EAST VILLAGE – COMMUNITY INPUT BEING SOUGHT

Glen Eira Council, working in conjunction with the VPA (Victorian Planning Authority),  is undertaking  Community Consultation on the proposed massive  East Village re-development and is asking residents to  “Tell us what you would like to see”  included in the development.

To assist residents preparing their submission, below is the submission lodged by GERA.

As usual, if you have any comments or need additional information, please feel free to comment on our Facebook Page

****************************************

 SUBMISSION – EAST VILLAGE RE-DEVELOPMENT

Although a “brown field” site, to ensure future development results in a sustainable, socially and economically viable community that enhances the surrounding area, the site should be viewed as “green field”.   Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site and the site’s facilities, are key to determining the viability of the redevelopment.  The creation of precincts (ie. designated areas within the site that provide various community oriented facilities or business focuses) is good, however, determining the location and heights/densities of precincts based on the site’s existing internal road network may not result in a desired community outcome.

GERA requests that the following points be considered

• Building Heights/Densities – ranging from 2 to a “core height” of 8 stories.

Refer to below illustration (previously presented in November, 2016 presentation) for clarification on indicative heights/densities.

• Core of Village to comprise
  • Retail and Commercial areas, including shops and stores as per planning definitions (GE Planning Scheme – Clause 72).  To become a centrally located, vibrant village hub.
  • Public transport connections
  • Open Space provisions (ie. communal areas and playground)
  • Potential location for Retirement Village

• Buildings
  • All buildings above 2 stories to have graduated setbacks to reduce building dominance
  • All residences to have private open space (eg. courtyard at ground level, balconies at higher levels).
  • Density levels defined and applied to site.
  • Diversity of housing types (townhouses vs. apartments) and sizes (1,2, 3 bdr). Ratio specifying no. of 3 bdr to 1 & 2 bdrs dwelling defined and applied.
  • Mandatory requirement for inclusion of social housing.
  • ResCode parking requirements applicable across site (no waivers granted)
  • Below ground basement car park areas not to exceed above ground building envelope

• Precincts/Areas differentiated by architectural variations and landscaping.

• Proposed bus route
  • Road accommodating bus route to accommodate bus stops without impacting traffic (vehicle and cyclist) flow.

• Road network
  • Vehicle movements to/from site impact on existing traffic congestion in North and Boundary Roads to be minimized.
  • To include free, time restricted on/off street parking provisions
  • Possible inclusion of paid off street parking

• Pedestrian connectivity
  • Safe pedestrian connectivity between all precincts/facilities and adjoining parkland (Marlboro Reserve and Virginia Park)
  • If shared pedestrian vehicular connectivity, separation between vehicles and pedestrians provided (e.g. kerbing, bollards)

• Proposed School
  • Provision of vehicle drop off/pick up points
  • Proximity to public transport to be considered
  • Height limits (consistent with surrounding precincts/areas) to be defined and applied if proposed school does not eventuate

• Proposed Retirement Village
  • One on-site car park provided for each unit, on-site visitor parking to be provided
  • Height limits (consistent with surrounding precincts/areas) to be defined and applied if proposed retirement village does not eventuate
  • Possible location in “core” precinct/area to be considered

• Vegetation
  • Mature canopy trees to be planted in ground (not above ground planter boxes) – refer requirement for below ground basement car parks not to exceed above ground building envelope

• Open Space
  • Given the magnitude of the site, medium density development will generate a substantial increase in the demand for, and usage of, surrounding parkland. The proposed Open Space Levy of 6% (being marginally higher than that charged for smaller developments – 5.7%), is felt to be inadequate to meet the open space needs of the future residents.  A more appropriate levy would be 8-10%.
  • Within the site, open space (grassed areas and playgrounds) to be provided in accordance with forecast demographics