Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011 Submission three (No. 23 Bent Street, No. 3 Adori Place, No. 4 Adori Place, No. 5 Adori Place City Beach) We have viewed the plans for the proposed dwelling and conclude that its development will not impinge on our privacy or amenity. We feel it is appropriate "fit" with the exiting streetscapes of both Adori Place and Bent Street and will not detract from the general aesthetics of the area. Assessment Against the Performance Criteria Building height Proposed Maximum wall height 8.45 metres (west and south elevations) 7.0 metres (east elevation) Acceptable development provision 6.5 metres Performance criteria: Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate: adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and access to views of significance. Given the excavated nature of the existing dwelling at the subject property, a wall height variation occurs on the Adori Place (west) elevation and the Bent Street (south) elevation as measured from the natural ground level. The visual impact on the primary and secondary streetscapes has been reduced through the use of feature walls, balcony, windows and porch providing horizontal and vertical articulation. These architectural features provide interesting facades as viewed from Adori Place and Bent Street. The proposed dwelling meets is compliant with the overall height limit of 9.5 metres allowable in City Beach. Amended plans have been received from the applicant reducing the roof pitch from 32 degrees to 26 degrees in an effort to protect the view corridors to the south-west and northwest from the rear adjoining residence immediately to the east. It should be noted that even at 32 degrees the roof height met requirements. The wall height variation on the eastern elevation is not considered to have an undue impact on the rear property at No. 22 Bent Street in terms of access of northern light to major openings of habitable rooms or active habitable spaces with any shadow falling on the existing pool area of the subject property at No. 2 Adori Place. Overall, it is considered that the proposed wall height variation complies with the performance criteria for the following reason:- the height of the dwelling is consistent with surrounding dwellings and does not have a significant impact on amenity of the adjoining properties. H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 13
COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011 Buildings setback from the boundary Rear setback (ground floor) Performance criteria: Proposed 1.5 - 4.45 metres to rear (east) boundary Acceptable development provision 6 metres Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. The proposed rear setback variation to the ground is not considered to adversely impact on the adjoining property on the rear (east) side due to the east-west orientation of the lot. Direct sun to major openings and active habitable spaces will not be compromised. The proposed walls on the rear elevation are located adjacent to the driveway and front setback area of the adjoining property to the east. Privacy between the two properties will be protected with all windows on the rear (east) elevation meeting the privacy provisions of the R Codes. A significant portion of the ground floor will be concealed by the existing dividing fence on the eastern boundary due to this property being at a lower level, reducing the perception of building bulk as viewed from the rear adjoining property at No. 22 Bent Street. It should be noted that the upper floor is set back a minimum of 6 metres from the rear boundary. Overall, it is considered that the reduced rear setback complies with the performance criteria for the following reason:- a large portion of the ground floor will be concealed by the existing dividing fence and therefore building bulk is minimised. Site works Retaining within 3.0 metres of street alignment Performance criteria: Proposed Maximum height of 2.9 metres within the secondary street (Bent Street) setback area Acceptable development provision Maximum height of 0.5 metre Development that retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from the street or other public place, or from an adjoining property. The impact of the proposed retaining wall within the secondary street setback area is considered to be reduced by the proposed landscaping of the embankment with the use of H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 14
Page 1 and 2: Council Minutes 20 December 2011
Page 3 and 4: COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER
Page 15: COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER
Page 67 and 68:
COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
COUNCIL 20 DECEMBER 2011 Best Water
Page 227 and 228:
COUNCIL 20 DECEMBER 2011 STRATEGIC
Page 229 and 230:
COUNCIL 20 DECEMBER 2011 10.3 METRO
Page 231 and 232:
COUNCIL 20 DECEMBER 2011 ADMINISTRA
Page 233 and 234:
COUNCIL 20 DECEMBER 2011 (c) (d) (e
Page 235 and 236:
COUNCIL 20 DECEMBER 2011 Discount P
Page 237 and 238:
COUNCIL 20 DECEMBER 2011 A further
Page 239 and 240:
COUNCIL 20 DECEMBER 2011 Amendment
Page 241 and 242:
COUNCIL 20 DECEMBER 2011 (a) (b) (c
Page 243:
COUNCIL 20 DECEMBER 2011 14. CLOSUR
show all

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?