MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Performance criteria:Development that retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from thestreet or other public place, or from an adjoining property.Fill adjacent to the front boundaryThe above section of report discusses the retaining wall proposed under the front fencing andsupports this wall. The retaining wall will be stepped down from east to west, following thenatural level of the site as viewed from the street. The retaining wall will be 1.05 metres high atits highest point (western corner), but will range in height to be less than 0.5 metres in somepart.Fill adjacent to the north-west (side) boundaryThe land slopes down to the north-west boundary and therefore filling of land is proposedadjacent to this boundary to level the site. There are three areas of fill, comprising:-• small triangular pocket of land between the swimming pool and the north-west boundary• small triangular pocket of land between the swimming pool deck and the north-westboundary• large triangular area of outdoor living adjacent to the deck, between the dwelling and thenorth-west boundary.The west elevation shows that these three areas will have a proposed finished ground level ofRL 10.35 (0.1 metres lower than the dwelling). The first two smaller pockets are considered tobe more service areas for the pool as they will be screened from the main living areas by a 1.2metre high swimming pool wall and a 1.8 metre high deck privacy wall. No reasoning has beenprovided to bring the outdoor living area level to the boundary in these locations, which resultsin fill up to 1.06 metres high at the boundary. In addition, the plan shows no change to theexisting dividing fence in these locations. For these reasons it is considered that filling of landshould be restricted to the acceptable development height of 0.5 metres. A condition can beincluded in this regard. It should be noted that the designer has been contacted on this matterand he has confirmed that it is an error on the west elevation to show that these areas at aproposed level of RL 10.35. The proposal is to not change the levels of these areas from theircurrent levels.In relation to the large triangular area of outdoor living, the proposed fill ranges from 0.66metres high to less than 0.5 metres high above natural ground level, to bring the outdoor livingarea to a flat level consistent with the swimming pool deck and dwelling. The plans also showa new 1.8 metre high dividing fence above this level to ensure privacy. It is considered that thissection of fill is acceptable as it is a minor variation and a new fence above will ensure privacyto the north facing outdoor living area and pool deck.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of fill adjacentto the front boundary and in the rear section of the north-west side boundary satisfies theperformance criteria for the following reasons:-• the development retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site as seen fromthe street; and• the fill in the rear section of the north-west side boundary is only slightly higher, in part,than the acceptable development requirement and a new dividing fence above will ensureprivacy.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 49
COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013However, the level of fill proposed to hold two small triangular pockets of land between theswimming pool and the swimming pool deck along the north-western boundary is consideredunnecessary as these areas are service areas, screened from the main living areas. Acondition is included restricting fill in these areas to the maximum acceptable developmentrequirement of 0.5 metres.Building heightOverall height (flat, skillion orcurved roof)Performance criteria:ProposedMaximum 7.45 metresAcceptable development provisionMaximum 7.0 metresBuilding height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognisethe 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.The plans show a 5 degree skillion roof above the upper floor. The upper floor runs north-southon the block, and the skillion roof slopes up from east to west. The lowest point of the skillion isadjacent to the east side boundary. The portion of roof that is over height is the top mostportion of the skillion which is central to the site, far from neighbouring properties.The owners of the adjoining property to the east have objected to the height of the building.Their submission (summarised as an attachment) raises concerns that over time, the finishedground levels of the site have been raised. The existing dwelling is raised at the front (brickbuild up) and the front yard was levelled for the pool and surrounding outdoor living area.Concerns are also raised that the development will block views of Reabold hill for many ownersto the east.With regard to the performance criteria, the skillion roof provides improved views to the parkand hill beyond for adjoining properties to the east compared with a pitched roof that compliedwith acceptable development requirements. A pitched roof could be at least 1.55 metres higherthan the proposed development. A flat roof would comply with the acceptable developmentrequirements, however, it is considered that the skillion roof form provides more interest andimproves the aesthetic of the home without affecting views.The skillion’s highest point (worst height) has been measured from a natural ground level (RL9.9) that has not been modified by brick build up for the dwelling or fill for the pool area. Thewall facing the east side boundary is less than 6.0 metres high. The roof slopes up from theeast, so the bulk of the skillion and its worst height is central to the site, with no significant bulkimpact on the adjoining property to the east. The dwelling is two storey, which is consistentwith the desired height of buildings in the locality. South is to the street so access to direct sunfor the neighbouring properties is not affected by the over height wall.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 50
Page 1 and 2: Council Minutes26 FEBRUARY 2013
Page 3 and 4: COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY
Page 51: COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY
Page 103 and 104:
COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY
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?