Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. It is Wednesday, the 10th of June, 2026. I now call this regularly scheduled virtual meeting of the Aurora Planning and Zoning Commission to order. I'll now call the role of commissioners. And right off the top, Commissioner Robin Becker has let us know that she will be absent for this evening's meeting. But we'll go ahead and call her in the role just in case she happened to be here last minute and we don't see her in the list. Commissioner Becker, are you present? Okay, I'll continue with the roll. Commissioner Jachek?

Present.

Commissioner Bush? Present. Commissioner Benko?

Present.

Commissioner Riley? I am present.

Thank you. Commissioner Hogan?

Present.

and Commissioner Walz is also present. We've established a voting quorum with six members of the Commission present this evening. The Pledge of Allegiance will not be said tonight as this meeting is virtual. We'll move on to the minutes for May the 27th, 2026. Everyone received a draft of those minutes. You all had an opportunity to read them. 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? Thank you, Commissioner Banka. It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes from the 27th of May as presented without objection. Is there any discussion on the motion? Without discussion, is there any objection? Without objection, the minutes from the 27th of May will be approved. Tonight, we've got three items of general business across two applications with the same applicant, items eight A through C. 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, is there any discussion on the motion? Without discussion, is there any objection? Without objection, the agenda will be approved. 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. Afterwards, 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.

Vincent, go open the garage door for your mom.

Hurry. Susan, can we please hop on mute there? Thank you so much. 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 website, and then development projects were posted with signs on the properties. Notices were also mailed to adjacent landowners per city requirements. Without consent, our first agenda item is agenda item 8A, which is the 161-121 South Gun Club Road application, recording for the minutes commissioner site visits. Commissioner Jachik. Commissioner Banka, Commissioner Hogan, Commissioner Bush, Commissioner Riley, and Commissioner Walz. Okay, agenda item 8A, 161 and 121, South Gun Club Road. And Stephen, just double checking, even though these are two separate applications for A, B, and C, I'm assuming you'll be presenting them all in a single hearing?

That's correct. It'll be a single presentation.

Okay, so we will open the hearing for 8A, 8B, and 8C. Let the minutes show that the commissioners attended all three sites or their site visits applied to all three agenda items. And that would be 161, 121 South Gun Club Road, which is zoning map amendment, the initial zoning to MUR. Then we've got the initial zoning to MUR for 222 South Gun Club Road. And then for 222 South Gun Club Road, finally, we have the initial zoning to R3 for the third parcel there. I will open the floor. Stephen, it is yours. Take it away.

