City planners presented two related code matters: mandatory changes to Brighton's landscape standards to comply with recent state bills that limit nonfunctional and artificial turf, and staff-proposed sound-mitigation standards for new residential development adjacent to major highways.

State-mandated turf changes

Planner Colton Guarini briefed the council on state legislation he cited as Senate Bill 24-005 and House Bill 25-1113, both of which the presentation said the city must implement in code to limit nonfunctional turf and certain artificial turf in specified property types. Guarini explained the restrictions would apply to commercial, institutional and industrial properties, common-interest communities, street rights-of-way, parking lots, medians and transportation corridors; he said individual residential lots are not expected to be affected under the current bills. "These 2026 restrictions will have little to no effect on individual residential property lots," Guarini said. He noted athletic fields and other "functional" turf uses would remain allowed.

Policy rationale and questions

City Attorney Alicia Calderon and council members discussed why the state law applies despite Brighton's home-rule status; staff said the legislature identified turf regulation as a matter of statewide concern and therefore preempted home-rule exceptions. Council members asked whether the turf restrictions could produce unintended impacts or be inconsistent with local water-conservation goals; staff said the stated legislative goals include water conservation and cited environmental concerns such as heat-island effects and potential microplastic or PFAS release from artificial turf.

Sound-mitigation proposal

Separately, staff proposed new code language in Article 8 to require sound mitigation (for example, sound walls or berms and landscaping) for new residential lots adjacent to major highways, to protect new neighborhoods from increased traffic noise. Staff said they had not yet drafted final setback distances and expected to rely on acoustical studies and topography to determine where mitigation is needed. "We have not specified a specific setback yet...one of the things we would likely put into the code is having a noise study be done by an acoustical engineer to verify that the decibel levels at a certain point are lower than whatever standard that might be," staff said.

Next steps and council direction

Council members generally supported moving forward but asked staff to return with specific draft ordinance language, setback distances or objective noise thresholds and to consider cost and design flexibility for developers (for example, berms with plantings versus formal walls). Staff said sound-wall options have become more cost-effective over time (tilt-up concrete panels are now available) and that alternative measures would be allowed where appropriate. No formal votes or ordinance adoptions occurred; staff will prepare draft ordinance language and bring it back to council for later consideration.