Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/06/2010 - RESOLUTION 2010-037 APPROVING THE DESIGN, PROJECT
DATE: July 6, 2010 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY0 STAFF: Ron Kechter, Ken Mannon, Cheryl Donaldson, Marty Heffernan FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Resolution 2010-037 Approving the Design, Project Schedule, and Amount of Tax Revenue to Be Set Aside for the Construction, Operation and Maintenance of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Discovery Museum Team is requesting approval of the design for the new Discovery Museum, based upon a presentation that provides the current drawings of the site, landscaping, floor plan, axonometric views, elevations, street view, exterior finishes and fencing. The team requests approval of the scheduling, which anticipates construction starting in July 2010 and completion in December 2011. Additionally, the team is requesting approval of the amount of BOB funding for this project. BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION The Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Operating Agreement states, in paragraph 2.4(f), "Construction activities cannot begin until the design of the Facility is formally approved by the City Council and the Board of the Museum/Discovery Science Center Non-Profit Corporation (NPC)". The design is presented in the accompanying Power Point Presentation (Attachment 1). The NPC Board has been briefed on this design and plans to approve it, once it receives the same information as is being presented to the City Council. The City Council was briefed previously on this project design at a work session on March 9, 2010. Additionally, the Ordinance approving BOB requires that the City Council approve the design, scheduling and funding for this project. FINANCIAL/ ECONOMIC IMPACTS In November, 2005, the voters approved Ordinance No. 092, 2005, Building on Basics (BOB), to provide $6 million in tax revenue to fund construction of a new museum/science center facility and provide for$200,000 per year for at least seven years for operations and maintenance. BOB made construction of the Institution expressly contingent upon the NPC funding no less than $3,600,000 of the cost of constructing the new facility; of which, $2,500,000 will go towards design and construction of the new facility and the remaining $1,100,000 be used for the creation or acquisition of science and technology exhibits at the Facility. The NPC has raised the required$3,600,000 and much more. The Agreement further required that the Facility be constructed on a suitable property already owned by the City that is acceptable to both the City and the NPC; this property is the designated site at the east end of Martinez Park. The project is currently valued at $25,196,034, per the attached Budget Summary (Attachment 2). The additional funding will be coming from grants and public and private donations that have been and continue to be requested by the City and NPC Partnership. To date,the Partnership has raised a total of$20,930,000, including the value of the land. The project can be built, even if additional fund-raising does not meet the goal, since the construction of the facility has been fully funded as well as the core exhibits. The additional funds will be used for the procurement of the balance of the exhibits in the Master Plan and the Digital Dome. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This project will have minimal impact upon the environment. The project has the goal of attaining the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED)Gold Certification. Based upon the current design, the project is very close to achieving LEED Platinum, per the attached LEED Project Checklist(Attachment 3). This process will allow the project to have little impact on the quantity and quality of the water produced,consumed and disposed of in the City. It will also minimize energy and fuel consumption, greenhouse gases and air emissions. The LEED process gives preference to sustainable materials and renewable resources. This project will enhance the July 6 2010 -2- ITEM 28 City's internal sustainability goals. Additionally, since the Discovery Museum has a primary focus on sustainability education, the facility and the exhibits will be used to tell this story. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board approved the design at its meetings on April 15 and April 29, 2010. (Attachment 4). PUBLIC OUTREACH As part of the Development Review Process, a Neighborhood Meeting was held on February 9, 2010. Overall, the comments concerning this project were very positive. Most of the issues were regarding already existing problems. (see Attachment 5). ATTACHMENTS 1. Power Point Presentation of the Design of the Discovery Museum 2. Budget Summary for the Discovery Museum 3. LEED V3 Project Checklist for the Discovery Museum 4. Summary from the Planning &Zoning Board Meetings on the Discovery Museum 5. Notes from the Neighborhood Meeting for the Discovery Museum 6. March 9, 2010, Work Session summary ATTACHMENT 1 S ti � 1 Jr lot G T~ I r. c. 1 ti �.11rdmaAi a b • �. y� ; �-^ f AA L ~• t let ?- � . It . �' 4 1 i 40 Ems• f • ` f � , � 'S c •ed Alm • 14. r • `•. Fill , aw • t . � d Legend cMalsK uo•Is E ' I A=COM r, �,«, i. . . URBAN DESIGN • � • • • ' 1 • • • . • • , -" • • • I . 11 11 I " • I I I � Site Constraints ILDOIl6NAliMIN iFolcrSawwolerAunr - PTA MUEUiI PROPERTY UME, �\ mernwwre 11, \ V � , I I _ 1 1 or CIIYOF " •,'�..,�I, �— '"""" j \ �l\• li /- FORrCgLtigni"I ect- - � _ � �--- \ 'e'+., \ •\ I I ..�mo,�omexnWmema. I I r 9� ; , :1 •w¢nw•.rvr anwrweNle.m � "' \ +�. r • ��' 1 . . . . . . PRaPMmFDRrcawns R$ � / '�® a•. , i ;� ; R a DISCOVERYMUSEUM r _ , II r _ 1 1 I i ) I g � I •,/ 41,ry i" `"Pllp+cllp, �"y�q.,, „•. •J ro/ - - - -'—Ja I T Poi IIIiIN Ilfl I � MMOMCWRP FORE COWNS DISCOVERY MUSEUM LINE 11NE j, I/ � - - - COY OF FORE GOLLNSZUI•EO PUBLIC LANDS ^ • LEE MAITMEZPARC .��•+fie••+�yQ2 \ ARC"m. .RE Hensel Phelps FORT N COLLINS DISCOVERY • OGRESS . , : • , , J, UII!NI DESIGN • ' • • ' • 1 • • • LI• IWEIUO! DESIGN • • • : , • , , , , , • • • - , , , . , 2 iif I . Site [ an- 1 0 (LIMIT OF 1 1 - ( - _.