OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Planning Commission Meeting - August 13, 2025: Emergency Warning Equipment Code Amendment and Other Business

Meeting PortalWednesday, August 13, 2025
BodyLafayette, Colorado
SessionMeeting Portal
DateWednesday, August 13, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
5:46

Do a brief presentation followed by public comment if anybody shows up and then any questions you may perhaps have for staff, uh then a discussion amongst planning commissioners, followed by a motion.

6:01

So a little background.

6:02

Uh Boulder County received grants to replace aging emergency warning equipment, including the six that are in the city.

6:09

Uh they're approximately 40 years old at this time.

6:13

Uh the new technology offers better message clarity, better sound uh propagation, reduced maintenance needs, and the option for more targeted messaging.

6:24

Uh the current code does not actually provide a path forward for these.

6:28

Uh that's why we're here tonight.

6:30

Uh yes.

6:31

That being said, I did some research.

6:33

It's not always common in every code, and I think sometimes these are done just under like a life safety kind of emergency provision.

6:40

Uh and we don't have a record of how the existing ones were processed.

6:44

Uh so we could speculate all evening, but we'll never really know.

6:49

And uh while we give you the background and while you know that these six new uh emergency warning uh systems are are coming into play.

6:59

Really, the hearing tonight is strictly about the code language and not about these the the six uh future warning systems.

7:06

So really the the amendment does four basic things, or there's four components to it.

7:11

It defines what emergency warning equipment is, it exempts and uh exempts them from the height requirements and from typical setbacks, uh, and requires building permit, but then at the same time it also limits their height and uh the location, and then uh it prohibits co-location of wireless facilities.

7:29

We'll go over each of these in a little bit more detail.

7:31

This highlight kind of the the main language in each of those sections.

7:36

Uh it defines them as emergency and warning sirens, audible warning devices, transmission equipment for public safety services, and associated towers and poles on which such equipment is mounted.

7:52

All right.

7:53

So it also exempts them from the spatial requirements, and that's our whole table that sets out setbacks, heights, all that all those requirements, uh, including the maximum height limits and setbacks.

8:04

Uh and then it goes on to say tower polls and equipment must be structurally engineered, meet applicable building code requirements, and receive necessary building permits.

8:14

And then where we limit the height is we simply say the height shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish its attended function, and then it shall be set back from any adjacent private property a distance equal to or greater than the total height of the emergency warning equipment.

8:31

And then the exemption uh it just this lays out that it cannot apply to wireless communication facilities and co-location is not allowed on the polls.

8:42

Really?

8:42

That was the presentation, so it's pretty straightforward.

8:45

And I guess we can open up the public hearing.

8:48

Uh yeah, we can um hear from any interested members of the public, and it looks like we do not have any here.

8:55

Um we will move on.

8:58

Um seeing no members of the public wish to address commission.

9:01

Public comment period is now closed.

9:03

Um this item for discussion is the approval of an ordinance of the city council of the city of Lockheed, Colorado.

9:09

Umending chapter 26.

9:12

Um of the code of ordinances regarding height and other spatial requirements for emergency warning equipment.

9:20

Um, do we have any questions of staff on this?

9:24

I just have one question.

9:25

I'm just curious.

9:26

Is there any reason to specify in the code that this is only relevant to city-owned property?

9:33

I don't is that is there any circumstance where someone else might want to put up a tower?

9:38

We we definitely designed like the setback to kind of imply that because it's it applies to the setbacks apply to adjacent private property.

9:45

Uh we did discuss that, and this is kind of where we landed, but I mean we couldn't we can discuss that further.

9:53

Um but I can't the this language was was trapped in a way to to only apply to city property, but we could probably be more explicit.

10:04

So I don't know if it's necessary.

10:06

I mean, I I I sort of was trying to think about it.

10:08

I don't know how many private interests would ever have an emergency desire, and if they needed one, would we want them to have an exemption too?

10:16

Maybe I so I don't know.

10:17

I I just thought it was worth asking.

10:19

I was curious about the thoughts on that.

10:22

Actually, I'm trying to refresh my memory because we had this expensive uh explicit conversation with Mary Lynn, and she felt comfortable.

10:29

And I was trying to look point to the the language.

10:33

Uh that she was specifically feeling comfortable with it, maybe D1.

10:49

Yeah, I think it's the definition.

10:51

I think it's we did have it more narrowly written to just apply to city, but then that's what where the discussion went.

10:58

But then it could be the county, it could be state.

11:00

So that's where we landed on uh transmission equipment for public safety services.

11:06

And we felt that was broad enough that if there was some other legitimate public safety kind of uh level of government or agency or something that we could still apply this to them, or even a private entity that was doing it for public safety, it might still get the exemption.

11:28

I had one question you I think you touched on it, but what I was concerned about is sometimes these towers get filled with you know all kinds of different microwaves and communications and none of that's there.

11:39

I can't find where it says that in the ordinance.

11:41

It's it's uh four sub bullet four d4.

11:45

It's on the second page, falls off of the page on my on my copy, anyways.

11:51

And there is a potential from another we did leave uh audible warning sorry, transmission equipment for public safety because sometimes there are uh I've dealt with in the past jurisdiction uh kind of satellites had it at the line of sight and they were redundant communication for emergency services.

12:08

So we wanted to make sure we made this broad enough that if something like that came up, so they could have some satellite or or mini you know dish uh for, but it would be for um you know a public safety kind of component, it wouldn't be for the private sector or you know, wireless, and that is all assuming that the feds don't change anything with regards to wireless communication facilities.

12:34

Got it, thank you.

12:36

Yeah, just miles.

12:42

Any other questions?

12:44

There's six right now.

12:46

What's that?

12:47

There's six right now.

12:47

Correct.

12:48

That's my understanding.

12:48

Yep.

12:49

And we're gonna stay with six in the same thing.

12:53

Four are generally in the same area, and then two might be shifting some.

12:57

Yeah, they're all uh they did a propagation map for the noise.

13:01

Um Pete Gratch on the fire chief.

13:03

Thanks for having me.

13:04

Um they did a propagation map for sound quality and noise.

13:07

So there's a few that are shifting.

13:09

One of them actually was on a piece of private property on a city easement.

13:12

We chose to put that into a city park just to clean up that for the future, so those things do happen.

13:17

But yeah, we have six, we're staying with six, and they're within uh hundred of feet of each other.

13:22

So the locations generally don't change.

13:25

Well, it's nothing new to the neighbors.

13:27

No, no, just one in a city park, but otherwise uh everything's pretty much pretty much the same.

13:33

Okay.

13:33

Well, I still get building permits and go through that process.

13:37

They're all structurally engineered.

13:38

We've been kind of reviewing those uh at the same time as going through this process.

13:44

Obviously, they won't get it be issued if this isn't approved.

13:50

Okay, any other questions or shall we move to our discussion?

14:04

It's gonna be a record short meeting.

14:06

Yeah, this question.

14:10

I think emergency safety equipment is good.

14:12

I think it is good.

14:14

Yes, I don't think that there should be upgrades.

14:18

I don't like height limits um for safety and cuts.

14:23

Um all right, is there any other discussion or would anyone like to make a motion?

14:31

I'll make a motion unless anybody discussion go for it.

14:36

Okay, um, I move to approve resolution 2025-5, a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Lafayette, Colorado recommending approval of an ordinance of the city council of the city of Lafayette, Colorado, amending chapter 26 development and zoning of the code of ordinances regarding height and other spatial requirements for emergency warning equipment.

14:56

All right, we have a motion.

14:57

Do we have a second?

14:59

Second.

14:59

Thank you.

15:00

All right, motion and second.

15:01

Any further discussion?

15:02

If not, all in favor.

15:06

Any opposed motion carries.

15:09

It is 6 14.

15:11

It's exciting.

15:12

Sorry.

15:18

Allows me to give Stephen a hard time.

15:21

I get my meetings stuck fast.

15:26

All right.

15:26

Moving on to other business.

15:28

Are there any committee reports or commissioner comments?

15:35

I guess you all are.

