07-10-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Exhibit F IWASLEA! PROJECT NARRATIVE FRESHWATER CONDOMIUMS REZONING FROM B-4 TO RPUD We are excited to take the next step in our proposal for a high-end market rate condominium adjacent to the newly remodeled Freshwater Office Building. After listening to the feedback we received on our concept plans from the Planning Commission, City Council and the Neighborhood meeting we incorporated changes that we heard as being desirable for the project. Condominiums rather than Apartments Reduce Density High --End Market Rates High --End Quality Reduce Traffic Impact We are proposing to develop a 40 unit high-end condominium building (See Exhibit Al). This removes 10 units from our original concept plan, thus reducing the density and traffic. Traffic will be further reduced as our expected homeowner will be a retired higher -income resident who will likely have a seasonal home and who typically do not contribute to the higher AM and PM peak traffic flows. Due to the reduced units we are also able to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 100 to 80 (84 provided). It is our intent to keep the 51 underground stalls and remove the 16 surface stalls along County Road 19. This will provide us with 84 stalls, four over the city standards. We will replace the 16 stalls with additional berming and landscape. The reduction of surface stalls will also reduce the hardcover and ponding. The additional four stalls could also be removed if the city desires more green space over parking. To accommodate this type of housing and keep a financially viable project we were able to use the same code -complying building footprint but adjusted the floor plates to accommodate larger more expensive residential condominium units. However, to meet the higher -end market demands the rooms will need 9 -foot ceilings, which increases the proposed building height from our concept plan from 31 feet to 36 feet in front and 54 feet to 58 feet, 8 inches in back (See Exhibits A2 -A3). Although height was noted at all three forums it did not appear to be of great concern to the residents attending the neighborhood meeting. We had invited 59 neighboring property owners to the meeting and 25-30 attended. Out of the attendees we received 12 comment cards which only five noted a concern about height. Condominium preference and traffic were the two highest listed concerns. (See Exhibits 131-134).