5A CITY OF THORNTON CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

A G E N D A Planning Session Training Room February 4, 2020 5:45 p.m.

I. CALL TO ORDER, REVIEW OF AGENDA, AND STAFF COMMENTS

II. COUNCIL DISCUSSION

III. BRIEFINGS

A. 2020 Summer Concert Series/Ward Locations for Ice Cream Socials (Estimated 10 Minutes)

B. Discussion Regarding Prairie Dogs (Estimated 10 Minutes)

C. Comparison of Development Fees and Discussion Regarding Public Land Dedication Cash-in-Lieu (Estimated 30 Minutes)

D. Discussion Regarding the Development Code Rewrite and Development Review Process (Estimated 30 Minutes)

E. Discussion Regarding Transportation to Trail Winds Recreation Center for Programs and Services (Estimated 20 Minutes)

F. Executive Session pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(d), specialized details of security arrangements or investigations regarding Council security training (Estimated 30 Minutes)

01/24/20 A PLANNING SESSION COMMUNICATION PAGE 2

At this Planning Session, Council is being asked to choose which band they want to perform in each Ward for their annual Ice Cream Social. Staff will then finalize the concert schedule with the bands and promote the entire series via online, onsite and print publicity.

Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4

Date Band Genre Pecos Carpenter Riverdale Thorncreek

Park Park Park Golf Course Symphonic Thornton Series June 11 Brass & Community Band Kick-off Winds Brothers June 18 That Eighties Band 1980s Rock sponsor Chris Daniels & The Rock, R&B, June 25 Kings# Swing

Bluegrass, Katie Glassman & July 9 Swing, Snapshot# Americana Motown July 16 Miles Apart X Show R&B, Soul, July 23 Soul School Funk, Oldies X Dance Band Ricardo Latin, Salsa July 30 X Peña Los Bohemios Dance Show

Michael C & Aug 6 R & B, Soul The Allstarz#

# Indicates bands that can perform on a mobile state at a park other than Carpenter Park

June 25: Chris Daniels and the Kings Founded in 1984, Chris Daniels & the Kings (now with Freddi Gowdy) are celebrating their 33rd year with a new BLUES WITH HORNS! Doing more than 120 dates per year touring over two continents, Daniels and his “horn-driven roots rock, soul and funk” band have been invited to appear in such diverse places as The Down Home Blues Festival in South Carolina, The Bob Hope Chrysler Desert Classic, The Curacao Swing Festival (South America), and all over Europe. Chris was inducted into the COLORADO MUSIC HALL OF FAME in 2013 with Judy Collins and has appeared with the Garth Brooks, B.B. King, Vince Gill, Amy Grant, Joe Walsh, The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, John Oates, The Lumineers, Uncle Cracker, Blues Traveler, The Neville Brothers, and the list goes on. http://www.chrisdaniels.com/

July 9: Katie Glassman and Snapshot Katie Glassman is that rare musician who possesses a combination of instrumental virtuosity and powerful musical expression. She is one of the country’s most renowned and decorated Texas-style and swing fiddlers, as well as, an accomplished songwriter, singer, and a highly sought after teacher. Based in Boulder, Colorado, Katie currently tours and records with the Western Flyers and leads her own band, Katie Glassman and Snapshot. She also maintains a thriving private teaching practice and

PLANNING SESSION COMMUNICATION PAGE 3

travels to teach at music camps throughout the country. In 2015, Katie won the National Swing Fiddle Championship in Weiser, Idaho, took first in both the Bob Wills and Open divisions at the Bob Wills Festival and Fiddle Contest in Greenville, Texas; and is the three-time reigning Colorado State Fiddle Champion. Other notable victories were in 2013 at Rockygrass in Lyons, Colorado and the Walnut Valley Festival in Winfield, Kansas, to name a few. https://katieglassman.com/

July 16: Miles Apart Singer, songwriter, and keyboardist for the Miles Apart Band, Ron Ivory’s music touches people’s hearts with soulful renditions of Motown’s greatest hits. His band is composed of saxophone player Henry Hudson, guitarist Ben Mitchell, drummer Wayne Patterson, and bassist Dave Summers. Ivory began playing with Summers in 1987 when they formed the Ivory-Summers Band. In 1993, the duo changed the name to Miles Apart and started adding more people. Miles Apart also performs regularly around the Denver area, and they have taken their act on the road, performing around the country and opening for bands such as the Atlantic Starr, the Drifters, Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes, Floyd Taylor, Cornell Gunters Coasters and the Temptations Review. http://www.milesapart.net/

July 23: Soul School A high-energy 8-piece dance band with over 150 years of combined entertainment experience, this soulful dance band from Denver offers a vast repertoire of music which includes Motown, , Rock, Funk, Rhythm and Blues, Golden Oldies, Beach, Motown, Country, and Contemporary. Their smooth, harmonious vocals and exciting stage show will entertain and impress the most discriminating guest or client. Soul School delivers the very best in professional live entertainment and has performed for corporate, public, and private events, locally and nationally. http://www.soulschoollive.com/index.html

July 30: Ricardo Peña and Los Bohemios Back by popular demand, Ricardo Peña and Los Bohemios are a special Salsa band that gets audiences on their feet with their energetic and fiery brand of music. Ricardo's current band is his best line up ever and features some of the best musicians in Colorado. On guitar and vocals: Ed Edwards, bass: Mark Diamond, Vocals and percussion: Amy Biondo and drums: Dean Kielian. This band has been and continues to be very successful in the private music scene performing for weddings, corporate parties, and private parties, as well as, at public concerts and clubs. Besides being active as a music producer, Ricardo can be found performing at many public and private events and venues. Denver's La Voz wrote, "Peña fits into these environments like a musical chameleon, equally at ease playing rock, salsa or Latin jazz." http://www.ricardopena.net/

August 6: Michael C & the AllStarz At the age of 14, Michael C. started performing on the drums and various percussion instruments plus singing backup vocals. By age 22, he was performing lead vocals and entertaining military audiences. Between his musical abilities and his athletic prowess (professional football), music won out! To date, Michael C. has performed over 500 events on three continents including the Rockies All Star Game, the Denver Nuggets House Band, the Grand Opening of the Pepsi Center, and the 2000 Republican Presidential Inauguration in Washington, D.C. He has also performed at numerous corporate events, private parties – over 300 wedding receptions – and fund raisers including the Annual Cherry Creek Debutante Ball; John Elway events; Denver Country Club events; the Vail Arts Festival; and numerous mountain resort events. Michael C has opened shows in Denver for Charley Pride, The Pointer Sisters, The Drifters, and The Spinners. The last five years have seen

PLANNING SESSION COMMUNICATION PAGE 4

Michael working with a national entertainment booking agency. He has also formed his own Colorado band, the AllStarz. https://www.skylineusa.com/talent/private/talent_Stretch_9.asp

TWIST AND SHOUT 2020 Summer Concert Series

• Staff is seeking direction from Council as to which band they wish to have perform at their respective Ward Ice Cream Socials. • The list of available bands and concert dates can be viewed on the next slide. All concerts are on Thursdays, 7:00-8:30 p.m. Date Band Genre Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Pecos Carpenter Riverdale Thorncreek Park Park Park Golf Course

June 11 Thornton Symphonic Series Community Brass & Kick-off Band Winds June18 That Eighties 1980s Rock Brothers Band Sponsor June 25 Chris Daniels & Rock R&B the Kings# Funk Swing July 9 Katie Glass-man Bluegrass & Snapshot# Swing Americana July 16 Miles Apart Motown X Show July 23 Soul School R&B, Soul, X Funk, Oldies Dance Band July 30 Ricardo Peña Latin Salsa X Los Bohemios Dance Show

Aug 6 Michael C & The R&B Allstarz# Soul

# Indicates bands that can perform on a mobile state at a park other than Carpenter Park B PLANNING SESSION COMMUNICATION PAGE 2

BACKGROUND (ANALYSIS/NEXT STEPS/HISTORY): (includes previous City Council action)

City of Thornton Ordinance and City Development Procedure The City adopted a Prairie Dog Policy (Ordinance Number 2628) on August 28, 2000 (Exhibit A). The Policy addresses the procedures for compliance, and of organizations available to perform prairie dog removal. Furthermore, the Policy states that no Development Permits will be issued for development applications until the developer documents good faith efforts to relocate prairie dogs from the land slated for development.

The City currently requires developers to submit a letter outlining actions taken in good faith to relocate prairie dog colonies from the development site, including the results of those efforts. When good faith efforts reveal that relocation is possible, the developer is expected to relocate the prairie dogs, in conformance with Division of Wildlife policies, from the land slated for development. If good faith efforts reveal that relocation is not feasible, the developer may exterminate the prairie dogs through those extermination methods permitted by the Colorado Department of Agriculture.

Regulation Comparison Staff researched several other municipalities in the Denver area to determine how the City’s current ordinance compares in practice with that of other jurisdictions. A summary of this comparative analysis is provided in the attached Exhibit B. Among the findings, you will notice that most jurisdictions do not have codified prairie dog control regulations, and instead operate by policy. In most cases, prairie dog relocation is a preferred first step of mitigation, but ultimately lethal control is allowed. From there, findings vary on specific methods of allowable use of toxicants and/or lethal control.

The following information outlines the methods of prairie dog control that are typically used in the Denver metro area with regard to relocation or extermination:

For Relocation Activities Any activities that involve handling wildlife will be coordinated with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), including trapping and/or relocation of prairie dogs. CPW prairie dog trapping and transport permit revisions were made in 2008. A permit is no longer required for trapping prairie dogs for contribution to a raptor rehabilitation facility if they are euthanized on the site where trapped. Instead, a report of each delivery must be made to CPW within five days of receipt by the receiving entity. Permits are still required for trapping and transporting live prairie dogs. This includes trapping where prairie dogs are taken to the black-footed ferret recovery program and for any relocation efforts. It is important to note that any proposal to capture prairie dogs in one county and release them in a different county, requires the approval of the receiving county board of commissioners.

