07/1181 - Response to Information Request [As Published] · 132007.1181

 

3. Please provide justification why 8 bicycle spaces have not been provided for the Retail
Business Type 2 (1 per 100sq.m gfa).

Probable solution $15.2 of the Driveways and Carparking Code requires on site bicycle parking
in accordance with Table 14-48. Table 14-48 prescribes bicycle parking for Retail Business Type
2 at the rate of 1 bicycle parking space per 100m? or part thereof of gross floor area. Based on
the proposed Retail Business Type 2 GFA of 109.6m2, 2 bicycle parking spaces are therefore
required. Provision of bicycle parking in excess of this requirement is demonstrated on
proposal plan SK-01 prepared by Foster Designs (refer bicycle store).

4. Justification with reference to non-compliance with Scheme requirements relating to the
provision of one visitor carspace to be provided per 10 units (or less) in addition to the 8
carspaces required and provided.

Probable solution $9.1 of the Driveways and Carparking Code requires on site carparking in

~accordance with Table 14-47. Table 14-47 prescribes parking for Retail Business Type 2 at the

  
  
 

 

rate of 1 space per 20m? of use area for areas up to 100m2, but does not detail carparking
. requirements for Visitor Accommodation Type 4 comprising dwelling units as proposed. Based

on the proposed Retail Business Type 2 use area of 100m2, 5 carparking spaces are required for

this Component.

‘The carparking requirements for Visitor Accommodation Type 4 detailed in Table 14-47 relates

to motel accommodation units, guesthouse guest rooms and visitor hostels. Nothing is
specified in relation to dwelling units as proposed. This matter was discussed at the pre-

. "lodgement meeting held on 20 April 2007. Regard was had to the superseded planning.
- scheme requirement which was, for | covered space per dwelling unit and the similar.

" development comprising 2 shops and 3 multiple dwelling units approved on the adjoining

western property which required 8 carparking spaces. {t was agreed that 3 spaces for the
visitor accommodation component would be reasonable and this is reflected in the minutes of
the pre-lodgement meeting. On this basis the proposed carparking provision is Considered /
appropriate.

5. Please provide further justification that the proposed roof terrace meets SO O17 in the
Noosa Heads Locality Code.

Roof terraces form a predominant character element of Hastings Street developments with a
beach frontage. A character study of the Hastings Street beach front properties has been
undertaken by Foster Designs and is attached in Appendix A. This study provides
photographic views of the 15 existing developments (including the subject site and the surf
club) along Hastings Street with beach frontage. Excluding the subject site and the surf club, 9
(69%) of the remaining 13 developments have roof terraces. This percentage is considerably
larger when the actual beach frontage of the development is taken into account and
equates to about 75%. This study clearly establishes that roof terraces exist as a dominant
character element of the Hastings Street beach frontage presentation. SO O17 not only deals
with roof terraces but more specifically relates to roof forms. It is therefore relevant to note
from the study that flat roof presentations are the dominant roof character of Hastings Street

_beach frontage developments. Consideration should also be made to the fact Hastings Street

is promoted as an ‘international’ tourist destination. Tourism and accommodation managers
are promoting the roof terrace as a part of the beach front Laguna bay experience. As such
the roof terrace is considered an important inclusion for Hastings Street beach frontage
developments. The proposed roof terrace provides for an integrated design outcome that will
have considerably less visual impact than the existing roof terrace character along the beach
frontage.