Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7585 Application 2Canal Pointe letter Page 5 May 4, 2004 8. After due consideration, the STAFF encouraged me to amend the original application as per Alternative 4A. This alternative moves the building the farthest from River bend. It does not change the distance from the building to Canal Pointe. Because the number of units per residential floor was reduced from 6 to 4, it was necessary to increase the height one floor. After doing so, the number of units have been decreased from 50 to 38 or by 240io 9. On April 21 1 amended the application as per Alternative 4A. 10. The STAFF then requested that this item be deferred until the May 6 Planning Commission Meeting so that they could have the time to evaluate the amende application. 11. The Board of the River Bend POA also asked me to defer this item until May 6. Their President promised "a good faith effort to reconcile their differences" but within 5 days after that promise the Board voted to appose the project - - as amended - - without any further meeting with me. Here is why I believe River Tower is the best use for this site. 1 •ualit . River Tower will be the highest quality residential building of its kind in the state. Units will be purchased by individuals willing to invest $750,000± in their residences. 2• Lard Use. The majority of the remaining undeveloped land in Riverdale including this parcel, is zoned for office use. River Tower will utilize one of the office zoned parcels for residential purposes thereby enhancing the mixed use concept already established in Riverdale_ 3. Alternative Uses. The land is now zoned 0-3. This classification allows by right the construction of a 60' tall, 5 story building within 30' of the common boundary with River Bend with the balance of the site in surface parking with only code level landscaping. Such a building can 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 allow a sea of windows overlooking River Bend and Canal Pointe at lower as close to the river as possible with all of its parking to the west. This would heights. It would also allow such a building to be built much closer to the Canal Pointe boundary. The 0-3 district allows a number of other less desirable uses to be built either by right or via a conditional use permit. 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. A!1 of this is being conveniently development of River Tower. The site is being Offered for sale and they will not acknowledge that the price and the zoning will dictate a far more in pilose the than for low density, low-rise residential purposes. intensive use 4. Livin Close To ether. Canal Pointe and River Bend vary somewhat as to housing styles but have an important similarity in that residents of both neighborhoods live in close proximity. Small lots (50'x80' as an example) and Very narrow building setback lines are the rule in Canal Pointe. In River Bend the 4 story buildings already are close to, and look down on, the one and two story buildings within the same development. There are multiple windows opposite other windows in relatively close quarters_ In addition, the buildings in River Bend fronting the river have side by side adjacent patiosao of the patios look directly across the canal from others_ Yet the style at living !s _ In Canl Pointe, sme gracious because the residents are used to close quarters within their gated Canal Pointe letter Page 6 May 4, 2004 communities. This is ironic given the opponents' attitude to date toward River Tower. 5. What is best for this site? As the developer, 1 am clearly biased. But I am also a neighbor. Speaking as a resident of Canal Pointe, I would much rather have a specific, high-rise building devoted to luxury residences than a mid -rise office building of unknown placement, design, or tenancy. It is a better use for the land and it removes the uncertainty of how the land beside my residential neighborhood will be developed. Many others in Canal Pointe - - and in River Bend - - have told me that they feel exactly the same way. In summary - We have worked hard to conceive a quality project which represents classic in -fill residential development within a mixed use area. Some of the residents within River Bend say they are opposed to the height of River development on this site. Such development will simply not occur on this Tower but they are really opposed to an Q 3 [office) zoned parcel. The Planning Staff "feels the use is appropriate for the site and the proposed recommendation regarding the amended application but will development will no doubt be a quality development.- The Staff has not yet made its do so by May 6. We originally proposed two alternatives for consideration by Staff and the Commission. After input from the Staff I amended the application as per the alternative which allows the maximum setback. However, because we agreed to reduce the size of each residential floor, we need to add a floor to maintain the economic viability of the project. We are trying to be reasonable in an effort to reach a compromise. apologize for the length of this letter but I wanted you to be fully informed. If you have questions or input for me, please call me prior to the Planning Commission Meeting. Thank you for your consideration. If you feel it appropriate, I will appreciate your support of River Tower. Sincerely, Ja s E. Hathaway, Jr., CRE ce Chairman JEH.jIr Attachments � CD L,,-) C_t r14 A - L -t 7-0 fil A-7 f 12- � CD L,,-) C_t r14 A - L -t 7-0 fil A-7 FAX N0. :5016641276 ``„ •J ' 23 2004 12: Apr. 40PM P3 h'1.HIW ti 11 ala r"„ `'=PLANNING COMIIS��VN ROSTER February 2D05 2004 NAM9 kahmui, Miura Sth ool Board Positiory Chair (S) Adeock, Pam (P) Allen, Fred, Jr. (P) Floyd, Noma (S) /.anglais, Gary (P) Lowry, gob (F) !Meyer, Jerry (S) Rector, Bill (S) •StebbJns, Robert Vin#.Cbalrmsa (S) Taylor, ChAuncey (Pi Williams, arrin 11J11p6 ETC Enginaerx, Inc. 1.510 South laroadw•ay Little hock, AR 72202 11/1JOb 6203 Hinkson Road Little Rock, AR 72209 llJl/04 2909Learim Drive Little Rwk, AR 72204 1111/05 8013 Mabalvale Cutoff Uabtive t, AR 72I03 1111/05 400 W. Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rr>ck, AR 72201 I1/1'04 9000 N. Rodney Parham Road ,Little hock, AR 72205 11/1106 David J, Jones & Co. 900 So. S11801(leford Road, SU 210 Lithe Rock, AR 72211 1111103 The Qai?y Record 300 S. fzWd Little Rock, AR 72203 1111/04 28 Sherrill Heights Little Rock, AR 7x20$ 1111106 l 311106 xc, s (B) 375.1786 (M) (F)375-1277 (H) s68-339$ (9) (H) 225.4979 (M) 804-783.4 (e) (H) 368.4655 (F) 569-9895 (B)376.668? (1j) (F)376-0231 (9)223-5400 (H) 2.27-7443 (F) '23-5454 (B) 221-5051 (0)690-6164 (F) 2.23.4775 (8) 374.5103 (F) 372.30.48 (H) 666-7101 (1B) 905-5126 (F) 905.6$32 Ce"terpolm Erltrgy Arkfa (13) 377-4557 401 W. Capitol Avenue, Scutt 66}0, Little 1�cck AR 72201 (C) 772-�2f 7 Cauley Geller 8owrrian & Rudrnan. LLP (B) 312-8300 P- G. Box 25,138 Little Rock AR 72.211 GOIW OSITI N AND ALPOrLV N The Planning Co+nmfssivn is com for three (3) yesrr t�rfrls. Thea posed 0feleYen (11) rnen*ers appinW by the Board of Directors Perlve (d Y"rrsm at all a appointments ere structured to Pmv!da sn overly �1latred to th,, Sctavv) Bas�rd. fly °�� 1) pt]5i[iort or P tri terrtl3 to Assure nn pB�narl!ent; tJwt i>cing the one MAY -04-04 TUE 07:24 AM COULSON OIL COMPANY FAX N0, 3767904 NOTICE '1'O CANAL POINTE RESIDENTS Re: Proposed River 'flower Condominiums, located on the northeast corner of River Bend Road and Riverfront Drive (this is the grassy area that is immediately south ofotir entrance) P. 02 A petition was recently circulated to the residents of Canal Pointe. Of the residents contacted, 37 sighed this petition voicing concerns over the proposed freight of this development and only 3 of the households contacted were not concerned over the proposed height. The neighborhood is clearly concerned about this matter. The proposed development has changed, the setbacks have been increased and instead of 12 stories the developer is now seeking a 13 story buildii1g. This is as tall or taller than the largest Alltel Building, but without the large setback from Riverfront Drive. The Little Rock Planning Commission will be meeting this Thursday, May b, 2004 at 723 West Markham Street, at 4:00pm for hearings and public comment on this development. You are encouraged to attend this meeting. A large showing of affected residents will demonstrate your concerns to the Planning Commission. If you wish, you will be allowed speak before the Commission if you sign up to speak before the meeting begins. Should you not be aide to attend or wish to voice your coneems before this meeting, the contact person for the Planning Commission is: Ms. Donna James Subdivision Adm. Phone 371-6821 1 -?ax 399-3435 email dames r littlerock.statc.anus Also attached is a list of the Commission Members that you may wish to contact before the meeting. TR I?-- 32 CT 15 WARD a w,Km rmivf%` -Oqjs3ivlly% SHORT -FORM PRD Z-7585 NORTHEAST CORNER OF RIVERFRONT DRIVE AND RIVER BEND ROAD NORTH Fol aypb aN3gb3AIb 3AINU 31NIOd -IVNV3 r i 1 + - --------------- - -------- - - - -- � r 0 a 4ING § 36-281 Sec. 36-281. 0-3 general office district. (a) Purpose and intent. The Q -g genera] officedistrict is established to accommodate offices and associated administrative, executive and profes- sional uses in new and existing structures to_ gether with specked institutional and accessory uses. This section applies to such district. The 4-3 district is characterized by freestanding buildings and ancillary parking, and shall be limited to arterial street locations in developed areas of the city and other carefully selected areas where public utilities, community facilities and other Public services are adequate oto support general office development. (b) Use regulations. (1) Permitted uses. Permitted uses are as follows: a• Bank or savings and loan office. b. Church. C. Clinic (medical, dental or optical). d• College dormitory. e. College fraternity or sorority. f Community welfare or health center. g• Convent or monastery. h- Day nursery or day care center. 1• Day care center, adult. j• Duplication shop. k. Establishment for care of alcoholic, narcotic or psychiatric patients. l- Establishment of a religious, chari_ table or philanthropic organization. m• Family care facility. n. Fire station. 0• Governmental or private recreational uses, including but not limited to golf courses, tennis courts, swim- ming pools, playgrounds, day camps and passive recreational open space. P- Group care facility. q• Laboratory. r Library, art gallery, museum or sim- ilar public use. S. Lodge or fraternal organization. t. Mortuary or funeral home. U. Nursing home or convalescent home. V. Office (general or professional). v'- Photography studio. X. Private school, kindergarten orinsti- tution for special education. Y Rooming, lodging and boarding facil- ities. Z. School (business). aa. School (public or denominational). bb. Studio (broadcasting and recording). cc. Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other artistic endeavors). dd. P&avel bureau. (2) Accessory uses. The following accessory uses are permitted only in conjunction with an allowable use or uses in the 0-3 district and shall not exceed ten (10) per- cent of the total floor area on the site. a. Antique shop. b- Barber and beauty shop. C. Book and stationery store. d• Camera shop. e• Cigar, tobacco or candy store. f Clothing store. g• Custom sewing or millinery. h. Drugstore or pharmacy. i Eating place without drive-in ser- vice. j• Florist shop. k. Health studio or spa. 1. Hobby shop. m- Jewelry store. n. Key shop. o• Laundry pickup station. P• Tailor shop. (3) Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: 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 he 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. (1) Front yard. There shall be a front yard having a depth of not less than twenty- five wentyfive (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, § 11, hh, zz, 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), (vy), 8-1-00} May 4, 2004 Dear Canal Pointe Resident: I am writing to you about River Tower with the hope that you will take the time letter before you formulate your final opinion as to whether you do or do not this proposed development, ms to read this wish to support Over the past few days I have come to believe that there has been some miscommunication about River Tower and I am therefore writing to provide you with facts so you will be fully informed. unfortunate Y th all of the On Monday afternoon I met in my office with a Canal Pointe resident who had meeting. This resident had been asked to sign a petition expressing concerns height of the building but did not want to do so without the benefit of an explanationf ns aboet the After hearing all of the facts, this resident expressed strong support for about the presents from me. y proposed. River Tower as When the meeting was over, the resident gave me a copof a Hargrave to all of the Canal pointe residents (copy attached). This thewritten first time I had by Phillip seen this note which was dated April 24. When I arrived home after the meeting our mail included the attached NOTICE POINTE RESIDENTS which referenced a petition which has a to