[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6207997,"mediaKeyId","3750208-50c7f0c901c6dafbf6614efaf1663bad","parentId",3750208,"title","Aurora council declines state-required ADU ordinance after public hearing","audioSeconds",1030,"startMs",1168000,"endMs",2198000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3750208-50c7f0c901c6dafbf6614efaf1663bad&start=1168&end=2198","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3750208-50c7f0c901c6dafbf6614efaf1663bad/thumbnail_1168000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6207997/Aurora-City/Douglas-County/Colorado/Aurora-council-declines-state-required-ADU-ordinance-after-public-hearing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6207997-88179bd4e2f92d102bbc5740354674c9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174819&Signature=HNCqY9IDOGcMfMpMo2WtqXFiBw7jTotR4ayszoUI2vfHkU7p7DkM7l7bXN1narmEvAbXfjqy28nD5ZLBrSZSdbkb4gBpz3cQw2scPacR6XeBjqUbjDv-FbMW5m-2j7AMb2S3Gdmd5vtQ8K3AjkZKriDYolkkP2HZSrcRldLD-8KsFFqq-nEx0-WRIXxQLfr-CFmsC6D~xeUcuhE6PciXbbTH~6sXjoDnLnsPYLiA5X-3lz47UwXzBLOzraLNLo8M8ykrst8edXvFBCSlOq2aUeMyDABVOhDJHTNKP3GSjP6T3Gg-4TYi7XL9uqS0~ZeCc1M8fP4wtj2qOMtRXVZgSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-11T00:54:54.853Z","article","Aurora City Council on June 9 considered Ordinance 2025-50, which would amend multiple sections of the Unified Development Ordinance related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs). City Attorney Pete Schulte told the council the ordinance had been discussed at a study session and that the measure implements changes the state legislature required.

Staff opened the public hearing; staff and the city attorney were available online to answer questions. There was some confusion about a speaker signed up remotely (Rebecca Bedory) but the council closed the public hearing after staff observed no ready speakers in the virtual queue. A motion to approve the ordinance was made by Council member Joysky and seconded by Council member Hancock. Several council members announced they would vote no to be consistent with the city’s asserted position regarding home-rule; Council members Medina and Murillo recorded yes votes.

The motion to adopt Ordinance 2025-50 failed, with seven no votes and two yes votes. The council did not adopt the state-directed ADU changes at this meeting. Staff indicated the item had been discussed at a study session three weeks earlier and would follow the city's normal process should the council direct staff to return with revisions or additional analysis.

Council deliberations referenced the city’s prior statements on home-rule authority and consistency with the city's position in pending litigation. No amendments were adopted at the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Regular Meeting of the Aurora City Council, June 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The council considered Ordinance 2025-50 to amend UDO sections on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) — required by state law — and voted 7–2 not to adopt the measure on June 9, 2025.","taxTitle","Aurora City, Douglas County, Colorado","taxId",5767,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6208001,"Aurora council rejects state-required update to UDO parking requirements",180,985000,1165000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3750208-50c7f0c901c6dafbf6614efaf1663bad&start=985&end=1165","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3750208-50c7f0c901c6dafbf6614efaf1663bad/thumbnail_985000.jpg","/articles/6208001/Aurora-City/Douglas-County/Colorado/Aurora-council-rejects-state-required-update-to-UDO-parking-requirements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208001-0d90329748a2315842f64fca84aa6757/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174820&Signature=Cl7qNLhMWrVeSbTmQdlioy-UDWocT9Ab1diAAXqL8nlG-yA4QSbRckPSvMfk0HU7h2lvbuoYL9xHlDxEqCa2jdoCzaBL5tA71XY4tYyYj37-Dsis9GaAuBM5iWIO4XcONwY0Bj3M0jt6tIMkvOdzGqz4BLO-RrTJ1WegG5BE7afhlGqJgdb6XihaG0BKAjS8ZQtz98~3XKOzAK-RNdwXA7p-OZpJYzErmlYaO9GnMqHND9uKaNfdMOGuKBs6SbtX1rrsp3HWa6L5TZYJH3HrILfb80N9LUIt-MgOTdt4XLYvXrjyZIdJm76OJYNbJi1tpYI8o174wModL4c7NUktqA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Aurora City Council considered Ordinance 2025-49, which would amend sections of the Unified Development Ordinance related to parking requirements, and voted not to adopt the measure.

City Attorney Petchfield framed the ordinance as one the city previously reviewed at a study session and described it as a state-required update to ensure compliance with state law. The city manager and planning staff were available to answer questions, and Petchfield confirmed the council could vote in any manner consistent with its expressed position.

A motion to approve the ordinance was moved on final reading (mover recorded in the meeting as Council member Durinsky and seconded by Council member Bergen). The roll call on final adoption recorded two yes votes and six no votes; the ordinance did not pass. The council did not adopt the changes to the UDO parking sections at this meeting.

Council discussion included references to prior study-session briefings and staff presence online to address technical questions. No public commenters spoke during the hearing, and the council closed the public hearing before taking the vote.

The failure to adopt leaves the UDO parking sections unchanged pending any future action the council may take to revisit the ordinance or bring a revised proposal back to a study session or public hearing.","At a public hearing on June 9, councilors considered Ordinance 2025-49, an update required by the state to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regarding parking requirements. After discussion and public hearing, the motion to adopt the ordinance failed 2–6.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6208006,"Aurora approves annexation of city-owned parcel for water detention; sets public hearing for 242-acre petition",243,2203000,2446000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3750208-50c7f0c901c6dafbf6614efaf1663bad&start=2203&end=2446","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3750208-50c7f0c901c6dafbf6614efaf1663bad/thumbnail_2203000.jpg","/articles/6208006/Aurora-City/Douglas-County/Colorado/Aurora-approves-annexation-of-city-owned-parcel-for-water-detention-sets-public-hearing-for-242-acre-petition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208006-7b0b0040a55586ce4cea6d124467753d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174820&Signature=Hu2sei5Iys2pbZLaoxndHmCEfdZ1s~eZ-Nvvhv9JDgFTAW1KeEKUliA24LS3If2GwEH~s8o8vrZEN4jAuK~9XqUvw9paBW7zBh3i4TbxdO-YODyxZ5e395L3zPdJnQ41DyYucVufUXDpB8YQqw1FKsUQLqe45Fuk1RKJV~bS5APaqUfDzq9uryb~uCIKds1SXTkJ84qQlFzTlFTxYcTqHvf0ecd96yzqIf5X-jIILSvq58tMZYllyT2-4hdNydELxyxoMePN6uCmcPgJEgRGi9AgHKEin2Ng3zJKqAZRRt5wqq2vRd2ADUVA6Q9k6VMAYrf0iaWhbPvSDDPgCZabVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Aurora City Council on June 9 adopted an ordinance annexing a 56.5-acre, city-owned parcel into the city and approved a companion resolution finding an approximately 242-acre petition for annexation to be in substantial compliance with state statute and setting a July 28 public hearing.

Justin Andrews, project manager in the Office of Development Assistance, told the council the 56.5-acre parcel is municipally owned and generally lies south of East Colfax and east of East 14th Avenue in Arapahoe County. The ordinance (2025-48) completes annexation steps so the property can proceed through the city’s zoning process; staff anticipates initial MUR zoning and plans for the site to be a detention facility for Aurora Water.

The petition for annexation (resolution 2025-65) concerns an approximately 242-acre parcel owned by Cowley Management LLC at the northwest corner of East 50th Avenue and North Haysemount Road. Staff said the parcel falls within the city’s annexation boundary, meets contiguity requirements and that the annexation process will follow Colorado law; the council set a public hearing on the annexation for July 28.

The adoption of ordinance 2025-48 was moved by Council member Jurinski and passed on final reading with eight yes votes. The council approved resolution 2025-65 making a finding of substantial compliance and setting the public hearing date by an 8–0 vote.

