Staff propose UDO changes to expand small-lot housing, tweak masonry rules and allow parking flexibility

City planning staff and consultant Chris Brewster of MultiStudio presented a detailed update on proposed amendments to Aurora's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) designed to expand opportunities for small-lot housing and refine neighborhood design standards.

Brandon Camarata, manager of the current planning division, introduced the presentation. Consultant Chris Brewster said the package's goals include increasing small-lot types in greenfield (subarea C) and allowing them in selected infill areas (subareas A and B), eliminating percentage caps by tying small-lot allowances to district/location criteria, and advancing five neighborhood design principles (walkability, public realm, housing mix, density where appropriate, and design quality).

Key proposed changes include: adjusting location criteria so eligible small-lot areas require proximity both to open space and expanded activity-center distance (the draft cited ~1,800 feet as an example), eliminating project percentage limits where location criteria are met, introducing two frontage types (suburban and neighborhood) with tailored garage/driveway standards, overhauling the design point system so masonry is incentivized but not strictly required, increasing parking flexibility to allow shared internal block parking or remote parking while keeping the numeric parking requirements intact, and exploring staged parking investments (surface/carport/garage) to lower up-front costs.

Councilmembers asked for background analyses on infrastructure costs for outward growth, on how metro districts'upfront infrastructure costs versus city maintenance obligations affect housing costs, and requested clearer documentation of the parking-count methodology and trade-offs in infill areas. Staff said parking counts would generally remain two spaces per unit where transit access is limited, but that credits and location-based reductions can apply in transit-served areas. Staff also said metro districts commonly carry the initial capital costs in greenfield areas while the city may assume long-term maintenance of public improvements once dedicated.

The presentation posed five policy questions for council feedback: whether the two frontage types and stricter standards on narrow lots are appropriate; whether the revised location requirements (access to both open space and an activity center) strike the right balance; whether district distinctions (R1/R2/R3) should be used to replace percentage caps; whether parking flexibility (shared/remote/unbundled) is acceptable while maintaining overall parking counts; and whether masonry should be relaxed in favor of a points-based material system.

Councilmembers directed staff to return with supplemental analyses on infrastructure costs, parking methodology, and examples of how activity centers and walkable mixed uses could be integrated into subarea C developments. No ordinance amendments were adopted at the meeting; the presentation served to elicit council feedback and identify follow-up research.