CCPC Minutes 09/22/2004 S
September 22, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION/
LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, September 22, 2004
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning commission in and
for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5 :05
P.M. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government complex, East
Naples, Florida,with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Russell Budd
Mark Strain
Lindy Adelstein
Paul Midney
Kenneth Abernathy
Brad Schiffer
Robert Murray
Dwight Richardson
ALSO Present: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Environmental Services
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney
--~"-" ---<.._......._~ -~--,.--_.
September 22,2004
I. Note: No Court Reporter present.
2. Chairman Russell Budd called the meeting to order at 5:00PM and the
pledge of allegiance was recited.
3. Roll Call - a quorum was established. Mr. Vigliotti was absent.
Assistant County Attorney, Mr. Patrick White - I have reviewed the affidavit of
publication for this evening's meeting. I find that it is legally sufficient for the
hearing to proceed. At this time I would normally give it to a minutes keeper but I
will hold it until we have one available and forward it then for record keeping
purposes. I want to put on the record, if I may Mr. Chairman, that yesterday the Board
acted to delay the effective date of the Land Development Code Amendments that
they adopted in June from the 2ih of this month until October 18th because of the
hurricanes that effected the municipal code corporation. To give you a brief status, I
have here today the 1,000 plus pages of proof, single-sided print only so far for
review, plus a few issues that came up in the municipal code review. I think we will
be able to resolve those very quickly. I am still optimistic we are going to hold to the
time line and have available the published version of Land Development Code by the
October 18th date along with digital or electronic versions of both the LDC and the
Code Of Laws that you will be able to obtain both from municipal code in a download
form and on hard copy.
Mr. Joe Schmitt, Community Development and Environmental Services - I just
want to note that prior to this meeting you all agreed that there would be one hearing
of these matters. There would not be two hearings. I would ask that you establish a
time frame for this evenings proceedings. I would assume that we will end up
continuing this to a later date. We will have to select a date to due that. Assistant
County Attorney Patrick White, this will be heard through one hearing? Mr. White is
it correct that we will hear these only once and vote on these?
Mr. White - That is correct. All that means, Commissioners, is that you will have the
opportunity to hear all of the provisions one time. If you have some comments about a
portion of them this evening we do have a continuous. You are free to consider that
set of items at a continued hearing. If you want to reverse your position, although that
would be somewhat non-traditional, it is ultimately at your discretion. From our point
of view, although there are comments we received as late as just prior to this meeting
2
September 22, 2004
about the idea of having one hearing, I think it is pretty evident that it is likely that
there will be more than one meeting with respect to that hearing. I think that there
will be multiple points of entry for anyone who is not able to make it this evening.
Chairman Budd - I agreed, I think that that is how things are going to proceed. The
first thing that I would like to do is pick a time an a target for this evening. We are not
going to get done tonight. I have a personal commitment. I need to leave at 8 PM.
That doesn't need to be our deadline. The Vice-Chair can take it and run with it past
that. What is the inclination of the Board of how long we want to run tonight. I'm
definitely leaving at 8 PM, whether we are done or not. So, by affirmation let's go to
8 PM tonight and assuming, pretty safely, that we will not complete our business we
need to pick a time and date for our next meeting. Joe, do you have some guidance
within the schedule and Board Room availability of what might work for us?
Joe Schmitt - I will look at my calendar and see what is available and look at the
Board's calendar. We will certainly advise before 8 PM. What I do want to state, Mr.
Chairman, is that before you today is your packet. You have with you the information
plus the summary sheet. That summary sheet contains the information of the
Developmental Service's Advisory Council, the first and second hearings that we have
had with them and the summary of the meeting with the sub-committee. It is a
fourteen page document. If I could recommend that we go right to the architectural
standards, which are located on page 9 of the summary sheet. That is page 98 of your
packet. I think that is going to be the one, probably, that most people are here to talk
about. We have a Staff presentation that we would like to highlight those changes,
how we got to where we are and what those changes consist of. After that I would
recommend that you open up the hearing for Public Comment. We could vote on that
one separately. We could then move on to the other amendments.
Chairman Budd - O.K. That is a good recommendation.
Mr. Strain - Just a correction. Two nights ago, Russell e-mailed 37 pages in regard to
the 2.8 architectural standards. They did not have the reference numbers on them that
you are referencing tonight. I hope that in the presentation you are not going to
reference pages 198, 197, etc. There is only pages 1-37.
Joe Schmitt - What was sent to you and Staff was a document prepared by AIA with
their comments. We made additional comments to their comments. Those were color
coded. We could start the presentation in regards of how we got to where we are,
3
September 22, 2004
what it is and hopefully clarify the confusion. For the Record the proposal that is
submitted was submitted in accordance that there are some changes in the document.
Chairman Budd - O.K. Before we start our Staff presentation, Ijust want to remind
everybody that this evening's and future meeting's proceedings are legislative in
nature so we well not have a swearing in of those presenting testimony nor disclosure
on the part of the Commissioners on anything relevant to this. Mr. Strain, you had
some procedural questions?
Mr. Strain - Mr. White, can you confirm that this body is suppose to be working
under resolution #98167 in regards to the other public hearings section of that?
Mr. White - Indeed that's a resolution. It is not legislation in the sense that it is an
ordinance, but it is effectively policy direction from the Board of how they would
desire to have meetings conducted that are public meetings. It has certainly been
mentioned in litigation. The County's position is that it is one that should be
followed where possible but it is not something that would create a preclusion from
consideration of information at this hearing. It is effectively, as a resolution, a policy
direction from the Board and a guideline to be followed. It is not in that form
prohibited.
Mr. Strain - I wasn't bringing it up to prohibit tonight's meeting. I just wanted it on
record that the resolution does apply. The resolution contains the statement to the
effect that the written recommendations shall be completed and available for public
inspection no later than 10 calendar days prior to the hearing before the Board. I
know that we didn't even get our changes 10 days in advance. I am sure that the
public hasn't had that opportunity. Seeing that this is only one meeting instead of
two, I just want to make sure that that element is know to everybody should there be a
challenge to this in the future.
Staff Presentation
Carolina Valera, Urban Design Planner with Zoning and Line Development Review _
Since 1996 our present architectural standards have not been substantially amended.
We put together a meeting and we solicited from the local architect community to
volunteer to form this committee. We had seven architects, one landscape architect
and one engineer that participate on"this Committee. We had one architect from
Balton Architects, one from Architectural Network, one from Disney Associates, two
4
.' ._'-^~--- -.. '.'''''~ ....,
September 22, 2004
from Texas Inc, one from Schultz Architects, one from Warner Architects, one from
Wilson Miller and an engineer from Johnson Engineering. This committee met with
Staff for more than a year and a half. They took our present code, reviewed it and had
many, many meetings and the product is what is in front of you. The last meeting that
we had with the committee members was in December of 2003. Since then we have
had only one workshop. The local AIA chapter had some input. We incorporated
them into the packet. They felt that they needed to have one more workshop. Their
input is the orange comments that you have in your packet. You have a colorful
package. Orange comments from the AIA. You have some changes in red from our
legal staff. You also have our Staff recommendations to the AIA comments in purple.
What was changed? The whole of special standards was reorganized. We moved the
building requirements from the end to the beginning and the site standards to the end
to make it more easy to use. We move some of the sections that pertain to landscaping
and fencing. They are no longer in the architectural standards. Our present
architectural standards are divided into big sections. One section for buildings over
20,000 and one big section for buildings under 20,000. We just combined them into
one section. One of the big additions to this amendment is specific requirements for a
specific usage. Our present code was drafted, designed for mainly mercantile for
commercial use. We found that at times it was not easy to apply commercial
requirements for other usage such as industrial usage and self-storage. Many
revisions were made. One of them is the reference to specific styles of architecture.
There was a feeling that actually it might have been promoting certain styles of
architecture. We make it clear that it is any style. The code does not restrict styles
throughout the County. We also made it a bit more clear as to what it applies to. What
usage the architectural standards apply to. We made more clarification into the
renovations and evictions of a building. We increased the threshold from 20% to 25%
before the standards apply to the rest of the project. Also, we added the specific
number of the Florida Statues that the architect should follow when signing and
sealing a set of plans. Most of the illustrations were deleted. We kept just two, and
you will see that the are just very technical graphics. They don't suggest style. They
don't suggest anything but what the code requires. That was a suggestion from the
committee. That is what you see in your package.
Mr. Strain - Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate to ask questions as we go along? I'mjust
curious why we are lowering the threshold.
Carolina Valera - Actually, we are increasing it.
5
September 22, 2004
Mr. Strain - Lowering it in the sense of when it will apply. That seems to be the
wrong direction. I, as a consumer, seeing how bad the architecture is in certain places.
Why we would want to go in that direction?
Carolina Valera - Right. The committee felt that at times it is the other way around.
That some buildings shouldn't be subject to architectural standards for just by adding
a little bit. It was more of a compromise. It is a number that you see throughout the
code.
Mr. Strain - So, the architects that are practicing feel that it is burden to improve the
property as we go along?
Carolina Valera - For certain buildings, yes.
Mr. Strain - But this applies to all buildings doesn't it?
Carolina Valera - Correct. When I say certain buildings I mean that there are good
architectures and there are buildings that are not. So they are trying to get a middle
ground, if you will.
Mr. Strain - What that pertains to is the square footage that would have to be added
before the whole building has to come into compliance.
