Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Udo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aurora Council objects in study session to two UDO text amendments, declines to move them forward
Summary
At a May 19 study session the Aurora City Council objected to advancing two Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendments—multifamily parking standards in transit areas and accessory dwelling unit provisions—citing concerns about state preemption and a desire for more information from Planning and Zoning.
A majority of the Aurora City Council objected during its May 19 study session to moving forward two proposed Unified Development Ordinance text amendments—one on multifamily parking in transit service areas and another on accessory dwelling units—leaving any formal action for a future regular council meeting.
Council members said the items raised questions about state authority over local land-use rules and asked staff to include Planning and Zoning Commission materials in the packet if the items reach the council agenda. The measures did not receive support to advance from the study-session floor.
The council’s objections came after brief discussion about whether the proposed UDO changes had been the subject of litigation or mandated by state law. Council member Cindy Bergen said she opposed advancing the ADU amendment on principle, calling it “an attack on our home rule authority by the state legislature” and stating she would not support moving it forward for consideration.
Council members also asked staff to include the Planning and Zoning Commission’s meeting record and vote in the council backup. Staff said the Planning and Zoning Commission is advisory and that its minutes are available; one council member requested the commission’s meeting minutes and vote rationale be included “in the backup.”
Staff clarified that study session is not a formal decision point and that items can be carried to a regular meeting for an official vote. The city attorney’s office and city staff said moving an item from study session to the regular agenda is procedurally possible even if several members register objections in study session.
No formal motions or votes on either UDO amendment were taken at the study session; the council chair announced both items would not move forward from study session. Council members discussed the option of placing the items on the June 9 council agenda for a formal vote and asked staff to provide clearer packet materials, including Planning and Zoning Commission minutes and the rationale the commission used to recommend any changes.
If and when the amendments return to a regular meeting, council members indicated they expect clearer documentation of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation, whether state law requires the change, and any legal analysis staff have on the limits of municipal home-rule authority.
The study-session discussion also referenced a prior decision in December not to move similar items forward and council interest in seeing the planning commission’s affirmative vote materials as part of the record.
