Regular Item:


SDP 2006-071 Gillespie – Preliminary

Request for Preliminary Site Plan to allow the construction of two (2) residential condominium units totaling 16,023 s.f., and 7 total dwelling units on 1.71 acres, and is zoned R4 (Residential).  The property is described as Tax Map 61K, Parcels 10-0A and 10-0A2, and is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District at the end of Inglewood Drive, near its intersection with Hydraulic Road (Route 631).  The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in Urban Area 7. (Gerald Gatobu)


Mr. Gatobu summarized the staff report and gave a power point presentation.







Mr. Morris asked if there were any questions for Mr. Gatobu.


Mr. Edgerton said that on page 3 of the staff report in the review of the modifications of Section staff notes the critical slopes are shown on the inventory map, but not on the composite map.  He asked staff to help him understand the omission.


Mr. Gatobu noted that staff has the composite map and inventory map.  The inventory map shows the critical slopes in terms of an inventory taking into account where all the critical slopes are.  The composite map show the critical slopes that of a value that they do not want disturbed.   


Mr. Edgerton asked if there has been a judgment that these critical slopes are not as valuable, and Mr. Gatobu replied that was exactly correct.


There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.


Clark Gathright, with Daggett and Gregg Architects, said that they worked on the preliminary site plan and submitted it to the Commission back in December.  It was denied and then they appealed it to the Board. The Board deferred the request with a recommendation that they work and resolve this with the engineering staff.  They have done so and feel that they have addressed all of the issues at hand.  He would be happy to answer questions.


There being no questions for the applicant, Mr. Morris invited public comment. 


Dale Chadwick, resident of 101 Inglewood Court, questioned the contour and whether it would be in front of the apartments and go down the drive way across his neighbor’s front yard.  On his property there is a 30” tube that runs down where the creek runs into his property.  He also has another 20” tube from the other side of the house and he has no idea how big the tube is that goes across the road. He was very concerned whether this pipe that goes across the road can handled the volume of water.  He appreciates the fact they will move his bushes over because it was a problem.  He also appreciated that they finally moved Ms. Cohen’s house where it is 15.5’ from the property line.  There is a berm where the white house use to be to keep the water from running over on her house.  There is a loose rock wall there that right now is the property line that water runs down and ends up leaving leaves and waste at that wall.  They are concerned about that.


Tom Szuba, resident of 1703 Solomon Road, said that he appreciates the work that was done on the critical slopes.  That will alleviate what has historically what has been a lot of water damage at the bottom of that hill.  He was still somewhat disappointed at the size of the project.  They are talking about a 16,000 square foot structure.  He was here with the Hessian Hills Neighborhood Association, which represents this area.  They represent single-family homes and duplexes in their community.  They range from below 2,000 square feet to about 3,000 square feet for any given home or duplex.  They are talking about a building that is greater than 5 times as big as any other building in the neighborhood association and certainly those 12 to 15 houses that surround it and look down into that area as their back yard.  The size of the structure is a concern.  They are very reasonable people.  They accept that there will be development there.  They had about 15 people here in December with comments.  The plan tonight shows that clearly 2/3 of that land is critical slopes.  Some of it will be developed.  They are talking about 1/3 of the lot being prime development.  It is zoned R-4.  At what point if the lot was all critical slopes would they need to talk about making the size of the structure smaller.  At some point there is the rule of the zoning and at some point the rule of common sense.  .At the end of the December meeting the
Chair said that the developer should come back with a smaller project.  He was very excited about that because if it was a smaller project the community would not have these concerns.  He passed along his contact information to the developer in December.  It seems like they had some communication issues between the community and this development plan.  They have heard nothing and have had no communications.  They want to see this land developed responsibly.  They have very much a concern about a building of this size.  He asked the Commission to weigh the community’s interest against an individual interest.


There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.


Mr. Craddock asked Mr. Schuck to respond to the water run off concerns expressed by the neighbors.  In your analysis in lay terms it looks like it is a lot better than the plan in December.  He asked if that is correct.


Allan Schuck said that he was the engineer who reviewed the plan.  Regarding the 30” pipe on the speaker’s property he felt that the drainage from his property will adequately be taken care of through the driveway with the new proposed system. He did not anticipate any drainage problems from the new development onto the neighbor’s property as shown on the plan.  They will have engineered plans for the drainage system to provide for the storms that are required by County Code.  Those will be taken care of with the final site plan.  The previous drainage issue was where they were piping the water behind.  That has been adequately addressed with this plan.  They are proposing a natural retaining wall, but leaving the natural channel in its existing condition.  That was one of staff’s major concerns as well.  They feel that has been adequately addressed with this plan.


Mr. Craddock asked if the existing 30” pipe was large enough to handle whatever runoff comes off of this.


Mr. Schuck said that he did not know the exact drainage area that goes to that particular area.  It may or may not be.


Mr. Strucko asked if his analysis take into consideration any aggravation of the drainage problem with the critical slopes disturbance.


Mr. Schuck replied that they take it into consideration with two measures.  One is making sure that they have enough room to provide enough adequate perimeter controls for erosion and sediment control when they are moving the dirt during construction.   The applicant has provided room. They have asked for at least 5’ off the property lines to adequately provide a diversion ditch, silt fence or whatever would be required.  The other requirement is adequate storm water management facilities.  They feel that they will get that as well with this plan.  They have to meet the detention requirement as well as the water requirement as per County Code.  With the analysis of the critical slopes with this slope they will be adequately addressed with the final site plan.  Staff has not seen final design computations on those yet.  But, those will be reviewed accordingly when they are submitted. 


There being no further comments, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.


Mr. Zobrist said that he could not reach the point of making the findings required.  He was not certain where all of the water was going to go. 


Mr. Strucko said that his primary concern was the sensitivity of this particular parcel, its location and the nature of it.   He recalled back in December when they had the first public hearing on this and they received a delayed history of this area and how sensitive it is to runoff problem.  He appreciates the applicant’s changing of the water management, but he was still concerned about the critical slope disturbance.


Mr. Zobrist added that it was going to change the character of the property by the removal of the natural shrubs and vegetation.  It is just too much for the site.


Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, for denial of SDP-2006-071, Gillespie - Preliminary, as proposed based on the grounds that the three findings cannot be made as set forth and required by the ordinance, as follows:


1.       The first finding could not be made, as noted in the staff report, because there are no proposed alternatives presented by the developer that would satisfy the purpose of Section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree.

2.       Regarding the second finding the Commission was unable to make that finding for the reason that the degradation of the area would be overreaching for the area and that they could reduce the size of the disturbed area. This proposal is developing the project to the maximum extent possible under the R-4 zoning.  Therefore, the applicant could scale back the scope of the project. 

3.       Regarding finding 3 the Commission could not find any immediately identifiable reasons that would be considered as a greater import in granting the waiver as noted in the staff report.


The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.  (Mr. Cannon and Ms. Joseph were absent.) 


Mr. Morris stated that SDP-2006-071, Gillespie – Preliminary was denied.  The applicant has ten (10) days from the date of the decision to appeal the decision to the Board of Supervisors.




Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary