A&SDS Ad Hoc Minutes 05/23/2014 May 23,2013
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS
AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING
May 23, 2014
Naples, Florida BUG 5 w
By
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 1:00 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:
Vice Chairman: Dominick Amico, P.E.
James Boughton, AIA
Kathy Curatolo - CBIA
Dalas Disney, AIA
Bradley Schiffer, AIA
Rocco Costa, AIA (Excused)
Ron Waldrop, P.E. (Excused)
STAFF: Caroline Cilek— Senior Planner
Carolina Valera—Principal Planner
Matt McLean—Principal Project Manager
Heidi Ashton-Cicko —Assistant County Attorney
Stefanie Nawrocki —Planning Tech
1
May 23,2013
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 persons in 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 1:07 PM.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Five (5)voting members were present.
2. DISCUSSION: Committee Members—Attendance
Caroline Cilek noted several members have not attended any of the previous meetings.
Dalas Disney referenced the Resolution which states if a member is absent for two or
more consecutive meetings without providing a satisfactory excuse,the member's
position may be declared "vacant"by the Committee (See: Ordinance#2001-55). He noted
when a person volunteers to serve on a Committee, the commitment is to serve for a period
of one year.
Caroline Cilek suggested an option for the absent members to participate via email, i.e.,
reviewing the distributed materials and providing feedback directly to her.
Kathy Curatolo stated the meetings have a formal structure which is to take input from the
public, all comments should be welcome. She agreed the opportunity to comment is
provided to all members of the Committee.
Bradley Schiffer stated the issue is not the ability to imput comments. The position is a
voting position—simply providing feedback via email is not sufficient. He suggested
replacing the absent members.
Vice Chairman Amico stated the Committee has consistently achieved quorum even with
the absences.
Assistant County Attorney Ashton-Cicko confirmed the members were appointed by the
Collier County Board of Commissioners to serve for a one-year period. She stated if the
two consecutive absences were unexcused,the member is considered to have tendered
his/her resignation by the Board.
Caroline Cilek stated the absences have been excused since she received emails from each
member prior to the meeting.
Dalas Disney noted there have been between 8 to 9 meetings and the same two individuals
just do not attend.
Potential solution: To schedule the meetings on the same day of each month and at the
same time.
Kathy Curatolo agreed with Dalas Disney's comment, i.e., if you ask to be included on a
Committee,you should participate.
Bradley Schiffer agreed, stating not participating is disrespectful to those who do attend.
Caroline Cilek explains she regularly send emails to the members giving each the option
2
May 23,2013
to choose from three dates before scheduling a meeting for the Committee.
Dalas Disney moved to approve requesting that Staff's next email notification include the
portion of the Resolution concerning attendance, i.e., if a member is absent for two or
more consecutive meetings without providing a satisfactory excuse, the member's
position may be declared "vacant"by the Committee. Kathy Curatolo offered a Second
in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 5—0.
Caroline Cilek stated her email will remind each member that they committed to serve on
the Committee for a period of one year, and she will work with Heidi Ashton- Cicko to
better define an"acceptable" excuse.
3. DISCUSSION: "Sunset" Date
Caroline Cilek noted the Ad-Hoc Committee will "sunset" in September. She stated the
Committee members can address how to complete the review by September or decide to
extend the length of tenure for an additional six months. Any request for an extension will
be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval as an Executive
Summary. The BCC's last meeting before its summer hiatus is in July.
Bradley Schiffer moved to approve requesting Staff draft an Executive Summary to be
presented to the Board of County Commissioners to extend the duration of the
Committee for an additional six months, commencing in October, 2014. Dalas Disney
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 5—0.
4. CONTINUATION OF REVIEW: Section 5.05.08:
A. Draft: "Change and Reason"
Caroline Cilek solicited comments from the Committee.
Revisions/Changes:
• Page 2, 4th Paragraph:
o Caroline Cilek suggested, for consistency,to cite to Section 9.03.03 B
of the Code which addresses non-conforming structures when they are
destroyed.
• Page 5, "B—Applicability," subparagraph 3.a. (ii):
o Comment: Cite to LDC Section 9.03.03-B.2 (See attachment).
• This Section will be rarely used—only in the case of a fire, flood,
tornado, or hurricane.