Excellent. Thank you and good evening, Commissioners. My name is Stephen Gubrud, and I'm a planner with the Aurora Planning and Business Development Department. Tonight, I'll be presenting agenda items 8A, 8B, and 8C for your consideration and recommendation to City Council. These items are three proposed zoning map amendments for initial zoning, which are being requested in tandem with two annexations for the corresponding properties. These annexations are proposed separately and sequentially in order to establish the required jurisdictional connectivity to qualify for annexation. As these proposals are highly interrelated, I'll provide a presentation covering all three requests first, with staff recommendation for all cases at the end. Kicking things off with agenda item 8A, the applicant, LJA Engineering, on behalf of the property owner, 7N, LLC, is requesting approval of a zoning map amendment for the initial zoning of two properties totaling approximately 20.49 acres. The properties are currently located within unincorporated Arapahoe County and are being requested for annexation into the City of Aurora. The requested zoning for these properties is MUR, Mixed Use Regional Zone District, and the subject properties are also located within the Innovation Campus District place type, according to the Aurora Places Comprehensive Plan. No speculative land use or site plan has been provided at this juncture, as the subject development application is intended only to address the proposed jurisdictional change. This slide shows a vicinity map of the subject properties associated with this initial zoning request. The properties are located on the southwest corner of South Gun Club Road and the alignment of East Bayaud Avenue, otherwise generally located north of the intersection of Gun Club Road and Alameda Avenue on the west side of Gun Club Road. These parcels are each slightly over 10 acres in size, again totaling approximately 20.49 acres combined. This aerial map shows a more up-to-date image of the site from February of this year. As you can see, the land is currently undeveloped. Directly to the west is a city-owned tract of open space, and further to the west you can also note the nearby E-470 right-of-way. The the property is currently located within unincorporated arapahoe county sir the surrounding city of zoning city of aurora zoning districts include em you are mixed use regional to the north. POS parks and open space zoning to the West, with a sliver also extending to the north and then there's also nearby ad airport district zoning to the southwest. On this screen is a place type map indicating the underlying Aurora Places Comprehensive Plan place types within the area. Again, the area to the west of South Gun Club Road, including the subject properties, is located within the Innovation Campus District, which I will speak about at greater length shortly. The areas to the east of South Gun Club Road are located within the Emerging Neighborhood place type. And further to the south of the subject properties, there is a swath of urban green space place type, which runs along the Coal Creek Corridor. I'll now go through some of the site photos relating to these subject properties, specifically for item 8a. Here we have a west-facing view of the northern property, which is bound to the north by East Bayaud Avenue. This image is taken from the Southgun Club Road right-of-way. And this is also a west-facing view of the more southerly of the two properties, also as viewed from South Gun Club Road. Lastly, we do have images of the public notice signs posted for this particular development application. Five adjacent property owners and seven registered neighborhood organizations were notified of the application. For this development application, no public comments were received. Therefore, no neighborhood meeting was held. For the subsequent agenda items, 8B and 8C, public comments were received, which I will speak about at greater length later in this presentation. Notices for tonight's hearing were mailed to abutting property owners and public notice signs were posted a minimum of 10 days prior to tonight's hearing in accordance with the requirements of city code. The major issue discussed for this case was ensuring that the requested and you are mixed use regional zone district demonstrates compatibility with the underlying innovation campus campus district place type. The image currently on screen shows the resulting zoning if this proposal were to be approved. As you can see, the MUR zone district would be largely consistent with the MUR designated areas to the north, which extend north along the South Gun Club Road and E-470 corridors. The MUR district is intended to serve image-making areas in Aurora, such as gateways, major arterial streets, and highway intersections, as well as regional activity centers. The MUR district allows for a mix of medium to high density residential and regional commercial uses. The M.U.R. district intends to promote a distinctive, unified character and ensure high quality development. As previously mentioned, the subject site is also located within the Innovation Campus district place type, according to the comprehensive plan. The Innovation Campus is intended to foster new ideas and enterprises by bringing together different people, companies and institutions. Primary uses for the Innovation District include office and light industrial business parks, along with institutional facilities such as churches, schools, and cultural sites. Primary uses are intended to interact horizontally to promote integration across the various industries that fill the place type. Secondary uses for the Innovation Campus include townhome and multifamily residential development, restaurant, retail, open space, and urban agriculture. The MU-R demonstrates compatibility with this place type, as it allows a wide array of office, institutional, commercial, and retail activities, as well as permitting the support of townhome and multifamily residential options. That concludes the informative portions of my presentation pertaining to agenda item 8A. I'll now proceed on to presenting agenda items 8B and 8C, again with staff recommendation for all three cases to follow. Regarding Agenda Items 8B and 8C, LJA Engineering is also the applicant representing the owner, PCG Holdings LLC, and they are requesting approval of zoning map amendments for the initial zoning of two additional properties located on either side of South Gun Club Road. These properties are also located within unincorporated Arapahoe County directly to the south and east of the parcels associated with Item 8A. The requested zoning for these properties is M.U.R. Mixed Use Regional for the property located on the west side of South Gun Club Road associated with Agenda Item 8B and R3 Medium Density Multifamily Residential for the larger property located directly on the northeast corner of Gun Club Road and Alameda Avenue, which is associated with Agenda Item 8C. The property associated with agenda item 8B again on the west side of gun club road is also located within the innovation campus district place type, whereas the property on the east side of gun club road is located within the emerging neighborhood place type. Again, no site plan has been provided for these requests, as the intent is to address the zoning requirements associated with the proposed jurisdictional change. This slide shows the areas proposed for annexation and initial zoning. I've added the corresponding agenda items to the relevant parcels here just for your reference. The property located to the west of South Gun Club Road is approximately 10 acres in size, whereas the other parcel is approximately 35.7 acres. And again, here we have an aerial map, which shows a relatively up-to-date image of both properties, which are also both currently vacant and undeveloped. Both properties are located within and surrounded to the north, east, and south by unincorporated Arapaho County. However, the subject parcel for agenda item 8B is bordered to the west by POS parks and open space zoning with MUR zoning nearby to the north and AD airport district zoning nearby to the southwest. The subject parcel for item 8B falls within the Innovation Campus District, similarly to the previous request. Whereas the subject parcel for item 8C located on the northeast corner of Gun Club Road and Alameda Avenue is located within the emerging neighborhood place type according to the Aurora Places Comprehensive Plan. Again, there's also a portion of urban green space place type located further to the south and east. Jumping into some site photos, this is a photo of the site associated with request 8B taken looking west from Gun Club Road. And here we have an east-facing view of the larger parcel associated with Request 8C that is also as viewed from Gun Club Road. And then here we have a north-facing view of that same parcel, the one associated with Request 8C, and that is as seen from Alameda Avenue. And again, here we have the various public notice signs associated with this application, which were posted for tonight's hearing. 17 adjacent property owners and seven and seven registered neighborhood organizations were notified of this application. With the initial submittal and review of the application in November of 2025, several written comments were received that expressed potential concerns regarding impacts to traffic, drainage, residential density, and the like. These comments have been included within Exhibit E in tonight's packet. Due to the volume and subject matter of these comments, staff requested that the applicant host a neighborhood meeting. A virtual meeting did occur on February 23rd, 2026. During that meeting, these same issues, which I will delve into further shortly, were discussed with the community. Following noticing for tonight's hearing, three additional written comments were received, which have been added as blue sheets for your reference. Major issues discussed and resolved throughout the review process for these items included zoning compatibility with the underlying place types, particularly the emerging neighborhood for that parcel on the east side of Gun Club Road, addressing the comments submitted by the nearby residents and expressed at the neighborhood meeting, particularly those expressed by residents of the Thunderbird Estates development located to the east of the subject property for Agenda Item 8C and the jurisdictional status of the adjacent Alameda Avenue right of way to the south of the parcel, which is the subject of Agenda Item 8C. The image currently on screen shows the resulting zoning of these properties if the proposal were to be approved. I'll refrain from duplicating my description of the MUR zone district as the parcel on the west of Gun Club falls into that same designation as the ones we previously discussed. However, I will note that the designation of MUR at this proposed location would result in further continuity of this district extending north. The R3 district proposed for the parcel on the east side of Gun Club Road is intended to promote and preserve development of medium density, single family and multifamily housing in close proximity to collector streets and public transit facilities. Uses in this district include a diverse range of housing types ranging from single family and two family residences to medium density multifamily. The district generally prohibits commercial activity except for home occupations and typical neighborhood services. As the requested zoning and place type for 8B are the same as those described in 8A, the same analysis would be applicable. Emerging neighborhood is the underlying comprehensive plan place type applicable to zoning request 8C. The emerging neighborhood is intended to provide opportunity for a diversity of residential housing types within the place type, placing emphasis on providing complete neighborhoods, featuring bicycle infrastructure, walkability, and efficient connections to adjacent place types. Primary uses within the emerging neighborhood include single-family detached, townhome, and multi-family residential options. Secondary uses include limited retail, restaurant, and commercial uses typically located along or at the intersection of arterial roads, along with institutional open space and urban agriculture uses intended to support residential neighborhoods. The R3 zone district demonstrates compatibility with the listed primary land uses in that it permits the development of single family, townhome, and multifamily housing types as a use by right, while largely limiting non-residential uses to those intended to directly serve the needs of residential neighborhoods such as schools, parks, civic and cultural facilities, as well as urban agriculture. Another key issue for staff was for the applicant to address the concerns posed by the public, both through initial public comment and at the aforementioned neighborhood meeting. Currently listed on screen are some of the concerns raised by residents of the adjacent neighborhood. These concerns are particularly applicable to the parcel associated with agenda item 8C, for which the proposed zoning is R3. These concerns include questions about drainage patterns and floodplain mitigation, traffic congestion and future roadway improvements, impact to local open space and view sheds, and ongoing issues with code compliance and crime in the area. Staff recognizes the impact zoning matters have on nearby residents and have engaged internal departments during review, including utilities, drainage, and traffic, to clarify any potential impacts to future development of these properties. Staff has identified that portions of the proposed properties are located within the 100-year floodplain, and that encroachment into the floodplain requires a floodplain development permit per Section 70-8 of Aurora City Code, and typically also requires a no-rise analysis or standard hydraulic engineering assessment. If a finding of no-rise cannot be achieved, a conditional letter of map revision or CLOMER must be obtained from FEMA prior to development of such areas. As it pertains to traffic impacts, public improvements, view sheds, and potential mitigation practices, staff agrees that these are essential considerations for development of land and would iterate that any such future proposed development will comply with the standards prescribed by the City of Aurora's Unified Development Ordinance, City Code, and all other applicable requirements indicated within the City's Development Handbook at the time that such development proposal occurs. Furthermore, any development of these properties shall be subject to the appropriate planning review process, including legal noticing standards adopted at such time. Staff agrees with the applicant's assessment that such such issues cannot be addressed through this annexation driven zoning process as no speculative use or plans have been provided at this time. Lastly, the other key issue pertaining to the zoning proposal for 8C is regarding the Alameda Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the southern edge of the subject parcel. During initial review, a number of comments were received from Arapahoe County pertaining to their recently completed study for and proposed improvements to the South Gun Club Road and East Alameda Avenue intersection. Critically, the county expressed their desire for the existing Alameda Avenue right-of-way to remain within Arapahoe County jurisdiction. Although not typical, after discussion between city management and the county, it was determined that this request would be honored. For this reason, the annexation and zoning boundaries were modified at second submittal to reflect this change and no longer include the existing 40-foot right-of-way or 60-foot private track buffer to the south. Through this zoning application process, staff have established a basis of communication with the county's planning, engineering, and transportation departments and will ensure the appropriate collaboration occurs if and when future development of these properties are proposed. Currently listed on screen are the approval criteria for zoning map amendments listed within UDO section 146-5.4.1.C.3. For agenda item 8A, staff recommends approval of the zoning map amendment for the initial zoning of approximately 20.49 acres to the MUR zone district to city council because it complies with the zoning map amendment approval criteria for the reasons currently listed on screen and within the staff report. For agenda item 8B, staff also recommends approval of the zoning map amendment for the initial zoning of approximately 10 acres to the MUR zone district to city council because it complies with the zoning map amendment approval criteria for the reasons currently listed on screen and stated within the staff report. and for item 8c staff also recommends approval of the zoning map amendment for the initial zoning of approximately 35.7 acres to the r3 zone district to city council because it complies with the zoning map amendment approval criteria for the reasons currently listed on screen and within the staff report and with that i've completed my presentation and i'm available for any questions you may have the applicant is also present and available for questions they do not have a presentation following staff this evening thank you

Great. Thank you so much, Stephen. I'll open the floor for questions from the commission first for staff, and then we can move to questions for the applicant. Commissioner Jachik.

Okay. I just saw the screen for item 8B, and it read 25 acres instead of 10, or 20.49 acres, and you said it was 10 acres.

Yeah. Apologies. That was a typo. For 8B, we are looking at approximately a 10-acre parcel.

Okay, so we need to correct this?

Correct, yeah. Okay. When you make a motion for recommendation, you would want to say 10 acres for AB.

Okay. Further questions from the commission for staff? Commissioner Riley, then Commissioner Hogan.

Thank you. a well prepared presentation, which certainly augmented everything we read earlier this week. And I appreciate the detail once again, that we're getting, especially regarding the fact that this is not in development yet. This is only a rezoning requirement, because I know there's many other questions that we'll probably have in the future about safety and road, things like that. So thank you for that. You did mention a blue sheet.

I don't think we received a blue sheet.

Did anybody else on the commission receive the blue sheet?

Correct. I didn't receive a blue sheet either.

I sent that out this morning.

I don't think that went out, Susan.

At least I don't have it in my city email for this morning. I didn't get it either.

My apologies, but I must not have sent it to the Planning Commission. I am so sorry.

Stephen, can you describe in a little bit more detail what was contained in the blue sheet? And if you have it handy, would you be able to display it on the screen as well? While Susan tries to send that out.

In fact, I think I can go ahead and display that and read over some of those items for you. So this is the blue sheet document. Oh no, this is not the blue sheet. Let me see if I can't track that down real quick here. I know I have a copy of it.

Here we go.

While he's looking for that, Commissioner Hogan, did you want to move forward with your question? Oh, he's got it ready.

Yep, here we go, folks. So here I have some comments. Those were submitted to me by Cindy Hole of the Thunderbird Estates, indicating concerns with flood zone patterns and mitigation of the floodplain. Also containing some communications they had with the county representatives. And then also some concerns regarding the possibility of through traffic occurring within the adjacent development. Some images showing some of the floods that have occurred in the past. We. Bear with me, I'm just gonna continue to sift through these slowly. Looks like some damage that may have been caused by flooding. Additionally, I do have some comments from Bonnie Rader, speaking towards the responses provided by the applicant to the initial comments which she provided. Again, concerns about the floodplain area. Concerns about there being no site plan component at this at this point in time.

Further comments on the floodplain.

From what I can see on your screen, this is about 10 pages. Is that correct?

That's accurate.

I think what I would like to do at this time, because it looks like this blue sheet specifically covers a lot of the issues addressed and might potentially be addressed by public testimony, I think I would like to move to a 10-minute recess. Susan, either post it in the chat or try and get it sent out. I think it's important for all commissioners to go through this blue sheet. Read these comments.

I will send that out right now. My sincere apologies.

And we can reconvene. Brandon, would staff have any objections to a 10-minute recess?

No, Chair. That's fine.

Okay. Time is now 640. Why don't we give one or two minutes for Susan and the email delivery. So we will move to recess, reconvening promptly at 652. reconvening at 6.52.

Thanks, everyone. Hey, good evening again, everyone.

I will now call the meeting back to order of the Aurora Planning and Zoning Commission. Time is now 6.52 on June the 10th, 2026. I will call the role of commissioners to establish a voting quorum.

Commissioner Bush. Commissioner Jacek? Present. Commissioner Banka?

Present.

Commissioner Riley?

I am present. Commissioner Hogan?

Present.

