A&SDS Ad Hoc Minutes 11/16/2015 November 16, 2015
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE
DESIGN STANDARDS AD HOC COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, November 16, 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 9:00 AM 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: Jeremy Frantz, Senior Planner
Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner
Matt McLean, Principal Project Manager
1
November 16, 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 9:00am and a quorum was established.
April Olson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida was also present.
2. Approve Agenda
Mr. Disney moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried unanimously 5—0.
3. Approve September 19,2015 Meeting Minutes
Mr. Schiffer moved to approve the minutes of the September 19, 2015 meeting. Second by Mr.
Disney. Carried unanimously 5—0.
4. Public Comments
April Olson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida thanked to the Committee and Staff for proposing
bird safety standards.
5. Review DSAC LDR Subcommittee Recommendations
Mr. Frantz provided an updated version of "LCD Amendment Request for Section 5.05.08—
Architectural and Site Design Standard dated 11-13-15 and the document"DSAC-LDR Subcommittee
Updated Recommendations. " He noted the Development Services Advisory Committee—Land
Development Review Subcommittee (DSAC-LDR) recommended a few changes as outlined in the
above referenced document as noted below:
Section 5.05.08 E.2.c (Window standards)
Mr. Frantz reported the language addresses storage buildings and as approved by the Committee
reads "Windows must not be false or applied. If the window openings are into the storage area units
or corridors used to the storage units, translucent material must be used. "
After review, Staff proposed, and the Committee agreed the requirements of the Section should be
consistent with Section 5.05.08 D.6.a which states "False or applied windows are allowed but shall
not be included in the glazing required for primary facades. "
The language proposed by Staff for Section 5.05.08 E.2.c now reads "If the window openings are into
the storage units or corridors used to access the storage units, translucent or opaque material must be
used. "
The Committee discussed the proposed change and expressed concern on use of the word opaque as a
building could be designed utilizing these treatments in window requirement calculations.
Mr. Schiffer moved to approve the DSAC-LDR recommendation subject to removing the word
"opaque"from the Subcommittees/Staffs proposed language. Language to read "If the window
openings are into the storage units or corridors used to access the storage units, translucent
material must be used" Second by Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously 5—0.
LDC section 5.05.08 F.6.b (Drive-through facilities standards)
2
November 16, 2015
Mr. Frantz noted the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee found the provision confusing and the current 5,000
square foot requirement for an additional drive-through is overly restrictive. Staff developed two
potential options to address the concern.
Option 1: Required floor area. One drive-through facility is permitted for each building. For multi-
tenant buildings, an additional drive-through is allowed for each building with a minimum of 5,000
square feet of floor area. Drive-through facilities may have multiple drive lanes.
Option 2: Required floor area. One drive-through facility is permitted for each building. For multi-
tenant buildings, an additional drive-through is allowed for each tenant with a minimum of 1,500
square feet of floor area. Drive-through facilities may have multiple drive lanes.
Mr. Disney moved to recommend Option 2 be incorporated into Section 5.05.08 F.6.b (Drive-
through facilities standards). Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried unanimously 5—0.
Section 5.05.08 B.4.b -Exceptions
Mr. Frantz noted the Committees intent was to exempt buildings in the Agricultural District but the
DSAC-LDR Subcommittee expressed concern the proposed language would exempt these types of
buildings in the Estates as well.
The DSAC LDR Subcommittee suggested exempting the "Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district"
which would ensure that conditional uses in the Estates district would still be subject to the
architectural standards. They noted rural agricultural zoning districts are present within urban areas,
however the conditional use process could address architectural issues in these instances.
The change recommended for Section 5.04.08 B.4.b is from"Agricultural zoning districts"to "Rural
Agricultural(A) zoning district."
Mr. Disney moved to accept the DSAC-LDR Subcommittee's recommendation and clarify the
exemption is for structures in the "Rural Agricultural(A) zoning district" Second by Mr.Amico.
Carried unanimously 5—0.
Staff Recommended Changes
Mr. Frantz noted the following changes are proposed by Staff.
Section 5.05.08 D 2.b.i.a and 5.05.08 D 2.b.vii (Treatment of Trellises)
Mr. Frantz noted in both Sections, without a minimum width of the planting area trellises have been
proposed with no planting area. Staff suggests the requirement of a minimum 3 foot wide planting
area to ensure trellis plantings have space to grow.
The language as proposed by the Committee reads "Alternative. Trellis or latticework on the primary
facade used as a support for climbing plants may count for up to 50 percent of the window area on
primary facades. The planting area shall be an irrigated bed with 3 gallon vines at 3 feet on center at
time of installation and climbing plants shall achieve 80 percent opacity on the trellis within one
year."
3
November 16, 2015
Staff proposes: "Alternative. Trellis or latticework on the primary façade used as a support for
climbing plants may count for up to 50 percent of the window area on primary facades. The planting
area shall be an irrigated bed 3 foot wide with 3 gallon vines at 3 feet on center at time of installation
and climbing plants shall achieve 80 percent opacity on the trellis within one year. "
Mr. Boughton moved to approve Staff's recommendation. Second by Mr. Disney.
Mr. Schiffer expressed concern the provision would prohibit the utilization of planted pots or other
design treatments which may meet the goals of the Section.
Discussion occurred on if the requirement should reference a square footage area as opposed to a
linear measurement.
Staff noted the Section of the LDC that addresses foundation plantings utilizes a linear footage
standard.
Mr. Boughton withdrew the motion.
Mr. Disney moved for the language to read "The planting area shall be an irrigate bed 3 feet in
depth and a minimum width of trellis. Second by Mr.Amico. Motion carried 4 `yes"—1 "no." Mr.
Schiffer voted "no."
Mr. Schiffer reported his "no"vote was predicated on a concern the language eliminates options
for the applicant and is too restrictive as proposed given alternate methods for treatment of the area
could be utilized
Committee Spokesperson
Mr. McLean had to leave the meeting but recommended a Committee spokesperson be appointed to
attend subsequent public meetings where the proposed amendment will be discussed. The purpose is
have someone available to provide input to those present posing questions on the proposed
amendment.
Section 5.05.08 D.8 (Additional Standards)
Staff reported the Section currently states "Additional standards for outparcels and freestanding
buildings within a PUD and common ownership developments. See LDC section 2.03.06 G for
additional design criteria in Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Center PUDs. "
Staff proposes to amend the language to read "Additional standards for outparcels and freestanding
buildings within a PUD or unified plan of development. See LDC section 2.03.06 G for additional
design criteria in Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Center PUDs."
The change would eliminate the "common ownership and development" and adding the "unified plan
of development language" for consistency with the terminology in other sections of the Land
Development Code.
Mr.Amico moved to approve Staff's recommended language for Section 5.05.08 D.8. Second by
Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously 5—0.
4
November 16, 2015
Section 5.05.08 D.9.d.ii.b; 5.05.08 D.11.c.ii and 5.05.08 F.6.b—(Floor Area Definition)
Staff reported given floor area is a defined term,there is no meaningful difference between"gross
floor area" and"floor area." They recommend, for clarity in the standards,the three Sections can
simply reference "floor area" and eliminate the reference to "gross."
Mr. Disney moved to approve Staffs recommendation. Second by Mr.Amico. Carried
unanimously 5—0.
Narrative Changes
Mr. Frantz notified the Committee on the following changes to the Narrative Section of the document:
• Page 9 (Proposed Section 5.05.08 B.3.d) to Page 10 (Proposed Section 5.05.08 B.4)
Relocated Staff note from Page 9 to Page 10 - "Finally, removing the requirement to
comply with materials standards in LDC section 5.05.08 D.12 could result in the use of
corrugated metal panels or pre-manufactured buildings as additions to buildings and
would allow the use of neon tubing on alterations.
• Page 9/10 Proposed Section 5.05.08 B.4
Clarified the new reference approved by the Committee for Rural Agricultural Zoning District.
• Page 27 Proposed Section 5.05.08 E.2.
Identified Committee approved change related to window standards including removing
reference to "opaque."
• Page 33 -Section 5.05.08 F.6.b
Added language to reflect Committee's change related to drive through facilities.
6. Update on Amendment Process
Staff reported the proposed amendment will be heard by the Development Services Advisory
Committee on 12/2/15, the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC) on 12/17/15; and the Board
of County Commissioners on January 26, 2016 or in February.
Staff reported the proposed amendments were dispersed to professional organizations such as the local
Chapter of the American Institute or Architects, Collier Building Industry Association and Naples
Area Board of Realtors and has not received any comments.
Committee Members noted they will reach out to the organizations to see if they have any
comments.
The Committee recommended a meeting be convened with Mark Strain(Chairman of the CCPC) prior
to the December 17, 2015 meeting to address any preliminary comments/concerns, etc. in an attempt
to facilitate the CCPC's review of the proposed amendment.
Committee discussion occurred on their decision(a determination from the first meetings held
approximately 2 years ago)to recommend Section 5.05.08 be eliminated from the LDC.
Staff to check if any action was taken or the recommendation was by straw poll or "vote."
7. Adjournment
Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:12am
5
November 16, 2015
Collier County Architectural and Site Design
.ndards Ad Hoc Committee
These minutes approved by the Board/C•mmittee/Chairman/Vice Chairman on fel? 2 , 2016
as presented or as amended
6