Apartments reduced from 201 to 178, 11% reduction
Coucilwoman Bush had asked for reduction at June 20 meeting
Developer had insisted such reduction not possible to keep project economically viable
Resturant and seating removed from Parcel U
Doesn’t address Parcel U conditional use permit controversy
MANDEVILLE — The Sucette Harbor developer has submitted a drastically revised site plan just 13 days before an expected vote, reducing the apartments from 201 down to 178 and redesigning the restaurant and parking layout to avoid encroachment into an adjacent parcel for which a conditional use permit was not submitted.
We have looked at the size of it from the very beginning… If we reduce the number of apartments then it starts impacting the overall economics of the whole development, which includes the site plan and the marina and everything else that goes into it. So it’s not a simple question of do you take out 10 apartments and everything still stays OK.
— Bill Hoffman, President, Woodward Interests
— June 20th Special Meeting
By removing the south wing of the active adult complex we eliminate a net 23 apartments.
— Bill Hoffman, President, Woodward Interests
— June 28th letter to City Council announcing site plan changes
The new site plan seems to show that a significant portion of the restaurant and outdoor seating has been removed from Parcel U and is now completely contained within Parcel D.
Ordinance 23-16 contains a conditional use permit for Parcel D, but not Parcel U. The revised site plan still has a marina planned for Parcel U, which some on the council and in the community contend requires a conditional use permit for the project to move forward. Those concerns were not addressed with these latest changes.
During questioning at the June 20th special meeting, District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush expressed to Woodward Interests President Bill Hoffman that her issue with the proposal was one of scale.
“Is there no way we can reduce the number of apartments? … Are y’all willing to budge on that at all?” Bush asked.
Hoffman replied, “We have looked at the size of it from the very beginning… If we reduce the number of apartments then it starts impacting the overall economics of the whole development, which includes the site plan and the marina and everything else that goes into it. So it’s not a simple question of do you take out 10 apartments and everything still stays OK.”
The update to the site plan yesterday (June 28th) shows a reduction of 23 apartments.
See also:
Sparks fly over property lines, conditional use permit details as council members tangle with city officials at special meeting
Sucette Harbor special meeting rescheduled after delay in updated plans
OPINION: City Attorney’s position on Parcel U is flawed
OPINION: Conflicting statements by city official revealing, troubling
The City was notified of these changes via an email from Hoffman yesterday (June 28th).
Here is the revised proposed site plan dated June 28, 2023:

.
Here is the original proposed site plan:

.
Hoffman’s email reads:
Councilmembers,
For nine (9) months, we have listened and worked with the community to develop plans for Sucette Harbor. Based on feedback, we have significantly modified the plans to address parking, restaurant location, and retail space related to the marina. At present, the project complies with CLURO provisions on density. Nonetheless, the Council and the public have commented on the scale of the project for the subject site. As a result, we are prepared to make major alterations in the plans for Sucette Harbor to further reduce the density, to allow for even more parking, and to substantially reduce the scale of the project. This is being done in the interests of cooperation and in anticipation of full Council support for the project.
Based on this feedback we are proposing to amend the Sucette Harbor plans to include the following changes.
Scale of Active Adult – To address the scale of the active adult complex, we propose to remove the south wing of the complex. This will eliminate approximately 55,000 square feet of building from the active adult complex, 12% of the space.
Density – By removing the south wing of the active adult complex we eliminate a net 23 apartments. The density allowed by the CLURO for Parcel D is 218 apartments. The plans submitted included 201 apartments. With this proposed amendment to the plans, Sucette Harbor will have 178 apartments, or 1 per 3,673 square feet of land, 11.86 units per acre.
Parking – By removing the south wing of the active adult complex the number of parking spaces required is reduced and we are able to add additional parking spaces on site. With a total of 622 parking spaces, Sucette Harbor will have 43 more spaces on the site than required assuming a multi-family complex and 132 more spaces than needed for an active adult complex. See attached parking summary.
Attached is a site plan with the south wing removed and the additional parking spaces added. (Note the restaurant building has also been pulled back off the property line.)
If you are in agreement with the above changes, we will have our attorney work with the City’s attorney to amend the ordinance. We will also include revisions requested on parcel D based on the discussions surrounding the marina services.
I will be happy to discuss the above changes at the next public meeting on Sucette Harbor.
Regards, Bill
William D. “Bill” Hoffman
President, Woodward Interests, LLC
The next scheduled special meeting is July 5th at 6 p.m. This is a developing story.
-30-

Although the complete tenor of the Developers change request email is somewhat demeaning and dismissive to all, this part sort of goes overboard:
Woodward is asking the Council: “If you are in agreement with the above changes, we will have our attorney work with the City’s attorney to amend the ordinance. We will also include revisions requested on parcel D based on the discussions surrounding the marina services.”
Isn’t this premature (at the least); shouldn’t the Council respond by saying; “We will review your proposed changes and we will let you know if you can now amend your application for our consideration or require you to reapply”?
This intimidating stance and the “mantle” of LSU association helps explain how the Developer was able to roll over the Planning Commission proceedings without responding to the public’s questions that might have unearthed many of the questions now surfacing in the Council review phase.
LikeLike
Although the complete tenor of the Developers change request email is somewhat demeaning and dismissive to all, this part sort of goes overboard:
Woodward is asking the Council: If you are in agreement with the above changes, we will have our attorney work with the City’s attorney to amend the ordinance. We will also include revisions requested on parcel D based on the discussions surrounding the marina services.
Isn’t this premature (at the least); shouldn’t the Council respond by saying; “We will review your proposed changes and we will let you know if you can amend your application for our consideration or require you to reapply”?
This intimidating stance and the “mantle” of LSU association helps explain how the Developer was able to roll over the Planning Commission proceedings without responding to the public’s questions that might have unearthed many of the questions now surfacing in the Council review phase.
Larry Grundmann
LikeLike