Loading...
Minutes 11/14/2014 November 14, 2014 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, November 14, 2014 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Architectural and Site Design Standards Ad Hoc Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:30 PM in a REGULAR SESSION at the Growth Management Division Building, Room 609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL with the following persons present: Rocco Costa, AIA (Excused) James Boughton, AIA Kathy Curatolo, Collier Building Industry Association Dalas Disney, AIA Bradley Schiffer, AIA Dominick Amico, P.E. ALSO PRESENT: Caroline Cilek, LDC Manager Stefanie Nawrocki, Planner Matt McLean, Principal Project Manager Jeremy Frantz, Planner 1 November 14, 2014 Any person in need of a verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Growth Management Division, Department of Planning and Zoning. 1. Call to Order Mr. Amico called the meeting to order at 1:32pm and a quorum was established. 2. Approve Agenda Mr. Schiffer moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously 4— 0. 3. Meeting Minutes—October 10,2014 and October 30,2014 Mr. Boughton moved to approve the minutes of the October 10, 2014 and October 30, 2014 meeting. Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried unanimously 4—0. Ms. Curatolo arrived at 1:39pm 4. Next Meeting a. Available dates to meet- Doodle Results The next meeting will be held on December 5, 2014 at 1:30pm. Staff reported at the next meeting a"non strike through" version of the proposed Section will be made available to the Committee for review. Staff will be presenting examples of how the proposed changes would be applied to "real life" permit applications. Staff requested Subcommittee members to notify them if they have any examples of current or prior applications that would be beneficial to review. 5. Review of Materials a. Immokalee architectural standards discussion Brad Muckel, Executive Director of the Immokalee CRA provided a handout "Immokalee Map Book" for information purposes. The document contained maps of the various "uncodified" zoning districts associated with Immokalee and their related regulations. The Committee notified Mr. Muckel that they have previously recommended Immokalee be exempted from the standards and are looking for guidance to establish a specific boundary for the exemption. Discussion occurred noting the Bayshore CRA utilizes Form Based Codes (i.e. the consideration of the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks) whereby criteria are applied for a neighborhood setting. This type of regulation may be more applicable to Immokalee given its distinct cultural and socio/economic climate. It was noted the CRA boundary would be a logical choice for exemption, because it is established. It also contains the "urban core" and has a specific set of goals for development. 2 November 14, 2014 Mr. Schiffer moved to exempt the properties located within the Immokalee CRA Boundary from the requirements of Land Development Code Section 5.05.08. Second by Mr.Amico. Carried unanimously 5—0. The Committee noted, in the future, Section 5.05.08 could be used as a base document and the CRA could recommend portions of the Section be applicable to the area. The Committee discussed the pros and cons of applying the requirements of 5.05.08 to other outlying portions of the County such as Copeland, Ochopee and agricultural areas in the eastern portion of the County. The Committee noted it would not be practical to subject these areas to the standards given the types of uses that tend to occupy these areas such as those related to agricultural activities. The Committee recommended any properties located in Agricultural zoning districts be exempted from the requirements of Land Development Code Section 10108. b. Applicability Section 5.05.08 B Ms. Cilek provided an updated Draft("New Language") for review. The Committee reviewed the Section and discussed the following items: Unintended Consequences The Committee noted the standards need to be applied logically and all attempts should be made to ensure certain buildings do not unintentionally become subject to the regulations. Mr. Disney provided an example of a recreational facility constructed at Saint John Neumann Catholic High School where the requirements produced an environment where a substantial amount of money was expended without a significant aesthetic benefit to the public. Staff noted it would be beneficial to review this project as outlined under item 4.a, and will bring examples to the next meeting for discussion. Interior Courtyards The Committee discussed how interior courtyards of buildings or commercial centers are treated and if these areas meet the definitions of a facade, especially in relation to Tenant Improvements (TI's). It was noted these areas are only visible to the users of the facility and it may not be practical to subject them to the requirements of the Section. Staff reported, that under the existing code, changes to the "shell building" are subject to the regulations and in certain instances, TI's are subject to the requirements depending on the type of changes proposed. The Committee directed Mr. Schiffer to review the requirements as they may apply to interior courtyards and propose any changes necessary to the Committee. Commercial Components of a PUD The Committee discussed what"commercial component of PUD districts"means noting uses such as "clubhouses"with public dining facilities, guardhouses, etc. located in residential PUD's, may be subject to the regulations which may, or may not, be the goal of Section 5.05.08. 3 November 14, 2014 Staff reported they would review and provide an example of a PUD Master Plan to illustrate commercial components of a PUDs. RLSA applicability Staff reported Land Development Code Section 4.08.07 J.2.a.xiii states that 5.05.08 applies to SRA's (Stewardship Receiving Area) unless deviations are requested through the SRA process. Language Specific Changes 5.05.08. B.1.b—to be removed from the Section. 5.05.08. B.2.a-to be removed or relocated to the exemptions section. 5.05.08. B.3.b—sentence two to read"Where an alteration results in a change to more than 50% of any façade area...." 5.05.08 B.4—add any necessary language to clarify that the color standards apply to the exemptions except for historic sites. 5.05.08 B.4.b—If necessary, reference those listed for historic buildings listed by the State of Florida or on"National Register of Historic Places." Non Conforming Buildings Section 5.05.08 B.3.c - The Committee recommended Staff to draft language requiring a limited architectural review to determine if any thresholds are triggered. The Committee noted their goal is to ensure owners of non conforming buildings are not overly regulated when they want to improve the appearance of a structure, however do not want to allow alterations that increase the non conforming nature of the building. Discussion occurred on how to define a non conforming building given in certain instances they may be exempted from the standards. Staff noted they will review the definition of a non conforming building. One concept would be to simply state non conforming buildings are those buildings that do not comply with the proposed standards as adopted. Low End Threshold's Discussion occurred on establishing a"low end threshold" where buildings of a certain square footage would not be subject to Section 5.05.08, but should be subject to the paint color standards. Mr. Disney moved to exempt structures less than 3,000 sq.ft. in floor area from Section 5.05.08 of the Land Development Code. Second by Ms. Curatolo. Carried unanimously 5—0. Accessory Structures The Subcommittee noted establishing a"low end threshold"would address accessory structures. Definition of Facades The Committee noted the terms "Primary" and "Secondary" façade should be defined within the Section or cross referenced to an applicable Section of the Land Development Code. c. Architectural matrix of proposed changes 4 November 14, 2014 ' Staff provided the"Architectural Standards Matrix"which paraphrases the standards for reference purposes. d. Continue review of 5.05.08 document Continued to next meeting. 6. Adjournment Staff reported they will review the comments and incorporate any changes into a revised draft to be presented at the next meeting. Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10pm Collier County Architectural and Site Design Standards Ad Hoc Committee ( /z//S/ These minutes a proved by the Board/Committee/Chairman/Vice Chairman on AC J ST , 2014 as presented X or as amended 5