REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ......2021/01/25 · AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY...

AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF LAKEWOOD, COLORADO VIRTUAL MEETING JANUARY 25, 2021

7:00 P.M.

To watch the Council meeting live, please use either one of the following links:

City of Lakewood Website: https://www.Lakewood.org/CouncilVideos or

Lakewood Speaks: https://lakewoodspeaks.org/

Phone Number for Public Comment: 1-669-900-9128 Webinar ID: 961 1044 5595

(press # after entering the webinar id then press # once more to join the meeting) Press *9 to Request to Speak

(You will be prompted when to speak. After speaking, you can hang up or hold to speak on a different agenda item)

Press *6 to Unmute The City of Lakewood does not discriminate on the basis of race, age, national origin, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation or disability in the provision of services. People with disabilities needing reasonable accommodation to attend or participate in a City service program, can call 303-987-7080 or TDD 303-987-7057. Please give notice as far in advance as possible so we can accommodate your request. ITEM 1 – CALL TO ORDER ITEM 2 – ROLL CALL ITEM 3 – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ITEM 4 – PUBLIC COMMENT A Public Comment Roster is available immediately inside the Council Chambers. Anyone who would like to address the Council on any matter other than an agenda item will be given the opportunity after signing the roster. Speakers should limit their comments to three minutes.

ITEM 5 – EXECUTIVE REPORT CITY MANAGER

https://www.lakewood.org/CouncilVideoshttps://lakewoodspeaks.org/

January 25, 2021 Page 2

CONSENT AGENDA

ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING

(Ordinances are on first reading for notice and publication only; public hearings are held on second reading)

ITEM 6 – RESOLUTION 2021-7 – APPOINTING COUNCIL MEMBERS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMITTEES

ITEM 7 – APPROVING MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

City Council Meeting City Council Special Meeting City Council Special Meeting City Council Special Meeting

July 27, 2020 September 21, 2020 September 28, 2020 January 4, 2021

END OF CONSENT AGENDA

RESOLUTIONS

ITEM 8 – RESOLUTION 2021-6 – ESTABLISHING RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ALLOCATIONS FOR 2021 AND ASSIGNING ALLOCATIONS TO POOLS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14.27 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE

ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING

NONE

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

ITEM 9 – ORDINANCE 2021-1 – MODIFICATION TO OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (ODP) TO LEGISLATIVELY REZONE LAND LOCATED AT 2301 S. MCINTYRE ST., LAKEWOOD, CO 80465, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO.

ITEM 10 – GENERAL BUSINESS

MOTION TO EXTEND EMERGENCY DECLARATION: I MOVE TO EXTEND THE DECLARATION OF DISASTER IN THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD COLORADO RESULTING FROM THE CORONAVIRUS/COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1.27 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, ORIGINALLY DECLARED BY PROCLAMATION OF THE LAKEWOOD CITY MANAGER ON MARCH 17, 2020,

January 25, 2021 Page 3

EXTENDED BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, AND BY THIS MOTION EXTENDED AGAIN UNTIL FEBRUARY 8, 2021, UNLESS EARLIER EXTENDED OR TERMINATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ITEM 11 – MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. MAYOR B. MAYOR PRO TEM C. COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEM 12 – ADJOURNMENT

DATE OF COUNCIL MEETING: JANUARY 25, 2021 / AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 To: Mayor and City Council From: Bruce Roome, City Clerk, 303-987-7081 Subject: COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMITTEES

SUMMARY STATEMENT: City Council adopted a procedure via their Policies and Procedures Manual for annual appointment of council members to various boards and committees. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The procedure states that recommendations for appointments come before Council for a vote. BUDGETARY IMPACTS: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: None. ALTERNATIVES: Change appointments as shown on Exhibit A or violate the Policies and Procedures Manual by not adopting the recommendations. PUBLIC OUTREACH: This item was promoted through the regular communication channels for an item coming before City Council. NEXT STEPS: Post the committee assignments on the city website. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 2021-7 REVIEWED BY: Kathleen E. Hodgson, City Manager Benjamin B. Goldstein, Deputy City Manager Gregory D. Graham, Deputy City Attorney

STAFF MEMO

2021-7

A RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMITTEES

WHEREAS, the City of Lakewood is authorized by the City Council Policies and Procedures Manual, Policy 04.1, and the procedures included therein to vote on Councilmember appointments to various boards and committees; and

WHEREAS, the Lakewood City Council desires to approve the appointments to various boards and committees as shown on Exhibit A to this resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of

Lakewood, Colorado, that:

SECTION 1. The Councilmember appointments to various boards and committees as presented by the Mayor are hereby adopted for the year 2021.

SECTION 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its

adoption.

INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by a vote of ____ for and ____ against at a virtual regular meeting of the Lakewood City Council held on January 25, 2021 at 7 o’clock p.m. Adam Paul, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce Roome, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Alison McKenney Brown, City Attorney

COMMITTEE COUNCILMEMBER APPOINTMENT

Mayor Pro Tem (1) David Skilling

Budget & Audit Board (3) Karen Harrison

Staff Liaison: Holly Björklund Mike Bieda

Jacob LaBure

Jefferson County EDC (Economic Development Corp) Robert Smith/Adam Paul

CML Policy Committee (1) Ramey Johnson

Staff Liaison: Ben Goldstein Dana Gutwein

DRCOG- Denver Regional Council of Governments and Jeffco

Collaborative Transportation Forum (pursuant to IGA) (2) Jacob LaBure

Alternate: Dana Gutwein

Head Start Executive Committee Governing Board (3) Charley Able

Sharon Vincent

Karen Harrison

Jefferson County Criminal Justice Committee (2) Ramey Johnson

Mike Bieda

Jefferson County Community Corrections Board (1) Sharon Vincent

Alternate: Jacob LaBure

Judges Salary Committee (5) Charley Able

Sharon Vincent

Anita Springsteen

Barb Franks

Karen Harrison

Legislative Committee (5) Ramey Johnson

Sharon Vincent

Mike Bieda

David Skilling

Dana Gutwein

Police Seizure Fund Committee (1) Barb Franks

Screening Committee (5) Charley Able

Sharon Vincent

Mike Bieda

Barb Franks

Dana Gutwein

Sister Cities Program (1) Karen Harrison

Mile High Flood District (By law, Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem) Adam Paul

Housing Advisory Policy Committee (6) Adam Paul

Staff Liaison: Robert Smith Ramey Johnson

Sharon Vincent

Anita Springsteen

Barb Franks

Karen Harrison

Campaign Finance Ad Hoc Committee (5) Charley Able

Staff Liaison: Bruce Roome Jacob LaBure

Mike Bieda

David Skilling

Dana Gutwein

Development Dialogue Ad Hoc Committee (5) Charley Able

Staff Liaison: Travis Parker Jacob LaBure

Mike Bieda

David Skilling

Dana Gutwein

2021 City Council Committee Appointments

Ad Hoc Committees

COMMITTEE COUNCILMEMBER APPPOINTMENT

Budget & Audit Committee (3) - Holly Björklund*

3 Council & 3 civilians

Jefferson County EDC (Economic Development Corp)

CML Policy Committee (1)

Head Start Executive Committee Governing Board (3)

Jefferson County Community Corrections Board (1)

Jefferson County Criminal Justice Committee (2)

Judges Salary Committee (5) Meets as necessary - usually once a year

Legislative Committee (5)

Police Seizure Fund Committee (1)

Screening Committee (5) Meets as necessary - City Clerk to notify

Sister Cities Program (1)

Urban Drainage (By law, Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem)

Meets as necessary: CFO to provide meeting notices

The Head Start Advisory Committee was established by Resolution 2010-60. The Mayor shall appoint a Head

Start Advisory Committee eac year. The Advisory Committee will be comprised of three elected officials who

will serve for the duration of their appointment or time in elected office which ever ends first. The City

Council authorizes the appointed Advisory Committee to carry out specific responsibilities related to the

governance and appriate oversite of the Head Start Program. Meetings are typically held the 3rd Mondays of

the month at about 5 or 5:30 pm. Contact: Sherry Peterson 303-275-3421 will notify time and location

(usually the CMO Conference Room)

City Council Committee Details

DRCOG- Denver Regional Council of Governments

DRCOG is a membership organization of the 56 local cities and counties of the Denver region. They deal in

landuse planning, air quality modeling, TIP and transportation funding and is an area agency on aging. They

meet the 3rd Wednesday of the month at DRCOG from 6:30 pm - and meet from 2 to 3 hours. Contact:

Connie Garcia - 303-480-6701 - Email: [email protected]

Meet January thru October the 4th Thursday of the month at 7 am -9 am and November and December the

3rd Thursday of the month in the Jefferson County Administration Building - Lookout Mountain Room.

Contact: Vivian Simpson - 303-271-4842 - E-mail: [email protected]

Approves expenditures from the Federal and State Seizure Accounts to be spent by the Lakewood Police

Department for law enforcement purposes. The committee consists of the Lakewood Chief of Police, the

District Attorney and a representative from the City of Lakewood (City Councilor) Meets on an as needed

basis but approves the majority of seizures without the need of meeting in person.

Meets monthly 3rd Thursday 12:30 - 2:30pm at Urban Drainage - by law this position must be filled by the

Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem - They do not meet in January and the first meeting is the first business day in

February which would be Monday February 1st.

Meets as needed.

Purpose of the CJCC is to serve as an advisory body to the policy makers, judiciary and stakeholder groups

of the Criminal Justice System in Jefferson County. Meetings are bi-monthly the 3rd Wednesday of odd

months at 5pm in the Jeffco Administration Building - and they notify us: Contact: Jennifer Rose - 271-4843

E-Mail: [email protected]

MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF LAKEWOOD

7:00 P.M July 27, 2020 Minutes are not a verbatim transcription, but rather an attempt to capture the intent of the speaker by the City Clerk. ITEM 1 – CALL TO ORDER Mayor Paul called the VIRTUAL MEETING to order at 7:00 p.m. ITEM 2 – ROLL CALL Those present were: Mayor Adam Paul, Presiding

Charley Able Sharon Vincent Dana Gutwein Mike Bieda David Skilling Anita Springsteen Barb Franks Ramey Johnson Jacob LaBure Karen Harrison

Absent: None. Others in attendance: Kathy Hodgson, City Manager, Ben Goldstein, Deputy City Manager, and Tim Cox, City Attorney Full and timely notice of this City Council meeting had been given and a quorum was present. ITEM 3 – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited, and there was a moment for silent prayer. ITEM 4 – PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment.

City Council Meeting July 27, 2020

Page 2 ITEM 5 – EXECUTIVE REPORT Kathy Hodgson, City Manager, gave her executive report:

• She stated that City staff have been hard at work designing a sustainable budget strategy that would be ready to present to Council in the coming weeks.

• She stated that the City is staying current with increasing COVID cases and changing public health protocols.

• She stated that the City is gradually opening Community Resources facilities in accordance to Public Health orders.

ITEM 13 was moved by Mayor Paul ITEM 13 – GENERAL BUSINESS MOTION TO EXTEND EMERGENCY DECLARATION – I MOVE TO EXTEND THE DECLARATION OF DISASTER IN THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD COLORADO RESULTING FROM THE CORONAVIRUS/COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1.27 of the LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, ORIGINALLY DECLARED BY PROCLAMATION OF THE LAKEWOOD CITY MANAGER ON MARCH 17, 2020, EXTENDED BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, AND BY THIS MOTION EXTENDED AGAIN UNTIL AUGUST 10, 2020, UNLESS EARLIER EXTENDED OR TERMINATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to extend the Emergency Declaration. It was seconded. Public Comment: None. Council Discussion: None. Vote on motion to extend Emergency Declaration:

AYES NAYS AYES NAYS PAUL X SPRINGSTEEN X ABLE X FRANKS X VINCENT X JOHNSON X GUTWEIN X LABURE X BIEDA X HARRISON X SKILLING X

TOTAL 10 1 The motion passed.


Page 3

CONSENT AGENDA ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING

City Clerk Michele Millard read the Consent Agenda into the record. The Consent Agenda consists of Item 6 through 8 inclusive. ITEM 6 – ORDINANCE O-2020-19 – VACATING A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR WEST YALE AVENUE, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RED ROCKS BUSINESS DRIVE AND WEST YALE AVENUE FURTHER LOCATED TO THE SOUTHEAST OF LOT 7, BLOCK 3 OF THE RED ROCKS BUSINESS PARK FILING NO. 1, AS DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT “A” TO THIS ORDINANCE ITEM 7 – ORDINANCE O-2020-20 – DISCONNECTING CERTAIN PROPERTY ADDRESSED AS 3053 S. ROONEY RD. A PARCEL OF LAND, BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO

ITEM 8 – ORDINANCE O-2020-21 – FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF A SEWER LINE EASEMENT TO WEST ALAMEDA HEIGHTS SANITATION SERVICE, INC. ACROSS A PORTION OF COTTAGE PARK A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Skilling, to order all ordinances introduced on first reading to be published into the Denver Post Newspaper for public hearing set for dates included in the ordinances, all of which are included in the Consent Agenda items, for the record and introduced by the City Clerk. It was seconded. Public Comment: None. Council Discussion: None. Vote on Consent Agenda:



END OF CONSENT AGENDA


Page 4

RESOLUTIONS ITEM 9 – RESOLUTION 2020-23 – AUTHORIZING ALLOCATIONS FOR 533 VAN GORDON STREET, LAKEWOOD, CO 80228 Public Comment: None. Council Discussion: Mayor Pro Tem Skilling – He stated that he desired to continue discussion on the resolution to a future date. He stated that it was the first request for allocations and banking that Council received. He stated that he believed it would be best to delay the resolution to allow residents to weigh in and for proper notice. Council member Vincent – She asked if there was a future date set to discuss the resolution. Mayor Paul – He stated that it would be set for August 10, 2020. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to continue Resolution 2020-23 to the Regular City Council Meeting on August 10, 2020. It was seconded. Vote to continue Resolution 2020-23:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. ITEM 10 – RESOLUTION 2020-24 – AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF BLIGHT AS USED IN CHAPTER 14.27 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING A BUILDING PERMIT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM USING ALLOCATIONS FOR NEW DWELLING UNITS AND ESTABLISHING RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR REQUESTS TO DESIGNATE PROPERTY AS BLIGHTED

Public Comment: None.


Page 5 Council Discussion: Mayor Paul – He stated that the resolution would be discussed further at the August 3, 2020 City Council Study Session. He asked how Council should approach moving the resolution to a future City Council meeting to be voted on and to discuss it at the August 3, 2020 Study Session. Tim Cox, City Attorney – He stated that City Council could continue the resolution to the next available meeting. Mayor Paul – He asked if the resolution would be continued to the August 3, 2020 Study Session or the Regular Meeting on August 10, 2020. Cox – He stated that either approach might work. He stated that Council should anticipate discussing the issue on August 3, 2020 and voting on the issue on August 10, 2020 pending any changes that would be made at the Study Session. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to continue Resolution 2020-24 to the Regular City Council Meeting on August 10, 2020. It was seconded. Vote on Resolution 2020-23:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Cox – He stated that he wanted the record to reflect that Council intends to hold a Study Session on August 3, 2020 prior to the Regular meeting on August 10, 2020.

