Original source · versioned page text
2022-02-14 General Committee Meeting Agenda
The original of this document is very large (14.8 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 14 FEBRUARY 2022 The proposal retains the site’s existing accommodation on the site. The proposed uses are also mostly considered appropriate for a Tourist Accommodation Zone in the sense that the combination of uses would support recreational activities and provide a tourism focus. These uses include the museum, restaurant and gymnasium. The proposed professional offices however are not considered appropriate for a Tourist Accommodation Zone and inconsistent with the purpose of the zone. Professional offices do not support the role of the area for tourism and do not support the site’s short term visitor accommodation. . While some offices such as booking office or the like do have a role in the area zoned for tourist accommodation, professional offices such as solicitors, architects, town planners and the like do not have any real tourism focus. Such uses would be better suited in a business centre zone. The restaurant, museum and gymnasium are uses readily expected in a resort environment and are likely to be utilised by visitors staying at the resort. This is not the case for the professional offices. The applicant advises that the “offices are designed for month to month /week to week contracts allowing for visitors to attend to some work while also holidaying in the area – there are no long-term leases in the offices and the floor areas are limited in size, not akin to a traditional open floor plan commercial office.” Although the layout of the professional offices is not akin to a conventional, open floor plan office, the activity would still compete with other office spaces appropriately located in a centre zone and undermine the strategy for these centres to accommodate retail and commercial business uses. The application was referred to Council’s Strategic Planning Branch for comment whom advised “…the proposal is located at 95/3 Hilton Tce, Tewantin and includes a material change of use for visitor accommodation (94 Multiple Dwellings and 94 Accommodation Buildings), museum, food and drink outlet, offices and gym. Whilst acknowledging that the proposed development has a large portion of the site dedicated for uses that are consistent with and contribute or support the purpose and overall outcomes of the Tourist Accommodation, the plans also include a small portion of the development for offices. Although the office use area is only a small portion of the overall development, the concern is that proposal does not convey how the office use will contribute to and support the current tourist accommodation activities on the site. The office tenancies may compete with or compromise the Tewantin District Centre, where such uses are encouraged. In addition there is no evidence to suggest that there is an overriding lack of supply for office space with the existing centres in the locality to support this proposal.” It is noted that there are currently some commercial vacancies along Poinciana Avenue in the District Centre Zone, with some land owners in the centre citing the difficult market to include office space in their development. Car Parking Acceptable Outcome AO6.1 of the Driveways and Parking Code requires that car parking spaces be provided at the rates specified in Table 9.4.1.1 – Minimum Parking Requirements Including End of Trip Facilities. Where unable to achieve minimum car parking rates, Performance Outcome PO6 of the code requires that “…sufficient parking is provided having regard to the specifics of the use including: a. The type and intensity of the land use; b. Any existing parking available on the site; c. Hours of operation; d. Likely number of users; e. Accessibility to the site by means other than private motor vehicle; f. The peak parking demand periods of uses on the site; and g. The availability of alternative car parking.” The required parking generated by the existing and proposed development is detailed in Table 1 below. Page 32 of 99
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalVery large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.