Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Udo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Draft UDO changes aim to expand small‑lot housing, add objective design standards
Summary
Staff and consultant Multistudio presented proposed UDO amendments to allow more small‑lot housing by building type and to add measurable design points (massing, articulation, fenestration, materials); committee requested more visuals and a neighborhood design handbook to illustrate outcomes.
Brandon Camarada, current planning manager, introduced a deeper review of the housing UDO small‑lot project and turned the presentation to Chris Brewster, vice president with Multistudio. Brewster said the proposal’s goals are to increase small‑lot and infill opportunities while strengthening five neighborhood design principles (massing, articulation, fenestration, materials and walkability).
The consultants proposed replacing Aurora’s current percentage‑based caps on small lots with a building‑type approach that clarifies which building types (by district/R1–R3) are permitted. Staff suggested tightening location criteria — for example, increasing the activity‑center distance threshold (an example figure of 1,800 feet was discussed) and requiring proximity to usable open space as well — so that small‑lot allowances are tied to walkability and access to services rather than a project percentage cap.
Brewster said staff will also propose greater flexibility for green courts and motor courts so developers can use creative patterns while retaining guest parking and emergency access standards and preventing green courts from being used to interrupt street connectivity. A proposed frontage‑type system would tie allowable driveway and garage configurations to lot width (suburban vs. neighborhood frontages) and expand options such as shared lanes, remote block‑scale parking, recessed garages and narrower driveways.
On design standards, staff proposed consolidating small‑lot and multifamily rules into measurable point‑based standards around the four design categories so applicants can earn credits for objective outcomes; masonry could remain an option that earns points but would not be mandatory if equivalent quality is demonstrated. Staff emphasized testing to ensure draft provisions achieve the intended design outcomes.
Committee members asked for more visual examples (local or regional), urging staff to include a neighborhood design handbook with case studies and measurable dimensions to illustrate the tangible results of proposed code changes. Brewster said staff will circulate a formal draft with an executive summary after further testing and take the package to planning commission and a council study session before public release.
Next steps include additional staff testing, continued developer roundtable input, study sessions with planning commission and council, and a formal draft release followed by hearings and an adoption process. Committee members expressed support for the goals and asked staff to show specific local examples and clearer graphics at the next meeting.
