Planning Commission Work Session - Regular Meeting

If there is any public that does come, they will have an opportunity to provide testimony for each item during the public comment phase for that item on the agenda. So let's begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. indivisible with liberty and justice for all. At this time, I'd like to ask the clerk to take the roll call.

Commissioner Patrick Neville?

Here.

Commissioner Mark Hampton?

Here.

Commissioner Mark Reier?

Here.

Commissioner Michael McKesson?

Here.

Commissioner Landabruzzo?

Here.

Commissioner Calvin Downs?

Present. We have six commissioners present tonight and therefore have a quorum to proceed. I'd like to at this time ask the county attorney to certify the agenda.

Good evening, commissioners. Ariel Dennis on behalf of the county attorney's office. There's one item on the agenda this evening The one and only item, Douglas County Zoning Resolution Amendment to Section 27, Site Improvement Plan Project File DR-2026-002. It was published June 25th, 2026. The agenda item was properly noticed and you have jurisdiction to hear this item this evening. Thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Dennis. Commissioners will now respond with any disclosures. Any disclosures this evening? Okay. May I have a motion and a second for the approval of the meeting minutes? Sorry, for July 20th meeting minutes.

This is Commissioner McKesson. I move to approve the meeting minutes as drafted.

Is there a second? Commissioner Neville? We have two seconds. All right. All in favor of adopting the minutes from the July 20th meeting say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing no nays, the motion carries.

The next item on the agenda then is our land use hearing item.

Douglas County zoning resolution amendment to section 27 site improvement plan with staff presenting for the county.

Good evening, Commissioners. Eric Pavlenek representing Community Development. Before you is the proposed zoning amendments to section 27, site improvement plan. The product number is DR2026-002. The proposed amendments will remove the requirement for the submittal of a site improvement plan application for single family attached developments when sufficient engineering Building and fire related details are provided at the time of plat approval. Per zoning resolution section 109, the Planning Commission shall evaluate the proposed amendment, referral comments, staff report, and public testimony, and make a recommendation to the board. The review process is the following. Board of County Commissioners work sessions were held in 2026. Following these, Board directed staff to put the proposed zoning amendment on referral, which was from February 9th, 2026 through March 11th of 2026. A public workshop was held on February 26th, 2026, and no referral agencies or members of the public attended the workshop. Following this hearing with the Planning Commission, staff will provide the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board at the Board hearing on August 11th, of 2026. The proposed zoning resolution amendment would simplify the development process for townhomes, duplexes, and paired homes, and similar single family attached residences where there is one lot per residence. This provides an option to eliminate the need for an SIP when all engineering, building permitting, fire code, and other life safety issues are addressed during the subdivision review process. This would reduce the number of planning processes required. Most referral agencies responded to the request provided either no comment or no objection to the response. Two referral agencies expressed concern with the removal of the ability to provide referral comments on an SIP application. Other agencies commented on how they would adjust to the change or suggested ways to improve the process. Under the proposed amendments, detailed information on the residential project will be available at the plat stage of review and agencies will continue to have the opportunity to comment at that time. After evaluating the proposed amendments, referral comments, staff report, and public testimony, the Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the Board to approve, approve with modifications, table for further study, or deny the proposed amendment. This concludes staff presentation. We're available for questions at this time on the staff report. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister. I always forget how to pronounce your name, Pavlenek?

Yeah, Pavlenek, yes.

Pavlenek, okay, got it right, all right. Kind of why I hesitated earlier. I said staff presenting. So anyway, are there any questions for staff? And staff is also the applicant tonight, so are there any questions this evening? Commissioner Abruzzo.

Yes, thank you for that presentation. That was pretty informative. The question I have is, as you know, in the readings, Highlands Ranch Community Association and the Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority had their concerns about this. because of the fact that they're, I think, afraid they won't get their feedback put in at the appropriate time. So is it true that they'll still get to be able to review it and put their feedback on, but will it be on a timely basis to where it can make a difference? Is there, in other words, if they say something where a change is needed, is that gonna be still the correct time in the process to make that change with their feedback?

Eric Pavlik for staff. Yes, I mean, both HRCA and the airport would be referral entities for the subdivision application request. And they could make comments at that time.

Okay, and you stated that this is to simplify the process. Can you be a little more detailed on that? How does it simplify the process?

Yes, so Eric Pavlik again for staff. Currently, an applicant say they're proposing single family detached and say single family attached housing, where you have one residence on one lot. Going through subdivision, say you approve the final plat, THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO COME BACK FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS TO ENTITLE THE ATTACHED PRODUCT. THIS WAY IT'S AN OPTION GIVEN TO APPLICANTS WHERE THEY'RE GOING THROUGH SUBDIVISION, THEY COULD DO ALL THE ENGINEERING, VERIFY THAT LIFE SAFETY IN ALL THE building is covered at that time, and then they would forego the SIP submittal because all of that has been taken care of at the planning stage. So they wouldn't have to come back and do an SIP for the attached product, such as duplexes, townhouses, things like that.

Okay, thank you very much.

Anyone else? I have just a couple of questions. So help me understand a little bit more about what is the problem we're trying to solve here and why is it being limited to this type of housing, the higher density housing versus other planned developments?

Eric Pavanek again for staff. I think the single-family attached product that we see is pretty similar to your single-family detached in terms of the housing type, right? So I think it, by limiting that process, you allow the developer to go through the platting stage and then we leave it up to HOAs, if there's any design review on the architectural, that will be handled with the HOA or district if they are in a HOA have restricted confidence. I think that allows that review with the HOA and district. But I think it's for housing that is, because we don't review, there's no process for single family detached. They don't have to come in for a site plan process. So I think it provides options for developers to not go through that extra step in the process for something that looks like single family detached. So you're a duplex and townhouses that look pretty similar to what's being built in the same subdivision.

Thank you, anyone else? Okay, and it does not look like we have any public here this evening to give public testimony. So at this time, I'd like to ask if there are any final comments from the commissioners on this project or if we're ready for a motion.

Thank you. This is for staff. I really appreciate the consideration to help make these applications more efficient whilst allowing for the referral agencies to still opine and give guidance from their perspective. May I ask that staff consider in that process some sort of like a flow chart that shows when the best time is for those referral agencies to to give that information so that they can be assured to as per the testimony this evening and and written in our file that they'd still have that it's just nothing i don't mean to add anything to it it's just a it's more of a flow chart that suggests that and um i sure appreciate it making the process more efficient thank you that's it anyone else

All right, do we have a motion this evening?

Commissioner Brewster, I'd like to make the motion to recommend approval of the Douglas County zoning resolution amendment to section 27, site improvement plan, project file DR2026-002. Is there a second?

Commissioner Ryar. Commissioner Ryar, I second. All right, would the clerk please read back the motion?

Motion stated was to recommend approval of the Douglas County Zoning Resolution Amendment to Section 27, Site Improvement Plan, project file DR2026-002. Patrick Neville? Yes. Sorry, Commissioner Patrick Newell. Commissioner Mark Hampton? Yes. Commissioner Mark Reier? Yes. Commissioner Len Abruzzo?

Yes.

Commissioner Mike McKesson?

Yes.

Commissioner Calvin Downs?

Yes, and with that, the motion carries. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the motion by a vote of six to zero. Without objection, we will adjourn tonight's meeting.