RFI - F - Visual Assessment

Page 2

                                                                               78 Macgregor Terrace, Bardon 4064

               IRIS Visual Planning + Design                                            PO Box 189 Red Hill 4059

                                                                                                    0404558501
               Landscape Planning | Visual Assessment | Landscape Architecture
                                                                                              ABN 72166862157




August 3, 2020


Attn: Chris Ferraro
Development Manager
Primo Property Mgmt Pty Ltd
171 Eildon Road, Windsor
Brisbane, 4030

Reference: 173-01


Dear Chris,

RE:        11 Margit Crescent, Sunrise Beach
           DA: MCU20/0037
The following letter responds to several items raised by Noosa Council in relation to the visual amenity
and streetscape character of the proposed development at 11 Margit Crescent, Sunrise Beach.
Council Request for Information
We understand that Noosa Council have requested the following in relation to your submission:
The proposed development includes 2 separate driveways and no on-site manoeuvring area to permit
vehicles to exit in a forward gear. The 2 driveways will result in a loss of on-street parking space. The
proposal does not achieve the specific outcomes of the relevant codes and is not in accordance with the
relevant probable solution:
This includes:
i. The Eastern Beaches Locality Code:
   a. Specific Outcome O42, Probable Solutions S42.3 and S42.4
In relation to garages and carports, Specific Outcome O42 says:
Garages, carport structures and vehicle manoeuvring areas are designed and sited to –
      a)   provide for resident and visitor parking
      b)   visually integrate with the building and to not dominate the street front;
      c)   allow opportunity for landscaping to screen vehicle parking and maneuvering areas;
      d)   minimise the number of driveway accesses; and
      e)   allow safe and efficient access to and egress from the premises.


The following discussion addresses the outcomes which relate to landscape and visual amenity of
Garages and Carports, which are 042 b), c) and d).

Page 3

Response to Council Request for Information
Specific Outcome O42 b) ‘visually integrate with the building and to not dominate the street front’
The garages shown in the design package (Architectural Drawing Package, Rev B 25.06.2020) would not
dominate the street front. There are several devices which have been used in the architectural and
front garden design to integrate the garages with the building and ensure they are not visually
dominant in views from the street. These are explained further in the following paragraphs.
The garages would be set back from the street and set within an architectural frame formed by the
cantilevered terrace on the first level and wrapping down around the garage entry. This frame would
add articulation to the building façade, creating shadow and a sense of depth, visually breaking up the
height and width size of the garage door in views from the street.
Also, the view to the garages would be partly screened and visually softened by vegetation in garden
areas along the street frontage. This includes gardens either side of each driveway, which would
include several small trees. The garage would also be partly blocked by the proposed entry structure
(with suspended planting), further assisting in the visual integration of the garages in views from the
street (refer architectural render, provided by OH Architects, below).




Architectural render, view from Margit Street
In relation to the driveway and hardstand areas, the proposal would not be visually dominant in views
from the street front. The driveways are divided into two smaller width areas, interspersed with
gardens. The visual rhythm created by the provision of a garden, driveway, garden with entry structure,
and repeated along the frontage (in reverse), visually breaks up the frontage. Furthermore, it presents
a residential scale to the street due to the stepping down in scale from the garage to the entry
structure. (refer landscape plan, provided by OH Architects, below)The use of different building
materials along the street and visual interest created at the pedestrian entrance, including areas of
planting, would also reduce the visual prominence of the garage and hardstand areas in views from the
street. The entry structure and dividing garden wall, would further frame the entrance to each
property, providing visual interest and creating a threshold for pedestrian arrival and entry.


                                                                                                   Page 2

Page 4

Landscape plan
Specific Outcome O42 c) ‘allow opportunity for landscaping to screen vehicle parking and maneuvering
areas’
There would be four trees provided along the street frontage, across both lots, and a total of eight
small trees have been identified for the front gardens of these premises. These trees, located in deep
planting areas, would provide visual screening of the building frontage at the lower and first floor level.
These trees, including feature trees (Pandanus sp.), would also contribute to the streetscape character.
The layout of the hardstand also allows for planting along the side (northern and southern) property
boundaries, screening views over the front hardstand areas from neighbouring properties and oblique
views from the street.
Overall, the design provides garden areas of a size suitable to accommodate small trees, spread out
along the frontage, offering increased screening of vehicle parking and maneuvering areas than would
be provided by a wider driveway which would open up a broader, unobstructed view to the garage and
larger hardstand area.
Specific Outcome O42 d) ‘minimise the number of driveway accesses’
The design proposes two three-metre-wide cross overs to service the dwellings. The allowable width
for a single crossover to service two dwellings is six metres. There would, therefore, be no actual
reduction in the extent of hardstand required along the property frontage. It is also relevant to note
that the actual size of the garage doors would remain the same, regardless of the driveway layout.
Therefore, combining the driveway access would not in of itself reduce the size and scale of the garage
door and driveway and thus the visual obtrusiveness of these elements. Rather, it is the architectural



                                                                                                    Page 3

Page 5

treatment and front yard design that achieves visual integration and reduces the potential visual
dominance (Refer to discussion in relation to Specific Outcome 042b))
There are several examples in Ventura Street where a single driveway has been used to provide access
to a duplex property. In these examples, the wider driveway leading to a large manoeuvring area within
the front garden of the property results in a less residential character to the streetscape. This is due to
the larger expanse of continuous hardstand visible and the resulting views to the garages over this area
of hardstand.




42 Ventura Street (left) 45 Ventura Street (from Google maps, street view)
The provision of two narrow driveways, rather than one wide shared entry, as is proposed for this
project, offers a more residential character to the street that would not be achieved by a broader,
combined driveway. This approach reduces the expanse of hardstand in any one area and allows for
garden areas to be spread evenly across the frontage, each allowing for a small tree, and reducing the
scale of the built form beyond.
The driveway arrangement allows for the provision of a wide pedestrian entrance, which provides a
street address for pedestrians. By focusing on the pedestrian rather than vehicular access the layout
reinforces the pedestrian scale of the frontage.
Building design
In addition to the treatments relating to the garage and hardstand areas, the massing and scale of the
building design incorporates several architectural treatments which respond to the need for a
residential scale as viewed from the street.
The roofline of the proposed duplex would be consistent in height with the neighbouring buildings and
the predominant roofline along the street, which would follow the landform (refer to elevation
provided by the Architects, below).




11 Margit Crescent, Sunrise Beach – Streetscape elevation
The visual mass and bulk of the building is reduced by the use of colour and materials which divide the
building into both vertical and horizontal planes. The material palette includes timber, weatherboard,

                                                                                                    Page 4

Page 6

masonry, feature brick, glazing and metal roof sheeting which have different visual weights, textures,
and colour. The use of natural materials responds to the coastal setting and character of the locality.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the layout and detail provided along the streetscape of 11 Magrit Crescent would achieve
the visual amenity and streetscape intentions of the The Eastern Beaches Locality Code: Specific
Outcome O42 b), c) in relation to garages and carports.
It visually integrates the garage and driveways with the building through the use of a framed
architectural treatment, distributes landscape areas along the frontage to allow for regularly spaced
trees, and provides visual interest with a strong pedestrian entry treatment.
The garage and driveway hardstand areas would not dominate the street front because of the scale and
proportion of planting provided. The layout would allow for the opportunity for landscaping, spread out
along the frontage, offering increased screening of vehicle parking and maneuvering areas than what
would be available with a wider driveway.
In relation to The Eastern Beaches Locality Code: Specific Outcome O42 d), ‘minimise the number of
driveway accesses’, the proposed two driveways are the minimum desirable to achieve a residential
streetscape character. The two smaller driveways (of a typical residential scale) proposed, rather than
one combined entry, would achieve a strong pedestrian focused entry to the property and allow for
planting spread across the street frontage.
The visual mass and scale of the proposed building has a height, massing and scale is consistent with
the prevailing character of the street and uses a material palette which varies in visual mass, colour and
texture to create variety, interest and integrate the built form with the street. The palette of materials
contributes to a character consistent with the beach character.


Yours sincerely,
Suzie Rawlinson
Director
IRIS Visual Planning + Design




                                                                                                   Page 5