Loading...
A&SDS Ad Hoc Minutes 02/18/2015 February 18, 2015 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, February 18, 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 (Excused) Dalas Disney, AIA Bradley Schiffer, AIA (Excused) Dominick Amico, P.E. ALSO PRESENT: Caroline Cilek, LDC Manager Jeremy Frantz, Planner Madeline Bunster, Architect Stefanie Nawrocki, Planner 1 February 18, 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. Costa called the meeting to order at 2:44pm and a quorum was established. 2. Approve Agenda Mr.Amico moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following additions to item 6: c. Current Section 5.05.08E Discussion d. Update on County Attorney Review e. Applicability of Assisted Living Facilities Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously 4—0. 3. Next Meeting a. Available dates to meet- Doodle Results Staff reported they will review the Doodle Results and notify the Committee on the next meeting date. 4. Update on Amendment Process and Schedule Mrs. Cilek reported: • Staff has developed a preliminary draft of the "Change and Reason" Section which will serve as an introduction to the amendment. It is intended to outline the rationale for many of the changes proposed. • The County Attorney's Office will be reviewing the proposed amendment over the next week and provide final comment on the proposed amendment. She noted they have preliminarily reviewed it and provided comments which have been addressed by the Committee. • Following completion of the Draft, it will be disseminated to the public and area organizations (Naples Board of Realtors, Collier Building and Industry Association and AIA) for comment. • Upon approval of the proposed amendment by the Committee it will be forwarded to the Development Services Advisory Committee—Land Development Subcommittee, Development Services Advisory Committee, Collier County Planning Commission for review and comment. Ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners will consider the proposed amendment at a duly noticed public hearing. • Staff will be developing an Executive Summary to be brought forth with the proposed amendment which will include a PowerPoint presentation to assist in identifying the proposed changes. • Staff will notify the Committee of any changes, etc. proposed throughout the process and will request a representative of the Committee to participate in the review process and be present to answer any questions. The Committee noted the two main areas of concern historically expressed by outside parties are the requirements for industrial uses and criteria for redevelopment of existing non conforming sites/buildings. These items have been addressed by the Committee in the proposed standards. 5. Conservancy Bird Collision Submittal 2 February 18, 2015 April Olsen, Conservancy of Southwest Florida submitted the documents "Window Glass: The Deadliest Hazard for Birds" and "Bird Collisions" for information purposes. She noted: • She was present at the previous meeting and the Committee requested her to submit additional information on the issue of bird fatalities related to building design. • Studies show that between 100 million to 1 billion birds die annually as a result of building collisions. • The cause of the collisions stem from highly reflective glass on buildings whereby birds visualize their natural surroundings in the reflection and inadvertently collide with buildings. • Statistics indicate collisions increase between 19 and 32 percent for every 10 percent increase in glass area. • The use of mirrored glass is especially problematic. • The presence of upward shining artificial light is problematic as well as birds are drawn to the light beam and collide with buildings or circle the light until collapsing from exhaustion. • The documents provided examples from other jurisdictions (San Francisco, Toronto, State of Minnesota and Chicago)that have undertaken measure to address the issue. • The measures range from restrictions on the amount of glazing, the treatment of glazed areas, voluntary design programs, passing a rating system with criteria for bird safe designs, etc. • She posed the following recommendations for consideration by the Committee: 1. Prohibiting the use of mirrored glass curtain walls or mirrored glass spandrels. 2. Prohibiting the use of upward lighting on structures, signage or landscape features. 3. Prohibiting the use of windows abutting on corners of buildings. 4. Prohibiting windows on two sides or a room that provides the appearance of a clear passage through the building. 5. Encouraging the use of Low E glazing in buildings. Under Committee discussion, the following was noted: • Defining "reflective glass" may be difficult as there are varying levels of reflectivity in glass. This would require some type of threshold to determine at what point the glass is "mirrored." • Prohibiting upward shining lighting may not be practical as some buildings require the lighting for safety purposes. • Rooms with windows, especially corner windows garner the highest rents in buildings. Limiting glass or prohibiting cornered glass may not be acceptable for owners. • Given the energy requirements for building designs and the costs associated with glass,the practicality of buildings using high quantities of glass is diminishing. • The proposed amendment utilizes a menu format whereby the owner may choose from list of façade treatments and certain requirements could be incorporated into the list to allow owners to voluntarily address the issue. • Another option is to require buildings exceeding a specified quantity of glazing being subject to bird friendly requirements. • It was noted the US Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design) Program does provide building design standards for deterring bird collisions. It may be advantageous to review the guidelines if a menu item is to be developed in the proposed standards to assist in addressing the issue. 