DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY 17 MARCH …...#28 kingsland ave city beach...

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

TUESDAY 17 MARCH 2020

ATTACHMENT TO ITEM DV20.25

LOT 100 (NO.28) KINGSLAND AVENUE, CITY BEACH

The Town of Cambridge does not warrant the accuracy of information in this publication and any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that the Town of Cambridge shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information. 1:1000

Date:

WILLIS DESIGN GROUP P/L

ACWillisDesign/Drwn:

Builder to note:

All dimensions and levels to be verified on site.Ensure all materials, products,fixtures fit neatly into place and fixed according tomanufacturer's instructions and recommendations. Figured dimensions takeprecedence over scale. All work to conform to local council, BCA regulatoryrequirements, current Australian Standards and good trade practice.

Copyright:This drawing is the property of Willis Design Group P/L and is not to bereproduced wholly or in part without written permission; it has been prepared ingood faith. By accepting this sketch and const. drawings the client indemnifiesWDG should there be any breach of copyright by others owing to either: 1 plansprovided by owner. 2. Prepared a plan under instruction by the owner. 3.Supplied information by the owner. This indemnity also applies to the contractorengaged to carry out the works.

Drawing #Project #

CONSULTANT:STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS:

Structerre

Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Heritage, Urban Design & Planning

Project Design Managers

54 Stoneham Road, Attadale, Western Australia 6156.

Tel: 93305297 Mobile: 0415950570

Email: [email protected] Webpage: www.acwdesign.com.au

Sept 2019

12813/6/2019

#28 KINGSLAND AVECITY BEACH

ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS

GROUND FLOOR

UPPERFLOORFFL: 22.029

FFL: 19.2

GARAGEFFL: 17.743

19.5

19.34

18.2817.918.0

17.08

17.05

17.46 16.94

16.18

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

18.5

19

15.5

15

14.5

14

15.7915.87

SITE PROPOSAL 1:200

LOT 100 #28

KINGSLAND AVENUE

NORTH

UPPERFLOOREXTENSION30m2

7500

R12.5FRONT SETBACK7.5m

11500

5000

GROUNDFLOOREXTENSION5m2

AMENDMENT18/2/2020 additional5000mm x 1000mm


E1

NORTH

UPPER FLOOR PROPOSAL1:100



Sept 2019


Structerre




Tel: 93305297 Mobile: 0415950570


Project # Drawing #

Design/Drwn:

Builder to note:




ACWillisDate:

2813/6/2019 3

WC

ENSUITE

BEDROOM # 1

UPPER LIVING

BALCONY

LIVING

MEALS

VIEW TOWARDS OCEAN

FFL: 22.030

GROUND FLOOR PROPOSAL 1:100

existing 13cconcretebeam over

existing250UC89steelbeam

ADDITIONUPPERFLOORPROPOSALOVER

existing low retaining wallTOW: 17.743

BEDROOM #2

BEDROOM #3

ENTRYFFL: 19.2

GARAGE

FFL: 17.743

low wallTOW:19.2

TOW:18.257

TOW:18.257

down

up

down

15.87

17

16.5

16

16.18

boundary

boundary

7.5m street setback

FPL: 18.257 (-11c)

17.08

17.08

LIFT

LIFT

NATURAL GROUNDAND SPOT LEVELSMARKED IN RED

17.08

16.95

VIEW TOWARDS OCEAN

5000

remove wall

17

16.5

17.08

16.95

retain part low wall @ 36cand install new glassbalustrade behind toprevent climbing

replacewindow

bench

raking ceiling

column

new 620solidcore door

FUTUREMEZZANINEFLOOR

'Lotus' Glas-Staxframeless glassmoving wall system

cut down cornerbrick pier to 36creplace column withstainless steel

relocate a/c to allow for newrear access door

GARAGE STOREADDITION 5m2

2400

EXISTING HOUSE0531DA - 2012

EXISTING HOUSE0531DA - 2012

cut down cornerbrick pier to 36creplace column withstainless steel

roofbelow

UPPER LEVELAMENDMENT

GROUNDLEVELAMENDMENT

columnfixed window

openingwindows

existing30 deg roof500 eaves

2896 374

7021

499

DIMENSIONSTAKEN FROMPLANNINGAPPROVED PLANS7/MARCH 2018

APPROVEDUPPER LEVELADDITION7/MAR 2019



E2

2657

2521

62c

33c

31c

0c

FFL: 22.030

FFL:19.2

Ceil 24.55

25c

58c

36c 36c shelf

FPL: 18.257- 11c

5914EXIST

66c

6600EXIST

garage FFL: 17.743 (-17c)

