Original source · versioned page text
L04 Response To NC IR
Attached to the e-mail MCU16/0143 - response to Council information request.
Council Reference: MCU16/0143 Our Reference: 01992 L04 NG Our Contact: Nadine Gorton 17th March 2017 Chief Executive Officer Noosa Council PO Box 141 TEWANTIN QLD 4565 ATTENTION: ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT Confidential Email Transmission: [email protected] Original in Post: No Dear Sir/Madam, RE: RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST Development Application – Material Change of Use for a Multiple Housing Type 4 Conventional (37 Units) located at 12 & 14 Serenity Close, Noosa Heads and described as Lots 7 & 8 on SP195871:MCU 16/00143 I refer to the above application and in particular to the request for additional information issued by your th Council and dated 14 December 2016. This request listed eight items that Council considers is necessary in order to complete its assessment of the above application. The applicant has decided to respond to these items as below: Item 1: Building 4a is setback 3.8m from the northern side boundary and >7.6m in height. Please include a height/setback blanket diagram indicating the incursions/compliance with the side northern setback. Applicant’s Response to Item 1: Attached are amended plans DA07, DA14 & DA15 showing the areas of non-compliance on Building 4A with respect to the northern boundary setbacks. The areas of encroachment range for the development from 0.1 metre to 0.6 metre (southern boundary) and are consistent with those setbacks on the adjacent Emerald development. It is noted that the slight encroachments are at upper levels and generally relate to the edge of balconies or eaves thereby enabling sufficient separation between the buildings and opportunities for landscaping. Item 2: The design proposes a 2.6m incursion into the 6m setback from the Open Space zone in the southern portion of the site. Although approval 23120DA included a minor incursion (stairs) into the 6m setback, the proposal increases the size and scale of buildings within the rear setback. Please either amend the plans complying with the setback, or provide appropriate justification for the incursion, which will ensure no edge effects on the existing vegetation. Applicant’s Response to Item 2: Amended plans reflect the rotation of Building 4B to align with the POSCWP setback. The basement encroachment is thereby limited to the five tandem carbays, in a location where the least excavation is required for the basement and the impact on existing vegetation is minimized.
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 3 pages
Page 2
Page 2
Aside from the basement encroachment, the building and its eaves projections have a lesser impact
on the POSCWP setback than the existing approval over Lot 8.
The rotation of Building 4B has resulted in some minor setback encroachments relative to Lot 9, as
noted above, however this amendment has been considered on balance.
Item 3: Please provide plans indicating existing and finished levels around the building confirming the
proposal is no more than 4 storeys in height at any point.
Applicant’s Response to Item 3: Given the topography of the site, as with the adjacent Emerald
building, meeting the requirements for height is challenging. Both buildings, particularly Building 4A,
have been cut into the natural ground levels to mitigate the relative height of the western facades.
The amended plans detail a step in the ground floor apartments which maintains a basement soffit
level that does not exceed one metre above natural ground level along the western facade of Building
4B, where the natural ground level is at its lowest.
Whilst the western elevation of Building 4A may appear to represent a five storey structure, the point
at which the face of level 4 falls over the basement is compliant with the 1m allowable basement
projection above natural ground on the northern elevation.
Amended drawings DA18 & DA29 provide more clarity as to the extent by which the basements of
each building extend above the natural ground line.
Drawing DA32 illustrates height incursions relative natural ground levels. Whilst the southern edge of
Building 4A narrowly exceeds the height limit, this building is otherwise well within its height limit
relative to natural ground.
Finished ground levels to the north of Building 4A are below natural ground levels, however this is
driven by the public pathway and the desire to ensure that it remains as low as practically possible
relative to both Building 4a and the adjoining Emerald building to maximize security and privacy.
Based on the placement of the buildings, their applicable levels relative to both the adjacent Emerald
and Iluka buildings, the slope of the site and the areas of intrusion not being visible to the surrounding
level the minor height encroachments are considered to be appropriate.
Item 4: The driveways and carparking code seeks 84 onsite parking spaces. The proposed plans
include 82 carparking spaces. Please amend the plans to comply with the car parking
requirement.
Applicant’s Response to Item 4: Amended plans are submitted that detail a total of 84 car parking
spaces on site:
Item 5: Provide an updated Bushfire Assessment and Plan for the development site and any
strategies necessary to mitigate bush fire risks to an acceptable level. The assessment and
plan shall be undertaken by a qualified person, which is considered to be a person with a
minimum of 6 years current experience in the field of bushfire assessment and management.
