A&SDS Ad Hoc Minutes 04/29/2014 April 29,2014
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARD
AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING l 0
April 29, 2014 ` O'`a 5 SJIi
Naples, Florida
ey
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Architectural and Site
Design Standards Ad Hoc Committee, having conducted business herein, met on
this date at 1:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Growth Management Division
Planning & Regulation Building, Conference Room "C," located at 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN: Dominick Amico, P.E.
James Boughton, AIA
Dalas Disney, AIA
Bradley Schiffer, AIA
Kathy Curatolo, CBIA (Excused)
Ron Waldrop, P.E. (Excused)
Rocco Costa, AIA (Excused)
STAFF: Caroline Cilek - Senior Planner
Carolina Valera - Principal Planner
Ellen Summers - Planning Technician
1
April 29,2014
Note: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is
to be based. •
Any persoqin need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the media
recording from the Collier County Growth Management Division Department of Planning and
Zoning.
All material used in presentation before will become a permanent part of the record. These
materials will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners.
1. ROLL CALL
Vice Chairman Dominick Amico called the meeting to order at 1:31 PM and read the
procedures to be observed during the meeting.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Four(4) voting members were present.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—April 10,2014
Change:
• The spelling of Mr. Amico's name was corrected to Dominick.
Bradley Schiffer moved to approve the minutes of the April 10, 2014 meeting as
amended. James Boughton offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried
unanimously, 4—0.
3. REVIEW OF MATERIALS
A. Discussion
Bradley Schiffer asked to add a topic for discussion: "Paper Management." His
concern was waste, i.e., each member printing the documents over and over.
Caroline Cilek stated she will keep an on-going, updated document available for
review. She will email it to the Committee members who can print whatever Sections
are relevant for a future meeting. She stated the document will be revised and the
date will be changed as appropriate.
4. CONTINUATION OF REVIEW:
A. Staff Comments/Ideas
Caroline Cilek explained the format:
• Red Text - Additions or Changes
• Double Strikethrough - Language to be discussed at the meeting
• Yellow Highlights—Revised language from prior draft
Section 5.05.08:
B. Applicability
2
April 29,2014
• At Line 29—the date was eliminated; it is no longer necessary because the
date is a part of the authorizing Ordinance.
Changes:
B.1.: To all new building and projects within the following zoning districts:
B.2.: To non-residential buildings and projects when at least one of the following
conditions exist:
a. The project site is located abutting an arterial or collector road, except
for project sites located within an industrial and business park zoning
district. Arterial and collector roads are identified in the Traffic
Circulation Element of the GMP, or
Discussion:
• It was noted in a previous discussion,the intent was for every business park
located facing an arterial or collector road to be"dressed up."
• Suggestion: eliminate requirements from Industrial Zoning districts unless it
faces an arterial or collector road, i.e., "dressed up."
Dalas Disney noted the locations of the following Industrial Parks:
• Across from the airport; it pre-dates the Design Standards, and
• At White Lake which is fenced and fronts onto I-75/Tollgate Road.
• He stated it is in an Overlay District(#9) which triggers in a number of things
that do not make sense for a warehouse district.
Carolina Valera noted there are other areas of the County which are industrial-zoned
property and front onto arterial or collector roads, i.e., Pine Ridge and Airport north
of Costco.
Bradley Schiffer stated in the future, even in an industrial-zoned area, if a property
faces an arterial or collector road, it should be covered by the Design Standards. Most
business parks are through a PUD which will be subject to Design Standards.
Caroline Cilek suggested eliminating industrial from the language and keep business
parks having the same standards if they face an arterial or collector road.
It was noted that business parks,by nature,present a more unified ("dressed up")
architectural theme because of the developer.
Bradley Schiffer noted B.1 requires a business park to meet the Architectural Design
Standards. Most business parks are in a PUD; the applicability of Design Standards
will be dealt at the public hearing.
Carolina Valera stated the current Code has a threshold for properties that are within
300 feet from a residential-zoned property.
Carolina Valera stated she thought the Overlay for industrial in Immokalee exempts
architectural review for those properties within an industrial area.
