MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

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