Loading...
A&SDS Ad Hoc Minutes 08/03/2015 August 3, 2015 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, August 3, 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 Matt McLean, Development Review Manager Madelin Bunster, Architect Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner 1 August 3, 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 3:05pm and a quorum was established. 2. Approve agenda Mr. Schiffer moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Ms. Curatolo. Carried unanimously 4—0. 3. Approve July 14, 2015 meeting minutes Mr. Curatolo moved to approve the July 14, 2015 meeting minutes subject to the following change: • Page 1 —Mr. Schiffer was not present for the meeting. Second by Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously 4—0. Mr. Disney arrived 3:10 4. Public comments Section 5.05.08 F.3.h.i Jeff Curl was present and had appeared at the previous meeting requesting clarification on the shading requirements and the Committee recommended he propose changes to the Section if he so desires. He conducted research on the concept of substituting structures for shade trees and at this point simply recommends Section 5.05.08 F.3.h.i be amended to address shading requirements for pathways "required"by the County, not any optional paths proposed by the developer. Mr. Schiffer moved to amend Section 5.05.08 F.3.h.i to read "Required pedestrian pathways must provide intermittent shaded areas when the walkway exceeds 100 linear feet in length at a minimum ratio of one shade canopy tree per every 100 linear feet of walkway." Second by Ms. Curatolo. Carried unanimously 5—0. The Committee queried Staff on how"required pedestrian pathways"would be defined. Staff noted it could be interpreted as those required under applicable Sections of the Land Development Code but would have to review the issue for a final determination. Staff reported they would investigate which walkways would be defined as "required"under the proposed standards and return their findings to the Committee. Also, will identify any cross references to other portions of the LDC that may be required. 5. Old Business a. Continue site design standards discussion 5.05.08 F Mr. Amico reported he reviewed Section 5.05.08 F and couldn't find suitable locations in other Sections of the LDC for relocating the requirements. He noted the requirements are not related to the building design or its aesthetics and should not be included in the proposed standards. As an example,the types of items required under 5.05.08 F.1 (integration of pavers, etc.) should be installed at the discretion of the applicant, not mandated. Other Committee members noted: 2 August 3, 2015 • Section 5.05.08 F.2.b Design Standards—Parking, could be relocated to other Sections of the LDC given they address parking lot designs. • The remaining requirements may be viewed as an element of design for the overall project which affects the aesthetic quality of the site/buildings. Staff reiterated if the requirements are relocated to other Sections of the LDC,they may apply to all types of development, not just those applications subject to Section 5.05.08. They noted: • One option would be to provide a reference where necessary in other sections of the LDC that for any applications subject to 5.05.08, certain additional site development standards may apply. • The concern is this may be confusing to the applicant/designer if the specific requirements are not identified directly in Section 5.05.08, as they may not realize there are additional requirements for projects triggering Section 5.05.08. • Additionally, there are site development requirements located throughout Section 5.05.08, not just the area in question and these would need to be addressed if the Committee determines site design elements should be eliminated from the proposed standards. Mr.Amico moved for Staff to review Section 5.05.08 and identify all the Sections with site development elements so the Committee can determine if they should remain as part of the proposed standards or be removed. Second by Ms. Curatolo. Carried unanimously 5—0. 6. New Business a. Revised research regarding architectural reviews Staff reported they have compiled data on the number of Architectural Review applications filed from August of 2013 thru July of 2015. The data indicates there were: • Twenty four(24) applications for buildings with an area of less than 4,000 sq. ft. • Forty four(44) for those ranging from 4,000 to 19,999 sq. ft. • Thirty two (32) greater than 20,000 sq. ft. They noted the applications that were less than 4,000 sq. ft. represent twenty five (25)percent of the applications filed and would not have been reviewed if they were submitted under the proposed standards. Committee discussed the analysis noting: • Is it necessary to regulate applications that do not trigger the proposed 4,000 sq. ft. threshold to ensure the character of the County is maintained given the thrust of the original rationale for the implementing Architectural Standards was to regulate "big box stores?" • Eliminating the threshold may negatively impact the smaller, "mom and pop" operations that are not in as strong a financial position to conform to the requirements. • Would it be prudent to create a threshold based on type of uses (restaurant, retail vs. office, etc.)that would be subject to the proposed standards as opposed to a square footage threshold? • Should the square footage threshold be decreased in order to address any potential aesthetic impacts? 3 August 3, 2015 • There may be other LDC requirements for projects that do not trigger the 4,000 sq. ft. threshold that lessen the buildings/sites potential negative aesthetic impacts. Staff to provide an analysis of the County requirements for those buildings with an area less than 4000 square feet and for those between 4,000 sq.ft. and 19,999 sq.ft.for the Committee's review. b. Continue review of amendment narrative i. Committee approval of track changes in narrative (review for consistency/clarity) Staff reported they intend to create a document without the track changes for ease of reading. They requested the Committee review the narrative Section and propose any final changes. The following was noted during the Committee's review: Section 5.05.08 B The Committee discussed the language "The project site is abutting an arterial or collector road and is located in a non-industrial zoning district. This shall include project sites separated from an arterial or collector road by up to 250 feet of right-of-ways or easements. " The Committee queried on the rationale for the two hundred fifty (250) foot threshold distance and Staff reported it is based on a review of existing development in the community. It was noted canal easements are generally one hundred (100) feet wide and road right of ways are sixty (60) feet in width. The Committee noted, a distance of one hundred and fifty(150) feet would be a more appropriate parameter if possible, given the distance is utilized as a threshold in other (unrelated) Sections of the proposed standards. Staff reported they would double check the measurement of the Piper Blvd area and report back to the Committee. Section 5.05.08 D.2.c Staff noted the Committee previously proposed a design feature allowing trellis or latticework to replace required glazing. As a result, if this proposed design feature is chosen, the requirement to use at least two design features in Section 5.05.08 D.2.b would be met by selecting only one design feature and replacing all glazing with trellises. Staff questioned whether this was the intent of the Committee and proposed to remove this provision from the list of design features and replace it with a new Section 5.05.08 D.2.c. The proposed language reads "Trellis or latticework on the primary façade used as a support for climbing plants may count as window area on primary facades. The planting area shall be an irrigated bed with 3 gallon vines at 3 feet on center at time of installation and climbing plants shall achieve 80 percent opacity on the trellis within one year. " The Committee discussed how the treatment should be allowed including: • Should it be incorporated into the design feature in Section 5.05.08 D.2.b.i? (It could be treated as an additional option to incentivize the use of the feature whereby the percentage of glazing required could be reduced). • If the treatment is utilized, could it allow for only one two design features under Section 5.05.08 D.2.b 4 August 3, 2015 • The original concept was not to allow the elimination of glazing in its entirety if this option was chosen and concern expressed if it is left a separate stand alone option, it may not be utilized in the proposed design. The Committee determined the option should be allowed only when the design feature in Section 5.05.08 D.2.b.i is selected, and should only allow for up to 50 percent of the required amount of glazing to be substituted with trellises. Additionally, a separate design feature should be created which establishes a new design feature that allows for trellises covering a minimum of 15 percent of the primary façade. Section 5.05.08 D.7.a—Overhead Doors Staff reported they continue to review the feature including proposing requirements for their use under sections of the proposed standards dealing with a specific type of use. Automobile Service Stations Staff reported the Board of County Commissioners adopted a Land Development Code amendment addressing requirements for automobile service stations. Cross references to the applicable Sections will be incorporated into Section 5.05.08 as necessary. Mr. Disney moved to accept the narrative Section including all track changes and Land Development Code text and move the document forward in the process. Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried unanimously 5—0. Staff reported they would be double checking the document for any final changes that may need to be made to ensure it is in the intended format. 7. Next meeting(s) a. Available dates to meet- Doodle results The next meeting will be held on August 25, 2015 at 2:00pm. 8. Adjournment Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55pm Collier County Architectural and Site Design Standards Ad Hoc Committee . 171/, These minutes approved by the Board/Committee/Chairmn/Vi ec Chairman on (, �'� / 2015 as presented ,. or as amended . 5