Staff previews proposed "location and extent" Land Development Code changes; exemptions and fee review highlighted

Arapahoe County planning staff on April 15 presented proposed amendments to the county’s Land Development Code related to "location and extent" (L&E) reviews, a process used to evaluate proposed public improvements and certain facility sitings.

Larry Mugler of the Long Range Planning Center summarized changes that staff said would simplify the existing process, add explicit criteria for review, and identify projects or circumstances that would be exempt from full L&E review. Mugler said the revisions are intended to reduce unnecessary submittal requirements and to align county practice with statutory requirements.

"One of the things we're trying to do is simplify this," Larry Mugler said. He told commissioners the process relies on two state statutes (one long‑used and a second statute relating to school property) and that the proposed code language adds clarity on submittal materials, exempted project types, and the required report to the Board of County Commissioners when the Planning Commission denies an application.

Key proposed changes highlighted in the study session include:

- A clearer listing of exemptions so that improvements by CDOT or county‑funded road projects, utility maintenance work, projects inside an approved PUD, or minor changes could avoid full L&E review; - Explicit process guidance for public and charter school site reviews to reduce duplicated hearings and to encourage early notice from school districts so the county can coordinate review timelines; - A shift away from a per‑sheet fee model (currently $2,000 per sheet for the first 10 sheets) toward a potential flat fee modeled on comparable counties; and - Case‑by‑case discretion for the case manager to require studies (for example, drainage or traffic) only when necessary, to reduce applicant cost.

Mugler compared Arapahoe’s practice with neighboring counties and large peers: several counties use flat fees, some require fewer materials, and Larimer and El Paso counties have streamlined their processes. He also said the department intends to require that a Planning Commission report be filed with the Board of County Commissioners when the commission denies a county‑sponsored project, as required by statute.

Commissioners asked procedural questions. Commissioner Latsis asked whether staff solicited stakeholder feedback on the process and fees; Mugler said formal public referral and review would follow once the code package is drafted. "As we would submit this for formal changes to the codes, we would send it out for public review and referral," Mugler said. Commissioners also discussed whether the Planning Commission’s denial report would be staff‑authored and signed by the chair; Mugler said staff would prepare the report and the chair or vice chair could sign it, with room for flexibility depending on controversy.

Commissioners discussed fees and potential savings to applicants if unnecessary sheets or studies are not required. Mugler said staff will analyze past applications to set a fee that better reflects typical staff time.

Mugler said staff plans to assemble the LDC amendment package and take it through formal code amendment steps, including referral and public review. No vote was taken during the study session; the item was informational and the commission directed staff to continue drafting the code language.