A&SDS Ad Hoc Minutes 11/14/2014 November 14, 2014
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE
DESIGN STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, November 14, 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 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 (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
Stefanie Nawrocki, Planner
Matt McLean, Principal Project Manager
Jeremy Frantz, Planner
1
November 14, 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.
1. Call to Order
Mr. Amico called the meeting to order at 1:32pm and a quorum was established.
2. Approve Agenda
Mr. Schiffer moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously 4—
0.
3. Meeting Minutes—October 10, 2014 and October 30, 2014
Mr. Boughton moved to approve the minutes of the October 10, 2014 and October 30, 2014
meeting. Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried unanimously 4—0.
Ms. Curatolo arrived at 1:39pm
4. Next Meeting
a. Available dates to meet- Doodle Results
The next meeting will be held on December 5, 2014 at 1:30pm.
Staff reported at the next meeting a"non strike through" version of the proposed Section will be
made available to the Committee for review.
Staff will be presenting examples of how the proposed changes would be applied to "real life"
permit applications.
Staff requested Subcommittee members to notify them if they have any examples of current or
prior applications that would be beneficial to review.
5. Review of Materials
a. Immokalee architectural standards discussion
Brad Muckel, Executive Director of the Immokalee CRA provided a handout "Immokalee
Map Book" for information purposes. The document contained maps of the various
"uncodified" zoning districts associated with Immokalee and their related regulations.
The Committee notified Mr. Muckel that they have previously recommended Immokalee be
exempted from the standards and are looking for guidance to establish a specific boundary for
the exemption.
Discussion occurred noting the Bayshore CRA utilizes Form Based Codes (i.e. the consideration
of the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of
buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks) whereby
criteria are applied for a neighborhood setting. This type of regulation may be more applicable
to Immokalee given its distinct cultural and socio/economic climate. It was noted the CRA
boundary would be a logical choice for exemption, because it is established. It also contains the
"urban core" and has a specific set of goals for development.
2
November 14, 2014
Mr. Schiffer moved to exempt the properties located within the Immokalee CRA Boundary
from the requirements of Land Development Code Section 5.05.08. Second by Mr.Amico.
Carried unanimously 5—0.
The Committee noted, in the future, Section 5.05.08 could be used as a base document and the
CRA could recommend portions of the Section be applicable to the area.
The Committee discussed the pros and cons of applying the requirements of 5.05.08 to other
outlying portions of the County such as Copeland, Ochopee and agricultural areas in the eastern
portion of the County. The Committee noted it would not be practical to subject these areas to
the standards given the types of uses that tend to occupy these areas such as those related to
agricultural activities.
The Committee recommended any properties located in Agricultural zoning districts be
exempted from the requirements of Land Development Code Section 5.0108.
b. Applicability Section 5.05.08 B
Ms. Cilek provided an updated Draft("New Language") for review. The Committee reviewed
the Section and discussed the following items:
Unintended Consequences
The Committee noted the standards need to be applied logically and all attempts should be made
to ensure certain buildings do not unintentionally become subject to the regulations.
Mr. Disney provided an example of a recreational facility constructed at Saint John Neumann
Catholic High School where the requirements produced an environment where a substantial
amount of money was expended without a significant aesthetic benefit to the public.
Staff noted it would be beneficial to review this project as outlined under item 4.a, and will bring
examples to the next meeting for discussion.
Interior Courtyards
The Committee discussed how interior courtyards of buildings or commercial centers are treated
and if these areas meet the definitions of a façade, especially in relation to Tenant Improvements
(TI's). It was noted these areas are only visible to the users of the facility and it may not be
practical to subject them to the requirements of the Section.
Staff reported, that under the existing code, changes to the "shell building" are subject to the
regulations and in certain instances, TI's are subject to the requirements depending on the type of
changes proposed.
The Committee directed Mr. Schiffer to review the requirements as they may apply to interior
courtyards and propose any changes necessary to the Committee.
Commercial Components of a PUD
The Committee discussed what"commercial component of PUD districts"means noting uses
such as "clubhouses" with public dining facilities, guardhouses, etc. located in residential PUD's,
may be subject to the regulations which may, or may not, be the goal of Section 5.05.08.
3
November 14, 2014
Staff reported they would review and provide an example of a PUD Master Plan to illustrate
commercial components of a PUDs.
RLSA applicability
Staff reported Land Development Code Section 4.08.07 J.2.a.xiii states that 5.05.08 applies to
SRA's (Stewardship Receiving Area) unless deviations are requested through the SRA process.
Language Specific Changes
5.05.08. B.Lb.b—to be removed from the Section.
5.05.08. B.2.a-to be removed or relocated to the exemptions section.
5.05.08. B.3.b—sentence two to read"Where an alteration results in a change to more than 50%
of any façade area...."
5.05.08 B.4—add any necessary language to clarify that the color standards apply to the
exemptions except for historic sites.
5.05.08 B.4.b—If necessary, reference those listed for historic buildings listed by the State of
Florida or on "National Register of Historic Places."
Non Conforming Buildings
Section 5.05.08 B.3.c - The Committee recommended Staff to draft language requiring a limited
architectural review to determine if any thresholds are triggered.
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 do not want to
allow alterations that increase the non conforming nature of the building.
Discussion occurred on how to define a non conforming building given in certain instances they
may be exempted from the standards.
Staff noted they will review the definition of a non conforming building. One concept would be
to simply state non conforming buildings are those buildings that do not comply with the
proposed standards as adopted.
Low End Threshold's
Discussion occurred on establishing a"low end threshold"where buildings of a certain square
footage would not be subject to Section 5.05.08, but should be subject to the paint color
standards.
Mr. Disney moved to exempt structures less than 3,000 sq.ft. in floor area from Section
5.05.08 of the Land Development Code. Second by Ms. Curatolo. Carried unanimously 5—0.
Accessory Structures
The Subcommittee noted establishing a"low end threshold" would address accessory structures.
Definition of Facades
The Committee noted the terms "Primary" and "Secondary" façade should be defined within the
Section or cross referenced to an applicable Section of the Land Development Code.
c. Architectural matrix of proposed changes
4
November 14, 2014
Staff provided the "Architectural Standards Matrix" which paraphrases the standards for
reference purposes.
d. Continue review of 5.05.08 document
Continued to next meeting.
6. Adjournment
Staff reported they will review the comments and incorporate any changes into a revised draft to
be presented at the next meeting.
Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10pm
Collier County Architectural and Site Design
Standards Ad Hoc Committee
atidt4- 2-//
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee/Chairman/Vice Chairman on 10-QC , 2014
as presented or as amended
5