the residents of Canal Pointe - - TO CANAL and therefore cannot judge its content. although The not tNOTICE waY Wife s uns have trout seen this petition Proposed development has changed and urged each resident to voice his or her concerns the Planning Commission and/or the Planning Staff. fined but advised that the to Each of you has a perfect right to express your view regarding River Tower. believe it only fair that you receive more and better information than you have to date. However, I been furnished You will remember that I made an attempt to brief each of you in person resident to one of a series of meetings which were held in my office duringthe i March and the first week of April_ Only 6 residents from Canal by inviting each meetings, last week of g One couple e attended these expressed some concerns but left the meetingseeminglysatisfi Four others expressed strong support for River Tower. One called to say he Prospect to purchase a residence there. Phillip Hargrave told me at #ha# time that he ed. heard any concerns expressed about the project. Several other residents was a serious express their supporthad not telling led me to' me that a building devoted to luxury residenceswasal far better use for the property than another office building of unknown design and tenancy. F and many Other reasons I had no reason to believe that there was apposition to River Tower from some of the residents of Canal Pointe. Y or these Apparently concerns for some of you have surfaced since the time when I decide the original application prior to the April 22 scheduled date for the Planning Meeting. Here is exactly what ha d #v amend peened and why. 9 Commission Canal Pointe letter Page 2 May 4, 2004 First, the background: 1. building in Arkansas. The Hathaway Group has been retained to act as the Project From the outset, River Tower has been envisioned as the finest luxury high rise Developer. The other members of the development team are Polk, Stanley, Rowland, Curzon and Porter serving as the architect; CDI, serving as the contractor. and White-Daters serving as the civil engineer. 2. River Tower was originally planned so as to provide individual residences ranging in size from 2,000 SF up to 3,000 SF with two penthouse residences of 5,000 SF each. Formal pricing has not yet been established but it is believed that the pricing will exceed $3001SF. This means that, at the minimum, prices for the individual residences will range from $600,000 to $900,000 and will be no less than $1,500 00 far the penthouse units. At the minimum projected pricing, the total value of River Tower, after sales are completed, will be $39,Q00,000±. 3. In addition to panoramic views of the river valley and surround hillsides, River Tower will offer a multitude of features and amenities which have proved to be successful in similar quality developments in such locations as the Buckhead area of Atlanta and the Turtle Creek area of Dallas. These features and amenities include: Few res • 9'h foot ceilings ■ Kitchens with top of the line appliances and work surfaces • State of the art "his and her" baths • Larger than normal rooms; open space floor plans • Recessed balconies • Residences pre -wired for computer technology Amenities • Enclosed, secured parking for residents with secured elevator access to individual residential floors • Separate over -sized service elevator • 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 • Exerciselfitne,,s facility • All purpose activity lounge • Guest suites ■ Individual storage lockers 4. Riverdale was chosen as the neighborhood for River Tower because Riverdale represents one of Little Rock's most successful examples of mixed land use within a relatively small area. RiverdaVs land uses already include: • Single family detached • Single family condos both detached and attached and both low-rise and mid - rise • Garden apartments Low-rise, mid -rise and high-rise offices • Office -Warehouse Warehouse Canal Pointe Tette: 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 Include Tree Tops and West River. 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 mid -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 housing of varying, complementary types will be beneficial to each individual neighborhood. 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 River -front Drive. Two levels of enclosed parking form the base. The third level is recessed and contains the common amenities to be shared by 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 to 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 light Canal Pointe letter Page 4 May 4, 2004 attendance for the Canal Pointe meetings and heavier attendance for the River Bend meetings. 2. After these meetings, I was told that no significant concerns had been expressed by Canal Pointe residents. No one called me to complain On the other hand, it e was clear even before the meetings that there was opposition to River Towr from some of the residents within River Bend. Those residt who oppose River Tower complained that the building ens of River Bend would be too close and too tall. 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, I 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, I 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 altemative (Alternative 3A) retains the same shape and size of the building but allows the building to be moved 25' further away from tine 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 12'8" from 153'6" to 140'1011 . 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. Under this alternative, the total distance from the common boundary with River Bend would be over 80' to the base and approximately 100' to the tower. Under 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 inal25' Total To of PH # Units 3A 50> 1 32'8 8 + PH 168'6" 153'6" 50 587 7 + PH 156' 140'10" 4A 80'6" 100' 449 + PH Note: The total height is to the top of the mechanical penthouse which will constitute 38 approximately only 1,134 SF and which will be located at the edge of building fronting Riverfront Drive- The toD of the Penthouse PH is a more realistic version of the hei 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 furtherreduce 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. Canal Pointe letter Page 5 May 4, 2004 8. After due consideration, the STAFF encouraged me to amend the original application as per Alternative 4A_ This alternative moves the building the farthest from River Bend. It does not change the distance from the building to Canal Pointe. Because the number of units per residential floor was reduced from 6 to 4, it was necessary to increase the height one floor. After doing so, the number of units have been decreased from 50 to 38 or by 24%. 