07/1447 - Response to Information Request [As Published] · 132007.1447

@ Page2

the external walls, plus for roofed unenclosed areas, any portion of floor area beyond a distance
of 3 metres from the external wall. it does not include:

a) the area of spaces used for the parking or manoeuvring of motor vehicles;

b) the area of lift shafts;

c) the area of stairwells on any level other than the ground floor; or

d) floor areas located in a basement.

As the stairs are in the basement they do not constitute GFA.

item 2: Please provide a roof plan (indicating RL’s) superimposed over a site survey.

Comment: A roof plan indicating RL’s superimposed over the site survey are included under drawing
0703.3 SD.09. The building complies with the stipulated height requirements.

ftem 3. Revised plans that provide 264m’ of Landscaped Open Space. The plans submitted
include some areas of stairs and a court resulting in 251m’.

Comment: Revised plans prepared by lan Gorton Design are attached. The revised plans indicate
landscaped open space in accordance with scheme requirements. Itis noted that court is at ground level
and is able to be considered as a landscape structure as are the proposed stairs.

Land Development

Item 4: Council has concems regarding the available sight distances along Grant Street to the
proposed vehicle access driveways for proposed Lots 2 & 3. In this regard please provide
a plan indicating the available sight distances and provide comment from a suitably
qualified Traffic Engineer as to whether the available sight distances are in accordance with
AS/NZS 2890. 1:2004.

Comment: A report prepared by Dianne Hayes Traffic Engineering Consultant is included. The report
concludes that site distances comply with Australian standards, however landscaping fronting Grant Street
should be maintained to a maximum height of 1.0 metre to ensure site visibility is maintained. It is noted that
existing significant vegetation on site is not affected by this requirement and that the site lines are
predominantly located across the front of the site and footpath areas.

Item 5: !t is noted that the proposal indicates that 4 units (1 unit in each lot) will utilise the existing
access driveway and access easements at the rear of the sites to access their respective
garaging. Please provide comment from a suitably qualified Traffic Engineer with regard to
the need or otherwise for the provision of passing opportunities along the easement or
within the Banksia Avenue road reserve to cater for the trips generated by the proposed
development.

Comment: A teport prepared by Dianne Hayes Traffic Engineering Consultant is included. The report
concludes that the access easement has good site visibility and due to the low traffic volumes generated by
the units a passing lane is not required?

‘Item 6: Please demonstrate that vehicles reversing out of all the proposed spaces within the

garages at the rear of the Lots 1, 2 and 3 can manoeuvre and leave their respective sites
without encroaching onto the adjoining property to the east. Please note it is expected that
conditions requiring the revision of the existing access and services easements required to”
provide access fo Banksia Avenue will be included in the approval, should it be approved,
of the concurrently submitted Reconfiguration of a Lot application. It is not envisaged at this
Stage that the revised easements will also be providing access into the adjoining lots to the
east for any manoeuvring.