Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Developer proposes 151‑unit senior campus off Dean Street; council raises annexation, service and affordability questions
Loading...
Summary
Dover Development presented a two‑phase concept for Cedarhurst of St. Charles: an 87‑unit assisted living/memory care building and about 64 independent‑living cottages (roughly 151 units total), projected at about $64 million and creating some 60 jobs. Council members asked about annexation costs, utilities, traffic on Dean Street, tree preservation, and how to address affordable housing for seniors.
A developer presented a concept plan for Cedarhurst of St. Charles, a two‑phase senior housing campus proposed for a 23‑acre unincorporated parcel on the city’s south side that would require annexation and rezoning.
Nick Dwyer of Dover Development described the project as an 87‑unit, single‑story assisted‑living and memory‑care building for Phase 1 and roughly 64 independent‑living cottages for Phase 2, for a total near 151 units. He said the company projects the development as a roughly $64 million investment that would generate “about 60 plus quality jobs.” Regarding pricing, Dwyer said an assisted‑living one‑bed unit in the market runs roughly $7,000 per month when services and care are included.
Council members and staff focused on policy and service issues that must be resolved at preliminary review. Questions included how annexation would assign ward boundaries (staff said the property would likely join the 3rd Ward because of adjacency), whether utilities and infrastructure costs would fall to the developer or the city (staff said utility‑connection costs would be evaluated later and are assumed to be developer costs unless agreed otherwise), and the project’s consistency with the comprehensive plan (a council member argued the city should prioritize infill and walkable locations before annexation of this open space).
Commissioners pressed the developer to protect existing mature trees and buffers along the Great Western Trail, and asked for tree studies and landscape plans to document preservation and replacement strategies. The developer said the trail lies between the project and the nearest neighborhood and indicated significant setbacks, landscape buffering and the expectation of limited visibility between the campus and adjacent homes.
On affordable housing, a council member noted the proposal’s payment into the affordable‑housing fund equates to 6.4 units and asked whether senior units could be structured to provide accessible affordable options; the developer said integration of any affordable‑unit structure into a senior care product is complex and would require additional study to ensure access to required services.
Concerns about traffic and safety on Dean Street (a 45‑mph roadway) prompted requests for traffic studies and review of access point locations. The developer said the team anticipates conducting civil design and traffic analysis if the concept receives a green light; timelines outlined a potential entitlement phase, civil design and construction start next summer, with roughly 18 months to build Phase 1 and another ~18 months to reach full lease‑up.
Council members expressed broad recognition of local demand for senior housing while asking staff and the developer to return with more detailed analyses addressing utilities, service costs, tree preservation, traffic/safety, and affordable‑housing options before advancing any annexation or rezoning recommendation.
The committee provided feedback and did not approve a formal development agreement at this concept stage.
