The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZ-7585 Application 1NI THE "-IATHAWAY GROUP January 17, 2007 Mr. Tony Bozynski Director of Comprehensive Planning City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 SUBJECT: Request to Extend River Tower PRD Case # 2-7585 Dear Ton;/, As per my role as the Managing Member for the River Tower LLC, I am writing to request a two year extension for the River Tower PRD. The River Tower PRD was approved by the Little Rock Planning Commission on May 6, 2004. Since that time, we have been actively working on this project in an effort to refine and further improve its design. As a part of these efforts, we have engaged the Dallas firm of Humphreys & Partners Architects to provide additional design and consulting services. We are excited and pleased with the design changes which have been incorporated to date—all within the height and setback requirements associated with the approved PRD. It is our plan to begin the active marketing of the River Tower residences within 6-8 weeks. We remain dedicated to the goal of developing central Arkansas' highest quality condominium development. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this request before it is taken to the Plann';'iy �.::iiei"I;i�;;ivil. 11ti16munderstanding y understaing th at LNIS letter will be sufficient to place this item on the Agenda and that the public hearing is March 1. Prior to this, I would appreciate receiving a copy of the staffs recommendation in writing. Sincerely, *Jaes, E. Hathaway, Jr., CRE Cc: John C. Kincaid OTC N W O R L D W I D E 1001 N. University, Suite 100 m Little Rock AR 72207 ■ 501.663.5400 m FAX 50 1.663.5408 0 www.hathawaygroup.com Commercial, Industrial and Investment Realtors® THE';i-1ATHA`UV,,*vdr GROUP February 11, 2008 Tony Bozynski Director City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 SUBJECT: The Ashford's Compliance with Approval PD -R (Z-7585) I am writing to you as per my role as the Managing Member for River Tower, LLC, the limited liability company which is the owner of the site and the developer of The Ashford. As you know, your department has raised questions as to whether the current design specifications for The Ashford are in compliance with the design specifications previously approved -for PD -R (Z-7585). Specifically, you have raised two concerns: 1. That the number of. units within The Ashford is actually A instead of 44 because one of the Guest Suites has a kitchen and therefore must be designated as a residential unit, even though no one will live full time within, this space. 2. Regardless of the determination to be made about the Guest Suite concern, that the number of units within The Ashford' exceeds the total of 38 previously approved for the subject PD -R. This letter has been written to address both of the above concerns. It has also been written to address a much broader question i.e. what latitude is available to the Planning Staff to approve or disapprove the final design standards for a previously approved Planned Development. The position .of River Tower, LLC may be summarized as follows: 1. River Tower, LLC has spent $1,539,155 through January of 2008 for pre - construction costs including the architectural design of The Ashford and its marketing materials. We are continuing to spend an average of $40,000 per month as we proceed with our pre -construction marketing. TC N W O R L D W I D E 2100 Riverdale, Suite 100 a Little Rock, AR 72202 d 501.663.5400 a FAX 501.663.5408 ■ www.hathawaygroup.com P. O. Box 3730 a Little Rock, AR 72203-3730 Commercial, Industrial and Investment Realtors@ Bozynski Letter February 7, 2008 Page 2 of 3 2. The majority of these funds have been spent since the spring of 2007 in reliance upon The Planning Commission's decision to approve a two year extension of PD -R (Z-7585) which had originally been approved by the City Directors in June of 2004. A copy of the Staff's write-up regarding this extension request has been attached. As you know, the Staff write-up references 50 units as the number of units to be approved. 3. We are fully aware that I agreed in 2004, as part of the proceedings concerning the application based on the original design, to reduce the number of units to 38. Since 2004, the original design has been significantly changed by moving the structure closer to Riverfront Drive, thereby increasing the setbacks between the building and the parking deck and River Bend; by decreasing the size of the footprint of the tower; and by decreasing the overall square footage to be constructed. We know that the current design specifications for The Ashford have substantially reduced the size and scope of the overall project from the originally approved version. See the attached Exhibit A which compares the former design criteria and the current design criteria. We strongly believe that a moderate increase in the number of units should be allowed because of the reduced total square footage and increased setbacks. 4. In addition to the improved design criteria as shown on Exhibit A, other significant improvements have been made so as to reduce the impact of the project. Your office expressed concerns several years ago about the ground level location for the mechanical equipment. These concerns no doubt stemmed from the complaints of several Canal Pointe residents about the noise coming from Winrock International's ground level mechanical system. As a result of the Staff's concerns, we moved the mechanical equipment further away from River Bend to the roof of the parking garage where it can be better screened. As a result of these moves, the land area between the building and the River Bend property line will be used solely for private, fenced, landscaped grounds, thereby creating a larger, quieter buffer between River Bend and the building. 5. For projects of the size and complexity of The Ashford, it is not practical to require any developer to pay the architectural cost of producing a final, inflexible design before obtaining zoning approval. Some level of redesign has been, and will continue to be, the rule rather than the exception. 6. We believe that the Staff must be granted the discretion to make a reasoned, common sense decision regarding the acceptability of any redesign, including whether the developer has acted in good faith, and as to whether the redesign has resulted in an improved design with no greater overall impact than the originally approved PD -R. Bozynski Letter February 7, 2008 Page 3 of 3 7. We believe that it is a serious mistake to single out an increase in the number of units as the sole reason to disapprove a previously approved project if a given redesign has resulted in a smaller building footprint, a smaller amount of total square footage, and greater setbacks from the nearest neighboring property owners all while maintaining the previously approved height limitation. 8. If the Staff felt that the number of units should be a single determining factor for continued approval, we believe that the Staff had an obligation to raise this issue at the time it prepared the write-up for the Planning Commission's approval of our request for a two year extension. Instead, the write-up specifically referenced 50 units, which lead us to believe that the exact number of units was not to be a determining factor. 9. Finally, we believe that a Guest Suite, with or without a kitchen, should not be counted as a living unit if the Guest Suites are deed restricted so that they can never be sold or rented and can only be used by a guest or guests of a full-time resident of The Ashford on a temporary basis. The viability of The Ashford project is at stake here. A reduction in the number of units from 44 to 38 would mean a revenue loss of $7,800,000. Even though such a reduction would also reduce certain costs, the overall effect of the reduced net revenue would be a killer for a $65,000,000 project which has been planned to be the finest of its type ever built in Arkansas. I will call you tomorrow to discuss how we might work together to resolve this issue. Sincerely, J es E. Hathaway, Jr., CRE Attachment: (1) Copy of Staff Write -Up (2) Comparison of Design Criteria CC: Johnny Kincaid City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision March 2, 2007 The Hathaway Group Mr. Jim Hathaway 1001 North University Avenue Little Rock, AR 72207 Re: River Tower Short -form PD -R Time Extension (Z-7585), located on the Northwest corner of River Bend and River Front Drive Dear Sirs: This is to advise you that in connection with your request concerning the above referenced file number the following action was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 1, 2007: X Approved with conditions. Recommended approval with conditions. Recommended approval as submitted. Denied your request as submitted. Deferred to Meeting. Other: If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 371-6821. Respectfuliy, Donna James, A[CP Subdivision Administrator The Ashford The Hathaway Group, Inc. Current Project Overview and Comparison Last Revised: 2/13/20083:36 PM Project Element 3/2/07 Confirmed Extension Current Condition Tower Height 175' 178' to highest portion of roof parapet. Roof level is 153'. _ Tower Setback 100' 160' (60% greater) Structure Setback 80" 110" (38% greater) SF of "Living Areas" 180,000 128,180 SF including balconies (29% decrease) Parking Deck 2 levels 1 st & 2nd 2 levels 1 st & 2nd Amenity Floor 1 level (3rd) 1 level (3rd) Residence Floors 8levels (4-11) 9 levels (4-12) (one additional floor) Penthouse 1 level (12) 2 levels (13,14) (one additional floor) _ _ Number of levels 12 floors 14 floors Total number of units 50 44 (12% less) Units/acre 15.6 13.7 (12% less density) Parking Levels 2 2 Spaces per level 50 (100 total) 44 + 46 = 90 (10 fewer spaces) Building Footprint 28,460 SF 26,252 SF (8% reduction) Zonin Case: Z-7585 Location: NEC River Bend & N River Front Dr Ward: 3 PD: 4 CT: 15 0 200 400 Feet TRS: T2NR12W32 Case: Z-7585 Location: NEC River Bend & N River Front Dr Ward: 3 PD: 4 CT: 15 0 200 400 Feet TRS: T2NR12W32 City of Little Rock ---r•um•uln, ui running and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 March 2, 2007 The Hathaway Group Mr. Jim Hathaway 1001 North University Avenue Little Rock, AR 72207 Planning Zoning and Subdivision Re: River Tower Short -form PD -R Time Extension (Z-7585), located on the Northwest corner of River Bend and River Front Drive Dear Sirs: This is to advise you that in connection with your request concerning the above referenced file number the following action was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 1, 2007: Approved with conditions. Recommended approval with conditions. Recommended approval as submitted. Denied your request as submitted. Deferred to Meeting. Other: If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 371-6821. Respectfully, Donn James, AICP Subd vISion Administrator EtCity of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 March 2, 2007 Mr. Sterling Cockrill 11 Riverbend Road Little Rock, AR Dear Citizen: Planning Zoning and Subdivision On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for Your participation in the March 1, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision-making process. River Tower Short -form PD -R Time Extension (Z-7585), located on the Northeast comer River Bend and River Front Drive was approved by the Planning Commission. For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Walter Malone Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, Tony Bozynski Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission RPM Management Company, Inc. February 9, 2007 Mr. Tony Bozynski Director of Planning & Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 RE: River Tower Short -form PD -R Time Extension (Z-7585) Dear Mr. Bozynski: 1501 North University, Suite 930 P.O. Box 7300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72217-7300 (501) 664-7807 x (501) 664-0145 " Praviding The Riehl Key " This letter is written on behalf of River Bend Horizontal Property Regime. Thank you for your recent communication advising that River Tower had requested a two-year extension of the previously approved planned Residential Development. River Bend is a coudominium property regime consisting of thirty-four dwellings that occupy property immediately adjacent to the proposed River Tower Development. As Your records rill show, the River Bend Property Owner's regime opposed this proposed development when it was originally presented to the Planning Commission and p Board of Directors. the City Please be advised that the River Bend Board of Directors and a substantial majority of River Bend owners continue to oppose the River Tower Development for all of the reasons previously expressed and therefore, oppose this request for a two-year extension. We request that you place this letter and our opposition in your records and the records of the City. Sincerely, River Bend Horizontal Property Owners' Regime Board of Directors By: Mrs. Ted Darragh, President Pat Moore, Condominium Coordinator ACCREDITED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION® City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ON A REQUEST FOR A USE CHANGE OR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND TO: River Bend Neighborhood Association ATTENTION: Mr. Sterling Cockrill ADDRESS: 11 Riverbend Road Little Rock AR 72202 REQUEST: River Tower Short -form PD -R Time Extension Z-7585 a request to allow a two year time extension of the previously approval Planned Residential Development. GENERAL LOCATION OR ADDRESS: located on the northeast comer of River Bend and River Front Drive OWNED BY/APPLICANT: The Hathaway Group, Jim Hathaway Agent NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application for a Planned Development of the above property has been filed with the Department of Planning and Development. A public hearing will be held by the L.R. Planning Commission in the Board of Directors Chamber, second floor, City Hall, on March 1 2007 at 4:00 P.M. This notice is provided in order to assure that neighborhood associations are aware of issues that may affect their neighborhood. Information requests should be directed to the Planning staff at 371-4790. Tony Bozynski Director of Planning and Development NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ON A REQUEST FOR A REZONING THROUGH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALL RESIDENTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY AT: GENERAL LOCATION OR ADDRESS: located on the northeast corner of River Bend and River Front Drive. OWNED BY/APPLICANT: The Hathaway Group. Jim Hathaway Agent REQUEST: River Tower Short -form PD -R Time Extension (Z-7585), a request to allow a two year time extension of the previously approval Planned Residential Development. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application for Planned Zoning Development of the above property has been filed with the Department of Planning and Development. A public hearing will be held by the L. R. Planning Commission in the Board of Directors Chamber, second floor, City Hall, on March 1, 2007 at 4:00 P.M. This notice is provided in order to assure that area residents are aware of issues that may affect their neighborhood. Information requests should be directed to the Planning Staff (Donna James) at 371-4790. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ON A REQUEST FOR A REZONING THROUGH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALL RESIDENTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY AT: GENERAL LOCATION OR ADDRESS: located on the northeast corner of River Bend and River Front Drive. OWNED BY/APPLICANT:_ The Hathaway Group, Jim Hathaway Agent REQUEST: _ River Tower Short -form PD -R Time Extension (Z-7585), a request to allow a two year time extension of the previously approval Planned Residential Development. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application for Planned Zoning Development of the above property has been filed with the Department of Planning and Development. A public hearing will be held by the L. R. Planning Commission in the Board of Directors Chamber, second floor, City Hall, on March 1, 2007 at 4:00 P.M. This notice is provided in order to assure that area residents are aware of issues that may affect their neighborhood. Information requests should be directed to the Planning Staff (Donna James) at 371-4790. NAME ADDRESS BUILDING UNIT LEGALCITY STATE ZIP Z NUMBEF OCCUPANT 1810 CANAL PT LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1804 RIVER HEIGHTS DR LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1801 RIVER HEIGHTS DR LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 21 RIVERBEND RD LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 4 SANDBAR LN LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 2 RIVER BIRCH RD LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1914 CANAL PT LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1815 RIVER HEIGHTS DR LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1811 RIVER HEIGHTS DR LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1814 RIVER HEIGHTS DR LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1809 RIVER HEIGHTS DR LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1820 CANAL PT LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1810 RIVER HEIGHTS DR LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1805 RIVER HEIGHTS DR LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1801 CANAL PT LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1803 RIVER HEIGHTS DR LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1804 RIVER HEIGHTS DR LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 9 RIVERBEND RD LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1 RIVER BIRCH RD LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1 RIVERBEND RD LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 19 RIVERBEND RD LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7565 OCCUPANT 17 RIVERBEND RD LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 15 RIVERBEND RD LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 11 RIVERBEND RD LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 6 SANDBAR LN LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1821 CANAL PT LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1906 CANAL PT LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1900 CANAL PT LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 OCCUPANT 1600 RIVERFRONT DR LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 Z-7585 ORA 1) THE HATHAWAY GROUP June 10, 2004 Via Hand Delivery Because it may not be possible for you to meet with me prior to the June 15th Board Meeting and also because there is limited time for presentation at the meeting, I am writing to address several important points concerning the River Tower Long -Form PDR application for your consideration. First, allow me to summarize the project in outline form. Name River Tower Description Luxury high-rise condominium building # of Residences 36 residences averaging 2,800 SF 2 penthouses averaging 4,000 SF 38 Total Estimated Pricing $840,000 per residence $1,500,000 per penthouse residence Project Value $33,240,000 Location Riverfront Drive in Riverdale between the entrances to the River Bend and Canal Pointe developments Stories 2 - enclosed parking 1 - amenity floor 9 - residential floors _L- penthouse floor 13 Total Projected Real Estate Taxes $458,712/year Portion Paid to City of Little Rock $103,869/year Portion Paid to Little Rock Public Schools $308,444/year .iih) TC N W O R L D W I D E 1001 N. University, Suite 100 ® Little Rock AR 72207 ■ 501.663.5400 a FAX 50 1.663,5408 s www.hathawaygroup.com Commercial, Industrial and Investment Realtors® City Director letter re: River Tower Page 2 June 10, 2004 River Tower is a quality project in every way. If we are allowed to build it, it will be a credit to its neighborhood and to the City of Little Rock. We will make a strong case for your vote next Tuesday night. However, our time will be limited to 20 minutes and it will therefore not be possible to cover every point at that time. Accordingly, here are 5 points I would like for you to consider in advance of the meeting as you are forming your opinion on how to vote on this application. HISTORY OF NEIGHBORHOOD/DEVELOPER DIALOGUE. This point has been included because Director Adcock asked about it at the Agenda Meeting. At the onset of this project I was particularly sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods. My wife and I live in Canal Pointe approximately 185' from the proposed site. One of my partners has lived in River Bend for 10 years. Between the two of us we know virtually every resident of River Bend and Canal Pointe many of whom have been personal friends for over 25 years. More than a month before the Planning Commission was scheduled to hear this matter I invited each resident of Canal Pointe and River Bend to attend their choice of one of four separate briefings about River Tower. These meetings were held in my office and typically lasted an hour and a half to two hours. All four meetings were held. Residents of approximately 20 of the 34 homes in River Bend attended. However, in spite of my efforts, the River Bend Property Owners Association Board voted to oppose the project and to hire an attorney to represent it even before these meetings were held. After hearing from the neighbors at these meetings, we subsequently proposed two alternative ways of modifying our application. I met again in person with the River Bend POA Board and at least 12 other residents to present these alternatives. After I left that meeting the Board voted to oppose both alternatives. The residents of only 7 of the 40 homes in Canal Pointe attended these meetings. The Canal Pointe POA has taken no position although residents of River Bend have repeatedly urged the Canal Pointe POA to oppose River Tower. The River Bend POA has taken its actions to retain a lawyer and to oppose River Tower by a vote of its 5 member Board but without ever requesting a vote of its entire membership. I am not suggesting that the opposition within River Bend is limited to the Board members of its POA. However, I am very sure that there are many residents within River Bend who do not oppose River Tower. I know this to be fact because these residents have called me or sought me out to tell me this. Regarding Canal Pointe, a petition was earlier signed by residents representing 24 of the 40 residents. This petition expressed "concerns" about the height of the project but stopped short of opposing it. After learning of the petition I wrote to each resident of Canal Pointe to point out that it had been necessary to add one floor when we reduced the overall units from 50 to 38. Thereafter, residents of 6 of the 24 homes who signed the petition contacted me to say that they did not oppose River Tower and now understood the need for one additional floor. A representative sample of these communications is attached for your review. In summary: ♦ A great deal of dialogue has occurred between myself and the residents of Canal Pointe and River Bend. ♦ The Board of the River Bend POA voted to oppose River Tower before the neighborhood briefings were held and without a vote of its entire membership. City Director letter re: River Tower Page 3 June 10, 2004 ♦ There are residents within River Bend who do not oppose River Tower. ♦ The Canal Pointe POA has taken no official position. ♦ Less than half of the Canal Pointe residents have any concerns and a large number actually support River Tower. 2. FURTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT. One of the most common techniques used by opponents of a proposed project is to attempt to "amend the project to death." The idea is to saddle the project with enough changes so that, even if the project is approved by the Board as amended, it will not be saleable and/or it will not be economically feasible and therefore will never be built. Such comments as "just move the building to another part of the lot" or "it's a great project but it should be not as tall" or "cant' you build it on another lot within Riverdale" are examples. We have already made significant changes in an effort to please the neighbors. We substantially decreased the number of units from 50 to 38 or by 24%. We reduced the square footage per floor and increased the setbacks from the common property line. We have also listened to many, many other suggestions which we could not accept even after careful consideration. From all of our prior discussion, it is very clear that the opposition will not support any kind of high-rise building at this location regardless of its specific height or placement on the site. Therefore, please vote us up or down based upon the project as proposed. 3. STRONG SUPPORT FOR RIVER TOWER. There is strong support for River Tower both within the Riverdale community and within Little Rock as a whole. There are substantially more voters who support River Tower than those who oppose it. As evidence of this I have already enclosed written communications from Canal Pointe residents. In addition I am enclosing a petition signed by 51 Little Rock residents who support River Tower. The Board of the Riverdale Business Association ("RBA") has endorsed River Tower and I have been told that their letter of endorsement will be ready for presentation to the Board by June 15. This organization represents approximately 50 businesses and professional firms located in Riverdale as well as their employees. RBA's Board is enthusiastic about River Tower! believe that many Directors have received calls or letters supporting River Tower from citizens at large. 4. ALTERNATIVE USES UNDER THE PRESENT ZONING. When one attempts to measure the impact of a proposed new development on surrounding properties it is important to establish one's frame of reference for comparison. One frame of reference is to compare the proposed development vs. how the site is presently being used i.e. River Tower versus an undeveloped grassy field bordered by shade trees. This is the most common thing to do because it is easy to see what is or isn't there now. However, the best frame of reference is to compare the proposed project with how the site can now be developed as per its present zoning classification. This is harder to do but is much more realistic because undeveloped land in a desirable area which is being offered for sale will ultimately be developed even though it may have remained vacant for some time. The land is now zoned 0-3. This classification allows by right the construction of a 60' tall, 5 story building which may be placed only 30' from the common boundary with River Bend with the balance of the site in surface parking and with only code City Director letter re: River Tower Page 4 June 10, 2004 level landscaping. Such a building could be placed with its axis parallel to the common boundary with River Bend and would likely be placed there since every office building to date built on the east side of Riverfront Drive has been placed as close to the river as possible with all of its parking to the west. This would allow a sea of windows overlooking River Bend and Canal Pointe at lower heights. Attached is a drawing showing how such an office building could be placed on the site. The 0-3 district also allows a number of other less desirable uses to be built either by right or via a conditional use permit. One of those conditional uses is multi -family dwellings as per the R-5 district. This means that over 100 apartments could be built on this site. I have also enclosed a page from the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance which summarizes the permitted and conditional uses under the 0-3 category. If River Tower is defeated, a future purchaser of the site can construct a building for any of these uses by right. This means there will be no public meetings prior to receiving approvals to move forward. All of this is being conveniently ignored by those who oppose the development of River Tower. Their frame of reference is the current vacant grassy field. However, the site is being offered for sale and the opposition will not acknowledge that the price and the zoning of the land will dictate a far more intensive use than for the low density, low-rise residential purpose which they desire. 5. WILL PROPERTY VALUES BE REDUCED IF RIVER TOWER IS BUILT? At the core of the opposition's position is the assertion that the values for surrounding residential properties will be reduced if River Tower is built. I strongly oppose this view. For many reasons I believe just the opposite - - that the construction of River Tower will enhance the values for surrounding residential properties. Here is my thinking for your consideration. ♦ My real estate practice spans 37 years. During that time I have never seen values of existing residences diminish as a result of the construction of other residences nearby regardless of height or building style if the value of the new residences is equal to or greater than the value of the existing residences. The values within River Tower will be equal to or greater than the values for the River Bend and Canal Pointe residences. ♦ During the initial planning stage for River Tower I visited Dallas, Atlanta, Naples (FL), and Vancouver (BC) where I saw many examples of new development wherein the developer simultaneously constructed a luxury high-rise residential building next to town homes or other forms of low-rise luxury residences. This simply would not be done if the developer anticipated that a contiguous high-rise building would make it difficult or impossible to sell the lower -rise residences. Attached is a copy of a recent magazine advertisement for the Residences at Bath Club in Miami Beach. Please note that the 15+ story building contains 107 residences priced from $1,800,000 to $5,000,000 and that this building towers over the adjacent 6 single family 3 story villas which are being quoted only upon request. During one of my trips to Dallas I inspected the Mayfair, a near new high-rise residential building located in the Turtle Creek area of Dallas. Next to the Mayfair are town homes which are located closer to the Mayfair than River Bend would be to River Tower. The developer even used the same architectural style for both. Clearly the developer did not feel that the presence of the high- City Director letter re: River Tower Page 5 June 10, 2004 rise building would damage his ability to sell the town homes next door. ♦ As further evidence I have obtained a series of quotes from real estate professionals around the country who responded to my recent email asking for their comments on "the proposition that the development of a luxury residential high-rise condominium building adjacent to an existing upscale low-rise condominium neighborhood will not diminish the value of the existing low-rise condominiums." Here is a sample of their responses. From Tom Joyce, Transwestern Commercial Services, (Washington D.C.) "In fact, the new luxury hi -rise condo will probably increase the value of the existing condo, unless your market is glutted with excess comparable product. In your example, the new condo will enhance the neighborhood and bring additional value to the existing building." From Trip Brown, (Brown Investment Properties, Inc.), Greensboro, NC "1 developed a 7 story, 72 unit condominium in the most expensive neighborhood in Charlotte and it did not detract from the surrounding single family houses. Two other high-rise projects were developed in similar neighborhoods in Charlotte in about the same time with the same results - - no negative influence. These occurred in the early - mid 70's." From Andrew Morgales, Seligsohn Saens Hess Co., Philadelphia "Center City Philadelphia probably has numerous examples of what you described. There are 2 hi -rise towers being developed in Center City (what we call downtown) and both are being supported by the residents association, made up of a large # of townhouse residents plus other condo dwellers small and large." From Dave Morgan, Richard Bowers Company, Atlanta "Here's an observation though not quite scientific in analysis. My street in Atlanta has a wide selection of housing units mostly built between 1940's to the mid 60's. For the most part, these are two to three floor buildings maybe a bit small but affordable for in -town living. A few years back a developer broke ground for a high-rise condominium on a two acre site at the intersection of our street with Peachtree Road. This is a nice building with 22 floors with everything state of the art including the sales prices. I wondered if the condos right next door were affected by the new high-rise. These 12 units are flats and are partially shaded in the afternoon by the larger structure. There may be some mechanical noises that these units deal with as well. However, this high-rise has lifted the prices for everyone on the street which is good. Also, I like having a notable residential structure at the beginning of our street versus say a retail center or restaurant " From Ray Norwood, The Henry S. Miller Company, Dallas "Thomas Huth, president and CEO of Palladium Group regularly develops condo projects that incorporate high-rise and low-rise condos in the same projects. He's done two in the DFW Metroplex in recent years." City Director letter re: River Tower Page 6 June 10, 2004 ♦ Although we have very few local examples of high-rise residential buildings in Central Arkansas, let's look closer to home. Following is a quote from Ms. Catherine Martin's recent letter which supports River Tower to her Director, Michael Keck. "In the 1960's my father, John Matthews, built Lakewood House in North Little Rock, a 16 story high-rise building in an area of single family houses and park area that had no commercial development at all at that time. Of course there was opposition to the project for many reasons, the size and height being one of the causes of dismay. Today however, although nothing has altered its dimensions, I know of no one who thinks the building is out of place or regrets its location there. On the contrary, it is a plus for the community as a whole." ♦ Finally, West River, at the foot of Cantrell hill, represents an excellent local example of a high-rise residential condominium building (8 stories) in close proximity (200±') to a separate low-rise (1 story) condominium complex. We have carefully researched the sales for the low-rise units over the past 20 years and have found that the values have steadily increased over that time despite the existence of a high-rise building very close nearby. In summary, there is no evidence to support the allegation that River Tower will damage the values of neighboring residences. On the contrary there is considerable evidence to support the premise that the values will not be damaged and/or that the values will actually be enhanced. I apologize for the length of this letter but River Tower represents one of the most significant development projects proposed in Little Rock in recent years and the 20 minutes allowed for presentation time are inadequate to fully cover all of the material which should bear on your decision. Thank you for your consideration. I will see you Tuesday night. Sincerely, James E. Hathaway, Jr., CRE Vice Chairman JEH:jIr Attachments M Curtis Finch Chuck Ensminger Lee Bodenhamer Joe White, Jr. Bill Clark Tommy Polk Little Rock City Directors Name Salutation Director Genevieve Stewart Director Stewart 4421 Ludwig Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Director Joan Adcock Director Adcock 6808 Mabelvale Pike Little Rock, AR 72209 Mayor Jim Dailey Mayor Dailey 2112 Hinson Road #14 Little Rock, AR 72212 Director Dean Kumpuris Director Kumpuris 1809 Beechwood Street Little Rock, AR 72207 Vice Mayor Willie Hinton Vice Mayor Hinton 4300 Maryland Little Rock, AR 72204 Director B. J. (Brenda) Wyrick Director Wyrick 11001 Alexander Road Mabelvale, AR 72103 Director Johnnie Pugh Director Pugh 2500 S. Booker Little Rock, AR 72204 Director Brad Cazort Director Cazort 8200 Alvin Lane Little Rock, AR 72227 Director Stacy Hurst Director Hurst 4901 E. Crestwood Little Rock, AR 72207 Director Barbara Graves Director Graves #6 Pecos Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 Director Michael Keck Director Keck 13219 Laurel Oaks Drive Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting June 15, 2004 6.00 PM MINU'T'ES BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING City Hall — 500 W. Markham June 15, 2004 6:00 PM The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas met in regular session with Mayor Dailey Presiding. City Clerk, Nancy Wood called the roil with the following Directors Present: Pugh, Vice Mayor Hinton, Keck, Stewart, Hurst, Wyrick, Cazort, and Mayor Dailey, Graves. Director Keck and Director Adcock were absent. Mayor Dailey gave the invocation, which was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ADDITIONS: M-1. RESOLUTION 11,769 - To approve reappointment of Blair Allen to the Advertising and Promotion Commission and the reappointments of Robert Chandler, Natalie Ghidotti, Melody Piazza and Bruce Wesson to the Museum of Discovery. M-2. RESOLUTION 11,770 - To set the date of public hearing for July 13, 2004 to amend the City of Little Rock Citizens Participation Plan. Synopsis: As a regulatory requirement, public comment must be solicited prior to amending the City's adopted Citizen Participation Plan, which sets for the process through which citizens are involved in the planning and development of projects funded through the CDBG and HOME programs. Director Adcock seconded by Director Keck made a motion to add modification items M-1 and M-2 to the consent agenda. Mayor Dailey announced that he had received word that the applicant wished to defer Items 13,14, and 15, to July 13, 2004, and asked Director Adcock if this could be included in her motion, Director Keck requested that the PIT Items be read into the record and a staff explanation be presented, and then added to the consent agenda to be included in the motion. By unanimous voice vote of the Board Members present, the modifications were made to the agenda. Mr. Moore, City Manager, asked Dorothy Nayles, Director of Community Programs, to read the organizations and the programs. Ms. Nayles stated there were two organizations to provide summer employment coordination programs. The organizations are: Black Community Developers, and Work Force Investment Board, both of which will be providing coordination, mentoring, and monitoring services for the young people who are engaged in the summer employment programs. The second part of the program is for summer recreation programs, which are programs that will serve young people in social, cultural, recreational programs throughout the community. There are eight program recommended which included, Centers for You(h and Families, Centers for Youth and Families Parent Center, Little Rock Boys and Girls Club — Billy Mitchell, Pennick, Thrasher, Whetstone, Promiseland Camp Positive, Promiseland Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting June 15, 2004 6:00 PM Promise Camp, all of which are summer recreation programs designed to engage young people throughout the summer at least four days a week, usually five. Mayor Dailey introduced Boy Scout Troop 27, Holy Souls School. CONSENT AGENDA (1-6) 1. MOTION - To approve minutes of regular Board of Directors Meeting: April 6, 2004; April 20, 2004; and May 4, 2004. 2. MOTION - To set the date of public hearing for July 13, 2004 on an appeal of the Little Rock Planning Commission's action in approval of the Revision of the Conditional Use Permit for the Chenal Mini Storage (Z -5600-C). Planning Commission: 8 yes, 3 no, 0 absent. Staff recommends approval of the CUP. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 11,771 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a construction contract with Joyner, Ford and Burke in a not to exceed amount of $300,000 for general contracting services for the Riverfront Park connector Road; and for other purposes. (2004 Bond Project). 4. RESOLUTION NO. 11,772 - Authorizing the City Manager to renew towing service contracts for an additional one-year term with each wrecker company that executed a towing service contract with the City of Little Rock in September 2003; and for other purposes. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 11,773 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Davidson Electric Company to install standby generators for southwest police, northwest police and the police training academy; and for other purposes. (2004 Bond Project). Synopsis: Authorizes the City Manager to enter into a contract with Davidson Electric to install standby generators for the sum of $143,785. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 11,774 - To authorize the lease of office space by Pearson Lucchi Joint Venture; and for other purposes. Synopsis: The resolution would allow the Little Rock Department of Information Technology to continue leasing office space at 921 West Markham Street. End of Consent Agenda 7. RESOLUTION NO. 11,775 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into contracts with two organizations to provide summer employment coordination programs for the Little Rock Community; and for other purposes. Synopsis: Enter into two contacts with two organizations to provide summer employment coordination programs for the Little Rock community. Term of contract: June 15, 2004 through September 1, 2004. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 11,776 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into contracts with three organizations to provide summer recreation programs for the Little Rock community; and Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting June 15,2004 6:00 PM for other purposes. Synopsis: Enter into eight contracts with three organizations to provide eight summer recreation programs for the Little Rock community. Term of contracts: Junel5, 2004 through September 1, 2004. The Consent agenda was read, which included Items 1-6, Item M-1 and M-2 and Items 7 and 8. Director Adcock made a motion, seconded by Director Hurst to adopt the Consent agenda. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the Consent Agenda was adopted. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GROUPED ITEMS: 9-12 9. ORDINANCE NO. - 19,123 - S -1415-A — Granting a variance from various lot development standards of Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas providing for a variance to allow the creation of a lot without public street frontage for the Bowman Kanis Retail Center Revised Preliminary Plat located on the northwest comer of Kanis Road and Bowman Road. Planning Commission: I 1 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant proposes a revision to a previously approved preliminary plat. The plat includes the development of a lot without public street frontage. 10. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE NO. 19,124 - Z -6554-B — Repealing Ordinance No. 18,985 and planned zoning district titled Bowman Kanis Retail Center Long -form PCD located on the northwest corner of Bowman Road and Kanis Road; and for other purposes. Planning Commission: I1 yes, 0 no, Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant requests that the existing PCD zoning be revoked and the property revert to its original C-3 with conditions zoning. Mayor Dailey opened the public hearing. Mayor Dailey asked if anyone were present who wished to speak on the item. There were none present in favor or in opposition who wished to speak regarding the ordinance. Mayor Dailey closed the public hearing. 11. ORDINANCE NO. 19,125 - Condemning certain structures in the City of Little Rock as structural, fire and health hazards; providing for summary abatement procedures; directing the City Attorney to take such action as is necessary to raze and remove said structures; declaring an emergency; and for other purposes. Synopsis: Eighteen residential structures in dilapidated and/or burned condition causing a negative environmental impact on the residential neighborhoods in which they are located. Mayor Dailey announced he had one card from Bruce Tate to speak in favor of this item. Mr. Tate stated he might have marked the card wrong that he wanted to speak in opposition. He said he had received a letter saying this home would be demolished and he had ten days to get his personal belongs out. He said in December he had a fire, and stated the construction -building permit was obtained. On February 11, there was a second fire. He stated that both fires were set. He received a letter from Code Enforcement that he had until March 13, to board the building up, which he said he did. Mr. Tate stated that Mr. Moore and Mayor Dailey were invited by Code Enforcement to tour this building. He said the problem is that there Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting June 15, 2004 6:00 PM are some codes officers that he feels are after him personally. He complained of racial profiling, discrimination, and violation of his civil rights. He said he was a previous housing inspector and was familiar with the codes, but if there is going to be a system it steeds to be fair to all the people. He said they as black landlords, and property owners do not receive the same attention that white landlords and property owners in the City of little Rock do. He said is has been in court two years, and heard a lot of cases, and has never seen anyone else recommended for jail. He said he has a caseworker that every time he goes before the judge his only recommendation for him is that he be locked up. Mayor Dailey asked, for clarification if his property was that at Old Glory Court, and asked him if what he was asking for was additional time. Mr. Tate said yes. Mayor Dailey asked Mr. Bruce Moore what his recommendation would be. Mr. Moore stated that Mr. Tate has agreed to sign an avadavat stating work would begin substantially on his property within ninety days, and staff is supportive of that. There is also 4520 Caroline Avenue, Julius Kearney, that staff is supportive of entering into that ninety day agreement. He recommended that those two addresses be kept on this list with the understanding of the ninety - day limit. Mr. Moore addressed Mr. Tate's remarks regarding unequal enforcement. Mr. Moore stated that he receives on a regular basis, complaints from everyone, black white, Hispanic, regarding enforcement activities, and would differ with Mr. Tate on the fact that the City's enforcement strategies are targeted toward any one ethnic group. Mayor Dailey explained that the ninety day extension period is a fairly routine ordinance procedure, in adopting an ordinance that calls for the demolition of the property, but administratively the Manager will allow an extra ninety -days to see if there is substantial activity to move toward improvement of the property. If the owner does not, the ordinance is in effi�et and staff would move forward with the demolition. Mr. Carpenter announced that there are two properties, 2422 W. 13th Street, and 2223 Bragg Street that need to be deleted from the list included in the ordinance that is before the Board tonight. He explained that there was a change of ownership during the time of notice and as an abundance of caution would re -notify those individuals. Director Cazort, seconded by Director Adcock moved to delete these two locations from the list. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the ordinance was amended to remove the two listed locations from the current list at this time. Director Adcock asked for clarification on what is considered substantial completion. Mr. Andre Bernard, Acting Director of Housing and Neighborhood Programs, stated they had visited with the property owner last Friday, and in reviewing the property looked at interior work, trusses that need replaced in the roof, sheet rock wiring that needs replaced, and said that staff spoke with Mr. Tate and told him if he got building permits, electrical permits, to do that work, and complete that work, then consideration would be taken to hold off on demolition. A lot of the framing work and electrical work has to done within the ninety days. 12. ORDINANCE NO. 19,126 - Amending Chapter 36 Section 36-203 (g) of the Code of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas to extend the sunset provision an additional five years to July 19, 2009 for portable classroom buildings used by the Little Rock School District. No Commission Action. Staff recommends approval. The grouped items consisting of Items 9-12 (Item 11 was read as amended) were read the first time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Hurst, made the motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinances on second and third reading. By unanimous vice vote of the Board members present, being two-thirds in number, the rules were suspended and the ordinances were 4 Little Rock Board of Directors fleeting June 15, 2004 6:00 PM read the second and third time. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the ordinances (Items 9-13) were passed. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present being two-thirds in number the emergency clause in Item 11 was passed. SEPARATE ITEMS: 13-16 13. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE - G-23-334 - To abandon a portion of the fifty -foot wide Grant Street right-of-way between Lots 7-10, Block 9 and Lots 7-10, Block 10, Lincoln Park Addition. Planning Commission: S yes, 6 no. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: Heywood Weedman, Stephen Maxwell and Doug Buxton request to abandon the fifty -foot wide Grant Street right-of-way between Lots 7-10, Block 9 and Lots 7-10, Lincoln Park Addition. (Deferred to July 13th> 14. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE - G-23-336 — To abandon a portion of Grant Street and a portion of G Street as public right-of-way located in Blocks 9 & 10 of the Lincoln Park Addition. Planning Commission: 11 yes, 0 no. Slaffrecommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant is requesting the abandonment of a portion of Grant Street and portion of G Street as a public right -of --way located in Blocks 9 and 10 of the Lincoln Park Addition including the abandonment orutility and drainage easements. (Deferred to July 13th 15. ORDINANCE - Z-7563 — Approving a planned zoning development and establishing a planned office district tiled Rock House Short Form POD located at 715 North University Avenue, in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, amending the official zoning map of the City of Little Rock; and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 11 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant proposes to rezone this site to POD to allow an existing R-5 zoned property to be developed with the construction of a new 18,000 square foot, two story office building. (Deferred to July 13th1 16. ORDINANCE NO. 19,127 - Z-7585 - To approve a planned zoning development and establishing a planned residential district titled River Tower Short -Form PD -R located on the northeast corner of River Bend Road and Riverfront Drive in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, amending the official zoning map of the City of Little Rock; and for other purposes. Planning Commission: S yes, 3 no. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant proposes the rezoning of the site from 0-3, General Office District to PD -R to allow the construction of a residential tower containing 38 units. Mr. Tony Bozynski, Planning & Development Director, stated there were no changes since the discussion last week during the agenda session, but would answer any questions. Mr. Bozynski stated he had been down to the area quite a few times to get a better perceptive of the area, and staff believes this is a good project, its compatible with the area, it is not introducing any elements such as density or height of buildings that are not already found in the area. Director Graves asked Mr. Bozynski to review what types of things that could come into this area and not have to go through the Board of Directors. Mr. Bozynski stated that 0-3 is general office classification, and a bank and savings and loan office, a church, a duplication shop, family care facility, laboratory, library or public facility such as that, general or professional offices, photography studio, school, travel bureau, are things that can go in by -right, and then there are also conditional uses, which include multi -family. Director Pugh asked, since there is such Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting June 15,2004 6:00 PM opposition to this plan, if there were alternative sites. Mr. Bozynski stated there are other vacant properties but whether they would work for this particular plan, he could not really address because this is a PDR so in addition to the use of the property, the site or development plan I, City Attorney, stated that this plan is what the property owner has brought before the board, and the fact that it may or may not be a development that would look better or work better elsewhere, is not relevant to the question of whether the land use that is being proposed by the developer to the board is appropriate. Mr. Carpenter advised the Board to be careful to be mindful of this. Director Adcock asked how tall the building could be. Mr. Bozynski stated it could be a maximum of sixty feet, but that setbacks have to be increased, and you get one foot of height for each additional foot of set back, if you don't do that then the height is forty fine feet. She asked if the streets would be wide enough for fire apparatus with a building this large. Mr. Bozynski stated the streets are wide enough, and new roads would not have to be constructed. Mayor Dailey asked Mr. Moore if the fire department had looked at this. Mr. Moore answered that they had, and it meets all the fire department requirements. Director Stewart asked if staff had considered doing any kind of shadow study since this was one of the issues of those in opposition. Mr. Bozynski stated that his staff did not have the kind of tools to do that kind of study. He stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, some opponents did present a shadow study that was undertaken by an architect and it does show that obviously there will be some shadowing. Mr. Jim Hathaway, the applicant stated the issue before the Board is whether to approve or disapprove their application to rezone 3.2 acres on Riverfront Drive from 0-3 Office to PDR planned development residential. He stated both the Planning staff and the Planning Commission are recommending this application for approval. He said there is opposition from some but not all of the residents nearby. He stated there is more support than opposition. Mr. Hathaway cited several reasons this project was beneficial including that it would be a classic in -fill project, that it would encourage residential mixed use, the city would benefit from an increased tax base, it is a quality project and complementary to adjacent housing, Mr. Hathaway presented shadow study graphs, using different times of the day and times of year, and the effect of the shadows during these times. Mayor Dailey noted that there might be an alternate project presented tonight by the opposition and asked Mr. Carpenter to help clarify the issue. Mr. Carpenter stated the application before the Board is the one that Mr. Hathaway has presented on behalf of his client and the developer, and the question is do you approve it or do you not. Mr. Carpenter stated the forum has been opened for people to make comments about that particular application and those comments might include and anticipate that they may include what the development could look like, and they are free to do that, but in terms of the land use question before the Board, the question is, does the development that Mr. Hathaway has put forward meet with Planning criteria that would allow this particular project to go forward. It's not a matter of liking another or alternate project better. Mr. Carl Willock, spoke in opposition to the project, saying that several of them that live in Riverbend have been friends and are still friends with some other investors in the proposed project, and hoped the friendships continue, although they do get strained. The Riverbend owners said the first they knew about the proposed project was when there was a notice put up on a tree near the corner ofRiverbead and Riverfont Drive. One of the owners called the Planning Commission and found out what was going on, and found that someone was proposing a thirteen -story high-rise building. They found out that there had been a twelve -story building proposed within twenty-five feet of their boundary and forty-five feet from the closest wall of condominiums there in that area. They R Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting June 15, 2004 6:00 PM became concerned especially those eight people whom own units closest to that brick wall on the west wall, which would be about forty-five feet, from that building. They met with Mr. Hathaway, and the Planning staff. There was agreement to move it seventy-five feet further away. That put it one hundred and twenty five feet away from the nearest condominium. He stated that when you look at what is compatible and what is harmonious, yes this is harmonious and compatible with Riverdale, but not with Riverbend. Mr. Willock presented a shadow study done by Polk Stanley, architect, which projected what the shadows would took like at different times, and seasons. Ms. Carolyn Johnson spoke in opposition saying that she was concerned about the height and width of the building and the shadows that would be cast by the building, especially in the wintertime. She said they would be losing a lot of sunshine, cotton wood trees and grass, and was unhappy that something this size was being considered. Mr. David Henry, Henry Development, presented an alternate plan to what was being considered at tonight's meeting. The ordinance was read the first time. Director Keck, seconded by Director Hurst made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, being two-thirds in number the rules were suspended and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Hurst made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, being two-thirds in number, the rules were suspended and the ordinance was read the third and final time. A roll call vote was taken and recorded as follows: Directors Hurst, Cazort, Keck, Wyrick, Kumpuris, Graves, Vice Mayor Hinton, Mayor Dailey voted in favor. Directors Pugh, Stewart, Adcock voted in opposition. The ordinance passed. Citizens Communication consisted for the following: Speaker: Glenroy Charles Topic: Zoning Conflict – Barrow Road Director Keck, seconded by Director Hinton made a motion to adjourn. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 pm. ATTEST: r 6ti-der—ki Nancy Wood APPROVED: g�A� Ji tib ailey, Mayor 7 Co 40 =I 'i, &-! q� I IVicinity Map C3 31. �d AREA ZONING L a " i WdAb Case: Z-7585 N Location: NORTHEAST CORNER OF A RIVERFRONT DRIVE AND RIVER BEND ROAD Ward: 3 PD: 4 0 200400 800 Feet vmmmff==�� CT: 15 TRS: T2NR12W32 ��i 1 T {•pv p y. 9 t3' ❑ S3 4`� a0b `f � op ',aap 4 Qa. oda IDA Q p P r :n r tr c= [1 5 o 1 FFI E, HILI � 0 1 r4 ctr q Q 9 All a� ' Pocjr2 to Qf MF LAND USE g R ..cA wrrxsr�iEuo�� v: - Vicinity Map p0 ati�=� fl Case: Z-7585 N Location: NORTHEAST CORNER OF RIVERFRONT DRIVE AND RIVER BEND ROAD Ward: 3 PD: 4 0 200 400 800 Feet CT: 15 TRS: T2NR12W32 it s .. �ap•�S q Q 9 All a� ' Pocjr2 to Qf MF LAND USE g R ..cA wrrxsr�iEuo�� v: - Vicinity Map p0 ati�=� fl Case: Z-7585 N Location: NORTHEAST CORNER OF RIVERFRONT DRIVE AND RIVER BEND ROAD Ward: 3 PD: 4 0 200 400 800 Feet CT: 15 TRS: T2NR12W32 Vicinity Map AREA ZONING Case: Z-7585 N Location: NORTHEAST CORNER OF RIVERFRONT DRIVE AND RIVER BEND ROAD Ward: 3 PD: 4 0 200 400 800 Feet CT: 15 TRS: T2NR12W32 e Lj S] q°d0 fl�6C Q .v 0 srOn� � a a o � Poo 0 oQfl� Q¢p$Q°• d 1R� mg 0 C e MX v 40 0 ■ 4E p a Gnl 0 � n Vicinity Map LAND ]USE Case: Z-7585 N Location: NORTHEAST CORNER OF RIVERFRONT DRIVE AND RIVER BEND ROAD Ward: 3 PD: 4 0 200 400 800 Feet CT: 15 TRS: T2NR12W32 2004050731 86/28/2884 89:54:12 RE Filed & Recorded in Official Records of CAROLYN STALEY PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT/r"" `•CITY CLERK ORDINANCE NO. 19,127 Fees $X0%bD AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TITLED RIVER TOWER LONG -FORM PD -R (Z-7585) LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RIVER BEND ROAD AND RIVERFRONT DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, .ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the zoning classification of the following described property be changed from 0-3, General Office District to PD -R: A tract of land located in the NE '/4 of Section 32 and NW 1/4 of Section 33, T -2-N, R -12-W, Little Rock Pulaski County, Arkansas more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest coater of Tract D -2A, Riverdale Addition, Little Rock, Arkansas; thence S16°19'00"E along the west line of said Tract D -2A, 236.69 feet; thence S24°19'03"E continuing along said West line, 133.12 feet to the Northeast comer of Tract D-2AI, said Riverdale Addition; thence S65°40'57"W along the North line of said Tract D -2A1, 25.00 feet to the Northwest corner thereof; thence S24°19'03"E along the West line of said Tract D-2AI, 23.41 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of Riverbend Road; thence Westerly along said North right-of-way line the following: (1) Southwesterly along the are of a 60.00 foot radius curve to the left a chord bearing and distance of S21 ° 14' 49"W, 24.31 feet; (2) Southwesterly along the are of a 25.00 foot radius curve to the right, a chord bearing and distance of S37°04'07"W, 23.10 feet; (3) Southwesterly along the are of a 547.96 foot radius curve to the right, a chord bearing and distance of S70°24'36"W, 111.29 feet; (4) S76014' :i 8"W, 57.01 feet (5) Southwesterly along the are of a 597.96 foot radius curve to the ]eft, a chord bearing and distance of S73021'49"W, 59.98 feet; (6) S70°29'21"W, 11.45 feet and (7) Northwesterly along the are of a 50.00 foot radius curve to the right, a chord bearing and distance of N64°30'40"W, 70.71 feet to a point on the East right-of-way line of Riverfront Drive; thence N19°30'41"W along said East right-of-way line 349.19 feet to a point on the South line of an access, utility and drainage easement recorded in Plat Book C, Page 871, Records of Pulaski County; thence N70°29' 18"E along said South line, 102.35 feet; thence N60°00'09"E continuing along said South line, 97.69 feet; thence N70°29' 18"E continuing along said South line, 151.09 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.2179 acres more or less. SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as recommended by the Little Rock PIanning Commission. SECTION 3. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for River Tower Long -form PD -R is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the tiyne specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36-454 (e) of the Code of Ordinances. SECTION 4. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof. SECTION 5. That this Ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until the final approval of the plan. SECTION 6. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of the ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of the ordinance. SECTION 7. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of the same that are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency. PASSED: JUNE 15, 2004 ATTEST: APPROVED: City lcl.k Mat r 0 2004050731 L, PAJ. ry n7x TR T2NR12W32 CT 15 _ PD 4 WARD .- SHORT -FORM PRD Z-7585 NORTHEAST CORNER OF RIVERFRONT DRIVE AND RIVER BEND ROAD OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATION JUNE 159 2004 AGENDA Subject An Ordinance establishing a Planned Zoning District titled River Tower Long - form PD -R (Z-7585), located on the northeast corner of River Bend Road and Riverfront Drive SYNOPSIS FISCAL IMPACT RECOMMENDATION CITIZEN PARTICIPATION BACKGROUND Action Required 4Ordinance Resolution Approval Information Report Submitted By Bruce Moore The applicant proposes the rezoning of the site from 0-3, General Office District to PD -R to allow the construction of a residential tower containing 38 units. None. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to PD -R. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the requested rezoning, as recommended by Staff, by a vote of 8 ayes, 3 noes and 0 absent. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed PD -R request at its May 6, 2004 meeting. There were two registered objectors present. All property owners within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet, who could be identified and the Sherrill Heights Garden Club were notified of the Public Hearing. The original proposal submitted by the applicant included the development of the site with a twelve story 153.6 foot residential high-rise building containing fifty residential BACKGROUND CONTINUED units. The proposal included a twenty-five foot rear yard setback from the eastern property line. The applicant has redesigned the building to be located no closer than 80 -feet from the eastern property line. The applicant has also indicated the glass portion of the tower will be no closer than 100 -feet from the eastern property line. The applicant has decreased the number of units from 50 to 38 and added one story to the building resulting in a 13 -story building. The applicant has indicated the first two levels will house parking and level three will be an amenities floor. Floors 4 — 12 will each contain residential living quarters at four units per floor and level thirteen will contain two living quarters or the penthouse units. The applicant has indicated the ground floors will be screened from the eastern property line with dense plantings and extensive landscaping adjacent to the parking deck. Level three will also be screened with year around evergreen plantings in planter boxes along the east wall. The applicant has indicated every effort will be made to direct views away from the adjoining properties to the east. The applicant has indicated the building will be 165.2 feet in height to the rooftop of the penthouse units and 181.2 feet in height to the top of the mechanical penthouse. The mechanical penthouse is located adjacent to Riverfront Drive, away from the residential properties to the east. The site is currently zoned 0-3 and with a Conditional Use Permit development of the site as R-5, Urban Residential District is an allowable use. The typical maximum building height for this zoning district is 60 -feet with proper setbacks. The applicant has indicated two levels of parking on the proposed site plan as well as surface parking for guests. The site plan includes the placement of 100 plus parking spaces on the site. The proposed parking is exceeds the typical minimum parking required for a multi -family development or one and one-half spaces per unit. The proposed development has incorporated the parking within the building to allow for additional green spaces. Typical multi -family developments place the parking around the proposed buildings, decreasing the available area for landscaping and green spaces. Staff feels the placement of parking within the proposed building will enhance the proposed development. 2 BACKGROUND CONTINUED The applicant has indicated signage on the proposed site plan. The proposed sign area is four feet by eighteen feet and a total area of seventy-two square feet. The typical signage allowed in multi -family developments per the Zoning Ordinance is six feet in height and twenty-four square feet of sign area. Staff is supportive of the proposed signage. Staff is supportive of the proposed development as amended. The applicant has increased the building setback and reduced the number of units proposed within the development. The applicant has indicated a density of 11.8 units per acre well within the allowable density of the R-5, Urban Residential District. The applicant has moved the building as close as feasible to Riverfront Drive to increase the building setback from the eastern property line. The applicant is requesting a reduced landscape buffer along Riverfront Drive. The proposed site plan indicates a 6.9 - foot minimum landscape strip along the roadway. This is sufficient to meet the Landscape Ordinance requirement. Staff feels the proposed development is a classic in -fill development and the applicant has done a good job of working within restricted perimeters of an established area. The applicant has indicated the development will result in the construction of high quality residential housing east of University Avenue, adding to the downtown housing market. In addition, the site is located in an area of mixed uses ranging from single-family residential to industrial uses. The developer has tried to minimize staff's concerns by increasing setbacks and reducing the density of the development. Staff is supportive of the proposed use of the site and feels multi -family is an appropriate use for the site. Please see the attached Planning record and site plan for the development proposal and the recommendation. c Commission minute applicant's specific staff analysis and ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TITLED RIVER TOWER LONG -FORM PD -R (Z-7585) LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RIVER BEND ROAD AND RIVERFRONT DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the zoning classification of the following described property be changed from 0-3, General Office District to PD -R: A tract of land located in the NE 1/4 of Section 32 and NW 1/4 of Section 33, T -2-N, R -12-W, Little Rock Pulaski County, Arkansas more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Tract D -2A, Riverdale Addition, Little Rock, Arkansas; thence S 16° 19' 00"E along the west line of said Tract D -2A, 236.69 feet; thence S24°19'03"E continuing along said West line, 133.12 feet to the Northeast corner of Tract D -2A1, said Riverdale Addition; thence S65°40'57"W along the North line of said Tract D -2A1, 25.00 feet to the Northwest corner thereof; thence S24°19'03"E along the West line of said Tract D -2A1, 23.41 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of Riverbend Road; thence Westerly along said North right-of-way line the following: (1) Southwesterly along the arc of a 60.00 foot radius curve to the left a chord bearing and distance of S21 ° 14'49"W, 24.31 feet; (2) Southwesterly along the arc of a 25.00 foot radius curve to the right, a chord bearing and distance of S37°04'07"W, 23.10 feet; (3) Southwesterly along the arc of a 547.96 foot radius curve to the right, a chord bearing and distance of S70°24'36"W, 111.29 feet; (4) S76°14'18"W, 57.01 feet (5) Southwesterly along the arc of a 597.96 foot radius curve to the left, a chord bearing and distance of S73021'49"W, 59.98 feet; (6) S70°29'21"W, 11.45 feet and (7) Northwesterly along the arc of a 50.00 foot radius curve to the right, a chord bearing and distance of N64030'40"W, 70.71 feet to a point on the East right-of-way line of Riverfront Drive; thence N19°30'41"W along said East right-of-way line 349.19 feet to a point on the South line of an access, utility and drainage easement recorded in Plat Book C, Page 871, Records of Pulaski County; thence N70°29' 18"E along said South line, 102.35 feet; thence N60°00'09"E continuing along said South line, 97.69 feet; thence N70°29' 18"E continuing along said South line, 151.09 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.2179 acres more or less. SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission. SECTION 3. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for River Tower Long -form PD -R is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36-454 (e) of the Code of Ordinances. SECTION 4. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof. SECTION 5. That this Ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until the final approval of the plan. SECTION 6. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration or- adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of the ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of the ordinance. SECTION 7. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of the same that are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency. WN% ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor ow Owe OW 0 Ow, a �� y 1r1 5 W W' W. *We �,. v n � O ¢ M.� Imo+ I-ew rA Mil ME O O� r -w t7` CD O CD 3?' CD I N O CD O• CD CD 04 O a s: �J s E� M CD o a CD C. a1 (D o N ° CD lu° y m CL CD 0 a su K' CO c 0 O 0 y CD w co N F + + a o CD 2 = y � °�° co O CD cQ' rt -� O vii CA) 2 'a N Gi O, w 0o ch o C ME O O� r -w t7` CD O CD 3?' CD I N O CD O• CD CD 04 O a s: �J s E� M ya�� v CA N Z N W N Z O --I 2 m a N Z O :!) 00 2 Rg-Z O cm N M zA m O cn z'�O � vi o:z 3 mm 00 Z v 0 m Q 2 I ! r ofd y r Attached Single Family 5.95 Units Per Acre Multi -Family rl r ., 25.6 Units Per Acre - !" Multi- Family _ ► ': , . :, `;� 17.48 Units Per Acre, x •r Multi -Family L 22.64 Units Per Acre :..• "Four and Five St Multi- Family ��. � � - rY ! 34.15 Units Per Acre �( "' "�, Office Buildings Two Story Office Building d'F Office / Warehouse s r rj-` - Complex w f. 'T Detached Single Family 3.65 Units Per Acre One and Two Story i Detached Single Family Office Buildings ; F 4.42 Units Per Acre Ti Single Story Office, Attached Single Family Building r; ;� 4.22 Units Per Acre Office / Warehouse nd Mini Warehouse 50 Acre Office Development Complex f "�, 2 Story to 12 Story Buildings p .' `� 28 Feet to 200 Feet In Height Single Story School ► "'p,L r Building Two Story Office f Two and Three Story Buildings Office Buildings Y Office / Warehouse Complex 'Iheda6 cmbonod he:en was cavpdd bmn varum saves N f Ne sdemo and bmefitarffi LNhs Area(reogralhc N hoons. Ne p.bhcagamcrcs doN byamS)ena My ffhedffiabyanyaveeNaNaoPA Ih, dolortNe sole ndcof h—by endby GIS, d of tivsd"a, Ubdly diem "dial PA(SISrdd ,m of my,hemdess and wiNoid LabJtyf my "aeras, cmh:,mdamages of erryn�re E r T w r ■ t o A aga.4 PAO15,.".d.g c of ddmxoraiog Gan improper e of Ne dam aruu by .aha p mty. A—p—or se of Nis dale is dmm w,Ihmt my 0 490 M0 a{rr—M a v:plled w ms The ge[�mptuc 8b .s pim Darn t`/S.1 591A rhaopghy. Mng� w Feer F City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 732 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 May 17, 2004 Mr. Joe White White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 Re: River Tower Long -form PD -R (Z-7585) — Located on the Northeast corner of River Bend Road and River Front Drive Dear Mr. White: This is to advise you that in connection with your application Case No. Z-7585 the following action was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 6, 2004: Approved with conditions. X Recommended approval with conditions. Recommended approval as submitted. Denied your request as submitted. Deferred to Other: Meeting. Your item will be forwarded to the Board of Directors for their June 15, 2004 Public Hearing. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 371-6821. Respectfully, Donna James, AICP Subdivision Administrator City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision April 25, 2004 Mr. Joe White White Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 Re: River Tower Short -form PD -R (Z-7585), located on the Northeast corner of River Bend Road and Riverfront Drive Dear Mr. White: This is to advise you that in connection with your application referenced above the following action was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 22, 2004: Approved with conditions. Recommended approval with conditions. Recommended approval as submitted. Denied your request as submitted. X Deferred to May 6, 2004 Meeting. Other: If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 371-6821. Respectfully, Donna a es, AICP Subdivision Administrator City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 ' Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision March 15, 2004 Mr. Joe White White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 Re: The River Tower Long -form PD -R (Z-7585) — located on the Northeast corner of River Bend Road and Riverfront Drive Dear Mr. White: This is to advise you that in connection with your application Case No. Z-7585 the following action was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 11, 2004: Approved with conditions. Recommended approval with conditions. Recommended approval as submitted. Denied your request as submitted. `K Deferred to April 22, 2004 Meeting. Other: If f you have any questions please do not Eesitate to contact me at 371-6821. Respectfully, Donna James, AICP Subdivision Administrator FROM LITTLE ROCK ENGINEERING MED; 2 18' O 16:4.'r ST. 16: 860005555 Y C1tV 01 Little Rock JAL weparttn4nl of Planning and �larelolpmwnt 723 wov mwknem S,rou Planning Utda Rock, Arkansan 722p1.13N Zoning and Phena: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399.3435 or 371 4963 s;ubdhrislon DATE: February 3, 2004 i ° ENTERGY (2) NAME: The Rlver Tower Short-fq1-m pRD ° ARKLA ' TYPE OF ISSUE: 12 Story Building - 52 Units I 2one Southweve&tern Bell Telephone FILE NUMBER. 2-7585 1 P () LOCATIOiti: NEC Riverfront Drive and River Bend Road ° Central Arkansas Wwcr ° Little Rock Wastewater ° I'-A&lci County [Tanning _ a Little Rock Fire Department ° Public works' Engineerir_g, Traffic (2) ° Parks and Recreation Department ° Planning and Development - Site Plan Review SWBT CL,. ° Planning and Development Graphics"""`: m rs ° CA1"A TO WHO IT NIAY CONCERN: On MarcELU04 the Little Rock PIanning Cornmission will consider the above referenced issue. NOTE: The Interdepartmental Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on Eeblvary 13. 2004-, VOTE: The Subdivision Committee Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on &tW 2p0 4, A copy of 11:c plan for the refemced issue is enclosed for your consideration, and your cotnments and/or recommendations will be appreciated. Sincerely, Dunnaei Subdivision Administrator (371-6921) (Pleaserespondbelow and return this letter with your comments for our records.) Apptoved as Submitted. ---�� PLEASE RETURN COMMENTS BY , 20 I Easement (s) required (See aaached plat or description.) ,To all utilities: If an easement is requested which is in excess of 10 feet in width, Provide justification for the easement or the request will not be included in the Plantling Commission agenda. Comments: By: Encloslu'e of Liftle Rock ----•._... we a-.arining ana Development 723 West Markham Street little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 DATE: February 3, 2004 ENTERGY (2) ° ARKLA Southwestern Bell Telephone (2) Central Arkansas Water Little Rock Wastewater 0 Pulaski County Planning ! 