Loading...
A&SDS Ad Hoc Minutes 08/25/2015 August 25, 2015 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, August 25, 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 2:00 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 James Boughton, AIA Kathy Curatolo, Collier Building Industry Association Dalas Disney, MA Bradley Schiffer, MA 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 August 25, 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. Costas called the meeting to order at 2:05pm and a quorum was established. 2. Approve Agenda Mr. Disney moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr.Amico. Carried unanimously 4—0. 3. Approval August 3,2015 meeting minutes Mr. Disney moved to approve the minutes of the August 3, 2015 meeting as presented. Second by Mr.Amico. Carried unanimously 4—0. 4. Public Comments None Mr. Schiffer arrived at 2:11 pm 5. Old Business a. Continue site design standards discussion 5.05.08 F Mr. Frantz submitted the report "Review of Site Standards in LDC Section 5.05.08: Landscaping or Engineering Requirements" for information purposes. The report was a result of the Committee's direction to Staff to identify the areas of Section 5.05.08 that house site design standards and any proposed references of those standards to other Sections of the LDC. He noted the activity was to assist the Committee in determining if the site design standards should be cross- referenced to other sections of the Land Development Code, revised or eliminated from the proposed standards in their entirety. Discussion centered around the requirements of Section 5.05.08 F.1.a Mr. Amico reiterated his recommendation to eliminate the site design standards provisions from the architectural standards. Jeff Curl,Davidson Engineering Landscape Architect expressed concern when site designers prepare the initial design, they tend to rely on the landscaping requirements as found in Section 4.06.00 (buffer requirements, general landscape requirements, etc.) unaware of the requirements in Section 5.05.08. Later in the process, during the building design phase the requirements of Section 5.05.08 come to light leading to the potential for site re-designs in order for the applicant to be granted approval of the project. Staff noted: • The requirements in Section 5.05.08 are not strictly landscape elements, they are integral components of the building's aesthetics. • To aid in improving communication between consultants, cross-references will be cited throughout the LDC to increase an applicant's/designer's awareness of the design elements required for project approval. • Over the past year,there haven't been any applications processed under Section 5.05.08 that have not been able to meet the site design elements including those addressing landscaping. 2 August 25, 2015 The Committee noted: • The items in Section 5.05.08 F.1.a. are not mandated, rather a menu of choices where any two may be selected. It may be beneficial to increase the number of selections available for use. • Consideration could be given to removing the landscape elements out of 5.05.08 and relocate them to the landscape section of the LDC. • Should some of these elements only be required for larger square footage buildings? Ms. Curatolo arrived at 2:35pm Mr. McLean stated the Committee needs to decide if the site design elements should be retained in the proposed standards. Mr. Schiffer recommended the site design elements remain in the proposed standards. Designers should be aware of the requirements throughout the LDC and communicate with all consultants early in the process to ensure the site design is compatible with Collier County Codes. Mr. Disney noted if the design elements are to be retained, it is critical to ensure all cross references are incorporated as necessary throughout the LDC. Mr.Amico withdrew his request for the Committee to consider removing the site design elements from the proposed standards. Jeff Curl and Ryan White of Davidson Engineering were present and participated in the remaining discussions. Section 5.05.08 F.l.a Discussion occurred on the language "Decorative landscape planters or planting areas, a minimum of five feet wide, and areas for shaded seating consisting of a minimum of 100 square feet. " Discussion occurred on the term "shading" and the means to quantify it. The following was noted: • Shading is hard to quantify, i.e. will the vegetation (if used)be allowed to mature before providing"shading,"how long a time frame is required for the shading during a daily period, what times of day is shading required, does a percentage of the area need to be shaded or the entire area, etc.? • Are structures allowed to be utilized to meet the criteria? • Should the seating element be required, but allow the applicant to provide shading at his or her discretion? Mr. Schiffer moved to amend Section 5.05.08 F.1.a, to read"Decorative landscape planters or planting areas, a minimum of five feet wide, and areas for seating consisting of a minimum of 100 square feet;" Second by Ms. Curatolo. Motion carried 5 "yes"—1 "no." Mr. Costas voted "no." Mr. Costas stated his no vote is predicated on the rationale shading is beneficial for an outdoor seating element in the southwest Florida environment. The Committee reported the justification for removing the shading requirement is that it is difficult to quantify the term "shaded"as noted in the discussions. 3 August 25, 2015 Staff to check for any references or a definition of"shading"in other Sections of the LDC and report back to the Committee for information purposes. 6. New Business a. Staff research i. Architectural review summary Staff provided the document"Architectural Review Summary— October 2011 to July 2015" for information purposes. The document is intended to show the percentage of applications that would have been exempted from the proposed standards if they were in affect during this time frame. As indicated in the document, approximately 20—40 percent of the applications (depending on the applicability)would not have been reviewed if the proposed standards were in affect. The following was noted under Committee discussions: • The document is useful as it demonstrates the Committee is meeting its goal of reducing those applications subject to architectural standards, especially façade renovations for smaller shopping centers. • It would be beneficial to identify the number of applications for buildings that did not conform to the existing standards. • Staff should review the statistics in the "Alterations"portion of the document to ensure they are identified correctly. It appears those in the "Less than or equal to 4,000 sf' column should be all be listed in the row labelled "Projects that will no longer be subject to review. " The Committee recommended the document subsections for "Alterations"and "Facades"be titled "Existing Alterations"and "Existing Facades." ii. Applicability Staff provided the document"Applicability Summary" for information purposes. The document is intended to be an easily readable chart to compare proposed projects that are subject to the existing standards vs. the proposed standards based on building size. Staff provided an overview of the document with the Committee noting again the document is a useful tool as it demonstrates the Committee's goal of eliminating the necessity of a review under the proposed standards for certain projects. The following was noted by Staff: 1. The definition of square footage is as defined in the Land Development Code. 2. The square footage threshold is measured per building, with multiple buildings being defined as "one building" if they are connected by a covered roof element. The Committee recommended Staff prepare a similar chart for industrial uses. iii. Pathway/sidewalk requirements Staff provided the document"Pathway/Sidewalk Requirements in the LDC" for information purposes. The document was generated at the direction of the Committee following an action which made Section 5.05.08 F.3.h.i only applicable to "required pathways." It identifies locations in other Sections of the LDC where sidewalks or pathways are referenced. Staff noted there are not areas that specifically"require" pathways. The Committee and Staff noted: • Designers are required to provide pathways from the building to parking areas. 