For Extermination Activities and Pesticide Use Several different types of pesticides can be used for prairie dog control in Colorado, including grain baits and products that generate poison gases (fumigants). All of these products are federally restricted use pesticides, except for the USDA gas cartridge. Landowners who plan to do their own control must have a valid private pesticide applicator license from Colorado Department of Agriculture before purchase or use of a restricted use pesticide. Landowners can also hire a licensed commercial applicator.

PLANNING SESSION COMMUNICATION PAGE 3

Poison Baits: Two types of poison grain baits can be used for prairie dog control in Colorado: zinc phosphide baits, and those containing an anticoagulant poison. All poison grain baits for prairie dog control are restricted use pesticides, due to the hazard to other species of animals. Many of the restrictions and limitations on use are necessary to prevent death or injury to non-target birds and mammals, including wildlife, pets, and livestock. These baits can only be used for prairie dogs on rangeland, rangeland and pasture, or rangeland and adjacent non-crop areas (depending on the specific product label).

Fumigants: Two types of fumigants can be used for prairie dog control in Colorado: those containing aluminum phosphide or the USDA gas cartridge. Aluminum phosphide products are classified as restricted use pesticides and gas cartridges are classified for general use. Fumigants will kill any other vertebrates that may be occupying a treated burrow, so burrows should be observed carefully to make sure they are not occupied by burrowing owls, black-footed ferrets, or other wildlife. For fumigants to be effective, every opening of each prairie dog burrow has to be covered to contain the poison gas. This makes fumigant application more labor intensive than bait application. However, baits require more follow-up, with post-application monitoring and collection of carcasses and unconsumed bait.

Aluminum Phosphide Fumigants: Trade names for aluminum phosphide products include PhostoxinTM, FumitoxinTM, PH3TM, and Weevil-cide, TM and most brands are available as both a pellet and a tablet. Products are sold in gas-tight, re-sealable aluminum flasks, with both a container label and an applicator’s manual. Aluminum phosphide reacts with atmospheric moisture to produce phosphine gas. Phosphine gas is highly toxic to insects, burrowing pests, humans, and other forms of animal life. It may also ignite spontaneously in air at concentrations above 1.8% volume/volume. Use is prohibited on residential properties and nursing homes, schools (except athletic fields), daycare facilities and hospitals. It must not be applied into a burrow system that is within 100 feet of a building that is, or may be, occupied by humans and/or domestic animals.

USDA Gas Cartridge: The gas cartridge is the only pesticide for prairie dog control that is not a restricted use pesticide. Gas cartridges are ignited with a fuse and burn, producing smoke. Prairie dogs are killed primarily by the carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide produced. It can be used in open fields, non-crop areas, rangelands, reforested areas, lawns, and golf courses.

Next Steps Should council direct staff to modify the City’s current prairie dog regulations, staff will prepare a draft ordinance for review.

Prairie Dog Regulations

October 28, 2019 Purpose Review current City of Thornton regulations regarding prairie dog mitigation, along with other jurisdictions’ standards/practices.

Agenda • Prairie Dog Policy (Ordinance Number 2628) • Relocation/Extermination Activities • Other Jurisdictions • Recommendation • Next Steps

2 Prairie Dog Policy [Ordinance 2628 & Sec 6-36(d)]

City adopted a Prairie Dog Policy August 28, 2000 • Addresses the procedures for compliance • No Development Permits issued until the developer documents good faith efforts to relocate • Developer must submit a letter outlining actions taken in good faith, including the results of those efforts • Documentation at three key points in process: – 1. At First Submittal – 2. Prior to Public Hearing – 3. With Grading Permit Application

3 Prairie Dog Policy [Ordinance 2628 & Sec 6-36(d)]

• Developer is expected to relocate prairie dogs if possible, in conformance with Colorado Parks & Wildlife policies • If relocation is not feasible, the developer may exterminate as permitted by the Colorado Department of Agriculture • City provides list of organizations able to perform prairie dog removal

4 Relocation/Extermination Activities Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) • Handling wildlife coordinated with CPW, including trapping and/or relocation of prairie dogs. • CPW permits – Relocation to raptor/black-footed ferret recovery programs – Transport of euthanized prairie dogs – Transport of live prairie dogs • Receiving jurisdiction – county commissioners must authorize

5 Relocation/Extermination Activities Colorado Department of Agriculture • Pesticide use for prairie dog control in Colorado – Grain baits and fumigants • Federally restricted use pesticides (except USDA gas cartridge) • Colorado Department of Agriculture – Pesticide Applicator Licensing • Commercial Applicators

6 Other Jurisdictions Policy/Regulation Comparison

7 Recommendation • Introduce proposed language in Section 6-36 of the Code for Council’s review: – Limit the allowable extermination methods to carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide – Establish enhanced reporting for relocation efforts

8 Next Steps • Should council direct staff to modify the City’s current prairie dog regulations, staff will prepare a draft ordinance for review – Limit the allowable extermination methods – Enhance the reporting for relocation efforts

9 Prairie Dog Regulations

Questions?