0 Little Rock Fire Department 0 Public Works: Engineering, Traffic (2) ❑ Parks and Recreation Department 0 Planning and Development — Site Plan Review Planning and Development Graphics 0 CATA Planning Zoning and Subdivision NAME: The River Tower Short -form PRD TYPE OF ISSUE: 12 Story Building — 52 Units FILE NUMBER: Z-7585 LOCATION: NEC Riverfront Drive and River Bend Road TO WHO IT MAY CONCERN: On March 11 2004 the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced issue. NOTE: The Interdepartmental Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on Februaiy 13 200 NOTE: The Subdivision Committee Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on Fe 4 bruary 19 2004. A copy of the plan for the referenced issue is enclosed for your consideration, and your comments and/ recommendations will be appreciated, or Sincerely, DoUnna .I es Subdivision Administrator (371-6821) (Please respond below and return this letter with your comments for our records.) N COMMENTS BY February 17 Approved as Submitted. PLEASE RET UR2004 Easement (s) required (See attached plat or description.) *To all utilities: If an easement is requested which is in excess of 10 feet in width, provide justificationor th easement or the request will not be included in the Planning Commission agenda. f e Comments: By: fir{ Enclosure Et of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 1-1 334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6663 DATE: February 3, 2004 ❑ ENTERGY (2) ❑ ARKLA ❑ Southwestern Bell Telephone (2) ❑ Central Arkansas Water ❑ Little Rock Wastewater ❑ Pulaski County Planning —�f Little Rock Fire Department Planning Zoning and Subdivision NAME: The River Tower Short -form PRD TYPE OF ISSUE: 12 Story Building — 52 Units FILE NUMBER: Z-7585 LOCATION: NEC Riverfront Drive and River Bend Road ❑ Public Works: Engineering, Traffic (2) ❑ Parks and Recreation Department ❑ Planning and Development — Site Plan Review ❑ Planning and Development Graphics ❑ CATA TO WHO IT MAY CONCERN: On March 11, 2004 the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced issue. NOTE: The Interdepartmental Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on February 13, 2004. NOTE: The Subdivision Committee Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on February 19, 2004. A copy of the plan for the referenced issue is enclosed for your consideration, and your comments and/or recommendations will be appreciated. Sincerely, Dug� onna d es Subdivision Administrator (371-6821) (Please respond below and return this letter with your comments for our records.) Approved as Submitted. PLEASE RETURN COMMENTS BY February 17, 2004. Easement (s) required (See attached plat or description.) *To all utilities.: If an easement is requested which is in excess of 10 feet in width, provide justification for the easement or the request will not be included in the Planning Commission agenda. Comments: rA By: En sure City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 ' Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision DATE: February 3, 2004 ❑ ENTERGY (2) ❑ ARKLA ❑ Southwestern Bell Telephone (2) ❑ Central Arkansas Water ❑ Little Rock Wastewater NAME: River Ridge Pointe Addition Replat Lot 2A and 2B TYPE OF ISSUE: Creation of Lots without public street frontage FILE NUMBER: S -686-D LOCATION: River Ridge Pointe Pulaski County Planning Little Rock Fire Department Public Works: Engineering, Traffic (2) Parks and Recreation Department ❑ Planning and Development — Site Plan Review ❑ Planning and Development Graphics ❑ CATA TO WHO IT MAY CONCERN: On March 11, 2004 the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced issue. NOTE: The Interdepartmental Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on February 13, 2004. NOTE: The Subdivision Committee Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on Februaryl9, 2004. A copy of the plan for the referenced issue is enclosed for your consideration, and your comments and/or recommendations will be appreciated. Sincerely, Don James Subdivision Administrator (371-6821) (Plea=Approved ow and return this letter with your comments for our records.) as Submitted. PLEASE RETURN COMMENTS BY February 17, 2004. Easement (s) required (See attached plat or description.) *To all utilities: If an easement is requested which is in excess of 10 feet in width, provide justification for the easement or the request will not be included in the Planning Commission agenda. Comments: By: E sure City of Little Rock tmDepartment of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 DATE: February 3, 2004 ❑ ENTERGY (2) ❑ ARKLA ❑ Southwestern Bell Telephone (2) ❑ Central Arkansas Water ❑ Little Rock Wastewater Planning Zoning and Subdivision NAME: The River Tower Short -form PRD TYPE OF ISSUE: 12 Story Building — 52 Units FILE NUMBER: Z-7585 LOCATION: NEC Riverfront Drive and River Bend Road ❑ Pulaski County Planning ❑ Little Rock Fire Department ❑ Public Works: Engineering, Traffic (2) ❑ Parks and Recreation Department ❑ Planning and Development — Site Plan Review ❑ Planning and Development Graphics ❑ CATA TO WHO IT MAY CONCERN: On March 1 i, 2004 the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced issue. NOTE: The Interdepartmental Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on February 13, 2004. NOTE: The Subdivision Committee Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on February 19, 2004. A copy of the plan for the referenced issue is enclosed for your consideration, and your comments and/or recommendations will be appreciated. Sincerely, Donna Ls Subdivision Administrator (371-6821) (Please respond below and return this letter with your comments for our records.) Approved as Submitted. PLEASE RETURN COMMENTS BY February 17,2004. Easement (s) required (See attached plat or description.) *To all utilities: If an easement is requested which is in excess of 10 feet in width, provide justification for the easement or the request will not he included in the Planning Commission agenda. Comments: By: Enclosure FEB -17-2004 TUE 06:22 PM RELIANT ENERGY ARKLA FAX N0. 5013774520 L� Of Littre Rack X Deiiiarrtment of Planning and Development 723 West Markhafsl Street t.ItWe Rook, Arkansas 7=1.13,14 Phone; (591) 37t•4700 ' fox; (501) 399.3435 or 371-6863 DATH. Fcbrunry 3,200.1 5N1'ERGY (2) ARKLA P. 04 Planning Zoning and Subdivision NAME: River Ridge Pointe Addition Replat Lot 2A And 213 TYPE OF ISSUE: Creation of .r,o(s vYitholit public street frnnfa SOUVIWesterll Bell Tcicphotle (2), NCllyyi3F,R: 5-686_v Ct'►ilrml ArEcatlsa3 Water LOCATION- River Ridge Pointe Lime Rock Wastewater Pulaski COUnty Planninq Little Rocic Fire, Department Public Works: Engi)uuuring, `irafrjc (2) PArks and Recl'eatioil Department Planning and Development — Site Plan P•Gviow Planning and Dzvoloprnksnt Graphics C:ATA TO'4K WHO IT 1vIAY CONCERN, On Msrch_I.k 70Q!,tha Littlo Rock Planning Cominission will consider the above referenced issue. NOTE: The Interdcpartmentil Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held an Fekn►ary 3 Z00:t, NO'1 E: The Subdivision Committee Meeting at which this is9ue will be discussed will be held on Feb_ ruary 1q, 700.1. A copy of tl►e plan for the raforenced issue is enclosed for your consideration, and your comments and/or recommandations will be appreciated. shiceri:ly, DJa►►es 80divi,sloli Adminl5trator (371.-5821) (Please respond below and return this latter with your comments for mir records.) Approved os Submitted. �Y PLF,ASE RETL N C0MMF,N'1'S BY Febru:i_ry 17, 2004, __Eascrncmt (s) required (See auaehed plat or description,) *T0 all rnxlides:.Tf all emvenleat %s requested which is in excess of 10 feet in width, provide jus7i, 70atinn for. the etc e�►te�►r or firer requestwill rtnt hr, ill, in the Planning Continission agenda. Cotnmc•n I: enc FEB -17-2004 TUE 06:25 PM RELIANT ENERGY ARKLA FAX N0. 5013774520 City of Little Rack DOPartmerif of Planning and bevelopment Planning 723 Wast Markham Strum Little Flock,&k2neas 72201.133-1 Zoning and Phone: (501) 371.4790 F iv! (501) 393.3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision DATF: l'-c;bruary 3, 2004 r___ P. 04/11 L+'NTHIRGY (2) r r A10SLA Sauthweslern Bell Telephone (2) n C.'uutrul Ark;rrisas Watcr U Little Rock Wastewater F1 I'llhiski Cowity Planning NAME;: The River Tower Short -Corm PRD TYPE Or JSSlll;: 12 Stony Ruildin; — 52 Units Ir 1X NUi171 ERs 7-7585 LOCATION. NEC Riverfront Drive and River Bend Mond Little Rock Fire Department Public Works: inginocrii1g,1'riffie (2) P1rks and Recreation Department ca I'lanning and DeveIop tient — Site Min Review f1 l lunning And Devolopment Gn;aphics LJ C'ATA TO W110 IT 14AY CONCERN: Uri Murch ,I little Rock Planning Cominissiott will consider ilio above referenced issue. NOTI'.;_ The; interde;pwitnental Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on Februg3y_l_;joo4. N011': The Subdivision Committee Meeting it which This issue will be discussed will be held on ] h 19, 2004, A copy Of llic plan for the r femnced issue is enclosed for your consideration, and your commcaats and/or reconiniciidations will be appreciated. S iucerely, Ra J l i. c SWl)(livision Administrator (371-6821) (Nesse icspond below mid return this letter with you( comments for our records.) ,.. ,.._Approved as Subriuttcd, F-HASE RETURN COMMENTS BY 2004. El tiscrnent (s) required (bee attached plat or description) `To rel tarilillzs: If all r"pVrrarrad is requasted whicfl is iia ¢recess of 10 feed in 3vidthy provide jrrstifiealion for else easenavaat or the request will not be inclaadod in the Planning Coaauuission agenda. Cornrl ien ts: I a z OW � o 0 � fA rr M H O o W � a b m T' 1 O ~ Vol r� W =74 L� � o 0 � fA b o z- o W r� W tit,.y 'v 0 r� W in tv MI f ID 4zrn cs ts .CD in tv MI City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ON A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO: Sherrill Heights Garden Club ATTENTION: Ms. Joanne Matson ADDRESS: 54 Sherrill Road Little Rock, AR 72202 REQUEST: The River Tower Long -form PD -R (Z-7585) — A request to rezone the site to Planned Residential Development to allow the placement of a 12 story residential building containing 58 units. GENERAL LOCATION OR ADDRESS: located on the southeast corner of River Bend Drive and Riverfront Drive OWNED BY: The Hathaway Group, TCN Worldwide NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application for a Planned Unit Development of the above property has been filed with the Department of Planning and Development. A public hearing will be held by the L.R. Planning Commission in the Board of Directors Chamber, second floor, City Hall, on March 11, 2004 at 4:00 P.M. This notice is provided in order to assure that neighborhood associations are aware of issues that may affect their neighborhood. Information requests should be directed to the Planning staff at 371-4790. Steve Beck, Interim Director /, .�ea 7i Illi l0�- _ -7. sus NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ON A REQUEST FOR A REZONING THROUGH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALL RESIDENTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY AT: GENERAL LOCATION OR ADDRESS: On the southeast corner of River Bend Drive and Riverfront Drive OWNED BY: The Hathaway Group, TCN Worldwide REQUEST: _ The River Tower Long -form PD -R (Z-7585) — A request to rezone the site to Planned Residential Development to allow the placement of a 12 story_ residential building containing 58 units. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application for Rezoning — (Planned Developments of the above property has been filed with the Department of Planning and Development. A public hearing will be held by the L. R. Planning Commission in the Board of Directors Chamber, second floor, City Hall, on March 11, 2004 at 4:00 P.M. This notice is provided in order to assure that area residents are aware of issues that may affect their neighborhood. Information requests should be directed to the Planning Staff (Donna James) at 371-4790. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ON A REQUEST FOR A REZONING THROUGH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALL RESIDENTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY AT: GENERAL LOCATION OR ADDRESS: On the southeast corner of River Bend Drive and Riverfront Drive OWNED BY: The Hathaway Group, TCN Worldwide _ REQUEST: The River Tower Long -form PD -R (Z-7585) — A request to rezone the site to Planned Residential Development to allow the placement of a 12 story residential building containing 58 units. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application for Rezoning — (Planned Development) of the above property has been filed with the Department of Planning and Development. A public hearing will be held by the L. R. Planning Commission in the Board of Directors Chamber, second floor, City Hall, on March 11, 2004 at 4:00 P.M. This notice is provided in order to assure that area residents are aware of issues that may affect their neighborhood. Information requests should be directed to the Planning Staff (Donna James) at 371-4790. OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 4 PINE MOUNTAIN RD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LUO01-02 5201 JERRY DR LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 5316 PINNACLE VALLEY RD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 14318 WESTBURY DR LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 14411 WESTBURY DR LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 14502 CANTRELL RD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 14600 CANTRELL RD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01 14710 CANTRELL RD/ LITTLE ROCK, AR 72,W,; OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 1 PINE MO)efNTAIN RD LITTLE ROCK. AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 6 PINE MOUNTAIN RD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 5300 PINNACLE VALLEY RD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 5401 PINNACLE VALLEY RE LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCC%A�NT LU04-01 1432TBURY DR LITTCK. AR 7222 OCCUPANT LUX -01-02 14411 WEST RY ❑ LITTLE RO . AR 7222 10 PANT LU04-01-02 9 CANTRELL RD LE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 14601 CANTRELL RD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 14711 CANTRELL RD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 2 PINE MOUNTAIN RD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 z -� OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 5200 JERRY DR LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 5302 PIN CLE VALLEY RD LITTL OCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 5524 PINNACLE VALLEY RD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 14410 WESTBURY DR LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 14424 CANTRELL RD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT LU04-01-02 14520 CANTRELL RD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 OCG PANT LU04-01-02 14004 ANTRELL RD LITTLE OCK, AR 72223 OCCUPANT04-01-02 14806 CANTRELL D LITTLE ROCK, AR 7 23 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 1801 CANAL PT 1801 RIVER HEIGHTS DR 1803 RIVER HEIGHTS DR LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 1804 RIVER HEIGHTS DR 1804 RIVER HEIGHTS DR 1805 RIVER HEIGHTS DR LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 1809•RIVER HEIGHTS DR 1810 RIVER HEIGHTS DR 1811 RIVER HEIGHTS DR LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 1814 RIVER HEIGHTS DR 1820 CANAL PT 1914 CANAL PT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 11 RIVERBEND ROAD 15 RIVERBEND ROAD 17 RIVERBEND ROAD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 19 RIVERBEND ROAD 21 RIVER POINTE POINT 22 RIVER POINTE POINT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 23 RIVER POINTE POINT 24 RIVER POINTE POINT 31 RIVER POINTE POINT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 32 RIVER POINTE POINT 33 RIVER POINTE POINT 34 RIVER POINTE POINT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 OCCUPANT Z-7585 4 RIVERBEND ROAD 6 SANDBAR LANE 9 RIVERBEND ROAD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OCCUPANT Z- 03-A OCCUPANT Z -5703-A OCCUPANT Z -5703-A 4517 TIMBE-RLAN DVR 4511 TIMBERLAND OR 4511 TIMBERLAND DR LITTLE ROCK, AR 722b*,LITTLE ROCK, A 04 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72204 OCCUPANT Z -5703-A CUPANT Z -5703-A OCCUPANT Z -5703-A 4521 TIMBERLAND DR 4517 TWBERLAND DR 4521 TIMBERLAND DR LITTLE ROCK, AR 72-- LITTLE ROC 4 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72204 Beach Abstract & Guaranty Company 100 CENTER STREET - P. O. BOX 2580 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203 TELEPHONE: (501) 376-3301 FAX: (501) 376.5667 (TITLE DEPT.) - FAX: (501) 376-5603 (ESCROW DEPT.) February 11, 2004 11r. Brian Dale I"Thite Daters 8., Associates, Inc. 24 Rahling Rw..d Little flock, 1�rkansas 72223 Re: Property lying within 200 feet of part of Sectiol,s 32 and 33, Tort ship 2 North, Range 12 ?Test. Dear Mr. Dale; We have examined the records of P_tlaski County, Ark- ansas, up to January 7, 2004 7 8:00 A. IJ. ss to the property lying within 200 feet of the property described on the attached sheet. We find that the property listed on the attached two sheets, lies 7^ithin 200 feet of th subject property and that tre, dames set out opposit the descriptions are the last appprent onners of re -lord of said property. Te do not certify as to validity of title. Addresses of oviners are not Fup rarlteed to be accurate. Sincere E. k. Ro,,ien, Jr. Chp, i rman encl RIVERDALE RH-8 (UNRECORDED) A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NE1/4 OF SECTION 32 AND NW1/4 OF SECTION 33, T -2-N, R -12-W, LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT D -2A, RIVERDALE ADDITION, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; THENCE S 16' 19'00" E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT D -2A, 236.69 FT.; THENCE S24' 19'03" E CONTINUING ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 133.12 FT. TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT D -2A1, SAID RIVERDALE ADDITION; THENCE S65'40'57'W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT D -2A1, 25.00 FT. TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE S24' 19'03" E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT D -2A1, 23.41 FT. TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF RIVERBEND ROAD; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH RIGH -OF -WRY LINE THE FOLLOWING: (1) SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 60.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO . THE LEFT A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S21'14'49"W, 24.31 FT.; (2) SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 25.