HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM - PDP - 6-10 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 22
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 us 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 well said. He'd like to say to everybody we're a very diverse board and 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 the people on either side of me have and how much passion they bring
for the benefit of the City of Fort Collins. He was very proud of Board and staff.
The motion was approved 5:0 with Schmidt dissenting.
Other Business:
None
Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Steve Dush, CDNS Director Butch Stockover, Chair
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 21
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 5t' 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
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
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 20
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 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
significant plane changes and the tower element is a recognizable top and all do meet the intent
of the standard. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion passed 5:0 with Schmidt
dissenting.
Build to Line
Member Smith made a motion to approve a modification of a standard regarding Section
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. The motion passed 6:0.
Project Development Plan
Olt said staff is Staff is recommending approval of Fort Collins Discovery Museum Project Development
Plan with a condition. The site plan and subdivision plat as submitted contained a delineated property
boundary on the northerly portion of the property defining proposed secured areas of the facility. The
applicant developer and the City are currently discussing the actual property boundary needed for the
facility along the west and north sides of the site. The Park Planning Department is concerned about
conveying portions of the existing Lee Martinez Park site that are more appropriately contained in the
City's (park) ownership. Based on the outcome of the property boundary discussion, there may be some
minor changes to the fence locations and alignments.
Staff is recommending the following condition of approval:
The actual property boundaries for the Fort Collins Discovery Museum and the actual fence
locations associated with the facility located on the north and west sides of the facility site will be
determined and finalized during the final plan review process. The Fort Collins Discovery
Museum final plans will not be approved and recorded until the actual property boundary and
fence locations are agreed upon by both the applicant/developer and City staff and appropriately
shown on the development plans.
Member Lingle made a motion 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 13 of the Staff Report. Member Campana seconded the motion.
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
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
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 19
Member Schmidt asked about placement of bicycle racks and if there was a possibility of adding them to
the east side. Schafer said, "There's some cross traffic issues on the site as you might imagine with the
bike path coming off of the west and pedestrians coming across the front of the museum aiming for the
front door. We're really proposing to provide a significant number of bike racks on the southwestern
corner of the facility." There has been some discussion about putting some closer to the front door of the
facility but he hasn't had a chance to follow through with staff to complete that line of logic. He did say,
"If they get into this front area, we're going to ask them to dismount" there so bike racks in this area make
the most sense. Olt on the original (April 15) staff report, parking for 30 bicycles is planned-- significantly
more than the minimum 5% required.
Base and Top Treatments
Schafer said, "We are requesting a modification of standard for the base and top treatment, subsection 6
of this section we've been discussing this evening. And, I would contend that our project is providing the
intent of that section in a manner that's appropriate for this building's expression. As stated previously,
the base, top and middle does have some, the goals of the prescription of the base top and middle are:
(1) to anchor the building to the ground with a defined base, and (2) to connect it to the sky with a
defined top. That does somewhat imply a taller building than this one actually is. I think that we're
bringing in the treillage with vines to anchor the building at the base level. We're allowing the concrete to
extend above at the top level. The fact that we don't have a middle expression in this building is what's
up for debate at this point. Given the modern expression of this building is intending to achieve based on
the goals of the museum, the contemporary architecture we're proposing, it's my opinion that it provides
for the intent of that section without complying with the letter of that section."
Director Dush said, "Staff would find that with respect to the space and top treatment requirement that
the building as submitted, the entire elevation (and if we could pull that up really quick), if we could pull
up the east elevation. That because of this particular architectural style, as the board had mentioned
earlier doesn't necessarily lend itself to a traditional base and top treatment. However, one could argue,
although the applicant has submitted a request for modification, that there is a. base as the code does
outline a planter can be identified as a base. The tower element could be considered a top. However,
because of the request of the modification and for the standards and elements that the applicant had
outlined, staff does find that this particular architectural style and the elements of the trellis and the
overall plane changes of the structure from all elevations, do meet the intent of the purpose and standard
for which the modification is requested equally well or better than a plan that would comply with the strict
standard for which the modification is requested."
Member Smith asked about the tower meeting the top requirement and plantings meeting the base
requirement. Director Dush said, "If you take a look at the code requirement for the base and top
treatment, it does identify some of the elements that can be included for a base. One of those is a
planter." Member Schmidt said there isn't a planter; plantings will go right into the ground. Dush said,
"No, I understand that, and I'm just saying that, and typically a planter would be incorporated into more of
a traditional design of the building. What I'm suggesting is that while that doesn't necessarily meet that
requirement, I think that this overall design intent and that component does meet the intent of that
particular requirement." He said, "Additionally, the top component shouldn't be looked at as a flat walled
building with a sloped roof. You need to look at the entire structure --the popping of the plane of that
tower component and the other articulation does present a top, albeit not in the traditional sense.
Therefore, I think those components meet the intent of that requirement and that the modification is
warranted and that this design with those issues do meet equally to or better than the purpose."
Member Smith made a motion to approve modification of standard 3.5.3(D)(6) regarding base and
top treatments for the following reasons: The granting of the modification of the standard would
not be detrimental to the public good, and the general purpose of the standard for which the
modification is requested is recognizable tops and bases. The proposal as submitted will
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 18
Facades
Schafer said subsection 3 states that 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 50% of the fagade. We are hereby requesting a modification of
standard for this component of the LUC based on a couple of components. As discussed previously, we
are working with some of the aspects of this recommendation or this requirement of standard in terms of
bringing treillage with vines to the elevations to help articulate those facades. We are limited a bit in the
number of windows we can actually implement on the building due to preservation needs and wanting to
modulate and carefully control light as it penetrates the building. He said a lot of the prior arguments
regarding the building articulation would still apply in this forum as well.
Member Lingle said, "I would agree. I understand the need for limited windows and the condition that I
would propose that we add to enhance the articulation would not need to be in the form of windows as
long as it's not metal."
Director Dush said, "Staff finds that with the additional treillage that the alternative design as submitted
will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally to or
better than the plan and complies with the standard for which the modification is requested. Because of
the programming of the building, the windows will not necessarily work with the programming, and
therefore, the additional treillage and design components as outlined in the previous modification would
again advance that requirement."
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. The motion is conditioned on the west and north elevations having enhanced
articulation similar to the improvements made to the east and south elevations. Member Schmidt
seconded the motion.
Eckman asked if the applicant was proposing adding additional treillage and vines on those elevations.
Schafer said "That is certainly something we would consider in keeping with Lingle's recommendation
that we enhance the articulation of that elevation consistent with the other elevations. We would propose
to do that in conjunction with reviewing it with staff." Member Lingle said, "Right now it's not in the design
so it would need to be enhanced to include that."
Member Lingle said, "I'm not mandating it to be treillage, I'm just looking for enhanced articulation,
whatever form that takes. ° Smith and Schmidt agreed.
The motion was approved 6:0.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 17
Director Dush said, "Based upon the reveals along the west elevation with the spacing of the concrete
panels, the north elevation that has the curving plane that's similar to the west elevation that provides the
visual depth of the field, the east elevation that contains a long section of wall consisting of the panels
with reveals and a trellis system and the south elevation that has several changes in plane, changes in
material and texture, staff finds that the proposed design would meet the purpose and intent and that that
would not be detrimental and be equally well or better than if it would comply with the standard."
