The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM - PDP - 6-10 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (3)Planning & Zoning Board April 15, 2010 Page 20 Member Schmidt made a motion that we adjourn until Thursday, April 29 at 6 p.m. to discuss Fort Collins Discovery Museum Project Development Plan, # 6-10.. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:0. Other Business: None Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Steve Dush, CDNS Director Butch Stockover, Chair Planning & Zoning Board April 15, 2010 Page 19 Member Schmidt made a motion that we continue the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Project Development Plan, # 6-10 until the next Planning and Zoning Hearing and request that the applicant review some of the issues brought up this evening in relation to the building design and the parking. Member Campana seconded the motion. Shafer said he heard they can come back with an analysis of their parking needs and a justification for the number of parking spaces they'll provide on site and an alternative approach to the east elevation to bring in some additional articulation. Is that what is required? Member Campana asked that they return with a plan to manage traffic as it relates to the private drive. Member Schmidt asked for building design or other features that makes more of a connection to old town architecture. Chair Stockover said relative to the steel tower, do they have earlier renderings they provided their client and would it be appropriate for Board to review them in advance of the next hearing. Shafer said they did pursue a variety of alternatives and he'd have to talk to the museum directors as to the appropriateness of showing them to the Board. Member Smith said he thought it would be inappropriate to ask for them. This is the design the applicant has settled on and that's what the Board needs to use. Stockover said his goal was to bring everything to the table so the Board wouldn't have the same dilemma next hearing. Eckman said his suggestion is the applicant has heard their comments, they know what your concerns are relative to articulation. It's their job now to present something that would persuade the Board that what they present complies with the LUC. Member Smith said he's going to back off and not support the motion. He understands the concerns related to parking but the only option is to amend the LUC not deny the project. Chair Stockover said he doesn't have a very strong feeling related to parking. The motion was approved 4:1 with Member Smith dissenting. Kechter asked, considering their time crunch, if there could be a special hearing. Eckman said the Board could have a special hearing with proper notice. Stockover asked if a work session needed to precede it. Eckman said no and you could adjourn to a specific date. Kechter/Shafer said they'd request two weeks from today or April 29`h. Member Smith asked if there were any issues with members not present participating at the adjourned meeting. Eckman said if they review proceedings via video or minutes; it would be okay for them to participate at the adjourned meeting on April 29 h to continue discussion of this matter. Eckman advised making a motion. Schmidt asked if the previous motion had to be rescinded. Eckman said yes by way of "reconsiding" the continue motion and then make a new motion to adjourn the meeting to a date certain to continue the discussion of this application. Member Schmidt made a motion to reconsider the previous motion to continue the Discovery Center Museum. Member Smith seconded the motion. Olt asked if the meeting is in two weeks, do the applicants have to have something to us prior to the meeting. Eckman said that's the pleasure of the Board. Smith asked for materials 24 hours before the meeting. Olt said he could provide it via email except for Member Hatfield who does not have an email account —special arrangements would be made for him. Member Smith asked that the new material also have a staff analysis. The motion was approved 5:0. Planning & Zoning Board April 15, 2010 Page 18 Shafer said he understands Campana's comments completely and he'd like to acknowledge that their traffic impact study supports the parking count they were getting. In fact, they felt as if they were addressing the notion that they might need more than the City's minimum requirement by providing 33% more the 1 per 1,000 square feet requirement. Campana thinks the requirement is related to use —he thinks their needs may go beyond code with respect to parking counts. He said the Board has concerns about compatibility and the impact on the surrounding neighborhood —he said everything comes into play. Olt stated for the record, this complies with the parking code as it has been submitted. The LUC states two parking spaces per 3 employees (maximum of 20 at any given time) or 14 spaces and one parking space per 1,000 square feet of floor area. We have 49,000 square feet of floor area or 49 parking spaces. The total is 63 spaces. They have 71 on site. Eckman said if that is so, he doesn't believe they should deny a project that complies with the requirements of the LUC even if you think the requirements are insufficient. The solution is to amend the LUC not to postpone or deny a plan. Member Schmidt said her issue isn't really with the parking, it's the rest of it —she doesn't think it meets Section 3.5. If it went to a vote tonight, she could not support the project as proposed. Member Campana asked for an assembly use calculation per seat area. Olt said 1 per 4 seats in the place of assembly —we don't have that as part of this facility so that portion of the code does not apply. Member Campana asked for an example of a facility in town that would be similar to the 1 per 1,000 square feet requirement. No one could think of one. Eckman said that section of the code states spaces per employee OR 1 per 1,000. In that case the minimum requirement