1989APPLICATION SUBMITTAL POLICY
All development proposals (except site approvals for one home) shall
provide the following exhibits:
1. Architectural illustrations/renderings providing the following:
A. Eye-level, oblique-angle view of the building/site.
B. Illustrate immediately adjacent structures.
C. Accurately depict relative scale/height of proposed building
compared to surrounding buildings.
2. Expand the architectural elevations (2 dimensional drawings) to
include side-to-side and front-to-rear property lines giving site
cross-sections.
3. Incorporate roof equipment screening and elevator tower into
exhibits.
4. Provide reductions of plan sets in 11"x17" format for
distribution to City Council, Planning Commission, and Site &
Architectural Review Committee with the Staff Report.
5. Planning Staff may require applicants to prepare models for major
developments.
Adopted by Planning Commission: 2-14-89
Adopted by City Council: 3-7-89
f: devexhibits/pg.8
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 7, 1989
Planning Corm~ission -
blinute Action - adopting
Planning application
submittal requirements
(development exhibits)
Planning Director Piasecki - Staff Summary
Report dated 3/7/89.
M/S: Burr/Kotowski - to support the staff
recommendation to adopt a policy requiring
that development proposals provide
architectural illustrations/renderings;
expand architectural elevations to
incorporate property lines for site cross
sections; incorporate roof equipment
screening and elevator tower into exhibits;
and provide 11" x 17" copies of exhibits
for distribution to City Council, Planning
Camiission and Site and Architectural Review
Committee. It was additionally recamiended
and approved that the staff be given the
discretion to require models for particular
major developarents. Motion adopted
unanvnously.
CITY OF CAMPBELL - COUNCIL REPORT
Meeting Date: March 7 , 1989 Item #
Category: ADVISORY COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
Initiating Dept: Planning
Title: Minute Action - adopting Planning Application Submittal
Requirements (Development Exhibits).
RECOMMENDATION
That theCity Council take minute action adopting the attached policy requiring
architectural illustrations; 11"x17" copies of exhibits for City Council,
Planning Commission, and the Site and Architectural Review Committee; expanding
elevations to incorporate property lines for site cross-sections; and,
incorporating roof equipment screening and elevator towers into exhibits.
BACKGROUND
In November 1988 the City Council referred the issue of application submittal
requirements to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The Commission
heard the item on November 22, 1988 and February 14, 1989.
MAJOR ISSUES
PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission discussed the following issues/concerns related to
application exhibits:
1. Need for accurate drawings showing streetscape view including
relative height/scale compared to adjacent buildings.
2. Illustrate the site cross-sections.
3. Costs to the applicant.
4. Give the applicant the option of using different methods of
providing the drawings/illustrations.
5. Applicants need not use costly enhancements to achieve a
presentation-quality rendering.
Two Commissioners expressed concern regarding the costs of preparing the
exhibits and suggested the issue be discussed in a study session. Four
Commissioners were satisfied with the proposed application submittal
policy. The Commission voted 4-3 in favor of the attached policy.
ARCHITECTURAL ADVISOR
The Architectural Advisor is in concurrence with the proposed policy. He
suggested that Staff be given the discretion to require models for major
developments.
Attachments
1. Recommended Policy.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report - 2/14/89.
3. Planning Commission minutes - 2/1 /89.
Approved by Planning Director•
Approved by City Manager:
f: devexhibits/pg.7
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL POLICY
All development proposals (except site approvals for one home) shall
provide the following exhibits:
1. Architectural illustrations/renderings providing the following:
A. Eye-level, oblique-angle view of the building/site.
B. Illustrate immediately adjacent structures.
C. Accurately depict relative scale/height of proposed building
compared to surrounding buildings.
2. Expand the architectural elevations (2 dimensional drawings) to
include side-to-side and front-to-rear property lines giving site
cross-sections.
3. Incorporate roof equipment screening and elevator tower into
exhibits.
