan" was not included.

C. Potential Limitations

Staff notes the following potential limitations of this survey:

a) Some surveys were returned as undeliverable.

b) In some cases a single property owner got more than one survey (for example because it was deliberately mailed to two different addresses).

c) Owners of multiple properties were only sent one survey.

d) Residents who do not own any land were not sent a survey. This includes owners of mobile homes on leased land and those who might be purchasing property on land contract.

e) No option was included to respond either "no opinion" or "need more information."

f) Previously zoned land owners (who might be more or less surrounded by unzoned land) were not included in the survey.

g) Owners of recently created parcels may not have been included.

Nevertheless, the survey results to date appear to clearly indicate the following:

a) The positions of respondents are fairly well drawn. They either favor or oppose zoning on relatively fundamental grounds and are less concerned with the details of the specific Zoning Plan.

b) At this time, a majority of unzoned property owners appear to oppose any form of zoning for this area.

It is probable that opponents of zoning would represent a majority of all currently unzoned land area, excluding State-owned land.

XX. PROPOSED ZONING PLAN

A. Introduction

The proposed Zoning Plan relies almost exclusively on the revised A-35 (Agricultural) District for initial application to all areas, regardless of lot area or County Master Plan recommendations. The rationale for this approach is that the A-35 District is best in keeping with the rural character of the area and is a logical first step. Subsequent rezonings to higher intensity or density districts may be appropriate in the near future or later as public and private land development plans are prepared. The only exceptions to A-35 zoning are use of A-1 zoning in unzoned rural residential subdivisions in the Ellicott area and use of the RR-3 (Rural Residential) District in the same situation in the Falcon/ Peyton area.

An approximate numerical breakdown of the overall Zoning Plan by district is as follows:

Source: El Paso County Planning Division March 1999 using Assessor's Data; Includes split parcels.

As noted elsewhere in this report, no commercial, industrial or mobile home park zoning is being proposed at this time, partly on the basis that new zone districts should be created to better accommodate these uses.

B. A-35 (Agricultural) District

A substantially revised version of the A-35 (Agricultural) Zone District (Attachment #16 included with LDC-99-001) is recommended for the vast majority of the acreage in the unzoned area. The intent of this district best matches the current agricultural use and character of a majority of the area. Much of this area is made up of large parcels (exceeding 35 acres) including State-owned grazing or vacant/unused land. The stated purpose of the A-35 zone district is to "conserve the farming, ranching and agricultural resources of the County." The minimum lot size for this district is 35 acres. Virtually all farming or ranching related activities are principally permitted uses in the A-35 District. These include dairies, live-stock yards, private stables and truck farming. Kennels, greenhouses, commercial stables and nurseries are also principally permitted uses. Other uses which are allowed but subject to a Special Review are veterinary hospitals, mineral extraction operations and meat processing operations. With respect to dwellings, one single family dwelling is principally permitted with some allowances for additional dwellings when used by persons employed at or engaged in the operation of the farm or ranch operations. Also, one additional dwelling unit is allowed as an accessory use for immediately family of the owner or tenant of the property or for any other purpose. The total number of residences permitted shall not exceed one (1) unit per five (5) acres. Requirements also exist for the structural height of buildings, building setbacks from property lines and also off-street parking and advertising devices if a business is being operated. The proposed revisions to the A-35 District do establish minimum lot areas for certain full agricultural land uses regardless of nonconforming status.

C. RR-3 (Rural Residential) District (Attachment #17)

The RR-3 zone district is proposed for the rural residential subdivisions in the Falcon/ Peyton area which were established prior to the requirement for zoning. The purpose of the RR-3 District is to provide for areas of low density rural single family residential development. The district also accommodates certain agri-cultural related uses on minimum five acre lot sizes on a principally permitted basis. These include private stables, nurseries and hobby farms. Other more intensive agricultural uses such as dairies, farms and ranching are allowed with a minimum of 35 acres. With certain excep-tions, only one principally permitted use is allowed on a single lot or parcel of land.

