Mixed-Use Development Transport Impact Evidence 88-154 Park Road Donvale
Mixed-Use Development 88-154 Park Road, Donvale Transport Impact Evidence Client: CPG Australia Pty Ltd Reference: JM14940 GTA Consultants Office: Melbourne GTA Consultants (GTA Consultants (VIC) Pty Ltd) 2011 The information contained in this document is confidential and intended solely for the use of the client for the purpose for which it has been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied as being made to any third party. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of GTA Consultants constitutes an infringement of copyright. The intellectual property contained in this document remains the property of GTA Consultants.
Required Statement of Witness Required Statement of Witness Name, Position and Address John Kiriakidis Director, GTA Consultants 87 High Street South Kew Vic 3101 Qualifications and Experience Qualifications B.E. (Hons) Civil and Computing, Monash University Professional Memberships Graduate Member of The Institution of Engineers, Australia Member of Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and Management Member of the Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association Experience Traffic & Transport Planning 2 years Grogan Richards Pty Ltd 13 years GTA Consultants. Particular Area of Expertise Traffic and Transport Planning (refer to Curriculum Vitae in Appendix E). Scope of Report Refer to Section 1.2 of this evidence. Facts and Assumptions As detailed in submission. Reference Documents Refer to Section 1.3 of this evidence. Experiments Traffic and car parking surveys as detailed within this evidence. Supporting Staff The following staff assisted with the preparation of the evidence: Mr Jason Sellars (Associate Director) Mr Alex Connell (Traffic and Transport Planner) Summary of Opinion Refer to Section 8 of this evidence. Provisional Opinions Not applicable. Report Completeness Final. Transport Impact Evidence
Table of Contents Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Purpose of this Evidence 1 1.3 Referenced Documents 1 2. Existing Conditions 2 2.1 Subject Site 2 2.2 Road Network 4 2.3 Accident Statistics 8 2.4 Sight Distances 8 2.5 Car Parking 8 2.6 Sustainable Transport Infrastructure 9 3. Development Proposal 11 3.1 Land Uses 11 3.2 Revised Site Layout Plans 11 3.3 Car Parking 11 3.4 Vehicle Access 11 3.5 Internal Road Layout 12 3.6 Bicycle Facilities 12 3.7 Pedestrian Facilities 12 3.8 Loading Areas 12 4. Car Parking 13 4.1 Statutory Car Parking Requirements 13 4.2 Decision Guidelines 13 4.3 Adequacy of Parking Supply 16 4.4 Car Parking Layout 16 5. Sustainable Transport Infrastructure 18 5.1 Bicycle End of Trip Facilities 18 6. Loading Facilities 19 6.1 Statutory Requirements 19 6.2 Proposed Loading Arrangements 19 6.3 Waste Collection 19 7. Traffic Impact Assessment 20 7.1 Traffic Generation 20 7.2 Distribution and Assignment 20 7.3 Traffic Impact Summary 24 8. Conclusions 25 Transport Impact Evidence
Table of Contents Appendices A: SIDRA Intersection Results Existing B: SIDRA Intersection Results Post Development C: Proposed Park Road/Site Access Intersection GTA Consultants Drawing Number JM14940-01P1 D: Revised Site Layout Plans E: Curriculum Vitae Mr John Kiriakidis Figures Figure 2.1: Aerial Map of Subject Site and its Environs 2 Figure 2.2: Melways Map of Subject Site and its Environs 3 Figure 2.3: Land Zoning Map 3 Figure 2.4: Park Road looking northeast 4 Figure 2.5: Park Road looking southwest 4 Figure 2.6: Heads Road looking east 5 Figure 2.7: Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 5 Figure 2.8: Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 6 Figure 2.9: Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 6 Figure 2.10: Area of Car Parking Inventory 8 Figure 2.11: Public Transport Map 9 Figure 7.1: Park Road/Heads Road PM Peak Hour Flows Post Development (Sports Facility Use) 21 Figure 7.2: Park Road/Heads Road Saturday Peak Hour Flows Post Development (Sports Facility Use) 21 Figure 7.3: Park Road/Proposed Site Access PM Peak Hour Flows Post Development (Sports Facility Use) 22 Figure 7.4: Park Road/Proposed Site Access Saturday Peak Hour Flows Post Development (Sports Facility Use) 22 Tables Table 2.1: Average Weekday Daily Volume in vicinity of Subject Site 7 Table 2.2: Park Road/Heads Road Intersection Existing Operating Conditions 7 Table 2.3: Road Based Public Transport Provision 10 Table 3.1: Proposed Development Schedule 11 Table 4.1: Statutory Car Parking Requirements 13 Table 4.2: Car Parking Profiles (Active Weekday) 15 Table 4.3: Car Parking Profiles (Active Saturday) 16 Table 5.1: Standard Requirement for Bicycle Facilities 18 Table 7.1: Traffic Generation Weekday & Weekend Road Network Peak Hours 20 Transport Impact Evidence
Table of Contents Table 7.2: Park Road/Heads Road Intersection Post Development Operating Conditions 23 Table 7.3: Park Road/Proposed Site Access Intersection Post Development Operating Conditions 23 Table 7.4: Park Road/Proposed Site Access Intersection Post Development Operating Conditions 23 Table 7.5: Park Road/Proposed Site Access Intersection Post Development Operating Conditions (Yr 2021) 24 Transport Impact Evidence
Introduction 1. Introduction 1.1 Background A town planning permit is currently being sought for a proposed mixed-use development on land located at 88-154 Park Road in Donvale. The proposed development incorporates the construction of a multi-purpose venue with associated basement and ground level car parking. The town planning application was lodged with Manningham City Council on 30 March 2009. An Application for Review at VCAT (P3135/2010) was lodged by the applicant on 9 November 2010 against Council s Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit. The basis for the refusal which pertains to traffic and transport matters include: 4. The proposal will contribute to increased traffic generation and parking issues which will impact on the unsignalised intersection of Park Road and Heads Road, Donvale and place additional traffic on local feeder roads. 5. The proposed service vehicle entry from Heads Road to the proposed building is unsatisfactory and will create hazardous access. GTA Consultants was commissioned by the Applicant in December 2010 to present expert traffic and transport evidence at VCAT. 1.2 Purpose of this Evidence This evidence sets out an assessment of the anticipated parking, traffic and transport implications of the proposed development, including consideration of the following: existing traffic and parking conditions surrounding the site parking demand likely to be generated by the proposed development suitability of the proposed parking in terms of supply (quantum) and layout traffic generation characteristics of the proposed development proposed access arrangements for the site transport impact of the development proposal on the surrounding road network. 1.3 Referenced Documents In preparing this report, reference has been made to a number of background documents, including: Manningham Planning Scheme Australian Standard/ New Zealand Standard, Parking Facilities, Part 1: Off-Street Car Parking AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 Australian Standard, Parking Facilities, Part 2: Off-Street Commercial Vehicle Facilities AS 2890.2:2002 plans for the proposed development prepared by Ammache Architects traffic and car parking surveys undertaken by GTA Consultants as referenced in the context of this report various technical data as referenced in this report an inspection of the site and its surrounds other documents as nominated. Transport Impact Evidence Page 1