Member Schmidt said Lingle could support that if there was enhanced articulation. She said, "I'm just
wondering what the applicant's response to that would be." Lingle said the minutes reflected discussion
about the east, but not necessarily the north and west sides.
Schafer said, "Our primary focus at the last session was the east elevation. We've made some moves to
further articulate that with some of the changes in plane we've introduced on that side. We've also
modulated the trellis pattern to allow for some significant gaps and enhanced that expression a bit more
with some reveal patterns in the concrete to support that modularity along that elevation. I think what
Dave is describing is maybe looking at the north and the west elevations with an eye towards bringing
some of that articulation to those elevations as well.
Member Lingle said, "I would be comfortable in allowing staff to work with the applicant to do that in a .
similar vein to what you did on the east in terms of the scope of what that means." Schafer said they'd
be willing to comply.
Member Campana said based on what you've heard from the applicant and staffs analysis, is that going
to be your justification for the other two modifications as well —you are asking for 3 modifications,
correct? Schafer said he was focusing that specific request for modification on Subsection 2, but a lot of
the same logic does apply. Schafer said, "There are a couple of minor nuances between the other two
that might play into the discussion a little bit. For example, the facade treatment in Subsection 3; we had
talked a little bit about the hardship discussion of wanting to modulate light coming into those spaces
which precludes the installation of windows throughout that elevation as a means to articulate that
elevation. So, we would be looking at other ways to articulate that elevation in a way that's compatible
with the interior use. I think there's a nuance to the base and top treatment in the request for
modification of standards to suggest that we're achieving the intent of that which is to divide the building
into horizontal bands and allow the building to connect with the earth and also address the sky, but in a
way that's more appropriate to a one-story modem contemporary building that's got the form that our
building proposes to have."
Director Dush said, "I think it will be similar, but there may be a slight change with the base and the top."
Member Smith made a motion to approve modification of the standard regarding Section 3.5.3(D)
of No. 2, facade treatment for the following reasons: That 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 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.
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 trellises on the east wall and additional spacing and reveals on the west
elevation. Smith added the condition that staff works with the applicant to enhance the
articulation on the north and west in a fashion similar to what was brought to the Board for the
east elevation. Member Campania seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0.
Member Schmidt said her one comment was to ask that they don't add any more metal to the facade
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 16
Schafer said, "The metal fits in a couple of ways. As I indicated previously, natural materials are our
focus. The metal is intended to be a zinc color and texture, so it's going to be a gray, not a shiny bright
material. It is largely contextual related to the mission of the museum which is a science and history.
So, we're using that to express that science aspect that the museum houses. Metal on buildings is not
uncommon in the downtown area. You see a few buildings with maybe more restrained applications of
metal, but it's not a foreign material to the overall context of downtown."
Lingle said he's inclined to agree that a modification isn't necessary. Chair Stockover said, "If they are
not asking for a modification of standard, it comes into our overall development project plan discussion.
If they are not asking for it, we just need to decide if we can approve it with or without a modification."
Eckman said the applicant is not asking for modification to Site Specific Design. "In our LUC,
modifications have to come upon request. 2.8.2, the opening paragraph says, "A request for
modification." You don't have a request, so they are asking you to decide if they are in compliance with
paragraph 1."
Chair Stockover asked to move on to the second modification.
Facade Treatment
Schafer said he is requesting a modification of standard to the facade treatment section of the LUC. "The
design of the building is based on the program within it, the need to minimize penetrations in the
envelope for energy and for preservation concerns. We are bringing in architectural interest and variety
to the elevations in a few ways. The application of the treillage with vines is actually an acceptable
method for implementing articulation under this LUC. A change in plane is introduced as the building
wall serpentines along that north and west side of the building. It's always changing plane, every 10'
which is the modular precast panels. We have improved the modulation of the east elevation based on
comments made last week or two weeks ago to add a little more articulation to the elevation by.
addressing a few more changes in plane as we discussed previously today. Obviously, the south
elevation is providing a significant amount of changes in plane with the projections of the cafe area and
the student entry point. I also would submit that the wall articulation is happening in its vertical
expression as well as the length of the wall does taper as stated before to really scale the building
related to the adjacent natural areas. "
Director Dush said, "If I understand the direction before, then, for each one of these we'll go through, the
applicant states their case and then we as staff will make the finding. Based upon the information
submitted and expressed by the applicant, staff would find that the facade treatment as explained by the
applicant does promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested
equally well or better than would a plan that would comply with the strict adherence of the standard for
which this modification is requested. Based on the aforementioned reasons of the applicant and that by
taking a look at the building in its totality, and not just one section of that building, it does rise above and
it does meet the articulation of the section in the facade treatment requirement.
Member Lingle said, "My comment on that would be that I could support an equal to or better than finding
for that specific section, but only with the provision, or conditioning that modification to enhance the
articulation of the west and north elevations."
Member Campana asked staff to go over why they are meeting the articulation standard in the code.
Director Dush asked that the recorder reread that section as he didn't jot it down. Suess said, "Does
promote the general purpose of the standard based on the aforementioned of the building in its totality."
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 15
to be more natural or it needs to be in tune with nature or whatever the case may be. I think that one's
going to be a little tougher sell on equal to or better than based on the architectural design."
Eckman said, "I think the important community need standard gets very difficult when you look at the last
clause where it says, "and the strict application of the standard would render the project practically
infeasible." It's hard to imagine that. There's the hardship one, there's the nominal and inconsequential
one, and the equal to or better than which is probably the most plausible argument." Member Schmidt
said she wondered if you can use hardship because of the idea of not having windows to address the
need for light coming into the building.
Olt said we feel you could support Section 3.5.3(D) (3), facades. Section 2.8.2(H) (3) conceivably could
be used as justification for that —we would agree with that. Eckman said, "You have to find some
exceptional physical condition or other extraordinary and exceptional situation unique to the property
which when coupled with the application of the LUC imposes an undue hardship. So, you'd have to
make that explanation."
Olt said maybe we could have Schafer repeat what his justification was and how, in fact, it would allow
the application of the hardship criteria.
Chair Stockover said, "I think I would like to interject at this point the applicant now understands that they
need to make the case to us. What I would like to suggest is that we run through them again, one at a
time. One, we make a motion, we discuss it and we vote on it, and then we'll discuss the next one. It
would help me personally if either Olt or Dush would comment. I'm not sure how to put this, but the
findings of facts and conclusions helps us with that. I guess that's out the window. We'll run through
them one at a time, take No. 1 first, site specific, you make your argument, which criteria you would like
us to use, and we'll make a motion and vote on it."
Site Specific Design
Schafer said they are not asking for a modification of standard on this one. He said, "We are just offering
some support in terms of justification for the design and how it does, in fact, respond to the site. As I
have stated before, the building footprint responds to a lot of the constraints on the site with regard to the
serpentine wall on the northwest side, reflecting very accurately the flood plain. The form of the building
from the south and east focuses the attention at the entry point where the tower exists and allows the
building to taper as it heads towards those more natural areas. So, the scale of the building changes
along its length to relate more to the smaller scale pedestrian and natural areas adjacent to it related to
the larger scale of the building focus of the main entry. In addition, the selection of materials was made
based on a relationship with nature; the texture of the precast echoes the rock and sand that you find in
nature obviously. The treillage with vines brings some natural plantings to the facility which echoes the
natural areas that exist there on site currently."