20c

25c

28c

58c58cnew window

6429EXIST



Sept 2019


Structerre




Tel: 93305297 Mobile: 0415950570


Project # Drawing #

Design/Drwn:

Builder to note:




ACWillisDate:

2813/6/2019 4

17

16.516.75

7857EXIST

2012 NATURAL GROUND LEVELS

LEVELS AS OF 2019

EXISTINGRETAININGWALL

7500EXIST

KINGSLAND AVE - STREET VIEW - SOUTH(Levels to eaves)1:100

exist door

existing tiledroof

continue metal roof30 deg with 500 eaves

6772EXIST

7843EXIST& PROPOSAL

garage FFL: 17.743 (-17c)TOW 17.743

2012 & 2019 NATURAL GROUND LEVELS

EXISTING GARAGE

EXTENSION

6429EXIST

7150EXISTINGGROUND TOCEILING

7800NEW

EAST 1:100

removecorner

brickwork- level offat @ 36cexisting.

WEST 1:100

26.4

NGL 17

9700Existing

26.7

17driveway

stone claddingapplied overexist render

texture coatedfinish colour tomatch existing

roof to matchexisting

58c

retain part roof

26.7 ridge beyond

new stonecladding

replaceexistingbalustradewith newglass

1600typical

continue metal roof

NORTH 1:100

newdoor/frame

existingroof

removecorner

brickwork- level offat @ 36cexisting.

26.7

26.1

36cexisting wall - retain

2600

NEW STORE TO SIDEOF GARAGE1000 depth

NEW STORE

Surfmist

texture coated wallsfinish to matchexisting.Colorbond surfmistroof

NEWSTOREtexture coated walls

surface finish tomatch existing.Colorbond surfmistroof

replace steelcolumn with newstainless steel



f f

f

surface texturefinish - colour tomatch existing

a a a a a

Development application site photographs Property Lot 100 (No. 28) Kingsland Avenue, City Beach Proposal Alterations/Additions to Existing Two-storey Dwelling DA reference DA19/0282 Date of photographs 9 January 2020 Photograph 1: View of subject site from intersection of Kingsland Avenue and Elouera Way, looking north-east.

Photograph 2: View of site from Kingsland Avenue, looking north.

W I L L I S D E S I G N G R O U P P/L 5 4 Stoneham Road, Attadale WA 6156 [email protected] (mob 0415950570)

Att City of Cambridge

Lot 100 (#28) Kingsland Avenue, City Beach.

January 29, 2019

Att Ryan Munyard Senior Statuary Planning Officer. Lot 100 (#28) Kingsland Avenue, City Beach.

Current Action: Further to our meeting 30/1/2020, the owner is seeking to continue in seeking planning approval for alterations and additions. In view of this attention is drawn to the following previous development applications and their status.

1. 0531DA-2012; 11 Feb 2013…… enacted - Yes (approved and built) 2. 0531DA – 2012.01; 4/Mar 2014….. enacted – No (approved - did not proceed with build) 3. 0091DA – 2018; 25/September….. enacted – No (approved - did not proceed with build) 4. DA 19/0062; 8/May 2019…… enacted (approval current, have not as yet proceeded with build) 5. DA 19/0192; 29/July 2019…. enacted (approval current have not as yet proceeded with build) 6. DA 19/0282; 29/1/2020…. Currently under assessment (owner seeking further changes)

Documentation attached:

A. Existing house plans: 0531DA-2012 11/Feb 2013. B. Currently planning approved plans: DA 19/0062 8/May 2019 & DA19/092 29/July 2019 - with overlay.