Carolina Valera - That is correct.
Mr. Strain - So in other words, if you added 20% to the building the whole building
would come into compliance, now it is 25. That is a big move, totally redoing the
whole building. One thing that it does is guarantee that you want have any historic
buildings, because buildings are being constantly upgraded and updated to our
standards. This is a small addition put on a building?
Joe Schmitt - Well it is 25%, a quarter of the size of the building.
Mr. Strain - Right, as opposed to a fifth.
Joe Schmitt - I just hate to see our code lose any leverage we have to improve the
quality of the architecture that we are trying to obtain.
6
.'--"-'-"
-.., .,.''''.-.-.- '-"'~""""..~.' ,- -"-"""._..-~..,..~--.........,
September 22, 2004
Mr. Strain - It is only when you are adding square footage? It is purely a square
footage percentage?
Carolina Valera - That is correct. Not for new buildings. This is just for existing
buildings.
Joe Schmitt - It is like a redevelopment.
Mr. Strain - Correct. That is a burden to bring the whole building up into compliance
when you will be taking a small addition and turn it into a major retrofit of the whole
project.
Joe Schmitt - That is right, sometimes we have some crappie looking buildings that
need to be fixed up. This is the code.
Mr. Strain - Step one is that the new part will meet the code. It is only then do you
start applying the code to the old part.
Carolina Valera - For the rest of the threshold project.
Mr. Strain - So you are saying that 25% addition will look different then from all the
rest of the building?
Joe Schmitt - It will meet the code and the rest of it will not.
Carolina Valera - Anything under 25%.
Mr. Strain - It sounds like you are building a camel to me. It is not the way I would
have liked to have seen it happen.
Joe Schmitt - Then what would have been the percent?
Mr. Strain - Well, what was wrong with a fifth? I don't see anything magic about a
fourth.
Joe Schmitt - No, there is no magic about any number. I think that what we have in
our code is that the 25% has offered us thresholds for when you have to bring the rest
7
-~--_._., '-'.-----.-
September 22, 2004
of the building in compliance too. It just put both these codes in parity with each
other.
Mr. Strain - And also the build back policy is 50%. So if we call that at 50% you
. have to comply with current standards, if you build back.
Joe Schmitt - And current standards would mean current architectural standards.
Mr. Strain - Construction standards, building code, all the other aspects associated
with rebuilding. Even the addition has to apply with today's building code. What this
does though, it doesn't trigger, as Mr. Schiffer said, the rest of the building, I'm just
trying to picture what the building is going to look like. You have an old building,
you are going to add 25% to it. It's going to look OK but the rest of it is not going to
be changed.
Joe Schmitt - Well, you are assuming that the old building looks bad to begin with.
Mr. Strain - Well, by definition, otherwise you would be fixing it up.
Joe Schmitt - No, not necessarily.
Mr. Strain - Well if everybody agrees to it, we will have to see how it works. We'll
have to come back and look at it again if it doesn't meet the community standards.
Carolina Valera - We relocated some of the sections. The building design standards
were moved to the end and the building standards were moved to the beginning. I
went through this already. I'm going to skip this. For the building design these are
the requirements that effect the building itself. We added the definition for primary
design. The window requirement was reduced from 40% and 25% to 30% and 20%
and the columns that are required for covered walkways was increased to 12 inches.
Spandrel glass can be used now, but it does not count toward the percentage required
for glazing.
Mr. Strain - What is spandrel glass?
Joe Schmitt - It is glass that has a coating on the back that you can't see through.
Curtain walls use it at floor level.
8
September 22, 2004
Carolina Valera - The requirement to have elements between higher buildings and
lower buildings was decreased from 300 feet to 150 feet before the requirements
apply. For the variation in the masking of the building, the depth was increased.
Forty feet or more is considered separate. For the standards more design treatments
were added to the list of required building design treatment. We have a long list of
design treatments but we added some more to encourage better architecture.
Mr. Strain - Carolina, The security issue pops into my mind. The spandrel glass, if
there is light inside the building is it not seen through? If I read that correctly, you are
bringing the walls closer together and now making it so virtually you can't even see
Ill.
Carolina Valera - No, the percentage of window requirement is still there. An
applicant may use spandrel but can not concur the minimum of requirement of
glazing that you have to have.
Mr. Strain - They could choose to use all spandrel, could they not?
Carolina Valera - No
Mr. Strain - OK. That is what helps me.
Joe Schmitt - You can not use opaque glass to meet the window requirements.
Carolina Valera - Overhead doors were never clear in our present code. We rewrote
it to make it a little bit more easy to understand when and how it applies. We added
some requirements for screening for the mini-storage's. Detail features requirements,
control joints, we just changed the width whenever an applicant will use a recurring
pattern within the walls. Out parcels and free standing buildings within a unified plan
of development provision for deviation was added for requirements that offer sites be
designed for primary facade and more options were added to the list of facade
requirements. So, in other words, out parcels need to meet primary facade
requirements
in all of the facades. There is now a provision that if the applicant wants to seek
deviation from two of those facades they have the means now. They also have a
chance to have other requirements that we have in the code. The treatment of vertical
change in the roof line was eliminated for buildings under 5,000 square feet and slop
roofs with facades under 200 feet. Vertical changes are based on the site land not the
9
_""-_.",_.,...,.~,.".._.."",".",~._...,,,,,..~---~..--... '.
September 22, 2004
building area. We added the requirement that the masking of the roof be in proportion
of the masking of the building. Roof materials was rewritten for verification.
Materials and caldrons clarified that caldrons were allowed for 10% of the facade or
the roof area. It was not very clear in our present code. We eliminated plastic siding,
tile and stone from the list of prohibited materials. These materials could be used up
to 33% of the facade area. The list of requirements for parking structures was
increased. For site design requirements, pedestrian access, we increased the width
from 5 feet to 6 feet to make it consistent with transportation requirements. Outdoor
vending machines may not be visible. Lighting, we reduced the height from 30 feet to
25 feet. We reworded the deviations section and specified which usage's are qualified
for deviations. An arbitration process was started were you will see that two
representatives of the local AIA and one representative of American Society of
Architects have a say in the process for the deviation.
Mr. Strain - Would that decision be final because it is arbitration?
Joe Schmitt - Yes.
Mr. Strain - Carolina, just so I understand. You have mentioned deviations in a
number of places without telling us what those deviations might be.
Carolina Valera - The deviation process is not for all buildings. It is just for non-
retail buildings, churches, industrial buildings.
Mr. Strain - You are talking about out parcels that sound like they are commercial.
Carolina Valera - No, actually we added out parcels to the deviation process but
those are the only ones that will have a deviation process.
Mr. Strain - So the architect comes up to something that does not meet our code and
you go to arbitration so he can get it?
Carolina Valera - They will have to meet the intent of the code and it is spelled out
in the standards.
Mr. Strain - You know it has been kind of refreshing as out parcels are populated to
see them get primary treatment on all four sides. I am trying to envision why we are
10
September 22, 2004
going to introduce a process that would increase the possibility that is not going to
occur.
Carolina Valera - Our code requires minimum square footage of windows, covered
entries, covered walkways. For some of the facade it is not needed. You have to have
a back in the building. If you meet the internal security, in regards to the facade, you
can apply for a deviation. At times it is very hard for a building to meet all of the
primary facade requirements. The requirements that we have for facade facing the
street.
Mr. Strain - Well, whenever you say that it is being judged against the intent of the
code that means somebody is making a judgment.
Carolina Valera - That is correct. The Director of Zoning.
Mr. Strain - The Director gets a chance to look at the site development plan and what
is being submitted and make a judgment of to whether the intent of the code is being
met. It is very subjective then.
Joe Schmitt - It is less subjective now with this change. Today, that is the problem
with the code. It is too subjective. It puts the petitioner coming in and negotiating
and bartering with Staff trying to go through the approval process. What I'm trying to
do is create a code that takes the arbitration out of it and puts specificity into it. The
deviation process allows for certain ways of seeking those deviations. For example, a
lot of our out parcels are small. A small out parcel would be a drive-through bank,
sometimes you just can't have a window because you've got the drive through area,
you've got the bank vault. All those type of things the way the building is designed
and you just can't meet the standards. Today, we say that there are certain standards.
You have to meet the standards. The Staff that reads this is putting in some specificity
and some clarity in the rules so that we don't get into the interpretation or the
subjectivity. We are putting objectivity into it and taking out subjectivity. That is
what we are really trying to do here.
Mr. Richardson - The work deviation does not suggest subjectivity. If you are
satisfied that that is going to solve a problem.
11
September 22, 2004
Joe Schmitt - Well, you are probably going to hear from public speakers tonight that
they even want to go farther than what Staff has allowed. So, that is what you are
going to hear.
Discussion continues with the outcome of this:
Dwight, one of the reasons that we have that is that in the reviewing of the process we
would take famous buildings that would not pass the standards. The Goodgenknight
family would like to bless us with a Frank Gary design. It would not happen unless he
had a process that he could bring it before. This is a positive deviation. It is certainly
not a way to get away with things. It is a way to do something different that code
never precede because this code can not corral all of the good design. There has to be
a way that the good design doesn't get diminished. Some of the buildings in our town
have been diminished by this code. Someone could take a positive step and people
could judge it to be something better. In the current code today it is a matter of mass.