Schafer continued, "In addition to being contextual with some of the site. Let me back up just a little bit.
I also at the beginning of this, I should have reminded everybody that the site is not in the middle of old
town. It's near old town, but it actually is an interface between old town and the natural areas along the
Poudre. I think imposing the historic context of old town literally on this facade is not an appropriate
treatment."
Schafer added, "The other component I wanted to add to that related to material selection is the context
of the mission of the museums —one of sustainability. Looking at locally harvested and manufactured
material and looking at materials that help the energy efficiency of the building. Concrete provides a .
significant energy benefit in its ability to temper the solar heat gain and loss through the course of the
year. In addition to that, the trellis of vines is going to provide some additional shading in those
elevations during the summer when they are filled with leaves."
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 14
Chair Stockover said have we not had the discussion that it's not up to us to make the argument for
them. Eckman said correct, he didn't know if it would be plausible for anyone to make the argument. He
added, "The language of this says that the granting of the modification from the strict application of any
standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of the LUC, substantially alleviate an existing,
defined and described problem of city wide concern or would. result in a substantial benefit to the city by
reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need,
specifically and expressly defined and described in our comprehensive plan or a policy, ordinance, or
resolution of the City Council. And that the strict application of our code, these four paragraphs that are
troublesome, would render the project practically infeasible. That's the other standard. I don't know if
anyone wants to go with that one or not."
Director Dush said, "Let me try and summarize because I understand what you are all getting at. With
respect to the element No. 1, which was the site design component, and all of these I'll refer to as 1, 2, 3,
and 6 because those are the findings... the applicant had indicated, and he grouped all of them together
in terms of again the site, the facade, both of the facade, elements and then the base and top. component
which are the elements that we're looking at the modifications."
Director Dush added with regard to the applicant's presentation for subparagraph 1, the design was set
to interface with the environment by the materials they are using. They also considered site,
sustainability, and how the building was adjusted due to flood plain constraints along the west side. He
said, "staff finds that those design components meet the finding so as granting the modification would not
be detrimental to the public good because the design of that building promotes the general purpose of
the standard for which the modification was requested equal to or better than the strict adherence to that
standard."
Director Dush continued, "With respect to items, and I'll try to make an attempt at the next three, because
I think that they are really interrelated and I got a sense of that from the board before we left for a break.
That's the two facade components and the base and the top because I think what I heard from the
applicant was that the request for a modification from those subsections was primarily related to the
intent of the client, which was to have a sleek building. That sleek building transformed itself into this
architectural style which doesn't lend itself to the strict application of the base and the top treatment nor
does it then lend itself to the facade components that are outlined in the code as well. That was the
applicant's justification. "
Member Lingle said, "But the community need one, this building could meet the community need with a
traditional design with a base, middle, top, towers, that kind of architectural treatment that would lend
itself to the LUC. It wouldn't need the modification." Member Schmidt said, "I agree with that, but I don't
see how we can say it meets the general purpose of the standard because the standards are there for
given reasons."
Member Lingle said, "In terms of the architectural ones, again I'm really uncomfortable making the
argument for the applicant. I think that's their job. I really still feel, like I said before, that the LUC is
prescriptive and for whatever reason has a bias toward traditional design. There are a lot of buildings
that we might like to see built here that the LUC would not allow. We need a way to allow contemporary
architecture to be constructed in Fort Collins, and right now, our only avenues are multiple modifications
to the standards. Maybe we need a streamlined process to evaluate those kinds of designs. But, that
would address in my mind to say that the program of the building through the architectural expression
wants to be contemporary and that kind of thing. That would meet the requirements for me for equal to
or better than for the facade treatments if some of the other elevations were further enhanced. But,
don't think that argument is supportive of site specific design. Just saying it's a contemporary
architectural expression doesn't make it site specific. In fact, it could make it not site specific if it needs
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 13
Finally, the base and top section was one that's come up in discussions as well. Our approach there
clearly is that we are not meeting the base, middle, top prescription of the LUC. But, I'd also suggest that
that base, middle, top composition is based on a taller, maybe a multi story building where the uses of
the different stories relate clearly to how the building is used by the visitors. The base on a three story
building, for example, the base would talk about pedestrian access. The middle would talk about maybe
more private uses, and the top would contain a cornice that relates the building to the sky. Being a one
story building, I would submit that it would get quite busy to divide the vertical elements of this wall into
three components. I think we're making an attempt to divide it horizontally into different textures by
bringing the treillage with vines in the lower half, allowing the concrete to expose itself above the top, and
taking some of those measures to really route the building to the ground in terms of the plantings and
then allow it to address the sky in terms of that sloped parapet and the clean lines of the concrete up on
top.
So, this is a case that it's obviously different and we've debated the merits of modern or contemporary
architecture tonight and in the last meeting as well. The fact is, this is a different expression than what
the land use is keyed to permit; hence, the request this evening. I think that summarizes the major
points behind our design. I would certainly welcome comments, of course."
Chair Stockover asked if staff had anything to add. Olt said staffs position is outlined in the
memorandum dated April 26, 2010 and distributed to the Board prior to the meeting. In his professional
opinion, the application as submitted meets the requirements of the LUC. He appreciates the Board,
however, may not agree with his position and it is their prerogative to request the modifications.
Director Dush said he understands the Board disagrees with staff with regard to the need for
modifications. With the applicant having submitted a verbal justification for the modification, the Board is
looking to staff to either substantiate or indicate which of the criteria in the standards for a modification
would allow for that. He thinks what we're saying is that the granting of the modification from the strict
application would not impair the intent of the LUC. The strict standards, in Section 2.8.2 of the LUC
requires that in the granting of the modification that it would not be detrimental to the public good, and
that the plan submitted will promote the general purpose of the standards for which the modification is
requested equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standards for which a modification is
requested. Eckman added, "Any finding made under subparagraph 1, which is the equal to or better
than, shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan as submitted meets the requirements
and the criteria of the equal to or better than standard. So, that's the 'how come' part. Now, I guess it's
possible from what the applicant said you might be persuaded that one of these doesn't need to be
modified. If not, I think you should go through the process on each one.'
Member Campana asked, "Are we not looking to them to provide us the 'how come'?" Eckman said yes,
you are looking to them to provide you the how come --either the staff or the applicant or both.
Chair Stockover asked, don't we need staffs finding of fact and conclusions to make that motion?
Eckman said, "You can make it right out of the air from what you've heard tonight. You don't need it in
writing on paper either in this form or this April 26t" memorandum, although you can forage from that if.
you like or from the arguments that the applicant has made or you can ask for further argument. You do
need in your motion three things: (1) it's not detrimental to the public good to grant this modification, (2)
it promotes the purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a plan which complies, (3) and
how come."
Chair Stockover said we normally have quite a bit more material and the time to analyze the findings and
facts and conclusions, etc. Member Schmidt asked about other provisions such as serves a community
good. Eckman said yes, that's not what he heard from staff or the applicant as the basis for their
argument, but that's another basis for a modification.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 12
Let me start with the context site specific design. As I mentioned in prior discussions, the building
responds very clearly to a lot of the site influences that are set on it. The specific site is an interface
between the historic nature of old town Fort Collins and the natural areas to the north and to the west
along the Poudre River. The footprint of the building, the very footprint, and the way we've laid it out is
expressive of flood plain issues on site. The curve of that western elevation expresses that very clearly.
The elevations we've designed to taper to those natural areas. So, we're focusing the activity at the
main entrance, which is held away from those sensitive areas, and we're allowing the building to step
down in height as it reaches some of those natural areas. So, the building is responding to that interface
in its very form.
The selection of the materials also is highly contextual I would contend in terms of its relationship to
nature, the natural texture of concrete, and the plantings that we are proposing for it. It also tells a story
that's very contextual in terms of the emission of the museum because this building, as I've mentioned in
the prior meeting, is going to be achieving LEED certification. It's going to be about 50% more energy
efficient than your typical building. A large part of that is due to the thermal mass that these concrete
walls provide. So, expressing that, allowing the visitors to see that and understand how this building
relates to both the environmental context the building is placed within as well as the context of the
mission that the museum holds I think is very important.
Next item is that of facade treatment; specifically minimum wall articulation. I would mention that this
minimum wall articulation really is something that's defending the City against big box establishments
that are coming in, erecting large facades of blank walls. This is a valuable piece of the LUC in terms of
discouraging that sort of design. What I'd like to point out here is that we are intending to, you know,
bring some architectural interest and variety into this building. No. 1, by the way the building mass
works. You know, we've got that sloping wall that does relate to the context. It does give some character
to the elevations of the building. The tower sets the pieces off in some compositional fashion.
In addition, we are bringing a number of the pieces that the LUC specifically indicates, such as the trellis
with vine. We're bringing those in to create a rhythm on these elevations, particularly the south and the
east side. We're also indicating change in plane on the north and west side of the building in terms of
the way the building form serpentines along the floor plane. I would contend that we are bringing some
of those pieces into it. I know a lot of the facade treatment on this building and some of the linear nature
of the walls is a twofold of the use inside which is very sensitive to light and other impacts. So, we don't
want to introduce a number of windows to the building. We are being restrained in that fashion. It also
supports a more contemporary expression which this building clearly is. The cleaner lines and seek
nature. One of the key words we worked with the museum directors on in terms of what this building
should be in sleek but also compatible with nature. So, those are some of our overriding design goals in
the way this is composed.
The next comment I would like to address is again in the facades section, talking about facades facing
streets or connecting pedestrian frontage. They are subdivided and proportioned using features such as
windows, entrances, treillage with vines for no less than 50% of the facade. I would indicate again that
the building is achieving those goals. We've got treillage with vines on two elevations of the building.
We have articulations and changes in plane on the north and the west side of the building. We did
introduce some windows, but again we don't want to go overboard with our window applications because
(a) it could hamper some of the preservation needs inside the building and (b) it also contributes
negatively towards the energy use of the building. Windows are a great opportunity to lose your heat in
the winter time and gain heat in the summer time. So, we're being restrained with those elements, but
we are trying to bring some of that texture to the north and west side of the building. I also want to
indicate that the intention here also is that the building blend into its surroundings and be a back drop for
the plantings and the exhibits that are going to take place in the foreground of the user experience when
they visit the site.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 11
Member Schmidt asked if there were plans to widen Mason Court at Cherry. Traffic Stanford said he's
not aware of any plans. Olt concurred. Member Schmidt asked about parking there on both sides of
the street. Stanford said, "Not having a background on it, I would hate to see it come off of there
because I think the area needs it. To remove it would be probably onerous and not produce a whole lot
of positive effects."
Modification of Standards continued
Eckman said, "So, you have this April 26`h memo from Steve Olt. And, as I understand it, you are
thinking that there are at least portions of 3.5.3(D) that this plan does not comply with. But, there are
portions of 3.5.3(D) that it does comply with as well. So, that's why I don't think it's proper to consider a
blanket modification to the entire section because part of the requirement in a modification is that you
have to find that the plan does not comply with the specific standard, but that the plan as proposed
promotes the purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a plan which did comply with the
standard. So, that finding has to be made that this plan as proposed promotes the standard equally well
or better than and how come it does also."
Eckman continued, "So, I think that if you are going to go through 3.5.3(D), you ought to have a look at
what sections you think are out of compliance. Now, I think we thought at one time there was a little bit
of discussion about Section 1, but I'm not sure that that rose to the level of noncompliance. Section 2
about facade treatment and the wall articulations might have been one that the Board as a group would
think was out of compliance, I don't know. Section 3, same thing, only this time about the less than 50%
might be. I don't think 4 and 5 were a problem that I heard. Six, about base and top treatment was a
problem, and I didn't hear any concern about 7, encroachments, 8, drive through lanes, 9, illumination.
So, maybe you have three sections there ... a couple about facades and one about base and top
treatment. If that's what it is, then the staff and the applicant. You're the judge so you really can't make
the argument to yourself about what a wonderful plan it is. You have to listen to them tell you why this is
equal to or better than and how come it is."
Eckman added, "That little pre -warning that both the applicant and the staff may need to prepare to make
that statement tonight if you are going to consider a modification. The findings you need to make. We
have that form there that I prepared. Fundamentally, you need to make a general overall finding that the
granting of the modification is not detrimental to the public good. Then, you have to make a finding that
this plan promotes the purpose of these various standards, and we might have three of them equally well
or better than would a plan which complied with those standards and how come on each one of those.
That's it."
Board members agreed their areas of concern are subparagraph 1, Site Specific Design, subparagraph
2, Facade Treatment, subparagraph 3, Facades, and subparagraph 6, Base and Top Treatment.
Member Lingle made a motion to include subparagraph 3, Facades, for consideration by the
applicant. Member Campana seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:0 with Hatfield
abstaining.
Member Lingle made a motion to include subparagraph 6, Base and Top Treatments, for
consideration by the applicant. Member Campana seconded the motion. Motion was approved
5:0 with Hatfield abstaining.
Architect Schafer said, "The four issues I would like to address here today. Issue one is Site Specific
Design, Issue 2 is that of facade treatments, issue 3 of facades and interest, and issue 4 is the treatment
of base and top and how our project is equal to or better than the prescriptive language of the LUC in all
four of those areas.
Planning &Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 10
vehicles will see that it's not a connection you'll want to typically drive on a daily basis. That's'why we
allowed it to be a private drive. Under that theory, when the developer built that, the residents who are
there theoretically would have less traffic going through it than it would be otherwise as a straight street.
Had the developer proposed a design that basically took it straight all the way through, we would
certainly have said that wouldn't have been acceptable as a private drive."
Member Schmidt asked if there is room now to make it a public street. Virata said, "I think in general we
can always look at making something a public street. It's probably less about the width and more the
structural integrity. Perhaps it'd only last 12 years before they need to do repair. That's because it
wasn't built to a public street standard." He said the flip side to that is the developer got a narrower road
width than would not have been authorized if it was a typical public street. He said the larger question is
do we want the roadway to be 30 foot and improve the pavement depth to make it a public street. We
have the same issues with properties in the Southwest Annexation. He thinks that's going to be part of
the Transportation Master Plan discussion about how we deal with roadways that weren't built to City
standards. He said for every one of these, there are probably 15 or 20 others in town. This one just
happens to be adjacent to a public park where you deal with that community amenity being perhaps not
so much of an amenity from the homeowner perspective.