__ . -__ • 1 _DEVELOPMENT 1 � I 1I3i I .. PROPOSED FORT o COLLINS DISCOVERY i MUSEUM EXISTING BIKE TRAIL {�\� r^{ to y � � I RIPARIAN FOREST O - -- � ---_ RIPARIAN FOREST r wt• 4_ a-_uG •� - \ WETLAND � `w ge WETLAND v - _ WETLAMD HOWES - - - - a STREET OUIFALL MASON COURT AMM r� April 13, 2010 ARCMRECTURE Hensel • RT COLLINS DISCOVERY • N . : • „ URBAN DESIGN Phelps COLLINS, A • F F A . LJe INTERIOR DESIGN F PROGRESS - • ' 3 Floor Plan q r.. T r.r O 8 $ 7 1 ITT L f o I I — r - - - - - - - © - - — e - t —mom o.e, 111MIY. I I i � „ I- .o I I I I I m J I I _ I 1 —J= I � I Department Legend — L — ❑ ADMINISTRATION u PROGRAM SPACE ' ❑ BUILDING SUPPORT ❑ REFERENCE / ARCHNE Itil CIRCULATION RETAIL SPACE I ❑ EXHIBIT SUPPORT ❑ STAIRS 3 ELEVATOR FUTURE EXHIBIT I I I F I GALLERY - O H ❑ MAIN EXHIBIT GALLERY - ❑ MAIN LOBBY J� URBAN DESIGN PhelpsHensel FORT COLLINS, COLORADO LJe 3,4419.8900 PROGRESS REVIEW FAX 303.�Agft INTERIOR DESIGN Construction 809001 .00 PROGRESS - • ' 4 Southeast Axonometric --- --- - - -_-_ �:— -_-_ '•\ _ _ _ _ _ _- �Nr•r' '�� ..ice-- --.r -_ 7 - 't -`w i 16 JIL ..1 1 _ WW ARCNRECTURE • COLLINSRT DISCOVERY • [ : • [ [ JW URBAN DESIGN - nsel Phelps • • • • • PROGRESS [ TE LJe INRNM • • Co . : [ • [ [ • • • - [ � [ 5 Northwest Axonometric o ye _ - ARCHRECTURE PHONE: 303,"9.8900 W7 JM URBAN DESIGN Hensel Phelps FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY FORT • • ' • 1 • • • , GRESS REVIEW FAX LJe INTERIOR DESIGN • • Co . 809001 .00 • PROGRESS - • 1 • • C ' 6 View From and • • p lip rl r r • S ff Al -••���w _ , =sari11111M WP ARCH URE UFL Hensel Phelps FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM FORTCOLLINS, COLORADO F" °" , " ` . .: . const � u � t ; on co . PROGRESS REVIEW � o��„ ��, 809001 .00 • CD PROGRESS • June 10, 2010 South Etevation m will Hensel Phelps FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM FORTCOLLINS, COLORADO UFL`AN. .: . const � u � t ; on co . PROGRESS REVIEW 809001 .00 • CD PROGRESS • June 10, 2010 • Elevation AL 0. qfJ37 : _ :2 _ _ 11mm Hensel Phelps FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM FORTCOLLINS, COLORADO F" °" , " UFL` . .: . const � u � t ; on co . PROGRESS REVIEW � o��„ ��, 809001 .00 • CD PROGRESS • June 10, 2010 West Elevation 44"- z !I AR HffE T PHONE: u"' Hensel J� � Sir] URBAN DESIGN Phelps B B E B e Lle INTERIOR DESIGN Construction • • • - • ' C ' 10 }w /, Pam: "���"� s ,+� •'t � � , :` ' J II � I � , , _,., LL dg 74 Hensel Phel s FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM FORT COLLINS, COLOR:,[: F,>x. 30 PHONE:3.U3.119.e90D � P PROGRESS REVIEW �3.a9.3M . „ Construction CO . 809001 .00 • CD PROGRESS • June 10, 2010 W W.OZARCN.COM 8 ? r 1 ------------ i fey }/♦ AV 41 AA Alf 146 pr r l 5 4 4 r Ns ,♦ 1 � �l �' Jai{♦�, i,.,. , • .4� .•il 1 1 / .ff/. 4 1 ry '1t1T , { tJR vtto ,` '. N l � . r � T � ' . ' !' l �rS�Ciq► nj 4' s •Mr ' 4 ;( it 1, ' I { yj . t t , 5..�, 1. 0 ti py} F• r� , 4J4 !' f d y3 :. y�t `,';�4, i ,7It 1:; i .,f y L -'y!' + 17 „rAj� t l�..r . r� L ''I.p•' ♦! . ! ll ! . t , '• r , +OFF y t ` t* a1 j' ; �{IF J �e�r ~ 4 v ,t r F �, �. S y� }:,F ' Vol 1, .� -•• 1 t, , rYil� / rl_`y ik 611 ry r ft ' . Idf - r•� . oliVit l : ' Y .�1' Y! /�IV1• IA ( t• ' . � ti l � A. rA 1 •w �i f ! )�d . �? iVl �{{' ,}+ ' • e •% I J ya 0 , '. t kIR' 7t l \ - ,� 1f1 ` r . ' Y.q/ i ...r IF It opp • . , ' 0 y rt .r� ' I f It A ,Qf1 _ .r� c, ♦�4. � j1 '} ♦ rC. 1 •� ♦i' t' {I j y (• .. � . . _ ,_ �¢ ~ to. Jilt 11 C ♦ M t � •V fa too •PI l 1 =d 9 . ♦ r r . 1 ",' ' � . •,, It L — 4 ''�i■ ,emu lee .., limo 'All JI 1tiii . C �` — do It �f Hensel Phe i s FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM FORT COLLINS, COLORA! PHONE: 303.419.89M t . P PROGRESS REVIEW 61%: 303.449.39% . 11 t . • , Construction CO . 809001 .00 4 CD PROGRESS • June 10, 2010 WWw.OURCn.CON 0 ' 111 } , ' ,I• 1 M1 yy a I q Jtl . � ��• li L ht�' J eA rA Hensel Phelps FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM FORT coLUNs, COLORADG PHONE: 301i/9.8900 INTMMOEM Construction CO . g09001 .00 ' CD PROGRESS June 10, 2070 Pcum ROGRESS REVIEW Slide • v� I i • J�11 r • r , I i �� ., �' r ) • � a, til. .'# . '�, � � � y Y. 4 � . ..' HOW' SHOYfING INTHE ' .�,/. (• ���rrr , • +gyp '� ��,,((rr � M q . �l� � . DIGITAL DOME r �_�Jj + • � , . +�i • 1 �! ! �( Y. r ilk ali i ,},� t Its t �•.'(,if- it � / ws i � � 'f a � � : . _ 'VIQ '.��1 I '�; ,�..�t . _ '1 • � � alp �s>R a � � Y I ,;$ •M E � PP dim Hensel Phelps FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PHONE 303 M9.890 o ° ' PROGRESS REVIEW EAX: 703.N9.7BB6 INTERM 05MCOnStfUCtlOn CO . g09001 .00 • CD PROGRESS • June 10, 2070 vnvw.GURcn.coM Slide i r r rM' � ri. .,.r r • • r ' e rr q _ Hensel Phelp �s FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM FORTCOLLINS, COLOR, . PHONE: 303.u9.e9M PROGRESS REVIEW FAX: 303.449.3666 �, . 1 _ Construction Co . 809001 .00 ' CD PROGRESS • June 10, 2010 WWWO7ARCH,COM 44 LL �. I dw I�I �IIII III II �� Iy. li , `y/� i ` � � � .'`� ' 1 J + r �. , - #y •,; r V oftz PROFOSWFORT COLLASOSCOYM illij � � ;gTYy 4 , . • r i I ' � I + . ' �` �� �„ :� t r'• • 1 . .l i j I1 � 1 O oi ji Hensel PIri s FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM foRT LOLLINS, cocor�c.. PHONE: 303 K9.8900 P PROGRESS REVIEW FA%: JO3. 1i9.3886 COf1sIfUCt1011 CO . g09001 .00 CD PROGRESS June 10, 2010 ^ � � ��„ «" Slide ' • ATTACHMENT 2 5/14/10 Museum/Discovery Center Budget Development & Permit Fees $335,000.00 Property Value $1731 ,517.00 Real Estate Services $1711170.00 Consulting Services $1417000.00 Design Services $11265,833.00 Project Management $150,000.00 Environmental Cleanup $2001000.00 Site improvement/Construction $107497,932.00 Equipment $793,000.00 Contingency $111027350.00 Facility Total $16,387,802.00 43,076 SF Exhibit Design & Fabrication $77308,232.00 Digital Dome $1 ,5007000.00 Project Total $25J 96,034.00 ATTACHMENT 3 LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovation Project Checklist Fort Collins Discover Science Museum I1-Mar-09 23 7 o Sustainable Sites Possible Points: 26 Y N 1 y rrx.91 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention 1 Cr.au Site Selection 1 5 own 2 Development Density and Community Connectivity 5 1 o.at 1 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 6 Cr.at4.1 Alternative Transportation—Public Transportation Access 6 1 r enu.2 Alternative