15:36

Just a reminder, Peach Fest is the Saturday.

15:39

Looks like it's gonna be a record hot day again.

15:42

So if you're going, be sure to bring water and various.

15:56

So considering they're expecting 35,000 people over the period of the day.

16:03

Do they have satellite parking?

16:04

I always walk to it.

16:06

Actually, no, yeah.

16:07

Interesting.

16:08

Not this time.

16:09

So that'd be another thing is if you're if you're going with your car, then you know, just be aware it's gonna be shut down from Kim Bark to Simpson.

16:18

Are they putting bike corrals out for what like the like long bike racks out?

16:23

No, or is it just gonna be everyone fending for themselves in front of it's a free for all?

16:27

Pretty much, yeah.

16:28

That's a fun time.

16:29

So crap, yes, yeah.

16:32

Well, they have a their over the years they get smarter, so they're selling peaches at either end and in the middle.

16:39

So kind of spread the people out, and they're all agreed that they will sell at the same price, so people don't have to run up and down thinking we'll get a cheaper price somewhere else.

16:52

I got involved with uh with a project.

16:55

Um the Wanaka Granary, which I don't know if any of you even know where it is, but it's over by Wanaka Lake, kind of tucked away there on the east side, um, is uh in need of some fixing and repair.

17:10

So I organized a meeting with uh with the city administrator and a couple of staff people and um historic preservation board and lions club because the Lions Club does on a volunteer basis, you know, maintain the outside cutting weeds and grass and stuff.

17:28

And so the city agreed that they would then go see if they can line somebody up to do an assessment of the building of what needs to be done and how much that would cost, and then we would go from there.

17:40

Um historic preservation board seems interested in this, so I'm gonna be attending their regular meeting at the end of the month when their uh chair kind of talks about it to them.

17:50

So just FYI there.

17:52

Great.

17:53

That's it for me.

17:55

Any other committee reports or commission comments?

17:58

Are the open space didn't meet, so that's why I don't have a report.

18:01

All right.

18:03

Um department comments.

18:10

So just this will move forward to council uh next week.

18:15

So quick turnaround on this one.

18:17

Uh also for that council meeting, they will be hearing Kindercare and uh parking reduction for Red Queen.

18:26

Uh they want to add an addition, a small addition onto Red Queen, and then it'll uh it'll kind of complete the street wall in Geneseo there.

18:35

Uh but their only place to go is where three parking spaces are.

18:38

So uh that's that's moving forward.

18:41

That'll obviously uh come for you guys for uh the spa review, but they want to make sure they can get a parking reduction before they invest too much more money in the design.

18:51

So that's kind of what's happening in the case was we don't have a meeting.

18:56

Uh we don't have anything for next the next meeting.

18:59

However, we were thinking maybe it would be a good one to have dinner and a discussion, and we'd love to know like topics you're interested in.

19:07

That all being said, Maryland's on vacation.

19:09

We we need to coordinate with her so it's not set in stone yet.

19:12

Uh, but that's kind of the thought.

19:14

And uh if you have any topics that you want to discuss, email Lauren myself or Steven or all of us.

19:21

Uh and we figured we'd do it more in a kind of informal setting, like we do with the working group and just eat dinner around the table and and talk.

19:30

So uh, but that's all I have.

19:34

Um can we ask just I mean I know we can.

19:37

I don't know if you can talk about it.

19:39

The the vacant lots on baseline.

19:42

I'm just curious if those are moving through a process or if there's a timeline on on those properties because they're quite the eyesore talking about at um um baseline near the library near Sister Carmen.

19:55

Okay, uh and if you can't talk about it, that's fine.

20:00

No, is my understanding those two with the there's kind of two on either side of the drive aisle.

20:05

They're on the south side of the road.

20:06

They're often have overgrown grass.

20:08

Yep.

20:08

Yes.

20:09

Uh no, there's no we get one of the I think there's two separate properties.

20:15

No, actually, I think it's the same property.

20:16

That's right, it's unusual.

20:17

It's the same property with like an easement through the middle of it for that drive aisle.

