Council archive · source document
08/1689 - Response to Information Request [As Published] · 142008.1689
ao
¥
28 October, 2008
Our Ref: 080901T
nh
ken hicks
AND ASSOCIATES
Council Ref: 2008/1689
Sunshine Coast Regional Councif
(Tewantin Office)
PO Box 141
TEWANTIN QLD 4565
oy
LY RECEIVED
29 OCT 2008
ATTENTION: Glen Conforti
Dear Glen
RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST
PROPOSED OPERATIONAL WORKS — SIGNAGE
26 EENIE CREEK ROAD NOOSAVILLE
LOT 1 SP 182880
Further to Council's Information Request of 23 October 2008 for the abovementioned proposal we now
respond in full to each of the items raised.
item) _
After preliminary assessment of the proposed signage, Council considers the sign heights of 10m (Lots 1,
2 and 3) and 6m (Lot 4) excessive, and do not meet the requirements of Specific Outcome O6 of the
Advertising Devices Code, Please provide amended plans indicating the signs at a reduced height and:
width.
Please note that a lot comparable in size and scale within the Shire Business Centre has an approved
self-assessable freestanding sign erected (ie 5m or, less in height).
Response:
In a telephone conversation between Nick Leddy of this office and Glen Conforti of Council, Glen advised
that Council’s desired maximum signage ‘dimensions’ in this instance are 8 metres (height) and 2 metres
(width). In consultation with our client, we have re-considered our position regarding the scale of
proposed signage, and now submit the following:
Lot Proposed Height of | Change from Original | Main Justification
No, signage Application?
Lot 1 10 metres No Approved building height of 10m on
this lot / other signs in the SBC at
10m
Lot 2 9 metres Yes — 1m reduction Approved building height of 8.7m on
this lot
Lot 3 9 metres Yes - 1m reduction Approved building height of 8m with
5 degree roof pitch on this lot
Lot 4 6 metres No Planning Scheme allowance for an
8m high building on this lot
TOWN PLANNERS | CONSULTING SURVEYORS | URBAN DESIGNERS | PROJECT MANAGERS
Ken Hicks & Associates Pty Ltd | [email protected] | A.C.N. 010 278 823 | A.B.N, 74 308 405 611
Suite 7 Dalton Centre, 1 Newspaper Place 18/42 King Street 61-73 Sturt Street
PO Box 6380, MAROOCHYDORE BC Qld 4558 PO Box 1712, CABOOLTURE, Qld 4510 PO Box 5027, TOWNSVILLE, Qld 4810
P 07 5443 2844 F- 07 54437146 P 075455318 =F 07 54955317 P 0747213066 = F 07 4721 3088
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 2 pages
Page 2
As evident from the above table, we are proposing signage heights generally commensurate with approved (or building heights capable of being approved) on the respective sites. Thus, there would be a reduction in the height of signs on Lots 2 and 3 from 10 metres to 9 metres. Note that on Lot 2 the approved height limit is 8.7m, with which 9m signage would be consistent, as would be the case for Lot 3, which has approved building height of 8m with 5 degree roof pitch. We propose that the signage on Lot 1 remain at 10 metres as this is the allowable height of buildings under the approval. Likewise regarding Lot 4, the allowable height would be 8 metres, thus a 6 metre high sign is appropriate. Council’s verbal stipulation of an 8m height limit for this application is particularly questionable in light of the fact that the Stockwell signs in the same development were approved at a height of 10 metres. It should be noted that there is no ‘width’ value specified for freestanding signs in the Advertising Devices Code. On this basis, Council should not attempt to stipulate a width value to be complied with. The proposed width dimension of 2,750mm is proportionate to the proposed height, and results in an attractive signage structure that is neither bulky nor visually obtrusive. Specific Outcome O6 of the Code states: “Advertising devices respect the scale and nature of surrounding development and contribute positively to the visual amenity, streetscape, landscape setting and natural and built environment of where the advertising device is placed.” We contend that the signage, in the form outlined above satisfies this Specific Outcome, on the following grounds: ° The Shire Business Centre is a commercial centre by nature, and thus requires that commercial signage be installed of a nature and scale that provides the necessary advertising and exposure for the tenancies established in the centre. As mentioned, there are other signs in the development that have previously been approved at 10m in height. These signs are indicative of the advertising devices suitable for this unique zone within the former Noosa Shire. The proposed signs that are subject of this application will maintain consistency with other signage in the development, as well as approved building heights for the respective Lots. ° The proposed signs will contribute positively to the visual amenity, etc of the area, and will not detract from the quality of the visual environment in any way. It is important to note that the differences in impact on amenity between the proposed sign on Lot 1 (10m x 2.75m) and Council’s verbally stipulated dimensions (8m x 2m) would be negligible. We consider that Council, in its assessment of this application, must recognise the uniqueness of the Shire Business Centre zone, and the resulting scale of signage required to promote the commercial intent of this zone. To this end, we propose to establish signage at_a reduced height (but_not width) in accordance with the above table. We believe that our approach of having signage commensurate with approved building height is a logical and rational planning outcome, and we encourage Council to recognise our willingness to compromise on this issue in its assessment of the application. The applicant would be satisfied by having assigned a condition of approval that limits the signage on Lots 2 and 3 to a height of 9 metres. Submission of this Information Response signifies the end of the Information and Referral Stage of IDAS, and the application is now in the Decision Stage. We request Council to keep our office updated on the progress of this application, especially with respect to your consideration of the content of this letter.
Page 3
Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct. Yours faithfully KEN HICKS & ASSOCIATES ick Leddy SENIOR PLANNER a
Used in these records
08/1689 - Response to Information Request [As Published]Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 127 KB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.