Transportation—Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms I 7 o.at4.3 Alternative Transportation—Law-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 3 2 o.aeN.. Alternative Transportation—Parking Capacity 2 1 ooet 5.1 Site Development—Protect or Restore Habitat 1 1 o.at 5.2 Site DevelopmentM aximize Open Space 1 1 voat a.i Storrnwater Design—Quantity Control 1 1 GMt 6.2 Stormwater Design—Quality Control 1 1 Croat 7.1 Neat Island Effect—Non-roof 1 1 Croat 7.2 Heat Island Effect—Roof 1 1 Croat a Light Pollution Reduction 1 + 7 7 Water Efficiency Possible Points: 10 Pr,1 Water Use Reduction-20%Reduction 2 2 o.at 1 Water Efficient Landscaping 2 to 4 fe2 Reduce by 50% 2 p No Potable Water the or Irrigation 4 Cr. t2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2 2 1 1 oeat 3 Water the Reduction 2 to 4 Reduce by 30% 2 Reduce by 35% 3 Reduce by 40% 4 z6 I s Energy and Atmosphere Possible Points: 35 V nx.a i Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems y Prx.92 Minimum Energy Performance y Prx.93 Fwdamental Refrigerant Management 19 0 0 ooat 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 19 Improve by 12%for New Buildings or 8%for Existing Building Renovations 1 Improve by 14%for New Buildings or 10%for Existing Building Renovations 2 Improve by 16%for New Buildings or 12%for Existing Building Renovations 3 Improve by 18%for New Buildings or 14%for Existing Building Renovations 4 Improve by 20%for New Buildings or 16%for Existing Building Renovations 5 Improve by 22%for New Buildings or 18%for Existing Building Renovations 6 Improve by 24%for New Buildings or 20%for Existing Building Renovations 7 Improve by 26%for New Buildings or 22%for Existing Building Renovations 8 Improve by 29%for New Buildings or 24%for Existing Building Renovations 9 Improve by 30%for New Buildings or 26%for Existing Building Renovations 10 Improve by 32%for New Buildings or 28%for Existing Building Renovations 11 Improve by 34%for New Buildings or 30%for Existing Building Renovations 12 Improve by 36%for New Buildings or 32%for Existing Building Renovations 13 Improve by 38%for New Buildings or 34%for Existing Building Renovations 14 Improve by 40%for New Buildings or 36%for Existing Building Renovations 15 Improve by 42%for New Buildings or 38%for Existing Building Renovations 16 nImprove by 44%for New Buildings or 40%for Existing Building Renovations 17 Improve by 46%for New Buildings or 42%for Existing Building Renovations 18 1p Improve by 48%,for New Buildings or M%.for Existing Building Renovations 19 7 Coat 2 On-Site Renewable Energy 1 to 7 1%Renewable Energy 1 3%Renewable Energy 2 5%Renewable Energy 3 7%Renewable Energy 4 9%Renewable Energy 5 11%Renewable Energy 6 fp 13%Renewable Energy 7 2 o.at3 Enhanced Commissioning 2 2 o.at. Enhanced Refrigerant Management 2 7 o.at 5 Measurement and Verification 3 2 o.at6 Green Power 2 s 9 z Materials and Resources Possible Points: 14 y n w. I Storage and Colte jon of Recyclaoles 3 v.at i Building Reuse—Maintain Existing Walls,Floors,and Roof 1 to 3 Reuse 55% 1 Reuse 5% 2 9 Reuse 5% 3 3 oast 1.2 Building Reuse—Maintain 50%of Interior Non-Structural Elements 1 2 4ea.t Construction Waste Management 1 to 2 B50%Recycled or Salvaged 1 75%Recycled or Salvaged 2 2o.ar I Materials Reuse 1 to 2 BReuse 5% 1 Reuse ID% 2 1 1 Cr wu 6 Recycled Content 1 to 2 ef0%of Content 1 - 20%of Content 2 1 1 cn at 5 Regional Materials 1 to 2 B10%of Materials 1 20%of Materials 2 1 o.at6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 1 C tits Certified Wood 1 Ili z 3 Indoor Environmental Quality - Possible Points: 15 y ne.a 1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance y n..w 1 Environmental Tobacco Smoke(ETS)Control I cr t I Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 1 v.atl Increased Ventilation 1 1 o.at I.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan—During Construction 1 1 o.at 1.3 Construction IAQManagement Plan—Before Occupancy 1 1 oxid4A Low-Emitting Materials—Adhesives and Sealants 1 1 v.at 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials—Paints and Coatings 1 1 o.au.1 Low-Emitting Materials—Flooring Systems 1 I o.mt e.e Low-Emitting Materials—Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products 1 1 Deal s Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control 1 1 o.ate.1 Controllability of Systems—Lighting 1 1 o.au.t Controllability of Systems—Thermal Comfort 1 1 o.at zl Thermal Comfort—Design 1 1 n.at).l Thermal Comfort—Verification 1 11 o.ate.1 Daylight and Views—Daylight 1 1 �t az Daylight and Views—Views 1 s o 1 Innovation and Design Process Possible Points: 6 uo.x Innovation in Design:Sustainability education 1 o.a1 1.l Innovation in Design:MR7 exceedance-certified wood 1 . 0 u 1.1 Innovation in Design:Green cleaning R purchasing plan 1 a.at 1.6 Innovation in Design:EACI exceedance(50%) 1 a.at cs Innovation in Design:555.2 exceedance open space 1 I LEED Accredited Professional 1 3 0 1 Regional Priority Credits Possible Points: 4 1 o.at 1.1 Regional Priority:SS CZ-development density 1 1 a.mt 1.2 Regional Priority:55 cb.I-stormwater Quantity management 1 1 oast 1.1 Regional Priority:EA C1 optimize energy performance 1 1 Dear 1.6 Regional Priority:WE 1 non potable irrigation water 1 76 z1 15 Total Possible Points: 110 c.mn.a.om.o Po„u sn..aom ss pa.e cow eou vs Pu�nu P�.n��m eom uo ATTACHMENT CtyO¢ Planning,Development and i Transportation Services ®rFt ®���� Current Planning 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 970.221.6750 970.224.6134-fax fcgov.com/Currentp/anning MEMORANDUM Date: May 12, 2010 To: City Council Members Darin Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager From: City Staff Re: Fort Collins Discovery Museum, Project Development Plan -#6-10, Summary of April 15, 2010 and April 29, 2010 Planning & Zoning Board public hearings Staff Summary At the meeting on April 15`h, there was extensive discussion and deliberation on the development proposal. The Planning &Zoning Board had concerns as to the architecture and how it, in fact, satisfied the criteria and standards'set forth in Section 3.5.3(D) of the City's Land Use Code (LUC). Secondly, there were concerns related to the amount of parking provided. The Board adjourned the public hearing, without making a decision, to a date specific of April 29, 