The smaller mass the greater amount of windows architecturally did not fit. But
Carolina is faced with here are the rules. You didn't need them. We've created
measures to deal with the very large buildings, SO, 90, 100 thousand square foot
building. It doesn't work on a 15,000 square foot building. Some of these rules give
Staff a little bit of lead way to make those kind of professional decisions. I think we
have some examples. Carolina will go through some of these examples. The deviation
is actually a tool that the Staff can use. They can find themselves not able to make a
decision and then they can call for this process to help them.
Carolina Valera - That is true. If you have a building and out parcel and in your
service area it is a primary facade you have only three options. You meet you
minimum requirements, your can have a covered entry or a covered walkway. In that
service area you do not want to have a covered walkway you only have two other
options. To have the minimum percentage of windows which could be from 25% - 40
% depending on the windows and a covered entry. That is why at this time it is hard
to meet code without parcels. I think we have improved a lot. This is a back of a fast
food restaurant and it was hard for them to meet code for the glazing so they used
glass block. That is were they have their coolers and utilities.
Joe Schmitt - Let me go back to that for a minute so you can see what they did. The
landscaping covered up the architectural embellishments which was the covered walk
way and porch. Those are some of the things that we are trying to clear up as well.
12
September 22, 2004
Carolina Valera - The gas stations, banks, government buildings retail.
Mr. Abernathy - Was the gas station sited as something good or is that bad?
Carolina Valera - These are all good. These are buildings that meet our present code.
Mr. Abernathy - That gas station reminds me of one at Central Ave and 41 in Naples
that we fought like crazy to keep an interstate design away from a urban setting, but
there it is.
Joe Schmitt - But some of the things that have been added is the size of the columns
would have to be big. I don't think you could have the gloss finish on the thing
anymore.
Discussion continues with the outcome of this:
Well it is an improvement. One of the compelling arguments, the current standards
has almost led to a cookie cutter type of approach now in the County. All the gas
stations are looking the same. The stores are all the same. Weare trying to create a
little bit of a more architectural, artistic freedom. Still meet the intent of not the big
box, but not have everything look the same. That is what we are being criticized
about now.
I remember back in '95 and '96 when Sport's Authority and Toy's R Us created a real
"ruck a tuck ". They had a meeting up at the Ritz-Carlton, County Commissioner Tim
Hancock chaired, from that came the code. I think it has served us well. I think the
twicking is reasonable and it is probably time to take a look at it. It is 8 years old. I
think that we are on the right track.
The end result is that the code does not allow the big box. It will not permit that, but
what it does do is permit a little bit more of artistic freedom.
Is the matter of the gas station flying away in a hurricane more of a civil engineering
matter or is that architectural or is it both?
I believe that is more engineering.
It is definitely structural engineering.
13
---
September 22, 2004
If you saw the one tumbling, the one that we saw over and over, notice that it is all
rusted at the bottom. That means that it was just rusted out at the ground. It just
snapped off.
I would imagine that the column was part of the down spout. It was not a good design.
Right, its time was coming.
Carolina Valera - We also approve many styles of architecture which you can see in
this graphic. I am going to reference you to the colorful packet that you received.
There are some comments from the local Florida Chapter of the AlA. They felt that
they did not go through all of the sections in the workshop that we held for them.
They sent to you some comments and revisions. What we did as Staff, we either
suggested approval of those or denial. You will see that there are only three items that
we feel that should not be approved. One of them is the design standards. AIA feels
that it is not within the architectural standards. Staff feels that it should.
Discussion continues with an outcome of this:
Don't you mean site standards? That is page 16. I believe that that has been worked
out. Everybody is comfortable with where it is. We have an AlA representative here.
I think everybody is happy now.
Carolina Valera - I think that the only disagreement that Staff and the AlA chapter
would have is that we have deviations for all usage. We as Staff believe that it should
be targeted for only certain usage. I believe that is the only issue that we will disagree
on.
Discussion continues with an outcome of this:
There is one material issue over the use of metal. The problem that we have in
architecture now is that the ugliest buildings are metal and the best looking buildings
are metal.
There are probably some people who would wonder which one that is. The problem is
to limit it on the talent of the architect is something that any architect would not want.
Again, the most disgusting, ugly building is a metal framed building.
14
September 22,2004
Carolina Valera - We want to avoid this and this is our concern. Here you have two
big boxes that were bought probably at the same time in two counties. The one on the
top is Collier County's big box. You can see the difference. The one on the bottom is
a metal building with no architectural standards. The one on the top is not a metal
building. It makes a big difference. I will show you the facades. You can see the big
difference. Same business, two different counties. You have seen this building on up
the road. The one on the bottom. That is what we would like to avoid. They can
design wonderful buildings, but that is not what we get every day.
Discussion continues with an outcome of this:
Were you responsible for that, finally a decent looking big box called the WalMart
over on 951 and Davis?
Our code, Yes.
This is what this new code will make sure that we continue with? That has come out
very well.
Definitely, yes. Also that one on 951 has an overlay.
If we can keep them to that standard, at least, that is coming out really fine.
The proposed WalMart down 951 will look very similar. My understanding is that
now is going to become the WalMart design for the rest of the country. In that regard,
Collier County can say that they broke the mold.
Carolina Valera - Where would we go from here, if you were to approve this
amendment? We would certainly come back if we need to have any revisions to them.
There are many new requirements that we have never used. If need, we will come
back to you and make any revisions.
Discussion continues with an outcome of this:
Can you send us to the page that has the metal wording?
I believe that that is page 29 in your hand out, the color coded document.
15
.'_-____"",'.-'._".L__."
September 22, 2004
Actually, it is 30.
Do you have any copies of this? Some of the Commissioners do not have it.
What is the paragraph number?
It is "C".
This new code is going to sound interesting when we are referring to sections. It is
prohibiting metal panels for more than a third of the facade. There is a stalemate on
that issue. It can be looked at, if you leave it as is. They could go for deviation to
have more of it. One of the things that Carolina has to have is objective decisions.
Everybody can not send a plan to her. It has to be predictable results. A designer in
the night has to read something and know that it is going to pass or not. It can not be
subjective decisions made by a Staff member. That is why the objectiveness of
something like that works.
But the limitation of the material?
If Frank Gary was to bring one of his wonderful designs he will have the deviation
process for the museum because the museum is a non-commercial building.
I think you have a couple of more problems than the metal.
What the AIA would like to do is to restrict that to mean mere finished metal panels.
Which would be a matte paint panel.
We will have testimony in a minute.
Chairman Budd - Carolina, does that conclude your presentation?
Carolina Valera - Yes
Chairman Budd - Are there questions from the Commissioners?
Discussion continues with an outcome of this:
16
September 22, 2004
On page 5, I will use the document that I got from Russell two nights ago which is
multi -colored.
I know that you are trying to get subjectivity and definiteness in the code and
subjectivity out. Under B-1, all new buildings and projects proposed on are after
November 10,2004. What does proposed mean? I can propose things right now, in
my mind, that is not going to be built for ten years. Does that mean that I am exempt
from this section?
As soon as you bring the application to the Zoning and Land Review.
The word imposed, I think, is a little ambiguous. Do you need to put something like a
development order or a plan or a submittal or something?
We can clarify that for the record.
What was magic about November 10th, were did that come from?
November 10th is the last BBC meeting, so that would be the adoption date of these
amendments.
On that same page on 2-A, the project site is on an alternate or collector road as
described by the traffic circulation element. Throughout this document it references
locations of building and relationships to the same kind of roads, but everywhere else
it refers to those definitive foot measurements. So when you say "on", what do you
mean "on"? Something like the Coke Cola on 1-75 and a road. You can see it from I-
75, does that mean that it is on I-75?
Ifit is abutting I-75, then yes.
OK, then what is abutting? Is it on property that can be seen from the road or a certain
distance from the road?
All of the above. If there is no property between them and 1-75, then yes it has to be
code.
17
"~..-.~,----,~
September 22, 2004
OK, let me use that Coke Cola plant offofl-75, obviously there is going to be more
buildings placed between it and 1- 75. As long as that plant does have other property
that buildings can be built on it doesn't come under this code. Is that correct?
If it is industrial, if it is commercial it is regardless of their location.
Smart planning could plant it away from the code.
OK, we can take a look at this.
On page 6, 3-A, at the bottom, it says approved for use and occupancy. I think that
proposed should be in there also.
OK
On page 6, up at the top under double "ii" you talk about such addition and
renovation, redevelopment exceeds 50% of the accessed value of the existing
structure. I thought it was unique that we used accessed value here to determine when
someone has to make modification but on the other codes that we are looking at
tonight on page 191 for calculation of impact fees we are using the appraised values.
Which is benefit to the developer, obviously. At the same time why are we using
accessed in on and appraised in the other? Why aren't we using appraised values?
Why are we using accessed values?
There is a big difference.
I am not sure why the other one is different.
I know why. The other one gets the larger impact fees credits when they have to
purchase land.
Why can't we be consistent? If we allow this one to be an accessed value for our
purposes here, why wouldn't we use accessed value for the other one?
The concern was the ability of Staff to come up with a value. It is something they
could look up. It is something that is in the records.
We can make it consistent throughout the code.
18
-'"'-'''-'''-'~
September 22, 2004
I am sure that any developer that has this particular issue come up to them when they
are doing additions, renovations, they need mortgages, they need whatever, they are
going to have appraised values. So why wouldn't we be using those?