3
April 29,2014
James Boughton stated business sparks were included in B.1. The Standards apply to
any business park district. He thought any building in an industrial park was exempt
unless it was on an arterial or collector road. He stated he did not understand why
business park zoning was mentioned in Item 2-A.
Bradley Schiffer stated the Community does not want the ugliest buildings in town
facing an arterial or collector road.
Caroline Cilek asked if the suggestion was to exempt the property if it was not located
on an arterial or collector road.
James Boughton stated they should define what zoning classifications the Committee
wants to exempt. The next question is: "Does that mean every building in an industrial
park has to meet the Code OR just the buildings that face the road?"
Dalas Disney noted if the building's footprint is within 150 feet of a residential zoned
district.
Bradley Schiffer moved to approve the following language changes:
• "... The project site is located on an arterial or collector road, except
for project sites within industrial zoning districts on arterial roads as
identified"
• Remove "business park"
Dalas Disney noted business park districts were covered in B.1.c. He suggested
adding: "Industrial sites on an arterial road need to comply." He noted location
within 150 feet of a residential zone is the second item that triggers compliance.
Dalas provided an item from the Transportation Department: "Minor Arterials, Major
Collectors, and Minor Collectors," stating there was a separate set of designations
used by Transportation that the Committee was not using. He stated "arterial"was
understood and asked if a"collector"was almost everything else.
Brad Schiffer asked if the Committee wanted commercial zoning on a collector road
to meet the Standards.
Dalas Disney stated he would not be offended by limiting adherence of the Standards
to arterial roads (major roadways).
It was noted that Vanderbilt Drive, Vanderbilt Beach Road, Orange Blossom, Logan,
and Golden Gate Boulevard were designated as "major collectors"by Transportation.
• Some Committee members thought the above-named roads were arterials.
Minor Collectors: Oaks, Everglades, Randall, Camp Keys Road
Q. Doesn't this Ordinance automatically change when the Transportation Department
reclassifies a road?
4
April 29,2014
A. It would.
Dalas Disney asked if the Committee should also use the same designations, "Major
Collectors" and"Minor Collectors" as used by Transportation.
Staff suggested keeping the definitions more "global"by retaining "arterial" and
"collector" since designations may change on an annual basis.
Mr. Disney stated since local roads were not included, it might be easier to state that
unless located on a"local"road, compliance is required.
Carolina Valera stated it was her understanding that industrials were exempt from
collectors—"industrial" will only apply to arterials.
It was suggested that the term"on" should be explored. Example, if there is an
arterial or collector and you have an industrial subdivision off of one, and the
proposed project takes access from a local road but its backyard is on the arterial,
does that count?
Jim Boughton stated it could be any piece of property that is adjacent to the right-of-
way. If the project has frontage, then the Standard would apply.
Dalas Disney noted the industrial park across from the airport, at one point, backed
up to woods as did several other properties but when Livingston was run in on the
east side of it, they were suddenly "on" an arterial. He stated the owners of such
properties who previously did not have to worry about complying with any anything
were,through no fault of their own, were forced to build more expensive buildings
when they decided to develop the land.
Caroline Cilek asked if the Committee wished to consider changing the "on"
regarding arterials or allow for the flexibility of someone having a buffer strip or an
easement to prevent the property from being "on" an arterial.
Bradley Schiffer stated the Code contained definitions for"adjacent" or"adjoining"
which could be substituted for"on." He suggested "adjacent"could replace the word
"on."
Dalas Disney suggested adding language that would exempt properties that were on
an arterial but fully buffered.
Carolina Valera suggested the word"abutting."
Dalas Disney supported the use of the word, "abutting."
It was noted if the property line extended to the right-of-way, even with a land easement
on top of it, the property would be considered to be "on"the arterial.
Caroline Cilek will work with Staff to revise the language. She clarified Standards
would apply to project sites located within industrial zoning districts on arterial roads.
• Abut or abutting: To share a common property line or boundary at any one point.
• Adjacent: To share a common property line or boundary, or to be separated by a
public right-of-way, easement, or water body.
Consensus: Substitute"Abutting" for"on."
