Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Looks like it is. So hand it back to you, Chair Walsh. Great. Thank you, Brandon. Good evening, everyone. It is Wednesday, April the 22nd, 2026. Time is now 6.11 p.m. I now call this regularly scheduled virtual meeting of the Aurora Planning and Zoning Commission to order. I'll call the roll. Commissioner Jecik. Present. Commissioner Bush. Present. Commissioner Becker.

Present.

Commissioner Banka.

Present.

Commissioner Riley.

I am present.

Commissioner Hogan.

I'm present.

And Commissioner Walz is also present. We have established a voting quorum with seven commissioners present. Commissioner Hogan, yes.

I'm getting no video feed of anyone. I cannot see anyone, nor can I see the screen. Is there something that I did between I mean, I didn't turn off anything, but I've got no video.

Do you want to try leaving the meeting and joining again?

I'm happy to do that. I'll be right back.

Maintaining a voting quorum of six members present, we will continue on. The Pledge of Allegiance will not be set tonight as this meeting is virtual. We'll move on to the approval of the minutes from April the 8th, 2026. Did everyone receive a draft of the minutes? You all had a chance to read them, an opportunity to read them. Okay, are there any amendments or corrections to the minutes? Seeing none, the chair moves to approve the minutes as presented without objection. Is there a second? I so second. Thank you, Commissioner Bush. It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes from April the 28th without objection. Is there any discussion on the motion? Without discussion, is there any objection? Okay, the minutes from April the 8th will be approved without objection. Commissioner Hogan, everything restored?

Yes, thank you very much.

Wonderful. Okay, we've established a full quorum at seven voting members again. Tonight we have 12 items of general business across five applications, items 8A through 8L. The chair moves to approve the agenda as presented without objection. Is there a second? Thank you, Commissioner Riley. It's been moved and seconded to Approve the agenda as presented without objection. Any discussion on the motion? Without discussion, is there any objection? Without objection, the agenda will be approved as presented. I'll now read a summary of our policies and procedures for this evening's meeting. Please make sure your home or computer microphone is on mute unless you're speaking. The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is a quasi-judicial hearing. There's no swearing in of those who will give testimony, but it is presumed that all parties are telling the truth. When addressing the commission as an applicant or the representative, please state your first and last name, as well as the organization that you're representing, and you may additionally state if you are an Aurora resident. If you are addressing the commission as a member of the general public for public testimony, please state your first and last name and if you are an Aurora resident. For each agenda item, there will be an initial presentation by city staff. Afterward, commissioners may ask questions of staff. Discussion of agenda items by commissioners will be conducted only following a motion and a second. Following the staff presentation, the applicant or their representative may choose to make a presentation or answer questions. The applicant will have 10 minutes for their presentation. Commissioners may ask questions of the applicant. Members of the public that have signed up to speak will each have three minutes to speak on the agenda item during this public comment period. It is asked that only new information be presented. The same arguments should not be repeated. Commissioners may ask questions of the public following their comments. After public comments, the applicant will have five minutes to address any public comments. Commissioners may ask questions of the applicant. The chair will ensure all commissioners have no further questions of the applicant or staff. The chair will then call for the question. After a motion has been made and seconded, the commissioners will then discuss the case amongst themselves. After the discussion, the chair will call the question. Commissioners are finders of fact and will vote based on their evaluation of the evidence presented, as compared to Code Section 146. All rulings by the Planning and Zoning Commission are normally final. Exceptions are zoning map amendments, zoning code amendments, and comprehensive plan amendments that need City Council approval. Decisions by the Commission can be appealed to City Council by presenting a written appeal to the City Manager within 10 calendar days of the public hearing. City Council also has the discretion to call up any case whether an appeal has been made or not. Notices for this virtual meeting were published, posted to the city's website, and the development projects were posted with signs on the properties. Notices were also mailed to adjacent landowners per city requirements. Without a consent agenda, we will move right in this morning, this evening. This evening's first case is Agenda Item 8A, a UDO amendment, which is a text change pertaining to detention facilities. Our case manager this evening is our Planning Division Manager, Brandon Camerata. Brandon, the floor is yours.

Uh, thank you chairman walls. Um, apologize. I didn't have the preamble synced up with your, your reading. Um, but I'll go right into our presentation. So, uh, what we have for you tonight is a proposed text amendment. And what we'll be asking for you all tonight is a recommendation to carry forward. to the city council on this proposed text amendment. So the text amendment is relating to adding the land use category of a detention center to the UDO and identify where, what zone districts it's allowed in. And the city council sponsors of this ordinance are council members Jackson and Horton. It's a pretty short text amendment. It touches two or three sections of code. The scope of the amendment includes the definition for a detention facility, which you can see there on the screen. The proposal identifies that this land use could be permitted in I-1 or I-2 zoning, which are light industrial and heavy industrial zoning essentially. And that the approval process would be a conditional approval with the caveat that it would go to City Council rather than Planning Commission. So it would use those same criteria, but it's written to go straight to City Council. Other considerations that are in this are that there is a 1,000-foot requirement for 1,000-foot separation of a detention facility from residential or school uses, as well as from other detention centers. There's also written into this zoning code some operational considerations. You can certainly view them in the ordinance, but they include things relating to minimum visitation allowances, access to healthcare, and reference to staff ratios. So for reference, I mentioned I-1 and I-2 zoning. The dark gray is the I-2 zoning, and the light gray is the I-1 zoning. So as you kind of orient yourself to the map, The purple right in the middle is Buckley Space Force Base. The two black lines going up are from left to right, 225 and E470. So you can kind of see, and then I-70 is there kind of going along the top third of that map there. So you can see that most of the industrial areas are along that I-70 corridor for the most part, and then there's some around Buckley as well. So those are the areas where this could be considered. As you are familiar, to make a UDO code amendment, we have broad criteria for consideration, which are shown here on the screen and in your staff report. And in your staff report. These are, in addition to the body of the report, these are kind of a summary of some of the specifics as it relates to the comprehensive plan should you choose to look in that direction. So with that said, that concludes my presentation, and I'd be happy to try to answer any questions.

Thank you, Brandon. I'll open up the floor for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Riley.

Thank you. I have 4 questions. Um, what was the police department's input into this, uh.

Ordinance this ordinance was provided directly from the sponsors and asked to advance through this process. And so I do not have direct, uh, uh, response from the police department on this ordinance.

Okay, the second question I have, are we trying to get ahead of a need? I mean, why do we want detention facilities? I'm just curious as to why the big push for this.

Lena, raise your hand. If you feel free, or chair through you. Please.

Thank you, Chair Walz. Good evening, everyone. Lena McClelland, a senior assistant city attorney. So I'll answer a couple of those questions. So one, as Brandon mentioned, this did come directly from the sponsors for this bill or for this ordinance. And then the second part of that is that we did not work with the police on this. It's generally not the process when we're dealing with a zoning code amendment. There is another ordinance that's going in conjunction with this that is going to be dealing with inspections in the detention facilities. And that one was done with the input of the police department, but this one was not. And then the other part of that question. So this came from a council request um this was a priority of uh the council sponsors that were listed on the first page of brandon's presentation and so that is um why we're bringing this forward is because we were asked to bring it forward by council members jackson and horton okay um question three i noted in the report it said the only existing detention facility the planning staff is aware of is this one on oakland street um

I would not put the language that they are aware of. I would be definitive in saying the only detention facility is because it makes it look like, well, maybe there are others and we're not aware of it. Just kind of caught me off guard that we cannot be defined in how many detention facilities we have. And then the fourth item with the proliferation of drones getting access to detention facilities, I didn't see anything in there discussing counter drone capabilities and some type of preventive measures. We talked about visitation, we talked about counseling, we talked about distance, but there was nothing in there about one of the more current threats that we face in detention facilities today. So those are my questions that I wanted to share with everybody today.

Director Rustad, go ahead.

Janine Rustad, Director of Planning and Business Development. As for drones, that is not a zoning issue, but having worked with the APD on several other issues, I know they have their own regulations. Plus, with Brandon showing you some of the, I believe it was the I-1 being near Buckley, Buckley also has restrictions.

Okay. I've got Becky, Commissioner Hogan, and then Commissioner Becker, but I'll ask a quick question first. And maybe this is anyone who wants to take it, Director Rustadlina or Brandon. Do we have other examples in Section 146 where the operations are being legislated through zoning, whether they're public facilities like the city jail or any other any other facilities that have these types of operation standards within our zoning code?

Brandon, I'm going to fill some space while you think, but I'm thinking conditional uses. We do have some operations and we do require an operations plan through licensing. This is a very unique use. Without it being in the code right now, there has been discussions and part of it was making sure that these are not near residential. This has, I think, a bigger impact on Our residents and even other businesses, so I think. And Lena, you're the crafter of this, or of the language, I believe. So, I think that it does we have. Put in what fits within land use and those police powers.

Okay, Lena, go ahead.

Yes, so, um. I can't remember all of the uses that we have that have operations plans, but I know for example, we require them for like an after hours club or entertainment use is one that requires an operations and security plan. So it's not unheard of in our code to require that.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Hogan.

This question is probably for Lena. Lena or Janine, why is it that this has not come through PED? I do understand that it came from the floor, that you've got two council members, but I don't understand when we have kind of a policy practice, and I would look at this as a newer policy, why did it not go through PED? So that's number one. Number two is, go ahead.

Go ahead. Just so I don't forget, there is a mechanism where a council member can bring something directly to the floor. But because this is a UDO amendment, it first needs your inputs. So there is not, while it is the common practice to go to PED, it is not a requirement.

And I guess one of my questions or the follow-up is more of a statement. And that's that it does appear that the bulk of the land use that we are recommending as conditional approval actually falls in work too. And since she is the chair of PED, I would think she would be quite curious about this process. And given what happened on Monday with confusion about the role of cities, I could see this being Quite controversial as it moves forward, because it just kind of appeared.

I can not speak to any conversations that have happened amongst council members. So, again, we're just here to present the zoning code amendment and we'll see how it plays out in front of council.

Okay, thank you. Fellow commissioners, I also want to caution you. Make sure that in this portion of the hearing, this is part of the hearing. So please refrain comments for discussion on a motion and try and ask questions of staff as it relates to your understanding of any testimony presented. This isn't a time for commentary. This is a time for questions of staff during the hearing period. So please try and contain questions that are germane to the topic at hand. Commissioner Becker.

Thank you, chair. I just had a question about the when you look at the zoning map for these zone districts and the thousand foot separation, there's quite a few what I would deem residential and or schools within what? I mean, I'm not measuring with my with like a GIS map, but you know, like I'm thinking there's like a little one kind of on the boundary on the east side. There's I think pretty sure there's residential around there, so I don't want to get into the weeds, but. My question is, what is the appeal process for it? Let's say. Something comes up and they want to put something in where there's quite a bit of residential around. Can they, they would have to go to city council for appeal or how does that work? Is it just even is the application even considered in those situations?

Share through you typically, when we have those buffer circumstances, it's considered a. permitted or not permitted use. And so whether a use is permitted or not permitted is not a variable sort of circumstance. Meaning, for example, you can't be in an industrial zone and get a variance to put in a residential use. You would have to, you know, pursue a different entitlement. So those buffers, you know, are there for that circumstance. I think that you referenced that some of these industrial areas would in fact be abutting residential areas And so if they were pursuing something within 1,000 feet, it would not be a permissible to even apply for. It would be not an allowed land use effectively.

Okay, thank you. Is staff aware of the reason that planning commission in the future on these conditional uses will be bypassed and decisions made on council on the whole? And do we have other examples in the UDO of conditional uses that bypass Planning Commission?

Chair, through you, Lena McClelland again. So the first part of your question, that was a request of the sponsors to have this type of use go directly to City Council. And the second part of your question is, no, we do not. This would be a new process for that we do not have. It's not anticipated in the code as it currently is drafted to have conditional uses go to City Council.

Thank you. Further questions from the Commission?

Okay, seeing none. Susan, do we have any members of the public signed up to speak on 8A?

Chair Walz, we do not.

Okay, final opportunity for questions from the commission of staff. Okay, at this time, I will close this portion of the public hearing on agenda item 8A and entertain a motion.

Chair?

Commissioner Bush. I would like to make a motion for agenda item 8A, Unified Development Ordinance text amendment to add detention centers as a use allowance. Based on the staff recommendation, the presentations and discussion at this evening's public hearing, I move to recommend approval to the Aurora City Council of the text amendment to the UDO to add allowances for detention centers within the City of Aurora because the proposal complies with the requirements of Section 146-5-4-1-C-3-B of the UDO for the reasons stated in the staff report.

Thank you, Commissioner Bush. It's been moved to approve Agenda Item 8A.

Is there a second?

Okay, without a second, the motion is out of order. The chair will rise to make a motion based on the presentation and discussion at this evening's public hearing. I move to deny agenda item 8A for the reasons to be stated following the motion to second if that motion is seconded. Is there a second to the chair's motion to deny agenda item 8A? Thank you, Commissioner Benka. I will open the floor for discussion on the denial of 8 and any of those that support the denial, please list your reasons for denial. I will start. I think first and foremost, reading through the packet, reading through this ordinance, I don't have issues with the majority of what this ordinance tries to do, because I think that it is a special use case. It is a special conditional use in our zoning code. But where I differ and where I have issues with this ordinance is removing the planning commission out of the process. I think because it is a special conditional use, I think that demands further public scrutiny. And the planning commission is one of our chief responsibilities is to represent the public and making this conditional use less of a public process is a huge, huge problem for me. I think it should be a greater public process. There should be more public discussion. I really dislike seeing our zoning code used politically. And I think that this is a very, very clear example of politics through zoning. And as we all know, the elected positions, appointed positions, they come and go as elections come and go. And we're putting something into ordinance that is very political that a future council may use to install detention facilities in anywhere in I-1 and I-2 as long as they meet these. It could happen just the opposite as what I believe is intended for this particular amendment to the UDO. So I think we need to pump the brakes. This needs to go through the normal legislative process that our city has prescribed and get the largest amount of public input that UDO amendments and text changes can possibly get. not less, this shouldn't be something that's hurried. This should be something that should be well thought out and should be the result of that public input, not the opposite. It shouldn't be hurried through and I'm against that. Commissioner Benka.

Well said, I 100% agree. I do believe that this needs to be, you know, we are representatives of the public. So to eliminate the Planning Commission, number one, as a citizen in Aurora, I take offense to, and as a citizen that owns properties in these areas, you know, I feel it feels like something that's very slick, trying to be run, you know, through the process without, you know, it'll pop up one day and be a surprise. And I don't think that that is the, I don't, I think our job is to avoid that type of thing. I think we need public input. I, having read everything, you know, Garrett, you said it very well. And so I just want to echo what you said. And I think there should absolutely be more public input. The areas that are shown, I mean, you can't really tell the streets very well, but There are a lot of publics that could be affected by this. New home builders up in that new area in Ward 2, that this could definitely stifle, stifle, I'm not saying, this could definitely slow down their ability to sell properties. I think there's a whole lot of issues, and I think the public needs to weigh in, and I think it needs to go through the normal processes.

