HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2015-12-09RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Russ
Schneider, Michael Moon, and Sharry White
Chair Hull, Commissioners Klink, Murphree, Moon, and White
Community Development Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Mallory Baker,
Planner Carrie McCool, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps,
Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, Town Attorney Greg White, and
Recording Secretary Karen Thompson
Recused & Absent Commissioners Schneider & Hills
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were approximately 95 people in
attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. A quorum was in attendance. Commissioners
Schneider and Hills have recused themselves at the direction of Town Attorney White. Director
Chilcott introduced staff, stating Planner Baker was a consultant with McCool Development Solutions,
hired by the Town to be the lead planner on this project. Chair Hull explained the role of the Planning
Commission and the process for accepting public comment at today's meeting. A sign-up sheet was
provided for those desiring to provide public comment. Public comment may be limited to three
minutes, depending on how many people plan to speak. Chair Hull explained the Planning Commission
will be reviewing an amendment to Special Review 2014-01, which was approved by the Town Board
on March 24, 2015. Tonight's review will only be for a proposed fourth floor that combines the
Wellness Center and the Accommodations 2 Building. The concept of the Wellness Center or the
entire project will not be discussed, and public comment for those items should be addressed to the
Town Board. Chair Hull explained the timeline for the meeting, stating the meeting would need to
adjourn no later than nine o'clock, due to a prior commitment for one of the Commissioners. If the
time limit is not sufficient, the meeting may be continued to a future date. The meeting format will be
somewhat different than regular Planning Commission meetings.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. SPECIAL REVIEW 2014-01C, EPMC WELLNESS TRAINING CENTER, 520 Steamer Parkway; Stanley
Land Holding, LLC/Applicant
Chair Hull stated the applicants would be making their presentation first, followed by the staff
report, public comment, and Commission discussion.
Applicant Presentation
David Bangs/applicant representative introduced team members Jeff VanSambeek, Lodestone
Design Group project architect; Greg Rosener, Grand Heritage Hotel Group representative; John
Cullen, Grand Heritage Hotel Group owner, and Mark Gregson, interim CEO of the Estes Park
Medical Center. Attorney Lucia Liley was ill and unable to attend.
Mr. Bangs gave a brief overview of the process to date. The Wellness Training Center (WTC)
concept was approved by the Town Board prior to the sale of Stanley Historic District Lot 4 by the
Town of Estes Park to Grand Heritage Hotel Group. In March, 2015, approval was granted to
construct the Accommodations 2 building as the first phase, and construction commenced.
Funding issues from the Estes Park Medical Center (EPMC) jeopardized the construction of the
WTC, and alternatives were considered. Mr. Bangs stated the only feasible option was to
integrate the WTC into the Accommodations 2 Building currently under construction. This
solution would provide the minimal essential amount of WTC space for the EPMC to have a
successful wellness program. The applicant then restructured financial proposals to reduce the
financial risk to the EPMC, and the changes to the Accommodations 2 Building were pursued. The
Town Board granted an expedited review process to avoid delays in construction.
Mr. Bangs stated changes proposed with this application include: conversion of part of the ground
floor from storage to the WTC; addition of a ground floor lap/training pool patio and excavation
on the west side to allow light into the new ground floor spaces; a new partial fourth floor and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
Decembers, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hail
exterior yoga/meditation deck above the third floor. These changes would mean a height increase
and a revised note on the plan to allow outdoor activities on the ground floor patio (east side) and
the fourth floor yoga/meditation deck. The plans that are not changing include: access; parking
plans for the first phase; utilities for servicing the building; drainage plan; open space use on the
site; trails and pedestrian linkages; overall architectural style of the building; level and style of
exterior lighting; economic benefit to the Town. Mr. Bangs stated the WTC would be a use-by
right in the Accommodations zone district as approved in the original development plan. The
team is requesting to move the use from one accommodations building to the other. He stated
part of the previous approval included a building height over 30 feet. WTC uses on the ground
floor would include: research, consultation, massage and recovery, lab services, audio testing,
biomechanical and clinical functions, gym and weight training, small group exercise, lap/training
pool and lockers, totaling approximately 10,312 square feet. The exterior space on the ground
floor would be a patio (2,200 square feet) to service the pool. The fourth floor would contain a
3,455 square foot large group exercise room, and the exterior (deck above third floor) would be a
3,560 square foot area used for meditation, yoga, and relaxation. Total square footage for the
WTC would be 13,676 for interior space and 5,760 for exterior space.
Mr. Bangs addressed the building height increase, proposed at 11 feet one inch on the southeast
(downhill) side of the building. The height on the uphill side remains as approved, with the lowest
point 26.48 feet above natural grade. The Estes Park Municipal Code authorizes an increase in
building height above 30 feet in the Stanley Historic District through a special review process, with
the Town Board the decision-making body. He stated the standard for that review is to mitigate to
the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and
services, and the environment. The Accommodations 2 Building is located outside of three view
corridors protected by the Stanley Historic District regulations. Mr. Bangs stated the proposed
fourth floor has been limited to a partial story to minimize impact to the neighboring residences.
Adding the proposed fourth floor does not increase impervious coverage nor does it decrease the
amount of open space previously approved. The impact is limited to the additional height. Mr.
Bangs stated the outdoor activities would be limited to the pool patio area and the fourth floor
deck, which are intended to be passive, e.g. recovery, relaxation, meditation, and yoga. The
applicant has agreed to have no amplified sound in these spaces, and the entire development will
be subject to the existing Town noise ordinances.
Jeff VanSambeek/project architect stated he was given the task of trying to put the proposed
EPMC Wellness Training Center program into a space already under construction. The original
approved WTC included over 20,000 square feet of interior space, and the concept of putting that
much space into a building already under construction required communication with the EPMC to
determine what was absolutely necessary for a successful program. When it was determined not
all would fit on the ground floor, the team decided to propose a fourth floor. He briefly reviewed
the site plan, stating they did their best to minimize impacts, including improved landscaping on
the north side to minimize neighborhood impact. A retaining wall approximately four feet high
will enclose the pool patio, and a smaller retaining wall would be installed after excavation of the
west side, allowing additional natural light. Mr. VanSambeek stated the shared spaces would
include lobby areas. He stated the team worked hard to take away as much of the hotel use as
possible from the ground floor in order to add the WTC required features, so shared spaces exist
in the revised plan, including the lobby (now labeled as a cycling/training room) and the
restrooms. Two significant changes were excavations for a gym/equipment training room and the
lap/training pool. These functions were not originally anticipated, and the building ceiling height
was challenging, so the floor was lowered to obtain more ceiling height. These excavations have
already taken place. Mr. VanSambeek stated all inward functions of the program were placed on
the interior of ground floor because they do not require extra lighting. The programmatic areas
have been place around the perimeter of the building to have access to views and natural light. At
Mr. Cullen's request the proposed fourth floor was limited to only a portion of the space
available. Activities such as yoga classes and other group assemblies would be held on this fourth
floor. The fourth floor deck would allow WTC participants to take classes outside while enjoying
the Estes Park environment. The proposed deck stops at the fourth floor stair tower, and
remaining roof portion will contain planter boxes to soften the northern edge of the building. He
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
Decembers, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali
stated the only other change is the removal of a garage door in the pool area, which is no longer
needed to access the pool equipment room. The south side of the building hasn't changed except
for the addition of the fourth floor. Care was taken to make sure the architecture was in close
design to the other buildings on the campus. Mr. VanSambeek provided revised photo
simulations to analyze the impact on neighboring properties. He explained the camera settings
for the photos that were taken, and also explained the process for overlaying the proposed
building into the photos. Photos were taken from the Davis and Hayek properties. Building height
was determined based on existing grade. The most extreme height difference is at the southwest
corner. The majority of the proposed fourth floor is unseen from the neighboring properties, and
roof is about all that is seen from the north. There were a number of alternatives explored,
including reducing the hotel uses of the second and third floors to accommodate WTC uses. It was
determined this was not feasible due to the building already being under construction. The time
and expense to make the changes would prevent timely delivery of hotel rooms and cause default
on the applicant's mortgage. The financing of the project is contingent on the number of rooms
delivered. Additionally, WTC uses need to be separated from hotel uses for security and
confidentiality reasons. Only shared spaces could be utilized. Another alternative explored was
expanding the building footprint and eliminating the fourth floor. This was determined unfeasible
due to the existing property line and street to the west, existing utilities, infrastructure, access
points and public easements, and required parking areas. A third alternative to eliminate the
fourth floor deck, thus minimizing outdoor activity, was not feasible because the outdoor space is
considered integral to the WTC program. At this time. Chair Hull stated the applicant's allotted
time to present has expired, and offered to provide time later in the meeting for him to discuss
the remaining portion of his presentation.
Chair Hull read portions of minutes from the March 17, 2015 Planning Commission meeting (page
14) for Special Review 2014-01, stating Option 1 would not comply with the 30 foot height limit,
and Option 2 would comply. The minutes showed Mr. Cullen stated he was willing and prepared
to withdraw Option 1 and continue with Option 2 to please the Commission and the town. Chair
Hull stated the approved plan was for Option 2, which was under the 30 foot height limit.
Staff Presentation
Mallory Baker stated the applicant did a great job explaining most of the revisions. She would be
comparing the previous approvals of this site to the currently proposed project. First, relocating
the WTC to the Accommodations 2 Building, currently under construction, necessitates a change
in the originally approved lower level plan. This is a change to the tenant finish plan for the
ground floor as well as the addition of the partial fourth story. Half of the area on the proposed
fourth floor would be finished floor area, with the other half being supplemental outdoor space.
Second, the addition of two ground floor patios, (pool patio on the east, and a partially covered
patio on the southeast corner). Third, the request to exceed the maximum height limit of 30 feet
by 11 feet 1 inch. The last change is to remove a previous condition of approval from the last
reiteration of this project, which specifically limited all activities in the Accommodations 2
Building to the interior of the building. In the proposed plan, some activities would be held
outdoors on the patios and the fourth floor deck.
Ms. Baker explained the review process and timeline particular to this application. The timeline
was tighter than what typically occurs with development review applications. Staff completed the
review of this challenging application within 21 days. This timeline required extensive cooperation
with staff, the applicant, and other internal/external reviewing agencies. A pre-application
meeting was held in early November, a completeness review was conducted to ensure all
documents needed were ready for full code compliance review, the application was sent to
referral agencies for comment, a full code review was completed, and a staff report prepared at
the end of November. Additionally, a legal notice was published and adjacent property owners
were notified by mail. Supplemental coordination was required; weekly meetings with the
applicant's design team were held to discuss reviewing agency comments. The design team
frequently attend the Development Review Team meetings, held weekly, which allowed them to
discuss issues with Town staff, Estes Park Sanitation District, and the Estes Valley Fire Protection
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 4
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
District staff. Specific office hours for public review of the plans and questions related to the
review process were held by Ms. Baker every Friday afternoon.
Mr. Baker explained the Pianning Commission's role is to advise the Town Board on land use
matters. The responsibility is to ensure compiiance with relevant codes, conformance with the
Estes Valley Comprehensive Pian, and most importantly the Special Review criteria "...ensures the
appiication mitigates to the maximum amount feasible, potential adverse impacts on nearby land
uses, public facilities and services, and the environment." What is typically not included in the
Planning Commission's purview is development budget and financing programs. Also, private
partnerships, for example, the partnership with the Estes Park Medical Center, is not typicaliy part
of the Planning Commission's purview. The applicant's responsibility is to demonstrate
compliance with the reievant codes, conformance with the Estes Valiey Comprehensive Plan, and
to demonstrate compliance with the special review criteria. Ms. Baker's responsibility, along with
staff, is to manage the review process, provide technical review, and act as an informational
resource for the Planning Commissioners. Staff is not in any way advisory to the Town Board, but
only acts as an information and technical resource for those elected officials.
Ms. Baker stated there are not a lot of design changes to this application. She focused on key
issues:
Height Height limitations are very important in the town of Estes Park, as they protect key
natural resources of the town, e.g. views. 77 out of 80 public comments received to date on this
application specifically opposed the height variance request. There are advantages to vertical
height. Vertical height iimits impervious coverage and maximizes the potential for open space.
The applicant is well into compliance with those requirements. The applicant has also
demonstrated they have attempted to limit to the maximum extent feasible the areas in which
they are adding height to the building. Ms. Baker read the definition of maximum extent feasible:
"No feasible or prudent alternative exists...economic considerations may be taken into account
but shall not be the overriding factor in determining 'maximum extent feasible'". She suggested
the Commissioners keep that in mind as the discussion continued. She stated other alternatives
were mentioned in the staff report; limiting square footage for hotel programming, expanding the
building horizontal footprint, and limiting the fourth story to finished floor area rather than
adding additionai activity above the 30 foot height limit. Ms. Baker reviewed the photo
simulations provided by the applicant. These views are not part of the protected view corridors
for the Staniey Hotel. They are mountain views that are potentiaily obstructed by the buiiding.
The view obstructions are not significant, but are essential in staffs review of adverse impacts.
Outdoor Activities. Ms. Baker stated the issue of outdoor activities concerns the removal of a
previous condition of approval (March, 2015) which limited activities associated with this building
to be inside. A number of outdoor spaces are currentiy proposed (fourth floor roof deck and
ground floor patios), and a small number of public comments specifically opposed the allowance
of this proposed outdoor activity. In order to mitigate the adverse impacts from the outdoor
activity, staff set forth a recommendation condition of approvai that the appiicant submit a
revised development plan that limits the potentiai activities on those outdoor spaces to WTC
programming uses as defined by the applicant in the Statement of Intent submitted for this
application. There are two patios on the ground floor and the previously discussed roof deck area
where outdoor activities could be occurring.
Parking & Shuttling. Ms. Baker stated at this time, the appiicant has stated the only guests
allowed to use the WTC will be those staying on site; therefore, there are no current issues with
parking demand and trip generation. However, the Statement of Intent discusses potential future
changes to WTC programming which could include opening up the program to people not staying
on site or to the general public, meaning there could be future increases on parking demand and
trip generation. Because of this, staff recommended a condition of approval stating any proposed
changes to the Weliness 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, shali require the submittal of a Parking and Shuttiing Pian to be
reviewed pursuant to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requirements. This would provide
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 5
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
staff with a mechanism to review future trip generation and parking demand impact to ensure the
proper transportation infrastructure and mitigation plans in place for any adverse impacts.
Ms. Baker stated the Planning Commission has several options for voting on this special review:
(1) Approval without conditions; (2) Approval with conditions; (3) Denial; (4) Continuation of the
hearing in order to provide adequate time to review additional materials.
Conditions of Approvai
1. Compliance with the affected agency conditions of approval and comments, including the
Town of Estes Park Utilities Department, the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department,
the Estes Park Sanitation District, the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, and RBB Architects,
serving as the Stanley Historic District Architectural Review Committee.
2. Compliance with Section 7.9(D), Exterior Lighting Design Standards, of the EVDC
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. The applicants shall submit a revised development plan with a note stating the "The fourth
floor deck and ground floor patios shall be limited to Wellness Training Center programming
uses, including research, consultation, massage and recovery, lab services, audio testing,
biomechanical and clinical functions, gym and weight training, and small group exercise."
5. 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.
6. The applicant shall remove the note on Sheet A1.4 referring to "Steel framing in roof above
for future cupola" prior to the submittal of final development plan mylars.
Ms. Baker stated the Commission may include any conditions it determines will render the
application compliant with all requirements based on all the evidence and testimony presented at
the hearing. Staff understands that the applicant was given time to speak at the hearing, and
valuable information was provided during that presentation. The public will also have time to
speak, so the Commission has room to include that testimony in any conditions of approval that it
so desires.
Public Comment
Commissioner Klink stated public comment is best provided in written form, submitted early
enough to be included in the meeting material packets. More thought can be given to the
comments by the Commissioners if they are able to read them rather than hearing them for the
first time as verbal public comment.
Ann Finley/town resident stated the proposed project will define the aesthetics and values of our
community, and it is imperative that we get it right. The voters based their decisions on the plans
presented before the election. The new design is clearly not what the voters approved. Minor
changes could be expected, but these plans are significantly different. She urged the Planning
Commission to respect the deliberations of the voters. Approving these modifications would
undermine the credibility of this already questionable and potentially divisive proposal. The
height variance was not a part of the plan that residents voted on. She questioned whether or not
the vote would have passed if these were the plans originally submitted. There should be no
favoritism or granting or waiver of fees associated with any variances. She encouraged the
Commissioners to deny the request for the redesign and for the height variance.
Marlene Hayek/town resident quoted lyrics from John Denver's "Rocky Mountain High", the
Colorado state song, stating those lyrics fit well with how some local residents felt about blocking
their view.
Barb Davis/town resident stated she had seen many changes in the many years she has been
coming to Estes Park. The majority of people think many of these changes were mistakes, and
encouraged the Commissioners not to make another mistake. She hoped the Pianning
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 6
Decembers, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Haii
Commission considers what the height variance would do to the community. She thought it would
set a precedent for future projects. She was opposed to the height variance.
Rebecca Urquhart/town resident stated she would focus on the height variance. She stated this
would not meet the standards of review for a traditional variance request (through the Board of
Adjustment). She stated economic considerations are not an overriding factor in approving a
variance. She thinks there are feasible alternatives. The stated the statement of intent for this
application was an emotional narrative. Removal of hotel rooms is not feasible only for economic
reasons, which is not a justifiable reason for the variance. She suggested the wellness center be a
separate building, and it can be expanded at a later date. There is a reason for a height limit in the
EVDC, and approving this one would set a precedent.
Diane Muno/town resident and local business owner stated she is truly invested in Estes Park and
wants to know that we are moving in a progressive manner. She stated Estes Park is being
marketed away by other mountain communities for business and tourism. She campaigned for
the sale of Lot 4 because she supported the EPMC and the desire to generate additional services
and revenue. She believes in the wellness center concept. When it comes to a business opinion,
we need to look at it rationally and determine how it effects the greater good for the community.
Ms. Muno stated she is a member of the EPMC Foundation Board, and they are actively
continuing to raise funds for the WTC. There are community residents that believe that some of
the changes that need to happen may require a height variance.
Wally Burke/town resident and accommodations owner stated he was supportive of the wellness
center, but opposed to the height variance. He stated 36.7% of the building would be over 30
feet, which is significant. Height is a concern for anyone that builds in the Estes Valley, and what's
allowed for one should be allowed for all. He was concerned about what would happen if the
wellness center was built and failed, and what the future plan would then be for the fourth and
ground floors. He was opposed to allowing the height variance.
Jan Vershuur/town resident stated the Stanley Hotel is the crown jewel of Estes Park. He did not
think the project had been presented well, as it seems to be mostly an extension of the Stanley
Hotel. He was opposed to granting a variance for the fourth floor.
Doug Warner/town resident stated he voted in favor of the sale of Lot 4. He was not opposed to
the WTC concept, but strongly opposed to the height variance. He was also opposed to the height
variance in the previous application. The 30 foot height limit was determined by men and women
with an understanding of the cultural, historical, and aesthetic significance of the Stanley Hotel
and other structures in Estes Park. He stated the variance requested is justified only if there are
(1) special conditions that exist on the lot that create a hardship; (2) financial or personal
situations of the applicant can be considered, but must not be used as a determining factor; (3)
the approval of the variance must not grant special privilege to the property owner. The "human
condition" indicates the nature of mankind is such that power, position, wealth, etc. will, from
time to time, tempt one to use that power and position and wealth to exert pressure on those in
government to get special treatment. This is not a new condition, and has been around since the
beginning of time. The applicant was intimately familiar with the property prior to the purchase.
There are no hardships present. Financial factors cannot be taken into consideration. The
applicant's power, position, and wealth must not give him preferential treatment over the
common man. Mr. Warner stated if the Commissioners granted the requested height variance, it
would set a precedent for others seeking height variances. He urged the Commissioners to
examine carefully the criteria governing the granting of variances.
Judy Nystrom/town resident represented Mr. Findley in several real estate transactions in the
area of what is now the Stanley Historic District. Mr. Findley provided a rendition, based upon the
regulations at the time, of what was going to be on Lot 4. Nothing encroached in that area like the
current building does. She worked with several people who own homes on Findley Court who are
leaving the area, and feels she has misrepresented something. She feels this is the tip of the
iceberg, and a change here will be a change coming on everything. If it is to be allowed here, it
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
should be allowed everywhere. Mrs. Nystrom stated the development has changed considerably
since the election, and that concerns her. She stated Mr. Cullen is going a great job of improving
the Stanley Hotel and working with the hospital on the WTC. She is opposed to granting the
height variance.
Ed Hayek/town resident stated this was about the 30 foot height limit for the Stanley Historic
District, not about the WTC or about two or three neighbors on Findley Court. This is about
changing the visitor and resident experience forever. It is possible to have a WTC without a fourth
floor. Many alternatives exist. He stated the pool was excavated in September, Level 1 was
reconfigured and design changes were made to carry the load of a fourth floor. He wondered
about what would have happened if that much effort would have been put into designing an
alternative. No alternatives were ever presented. He thinks this is the cheapest and quickest way,
an excuse to circumvent the decades-old 30-foot height limit established in the Stanley Historic
District. The view to the neighbors on Findley Court has already been compromised. The common
thread throughout the written public comment is that it will impact everyone. It will set a
precedent for future development within the Stanley Historic District. Tall buildings on high
ground block vistas of surrounding mountains. Mr. Hayek was opposed to the height variance
because no evidence of detailed analysis or evidence of studying other alternatives has been
presented. Personal financial and contractual difficulties of the applicant are not the purview or
obligation of the citizens. He stated the applicant's response to written comments not necessarily
being true was insulting. Views are extremely important to community members and visitors
alike. View corridors are a minimum protection for the Stanley; they are not the criteria for
impact on the community. Mr. Hayek stated when the applicant was before the Planning
Commission nine months ago, he stated he would build the WTC if the Estes Park Medical Center
did not raise the funds. It was implied he would build a separate building on the designated site.
Mr. Hayek stated the proposed plan is not what the voters approved. He suggested the Estes Park
Medical Center may be better served searching for a strong partner hospital rather than grabbing
at straws, squandering resources, and delaying the inevitable.
Jim Cozzie/town resident was opposed to the variance request.
Eric Waples/town resident stated he believed the wrong standard of review (Section 3.5.B) was
used to review the variance request, when it should have been Section 3.6 of the EVDC. When the
EVDC was adopted in 2000, one of the key sections of the Estes Park Municipal Codes had been
deleted (Special Review Height Section). Therefore, part of the Municipal Code referenced the
section that had been deleted. When the Town Board Ordinance 05-14 was passed, that section
was overlooked again. It was understandable at that time because height was not an issue. One
year later, when the applicant request a height increase, Mr. Waples stated Town Attorney White
realized the error but chose to argue it was embedded in EVDC Section 3.5B, which deals with
Special Review Use. Mr. Waples stated this section says nothing about height. He discussed the
issue with Ms. Baker and other Town staff, and did not receive a satisfactory explanation. Mr.
Waples received a written opinion from Attorney White on December 8' 2015, and still believes
the wrong standard is being used for the review. Section 3.6 is a much stricter standard and it
would be very difficult for the applicant to meet that standard. However, even under the letter
Section 3.5.B standard, the applicant still fails to make their case to allow the requested height.
Barb Gebhardt/town resident stated 99% of all written comments are opposed to the height
variance. Only one positive comment was provided, by the Estes Park Medical Center Hospital
Board President. She stated granting the height variance would be setting a precedent for
building four-story structures. She thinks the WTC should be built where it was originally
intended. She suggested the Estes Park Medical Center partner with another health care
organization to ensure future viability.
Christine Smith/town resident stated she is concerned about her property values dropping
because of this project. She is opposed to the outdoor yoga deck and pool patio near her home.
She is a former member of the neighborhood Homeowners Association, and feels Mr. Cullen
mislead them on numerous occasions, not only with the current project.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
8
Johanna Darden/town resident was opposed to any height above the 30-foot limit. She stated
there are alternatives for the yoga area on the ground floor of Lot 4. Asking WTC participants to
walk to another location on Lot 4 will not be an imposition, particularly when the applicant thinks
it will not be an imposition to shuttle participants from off-site locations. Even though the intent
for outdoor activities is passive, there is nothing built into the plan to ensure this will remain so.
The noise ordinance is not enforceable. Allowing more light on the ground level does not mean
the lighting will be of high quality. Negative impacts include blocking views of the surrounding
area, and the unattractive structure diminishes the character of the Historic District. The hospital
foundation should have tried to raise the funds to build the WTC. She was opposed to the height
variance request.
Bill Darden/town resident stated he was pleased when the applicant stated the change in the
plans was precipitated by a financial emergency. Mr. Darden stated the Estes Park Medical Center
raised little or no money for the WTC. That invites the supposition that they have not tried, and
possibly never intended to try. He was opposed to allowing the change of plans.
Karin Edwards/town resident stated her goal was to point out how the Estes Park citizens have
been deceived since the beginning of the Lot 4 sale. There is no good reason for any Estes Park
citizen to give up more than we have, and she does not support the added building height. Ballot
Question IB on April 1, 2014 was to sell Lot 4 for the Anschutz Wellness Center. The ballot issue
wording was biased, misleading, and inaccurate. From the estes.org website, she read the sale of
Lot 4 was for hotel expansion with or without the Anschutz Wellness Center. Anschutz pulled out,
and the credibility of that program was lost. The CEO and the Executive Director of the hospital
foundation resigned; they were integral to getting this Wellness Training Center going. The
Planning Commission approved changing the open space designation from the west side of Lot 4
to the east side. Settling ponds are planned for the open space, and those are not congruent with
the definition of open space. Ms. Edwards believes this denies Estes Park citizens the open space
that was required with the sale of Lot 4. Photo ads in the local newspapers show projected views
of the future buildings. The ads come across as an insult to the residents who live in the
neighborhood and those of us who live in town. The Grand Heritage Hotel Group can build the
WTC in the location defined by the Lot 4 contract, or leave that space without a building. If the
applicant chooses to house the WTC in another building, then airspace and view shed should not
be compromised with additional building height.
Mark Gregson/Interim Director of Estes Park Medical Center stated the Estes Park Medical Center
remains very committed to wellness for the community and the entire region. This is an
important component of the wellness program, and he is very grateful for the opportunity to
consider this site when it was determined the original plan for the WTC was not viable. He was
pleased the applicant was willing to work with them and give them the ability to use the ground
floor. However, that amount of square footage is not sufficient space to have a complete wellness
program. Therefore, the additional 3,500 square foot fourth floor was added to the plan. He was
grateful that it still may be possible to have the WTC available for use as early as this next
summer.
Greg Rosener/town resident stated he would like to submit an alternative condition of approval
for condition #3, to read "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." Mr. Rosener also suggested an alternative condition #4, to read "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. In addition, he proposed two conditions: Outdoor
activities of the Wellness Training Center shall be limited to the lap/training pool patio area and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
9Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
fourth floor yoga/meditation deck area." Mr. Rosener stated there was an error in the staff
report, stating the patio on the southeast corner was approved in March. The other proposed
condition was "Amplified sound in the lap/training pool patio area and on the fourth floor
yoga/meditation deck shall be prohibited."
Public comment closed.
Applicant Closing Remarks
John Cullen/applicant stated he appreciated the time and effort on this project. He did not want
to go through this process. It was not about making money or setting precedent. It is about doing
the best we can with what we have available. He stated the eight to ten million dollars that the
EPMC Foundation needed to start the construction of the Wellness Center turned out to be
substantially less, if not zero. He is trying to make good on his best efforts to provide a wellness
center, which was the town vote. Mr. Cullen stated he has been a member of this community for
21 years, and he would like to deliver on getting the wellness center built, and stated this was the
best way to do it. He stated he is basically making a four million dollar donation to make this
happen. That is the hard construction value of giving up the hotel space on the ground floor for
the wellness center. If given more time, he could go through all the alternatives with the
Commission. He could not think of any other way to come up with a viable alternative, given the
money and opportunity his team has in front of them. He believed EPMC was going to raise the
eight million dollars for the wellness center. He would not have followed through with the project
if he did not believe they would not be able to raise the funds. Since that money is not there, with
the resources they have at hand, this is the best solution. He stated he was OK if the project was
approved, or approved with the six conditions as written and modified. He was also OK with a
continuance, so he could show the Commission that they looked at every single viable alternative,
physically and financially. He also understands denial, because that means he has gone three
times to this "dance" to try and build a wellness center, and either been told "no", or "don't have
the resources". This relieves him of his best effort to make a wellness center that he really wanted
to build. He still wants to build it, and believes he can, but he has to deal with the cards he has
been given, and right now, this is the best, if not the only viable alternative to deliver an EPMC
Wellness Training Center. His original desire was to build an entirely enclosed fourth floor, but he
chose to cut it back to the benefit of Findley Court. He would be accepting to enclosing the entire
fourth floor, which is doable, at an extra cost of $750,000. He is trying to be sensitive and mitigate
to the maximum extent possible by pushing it away from residential areas. It is the only solution
he has. He asked the Commission for help and support to accept the staff report with conditions,
continuance, or denial.
Staff and commission Discussion
Chair Hull stated she distributed information to the Commissioners at the study session, which
included the following: (1) an amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the
Town of Estes Park and Larimer County, dated March 12, 2010. It states "...the purpose of
establishing the Estes Valley Planning Commission, providing for the administration of the Estes
Valley Development Code..." That is why the Commission is here. (2) EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2,
and EVDC Section 4.4, Table 405, listing a 30-foot maximum building height for every zone district
in the Estes Valley. (3) EVDC Section 3.5.B Special Review Uses, Standards for Review,"...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." Also attached was EVDC Section 13.3, #151, which is the definition of Maximum
Extent Feasible - "shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible
efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been
undertaken. Economic considerations may be taken into account but shall not be the overriding
factor in determining "maximum extent feasible." (4) Minutes of the March 17, 2015 Planning
Commission meeting in regards to the Amended Special Review 2014-01, page 7, with highlighted
portions "The applicant is now requesting approval to construct the Acommodations-2 Building
first, with the Wellness Center and Accommodations-1 Building to follow once the Estes Park
Medical Center (EPMC) obtains necessary funding." "...Accommodations-2 Building approximately
five (5) feet to the northwest. The original construction phase would be reversed." "The Stanley
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 9, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
10
Historic District Master Plan does not apply to this specific lot." Page 8, "The applicant provided
additional photo simulations today, including 'Option 2', which changes the design of the roof to
comply with the 30-foot height limit." Page 10, Attorney Lucia Liley, "She stated the building
envelope was approved during the original approval process, as was the parking lot placement.
The building has been shifted five feet to accommodate some pedestrian connections. ..."Another
potential way to design the Accommodations-2 Building to comply with the height requirement
has been submitted." Page 11 refers to the Accommodations-2 Building and the
Accommodations-1 Building. This portion of the minutes tells Chair Hull the applicant was
advocating for two separate buildings. Page 14, "Option 1 would not comply with the height
limit, while Option 2 would comply. Mr. Cullen stated Option 2 is in full compliance with the
height limits. ...He stated he was willing and prepared to withdraw Option 1 and continue with
Option 2 to please the Commission and the Town." ..."Mr. Cullen explained he had every intention
to construct first the Accommodations-1 Building adjacent to the Wellness Center, with the
Accommodations-2 Building to follow at a later date." Page 16, "It was moved and seconded
(Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Amendment to Special Review 2014-01 to the
Town Board as described in the staff report, with the findings and conditions recommended and
amended by staff, using Option 2 as the design for the Accommodations-2 building, and the
motion passed unanimously with two absent." Chair Hull pointed out that Mr. Cullen knew there
was an alternative to the height limit with this previous amendment, which was approved by the
Town Board on March 24, 2015. She considered this previous amendment to the Special Review
as the alternative. It is not in the purview of the Planning Commission to discuss economics.
Commissioner Klink stated there were no other alternatives presented today, and the only reason
for the proposed revisions presented were purely economic, which the Commission is not allowed
to use as an overriding factor. There is no physical barrier, only economic and logistic issues to
developing the site as previously approved.
Commissioner White agreed with Commissioner Klink in that there could be other alternatives. If
the project proposed today were the original plan, she would have concerns about the height and
outdoor use. The bottom line today is economic, which cannot be considered. The Job of the
Planning Commission is to ensure compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code, and with
the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Murphree stated he agreed with the other Commissioners. He has been a builder
in the Estes Valley for 30 years, and cannot totally understand why this project is where it is now.
When you start a project of this size, it seems you would have everything laid out the way it needs
to be from the beginning. He understands there are construction issues that have to be solved as
you move forward. He does not understand why the fourth story is so important, and wonders
why it was not addresses earlier. He also did not understand why it has become a huge issue with
a tight timeline requiring an expedited review and special meeting.
Commissioner Moon directed a question to Attorney White regarding whether or not this
application would set a precedent to any other structure in the Stanley Historic District, the Town
of Estes Park, or the Estes Valley. Attorney White stated Lot 4 is governed by a set of codes in the
Estes Park Municipal Code that are unique to Lot 4 due to circumstances of the development of
the Stanley Historic District and the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. Because of this a portion
of the Municipal Code applies to the height limitation and not to the Estes Valley Development
Code. Lot 4 was removed from the Stanley Historic District Master Plan process in 2009 with the
termination of the development agreement that governed it. All the rest of the Stanley Historic
District is governed by the Stanley Historic Master Plan, and the Technical Review Committee is
the process for that. Attorney White believes the 30-foot height limit encompasses the entire
Stanley Historic District; however, the review process for a project higher than 30 feet would go
to the Technical Review Committee and not the Planning Commission and the Town Board. The
30-foot height limitation is town-wide, but it is specifically with regard to this piece of property in
the Stanley Historic District Ordinance. It does not establish precedence.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
11Estes Valley Planning Commission
Decembers, 2015
Board Room, Estes Park Town Mali
There was discussion among the Commission concerning precedent. Attorney White stated
everything that comes before the Board is unique and individual and you make your decision
based on the application in front of you. It does not establish any legal precedent. It is up to the
reviewing Board or Commission to apply the applicable standards.
Commissioner Moon wondered whether it was the applicant's economic issue, or if it became an
issue because of EPMC's inability to deliver. Attorney White stated there was a provision in the
contract for the sale of Lot 4 that had a deadline for a wellness center building permit of April,
2016. Currently, $650,000 is owed on Lot 4. If a building permit is issued by April, 2016, that
amount drops to $325,000.
Commissioner Moon stated the applicant's issue is economic because the EPMC failed to raise the
needed funds. He questioned whether adequate alternatives had been explored that the
Commission was not aware of. Other Commissioner comments included but were not limited to:
the applicant has an approved plan he can move forward with; if there were alternatives for a
ground floor expansion, is that alternative as viable as a fourth floor?; Commissioners were
reminded of the definition of Maximum Extent Feasible; there could be ground floor alternatives
the Commission has not seen, which could mean a motion to continue rather than a
recommendation being issued tonight; it was the applicant's responsibility to provide
alternatives, knowing the fourth floor would be very controversial; it may be better from the
Commission's perspective to look at a ground floor alternative to the fourth floor for a lesser
impact on the neighborhood; that may be grounds to ask for a continuance.
Ms. Baker clarified the applicant mentioned the ground floor patio on the southeast corner was
approved with the previous plans in March, 2015. She looked at those approved plans, where that
area was shown as being paved, but not specifically called out as a patio, so that would technically
be a change in the plan. Also, the applicant stated they were not changing the architecture. Ms.
Baker stated the architecture did, in fact, change as part of this plan, and RBB Architects provided
comments on the changes as part of the Architectural Review Committee. Changes included the
placement and design of the windows and a few other things to make it contextual. Planner
McCool stated she was concerned about requesting a continuance due to the time constraints for
the Town Board hearing scheduled for December 15th. She did not think there would be enough
time to conduct a thorough review and issue a new staff report, unless the Town Board meeting
was continued as well. There would need to be discussion with the applicant before the meeting
could be continued.
It was moved and seconded (Klink/White) to recommend denial of Special Review 2014-01C on
the grounds that the application does not substantiaiiy meet the criteria above and as
described in the staff report and the motion passed 4-1 with Commissioners Kiink, White, Huil,
and Murphree voting in favor of the deniai and Commissioner Moon voting against the deniai.
Commissioner Kiink stated economics could not be considered for Special Review as shown in the
staff report. Commissioner White agreed the criteria required for the review process was not met.
There being no further business. Chair Huli adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m.
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary