MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013With regard to the performance criteria, the deck is considered acceptable as the portion thatextends into the front setback has only a minor impact on the streetscape due to its design - itis partly unroofed, has a glass balustrade and is cantilevered (no vertical supports).Furthermore, the irregular curved front boundary results in the majority of the dwellingconsiderably further from the front boundary than the minimum requirement.The owners of the adjoining property to the east have objected to the proposed front setback.Any views to the park from the adjoining dwelling (currently under construction) are likely to beobstructed by the living room corner rather than the deck.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the deckfrom the front boundary satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:-• the deck is a minor encroachment and its lightweight design combined with the irregularcurve shape of the front boundary results in no significant detrimental impact on thestreetscape;• the front setback variation is for the upper floor only and does not reduce the open spaceprovided in the front setback area.Street walls and fencesHeight of a solid wallPerformance criteria:ProposedFencing along the frontboundary: 1.9 – 2.35metresBin enclosure (east side)boundary: 1.3 metresAcceptable development provisionMaximum 0.5 metresFront walls and fences to promote surveillance and enhance streetscape, taking account of:• the need to provide protection from noise and headlight glare where roads are designatedas primary or district distributors or integrator arterials; or• the need to provide screening to the front setback; or• the need to provide privacy to north facing outdoor living areas.There is an existing high solid limestone wall along the majority of the front boundary. This wallis also acting as a retaining wall, holding a difference of up to 0.7 metres of fill to support thepool area behind the fence.The existing wall is proposed to be removed and replaced with a combination of solid renderedwall (with retaining wall under) and visually permeable horizontal timber infill panels. The plansshow the front setback area terraced down from east to west to follow the contours of the site,so the solid and visually permeable panels and retaining walls under will also be stepped downfrom east to west. The proposed fence does not follow the curve of the front boundary.Instead it is stepped with south facing and west facing planes, allowing pockets of landscapingbetween the fence and the front boundary.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 47
COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013The applicant has provided the following reasons in support of the proposed fence:-• surveillance of the home is substantial as the house sits up a little higher to allow for clearview;• Salvado Road and Alderbury Street carry more traffic than their immediate surroundingroads and the corner location and gradient of the road exacerbate issues such as trafficnoise and glare;• due to the irregular shape of the lot, the main outdoor play area will be located at the frontof the dwelling and it is preferable that some screening is provided, particularly given thatthere are public playing fields across the road; and• triangular pockets of landscaping between the fencing and the front boundary combinedwith the step in plan, will assist in lessening the bulk of the wall.With regard to the performance criteria, the fencing is 50 percent solid, with a range in heightfrom 1.9 metres up to 2.35 metres (including retaining wall below). The dwelling is at a higherlevel than the fence. For half of the fence, the top of the wall matches the finished floor level ofthe dwelling, and for the other half of the fence, the top of wall is 0.65 metres above the finishedfloor level of the dwelling. This will allow clear views of the street and park beyond from insidethe dwelling. With regard to privacy, the swimming pool and deck is central to the block andscreened by the dwelling. The fence screens the front yard (south and west of the dwelling)which the applicant describes as a play area.A bin store is also proposed adjacent to the eastern side boundary, but within the front setbackarea. The applicant has advised that the store wall will be 1.3 metres high. The existingfencing along the eastern side boundary is open style with pillars and iron infill. Whilst the storeis only small, there is sufficient room to relocate the store behind the front setback where asolid wall is acceptable and will not impact on the streetscape or amenity of the neighbouringproperty.Overall the reasons provided for the solid fencing and the assessment against the performancecriteria is not considered to be significant to warrant the extent of solid fencing proposed.Floreat is a residential garden suburb with high quality housing in an open parkland setting.Approval of the solid fencing is likely to create a precedent for future development.Site works is further discussed below, but there is a need for a solid (retaining) wall to hold theterraced levels. This solid wall will range in height from 0.7 metres to 1.05 metres abovenatural ground level, in lieu of the acceptable development requirement of 0.75 metres for asolid wall in the front setback. It is considered that the retaining wall provides sufficient solidityto the streetscape and the fencing above this wall should be visually permeable. A condition isincluded in this regard. Landscaping is proposed in front of and behind the fencing, so privacyto the play area could be achieved through thoughtful landscaping rather than a solid wall.Site worksRetaining walls and filling ofland within 3.0 metres of astreet alignmentRetaining walls and filling ofland within 1.0 metre of acommon boundaryProposedAcceptable development provision0.7 metres – 1.05 metres Maximum 0.5 metresMaximum 1.06 metresadjacent to the north-westside boundaryMaximum 0.5 metresH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 48
Page 1 and 2: Council Minutes26 FEBRUARY 2013
Page 3 and 4: COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY
Page 49: COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY
Page 101 and 102:
COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY
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?