LATE RFI -App F - Meeting Notes 20.06.2025

Page 2

VANZETTI | 18 Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads
Meeting Date | 20th June 2025
Meeting Location | Teams
Present | Mitch, Isaac, Andrew, Nick + Gemma
Duration | 1hr

Meeting Objective
   o   Review Council’s RFI + Confirm a direction for each item.

Key Discussion Points
Meeting Note: Extension required for submission, Russel to co-ordinate with Andrew (Current due
date 1st July)

1. COUNCIL ISSUE - Roof Forms & Façade Design
    • Insufficient eaves for shading front windows and balconies
    • Boxy appearance of Unit A’s front façade
    • Operable screen on Unit A, when closed, would dominate the streetscape and contribute to a boxy
       form.

INFORMATION REQUIRED -
    • Please provide additional justification demonstrating how the proposed development complies with
      Performance Outcome PO19 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code.
    • Referencing comparable, existing or recently approved developments within the local area will
      strengthen your response.
    • Submit amended roof and façade designs that:
    • Avoid box-like building profiles
    • Incorporate adequate eaves to provide shading, in line with PO19 / AO19.1
    • To help reduce perceived bulk and improve visual interest:
    • Consider alternative screening treatments, particularly for Unit A
    • Revised designs should also respond to PO14 / AO14.1 and AO14.2 of the Medium Density Residential
      Zone Code

MEETING NOTES + CONFIRMED DIRECTION
Meetng Note:
   - Andrew was favorable with the roof forms we had proposed and suggested they seem to
      align with surrounding neighborhood context.
   - When updating façade be concise of maintaining eaves (Andrew was favorable towards the
      façade as is however suggested the operable screens be removed.
   - The purpose of these rules is to avoid duplicates and mirrored developments.
   - Other examples of neighbors that have box shapes (as Russel sent through) will help
      support submission.
   - Andrew seemed supportive of the natural hues and tones that were demonstrated in Nick
      and Gemma’s latest facade inspiration board. Noting large bright white colours are not
      generally favorable. Note the project next door to Nick and Gemma’s was a renovation and
      not likely submitted through council.
   - Andrew was favorable to adding curved featurse to the façade as demonstrated in Nick and
      Gemma’s latest facade inspiration board.

Direction: Reitsma to Workshop with Nick and Gemma new façade design in line with Nick and
Gemma’s latest facade inspiration board.

Page 3

Page 4

2. COUNCIL ISSUE - ROOF TOP TERRACES
    • Council generally does not support rooftop terraces under AO19.2. While the proposed terraces are
       well set back from boundaries, their overall size is considered excessive.

INFORMATION REQUIRED -
    • Reduce the size of each rooftop terrace to be less than 20m2, to further reduce any opportunities to
      impact on the amenity and privacy enjoyed by users of adjoining or nearby premises.

MEETING NOTES + CONFIRMED DIRECTION
Meetng Note:
   - All agreed that, provided we can reduce the rooftop terrace down to 20m2, it will be an
      acceptable outcome.

Direction: Reitsma to update plans to accommodate a 20m2 roof top terrace.

Page 5

3. COUNCIL ISSUE - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
    • The Stormwater Management Report lacks details on stormwater reuse and climate change
       considerations. Council is also concerned about the discharge rate to the kerb and potential traffic
       hazards.

INFORMATION REQUIRED -
    • More detail is needed to show compliance with PO2 and PO3 of the Sustainable Building Design Code
      and Overall Outcome (d) and PO2 of the Water Quality and Drainage Code under the Noosa Plan 2020.

    •   Plans must indicate the design discharge rate at the kerb; Council is unlikely to support rates over
        25L/sec without a traffic risk assessment.

MEETING NOTES + CONFIRMED DIRECTION
Meetng Note:
   - All agreed that, these are a formality and need to be addressed by Engineer

Direction: Reitsma to reach out to Westera and request for the RFI information to be addressed.

Page 6

4. COUNCIL ISSUE - DRIVEWAY
    • Council has concerns about the proposed sectional driveway in the road reserve and the extent of
       hardstand in the front setback. Additionally, the driveway design may pose safety risks by increasing
       potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.

INFORMATION REQUIRED -
    • Additional details are required on driveway materials and surfacing.
    • An RPEQ must confirm the driveway is suitable for its intended use.
    • Reduce hardstand in the shared driveway where possible and replace with landscaping.
    • Include pedestrian-prioritised pathways to ensure safe access to the development.

MEETING NOTES + CONFIRMED DIRECTION
Meeting Note:
   - Council’s take is that they want to avoid large expenses of concrete and want to prioritize
      open natural landscape. A front landscape strip to the full front is preferred.
   - Andrew understood that we have limitations to the driveway but would like to see if it was
      possible to reduce the extent of Concrete where possible.
   - Andrew was going to send through example approved projects that demonstrated what
      Council are looking to achieve.
   - Council ideally want a clear point where visitors can know where to access the dwelling.
      Andrew was favorable to our design as a gatehouse clearly identified this. He also seemed
      favorable to not show a clear path of travel on the driveway for pedestrians (like in
      commercial developments) and as it currently sits our proposal would be ok.

Direction: Reitsma to review Driveway design and adjust where possible to reduce concrete at
curved edge and increase central landscaping component.

Page 7

5. COUNCIL ISSUE - FOOTPATH
    • The submitted plans do not include the required footpath across the site’s frontage.

INFORMATION REQUIRED -
    • Indicate on the relevant plans a 1.5m wide footpath extending across the site’s frontage
    • to Attunga Heights. The alignment must avoid conflicts with existing services.

MEETING NOTES + CONFIRMED DIRECTION
Meetng Note:
   - All agreed this was strange – Andrew was going to look into this in further detail to confirm,
      but didn’t think it would be necessary.

Direction: Nothing to action.

Page 8

a

G

STRATEGIC

STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS,
CREATIVE THINKING

rgstrategic.com.au