whilst there is a right-of-way adjacent to the site, it is ... daps/metro north-we… · 99 flora...

99 Flora Terrace and 24 Lawley Street, North Beach: Development Application Report

MacCormac Architects and Mackay Urbandesign 15

Whilst there is a Right-of-Way adjacent to the site, it is a private lane and there is no evidence of a right of access to the laneway.

Subject Assessment Compliance

Truncations The policy requires a 2x2m truncation at the street boundary – the 2m setback from the laneway enables this to occur. In addition, a further 2.5 xx 2.0m truncation is provided on the western side of the driveway leading to the car park from Lawley Street.

Compliant

LPP 6.6 Landscaping Subject Assessment Compliance

Submission requirements

The DA report requires a landscape plan to be included. The landscape plan includes the verge area of the adjacent street reserve and is consistent with the City’s policy.

Compliant

LPP 6.7 Parking and Access Subject Assessment Compliance

Parking ratios Office: 1bay/30sqm GFA At 60sqm the requirement under the policy is: 2 bays Restaurant: 1 bay/7sqm GFA At 92sqm (excluding kitchen and toilets) the requirement under the policy is: 13 bays Residential: As per R-Codes 6 apartments <75sqm: 6 bays 22 apartments >75sqm: 27.5 bays 1 apt >110sqm: 1.5 bays Residential visitor bays: 8 bays Residential total: 43 bays Total required: 59 bays Total provided: 52 bays on site plus 1 on-street bay

Compliant subject to the application of the permitted reduction –see below.

Parking reduction Parking reductions of 10% available for non-residential parking for being in a local centre. Commercial requirement: 15 bays, reduced by 10% = 13.4 rounded to 14 bays. Reduced total required: 57 bays Total provided: 52 bays on site plus 1 on-street bay (53 bays)

Compliant subject to discretion taking into account the local nature of the proposed restaurant, and parking reciprocity

Reciprocal parking The proposal provides 7 bays for visitor and shared use on site, plus 1 on-street bay all of which are capable of reciprocal use. In addition, it is arguable that the commercial bays are also available for reciprocal use by residents outside business hours.

Compliant



Submission requirements

A transport analysis is provided as per the policy requirements – refer to Appendix 6

Compliant

Residential parking layout, etc

Design and technical requirements are consistent with the policy. Redundant crossover will be made good.

Compliant

Non-Residential parking layout, etc

Design and technical requirements are consistent with the policy. The proposal includes 1 bay capable of use for disabled parking.

Compliant

Crossover The Lawley Street crossover is designed to be consistent with the policy requirements.

Compliant

Non-residential service access

The context of the site means that rear service access cannot be obtained. However, bin stores are located discreetly from the street, effectively meeting the policy requirements.

Compliant subject to discretion

Specific purpose bays

No specific purpose bays are required.

Compliant

Residential Codes of Western Australia

Element 6: Multiple dwellings Subject Assessment Compliance

Building size The plot ratio for the residential component is marginally more than the deemed-to-comply plot ration of 1.0. However, in respect to building size, the proposed development clearly meets the associated design principles.


Building height The building, in a few areas away from the street, marginally exceeds the deemed-to-comply maxima of 13m overall, and 6/7m on the boundary, for an R80 coded area. However, the variance is marginal and the proposed development clearly meets the associated design principles.


Street setback Because the proposal is a mixed-use building and 0m is mandated by local planning policy, it logical to apply a 0m street setback at upper levels.

Compliant subject to interpretation

Lot boundary setbacks

Boundary setbacks to the residential units are greater than the deemed-to-comply distance of 4m, except at the street frontage where the requirement for boundary-to-boundary development under the local planning policy, and for the minor projections of the non-habitable stair structures. In respect to the stair structures, the variance is marginal and the proposed development clearly meets the associated design principles.




Open space No provision in the R-Codes or local structure plan for open space.

Compliant

Street surveillance Consistent with the deemed-to-comply provisions. Compliant

Street walls and fences

Walls and fences are prohibited under local planning policy.

Compliant

Sight lines Setback of the western wall of the RoW and the flanking structures to the car park entrance meets the 1.5m deemed-to-comply sightline setback (and the 2m sight line required by the City for the car park entrance).

Compliant

Building Appearance Consistent with the principles, and consistent with scheme provisions as far as they exist.

Compliant

Outdoor living areas Balconies and courtyards meet the deemed-to-comply provisions.

