M2677 - Information request response

Page 2

.




         1 in 4 maintenance access ramp is provided for each bio retention/ detention basin, while not compromising the
          storage capabilities of the bio-detention basin areas.
         The design includes scour protection which has been provided at the inlets to the basins
         A safety fence will be installed around the perimeter of each basin with a lockable gate to prevent public access.
         Educational signage to inform the public about the functions of the bio basins.
         Updated Landscape plans have been prepared by Blackburne Jackson, which demonstrates the proposed
          landscaping design for each bio basin (refer to Attachment D).

Issue: Rainwater Tanks
The SWMP doesn’t appear to state what areas of communal landscaping are proposed to be irrigated with the captured
roofwater.

Information Required:
2.    Update the SWMP to state all assumptions regarding the rainwater tank and reuse, including a plan show
      communal landscaped areas intended to be irrigated. This is required so that hydraulic services plans can
      accurately reflect the SWMP intent.

Response - Item 2
Refer to Morgan Consulting Engineers response and plans in Attachment A, which includes an updated Site Based
Stormwater Management Plan that outlines the landscaping areas the rainwater tanks are intended to irrigate.

Issue: Flow Concentration
The SWMP proposed bioretention basin B in the North-Eastern corner of the site. This basin design incorporates an
overflow weir from the bioretention basin which would direct flow to both downstream Lot 80 SP 138388 and the
neighbouring Lot 79 SP138388. However, it appears that the existing site contains an existing (dry) basin with an earthen
weir which directs discharge to the driveway on Lot 80 SP 138388 only and not into Lot 79 SP138388.

For Bioretention A, it appears that the high-flow weir encompasses the entire external-facing perimeter of the basin and in
some points interfaces with land which is significantly higher than the existing low-point of the site. The flow over this weir
in the 1%AEP event also appears to be <10mm.

Information Request:
3.     Investigate and confirm the existing discharge patterns from the development site in the North-Eastern corner of
       the proposed development and demonstrate that the design will not result in any changes in flow patterns or
       discharge onto additional land which is not inundated by stormwater runoff from the site in the existing case.




JFP Ref: M2677P                                                                                                    Page 2

Page 3

.




Response – Item 3
Refer to Morgan Consulting Engineers response and plans included in Attachment A. These plans have been updated to
demonstrate:
     The existing drainage catchment and flows have been captured in the updated Concept Stormwater Catchment
        Plan (20169-SK20-E) for the north-eastern corner of the site.
     All flows up to Q100 are contained within the basin as provided in the updated Stormwater Management Details
        plan - Sheet 2 (20169-SK13-D)
     A high flow weir has been designed as the top of the proposed pit structure within the basin.
     The proposed weir overflow over the retaining wall across the boundary will be for emergency cases only.
     Accordingly, all flows up to the Q100 are not expected to inundate downstream properties.

Information required
4.     Investigate and confirm the existing discharge patterns from the development site in the South-Eastern corner of
       the proposed development and demonstrate that the design will not result in any changes in flow patterns or
       discharge onto additional land which is not inundated by stormwater runoff from the site in the existing case.
       Confirm the weir design is able to be realised within normal construction tolerances.

Response – Item 4

Refer to Morgan Consulting Engineers response and plans included in Attachment A. Similarly with Item 3, the plans have
been updated to demonstrate:
     The existing drainage catchment and flows have been captured in the updated Stormwater Catchment Plan (dwg
        no. 20169-SK20-E) for the south eastern corner of the site.
     The updated Stormwater Management Details – Sheet 1 (20169-SK12-D) demonstrates that all flows up to Q100
        are contained within the basin.
     A high flow weir has been designed as the top of the proposed pit structure within the basin.
     The proposed weir overflow over the retaining wall across the boundary will be for emergency cases only.
     It is anticipated that the weir design will be able to be constructed within the normal construction tolerances.
     Flows will not inundate properties that are not already currently affected by stormwater flow.



Issue: Climate Change
PO2 of the Water Quality and Drainage Code requires that stormwater drainage infrastructure is designed to incorporate
allowance for climate change.

Information Request:
5.     Provide an updated SWMP which includes stormwater detention modelling and updated drainage designs which
       includes allowance for the 1%AEP event at end of planning period 2100.




JFP Ref: M2677P                                                                                              Page 3

Page 4

.




Response – Item 5
Refer to Morgan Consulting Engineers response and plans included in Attachment A. Refer to the updated Site Based
Stormwater Management Plan (20169-SBSMP-Rev 4), which outlines the considerations given to the allowance for the 1%
AEP event at the end of the planning period 2100.