Chair Stockover said he'd like to open it up for public input again. He noted for the benefit of the
audience that it would be their last opportunity to speak.
Public Input
Andrea Schweitzer said, "Speaking as a resident of River Rock Cohousing, I would not want the road to
be made public. In the interest of saving time, if those who live in the neighborhood agree with me, could
you raise your hands that you would prefer it not to be a public road? So, to save time for your debate,
that's our input. I also believe that what the purpose of this meeting here tonight is primarily to put
forward the plans and review things for the Discovery Museum which is very important. Any delays that
you have mean additional costs for them. The main things that we're debating here with regard to
parking and traffic flow, I don't think are necessarily for the Discovery Museum to solve. I think there are
significant concerns, and I put all the details of my concerns in the letter that I sent to you. But, I don't
think that the Discovery Museum should have to be solving the problems of, for example, parking that
occur because they are displacing the current parking that occurs for the park, the ball fields, Mason
Street North, other things like that. Perhaps it would be possible to approve the Discovery Museum
parking and their plans but concurrently then ask the City together with the neighborhood to work on
solving these broader issues. There's no way that the Discovery Museum should be asked to solve
these broader neighborhood issues."
Barb Kistler said, "Mr. Stockover, I just hope that you guys consider that turn because it's just really
narrow."
Ken Smith said, "One last comment I'm sure the city is aware of, but south of Mason Court and adjacent
to Mason Court is the Burlington Northern abandoned, at this point, railroad tracks. Our property goes 7'
beyond the street on the south side and then there's the RR exit. That might have some impact on
considering the, you know, making the street public, or something like that. Right now, since they
removed the tracks last year, it's just dead space that nobody seems to want to claim. We as a
homeowners' association would love to talk to the City about."
Closed Public Input
Chair Stockover said he'd like to return to the discussion related to modifications.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 9
road private and not sharing maintenance costs with others. They'd also prefer when special events are
occurring, that saw horses go up and staff direct traffic.
Discovery Museum Director Geiselman said, "I really think what the neighbors are responding to is the
current situation... and I think there's a sensitivity that now we have a new museum going... there's a
foreshadowing of what the future is going to be like." She said they would be willing to put big signs up
right on the comer of Cherry and Mason Court so it's very clear to museum patrons where the museum
demarcations are and how to get in. Because their main entry is at Cherry and Mason Court, she
doesn't see the museum generating traffic in the area past the turn-off and into their neighborhood.
Member Schmidt said, "I guess some of the questions I have. Reading this, private streets, it says, when
allowed private streets shall be allowed in a development provided that their function will only be to
provide access to property within the development. Private streets shall not be permitted if, by plan or
circumstance, such streets would in the judgment of City attract through traffic in such volumes as to
render streets necessary connection, etc, etc. In a way I'm thinking, all right, we have the private street
there. I drove down it today. It is a very nice little short cut." She wondered if in the future, with neighbor
documentation as to levels of traffic, number of events, and shortage of parking; they could ask for a
modification of the standard for a gated community. In this case because we have a pre-existing private
drive that is now becoming semi-public; could we then allow. it?
Deputy Attorney Eckman said, "I'm thinking of the variance procedure by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
That provision says that the purpose of that is to authorize variances from the terms of Article III and IV
and shall be applied only to approve site specific development plans which are the ones you've already
finished with. That's the one that's already finished. I think the proper procedure there would be to go to
the ZBA for a variance where you would make the argument essentially that we have something unusual
about the physical nature of our property which might be plausible in this case. Then, that the imposition
of the City's law which says you can't have a gate imposes an undue hardship upon us because of the
physical nature of our property."
Ms. Williams said they like the idea of no outlets on each end. Chair Stockover said the Board is
sympathetic to their needs but does not think the Board can resolve the problem. The issue before the
Board and under which they have purview is the development proposal before them. He recommends
the pursuit of the avenue recommended by Mr. Eckman —the Zoning Board of Appeals when the
neighbors believe the problem has become untenable.
Eckman said he'd like to follow up on a suggestion made by Member Campana relative to a condition.
He said, "a condition that would be imposed tonight based upon the impact of this driving through there
from the museum property is an exaction that is not legislatively enacted in our LUC. So, it's ad hoc. It's
something that you're just looking at on this basis which fits in my mind perfectly with the case that
happened in Oregon. Dolan versus Tigard, where we need to analyze the impact of this development
upon that street, and then the exaction that you're suggesting from the applicant needs to be at least
roughly proportional to the impact. I'm not sure that we have the data tonight. We might have to
continue this again if that were the case to generate an analysis carefully enough so that we could
determine that the impact is roughly proportional to the exaction that the Board might consider."
Campana said he agrees with that if both parties agree.
Development Review Engineering Marc Virata said, "I believe the question was asked why the
development was not built to a public street standard." He did not think we necessarily addressed that.
He said Member Schmidt quoted the section that we analyze in terms of when a private drive is
acceptable. He said, "generally, in our view when we evaluate, I'm sure back in the day when this
project was built, we thought that this type of movement with the immediate turn and another turn was
viewed as not a direct connection. The benefit in doing it that way theoretically is supposed to be that
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 8
Director Dush said as Olt has stated, we find the architecture meets the criteria as outlined in his April
26'' memo.
Member Lingle and City Planner Olt reviewed specifics related to Section 3.5.3(D) Character and Image
of a Building, specifically: (1) Site Specific Design, (2) Facade Treatment, (3) Facades, and (6) Base and
Top Treatments. Members Campana and Schmidt weighed in as well with Schmidt noting she is not a
fan of most contemporary architecture.
Architect Schafer said, "Can I make one comment, and I am making it without consulting with my clients.
You mentioned additional articulation along that side of the building. We had more tree like work on that
side of the building initially, and we took it away in the interest of creating a backdrop that's relatively
neutral for the exhibits and the plantings to play off of as those areas of the site get further developed
with the museum programming. Now having said that, I would imagine if it were an issue for approval
tonight, we could propose to integrate some additional rhythm of tree like work and plantings in that
elevation to give it a little bit more texture than it currently has."
Deputy City Attorney Eckman said, "I agree with the analysis, at least for me. I don't see any ability to
maneuver within the language of the base.and top treatments. It seems to be mandatory to me. So, I
think you're right that in order to follow your procedure correctly, you ought to go through the analysis of
whether it justifies a modification of standards based upon what you have in the April 26`�' memorandum."
Lingle asked if there is an alternative compliance process for something as broad as architectural design.
Eckman said he didn't see any alternative compliance for this section in the LUC. He thinks you have to
go through the modification. Lingle asked would the modification be just a broad single modification of
that entire paragraph, or does it have to be individual for each subparagraph. Eckman said I think you
could consider a modification pertaining to the entire paragraph about base and top treatment if that's
what you're asking. Lingle said, no, just 3.5.3(D) in general and everything under it. Eckman said, "That
would involve a kind of a detailed analysis of each one. I don't see that in the staff letter to you which
spelled out a modification analysis. I think it only had to do with the base and top treatment. And, I don't
know that staff would be prepared to deal with all of it, but they may."
