Gibson Crossing (ex-Geisler Project, ex-Dumfries Road Senior Center)
Below is a letter from MIDCO on Gibson Crossing:
Dear Supervisors,
Regarding the Gibson Crossing rezoning application, REZ2024-00004, we at MIDCO are generally supportive. The applicant has met with MIDCO on multiple occasions and has been responsive to community input. However, there are some remaining issues discussed at our most recent meeting that we hope will be addressed and finalized prior to the board vote.
1. The applicant has agreed to new proffer language specifying that they will construct and maintain a fence on their property that's adjacent to the Betty Jean Eller property (page 7 of 115 of the Staff Report). They also agreed to explore the possibility of an 8-foot-high fence at that location instead of the currently proffered 6-foot height.
2. The applicant has agreed to make every effort to complete the lot line adjustment process referenced on page 50 of 115 in the Staff Report before the BOCS Public Hearing. This process has been underway for a long time, and its completion is in the best interest of all parties involved. In a related issue, we agree with staff that the full required vegetated buffer should be provided by the applicant in this location.
3. We have continuing concerns regarding the increase in building height from 3-stories to 4-stories. The surrounding community is almost exclusively one or two stories in height, and the project at 4-stories is at odds with the established character of the area. We understand that the change to 4-stories was suggested by county staff in part to decrease the footprint of the buildings and increase open space and parking areas within the project area, but the increased height also makes screening with buffer plantings very challenging and increases the visual impact on the surrounding area. The original 3-story building design would be preferable from a community impact standpoint. It should be noted that this parcel was up-planned to T-4 (up to 8-story) in the current Comprehensive Plan update, which we don't agree with due to the context of the surrounding area. Most everything around is one- or two-story construction. While the new designation must be taken into consideration when reviewing the project, a good fit with the surrounding community is a key county policy and very important here.
4. This location has always been challenging in terms of transportation, mostly stemming from its proximity to the Rt. 234/Hoadly Road intersection. Gibson Crossing has many fewer vehicle trips per day than the previously approved Geisler Project, which does reduce the traffic issues somewhat, but there are still challenges remaining. Specifically, leaving the property with the intention of proceeding southbound on Rt. 234 remains somewhat problematic since folks will have to cross multiple lanes of traffic in a short distance to access the left turn lane for a U-turn at the Hoadly Road intersection. Prohibiting U-turns at Hoadly Road would help, since this would allow more time to cross all the lanes and make a U-turn at Counselor Road.
This parcel has had various proposals from two different developers over many years, each one less impactful in terms of traffic volume at this problematic parcel than the last, and that has been an important consideration in gaining our support.
Again, we appreciate the responsiveness and community participation of the applicant and are supportive of the project, particularly if the issues detailed above are addressed.
Respectfully,
Martin Jeter
Dear Supervisors,
Regarding the Gibson Crossing rezoning application, REZ2024-00004, we at MIDCO are generally supportive. The applicant has met with MIDCO on multiple occasions and has been responsive to community input. However, there are some remaining issues discussed at our most recent meeting that we hope will be addressed and finalized prior to the board vote.
1. The applicant has agreed to new proffer language specifying that they will construct and maintain a fence on their property that's adjacent to the Betty Jean Eller property (page 7 of 115 of the Staff Report). They also agreed to explore the possibility of an 8-foot-high fence at that location instead of the currently proffered 6-foot height.
2. The applicant has agreed to make every effort to complete the lot line adjustment process referenced on page 50 of 115 in the Staff Report before the BOCS Public Hearing. This process has been underway for a long time, and its completion is in the best interest of all parties involved. In a related issue, we agree with staff that the full required vegetated buffer should be provided by the applicant in this location.
3. We have continuing concerns regarding the increase in building height from 3-stories to 4-stories. The surrounding community is almost exclusively one or two stories in height, and the project at 4-stories is at odds with the established character of the area. We understand that the change to 4-stories was suggested by county staff in part to decrease the footprint of the buildings and increase open space and parking areas within the project area, but the increased height also makes screening with buffer plantings very challenging and increases the visual impact on the surrounding area. The original 3-story building design would be preferable from a community impact standpoint. It should be noted that this parcel was up-planned to T-4 (up to 8-story) in the current Comprehensive Plan update, which we don't agree with due to the context of the surrounding area. Most everything around is one- or two-story construction. While the new designation must be taken into consideration when reviewing the project, a good fit with the surrounding community is a key county policy and very important here.
4. This location has always been challenging in terms of transportation, mostly stemming from its proximity to the Rt. 234/Hoadly Road intersection. Gibson Crossing has many fewer vehicle trips per day than the previously approved Geisler Project, which does reduce the traffic issues somewhat, but there are still challenges remaining. Specifically, leaving the property with the intention of proceeding southbound on Rt. 234 remains somewhat problematic since folks will have to cross multiple lanes of traffic in a short distance to access the left turn lane for a U-turn at the Hoadly Road intersection. Prohibiting U-turns at Hoadly Road would help, since this would allow more time to cross all the lanes and make a U-turn at Counselor Road.
This parcel has had various proposals from two different developers over many years, each one less impactful in terms of traffic volume at this problematic parcel than the last, and that has been an important consideration in gaining our support.
Again, we appreciate the responsiveness and community participation of the applicant and are supportive of the project, particularly if the issues detailed above are addressed.
Respectfully,
Martin Jeter
Below is the latest proposal for what was previously known as the Geisler Project.
| presentation.pdf |