4 August 25, 2015 • The Americans with Disability's Act does "require pathways" in specific instances. • Any pathway located in an approved PUD could be considered a"required pathway" even if the applicant views it as an"optional pathway." • Any pathway shown on an approved site plan could be considered a"required pathway" even if the applicant views it as an"optional pathway." iv. Discuss glazing on overhead doors for specific uses Staff noted that, following Committee discussion at the previous meeting they have been considering the use of overhead glass doors for certain uses only (fire stations, restaurants, auto repair shops, etc.). Staff suggested that the types of uses suggested at the last meeting for prohibiting glass doors (grocery store receiving areas, loading docks, storage areas, etc.) are all examples of receiving areas or loading docks. Rather than specifying uses where glass doors are not allowed, staff suggested overhead glass doors should not be allowed for receiving areas or loading docks in any use. Committee discussion occurred regarding overhead glass doors in the following instances: restaurants, auto repair shops, car washes, fire stations, and at shipping and receiving delivery areas. The Committee agreed with the Staff proposal. Section 5.05.08 E.2.c The Committee discussed the Section which states "Window standards. Windows must not be false or applied. If the window openings are into the storage area, translucent material must be used " They noted there are instances where glazing on self-storage buildings has been allowed where corridors lead to individual storage units,providing a view of storage unit doors from the street. This section has been interpreted to only apply to the storage unit doors themselves but this was not the intent of the existing standards or the proposed standards. Staff reported they will work with Committee members to develop appropriate language to address the issue. b. Continue amendment review Staff reported, based on input from the Committee at the last meeting, all the track changes in the narrative Section were "accepted" and a new version has been formatted for review. Upon review of the new formatted version, a few changes were proposed by Staff which the Committee should review. The Committee reviewed the updated narrative and addressed the following Sections: Page 4—Proposed Section 5.05.08 B.2c Staff reviewed the measurements as requested by the Committee at the last meeting. They determined the projects property lines were 160 feet+7- and 188 feet+7- from the road right of way line depending on the locations viewed. They requested that the Committee should propose an appropriate distance requirement based on the measurements at Piper Blvd. The Committee discussed the requirement with some members noting a distance of 150 feet should be sufficient to meet the goals of the proposed standards. Most of those uses are outside the limit of 150 feet would be subject to review by triggering other applicability standards such as 5 August 25, 2015 proximity to residential uses. Others noted that it may be prudent to develop a threshold which addresses uses already in existence. Mr. Schiffer moved for the distance measurement in Section 5.05.08 B.2.c to be amended to "...within 200 feet of the boundary of a residentially zoned district." Second by Mr. Boughton. Motion carried 4 "yes"—2 "no." Mr.Amico and Mr. Disney voted "no." Mr. Disney noted a 150 feet threshold should suffice to address any issues as discussed above and the measurement would be consistent with other threshold distances set forth in the proposed standards. Mr. Schiffer moved to reconsider the previous motion. Second by Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously 6—0. Mr. Schiffer moved for the distance measurement in Section 5.05.08 B.2.c to be amended to "...within 150 feet of the boundary of a residentially zoned district." Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously 6—0. Staff requested clarification on the rationale for changing the threshold of this Section from 300 feet to 150 feet. The Committee provided to the following examples: The football and track area of St. John Neumann High School - The concession building/PE fitness building is located 300 feet away from residential property and was required to meet the requirements for a primary façade and a landscape buffer to shield an overhead door. The architectural features required in this case were not effective. The First Baptist Academy field house - It was required to meet architectural standards because it was within 300 feet of residential property. The building's entrance faced an internal parking lot and the rear of the building was separated from residential property by a track and field area. The building was required to meet primary façade requirements, but not required to incorporate any treatments to the side of the building facing the residential area. Section 5.05.08 D.6.a Discussion occurred on the Section noting it would be beneficial to remove the word "minimum" from the language which reads: "False or applied windows are allowed but shall not be included in the minimum glazing required for primary facades". Mr. Schiffer moved for Section 5.05.08 D.6.a to read "False or applied windows are allowed but shall not be included in the glazing required for primary façades." Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously 6—0. Staff outlined the remaining format changes and the Committee accepted the additional track changes as proposed by Staff c. Discuss remaining tasks for completion of Committee review Staff noted: 6 August 25, 2015 • The document will be reformatted and reviewed by the County Attorney's Office for legal sufficiency. • They intend to present the proposed amendment to the Development Services Advisory Committee for review at their October or November meeting. The Committee recommended if there are no substantial changes warranting their consideration following the review by the County Attorney's Office, the proposed standards be distributed to the public/design consultants and organizations such as the Naples Area Board of Realtors, local AIA chapters, CBIA, etc.for comment. 7. Next Meeting Staff reported they will send out a Doodle Poll and notify the Committee on the date and time of the next meeting. 8. Adjournment Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45pm Collier County Architectural and Site Design Sta dards Ad Hoc Committee 4 These minutes aved by the Board/Committee/Chairman/Vice Chairman on , 2015 as presented or as amended 7