TTM Traffic report

Page 2

        Used Council parking rates to determine gym parking demands.

The gym parking demands and surveyed parking demands of the existing site were then added to determine
suitability of Unit 5 to operate as a gym. This analysis determined that a gym operating from Unit 5 would
result in a minimum parking availability of 16 spaces, or 17% of the existing parking supply.

Further, TTM recommended classes are limited to ensure suitable parking availability for the primary industrial
use on site.

This analysis followed a standard methodology. This analysis has been further interrogated and it is TTM’s
opinion that issues raised by Council in the Information Request are generally addressed in the preliminary
parking assessment, as will be detailed in this letter.

A key overarching principle of this assessment is that existing peak parking demands on site are approximately
50% of Council’s parking requirement at 1 space per 99m2 Unit Area. This is consistent with:

       Surveys of several industrial sites with multiple tenancies.

       Parking requirements in several other planning schemes in Queensland.

The Units range in size from 199m2 to 719m2 with an average size of 367m2. These Unit sizes are more
conducive to warehouse uses (8 of the 12 occupied tenancies are warehouse uses) or personal/industrial
storage. Both uses are low traffic generating with relatively low staff and customer parking demands. These
tenancy sizes are not conducive to manufacturing, general retail or distribution activities which may generate
higher parking demands.

For these reasons, the surveyed parking demands are anticipated to be generally reflective of future parking
demands, regardless of change of tenancies. As the parking demands are lower than the approved number of
parking spaces, the site has suitable parking availability for a gym to operate in Unit 5, subject to conditions on
the number, size and times of classes.

3. Information Request Response

    3.1. Existing Tenant (Item 1a)

The applicant has advised that Blink Living Pty Ltd are the current tenant of Unit 5 at 8 Selkirk Drive. Parking
demand for this tenant was included in the parking assessment.

    3.2. Future Tenants (Item 1b)

The Information Request states that the development is approved for Industrial Business Type 1 (warehouse)
and Industrial Business Type 2 (light industrial) under the Noosa Plan. The parking requirement for Industrial
Business Type 1 was addressed in the parking assessment and does not require further review. The Noosa Plan
states that Industrial Business Type 2 must supply the following vehicle parking:

Page 3

       1 space per 30m2 use area up to 150m2.

       1 space per 50m2 use area up to 500m2.

       1 space per 100m2 use area over 500m2.

Based on the 5,140m2 Total Unit Area (page 2 of parking assessment), these parking rates result in a parking
requirement of 59 parking spaces. As such, by approving the development with 94 spaces, the development
included 35 spaces more than required.

The development provides 94 spaces with a total Unit area of 5,140m2. This is an average of 1 space per 54.7m2
Unit Area. It must be anticipated that Council believed this level of on-site parking was sufficient at the time.

Based on TTM’s survey of the site and extensive experience with multi-tenancy industrial sites, more intensive
uses are unlikely to be located on site in the future. This is because the tenancy sizes are not conducive to
more intensive uses. Any change in tenant in the future to a more intensive use, is likely to be offset by other
uses being either vacant or a less intense use (warehouse/storage). This is supported by the Council Parking
rates for industrial Type 1 and Type 2. Parking is provided for Type 1 uses; however any mix of industrial uses
is likely to reduce the requirement for the site overall.

    3.3. Vacant Tenancies (Item 1c)

The surveyed parking demand was used to determine a parking demand rate of occupied Units (Table 4). This
parking demand rate was then applied to all tenancies excluding Unit 5 to determine the parking demand
exclusive of Unit 5 (Table 4). This parking demand was then used as a basis to determine parking availability at
both maximum and 85th operation (Table 5).

It is TTM’s opinion that vacant tenancies were adequately considered in the parking assessment, and no
further assessment is required.

    3.4. Parking Surveys (Item 1d)

It is TTM’s opinion that parking surveys of other gyms as requested is not appropriate to determine gym
parking demands for the following reasons:

       The Information Request identifies that there would be difficulty in differentiating gym parking
        demands from other uses in a mixed use environment. TTM have reviewed the majority of Fernwood
        gyms in Southeast Queensland and note they are generally located shopping centers of mixed use
        complexes. Finding two gyms of similar size and operation, which are sufficiently detached from
        adjacent uses to easily determine parking demands may not be possible.

       The Information request includes providing floor areas and membership levels of surveyed gyms.
        Determining floor areas of a gym may not be possible unless the tenant provides this information.