• Page 5, "B—Applicability," subparagraph 3.a. (i):
o Strike the words"a building" from the second sentence which was
previously removed.
• Page 5, "B—Applicability," subparagraph 3.a.:
3
May 23,2013
o Heidi Ashton- Cicko suggested adding the phrase"one of the
following" after the word "of."
o She stated language was confusing, giving the impression that the
regulations did not apply to nonconforming structures.
Bradley Schiffer stated the language was in the Renovations Section and, as a
designer, he wants to be told how to deal with the nonconformities, i.e., what
to do with a nonconforming building; what to do with a damaged building;
painting a building—conforming colors vs. nonconforming colors.
o Caroline Cilek will consult with Heidi Ashton-Cicko concerning
changes to the current language.
• Page 5, "B—Applicability," subparagraph 2.a.:
o Dalas Disney explained why the word"abutting" was used instead of
"adjacent"which could mean diagonally across a road. The intent was
the property would be on the same side of the road with the property
lines abutting.
o He cited a personal example of an issue due to the previous language
in the Code.
o Definition: "Abutting—to share a common property line or boundary
at one point."
James Boughton agreed that"abutting"was a better term because it was
more defined. He stated the purpose was to remove speculation.
Heidi Ashton-Cicko stated the language should explain it is not intended to
allow the owner of a shopping center with an outparcel to claim his property is
exempted.
• Page 6:
o Caroline Cilek noted"historic site"was added as an exemption
(Paragraph 4).
• Page 7: List of Options under"Primary Facade" (2.c.)
o (ii): Remove the word"public"before"entry"
o (iii): Remove the word"public entry" and insert"entrance"
o (iv): Remove the word "total"before the word"width" in Covered
Walkway.
• Re: (iii) (Monumental covered entrance)
Dalas Disney suggested, to avoid confusion, delete the phrase "100
percent" and add"minimum area of 200 square feet" along with the glazing
requirements.
Caroline Cilek revised the language as follows: "Monumental covered
entrance with a minimum area of 200 square feet."
4
May 23,2013
• Re: (iv) (Covered walkway)
Bradley Schiffer pointed out the language did not specifically indicate
that windows were required to be directly under the awnings.
Carolina Valera suggested if the projection of the awning is at least three
feet,there should be a reward.
Discussion ensued; the area that an awning shall protect was changed to
two feet.
Kathy Curatolo moved to approve reducing the area that an awning shall
protect from three feet to two feet. Dalas Disney offered a Second in
support of the motion. Motion carried, 4— "Yes"/1 — "No." Bradley
Schiffer was opposed.
(It was noted the numbering of the subparagraphs was not in order and would
be corrected.)
• Re: Latticework/Trellis
There was a discussion concerning the width of latticework or trellis; it
was determined that was not necessary to specify a number.
Bradley Schiffer moved to accept the language for "trellis and latticework"
as submitted. Kathy Curatolo offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 5—0.
• Re: Entry Plaza of 200 square foot that includes seating
Caroline Cilek stated the intent is for an entry plaza to be connected to
the primary façade of the building. It will be explained in the introduction.
Kathy Curatolo moved to accept the language for "entry plaza"as revised,
i.e., to be connected to the primary facade of the building. Dalas Disney
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 5—0.
• Re: Elevated Monumental Entry
Issue: The percentage was not specified.
Dalas Disney suggested inserting a dimension to quantify and for ease of
review. He suggested a minimum of 16 inches in height.
Caroline Cilek will work with Dalas Disney to revise the language and
present to the Committee at the next meeting.
• Re: Or Architectural elements proposed by the Architect
Caroline Cilek stated a discussion was needed to add flexibility to the
option.
Heidi Ashton-Cicko suggested adding the word "Alternate"before
Architectural
and adding another sentence: The alternate architectural elements must be
5
May 23,2013
comparable to the above-described design features; must meet the purpose
and intent of the Architectural Design Standards.
Dalas Disney stated the language should provide an avenue for an
Architect or designer to bring in something unique.
Caroline Cilek suggested adding the purpose and intent of 5.05.08 and
Heidi Ashton agreed.
Carolina Valera suggested adding language for court yards.