“DA19/0062 established all the main elements of the currently approved upper level extension design ( roof ridge heights and lengths, also front wall heights), whereas DA/0192 contains only minor modifications to the existing Bed 1 window and existing balcony balustrade.

C. Current submission DA 19/0282 29/1/2020 owner seeking changes – plans. 1 – 5 • Attention is drawn to B (Drgs ‘X’ & ‘Y’) where the owner is seeking a 600mm adjustment outwards for both

the south and east upper approved level walls. Note: the window to bed 1 will now not proceed, neither the carport. A small store is sought adjoining the garage (east wall) and a new store mezzanine within the garage.

• The roof line (ridge/hips and valleys over the proposed addition) approved on this plan will not alter – remaining the same.

• Drawings 1 – 5 (R1) show the proposals: plans, elevations and perspective. Finishes shown on drawings. The owner has acknowledged how policies have recently altered and by this proposal the intent has been to deliver a more benign, less bulk/invasive solution. Trusting this meets with your approval Yours faithfully,

Alex C Willis Planner, Design Manager and Heritage Consultant. M.Planning (Professional) (Urban Design Spec); M.Cult.Heritage; P.Grad Dip. Cult. Heritage; P.Grad Cert. Planning (Urb Des); Cert BPArch; Dip Bldg. Des/Tec; Dip. Int Des; Cert IV Arch. Drft. MDIA; MPIA; Aff RAIA; M.ICOMOS; Aff AIM; Aff.AIB.

W I L L I S D E S I G N G R O U P P/L 5 4 Stoneham Road, Attadale WA 6156 <[email protected]> (mob 0415950570)

Att City of Cambridge

DA 19/0282

Lot 100 (#28) Kingsland Avenue, City Beach.

December 4, 2019

Att Ryan Munyard Senior Statuary Planning Officer.

In response to requested information.

1. Ridge – new/existing

This is best explained by referring to the attached plans A & B Further investigation and demonstration reveals the following on ‘A’:

Ridge 2 (meals) table 3 (B), complies with (iii) & (iv)

Ridge 3 complies with in 9m

Ridge 1 exceeds height by 0.5m . Owing to the code allowance of 6m ridge length at this height the ridge length with the addition becomes 7.2m long. Therefore justification is sought for the additional 1.2m ridge length for the following reasons:

As per sketch plan B the distance of the ridge as viewed is 31m away and is obscured by roofs in font, therefore difficult to define. Furthermore, according to R.D.Codes 5.1.6 Building Height P6, the ridge does not create an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape……” Adequate access to direct sun, open spaces, daylight to major openings too. It is a contributing part of the overall access to views of significance enjoyed by the addition.

2. Roofing Colour:

colorbond shale grey to match existing

3. Construction materials:

Rendered double brick to match existing

4. Confirming the upper floor level is indeed 22.030

This relates to the original feature survey dated 3/12/2012 showing a ground floor of 19.2, then, allowing a build off 31c (2657 on the original built elevations)) to ceiling, then 172mm (similarly denoted on elevations)for slab thickness.

Therefore 19.2 + 2.657 + 0.172 = 22.029 (22.030 has been for rounding purposes)

Any plans submitted in the interim by others do not relate to the original and have been ignored.

5. The car port on DA 19//0192 was never built.

It does not form part of this renewed application.

Yours faithfully, Alex C Willis Planner, Design Manager and Heritage Consultant. M.Planning (Professional) (Urban Design Spec); M.Cult.Heritage; P.Grad Dip. Cult. Heritage; P.Grad Cert. Planning (Urb Des); Cert BPArch; Dip Bldg. Des/Tec; Dip. Int Des; Cert IV Arch. Drft. MDIA; MPIA; Aff RAIA; M.ICOMOS; Aff AIM; Aff.AIB.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

W ILL I S DES I G N G R 0 U P P /L

54 Stoneham Road, Attadale WA 6156

<[email protected]> (mob 0415950570)

To Town of Cambridge

1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat.

Sept27,2019

Planning:

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Lot 100 (No28) Kingsland Avenue, City Beach - Proposed Extensions to Single Dwelling.