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

ITEM 11 – CONTINUED ORDINANCE O-2020-1 – AMENDING LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 12, AND ARTICLE 10 OF TITLE 17, TO REFLECT CHANGES IN STATE AND FEDERAL LAW RELATING TO WIRELESS SERVICES AND COMMUNICATIONS


Page 6 Ben Goldstein, Deputy City Manager – He stated that Council’s comments from before the meeting were included in the initial draft document for the resolution. He stated that Council should propose amendments in the order that the document is presented. Public Comment: Unknown – She stated that she provided Council with photos of 5G wireless sites in Denver, Colorado. She asked if the ordinance would allow poles to be placed every 250 feet in neighborhoods. She asked if 5G small cell sites would be permitted to be placed next to light poles as opposed to being built on them. She asked if wireless sites would be permitted to be built in front of multi-family homes. She asked who in the City would approve the sites and monitor the locations. She asked if wireless sites would be permitted in front of businesses. She asked if the City would be responsive to complaints regarding wireless sites. Richard Bennett – Lakewood Resident – He stated that he supported the passage of the ordinance. He stated that wireless services are needed more than ever given its increased demand during the COVID-19 pandemic. He stated that small cell networks allow for the elimination of wireless dead spots in Lakewood. He stated that Council should protect the freedom of expression that comes with the development of small cell sites. Lynn Judson – Lakewood Resident – She stated that she supported postponing the ordinance until residents could comment on the ordinance in person. She shared actions taken by Fort Collins on the placement of 5G small cells in residential sites. She stated that Fort Collins is also monitoring small cell facilities to ensure compliance with FCC wireless regulations. Penelope Courier – Lakewood Resident – She stated that she supported delaying action on the ordinance until in-person discussion could resume. She stated that citizens had begun moving out of Lakewood due to the implementation of 5G small cell sites. She stated that she supported testing wireless emissions of small cell sites to ensure FCC compliance. She stated that she did not believe that the towers should be placed near schools or residential areas. Richard Baker – Lakewood Resident – He stated that he did not support Council postponing action on the ordinance. He stated that wireless sites would be even more important if school districts utilize remote learning for the school year. Council Discussion: Mayor Paul – He asked if the ordinance should be read into the record so that amendments are added as they are suggested or if Council should approach the amendments differently.


Page 7 Cox – He stated that the approach to the ordinance would depend on how many amendments there were. He stated that if there were many amendments it would be better to address them as presented as opposed to saving them for the end. Skilling – He stated that he anticipated many amendments. He stated that the most feasible way for Council to address the amendments is to vote as they proceed through the ordinance. Cox – He suggested to address comments on the ordinance by section. He stated that Council could address comments by each section and vote on the section once all amendments are addressed. Able – He suggested moving forward and voting on each amendment page-by-page before voting on the entire ordinance. Council member Springsteen – She stated that the amendments provided on the document could have been addressed with a meeting between the Lakewood Broadband Task Force, Tim Cox, and Ben Goldstein. She stated that Council could postpone voting on the ordinance until those parties could meet to discuss the amendments to the ordinance. Goldstein – He stated that the City did communicate with the Lakewood Broadband Task Force for comment on the issue. Springsteen – She stated that the Lakewood Broadband Taskforce informed her that they did not have a formal meeting with the City. Mayor Paul – He asked what the best way to present the changes to the ordinance would be. Goldstein – He stated that Ken Fellman would be able to share his screen with the document opened. Ken Fellman, attorney, Kissinger & Fellman – He stated that comments from multiple parties, including staff, Council, and AT&T were included on the initial draft document of the ordinance. Mayor Paul – He asked if the first redline would require a Council vote to include. Cox – He stated that the language, that is included in the document, needed to be approved by Council. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to adopt an amendment that states “For the purposes of this chapter, the following words, phrases, and terms shall have the meanings set forth herein. Words not defined shall be given their common and ordinary meaning.” It was seconded.


Page 8 Vote on the amendment:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Fellman – He stated that Council member Able recommended the usage of ‘fence’ in the definition of accessory equipment. He stated that the use of ground-based enclosures was included to align with state-law definitions. He stated that Council could change the wording if it felt the wording was too vague and understood the risks associated with deviating from state law. Able – He stated that Council should use the simplest language possible and including fencing would allow the definition to be as simple as possible. Cox – He proposed that the wording state “including fences and other ground-based enclosures as defined in state law.” Council member Able motioned to adopt the amendment that reads “Accessory Equipment: any equipment serving or being used in conjunction with a WCF, including, but not limited to, utility or transmission equipment, power supplies, generators, batteries, cables, equipment buildings, cabinets and storage sheds, shelters or other structures, including fences and ground-based enclosures as defined in state law.” It was seconded. Vote on the amendment:




Page 9 Springsteen – She stated that her proposed amendment would merge the documents presented by City staff and City Council with the one presented by the Lakewood Broadband Task Force. Mayor Paul – He asked Councilor Springsteen to clarify that the amendment proposed to submit the citizen redline in its entirety as an amendment and emphasized sections 17.10.3 and 17.10.4. He asked Tim Cox if there was enough clarity in the amendment to proceed. Cox – He stated that if the two documents were to be integrated that there would likely be conflicts between the documents. He stated that he believed the process that was agreed on was to review the amendments that were proposed in Document one. Springsteen – She asked how that process was determined. Mayor Paul – He stated that the process was determined by Council at the previous meeting on July 13, 2020. Springsteen – She stated that she did not recall a vote on the issue. Mayor Paul – He stated that there was a vote to move Second Reading of the ordinance. Springsteen – She stated that the vote was for Second Reading of the ordinance and not for the document that Council would use. Mayor Paul – He stated that the document Council was using at the current meeting was a continuation from the July 13, 2020 meeting. He stated that it was understood that Council could present amendments on the document before the meeting as well as at the meeting. Council member Springsteen made a motion to merge the document provided to City Council with the document presented by the Lakewood Broadband Task Force. It was seconded. Council member Johnson – She stated that she was confused on what the amendment suggested. Mayor Paul – He stated that the amendment would take the redlines provided by the Lakewood Broadband Task Force would be placed over the document Council was currently revising. Johnson – She asked if the redlines would be placed over the entire document. Springsteen – She stated that was correct.


Page 10 Mayor Paul – He stated that if the vote were passed that the redlines would be overlaid over the document. He stated that if the amendment did not pass, that revisions in later sections of the document would need to be proposed for a second time. Fellman – He stated that if the amendment did not pass that the redlines from the Lakewood Broadband Task Force would not be implemented initially but could be suggested later as amendments by Council. He stated that if the amendment did pass, that he would likely need a recess to locate the document and the legal analysis that accompanied it. He asked how Council would proceed if the amendment passed. Councilor member Franks – She stated that she was not prepared to work through the document presented by the Lakewood Broadband Task Force. She stated that she would be voting ‘no’ on the amendment but would look forward to hearing additional documents as presented. Councilor member Gutwein – She asked if the proposed amendment was rejected if Council could still vote on amendments proposed by the Lakewood Broadband Task Force later on. Mayor Paul – He stated that was correct. Gutwein – She stated that the document Council was considering has underwent significant legal review and that she looked forward to considering individual amendments. Able – He asked how unwieldy it would be to consider both documents at the same time. He stated that he prepared his suggestions based on the document that Council was reviewing previously. Council discussed the posting of Document 1. Goldstein – He stated that it would not be possible to display both documents for review at the same time. He stated that the documents were extensive and would require significant work to overlay each document over one another. Able – He asked if it would be possible to review each section of each document. Goldstein – He stated that decision could be left with Council. Springsteen – She stated that she believed the process was cumbersome. She stated that the difficulty could be avoided if the second document were adopted instead. Johnson – She asked if it would have been better to have presented a separated version of the Lakewood Broadband Task Force document to review.


Page 11 Vote on the amendment:


TOTAL 3 8 The motion failed. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to read “Camouflage, Concealment, or Camouflaged Design Techniques: the designing of a WCF to alter its appearance in such a manner as to substantially integrate it into surrounding building designs or and natural settings to minimize the visual impacts of the facility on the surrounding uses and ensure the facility is compatible with the environment in which it is located.” It was seconded. Vote on the amendment:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Council and City staff discussed the addition of definitions for hazardous substances and interference. Johnson – She asked the emissions of a tower are doubled if two or more antennas are added to it. Fellman – He stated that he could not go into specifics due to his limited knowledge of engineering. He stated that from his understanding that emissions depended heavily on the equipment installed and the frequencies they operate at. Goldstein – He stated that new antennas may also require the construction of new


Page 12 wireless poles. He stated that City staff have prioritized reducing pole clutter with the installation of new antennas. Johnson – She asked if pole clutter would be reduced if antennas were placed on existing wireless sites. She asked if existing wireless sites would see an increase in emissions with additional antennas. Goldstein – He stated that was correct. Johnson – She asked if two companies could share a single antenna. Fellman – He stated that he has not seen that happen before. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to include the definition for hazardous substance, which stated “Hazardous Substance: any substance, chemical or waste that is identified as hazardous or toxic in any applicable federal, state or local law or regulation, including but not limited to petroleum products and asbestos.” And the definition for interference which stated “Interference: physical interference and radio frequency interference.” It was seconded. Vote on the amendment:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Fellman – He clarified the addition of a definition for Over the Air Receiving Devices (OTARD). He stated that the definition was consistent with federal requirements. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to include a definition for Over the Air Receiving Device which stated “Over the Air Receiving Device (OTARD): an Antenna used to receive direct broadcast satellite services, including home satellite dishes that are 1M or less in diameter, broadband radio services and television broadcast stations, but shall not include Antennas used for AM/FM radio, amateur (“ham”) radio, CB radio, Digital Audio Radio Services or Antennas used as part of a hub to relay signals among multiple locations.” It was seconded.


Page 13 Able – He clarified that he did not believe that there were home satellites in Lakewood. He stated that the change to satellite dishes would fit the City’s need better. Vote on amendment to Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Skilling – He proposed an amendment at the end of the definition for Radio Frequency Emissions Letter that would state “The City may require periodic letters or confirmation that the WCF remains in compliance with the standards.” He stated that the amendment would give the City the ability to enforce FCC compliance without creating an obligation. Johnson – She stated that she supported Mayor Pro Tem Skilling’s amendment. She stated that the amendment should be modified instead to state “The City will require periodic letters or confirmations every 12 to 18 months that the WCF remains in compliance with the standards.” She stated that businesses would have a vested interest in ensuring that their equipment remains in compliance. Fellman – He stated that the requirements are better suited in the substantive part of the code and not in the ordinance’s definitions. He stated that local governments are only allowed to require what the FCC requires of wireless companies. He stated that most wireless companies are identified as categorically exempt by the federal government, which does not require them to conduct testing. He stated that the amendment would likely not lead to any required testing. He stated that a testing requirement is likely to be overturned legally. Cox – He stated that it would be best to exclude any testing requirement in the ordinance. He stated that the provision should be placed further in the ordinance and not in the definitions. He stated that it is better to have flexibility within the ordinance as to who would be required to conduct wireless testing. Council member LaBure – He stated that he did not believe the amendment should not be in the definition sections. He cautioned Council on utilizing aspirational language in the ordinance. He stated that the language would not serve any purpose if it was not enforceable.


Page 14 Bieda – He asked if it were more likely that the City would need to sue wireless providers to enforce the ordinance or if wireless providers were more likely to sue to get around the amendment presented. Fellman – He stated that it was more likely that the City would need to sue to enforce its ordinance if a company were to try and ignore it. He stated that it would be up to the City to enforce its code. Springsteen – She stated that Fort Collins has included a provision to enforce wireless emissions testing and that Mr. Fellman helped to write the ordinance. She stated that applicants were required to have a permit to apply for new wireless sites in Fort Collins. She stated that she supported being more restrictive in the ordinance. Fellman – He stated that he did not work on the wireless ordinance in Fort Collins. He stated that there were no provisions in the Fort Collins code that requires or suggests that periodic testing be undertaken by applicants at their expense. He stated that Lakewood closely follows several other practices that have been implemented by Fort Collins. Able – He stated that there was a provision in its code that required companies to test wireless sites. Fellman – He stated that the language in the code appears to be stronger in Fort Collins, but that he would need to research how and if the City has ever implemented it. Gutwein – She stated that she was more comfortable with supporting Mayor Pro Tem Skilling’s amendment language and that the amendment should be in the substantive portion of the ordinance. She stated that under her understanding that the City is not prohibited from undertaking tests itself. She stated that in her own research that there are currently no known links between wireless exposure and cancer. She stated that if there were long term effects identified later that Council could modify the ordinance to require testing. Johnson – She stated that she supported the amendment language that would require testing. She stated that there are health impacts that should be monitored, and that testing would likely already be a part of existing business practices. She stated that the wireless companies should also pay for testing. Skilling – He stated that he supported moving his amendment to the substantive portion of the amendment. He stated that utilizing may in the amendment allows Council the most flexibility and authority on the issue. He stated that the simpler the wording of the amendment places Council in line with existing law. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to state that “The City may require periodic letters or confirmation that the WCF remains in compliance with the standards” and to move the document to the substantive section of the ordinance. It was seconded.


Page 15 Vote on the amendment to Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 9 2 The motion passed. Bieda – He asked if it would be possible for Council member Springsteen or Johnson to make a motion to change the amended language to include shall in the place of may since the initial amendment had passed. Council member Johnson made a motion amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to state that “The City shall require periodic letters or confirmation that the WCF remains in compliance with the standards” and to move the document to the substantive section of the ordinance. It was seconded. Vote on the amendment to Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 4 7 The motion failed. Mayor Paul – He asked if staff recommended to delete the definition for a satellite dish antenna from the ordinance. Fellman – He stated that was correct as the term did not appear elsewhere in the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to delete the definition for a Satellite Dish Antenna. It was seconded.


Page 16 Vote on amendment to Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Fellman – He stated that AT&T contacted the City to dispute wording in the ordinance that stated support structures could not protrude more than 6 feet from the side of a structure. He stated that the inclusion of the word other in the ordinance would allow the City to adhere to the FCC clarifications that were provided in June 2020. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to read “For Towers, other than Towers in the Right-of-Way, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the Tower that would protrude from the Tower more than twenty (20) feet, or more that the width of the Tower Structure at the level o the appurtenance, whichever is greater; for other Eligible Support Structure, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the side of the structure by more than six (6) feet.” It was seconded. Vote on the amendment to Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Fellman – He stated that staff recommended deleting a selection that defined how changes to Eligible Support Structures would defeat the concealment elements of the structure. He stated that the FCC’s June 2020 clarifications on its existing 2014 rules on mandatory collocations conflicted with the current sentence.


