Metro North-West JDAP - Agenda - Meeting No 23 ... - City of Stirling

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The tree in question is of poor health and the removal of the tree can be justified on this basis, in accordance with the provisions of the City’s Street Tree Policy. In addition the second street tree which is not in the way of the existing crossover, is also recommended to be removed. This is because the City’s Parks and Reserves Business unit have advised that the canopy and roots extends into the development site. Upon development of the site, the tree would not survive the damage caused to it by the development of the site and a result would begin to decline and would eventually drop its limbs (as this species is known to drop limbs when in stress). Given the potential safety hazard posed by the retention of this tree and development of the site, this tree would also be required to be removed as part of this proposed development. The removal of the two trees is conditional upon the applicant/owner bearing all costs associated with the removal and replacement of these trees. The City would undertake the work required at the owner/applicants cost. The City would recommend the replacement of the two existing street trees with five new trees. The reason for this is that the removal of two existing mature trees which are both in excess of 20m high, cannot be offset by the planting of only two new trees. The replacement of five new trees would contribute to offsetting the loss of these existing mature trees. Fencing The applicant is proposing a 2.1m - 3.0m high wall adjacent to the service area and bin store area. Given this wall will serve the purpose of screening the service and bin store areas, rather than simply acting as a dividing fence, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. Furthermore, the applicant would be permitted the extend the building as a two storey parapet wall if they chose to, which would add more bulk than the current proposal. The proposed wall is considered to be an extension of the building, rather than a typical dividing fence and it is considered that the intent of this policy provision is achieved. Conclusion: It is contended that the proposal does not comply with the following policy objective: To facilitate a development mix of showrooms and service industry of a higher aesthetic quality located on major traffic routes. Furthermore, the objectives for the zone state: a) To facilitate a development mix of showrooms and service industry of a higher aesthetic quality located on major traffic routes. A two storey development is proposed, plus a basement car parking, consisting of Restaurant (café), Industrial – light, warehouse and office uses. The applicant believes they comply with the objectives of the Mixed Business Design Guidelines. The applicant has stated there are a number of office development along Balcatta Road. The majority of these developments were approved prior to the Mixed Business zoning coming into place. The applicant specifically sites a recent development approval at 231 Balcatta Road which was permitted to have office on the ground floor. However it is contended that the circumstance surrounding that application were different in that the application proposed the refurbishment of the Page 16
existing building. The existing showroom tenancies that had been approved on the ground floor are no longer feasible as showroom tenancies given their small size and low ceiling heights. The subject application is a new development and it is reasonable for the development to comply with the provisions of the Mixed Business Design Guidelines. The City does not support the proposed land use as it does not meet the provisions of the guidelines as it does not provide an active frontage. The proposed development has been considered on its individual merit. A number of discretionary decisions are required to be made and, in some instances, these discretionary decisions have a favourable recommendation. Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that a variation to the development requirements of the Mixed Business Design Guidelines in respect to the ground floor office and industry - light component of the development not be supported in this instance as it does not meet the objectives of the policy, nor the objectives for the zone. In view of the above, the application is recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined. Page 17
Page 1 and 2: Metro North-West Joint Development
Page 3 and 4: Form 1 - Responsible Authority Repo
Page 5 and 6: a. The proposed development is inco
Page 7 and 8: The following Local Planning Police
Page 9 and 10: Element Satisfies Scheme/ Policy OR
Page 11 and 12: Element Satisfies Scheme/ Policy OR
Page 13 and 14: As outlined above, the majority of
Page 15 and 16: the number of car parking bays requ
Page 17: setback area will only be used for
Page 21 and 22: Page 19
Page 41 and 42: ATTACHMENT 2 - Aerial Location Plan
Page 43 and 44: ATTACHMENT 4 - City of Stirling Loc
Page 69 and 70:
Page 67
Page 71 and 72:
Page 69
Page 73 and 74:
Page 71
Page 75 and 76:
Page 73
Page 77 and 78:
Page 75
Page 79 and 80:
Page 77
Page 81 and 82:
Page 79
Page 83 and 84:
Page 81
Page 85 and 86:
Page 83
Page 87 and 88:
Page 85
Page 89 and 90:
ATTACHMENT 8 - Shawmac Transport As
Page 91 and 92:
Page 89
Page 93 and 94:
Page 91
Page 95 and 96:
Page 93
Page 97 and 98:
Page 95
Page 99 and 100:
Page 97
Page 101 and 102:
Page 99
Page 103 and 104:
Page 101
Page 105 and 106:
Page 103
Page 107 and 108:
Page 105
Page 109 and 110:
Page 107
Page 111 and 112:
Page 109
Page 113 and 114:
Page 111
Page 115 and 116:
Page 113
Page 117 and 118:
ATTACHMENT 9 - City of Stirling Str
Page 119 and 120:
Page 117
Page 121 and 122:
Page 119
show all

Metro North-West JDAP - Agenda - Meeting No 23 ... - City of Stirling

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?