4. Provide reductions of plan sets in 11"x17" format for
distribution to City Council, Planning Commission, and Site &
Architectural Review Committee with the Staff Report.
Adopted by Planning Commission: 2-14-89
Adopted by City Council:
f: devexhibits/pg.8
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989
Staff Report Application submittal requirements and review
procedures; Site & Architectural Review
Board's meeting schedule.
Planning Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report of February 14,
1989.
Commissioner Dickson expressed concern about increasing costs to the developer
and to buyers; he felt that most of the presented plans are easily understood;
that the issue should be discussed at a study session; and, that the trend was
in the wrong direction.
Chairman Olszewski concurred with Commissioner Dickson relative to development
costs; however, he felt that the Commission needs appropriate information.
Chairman Olszewski felt that there are problems understanding relationships of
new projects with their surroundings; and, that it is important to note the
burden of additional costs to the Council. If the matter does go to Council,
he asked that the issue of "property line to property line" drawings be
specifically requested, as well as elevations which show elevator towers and
roof screening.
Commissioner Kasolas expressed concern with the costs involved, noting that the
issue will become one where costs are cut; and although he agreed that better
information helps to make a better decision, he felt that the system of relying
on Staff and the Architectural Advisor has worked well.
Commissioner Christ asked what other cities require. Regarding the provision
of reduced plans for the agenda packets, Commissioner Christ felt that it was
the individual Commissioner's responsibility to arrive early to review plans in
the chambers or at the office. He concurred with the additional illustration,
but did not see a need to include plans in the packets unless the project is
extensive. Additionally, if renderings are provided, they should be accurate
and to scale.
Commissioner Walker concurred with Commissioner Christ, noting that
relationship drawings may just be necessary in cases where the proposal is not
harmonious with the surroundings.
Chairman Olszewski felt that copies of plans should be included with the
packets because that gives the Commission extra time to look at the projects.
The costs involved could be offset by the avoidance of negative impacts.
Commissioner Perrine indicated that he did not need to see every plan in a
reduced format - perhaps only the major proposals.
Mr. Piasecki noted that requiring reduced drawings would not be that expensive
to the developer and that he would encourage this requirement.
M/S: Perrine, Christ That the Planning Commission, by minute
action, recommend to the City Council that
the application submittal requirements be
expanded to include the following:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES - FEBRUARY 14, 1989
DEVELOPMENT EXHIBITS - PAGE 2.
All development proposals (except site
approvals for one home) shall provide the
following exhibits:
1. Architectural illustrations/renderings
providing the following:
A. Eye-level, oblique-angle view of
the building/site.
B. Illustrate immediately adjacent
structures.
C. Accurately depict relative
scale/height of proposed building
compared to surrounding buildings.
2. Expand the architectural elevations (2
dimensional drawings) to include
side-to-side and front-to-rear property
lines giving site cross-sections.
3. Incorporate roof equipment screening and
elevator towers into exhibits.
4. Provide reductions of plan sets in
11"x17" format for distribution to City
Council, Planning Commission, and Site &
Architectural Review Committee with the
Staff Report.
5. Staff to develop wording showing
leniency on the Commission's part,
indicating preference for accuracy and
detail.
Motion carried with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Perrine, Christ, Walker, Olszewski
NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Dickson
ABSENT: Commissioners: None.
~ * ~
ITEM N0. 9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 1989
Staff Report Application submittal requirements and review
procedures; Site & Architectural Review Board's
meeting schedule.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by minute action, recommend
to the City Council that the application submittal requirements be
expanded to include the following:
1. Architectural illustration showing the eye-level, oblique angle
appearance of a building (except single family site approvals and
minor architectural modifications to an existing building).
2. Plan sets reduced to 11" x 17" format to be included with the
Staff Reports to the Planning Commission and City Council.
narxr_Rnttnm
The City Council referred the issue of application content requirements to
the Planning Commission in November of last year. The Commission
discussed the issue and asked Staff to report on the relative costs of
preparing a colored rendering vs. a photomontague.
A. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Rendering costs are a function of the size and complexity of the
building and quality of the renderings desired. One architect
estimated the rendering costs for a relatively simple building, using
pen and ink, could be as low as $400-$500. Another architect's office
indicated a high quality color rendering could exceed $2000-$3000.
The architects were not familiar with the relative savings if a
photo-montague is used. However, one architect indicated that her
time spent would be reduced if the client has front and side elevation
drawings, roof plans, and site photographs.
Either a photo-montague or an architectural rendering will assist the
Commission and Council to understand the relationship of the building
to the surroundings, provided they illustrate the street level view
and show the site on an oblique angle.
Staff Report - Item No. 9
" Application Requirements; Review Procedures
• February 14, 1989 - Page 2.
Staff suggests that the type of illustration used (montague,
rendering, etc.) be left up to the project applicant provided it
accomplishes the following:
1. Provides an eye-level oblique angle view of the
site.
2. Illustrates immediately adjacent structures.
3. Accurately depicts relative scale/height of the
proposed building compared to surrounding
buildings.
The City should require an architectural illustration for all projects
(except single-family site approvals and minor additions to existing
buildings).
B. NUMBER OF COPIES
Currently, applicants submit 5 sets of full size drawings depicting
the site and elevation exhibits. The Planning Commission and the City
Council do not receive copies of the development plans and do not have
a convenient opportunity to review the plans prior to the hearing
date.
Staff suggests that the applicant submit plan sets reduced to 11"x17"
format, in sufficient quantities to distribute copies to the Planning
commission and City Council with the Staff Report. The 11"x17" format
will minimize the amount of paper and be relatively easy to
incorporate into the packet.
C. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
As the Commission is aware, the Site and Architectural Review
Committee currently meets on the day of the Planning Commission
meeting. At the last Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting
the members discussed the possibility of moving the Committee meeting
date to occur earlier in the application process.
If the Commission is interested in pursuing this matter, Staff can
prepare some optional schedules to be discussed at a future Planning
commission meeting.
~ ~ ~
f: devexhibits/pg.5
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 22, 1988
Referral
Referral from the City Council regarding
Development Exhibits.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of November 22, 1988,
noting that the City Council has requested a policy establishing a minimum
guideline for development exhibits.
Discussion ensue regarding types of exhibits now being provided, cost of
exhibits which could be required, and usefulness of renderings vs. photomontage
exhibits.
Commissioner Dickson cautioned against added costs for colored renderings and
the deception that could occur by placing too much emphasis on illustrations.
Planning Director Kee explained why this issue came up before the City Council,
noting that the intent of this action is to provide additional information to
Councilmembers who are not as familiar with development perspectives as Staff
or the Commission.
Commissioner Dickson reaffirmed his position that increased costs to
developers is not appropriate, and initiated discussion regarding the use of
photomontage rather than colored renderings as a means of saving money.
Commissioner Walker stated that he is more interested in seeing colored
renderings of high quality so as to make valid determinations rather than
saving costs for developers.
M/S: Perrine, Dickson That this issue be referred back to Staff for
review and recommendation relative to the use
of photomontage and cost of photomontage
rather than colored renderings. Motion
carried unanimously (6-0-1).
ITEM N0. 6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22, 1988
Referral City Council - City Council referral
regarding Development Exhibits.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission endorse the proposed Council Policy attached
setting minimum standard for development exhibits.
STAFF DISCUSSION
The subject of development exhibits has been discussed at a City Council
Study Session. Staff is of the understanding that the Council would like
a policy which establishes minimum guidelines for development exhibits
which are to be submitted as part of applications for new projects. With
this in mind, Staff has drafted the attached policy addressing:
1. Developments proposing 5 or more residential units; Commercial
and/or Industrial development having a gross floor area of up to
10,000 sq. ft.
2. Development proposing 20 or more residential units; Commercial
and/or Industrial developments having a gross floor area of up to
25, 000 sq. ft.
3. Developments proposing 50 or more residential units; Commercial
and/or Industrial development having a gross floor area of more
than 25,000 sq. ft.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed policy will not create a
hardship on developers of smaller projects, or on developers proposing
larger projects, since the cost of exhibits increases with the size of the
project. The following are estimate of the costs a developer would incur
in providing the information required by the proposed policy.
1. Colored Site Plan/Elevations - $ 200 to $ 500
2. Building Perspective/Rendering - $1000 to $2000
3. Oblique Aerial Photographs - $ 500
In addition, Staff would like to note that we have recently received a
complete set of aerial photographs of the City which are at a scale of
1":100 feet. Once the street names and other information have been copied
onto the origninal mylar prints, Staff will have copies made in a form
that can be included in the Council and Planning Commission agenda packets
as well as projected on the screen.
At its meeting of November 15, 1988, the Council took action to refer this
matter to the Commission for its review and recommendation prior to taking
action.
s< sY ~
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXHIBITS
1. Developments proposing less than 5 residential units; Commercial
and/or Industrial Developments having a gross floor area of less than
10.000 sq.ft.
The applicant is required to submit all of the information required in
the application package available from the Planning Department.
2. Developments Proposing 5 or more residential units, Commercial and/or
Industrial Developments having a gross floor area of up to 10,000 sq.
ft.
In addition to the requirements of 1, above:
A. A colored site plan indicating building area, paved area, and
landscape area is required.
B. Colored elevations clearly illustrating proposed building
material colors and shadow lines are required.
3. Development Proposing 20 or more residential units; Commercial and/or
Industrial Developments having a gross floor area of up to 25,000 sq.
ft.
In addition to the requirements of 1 and 2 above, a perspective
drawing or architectural rendering which accurately depicts the
proposed development is required.
4. Development Proposing 50 or more residential units; Commercial and/or
Industrial Developments having a gross floor area of more than 25,000
s~C . ft•
In addition to the requirements of 1, 2, and 3 above, oblique color
aerial photographs showing the site from the north, south, east, and
west are required. The photographs must be a minimum 8"X10" in size.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1988
Minute Action - approving
proposed Council Policy -
Development Exhibits
M/S: Ashworth/Conant - to refer this
the Planning Commission for
to consideration by the City
Motion adopted unanimously.
comments
Council.
item to
prior
CITY OF CAMPBELL
REFERRAL FORM
CITY OOUNCIL/ADV130RY CDMd1SS1CMV/STAFF
TO planrilna Commission
FROM City Council
1NSTRUCT1avs F~oR USE OF THIS FORM
THIS FORM SHOULD BE UTILIZED fIHENEVER A REFERRAL t8 MADE FROM ONE
ELECTED OR ADVISORY BODY TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR ADVISORY COMMISSION OR
CITY MANAGER• THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THIS FORM SHOULD BE
PROVIDED BY THE INITIATOR AT THE TIME THE REFERRAL IS MADE• THE STAFF
ADVISOR •w ILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETING'THE'FORM FOR REVIEM AND
SIGNATURE BY THE MAYOR OR COMM18810NCHAIRMAN•
Minute Action - Approving Proposed Council Policv - ~--~;r,~+~
SUBJECT ( A SPEC / F 1 C SUMINARY OF h~ REFERRAL )
The City Council at its regular meeting on November 15, 1988
considered a pro osed Policv establishing minimum guidelines
fnr devel n~ ment exh i bi t~ c„hm; ++arl ac ~ art of an a~,~nl i cat i nn
fnr new proiects. It was the consensus of the Council to
refer this proposed Policv to the Planning Commission for
consideration and a recommendation.
ACTION REQt1ESTED
Q INFORMATION ONLY ~ REVIEf1 AND a TAKE ACTION
RECOMMEND ACTION
CITY OF CAMPBELL
RESPON aE REQUESTED BY ( BY MIHAT DATE THE ACT 1 ON SHOUL~,,,~~P~.TM E~t~l?