Existing Conditions 2. Existing Conditions 2.1 Subject Site The subject site is located at 88-154 Park Road in Donvale. The site has frontages of approximately 615m to Park Road and 300m to Heads Road. The site is located within a Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) and is currently occupied by the existing Coptic Orthodox Church Diocese of Melbourne. The surrounding properties are primarily residential. The notable exceptions include Whitefriars College located approximately 150m north of the subject site. The location of the subject site and the surrounding environs is shown in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2, and the land zoning is shown in Figure 2.3. Figure 2.1: Aerial Map of Subject Site and its Environs Subject Site (PhotoMap courtesy of NearMap Pty Ltd) Transport Impact Evidence Page 2
Existing Conditions Figure 2.2: Melways Map of Subject Site and its Environs Subject Site (Reproduced with Permission from Melway Publishing Pty Ltd) Figure 2.3: Land Zoning Map Subject Site (Reproduced from Land Channel web site) Transport Impact Evidence Page 3
Existing Conditions 2.2 Road Network 2.2.1 Adjoining Roads Park Road Park Road functions as a major local road (under Manningham City Council control). It is a two way road aligned in a northeast-southwest direction and is configured with a two lane, 6.9 metre wide carriageway set within a 17 metre wide road reserve (approx). The posted speed limit on the road is 60km/h. Park Road carries approximately 5,620 vehicles per day 1. Heads Road Heads Road functions as a local road (under Manningham City Council control). It is a two way road aligned in an east-west direction and is configured with a two lane, 6.3 metre wide carriageway set within a 17 metre wide road reserve (approx). Heads Road carries approximately 2,060 vehicles per day 1. White Lodge Court White Lodge Court functions as a local road (under Manningham City Council control). It is a two way road aligned in an east-west direction to the west of Park Road, and is configured with a two lane, 6.0 metre wide carriageway road set within a 14 metre wide road reserve (approx). White Lodge Court carries approximately 560 vehicles per day 1. Park Road and Heads Road in the vicinity of the subject site are shown in Figure 2.4 to Figure 2.6. Figure 2.4: Park Road looking northeast Figure 2.5: Park Road looking southwest 1 Based on 24-hour pneumatic tube counts undertaken by GTA Consultants for a one week period from Thursday 9 December 2010 to Wednesday 15 December 2010 at locations identified in Section 2.2.3 of this report. Transport Impact Evidence Page 4
Existing Conditions Figure 2.6: Heads Road looking east 2.2.2 Surrounding Intersections The following intersections currently exist in the vicinity of the site: Park Road/Heads Road (unsignalised) Park Road/White Lodge Court (unsignalised) Park Road/Murndal Drive (unsignalised). 2.2.3 Traffic Volumes GTA Consultants undertook traffic movement surveys at the Park Road/Heads Road intersection as follows: Thursday 9 December 2010 from 7:00am to 9:00am and 4.30pm to 7.30pm Saturday 11 December 2010 from 12:00noon to 2:00pm The weekday AM and PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2.7 to Figure 2.9. Figure 2.7: Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Transport Impact Evidence Page 5
Existing Conditions Figure 2.8: Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 2.9: Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes In addition, 24-hour pneumatic tube counts were undertaken for a one week period from Thursday 9 December 2010 to Wednesday 15 December 2010 at the following locations: On Park Road adjacent to 113 Park Road On Heads Road immediately south of Park Road On White Lodge Court immediately north of Park Road On the existing site access road serving the subject site adjacent to Park Road. Transport Impact Evidence Page 6
Existing Conditions A summary of the average daily weekday and weekend day traffic volumes at these locations is presented in Table 2.1. Table 2.1: Average Weekday and Weekend Daily Volume in vicinity of Subject Site Location Average Weekday Daily Volume [1] Average Weekend Daily Volume [1] Park Road 5,620vpd 4,320vpd Heads Road 2,060vpd 1,870vpd White Lodge Court 560vpd 440vpd Existing Site Access 80vpd 200vpd [1] vpd denotes vehicles per day 2.2.4 Intersection Operation The existing operation of the Park Road/Heads Road unsignalised intersection has been assessed using SIDRA INTERSECTION 2, a computer based modelling package which calculates intersection performance. The commonly used measure of intersection performance is referred to as the Degree of Saturation (DOS). The DOS represents the flow-to-capacity ratio for the most critical movement on each leg of the intersection. For unsignalised intersections, a DOS of around 0.90 has been typically considered the ideal limit, beyond which queues and delays increase disproportionately 3. Table 2.2 presents a summary of the existing operation of the intersection, with full results presented in Appendix A of this evidence. Table 2.2: Park Road/Heads Road Intersection Existing Operating Conditions Critical Turning Movements Approach Peak Hour DOS Average Delay 95 th Percentile Queue (m) AM 0.08 1 sec 0 Park Road (south) PM 0.22# 2 sec 4m Sat Midday 0.12# 3 sec 3m AM 0.23# 11 sec 8m Heads Road (east) PM 0.11 10 sec 3m Sat Midday 0.08 10sec 3m AM 0.18 0 0 Park Road (north) PM 0.09 1 sec 0 DOS Degree of saturation, # - Intersection DOS Sat Midday 0.10 1 sec 0 On the basis of the above assessment, it is evident that the Park Road/Heads Road intersection currently operates satisfactory with acceptable queues and delays on all approaches. 2 Program used under license from Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd. 3 SIDRA INTERSECTION adopts the following criteria for Level of Service assessment: Intersection Degree of Saturation (X) Unsignalised Intersection Signalised Intersection A Excellent <=0.50 <=0.60 B Very Good 0.50-0.70 0.60-0.75 C Good 0.70-0.80 0.75-0.90 D Acceptable 0.80-0.90 0.90-0.95 E Poor 0.90-1.00 0.95-1.00 F Very Poor >=1.0 >=1.0 Transport Impact Evidence Page 7