Could you word it as to whether it is accessed or appraised? You wouldn't want it
where someone is required to get an appraisal to do a renovation.
We can certainly do it.
At the same time, why are giving the difference away on impact fee credits? If we are
going to hold the line here why aren't we holding the line there?
Impact fees stay with the property and it is based on the appraised value.
If you put appraised value here instead of accessed, you are raising the threshold in
most cases, because the accessed value is usually 90 - 95% of the market value and
most time probably less.
I don't disagree with you, but at the same time why are we doing the opposite for
impact fees credits?
Weare hurting the taxpayers by doing it that way because we are having to payout
more in impact fee credits than what the accessed value is.
I know and I would have to turn to the attorney. The appraised value is not the actual
value of the property. The appraised value is the legal value. It is a good argument.
I'mjust bringing it up.
What does this Board feel? If you want to put appraised value in here, we will look at
it.
I think we are all of the same opinion. We don't care which one we use but let's use
one.
I think that the problem that you are going to run into is that somebody is going to
have to submit an appraisal and application. That is something that is more costly to
them. Normally you get more than one appraisal.
19
September 22,2004
I really don't see the problem. One is one definition and the other is another. It is a
value for Staff. Staff can just look up on the Property Appraiser's Web Site the value.
We are going to have to define how are we going to arrive at an appraised value. Are
you going to take three appraisals and arrive at a high, low, or medium? Throw the
high, low, out? Ifwe get into that whole process, we are going to have to define that.
I think that is the problem. It isn't defined. Your discussing a term that, I think, may
have a number of meanings. Both points of the discussion are probably accurate. For
example, you could be talking about the tax assessor accessed value of the property,
meaning the real-estate and any improvements, or you could be talking about the
appraised value by the property appraiser before it goes on the tax roll. In that event, I
think that they are probably synonymies terms. The point is which term is it that you
want to use relating to what it is intended to be achieved. I think Joe point is that we
are looking for something that everybody can find readily as a value in the public
record and agree upon. If I understand your point, Commissioner Strain, that you
want something that is consistent with other rules and regulations that the County
follows. Those are not mutually inconsistent. What I suggest is we come up with
something that would be the operative definition of this phrase and bring it to you in a
way that meets the goals that you are looking for. I am not sure what the need is to tie
impact fee credits and how they are calculated to this provision.
There isn't a need. I was just using it as an example.
OK. We were looking for something that was an administrative convenience. Staff
would know what number to apply and could be verified and validated by anybody in
the public, whether they were a third party citizen or the applicant's agent. To me
what accessed value means is what you find typically in tax collector's data base.
Accessed value without any exemptions.
I am a little confused. I can understand 25% square footage, because that is something
that you can measure. The accessed value is only something applied after the
construction has been completed. You would not have an accessed value before the
fact.
It is an existing structure, sir.
It is an addition or renovation, so there would be an existing accessed value.
20
--,-..~~-~--".,.<,,--"~-,
September 22, 2004
But we are talking about the addition to the property. This is back to the whole thing
about at what point would the new codes apply. If it is something less than, it
wouldn't apply, and if it were something equal to or greater than, it would apply. I'm
just confused of how you know this in advance.
I think that you would have to rely on the construction tables and what building permit
dollars where stated.
So you would have an expected assessment, not a real assessment?
No, there would be an assessed value for the existing structure. And there would be a
dollar value know from the building permit application based upon the construction
tables. Those two numbers would be compared and if it were greater than 50% of the
existing then this provision would apply.
Why don't you use those buildings construction tables to determine the value of the
building as it stands based on its square footage?
Who is going to go back and figure out all of those numbers?
Joe, what do we use for FEMA now? Dwight, the 25 and the 50, this clause is almost
exactly out of the building code. The architects were to have all these things at
different levels so that we have everything in parity at the same levels. So for
example, in FEMA, if you hit the 50% threshold you have to bring everything up to
code.
FEMA uses an appraisal. I know that for a fact.
But most of the regulations there allow you to come in with an independent appraised
value, not the governments accessed value for tax purposes. Remember it is a two
step process. The Property Appraiser appraises and sets some number. That is what is
used as the assessed value minus any exemptions that the tax collector is required to
collect.
We wouldn't want to force somebody to get an appraisal. If they went in with
accessed value and they did the calculation. If the individual chose to get an appraisal
in order to maximize their dollars to make it work, that might be an option. To have
the base criteria assessment.
21
September 22, 2004
That would be most consistent and parallel with what I believe the FEMA process is.
And at the applicant's option and expense they can submit an appraisal that would
potentially give them a little more leverage.
In an application of this provision, if someone wanted to offer something different as
an assessed value based upon some independent appraisal and were near the threshold
then Susan would interpret the code that way. Ifwe want to put this in hear as a
provision that is fine.
Does that seem to satisfy everybody's ideas on this issue?
Good, further questions on Carolina's presentation?
Ifwe could go back to page 5 and Commissioner Strain's concern on the proposed
wording in B-1. The approval of use of occupancy language in 3-A. I know that there
is a problem with the term proposed but I don't believe that in 3-A we can use the
same language because that refers to existing buildings. I just wanted to point that
out.
Page 7 - Of Adoption 1 there has been an addition in the word height. The intent
really was that it was S feet by 10 feet. I think that should be left at S feet by 10 feet.
It wasn't about width or depth. The S foot height might even conflict with fire
vehicles.
My purpose in adding those terms has been achieved because it was not clear to me
what indeed we were attempting to set as the standard. Eight foot height or width or
ten foot height or width. I don't know how to word it but at least I understand what it
would look like.
It's just and S by 10 minimum dimensions. The intent was that they did not want these
to be puny little entries. They wanted them to be minimum size. I don't want to say 8
foot wide because it may be S feet deep and 10 feet wide.
Would it appropriate to say then, that a covered public entry with a minimum roof area
of SO square feet?
No, architects will go 2 feet by 40 feet.
22
~.,~"._--".~_..
September 22, 2004
Anything else on 7.
Yes, down at the bottom, same thing with no dimension less that 8 feet. Works just
fine.
Page 8, 3-B, the second paragraph, I read it and I just cannot understand what it
means. It probably means something to architects. Could you take a moment and just
explain?
This was targeted to retail buildings.
This is written right. You guys understand this. I didn't, but as long as those that
have to design it understand it then it's ok.
Page 9, item 4, "ii" under canopy lights must be fully recessed. Was there any thought
limiting candle power? I noticed this on areas where they want to bring the race cars
or race tracks. They have these bright, bright lights that seem to glow from the moon.
A lot of that is due because they are putting too much candle light into it. Is there
anyway you could suggest limiting the candle power to a standard light but not too
much?
Nobody wanted to take that responsibility in determining the candle power so that
they didn't have to testify in a law suit when somebody got run over.
You can establish one, feel free.
Page 11 ,IV, you have masonry or tilt up construction. The only question there is
masonry concrete for tilt up construction. Not all concrete walls are tilt up. This
would not allow this because it has to be tilt up or masonry. Could you add the word
concrete?
That would be fine.
In D, "ii", this is where I found the building location record says 200 feet. This is one
of those that contradicts page 5 where it says on. I'm only pointing it out so that when
you look at page 5 possible redefine the word "on". You can take a look at this in
conjunction with that.
23
September 22, 2004
The reason that we have certain distances is for certain usage.
In F, i, you are talking about reveal work must be a minimum of one half inch. From
the road a half inch isn't going to be seen. Is there any consideration that the relief
and reveal work be of a different tone? Is the intend of it is to show a break up of the
wall that you can actually see it?
I guess some architects will argue that, no. We can add it as an option.
On page 12, II, Facades facing artillery or collector roads or facades facing residential
districts. Again, facing from what distance?
It is regardless of the distance.
So a mile away, out in the woods, someone wants to build a facade and they have to
meet this criteria?
Yes.
We've talked about that a lot because there has been conversation. Ifit is visible from
the street. Nobody can figure out objectively whether it is visible or not.
You could be a mile away, but just because you are facing west, you are facing a road
way.
You would have to own all the land in-between.
H, II, facades attached to primary etc. . ... Does that eliminate metal buildings?
It does eliminate a lot of the metal on the side of the building.
In an industrial park it might not be on an artillery road.
This is only for those industrial building that are facing artillery.
Page 13, D, insert the work concrete in masonry and tilt up.
Under C, "iii" we are talking about a contrasting color may be helpful.
24
September 22, 2004
In the middle there is a "ii" variation in masking. Doesn't that also apply to facades
facing artillery roads? Am I in the wrong section?
Either or. If you are facing a residential and an artillery, you would have two primary
facades.
In fact, it is probably helpful to look at the definition of primary facade.
Page 15, 9, outside play structure. What is a play structure?
Those playgrounds for the kids.
We are going to regulate those too?
Why aren't we regulating barbecue grills and trucks being parked. Was that in the
prior code?
Yes.
Page 17 under BC little I, transitional masking elements. Does that even apply if the
adjacent buildings are not in a similar or same zoning district?
It is just the transitional masking elements.
Can we have a discussion where we can use planter trellis instead of windows? I
thought that that would go in this design feature. It only wound up in out parcels. If
we put it here an out parcel can use it. Could we add it here? This is a menu thing
with more things on the menu.
So do you see a problem moving that up there?
