×

Warning message

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

Adoption Draft: September 2024

The Adoption Draft of the new Unified Development Code (UDC) is now available for review! Thank you to everyone that provided feedback on the Consolidated Draft in August. A summary of comments received on the Consolidated Draft, and responses to those comments is available here. Adoption hearings are scheduled for October 16 (Planning Commission) and October 22 (Board of County Commissioners). Visit https://www.pueblocountyudc.org/participate for details. UPDATE (10.21.24): On October 16, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft UDC with the following clarifications. The BOCC will consider this recommendation on October 22.

File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-

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

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.


in reply to Bob51's comment
We proposed some clarifications to the primitive camping language at the Planning Commission hearing last night that were accepted, and will be presented to the BOCC on Tuesday. Please refer to this addendum to view those recommendations: link
replies
Suggestion
Primitive Camping Definition I see no reason to have , "in association with a permanent residential structure" included. There is a prohibition of staying a maximum of 10 days already. Many lots in Colorado City are not built on, yet the owners will stop by with their RV and camp while inspecting the property.
replies
Suggestion
(k) Primitive Camping #(4). I feel this is a good statement/regulation. I would suggest adding at the end of the sentence a MAXIMUM number of days per year, ie 15 or 20 or nor more than 30, for I can see someone abusing the 10 day requirement by continually leaving for a couple of days then returning.
replies
Suggestion
There are many lots in Colorado City that are owned but not yet occupied by the owner. Numerous times they have come down in an RV to inspect their vacant property. # (1) seems to have no logical reasoning and prevents these owners from staying for up to 10 days. I would suggest leaving this out. Bob
replies
Suggestion
For systems over 2,000 gallons, PDPHE would want to approve them in addition to CDPHE approving them. That way when a tank needed replacing on one house, for example, PDPHE could approve the repair instead of requiring the homeowner to go to the state in order to be able to do the work.
replies
Suggestion
PDPHE requires a variance any time a proposed septic system would cross over a property line. This would require a variance hearing with the board of health to approve a community system as it would cross over multiple property lines.
replies
Suggestion
Allow Permitted (P) use for PuebloPlex
replies
Suggestion
Allow Permitted (P) use for PuebloPlex
replies
Suggestion
Allow Permitted (P) use for PuebloPlex
replies
Suggestion
Schedule B parking requirements in most cases are excessive for PuebloPlex. We recognize the ability to provide campus-type parking; however, Schedule C parking requirements will allow greater flexibility for our varied uses.
replies
Suggestion
Consistent with the current P-1 zoning, we request that all Building Heights in Industrial uses have 'No Requirement'.
replies
in reply to Allisonrea's comment
The government has not right to tell me how I should raise my animals. Free ranging already has a host of benefits to the animal, namely being able to express it's full range of natural behaviors. Additionally, I have no financial intensive to steward animals in an ineffective, or neglectful way. The county truly should stick to focusing on issues such as crime, homelessness, drug usage, or all three combined.
replies
in reply to Allisonrea's comment
This cannot be stated enough. The USDA already provides a regulatory system for the processing of poultry, and as it is the state of Colorado is already one of the strictest when it comes to direct farm sales of poultry. Pueblo county will do all local farmers a disservice restricting it further.
replies
Mind your business.
replies
Giving neighbors the power to restrict what I can and cannot do based on regulation that doesn't provide a monitor-able standard is absurd. Regulation like this should be avoided at all cost. Any animal creates odor, makes noise or could even present a health hazard. Neighbors dictating this is ridiculous.
replies
Suggestion
Dear Pueblo County, My name is Sage Hopkins, and I run Harvest Haven, a regenerative farm located in Avondale, Colorado. We focus on ethical, sustainable practices for raising poultry, livestock and vegetables. I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed zoning changes, which I believe will severely impact small-scale farmers like myself and many others in our community. The proposed regulations are misguided at best and authoritarian at worst. It is not the local government's job to dictated, when, where, and how farmers like me should slaughter our animals—especially when the USDA already oversees and regulates these practices. Specifically, Pueblo County currently has no poultry slaughter facility, leaving small farmers with two harmful options: 1) invest $10,000 to $15,000 to build a state-inspected facility or 2) transport birds to New Mexico for slaughter at a cost of approximately $2 per bird. Both options make it nearly impossible for small pastured poultry producers to survive. These changes will disproportionately hurt local producers, particularly those who raise pastured poultry—the only truly ethical and healthy way to farm chickens. Small farmers are already struggling to navigate complex regulations. Adding more bureaucratic barriers will only drive more of us out of business, favoring the industrial agricultural model that has done so much farm to rural economies nationwide. I'd also like to highlight the lack of transparency surrounding these proposed changes. When regulations are buried within a 500+ page document, it raises serious concerns about the accessibility and openness of this process. If these regulations truly serve the public good, they should be clearly communicated and open to full public discourse. Local government should be encouraging holistic, sustainable food production, not stifling it with opaque policies. Furthermore, I believe Pueblo city and county officials would be far better served focusing on pressing issues like homelessness and crime, which continue to plague our community. Resources and attention should be directed towards improving public safety and well-being, rather than regulating farmers out of business. Small farms like mine are part of the solution to building stronger local economies and healthier communities. Rather than adding more restrictions, I urge the county to enrage with farmers directly. Work with us to find solutions that promote ethical, sustainable food production while addressing any legitimate concerns. Let's prioritize policies that help farmers thrive and keep our rural communities vibrant, instead of imposing unnecessary regulations that threaten their survival. Sincerely, Sage Hopkins Harvest Haven
replies
This is ridiculous. Who are you to tell me I can't raise a few extra chickens for market?
replies
Colorado is an Open Range state. Birds, like other livestock, should be allowed to free range if their keeper considers it safe and reasonable to do so.
replies
This would make my business, where I process poultry for personal consumption and for sale at the local farmer's market, illegal. I process outdoors, as is standard. I sell the birds. The neighbors don't even notice.
replies
Allow roosters in urban/suburban residential areas. They are already there.
replies
It is impossible for me to place the bird shelter 50 feet away from the property line.
replies
Why should I need a special use permit for the agricultural production I'm doing in SR1 zoning? Let people farm.
replies
Question
Same question, I thought this was modified to allow camping without a "permanent residential structure" on private property in places like Hatchet Ranch. Am I confused about this? You use the term private yard, are we implying a lot size? Sorry I did not look at this sooner.
replies
Question
Thought we had modified this provision to allow camping without a "permanent residential structure" for places like Hatchet Ranch.
replies