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S37'04'07"W, 23.10 FT.; (3) SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 547.96 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF 570'24'36"W, 111.29 FT.; (4) S76'14'18"W, 57.01 FT.; (5) SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 597.96 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S73'21'49"W, 59.98 FT.; (6) S70'29'21"W, 11.45 FT. AND (7) NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 50.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT; A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N&V30'40"W, 70.71 FT. TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF RIVERFRONT DRIVE; THENCE N19'30'41"W ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 349.19 FT. TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF AN ACCESS, UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK C, PAGE 871, RECORDS OF PULASKI COUNTY; THENCE N70'29' 18" E ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 102.35 FT.; THENCE N60'00'09"E CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 97.69 FT.; THENCE N70'29'18"E CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 151.09 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 3.2179 ACRES MORE OR LESS. RightFax 5/26/2004'4,1L -PAL -272 -RightFax ROGHR A. GIASGO- 1809 RIVER 111 IGHT :S RociI , ARKANSAs 7 2202 (501) 663-8119 May 25, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE ONLY Mr. Jim Hathaway The Hathaway Group 1001 North University, Suite 100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Fax No. 663-5408 RE: River Tower Project Dear Jim: I received your letter of May 17 containing an update to the Canal Pointe residents on the River Tower project. I have been meaning to communicate with you for several weeks, but have been almost constantly tied up in trials and have just not had the chance. You may mark me down as having no opposition to River Tower as approved by the planning commission. You may also relate my sentiments about this to anyone you see fit, including members of the Board of Directors. I am greatly in favor of there being more high-end residential development in our immediate area (as opposed to apartments or offices, for example). From what I have seen, the River Tower is a very high caliber project. I am convinced it will increase residential property values in the neighborhood. While I may wish that the building were not so high. I understand the economics of it. I also understand that some future project, which might be approved by the Board, could very well be much less desirable. A. 7C 1. t � t: Roger A. Glasgow RAG/fsd � Message James, Donna From: Mary Ann Dawkins [maryann@coulsonoil.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 1:35 PM To: James, Donna Subject: Proposed River Tower Condominiums Page 1 of l Being a resident of Canal Pointe, I discovered yesterday in a meeting with Jim Hathaway that my name had been omitted from the recent mailings. Therefore, I was not aware of the past meetings, nor aware, of what actually was being proposed. After an hour presentation, I was extremely impressed. I feel that if ALL residents of River Bend, as well as, Canal Pointe had the opportunity to hear and see this presentation they would not have ANY concerns at this point. Thank you. Mary Ann Dawkins 1815 River Heights Dr. Little Rock, AR 72202 5/4/2004 Page 1 of 1 James, Donna From: Buddywmson@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 6:23 PM To: James, Donna Subject: Proposed River Tower Condominiums Ms. James --I am a resident of Canal Pointe. I understand you are the contact for comments on the above proposed development. I will not be able to attend the meeting; however, I would iike to express my views in this correspondence. I am very much in favor of the proposal. I feel that it will be an asset to the neighborhood, will be both an attractive addition as well as providing first class additional residential development which is sorely needed in Riverdale. I hope all aspects of this proposed building will be considered by the commission, Sincerely, Charles Williamson 5/6/2004 , A pint.- rN MAY. 4.2004 9:48AM DEMOCRAT PRINTING N0.038 P.I DEMOCRAT PRINTING AND LITHOGRAPHING COMPANY EXECUTIVE OFFICES POST OFFICE BOX 191 PPODUCTION FACILITY LfTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203 1320 BROOKWOOD DRIVE. SUITE H LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72202 TELEPHONE 601.374-0271 FAX 501-374-1614 Nlrs. Donna James Subdivison Admin. Fax 399-3435 6401 LINDSEY ROAD L17TLE ROCK, AAKANSAS 722as TELEPHONE 501-490-2215 FAX 501.490.2568 May 4, 2004 Re: Proposed River Tower Condominiums Though we signed the petition circulated by Steve Hofbimni, we vmt to go on record ofd apposing the proposed height of 13 stories, This height should not bother us in any way. We hope tbs planning conuaission votes favorably on the proposal in favor of building the condominiums. . 4 p'J'/ Arm B. K. ParT� ,ke and Frank H_ Paek6 Jr. 1815 Canal Pointe AtvE£ft a:+�c s im N FO 12U JC?Sd N SON 120431 N S0 L,7 VV OO1>S May 10, 2004 Dear Jim: Just a quick note to tell you I appreciate the details of your River Tower project. As I'm sure you know, I have not attended your meetings; I haven't signed any petitions; nor am I against your project. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, you have made an excellent case for my support and have it. Good luck as you move forward. MAR1<FT1NG/COM1ti11UN1CAr1ONS FOR NL•W AND TRADITIONAL MEDIA 303 WEST CAP]-] -01, AVENUE I L11-rL.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 1 50l '?75-(Zti1 1 F --'AX 501-975142171 I W1N'N.QI21'VCOAVi PETITION IN S6PPORT OF RIVER TOWER RIVER TOWER is a luxury high-rise residential condominium building which is being proposed for development on Riverfront Drive in Riverdale. RIVER TOWER will contain 36 upscale residences and 2 penthouses as well as 2 floors of indoor secured parking. The selling prices are projected to average over $800,000. There has not been a new luxury residential building development in Little Rock for almost 20 years. The City Board of Directors will vote on whether to approve or reject the zoning for RIVER TOWER on June 15. The following Little Rock residents are in support of RIVER TOWER. PETITION IN SUPPORT OF RIVER TOWER RIVER TOWER is a luxury high-rise residential condominium building which is being proposed for development on Riverfront Drive in Riverdale. RIVER TOWER will contain 36 upscale residences and 2 penthouses as well as 2 floors of indoor secured parking. The selling prices are projected to average over $800,000. There has not been a new luxury residential building development in Little Rock for almost 20 years. The City Board of Directors will vote on whether to approve or reject the zoning for RIVER TOWER on June 15. The following Little Rock residents are in support of RIVER TOWER. NAME (Print) SIGNAT RE ADDRESS WARD # s T� es I(� 5 rU 1 , 3 qOJ, l� r► c � O&A, WKY C d P1 f v .._.. qv -Z— AA'f 4 2—V 1M,&1 -kc u�wr� i tS ,2SId n.�rp LC ro : jr�F/-/ June 9, 2004 Mr. Michael Keck Doom 203, City Hall 500 W. Markham Little hock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Keck; I understand that on June 15, a meeting of the City Board will consider a zoning change to allow the building of a luxury condominium development in the River Send/Canal Point area. I wish to register my enthusiasm for the project and encourage you to vote for the rezoning. This project will bring an interesting and attractive new dimension to the area and I presume some people are opposed to the plan because of the size/height of the building. Although this is certainly a variance from the existing development in that area, it is not without precedent in this region. In the 1960's my father, John Matthews, built Lakewood House, a 16 story high-rise apartment building in an area of single family houses and park areas that had no commercial development at all at that time - not even a gas station. Of course there was opposition to the project for Many reasons, the size and height being one of the primary causes of dismay. Today however, although nothing has altered its dimensions, 1 know of no one who thinks the building is out of place or regrets its location there. It is, on the contrary, a'plus' for the community as a whole. This will be the case as well, I believe, for the proposed condominiums. Certainly thirty-six high priced residential units will provide a more stable population than the offices, for which the tract is currently zoned. As a public school teacher, I cannot overlook the estimated $4$0,000 per year theproject would generate in property taxes. That is certainly a continuing benefit as well. Please consider voting for this rezoning. ly, Cat ine Matthews Martin 5 Fox Chapel Ct. Little mock, AR 72212 Tames A. LaMonica 46 Colony Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72227 501.223.3875 May 25, 2004 The Honorable Brad Cazort Little Rock Board of Directors Ward 4 Cozort Law Firm P.O. Box 56315 Little Rock, Arkansas 72215 Dear Director Cazort: I am writing to you in support of River Tower, the high-rise condominium building currently proposed in Riverdale. My reason is personal. I have a preliminary interest in owning a residence within the building. There has not been a new building of this type built in Little Rock for almost twenty years. River Tower will be a quality building and a credit to the City and its neighborhood. I hope you will vote in favor of the River Tower. :ly, AaMonica Cc: Little Rock City Board Mayor Jim Dailey City Manager. Bruce Moore James Hathaway, Jr., CRE 4ING § 36-281 Sec. 36-281. 0-3 general office district, S. Lodge or fraternal organization. (a) Purpose and intent. The 0-3 general office t. Mortuary or funeral home. district is established to accommodate offices and U. Nursing home or convalescent home. associated administrative, executive and profes- sional uses in new and existing structures to- V. Office (general or professional). gether with specified institutional and accessory w. Photography studio. uses. This section applies to such district. The 0-3 X. Private school, kindergarten or insti- district is characterized by freestanding buildings tution for special education. and ancillary parking, and shall be limited to arterial street locations in developed areas of the Y. Rooming, lodging and boarding facil- city and other carefully selected areas where ities. public utilities, community facilities and other Z. School (business). public services are adequate to support general aa. School (public or denominational). office development. bb. Studio (broadcasting and recording). (b) Use regulations. cc. Studio (art, music, speech, drama, (1) Permitted uses. Permitted uses are as dance or other artistic endeavors). follows: dd. Travel bureau. a. Bank or savings and loan office. (2) Accessory uses. The following accessory b. Church. uses are permitted only in conjunction C. Clinic (medical, dental or optical), with an allowable use or uses in the 0-3 district and shall not exceed ten (10) per - d. College dormitory. cent of the total floor area on the site. e. College fraternity or sorority. a. Antique shop. f Community welfare or health center. b. Barber and beauty shop. g. Convent or monastery. C. Book and stationery store. h. Day nursery or day care center, d. Camera shop. i. Day care center, adult. e. Cigar, tobacco or candy store. j. Duplication shop. f Clothing store. k. Establishment for care of alcoholic, g• Custom sewing or millinery. narcotic or psychiatric patients. h. Drugstore or pharmacy. 1. Establishment of a religious, chari- i. Eating place without drive-in ser - table or philanthropic organization. vice. in. Family care facility. j. Florist sliop. n. Fire station. k. Health studio or spa. o. Governmental or private recreational I. Hobby shop. uses, including but not limited to in. Jewelry store. golf courses, tennis courts, swim- n. Key shop. ming pools, playgrounds, day camps and passive recreational open space. o. Laundry pickup station. p. Group care facility. p. Tailor shop. q. Laboratory. (3) Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as r. Library, art gallery, museum or sim- follows: ilar public use. a. Ambulance service post. Supp. No. 37 b. Animal clinic (enclosed). C. Barber and beauty shops. d. Cemetery or mausoleum. e. Health studio or spa. f. Job printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting. g. Parking, commercial lot or garage. h. Multifamily dwellings (as per R-5 district). i. Office, showroom/warehouse. j. Orphanage. k. School (commercial, trade or craft). I. Taxi office. (c) Height regulations. No building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall exceed a height at the required front, side or rear yard setback lines' of forty-five (45) feet; provided, however, that above the height permitted at said yard lines, one (1) foot may be added to the height of the building for each foot that the building or portion thereof is set back from the required yard lines. In no instance shall the maximum height of the building exceed sixty (60) feet. (d) Area regulations. 00 Front yard. There shall be a front yard having a depth of not less than twenty- five (25) feet. (2) Side yard. There shall be a side yard on each side of the building having a width of not less than ten (10) feet. (3) Rear yard. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than fifteen (15) feet. (4) Lot area regulations. There shall be a lot area of not less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. In addition, there shall be a lot width of not less than one hundred (100) feet. (Code 1961, Ch. 43, § 7-102,3; Ord. No. 15,247, § 1, 2-17-87; Ord. No. 15,553, § 1.1, hh, ax, 9-20-88; Ord. No. 16,116, § 1(kk),11-19-91; Ord. No. 16,341, § 1(r), 1-19-93; Ord, No. 16,861, § 1(mm), 3-21-95; Ord. No. 18,324, § 1(k), (dd), (pp), (vv), 8.1-00) IXC ESTABLISFIEI) 1926. PERFFCTED 2003. 4 Oceanfront living, done to The Bath Club has alivays been a haven fol- tbasr sreki)) privac a7i l �e�"feC�10>?�, restorativrr of the at/yrrral i9aos Club mouse and the addition of :o� Tower iiesicltFr Y r '"glerstaterl luxury. NQw, after a sltirir:ing nCearlfrar:! Villas, this spier:drd new residerriisrl enclave twill Once again welc.orrtc tlrose irr search of !f s ultifttat Residences and six sirlyle fc�i:rily Sales !'a + r rewards. to �0" openMvnday-Friday f 0 ani to 6 pm, THE E Saturday & Sunk r R 1 S f ENC 1 S rl T I N E 5937 Collins Avcnue, Mi mi Bch, Flrrida 33I40 $ 305.8 ,61.7444 CLUB G1,7q�� ►vww.thel�athcicrh.rnm .�� "POWER RESIDENCES FROM $1,800,000 TO OVER $5 MILLION. VILLA PRICES UPONr. � rai..,n1+.r,r.y+r>'�ea5lrrr wlanr�c pew � REQUEST: �� Uril rr�recrrlexnr rzmld n unnal 1K rebv ! �° Y CupowNan LJ Se>turres, rub° furp[ uxr rsrurrcerf rradn� rhr rc rrenrarnnrc of t!¢ r!� oiler to sc11, rrc ur71°ryuanvFufr�m 1. ru &.Y, r1ec ca, !�. T!