Issue: Access
It is not at all clear that the proposed parking bay dimensions comply with the requirements of AS/NZS 2890.1-2004,
particularly for some of the bays located adjacent to walls together with having columns between virtually all of the
resident parking spaces. Similarly, the visitor parking bay adjacent to the pool does not appear to comply.

Control of u-turn movements need to be considered.

Information Request:
6.     Provision of more detail on the plans, including dimensions of the bay widths together with typical column
       dimensions and their position along the sides of parking bays.

Response – Item 6
The architectural plans have been amended, in consultation with TTM traffic consultants, to incorporate the design
requirements and dimensions as requested by Council above (refer to Attachment B).
Information Request:
7.      Modify the access concept to include “no u-turn” signs within the central median on Eumundi Noosa Road at each
        end so that u-turns are prohibited around the northern end of the island for entry to the development from the
        south, and so that u-turns are prohibited at the southern end of the island for exit from the development toward
        the north. Those u-turns movements should be restricted to the roundabouts located in each direction along
        Eumundi Noosa Road.

Response – Item 7
TTM Group traffic consultants have reviewed this Information Request item and advised as per the previous application
that the “u-turn” signage is no longer a standard sign within the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). As
such, TTM recommends that Council consider an alternative solution, such as double barrier lines. This requirement can
form part of the conditions package pending Council’s approval of the application.

Issue – Building 1 western façade
Condition 7 of the existing approval seeks for Building 1 street (west) elevation to be provided with at least 1 additional
external material finish to further add interest to the elevation. Building 1 of the amended proposal appears to have less
visual interest than what was originally approved noting that further changes were required to this building.

Information Required
8.     The western elevation of building 1 amended to provide for increased visual interest through increased
       articulation and variation of materials.




JFP Ref: M2677P                                                                                                   Page 4

Page 5

.




Response – Item 8
The proposed change to the development approval includes amendments to Building 1’s unit typology from an
apartment to a townhouse configuration. Of significance, the proposed western facade of Building 1 is very similar to the
western facade of Building 3, as previously approved by Council. On this basis alone, we believe no further design
changes are warranted to the western elevation of the Building 1. Refer to Figure 1 & 2 below, which provides a
comparison between the approved Building 3 west elevation and the proposed Building 1 east elevation.




    Figure 1 – West elevation of Building 3 (MCU20/0150)        Figure 2 – Western façade of Building 1 (MCU20/0150.01)

 It is also considered that the revised design of Building 1 assists in achieving one of the objectives of the Medium density
residential zone code, by providing a built form that that results in the provision of “small separate buildings, rather than
large single bulky development”.

The amendments to Building 1 incorporate the following design outcomes, which further demonstrate compliance with
AO14.1 of the code:
     the length of the western facade presenting to the street has been reduced to 11.75m as opposed to 15m wide
       in the original approval, thus reducing the building’s visual massing when viewed from the street.
     the depth of the building has also been reduced from 44m to 28m, which introduces improved building
       separation, and results in reduced visual bulk and massing when view from the street.

In regard to the variation of materials, we refer you to the building analysis included in Attachment C, which
demonstrates that there are nine (9) different materials used on the western façade of Building 1. These include a mix of
cladding, aluminium screening, honed block work, and a mix of horizontal and vertical lines to assist in breaking up the
facade. The materials provide increased texture and depth and shadowing when viewed from various angles from the
street. Refer the development renders in Figures 3 and 4 below.




JFP Ref: M2677P                                                                                                   Page 5

Page 6

.




                  Figure 3 – Photographic render of Building 1




                  Figure 4 – Photographic render of Building 6


Issue
The amended roof form of Building 1, as compared to the original approval, is considered to be inconsistent with
Acceptable Outcome of AO14.1 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code.

Information Required
9.     Amended plans which provide for variation in roof form consistent with the original approval.

Response – Item 9
AO14.1 is reproduced below:
AO14.1
Development provides visual interest to the street and surrounding areas through:
                                 a) highlighting individual dwellings and land uses;
                                 b) an asymmetrical design presentation to the street;
                                 c) offsetting or staggering dwellings to provide variation in the frontage;
                                 d) varying the roof form*
(* emphasis added)




JFP Ref: M2677P                                                                                                Page 6

Page 7

.




In light of the matters raised in Items 8 and 9, we refer you to Attachment C, which includes a building analysis prepared
by Blackburne Jackson, and which demonstrates the following:

        three (3) separate roof planes are provided to both the lower and upper roof forms, in additional to roofs
         provided over the bedrooms on the southern side. These varied roof lines and use of materials provides suitable
         visual interest when viewed from the street.
        the development also includes 5 different facade treatments for five separate dwellings.

In light of the above, the revised built form applied to Building 1 is considered consistent with the built form elements
approved as part of the original application, and also demonstrates improved compliance with the relevant assessment
benchmarks of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code, and in particular, the provisions outlined in AO14.1.

Issue – Potential overlooking and privacy
It appears that the eastern elevation of Buildings 3 and 4 result in overlooking of the adjoining residential properties. Also
noting the floor level of the buildings are considerably higher than the natural ground level at the boundary.

Information Required
10.    Amended plans that demonstrate overlooking will not occur to the residential properties adjoining buildings 3 and
       4.

Response – Item 10

The adjoining properties include the following residential addresses:
     15 Treasure Cove (east)
     17 Treasure Cove (east)
     39 Regatta Circuit (east)
     37 Regatta Circuit (north)

These premises are highlighted in Figure 5 below for context. The premises to the north (95 Eumundi Noosa Rd), is a
commercial premise, and as such, is not considered a concern with respect to privacy or excessive bulk.

Figure 5 below includes an overlay of the proposed development on an aerial photograph, to provide context and
demonstrate how the proposal will be sited in relation to the adjoining premises.




JFP Ref: M2677P                                                                                                    Page 7

Page 8

.




Figure 5 – Aerial photograph including a development overlay


Building 3
As seen in Figure 5 above, Building 3 is located in the north east corner of the site. The nearest upper storey window on
17 Treasure Cove is positioned approximately 16m from the first floor balcony of unit 313, a distance which provides
significant separation to minimise privacy impacts. Other potential views from this balcony are mostly limited to the
driveway of 17 Treasure Cove and the adjoining commercial premises (as noted in Image 1 below).

The balcony on Unit 313 is situated along the site’s northern boundary limiting its opportunities to overlook the private
open space areas of 15 Treasure Cove. Furthermore, Building 3 is proposed to be setback 6m from the eastern boundary,
which will be landscaped as outlined on the proposed landscape plan, included as Attachment D.




    Image 1 – Views to the east towards 17 Treasure Cove       Image 2 – Views to the east towards 15 Treasure Cove




JFP Ref: M2677P                                                                                                   Page 8

Page 9

.




Notwithstanding the significant separation between Building 3 and the adjacent properties, screening is proposed to
further minimise potential overlooking. Figure 6 (below) illustrates the proposed eastern elevation of Building 3 and
includes framed pre finished fibre cement blades fixed to the balustrade and vertical powder coated screens over
windows to avoid overlooking opportunities towards the east.




                  Figure 6 – Eastern elevation of Building 3 and balcony location (Source – Blackburne Jackson Architects)


Building 4
As per Figure 5 above, Building 4 is located in the south eastern corner of the new portion of the site. Unit 401 is situated
6 metres from the eastern boundary and its balcony is located on the north eastern corner of the unit. As illustrated in
the Figure 5 above, the balcony has the potential for views towards 15 Treasure Cove and 39 Regatta Circuit.
Accordingly, and as show in Figure 7 below, the plans have been amended to include additional screening treatments to
avoid the potential for overlooking. These treatments include framed pre finished fibre cement blades fixed to the
balustrade and the use of vertical powder coated screens over the eastern facing windows.




                    Figure 7 – Eastern elevation of Building 4 and balcony location


In light of these amendments, the 6m boundary setback and proposed landscaping treatments (as outlined in Attachment
D) it is considered that there will be minimal opportunities for overlooking of adjoining properties to the east.




JFP Ref: M2677P                                                                                                        Page 9

Page 10

.




The only other overlooking opportunities, albeit minor, arise from the south facing rear bedroom windows of unit 411,
which face towards the upper storey bedroom windows of 37 Regatta Circuit (refer to Image 3 below). The plans have
been amended to include horizontal screens as shown in Figure 8 below. It is noted that the dwelling on 37 Regatta Cct
has retractable blinds which will also achieve privacy.




                  Image 3 – view to the south towards 37 Regatta Cct




                  Figure 8 - Southern elevation of Building 4 – illustrating the bedroom windows facing 37 Regatta Cct




JFP Ref: M2677P                                                                                                          Page 10

Page 11

.




Information Required
11.    Demonstrate how buildings 3 and 4 will not result in excessive bulk to adjoining properties.

