Loading...
PC 05-25-94 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 25, 1994 ORDER OF BUSINESS ROLL CALL commissioners Absent: Chr. Mahoney Com. Austin Com. Doyle Com. Harris Com. Roberts commissioners Present: staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, city Planner WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR - None OLD BUSINESS 1. Computer Simulation Presentation and Discussion - Santa Clara valley Chapter American Institute of Architects (AlA). Members Cooper, Printy; of the AlA present were: Robert Bell, Director; Brian vice President; Jodie Gebhard; L.K.Oon; David O'Neill Robert T. Sampson; James W. Brenner. City Planner Wordell thanked the members of the AlA present and noted this is a follow-up to a workshop held in September. She noted the Planning commissioners had questions regarding the cost and ability. She stated staff contacted AIA who provided information regarding computer simulation. Ms. Wordell stated staff would like direction from the planning commission regarding what they should be requiring from applicants. She added this will be in the form of handouts given to applicants when they submit their applications, as opposed to an ordinance. Mr. Robert Bell, AIA, Director, stated the AIA were happy to be contacted by cupertino and have met several times with staff. He turned the meeting over to Ms. Jodie Gebhard who explained the Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) models. Ms. Jodie Gebhard passed out the matrix "Guidelines for types of CAD models and the level of complexity inherent in each". She reviewed this matrix noting it explains from the most simple PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of May 25, 1994 Page 2 technology to the most difficul t. Ms. Gebhard gave a CAD presentation on the computer noting this can be transformed onto a video tape for viewing. She noted CAD can generate an image and details can be added by an artist. An example of this was shown. The three basic levels of CAD models are: 1. Black & White 2. Color Simple Rendered 3. Color Photo Realistic. Ms. Gebhard explained how the above three levels are applied. She then went on to explain Resolution Screen Image, and noted a coded device can send images out to a video. She added the higher resolution image, the more detail. Ms. Gebhard noted the City should require the basic level from applicants at this time. She reviewed higher range of color resolution and noted this system is faster, but is more expensive and more difficult to animate. Mr. David O'Neill printy noted there are very few reliable firms that can produce realistic photo renderings. He noted CAD is used within the Architectural profession and 3D CAD is much more expensive and time consuming. He noted architects need to start at the 2D level and graduate to the 3D level. Chr. Mahoney asked how many architectural firms would use CAD? Ms. Gebhard stated in her opinion approximately 60% of the firms would use CAD and out of the 60%, 20% may be working at the 3D level and 2% working in animation. Mr. printy reviewed the cost estimates as outlined in the handouts passed out earlier. He noted the most expensive cost is building the model, but once the model has been built it can be seen from many different views. Mr. Cooper explained photo montage and noted this cannot be seen from different views. Mr. Cowan stated the goal is for the Commission to better visualize a project before them, the issue is what type of material would be best for the Commission to reach this goal? Mr. Printy reviewed the cost estimates of a single family home on a hillside, a commercial infill on a developed street and a 400,000 sq. ft. technical center on open land from a hand rendering (1 view) to high resolution animation, as outlined in the handout. Mr. Cooper stated it is more cost effective to do hand renderings PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of May 25, 1994 Page 3 at this time, but these can only been seen from one view. He noted building the model is the most difficult and most expensive. Ms. Gebhard pointed out that this will become less difficult and less expensive as time goes on. Chr. Mahoney opened the hearing for public input. Mr. Daryl Fazekas, Architect, presented photo renderings he had done and other computer generated finishings. He believes it would cost approximately $2500 to do a computer simulation of the house on Upland way. He recommends that staff require wire frames and then they select several views and .the applicant can then do a photo montage from the views selected. Ms. Gebhard stated people need more education in the computer simulation noting if, in some cases, they pay more up front for the computer simulation, it would cost less in the long run. Com. Austin stated there is a concern that Commissioners may try to design homes. Mr. Scott Futyrk, Designer, stated the technology is moving fast and the commission should shoot for something that is going to happen and will be cost effective in the near term. The Commissioners discussed what they would like to see. Com. Austin stated she would like to simplify it for the applicant, but would like to see mass, color and other details in relationship to the building. She stated she would like to require computer generated renderings for single family homes on slopes 30% or more and also for new commercial buildings. Com. Doyle stated the goal is to see the site detail relative to the building and mass, he suggested the following: 1. 3D wire frame, hidden line on-site with or without trees. 2. If requested a photo montage, but leave up to staff - specify views. 3. Above required for major projects, but not single family homes. optional for hillside homes. Com. Harris stated the issue is the ideal vs. the practical and believes government has the responsibility not to force excessive cost requirements that would limit an applicant's ability to bring a project forward. She stated it would be cheaper to have the work done by one architectural firm, but this would limit architects and design. She believes they are ahead of their time and when it PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting of May 25, 1994 Page 4 becomes more cost effective, then it should be required. She spoke in favor of requiring a photo montage for a large project or a controversial project. She does not believe computer simulation is appropriate at this time. Chr. Mahoney stated if the commission want to see certain views then that is what they should require. He stated they should let applicants know that computer simulation is an option and may be more helpful to the Commission when reviewing a project. Com. Doyle stated if applicants know this is the type of activity the Commission will expect when they do the initial drawings they will do it 2D on CAD vs. hand drawings. He noted the cost of entry is much lower if more views are required. Chr. Mahoney suggested requiring this for exceptions. He believes that eventually the bigger the projects the applicant will do computer simulation because it will sell the project better. He stated the Commission should specify what they want to see, but not tell an applicant how to do it. He added he would rather see a physical model for large projects, such as the seminary property. Mr. Cowan stated staff will come back with recommendations regarding accuracy and which views the Commission may like to see. Chr. Mahoney thanked AIA team for being present at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT adjourned at at 6:45 p.m. Having concluded business, the Planning commission 8:10 p.m. to the next regular meeting of June l3, 1994 Respectfully submitted, (~ M.-~Uo..fd Catherine M. Robillard Minutes Clerk Approved by the Planning commission at the Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994 Attest: ~~ Kim smith City Clerk