A&SDS Ad Hoc Minutes 06/15/2015 June 15, 2015
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE
DESIGN STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, June 15, 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
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
Madelin Bunster, Architect
Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner
1
June 15, 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. Costa called the meeting to order at 1:34pm and a quorum was established.
2. Approve Agenda
Mr. Schiffer moved to approve the Agenda subject to hearing items 4.d and 4.e first under Old
Business. Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously 5—0.
3. Approve May 18,2015 meeting minutes
Mr. Disney moved to approve the minutes of the May 18, 2015 meeting. Second by Mr. Schiffer.
Carried unanimously 5—0.
4. Old Business
a. Follow up on pedestrian/vehicular access discussion
Section 5.05.08 F.3.c—Pedestrian Pathways
Mr. Podczerwinsky had addressed the Committee at the last meeting and 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 provided drawings of site designs applicable to the requirement and expressed
concern the requirements are excessive given they require pedestrian connections to all access
points on site.
The Committee noted:
• The existing language requires pedestrian access at all vehicle entrance/exits to sites. This
requirement may not be necessary given the number of access roads are based on vehicle
traffic demands, not pedestrian usage of the area(availability of pedestrians access to a site
is critical, but may not need to be provided at every entrance road to a site).
• Applicants are required to address pedestrian access under other guidelines such as the
American with Disabilities Acts, etc. and it may be prudent to remove the requirements in
the proposed standards.
• The concept of removing some of the requirements under Section 5.05.08 F was discussed
during previous meetings of the Committee given they address site design elements, not
building aesthetics.
• The requirements could be relocated to other sections of the Land Development Code such
as those addressing site plan design.
• Interconnectivity to all access points may promote unsafe pedestrian conditions in certain
instances where vehicles and pedestrians converge unnecessarily.
• The requirements encourage "sidewalks to nowhere" in certain instances.
Staff noted:
• If the requirements are removed in their entirety, a cross reference to other sections of the
Land Development Code will be incorporated into the section.
2
June 15, 2015
• One benefit of including the requirements in the existing/proposed standards was providing
a notification on the requirements as many applications were submitted that did not
adequately address pedestrian access to the site.
• The purpose of the section was not only to address ADA standards which require only one
pedestrian access point to the site, but to aid in promoting pedestrian movement within
commercial developments.
Mr. Boughton arrived at 2:05pm
Mr. Schiffer moved to delete Section 5.05.08F.3.c (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)from the requirements. Second by Mr.Amico. Carried
unanimously 6—0.
Staff noted an one of the the Board of County Commissioners's recent discussion topics are
sidewalks and walkability. .
The Committee reported they recognize sidewalk access is critical, however pedestrian
connectivity is addressed in other codes such as those administered through the American with
Disabilities Act, Florida Building Code, Florida Accessibility Code, etc.
Section 5.05.08 D.8.c
Mr. Podczerwinsky provided an exhibit for information purposes that addresses the action taken
by the Committee at the last meeting (deleting 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.) for the Committee's
reference.
b. Follow up on bird safe glazing criteria
Staff provided an email string between Madelin Bunster and Dalas Disney -RE: Bird Safe
Language Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 for information purposes which proposes language to
address avian fatalities as the result of collisions with buildings.
They noted Mr. Schiffer had submitted language for consideration as well.
The Committee members discussed the proposals submitted by the Members.
Mr. Disney proposed adding the following language to Section 5.05.08.4 -w. Glazing for Bird
Safe Buildings consisting of all glass with visual patterns permanently applied to the lowest three
(3)floors in compliance with Bird Collision Deterrence as published by the U.S. Green Building
Council's LEED Pilot Credit Library.
Mr. Schiffer proposed adding the following language to Section 5.05.08D.3.b -Eighty five percent
(85%) of all exterior glazing within the first three stories of the building have any of the following:
a) Low reflectance, opaque glazing materials (may include spandrel glass with less than
fifteen percent (15%) reflectance).
3
June 15, 2015
b) Glass with visual patterns consisting of opaque points or patterns etched into or applied
to the exterior of interior surfaces with frit,frost, or film for single pane or IGU,.
Maximum of 2 inch spacing between horizontal elements and 4 inch maximum space
between vertical elements, with a minimum line or dot diameter thickness of one eight
inch (1/8").
c) Glass with continuous etch or continuous fit on interior surface, single pane or IGU
d) External Screens.
The Committee discussed the proposed language.
April Olsen, Conservancy of Southwest Florida was present and noted Mr. Schiffer's language
encompassed the LEED's standards and was more in alignment with the existing research data.
Mr. Schiffer moved to add the following language to Section 5.05.08 D.4.w:If option 5.05.08
D.2.b.i is chosen and eighty five percent(85%) of all exterior glazing within the first three
stories of the building have any of the following:
a) Low reflectance, opaque glazing materials (may include spandrel glass with less than
fifteen percent(15%) reflectance).
b) Glass with visual patterns consisting of opaque points or patterns etched into or
applied to the exterior of interior surfaces with frit,frost, or film for single pane or
IGU. Maximum of 2 inch spacing between horizontal elements and 4 inch maximum
space between vertical elements, with a minimum line or dot diameter thickness of
one eight inch (1/8").
c) Glass with continuous etch or continuous frit on interior surface, single pane or
IGU.
d) External Screens.
Second by Mr. Costas. Carried unanimously 6—0.
