MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012 To address Council’s main concern with the refused plans, being the wall height of the dwellings, the applicant amended the plans to reduce the size of the third storey and replace the third storey windows with dormers that complied with Council’s Building Height policy. The result is a development that is now close to compliance with the wall height acceptable development requirements. The wall height is further discussed below. DETAILS: Development description • Currently situated on the property is an original single storey bungalow, with a front single carport enclosed with a roller door adjacent to the front boundary. • The site has a slope up from front to rear of approximately 2.5 metres, and an angled rear boundary. • The plans show two, side by side dwellings, with similar but mirrored floor plans. The west side dwelling is set back further from the street than the east side dwelling, so both dwellings can achieve views of Lake Monger across the road. • The dwellings comprise: o Ground floor: front double garage, laundry and main living areas opening to a rear alfresco. Note: the rear of the property has been significantly cut so that the ground floor sits on one main level. o First floor: three bedrooms, a study, two bathrooms and a front balcony. o Loft floor: guest bedroom, bathroom and utility room. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to garage door width, side setbacks and landscaping in the front setback area. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the properties on either side of the subject site, being No. 5 Lake Monger Drive to the east and No. 9 Lake Monger Drive to the west. The owners of each of the two properties provided submissions objecting to the size, height, bulk and scale of the development, overshadowing, loss of views to the lake, and overlooking. Performance criteria assessment Garage doors Proposed Acceptable development provision Garage door width 81% Max 60% Performance criteria: The extent of frontage and building façade occupied by garages assessed against the need to maintain a desired streetscape not dominated by garage doors. The plans submitted show first floor balconies projected forward of the garage doors which will assist in reducing the visual impact of the garage doors on the streetscape. Furthermore, the garages are set back considerably more than the minimum front setback H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 27
COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012 acceptable development requirement (6.0 metres and 8.0 metres in lieu of 4.0 metres) and the driveways have been designed to maximise the landscaping areas, which will also contribute to the streetscape. The staggered siting of the proposed dwellings will also break up the massing and add interest to the development as a whole. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed garage doors are acceptable and satisfy the performance criteria for the following reason:- • the overhanging balconies, greater setback of the garages and large landscaped areas in the front setback area will contribute to the streetscape and reduce any bulk impact of the garage doors on the streetscape. Buildings setback from the boundary Site 1 GF: LHS/east: - media and kitchen wall Site 2 GF: RHS/west: - media and kitchen wall Site 2 UF: RHS/west - balcony slab Proposed Acceptable development provision 1.0 metre 1.5 metres 1.0 metre 1.5 metres Nil 1.0 metre Performance criteria: 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. Both dwellings have a ground floor section of wall, media to kitchen, with major openings but set back 1.0 metre in lieu of the minimum requirement of 1.5 m from each side boundary. The floor level of this section is lower than the natural ground level, so the dividing fence will screen the kitchen window and most of the media room windows. These walls are only 7.2 metres long. It is considered that these walls are acceptable and satisfy the above performance criteria as the walls do not have any significant impact on access to direct sun and ventilation for the neighbouring properties, and the lower finished floor level reduces the bulk impact on adjoining properties. The dividing fence will effectively screen most of the windows so there are no major privacy issues. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks of the ground floor kitchen to media walls from the side boundaries are acceptable and satisfy the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the proposed setbacks do not impact on access to direct sun to the adjoining properties or result in significant bulk on the adjoining properties. The nil setback for Site 2's first floor front balcony concrete slab is, however, not supported. H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 28
Page 1 and 2: Council Minutes 27 NOVEMBER 2012
Page 3 and 4: COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER
Page 29: COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER
Page 81 and 82:
COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER
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:
COUNCIL 27 NOVEMBER 2012 The projec
Page 225 and 226:
COUNCIL 27 NOVEMBER 2012 10.2 FORME
Page 227 and 228:
COUNCIL 27 NOVEMBER 2012 COMMUNITY
Page 229 and 230:
COUNCIL 27 NOVEMBER 2012 11. URGENT
show all

MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?