MCU21 0146 Stockwell_Information Request Response Letter · MCU21/0146

Page 2

Please refer to attached architectural response which discusses design in greater detail,
the amended drawings and renders.

2. Issue

The Section Plans and Elevations refer to a ‘ground level’ however it is unclear how this has
been determined. It is also noted that the RL at the maximum height of the buildings has not
been provided on the section plans or Elevations.

Information Required

1. Clarification that the site contours, including natural ground level, have been determined
by a cadastral surveyor and/or a cadastral survey of the site and provide a copy of the
survey plan.

2. All Elevation Plans, and Section Plans to detail the ground level and maximum RL of
each building with the RL of the natural ground level confirmed below.

Response

Cadastral survey plan attached. Updated architectural drawings attached including RLs and
maximum building heights. Maximum building height remains under 12mtr satisfying PO16
satisfying this nominated performance outcome.

3. Issue

The developments scale and bulk raises concern. PO75 of the Major Centre Zone Code
requires that development takes the form of small separate buildings, rather than large single
bulky development. There is no variation in roof form, and the architectural scale is dominant
in the streetscape.

Information Required

3. Amend the plans to ensure the development takes the form of small separate buildings,
thereby reducing the scale and bulk of the development.

Response

Amendments to the architectural design have been made to address Council's concerns by
amending the roof form and facade to further articulate the presentation to Hofmann Drive
and enhance the visitor experience through visual interest along the street frontage.

Individuality of the buildings and sections of the facades to each building has been achieved
through design, material differentiation and colour to break the appearance of the facades.
The bulk and architectural scale of the buildings which front Hofmann Drive have been
reduced by increasing articulation from the original design and supported by reducing some
solid walls to battens, addressing the appearance of mass with shorter runs of continuous
built form. No more than 6 dwellings in any one plane have been maintained in line with
PO75.

The architectural response has addressed the concerns of bulk and scale and reduced any
dominance to the street appearance of development resulting in the appearance of less
bulk across the buildings. PO75 has been achieved by providing 56.23% of site area
dedicated to landscaping. Streetscape presentation will be broken by landscape including
deep plant along the frontage softening the street presentation and supporting visual
interest. Every attempt has been made to provide the best response to Council requests
and further attempting to include sustainable elements to the project.

 

Page 3

Please refer to attached architectural response and amended architectural drawings and
renders.

4, lssue

Details of vegetation removal have not been provided. Several of the relevant codes require
the development to maximise the retention of mature vegetation.

Information Required
4. Provide details of vegetation that is proposed to be retained and removed as part of a
vegetation survey.

Response

All tempts to retain vegetation have been made through design and infrastructure
considerations. The 10mtr area between the rear boundary and the development will be
retained as a visual buffer as noted on the attached drawing.

Whilst it was hoped to retain further vegetation within the recreational area, the
stormwater solution has achieved the best possible environmental response. Underground
tanks were considered but would have prevented any deep plant being achieved along with
loss of vegetation across most of the recreational area. The proposed solution will allow for
deep plant as part of the landscape design.

Refer to attached Survey for areas to be cleared and updated Landscape Concept plan.

5. Issue

The development includes a swale drain and bio retention basins within the land zoned
Environmental Management and Conservation. Development that involves the removal of
vegetation within this zone is not supported.

Information Required

5. Amend the plans to ensure the development (and associated infrastructure) is not
located within the land zoned Environmental Management and Conservation.

Response

Stormwater infrastructure has been redesigned to comply with proposed Covenant J with
no impact to this area. A 10mtr visual buffer of vegetation will be retained along the rear of
the site except for a short area required for stormwater treatment. Please refer to attached
updated drawings and engineer's cover letter and updated report.

6, Issue

As the land is located within the Centre zone the Planning Scheme does not require visitor
parking, however 48 motorcycle parking spaces are required (at a rate of 1 space per 2
dwellings). Given that visitor parking spaces will be required at the development in a practical
sense, 48 motorcycle spaces are required but none are proposed, and that 4 motorcycle
spaces are equivalent to 1 parking bay, it is considered reasonable to require that the
development provide 12 visitor parking bays on the site in total.