Bradley Schiffer suggested going through the entire document before
deciding how to reorganize, i.e., removing awnings from the PUD—there
should be only one section for awnings. Reviewing the document line by line
is not the answer—we run out of time.
• Page 21 —E. Site Design Standards
o Caroline Cilek stated the Section was cross-referenced with other
portions of the Code.
o Re: Off-Street Parking Design—the reference was to Section 4.05.00
Discussion:
Bradley Schiffer stated the worst thing to do in the Code is to put stuff in two
places. It makes no sense to include parking lot design in the Architectural
Standards.
Caroline Cilek stated the Section is entitled"Architectural and Site Design
Standards."
Dalas Disney: "One of the biggest problems we have related to Architectural
is that somebody else has already done a Site Plan, put a rectangle on there
and said '20,000 square feet"but as soon as we start to articulate it and make
it work, we realize it's only 15,000 square feet. But agreements have already
been written for it and it can't be built that way under our Standards.
He asked the Engineers: "How difficult is it to find out if your project has to
comply with Architectural Design Standards?" "It's not hard at all."
Bradley Schiffer: "Is there stuff in the Vehicular Layout in the other parts of
the Code any different that this stuff? In other words, are you giving people
additional leeway or making it more restrictive in the Architectural section?"
He suggested, "Make it so that someone designing a parking lot can go to one
section and find all the regulations."
Caroline Cilek: "One point—there's no "one place" in the Code. You go to
ten different sections to find out what your site design needs are."
Bradley Schiffer: "But not for vehicle layout."
Caroline Cilek: "There is no "one place"to go. If anything, this provides
the "one place"to go to in 5.05.08. If you are an Engineer designing and you
know that your project needs 5.05.08, this would be the easiest place to find
all the Standards other than having you go to all the other sections."
She continued: "We did not want to confuse people with Standards that
don't apply to them—especially because these are more restrictive.
Bradley Schiffer: "Then the answer to my question is `no.'
6
May 23,2013
Discussion continued.
Caroline Cilek requested that the Committee examine the cross-referencing.
Bradley Schiffer asked if there were things in this Section that were different
from the Landscape requirements of the Code.
Caroline Cilek: "Yes."
Bradley Schiffer: "These minimum dimensions,the perimeter landscaping is
unique to here ... maybe ...maybe not. If a guy is designing the landscape of
a Site Plan, I don't know why you would not have everything in one place."
Dalas Disney stated fewer Architects are doing Site Plans. Sometimes he
does a concept which passes through. Most of the time, the Site Plans come
to him done by the Civil Engineers but items, such as Architectural Designs,
are largely ignored.
Dominick Amico: "They are not referenced in the standard Code section."
Caroline Cilek: "We could collectively pull it out and call it Site Design and
reference it in another chapter—but that could get confusing, too."
Bradley Schiffer: "I think the important thing for Staff is to see what exactly
is unique between the two Sections. If it's language or intent or ..."
Matt McLean: "Let's take the prospective Sections and look at that between
now and how we can cross-reference back and forth."
Kathy: "If folks like Dominick are doing it, then we need their opinions."
Dominick Amico: "My opinion: we need to get into the weeds of the
requirements of this section and see if it meets the intent of this section—90%
of them do not achieve what the intent of the section is."
Bradley Schiffer: "There is a controversy here. An Engineer in this town—
and it's your SDP system that causes this—in this town, a Site Plan is handed
to an Engineer first and the Engineer has already"locked down"the building
pad."
Dominick Amico: "And then there's the converse of the Architect who sticks
100,000 square feet on an acre."
Bradley Schiffer: "The last thing on an Engineer's mind is the shape of a
building. The point is: there are two different outlooks on how to do a Site
Plan."
Caroline Cilek requested everyone review the draft prior to the next meeting.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
(None)
6. NEXT MEETING: June 5th at 1:30 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned
at 3:00 PM by order of the Vice Chairman.
7
May 23,2013
ARCHITECTURAL and SITE DESIGN
STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE
477-0-?t-t1
DOMINICK AMICO, Vice-Chairman
c
The Minutes were a proved by the Board/Committee Vice Chair on .L c/ , 2014,
"as submitted" F OR "as amended" [ 1.
8