2010. For the adjourned meeting on April 29th, the Planning & Zoning Board directed staff to address the building architecture (their biggest concern being the east elevation of the building as it relates to North College Avenue) and to re-evaluate the parking on-site. Revisions to the building design were submitted. A staff memorandum to the Board essentially breaks down Section 3.5.3(D) of the LUC, Character and Image of a Building, subsection by subsection, showing why staff recommended approval of the redesigned building as it satisfies Section 3.5.3(D) of the LUC. The applicant returned, upon further evaluation, with 86 parking spaces and the ability to provide additional overflow parking for larger events. At the adjourned meeting on April 29, the Planning & Zoning Board asked the applicant to consider modifications of standards to Subsections 3.5.3(D)(1), 3.5.3(D)(2), 3.5.3(D)(3), and 3.5.3(D)(6) of Section 3.5.3(D). The applicant declined consideration of a modification of standard to Subsection 3.5.3(D)(1), stating one was not necessary, and made requests for modifications of standards to the Fagade Treatment, Facades, and Base & Top Treatment subsections. By meetings' end, motions were made (see below), votes taken, . and the Board's comments relative to the overall project were made. Section 3.5.3(D)(2) Member Smith moved to approve modification of the standard regarding Subsection 3.5.3(D)(2), Fagade Treatment for the following reasons: That the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the general 1 purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested is visual interest and the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested. And, the reason that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies is because of additional reveals and trellised on the east wall, additional spacing and additional reveals on the west elevation. A condition is that staff works with the applicant to enhance.the articulation on the north and west elevations as well. Member Campana second the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Section 3.5.3(D)(3) Member Smith moved to approve a modification of standard regarding Subsection 3.5.3(D)(3), Facades for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested is primarily regarding a 50% standard for having entrances and windows on elevation. That proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested. The reason that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies is because of those mitigating factors previously discussed in the other modification and the programming issues that are inherent with this project. And conditioned that the west and north elevations have enhanced articulation similar to the improvements made to the east and south. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Section 3.5.3(D)(6) Member Smith made a motion to approve a modification of standard regarding Subsection 3.5.3(D)(6), Base &Top Treatments for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested is primarily regarding a 50% standard for having entrances and windows on elevation. That proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested. The reason that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies is because of those mitigating factors previously discussed in the other modification and the programming issues that are inherent with this project. And conditioned that the west and north elevations have enhanced articulation similar to the improvements made to the east and south. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:1 with Schmidt dissenting. Build to Lines for Street Front Buildings Member Smith moved to approve a modification of a standard regarding Subsection 3.5.3(B)(2), Orientation to Build To Lines for Street Front Building for the following reasons: The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the criteria in Section 2.8.2(H)(3) of the Land Use Code relating to hardship. The buffers and water quality pond are exceptional, extraordinary situations unique to the property such that strict application of the orientation to build to line standards contained in Section 3.5.3(B)(2) would result in unusual and impractical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the applicant because the strict application of the built to line section would make a parking lot infeasible. Member Campana seconded. The motion was approved 6:0 2 Project Development Plan Member Lingle moved to approve the Fort Collins Discovery Museum, Project Development Plan -#6-10 with the staff condition related to the property boundary contained in the staff memorandum dated April 5, 2010 and based upon the facts and findings and conclusions starting on page 15 of the staff report. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:1 with Schmidt dissenting. Board Comments Member Campana said: "I'm going to support it tonight, approval of the project, because I think it's a great project. The community will benefit greatly from it. I still have concerns over parking. Hopefully I expressed that enough tonight and you'll take it into consideration and do what you can to mitigate issues there and with the surrounding neighbors. But, I think overall it's a good plan with the modifications. Far more happened tonight than just the approval of the project. I've never seen so many modifications on standards, architecturally. But, I think it was a good healthy discussion." Member Schmidt said: "I guess this has been a really hard decision for me. I came down finally with the fact that I don't think I can support the motion, but I want to give you the following reasons: I do believe that it's a good project. I think it will be beneficial to the area to have the,museum there. Possibly, we're trying a little bit to put a square peg in a round hole and that's why, especially with the budget considerations. I guess my main worry is, when we were talking about this is at the edge of old town. I think there are buildings that are going to build out and redevelop towards that edge. To have this design sort of set a precedent, and that's why I was concerned that we deal with modifications, I worry that things building now into the old town are going to look more like this structure versus the other way around. I