would be 49. Olt said they have 71 spaces on site. Member Smith said he agrees with Eckman. We have to be able to base our decisions on criteria in the LUC and that means if it's modification of standards or condition of approval —it has to be based on the LUC. As far as parking goes, we don't have a lot to really hang our hat on. The applicant has certainly heard that and they're prepared, willing, and able to mitigate those issues as they arise. He does not think the Board can arbitrarily delay it. He's okay with the east wall. Lastly, the rule of thumb of 1,250 feet distance for pedestrians to comfortably maneuver assumes some conditions that are not yet present like visual interest. We have vacant lots and the railroad tracks. We're probably pushing comfort as relates to walking distance from the parking structure. If we move forward, he's hoping museum staff is willing to accommodate those patrons' needs. Member Campana said he didn't think the intent of the code was to put blinders on when looking at a project. Parking is a minimum standard and we have to hit the mark. Section 3.2 looks at user needs such as layout design shall anticipate the needs to provide continuity of vehicular circulation, parking, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation. You need to take the user needs into account when designing the parking lot. Member Schmidt referred to the Shields project that was returned to the Board after an appeal to City Council. It was returned with the instructions to take compatibility issues into account including consideration of parking. That project also met minimum parking standards. Olt said the LUC section referred to by Campana speaks to the layout/design of the parking lot —it does not take about parking counts. Campana said your parking needs are not just the orientation of the lot but your programming needs. Olt said they have 40% more than the minimum requirement set forth in the code. Campana said that when he reads that section of the code, it's incumbent on the applicant to prove that the calculation meets their programming needs. He said if it's 40% more than just show us that's all you really need based on their uses/programming. Planning & Zoning Board April 15, 2010 Page 17 Member Schmidt said she doesn't think it needs to mimic a downtown building. Could it have some sidewalk pavers or some outside community space where people could sit on stone benches? Could it have some type of brick element/stone "feel"? That's important to her. Member Campana said if the minimum requirement was 1 per 1,000 square feet, it would be shortsighted if the Board did not take a parking program into account. He asked it does it make sense to for the Discovery Museum, the City, and the applicant to put their heart, soul, and design into that building and have people complain later about not having enough parking. Chair Stockover thought at this juncture we should entertain a motion to postpone consideration for a month. Member Smith asked what for the distance between the facility's front door and the parking structure. Olt said the parking structure is two blocks to the south along Mason Street or 800-1,000 feet. Chair Stockover asked if the school buses could park at the Downtown Transit Center. Sanford said probably not. It's designed to accommodate the movement of buses with not much storage space. Director Dush said like Smith mentioned the problem we're having is an indicator of the success of downtown. If this project was on the other side of the street it'd be in the transit overlay district —where absolutely no parking is required. This structure is within a'/< mile distance of a transit center, a structured parking, and it has parking on its site that would be adequate for this particular use. He said we're going to be seeing a lot of these issues with infill. As Plan Fort Collins comes along, we're at that point of starting to see the fruits of the design and the codes that the City has adopted. A more urbanized area is going to have some parking issues. Member Schmidt said she appreciates that but this is a little bit of a different use than something like Penny Flats. She thinks there will be a transition to that. She doesn't think we currently have very functional transit and that it's getting better all the time. She believes it's not really an option for everyone. She said if you develop something that has the parking now as the transit improves and the BRTs get functioning, you can later change that parking space into more programming space. If there's a definite plan like Aztlan has this many spaces (there will be signage and it's only a block away) and that's the best we can do; that might be acceptable. Right now it's maybe this and maybe that. Shafer said they have a few mitigating factors here —one there is a drop off right at the front door where you can drop off your family then go find a spot and evening events could be managed with a valet system to assist with the visitors experience. Shafer said they want to plan for the exception and not the rule because he thinks the project would be unsuccessful if it had a vast sea of parking out front. He said there is a balance between adequate landscaping and parking. In fact, the landscape areas are filtering water run-off that comes out of the parking areas themselves. There's a story to be told and an environmental sensitivity consideration to be made in the way that's implemented. He'd be careful to really drive a considerable amount of more parking into this site. He asked when looking at the site plan, without significantly shrinking the footprint of the building, can we add more parking. He can see the use of Aztlan or using the bus parking area for additional parking but he doesn't see doubling the parking count. Shafer said what he would ask if the Board is looking to them to increase parking on site is that they give them a target they think is within reason. Campana