Thank you, Commissioner Vanka. Commissioner Jacek.

I agree with what's been said so far. We make such an effort to be transparent and notify the public how many signs have been knocked down and we postponed or continued planning commission. And now this is trying to be being pushed through. It just feels way too political to me.

Thank you, Commissioner Judge and Commissioner Hogan.

I think that as planning commission, we strive very, very intentionally to stay away from policy issues. This is a total policy issue to me, and it needs to be vetted as such. And for that reason, I will be voting to deny this use.

Thank you, Commissioner Hogan. Commissioner Riley.

Thank you. So the questions I raised earlier, I think we're primarily aligned with the whole transparency issue, which is why I brought them up. And that's what we're seeing right now, the lack of transparency. That's my comment. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Riley. Further discussion on the denial of Agenda Item 8A? Okay. So before I call the roll, just some clarifying comments on the voting procedure, just because this doesn't come up a lot amongst our commissioner, these types of motions. So if you are voting yes or approve or for, you're voting for the denial. That is the current standing motion before the board is a motion to deny. So if you vote no or against or do not approve, you're voting against the motion to deny. Does that make sense to everyone? I just want to make sure that's clear before I call the roll. Okay, great. I will call the roll on the denial on agenda item 8A. Commissioner Jachik.

Approve.

Commissioner Bush. Approve. Commissioner Becker.

Approved.

Commissioner Benka.

Approved.

Commissioner Riley. Approved. Commissioner Hogan. Approved. And Commissioner Walz also votes to approve agenda item 8A, the motion to deny recommendation has been approved. We'll move on to agenda item 8B. This will be a joint presentation for 8B and 8C. It's the BlackRock Coffee Conditional Use and Site Plan with Adjustments. Our case manager is Ben Bravenek, the applicant, BlackRock Coffee. For the minutes noting commissioner visits, I would like to record my visit from the previous agenda item at the last planning commission meeting. Commissioner Benka, Commissioner Bush, Commissioner Jetschik, Commissioner Riley, and Commissioner Hogan. Commissioner Becker as well. Ben, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. I am Ben Brabenek, presenting for staff. Tonight, I'm presenting agenda items 8B and 8C, Black Rock Coffee, Conditional Use, and Site Plan with Adjustments. The applicant, Black Rock Coffee, proposes a conditional use for a drive-through within the MUC Zone District and a site plan for a 620-square-foot drive-through coffee shop on a vacant .85-acre parcel of land. The site is zoned MUC mixed-use corridor and part of the commercial hub place type. The site is located on the northeast corner of South Oswego Street and East Iliff Avenue, just west of South Peoria Street. The vicinity map shown illustrates location of the site in the context of the surrounding area. The site is bounded by condos to the north, medical treatment to the east, single family homes to the west across South Oswego Street, and a CenturyLink facility and mini storage to the south across from East Iliff Avenue. The zoning of the site is MUC as well as the property to the east and south across East Iliff Avenue. The zoning is R1, low density residential to the north and to the west across from South Oswego Street. The site is located within and adjacent to the commercial hub place type to the north, east and south and adjacent to the established neighborhood place type to the west. This is a view facing northeast from East Idlis Avenue of the currently vacant site. 32 adjacent property owners and 36 registered neighborhood organizations were notified for this project. One comment was received that was opposed. The applicant reached out and did not receive a response. A neighborhood meeting was not held. This item was continued from planning and zoning commission meeting on April 8th for improper signposting. A new public hearing sign indicating the planning and zoning commission's public hearing date and time was posted on the property for this meeting. Major items discussed during this review were the site layout and building design and architecture. The site layout was a significant aspect of this review because of the limited space and code requirements of the location of the drive-through. Multiple easements are on this site, including a 70-foot gas easement, which cannot be released. It constrains where the building could be located to its current location. Per UDO, drive up or drive through windows and aisles shall be located on the rear of primary structures or a side of the structure not adjacent to a public street to minimize their visibility from public street and minimize interference with pedestrian access from sidewalk to the entrances of the primary building. However, the UDO states no drive through lane may be located between a building and the R1 zoning to the north Planning chose to seek approval of the adjustment of the location of the drive-through being between the building and the R1 zoning because the proposed design promotes pedestrian connectivity. The R1 lot is not a single family home, and the enhanced landscape buffer provides the intent of keeping a buffer between the drive-throughs and residential uses. The applicant worked with staff to achieve building architecture and design that complies with city code. Because of the small scale of the building, enhancements to the corners of the change in materials were used to show the wall notches and changes in horizontal articulation, despite the building footprint compared to conventional commercial development. The applicant worked with staff to change one of the primary building materials from synthetic stucco to a three coat stucco. The building also includes several changes in the roof plane, awnings, and building mounted lights that help it meet the building design standards of the UDO. The site plan includes two major adjustments to the city code. The first is to allow drive-through lane between the proposed building and the protected lot. And the second is to allow surface parking to exceed the maximum frontage along an arterial within subarea A. The first adjustment is to allow the drive-through lanes to be located between the primary structure and protected lot. The justification is enhanced landscape screening will be provided along the boundary with the protected lot exceeding standard buffer requirements. That supports the location of the drive-through because the alternative would be between the building and the street. The proposed design maximizes street frontage and provides an enhanced buffer between the drive-through and protected lot. The second adjustment is to increase the percentage of lot frontage occupied by surface parking from 25% to 43.8%. The justification is enhanced landscape screening is provided along the south side of the parking and in the newly created tree lawn area along East Iliff Avenue. The site is constrained with easements, leaving the developable area limited to a small building footprint. Staff concurs with the applicant's justification that the proposal meets the adjustment criteria due to the small size of the building. The proposal maximizes building street frontage to the greatest extent practicable and provides enhanced landscaping to meet mitigation requirements. The approval criteria that apply to the project are the conditional use and site plan with adjustments criteria shown here on the screen. The project complies with the approval criteria listed, including the application complies with all applicable standards and criteria in the UDO, aside from the two items seeking adjustment approval. The application is consistent with the comprehensive plan commercial hub place type. The proposal will improve the pedestrian connectivity of the surrounding area with new sidewalks and sidewalk improvements. The application mitigates the adverse impacts by providing enhanced landscape buffers from the street as well as residential uses. With the approval criteria in mind, staff recommends to approve agenda item 8B, conditional use for drive-through in the mixed use corridor district because the proposal complies with section 146-5.4.3.A.3 of the UDO. and staff recommends to approve agenda item 8c site plan with adjustments as the proposal complies with code section 146-5.4.3.B.3 of the UDO with the approval subject the condition the resolution of all outstanding technical issues prior to recommendation of the site plan and issuance of any building permits With that, that's the conclusion of my presentation. Thank you, everybody, for listening. I'm here to answer any questions, and the applicant is here as well. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much, Ben, for the presentation.

I'll open the floor for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Banca.

I know I've asked this before, and I'll ask again. In light of the drought situation, when we talk about enhanced landscaping, is that greenery that may or may not end up being green? you know, six or eight months after it's put in with the water restrictions, or is it non-greenery type landscaping?

I can't remember quite what the plant material was, if the applicant wants to speak to that. I do know the landscape buffer to the north, some of it is about

increase plant quantities as well as just the spacing between the building and the residential uses but if the applicant wants to add anything yes okay hi i can i'm uh christine saviam i work for atwell uh we are the civil engineer for blackrock coffee um can you hear me okay everyone yes okay great yes we um Most of the landscaping on this site is trees or shrubs and not sod. And that's something we can just double check and make any adjustments on before our final approval. Because I know with Denver, they actually have a rule for no sod on commercial properties, which I think is a good idea, as you mentioned. But yes, mostly trees and shrubs with mulch beds around them. Thank you.

Further questions from the commission of staff or the applicant? Okay, seeing none, Susan, do we have any members of the public sign up to speak on 8B or C?

Sure, Walz, we do. We have Arnie Schultz.

Okay. Arnie, go ahead and state your name and whether or not you're an Aurora resident for the record.

You'll have three minutes to speak. Arnie, I just made you a presenter. You should be able to just unmute yourself. Can you hear me? No. Yes, go ahead.

Yes. Now you can hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Chair Walz and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Arnie Schultz. I am an Aurora resident. I serve as the referral person for the Villages Neighborhood Association, and we have reviewed this application and voted unanimously to deny it. I've heard two adjustments mentioned just now, but I thought I heard four. when it was being presented. Uhm? I have poor eyesight. Somebody I can't find the dumpster. If somebody can point that out to me. Their operating plan says their hours are 5 to 7. But the speakers. Will be shut off after 9 PM, so there's disagreement there. And I prefer not to have any speakers there. People are going to be in their cars in the winter. Their heaters are going to be on. They're going to be bundled up. The windows are going to be closed. They're going to be talking to each other. And they're not going to be able to hear whatever a low volume speaker is. And I prefer that they do something like BJ's does. have the, when they come in for their order, hand them a pager. When their order is ready, page them. Or as Chick-fil-A does, have somebody carry it out to their car. But the speakers are going to be louder if they're going to hear them in the car, summer or winter with air conditioning or heating. Remigrating. My tremor is terrible, sorry.

Oh.

Looking at the site plan, I couldn't figure out how the cars exit. There seems to be crosshatching on the way exiting, so I don't know what's going on there. on part of the site plan I saw that was hatching and they're coming in two ways and they've got stacking and they can avoid the stacking like just about every other coffee shop has done by having two windows, one to place their order and want to drive forward when it's ready to pick up their order.

Arnie, your time has expired. Oh, I'm sorry. I appreciate your testimony, and it's good to hear from you again, Arnie. It's been a little while, and some of us were concerned about your health and had asked staff how you were doing. So it's good to hear your voice again, Arnie.

Thank you.

Okay, Susan, do we have any other members of the public signed up to speak?

Sure. Well, we do not.

Okay, I will allow the applicant. And Ben, certainly you can fill in where necessary. But the applicant, you can have five minutes to address any of those questions or concerns, the public testimony raised.

Sure. Um, I think so the he was asked about the trash dumpster location is kind of right in the center. With a number 11. On that. No, Ben, if you can Point to that, yep, right there. Let me think, what else? So the hours of operation, Tony Pallotta, could you clarify that typical hours of operation?

Yeah, I can speak to that. I don't know if I need to introduce myself or not for the record. Please. Tony Pallotta, VP of Development with Black Rock Coffee Bar. Yeah, our hours of operation are 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. While I've got the floor, just to speak to the speaker situation, we don't use any kind of intercom system. Any speaker referenced on any of our operations is just for music purposes. And we can take it or leave it for a drive-through only location like this. So if we're close to residential and it's in any concern whatsoever, we don't need speakers or music playing outside the building. So that That's an easy accommodation there. So yes, so that kind of that was kind of a matched with the hours of operation comment. So I wanted to mention that as well.

OK, great and I think that the last concern was where do cars exit? And yes, it's correct. They do have a double stack on the entrance side with the order. window preview board prior to that. And then as like from where car number one is, that would be the first one exiting and they will exit across the parking lot and out to the driveway. So if in the event there ever was more than the many cars that we have shown, they would have to cross over to get to the exit side of the driveway. But as Ben mentioned, with the 70 foot wide Xcel gas easement, just really limited placement of the building. We can't have any trees or shrubs within that easement. So I think we worked with staff quite a bit and came up with the best option we can for this site.

And then, Ben, if you wouldn't mind, you can either go back to the slider. I would just like you to reiterate or highlight, because it came up in public testimony, the adjustments that are being requested. It can be a very high-level recap.

Absolutely. So the first adjustment is about the location of the drive-thru. In terms of this site, it was to choose between having an adjustment of the drive-through between the street and the building or between the residential and the building. So the first adjustment is about having a drive-through located between the R1 zone district and the principal building. As a high level of why planning chose to go that direction is because the R1 zone district was not a single family home residence. It was actually a condo building. So it wasn't a typical circumstance. And the other one is specifically for sub area A, we have the code criteria that no more than 25% of your frontage can be surface parking to a depth of 60 feet. So a lot of different applications can avoid this by having their parking not within that 60 foot. But since this site is pretty constrained, it was within that 60 feet. And the other part of that code criteria is the rest of that frontage should be building frontage. But since this building is so small, it did not make up for the remainder of that building frontage.

Great. Thank you, Ben. I'll open the floor. One last opportunity for commissioners to ask questions of the applicant or staff. Seeing none, I will close this portion of the public hearing and first entertain a motion on agenda item 8B, which is the conditional use for a drive-thru.

This is Commissioner Jetschek. Agenda item 8B, conditional use for drive-thru in the MUC Zone District. Based on staff recommendation, the presentation and discussion at this evening's public hearing, I move to approve the conditional use for a drive-through in the mixed use corridor district MUC because the proposal complies with the requirement of code section 146-5.4.3.A.3 of the unified development ordinance for the reasons stated in the staff report.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Czajek. It's been moved to approve agenda item 8B. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Thank you, Commissioner Riley. It's been moved and seconded to approve 8B. I'll open the floor for discussion from the Commission. This is Commissioner Janczyk. Go ahead, Commissioner Janczyk.

The one concern about the microphone, I think that's been eliminated, so I feel comfortable supporting this.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Riley.

Thank you. I was quite pleased to see in there the widening of the sidewalk and adding a sidewalk as we look at what Build Up Aurora is trying to do. So I appreciate the consideration of creating more pedestrian access.

Thank you, Commissioner Riley. I would also like to add on, I specifically appreciated the sidewalk. That's my walking route. I walk right in front of the site. And so it can be a little dodgy right there. So I appreciate that improvement to the property and widening the sidewalk to code. I also appreciate that this parcel of land may potentially not be vacant any longer. There's been a lot of trash in this area, and I would love to see this site activated. And I think BlackRock has put together a solid plan. I understand the conditional use for the drive-through. I have no issues with that. This is a major traffic pattern westbound. And I think that a drive-through here makes all the sense in the world. So the conditions are met for a drive-through. So I don't have any issues in supporting this particular motion. Further discussion on the approval of 8B? Seeing none, I will call the roll. Commissioner Jachik. Approve. Commissioner Bush. Approve. Commissioner Becker.

Approve.

Commissioner Benka.

Approve.

Commissioner Riley. I approve. Commissioner Hogan. Approve. And Commissioner Walz also votes to approve. Agenda item 8B is approved. I will now entertain a motion on agenda item 8C.

This is Commissioner Jachek again. Agenda item 8C, Site Plan with Adjustment. Based on the staff recommendation, the presentation, and discussions at this evening's public hearing, I move to approve with one condition, the Site Plan with Adjustment for Drive-Thru Lane Neighborhood Protection. standards and parking design and location because the proposal complies with the requirements of code section 146-5.4.3.b-3.c of the unified development ordinance for the reasons stated in the staff report approval to be subject by to the following condition resolution of outstanding technical issues prior to recognition of site plan and issuance of any building permits

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Jetrick. It's been moved to approve agenda item 8C. Is there a second? Thank you, Commissioner Wright. It's been moved and seconded to approve 8C. I'll open the floor for discussion. All of my previous comments will apply to 8C as well. I can support this agenda item. I'm very, very happy to see a coffee shop in my traffic pattern. Very, very happy. There's sort of a coffee desert, if you will, in between Buckley and Havana, and actually even further in this traffic pattern, going all the way to I-25, moving westbound. This is one of the only westbound, except for Iliff and Buckley. There's the Dutch Brothers there, but capturing this particular traffic pattern. And I do believe that it would be an asset to the community here. First up, I've got Commissioner Hogan.

Yes, Chair Walz. Is the removal of an outside speaker system considered a technical issue, or does this need a friendly amendment to just simply codify what the owner agreed to by removing the outside speaker element?

I would defer to the Commissioner, Commissioner Jacek, who made the motion to approve if she wishes to place that condition upon the approval for 8C, if she wishes to condition it, or if simply the applicant's understanding that it's not desired by the community would be sufficient.

I think the understanding that it's not desired by the community is okay.

Okay. Commissioner Riley, as a second of the motion, would you agree with that?

I do agree.

Okay. Commissioner Hogan, does that satisfy your question?

Yes.

Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Becker?

Commissioner Hogan asked my question. But I do want to say it's a really good use of the site, given that giant easement on it. So it's nice to see the creativity with these wonky little lots. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Becker. Further discussion on the adoption of 8C? Seeing none, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Jachik? Approve. Commissioner Bush? Approve. Commissioner Becker?

Approve.

Commissioner Banka.

Approve.

Commissioner Riley. Approve. Commissioner Hogan.

Approve.

And Commissioner Walz also votes to approve. Agenda item 8C is approved with seven votes. Now up for discussion, agenda item 8D, which is the Echo Suites at Majestic Commerce Center, the sign adjustment. First recording for the minutes, site visits by planning commissions. Commissioner Riley, Bush, Becker, Banka, Hogan. I'm not sure about Commissioner Cechik. She went off camera for the moment. I visited the site during the first agenda item in our last meeting, but not for the second. 8D is the Echo Suites at Majestic Commerce Center. The sign adjustment, our case manager is Eric Gates, the applicant, GCHD Aurora LLC. Mr. Gates, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair.

So as you said, this is a proposal for ECHO Suites at Majestic Commerce Center, a signed adjustment. And after my presentation and any questions that Commissioners might have for me, the applicant is also available for questions. So the applicant GHCD Aurora LLC requests approval of a sign adjustment to allow for a for 355.4 square feet of signage for a 249.3 foot long building in the MUC zone district.

The site plan for the building itself was previously approved administratively back in May of 2024.

This is just for the sign adjustment. So here's the general vicinity map of the area. The proposal is part of the Majestic Commerce Center Framework Development Plan. And here's an aerial map of the area as well. Pretty recent. You can see the construction of the hotel, which is down here, is underway, well underway. And then here's the current zoning map of the region. So this site is within the MUC zone district. While much of the surrounding area is that I-1 business tech zoning. And then the parks and open space zoning just to the east of the site is where the Highline Canal Trail is located. So here's a view from East 32nd Parkway looking south towards the site. This would be the main access to the site. Here's a view from Tower Road looking east towards the site. And then here's a view from I-70 looking north towards the site. So during review, notice was sent to five adjacent property owners and five registered neighborhood groups. No comments were received during review or following the postings for this meeting. So a neighborhood meeting was not held. And several issues were discussed during this project during our staff review. Those included other potential relief measures and the adjustment justification and mitigation itself. So, you know, during review, we tried to find alternative methods to approve the request that wouldn't require an adjustment since there are several sign related exemptions in the code. away from the code the majestic uh fdp whose land use map is shown here um does contain standards for signage however it mostly speaks to majestic monument monumentation signage and it doesn't provide any additional relief for signage area

The UDO does contain some relief for projects qualifying for the Creative Sign Program.

However, those are limited to signs under 100 square feet, which a couple of these signs are over that number. So Creative Sign Program didn't apply here as well. And also the location of the ECHO Suites is not in a special commercial sign standard area, which also has some extra relief. Those areas are along Havana, Colfax, Abilene, and Parker Road. Not along any of those. So getting into the adjustment or the justification mitigation, here's the elevations with proposed signage for the Echo Suites Hotel. The largest and most visible of these signs are on the south and west faces. Those are facing I-70 and Tower Road, respectively. And as you'll recall from the overhead map, that site is located at the very southern end of the majestic retail commercial area. And so while the site is most visible from these roadways, I-70 does involve, you know, high speed traffic. The main access point on 32nd Parkway is is about 700 feet north of this site and there, you know, eventually will be other businesses in between that and this site. And so part of the applicant's justification is that due to the location of this site and the clientele for a hotel largely being visitors to the area, unfamiliar with the area, the large signs are a necessity to achieve parity with the visibility of other similar hotel uses found in Aurora, and as a way to sort of mitigate the disruptiveness of this extra total sign area. All of these are directed to where they'll be most visible from roadways, far away from the Highline Canal Trail. This is the face that would be facing the Highline Canal Trail, and it would also

And I do want to specify that the adjustment is just for overall signage.

None of these individual signs exceed what we allow in the code. It is really just for the cumulative sign area. So based on a review of the code criteria found in section 146-544-D3 for major adjustment criteria, staff finds that the proposal that the signs are placed in place such that large signs will not impact adjacent uses or local pedestrian trails while the sign facing adjacent businesses are smaller and intended for customers already on-site in that retail area. There are no previous conditions of approval applied by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council that would be violated by the approval of this adjustment. And the amount of additional signage is limited in scope exclusively to compensate for a site with substandard visibility from local right-of-ways and will not significantly impact the visual character of surrounding commercial and industrial areas. So based on the findings of staff and compliance with the appropriate sections of the UDO, staff recommends approval for item 8D, the sign adjustment to allow for 355.4 square feet of signage for a 249.3 foot long building in the NUC zone district. With one condition, that being a miler change application to the approved site plan showing, you know, the general signage locations be completed. prior to the issuance of a signed permit. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions or turn it over to the applicant if you have any questions for them.

Great, thank you for the presentation, Eric. I'll open the floor for questions from staff or of staff or the applicant. Okay, seeing none, Susan, do we have any members of the public signed up to speak on agenda item 8D?

Chair Walz, we do not.

Okay, final opportunity for questions of staff or the applicant. Seeing none, I'll close this portion of the public hearing and interpreting motion on agenda item 8D.

Chair Walz, item 8D, sign adjustment. Based upon the staff recommendation, the presentation, and discussion at this evening's public hearing, I move to approve with one condition, the sign adjustment for total sign area allowed because the proposal complies with the requirements in section 146-5.4.4.d.3 of the unified development ordinance for the reasons stated in the staff report approval to be subject to the following condition the mylar change application to the approved site plan shall be completed to list the approved adjustment request and show the location of the sign on the building elevations prior to the issuance of any sign permit.

