Original source · versioned page text
LATE RFI Attachment 5 - Advice from Traffic and Transport Plus
Very large file: it may take a few minutes
The original of this document is very large (11.8 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.
Original PDF page 1, section 1. The text section number identifies this passage in the reader.
Department Principal:
Bryce Trevilyan
Project Contact:
Noel Kay
ABN: 54 619 700 239
Queensland
6 Mayneview Street, Milton Qld 4064
Date:06–June–2023 PO Box 1779, Milton BC, Qld 4064
P: +61 7 3871 0411 F: +61 7 3367 3317
TTPlus Ref: 10608
E: [email protected]
Joanne Hill
Kings Group Queensland
Dear Joanne
Proposed Car wash at 34 Elm St Cooroy — response to Council RFI
1. I previously issued a report on the traffic impacts of a proposed car wash at 34 Elm Street Cooroy dated
27-Oct-2022 (Oct Traffic Report). I maintain my opinions in that report and this response should be read in
conjunction with that report. I note that I indicated in Oct Traffic Report paragraph 7h that “5× staff parking
bays” were provided — this was a typographical error and should have indicated 3× staff parking bays (as
shown in Appendix A of that report).
2. Council has issued a Request for Information (RFI) dated 22-Dec-2022. The RFI identified 2× traffic related
issues.
a) The first traffic issue was issue 7 which asked to “Provide amended plans providing additional on
site car parking to meet the Driveways and Parking code minimum rate, having regard to the
accessibility for users”.
b) The second traffic issue was issue 9, which asked to “Provide additional comment from the traffic
engineer that addresses the potential for existing services (poles, phone box) and
existing/proposed vegetation to impact on the available sight lines. The comment must also include
recommendations for any necessary works to provide the required sight lines”.
c) I will deal with each of these issues in turn.
3. The State has also issued a response to the DA which did not raise any relevant traffic issues and therefore
has not been addressed in this report.
Issue 7 — parking rates
4. The Council Request for Information (RFI) has identified that the “proposed car parking is not consistent with
the car parking rate for a carwash under the Noosa Plan 2020 and in part relies on street carparking”.
5. I note that for a car wash use, sufficient space is provided on site to ensure efficient operation of the site — this
includes adequate areas for cars to queue for the various offerings provided on site. Details of the operation
are found in the Oct Traffic Report paragraphs 7 & 14. It is noted that all customers who are undertaking
washing, vacuuming etc of their car, or waiting to undertake such services, are accommodated. The Oct Traffic
Report Appendix A shows 26× vehicles can be accommodated on the subject site.
6. Table 9.4.1.4 of the Noosa Plan 2020 specifies that a car wash use should provide “one space per 50m²; and
one space per 100m² in excess of 500m²”. No specification of the type of area (eg. ‘use area’) is given, so
according to the notes provided at the start of Table 9.4.1.4 the area for the purpose of calculating parking
space requirements is gross floor area. This creates something of an issue. It is unclear what counts or does
not count as gross floor area with respect to the proposed development — the Noosa Plan 2020’s own definition
section say gross floor area relates to buildings, rather than open areas. And that even within buildings areas
dedicated to parking, loading or manoeuvring of vehicles is excluded. Therefore, it is unclear what area of the
subject site should count towards calculation of parking provision.
Traffic Transport Engineering www.ttplus.com.au
001
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Very 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.
Full text of the other 26 sections
Section 2
7. There is an existing car wash facility in Noosa, — the F1 car wash at Lionel Donovan Drive in Noosaville. This
site is over ~1000m² and an inspection of that site indicates that it only provides areas that are related to either
cleaning uses or queuing to wait for such uses. No dedicated parking spaces are provided.
8. Further, I would contend that providing dedicated off-street parking, other than possibly for a staff member
(noting that the car wash need not be attended by staff to operate) is not a necessary part of operation of a car
wash. Such operational characteristics can be inferred from the car wash parking provision requirements found
in other comparable SEQ Planning schemes:
a) Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme (table 9.4.8.3.3 Minimum on-site parking requirements), car
washes are specified to provide “Queuing space clear of the road reserve for 4 vehicles” with no
specification for any number of parking spaces.
b) Gold Coast City Plan (table 9.4.13-3: Carparking rates) specifies that a ‘DIY car wash’ need not
provide any off-street carparking spaces.
c) Brisbane City’s plan defines car wash as a use type but does not specify any parking requirement
for the use.
d) Logan City specifies “1 space per employee if not part of a Service station”.
9. In any of the above jurisdictions providing either zero or one parking space on site would accord with the
planning schemes.
10. As such, I propose that a single parking space, to accommodate a staff member, is sufficient parking provision
to be provided by the proposed car wash use. 3× spaces are proposed to be provided.
11. Table 9.4.1.4 of the Noosa Plan indicates that a food & drink outlet use must have a parking provision of
1 space per 20m² of “use area and outdoor business area, excluding kitchen and food storage areas”. Use
area excludes toilet areas. I have been informed by the town planning expert that that the applicable use area
is 30m² for the purposes of calculating parking provision.
12. A 30m² use area for a food & drink outlet requires ~2 parking spaces (=30m² ÷ 20m² per space = 1.5 spaces).
I note that sufficient spaces to accommodate this are available on site. Given that there are 3× parking spaces
proposed to be provided on site, and that only 1× space need be dedicated to the car wash use, the remaining
2× provided spaces will accommodate the parking specifications of the Noosa Plan with respect to the proposed
food & drink outlet.
13. Further, on street parking spaces are available on the Opal Street road reserve adjacent to the subject site,
where provision will be increased to 4× on street car spaces as well as 2× motorcycle spaces — though the
proposed development is able to meet the requirements of the Noosa Plan without relying on these spaces.
14. There is already a great deal of unused parking provision of Opal Street and the small food & drink outlet
proposed here would not cause a shortage of on-street parking in the area to occur. The subject site is located
as far as possible from residential uses on Opal Street and would not impact the on-street parking provision
enjoyed by those residents nor cause any significant “flow on effect” that would impact the residents. The
parking requirements of other commercial uses on Opal Street would equally not be significantly impacted by
the use of a small number of on-street bays that might be utilised by customers of the proposed food & drink
outlet.
15. It is notable that dwell times at the food & drink outlet would not be high. This is not a fine dining establishment
nor family restaurant at which customers will be seated for longer than an hour — it is proposed to be
predominantly a café or takeaway establishment, which will provide a small amount of seating for customer
convenience.
16. Cooroy town centre has many examples of food & drink outlets that do not provide parking at the rates provided
in the Noosa Plan and rely on on-street parking, further demonstrating that what is proposed here is a
reasonable solution.
17. Ultimately, Opal Street is far from a “tipping point” when it comes to on street parking and the small food & drink
outlet proposed here will have a negligible impact on the on street parking on this street. It is noted again that
the proposal will also be increasing the amount of provision on street by replacing the parallel parking with 90°
parking spaces.
20230606_TTPlus_TrafficResponseToRFI.docx 2
002
Section 3
18. I consider that the parking provision provided as part of the proposed development meets the performance
outcomes of the Noosa Plan with respect to both the car wash use and the food & drink outlet use.
Issue 9 — obstructions to sight lines
19. The Council RFI has identified that cars which are parked on Opal Street, in the westernmost proposed on-
street parking space adjacent to the subject site (the western space), may have a sight line issue which would
not allow the parked vehicles to identify cars entering Opal Street from Elm Street.
