The Arapahoe County Planning Commission on Aug. 5 recommended denial of proposed amendments to the county Land Development Code intended to incentivize development of affordable housing and streamline multifamily and mixed-use projects.

The recommendation followed a staff presentation from planning staff and roughly an hour of discussion focused on the proposal’s three-tier incentive structure, waivers of neighborhood outreach for the highest tier, and locational criteria that could make some open-space parcels eligible for rezoning. Commissioners split 3–2 on a motion to deny the amendments after an initial motion to recommend approval failed.

Kat Hammer of Arapahoe County planning staff summarized the draft amendments as a package of changes meant to encourage multifamily and mixed-use development. “In December 2023, the Board of County Commissioners asked staff to draft regulations to encourage the development of affordable housing and provide a more streamlined process for development of multifamily and mixed use residential projects,” Hammer said. She described two new zone districts — a multifamily district and a denser mixed-use district — a three-tier incentive chart (minimum affordable-unit thresholds of 10 percent, 25 percent and 50 percent), and associated incentives including density bonuses, increased building height, reduced setbacks and fee reductions tied to the tier level.

Key provisions described by staff include:
- Tier thresholds and minimum affordability durations: 10% affordable units with a 10-year minimum duration, 25% with 15 years, and 50% or more with 20 years of affordability.
- Density and dimensional changes: a proposed multifamily district with heights up to 55 feet and densities roughly 13–35 dwelling units per acre; a mixed-use district with heights up to 75 feet and a minimum density of 35 units per acre.
- Parking and site standards: the draft removes minimum parking requirements for multifamily and affordable-housing units and would waive certain tree-preservation and landscaping requirements for higher tiers.
- Process incentives: projects meeting the affordable thresholds could access a two-step planned unit development streamlining (fewer hearings), expedited review timelines and fee reductions; the highest tier (50% affordable) would waive a neighborhood outreach meeting.

Several commissioners raised substantive concerns during discussion. Commissioner Miller argued the proposal undercuts public participation: “We’re supposed to be representing the the citizens, not to represent planning, not to represent the commissioners,” Miller said, explaining a decision to oppose the proposal on the basis that neighborhood outreach was being reduced. Commissioner Sauve likewise said removing outreach for Tier 3 was problematic, adding that such meetings “help quell things and ... make the situation more effective in the long run.”

Commissioners also questioned whether the locational criteria — eligibility for rezoning within a quarter- or half-mile of arterials or transit — could leave small, local open-space parcels vulnerable. Hammer replied that rezoning would still require a formal application, review for consistency with the comprehensive plan and owner consent, noting, “I suspect someone would have a hard time getting a staff recommendation of approval for a rezone in Cherry Creek State Park.”

The public comment period produced no speakers in person or on the phone; county staff said two callers were on the line but neither pressed the key to join the speakers’ queue.

Votes at a glance
- Motion to recommend approval of LDC20Four-four (Affordable Housing Land Development Code Amendments), moved by Commissioner Saul and seconded by Commissioner Howe: failed (Aye: Commissioner Saul, Chair Morehouse; No: Commissioners Howe, Miller, Sauve). Outcome: motion failed (2–3). The mover cited the staff report and attachments in support of approval.
- Motion to recommend denial of LDC20Four-four, moved by Commissioner Sauve and seconded by Commissioner Howe: passed (Yes: Commissioners Howe, Miller, Sauve; No: Commissioner Saul, Chair Morehouse). Outcome: recommendation to deny the proposed amendments (3–2).

The commission’s recommendation leaves the proposed code amendments unresolved; staff noted the item remains undetermined and that a follow-up motion or further action could be taken. Staff announced the next Planning Commission hearing scheduled for Aug. 19 with two applications on the agenda.

Background: staff said the Board of County Commissioners directed preparation of the draft in December 2023 and that the item had been the subject of a planning commission study session in January and a board study session in March 2025. The draft was posted for public review May 27–June 26, 2025 and staff said they solicited input from local builders and adjacent jurisdictions.