I will only argue it because this will include your big boxes. Do we want big boxes?
Instead of windows? We could limit it, but I think that maybe that might look better
than windows. I think for example the new Flemings up in North Naples is going to
look really good because of that.
But that is an out parcel.
25
September 22, 2004
For example, someone could build a restaurant that is on a planted lot. It is not an out
parcel. They are on the road, just like an out parcel. They should have the same
opportunity to not have windows in their coolers.
My concern is that would be using that in their facades, facing the streets.
We could limit it to non-front facades that are facing the street. I do think more
options should be there that were intended to be there. If you moved it to there and
you could put limits on it there and we moved the limits on the out parcel, it would be
fine.
BREAK: 10 minutes
Chairman Budd - We have 5 out of 9 Planning Commissioners our 10 minute break
is up. We have a quorum. Mr. Strain was in a series of questions, but I received a
request during the break, if the representative from AlA could make some comments.
Susan, is that speaker a registered speaker?
Matthew Greg, I believe he is registered.
Matthew Greg - I am an architect, I am principal of Architectural Network Inc. in
Naples. I am also the current Vice President of AlA Florida's Southwest Chapter. If I
could I would like to read something that I prepared. I am here today representing
AlA Florida Southwest and our 120 architect members to accomplice two task. First,
I thank the planning staff of Collier County Government for working with our local
AlA Chapter in revising the design standards of the Collier County Land
Development Codes. Second, to pass along to you our involvement in the process.
AlA Florida Southwest got involved with the revision upon the request of a few local
architects. A few months ago we began to participate in the public meetings of the
Collier County Desect Committee. We noticed some key flaws in the proposed
revision of the architectural design standards as we all know as Section 2.8 of the
Collier County Line Development Code. We organized a workshop with the Collier
County Planning Staff to discuss these issues and subsequently held an AlA workshop
to fine tune our thoughts and gain conciseness among our members. Consequently
our suggestions were reviewed by Staff and recommended for approval with the
exception of four. In summary, although we found upon the idea of having
architectural design guidelines as part of the land development code, we as an
organization conditionally support the revisions proposed to the current document.
26
.._" . y ......w
September 22, 2004
The condition is in regard to Staffs recommendation not to allow all building types
the opportunity to obtain approval through a deviation process. We feel the deviation
process is one of the most important aspects to the design standards. Section 2.8 was
written to avoid poor quality architecture and to promote good architecture. We feel
the deviation process being open to all building types will allow architects the
opportunity to create great architecture. I would be happy to give a few examples, if
necessary. We feel these changes will be better for the community and the betterment
of the built environment of Collier County.
Discussion continues with an outcome of this:
Can I ask a quick question? You say that you opt for this conditionally, but would
rather not see any standards at all. Is that what I hear you saying?
That is correct. Architects never want to be handcuffed as far as design. We do
understand why the code exist. It is to try to deter poor quality architecture.
So how would you deter poor architecture quality without any standards? It is a
philosophical question.
Philosophical, we are all professional, us architects, an we should be liable for our
own design.
So you would argue that a professional has never put up an ugly or poorly constructed
building?
No, I would say that it is our responsibility as professionals. I wouldn't say that it
hasn't been done. I also look to what the City of Naples is doing recently with the
Design Review Board where we don't have a design code. We have a group of our
peers that review the work. We know that this may not be a viable contract for the
County because of the number of projects that come through the County are greatly
increased compared to the number that go through the City. As architects, I don't
think you would find a single architect out there who would promote design standards.
Interesting.
One thing that the standards do is they make the owner put this in the project that you
they would rather engineer out. The architects could argue that it does help them
27
, ."..._.....,-,---~._.^
September 22, 2004
because it requires them to do things that the owners would certainly strike from the
budget.
It must have been architects that designed Sports Authority and Toys R Us and the
Eckerd Drug Store down at 3 rd and 41.
Maybe, it was an engineered design where architects and engineers have argued a long
on going fight over. We think engineers have built buildings that they shouldn't have
bui I t.
I think what you are saying is that the architectural guidelines don't necessarily protect
us from licensed and capable architects, but rather from those owners who hire them
that refuse to put in those architectural details that they might like to include but the
budget excludes them out. Landscaping does the same thing.
We are forcing better design with this ordinance.
Before I go on with my regular questions, overhead doors facing one another and
other requirements. They have to be screened and things like that. I was driving up
here and I noticed the new Eckerd' s at the intersection of 951 and 41. They have this
huge overhead door facing 951 and 41. Nice galvanize metal and it is pulled shut.
How is that allowed? When overhead doors are suppose to be regulated in the ways
that I have seen in this document?
Overhead doors, I don't believe, are prohibited.
But, this one is facing the intersection.
Right, because we don't prohibit the use of overhead doors.
This is a metal roll down overhead door. If I remember, you require for them to be
screened.
This is for mini storage's where you have a lot of them. We don't want that many
overhead doors facing streets. We would rather see them towards the back or the
sides.
28
-'"--"-
September 22, 2004
Page 20, This is just a comment. The AlA recommended that Item C be changed, the
word "facade" be replaced with the word "building", but I'm assuming that the second
word "building" is out.
Yes.
Page 21, the last item in D "iii", water elements a minimum of I 00 square feet in area.
There are some site design elements that a project can have a minimum of? Is there
anyway to restrict those water elements so that they are non-motion? The reason that I
am suggesting this is anytime you put a water feature in you are going to use a huge
amount of power just to propel that water feature if it is motion water of any kind.
You are using a lot of water that is just going to evaporate that we don't have excess
of in South Florida. I think to encourage more of those motion elements is probably a
bad thing, looking at our resources, because we will expended more resources for
needless features that do otherwise.
We can certainly take a look at that. I will have to double check with the committee
members.
Do you want to prohibit water motion?
Yes, this way is saying that you've got to do it. I would rather just leave it out if that
is the case.
If you don't have motion you are going to have stagnant water which will be bad too.
I'm not sure we need something that is going to use our resources like that action
would. That is my suggestion.
Page 23, Item 9C, Design Standards, last sentence. All free standing buildings must
provide for vehicular and pedestrian interconnection between adjacent out parcels or
free standing sites in the primary structure. The only concern I have there is that all
out-parcels are not owned by the same parties and that may not be possible. Can we
put in there between adjacent out-parcels of common ownership? So we are not
demanding someone to do something that they can't get permission to do?
No, we would not support that.
29
.'. .,~-,---
September 22, 2004
No, we can't do that?
No, I would not support it.
It would be approved under a PUD. It would be approved at one time.
Either a PUD or an SDP.
You have a Publix Center at the corner of 41 and 951. It is an old center. It has a K-
Mart and Publix in there and it has a bunch of out parcels that haven't been sold. You
have a bank in one. MacDonalds in another. A bunch of empty out parcels in-
between. The way I read this, they would be required to have inter-connection. What
if there is no possibility of the owners of existing, completed ones having
accommodated that intersection. What does the new applicant do?
You need to provide pedestrian connection to other buildings. The existing building
does not have to bring it up to code.
This is vehicular. I am not worried about sidewalks. I am worried about roads. It
says must provide for vehicular and pedestrian interconnect. I am not sure it is all
possible.
Oh, I see.
The reason that we want to encourage this is to keep those trips from going out and
coming back in.
I agree with you, we should. Ifwe can't do it, if someone can't do it because they
don't own the property next door, how can you possibly make them do it?
The property next door has been developed or it hasn't been developed?
It has been developed.
It is not subbed out to you?
30
September 22, 2004
Right. That is the case there now. You have a MacDonalds, you've a bank. They are
not prepared to tie into their neighbors. How are they going to do it if the one guy
coming in has got to do it?
They can go through the deviation process. That would be available for them.
Is that free?
Nothing in this County is free anymore.
So you are going to charge somebody for something that they could not do?
Mark, I think if they can't do it, they can't do it. That is going to be very easy to
prove.
I believe so.
Does that mean that the code doesn't apply if you prove you can't do it?
I think so.
Patrick, I think I lost point on that debate.
I wasn't talking about the deviation provisions. I was just concerned that if we are
requiring that someone has an interconnection to parcels that they don't own, how can
we do that?
You can certainly condition the approval at the SDP phase to do that. I think that that
is the thing that we are looking at.
How about if we just insert the words between adjacent out parcels "where feasible"?
I can tell you what the answer to that is. I can tell you how that worked in other
jurisdictions.
Not, well?
31
~"'.-_."'~>'_.
September 22, 2004
It was never feasible from the perspective of any applicant. I understand what your
intention is. Typically the council that we have given to Staff, in those circumstances,
is to make it a condition of the pending approval in such a way that when the adjacent
parcel comes in for some redevelopment that it would then be captured and there
would be essentially an interconnection.
I guess it is the same thought as sidewalks. Some people argue that sidewalks are not
connecting this County but eventually they will.
Page 24, E, Deviation, alternative compliance upon request. The Zoning and Land
Development Review Director may administratively approval. We have gone to great
lengths in other parts of the UDC, especially in other code changes, to remove any
such references to specific departments. We took out the Transportation Department,
we took out all of those. We said County Manager or designee. Why don't we change
that on this one?
Commissioner Strain, I can address that. That is just an editing thing that I need to do.
Throughout this document?
