Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aurora staff propose UDO changes to speed reviews and create 'neighborhood plan' approval
Summary
Planning staff proposed UDO amendments to remove sub‑area approval variations, add a 'neighborhood plan' preliminary review, shift routine site‑plan approvals to director‑level administrative decisions and codify pilot program lessons to shorten development timelines.
Asia Tibbs, planning supervisor in Aurora’s Planning and Business Development division, presented a package of unified development ordinance (UDO) amendments on Dec. 11 designed to simplify approvals and reduce duplication in the master‑plan and site‑plan process.
"The neighborhood plan is really meant to address the length of time," Tibbs said, describing the new concept as similar to a preliminary plat that lays out street networks and preliminary lot layouts so applicants need not submit fully engineered site plans early in the process.
Staff said pilot projects (including a Midtown/Windler pilot) have shown the neighborhood plan can reach approval after two rounds of review and then move into civil engineering, reducing back‑and‑forth amendments. The proposed code changes would remove sub‑area variations that currently require the same type of application to face different approval channels based on location, and would reassign master plans to planning‑commission review while making site‑plan and neighborhood‑plan decisions administrative under the director.
Janine/Jeanine Rastad, director of Planning and Business Development, and Jacob (staff) described organizational and cultural reforms to pair with code changes, including clearer intake checklists, leadership and all‑staff meetings, and an incentive structure to reward reviewers who shorten review cycles.
On public input, Tibbs said administrative decisions will continue to receive notice: property owners and neighborhood groups will be notified as they would for planning‑commission matters, neighborhood meetings remain a required avenue for public engagement and the director retains authority to call up an administrative decision to planning commission or be appealed.
Committee members asked how the city will measure cultural change and whether public notice gives residents timely opportunity to influence developments; staff pointed to acceptance checklists, objective milestones for civil review, regular leadership meetings and planned periodic check‑ins with the development community and advisory boards.
The PED committee indicated support to advance the proposed UDO amendment package to formal adoption steps.
Staff said the changes will require amendments to specific UDO sections (notably sections addressing master plans, preliminary plats/neighborhood plans and site plans) and that the adoption process will include public hearings.
