Appendix 5 Traffic Assessment

Similar documents

Harriet Fraser Traffic Engineering & Transportation Planning

Proposed Residential & Retail Development at Geelong Rd Portarlington

Ministry of Education Flat Bush School Notice of Requirement. Integrated Transportation Assessment Report. February 2016

Statement of Evidence of Judith Makinson

Transport Assessment. Curtis Street Plan Change

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION

Auranga B1 Proposed Plan Change, Bremner Road, Drury. Integrated Transportation Assessment Report

A5.1 Permitted activities

DESIGN CODE. Enterprise West Harlow London Road North Design Code 21

DRAFT. DRAFT Transport. Chapter 7 - Transport

Roadway Classification Design Standards and Policies. Pueblo, Colorado November, 2004

Kings College, Otahuhu Proposed Plan Change. Integrated Transportation Assessment Report

10 SHERFORD Town Code

Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan

Ministry of Education Notice of Requirement, North City High School. Transportation Assessment Report. July 2010

INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 3009 HAWTHORNE ROAD CITY OF OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW REVISED. Prepared for: Canada Inc.

Highland Park Glengarry Court. Landscape design and Fencing rules

Atwood Avenue Fair Oaks Avenue Cottage Grove Road

Item to be Addressed Checklist Consideration YES NO N/A Required Description Complete Streets Guidelines

MEETING FACILITY 2901 GIBFORD DRIVE CITY OF OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION BRIEF. Prepared for: Holiday Inn Express 2881 Gibford Drive Ottawa, ON K1V 2L9

CURRENT ORIGINAL REFERENCE SECTIONS. (Typical Section) (Typical Section) The Parade Island Bay : Concept Option Summary Sheets.

INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 1660 COMSTOCK ROAD CITY OF OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW. Prepared for:

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CRITERIA

TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES

RZC Appendix 8A Marymoor Subarea Street Requirements

MEDICAL/OFFICE BUILDING 1637 BANK STREET OTTAWA, ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW. Prepared for:

Access Management Standards

Response to further information request Ministry of Education Notice of Requirement (200 & 252 Park Estate Road)

Frome Street Bicycle Route

OFFICE/RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 1625 BANK STREET OTTAWA, ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION BRIEF. Prepared for: Canada Inc.

Site Improvements

Transit boulevard: A new road type for Sydney s Growth Centres

Chapter 2: Standards for Access, Non-Motorized, and Transit

CastleGlenn Consultants Inc.

TRAFFIC STUDY GUIDELINES Clarksville Street Department

Cabinet Member for Highways & Streetscene. Highway Infrastructure Manager

Section 7 Complete Green Street Guidelines DRAFT

URBAN QUARRY HEADQUARTERS 2717 STEVENAGE DRIVE CITY OF OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW. Prepared for: Urban Quarry 4123 Belgreen Drive, Ottawa K1G 3N2

Public Information Meeting. Orange Camp Road. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Beltway to I-4. Presented by: Volusia County August 2, 2018

Auckland Transport Code of Practice 2013

EUCLID AVENUE PARKING STUDY CITY OF SYRACUSE, ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK

STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT } } } } } Decision and Order

May 5, 2009 File:

Hewson Planning 35 Corbett Road RD2 Whangarei 082. Attachment 5. Traffic Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Callan Park accommodates travel from a wide range of transport modes, including walking, cycling, bus and light rail.

Glenn Avenue Corridor Traffic Operational Evaluation

Public Open House #2. THE CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER CHESTERFIELD AVENUE CYCLING IMPROVEMENTS (4th - 13th STREET) JULY 2013

HENDERSON DEVELOPMENT 213, 217, 221, 221 ½, 223 HENDERSON AVENUE and 65 TEMPLETON STREET OTTAWA, ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW.

Weston Downs Traffic Study City of Vaughan. Appendix B. Public Consultation Materials. Page 1

Classification Criteria

Complete Streets Policy DAVID CRONIN, P.E., CITY ENGINEER

CITY OF OTTAWA ROADWAY MODIFICATION APPROVAL UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

Transportation Policy Manual

QUICKIE C STORE AND GAS BAR 1780 HERON ROAD OTTAWA, ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION BRIEF. Prepared for:

MOUNTAIN HOUSE SPECIFIC PLAN I 9.1 INTRODUCTION ASSUMPTIONS TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PHASING 9.