Yes, It will be changed. It is not only throughout this document. It is through other
provisions that you are going to see this evening. I think Russell and I would both
agree that from the guidance that we have received and the policy that we apply is that
all of those terms are to be converted to County Manager or designee. Weare
probably not as diligent having not the overall solution available. That being the
administrative code that we envision which would on an annual basis, we are hoping,
would require the County Manager to review his org chart and identify the appropriate
designee's by title and name as to the various sections that are to apply or in some
other way that makes evident how it is that designations are to take place. I appreciate
your support on it.
Page 24, situation, see that "ii" at the top of the page. I think that that should go up as
a primary. It want be lost here. If you want to put a limit to how much that could be.
Maybe 25% of the requirement or something.
I will certainly take a look at that.
32
September 22, 2004
Page 25, under Ci , the last sentence. That exempts out those parapets that are raised
in order to screen some mechanical equipment. Is that correct? Because you do
require mechanical equipment to be screened, and that could be screened with a
parapet that is higher than the allowable comment in that last sentence. Maybe not?
Which "I" are you on
"C single "I". Page 25, last sentence.
And the concerned, Mark, is? Equipment has got to be screened. Which may mean,
because of the equipment's height, parapets may be higher.
What it is saying that your parapet can't be higher than 15%. The only exception to
that is if you are using it to screen equipment.
OK. That is all I wanted to make sure.
Yes, and it is in the second line.
Page 27, Cii , "single shade awning structures must not exceed an area sufficient to
provide coverage for more than 20 automobiles. Are they compact or SUV's? Can
we put a square footage in there?
You can get 20 compacts or you can get 20 SUV's. Twenty automobiles, your choice.
That is fine, if that is the way you want to do it.
That is going to give you different square footage of coverage. That is all that I am
trying to tell you.
Here is the problem with square footage. The screening is not going to be an exact
square footage. It is going to be off to the side.
I want to refer back to the measurement of the parking place.
I think a parking count. If somebody choose to screen 20 small cars, or if somebody
choose to screen 20 large cars, that is two different sizes.
33
_.~---,._-,._-
September 22,2004
It is probably easier to go back to the dimensional standard of the parking.
I believe so.
With dimensional standards it is the same question. You've got compact standards.
You've got regular standards.
But as you mentioned there are Homers.
We don't have Homers parking spaced fingered yet.
Page 28, "ii" on the top, "furniture must be set back from a drive or a parking area by
a minimum distance of 15 feet. The AlA suggested eliminating it. Staff accepted that.
I am wondering why?
If you take it out, that means like Sports Authority where that driveway goes right by
that front door. Their front door could be right on the edge of that asphalt. Wouldn't
you want a set back there?
I have to apologize, my copy is a little bit different than yours. It is on the bottom of
page 28.
If you do what the AlA suggest you are going to have buildings right on top of
asphalt, driveways. Is that ok? Wouldn't you want a 15 foot setback from a driveway
and a parking area, either one? I do not know why you want to take that out. I will
leave that for you to look at. It is not a super big issue. It is just one that I caught in
the reading.
OK.
It would be a parking space. You would probably have a sidewalk in front of that.
I think that it is a good point.
Would you take another look at it? That's all.
Yes.
34
"-----
September 22, 2004
An architect wouldn't, but the owner of the building might make them.
We are protecting ourselves from ourselves.
The same type of argument goes to "Ci", right below that one. There they did not
suggest taking the word "parking area" out and it is still left in. Why don't you just
leave it in the other one?
OK.
I don't know if there was a rational reason for the distinction between the single tenant
buildings and developments and the multiple tenant buildings and developments. I
think that Carolina will take a look at that.
I will.
Down the page a little bit, it is on the top of mine, it is probably on the bottom of
yours. Concerning building colors. The Staff has recommended wording the use of
solid black, gray, florescence, primary or secondary colors materials or finished paint
be limited to no more than 10% of the facade or the total roof area. Are we talking
about limiting building colors only to facades? What about the walls of the building?
Are they covered somewhere else?
That is a facade.
The wall itself.
Yes.
As an architect, we are having problems with the gray. Architects do a lot of nice
things with gray.
They left it in.
No, they made it a prohibited color.
It is not that it is a prohibition it is a limitation. No more than 10%.
35
,. '''''-,--,.._~..
September 22, 2004
Staff concern is that you can use charcoal, almost black.
I think what it is going to boil down to is the deviation. If we can have a wider
deviation process then more of these restrictions wouldn't be that important. But gray
can be done, not a negative color to an architect. If you leave it up to me, take it out.
If you allow wider deviations, leave it in and we will play with it there. What you want
to protect is the bad use of gray not the good use of gray.
Correct.
Page 31, "ii", This one contradicts the one that we just talked about, Carolina,
"parking areas proposed along the side of the buildings within 15 feet of the building
wall". On the other one we were suggesting having a setback of 15 feet and this one
goes back to allowing the parking area within the 15 feet. I amjust suggesting that
that ought to be there. I am just suggesting that should be included in that part of it.
Page 32, "meters and vents". It says that it can not be located on the primary facade of
the building. In some buildings they may have more than one facade facing the street.
You might consider more than one primary. In some cases FPL and other companies
are very particular where you are allowed to put their units. The only thing that I
suggest is that you allow that condition where it is shielded from view. A box,
something built around it so that you can not see it. Not to allow it at all you may
restrict some of the regulations that the utilities company have. I am not sure if
anybody has checked it out already.
I know the problems that we have had with this, but you are right. There are some
instances, remodeling or otherwise, where we are telling someone that they have to
move an entire kitchen because of an opening. If we could require some screening or
other things to do that, I think that that could give some lead way.
Good point.
Also, may I argue, these are meters attached to the building. I know you have a
concern for the FPL and that will usually be a separate unit.
The transformers are not, but meters are attached to the side of the building. That is
what I was concerned about.
36
September 22, 2004
The designer has control of where those are located.
Not all the time.
I can not think a time where he doesn't.
When the utility forces him to put his meter somewhere?
It has to be accessible to the reader.
Well, again, if it doesn't occur, fine. Could we put some lines in the.
The problem that we have, is that it is expensive wire. The path of its existence is the
owner's desire. They wind up on the front of buildings.
Correct.
If they are seen or shown, does it matter?
It wouldn't matter, because they wouldn't notice them. They are seen and shown in a
lot of buildings.
That is what I'm saying. We shield them somehow. That could be one of your
masking features that you guys like so well. You could do a whole masking feature
around an electrical box.
Maybe, it could worded that it is not visible.
You don't want meters on the front of your buildings. It is bad enough with the
sprinkler check valve in the front of your buildings.
We have had many cases where that happened.
I would rather see a meter in a building than the rolled down metal door that I now see
at Eckerds Drug Store on 951 and 41. That doesn't look good.
Page 33, D, "required floor area". Last sentence says that drive through facilities may
have multiple driveways. Doesn't transportation dictate how many they should have?
37
._-,.,."_,___>o,,,^_~..
September 22, 2004
I don't want to do something here that eliminates the ability to require things by the
word "may". I don't know if we do or not.
We don't want to prohibit that.
Ijust want to make sure that we don't. If you don't see it as a problem, then I don't.
I think it is a clarification.
How often do you have a drive through facility that offers walk-up service? I don't
think that I have ever seen that.
Are we going to cut out the walk-up or are we going to leave it in? Well it looks like
Staff approved the AlA's suggestion to delete them.
Correct.
An A TM is a walk up. A depository is a walk-up. The bank is what it markets. You
can not demand them to have a walk-up because you can walk in.
I guess you drive up, get out of the car, and go over and do something?
Maybe you ride your bicycle and you ride up to the place instead of driving your car.
Yea, but are they going to want bike lanes next?
Many of the drive through facilities say cars only.
And I have walked up to a drive through window and been chased away.
So, this provision want work.
Well, your point is that you can walk into the bank. So, if there is a time when drive
through is only open do you want to make it a walk-up at that time?
Each facility must provide both walk-up and drive through facilities. If they don't
have the walk-up is it going to kill the plan.
38
. <..,~-_._-_..-
September 22, 2004
Carolina, didn't we already approve the AIA's recommended correction?
We are in agreement.
Chairman Budd - Any other questions on the Staff presentation?
One point that I would like to discuss is the deviation process being opened up to all
buildings. Why isn't that a good idea?
I think our roll is to try to have requirements for specific usage. If we open the
deviation process for everything, I think we are going to have a deviation process for
every single scenario.
The only thing that we are missing is office Buildings.
It will work in all the commercial buildings.
An assembly building, an educational institute, a mixed used building, they are all
allowed. Everything else is not allowed. Right?
Correct.
Why is that such a problem? There is nothing about a building type that would not
make some designer not want to fit the code. Is it something that you feel will be too
many deviations?
For a few reasons. It comes to undermine the creditability of the whole purpose of
having the regulations. It then becomes an entirely subjective review process through
two people on my staff, not including myself. The regulations were originally drafted
for commercial and some limited industrial which made minor amendments through
the years. A lot do to public complaints. For example, churches that were built along
major roads that were erecting huge metal buildings started to look like industrial
facilities. We started over the years, mostly in response to public, adding various
types of structures and locations and usage into the criteria knowing that the heart of
the regulations was really for the commercial structures and then the commercial
building district. We have tried to keep it flexible in those areas that were kind of
outside the original scope of the regulations knowing that they tend to be different
39
.u~,,__,,_,,_;_...,,»..._,.,~
September 22, 2004
anyway depending on the type of use. The commercial tends to be almost very static.