Existing Conditions 2.3 Accident Statistics A review of the reported accident casualty history for the roads and intersections adjoining the subject site has been sourced from VicRoads accident database. The CrashStats database includes all reported casualty accidents since 1987. A review of the abovementioned database indicates that one accident has been recorded during the last available five year period (1 June 2005 31 May 2010). This accident involved one vehicle veering right off the carriageway and colliding into an object/parked vehicle. On the basis of the available data, no accident trends exist in the vicinity of the subject site. 2.4 Sight Distances On-site field measurements suggest that sight distances are in excess of minimum requirements required by AustRoads design guidelines at key junctions including White Lodge Court and Heads Road. 2.5 Car Parking 2.5.1 Supply GTA Consultants compiled an inventory of publicly available on-street car parking within approximately 250m of the subject site. The inventory area is presented in Figure 2.10. Figure 2.10: Area of Car Parking Inventory Subject Site The inventory identified approximately 300 unrestricted on-street car spaces. 2.5.2 Demand On-site observations suggest that on-street parking demands are very low, particularly along Park Road. Transport Impact Evidence Page 8
Existing Conditions 2.6 Sustainable Transport Infrastructure 2.6.1 Public Transport Figure 2.11 shows the subject site in relation to existing public transport routes within its vicinity whilst Table 2.3 summarises the road based routes and major destinations that can be reached using these services. Figure 2.11: Public Transport Map Bus Route 271 and 303 Subject Site Northbound Bus Stop along Park Road Southbound Bus Stop along Park Road (PhotoMap courtesy of NearMap Pty Ltd) Transport Impact Evidence Page 9
Existing Conditions Table 2.3: Road Based Public Transport Provision Service Route Nos Route Description Distance to Nearest Stop (m) Significant Destinations On Route Frequency On/Off peak Bus 271 303 Box Hill Ringwood via Park Orchids City - North Ringwood via Springfield Road 30m 30m Ringwood Railway Station, Enfield Avenue/Park Road, Donvale Terminus/Mitcham Road, Tunstall Square Shopping Centre, Tasman Avenue/Junction Road, Springfield Road/Koonung Road, Box Hill Bus Station/Station Street. Oban Road/Warrandyte Road, Dalry Avenue/Park Road, Springvale Road/Springfield Road, Toogoods Rise/Middleborough Road, Johnston Street/Hoddle Street, Melbourne Central/Lonsdale Street, Little Collins Street/Queen Street. 30mins 20mins In addition to road based public transport, Nunawading rail station on the Lilydale and Belgrave lines is located approximately 3.5 kilometres south-west from the site. 2.6.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure No sealed pedestrian paths are provided in the vicinity of the subject site. In addition, there are no bicycle lanes or off-street paths in the vicinity of the subject site. Transport Impact Evidence Page 10
Development Proposal 3. Development Proposal 3.1 Land Uses The proposal includes the construction of a mixed-use building, as summarised in Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Proposed Development Schedule Use Gymnasium Squash Courts Swimming Pool Café Youth Lounge Function Centre Commercial Kitchen Office and Administration facilities Multi-purpose Sport Courts Store Room Size 168.90sqm 4 Courts (559.85sqm) 1 Swimming Pool (510.75sqm) 29 Seats 206.85sqm Maximum 1,000 people 130.65sqm 319sqm 3 Courts (2949.70sqm) 119.50sqm Instruction from the applicant indicates that it is not intended to operate the function centre concurrently with any other development use within the proposal. 3.2 Revised Site Layout Plans Following a review of submissions received on the proposal, the applicant has chosen to adopt a series of changes which have been incorporated in an updated set of drawings attached in Appendix D of this report (Revision G). The changes to the plans are summarised as follows: A revised ground level to basement level ramp arrangement. The ramp has been increased in length to accommodate revised ramp grades to provide for truck access for deliveries and rubbish collection in the basement. Additional at grade and basement car parking spaces in response to the conditional approval determined by Council in their decision of 14 December 2010. A revised loading bay arrangement to facilitate the inclusion of additional car parking spaces within the basement. 3.3 Car Parking On-site car parking is proposed within a basement level car park and at ground level. A total of 123 car spaces area proposed in the basement car park (including four disabled spaces), with 178 car spaces proposed at ground level. A total of 301 marked car spaces are proposed in association with the proposal. 3.4 Vehicle Access A new vehicular access is proposed onto Park Road. The access is to be located approximately 150m north of the existing White Lodge Court/Park Road intersection. A concept layout of the proposed access is presented on GTA Consultants Drawing Number JM14940/SKo1 presented in Appendix C. This plan supersedes details shown on architectural drawings and is recommended for adoption. Transport Impact Evidence Page 11
Development Proposal On-site field measurements suggest that sight distances at the proposed site access location would be in excess of minimum requirements required by AustRoads Design Guidelines. A Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) of 257m is achievable along Park Road in the south-westbound direction, with a sight distance of 280m achievable in the north-eastbound direction. The existing vehicle access is proposed to be allocated for pedestrian use only. 3.5 Internal Road Layout The proposed internal road layout is typically provided with a width of 6.0m, and this width will satisfactorily accommodate simultaneous two-way vehicle activity. It is noted that there are some sections of the road layout that have a width less than 5.5m. This matter is discussed further under Section 4.4 of this report. 3.6 Bicycle Facilities A total of 36 bicycle parking spaces are proposed in the basement car park. 3.7 Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian access to the multi-purpose venue is proposed from a main entrance located at the northwest corner of the building. 3.8 Loading Areas An on-site loading area capable of accommodating up to and including a 6.4m long small rigid vehicle is proposed in the basement car park. Access for these vehicles will be provided access via Park Road rather than Heads Road as proposed under the original application. Transport Impact Evidence Page 12
Car Parking 4. Car Parking 4.1 Statutory Car Parking Requirements Statutory requirements for the provision of car parking are set out in Clause 52.06 of the Manningham Planning Scheme, with parking rates specified in the Table to Clause 52.06-5. An assessment of the statutory parking requirements for the development proposal is set out in Table 4.1. Table 4.1: Statutory Car Parking Requirements Description Use Size Statutory Parking Rate Statutory Parking Requirement Multi-Purpose Sports Courts Not Specified 3 Courts Not Specified 0 Gymnasium Not Specified 168.90sqm Not Specified 0 Squash Courts Indoor recreation facility 4 courts 3 car spaces to each court 12 Swimming Pool Indoor recreation facility 510.75sqm 5.6 car spaces to each 100sq.m of site 29 Function Centre Place of Assembly 1292.90sqm 0.3 car spaces to each seat or to each sqm of net floor area, whichever is greater TOTAL 388 429 spaces The above assessment anticipates the development proposal has statutory requirement of 429 car parking spaces for uses where a rate has been specified. In this instance, the statutory level of parking is not being met and a planning permit is being sought to reduce this requirement. 4.2 Decision Guidelines The Planning Scheme provides decision guidelines to reduce the statutory car parking requirement as follows. They are also useful for consideration when a statutory rate is not nominated in the scheme for the proposed use. Any relevant precinct plan. The availability of car parking in the locality. The availability of public transport in the locality. Any reduction in the car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces. Any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land. Any credit which should be allowed for a car parking demand deemed to have been provided in association with a use which existed before the change of parking requirement. Local traffic management. Local amenity including pedestrian amenity. An empirical assessment of car parking demand. Any other relevant consideration. Each of the above guidelines relevant in this instance is discussed below. Transport Impact Evidence Page 13