Andrews said the annexation of the city-owned parcel was previously approved on first reading at the May 19 council meeting, and the latest action finalizes the city’s jurisdiction over the property so the initial zoning and development review can proceed. Staff noted there was no separate presentation from the applicant for either item and that standard state-law annexation procedures will apply.","The council adopted ordinance 2025-48 annexing a 56.5-acre city-owned parcel for an Aurora Water detention site and approved a resolution finding a 242-acre annexation petition in substantial compliance, scheduling a July 28 public hearing.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6208011,"Aurora council to hold foreseeable meetings virtually, ends public-comment listening sessions until Lewis case resolved",1273,2462000,3735000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3750208-50c7f0c901c6dafbf6614efaf1663bad&start=2462&end=3735","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3750208-50c7f0c901c6dafbf6614efaf1663bad/thumbnail_2462000.jpg","/articles/6208011/Aurora-City/Douglas-County/Colorado/Aurora-council-to-hold-foreseeable-meetings-virtually-ends-public-comment-listening-sessions-until-Lewis-case-resolved","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208011-eb896ae3d9bdcc94c6210a4ed97a1ff3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174820&Signature=TJbtZMWoA9~qHuEy-3Bo0whvRSGXcSJqfFYxWnhEqlXNPMPj6xZByD47B4GhnUQGlWz5Y7VDgmQe7sYp6X651XUVQz8E4TrvPpxn~EqcFWsSZrRyMheolSnV5osHE95inIB4~oicfjk6ZBQyoF6w8~yId3llYrIug3aWRf141ONg73Z5E-IJpGCgk983lhaH1nZcYyZ9XEIn0abSGhkbaSBqmMP-rufB1iOSeAeTepT2~nlY5XCILsYa8dKz7o1P4SEbb22v7axIyh4DzXlDnAn57ViSxngTjgsbg4hHUmnou75bEO2CwVDNXf2k6dkMPbW30FzyyVpNw72I2TKW3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Aurora City Council on Monday voted to hold foreseeable council meetings virtually, move the start time to 6:00 p.m., and eliminate the standing public-comment listening session until there is a ruling in the civil case brought by the family of Kylan Lewis.

Supporters said the measure was intended to limit disruptions and avoid duplicative appearances while a civil case is pending; opponents said it silences residents and reduces public access to the council.

The motion was made during discussion of agenda item 16a, \"discussion and possible action regarding future in person or virtual council meetings.\" Council member Birkenfeld offered the motion to suspend the rules to hold meetings virtually and to eliminate the public-comment listening session; the motion was put to a vote and passed 7 yes to 3 no. The three members recorded as voting no were Council member Coombs and Council members Medina and Murillo. The council also accepted a friendly amendment to set future meeting start times at 6:00 p.m.

Public commenters who spoke before the vote said closing the public-comment period would reduce community oversight. Aiante Anderson, during public comment, urged the council to preserve in-person access and said residents repeatedly seek \"justice and accountability\" in the city’s response to the death of Kylan Lewis. Madia Schaffner urged council members to reflect on whether changes to public-comment rules produced any real benefit and warned that curtailing public access harms trust.

Council members who supported the motion argued virtual sessions would make it easier to manage fraudulent or disruptive sign-ups and would reduce in-person confrontations while the legal process is ongoing. Council member Hancock said similar problems can occur in virtual and in-person formats but suggested some issues are easier to manage online. Council member Majorski described progress in conversations that led to a lawsuit and said, \"It's in the court's hands now; let's let the court decide.\" Opponents characterized the change as an unnecessary restriction on residents’ ability to address elected officials.

According to the council clerk’s roll call, the motion passed with seven yes votes and three no votes. The council did not identify a set end date for the virtual-only meetings; the motion tied the change to the outcome of the civil case filed by the Lewis family, stating the policy will remain \"until there is a ruling\" in that matter.

The council's action applies to the \"public-comment listening session,\" the regular time when residents speak on items not on the agenda. The record shows the change was enacted as a council rule suspension requiring a two-thirds vote of those present.

Council members and residents seeking further information about future meeting procedures were directed to the city clerk’s office and the council’s posted rules.","On June 9, 2025, the Aurora City Council voted 7–3 to hold foreseeable meetings virtually, change the start time to 6:00 p.m., and eliminate the public-comment listening session until there is a ruling in the civil case filed by the Lewis family.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Aurora council declines state-required ADU ordinance after public hearing

Aurora council rejects state-required update to UDO parking requirements

Aurora approves annexation of city-owned parcel for water detention; sets public hearing for 242-acre petition

Aurora council to hold foreseeable meetings virtually, ends public-comment listening sessions until Lewis case resolved