Thank you, Commissioner Hogan. It's been moved to approve agenda item 8D. Is there a second? Commissioner Banka, thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve 8D. I'll open the floor for discussion. I'd just like to add that I think after being on the site, when this came up on our first agenda meeting ago and having walked the area thoroughly looking for their posting sign, I think this signage is absolutely needed. It's necessary. This is going to be kind of a hidden away pocket. And I think being an additional hotel and welcoming them to our business community, I think it's important that people be able to find them and people be able to see. And hotels absolutely depend on that kind of visibility, and this one will need it from I-70. So I appreciate the request. All of my concerns were mitigated. I can support this motion. Further discussion on the adoption of 8D. Seeing none, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Jacek.

Approve.

Commissioner Bush. Approve. Commissioner Becker.

Approve.

Commissioner Vanko.

Approve.

Commissioner Riley.

I approve.

Commissioner Hogan.

Approve.

And Commissioner Walz also votes to approve. Agenda item 8D is approved with seven votes. Moving now to agenda item 8E and F, it will be a joint presentation. The take five at Pomeroy, recording for the minutes. Commissioner visits to the site. Commissioner Jachek, Riley, Banka. Okay. Agenda items 8E and Bush. Yes, I got you, Melvin. Thank you. The Commissioner Becker, thank you. Take five at Pomeroy. Conditional use is up first for motor vehicle service in the MUR project located in Ward 6. Our case manager for both E and F will be Rashid Raba. Applicant is QSD Southlands LLC and 8F will be the site plan with an adjustment also there in Ward 6. Rashid, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Rashid Rabab presenting for staff. Tonight for your review is an application for a proposal site plan and a condition to use for a construction of 1,780 square foot building for an oil change service. The applicant, QS Holden, is requesting approval of a site plan with one adjustment and a condition to use. The property is located at the northwest corner of South Aurora Parkway and South Elkway within Pemeroi Master Plan. This is an aerial map of the site and its surroundings. The property is zoned and surrounded primarily by mixed-use Regional District zoning in sub-area C and is directly above R2 medium density residential zoning to the north. This property is within urban district place type. This is a site photo. The applicant has provided a proof of the posting of the public hearing notice signs on the site. Three adjacent property owners and 12 neighborhood associations were notified of the application, no comment was received, and the neighborhood meeting was not held. The major issues discussed and resolved during the development review are the building architect and design, condition used, and want adjustments. The applicant worked with staff to ensure that the building architecture complies with UDL requirements. The primary building materials include stucco and bricks with a stone tile venery base. The proposed color comply with the city code which required primary muted colors. As proposed, the building design is complied with UDL. The second is the condition use. Condition use approval that is required for a motor vehicle services in MUR district zone. The criteria for approval for condition use include a PAR compatible with adjacent land uses, impact on existing infrastructure, and that the use will not change the predominant character of the area. The applicant has indicated that this use will have normal operation hours and there will be no use of hydraulic or air compressor equipment, mitigating associate noise impact to the surrounding area. The applicant stated that infrastructure to serve the site is in place and the proposed motor vehicle services will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area, which include other car-oriented uses across the street. There are no residential uses directly impacted by the site as it's compatible with similar adjacent commercial, retail, and service land use in the area. The applicant one request for adjustment to the city code section 146-4.6.3 requesting an adjustment in the parking requirement from 15 parking spaces to six plus accessible space. Staff support the adjustment request based on the operation specified for the business and the service provided. Operations are distinct in that customer remained in their vehicle and do not need a parking. Proposal comply with the code criteria for conditional use regarding compliance with the city standard is consistent with the Aurora places and is compatible with surrounding area. The proposal comply with the code criteria for site plan regarding compliance with the city standard does not have any adverse impact and is compatible with surrounding area and an existing development parent. Therefore, the application as proposed comply with the standard in UDL, is compatible with surrounding commercial retail land uses, and is consistent with the existing development pattern in the area, and it mitigates adverse impact on the surrounding area through screening, quality architecture, and pedestrian connectivity. Staff find the agenda item 8E and 8F condition used met the criteria for approval, Also, the site plan made the approval criteria with the following condition. Resolution of all outstanding technical issues before recordation of the site plan and issuance of any building permit. And with that, I conclude my presentation. And I'm here to answer any question you might have. And also, the applicant is present. Thank you.

Great. Thank you for the presentation, Rashid. I'll open the floor for questions of the commission for the applicant or staff. Okay, seeing none, Susan, do we have any members of the public sign up to speak on E or F?

Sure, Wells, we do not.

Okay, one final opportunity for questions from the commission. Seeing none, I will close this portion of the public hearing and first entertain a motion on agenda item 8E, which is the conditional use.

Chair Walz.

Commissioner Bush, go ahead. All right. I would like to make a motion on agenda item 8E, conditional use for motor vehicle service in a mixed-use regional district. Based on the staff recommendations, the presentation, and discussions at this evening's public hearing, I move to approve the conditional use for the motor vehicle service in the MU dash R mixed use regional district because the proposal complies with the requirements of code section 146 dash 5.4.3.8 of the UDO for the reasons stated in the staff report.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Bush. It's been moved to approve agenda item 8E. Is there a second? Thank you, Commissioner Becker. It's been moved and seconded to approve 8E. I'll open the floor for discussion. I'd just like to start by saying it's good to see these guys again. We've seen at least one other presentation by this applicant. I believe Chambers was the last one, and they did a phenomenal job with that one. I really like how the construction turned out. Even areas that I was a little bit worried about how the traffic flow was going to work, going by there very often, four or five, six times a week, I see that it looks like things are working out, and this has become a great addition to our commercial business community. So I have no issues in supporting these two particular agenda items in this area. Commissioner Riley.

Thank you. Yeah, going out there and walking the site, it does look like there is a need for a facility like this, especially with the increase in the growth of the area. And obviously the Aurora Parkway can, well, presently can handle all that traffic if there's an additional amount of traffic. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Riley. Further discussion on the adoption of 8E? Seeing none, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Jachek?

Approve.

Commissioner Bush? Approve. Commissioner Becker?

Approve.

Commissioner Banka?

Approve.

Commissioner Riley? Approve. Commissioner Hogan?

Approve.

And Commissioner Walz also votes to approve. Agenda item 8E is approved for seven votes. I will now entertain a motion on agenda item 8F. On 8F, the chair rises to a motion based on the staff recommendation, the presentation and discussion at this evening's public hearing. I move to approve with one condition, the site plan with an adjustment for reduced parking because the proposal complies with the requirements of Code Section 146-5.4.3.B.3.C of the UDO for the reasons stated in the staff report. Approval is subject to the following condition, resolution of outstanding technical issues prior to recordation of the site plan and issuance of any building permits. The chair has moved approval of agenda item 8F. Is there a second? Thank you, Commissioner Benka. It's been moved and seconded to approve 8F. I'll open the floor for discussion. Seeing none, I will call the roll. Commissioner Jacek.

Approve.

Commissioner Bush. Approve. Commissioner Becker.

Approve.

Commissioner Benka.

Approve.

Commissioner Riley. I approve. Commissioner Hogan.

Approve.

