Info Request MCU16/0079 (emailed 8/9/16)

Officer	:Denis Wallace
Direct Telephone:	 07 53296239
Our Reference	:MCU16/0079
:
8 September 2016

Rubicon Design & Construct Pty Ltd
C/- Planit Consulting Pty Ltd
PO Box 1623
KINGSCLIFF QLD  2487

Attn: Rebecca Van der Meer

Dear Rebecca

Information Request
Sustainable Planning Act 2009

I refer to your application and advise Council requires further information to satisfactorily assess the proposal.
application details
Application No:	MCU16/0079
Proposal:	Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises - Extension to Existing RSL Club
Street Address:	5 Memorial Ave TEWANTIN  QLD  4565
Real Property Description:	Lot 3 T16319 & Lot 10 SP273411
Planning Scheme:	The Noosa Plan (16 September 2013)
information required
The information requested is set out below:

Issue – Architecture

The site is in a key location at the entrance to Tewantin’s business centre and is important to Tewantin’s character.  Outcome O79 of The Noosa Plan’s Tewantin & Doonan Locality Plan seeks new buildings that “relate to the setting and heritage of the locality”.

The proposed architecture of the Pelican Street facades can be described as industrial in appearance, with the material palette being steel columns and beams, colorbond corrugated wall sheeting, CFC panels, aluminium louvre screens and some rendered blockwork walls.  Roof forms are low angle skillion and butterfly roof forms. Windows are very minimal and are at very high level, further suggesting industrial forms. The style makes little reference to the materiality or roof forms of the locality or the Noosa vernacular.

The proposal’s unarticulated carpark podium is quite monolithic.  It lacks a human scale and is at odds with the finer grain, articulated character of the detached dwellings on the opposite side of Doonella Street.

Memorial Avenue is the entrance road to Tewantin from the south.  The existing RSL building incorporates forms of the Noosa style of architecture in the way of large eaves, battened screening and pitched room forms.  The proposed new alfresco lounge extension at the corner of Memorial Avenue and Doonella Street retreats from these stylings in favour of large pane glass, box gutters, and a soaring inverted roof form – more reminiscent of office building forms.

Information Required
Amended plans addressing the following:
The proposal’s Pelican Street and Doonella Street frontages be given greater human scale, and visual, scalar and material references be made to the shops across Pelican Street and the housing on Doonella Street.

The carpark podium cannot be merely ‘planted out’ as a means to achieve scale and context.  The articulation of built form and materiality needs to be used to create scale, visual interest and reference to the character of the locality.

It is suggested a statement be made at the Doonella St / Pelican Street corner by pulling back the carpark for a large feature tree or a sleeved active frontage opportunity.

Amended plans for the extension at the Memorial Avenue/Pelican Street corner where the architectural forms make greater reference to the Noosa vernacular style of architecture, and the styles inherent in the existing RSL building and the detached dwelling context on Doonella Street.

The industrial character of the proposed extension be changed to reflect the Noosa style vernacular.

Further 3D architectural images of the proposal in its context.

Issue – Street Activation
Section O77 of Tewantin & Doonan Locality Code seek Pelican Street and Doonella Street frontages be occupied by services and what can be described as shopfront uses. It is also noted the site is in Tewantin’s business centre.

The proposal involves the demolition of a street front tenancy on Pelican Street and replaces it with an unarticulated carpark podium that has been screened and planted out. The Doonella Street frontage is dominated by service cupboards, carpark entries, fire doors and fire stairs. The proposal represents a deactivation of the street front and, because the carpark is setback only 2m from the street boundary, the proposal precludes any future improvement in street activation.

The bulk of the active spaces within the extension have been pushed to the middle of the site, whilst the carpark, loading, and services yard have been pushed to the street frontage. In the interests of street activation, it is suggested that the applicant consider bringing more active uses to the Doonella and Pelican street frontages and that servicing retreat to the middle of the site.

The plans indicate that shade structures will be setup over the carparking bays.  It is requested that these be shown on the drawings for assessment.  The town planning report suggests that these structures, being open sided, will allow long sightlines through the property.  However it is noted that these are to be located1 level above the street and that sightlines through the shade structures may not be actually possible.

Information Required
Amended plans providing sleeving of part of the Pelican and Doonella Street frontages with active elements of the development, or otherwise, configure the development to provide greater articulation of form along the Pelican and Doonella Street frontages as well as permit future active insertions.

Amended plans providing shading created through a combination of sail and tree canopy. Sail structures should not be visually dominant and should be broken up to avoid a long length of sail along the Pelican Street.