10 C PLANNING SESSION COMMUNICATION PAGE 2

3. Take other action as directed by Council. 4. Take no further action on this item, at this time.

BACKGROUND (ANALYSIS/NEXT STEPS/HISTORY): (includes previous City Council action)

Development Fees

The process of developing land varies by jurisdiction, and thus the associated development fees are calculated differently as well. Generally, development costs include application fees; water and sewer tap fees; construction and grading permit fees; building permit fees; traffic, school, or other impact fees; public notice fees; and PLD and improvements or cash-in-lieu thereof.

Staff reviewed the general development processes for Broomfield, Commerce City, Northglenn, and Westminster, along with each jurisdiction’s development application fees; a general summary of those fees is included as Appendix A. Any analysis and comparison of fees is quite complex with several variables, since processes and expectations vary substantially. Additionally, staff discussed fees with the Residential Development Coordination Task Force (Task Force). Overall, the City’s development fees are similar to those in neighboring jurisdictions. This conclusion was supported by the Task Force, which indicated that final costs in each city were about the same despite the varied calculation methods and charges.

PLD Cash-in-Lieu

PLD Requirements The PLD required for residential development currently is based on the following formula:

(# of proposed dwelling units) x (# of projected persons per dwelling unit) ÷ 1000 residents x 10 acres = Acres required to be dedicated

Nonresidential developments are required to provide eight percent of the subdivision’s gross land area as PLD. Developments with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses provide PLD based on the percentage of each. The land provided must be of a size, character, and location consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and of an appropriate amount for a useable park, open space, or trail site. The site improvements must be completed as a part of the development.

If all or some of the required PLD cannot be satisfied, then cash-in-lieu is required based on the “per square foot” costs in the approved Fees and Charges Resolution. The PLD cash-in-lieu amounts were last updated in 2007, with values specific to residential or nonresidential development. However, these values are insufficient to cover the current cost of the City purchasing raw land and making the associated park, trail, or open space improvements.

Land Costs In mid-2019, staff completed an assessment of undeveloped land in Thornton, including an evaluation of sales data based on geographic areas. Average costs ranged from just over $65,000 per acre in the northeast part of the City to over $200,000 per acre for some infill development sites, with factors such as specific location, zoning, size, and topography affecting the price. These values are the equivalent of $1.50 per-square-foot to nearly $5.00 per-square-foot.

PLANNING SESSION COMMUNICATION PAGE 3

Improvements Costs Also in 2019, improvement costs were calculated based on park development expenditures, since trails and open space improvements are very site dependent. Five recent park projects were reviewed using the improvements valuations specified on the permits, which varied based on the number and type of amenities provided. Costs were converted to 2019 dollars based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases, and then an average cost for development was determined, which equated to $3.00 per- square-foot.

Proposed Changes to Cash-in-Lieu Calculations In order to recover the cost of the City purchasing raw land and installing park, trail, or open space improvements when the developer does not, the cash-in-lieu fee amounts should be updated. Staff has identified two methods to accomplish this goal:

1. Change the cash-in-lieu assessment process by separating land and improvement costs. For land costs, utilize the current fair market value of the land that would otherwise be dedicated as PLD instead of calculating the value using a specified dollar amount per square foot. Provide an objection and dispute resolution process that includes using a real estate appraiser. Further, require a separate fee for improvement costs that is recalculated during the biennial updates to the Fees and Charges Resolution. A Code amendment and update to the Fees and Charges Resolution is required.

2. Separate land and improvement costs, but otherwise maintain the existing process. Amend the Fees and Charges Resolution to update the per-square-foot costs for residential and nonresidential development with 2019 values for land, and a separate fee to capture improvements costs. Recalculate these fees during the biennial updates to the Fees and Charges Resolution to ensure that the fees collected reflect current costs for purchasing and improving raw land for parks, trails, and open spaces.

Development Fees

and

Public Land Dedication

February 4, 2020 Purpose Review the fees and costs associated with new developments in Thornton in comparison to neighboring jurisdictions. Request direction from Council regarding proposed changes to the land and improvements values utilized for public land dedication cash-in-lieu payments.

Agenda • Development Fees • Public land dedication • Cash-in-lieu fees • Alternatives

2 Development Fees

Development processes and fees vary, including – Application fees – Water and sewer tap fees – Construction and grading permit fees – Building permit fees – Traffic, school, or other impact fees – Public land dedication (PLD) or cash-in-lieu – Other miscellaneous fees

Overall similarity to other jurisdictions

3 Public Land Dedication (PLD)

Code requires land for parks, open spaces, & trails to be dedicated to the City – Site improvements must be completed as part of development – If all/some cannot be satisfied by PLD, then cash-in-lieu required – Cash-in-lieu intended to be spent to on parks, open spaces, and trails projects – Different calculation methods for residential and nonresidential developments

4 Cash-in-Lieu Methodology

Residential – PLD acres required based on number of dwelling units and projected persons in development Nonresidential – 8% of subdivision’s gross land area required as PLD Cash-in-lieu required for any unmet PLD – (SF not met by PLD) x (fee per SF) = cash-in-lieu – Fees intended to cover City costs for acquiring and improving the land

5 Cash-in-Lieu Fees

Current fees last updated in 2007 – Residential: $1.50 per SF – Nonresidential: $3.00 per SF

Fees re-evaluated based on 2019 values – Separated costs for land from improvements costs – Evaluated land sales in all areas of the City – Reviewed 5 recent park projects

6 Cash-in-Lieu Fee Evaluation

Land values vary by area of City and zoning – Ranged from about $65,000 to over $200,000 per acre – Equivalent of $1.50 to $5.00 per SF Improvement costs – Average cost of improvements: $3.00 per SF

Improvements costs alone are higher than current cash-in-lieu fees

7 Proposed Cash-in-Lieu Fees: Option 1

When PLD not met:

1. Require cash-in-lieu based on current fair market land values for the specific development (SF unmet by PLD) x (actual land cost per SF) = cash-in-lieu required

2. Require improvements fee per SF Flat fee per SF regardless of location in City

8 Option 1: Market Rate for Land Costs

Current Fee Proposed Fee per SF per SF Land + Market Value Improvements of Land Improvements Residential $1.50 Varies $3.00 Nonresidential $3.00 Varies $3.00

Improvements: Cost per SF the same for all developments

9 Proposed Cash-in-Lieu Fees: Option 2

When PLD not met:

1. Require cash-in-lieu based on flat fee per SF for residential and nonresidential land, regardless of location (SF unmet by PLD) x (cost per SF) = cash-in-lieu required

2. Require improvements fee per SF Flat fee per SF regardless of location in City

10 Option 2: Flat Fee per SF

Current Fee Proposed Fee per SF per SF Land + Improvements Land Improvements Residential $1.50 $2.21 $3.00 Nonresidential $3.00 $3.13 $3.00

Improvements: Cost per SF the same for all developments

11 PLD Cash-in-Lieu Comparison

Residential: Holly Hills Estates, 144th & Holly St. – Constructed 362 single-family homes on 122.57 acres – 10.35 acres required PLD, provided 8.69 acre park – Cash-in-lieu for 1.66 acres (72,309.6 SF) – Land purchase price $8M ($1.50 per SF)

Nonresidential: T-Mobile, 581 W. 84th Ave. – Constructed 3,057 SF building on 0.50 acres – No PLD provided – Cash-in-lieu for 8% of 0.50 acres (1,751.4 SF) – Land purchase price $270,000 ($12.33 per SF)

12 Option 1: Market Rate for Land Costs

Current per SF Price per SF Total Amount Market Improve- Updated Fees Paid Value Land ments Cost Residential $1.50 $108,464 $1.50 $3.00 $325,393 Nonresidential $3.00 $5,254 $12.33 $3.00 $26,849

Improvements: Cost per SF the same for all developments

Option 2: Flat Fate per SF (Residential & Nonresidential)

Current per SF Proposed per SF Total Amount Improve- Updated Fees Paid Land ments Cost Residential $1.50 $108,464 $2.21 $3.00 $376,733 Nonresidential $3.00 $5,254 $3.13 $3.00 $10,736

13 Expected Outcomes of Fee Changes

PLD and cash-in-lieu fees intended to cover City costs for acquiring and improving the land – Substantial increase in costs since 2007 – Requires adjusting fees for land and for improvements

Either option sufficient to capture current land and improvement costs – Market value option would maintain future relevancy for market fluctuations and geographic differences – Per SF residential and nonresidential fees need to be updated biennially – Improvements fees to be updated biennially

14 Alternatives

1. Draft ordinance to change basis of PLD cash-in-lieu to fair market land values. Update the Fees and Charges Resolution with the new reference and a fee for improvement costs. 2. Update the Fees and Charges Resolution with current land value and improvement costs per SF. 3. Take other action as directed by Council. 4. No further action, at this time.

15

APPENDIX A

Application Fee Type Thornton Broomfield Commerce City Northglenn Westminster <10 acres=$300 $250 Planning Amendments $250 >10 acres = $700 + $500+$30/acre $100 $75‐$250 (Administrative) $10/acre Engineering <10 acres=$300 Amendments $350 x sq.rt. of $290 >10 acres = $700 + $600+$30/acre $250 (DPAB) acres ($350 min.) $10/acre Annexation $300 N/A $630+$10/acre N/A $300 Comprehensive No process or <10 acres=$250 Plan $350 $1370 application $500 >10 acres=$650 Amendment fee <10 acres=$250 >10acres=$650 + Conceptual Site $350 x sq.rt. of $695 $10/acre $500 $1000 Plan acres ($350 min.) **CSP or DP, not both** <10 acres=$250 Development >10acres=$650 + $400 x sq.rt. of Permit (original $580 $10/acre $500+$30/acre N/A acres ($400 min.) approval) **DP or CSP, not both** Minor Development $100 N/A N/A $500 $75 to $250 Permit Oil and Gas $695+$15/ac $5000/facility + $2000 $1500 $1000 Permit re add’l fees/option $300 if no CDs, see <10acres=$250 $230+$15/ac Minor = $250 construction Subdivision Plat >10acres=$650 + $300+$30/acre re Major = $500 drawing reviews for $10/acre other costs Zoning <10acres=$250 $695 $600+$10/acre $500 $500 Amendment >10acres=$650 Zoning to <10acres=$250 $695+$15/ac Planned >10acres=$650 + $600+$20/acre $1000 $500 re Development $10/acre $250‐$350 (zone Variance $115 $25 $250 $250 dependent) $100 public notice Public Notice N/A fee as applicable to N/A N/A N/A Fees each item Application Fee Type Thornton Broomfield Commerce City Northglenn Westminster Review fee based on CY: $0 to $402.25 + $7.25 per 10k CY over Grading/Land 200k CY $20 + $240 + Disturbance N/A – PLUS – $5/acre, $250 $22.50/acre Permits Permit fee based minimum $95 on CY: $23.50 to $919 + $36.50 per 10k CY over 100k CY 50% of inspection Construction 1.5% of total $750 + $75 x sq. rt. fee total (based on 2% of project No response Permit / contract of acres ($1,125 actual costs of streets from Construction costs (min. max.) includes plat improvements & storm sewer Northglenn Drawing Review $30) fee installed)

PLD Thornton Broomfield Commerce City Northglenn Westminster Land dedication for parks, open spaces, and trails Fixed fee/sf based on  Average price Park, trail, to acquire and open land for SF space Land for public Development of development Recreation and recreation, open public parks, Cash‐in‐lieu Purpose and  Average open space space, public trails, and or donation of Basis cost/acre to properties and facilities, & other recreation off‐site land improve land facilities as a park public uses facilities or recreation facilities at Used only for city’s purchase & discretion improvement of parks, open space, & trails

Waivers allowed when project has

PLD Thornton Broomfield Commerce City Northglenn Westminster already been developed or development does not result in increased demand for park, open space, or trail facilities.

Minimum 12 acres [# of units ÷ acres per 1000 persons being subdivided]  Private park:  10% of gross projected, based x 2 ÷ 5 = percent 3% x SF of acreage or on: of land to be usable land cash in lieu  SFD = 3.0 [# of proposed dedicated area (no fee in‐ for schools, persons/unit dwelling units] Maximums: lieu option) parks, or  SFA = 2.5/unit x [# of ‐ 50% AND other public  MF = 2.0/unit projected detention/drai  Public park: uses;  Independent persons per nage Fee only, in recommend living senior dwelling unit] ‐ 25% lakes, addition to ations from PLD formula: housing = 1.5/unit ÷ 1000 ponds, private park. Planning Residential  Institutional residents x 10 reservoirs Commission residential = acres = Acres ‐ 50% school Usable land based on 0.5/bed to be sites, not to excludes ROW, need in area  Assisted living = dedicated exceed 5 acres public  May 0.25/bed per school school/library dedicate  sites, police/fire land within Skilled nursing = Alternative site facilities, & ¾ mile of exempt can be dedicated parks/rec site instead, if approved by facilities if equivalent Park Development council Fees in addition to PLD

PLD Thornton Broomfield Commerce City Northglenn Westminster Fair market value of the land that would be required to be dedicated, as Based on fair determined by the If allowed by market value, city. Appraisal may council, cash in currently: be required at lieu based on [(45,364 ÷ developer’s average market 10% of the 12,000) x .09] x expense. PLD Cash‐in‐ value of land; fair market SF of usable land lieu: $1.50/SF negotiated; 1 or value of the Developer can Additional park Residential more appraisers land request fees: agreed on by city appraisal at their  SFD = $2047/unit and subdivider, expense. Fee  SFA or MH = costs paid by only unless city $1665/unit subdivider. requests PLD.  MF or Ind. Living = $1363/unit  Assisted living senior housing = $474/bed Only public park 8% of PLD formula: fees apply to subdivisions’ N/A N/A N/A Nonresidential nonresidential gross land area development Based on fair market value, currently: [(45,364 ÷ 12,000) x .09] x PLD Cash‐in‐ SF of usable land lieu: $3.00/SF N/A N/A N/A Developer can Nonresidential request appraisal at their expense. Fee only unless city requests PLD.

Other Fee Thornton Broomfield Commerce City Northglenn Westminster Type Controlled by Water/Sewer South Adams Connection $30,863 $35,870 County Water $26,850 $32,190 (typical SFD) and Sanitation District; amount

Other Fee Thornton Broomfield Commerce City Northglenn Westminster Type depends on location

Acquire water rights for purpose of irrigating city parks, rec facilities, and Water other city‐ Acquisition N/A N/A owned facilities N/A N/A Fee – in addition to tap fees paid to SACWSD. $1570.81 per structure (2019 rate), increasing 10% each year Land dedication required, amount Additional sites for determined at Determined schools and other time of zoning or by city council public uses as plat. based on School land agreed on by Fee‐in‐lieu school district dedication Quality subdivider and city calculation, recommendat required, fixed fee School land enhancement council based on based on ion. Minimum per dwelling unit: dedication standard recommendations $32,077/acre, fee is $500 SFD = $876 option from public per dwelling per each SFA = $468 agencies. Sites to unit: additional MF = $112 be reserved on the SFD = $619 residential lot plat for public SFA = $514 created. purchase. Townhome/ Condo = $214 Apartment Unit = $138

Other Fee Thornton Broomfield Commerce City Northglenn Westminster Type Based on type of use: SFD: $1181/dwelling unit Road impact N/A N/A MF: N/A N/A fees $726/dwelling unit Retail <100k SF: $4,471 per 1000 sf 2.99% per transaction fee Other charges N/A N/A N/A N/A assessed for credit card option

D PLANNING SESSION COMMUNICATION PAGE 2

BACKGROUND (ANALYSIS/NEXT STEPS/HISTORY): (includes previous City Council action)

Development Code Rewrite

The current Development Code was adopted in 1992 and recodified in 1996 as Chapter 18 of the new City Code. In 2011, the chapter was reorganized and recodified again, although no substantive updates occurred. Since 1996, the Development Code has been amended 91 times.

Appendix A contains a draft list of the items to be included in the Development Code Rewrite. A variety of changes and updates are necessary to make the document more user-friendly, remove or update antiquated requirements and standards, and incorporate newer development concepts. Once the list is finalized, the City will advertise a Request for Proposals and select a qualified consultant. The rewrite process is anticipated to take at least 18 months to complete.

Development Review Process

The development review process is a key aspect of the Development Code update. Over the last few years, staff has implemented changes focused on communication and transparency improvements, such as posting active development signs, increasing the information available on the City’s website, and meeting regularly with the Residential Development Coordination Task Force. Additionally, quality control requirements have been implemented for development applications and review expectations are more clearly communicated. Additional improvements could increase expediency and predictability for both developers and staff, but require changes to the Development Code. Examples of current challenges include:  Lengthy application process timeline due to duplicity in the approval process specified in the Development Code. Much of the information in a Development Permit (DP) application, which DPAB reviews, was already considered and approved by Council as part of the Conceptual Site Plan (CSP). DPAB’s discretion is therefore very limited, with no authority over land use.  Difficulty in recruiting projects of economic significance that are not employment focused, due to the time required for review and approval.  The cost and applicant/staff time required for preparation and review of similar documents for formal consideration by Council and DPAB.  Public confusion over opportunities to influence the outcome of a project, since DPAB does not have the authority to review zoning classifications or uses of the property as authorized for development.  Developer confusion, as Thornton’s development process is dissimilar to most other jurisdictions.  Inability to administratively update the Standards and Specifications for the Design and Construction of Public and Private Improvements to maintain consistency with City policies, practices, and master plans; industry standards; evolving technologies; etc.  Expiration of approved CSPs, DPs, and plats due to legal action or other circumstances beyond the developer’s control, which requires new submittals and approvals.  Developer’s Agreements are required for all projects where there are public improvements, with no exemption option for those with a minor improvement such as a fire hydrant, ramp, etc.

If Council wishes to consider substantial changes to the development review process, staff will work with the selected consultant for the Development Code Rewrite project to identify options. Those will be presented to Council for consideration and discussion at a future meeting.

Development Code Rewrite

and

Development Review Process

February 4, 2020 Purpose Provide information regarding the upcoming comprehensive Development Code Rewrite. Request Council direction regarding exploring substantial changes to the development review process.

Agenda • Development Code Rewrite • Development Review Process o Ongoing improvements o Additional options • Next Steps Development Code Rewrite

Last comprehensive rewrite in 1992 – Amended over 90 times – Addressed specific issues and organizational aspects Rewrite goals – More user-friendly – Remove/Update antiquated requirements and standards – Incorporate newer development concepts Process – Consultant authorized in approved 2020 Budget – Anticipated 18+ months to complete Development Review Process

Ongoing improvement efforts – Communication and transparency • Active development signs • Website information • Residential Development Coordination Task Force – Quality control for applications – Review expectations Additional improvement options – Key aspect of rewrite process – Could include changes to the Development Permits and Appeals Board (DPAB) responsibilities – Other process changes Next Steps

1. Complete scope of work, hire consultant 2. Rewrite project commences a. If directed, consultant identifies options for substantial changes to the development review process b. Council discussion of options 3. Council direction incorporated into Development Code Rewrite

Development Code Rewrite timeline = 18+ months Appendix A

Potential items to be included in the Development Code Rewrite:

1. Create a more user-friendly document, including updated graphics, diagrams, and illustrations. Propose reorganization and formatting options that will make finding information easier. 2. Update antiquated terminology and definitions. 3. Identify and remove inconsistencies and conflicts with other Code provisions and State law. 4. Clarify enforcement options to ensure that the appropriate authority exists and allow the City to recover any related enforcement costs. As a part of this process, update the Blighted Property Rehabilitation Code language and maintenance requirements to ensure that maintenance challenges can be addressed. 5. Evaluate and update land uses based on existing development and future opportunities, including the removal of antiquated uses and the inclusion of newer development concepts. Specific items for consideration include infill development; live-work units; standards for small lot single-family detached homes and/or tiny homes; accessory dwelling units; and conversion of containers or other atypical items to housing and/or storage spaces. 6. Evaluate and propose options for addressing affordable and attainable housing in the City, such as density bonuses, development standards adjustments, and/or other credits. 7. Review land uses and special review criteria to ensure the requirements are relevant, necessary, appropriate, and correspond with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. Evaluate and update, as necessary, the language for nonconforming uses. 9. Evaluate the overall development review and approval process to identify options for improvement. If directed by the Council, incorporate changes into the Development Code. 10. Evaluate, make recommendations, and update the development review procedures to streamline the process and memorialize existing practices based on director interpretations. 11. Evaluate and recommend improvements of the development standards for each zoning district, including, but not limited to, the following: lot size, lot coverage, setbacks (particularly residential primary corner-side setbacks), height, building size and placement, density, floor area, and floor area ratio. 12. Develop requirements for future redevelopment, including potential alternative requirements for original Thornton. 13. Evaluate, update, and incorporate new standards for resiliency and sustainability, including farmers markets, possible expansions of urban farming, etc. 14. Evaluate and improve the subdivision plat requirements/process; remove the plat of easement process; update addressing requirements to be inclusive of new development types; and identify other factors for improvement. 15. Review landscaping and associated maintenance requirements and identify opportunities to reduce water consumption. Provide options for inclusion of a wetlands buffer requirements. 16. Evaluate and update parking and stacking requirements for all land uses, with consideration for reducing the minimum and implementing maximum parking numbers. Include requirements for bicycle parking, “Wounded Warrior” parking spaces, and electric vehicle charging stations. Incorporate flexible options and provide a mechanism to approve exceptions for specific uses/situations. 17. Incorporate a public land dedication gradient system related to amenities for multifamily projects. 18. Revise and/or clarify provision for residential proximity slope. 19. Update lighting standards and measurements to use current industry practices based upon modern technology and clarify requirements. 20. Evaluate the stormwater requirements in the Development Code (Article V Division 7) and those in Chapters 22 and 74, and evaluate options for consolidating. At a minimum, identify gaps and conflicts between the specified regulations. 21. Include a requirement for the installation of fiber/broadband by the developer at the time of construction. 22. Evaluate the effectiveness of the public notice/posting requirements and update accordingly. 23. Cross-reference other Code sections to ensure no conflicts. 24. Evaluate and update building and development design standards applicable to residential and nonresidential uses. 25. Remove engineering design criteria from the Development Code that should be specific to the standards and specifications for public and private improvements. Update any design criteria in the Code to match current or future standards. 26. Ensure compliance with Federal, State, and local laws, such as fair housing. 27. Other items identified in the review and rewrite process, subject to city approval.

E Transportation to Trail Winds Recreation Center

February 4, 2020 Purpose • Staff was tasked with studying the feasibility of providing transportation to Trail Winds Recreation Center from South Thornton. Agenda • Current level of transportation services

• Pilot project for providing transportation service from south Thornton to TWRC

• Next Steps Current Level of Service

• Transportation is provided by RTD Access-a-Ride, RTD fixed routes, FlexRide, and Access-a-cab • Adams County A-Lift provides rides for older adults and the disabled 5 days per week. Service includes Medical, Adult Day Care, Grocery Shopping and Meal Site transportation. Proposed Pilot Project

• Provide transportation to TWRC each Saturday and Sunday beginning April 4 for 3 months • Will include 4 proposed bus stops in south Thornton. Anythink, Pinnacle, Thornton Arts and Culture Center and Community Center. Six round trips each day. • Staff will market program prior to start date • Staff will track metrics of program Next Steps

• Follow-up with Council on ride numbers • Determine future of service following the pilot project