Commissioner Walz is also present. Commissioner Becker is previously excused due to a pre-notified absence. We've established a voting quorum, and I will reconvene the meeting, officially calling back to order. You all had a chance to review the blue sheet. I will open the floor for questions from the commission for staff, the applicant. In light of what I just reviewed, I'd like to ask the applicant, if we have a representative from the applicants, I believe, which is LJ present, if they could sort of address some of those concerns that were raised by public comments submitted on the blue sheet, I have a feeling that we have at least one of those members signed up to speak for public testimony, but I would like to hear the applicant go through some of those areas of concern.

Absolutely. My name is Jonah Weiss. I'm with LJA. I'm a planner and a landscape architect. Thank you for having us tonight, and I'm happy to address those concerns. A great deal of those concerns had to do with flooding, localized flooding. I want to be clear that A portion of the property is in the 100 year floodplain, but it's a small portion of the property. It's about one acre in the southwest corner. I don't know what the causes of the flooding in Thunderbird Estates are. It could be localized issues with drainage. It could be issues with water crossing the 222 Gun Club parcel and making its way to Coal Creek in the Southwest corner. It's important to note that the subject property tonight is lower in elevation than Thunderbird Estate, so all that water that you saw on their property has to cross through our property in order to get to the receiving water body, which is Coal Creek. Regardless of that, addressing floodplain issues or flooding is not an approval criteria for initial zoning.

Were there other questions you'd like me to address or other items?

Questions from the commission? Commissioner Hogan.

This is a question for staff. Stephen, do you have a site plan that shows the area of flooding influence on this property or on the proposed site?

You're muted, Steven.

Hi, Becky. Thank you, Commissioner Hogan, for that question. I do not have a site plan that would show that information. There are GIS databases that have that information, but I don't have, let's see, anything. particularly prepared, except for I do have a bit of a visual provided by our drainage team with the city that might show some of that information. Let me go ahead and present that to you right now.

Steven, also, page 42 of the packet has a site that shows the 100-year.

Oh, thank you for that information, Jonah.

Yeah, yeah.

So this is a little bit of a rough graphic you're seeing right here provided by our drainage team. You can see the light blue is that 100-year floodplain.

And this is the subject property. I believe that map is out of date. There was a map revision done that Removed a lot of the property out of that floodplain, but that's all engineering items that will need to be addressed prior in the sort of the next steps of this process when the development proposal.

I.

I think we may have lost you, Jonah. And your comments are noted, but it's also the commission's responsibility to understand public testimony and any concerns raised by public testimony. Then the commission itself will deal and measure those against the existing code for zoning map change, for initial zoning, for potential annexation. Further questions from the commission? Commissioner Banca?

Yes, so when I read that, I think I saw in there somewhere that the major flooding was that 2013 flood, which I mean, I've been in my home 42 years and I've never had flooding anywhere. And yet Horseshoe Park looked like an ocean. So I think that was a very unique situation. That doesn't happen very often. But my question is, before they issue building permits and let them start building, I mean, we're looking at the zoning to change the zoning, if I'm not mistaken. And before they actually build or do something, I'm guessing that staff will address the floodplain issues before building permits are issued. Am I correct?

Steven or Brandon, could you walk us through a little bit of the process, assuming that tonight happened, assuming that the initial zoning was approved by the commission and that moves forward, what then would be the responsibility of future developers to mitigate any of these issues?

Again, I'd express that any portions of the proposed properties that are located within the 100-year floodplain would require a floodplain development permit and a no-rise analysis. And again, in the absence of that no-rise being able to be achieved, they would have to coordinate with FEMA to get a sign-off for a conditional letter of map revision to allow development in such areas. So it's a fairly involved review of the floodplains, especially if it goes to a federal level.

And Chair, I'll add a little bit more too. In general, with any sort of, there's a lot of, so the entitlement process kind of goes from high level general to more and more detailed. And so the rezoning is a general entitlement review of general anticipated land use. And that's what we're looking at here. If this is approved and then they want to develop something, they'll have to pursue a more detailed plan, which may be a site plan or a neighborhood plan, potentially, or a master plan. And all those have a drainage component to analyze drainage in conformance with city rules, as well as traffic analysis. in those things. And as we get more and more detailed, those studies become more and more detailed. And so that's the assurance that we have in those regards. So there's a long way to go before things would be constructed on this site.

Great. Thank you, Brandon. And just to take that one step further, for the members of the Commission and members of the public that are present, moving forward with this annexation and the zoning, three the two applications the three agenda items we have before us this would sort of allow future developers to address and mitigate some of these conditions that may be happening now um that without potential future annexation or future development on the property may continue to exist um should this happen that would be correct no correct precisely yep great thank you further questions from the commission Commissioner Hogan.

I have two questions, Commissioner Walz. The first is I understand that water is discussed via a development agreement a little later on in the process. However, when considering zoning, is there any discussion with the applicant and the city related to will serve types of letters for water? Because you still can't build without water. And it seems to be odd to talk about allowed uses or zoning changes and not at least have some kind of discussion about water.