9. On April 21 1 amended the application as per Alternative 4A. 10. The STAFF then requested that this item be deferred until the May 6 Planning Commission Meeting so that they could have the time to evaluate the amended application. 11. The Board of the River Send POA also asked me to defer this item until May 6. Their President promised "a good faith effort to reconcile their differences" but within 5 days after that promise the Board voted to oppose the project - - as amended - - without any further meeting with me. Here is why I believe River Tower is the best use for this site. 1 Cuality. River Tower will be the highest quality residential building of its kind in the state. Units will be purchased by individuals willing to invest $750,000* in their residences. 2. Land Use. The majority of the remaining undeveloped land in Riverdale, including this parcel, is zoned for office use. River Tower will utilize one of the office zoned parcels for residential purposes thereby enhancing the mixed use concept already established in Riverdale. 3. Alternative Uses. The land is now zoned 0-3. This classification allows by right the construction of a 60' tall, 5 story building within 30' of the common boundary with River Bend with the balance of the site in surface parking with only code level landscaping. Such a building can 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. It would also allow such a building to be built much closer to the Canal Pointe boundary. The 0-3 district allows a number of other less desirable uses to be built either by right or via a conditional use permit. 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. The site is being offered for sale and they will not acknowledge that the price and the zoning will dictate a far more intensive use than for low density, low-rise residential purposes. 4. Livin Close To ether. Canal Pointe and River Bend vary somewhat as to housing styles but have an important similarity in that residents of both neighborhoods live in close proximity. Small lots (50'x80' as an example) and very narrow building setback lines are the rule in Canal Pointe. In River Bend the 4 story buildings already are close to, and look down on, the one and two story buildings within the same development. There are multiple windows opposite other windows in relatively close quarters. In addition, the buildings in River Bend fronting the river have side by side adjacent patios. In Canal Pointe, some of the patios look directly across the canal from others. Yet the style of living is gracious because the residents are used to close quarters within their gated Canal Pointe letter Page 6 May 4, 2004 communities. This is ironic given the opponents' attitude to date toward River Tower. 5. What is best for this site? As the developer, I am clearly biased. But I am also a neighbor. Speaking as a resident of Canal Pointe, I would much rather have a specific, high-rise building devoted to luxury residences than a mid -rise office building of unknown placement, design, or tenancy. It is a better use for the land and it removes the uncertainty of how the land beside my residential neighborhood will be developed. Many others in Canal Pointe - - and in River Bend - - have told me that they feel exactly the same way. In summary - We have worked hard to conceive a quality project which represents classic in -fill residential development within a mixed use area. Some of the residents within River Bend say they are opposed to the height of River Tower but they are really opposed to anything other than low-rise residential development on this site. Such development will simply not occur on this 0-3 (office) zoned parcel. The Planning Staff "feels the use is appropriate for the site and the proposed development will no doubt be a quality development." The Staff has not yet made its recommendation regarding the amended application but will do so by May 6. We originally proposed two alternatives for consideration by Staff and the Commission. After input from the Staff I amended the application as per the alternative which allows the maximum setback. However, because we agreed to reduce the size of each residential floor, we need to add a floor to maintain the economic viability of the project. We are trying to be reasonable in an effort to reach a compromise. apologize for the length of this letter but I wanted you to be fully informed. If you have questions or input for me, please call me prior to the Planning Commission Meeting. Thank you for your consideration. If you feel it appropriate, I will appreciate your support of River Tower. Sincerely, zl*, Jam s E. Hathaway, Jr., CRE Ice Chairman JEH:jlr Attachments V� !C 7 ! 6J G - lL /Z /Z T- %4,1--'- tLley ✓U 17 AV�/ 6 �,,, I--" �� � z1h 7 G_ r— v eq-- Z L u -L �Z c� LA--) Z-- /L t7 Al �74 t T AW /1/( /Z-- 5 i j� CD M,57, 7:7, 5- 14 '�7 7-0 c,:� FROM-'WILLIAMS FRX NO. :5016641276 Apr. 23 2004 12:40PM P3 :.4, � : , .;u�-. . �. �o oa�a �7�-aa h't,r►lvllf�la I rNi�C- JL PLANNING COMMISSION ROSTER Fibrj&W 2DU9 2004 _ AM>~ 1aM ADD1t�SS PHC)NF' Rahman, Mizan 11!1!06 ETC £ngineors, Inc. (B) 375.1786 School Board Position 1710 South Broadway (H) Chair Little Rock, AR 72202 (F) 375-1277 (S) Adcock, Yam 111V06 6203 Hinkson Road (H} 568-3398 Little Rock, AR 72209 (P) Allen, Fred, Jr. M1/04 29051 Lennox Drive ( ) Little Rook, AR 72204 (H) 225497r� (M) 804-7$44 (P) Floyd, Norm ll/l/05 8013 Mabelvale Cut-off (B) MabelveJe, AR 72103 (y) $68.4655 (F) 569-9895 (S) L.anglais, Gary 1111105 400 W. Capitol, Suite 1800 (13) 376.6681 Little Rock, AR 72201 (H) (F)376-0231 (P) Lowry, Bob 1111.04 90M N, Rodney Parham Road (B) 273.5400 Little !tock, Ali 72205 (H) 227-7443 (F) 223.5454 (A) Meyer, Jerry 11/1106 David J. Jones & Co. (B) 221-5451 900 So. Shaakleford Road, Su 210 (C) 690-6164 Little Rock, AR 72211 (F) 223-4775 (S) Rector, Bill 11;1105 The Daily Record (8) 374.5103 300 S. lzwd (H) 66:1.6579 Little Rack, ,AR 72203 (F) 372.3048 (S) Stebbins, Robert 11/1/04 28 Sherrill Heights (H) 666-7101 Vida-Cltalem■r Litile Rock, AR 72.202 (B) 905-5126 (F) 905.6832 (S) Taylor, Chauncey 1111106 CentrrNW Energy Arkla (13) 377-4557 401 W. Capitol Avenue, Suitt 600 (C) 772-2217 Little Rock, AR 72201 (P) William, Dattin 11;1!05 Caulay Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP (B) 312-8500 P- 0. Box 25438 Little Rock. AR 72211 COMPOiTiON AIND APPONI TMENT The Planning Commission is composed of eleven (11) members appointed by th9 Board of Dircctars for three (3) year terms, The appointments are structured