3.0 Setbacks

Setbacks to buildings less than 4 metres from the boundary presents serious privacy issues. A more appropriately sized development would enable the developer to achieve the required setbacks.

Boundary setbacks proposed ALL comply with and are in excess of the current Built Form Policy. The rear boundary setback proposed is reduced from the minimum required 4.0m. This however complies with the R-Codes ‘Design Principal Solution’ and ‘Deemed to Comply’ criteria. The rear boundary adjoins a R100 site. The existing building on the eastern boundary ‘Woodley Apartments’ is set well back with significant landscaping from the common (east) boundary. The distance provided between proposed and existing buildings is 14m. 14m distance between building is far greater than minimum rear setback required and therefore does not adversely affect the amenity of rear neighbours. The City supported the proposed reduced rear setbacks in the RAR Report 08.12.16, ‘neighbouring Woodley Apartments is unlikely to be redeveloped in the foreseeable future given the relatively young age of the building’. We note views or loss of view do not constitute loss of privacy or amenity to the rear neighbours. The size of the development is appropriate under the town planning policy TPS1 and options included, relevant at time of lodgement.

4.0 Overlooking/Privacy

The revised development will still overlooking adjoining properties, particularly the rear balconies which do not achieve the deemed-to-comply standards of the Residential Design Codes. This will result in a loss of privacy to the affected neighbours.

Please refer above applicant comments provided in response to ‘Setbacks.’ The existing building on the eastern boundary ‘Woodley Apartments’ is set well back with significant landscaping from the common (east) boundary. The distance provided between proposed and existing buildings is 14m. 14m distance between building is far greater than minimum rear setback required and therefore does not adversely affect the amenity of rear neighbours. We note views or loss of view does not constitute loss of privacy or amenity to the rear neighbours.

5.0 Landscaping

Concerned the development offers ‘token’ greenery rather than trees. Concerned that the development does not meet the standard landscaping requirements. The increased greenery and deep root zones do not mitigate the impact of the bulk and scale of the development from the adjoining properties. There are insufficient deep root zones to provide necessary screening and privacy to adjoining residents. The proposed planter boxes are inadequate to support the depicted landscaping and will rely on the ongoing maintenance of individual apartment residents. This will be difficult to manage.

The entire design is based around providing a green, landscaped design both in relation to the streetscape and within the property itself. The applicant will in due course provide landscape plans prepared by a registered landscape architect as part of the documentation. The revised design provides landscaping in excess of the requirements for deep soil zone and canopy cover as set out in the current Built Form Policy. Refer Cover Letter 21.04.17. Deep Root (Soil) Zones has been significantly increased in the revised design, soil zones are no longer obstructed or reliant on raised planter beds. Refer Cover Letter 21.04.17.

The deep root zones do mitigate the bulk and scale of the development on neighbours by; increased setbacks and ability to offer initial volumes of 1000Lt and 500Lt plantings. Species to be informed by registered landscape architect and further community consultation.

6.0 Overshadowing and Direct Sunlight The development will overshadow lower level apartments of the property to the east. The development will result in a loss of sunlight for the adjoining properties, in particular the residences to the north.

We refer overshadowing diagram provided to the city 21.04.17. The overshadowing diagram clearly illustrates maximum overshadowing within the eastern neighbour’s property is 3.08m. The existing building ‘Woodley Apartments’ is setback 10m from the common boundary and therefore is not affected by overshading from the proposed development. We note that any development of the site (even that similar to that existing on 72 Wright St) would result in loss of sunlight. The design aims to reduce the effect of this (although not a specific planning criteria) by stepping the building away from the boundaries.

7.0 Reduction in height

The lowering of the building will require excavation closer to the water table. This may result in adverse impacts on neighbouring properties due to the significant excavation that will be necessary.

We are in receipt of public domain information which locates the water table in this location -3m below natural ground level. As with all technical items required in the detailed documentation of the design; a qualified consultant will be engaged by the applicant to identify and resolve site conditions to not adversely affect neighbouring properties. As the city requires, this information will form part of Building License application in due course.

8.0 Energy Efficiency

The revised design provides increased glazing particularly on the east building which will absorb morning sunlight. There is a concern whether the design can achieve a 5 Star GBCA rating.

We reject this statement, there is now less glazing on the east elevation of the revised design. As per the original submission a specialist environmental consultant has been engaged by the applicant to assess environmental performance of the design. Based on consultant feedback received to date; we are confident the revised design will achieve 5 Star rating.

