|
|
Addendum Agenda - Development Committee – Tuesday 11 September 2018 Page 0 |
DE18.67 DA18/1788 – 128 Princes Highway SOUTH NOWRA - Lot 25 DP 734975
DA. No: DA18/1788
HPERM Ref: D18/305499
Group: Planning Environment & Development Group
Section: Development Services
Attachments: 1. Site Plan ⇩
Description of Development: Installation of two (2) additional free-standing business identification signs in association with an approved vehicle sale or hire premises (motor vehicle showroom)
Owner: Palmira Holdings Pty Limited
Applicant: PDC Planners
Notification Dates: The application was notified for a period of 14 days from 30 July to 14 August 2018
No. of Submissions: Nil submissions
Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council
The applicant proposes numerous variations to the acceptable solutions of Chapter G22: Advertising Signs and Structures of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 (SDCP 2014) which due to the extent of the proposed variation cannot be dealt with under Council officers delegated authority under Council adopted Guidelines for Use of Delegated Authority
The following report has been prepared for the consideration of the Development Committee on this basis.
Options
1. Resolve to support the recommendation of this report.
Implications: Council could choose to support the variations of Chapter G22: Advertising Signs and Structures, subject to compliance with the revised location of free-standing signage indicated in the part site plan provided as Figure 6 and refer the application back to staff for determination.
2. Resolve to support the variations of Acceptable Solutions of Chapter G22: Advertising Signs and Structures as proposed by the applicant in their supporting site plan (refer to Appendix 1).
Implications: Council could choose to support the variations and refer the application back to staff for determination. This would enable an approval to be issued based on the submitted plan.
3. Alternative recommendation
Implications: Council could specify an alternative recommendation and advise staff accordingly. This, by way of example, could be to defer the matter and invite the applicant to make design modifications to comply with Chapter G22: Advertising Signs and Structures.
Figure 1 - Location Map
Background
Proposed Development
The application seeks development consent for the installation of two (2) additional free-standing business identification signs in association with an approved vehicle sale or hire premises (motor vehicle showroom). The signage proposed includes:
· Kia sign - 1.8m wide and 6.9m high.
· Nissan sign - 2.4m wise and 6.9m high.
· Neither sign is illuminated.
The signs are proposed either side of the existing dual entry/exit driveway access at the Princes Highway frontage with a “zero” front setback. (Refer to Appendix 1).
The Kia sign is proposed for the northern side of the driveway, approximately 8.5m from the southern boundary with No. 126 Princes Highway.
The Nissan sign is proposed for the southern side of the driveway, approximately 200mm from the southern boundary with No. 130 Princes Highway.
The signs are currently located at the existing Nowra Nissan dealership at 14-20 Moss Street Nowra. It is proposed for the signs to be removed from the existing dealership and relocated to the subject site.
Figure 2 – Site Plan
Figure 3 – Elevations of proposed signage
Subject Land
The subject land is legally described as Lot 25 DP 734975 and is described as 128 Princes Highway, South Nowra. The site is located on the eastern side of the Princes Highway, 3.5 km south of the Nowra CBD. The site is an irregular shaped allotment with dual frontages to the Princes Highway in the west and Quinns Lane in the South. The site has a total land area of 1.117ha.
Access to the site is via an existing left in – left out driveway directly off the Princes Highway. An additional access point to the site is available off Quinns Lane.
The subject land does not contain any significant vegetation, mapped watercourses or noteworthy environmental features.
Site & Context
The site has been developed for a motor vehicle showroom. The site contains four (4) separate buildings which are used in association with the approved use.
The land is zoned B5 Business Development under the provisions of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP 2014). The B5 zoned land extends from the Northern Side of Browns Road in the north to Warra Warra Road in the south and east to the E2 Environmental Conservation zoned land which adopts the alignment of Browns Creek. An extract of the SLEP 2014 Land Use Zoning Map is provided in Figure 4 below.
The site is adjoined to the north by a single storey commercial/industrial unit divided into three tenancies, which is currently occupied by: Bradnam’s Windows and Doors, Totally Immersed Watersports and Shoalhaven Garage Doors. To the south, the site is adjoined by an additional approved vehicle sale or hire premises (DA18/1301), which is proposed to be operated by the same operator as the subject site. To the east, the site is adjoined by a parcel of land that is held in the same ownership. Development on the eastern side of the future Enterprise Road consists of a mix of light industrial, motor vehicle repair, storage and warehousing use. The site is bound by the Princes Highway in the west with a public reserve located on the Western side of Princes Highway, with further commercial and industrial land uses running to the west along Flinders Road.