The Committee stated the justification for the change was to address concern brought forth by
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida regarding avian mortality rates related to building
designs.
c. "Fronting" discussion
Mr. Frantz provided the document "Research for new definition of"Fronting." He noted the
Committee had discussed the item previously identifying a goal of 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. Examples of these types of lands were discussed at previous meeting
including a project located on a frontage road of Piper Blvd., and Trail Blvd. which both separate
commercial buildings from an arterial.
The Committee requested to utilize the term "adjacent"but modify the language to ensure
properties are not exempted from the proposed standards.
d. "Stealth codes"
4
June 15, 2015
Staff reported they have investigated the Committee's query if there are any policy determinations
previously made by Staff that should be included in the proposed standards. The only item that
could be identified at this point is overhead glass doors are not deemed"overhead doors" under the
existing standards.
The Committee noted this policy should be incorporated into the proposed standards; however
expressed concern overhead glass doors should only be allowed for certain uses. Fire stations,
restaurants, retail establishments are acceptable uses for overhead glass doors, however storage
areas including those proposed for mini storage projects are not acceptable given the public could
readily view stored items in the area.
The Committee determined Section 5.05.08 D.7 should be amended to provide an exception from
screening requirements for overhead glass doors with a minimum of 75 percent transparent
glazing but overhead glass doors should not be permitted for mini storage buildings.
Staff reported they would continue to work with this language and suggested that Committee
members consider how to apply this to mini storage buildings.
e. Staff presentation of paint contractors research
Mr. Frantz reported Staff researched avenues to increase contractor/property owner awareness on
the requirements for painting of commercial buildings and are considering the following:
1. Notification of the building painting requirements during the initial licensing process
(distributing information or incorporating a question(s) into the licensing exams, etc.).
2. Distribution of information to painting and general contractors at the time of their license
renewal.
3. Code Enforcement Division issuing violations including notifying the Contractor Licensing
Division if a contractor is involved.
5. New Business
a. Committee extension update
Staff reported at the July 7, 2015 Board of County Commissioner meeting, a request will be
made to extend the Committee for one year.
b. Member contact information
Staff requested Committee Member's to update their contact information as the County
Attorney's Office tracks the data.
c. Vacancies
Staff queried the Committee if they wish to fill the vacancy on the Committee noting Alexis
Crespo had been attending the meetings as an interested party.
Mr. Schiffer moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners appoint Alexis
Crespo to the Architectural and Site Design Standards Ad Hoc Committee.
Without a second the motion was not considered.
5
June 15, 2015
Committee Members noted they are nearing the end of the process and it may not be beneficial
to add a new member to the Committee. The public may attend any meeting and provide input
if they so desire.
Mr.Amico moved for the Committee remains comprised of the current membership. Second
by Mr. Curatolo. Carried unanimously 6—0.
d. Continue review of amendment narrative
The Committee continued review of the LDC Amendment Request version dated 6-10-15 on
page 8 (narrative section) and offered the following comments:
Section 5.05.08 B.4—Page 8- 10—Add the square footages of the buildings depicted in the
photos.
Section 5.05.08 D.2.xi—Page 13 —The Committee reported the justification for this change is
to promote increased design flexibility and incorporate language from the Planned Unit
Development requirements.
Ms. Curatolo left the meeting at 4:10pm
Section 5.05.08 D.3 —Page 15 —Staff to ensure the proposed standards reflect the change in
recess depths from 8 feet to 6 feet.
Section 5.05.08 D.3.a.iii-v—Page 15/16—The Committee questioned the reason for
incorporating photos into the narrative. Staff reported they are visual examples to assist those
reviewing the document in judging the scale of buildings given the applicability of some of the
proposed standards reference square footage thresholds.
Section 5.05.08 D.4.t -Page 16—line 3 —to read"percent of the length of the building façade
and not when they cover..."
Section 5.05.08 D.7—Page 18—The Committee requested any updates available to alleviate
the requirement of planting landscaping along the entire property line to screen overhead doors
on primary facades. Staff reported these requirements may be reviewed under the landscaping
section of the Land Development Code and no specific changes are proposed at this time.
Section 5.05.08 D.9.b.i—Page 20—replace/eliminate the sketch.
Section 5.05.08 D.10.b.ii—Page 20—The Committee reported the justification for this change
is the awnings will be the extension of a decorative feature.
Section 5.05.08 D.11.c.i—Page 21 - The Committee recommended a minimum square
footage of seventy five (75) feet be required for the individual areas.
Section 5.05.08 E.c.3 - Page 22—Discussion occurred on the rationale for deleting these
requirements and the Committee reported the section exceeded the scope of the proposed
standards by dictating the internal components (check out areas, restrooms, offices, etc.) of
6
June 15, 2015
buildings. Additionally, there are other requirements in the proposed standards that control the
design of big box stores.
I
Section 5.05.08 E.4.a.i - Page 22 - Staff reported there is a current amendment proposed in the
Land Development Code for Auto Service Stations and this section may be amended to reflect
these requirements as necessary.
Section 5.05.08 F.1.d - Page 25/26—The Committee requested Staff revise their note to
indicate employee and service accesses are not considered `public accesses" under the section.
Section 5.05.08 F.3.h.ii - Page 27—The Committee reported the justification for eliminating
this section from the proposed standards is it is redundant and addressed in another section of
the Land Development Code.
6. Next meeting(s)
a. Available dates to meet- Doodle results
The next meeting will be held on July 8, 2015 at 2:30pm.
7. Public Comments
None
8. Adjournment
Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15pm
Collier County Architectural and Site Design
Standards Ad Hoc Committee
rt
\ /iqThese minutes ap oved by the Board/Commi -e/Chairman/Vice Chairman on 7 , 2015
as presented �j or as amended
7