It is pretty consistent.
Is there an pre-basis to the appeal process?
Not yet.
Not in this ordinance, but will there be one administratively rendered?
I believe so.
Would not the fee process minimize gratuitous and frivolous to everything all the
time?
Not if the cost of those frivolous things exceeded the cost of the fee. It would be
worth somebody's time to get through the deviation process and pay what would be a
minimal fee to eliminate more costly architectural environments.
There is also another thing. We don't know how successful people would be. This
arbitration committee could kill these frivolous things and then it would be foolish for
someone to waste their time trying to go through it. The real part of the deviation
process is that we would hate to eliminate what could be a special piece of architect
that just doesn't fit into this parameter. There are no parameters that can control good
architecture. Somewhere, something is going to come along and it want be able to be
done. Ifbad developers are hammering away, trying to get stuff through, let's hope
that the arbitration would stop it and after awhile those frivolous attempts would be
stopped. The success of it is going to be based on the strength of the people in that
arbitration process. So what I thing would be a better way to do this is to open it up
with all buildings and we could come back. We have two cycles a year. You could
come back and say that it is not working. We are being swamped with deviations and
we could address it then. I think out of fairness, because this is what it really does, it
means that architects can work with their talent and show something that might not fit
and work. It really is restraining creativity and if people abuse it, let's discuss it at a
later date and close it down then.
I would prefer to do the opposite. My main concern, at this point, really isn't if I have
Staff to handle all the request that we think that we are going to get. Yes, that is going
to be a problem, but I think opening the deviation process to commercial severely
40
September 22, 2004
undermines the whole intend and purpose of the ordinance and severely weakens it.
That was not the intent. They are very minimum requirements. And what I would
prefer to say if there is a trend towards things that aren't being committed by the code
because of it's structure, as it relates to commercial buildings, that we start to look at
making corrections to the code that way.
That we will never know. The Staff will know. I am turning down buildings that I
think are good buildings, but we would never know. But if we try it the other way, if
we widen the gate, then too much stuff goes through it. That we know. Ifwe close
the gate, then we don't know who is knocking on it.
But Staffs responsibility is to monitor that type of thing and reflect that in proposed
amendments to the Land Development Code. That really is the heart and soul of this
department.
I think we have clarified the issue that you are agreeing to disagree and we are not
going to change either of you?
Neither of us is going to change the other's mind. Let's keep that in mind. When we
get to the appropriate point and make a motion we will consider that specifically in
our motion.
I have one other thing that is not related to that, I promise. The latest version of this
that we got is that the standards fall after the exceptions. This is the first time I've
seen that you put the exception and then the standards. Typically, you have the
standards of everything that you have in the community that requires an MBR and
behind that you specify the exceptions. For some reason we have the exception first
then we go into standards.
I believe our legal staff had a rational for it.
I'm missing what you are saying here?
You are saying is that you have design standard for specific standards which are
essentially exceptions to the general standards. After that we have the general
standards. I think they should be flipped from the latest version.
You are saying that C should be second?
41
September 22, 2004
Well, we are going to confuse it with this. I think that the building standards, the
general standards should be presented first.
What general standards are there?
There is building design standards for usage.
For other usage.
So, you had it for other usage in this draft.
That is because that is what it is. To me it seem that it was the lesser of the two
subsets. In other words the more general rules where those for the specific building
usage.
No, I don't believe that that is true. We have building standards. The specific usage
exempts some of those standards, not all of them. It is confusing. The building design
standards, which is what it use to be called, applies to everything. Then comes along
the design standards for specific usage which exempted some of those that we had in
the building design standards. In other words, pick anyone of these, it exempts
certain requirements, and it says that it has to meet all the requirements of such. I
mean am I right, is that correct?
That is correct.
To me it would make much more sense to show all of the general standards and then
let people go to the specific building and see what does not apply to that particular
case.
I understand your rational and I don't have any specific objection to it. The level I had
to the understanding of it at that point and time achieving the goal of your rule is the
reason that we order them the way that they appear. If there is actually a different set
of facts, but the same rational, I don't have any objection. That was my goal in the
first place.
OK. I would recommend that we do that.
42
September 22, 2004
Chairman Budd - Any other comments, questions regarding the Staff presentation?
Do we have any registered speakers?
There are no other registered speakers.
Chairman Budd - OK, Mr. White are we to take action transmitting this to the Board
of County Commissioners with specific modification and recommendations?
Mr. White - It is certainly your option to do that as of these provisions today or to
hold off doing them all with respect to whatever you may choose to do in the future.
My recommendation would be, you have the quorum, you have the folks here that may
choose to weigh in on it, If you want to make some proposed recommendation or
modifications and you are finding consistency with respect to these provisions today,
you can do so.
What is the inclination of the commissioners? I am inclined to do it while we are here.
I think that under the circumstances that it would be almost mandatory to do it that
way.
We will be losing one of our voters, Mr. Richardson will not be a planning
commissioner. His term will be expired as of our next meeting.
We need to vote tonight.
My question is, what is the disposition of all the items that Mark brought up? We sort
of got a node from Carolina that she will look at that or will talk to somebody else. If
we can get it somewhat tied up, it seemed that there were quite a lot of open issues.
I think I listed some of the more prominent ones and the other ones, knowing
Carolina, if there was something that should be looked at she will look at.
My proposal to the Chairman is we will not see this colored coded anymore. We will
eliminate all the comments. We will come back through a simple strike through and
underline, so that you can see where the changes were. We will come back with a
modified version so you can see scan over it. We will provide that to you prior to the
next meeting. You can scan over it as the final document.
43
September 22, 2004
That will provide that closure.
That would provide the closure. We would delay voting and continue this until the
next meeting.
Is that legally sufficient, Mr. White?
It's not insufficient. The manner in which you choose to do it is within your
desecration.
There is nothing of critical issue, but I think it would at least bring a comfort level on
closure that you can take 10 or 15 minutes to review in simple strikes and underline
and we will take the text that was proposed with the comments that we made. We will
consider that today's final text. We will do strikes and underlines and just bring it
back and briefly go over it and display where the changes are.
And if that is within the Staff s capacity, I will change my position about taking a vote
tonight. If you can provide us with that with reasonable time before our next meeting
and I know from talking to Mr. Schmitt that our next meeting will depend upon the
Board's availability be October 4th, 5th, or 6th.
And I must caution the Commissioner's, we might not make the 10 day prior. It may
be 7, but the point is that you will have us working at the maximum rate of speed.
You are going to have it back as quick as we can get it.
I'm inclined, if you get in back in time to review, that we take action at our next
meeting, whichever of these days we select. Ifwe just can't do it, then we take action
now with what we know.
One thing that you probably could all agree on is the fact that as is proposed or is
proposed to be amended that those provisions would be consistent with the code
management plan. If you want to put that off or do it today, it really isn't any
difference.
Let's do it all together.
Are the planning Commissioners in agreement with we will get back the edited,
marked up copy from Staff to measure the compliance with the issues raised here
44
._--
.--"..----.,-.-
September 22, 2004
tonight? We will then be able to take issue the next meeting having that draft before
us.
The only controversy which I still think is a deviation. Can the Board give direction
on that now? It is an important issue for the architects that we have the ability to
deviate every project.
If we give direction tonight, or possibly let you have the time between now and then to
try and work it out with the architects, then come back to us with a compromise. We
can have the same action then as we can tonight. I think that is the way to look at it.
We can discuss it further, but we are pretty set in our goals.
Nobody should be set in their ways.
I am a flexible person, but there are some things that we feel strongly about, and this is
one of them.
We do not want this to be an ordinance or amendments just simply to allow for
continual deviations.
Weare not accomplishing anything by that. We would be happy to carry forward
whatever your recommendations are.
I think Mark's suggestion is perfect, maybe there is something in-between here.
OK. Let's do that. We will take action on this at our next meeting.
Before we start another topic let's figure out when our next meeting continuation of
this Land Development Code hearing will be. Planning commissioners, we have 3
dates and times up that this Board Room and County staff are available. We need to
find the one that fits.
Mr. Murray, the 6th is no good for me.
The 4th would be good for me. Can we start with that idea.
The 4th is ok with me.
45
September 22, 2004
The 4th is good for me.
I'm fine.
The 6th is terrible because we run into the night and have to be back in the morning at
8:30.
I move that the continuation be done on the 4th. I second that. At 2:30?
Let's say from 2:30 to 6: 30 or after.
OK, then that is good. We could finish no matter what.
Motion Mr. Adlestein. Second by Mr. Murray.
Discussion:
I will not be able to be here on the 4th until about 4:30 or 5:00. Certainly our Vice-
Chair can get the ball rolling and I will come in as soon as I can.
We will have one page reviewed by 4:00.
Just make sure that you have a quorum. Are there any other late arrivals or non
appearances. We need a quorum to start it at 2:30 on Monday. We will have a
quorum.
The termination of Mr. Richardson's valued service is prior to that date?
Yes.
We are actually dealing with a meeting that was for the 23rd of the month. That is the
date this meeting is. Is it still the meeting of the 23rd? For this stage of this one issue,
the new commissioner will have no information on this at all. He would have heard
none of this discussion. The point is that the only person that has heard what we have
done is Mr. Richardson.
Well, if I understand your concern, Mr. Adelstein, is it that you may not have a
quorum?