PLAN 20 PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK

HANNA STREET, NOBLE PARK PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REZONING TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT YARRAMAN PARK DEVELOPMENTS PREPARED FOR JUNE, 2012

Angie Silva Kitsap County Commissioners Office Stef Herzstein, PE, PTOE Transpo Group Jessica Lambert Transpo Group

Attachment A: Traffic Mitigation Measures

ATTACHMENT 4 - TDM Checklist. TDM Checklist Overview

Traffic Impact Study WestBranch Residential Development Davidson, NC March 2016

9 Leeming Drive Redevelopment Ottawa, ON Transportation Brief. Prepared By: Stantec Consulting Ltd.

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE NO. 13

DYNAMIC LANES FOR AUCKLAND

FORM A PASCO COUNTY ACCESS CONNECTION PERMIT APPLICATION

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT STUDY

SECTION 1 - TRAFFIC PLANNING

Terwillegar Drive Expressway Draft Concept Plan

This Chapter sets forth the minimum design, technical criteria and specifications to be used in the preparation of all roadway plans.

Shotover Country. Proposed Private Plan Change. Transportation Assessment Report. February 2010

The proposed development is located within 800m of an existing Transit Station where infill developments and intensification are encouraged.

Appendix 5B Accessway standards and guidelines Appendix 5B Accessway standards and guidelines

RIVERSIDE, Newton MA BH NORMANDY RIVERSIDE LLC. Riverside Station. A green, transit-oriented community

Preliminary Engineering Study

IMPLEMENTATION. PEDESTRIAN USERS (Continued /) A: Class 2 Pedestrian / Cycle Ways. Pedestrian and Cycle Ways:

14. PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS IN MOORHOUSE AVENUE

DUNBOW ROAD FUNCTIONAL PLANNING

City of Elizabeth City Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy and Guidelines

Seal Extension Guidelines. Asset Management and Systems

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 9. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

HILTON GARDEN INN HOTEL HOTEL EXPANSION 2400 ALERT ROAD, OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION BRIEF. Prepared for:

NEW YORK CENTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION BLAIS STREET/ST-PIERRE STREET EMBRUN, ONTARIO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. Prepared for:

Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHECKLIST 2: PRELIMINARY DESIGN STAGE AUDIT

NEW BUSINESS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO: 4 STAFF: STEVE TUCK FILE NO: CPC UV QUASI-JUDICIAL

IMPLEMENTATION. PEDESTRIAN USERS (Continued /) Building Frontages: A: Stair Applications. Geometry (Accessed from the Sidewalk) Refer to A:

VIVA RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES OAKVILLE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES HOTEL 135 THAD JOHNSON PRIVATE OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION BRIEF. Prepared for:

TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS REPORT US Route 6 Huron, Erie County, Ohio

CSAH 101 Preliminary Design

Highway 49, Highway 351 and Highway 91 Improvements Feasibility Study Craighead County

Traffic Assessment for Woodhaven Redevelopment. City of Rome Oneida County, New York. March 2, 2018

Chapter 4 Route Window C3 Hyde Park and Park Lane shafts. Transport for London

5. RUNNINGWAY GUIDELINES

City of Wayzata Comprehensive Plan 2030 Transportation Chapter: Appendix A

1609 E. FRANKLIN STREET HOTEL TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Traffic Control Signals Review 4325 McCowan Road

OTTAWA TRAIN YARDS PHASE 3 DEVELOPMENT CITY OF OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY. Prepared for:

Transcription:

Appendix 5 Traffic Assessment 44

Harrison Transportation Best Start Educare Shelly Bay Road Beachlands Transportation Assessment Report September 2017 PO Box 11 557 Palm Beach Papamoa 3151 Reference: 187 TA v5

Contents 1. Introduction... 1 2. The Site... 1 3. Transportation Environment... 2 4. Traffic Data... 5 5. Crash History... 5 6. The Proposed Development... 5 7. Traffic Generation and Effects... 6 7.1. Traffic Generation... 6 7.2. Traffic Effects... 7 8. Parking... 7 8.1. Unitary Plan Parking Requirements... 7 8.2. Expected Parking Demand... 8 8.3. Proposed Parking Provision... 8 8.4. Accessible Parking... 8 8.5. Parking Layout... 8 8.6. Loading and Servicing... 8 9. Access... 9 9.1. Vehicle Crossing Location... 9 9.2. Number and Width of Vehicle Crossings... 9 9.3. Sight Distances... 9 10. Alternative Transport Modes... 9 10.1. Pedestrians... 9 10.2. Bicycles... 10 11. Conclusion... 10

1 1. Introduction Harrison Transportation has been asked by Design Network, on behalf of Best Start Educare, to assess the expected transportation effects of the proposed establishment of a new childcare centre at 27 Shelly Bay Road, Beachlands. The key transportation issues associated with the proposed childcare centre are: The level of traffic expected to be generated by the proposed childcare centre and the effect that this will have on the adjacent road network. The adequacy of the proposed on-site car parking. The provision of suitable access to the site. These issues are discussed in this report. By way of a summary it is concluded that, with the recommended provision of a footpath on the eastern side of Shelly Bay Road, the proposed childcare centre can be readily accommodated within the local transportation environment. 2. The Site The site is located on the western side of Shelly Bay Road approximately 300m north of Beachlands Road, between Julia Way and Lomeer Way. The location of the site is shown on Figure 1. The Site Figure 1: Site Location. The site is zoned Residential Single House Zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan, with the activity, as a care centre, understood to be a Discretionary Activity.

2 The site presently contains a single residential dwelling. Photograph 1 shows the site, viewed from Shelly Bay Road. Photograph 1: The Site, Viewed From Shelly Bay Road. Adjacent activities are predominantly residential. 3. Transportation Environment Shelly Bay Road is classified in the NZTA s One Network Road Classification as a Secondary Collector Road. It provides a north south link within the Beachlands area, as well as providing access to the adjacent properties. Adjacent to the site it has an 11.0m wide carriageway marked with a centreline and edge lines to provide a single 3.0m wide traffic lane in each direction with 2.5m wide shoulders. Photograph 2 shows Shelly Bay Road looking to the north while Photograph 3 shows Shelly Bay Road looking to the south.

3 Photograph 2: Shelly Bay Road Looking North. Photograph 3: Shelly Bay Road Looking South. A 1.4m wide footpath is provided on the western side of Shelly Bay Road only. There are no restrictions on the kerbside parking. Both Julia Way and Lomeer Way are private access ways serving the adjacent properties. Julia Way provides access to seven properties while Lomeer Way provides access to six properties. Both have 2.7m wide concrete driveways. Photograph 4 shows Julia Way while Photograph 5 shows Lomeer Way.

4 Photograph 4: Julia Way. Photograph 5: Lomeer Way. The intersection of Shelly Bay Road and Beachlands Road is in the form of a roundabout with a single lane on each approach. The Beachlands area, including Shelly Bay Road, has a 50km/h speed restriction that commences at the intersection of Beachlands Road and Whitford Maraetai Road. Auckland Transport bus route 589 operates between Beachlands and the Botany Town Centre, with six services each week day. The nearest bus stop is located at 58 Shelly Bay Road, approximately 360m north of the site.

5 4. Traffic Data The latest available traffic count data for Shelly Bay Road has been obtained from Auckland Transport. The count was recorded between Waterford Way and Lomeer Way during August 2013. The recorded average daily traffic (ADT) and peak hour volumes are given in the following table. Road Daily Traffic (veh/day) Peak Hour (veh/h) 5-Day ADT 7-Day ADT AM Peak PM Peak Shelly Bay Road 1,746 1,631 209 233 Table 1: Traffic Volume Data. Table 1 shows daily traffic volumes of up to 1,746veh/day and peak hour volumes of up to 233veh/h. These are low traffic volumes for a Secondary Collector Road. 5. Crash History A search of the NZTA Crash Analysis System (CAS) has been carried out to identify all reported crashes in the vicinity of the site during the five year period 2011 to 2015. Available data for 2016 has also been included. The search area consisted of Shelly Bay Road between Beachlands Road and First View Avenue, including the intersections at each end. The search identified three crashes, all of which occurred at the intersection of Beachlands Road and Shelly Bay Road. These crashes are summarised as follows: One crash involved a vehicle overtaking another vehicle on the approach to the roundabout. One crash involved an eastbound vehicle on Beachlands Road failing to give way to a moped at the roundabout. This resulted in a minor injury. One crash involved a vehicle northbound on Shelly Bay Road losing control and hitting a fence. The crash history has not identified any safety issues of relevance to the proposed childcare centre. 6. The Proposed Development It is proposed to remove the existing dwelling and construct a new purpose-built childcare centre. The building will have a gross floor area of 525m² and will accommodate up to 84 children at any one time. A total of 15 full-time equivalent staff will be employed. The proposed site layout, prepared by Design Network, is shown on the site plan attached to this report. The drawing shows the proposed provision of 14 on-site car parking spaces in a one-way parking area, with separate entry and exit driveways onto Shelly Bay Road.

6 7. Traffic Generation and Effects 7.1. Traffic Generation Traffic generation data for childcare centres is available in the following references: NZ Transport Agency Research Report 453 Trips and Parking Related to Land Use (RR453). Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (RTA) Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (RTA). The expected traffic generation rates given in these references are summarised in the following table. Activity Daily (veh/day/child) RR453 Peak Hour (veh/h/child) Morning Peak (veh/h/child) RTA Evening Peak (veh/h/child) Childcare Centre 4.1 1.4 1.4 0.8 Table 2: Expected Traffic Generation Rates. Table 2 shows an expected daily traffic generation rate of 4.1veh/day/child, with peak hour traffic generation rates of 1.4veh/h/child in the morning peak and 0.8veh/h/child in the evening peak. The expected traffic generation of the proposed childcare centre, assessed on the basis of the above rates with up to 84 children, is given in the following table. Activity Number of Children Daily Traffic (veh/day) AM Peak Hour (veh/h) PM Peak Hour (veh/h) Childcare Centre 84 344 118 67 Table 3: Expected Traffic Generation. Table 3 shows an expected total daily traffic generation of up to 344veh/day, with an expected morning peak hour traffic generation of up to 118veh/h and an evening peak hour traffic generation of up to 67veh/h. Although the site is located centrally within the surrounding residential area, it is expected that there will be a bias of traffic travelling south towards Beachlands Road in the morning peak and north away from Beachlands Road in the evening peak. On the basis of an equal distribution of traffic to the north and south, with the exception of 60% of generated traffic exiting towards the south in the morning peak and 60% of traffic arriving from the south in the evening peak, then expected turning movements at the site access during the morning and evening peak hours are as given in the following figure.

7 Figure 2: Expected Turning Movements at the Site Access. Figure 2 shows expected turning movements of up to 30veh/h turning left into the site and 35veh/h turning left out of the site during the morning peak. 7.2. Traffic Effects The traffic distribution as given above will result in an overall traffic distribution of approximately 45% to and from the north, with 55% to and from the south. The expected increase in the weekday ADT volume on Shelly Bay Road is given in the following table. Road Existing ADT Traffic Generation Total Shelly Bay Road (North) 1,746 138 1,884 Shelly Bay Road (South) 1,746 206 1,952 Table 4: Expected Increase in Daily Traffic (veh/day). Table 4 shows that the weekday ADT volume on Shelly Bay Road south of the site is expected to increase from 1,746veh/day to 1,952veh/day. While this represents an increase of approximately 12%, it is noted that the forecast daily traffic volume remains low for a for a Secondary Collector Road and is well within the available capacity of the road. The forecast increase in traffic is therefore expected to have a negligible effect on the flow of traffic on Shelly Bay Road. 8. Parking 8.1. Unitary Plan Parking Requirements The Auckland Unitary Plan requires minimum on-site parking for childcare centres to be provided in accordance with the number of children accommodated and the number of full time equivalent staff. On the basis of 84 children and 15 staff, the minimum number of car parking spaces required is as given in the following table.

8 Activity Use Rate Spaces Childcare centre Children 0.1 spaces/child 8 Staff 0.5 spaces/employee 8 Total - - 16 Table 5: Unitary Plan Parking Requirement. Table 5 shows that the Unitary Plan requires a minimum of 16 on-site car parking spaces to be provided. 8.2. Expected Parking Demand Published parking demand data for childcare centres is available from the same sources of data as given in Section 7.1 of this report. The expected peak parking demand rates given by these two references are as follows: RR453: 0.30 spaces/child. RTA: 0.25 spaces/child. The above parking demand rates are inclusive of staff parking and parental drop-off / pick-up parking. On the basis of these rates, and a maximum attendance of 84 children, the peak parking demand is expected to be in the range of 21 to 25 spaces. 8.3. Proposed Parking Provision The proposed parking layout is shown on the site plan attached to this report. This shows that a total of 14 car parking spaces are proposed, which is two space less than that required by the Unitary Plan and between seven and 11 spaces less than the expected peak parking demand. Observations of the existing kerbside parking on Shelly Bay Road show that ample space is available to accommodate the expected peak kerbside parking demand of between seven and 11 spaces. 8.4. Accessible Parking The New Zealand Standard (NZS) 4121:2001 Design for Access and Mobility Buildings and Associated Facilities requires that car parks with up to 20 spaces should provide not less than one accessible parking space. One accessible car parking space is proposed in accordance with this standard. 8.5. Parking Layout A review of the proposed car park layout has been carried out. It is confirmed that the dimensions of the proposed car parking spaces are in accordance with the dimensions specified in the Unitary Plan. 8.6. Loading and Servicing The Unitary Plan does not require activities with a GFA of less than 5,000m² to provide a loading space. It is expected that the proposed childcare centre will have a minimal requirement for servicing and so no dedicated loading space is proposed. Any service vehicles that do attend the site are expected do so outside of the peak drop-off and pick-up times and will therefore be able to use the available on-site car parking.

9 9. Access 9.1. Vehicle Crossing Location The Unitary Plan restricts vehicle access from being located within 10m of an adjacent intersection. While the proposed entry and exit driveways will be located within 10m of Julia Way and Lomeer Way respectively, it is noted that these are private access ways rather than legal roads. It is therefore accessed that this access restriction is not applicable in this instance. Given the low number of properties gaining access from Julia Way and Lomeer Way it is assessed that the access will function efficiently with negligible effects from the close proximity to the adjacent two access driveways. 9.2. Number and Width of Vehicle Crossings The Unitary Plan allows one vehicle crossing per 25m of frontage or part thereof. As the frontage of the site is approximately 29m, two vehicle crossings are permitted. Two vehicle crossings are proposed. The Unitary Plan requires vehicle crossings in residential zones, serving 10 or more car parking spaces, to have a two-way vehicle crossing with a width of between 5.5m and 6.0m. Rather than provide a single two-way crossing it is proposed to provide two one-way vehicle crossings, for which a width of between 3.0m and 3.5m is specified. The proposed width of the vehicle crossings is 3.5m, in accordance with this requirement. 9.3. Sight Distances The LTSA (now part of the NZTA) Road and Traffic Standard (RTS) 6 Guidelines for visibility at driveways specifies minimum sight distances to be provided at access driveways in accordance with the operating speed of vehicles along the road. The operating speed of vehicles on Shelly Bay Road has been assessed at 50km/h in each direction. The compliance of the available sight distances with these requirements is given in the following table. Direction Vehicle Operating Speed (km/h) Sight Distances (m) Required Available Complies? To the North 50 90 >100 Yes To the South 50 90 >100 Yes Table 6: Sight Distances at the Site Access. Table 6 shows that the available sight distances at the site access exceed the minimum specified by RTS 6. 10. Alternative Transport Modes 10.1. Pedestrians Given the location of the site within the local residential area it is expected that a number of parents or care givers will walk to and from the site. The existing footpath on the western side of Shelly Bay Road will provide an appropriate connection between the site and the surrounding residential area for parents and care givers walking to and from the site.

10 Section 8.3 of this report has identified an expected peak kerbside parking demand of between seven and 11 spaces. Those parking on the street will need to walk between their parked car and the site. It is noted that, while a footpath is presently provided on the western side of Shelly Bay Road, there is no footpath on the eastern side of the road adjacent to the site. In order to accommodate the movement of pedestrians walking between cars parked on the road and the site, it is recommended that a footpath be provided on the eastern side of Shelly Bay Road. Due to the topography and the difficulty of providing a footpath to the south of the site, it is recommended that the footpath be provided adjacent to property numbers 27 to 35 Shelly Bay Road. This will provide a footpath adjacent to approximately eight kerbside parking spaces. Allowing that some staff or visitors may choose to park on the opposite side of the road, a footpath adjacent to eight spaces is assessed as sufficient to accommodate the expected pedestrian movements. 10.2. Bicycles The Auckland Unitary Plan requires bicycle parking to be provided at a rate of one space, plus one space per 50 people accommodated, plus one space per 10 employees. On the basis of 84 children and 14 staff, four bicycle parking spaces are required. Four cycle spaces are proposed, as required. The available width of Shelly Bay Road, with 2.5m wide shoulders on each side of the road, will provide ample room for bicycles. It is therefore assessed that adequate provision is proposed for bicycles. 11. Conclusion Best Start Educare propose to establish a new childcare centre at 27 Shelly Bay Road, Beachlands. The childcare will accommodate up to 84 children with a total of 15 full-time equivalent staff. A one-way parking area with 14 car parking spaces is proposed, with separate entry and exit driveways to Shelly Bay Road. The childcare centre is expected to have a total daily traffic generation of up to 344veh/day, with an expected morning peak hour traffic generation of 118veh/h and an evening peak hour traffic generation of 67veh/h. There is expected to be a bias of traffic travelling towards Beachlands Road in the morning peak and away from Beachlands Road in the evening peak. Allowing for this bias gives an expected daily traffic generation of 138veh/day to the north of the site and 206veh/day to the south of the site. This is expected to increase the weekday ADT volume on Shelly Bay Road south of the site from 1,746veh/day to 1,884veh/day. While this represents an increase of approximately 12%, the forecast daily traffic volume remains low for a for a Secondary Collector Road and is well within the available capacity of the road. The forecast increase in traffic is therefore expected to have a negligible effect on the flow of traffic on Shelly Bay Road. The Auckland Unitary Plan requires a minimum of 16 on-site car parking spaces to be provided. The peak parking demand is however expected to be in the range of 21 to 25 spaces. A total of 14 car parking spaces are proposed, which is two spaces less than that required by the Unitary Plan and between seven and 11 spaces less than the expected peak parking demand.

11 Observations of the existing kerbside parking on Shelly Bay Road show that ample space is available to accommodate the expected kerbside parking demand. The dimensions of the proposed on-site car parking spaces are in accordance with the dimensions specified in the Unitary Plan. The proposed width of the vehicle crossings is in accordance with the width specified in the Unitary Plan for one-way vehicle crossings. The available sight distances at the site access are in excess of the minimum specified in the relevant guide. A footpath is presently provided on the western side of Shelly Bay Road, but not on the eastern side. In order to accommodate pedestrians walking between cars parked on the road and the site, it is recommended that a footpath be provided on the eastern side of Shelly Bay Road. It is recommended that the footpath be provided adjacent to property numbers 27 to 35 Shelly Bay Road, which will provide a footpath adjacent to approximately eight kerbside parking spaces. Allowing that some staff or visitors may choose to park on the opposite side of the road, this is assessed as sufficient to accommodate the expected pedestrian movements. Four bicycle parking spaces are proposed, as required by the Unitary Plan. Accordingly, it is concluded that, with the recommended provision of a footpath on the eastern side of Shelly Bay Road, the proposed childcare centre can be readily accommodated within the local transportation environment. Report Prepared by: Bruce Harrison Harrison Transportation 13 September 2017 Reference: 187 TA v5

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 9 DP 121504 CT - 70C/397 AREA: 1500m² SITE COVERAGE: 450 Concrete 150 PVC 2x 25.000L Rain water storage tanks. Ultra Violet filter pressure set. Rain water harvested from the roof before being stored. Pile foundation to tank to avoid any influence on councils 450d stormwater pipe. 17.0 J U L I A W A Y 17.5 18.0 SITE: 1500 m ² GROUND FLOOR: 443 m ² FIRST FLOOR: 90 m ² PLAY AREA: 503 m ² PAVING/CONCRETE: 43 m ² CARPARK: 356 m ² LANDSCAPE: 155 m ² ROOF AREA - GROUND FLOOR: 442 m ² - FIRST FLOOR: 121 m ² 0 to 1.2m high retaining wall. New 2.4m high wood fence with translucent panels above. IMPERMEABLE AREA: 840 m ² (56%) 17.5 17.0 low level landscaping shrubs or hedge row maintened to 0.5m in height Underground Electricity Easement CHANGE/WC3 Entry Sign 3500 17.78 ENTRY ONLY No Exit Sign pool type fence 5.0x2.6 STAFF 1 17.69 5.0x2.6 STAFF pool type fence 5.0x2.6 STAFF 2 3 4 5.2x2.6 STAFF 17.69 90.00 1.5m high pool type fencing and maintenance gates M.H.: 17.0 DTI: 1.4 300 Concrete 450 Concrete VERANDAH 17.0 PLAY AREA 503m² (General level: 17.0 400-500mm retaining to existing gardens) Existing trees to remain 17.1 18.5 CARPARK CALCULATIONS: REQUIREMENT (Per Auckland Unitary Plan): Visitor Parking: 0.1 x carpark per child Staff Parking: 0.5 x carpark per FTE employee (No loading bay required) 84 Children = 9 Visitor carparks required 14 Staff = 7 Staff carparks required TOTAL CARPARKS REQUIRED: 16 NUMBER OF CARPARKS ACHIEVED: 14 CENTRE HOURS OF OPERATION: 7:30am - 6pm Monday to Friday (excl. public holidays) NB: Existing landascape along south boundary to remain where possible. Existing large trees to remain on site. S H E L L Y B A Y R O A D 18.0 18.5 PROPOSED CHILDCARE SIGN 2mx1m No Entry Sign 0 to 1m high retaining wall. 6.0x2.4 5.2x2.6 5.2x2.6 5.2x2.6 2400 7000 5200 1500 14 17.59 5 6 7 8 5.2x2.6 5.2x2.6 DIS. PARK 17.73 FOOTPATH ROOM 1 Sink Hb cavity sliders (4.2m opening) Sink Hb CH. WC 1 CH. WC 2 ROOM 2 Outline of 1st Floor cavity sliders (3m opening) SLEEP 2 store ROOM 3 cavity sliders (3m opening) VERANDAH 17.2 17.3 1.1 to 1.77m high retaining wall. New 2.2m high wood fence above. 150 PVC 3500 18.78 EXIT ONLY 9 17.69 D12 ROOM 4 5.2x2.6 19.0 No Entry Sign 13 1 01 5.0x2.6 5.0x2.6 18.28 11 5.0x2.6 STAFF 10 17.69 ENTRY 17.88 ENTRY FOYER RECEPTION MANAGER STORE 8 STAIRS 1 7 STORE SLEEP 1 17.5 1m high(aprox.) retaining wall. REV DATE BY AMENDMENTS NOTES ALL DIMENSIONS AND LEVELS ARE TO BE CHECKED ON SITE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED. USE ONLY FIGURED DIMENSIONS. C low level landscaping shrubs or hedge row maintained to 0.5m in height BINS 0 to 1m high retaining wall. New 2m wood fence above. BIKES 1.5m high screen/gate around bin enclousure 1500 EXISTING PLANTING AND RETAINING TO REMAIN (where possible) ALONG SOUTH BOUNDARY L O M E E R W A Y Rock Garden 257 MAUNGANUI ROAD MT MAUNGANUI - NZ P.O.BOX 5098 07 5757082 : 07 5752846 19.5 20.0 A 01 20.5 Site Plan Scale: 1:100 20.5m 20.0 19.5 19.0 M.H.:? DTI: 1.3 CLIENT: BestStart Educare LOCATION: 27 Shelly Bay Road - Auckland PROJECT: Proposed Childcare DRAWING: Site Plan DATE: 14/03/17 DWG NO.: DRAWN: FQ SCALE: 1:100 01 PLOT DATE: Fri, 25 Aug 2017