2017-02-07 Planning and Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA   7 FEBRUARY 2017




                                                     Page 50 of 125

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                                           7 FEBRUARY 2017

                                                                                                                                       nra

                  REPORT

                    ITEM                                                             NOTES
                  3.3               Rear Podium Carpark
                                    The perspective image shown on drawing 4.05 of the response drawing set reveals the rear podium
                                    carpark to be ‘hard’ at the junction between building and carpark surface. This is not in keeping with the
                                    softer landscaped edges that are evident in the locality. It is suggested that softening of the rear podium
                                    carpark is required, through the introduction of planters at the building/carpark interface as shown on the
                                    attached sketch plans.
                    3.4       ~—*«| Suggested Design Amendments                   re                            7         a
                                         a)  Reconfigure the roof forms to be simpler thus avoiding the need for box gutters which are
                                             climatically inappropriate and something to be avoided. Please refer to the attached sketch plan
                                             suggestions. This may also require the reconfiguration/relocation of the proposed stage 4 plant
                                             room.
                                         b)  Provide pop up roof apexes to provide further roof articulation. Please refer to the attached
                                             sketch plan suggestions.
                                         c)  It is suggested that softening of the rear podium carpark is required, through the introduction of
                                             planters at the building/carpark interface as shown on the attached sketch plans.

                    us              FRONTAGE TREATMENT/SETBACKS
                    4.1             General
                                    As was the case in our stage 1 peer review it remains our view that the proposal has treated the Doonella
                                    St and Pelican St frontages rather poorly - as a place to congregate services, cars parking, and fire egress
                                    with little attempt to provide street activation. Having said that the revised treatment of the edge condition
                                    through the introduction of additional materiality, screening of services, battening with a timber appearance
                                    and the deletion of one set of stairs has improved the setback treatment.
                    42}             Steet Activation                                                           a            __
                                    Section 077 of Division 22 require that Pelican Street and Doonella Street frontages be occupied by
                                    services and what can be described as shopfront uses. It is also noted that the site is in the business
                                    centre.
                                    The proposal involves the demolition of a street front tenancy on Pelican Street and replaces it with an
                                    boxy carpark podium that has been screened and planted out. Furthermore the Doonella Street frontage is
                                    dominated by service cupboards (albeit now partially screened), carpark entries, and fire stairs. The
                                    proposal represents a deactivation of the street front, and because the carpark is setback only 1m— 4m
                                    from the street boundary the proposal effectively locks out any chance of future improvement in street
                                    activation.
                   43             | DeepLandscapng                        ti (      tt~—<—s~s~s~s~—s—
                                    The question remains as to whether 2m width along Pelican Street is sufficient to allow deep planting to
                                    occur

                  Page 30f 8

                  Y:\86035C16 Tewantin RSL Extension\2.0 Email - Correspondence\2.1 Architect\2.1.09 Reports\1.09.1 Predesign\PF 16 2nd Peer Review Report - Issue A.doc Noel Robinson Architects Pt Ltd
                  Issue. Created 24 July 2013                                                                                    AB

                                                                                                                                 Page 50 of 125