17365_Council_Information response_220518 · MCU18/0019

Page 2

4. Should the existing bus stop be required to be relocated the relevant approval from Translink
    should be obtained and provided as part of the information response.

Response
Refer attached traffic engineering response prepared by Q Traffic. In addition, we note that the porte
cochere has been retained as a crucial design element associated with the aged care facility. Arcare
currently have 36 aged care facilities in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales, all of which have a
porte cochere. A review of all existing aged care facilities in Noosa has also identified that all include a
porte cochere. A porte cochere is important to provide both an identity and a welcoming identity for
the aged care facility. The entry needs to not only be clearly visible but also inviting. More importantly,
from a health and safety perspective, an undercover area for drop off and ambulance parking is
required by building code. Use of the basement does not adequately achieve this function.


Issue – Val Crescent sight lines

The proposal demonstrates sight lines from the proposed Val Crescent driveway toward the
roundabout, and shows that a sight line triangle across part of the site is required to satisfy absolute
minimum driveway sight line requirements. This satisfies the lesser Australian Standard requirement for
driveway sight lines, but does not satisfy the more desirable Austroads Safe Intersection Sight Distance
(SISD) requirements.

Sight lines are restricted in both directions when departing from the driveway, and exacerbated even
further by the fact that the driver of the vehicle departing from the driveway also needs to look across
an angle greater than 90 degrees from the straight ahead in each direction.

Considering the above discussion, it is recommended that a more appropriate driveway location from
a traffic safety perspective be investigated at a location further south along Val Crescent, about at the
slight bend in Val Crescent half way along the long frontage.

Staff vehicle movements

No staff shift times or staff numbers have been provided. This number would help determine the times
of day/night when most vehicle movements would occur.

Information required

5. Investigate and provide amended plans locating the access further south along Val Crescent.

6. Should the proposed Val Crescent access location be utilised, demonstrate the achieved sight lines
    are in accordance with Austroads Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) requirements on a scale
    plan in both directions along Val Crescent from the driveway, and justify those sight lines. The plan
    should include any proposed fencing, landscaping, and retaining walls in that vicinity.

7. Provide the mechanism (such as dedication of sight line easements with associated easement
    wording) to ensure that sight lines required across those parts of the site will be maintained into
    the future.

8. Please provide proposed staff numbers and shifts times and incorporate them into the traffic
    assessment.

Response
Refer attached traffic engineering response prepared by Q Traffic.

Page 3

Issue –Val Crescent Driveway Levels

The proposed RL of 4.372 on the property line at the Val Crescent driveway does not appear to match
with the existing 5.0m and 4.5m contours either side of the driveway.

Information requested

9. Please provide section plans of the proposed Val Crescent driveway demonstrating how the
    driveway satisfactorily interacts with the existing kerb level, complies with the relevant Australian
    Standards and the pedestrian sight splay recommended in the QTraffic report.

Response
Refer attached traffic engineering response prepared by Q Traffic.


Issue –Driveway layout and basement gate

The parking layout plan does not include dimensions.

There is potential for conflict between vehicles entering the basement and service vehicles using the
delivery/loading area.

The basement access shows a gate which may restrict visitor access.

Information requested

10. Please provide:

    10.1. a dimensioned parking layout plan demonstrating the details outlined in Section 3.3 of the
           QTraffic report;
    10.2. a modified driveway layout that ensures that the swept path of the design vehicle
          (including clearances) remains within the proposed driveway area (refer to QTraffic plan
          755_KNG03 SK.02 A);
    10.3. a plan with the clear delineation of the access to the basement carpark clear of the loading
          area, so that all users are able to distinguish how that area will operate in an obvious
          manner; and
    10.4. details of the hours of operation of the basement gate (open all hours, only open during
          day light hours, or closed at all times and only opened when required?). If the gate is to
          remain closed for any part of the day or night identify how users, including visitors, will
          satisfactorily gain access at those times. Investigate moving the gate to allow unrestricted
          access to some car parks and a disabled space on entry to the basement.

Response
Refer attached traffic engineering response prepared by Q Traffic.


Issue –Built form and streetscape

The proposal sits within a low density residential area characterised by single and 2 storey dwelling
houses up to 8m in height. Opposite the site is a single storey hospital in a bushland setting.

Although the Goodchap Street elevation is articulated, it is still a large building within a low density
residential setting.

The proposal presents a box type profile to Goodchap Street. The planning scheme seeks to avoid box
type designs by requiring the use of eaves, roof pitch and a variety of materials to provide interest to
the street and achieve a sub-tropical design.

Page 4

Information Required

11. Remove the box style design presentation to Goodchap street and provide amended plans
    incorporating the following built form elements into the development—
    11.1. an interesting, traditional style, light weight roof form and eaves which presents a pitch to
           Goodchap street;
    11.2. provide further interest to the Goodchap Street elevation to break up the appearance of a
           large building including the western end of this elevation;
    11.3. sub-tropical design elements;
    11.4. comply with 8m building height in metres (lift overruns may be acceptable);
    11.5. provide articulation or more interest to the elevation on the south side of the western
           building above the driveway near the basement entry to break up the height of this
           elevation; and
    11.6. should the porte cochere remain, reduce the height (and size) to be of a more human scale
           (approx. 3m to 4m in height), particularly given the structure is within the front setback.

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans prepared by Elevation Architecture. These plans largely
remove the box style design presentation, with the exception of the main entry area which is setback
further than the main building edge at approximately 13.5m from the frontage. The plans present an
interesting, traditional style, light weight roof form and eaves which presents a pitch to Goodchap
Street; provides further interest to the Goodchap Street elevation to break up the appearance of a
large building; includes sub-tropical design elements, largely complies with the 8m building height;
provides articulation and interest to the elevation on the south side of the western building above the
driveway; and lowers the height and scale of the porte cochere.

Full compliance with building height is not possible to achieve the pitched roofing outcome. All roof
elements around the building perimeter presenting to the street comply with the maximum height.
Areas of non-compliance are well setback from the building edge so as to not visually dominate the
street or surrounding spaces. The roofing height outcome allow for increased roof pitching,
concealment of roof plant and equipment and lift overrun.

The porte cochere has been retained as a crucial design element associated with the aged care facility.
Arcare currently have 36 aged care facilities in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales, all of which
have a porte cochere. A review of all existing aged care facilities in Noosa has also identified that all
include a porte cochere. A porte cochere is important to provide both an identity and a welcoming
amenity for the aged care facility. The entry needs to not only be clearly visible but also inviting. The
porte cochere will provide for increased articulation and street interest to the Goodchap Street
streetscape presentation. More importantly, from a health and safety perspective, an undercover area
for drop off and ambulance parking is required by building code. A minimum canopy height of 3.8m
is required for ambulance vehicles.


12. Provide a 3D perspective showing how the proposal would sit within Goodchap Street and Val
    Crescent streetscape. The perspective should include neighbouring dwellings.

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans prepared by Elevation Architecture which includes various
perspective views.


Issue

The report notes that “A rational method check of the pre-development scenario was conducted to
calibrate the XPSTORM model.” There is no further detail provided and we are unable to tell whether
the rational method was used as a check or as a calibration tool. If it has been used as a calibration
tool, QUDM v4 states:

Page 5

“Utilisation of the Rational Method, as described within the Manual, may be considered
appropriate…as a ‘checking tool’ (not calibration) of numerical models developed for small ungauged
catchments (i.e. checking for potential gross errors)”.
It appears the ARR1987 methods and IFD data have been applied, however, this is not explicitly stated
in the report.
There are several cross references that point to information that does not appear relevant to the text.
One example is that Section 4.3.2 indicates that Appendix A contains illustration of modelled
catchments but Appendix A does not contain catchment plans.
Regional flooding, minimum floor levels and access during flood events has not been mentioned.
The SWMP indicates water captures for detention purposes. The planning scheme also seeks that
development captures water for re-use for non-potable purposes.

Information Required

13. Update the Stormwater Quantity Management section of the report to clarify methods, reference
    current guidelines and statutory documents, correct cross references and address regional
    flooding, minimum floor levels and access to the proposed aged care facility during flood events.

14. Amend the SWMP to include the capture and re-use of water for non-potable purposes.

Response
Refer attached amended Stormwater Managements Plan prepared by Empire Engineering.


                                   END INFORMATION RESPONSE

Part 3: Information Request has now concluded. We ask that you now provide details of adjoining
owners in order that we may commence the public notification of the application.

Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct.

Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN




Scott Sobey
DIRECTOR
Email: [email protected]