ND DATE 1 S SPEC 1 F 1 ED . THAT St10UL.D BE 1 ND 1 CATED . )
No date st~ecified_
DATE Nnv_ 23. 19R~ SIGNATURE
M R R A V ORY COMM SI N
AIRMAN
nrv..r.n+a ~ ^ r w~rrrcaawl
- CITY OF C~,y,1PBELL - COUNCIL . ,SPORT
~.
Meeting Date: November 15, 1988
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Initiating Dept: Planning
Title: Minute Action - Approving Proposed Council Policy -
Development Exhibits.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
..~
Item # 16
That the City Council adopt the attached policy establishing minimum
guidelines for development exhibits submitted as part of an application
for new projects in the City.
- STAFF DISCUSSION
The subject of development exhibits has been discussed at a City Council
Study Session. Staff is of the understanding that the Council would like
a policy which establishes minimum guidelines for development exhibits
which are to be submitted as part of applications for new projects. With
this in mind, Staff has drafted the attached policy addressing:
1. Developments proposing 5 or more residential units; Commercial
and/or Industrial development having a gross floor area of up to
10,000 sq.ft.
2. Development proposing 20 or more residential units; Commercial
and/or Industrial developments having a gross floor area of up to
25,000 sq.ft.
3. Developments proposing 50 or more residential units; Commercial
and/or Industrial development having a gross floor area of more
than 25,000 sq.ft.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed policy will not create a
hardship on developers of smaller projects, or on developers proposing
larger projects, since the cost of exhibits increases with the size of the
project. The following are estimate of the costs a developer would incur
in providing the information required by the proposed policy.
1. Colored Site Plan/Elevations - $ 200 to $ 500
2. Building Perspective/Rendering - X1,000 to X2,000
3. Oblique Aerial Photographs - ~ 500
In addition, staff would like to note that we have recently received a
complete set of aerial photographs of the City which are at a scale of
1":100 feet. Once the street names and other information have been copied
onto the original mylar prints, staff will have copies made in a form that
can be included in the Council and Planning Commission agenda packets as
well as projected on the screen.
Attachments
1. Draft Policy
~ ~ ~
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXHIBITS
1. Developments Proposing 5 or more residential units; Commercial and/
Industrial Developments having a ttross floor area of up to 10,000
sg•ft•
(A) A colored site plan indicating building area, paved area,
and landscape area is required.
(B) Colored elevations clearly illustrating proposed building
material colors and shadow lines are required.
2. Development Proposingt ZO or more residential units; Commercial and/or
Industrial Developments having a gross floor area of up to 25,000
sg•ft.
- In addition to the requirements of 1(A) and 1(B) above, a
perspective drawing or architectural rendering which accurately
depicts the proposed development is required.
3. Development Proposingz 50 or more residential units; Commercial and/or
Industrial Developments having a gross floor area of more than 25,000
sg•ft•
'~ In addition to the requirements of 1(A), 1(B) and 2 above,
oblique color aerial photographs showing the site from the north,
south, east, and west are requi-red. The photographs must be a
minimum 8"x10" in size.
.-_
PLANNING COMMISSION MTG.
FEBRUARY 24, 1987
Staff Report Audio Visual Aida.
Planning Director Ree stated that Staff is looking for input from the
Commission as to whether Staff is doing an adequate job with the
presentations of applications; and, that this item is indicated in the
Goals and Objectives for the Planning Department.
Following are comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Rasolas noted that the provided location maps are very
helpful; a large colored zoning map would be helpful to have in the
Council Chambers; slides can be helpful when trying to see adjoining
properties, however, the use of slides has proven to be very time
consuming; and, for very large projects, the provision of plans showing
shadow lines, solar impact, and colored renderings could be helpful.
Commissioner Dickson noted that aerials are helpful, if they are
up-to-date.
Commissioner Olszewski preferred the use of numbers and figures to colors=
and, expressed a concern that the audience is unable to see pictures that
applicants sometimes pass out to the Commission during a presentation.