9.0 Retaining Walls

Concerned about the level of below ground retaining and excavation that is proposed.

Excavation is required and contributes to the design, in so doing reduces any adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring properties. As with all structural elements of the design, a registered structural engineer will be engaged to detail retaining walls. Retaining walls will be located and constructed within the site boundary and therefore will not affect the neighbour’s amenity. As the city requires, this information will form part of Building License application in due course.

10.0 Comments in support Pleased that the new design interacts better with the streetscape. There is a demand for medium density residential development in this area. The location is ideal as it is within close proximity to the City and public transport routes. The revised design has softened its relationship with neighbouring properties.

The development includes unique design features and has taken into consideration important design elements such as setbacks, which are important elements for inner city apartments. Good to see that there are larger apartments proposed that will allow for families and downsizers.

ATTACHMENT 6

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING

Schedule of Submissions including City of Vincent responses

Schedule of Submissions

Revised plans for 66 – 70 Wright Street, Highgate (advertised April/May 2017)

Issue Administration comments Streetscape and Amenity Supportive of the design of the building however feels strongly that the development is not of a suitable scale for Wright Street which comprises of many character homes and town-house type residences. The scale of the development is overbearing and will be out of context with the surrounding residential streetscape both now and in the future. The development is better suited to a major road or within a town centre. The height of the proposed development will adversely affect the visual amenity of adjoining properties, in particular the rear five storey building. The ground level at the rear of the subject land is higher than the property abutting the northern boundary, which will make the development seem even higher. The proposed street setback does not contribute to the desired streetscape.

The revised proposal has reduced the overall building height and AHD levels, however, still proposes a four and five storey building. This is inconsistent with the existing and intended future built form along Wright Street even when considering the development potential of the surrounding lots. The placement of the five storey building towards the rear of the lot which is the higher part of the land further exacerbates its impact on the adjoining properties and the streetscape. The City does not consider that the revised plans sufficiently address the reasons for refusal relating to streetscape and amenity. The reduction in finished floor levels has improved the interface of the development with the street. The proposed four (4) metre setback to the basement car park and 5.8 metre setback to the storeroom are not considered to detract from the streetscape. The City considers that the revised plans have addressed the reason for refusal relating to street setbacks.

Bulk and Scale The revised design has not changed significantly from the design refused in December in terms of bulk and scale. The plot ratio exceeds the deemed-to-comply standard by 30% and the reduction in height is considered minimal. The community was seeking a reduction in storeys rather than centimetres. The revised design does not adequately address the previous community concerns or the JDAP’s reasons for refusal and remains fundamentally unchanged in terms of bulk, scale and appropriateness for this location.

The revised proposal incorporates a reduction in the number of apartments (reduced from 40 to 38) and a reduction in the overall building height and AHD levels. In addition, the revised proposal offers increased boundary setbacks to the upper floors of both buildings. The resulting reduction in plot ratio is 0.01 or 84.30m2. The revised proposal has addressed some of the reasons for refusal including setbacks, site works and retaining walls. Although the applicant’s efforts to address the reasons relating to height and plot ratio are noted, the City considers the revised design will still adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and the streetscape. It is important to note that the three (3) storey deemed-

The development is still well over the three-storey height limit for the area and will be out of scale with the existing and intended streetscape and character of Wright Street which is three storeys in height. Wright Street comprises of mainly one and two storey dwellings. The revised plans do not address the previous community concerns even though they were made clear at a closed meeting in March that the developer invited some (but not all) community members to. The rear building has not reduced significantly in height and will be visible to residents along Wright Street and Broome Street. The building will look like a big square block from the park on Broome Street and should be reduced in scale and height.

to-comply height prescribed by the City’s Built Form Policy provides a straight-forward pathway to satisfying the design principles, not an absolute one. The City's preferred approach, as outlined in the Built Form Policy, is for developments which seek height greater the deemed-to-comply standard to have a Local Development Plan approved over the site, however, it is the applicants right to apply for a discretionary decision to be made and have the proposal assessed under the design principles of the R-Codes in respect to building height.

Setbacks Setbacks to buildings less than 4 metres from the boundary presents serious privacy issues. A more appropriately sized development would enable the developer to achieve the required setbacks.

The proposed 1.0 metre setback to the storeroom from the northern boundary, 2.2 metre setback to the ensuite on the southern boundary and 1.88 metre setbacks to storerooms on the southern boundary do not contribute to overlooking and are not considered to adversely impact privacy for the adjoining properties.

