Aurora Council OKs new code to allow larger, digital signs on city property after contentious debate

The Aurora City Council voted to adopt an ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance to create a new category of signage for city-owned property, allowing up to 25-foot monument signs and electronic message centers on certain municipal sites. The council passed the measure 6-3 on Monday, March 24.

The change, introduced in item 11C, was presented by Brandon Kemirata, manager with the Planning and Business Development Department. Kemirata said the amendment would allow the city to place larger off-premise advertising signs on city-owned land, restricted to locations deemed suitable by the city. He told the council the signs could be up to 25 feet tall, include electronic message centers and roughly 280 square feet of display — roughly twice the size of typical signs in Aurora. Planning staff said the ordinance is limited to city-owned property and that not every city parcel would be suitable for such signage.

The council and staff repeatedly distinguished the zoning change from any contract or implementation agreement. City Manager Bachelor and staff explained that passing the ordinance only enables the signage category in the zoning code; any actual placement or contract would come later under a separate license or contract and would be subject to council direction. Staff said the form of agreement discussed with vendors would be a revocable license with termination terms and noted vendors cited significant capital investments and preferred multiyear terms; staff said the resolution direction included a five-year term with a five-year extension as an example.

The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, and staff said the proposal was consistent with approval criteria in the UDO and would not, as drafted, create a material risk to public health, safety or welfare. Kemirata also noted the amendment relies on existing code standards for electronic message centers, including a minimum message dwell time (no faster than eight-second changes) and lighting-intensity limits.

During debate, council members raised legal, procurement and community concerns. Council Member Burger and others opposed the code change in part because staff had not issued a full competitive procurement (RFP) for a vendor; staff acknowledged that an RFP had not been completed and said the city could be at legal risk. Council members also asked whether the city could restrict advertising content; staff and legal counsel said the zoning code does not regulate message content, and constitutional limits apply. City legal counsel and staff said specific content restrictions or advertising approvals could be included in any later license or contract if council desired.

Members of the public expressed both procedural and policy concerns during the public hearing. Speakers questioned whether the city should enable larger advertising on municipal land and linked the issue to broader concerns about public priorities and past policing controversies; public-comment speakers included residents identified in the record as Madian Shoffner, Robert Lewis, Kayoa Lewis and Aontae Anderson.

Council Member Jurinski moved to approve the ordinance; the motion was seconded by Council Member Casa. After discussion, the motion passed with six yes votes and three no votes. Council members recorded as voting no in the transcript were Council Member Bergen, Council Member Medina and Council Member Madio.

The ordinance as adopted amends the UDO to define “city property signs,” allow them under specified conditions on city-owned property, and subject them to spacing requirements staff outlined (staff cited a 600-foot separation for the large monument-type signs). Staff said subsequent council action would be required to authorize any particular sign location and any agreement with a private vendor.

Council members who expressed support described the measure as an enabling zoning change that does not obligate the city to immediate contracts and said details about vendor selection, advertising content and license terms would be handled later. Those opposed cited procurement procedure concerns, the potential for visual clutter or urban blight, and the risk of controversial advertising.

The council adoption clears the code change for the next procedural steps; staff said it will return with any proposed agreements and locations for council review prior to installation.