Yes, we did discuss the provision of water services again internally with Aurora Water and they did provide sign off that they would be able to provide that service at this location.

Great. So you have something in writing that says they will cert?

I don't believe that anything in writing has necessarily been provided at this juncture.

I think that would be handled more through the annexation process itself, which is not before us today. And so by way of that, that is where those things are generally handled.

Okay. Second question is, my only concern with the blue sheet is that questions were asked by individuals but I didn't see really an answer so I know that Commissioner chair Walz alluded to somebody please answer these folks but these were recent enough does anybody reach out and answer these folks Commissioner Hogan I would respond that these blue sheet items were received yesterday and so

a there may not have been time to respond to these as of yet and b typically that would be handled in a comment and response which occurs during the review but these were received after the review had already occurred which I completely understand that staff didn't have time to respond but I'm asking is is it necessary or should it be necessary should it

additional time be allowed so somebody can answer these folks before we say yay or nay to a rezone?

I think, Commissioner Hogan, I would direct you to the requirements for setting initial zoning for this type of agenda item. And I would ask you to look specifically to those requirements in our code. And that, unfortunately, while I understand what you're getting at, And I understand your point and purpose. It's not one of our requirements to have this presented to the commission. It's being presented here. We do have members of the public present. This is a public hearing. Next step after this, public will get to have testimony. You all will get to ask questions. The applicant will have a chance to respond. You'll get to ask more questions of the applicant. That's the purpose of this evening's meeting at this point.

Perfect. Thank you.

Great. Further questions from the commission for staff or the applicant before we move to public testimony? Okay, seeing none, Susan, do we have any members of the public sign up to speak?

Chair Walz, we do, and that person is Cindy Hall.

Okay, and I will get the timer ready. Cindy, you will have three minutes to speak. Please state your name for the record, and if you are an Aurora resident. And I'll just double check. that you're unmuted or you're able to unmute yourself.

You should be able to.

Great. Thank you. Cindy, are you with us? You should be able to unmute your microphone.

Cindy, are you there? One last call for Cindy Hull. I see that your hand's raised. You have the ability to unmute your microphone.

If you are on the Teams app, if you're on a desktop computer, the microphone button should be at the top right of the Teams window. If you're on the phone, I believe it's on the bottom center, bottom left, bottom right of your cell phone.

I found it. Can you hear me?

Yes. Go ahead.

Thanks all for letting me speak tonight. And I'm so very happy. that there was this thing called the blue sheet so that you could see my correspondence, really everybody's correspondence and the photos that I had submitted. I probably submitted about 16 of these photos taken over a period of many years. So this isn't something that just happens as a fluke once in a great while. I would say we probably get a good storm like that. I would say on an average, maybe one time a year. And what happens is all of the rain water comes down from the east and just flows down through my property. I am bordered on the perimeter of 8C, so I'm just bordering that development. And as the water goes through there, it does flow down as Jonah said, because that property is lower to the development where a lot of the flooding happens to my, my big concern is, is, though, when they start the development, I'm assuming that they are going to be raising elevating that development area. What is going to happen with all of that water? that is now flowing down to gun club road it's going to back up into my property um if it's not planned this there's no site plan that's proper and i have buildings and all kinds of things on my property that are going to be destroyed so that is my major concern is that site plan for uh You know, taking care of that water issue, because it is, as you saw in the pictures, and I don't know if you saw all 16 of them, but it's a doozy out here when we get a lot of rain. And then, of course, another 1 of my issues is. And you read it in in the correspondence with the traffic and. And just the aesthetic look of our, our semi rural area out here with. horseback riders and people with chickens and livestock and all of that, having something like an apartment building or a high-rise multifamily unit out here would just take away from this area so badly. I'd hate to see that happen. So that's basically what my issues are. And thank you for letting me speak tonight.

Yes, thank you for your testimony, Cindy. Hang on right there. Let me ask the commission if they have any questions for public testimony. Commissioners, do you have any questions for Ms. Hall? Okay, thank you so much for your testimony. Susan, do we have any other members of the public sign up to speak?

Sure, Walsh, we do not.

Okay, I will give the applicant five minutes to respond to public testimony. Jonah, if you're still with us.

I am thank you Cindy for your comments. We we do take them to heart and understand your concerns. You know, part of having this project develop may actually improve drainage across your property and other properties to the east and north of this site. Typically, when development occurs, we are required or the developer or the development is required to make sure that water passes across that property. And not doesn't get backed up as far as the questions about raising the property or doing other specific. Improvements I just don't have information at this time about that since we don't have a site plan established. The other concern that Cindy brought up was traffic, and I'd like to note that the recently adopted. Transportation multi sorry multimodal transportation master plan indicated that gun club was going to be improved and widened that it was a arterial, a four lane arterial. It indicated that Alameda was going to be a four lane arterial. Arterials are major roads, that are designed to handle increased traffic. In addition, my understanding is that a signal is going to be provided at some point at the intersection of Gun Club and Alameda. So that should help improve traffic conditions in the entire area.