Figure 4 – Extract of the Land Use Zoning Map – SLEP 2014
History
The following provides details on post-lodgement actions and general site history for context:
§ 8 July 2018 - application lodged with Council.
§ 30 July to 14 August 2018. The application was notified for a period of 14 days in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy. No submissions were received to the application during the notification period or to date.
§ 6 August 2018, the applicant and owner of the subject site met with the assessing officer to discuss the application and assessment pathway.
§ 22 August, Council requested an amended site plan to relocate the proposed Nissan signage on the southern boundary to a location which was at least 3m from a common side boundary.
§ 23 August 2018, owner emailed Council seeking reconsideration of the proposed signage and providing additional justification.
§ 28 August 2018, the applicant submitted a response to Council’s request for the Nissan signage on the southern boundary to be relocated.
§ 28 August 2018, Council emailed the applicant to reaffirm Council’s position on the proposed signage and once more requested consideration of a redesign of signage location on the site.
The applicant believes the proposal is acceptable for the reasons detailed later in this report.
The following provides details of the development history of the site.
· DA15/2455 – Alterations to Existing Vehicle Sales & Hire Premises (Approved: 25/01/2016).
· DA16/1588 – Vehicle Sales & Service Centre (Approved: 08/09/2016).
· DA17/1920 - New service centre workshop & spare parts facility (Approved 21/12/2017)
· DS18/1351 – Request to modify Development Consent DA17/1920. The modification relates to amended plans. The modification application has not been determined.
Issues
Non-Compliance with Council’s DCP Controls
Chapter G22: Advertising Signs and Structures of SDCP 2014 applies to the proposed development. The proposed development seeks to vary the following acceptable solutions:
· A1.4 & 1.5 Sign face area;
· A1.6 Maximum height and minimum separation distance between signs; and
· A1.7 Minimum side boundary setback of 3m.
|
5.5 General Controls |
||
|
P1 Performance Criteria |
||
|
P1 To ensure advertising signs/structures: ·are associated with a lawful use of the land; and · relates to the land, or to the premises situated on that land; or · identifies a person residing or carrying on an occupation or business on the land or premises; and/or · gives particulars of the goods or services dealt with or provided on the land or premises; · is a directional sign for an approved tourist facility in the Shoalhaven; or · Is an advertisement for a business located in the Shoalhaven. · relate well to and integrates with existing built and vegetated forms · do not dominate the streetscape or skyline · do not adversely affect traffic safety · do not restrict sight distances at entrance/exit to any property · do not obstruct sightlines to signs on adjoining property · do not detract from the heritage significance of the building or place · do not project over windows or architectural features of a building · are consistent with the design guidelines outlined in this Chapter · are treated on the rear view of single-sided signs to blend with the surrounding streetscape or field of view · reduce visual clutter · achieve equity between property owners/occupiers · have a design relationship between multiple signs · have a design relationship to each other individual signs in the case of a free-standing directory sign · are capable of accommodating the signs of other tenants in respect of any free-standing sign on a multi-tenanted site · Affixed to structures are wholly |
||
|
Acceptable Solution |
Proposal |
Compliance |
|
Free-Standing Signs
A1.4 Maximum sign face area should not exceed 0.35m² of sign face area per linear metre of road frontage.
|
The site has a total road frontage of 34.97m and therefore a maximum sign face area of 34.97/0.35m² or 12.2m² is permissible
Proposed and existing sign face area: · Nissan Sign = 14.4m2 (4.5m² - panel with text) · Kia Sign =12.42m2 (4.3m2 – panel with text) · Mitsubishi (Princes Hwy) = 12.51m² (2.5m² panel with text) · Mitsubishi (Enterprise Av) = 12.51m² (2.5m² panel with text)
Total Sign face area = 51.84m² (panel with text 13.8m²)
Extent of variation: Total sign area = 39.64m² or 325% Panel with text = 1.6m² or 13% |
No. A variation to the acceptable solution is required but has not been requested by the applicant.
|
|
A1.5 Maximum sign face area of any one (1) sign is not to exceed 8m2 . e.g. A 20m frontage will permit 7m2 of sign face area for a freestanding sign.