20. Council identified that “existing services” and “existing/proposed vegetation” may “impact on available sight
lines”. I note that the existing vegetation are trees, especially one particular tree located west of the western
space. As a tree it’s vegetation is significantly off the ground and that it’s lower areas do not have significant
vegetation (as seen in Figure 1, Figure 2 & Figure 3) to block sight lines at the level drivers would be observing
other vehicles. I note that I have not been able to identify any proposed vegetation that would impact sight
lines. Of most significance I consider to be the electrical box and the phone booth — both existing services
proposed to be unchanged. There are also two power poles in the vicinity but these are located in a way that
they themselves are obscured from view by the electrical box or the phone booth. The sight obstructions
identified are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 — Obstructions identified — view on Opal Street looking west
20230606_TTPlus_TrafficResponseToRFI.docx 3
003
Section 4
21. It is noted that the key sight line to be met is for drivers of cars that are turning in to Opal Street being able to
see an obstacle on the carriageway of Opal Street, whether this is another vehicle (such as a vehicle reversing
from the western space) or an item on the road itself (such as the hypothetical toolbox that has fallen from a
tradesmen’s ute). Being able to see the obstacle allows drivers turning into Opal Street to take evasive
measures such as slowing or steering away from the obstacle (or both). The sight line obstructions identified
do not inhibit the sight lines of vehicles entering Opal Street from Elm Street, or to the degree that they do, it is
an existing problem not made worse by the proposed development. Views from approximately the green and
blue locations in Figure 4 are shown in Figure 2 & Figure 3 and clearly show that a car parked where the western
space is proposed to be located would be visible to cars turning into Opal Street. I also note that cars turning
into Opal Street from Elm Street need to slow to undertake that manoeuvre, and would still be travelling at a
speed lower than the posted limit when they pass the location of the western space.
Figure 2 —View of driver of car turning from south into Opal Street (view to western space annotated)
Figure 3 — View of driver of car turning from north into Opel Street (view to western space annotated)
20230606_TTPlus_TrafficResponseToRFI.docx 4
004
Section 5
22. Drivers of cars moving from the western space onto the Opal Street carriageway are required to give way to all
cars travelling on Opal Street. It is therefore incumbent on drivers reversing from the on-street spaces onto
Opal Street to observe traffic that will be utilising Opal Street and to wait until a sufficient gap in the traffic stream
is available for the driver to move into. This will necessarily involve drivers parked in the western space
observing vehicles on Elm Street, identifying those that are turning into Opal Street and waiting for those
vehicles to pass. Finding sufficient gaps to move in to will not be difficult — even with the proposed development
in place traffic on Opal Street is expected to be low and there is not likely to be a need for cars to ‘push in’ or
require a ‘courtesy merge’ from other drivers to enter the Opal Street carriageway (as can happen in congested
conditions).
23. In order to assess the sight lines, I have located a B99 design vehicle in the western space and represented
the electrical box and existing telephone box (obstructions) in the locations as shown on the 2018 design of
the subject site. I have then placed B50 design vehicles (the smallest design vehicle) at locations on Elm Street
where they might be obscured by the obstructions identified. Figure 4 shows a representation of sight lines
from the driver of a car parked in the western space to vehicles turning in of Opal Street from the west.
Figure 4 — Sight lines from proposed western space to cars turning in to Opal Street
20230606_TTPlus_TrafficResponseToRFI.docx 5
005
Section 6
24. I note the following with respect to the left turn to Opal Street from Elm Street (North→East).
a) A car turning left into Elm Street has priority over all other vehicles (including right turners into and
out of Elm Street) and would have no reason to stop to give way to a vehicle before undertaking
the left turn into Elm Street.
b) A car turning left into Elm Street is legally required to give way to a pedestrian that is crossing
between the north east and south east corners of the intersection — this in practice is uncommon
as most pedestrians will wait until all traffic has passed before crossing a road, but legally those
pedestrians have right of way over turning vehicles.
c) The driver of a car turning left into Elm Street is able to observe a car is parked in the western
space (as shown in Figure 2).
d) It is theoretically possible for a car turning left into Elm Street to be fully obscured from a driver of
a car parked in the western space (approximately the location of the green B50 shown in Figure 4).
However, at the location this obscuring would take place is not reasonably likely to be a location at
which a car would be stationery. Most left turners would therefore only be briefly obscured by the
phone booth obstruction and would be visible in the moments immediately before and immediately
after the moment they are obscured.
e) Any driver of a car parked in the western space would be able to scan for vehicles turning left into
Opal Street, and identify moving vehicles both before and after they are obscured by the phone
booth and therefore be able to give way and enter Opal Street safely.
f) If a left turn driver does stop to give way to a pedestrian crossing at Opal Street (as such drivers
are legally required to do) then they would prop at a location on Elm Street visible to a driver parked
in the western space. In the event that a left turning driver is giving way to a pedestrian, this would
afford a driver in the western space the opportunity to enter Opal Street.
g) As such, I do not consider that the phone booth inhibits nor materially hinders the view of drivers
of vehicles parked in the western space and does not create a meaningful traffic hazard.
25. I note the following in respect to the right turn into Opal Street from Elm Street (South→East)
a) A car turning right into Opal Street would prop on Elm Street and wait for a gap in the southbound
traffic before proceeding.
b) The electrical box does not completely obscure the car turning right into Opal Street from the driver
a car parked in the western space — some part of the vehicle (front or rear or both) would be
visible.
c) A driver of a car located in the western space should be able to see a car propped waiting to turn
right into Opal Street.
d) In the rare case that a vehicle propped to turn right into Opal Street is not visible to a driver parked
in the western space, I do not consider that this creates a significant risk as:
(i) The car turning right would be travelling at a significantly lower speed than the posted speed
of 50kph as it undertakes and completes the turn manoeuvre
(ii) The carriageway adjacent to the western space is wide (~6m from kerb to centreline). The
driver of a car reversing from the western space would continue to observe Opal Street and
would see any car that had previously been obscured by the electrical box before the
reversing car enters the trafficable part of the carriageway.
e) As such, I do not consider that the electrical box inhibits the view of a reversing driver in such a
way that the driver could not terminate their reverse in safe manner to let traffic on Opal Street
continue to have priority.
26. In summary, vehicles entering Opal Street from its western end, if obscured at all to drivers parked in the western
space, would be so only briefly and those cars would be visible in the moments immediately before and
immediately after the moment they are obscured. The obscuration caused by the identified obstructions only
occurs when a vehicle turning right into Opal Street is stationery and a vehicle stopped in the western space
when they must reverse onto Opal Street — when a vehicle departs the western bay any vehicle located in blind
spots caused by the obstructions become visible before the car has reversed into the trafficable part of the
eastbound lane.
20230606_TTPlus_TrafficResponseToRFI.docx 6
006
Section 7
27. I note that at night time vehicles entering Opal Street from Elm Street would have their headlights lit and would
be more visible to vehicles reversing from the western space — were these vehicles to not have their headlights
lit at night I would consider a significant fault to be with the driver of the car with unlit headlights rather than it
being a characteristic of traffic operation.
28. Vehicles larger than those I have utilised in my demonstrations would be more visible and unlikely to be
obscured by the obstructions identified in the RFI.
29. To ensure that vehicles entering Opal Street from its western end utilise the part of the carriageway closer to
the centreline (and therefore be further from a vehicle reversing from the western space), I recommend that a
road line be painted on the northern side of Opal Street, extending from that from kerb of the north east corner
eastwards towards the proposed access (similar to what is shown Figure 5). Such a painted line will encourage
eastbound vehicles on Opal Street to remain close the centreline and ensure vehicles reversing from the
proposed on-street parking spaces adjacent to the subject site are able to view vehicles on Opal Street and
stop appropriately to give way.
Figure 5 — Proposed painted line to delineate main carriageway from shoulder area
20230606_TTPlus_TrafficResponseToRFI.docx 7
007
Section 8
30. It should be noted that what is proposed herein regarding the on-street spaces is neither novel nor
unprecedented in the Cooroy township. Reversing from on street spaces onto roads in the Cooroy town centre
is common with such provisions in place on Myall Street, Maple Street, Emerald Street, Wattle Street (shown
in Figure 6). An examination of crash data produced by DTMR shows no systematic issues are being caused
by this.
Figure 6 — Locations of present 90° and 45° reverse parking in Cooroy town centre
20230606_TTPlus_TrafficResponseToRFI.docx 8
008
Section 9
31. There are locations in the Cooroy town centre where vehicles must undertake obscured reverse manoeuvres
immediately downstream of an intersection. One such location is on Maple Street, immediately south of the
south leg departure from the Maple Street / Emerald Street roundabout (shown in Figure 7 & Figure 8). There
is a parking bay (currently marked for disabled parking) in front of the Cooroy RSL which requires drivers to
reverse onto Maple Street, and for which there are various landscaping features that would obscure the view
onto the roundabout immediately up stream. Given the 45° nature of the parking space, the drivers would have
to look significantly further over their shoulder (when compared to the 90° parking proposed near the subject
site) to try and observe vehicles on or departing the roundabout, including vehicles from both Maple Street north
leg, Emerald Street and U-turners from Maple Street south leg.
Figure 7 — Maple Street reverse park back onto intersection (zoomed in)
Figure 8 — Maple Street reverse park back onto intersection (zoomed out)
20230606_TTPlus_TrafficResponseToRFI.docx 9
009
Section 10
32. I have identified a further example of a reverse parking space with obscured views on Emerald Street. The
parking spot (annotated in Figure 9), on the southern side of Emerald Street, west of Maple Street, is located in
front of 2B Emerald Street. A driver of a car parked in this space would clearly have their view of the Maple
Street / Emerald Street roundabout obscured until they reversed a few metres back onto Emerald Street.
Figure 9 — Emeral Street sight obscured reverse park
33. There is also the carpark located in the road reserve south of and adjacent to the Cooroy Kindergarten (formerl y
an extension of Diamond Street across the railway line). This also has a westernmost bay located on the
northern side which requires drivers of vehicles parked there to reverse into the aisle — where cars may have
just turned in from Maple Street. There are various signs and landscape elements that could obscure sightlines.
34. It is notable that none of the 3× existing reverse park locations I have identified is causing a safety issue and
these examples are indicative that the operation of such spaces is not inherently dangerous in the Cooroy town
centre. The western space adjacent to the subject site would not be expected to cause any systematic safety
issues — certainly not above or beyond that of these other council-controlled locations where similar operational
aspects are in place.
20230606_TTPlus_TrafficResponseToRFI.docx 10
010
Section 11
35. Having examined in detail at the RFI-identified obstructions to sight lines which were expected to impact the
safety of vehicles reversing from the western space, I do not consider there to be a safety issue beyond that
presently tolerated within the Cooroy town centre. I note that:
a) The view of drivers of cars turning in to Opal Street from Elm Street is not obscured and drivers are
able to observe that:
(i) the carriageway is clear and
(ii) whether cars are parked in the western space are reversing
b) Drivers of cars parked in the western space are able to either:
(i) observe cars turning into Opel Street form Elm Street unobscured, or
(ii) the couple of blind spots that do exist are able to be overcome by reversing a short distance
back onto the shoulder of the road without having to enter the main traffic stream.
c) The speeds involved at the location are expected to be low (<50kph posted speed for the vehicles
involved) and if a crash did occur it would be expected to be of lower consequence.
36. I recommend that a lane line be painted on the eastbound carriageway adjacent to the subject site to ensure
that vehicles entering Opal Street from Elm Street travel closer to the centreline than the outside edge of the
carriageway and therefore ensuring cars reversing from the western space have the maximum clearance to
observe vehicles on Elm Street.
Yours faithfully
Noel Kay – RPEQ #26424
Traffic & Transport Plus
20230606_TTPlus_TrafficResponseToRFI.docx 11
011
Section 12
Department Principal:
Bryce Trevilyan
Oct Traffic Report
Project Contact:
Noel Kay
ABN: 54 619 700 239
Queensland
6 Mayneview Street, Milton Qld 4064
Date: 27-Oct-2022 PO Box 1779, Milton BC, Qld 4064
P: +61 7 3871 0411
TTPlus Ref: 10608
E: [email protected]
Joanne Hill
Kings Group Queensland
Dear Joanne
Proposed Carwash at 34 Elm Street Cooroy
1. The subject site is located at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy (subject site). The subject site is currently vacant but was
previously occupied by a motel.
Figure 1 — Subject Site and adjacent road network
Note: proposed development layout superimposed over aerial imagery
2. The subject site’s western frontage is adjacent to Elm Street, with its southern frontage adjacent to Opal Street
and its northern frontage adjacent to Diamond Lane (a dedicated road).
Traffic Transport Engineering www.ttplus.com.au
012
Section 13
Oct Traffic Report
3. The subject site currently has a crossover directly onto Elm Street, and previously enjoyed an access onto
Diamond Lane.
4. Streets relevant to the subject site include:
a. Elm Street: A N↔S orientated street on the western frontage of the subject site. It is a State-
controlled road and forms part of the Cooroy–Tewantin road corridor connecting the Bruce Highway
to Noosa and is an arterial road (major road). According to DTMR’s traffic census database, the
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) was between 9,078–10,348 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2019 and
9,405–10,042vpd in 2020.
b. Opal Street: An E↔W orientated street on the southern frontage of the subject site. It is a Council-
controlled road. It is proposed that this street facilitates ingress only to the subject site.
c. Diamond Lane: An E↔W orientated street on the northern frontage of the subject site. It is a
Council-controlled road. It is proposed that this lane facilitates egress only from the subject site.
d. Kauri Street: A N↔S orientated road east of the subject site running parallel to Elm Street. It is a
Council-controlled road.
e. Diamond Street: An E↔W orientated road north of the subject site, running parallel to Diamond
Lane and Opal Street. Its western end is part of the Cooroy–Tewantin road corridor, is State-
controlled and is an arterial road, whereas, the eastern portion is Council-controlled (east of the
intersection with Tewantin Road).
5. South of the subject site, opposite the Opal Street frontage, is a BP service station, and north of the subject
site, opposite the Diamond Lane frontage, is the Wessel Petroleum service station. Immediately east of the
subject site is the Cooroy Bowls Club incorporating a bowling green and associated clubhouse / restaurant.
The bowling green is located on the portion of the land that is adjacent to the subject site.
6. I understand that the subject site currently enjoys approval for a small shopping precinct which incorporates 8–
9 shops (approx. 620m² floor area) and includes 23 on-site car parking spaces (with provision for an additional
4 car parking spaces and 4 scooter spaces on the Opal Street frontage), loading areas for a medium rigid
vehicle (MRV) and a large rigid vehicle (LRV) and a main two-way access onto Opal Street. That approval also
accommodates a secondary egress onto Diamond Lane to be used by service vehicles. The approved plans
of that development proposal are shown in Appendix B. Though not actioned, I have used this approval as the
baseline for my comparison of relative capacity, operation and safety assessments.