Commissioner Christ noted that photographs being posted, when available,
are very helpful.
Commissioner Walker expressed his surprise at the number of cities that do
not post the plans.
Chairman Perrine noted that he would appreciate the provision of one
additional page of plans that captures the distinctiveness of each
project; also, the provision of three dimensional figures of projects
would be helpful.
: : ~r
ITEM N4. 15 -
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 1987
Staff Report Audio Visual Aids
Planning Dept-.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission give the Staff an indication as to the
adequacy (or lack thereof) of the visual aids used in the Staff
presentations.
STAFF DISCIISSION
One of the Planning Department's stated goals for 1986-87 is to determine
the effectiveness of the visual aids employed by Staff~in making
presentations to the Planning Commission: Staff is requesting that the
Commission review the following information, and give an indication as to
the adequacy of the visual aids currently being used-.
At the present time, the Staff provides the Commission with a location map
of each property under consideration for a development application, as
part of the agenda packet-. At the Commission meeting, Staff uses overhead
transparencies to present location maps, as well as zoning and general
plan maps if necessary% Plans for each development application are posted
on the walls of the Council Chambers prior to each meeting in order to
afford an opportunity for each Commissioner to review the project-. From
time to time, a slide presentation or model is also offered in an attempt
to answer the Commission's questions regarding the site or project:
in addition, the Site Review Committee has access to samples of the
building materials, as well as photographs of the site provided by the
applicant:
In October 1986, Staff conducted a telephone survey of 9 other Planning
Departments in Santa Clara county, and the County Planning Department
itself. The results of this survey are summarized below:
1~. 6 of the 10 agencies use slides occasionally (for major projects,
or if desired and provided by the developer). This policy is
currently followed in Campbell:
2. 8 of the 10 agencies use overhead transparencies for presentation
of location maps-: This policy is currently followed in Campbell.
3c 4 of the 10 agencies post plans in the Council Chambers] or use
colored renderings and/or building models if provided by the
developer: This policy is currently followed in Campbell:
Audio Visual -2- February 24, 1987
b ,,
4: 1 of the 10 agencies requires to provision of building material
samples. This policy is currently followed in Campbell.
5: None of the agencies surveyed use a video camera for
presentations: Campbell has had one instance where a private
party made a presentation to the Planning Commission with a VCR
and a rented large screen television:
* * ~
..--
MEMORANDUM CITY OF CAMPBELL
To: KEVIN C. DUGGAN
CITY MANAGER
Date: FEBRUARY 17, 1987
from: ARTHIIR A. REE
PLANNING DIRECTOR
Subject: AUDIO VISUAL AIDS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DISCUSSION
One of the major objectives of the Planning Department in 1986-87 is to
evaluate the use of visual aids for planning presentations at the Planning
Commission and City Council meetings. An outline of the five topics to be
included in this evaluation was first presented to you in a memorandum
dated August 8, 1986. The purpose of this memorandum is to complete the
evaluation in more detail.
A. Review of Other Cities - Procedures Re ardin Plannin
Presentations and the U e of Visual Aidss
In October 1986, Staff conducted a telephone survey of 9 other
Planning Departments in Santa Clara county, and the County Planning
Department itself. The results of this survey are summarized belows
1. 6 of the 10 agencies use slides occasionally (for major projects,
or if desired and provided by the developer). This policy is
currently followed in Campbell.
2. 8 of the 10 agencies use overhead transparencies for presentation
of location maps. This policy is currently followed in Campbell.
3. 4 of the 10 agencies post plans in the Council Chambersf or use
colored renderings and/or building models if provided by the
developer. This policy is currently followed in Campbell.
4. 1 of the 10 agencies requires the provision of building material
samples. This policy is currently followed in Campbell.
5. None of the agencies surveyed use a video camera for
presentations. Campbell has had one instance where a private
party made a presentation to the Planning Commission with a VCR
and a rented large screen television.
