Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DETAILS:Development description• The existing residence is a single storey brick and tile dwelling with a large backyard thatslopes down to the rear.• To the north is the adjoining property at No. 221 Selby Street, to the east is Selby Street,and to the south is a pedestrian accessway to the Parks and Recreation Reserve(Bournville Park) to the west of the property.• The property is irregular shaped, with a wide (28.26 metres) frontage, narrow rearboundary (4.26 metres) and an angled southern boundary adjacent to the pedestrianaccessway (PAW).• The proposed development has been designed to take advantage of the northern aspect,with the main outdoor living area and pool on the northern side of the property and largeindoor living area windows facing north.• An open style fence and gate is also proposed along the front boundary and part of thesouthern side boundary.• Due to the significant downwards slope of the block (difference of approximately 3.0metres from front to the rear), stepped retaining walls and filling of land are proposed forthe rear half of the property.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to boundary setbacks, site works, building height and visual privacyNeighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the property to the north of the subject site, being No. 221Selby Street, and the properties on the other side of the pedestrian accessway to the south andsouth-west of the subject site, being Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8 The Boulevard. The owners of No. 221Selby Street and No. 6 The Boulevard viewed the plans and comments were received from theowner of No. 6 The Boulevard objecting to the use of a raised metal boundary fence adjacent tothe PAW. The objection is that this type of fence will allow street noise and reverberation tointrude over his timberlap fence. Metal fencing is an approved type of sufficient fence, and theexisting fence along the PAW is metal, however, an advice note to the applicant can beincluded in this regard.Performance criteria assessmentBuildings setback from the boundaryGF RHS/north:- Master bedroom wall- Alfresco to verandah wallProposed1.0 metre1.5 metresAcceptable development provision1.0 metre – 1.1 metres1.5 - 2.7 metresUF RHS/north:- Bed 5 wall to void pillar 1.5 metres 1.8 – 2.0 metresH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 47
COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Performance criteria:Buildings 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.The proposed development is to the south of the adjoining property, so the reduced setbackswill have no impact on the adjoining property’s access to direct sun. The proposed setbacksare sufficient to allow for ventilation. In relation to building bulk, the closest point of the upperfloor extends for a length of 13 metres along the 45.26 metre long side boundary, with 4.6metres being for an open void above the alfresco below. The remainder of the upper floor isset well back from the boundary, reducing bulk impact. There are no windows in this wall, andthe two windows facing north are minor openings, so privacy is not an issue. It should also benoted that no comments have been received from the owners of the adjoining property to thenorth.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks of thedevelopment from the north side boundary are acceptable and comply with the performancecriteria for the following reasons:-• the proposed setbacks do not impact on access to direct sun to the adjoining property; and• the proposed length of the upper floor wall directly adjacent to the side boundary is short incomparison to the length of the side boundary, thereby minimising bulk impact.Site worksRetaining walls andfilling of landPerformance criteria:ProposedLHS/south: max approx1.15 metresRHS/north: max approx1.05 metresAcceptable development provisionMax 0.5 metresDevelopment that retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from thestreet or other public place, or from an adjoining property.The site slopes down from front to rear by approximately 3.0 metres. The plans show threedifferent levels to be established, terraced down to follow the natural slope of the land.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 48
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 100 and 101:
COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012
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?