Uses which are subject to Special Review in the RR-3 include kennels, secondary dwellings, group homes, veterinary hospitals and mineral extraction operations. Additional dwellings at a density of no greater than per five acres are allowed if they are for persons employed or engaged in the operation of an approved farm or ranch on the property. Certain structural height and setback requirements also apply to this district.

No changes are proposed to the RR-3 District because is it already applied to several hundred existing rural residential subdivisions in the County.

A total of 353 parcels (March 15, 1999, list) are being proposed for RR-3 (Rural Residential) District zoning. These consist almost exclusively of lots in platted rural residential subdivisions. All but three of these properties are 4.75 acres or larger and would be fully conforming in terms of lot area. The three (3) smaller RR-3 properties are undeveloped and one is publicly owned. The majority of these lots are developed with housing units. A total of 32 of these properties have two or more dwelling units. This number of units is not allowed in the zone district, but the uses would be allowed as legal nonconforming if otherwise legally established.

D. A-1 District (Agricultural) (Attachment #18)

The A-1 zone district is recommended on a limited basis generally in unzoned subdivisions in the eastern part of the study area. This zone district was applied because its purpose is to conserve agricultural and ranching resources and to provide for limited residential use. Principally permitted uses on a minimum five acre lot include single family dwellings, greenhouses and nurseries, private stables and hobby farms. Farming and ranching opera-tions are allowed on lot sizes of 35 acres or more in this zone district. A large number of uses are allowed with Special Review on a five acre minimum lot size including kennels, secondary dwellings, veterinary hospitals and mineral extraction operations. Special Uses allowed on ten acre minimum lot sizes include livestock yards, race tracks and com-mercial stables. As is the case with the previously mentioned zone districts, additional dwelling units are permitted as accessory uses if the persons are employed or engaged in the operation of the farm or ranch operation. The total number of dwellings on a farm, ranch or dairy should not exceed one unit per five acres. In terms of principally permitted uses, the A-l district is quite similar to the RR-3 zone district. These two differ in that the A-l district is somewhat more permissive in its list of allowable Use Subject to Special Review. As with all zone districts, structural height and lot line building setback requirements are regulated.

A total of 100 parcels (March 15, 1999, list) are being proposed for A-1 (Agricultural) District zoning, primarily in the Equestrian County and Antelope Acres subdivisions. Of these, nine (9) are less than 4.75 acres and an additional 14 are between 4.75 and 4.99 acres. These 14 lots would be fully conforming under the County's regulations, only three (3) parcels are smaller than 3.92 acres and none of these currently have dwelling units. A total of 16 of these 100 parcels have more than one (1) dwelling unit. They would be legally nonconforming provided the dwellings are otherwise legally established.

E. Rural Home Occupations

The allowance for an expanded home occupation definition and performance requirements in the A-35 District is considered by staff to be an integral part of the overall proposed Zoning Plan. This topic is presented separately under LDC-99-002.

F. Application of the Area Building Code

Application of the Area Building Code is also considered separate in item BCR-99-001. A one-year extension of the effective date is recommended.

G. Phase II Steps

At this time staff is recommending conceptual endorsement of future planning and Code revision activities which are considered important in maintaining the viability of this overall Zoning Plan. These activities were outlined in Section I-D of this report. Due to the limited time available in which to prepare this initial Plan, combined with the level of community interest, it was not technically or practically possible to accomplish all of these steps prior to a Board action on March 25, 1999. Copies of initial outlines of the proposed Rural Commercial (RC) and Rural Mobile Home Park (RMHP) Districts are included as Attachments #19 and #20.

H. Other Alternatives

The following are some of alternatives to implementing the proposed zoning plan. Also provided is staff's recommendation as to why these are not preferable as substitutions for the zoning plan.

1) Maintain Status Quo

Under this option, there would be no significant changes to current regulations or procedures. Over time, as a result of subdivision, additional unzoned enclaves will be created within the larger generally unzoned area. Overall, land development in and around the unzoned areas can be expected to increase over time, but this growth will be very cyclical. The area should continue to absorb a large share of land uses which are attracted to unregulated areas. Together these trend will create a concentration of land use impacts and potential conflicts. For this reason and others provided in the general justification of the proposed zoning plan, the position of the Planning Division is that maintaining the status quo is not advisable.

2) Further Enforce Existing Regulations

The basis of this option is the assumption that sufficient regulations are on the books with which to address many of the potential health and safety impacts of land uses, without directly regulating the land use itself or requiring building permits. The County's Rubbish Ordinance, septic and well permit requirements, flood plain regulations and other health regulations are commonly cited. While this argument has merit, the Planning Division notes that the Rubbish Ordinance includes certain State-mandated exemptions which limit its effectiveness. It is also structured to be quite permissive in allowing the accumulation of junk associated with the legitimate operation of a business. The County has some direct responsibility in the area of limiting flood plain development, but without any associated building permit review there is no direct opportunity to assure compliance. All of the other regulations are the responsibility of some other entity besides the general County, so there is the problem of ultimate authority. The County has limited ability to enforce

the regulations of other entities. As is noted above, if there is a concern with addressing land uses directly, indirect approaches are inherently less effective.

3) Amend or Add to Existing Non-Zoning Regulations

Under this option, additional regulations could be developed with which to better address impacts of most concern and/or to "back into" the control of land uses which may not be desirable. For example, if it is an objective to reduce the further proliferation of "ad hoc" mobile home parks in the Eastern County there are some non-zoning options. The County could work separately with the County Board of Health to upgrade the density an spacing requirements for septic systems. However, it does not appear that the County has the statutory authority to itself adopt a "mobile home park ordinance". As noted above, if the primary concern is with the impacts inherently created by certain land uses and not with irregular or incidental impacts, the proper and most effective tool is some form of zoning.

4) Encourage "Voluntary" Zoning This option is already available to property owners and could theoretically be encouraged more actively. This responds to the suggestion that development limitations are acceptable so long as they are self-imposed. However, there is a fundamental inequity in a system where the individual acceding to the regulations loses some control of their property without gaining any commensurate influence over the uses on an adjoining property. If more properties are zoned on a voluntary basis, this will further contribute to the problem of concentration of unzoned areas.

5) Zone Only the More Developed Parts of the Study Area Up to this point in time, the County has progressively zoned those areas which were experiencing development pressure or were expected to experience it. Under this option, zoning could be applied only to the more rapidly developing areas such as those in the general vicinity of the town sites of Falcon and Ellicott. The Planning Division does not favor this approach because it will further concentrate the unzoned area and essentially open it and its residents up to more unzoned development pressure.

6) Use Deed Restrictions and Covenants Instead of Zoning

Apparently, the City of Houston is the only large unzoned municipality remaining in the United States. Property owners in Houston rely on a combination of deed restrictions, including covenants to achieve some of the results of zoning. While this issue deserves additional research, at this juncture it is probably safe to say that the current system of using deed restrictions in this County would have limited usefulness in the unzoned areas. Covenants are privately initiated, and the County has traditionally refrained from direct involvement in their imposition or enforcement. Certain deed restrictions could be introduced as part of the platting process, but this would only come into play if a property were subdivided. In summary, it would be much easier for a property owner to impose limits on his or her own land than it would be for the community to do anything which would effect other property. The use of deed restrictions or covenants would have essentially the same effect as "voluntary" zoning in that such controls would not apply to adjacent properties.

7) Implement a Threshold or Permit System Rather than Conventional Zoning

A few of the more rural counties in the State have recently implemented forms of land use regulation which rely on the use of site-specific permits rather than universally-applied zoning overlays. This allows these jurisdictions to essentially exempt many properties from the burden of zoning compliance until and unless they reach a given land use threshold. Typically, these thresholds encompass a combination of density and/or use. To a limited degree the status quo arrangement in El Paso County is a threshold system in that it requires zoning at the time of subdivision. By comparison, a permit system, in its essential form replaces the conventional zoning district designation which is often applied across several properties on a comprehensive basis with a site-specific customized use permit. Requirements for permits are in turn driven by standards and/or thresholds. For example, three or less residences on a property of a given acreage might be allowable without a permit, but any additional residences and/or nonresidential uses might trigger the need for a permit. While certain aspects of either threshold and/or permit systems make them compelling alternatives for the eastern County, there are potential problems. One has to do with the legal equity and pragmatic concerns associated with trying to administer 2 fundamentally different systems in the same County. Another has to do with the tendency of some permit systems to be too subjective and arbitrary, thereby opening them up to legal or philosophical challenge.

