M2677 - Response to further issues_08042021

Page 2

Response
The applicant agrees to a condition requiring that the access driveway should be extended further north so that the end
of the median is 5m north of the driveway.

In terms of the signage, TTM traffic engineers have advised us that "no u-turn" signage is no longer a standard sign with
the MUTCD, and as such, recommends that double barrier lines are proposed as an alternative solution.


ITEM 2 - CAR PARKING SIZES
 The TTM report assesses carpark size requirements, but it is not clear how that is possible when there are no dimensions
shown on the plans for any of the many multitude of columns located adjacent to parking spaces. Column sizes and their
location relative to the ends of parking spaces needs to be added to the plans, and then TTM need to confirm that those
elements are satisfactory.

Response
The architectural plans were prepared in AutoCAD and forwarded to TTM to assist with their assessment. Accordingly,
TTM were able to accurately assess the plans on this basis. Notwithstanding this, the requested car park dimensions and
column widths have been included on the revised proposal plans (refer to Attachment 1). TTM have confirmed that the
plans comply with the relevant Australian Standard, provided under separate cover (refer to Attachment 2).


ITEM 3 - BUILT FORM
Council raised concerns that the built form retains repetitive design elements, which are contrary to the outcomes sought
by the scheme, does not provide visual interest and results in the appearance of excessive bulk.

Response

Following our meeting with Council and follow up discussions, we have prepared a set of amended plans which seeks to
address Council’s additional concerns relating to the built form aspects of the proposed development.

The initial design changes made in response to the information request, included reducing the scale of Building 4 from 4
to 3 units addressing the street, significantly reduced the development’s scale and perceived bulk when viewed from the
street.

The latest design changes undertaken to the revised set of plans include significant enhancements to the built form of
Buildings 1, 2 and 3 to improve visual amenity, particularly when viewed from adjoining premises. An overview of the
changes is provided below.

Building 1
Building 1 is located long the site’s northern boundary, which fronts the access driveway to 99 Eumundi Noosa Rd and the
medium sized commercial development at 95 Eumundi Noosa Rd.

Building 1 complies with the following attributes of the planning scheme:
     8m height limit
     2m side boundary setback
     6m rear setback
     15m maximum wall length




JFP Ref: M2677.                                                                                                Page 2

Page 3

         Visual interest is provided to the street frontage through incorporating a highly articulated and textured features
          to the front façade.
         A varied roof line is provided through the use of opposite sloping angles




           Figure 1 - Building 1 - Before (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects)




           Figure 2 - Building 1 – After (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects)


In order to address Council concerns and provide greater visual interest, the plans have been amended to include the
following improvements, which are illustrated in the above before and after perspectives:

         greater mix of colours and finishes
         external treatments, awnings and screens
         breaking up the gutter lines resulting in a more diverse roof line.




JFP Ref: M2677.                                                                                                   Page 3

Page 4

These changes seek to achieve the perception of individual dwellings by the use colour and texture, breaking up the roof
lines and achieve improved asymmetry as desired by Council.


Building 2
Building 2 is located along the eastern boundary of the subject site. The building partially fronts part of the undeveloped
99 Eumundi Noosa Rd and part 35 Regatta Cct (a single residential dwelling).

Building 2 complies with the following planning scheme attributes:
      8m height limit
      6m rear setback
      15m maximum wall length
      Provides a varied roof line through uses of pop ups and opposite sloping angles




                  Figure 3 - Building 2 - Before (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects)




                  Figure 4 - Building 2 – After (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects)


In order to provide greater visual interest, the plans have been refined to include the following improvements (refer to
Figures 4 and 5 above, before and after perspectives):




JFP Ref: M2677.                                                                                                 Page 4

Page 5

         extensive horizontal and vertical screening has been provided to the upper-level units to avoid over looking
         greater mix of colours, textures and finishes to enhance individualisation of the dwellings
         application of external treatments and battens.

These amendments further individualise the dwellings and avoid repetition through the deliberate use of colour, textures
and materials to provide interesting façade treatments, and through the use “pop up” design elements.

Building 3

Building 3 is located along the site’s southern boundary and partially adjoins 107 Eumundi Noosa Rd and 33 Regatta Cct
(both residential dwellings). Building 3 incorporates a terrace town house design, as opposed to the apartments
component of the development.

Building 3 complies with the following planning scheme attributes:
      8m height limit
      1.5 side setback
      15m maximum wall length
      Provides a terraced roof line and breaks between
      Individual textured finish to the street frontage.




                  Figure 5 - Building 3 – Before (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects)




                  Figure 6 - Building 3 – After (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects)




JFP Ref: M2677.                                                                                                  Page 5

Page 6

Building 3 has been amended to provide a greater visual interest and individual appearance through the following
attributes:

          Stepping has been provided to the terrace roofs to further break up the elevation
          Greater mix of colours and finishes to provide greater asymmetry
          Increased separation between the upper storey roof areas

The revised treatments are considered to greatly enhance the visual interest of the building, particularly when viewed
from the street and adjoining properties.


ITEM 4 – AMENITY IMPACTS INCLUDING OVERLOOKING FROM BUILDING 2 & SWIMMING POOL

Discussions with Council indicated that they had concerns regarding potential noise and overlooking impacts from the
development, including concerns about the proximity of the swimming pool to adjoining residents.

Specifically, Council raised concerns regarding the location of the pool being within 12m of the property boundary, and as
such, increasing the likelihood of overlooking and amenity impacts on adjoining residential premises, particularly 33
Regatta Cct. To address Council’s concerns, the swimming pool has been relocated more centrally within the site away
from adjoining premises (refer to Figure 7 below).




      Figure 7 – Revised pool location (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects)


As a result of the revised pool location, three visitor car spaces have been repositioned near the bioretention basin area
in the south-east corner of the site.




JFP Ref: M2677.                                                                                                 Page 6

Page 7

Following discussions with Council, a site inspection was undertaken to identify any adjoining premises that could
potentially be affected by overlooking as a result of the development. It was identified that 53 Regatta Cct (see Figure 7
below could potentially be affected by the development.




          Figure 7 – 35 Regatta Cct viewed from the subject site

As can be seen in the photograph in Figure 7 the upper storey windows at 35 Regatta Cct includes two high level small
windows and a stair case window. Based on our site inspection, it was considered that there were limited opportunities to
overlook the dwelling and its private open space areas.

Blackburne Jackson architects have prepared plans, as part of the revised drawing set (also refer to Figure 9), which
illustrate the setbacks between the proposed balconies and the dwellings. Note, the proposed second storey balconies
are well setback from the adjoining premises windows, with approximate distances being 12m and 15m respectively for
apartments 27 & 28.

Notwithstanding the significant setbacks, the architectural plans have been amended to include vertical screening blades
to the balconies and horizontal screening to the bedroom windows to avoid any potential opportunities to overlook. This
screening is also well articulated when viewed in combination with the east elevations (refer to Figure 10 below).

In addition to the above, it should be noted that landscape plantings will be introduced along the boundary to further
screen any potential overlooking issues.




JFP Ref: M2677.                                                                                                 Page 7

Page 8

                  Figure 9 – Building 2 upper level plan and adjoining residence (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects)




                  Figure 10 - Building 2 – Eastern elevation (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects)




CONCLUSION

We trust the above information and attachments address Council’s outstanding concerns, and allow council to approve
the application subject to reasonable and relevant conditions.

We note that updated engineering plans will be required to reflect the revised architect plans. These are currently being
prepared and will be submitted as soon as possible.




JFP Ref: M2677.                                                                                                                Page 8

Page 9

We would appreciate if Council could provide draft approval conditions for our review in due course.

Should you have any further information or require clarification with respect to any of the above, please do not hesitate
to contact our office on (07) 5450 3900.




Yours faithfully,




Timothy Balcombe
Senior Urban Planner
JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS

Attachments:

         Revised architectural plans
         TTM traffic response




JFP Ref: M2677.                                                                                                Page 9