Compliant

Landscaping Consistent with the deemed-to-comply provisions insofar as they apply to the site.

Compliant

Parking The residential parking provision is consistent with the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes.

Compliant

Design of car parking spaces

Consistent with the deemed-to-comply provisions insofar as they apply to the site. Visitor parking is forward of the secure line.

Compliant

Vehicular access Vehicle access is consistent with the deemed-to-comply provisions.

Compliant

Site works Generally consistent with the deemed-to-comply provisions. However, some localised fill in excess of 0.5m will be required in the SE corner of the site, given the extreme topography of the site. The additional fill makes no material difference to the height of the wall on the boundary given that the inclusion of a sub-basement rather than filling would achieve a similar outcome.

Compliant to discretion

Retaining walls Generally consistent with the deemed-to-comply provisions. However, some localised retaining in excess of 0.5m will be required in the SE corner of the site, given the extreme topography of the site. The additional retaining makes no material difference to the height of the wall on the boundary given that the inclusion of a sub-basement rather than filling would achieve a similar outcome.

Compliant to discretion

Stormwater management

Stormwater management will be designed to meet the deemed-to-comply provisions.

Compliant

Visual privacy The design avoids having any major openings facing Compliant



the adjacent residential areas – therefore, is consistent with the deemed-to-comply provisions. The only cone of vision extending out of the site to an adjacent residential property (from the uppermost balcony on Lawley Street) extends over the adjacent carport and the front setback area.

Solar access for adjoining sites

The shadowing of the adjacent R20 coded residential lots is within the 25% deemed-to-comply provision.

Compliant

Dwelling sizes Consistent with the deemed-to-comply provisions. Compliant

Outbuildings No outbuildings are proposed Compliant

External fixtures AC condensers are located out of sight from the public domain.

Compliant

Utilities and facilities Stores and bin storage areas are consistent with the deemed-to-comply provisions.

Compliant

9. ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY ON SPECIFIC PLANNING ISSUES

Plot ratio

The plot ratio for the residential component of the development is 1.12, which is

marginally more (12%) than the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes.

However, it should also be noted that the bulk of the building will not be readily

visible from the adjacent public domain, especially when the adjoining northern sites

is developed, and there would be no discernable difference between the proposal as

it is or if it were strictly compliant. Furthermore, the additional floorspace over and

above the deemed-to-comply has no adverse impact on adjacent properties.

Height

The proposed development marginally exceeds the deemed-to-comply R80

provisions of the R-Codes in respect to height. However, it should be noted that the

proposed development is not purely a residential development and is required by

local planning policy to contain commercial uses at ground floor level. As such the R-

Code provisions fall short in relation to mixed-use development, and a degree of

discretion is required in relation to height in order to achieve the desired R80 density

and deliver a mixed-use development.

Additionally, the site is a sloping site of topographical complexity and, as such, the measurement of height at each point on the site leads to a height envelope that is not conducive to rational building methods. Whilst part of the building exceeds the deemed-to-comply R80 provisions of the R-Codes in respect to height where the land falls away and the basement parking is more than half in the ground, this is an inevitable outcome of building on the type of challenging topography that generic policy such as the R-Codes does not anticipate.



It should be noted that when viewed in cross section (in both directions) the average

height of the building is within the 13m deemed-to-comply provision for overall height

and the building presents a deemed-to comply elevation to Flora Terrace and

presents a deemed-to-comply three-storey street wall to Lawley Street.

The portion of the building that does exceed the deemed-to-comply provisions is set

back well in to the lot and away from the street boundaries and the boundaries of the

adjacent lots, unlike the approved and constructed building on the corner of Flora

Terrace and Castle Street which effectively presents a four storey street wall to

Castle Street.

When assessed against Design Principle 6.1.2 P2 of the R-Codes, the proposed

development clearly meets all of the identified criteria. It:

Enables adequate access to direct sun to all adjacent dwellings

Enables adequate daylight to major openings into the habitable rooms of all

adjacent dwellings

Does not obstruct any views of significance for any of the adjacent dwellings.

Presents a human scale for pedestrians on the adjacent street

Utilises design measures to reduce the perception of height; and

At the rear, it utilises a podium to reduce the apparent scale of the building.

Setbacks

The setbacks are broadly consistent with the deemed-to comply provisions of the R-

Codes.

