Original source · versioned page text
2020-01-13 General Committee Agenda
The original of this document is very large (11.3 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 13 JANUARY 2020
Criteria Planning Scheme Proposal Complies
Precincts B3 and E5
Boundary setbacks Hofmann Drive Hofmann Drive
6m Building 1 – 36m
Building 2 – 20m
Building 3 – 13.2m
Building 4 – 1.75m to X
4.49m
Commerce Court Commerce Court
6m Building 3 – 19.62m
South side boundary 2.18m
West side boundary 2.96m
Carparking 465 spaces 347 including 8 PWD
‘Showroom’ calculated plus X
as large format retail 1 taxi/ride share
Bicycle Spaces 122 bicycle spaces (1 69 bicycle spaces X
End of Trip Facilities* per 100m²) No lockers indicated X
*(required only where 5 + spaces are 1 locker per 2 bicycle but could be provided
required) spaces and; as a condition of any
approval
It is unclear if shower
1 shower cubicle with cubicles have been X
ancillary change room provided. This could
per 10 bicycle spaces be conditioned as part
of any approval.
The proposal complies with the parameters of plot ratio and the quantity of landscaped open
space required by the Planning Scheme. However, these are only one aspect of the built form
and landscaping outcomes the Planning Scheme seeks for the development of the site. Other
issues raised in regard to built form, setbacks, visual amenity, carparking provision and
landscaping are discussed below.
General architectural overview
Council engaged an architect to peer review the overall design and layout of the development.
Council’s consultant architect provides the following appraisal of the development.
The proposed development is a standard mixed-retail format with buildings arranged around an
elongated internal parking courtyard. Vegetated buffers and increased setbacks are employed in
an attempt to screen the development externally.
The buildings create an internal parking courtyard. The attempt to create 2 precincts and breakup
the car parking is reasonable. The design misses an opportunity to create an internally activated
‘street’ to create vibrancy and achieve the Planning Scheme’s requirement (O96) to have parking
in front of buildings and have buildings and landscaping dominant visual features.
Proposed buildings are standard retail format with minimal articulation to long elevations of
Buildings 1 and 2. Revised elevations include punctuations in the elevations for access and
communal gathering spaces which is although subtle is generally supported. These are mostly
positioned at the end of short axes, however they do not align with external connection points (as
shown on Page 1 of Architectural Vision Package) limiting the legibility and the strength of
potential sight lines.
Page 80 of 172
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalVery large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.