Page 4

        Membership levels are commercially sensitive and may not be provided by gym operators.

       Parking rates for a gym are defined in The Noosa Plan 2006.

For these reasons, undertaking parking surveys of other sites is not warranted. In lieu of surveys, a sensitivity
analysis is considered an appropriate method to determine site parking demands with the gym. TTM have
undertaken a sensitivity analysis which includes:

       Anticipated maximum patronage at 30 minute intervals through the day. This is based on the
        methodology in section 5 and Table 3 in the preliminary parking assessment. Class schedules assessed
        include:

             o   Current class schedule for a Tuesday at Fernwood Morayfield (Attachment 1); and

             o   Amended class schedule based on TTM’s recommendations in Section 7 of the preliminary
                 parking assessment. This requires the removal of the 11:15 Yoga class to reduce any potential
                 overlap of patronage from 11:30 to 2:00pm.

       Surveyed parking site parking demands extrapolated from tenanted Units to all Units excluding Unit
        5.

       Gym parking scenarios assessed:

             o   3 persons per car (Council parking rate);

             o   2 persons per car (parking demands 50% higher than Council’s parking rate); and

             o   1.5 persons per car (parking demands 100% higher than Council’s parking rate).

Gym parking demands are unlikely to be higher than 1.5 persons per car due to:

       Public and active transport;
       Car sharing; and
       Patrons/staff getting dropped off.

As such, the application of a parking demand of 1.5 persons per car for the gym use results in a maximum gym
parking demand for the scenarios assessed and further sensitivity analysis is not warranted. Actual gym parking
demands may be higher than Council’s parking rate, however is likely to fall somewhere in the range of
scenarios assessed.

This sensitivity analysis is provided in Attachment 2 (electronic file) and can be interrogated Council.

Figure 1 shows the worst case site parking demands with the existing Morayfield Class schedule and a gym
parking demand of 1.5 persons per car.

Page 5

Figure 1: Estimated Total Parking Demands from Existing Class Schedule and 1.5 Persons per Car for Gym Use

Figure 1 shows that in a worst case scenario with maximum patronage at 30 minute intervals and gym parking
demands of 1.5 person per car, the existing car park would not be fully occupied at any time of the day. The
minimum parking availability shown in Figure 1 is 11 cars or 11.7% of the overall parking supply. This level of

Page 6

parking availability is sufficient to account for suitable car park operation and allows some level of increase in
parking demands from existing uses.

Figure 2 shows the worst case site parking demands with an amended class schedule and a gym parking
demand of 1.5 persons per car.




Figure 2: Estimated Total Parking Demands from Amended Class Schedule and 1.5 Persons per Car for Gym Use

Page 7

Figure 2 shows that in a worst case scenario with maximum patronage at 30 minute intervals and gym parking
demands of 1.5 person per car, the existing car park would not be fully occupied at any time of the day. The
minimum parking availability shown in Figure 1 is 24 cars or 25.5% of the overall parking supply. This level of
parking availability is sufficient to account for suitable car park operation and increases in parking demands
from existing site uses.

Figures 1 and 2 show that gym peak operational periods occur in the morning before 7:00am and in the
evening from 5:00pm. At both times parking demands from the industrial use are no more than 15 vehicles.
This provides ample spare parking capacity for suitable gym and site operation.

Both figures also show a minor peak for the gym between 9:00am and midday before a significant decrease in
gym patronage. This minor peak coincides with 85% parking demands for the existing site uses. It is this minor
gym peak which should be addressed to maintain parking availability for the primary industrial use.

Table 1 provides a summary of minimum parking availability for the scenarios provided in Attachment 2.

Table 1: Minimum Parking Availability for Scenarios Assessed

 Gym Parking Demand                                                 Parking Availability

                                              Current Morayfield Schedule           Recommended Schedule

 1.5 persons per car                                    11 spaces                          24 spaces

 2 persons per car                                      20 spaces                          30 spaces

 3 persons per car                                      30 spaces                          37 spaces

Table 1 shows the range of parking availability at 8 Selkirk Drive with the gym operating at a range of parking
occupancy from Council’s requirement (3 persons per car), to a maximum of 1.5 persons per car. It is likely
that the actual parking availability would be in the range of these values for the class numbers, size and times
approved by Council.

It is TTM’s opinion that gym parking demands at peak operational times can be appropriately managed
through conditions of development approval. The conditions can specify the maximum number and size of
classes in specific times periods. TTM’s recommendations in the preliminary parking assessment (Section 7)
remain valid, however, Council may specify alternative conditions to ensure parking availability for the gym
use.