to provide an overlap in terms to assure an cxperienced quorum at all eitneA. Only ane (1) ;K)s4lon is fixed or permanent, thut being the one allotted to the School Soerd. MAY -04-04 TUE 07:24 AM COULSON OIL COMPANY FAX NO, 3767904 NOTICE TO CANAL POINTE RESIDENTS Yee; Proposed River Tower Condominiums, located on the northeast corner of River Bend Road and Rivcrfront Drive (this is the grassy area that is immediately south of our entrance) P. 02 A petition was recently circulated to the residents of Canal Pointe. Of the residents contacted, 37 signed this petition voicing concerns over the proposed height of this development and only 3 of the households contacted were not concerned over the proposed height. The neighborhood is clearly concerned about this matter. The proposed development has changed, the setbacks have been increased and instead of 12 stories the developer is now seeking a 13 story building. This is as tall or taller than the largest Alltel Building, but without the large setback from Rivcrfront Drive. The Little Rock Planning Commission will be meeting this Thursday, May 6, 2004 at 723 West Markharn Street, at 4:00pm for hearings and public coinnient on this development. You are encouraged to attend this meeting. A large showing of affected residents will demonstrate your concerns to the Planning Commission. if you wish, you will be allowed speak before the Conunission if; you sign up to speak before the meeting begins. Should you not be able to attend or wish to voice your concerns before this meeting, the contact person for the Planning Commission is: Ms. Donna Jarnes Subdivision Adm. Phone 371-6821 Fax 399-3435 email d'araesc 1ittlerock.state.ar.us Also attached is a list of the; Commission Members that you may wish to contact before the meeting. TRSTZNR12W32 CT 15 PD 4 WARD 3 —.,,..waMINA'7m- v��v�ri��71V1Y SHORT -FORM PRD Z-7585 NORTHEAST CORNER OF RIVERFRONT DRIVE AND RIVER BEND ROAD NORTH z �� = � � I— 111-11c'n. M�e7 ;, IINP- § 36-281 Sec. 36-251. 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- V. Office (general or professional). sional uses in new and existing structures to- 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, chart- i. Eating place without drive-in ser - table or philanthropic organization. vice. in. Family care facility. j. Florist shop. 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. (1) 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, § 11, hh, zz, 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, § Urnm), 3-21-95; Ord- No. 18,324, § 1(k), (dd), (pp), (vv), 8_1-00) 7~I -IE AT]["1[AWAY GROUP April 21, 2004 Mr. Steve Beck (via Hand Delivery) Interim Director of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 SUBJECT: The River Tower Long -Form PDR File 2-7585 Dear Steve: As you know, the STAFF has recommended denial of the subject request as filed. In an effort to address the STAFF'S concerns, I met with you and members of your staff Monday afternoon to propose two different alternative plans for amending the original application. On Tuesday afternoon you advised me that the STAFF preferred the alternative which provides for a tower with less square footage, but one additional floor, so as to substantially increase the rear yard setbacks and to substantially decrease the number of living units. Later Tuesday afternoon, Dick Downing asked me to appear at a meeting of the River Bend POA Board to explain the two alternatives which 1 did. After my presentation 1 left the meeting to allow the Board and the other River Bend residents in attendance to discuss their thoughts_ I received an email this morning from Dick Downing stating in part - - "my clients have stated they are willing to attempt to work out a compromise and wish you to ask for a two week extension. Downing is out of the city today. While I appreciated the tone of Dick's email, I remain skeptical about the chances of reaching a compromise which will eliminate the opposition from every resident in River Bend. I am afraid some of the residents will attempt to gain additional concessions over those already offered and we are standing on our tip toes now and cannot stretch any further. I am basing my perception on the various comments which were made after I left the meeting. These comments were reported to me by my partner's wife, Jackye Finch, who attended the meeting as a River Bend resident. With all of the above in mind, I am writing to you to document the Applicant's agreement to amend the original subject application as follows: 1. The eastern edge of the parking deck (from 1 and 2) shall be no closer than 80' from the eastern property line. 2. The eastern glass wall of the tower shall be no closer than 100' from the eastern property line. 3. The number of units per floor shall be reduced from 6 to 4. 4. One additional residential floor shall be allowed so that there will be 9 residential floors with 4 units per floor and one floor with 2 penthouse units. This means that the total number of residential units shall be decreased from 50 to 38. 5. The height of the building shall be 165'± to the top of the penthouse rooftops and 181'± to the top of the mechanical penthouse. " TC N W O R L D W I D E 1001 N- University, Suite 100 17 Little Rock AR 72207 Ig 501.663.5400 M FAX 50 1.663.5408 - www.hathawaygroup.com Commercial, Industrial and Investment Realtors® Beck, Steve letter Page 2 of 2 April 21, 2004 6. The mechanical penthouse shall be located in the western edge of the penthouse roof closest to Riverfront Drive. 7. The entire eastern edge of the third floor deck shall be constructed so as to include a solid planter wall within which "year around" landscaping will be planted so as to screen this deck from the residences in River Bend and vice versa. 