Page 17 Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to delete the sentence “For the purposes of this subsection (vi), a change that would undermine the concealment elements of this structure will be considered to defeat the concealment elements of the structure.” It was seconded. Vote on the amendment to Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to remove the definition for Wireless Communications Equipment Shelter. It was seconded. Bieda – He asked why the term was present in the ordinance. Fellman – He stated that the term may originate from existing code and he was unsure of its origin and would need to review the previous drafts of the ordinance to find its origin. Able – He asked if removing the term would allow wireless communications equipment shelters in City right-of-ways. Fellman – He stated that the purpose of the ordinance was to bring the installation of all wireless equipment installed in the City up to state and federal standards. He stated that the deletion would not allow the construction of equipment shelters in City right-of-ways. Vote on Ordinance O-2020-1:




Page 18 Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to state “This Article is intended to ensure that residents, public safety operations and businesses in the City have reliable access to personal wireless services and state of the art communications services in a way that preserves the aesthetic character and value of the community and complies with Federal and State laws.” It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Mayor Paul – He asked Mr. Fellman if it was possible to alter the wording from ‘encourage’ to ‘require’ Fellman – He stated that he was concerned that in any application of a land use permit anyone could challenge the installation of wireless sites by stating that new towers were not minimizing the towers needed. He stated that further policy issues could arise if the wording was changed. He stated for example that the ordinance would not allow wireless companies to convert a single large wireless site into several small ones that do not hinder environmental views, even with resident support. Council member Able motioned to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to state “Require the location of Towers in a manner that minimizes the total number of Towers needed throughout the community.” It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:




Page 19 Skilling – He asked what the difference was between encouraging location of towers and the locations of wireless communication facilities in the intents portion of the ordinance. Fellman – He stated that point C speaks only on the placement of towers while point E discusses all wireless communication facilities. He stated that if the wording in C was changed to ‘require’ that Council has limited the ability for wireless providers to create the least adverse impact of the installation of new towers. Skilling – He stated that if the wording in point E was changed from ‘encourage’ to ‘require’ to eliminate the concerns of adverse tower impacts. Fellman – He stated that point E would overrule point C if the wording was changed. He encouraged Council to not dedicate too much time to the intent section of the ordinance. Cox – He stated that changing the wording in point C to include ‘require’ would lead to the inability for wireless providers to create the least adverse impact of new installations. He stated that the wording in point E could be changed to include ‘require’ as it does not bind wireless providers to less towers, but to minimize adverse impacts of new installations. He reiterated that the intent portion of the ordinance is not enforced as rule of law. Franks – She concurred with Tim Cox. She stated that she desired to avoid aspirational language in the ordinance. City Council discussed the order of items that needed to be reviewed and the speaking order. Franks – She clarified that the raise hand feature on her computer did not work. She stated that she had been sending a raised hand text message to Mayor Paul throughout the evening to indicate her willingness to speak. Mayor Paul – He stated for the record that when a screen is shared in Zoom that he is only able to see 4 other City Council members at a time. He stated that he did not see all the votes for the amendment due to the shortcoming. He asked for clarification on point D from Mr. Fellman. Fellman – He stated that Council member Able proposed to delete the word ‘reasonably’. Able – He stated that using the word ‘feasible’ encompasses reasonably and would be better to use. Council member Able motioned to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to state “Require the collocation of WCFs wherever feasible.” It was seconded. Skilling – He suggested utilizing a different method to ensure that all votes were counted. Mayor Paul – He stated that Council could utilize a roll call vote.


Page 20 Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed Council member Able motioned to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to state “Require owners and users of WCFs to locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact to the community is minimized.” It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 9 2 The motion passed. Council member Vincent motioned to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to state “Enhance the ability of wireless communications service providers to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively, efficiently, and safely.” It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:




Page 21 Able – He stated that he wanted to amend the ordinance to set a maximum height restriction that can be modified with approval from the Director of Public Works. He stated that he desired to set a guide for the variances within the ordinance. Fellman – He stated that the only reason it may not work within the ordinance as the Over the Air Reception Device rules issued by the FCC allow for local rules, but not those that would restrict device owners from receiving wireless service. He stated that if device owners could not receive access that it would be a violation of federal law. He stated that staff could review the technical information and allow the minimum addition necessary. He stated that Council could provide a provision that would allow the City to determine the minimum height required to comply with federal law. Able – He stated that would be acceptable. He asked what the height restriction was for a tower. Fellman – He stated that it depended on the zoning district the tower resided in. He stated that there was not a federally set height restriction. He stated that it was up to the local authority to set height restrictions so long as they do not restrict access to service. Council member Able motioned to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 section 17.10.1(3) to state “The Director or his or her designee has the authority to approve modifications to the height restriction related to OTARD Antennas and OTARD antenna in the reasonable discretion of the City, in the minimum amount necessary to comply with federal law.” It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Gutwein – She stated at the previous Study Session on July 20, 2020, Council discussed ensuring that anyone who was doing work in rights-of-way would be known by the community. She stated that those doing work are recorded through the permitting process and did not feel that an amendment to identify companies and individuals working in rights-of-way.


Page 22 Fellman – He stated that the Lakewood Broadband Taskforce proposed an amendment to specify ‘public property’ that was ‘City-owned’ in 17.10.3 Item B. Able – He stated that public property should be further defined. He stated that public property was too vague and could include City parks. He stated that he supported Mr. Fellman’s change from ‘public property’ to ‘city owned vertical assets in the public right-of-way.’ Council member Able motioned to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 section 17.10.3(B) to state “Permission to Use Public Right-of-Way or City-Owned Vertical Assets in the Public Right-of-Way. Prior to WCFs being sited in the ROW, the Applicant shall have an executed license agreement with the City, granting a non-exclusive license to use the Public Right-of-Way. Attachment of WCFs on an existing or replacement traffic signal, street light pole, or similar structure shall require written evidence of a license, or other legal right or approval, to use such structure by its owner, and Site-specific approval pursuant to 17.10.4. The Applicant, and if different from the Applicant, the Owner, shall remain responsible for any WCF installed in the ROW. Prior to, or concurrently with, seeking land use approval for a WCF on City-Owned Vertical Assets in the Public Right-of-Way.” It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Able – He stated that he would like to decrease the compliance period to 30 days in Section 17.10.3(C). Goldstein – He stated that Anne Heine and Mike Whiteaker were available to answer questions about the timeline. Franks – She asked if 30 days was a reasonable time to ensure that towers were complying. Goldstein – He stated that Mike Whiteaker could join the meeting to provide insight on the issue.


Page 23 Harrison – She stated that she supported the reduction to 30 days. She stated that Council could amend the ordinance, if needed, if it was found to be too restrictive. Mike Whiteaker, City Transportation Engineer – He stated that similar structures, such as traffic lights, could be repaired reasonably within 30 days. Bieda – He asked why there was as additional 30-day compliance period from the first notice if the owner shows good cause. Fellman – He stated that the intent of the wording was to provide an additional 30 days to be compliant. Bieda – He stated that the compliance period for the second notice is the same as the initial notice. He stated that the wording should be changed to provide the 30-day period from the good cause request. Council member Bieda and Mr. Fellman discussed ways in which the good cause extension period could be implemented. Skilling – He stated that the deadline for the extension of good cause should be a maximum of 60 days from the initial approval. Council member Able motioned to Amend Ordinance O-2020-1 Section 17.10.3(C) to state “Upon good cause shown by the owner and meeting reasonable safety considerations, the City’s Chief Building Official may extend such compliance period not to exceed 60 days from the date of said notice.” It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling motioned to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 to add items I and J to Section 17.10.3. It was seconded.




TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Fellman – He stated that Council is unable to extend the period for application review to 90 days. He stated that the City is federally required to adhere to the 60-day review period. He also stated that federal law requires that local governments approve any application they receive that meets federal criteria. Able – He stated that he supported not altering the application deadline or denial process. He stated that he supported extending the deadline to give more time to process applications but understood that the City was bound by federal law. Fellman – He suggested a change to Section 17.10.4(3)(e) that would allow staff to reject applications that did not qualify as an Eligible Facilities Request. He stated that applicants would be allowed to apply for a modification of facilities, but the application would not be subject to the federal Shot Clock until all information was provided to the City. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 Section 17.10.4(3)(e) to include “To the extent such information is required under the appropriate provision of the Code under which the application should be considered, the City may request additional information under Section 332(c)(7) reviews, and the Shot Clock shall not commence until such information is provided.” It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:




Page 25 Johnson – She asked for clarification on Section 17.10.4(A)(3)(a). She stated that the wording does not require applicants to demonstrate need or business case to apply for modifications or colocations. She stated that she would like to see stricter language requiring applicants to provide need or business cases. Fellman – He stated that the wording covers limited cases where the application has an eligible facilities request. He stated that if applicants claim the eligible facilities request, that federal law does not permit cities to deny their applications if they meet federal requirements. He discussed potential amendments to Section 17.10.4(B). He stated that the amendments address compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the need for environmental assessment. He stated that if Council wants to add criteria for compliance testing would be placed later in the ordinance. Johnson – She stated that she supported being as stringent as possible in the application process due to the potential health impacts 5G may bring. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to amend Section 17.10.4(B)(1)(b) to state “Radio Frequency Emissions Letter; To the extent that the WCFs that are the subject of the application require FCC filings to demonstrate compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, all such filings shall be provided to the City.” and to amend subsection A to state “Information related to need for environmental assessment; If an applicant is required to submit an environmental assessment to the FCC for the proposed site, it shall submit a copy of that environmental assessment, or, alternately, it shall certify to the City in writing that the proposed site is categorically excluded per 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307. It was seconded. Springsteen – She stated that stricter language should be implemented in the ordinance. She stated that she supported requiring applicants to provide liability insurance alongside their applications. Fellman – He stated that a bond requirement would not be implemented as the wireless sites is treated similarly to construction in the rights-of-way. Anne Heine, City Engineer – She stated that public way ordinance requires collateral in the form of a bond or other credit. Fellman – He stated that the proposal from the Lakewood Broadband Taskforce was unclear in how to address liability. He stated with the presence of wireless towers on private property and buildings, liability coverage for health impacts or any other regulations on wireless sites must be competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory in their application. He stated that other utilities are also being researched for EMF emissions, so the same requirements would need to be applied to all applicable utility providers equally. He stated that he was unaware of a community in Colorado that required liability insurance on any wireless utility.


Page 26 Johnson – She stated that she supported requiring existing wireless facilities to undergo an EMF study conducted and provided to the City as a part of its application. Mayor Paul – He asked if this was an amendment or a comment on the existing language. Johnson – She stated that she included it as a potential amendment in the comments provided on Document 1. Fellman – He stated that Council member Johnson did include a comment on post construction testing. Johnson – She stated that applicants should provide documentation that details the emissions associated with the wireless sites. Fellman – He stated that if the application was for an Eligible Facilities Request that the City would be unable to enforce any requirement. He said the current version of the comments on Document 1 would require the submittal of any required documents for new wireless sites or existing sites that undergo major changes that did not fall under an Eligible Facilities. He stated that a provision could be added later in the code. Johnson – She stated that she was interested in enforcing mandatory third-party emissions testing. She stated that she believed that businesses would want to know the emissions from sites that they install. Fellman – He asked for clarification on the suggested third-party emissions testing. Johnson – She stated that the third-party would not be tied to the business and that is unbiased in the matter. Fellman – He stated that the City could approach consulting firms to provide testing. He stated that companies usually hire outside consultants to perform testing on their equipment. He stated that it would be difficult to prove whether or not a consulting firm was truly unbiased. Johnson – She stated that she was interested in ensuring that the City would be provided information on the emissions produced by wireless sites as they were installed by the City. Springsteen – She stated that Centennial requires that applicants conduct emissions testing. She asked where the testing requirement could be added to the ordinance if it did not fit in the current section. She stated that there must be a way to require a third-party to conduct emissions testing on wireless facilities. Mayor Paul – He asked if the testing requirements would need to be implemented later in the ordinance.


Page 27 Fellman – He stated that if Council wanted to move forward with testing requirements that staff could evaluate the approaches that Centennial and Fort Collins have taken. He stated that there may be potential legal issues with wireless providers that have established contracts with the City. He stated that staff could work to establish guidelines that are strict and reasonable if Council decides to pursue the requirement. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 10 1 The motion passed. Attorney Ken Fellman clarified several items in Section 17.10.4. Able – He stated that he believes the wording in Section 17.10.5(A) is too lenient. He stated that a portion of it should be deleted as it provides staff with too much discretion. Fellman – He stated that he believed the original intent of Council member Able’s amendment was the addition of ‘and documents’ to give the City the authority to waive the requirements. He stated that it was Council’s decision on how they approached the amendment. Able – He stated that the addition of ‘and documents’ in the amendment satisfies his concerns with the wording. Council member Able motioned to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 Section 17.10.5(A) to include ‘and documents’. It was seconded. Skilling – He suggested merging amendments he and Council member Franks proposed later in the same section. Franks – She stated that she also suggested the addition of ‘and documents’ and supported the amendment.




TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Skilling – He stated that he wanted to add a sentence to clarify that changes to WCFs would need to undergo a variance procedure. Fellman – He stated that administrative waiver provisions in wireless codes is to accommodate federal statutes that prevent local regulations from restricting wireless services. He stated that the City is required to decide on a WCF application within a federally determined window. He stated that staff would need to comment on if the tool could be implemented with enough time. Paul Rice, Planning Director – He stated that the City could proceed with a variance hearing or special use application within the allotted time. Cox – He stated that staff would need to ensure that the Board of Adjustments had the authority to hear WCF variances if the amendment passed. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling motioned to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 Section 17.10.5(A) to include the wording ‘and in the case of residential property, subject to normal variance procedures being followed.’ It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:




Page 29 Council member Franks motioned to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 Section 17.10.5(A) to add language that states, ‘regardless of any changes in design standards, in no event shall the distance between WCFs in a residential zone be less than 600 feet.’ It was seconded. Fellman – He stated that his only concern is that federal regulations prevent local government policies that prohibit the ability of the company to provide service. If a company were to determine that the restriction inhibits their ability to expand their network that the provision would be preempted. Franks – She stated that the residents have voiced their concerns with the strength of the language in the ordinance. She stated that leaving design standards as a purely administrative process did not fully address resident concerns. Skilling – He stated that the design standards discussed in the ordinance would be 600 feet. He stated that if the design standards were to change, that the ordinance would trigger the proposed amendment that would require an ordinance change rather than an administrative review. Able – He stated that Fort Collins requires a 600-foot separation as well. He stated that he supported the amendment. Fellman – He asked for clarification on the intent behind the language. Franks – She stated that the wording allows future Councils to make the decision through a change to the ordinance rather than leaving the decision up to staff. Fellman – He asked if the ordinance concerned all WCFs or standalone WCFs. He stated that one of the policy goals is to minimize new vertical structures in rights of-way. He stated that the policy goal that would prefer that WCFs be attached to existing structures, such as light posts. He stated that light posts are closer than 600 ft apart. Goldstein – He asked if the amendment was consistent with the Fort Collins code. Fellman – He stated that he would need to look further in it. Goldstein – He stated that he believed that Fort Collins allowed for an administrative variance to address similar issues. Franks – She stated that the goal was to emphasize the separation between preexisting WCFs and new WCFs. She asked how Council could minimize impact on the community from the number of units and number of towers. Fellman – He suggested a change in the wording for the amendment to require an amendment to the ordinance to change the 600-foot distance requirement. He stated that Council could discuss giving staff discretion to address issues as they arise. He stated


Page 30 that the avoidance of pole clutter has trumped other concerns within other communities. Skilling – He stated that the ordinance is connected to the design standards. He stated that staff recommended that the regulation was properly kept solely in the design standards. He asked what the verbiage of the design standards was on the issue. He stated that the language concerning the types of WCFs should remain consistent. Fellman – He stated that the suggested change to the amendment to specify individual poles would help to keep the language consistent. Springsteen – She stated that Greenwood Village has a 600-foot separation between all WCFs. She stated that there was a discussion to require telecommunications communities to prove that they needed to install WCFs with a smaller separation. Council member Franks motioned to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 Section 17.10.5(A) to add language that states, ‘Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, any modification of a 600-foot separation standard between stand-alone poles in the public rights-of-way can only be made by an amendment to this Code.’ It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 10 1 The motion passed. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 Section 17.10.5(A) to state and in the case of residential property, subject to normal variance procedures being followed. The design standards in this section and any design standards promulgated pursuant hereto, shall be employed to avoid or minimize the intangible harm of unsightly deployments or deployments that are not in character with the surrounding area. Design standards shall be applicable to both newly constructed WCFs, to the extent not inconsistent with state law, permitted but not yet constructed WCFs, as well as legal nonconforming WCFs when such sites are sought to be modified.’ It was seconded.




TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Johnson – She stated that she supported adding an amendment to implement a fine for wireless providers if they fail to remove graffiti from WCFs. She stated that the fine would be implemented in Section 17.10.4(D). Mayor Paul – He stated that he was concerned that the amendment could signal out an individual industry and not be applied equally across other industries. He asked if the fine would be from the municipal court. Cox – He stated that the City does not have unlimited authority to impose fines on business that appear to fail their obligations. He stated that those issues must be adjudicated before a fine could be issued. He stated that there would likely be an issue of authority and would require a court ruling to find that there was a code violation. Fellman – He stated that the if the City code has provisions that address graffiti that Council could amend its provisions on graffiti on public property to address the issue. He stated that a general graffiti ordinance on public property may include a provision for a quasi-criminal citation if it is not addressed. Franks – She stated that Council member Johnson’s amendment could be considered after Council passes the ordinance and seeks to address any shortcomings that may have been exposed in the future. Johnson – She stated that residents of Lakewood are required to remove graffiti from their property or face a bill for the cost of the City removing it. She stated that she believed that cell providers could be required to pay for any violations. Mayor Paul – He stated that he believed the code addressed graffiti uniformly. Cox – He stated that staff would need to look deeper into the code to understand its enforcement. Able – He asked if the City has decibel levels that are enforced in the City’s code.


Page 32 Cox – He stated that the City previously utilized an objective method to enforce noise in various parts of the City. He stated that other communities moved away from the practice due to conflicts on how and where the sound should be recorded from. He said that it is up to an officer to deem if a noise is unreasonable given a variety of factors, such as volume and time of day. He stated that there is no definitive number, but the ordinance is enforceable without one. Able – He stated that the lack of definitive noise levels was a concern presented by the Police Chief. He stated that the lack of a numerical noise level meant that the ordinance was not enforceable. He stated that reasonable is undefinable. Cox – He stated that there are several examples under various laws that allow for the enforcement of reasonable expectations. He stated that judges do make determinations into similar laws frequently. He stated that there are enforcement issues with both methods. Johnson – She stated that she agreed with Council member Able’s concerns. She stated that she did not believe the noise provision was enforceable. She stated that she supported revising the noise ordinance and conducting further research on what other communities are doing to address the issue. Able – He stated that his next comment was intended to require that the wireless providers bare the cost of installing landscaping and irrigation to screen the view of WCFs from adjacent properties. Council member Able made a motion to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 Section 17.10.5(A)(5)(b) to state ‘All such expense, including the cost of irrigation shall be borne by the wireless provider.’ It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:




Page 33 Fellman – He stated that the amendment to Section 17.10.5(A)(5)(c) was proposed by the Lakewood Broadband Task Force to preserve landscaping in the rights-of-way. He stated that Council member Able had concerns regarding the damage of landscaping on private property. Able – He stated that he also wanted to emphasize that landscaping in the rights-of-way should be preserved. Council member Able motioned to amend Section 17.10.5(A)(5)(c) to state ‘To the extent possible, heritage trees and traditional landscaping designs should be preserved in the Rights-of-Way. Existing mature tree growth and natural landforms on the Right-of-Way site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible.’ It was seconded. Johnson – She asked if Council was voting to eliminate ‘to the maximum extent possible’ from the ordinance. Able – He stated that was correct. Harrison – She stated Council was voting on the section including the language. She stated that Council would need to vote once more to remove the discussed language. Mayor Paul – He stated that Council needed to complete its first vote and to make a new motion to remove the discussed language. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Council member Able made a motion to amend the section by removing the portion that states ‘to the maximum extent possible’. It was seconded. Franks – She stated that the beginning of the section includes the wording ‘To the extent possible’. She asked if the proposed language was removed if the ordinance would even change its meaning if similar language was still present.


Page 34 Able – He stated that for consistency he would remove both instances of ‘to the extent possible’ would be removed. Council member Able motioned to amend Section 17.10.5(A)(5)(c) to state ‘Heritage trees and traditional landscaping designs should be preserved in the Rights-of-Way. Existing mature tree growth and natural landforms on the Right-of-Way site shall be preserved.’ It was seconded. Franks – She asked if staff had any concerns with the changes proposed. Cox – He stated that there may be concerns with restricting certain actions in the right-of-way. He stated as an example that the removal of dead trees during construction may not be possible with the proposed wording. Fellman – He stated that there may be concerns on how other utility companies may be addressed in similar circumstances. He stated that the City’s restrictions must be competitively neutral. He stated that the City’s design standards have requirements for how far construction must be from existing root structures. He stated that it may be impossible in certain circumstances to install wireless poles without impacting the landscaping in the right-of-way. He stated that he would like to hear the opinion of an arborist on staff on the matter. Kathy Hodgson, City Manager – She stated that an arborist is on staff but is not present at the meeting. She stated that staff could look further into the issue and come back to Council with an answer. Able – He stated that utilities are currently permitted to trim existing trees to within six inches of their wires. Fellman – He asked what would happen if a wireless company sought to install a new tower that would require existing vegetation to be removed. Able – He stated that if a tree were damaged on private property that the owner would be entitled to compensation. Fellman – He stated that he was unclear as to the City’s procedure if a utility company sought to remove a tree from a publicly-owned right-of-way. Franks – She stated that she was concerned that the removal of the language would leave the ordinance to be too strict. She stated that it would remove any discretion utility companies may have if they wanted to remove diseased or dying trees from the rights-of-way. Goldstein – He stated that the City requires that there be a 15-foot separation from existing vegetation and that no disruption occur to critical root structures of existing trees when new utility structures are installed. He agreed with Council member Franks that


Page 35 there may exist exceptions to the rule. Able – He stated that he did not want utility companies to have the discretion to remove trees. Harrison – She stated that she did not support the newly proposed language. She stated that she agreed with Council member Franks and that the language would restrict the removal of diseased or dying trees. Able – He clarified that he did not want utility companies to disrupt the root systems of trees in private property. He stated that some trees may have roots that extend into public rights-of-way and may be affected by the installation of new poles. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 3 8 The motion failed. Able – He asked for clarification on Section 17.10.5(A)(5)(a). He asked where equipment that was not within the rights-of-way would be located. Fellman – He stated that item 6 addresses design requirements for all wireless facilities. He stated that the section for example could address a wireless site that was constructed on an industrial or private property. He stated that similar facilities are required to be screened under the section. He stated that the section does not grant companies to place wireless facilities wherever they would like but would require all new wireless facilities to be screened. Springsteen – She stated that Council discussed having a vote to proceed if a meeting continued past 10:00 p.m. at its Annual Planning Meeting. She asked if any of the Council members would be willing to continue discussion of the ordinance at a future meeting. Mayor Paul – He stated that a motion could be made to continue the meeting to a date certain. He stated that Council member Springsteen would need to determine a date to continue the current meeting to. He stated the next regular meetings for Council would be August 10, 2020 and August 24, 2020. Springsteen – She asked what date would be better to continue the meeting to.


Page 36 Mayor Paul – He stated that both dates were fairly packed with existing business. Hodgson – She stated that August 24th may be a better date. Goldstein – He reminded Council that Mr. Fellman’s availability may depend on the meeting. Council member Springsteen made a motion to continue Ordinance O-2020-1 to August 24, 2020. It was seconded. Vincent – She stated that she would not support the motion. She stated that Council was a few pages from completing the ordinance. Bieda – He stated that there was some value in continuing the Ordinance. He stated that citizens would be able to coordinate a meeting to discuss their suggestions on the ordinance. He stated that he supported the amendment. Gutwein – She stated that she does not supporting continuing the Ordinance. LaBure – He stated that Council has additional priorities it needs to address. He stated that he did not support continuing the motion. Springsteen – She stated that did not feel comfortable proceeding with the ordinance at the current meeting. Vote to continue Ordinance O-2020-1 to the City Council Regular Meeting on August 24, 2020:


TOTAL 3 8 The motion failed. City Council recessed from 11:45 p.m. to 11:56 p.m. Mayor Paul – He asked if the proposed amendment to Section 17.10.5(A)(b)(ii) was to include ‘natural vegetation’. Fellman – He stated that was correct.


Page 37 Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 Section 17.10.5(A)(b)(ii) to state “Be compatible with the surrounding area, including architecture, topography, natural vegetation, and/or landscaped environments.” It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Council member Able motioned to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 Section 17.10.5(A)(d)(i) to state “Roof mounted antennas and accessory equipment shall be painted or treated to match the façade of the building to which they are attached in order to minimize visibility from adjacent residential land uses and/or from public sidewalks. No WCFs can be placed on rooftops or façades in Residential Zone Districts.” It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 11 0 The motion passed. Able – He stated that there was consensus from Council at the previous Study Session to include a provision to prevent wireless accessory equipment from being placed within 150 feet of existing equipment in rights-of-way. Fellman – He stated that he believed Council reaching consensus on restricting the placement of equipment cabinets. He stated that accessory equipment may include items that are not included in cabinets. He stated that he was concerned that the right term was not utilized.


Page 38 Able – He stated that he did not desire to add new accessory equipment to rights of way that already have equipment cabinets. He stated that he did not desire to add increased equipment clutter. Fellman – He stated that the wording may restrict the implementation of wireless structures on existing utilities, such as streetlights. Able – He stated that there are already restrictions on the construction of new wireless towers. He stated that he wanted to reduce the amount of equipment clutter in front of residents’ homes. Fellman – He asked if Council member Able would like to restrict the presence of accessory equipment only from residential areas. Able – He stated that there is significant accessory clutter in front of schools. He stated that he was especially concerned with clutter in residential areas. Fellman – He stated that the current wording would restrict equipment clutter in all zoned areas. He asked if similar restrictions are leveled on other utilities looking to install accessory equipment. Able – He stated that he was not sure if similar restrictions existed on other utilities. He stated that properties should not have their views obstructed by accessory equipment. He stated that wording could be added to restrict the rule to residential areas. Council member Able made a motion to amend Section 17.10.5(A)(e)(vi) to state “New accessory equipment cannot be placed within 150 feet of existing utility accessory equipment in Rights-o- Way in residential areas.” It was seconded. Skilling – He stated that the wording should include ‘zones’ over ‘areas’. Council member Able amended his motion to change ‘areas’ to ‘zones’. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:




Page 39 Council member Johnson made a motion to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 Section 17.10.5A Standards for Approval to include “Spacing/separation – all free-standing small cell facilities must be within 1,200 feet of another small cell facility in a residential area. All small cell facilities must be within 600 feet of one another in a commercial area.” It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 3 8 The motion failed. Able - He stated that his proposed amendment to 17.10.5A(3) to make the variance process the only way for alterations to tower structures to be processed. Fellman – He stated that if staff was confident in completing variance requirements in time to adhere to the federal shot clock that Council could proceed with the amendment. Goldstein – He asked if the shot clock Mr. Fellman referred to the short shot clock or the 150-day shot clock. Fellman – He stated that the amendment would apply to facilities except those in rights of way. He stated that new facilities and modifications could fall under the amendment and the shorter shot clock. Goldstein – He stated that he fears that the 90-day short clock may be too tight of a deadline for staff to meet. Mayor Paul – He asked if an extension to the variance for 30 days could be included. Fellman – He stated that the shot clocks include times that are presumed reasonable. He stated that if the City was working diligently toward a decision and would not make the 90-day period that the variance date could be extended if the applicant were to agree. Council member Able made a motion to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 Section 17.10.5A(3) to state “The following minimum setback requirements shall apply to all WCFs except for Alternative Tower Structures in the Right-of-Way; provided however, that the City may


Page 40 reduce standard setback requirements if the applicant demonstrates that the goals of this Section can be met through a Variance process.” It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 8 3 The motion passed. Mayor Pro Tem Skilling made a motion to amend Ordinance O-2020-1 Section 17.10.5A (3) to include items a and b. It was seconded. Vote to amend Ordinance O-2020-1:


TOTAL 10 1 The motion passed. Able – He stated that the City’s larger properties are over 100 feet from rights-of-ways. He stated that the current wording in 17.10.5A(3)(c) excludes properties that are over 100 feet away from rights-of-way. He stated that the distance should be 175 feet or more for facilities with an adjacent setback set at one foot for every 30 feet in facility height. Fellman – He stated that everything in 17.10.5A (3) is for sites outside of the rights-of-way. He stated that 17.10.5A(3)(a) subject sites to the appropriate zoning district requirements. He stated that the section requires a setback one foot from the property for each foot in height for the facility. Able – He stated that he would withdraw and amendment to the section.


Page 41 Fellman – He stated that if the Council desired to create a new standard of

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ......2021/01/25 · AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY...

Documents

Transcript of REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ......2021/01/25 · AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY...