Loading...
A&SDS Ad Hoc Minutes 09/17/2014 September 17, 2014 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, September 17, 2014 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 2:30 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 (Excused) Dalas Disney, AIA Bradley Schiffer, AIA Dominick Amico, P.E. Ron Waldrop, P.E (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner/LDC Manager Stefanie Nawrocki, Planner Matt McLean, Principal Project Manager Madeline Bunster, Architect 1 September 17, 2014 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. • Call to Order Mr. Costas called the meeting to order at 2:34pm and a quorum was established. Mr. Schiffer moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously 5—0. • Meeting Minutes—June 30,2014 and July 29,2014 Mr. Schiffer moved to approve the minutes of the June 30, 2014 and the July 29, 2014 meeting as presented. Second by Mr.Amico. Carried unanimously 5—0. • Next Meeting Date • Available Dates to Meet -Doodle Results The next meeting will be held on October 10, 2014 from 9:30 to 12:00pm. • Review of materials • Architectural Comparison Chart None • Continue run-through of section 5.05.08 Ms. Cilek provided a copy of the Draft for review. She reported the purpose of the meeting was to continue review of the draft LDC Amendment and not discuss follow ups on other prior Sections. The Committee resumed their review on page 28, Section 5.05.08.E.5 and provided the following actions/comments as indicated below. Section 5.05.08.E.5.a -Drive Thru Facility Standards The Committee discussed the rationale for the location of drive thru's and whether they should be permitted on the front of buildings. Currently they are permitted on the sides and rear, with the front requiring an"exception." Examples were given where the facilities are located within commercial developments on the "front" of buildings but adequately landscaped to reduce visual impacts. The Committee requested Staff to clarify the requirements for an "exception"and when the facilities are permitted on the front of a building. Section 5.05.08.E.5.b—Required Floor Area Committee discussion occurred on the rationale for the requirement of a minimum 1,000 square foot building for a drive thru facility. Most members felt the requirement should be eliminated as it prohibits business development, especially given the growing trends in technology whereby small stand alone drive thru businesses could be developed (i.e. ATM machines). In addition, there is a substantial impact fee ($150,000) associated with a drive thru and the County may be foregoing potential revenue. 2 September 17, 2014 Mr. Schiffer noted removal of the criteria would allow"pop up" structures and expressed concern that these types of facilities may proliferate in areas negatively impacting the aesthetic character of commercial neighborhoods and developments. Mr. Boughton moved to delete second sentence "Buildings must be a minimum of 1,000 square feet." Second by Mr. Costas. Motion carried 4 "yes"—1 "no." Mr. Schiffer voted "no." The Committee reported the justification for the action was, a minimum standard is not necessary as long as the building conforms to all other site planning requirements. Mr. Schiffer reported his "no"vote was predicated on the premise a drive through operation should be secondary to a primary use, not a stand alone business. Mr. Schiffer recommended Staff review the languages in Section 5.05.08.E.5.to ensure it does not conflict with the change proposed by the Committee. 5.05.08.E.6—Lighting The Committee discussed the term"glare" and how to regulate it given the broad definition of the term found in the dictionary. Mr. Costas noted it may be prudent to develop criteria to address the definition so design professionals have a clear intent of the requirements of the Section. Others noted there are standards available in publications which are intended to guide professionals in designing projects (i.e. Illumination Engineering Society Lighting Handbook). 5.05.08.E.6.e -Illumination Mr. Costas moved to amend the text in line 5 from "local lighting that defines the space without glare"to "local lighting that defines the space." Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried unanimously 5—0. The Committee reported the standard is already identified in Section 5.05.08.6.b. 5.05.08.E.7—Water Management Areas Mr.Amico moved to amend line 1 to read "Water Management Areas in buffer areas. For design standards for water management areas in buffer areas..." Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried unanimously 5— 0. The Committee reported the proposed language provides clarification on when the requirements are applied. Section 5.05.08.F.5.a.i—Architectural Arbitration Board The Committee noted they have previously approved removal of Staff from the Board due to their conflict of interest. Public Speaker 3 September 17, 2014 Alexis Crespo recommended a land use planner be assigned to the Board. Mr. Amico recommended a Civil Engineer sit on the Board. The remaining members of the Committee noted requests for deviations, alternative design considerations, etc. usually address building design and/or aesthetic issues as opposed to site design issues and it would be prudent to retain the recommended composition of membership. It was noted the Section, as currently proposed does not require "licensed" professionals to serve on the Board. Discussion occurred on the following topics: • Would it be advantageous (or does the Statute allow) for the Hearing Examiner to be involved in the process, including overseeing the Board and its composition of membership? • Can the various professional organizations (AIA, AICP, ASLA, etc.) legally appoint members to a County Board? • Should the members be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners with specific terms (i.e. 2 years) and operate similar to other Advisory Boards? Mr.Amico moved to amend the Section to provide for an Arbitration Board comprised of 4 licensed Architects appointed by the American Institute of Architects (Southwest Florida Chapter) and 1 licensed Landscape Architect appointed by the American Society of Landscape Architects (Southwest Florida Chapter). Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried unanimously 5— 0. Staff reported they would review the questions posed by the Committee and report back on the results.. Section 5.05.08F.4.a—Applicability of Deviations or Alternative Designs Mr. Boughton expressed concern on prohibiting specific types of buildings (i.e. buildings in a commercial zone over 10,000 sq. ft. on the ground floor, etc.) from the deviation process given it discourages "alternative" design considerations for these structures. Committee discussion occurred on if the process should be open to all uses governed under Section 5.05.08. It was noted applicants are required to provide justification for any deviation(s) and the Arbitration Board ensures the overall goals of the Section are met. Mr. Boughton moved to remove the requirements of the Section and clarify deviations or alternative compliance is allowed for all building under the auspices of Section 5.05.08. Second by Mr. Disney. Motion carried unanimously 5—0. The Committee reported the justification for removing the restriction is it unfairly prohibits certain uses from seeking deviations or alternative compliance with the Section. 5.05.08F - Deviations and Alternate Compliance Discussion occurred on if the title of the Section should be changed to clarify its intent? 4 September 17, 2014 Mr. Disney moved to amend the title of Section 5.05.08F to "Alternative Design Compliance." Second by Mr. Costas. Motion carried 4 "yes"—1 "no." Mr. Schiffer voted "no." The Committee reported the reason for the change is to clarify the intent of the Section Mr. Schiffer expressed concern the changes may encourage applicants to bypass any requirements of Section 5.05.08 and present "alternative designs" for consideration similar to the process utilized under the concept of Design Review Boards. The Committee recommended the Administrative Code be referenced in Section 5.05.05, where necessary. • Discuss plan for moving forward Mr. Disney reported it may be prudent to address requirements for Automobile Service Stations given recent comments offered at public meetings on a proposed amendment for the uses. Ms. Cilek recommended the issue be directed to the Development Services Advisory Committee whereby they could provide a recommendation on the item should they so choose. The next meeting will be held on October 10, 2014 from 9:30 to 12:00pm. 3. Adjournment Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:34pm Collier County Architectural and Site Design d.°rds Ad Hoc Committee G � These minutes appfoved by the Board/Com 'tree/ airman/Vice Chairman on l c,/ (7 , 2014 as presented 11!! or as amended 5