Council archive · source document
Information Request MCU23-0135 [As Published] · MCU23/0135
g) Identify car park layout details on the plans including aisle dimensions, car parking
space dimensions, column sizes and their location relative to parking spaces and
aisles.
h) Redesign the loading area to accommodate an Austroads HRV.
i) Provide a more direct linkage off the end of the bottom of the western ramp in the
basement, eliminating the dog-leg manoeuvre.
j) Provide clear definition of priority and assess and provide appropriate sight lines
at the junctions in the vicinity of the base of the western basement ramp, and at
the top of the deck ramp.
k) Provide clear dimensions and longitudinal gradients of the proposed circulation
ramps.
Issue – Traffic Impact Assessment
The following concerns with the traffic impact assessment have been identified:
a) While the traffic impact assessment assessed impacts on intersections on the local
road system, it did not assess impacts at the most critical locations, being at the
Walter Hay Drive access and the Eenie Creek Road access, which is required to
be undertaken.
b) Traffic counts were undertaken when roadworks was being undertaken at the
eastern end of Civic Drive such that the eastern end of Civic Drive was
unusable. The extent to which existing access occurs via Walter Hay Drive was
thus unable to be determined and creates uncertainty as to the validity of any
further assessment requested in (a), unless the traffic counts are redone.
c) The traffic generation calculations for the new development did not consider or
inappropriately considered the following elements:
i. The traffic generation of the existing development includes a significant
proportion of showroom elements, which generate lower traffic volumes
than shops. It is therefore not appropriate to assume that the proposed
new retail area will generate traffic at the same or lesser rate than the
existing development on Lot 1. An adjustment to the existing traffic
generation for Lot 1 needs to be made to inflate that volume to reflect the
fact that the existing traffic generation includes a significant amount of lower
traffic generating showroom areas.
ii. There is no indication of whether there were any vacant tenancies in Lot 1
when the surveys were undertaken. If there were, then the generation rate
of existing Lot 1 development needs to be inflated accordingly.
iii. Decay curve adjustments to the traffic generation rate used in the traffic
impact assessment for the larger overall development have been
undertaken on an absolute basis which is inappropriate. Proportional
adjustments would be considered, but not a blanket reduction of 2.5vph per
100m2 for all centre sizes.
Information Required:
14. Update the traffic impact assessment to incorporate the above elements.
Page 12 of 15
Document Set ID: 22664361
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/11/2023
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed in these records
Information Request MCU23-0135 [As Published].pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 150 KB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.