5
April 29,2014
B.3.a.ii:
Caroline Cilek consulted the Florida Building Code, Existing Buildings Section, and
used the language in"ii." She stated"a," "b," and"c"were items the Building Code
Official accepts for assessments.
Dalas Disney asked if the Building Code used the term, "market value?" He thought
it was 50% of the "square footage" of a structure. He stated he did not remember the
Building Code using "market value"—that it was strictly a"square footage" driven
item.
He stated the information was pulled from two separate sections of the Code, i.e, the
trigger for compliance for a"Level 3 Alteration" of a building is square footage and
not the definition of"substantial improvement,"which is entirely different.
Discussion ensued concerning establishing the level of alteration on an existing
building for use by the Plan Reviewers versus "damage," i.e., when does a building
no longer grandfathered(from compliance with Architectural Standards) if it is
caused by damage. Damage can include"demolition"—to remodel a building, it
must be damaged. The demolition is under the Building Permit ... a Level 1, 2, or 3
alteration which is 50% of the square footage—it has nothing to do with market
value, assessed value, or appraised value. He further stated the language was used
previously to include damage caused by a renovation.
Bradley Schiffer stated"The Section is concerned with `damage' and when is a
structure damaged enough that it has to be brought into compliance?"
Dalas Disney asked if the subject was storm damage and not damage caused by a
demolition under Permit?
Bradley Schiffer stated he didn't know who would consider the remodeling and the
demo of a project to be "damage"because the remodeler had control.
Dalas Disney stated the language came from this Committee. He asked if the
Committee now wanted to separate the two and it was just"storm damage" and a
non-confirming structure with that would have nothing to do with a renovation which
is square-footage driven, then he was fine.
Bradley Schiffer suggested the Committee review subparagraph"i."
Caroline Cilek stated from her perspective the language from the Building Code
used it subparagraph"ii" did deal with storm damage and would be used very rarely.
She suggested the Committee discuss the demolition and renovation component. The
way it is written, Staff could review nor enforce it. Staff proposed utilizing that
section of the Florida Building Code and substituting 25% of the square footage.
Staff is concerned that it may be altered in certain situations to decrease the non-
conformity. The language could be considered as "subjective."
She asked:
• Are you going to meet the Code?
• Are you going to improve the Code so it is actually better than it was initially?
• What if you are doing things that are not really in the Code? How can Staff
give credit for that?
6
April 29,2014
Bradley Schiffer cited the example of a building that does not have the correct
façade plane changes (a big façade building). The way the Code currently reads if a
remodeling was to be done and the 50% came in, the remodeler would be required to
change the entire façade to meet the Code. The paragraph states that you can alter the
building but the plane cannot be increased. The remodeler could not add onto the
building unless it lessens the façade plane problem.
Q. So you are making it more conforming?
A. Correct.
Example: If a building did not have glazing on the façade and the Contractor cut in a
couple of doors and windows, but you still did not meet the 20 or 30%requirement."
Dalas Disney agreed, stating"You're making it closer, but it still is not fully
conforming. And that was the intent behind the language."
Caroline Cilek stated Staff's consensus, i.e., the language appeared to be very
subjective and they did not want any situations where there would be conflicts.
Bradley Schiffer stated the language was a"cut and paste" from the Vested Rights
Section of the Land Development Code. He further stated, "Vested rights" is exactly
what the Committee is trying to establish with the existing buildings.
Dalas Disney noted the issue with subparagraph"i" stemmed from the fact that there
are existing, nonconforming structures. He explained it is an attempt to try to get
older buildings renovated to any extent possible that brings them closer to compliance
... not full compliance because it could not be accomplished. Example: the building
owner will not give up 5 parking spaces because he doesn't have enough to begin
with and can't comply any further. He will not reduce the square footage of the
building to comply.
Carolina Valera stated the language is used for buildings that do not hit the 50%
threshold. She cited the following example: When a Contractor applies for a
building permit to move a window or a door, the Planners will verify that the changes
(1) do not hit the 50%threshold to bring the building up to Code, and (2) do not
increase the non-conformity.
Dalas Disney noted it applies to all renovations in redevelopment, including additions,
[Item 3. iii ] that will result in a change to the exterior of the building or site, in such case
of... exceeds 50% ... in other words, you can do 50%of the wall area but you can't do
51%.
Carolina Valera concurred.
Dalas Disney: "Then it doesn't trigger it."
Carolina Valera: "As it stands right now, I think the language that you are intending
to include is already being interpreted the way you want. By removing the 50%, for
any addition, you must prove: (1)that you are not creating nonconformity and(2) if
there is nonconformity, that you are not increasing it."
Dalas Disney asked why it was so difficult to review. He stated if an existing
building has a wall that is 100 feet long and is nonconforming, and a ten-foot offset is
7
April 29,2014
added to extend a new wall that does conform, the nonconformity of that wall has not
been increased. If windows are then added, the nonconformity is decreased. "I don't
understand why that is hard to review."
Carolina Valera: "I think it is okay."
Caroline Cilek stated she would consult Heidi Ashton at the County Attorney's
Office. She noted Staff is uncomfortable because numbers are not associated with it
and there is more room for interpretation regarding when something is triggered or
not.
Bradley Schiffer stated there is a very clear threshold which is: Do the changes
make the building more or less conforming?
Dalas Disney: "Show me what the existing was ... Show me what you're doing
today ... Is it more or less?" It's easy.
Caroline Cilek asked the following questions:
• What if a contractor proposes changes that are not counted in the
Architectural Code? Is that increasing or decreasing?
o Staff will be going out on a limb to accept something that is not
identified in the Code as being an Architectural element.
Dalas Disney: "Are you talking about the List of 25 or 27?"
Caroline Cilek: "No, if a contractor is going to improve a structure that is more
comforting and it is done in such a way that is not in the Standards ..."
Bradley Schiffer: "Are you saying that if there is something that can be done to the
building—with design or elements that are not in the Architectural Standards ... what
you are saying is that a Contractor can only do what is on the menus ... there is no
world outside the menus. But that's not true—if I put something up on the wall of a
building that is not prohibited, how can that be a problem?"
Dalas Disney: "Currently, you can do that up to 49%and not have an issue."
James Boughton: "Basically,the wording says, `You shall not increase the
nonconformity and you may [emphasis added by speaker] decrease it. So one is a
"shall"and one is "your option." As long as you do not increase, you are meeting
this requirement."
Dalas Disney suggested removing the 50%restriction.
Bradley Schiffer: "What is protects you from is if you decrease it more than you
should ... past that 50%threshold ... you trigger a punishment of having to totally
remodel the entire building. People have been known to structurally remove sections
of buildings."
Caroline Cilek suggested working together to determine the intent which must be
provided to Heidi Ashton-Cicko.
Dalas Disney: "Our recommendation to you is that the double-strike through should
be removed."
Bradley Schiffer asked if Caroline would request Attorney Ashton-Cicko to also
check "vested rights" in addition to determine a legal reason why the language didn't
work.
8
April 29,2014
Caroline Cilek asked if the Committee should address a renovation question with the
level alternatives?
Dalas Disney: "If(ii.) is storm damage or a vehicle driving into the side of a
building type of damage, the damage may be repaired as long as it is 50% or less of
that assessed value. That's fine."
Carolina Valera: "I am going to make sure that everybody's concern is addressed.
For example: If we start with a building that actually meets Code ... the plans had
been approved and now the client wants to make some changes or revisions to the
façade. If the revisions will alter the façade in a way that will make it less
conforming, then Staff will not approve."
In her second example, if a building is conforming and the changes will make it
nonconforming, Staff cannot say yes.
She continued,when a façade is nonconforming—what is trying to be addressed
with the language—if a building or a façade is nonconforming(possibly due to age)
and changes are brought to make the façade fully comply with Code, but doesn't
make it less conforming than it currently is,then Staff will approve.
Dalas Disney asked why, if(i) and(ii) are compared, does (ii)penalize a Contractor
if there is damage that cannot be fixed beyond 50%? But under(i), a Contractor can
do whatever he/she wants to a structure that has not sustained damage as long as the
structure is not made less conforming. He further asked if(ii)was necessary.
