Apollo Project
Below is a letter from MIDCO sent to staff and the BOCS. The BOCS met on June 20th and approved the project with a vote of 7 to 1, with Supervisor Anderson the only vote against. Over 30 residents turned out to speak at the meeting, with the majority against the project. There was also a petition against the project with over 120 names on it.
June 16, 2017
Dear Board Of County Supervisors,
Regarding REZ 2016-0008 (the Apollo Project), we would first like to publicly thank the applicant for attending MIDCO and other community meetings and making some changes and additions to the project in response to community concerns. However, we feel that the proposed project still has significant issues that make it unsuitable for this important gateway area.
Any project on this key parcel should adhere more closely to the office, high quality commercial and minimal residential uses recommended under the Community Employment Center (CEC) designation and the County Center Sector Plan, which overlay this property. If we ever hope to move towards achieving the new 35% commercial tax base goal recently adopted by the BOCS, we have to start now. The ratio of residential to commercial floor area is far greater (about 60%) than the 25% recommended for CEC uses, and a storage facility is specifically not recommended under the CEC classification. The combination of these uses on this parcel greatly reduces the potential commercial tax income and will burden existing residential taxpayers. Additionally, the applicant is requesting industrial B-1 and M-2 classifications on part of the property, and although they are proffering out many of the uses allowed under these categories, a proffer amendment in the future could bring those industrial uses back.
A storage facility at this prominent gateway to the mid-county area is not desirable and will help lower the bar for future development nearby. The 100 townhouses proposed would further stress an already overburdened school system and result in another school trailer due to an unusual proffer deal. We recognize that roughly half of the project area was re-zoned years ago and as such that half is possibly subject to some undesirable by-right uses, but in the many years that the property has lain undeveloped this hasn’t happened and the fair evaluation of any project shouldn’t be tainted by fear. We should wait as long as it takes to get it right.
Finally, MIDCO has worked diligently to protect and possibly expand Earl Cunard Park, which is partially surrounded by this project. A previous project (Village On The Parkway) proffered an adjacent parcel to double the size of the park, but this applicant plans to build townhouses on that same parcel. Even with a planned treed buffer, this would mean that the park, one of few in the area, would now be surrounded by an industrial style credit union on one side, townhomes on another and a new road on the third side, severely undermining the sylvan feel of the park.
We need to guide development to achieve the goals of the Comprehensive and Strategic Plans to meet the standards of the community and stop settling for less. The applicant in this case may be well meaning and the project may work for them, but their project does not meet the bar set by citizens and government working together. For that reason, please reject this application as written.
Respectfully,
Martin Jeter
President, Mid County Civic Association Of Prince William
About the project:
This project is proposed for the area near the corner of Hoadly Road and Prince William Parkway on most of the same land area that the previous Village On The Parkway project encompassed. The current plan calls for a storage facility near the corner, a retail strip unit and 100 townhomes in the rear of the property. The storage center would be around 100,000 square feet. The applicant is asking for B-1 and M-2 industrial zoning on part of the property. On May 3rd the Planning Commission recommended approval with the caveat that the townhouses be reduced by 28 and the "green walls" be eliminated. It was presented at the May MIDCO meeting (meeting notes under "Meeting Minutes" tab). More details are available below.
| planning-application-s1-2016_0408-2.pdf |
| planning-application-s1-2016-0408-2.pdf |
| illustrative_plan.pdf |