Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Udo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aurora council rejects two state‑required UDO amendments on parking and ADUs after hearings
Summary
Two Unified Development Ordinance amendments — Ordinance 2025‑49 (parking requirements) and Ordinance 2025‑50 (accessory dwelling units) — were considered in public hearings and did not receive council approval.
The Aurora City Council on June 9 held public hearings on two Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) amendments required by the state legislature and voted not to adopt either proposal.
Item 11a, Ordinance 2025‑49, proposed amendments to UDO sections pertaining to parking requirements. Pete Schulz, the city attorney, told council members the ordinance had been discussed at a prior study session and said it was presented to bring the city into compliance with state law regarding the UDO’s parking provisions. "This is one of the ordinances that we've talked about at the last study session, one that was required by the legislature for us to bring forward to be in compliance with state law," Schulz said in the hearing.
Following the hearing, a motion to approve item 11a was moved by Council member Durinsky and seconded by Council member Bergen; the motion did not pass. The clerk recorded that 2 council members voted yes and 6 voted no on 11a.
Item 11b, Ordinance 2025‑50, proposed amendments related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Staff said the amendment was also required by recent legislation and that staff was available online to answer questions; the public hearing was opened and then closed when no in‑chamber commenters were present who had signed up earlier. A motion to approve item 11b was moved by Council member Joinski and seconded by Council member Hancock. Council discussion included several members saying they would vote no to remain consistent with the city’s position on home rule. The motion did not pass; the clerk recorded the motion failed with seven no votes and two yes votes.
No formal public decisions were made that implement alternative parking or ADU requirements; council members indicated a preference to remain consistent with prior positions and with the city’s interpretation of home‑rule authority. Staff will record the council’s action in the minutes; any required state compliance follow up will be coordinated through the city attorney and planning staff.
Votes at a glance: Ordinance 2025‑49 (UDO parking requirements) — failed (2 yes, 6 no). Ordinance 2025‑50 (UDO accessory dwelling units) — failed (2 yes, 7 no).