asked if it made more sense for them to program it out and they determine what they believe the needs would be —just like you'd do in a traffic study. He thinks now is the time to do this and not on the back side after the problems are manifested. Planning & Zoning Board April 15, 2010 Page 16 Member Smith said he'd like to be able to give them approval tonight. He said we're not suppose to design projects and he suggested conditions they leave with (trusting staff to police those conditions are meet to the Board's intent.) Chair Stockover asked what type of conditions you could put on design. Smith said as far as the east wall articulation he's satisfied based on what's he's heard tonight. It is the "service' wall for the facility. It has some exceptional conditions that'll allow it to be what it is. Member Campana said if there's a grant we're going to lose or we're going to lose a contract on a piece of property; the cost/benefit of losing the project versus making a decision tonight would make sense. He much rather them see them come back with something else that addresses some of the issues. Chair Stockover agrees with that. He believes decisions made in haste are typically bad ones. In his mind, he doesn't know how to condition parking. He said if the condition was 20% more parking and it wasn't attainable, what would be gained. Member Smith asked if we could break up some of these issues to come to agreement. He said right now for him its parking. He thinks it's the cause of some of the other symptoms such as pedestrian access issues. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said he'd like to respond to the question about whether these public buildings have special leeway. They do not. City's buildings must comply with the LUC in the same way that a private builder would unless it exempts itself in the City Code (which the City of Fort Collins has not.) There was a Colorado Supreme Court decision made in Clark v. Estes Park that precludes that. As to the parking question, he said you could easily approve this project on the condition that they add more parking but what do you do if by adding more parking, it puts them out of compliance with some other requirement. He doesn't know how you'd fashion a "blank check" modification of standards for landscaping in order to accommodate extra parking spaces. He asked wouldn't you have to see something that shows where the parking spaces would be and how that impacts landscaping before you could do that. Member Schmidt said she understands Smith's concerns and she feels the same way. This is a good project but she just doesn't have the level of comfort needed to move forward. She thinks we're being unfair to other developments which have been required to meet standards with regard to articulation, etc. She said if we want to make it a signature building, we need to do something to create some interest on the east side for people traveling on College Avenue. She'd like to see something different after they've had a chance to consider the Board's feedback. If they need to apply for different modifications, we'll take a look at them. Olt asked for a clarification on parking for the applicant's sake. He asked as you direct them to look at additional parking, are you saying that parking for the facility is insufficient. Are we looking to them to provide parking not only for the facility but the commercial uses across the street and the overflow softball parking? He asked what the Board would like them to address. Member Campana said they need to satisfy only their own parking needs and he thinks that 71 spaces are not sufficient. Chair Stockover said his thoughts on parking are is it Fort Collins feeling of parking sufficiency (as opposed to a Denver feeling where people are more likely to walk 4 blocks.) Member Schmidt said as more events happen the parking structure is going to fill up. She said what the Board is asking is what is the plan for parking on and off site. If it's Northside Aztlan than where do the customers from Aztlan park? Member Schmidt asked that they consider what's exposed on the building when you're a little down grade from College. Will you see air conditioning units? r , Planning & Zoning Board April 15, 2010 Page 15 exploring their parking options. Member Schmidt said she recognizes we're going to feel some of these pressures with infill projects. She doesn't think the homeowners should be obligated to pay for maintenance for the times people, trying to find their parking options, happen onto their roadways. Member Smith said have parking problems in a down town is a good thing —it speaks to it being compact and having character and vibrancy. A walk -able downtown is critical to its success. However, he's thinking it's a little bit out of downtown until those two large lots to the south are filled in. He said we have a little bit of leeway in the LUC relative to destination and public facilities. They're different from a commercial building. We have a maximum parking standard for commercial buildings, he's wondering if we have any justification to enter into a discussion about looking at a little bit more on -site parking. He said that might mitigate a lot of the issues they're talking about tonight. Member Schmidt said she has no problem with the request for modification of standard to have the parking in the front. She sees no problem with having it between Cherry Street and the building. If there would be a possibility to add more parking on the east side; she said that would be great. Member Schmidt asked for some clarification for the notation in the neighborhood meeting minutes about "telescope parties" and the need for lower impact lights. Are they talking about the lights on the building? Shafer said the question centered on the issue of light pollution. He said groups would like to use a telescope on the roof terrace or in the back portion of the lot to look up at the night sky. They were requesting the parking lot lights are controllable so they can shut them off for those events. The applicant said they'll have some low level bollards providing illumination along pedestrian zones and a limited number of tall poles with just enough illumination in the parking areas. Shafer said they're tapering it to have very limited lighting on the north side of the building. Member Campana said he thought that during the work session they talked about the buses being parked on the east side. Olt said they'll be on the southeast side. There's indented parking along the driveway. Campana said he really wouldn't want to see the buses parked in front of the most prominent architectural feature of the building. Shafer said there is a "slaughter" at the northern edge that provides room for a couple of buses. They do need to stay out of the fire truck access so they are being sensitive to that. Olt said we could certainly look at the utilization of parking at the Northside Aztlan Center —there is a highly controlled safe intersection at College and Cherry and they can go north to the trail and use the underpass. Stanford said when they did the traffic study, they precluded buses. They used 2 people per car because they wanted a very conservative view of what impact there would be. He believes a good number of the 200-300 visitors will be brought in by bus. Member Campana said he'd even be willing to grant modifications to eliminate some of the island in the parking lot to create more parking spaces. Member Schmidt asked if there is a timing issue and if the request had to be approved tonight. With all the "could be" being mentioned, she's not comfortable with approving it as it with all those caveats. If the group would be willing to take our comments and suggestions (show some different articulation, show some different parking, reconsider the private drive) and return that would be where her level of comfort would be. Chair Stockover agreed. City Planner Olt said he'll defer to Shafer or Kechter to respond. Shafer said the project is on a relatively tight schedule. He said they're aiming to break ground in the summertime to avoid winter construction and the costs associated with it. He said that's all predicated on the submittal process going through tonight. They hope to gain approval (maybe approval with conditions) so they can move forward to their final development plan and building permit submittal. Planning & Zoning Board April 15, 2010 Page 14 Member Schmidt noted in the neighborhood minutes people were asking how Daz Bog would deal with their parking. Schmidt asked will Daz Bog customers be able to park at the museum. Stanford said Kechter has been working on some changes to the parking on Mason Court. They're considering creating diagonal parking in that vicinity and Stanford thinks it'll accommodate Daz Bog customer need. Member Schmidt said some people drive there to use the trails. Where would overflow parking go? She asked if you arrive there wanting to go to the museum and all the parking is filled, where would you find more parking? Stanford said their review is primarily the access into the site —anything that would impact the intersections or roadways. He said parking would take place somewhere else if the facility does not have it. It would be either on the street in the old town area or the parking garage. Stanford said they don't expect from what they've seen of their operation that the parking lot would be stacked to the point that there's not some level of parking available. They've not noticed a high level of use for trail system users. Member Campana asked how many staff would be working at the museum. Shafer says there are twelve full-time staff and some part time employees. Shafer said they're still well over the 1 per 1000 square feet requirement for the facility. Campana said the Board heard at the worksession that there could be 200-300 people using the facility at any one given time. Campana said we already have some existing parking issues with Daz Bog customers, those using the trail, or who live or work in the area. If we build a 50,000 square foot facility that we hope is hugely successful with 200-300 people and buses and we're only going to have 50 spaces available (after staff parking); it doesn't seem that off-street parking will accommodate that need. Member Campana said as a developer, there would be no way he'd ever be allowed to build something like this —privately owned with 70 spaces (50 available to the public.) He's never been able to "dilute" our standards to this point and say it meets standards. He said maybe we should explore if that private drive could become public. He thinks people will be driving through there to drive to Lee Martinez Park to find parking. Schmidt said she's been to River Rock Co -Housing for some events and she doesn't think it can become a public street —it's so narrow. Is there some way to block it off possibly with the use of a gate? Engineering staff member Marc Virata said the LUC specifically prohibits gated communities. Member Schmidt asked where the parking is for the ball fields. Olt said it's to the west side of the fields in the Lee Martinez Park area. Olt said there's some additional parking on Mason Street North. Ron Kechter, City Facilities Project Manager, said when they developed Mason Street North there were 40 spaces designated public parking and laid out randomly throughout the development. The Daz Bog parking is city property. Kechter said within a block of this facility, we have the Civic Center Parking Structure. If the need arises where staff cannot park at the facility, they can park in the structure and walk to the facility to accommodate their patrons. He said there is also parking on both sides of Cherry Street. Member Campana thinks designing it better for parking is what is needed. Chair Stockover asked what the hours of operation would be. Kechter said 