Laserfiche WebLink
The applicant, Mr. Paul Boyer with Civil Engineering Design Consultants, Inc., and the <br />project architect, David Mastin, provided a summary of the project for the Plan <br />Commission members. The proposal was for a four-story assisted living and memory <br />care facility with 49 assisted living units. Mr. Boyer explained that a market study had <br />been completed which proved significant unmet demand for this service in this area that <br />allows residents to age in place. He noted that this proposal was lacking from the <br />ordinance requirements by two parking spaces as well as some setback issues. Mr. Boyer <br />continued to explain that these units are intended to be market-rate units and provided <br />more details of the proposal witha presentation. <br />Questions / Comments and Discussion by Plan Commission <br />-Will anything occupy the space of the fifth floor dormers? Mr. Boyer stated that the <br />dormers will not be used as a fifth floor. <br />-Mr. Boyer presented a brick and stone veneer option for the proposed façade to gain the <br />opinion of the Commission. The Commission was split over a preferred preference. <br />-Mr. Boyer noted that the subject property is 0.96-acre, which is less than the one-acre <br />requirement for a site in the “PD” Planned Development District. Commission members <br />suggested the acquisition of the two derelict properties to the south of the subject <br />property, which are owned by Washington University and the developer of this proposal, <br />respectively.Mr. Mastin stated he would discuss with the developer. <br />-Has Washington University been approached? Mr. Boyer and Mr. Mastinexplained that <br />they were not sure if something could be worked out or the intended use Washington <br />Universityhad anticipated for that property. <br />-The Commission stated that they favored a contiguous development parcel and asked <br />whether the developer would consider a swap of property with Washington University to <br />achieve this. It was suggested that this may alleviate the tightness of the development on <br />the corner lot.Mr. Mastinstated that this was a good idea and would potentially further <br />investigate this matter.He further stated that the current floorplan fits right given the <br />number of potential residents andprobably would not revise even if a property swap was <br />possible. He also noted that the proposed landscaping and improvements would <br />transform this corner of the intersection. <br />-Some Commission members suggested adding a right-of-way from the property to the <br />Metcalfe Park for resident access. <br />-The parking issue was a concern and discussed in relation to the number of employees <br />working each day and in terms of visitors and parking capacity for holidays. <br />-Some Commission members inquired about the occupancyof the property in terms of <br />individuals or couples residing in the 49 units. Mr. Mastinstated that the provider of care <br />recommended individuals for assisted living as it encompasses 99 percent of their <br />business. He further stated that the memory care units will not be offered to couples, and <br />individual occupancy of the property is mostly a marketing decision. <br />-The Commission recalled the previous iteration of the development plan for the <br />Kingsland Walk development, which was previously proposed as ahigher density mixed- <br />usedevelopment, and noted the push then for green practices and sustainability (e.g. <br />white roof, native plantings, natural drainage). The Commission suggested to staff that <br />the new Kingsland Walk site plan be reviewed by the Green Practices Commission. <br />Page 10 of 11 <br /> <br />