(Note: previous: amendments 0091DA-2018; DA 190062)

The proposal is to build, a small upper level addition to the exiting living room.

A seamless extension continuing along, and in line with the balcony, returning

back over the garage.

Currently, all existing wall heights exceed the current, deemed to comply,

Residential Codes 2015 and revisions (5.1.6) (C6 Category B) with exception

to: top of 25 deg pitched roof (Table 3) (iii) (iv). Interestingly, neither did the

wall heights comply with the Acceptable Development 2010 Codes (6.7.1)

(A 1.1); although the top of roof pitch demonstrates within limits of 2010 and

2015 Codes.

The house was built in 2012. However, it would appear approvals were likely

granted, at the time, assessed on: meeting the objectives of Building Height

Requirements (6.7) and performance criteria (6.7.1). City Beach is unique,

owing to there being many large houses, taking advantage of ocean views,

topographical hilly, conditions and meeting local occupiers expectations.

In view of this, any such future work on the house is challenged architecturally

and with its own amenity, when applying deemed to satisfy on current

Residential Code conditions, specifically wall heights (not ridges). As with the

2012 assessment, the proposal is seeking to meet approval based upon

adopting 2015 design principles (5.1.6 ) (P6). TOWN 9F (;1;., ~~?DGE RECEB v n:.:.

1 OCT 2019

1 TIME:

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Furthermore, in determining the proposal does not assert that, it should ignore

the impact on surrounding buildings, neither the topography outlined in Local

Council Policy 3.3: Building Height Policy purposes and (Policy 1.0 a,b) , the

author has conducted a street analysis (accompanying information). Owing to

the length of Kingsland Avenue, the number of houses (30+), broader

observations and perceptions were engaged to demonstrate architectural

comparisons, specifically through form.

Interpretation:

2015 Residential Design Codes, Part 5, Buildings that comply with Table 3 for

Category B area buildings except where stated otherwise in the scheme, the

local planning policy, local structure plan or local development plan (refer fig

series, 7).

Tops of external wall (roof above) (ii) = 6m

Top of pitched roof (iii) (iv) = 9m

Demonstration:

By continuing the living room wall (street elevation) tops of walls exceed (if

taken from original ground level) by 1843 (6000 requirement actual 7843),

consistent with the 2012 approval.

Top of pitched roof meet the deemed to satisfy requirements then (2010 and

2015 Codes) of being well within. Two instances: central ridge allowed 9m +

0.5 (ridge less than 9m, therefore may add 0.5) = 9.5. Again the ridge over the

living room is 9m (potentially reaching, 10.5m).

Architecture:

Currently the architectural style (contemporary modern) displays much in the

way of a mass and void interaction; a positive and negative building form.

Articulation is noticeable such that there is passive space (void) between the

solid forms creating a visual interaction. The proposal is to acknowledge and

legitimize the architecture further by extending the void beneath the garage

while increasing the mass over. Translucency, through glazing, is attained

demonstrating a continuation of the symmetry of subtraction and addition for

the style.

2

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

R.Codes - Design Principles:

It within the opinion of the author and on behalf of the owner justification is

sought to apply Design Principles (5.1.6) P6, with respect to the proposal

specifically pertaining to the wall heights (not the ridges - they comply):

Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of

adjoining properties, or, the streetscape, including road reserves and

public open space reserves, and where appropriate maintains:

Adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant

spaces:

Adequate daylight in major openings into habitable rooms; and

access to views of significance.

Observations:

i) Accompanying information demonstrates that the extension is

consistent with the predominant height of buildings within the

surrounding area (Local Planning Policy 1.0 a).

b), The natural topography of the site responds and whether the

building height considers and responds to topography.

Comment: The slope falls from the rear of the lot to the

street front. Currently, the garage and adjoining porch steps

account for change in levels by being at a lower level than the

principle house floor. Similarly an existing screen wall screens

the house and delivers a terraced outcome. The proposal, the

upper floor extension, does not interfere, neither contradicts with

the existing topography, and responds to existing circumstance.

Eaves line has been maintained; a continuation of existing,

similarly the roof pitch matches existing. Windows of the same

material. Render and colour to match existing with stone feature

tiling. An added bonus is the extension extends over the garage

under providing additional weather protection.

