Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Notwithstanding that a compliant development may have a more detrimental impact on theamenity of the adjoining property, assessing this particular plan, it is difficult to argue that thegarage walls do not have any adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining properties. A 1.0metre setback for Site 1's garage would increase No. 5 Lake Monger Drive's view corridor. A1.0 metre setback for Site 2's garage would reduce the bulk impact of the development on No.9 Lake Monger Drive. However, the applicant has shown that the greater front setback of thegarage adjacent to the east side boundary improves the view corridor compared with acompliant development with a 1.0 metre setback, and the owner of the adjoining property to thewest has not given any reason for now objecting to the boundary wall on the west sideboundary.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed garage walls on theeast and west side boundaries satisfy the performance criteria for the following reasons:-• the increased front setback of the garages reduces the negative impacts of the boundarywalls on the amenity of the adjoining properties and the streetscape.Building heightWall heightPerformance criteria:ProposedSite 1: max 7.9 metresSite 2: max 8.0 metresAcceptable development provisionMax 6.0 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 for each dwelling a large loft area containing a guest bedroom, bathroom andutility room. Each dwelling has two large dormer windows facing the side boundary and adormer window facing the street.In discussions with the applicant, it appears that the design was based on the previous BuildingHeight policy, which exempted dormers of any size in the building height calculation.Furthermore, there is a development at No. 3 Lake Monger Drive which was built relativelyrecently comprising three, three storey dwellings.In response to concerns raised about a number of large, three storey recent developments, theBuilding Height Policy was amended in May 2009 to adopt the more stringent R Codesacceptable development provisions for overall height. The Building Height Policy wasamended again in May 2011 to include size restrictions for dormers.The intent of revising the Building Height Policy to a lower maximum overall height restrictionand to a size restriction on dormers is to effectively limit development to two storeys and allowroof space for general storage only rather than an extensive e floor with a habitable room orrooms as is proposed here.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 21
COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012As the proposed dormers are larger than what the policy allows, the dormers are included inthe wall height calculation, therefore resulting in a development that does not comply with thewall height acceptable development requirements.It is acknowledged that obtaining views is a significant issue affecting development, and in thisarea, particularly around Lake Monger. Dispensing with the height requirements (performancecriteria) to allow the applicant to get better views of Lake Monger and more floor space is notconsidered appropriate. The performance criteria are intended to facilitate alternative designsolutions which result in comparable or better outcomes than what the acceptable developmentprovisions provide. In this particular case, the proposed third storey is not likely to providesimilar or better outcomes for the streetscape and the neighbouring properties than theacceptable development provisions. It is considered the proposed third storey does not satisfythe above performance criteria and is therefore not supported.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of thedevelopment is not acceptable and does not satisfy the performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• the increased height and bulk of the dwellings will result in negative impacts on thestreetscape and the amenity of the neighbouring properties.Landscaping in the primary street/front setback areaProposedLandscaping Site 1: 53%Site 2: 59%Acceptable development provisionMin 60%Performance criteria:• The street setback area developed and planted to present a substantially “green”appearance, allowing views to the dwellings; and• Development which minimises impact on the natural topography of the locality andconserves significant landscape elements, including indigenous trees.The driveways are tapered from double to single, to maximise the landscaping areas in thefront setback. In addition the setback of the garages is greater than the minimum (6 and 8metres in lieu of the 4.0 metre minimum requirement), and so additional landscaping areas areproposed behind the front setback line. Together, the result is that the development willpresent a substantially "green" appearance. There are no street trees that require removal forthis development.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed landscaping in thefront setback area is acceptable and satisfy the performance criteria for the following reason:-• the landscaping proposed will present a substantially green appearance to the street,allowing views to the dwellings.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 22
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 74 and 75:
COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?