Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Aurora planning commission recommends denying proposal to add “detention centers” to UDO
Loading...
Summary
The Aurora Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7‑0 April 22 to recommend denial of a proposed Unified Development Ordinance amendment that would add “detention centers” as a use in I‑1 and I‑2 zones and send conditional approvals directly to City Council, citing reduced public scrutiny.
The Aurora Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously April 22 to recommend denial of a proposed amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that would add a land‑use category for “detention centers” and allow conditional approval to go directly to City Council.
Brandon Camerata, planning division manager, told commissioners the text amendment — sponsored by City Council members Jackson and Horton — would define a detention facility, allow the use in I‑1 and I‑2 zones, require 1,000‑foot separation from residential or school uses, and include operational standards such as minimum visitation allowances, access to health care and references to staff ratios. “The city council sponsors of this ordinance are council members Jackson and Horton,” Camerata said.
The item drew sharp scrutiny from commissioners who said the proposed procedural change — bypassing the Planning and Zoning Commission in favor of direct Council review — would diminish public review and the commission’s fact‑finding role. “Where I differ…and where I have issues with this ordinance is removing the planning commission out of the process,” Chair Walls said during the hearing while moving to deny the recommendation. “I think because it is a special conditional use, it demands further public scrutiny.”
Lina McClelland, senior assistant city attorney, confirmed the zoning amendment was advanced at the request of council sponsors and said staff did not coordinate with the Aurora Police Department on the zoning language; she added that a separate ordinance addressing inspections had included APD input. Janine Rostad, director of planning and business development, also told commissioners that drone/security concerns are not zoning issues and cited other agency restrictions near Buckley Space Force Base.
Commissioner comments emphasized transparency and community input. Several commissioners described the insertion of this use into the UDO without the commission’s typical role as “political” and urged that the item follow a fuller legislative process. After discussion the chair moved to deny the commission’s recommendation to approve; Commissioner Venka seconded. The motion to deny passed 7‑0.
The commission’s action was a recommendation; staff and the city attorney noted the sponsors had asked that conditional approvals route to City Council. The amendment’s definition, separation distances and operational elements were discussed in the record but the commission declined to recommend forwarding the proposal as drafted. If council sponsors advance the ordinance, the City Council would be the next formal legislative forum for the proposal.