Audio Visual Aids -3- February 17, 1987
r ~
D. Effect of Presentations on Length of Planning Commission Meetings.
With the exception of the aerial photograph transparencies, which are
basically used in place of the location map, the use of visual aids
such as slides and video camera will add a considerable amount of time
to the Commission/Council meetings: For example, if each visual
presentation is only 5 minutes long, the time for completing a 15 item
agenda would increase by 1 hr: 15 minutes:
E. Estimate of Staff Time - Presenting Materials
As stated above, aerial photograph transparencies are used mainly to
help the Commission or Council locate the property under
consideration: As a result, use of these visual aids would not
appreciably extend the time Staff would need to devote to
presentations:
The use of slides and/or video visual aids would significantly
increase the Staff time needed for making presentations. We would
estimate a 50-75 ~ increase in presentation tiate, since Staff would
have to preview each slide or video presentation. Additional time
would also be needed for the cataloging and storage of tapes.
AAK:PJS:ld
f: Visual (pg. 4-6)
r
MEMORANDUM CITY OF CAMPBELL
To: Kevin C. Duggan Date: June 6, 1988
City Manager
From: Art Kee, Planning Director
Tim Haley, Planner II
Subject: Provision of Renderings/Photomontage
At the City Council/Planning Commission Study Session the possibility
of requiring an artistic rendering or photomontage as part of the
applicant's development proposal. The information and data which is
required to complete a development application is prescribed by the
Planning Director as a part of the Site and Architectural review
process. Currently, an applicant is required to submit a site plan,
four building elevations, and a preliminary floor plan. This infor-
mation, however, is sometimes difficult for a layperson to convert
into a three-dimensional image. Another concern which has been
expressed is the ability of a Commissioner or Councilmember to
visualize a proposed project in relation to adjacent properties that
are developed.
Architectural Renderings
An architectural rendering is an artistic perspective of a proposed
project. Renderings, generally, present a project in a three-dimension
concept with landscaping, shades and shadows, textures and materials,
and colors. A rendering is an artistic expression of a proposed project
and is often a more dramatic impression of a design than the actual
project as constructed.
A rendering requirement for an application would require an additional
cost for a developer. Generally, a rendering will cost from $800 to
$1700 for a project depending upon the complexity of the drawing the
the degree of detail provided in the presentation. This cost would
eventually be reflected in the cost of the project to the purchaser.
Staff would express the following comments regarding a requirement
for an architectural rendering:
1. An architectural rendering is a helpful means of communicating
a three-dimensional image of a proposed project for an individual
unfamiliar with reviewing elevations.
2. A rendering is an artistic expression of a proposed project
design and is often a more appealing image of a project than
the actual construction.
Kevin C. Duggan
RE: Provision of Renderings/Photomontage
June 6, 1988
Page 2.
3. Many times a project design is modified or changed through
the development review process in response to the request
of the reviewing body. A rendering is generally a finished
product which can not be changed without some difficulty.
4. The preparation of a rendering may represent a substantial
cost to a developer of a smaller project. Larger scaled
projects, however, may more easily absorb such cost in
their budgets for architectural services.
5. In lieu of a color perspective of a building, an architect
may render the building elevations indicating shade, shadows,
and colors. This presentation would represent a minimal
cost compared to a completely rendered perspective.
It seems that a requirement, or at least a recommendation, to provide
a color rendering for larger scaled projects is warranted. Basically,
such a presentation would assist decision makers in making a more
informed decision on a particular application. One should bear in
mind, though, that any presentation is essentially a selling task and
the presentation of a finished and polished design is merely a manner
of presentation.
Photomontage
Another method of presenting a project design is to impose a rendered
image of a project on a photograph of the site. The availability of
persons who perform this service is somewhat limited, however, this
method of presentation assists in showing how a particular project
will relate to the neighboring land uses. Generally speaking, this
method is not as refined as an architectural rendering, but a photo-
montage represents a more accurate representation of a proposed project.
AAR:TJH:ld