8. The area on the ground between the eastern edge of the parking deck and the western edge of 25' sewer easement will be landscaped so as to further shield the parking deck and amenity floor from River Bend and vice versa. The attached Exhibit reflects points 1, 2 and 3 above. We will further illustrate and/or document the remainder points as per your direction. River Tower will be a quality project which will be a credit to Little Rock and to Riverdale. These amendments to the original application have been prepared to address the STAFF'S concerns. Please advise me as soon as possible as to the STAFF'S official position. I need to know where the STAFF stands before responding to Dick Downing's request for a deferral. Sincerely, Jes E. Hathaway, Jr., CRE ice Chairman JEH:jlr Attachment cc: Donna James (via email) Dana Carney (via email) Tommy Polk (via email) Bill Clark (via email) Reese Rowland (via email) Joe White, Jr. (via email) `4 I-HAWAN." GROUP April 21, 2004 Mr. Steve Beck (via Hand Delivery) Interim Director of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 SUBJECT: The River Tower Long -Form PDR File 2-7585 Dear Steve: As you know, the STAFF has recommended denial of the subject request as filed. In an effort to address the STAFF'S concerns, I met with you and members of your staff Monday afternoon to propose two different alternative plans for amending the original application. On Tuesday afternoon you advised me that the STAFF preferred the alternative which provides for a tower with less square footage, but one additional floor, so as to substantially increase the rear yard setbacks and to substantially decrease the number of living units. Later Tuesday afternoon, Dick Downing asked me to appear at a meeting of the River Bend POA Board to explain the two alternatives which I did. After my presentation I left the meeting to allow the Board and the other River Bend residents in attendance to discuss their thoughts. I received an email this morning from Dick Downing stating in part - - "my clients have stated they are willing to attempt to work out a compromise and wish you to ask for a two week extension" Downing is out of the city today. While I appreciated the tone of Dick's email, I remain skeptical about the chances of reaching a compromise which will eliminate the opposition from every resident in River Bend. I am afraid some of the residents will attempt to gain additional concessions over those already offered and we are standing on our tip toes now and cannot stretch any further. I am basing my perception on the various comments which were made after I left the meeting. These comments were reported to me by my partner's wife, Jackye Finch, who attended the meeting as a River Bend resident. With all of the above in mind, I am writing to you to document the Applicant's agreement to amend the original subject application as follows: 1. The eastern edge of the parking deck (from 1 and 2) shall be no closer than 80' from the eastern property line. 2. The eastern glass wall of the tower shall be no closer than 100' from the eastern property line. 3. The number of units per floor shall be reduced from 6 to 4. 4. One additional residential floor shall be allowed so that there will be 9 residential floors with 4 units per floor and one floor with 2 penthouse units. This means that the total number of residential units shall be decreased from 50 to 38. 5. The height of the building shall be 165'± to the top of the penthouse rooftops and 181'± to the top of the mechanical penthouse. � � f W o R o w: o e l I N- University. Suite 100 E Little Rock AR 72207 a 501.663.5400 a FAX 50 1.663.5408 n www.hathawaygroup.com Commercial, Industrial and Investment Realtors® HP April 20, 2004 THE HAThP,10%_;AY GROUP SUBJECT: The River Tower Long -Form PD -R File No. 2-7585 Dear Commissioner: On Thursday afternoon the Planning Commission will be making its decision regarding one of the most significant new projects which has been proposed in Little Rock during the past few years - - the River Tower luxury high-rise condominium building in Riverdale. Because there is very little time during the meeting to examine all of the issues involved in a complex application, I am writing to you in advance of the meeting to provide you with the developer's perspective about this exciting project. I would like to begin with some background, then continue with an overview of the issues and our attempts to resolve them, and conclude with the reasons why I believe you should vote in favor of this application as we are proposing to amend it. First, the background: 1. The applicant is The Pleasant Valley Company which owns most of the undeveloped land in Riverdale. The Pleasant Valley Company has contracted to sell Tract RH8 to River Tower, LLC which has been formed by a small group of local investors for the purpose of developing River Tower. River Tower has been designed to be the finest luxury high-rise residential condominium building in Arkansas. 2. The Hathaway Group has been retained by River Tower, LLC to act as the Project Developer. The other members of the development team are Polk, Stanley, Rowland, Curzon and Porter serving as the architect; CDI, serving as the contractor; and White-Daters serving as the civil engineer. 3. River Tower has been planned so as to provide individual residences ranging in size from 2,000 SF up to 3,000 SF with two penthouse residences of 5,000 SF each. Formal pricing has not yet been established but it is believed that the pricing will exceed $300/SF. This means that, at the minimum, prices for the individual residences will range from $600,000 to $900,000 and will be no less than $1,500,000 for the penthouse units. 4. At the minimum projected pricing the total value of River Tower, after sales are completed, will be $39,000,000. 5. In addition to panoramic views of the river valley and surround hillsides, River Tower will offer a multitude of features and amenities which have proved to be successful in similar quality developments in such locations as the Buckhead area of Atlanta and the Turtle Creek area of Dallas. These features and amenities include: OTC N W O R L D W I D E 1 00 1 N. University, Suite 100 ■ Little Rock AR 72207 ■ 501.663.5400 a FAX 50 1.663.5408 a www.hathawaygroup.com Commercial, Industrial and Investment Realtors® Planning Commission letter Page 2 April 20, 2004 Features • 9'/2 foot ceilings • Kitchens with top of the line appliances and work surfaces • State of the art "his and her' baths ■ Larger than normal rooms; open space floor plans ® Recessed balconies ■ Residences pre -wired for computer technology Ampnitip-Q • Enclosed, secured parking for residents with secured elevator access to individual residential floors Separate over -sized service elevator ® 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 6. Riverdale was chosen as the neighborhood for River Tower because Riverdale represents one of Little Rock's most successful examples of mixed land use within a relatively small area. Riverdale's land uses already include: Single family detached ■ Single family condos both detached and attached and both low-rise and mid -rise • Garden apartments • Low-rise, mid -rise and high-rise offices • Office -Warehouse • Warehouse • Mini -warehouse • Marina ■ Railroad line • Restaurant within office building Riverdale is close to Hillcrest, the Heights, and downtown. Other older but successful high-rise residential condominium buildings nearby include Tree Tops and West River. 