12.07.2015 Views

MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the streetscape issues.Neighbour submissionThe <strong>Town</strong> notified the owners <strong>of</strong> the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries <strong>of</strong> thesubject site, being Nos. 22 and 26 Truro Place. No submissions were received.Performance criteria assessmentSetbacks <strong>of</strong> buildings generallyPrimary StreetPerformance criteria:Proposed4.5 - 8.3 metres togarageAcceptable development provision7.5 metres to garageBuildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they:• contribute to the desired streetscape• provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and• allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.The narrowness <strong>of</strong> the lot towards the front <strong>of</strong> the site has resulted in the garage being forward<strong>of</strong> the dwelling with a minimum setback <strong>of</strong> 4.5 metres from the front boundary on the west sideand 8.3 metres on the east side. Although it sounds like a significant variation, it is noted thatthe setback on the eastern side is in line with the adjoining property and therefore would beconsistent with the streetscape. The reduced setback is on the western side and adjacent to avacant lot at the very top <strong>of</strong> the cul de sac and therefore the reduced setback would not be asobvious as if the lot was on a long stretch <strong>of</strong> road with contiguous large setbacks.It is recommended, however, that should Council consider supporting the variation that acondition <strong>of</strong> approval should require that no solid garage door be permitted which would meanthat the majority <strong>of</strong> the building within the front setback area was open and allowed views <strong>of</strong> thedwelling along the streetscape.Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback <strong>of</strong> thedevelopment from the primary street boundary satisfies with the performance criteria for thefollowing reasons:-• contributes to the desired streetscape and provides adequate privacy and open space fordwellings.Materials <strong>of</strong> ConstructionLocal Law 43Performance criteria:ProposedTimber and metalcladdingAcceptable development provisionBrick, stone, concrete or similarmaterial, or <strong>of</strong> brick veneerH:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 74

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!