Member Campana asked (while Eckman considered the above) about tone and color of walls, especially
the metal tower in this environmentally sensitive area. Schafer said he agreed completely. One of our
overriding themes here is natural materials. That tower material will be of really natural zinc colored
materials (a matte finish —not a shiny silver reflective component).
Response to Public Input
Chair Stockover asked staff to address the issues raised by neighbors during public input. Traffic
Operations' Ward Stanford said relative to Mason Court (overflow parking and limiting access to the
private street), the City could provide a sign relative to 'from this point on it is a private drive'. The City
has codes against gating so actually closing the road to traffic is not acceptable by Code. The road is in
an urban area with recreational features such as a park, trails, and a ball park. It also has a unique
neighborhood design. It's going to be hard to stop anyone that does not live there from wanting to pass
through. In fact, the more they enhance the area, the more it will draw interest. Stanford said that while
we cannot "turn off' the road, we could try signage and at least let more people know that this is a private
residential area and request they stay out.
Board members asked about maintenance costs shared by the City and/or the applicant. They
discussed how the private road seems more like an enhanced alley (not meeting City standards relative
to curbs, sidewalks, width of road and lighting.) Schmidt asked for the LUC reference related to gated
communities --Olt said LUC Section 3.6.3 (G). Campana asked Ms. Williams to estimate the annual cost
of maintenance. She replied within the next 20 years $16,000. They said they'd prefer keeping their
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 7
association. The three associations pay for the individual maintenance of the street that fronts their
property, and they collectively get breaks for irrigation and street maintenance and those types of things.
They crack sealed the street last year and that cost was about $2,600. That doesn't count the River
Rock or Mason Street North strips. He added that he would prefer not to have any assistance and have
no traffic. He did suggest that perhaps the City could furnish a person to direct traffic for high attendance
activities.
Ms. Geiselman suggested that the neighbors are responding to the current situation with traffic, and they
are sensitive to the fact that a museum will be added in that area. She stated she believes it is an
existing problem, not something that the new museum project is going to cause. She stated the museum
would be willing to put big signs up right on the corner of Cherry and Mason Court so that the entrance to
the museum is very clear.
Ms. Williams stated she likes the idea of no outlets signs on each end as that will discourage people from
entering the neighborhood.
Modification of Standards
Member Lingle said he had several questions about architecture. The first question is about process.
He said, "Steve, I was reading your April 26 memo where you walked through the analysis of Section
3.5.3(D). I read what the standard is and what staffs evaluation was. Every time I'd come to something,
I'd think well, that may or may not need a modification. I kept going through there, and by the time I got
to page 4, low and behold, there was the possibility of a modification. What struck me was that it was
staff proposing the modification as opposed to the applicant recognizing that, hey, we might need a
modification, giving their justification for it and then having staff evaluate their application as opposed to
staff proposing that. I am a little concerned about that. If you could shed some light on how that process
came about."
Olt said there was question at the April 15 meeting relative to how staff arrived at the conclusion that the
building architecture was satisfying Section 3.5.3 (D). He said, "The charge was to put this
memorandum together evaluating the general section, Section 3.5.3(D) and the subsections within that
as it related to top, middle, and base of the building and various elevations. What this did then was give
you staff findings as we evaluated the building, staff findings as it relates to the site contextually, the
architecture, and the contemporary nature of the building versus a more traditional building." Olt said the
memorandum offers staffs findings and how it relates to that section of the code. Olt said as he stated at
the end of the memorandum; if the Board does not agree with staffs position, they would have to
evaluate the criteria and how that's being met based on the criteria set forth in Section 2.8.2(H), the
modification of standard request section.
Member Lingle said, "I guess the difficulty I have is that the typical way this would work would be that the
applicant would suggest or apply for a modification of standard. They would come up with their
justification for that and then we would have a staff analysis of whether they agreed with that or not. This
one is kind of turned backwards where staff is doing it in the proposal, so we don't have an objective
evaluation of staff looking at an applicant's request. We've got staff proposing something and no one is
evaluating it."
Olt said that basically staffs position is the architecture of this building satisfies Section 3.5.3(D). If the
Board does not agree with that, then we would recommend a modification of standard be discussed
tonight and action taken on that. Director Dush said Lingle is right, this is not the normal process nor do
we typically continue an item. He said, "I think what we've tried to do is answer the questions as they
related to architecture." He said, "Because what we had heard from this Board last time was provide a
bit more of an analysis as to how we as staff felt that the architecture met the findings. The first few
pages of the memo that Steve had put together goes through and evaluates each of those criteria."
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 6
will need about $16,000 in the next 16 to 20 years to replace that street. She asked that if it is going to
become a semi -private street, could they get some assistance in maintaining it. They also pay $750 for
liability insurance on the street. They do not get a reduction on their taxes, get snow removal for the
street or get maintenance assistance.
Andrea Schweitzer, Ph.D., 520 N. Sherwood Street, sent a letter to the Planning and Zoning Board
detailing her concerns and offering suggestions. She emphasized that a lot of parking concerns that are
being discussed today aren't just about people that will visit the museum. The concerns are also about
people coming to the park, the softball fields, and the surrounding businesses. She stated that it should
not be the responsibility of the Discovery Museum to solve this broader parking issue. There should be
matching support from the city planners together with the neighborhood to address the broader parking
puzzle. Dr. Schweitzer wrote a second letter to the Planning and Zoning Board with the group, NCAS,
the Northern Colorado Astronomical Society. They are pleased that a planetarium will be a part of the
museum. They want to ensure that outdoor program space is going to not have problems with stray
lighting or ambient noise. In that letter, she provided details about those concerns and possible solutions
as well as pictures of the site and the fact that noise was measured at 60 decibels from the future
outdoor program space. Sixty decibels is roughly the noise level of normal conversation.
Suzanne Smith, 415 Mason Court, No. 4, commented that as she was leaving Mason Court about two
weeks ago, at the corner where Dazbog and Cherry Street intersect, cars were parking on the east side
of the street and a bus was turning in, and it could not get in. The street needs to be widened.
Don Flick, 520 N. Sherwood, No. 14, echoed concerns that steps need to be taken to discourage traffic
along the private road. He stated it would be most appropriate to use signage at both ends of the private
road.
Annette Geiselman stated she would be in support of whatever signage would be needed to let museum
visitors know that you don't have to go this way to get to Lee Martinez Farm or Dazbog. She also
expressed her support for the museum. She stated the design reflects the museum's mission and that
the building is perfect for what is planned inside and outside of it. One of the design criteria is that they
did not want it to look like a civic building. As visitors drive by, they want them to visually see that there's
something unique and different that's happening there. A museum is singularly unique in the community,
and they want the facade and the building to communicate that.
End of Public Input
Board Questions
Member Schmidt stated she would like to ask a question of the neighbors. She stated she presumes
that the neighbors are aware of what the parking is like on Cherry and Sherwood. Is there additional
parking space during the day where people can park or is that being used by students or someone else?