Bradley Schiffer replied, if a building had been blown down by a hurricane—should
a Contractor be allowed to rebuild the same nonconforming building.
Consensus: The Building Code would not allow it.
Mr. Schiffer responded that the Building Code was totally silent on the issue. The
only reason why the Committee referenced the Building Code was to be in parity with
it.
Dalas Disney continued,except that the structure has been damaged and a building
permit is required before repairs can begin—the permit must cycle up through Planning
and would be rejected on this basis.
Bradley Schiffer: "What you are saying is: `Why do we have the 50% Rule—the
Substantial Damage Rule—on an Architectural Standard?' If it wasn't included, a
Contractor could build back a nonconforming building.
Dalas Disney stated he didn't think it could be built back. "You will hit a wall at
Planning before you can obtain a permit to re-build it."
Bradley Schiffer: "Because of the regulation that we put in here—if there were no
regulation, there would be no `wall.' If we change (ii)to read"... damage of any
kind,"the original building could be rebuilt. The reason the clause is there is to put
the same threshold with the Building Code on these Standards."
James Boughton agreed, stating if there was more than 50%damage,the structure
must be upgraded ... there are the wind-load requirements ... as soon as a Contractor
needs a building permit, it triggers this whole process.
Discussion continued.
9
April 29,2014
Bradley Schiffer: "The question before this Committee to decide is: "Do we want
the Architectural Standards to also go down the same trail. The way this is written, it
is going down that same trail."
Caroline Cilek: "That is the direction I received at the last meeting."
Dalas Disney: "Whether it's market value or square footage, whether it's damaged or
not damaged, I don't see that you will be able to `get' to this ... and you're going to
trigger compliance with the requirement because you are attempting to acquire a
building permit in the first place. If the structure is damaged more than 50%, it must be
brought up to meet the current Code."
Bradley Schiffer: "So you're saying if we totally took this out, if I had a `substantially
damaged building' as defined by the other Codes, I'm coming through the process and
you are going to look at my re-build as ...."
Dalas Disney: "... as a new building."
Bradley Schiffer: " ... and you will say it doesn't comply."
Dalas Disney: "Exactly right."
Bradley Schiffer: "If I have damage to a building which is less than 50%, the Building
Department is not requiring me to bring the entire structure up to current Code and then
I come through your process ... and you would stop me there, too. You would say I
could not rebuild a noncompliant building.
Dalas Disney: "No. Less that 50% -- doesn't even trigger the Standards."
James Boughton: "I like the idea of 50%of the area ..."
Dalas Disney: "It's easy to calculate -- it's a given and there's no "wiggle room"there.
If you have 10,000 square feet and only 4,500 square feet has been damaged, then you
comply."
Caroline Cilek asked for the applicable Section of the Building Code to be more
definitively identified.
Dalas Disney: "It is existing Florida Building Code—you will find the 50%Rule in
Level Three Alteration."
Carolina Valera clarified: "If a building sustained damage of some sort, and is did
not hit the 50%area, how do we review it? Did you say we don't review it?"
Dalas Disney: "If it doesn't meet the 50%threshold, and it's an existing building
where damaged is being fixed—it can be put back exactly the way it was."
Carolina Valera: "Exactly the way it was—so we will have to review to make sure
the nonconformity has not been increased?"
Caroline Cilek: "That going to be the key."
Dalas Disney: "Most of these buildings pre-date SDPs—you don't have any
information on them anyway. How would you do that?"
Carolina Valera: "That's my question."
Additional discussion ensued.
Bradley Schiffer stated he did not think square footage should be part of(i),
especially square footage that meets the work area concept.
Dalas Disney explained that he did not ask for square footage to be included in (i).
10
April 29,2014
Bradley Schiffer asked, "Only in(ii)?" and the response from Mr. Disney was
affirmative.
Bradley Schiffer: "So what you're saying is we're going to judge the damage of a
building by the square footage of it that was damaged?"
Dalas Disney: "Something that you can at least tally to ... that you don't argue with
... similar to a property appraisal."
James Boughton: "Yes. And if it's a Level Three ..."