Information Required

6. Amend the plans to include a minimum of 12 visitor car parking spaces
Response

Plans have been amended to include 12 visitor car parking bays as requested.

|

   

    
    

DEVELOPMENT  FUNDSMANAGEMENT — PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION

 

Page 4

7. Issue

Further information and / or amendments are required in relation to access and
manoeuvrability

Information Required

7. Provide a widened access driveway to satisfactorily accommodate the swept path of the
design vehicle, with the clearance envelope of the design vehicle remaining within the
driveway and clear of kerb lines.

8. Ensure opposing cars clear of each other moving to/from the driveway and to/from the
top of the basement ramp.

9. Provide modified ramp grading details in accordance with the requirements of AS/NZS
2890.1-2004, including with the grading being measured along the inside of the curve at
the base of the ramp.

10. Provide further clarification If a gate is to be proposed to secure the basement carpark
where will it is satisfactorily located, and how will it be satisfactorily activated?

Response

Refer to attached Traffic Engineer's cover letter and updated report and swept path
drawings.

8. Issue

There are a number of issues with the proposed management of stormwater quantity as noted
below:

¢ The development proposes only 14m? of detention storge to mitigate the impacts,
which is only 4% the size expected for this type of land use change

e The analysis does not consider climate change

¢ The development relies on the extended detention depth within the bioretention basins
for mitigating peak flow impacts. This volume is generally excluded from such analysis
due to the extended time that water is held in this zone (and risk that the volume will
not be available/empty to mitigate peak flows when the design event occurs)

¢ The model results show almost no change between pre-development and developed
(unmitigated) peak flows from the site for the 1%AEP and 2%AEP events, even
though very significant changes in imperviousness occurs

« The sketch designs in Appendix C do not clearly show the detention system referred
to in the report

e Nosections are provided showing the interaction between bioretention and detention
systems/storages

¢ There is no comparison of the pre-development or developed (un-mitigated) model
results to rational method estimates. This would highlight the above discrepancy in
the 1% and 2%AEP model results

¢ The use of ensemble temporal patterns is not discussed and results are provided for
a single duration rather than a range of durations.

¢ Part of the site discharges by kerb adaptor to Hoffman Drive. No analysis is provided
showing that Hoffman Drive has capacity for these flows. The preference would be for
no new kerb adaptors.

DsfeNE-KaoN UE

= |

   

eestor iammtaU oe TAN ca a aon acNa Ca aNTE

 

Page 5

Information Required

11. Provide a revised SBSMP and revised preliminary engineering plans which address the
following issues:

a) The stormwater quantity analysis and detention design is required to address climate
change by demonstrating no increase in peak discharges for the 1%AEP at 2100

b) The proposal appears to rely on the extended detention depth within the bioretention
basins for mitigating peak flow impacts. This volume is generally excluded from such
analyses and a revised assessment which excludes the extended detention volume
is requested

c) The model results show almost no change between pre-development and developed
(unmitigated) peak flows from the site for the 1%AEP and 2%AEP events, even
though very significant changes in imperviousness occurs. Explain this result.

d) The development proposes only 14m3 of detention storge to mitigate the impacts,
which is a fraction of the size usually expected for this type of land use change and
site area. Explain this result in consideration of usual expected detention volume
sizing.

e) There is no comparison of the pre-development or developed (un-mitigated) model
results to rational method estimates. This would highlight the above discrepancy in
the 1% and 2%AEP model results. Provide this comparison.