Response – Item 11

It is understood that Council is concerned with the height of the proposed buildings’ floor levels compared to existing
ground levels of neighbouring properties. In this regard, the adjoining residential area is characterised by sloping
topography which has been managed through earthworks and retaining to create house sites that are occupied by
predominantly 2 storey dwellings. Similarly, the site’s topography necessitates some fill to accommodate the proposed
medium density-built form and associated driveways and services.

In order to demonstrate that the proposed buildings do not result in excessive bulk to adjoining premises, Blackburne
Jackson architects have prepared two sections, which illustrate both the proposed changes in ground levels and the
building separation between the subject site (Building 4) and 39 Regatta Cct to the east and 37 Regatta Cct to south. A
section analysis in relation to Building 3 is not considered necessary due to the considerable separation distance to the
neighbouring property to the east. To view these sections refer to Attachment E, and the extracts provided in Figures 9
and 10 below.




                  Figure 9 – Section N2 – Building 4 v 39 Regatta Cct

Figure 9 shows the section through the south east corner of the site through Building 4 to 39 Regatta Cct, which is
situated to the east. The primary private open space area for 39 Regatta Cct appears to be located in the north-east
corner of the lot, away from the site (Refer to Figure 5 above). The proposed setback between Building 4 and the
neighbouring dwelling is approximately 9.43m. Any potential visual impact resulting from the level difference between
the properties is ameliorated by the proposed terraced retaining wall, which is setback 1.2m from the neighbouring
boundary, as shown in the Figure 9.

In light of the proposed building separation and stepped retaining wall, it is considered that Building 4 does not present as
excessive bulk when viewed from 39 Regatta Cct. The proposed landscape buffer between the buildings will provide
additional softening of the built form to ensure appropriate levels of amenity are enhanced.




JFP Ref: M2677P                                                                                                 Page 11

Page 12

.




                  Figure 10 – Section N1 – Building 4 v 37 Regatta Cct

Figure 10 shows the section N1 through Building 4 and 37 Regatta Cct, which adjoins Building 4 to the south. The primary
private open space for 37 Regatta Cct appears to be located in the southern part of the lot, away from the site (refer to
Figure 5 above).

The section demonstrates that the proposed building setback between the two upper storey building facades is
approximately 8.24m and includes a ground level differential of 0.83m (to be retained). A 1.8m boundary fence is
proposed to be placed on top of the retaining wall, which will result in total height of 2.0-2.6m high on the site’s southern
boundary. This proposed combined wall / fence height is similar to the height of the existing boundary fence between
the two premises. Image 3 above shows the existing boundary fence.

The site contains a large dilapidated industrial shed generally in the location of proposed building 4 and which has a
similar setback to 37 Regatta Cct. Removal of the shed and replacement with the proposed residential buildings will result
in a significant improvement to the neighbours’ residential amenity.

In light of the minor change to ground levels between the subject site and adjoining premises, together with proposed
building setbacks and associated landscaping, it is considered that Building 4 will not result in excessive bulk to adjoining
premises, including 37 Regatta Cct.

In addition, Buildings 3 and 4 achieve compliant rear and side setbacks by being 2m from the southern boundary and 6m
from the eastern boundary, and generally comply with the maximum building heights. As a result, they are consistent
with the reasonable planning expectations for development of the site, as reflected by the planning scheme.
Overall, it is considered that buildings 3 and 4 do not result in excessive bulk to adjoining premises for the reasons
identified above.

Issue
Works adjacent to south-eastern corner of building 4 – it is unclear as to the extent of works in this area. It appears a
retaining wall with fence above is located approximately 1.3 metres from the boundary. It is important that works in this
area do not result in unreasonable bulk to adjoining properties.




JFP Ref: M2677P                                                                                                   Page 12

Page 13

.




Information Required
12. A cross section plan of the works in the south-eastern corner adjacent to building 4.
13. Works in this area must not result in unreasonable bulk to the adjoining properties.

Response to Item 12
A cross-section has been prepared and is included in Attachment E.

Response to Item 13
This issue has been addressed as part of the response to Item 11 above.

This correspondence and attachments represent a response to all the information requested, in accordance with s13.2 of
the Development Assessment Rules.

We trust the above and enclosed information satisfactorily addresses Council’s Information Request requirements and
look forward to Council’s approval in due course.



Yours faithfully,




TIMOTHY BALCOMBE
SENIOR URBAN PLANNER
JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS

Cc: Altum Properties No.9 Pty Ltd




Attachments:

Attachment A – Engineering response and plans

Attachment B – Architectural plans

Attachment C – Architectural detail – Building 01 study

Attachment D – Landscape plan

Attachment E – Boundary sections




JFP Ref: M2677P                                                                                           Page 13