137996_IR Response FINAL_9.2.18

Page 2

To clarify, the car parking provision provided is based on the rates required for Retail Business Type 5 Vehicle
uses (Service Station) and Type 2 Shop and salon (Shop) uses.
As part of the information request response process (in particular to address item 5), the project Architect has
reviewed the site layout plan and has made amendments to the positioning of the service station building,
surrounding landscape areas and the air/water unit. This has resulted in an additional three car parking
spaces provided on the sites south-eastern boundary.
The total car parking provision for the development is now 13 spaces, which is fully compliant with the Noosa
Plan 2006 rates, as follows:

  Retail Business Use                          Rate                       Requirement      Proposal
 Car Spaces
 Type 5 Vehicle uses        4 spaces per service bay, with a minimum
 (Service Station)          of 5 spaces provided”                             5                5             


 Type 2 Shop and            1 space per 20m2, or part thereof, of use
 salon (Shop)               area for areas up to 100m2 (excluding             7                8             
                            outdoor dining area); and
 Note: 123m2 GFA of
 shop use                   1 space per 15m2 or part thereof of use
                            area for areas in excess of 100m2
                            (excluding outdoor dining area);
                                                                                        No outdoor dining
                            and 1 space per 10m2 or part thereof of any                     proposed
                            outdoor dining area on the property”

 Total Car Spaces                                                             12               13            

The proposed Site Plan has been updated to reflect this amendment accordingly.
Refer to Appendix A – Amended Proposal Plans & Appendix B – Amended Landscape Concept Plan

 Advertising devices
        2. Plans of the pylon sign which include details of all advertising, the height of the pylon sign,
           dimensions, signface area and any illumination.
        3. Details of all other signage proposed on site including dimensions and signface area.

Response:
Dimensions of the proposed signage have been provided on the amended proposal plans. Refer to Drawings
10615_DA21, DA22 & DA40. To clarify, the Applicant seeks approval of the following:
         Pylon sign – 5m height, 2m wide, total face area; and
         Wall signs and canopy signage –10m2 total area.
By virtue of the nature of the service station use proposed, which is a consistent use with the Industry zone, a
pylon sign is required to display fuel prices. Council’s Noosa Plan allows for the pylon as per the proposed
dimensions. The pylon is considered to be operational signage as opposed to advertising signage. As such, it
is submitted that the signface area of the pylon sign be excluded from the total advertising device signage
calculation.
The elevations show the remainder of the signage which is a maximum of 10m 2.
Refer to Appendix A – Amended Proposal Plans



| MCU17/0572 | Information Request Response                                                                  Page 2

Page 3

 Setback of canopy
     4. Amended plans which detail the canopy setback which should comply with the 6.0 metre
        requirement of the Noosaville Locality Code.

Response:
The proposed setback to the canopy has been increased to 6.0m, from the properties front boundary, as per
requirements of the Noosaville Locality Code. Refer to Drawing No. 10615_DA02 which is enclosed within
Appendix A.
We note that given the extensive 11m wide verge in front of the site, the canopy is setback 17m from the kerb
line. This canopy is adequately setback from the street to ensure that the development does not have an
overbearing nature.
Refer to Appendix A – Amended Proposal Plans

 Presentation to Eumundi Noosa Road
     5. Amended plans which provide for improved visual interest to the southern and western elevations.
        It is recommended that the amended plans include the use of lightweight mixed materials and
        colours to the southern and western elevation.
     6. The setback from the southern elevation where the building abuts the Open Space Conservation
        Zone increased to 3.0 metres with landscaping provided in the setback.

Response:
5. To improve the visual appearance of the proposal to Eumundi Noosa Road, a number of design
modifications have been made to the development including:
       Increased width of landscaping in front of the service station western façade by repositioning the
        building further toward of the rear of the site;
       Increased setback to the refuelling canopy;
       Façade treatment applied to the store’s western and southern elevations to include a new colour
        scheme which provides improved visual interest; and
       Inclusion of an awning to the western façade to contribute to the break up of the facades visual
        element.
As demonstrated within the External Elevations-Sheet 1 (Drawing 21) and the External Elevations-Sheet 2
(Drawing 22), the façade treatment to the walls, combined with the inclusion of the awning softens the overall
visual appearance of the development and contributes positively to the major road network. It is also important
to note that high quality landscape has also been provided to the frontage of the site which overall improves
the visual amenity of the development.
Furthermore, the visual dominance of the southern façade is lessened by recessing the building toward the
sites rear boundary. The building is now setback a total of 26.3m from the kerb line. This is more than adequate
to ensure it has no overbearing impact to the streetscape.
6. As illustrated within the Site Plan (Drawing 02), the proposed service station building has been setback to
align with the adjoining industry zoning (Lot 0/BUP101093). No part of the building wall will be directly adjacent
to the Open Space Conservation Zone. As such, a 3.0m side setback is not required given the repositioning
of the service station building further south on the site. Subsequently, the proposed development is able to be
built to the boundary at this location.



| MCU17/0572 | Information Request Response                                                                 Page 3

Page 4

It is important to note that as a result of the setback, the landscaping areas in front of the service station
building, adjacent the Open Space Conservation Zone (Lot 22 RP 881370) has increased, as demonstrated
within the Site Plan (Drawing 02) provided in Appendix A. This creates a pleasant green edge to the
development and is a natural extension of the adjacent property.
Refer to Appendix A – Amended Proposal Plans & Appendix B – Amended Landscape Concept Plan

 Engineering
     7. Provide a preliminary design of the earthworks required on the site. The plan must include but not
        be limited to:
     (a) existing and proposed finished levels
     (b) any proposed retaining walls, batters and banks


     8. Provide additional comment on and a preliminary design of the stormwater system required on the
        site. The comment and plan must include but not be limited to:
     (c) existing stormwater connections and drainage paths
     (d) proposed stormwater connections and drainage paths including finished levels
     (e) comment from a suitably qualified person that demonstrates that the subject site has the legal
         rights to discharge into the drainage system in the adjoining property
     (f) a design in accordance with QUDM 2017 and Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 5
     (g) sufficient detail to demonstrate that the downstream drainage system has the capacity to cater for
         the proposed runoff from the site

Response:
7. AGD Engineers have prepared a formal response to this item as part of Engineering Response
Memorandum provided (Appendix C). Please refer to amended preliminary engineering layout plan
(20769_DA03) regarding preliminary earthworks. The finalised earthworks and stormwater arrangement will
be determined during detailed design. It is important to note that previous correspondence with Council
identified that no change to the site’s lawful point of discharge has occurred, hence no detailed bulk earthworks
is required at this stage.
8. The projects team consulting engineer, Michael Van Itallie (CPEng, RPEQ 13469) confirmed within the
Engineering Response memorandum (prepared by ADG Engineers provided in Appendix C), that the subject
site has the legal right to discharge into the neighbouring drainage system in accordance with the easement
deed.
It was also noted that the finalised stormwater arrangements, including construction of the subject site
stormwater outlet is to be confirmed during detailed design and constructed in accordance with Councils
Planning Scheme Policy 5 and QUDM standards.
ADG have reviewed the capacity of the constructed stormwater infrastructure and confirms there is capacity
for the increase of flow from the subject site development. It can be assumed that the constructed stormwater
infrastructure has been designed to cater for upstream developments with much higher imperviousness.
Refer to Appendix C – Engineering Response Memorandum for further explanation.




| MCU17/0572 | Information Request Response                                                                Page 4

Page 5

 Traffic
     9. Provide additional comment, detail and preliminary plans for the frontage of the site. The
        comment, detail and plans must include but not be limited to:
     (a) a bus stop, tapers and ancillary structures in accordance with Translink standards
     (b) sight lines and distances for vehicles and pedestrians at the entry and exit driveways for the
         proposed development
     (c) consideration for an indented bus stop to provide the necessary clearances to the existing traffic,
         cycle lanes and pedestrians
     (d) comment on whether an indented bus stop assists with the entry movement of traffic to the site
         and the need for a left turn treatment
     (e) any existing services, on-street parking and infrastructure that require relocation to provide for the
         bus stop and driveways
     (f) any road widening necessary to cater for the frontage works

Response:
A formal response has been prepared by Traffic Engineers MRCagney to address each of these items. Refer
to Appendix D.
To summarise,
    a. Based on Translink’s Public Transport Infrastructure Manual (Table 5.7) the minimum length of bus
       stop for an on-road bus stop (single bus allowance) is 25 m with the departure table of 10 m. No
       tapers are required as the bus stop is not an indented bay.
         The existing bus stop is located within the kerbside parking line between two cross overs. The current
         ’on-road’ arrangement reflects the Translink’s on-road bus stop. The crossovers are permitted to act
         effectively as ingress and egress tapers.
         MRCagney’s Figure 1-1 illustrates a length of approximately 21.2m available for a bus, with
         approximately 15m available for manoeuvring both before and after this zone (in the form of the ingress
         and egress crossovers).
         While the 21.2m bay length is slightly less than 25m, the wide service station ingress cross over
         adequately caters for the bus approach movement into the bus bay;
    b. Maintaining the existing bus stop arrangement will not worsen the available sight distances for
       egressing motorists. The sight lines are not being reduced from the current access arrangements, and
       as mentioned in the traffic report, given the flat geometry of the fronting road there is no limitation on
       sight distance. The bus shelter structure offers sufficient sight line permeability not to impede the sight
       line.
    c.   An intended bay for the bus stop is not proposed, nor considered warranted. Accordingly, as illustrated
         Figure 1 (Appendix B) included in the Traffic Report all included in the traffic report there is ~ 24 m
         distance between the ingress and egress of the service station. Further, there is at least 9 m of
         departure taper in front of the bus stop, which is the service station egress crossover. As such, it is
         appropriate for the existing ‘on-road’ bus stop to be retained.
    d. Indented bus stop bay does not assist in this instance. As demonstrated in the initial traffic report, an
       Auxiliary Left Turn Treatment (AUL) is warranted. However, a turn lane treatment is not considered
       necessary due to the wide road verge and presence of kerbside parking. There also appears to be no



| MCU17/0572 | Information Request Response                                                                 Page 5

Page 6

         turn lanes for any other developments in the vicinity of the site, most of which have comparable traffic
         generations (including several service stations) to the proposed development.
    e. In order to move the location of the bus stop, no existing infrastructure would require relocation. The
       existing power pole situated next to the current bus shelter is unaffected by the proposed stop layout.
       However, as mentioned in the traffic report, some on-street parking will have to be removed to
       accommodate the ingress crossover; and
    f.   Road widening is not required.
Refer to Appendix D – Traffic Response Memorandum

      10. Amended plans which detail that there will be no bowsers at the end of the canopy or plans
          amended so that this conflict is removed.

Response:
As demonstrated within the functional layout plans included as part of the traffic response memorandum
(Appendix D), there is only a minor conflict that occurs between the end bowsers and HRV’s. It is submitted
that given this conflict will occur infrequently, for the isolated occasions a vehicle is using the southernmost
bowser, the RCV will need to wait momentarily. Accordingly, it is not proposed that the southern bowsers be
removed. In the event that the frequency of conflict becomes an issue, the service station manager may
implement strategies to assist access, such as temporarily blocking access to the southernmost bowser.
Refer to Appendix D – Traffic Response Memorandum


We trust this information is sufficient for your purposes. Should you require further details or wish to discuss
these matters, please contact the writer on (07) 5436 7837.
Yours faithfully,
RPS




SOPHIE WILLIAMS
Senior Planner




| MCU17/0572 | Information Request Response                                                                Page 6