Issue – North Elevation
The proposal has a long, almost 1.5 storey high, rendered blockwork wall to much of its northern boundary.  This wall is unarticulated and is not setback 2m as per the Noosa Plan Schedule 1 requirements.

Information Required
Amended plans with the northern wall articulated or configured to provide visual interest, through the use of stepping, recesses, variations in materials, use of vegetation and other means.

OR

Justification for the proposal in the context of future development potential to the north.

Issue – Casual Surveillance
The rear carpark podium area is largely not visible from the street or from the RSL facilities  which creates a potentially unsafe area.

Information Required
Demonstrate the development provides casual surveillance of the rear carparking area from both the RSL facilities and the street.

Issue – Landscaping & Front Setbacks
The submitted planning report suggests the development provides the minimum 15% landscaped area required by The Noosa Plan.  However, the landscaped area on the site plan is calculated at only 8%.  The proposal seeks significantly reduced front setbacks and is unlikely to be supported in its current form.

Front setbacks reduced to only 2m may be insufficient to support deep plantings.

Information Required
Amended plans providing the minimum 15% landscaped area via additional landscaped setbacks to Pelican/Doonella Streets and reduced building encroachments into the front setbacks.

Issue – Existing Trees
The Tewantin & Doonan Locality Code seeks to retain existing trees that add to the character of the area.  The planning report states “Where  possible,  all  existing  vegetation  on  site  will  be  retained”.  However, the proposal plans do not provide sufficient detail to allow assessment, such as surveyed tree and canopy locations in relation to the proposed works and consideration of the construction impacts.

Information Required
Demonstrate the extent to which the proposal will retain trees along the site frontages.

Provide a plan of existing trees on the site and in the road reserves identifying which are proposed to be removed and retained.

Issue – Access
There are concerns with the location of the Doonella Street access driveway.   It is close to the crest in Doonella Street, which is at the Pelican Street intersection.

The applicant has not demonstrated that vehicles can pass passing area at the intersection of the new Doonella Street access and the turning vehicles accessing the existing carparking area.

Information Required
Demonstrate sight distances at the Doonella Street driveway comply with the requirements of the AS/NZS 2890.1-2004, particularly in relation to the crest in Doonella Street to the east of the driveway, and also in relation to stopping sight distances between a westbound vehicle in Doonella Street and a vehicle stopped in Doonella Street waiting to turn right into the driveway.

Demonstrate vehicles can pass in accordance with AS/NZS2890.1:2004 at the intersection of the new Doonella Street access and the turning vehicles accessing the existing carparking area.

Issue – Service Vehicles
The development has been designed to accommodate a 10m long refuse collection vehicle.  The site cannot accommodate a 12.5m HRV.  The traffic report acknowledges that 12.5m HRV’s regularly service the existing development, but proposes that it would be acceptable for servicing of the expanded development to be limited to MRV sized vehicles.  A licenced club development of this scale should be designed for a 12.5m HRV.

The application indicates refuse service times would be limited to specific hours to avoid conflicts with other vehicles.  Such an arrangement may not acceptable to Council or its service providers.

The plan indicating the vehicle path does not include the proposed shade structures and appears to conflict with the proposed building.

Information Required
Amended proposal plans to accommodate a 12.5m HRV as the design service vehicle and are not restricted to specific service times.

Demonstrate that proposed shade structures, buildings and vegetation do not impact on heavy vehicle manoeuvring paths.

Issue – Parking Demand
It is difficult to identify the true parking demand where on street overflow parking exists in the street where that on-street parking is also shared by other commercial users in the area.  Council previously recommended to the applicant that the on-street parking survey be expanded to the other sides of the street, and in distance from the site.  This would have assisted in identifying the true parking demand of the existing RSL particularly when other uses in the area are closed or operating at low levels of activity.

The submitted survey provides little certainty the existing peak parking demands of the development have been appropriately identified.  The true peak parking demands for the existing development are necessary to estimate the likely parking demands associated with the expanded proposal, and then the extent of overflow parking likely in the street.  This is critical to understand due to the general shortage of on-street parking in the area during the day, and also for estimating the likely extent of additional on-street parking, particularly along the front of existing dwellings in Doonella Street in the evening.

In addition, the following is noted in relation to the parking survey:

Site inspection indicates that 6 of the existing parking spaces in the existing basement parking area are used for storage associated with the bottleshop.  Thus, it is not surprising that the surveys indicated peak on-site parking demands of 80 cars verses a capacity for 86 cars (6 empty spaces).  Those spaces were not empty, they were simply not available for visitors to use.  It is not that the on-site capacity was not utilised, it is simply that 6 of the on-site parking spaces were not available for car usage.

The parking survey concluded at 7.30pm but parking demands were still increasing at that time, and were almost at the level of the peak midday parking demands.  7.30pm may have been the time of the evening peak but it could have been later.  If the survey had extended longer into the evening then this would have been clarified.

The Bitzios report also adopts the 85th highest day as the design day for parking demands.  The 85th highest day is appropriate for identification of design traffic generation, but not for design parking demands.  For example, Brisbane City Council identifies design parking demands as the greater of the peak parking demand generated in an annual average week, or the 30th highest hourly demand in the year.  From the supplied patronage data, it is estimated the appropriate design day would be at about the 800 persons per day level, compared with the 700 person per day level for the Friday survey and the 650 person per day level for the Saturday.  The surveyed parking demands should be increased to represent design parking demands associated with the 800 person day level.

Information Required
Additional parking survey is required to provide information on a Friday and Saturday evenings, from 6pm till 9pm, including the on-site parking area, both sides of the streets forming the block that surrounds the site including Pelican Street, Poinciana Ave, Memorial Ave, and Doonella Street, and extending along Doonella Street east to Lake Street, would provide additional certainty to the parking assessment.  It is likely that at the peak in the evening, there will be a clear demarcation along each street where the extent of RSL parking finishes.  Identification of those demarcation locations on a plan would also be of great benefit to the parking assessment.

Amended parking demand assessment based on design parking demands associated with the 800 person day level.

Amended proposal plans where necessary to address the amended parking demand assessment.

Issue – Carparking Layout
The proposed height clearance in the new basement carpark needs to be identified and assessed against the requirements of the AS/NZS 2890.1 – 2004.

There needs to be an appropriate pedestrian route provided in the basement carpark to the lift providing access to the ground level foyer.  Otherwise patrons will be encouraged to park in the street.   The lift to the foyer needs to be provided in Stage 4.

Information Required
Demonstrate the proposed carparking areas provide the following:
Height clearances in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1 – 2004
Appropriate pedestrian route(s) to the lift
Provision of the lift in Stage 4

Issue – Stormwater
The submitted “Stormwater Layout Plan” does not include any collection of or treatment of stormwater runoff as required by the Water Sensitive Design Code.  Council also has concerns with the proposed surcharge pit (adjacent to Pelican Street) and the potential impacts of surface runoff on the footpath area.

Information Required
Provide comment and an amended plan (if required) demonstrating how the proposed stormwater layout achieves the specific outcomes of The Noosa Plan’s Water Sensitive Design Code.

Provide comment on the potential impacts of the surface runoff from the proposed surcharge pit (adjacent to Pelican Street) on the footpath area .

Issue – Light Spill
Night time light spillage from the development has not been addressed and could impact upon the amenity of nearby residential areas.

Information Required
Provide a lighting report prepared by a suitably qualified person, which:
Details how light spillage from the development will be designed, sited, installed to comply with Table 2.1 & 2.2 of Australian Standard AS4282-1997 “Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting” and will not cause interference or an environmental nuisance with the night time amenity of the residential areas.
Demonstrates vehicle headlights will not cause nuisance to adjacent residents particularly at the new Doonella Street access.
Issue – Waste Storage
Waste storage areas are not shown on the plans.

Information Required
Plans indicating location of waste storage, collection and wash down location in accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 9 – Waste Management.

Details of  the estimated volumes of wastes and recyclables generated by the development.

End of Information Request

Under the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, you have three options available in response to this Information Request. You may give the assessment manager (in this instance Council) and each referral agency (if any):

all of the information requested; or
part of the information requested together with a letter asking the assessment manager and each referral agency to proceed with the assessment of the application; or
a letter;
stating that you do not intend to supply any of the information requested; and
asking the assessment manager and each referral agency to proceed with the assessment of the application.

Please be aware that under Section 279 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009
the applicant must respond to the Information Request within 6 months of the request or otherwise the application lapses.  A response to the above is required to be submitted, prior to further assessment of the application.  If any further matters arise as part of assessment of this application, you will be advised accordingly.

Should you have any further queries in relation to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me on the above number.

Yours faithfully

Denis Wallace

[word/footer1.xml]
Page 7 of 7

[word/footer2.xml]
PO Box 141		P. (07) 5329 6500	[email protected]	
	TEWANTIN  QLD  4565	F. (07) 5329 6501	www.noosa.qld.gov.au
				Page 1 of 7

[word/header1.xml]
MCU16/0079