Loading...
A&SDS Ad Hoc Minutes 01/27/2015 January 27, 2015 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 27, 2015 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 2:30 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 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 Jeremy Frantz, Planner Matt McLean, Principal Project Manager Madeline Bunster, Architect Stefanie Nawrocki, Planner 1 January 27, 2015 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. Costas called the meeting to order at 2:30pm and a quorum was established. 2. Approve Agenda Mr. Costas moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr.Amico. Carried unanimously 6— 0. 5. Public Comment (this item was heard before item 3) April Olsen, Conservancy of Southwest Florida addressed the Committee requesting consideration be given to incorporating design features that reduce the probability of birds colliding with buildings. She noted the following: • Statistics indicate approximately between 1 to10 bird fatalities nationwide are attributed to building collisions. • The studies indicate the fatalities impact the sustainable population of certain species of birds. • Buildings with of clear or mirrored glass and/or artificial light are especially problematic. • The measures required to address the issue are generally simple and low cost including reducing the amount of clear or mirrored glass on buildings, utilizing UV reflective glass, applying one way film to clear glass, ensuring exterior lighting emits light in a downward direction. She recommended the Committee incorporate requirements into the proposed standards to aid in addressing the issue. She queried the Committee if they would be amenable to the organization exploring the concept and providing information to them to consider. The Committee noted the following: • The glazing requirements in the proposed standards have been reduced by approximately 50 percent compared to the current standards. • Although the minimum amount of glazing required under the current standards has been decreased by half, the applicant may utilize materials above the minimum amount required if they so desire. • Clear glass is generally not utilized in building designs as it does not meet the guidelines for energy conservation. • The proposed standards utilize a list of menu item choices in building designs and measures such as prohibiting mirrored glass could be incorporated to aid in addressing the issue. • "Fake" windows are allowed which is generally a reflective material. • From an owner standpoint, the use of window films is a long term maintenance issue deterring its use. The Committee requested Ms. Olsen to provide them examples of regulations utilized by other jurisdictions and any other applicable data so they can determine any applicable requirements that may be incorporated into the proposed standards to address the issue. 3. Next Meeting (this item was heard at the end of the meeting) The next meeting will be held on February 18, 2015 at 2:30pm. 2 January 27, 2015 4. Review of materials Ms. Cilek proved a revised draft of Section 5.05.08 dated January 23, 2015. She noted Heidi Ashton- Cicko, Assistant County Attorney has reviewed the Draft and provided comment as indicated in the document's track changes. Items 4.b and 4.c were heard before item 4.a b. Staff proposed criteria for alternative architectural elements Staff noted Ms. Ashton-Cicko previously identified a concern that the Section as currently proposed allows too much discretion for the party delegated to review the alternative architectural elements proposed by the owner. She opined if the existing standards are to be altered in relation to this process, a set of criteria has to be developed before she can deem the proposed standards "legally sufficient." Based on the Assistant County Attorney's opinion, Staff provided the following language for consideration by the Committee. Section 5.05.08.D.2.xii. Alternative architectural elements proposed by the Architect and accepted by the County Manager or designee. The alternative architectural elements shall be for buildings or projects that meet two of the following eligibility criteria. The Architect shall provide justification in narrative form identifying how the proposed alternative architectural elements meet the purpose and intent of the LDC section of 5.05.08 A. a) Eligibility criteria. 1) A building that is part of redevelopment project. For the purposes of this section, "redevelopment"shall mean the renovation, restoration, or remodeling of a building or structure, or required infrastructure, in whole or in part, where the existing buildings, structures or infrastructure were legally built and installed. 2) The building or project has been unoccupied for more than 6 months. 3) The building is consistent with an architectural style described in LDC section 5.05.08 A.2. 4) The building implements sustainable architectural design (for example: LEED or green building techniques). 5) The building creates pedestrian oriented streets and public spaces. b) Alternative architectural elements shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1) The building must not have a single wall plane exceeding 60 percent of each façade. 2) At least 20 percent of the primary facade area must be devoted to windows and/or glazed door openings. The Committee expressed concern the proposed language is difficult to review or implement and in some cases may not be incorporated into the project at the time that the architectural review occurs. Additionally, some of the criteria don't affect the building design. Mr. Disney moved to delete the previously proposed alternative architectural elements in section 5.05.08D.2.c.xii. Second by Mr.Amico. Motion carried 5 "yes"—1 "no." Mr. Schiffer dissented. 3 January 27, 2015 It was noted there is similar language in Section 5.05.08.D.4.w.of the proposed standards which reads "Alternative architectural elements proposed by the Architect and accepted by the County Manager or designee. The alternative architectural element shall be comparable in nature to the described design features noted above. The Architect shall provide justification in narrative form identifying how the proposed alternative architectural elements meet the purpose and intent of the LDC section of 5.05.08 A. " Mr. Disney moved to delete Section 5.05.08.D.4.w.from the proposed standards. Second by Mr. Arnica Carried unanimously 6— 0. c. Warehousing/distribution in Commercial zoning districts Section 5.05.08E.6—Warehousing/distribution Staff noted the requirements as currently proposed address the use in industrial districts and queried if they should be incorporated into the commercial districts where the use is also allowed. The Committee recommended the following language be incorporated into Section 5.05.08.E.6.b "Facades fronting on an arterial street must have two or more of the following design features:" The Committee recommended the following language proposed in Section 5.05.08.E.6.b be deleted— "Primary facades located on arterial roads and located within an industrial zoning district." a. Continue committee review of a clean