Dr. Schweitzer stated that she put more details about parking counts in the letter. She stated that on a
typical day, there is parking right around the Mason Street north area. There are also open spaces on
Cherry Street, but the traffic is heavier. Schmidt asked if they block off the drive when there are events
at the farm. Dr. Schweitzer stated they have a special sawhorse sign.
Member Campana asked Ms. Williams if she was aware of what the annual budget was for maintaining
the road. Ms. Williams stated they do need to accumulate approximately $16,000 within 20 years to
replace the road, but was not sure what their annual costs are.
Ken Smith stepped up to the podium and stated those costs were around $3,000 to $4,000 per year. He
added there are three homeowners associations: Mason Street North Homeowners Association, River
Rock Homeowners Association, and the Martinez Park Homeowners Association, which is their
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 5
you cross this line, so the fence does need to be detailed for breakaway and respectful of the flood
issues that that area of the site presents. But, they really wanted to capture as much of this backyard, so
to speak, as possible so that we can continue experiences all the way to the bike path. Schafer said the
fence would tie in right at the north side of the building about the middle of the facade. They're tucked it
into some of the plantings along the bike path.
Member Schmidt said the trellises were essentially cables. Schafer said, "It's a stainless steel cable
system that would be ordered. So you would have supports running every 12" down the sides of it on
any given panel and then supports along the top and bottom as well." He said, 'We've been working
very closely with our landscape architect to pick the right plants to thrive in this environment. We think in
a couple of years we will see some good growth. The plants we're selecting can grow to 20' plus so they
will cover the full height of this eventually, but it will take a few growing cycles. It could be 7 years or so
before the full expression is reached."
Member Schmidt asked what they will look like in winter. Schaeffer said, "We've got a variety of plants
we're working with to choose for the color variations throughout the seasons. We've got some flowering
seasons that will bring some color in certain times of year. We've got a few evergreen species we're
looking at to give some texture to those walls. It's going to be a mix and variety of plant materials in
consideration for the varying changes of the season."
Member Lingle asked about what are the landscape guarantee requirements. Is there a guarantee that a
developer has to replace them if they die? Olt said landscape covenants that ride with any development
are there to insure the plants thrive or they would need to be replaced.
Member Lingle mentioned a similar trellis system exists at Stapleton Park in Denver and the metal
substance the vines go up gets very hot and literally "fries" the vegetation. Schafer said, "I will say that
we are working really closely with AE Com to come up with the right species of plants for this. I've seen
that same phenomenon where you have a dense metal screen that gets too hot to support vine growth. I
respect the potential for that, but I think by spacing our cabling out enough we're not creating that critical
mass of heat. I also want to point out that the plants we are selecting actually, we expect the stainless
steel cable work to start their growth, but they are actually going to be adhered to the concrete within the
boundaries of those areas. The cable system would give us sort of a demarcation of where we want
them to grow and not for pruning and maintenance purposes. But, the plants will adhere to the concrete
which is similar but less susceptible to the temperature swings you might get from steel."
Public Input
Ken Smith, 415 Mason Court, stated they decided to appear again and give notice that they are
concerned about possible overflow traffic on Mason Street North, a private street. The concern is the
possibility of people using Mason Court as a thoroughfare from the park to the Farm or to Sherwood or
some other location. He would like to initiate a conversation with the City on how that could be mitigated
through the use of signage. The markings of the 40 spots on Mason Street will help, and he also felt that
coordination of parking for some events like the Buckaroos Softball Tournament or the summer softball
leagues would be helpful instead of just letting people park wherever they choose.
Barb Kistler, 415 No. 8 Mason Court, stated she thinks this is a great project. She asked if the City has
any plans to widen the entrance to Mason Court. People will oftentimes park in the red -dashed area to
run into Dazbog to get coffee. They also have meeting spaces, and sometimes there can be 20 or 30
cars in the area. She feels it is essential to widen the entrance. Stockover asked which entrance she
was referring to. She stated it was the entrance off Cherry.
Delores Williams, 415 Mason Court, 7A, stated she is the treasurer. Mason Court is a private street. It
was built and is maintained by the homeowners that live on Mason Court. They have been informed they
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 4
Schafer said, "I did hear some desire to reference some of the brick in old town Fort Collins and we have
pretty specific direction from our clients, the museum directors, not to take that expression. But, we're
suggesting that we can use some stucco elements on these bumped pieces on the southern side of the
building to create a color relationship between our building and old town. While not using the same
material, we're creating a vocabulary or some dialogue between this building and old town."
Schafer said, "I also heard a lot of comment about the east elevation. We have taken another look at it.
We talked last week about some of the challenges that a building with such high preservation
requirements brings to the ability to put fenestration windows in a building. And, we also recognize the
need to modulate that elevation a bit further and really give it a little more rhythm. So, we looked again
at the planter layout. We also looked at some of the uses on the building and looked for opportunities to
create a couple more recesses to break the linear aspect of that elevation down a bit. And, so what we
are proposing to do is to create a notch about 40' from the southern end of that elevation and then
another one further back where we have the rear entrance."
Chair Stockover ask that Schafer highlight what has been changed.
Schafer said, "We can actually recess the building a few feet here to create another notch to further
articulate that side of the building. And, 'again, doing a similar thing at the north end where we have the
loading area. So, we're breaking the building into three pieces. I think that the trellises work and the
green wall system also breaks the building vertically into two bands. You have a base and a top. I think
the code requires base, middle and top implied because you have those other two ones specifically
described. But, we are working to create some horizontally and some relationship between the upper
and the lower portion of the building in this approach ... you may not have as much clarity in the reveal
pattern in the images that have been forwarded to you, but we are proposing to bring some reveals to
further accentuate the limits of those planting areas and to delineate the rhythm of the precast panels
themselves."
Schafer said, "There was also some discussion about the north side of the building and the west side of
the building that faces onto the park. These are rather stark elevations because we have removed the
vegetation so you can actually see what the building is doing. We are proposing to calibrate windows in
this elevation with the uses behind and have some relationship between those and the exhibits so there's
some synergy there. Again, we do have preservation concerns so we don't want a lot of glass bringing
uncontrolled light into these spaces. We're being somewhat restrained there on the west and on the
north side of the building. I think that using reveal patterns and precast panels to give some order to that
and then allowing that rhythm to take off as it does along that curve facade allows some interest along
that side of the building. I also think that that curving facade, in the fact that it's curving, allows a lot of
depth of field in the way you perceive that elevation. It doesn't read as a long unobstructed facade. The
colors come out a little funny on this projection system, but I did bring some renderings that our site
designer has provided to show you some of the level of plantings and some of the intent behind those
spaces along the rear. Again, there will be some exterior exhibits in this area. We intend our building
really to be a back drop for some of this natural area in front and some of the exhibit experiences that will
happen between the bike path and the building on this side."
Schafer said Member Schmidt had some questions relative to planting. They are proposing a cable
system in a horizontal proportion so there would be 3' centers for the vertical pieces and about 1' center
for the horizontals. He said, "This is showing a little bit more vertical than we had proposed. Just applied
in a rhythm along the building, much like what you see here."
He said the question raised was regarding the fence. He said, "What we're proposing there is just a
simple black picket fence. We recognize that we are getting down into the floor conveyance zone when
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 3
She said traveling exhibits are incredibly expensive. They're planning only one per year. The rest of the
time the exhibits are comprised of their collections and those change out every three months much like
the history museum.
