Planning commissioners pull Copperleaf amendment off the table, vote to postpone and re-notice

Arapahoe County Planning Commission members voted on Feb. 4 to remove the Copperleaf comprehensive plan amendment from a tabled status and postpone further action so the applicant can hold a neighborhood meeting and the county can re-notice the case. The commission voted 6-1 to take the item from the table, and then 6-1 to postpone consideration of LR22-008; Commissioner Miller cast the lone opposing vote on both actions.

The action follows confusion at a December hearing about whether the commission’s prior votes had actually disposed of the case or simply tabled it. Jason Reynolds, planning staff, described the Feb. 4 motions as “essentially a housekeeping item to clarify the action that the Planning Commission took on December 3” and to align that action with the Planning Commission bylaws.

Why it matters: the case — an application to amend the 2018 Arapahoe County comprehensive plan in the vicinity of South Gun Club Road and East Bellevue Avenue (LR22-008) — has generated substantial public comment about traffic impacts. Commissioners and staff said postponement will require the applicant to hold additional neighborhood outreach and will trigger re-notification under county code before the matter returns to a public hearing.

Commission discussion and staff explanation

At the meeting, staff and the county attorney explained the difference between tabling under Robert’s Rules and the commission’s own bylaws. New County Attorney Matt Hader, who had not been at the December hearing, summarized the issue: “When the initial motion occurred, it wasn't approved. So it's not that it was voted down, it said it wasn't approved. So the case still hadn't been disposed of… what we really ended up with is a incongruity between the bylaws, which talk about postponement, and tabling a matter.” Hader said the Feb. 4 motions would “pull it off the table” and make the action a postponement under the county bylaws so it would be re-noticed.

Commissioner Clare Latsis expressed unease about the earlier procedure and how it affected the outcome: “I'm a little uncomfortable that we're being coached to get this thing heard again,” Latsis said, questioning whether tabling had been suggested improperly at the December hearing and saying she believed the commission may have intended to deny the amendment at that time.

Commissioner Morehouse made both motions. In the motion to remove the item from the table, Morehouse identified the case as "LR22-008, consideration of an application to amend the 2018 Arapahoe County comprehensive plan in the vicinity of South Gun Club Road and East Bellevue Avenue. I move to take this item from the table for additional action." Commissioner Sall seconded the motion to remove the item from the table; Commissioner Latsis seconded the subsequent motion to postpone.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of Jan. 21, 2025 Planning Commission minutes: Motion by Commissioner Morehouse; second by Commissioner Brockleman. Roll call: Brockleman Aye; Howe Aye; Latsis Aye; Miller Aye; Saul Aye; Morehouse Aye; Sauve Aye. Result: Approved, 7-0.

- Motion to take LR22-008 off the table: Moved by Commissioner Morehouse; seconded by Commissioner Sall. Roll call: Brockleman Aye; Howe Aye; Latsis Aye; Miller Opposed; Saul Aye; Morehouse Aye; Sauve Aye. Result: Passed, 6-1.

- Motion to postpone LR22-008: Moved by Commissioner Morehouse; seconded by Commissioner Latsis. Roll call: Brockleman Aye; Howe Aye; Latsis Aye; Miller Opposed; Saul Aye; Morehouse Aye; Sauve Aye. Result: Passed, 6-1. Note: Postponement requires re-notice and a neighborhood meeting per staff and the Planning Commission bylaws.

What happens next

Staff said postponement will trigger re-notification under the county code and that the applicant must hold the neighborhood meeting before the case returns for hearing. Reynolds told commissioners staff will coordinate required notices and the applicant’s outreach; the county will then schedule the item for a future public hearing once notice requirements are met.

The commission’s procedural debate focused on ensuring public notice and aligning the earlier hearing record with the commission’s bylaws rather than reopening substantive deliberations at this meeting. No substantive decision on the merits of the Copperleaf amendment was made Feb. 4; the item remains postponed pending re-notice and applicant outreach.