f) Update the sketch designs in Appendix C to clearly show the detention system
referred to in the report

g) Provide design sections showing the interaction between bioretention and detention
systems/storages

h) The use of ensemble temporal patterns is not discussed, and results are provided for
a single duration rather than a range of durations. Provide updated results which show
no increase for each AEP for a range of durations and based on the median temporal
pattern results for each AEP/duration combination

i) Part of the site is proposed to discharge by kerb adaptor to Hoffman Drive. The
preference would be for no new kerb adaptors. Either remove connection by kerb
adaptor or justify the proposal in reference to the capacity of Hoffman Drive and the
peak flowrate proposed to be discharged by the kerb adaptors

j) Clearly identify on a catchment plan any existing external catchments which need to
be accommodated by the design (even is such catchment will ultimately be diverted
by future development of those sites)

k) Include analysis for the 1:1yr ARI (1EY) event in order to demonstrate compliance
with the waterway stability management design objective

Response

Refer to attached cover letter from engineer with updated drawings and report.

   

{ i bs L Tht: A 7)
FUNDS MANAGEMENT — PROPERTY MAN s\n ___ DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION

Page 6

9 Issue

The development proposes to address stormwater quality primarily through the provision of 2
bioretention devices comprising a total of 125m? of filter area. This is in line with expectations.

The levels shown on the sketch plans are however very tight to allow the systems to function.
Saturated zone bioretention should be able to be made to work if the levels are correct. Survey
at the outlet is requested. Once detention storage is correctly accounted for the level
constraints will be exacerbated.

Information Required

12. Provide a revised SBSMP and revised preliminary engineering plans which address the
following issues:

a) Provide survey levels of the invert and standing water levels at the proposed outlet
locations from the site to Covenant J and demonstrate that the offsets specified in the
Bioretention Technical Design Guidelines (Water by Design) are achieved

b) Confirm the extended detention depth assumed for the bioretention devices in the
MUSIC model

c) Confirm the type of bioretention systems proposed (conventional, bio-infiltration,
saturated zone)

d) Provide preliminary design sections for the bioretention systems, showing layers, ED,
outlet levels and interaction with detention storage

Response
Refer to attached engineer's cover letter, drawings, and updated report.

40. Issue

A review of the Acoustic Logic noise report dated 16 August 2021 has been undertaken. The
Acoustic Logic report does not provide adequate information to support the noise predictions
prepared using noise modelling. Further the report is confusing in the actual noise treatments
necessary, with options provided for glazing — ie if Noosa Civic Plant is acoustically treated or
not. There are matters which require further clarification and on this basis the following is
requested:

Information Required

13. Provide details on the inputs to the road traffic noise modelling, including traffic flow
rates, vehicle speeds, commercial vehicle component.

14. Provide validation of the traffic noise modelling to the measured road traffic noise levels.

15. Provide tabulated noise results at residential unit facades for day/Evening and Night
periods.

16. Provide the required acoustic rating of fagade elements to comply with road traffic noise
for day/evening and night periods to comply with the Table 10 Noise Limits

17. Provide details on the inputs to the mechanical plant noise modelling including source
sound power levels and operating times for all plant items considered.

18. Provide clarification of why there are no predictions provided for night time mechanical
plant noise.

19. Provide clarification as to whether the acoustic design proposed for residential units is
reliant upon windows and doors to be closed at all times for internal noise criteria to be
achieved.

20. Please advise whether mechanical ventilation/air conditioning is proposed to ail noise
affected units on the basis if external doors and windows have to be closed.

21. Provide clarification on whether acoustic mitigation works identified in Section 8 for the
Shopping Centre will be implemented.

 

TeNeKeoN Walon)

 

Page 7

Response

Refer to attached consultant cover letter and updated report.

 

END OF INFORMATION RESPONSE

Part 3: Information request has now concluded. We will commence with the Public
Notification period of the development application.

Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact
me direct.

Yours Faithfully,

—
—

——= Oe.
Siobhan Fernantzen
(Development Manager)
Stockwell

Email: [email protected]

    

DEVELOPMENT = FUNDSMANAGEMENT —PROPERTYMANAGEMENT _ DESIGN & CO