2017-02-07 Planning and Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA   7 FEBRUARY 2017




                                                     Page 51 of 125

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                                            7 FEBRUARY 2017

                                                                                                                                        nra

                  REPORT

                    ITEM                                                              NOTES
                    4.4             Northern Boundary Wall
                                    The stage 1 peer review suggested that the wall should be “articulated or configured to provide visual
                                    interest, through the use of stepping, recesses, variations in materials, use of vegetation and other means”.
                                    It is noted that the response scheme, proposes to deal with the poor visual amenity of this wall by
                                    introducing aluminium battens to the wall. The result is very little improvement to the visual amenity.
                                    Furthermore the alteration of the roof forms has meant that the intersection of pitched roof with this wall
                                    creates a box gutter. It is suggested that the extension be pulled back from this boundary, to align with the
                                    existing building. This reintroduced portion of setback should then be landscaped as shown on the
                                    attached sketch plan. This will remove the need for the long length of solid wall on the boundary, as well
                                    as the associated box gutter and will vastly improve the visual amenity along this side of the building.
                  =                 Doonelia $i Stare            .        _—        —            .       _          .          .       a
                                    It is assumed that the width of the stairs that exit from the carpark podium down onto Doonella Street is
                                    dictated by fire egress requirements. It is noted that these stairs are very wide and eat into the setback.
                                    All effort should be made to minimise the width of these stairs.
                   4.6    —*|       Suggested Design Amendments         ==            —  asti(‘“‘;C~™~*#                       ee
                                         a)   It is now assumed that the applicant will not be providing street activation through the use of
                                              active elements and frontages along Pelican and Doonella Streets, as was recommended in the
                                              Stage 1 peer review. To partially compensate it is suggested that the length of carpark podium
                                              on the Pelican Street frontage be broken up further through the use of large feature trees at the
                                              Pelican Street/Doonella Street corner at again at the entrance to the carpark from Doonella Street.
                                              It is suggested that this will require an increase in the 4m setback at the Pelican Street/Doonella
                                              Street corner and the opening up of additional space for landscaping at the Pelican Street
                                              driveway entrance. It is appreciated that this will require an alteration to the basement carpark
                                              shape at this location.
                                         b)   Pull the northern wall of the proposal back from the boundary so as to align with the existing
                                              building and then landscape the setback as shown on the attached sketch plan. This will:
                                                  a.   avoid the need for the solid wall to the boundary
                                                  b.   provide simpler resolution of the roof form character.
                                                  c.   remove the need for a box gutter

                    5.1             Bottle shop
                                    Concern remains over the proposal to operate a bottle shop from within the expanded basement carpark.
                                    There is no public surveillance over the shop front.
                   5.2              Pedestrian Safety in Basement Carpark
                                         a)   Anew lift had been proposed at the western side of the carpark. The lift was to have been
                                              constructed as part of the stage 5 works, which we understand will no longer proceed. Without
                                              the provision of the lift, we would question the proposal’s ability to provide DDA compliant
                                              equitable access to the building entry. Building users who are unable to use the stairs will be
                                              required to leave the basement via the vehicle driveway before reaching the footpath and
                  Page 40f8

                  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 - IssueA.doc yo! Robinson Architects Pt Ltd
                  Issue. Created 24 July 2013                                                                                     AB

                                                                                                                                  Page 51 of 125