Centennial staff ask planning commissioners for guidance on sharpening Land Development Code approval criteria

Brad McInnis, a planner with the City of Centennial, told the Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 13 that staff will draft amendments to the Land Development Code (LDC) approval criteria and asked commissioners for initial guidance. "We are going to discuss updating the LDC approval criteria," McInnis said, adding that "no decisions [would be] tonight" and that staff would return with formal recommendations at a later date.

The proposed work aims to make approval criteria application-specific, to eliminate duplication, to increase clarity and to better align approval standards with Centennial Next and city goals. McInnis told commissioners staff reviewed all 37 development orders in the code to filter which approval criteria most need a refresh and identified the five most commonly used development orders as the program’s primary focus.

Why it matters: Approval criteria guide staff recommendations and quasi-judicial decisions and, if unclear or redundant, can slow reviews, create confusion for applicants and the public and make outcomes harder to defend legally. McInnis said clear criteria "help the decision makers make informed decisions, and of course support clear, fair, and transparent quasi judicial decisions."

Key problems staff outlined - Redundancy: Several approval criteria repeat similar points across different development-order types. McInnis used site-plan criteria numbers 3 and 7 as an example, saying the two sections both address health, safety and welfare and could be combined so applicants are not required to prove substantially overlapping points. - Irrelevant criteria: Rezoning criteria sometimes include site-development language that is not known or applicable at the rezoning stage. McInnis noted rezonings may be filed without any concurrent site plan, leaving applicants and staff to guess how site-specific standards should be addressed in a rezoning. - Lack of clarity: Some criteria use vague or undefined terms. McInnis cited variance criteria that require showing "extraordinary conditions or circumstances" and another clause that states those conditions cannot have been caused by the applicant — two linked elements that have caused confusion for applicants and staff. He also cited conditional-use language that includes undefined terms such as "character" and "anticipated development trajectory."

What staff propose McInnis said staff expect to: combine similar criteria where appropriate, move criteria between development-order types when they are more applicable elsewhere, remove or better-define vague terms and, where possible, rewrite criteria so they include measurable or observable standards. "We are not removing the teeth in the approval criteria, but we are sharpening them," McInnis said, using an analogy that the LDC is a hamburger and the approval criteria are the patty: rightsized, not reduced.

Commissioner feedback and concerns Commissioners broadly praised the effort but raised several points staff said they will address as drafting proceeds. - Public communication and accessibility: Commissioner Hunt asked, "How big a problem is this at the moment? Can we measure the problem the difficulties it's causing or can we measure the benefits of this when we push it through?" Commissioners suggested staff present clearer, plain-language summaries in staff reports and consider additional outreach so residents understand the difference between rezoning and site-plan review. - Aesthetics in rezoning: Multiple commissioners debated whether an aesthetic-quality criterion belongs in rezoning standards. Commissioner Turk said he "would not be mad if this was completely removed as a criteria," arguing rezoning should focus on uses and that design and aesthetics are properly evaluated at site plan. Others cautioned that aesthetics can drive strong public interest and that design standards and development standards (applied at site plan) can help ensure acceptable outcomes. - Variance criteria and "extraordinary conditions": Several commissioners asked for clearer guidance about how to interpret "extraordinary conditions" for variances and whether objective thresholds (for example, slope or cost metrics) are feasible. McInnis and staff acknowledged case law typically guides interpretation and suggested the code edits could add clarifying language or examples. - Flexibility versus certainty: Commissioner Fisher cautioned that "when we're making things clearer, we need to make sure that our clarity doesn't eliminate flexibility," noting decision makers sometimes need discretion for unusual cases. Staff agreed, saying they aim to reduce subjectivity where it causes inconsistent outcomes but not to remove necessary discretion.

Policy and process clarifications offered by staff - Site-plan review: Staff reiterated the current rule that site plans for new development or redevelopment come before the Planning and Zoning Commission when the project is within 200 feet of a residential zone district; otherwise some site plans are approved administratively. - Citations: McInnis noted development orders are defined in LDC section 12-14-203 and 12-14-204 and that an ordinance passed in 2024 codified whether site plans are administrative or require commission review. - Public notice: Staff said notice is mailed two weeks before a public hearing to properties within 200 feet and to homeowners associations within a half mile. - Timing metrics: Staff track application durations but cautioned many factors affect how long a case takes and that it's difficult to isolate the effect of approval-criteria clarity on total processing time.

Next steps and outcome Staff asked the commission for direction and feedback; commissioners provided comments but took no formal action. The commission approved the consent agenda at the start of the meeting (motion by Commissioner Boyd; second by Commissioner Fisher; Miss Hamrick called the vote and the motion passed). Staff will draft specific text amendments, return to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation, and then present the proposals at a city council public hearing. McInnis said staff will also consider training sessions to show how revised criteria would be applied.

Other business Planning staff announced a site tour for Aug. 27 focused on recent and ongoing housing development; dinner is scheduled for 5 p.m. with the tour to begin at 6 p.m.

Ending No code amendments were adopted at the Aug. 13 meeting; staff will return with drafted language and public-notice steps before any formal vote by the commission or council.