Loading...
Minutes 01/12/2015 January 12, 2015 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 12, 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 (Excused) Dalas Disney, AIA Bradley Schiffer, AIA Dominick Amico, P.E. ALSO PRESENT: Caroline Cilek, LDC Manager Jeremy Frantz, Planner Matt McLean, Principal Project Manager Stefanie Nawrocki, Planner Madeline Bunster, Architect Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner 1 January 12, 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 2:05pm and a quorum was established. 2. Approve Agenda Mr. Boughton moved to approve the Agenda subject to adding item 8- "Stealth Codes"and Item 9 — "Finalize Schedule." Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously 5—0. 3. Meeting Minutes a. December 5th, 2014 b. December 15th, 2014 Mr. Schiffer moved to approve the minutes of the December 5, 2014 and the December 15, 2014 meeting as presented. Second by Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously 5—0. 4. Next Meeting Available dates to meet- Doodle Results The next meeting will be held on January 27, 2015 at 2:30pm. 5. Follow up Items from the Previous Meeting a. County Attorney Recommendation Heidi Ashton-Cicko noted she conducted a review of the proposed Amendment and reported she cannot make a finding it is legally sufficient in its proposed form due to the Alternative Design Compliance Section ("The following alternative compliance process is established to allow alternatives from the requirements of the section as approved by the County Manager or designee"). She noted no criteria are established for the approval creating a situation where the County Manager or designee has no guidance for the approval and it becomes too discretionary for Staff. She recommended criteria be established for the approval process. Mr. Schiffer moved for Section 505.08.G (Alternative Design Compliance) to be revised and submitted to the County Attorney's Office for review to ensure it is legally sufficient. Second by Mr. Costas. Motion carried 4 `yes"—1 "no." Mr. Disney dissenting. Discussion occurred on Section 5.05.08.B.4.xii noting the narrative allows an architect to propose and alternative building element to be approved by the County Manager or his designee. This Section is discretionary and criteria are needed as well. Staff reported they would review Section 5.05.08.B.4.xii and propose any other Section with Staff discretion and changes as necessary at the next meeting. 6. Review of materials a. Committee Member Comments i. Follow Up Items to Discuss 1. Section D.2—Glazing Requirements 2. Section D.2.c—Definitions for Façade Standards 2 January 12, 2015 3. Section B.4.bvi—Maintenance Buildings The Committee began review of the proposed standards from the beginning as currently written addressing the following elements or Sections of the document. Green Building Design Discussion occurred on if the standards as written discourage or prohibit certifications for sustainable buildings. The Committee determined the standards do not. 5.05.08.B.3.a and 5.05.08.B.4.b.ii The following language was submitted by Brad Schiffer: "5.05.08 B.3.a i. No nonconforming structure or vehicle use area may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity, but may be altered to decrease its nonconformity. ii. Should such nonconforming structure or vehicle use area be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than fifty (50)percent of its actual replacement cost at time of destruction, as determined by a cost estimate submitted to the site development review director, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with provisions of this Section. " Discussion occurred on the square footage threshold for the applicability to existing or small buildings and if they should be increased or decreased. Mr. Boughton moved to amend the Section 5.05.08.B.3.a to read"Additions to all existing buildings: Where an alteration results in an addition(s)greater than 4,000 square feet offloor area, the area changed by the alteration shall comply with LDC section 5.05.08"and Section 5.05.08.B.4.b.ii to read "Buildings with 4,000 square feet or less offloor area." Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously 5—0. 5.05.08.B.2.a and b. The Committee reviewed the following language found in the applicability sections: 5.05.08 B.2.a— "The project site is located in a non-industrial zoning district and is abutting an arterial or collector road. " 5.05.08 B.2.b— "The project site is located in an industrial zoning district which is located on an arterial road. " Discussion occurred on: • How the term "abutting" is applied to a project site: In a PUD outparcels, or developments with narrow strips of land between the road and the property deeded to separate entities (Florida Power and Light, etc.) by developers render projects no longer "abutting" arterial or collector roads. • Are there parameters for determining if a road is a collector or arterial roadway. It was noted the definitions of arterial and collector road are cited in the Growth Management Plan. • The wording in the Sections differs ("abutting an arterial ...road" vs. "located on...road") and the terminology should be consistent. Staff reported they will review the Section and propose language to address the concerns raised by the Committee. 3 January 12, 2015 5.05.08.B.4 - Exceptions The Committee discussed the ramification of exempting all uses in Agricultural Districts, including non farming uses and determined lands located in the Agricultural Districts should not be subject to the standards. The Committee recommended Section 5.05.08.B.4.b.iv-Agricultural districts become 5.05.08.B.4.b with the remaining Sections to be re-lettered as necessary. 5.05.08.B.4.b—Exceptions Discussion occurred noting the Section provides exceptions for specific uses and determined only the colors should be regulated, not the types of materials. The Committee recommended this Section read "The following shall be exempt from the standards of LDC section 5.05.08, but shall comply with the colors standards identified in LDC Section 5.05.08 D.12" 5.05.08.B.3.c—Nonconforming buildings The Committee discussed the proposed requirement "Nonconforming buildings. Alterations to nonconforming buildings shall be exempt from LDC Section 5.05.08, however, alterations shall be reviewed to ensure any nonconforming features are not increased or enlarged" The Committee noted their goal is to ensure owners of non conforming buildings are not overly regulated when they want to improve the appearance of a structure, however want to prohibit alterations that increase the non conforming nature of the building. The following items were discussed: • The feasibility of developing a minimum square footage threshold whereby the building or alterations to a building would be exempted from the standards (i.e. 4,000 sq. ft.). • Utilizing the Land Development Code Language as a basis— "No nonconforming structure or vehicle use area may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity, but may be altered to decrease its nonconformity" and "Should such nonconforming structure or vehicle use area be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than fifty (50)percent of its actual replacement cost at the time of destruction, as determined by a cost estimate submitted to the site development review director, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this Section. " • Utilizing language such as "Alterations to the existing portions of non conforming buildings shall be exempt from Section 5.05.08. " Staff reported they will review the Section and propose language and ensure it is deemed "legally sufficient"by the County Attorney's Office. 5.08.08.0 - Submittal requirements Staff reported the Application requirements are cited in the Administrative Code and are cross referenced in Section 5.05.08. 5.05.08.D—Building Design Standards 4 January 12, 2015 The Committee noted a proposed building may be designed absent of a minimum glazing requirement and discussed if a minimum standard should be added to some of the design standards of a building. The following was noted: • Although there is a small likelihood a building will be designed with no glazing, there are certain uses that may opt to forego windows (gun ranges, etc.) if given the opportunity. • A minimum threshold such as 15 percent could be incorporate into Sections 5.05.08.D.2.c.iii (Monumental covered entrance with a minimum horizontal dimension of sixteen feet and a minimum area of 200 square feet) and 5.05.08.D.c.iv (Covered walkway, or arcade (excluding canvas type) constructed with columns at least 12 inches wide, attached to the building, or located no more than 12 feet from the building. The structure must be permanent and its design must relate to the principal structure. The minimum width must be eight feet, with a total length measuring 40 percent of the length of he associated facade). Staff requested the Committee to consider the item and bring a formal recommendation forward. Primary Facades Facing 2 Roads The Committee requested Staff ensure the requirements for buildings with primary facades facing two applicable roads are clearly defined in the standards. Public Comment David Dunnavant addressed the Committee providing comment on the following sections: 5.05.08.B.2.a a. "The project site is located in a non-industrial zoning district and is abutting an arterial or collector road. " 5.05.08.B.2.b b. "The project site is located in an industrial zoning district which is located on an arterial road. " He noted the language may be misinterpreted and recommended it be clarified that the standards are applicable to a project abutting/located on an arterial/collector road and in an industrial zoning district. 5.05.08.D.5 5. "Window standards. Windows must not be false or applied. Spandrel panels in curtain wall assemblies are allowed and may be included in the minimum glazing required for primary facade. He recommended false or applied windows be allowed given prohibiting the use of these materials unnecessarily increases costs to buildings without a substantial aesthetic benefit to the public. The committee requested staff to rewrite the language to allow for the use of false or applied glass but that it should not be included in the minimum glazing requirements. Section 5.05.08.D.8.b.i and ii. b. Façades standards. All facades must meet the requirements of 5.05.08 C.5. Project standards. 5 January 12, 2015 i. Primary facades. All exterior facades of freestanding structures, including structures located on outparcels, are considered primary facades and must meet the requirements of this section with respect to the architectural design treatment for primary facades - section 5.05.08 C.2., except for those facades considered secondary facades. ii. Secondary façades. One facade of a freestanding structure, including structures located on outparcels, that is internal to the site and that does not abut or face public or private streets adjacent to the development. Outparcels and freestanding buildings are allowed one secondary façade. He expressed concern that the language as shown below requires three primary facades for buildings located on interior PUD outparcels. The requirement of three primary facades increases costs for the construction of the building with minimal aesthetic benefit to the public. The wording "freestanding" is especially problematic (versus those on out parcels) as this encompasses all buildings located in the same plane line on one parcel in a PUD development. He recommended the design elements apply to a façade facing a roadway The Committee noted if you have a PUD, you may propose your own architectural standards. Staff reported they will review the Section and propose any changes as necessary. Section 5.05.08.D.8.6— Overhead Doors 6. Required screening. Overhead doors located on the primary facade shall provide adequate screening. Sufficient screening is defined as a screening wall, with a minimum height of 90 percent of the overhead door height, or a landscape buffer achieving 75 percent opacity within one year. The placement and the length of these screening devices must block the view of the overhead doors from the street. " He expressed concern the threshold requirement shown below of a screening wall 90 percent of the overhead door length is too great an area. He suggested limiting the maximum height to eight feet. Section 5.05.08.D.4.t t. "Solar shading devices (excluding awnings) that extend a cover a minimum of 50 percent of the building facade. " Expressed concern the language listed below is impractical or in error given the minimum percentage requirement and because it doesn't make sense. Section 5.05.08.E.3.c c. All areas with the building that can be accommodated within a space with a ceiling height of 16 feet or less must be designed and built within a single story envelope or a multiple of envelopes. These building envelopes must have a maximum eave height of 16 feet and must be expressed as single story elements in the architectural form of the building along the building edge or edges that front the public right-of-way. These areas must include, but are not limited to: i. The management and business office. ii. Check out area. iii. Rest rooms. 6 January 12, 2015 iv. Customer service area. v. Food service areas. Requested clarification on the Section listed above. The Committee reported this Section has been eliminated. He concluded noting it critical the standards are crafted to allow owners of non conforming buildings to upgrade their structures, even if they cannot fully comply with the regulations. As the standards currently exists, owners of these buildings do not have the economic incentive to make improvements as they cannot realize a return on the investment if they are required to fully comply with all aspects of the standards. Absent of a provision addressing these buildings, they generally become a blight on the community as their aesthetic appeal deteriorates over time, decreasing the economic value of the site. Staff reported the comments will be reviewed and they will discuss proposed changes with the Committee as necessary. 7. Stealth Codes The Committee recommended Staff bring forward any policies that have been developed in implementing the standards so they may be reviewed to determine if they should be incorporated into the proposed standards. An example was given whereby overhead doors comprised of glass panels are not considered by Staff to be"overhead doors" under the standards. 8. Finalize Schedule The Committee noted it may be prudent to disseminate the proposed standards to the public so individuals such as architects, engineers, contractors or other interested parties may provide comment to the Committee. Staff noted the proposed amendment should be deemed "legally sufficient"by the County Attorney's Office before this process begins. 9. Adjournment Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50pm Collier County Architectural and Site Design Standards Ad Hoc Committee glyyfr:.4.4 OutaiL These minutes a e 'ed by the Board/Committee/Chairman/Vice Chairman on //' J( , 2014 as presented v or as amended 7