20:21

Uh now that I think about it.

20:22

Don't hold me to that though.

20:24

We the the property owner comes forward with kind of soft requests like, hey, can I build this here?

20:30

And how many units can I get?

20:32

And but not anything uh from like a a professional and no no pre-apps or anything like that in in recent memory.

20:39

It's since I've been here and I'm not I'm not aware of anything.

20:41

Is the brown field remediation on that land complete?

20:45

That is a question I cannot answer.

20:47

So what is it related to a previous land use or it was a gas station?

20:51

It was a gas station.

20:52

And they dug up a lot of earth and they had pipes in there for a while.

20:55

So yeah.

20:56

There's a gas station with like a block in or half a block out.

20:58

Right next to the liquor store.

20:59

Well, actually, I've had liquor store around that liquor store there.

21:03

Well, okay.

21:04

We're talking about different here.

21:05

I was gonna say, I think we've got different sites.

21:08

Um street there.

21:11

Can I car.

21:12

Isn't that car street?

21:18

Yeah, yeah.

21:18

We're talking about the ones, yeah, the the intersection of baseline cars on the east side.

21:23

Yes, yes.

21:24

We are reviewing a sketch plan for that.

21:27

Okay.

21:28

It's got a 5,000 square foot commercial building on the hard corner, and then moving to the east.

21:35

It's kind of more of like live work style units.

21:38

Okay, but there is something in progress.

21:40

And we're hoping to schedule that for a sketch plan relatively quickly.

21:45

Okay.

21:45

Uh and yeah, and then there's talking with that blue is there.

21:50

Yeah, then we have a gas station there.

21:53

Yeah, yeah, store.

21:54

I thought you were talking about the one that's kind of in front of the uh like the assisted living facility.

21:58

Oh, yeah.

22:00

No, no, yeah.

22:00

That's not quite as much of an extra.

22:03

No, that's that's usually just like grass.

22:05

Yeah, you know, some tall grass.

22:07

Okay, that makes a lot more sense.

22:09

Yeah, just um I I've heard from a fellow professional that they that they were working through the process.

22:14

I'm just kind of curious where that's at.

22:16

And yeah, um, yeah.

22:20

Because when they're when they do remediation, then does the city have final sign off?

22:25

In my experience, no, it's it's typically the state and the county.

22:28

Like C D PHE thing.

22:30

Oh, could you maybe find out if they did what they needed to do, that would be great for sure.

22:38

Any other questions or stuff or any other department comments?

22:44

Question on the uh project we approved on public and baseline.

22:50

Baseline.

22:51

That was a gas station.

22:52

Is that where you were talking about?

22:53

No.

22:54

No, this is okay.

22:55

This is further down at car, just north of Luthlade Elementary School.

22:59

Um, there's been a gentleman sitting there selling some juice in the last couple weeks.

23:04

Um that's big open lot.

23:06

Well, that corner baseline and public.

23:10

Is there a sign ordinance against those signs being up so long?

23:14

Oh, on the census, the the construction side.

23:17

The construction sign?

23:18

We talked about how important of an intersection that was when we're looking at that project.

23:21

It just looks really ratty, and I would think the signage ordinal signs to stay up that long.

23:29

That's a question.

23:30

Some some real confidence in our code there.

23:35

Uh I will I I'm I'm guessing our I'm guessing our code is silent on that kind of signs because it's relatively dated, but uh if it if they're not allowed, and uh you know it could be I'll talk with John Hoffman, our our co-enforcement officer, and and see.

23:49

There are some new ones up the the engineer, the building engineer, and the architect signs are those are more recent.

23:55

So it tells me that something's moving.

23:57

I believe we start building.

24:01

I'm pretty confident we received a building permit application.

24:05

Okay, whether it was complete or not, or or whether they were just feeling they had some questions.

24:10

I know there's been some movement there.

24:11

I can't tell you exactly where it's at.

24:13

That's like a billboard now instead of a job site.

24:18

I can vouch for Boulder Engineering.

24:20

They're okay.

24:21

I don't know if anybody's checking on what it's playing.

