FLOOD03193

• County: El Paso
• Community: Colorado Springs
• Stream Name: Shooks Run
• Basin: Arkansas
• Title: Shooks Run Study
• Date: 5/1/1973
• Prepared For: Colorado Springs
• Prepared By: Colorado Springs Planning Department
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Floodplain Report/Masterplan

The land use pattern in the Shooks Run area, is, therefore, not at all well
defined. likewise, the zoning pallern of the study area reflects very Iillle
of the intent or the letler oflhe city's zoning ordinance. SpotsofzOl1e
districts are almostQsabundonlQslhe variou, uses and ore just aswide!y
scottered. Comporison oflhe originol1-oningmop, os adapted in 1951,
wilh the currenlofficial zoning map indicalesthal zone changes for in-
dividual interests hove beengronh,d virtuolly indiscriminotely throughout
the Shook's Run study area, effectively subverting Ihe intent and purp ose
of zoning. Beginning in 1951 with 0 ZOl'>e pattern notable for its clarity,
the areo is nOW o veritable patchwork with sevel'Cll1-onedi,trictsa, small
os 0 single 101 and countle,~ olhers of half-block size Or smaJler. The area
isd"finilely in need ofa red"finitiOl1 of land USe and zoning goals and
polici"s.

Table Bcompares the percentQgeof land in Ihe study Oreo devoled to each
1-oning cotegorywithlhepercentogeoflond in the study oreo devoled to
eoch USe category.3 The cotegorieswilhout corresponding doto in both
columns indicate thai certoin u,es Qre not directly reloted to .pecific zOl1e.,
e.g. public focHitieswhich can, under certoin conditions, be located in
any zone.

TABLES

Zone

Category
Estote
J &2 Fornily
Multi-Family
(incl.SU)
Commerciol
Indu,trial

%11"
%
48%

%oge
le<sthol1,5%
58,0%

23%
12%
15%

5,0%
8.0"'>'
',0%
1.0%
11.0%

100%

12.0%
100.0%

-12-

Forgenerol inlerest only, Table C compore'percentogf!lof lond area within
the study area d<lvoted to the voriovszone categories with percentege.of
land area within Ihe CSMATS defined urt.oni:Z<ld area devot"d 10 Ihe 'ome
:zonecot<lgories (NOTE; "nJrel" zones, which ore found outside the city
only, hove been deleted from the CSMATS urbanized oreo figures 10 more
neorlyalign tn"", with the zone ollocations for Ihe city proper.) A
nole ofcaulion is sounded to point oul that no neighbornood Or limited
portion oftheCily-suchosth" Shook',Run sludyereo-canbeconsid ered
oso microcosm or scoled down version of Ihe enlire city, so direct relation-
ships in Ihe zoning breokdown should not be expected. Neverlhelen, the
comporison i. volid from the slandpoinl of trying to understond the character
of the study area.

TABlEC

ZoneCIQssification Shook's Run %oge
Eslate 2r
1 &2 Fomlly 48%
Multi-Family
(incl. SU)
CommerciQI
Induslriol

CSMATS Urban Area %oge
10%
61%

U,"

23%
12%
15%
1'00%

9%
12%
8%
100%

Category
Estate
1 &2 Fomily
Multi-Fomily

Finally, nonc""fonning use. ond u,e varioncesar" prevalenl and widely
'cottered throughout the Shook's Run study areo. Itconb{to'!U'Mdthat
mony if not mo,t of In.. nonconfomlins us"swe", existing a' the H",c zon-
ing wo,e,tablished ond ere therefore technkolly legal. Nevertheless,
IhegenerQl effect of theirheing i,much the SQm<l os if they were visiled
upon the neighborhood after it hod developed.

Commerciol
Induslriol
Porks
Other Public and
o...osi Public Troos-
portalion & Com-
munication
Vo~""t

Whilel1onconforming uses ore es.enliolly on unovo;doble happenst once,
use voriQnce, lend officio I sanclion to the decimal ion of :zoning integrity
within a neighborhood. Slotistics on Ihe geogrophi~ diltrlbulion of u.e
varionces within the city have ne\.erbeen assembled but cursory ob,erva-
tlon:""dsloiU",portth"p1>siliootflat In" SfooohRuo studyareo hosmore
thonoproportionol,horeofthetololgranted.

Whether Ihis proves tnJe isessenti"lIyomoolpainl. The i.sueoppearsto
be thotOf' effort should be mode 10 reduce dysfunctional lond uses in Ihe
Shook'. Run sludy area to Ihe end tnot they should eventually be ,ub _
stontjallyelimir'tOled.

- 13 ~