Dalas Disney: "... or a market value ..."
James Boughton: "... a Level Three renovation ...
Dalas Disney: "It's pretty clear cut."
Carolina Valera: "We do have it in the system ... if you look at what is stricken
through ... it says, " ... or would exceed 25% of the square footage of the building."
So it is in the present Code."
Dalas Disney: "The point is that's the 25%was extremely low ... but that's where
we were before ... 50% of the square footage would align it with The Building Code
for full compliance."
Bradley Schiffer suggested adding another paragraph that deals with work being
done. Example: the levels in the Building Code are not based upon damage—they
are solely based upon the extent of the work being done within the building ...
establishing thresholds ... the first two paragraphs do not touch on the concept of
self-inflected destruction. The first is arbitrary enough to deal with how to handle
nonconformities, and the second one is what to do a storm-damaged building."
He continued, "There is no such thing as a Level Three damaged building.
Dalas Disney: "There could be a building damaged in excess of 50% of its square
footage—which would be a Level Three Alteration of the Building Code."
Caroline Cilek agreed, stating the Florida Building Code would classify it as a new
build if more than 50%were damaged. "You are hitting on two different issues: (1)
there's storm damage, and(2) if you renovate, you hit Alteration Level Three."
Bradley Schiffer: "The reason(i) works for me on renovation is, unless you are
making it worse, you are not doing anything wrong."
Dalas Disney: "I agree. I think we're hung up between the storm damage and the
50%renovation ..."
Bradley Schiffer: "Let's just move on."
Caroline Cilek: "Your regular renovations would fall under(i). And that's it.
There's no square footage. If you do interior remodeling—it doesn't matter because
you are not touching the outside which is where the Architectural Standards are."
An example was presented: "During Hurricane Charlie ... our building doesn't meet
the Code and then the roof was blown off. 100% of the floor area got wet. We
needed a new roof,new ceiling tiles, and new carpet."
Q. Does this "kick in"?
A. (Dalas Disney) "No, because (i) would kick you out of it."
Bradley Schiffer: "What if you did above 50% of the square footage work area? It
would kick in because the ceiling tiles are part of the square footage ... you would
11
April 29,2014
have, essentially, 100% of the work area in your building—it would have kicked in
using a square foot analysis."
Caroline Cilek: "But our proposed language would only be if your building's value
were $5M and you went over $2.5M. That's the way the Florida Building Code
works."
She further stated she would change "may"to "shall" in the first sentence of(i).
She cautioned (i) may be discussed again at the next meeting, but not(ii).
It was noted Paragraph 4 was struck through and will be deleted.
Ms. Cilek noted there was a section of the Code that deals with vehicle use area—if
you discontinue the use, it must be brought back up to Code. There may be some
issues with Section E which she will research.
Jim Boughton expressed his confusion concerning why vehicle area was even in the
calculations. He stated if you have a small building with a big lot and you renovate
the parking lot, then the building gets tied into it. There is nothing in the Code, other
than 4 site-related design elements that would be affected.
Caroline Cilek reminded the Committee the Section is called"Architectural and Site
Design Standards."
Bradley Schiffer stated that Section should be in the Landscape Ordinance.
Carolina Valera commented on Mr. Schiffer's concern for historic buildings. A
suggestion had been made to add an exception for designated historic buildings in
Collier County, exempting them from Architectural review. It's not codified in the
Land Development Code. She noted Collier County has a Historic/Archaeological
Preservation Board.
Caroline Cilek will review the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
C. Building Design Standards
Caroline Cilek noted progress had been made on Paragraph 2—Primary Façade
Standards (a. and b.) and the Committee would not revisit that language. The
Committee will begin at subparagraph c. —"Design Standards."
vii. —Architectural elements proposed by the Architect and accepted by the County
Manager or his designee.
• Caroline Cilek noted it was difficult for Staff to review and there were no
criteria for this subparagraph.
o Suggestion: Add "justification"to identify how it meets the intent.
o There would not be an additional fee to request an alternative review.
• Dalas Disney stated part of the previous discussion was to increase flexibility
for a designer to the greatest extent possible.