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. He said there will be evening events but they will be scheduled program events on an occasional basis. Stockover asked what the facilities capacity is. Kechter said 200-300 people. Stockover said with evening baseball games and people downtown in the evenings, parking would be at a premium. Member Schmidt asked Stanford about his evaluation of the private street. Stanford said they don't see traffic from this development using the internal (private street) to access Sherwood/Lee Martinez Park. It's much simpler and easier to come back out to Cherry to go over to Sherwood. The Lee Martinez development is on scale of a multi -family development —it doesn't give the impression you are on a public roadway. Schmidt said signage might help in a situation when someone new to that area is Planning & Zoning Board April 15, 2010 Page 13 "steps" a couple of feet to allow for that grade change. It drops significantly to the north and west down into the flood plain. He said the grade is generally consistent from a building heading east. Member Schmidt asked relative to the north elevation —will the curve be buffered with some trees? Are those existing trees or will they be planted? Shafer said they have a pretty robust planting plan in those areas of the building —they've been stripped for building presentation purposes. Shafer said the plan is for some exterior exhibit experience. They're working with the exhibit designer to integrate those with the landscape. He said there are some plantings and existing stands of trees. They do need to provide a barrier between that controlled experience space and the pathway adjacent to it. They're thinking of an open wrought iron fence with pickets every 4 inches so joggers can see the experiences they could have if they went to the museum. It'll run through some of the stands of trees without disturbing them so it's not as prominent an element in your field of vision. Chair Stockover asked if the entity that's contracted OZ Architecture approved the plans being presented to the Board. Shafer said yes. He said Ron Kechter is the project manager for the City who is leading them through the process as well. They have been developed in close conjunction with their direction. Stockover asked if there was there any citizen input. Shafer said they met with the Museum Board and they've had a neighborhood meeting. Member Smith asked Shafer if he had anything to add to staffs comments about the eastern wall. Are there any alternatives or is that the best we can expect. Shafer said that side of the building is a difficult one to modulate with some relief on the elevation. It's also a difficult one to add windows because of preservation space needs on that side. The collection occupies 55% of that elevation. From a building layout perspective, they want a large contiguous space for the visitor experience within. He said there are not a whole lot of options for some significant articulation in terms of relief to that elevation. The best strategy would be to adjust the location and density of the plantings and reveal patterns, etc. Member Smith said he noted some concerns were raised at the neighborhood meeting with regard to pedestrian access. He knows a number of people will be walking to that location and he wondered what staff and the applicant thought about improvements and overall pedestrian accessibility to this site. Ward Stanford of Traffic said the applicant meets Level "B" criteria for pedestrian level of service (LOS).They meet the pedestrian needs of the city quite well at a Level of Service "A". Stanford doesn't see this development creating a significant amount of pedestrian demand. He said as they grow and the traffic volume grows, a signal may very well be warranted at some future date. Smith asked, if warranted, a signal would be added prior to the improvement of sidewalks on the south side of Cherry which would come with future development. Stanford said yes. Smith asked if it was fairly direct, safe, and continuous for a pedestrian to walk from the Northside Aztlan Center across College. Stanford said the College/Cherry crossing has pedestrian crossings on all sides with long signal timing for pedestrian movement. Staff feels it's safe. Member Schmidt asked where the Mason Street Corridor will end. Stanford said it'll affect intersections all the way north to Maple with bus service terminating at the North Transit Center. Schmidt asked if people took the bus to the depot, is there a sidewalk to the museum. Stanford said yes. Member Schmidt asked how often they estimated school buses would be coming to the facility. Shafer said he'd have to defer to the Museum Director but he expects a fair amount of school bus traffic during the school year/during the day. School bus traffic will be "off' the normal traffic peak loads between 10 a.m. and early afternoon. Schmidt asked Stanford if there'd be any issues with them making left turns onto Cherry. Ward said given they will there outside peak times, he doesn't see any issues with that. He said it's a fairly easy movement. Planning & Zoning Board April 15, 2010 Page 12 Member Campana said he doesn't ever having seen relief as an articulation —he thought there needed be a break in plane. Olt said that's correct. Campana said on the horizontal or vertical ratios they don't appear to come in to play. Is that because they're tapering the roof? Olt said that essentially that was how it was evaluated. Shafer said part of their rationale is the fact that they have the tower element to draw your eye (a large vertical element). There are some buffers between the eastern edge of the building and College. They also acknowledge the need to temper that elevation a little bit. They thought the planters were doing that in terms of adding texture and reflecting back the natural areas you'd see if the building wasn't there. He said they're studying approaches to modulating the