Westfield Knox Drainage Analysis · 2014-04-17 · Westfield Knox Drainage Analysis Flooding, Construction and Stormwater Quality Advice 01 April 2014 Cardno 8 Figure 3-4 Flood Level

Westfield Knox Drainage Analysis

Flooding, Construction and Stormwater Quality Advice 59914509_R002 Version 1.0 Final

Prepared for Westfield Design and Construction Pty Ltd

01 April 2014

Westfield Knox Drainage Analysis

Flooding, Construction and Stormwater Quality Advice 59914509_R002 Version 1.0 Final

Westfield Knox Drainage Analysis Flooding, Construction and Stormwater Quality Advice

01 April 2014 Cardno ii

Contact Information

Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd

ABN 95 001 145 035

150 Oxford Street

Collingwood

VIC 3066

Telephone: 03 8415 7777

Document Information

Prepared for Westfield Design and

Construction Pty Ltd

Project Name Flooding, Construction and

Stormwater Quality Advice

File Reference 59914509_R002_v02_draft.docx

Job Reference 59914509_R002 Version 1.0

Final

Date 01 April 2014

Document Control

Ve

rsio

n Date Description of Revision

Pre

pa

red

By

Prepared

(Signature)

Rev

iew

ed

By

Reviewed (Signature)

0.1 13 March 2014 Draft Advice MR/DW/DB/RH

Megan Ridgway

Daniel Wood

Daniel Banks

Rob Henry

RCS Rob Swan

0.2 18 March 2014 Draft MR/DW/DB/RH

Megan Ridgway

Daniel Wood

Daniel Banks

Rob Henry

RCS Rob Swan

1.0 01 April 2014 Draft MR/DW/DB/RH

Megan Ridgway

Daniel Wood

Daniel Banks

Rob Henry

RCS Rob Swan

Ve

rsio

n

Reason for Issue Approved for Release

By

Approved

(Signature)

Approved Release Date

0.1 Draft RCS Rob Swan 14/03/2014

0.2 Draft for Comment to Melbourne Water RCS Rob Swan 18/03/2014

1.0 Final RCS Rob Swan 01/04/2014

© Cardno 2013. Copyright in the whole and every part of this document belongs to Cardno and may not be used, sold, transferred, copied or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person other than by agreement with Cardno.

This document is produced by Cardno solely for the benefit and use by the client in accordance with the terms of the engagement. Cardno does not and shall not assume any responsibility or liability whatsoever to any third party arising out of any use or reliance by any third party on the content of this document.


01 April 2014 Cardno iii

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 4

1.2 Previous Advice 4

2 Scope of Services 5

3 Flood Impacts 6

4 Construction Over Blind Creek Main Drain 10

4.1 Site details 10

4.2 Construction Methodology Statement 11

4.2.1 Future excavation works to replace sections of the Pipes 11

5 Stormwater Quality Treatment 14

6 Conclusions 17

6.1 Digital Deliverables 17

Appendices

Appendix A Westfield Knox Design Plans (KNOX-2013-SCH8-U3)

Tables

Table 5-1 Proposed Bioretention Size 15

Table 5-2 MUSIC Model Parameters for Bioretention Node 16

Figures

Figure 1-1 LSIO overlay at Westfield Knox site 4

Figure 3-1 New development area (ground level) 6

Figure 3-2 Flood Levels, Existing Conditions 7

Figure 3-3 Flood Levels, Development Conditions 7

Figure 3-4 Flood Level Difference, Developed minus Existing 8

Figure 3-5 Flood Hazard, Existing Conditions 9

Figure 3-6 Flood Hazard, Development Conditions 9

Figure 4-1 Drainage Easement Alignment 10

Figure 4-2 Typical 20-tonne Excavator Specification 12

Figure 4-3 Excavating in the 6 to 6.8 m clearance range 13

Figure 4-4 Excavating in the 5.6 to 6.0 clearance range 13

Figure 4-5 Franna AT-15 Crane Specification 13

Figure 5-1 WSUD Catchment Plan 14

Figure 5-2 MUSIC Model Setup 15


01 April 2014 Cardno 4

1 Introduction

The Westfield Knox Project comprises a re-development and refurbishment of an existing shopping complex.

The existing site comprises some 142,000 m2 of leasable space, including Myer, Target, K Mart and two Coles

supermarkets, along with a substantial cinema complex flanked by almost twenty food or entertainment tenancies.

Almost 6200 parking spaces are distributed across the site. New development is proposed additional to and

connecting with the existing development.

These changes do not impact the overall impervious area of the site.

