Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reservoir Run Retirement Village topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables Reservoir Run retirement village plan, asks for more study of roads and transitions to neighborhood
Summary
After an extended presentation by Saint John Properties and traffic consultants, the commission delayed action on the Reservoir Run retirement village, asking for clearer plans for road connections (Georgetown Boulevard), emergency access and a softer transition to adjacent single-family neighborhoods. The vote to return the item to the July 8 meeting carried 4–0 with one abstention.
Commissioners on June 16 deferred further action on the Reservoir Run retirement village special report, asking Saint John Properties and county staff for more detail on road connectivity, emergency access and the housing mix.
Saint John representatives described the proposal as an age-restricted (55+) community of 72 townhouse units on roughly 20 acres within the Beatty property, accompanied by shared amenities. Traffic consultant Mark Keeley told the commission that projected peak-hour trips for retirement units are lower than for an equivalent number of market-rate single-family homes because older households typically generate fewer commute trips: "With the 72 units, the AM trips actually are reduced, from 28 to 14," he said, citing Institute of Transportation Engineers rates used in the county review.
Commissioners welcomed design amenities and sidewalks but expressed concerns about how the southern edge of the plan would meet the character of the adjoining Longmeadow subdivision. Several members asked whether Georgetown Boulevard — a planned off-site connection to take traffic around neighborhoods — can realistically be built and funded; the developer said preliminary design and some rights-of-way work are underway but funding and some property acquisitions remain unresolved.
After discussion the commission voted to place the item on the agenda for July 8 to allow the team to return with clarifying materials, including refined plan graphics, answers about off-site roadway timing and assurance of adequate emergency access. The motion to continue the item carried with four yeas and one abstention; the developer team and staff agreed to return with additional detail.
What happens next: The developer will update the site/concept plan and provide materials addressing commissioners’ concerns about transitions, parking, emergency access and the status and timing of off-site roadway improvements. The commission will revisit the item on July 8.