7. The proposed use is a carwash consisting of:
a. 2× standard wash bays;
b. 2× auto wash bays;
c. 2× “super bays” — designed to allow caravans and other larger vehicles to be washed;
d. 3× vacuum bays;
e. 2× dog wash areas (along with 2× bays for car parking);
f. Small retail outlet (take away food & drink)
g. Ancillary plant room / storage area, and
h. 5× staff parking bays.
8. There is proposed to be an ingress only access provided on Opal Street at the south of the site and an egress
only access provided on Diamond Lane, at the north of the subject. As is routine for carwash uses, the internal
layout has been designed so that vehicles are able to circulate through the subject site and not be able to
backtrack to egress via the Opal Street access.
20221115_10608_TTPlusReport.docx
013
Section 14
Oct Traffic Report
9. Adequate queuing space for vehicles has been provided and is demonstrated on the attached plans in
Appendix A. Swept path analysis has been undertaken for a B99 vehicle (such as a Toyota Landcruiser or
Nissan Patrol) and a car & caravan, demonstrating that these design vehicles can successfully ingress,
manoeuvre relevant bays / areas and egress the subject site in a forwards direction. The swept path analysis
can also be found in Appendix A. The subject site (where applicable) complies with the requirements of
Australian/New Zealand Standard Parking facilities Part 1: Off-street car parking.
10. Adjacent to the subject site is a long, parallel parking bay that is signed to be reserved for the Noosa Council’s
mobile library on days it was timetabled to be present, and which is available for cars to parallel park outside of
these times. However, since the construction of a permanent library in Cooroy, the town is no longer visited by
the mobile library. As such, the signage is now obsolete. While the bay may be used by certain mobile medical
vehicles (such as blood collection, breast screening etc.), I note that there are a number of other locations on
Opal Street where parallel parking for such vehicles is available, if required. The proposed use will remove the
existing parallel parking bay and replace it with 4× perpendicular public car parking bays and 2 motorcycle
parking bays. This is suitable and sufficient to ensure that on street car parking is maintained with the proposed
carwash in place. On the proposed development plans, the closest perpendicular parking bays are located
around 15m from the Elm Street ‘hold line’. I note that numerous perpendicular parking bays exist on the
northern side of Opal Street, indicating that reversing out of these bays generally onto Opal Street does not
appear to be an issue. Whilst the location of the Proposed perpendicular bays is quite close to Elm Street, I
consider them to be acceptable and advantageous to the surrounding public community. There are good sight
lines for vehicles turning in to Elm Street to see a vehicle reversing from these bays. Travel speeds would be
quite low as the vehicles turning into Elm Street would have slowed in order to undertake the turn. Vehicles
reversing from the perpendicular bays would also have good sight lines to see vehicles turning in from Elm
Street. Given the regional town nature of Cooroy and the relatively low traffic volumes expected on Opal Street,
I consider the perpendicular car parking bays to be acceptably safe.
11. I understand that the location of the subject site was chosen due to its proximity to the adjacent Cooroy–
Tewantin road corridor. I corridor facilitates approximately ~10,000vpd. From a traffic engineering perspective,
utilising this location makes sense — there is likely to be a high “drop-in” element to the customer base of the
proposed use, including locals travelling to and from town, as well as visitors to Cooroy. Placing a use such as
this nearby to this type of road corridor is complementary and minimises the need for vehicles to divert
significantly from their routes, especially in areas where the drivers may be unfamiliar with the local road
network.
12. I further note that carwashes are complementary uses to service stations. From a traffic engineering
perspective, it is an advantage to locate these uses adjacent to each other. Both uses involve a level of
“maintenance” of a driver’s vehicle, with those wishing to wash their vehicles also taking advantage of refuelling,
tyre inflation, retail facilities and toilet facilities. Placing such uses adjacent to each other again minimises the
need for vehicles to have to divert significantly from a planned route, thus, minimising traffic impacts.
13. The generation of the approved 620m² shopping centre is expected to be up to 41vph1 during a Thursday PM
peak, with a 50%:50% ingress:egress split. I am advised by the carwash operation expert retained by the
developer that the total hourly capacity of the carwash proposed at the subject site is 34 vehicles or an
equivalent generation of 68vph during peak generation times (Saturdays), but would more reasonably operate
at a traffic generation of 38vph during peak weekday use times (both generations having an ingress:egress split
of 50%:50%). As such, given that 38vph < 41vph with similar ingress:egress splits, I do not consider that the
proposed use will generate any negative capacity impacts on the surrounding network (over and above the
approved use — in fact there would clearly be a lower level of traffic on the relevant streets). Therefore analysis
of the capacity of the adjacent road network is redundant and unnecessary.
1
6.6vph / 100m² GFA — based on RPDM trip generation curve for shopping centres.
20221115_10608_TTPlusReport.docx
014
Section 15
Oct Traffic Report
14. Appendix A shows that there is the ability of 10× cars plus 2× cars with caravans to queue whilst waiting at the
car washing facilities. The prospect of queuing onto the street is very minimal to non existent and would not be
expected to occur routinely if at all. Washing your car is something of a discretionary activity (unlike refuelling
your car, or grocery shopping, for example) that is generally not urgent. As such, few drivers would see the
utility in queuing on the road to enter a carwash that they know is open 24 hours and can be returned to at a
later time and date when it is less busy. I consider it unlikely that even the 2× queued vehicles per manual
wash bay provided would be necessary as it contemplates that a driver would be willing to sit and wait not just
for an existing bay user to finish washing their car, but a further driver to enter the manual wash bay and start
washing their car.
15. The key issue related to the proposed development therefore is to consider the safety of vehicles (and users)
associated with the subject site and surrounding road network.
16. I note that no access is sought directly to or from Elm Street (the major SCR fronting the subject site) — the
removal of the existing crossover is an advantage of the proposal and will have a significant positive safety
impact by decluttering the Elm Street frontage and ensuring that this section of Elm Street is only accessed
from dedicated roads.
17. The existing intersections with Elm Street which are sought to be utilised are:
a. Elm Street / Opal Street intersection: Ingress is only sought via Opal Street. Vehicles are able to
prop in the rightmost northbound lane of Elm Street in order to undertake a right turn into Opal Street.
The rightmost northbound lane is dedicated to facilitating right turns into Cedar Street, Opal Street,
Diamond Lane and Diamond Street, with vehicles that wish to pass a vehicle propped in the rightmost
lane able to travel past in the leftmost lane.
b. Elm Street / Diamond Lane intersection: Egress is only sought via Diamond Lane. Drivers of vehicles
egressing the subject site are able to prop within Diamond Lane and enjoy adequate sight lines to
the south when undertaking a right turn. I note that Diamond Lane is already routinely used by
vehicles egressing the Wessels Petroleum service station. In consideration of the posted speed limit,
the sight line between vehicles exiting Diamond Lane onto Elm Street and southbound through traffic
on Elm Street is adequate. The sight line related to vehicles turning left from Diamond Street to Elm
Street (east→south) via the slip lane requires a sight line where drivers have to look through the
Wessels Petroleum service station. A search of DTMR’s crash database shows no casualty crashes
the location of the Elm Street / Diamond Lane intersection over a 20 year period — indicating that
the sight line between vehicles turning left from Diamond Street onto Elm Street and vehicles
departing Diamond Lane is not an existing safety issue. This is likely due to the slow speeds of
vehicles undertaking the Diamond Street → Elm Street left turn and the high level of visibility to
vehicles departing Diamond Lane. Notably, this sight line to the north from Diamond Lane is a
relevant consideration, irrespective of whether a vehicle travelling onto Elm Street from
Diamond Lane is turning left or right. At its absolute busiest, the proposed carwash will generate in
the order of 34 egressing vehicles per hour, the Equivalent of a vehicle every 1¾ minutes. The
typical weekday design generation we have utilised (19 egressing vehicles per hour) would have the
equivalent of a vehicle more than every 3 minutes. The nature of the carwash site itself means such
departures from the site will be metered by the car washing facilities, and it will be difficult for a
significant ‘platoon’ of egressing vehicles to arrive at once. As previously noted, the maximum use
of the carwash (Saturdays) is not expected to coincide with the peak times of Elm Street (which occur
during the week). As such, there would be expected to be sufficient gaps in traffic during peak on-
road times for the egressing traffic associated with the site to enter the Elm Street traffic stream
without large queues propagating on Diamond Lane.