• Carolina Valera stated the criteria under the Code was that it needs to meet a
purpose and intent, i.e., what is the proposed alternative design trying to
achieve? Does it meet the purpose and intent of the primary façade elements?
12
April 29,2014
Caroline Cilek noted Staff could draft a statement of purpose/intent for a primary
façade and the Committee could review it at the next meeting.
Dalas Disney suggested adding other options to the list of six design features:
• A landscaped entry plaza that is of some minimum size (to be determined)
which includes seating;
• Elevated monumental entry of some height(the stairs at the Metropolitan
Museum), (i.e., 16" stem-wall blocks);
• Monumental covered public entry which exceeds item (ii) in size by 100%.
Bradley Schiffer moved to approve adding the three options proposed by Dalas
Disney to the list of design features. James Boughton offered a Second in support
of the motion.
Carolina Valera suggested adding an awning or other covering to achieve a
"covered"walkway without the specific dimensions/column sizes of an actual
covered walkway. It could be combined with a covered entry and would run the
length of the building.
Dalas Disney supported her suggestion.
Caroline Cilek will meet with Carolina Valera to draft appropriate language and re-
number the section.
Caroline Cilek called for a vote on the motion to increase the number of options on
the list of design features. Carried unanimously, 4—0.
Jim Boughton suggested removing the dimension requirement for columns in(iii),
i.e., smaller columns achieve a more contemporary look. He also suggested reducing
the total length requirement from 60%to 40%.
Dalas Disney suggested:
• Reducing the minimum area requirement in 2. c. (ii) from 20%to 15%. He
stated the 20% was an arbitrary number and it is difficult to work with in
combination with any other item to be selected.
• He made the same suggestion for Items (iv) and(v).
• He concurred with and supported Mr. Bougthton's suggestion regarding
reduction of the total length requirement.
Dalas Disney moved to reduce the minimum area requirement from 20% to 15%
in 2.c.(ii), 2.c.(iv)(porte-cochere),and 2.c.(v)(tower). In 2.c.(iii), reduce the percentage
from 60% to 40%.
Discussion:
James Boughton suggested reducing the 18-feet(minimum horizontal dimension)
for the porte-cochere. He pointed out there was no requirement for a porte-cochere to
be wide enough to accommodate two cars. He suggested 12-feet as a more normal
dimension for an aisle width. It would offer more flexibility to smaller buildings.
13
April 29,2014
Dalas Disney noted a porte-cochere is not typical for most buildings other than
churches or a public facility. He stated on many small buildings neither the tower
element nor the porte-cochere element would be selected—they are "lost" option.
Caroline Cilek asked if the reduced dimension would be functional for a car to drive
under it.
Discussion continued concerning Item (vi): It was suggested the base of the planting
area should equal the width of the trellis. The base should be fully planted.
Carolina Valera suggested the landscape portion is usually difficult to review.
Change: "Trellis or latticework used as a support for climbing plants may count as
window area."
Suggestion: Consult Mike Sawyer for advice on the number of plants required.
Motions:
(1) 2.c.ii—reduction from 20% to 15%. Motion carried, 3— "Yes"/1 — "No."
Bradley Schiffer was opposed.
(2) 2.c.iii—reduction from 60% to 40%. Motion carried, 3— "Yes"/1— "No."
Bradley Schiffer was opposed.
(3) 2.c.iv—reduction from 20% to 15%. Motion carried, 3— "Yes"/1 — "No."
Bradley Schiffer was opposed.
(4) 2.c.v—reduction from 20% to 15%. Motion carried, 3— "Yes"/1— "No."
Bradley Schiffer was opposed.
5. NEXT MEETING
A. Date/time of meeting—Members will receive email notification
B. Review: Remaining portions of this Section
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
(None)
14
April 29,2014
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
at 3:45 PM by order of the Vice Chairman.
ARCHITECTURAL and SITE DESIGN
STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE
(Ve5-7"4.'t-/ &111-4-e)t
DOMINICK AMICO, Vice-Chairman
The Minutes were a proved by the Board/Committee Vice Chair on 2`1 , 2014,
"as submitted" OR "as amended" [ 1.
15