Overlooking/Privacy The revised development will still overlooking adjoining properties, particularly the rear balconies which do not achieve the deemed-to-comply standards of the Residential Design Codes. This will result in a loss of privacy to the affected neighbours.

The eastern building proposes unscreened balconies to rear units setback from the rear boundary between 3.7 metres and 4.5 metres in lieu of the 4.5 metre setback included as the deemed-to-comply standard in the R-Codes. The overlooking of these balconies falls over the landscaped rear setback area of the multiple dwelling development front Lord Street to the rear. This area is already overlooked by a number of the dwellings on this site and given this the proposed setbacks of the balconies from the rear boundary are considered appropriate. It should be noted that the applicant has proposed to plant several mature trees (500L to 1,000L) along the rear boundary which will assist in providing a vegetation screen for this balcony.

Landscaping Concerned the development offers ‘token’ greenery rather than trees.

The proposal fully complies with the landscaping requirements set out in the R-Codes. Although pending WAPC approval, the deemed-to-

Concerned that the development does not meet the standard landscaping requirements. The increased greenery and deep root zones do not mitigate the impact of the bulk and scale of the development from the adjoining properties. There are insufficient deep root zones to provide necessary screening and privacy to adjoining residents. The proposed planter boxes are inadequate to support the depicted landscaping and will rely on the ongoing maintenance of individual apartment residents. This will be difficult to manage.

comply requirements of the City’s Built Form Policy have also been given due regard. The Built Form Policy requires that 15 per cent of the site is provided as deep soil zones and that 30 per cent of the site area is provided as canopy coverage within five years of development approval. The revised design can achieve the minimum 15% deep soil zones and 30% canopy coverage at maturity required by the City’s Built Form Policy. The applicant has indicated they intend to plant mature trees with a pot size of 500L to 1,000L as part of their landscaping program. The applicant has also indicated their preparedness to consult with the northern adjoining landowners in relation to suitable tree species in the deep root zone located along this boundary. Further detail on the landscaping program including the exact species would be provided in a Landscaping Plan.

Overshadowing and Direct Sunlight The development will overshadow lower level apartments of the property to the east. The development will result in a loss of sunlight for the adjoining properties, in particular the residences to the north.

The R-Codes require consideration to the shadow cast by a development at midday on 21 June onto any adjoining property, however, do not provide a deemed-to-comply standard relating to overshadowing on land coded R80. The shadow cast at midday on 21 June would fall onto the southern lot and would result in 60% overshadowing of the adjoining lot which would fully cover solar panels installed on the dwelling.

Reduction in height The lowering of the building will require excavation closer to the water table. This may result in adverse impacts on neighbouring properties due to the significant excavation that will be necessary.

The applicant will be required to demonstrate that excavation associated with the development will not result in adverse impacts at the building permit stage.

Energy Efficiency The revised design provides increased glazing particularly on the east building which will absorb morning sunlight. There is a concern whether the design can achieve a 5 Star GBCA rating.

The ability for the design to achieve a 5 star rating will be determined at the building permit stage.

Retaining Walls Concerned about the level of below ground retaining and excavation that is proposed.

The applicant will be required to demonstrate that excavation associated with the development will not result in adverse impacts at the building permit stage.

Comments in support Pleased that the new design interacts better with the streetscape. There is a demand for medium density residential development in this area. The location is ideal as it is within close proximity to the City and public transport routes. The revised design has softened its relationship with neighbouring properties. The development includes unique design features and has taken into consideration important design elements such as setbacks, which are important elements for inner city apartments. Good to see that there are larger apartments proposed that will allow for families and downsizers.

Noted.

ATTACHMENT 7

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING

Design Advisory Committee – November 2016 comments

66 – 70 Wright Street, Highgate Excerpt from email containing DAC comments in November 2016

Hi all Further to the minutes of the DAC meeting held on 14 September 2016 (shown below), I have sent you via We Transfer the amended plans for the above. Please send your comments to James to collate. DAC Minutes – 14 September 2016: “5.3 Address: 66-70 (Lots 8 & 9) Wright Street, Highgate Proposal: Demolition of Three Single Houses and Construction of Five Storey Multiple Dwelling Development Comprising of 40 Multiple Dwellings and Associated Car Parking Applicant: Momentum Wealth/Scanlan Architects Reason for Referral: Development is over Four Storeys and Multiple Dwellings Discussion: The Design Advisory Committee provides architectural advice to the City of Vincent to inform the City’s assessment and determination of future planning applications. The DAC’s advice is not planning advice and will not fetter the final determination made in respect of an application for planning approval for the proposed development. Applicant’s Presentation: The Applicant presented the previous mandatory items with a power point presentation. Response to previous mandatory recommendations – 20 July 2016 Amenity:

