Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed garage doors areacceptable and satisfy the performance criteria for the following reason:-• the overhanging balconies, greater setback of the garages and large landscaped areas inthe front setback area will contribute to the streetscape and reduce any bulk impact of thegarage doors on the streetscape.Buildings setback from the boundaryProposedSite 1 GF: LHS/east:- media and kitchen wall 1.0 metres 1.5 metresSite 1 FF: LHS/east:- balcony slab- stair to master bed balcony wallNil1.5 metresAcceptable development provision1.0 m1.8-1.9 metresSite 2 GF: RHS/west:- media and kitchen wall 1.0 metres 1.5 metresSite 2 FF: RHS/west:- balcony slab- stair to master bed balcony wallPerformance criteria:Nil1.5 metres1.0 m1.5-1.6 metresBuildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;• assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties;• assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.Both dwellings have a ground floor section of wall, media to kitchen, with major openings butset back 1.0 metre in lieu of the minimum requirement of 1.5 m from each side boundary. Thefloor level of this section is lower than the natural ground level, so the dividing fence will screenthe kitchen window and most of the media room windows. These walls are only 7.2 metreslong. It is considered that these walls are acceptable and satisfy the above performancecriteria as the walls do not have any significant impact on access to direct sun and ventilationfor the neighbouring properties, and the lower finished floor level reduces the bulk impact onadjoining properties. The dividing fence will effectively screen most of the windows so thereare no major privacy issues.The upper floor section of wall - stair to master bed balcony - on both dwellings are situatedcloser to the side boundaries than the acceptable development requirement. These variationsare considered minor and, not including the balconies, the walls comply with the setbackrequirement. The balconies are open structures, with 1.65 metre high privacy screens, and donot significantly add to the bulk of the development. There are no major openings in thesesections of wall. In view of these comments, the setback of these sections of walls from theside boundaries is considered acceptable.The plans show the concrete floor slabs of the front balconies of each dwellings extending toboth side boundaries (ie. nil setback). To the eastern side boundary is Site 1's balconyconcrete slab, which measures 2.5 metres along the side boundary. To the western sideH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 19