•1"Fkl* n mode nni fir• fnrcwnn rc camndrminiwrr umtt.n rare wirrrr mrh[frrw wli�et°rw+rw.nrwr •rrudr. F1 irr[errnre rhuuW 5r nark n: ria darnrrcNs rr�uned ura anJ nnu�rrmcM.rlrmrhl !re rrlicd vA°n Ir rtu nide or die rccrian : ert Spa, h7mh vr e ti pLnr+•ul s3Kifhrvrxrrrr•:Ir ad;4rr:nrhorr•r Womir mattrrur.7lrngiror m CU7i 7 Co'u13-—'G,L LC Bozynski, Tony From: Moore, Bruce Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 3:1$ PM To: Bozynski, Tony, Carney, Dana Subject: River Tower Project Importance: High The applicant has requested that this item appear on the June 15th BOD meeting agenda. ` N0 THE HATHAWAY GROUP May 10, 2004 «Name» «Salutation» : Last Thursday, after extensive discussion, the Planning Commission voted 8-3 to approve River Tower, a luxury residential condominium building which we are proposing to build in Riverdale. The Planning STAFF has also recommended approval of our application. There has been, and no doubt will continue to be, some opposition to this project. There is also considerable support. As a result you will likely be receiving a good many calls prior to the June 1 Director's Meeting when this item is scheduled for your review and decision, The total value of River Tower after all of its residences have been sold is projected to be over $35,000,000. Because this is an important project, it is my plan to speak with you in person prior to June 1 in order that you may be fully informed. I will be calling to ask for an appointment at a time convenient to you, Sincerely, James E. Hathaway, Jr., CRE Vice Chairman JEH:jlr cc: Bruce Moore Tony Bozynski Dana Carney Donna James TC N W O R L D W I D E 1001 N University, Suite 100 e Little Rock AR 72207 0 501.663.5400 N FAX 50 1.663.5408 ■ www.hathawaygroup.coni Commercial, Industrial and Investment Realtors® Name B. Wyrick Salutation 11001 Alexander Road Mr. Wyrick Mabelvale, AR 72103 Ms. Genevieve Stewart 4421 Ludwig Ms. Stewart Little Rock, AR 72204 Ms. Johnnie Pugh Ms. Pugh 2500 S. Booker Little Rock, AR 72204 Mr. Dean Kumpuris 1809 Beechwood Street' Kurnpuris Little Rock, AR 72207 Mr. Michael Keck Mr. Keck 13219 Laurel Oaks Drive Little Rock, AR 72211 Ms. Stacy Hurst Ms. Hurst 4901 E. Crestwood Little Rock, AR 72207 Mr. Willie Hinton 4300 Maryland Mr. Hinton Little Rock, AR 72204 Ms. Barbara Graves #6 Pecos Lane Ms. Graves Little Rock, AR 72212 Mayor Jim Dailey 3117 Hidden Valley Drive Mayor Dailey Little Rock, AR 72212 Mr. Brad Cazort 8200 Alvin Lane Mr. Cazort Little Rock, AR 72227 Mr. Cy Carney 14315 St. Michael Drive Mr. Carney Little Rock, AR 72211 Ms. Joan Adcock 6808 Mabelvale Pike Ms. Adcock Little Rock, AR 72209 HO THE HATHAWAY G May 5, 2004 Commissioner City of Little Rock 500 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioner: On April 20, 1 wrote to you to summarize the case for the support of the River Tower Long -Form PD -R which was then scheduled for the April 22 meeting, Attached is a copy of a letter which was distributed yesterday to the residents of Canal Pointe. This letter includes a description of the events which have transpired since my last letter to you so that you will be fully informed prior to the May 6 meeting when this matter will be heard. I have worked very hard to modify the original application so as to address neighborhood concerns without destroying the economics of the project. Some of the residents are in favor. However, those residents who oppose the project have refused to budge. The meeting promises to be lively. There will no doubt be well organized o already heard from many of them as has the STAFF, g Pposition. You have Nevertheless, I have just learned that the STAFF will be supporting the proposed development as amended. They will no doubt provide you with their analysis prior to the meeting. River Tower will be a quality project if we are allowed to build it. It will be a credit to its immediate neighborhood, to Riverdale and to central Arkansas. I will appreciate your vote in favor of River Tower. Sincerely, James E. Hathaway, Jr., CRE Vice Chairman JEH:jIr Attachment cc: Mayor Jim Dailey Bruce Moore Bob Turner Steve Beck Donna James Dana Carney Tommy Polk Reese Rowland Bill Clark Joe White, Jr. O TC N W O R L D W I D E 1001 N. University, Suite 100 * Little Pack AR 72207 ! 501 .663.5400 n FAX 501 .663.S408 IN Commercial, Industrial and Investment Realtors® www.hathawaygroup.com Hi May 5, 2004 Commissioner City of Little Rock 500 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Commissioner: On April 20, 1 wrote to you to summarize the case for the support of the River Tower Long -Form PD -R which was then scheduled for the April 22 meeting. Attached is a copy of a letter which was distributed yesterday to the residents of Canal Pointe. This letter includes a description of the events which have transpired since my last letter to you so that you will be fully informed prior to the May 6 meeting when this matter will be heard. I have worked very hard to modify the original application so as to address neighborhood concerns without destroying the economics of the project. Some of the residents are in favor. However, those residents who oppose the project have refused to budge. The meeting promises to be lively. There will no doubt be well organized opposition. You have already heard from many of them as has the STAFF. Nevertheless, I have just learned that the STAFF will be supporting the proposed development as amended. They will no doubt provide you with their analysis prior to the meeting. River Tower will be a quality project if we are allowed to build it. It will be a credit to its immediate neighborhood, to Riverdale and to central Arkansas. I will appreciate your vote in favor of River Tower. Sincerely, James E. Hathaway, Jr., CRE Vice Chairman JEH:jlr Attachment cc: Mayor Jim Dailey Bruce Moore Bob Turner Steve Beck Donna James Dana Carney Tommy Polk Reese Rowland Bill Clark Joe White, Jr. OWN W O R L D W I D E 1 00 1 N. University, Suite 100 N Little Rock Alt 72207 M 501.663.5400 .M FAX 50 1.663.5408 M www.hathawaygroup.com Commercial, Industrial and Investment Realtors® May 4, 2004 Dear Canal Pointe Resident: I am writing to you about River Tower with the hope that you will take the time to read this letter before you formulate your final opinion as to whether you do or do not wish to support this proposed development. Over the past few days I have come to believe that there has been some unfortunate miscommunication about River Tower and I am therefore writing to provide you with all of the facts so you will be fully informed. On Monday afternoon I met in my office with a Canal Pointe resident who had requested the meeting. This resident had been asked to sign a petition expressing concerns about the height of the building but did not want to do so without the benefit of an explanation from me. After hearing all of the facts, this resident expressed strong support for River Tower as presently proposed. When the meeting was over, the resident gave me a copy of a note written by Phillip Hargrave to all of the Canal Pointe residents (copy attached). This was the first time I had seen this note which was dated April 24. When I arrived home after the meeting our mail included the attached NOTICE TO CANAL POINTE RESIDENTS which referenced a petition which has apparently been circulated to the residents of Canal Pointe - - although not to my wife and I. 1 have not seen this petition and therefore cannot judge its content. The NOTICE was unsigned but advised that the proposed development has changed and urged each resident to voice his or her concerns to the Planning Commission and/or the Planning Staff. Each of you has a perfect right to express your view regarding River Tower. However, believe it only fair that you receive more and better information than you have been furnished to date. You will remember that I made an attempt to brief each of you in person by inviting each resident to one of a series of meetings which were held in my office during the last week of March and the first week of April. Only 6 residents from Canal Pointe attended these meetings. One couple expressed some concerns but left the meeting seemingly satisfied. Four others expressed strong support for River Tower. One called to say he was a serious prospect to purchase a residence there. Phillip Hargrave told me at that time that he had not heard any concerns expressed about the project. Several other residents later called me to express their support telling me that a building devoted to luxury residences was a far better use for the property than another office building of unknown design and tenancy. For these and many other reasons I had no reason to believe that there was opposition to River Tower from some of the residents of Canal Pointe. Apparently concerns for some of you have surfaced since the time when I decided to amend the original application prior to the April 22 scheduled date for the Planning Commission Meeting. Here is exactly what happened and why. ('ai3a1 Pointe letter Page 2 May 4, 2004 First, the background: 1. From the outset, River Tower has been envisioned as the finest ! building in Arkansas. The Hathaway Group has been retained to act as Developer. The other members of the development team are luxury high rise Rowland, Curzon and Porter serving as the architect; CDI, serving as the Project and White-❑aters serving as the civil engineer. Polk, Stanley. 2- River Tower was originally planned so as to provide individualg the contractor; size from 2,DDa SF up to 3,0DQ SF with two penthouse residences of QD residences ranging in Formal pricing has not yet been established but it is believed that th exceed $300I8F. This � D SF each. residences will range from $600,000 that, $900 ,000 and will be no les a pricing will at the minimum, prices for the individual for the penthouse units. At the minimum projected pricing, the total Tower, after sales are completed, will be $39,QQD,DOD±. s than $1,50 '000 3- in addition to panoramic views of the dyer valley and sur aloe of River Will offer a multitude of features and amenities which have proved to be successful similar quality developments in such locations as thea round hillsides, River Tower the Turtle Creek area of Dallas. These features and amenities include: in uckhead area of Atlanta and • 9'/z foot ceilings ■ Kitchens with top of the line appliances and work surfaces • State of the art "his and her" I7atils • Larger than normal rooms; open space floor plans • Recessed balconies • Residences prewired for computer technology Am— e • Enclosed' secured parking for residents with secured elevator access t individual residential floors Separate over -sized service elevator o • 24 hour staff including concierge service • Surveillance cameras and security console ■ Pool with lanai feature ■ Separate landscaped courtyard • Greater than required parking for guests, staff ■ Extensive landscaping • Exercise/fitness facility • All purpose activity lounge • Guest suites • Individual storage lockers 4• Riverdale was chosen as the neighborhood for River Tower because represents one of tittle Rock's most successful examples of mixed land u5e within a relatively small area. Riverdaie's land uses already includ Riverdale • Single family detached e• • Single family condos both detached and attached and both low-rise and mid- rise i - rise d ■ G ard en apartments • Low-rise, mid -rise and high-rise offices • office -Warehouse • Warehouse Canal Pointe letter Page 3 May 4, 2004 • Mini -warehouse • Marina • Railroad line • Restaurant within office building As you know, Riverdale is close to Hillcrest, the Heights, and downtown. Other older but successful high-rise residential condominium buildings nearby Tree Tops and West River. include 5. Tract RH8 was chosen as the site because the development of this site offers a unique opportunity to create a concentration of high quality residential properties in one specific part of Riverdale by locating River Tower next to the adjacent upscale neighborhoods of Canal Pointe and River Bend. A brief overview of these two existing neighborhoods and the proposed River Tower is as follows: Canal Pointe: 33± small lots within a gated community of detached homes including a marina ($450,000 to $1,000,000). River Bend: 34± residences, gated, both detached and attached, both low-rise and raid -rise, many with river views ($500,000 to $1,000,000)_ River Tower: Originally planned for 50 high-rise luxury condominium residences ($600,000 to $1,500,000). 1 strongly believed that such a concentration of high quality residential housingof varying, complementary types will be beneficial to each individual neighborhod 6. At the onset of the planning process, we asked our architect to use the following design criteria so as to provide: • Enclosed, secure parking for the residents. • A full amenity package including guest suites, fitness facility, activity room, • River views for all units. • The smallest possible building width at the common boundary with River Bend. • The largest possible portion of the site closest to River Bend for landscaped common areas. • That the visitor and service vehicles to be limited to the western one-half of the site (closest to Riverfront Drive) • A sufficient number of units to justify the land cost and the cost of the services to be provided to the residents. 7• The design of River Tower follows the above design criteria. The 'axis of the Building has been placed perpendicular to Riverfront Drive and the common boundary with Riverfront Drive Two levels of enclosed parking form the base. The third level is recessed and contains the common amenities to be shared b the residents. The residential tower rises above the first 3 levels and has been tapered so that the eastern edge of the tower is only 72' wide. The tapering effect minimizes the impact of the building in relation to the common boundary with River Bend which is 430'± in length. It also allows the individual floor plans and windows #o be designed so that most of the river views can be obtained at angles looking up river from one side and down river from the other. Here is what happened after the original application was submitted: 1. I held 4 meetings with residents of Canal Pointe and River Bend to explain River Tower and to address their questions and/or concerns. There was li ht 9 Canal Pointe letter Page 4 May 4, 2004 attendance for the Canal Pointe meetings and heavier attendance for the River Band meetings. 2. After these meetings, 1 was told that no significant concerns had been expressed by Canal Pointe residents. No one called me to complain. On the other hand, it was clear even before the meetings that there was opposition to River Tower from some of the residents within River Bend. Those residents of River Bend who appose River Tower complained that the building would be too close and too tail. However, they have refused again and again to provide specifics concerning to what they would agree. A core group opposes anything to be built other than low-rise residential. This is totally unrealistic in view of the 0-3 zoning in place and the price of the land. 3. After reviewing the original application the Planning Staff recommended denial of the request as filed In so doing, the Staff left the door open for an amended submission because they endorsed the land use we had proposed. 4. In an effort to reconcile these differences, l asked our architect to look at each and every way that River Tower site plan could be altered without destroying the economics of the project. 5. After receiving input from the architect, 1 proposed two alternatives to the Planning Staff and asked if they would change their recommendation if the application was amended to reflect one or the other alternative. 6. The first alternative (Alternative 3A) retains the same shape and size of the building but allows the building to be moved 25' further away from the common boundary with River Bend and would eliminate one floor. This means that River Tower would be reduced from 50 units to 44 units, would be 50' from the common boundary with River Bend, and would be reduced in height from the roof of the penthouse by 12'gn from 153'8" to 140'10". The second alternative (Alternative 4A) reduces the size of both the tower and the base because the number of units/floor would be reduced from 6 to 4. This would allow the tower to be smaller in square footage and to be set back 50' further at the tower and to be set back 30' at the base than for Alternative 3A. Linder this alternative, the total distance from the common boundary with River Bend would be over t30' to the base and approximately 100' to the tower. Linder this alternative, one story would be added to the tower. Even after adding one story, the number of units would be further reduced from 50 to 38. A summary of these two alternatives compared to the original application is as follows: Alternative Rear Yard Residential Setbacks # Floors To Base To Tower Het ht Ori incl 25' 32'8" Total Top of PH # Units 3A 50'6"58'2" 7 + PH 168'6" 153'6" 50 4A 80'6" 100 156' 140'10" 44 blots; The total height Is to the top of the mechanics penthouse which will constitute 38 apProximatety only 1,134 SF and which will be located at thee( of building fronting Riverfroni Arive. The to of the Penthouse Pl I is a more realistic version of the bei ht. 7. In summary, we were willing to substantially reduce the number of units and to increase the distance between the building and the common boundary with River Bend in an effort to strike a reasonable compromise. We could not further reduce the height without jeopardizing the concept of a high-rise building with views and/or the number of units without destroying the economics of the development.