A&SDS Ad Hoc Minutes 04/24/2015 April 24, 2015
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ARCHITECT L AND SITE
DESIGN STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITT g
Naples, Florida, April 24, 2015 �� Y 2 0 2,01
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Architectural and S By : -t '
Standards Ad Hoc Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00AM in a REGULAR SESSION at the Growth
Management Division Building, Room 609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL
with the following persons present:
Chairman: Rocco Costa, AIA (Excused)
James Boughton, AIA
Kathy Curatolo, CBIA
Dalas Disney, AIA
Bradley Schiffer, AIA (Excused)
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
Stefanie Nawrocki, Planner
`.N
1
April 24, 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 9:07am and a quorum was established.
2. Approve Agenda
Ms. Curatolo moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously 4—0.
The Committee requested Staff to place discussion of"Stealth Codes"on a future agenda.
3. Approve Feb. 18,2015 meeting minutes
Mr. Disney moved to approve the February 18, 2015 meeting minutes as presented. Second by Mr.
Boughton. Carried unanimously 4—0.
4. Approve Mar. 16, 2015 meeting minutes
Mr. Disney moved to approve the March 16, 2015 meeting minutes subject to the following change:
• Page 4 paragraph 7 line 3 from "...applicantion... " to "...application... "
Second by Ms. Curatolo. Carried unanimously 4—0.
5. Discussion Items
a. Strikethrough underline version of the reason section moving forward
Staff reported the "change and reason" section is being reformatted as the Committee provides
comments to a strikethrough underlined version.
b. Schedule for completion
Staff reported the goal is for the Development Services Advisory Committee to review the
proposed standards at their July meeting and the Board of County Commissioner's in September.
c. Public hearing process (committee participation/staff recommendations/surprises)
Staff requested Committee representation be present at the meetings during the review process to
answer any questions that may arise.
d. Conservancy input—bird issue
Staff sought input from the Committee on any measures necessary to address the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida's presentations on building design and bird fatalities. Per the Committee's
direction, Staff reviewed the LEED building standards and were not able to identify any specific
requirements that are suitable to be incorporated into the proposed standards.
The Committee noted they reduced the amount of required glazing for buildings in the proposed
standards and the new Florida Building Code prohibits mirrored glass. These changes will help in
addressing the concerns raised by the Conservancy.
Discussion occurred on any other language that may want to be incorporated into the standards.
2
•
April 24, 2015
The Committee requested Staff incorporate language into Section 5.05.08 A.5 to increase public
awareness of the issue.
Staff reported they will propose language for the Committee's review.
e. Meeting minutes
Staff reported they will attempt to provide the meeting minutes and materials at least 3 days in
advance of the meeting so the Members have ample time to review the information.
f. Send out meeting materials earlier
See 5.e above.
6. Next meeting
a. Available dates to meet- Doodle Results
The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for May 18, 2015 at 3:00pm.
7. Review of first 10 pages of narrative section
Staff disseminated a copy of the first 10 pages of the narrative section dated 4/22/15 for comment and
reported Mr. Costas submitted comments in writing on the section.
The Committee reviewed the Section with the following items discussed.
Page 1 -Author
The Committee recommended:
• Remove Ron Waldrop as a Committee Member as he did not attend the meetings.
• Identify Kathy Curatolo as representing the CBIA
Page 2—Staw.P..o11 - , eFer to 6,Qn script
The Committee discussed the straw poll taken early in their convening and whether it is appropriate to
include it in the narrative.
The Committee continued discussion on the item until Mr. Schiffer is present.
Page 3 - Proposed Section 5.05.08 B2 through B.2b—Applicability of non residential buildings
Staff reported they are still in the process of determining the most optimal avenue to address the
concerns of a"cheater strip"to ensure a party may not establish a separate, fee owned narrow strip of
land along a road, or an easement granted for other uses, etc. and develop the project behind this strip
exempting the project from the proposed standards as technically the project would not "abut" a
collector or arterial road. Similarly, a project located on a frontage road would not"abut" an arterial,
as in the case of Piper Blvd., and Trail Blvd. which both separate commercial buildings from an
arterial roadway. Staff noted one concept is to develop language to address cases where a property
does not abut, but is visible from the major arterials across certain features (i.e. access easements,
utility easements, canals, stormwater drainage infrastructure, etc.).
Mr. Disney queried the rationale for the statement "Although generally an industrial structure is
utilized for production, LDC section 2.03.04 A.1.b.3 allows for 20 percent of the gross floor area to be
used as retail space in Industrial Zoning Districts. Therefore, customers may visit the site to purchase
3
April 24, 2015
goods. Many of the industrial buildings utilize this option and have incorporated show/sales rooms for
clientele" and whether Staff views this as a"problem."
Staff reported they don't view it as a problem,just noting that many of these buildings have a
commercial component where the public does frequent the site.
Page 4 - Proposed Section 5.05.08 B.2.c-Applicability of a proposed building's footprint located
within 150 feet of the boundary of a residentially zoned district(reduced from 300 feet under the
existing standards).
Staff requested examples from the committee which would demonstrate when the reduction to 150 feet
would be more appropriate than the existing 300 feet.
