MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.5LOT 9 (NO. 41) CONNOLLY STREET, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED TWO, THREESTOREY DWELLINGSSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for two, three storey grouped dwellings at No. 41Connolly Street, Wembley. The plans show each dwelling side by side with mirrored floorplans, with double garages facing the street.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the sidesetback, site works, building height, garage door width performance criteria of the ResidentialDesign Codes of WA (R Codes) and the landscaping in the front setback area performancecriteria of the Town’s Streetscape policy, and objections have been received during theconsultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval.Whilst elements of the proposal can be supported, the proposal is not considered to satisfy thebuilding height performance criteria for the following reason:-• the proposed building height is not consistent with the desired height of buildings in thelocality.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to the floor levels of thedwellings being lowered by 1.0 metre. This will also reduce remove variations to site works andreduce variations to side setbacks.BACKGROUND:Application: 542DA-2012Owner:Mr T Ricciardello and Mr G HestelowApplicant: Ricciardello Nominees Trading As WeststyleZoning:Residential R30Use class: Dwelling (grouped) ‘AA’ – not permitted unless Council has granted planningapprovalLand area: 736 m²DETAILS:Development description• There is currently a single dwelling on site that is proposed to be demolished.• The site has a difference in level of approximately four metres over the site, rising fromthe front up to the rear. There is no laneway access.• To the south of the subject site is a two, three storey dwelling development of similarheight to that proposed with this application. This development was approved by Councilon 22 May 2001 when wall height was measured from a central point of the proposeddevelopment rather than from any natural ground level directly below the development.• To the north of the subject site is an original single dwelling.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 35
COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• The proposal is to construct two, side by side dwellings with the same (mirrored) floorplans. Each dwelling comprises:-o Ground floor: garage and storeo First floor: main living areas with front balcony and rear cabana (at ground level)o Second floor: master bedroom with front balcony, games room, two bedrooms, twobathrooms.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the three properties directly adjoining the subject site, beingNo. 43 Connolly Street to the north, No. 39B Connolly Street to the south and the CatherineMcauley Villas and Community Centre to the rear. In addition, due to the height variations, theTown also notified the properties across the road (Nos. 38, 40A, 40B, and 42 Connolly Street).Two submissions were received from the owners No. 39B Connolly Street and No. 43 ConnollyStreet objecting to overshadowing, height, setbacks, building bulk, and privacy. A summary ofthe submissions are attached to this agenda.Performance criteria assessmentGarage doorsProposedAcceptable development provisionGarage door width 80% Maximum 60% of the frontagePerformance criteria:The extent of frontage and building façade occupied by garages assessed against the need tomaintain a desired streetscape not dominated by garage doors.The property has no rear laneway so car parking is required off Connolly Street. The plansshow a double garage for each dwelling, similar to the development to the south.To reduce the impact of the garages, the garages are set back further than the two upperfloors, with the balconies of both upper floors overhanging the garages. In addition, the designof the upper floors is likely to be more prominent on the streetscape than the garage doors.The landscaping provided in the front setback area will also assist in reducing the appearanceof the garages on the streetscape.Notwithstanding these comments, it should be noted that the level of the garages is similar, ifnot slightly higher than the adjoining verge (particularly at kerb level). The dwelling presents asthree storey, rather than two storey with an undercroft. The height of the building is furtherdiscussed below, but a lowering of the garage level would assist in reducing the dominance ofthe garages on the streetscape.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 36
Page 1 and 2: Council Minutes26 FEBRUARY 2013
Page 3 and 4: COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY
Page 37: COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY
Page 89 and 90:
COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY
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:
show all

MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

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

Delete template?

Save as template?