Page 8

4. Summary

TTM provided further analysis of anticipated parking demands for a proposed gym at Unit 5, 8 Selkirk Drive
Morayfield. This analysis includes clarification of existing tenancies. Council’s request to consider a ‘higher
parking demand of approved uses’ is not warranted as the scale of tenancies is not conducive to uses with
more intensive parking demands.

In lieu of the requested parking surveys of similar sites, TTM have undertaken a sensitivity analysis of gym
parking demands to include a lower vehicle occupancy than required in Council’s planning scheme. This
analysis has determined the peak gym operations coincide with very low parking demand for the industrial
uses. Under these worst case assessments, the site would still have between 11 and 37 available parking
spaces with full gym operation depending on the class schedule conditioned by Council.

The number, size and times of classes can be appropriately managed by Council through conditions of
development approval. TTM therefore recommended that Council approve the development subject to
conditions which limit the number, size and times of classes.

Should you have any queries in relation to this assessment, please call Gary Harris on (07) 3327 9500.

Yours sincerely,




Gary Harris

Lead Consultant

TTM Consulting Pty Ltd

Attachment 1: Fernwood Morayfield Class Schedule as at 22/12/2016
Attachment 2: Sensitivity Analysis Spreadsheet (electronic file)

Page 9

Attachment 1: Fernwood Morayfield Class Schedule as at 22/12/2016


[OCR of page images]
 

Attachment 1: Fernwood Morayfield Class Schedule as at 22/12/2016
Standard Timetable
Ls) at os a Fri
Body Pump Body Combat Body Step Body Pump Zumba
05:45 - 06:45 AM 05:45 - 06:45 AM 05:45 - 06:45 AM 05:45 - 06:45 AM 05:45 - 06:45 AM
with Helen with Lisa with Lisa with Sue with Shari
Body Combat Studio Cycle Studio Cycle Studio Cycle Yoga
09:15 - 10:15 AM Express 05:45-06:30AM  08:45-09:5AM 08:00 - 09:00
08:45 - 09:15 AM AM
with Lisa with Monique with Lisa
with Lisa with Elleen
Body Pump Boxing Body Pump Body Combat Studio Cycle
10:15 - 11:15 AM 09:15 - 10:15 AM 09:15 - 10:15 AM 09:15 - 10:15 AM 09:00 - 09:45 AM
with Karla with Lisa with Sarah with Karla with Monique
Yoga Yoga Boxing Pilates Body Step
05:30 - 06:30 PM 10:15 - 11:15 AM 10:15 - 11:15 AM 10:15 - 11:15 AM 09:15 - 10:15 AM
with Jo with Linda with Sarah with Carol with Lisa
Body Pump Pilates Studio Cycle Studio Cycle Body Pump
06:30-07:30PM —11:15-12:15 PM Express Express 10:15 - 11:15 AM
05:00 - 05:30 PM 05:00 - 05:30 PM
with Lisa with Linda with Christie
with Lisa with Lisa
Body Pump Pilates Boxing Zumba
05:30 - 06:30 PM 05:30 - 06:30 PM 05:30 - 06:30 PM 06:15 - 07:00 PM
with Sarah with Linda with Sarah with Aaron
Studio Cycle Body Pump Body Pump
05:30 - 06:00 PM 06:30 - 07:15 PM 06:30 - 07:30 PM
with Lisa with Lisa with Sarah
Zumba Body Combat Circult
06:30 - 07:30 PM 07:15 - 08:00 PM 07:30 - 08:00 PM
with Shari with Lisa with Sarah
Boxing

07:30 - 08:00 PM
with Monique

Sat

Body Combat
07:30 - 08:30 AM

with Karla/Lisa

Zumba
08:30 - 09:30 AM

with Aaron

Studio Cycle
08:30 - 09:15 AM

with Karla/Lisa

Body Pump
09:30 - 10:30 AM

with Karla/Lisa

Yoga
10:30 - 11:30 AM

with Jo

Et)

Body Pump
09:15 - 10:15 AM

with Sarah/Naom!

Yoga
10:30 - 11:30 AM

with Linda

Page 10

Attachment 2: Sensitivity Analysis Spreadsheet (electronic file)


[OCR of page images]
ttm

Attachment 2: Sensitivity Analysis Spreadsheet (electronic file)