XXI. Planning Division COMMENTS

1. As of the date of these Comments the Planning Division has received one property-specific request for zoning different from that proposed in this Zoning Plan.

Paul K. Tchang of GTL, Inc. on March 2, 1999, had a request faxed in to zone their 2,600 acre property located north of Woodmen Road, east of Meridian Road, south of Latigo and west of Eastonville Road to RR-3 (Rural Residential) District rather than the A-35 (Agricultural) District. Reasons are provided in an updated attached memo (Attachment #21). The position of staff was that this request cannot be accommodated in any event prior to this Planning Commission hearing. In any case, although staff recognizes the validity of the position that RR-3 zoning is more immediately consistent with the Falcon/ Peyton Plan, it would not be consistent with the "holding zone" approach now being advocated in the overall Zoning Plan. Additionally, the granting of a property-specific zoning request would not be fully consistent with the legislative nature of the Zoning Plan.

2. The legal description and Zoning Plan map have been modified slightly subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing. One area, known as Bobcat Meadows, was excluded because it has been previously zoned. Another subdivision, Martinez, was excluded by virtue of the Board's action on March 18, 1999, zoning the property at the request of the land owners. This subdivision is not depicted on the map, but is excluded in the legal description.

Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, a new "Annotated Parcel List" (Exhibit 1) was generated based on March 15, 1999, Assessor's data. Although about 100 parcels changed from the prior printout, the overlying zoning was not modified from what had been recommended for the parent parcels.

3. Included in the Annotated Parcel List are approximately thirty-eight (38) mostly large parcels with currently "split" zoning. All of these are proposed for A-35 (Agricultural) District zoning. The effect of the Zoning Plan on over half of these parcels (including seventeen (17) in Foxx Springs Ranch) will be to make them "whole" with A-35 zoning. The others will have split zoning, mostly A-35/ RR-3 along section lines. This will make zoning administration a bit complicated but the decision was made not to extend five-acre zoning of large tracts into the currently unzoned areas. A listing of "split" parcels is included at the end of Exhibit 1.

XXII. BASIC OPTIONS FOR ACTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

The Board of County Commissioners has three (3) basic options for action on this item:

A. Approval The Planning Division recommends approval of the Plan as proposed. Minor changes can be accommodated within the legislative context of this action.

B. If the Board of County Commissioners makes major changes to the Zoning Plan it must be brought back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration pursuant to State Statute.

Alternative Approval Options

1. Recommend approval of zoning for the entire currently unzoned area based upon a different mix of zoning districts from that recommended by staff. Staff would suggest that changes should only be made in a compre-hensive manner based upon defensible criteria. Parcel-specific "spot" zoning decisions should be avoided as these might constitute quasi-judicial decisions. Options might include broader application of the RR-3 (Rural Residential) District or use of the A-1 (Agricultural) District in certain subdivisions or areas.

2. Recommend approval of zoning for only a portion of the unzoned study area. Options might include any or a combination of the Black Forest Planning Area, the Falcon/Peyton Planning Area, or the Ellicott Planning Area. Staff strongly recommends against this approach because it will serve to further concentrate the unzoned area. If this approach is taken, it is imperative that the decision be made, based upon a comprehensive and defensible approach.

C. Disapproval A draft Resolution for denial is included as Attachment #2. The Board may wish to modify the findings made and/or direct staff and the Planning Commis-sion to develop an alternate Plan.

Should the Board deny the Zoning Plan, staff's recommendation would be the remaining four (4) items on the agenda not be approved.

In the event of a denial of the Plan, staff will not proceed with work in any regulatory area without explicit direction from a majority of the Board.

XXIII. RATIONALE FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Although much of the Eastern County remains rural in character the area is experiencing extremely rapid rates of growth and land use change. In just over five (5) years, the population of the unzoned areas has increased by 50%. Whether or not the area is zoned it can be expected to experience continued growth and land use pressure due to its proximity to a metropolitan area with close to half a million residents.