18. Diamond Lane will be widened between Elm Street and the proposed development’s Diamond Lane access to
permit 2-lane, 2-way movement. This means traffic headed eastbound on Diamond Lane will not be impacted
by vehicles egressing the subject site.
20221115_10608_TTPlusReport.docx
015
Section 16
Oct Traffic Report
19. I note that the Diamond Lane egress only access is proposed to be designed such that it resembles a high
angle slip lane to indicate to drivers that they are only permitted to turn left onto Diamond Lane when egressing
the subject site. The egress will be line marked and sign-posted to indicate that egress onto Diamond Lane is
“left turn only”. I note that the width of the driveway is determined by the larger vehicles. To further reinforce
the left turn, hash marks and rumble strips could be put in place on the right hand side of the driveway to narrow
the driveway and discourage use that section of road . This will minimise (or ideally eliminate) the use of the
section of Diamond Lane east of the access by traffic related to the subject site. Traffic from the subject site will
have to give way to existing traffic using Diamond Lane east of the subject site.
20. I consider that allowing vehicles from the proposed development to turn right at Diamond Lane onto Elm Street
could not reasonably be expected to significantly decrease the safety of the Elm Street / Diamond Lane
intersection. There may be brief times during the day when turning right from Diamond Lane onto Elm Street
may be difficult due to traffic volumes — drivers of vehicles wishing to travel to Noosa may opt to turn left and
travel via Elm Street, Opal Street and Kauri Street. While it would be infrequent for vehicles to use this
alternative route, Opal Street and Kauri Street both have wide carriageways that are able to accommodate
vehicles towing caravans without any significant safety issues being introduced. Kauri Street itself functions
somewhat as a higher order road in the local area — almost all accesses are on the eastern side, and those
houses also enjoy rear access via Kauri Lane.
21. I note that the approved clearing of the site has disconnected the driveways to the previous motel use that were
located at the Elm Street / Diamond Lane intersection and directly onto Elm Street. Neither of these driveways
are proposed to be re-established in either the approved use or proposed carwash use. The adjacent bus stop
on Elm Street would only be impacted by removal of the existing direct crossover, and not by other construction
activities on the subject site. The existing bus stop is currently marked as ~34m in length. ~20m of the marked
bus stop lies south of the existing crossover. The removal of the crossover would be a relatively trivial
construction project in terms of both footprint of area required and time taken— the project would require the
existing concrete driveway & crossover to be removed, and the upright kerb re-established. The actual
construction works would probably take about 1-3 days, plus additional days for the concrete to cure. The ~20m
of available bus stop should be sufficient distance for the bus stop to remain operational during construction. A
construction management plan would be prepared and submitted to Council prior to the crossover removal
showing further details.
22. The site is proposed to be serviced by a small rigid vehicle (SRV). The servicing will occur during weekdays,
outside of busy times for the subject site. It is anticipated that the service vehicle will attend the site every 1–3
months. Service vehicles will be able to prop in Wash Bay 1 whilst undertaking servicing — Wash Bay 2 will
remain available for use by those wishing to manually wash their vehicle.
20221115_10608_TTPlusReport.docx
016
Section 17
Oct Traffic Report
23. I am advised that Council has asked the proponents of the proposed development to consider alternative
locations to place the carwash, namely at existing industrial zones at Jarrah Street and Holts Road. Whilst the
location of the proposed use is predominantly a consideration of planning and economic consultants, as a traffic
engineer, I make the following observations:
a. Carwashes are not necessarily a complementary use to industrial uses. Whilst there are a number
of vehicle depot types that might be located in industrial areas, depots generally provide their own
washing services and are unlikely to utilise the carwash services proposed herein.
b. Due to this, the carwash is likely to attract vehicles to the industrial area that would not otherwise be
travelling in that area.
c. The Jarrah Street location is somewhat remote from the intended Cooroy-Tewantin road corridor
catchment, and as such will cause a level of trip lengthening as vehicles divert from that route to the
carwash location. Whilst this will predominantly involve travel along Garnet Street, it will involve
vehicles turning from the railway overpass right onto Myall Street and passing through the Myall
Street / Maple Street roundabout, forcing interactions with other vehicles at that roundabout and at
the Myall Street / Elm Street intersection — including most visitors to the town centre. Furthermore,
it is likely that a number of carwash patrons, unfamiliar with the area, will drive through the town
centre rather than diverting around it on Garnet Street. Whilst a matter more so for a town planner
to consider, it is evident that Maple Street should be protected where possible from traffic volume
increases to keep its preferred character.
d. The Holts Road location is closer to the intended Cooroy-Tewantin Corridor catchment, but still
involves diversions from the main travel path. This involves vehicles having to circulate via the roads
that form part of the Exit 230 interchange. Whilst Holts Road is a convenient location to place heavy
vehicle depots to ensure reasonable accessibility to the Bruce Highway while minimising the need
for such vehicles to travel through the town, this advantage would not exist in the case of the
proposed carwash. Vehicles utilising the carwash would typically already be travelling along
Elm Street and Myall Street. Moreso, it would reduce the opportunity for more appropriate uses to
locate to Holts Road where Council would prefer vehicles associated with those potential uses to
minimise their interactions with the town proper, but still have good accessibility to the
Bruce Highway.
20221115_10608_TTPlusReport.docx
017
Section 18
Oct Traffic Report
24. My conclusions / recommendations are:
a. The proposed use is well located to minimise travel of vehicles associated with the use, being located
adjacent to the Cooroy-Tewantin road corridor and being co-located with service station uses.
b. The proposed use has a smaller traffic generating function than the approved shopping precinct, and
as such will have a lower impact on road capacity and amenity to nearby residents than the approved
use.
c. The access solutions for the subject site are safe and adequate. The existing Elm Street / Diamond
Lane intersection will be utilised for egress and DTMR’s crash database shows no history of casualty
crashes at this location in 20 years.
d. Alternative locations for the proposed use at industrial precincts at Jarrah Street and Holts Road
would be less complementary and would involve larger diversions of vehicles from the Cooroy-
Tewantin road corridor and an increase in unfamiliar users in an industrial area. A carwash use is
not likely to be complementary to uses in the industrial precinct, and will reduce the opportunity for
uses more appropriate to those locations (from a traffic engineering perspective) to locate there.
e. From a traffic engineering perspective, the proposed development can be approved, with reasonable
and relevant conditions.
