726 CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 NOVEMBER 2016 · 2019. 6. 23. · 0 2 STOREY BUILDING 2...

5,35

0

34,50

0

6,00

0

47,000

39,000 2 STOREYBUILDING

2 STOREYBUILDING

2 STOREYBUILDING

2 STOREYBUILDING

NOTE: EXISTING BUILDING (8 LEVELS) LOCATED ON BOUNDARY

24 STOREYBUILDING

6 STOREYBUILDING

12 STOREYBUILDING

6 STOREYBUILDING

15 STOREYBUILDING

OCEAN PACIFIQUE

'ZENITH' APARTMENT BUILDING SITE

OR

CH

ID A

VE

NU

E

NOTE:

The 2 storey building immediately adjoining the subject site is on part of the site for the Zenith Residential Apartment Building and designated as communal facilities. As such this site is unlikely to be substantially redeveloped.

24 / 77387400 | DA - RFI RESPONSE | ISSUE B | AUGUST 2016 21 ORCHID AVENUE , SURFERS PARADISE | RESORT HOTEL

A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G S E P A R AT I O N5.11Attachment 1.4 ( of 22)

726th Council Meeting 15 November 2016 City Planning Committee Meeting 9 November 2016

170 Adopted Report

(visual and cumulative impact of the proposal)

387400AUGUST 2016

8.0 RFI RESPONSE supplementary urban design study

RESORT HOTEL


171 Adopted Report

RFI Response OverviewSupplementary Urban Design Study - Visual & Cumulative Impact of the ProposalBackgroundFurther to receipt of the RFI from COGC Officers, BDA Architecture prepared an urban design study of the visual impact of the proposal, and in particular how the use of a minimal setback to the northern boundary might impact upon future development in this precinct of central Surfers Paradise.

This study has been presented to COGC officers and representatives of the office of the City Architect.

ContextCouncil is concerned about any possible adverse impact of a new building built to a side boundary.

It should be noted that the existing adjoining development to the south (8 levels), is also a zero-setback development. So the typology has already been established in this precinct.

This supplementary study provides further support for the proposed built-form and innovative building design.

RFI ResponseThe proposed building is sited on a narrow and deep site in the most intensively developed precinct of Surfers Paradise. The site has an angled frontage to Orchid Avenue.

The proposal describes a building sited with one edge of the building adjoining a side boundary, while the other edge is set back 3m from the boundary. Smaller sites like the subject site are now able to be more intensively developed given the approved use of car lifts to efficiently serve multiple basement car parking.

This document analyses the site, in it’s planning context of Orchid Avenue, and establishes a clear rationale for approval of the proposed building design.

We address key concerns by Council by examining the core precinct of Surfers Paradise, the sites which have potential for further development, and considering alternative strategies for that development. In particular, we examine the benefit/impact of a building which is sited on one boundary as proposed. We consider similar scaled examples in other world class cities and suggest that the proposed development:

1. Will help create a desirable and preferred urban design outcome for this part of the city;

2. Does not adversely impact upon the development potential of adjoining/nearby sites;

3. Will not adversely impact upon the urban streetscape of Orchid Avenue, given the culmulative affect of one or more buildings of smaller typology.

4. Will be a sophisticated and resolved built form, creating precisely the preferred strategic outcome and use for this precinct;

5. Is consistant with development in the core areas of other world class cities.

Building Typology - Other examples from World Class CitiesA number of examples of similar building typologies with one or both side boundaries featuring no setbacks, are provided for reference.

High Rise Accommodation Design Code - Review & ResponseThe City Plan code does not appear to recognise the value that smaller sites can offer to the centre zone.

The high-rise accommodation design code encourages the development of large towers (750sqm footprint) on high podia (3/4 storey) where the towers are located at least 25m apart. For a single tower this requires a site that is in the order of 50m in width, and therefore aggregation of smaller sites into larger development parcels. In this case, it is simply not possible to amalgamate other sites to the north and south of the subject site.

The cumulative effect of a series of large towers constructed adjacent to each other could result in a relatively monotonous swath of podium development along the street. (As evidenced is some of the 90’s development of Southport, Broadbeach and Coolangatta centre zones).

Surfers Paradise Core - Precinct AnalysisWe have identified a Core Study area of Central Surfers Paradise from the Mall to Elkhorn Avenue and bounded by the Promenade and Gold Coast Highway.


R F I R E S P O N S E - O V E R V I E W ( 1 )8.1


172 Adopted Report

We have identified those sites which are potential development/redevelopment sites, and considered the development outcome of these site (in the Orchid Avenue precinct in particular); as individual sites, and also as amalgamated sites.

