Scope of Services
There are essentially two Auroras. The first Aurora existed before 1980, and the second after 1980. The
scope of the amendment to the zoning code would concentrate on the zones and regulations created
before 1980. This City was zoned in the traditional manner by separating land uses into “commercial,”
residential” and “industrial districts.” These would be the R-1, B-1, M-1 and so forth zones. We would
also address the portions of the code which are zoned PD, known as “Planned Unit Developments.”
There are portions of the Aurora Zoning Code that are 50 years old. It has been amended continuously
through the years to respond to the various needs of citizens, developers, City Council, Planning
Commission and staff. It has ceased being a cohesive document in terms of its format, outlining use
tables, consistent definitions of uses given the large number of use tables, and is very cumbersome to
learn and to use.
More specifically, the document:




Disjointed. It has been amended so many times that use tables, definitions, and design
standards do not mesh. Requirements for the same type of project are scattered in multiple
portions of the code. For example, the requirements for single family development are located
in Articles 5,9,10,12,13,14,15,16, and 17. It would help if there was a master land use table as
well. There are currently approximately 18 land use tables that are not referenced to the
applicable design standards. There are approximately 53 separate tables outlining standards.
These need to be made accessible to a user who is interested in building a single project.
Inflexible. Portions of the code are outdated and do not respond to changing markets,
demographics, technology, and living arrangements. Our business zones need to become more
flexible by allowing a mix of commercial and residential uses. The definitions of family and group
homes need to be amended to accommodate a diverse set of needs and changing
demographics. Additional opportunities need to be provided for live/work arrangements, and
the accommodation of small business into a variety of settings. The zoning code needs to be
responsive to a very diverse community.
Not Customer Friendly. Much of the code was created in an attempt to force builders and
developers to engage in quality development. This was done by writing extensive specifications,
particularly the use of numbers. This made a very inflexible code, and much time is spent in
waivers, variances, and hearings which extend the review time and cost both the applicant and
the city time and money.
Not Related to the Comprehensive Plan. There are some portions of the code that are not
related to the comprehensive plan. The reason for some regulations is lost in history, and cannot
be linked to any current need or desire of the city. For example, there is no real difference
between the B-1, B-3, and B-4, or PZCD commercial. The intent of objectives of these districts
are not clear. There are many sections that could be eliminated because they have no purpose.
Conversely, language needs to be added to more clearly state what the objectives are in the
1980s City. Although we have some portions of the code that relate to sustainability and the
conservation of water and energy, the code does not go far enough the address these




objectives. We will need an extensive public outreach effort to clarify what citizens want in the
1980s city.
Incomprehensible. There are some portions of the code that are simply incomprehensible. The
language is not clear, or there is no definition for a use or term used. Some provisions are
contradictory. The Planned Development zones are particularly prone to these issues. This leads
to unclear procedures, interpretations, and sometimes conflict between neighbors, developers
and staff.
Lacks Graphics and Technology. The document itself is very unapproachable. It lacks the
technology, particular search tools, and graphics that would make it a customer friendly
document.
Lacks Commercial and Industrial Architectural Design Standards. Even with a 400 plus page
document, no commercial or industrial architectural standards have been written for the 1980s
city. An emphasis needs to be placed on design, and not so much on the separation of uses.
Rezoning is Necessary. To get the job done right, extensive work needs to be done in actually
creating zones and standards that work, and rezoning current properties. This will take a full
blown public process.
The elimination of conditional uses, which is underway, will only have a limited success in providing a
document that is effective in a city that is swiftly changing. Portions of the document, in terms of
content, are fine. But particularly in the 1980s city, we need a document that meets the need of the
markets and demographics of the 21st century. Although some portions of the code work well, as a
whole the document does not serve the community well, or provide a foundation for a better future.
The portions of the code that do work reasonable well have been created in the past decade. These
include the Fitzsimons Boundary Area District, the E-470 and Northeast Plains zoning districts, and the
landscaping, fence, residential design standards, the airport overlay districts, the Sustainable Infill and
Redevelopment District, the Colfax Overlay District, the Havana Overlay District and the sign code. The
format of these sections may be amended, but there will be only minor changes to the content.
This RFP is intended to cover the first year of a two year project. The first year entails a needs analysis
through the work of a steering committee, and an outline of the work plan for the second year. The
second year is envisioned as the year of “going public” with the ideas generated by the first year’s effort.
Much of the actual language of the revised code will be part of the second year’s effort.
In the first year, the consultant will be expected to:
1. Meet three or four times with a stakeholder group to conduct a needs assessment. The
stakeholder groups would be composed of city staff, including Public Works and Code
Enforcement, and Planning, Water Department, Public Art, and representatives from
Planning Commission, Joint Task Force (HBA), Business Advisory Board, and the Havana
Business Improvement District. There also is an outreach effort on the web. The product of
these stakeholder meetings is a consensus, or near consensus, on the needs assessment.
The consultant would write a draft of the needs assessment, and it would be adopted by the
stakeholder group. The needs assessment would be reported to the Planning, Economic
Development and Redevelopment Committee (PEDR) of City Council.
2. The second task of the consultant would be to take the needs assessment and work it into a
work program for the remainder of 2014. One of the key tasks in this work program is to
arrive at a recommended budget for 2015. This budget recommendation should also be
endorsed by the stakeholder group. The work program may have the following elements:
a. A statement of goals and objectives for the new zoning code. Many of these
objectives will be taken from the current Comprehensive Plan;
b. An outline of the amended code;
c. A map of proposed zone districts
d. A proposed work program for 2015, which includes an extensive public outreach
effort.
3. The work program and budget should be endorsed by the stakeholder group, and sent to
PEDR.