Yours faithfully
Noel Kay – RPEQ #26424
Traffic & Transport Plus
20221115_10608_TTPlusReport.docx
018
Section 19
Oct Traffic Report Appendix A — Proposal Plans 20221115_10608_TTPlusReport.docx 019
Section 20
SCALE 1: 100 vw coin.Gu Sie SEEM Gea evar ] Pan Existing Single Storey Building PX h AUTO BAY ' | waiting i \, ENTRY ' Car Park | \ \, | 6m x 5.4m SY TREE SB cet SEES ROOK SRS X “INO AYLNA an ee SOOKE ‘rivehay constructed a8 per ‘Council standard drawings _ i> ae os SS SOS XINO um NUQLISS) ra xX KEK Sct wa OX A Waiting) 'car Par forse! > ub [Teo ttc Biting Design Group 2022, LI 4 es Steve camngs may note copeain wrote | | PRELIMINARY DRAWING AT: 34 (LOT 4, 5 & 6) ELM STREET, imperwou wit coset oTHC| | nor 708 ED FORCoATRUCTON PORE PROPOSED CAR WASH COOROY, QLD, 4563 ae TMC | Building Design Group [= | tesa sARAPitotporenticany | eee rer ac aeanmnren DEVELOPMENT SION soca, ominjon, Ve 801, Pore No os 14873 [x | eerrenee cs Peoinimatea | oe ee bean crows ———SEESEorr. FOR: CHRIS KING & JOANNE HILL Matters emal-raceye Enmail- [email protected] DESCRIPTION [ DATE implemented. . ‘The peak body forthe lowein 2 1 4.| TC 16 Sept 2002 10:33 AM -T:TMC\2020\20-032 Chris King- Cooroy, QLD\20-082 DA Prelim V&.DWG Sheet No: 2 of 4. |Job No: 20-32 DA 620
Section 21
OPAL STREET
4
Exiting
Sin
O C
7] Basing STW
\ | Side entry Pit
ising STW
nPit
98
Baistog =
ec iE)
®
ing ee
Subsiton
Existing B3 conc kerb
Existing Spoon Drain
A
Bitumen Car Parking
Existing Spoon Drain
$astor
y
Now driveway to be installed as per Council
Standard Drawings for Commercial driveway.
Water
Meier
J Pole
LOT 2 ON SP 248165
N
| SITE ANALYSIS
——— SLULDINIPTp canwasa. (anes
Sn Ne 2
enn a | Ee Fa e pr O: eM
— : sin — -—a__
to a : Self-Serve Wash Bay- GFA 86.5 M’*
Existing Cone Féotpath “as 94 +,
T0586. st 2 Auto Bay - GFA 96.6 M2"
‘
00g, 8300. Meter 1909] Site Boundary 46.262M, 351° 59' WG (in Car Wash Plant Room) - GFA 28M
Ves = FodOuineGwe = 2 ie gp ee Take Away Food & Drink Outlet - GFA 31.5 M?
cL Ba 000 550 J |. 2000
en ee = Public Disabled WC - GFA 81M
Sbteadk
Ao Zhe ee 224 Widening
- Take Away Food & Drink - Seating Area 30.0 MP
150mm high Conc Ker T 0
L Shaded areas indicates al 5
‘Auto Bay 1 | site Landscaping, as per ro Dotted area indicates extent of Bin Fenced Areas 118M
Shaded area indicates he | She? 7 toad widening area, The extent 7
extent ofthe loner Auta Bay [] « | oe & material TSC with Council to Pedestrian Link Footpath Area 96.6 Mi
eve ade EY Canopy rot Bi ms | ey -- future design
wees overeat e ‘Auto Wash I a0 Council 'Road' Dedication Area 80.4 M?
sone 0 . Pay station. jd — Roller Door. Shaded area indicates ao
S ! the extent of th aaa Excluding
Shaded area indicates approx. El AL . Vacvum BayiDog Wi sh 3° Site Coverage (ie: Total Roofed Area)snade sail 823.6 M?
extent of retaining wal, e| rooted area, (Vac Island) a
8] 8 a 8 Waciisiand)) iS . Total Driveway (Non-Roofed) Area 772.0 Me
g i 2
bd it I : Total Landscaped Area a road widening areas, 233.3 Mi
8150 i | is.
al & tt I — Site Area 2,014 Me
Quouing area for PUD | AutoBay2 [TTT BMTTIL| | ! Vac Bay 2 an Hatched area indicates
Auto Wash Bays fem W i ! _. one “ew aE Effective Site Area * 1,837 MP
ay station i IL poterb / . roadway. The extent
uN 1 feler Door i —— ee with Council to future Car Wash Roofed Overall Site Coverage 40.9 %
Es ia —L-S Ly Driveway = 1 -- design
t a
Z . —1 =) 1 .. Q Car Wash Roofed Effective Site Coverage" 44,8 %
one any Drainage
| l : 3
‘1500 S 2 Pit ' . &. 3 Landscaping Etfective Site Coverage * 127%
ectire & z
8 foragé g \ ss B
s g 5 f Vac Bay 3 B 2 IMPERVIOUS AREAS.
E = 2 g ol | 2 2 Pre Site Development * 1,377.6 M
= g Bt e (Includes Building Roofed + Driveway Areas) _| ='75.0 %
p' fore Roos 8} By _ Post Site Development * 1,573.4 Me
e el _. (Includes Building Roof + Driveway Areas) = 86.9%
eight Bar | S| Vac Island .. Contribution to Stormwater Discharge Post Site 773.9 MP
Diginage Hatched area indicated 3! Ce _ .. 2 Development * § (Excl. Building Roofed Areas) = 42.1%
Pi | Foot Outne Over A ‘et level Plant Room 4 =| Sia- - e Therefore, the proposed development will have a 32.9%
roofed area. ! 3] --: 3 reduction (603.7 M? of impermeable area less than the
q| 4600 1 8 § existing site) in overall site stormwater discharge due to the
| ' Bll. - 5 9 9
a Wash Bay 1 ! 1 gi|k. . a proposed underground 2 No. 20,000L Stormwater retention
= 1 \ t ally. IS tanks and large roofed area connecting into these tanks.
= i 1 ' a
5 Painted lines define extent EA 1 oer | t Si > - 8
wv of waiting car parks or traffic ; / ! _- i O # “Effective Site Area"- the overall site area excluding the
s lane markings, typical 1, 28 3 |= Council Road’ dedication area and Footpath’ allocation
= Dclonal aroma & txt pita 1% _. s B) YS J J alrsite aroas tisted wih an** are based on the Etfective
= thats carnashares. ow Some ie 8 a] S| |, setae artet ce
CS Man Hole . 1s _. ® = $ This figure represents the actual contributory Effective
3 ig FFL 2005- IS = Bro are atu be desrenged tom tne oe lesen the
= 2 Wash Bay 2 7 _. Wisening g z driveway hardstand area) since all roofed areas will be
8 s .. 2 o| Zo connected to underground water tanks and this rainwater
§ g 1] ~ Shaded area indicates _. 1 m will be used in the car washing process. Therefore this
2 1] main buiding roofed areas . a hence it is excluded from all Stormwater calculations and
al 1 6250 |E og the Post Development impervious contributory area, This
v0 200 ‘100 |_| soo * — -. [|| sueunsaszinpevenet feito nse
. ; | Pi Joos Ee Dog NI -- | Oo) & wi a pment
a {Wash 1} Wash 2 a9 5 Zz
g Driveway -- ' ~
a y ee Cana | Be: ; op om
Super Bay 1 — wee ee . i
2 : 2
it g 3 2
NewSewer 8 ° \ ! lg
Man Hol 3 & 2
s ano’ é Standard approved ‘No Eny" sign to face —} | 8
js roadway, with “Exit’ Sign to\face carwash. oO
2 Signs tobe placad onthe sage signpost 1 g
ry Driveway each side of the driveway. \ 5
eT nid a ; °
2.{Mhigh Colorbond or & Drainage | Q
timber slat Fence & Shaded areas indicates site al | Pit |
Swing Gates to Bin Ara. Landscaping, as per future al Super Bay 2 \2 a
design. | \2 ' =
sa qm COAT i: :
Existing Shaded area indicates approx. ‘pa 8 \2
extent of retaining wall. \ | *
| 150mm high Cone Kerb
=a OS Ss CPDF OA a al | Uo T7p00
& rs Sea en Co Kena 4 a ee A ey * . Se ere” ‘ . wt staged area cae approx. | ae
vi Me 8 ole NT * . eee | Saber rea : Pedestrian Link Footpath“. 2 -, oma Nes -| POE sit site eee
a es < AO a Ne aaa ees gos . Bey a a ee ta a te a ST Fs aia,
Site Boundary 50.286M, 171° 59° Existing Brick Fence ~1.5M high Existing Brick Fence ~1.5M high
se CAR WASH
ony No. 5 cs
~14600 |
|
1
1
LAYOUT PLAN
© TMC Building Design Group 2022
© Design Copyright
> Issuod For DA Planning Approval 209-2022
Fro eae ON natbe coiedin note] | PRELIMINARY DRAWING
¢ Issued For Noosa CounelPre-Lodgement Meeting 2 5-07-2021 [orn part without the written consent of TMC .
: 8 @ gui part wiht he writen conse NOTTO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES PROPOSED CAR WASH COOROY, QLD, 4563 Design TMC | Building Design Group
seve Pera ret ecgement eet EAEE' {Proposed by the Client, Councilor the DEVELOPMENT Ig P.O. Box 3494, Momington, VIC, 3931. Phone No. 0416 114 573
Jevant Planning Approval Authority shall .
A Issued For Noosa Council Pre-Lodgement Meeting 131202 ee torted te TMG Building Design Group ee FOR: CHRIS KING & JOANNE HILL Matte rs E:mall- [email protected]
Skt Issued For Initial Comments 26-11-2020 | authorisation prior to said changes being National Scale:1:100(A1) _ [Date:
ISSUE DESCRIPTION DATE _ implemented. Drawn: Designed: tunding desea rofeesion
REVISIONS. TO 16 Sept 2022 10:38 AM TATMCI202020-032 Chris King- Cooroy, QLD120-082 DA Prelim V8,WG T. MICHAELS T. MICHAELS Member Sheet No: 3 of 4.
AT: 34 (LOT 4, 5 & 6) ELM STREET,
SCALE 1: 100
&
SEPT 2022 Issue:
D
ob No: 20-032 DA
Section 22
a Cams ae) STREET | Oct Traffic Repor ELM STREET | (BITUMEN SEALED ROAD) ec, fame] na ‘Sang Dialed I 3 Tm seatcots boa ‘wasn Fash OPAL. STREET. L STREET ~ a = me LOT 2 ON SP 248165 NOTE: SUPER BAY 1 CAR + VAN SWEPT PATH, GENERAL PARKING LAYOUT onan SUPER BAY 2 CAR + VAN SWEPT PATH, —————— SCALE 1:200 long vehicle) Path centreline AUTO BAY 1 + VAC BAY 1 CAR SWEPT PATH, Path ection of frard ave Path direction of reverse travel AUTO BAY 2 CAR SWEPT PATH. Fonte anilese CAR PARKING ANALYSIS SCALE 1:200 Rear tyre envelope PARKING AREA Parking Spaces| Car spaces provided in Carwash Bays 6 Car Spaces Car spaces queuing for Carwash (MIN) 12+ Cars Car spaces provided in Vacuum Bays 3 Car Spaces Car spaces provided for Car Wash Staff 1 Car Space Car spaces provided for Take-Away Premisis || 4 Car Spaces 3050 117 8772 CAR & CARAVAN CAR - B99 Vehicle Car Width : 1868mm Width : 1940mm Trailer Width =: 2470mm. Track : 184omm Car Track : 1600mm Lock to Lock Time: 6.0 sec Trailer Track: 2470mm. Steering Angle: 33.9" Lock to Lock Time: 6.0 sec Steering Angle: 36.2" Articulating Angle : 70.0° |@ TMC Building Design Group 2022 ‘Gomi Fo DA Pag pa enaoas |® Design Copyright - AT: 34 (LOT 4, 5 & 6) ELM STREET ee 9 A These drawings may not be copied in whole | | PRELIMINARY DRAWING , , snd Forks GnsiMetaderaasng? | Borate erin parwtht he wien consent of THC NOTTORE USED FOR CONSTAUCTION PURPOSES PROPOSED CAR WASH COOROY, QLD, 4563 . TMC | Building Design Group Building Design Group. Any changes Issued For SARA Pre-Lodigoment Meeting w622021 [proposed by the Client, Connell othe : cued For Noosa Gouneil Pre-Lodgement Meating z021 |felevant Planning Approval Authority shall DEVELOPMENT . P.O. Box 3494, Momington, VIC, 9931. Phone No. 0416 114 573, Issued For Noosa Council Pre-Lodgement Meeting 13-2021 [Pe seported to TMC Building Design Group sSaaaaeeeseaeaear"s_, FOR: CHRIS KING & JOANNE HILL I E:mail- Issued For Initial Comments. 26-11-2020 | authorisation prior to said changes being Scale: 1:100 (A1) Date: SEPT 2022 Issue: DESCRIPTION DATE _|mplemented. Drawn: Designed: bung dst profeson REVISIONS TC 16 Sept 2022 10:33 AM - T:TMC\\2020120-082 Chris King- Cooroy, QLD\20-032 DA Prelim V8.DWG T. MICHAELS T. MICHAELS Member Sheet No: 7 of ?. |Job No: D
Section 23
Oct Traffic Report
Appendix B — Approved Shopping Precinct Plans
20221115_10608_TTPlusReport.docx
023
Section 24
dge of Bitumen
Low Fence Brk Pillars & Picket infills
Carparking
Oct Traffic Report
Edge of Bitumen
no. date amendments
Sewer line??
Concrete Footpath
Overhead Power
Water Main
Stormwater
Table Drain
A April 2019 Delete unit & garages. Delete 2nd exit driveway.
Amend carparking layout Articulation to Nth elev.
B July 2019 Amend North elevation & toilets layout proposed easement
108.401
15,300 1,500 5,400 shown hatched; 882.4sqm
th
C Aug 2019 Amend Shops 3-7 and extend front awning around Diamond Ln.
under pa
SL108.3 106.96
fd
fence
2,000 190 SM3 Kerb
M/H 9not
OPAL STREET
9,010
OP 109.193
109.219
SWMH IL
59
108.815
Cnr Brk
2
108.947
108.719
108.685
A
Sewer60
10
Possibly
171°59' 50.287
SM26
IL107.34
OP
9
Telstra Pit
GINail in
109.215
Conc lid pit
3
SW Catch
RC00
450 RCP
600
Bit
P
retractable
existing boundary line
exit loading exit
3,600
MRV bollard
bay 8.8 x 2.5
7,050
108.482
limited access note:
Water
6,000
Bitumen
Meter
easement for access
1 & services. entry
B3 Kerb
Table Drain
to future detail
100
roller 8 bicycles
2,000
DIAMOND LANE
grille unisex
108.272
ss bicycle hoops
2,000 bin wash &
shower 21 23
1100L bulk bins staff spaces
bin room sh
5,400
M F 26
Conc
84 ? Path
6,310
2 52ine?
