2017-12-12 P&E Agenda - Attachment 1 to Item 6 - Sign Proposal

                     c olu m n 2                       PROPOSAL’S COMPLIANCE WITH SELF-
   A c c eptable solu tions (if self-assessable)       ASSESSABLE CRITERIA

S2.6 The maximum sign face area of a single            The proposed sign is single sided only and has a
                        2
sign does not exceed 4m on any face, unless            sign face area of approximately 8.3m2 and hence,
otherwise specified in S6.1, S6.2, S6.4 and            does not meet this acceptable solution.
S6.5 below;
                                                       Therefore, an assessment against the Specific
                                                       outcome has been undertaken and is set out
                                                       below.


S2.7 The maximum combined sign face area of            As permitted by approval number MCU14/0102
                                 2
all signs on the premises is 10m                       the maximum sign face area of all signs on the
                                                       premises already exceeds 10m2 and as such, the
                                                       proposal cannot meet this acceptable solution.

                                                       Therefore, an assessment against the Specific
                                                       outcome has been undertaken and is set out
                                                       below.



S6.3 Freestanding signs, other than flagpoles—         The proposed sign meets S6.3 a) and c) of this
a) do not exceed 5m in total height;                   Acceptable solution, however, as stated above, it
                        2
b) do not exceed 4m of sign face area                  does not meet the 4m2 maximum sign face area
      per side; and                                    requirement.
c) are limited to 1 sign per frontage.
                                                       Therefore, an assessment against the Specific
                                                       outcome has been undertaken and is set out
                                                       below.



In light of the above-mentioned non compliances with Acceptable solutions, the proposed
freestanding sign has been assessed against the corresponding Specific outcomes as set out below.

“Specific outcome O2” is the higher order assessment criteria for Acceptable solution 2.7 and 2.7 which
states:

        O2      Advertising devices—
        a)    are compatible with the human-scale and character of the locality in which they are
              situated;
        b)    are compatible with the scale, proportion, bulk and other characteristics of buildings,
              structures and landscaping; and
        c)    are designed, sited and integrated so as not to contribute to the proliferation of visual
              clutter.

Comment
A visual assessment has been undertaken Carl Safstrom of Project Urban (refer Attachment 2), who is
a registered landscape architect and suitably qualified to undertake such an assessment. Mr Safstrom
has specifically addressed this Specific outcome in his assessment report and concludes that:

    a) The pylon sign at 5m in height is consistent in size and character of other signage along
       Eumudi Noosa Road near the proposed location.




                                                   3