Loading...
A&SDS Ad Hoc Minutes 03/16/2015 March 16, 2015 frontage road would not"abut" an arterial, as in the case of Piper Blvd., and Trail Blvd. which both separate commercial buildings from an arterial. Other terms identified for consideration to address the March 16, 2015 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 16, 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 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 Jeremy Frantz, Planner Stefanie Nawrocki, Planner Madeline Bunster, Architect March 16, 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. Amico called the meeting to order at 2:00pm and a quorum was established. 2. Approve Agenda Mr. Disney moved to approve the Agenda with the following additions and the remaining items to be renumbered accordingly: Item 3 -Approval of January 27, 2015 meeting minutes Item 6—Review of Site Design Standards Section Item 7—Stealth Codes Item 8—Review of requirements for fountains. Second by Ms. Curatolo. Carried unanimously 5- 0. 3. Approve January 12, 2015 and January 27,2015 Meeting Minutes Ms. Curatolo moved to approve the minutes of the January 12, 2015 and the January 27, 2015 meetings. Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried unanimously 5—0. 4. 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. 5. Review of change and reason section Staff provided the LDC Amendment Request dated 3/16/2015 for review. The Committee reviewed the "Change and Reason" Section that provides explanations on the rationale for the Committee's proposed changes accompanied by Staff notes, where applicable, which outlined the potential ramifications of the changes. Introduction The Committee recommended: 1. A historical perspective be incorporated into the Section which outlines the rationale for adoption of the standards (original version in 1997 and the amended version in 2004). 2. A statement be included that an early vote of the Committee recommended that the County should not have architectural standards. Page 2 - Proposed Section 5.05.08.b.2 through B.2.b The Committee proposes that the architectural standards apply to project sites in a non-industrial zoning district that abut an arterial or collector road. Discussion occurred over the term abut and how it is defined and/or interpreted. One major concern is ensuring one may not establish a separate, fee owned narrow strip of land along a road and develop the project behind this strip exempting the project from the proposed standards as technically the project would not "abut" a collector or arterial road. Similarly, a project located on a 2 March 16, 2015 frontage road would not"abut" an arterial, as in the case of Piper Blvd., and Trail Blvd. which both separate commercial buildings from an arterial. Other terms identified for consideration to address the concern were "fronting, adjacent, facing etc." It was noted it may be prudent to develop a term and define it for the purposes of the proposed standards only. The Committee directed Mr. Schiffer to work with Staff to develop terminology to address the concern and report back to them. Proposed Section 5.05.08 B.2.c Discussion occurred on the current requirement that a proposed building's footprint located within 300 feet (the length of a football field) of a residential zoning district boundary must comply with the architectural standards. The committee proposes to change the requirement to 150 feet based on prior examples discussed at their meetings. In addition, landscape buffers or walls could be within the 150 feet and provide visual relief. The Staff note identified a concern that taller buildings may not be completely buffered by the 150 foot requirement creating a negative aesthetic impact for residents in proximity to the site. The Committee sought clarification on Staff's concern and the rationale for using the term "buffered" in the Staff note. Staff reported they are concerned on the visibility impacts of industrial buildings, activity centers, non commercial buildings, etc on the residential areas adjacent to the site. Committee discussion occurred noting one option to address the concern is developing a distance based, height requirement where buildings located a distance of 150 feet to 200 feet away are limited to 1 story, 200—300 feet 2 story beyond 300 feet limited by other sections of the Land Development Code. Staff reported they would review the note, amend the wording as necessary and provide examples of how the proposed requirement may adversely impact residential developments and the item will be further discussed at a future meeting. General Format Discussion occurred on Staff's intentions for providing written comments on the proposed changes to the standards. The Committee expressed concern the comment may be portrayed as objection to the proposed change, rather than commentary. Staff reported the intent is to inform those parties who review the proposed standards on the ramifications or consequence of a proposed change so they have a complete understanding on the potential outcome of the change on a building's design and/or which types of development may or may not be subject to the proposed standards. The Committee requested Staff to: 1. Identify their comments in black, non bold, italics print. 2. Only provide comments in the event of a concern and/or the need to outline the ramification of the change. 3 March 16, 2015 Proposed Section 5.05.08 B.3.a&b Currently, if 50 percent of a building façade is renovated the entire façade must comply with the architectural standards. The Committee proposes to remove this requirement and allow structures and vehicle use areas to be renovated or altered as long as the addition to the existing building is not greater than 4,000 sq ft of floor area or as long as a façade improvement results in a change to more than 50 percent of the façade area of a building with greater than 20,000 sq ft in floor area. The Staff note stated very few alterations to existing buildings which are currently required to comply with architectural standards occur on buildings with greater than 20,000 sq ft in floor area. A review of 9 recent applications demonstrated that only 1 building had greater than 20,000 sq ft. This will mean that very few façade improvements will be required to meet the architectural standards. The Committee noted their intent is to incentivize re-use, renovation, infill development, by reducing the number of building alterations required to comply with the proposed standards and is designed to maintain and/or increase the value of the building. Discussion occurred with Staff noting a building meeting the requirements of the current standards will have design features exceeding the proposed standards. These buildings will be deemed"non conforming" and design features previously required may be altered or removed from the structure entirely. Further consideration should be given on how a building will be deemed"non conforming"under the proposed standards. Staff reported they will review the definition of non conforming in other Sections of the Land Development Code and will provide examples of how the proposed standards would(or would not) be applied to existing buildings. Proposed Section 5.05.08 D.2.b The Committee recommended the last line be changed from "particularly hard to meet for small buildings"to "excessive and hard to meet for small buildings." Proposed Section 5.05.08 D.2.c.ii The Committee recommended the last line be changed from "too difficult to apply to buildings of all sizes"to "too excessive for buildings of all sizes." Proposed Section 5.05.08 D.2.c.vi The Committee recommended the last line be changed from"design elements was too complex to accomplish on a single primary façade."to "design elements was too excessive in applicantion to a single primary façade." Proposed Section 5.05.08 D.2.c.iii The Committee proposes the addition of a new design standard that allows for a monumental covered entry that exceeds the dimensions established in 5.05.08 C.2.c.ii by 100 percent. 