Laserfiche WebLink
PC Exhibit B <br /> 17-3944 <br /> PROJECT NARRATIVE <br /> FRESHWATER CONDOMIUMS <br /> REZONING FROM B-4 TO RPUD <br /> We are excited to take the next step in our proposal for a high-end market rate condominium <br /> adjacent to the newly remodeled Freshwater Office Building. After listening to the feedback we <br /> received on our concept plans from the Planning Commission, City Council and the <br /> Neighborhood meeting we incorporated changes that we heard as being desirable for the <br /> project. <br /> • Condominiums rather than Apartments <br /> • Reduce Density <br /> • High--End Market Rates <br /> • High--End Quality <br /> • Reduce Traffic Impact <br /> We are proposing to develop a 40 unit high-end condominium building (See Exhibit Al).This <br /> removes 10 units from our original concept plan, thus reducing the density and traffic. Traffic <br /> will be further reduced as our expected homeowner will be a retired higher-income resident <br /> who will likely have a seasonal home and who typically do not contribute to the higher AM and <br /> PM peak traffic flows. <br /> Due to the reduced units we are also able to reduce the number of required parking stalls from <br /> 100 to 80 (84 provided). It is our intent to keep the 51 underground stalls and remove the 16 <br /> surface stalls along County Road 19.This will provide us with 84 stalls, four over the city <br /> standards. We will replace the 16 stalls with additional berming and landscape. The reduction <br /> of surface stalls will also reduce the hardcover and ponding. The additional four stalls could also <br /> be removed if the city desires more green space over parking. <br /> To accommodate this type of housing and keep a financially viable project we were able to use <br /> the same code-complying building footprint but adjusted the floor plates to accommodate <br /> larger more expensive residential condominium units. However, to meet the higher-end market <br /> demands the rooms will need 9-foot ceilings, which increases the proposed building height <br /> from our concept plan from 31 feet to 36 feet in front and 54 feet to 58 feet, 8 inches in back <br /> (See Exhibits A2-A3). <br /> Although height was noted at all three forums it did not appear to be of great concern to the <br /> residents attending the neighborhood meeting. We had invited 59 neighboring property <br /> owners to the meeting and 25-30 attended. Out of the attendees we received 12 comment <br /> cards which only five noted a concern about height. Condominium preference and traffic were <br /> the two highest listed concerns. (See Exhibits Bl-B4). <br />