7. 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 neighborhoods of Canal Pointe and River Bend. A brief overview of these two existing neighborhoods and the proposed River Tower is as follows: Planning Commission letter Page 3 April 20, 2004 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 mid -rise, many with river views ($500,000 to $1,000,000). River Tower: 50 high-rise luxury condominium residences ($600,000 to $1,500,000). It is strongly believed that such a concentration of high quality residential housing of varying, complementary types will be beneficial to each individual neighborhood. 8. At the onset of the planning process, we asked our architect to use the following design criteria so as to provide: Enclosed, secure parking. A full amenity package including guest suites, fitness facility, activity room, pool, courtyard, etc. River views for all units. The smallest possible building width at the common boundary with River Bend. ■ The largest possible portion of the eastern one-half of the site (closest to River Bend) for landscaped common areas. • The visitor and service vehicles to be limited to the western one-half of the site (closest to Riverfront Drive). 4 Sufficient units to justify the land costs and the cost of the services to be provided to the residents. 9. The design of River Tower follows the above design criteria. Please see the exhibits attached. 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 by 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 to 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 rather than by looking directly to the east. Here is where I believe we stand today: 1. I have held 4 meetings with residents of Canal Pointe and River Bend to explain River Tower and to address their questions and/or concerns. 2. In spite of these efforts on my part, there is strong neighborhood opposition from some of the residents of River Bend. By contrast, there is no organized opposition from the residents of Canal Pointe even though some Canal Pointe residents live closer to the site than many of the residents within River Bend. 3. Those residents of River Bend who oppose River Tower have complained that the building is too close and too tall. However, they have refused to provide specifics. The official message from the Board of the POA is that they are open to dialogue but a core group opposes anything to be built other than low-rise residential. This is unrealistic in view of the 0-3 zoning in place and the price of the land. Planning Commission letter Page 4 April 20, 2004 4. The Planning Staff has recommended denial of the request as filed, and, in so doing, has left the door open for an amended submission. 5. In an effort to reconcile these differences, I have asked our architect to look at each and every way that River Tower could be altered without destroying the economics of the project. 6. As a result, I have proposed two alternatives to the Planning Staff and have asked if they will change their recommendation if one or the other is proposed. 7. The first alternative (Alternative 3A) retains the same shape of the building but allows the building to be moved 25' further away from the common boundary with River Bend and entails eliminating one floor. This means that River Tower would be reduced from 50 units to 44 units, would be 50' from the common boundary, and would be reduced in height from the roof of the penthouse by 12'8" from 153'6" to 140'. 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 50' further back at the tower and to be set 30' further back at the base than for Alternative 3A. If this were done the total distance would be over 80' from the base and over 108' from the tower to the common boundary with River Bend. Under 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 eight To Base To Tower Total I Top of PH # Units Ori final 25' 32'8" 8 + PH 168'6" 153'6" 50 3A 50'6" 58'2" 7 + PH 156' 140'10" 44 4A 80'6" 108'2" 9 + PH 181'2" 165'2" 38 Note: The total height is to the top of the mechanical penthouse which will constitute approximately only 1,134 SF and which will be located at the edge of building fronting Riverfront Drive. The top of the Penthouse (PH) is a more realistic version of the height. 8. In summary, we are 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 can not further reduce the number of units without jeopardizing the concept of a high-rise building with views and/or destroying the economics of the development. Here is why you should vote for this application as revised. 1. [duality. River Tower will be highest quality building of its kind in the state. 2. Land Use. The majority of the remaining undeveloped land in Riverdale, including this parcel, is zoned for office use. River Tower will utilize one of the office zoned parcels for residential purposes thereby enhancing the mixed use concept already established in Riverdale. 3. In -Fill Develo ment. This is classic in -fill development. There will be no need to build any new streets or utility lines. No new fire or police stations will be required. Instead, additional high priced residences will be built between the Heights/Hillcrest and downtown. It is good public policy to encourage this type of development. Planning Commission letter Page 5 April 20, 2004 4. Tax Base. The projected sell out of River Tower will add $39,000,000± to the Pulaski County property tax rolls. 5. Alternative Uses. The land is now zoned 0-3. This classification allows by right the construction of a 60' tall, 5 story building within 30' of the common boundary with River Bend with the balance of the site in surface parking with only code level landscaping. Such a building can 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 its parking to the west. This would allow a sea of windows overlooking River Bend at lower heights. As you also know, the 0-3 district allows a number of other less desirable uses to be built either by right or via a special use permit. All of this is being conveniently ignored by those who oppose the development of River Tower. The site has been vacant for years and they will not acknowledge that it is being offered for sale at a price which will dictate a far more intensive use than for low density, low-rise residential purposes. 