trellis work to bring some more identity and texture to it. They have some preliminary elevations as the concept emerges. They're thing of adjusting the height and leaving a few bands out of the planter/trellis to allow the precast concrete to show through. Member Schmidt said when she's spoken to a few people about the design that "penitentiary" came to mind. She doesn't think that's the feeling we want to develop on North College. She thinks it's the straight lines and the metal on the tower. She likes the ideas they have and the renderings presented tonight. They're a lot better than those shared at work session. She would, however, like to see enhancements on the side seen from College Avenue. She'd also like to see a tie-in to old town --some feeling that you're still in old town and not starting a totally new experience on North College. She thinks the history part is missing. Member Smith said to a certain degree he'd like to be able to respect signature architecture in a public facility --something that's supposed to be for the ages. He doesn't share the sentiments expressed about the building looking institutional. He'd be reluctant to encourage architecture that would mimic historical buildings. He thinks there's a fine line between complimentary and mimicry. His specific concern is the east wall otherwise he thinks the design is solid. Member Schmidt asked if the buses park in the circle after leaving the school children off. Olt said they won't park in the circle area —they'll use it to turn around and park in a designated bus parking area. Shafer said they'll park just south and east of the building. Schmidt asked about the purpose of the large circular area on the north side of the building. Shafer said it's devoted to fire truck access. There will be times when a truck will use it to off-load an exhibit. Schmidt asked if it would be a permeable surface or pavement. Shafer said you can see a tone change in the rendering —they have pavement on the south end and on the north near the dock area. North of that is a permeable surface that will allow drainage. Member Schmidt asked if he was familiar with which trees would be relocated. Will they be able to use a number of large trees on the site? Shafer said they're doing a few things on site to maintain the existing vegetation. There's a large cottonwood tree near the southwest corner of the building that will remain — it's a great resource for the classroom breakout areas. They also have a stand of trees on the north side adjacent to the turn -around which will be used for an outdoor program area. It cuts the sun on the west at the end of the day. The building will have a large footprint on the site so they can't save everything. They have walked the grounds with the City Forester and have determined which trees are worth saving. They will be relocating many of them. For those trees that aren't worth saving, they will be replaced with a newer, healthier plant. Schmidt asked if there would be a vegetation buffer on the east side between College and the building. Shafer said it's primarily the trellis and vines; they don't have room for significant vegetation. Chair Stockover asked if they have any elevation difference between College and the building site. Shafer said the building site is slightly lower than College. He said, in fact, the railroad comprises a rise between the two. The site generally slopes from the southeast to northwest. The interior of the building Planning & Zoning Board April 15, 2010 Page 11 pre -cast colored concrete panel locally manufactured. It has good texture related to some of the environs. They're using a trellis system to grow vines —it allows the building to change seasonally. As the vines mature the appearance will change from year to year. From an energy side, the precast concrete and foliage which helps to screen them will reduce some of the solar gain —tempering the heat gain/loss throughout the project. Current energy calculations show the project coming in at 50% less energy use than a typical facility of that size. There will be some projected elements to help break that piece down. They're looking for more sleek lines in something that has a visual presence. Public Input Ken Smith, President of the Martinez Park Homeowners Association (HOA,) represents the HOA. They want to be on record regarding their concerns about traffic flow. Mason Court is a private street with public access just past the traffic circle to Sherwood Street. The HOA (9 homeowners) maintains it. They're concerned the traffic to and from the Discovery Center will be using Mason Court. They have not put up signage or speed bumps to indicate that it is a private street but they have investigating doing so. Member Schmidt asked if residents of River Rock Co -Housing contribute to the maintenance. Smith said they contribute to their portion of the road (which is west of their section.) Smith said River Rock representatives were at the last neighborhood meeting and expressed similar concerns about increased traffic flow on that private street. End of Public Input Board Questions Member Campana had concerns relative to the amount of parking being provided. He heard at worksession there was 40 spaces of overflow parking available in the area. He asked on what side of the traffic circle was it located. Olt said Mason Street North has parking scattered throughout the area. Member Campana asked for history on why the road was private. Olt said it was done by choice via the Lee Martinez Project Development Plan process. Member Campana said he loves that part of Fort Collins —"our little Central Park." He thinks the idea of putting a Discovery Museum there is a brilliant one because of the learning that can take place there from an environmental perspective. He thinks we're going to have issues with parking and it seems like we're not meeting the intent of Section 3.5.3 relative to articulation and bottom and top treatments