don't know if that's how we want our old town to progress. Not necessarily just from contemporary designs, but I think from again some of the building materials that were used and that sort of thing. There has not been this amount of metal used on any old town buildings. I was on the Planning and Zoning Board when the other buildings went in and there were zoning members at that time that were very concerned that that County building had metal on it even though it was on the 5th floor. So, I guess I need to say for the record so that there is some divergence of opinion, and I think by all the modifications expressed tonight, you must know that other people had concerns with the designs and how they meet the standards. I think that's something that we're going to look at as the new City Plan comes forth on how we can modify some of our standards to be more accepting of this and not lose the quality that we've had in our building in Fort Collins." Member Smith said: "This has been a great exercise and challenged us a lot in a lot of ways. I am going to support the motion. I commend the applicant and their team in choosing to do a pretty tough infill project using a destination type of a facility in downtown. I think it does further solidify downtown as kind of the heart of this community. And, it's probably a lot easier to go out and put it out in the middle of nowhere and not have to deal with some of these issues. I don't want to editorialize too much, but I think we are going to see more and more of these as our downtown becomes more vibrant and successful when we have more projects coming in. Though we might have some questions about the architecture, I'm glad to see something that's bold and that challenges us a little bit and makes us think a little bit. I think that's good for our community to be able to respond to the built environment, especially around that area of town where you have so much history and so much natural area. Maybe it will challenge the way that some of those projects just to the south have actually come to fruition. I think it is going to be extremely successful, maybe even to a fault. I think I've heard tonight that the applicant is willing, ready and able to address some of those issues in the future. I think with this community you probably will 3 \ have to throw in a couple of extra bike racks fairly soon. I don't think that's too tough to do. That would be a very good problem. I look forward personally to coming down there with my kids and spending some time. I appreciate all your patience and willingness to work with us on this project." Member Lingle said: "I thought we were going to have more debate about the parking. Cause, I frankly, agree with your sentiment. I'm concerned about under parking the site. But, on the other hand, I guess the thing I was struggling with was if we insisted on additional parking and it had to occur on the site, the only place it was going to go was in the building footprint. Therefore, maybe it would adversely impact the building program to the point where we'd have enough parking but people wouldn't want to come here because it's not going to function properly. I was going to argue maybe we're okay on the parking. I'm concerned about it. As the design progresses, if there's a way to tweak even 3, 5, 7 parking spaces in the site design, I think that would be good. On the architectural side, I'm glad that we were able to come to some consensus on some enhancements, because frankly, I've been concerned since I first saw the architectural concepts. We've talked about this a little bit, that maybe the building program, the desire for more building square footage was impacting negatively the quality of the architecture. I didn't want to see that happen. I would.really encourage you not to skimp on the quality from the exterior. I think it's important to. To me, it hasn't really been expressed, but I've always seen this project as a real regional draw for the area. It really could be the most significant building we're going to build in Fort Collins in the next 15 years. For that reason, let's not cut corners. Let's make sure it's a quality project that meets all of our needs. I know that you are out there fund raising as hard as you can, and I'd encourage you to continue that because it's just that important. So, I think that the comments that we made and the conditions that we applied to the modification of the standards, I'm confident will help that effort. But, I just encourage your entire team to continue to enhance the exterior. I was going to struggle with trying to make it more natural or more fitting in. I think it wants to stand out a little bit. I think, with a very natural backdrop, I think the architectural forms and even the materials can be quite striking. Even if it was shiny metal, I think I would be okay with that. To reflect, the tree and that kind of things; I really hope it's successful. I want it to be a landmark for downtown, and I think it's going to be great. Congratulations." Member Hatfield said: "I think they've said it all pretty well. I agree with them, and I want to thank the staff for their indulgence and patience. I guess we kind of fine tuned things. I think it's a good project. My only comment is, I would like to see 2 or 3 stories of museum because I like museums." Member Schmidt said: "That was my only comment. That's why I felt it didn't meet the site requirements because it's a contrast. It doesn't fit in. So, I mean you can do it either way you want and if they would have argued that way, then I could have felt a little more like it, that what they wanted to do was sort of stand out because it doesn't blend in at this point in time with the nature aspect. It does in certain sections of it, but not as a whole. I think I agree with Dave's point on the quality aspect. That's the main key, whatever that site design really looks like." Chair Stockover said: "Okay..Well put, well said. 1'd like to say to everybody'on the board. We're a very diverse board, care very deeply. It's pretty unprecedented to do a special meeting for something like this, and I hope you appreciate just how much talent these people on either side of me and how much passion to the City of Fort Collins they bring. I'm really proud of you guys and staff as well." 4 Exhibit -- Section 3.5.3(D) of the Land Use Code D) Character and Image. In new buildings and, to the extent reasonably feasible, in development projects involving changes to existing building walls, facades or awnings (as applicable), the following standards shall apply: (1) Site Specific Design. Building design shall contribute to the uniqueness of a zone district, and/or the Fort Collins community with predominant materials, elements, features, color range and activity areas tailored specifically to the site and its context. In the case of a multiple building development, each individual building shall include predominant characteristics shared by all buildings in the development so that the development forms a cohesive place within the zone district or community. A standardized prototype design shall be modified as necessary to comply with the requirements of this subsection. (2) Facade Treatment. (a) Minimum Wall Articulation. Building bays shall be a maximum of thirty (30) feet in width. Bays shall be visually established by architectural features such as columns, ribs or pilasters, piers and fenestration pattern. In order to add architectural interest and variety and avoid the effect of a single, long or massive wall with no relation to human size, the following additional standards shall apply: 1. No wall that faces a street or connecting walkway shall have a blank, uninterrupted length exceeding thirty (30) feet without including at least two (2) of the following: change in plane, change in texture or masonry pattern, windows, treillage with vines, or an equivalent element that subdivides the wall into human scale proportions. 2. Side or rear walls that face walkways may include false windows and door openings defined by frames, sills and lintels, or similarly proportioned modulations of the wall, only when actual doors and windows are not feasible because of the nature of the use of the building. 3. All sides of the building shall include materials and design ` characteristics consistent with those on the front. Use of inferior or lesser quality materials for side or rear facades shall be prohibited. (3) Facades. Facades that face streets or connecting pedestrian frontage shall be subdivided and proportioned using features such as windows, entrances, arcades, arbors, awnings, treillage with vines, along no less than fifty (50) percent of the facade. (4) Entrances. Primary building entrances shall be clearly defined and recessed or framed by a sheltering element such as an awning, arcade or portico in order to provide shelter from the summer sun and winter weather. (5) Awnings. Awnings shall be no longer than a single storefront. (6) Base and Top Treatments. All facades shall have: (a) a recognizable "base" consisting of(but not limited to): 1. thicker walls, ledges or sills; 2. integrally textured materials such as stone or other masonry; 3. integrally colored and patterned materials such as smooth- finished stone or tile; 5 4. lighter or darker colored materials, mullions or panels; or 5. planters. (b) a recognizable "top" consisting of (but not limited to): 1. cornice treatments, other than just colored "stripes" or"bands," with integrally textured materials such as stone or other masonry or differently colored materials; 2. sloping roof with overhangs and brackets; 3. stepped parapets. (7) Encroachments. Special architectural features, such as bay windows, decorative roofs and entry features may project up to three (3) feet into street rights-of-way, provided that they are not less than nine (9) feet above the sidewalk. Trellises, canopies and fabric awnings may project up to five (5) feet into front setbacks and public rights-of-way, provided that they are not less than eight (8) feet above the sidewalk. No such improvements shall encroach into alley rights-of- way. (8) Drive-through lane width limitation. No drive-through facility associated with a retail establishment or large retail establishment shall exceed ten (10) feet in width. (9) Illumination prohibition. Exterior-mounted exposed neon/fiber optic/rope L.E.D. lighting, illuminated translucent materials (except signs), illuminated striping or banding, and illuminated product displays on appurtenant structures (e.g., fuel dispensers) shall be prohibited. 6 ATTACHMENT 5 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Fort Collins Discovery Museum DATE: February 9, 2010 APPLICANT/ DEVELOPER: Fort Collins Discovery Museum City of Fort Collins Oz Architecture AECOM Gyroscope Hensel Phelps CITY PLANNER: Steve Olt Community Development & Neighborhood Services The applicant is proposing a new facility to be known as the Fort Collins Discovery Museum. It will be located near the northwest corner of North College Avenue and Cherry Street, just east of Lee Martinez Park and south of the Cache La Poudre River. The use will be considered a "community facility" and is permitted in the POL, Public Open Lands District in which it will be located. A Project Development Plan has not yet been submitted to the City of Fort Collins for review. ................. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS, RESPONSES ................. 1. Comment: (Resident) Please expand the project notification area to ' include the residential neighborhood to the west and south. Response: (City Planner) That can and will be done. The,applicant agreed. 1 2. Comment: (Resident) I am the president of the HOA for the 10 homes along Mason Court, in Mason Street North, just above Lee Martinez Park. We have a private street and want traffic minimized (including construction traffic) on our street. Plain & simple, people leaving this facility will want to use our street. Response: (City Operations staff) We will manage our construction traffic. There will be signage to deter traffic. Our traffic engineer will address this issue. 3. Question: (Resident) What other sites were looked at besides this site? Answer: (Applicant) Not many because of this proximity to the river and downtown. 4. Question: (Resident) There is a site on the north side of the river, west of North College Avenue, and just west of the Vine Drive intersection. That site is now just "wasteland". I think the City owns the property. Has that site been considered? Answer: (Applicant) No, it has not because of its detachment from downtown, the trail, park, and natural area learning experiences on the south side of the river. 5. Question: (Resident) With the train tracks running right next door to the east will there be any sound-proofing of the building? Answer: (Applicant) Yes, there will be. 6. Comment: (Resident) I am with the Northern Colorado Astrological Society. I like the idea of the digital dome. There could be telescope parties. I would also like lower impact lights. Response: No response given to this comment. 7. Question: (Resident) Regarding traffic and parking, what about softball teams in the summer? How will they be accommodated? Answer: (Applicant) We are working with Parks & Recreation to address that. 2 8. Question: (Resident) What happens to the 19 or so cars belonging to Dazbog customers that are regularly there? Answer: (Applicant) We are still working on that issue. 9. Question: (Resident) What is the total height of the building? Answer: (Applicant) The tallest part of the building will be 42 feet, being comparable to the Mason Street North mixed-use buildings. 10. Question: (Resident) How far to the north will fencing for this facility go? Will the existing parking to the north go away? Answer: (Applicant) Some fencing will go close to the bicycle/pedestrian trail. There will be different types of fencing for different purposes. The trailer parking lot to the north will be eliminated. 11. Question: (Resident) What about noise levels in the area, especially associated wit this facility? Answer: (Applicant) There certainly will be no increased noise from this building. 12. Question: (Resident) How will Art in Public Places be incorporated into this development? Answer: (Applicant) We are working with that and a Request for Proposal from the City has gone out this week. 13. Comment: (Resident) The human sundial as part of this facility is a great idea. Response: No response was given to this comment. 14. Question: (Resident) What is the projected life of the building? Answer: (Applicant) It is planned to be 50 — 100 years. This is not a "temporary" building. 3 15. Comment: (Resident) Please work towards a negative carbon footprint, with a relationship to the future. Response: (Applicant) We are definitely taking that into consideration as we design the building. We are designing to make the building adaptable. 16. Question: (Resident) Is this facility going to intersect, interact with other facilities, features in the area? Answer: (Applicant) Yes, to the extent feasible. 17. Comment: (Resident) This neighborhood in Fort Collins is a "neighborhood" to the ultimate degree. It has a very distinct history. How to plug this into the purpose/function of this facility is critical. Response: (Applicant) How can we work to get the surrounding neighborhoods to feel a sense of"buy in" to the facility? 18. Comment: (Resident) There is concern about this facility being a place for a few people that can pay the entrance fee. We need more open, park,space that doesn't cost. Response: (Applicant) We will have scholarships for people that cannot pay. There will be "free zones" inside and outside associated with the facility. 19. Comment: (Resident) You have exactly the right kind of people involved with this project. Just keep talking and listening. Response: No response given to this comment. 20. Question: (Resident) Have traffic pattern studies for this area been done? How much traffic will this facility generate? Answer: (Applicant) The Transportation Impact Study that is required to be part of our development submittal to the City for review will probably show that traffic for this facility will not coincide with rush hour traffic. The traffic volumes will be part of the study. 4 21. Question: (Resident) Is there going to be enough parking to accommodate all users in the area? Answer: (Applicant) That is still being evaluated. 22. Question: (Resident) Can Transfort provide services to this site? How about alternative transportation? Answer: (Applicant) This can be considered. 23. Question: (Resident) How will bikes/pedestrians cross Cherry Street in this location? Answer: (Applicant) The Transportation Impact Study will determine if a signal is needed/warranted at Cherry Street and Mason Court. Traffic controls like at the railroad tracks on Drake Road and Horsetooth Road could be considered. 24. Comment: (Resident) Look long term at the traffic, parking, and pedestrian situation. Plan for the future, including a 10-year plan for a pedestrian bridge over Cherry Street. Response: No response given to this comment. 5 ATTACHMENT 6 �'}" O� Cultural Services F6 City of Collins Fort Collins Museum/ Discovery Science Center 200 Mathews St Fort Collins,CO 80524 970.221-6738 www.fcmdsc.com March 11, 2010 To: Mayor and City Council Members Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manage Marty Heffernan, CPRE Director From: Cheryl Donaldson, Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Director RE: Work Session Summary—March 9, 2010 Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Capital Project Update Staff presented the conceptual drawings to City Council of the new Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center building project. Staff present included Cheryl Donaldson and Annette Geiselman, Executive Directors of the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center; Marty Heffernan, CPRE Director, and Jill Stilwell, Cultural Services Director. Steve VAndemere, President of the non-profit Discovery Science Center Board was also in attendance. Dave Schafer from Oz Architecture presented with key staff, and Hensel Phelps Construction was on-hand to answer questions. 