Staff backs adaptive reuse of Galbraith School for 44 housing units with conditions to ensure accessibility and preservation

Planning staff recommended approval of a plan-development application to adaptively reuse the vacant Galbraith School campus at 4333 Galliprey School Road for residential housing, preservation and public art. The staff presentation described the project as a two-phase plan on a 2.6-acre lot: adaptive reuse of the 1930 Galbraith School (designed by Frank O. Barber) into 36 dwelling units (one-, two- and three-bedroom units) and an additional second phase with eight townhouses on cleared open space. Staff said the application would require three exceptions from the RN1 zoning district: an increase to impervious-surface maximum (from 40% to 51%), permission for multifamily and townhouse dwellings, and allowance for more than one principal structure on the site. Staff concluded the property already had impervious surfaces that exceeded the RN1 maximum and said the proposed redevelopment largely reuses paved areas. The staff report listed two public benefits to justify exceptions: preservation and adaptive reuse of a historic building and incorporation of public art and programming for community engagement; staff recommended also considering a historic-zoning overlay to further secure preservation outcomes. Because the applicant proposes replacing deteriorated asphalt with a gravel lot, staff recommended three conditions to ensure accessibility and long-term maintenance: (1) required ADA-compliant parking spaces and access aisles must remain paved, (2) a secondary paved ADA crosswalk must connect the proposed townhouses to the main building and courtyard, and (3) the driveway to Galliprey School Road must be paved at least 10 feet inside the property line; staff also specified the gravel surface must be clean, dust-free stone installed on a grid framework to prevent migration and rutting. Staff said these conditions are intended to improve safety, access and long-term viability and recommended approval of the plan development. A staff presenter noted the application did not state whether units would be income-restricted or subsidized and that such commitments, if provided, would be considered an additional public benefit in the plan-development review.