I don't have any other comments.

Okay. Thank you, Jonah. Final opportunity for questions from the commission for the applicant or for staff. Okay, seeing none, we will close this portion of the public hearing and I will entertain a motion on agenda item 8A.

Commissioner Banka. All right, sorry. How to unmute. All right.

We go on. So regarding Agenda 8A, based on the staff recommendations, the presentation and discussion at this evening public hearing, I move to recommend approval to the City Council the 161 and 121 South Gun Club Road initial zoning zoning map amendment to MU-R mixed use regional district because the proposal complies with the requirements of the section 146-5.4.1.C of the unified development ordinance for the reason stated in the staff report. And I so move.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Vanka. It's been moved to approve agenda item 8A. Is there a second? Commissioner Jacek, thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to approve 8A. I'll open up the floor for discussion.

I think I'll state, I don't have an issue with supporting these zoning changes to set the initial zoning as requested, because I think that allowing the zoning and allowing the annexation in the future and allowing for future development on these properties, especially dealing with watershed and traffic will mitigate a lot of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors and in the neighborhood. This is truly a case where I think growth in this situation is probably a very positive thing because the city now will have some control over that growth and we'll have control to be based upon our code to be able to mitigate many of these concerns for all of our residents in the area. And I think that's important. And I think that's a key piece to focus on in the requirements and looking at the requirements for setting these zoning map amendments for the initial zoning. So I could support this. Further discussion on 8A?

Seeing none, I will call the roll. Commissioner Jetic?

Approve.

Commissioner Bush?

I didn't quite catch that. Commissioner Bush, was that an approval?

Okay. Then we've got Commissioner Banka?

Approve. And I would like to echo what you said, therefore my motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Banka. Commissioner Riley? I approve. Commissioner Hogan?

Approve.

And Commissioner Walz also votes to approve. Agenda item 8A is approved for six votes.

I will entertain a motion on agenda item 8B.

This is Commissioner Jachek. Agenda item 8B, oops, I got the wrong one. There it is. Zoning map amendment to initially zone to MU-R. Based on the staff recommendation, the presentation discussion at this evening's public hearing, I move to approve to city council, approval to city council, the 222 South Gun Club Road initial zoning, zoning map amendment to MU-R Mixed Use Regional for the subject parcel number 1975-12.4-00-004, located on the west side of South Concord Road, because the proposal complies with the requirements of section 146-5.4.1.C of the Unified Development Ordinance for the reasons stated in the staff report.

Thank you, Commissioner Jetchik. It's been moved to approve agenda item 8B. Is there a second? I second. Thank you, Commissioner Bush. It's been moved and seconded to approve 8B. I'll open the floor for discussion. And I would like to record for the minutes. My comments on 8A will stand for 8B as well. Further discussion on the adoption of 8B? Seeing none, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Jetchik? Approve. Commissioner Bush? Approve. Commissioner Riley? Approve. Commissioner Banka.

Approve.

Commissioner Hogan.

Approve.

And Commissioner Walz also votes to approve. 8B is approved for six votes. I will entertain a motion on agenda item 8C. Commissioner Hogan.

Item 8C, zoning map amendment to initially zone to R3. Based upon staff recommendation, the presentation and discussion, At this evening's public hearing, I move to recommend for approval to the city council, the 222 South Gun Club Road, zoning map to R-3, medium density multifamily residential, zone district for the subject parcel, number 1977-07-3-00-001, located on the east side of South Gun Club Road because the proposal complies with the requirements of section 146-5.4.1.c of the Unified Development Ordinance for the reasons stated in the staff report.

Thank you, Commissioner Hogan. It's been moved to approve agenda item 8c. Is there a second? Thank you, Commissioner Banka. It's been moved and seconded to approve 8c. I'll open the floor for discussion on the motion. And noting for the minutes, my comments for 8A and B will stand for 8C as well.

This is Commissioner Jeschek.

Go ahead.

I can support this because it's simply a zoning amendment and we have not seen a site plan yet. We'll have to go through the whole process with site plan review and all the flooding and the traffic will be looked at again once we have a site plan.

Thank you, Commissioner Jacek. Further discussion on the adoption of HC? Seeing none, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Jacek. Approve. Commissioner Bush. Approve. Commissioner Banka.

Approve.

Commissioner Riley. I approve. Commissioner Hogan.

Approve.