And Commissioner Walsh also votes to approve. Agenda item 8F is approved with seven votes. Next agenda items, agenda item 8G, and this will cover our joint presentation G through L, which is the Prologis Park 70 number one. And our case manager, again, is Rashid Rahmah. And recording for the minutes, commissioner site visits. Okay. That would be all commissioners except for Commissioner Walz. Okay. It is Prologis Park 70 NOI. Several agenda items case manager she drama applicant is green line service receive the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr chair. The applicant is green line services is proposing to major adjustment to increase the heights and this and the science square footage for 3 new money one signs located at prologist Park. The three signs are located west and east of the interchange of intersection 70, interstate 70 and 470 highway on the north side of 19 Avenue in the Prologis master plan. This is an aerial map of the subject sign location and the area around them, most of which are warehouses. The subject properties are zoned I1, and all the surrounding area are zone I1 as well, where the predominant land uses are large scale warehouses and distribution facilities like Amazon and Best Buy. These are the site photo of the three location of the signs. The applicant has provided proof of posting the public hearing notice signs onto sites. Three adjacent property owners and eight registered neighborhood organizations were notified of the application. No comment was received and no neighborhood meeting was held. In accordance with the criteria for major adjustment, the applicant proposed adding the monument sign with a new design that will improve visibility of the overall development. According to UDO section 146-4.10.5, the maximum individual sign area should not exceed 200 square feet. The proposed monument sign is 406 square feet exceeding the allowable individual size limits specified in the city code. Additionally, The maximum height for the Monument sign along Collector Street, which is East 19th Avenue, is 8 feet. The Proposal sign height is 25 feet, exceeding the 8 foot high limits specified in the City Code. The proposed Monument sign will not adverse affect the surrounding property as the development consists of several massive warehouse and distribution facility, including Amazon, 1 million square feet, Best Buy, 500,000 square feet, and South Glacier, 5,000 square feet. In addition, the signs are abiding an open area along East 470, ensuring adjacent properties are not impacted. The monument signs are strategically designed to improve visibility and wife finding for both motorists and pedestrians without a negative impact of nearby lots. Staff find that agenda item AG 8H, 8I, 8G, 8K, and 8L for the three major sign adjustment in the high and the square footage made the approval criteria with the following condition. Resolution of outstanding technical issues before recordation of the site plan and issuance of any building permit. And with that, I conclude my presentation. And I'm here to answer any question you might have. And also, the applicant is present. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much for the presentation, Rashid. I'll open the floor for questions from the commission for staff or the applicant. Okay, seeing none, Susan, do we have anyone signed up to speak on 8G through L?

No, we do not.

Okay, final opportunity for questions. Okay, at this time, I will close this portion of the public hearing on agenda items 8G through L and entertain a motion first on agenda item 8G, which is the sign adjustment for new 25-hood high monument sign noted case number ending in 01.

Commissioner Banka, and I'll make the motion. Thank you, Chair. Regarding agenda item 8G, major sign adjustment, based on the staff recommendation, the presentations and discussions at this evening's public hearing, I move to approve the major sign adjustment for sign height 25 feet as proposed because the applicant application complies with the criteria for approval of Code Section 146-5.4.4.D.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance for the reasons stated in the staff report.

Thank you, Commissioner Penka. It's been moved to approve agenda item 8G by Kistner. Thank you, Commissioner Bush. It's been also seconded by Commissioner Bush. To approve agenda item 8G, I'll open the floor for discussion on the motion.

Seeing no discussion, I'll call the roll.

Commissioner Cechek.

Approve.

Commissioner Bush. Approve. Commissioner Becker.

Approve.

Commissioner Banka.

Approve.

Commissioner Riley. I approve. Commissioner Hogan.

Approve.

And Commissioner Walz also votes to approve. 8G is approved with seven votes. I will now entertain a motion on agenda item 8H.

Chair Walz. Go ahead, Commissioner Bush.

I'd like to make a motion on agenda item 8H, major sign adjustment, sign square footage. Based on the staff recommendation, the presentation, and discussions at this evening's public hearing, I move to approve the major sign adjustment for sign square footage of 406 square feet as proposed because the application complies with the criteria for approval for code section 146-5.4.4.D.3 of the UDO for the reasons stated in the staff report.

Thank you, Commissioner Bush. It's been moved to approve agenda item 8H. Commissioner Benke, is that a second?

Yes. Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to approve 8H. I'll open the floor for discussion from the commission. Without discussion, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Jachek.

Approve.

Commissioner Bush. Approve. Commissioner Becker.

Approve.

Commissioner Banka.

Approve.

Commissioner Riley.

I approve.

Commissioner Hogan.

Approve.

And Commissioner Walz also votes to approve. 8H is approved with seven votes. I'll entertain a motion on agenda item 8I.

This is Commissioner Jachek. Agenda item eight I major sign adjustment sign height based on the staff recommendation, the presentation discussion at this evening's public hearing. I moved to approve the major sign adjustment for sign height 25 feet as proposed because the application complies with the criteria for approval of code section 146 dash 544 D3 of the unified development ordinance for the reasons stated in the staff report.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Jacek. It's been moved to approve agenda item 8i as their second. Thank you, Commissioner Riley. It's been moved and seconded to approve 8i. I'll open up the floor for discussion. Without discussion, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Jacek.

Approve.

Commissioner Bush. Approve. Commissioner Becker.

Approve.

Commissioner Benka.

Approve.

Commissioner Riley.

I approve.

Commissioner Hogan.

Approve.

And Commissioner Walz also votes to approve. That is seven votes to approve. Agenda item 8I. I will entertain a motion on agenda item 8J. Commissioner Benka.

Okay. Yes. Regarding agenda item 8J, major sign adjustment, based on the staff recommendations, the presentation and discussion at this evening's public hearing, I move to approve the major sign adjustment. for assigned square footage of 406 square feet as proposed because the application complies with criteria for Code Section 146-5.4.4.D.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance for the reasons stated in the staff report.

Thank you, Commissioner Banka. It's been moved to approve and agenda item 8J. Thank you, Commissioner Riley, for the second on 8J. I'll open the floor for discussion. Seeing none, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Jachik.

Approve.

Commissioner Bush. Approve. Commissioner Becker.

Approve.

Commissioner Benka.

Approved.

Commissioner Riley.

Approve.

Commissioner Hogan.

Approve.

And Commissioner Walz also votes to approve. 8J is approved with seven votes. I will now entertain a motion on agenda item 8K.

Commissioner Benka.

Yes, regarding Agenda Item 8K, Major Sign Adjustment, based on the staff recommendation, the presentation, and discussions. At this evening's public hearing, I move to approve the Major Sign Adjustment for the sign height 25 feet as proposed because the application complies with criteria for approval code of Code Section 146-5.4.4.d.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance for the reasons stated in the staff report.

I thank you, Commissioner bank. It's been moved to approve agenda item eight K is there a second? Thank you, Commissioner Becker. It's been moved and seconded to approve eight. Okay, I will open the floor for discussion. Commissioner Riley.

Thank you. So, not to be hard on this, the sign was not posted. The post was there, but in conjunction with E01 being posted, I feel there's adequate notice, but I go back to the whole idea of ensuring that applicants are inspecting their signs on a daily basis. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Riley. Further discussion on the adoption of 8K. Seeing none, I will call the roll. Commissioner Jachik?

Approve.

Commissioner Bush? Approve. Commissioner Becker?

Approve.

Commissioner Benka?

Approve.

Commissioner Riley? I approve. Commissioner Hogan?

Approve.

Commissioner Walz also votes to approve. Agenda item 8K is approved with seven votes. I will entertain a motion on agenda item 8L.

Commissioner Benke again.

I was waiting to see if somebody else wanted to, but I got the page here. So agenda item 8L, major sign adjustment based on the staff recommendation, the presentation and discussions at this evening's public hearing. I move to approve the major sign adjustment for sign score footage for 406 square feet as proposed because the application complies with criteria for the approval of Code Section 146, dash 5.4.4.D.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance for the reasons stated in the staff report.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Bank. It's been moved to approve agenda item 8L. Is there a second? Commissioner Riley, thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve 8L. I'll open the floor for discussion. Just to add for the minutes, I think that all of these agenda items precedent to this and this agenda item are clear candidates again for more efficiency as our amazing planning staff is looking for ways to potentially amend our UDO and amend our code or amend processes. These are again great examples of in this particular area next to I-70, next to 470, visibility just makes sense. And some of these things could be administrative and we would love for them to be administrative where there are no clear adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. So I have no issues with these, and I'm sure we'll see a few more, but hopefully in the future we can streamline the process even further. Further discussion on the adoption of 8L. Seeing none, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Jachik?

Approve.

Commissioner Bush? Approve. Commissioner Becker?

Approve.

Commissioner Benka?

Approve.

Commissioner Briley?

I approve.

Commissioner Hogan.

Approve.

And Commissioner Walz also votes to approve. Agenda item 8L is approved. Susan, do we have any members of the public signed up to speak on non-agenda items?

Chair Walz, we do not.

Okay. I will open the floor for commissioners for any announcements or any miscellaneous items of business. Commissioner Riley.

Thank you. I have two items. One is on public notices and the other is on basically what you just spoke about, chair walls on additional signage. I would like to say until there's a public notice sign update taken care of, I think we need to recommend the use of one by two stakes or the green fence posts that are placed 12 inches deep into the ground. And if they're secured to a fence, they should be done with uh 11 to 12 gauge bailing wire or the more significant zip ties i believe that every day the applicants should be checking their signs i believe that there should be timely removal and for the marking of the signs i'd recommend recommend the king size sharpies for the administrative process that chair walls just spoke about over the last several reviews we've done it's been about signage and I think we should be starting to look at amending the UDO so that again it is administrative we we need the visibility we're seeing these things and it's a very simple solution well I won't call it simple because it will require staff work in our involvement but to prepare to look at how to reduce the the signage requirements that consistently come before us as Aurora continues to grow on these major corridors Thank you very much.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Riley. Director Rustad, I saw your video.

Thank you. This is something we take seriously. Brandon, in his update, will show how we've strengthened the language when we give the signs to applicants. But we are looking at notice and appeal, and this will be wrapped up into that. Our team, Brandon's team, have a lot of UDO amendments and projects that they're looking on, and notice and appeals is one.

Great. Thank you, Director Rustad. Commissioner Riley, would you be opposed to a 14-inch depth? No, I'm just kidding. Sorry, I had to lighten the mood there. It's been a long meeting. Any other announcements or miscellaneous items of business? Okay, moving on to our Planning Division Manager report. Brandon, the floor is yours.

Uh, thank you chair. Um, I think, uh, Susan's gonna pull up that doc for me. And so just as a little bit of context. Make it as big as we can there. So we've always had a document of this sort and says more or less similar things we have emphasized, um, with bolding and clarifying some of the aspects of that. Uh, so you can see the bold and underlying stuff up there, um, at the top, um, And, you know, we've, we have always, uh, you know, talked about the physical posting and and to implore folks to use more robust, uh, features there. Um, and also, you know, we do implore folks to pull down the sign, uh, after 1 week after the decision. So, um, we've. Reformatted this and tried to make it more emphasize on the things that folks are failing at. Um, so hopefully that'll help in conjunction with, um, you know, the beating the correct beating of the drum that occurs at this meeting. And so that's kind of where we are on that topic. There's any questions I can be happy to answer those.

Great. Thank you, Brandon. Would you guys be willing to send that out to us so that we could refer back to that?

Absolutely. You could have your checklist at the site for sure.

Okay. Thank you. Questions about the new posting rules? Okay. Anything else, Brandon?

Um, no, um, nothing really new at city council. They wrapped up the tap is rezone on annexation on 2nd reading. Um, so that's all I can think of percolating at city council commissioner Hogan.

I did want to speak to upcoming study sessions Brandon if we could. Okay. We have a May 13th study session. And again, sorry for the back to backers that is presented by pros and our landscape staff. This has to do with a project update as well as future parks. And this will be a lively discussion, particularly in lieu of some of the water restrictions. that also apply to our parks. So that is coming on May 13th. By way of reminder, we have the planning retreat on May 21st. Please make sure that you respond to Susan and or Stephanie related to your attendance at that retreat. It's an in-person retreat, and it's one of the few opportunities that we get to see our planning staff in person as well. And we will also meet Ms. Robin for the first time. So please plan to be there on the 21st. We have a number of items that we'll be talking about. We'll be talking about a refresher of our bylaws. We will be talking about training and role plays with appeals. which fortunately we haven't had a whole lot of those, but we did for a period of time and we may again. So it's just training for us as well as staff presentations on appeals. And then we will be looking at public notification process. So it's not just the review of the application. I think our desire is actually to talk about the process. What we do what are best practices elsewhere, and what we can do to improve public notification, not only postings, but mailings. I know we seem to talk and talk about this a lot, but it's really the objective in my mind is to get some very tangible things that we can do and say, okay, we've talked and talked and talked about this, but we are going to implement these steps. So that's the quick, as well as Ms. Lena gets to do our legislative update because, you know, the legislature will soon be back and or forth. And that's just playing a pivotal role in planning. So again, May 21st, please make sure that Susan and Stephanie are confirmed of your attendance. It's an important thing that we do and looking forward to it. Brendan, did you have anything else?

Susan has her. Yeah, Susan, go ahead.

I just want to double check that everybody doesn't need a reminder, or would you like me to send out an email tomorrow saying, hey, here's a reminder, please respond, yes?

Yes, please. That would be great.

Thank you.

The time and the room also. I'm assuming we'll meet in the Aurora room, but don't know that.

Correct. And I will make sure all that information's in the reminder. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Hogan. All great info. Would have been amazing under Agenda Item 10, the Commissioner open floor, open mic, but nevertheless, thank you. Brandon, did you have anything else for your report? No, Chair. Okay. Thank you. We will go to our City Attorney report. Lena, go ahead.

Nothing for you all this evening, but available if there's any questions.

Questions for Lena? Okay, thank you, Lena. Okay, final address.

Chair, if I may, because Lena usually does a bit of a legislative update. There is a House Bill 26-1114 that I will be testifying in opposition to. At the request of City Council, this is a bill that would prohibit lots. Let me see. That shall not require that a parcel have an area larger than 2,000 square feet. There is also an accompanying bill. I forget. That's 26-1308. That one is postponed. That would prohibit or require that a subdivision of lots... down to 1200 square feet be administrative. Just by way of reference, our small lots are 1500 square feet for single family, 1250 for a duplex. But what the legislation doesn't include is any of the livability requirements. So that is the big basis of our opposition that we have spent over two years looking at this, making sure what we do is right for our community. And good intent, bad outcome.

Gotcha. Thank you. Questions on what Director Rustad will be testifying to? All right. Thank you for that update. Good luck. That will be fun. Any final announcements before we adjourn? Okay. Seeing none, I move that we adjourn this. Oh, go ahead, Commissioner Bush.

All right. It's a great meeting.

Yes, thank you. I move that we adjourn this evening's meeting. Is there a second? Thank you, Commissioner Jachek. Meeting adjourned. Have a wonderful evening, everyone. Thank you all.

Thank you. Bye. Thank you.