46
..~._~___,o.__
September 22, 2004
No, we have someone who has an opinion who has heard all of this and has a right to
vote on it. All we are going to do on that meeting is take the actual vote.
And what you are proposing we do?
Let Mr. Richardson vote on that particular one issue.
On that date?
On that date, that is the date that you are going to call for it.
I don't believe that that is possible.
OK.
However, it is certainly possible that he could provide his comments today in the
record. Or subsequently in writing. Or appear at the meeting on the 23rd as a citizen.
There is a number of ways that his value of his service today can be included in the
process, even if he is not a planning commissioner.
Just remember everything I said guys.
So with the motion second, if we don't end this meeting tonight it will be continued
on October 4th. All those in favor say" aye" Those opposed? That will be the date
when we finally wrap up tonight.
I would suggest that we would look into the next item and not take anything that is
going to take more than 30 minutes.
Before you do that, do you want to consider allowing those individuals present for the
public to offer any comments that they might have on anything that they may choose
to talk about? I don't want to see us end the meeting without giving the opportunity
for the public comment on anything that otherwise may not be possible because they
couldn't attend on the 4th.
That is a good point. I am inclined to respect the valuable time of everybody in the
audience. It does bring things somewhat out of sequence. We can hear people that
have spent the whole night waiting to get to this point, should there be any.
47
_.._",~..,.,,,.,,","_,,._._~.,,._________.._.."._,O__"_.,,,__~.~",~~~..,.
September 22,2004
Russell, do we have any registered speakers that are here this evening on any of these
items that we are going to be considering?
We have one register speaker, George Fog, but I don't believe that he is present.
Mr. Fog, I spoke with him during the break, specifically wanted to talk about the
landscape ordinance. I prodded him with the fact that we would not have time to hear
that tonight. He is planning on attending our next regular meeting.
And there are no others?
No others.
I would, at least, inform him that we will continue to the 4th.
Someone on my staff will inform him.
From my conversation in the hall with Mr. Fog, he was going to find out when that
date would be.
Would that information be part of the television channel?
We could do that.
OK. I am assuming that those members of the public that are within the chambers
have no other comments?
Weare picking up where we stopped.
If you look at your summary sheet and corresponding packet, we will go right to the
definitions.
We are going to start with your handout that is in yellow. We are going to start with
the definitions for the new vested rights procedure.
Can you give me some more direction, where are you?
48
September 22, 2004
Yes, I'm sorry. The handout should be one of the ones that I e-mailed to you. If you
don't have a copy in front of you, I can get a copy in back. It is not on a page, because
it is a handout. It is not a page in the packet.
I'll just go over it orally. It adds a new abbreviation, sometimes you will hear County
refer to it as COA or certificates of public facilities. That seemed to be an
abbreviation that would be in conflict with other usage of those letters. APSC seemed
to be more logical. The actually defined terms that we are adding are ones that do
appear in the vested rights staking provisions. One is land owner, any owner of a
legal or equitable interest in real property. The staking claim is any claim that falls in
the scope of development section, whether it is temporary or permanent set of
property rights that are being discussed. Pretty straight forward, but just because they
were more terms of general usage we though that it was important to give them
specific definitions. I think that is the sum of that handout.
Any questions on that item?
Are we going to be gathering these up collectively to take a motion at the end rather
than stopping and starting? That has been the tradition.
If you don't have any comments or specific concerns about them, I suggest that we
just tick them off by sections and to that extent actually go through the rest of the
definitions so that we've collected up all the definitional changes and that is Section
1.0SI 0 I and 02, the abbreviations and the definitions. We can kind of dispense with
them and be done.
Very good.
There being no questions, let's move along.
I think the next one is probably a similar set of parallel provisions and abbreviations
under 1.0S0 1 for NAICS, which is the North American Industry Classification
System, it is the evolutionary next step after the SIC code, the Standard Industrial
Classification.
Do you want me to ask questions on this, I've got a few?
On NAICS?
49
~....-,~..._~-"~.""""--,-""'~------"".,--
September 22, 2004
Yes. You are recommending an abbreviation for it and that is fine. We haven't
adopted that yet, have we? We are still using SIC? Everything coming through in the
other sections still refer to SIC codes. Are we going to adopt the NAICS or not?
When you look on the very next page you will see under the definition for self storage
buildings, it makes a reference to a NAICS provision. Although it might not be
specifically adopted, it is operational in the sense that it is being used for this
definition and creates something to compare the defined term for self storage
buildings. Just because SIC code made be used for use purposes in the zoning
districts does not preclude us from making some reference to an industry standard.
The same way we could choose to make some reference to the ASTM or some other
recognized standard. It is for that purpose that NAICS is in there. Putting an
abbreviation in does not authorize its use. We weren't looking to transition in the
recognition to the SIC code, we are looking at the second cycle. We are doing the
initial clean up of the changes that we made as well as some of substance changes in
architectural and landscaping. I think that you can expect to see more in the first cycle
of next year. I am referring to the definitions that are on page 2. These are primarily
related to the provisions that you just read through. They define the term primary
facade, renovation, self storage buildings and standard design buildings. All of those
terms apply solely to Section 5.0 5.0S.
Definition of primary facade. You added something and I'm not sure what it means.
"Based on first on the grade of functional classification and then if necessary on the
longer frontage length".
It says the most prominent streets and that is a subjective term. What the rest of those
phrases are intended to do is to bring some objectivity to it and rather than making it a
quality, it's a quantity. You can actually look at what the functional classification of a
road is.
Why don't we just leave it at that?
Because you might have two artilleries, one on each side. A corner.
A three sided thing, they could all be artilleries.
In that event you then go to the second category, the length, the frontage.
50
.~--_. "'~.. _._.._,~---~
.._~---"--"";--~.~'~~
September 22, 2004
Which is the longer.
Right, it would be the more prominent.
In the code fronts or backs are the shorter, why would we want to go to the longer? In
a corner the fronts and backs have the shorter dimensions.
The shorter frontage? I don't know if that is true. The question is whether the
frontage on a corner lot is the longer or the shorter.
In our code both of them are fronts. In most codes it is the narrower one.
On that event, I think, that after Carolina had read this it was her opinion that that was
the proper way to order them in order to achieve the goal of which would be the
primary facade. Logically, it seems that if you were to have it to be the shorter of two
artillery roads why would you have the shorter one be the primary facade?
For example, we had a project before us that was on three corners, it had 3 streets. 41
was the first street, the two side streets were both side streets going into residential.
Which ones would be the two facades?
It is obvious that the one in the front, the one on 41, would be the primary facade. The
two other ones are equal.
I think then that you would look at the length of the second. In other words, the two
local streets, the one with the longer face?
Why couldn't the designer choose?
In that case, if they were identical, they could choose.
Your point is that you have to choose one and he will be able to do that.
I have one request, you have the words "a building facade in public view". Could you
just drop the words "in public view"?
I have no objection but I certainly would want to have Staffs perception on it.
51
September 22, 2004
Any other comments on this section?
Can I propose a change for this for the next meeting?
Absolutely.
That is all I have on this and I will turn it over to Russell.
We can go back to the packet now, Page 1. Another definition revising the definition
of residential density. I spoke with David Weeks on this one and the definition now
does not currently comport with code section 2.03.06, dealing with PUD's. Total
residential land area does not include existing flatted land area for vehicular rights
away, whether public or private nor land within a plan year development district that
is to be used for commercial usage, industrial, or use that has a residential equality.
Any comments or questions on this section?
Section 1.0.8.02. We are removing the existing language dealing with alteration of
existing grade from building zone height because we don't measure with grade
anymore.
Section 1.08.02. We are adding some definitions based on the rewrite of the sign code
which you see later in the packet.
Section 1.08.02, Page 2 We are revising the definition of the final local development
order for COA's and adequate public facility issues.
Section 1.08.02, page 7, reinserting the definition of destination resort hotel.
Section 2.01.03, page 10, We are adding language to reference the urban rural
transition zone overlay map.
Section 2.03.03, We are adding auxiliary plans as a conditional use in the BP district.
When we have been getting PUD's I have never seen where they have taken out the
right a way for the private roads. If you have a private road within that project the
area in which that road takes would not be counted. Is that correct?
52
__""0__··__··'__
September 22, 2004
That was specifically added, I think, two or three cycles ago, because what we were
talking about in that instance, the Manatee Resort was a then assisting platted right a
way. That was not the intent to be used for the purposes of calculating density there
after. It does not occur very often.
Mark Strain - I would like to make a motion that we recommend for approval and
find consistent with the Growth Management Plan Section 1.08.0 I and Section
1.08.02 with the "in public view" will be struck Section 1.08.02 page 1, Section
1.08.02 page 2, same section page 4, same section page 6, same section page 7, same
section page 9.
In other words, you want to adopt the architectural prior to the Staff report which we
were promised before our next meeting?
Page 9, no. Page 10, Section 2.01.03 and Page 13, Section 2.03.03 with the words
added to educational facilities.
Mr. Richardson - I will second the motion.
I thing what Mr. White is going to look for is that it be found consistent.
Mr. Schiffer - I still want to go into there and work on the definition of "primary
facade" .
That is not included, it is still open.
All those in favor. The motion is carried.
We are done.
We will back October 4th.
Thank you.
Collier County Planning Commission
Land Development Code
Russell Budd, Chairman
53