There is substance to many of the arguments provided against zoning. For example, in the short run, zoning will have a limited impact upon many of the existing locally unwanted uses in the currently unzoned area. There will be limits to the reasonable ability for enforcement even if zoning is approved. Although there is a considerable minority of area property owners in support of zoning, it is quite likely that a majority of the currently unzoned residents would not approve of zoning if an election were held, and they were the only ones allowed to vote.

It is also recognized that even this carefully considered modified Zoning Plan will not always provide a good fit with the realities of rural living and expectations in eastern El Paso County. Many residents have become accustomed to living in an area without traditional land use regulations and many have selected this areas as a place to live because it is unzoned.

All of the preceding arguments notwithstanding, the Planning Division supports zoning for a number of reasons. First, without zoning, the eastern County will continue to attract a disproportionate share of those land uses which often are difficult to establish in zoned areas. The majority of the State is already zoned and areas of the eastern County will incrementally be zoned as they are subdivided. A diminished and concentrated unzoned area will attract additional undesirable land uses. Second, the lack of zoning will continue to increase friction among property owners in the eastern County. Third, in the future zoning will likely become more necessary and even more difficult to implement. Zoning is not a particularly effective tool when applied after-the-fact. Fourth, it is not equitable for a particular group or area to be exempted from regulations applied to almost everyone else. Although there is some surficial credibility to the response that, "Those people can move if they want more regulation," the principle of equal protection should ultimately prevail. The Planning Division does not support the argument that an unzoned area should be available as an option or "safety valve." Although the Eastern County deserves special attention in the application of land use regulations, the maintenance of an "unzoned zone" is inequitable and not good planning.

A fundamental legal principle justifying the adoption of zoning for an area is that it will advance the health, safety and welfare of County residents. The view of the Planning Division is that the adoption of zoning is necessary to promote health, safety and welfare.

Finally, for all its weaknesses and imperfections, zoning is the best regulatory tool available to influence land uses. And, zoning and building permits are not that onerous for most people. Over 98% of the population of the State of Colorado lives in zoned areas, including a considerable majority of the State's rural population.

XXIV. Planning Division RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Division concurs with the Planning Commission and recommends approval of Phase I of the two-phase Zoning Plan described in the Zoning Plan report which follows, using the draft resolution included in Attachment #1. A draft resolution for disapproval is included as Attachment #2. Complete legal descriptions of the areas proposed to be zoned are provided in Attachment #3.

ENCLOSURES:
1. Draft Zoning Plan Approval Resolution
2. Draft Zoning Plan Disapproval Resolution
3. Legal Descriptions of Areas Proposed to be Zoned
4. C.R.S. 30-28-111 and 112
5. February 23, 1999, Eastern County Field Trip Itinerary and Summary Minutes
6. Small Area Plan Boundary Map
7. Section 6.5 of County-Wide Policy Plan
8. Table of Contents from County Web Site
9. List of Eastern County Working Committee Members
10. Working Committee Subcommittee Responses to Planning Division Questions
11. Proposed "H-35" Zone District
12. Memo on Agricultural Property Tax Assessment - Provided by John Bass, Assessor
13. Handout Provided at Ellicott and Calhan Public Meetings
14. Postcard, Eastern County Survey Letter and Form
15. Proposed Revisions to A-35 (Agricultural) Zone District (see LDC-99-001)
16. Proposed Revisions to Section 35.6, Home Occupation (see LDC-99-002)
17. RR-3 (Rural Residential) Zone District
18. A-1 (Agricultural) Zone District
19. Outline for Future Proposed RC (Rural Commercial) Zone District
20. Outline for Future Proposed RMHP (Rural Mobile Home Park) Zone District
21. Request for RR-3 Zoning for Tchang Property d. 3/11/99
22. Proposed Zoning Plan Map (separate enclosure)
23. Planning Commission Resolution

24. List of Exhibits Presented at Planning Commission Hearing (See Next Page)

Prepared by: Carl Schueler
3/17/99

We welcome your suggestions/ input/ questions sent to
El Paso County Planning Division
27 East Vermijo
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903