Car Parking 4.2.1 Empirical Assessment of Car Parking Demand Empirical car parking demand rates for the various uses proposed in the multi-purpose building have been sourced from the following: Road and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (RTA NSW) Guide to Traffic Generating Developments Car parking surveys undertaken at similar developments by GTA Consultants and other Melbourne traffic consultants. Gymnasium The nominated RTANSW Guide to Traffic Generating Developments represents the most comprehensive traffic and car parking generation data set compiled in Australia to date. The RTANSW document nominates a peak car parking rate of 4.5 spaces per 100sqm of ground floor area for a commercially operated facility. Application of this rate to the proposed gymnasium equates to a peak car parking demand of eight car spaces. Car parking surveys undertaken by GTA Consultants and other Melbourne traffic consultants suggests a peak car parking rate of 5.24 spaces per 100sqm of floor area. Application of this rate to the proposed gymnasium equates to a peak car parking demand of nine car spaces. Multi-Purpose Sports Courts Car parking surveys undertaken by GTA Consultants and other Melbourne traffic consultants suggests a peak car parking rate of 33 spaces per sports court 4. Application of this rate to the three proposed sports courts equates to a peak car parking demand of 99 spaces. Squash Courts The RTANSW document nominates a peak car parking rate of 3 spaces per court. Application of this rate to the proposed squash courts equates to a peak car parking demand of 12 car spaces. Swimming Pool Car parking surveys undertaken by GTA Consultants and other Melbourne traffic consultants suggests a peak car parking rate of 102 spaces per swimming pool facility 5. Application of this rate to the proposed swimming pool equates to a peak car parking demand of 102 car spaces. Function Centre The Manningham Planning Scheme nominates a peak car parking rate for a function centre of 0.3 car spaces per seat or to each sqm of floor area whichever is greater. The function centre is to operate with a maximum capacity of 1,000 people (including staff, caterers etc.). On this basis, I consider it appropriate to apply a car parking rate on a per person basis. Application of this rate to the proposed function centre equates to a peak car parking demand of 300 car spaces. It is noted that this rate was accepted by O Brien Traffic on behalf of Manningham City Council in their critique of the TTM traffic report prepared for the proposed development as part of the original planning application. Under Item 97 of the O Brien Traffic response the following is noted: 4 5 Based on surveys undertaken at nine (9) multi-purpose sporting facilities in Melbourne. Based on surveys undertaken at two (2) swimming pool facilities in Melbourne. Transport Impact Evidence Page 14
Car Parking TTM has indicated that surveys of function centres reveal parking generation rates of around 3 vehicles per person attending. It is assumed that the report is actually meant to suggest parking rates of 0.3 vehicles per person attending. This is a reasonable assumption and in line with typically accepted parking provision. Other Uses It is considered that the office and administration, cafe and commercial kitchen uses are ancillary to the sports facility and function centre uses and will not generate parking in their own right. It is further considered that the proposed youth lounge will be available for use by persons under the legal driving age and it is therefore unlikely to generate any direct parking demand. 4.2.2 Sharing of Car Spaces by Multiple Uses Consideration should be given to the extent to which the car parking associated with each use does, or does not, coincide throughout the day. When account is taken of the different pattern of activity between the uses, and the correspondingly different pattern of car parking, an assessment of the overall shared parking requirement for the development can be made. Adopting the empirical car parking rates discussed in Section 4.2.1 of this evidence, Table 4.2 provides a summary of the likely car parking demand for each of the uses throughout a typical weekday while Table 4.3 provides a summary of the likely car parking demand for each of the uses throughout a typical Saturday. It is noted that the temporal peak parking demands for the combined sports facility and function centre (at peak patronage) have been considered independently of one other given aforementioned operational constraints. Table 4.2: Car Parking Profiles (Active Weekday) Land Use Gym [1] Squash Courts [2] Swimming Pool [3] Multi-Purpose Sports Courts [4] Combined Sports Facilities Car Parking Demand Function Centre [5] Function Centre Car Parking Demand Peak Demand (co-incidental peak) 9 spaces 12 spaces 102 spaces 99 spaces 222 spaces 300 spaces 300 spaces 8.00am 21% - 21% 21% 44 - - 9.00am 28% - 28% 28% 59 - - 10.00am 23% 27% 23% 23% 52 - - 11.00am 18% 18% 18% 18% 40 - - 12.00pm 19% 9% 19% 19% 41 - - 1.00pm 19% 9% 19% 19% 41 - - 2.00pm 15% 9% 15% 15% 33 9% 27 3.00pm 16% 9% 16% 16% 35 18% 54 4.00pm 25% 9% 25% 25% 54 18% 54 5.00pm 49% 9% 49% 49% 104 1% 3 6.00pm 76% 36% 76% 41% 129 2% 6 7.00pm 59% 100% 59% 100% 176 59% 177 8.00pm 31% 90% 31% 100% 144 99% 297 9.00pm 14% 9% 14% 81% 97 100% 300 10.00pm - - - 17% 17 98% 294 [1] Based on surveys undertaken at Healthland Gymnasium in Richmond. [2] Based on surveys undertaken at Lower Plenty Sports Centre. [3] Conservatively utilising the parking profile adopted for the gymnasium use. [4] Conservatively utilising the parking profile adopted for the gymnasium use for morning and afternoon time periods [5] Typical Profile an average of surveys undertaken at three function centres. Transport Impact Evidence Page 15
Car Parking Table 4.3: Car Parking Profiles (Active Saturday) Land Use Gym [1] Squash Courts [2] Swimming Pool [3] Multi-Purpose Sport Courts [4] Combined Facilities Car Parking Demand Function Centre [5] Function Centre Car Parking Demand Peak Demand (co-incidental peak) 9 spaces 12 spaces 102 spaces 99 spaces 222 spaces 300 spaces 300 spaces 8.00am 12% 27% 12% 27% 43 - - 9.00am 36% 34% 36% 34% 78 - - 10.00am 29% 63% 29% 63% 102 - - 11.00am 23% 70% 23% 70% 103 - - 12.00pm 20% 55% 20% 55% 83 - - 1.00pm 18% 67% 18% 67% 94 - - 2.00pm 17% 74% 17% 74% 101 - - 3.00pm 23% 82% 23% 82% 117 - - 4.00pm 30% 62% 30% 62% 102 - - 5.00pm 36% 22% 36% 22% 64 - - 6.00pm 24% 24% 24% 24% 53 73% 219 7.00pm 12% 12% 12% 12% 27 90% 270 8.00pm 7% 7% 7% 7% 16 95% 285 9.00pm 7% 7% 7% 7% 16 100% 300 10.00pm - - - - 0 97% 291 [1] Based on surveys undertaken at Healthland Gymnasium in Richmond. [2] Based on surveys undertaken at Lower Plenty Sports Centre. [3] Conservatively utilising the parking profile adopted for the gymnasium use. [4] Conservatively utilising the parking profile adopted for the gymnasium use for morning and afternoon time periods [5] Typical Profile an average of surveys undertaken at three function centres. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 indicate that the peak car parking requirement for the sport facilities allowing for temporal activity associated with individual site uses is equal to 176 car parking spaces. The function centre at peak occupancy is estimated to generate a peak demand for 300 car spaces. 4.3 Adequacy of Parking Supply When consideration is given to the empirical car parking demand of the various uses, the level of coincidental car parking demand that will exist between these uses and applied operational constraints, it is considered that a car parking provision of 301 spaces will satisfactorily meet anticipated peak requirements. 4.4 Car Parking Layout The parking layout has been designed generally in accordance with the Manningham Planning Scheme and the Australian Standard/New Zealand Standard for Off Street Car parking (AS/NZS2890.1:2004) as follows: The proposed layout allows for all vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. A minimum 4.5m height clearance is maintained throughout the basement car park and on the ground level to the basement level car park. The ground level to basement level ramp has been designed to accommodate movements by up to and including a 6.4m long small rigid vehicle. The following ramp grades have been adopted: 1:20 (5%) x 16.0m 1:9 (11.11%) x 7.0m 1:6.5 (15.38%) x 48.0m 1:8 (12. 5%) x 7.0m 1:16 (6.25%) x 7.0m Transport Impact Evidence Page 16
Car Parking Car spaces are typically 5.4m long and 2.6m wide, accessed from a 6.4m wide aisle. Columns are located 250mm from the aisle and of car space and no more than 800mm into the car space. Disabled car spaces are 5.4m long and 3.2m wide, accessed from a 6.4m wide aisle. An area is provided at the end of blind car park aisles for a car to turn around. The loading bay in the basement car park is capable of accommodating up to and including a 6.4m long small rigid vehicle. The loading bay dimensions are 6.4m long and 4.0m wide, accessed from a 6.5m wide aisle. A minimum height clearance of 4.5m is also provided in the loading bay. It is recommended that internal road widths be provided with a minimum width of 5.5m, noting that any section of road providing direct access to 4.9m long 90 degree angled car spaces should be provided with a width of 6.4m. I believe that these recommendations can be delivered by way of an appropriately worded condition on any permit issued. Transport Impact Evidence Page 17
Sustainable Transport Infrastructure 5. Sustainable Transport Infrastructure 5.1 Bicycle End of Trip Facilities Clause 52.34 of the Manningham Planning Scheme (Bicycle Facilities) seeks to encourage cycling as a mode of transport with the provision of secure, accessible and convenient bicycle parking spaces and associated shower and change facilities. Table 1 to Clause 52.34-3 sets out the standard requirement for the provision of bicycle spaces for a range of uses. Tables 2 and 3 set out the requirements for showers and change rooms, respectively. Clause 52.34-5 also requires signage to direct cyclists to the required facilities. Clause 52.34-2 says a permit may be granted to vary, reduce or waive any requirement. The standard requirement for the provision of bicycle facilities for the subject use is set out in Table 5.1. Table 5.1: Standard Requirement for Bicycle Facilities Use Size Statutory Rate Statutory Requirement Employee Visitor Employee Visitor Multipurpose sports courts 3 courts (2949.7sqm) 1 per 4 employees [1] 1 to each 200sqm of net floor area 1 15 Gymnasium 168.90sqm Not Specified Not Specified 0 0 Squash Courts 4 courts (559.85sqm) 1 per 4 employees [2] 1 to each 200sqm of net floor area 1 3 Swimming Pool 510.75sqm 1 per 4 employees [3] 1 to each 200sqm of net floor area 2 3 Function Centre 1292.90sqm 1 to each 1,500sqm of net floor area 2 plus 1 to each 1,500sqm of net floor area 1 3 Youth Lounge 206.85sqm 1 to each 1,500sqm of net floor area 2 plus 1 to each 1,500sqm of net floor area 0 2 Total 5 26 [1] Assuming three staff members [2] Assuming three staff members [3] Assuming eight staff members On the basis of the above, the proposed development has a statutory bicycle parking requirement of 31 spaces, comprising five employee spaces and 24 visitor spaces. The proposed provision of 36 bicycle spaces meets this requirement. In addition to the requirement for bicycle parking facilities, Clause 52.34-3 of the Manningham Planning Scheme requires one shower for the first five employee bicycle parking spaces and one shower for each subsequent ten employee bicycle parking spaces if five or more employee bicycle parking spaces are required. Further, each shower must have access to a change room. Given that the development generates an employee bicycle parking rate of five spaces, there is a requirement for one change room and shower facility. A total of 12 showers and separate male and female change rooms are proposed for use by patrons to the sports facilities. It is considered that these facilities could be also used by staff. It is considered that the office and administration, cafe and commercial kitchen uses proposed will be ancillary and therefore unlikely to generate their own bicycle parking demand beyond that estimated for the function centre and sports facility uses. Transport Impact Evidence Page 18
Loading Facilities 6. Loading Facilities 6.1 Statutory Requirements Clause 52.07 of the Manningham Planning Scheme (Loading and Unloading of Vehicles) is applicable where buildings or works are constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale of goods or materials. The Clause is reproduced below. 52.07 Loading and Unloading of Vehicles Purpose To set aside land for loading and unloading commercial vehicles to prevent loss of amenity and adverse effect on traffic flow and road safety. Requirements to be met No building or works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale of goods or materials unless: Space is provided on the land for loading and unloading vehicles as specified in the table below. The driveway to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide. If a driveway changes direction or intersects another driveway, the internal radius at the change of direction or intersection must be at least 6 metres. The road that provides access to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres. A permit may be granted to reduce or waive these requirements if either: The land area is insufficient Adequate provision is made for loading and unloading vehicles to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Floor Area Of Building Minimum Loading Bay Dimensions 2,600 sqm or less in single occupation Area 27.4 sqm Length Width Height Clearance 7.6 m 3.6 m 4.0 m For every additional 1,800 sqm or part Additional 18 sqm Clause 52.07 requirements do not trigger a statutory requirement for an on-site loading area. 6.2 Proposed Loading Arrangements Irrespective of statutory requirements, a 6.4m long and 4.0m wide loading area, accessed from a 6.4m wide aisle, and with a height clearance of 4.5m is proposed in the basement level car park. Access to the loading area is proposed via the internal road connecting to Park Road. This arrangement addresses Council ground for refusal number 5 which is reproduced below: 5. The proposed service vehicle entry from Heads Road to the proposed building is unsatisfactory and will create hazardous access. 6.3 Waste Collection Waste is to be stored within the basement level car park. It is anticipated that waste collection will be undertaken from the basement car park by a private contractor and controlled by the implementation of an appropriate waste management plan as a permit condition. Transport Impact Evidence Page 19
Traffic Impact Assessment 7. Traffic Impact Assessment 7.1 Traffic Generation 7.1.1 Design Rates Traffic generation estimates for the proposed development have been sourced from the RTANSW Guide to Traffic Generation Developments and from traffic surveys undertaken by GTA Consultants and other Melbourne traffic consultants. Estimates of peak hour and daily traffic volumes resulting from the proposal are set out in Table 7.1. Table 7.1: Traffic Generation Weekday & Weekend Road Network Peak Hours Use Size Source Peak Hour Traffic Generation Rate (Two-Way Movements) Weekday (PM) Saturday (MID) Road Network Peak Hour Vehicle Movements Weekday (PM) Saturday (MID) Gym 168.9sqm RTA 9 per 100sqm 9 per 100sqm 15 15 Squash Courts 4 courts (559.85sqm) RTA 3 per court 3 per court 12 12 Swimming Pool [1] 8 lane pool (510.75sqm) GTA 6.1 per Lane [1] 6.1 per lane 49 49 Multi-purpose sports court [2] 3 courts (2949.7sqm) GTA 48 per court 48 per court 144 144 Total 220 220 Function Centre 1,000 patrons GTA 0.09 per patron [3] 0.23 per patron [4] 90 225 [1] Surveys undertaken at State Swim Centre in Unley and Seaford (May 2010) [2] Surveys undertaken at Marden Basketball Centre (June 2010) [3] Data recorded in Footscray for a 700 seat facility indicated a rate of 0.09 vehicle movements per person. [4] Conservatively assuming that a 1000 person function finishes at the beginning of the Saturday midday peak hour (a typical event) and that 75% of patrons who have driven to the event are exiting the site. Table 7.1 indicates that the sport facilities and other ancillary uses will generate 220 vehicle movements during a typical weekday peak hour and the function centre will generate 225 vehicle movements during weekend peak hour under a 1000 person event which I expect to be the exception rather than the rule. Finally, Table 7.1 suggests that the sports facilities will generate higher levels of traffic during the typical weekday road network peak hours compared to the function centre. It is considered that the function centre will generate a similar level of traffic during the Saturday midday peak hour if an event start or finish were to coincide with midday. It is considered that any large function on a weekday is likely to take place in the later evening and outside the peak road network periods. 7.2 Distribution and Assignment The proposed development traffic has been distributed on the road network surrounding the subject site consistent with existing vehicle proportions. The scenario assuming the sports facility is operational has been assumed given the similarity in traffic levels between occupancy scenarios. In addition, a directional split of traffic (i.e. the ratio between the inbound and outbound traffic movements) for the sports facilities has been assumed to be 50% in/50% out in the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour, which have been identified as the busiest periods for the sports facilities. Transport Impact Evidence Page 20
Traffic Impact Assessment The post development flows for a typical weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour at the Park Road/Heads Road intersection under a sports facility use operation are presented in Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2. Figure 7.1: Park Road/Heads Road PM Peak Hour Flows Post Development (Sports Facility Use) Figure 7.2: Park Road/Heads Road Saturday Peak Hour Flows Post Development (Sports Facility Use) The post development flows for a typical weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour at the Park Road/Proposed Site Access intersection are presented in Figure 7.3 and 7.4. Transport Impact Evidence Page 21
Traffic Impact Assessment Figure 7.3: Park Road/Proposed Site Access PM Peak Hour Flows Post Development (Sports Facility Use) Figure 7.4: Park Road/Proposed Site Access Saturday Peak Hour Flows Post Development (Sports Facility Use) 7.2.1 Peak Hour Post Development Analysis The impact of development traffic upon the proposed site access onto Park Road and the Park Road/Heads Road intersection has been assessed using SIDRA Intersection. On the basis of the turning movement estimates presented above, Table 7.2 and Table 7.3 present a summary of the anticipated future operation of the nominated intersections following the full development of the site. Detailed results of this analysis are provided in Appendix B of this evidence Transport Impact Evidence Page 22
Traffic Impact Assessment Table 7.2: Park Road/Heads Road Intersection Post Development Operating Conditions Critical Turning Movements Approach Peak Hour DOS Average Delay 95 th Percentile Queue (m) Park Road (south) Heads Road (east) Park Road (north) PM 0.26# 2 sec 5m Sat Midday 0.15# 2 sec 3m PM 0.13 11 sec 4m Sat Midday 0.10 11 sec 3m PM 0.11 1 sec 0 Sat Midday 0.13 1 sec 0 DOS Degree of saturation, # - Intersection DOS Table 7.3: Park Road/Proposed Site Access Intersection Post Development Operating Conditions Critical Turning Movements Approach Peak Hour DOS Average Delay 95 th Percentile Queue (m) Park Road (south) Site Access (east) Park Road (north) PM 0.22 2 sec 3m Sat Midday 0.12 2 sec 2m PM 0.30# 20 sec 12m Sat Midday 0.20# 15 sec 7m PM 0.10 1 sec 0 Sat Midday 0.12 2 sec 0 DOS Degree of saturation, # - Intersection DOS As described earlier, a DOS of around 0.90 has traditionally been considered the ideal limit beyond which intersection performance is unsatisfactory, as beyond this value queues and delays increase disproportionately. On this criterion, the calculated DOS suggest that the nominated intersections can be expected to operate satisfactorily following full development of the site. For sensitivity purposes, an alternate assessment has also been undertaken for the Saturday midday peak period assuming that the function centre will contribute an additional 225 vehicle movements over and above the anticipated traffic demand generated by the sports facilities. The assessment has been prepared on the basis that the 225 vehicles are exiting the subject site. Table 7.4.presents a summary of the anticipated future operation of the site access intersection following the full development of the site. Detailed results of this analysis are provided in Appendix B of this evidence. Table 7.4: Park Road/Proposed Site Access Intersection Post Development Operating Conditions Critical Turning Movements Approach Peak Hour DOS Average Delay 95 th Percentile Queue (m) Park Road (south) Sat Midday 0.12 2 sec 2m Site Access (east) Sat Midday 0.41# 17 sec 20m Park Road (north) Sat Midday 0.12 2 sec 0 DOS Degree of saturation, # - Intersection DOS A further 10-year post development assessment of the proposed site access intersection has also been undertaken adopting a 3% growth rate per annum on Park Road. Table 7.5.presents a summary of the assessment results. Transport Impact Evidence Page 23
Traffic Impact Assessment Table 7.5: Park Road/Proposed Site Access Intersection Post Development Operating Conditions (Yr 2021) Critical Turning Movements Approach Peak Hour DOS Average Delay 95 th Percentile Queue (m) Park Road (south) Site Access (east) Park Road (north) PM 0.30 1 sec 3m Sat 0.16 2 sec 2m PM 0.45# 29 sec 18m Sat 0.25# 17 sec 9m PM 0.13 1 sec 0 Sat 0.16 1 sec 0 DOS Degree of saturation, # - Intersection DOS The assessment results summarised in Table 7.4 and Table 7.5 indicate that proposed site access intersection will operate satisfactorily under a 10 year planning horizon. 7.3 Traffic Impact Summary Against existing traffic volumes in the vicinity of the site and the traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed development, it is considered that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development could not be expected to compromise the safety or function of the surrounding road network. Transport Impact Evidence Page 24
Conclusions 8. Conclusions Based on the analysis and discussions presented within this report, the following conclusions are made: The proposed development generates a statutory parking requirement of 429 spaces, for those uses with nominated rates. The proposed supply of 301 spaces is considered to be appropriate having consideration to the relevant decision guidelines and operational constraints between individual development uses. The proposed car parking layout is generally consistent with the dimensional requirements as set out in the Manningham Planning Scheme and Australian/New Zealand Standard for Off Street Car Parking (AS/NZS2890.1:2004). The proposed loading area layout is generally consistent with the dimensional requirements as set out in the Australian Standards for Off Street Commercial Vehicle Facilities (AS 2890.2:2002). Vehicular access to the subject land is proposed from a new intersection onto Park Road. This intersection will provide access to the proposed development for cars and loading vehicles. The internal road layout be designed with road widths capable of accommodating the expected vehicle activity. As such, it is recommended that road widths be a minimum of 5.5m wide. Roads providing access to 4.9m long 90 degree angled car spaces should be 6.4m wide. It is considered that the provision of appropriate road widths can be delivered by way of an appropriately worded condition on any permit issued. The proposed development has a statutory requirement to provide 31 bicycle spaces. The provision of 36 bicycle spaces located within the basement car park exceeds this requirement. The proposed development its sporting facilities and other ancillary uses will generate 220 vehicle movements during a typical weekday peak hour and the function centre will generate 225 vehicle movements during a typical weekend peak hour. Against existing traffic volumes in the vicinity of the site and the traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed development, it is considered that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development could not be expected to compromise the safety or function of the surrounding road network. Declaration I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance that I regard as relevant have, to my knowledge, been withheld from the tribunal. (Signature) John Kiriakidis Director (National) 24 January 2011 Transport Impact Evidence Page 25
Appendix A Appendix A Appendix A SIDRA Intersection Results Existing Transport Impact Evidence
Appendix A Transport Impact Evidence
Appendix A Transport Impact Evidence
Appendix B Appendix B SIDRA Intersection Results Post Development Appendix B Transport Impact Evidence
Appendix B Transport Impact Evidence
Appendix B Transport Impact Evidence
Appendix B Transport Impact Evidence
Appendix B Transport Impact Evidence
Appendix C Appendix C Proposed Park Road/Site Access Intersection GTA Consultants Drawing Number JM14940-01P1 Appendix C Transport Impact Evidence
Appendix D Appendix D Revised Site Layout Plans Appendix D Transport Impact Evidence
37346 164 NOTE: VEHICLE ACCESS TO BE CLOSED TO ALL VEHICULAR TRAFFIC 166 165 163 TURNI NG BAY 130245 118055 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 167 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 22 23 147 TEMPORARY CAR PARK TO BE USED FOR MUTI-PURPOSE BUILDING 146 145 144 143 142 141 140 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 131 130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 120 121 119 118 117 49 49 50 51 52 53 116 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 86 85 84 83 82 88 89 90 91 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 87 FOOTPATH 36 37 38 39 34 35 47448 54053 6 7 8 9 10 T UR NI NG B AY 1 2 3 4 5 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 TEMPORARY CAR PARK TO BE USED FOR MUTI-PURPOSE BUILDING 13 12 11 LOT 21 LP96893 64123 64893 LEGEND: EXISTING TREES EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED FOR THE PROPOSE TEMPORARY CAR PARK SITE PLAN WARNING: THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY AMMACHE ARCHITECTS PTY. LTD. ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: THAT NO BUILDING PERMIT IS TO BE ISSUED BY ANY BUILDING SURVEYOR OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT PERSON OR BODY SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THESE DRAWINGS UNTIL AND UNLESS THE "WORKING OR CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS" HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY AMMACHE ARCHITECTS PTY. LTD. THESE DRAWINGS CAN NOT BE USED BY THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE WITHIN SITE AND OR HIS SERVANTS AGENTS OR SUCCESSORS IN TITLE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A PLANNING PERMIT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF AMMACHE ARCHITECTS PTY. LTD. THESE DRAWINGS CAN NOT BE USED BY THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE WITHIN SITE AND OR HIS SERVANTS AGENTS OR SUCCESSORS IN TITLE OR ANY OTHER ARCHITECT, DESIGNER, DRAFTSPERSON OR ANY OTHER PERSON AS THE BASIS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ANY WORKING DRAWINGS OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF AMMACHE ARCHITECTS PTY. LTD. Rev No. Rev Date Description A 13/06/08 REVISED MASTER PLAN B 23/06/09 FURTHER INFORMATION DATED 29 APRIL 2009 C 15/03/10 MOVE MULTI PURPOSE BUILDING 25M WEST 10M NORTH D 01/04/10 MODIFY TEMPORARY CARPARKING E 03/12/10 FURTHER CHANGES F 15/10/10 INCREASE TEMPORARY CARPARKING G 17/01/11 MODIFY TEMPORARY CARPARKING AND RAMP PROJECT THE DOME 88-154 PARK ROAD DONVALE CLIENT DRAWING SITE PLAN STAGE TOWNPLANNING Job No. Dwg. No. 88PARK.RD A02 Scale Date 1/500 Drawn N. AMMACHE Checked 17.JAN.2011 ANY BREACH OF THE ABOVE WILL RESULT IN LEGAL ACTION BEING INSTITUTED BY AMMACHE ARCHITECTS PTY. LTD. N. AMMACHE
33000 MULTI PURPOSE ROOM 59 56 5400 55 72 50 49 76 79 80 61 123 122 121 120 119 64893 MECHANICAL ROOM 2672 52079 4000 RETAINING WALL 1000 3400 LOADING BAY 6400 3400 118 117 116 RAINWATER TANKS HOT WATER TANKS STORAGE ABOVE 48727 FFL: 119.40 RETAINING WALL LOCKERS x 36 BICYCLE PARKING NED KELLY 16000 RETAINING WALL STUDIO ROOM 12324 7756 1975 YOUTH LOUNGE 100 PEOPLE MALE CAFE FEMALE PRE PARA TION MALE CHANGE FEMALE CHANGE UP POTENTIAL POOL POOL SPA LIFT STO RE STO RAGE 4750 STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE STO RAGE PUMP ROOM STORAGE 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11 PLANT ROOM UNDER GROUND 13125 NO PARKING FORKLIFT BAY STO RAGE ABOVE STO RAGE ABOVE 12 13 14 15 16 73750 STO RAGE ABOVE STO RAGE ABOVE 48427 17 STO RAGE ABOVE STO RAGE ABOVE 18 19 20 STO RAGE ABOVE STO RAGE ABOVE STO RAGE ABOVE STO RAGE ABOVE 21 22 23 24 STO RAGE ABOVE STO RAGE ABOVE 25 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 4900 45 46 47 48 54 53 52 51 58 57 77 78 9153 60 75 73 74 81 82 99 98 97 64 63 62 BASEMENT FFL: 119.40 65 66 96 67 95 100 68 94 101 69 93 102 70 71 92 91 90 103 104 105 89 88 106 107 87 108 86 85 84 83 109 110 111 112 113 114 26 115 27 28 29 30 31 37346 PAVED AREA YOUTH CLUB 1355 M 2 30425 GAS ROOM ELEC ROOM RECYCLING AND WASTE BIN STORAGE 12874 3200 103400 16555 9954 MULTI PURPOSE BUILDING-STAGE 1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN WARNING: THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY AMMACHE ARCHITECTS PTY. LTD. ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: THAT NO BUILDING PERMIT IS TO BE ISSUED BY ANY BUILDING SURVEYOR OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT PERSON OR BODY SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THESE DRAWINGS UNTIL AND UNLESS THE "WORKING OR CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS" HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY AMMACHE ARCHITECTS PTY. LTD. THESE DRAWINGS CAN NOT BE USED BY THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE WITHIN SITE AND OR HIS SERVANTS AGENTS OR SUCCESSORS IN TITLE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A PLANNING PERMIT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF AMMACHE ARCHITECTS PTY. LTD. THESE DRAWINGS CAN NOT BE USED BY THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE WITHIN SITE AND OR HIS SERVANTS AGENTS OR SUCCESSORS IN TITLE OR ANY OTHER ARCHITECT, DESIGNER, DRAFTSPERSON OR ANY OTHER PERSON AS THE BASIS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ANY WORKING DRAWINGS OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF AMMACHE ARCHITECTS PTY. LTD. ANY BREACH OF THE ABOVE WILL RESULT IN LEGAL ACTION BEING INSTITUTED BY AMMACHE ARCHITECTS PTY. LTD. Rev No. Rev Date Description A 13/06/08 REVISED MASTER PLAN B 23/06/09 FURTHER INFORMATION DATED 29 APRIL 2009 E 03/12/10 FURTHER CHANGES G 17/01/11 MODIFY TEMPORARY CARPARKING AND RAMP PROJECT THE DOME 88-154 PARK ROAD DONVALE CLIENT DRAWING BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN STAGE TOWNPLANNING Job No. Dwg. No. 88PARK.RD A03 Scale Date 1/200 Drawn N. AMMACHE Checked N. AMMACHE 17.JAN.2011
Appendix E Appendix E Curriculum Vitae Mr John Kiriakidis Appendix E Transport Impact Evidence
John Kiriakidis Director (National) T +613 9851 9600 E john.kiriakidis@gta.com.au Qualifications Bachelor of Engineering (Civil and Computing) from Monash University, with honours Memberships and Affiliations Institute of Engineers Australia (Civil College) Victorian Planning & Environmental Association Australian Institute of Traffic Planning & Management (AITPM) Industry Roles Moorabbin Airport Planning Committee John has over twelve years consulting experience in the field of traffic and transport planning for a broad crosssection of client across the Australasian private and public business sector. John has particular expertise in the field of land use planning and design with an emphasis on the preparation of Traffic and Transport Impact Evaluations, Integrated Transport Plans, Parking Assessments, Intersection and Car Park Design, Sub division Layout and Road Safety Reviews. John manages a large team of traffic and transport planners in GTA s Melbourne office and services a significant client base which delivers land use projects covering the full cross section of the commercial development sector. Professional Experience 1997 Present: GTA Consultants John is proficient in the application of sustainable transport planning principles and initiatives to land use planning projects. These principles encompass all motorised and nonmotorised transport modes and extend to include advice on infrastructure requirements necessary to support the full spectrum of travel modes. John is experienced in the delivery of all key design facets of traffic and transport planning elements including road networks, intersections, individual roadways, cross sections and road safety. He is also experienced in the delivery of projects using prominent micro simulation network analytical software including Q Paramics, Vissim and SIDRA. John is regularly involved in the delivery of parking policy guidelines on the management and delivery of car parking for both the public and private sector. This experience includes the use of parking guidance and paid parking infrastructure systems. John s project expertise is extensive and includes major regional shopping centre developments, large scale residential developments including high rise high density development and low density residential subdivisions. 1995-1997 Traffic Engineer, Grogan Richards As a Traffic Engineer for Grogan Richards, John assisted in the preparation of impact assessments for a range of land use developments throughout Melbourne and Victoria and was also involved in access and parking assessments and design and the preparation and implementation of traffic and parking surveys. Key Project Experience Meridian Business Park Broadmeadows Transit City Precinct Bendigo CBD Parking Strategy Moorabbin Airport Masterplan Westfield Southland Eureka Tower Freshwater Place Edgewater Maribyrnong Bunnings Store Locations Across Australia Merrifield at Kalkallo Traffic Impact Report Westfield Doncaster (Shoppingtown) Bus Interchange Beacon Cove and Princes Pier, Port Melbourne Residential High Rise Developments for Mirvac Tooronga Village Re development, Glen Iris, Stockland Epping North East Structure Plan (450ha) Honda Site, Camberwell, FKP Goodyear, Thomastown, Redevelopment, MAB