And Commissioner Walz also votes to approve. HC is approved with six votes. Hey, Susan, do we have any members of the public signed up to speak on non-agenda items?

Chair Walz, we do not.

Okay. Are there any miscellaneous items of business, any announcements, any discussion by the commission?

Commissioner Riley.

I just want to thank staff for the timely access to NIRMAP. It's a nice tool to use. I'm still learning, but thank you for granting us that access.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Riley. I would also like to join in the staff appreciation for NIRMAP as well as the presentation this evening. Steven, you've been on your game lately. I would probably say always, but I really appreciated the presentation tonight and including those full narratives from the applicants. Again, one of our requests, and we've seen that now for a couple of meetings, you guys are on it. And I just want to say, I really appreciate it. It really, most of my questions are answered before I call the meeting to order. So I really appreciate that. Great job. Further announcements, discussion items by the Commission? Okay, we'll move to our Planning Division Manager report. Brandon, the floor is yours.

Uh, thank you chair walls. Uh, I don't have any administrative approvals to update you on since the last meeting. Um. Projects that have gone to city council through this body, uh, include tributary reasons, uh, that she saw a few weeks ago. And so those, um. Were passed on 1st reading of the city council there on Monday. So, um. Those are on track. That is all I have for an update. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Brandon. Commissioner Hogan?

Brandon, wasn't there a call-up at Monday evening's meeting by the neighborhood? Maybe I'm not using the correct term.

Yes.

Yes. Would you like to share with us about that?

Um, it was at the end of the meeting, so I was not there to hear verbatim the reasons, but it was called up, uh, by, uh, and it was the all in 1, uh, gas station liquor store there on harmony. So, um, you know, with a call up, uh, we approached that as a. I'll pretend I know what I'm talking about, de novo sort of presentation to City Council, as opposed to an appeal. We typically try to base it more on the record. So that is not yet scheduled, but that is where we're likely headed.

So just, Chair Walz, can I ask Brendan one more question?

Sure, as long as it doesn't dive too deep into any of the issues with that particular application.

So it will not. I'm just trying to discern the difference between the two. So on an appeal, the applicant has to literally make some kind of formal request to the city manager to appeal it, correct? Correct.

so an appeal applicant yeah an appeal can be appealed by the applicant or those identified in code in terms of abutting landowners as defined by code in terms of notice and so that is where appeal can occur and that is not what occurred in this instance so in this instance it was

I'll allow our, I see that Lena has raised her hand. So I'll allow our city attorney liaison to chime in.

Yeah.

Hi, thank you. Chair Walls, Lena McClellan, assistant or senior assistant city attorney. Brandon did actually do a good job of explaining that, but an appeal can only be done by either the applicant. or certain adjacent landowners as defined by the code. It has to be done within that 10 day period. Call-ups is a unique feature that is a right of city council. They may call up an item at any item, as long as it's prior to when that item has been called up. well, prior to the effective date of is what it says in the code. So the effective date is usually 30 days post approval. So in this case they were within the time limit. They have to bring a motion at a meeting and then it is required to be brought at the as soon as practicable following the date of the call up. And similar to an appeal, They do have the ability to approve, approve with conditions, modify, or they can actually reverse the decision. And they can also remand that decision back to the commission for further consideration if they choose to. And as Brandon mentioned, because this is not an appeal, it is a call up. We will be treating this essentially like it is a new application that is going in front of the council. However, as we would with other applications where you all were recommending, we will provide the minutes and a summary of planning commission's decision at the hearing in front of city council.

Commissioner Hogan, does that answer your question?

It does. Thank you.

Okay, great. Further questions for Brandon? All right. Thanks, Brandon. Lena, you could have just stayed on camera.

You're up.

I should have just. The minute I turned it off, I had that same thought, Chair. I have nothing to report this evening.

Great. Questions for Lena? Okay. Thanks again, Lena.

Just one final note before I move to adjourn. I just wanted to, my fellow commissioners, I just wanted to thank you all for your dedication to the city and to the commission. Commissioner Riley joining us on a cruise. I know that Commissioner Hogan has joined us on travel before. I believe Commissioner Banka may have joined us at an airport once. Commissioner Jechik. You would just come out of a procedure, a very painful procedure, and you joined us and were dealing that through personal pain. Commissioner Bush, I know that you had been through some medical issues and you had just gone through something and you joined us as well shortly after that. So I just wanted to send you all my love, my heart, and thank you for your service. And it's an absolute pleasure serving with you. So thank you. We appreciate you.

Yep.

Great. Nothing further. I move that we adjourn this evening's meeting. Do I have a second? All right. Have a great evening, everyone. Commissioner Riley, stay safe out there in the frozen north. We'll see you guys soon. Meeting adjourned. All right.

Thank you. Thank you, Garrett. Yes.