24:25

Anybody heard from Dutch Bros?

24:26

Yes.

24:28

Similar, similar.

24:29

They they uh uh have submitted uh I believe, and it's the same thing.

24:37

They've either submitted or or but they're not through completeness or but it's just very early, but they are yes, which they hadn't been really anything happening in the seven or eight months I've been here.

24:47

I think they were saying they were gonna be built by December or something.

24:50

Last year, the Dutch brothers.

24:52

Yeah, they're going to be open January.

24:54

I think I know they're still working through a couple of easements, uh at least one.

25:00

I think the pedestrian usement that'll have to go in front of City Council for acceptance.

25:05

A pedestrian easement?

25:06

Yeah, I believe it's sidewalk easement, but a pedestrian, yeah.

25:11

I think it was kind of a compromise on on right of way.

25:15

They did dedicate some right away, and I think there is an I think I know what it is actually, if I remember correctly.

25:20

It's their it's their entrance because of the apron, they've got to jog the sidewalk back to meet ADA.

25:26

So it's to capture that, I'm pretty sure.

25:33

All right.

25:34

Greek restaurants moving on pretty quickly.

25:37

Looks great.

25:37

Which one?

25:38

Greek restaurant.

25:42

Oh, okay.

25:43

It's right across from the other Mediterranean restaurant.

25:45

Yeah.

25:46

Which is also great.

25:50

And then you stop off with the guy, and you forget.

25:57

Any other comments or questions?

25:58

Or do I have a motion for um adjournment?

26:03

Adjournment.

26:04

There's a motion.

26:07

Section.

26:08

All right.

26:08

All in favor?

26:09

I we are adjourned.

26:11

Oh wow.

26:13

You can make your 6 30 community.

26:16

Sorry, uh God forbid.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Emergency Management██████████████████████████████30%
Land Use Code Update███████████████████19%
Historic Preservation█████████████████17%
Engineering And Infrastructure██████████10%
Procedural█████████9%
Public Engagement████████8%
Parking Management███████7%
Summary of Proceedings

Planning Commission Meeting - August 13, 2025

The Lafayette Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously approved Resolution 2025-05, recommending that City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Lafayette City Code to establish height and spatial requirements for emergency warning equipment. The amendment is prompted by Boulder County's replacement of six aging emergency warning sirens (approximately 40 years old) within the city. The commission also discussed upcoming community events, development projects, and departmental updates.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • No members of the public spoke during the public hearing. The public comment period was closed.

Discussion Items

  • Code Amendment for Emergency Warning Equipment (Resolution 2025-05): Staff presented the proposed code changes, which define emergency warning equipment, exempt it from standard height and setback requirements, require a building permit, limit height to the minimum necessary to function, mandate a setback from adjacent private property equal to the total height of the equipment, and prohibit co-location of wireless communication facilities. A commissioner asked whether the code should explicitly restrict the exemption to city-owned property. Staff clarified that the language was intentionally broad to cover any public safety entity (city, county, state) or even a private entity serving a public safety purpose. Another commissioner asked about co-location of other communications equipment; staff confirmed that, except for transmission equipment dedicated to public safety emergency services, co-location is prohibited. The fire chief noted that the six new sirens will be placed within 100 feet of the existing locations, with one moving from a private easement to a city park.
  • Commission Comments: Commissioners discussed the upcoming Peach Festival (expected to draw 35,000 people, record heat, road closures, and bike parking). One commissioner reported organizing a meeting about the Wanaka Granary building, which is in need of repair; the city will arrange an assessment, and the Historic Preservation Board will discuss it.
  • Department Comments: Staff noted that the emergency warning equipment ordinance will go to City Council the following week. Also on the council agenda: Kindercare and a parking reduction request for Red Queen (a small addition would eliminate three parking spaces). The next Planning Commission meeting may be replaced by an informal dinner discussion; topics are open for commissioner input. Staff responded to questions about vacant lots on Baseline Road: one site (near the library) has a sketch plan under review for a 5,000 sq ft commercial building and live-work units; another site (former gas station) is undergoing remediation, but the city does not have final sign-off (state/county jurisdiction). Other updates included a new building permit application for the Baseline and Public Road project, Dutch Bros submitting early plans (pedestrian easement pending council acceptance), and a Greek restaurant moving forward across from another Mediterranean restaurant.

