A&SDS Ad Hoc Minutes 05/18/2015 May 18, 2015
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE
DESIGN STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, May 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 3:00 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
Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner
Madelin Bunster, Architect
1
May 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 Department, Division of Planning and Zoning.
1. Call to Order
Mr. Amico called the meeting to order at 3:00pm and a quorum was established.
2. Approve Agenda
Ms. Curatolo moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously 5— 0.
3. Approval April 24, 2015 meeting minutes
Ms. Curatolo moved to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2015 meeting subject to the following
change:
• Page 2 —paragraph 8 line 2 from "...discussed the straw poll taken earlier..." to "...discussed
the vote taken earlier..."
Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously 5— 0.
4. Old Business
a. "Stealth Codes"
Mr. Schiffer noted he had queried earlier in the review process if there were any policy
determinations previously made by Staff that should be included in the proposed standards. As an
example, during the discussions, Staff reported "glass" overhead doors are not deemed"overhead
doors" under the existing standards. Many of those processing applications under the existing
standards may be unaware of the determination. The following was noted during discussions:
• The County does have a list available on line of"Staff Clarifications and Policies."
• Some of these items were addressed during the review process (i.e. parameters for
"Accessory Buildings").
• It may be beneficial to utilize hyperlinks in the proposed standards referencing any "Staff
Clarifications or Policies."
• It may be beneficial to establish a Committee that meets periodically to assist Staff in
providing interpretations or clarifying items in the adopted standards.
• Should overhead glass doors be exempted for all uses (i.e. fire stations vs. mini storage)?
5. New Business
b. Public comment (this item was heard before item 4.a)
April Olsen, Conservancy of Southwest Florida addressed the Committee noting she submitted an
email to Jeremy Frantz dated May 6, 2015—Subject "Recommendations for 5.05.08 C.6" which
included recommendations for bird friendly design criteria to be incorporated into the proposed
standards as follows:
Section 5.05.08.C.6
6. Window standards. Windows must not be false or applied. Spandrel panels in curtain wall
assembly are allowed but may not be included in the minimum glazing required for primary
facade.
a. Glazing options for bird-safe buildings.
i. Purpose. The following bird-friendly design standards are aimed at reducing bird collisions
and mortalities caused by reflective glass.
2
May 18, 2015
ii. Applicability. The following design recommendations apply to all new non-residential
buildings and all renovations.
iii. Recommended strategies. Apply any of the following materials or design features to treat
a minimum of 85% of all exterior glazing within the first three stories of the building, which
is the most critical zone for bird collisions:
a) Low-reflectance, opaque glazing materials (may include spandrel glass with less
than 15% reflectance).
b) Glass with visual patterns consisting of opaque points or patterns etched into or
applied to the exterior or interior surfaces with frit, frost, or film for single pane or
IGU. Maximum of 2" spacing between horizontal elements and 4" maximum space
between vertical elements, with a minimum line or dot diameter thickness of 1/8".
e) Glass with continuous etch or continuous frit on interior surface, single pane or
IGU
f) Translucent channel glass with cast"orange peel" or linear textured surface—9"
maximum face width
g) Glass block, 8" x 8" x 4" deep with opaque or groove textured surface
h) External screens
The Committee noted the following:
• They discussed the item at previous meetings and deteiinined to incorporate the design
elements as a suggestion, for educational purposes, not a requirement in the proposed
standards. (Mr. Disney)
• The proposed language is more related to environmental standards, not building aesthetics
which is the purpose of Section 5.05.08 of the Land Development Code. (Mr. Amico).
• The criteria could be incorporated as an option under Section 5.05.08 D.3.b whereby the
glazing utilized could be reduced to 85% of the requirement. (Mr. Schiffer).
Mr. Schiffer moved to add the proposed language to Section 5.05.08 D.3.b as an option whereby
if the bird friendly design features as proposed are utilized, the applicant shall be allowed to
reduce the required area of glazing to eighty five percent(85%). Second by Ms. Curatolo.
Carried unanimously 5- 0.
Dalas Disney and Brad Shifter volunteered to review the suggested standards and make
recommendations for clarification of the terms used.