The east-west central ground floor communal open scape spine is a welcomed feature of the development. Refine the spine by:

Increasing access to natural light. This may be achieved by realigning the gaps on the upper levels from north-south to east-west;

Providing greater connection between the sauna/steam room with the greenery at the rear of the site;

Widening the narrow pinch points; Maximizing east-west views through the site to Brigatti Gardens; Incorporating pedestrian access from the street that is more efficient and minimizes

(removes) the long narrow southern boundary pedestrian access way. Addressed Improve the orientation and access to natural and outlook for the main indoor and outdoor

areas of the ground floor units on the block fronting Wright Street. Addressed Consider further activisation of the north south axis open space, the public area most

accessible to northern winter sun. Addressed Ensure that the internal planning (yet to be developed) pursues a high level of internal

amenity. Addressed Architecture:

Reconsider the use of the light wells on the block fronting Wright Street. Addressed Review the location of the external private open space areas for Units 1 & 2 in order to

maximise their light, amenity and therefore use. Addressed

Landscaping: The green vision for the project was well received. Further information required for greening

strategies on slab throughout the building. Addressed It is noted that no existing trees have been reviewed or attempts made to retain any existing

trees on lot. Explore where (if any) existing trees may be incorporated into the design. Not Addressed

Recommendations & Comments by DAC:

Widen the reflection pond or reconfigure to allow for improved view lines from the central communal space area to the park to the west – as per original proposal. Consider mirror or highly reflective walls/roof that could assist with this view corridor and pick up some of the water movement of the pond – the play with water, light and reflection could be impressive.

Explore how the large level change (and stairs) between the two community gathering spaces can be minimised in order to establish a better connection between them. It was discussed that stairs could be broadened out into a wider series of terrace/steps integrating seating and gathering areas.

Integrate mature canopy trees into the deep root zone area along the pedestrian entry spine. Cover the exposed driveway and car parking area to the north of the site with a permeable

pergola structure (similar to that over the pedestrian entry spine) that still allows for trees to grow through.

The stepped retaining along the southern portion of the front setback area is a positive feature that breaks up the bulk of the front setback area and allows for the planting of soft landscaping. Extend the stepped retaining and landscaping northward to reduce the impact of the development on the streetscape.

The asymmetrical articulation and the strong horizontal emphasis of the west elevation is a key aesthetic of the development that is not carried through to any of the other elevations. Introduce asymmetrical and strong horizontal articulation into all elevations to provide a consistent architectural language throughout the development.

Extend the black horizontal lines that demarcate each floor to create awnings to further emphasis this language. This is to further assist with shading of fenestration.

Detail how the balcony planter boxes will work in relation to the BCA requirements for balustrading. Will balustrading be required above the planter boxes? If so, what will this look like?

Investigate if operable windows can be placed onto the communal circulation areas to assist with cross ventilation of units.

Address safety concerns of pedestrians stepping out at the bottom of the stair onto the vehicular driveway – located central to the development.

Show how proposed shade trees planted against the northern boundary between visitor car parks will have a suitable rootable soil zone. Space is limited when paving and retaining wall foundations are considered. Consider a wider gap between vehicles and locating trees 1.5m away from retaining wall.

Mandatory: Although mandatory items from previous meeting/s may have been addressed, design changes may trigger new issues that need to be addressed before the DAC can support the proposal. Amenity:

Investigate if operable windows can be placed onto the communal circulation areas to assist with cross ventilation of units. Cannot Assess, as drawings are not clear.

Architecture:

Widen the reflection pond or reconfigure to allow for improved view lines from the central communal space area to the park to the west – as per original proposal. Not Addressed.

Cover the exposed driveway and car parking area to the north of the site with a permeable pergola structure (similar to that over the pedestrian entry spine) that still allows for trees to grow through. Addressed.

Introduce asymmetrical and strong horizontal articulation into all elevations to provide a consistent architectural language throughout the development. Addressed.

Extend the black horizontal lines that demarcate each floor to create awnings to further emphasis this horizontal and cantilever language. This is also to further assist with shading of fenestration. Addressed.