Applicant’s Response to Item 5: Attached is a bushfire attack level assessment prepared by LEC
Land and Environmental consultants. The report concludes that the proposed development is able to
comply with relevant standards.
Page 3
Page 3
Item 6: There is no downstream Council drainage system and the sites currently have onsite
infiltration systems constructed as part of the creation of the lots. The submitted material does
not fully demonstrate how stormwater runoff from the proposed development will be
addressed. Please provide a preliminary stormwater design for the proposed development.
The must be prepared by an RPEQ and include but not be limited to:
(a) the drainage system for the building and hardstand areas
(b) the connection to the existing on-site infiltration systems
(c) the capacity of the existing on-site infiltration systems to cater for the proposed
development
(d) any necessary detention or rainwater harvesting system
Applicant’s Response to Item 6: Stormwater shall be managed in accordance with the approved
Environmental Management Plan (EMP 1) for the Residential High Density lots by WBM Oceanics
Australia, dated July 2005, specifically Sections 4.5 and 5.2.
Consistent with previous stages at Settler’s Cove, all stormwater shall be collected within the Selective
Clearing Area (development zone) and allowed to infiltrate into the prevailing sandy soils, which
provide good drainage and re-charge. As part of this process, stormwater from the main roofs will be
collected and held for re-use in landscape irrigation.
The topography of the site allows collected stormwater from roof and hardstand areas to be gravity fed
to the western side of the site, where rapid infiltration pits (RIPs) will allow the water to be dispersed
into the soil adjacent to the retained vegetation. To ensure that polluted run-off does not enter the
water table, stormwater run-off from the carparking areas and the driveways shall have the first flush
(the first 12 mm of rainfall or hose-down) collected in a grease/oil arrestor (or similar device) provided
on site prior to discharging into the RIPs.
Similar to the Emerald apartments and consistent with the Stormwater Management Plan prepared for
an earlier development approval over Lots 7 & 8 (attached), RIPs will be incorporated within a swale
on the lower slopes of Lot 7.
Item 7: The submitted material does not contain sufficient detail to address the longitudinal grades of
the access driveways. Provide plans that indicate the longitudinal grades of the access
driveways extending from the edge of the road formation to the basement carparking areas
Applicant’s Response to Item 7: Please find attached drawing DA42 showing the longitudinal
grades along each of the driveways between Serenity Close and the respective basement carparks.
The driveways reflect a maximum grade of 1:5, with appropriate transitions, and head clearances to
each basement soffit of at least 2.2m.
Item 8: The parking areas in each building have lengthy aisles with no turnaround facility at the end of
the aisles. While it is acknowledged that the parking areas are not open to the public it is
considered necessary that turning areas be provided to avoid vehicles reversing long
distances. It is also noted that there is no opportunity for a vehicle to turnaround if they
accidentally drive down to the basement parking and are unable to access the parking area.
Please provide the following information:
a. A turnaround facility at the end of each aisle;
b. Demonstrate how a vehicle that accidentally drives down to the basement
parking but is unable to gain access can turnaround or alternatively provide a
solution that eliminates the potential for a vehicle to accidentally access the
driveway; and
c. Provide a carparking area for the expected service vehicles.
Applicant’s Response to Item 8: Consistent with previous stages at Settler’s Cove, visitors are
unable to freely access the basements for parking due to proposed security gates.
Page 4
Page 4 Access to each basement carpark is restricted by both a driveway gate and second panel-lift grille at the entry to each basement area. Each of these items is automated, meaning that visitors must be allowed entry by a resident, who will then need to meet the visitor within the basement in order for the visitor to gain access to the lobbies. In the process, the resident will be able to guide the visitor to their assigned carparking bay. To avoid the potential for undetected unauthorised vehicle entry, the basement grille will be limited to open only once the driveway gate has closed. Notwithstanding, there is the opportunity for vehicles to reverse into the refuse access spaces adjacent to each lift if necessary. A temporary lay-down forward of the Stage 4A driveway gate has also been proposed, for use by service vehicles in particular, removal vans. The applicant considers that they have now responded to Council’s information request. Could you please provide us with a list of adjoining owners so we can commence public notification of the proposal. Please contact our Sunshine Coast office if you require any further information and/or clarification. Yours faithfully, Nadine Gorton Senior Planner martoo consulting pty ltd