3 February 18, 2015 Staff reported they will review the LEED criteria and existing buildings and propose any changes as necessary for consideration by the Committee. The Committee recommended Ms. Olsen contact the major manufacturers of glass to determine any new technologies or measures they are undertaking to address the requirements in other jurisdictions. Mrs. Cilek notified Ms. Olsen, regardless of any final determinations by the Committee on the issue, her comments and concerns will be brought forth as public comments so those reviewing the document in the future are apprised of the issue. 6. Review of materials a. Staff notes Discussed under item 4. b. Begin review of changes and reason section narrative Staff reported that staff will relay their concerns or support through"staff notes" sections throughout the narrative. The change and reason section will provide a summary of all the changes and the reason and justification for the changes, including the magnitude of the change. This is how the amendment will be presented throughout the rest of the amendment process. Staff also needs to add pictures and illustrations to demonstrate the changes being made. Staff requested the Committee review the "Change and Reason"Section in the beginning of the LDC Amendment Request and provide comments, recommendations, concerns, etc. to Staff. Mr. Costa indicated that regarding the false windows justification, he didn't want to see a piece of glass applied to the wall but a spandrel panel is acceptable. Mrs. Cilek asked whether the committee intended for glazing requirements to apply to other facades or only primary facades. The committee responded that the only facades that are defined are primary facades so the glazing requirements only apply to primary facades. Staff reported they need clarification on the justification on the rationale for the changes in the following Sections: Section 5.05.08 C.3 Mr. Costa indicated that the Committee recommended removing it from the proposed standards as the buildings have height restrictions which don't allow buildings to be twice the height of buildings within 150 feet, so the section would not apply in vary many places. Section 5.05.08 C.13 The Committee noted the intent is for the change to this section will require redeveloped buildings only to meet the color standards but not the materials standards. The section is also intended to ensure that if a non-conforming building is repainted, it shall comply with the color standards. c. Current Section 5.05.08 E—(Section 5.05.08 F of the Proposed Standards—Site Design Standards Discussion) 4 February 18, 2015 Mr. Amico recommended this Section be eliminated from the proposed amendment for the following reasons: • The goal of the Committee was to streamline the architectural requirements and the Section primarily addresses site design standards and landscaping requirements. • The Section should cross reference other Sections of the Land Development Code where these standards are addressed. • Many of the requirements unnecessarily increase costs of construction(i.e. —walkways around buildings to emergency exits, etc.) by increasing the amount of impervious area on site generating additional stormwater runoff which may require on site treatment. Staff noted: • This would be a significant change and should be noted in the explanation of the amendment. • The concept is to bundle the requirements into this Section so potential applicants, design professionals, etc. are aware of items that need to be addressed without having to research other areas of the Land Development Code to determine what is required. • Some of the items identified in the Section are only located in this Section of the LDC and removing the Section would eliminate them as County requirements altogether. • The items are associated with the architectural design components of a project(i.e. placement and screening of refuse dumpsters, compressor units, air conditioning units, etc.). It was noted it may be advantageous to remove any requirements from this Section that are not directly related to the architectural standards of a project and located in other areas of the LDC. The Committee directed Mr.Amico to review the Section and propose changes to the Committee for consideration. d. Update on County Attorney Review Discussed under item 4. e. Applicability of Assisted Living Facilities Staff reported the County Attorney's Office has requested the Committee to determine if Assisted Living Facilities should be subject to the proposed standards. Currently, when the applications are being considered it is difficult to determine if the standards apply to the use. Staff noted: • The uses are considered "independent living facilities"but if no dining or medical facilities are available on site, the use is considered residential and not subject to the standards. • One concern is the uses are originally "residential"but in the future, dining or medical facilities are added on site deeming them"commercial." Discussion ensued regarding recent examples of ALFs and the difficulties associated with determining if they are to be considered residential or commercial development. It was indicated that when an ALF is defined by the zoning of the property, there are ways to get around being considered a commercial development during the application stage, but that later, changes can be made to the facilities, like the addition of dining and medical facilities, which would have resulted in the development being considered commercial. 5 February 18, 2015 Staff asked the committee to reflect on the issue and noted they would bring the discussion up again at the next meeting. 6. Adjournment Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:32pm Collier County Architectural and Site Design, Standards Ad Hoc Committee (ant„.44,9 ati4:61 These minutesapproved by the Board/Committee/Chairman/Vice Chairman on 2 Y , 2015 as presented ✓ or as amended 6