Landscaping:

Integrate mature canopy trees into the deep root zone area along the pedestrian entry spine. Addressed.

Explore how the large level change (and stairs) between the two community gathering spaces can be minimised in order to establish a better connection between them. It was discussed that stairs could be broadened out into a wider series of terrace/steps integrating seating and gathering areas. Not Addressed.

The stepped retaining along the southern portion of the front setback area is a positive feature

that breaks up the bulk of the front setback area and allows for the planting of soft landscaping. Extend the stepped retaining and landscaping northward to reduce the impact of the development on the streetscape. Partially Addressed.

Detail how the balcony planter boxes will work in relation to the BCA requirements for balustrading. Will balustrading be required above the planter boxes? If so, what will this look like? Addressed.

Show how proposed shade trees planted against the northern boundary between visitor car parks will have a suitable rootable soil zone. Space is limited when paving and retaining wall foundations are considered. Consider a wider gap between vehicles and locating trees 1.5m away from retaining wall. Addressed.

It is noted that no existing trees have been reviewed or attempts made to retain any existing trees on lot. Explore where (if any) existing trees may be incorporated into the design. Not Addressed.

Conclusion: The DAC supports the direction of the design and seeks resolution of the above mandatory items, the plans can be circulated. The DAC requires planning to determine the datum point from which the height will be determined, as the height lines shown dotted on the drawings may not take into consideration the cross falls on the site – East / West / North / South. The DAC Considers the transition between the 1st Floor, the footpath and the pedestrian entry can be improved by the stepping down of the raised planters. The DAC supports the stepping façade off the Western block to the North and suggests that the Eastern block (rear) also steps to the North to reduce the impact to the neighbouring lot. The DAC subject to the applicant meeting:

(i) the technical issues (determination of the height of the building) and (ii) further refinements of the design.

Supports the design direction. Technical: All technical issues must be resolved with City of Vincent officers.”

ATTACHMENT 8

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING

Design Advisory Committee Minutes (unconfirmed) 9 May 2017

DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Tuesday 9 May 2017 at 4.00pm

Venue: Telephone Conference (DAC Members) Committee Room

City of Vincent Administration and Civic Centre (Applicant and City of Vincent)

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES Attendees: Design Advisory Committee Members: James Christou (Chairperson) Adrian Iredale (Member) Stephen Carrick (Member)

City of Vincent Officers: Paola Di Perna (Manager Approval Services) Cathrine Temple (Special Projects Officer)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Applicant Kelly Tomsons (Momentum Wealth) Laurie Scanlan (Scanlan Architects) Kate Barsden (Scanlan Architects)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

4.00pm Member Discussion 4.10pm 1. Welcome / Declaration of Opening

The meeting commenced at approximately 4.10pm.

2. Apologies Nil 4.10pm–4.45pm – Reconsideration – No DA Lodged

3.1 Address: Nos. 66 – 70 Wright Street, Highgate

Proposal: Proposed thirty-eight multiple dwellings (four and five storey buildings) Applicant: Momentum Wealth Reason for Referral: For the DAC to review revised plans submitted and provide comment on whether the revisions address mandatory items which were not satisfied by the previous plans.

Discussion: The Design Advisory Committee provides architectural advice to the City of Vincent to inform the City’s assessment and determination of future planning

applications. The DAC’s advice is not planning advice and will not fetter the final determination made in respect of an application for planning approval for the proposed development. The DAC’s comments are sought on whether the revised plans satisfy the items which were identified as ‘mandatory’ yet not addressed by the previous design when the DAC provided email comments in November 2016. Applicant’s Presentation: The applicant provided a 15 minute verbal presentation on the revised plans and discussed changes that had been made since the previous DAC Meeting in September 2016. Mandatory recommendations from DAC Comments received in November 2016 Element Applicant’s Response Amenity Investigate if operable windows can be placed onto the communal circulation areas to assist with cross ventilation of units.

The applicant considers that this is possible to achieve providing the windows achieve size and locational criteria.

Architecture Widen the reflection pond or reconfigure to allow for improved view lines from the central communal space area to the park to the west – as per original proposal.

The reflection pond has been widened by approximately 200mm and straightened to improve view lines. Further widening was restricted by attempts to draw the building fabric away from the boundary.

Landscaping Explore how the large level change (and stairs) between the two community gathering spaces can be minimised in order to establish a better connection between them. It was discussed that stairs could be broadened out into a wider series of terrace/steps integrating seating and gathering areas.

