Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2015-12-09 - Special Meeting 5101-42- Nigorl- EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org -45 ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE & LOCATION: December 9th , 2015, 7:00 PM; Board Room, Town Hail, 170 MacGregor Avenue. APPLICANT REQUEST: Special Review application review and approval. STAFF OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); 2. Review for compliance with Chapter 17.44 of Estes Park Municipal Code: Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Review; and 3. Provide basis for Planning Commission recommendation to Town Board of Trustees. PLANNING COMMISSION OBJECTIVE: 1. Review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); 2. Review for compliance with Chapter 17.44 of Estes Park Municipal Code: Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Review; 3. Conduct a public hearing to consider applicant's testimony, public comment, and Town staff's findings and analysis; and 4. Provide a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees of approval or denial of the Special Review application. LOCATION: Lot 4 Stanley Historic District; Address 520 Steamer Parkway (behind Safeway). OWNER/APPLICANT: Stanley Land Holding, LLC, CIO Greg Rosener, Owner Representative CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: Project Engineer: David Bangs, Van Horn Engineering Project Architect: Jeffrey Van Sambeek, Lodestone Design STAFF CONTACT: Mallory Baker, Planning Consultant f1 Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley Page 1 of 20 REPORT SUMMARY: This report describes a request to amend Special Review application 2014- 01C; the last iteration of this Special Review Application was approved by the Town Board on March 24th, 2015. Because of changes in the partnership supporting the wellness portion of the project, now called the EMPC Wellness Training Center, the applicant is proposing several amendments to the approved development plan: 1. Conversion of a portion of the ground floor of the Accommodations-2 building, which is currently under construction. The ground floor was originally approved as 11,242 square feet of storage and core space and 4,515 square feet of hotel accessory uses and mechanical space, to Wellness Training Center uses; 2. Addition of two ground floor exterior patios adjacent to the ground floor, to be used for Wellness Training Center programming, with changes to associated perimeter landscaping to accommodate said patios; 3. Addition of a partial fourth story, including 3,455 square feet of finished floor area to accommodate Wellness Training Center programming and 3,560 square feet of outdoor deck space; 4. Changes to the architectural elevations to include the ground floor patios, windows and doors and the fourth floor, to be reviewed in accordance with the Stanley Historic District regulations and the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan; 5. Authorization for a height greater than 30 feet for the Accommodations-2 building (pursuant to the Municipal Code §17.44.060.d.1). The applicant requests a maximum height of 11' .01" above the 30' height limit, to be located on the downhill side of the building. 6. Authorization to remove a previous Condition of Approval that prohibited outdoor activities. Staff has identified the following question to assist in guiding the Commission's discussion: 1. Does the application meet the Special Review criteria (§3.5) for the proposed Accommodations-2 building, including the request for authorization to exceed the prescribed 30' height limit? Staff has reviewed this application pursuant to the following: • Compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code • Compliance with the Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Review as outlined in the Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.44. Staff has also included an overview and analysis of public comment received to date, as it relates to regulations and policies adopted and Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 2 of 20 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley enforceable by the Town. Finally, Staff has included an overview of the proposed project's consistency with specific policies and goals outlined in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. CONTENTS 4 SITE DATA MAP AND TABLE- PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REVIEW PROCESS 7 REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS .9 PUBLIC COMMENTS: 9 STAFF REVIEW 11 STAFF FINDINGS 18 POTENTIAL MOTIONS 19 g Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 3 of 20 EPMC Wetness Training Center at the Stanley Stanley Village Safeway Stanley Hotel Stanley Hotel Entrance Stanley Views 1 Subdivision — SITE DATA MAP AND TABLE: The building site is located directly across Steamer Parkway from Lot 1 of the Stanley Historic District, which includes the Stanley Hotel and other iconic and historic structures. Figures 1a and lb shown below provide views from Steamer Parkway showing the relationship of the building site to the Stanley Hotel complex. Located less than one half block south is the Stanley Village shopping center, including Safeway grocery store and various other businesses. The north side of SW Steamer Parkway is predominantly single family homes within the Stanley Hills subdivision. Figure 2a thru 2: illustrate the overa residential and commercial context. As the building site location has not changed, Staff has incorporated the same images used in previous staff reports to depict project vicinity and contextuality with surrounding land uses. Figures la (above) and lb (below): Proximity of Site to Nearest Buildings Page 4 of 20 Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley 11.1-11ri !AIMEE o .iihi.1 2111 Figures 2a thru 21: Character of Surroundings El Valley Planning Commission, December , 2015 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley Page of 20 Site Data Table Parcel Number: 35244-36-004 Lot Area: 6.89 acres Existing Land Use: Undeveloped/ Under Construction The Accommodations-2 building, proposed to include hotel and wellness training center uses, is presently under construction. Additionally, the applicant has installed 85-90% of the utility infrastructure required for Phase I of site development. The parcel also contains the remnants of the original entry drive to the Stanley Hotel, a portion of "Otie's Trail," and pedestrian trails connecting to Stanley Village. Proposed Land Uses: • Hotel • Adult Treatment Facility (aka Wellness Training Center) Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Estes Park Sanitation District Open Space: Required: 30% Proposed: 40% Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowed: 50% Proposed: 45% Accommodations-2 Building: Square Footage: Hotel Floors (40 Units proposed) 29,428 square feet EPMC Wellness Training Center 19,212 square feet Exterior Building Areas (Decks) 7,738 square feet Total Finished Square Footage: 48,640 square feet (excluding decks) Hazards/Physical Features Mapped in the project vicinity? Wildfire Hazard No Geologic Hazard No Wetlands No Streams/Rivers No Ridgeline Protection No Wildlife Habitat No 1111 Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley Page 6 of 20 " CV CO Figure 4: Land Use of Subject Property Figure 5: Zoning of Subject Property Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 7 of 20 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley PROJECT DESCRIPTION & REVIEW CRITERIA: Lot 4 was created with the Stanley Historic District subdivision plat in 1994. The property is undeveloped, except for an old road, a horse trail, and pedestrian paths through the site connecting to Stanley Village. The old road served as the original entry to the Stanley Hotel before Stanley Village was built to the south. The site's character includes open grassland areas and a variety of existing trees and vegetation. The original development plan for the subject site was approved in early 2014 to construct a separate Wellness Center building and the Accommodations-1 building first, with the Accommodations-2 building labeled as a "Future Phase". An approved amendment to this development plan reversed this phasing, resulting in the Accommodations-2 building being constructed first. As part of this application, the applicant has proposed the following amendments: • The construction of the wellness training center as a portion of the Accommodations-2 building presently under construction; • The construction of two outdoor patios on the ground level; • Authorization to exceed the prescribed 30' height limit by a maximum of 11' 0.1" on the downhill side of the Accommodations-2 building. • Authorization to remove a prohibited outdoor activities. previous Condition of Approval that No other site design modifications are included as part of this amendment request. This application package includes: Special Review of Development Plan (§3.5): A Special Review is required for this development plan, prompted by both the size of the Accommodations-2 building proposed (§17.44.050.a) and a height variance request for the same building (§17.44.060.d.1). Development Plans shall comply with all applicable standards set forth in the EVDC and demonstrate consistency with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Special Review requires that applications mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. 6,ot:cm:mending z ,ody: Estes Valley Planning Commission Decision-Making Body: Estes Park Board of Trustees, tentatively scheduled for December 15th , 2015. OVERVIEW OF REVIEW PROCESS AND TIMELINE: On October 27th, 2015, the Town Board of Trustees authorized an "expedited review process' for the EPMC Wellness Training Center Special Review Application. This process included a shorter review timeframe for both staff and applicants, but did not include any adjustments, waivers, or other changes to the review process other than the time elicited for review. In order to ensure ample communication between the applicant, design team, and the Town, Staff scheduled weekly meetings with the applicant and development review team to discuss application comments. Additionally, Staff scheduled weekly open office hours to accommodate in- person communication with the public regarding this project. Any failure on the part of the applicant to deliver application materials, resubmittals, or other items would jeopardize the review timeline. The following schedule, which delineates deadlines, expectations, and staff and applicant responsibility, was used for this review process: Tesk Sketch Plans Received Due .0 ate 10/29 A. . licant Res . on sibl ilt Staff Res. Dilsibility Submit application. Process application and route to affected agencies. Pre-application Meeting 11/3 Assemble team. Provide pre-application summary on 11/3 by 6:00 PM. Special Review Application Submittal 11/6 by 8:30 am Submit application and be available, in person, to answer questions. Conduct Completeness Review. Completeness Review Deadline 11/6 by 4:00 pm Be available to answer questions, in person. Conduct Completeness Review Notify applicant of required revisions, if necessary. Completeness Revisions, if required 11/10 by 12:00 pm Submit revised plans to address all completeness comments, including a memo describing each revision. Review revisions. Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 8 of 20 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley Task Due Oat. Applicant Responsibility Staff Responsibility Press Release 11/9 None. Compile and issue press release. Route application to affected agencies for final review 11/11 None. Will be copied on all correspondence. Route application. Neighbor notifications 11113 None. Issue notifications. Legal notice publication date 11/13 None. Public legal notice. Agency Comments Due 11120 Respond to comments as received. Full development review. Submit revised plans for EVPC 11/23 by 12:00 PM Submit 15 sets of revised plans for EVPC notebooks, along with a memo outlining plan changes. One electronic copy. Review Resubmittal. Staff Report posted to Town Website 11/24 None. Complete/Issue report. Planning Commission Public Hearing 12/9 (Evening) Attend meeting; conduct project presentation; answer questions. Attend meeting, present staff recommendation. Staff report submitted to Town Clerk, 12/10 by COB None Draft report. Town Board Public Hearing 12/15 Attend meeting; conduct project presentation; answer questions. Draft report; attend meeting; present Planning Commission recommendation. REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Memos are included as part of this Staff Report. • Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated November 19, 2015; • Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated November 6, 2015; • Town of Estes Park Utilities memo dated November 6, 2015; • Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated November 19th, 2015; and • RBB Architects, Inc. memo dated November 9th, 2015. PUBLIC COMMENTS: In accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code, legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail- Gazette. Town staff mailed notices to property owners within 1,500 feet of sj Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 9 of 20 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley the property directly notifying these owners of the public hearings; typical mailings include a 500-foot radius. A press release was also published on November 17th , 2015 describing this project and alerting the public to weekly open office hours held by Community Development Department Staff to facilitate in-person discussion of the project. As of November 24th, 2015, eighteen (18) formal written comments have been submitted to the Community Development Department in regards to this application package. Staff has also reviewed a number of Letters to the Editor submitted to the Estes Park Trail-Gazette concerning this project. Formal public comments received by the Community Development Department to-date have been included as an exhibit in this Staff Report. The following is a summary and analysis of public comments received in relation to the enforcement of the Stanley Historic District regulations included in the Estes Park Municipal Code and the Estes Valley Development Code. A number of public comments were related to project financing, the developer's relationship with the Town, and other elements outside the purview of the Community Development Department Staff; these comments are not included in this summary and analysis, but are available for view online and in this Staff Report. Written comments will be continue to be posted to wvvw.estes.orci/wellnesstrainindcenter if received after November 24th, 2015. Estes Park Municipal Code; Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Review Section 17.44.010; Purpose and Intent The purpose and intent of the provisions contained in this Chapter are to: 1. Administer the historic resources of the Stanley Historic District in a manner that will preserve the integrity of their location, materials, worksmanship and visual character; 2. Ensure that development in the foreground of the Stanley Hotel Complex does not destroy its essential historic character, or lessen its ability to conduct an economically viable operation; and 3. Establish certain requirements that must be met before development within the Stanley Historic District is to be permitted. Staff Comment: Several public comments indicated that the proposed amendments, specifically the authorization of a height greater than 30', would negate the purpose and intent of the Stanley Historic District. Staff finds that Section 17.44.010, Purpose and Intent, is meant to set forth specific goals and intentions that the Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Review are meant to fulfill. A demonstration of compliance with the requirements set forth in the Stanley Historic District regulations is the manner and process through which the Decision-Making Body may demonstrate compliance with 17.44.010. Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 10 of 20 EPMC Wetness Training Center at the Stanley Section 17.44.060(a)(1), (2); Protected view Corridors 1. Development shall maintain the existing views of the main Stanley Hotel building and of the Manor House building from Highway 36 from its intersection with Highway 7 to its intersection with Highway 34. 2. Development shall maintain the view of the main Stanley Hotel building from the Visitors' Center entrance deck, taking into account all authorized development in Stanley Village. Staff Comment: A number of public comments indicated that the authorization of a height greater than 30' would encumber protected view corridors pursuant to the Stanley Historic District regulations. Staff finds that while the 11' 0.1" increase in maximum height could encumber certain mountain views, particularly for those living close to the proposed development, it does comply with regulations for protected view corridors in the District. A full analysis of the application's compliance with this requirement is included on pages 12-13 of this Staff Report. Section 17.44.060(01); Building Height This Section states that "building height shall not exceed 30 (thirty) feet, unless a greater height is authorized on Special Review". Staff Comment: The majority of public comments were opposed to the applicant's request to exceed the thirty foot height limit set forth by this Section. Staff finds that the Special Review criteria, which necessitates that the applicant must mitigate, to the greatest extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment, is the vehicle through which the Planning Commission and the Town Board must review the height request. STAFF REVIEW: Estes Park Municipal Code: Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Review Required Architectural Review As with previous reviews, staff consulted with RBB Architects Inc. to comment on the various architectural standards of the Stanley Historic District. The following is an overview of revisions suggested by RBB and the corresponding changes produced by the Applicant: 1. RBB Comment: The windows indicated on the fourth level do not match the character of the windows on the rest of the building. The size, spacing, and mullion patterns should be changed to match the historic style. Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 11 of 20 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley Applicant Response: The Applicant amended the architectural elevations to include a mullion pattern on the majority of the windows to mimic the window design at the lower levels. However, the applicant chose to exclude mullions from some of the upper-level windows in an effort to preserve unobstructed views and create a window hierarchy. 2. RBB Comment: New fourth level roof overhang soffits appear to be missing the ornament detail of the lower roof. It is important for this new level to match all detailing of lower levels to appear complete. Applicant Response: The applicant added mutule details to the soffits on the proposed upper roof to match the detail intended for the lower roof design. Special Review Required The Stanley Historic District requires Special Review for all developments larger than 5,000 square feet. Because of this requirement, the development plan must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the Town Board. Building Height Building height cannot exceed 30 feet in the Stanley Historic District unless a greater height is authorized through a Special Review (17.44.060.d.1). The finished floor area of the proposed fourth level of the Accommodations- 2 building would exceed the height limit by a maximum of 10' 3.1"; the applicant has requested a maximum height of 11' 0.1" in order to accommodate any errors that occur during the construction period. A full discussion of the applicant's request that a height greater than 30' be authorized is included on pages 17-18 of this Staff Report. View Corridors View corridors were established to protect the views to the Stanley Hotel and Manor House from various off-site locations. As shown in Figure 6 (page 13), the Accommodations-2 building is close to but not included in the protected view corridors. The project site is situated away and downhill from the hotel, and close to a non-historic shopping center. While analysis of compliance with view corridor requirements is limited to the protected view corridors included in Section 17.44.060(a)(1) and (2), a number of public comments have discussed the impact of the proposed structure on mountain views to the north and northwest, particularly for neighbors living in close proximity to the development. g Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 I EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley Page 12 of 20 7 Slinky Hot216 M New Arternirdedstlens II Mg. View hum WAY 34 6 3h View from Winces Center Vrina ham Hwy 7 6 36 ••• ," • View Corridor Overview Accommodations H HMV • "''' • eal Figure 6 Estes Valley Development Code Use, Density and Dimensional Standards The site plan demonstrates compliance with density and dimensional standards, vehicular access/circulation requirements, and pedestrian amenities/linkage requirements. Use (EVDC §4.4) Two uses are proposed: Hotel and Adult Treatment Facility. Both uses are Permitted by Right in the A Accommodations district. While the scope of work includes relocation of the wellness training center (the adult treatment facility use) to portions of the Accomodations-2 building (hotel use), there are no additional or different uses proposed as part of this project. Lot Coverage (EVDC §4.3) Lot coverage represents those parts of the site that are covered by development that prevents or impedes the passage or absorption of stormwater (e.g. buildings, sidewalk streets). The proposed plan maintains the approved 45% lot coverage, in compliance with the 50% maximum standard. Grading and Site Disturbance Standards (EVDC §7.2) The grading plan demonstrates compliance with general grading standards, such as limits on raising/lower natural grade and design of stormwater Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 13 of 20 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley basins. The site design, limits of disturbance, and site grading plan have not been modified as part of the proposed amendments. Landscaping and Buffers (§7.5) No significant changes to the approved landscaping plan have been identified as part of the proposed amendments. However, the applicant has proposed minor relocation of several plants to accommodate the construction of two ground floor patios. For previously-approved submittals, the applicant indicated that a neighboring homeowner association will have input on the final arrangement of site landscaping. Exterior Lighting (EVDC §7.9) The photometric plan submitted by the applicant is in compliance with the one-foot candle maximum requirement set forth by this Section. The applicant has stated that additional exterior lights will be installed on the proposed fourth level to ensure safety on the outdoor deck areas. Staff has included compliance with this Section for all exterior lighting as a recommended Condition of Approval. Off-Street Parking and Loading (EVDC §7.11) The applicant has not proposed any changes to the parking in this scope of work. Staff finds that the approved parking configuration is sufficient to accommodate both the hotel and wellness training center uses, as amended, assuming that the wellness training center will be used exclusively by hotel guests and will therefore not necessitate additional parking infrastructure. Per Public Works and Planning Division comments, Staff has included as a recommended Condition of Approval that any changes to the wellness training center programming, including opening of the programs to persons not staying at the hotel on-site, shall require a Parking and Shuttling plan to be submitted for review in accordance with the EVDC. Adequate Public Facilities (EVDC §7.12) Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. To- date, the applicant has installed between 85% and 90% of utility infrastructure required for service of the site. In consideration of the changes proposed by the applicant in this scope of work, Town utility departments have offered the following comments to be addressed by the Applicant: Sewer. The Estes Park Sanitation District has stated that the proposed amendments necessitate slight changes to the existing infrastructure that was put in place for the development. The District is requiring that a manhole be installed for the 8" service line connection that drains wastewater to the new line. The service line will remain private unless this change is made. The Applicant has responded to this comment, stating that it wishes to pursue further discussion with the district regarding this Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 14 of 20 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley requirement. The Applicant anticipates a meeting with the District's board in December. Water and Electric Service. The Estes Park Utilities Department has stated that as a result of the proposed amendments, a 12" water main must be installed to accommodate additional water service needs either by January 1 st, 2018 or with any new phasing of the Stanley Historic District property, whichever comes first. This condition has been included as an amendment to the subject site's development agreement. Light and Power district requirements have been included in the Utilities Department memo dated November 6th, 2015. Drainage. The Public Works department has stated that the proposed amendments to impervious coverage, including a retaining wall and additional ground- floor patio area, have negligible impact on the approved drainage systems. Fire Protection. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District did not express concerns with the requested amendments. Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment (§7.13) As with the original submittal, loading areas will be screened from public view through landscaping and building placement. No changes to outdoor storage areas or mechanical equipment are proposed. The outdoor activities originally permitted and associated as part of the stand-alone wellness training center are now included as part of the mixed- use hotel and wellness training center Accommodations-2 building. The applicant proposes that the outdoor spaces, which include 7,738 total square feet of outdoor deck space with a 3,560 square foot roof deck on the proposed fourth story, be used primarily for outdoor exercise, recovery and relaxation for wellness training center patients. The proposed use and configuration of the spaces dedicated to outdoor activities are in compliance with the requirements of this Section. Street Design and Construction Standards (Appendix D) The proposed amendments do not include any changes to street design or construction standards; the Public Works department has stated that the amendments will have no impact on site access or public transportation. Other standards found in Appendix D shall be addressed with construction plans, such as the detailed driveway design and erosion control methods. Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 15 of 20 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Chapter Six of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan includes Community- Wide Policies that address issues such as land use, community design, scenic and environmental quality and economics. Staff finds the proposed development advances several adopted Community-Wide Policies, including: Land Use: The Future Land Use Plan component of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan designated this parcel for commercial development. • Urban land uses should occur within the Town limits of Estes Park. Community Design: • Locate and design buildings to fit the land. Avoid excessive cuts and fills by stepping buildings down sloping sites. • Avoid the use of roofing materials which are light colored or reflect light. • Facades should be broken up with windows, doors or other architectural features to provide visual relief. Economics: • Sustain and support the existing tourism industry and marketing programs. • Recruit businesses and companies that benefit from the environment and fit with community values. • Establish the basis for a sound tourism market and sustainable economic climate. Special Review Criteria Special Reviews are development plans that include uses or, as in this case, specific site design and building configuration, that by their nature have potential impact on surrounding properties. Specifically, these reviews require applications to mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment. Per the Estes Park Municipal Code, Section 17.44.060(d), proposed heights above the prescribed maximum 30' height are reviewed as part of a Special Review application. Town staff offers the following comments for the Commission to consider during the public hearing: Mitigation of potential adverse impact on nearby land uses: The applicant has requested authorization to exceed the 30' height requirement by a maximum of 11' 0.1" in order to accommodate additional wellness training center programming (3,455 square feet) and an outdoor deck (3,560 square feet). The applicant has chosen to locate the maximum Ell Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 16 of 20 lrp EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley extent of the height deviation on the downhill side of the building in order to minimize impact on surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the applicant states that adding additional square footage necessary for the wellness training center programming on a fourth level rather than increasing the building footprint enables the site design to maintain its current level of impervious site coverage, and does not impact the amount of open space provided on the site. Finally, the applicant states that the wellness training center programming, as originally conceptualized and presented to the public, would be jeopardized should the height deviation not be permitted. Staff finds that while the applicant has effectively minimized impact on impervious coverage and open space provision by building vertically, sufficient analysis has not been done to understand the feasibility of an alternative method to construct the additional 3,455 square feet needed. Such alternatives could include limiting the hotel square footage in order to accommodate the additional wellness training center programming or expanding the horizontal footprint of the building. Another alternative could include limiting the proposed fourth level to the 3,455 square feet needed to complete the wellness training center programming, rather than adding a 3,560 square foot roof deck to the fourth level, in order to minimize activity occurring above the prescribed 30' height limit to the greatest extent possible. Such alternatives may improve the proposed development's contextuality with future development in the Stanley Historic District, and may minimize impact on surrounding land uses (e.g. neighbors' views to landmarks and mountainous landscapes not explicitly protected by the Stanley Historic District view corridor requirements). The applicant also proposes to remove a previous condition of approval that prohibited outdoor uses. The Town Board approved the original application on February 25, 2014, conditional to a staff recommendation that the following note be added to the site plan: All activities associated with the accommodations and Wellness Center uses will be conducted within the buildings. The subsequent and most recent application, approved by the Town Board on March 24, 2015, proposed a slight change in this note: All Activities associated with the Accommodations-2 building in Phase I will be conducted within the building The applicant proposes to remove this note in its entirety. The applicant's Statement of Intent states in part that no "changes to the outside storage areas, activities and equipment" are proposed with this application. Staff finds that while deleting this note about outdoor activities will permit the use of the proposed patio and rooftop deck (if approved), other regular outdoor activities may impact adjacent uses, such as: Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 17 of 20 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley 1. Wellness group classes with amplified music; 2. Outdoor gatherings taking place in the evening Mitigation of potential adverse impact on public facilities and services: Staff finds that the proposed amendments to the originally-approved application do not create any significant adverse impact on public facilities and services. The applicant has taken appropriate measures per the request of Town utility departments in order to maximize efficient service to the development in light of the proposed changes. Mitigation of potential adverse impact on the environment: Staff finds that the applicant's proposed amendments effectively limit impact on impervious coverage and open space provision on the lot, thus limiting adverse impact on natural vegetation and wildlife habitats present on the subject site. Furthermore, the coverage and open space provision proposed comply with the requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code. Coverage on the site is limited by this proposal in lieu of vertical development to accommodate additional floor area. STAFF FINDINGS: Staff finds that if the application is amended to meet the recommended Conditions of Approval below, the proposed amendments to Special Review Application 2014-01C substantially meet the regulations set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code and the Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Review, and advance goals, policies, and objectives adopted in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 1. If revised to comply with recommended Conditions of Approval, the application will substantially comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the Review Discussion in the staff report. 2. Because of the size of the building proposed and the request to deviate from the maximum 30' height limit, this application is reviewed pursuant to Special Review criteria set forth by Section 3.5 of the EVDC. Staff finds that while the applicant has effectively mitigated any potential adverse impacts on public facilities, services, and the environment, the height requested could have negative impacts on surrounding land uses not fully mitigated or explored by the applicant. Specifically, the applicant has not addressed any alternatives to constructing a fourth level to accommodate an additional 3,455 square feet of floor area needed to complete wellness training center programming as originally conceptualized. As such, Staff has set forth Potential Motions and recommended Conditions of Approval for the Planning Commission's review, rather than providing a recommendation for approval or denial of this application. The Commission may include any condition(s) that it determines will render the application compliant with all Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 18 of 20 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley requirements, based on all the evidence and testimony presented at the continued hearing. 3. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Downtown area plan. The application advances several Community-Wide policies, as delineated in the Staff report. 4. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 5. The application complies with Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 Stanley Historic District Standards for Development, providing that the recommended conditions of approval are satisfied. 6. The request to exceed the Stanley Historic District maximum allowed building of 30-feet is permitted through Special Review approval. 7. This application requires a Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of Trustees. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: I find that the application substantially meets the criteria above, and move to recommend APPROVAL of Special Review Application 2014-01C, as described in the staff report, with no Conditions. 1. I find that the application substantially meets the criteria above, and move to recommend APPROVAL of Special Review Application 2014-01C, as described in the staff report, with the following Conditions of Approval: Compliance with the following affected agency Conditions of Approval and comments: a. Estes Park Sanitation District memo dated November 19, 2015; b. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo dated November 6, 2015; c. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo dated November 6, 2015; d. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated November 19th, 2015; e. RBB Architects, Inc. memo dated November 9th, 2015. 2. Compliance with Section 7.9(D), Exterior Lighting Design Standards, of the Estes Valley Development Code; 3. Any proposed changes to the Wellness Training Center operation standards that will result in additional parking and transportation needs, including but not limited to the opening of the programs to patrons not staying at the hotel on-site, shall require the submittal of a Parking and Shuttling Plan to be reviewed pursuant to EVDC requirements. 4. Any proposed changes to the uses included in the Accommodations- 2 Building shall require a Special Review pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 3.5 of the EVDC. Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 19 of 20 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley I find that the application does not substantially meet the criteria above and move to recommend DENIAL of Special Review Application 2014-01C, as described in the staff report. I find that the Applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the application per the criteria above and recommend CONTINUING THE HEARING to provide adequate time to review additional materials. Enclosure's 1. Estes Park Sanitation District memo, Dated November 19th, 2015 2. Estes Valley Fire Protection District memo, Dated November 6th, 2015 3. Town of Estes Park Utilities Department memo, Dated November 6th, 2015 4. Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo, Dated November 19th, 2015 5. RBB Architects memo, Dated November 9th, 2015 6. Public Comment Received to Date 7. Application Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 9, 2015 Page 20 of 20 EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum To: Community Development From: Steve Rusch Date: 11/6/2015 Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: Completeness Review- Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, Stanley Hotel Wellness Center Modification. The Utilities Department has the following Plan Review comments for the above application: The above application is complete for review but not approved as construction drawings or issuance of any building permits. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following criteria must be met: Water Division: The 12 inch water main extension running west along SW Steamer Parkway connecting across Wonderview Ave. was originally a phase 2 requirement. The Water Division and its GIS engineers have run the system's hydraulic model taking a fire flow event into consideration. The model verifies that this extension is still necessary to meet fire flow demands during phase 1 conditions without compromising the water distribution system. Conditional approval of phase 1 of this Special Review process requires this new installation be complete either by January 1, 2018 or with any new phasing of the Stanley Historic property, whichever comes first. The existing 3 inch domestic water service to this building has been determined to be adequate. All water main lines require minimum 20ft. easements (10 tt. either side of the line). Water main lines must be a minimum 10ft. away from all sanitary and storm sewer lines. 4ft. separation is required from all other utilities. Water Main Extensions are required for service, including Fire Protection. This infrastructure must be installed; testing preformed/passed and accepted by the Division prior to issuance of any building permits TOWN OF ESTES PAID Inter-Office Memorandum Any project phasing of the infrastructure must be submitted with the construction drawings for approval prior to construction. Phased infrastructure must be completed and accepted prior to issuance of any building permits within the phase. No installation of any project infrastructure is allowed until the Construction Drawings have been signed. All water main lines, hydrants and easements must be deeded to the Town of Estes Park. For commercial applications, tap fees will be calculated based on the number of water fixtures to be installed. For accommodations, fees will be based on number of rooms. All domestic water service lines are required to have a pressure reducing valve installed at the point of entry to the building. Applicant must contact the Water Division (970)577-3625 to discuss additional plumbing requirements. Backflow prevention devices are required on all water services, irrigation and fire protection lines, contact Steve Rusch at 577-3625 or sruschestes.oro to discuss what is required for plumbing installation or with any questions regarding the backflow devices or requirements. For any structure that is required to have a Fire Suppression System a detailed drawing must be turned in to the Water Department noting: • Location, sizing and type of backflow prevention device(s) • Engineered flow requirements for the fire sprinkler system, pipe size will be determined based on NFPA table 10.10.2.1.3, Fire Flow produced at a maximum velocity of 10ft/sec. Pipe Size Flow Rate 2" 100 gpm 4" 390 gpm 6" 880 gpm 8" 1560 gpm 10" 2440 gpm 12" 3520 gpm • Spill control method for proper disposal of discharge from the relief valve, indicating location and sizing of drainage capable of accommodating the discharge that could occur TOWN OF ESTES PARIc., Inter-Office Memorandum Any Fire suppression line servicing a building from the water main is a private service line. Future repair or maintenance required on this service is the sole responsibility of the building owner. Light and Power: • Please schedule a required meet at site with Joe Lockhart, Line Superintendent at (970)577-3613. • All trenching and conduit will be performed and installed by the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division. This will be invoiced to the developer. • Light and Power requires one 1Y2" orange PVC spare conduit from the junction box/transformer into the building at Light and Power's expense. • Utility pedestals must be spaced at a minimum of one foot apart. • All new meter cans must have a bypass • All infrastructures must be paid in advance to the Town of Estes Park. No Building permits will be approved by Light & Power until such time. • All new construction must be underground. • Service line trenching & conduit (between the meter and the building) to be provided and installed by developer to Town specifications. • All other material will be purchased from & installed by the Town of Estes Park. • All Town of Estes Park Light and Power lines, (Primary/Secondary) must have a 20 ft. utility easement. This easement can be shared by water, phone and cable. • Water must be at least 4ft from electric. • All services must be on the owner's property or be within a designated easement. • The size of the service must be shown on the electrical drawings. • All existing lines must be shown on the electrical drawings. • Transformers/junction boxes must be in an easement, or if possible on the property line. • All primary lines must be 4ft deep with red warning tape at 2ft. • All subdivision must be designed by an electrical engineer. TOWN OF FSTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum • All pipes must be schedule 40 gray PVC pipe, if there are more than 4 pipes in a trench then all conduit must be put into a pipe rack. • Town must have ownership of all road crossings. • On underground electric services, it will be the electrician's responsibility to dig them into the transformers or pedestals. • The electrician will need to schedule with L&P to unlock and open transformers or pedestals. • All temporary and permanent electric services will be connected by Light & Power within 5 business days after the state electrical inspection & fees are paid. • Permanent meter sockets must be permanently marked with address or unit number. • All spare conduits will be provided by Light and Power and to be installed by the developer at their cost. Light and Power will not reimburse contractor or developer for conduit obtained elsewhere. Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Town of Estes Park Utilities Department. TOWN of ESTES PARK Memo . IL; To: Community Development From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager Greg Muhonen, PE, Director of Public Works Date: November 20, 2015 RE: EPMC Wellness Training Center — Development Plan Public Works offers the following comments and conditions on the EPMC Wellness Training Center — Development Plan application as submitted. Comments and Conditions are applicable for plans received on November 6, 2015. General: 1. Comment: Site modifications include a retaining wall and additional patio area around the building. These have minimal impact to the public drainage system and public transportation systems. 2. Condition: The proposed retaining wall will require a structural design and approved prior to construction. Transportation: 1. No comments or conditions. Drainage: ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT (Van Horn Engineering, November 6, 2015). 1. Comment: Site modifications by adding additional impervious area with a patio and landscape walk results in a 0.5% increase in the peak runoff and has a negligible impact to the existing storm drainage infrastructure. 2. Condition: Landscape Plan shows proposed evergreen trees within the detention pond riprap and within the effective storage area of the pond. These trees should be relocated. 3. Condition: Combine the "Addendum to the Final Drainage Report" into the Final Drainage Report dated 4/24/2015 and create one stand-alone report. The information and data provided is approved. Estes Park Sanitation District PO Box 722, Estes Park, CO 80517 November 19, 2015 Mallory Baker, Planning Consultant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: EPMC Wellness Training Center, Amended Plat of Lot 4 of Plat of Lots 3-9, Stanley His- toric District Subdivision Dear Mallory Baker: As per the Special Review for the EPMC Wellness Training Center, the proposed changes do not have any significant effect on the Estes Park Sanitation District. Providing service to the project involves slight changes to the existing infrastructure that was put in place by the de- velopment: 1. A manhole is required for the 8"service line connection that drains wastewater to the new main line. The service line will remain private unless the development chooses to end the 8" service line in a manhole. This would be a requirement for our ownership and maintenance of that portion of the line. 2. System development fees will be required for all new plumbing fixture additions to the building. Plans have been provided to the District and we have made calculations based on that information. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these plans. Respectfully, James Duell District Manager Office: 1201 Graves Avenue 970.586.2866 / Plant: 610 Big Thompson Ave 970.586.3516 Fax: 970.586.4712 ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SO lino! thr f4'srel• rrls orrii nrfor; oi the 1-.arts ; fine) 4 IVO File mid .Sr''''Fl C PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Date: November 6, 2015 Project Identification: Stanley Hotel EPMC Wellness Center Location: Lot 4 Stanley Historic District Referral: Stanley Hotel EPMC Wellness Center at Stanley Hotel (Modifications) Special Review The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the submitted material describing the proposed project referenced above, and approves those plans contingent on compliance with the following requirements (conditions of approval): 1. Emergency access gates shall be located a minimum of 40 feet back from the adjacent street flow line. Swinging gates must open in the direction of ingress to the site. Gates must have a minimum opening width of 20 feet Emergency only access gates shall have approved signage marked: EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY NO PARKING FIRE LANE 2. Fire apparatus access roads shall be permanently signed and / or marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" in accordance with municipal sign/traffic standards. A. Access roads less than 26 feet wide shall be marked as fire lanes on both sides of the road. B. Access roads at least 26 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide shall have at least one side of the road marked as a fire lane. C. Access roads at least 32 feet wide need not have fire lane markings. All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the International Fire Code (2009 Edition) and the International Building Code (2009 Edition). Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Marc W. Robinson Fire Marshal 970-577-3689 mrobinsonestesvallevfire.oro 901 N. Saint Vrain Avenue • Estes Park, CO 80517 • P-970-577-0900 • F-970-577-0923 LA* LZ Architects, Inc. www,rbborchitects.com 315 East Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524-2913 Ph 970.484.0117 Fax 970.484.0264 Phil Kleisler Planner II Town of Estes Park, CO November 9, 2015 Re: Architecture Review of EPMC/ Aspire Wellness Training Complex Phase 1 Dear Mr. Kleisler, Thank you for the opportunity to do a follow-up architectural review of this project. My understanding from speaking with you on the phone and from reading the various documents provided to me by your office is that the project is undergoing some changes and they have decided to add a fourth level on the building. I have reviewed the redesign and have the following comments: 1. Building Design. a. Height. The fourth level has been added on the north half of the building which is the downhill slope. It is still higher than the 30' height limitation. Therefore a variance will be required. They have maintained a shallower roof pitch to match the revised pitch of the past design and added dormers for interest. Although the dormers don't line up with the same features on the lower stories the overall effect should be satisfactory since the fourth level is set back. b. The windows indicated on the new fourth level do not match the character of the windows on the rest of the building. The size, spacing, and mullion patterns should be changed to match the historic style. c. The stair tower bump is unfortunate but the effort to downplay it architecturally by not adding a roof or ornamentation is acceptable. d. New fourth level roof overhang soffits appear to be missing the ornamental detail of the lower roof. It is important for this new level to match all detailing of lower levels to appear complete. This is a review of the architectural details only. If other changes have been made I have not reviewed them. Sincerely, Rebecca E Spears, AIA, LEED AP, Principal RB+B Architects, Inc. 970-488-3854 rspears@rbbarchitects.com Re: Anschutz Wellness Center Bilobran - CDOT, Timothy jtirnothy.bilobran©state.co.usi Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:42 PM To: Mart Deich [mattrflerielichassoc.cceni Cc: David Shirk [dsnirkdestes-orgh )0htt Cullen [lculfenrSgrentiheritage.corn1; Lucia A, Lttey Thank you very much for the memorandum Matt. After reviewing it CDOTs ofTerial position Is: 1. Since this development does not trigger the 20% threshold, a new COOT full blown access permit is not required for either of the 2 highway intersections. 2. COOT requests that the developer still obtain two free CDOT "baseline' permits, one for each intersection. As you know the 20% threshold we've been discussing is not a 20% traffic Increase afforded to each development but rather a cumulative figure. If your clients increase traffic by approx. 8 - ILO% at these intersections the leg developer utilizing these intersections can only increase the traffic by a factor of 10 - 12% before a full-biown COOT access permit is required. These baseline permits allow COOT to accurately memorialize the existing traffic counts found in your memorandum before this development occurs. 3. Any utility work in the COOT right-of-way required to accommodate this development will need a COOT utility permit which can also be obtained from this ofte (me). If you have any questions I can be reached at 970-350-2163. Thank you, lire Bdobran COOT Region IV Access Manager On Mon, Feb 10, 2019 at 9:25 PM, Matt ()Mich slysaltkieticissooc,cgm> wrote: Tim, Attached is my technical memorandum addressing your comments related to access permits at the two access points to U539. I have performed the analyses that we discussed. This Fooled is going before the Estes Park Planning Commission next week. In light or this, I would appreciate if you could review this memorandum at your earliest convenience and confirm that it satisfactorily addresses the Issues. Please respond to ali parties on this smart. Thanks for your understanding of the time constraint. Matt f4attinew J. belict.. P.F., ROE Of LICH ASSOCIATE ' .7.272 C2en Maven Orwt: in-Mann, CO f40539 Phcnt W4)459.2051 F Alr: raft-A1S4-5019 mattradelichassoCtom Tian Bilobran COOT Region 4 Access Manager, Utility Permits, and Outdoor Advertising ORO- (970) 350-2153 Motile- (970) 302-9622 Fax- (570) 350-2207 TirnotgylilotearOstate.coas 14202nd Street Greeley. CO 80531 DELbCH ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transportation Engineering Ammem=all 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 ACIZIENC4ffer 111111=11== "7 TO: FROM: Matt Delich DATE: February 10, 2014 SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Tim Bilobran, CDOT Region 4 „yr Anschutz Wellness Center at the Stanley Hotel — Response to COOT Comments (File: 1394ME02) This memorandum provides a response to comments by Tim Bilobran, COOT Region 4, regarding the proposed Anschutz Wellness Center at the Stanley Hotel. Specifically, it addresses impacts at the US34 (Big Thompson Avenue)ISteamer Drive intersection and the US34 (Wonderview Avenue)/Steamer Parkway intersection. It evaluates the need for new access permits at each intersection. The comments by Tim Bilobran are provided in the Appendix. In discussions, it was determined that existing Access Permits do not exist at either intersection, nor were there any peak season traffic data at either intersection. Therefore, it was agreed that an estimate of traffic utilizing each street (intersection) would be determined using the existing land uses, calculated trip generation, and trip distribution/assignment. From recent aerial photography (Larimer County and Google (2012)), a "trip shed area" was determined for both Steamer Drive and Steamer Parkway. The trip generation for this evaluation used Trip Generation, 9Th Edition, ITE, as the reference document. The total number of dwelling units in the "trip shed area" was 196. It is assumed that these dwelling units are occupied by full-time residents. The calculated daily trip generation for the residential units was 1866 trip ends. The daily trip generation for the guest rooms at the Stanley Hotel complex was calculated at 1470 trip ends (full occupancy). There is a grocery store based commercial center (Safeway), which has one of its two accesses to Steamer Drive, just north of US34 (Big Thompson Avenue). The daily trip generation for this retail center was calculated at 4270 trip ends. It was assumed that half (2136 trip ends) would utilize the US34 (Big Thompson Avenue)/Steamer Drive intersection, The total daily trip generation was, for all land uses within the "trip shed area," calculated at 5472 trip ends (rounded to 5480 trip ends). Given the street network in the "trip shed area," the daily traffic estimate was assigned to either Steamer Drive or Steamer Parkway based upon minimum time paths and engineering judgment. The base (existing) condition on Steamer Drive, just north of US34 (Big Thompson Avenue), was estimated at 3030 vehicles per day. The base (existing) condition on Steamer Parkway, just north of US34 (Wonderview Avenue), was estimated at 2450 vehicles per day. These are the volumes that the increase in traffic, due to the proposed Anschutz Wellness Center, will be compared to. If an increase of 20 percent is not exceeded, then new access permits are not required. The daily trip generation for the Anschutz Wellness Center at the Stanley Hotel was calculated to be 464 trip ends. The Anschutz Wellness Center is located such that both Steamer Drive and Steamer Parkway would be equally attractive for the proposed land use. At a 50 percent distribution, the impact at Steamer Drive is 7.7 percent and the impact at Steamer Parkway is 9.5 percent. This is less than a 20 percent increase at both streets (intersections). As a sensitivity analysis, even at 100 percent distribution to either street, the increase is less than 20 percent. It is concluded that new access permits are not required at the US34 (Big Thompson Avenue)ISteamer Drive intersection and at the US34 (Wonderview Avenue)/Steamer Parkway intersection. APPENDIX 1/28/14 les Perk Mail - EPIACIProic*uti &Omni or Ned & ESTES EPMC/Anschutz Statement of Intent & Application Update Blictbran COOT, Timothy .ctimothy.biloixan@state.co, us> To: Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Cc: Dave Shirk ‹dshiric@estes.org> Karen end Dine, Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:49 PM First, thank you wry much for the CD In the mail. That was most helpful. is Estes Park planning on continuing to use Dropbox in the future? i have yet to hear back from the CDOT Headquarters ft' on getting Dropbox permanently installed on my computer. Regarding this Stanley Wellness Canter referral, CDOTs comments are as follows: 1. Regarding the zoning. COOT has no official comment on zoning/land use are they are the occlusive purview of local municipalities. 2. Regarding the 50 bed expansion, CDOT requires slightly different information in the traffic impact memorandum than what Estes Park would require. The study already discusses the daily peak traffic generated by this expansion. In addition to this information, COOT requires: a. How much traffic currently uses the Hwy 34 access point on a daily basis? If the expansion will increase traffic using the access point by greater than 20% on a daily basis, a new COOT permit will be required. 1. if a new access permit is required based on this 20% threshold, the memorandum must also discuss whether any auxiliary lanes sane this access point (and their dimensions) and what auxiliary lanes are required under the access code. b. if the 2Q% threshold is not crossed, than an access permit is not required. Howewr, this COOT region attempts to issue 'Baseline" access permits in this scenario. This is a free pornIt for the developer and serves to only memorialize the total daily traffic both before the expansion and afterwards. COOT would appreciate Estes Park placing a requirement on the developer to obtain an access pent from us in either scenario. b. Regarding the drainage sheets, I am riot a hydraulics engineer. Please be advised that COOT will not accept any drainage abote historical levels (if the sheets show that). if you have any questions, I can be reached at 970-350-2163. Thank you, Tim Bilobran (Quoted text hidden) Ws:thine gcog le conYnull/calWOM1424=6act2499mlatierpptasearoWitopfirnsgr-143daSolefdas67 in Oxisw-I-GbA- G8t-eo ivl rvNe..4.41*. • 1; • 46` -2-A,11v7 LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, Inc. 1043 Fish Creek Road, Estes Park CO 80517 tel 970-586-9388 vhe@a rbits.com www.vanhornengineering.com November 20, 2015 Mallory Baker, Planner Planning Consultant Town of Estes Park Community Development Department 170 MacGregor Avenue, Room 210 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Application for Amendments to Special Review Approval for Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley Phase 1 Development Plan Dear Mallory: Thank you for forwarding on the applicable affected agency review comments related to the Special Review for this project. In preparation for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant's team offers the following explanations and response to such comments, PLANNING DIVISION STATEMENT OF INTENT 1. Floor Size and Use Breakdown. Provide a floor size and use breakdown (including storage and mechanical square footage) demonstrating the need to add one story in order to accommodate the hotel program. Include a discussion of the new location of storage space. Applicant's Response: See email from Applicant's attorney, Lucia A. Liley, t ;,led Oovember 12, 2015 and pages 1 and 2 of the Updated Statement of Intent. 2. Wellness Training Center Programming. Include a description of the proposed programming, including services provided and to whom, number and roles of employees, hours of operation, and relationship with the hotel (specifically, how will reservations at the wellness center be booked? Will it be through hotel staff, or separately? etc.) Applicant's Response: See email from Applicant's attorney, Lucia A. Liley, dated November 12, 2015. 3. Outdoor Activities. Provide a discussion of and justification for removal of the outdoor activities note included on the originally-approved development plan. Applicant's Response: The Wellness Center Training use is approved withot4t a condition limiting outdoor activities. Wellness Training Center uses envisioned for the outdoor patios include exercise, relaxation and recovery. 4. Parking and Shuttling Plan. As discussed in the pre-application meeting, please provide a description of mitigation strategies (e.g parking and shuttling plan) should the services provided by the wellness training center be opened up to people staying outside the on-site hotel spaces. Please also indicate whether or not there is an anticipated time period by which persons outside the hotel are expected to be allowed to use the wellness center facilities. Applicant's Response: See email from Applicant's attorney, Lucia A. Liley, dated November 12, 2015 and page 5 and 6 of the Updated Statement of Intent. 5. Density and Dimensional Standards. Please provide a note that the proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan do not comply with the height standard set forth in Section 4.4.0 of the EVDC, and that a variance will be sought. Applicant's Response: See email from Applicant's attorney, Lucia A. I. iley, dated November 12, 2015 and pages 3, 7 and 8 of the Updated Statement of Intent. 6. Height. Please review Section 3.6 Variances of the EVDC. Provide a discussion of the request for added height as it pertains to compliance with the review criteria set forth in this Section. One aspect of this request noted by Staff is the fact that the added height limits potential impervious coverage in Phase I. Applicant's Response: See email from Applicant's attorney, Lucia A. Liley, dated November 12, 2015 and pages 9 and 10 of the Updated Statement of Intent. 7. Ground Floor Patios. Describe the proposed use and activity on the ground floor patios. Applicant's Response: Wellness Training Center uses envisioned for the outdoor patios include exercise, relaxation and recovery. 8. Utility Review Required. Please note that the jurisdictional utility departments (the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Park Sanitation District) will need to determine whether the proposed modifications will trigger the need for additional sanitation, water, and power services. Applicant's Response: Noted. 9. Percentage of Non-Living Quarter Accessory Uses. The calculations included do not take into account the exercise rooms and other finished floor uses "needed for the [hot61] program" which are included in the building gross square footage. Including the finished portion of the fourth floor, the total gross floor area dedicated to non-living quarter accessory uses is 16.4% (4,564 (entry/lobby, restrooms, etc. on the lower level) + 3,455 (finished floor area on proposed fourth floor) / 48,736 (total building GFA). Please clarify. Applicant's Response: See email from Applicant's attorney, Lucia A. Liley, dated November 12, 2015 and pages 12 and 13 of the Updated Statement of Intent. 2 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Density Calculation. Show the Accommodations 2 building square footage as the square footage for the whole building (Gross Floor Area) rather than the footprint only. Applicant's Response: Please refer to Sheet 1 of the Site Development Plan for updated Statistical Information regarding the Accommodations 2 building square fm,tage breakdown by floor. 2. Lot Coverage. Show proposed lot coverage as a percentage. Applicant's Response: Please refer to Sheet 1 of the Site Development Plan for updated Statistical Information regarding Lot Coverage as a percentage. 3. Parking/Shuttling. Parking and shuttling plans in the case that guests are not staying at the hotel on-site will require additional clarification in the Statement of Intent, as described above. Please include a note to "refer to Statement of Intent regarding additional parking and shuttling information", Applicant's Response: See email from Applicant's attorney, Lucia A. Liley, crated Rovember 12, 2015, page 5 and 6 of the Updated Statement of Intent as well as Sheet 1 of the Site Development Plan. LANDSCAPE PLAN 1. Tree Protection. indicate whether any of the proposed locational changes included in the landscape plan modifications would result in any necessary amendments to the site's tree protection strategy (e.g. compliance with Appendix D (VIII)). Applicant's Response: There are no necessary amendments to the site's tree protection strategy. The only changes to the landscape plan is the relocation of proposed landscape to accommodate the additional patio/light well and landscape walk along the northern and western sides of the building. ARCHITECTURAL SET 1. Fence and Guard Rail Details. Provide details and sections for all proposed guard railing. Applicant's Response: Please refer to Sheet A2.0 of the Architectural Drawings for the depiction of the proposed guard railing. Details and sections of the railing a, e also included in the construction drawings recently submitted for permit review. RBB ARCHITECTS, INC. 1. Building Design. a. Height. The fourth level has been added on the north half of the building which is the downhill slope. It is still higher than the 30' height limitation. Therefore a variance will be required. They have maintained a shallower roof pitch to match the revised pitch of the past design and added dormers for interest. Although the dormers don't line up with the same features on the lower stories the overall effect 3 should be satisfactory since the fourth level is set back. Applicant's Response: Noted. b. The windows indicated on the new fourth level do not match the character of the windows on the rest of the building. The size, spacing, and mullion patterns should be changed to match the historic style. Applicant's Response: Window sizes are scaled to reflect the sizes of the windows at lower levels of this building, though the groupings of windows on this level are larger to accommodate views from these more public spaces, We have added a mullion pattern to the majority of the windows to mimic the window design at the lower levels. Some windows did not receive mullions in an effort to preserve unobstructed views and create a window hierarchy within these groups. c. The stair tower bump is unfortunate but the effort to downplay it architecturally by not adding a roof or ornamentation is acceptable. Applicant's Response: Noted. d. New fourth level roof overhang soffits appear to be missing the ornamental detail of the lower roof. It is important for this new level to match all detailing of lower levels to appear complete. Applicant's Response: Mutule details have been added to the soffits on the new upper roof to match the detail intended for the original lower roof design. TOWN of EP Public Works-MEMO DATED 11-20-2015 Public Works offers the following comments and conditions on the EPMC Wellness Training Center - Development Plan application as submitted. Comments and Conditions are applicable for plans received on November 6, 2015. General: 1. Comment: Site modifications include a retaining wall and additional patio area around the building. These have minimal impact to the public drainage system and public transportation systems. Applicant's Response: Noted. 2. Condition: The proposed retaining wall will require a structural design and approved prior to construction, Applicant's Response: The proposed retaining wall has been designed and letailed on the Site Plan submitted with the construction drawings for the Building Permit Application for the revised building design. Transportation: 1. No comments or conditions. Applicant's Response: Noted. 4 Drainage: ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT (Van Horn Engineering, November 6, 2015). 1. Comment: Site modifications by adding additional impervious area with a patio and landscape walk results in a 0.5% increase in the peak runoff and has a negligible impact to the existing storm drainage infrastructure. Applicant's Response: Noted. 2. Condition: Landscape Plan shows proposed evergreen trees witnin the detention pond riprap and within the effective storage area of the pond. These trees should be relocated. Applicant's Response: Please refer to Sheet 11-LANDSCAPE PLAN of the .e Nvelopment Plan which has been revised to relocate trees shown within the effective storage area/detention pond rip-rap. 3. Condition: Combine the "Addendum to the Final Drainage Report" into the Final Drainage Report dated 412412015 and create one stand-alone report. The information and data provided is approved. Applicant's Response: Please refer to the revised Final Drainage Report (Wad 4.24-2015 which has been revised and re-submitted to include the original approved drainage report with the Addendum to the Final Drainage Report dated 11-6-2015 included in the appendix of the report to create a single stand along document. Estes Park Sanitation District-Letter Dated 11-19-2015 1. A manhole is required for the 8" service line connection that drains wastewater to the new main line, The service line will remain private unless the development chooses to end the 8" service line in a manhole. This would be a requirement for our ownership and maintenance of that portion of the line. Applicant's Response: The applicant would like to pursue further discussioe, with the District regarding the requirement for installing an additional manhole at the connection of the service line to the new main line (connection already completed). In reviewing the previous comments provided by the district during the review of previous development plan submittals and construction drawing review this manhole was not previously required. The applicant's civil engineer has reviewed the District's Collection Lines Rules E nd Regulations made available on the District's website and cannot find a relevant section stating that service line connections are required to be made in manholes. However, the applicant acknowledges that the Rules and Regulations state that the District's Board may include special requirements as part of a development review. The roadway within the area of the new main and service line connection has recently been paved. The applicant believes that this request is onerous given that the district had many opportunities to previously request this manhole to be installed during the previous plan reviews. Further, the applicant's civil engineer believes that to install this manhole at this point would degrade the quality of the 5 newly constructed road to accommodate a request which is not specifically triggered by► the District's standards other than a special requirement by► the board. The Site Development Plans have not been modified and will not be altered until further discussion takes place. The applicant intends to present their justification regarding this matter to the district at the next board meeting which takes place December 10, 2015 prior to the Town i.oat-ct Hearing on December 15, 2015. 2. System development fees will be required for all new plumbing fixture additions to the building, Plans have been provided to the District and we have made calculations based on that information. Applicant's Response: Noted. Estes Valley Fire Protection District-Letter Dated 11-06-2015 No responses required. TOWN of EP Utilities Department-Memorandum Dated 11-06-2015 (Relevant Comments Needing Responses Only) Water Division: The 12 inch water main extension running west along SW Steamer Parkway connecting across Wonderview Ave. was originally a phase 2 requirement. The Water Division and its GIS engineers have run the system's hydraulic model taking a fire flow event into consideration. The model verifies that this extension is still necessary to meet fire flow demands during phase 1 conditions without compromising the water distribution system. Conditional approval of phase 1 of this Special Review process requires this new installation be complete either by January 1, 2018 or with any new phasing of the Stanley Historic property, whichever comes first. Applicant's Response: Acknowledged. The existing 3 inch domestic water service to this building has been determined to be adequate. Applicant's Response: Noted. 6 Please let me know if you have questions about any of the Applicant's responses, or if you need additional information, Thank you. David A Bangs, P.E. Project Manager For Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, Inc. 970-586-9388, ext 14 davidvhe@airbits.com 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Betty Hull, unair of the Estes Valley Planning Commissi and Planning Commissioners COPIES: Mallory Baker, Planning Consultant Alison Chilcott, Director of Community Development Gregory White, Town Attorney Frank Lancaster, Town Manager FROM: Lucia A. Liley, Attorney for Applicant RE: Response to EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley Estes Valley Planning Commission Staff Report The Applicant has the following comments on the Staff Report prepared by Mallory Baker, Planning Consultant ("Ms. Baker"): 1. Report Summary, Paragraph 1 (page 2): Only 11,242 sf of the ground floor is proposed to be converted to Wellness Training Center uses (including 10,312 sf of useable Wellness Training Center space and necessary corridors, stairways, utility, mechanical, electrical and fire control areas); the other 4,515 sf remains strictly hotel uses (entrance, lobby, concierge and mechanical areas) or combined hotel and Wellness Training Center uses (cycle training and restrooms). 2. Report Summary, Paragraph 3 (page 2): The 3,560 sf of outdoor deck space on the fourth floor is also devoted to Wellness Training Center uses (it is currently planned to be meditation, relaxation and yoga exercise space). A note on the plans limits the use of this space to Wellness Training Center uses. 3. Section 17.44.060(a)(1), (2); Protected View Corridors (page 11): This Code section only relates to whether the protected view corridors are maintained, yet the staff adds the comment (which has nothing to do with this particular section) that it finds that the "11' 0.1" increase in maximum height could encumber certain mountain views, particularly for those living close to the proposed development." (Emphasis added). If this is a staff finding, where are the details, analysis and evidence to support this finding? 4. View Corridors (page 12): This section of the Staff Report also deals with the protected view corridors and once again, an inapplicable comment is inserted citing the fact that a number of public 1 comments discuss the impact of the project on mountain views to the north and northwest (which are not protected views). Aside from the fact that this has nothing to do with tne Code criterion being discussed, simply because comments are made does not mean that the comments are true or that they result in the project's noncompliance with applicable Code criteria. That is precisely the analysis that the Town's planning staff and its consultants are professionally tasked to provide, based upon Code language and evidence in the record. Yet this section, the previous section and, in fact, the entire Staff Report does not provide detailed analysis or evidence to support Staffs finding on the height proposal. And, compounding the problem, the Staff Report declines to make a recommendation on the project (see page 18, Paragraph 2 under Staff Findings) based, at least in part, upon its finding that the height requested could have negative impacts on surrounding land uses. 5. Off Street Parking and Loading (EVDC § 7.11) (page 14): The same parking methodology and analysis already approved for the Hotel/Wellness Training Center uses is unchanged with this development proposal, yet the Staff Report finds that this is insufficient without a condition of approval that "m changes to the wellness training center programming, including opening of the programs to persons not staying at the hotel on-site, shall require a Parking and Shuttling plan to be submitted for review in accordance with the EVDC." (Emphasis added). By way of background, after the submittal of the Special Review application on November 6, 2015, Ms. Baker responded with a list of key review comments needing to be addressed by the Applicant. Included in that list was a request for a description of mitigation strategies should the services provided by the Wellness Training Center be opened to people not staying at the on-site hotel. Applicant's November 12, 2015 email response was as follows: "Section 4. Parking and Shuttling Plan. You have asked for a description of mitigation strategies (parking and shuttling plans) should the wellness training center be made available to people not staying at the on-site hotel. The applicant is not proposing to have the wellness training center be used by the general public (i.e. anyone not staying at one of the Stanley Hotel- managed accommodations) and is not prepared at this time to provide mitigation strategies for a future potential event. It is likely that such a change, if made, would occur concurrently with the development plan amendment process for Phase 2 and at which time the request would be made to allow this change in use and to propose appropriate mitigation techniques. In terms of the annual Horror Film Festival, it is possible for that one event that there could be guests of the wellness training center who are not housed on the lot 4 hotel, but elsewhere in a Stanley Hotel-managed accommodation. In that event, 2 those guests would be shuttled to the wellness center. The applicant is willing to have a condition of approval which incorporates the limitations described above." In its resubmittal of the application on November 20, 2015, the Applicant expanded somewhat on the Parking and Shuttling Plan response: "In the infrequent circumstance, for example during a festival hosted by the Stanley Hotel, guests of another Stanley-managed hotel may be allowed to utilize the Wellness Training Center facilities, the Stanley Hotel would be responsible for transportation of these guests to/from the Wellness Training Center. In the event that the Applicant decides at some future time, perhaps in conjunction with the development of Phase 2, to open the Wellness Training Center facilities to the general public, that proposal together with appropriate mitigation strategies if warranted, would be submitted to the Town for approval." On November 12, 2015, Ms. Baker responded to Applicant's November 12, 2015 clarification email as follows: "I find these comments sufficient in clarifying those portions of the statement of intent." No question or concern was expressed thereafter about the Applicant's position on parking and its offered condition, yet the Staff Report now recommends a much more restrictive condition with no discussion as to why it would be needed when the purpose could be adequately served with Applicant's proposed condition language. 6. Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment (§ 7.13) (page 15): The statement is made that Applicant proposes a total of 7,738 sf of outdoor deck space with a 3,560 roof deck on the proposed fourth story to be used primarily for outdoor exercise recovery and relaxation for Wellness Training Center patients. The square footage of the outdoor deck space for Wellness Training Center use (7,738 sf) is not correct. Planning Staff has apparently included the second and third story hotel room decks which total 4,178 sf; note that while these areas are "exterior building areas" as labeled on the Applicant's plans, they are previously approved private areas for the individual hotel rooms, and are not for Wellness Training Center uses. Outdoor spaces dedicated to Wellness Training Center programming include the 3,560 sf deck area on the top of the approved third story (accessible from the enclosed fourth story) for seasonal outdoor meditation, relaxation and yoga exercise, and the 2,200 sf pool patio on the ground level, for a total of 5,760 sf of useable outdoor space for Wellness Training Center programming (Note that the plans show an area of 3 approximately 3,000 sf for the pool patio, approximately 800 sf of which is anticipated to be used for cosmetic plantings). 7. Special Review Criteria; Mitigation of potential adverse impact on nearby land uses (pages 16, 17 and 18): The Staff Report makes this finding regarding the proposed increased height: "Staff finds that while the applicant has effectively minimized impact on impervious coverage and open space provision by building vertically, sufficient analysis has not been done to understand the feasibility of an alternative method to construct the additional 3,455 square feet needed. (Emphasis added). Such alternatives could include limiting the hotel square footage in order to accommodate the additional wellness training center programming or expanding the horizontal footprint of the building. Another alternative could include limiting the proposed fourth level to the 3,455 square feet needed to complete the wellness training c center programming, rather than adding a 3,560 square foot roof deck to the fourth level, in order to minimize activity occurring above the prescribed 30' height limit to the greatest extent possible." A number of things about this finding are of concern to the Applicant. In Ms. Baker's November 11, 2015 Planning Division Review Comments to the November 6, 2015 submittal, the only comment about height was a direction to Applicant to show compliance with EVDC § 3.6 variance standards. In its November 12, 2015 response, Applicant pointed out that the EVDC § 3.6 variance process and standards were not applicable as increases in height are specifically required by Section 17.44.060(d) of the Municipal Code to be reviewed by the Town Board subject to a Special Review process and standards. On November 12, 2015, Ms. Baker responded: "I find these comments sufficient in clarifying those portions of the statement of intent. As discussed, I think that in light of the public comment received to-date, an augmentation of the existing explanation regarding the height, similar to what is typically required for a variance review, would assist tremendously in our formal review process." In compliance with Ms. Baker's request, the Applicant, in its revised submittal of November 20, 2015, not only detailed how the proposed amendments to the approved plan had been mitigated as to height, it also detailed at length how the EVDC § 3.6 variance standards were met through the Applicant's proposal, even though not applicable. No comments or questions were ever received thereafter asking for any additional information on height, or indications of continuing concerns or questions about the information that had been provided. 4 The Special Review requirement is mat the proposed use must mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, adverse impacts on nearby land uses. So the question then is whether the proposed amendments with the height mitigation proposed by the Applicant would have any significant (i.e. more than de minimus) negative impact on nearby land uses. The Applicant has provided evidence in the record that Applicant believes demonstrates that this is not the case in connection with the increased height as proposed. Although the Staff Report finds to the contrary, there is no analysis of what the specific negative impact is and no evidence presented to support that finding. What is the basis then for requiring an analysis of alternatives to what the Applicant has proposed and has mitigated? Assume for discussion purposes that the request to consider alternative proposals is appropriate. Had the staff ever asked for information on alternative design options, it would be clear that other options were analyzed and none of them would fall within the feasibility requirement of the Special Review criteria (i.e. mitigation has to be feasible). Applicant's responses to the three (3) alternative designs suggested by staff are as follows: (1) Reduce the second and third story hotel square footage to accommodate the additional Wellness Training Center space needs without the need for a partial fourth story. Applicant's Response: First and foremost, this is not a feasible option because, at this point in construction, the room layout for the second and third floors, and all associated requirements, is set and the time and expense of reworking all of that would prevent the Applicant from meeting its lender's requirement to deliver the required hotel rooms no later than May 1, 2016, putting Applicant in default on its existing mortgage. Further, the Staff Report's assertion that there may have been opportunities to utilize hotel areas for wellness center program or opportunities to expand the building footprint are not correct from an architectural stand point. There needs to be a clear separation between the hotel areas and the wellness center areas. This separation may not always need to be secured, but it needs to be clearly delineated to reduce the opportunities for unintended interactions (such as wellness center traffic and conversations in the hotel corridors or hotel guests utilizing wellness center facilities without specific appointments). In this size building the only way to generate this separation is to provide it on a floor by floor basis, or increase the amount of vertical egress so that portions of individual floors can be isolated from each other. It is not feasible to add additional vertical circulation (elevators and stair towers) within the existing construction, so a floor to floor separation of use is the only feasible approach. The existing hotel building is designed to provide windows and decks off individual rooms on each face of the building. Because of this the building has no "back of house" condition and there is no face of the building that can be obscured without reworking the entire interior layout and structure of the building. Because of this, it is not feasible to increase the ground floor footprint of the building without impacting at least the second floor hotel rooms. Any roof element over the additional footprint would necessarily interfere with the windows and decks on that face of the building. Loss of the decks would be a serious negative impact to the Wellness Training Center programming, but loss of the windows would be a code violation that would require a rework of the room layout. As the demising wails between the rooms are structural bearing walls, the entire building structure would need to be reworked in order to accommodate this change. At this point in construction such a change is not feasible. (2) Expand horizontal footprint of the building to avoid partial fourth story. Applicant's Response: This is infeasible because, to the west, the building is on the property line and it would require moving Steamer Parkway; to the south, the area is filled with utilities, infrastructure and public easements related to the same and is the only point of access for the entire site; to the east is required parking spaces which cannot be eliminated and still meet Code requirements; and a move to the north places the building closer to the residents of Findley Court (the partial fourth floor would seem to be a lesser impact to neighbors than building to the property line closest to them). Further, the existing hotel building is designed to provide windows and decks off individual rooms on each face of the building. Because of this the building has no "back of house" condition and there is no face of the building that can be obscured without reworking the entire interior layout and structure of the building. Because of this, it is not feasible to increase the ground floor footprint of the building without impacting at least the second floor hotel rooms. Any roof element over the additional footprint would necessarily interfere with the windows and decks on that face of the building. Loss of the decks would be a serious negative impact to the hotel programming, but loss of the windows would be a code violation that would require a rework of the room layout. As the demising walls between the rooms are structural bearing walls, the entire building structure would need to be reworked in order to accommodate this change. At this point in construction such a change is not feasible. (3) Limit the proposed fourth floor to the 3,455 sf needed to complete the Wellness Training Center programming rather than adding a 3,560 sf roof deck to the fourth level in order to minimize activity occurring above the prescribed 30 foot height limit. Applicant's Response: Two clarifications are needed. First, the outdoor roof deck space is not being added above the fourth level but is located above the third level, the roof height of which has already been approved and complies with the Chapter 17 height requirement. In fact, the deck will be located on the level part of the third floor roof, below the peak of the third floor roof (and, again, the 6 roof peak is approved and within the Chapter 17 height requirement) and between the partial fourth floor addition and the neighboring properties. Individuals standing on the deck will be significantly shorter that the fourth floor addition behind them and will also be partially hidden by the third floor roof (which is approximately 3 feet higher than the deck surface). These factors, coupled with the distance between neighboring properties and the deck minimizes any impact of activity on the deck to such neighboring properties. Second, the 3,560 sf of roof deck is as much a part of the Wellness Training Center programming use as is the 3,455 indoor exercise space (and this roof deck space is noted on the plans to be part of the Wellness Training Center use, not the hotel use). Estes Park Medical Center representatives will be at the Planning Commission hearing to explain the need for outdoor relaxation, meditation and yoga exercise as part of a successful Wellness Training Center project. 8. Special Review Criteria, Mitigation of potential adverse impact on nearby land uses (pages 17 and 18): Staff finds that deleting the note limiting activities to inside the building will permit the use of the proposed patio and roof deck space, but other regular outdoor activities may impact adjacent uses, such as: "1. Wellness group classes with amplified music; 2. Outdoor gatherings taking place in the evening." The Applicant has never intended to seek approval of outdoor uses other than on the patio and roof deck (which is why these uses are specifically called out in the described amendments). The Applicant is fine with a condition of approval that limits outdoor uses to the two described areas and prevents the use of amplified sound in those areas. Of course, all permitted uses inside or out of the building must comply with the Town's noise ordinance. 9. Potential motions (pages 19 and 20): Applicant objects to conditions 3 and 4 to the motion to approve as presently worded and proposes the following revisions: 3. In the event the Wellness Training Center is opened to the general public, submittal of a Parking and Shuttling Plan shall be required to be reviewed pursuant to applicable Municipal Code Chapter 17 and EVDC requirements. In the event that Wellness Training Center guests are not housed on-site but are housed in a Stanley Hotel managed hotel facility, the Stanley Hotel must provide shuttling of such guests to and from the Wellness Training Center. 7 4. Any proposed change to a use other than hotel or Wellness Training Center use shall require a Special Review pursuant to the criteria set forth in applicable provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 17 and the EVDC. The Wellness Training Center use shall be as defined and approved in the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Applicant and the Town. 8 Application for Amendments to Special Review Approval for csf-- APill(P141/C"I Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley Phase 1 Development Plan November 20, 2015 Updated Statement of Intent Facts: The Town Board approved the EPMC/Anschulz Wellness Training Center Development Plan ("Development Plan") by Special Review on February 25, 2014, including the Accommodations-1 and Wellness Training Center buildings as the first phase, followed by construction of the Accommodations-2 building as the second phase. The Wellness Training Center was defined in the Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate between the Town and the Applicant and approved by the voters, as "one or more facilities with integrated programs and operations focused on promoting wellness through lifestyle changes, physical fitness and training, nutrition and medical/personal care treatment." On March 24, 2015, the Town Board approved the following amendments to the Development Plan: (i) phasing was reversed (i.e. construction of the Accommodations- 2 building, formerly the second phase, became Phase 1, with the Accommodations-1 and Wellness Training Center becoming Phase 2); (ii) a 5-foot shift of the location of the Phase 1 building; (iii) inclusion of accessible parking spaces in the Phase 1 parking lot; (iv) updates and revisions to the storm drainage plan to accommodate the amendments; and (v) final architectural elevations for the Phase 1 building. All utilities and infrastructure shown on the amended Development Plan for Phase 1, now referred to as Phase 1 of the "Aspire Wellness Complex at the Stanley" have been installed ("Phase 1 Development Plan"), a building permit has been issued for the Phase 1 building and construction of the building and its associated improvements is underway. As the Applicant continued to work through the program and design for the Hotel and Wellness Training Center buildings in anticipation of finalizing Phase 2, it became apparent that the Estes Park Medical Center ("EPMC") ability to fund the Wellness Training Center was limited, jeopardizing the delivery of the Wellness Training Center. To address this issue, the Applicant has devised a dynamic new way to accelerate the project by locating the Wellness Training Center uses in the lower level of the Hotel and in a new partial fourth floor to complete the program. Utilizing this strategy, together with the Applicant's ability to bring in additional financial partners, the financial risk to EMPC has been dramatically reduced and the delivery date of the Wellness Training Center uses will be expedited to the third quarter of 2016. The programming for the Wellness Training Center use is consistent with that definition approved by the voters and can be easily accommodated within the Phase 1 building with minor amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan, as long as the amendments can be processed 1 expeditiously to ensure no delays in the construction schedule. Therefore, the Applicant proposes to move the Wellness Training Center use from Phase 2 to the Phase 1 building and to amend the Phase 1 Development Plan to accommodate the inclusion of the use in the building currently under construction. More specifically, the lower level of the building was previously planned to include the hotel entrance, lobby, concierge, a work out room, mechanical areas and restrooms (4,515 SF), plus a large storage area and access corridor (11,242 SF). Plans for the 4,515 SF area remain unchanged, except that the work out room will be shared with the Wellness Training Center and is now envisioned as space for cycle training. The Applicant proposes to convert the 11,242 SF lower level storage area and access corridor to Wellness Training Center uses such as research, consultation, massage and recovery, lab services, audio testing, biomechanical and clinical functions, gym and weight training, small group exercise, a pool and locker rooms, plus the necessary corridors, stairways, utility, mechanical, electrical and fire control areas. After the conversion, however, the EMPC would still need an additional approximately 3,455 SF to complete the Wellness Center Training program with larger exercise rooms, so the Applicant is proposing to add a fourth level to the approved Phase 1 building to accommodate such exercise rooms. The storage previously planned for 11,242 SF ground level area of the building will be done off-site in other Stanley buildings. The Applicant intends to donate the Wellness Training Center spaces to the EMPC for 99 years in recognition of the need to get the Wellness Training Center built as soon as possible with the lowest possible risk to the EPMC. Both the EPMC Board of Directors and the EPMC Foundation have expressed support for this solution. The Applicant continues to work on the Phase 2 plans and will submit a separate application for its approval in the future. Requests: The Applicant requests the following amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan to allow for the inclusion of the already-approved Wellness Training Center uses within the Phase 1 building: (i) conversion of a portion of the ground floor accessory use space to Wellness Training Center uses; (ii) the addition of two ground floor exterior patios adjacent to ground floor for Wellness Training Center uses, together with associated perimeter landscaping; (iii) the addition of a 3,455 square foot fourth floor of large exercise rooms that cannot be accommodated within the approved Phase 1 building, with supplemental outdoor deck areas, to complete the Wellness Training Center program; (iv) changes to the architectural elevations to include the ground floor patios, windows and doors and the fourth floor; and (v) authorization, pursuant to Municipal Code §17.44.060(d)(1), for a height greater than 30 feet as height is measured pursuant to the applicable provisions of the EVDC 2 .4 Statement Of Compliance with Applicable Development Plan Review Criteria EVDC Chapters 4 and 7 Nonresidential Zoning Districts (§ 4.4) Uses (.$ 4.4.B): Table 4-4 in this section lists permitted uses in the A-Accommodations zone district. Applicant Statement: All of the uses included in Development Plan were approved by the Town Board on February 25, 2014, with the expectation that the Accommodations-1 building and Wellness Training Center would be built in what is now known as Phase 2, and the Accommodations-2 building to be constructed in what is now known as Phase 1. With this application, the Applicant proposes to relocate the Wellness Training Center use from Phase 2 to Phase 1. The Applicant does not propose any new or different uses. Density and Dimensional Standards (§ 4.4.C): This section lists all of the density and dimensional requirements for the A-Accommodations district. Applicant Statement: The Development Plan and Phase 1 Development Plan complied with all applicable density and dimensional standards. The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan continue to comply with the density and dimensional standards, provided that the Town Board approves the Applicant's request for a building height in excess of 30 feet pursuant to Municipal Code § 17.44.060(d)(1). Building Height (§ 4.4.C): Building height in the Stanley Historic District is governed by Municipal Code §17.44.060(d)(1). Applicant Statement: Please see discussion of the Stanley Historic District standards below. Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Reauirements (§ 4.4.D.4). The Development Plan and the Phase 1 Development Plan complied with the requirements of this section by providing sidewalks, pedestrian linkages and a dedicated easement for Otie's Trail. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan do not eliminate any of the pedestrian amenities or linkages, therefore, it will continue to comply with the requirements of this section. Special Purpose and Overlay Zoning Districts (§ 4.5) Stanley Historic Overlay District (§ 4.5.D): This section requires compliance with the Stanley Historic District Procedures and Standards for Development set forth in Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code. 3 f . M I M Applicant Statement: Please see discussion of applicable Stanley Historic District standards below. Grading and Site Disturbance Standards (§ 7.2) This section governs changes to the natural grade, visual impacts of drainage/storm water facilities and the limits of disturbance. Applicant Statement: The approved grading plan for the Phase 1 Development Plan has been revised slightly to allow for the installation of two ground floor patios, one each on the north and west sides, to allow for sunlight to enter the interior spaces. Storm water runoff that results from the addition of these two ground floor patios will be routed to the storm drainage pond which has been installed, and such pond has been designed with sufficient capacity to accommodate this additional runoff. The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan continue to meet the requirements of this section regarding drainage/storm water facilities and the limits of disturbance. Please see the attached Addendum to the Phase 1 Final Drainage Report submitted with this application. Tree and Vegetation Protection (§ 7.3) This section governs the preservation of trees and vegetation within and outside the limits of disturbance. Applicant Statement: There are no proposed changes in the quantity of trees and vegetation, but there are minor changes to the location of trees to accommodate the ground level patios. Landscaping and Buffers (§ 7.5) This section establishes standards for aesthetic enhancement; plant materials, sizes and quantities; buffering to mitigate visual and environmental impacts; and parking lot landscaping. Applicant Statement: The only proposed changes to the approved Landscape Plan for the Phase 1 Development Plan are to provide trees and landscaping around the perimeter of the two new ground floor patios. The proposed amendments to the Landscape Plan demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this section. Please see the approved Landscape Plan for the Phase 1 Development Plan and the proposed amendments thereto submitted with this application. Wildlife Habitat Protection (§ 7.8) This section includes standards for development that are designed to protect wildlife species and habitat. 4 ••• Applicant Statement: There are no amendments proposed that will change the Phase 1 Development Plan's approved method for preservation of wildlife habitat and migration. Exterior Lighting (§ 7.9) This section outlines design and height standards for exterior lighting. Applicant Statement: The Applicant proposes no changes to the approved exterior lighting for the Phase 1 Development Plan, but will install additional exterior lighting on the fourth floor to ensure safe use of the roof top deck areas. All such lighting shall be down directional and shielded to prevent spillage. Please see architectural building plans submitted with this application. Operational Performance Standards (§ 7.10) This section addresses the imposition of conditions to ensure compatibility with existing uses. Applicant Statement: The Hotel uses within the Phase 1 Development Plan will continue to be subject to the conditions which were imposed with the approval of the Phase 1 Development Plan on March 24, 2015. The Wellness Training Center uses being moved from Phase 2 to the Phase 1 building were approved without any conditions. Off-Street Parking and Loading (§ 7.11) This section outlines the required parking including the number accessible parking spaces and a minimum number of off-street loading spaces and bicycle racks. Applicant Statement: Guests: Pursuant to §7.11.D, the Hotel must provide 1 parking space for each guest room 750 SF or less, and 2 parking spaces for each guest room greater than 750 SF. The Hotel includes 40 guest rooms, 32 of which are 750 SF for less and 8 of which are greater than 750 SF, resulting in a total of 48 required off-street spaces. The Applicant does not propose any change to the number or size mix of guest rooms in the Hotel, therefore, the off-street parking plan for the Phase 1 Development Plan will continue to meet the EVDC parking requirements for the Hotel by providing 40 on-site off-street parking spaces, including the accessible spaces required by §7.11.J (1 van accessible and 1 car accessible) and off-street loading spaces required by §7.11.N (2 Type B spaces), plus 8 off-site guest parking spaces pursuant to EVDC §7.11.G.1. Finally, as approved with the original Development Plan on February 25, 2014, the Wellness Training Center use, which is specifically categorized as an Adult Day Treatment Facility for day time use only, 5 has no overnight accommodations (guests will lodge in the Hotel) that trigger the provision of additional parking. In the infrequent circumstance, for example during a festival hosted by the Stanley Hotel, guests of another Stanley-managed hotel may be allowed to utilize the Wellness Training Center facilities, the Stanley Hotel would be responsible for transportation of these guests to/from the Wellness Training Center. In the event that the Applicant decides at some future time, perhaps in conjunction with the development of Phase 2, to open the Wellness Training Center facilities to the general public, that proposal together with appropriate mitigation strategies if warranted, would be submitted to the Town for approval. Employees: Also, as approved for the Phase 1 Development Plan on March 24, 2015 pursuant to EVDC §7.11.G.1.a., employee parking for the Hotel will be located off-site at the Stanley Hotel with transportation provided to and from the Phase 1 Hotel and Wellness Training Center. All employees who will be providing housekeeping, janitorial and maintenance services for the Hotel and Wellness Training Center uses will be employees of the Stanley Hotel who will begin and end their day at the Stanley. In addition, the Applicant has already purchased a vehicle for the purpose of transporting the employees from the off-site parking to the Phase 1 Development Plan. Bicycles: There has been no change to the amount of bicycle parking required for the Hotel use and the required amount of bicycle parking will continue to be provided. Adequate Public Facilities (§ 7.12) This section includes regulations is to ensure that all utilities and other facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of such development. Applicant Statement: Approximately 85-90% of the utilities and infrastructure needed to support the Phase 1 Development Plan have already been installed by the Applicant. Please see the complete set of plans submitted with this application which show all the utility and site infrastructure which has already been approved and is installed or currently under construction. The proposed amendments will not trigger the need for additional sanitation, water, and power services, therefore, adequate public services are currently available. Please also see the fixture count table submitted with this application for verification of the ability to adequately service all such fixtures. Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment (§ 7.13) This section governs outdoor storage, activities and mechanical equipment. 6 ~'n n Applicant Statement: None of the proposed amendments to the Phase 1Development Plan necessitate any changes to the outside storage areas, activities and equipment, therefore, the amended Phase 1 Development Plan will continue to comply with the requirements of this section. Statement of Compliance with Applicable Stanley Historic District Review Criteria Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (§17.44.060) Designated building envelopes and view corridors 1§ 17.44.060(0: This section requires that development maintain the existing views as depicted on the Map of View Corridors on file with the Town Clerk. Applicant Statement: The Phase 1 building is outside of the three view corridors designated for protection in this section. Please see the diagram submitted with this application that illustrates the location of the Phase 1 building outside of the view corridors. Open space N17.44.0600:4 This standard requires Lot 4 to have a minimum of 30% minimum designated open space. Applicant Statement: The Phase 1 Development Plan, in combination with the then current configuration of the Phase 2 Hotel and Wellness Training Center, provided 124,095 SF of designated open space, or 41% of the total site. The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan (together with the Phase 2 building configuration which has not yet been amended), result in 4930 SF or 1% reduction, resulting in 119,165 SF or 40% of the total site area being designated open space, which amount is 10% in excess of the requirement. Site design [§ 17.44.060(c)1: This section includes various requirements that govern design of the site. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan do not change the layout of the site, the location of service areas, parking lot buffering or landscaping, or the internal pedestrian network, therefore, the amended Phase 1 Development Plan will continue to comply. Please see the amended Phase 1 Development Plan submitted with this application. Building Design 14 17.44.060(d)l: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 05-14, the amendments to the Development Plan must comply with the following building design standards: Height [§ 17.44.060(d)(1): Building height is limited to 30 feet unless a greater height is authorized on special review. 7 Applicant Statement: Although §17.44.060(d) prescribes a height limitation of 30 feet, unless authorized by special review, it is not specific as to how the 30 feet is measured. Therefore, pursuant to §17.44.050(b) which requires special review approvals of projects within the Stanley Historic District to comply with the EVDC, and EVDC §1.9.2.E, which sets forth the methodology for calculating building heights on a slope from the existing grade, the Applicant utilized this methodology to calculate the height of the building in the approved Phase 1 Development Plan and the proposed fourth floor addition to the Phase 1 building. When the Town Board approved the Phase 1 Development Plan on March 24, 2015, the height approved for the Phase 1 building ranged from 26.48 feet above existing grade at the lowest point on the uphill side of the building to 35.45 feet above existing grade at the highest point on the downhill side of the building. You will note that the highest point of the building was in excess of 30 feet, but complied with the maximum height allowed as calculated in accordance with the methodology of EVDC §1.9.2.E. This proposed amendment to the Phase 1 Development Plan includes the addition of a partial fourth floor. The height of the ridgeline of the Phase building on its uphill side, where there is no fourth floor addition, will be the same height approved with the Phase 1 Development Plan (26.48 feet from natural grade). The ridgeline of the partial fourth floor addition is on the downhill side of the building. This height of 44.86 feet, while 14.86 feet above the 30-foot limitation, is10.26 feet higher than the height allowed (34.6 feet) when calculated in accordance with EVDC methodology for calculating building height on slopes. Applicant requests authorization from the Town Board to exceed the maximum height limits for the Phase 1 building, as described herein, and offers the following in support of its request: The building is designed to be (i) complementary to the architectural design of the Stanley Historic Complex, (ii) compatible in size and scale to the Stanley Historic Complex buildings, as required by the applicable building design standards [See Applicant Response to § 17.44.060(f)(4)(a) below], (iii) outside of the protected view corridors, and (iv) due to its location against the backdrop of the mountainous ridgeline and the numerous buildings of the Stanley Historic Complex, it would not significantly impact other views. Note also that the additional height requested has been placed on the downhill side of the building for the purpose of minimizing, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses. In addition, adding the additional square footage to a fourth level of the building does not cause either an increase in the amount of impervious surface or a decrease in the amount of open space on the property. Please see the calculations of maximum allowable heights and proposed roof heights and the photo simulations submitted with this application as evidence of the limited impact of the proposed increase in building height. 8 In addition, the mission of the Estes Park Medical Center to provide wellness services can only feasibly be accomplished with the conversion of a portion of the ground level and the addition of the partial fourth floor. Note that originally the Estes Park Medical Center wellness facilities were in a 13,000 SF footprint and that the square footage dedicated to wellness center uses within the Phase 1 building is very close — approximately 11,242 SF on the ground level with an additional 3,455 SF in the new fourth level (which square footage includes all necessary corridors, stairwells, utility, mechanical, electrical and fire control areas) — satisfying both the mission of the Estes Park Medical Center and the intent of the voters. Finally, even though the Applicant's request for a building height in excess of 30 feet is not a variance request (meaning that the request is not subject to either the variance process or the variance standards for review found at EVDC §3.6), the Applicant's proposal would meet the requirements for a variance. Not allowing the additional height would result in "practical difficulty" as described in §3.6 and allowing the additional height would not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the height regulations, the EVDC or the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the practical difficulty that would result from not allowing the additional height, the Applicant asserts that although the Phase 1 building could continue to be used as a hotel without the additional height, the entire Wellness Training Center program would be jeopardized if it cannot be accommodated in the existing building with the fourth floor addition. The additional height requested (10.26 feet) for the partial fourth floor addition on the downhill side of the building is not a substantial increase in view of the magnitude of the surrounding mountainous terrain and it would be have an insignificant impact on adjoining properties (see the Applicant's simulations). Furthermore, there is no detriment to the essential character of the neighborhood, since the use is not a new or different use and the architecture of the fourth floor will be consistent with the already-approved architecture of the remainder of the building. Regarding the variance requirement to not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the height standard, the EVDC or the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant believes that allowing the additional height to accommodate the. entire Wellness Training Center facility would promote the intent and purposes of both the EVDC and the Comprehensive Plan in that it would allow development that promotes the health, prosperity and general welfare of the community by strengthening its economic future. Finally, the purpose of the height standard of the Stanley Historic District regulations (i.e. to ensure that development in the foreground of the Stanley Hotel Complex does not destroy its essential historic character or lessen its ability to conduct an economically viable operation) is not impaired, but is instead promoted and enhanced with the realization of the Wellness Training Center program outside of the protected view corridors. 9 I In summary, although the Applicant's request is not subject to either the process or standards of a variance, the request for additional height would — in addition to complying with the applicable review standards — comply with the requirements for granting of a variance under EVDC § 3.6. Finally, the Applicant's height calculations are based on surveyed elevations and engineered drawings and, therefore, are as accurate as possible. In the event, however, that actual field construction results in the building measuring taller than the heights shown on the submitted plans (due to vagrancies in stud lengths, sheathing thickness, shingles layering, flashing, etc. and human measurement interpretations), the Applicant requests that the Town Board authorize an increase in the height up to a maximum of nine inches over the height requested with this amendment. Prohibited architectural styles [§ 17.44.060(d)(3]): Applicant Statement: The Applicant does not propose any of the prohibited architectural styles in its amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan. Roof lines [§ 17.44.060(d)(4)]: Applicant Statement: The new tourth level of the Phase 1 building will match the roof of the Hotel approved by the Town Board for the Phase 1 Development Plan on March 24, 2015. Please see the approved and proposed building elevations submitted with this application. Mechanical equipment [§ 17.44.060(d)(6)]: Applicant Statement: There are no proposed changes to the approved location or screening of the mechanical equipment. Skylights [§ 17.44.060(d)(7)]: Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1Development Plan do not include skylights. Facades [§ 17.44.060(d)(8)1: Applicant Statement: Please see the architectural elevations submitted with this application which visually demonstrate the building's continued compliance with this standard. Building materials [§ 17.44.060(d)(9)]: 10 P. Applicant Statement: Please see the architectural elevations submitted with this application which visually demonstrate the building's continued compliance with this standard. Lighting N 17.44.060(d)(11)]: Applicant Statement: The Applicant will provide the lighting already approved for the Phase 1 Development Plan, plus down directional lighting for any new outside areas associated with the Wellness Training Center uses (i.e. the two ground floor patios and the fourth floor decks). Building design [§ 17.44.060(d)(12)]: § 17.44.060(f)(4)(a): New buildings shall be located to protect the views of the main hotel and Manor House from the designated view corridors. New buildings shall be designed so that they will not destroy the historic significance of the complex. New buildings should be compatible in scale and size with the existing buildings and be visually subordinate. Applicant Statement: The proposed design of the Phase 1 building will continue to complement the appearance of the Stanley Historic Complex and function as an extension and diversification of the already successful tourist- oriented attractions and businesses of the Stanley Historic Complex, without detracting from the historical significance and prominence of the Stanley Historic Complex or lessening its ability to continue its economically viable operation. The proposed design of the Phase 1 building will not interfere or disrupt views of the Stanley Hotel and the Manor House [see Applicant Statement in response to §17.44.060(a) above] as it is outside of all three protected view corridors. The design of the Phase 1 building continues to support and protect the historic significance of the Stanley Historic Complex by being sited at a lower elevation that is isolated physically by enough open space to visually separate it from the Stanley Historic Complex buildings, allowing the Stanley Historic Complex to maintain its prominence on the site. Finally, the Phase 1 building will continue to shield views from the Stanley Historic Complex to the back of the Stanley Village commercial development to the south. Please see the architectural elevations submitted with this application for a visual illustration of the building design. § 17.44.060(f)(4)(b): New buildings should be recognized as a product of their own time and be distinguishable from the historic buildings, while remaining visually compatible. New design that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the Stanley Hotel Complex is not permitted. Applicant Statement: The design of the proposed Phase 1 building will be consistent with that of the approved Phase 1 building. The proposed building will continue to be visually compatible and incorporate elements that are consistent 11 I with the historic character of the complex, without being the same as the Stanley Historic Complex buildings. The building will continue to be recognizable as a product of its time and contextually compatible with the surrounding site. The variation of construction techniques and detailing continues to meet the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for new work in historic contexts. Please see the architectural elevations submitted with this application for a visual illustration of the building design. Signs § 17.44.060(e): Applicant Statement: Signage proposed for the amended Phase 1 Development Plan will be consistent with those already approved and will match those of the Stanley Hotel and meet the size and locational requirements of this section. Statement of Compliance with Applicable Special Review Criteria EVDC 3.5 STANDARDS FOR REVIEW (§ 3.5.B) Group Living Facilities, Treatment Facility (4 5.1.1): The Wellness Training Center use was found to be in compliance with this criterion when approved by the Town Board. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan do not involve any amendments to the Wellness Training Center use, therefore, this review criteria will continue to be met for the amended Phase 1 Development Plan. Hotels (4 5.1.J.1): This criterion limits the area of a hotel dedicated to certain non-living quarter accessory uses to 15% of the gross floor area. Applicant Statement: The gross floor area of the Hotel areas of the Phase 1 building is approximately 33,943 SF broken down as follows: Ground Floor: 4,515 SF (entrance, lobby, concierge, mechanical, restrooms and cycle training) Second Floor 14,714 SF Third Floor: 14,714 SF Total: 33,943 SF All of the Ground Floor uses are integral to the 1-lotei use and necessary to Hotel operations, so they are not considered accessory uses. Only the cycle training room could be considered a non-living quarter accessory use to the Hotel, and its square footage (644 SF) is only 1.8% of the gross floor area of the Hotel. Such percentage 12 n is less than the 15% maximum allowed in § 5.1.J.1 therefore, this criterion continues to be met. Hotels 5.1.J.2): This criterion limits the area of a hotel devoted to eating/drinking establishments to 25% of the gross floor area. Applicant Statement: The proposed amendments to the Phase 1 Development Plan do not include an eating/drinking establishment, therefore, this criterion continues to be met. Mitigation of Potential Adverse Impacts (§ 3.5.B): 1 his standard requires that "The application for the proposed special review use mitigates, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment." Applicant Statement: The Development Plan and the Phase 1 Development Plan were both found by the Town Board to mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land use, public facilities and services, and the environment, based on the following features of the plan: compliance with the applicable density and dimensional standards; continued integration of Otie's Trail and other interconnected pedestrian linkages; minimal grading; tree protection to the maximum extent possible and landscaping and native plantings that protect and enhance wildlife habitat and migration routes and screen views of parking, service areas and mechanical equipment; lighting that minimizes off-site spillage; limits on noise and times for construction activities, deliveries and trash service; maintenance of historic storm water rates and the use of best management practices to treat run off; provision of adequate public utilities; preservation of open space in excess of the minimum requirements; and appropriate building placement, design and materials that comply with the applicable Stanley Historic District regulations. Moving the Wellness Training Center uses to Phase 1 does not create adverse impacts or impair the mitigation provided by the above factors. The increased height attributable to the partial fourth floor addition is mitigated, to the maximum extent feasible, by the placement of the fourth floor addition on the downhill side of the building to minimize its visibility from the only neighboring residences across Steamer Parkway and the building's design and materials which are consistent with the design and materials used on the remainder of the building and are in compliance with the applicable Stanley Historic District regulations. In addition, adding the additional square footage to a fourth level of the building does not cause either an increase in the amount of impervious surface or a decrease in the amount of open space on the property. 13 1 Development Plan Special Review Rezoning Petition Preliminary Subdivision Plat Final Subdivision Piet Minor Subdivision Piet Amended Plat ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Submittal Date: Boundary Line Adjustment Condominium Map - ROW or Easement Vacation Preliminary Map Street Name Change 7' Final Map ' Time Extension r Supplemental Map Other: Please specify Project Name L i,)1 L toe/61.), 71-1116--)/.1- ( 0- Project Description lidd/Atp if.?O',144,v6s. /1711A4V (104.nier h #rcivV'eci h o4 f Project Address A;_. o 6)A (#.._ Legal Description41,..utiod Phot d Ze, 01656: 1(ihr..;,b Parcel ID 91-- ..3(- -c, 50,54pe £r/tP Set Lot Size filerelS Area of Dishrbance in Acres Existing Land Use /i - AJ> Proposed Land Use hcl (ee,"Yit't . Existing Water Service "(Town - Well None Other (specify) Proposed Water Service )1 Town Well None Other (specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service X EPSD - UTSD Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service V EPSD - UTSO Is a sewer lift Wagon required? Yes X No Existing Gas Service Ace] Other None Existing Zoning / i - hi'VEV2741/140f-,Proposed Zoning .0,0 gAA.L.-,. 5 .4--- Site Access (if not on public street) ?L t b I te. - <5:p.4.hve P,,:::k t , AL.,,,tv__ Are there wetlands on the site? Yes No Site staking must be completed at the time lication is submifted. Corn Yes Septic None Se Application fee Statement of intent 3 copies (folded) of plat or plan 11* X reduced copy of plat or plan Please review the Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, author other additional information. Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200.e 170 MacGregor Avenue mr, Estes Pork. CO 80517 Community Development Depoitmen+ Phone: (9701577-3721 • fox:19701 566-0249 qrs vnvw.estes.ora/ComDev Revised 2011.11.16X1 ' -trfkl:411- °C°P Cell Phone Fax 144 C'7s- -e.P32- 7 7 Record Owner(s) ;Be ktf o ‘.; klikyr. Ltd!. efA, e,sf pq,,---ezt..,tot,t _ Ft-1 Phone Cell Phone -- S • C.),:;) Mailing Address ,..z,„.44a,-,.;(41-:0,e ; 41-- r 7 Fax Email Applicant Mailing Address . Phone Cell Phone Fax Email .t.)re> v;X-,P t• 41.w, ra eel - 5'? - S'7/> Consultant/Engineer Jaime r • Mailing Address /7p , 1-10 LA sue ?•9-kW_ AA-4 0'2 fti-"S--', Phone *3e..,--141 -5' -',I') 7 Email .0 Yom, eic,;3e2- W.a.hinns,..,74nro/x.--nuremcw,=.1,-gr. .,:pgnam...F.nwuraommanammegionor.raw.....~....aars.eanufipt sa zaaanstionimibioninOpemonogre...k. 110...141mmisimionowommok APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Valk:I/Manning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at wr,NitvAlke,ssatgatops All requests for refunds must be made in witing. Ail fees are due at the time of submittal. 41.••••••••=,...-1.11.0•• Revised 2011.11 16 KT MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats If creating a new lot, and Preliminary end Anal Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and Initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the fkst hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRAM ..1..1111111.111. Applicant PLEASE PRINT. Signatures: Record Owner Applicant Date Date APPLICANT CERTIFICATION It, I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. ► In submitting the application materials and signing this apptoation agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). ► I aoknovAedge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: cftilLCP!ilPvilDCaqt• 110 I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. 10. I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. It. I understand that a resubmittal fee wit be charged if my application is incomplete. Ir• The Community Development Department wit notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. a• I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. I. I acknovAedge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule may result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmits, of an application that has become null and void. Record Owner PLEASE PRINT. ti I cr• 'e f rr Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Signatures: Record Owner Applicant Date Date Revised 2011.1 1.16 KT StanleyWellnessCtrMoc ion 10-30-15 1500 feet.xls Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip 313 OVERLOOK LLC 6797 VISTA LODGE LOOP CASTLE ROCK CO 80108 AARDAL JANET R 22202 E CANYON PL AURORA CO 80016 ABUNDANT PROPERTIES OF THE ROCKIES LLC P MB 400-169 KERRVILLE TX 78028 ACHESON GERALD SHAW/MARY LYNNE 2300 W EISENHOWER BLVD LOVELAND CO 80537 ADAMS BRUCE G/KRISTIN J PO BOX 2825 ESTES PARK CO 80517 ANDERSON DAVID B REVOCABLE TRUST 1602 ANIMAS PL LOVELAND CO 80538 ANDERSON MARTHA D REVOC LIVTRUST(1/2)/EVERETT R 1951 UPPER HIGH DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 ANDERSON MARTHA D REVOC LIV TRUST(1/2)/EVERETT R 1951 UPPER HIGH DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 ANGELL LLOYD 0/DOLORES J 410 HOMESTEADER LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER OUR LADY OF MTNS CHURCH 1300 S STEELE ST DENVER CO 80210 ARDIS PATTY K 8519 W BEHREND DR PEORIA AZ 85382 ARENTZEN ROLF F JR 137 STANLEY CIRCLE DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 ARNOLD KENNETH J/CAROL A PO BOX 1768 ESTES PARK CO 80517 BANK OF COLORADO 605 4TH ST FORT LUPTON CO 80621 BANSAL AK/JD FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 4821 NASA PKWY APT 18W SEABROOK TX 77586 BARGEN DAVID W/NANCY N PO BOX 1529 ESTES PARK CO 80517 BARKLEY RICHARD PAUL/SARA J 6375 S 1RONTON CT ENGLEWOOD CO 80111 BARLOW INC PO BOX 1116 ESTES PARK CO 80517 BENBROOK BRUCE T PO BOX 1008 WOODWARD OK 73802 BENBROOK BRUCE T/SHERYL S 1117 10TH ST WOODWARD OK 73801 BENDER DONALD D/MARTHA H 475 PROSPECTOR LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 BENDER FREDERIC L 577 WEST ST LOUISVILLE CO 80027 BERGER JEFFREY W/TAMI M 13309 65TH ST NW WILLISTON ND 58801 BIEN GARY K/VICKI J 675 FREELAND CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 BOATMAN JACK D/JANET E 406 OVERLOOK CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 BOHLENDER LARRY L/KAREN G 1476 43RD AVE GREELEY CO 80634 BOYD MATTHEW B/SARA A 4368 S 153RD CIR OMAHA NE 68137 BRECKENRIDGE ROBERT 9552 W HIGHWAY 14 BELLVUE CO 80512 BRETT LOLA I/PATRICK ALLEN HOOD BARBARA BRETT 1623 RACHEL CT CLEARWATER FL 33756 BROWNFIELDS LEATHER SHOP INC PO BOX 250 ESTES PARK CO 80517 BURGE WALWORTH E 4800 SPRING WILLOW RD FORT WORTH TX 76109 BURT TOM D/CYNTHIA A 699 FINDLEY CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 CAMP KEYS LLC 417 CARRIAGE CREEK LN FRIENDSW000 TX 77546 CAMPION CAROLYN A FRAME JANET C 3805 VALLEY OAK DR LOVELAND CO 80538 CANDY LAND INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 270927 LITTLETON CO 80127 CAREJAMES LLC 770 CEDAR COVE RD HENDERSON NC 27537 CHRISTENSEN GARY/CAROLYN J 6830 SHADOW RIDGE RD LINCOLN NE 68512 CHRISTIAN ROBERT H/HOLM-CHRISTIAN BARBARA L REVOCABLE TRUST/THE 255 STEAMER CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 CISLER DAVID W FISHER DEBORAH J 980 5TH ST GERING NE 69341 CLAZAK LLC StanleyWellnessCtrModification 10-347§91Tmfmcm DR BOULDER CO 80305 StanleyWellnessCtrModification 10-30-15 1500 feet.xls CLEELAND DAVID N LINDA K 650 FINDLEY CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 CLINE WANDA JEAN REV TRUST/THE 6279 S MARION WAY LITTLETON CO 80121 COFFMAN GREG H 501 ST VRAIN LN STE 200 ESTES PARK CO 80517 COLLINS RANDAL L/KATHLEEN A ROMER JANET S AKA JANET SUE 2250 BLUE SPRUCE DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 COMANCHE FORKS LLC PO BOX 270223 FORT COLLINS CO 80527 COOPER JOHN D/DO NA R TRUSTEES 838 PANORAMA OR ESTES PARK CO 80517 COPE JAMES D/KATHERINE B 631 FINDLEY CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 COSBY KELLY MAXWELL 414 OVERLOOK CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 CRIPPEN STUART C/LORETTA 642 S WILLIAMS ST DENVER CO 80209 CULLEN JOHN WESLEY IV 333 E WONDERVIEW AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 DALLAS MARY .10 1408 LONGS PEAK DR FORT COLLINS CO 80524 DARR CHARLES V/SUE R 5605 N 163RD ST OMAHA NE 68116 DENTON ENTERPRISES INC 114 PONDEROSA DR GRAND ISLAND NE 68803 DEPLAZES PATRICIA APRIL 8030 COUNTY ROAD 15 W MINOT ND 58703 DILL GARY L/DYANNE L PERRY SAMUEL H/LYNDA L 5177 E BRANCHWOOD DR BOISE ID 83716 DISCO DOG LAND CO 2898 5 LAKERIDGE TRL BOULDER CO 80302 DOMINA JUDY 1407 S 217TH AVE ELKHORN NE 68022 DRAGOVICH JOHN S/CYNTHIA K 2001 REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRST DTD 3/8/01 1270 JUDITH CT YUBA CITY CA 95991 DUBOIS EDWARD F/ANNE W 377 MACGREGOR AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 DUELL JAMES L/LISA W 842 PANORAMA CIR ESTES PARK CO 80517 DUMONT FRANK D/KATHERINE T 440 HOMESTEADER LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 EASTWOOD C WILLIAM REV TRUST (.50) EASTWOOD DEBRA NAN REV TRUST (.50) 4515 W 14TH ST GREELEY CO 80634 EBERHARDT GARY A/JOAN 5 16 WILLIAMSBURG RD CREVE COEUR MO 63141 ERNST ROBERT/DIANE TRUST 147 STANLEY CIRCLE DR UNIT A ESTES PARK CO 80517 ESTES HIGHLANDS HOA PO BOX 2333 ESTES PARK CO 80517 ESTES PARK SANITATION DISTRICT PO BOX 722 ESTES PARK CO 80517 ESTES VILLAGE PROPERTIES LTD PO BOX 4130 ESTES PARK CO 80517 F J N IRREVOCABLE TRUST PO BOX 31778 INDEPENDENCE OH 44131 FEDER SEYMOUR 4350 NW 30TH ST APT 334 COCONUT CREEK FL 33066 FILENE LIVING TRUST 453 E WONDERVIEW AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 2390 ESTES PARK CO 80517 FISHER TIMOTHY I/STACY M 513 IDALIA CT FORT COLLINS CO 80525 FIXTER ROBERT H/CAROLE A REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST OF PO BOX 1633 ESTES PARK CO 80517 FJS MANAGEMENT LTD 1512 DANUBE LN PLANO TX 75075 FLATIRONS BANKING SOLUTIONS INC 401K PLAN AND TRUST 2030 MONIDA CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 FOSDICK LLOYD D TRUST 492 MACGREGOR AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 FOWLER HAYWOOD CHERYL TRUSTEE/THE CHERYL HAYWOOD FOWLER REVOCABLE 5285 DIAMONDBACK DR LAS CRUCES NM 88011 FUENTES ALBERTO M 332 OVERLOOK CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 FUESZ GARY D/VICKI E 22147 HIGHWAY 59 HAXTUN CO 80731 GARNER LEON' ' HAAN DRA D 12888 DOMINGO CT PARKER r 80134 GEORGE KATI-. I A REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST StanleyWellnessCtrMod, ,on 10-306E3STRZuftd131O7Is ESTES PARK 80517 StanleyWellnessCtrMod on 10-30-15 1500 feet.xls GIBSON CHARLES H/LOREDANA SUE 3011 SPEEDWAY AVE WICHITA FALLS TX 76308 GILLESPIE KAY J/FRANCIS 2900 TULANE DR FORT COLLINS co 80525 GINTHER FREDERICK L/RITA B 3106 W EISENHOWER BLVD LOVELAND co 80537 GORDON RONALD J 3340 ROCKWOOD IN S ESTES PARK co 80517 GRAU FAMILY LLC II 1864 S WASHINGTON ST DENVER CO 80210 GREAT WESTERN BANK FBO FUCHS OLIVER FAMILY TRUST 9290 W DODGE RD STE 401 OMAHA NE 68114 GREEN JIM B/MARY R 1715 GLACIER ST LARAM I E WY 82070 HABER ALEGRA M FAMILY TRUST 3208 ARDSLEY DR ORLANDO FL 32804 HALE LIVING TRUST 670 FINDLEY CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 HARDING WILLIAM R/STACEY L 293 LOST BROOK ESTES PARK CO 80517 HARRIS FAMILY LIVING TRUST 3512 RED RIVER ST AUSTIN TX 78705 HAYDEN W G III/CAROL S 851 BLACK CANYON DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 HAYEK EDWARD A/MARLENE A STANLEY VIEWS HOA 611 FINDLEY CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 HEISER MATTHEW TRESSELL SH ELLIE PO BOX 3633 ESTES PARK CO 80517 HENDERSON KARLA A 258 STEAMER CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 HERZBERG CHRISTINE A CARY M 8262 SHADOW CREEK LN YORKVI LLE IL 60560 HESS DONALD E 1484 CREEKSIDE Cr ESTES PARK CO 80517 HICKMAN RICHARD L/BEVERLY K 115 DRIFTWOOD DR SEABROOK TX 77586 HILGER JAMES D/CATHERINE 478 MACGREGOR AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 HILTNER ORIN K/CONNA L 464 SKYLINE DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 HIRSCHFIELD NANCY L 842 VISTA LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 HOENIGMAN RICHARD A KATHERINE 231 WAYNE DR BEREA OH 44017 HOFEMANN PAUL A/JOYCE A 13008 COUNTRY TRAILS LN AUSTI N TX 78732 HOLDT MARK L REVOCABLE TRUST 823 PANORAMA CIR ESTES PARK CO 80517 HOLMES BRYON/DEBORAH 829 PANORAMA CIR ESTES PARK CO 80517 HOPECK WILLIAM E/LAURA G 7823 FAIRDALE LN HOUSTON TX 77063 HOUSER STEPHEN P PO BOX 2524 ESTES PARK CO 80517 HOUSTON BENNETT R 434 KARSH DR LONGMONT CO 80501 HUITT SHARON LOWTHER CIANCONE KARYN LOWTHER 7423 GUINEVERE DR SUGAR LAND TX 77479 IMBACH-R1NEHART KAROL J 7741 MONTECITO CT RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 ISAAC SUSAN TIMMER REVOCABLE TRUST 3304 THUNDERBIRD LN H UTCH I NSO N KS 67502 JACKSON ROBERT W/SHIRLEY A 3107 COLGATE DR LONGMONT CO 80503 JAENECKE RUSSELL E CAROLE T 610 FINDLEY CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 JAROLIMEK TAMARA L/JAMES F PO BOX 3523 ESTES PARK CO 80517 JEREB RICHARD F II PO BOX 3473 ESTES PARK CO 80517 JOHNSON CANDACE ZELL RODNEY 635 STEAMER DR UNIT A ESTES PARK CO 80517 JONES SHAUN T/JANET C 7580 LOST CREEK FLOWER MOUND TX 75022 KANE NICK AKA NICHOLAS PO BOX 1961 ESTES PARK CO 80517 KARR1ET LLC 222 E 21ST ST CHEYENNE WY 82001 KEIMIG GARY L/EILEEN L PO BOX 1014 ESTES PARK CO 80517 KETTERMAN LAILONI ELIZABETH/KENT EARL StanleyWellnessCtrModification 10-3110151501116IRTIDR EAGLE RIVER AK 99577 StanleyWellnessCtrModification 10-30-15 1500 feet.xls KHAN ANSAR U 2012 IRREVOCABLE TRUST 2735 N CLARKSON ST FREMONT NE 68025 KISSNER ROBERT JOSEPH TRUSTEE 11564 WILLOW BEND DR ZIONSVILLE IN 46077 KNIPPING DENNIS VANN M 3460 E ARBOR LN KEARNEY NE 68845 KOLTS BERTRAM S REVOCABLE TRUST 253 STEAMER CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 KOUROUPIS JAMES B/LYNDA F 3780 DORSEY SEARCH CIR ELLICOTT CITY MD 21042 KRALL RUSSELL G DOLORES J PO BOX 2242 ESTES PARK CO 80517 KRUMME CYNTHIA A/CATHERINE A 486 MACGREGOR AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 KRUSEN NANCY E 780 SOUTH LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 LAFRANKCIS PHILIP/JANINE 24416 E FREMONT DR AURORA CO 80016 LANCASTER FRANK/JILL TRUST 751 BLACK CANYON DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 LEAGUE LARRY D/ALICE F 620 STEAMER DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 LEE GEORGE/MEI-CHI PO BOX 1973 ESTES PARK CO 80517 LEWELLING FAMILY TRUST 670 STEAMER DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 LOGAN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 1025 W 25TH ST CASPER WY 82604 LYON MICHAEL GARY CHILCOTT ALISON TERESA 690 STEAMER DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 MACGREGOR INVESTMENTS LLC ELKHORN LLC PO BOX 173836 DENVER CO 80217 MAGISTRO PHILLIP/PHILIP JOHN 257 VIRGINIA DR UNIT C ESTES PARK CO 80517 MALPIEDE GLENN 212 VIRGINIA DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 MARGHEIM DAVID W/JEAN T 351 PROSPECTOR LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 MARGHEIM DAVID W/JEAN T 400 PROSPECTOR LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 MARGHEIM FREDERICK W/DOROTHY M 610 STEAMER DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 MARSHALL DONNIE K/JILL T PO BOX 2661 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MARTELLA RONALD V PO BOX 893 EASTLAKE CO 80614 MARTIN KENNETH H/DEBORAH J 115 FALLBERRY ST OAK RIDGE TN 37830 MARTIN STEPHEN R/NANCY M 1005 HONEYSUCKLE IN LOUISVILLE CO 80027 MATTHEWS GARY/IRENE 139 STANLEY CIRCLE DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 MAUNDER DIANNE/DAVID ANDREW 267 STEAMER CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 MAXWELL LLOYD R TRUST (1/2 INT) GAYLE J TRUST (1/2 INT) PO BOX 1861 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MAYO SUZANNE J REVOCABLE TRUST PO BOX 3989 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MCCORMICK KIMBERLY A 476 MACGREGOR AVE UNIT A-3 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MCELROY ROBERT/ELEANOR FAMILY TRUST MCELROY ROBERT A JR/ELEANOR J TRUSTEES 8382 CASTAWAY DR WINDSOR CO 80528 MCSWIGGAN KRISTA R/THOMAS P (.50) 330 OVERLOOK CT LLC (.50) 1699 SNEAD AVE CHESTERTON IN 46304 MENARD GEORGE/CHOATE CHARLU ZALE PRUDENCE (1/3 INT EA) PO BOX 13169 TRAPPER CREEK AK 99683 MI CASA HOMEOWNERS ASSOC ETCHCEPTIONAL 1 LLC 836 VISTA LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 MI CASA HOMEOWNERS ASSOC 844 VISTA LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 MILBURN JOHN P/SARAH P 407 5 MYRTLE ST GEORGETOWN TX 78626 MILLIKAN GREGORY/SUSAN 334 OVERLOOK CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 MINDFUL SOLUTIONS LLC PO BOX 1592 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MOELLERS MARCIA R 447 SKYLINE DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 MOINAT HARP' VI 2960 LORY LN ESTES PARK 80517 MOUNTAINVIL ACATIONS LLC StanleyWellnessCtrModi. ,on 10-30051aBGCNItenkls ESTES PARK L 80517 StanleyWellnessCtrMoc' on 10-30-15 1500 feet.xls MOUNTAINVIEW VACATIONS LLC 742 LAKEWOOD CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 MURPHY BRIAN 3620 CAPULIN DR LOVELAN D CO 80538 NAIFEH GARY T (33.33) NAIFEH KATHY R (66.66) 5494 5 HOYT ST LITTLETON CO 80123 NEIS DOLORES N REVOCABLE TRUST/THE 3381 COUNTY ROAD 25 MOUNTAIN HOME AR 72653 NEWENDORP PAUL D/DONNA 625A STEAMER DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 NOLL WILLIAM T/MARGARET S 12905 W DODGE RD OMAHA NE 68154 NORMAL! FRANK J IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF 1993 PO BOX 31778 INDEPENDENCE OH 44131 NORRIS JONI P LIVING TRUST 681 FINDLEY CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 OHNSTAD TERRENCE M/BARBARA A 300 SHADYCROFT DR LITTLETON CO 80120 ORTEN RUSSELL S/CATHERINE G 540 PROSPECTOR LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 OVERLOOK CONDOMINIU.M ASSOCIATION INC 10200 E GIRARD AVE UNIT C-255 DENVER CO 80231 OVERLOOK DEVELOPMENT AT THE HISTORIC STANLEY LLC 1692 BIG THOMPSON AVE UNIT 200 ESTES PARK CO 80517 OVERLOOK DEVELOPMENT AT THE HISTORIC STANLEY LLC PO BOX 2807 ESTES PARK CO 80517 PANORAMA LLC 1865 TWIN DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 PHILLIPS RANDALL S/HANNELORE T 6546 BEECHWOOD DR COLUMBIA MD 21046 PIEPER ROBERTJ/JULIE C PO BOX 2170 ESTES PARK CO 80517 PIKA PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 1793 ESTES PARK CO 80517 POCHOP DIANA PO BOX 58 ESTES PARK CO 80517 POHL EDWARD B/JOY L 451 PROSPECTOR LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 POST PROPERTIES LLC 6307 COUNTY ROAD 43 DEVILS GULC ESTES PARK CO 80517 POWELL ANNE 2363 TREMONT RD COLUMBUS OH 43221 PRATT LESLIE ANN PO BOX 289 WINN ETKA IL 60093 PRAWDZIK DAVID MARSHALL FRANCES M 420 OVERLOOK CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 PRUCHA FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 1727 WESTON CIR ERIE CO 80516 PUTNAM JOSEPH T/KATHRYN A 1641 E CARDINAL DR CASA GRANDE AZ 85122 QUARATINO LINDAJ/JAMES E 5852 QUARRY ST TIMNATH CO 80547 RACINE ANN PO BOX 1604 ESTES PARK CO 80517 RAHNE RANDAL R HUGHES BEVERLY J 8253 UTE HWY LONGMONT CO 80503 RANHE RANDY R 2141 KING ST DENVER CO 80211 RANIBOW RANCH PARTNERSHIP 3901 SUGARBERRY CT NORTH PLATTE NE 69101 RAPP LORI JEAN 2539 29TH AVE GREELEY CO 80634 RAY ALICE CLAIRE 2461 ARAPAHO RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 RETRUM WILLIAM S 650 FREELAND CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 REVELEY CHRISTOPHER G FINLEY ANN E 665 FREELAND CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 RICCIARDI ANTHONY F KATHY/TRUSTEES 837 PANORAMA CIR ESTES PARK CO 80517 RICHARD JOSEPH D TRUST RICHARD JOSEPH D/THEAJ TRUSTEES 10100 HEMLOCK DR OVERLAND PARK KS 66212 RICHMOND SALLY HUGHES/SETH G 460 PROSPECTOR LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 RING FLOYD 0 JR 1108 5 STEELE ST DENVER CO 80210 RISSMILLER MARK D/JEAN M PO BOX 948 MCKIN N EY TX 75070 RK HOLDINGS LLP 1087 FALL RIVER CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 ROBERTSON BLAKE C/SUSAN K StanleyWellnessCtrModification 10-30735N15.0611680it AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 StanleyWellnessCtrModification 10-30-15 1500 feet.xls ROGERS CHRIS L/JANICE E 719 MCGRAW CIR FORT COLLINS CO 80526 ROJAS ENRIQUE/OLGA ORTEGA DE PO BOX 2054 ESTES PARK CO 80517 ROSA DUANE J/LYNN C 6804 BENT OAK DR AMARILLO TX 79124 ROSSER DONNA CALEF TRUST 254 STEAMER CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 RYTTING SHERYL K LIVING TRUST 375 PROSPECTOR LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 SAFEWAY STORES 46 INC 1371 OAKLAND BLVD STE 200 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 SAINT LARRY L/CAMILLA R PO BOX 3338 ESTES PARK CO 80517 SANBORN RICHARD ADDISON/JOAN M 780 WEST LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 SAXTON CHARLES 1738 FRANKLIN ST UNIT 1-B DENVER CO 80218 SCACE DANIEL R/TAMARA 410 OVERLOOK CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 SCHAUMBERG JOHN/SANDRA L 675 STEAMER DR UNIT B ESTES PARK CO 80517 SCHMIDT DONALD L/RENA B 18804 N DIAMOND DR SURPRISE AZ 85374 SCHMIEDT CAROLINE B/RUDOLF T 5135 BRANDYWINE DR LOVELAND CO 80538 SCHRADER LAND CO LLLP 320 N COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS CO 80524 SCH UCH KARL L/CH ERIE R 632 GOSSAMER WING WAY SEBASTIAN FL 32958 SCHULTZ WAYNE/SUZANNE FAMILY TRUST 11360 E STALLION DR PARKER CO 80138 SCHURICHT LINDA/JAMES B PO BOX 1953 ESTES PARK CO 80517 SEERY JEFFREY H/DEANNA L 544 HIGHLAND BLUFF WAY LAS VEGAS NV 89134 SELLERS DONALD ROSCOE/BARBARA RUTH REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 490 PROSPECTOR IN ESTES PARK CO 80517 SHAMBURG THOMAS D/JANET A 675 A STEAMER DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 SHICK JOHN ALAN SHICK RICARDA LEA 124 E BLACKBERRY LN YORKVILLE IL 60560 SIECK AND FIND LLC 812 BIRCHWOOD CIR COUNCIL BLUFFS IA 51503 SIMPSON GEORGE W 2712 MCELROY DR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903 SINDELAR JEFFEREY A 356 E ELKHORN AVE UNIT 3 ESTES PARK CO 80517 SLOAN INVESTMENTS LLC 800 MACGREGOR AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 SMALL MARJORIE L PO BOX 4649 ESTES PARK CO 80517 SMITH CHRISTINE R 620 FINDLEY CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 SMITH MICHAEL )/JAN P 1100 BISCAYNE BLVD UNIT 4501 MIAMI FL 33132 SOLIDAY STEVEN LiKATHRYN K 827 PANORAMA CIR ESTES PARK CO 80517 SPEAR FAMILY TRUST 5495 US HIGHWAY 36 ESTES PARK CO 80517 STANDSTEDT PHYLLIS M 1528 64TH AVE CT GREELEY CO 80634 STANLEY HILLS ASSN PO BOX 3344 ESTES PARK CO 80517 STANLEY HILLS ASSN INC PO BOX 3344 ESTES PARK CO 80517 STANLEY VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER LLC 1130 38TH AVE STE B GREELEY CO 80634 STARR P CHARLES P/DARLA L REV TRUST 14505 S 158TH BENNET NE 68317 STATE OF COLORADO HIGHWAY DEPT 1313 SHERMAN ST DENVER CO 80203 STEIN KENNETH A REV TRUST (.25)/STEIN BEVERLY I REV TRUST (.25)/DAVIS 203 LEISURE LAKE RD DONIPHAN NE 68832 STEPHENS GEORGE G/HAZEL D ESTES PARK VILLAGE GREENS HOA 5720 ARROWHEAD DR GREELEY CO 80634 SUGAR SPOTS LLC PO BOX 460129 DENVER CO 80246 SWIFT BRADLr NVID 1939 12TH AVE GREELEY 80631 TAYLOR MICH1. A/L KATHERINE (1/2) TAYLOR PATTER110.49)MAREMMi1l*, don 10-3012E ISEktIVELSKIRT CT ERIE 80516 StanleyWellnessCtrMoc 'on 10-30-15 1500 feet.xls TAYLOR RICHARD J/JANET F 734 BLACK CANYON DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 TESELLE LIVING TRUST 272 SOLOMON DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 THAPA ANITA PO BOX 1066 ESTES PARK CO 80517 THOMPSON ENTERPRISES LLC 401K PLAN AND TRUST PO BOX 4294 ESTES PARK CO 80517 THOMPSON JEAN L REVOCABLE TRUST THOMPSON JACK C REVOCABLE TRUST 2035 BALSAM DR BOULDER CO 80304 TIMBRELL DANIEL W 131 WILLOWSTONE Cr ESTES PARK CO 80517 TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK CO 80517 TREAD LIGHTLY PROPERTIES LLC 300 J J KELLY RD LYONS CO 80540 TRETTER DAVID 1/MARY 636 CACHE CT GREELEY CO 80634 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK 1311 S COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS CO 80524 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GENERAL DELIVERY WASHINGTON DC 20410 UNITED VALLEY BANK PO BOX 1210 GYPSUM CO 81637 UNIVERSAL HARMONY LLC 114 TIMBER LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 VANSKIVER GREG J/ROXANNE R 1514 HERITAGE DR HASTINGS NE 68901 VESPER CHRISTOPHER 453 E WONDERVIEW AVE UNIT 301 ESTES PARK CO 80517 VESTERMARK KEITHA R 149 STANLEY CIRCLE DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 VORREITER JOHN W/PATRICIA J TRUSTEES VORREITER FAMILY TRUST DECLARATION 937 ASTER CT SUNNYVALE CA 94086 WAGNER ROBERT E IRREVOCABLE TRUST 801 OLD RANGER DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 WALLMAN DELYLE J/RUTH V 800 BLACK CANYON DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 WALSH/WISNIEWSKI FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 4132 ESTES PARK CO 80517 WANDS ROBERT J/CARO L 424 CARLILE AVE PUEBLO CO 81005 WAPATI MOUNTAIN RLLP 20080 5 96TH ST HICKMAN NE 68372 WARD ROSS 0/NANCY E 206 BISHOP FARM WAY HUNTSVILLE AL 35806 WARNER LIVING TRUST 651 FINDLEY CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 WEBER JASON S/CASSANDRAJ 750 BLACK CANYON DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 WEDAN PATRICIA ANN PO BOX 3743 ESTES PARK CO 80517 WEST BERTHA MAE PO BOX 1336 ESTES PARK CO 80517 WEST 0 FEDERAL LLC 151 WESTON LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 WHEELER SUSAN MARIE TRUST 4520 W 14TH STREET DR GREELEY CO 80634 WHPO ENTERPRISES LLC PO BOX 744 LOVELAND CO 80539 WILCOCKS ANN M/RONALD L 2711 SUNSET LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 WILLINGHAM ENTERPRISES INC 905 CANDACE LN ALTUS OK 73521 WILSON MARGARET DICKINSON TRUST 480 MACGREGOR AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 WINDY CITY LLP 3225 DEVILS GULCH RD ESTES PARK CO 80517 WOJCIK JULIAN/ELIZABETH 729 PINEWOOD DR LYONS CO 80540 WOODS CONSTANCE ANNE 315 S SHERWOOD ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 WYATT BILLY B 1218 GROVEWOOD CT FORT COLLINS CO 80525 WYATT LINDA SURVIVORS TRUST 1612 CORN HILL LN ROUND ROCK TX 78664 ZELL RODNEY D/JOHNSON CANDACE S 635 STEAMER DR UNIT B ESTES PARK CO 80517 ZIA CLAUDIA MENDRON 3516 CHAPEL HILL BLVD CLERMONT FL 34711 StanleyWellnessCtrModification 10-30-15 1500 feet.xls EDWARD HAYEK via estes.org to planning U DEC 03 2015 COMMU NITY DEVELOPMENT Please include the following letter in public comments on behalf of Randy Rahne, of Findley Ct, Estes Park who is out of the country. He has had poor communications and his desire to be included was received too late for group submission. I am copying the lines with his concurrence. Ed Hayek This is a very well written letter. With this said, I am a YES on the letter to the Town Cheers, Randy - _la, The undersigned object to granting variances to the 30 foot building height limit for special interests. The owner of the Lot 4 Stanley Wellness Center has applied to move the wellness center use in to the building under construction, and a variance to add a fourth floor. The Town Trustees have expedited a special review of the request. The basis for the request does not meet any of the criteria for a variance. Just "wanting" a fourth floor for maximum development, when there are reasonable alternatives to accommodate the use, is not grounds for a variance. Since the 2013 flood, development pressures have intensified. The Stanley Hotel saw this as an opportunity to go to the voters to get approval to buy and develop the Town's Lot 4, despite the fact that initially the same parties argued visual preservation as the need for the first voter approval initiative. As everyone now knows, the EPMC could not come up with the funding. Now, John Cullen has announced a new deal with Colorado State University. We acknowledge the high value of the Stanley Hotel to the image and financial health of our community and that a partnership with CSU could be an important contribution to the Town, in the absence of an EPMC facility. No position is taken here on whether changes in use or parties are legal, in light of the ballot approved. But the problem is that Mr. Cullen has used this new venture as justification for a second attempt to circumvent the Town's building height limit. If this is granted, wouldn't it open the door to every building on the grounds... the new wedding pavilion, the planned film center and auditorium--every high-value, special project in Town? Our Town has had building height limits for decades. Anyone can see the value of the limit, and the reason for its adoption. Stand anywhere in Town, and you can still see the ridgelines and the ring of mountains. Just go to Steamboat Springs and Beaver Creek and see what happens when those limits are gutted. A variance is particularly objectionable when residents have selected a location for their homes partially based on the views, and the variance would impair those views. It should be noted, that a full page newspaper ad by The Stanley Lot 4 developers attempted to make the issue about specific homeowners rather than the 30 foot code limit. They go so far as to show a minimum visual impact of the plan from a home. The accuracy is questionable, and the developer has not provided the camera files for verification as requested. This was a personal attack on one family, even using their name without permission. Given that the home of another resident much more severely impacted was not shown, this was an offensive distortion of both the issue and impact on people. Citizens have lobbied for preservation of the beauty of the Valley for years. The Association for Responsible Development ("ARD") was formed over 25 years ago to provide a balance to unlimited and irresponsible redevelopment, and the fight for balance has continued non-stop. The Estes Valley Land Trust was also formed about this time, for the same purposes. As evidenced by height limits and open space regulations, support of the Land Trust, and adoption of the Code limits, the community has valued preserving views and wildlife corridors for a very long time. Chipping away at the height limit by variances, is a dangerous precedent. II Tiles rPyrieji Matictil Otrtter November 30, 2015 Estes Valley Planning Comission Town of Fstes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Commisioners, Estes Park Medical Center EPMC) remains committed to providing wellness services to the community, guests and visitors to the region. This will add value for the services provided at EPMC. The Wellness Center on the grounds of the Stanley Hotel will be an important component to the success and future of the services provided. EPMC is pleased and grateful for the willingness of the Stanley Hotel to incorporate the program in the currently proposed building since the $8 million free standing 24,000 square foot dedicated space is not now a viable option. The Wellness Center is proposed to be on the 1" and 4th floor of the building. The proposed space will be 14,697 square feet, 11,242 on the 1" floor and 3,455 on the 4th floor. To maintain the integrity of the program the 4th floor space is required. The 4th floor space will be used for yoga/exercise classes, lectures and related activities. Therefore, EPMC is pleased and grateful for the opportunity to be a partner in the Wellness Center on the currently proposed Stanley Hotel property site. Sincerely, IsOCt76`Og:, Diana Van Der Ploeg, Park Hospiiil District Board President 555 Prospect Ave. Estes Park, CO 80517 970-586-2317 tU=11 V ta 20b COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The undersigned object to granting variances to the 30 foot building height limit for special interests. The owner of the Lot 4 Stanley Wellness Center has applied to move the wellness center use in to the building under construction and a variance to add a fourth floor. The Town Trustees have expedited a special review of the request. The basis for the request does not meet any of the criteria for a variance. Just "wanting" a fourth floor for maximum development, when there are reasonable alternatives to accommodate the use, is not grounds for a variance. Since the 2013 flood, development pressures have intensified. The Stanley Hotel saw this as an opportunity to go to the voters to get approval to buy and develop the Town's Lot 4, despite the fact that initially the same parties argued visual preservation as the need for the first voter approval initiative. As everyone now knows, the EPMC could not come up with the funding. Now, John Cullen has announced a new deal with Colorado State . University. We acknowledge the high value of the Stanley Hotel to the image and financial health of our community and that a partnership with CSU could be an important contribution to the Town, in the absence of an EPMC facility. No position is taken here on whether changes in use or parties are legal, in light of the ballot approved. But the problem is that Mr. Cullen has used this new venture as justification for a second attempt to circumvent the Town's building height limit. if this is granted, wouldn't it open the door to every building on the grounds... the new wedding pavilion, the planned film center and auditorium--every high-value, special project in Town? Our Town has had building height limits for decades. Anyone can see the value of the limit, and the reason for its adoption. Stand anywhere in Town, and you can still see the ridgelines and the ring of mountains. Just go to Steamboat Springs and Beaver Creek and see what happens when those limits are gutted. A variance is particularly objectionable when residents have selected a location for their homes partially based on the views, and the variance would impair those views. It should be noted, that a full page newspaper ad by The Stanley Lot 4 developers attempted to make the issue about specific homeowners rather than the 30 foot code limit. They go so far as to show a minimum visual impact of the plan from a home. The accuracy is questionable, and the developer has not provided the camera files for verification as requested. This was a personal attack on one family, even using their name without permission. Given that the home of another resident much more severely impacted was not shown, this was an offensive distortion of both the issue and impact on people. Citizens have lobbied for preservation of the beauty of the Valley for years. The Association for Responsible Development ("ARD") was formed over 25 years ago to provide a balance to unlimited and irresponsible redevelopment, and the fight for balance has continued non-stop. The Estes Valley Land Trust was also formed about this time, for the same purposes. As evidenced by height limits and open space regulations, support of the Land Trust, and adoption of the Code limits, the community has valued preserving views and wildlife corridors for a very long time. Chipping away at the height limit by variances, is a dangerous precedent. Sarah Donohoe Elaine Downing Bob Seifert & Mary Jo Seifert Rex Poggenpohl Christine & John Maunder Susie Kenney Richard A. Brett Lola I. Brett Charlotte Lloyd, Trustee, Lot 21, Black Canyon Hills Subdivision Chris & Barb Christian Jan Verschuur Karl & Cherie Schuch - Maribel J. Guglielmo Hale Christine Smith Terry Smith Richard & Kathleen Prucha Jeanne & Larry Allen Barb Davis Bill & Rebecca Urquhart Greg and Roxanne VanSkiver Edward Hayek, Marlene Hayek Ann Finley Chris Reveley Mr and Mrs Douglas G. Warner Eric Waples Linda Cleeland David Cleeland Don Sellers Cory La Bianca Buddy Mitchell George Hockman Thomas Gootz Johanna Darden Patricia Dunn Blume Joni Norris to planning Here we go again. _is it always - crisis mode with Mr. Cullen and needing special favors ? All of us that have built homes in Estes Park, have had to adhere to the restrictions of height of buildings. They are placed for all of us to conform to : 30 ft. tall...Fair is Fair !!! Yes, it is costly to conform to the 30 ft. heights. But, we abide by these restrictions, 5:37 PM (16 minutes ago) You, our elected officials should defend the established requirements. Are you not representing all of us, not just bending to the whims of Mr. Cullen and Associates. coMMINTYDEVE4.0PmEit Jeanne Allen <janddEailen@gmall•carns 1:58 PM (1 hour ago) to planning Gentlemen: We object to the proposed change to the building being constructed on Lot 4. The building as presented to the voter was for a building with a height of 30 feet. The proposed height increase of 10 feet is a substantial change from what was proposed to the voters. That additional height wasn't approved by the voters. In addition, the additional height will distract from the views and values of the nearby properties. We don't think that the height increase should be approved. Sincerely, Jeanne L Allen and Larry H. Allen 303 Curry Drive From: Robyn Peters To: plannina4estes.ora Subject: wellness center Date: Saturday, November 21, 2015 12:09:35 PM I am not in favor of granting Cullen a height variance. He has already gotten away with more than he initially proposed. This is one more step to town ownership and the town being controlled by Cullen. He needs to focus on repairs needed inside his historic hotel that have not been made in years. But then, inside appearance is not as important than his outside facade of himself. He should be given no more favors by the town. Stop being manipulated by Cullen! Robyn Peters, M.Ed., M.S., LPC, CAC III The Counseling Place (970-586-6400 phone/fax) PO Box 1846 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-556-4564 cell c1ogtrip2@gmail.com lolanthe Culjak 3:09 PM (2 hours ago) to planning Oppose Height Variance I am writing 10 oppose ANY height variance to the lot 4 project. Once a height variance is approved, that sets precedence. I do nut think tall buildings have a place in a small mountain community. As far as the Wellness center goes, we are not getting what was somehow approved by the vote of the citizens. The pitch was that the town would get much needed money for flood recovery and that there would be higher paying professional jobs to help attract families and year round residents. Another hotel is hardly going to offer professional, high paying jobs. Adding a large gym.workout area is not a wellness center. The hotel that is being constructed now should never have been allowed to be built first. The voted on proposal had the Wellness center going first. Doesn't the town board understand when a money man is playing games, making great chess moves (like pushing for lot 4 immediately after the flood when citizens arc vulnerable), getting a reversal of the order in which the project was to be built, and now again using the EPM(' lack of funds(is anyone truly surprised by that) to get a height variance? I hope the elected officials have the intelligence to pay attention, protect our community and not let the money players call the shots. The height variance should be rejected as a violation of the Estes Valley Development Code. Let's not let anyone with big money come in and dictate the rules. lolanthe Culjak 20 year resident residing within city limits to vote on issues. Estes Park, CO 80517 neushei@oneimage.com via estes.org 12:57 PM (5 hours ago) to planning Estes Park Planning Commission: Well, the town of Estes Park and its residents got scammed again, This time by the Stanley Hotel and Anschutz regarding the Wellness Training Center. Neither of them apparently had any intention of creating the Wellness Center as proposed when the residents were asked to vote on it. So now the Stanley wants to relegate the Center to the Basement. We would assume that it would also be downgraded to what many hotels call their exercise room—a few machines and treadmills. But the Stanley got to expand the hotel to Lot 4 which is most likely all they wanted in the first place. Since the town is committed to build the Community Center, which duplicates many things already available in Estes Park, we would strongly recommend that the Stanley not be allowed to stuff the "Wellness Center" into the basement and, even more so, not to be allowed to build their building higher than current rules and agreements allow. Sincerely, Steve Sheldahl and Maggie Neumann 1635 Prospect Estates Drive CAmoonbeam@aoLcom Nov 17 (7 days ago) to planning I would like to know what the wording was for the ballot issue we voted on to allow the sale of Lot 4 to the Stanley Hotel. Please. Cory La Bianca 15 year Estes Park resident No Height Variance — Preserve Estes Park Small Village Ambiance At the Public Comment period during the October 27 Trustee Meeting, a new concept for the Wellness Center was announced. This new version will reside primarily in the basement of a building already under construction and partly in a fourth floor addition on top. (This is the fourth change in use or timing for this hotel building,) The contract with EPMC will change, and according to John Cullen they will have less risk, and reward. This solution adds a 14 foot fourth floor to the existing building under construction and requires a grant of height variance. That is almost 50% more than the 30 feet allowed by code. This is described in the presentation as a teensy, weensy, problem. Is gutting the 30 foot limit on building height honored for decades in the Stanley Historic District nothing? Residents have gone through great effort to honor that code standard. Not only do tall buildings destroy neighboring property values, they change the appearance and perception visitors and residents have of the town. How often have you heard about our pretty little town nestled at the base of the mountains? The developer previously applied for a variance to build five feet above code and the citizens were successful In thwarting that effort. We would have thought once the Trustee's approved a project meeting the 30 foot limit, it would stay that way. The developer knew the rules when he purchased the property. Having failed in the first attempt, it appears he is now using the EPMC Wellness Center as both a pawn, and scapegoat, for building above 30 feet. It is stated that this is the only option. There appear to be many options. Among them would be eliminating some of the hotel rooms on the next floor adjacent to the wellness center. Another would be to build the remaining space needed in the area already designated for the wellness center. An addition could be added to the first floor of the existing building. The EPMC could accept living with the 9,500 square feet in the lower level as they didn't raise the required funding. There were, and still are so many options, the 4th floor happens to be the fastest and cheapest for the developer. It is also the most detrimental to the surrounding neighborhoods and the community. We do not believe the arguments for allowing a variance to the existing code of 30 feet justify doing so. Granting a height variance just because someone wants it is not sufficient reason. The financing and contractual agreements the developer made, are not the responsibility of the public, and do not justify a height variance. Please protect our neighborhoods and community. No height variance! Ed & Marlene Hayek Estes Park I r Linda Cleeland 11:38 AM (48 minutes ago) to planning The purpose of this email is lo object to the proposed construction modifications to the EPMC Wellness Center currently under consideration. The developer has staled that in order to accommodate the proposed changes, a 4th story must be added to the structure. The building would then exceed the 30 foot height limit initially approved by the Town of Estes Park. I live on Findley Ct., close lo this project. I am unable to see this building from my home and will not see the building even if an additional story is added, However, I urge you to honor the original decision restricting the height of the building to 30 feet. Estes Park has a 30 foot height limit for a reason. The town has traditionally respected view corridors and small, mountain town architecture,..a community free of high rises and massive structures. A reasonable rationale for adding another story has NOT been provided. The size of the lot is several acres. If additional space is needed, then the builder should add square footage to a lower story. Please, DO NOT allow a variance for the height of this building. There are other ways to modify the building which would meet the stated space needs and allow the building to be built according to current Estes Park building codes. Linda Cleeland 650 Findley Cl. Estes Park, Colorado Jim Kouroupis <jimr, ka@yahoo corn> 5:15 AM (3 hours ago) to planning My wife and I own a home on Steamer Drive, behind the Stanley. We are 100% against the intent to raise the Wellness Center elevation above its current level, as dictated by the town code, The elevation restriction is there for a good reason. Estes Park has a unique ambiance that draws visitors from all over the world because of its VIEWS. Tall buildings obstruct the views and give a more metropolitan impression that erode the charm that our visitors seek. As seen in the "Davis Property Photo Simulation," the snow-capped mountain peaks are barely visible above the roof structure as It stands in the current design, so further height increases will totally block the mountain view. This desire by the owner to Increase the building height is motivated only by greed. The decision to limit his building height has already been debated thoroughly and made. Nothing has changed to compel a revisit of this decision. A higher building serves only the few rich patrons who would use the Wellness Center at the expense of the views that the greater community enjoy. Let's not degrade ANY of the rich views we enjoy in Estes Park in favor of a greedy developer. Doing so now will set an ugly precedent for others to follow. How many other variances will be requested in the coming years, with this one cited as precedent? What will our lovely town look like in 20, 30 years if we start compromising our views now? The greater good of the community is served by keeping building structures low. There is no reason to revisit or modify this common-sense and well-intended law that was put in place by our town planners. Regards, Jim and Lynda Kouroupis Russ-Carole JAENECKE via estes.org to PLanning Sincerely, Russ & Carole Jaenedce 610 Findley Ct. Eats Park, CO 80517 Sent from my iPad Nov 21 (2 days ago) Pni 3,5 I his Alsir" Why Are We Doing This Again? t% 10.11. . 4. 71,7,..e,%.4.!-"- 4., 4...C-1:3. rit 13::;a'ti.11)iS ;VI •, :S4 • 4 ‘ t:Oit! 4-'4411t. J 441 1T4:2 V%4 31:•• • .%' .t3eing, v•-1.di litIt .7.1111i Int' ;4 4111.14; • • • • • theN letting the. 4.-L.'..e,;!opt.; say onyilw14 wants to pat this on the tablt again? W it have, nn uf ier 03141 plOyte -S ;)tv. sjde, orih- have frix:nd*z d neighbors iu heir, b thev ti ve,v, ihc I, • no Who- i1 fl Ote ttrx ,cyru ur ,Aith iI. . this can't 1)e v”.1 yore 41tWil."'t iv. to 4tteA:;r. hit.; -4‘• they 111-i t-q..t1c1: cf. ?".1,kflp:11.:Vitt ;1'1? i1,114,,;i1i 14:,ar1231.i.T.V, A rtt:!.t103:1$[:Irlijit) ketv heahhy, rt; 11/iiiking 7 1.:Artne jit Katrina Conland <katrinac@q.corn> Nov 20 (3 days ago) to planning As the former chair of a town planning board in New York State, I feel compelled to express my concern about the request for a significant height variance in the Stanley Historic District. The changing proposals are not want the voters approved. The height variance should be rejected as a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Estes Valley Development Code. It would set a terrible precedent, and undermine public faith in the zoning process. Katrina Cortland 1515 Raven Court Estes Park Kay Rosenthal <epltr@aol.corn> Nov 20 (3 days ago) to planning Planning @ estes.orq I was excited about the Wellness Center. However, i am not supportive of putting the wellness center in the basement. Nor am I supportive of the height variance. We were sold on the original idea. NOT on this. Thanks for reading this and placing my input into the planning process. K Kay Rosenthal PhD RN 690 Pinewood Drive Estes Park, CO 970-586-3472 Chuck Bonza 7:26 AM (42 minutes ago) to planning I'd prefer to hold the plan to the original plan; keep the height restriction Stop the chain of variations and unburden the busy planning staff. That would mean just let the Stanley build their hotel rooms Forget the Wellness center and all the stress with the EPMC and whomever else Just another example of Planning and the Trustees being taken advantage of by another developer; quite a history of that in Estes Park starting with the Noel Lane development at Filbey lane and continuing. Chuck Bonze Susan Johnston 7:29 AM (42 minutes ago) to me The voters approved the sale of land based on certain architectural plans — changing the height of the proposed structure effects the neighborhood, the tcwn and sets precedents. Susan Karl Schuch <karl.fresh.wash@gmail.com> 5:33 AM (3 hours ago) 4 o planning Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to express my disapproval for the 4th story annex to the Stanley facility on Lot 4. This project was approved to be a 3 story facility with a separate building to house a wellness center, now the scope has changed - but the proposed modifications are problematic. Many of the neighbors involved initially expressed concern over the height of the building as a 3 story unit, because of the impact on their views and ability to enjoy the environment. Adding a 4th story will obliterate those views for many of those involved and will replace those views with a large Hotel, greatly impacting the beauty of the area. The shifting goalpost represented by this request is troubling and unsettling, leading many to wonder where it will end. As a resident living on Findley Ct, I want to be clear that I am opposed to these changes. Sincerely, Karl Schuch 661 Findley Ct. •~ LW: iS 1 1 i I Karen Thompson <kthom pson@estes.org> wellness center 1 message Daniel Mangler <danielmangler@me.com> Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:23 PM To: planning@estes.org I concur with others that this is a bait and switch proposition, It is not what was promoted to the voters in April. First of all, where is there economic benefit to the community promised in the original plan? I thought this was a treatment center with high paying jobs, not a wellness training center. This was to be a stand alone facility, not one floor of the Stanley Hotel addition, The requested height variance wasn't part of the original proposal and I don't know of any other like variance (14 ft.?) being approved. What the heck were the pictures of the "Wellness Center plans printed in the recent Estes Park News? Someone's attempt at deception? This has been mishandled from the beginning. How could you approve the sale of Lot 4 contingent on the building of a wellness center when the funding mechanisms weren't in place? I love the Stanley Hotel and I love the EPMC, but they should never have been paired. Dan Mangler Anita Prinzmetal <anitaprinz@gmail.com> 3:06 PM (43 minutes ago) 'o planning vehemently oppose any changes to the proposal that was voted upon. Moving the wellness center to a basement AND asking for a height variance that is against code is NOT what the public wants. Anita Prinzmetal 586-6000 Dott Dewitz dottdewitz@beyondbb.com via estes.org to planning I ant against this building being higher than was slated in the original approval. Dorothy Dewitz J230 Willow Lane Estes Park 2:51 PM (1 hour ago) David Mohr mtnivr_dav@hotmail.com via estes.org 3:04 PM (56 minutes ago) to planning To Whom 11 May Concern, Please do NOT allow any more height variances for this project or any other in Estes Park and/or the valley. David & Joy Mohr 1265 Range View Rd EP ------- Forwarded message From: Barb Davis <bdawgwranglerkgrnall.com> Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:08 AM Subject: Truth In Advertising - I Think Not To: Phil Kleister - EP Community Development <pkleislerestes,crg>, echilcottQestes.orq Phil and Alison Yep, it's another letter about the Wellness Center on Lot 4. i promise it will be short and sweet. • nor my neighbors are against the Wellness Center. The registered voters of the Town of Estes Park did not vote for the Wellness Center to be in the basement of the hotel that is being built. Why should the neighbors and the town put up with this ''bait & switch"? • The "Accommodations 2" building was originally to be built after the Wellness Center but . .. Someone decided to build it first. • EPMC never in their wildest dreams could have envisioned raising millions of dollars to build the Wellness Center, but the voters were sucked in by the advertising. To get the Wellness Center started before the deadline in the contract, they've squeezed it into the Accommodations 2 building better known as Mr. Cullen's 5 Star Hotel but For the hotel to keep the number of rooms originally planned, they are requesting a 14' height variance. Mr. Cullen knew the restrictions imposed by the Stanley Historic District and the Town codes but . O He has powerful attorneys who find ways around almost everything. Notice the word almost. • The land set aside for the Wellness Center is still there. Why not use it? • The pictures that ran in last week's papers were anything but a true depiction of what this will look like truth in advertising, I think not. Actually, the hotel looks like a glorified Motel 6. • The picture from the Hayek residence is extremely distorted. I know, I'm a photographer and know exactly how this picture was manipulated. I ask you to drive past Lot 4 and see for yourself. Voice your objections to adding a 4th floor onto this building that will be nothing more than a source of revenue for John Cullen. Please include this letter in "Public Comment" Barb Davis 601 Findley Ct. Estes Park, Colorado 80517 1 111 Karen Thompson ckthompson@estes.org> 14 r. r. Stanley development 1 message Kaye Orten <kaye.orten@gmail.com> Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:09 AM To: planning@estes.org The development of this property has gone nothing like what was was originally proposed to the town residents at the election. No further exceptions should be made to plans for this development. No change should be allowed, including the proposed additional story of the building. it is the city's responsibility to hold Mr. Cullen accountable, rather than caving in each time he asks for exceptions to development of his property. Kaye Orten 540 prospector lane Estes park, co Sent from my iPad ,.. .•11-47. it' 1 Jq: IF From: vicki schroeder <wicschroaomail.00rh> Date: November 9, 2015 at 12:47:50 PM MST To: rnorrisestes.org Subject: Cullen request for height variance Dear Mr. Norris, I am writing to oppose the granting of a zoning variance to John Cullen for the now resurrected Wellness center. The Town's ordinances have been in place to assure all of us who live here that the views, the open space, and the wildlife would have some modicum of protection from overzealous development. A variance of this sort must be very carefully considered, not just rubber stamped. Next time the request will be for something else some developer just absolutely needs, because they know that the Town can be swayed to do their bidding by promises of profits. I watched the recording of the Town Meeting on October 27, 2015, and I was appalled at the speed at which the Trustees and employees rushed to find ways to comply with Mr. Cullen's request. Please slow down and examine this request. Take into account that this endeavor is to benefit Mr. Cullen, and not the residents of Estes Park. One only has to look at the ticket price for Guest Chef dinners and the Halloween Ball (S150 per person) to know that the Stanley wellness offerings are not going to be geared to the needs of the average Estes Park citizen. Mr. Cullen has the right to develop his business as he chooses, but the changing spin of this project since its inception makes thoughtful assessment difficult. We the people of Estes voted to sell one of the precious Stanley lots for a wellness center, and as such, I believe you, our elected officials, owe us some accountability. In addition, it is unethical for Mr. Cullen to pay for the Town to rush his request through, and tantamount to bribery, Do not let this happen. Sincerely, Vicki Schroeder 259 Solomon Drive Estes Park, CO 318 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 970.493.1220 4 970.624.6995 Accommodations 11 Hotel EPMC/Ansebute Mama Traits' Cooler. Monocled Developreero Men + 1531 West 29th Street. Loveland. CO 80538 + 303,996.3000 + 888.698.7097 View Corridor Overview . ., I II IFk i L.", Stanley Hotel & Manor New Accommodations II Bldg. View from Hwy 34 & 36 View from Visitor's Center View from Hwy 7 & 36 I I I MM MN 1111 • NM 111! 1111111 ME MU Or Aft -.4111111*„ III 'I -411111/4 z Mir- rilroom. 111. Eft • 741,1,77;,,,,i7-4, EPMC Wellness Training Center t46' 5"11°— Southeast Perspective November 6, 2015 Lodestone Design Group Ph: 303-800-8633 mail@lodestonedesign.com A2.0 D • 1tl. n7411 •- I F. r.- -„,,,„„,m .. -,--. •-.. illt:•..".:r.i,i: Ril . . :•.: .. :": -. I ;i7. 6 • . .'": UM' I .1 ."!iiouf A S6clie Northeast Perspective Lodestone Design Group Ph: 303-800.8633 mail@lodestonedesign.com EPMC Wellness Training Center November 6, 2015 A2.0 n 11111!!',11,10 71:151,111;11ii:::E, EPMC Wellness Training Center e'l e — Northwest Perspective November 6, 2015 Lodestone Design Group Ph: 303-800-8633 mail@lodestonedesign.con-i A2.0 I I 1.& CrW=7•2._ , r 111 : '110 hi :1 111 III EPMC Wellness Training Center No Sccils— Southwest Perspective November 6, 2015 Lodestone Design Group Ph: 303-800-8633 mail@lodestonedesign.com A2.0 . • .0.111, I r. 2 EPMC Wellness View From Davis Property 5c'de— Photo Simulation A2.0 Training Center November 6, 2015 Lodestone Design Group Ph: 303-800-8633 mail@lodestonedesign.com A2.0 Lodestone Design Group Ph: 303-800-8633 mail@lodestonedesign.com I I L I 4- View From Hayak Property 14° 54/6- Photo Simulation November 6, 2015 EPMC Wellness Training Center i,47;7,17,rip dap i $1 aigm, iii~p;I — 11,1].RVEIVEP.1 MERINO GRACE Wnlri PAINTED STEEL RAIL STONE VENEER COLUMN BASE --_ STONE VENEER BASE BEYOND AT WALL TRIM, 'WHOM MTN IM, TYPICAL TYPICAL WALL MATERIAL. HCRSONTAL LAP SEIM W71.1—..." WIRE CORNERS — PAINTED CEMENT BOARD SIDING COLOFt.PLUS TEEN. OR EQ.. TYR. PASTE TO MATCH STANLEY HOTEL) 43)..111.1Larr..E .,. LEVATOR TOWER TYPICAL ROOF MATERIAL CCOAPOSRE SHINGLE ROOFING (RED TO MATCH STALIEY HOTEL) PAINTED COUSINS. — RAMO, AND SAUJSTRADE, TYPICAL LIPPER-LEVEL I h 0 SOUTHEAST ELEVATION GENERAL ELEVATI N ONS NOM OTED ARE PER STE SURVEY DATA. ELEVATIONS TO BE FIELD 'RENFRO. IYP. 1.0WP-RAEVEL WINDOW --- UPPER FLOOR k TES4.5 tar MW1-LEM. MAIN FL0li PAINTED TRIN AT COLUMNS AND ARCHED OPENINGS, TYP. T.O. HIGHEST RIDGE 1~ -T=O- P_I Lt29TE 0513 SUBFLOOR dip - ROSA NJ, TO SKATE 71.5 atiV.F711/055.0005Y SINGUE-HUNG WNPOW s NNE ROUND PANE W1111 TRIM, TYPICAL. I II Airirpo lithiNr111111 (-2 711N ) vraw.TeR TowER COMPOSITE SHINGLE RODR,VG (71 TYPICAL ROOF ARTERIAL MEDICI MATCH STANLEY HOTEL) C5 r ) 0 T.O. HIGHEST RIDG4.1.? T 0 PLATI_jaki 7814,2 ‘..JIA TYP. WITH NALF-ROUNO VENDOR T.O. OSB TYP. UPPERLEVFJ. SUBFLOOR WINDOW 7E0S-1 'Jr TO PLATE PAINTED CEMENT BOARD SKIING COLOR-PLUS TECH. OR BO., TYP. MEMO, AND BALUSTRADE. TYPICAL. SIMILE NUM %ANDO?! WITH TRW. TYPICAL TYPICAL WALL MATERIAL A' HORIZONTAL LAP HIDING Willi MITRE CORNERS (WHITE TO MATCH STANLEY HOTEL) STONE VENEER BASE EXISTING GRADE 7h71.111. UPPER FLOOF,inki, PAINTED TRIM AT GOURMAND ANCHEO OPENINGS, TYP. _ MAIN n__7021 STONE VENEER COLUMN BASE BASEMgrisi 7 1E 5 =NO GRADE TYP. MAIN-LEVE TYP. LOWERIEVEL STONE VENEER BASE BEYOND WINDOW WINDOW AT WALL -0 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION IR. 1,0" [ 21211MUKCIMELEVATIONS NOTED ARE PER SITE SURVEY DATA. ELEVATIONS TO BE FIELD VERN9E0. ,4 / LeJ.1 r.M1 EMI= EMI MIEM The Interim ion Am deem ...roe ext .15,0 yhted hwileaA.10.4.0. Rep..11.,41.•0AL h net pnakse3 ..ithew, the pigs meow of Ledegeen Only Group. A2.0 DRAWING 'TITLE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DATE: NOVEMBER DRAWN: CHECKED: AL IVS ISSUE RECORD I'LmakkeSuhroini DATE 114.13 4 ErAtNsimEra;TRa ARE PER EITE aim 416A. oNs To BE nap veiineo. •17 !I TYPICAL WALL MAT FURL: (MUM MATCH HCRIZONTAL LAP SONG WITH MITRE CORNERS STANLEY 1107ELI TYPICAL ROOF PAILTERIAL COLVOSTTE SHINGLE ROOFING (RED TO MATO-MANLEY 113TEL) 12 T1 12 7616 • 3 1.12 0). T.O. HIGHEST RIDGE _ T.O. PLA;f4 9 T.O. OSB SUBFLOOR AL. 7005.1 PLATE UPPER FLOOR _ MAIN FLOOf_+6; STONE VENEER EASE 75612 E v 11 BASEMZ.T. AREAWELL9 RS MECH. ANO BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN PMI NG-AND EA ACE, TYPICAL RASI LI BASEMENT 17;1 Mr UPPER 7594.5 TYPICAL WALL MATERIAL: HORIZONTAL LAP SONG WITH MITRE CORNERS 'wive TO MATCH STANLEY HOTEL) STONE VENEER BASE IL MAIN FLOOR /l 76045 7 EIfISTLVG GRADE T.O. OSB SUBFLOOR AL - 7605.1 _TO PLAE 78015 TYPICAL ROOF MATERIAL nA I COMPOSITE 5111143LE ROOFING a I. M E ZD MATCH SMILEY ..?) ELEVATOR TOWER 7016 21E0. I ( ) T.O. HIGHEST RIC716g.Es 76 42 T.O. PJAILEG) AI 1 (Th, NORTHWEST ELEVATION 211119EEVfl. ONWCITF-13 ARE PEERED SURVEY DATA. ELEVATIONSTO BE FIELD VERIFIED. ONORTHEAST ELEVATION 15P VICINITY MAP - 1000' LiGEND ET SHEET EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN R-0- DM 13 LOT NOTICE OF APPROVAL APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN CREATES A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 88 OF TITLE %4. C.RS. AS AMENDED. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (VERBATIM FROM ROCKY MOUNTAIN ESCROW AND TITLE COMMITMENT FILE NO. 2588-13): LOTS 4, PLAT OF LOTS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, MID 9 OF THE STANLEY HISTORIC SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF TRACTS 4 AND 5, STANLEY AMMON TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, EXCEPT ANY PORTION CONTAINED IN DEED RECORDED JUNE 22, 1994 AT RECEPTION NO. 94052929, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. SHEET INDEX: 1 OVERALL SITE PLAN 2 KEY SHEET 3 EXISTING/APPROVED CONDITIONS 4 GENERAL SITE PLAN 1 6 GENERAL SITE PLAN 2 6 GENERAL SITE PLAN 7 GENERAL SITE PLAN 4 GENERAL SITE PLAN 5 9 GENERAL SITE PLAN 6 10 TURNING LANE EXHIBIT 11 LANDSCAPE PLAN 4. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 4, OF LOTS 3-9, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL: THE IPIDERSIGNED, BEING THE OWNERS, DO HEREBY AGREE THAT THE REAL PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN THE APPUCATTON FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PILED HEREWITH, Mb AS SHOWN ON TES STE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF TIRE 17 OF THE UUNEPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AND ANY OTHER ORDINANCES OF THE TORN OF ESTES PAK COLORADO PERTAINING THERETO. _________ ------------- 31- Il EiZgraffigrairik AWD A RAM CO PP WU KIN HORN IINCININRINC ADD soRVAIDPC 0041 AM CRICK AILS REM PARC CO RODA7 890.1586-P380 izatuairt2MM CREC 108110114 01112138 Al? GOND KIRIPACE 10710 CROUP ma s FONDDROARF Ayr 12118 ME COLORADO DOM' $03-076-0277 MM= APPPRKI FAN BIM= ARGIRINC? LORIMAR DIMON CROW ere DIMEIR1 AWN= (304 LOWLAND, COLORADO MOD 30.1,91P..4184 f Rao: rarnoTRi, LUCCA A. £1181 LUDY LAW OM= MC 415 CANYON AMMAR. 80117 ADO ram. [MAJOR, COLORADO emu 000-440-8778 92NEEAL LINE AE DT LEGEND h 111 il I i" • PROPOSED 1013FICA11011 70 APPROVED SITE 01410MONS/BLEDING 0M-111V. APPROVED CONDMONS NOT TaR 110061CADON PHASE I (CoricEADAL OILY) 3+ EMI= TMIEFORM & BASE 3+ PRIMP CARPET & EASE ELEC1DC EKE (WG BE AT OR 90138 GRADE) UGHT POLE WERE PEDESTAL TELEPHONE PEDESTAL WATER SHUT OFF WADE FIRE HYDRANT WATER RIPRHOLS/AIR REM VALVE SEM IMNROLE STORM SERER RANKLE - - - - 541IL0013 SOWN - - - DEEMER( (M HOBO) HMO OR ORPE PROP UNE PROP LINE-11E100002 GOAD WADIES] OR aLCULA1E0 DINEASIONS PLATTED OR DEEDED DIHENSIONS -X- LIDS OF DP01 SPACE • Sevel 1.310 W- WATER TIE • OAS ME _Ere BUDD ELECTRIC. TELEPHONE & CABLE (00.00) 1 r' aa loo 150 SCALE 1" P. 50' STANLEY WELLNESS CENTER. U.C. OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES CERTIFICATE: APPROVED MD ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TIE TOWN DE ESTES PARK, COLORADO BY A RESOLLMON ON THE DAY OF 20 JACKIE WILLIMISON. TOWN CLERK WILLIAM PINKHAM. MAYOR ,TrirtsTreAr. INFORMATION. I. EWE - A 0117701010000P6G GROSS PROJECT AREA (LOT 4) - 2111,1150 r, 1139 AC SCE OF INC WIC FLOOD HEN & W SF AREA IN PROPOSED BARS-0E-PMY DEDCMIDE - 0 1ET PROJECT AREA (LOT 4) & MISER SF 2. E01310 PROPOSED 441 mem m PHASE 1 ACCO11100311310 .2 (40 LIMED / EPIC DELLNESS 116411113 MITER . 44.641 W (MWS) CT FLOOR 15.757 W SECOND FIDOR 14.714 SF THIRD FLOOR: 14,714 SE MEDI flook 3,465 Sr 11010 CO TO ARCHRECIUML HANS FOR WPM" OF USK BY AM& PER L053. AHERNE RIPE OVER LOT B LOG PPM 104 DENSITY ALLOYED OVIERALL CLOT - 1 UMT/15131 SF • DEAD SE POTS 3. LOT COVERAGE REPOSED - 135.150 SF MATED ON TIM PUN AID 17010311111 HANS FOR DIM 3) 136,101 SF / 024,031 SF . 1401111.1H LOT COVERAGE ALL01110 DERALL OCT A) - 203,95910.50 149,971.5 W , 4. TER- OFF STREET PARKIN) SPADE REQUEED- 1 OR 2 PER UNIT WSED UPON LRIE SF.. 0 WM P FOR PIMSE I. 10607111E PARIONG mu. RE °Franz AT THE SCHLEY HOTEL. OFF STREET PA3010 SPACIE PROLICED IN PHASE 2. 40 SPACES OWSHEET PAWNS SPACES PROVIDED OFF-SITE PI MESE 1 (AT Da STARLET Kola) - I SPACES WPM SFPGES REWARD) FOR PHASE 1- 2 TOTAL (1 CAR MIS 1 PR) TWO TIPS I mow SPA= MILDRED. 2 PROVIDED MPG WACO FERMIRED 442 94CM20 - 3 SPACE DE WA= PRODDED IS SPACES rimless COMM IC UNITED TO 00015 OF GRAD HERITAGE 11010 ocKnEs Fat TOT PHASE AND ALL IMRE NOT STAYING M THE WHINES WEER 02MPLIN W91 EE MIMEO 10 THE 511E HRH CRAW HEPPE HOTEL 1001.1•1 PEPE 38.57 90111E SEANCE IANDECFPINO RECIUMEER SEE IANOSC.DING PLAN MR REDIRED IAIDECFPNO FOR Tf FULL STE DDELOPNENT MID PRASE 1 0. NAMPIUM DUMP HEIGHT - 30' DUES GROWER HEIGHT AM11031310 PLESUDIT TO SPECIAL MEM (COOT TO SE MIMED W ACCDIERVICE WITH APJUCELE ODC ismnAnyis IM34A.11,1 NUDE Mawr PMPOSED - REFER TO ROOF HEIGHT CALCULA31011 0310T AND SPREADSHEET AMMO 11M1 DEYEUDEMENT PIM NUM REHM DANITTOL MORI& OPEN SPACE REWIRED - JOE OMR SRAM PROACED APPRIDL 110.145 1E/73/9959 SF - AHEM 404 (939TH LPON TIN RAN AND comccHruK. PLANS PROM= FOR PHASE a) Ran& 1, THE CARER SHALL BE REWIRED TO PROFILE FOR NANTICAP ACCESSELITY DI ACCORDANCE WITH THE A.D.A. AND I.B.C. 9. EXTERIOR LIGHTING WILL BE LOCATED AT THE REQUIRED ENTRY POETS OF THE NEW BUILDINGS. ATTACHED TO THE BEILDNGS MID WLL BE MADDED AND DEFLEcIED DOWNWARD. CDNIPUINCE WITH SECTOR 7.0 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE 4. QUIRED. dip 3. RE ALL RECHIRED IMPROVDADITS SHALL BE COMPLETED CR GUARANTEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DAC SECTIONS 7.12 AND 10.5K. 4. PER SECTION 7.13. 'CONDUIT. METERS. VENTS NV OTHER EC/JERI:NT ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING OR PROTRUDING FROM THE ROOF SHALL BE SCREENED, COWERED OR PAINTED TO FIEDIDE VEJAL IMPACTS.' 5. FENCES FOR THE TRASH ENCLOSURES SHALL CONFORM TO THOSE PREDOMINANT MATERIALS AND COLORS OF THE EIJILDINGS. ▪ APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN CREATES A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 68 OF TITLE 24. C.R.S. AS AMENDED. 7. 0207015/5 SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON LOCAL CONTROL ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT TIE SITE PRE-CONSTRUCRON AND FINN. CONTOURS ARE SHORN AT I' INTERVALS. B THIS PROPERTY OCE5 NOT FALL WWI ANY TOM OF ESTES PARK HAZARD MITIOATION AREA (WILDFIRE OR GEOWINC). S. THERE ME NO JURECICTIONAL WETLANDS OR WATERS CF SHE US LOCATED ON THIS SAE 15 1X15 WE IS CLASSIFIED AS ZONE X UNSHACED ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY-FEDEFTAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCIES FLOOD 1119JRANCE RATE MAPS (PANEL 10D4F). 11. A MEMORANDUM FROM MATT DELICTL COLORADO PE 35263 SHOULD BE REFERRED FCR TRAFFIC CONCERNS. THIS MEMORANDUM CONOJJOES THAT THE PREMED USE RILL GENERATE LESS THAN 50 PEAS HOUR TRIPS PER DAY. 12. THE ACCOMMODATIONS 1 BUIDINC/PROPOSED ERIC SEWERS CENTER IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. ANTICIPATED THING OF COMPLETION OF DE ACC2 PORTON CF THE BULDING IS ANTICIPATE TO BE SPRING 2010 WITH EPIC MANESS CENTER PORTION BEING CCEPLE1ED IN SWARM 2016. 13. THIS DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES COMPAANCE MIN THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE AND INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE 14. THIS DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES COMPUANCE WITH THE ETES PARK MUNICIPAL ONE IS. ND 01J1000E STORAGE ALLOWED. 15. ALL UTIUTIES/511E INFRASTRUCTURE SHORN TO SUPPORT THE 8001/1E12140 MA NESS TRAIMND CENTER BUILDING IS CURRENTLY UNGER CCESTRUGTON OR HAS ALREADY BEEN INSTALLED. ND CHANGES TO SHE INFRASTRUCTIRE IS ANTICIPATE. PITH THIS SUBMITTAL PLEASE REFER TO TIE LINE TYPE LEGEND SHOWN CPI THIS PAGE FOR INFORMATION PELVES TO PROPOSED MANSIONS TO THE 5ALC4NO FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE CURRENTS APPROVED/UNDER CCHEITILICTON AND CONCEPIDAL PHASE 2 FOOTRINTS.ANFRASTRUCTURE 17. LADES OF' DISTURBANCE SNAIL BE DESIGNATE. IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OR EXCAVATOR, GRADING. OR CONSTRUCTION WITH CONSTRUCTOR BARRER FENCING OR SOME OTHER METHOD APPROVED BY STAFF. TLC STGOIRUNO SHALL NOT OCCUR CUISIDE THE DELINEATED UNITS CF DISTURBANCE 19. ND FENCING ALLOWED. SWEPT AS REQUIRED 10 PROTECT LANDSCAPING. 20. LIGHTTNG NOT NECESSARY FOR SECURITY PURPOSES AND CAN BE TURNED OFF APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF HOUR BEFORE AND AFTER OPERATING HOURS. 21. UOPITILIG SHALL BE REDUCES AMER 10 PM. 22. DELDADOES 10 THE SITE AND TRASH PICK-UP SHALL ONLY BE PERMITTED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7030 NA AND 71.10 PM. AU. DELIVERIES AND MASI PICK-UP SERVICES SHALL OCCUR IN THE AREAS CAI-SITE TRAT ME SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED FOR SUCH AGITATES. DELNERY APO TRASH HAULING TRUCKS soil BE REQUEED TO LEE WONCERNEN AVENUE AS THEIR ROUTE CF TRAVEL TO TE SEE ENTRANCE 23. CURRENT APPROVED LAMS OF IHSTURBANCE COVER A MAJORITY OF THE SITE 14000012 STOCKPILE AREAS CURRENTLY Dow USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTPATIES. 24. REFER TO THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE ASPIRE WELLNIVES COMPLIES AT 71-E STANLEY HOTS-PHASE 1 FOR FURTHER DEALS REGARDING CONSTRUCTOR CURRENTLY AT PIE STE NCILICING BUT NOT UMITED TO REQUIREMENTS OF ADEQUATE PLOLICEAELMES LANDSCAPING-DRAINASEANOJEFIOSION CONTROL 5116.--1,1&- STEM 710N LOT A sTN1EA4699.18. OF 11 PROJ. NO 0015-10-01 DRAM RYI DAB CHECKED EN: LAB sou' 1.—scr DATE: 11-00-2015 EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOT 4, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 4 OF LOTS 3-9, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. SHEET 9 OF 11—GENERAL SITE PLAN 6 — — — — SHEET 3 OF 11—EXISTING/APPROVED CONDITIONS SITE SHEET 11 OF 11—LANDSCAPE PLAN FL, SHEET 4 OF 11—GENERAL SITE PLAN 1 1 SHEET 10 OF 11—TURNING LANE EXHIBIT \ J SCAM 1' 0 50 500 1T65 1" ERAL SITE PLAN 2 0 0 A 0 I l _L 1,,_4;414-- LAN 3 - L i r I I I I I' I ..... .....__ ....c:::::3 / 1 I .......... \ ,...,,...................„__ _ _____. -.- ,7-_.-:IELS ___. _.._. -, --- e.-R-- 1 1 ,--- $:-......--sza. ,_ _ -- - .---- , _C:::11.-_-:-,-- - ---31 - ,../ I.. -1.- - - _,-.."'"' I - - - - -- _---_, -- -• E-----' • / _----- .-- __---- __ ..,- PROJECT SITE PLAN KEY SHEET ---------- I r (-3 SHEET H q„\ L---- ____ ____ PROJ. NO. 2013-11-01 SCALE 1" 50' S0 100 150 MIL .......... -s-r-,c] 2 O yin Z8 2-% 0 IT 14 -3` L O zm Z. ai c:3 o a EXISTING/APPROVED CONDITIONS A DRAWN BY: DAD GHECKED BY: LAS SCALE CATE: 11-08-2555 SHEET 3 or 11 MOM 3, Mane TWARFORBER LA FEE ▪ ELECTRG BOX NM BE AT OR BELCH GIADM • UP11 PO* ▪ COBLE PEDESTAL ▪ 111EPHOPE PEDESTAL • RAM SLIM OAF WYE • FRE Hymen' tie PIKER IONHOLE/AR RELIEF VALVE • SEWER IMMIOLE - 5---- SEM UNE W- WATER IRE • GM UNE ETC COMIELECTMC. TELEPHONE OR UMOMMIPS - - - - BOURNS SETBROK MENEM' (AS ram) ROE OP OMR FRCRERTE U1E 50100011 PETTYROP L1HE FuEsH coiScupp PRE-cmalRUCTION BAER affirm PRE-CMISTRUCTION 0+0.4 comouR 00.00 HEMMED OR CALCULATED DREW.. 100 PIAT1W OR mom EMEAsious EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOT 4, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 4 OF LOTS 3-9, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. BEA9b YEAS SUEL LET CP ZOPEO R ERRSTAA Ss& LOP A Smarr *us stm. ZOPHO ; ti ..... O/ Y,E * Syr---_,_______Ig,,,,,_ R--------1-S------- ei/ / - -11 A --erc--re_tit. / i ."",....... „...t.„.....0. 1 / sr. / r----1 --........__ it 1 j . r _...,..-..- -CZ D — — ...- -----_ _ _. g 11 11 . , ----; - --''e:--- - - . * ----- --....-= , - -1.--- -&---ii ------ ..- ..,---- .,-- -- ___--- ,---- , ,_--- _- 717' `-4 \ 3 \ ........ ................ #49MPNT ar.'"Ve"' LOT 14 11 11 I I 11 I I 11 P103. Ra 8013-11-01 IC S DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE DAB LAS 1-=Dce DATE SHEET a-N-2012 4 or 11 s o- MGM IMI mimic TRANSFORMER 0 RASE _E., _ NW BURIED & ELECTRIC. Vi .4 FIGURE CASPIET & RAM gl maw PEDESTAL — - - — MEM SETBACK * LOOT POLE - - - - - - EIREMDIT (PS WM) PRE-CCNISTRUCRON S. COMM g CABLE PEDESTAL PRE-CONSTRUCTOR 1 . COIROUR iM lEUD.1.016 PEDESTAL MESH GRADE CONTCUR e MATER SHUT OFF WAVE MAD OR DRIVE is FRE NYERANT PROPERTY UNE &ITER SOMME / SERER MACS 40401404 PROPERTY UNE O SENOR IMWHOLE,NEM 0 FUND MONUMENT AS NOTED O SEATER CLOCOUT O WORM SORER KNAKKE 00.00 MEASURED CR CALCLAJZIED DGENSIONS 5 SPAM LINE-DOWN (00.D0) PLATTE] CR DIMED 01.1E101010 S. SEWER ORE - NEW 0 PONDEROSA (P) .1 BARER UtE-EXISIDIG 6 BM EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOT 4, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 4 OF LOTS 3-9, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. 0 1.7 k • WRIER 1.10 - NEW O OAS UNE - COMING ▪ WS UNE - NEM X OPEN SIMCV wirc PUSS I GENERAL LINE WEIGHT LEGEND PROPOSED 11000201K.11 TO APPRCNED SITE CONEIMO1SALLE0G OOSTIADIAPFROYED COIKETIONS NOT PROPOSED FOR M00PC01101 MIZE 2 (CONCEPTUAL ONLY) SCALE: 1 . 20. 20 W— ORM LNIEGEPPE CZA Vel ivy 11111t PROM. ND. 2013-11-01 EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOT 4, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 4 OF LOTS 3-9, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. SERER LINE-COSTRIO SEWER LINE - NEW WATER LIE-EDEENO WATER UNE - NEW 06 LINE - COSMO WE LINE - NEW OPEN SAGS car FEEssns TELEPHEDIC DEEM& IFIOER 51111T OFF NOL/TE FIRE NYDRANT WRIER IADMITOLE MEN MANHOLE SEWN NALRENE-TES SMUT MEADOW STORM SEWER inviNCIE ELECTITC TEINSFORMER & RASE 3$ PRINARf CABDIET N RASE ELECTRIC FECES'S& NEW RIMED ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE M SAM — suRaNG =Mt — — — — EN3DERT (As NOTED) PRE-CENS1RuClics coNrouR PRE-oSerRoxlIoN 1' coNEDUR psoNsAER EINAR ORME COMM APPROVED MEN NAME cCwlouR R&D° OR TRW PACT:ERE, LEE TOTEM mummy LINE 0 OELOCI (00OO) a 5CALe 1- - 20' ROME (919 091.199590,9 IA' PROPOSED UNIFICATION TO ARMORED STE OZNOMONS/BUILDING FNIVALTFI m"°"' PIPSE 2 ICONCEPTLIAL ONLY) LULU Il ELECTRIC INANSFORMER 4 BASE -Do _ NEW BIASED ELECTRIC. M 4 PRIOR( CASINLT & BASE TELEFTIONE & CABLE III. EUIC1RO PEDESTAL - - - - BUILDINO SETINCH ▪ UGHT POLE MINOR (AS NOTED) PRE-CONSINUCIIIIN 5. COMICAR ID CAME PEDESTAL PRE-NPANINLicnou I' MAMA W DELORRNIE PEDESTAL PROPOSED FRESH OWE COMM ii5 MIER SNUT OFF YAM PPFROYED NOSH WADE GONTENR li. FRE INDPANT REMO CA ORSE 1 WORN 94011101E PROPER"! LIE SEWERMANHOLE NEIGNI330 FROMM LNE 0 SEWER MANNOLE-FIEW O SERER GUEVICUT 1g) STEM SEWER AWN= S SORER LNE-IDISIING S SEWER LNE - NEW WATER Ulf-DOSSIA) ve WATER utE - NEW G OAS UK - OfMTIND G OAS LSE - NEW 0 MOM MONLNENT AS NOM 00.00 SEAMED OR CALCULATED DmErtmoNs (00.00) FUMED OR NEEDED DINENSIONS C.,), PONDEROSA (P) ▪ BUSH X OPEN SPACE LOT 4, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 4 OF LOTS 3-9, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. i't ' 1 ----- V-7565-- ETC ETC ETC sic _05 CONCRETE DRIVE CROSS PAN TYPICAL SECTION NTS 2' SIGN DETAIL SIGN TO COMPLY WITH CODE STANDARD TYPE 2 CURB AND GUTTER SECTION NTS , r 19095 0 40 BO TYPICAL DRIVEWAY CROSS-SECTION N75 TYPE 2 CURB AND GUTTER 24' MIN VARIES i ci TYPE 2 CURB ANO GUTTER 4. COMPACTED ASPHALT IN PLACE er COMPACTED AGGREGATE ROAD BASE WITH FINES. COMPACTION WILL BE TO 952 OR BETTER COMPACTED SUB SASE MATERIAL, FREE of ORGANIC MATERIAL TYPE 2 CURB AND GUTTER 24. MIN PPE 2 CURB AND GUTTER _MR 4- COMPACTED COMPACTED ASPHALT IN PLACE B` COMPACTED AGGREGATE ROAD BASE MATH EWES, COMPACTION 1.1.1 BE TO 950 DR BETTER COMPACTED SUB BASE MATERIAL, FREE OF ORGANIC MATERIAL /// // / /// /4 _„1" / 0 ///4/1— / / -2-45 2-45-- Gho Joss. Z Ewm La. .do (3122 zr z— SCALE I"-S0, DATE: 11-OW-DOES SHEET 6 11 RRCu, NO. 2013-11-01 EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN GENERAL LINE WEIGHT LEGEND DRAWN BE: DAB CHECRED LAS EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOT 4, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 4 OF LOTS 3-9, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. PHARMACY ------------------ - ---------- stG L--EIC ETC F - 1 -------- A, / I / EEW ELMO TIE INTOVallINt ELECTRIC T LNEENE GENERAL LINE WEIGHT LEGEND PRE-CONSTRUCTION C CONIOuR PRE-CONSTRUCRON 1' CONTOUR PROPOSED PRISM GRAM CONTOUR APPROVED FINE41 WOE CONICAR Pao at DRIVE PROPERTY MME NEICHOOR PROPERTY LAE PROPOSED “001.51110N TO APPROVE° SITE CONDMONS/SULDINC ExisiwapoRRovED aspoTioNs NOT PROPOSE° FOR MOOIRCSMON PROSE 2 (CONCEPTLAL ONLY) SCALE: 1 . 20' UNT OF DERIMBANCE 0 01 20 40 11 A lfi PROJ. N0. 2019-11-01 a FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED DODO MEASURED OR CM5UIA1E0 imENSONN (00.d3) PUTTED OR DEEDED DINERMONS 0 P0403E150SA STOLEN SEAER KANHIXE SEWER 01 E-EXI511113 5 MIER UIE - NLN • OMER LINE-IDOSOND S RATER LIME - NEW • OAS LINE - 0 WS LINE - NE5 - RaEFP issimp.axerm E BUILDING SETBACK EASEMENT (As Nom* S RUSH X- OPEN SPACE M ELECTRiC TIONSFORMER & BASE En] 34 PROW), CABINET & RASE El ELECTRIC PEM.STAL -11- LIGHT POLE MOE PEDESTAL II 1E1EPOIRE PEDESTAL O A2131 SHUT OFF WAVE ti FIRE litURANT / OMER MANHOLE SEWER MAIMOLE 0SEWER 11AMC4E-DEPI . SEAER CLEANOUT Artrb AVG CI'S= 01641,11% VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING 1043 F811 CREEK RD. • ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 PHONE: (970) 586-9769 • FAX: (970) 386-8101 1 43030@cEs8E-*Eallil i W11111111 :r 1 :1 41 ti 8 IL-11 , ...0 0 —1 0-1 -P. C) x> Z 0 2 -no b t1.1 m61 P -D t.1 t'l ()1 -o -1 t'l > xi 0 tM x -9 0 I- t."4 tZ1 0 0 -I 0 C/) z ti) 1O m -9 Or- 6.....1:9 1,...r.41..."3 xi ,--_. IV 71> z '''"I 12 4 14-16 kti rn op - M o -ri = 8 r-0 c) oxl IV) D P xi 1,....1-9 1...... ..-4o 9 11-20-2015 008 Op EcTEPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER ESTES PARK, CO rr EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8 PENERLL UNE_WEICHT LIMEND mono= Leacwic=nas 112 APPROVED sne coiCTIONS/OULOSO IDEMIO/APPISMED 0010111016 NOT MP.. FOR NEOFICATCM PHME 2 IMMIXITILIAL 0We LEGEND 1/1 amnia TRANSFORMS Er EME _Etc NEW SIRED ELECTRIC. M 32 PROEM OA & ELMS TELEPHONE A costs IL ELECTRIC PECMTAL — - - — BULLING SEMMIC — UGHT KIM MTOL EMEIAENT (AS NOTO) PIE-GONSTRUGION. r COMM CAME PEL PPE CONSINUMICN I . CONTOUR ID TREPHINE PEAL PROPOSED RASH ORME CONTOUR e WATER SHUT OFF YAM PROEM FINISH GRACE CINITOUR 15 FIRE IfTDIMIT ROAD OR MME $ SURER YANKEE SEATERIMINOLE PROPERIT in NEIGIEOR PROFEMY UM 0 SEVER MANHOLE-NEW • SEVER CLEANNIE @ STORM SEWER MANHOLE 0 FOUND NONMENT AS 1401ED 02•0 MEASURED OR CALCULATED EMENSIONS 5 SEM MAC-DOSTING PIM MATTED OR DEEDED ONENSONS 5 SPER UM -NEW W WES UNE-EMEM 0 PONDEROSA (P) W MIR LK - SEW NO BUSH O OAS UNE - MEMO G GAS UNE - NEW DI OPEN SPAM LOT 4, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 4 OF LOTS 3-9, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT, Fa. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. 5 A A SCALE: 1 . = 20' 20 40 BO Y a I NEW A'S V FED uswy c grorr , wia seisms unc I it• 1-0 , CoNNECTION co z 0 z E llA DOTING 3' MILLWRAP CAS IRE 1 ti 1 1 1 DRAWN CHECKED SY: LAS SCALE DID 11-06-2015 DAB , ,. , . ,II . , , , 1111 , , , 1 SHEET 9 FOU A NEW WPC RNBRJ OF RINE NO. 2013-11-01 11 EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOT 4, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 4 OF LOTS 3-9, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. ILL IVI••• MM. MR LMT /WM MOE LIFT *III ACM MIMI MB 12, WPM. NM WM MOM IWO C I` ® O TC 0 0 11-06-2015 = ___ --------- - - —7 SHEET ----------------- -- m --------------- ------------------------ _ - -------------------- --------- ---- -------------- ••-tr -------- I 1 10 OF 11 S.' .1‘ PROJ. NO. 2013 -11-01 SCALE r=30' SHEET EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOT 4, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 4 OF LOTS 3-9, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. SCALE: 1' 20' 40 E I / STANDARD EYDC LANDSCAP_E NOTES: I. Ai daubed areas Mal be reslored es rrererelmomming lard Ism. web oven Prat blend In NM Kenna. melslurbod IRMA Abrupt apple, Mullen. end Pea ROOM 9n1116.3.0.0 72C11 2 Al areas disturbed by reading lad he revagehked %Min one Ill growing season Ow correlruclan. uskre er oubalerelul mixed Nerd ohereve o odopled premne and grouts rasa. The deadly of dm IrereMINIMM Dom Mireladon Ma one (1)7reelng ammo Mal be adequate Lo preyed soll melon and !maim of meek. MAIM 72.C21 IAA imam of the rele were exiting verrelrelve cover Is damaged Of removed. Were not Menem comet Mb nee remoeementek doe be summer* rempeated Mt a aubatarrIN ft/ad sand or PLUM or MOW grams and ground coven. *Mr 7.5.041 4. On manmade elopes of 2ST4 or prereer. plant ',Merle's with deep exam obouratelsOce Moll be selected Mot eM etherize erasion red tedem anrhn rare. Al manmade slimes molar den 51/94 To be malted and mead le ensure adequale aleblarelon and reametellea.MMere A.2.C2 Iren al Tolle merererememet memore, vamped b neared reenue.11911.1&5116/111111141 maple., ere onneenred MIMI UM,,n mat mould; remorealon or landemples. ROM colAtreMill slops. Dectim 7.2031 • No trees or vegreallon NNI be removed meek. IM Ammo. Smiled ellaureanos. Maim TAM) 7. Conifer trees sealhe NM .5110. eigre MI Tall mi 0)01 et ale MI tall at planting. Dedourrea trees WM be Mao as SIM lomlnch caliper and 50% Nun-Inch caliper Marano. Breutre OM he 5 galon caneneo. Terser Wolverton. (maim 7.6.02E B. AI plant rerreedal Mel meet Am Amencen Amereallen arkmamenspecEcadane Be Number 1 grade, and ehal comply AM le really etendarda cd ere Colorado Nursery Act. TM 06. Arede 26. CAS. Eamended Iseorw0.5.a2l B. Al lend:toupee Nolude a premely farmIceIrm automated spirdder system Mb MINduel dr* lime ler nankin wee, MscionTSESI 10, Remdred lendempleo deg re melrealrad In • Maltby, mowing =Wein Mel Mee. TM comedy owner is reasonable fre regular movrere freMelo9L mPlmemMol plenty lo mer conMon mar rnalreerann platIngs immured. Imam 7.5.111 11, AI Nem Mal he Naked or mad aird fenced re protect torn wIdlle Menage. No dadnink knefos real be allowed . prob. Md.:aping tool aldIfe Menem. polka, 7.5.12] Da of NoMfe Mall aline resporside Tor damage by AMR.. .---.ETC s r -------------- 1 „ / --------- j AND:WARE NOTES- I. THIS LANDSCAPED PLAN 0 REPRESENTATION. ONLY. ITS PURPOSE IS TO QUANTIFY THE REQUIRED NUUBER OF TREES WE SHRUBS FOR MS [MELON/MT. LAIESCATING PUS MIS DEVELOPMENT MIL BE DONE IN MI MMES. MIESCAME TOTALS ARE PROMED FOR THE LALEGOLPING PROPOSED TO BE INSTALLED FOR PHASE 1. THE RETAINING REQUIREn LANDSCAPING WILL SE PROVIDED AT FULL 93E DEVELOPMENT. R. THE PLANME TYPE NOTED ARE PRELIMINARY IN NATURE A GOAPLEIE LEO OF ALARM/GS NAL BE PROViDEO AT A LATER DATE SF THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 3. LANDSCAPING TO M INSTALLED FOR PHASE I: DISTRICT BUFFER— NORTH BOUNDARY 27 TREES (EVERGREEN) AND 27 SARUM EAST BOUNDARY 57 TREES (VERMEER) AND 37 SHRUM SOUTH BOUNDARY 41 TREES (EVERGREEN) MID 4 SHRUBS STREET FRONTAM HUFFER — MORIN (NON—ARTERIAL) 21 TREES AND Os SHRUBS NO CHANGES TO THE REQUIRED LANDSCAFING 5 APINCPATED MIN THE ADDISON OF THE EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING GDITE0 AS A PART OF THIS APPLUCANCN. THE LANDSCIPING SHOWN HEREON IS PER 1W APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN. PLANT LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN ALLILTSTED TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED mCCIFOCIONS TO 114F SITE PLEASE REFER TO THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE SITE FOR NORF DETAILED LANDSCAPING INFORMATION REGAR0145 SPECIES TYPE AND PLACEMENT. eMoteE LOT PEMAETER — SOUTHERN PERIMETER 7 TREES AND 45 MALES IMERFOR PARKING LOT— TOTAL PAWING LOT SF re 10.420 M LANDSCAPE ISLAM REQUIRED •• 1.543 SF LANDSCAPE ISLAM PROVIDED w 2.2.1 SF (HELICES AREA BETWEEN PHASE 1 /PHASE 2 SE PARKING DOTS) 3. ALL LANDSCAPIE TO BE PETALLED PER SECTION 7.6 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT COOL 6. LINOSCAPING STEM AMMO THE REPENTER PO4.0 FOR NYSE 1 IS IN DRESS OF THE MOORED LANDSCAPE TOTALS AS LSTED ABOVE PRCIPMED EVERGREEN TREE (SPECIES TO BE DESIGNATED WAIN CONSTRUCTOR 201161675) RROPCSO) DECIDUOUS TREE (SPECIES TO BE DEFAMMTED CONSTRUCTER OSMIUM) PROPOSED SHRUB MP OF SPECIES TO BE DESIGNATED 0111 CONSTRUCTER OWINGS)