'Mayor Hutchinson, Mayor Pro-Tem Ohlson, and Council members Wade Troxell, David Roy, Aislinn Kottwitz, Lisa Popaw, and Ben Manvel were in attendance. The presentation provided an overview of the project to date. The project is partially funded by the Building on Basics Capital Tax Renewal (BOB). This initiative was supported by City Council and approved by the voters in 2005. Private fundraising is also contributing to the project to raise the total $23 million budget. David Schafer, principal architect on the project, responded to Council questions regarding the vision of the building, sustainability, energy efficiency, construction materials, building orientation, proximity to the river, and potential use of alternative energy sources. A specific request was made to see an elevation of the building looking to the west. (That elevation is attached to this summary.) It was suggested to not use the word "terminus" in describing the project's proximity to the Mason Corridor, realizing the Mason Corridor has the potential to expand further north past the Museum project. Mr. Schafer confirmed the building is primarily one story with the digital dome as the second story feature, and the building would be outside of the 100 and 500 year flood plains. Council suggested that the look of the trellised concrete while the greenery is growing be thought through and that perhaps a community mural could be considered. Council also suggested the building could be a demonstration site for alternative energy, such as green roof technology, through partnerships with CSU and others, showing innovations in science in real time. Other possible partnerships mentioned included the Denver Zoo with live animals, Poudre School District, and the Bike Library. City of rt Cot ins Staff verified that the current City subsidy, admissions, fundraising efforts, and O&M included in BOB for seven years, is expected to cover the operating expenses of the new building. Staff also described how the exhibit themes would emphasize both history and science in a blended, unique experience. The exhibits would add context to science and bring the local history stories to life. Storage is being considered in the new building, and will be expanded significantly from what exists today. A specific request was made that as new branding is developed for the new museum that the city organization and citizen support be taken into account. Overall Council was very supportive of the building concepts as presented and thought it is well integrated into the natural area. Council expressed excitement for the project and found it remarkable: for the unique public/private partnership; for the work of Council with citizens to create BOB; for Council having the foresight to include operating and maintenance costs in the initiative; and for the its vision. RESOLUTION 2010-037 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE DESIGN, PROJECT SCHEDULE, AND AMOUNT OF TAX REVENUE TO BE SET ASIDE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE FORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM WHEREAS, on November 1, 2005, Fort Collins voters passed Ordinance No. 092, 2005, approving the"Building on Basics" (BOB)tax for certain capital projects (the"BOB Ordinance"); and WHEREAS, the BOB Ordinance included an estimated capital cost of $6,000,000 for construction of a new facility in the downtown area of Fort Collins for the City's Museum and the Discovery Science Center (DSC) (the "Museum Project"), and an estimated cost of$200,000 per year for seven years of operation and maintenance of the new facility; and WHEREAS, in anticipation of the Museum Project, City staff and members of the DSC Board of Directors developed a plan to merge the Fort Collins Museum and the DSC into one institution that would be owned, operated and funded jointly by the City and the DSC, supporting both the science and technology mission of the DSC and the history and culture mission of the Museum, and housed in the facility constructed as part of the Museum Project(the"Facility"); and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2008, the City Council approved Resolution 2008-008, approving an operating agreement between the City and the DSC,which agreement was entered into on March 11, 2008 (the "Operating Agreement"), and authorizing the Museum Project to proceed; and WHEREAS, the BOB Ordinance requires that the City Council determine the design, scheduling and the amount of tax revenue to be set aside for construction,operation and maintenance of any project funded with revenue from BOB tax proceeds; and WHEREAS, the Operating Agreement requires that the City Council and the Board of the DSC approve the proposed design of the Facility before construction activities begin; and WHEREAS,the City Council was briefed on the design for the Facility at a work session on March 9, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City's Planning and Zoning Board, at its meetings on April 15, and April 29, 2010, approved the design of the Facility; and WHEREAS,the most current design drawings for the Museum Project,dated May 26,2010, have been presented to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the DSC Board has not yet approved the Facility design but has been briefed on it and is expected to approve it; and WHEREAS,pursuant to Resolution 2008-008 the City agreed in the Operating Agreement to provide $600,000 in BOB revenue for the construction of the Facility, and further agreed that if less than the full$600,000 was needed for construction of the Facility,the remaining amount could be spent on new museum exhibits; and WHEREAS,the City also agreed in the Operating Agreement to provide at least$200,000 of BOB revenue per year for at least seven years for operation and maintenance of the Facility; and WHEREAS, the construction of the Facility is expected to begin in July, 2010 and be completed in December, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the City Council hereby approves: (a) the schedule for construction of the Facility, anticipated to begin in July, 2010 and be completed in December, 2011; (b) the amount of BOB tax revenue to be set aside for the Museum Project, consisting of$600,000 for construction of the Facility and new exhibits and$200,000 per year for seven years for operation and maintenance of the Facility; and (c) the proposed design of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum in substantially the form shown in the design drawings dated May 26, 2010, and on file in the office of the City's Operation Services Department,along with such changes as the City Manager deems appropriate, so long as such changes do not change the essential character,or eliminate any of the components of the Museum Project. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of July A.D. 2010. Mayor , ATTEST: City Clerk