12.07.2015 Views

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes - 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.

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012With regard to the above performance criteria, the applicant has advised that the proposedlocation is preferred, due to its close proximity to the building, convenience for users andaccess to services (water, sewer, electricity, gas). Increasing the setback <strong>of</strong> the building fromthe eastern side boundary from nil to 1.0 metre would effectively reduce the width <strong>of</strong> thedriveway to a minimum <strong>of</strong> 2.8 metres which would be too narrow for such a development.The adjoining property to the east is a duplex development, with a single garage and backyardadjacent to the proposed bin store and laundry building. Boundary setbacks serve severalobjectives, including to moderate the visual impact <strong>of</strong> building bulk on a neighbouring propertyand to assist with the protection <strong>of</strong> privacy between adjoining properties. A 3.0 metre high wall,extending for 43% <strong>of</strong> the neighbouring property's rear boundary, will have an impact on theamenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property, particularly in relation to building bulk. The Kings Apartmentsproperty is large with ample open space at the rear.Notwithstanding the applicant's comments, it is considered that there are other possiblelocations, in particular closer to the rear car park, that would be able to accommodate theproposed building, without any significant impact on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining properties,reduction in the width <strong>of</strong> the driveway, or removal <strong>of</strong> the existing screening vegetation along theeastern side boundary. Such an alternate location may result in the removal <strong>of</strong> a car bay,however, the car parking area is large and if suitably line marked, it is likely that an additionalcar bay(s) to make up for the loss could be accommodated in this area.Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed bin store and laundrywall on the east side boundary is not acceptable and does not comply with the performancecriteria for the following reason:-• the wall is likely to have an adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property,particularly in relation to impact <strong>of</strong> building bulk.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning SchemeNo.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> PlanningScheme.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 10

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!