Initial investigations indicate the northern portion of the site is in the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

(LSIO) under the Knox Planning Scheme as shown in Figure 1-1. Melbourne Water is the floodplain

management authority for the area.

Figure 1-1 LSIO overlay at Westfield Knox site

1.2 Previous Advice

Cardno has previously provided a detailed report on the existing flood behaviour at the Westfield Knox site

(Report 59914509_R001_V1, dated 12 December 2013), included by Westfield as part of the planning

application for the site.



2 Scope of Services

Before agreeing to grant a planning permit, Melbourne Water raised a number of issues that were of concern

to them regarding the proposed redevelopment including:

1. The proposed development is inconsistent with State and Local Planning Policy relating to drainage

and floodplain management.

2. The proposed development is inconsistent with the purpose and decision guidelines set out in the

Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) within the Knox Planning Scheme.

3. The proposed development is subject to inappropriate and unacceptable flood risk, where the safety

of land users may be affected and potential for flood damage is excessive.

Melbourne Water provided additional information with regard to the reasons for the concerns described

above. This information included:

1. The development increases flood levels by up to 120mm on site and by up to 50mm on neighbouring

properties;

2. Analysis of the impact of the loss of flood storage on the site is to be considered;

3. More detail needs to be provided to Melbourne Water regarding flood hazard and other

characteristics across the car park;

4. That all floor levels and basement car park entrances must be 600mm above the applicable flood

level; and

5. Construction of a multi-storey car park above the Blind Creek Drain is not to be considered (without

an appropriate construction methodology)

Additionally, the City of Knox requested additional details of the proposed water quality treatments to

appropriately treat stormwater generated from the development. To address these issues, Cardno has

undertaken the following works to assist Westfield:

1. Undertake additional modelling to assess the impact of reducing the construction boundary on the

northern side of the development;

2. Develop a construction methodology to allow for maintenance and/or replacement of the existing

Blind Creek Main Drain, to reduce as much as practically possible the vertical clearance required

above the drain. This methodology will be generally cost comparable to the cut and cover approach.

3. Provide advice with regards to stormwater treatment (WSUD) on the site, in consultation with Land

Design Partnership (Lindsay Fraser) including:

a. Review redevelopment plans

b. Produce a MUSIC model of proposed treatment requirements

c. Indicate on master plan document the indicative treatment areas required.

d. Identify land take requirements

e. Propose alternative treatment should land be limited to meet WSUD targets.

Westfield has provided design plans (KNOX-2013-SCH8-U3-D) that have informed the works. These plans

are found in Appendix A.



3 Flood Impacts

In order to reduce the flood impacts of the development, the construction limit on the northern side of the

development has been amended from the original proposal, to remove a constriction in the flowpath along

the northern side of the site. This constriction was caused by the proposed ramp to an upper storey carpark.

Based on advice from Westfield, Cardno have assessed a development area that extends no further into the

floodplain on the northern side than the existing northern building limit adjacent to the flowpath. The new

development areas are shown in green on Figure 3-1 and have been modelled as complete blockages to

flow. These areas are consistent with those shown in the Westfield Plan KNOX-2013-SCH8-U3, although the

area blocked on the northern building line is slightly greater in the model.

Figure 3-1 New development area (ground level)

Cardno have liaised with Melbourne Water to obtain information with regard to the volume and extent of

floodwaters that traverse the site. The site is immediately downstream of a large retarding basin, designed to

reduce the impact of flooding on downstream properties. Flow rates leaving the basin are approximately

23 m3/s in the 100-year ARI event. The retarding basin does not spill until the flood event is in excess of the

20-year ARI.

Information received from Melbourne Water indicates the basin system reduces the peak flow rate entering

the Westfield site substantially, with a peak overland flow of 13.8 m3/s expected through the car park. An

underground pipe system carries an additional 9 m3/s between the retarding basin and the western side of

Stud Road. Note that these figures were inadvertently reversed in our previous report. The critical storm

duration has been identified as the 12 hour event. These flow rates were extracted from the Blind Creek MD

Redevelopment Services Scheme Report (GHD, 2009) provided by Melbourne Water.

The modelled existing conditions flooding is shown in Figure 3-2



Figure 3-2 Flood Levels, Existing Conditions

The model was run including the proposed development. The results of the developed case model are

shown in Figure 3-3. The difference between the developed and existing conditions is shown in Figure 3-4.

Figure 3-3 Flood Levels, Development Conditions



Figure 3-4 Flood Level Difference, Developed minus Existing

A key concern of Melbourne Water was that the increase in flood levels on the site was up to 140 mm and of

the site was up to 100 mm. The results show that the new development alignment reduces the flood impacts

on site to less than 100mm and off site to no more than 40 mm. The flood extent is unchanged and the area

of offsite impact is limited to public reserves. We note that the proposed floor level for the new development

areas of 69.0 m AHD are at least 600 mm above the flood level.

Based on the results of the model, under the existing conditions, a maximum flood volume of 20,700 m3

could be stored on the site. In the post development conditions, a maximum flood volume of 20,300 m3 was

stored on the site (these numbers are calculated by multiplying the average depth of flooding across the site

by the area of flooding), which is a change in flood storage of approximately 2%. It is considered that this

change is negligible in the context of the wider floodplain and the significant retarding basin upstream of the

site. The maximum inflow rate to the site is 13 m3/s in the 1% AEP event and as such, the loss in flood

storage only accounts for 32 seconds of inflow to the site.

Consideration of Flood Hazard on the site should be undertaken in the context of the existing flood behaviour

and hazard characteristics. The existing site is flood impacted, with floodwaters in the northern and western

car park areas. Flood hazard on the site is location specific, with some areas of deeper water contributing to

higher hazard values. The flood hazard classes, as per Melbourne Water’s Technical Specification for Flood

Mapping (2013), for the existing and developed conditions are shown in Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6.

It can be seen from the figures that the flood hazard across the site is slightly increased as a result of the proposed changes to the development; however the overall flood hazard on the majority of the area remains either low or moderate. The total area flooded is reduced as a result of the proposed changes. It is noted that all the additional car park areas, shopping area extensions will all be set well above the existing flood levels. In addition, safe access to Burwood Highway is provided for all users of the shopping centre. In terms of flood damage, fewer cars would be exposed to flooding under the proposed development conditions than under the existing conditions. The proposed main access from Stud Road is moved to the northern boundary as part of the redevelopment. The existing main access road includes a high hazard



area near the existing roundabout. The proposed new main entry road provides a low hazard access along the northern boundary. It is considered that this reduces the overall flood risk.

Figure 3-5 Flood Hazard, Existing Conditions

Figure 3-6 Flood Hazard, Development Conditions



4 Construction Over Blind Creek Main Drain

Melbourne Water had concerns about the construction of multistorey car parks above the Blind Creek Main

Drain. Melbourne Water advised that they would require a minimum 7 metre clearance above the drain to

allow appropriate access for replacement of the drain., This requirement could be modified if an appropriate

work method statement detailing how maintenance access to the drain can be maintained with a lower

clearance, provided that the method does not disadvantage Melbourne Water. Cardno has developed a work

method statement that we believe meets these requirements.

The Blind Creek Drain consists of twin 1900 diameter pipes with cover of about 1 m, over which there

currently exists an asphalt car park. The preliminary plans show that the headroom above the stormwater

pipes will vary between 6.8 m to 5.6 m from the existing ground surface. The Mezzanine carpark with its

limited 3m headroom has been set back beyond the stormwater pipes lines to allow for approx. 6.8 m

headroom.

As the pipe trench is approx. 3m deep then the new structural footings supporting the new car park structure

along with any other load bearing structural building components, will have to be outside a 45 degree

influence line from the bottom of the trench, offset from the pipe by a minimum of 1.5 m

4.1 Site details

The drainage line is to the north and west of the current shopping centre buildings. It is situated under the

existing carpark and access roads. The pipes are in an existing Floodway and Drainage easement that is

approximately 25 m in width and contains a twin 1950mm diameter stormwater drain which conveys runoff

from a major retarding basin in Lewis park on Blind Creek. The stormwater drain has an approximate depth

to invert of some 3 m below ground level with cover of approximately 1 m. The alignment of the easement

varies through the site as indicated in Figure 4-1.

It is noted that the existing twin 1950mm dia. stormwater drain was constructed in the mid 1970s (Plans

drawn in 1972) and likelihood of the drain needing replacement remedial work or replacement is considered

possible. An internal camera review would assist in determining its current status. Provided they were layed

correctly, the pipes should have a working life of over a 100 years.

Figure 4-1 Drainage Easement Alignment



4.2 Construction Methodology Statement

The Construction Methodology set out below demonstrates how the works may be achieved. The

methodology proposed uses standard equipment within the 5.6 m min clearance height above the easement

to allow access for future repair and maintenance access to the existing stormwater drain and pits. This

equipment is the same that would be used with a 7 m minimum vertical clearance. Two methodologies for

pipe maintenance are proposed,

4.2.1 Future excavation works to replace sections of the Pipes

In the event that the existing 1950mm dia. stormwater drain is to be replaced the following construction

methodology is considered to be appropriate given future site constraints.

1. Excavate the material above the pipe. A 20 tonne excavator (Figure 4-2) is recommended as

suitable for the work. Although the excavator arm can rise in excess of this height, it can be limit

controlled to work within recommended 6 m to 6.8 m headroom. (Figure 4-3) The addition of a

spotter may also be appropriate. Additional operational height can be gained in the 5.6 to 6 m zone

by first excavating a 0.5 trench along the length of this section of the works (Figure 4-4) The trucks

could be backed up along this to gain more room for loading

2. Material can be side cast into a 14 tonne single axel truck (7-8 m3 capacity). This requires that the

arm be retained in a flatter configuration than normal, but as such will only have a small effect on the operational timing (less than 5%). With an allowance for 300mm clearance between the underside of the carpark floor over and top of excavators arm, the truck can be adjacent the excavation at a distance suitable for the excavators reach (the optimum for operations). The bucket will load from the drainage excavation hole and be drawn up to the arm as the machine rotates, then within the tippers body it will arc through 180deg to empty the bucket. With a standard size tipper the clearance above the tipper body would be at least 500mm and with the largest size tipper truck, the clearance would be approximately 100 mm in the 5.6 m clearance section.

3. Any excavator under below 40 to 45 tonne will not be able to lift 1900mm diameter pipes. A mobile

crane offers greater flexibility for working within confined spaces with the capability of pipe lengths

being picked up and driven into the easement to be installed;

4. The existing pipe will then be removed from the opposite side of the excavation using a mobile crane

(Franna), on a section by section basis. Removal would begin at the end of the pipe and work

backwards with an open excavation of approx. 3 - 4 lengths of pipe at a time before backfilling

occurs; the Franna would carry these pipes to the stockpile. The Franna crane specifications are

shown in Figure 4-5. The Franna crane will sling the pipes via the lifting lug in the top of the pipe,

travelling with the pipe 500mm of the ground we should be able to maintain a 1320mm clearance to

the underside of the carpark floor over as per Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4. The Franna provides

optimum versatility to collect and place the drainage pipes for construction purposes.

5. It would then return with new lengths of pipe to also be installed from the opposite side of the

excavation as indicated in Figure 4-3.

6. Access for construction vehicles would be over the existing pavement.

7. Materials would be stock piled and bought in with a front end loader.

The construction methodology proposed for the areas underneath the car park with a 5.6 to 6.8 m headroom,

is consistent with the approach that would be required for the works if Melbourne Water’s 7 m minimum

clearance height was adopted. It is considered that there is no significant cost difference or construction

methodology between the MW proposed 7.0 m clearance and that involved with the 5.6 to 6.8 m minimum

clearance the proposed. A minimum clearance height of 5.6 metres is suitable for the construction over the

Blind Creek Main Drain.



Figure 4-2 Typical 20-tonne Excavator Specification



Figure 4-3 Excavating in the 6 to 6.8 m clearance range

Figure 4-4 Excavating in the 5.6 to 6.0 clearance range

Figure 4-5 Franna AT-15 Crane Specification



5 Stormwater Quality Treatment

Knox City Council has indicated that the proposed development is required to treat stormwater runoff to

provide adequate removal of nutrients including phosphorus and nitrogen. The Council has indicated that

‘raingarden’ area should be in the order of 3-5% of the catchment area.

The Water Sensitive Urban Design modelling was undertaken using the software package MUSIC. The

MUSIC modelling has indicated that the guideline of 3-5% of catchment area is excessive for a well-designed

bioretention system.

A distributed rain garden approach was adopted for the treatment of stormwater to meet best practice

environmental guidelines.

The best practice environmental guidelines require the removal of pollutants from stormwater prior to the

discharge into waterways. The following table is the required removal of pollutants to satisfy best practice.

Pollutant Type Water Quality Objectives

Total Suspended Solids 80% reduction in average annual load of pollutants leaving the developed

unmitigated scenario compared to the developed mitigated scenario

Total Phosphorus 45% reduction in average annual load of pollutants leaving the developed


Total Nitrogen 45% reduction in average annual load of pollutants leaving the developed


The site has been split into potential catchment areas based on the location of drainage infrastructure and

suitable locations for treatment devices. A proposed catchment plan is below in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1 WSUD Catchment Plan



MUSIC modelling was undertaken using Melbourne Water’s MUSIC Guideline with rainfall taken from the

Koo Wee Rup pluviograph station for 2004.

Catchment 5 and Catchment 6 are proposed to receive no biological stormwater treatment within the

bioretention basins. The proposed bioretention basin will act to treat the stormwater from Catchments 1-4 to

a greater level than would otherwise be the case. This will offset the area that is to not be treated.

The MUSIC model setup and results is shown in Figure 5-2 below.

Figure 5-2 MUSIC Model Setup

The size of each proposed bioretention basin is included in Table 5-1 below including a comparison of the

required size according to council guidelines.

Table 5-1 Proposed Bioretention Size

Catchment Catchment Area (ha) Bioretention Area

(MUSIC) (m2)

Bioretention Area

(Council Guidelines) (m2)

Catchment 1 2.40 170 870

Catchment 2 1.60 120 580

Catchment 3 1.24 80 450

Catchment 4 1.11 80 410

Catchment 5 0.80 Untreated Untreated

Catchment 6 0.50 Untreated Untreated

Total 7.65 450 2400 (~3%)



MUSIC Model parameters for the bioretention planter bed used are detailed below in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2 MUSIC Model Parameters for Bioretention Node

Parameter Default Value Adopted Value

Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (mm/hr) 100 360

TN Content of Filter Media (mg/kg) 800 500

Orthophosphate Content of Filter Media (mg/kg) 80 50

Total Suspended Solids K K (m/yr) 8000 8000

C* (mg/L) 20 20

Total Phosphorus K (m/yr) 6000 6000

C* (mg/L) 0.13 0.13

Total Nitrogen K (m/yr) 500 500

C* (mg/L) 1.4 1.4

Filter Media Soil Type Loamy Sand Sand

Number of CSTR Cells 3 3

Porosity of Filter Media 0.35 0.35

MUSIC modelling confirms that a distributed bioretention system will result in a WSUD treatment outcome for the site that meets best practice environmental guidelines.



6 Conclusions

The following recommendations can be drawn from this report:

1. The proposed development does not adversely impact flood flows or storage with respect to the

provisions of the Land subject to inundation overlay. The new alignment limits off-site flood level

increases to less than 40 mm and the flood extent is unchanged.

2. Flood Hazard across the site is effectively unchanged although minor local increases are noted. The

realignment of the main entry from Stud Road reduces the hazard at the access to the site. Local

increases in flood hazard, especially around the western car park area can be mitigated as part of the

detailed design for the site. Additionally Flood Emergency Response Plan for the site could be

developed to further mitigate flood hazard and provide for clear operational activities during a flood

event.

3. All new parking areas are above the flood level or protected from flooding and new floor levels are set

at 69.0 m AHD on the ground floor, matching the existing floor level in the area of the new

development. This is 600 mm above the adjacent flood level of 68.4 m AHD.

4. A construction methodology has been developed that allows for maintenance of the existing Blind

Creek Main Drain with a minimum vertical clearance of 5.6 metres. This methodology is similar to that

that would be used by Melbourne Water should a 7 metre minimum vertical clearance be provided. In

our opinion, there is no cost or construction method disadvantage to Melbourne Water with a 5.6

metre minimum clearance.

5. The development site includes enough area in the landscape works to provide for sufficient treatment

to meet stormwater quality targets via a network of distributed bioretention systems.

Based on the above, it is concluded that:

1. The proposed development is consistent with State and Local Planning Policy relating to drainage and

floodplain management;

2. The proposed development is consistent with the purpose and decision guidelines set out in the Land

Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) within the Knox Planning Scheme;

3. The proposed development is not subject to inappropriate and unacceptable flood risk, where the

safety of land users may be affected and potential for flood damage is excessive;

4. Maintenance activities on the Blind Creek Main Drain can be completed with no adverse impact to

Melbourne Water, provided a 5.6 m vertical clearance is maintained; and

5. Water Quality Treatment objectives can be met on the site.

6.1 Digital Deliverables

Cardno has provided with this document appropriate electronic information regarding flood levels, depths,

velocities and hazard class as a Mapinfo table, suitable for submission to Melbourne Water.



Flooding, Construction and Stormwater Quality Advice

APPENDIX A WESTFIELD KNOX DESIGN PLANS (KNOX-2013-SCH8-U3-D)

MallEntry

Mal l

Entry

17.0

33.2

16.7

21.4

24.1

25.6

4.5

10.8

17.0

21.0

150.9

102.3

156.3

290.3

GOODS LIFTS

TRAVELATORS TOLEVEL 1 RETAIL OVER

BATTERED SLOPE TO EDGES OF BASEMENT PARKING

BATTERED SLOPE TO

EDGES OF BASEMENT

PARKING

BATTER

ED SLO

PE TO

EDGES

OF BAS

EMENT

PARKIN

G

PASS. LIFT

GOODS LIFTS

RL. 66.0


BATTER

ED SLO

PE TO

EDGES

OF BA

SEMENT

PARKI

NG


STORAGE


NEW L.D.

RAMP UP TO L1 CARPARK

VEHICULAR SERVICE RAMP UP TO STREET LEVEL

BATTER

ED SLO

PE TO

EDGES

OF BAS

EMENT

PARKIN

G

VEHICULAR SERVICE RAMP UP TO STREET LEVEL

RAMP UP TO LEVEL 1

CARPARK

RAMP U

P TO LE

VEL 1

STORAGE

DDSRESERVEAREA

DDSRESERVEAREA

ESCALATORS UP TOLEVEL 1 RETAIL OVER

LINE OF LEVEL 1 ABOVE

BURWOOD HIGHWAY

STUD ROAD

MELBOURNE STREET

ADELAIDE STREET

CAPITAL CITY BOULIVARD

MELBOURNE STREET NORTH

REZES ST

HUGHES ST

LITTLE BURWOOD HWY

L.D.

RELOCATED BUS STATIONRL. 72.4

ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING

ON GRADE PARKING

MELBOURNE STREET

REZES ST

LITTLE BURWOOD HWY

NEW L.D.

LINE OF LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN OVER

LINE OF LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN OVER

BASEMENT LEVEL CARPARK

Basement Level

RAMP DN TO BASEMENT CARPARK

RAMP UP TO ROOF CARPARK

VEHICULAR SERVICE RAMP DN TO LOADING DOCK

VEHICULAR SERVICE RAMP DN

TO LOADING DOCK



73

68

69

68

68

68

68

68

68

68

68

70

68

68

70

68

68

68

68

68

69

69

71

70

70

69

71

71

74

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

69

69

70

70

70

70

71

71

71

72

7373

73

70

7271

73

70

73

71 73

72

75

77

76

73

74

75

76

6868

69

68.8

68.6

68.4

68.2

70

69.8

69.6

69.2

69.4

70.2

70.2

70.4

70.4

70.4

70.6

70.6 70.6

70.2

70

69.8

70.4

70.6

69

69.2

69.4

69.6

69.8

68.8

68.4

68.6

69.2

69.4

69.6

69.8

70

70.2

69.8

70.2

71.2

71.2

71

71

70.6

70.6

70.6

67.6

67.4

67.4

67.6

67.6

67.6

67.8

67.6

67.4

67.4

67.4

67.4

67.6

69

69

70

70

70

70

68.8

68.4

69.2

69.6

70

70.2

68.2

68.2

68.4

68.6

68.2

68.6

68.2

68.2

68.2

68.4

70.6

70.8

68.2

69.2

69.8

70

69.6

69.6

69.669.469.2

70

69.4

70

70.4

70.2

70.4

70.4 70

.6

70.2

68.8

68.8

68.4

68.6

68.2

68

68.4

68.6

68.8

69

69.2 69.8

70

70 70

69.2

69.4

69.4 69.6

69.8 70 70

.2

70.4

70.6

70.8

71

71.2

71

71.4

70.4

70.4

69.6

69

70

70.2

70.2

70 70.4

69.869.6

69.4

69.2

69.2

68

68.2

68

68.2

68

67.8

68

67.8

67.8

68

68.2

68.2

68

67.8

68

68

67.8

67.6

68

68.2

67.8

67.6

67.8

67.6

68

68

68

68.2

68.2

68.4

69

68.2

68

68.2

68.8

68.8

68.2

67.4

67.4

67.4

67.6

67.8

68

67.8

68

68.2

68.4

68.2

68

68

67.8

67.6

68

68.2

68.4

68.8

69

69.2

69.4

69.6

68

69

69

68.8

69.2

69.2

69.469.8

67.8

67.8

67.8

68

67.8

68.2

68.6

67.8

68

67.4

67.6

69.670

70.2

70.4

70

70.4

70.2

68.4

68

68.6

68

69

67.8

68.268

68.268

67.8

67.6

67.4

67.4

6867.6

67.8

67.6

72

70.4

70

70

78

71.4

75

76

71 75

70.4

70.2

70.6

70.8

71.2

70.4

70.2

70.4

73

72

75.0

89.8

82.1

11.5

59.1

58.8

50.7 66.7 5.6 40.5 14.6 6.6

PROPOSED DDS

NEW MINI MAJOR

PROPOSED SUPERMARKET

PASS. LIFTTRAVELATORS FROMPARKING BELOW

EXISTING

DEPARTMENT STORE

LEVEL 1

MINI MAJOR

EXISTING SUPERMARKET

EXISTINGLIFT CORE

SPECIALTYLOADING

EXISTING PARKING

ALTERED EXISTING PARKING

ESCALATORS FROM

BASEMENT PARKING BELOW

HARVEY NORMANLOADINGDOCK

BURWOOD HIGHWAY

MEZZANINE OVER

NEW

MINI MAJOR

RL.69.0

RL.69.00RL.69.00

4

24

23

32

9

16

3

staff bicyclestorage /amenities

GOODSLIFTS

GOODS LIFTS

ESCALATORS UP TO L2M

NEW

MINI MAJOR

NEW

MINI MAJOR

NEW

MINI MAJOR

RL. 69.2 RL

. 71.4

RL. 70.0

RL. 70.0

RL. 69.6

EXISTING PARKING

BASEMENT CA

RPARK B

ELOW

RL. 70.

40

visitorsbicycle area

NEW

MINI MAJOR

NEW D

LOADING

DOCK

LINE OFBUILDINGABOVE

TRUCKTURNINGAREA

NEW

MINI MAJOR

RL. 67.8

RAMP D

OWN TO

BASEME

NT PARK

ING

RL. 7

2.50

RL. 70.

40

100 cup

ic metre

Rain W

ater Tan

k

NEW

MINI MAJOR

NEW

MINI MAJOR

ALTERATIONS TO LEVEL 1 CARPARK

ALTERATIONS TO LEVEL 1 CARPARK

STUD ROAD

MELBOURNE STREET

TRAVELATORS UP TO L2

PROPOSED MALL

EXISTING MALL

AMENITIES

STORAGE

AMENITIES

DEMOLISHEX-PASSLIFT

NEW PASSLIFT

MINI MAJOR

RL.69.00

LINE OF L1MCARPARK ABOVE

RAMP DN FROM LEVEL 1M CARPARK

RAMP UP TO LEVEL 1M CARPARK

RAMP DN TO LEVEL 1 CARPARK

RL.69.0

EX. MYER LOADING

DOCK

NEW LOADING

DOCK

NEW L.D.

LOFT L.D.

NEW L.D.

EXISTING COLES

LOADING DOCK

TOYS R USLOADING DOCK

paving refer to level 2 plan

RL.69.0 RL.69.0

RL.69.0

RL.68.5

RL.69.0

RL.69.0

REFER TO LANDSCAPINGDRAWINGS

REFER TO LANDSCAPINGDRAWINGS

REFER TO LANDSCAPING

DRAWINGS

Mall

Ent ry

Mall

Entry

Mall

Entry

MallEntry

MallEntry

Mall

Entry

Mall

Entry

Level 1

Mall

Entry

4

1

2 3

5

7

9

10

8

6

21.8

50.8

48.5

72.3

33.5

72.2

48.6

UP TO PARKING OVER

EXISTINGLIFT CORE

MODIFIED EXISTINGLOADING DOCK

MINI MAJOR DOCK

SPECIALTY LOADING

ESCALATORS FROM L1

BURWOOD HIGHWAY

MINI MAJOR

MINI MAJOR

MINI MAJOR

MINI MAJOR

RL.69.0

RL.69.00

12

31

3

RAMP UP TO LEVEL 2 CARPARK


ESCALATORS UP TO L2

RL. 69.2 RL

. 71.4

RL. 79.8

RL. 77.2

RL. 74.8

RL. 73.6

RL. 69.4

RL. 70.0

RL. 68.0

RL. 70.0

RL. 70.0

RL. 76.2

RL. 74.6

RL. 68.2

EXISTING PARKING

NEW LEVEL 1M CARPARK

PASS LIFT

NEW RAMP UP TO LEVEL 2 CARPARK

RL. 71.4

RL. 69.2 RL

. 71.4

RL. 71.4

BURWOOD HIGHWAY

STUD ROAD

ADELAIDE STREET



HUGHES ST

PROPOSED DDS

PASS. LIFT

MEZZANINE OVER

GOODSLIFTS

GOODS LIFTS

RL. 69.2

RL. 69.6

BASEMENT CA

RPARK B

ELOW

visitorsbicycle area

RAMP D

OWN TO

BASEME

NT PARK

ING

RL. 72.50

RL. 70.4

0

100 cup

ic metre

Rain W

ater Tan

k

NEW

MINI MAJOR

NEW

MINI MAJOR

RL. 68.0

CARPARK BELOW

RAMP DN TO L1 CARPARK

RAMP UP FROM L2 CARPARK

RL. 71.75

EXISTING

DEPARTMENT STORE

LEVEL 1 BELOW

RELOCATED BUS STATION

RELOCATED SUPERMARKET

DOCK

staff bicyclestorage /amenities

RL. 75.0

RL. 72.4

ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING

ON GRADE PARKING

MELBOURNE STREET

REZES ST

LITTLE BURWOOD HWY

RL. 74.6

RL. 75.0

Level 1 Mezzanine

Mall

Entry

MallEntry

Mall

Entry

Mall

Entry

MallEntry

RL. 68.0

RAMP DN TO L1 CARPARK


VEHICULAR SERVICE RAMP DN TO LOADING DOCK

VEHICULAR SERVICE RAMP DN

TO LOADING DOCK



STUD ROAD

DROP O

FF

4

1

2 3

5

7

9

10

8

6

11.456

10.2

6.814.3

36.540.4

42.3

31.181.5

189.6

33.8

50.0

53.4

23.3

29.6 23.5

41.7

11.7

8.8

EXISTING SETBACK

21.9

102.2

83.1

22.7

156.9

3.0

184.7

METAL DECK ROOFOVER MYER L1 BELOW

VOID

PORTE C

OCHERE

RAMP D

OWN TO

BASEME

NT PARK

ING

VOID VOID VOID VOID VOID

VOID

VOIDVOIDVOID

TRAVELATORS FROMPARKING ABOVE

EXISTINGLIFT CORE

EXISTING DDS

EXISTING E LOADING DOCK

LEVEL 2 CARPARK

MODIFIED EXISTING PARKING

VOID

PROPOSED

AUTO REPAIR

PASS. LIFT

PROPOSED DDS

PROPOSED

MINI MAJOR

EXISTING MYER

DEPARTMENT STORE

LEVEL 2

VOID

VOID

VOID

VOID

VOID

NEWGOODS LIFTS

NEWPASS. LIFT


RL. 74.3

GOODS LIFTS

RL. 74.50

RL. 73.85

PROPOSED

MINI MAJOR

VOID

VOID

GOODS

LIFTS

PROPOSED

MINI MAJOR

RL. 79.8

RL. 67.6

RL. 68.2

RL. 69.0

RL. 70.4

RL. 71.4

RL. 79.8

RL. 77.2

RL. 69.4

RL. 70.0

RL. 69.6 RL

. 69.2

RL. 73.6

5

RL. 7

2.50

RL. 69.0

RL. 68.2

VALET/ CONCIERGE

RL. 68.2


NEW LEVEL 2 CARPARK

NEW LEVEL 2 CARPARK





VOID

EXISTING MINI MAJORNEW TRAVELATOS UP TO L2M

PROPOSED MAJOR

VOID

EXISTING

MINI MAJOR

VOID

VOID

VOID

VOID

VOIDVOIDVOIDVOIDVOID

VOID

VOID

VOID

VOID

VOID

EXISTING MINI MAJOR

EXISTING

MINI

MAJOR

PROPOSED

MINI MAJOR

PROPOSED

MINI MAJOR

PROPOSED

MINI MAJOR

PROPOSED

MINI MAJOR

PROPOSED

MINI MAJOR

PROPOSED

MINI MAJOR

RL. 70.6

RL. 71.4

RL. 72.0

RL. 70.8

visitors bicycle area


NEWGOODS LIFT

PROPOSED LOCATION OF

BUS INTERCHANGE

RL. 71.4

RL. 71.4

RL. 70.8

BURWOOD HIGHWAY

STUD ROAD

ADELAIDE STREET



HUGHES ST

PROPOSED

AMENITIE

S

PROPOSED

AMENITIES

K-MART

DEMOLISHEX-PASSLIFT

NEW PASS

LIFT

VOID

VOID

VOID

RL. 74.00

RL. 74.50

RL. 74.60

RL. 74.70

RL. 7410

RAMP DN TO LEVEL 1M CARPARK

RAMP UP FROM LEVEL 1M CARPARK

RL. 74.50

RELOCATED BUS STATION

RL. 75.0

RL. 72.4

MELBOURNE STREET

REZES ST

LITTLE BURWOOD HWY

RL. 77.2

RL. 74.8

RL. 73.6

RL. 76.2

RL. 74.6

RL. 75.0


REZES ST

HUGHES ST

RL. 74.50

RL. 74.50

Level 2

Documents

Westfield Knox Drainage Analysis · 2014-04-17 · Westfield Knox Drainage Analysis Flooding, Construction and Stormwater Quality Advice 01 April 2014 Cardno 8 Figure 3-4 Flood Level