Whilst the R80 provisions suggest a 2m street setback, the local planning policy

framework requires the building to maintain a 0m street setback with commercial on

the ground floor. With mixed-use buildings is normal for upper residential floors to

maintain the same setback as the ground floor, which is the approach adopted in this

case.

On the southern and eastern elevations, the enclosed stair and lift shafts encroach

into the setback area. However, the encroachment does not lead to any overlooking

or overshadowing issue to adjacent neighbours, and act to articulate the building and

add visual interest.

In both of the above cases, when assessed against Design Principles 6.1.4 P4.1 and

P4.2 of the R-Codes, the proposed development is clearly compliant.

Car Parking

The car parking provision for the proposed development is compliant with the R-

Codes for the residential component. In respect to the overall amount of parking

inclusive of the non-residential components, the car parking is consistent with the

provisions of the local policy on the basis of an allowable 10% reduction in the non-

residential parking as a result of being within a local centre and consideration of the



local nature of the proposed restaurant, the availability of reciprocal parking, and the

inclusion of one additional on-street bay adjacent to the development being included

in the car-parking calculation.

It should be noted that the provision of the on-street parking is a public benefit and,

therefore, it is in the City’s interest for the provision of on-street parking to be

incentivised.

Visual Privacy

The proposed development secures the visual privacy of adjacent residents by

facing habitable rooms and balconies to the north and west, away from the adjacent

residents to the south and east.

Acoustic Impacts

An Acoustic Engineer has assessed the proposed development and concluded that it

can be designed and constructed to meet all relevant acoustic standards. The

Acoustic report is attached in Appendix 3.

Wind Impacts

A Wind Engineer has assessed the proposed development. The finding is that the

building is likely to be acceptable from a wind engineering perspective. However a

minor change to the door to the commercial tenancy on Flora Terrace has been

suggested as a possible improvement. The wind engineering report is attached in

Appendix 4.

10. URBAN DESIGN ASSESMENT

The proposed development represents a very good urban design outcome. The

development:

Delivers a mixed-use outcome with commercial uses that address the

adjacent streets at ground level.

Delivers a residential community into the heart of a local centre.

Completes the urban streetscape of Flora Terrace at an appropriate scale.

Hides car parking and service areas under the building and minimises

disruption of the adjacent pedestrian network.

Presents an elegant, and pleasantly scaled architectural treatment to the

public domain.

Provides shade and shelter to pedestrians on the adjacent footpaths.

Delivers urban density without adverse impacts on the adjacent lots.



Utilises difficult topography without recourse to significant earthworks.

At a time when the general quality of apartment-based urban infill is less than

satisfactory, the proposed development sets a quality benchmark that other

developers should aspire to.

11. ORDERLY AND PROPER PLANNING

Orderly and proper planning requires that new development is a logical and efficient extension of existing development, and consistent with the planning vision established for the area. The key points regarding the proposal are: The proposed development is highly consistent with the various provisions and

objectives advocated by the Town’s Scheme and Policy framework; The proposed development is an attractive, architecturally designed building that

optimises the development potential of the site; The development is of a scale consistent with the recently constructed adjacent

building and contributes to the intended streetscape; The density of residential dwellings proposed on the site is highly consistent with

State Planning Policies including Directions 2031, which provides an infill development target of 47%; and

The area is well serviced by an existing road network and local services.

It is therefore considered that the development will make a very positive overall contribution to the area, is highly consistent with the statutory planning framework, and will advance the planning intentions of the City of Stirling.

12. CONCLUSION

The proposed development is an appropriate and elegant design solution that, with

the exercise of a very modest amount of discretion in respect to the policy

framework, can be easily approved.

In addition to being largely compliant with the relevant planning framework, the

proposed development will make a significant contribution to the revitalisation of the

Flora Terrace local centre and meet a growing local demand for high-quality

apartment living in close proximity to local services, and contribute to the range of

retail and commercial offerings for the local community, particularly from those in the

growing pre-retirement cohort who make up a significant proportion of the local

community, and who are keen to remain in the local area, albeit in a more

manageable and high quality housing form.

The proposed development sets a new benchmark for mixed-use development in the

City of Stirling and sets a standard that is significantly higher than the prevailing

standard of mixed use and multiple-residential development.



13. APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Certificates of Title



Appendix 2: Architectural drawings



Appendix 3: Acoustic report



Appendix 4: Wind engineering report



Appendix 5: Waste management plan



Appendix 6: Transport report



Appendix 7: Landscape drawings

mackayurbandesign 99 Flora Terrace and 24 Lawley Street, North Beach mackayurbandesign

99 FLORA TERRACE AND 24 LAWLEY STREET, NORTH BEACH

Visual Analysis Report

In support of the variation to the City of Stirling Clause 6.3 Coastal Height Limit - Non Residential Zones Special Control Area

February 2015

mackayurbandesign 99 Flora Terrace and 24 Lawley Street, North Beach

Introduction The following visual analysis demonstrates that the visual impact of the proposal is not excessive when viewed in the context of the place.

Whilst the proposal exceeds, in part, the development envelope described by Clause 6.3 Coastal Height Limit - Non Residential Zones Special Control Area (coastal height policy) and the development envelope described by the deemed-to-comply R80 provisions of the R-Codes, the extent of building above the described envelopes is clearly observed as being marginal and doesn’t give rise to any measurable adverse impacts.

Visual impact is subjective, and whilst there are members of the community who would claim that being able to see any new development is an adverse visual impact, the extent of the visual impact needs to be seen in the context of both what is allowable and what is reasonable given the viewpoint and the surrounding context. In this respect, and to quantify the visual impact, the extent of the proposed building visible from a range of viewpoints is defined as a percentage of a nominal view-shed based on a fixed frame of reference, and as a percentage of a typical human field of vision (approximately 200% of the frame of reference).

Methodology The viewpoints selected include the viewpoints of the perspectives included in the DA documents plus additional viewpoints from Castle Street, Flora Terrace, and Lawley Street. All view points are from the public domain.

In the case of the perspectives, the previously modelled building was simply adopted. In the case of the other viewpoints, a 3D massing model was constructed in SketchUp and viewed from the same viewpoints as the underlying site images. The corresponding image of the Sketchup model was superimposed in Photoshop onto the site photograph to determine the building outline and the policy envelopes. This was subsequently converted into a simple graphic for clarity.

The graphic shows the proposed building mass, the envelope described by the coastal height policy, and the extent of building above both the the coastal height policy and the development envelope described by the deemed-to-comply R80 provisions of the R-Codes.

A constant frame of reference is overlaid on the image and the percentage of the frame occupied by the extent of the building visible above the coastal height envelope was then calculated to quantify it.

The visual analysis process is accurate to +/-5%, which is widely accepted as being an acceptable tolerance.


Perceived additional height resulting from the variation from the coastal height policy provision (shown in bright red)

Coastal height policy envelope (yellow dashed line)

Extent of variation from the R-Codes R80 deemed-to-comply provisions (shown in pale red )

Extent of variation from the coastal height policy (shown in pale yellow)

View along Flora Terrace looking south

Development recently approved by Council

Frame of reference

Extent of the frame reference occupied by the extent of the proposed building above the coastal height policy envelope: 0.01% Extent of the human field of vision occupied by the extent of the proposed building above the coastal height policy envelope: 0.005%

Conclusion: The visual impact of the proposed building above the coastal height policy envelope from this viewpoint is negligible.


Coastal height policy envelope (yellow dashed line). Note: The upper floor is totally obscured by the policy envelope.



View across Flora Terrace looking east

Frame of reference

Extent of the frame reference occupied by the extent of the proposed building above the coastal height policy envelope: 0% Extent of the human field of vision occupied by the extent of the proposed building above the coastal height policy envelope: 0%

Conclusion: There is no visual impact of the proposed building beyond the coastal height policy envelope from this viewpoint.


Coastal height policy envelope (yellow dashed line) for Flora Terrace building



Car park/future development site

View across Lawley Street looking south

Coastal height policy envelope (yellow dashed line). Note, the Lawley Street building is within the policy envelope as viewed from Lawley Street Frame of reference


Conclusion: The visual impact of the proposed building beyond the coastal height policy envelope from this viewpoint is negligible, and in the event that the adjoining site is also redeveloped, this would reduce to zero.


View along Flora Terrace looking north

Coastal height policy envelope (yellow dashed line)

Extent of variation from the R-Codes R80 deemed-to-comply provision (shown in pale red )


Development recently approved by Council

Profile of the proposed development

Frame of reference


Conclusion: The visual impact of the proposed building beyond the coastal height policy envelope from this viewpoint is negligible.

whilst there is a right-of-way adjacent to the site, it is ... daps/metro north-we… · 99 flora...

Documents