Arapahoe County staff recommends public hearings after SB 24‑174 changed plan-approval process

Arapahoe County staff told the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday that Senate Bill 24‑174 requires county comprehensive and master plans to be subject to county‑commission approval and recommended a public‑hearing process that begins with the Planning Commission and proceeds to the Board for final action.

The guidance matters because the county’s comprehensive plan and related subarea plans guide zoning and development decisions across unincorporated Arapahoe County. Staff recommended a two‑step public‑hearing flow in which the Planning Commission holds a hearing and either approves or denies a proposed amendment; if approved, the amendment moves to a Board public hearing where the commissioners may approve or deny the proposal. Staff said this approach is clearer for the public and for legal process than simply placing Planning Commission approvals on a commissioners’ consent or business agenda for ratification.

Staff described two options. Under staff’s preferred option, planning staff would continue to require public hearings before the Planning Commission; an approved amendment would then be noticed and heard by the Board of County Commissioners. Under a second option the Board would “ratify” Planning Commission approvals without a formal public hearing at the Board level; staff said that option would still allow public comment when the item is placed on a business agenda but is less explicit than a Board public hearing. Legal staff indicated a preference for the public‑hearing approach, especially when an amendment targets a specific property, because of quasi‑judicial concerns.

Staff also proposed formalizing a process for concurrent review when an applicant files both a rezoning and a comprehensive‑plan amendment. Currently, if a rezoning would be inconsistent with the county’s future land use map, the owner must also apply to amend the map. Staff said concurrent processing shortens review timelines and gives the Planning Commission more of the project‑level detail it has asked for (for example, building design, parking and traffic impacts). Under the draft approach the Planning Commission would decide the amendment and make a recommendation on the rezoning; a denied amendment would stop and not forward to the Board, while a denied rezoning would be forwarded to the Board as a recommended denial that the Board could uphold or overturn.

Staff said the county will need code changes to implement whichever option the Board prefers. Next steps outlined by staff included drafting amendments to the Land Development Code and the Development Application Manual and bringing those changes to the Planning Commission and Board for formal adoption.

Discussion with commissioners focused on keeping public process clear, preserving the Planning Commission’s role and avoiding unintended precedent for other administrative approvals. Commissioners who spoke signaled support for the public‑hearing approach as the cleaner legal and public‑notice path. There was also discussion of criteria a planning manager could apply when allowing concurrent reviews, for example whether a proposal advances county strategic goals or state housing or transit legislation.

The staff presentation and board discussion covered process and options only; no ordinance or code amendment was adopted at the session. Staff will return with draft code language and formal agenda items for future hearings.