John Podczerwinsky, Davidson Engineering addressed the Committee referencing an email to
Jeremy Frantz dated May 14 2015 — Subject: "Architectural Ad Hoc Committee meeting materials
and doodle poll." He addressed the following Sections of the proposed standards:
5.05.08 D.8.c—(Additional Standards for Outparcels and Free Standing Buildings within a PUD and
common ownership developments).
He recommends eliminating the language "All freestanding buildings must provide for vehicular and
pedestrian inter-connection between adjacent outparcels or freestanding sites and the primary
structure. " He noted:
• The language requires the provision of interconnecting vehicular access between interior,
separately owned outparcels in a PUD.
3
May 18, 2015
• The requirements address traffic issues, not aesthetic criteria, and traffic is addressed in
other Sections of the Land Development Code.
• These parcels generally access roadways interior to the PUD already providing an
interconnection of parcels eliminating the need for patrons accessing arterials roadways
to traverse between properties.
• The requirement unnecessarily increases impervious areas and stormwater treatment
requirements.
• The requirements create right of way liability issues for individual landowners granting
easements between outparcels.
• The requirement that an outparcel is accessed through internal,private roadways rather
than making a direct connection to the thoroughfare are already addressed in the access
management policy.
Staff noted that this section is not interpreted by staff to require interconnections between outparcels
if a private road internal to the PUD is provided and suggested reviewing examples.
Mr. Schiffer moved to delete the language "All freestanding buildings must provide for vehicular
and pedestrian inter-connection between adjacent outparcels or freestanding sites and the primary
structure"proposed in Section 5.05.08 D.8.c. Second by Mr. Curatolo. Carried unanimously 5—
0.
Section 5.05.08 F.3.c—Pedestrian Pathways
Mr. Podczerwinsky recommended eliminating the language "Minimum ratios. Pedestrian pathway
connections must be provided from the building to adjacent road pathways at a ratio of one for each
vehicular entrance to a project. "
He noted similar to the above Section, the requirements address site design standards, not building
aesthetic standards. These design features are addressed by the ADA and other Sections of the Land
Development Code.
Staff noted that the intent of this section is to encourage pedestrians and on large sites, one access
may not be enough to allow pedestrians to access the building.
The Committee noted it may be prudent to reference other Sections of the Land Development Code
in the proposed standards notifying users of other requirements that need to be met.
The Committee determined to review the item further before making a decision on the
recommendation.
Staff indicated they would provide related provisions to the Committee at the next meeting
a. Review of strikethrough underline of the reason section
Staff noted they provided a document "Research for new definition of"Fronting" for the Committee
to review and discuss at the next meeting.
Page 10/11 —Proposed Section 5.05.08 D.2.b.iii
4
May 18, 2015
The Committee continued their discussion of the definition of a"monumental entrance." The
Committee noted that the building code defines a monumental entrance as "an entrance that is wider
than the allowable capacity for egress." It was discussed that if this element is not chosen, the
entrance can be much smaller and the dimensions provided exceed the minimum standards for the
dimensions of a typical entrance. These dimensions are the guide, and the term "monumental" is
intended to inspire designers.
Staff indicated they could provide the plan for the courthouse building as an example of a
monumental entry.
Page 12 —Old Section 5.05.08 C.3
Staff reported a justification from the Committee is needed for elimination of the Section which
addresses transitional elements for proposed buildings that are of different mass and size to an
adjacent building.
The Committee indicated that the existing standards create requirements based on the development
of other properties. There could be instances when a building is required to comply based on
existing buildings, but then the adjacent building could be redeveloped to a taller building.
Additionally, requirements for canopies, porte-cocheres and other design elements would also
provide for transitional elements. The Committee also requested that staff remove the illustration
from Ordinance 96-66.
6. Next Meeting
a. Available dates to meet - Doodle Results
The next meeting will be held on June 15, 2015.
7. Public Comment
None
6. Adjourn
Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05pm
Collier County Architectural and Site Design
Standards Ad Hoc Committee
( 5-7,) ,mc-/ Isfritil.0
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee/Chairma '0 haiiinan on /5- , 2015
as presented , or as amended .
5