3

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

c) Setbacks: The proposal is well beyond the minimum streetfront

setback (7.5m); actual 11.5m. And, side setback of 4m

(average) (i.e.: wall length 9m x 8m wall height) therefore 1.5m

min required. Visual privacy (5.4.1) P1.2 ensures oblique

viewing without disadvantaging neighbours views (note: #26

should a new build be desired front setbacks provide opportunity

without restriction.

d) Street Surveillance (5.2.3) P3 is enhanced with views towards the

ocean (common area and enjoyed by many others) and street.

e) Open space and site coverage are not affected by the extension.

f) Context (5.1) Complying with: -

a) To ensure the residential development meets

community expectations in regard to appearance, use and

density.

b) To ensure that designs respond to the key natural and built

features of the area and respond to the local context in terms of

bulk and scale...

c) To ensure adequate provision of direct sun and ventilation for

buildings and to ameliorate the impacts of building bulk, privacy

and overshadowing on adjoining properties.

g) Special Purpose: (5.5) Complying with: -

a) To ensure residential development is provided to

accommodate people with or without special needs.

The couple, retired (elderly), has recently installed a lift, which

connects the garage, entry (ground floor facilities) and the upper

living and main bedroom. The proposed extension enlarges the

upper floor by providing an architecturally seamless integration

of meaningful, increased amenity: small food prep, meals

desired, meeting their physical and well-being needs. The

balcony remains open.

4

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

h) Overshadowing.

The proposal complies with Res Des Codes 5.4.2 C2.1

’t .~II!! !ifri~,i!..(

,~1tu! _11 ,,’.~ 1

..,.

:.

EXISTING PROPOSAL

Currently a large street tree obscures much of the house, particularly when

walking or driving from properties to the east, down towards the ocean. In this

manner the tree eclipses part of the house - a lack of notice. There is no

footpath on the proposal’s side of the street.

5

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Street Analysis:

A street analysis accompanies this report describing several houses adjacent

and opposite to the proposal. In general, the findings determined the

following: owing to the street curving and all with sloping sites, many houses

have been designed to enjoy ocean views. As a pedestrian casual

observations indicate proximity to the beach, Lots and houses are substantial

in size, individually different, family orientated and expensive.

Conclusion:

Judgment of merit is sought with regard to objectives and balancing these

with the consideration of design principles provided in the R-Codes.

Yours faithfully,

Alex C Willis

Planner, Design and Heritage Consultant.

M.Planning (Professional) (Urban Design Spec); M.Cult.Heritage; P.Grad Dip. Cult. Heritage; P.Grad Cert. Planning

(Urb Des); Cert BPArch; Dip Bldg. DesfTec; Dip. Int Des; Cert IV Arch. Drft.

MDIA; MPIA; Aft RAIA; M.ICOMOS; Aft AIM; Aft.AIB.

6

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I ,

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Site Analysis: Lot 100, #28 Kingsland Avenue, City Beach.

Local Planning Policy 3.3:

Surrounding Area: three properties on either side of the proposed development on both sides of the street (excluding laneways/right of ways) that the dwelling is

orientated towards.

LOCATION PLAN

Kingsland Avenue, extends east - west from Templetonia Crescent (east) to West

Coast Highway (west) consisting of thirty plus houses. Owing to the street curving

and sloping sites many have been designed to enjoy ocean views. As a pedestrian

casual observations indicate proximity to the beach, Lots and houses are substantial

in size, individually different, family orientated and expensive. A footpath is located

on the opposite side of the proposal. The closest bus stop (19382) is 693m away

(1 Omins) Templetonia Cr.

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Current House: Lot 100 #28, Kingsland Avenue.

Style: Built 2012, Contemporary - modern.

Storeys: 2

Setbacks (proximity to street): well setback beyond the minimum Code

requirements

Vegetation: sparse, though some growth has been encouraged in front of the

screen wall; a huge street tree obscures much of the house looking directly from Kingsland Avenue.

Materials: Masonry - render with corrugated metal roof.

Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates some

compatibility with the slope of land: the driveway meanders and negotiates the

differences with a fairly level approach to the garage, circumnavigating around the tree, while sunken from the main house, set back, does not

dominate the landscape, particularly the street. The house while elevated is

expected to capture ocean views.

Building Height: Refer elevations.

Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with mass and void, across its horizontal plane.

Notable Elements/Features: Street tree. Architectural style. Setback from street.

2

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Lot 101 #17, Elouera Way, City Beach (first lot left (west) from proposal)

. ,

- -- ----~

Style: Built 1970 (original) with recent additions, Contemporary modern.

Storeys: 2

Setbacks (proximity to street): corner site with single storey garage and upper deck over projecting visibly at corner.

Vegetation: modest and attractive

Materials: Mixed - painted masonry with tiled roof; metal roof over balcony.

Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates

reasonably good compatibility with the slope of land: the driveway well to the

Lot’s side meanders and negotiates the differences with a fairly level approach to the garage located parallel to the road - quite discreet. The house while

elevated is expected to capture ocean views.

Building Height: With the balcony creating a large void, mass is obscured,

though, approximately 6m, from existing ground, the gable window noticeably exaggerates the height.

Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with mass and void, across its horizontal plane. Glazed elements deliver variety and interest.

Notable Elements/Features: landscaped garden (corner lot). glazing feature,

yawning balcony/deck.

3

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Lot 102 #15, Elouera Way, City Beach (second lot left (west) from proposal)

Style: Under Construction

Storeys: 3

Setbacks (proximity to street): close to street boundary.

Vegetation: nil

Materials: masonry - render

Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates a direct

street response; a transition of close proximity and identity. The house is

expected to capture ocean views.

Building Height: Little to distinguish with scaffold; approx 6m

Articulation: Little to distinguish: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent

with mass and void, large glazed elements anticipated across its broad

horizontal plane.

Notable Elements/Features: not applicable

4

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Lot 103 #13, Elouera Way, City Beach (third lot left (west) from proposal)

Style: Built 1960 - 1970. Modern

Storeys: 1 with 2 storey side addition

Setbacks (proximity to street): close

Vegetation: limited

Materials: render masonry with tiled roof


reasonably good compatibility with the slope of land. Terraced the house

while elevated is expected to capture ocean views.

Building Height: Terracing exaggerates the predominantly single storey house, the

storey part is approx 6m high from ground.

Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with Modern

architecture from the period. Earlier built and modest by comparison with

others in the locality the elevation lacks balance and has been poorly coloured.

Notable Elements/Features: while the terracing displays a sensible application in

transition from the street the house is not a quality, I

Modern’, example.

5

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Lot 99 #26, Kingsland Avenue, City Beach (first lot right (east) from proposal)

Style: Indistinguishable through dense vegetation. Likely 1960-70 owing to growth of trees.

Storeys: Unknown

Setbacks (proximity to street): The house is not visible from street being isolated

at the rear on higher ground.

Vegetation: Extremely dense with well established trees and shrubs

Materials: Unknown, though glimpses indicate masonry walls.

Topography: Owing to the screen wall, the available knowledge is obscured.

Building Height: Unknown

Articulation: Unknown

Notable Elements/Features: Dense vegetation - screen wall.

6

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Lot 98 #24, Kingsland Avenue, City Beach (second from Lot right (east) from

proposal.

Style: Built about 2000 - 2015 Contemporary modern.

Storeys: 3

Setbacks (proximity to street): Close, making full use of Residential Design Codes

with garage, portico and gateway.

Vegetation: Modest though artificially limited by space.

Materials: Rendered masonry with metal roof.

Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates reasonably

good compatibility with the slope of land: the driveway located to the lower

side approaching the garage almost directly level to the road. The house

while significantly elevated is expected to capture ocean views.

Building Height: Substantially high, both the portico and mass formed by the

balconies is well in excess of 6m.

Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with mass and void, across its horizontal plane. Deep setting voids allow for a passive

interpretation with deviation.

Notable Elements/Features: Large portico; sense of occupancy (mass on site).

7

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Lot 117 #22 Kingsland Avenue, City Beach (third Lot right east) from proposal.

,..-

Style: Built 1990’s, Contemporary, modern (international).

Storeys: 2

Setbacks (proximity to street): Very close, adopting corner, secondary street

setbacks

Vegetation: light.

Materials: rendered masonry with concealed roof


reasonably good compatibility with the slope of land. Assisted by stepped

terracing, which creates a series of relief patterns. The house while elevated

is expected through widespread use of glazing to capture ocean views.

Building Height: With the balconies creating a large void, mass is obscured,

though, approximately 6m - 8m, from existing ground, the terracing offers a certain relief.

Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with mass and void, across its horizontal plane. Glazed elements, terracing deliver variety and

interest.

Notable Elements/Features: Broad, landscape architecture, the entire block

appears to be well used, occupied by a large mass with much horizontal

emphasis.

8

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Lot 129 #31, Kingsland Avenue, City Beach. (opposite Lot (west) from proposal.

Style: Built 1980’s, Contemporary, modern.

Storeys: 1 with 2 storey at garage.

Setbacks (proximity to street): Very close with car port side on (parallel) with

street.

Vegetation: light.

Materials: rendered masonry colorbond metal roof.

Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates reasonably

good compatibility with the slope of land particularly with the use of the

driveway from the low point.

Building Height: Predominantly single storey, recent alterations maintain original

heights. Garage and rooms to viewing side approx 5m.

Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with mass and void, across its horizontal plane. A large central penetration delivers variety and

interest.

Notable Elements/Features: Curved car port roof - low impact form.

9

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Lot 128 # 29 Kingsland Avenue, City Beach (directly opposite Lot from

proposal)

Style: Built 1980’s, Contemporary Nostalgic - Mediterranean

Storeys: 2

Setbacks (proximity to street): Very close, particularly the garage.

Vegetation: light. Street tree

Materials: rendered cream masonry with tiled roof (Spanish).


reasonably good compatibility with the slope of land. Positioned on a north- south axis and assisted by steps into the house, while elevated is expected

through the upper balcony to capture ocean views.

Building Height: With the balconies creating a large void, mass is obscured,

though, by a large street tree, approximately 6m - 7m, from existing ground, The side entrance to the house is a good example of utilizing the slope.

Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with mass and void, across its axis. Glazed elements, the balcony and style offer variety and

interest.

Notable Elements/Features Nostalgic, bold style with large street tree.

10

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Lot 127 #27 Kingsland Avenue, City Beach (diagonally opposite (east) of Lot

from proposal).

I

l

Style: Built 1970’s, Contemporary colonial - nostalgic.

Storeys: 2

Setbacks (proximity to street): The garage parallel to the street is exceptionally close, though concealed behind a screen boundary wall.

Vegetation: well established - quite dense

Materials: rendered masonry with tiled roof

Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates a very good

compatibility with the slope of land with a slim form following a north south

axis.

Building Height: With a long balcony mass is obscured, though, approximately 6m, from existing ground.

Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with mass and void, across its axis. The colonial style verandah, delivers variety and interest.

Notable Elements/Features: Verandah and well established trees.

11

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

II

I. I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

In close proximity to the proposal and not a requirement of the policy for determining

height, owing to such a large number of residential properties along the street, a

need to demonstrate other nearby examples, through their imposing form,

characteristics typical of Kingsland Avenue.

12

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

# 35 Kingsland Avenue

#30 Kingsland Avenue

13

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Prepared by:

Alex C Willis

Planner, Design and Heritage Consultant.

M.Planning (Professional) (Urban Design Spec); M.Cult.Heritage; P.Grad Dip. Cult. Heritage; P.Grad Cert. Planning (Urb Des); Cert BPArch; Dip Bldg. DesfTec; Dip. Int Des; Cert IV Arch. Drft.

MDIA; MPIA; Aft RAIA; M.ICOMOS; Aft AIM; Aft.AIB.

Willis Design Group P/L

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

19/9/2019

I

I

I

I

I

14

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY 17 MARCH …...#28 kingsland ave city beach...

Documents

Transcript of DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY 17 MARCH …...#28 kingsland ave city beach...