Only a small number of nearby lots can be developed in a similar fashion to this proposal. These lots are located in the core of the high rise precinct and as such do not represent a significant impact upon the City Plan intent of slender built forms. (refer to site sizes and development types plan).

The subject site is in the heart of the Surfers Paradise centre zone and as such a dense and varied built form outcome is appropriate and re-enforces the tourist and entertainment function of this part of the city. We refer to the attached examples of world class dense built form that support and reinforce active street life and entertainment precincts such as; Times Square, Ginza - Tokyo, Shibuya - Tokyo, La Trobe Terrace - Melbourne. These examples of dense built form illustrate the significant variety, interest and vitality that this building typology can contribute to the centre zone of a city.

The proposal represents the required planning outcome of a “tower development that mitigates negative visual and physical impacts through appropriate setbacks and design” in the following ways:

• The provision of a strong sophisticated and textured architectural expression.

• The building design addresses integrates and reinforces the active street life, dining and entertainment function of Orchid Avenue.

• Provides an opportunity for adjacent sites to be fully developed in an efficient way that enhances the Orchid Avenue and the Surfers Paradise precinct; with maximum opportunity for northern balcony/outlook for future residential uses.

Impact on the Development Potential of Nearby SitesThe development does not hinder or reduce the potential development of the adjoining properties due the following considerations (refer to potential future development):

• The proposal provides an adjoining boundary wall which in it’s own right is a worthy sculptural outcome and:

• This building can either be built against by a development on the adjoining northern site to provide a joined but articulated built form. The joining of a future building on the adjoining northern site allows the cores to adjoin, permitting both buildings to be able to take advantage of the outlook on the other 3 sides.

• The built form articulation of the streetscape is assisted by the angle of Orchid Avenue which provides the opportunity for a angled or varied front and rear setbacks.

• The proposed building does not result in structural, organisational or encroachments that limit or prohibit the development of the adjacent sites.

• The proposed building does not have any significant shadow impact on nearby properties, and none on the northern, adjoining site(s).

Examination of the Culmulative Effects on Nearby Properties in this PrecinctThe proposed building mitigates “potential cumulative effects of neighbouring properties continuing to have no separation between building” in the following ways:

• This proposal and similar buildings of this type do not result in a cumulative restriction in natural light and ventilation or exacerbate shadowing to a greater degree than if these smaller sites were combined and developed in a more conservative fashion. (refer to cumulative impact of proposed building type)

• The proposed building type if repeated, will not result in the creation of a large building mass due to the following:

- There are only a small number sites on which this type of building can be built;- The proposed built form will still result in thin buildings with appropriate setbacks due to the combined setbacks

that result from the proposed building placement.

• The proposal results are significantly shorter than a building that results from the amalgamation of smaller sites similar to 21 Orchid Avenue. As such the lower scale of this type of tower means that it will have little or no impact upon the visual character of Surfers Paradise when viewed from a distance as it will be located low in the group of much larger Surfers Paradise towers on the perimeter of this precinct.

• We note that it is unlikely that the Orchid Avenue site to the immediate north of the subject site, will ever by independantly developed. This site is amalgamated with The Esplanade Residential Tower. Never-the-less we have addressed the possibility of a higher density use for this site.

• In fact, the proposal is a positive advantage to the development potential should the possible adjoining lot to the north of the subject site be developed, allowing for minimal setback on the south (adjoining) boundary; and still allowing for say 3m setback to the northern boundary for a hotel or mixed use building. Any 2 ‘adjoining’ buildings would still only have a combined street width of 2 x 13.5m = max 27m - still a slender built form for up to 90m high buildings.


R F I R E S P O N S E - O V E R V I E W ( 2 )8.1


173 Adopted Report

Latrobe Street, Melbourne is an Australian example of a dense built form that provides an interesting and positive dense built form.

Tokyo provides a good example of how fragmented small land ownership can provide interest and variety with high density built form.

The proposal is for a built form which is both iconic and appropriate; given the context of the central entertainment function of Orchid Avenue


W O R L D C L A S S C I T Y8.3E X A M P L E S O F S I M I L A R B U I L D I N G T Y P E S ( 1 )


174 Adopted Report

Times Square, New York is the tourist core of New York and provides an intense built form that crowds and creates Times Square as a place and iconic destination.

The Ginza, Tokyo is a long street flanked and created by no side setback buildings that create dense built form that is iconic and placemaking.




175 Adopted Report

New York provides a great example of dense built form that forms the the core of a world class city.

Melbourne provides a variety of buildings with small sites allowing for different types of buildings that improve the variety of towers and built form ocurring in the city.




176 Adopted Report

400 George Street, Brisbane. Four Points by Sheraton, Brisbane. Oak Tower, Charlotte Street, Brisbane.55 Elizabeth Street, Brisbane.

Some Brisbane examples of “no side setback” buildings.




177 Adopted Report

OR

CH

ID

A

VE

NU

E

E L K H O R N A V E N U E

TH

E E

SP

LA

NA

DE

SU

RF

ER

S P

AR

AD

IS

E B

LV

D

C A V I L L A V E N U E

S U R F E R S P A R A D I S E C O R E P R E C I N C T8.7


178 Adopted Report

Subject site

Small sites

Sites ideal for amalgamation and corner lots - subject to a different building typology

23 Orchid Avenue part of adjacent site to east with ‘The Esplanade’ tower.

Subject site

Currently amalgamated sites

Large sites

Potential future towers on podiums

Existing towers

LARGE SITES & POTENTIAL TRADITIONAL TOWER DEVELOPMENT SMALL SITES SUBJECT TO ALTERNATIVE BUILDING TYPES


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

OR

CH

ID

A

VE

NU

E

E L K H O R N A V E N U E

TH

E E

SP

LA

NA

DE

SU

RF

ER

S P

AR

AD

IS

E B

LV

D


OR

CH

ID

A

VE

NU

E

E L K H O R N A V E N U ET

HE

E

SP

LA

NA

DE

SU

RF

ER

S P

AR

AD

IS

E B

LV

D


10

11

12

8.8S I T E S I Z E S A N D D E V E L O P M E N T O P T I O N S

S U R F E R S P A R A D I S E C O R E P R E C I N C T


179 Adopted Report

AMALGAMATED SMALL LOTS SCENARIO(showing indicative single tower elevation)

INDIVIDUAL SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO


8.9S M A L L L O T S ( 2 - 6 ) D E V E L O P M E N T S T R AT E G I E S

S U R F E R S P A R A D I S E C O R E P R E C I N C T


180 Adopted Report

9:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm

9:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm

9.00am 12.00pm 3.00pm

9.00am 12.00pm 3.00pm

AMALGAMATED SMALL LOTS SCENARIO

INDIVIDUAL SMALL LOTS DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO


S U R F E R S P A R A D I S E C O R E P R E C I N C T8.10S H A D O W I M P A C T O F A LT E R N AT I V E D E V E L O P M E N T S T R AT E G I E S


181 Adopted Report

A SEPERATE SITE DEVELOPMENTcomposition of 5 small towers

B ADJACENT SITES AMALGAMATEDcomposition of 3 towers

C COMBINATION OF A & Bcomposition of 4 towers

The central site allows amalgamation of both north and south sites.

6M GAP

6M GAP


S U R F E R S PA R A D I S E C O R E P R E C I N C T8.11CENTR A L SM A LL LOTS DE VELOPMENT OPT IONS (1)


182 Adopted Report

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION - 4 UNITS PER FLOOR

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION

1 BED

2 BED

PROPOSED BUILDING

PROPOSED BUILDING

1 BED

2 BED

OFFICE OFFICE

69 / 77387400 | DA - RFI RESPONSE | ISSUE B | AUGUST 2016 21 ORCHID AVENUE , SURFERS PARADISE | RESORT HOTELSCALE: 1:150 @ A3

S U R F E R S PA R A D I S E C O R E P R E C I N C T8.12CENTR A L SM A LL LOTS DE VELOPMENT OPT IONS (2)


183 Adopted Report


1 2

2

1

This study shows existing buildings in white and indicative development towers on potential development sites as identified.

S U R F E R S PA R A D I S E C O R E P R E C I N C T8.13C U M U L AT I V E I M P A C T M A S S I N G S T U D I E S ( 1 )


184 Adopted Report


3 4

4

3This study shows existing buildings in white and indicative development towers on potential development sites as identified.

S U R F E R S PA R A D I S E C O R E P R E C I N C T8.14C U M U L AT I V E I M P A C T M A S S I N G S T U D I E S ( 2 )


185 Adopted Report

typical 750sqm footprint

27

70

say 27 x 27

25m

4 storey podium

37.511 118 8

8 8

20

750sqm

4

17 - 25 Orchid Avenue

typical

50mtypical

The typical tower podium proportions that are encouraged by Town Plan result in large ownership and architectural expressions due to large site amalgamations.

Typical Tower that complies to the 750sqm rule.

The proposal will result in more variety, interest and vitality in streetscape by building on smaller sites with a different building type.

SCENARIO 1AMALGAMATED SITE APPROACH

SCENARIO 2INDIVIDUAL LOT DEVELOPMENT APPROACH


S U R F E R S PA R A D I S E C O R E P R E C I N C T8.15O R C H I D A V E N U E S T R E E T S C A P E A N A LY S I S


186 Adopted Report

CORNER ELKHORN AVE / ORCHID AVE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CORNER ELKHORN AVE / ORCHID AVE INDICATIVE CUMULATIVE IMPACT

1


1 1

S U R F E R S PA R A D I S E C O R E P R E C I N C T8.16C U M U L AT I V E I M P A C T M A S S I N G S T U D YO R C H I D A V E N U E P E D E S T R I A N L E V E L ( 1 )


187 Adopted Report

CORNER CAVILL AVE / ORCHID AVE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CORNER CAVILL AVE / ORCHID AVE INDICATIVE CUMULATIVE IMPACT

2


2 2



188 Adopted Report

CORNER SURFERS PARADISE BLVD / ELKHORN AVE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CORNER SURFERS PARADISE BLVD / ELKHORN AVE INDICATIVE CUMULATIVE IMPACT

3


3 3



189 Adopted Report

Q1 TOWER

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0(m)

SOUL CIRCLE ON CAVILL- NORTH TOWER

HILTON SURFERSHOTEL & RESIDENCES

- ORCHID TOWER

PROPOSED BUILDINGAVALON MANTRA ON VIEW

The proposed building is a slender and dramatic built form, consistant with the intent of the Planning Scheme


S U R F E R S PA R A D I S E C O R E P R E C I N C T8.19T O W E R H E I G H T & S L E N D E R N E S S S T U D Y


190 Adopted Report

Our analysis confirms the following:

This building can be logically developed as a true hotel, utilising car lift access to basement parking, while providing appropriate ground level recption and first floor restaurant facilities. This approach meets the strategic use intent of the Planning Scheme for this central precinct.

The development of the hotel on this site, given existing easement contraints, requires that the building sits adjoining the Northern Boundary. We note that the adjoining site is technically part of the site for the nearby ‘The Esplanade’ building, and as such, is unlikely to be intensively developed in it’s own right, due to its body corporate ownership. Never-the-less, given the possibility that this could occur, we have examined the development potential of this site.

A planning analysis of the Orchid Avenue precinct confirms that the development of a series of smaller mid-rise buildings will create a better, more varied and interesting streetscape.

Our analysis of the adjoining northern site confirms that the proposed development approach does not disadvantage the adjoining site, and, infact provides additional development potential. We have considered alternate, residential or commercial uses, and the zero setback to the south boundary, assists the development or commercial uses, and the zero setback to the south boundary, assists the development potential of this site, enabling northern aspect and setbacks.

The “aggregation” of two smaller towers, while unlikely, would never-the-less not constitute an inappropriate building bulk. A range of included examples of other buildings in ‘world class’ Australian and overseas cities illustrate this.

Even as a stand-alone building the proposed development is composed to provide a textured and carefully detailed composition of elements which will be a positive colourful sculptural addition to the skyline of Central Surfers Paradise.


C O N C L U S I O N8.20


191 Adopted Report

88,1

0022,025

BO

UN

DA

RY

BO

UN

DA

RY

As demonstraded in the above diagrams, the shadow cast in a true southdirection at a length of 0.25 times the height of the building.

CHECK NORTH POINT REFERENCE

As demonstrated in the above diagrams, the shadow cast in a true south direction at a length of 0.25 times the height of the building, in reference to A08.2 South Shadow. For narrow east-west lots in the intensive high density central precinct, this parameter is not a significant issues.

This precinct is predominantly an entertainment precinct with substantial towers and 3 level podia, and the street is predominantly in shadow in mornings and afternoons.

SITE PLAN SHOWING SOUTH SHADOW

BUILDING CROSS SECTION LOOKING WEST


A S 1 9 S H A D O W P A R A M E T E R5.2Attachment 1.5 (Page 1 of 4)


192 Adopted Report

9:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm

NOTE:

It is important to examine shadow in the context of nearby more substantial buildings in the Surfers Paradise Central Precinct. Shadow impact is not a significant issue in this precinct.


S H A D O W A N A LY S I S5.3S U M M E R S O L S T I C E ( 2 2 D E C )


193 Adopted Report

9:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm

NOTE:

It is important to examine shadow in the context of nearby more substantial buildings in the Surfers Paradise Central Precinct. Shadow impact is not a significant issue in this precinct.


S H A D O W A N A LY S I S5.4E Q U I N O X V E R N A L ( 2 1 M A R / 2 3 S E P )


194 Adopted Report

726 CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 NOVEMBER 2016 · 2019. 6. 23. · 0 2 STOREY BUILDING 2...

Documents

Transcript of 726 CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 NOVEMBER 2016 · 2019. 6. 23. · 0 2 STOREY BUILDING 2...