ordinary meeting of council to be held on tuesday, 26 april 2005 at ...

Ordinary Meeting <strong>of</strong> Council - 26 April 2005 1 / 19
1, 3, and 5 Lynbara Avenue and
12 Porters Lane, St Ives
Item 1 1219/04
1 April 2005
The building setback complies with the 9m minimum setback from rear boundaries in LEP 194 for
transitions <strong>be</strong>tween zones. However it is recommended <strong>to</strong> setback from the northern boundary in
the central section <strong>of</strong> the building. This increased setback will reduce the massive appearance <strong>of</strong>
the building when viewed from the dwelling courtyards <strong>to</strong> the north, by stepping and articulating
the façade, similar <strong>to</strong> the indented facade proposed in Lynbara Avenue, would visually relieve this
long facade.
The proposed indented facade in Lynbara Avenue is not essential <strong>to</strong> the design. As noted above, the
setbacks from Lynbara Avenue exceed the DCP requirements. The indented section does not relate
<strong>to</strong> the street alignment and is not the entry <strong>to</strong> the building (entries are from Stanley Street and
Porters Lane). There is no strong rationale for this indented section, and the facade could <strong>be</strong>
reasonably modelled while reducing the setback <strong>of</strong> the central section from 18m <strong>to</strong> 13m. This
would require changes <strong>to</strong> the internal planning <strong>of</strong> the central units. These changes would more
closely align the building facades <strong>to</strong> the street pattern, while allowing for facade articulation, and
creating greater setbacks and a less over<strong>be</strong>aring character along the northern boundary.
Comment
The above recommendations were accepted by the applicant and the plans were amended <strong>to</strong>
increase the articulation <strong>to</strong> the northern façade.
Council’s consultant Urban Design Officer stated that “I have examined the revised plans and they
are an improvement in terms <strong>of</strong> built form on the original design. The amended landscape <strong>to</strong>
provide greater screening <strong>to</strong> the rear <strong>of</strong> the building, will assist in relating <strong>to</strong> its landscaped setting
and in terms <strong>of</strong> SEPP 65 the DA should <strong>be</strong> approved.”
SEPP 65 Principle 4 - Density
The density is acceptable under LRP 194 and DCP 55.
SEPP 65 Principle 5 - Resources, Energy and Water Efficiency
The provision <strong>of</strong> sun access <strong>to</strong> living areas, cross ventilation, deep soil area and water management
are acceptable. The provision <strong>of</strong> sun hoods and louvres is good.
SEPP 65 Principle 6 - Landscape
The landscape design <strong>to</strong> the street frontages is acceptable. It is recommended that the provision <strong>of</strong>
screen planting along the north-western boundary is re-considered <strong>to</strong> provide taller and more
dense foliage than provided by the proposed jacarandas.
Comment
Council’s Landscape Assessment <strong>of</strong>ficer has recommended denser and taller trees along this
N:\050426-OMC-PR-03117-1 3 AND 5 LYNBARA AVENUE.doc/ssegall/19