copy Section 5.05.08B.3.b Staff reported they will be revising Section 5.05.08.B.3.b (Façade improvements to buildings with greater than 20,000 square feet of floor area. Where an alteration results in a change to more than 50 percent of any facade area, the entire façade shall comply) into one sentence to ensure it meets the goal of the Section. Section 5.05.08B.3.c Nonconforming buildings shall not be enlarged or altered in a way which increases the nonconformity. All alterations to nonconforming buildings shall be consistent with this section and shall be reviewed for compliance by the County Manager or designee, however, unaltered portions of the nonconforming building will not be required to comply. The Committee reached consensus the language proposed is acceptable. Staff reported they have concerns on the verbiage and will be providing comment to the Committee on the rationale for the concerns once the Committee has completed their review of the proposed standards. Section 5.05.08D.8.b.i-ii Discussion occurred on the concern raised by David Dunnavant at the previous meeting regarding the language. 4 January 27, 2015 i. "Primary facades. All exterior facades of freestanding structures, including structures located on outparcels, are considered primary facades and must meet the requirements of this section with respect to the architectural design treatment for primary facades in LDC Section 5.05.08.D.2., except for those facades considered secondary facades. ii. Secondary Facade. One facade of a freestanding structure, including structures located on outparcels, that is internal to the site and that does not abut or face public or private streets adjacent to the development He had noted the requirement is problematic for free standing buildings on a single PUD parcel, especially those close together, along a single wall plane. The requirement provides little if any aesthetic benefit to the public unnecessarily increasing the costs of construction. Also problematic are buildings located along private roadways in PUD's which trigger the requirements. Discussion occurred on: • If facades of these structures are not visible from an arterial street, should they be deemed a "primary façade"? • The language in the existing standards requires those sides of a building internal to a site facing/abutting a public or private street be considered primary facades, even though they may only be visible to users of the facility. • The feasibility of restricting the requirements to out parcels only. • The LDC definition of a street, public vs. private - A public or approved private thoroughfare, including the right-of-way, which affords the principal means of access to abutting property. The term street includes lanes, ways,places, drives, boulevards, roads, avenues, or other means of access, regardless of the descriptive term used. The definition does include internal roads in a PUD requiring the conditions for facades be met. • Should the language be amended so the requirements of this Section do not apply to buildings facing streets internal to the site? • There are instances where facades do not abut or face an arterial road but front a street internal to a PUD which is highly visible from arterial road(s). Eliminating the requirement for buildings fronting roads internal to a PUD site may not be prudent in these instances. Staff requested individual Committee Members to visit sites of commercial developments in the County and report back to Staff on any proposed language to address the issue (if deemed necessary). Section 5.05.08 D.9.b.i—Roof Treatments The Committee noted it would be beneficial to reference the roof area as a threshold, rather than the floor area of a building given the Section is intended to address roof treatments. Ms. Curatolo moved for the Section 5.05.08D.9.b.i to read "For buildings with a roof area larger than 10,000 square feet, a minimum of two roof-edge or parapet line changes are required for all primary facades. Each vertical change from the dominant roof condition must be a minimum of ten percent of building height, but no less than three feet. One such change must be located on primary facades with one additional roof change for every 100 linear feet of the facade length." Second by Mr. Costas. Carried unanimously 6—0. Section 5.05.08 D.11.b.ii 5 January 27, 2015 The Committee previously noted the front setback requirement of 15 feet was problematic for smaller parcels. Ms. Curatolo moved for Section 5.05.08D.11.b.ii to read "Front entry must be set back from a drive or a parking area by a minimum distance of 10 feet." Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried unanimously 6— 0. Section 5.05.08 D.11.c.ii The Committee noted they had previously discussed referencing a square footage requirement as opposed to a percentage requirement. However, it was noted that this standard will be more burdensome for smaller buildings whether it is a percentage or square foot requirement. The committee discussed allowing multiple outdoor community spaces that when combined meet the required 1 percent. Ms. Curatolo moved to allow multiple outdoor community spaces to meet the required 1 percent of gross floor area of all on-site buildings. Second by Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously 6— 0. Section 5.05.08 D.11.c.iii The Committee had previously noted the front setback requirement of 15 feet was problematic for smaller parcels. Ms. Curatolo moved for Section 5.05.08D.11.c.iii to read "Front entry must be set back from a drive or a parking area by a minimum distance of 10 feet." Second by Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously 6— 0. Section 5.05.08 E.7.b Staff noted they intend to delete the sentence "Facades within an industrial zoning district located on arterial roads" currently proposed for the Section. Mr. Boughton moved for Section5.05.08.E.7.b to read "Primary facade standards. The requirements of LDC Section 5.05.08.D.2. Primary façade standards are replaced with the following standards. Facades fronting on arterial streets must have two or more of the following design features." Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously 6— 0. Section 5.05.08 G The Committee discussed whether the language in the existing standards in Section 5.05.08.F should be retained in the proposed standards since the Assistant County Attorney has advised that any amendment to this language will require establishing criteria for approval. Mr.Amico moved to retain the existing language in Section 5.05.08.F of the Land Development Code. Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously 6—0. Staff reported they will be incorporating the changes recommended by the Committee into the proposed standards and disseminating a revised Draft to the Committee. They will provide comments to the Committee on any concerns they have on the proposed standards. 6 January 27, 2015 6 Adjournment Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30pm Collier County Architectural and Site Design Standards Ad Hoc Committee These minutes app ed by the Board/Committee/Chairman/Vice Chairman on 14 / , 2015 as presented 1.7 or as amended 7