on the east side. He's not exactly sure what he'd like to see in that area of Fort Collins. He asked if there is a way to reevaluate the architecture a little to provide more articulation with vertical as well as horizontal variety as well as provide more windows along a corridor. Member Smith said his area of concern is the east wall. There is the ability to provide trellage with vines or an equivalent element. He'd like to get a better understanding of how staff analyzed it and came to a place where they were in agreement with the applicant. Olt said he assessed their proposal against the building elevations and determined it satisfied the requirements of 3.5.3(D) (2). The precast panels with a typical width of 10 feet will have reveals between panels to establish a rhythm. The top edge of the panels is tapered. That allows the building to transition from the taller tower element to the lower level scale designed at the natural areas. He said the panels will be covered with a metal trellis system that further reinforces the rhythm. Color and vegetation soften the fagade and give scale and texture that visitors can relate to. Olt believes it satisfies the intent of the LUC in the context of the neighborhood. Member Smith said in the materials he's reviewed and the statements he's heard tonight the applicant is acknowledging that a visual impact has to be made. Smith thinks the tower is not the only way to accomplish that. Planning & Zoning Board April 15, 2010 Page 10 City of Fort Collins for review contain a delineated "property boundary" for the project and fences (on the northerly portion of the property) defining proposed secured areas of the facility. The applicant/developer and City staffs are currently discussing the actual property boundary needed for the facility along the west and north sides of the site. The City Parks Planning Department is concerned about conveying portions of the existing Lee Martinez Park site that are more appropriately contained in the City Parks ownership. Also based on the outcome of the property boundary discussions, there may be some minor changes to the fence locations and alignments. Therefore, staff is recommending the following condition of approval: "The actual property boundary 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's 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 the applicant/developer and City staff and appropriately shown on the development plans." Olt recommended approval of the request for a Modification of Standard in Section 3.5.3(B) (2) of the LUC and approval of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum, Project Development Plan - #6-10 with the condition noted above. Member Lingle left the meeting due to a Dersonal emeraenc Application's Presentation David Shafer, OZ Architecture, said as staff mentioned the building location on site was defined by a lot of the parameters existing on site —utility easements on the southern edge, wetlands on the west side, the definition of the flood plain which defines the serpentine wall on the west edge of the building. They're right up to the 100 and 500 year flood plain without intruding into it. They have a river setback on the north side of the site that limits their ability to build or even grade in that area. All the reasons noted, the railroad on the eastern and southern sides, and access issues coming off of Mason Court brought them to the building and parking locations being presented tonight. Shafer said a few of the goals the clients had in the design of the project was to create a building that changed with the seasons and something that related to the natural aspects of the site. One objective was to develop a presence near the busy College and Cherry intersection. That drove some of the thinking behind their exterior design. He presented a slide with a plan of the building so he could speak to the uses and how it was being expressed on the exterior. He explained their need for preservation of exhibits and a display area on the north side of the building for traveling exhibits were some of the reasons there are not many windows. (They don't want daylight to erode the artifacts that are being presented within the building.) Shafer said on the eastern side of the building starting on the northeast comer are the administrative offices. Adjacent to that is the shop where traveling exhibits are unloaded through the alcove on the east end, prepped and brought onto the exhibit floor. Adjacent to that is the vault and collection storage area. The area on the southeast corner is the reference area —a community resource area. There's a gift shop and cafe there. The cafe is simply vending machines —not a full scale food production area. On the west is a student entrance point —adjacent to the classrooms. Windows will be found at the cafe and classroom areas. Areas without windows are the high preservation spaces. Another goal of the project was sustainability. They're looking for LEED certification. They're looking for materials that make a lot of sense from that standpoint as well as a means to express local culture and some of the positive aspects of the site. They're looking at a "green wall system" which is composed of a Planning & Zoning Board April 15, 2010 Page 9 lines standard 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 build -to line section would make a parking lot infeasible. As specified in Section 2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures, (H) (Standards), the decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, 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 the City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered fro The Fort Collins Discovery Museum property will have no frontage on North College Avenue and is separated from that arterial street by a distance of approximately 125' and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. Therefore, it is not necessary or feasible to satisfy the "build -to" line standards set forth in Section 3.5.3 (B) (2) as they would relate to North College Avenue. The majority of the on -site parking for the Fort Collins Discovery Museum facility is located on the south side between the building and Cherry Street. Section 3.5.3(B)(2) states that build -to lines based on a consistent relationship of buildings to the street sidewalks shall be established for new buildings in order to form visually contiguous, pedestrian -oriented streetfronts with no vehicle use area between building faces and the street. There are several existing easements (utility, North Weld Transmission Line, etc.) that preclude the ability to locate the building closer to the streets (Cherry Street, Mason Court) because permanent structures are not permitted in these easements. Parking lots, however, are permitted to be located within these easements. Parking cannot be located on the north side of the building because there are buffer requirements associated with the Cache La Poudre River, wetlands, and natural area. Also, one of the proposed water quality ponds for the facility must be located on the north end of the site and it cannot be in a parking lot. The buffers and water quality pond are exceptional or extraordinary situations unique to the property such that the strict application of the orientation to build -to lines standard 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 build -to line section would make a parking lot infeasible. Olt, in a memo dated April 5`" and which becomes a part of the record, outlines a condition of approval regarding property boundary and fence locations. The Site Plan and Subdivision Plat as submitted to the Planning & Zoning Board April 15, 2010 Page 8 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'-3" 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 Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence Member Carpenter left the meetino due to a conflict. City Planner Steve Olt reported this Project Development Plan (PDP) complies with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC). Olt said per the applicant the building has been designed to fulfill the goals of the museum. The applicant asserts the project will not have a negative impact on views, light and shadow patterns, privacy or neighborhood scale. Olt stated the proposed land use is permitted in the POL, Public Open Lands District and the proposed land use is permitted in the CCR, Community Commercial — Poudre River District. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable General Development Standards contained in ARTICLE 3 of the LUC with the following exception: • Section 3.5.3(B) (2) Orientation to Build -to Lines for Streetfront Buildings. The proposed museum building does not comply with the "build -to" line standards as set forth in Subsection 3.5.3(B) (2). The majority of the on -site parking for the Fort Collins Discovery Museum facility is located on the south side between the building and Cherry Street. Section 3.5.3(B)(2) states that build -to lines based on a consistent relationship of buildings to the street sidewalks shall be established for new buildings in order to form visually contiguous, pedestrian -oriented streetfronts with no vehicle use area between building faces and the street. There are several existing easements (utility, North Weld Transmission Line, etc.) that preclude the ability to locate the building closer to the streets (Cherry Street, Mason Court) because permanent structures are not permitted in these easements. Parking lots, however, are permitted to be located within these easements. Parking cannot be located on the north side of the building because there are buffer requirements associated with the Cache La Poudre River, wetlands, and natural area. Also, one of the proposed water quality ponds for the facility must be located on the north end of the site and it cannot be in a parking lot. Therefore, staff has determined that the request for a modification of standard is justified based on granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and, the criteria in Section 2.8.2(H) (3) of the LUC relating to hardship. The buffers and water quality pond are exceptional or extraordinary situations unique to the property such that the strict application of the orientation to build -to Council Liaison: Chair: Lisa William Stockover Staff Liaison: Steve Dush Phone: (H) 482-7994 Chair Stockover called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Hatfield, Lingle, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover Absent: Staff Present: Dush, Eckman, Barnes, Schiager, Olt, Virata, Stanford, and Sanchez - Sprague Agenda Review. Director Dush reviewed the agenda. Citizen participation: None Chair Stockover asked if anyone in the audience or on the Board wanted to pull items from the consent agenda. None did. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the March 18, 2010 Planning & Zoning Hearing 2. Recommendation to City Council to Amend the Definition of "Occupancy" or "Occupy" in Land Use Code Section 3.8.16(D)(3) Member Schmidt moved to approve item # 1 March 18, 2010 minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and item # 2 Recommendation to City Council to Amend the Definition of "Occupancy" or "Occupy" in Land Use Code Section 3.8.16(D)(3). Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Recommendation to City Council to Amend the Land Use Code to Allow Medical Marijuana Cultivation in Zones CL, CCN, CS, and RDR. 4. Fort Collins Discovery Museum Project Development Plan, # 6-10. Project: Land Use Code Amendments to Allow Medical Marijuana Cultivation Zones CL, CCN, CS, and RDR Project Description: This is a r�or- Te e a ion to City Council regarding a Land Use Code amendment iritende to allow me ical marijuana cultivation facilities as a permitted use in the CL (non -Riverside area), CCN, CS, zoning districts. Recommendation: Approval