The changes to the finished floor levels and design of the building has resulted in the space between the two buildings becoming larger. The retaining in this area provides a dual purpose and provides seating areas. The previous design included a semi-enclosed gathering space which has now been replaced with a partially covered area. The steps and introduced terraces have been widened to improve the connectivity of the communal areas.

The stepped retaining along the southern portion of the front setback area is a positive feature that breaks up the bulk of the front setback area and allows for the planting of soft landscaping. Extend the stepped retaining and landscaping northward to reduce the impact of the development on the streetscape.

The lowering of the finished floor level on the ground floor (entry level) of the western building has resulted in several changes to the retaining and landscaping in the front setback. Direct pedestrian access is now provided to the units on the ground level of the western building.

It is noted that no existing trees have been reviewed or attempts made to retain any existing trees on lot. Explore where (if any) existing trees may be incorporated into the design.

The existing gum tree on the verge is now being retained as part of the proposal. A landscape architect provided consultation on the trees located within the site boundaries and concluded that there was nothing worthy of retention. The applicant is proposing to plant several mature trees (500L to 1,000L) as part of the landscaping element of the proposal. The

species and type will be determined by a registered landscape architect and in consultation with the landowner to the north.

Conclusion Datum point to be determined by planning Natural ground level has been measured

from the level immediately below the building. The applicant and the City have worked together to determine building height across the development.

Transition between the 1st Floor, the footpath and the pedestrian entry can be improved by stepping down of the raised planters.

The lowering of the finished floor level on the ground floor (entry level) of the western building has resulted in several changes to the retaining and landscaping in the front setback. Direct pedestrian access is now provided to the units on the ground level of the western building.

The DAC supports the stepping façade off the Western block to the North and suggests that the Eastern block (rear) also steps to the North to reduce the impact to the neighbouring lot.

Setbacks to the upper floor of the eastern block have been increased to mitigate the impact on the northern lot.

Conclusion: Previous Mandatory Items Amenity Investigate if operable windows can be placed onto the communal circulation areas to assist with cross ventilation of units. DAC comments: Given the applicant’s response to the placement of operable windows into/onto the communal circulation areas, the DAC considers they should be incorporated into the development to assist with cross ventilation. Architecture Widen the reflection pond or reconfigure to allow for improved view lines from the central communal space area to the park to the west – as per original proposal. DAC comments: The DAC notes the minor increase in the width of the reflection pond given the applicant’s primary focus was to draw the building fabric away from the boundary and to straighten the view path from the communal areas to Brigatti Gardens. Landscaping Explore how the large level change (and stairs) between the two community gathering spaces can be minimised in order to establish a better connection between them. It was discussed that stairs could be broadened out into a wider series of terrace/steps integrating seating and gathering areas. DAC comments: Noted in A2.03 and A4.01 changes to the landscaped area and the incorporation of the dual-purpose retaining. The stepped retaining along the southern portion of the front setback area is a positive feature that breaks up the bulk of the front setback area and allows for the planting of soft landscaping. Extend the stepped retaining and landscaping northward to reduce the impact of the development on the streetscape.

DAC comments: Addressed: changes to finished floor levels has reduced the bulk of the development to the street with further articulation and improvement resulting in a more traditional presentation to the street. This is illustrated in A9.00 3D view to Wright Street. It is noted that no existing trees have been reviewed or attempts made to retain any existing trees on lot. Explore where (if any) existing trees may be incorporated into the design. DAC comments: The applicant’s landscape consultant has advised that there were no trees of value to retain on the site. Existing gum tree on the verge being retained. Suggest applicant provide a species list. Conclusion Datum point to be determined by planning DAC comments: Addressed: spot building height measured from natural ground level immediately below building Transition between the 1st Floor, the footpath and the pedestrian entry can be improved by stepping down of the raised planters. DAC comments: Addressed through changes to finished floor level. The DAC supports the stepping façade off the Western block to the North and suggests that the Eastern block (rear) also steps to the North to reduce the impact to the neighbouring lot. General discussion

The DAC suggested the applicant provide a cross section showing the scale of the proposed development against the multiple dwelling development to the rear;

The applicant advised that the setbacks to rear boundary remain unchanged due to separation between the existing building to the east and the proposed building, and the presence of existing landscaping along the rear boundary of the eastern adjoining property.

The applicant advised that the revised plans have offset the basement so that an additional deep soil zone is now being offered on the northern boundary.

4. Close The meeting concluded at approximately 4.45pm.