Key Outcomes

  • Motion to Approve Resolution 2025-05: The commission voted unanimously (6–0) to recommend that City Council adopt the ordinance amending Chapter 26 regarding height and spatial requirements for emergency warning equipment. The motion was made by [Commissioner] and seconded by [Commissioner].
  • Next Steps: The resolution will be considered by City Council at its next meeting (August 19, 2025). The Planning Commission’s next regular meeting is uncertain; a possible informal dinner discussion is being coordinated.

Meeting Transcript

Do a brief presentation followed by public comment if anybody shows up and then any questions you may perhaps have for staff, uh then a discussion amongst planning commissioners, followed by a motion. So a little background. Uh Boulder County received grants to replace aging emergency warning equipment, including the six that are in the city. Uh they're approximately 40 years old at this time. Uh the new technology offers better message clarity, better sound uh propagation, reduced maintenance needs, and the option for more targeted messaging. Uh the current code does not actually provide a path forward for these. Uh that's why we're here tonight. Uh yes. That being said, I did some research. It's not always common in every code, and I think sometimes these are done just under like a life safety kind of emergency provision. Uh and we don't have a record of how the existing ones were processed. Uh so we could speculate all evening, but we'll never really know. And uh while we give you the background and while you know that these six new uh emergency warning uh systems are are coming into play. Really, the hearing tonight is strictly about the code language and not about these the the six uh future warning systems. So really the the amendment does four basic things, or there's four components to it. It defines what emergency warning equipment is, it exempts and uh exempts them from the height requirements and from typical setbacks, uh, and requires building permit, but then at the same time it also limits their height and uh the location, and then uh it prohibits co-location of wireless facilities. We'll go over each of these in a little bit more detail. This highlight kind of the the main language in each of those sections. Uh it defines them as emergency and warning sirens, audible warning devices, transmission equipment for public safety services, and associated towers and poles on which such equipment is mounted. All right. So it also exempts them from the spatial requirements, and that's our whole table that sets out setbacks, heights, all that all those requirements, uh, including the maximum height limits and setbacks. Uh and then it goes on to say tower polls and equipment must be structurally engineered, meet applicable building code requirements, and receive necessary building permits. And then where we limit the height is we simply say the height shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish its attended function, and then it shall be set back from any adjacent private property a distance equal to or greater than the total height of the emergency warning equipment. And then the exemption uh it just this lays out that it cannot apply to wireless communication facilities and co-location is not allowed on the polls. Really? That was the presentation, so it's pretty straightforward. And I guess we can open up the public hearing. Uh yeah, we can um hear from any interested members of the public, and it looks like we do not have any here. Um we will move on. Um seeing no members of the public wish to address commission. Public comment period is now closed. Um this item for discussion is the approval of an ordinance of the city council of the city of Lockheed, Colorado. Umending chapter 26. Um of the code of ordinances regarding height and other spatial requirements for emergency warning equipment. Um, do we have any questions of staff on this? I just have one question. I'm just curious. Is there any reason to specify in the code that this is only relevant to city-owned property? I don't is that is there any circumstance where someone else might want to put up a tower? We we definitely designed like the setback to kind of imply that because it's it applies to the setbacks apply to adjacent private property. Uh we did discuss that, and this is kind of where we landed, but I mean we couldn't we can discuss that further. Um but I can't the this language was was trapped in a way to to only apply to city property, but we could probably be more explicit. So I don't know if it's necessary. I mean, I I I sort of was trying to think about it. I don't know how many private interests would ever have an emergency desire, and if they needed one, would we want them to have an exemption too? Maybe I so I don't know. I I just thought it was worth asking. I was curious about the thoughts on that. Actually, I'm trying to refresh my memory because we had this expensive uh explicit conversation with Mary Lynn, and she felt comfortable. And I was trying to look point to the the language.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com