M r-l 27
108.716
SGewe
refuse S
2,600
shop 1
Invert
truck
awning over
Kerb Lip
shop 3 55.6 m2
108.406 Formed
loading
proposed subdivision line
108.360
100
6,000
area 71 m2 20 4
14,310
- car spaces
remove existing kerb
shopfronts
APPROVED PLANS
108.713
2,600
1,500 5,400 6,600 5,400 3,372 10,710
low kerb
MCU18/0158 driveway
262°01'
4,800
LRV shop 4
NOOSA COUNCIL shop 2 24
2,600
6,000
12.5x 2.5
127.6 m2 saddlery
109.700
72 m2
9 AUGUST 2019
108.787
108.516
A
9,800
12,600 100 2,410
Valves
Stop
unisex facility
- existing
new small tree
SM3 Kerb wc tree
17
36.190
108.559
FL 109.0
awning over
setdown
82°0'50"
2,400
area 4
shop 5
100
bollard
LOT 5
108.599
scooters
72 m2
109.900
674.9sqm
1,800
10,313
2,500
108.861
1,000
16 proposed subdivision line
LOT 4 LOT 6 remove existing
shopfronts
existing kerb as required
986sqm 353.7sqm
40.213
2,400
tree
108.671
Phone
existing boundary line
M1 K
Section 25
109.923
new footpath
5,400 Box
110 shop 6
100
erb
n
109.231
109.862
SubStatio
73 m2
low kerb
SL108.9 107.25
2,300
5,000
shop 8
Elec
108.917
IL107.42
109.935
5,315
2 small car existing
SWMH IL
Power
7
109.893
1,500 5,400 coffee
9.901
Conc Lid pit
Pole
spaces tree
SW Catch
with associated
39.3 m2
new kerb & channel 10
signage wc
13 300RCP
109.014
109.053
109.081
No Stand
unisex facility
8,540
100
109.097
shop 7 91
shopfronts
shop 7
450 RCP
6
Bitumen
No42712 le
5.
turnaround
1,500
Power po
e
62 m2
ag
12 bay
florist 0'
gn
100 109. 4,940
SGM2528428
Sewer-line??
0
si
47 m2 7°
Ramp
Pram
109.523 9
109.492
263
SITE AREA: 2014 SQM
109.921
30
109.51
FL 110.0 FL 109.5 9
Water Main
1,000
109.273
new footpath
10
500
46.262 351°59' awning over
SHOPS- Use Area: 619.5sqm Water Main
Sign t
Stree
awning over
ign
solid yellow line marking
No Stand
o7726
Street S
'no stopping-no parking'
relocate bus Bin
o58467
& Light Nole
new footpath
CAR SPACES:
Elect
shelter Ke
rb
Power P
Pit
Concrete Crossover
Bus M1
& Light Nole
8.00
Sign
23 on site. 4 on-street
Power P
TBM Nail in
110
IL10
Conc lid pit
M1 Kerb PathRL109.806m
Target on
B1 Kerb
bus stop
SW Catch
4 scooters on-street
sed
Pole
Not Acces
2,172 2,000 10,875 21,281 10,040
Overhead Power
LANDSCAPED AREA: 10%; 201.4sqm note;
ELM STREET
SWMH
reposition bus shelter as shown, to DTMR approval.
220.9 sqmsoft landscaping provided
reposition existing bin south of tactile indicators to DTMR approval.
existing linemarked bus zone to be retained.
existing bus stop, boarding point, hardstand,
0 2000 5000 10000 20000 site plan/ tactiles & J pole to be retained
scale 1:200 ground floor plan
Lots 4 - 6 on RP72698
34 Elm Street
Cooroy
Client Location Drawing Scale Drawn
KEXRON PTY LTD SITE PLAN/ 1:200 @ A2 AM
34 ELM STREET GROUND FLOOR PLAN
62 hilton terrace Project COOROY Drawing no. Page Date
noosaville (07) 5449 9066 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DA-16.0518.2C 2 0F 4 JULY 2018
[email protected] QBSA reg. 65073 DEVELOPMENT
024
Section 26
no. date amendments
Oct Traffic Report
A April 2019 Delete unit & garages. Delete 2nd exit driveway.
Amend carparking layout
B July 2019 Amend North elevation & toilets layout
C Aug 2019 Amend Shops 3-7 and extend front awning around Diamond Ln.
OPAL STREET
proposed subdivision line
DIAMOND LANE
parapet
box gutter
colourbond roof
stepped parapet
5° pitch
colourbond awning
colourbond roof
stepped parapet
25° pitch
colourbond awning
box gutter
box gutter
stepped parapet
colourbond roof
LOT 5
674.9sqm
LOT 4 proposed subdivision line
986sqm LOT 6
353.7sqm
feature parapet
colourbond roof
20° pitch
colourbond roof
box gutter
25° pitch
stepped parapet
feature parapet
colourbond awning colourbond awning
ELM STREET
0 2000 5000 10000 20000 site plan/ -
APPROVED PLANS
scale 1:200 first floor plan MCU18/0158
NOOSA COUNCIL
9 AUGUST 2019
-
Client Location Drawing Scale Drawn
KEXRON PTY LTD SITE PLAN/ 1:200 @ A2 AM
34 ELM STREET GROUND FLOOR PLAN
62 hilton terrace Project COOROY Drawing no. Page Date
noosaville (07) 5449 9066 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DA-16.0518.3C 3 0F 4 JULY 2018
[email protected] QBSA reg. 65073 DEVELOPMENT
025
Section 27
no. date amendments Oct Traffic Report
road boundary
boundary line
A April 2019 Delete unit & garages. Delete 2nd exit driveway.
Amend carparking layout
B July 2019 Amend North elevation & toilets layout
C Aug 2019 Amend Shops 3-7 and extend front awning around Diamond Ln.
colourbond custom orb roofing
elm street
-
APPROVED PLANS
MCU18/0158
aluminium framed shop fronts weatherboards & paint finish NOOSA COUNCIL
kerb line
9 AUGUST 2019
-
north elevation
elevation to diamond lane
road boundary
road boundary
feature gable vent cladding on steel/timber framed
diamond lane
parapet as selected
opal street
colourbond custom
orb roofing to awning
kerb line
twin timber posts aluminium framed shop fronts feature wall with
centre signage
timber fenestration between
west elevation
support posts
elevation to elm street
road boundary
boundary line
cladding on steel/timber framed
colourbond custom orb roofing parapet as selected
colourbond window hood colourbond custom
orb roofing to awning
elm street
timber post
timber fenestration between aluminium framed shop fronts
support posts
feature wall with twin timber posts
south elevation
centre signage
road boundary
road boundary
elevation to opal street
diamond lane
opal street
colourbond custom
orb roofing
colourbond quad gutter & fascia
kerb line
cladding on steel/timber frame
as selected
aluminium framed window
east elevation
0 2000 5000 10000 20000
Client Location Drawing Scale Drawn
scale 1:200 KEXRON PTY LTD ELEVATIONS 1:200 @ A2 AM
34 ELM STREET
62 hilton terrace Project COOROY Drawing no. Page Date
noosaville (07) 5449 9066 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DA-16.0518.4C 4 0F 4 JULY 2018
[email protected] QBSA reg. 65073 DEVELOPMENT
026