The Committee recommended the following as examples:St. John Neumann School the concession
and P.E. buildings are just barely within 300 feet of residential and were required to comply and the
resulting landscaping "pod"used to meet the code were a waste of time and money, a similar
situation occurred at First Baptist Academy.Additionally, when the Growth Management Building
on Horseshoe Drive was not in the City of Naples,facade renovations were abandoned due to the
proximity to residential.
The Committee noted they may propose additional language for this Section.
Page 5 Proposed Section 5.05.08 B.3, B.3.a, B.3.c -Alterations to existing buildings
The Committee discussed the Section and noted:
• Ensure it is clear the intent of the proposed standards is to encourage the renovation of
existing buildings that do not comply with the proposed standards. The current standards
are "punitive"to the owners of these structures as they are unable improve the appearance
of the facades as it becomes impossible to gain returns on their investments if they are
required to meet the existing standards.
• Ensure it is clear the goal of the proposed standards is to regulate the larger"big box"
establishments and provide relief from the current standards for those smaller square
footage buildings proposed to be built or renovated.
• Provide examples of buildings that would and would not be subject to the proposed
standards.
• Ensure it is clear that additions to existing buildings must comply with the proposed
standards, but the portion of the façade which is not being renovated would be exempt if
the criteria for building size is met.
• Identify the concern of the Committee if every building when renovated (absent of
minimum threshold) is required to comply with the current Architectural Standards in
effect a that time, an environment will proliferate where the County will have no "historic
buildings."
Building Painting Requirements
The Committee discussed the requirements for building painting noting many landowners, business
owners,painting contractors, etc. are unaware of the color standards for commercial buildings.
The following concepts were identified to help address the issue:
4
April 24, 2015
• Developing a public outreach program targeting paint retailers, painting contractors and
members of the CBIA.
• Developing a"Building Block"to assist in addressing the issue.
• Incorporating the requirements into the painting contractors County licensing requirements.
• Requiring issuance of a"paint permit"with no fees charged for obtaining the approval.
Staff reported they would work with Mike Osario to determine how to best improve awareness of the
color standards.
Page 6 - Proposed Section 5.05.08 B.3.d
The Committee requested the term be changed from "sheet metal"to "corrugated metal panels."
The Committee reported the justification for the change is the same as the justification for Section
5.05.08 B.3.c. (If an alteration to the building would not increase the nonconformity, any architectural
or site design issues related to the nonconforming portions of the building would not be affected and
should therefore not suddenly be required to comply with architectural standards).
Page 7/8 - Proposed Section 5.05.08 B.4 - list of exceptions
The Committee recommended:
• The photo of the McDonalds restaurant is an outdated design. A newer McDonalds would
better represent what these buildings look like now. The McDonalds on Park Shore in
Naples was provided as an example of a newer design.
• Notate if the buildings were built prior to any Architectural Standards.
• Consider providing language that many of the pre-existing structures were built absent of
LDC landscape requirements, which on its own, makes a substantial difference in the
visual appearance of a site from the roadway.
The Committee sought clarification on the definition of square footage—Staff reported it is the
definition in the Land Development Code.
Section 5.05.08 D.2.b—Proposed Standards
Discussion occurred on the rationale for Section 5.05.08 D.2.b (Ground floor. Primary facades on the
ground floor must have features along a minimum of 40 percent of their horizontal length. These
features include, but are not limited to: arcades; display windows; entry areas; or other similar design
elements).
They noted goal of the requirement is already addressed in other sections of the proposed standards.
Mr. Disney moved to eliminate Section 5.05.08 D.2.b from the proposed standards. Second by Mr.
Boughton. Carried unanimously 4—0.
Page 9 - Proposed Section 5.05.08 D.2.c -Narrative Section
The Committee determined that a 15 percent glazing requirement should be added to any design
criteria that does not currently have a glazing requirement and that the language should be added
(identifying the 15 percent requirement) to any other locations of the narrative as necessary.
Section 5.05.08 D.2.c.viii—Proposed Standards -Design Treatments - Trellises
5
April 24, 2015
The Committee discussed the Section expressing concern as currently proposed,the major facade
portions of a building could be inundated by trellis's and green vegetation and whether this type of
treatment should be limited.
Mr. Boughton moved for Section 5.05.08 D.2.c.viii to limit the use of trellis or latticework in lieu of
glazing to a maximum of 50 fifty)percent of the required glazed area; climbing plants shall
achieve 80 (eighty)percent opacity on the trellis within one year and the 3 gallon vines at a
maximum of 3 (three)feet on center. Second by Ms. Curatolo. Carried unanimously 4—0.
Page 9 - Proposed Section 5.05.08 D.2.c.i
Staff requested the Committee provide a justification for the change.
The Committee reported that with other design standards to choose from the 30 percent standards
are excessive for buildings of all sizes and the original standard of 30 percent was arbitrary to begin
with.
Page 10 - Proposed Section 5.05.08 D.2.c.iii—Monumental Covered Entrances
The Committee discussed alternate means (other than those proposed) to address the standards for the
area dedicated to a monumental covered entrance including utilizing the concept of a percentage of the
linear frontage of a building, etc.
The Committee Members noted they would review the standard and return with a proposal.
8. Public Comment
None
9. Adjournment
Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35am
Collier County Architectural and Site Design
Standards Ad Hoc Committee
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee/Chairman/Vice Chairman on A ./.g , 2015
as presented or as amended x
6