Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011<br />
The West Leederville Study proposes development controls based on building height and<br />
setback provisions (i.e. built form controls) instead <strong>of</strong> traditional plot ratio (floor area) controls.<br />
However, it is proposed to retain plot ratio provisions as part <strong>of</strong> the proposed amendments as<br />
an incentive to developers to achieve the desired urban design outcomes outlined in the IDPs.<br />
The base plot ratio has been kept at 1:1 for both nodes to ensure the attractiveness to<br />
developers to seek bonus plot ratio and hence achieve the desired urban design outcomes.<br />
The proposed plot ratio figures were modelled to ensure bonus floorspace could generally be<br />
accommodated within the height and setback requirements. The two to three storeys height<br />
limit to the north side <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, as proposed under the West Leederville Study, was<br />
identified as being prohibitive to achieving any benefit from the plot ratio bonuses (and is<br />
discussed further below).<br />
Building Height<br />
The West Leederville Study identified minimum and maximum building height provisions for<br />
each <strong>of</strong> the nodes and these have been included as part <strong>of</strong> the amendments.<br />
However, as mentioned above, the two to three storey height limit imposed on properties to the<br />
north <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street does not allow developers opportunity to take up any bonus plot ratio<br />
(minimising the chance <strong>of</strong> achieving key strategic initiatives, such as widening rear laneways).<br />
The rationale behind the three storey height limit to the north <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street was to<br />
minimise the potential impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on the adjacent residential area to the north. To<br />
address this issue, it is proposed to adopt a performance based assessment towards additional<br />
building height above two storeys. The developer would need to demonstrate how the design<br />
<strong>of</strong> their building ameliorates the negative effects <strong>of</strong> excessive building bulk on the adjacent<br />
residential area, if additional storeys above two are proposed.<br />
Side and Rear Setbacks<br />
A maximum wall height <strong>of</strong> three storeys is proposed for walls built to a common boundary,<br />
reflecting the desired urban form for the two nodes.<br />
Side and rear setbacks, above three storeys have been introduced as part <strong>of</strong> the amendments<br />
to ensure an acceptable level <strong>of</strong> amenity between buildings and allow for access to light and<br />
ventilation. The side and rear setbacks increase as the width <strong>of</strong> the lot increases, reflecting the<br />
potential increase <strong>of</strong> building bulk that could be accommodated on larger lots.<br />
Residential Development<br />
In November 2010, the Residential Design Codes were amended to include multi-unit housing<br />
provisions. As part <strong>of</strong> the amendments to the Codes, the R-AC code was introduced to guide<br />
the development <strong>of</strong> multiple dwellings within mixed use development and activity centres. The<br />
R-AC code specifies provisions for maximum plot ratio, setbacks and building height for the<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> residential development.<br />
The proposed amendments introduce the R-AC 0 code for residential development within the<br />
two nodes, replacing the R80 residential density. It is noted a bonus plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 1:1 is proposed<br />
to encourage the development <strong>of</strong> residential apartments.<br />
COMMENT:<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 128