Member Campana said at the last meeting the Board was told that 250 people could be there at any
given time. Is that correct? Geiselman said yes. Schafer said the museum has a variety of spaces
within. It could have people seated in a classroom setting and participating in a program. The museum
also has very lightly used spaces such as the collection storage area which will have one or two people
accessing it. Schafer said to apply a parking per square foot calculation across the whole facility may not
be appropriate as only about half of the facility is really being actively used by visitors.
Geiselman said unlike a school, statistically the "dwell" time in a museum is 2'/z hours. They don't stay
from 8 to 5—they cycle through. They'll schedule their events such as the digital theater and classes very
carefully. They try not to have everyone hit at once or stay the whole day. She wanted to assure the
Board that they were bringing their 20 years of running the Discovery Science Center and 70 years of
running the Fort Collins Museum to bear. They have a pretty good handle of how the traffic patterns will
happen. In all the literature, everyone talks about the peak day. They realized the "peak day" will
happen less than 10 or 15% of the year.
Member Schmidt asked how fire engines will be accommodated. Schafer said they've met with PFA. It is
a challenge because there's only one point of access for fire trucks but they have provided the turn
around on the north side of the building and PFA has agreed to that proposal. In addition, they're going
to slightly widen and strengthen the bike path on the west side of the building to satisfy the need for fire
truck access there.
Member Campana asked if the review considered spill -over parking available off street in that area. Olt
said that's something still to be discussed, but as stated at the last meeting there are 40 public parking
spaces that need to be better identified west of this development. The applicant is still working on spill-
over parking in certain locations to accommodate more than the 86 parking spaces that they've providing
on site. Director Dush said we asked the applicant at the last meeting to do some research relative to
their programming. The parking spaces they'll be providing on site meet code requirements. We are
not requiring additional spaces outside of what is already provided --that's why we haven't proposed a
condition of approval.
The Board/applicant reviewed constraints related to the lot including flood plain, railroad tracks, the
natural areas, utility boxes, building foot print/layout, drive lanes, and parking. They also considered the
40 public parking spaces interspersed on Mason Court and the private drive in that area.
Architecture
David Schafer, OZ Architecture, said the other line of discussion that we had a couple weeks ago was
that of the architecture and how it relates to old town and how it fits into the design standards that the city
has in the Land Use Code. He said they wrote a letter he hoped the Board has reviewed. They're
suggesting an alternative approach to design in the City of FC. He said, "I think that the LUC has some
prescriptive requirements that are suggestive of some of the context of old town. We respect that
context, but this particular site is far enough removed from that that some of that context does not
necessarily apply. What I mentioned last time was that we were intending to create a facility that
reflected its context. So, they are bringing some of the green materials to the wall areas, using natural
materials such as concrete. We thought we would be able to enhance some of those features."
He brought a sample of the precast concrete they are proposing. They did not have a full pallet to show
the Board but they will be developing one shortly with some of the metal and some of the stucco colors.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 29, 2010
Page 2
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.
Application's Presentation
Parking
David Schafer, OZ Architecture, said he would first address parking and establish the basis for their
justification of the parking count. Taking the annual projected usage of 100,000 visitors per year, you
can break it down to a simple visitors -per -day strategy. Their traffic engineers, however, have applied
some multipliers that increased the load by approximately 20% to account for a peak day and decreased
it slightly (10 or 15%) to account for alternative transportation. He said at two visitors per vehicle they
calculated 142 visitors. That translates to 71 vehicles. Considering national standards, the Institute for
Parking Engineers indicates a need ranging of between .71 to 2 spaces per thousand square feet of
building; they determined they fall somewhere between those two numbers.
Finally, recognizing the fact that that parking count is really accounting for visitor load and not the
potentially 15 employees; they looked again at the site. They considered swing space/mixed use
opportunities and use patterns. He said you will have school buses during the week and primarily
individual vehicles on weekends. They propose capturing additional parking spaces by making the pull-
out for buses a little bit wide and excluded its use by individual vehicles. Then, they would use signage
and cones on weekdays to make sure only buses are using it. On weekends they would open it up for
visitor parking.
They recognize the museum is going to have intensive use occasions but they don't want to plan the
parking lot for the highest possible use. To that end, Operations Services Ron Kechter has been
negotiating shared use agreements with adjacent property owners. The vacant lot to the south on
Cherry that ultimately will be redeveloped at some point could be an opportunity to provide vehicular
staging, possible valet service, or even visitor parking in crossing the street to get to the museum on
those peak days. Their intent is to balance what they perceive to be the need for parking with the actual
amount of parking we're providing on site.
Member Lingle asked Schafer to run through the formula. Schafer said, "100,000 visitors per year would
be divided by 365. You then bump it up 20% for peak usage and down 15% for alternative transportation
modes. That gets you to the 283 visitor per day. Divide that by 2 (two occupants per vehicle
assumption) to get to 142 cars. They assume at peak time you have one half of the visitors there ... a
quarter of them show up early in the morning and a quarter of them come in near the end of the day.
That's how they got to 71 spaces.
Member Schmidt asked for a description of how the museum will be used -the number of special events,
their frequency, and the duration of event peak usage. Executive Directory Annette Geiselman said
museums are interesting businesses to run because the visitors are not predictable and that's why they
use algorithms. It's all based on annual visitation. The general rule of thumb is one parking spot for
every 1,000 annual visitors. They're looking at 70,000 visitors a year or 70 parking places. As the
Director, she feels comfortable with that parking allotment.
Geiselman said events are harder to predict. Currently, their large fund raising events are held off -site.
She suspects they'll continue to be off -site at a location such as the Marriott. With regard to exhibit
openings, the first week is usually pretty busy. She said what museums try to do is spread the visitation
out —the opening for donors is scheduled on an evening and general museum hours are expanded.
Chair Stockover called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
Roll Call: Campana, Hatfield, Lingle, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover
Absent: Carpenter (due to conflict of interest)
Staff Present: Dush, Eckman, Olt, Virata, Stanford, and Suess
Agenda Review. Chair Stockover explained the only topic for this adjourned meeting is the Fort Collins
Discovery Museum Project Development Plan, # 6-10.
Project: Fort Collins Discovery Museum Project Development Plan, # 6-10
Project Description: This is a request for a community facility on approximately 11.5 acres. There will
be one building, which will be primarily 21'-6" to 31'-Y in height from grade. There
will be a "tower" element that will be 49'-0" to 58'-6" in height from grade. A total of
71 on -site surface parking spaces (cars and buses) will be provided. The property
is located at the northeast corner of Cherry Street and Mason Court, just west of
North College Avenue. The Union Pacific Railroad tracks run along the east side,
between the property and North College Avenue. The Cache La Poudre River is
just to the north of the property. There is a City -owned natural area and Lee
Martinez Community Park to the west of the property. Vehicular access to the site
will be from Mason Court. The property is in the POL, Public Open Lands District
and the CCR, Community Commercial - Poudre River District.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
City Planner Steve Olt reported at the meeting on April 15`", 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 29`h, 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 dated April 26, 2010 was sent to the Board and essentially breaks down Section