Planning commission backs Erickson continuing-care campus; 3-2 recommendations sent to council

The Westminster Planning Commission on Aug. 12 voted 3-2 to recommend City Council approve comprehensive-plan amendments, rezoning and a preliminary development plan that would allow Erickson Senior Living to build a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) on about 75.5 acres of the Hahn Hewitt property east of Westminster Boulevard.

The recommendation came after a public hearing that included a staff presentation, a developer proposal and more than three dozen public commenters for and against the project. Acting Chair Commissioner Richard M. "Mayer" Mayo called the question after deliberations and the commission recorded the three recommendations as separate votes; each passed, three in favor and two opposed.

Staff senior planner Nathan Lawrence told commissioners the site is currently designated Employment Flex in the 2040 comprehensive plan and that the applicant seeks to redesignate most of the parcel to Urban Multifamily to accommodate a CCRC. "The proposed CCRC at completion would increase the number of independent senior units in the city by more than a 140%," Lawrence said, and staff’s analysis also showed tradeoffs including the loss of a large employment site and an increase in water demand compared with the current Employment Flex designation.

Why it matters: the project would add a large, single-owner senior campus with independent living plus assisted-living, memory care and skilled nursing on one site and is projected by Erickson and staff to bring hundreds of jobs, tens of millions in fees and public-land dedication to Westminster while also producing measurable new demands on city services.

What commissioners and staff said Staff presented analysis under Westminster Municipal Code review criteria (Section 11-5-21 for comprehensive-plan amendments and Section 11-5-14 for rezonings and preliminary development plans). The staff memo concluded the applications meet the code criteria and recommended a favorable recommendation to City Council.

Marcus Pockner, a land-use and community-outreach consultant for Erickson, described the proposal as "a transformational opportunity for Westminster" and said the company had incorporated 20 months of outreach into the current design. Mary Anne Navarro, Erickson’s director of entitlements, described the CCRC model and noted that in Colorado CCRCs are governed under the Life Care Institutions Act and regulated by the Colorado Division of Financial Services.

Erickson and its consultants said the campus would provide an on-site medical center and pharmacy, transportation shuttles, workforce development partnerships with Front Range Community College and Westminster Public Schools, and an estimated 700 permanent jobs at full build-out and roughly 1,500 construction jobs. Jared of Norris Design outlined a campus concept that includes a 130-foot building setback on the east property line, a 400-foot height-sensitivity zone limiting buildings to four stories adjacent to the Waverly Acres neighborhood, and a maximum building height of 65 feet elsewhere on the site.

Public testimony and concerns Speakers were split. Local economic-development organizations and Westminster Public Schools left recorded statements supporting the project for workforce and economic benefits; the Adams County Regional Economic Partnership and the Westminster Chamber of Commerce both voiced support in voicemails and in-person remarks. Several nearby residents and other commenters opposed the application, citing concerns about affordability, view-shed loss, increased water demand and the effect on emergency services and neighborhood character. "I back up directly to this proposed development," said Waverly Acres resident Natalie Bridal. "We need affordable senior housing — not this type of market-rate project." Another neighbor noted the development would materially change views of the Front Range.

Technical and fiscal points in evidence - Water: staff and the applicant provided different framings. Erickson’s consultant reported reductions versus older plan assumptions and estimated a 271 acre-feet savings compared with the 2013 comp-plan baseline; staff said changing roughly 65–75 acres from Employment Flex to Urban Multifamily could increase water demand in absolute terms (staff estimated an increase ranging roughly 78 to 240 acre-feet depending on final design) and described that comparison as a 117%–370% increase relative to the Employment Flex modeling used for the site (the larger percentage assumes maximum allowed Urban Multifamily density). Assistant City Engineer Heath Klein told commissioners the city has the water supply to serve the project as proposed but that higher-density scenarios would require different calculations and permits.

- Public safety and services: staff estimated the campus could generate about 800–900 additional calls per year for fire services compared with a comparable Employment Flex scenario; staff and the city’s fire marshal, Jim Gagliano, noted the site lies in a service gap with longer response times today and said the project’s required roadway ("Creekside Drive") would improve access for emergency responders.

- Public land and fees: Erickson and its consultants said the proposal would provide physical public land dedication (PLD) and cash in lieu; presentation slides cited more than $15 million in PLD/cash-in-lieu and roughly $58 million in total impact and development fees, and the developer said it would construct Creekside Drive and related public improvements. Staff noted Employment Flex zoning would not require PLD and that the proposed change therefore delivers new public land and fee revenue but also reduces potential general-fund revenue compared with a hypothetical large office build-out (staff summarized the office/flex scenario could produce roughly 30% more general-fund revenue than the Erickson scenario).

Formal actions and votes The commission recorded three formal recommendations to send to City Council: separate motions to recommend approval of (1) the three comprehensive-plan amendments; (2) the rezoning to PUD; and (3) the preliminary development plan. Each motion passed on a 3-2 roll call. The recorded roll call for the votes was: Commissioner Pegg — yes; Commissioner Kinnear — no; Commissioner Zhang (Zong on the roll) — yes; Commissioner Mayo (acting chair) — yes; Commissioner Dunne — no. (Two commissioners were absent/excused.)

What happens next The Planning Commission’s favorable recommendations are advisory; City Council must consider the same applications and any separate requests the developer makes for fee waivers or tax rebates (those would require council approval). If council approves the comp-plan amendments and rezoning, future, more detailed Official Development Plan (ODP) reviews and building permits would follow; staff and Erickson said the project will come back to the city for ODP-level design review and that some infrastructure (Creekside Drive, a traffic signal) would be built by the developer.

Context and community implications Erickson’s presentation emphasized a regional demand for senior housing and workforce benefits tied to local training programs. Opponents focused on affordability, local impacts on views and water, and neighborhood access. Staff’s analysis balanced those tradeoffs and recommended approval under the city’s code criteria; commissioners split 3-2 on that judgment and forwarded recommendations to City Council.

The City Council will receive the staff report, the Planning Commission recommendation and the public record for further deliberation; any decision to alter fees or grant rebates would be a separate council action and is not authorized by the commission’s recommendation.