The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMS-05-12 - Decision - 0105 Central AvenueCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING JOHN STEPHEN & ELIZABETH CAFLISCH -105 CENTRAL AVENUE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-05-12 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION John Stephen & Elizabeth Caflisch, hereafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking miscellaneous approval to install an erosion control measure (retaining wall along shoreline) and steps to new terrace, 105 Central Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public meeting on January 3, 2006. Steve Caflisch was present at the meeting. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicants are seeking miscellaneous approval to install an erosion control measure (retaining wall along shoreline) and steps to new terrace, 105 Central Avenue. 2. The subject property is located in the Queen City Park (QCP) Zoning District. 3. The owners of record of the subject property are John Stephen & Elizabeth Caflisch. 4. The plans submitted consist of a two (2) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled, "Site Plan Slope Repair Caflisch Property 105 Central Ave., S. Burl. VT", prepared by Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated 12/05/05 and an 1 V x 17' landscaping plan with a stamped received dated of Dec 9, 2005. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: The proposed use, in its location and operation, shall be consistent with the planned character of the area as defined by the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is not in conflict with the planned character of the area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the - 1 - proposed use is located. According to Section 4.08(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the Queen City Park district is designed to promote the area's historic development pattern of smaller lots and minimal setbacks. The district encourages the conversion of seasonal homes to year round residences. The proposed retaining wall will not affect the stated purpose of the Queen City Park Zoning District. The Development Review Board must find that the proposed uses will not adversely affect the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities. The proposal does not adversely affect municipal or educational facilities. (b) The essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. The proposal does not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The proposed addition will not affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws in effect. By approving the variance for setback encroachment, the proposed retaining wall will be in compliance with this criterion. The proposed retaining wall shall also adhere to Section 12(D)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, governing water -oriented development. (a) The improvement involves, to the greatest extent possible, the use of natural materials such as wood and stone. The applicant has proposed a retaining wall composed of natural stone rip -rap and stone steps. (b) The improvement will not increase the potential for erosion. When construction is complete,the proposed retaining wall will actually deter erosion better than the existing retaining wall and the steps will not increase the potential for erosion. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and his comments are stated in a memorandum dated December 29, 2005. -2- (c) The improvement will not have an undue adverse impact on the aesthetic integrity of the Lakeshore. The proposed retaining wall and steps are more aesthetically pleasing than the existing retaining wall and steps. (d) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve, maintain, and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake. A landscaping plan was submitted by the applicant. The City Arborist reviewed the landscaping plan and had no comments. Pursuant to Section 3.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: The Development Review Board in granting conditional use approval may impose conditions of the following: a) Size and construction of structures, quantities of materials, storage locations, handling of materials, and hours of operations. b) Warning systems, fire controls, and other safeguards. c) Provision for continuous monitoring and reporting. d) Other restrictions as may be necessary to protect public health and safety. It is not necessary to impose any of these conditions on the proposed project. DECISION / Motion by %A LC W , seconded by LEI 6// 6047p6, I to approve Misdellaneous Appli tion #MS-05-12 of John Stephen & Elizabeth Caflisch, subject to the following conditions: 1) All previous approvals and stipulations, which are not superseded by this approval, shall remain in effect. 2) This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3) The plans shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved, revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to permit issuance. a) The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the City Engineer as outlined in his memorandum dated December 29, 2005. -3- l 4) The applicant shall comply with the requests of the City Engineer as outlined in his memorandum dated December 29, 2005. 5) The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 6) Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. Mark Behr — ea ay/abstain/not present Matthew Birmin ham —yea/nay/abstain not presen Chuck BoltonV-6ea y/abstain/not present John Dinklageay/abstain/not present Roger Farley bstain/not present Larry Kupferman ay/abstain/not present Gayle Quimby —6e0/nay/abstain/not present Motion carried by a vote of (P - 4 _4 Signed this --3 day of , ��-� -�-x, 2006, by John Dinklage, Cha f Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRCP 76 in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long. You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy; finality). -4-