5.05.08 C.2.c.ii requires a projected or recessed covered entrance with a minimum horizontal dimension of eight feet and a minimum area of 100 square feet. This option is to allow for more variability among options for primary façades." 4 March 16, 2015 The Staff note states "Although a design standard item will assist with options, Staff is concerned that a straight square footage may not meet the intended effect and propose using a percentage based standard." The Committee recommended Staff clarify the comment by quantifying a percentage or delete/revise the comment as necessary. Proposed Section 5.05.08 D.2.c.v Discussion occurred over the statement"The Committee proposes new design standard to include awnings over window or doors as a design feature. Staff relayed to the committee that many applicants already incorporate awnings that would qualify for this new item but are currently unable to apply the features towards a design requirement. Applicants are able to utilize awnings both over windows and in a creative style where they may be placed in locations absent of windows." It was noted there is a Staff comment in the Section and the Committee recommended it be deleted and if necessary, be provided at the end as a "Staff note"consistent with the format of the other Sections. Proposed Section 5.05.08 D.4.0 The Committee recommended the last line be changed from "...too high and therefore it is not a viable option for developers."to "... too high and therefore it was excessive as an additional option." Proposed Section 5.05.08 D.4.v The Committee recommended the last line be changed from"...too high and therefore it is not a viable option for developers."to "... too high and therefore it was excessive as an additional option." Proposed Section 5.05.08 D.6 The Committee recommended the line 6 be changed from "regulate the "look" of buildings not the actual functionality."to "regulate the "look" of buildings not the actual construction techniques." The review concluded on page 8 and will be continued at the next meeting. Miscellaneous Comment on the Proposed Standard Section 5.05.08D.3.b Discussion occurred over the wording "These elements must not consist solely of applied graphics or paint" and whether this type of treatment is totally prohibited under the standards. Staff reported the language is intended to specifically address this Section and will clarify this type of treatment may not be used as a "credited"design element under this section 6. Review of Site Design Standards section 5.05.08F.2 Site Design Standards—Off Street Parking Design Discussion occurred on the Section with the Committee noting: • The requirements are more suited to Section 4.05.04 of the Land Development Code which regulates parking. • A cross reference to Section 4.05.04 should be provided in the proposed standards. 5 March 16, 2015 • The requirements of 5.05.08F.2.b.ii are unnecessary if the applicant meets all building design, landscaping, and preserve requirements of the proposed standards and other sections of the Land Development Code. Further it is financially detrimental to the owners of commercial operations when the vast majority of customers are required to park at the rear of buildings. Mr. Schiffer moved to delete Section 5.05.08F.2.a, b and relocate them to Section 4.05.04 of the Land Development Code as necessary and to delete Section 5.05.08F.2.b.ii in its entirety. Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously 5—0. The Committee noted the rationale for the change is to Section 5.05.08F.2.b.ii is the requirement forces parking to the rear of a building where it interferes with service functions of a site creating a potential safety issue and may cause potential customers to believe there is no parking available on site. 5.05.08F.3 Site Design Standards—Pathways Mr. Amico noted: • Pedestrian pathways are already governed by the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) and other Land Development Code (LDC) requirements. • The existing standards as written provide for sidewalks to be constructed (at times) that dead end to nowhere. • He recommended the Section be removed from the proposed standards as potential applicants are required to comply with the ADA and other LDC requirements. Discussion occurred on if there are any unintended consequences to walkway designs if this Section is removed from the proposed standards. Staff reported they will contact the building/engineering department and notify them of the intent to delete this requirement and find out if they have any concerns and report back to the Committee. 5.05.08F.1 Site Design Standards— Site Design Elements Discussion occurred on: • If the section allows enough flexibility for the elements required in these areas, especially allowing only pavers and stamped concrete in subsection"b." • The concept of permitting additional materials (in addition to pavers, stamped concrete) to ensure optimal functionality is achieved for the area of treatment. • If reducing the requirement to one of the elements would still meet the goals of the standards. Mr. Boughton moved to amend Section 5.05.08F.1 line 3 and 4 be amended to read "All projects must have at a minimum of one of the following:"Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously 5— 0. Mr. Schiffer moved to for Section 5.05.08F.lb lines 1 and 2 be amended to read "Integration of specialty pavers, tile, decorative or stamped concrete along the perimeter walkway." Second by Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously 5— 0. 6 March 16, 2015 The Committee reported the purpose of the revision was to increase the flexibility of options allowed under the requirement. 7. Stealth Codes Continued 8. Review of requirements for fountains Continued 9. Public Comment None 10. Adjournment Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35pm Collier County Architectural and Site Design Standards Ad Hoc Committee ai/CULQ- t71/Z V,1/4 These minutes approved by the Board/Committee/Chairman/Vice Chairman on - , 2015 as presented V or as amended 7