|
The maximum sign face area of a single free-standing sign exceeds 8m² as it relates to the total sign face area (but not the panel text area) as follows: · Nissan Sign = 14.4m2 (4.5m² - panel with text) · Kia Sign =12.42m2 (4.3m2 – panel with text) · Mitsubishi (Princes Hwy) = 12.51m² (2.5m² panel with text) · Mitsubishi (Enterprise Av) = 12.51m² (2.5m² panel with text)
Extent of variation of total sign face area: · Nissan Sign = 6.4m2 or 80% · Kia Sign =4.42m2 or 55% · Mitsubishi (Princes Hwy) = 4.51m² or 56% · Mitsubishi (Enterprise Av) = 4.51m² or 56%
|
No. A variation to the acceptable solution is required but has not been requested by the applicant.
|
|
A1.6 Maximum height should not exceed:
Minimum separation distance between freestanding signs is calculated by adding together the height of the proposed sign and the nearest adjacent sign as follows: Height of proposed sign + height of adjacent sign = separation distance required. e.g. The separation distance required between two free-standing signs (6m and 3m each) would be 9m.
|
The frontage of the site is 34.97m and therefore free-standing signage exceeding a single sign shall not exceed 5m.
The applicant proposed two (2) free standing signs of 6.9m. The proposed signage exceeds the maximum height by 1.9m or 38%.
The proposed Nissan and Kia sign are separated by 8m. A separation of 13.8m is required between the two proposed signs. The proposed signage represents a variation of 5.8m or 42%.
|
No. The applicant seeks to vary the Acceptable solution relating to height and separation.
|
|
A1.7 Minimum side boundary setback is 3m.
|
The proposed Nissan freestanding sign is to be located 200mm from the southern boundary with No. 130 Princes Highway. The proposal equates to a 2.8m variation or 93% variation. |
No. The applicant seeks to vary the Acceptable solution |
Applicant’s Submission
The Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by PDC Planners lodged in support of the application provides the following justification for non-compliance with Acceptable Solutions A1.6 and A1.7 under Chapter G22 of SDCP 2014, as follows:
“The proposed signage complies with these criteria [Performance Criteria] as follows:
a) It is directly associated with the approved motor vehicle sales premises
b) provides detail of the brands of goods available from the site
c) The business is located in the Shoalhaven
d) The signage relates to the surrounding built form
e) It does not dominate the streetscape nor will it form part of the skyline
f) It will have no impact on traffic safety
g) Signs are not located such that sight distances for vehicles or pedestrians are affected
h) Respects the sightlines to signage on adjoining properties
i) Is not located on or in proximity to any heritage buildings or places
j) Is not located near windows, doors or other architectural features
k) Has a consistent design relationship in that all signage is for vehicles manufacturers with similar height, width, finishes and simple content (just the brand logo).
Will the development have any additional adverse impacts as a result of the variation?: The development is not expected to have any adverse impacts as a result of the proposed variation. The proposed signage is generally consistent with the DCP. The increased sign height will have no effect on the streetscape or skyline, existing signage in the vicinity is of similar height and buildings are of greater height. The reduced separation between the signs does not affect the visibility or interpretation of signage within or adjacent to the site. Given the existing signage [sic] conditions in this section of the Highway ……it is considered reasonable to grant variations as proposed.
With regard to the reduced side setback it should be recognised that the adjoining lot currently has the driveway and car parking area adjacent to the proposed Nissan sign. The outcome of this is that there is no signage located within any proximity of the shared boundary. The current site layout on the neighbouring lot is not likely to be significantly changed as the site will always require a significant setback to the Princes Highway frontage to allow vehicles to enter the site safely. The driveway is also unable to be moved further to the south away from the shared boundary due to the location of the Quinns Lane roundabout intersection. Given these site-specific conditions it is considered reasonable to grant variation to the side setback.
It is considered that the signage proposed is reasonable and will contribute in a positive way to the proposed reactivation of the site.”
On 28 August 2018, the applicant (PDC Planners) provided additional justification for the existing signage design. The justification provided by the applicant is summarised as follows:
1) The owner will occupy two sites adjoining each other. Refer to Figure 5 below.
2) No. 128 Princes Highway is owned by the operator. The Honda and Suzuki site (No. 130 Princes Highway) is leased by the operator.
3) For the purposes of the signage DCP, the applicant considers that it would be appropriate to consider both properties as a single holding due to the intended business operations of the two sites.
4) If Council were to consider the two properties as a single lot for the purposes of assessment under Chapter G22 the road frontage is 56m. This would allow for the proposed free-standing signs to be considered at 5-7m in height.
5) Council could also disregard the boundary between No. 130 Princes Highway and the subject site. It is this boundary that is resulting in non-compliance with Acceptable Solution A1.7.
6) The applicant proposes to accept a condition of development consent should the application be approved with a limited time frame condition stating that the consent lapses and ceases to operate after 5 years. If the operator exercises his 5-year option for the adjoining site, a modification application under Section 4.55 of the Environmental planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) could be lodged to extend the time limited consent condition for a further 5 years. If the operator decides to abandon the use of the subject site after his first 5-year term a modification would not be required, and the signage could be removed.
7) The applicant has provided Council with a Statement of Environmental Effects with this application and has addressed the policy variations with respect to signage and height and setbacks. Council should view the site as being a single holding with the adjoining land included for the purposes of assessing signage, the variations should largely drop away and we would find ourselves virtually compliant with SDCP 2014.
Figure 5 – Existing sites at No.128 and 130 Princes Highway, South Nowra to be operated as vehicle sales showrooms by Ian Henry.
Discussion
A1.4 & A1.5 – Sign face area
The SDCP 2014 defined the “sign face area “on page 3 of Chapter G22 as follows:
“Sign face area means the area bounded by the framework of a manufactured panel, hoarding or illuminated sign case and is calculated by the sign face height and sign face width.”
Taking this approach, the signs exceed the maximum of 12.2m² (total sign face area of all signs) and 8m2 for a sign. This represents a departure of:
· 39.64m² or 325% (total sign face area) or 1.6m² or 13% (only the panel with text/logo) as the signage relates to the total sign face area:
· 4.42m² – 6.4m² or 55% - 80% as the signage relates to the maximum sign face area of a single free-standing sign exceeds 8m²
Despite the noncompliance with the acceptable solutions, a general approach to calculating signage has been to refer to the text area / panel as opposed to the entire structure. This is a more flexible approach taking into account many corporate brands/ logos and colours and excludes areas or effective negative space which does not go towards identifying or promoting the relevant business.
The variation to the sign face area, taking into account modern corporate branding, signage styles, type of development and landuse in conjunction with the site location, is not considered unreasonable in this context and is considered capable of support.
A1.6 - Signage height variation
1. Compliance with the Performance Criteria P1 has been largely achieved in relation to the height of the sign despite the numerical non-compliance.
2. The re-use of the existing Nissan and Kia free-standing signs presently located at the vehicle sales showroom located at 14-20 Moss Street, Nowra provides for a positive planning outcome that encourages the re-use of a resource.
3. The proposed height of the free-standing signs is consistent with the existing signage in the locality.
4. The proposed signage is generally compliant with the Schedule 1 Assessment Criteria under SEPP 64.
5. A reduction in the height of the proposed signage to 5m would not result in a demonstrably better planning outcome when the circumstances of the application are taken into consideration.
6. Varying the acceptable solution is consistent with s. 4.15(3A) of the EP&A Act.
A1.6 - Signage Separation Variation
The separation is not compliant, and the recommended alternative would also not be compliant. However, the issue is one of location. The nominated location, whilst having a greater separation between signs results in a non-compliance with locational criteria – that is, proximity to the boundary.
A1.7 Minimum side boundary setback is 3m.
The variation to Acceptable Solution A1.7 as it relates to the setback of free-standing signage to an adjoining property boundary is not supported for the following reasons:
1. The proposed location of the Nissan signage relative to the boundary with No. 130 Princes Highway has the potential to create a hazard as it relates to site lines for drivers exiting the site onto the Princes Highway and for pedestrians walking north along the footpath on the eastern side of the Princes Highway at the subject site. However, this is not considered to be a key concern granted the sign location relative to the Council footpath. The applicant has advised that the sign in this location is sought because it relates to the tenancy which is at the rear (Nissan dealership which is setback from the highway). However, the location (right on the boundary and in the centre of an expanse of driveway area, could also potentially also suggest that the Nissan dealership may be on the adjoining site.
2. The imposition of a time limited consent condition to limit the Nissan free-standing sign on the southern boundary to five (5) years would create a potential compliance issue and rely on either the person benefiting from the consent self-reporting the need to amend the development consent or on compliance officers identifying the breach (or potential breach) of consent and notifying the person benefiting from the consent or carrying out compliance action.
It is not considered that a time limited consent condition would be administratively desirable.
3. The objective of the acceptable solution is to achieve view sharing rights between adjoining properties for the display of signage (particularly double-sided signs). The approval of signage of the type proposed, less than 3 metres from the boundary, has the potential to impact on view lines to signage located in complying positions on adjoining properties. The applicant has the potential to locate all signs along the Princes Highway frontage with a 3m setback to the northern and southern boundaries through a redesign of the signage locations (refer to Figure 6). Further this would also clearly suggest that the signs relate to the business on that particular parcel of land as opposed to the boundary location could suggest that it is on the site or next door.
4. The applicant has provided details of how the two sites (No. 128 and No. 130 Princes Highway) should be considered as a single site for the purpose of assessing signage. It is important to note that Council has already previously approved two (2) pylon signs on No. 130 Princes Highway in association with a vehicle sales showroom (DA18/1031). The approval of the proposed signage will result in 5 x 7m free-standing signs in 56m of lot frontage. It is considered that the degree and sum of variations proposed generally point towards the proposed signage being substantial for the development site.
The signs on the adjoining site, were the subject of a variation request for the height. Council also requested that the sign be relocated. The applicant agreed to relocate the sign 3m from the boundary.
5. In summary the Performance Criteria P1 under Section 5.5 of Chapter G22 are not considered satisfied for the following reasons:
a. The development as proposed has the potential to restrict sight distances at entrance/exit to any property;
b. The development as proposed has the potential to obstruct sightlines to signs on adjoining property; and
c. The development as proposed does not achieve equity between property owners/occupiers.
6. Compliance with Acceptable Solution A1.7 (setback) is achievable and reasonable. There are no special circumstances relating to the site which would prevent compliance with the Acceptable Solution.
7. Acceptable Solution A1.7 (setback) has not been varied so frequently by Council to amount to the effective abandonment of the control.
Figure 6 – Part site plan for free-standing signage. The pink locational points are provided as alternate locations for free-standing signage.
Planning Assessment
The application will be assessed under s4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Policy Implications
There are no additional policy matters for consideration separate from those required to be considered under Chapter G22: Advertising Signs and Structures of SDCP 2014.
Consultation and Community Engagement:
Notification was undertaken in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy with letters being sent within a 25m radius of the site.
No submissions were received during the notification period or prior to the preparation of this Council Report.
Financial Implications:
There are potential cost implications for Council in the event of a refusal of the application. Such costs would be associated with defending any appeal in the Land and Environment Court of NSW.
Legal Implications
Pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) a decision of the Council may be subject of a review by the applicant in the event of an approval or refusal.
Alternatively, an applicant for development consent who is dissatisfied with the determination of the application by the Council may appeal to the Court against the determination pursuant to Section 8.7 of the EP&A Act.
Summary and Conclusion
This report has been prepared based on support for the variations however with the revised location of free-standing signage in compliance with Acceptable Solution A1.7, as indicated in the part site plan provided as Figure 6.
It is noted that car dealerships appear to have corporate branding and requirements with respect to signage. It is evident that each car ‘brand’ seeks to have a certain profile by unique and distinguishable signage. This is not unreasonable however from a planning perspective the number of signs, their height and their context in a locality are important considerations as signage can be beneficial to a business but also have negative impacts with respect to visual clutter. Council’s SDCP 2014 seeks to control and manage signs to in a “balanced way” (page 3, section 3 under the heading context) ensure that they do not result in visual clutter and facilitate “positive amenity outcomes”.
In this instance, support for the revised (as recommended) signage layout is based on the following:
· The proposal is generally consistent with the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 and SEPP 64;
· The proposed development seeks to vary the Acceptable Solutions A1.6 and A1.7, as they relate to the maximum height and minimum separation distance between free-standing signage and the requirement for a 3m minimum side boundary setback of a free-standing sign to a side boundary (respectively).
· The report has been prepared on the basis of conditional support of the variation to Acceptable Solution A1.4 -1.6 to enable the two (2) free-standing signs to be erected to a height of 6.9m (as opposed to the required 5m) and a separation distance of less than the required 13.8m separation distance required, subject to the applicant amending the proposed signage location as identified in Figure 6 of this report.
· The report does not support variation of Acceptable Solution A1.7 as it relates to the requirement for a 3m minimum side boundary setback of a free-standing sign to a side boundary.
· The revised and recommended location contains the signs within the development site and assists in informing the public that the 3 dealerships are contained within the site.
