Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012boundary is Site 2's balcony concrete slab which comes to a point at the side boundary. Theactual balcony does not extend to the side boundaries, as the balustrade and privacy screenstops 1.5 metres from the east side boundary for Site 1's balcony and 1.8 metres from the westside boundary for Site 2's balcony. It is considered that extending the concrete slabs to theboundary is not integral to the development, and only adds to the bulk impact on the adjoiningproperties. The nil setback of the upper floor concrete slabs for the front balconies is thereforenot supported.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks of theground floor kitchen to media walls and the upper floor stair to master bed balcony walls fromthe side boundaries are acceptable and satisfy the performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• the proposed setbacks do not impact on access to direct sun to the adjoining properties orresult in significant bulk on the adjoining properties.The nil setback for the first floor front balcony concrete slabs for both dwellings is, however, notsupported.Buildings on boundaryGarage wallPerformance criteria:ProposedSite 1: NilSite 2: NilAcceptable development provisionMin 1.0 mMin 1.0 mBuildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so inorder to:• make effective use of space; or• enhance privacy; or• otherwise enhance the amenity of the development;• not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and• ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas ofadjoining properties is not restricted.A double garage built up to each side boundary is proposed. In isolation the walls are notconsidered excessive as they are 7 metres long and approximately 3.0 metres high. Initially,the owner of the adjoining property to the west (9 Lake Monger Drive) had no objection to thegarage wall but has since withdrawn her support. The owner of the adjoining property to theeast (5 Lake Monger Drive) is objecting to loss of views to the lake. The applicant hassubmitted a diagram showing the current plan with the garage set back 6.0 metres from thefront boundary and nil from the side boundary provides a greater view corridor than a buildingcompliant with the R Codes acceptable development requirement (ie. front setback of 4.0metres and side setback of 1.0 metre). A compliant building would be considerably closer tothe street than the development proposed, and also the dwelling situated at No. 5 Lake MongerDrive.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 20
Page 1: Council Minutes26 JUNE 2012
Page 4 and 5: MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF
Page 6 and 7: COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012
Page 72 and 73:
COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204:
show all

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?