6. Living Close Together. Canal Pointe and River Bend vary somewhat as to housing styles but have an important similarity in that residents of both neighborhoods live in close proximity. Small lots (50'x80' as an example) and very narrow building setback lines are the rule in Canal Pointe. In River Bend the 4 story buildings already are close to, and look down on, the one and two story buildings within the same development. There are multiple windows opposite other windows in relatively close quarters. In addition, the buildings fronting the river have side by side adjacent patios. Yet the style of living is gracious because the residents are used to it within their gated communities. This is ironic given the opponents attitude to date toward River Tower. i. What is best for this site? As the developer, I am clearly biased. But I am also a neighbor. My home is in Canal Pointe no more than 180' away from the site. Speaking as a resident of Canal Pointe. For the subject site, I would much rather have a specific, high-rise building devoted to luxury residences than a mid -rise office building of unknown placement, design, or tenancy. It is a better use for the land and it removes the uncertainty of how the land beside my residential neighborhood will be developed. Many others in Canal Pointe - - and in River Bend - - have told me that they feel exactly the same way. In summary - ■ We have worked hard to conceive a quality project which represents classic in -fill development within a mixed use area. The residents within one surrounding neighborhood have expressed no opposition in spite of repeated attempts by some residents within River Bend to "stir them up". ■ Some of the residents within River Bend say they are opposed to River Tower but they are really opposed to anything other than low-rise residential development on this site. Such development will simply not occur on this 0-3 zoned parcel. Planning Commission letter Page 6 April 20, 2004 The Planning Staff "feels the use is appropriate for the site and the proposed development will no doubt be a quality development." However, the Staff has recommended denial of the request as filed, citing concerns about height and setback. We have proposed two alternatives for consideration by Staff and the Commission. Both alternatives would reduce the number of units and allow the building to be moved further from River Bend. Under one alternative we will also eliminate 1 floor. Under the other alternative - - which allows the maximum setback - - we need to add a floor to maintain the economic viability. We are trying to be reasonable in an effort to reach a compromise. This is too good a project to be turned down. A yes vote is a vote for good development in Little Rock! Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, James E. Hathaway, Jr., CRE Vice Chairman JEH:jlr Attachments cc: Mayor Jim Dailey Bruce Moore Bob Turner Steve Beck Donna James Dana Carney Tommy Polk Reese Rowland Bill Clark Joe White, Jr. 01 M V M-Rkm ❑w MI -7,10111 pP6 y7.05 13 s 0 �J F TRST2NR12W32 SHORT -FORM PRD CT 15 Z-7585 PD 4 WARD 3 NORTHEAST CORNER OF RIVERFRONT DRIVE NORTH AND RIVER BEND ROAD C i all ■ 1 y7.05 13 s 0 �J F TRST2NR12W32 SHORT -FORM PRD CT 15 Z-7585 PD 4 WARD 3 NORTHEAST CORNER OF RIVERFRONT DRIVE NORTH AND RIVER BEND ROAD C i April 20, 2004 THE HATHAWAY GROUP SUBJECT: The River Tower Long -Form PD -R File No. 2-7585 Dear Commissioner: On Thursday afternoon the Planning Commission will be making its decision regarding one of the most significant new projects which has been proposed in Little Rock during the past few years - - the River Tower luxury high-rise condominium building in Riverdale. Because there is very little time during the meeting to examine all of the issues involved in a complex application, I am writing to you in advance of the meeting to provide you with the developer's perspective about this exciting project. I would like to begin with some background, then continue with an overview of the issues and our attempts to resolve them, and conclude with the reasons why I believe you should vote in favor of this application as we are proposing to amend it. First, the background: 1. The applicant is The Pleasant Valley Company which owns most of the undeveloped land in Riverdale. The Pleasant Valley Company has contracted to sell Tract RH8 to River Tower, LLC which has been formed by a small group of local investors for the purpose of developing River Tower. River Tower has been designed to be the finest luxury high-rise residential condominium building in Arkansas. 2. The Hathaway Group has been retained by River Tower, LLC to act as the Project Developer. The other members of the development team are Polk, Stanley, Rowland, Curzon and Porter serving as the architect; CDI, serving as the contractor; and White-Daters serving as the civil engineer. 3. River Tower has been planned so as to provide individual residences ranging in size from 2,000 SF up to 3,000 SF with two penthouse residences of 5,000 SF each. Formal pricing has not yet been established but it is believed that the pricing will exceed $300/SF. This means that, at the minimum, prices for the individual residences will range from $600,000 to $900,000 and will be no less than $1,500,000 for the penthouse units. 4. At the minimum projected pricing the total value of River Tower, after sales are completed, will be $39,000,000. 5. In addition to panoramic views of the river valley and surround hillsides, River Tower will offer a multitude of features and amenities which have proved to be successful in similar quality developments in such locations as the Buckhead area of Atlanta and the Turtle Creek area of Dallas. These features and amenities include: O TC- N W O R L D W I D E 1 00 1 N. University, Suite 100 M Little Rock AR 72207 18 501.663.5400 ® FAX 50 1.663.5408 ® www.hathawaygroup.com Commercial, Industrial and Investment Realtors® Planning Commission letter Page 2 April 20, 2004 Features 0 9'/2 foot ceilings • Kitchens with top of the line appliances and work surfaces • State of the art "his and her" baths ■ Larger than normal rooms; open space floor plans ■ Recessed balconies • Residences pre -wired for computer technology Amenities • Enclosed, secured parking for residents with secured elevator access to individual residential floors Separate over -sized service elevator ■ 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 6. Riverdale was chosen as the neighborhood for River Tower because Riverdale represents one of Little Rock's most successful examples of mixed land use within a relatively small area. Riverdale's land uses already include: • Single family detached • Single family condos both detached and attached and both low-rise and mid -rise • Garden apartments • Low-rise, mid -rise and high-rise offices • Office -Warehouse • Warehouse ■ Mini -warehouse • Marina • Railroad line • Restaurant within office building Riverdale is close to Hillcrest, the Heights, and downtown. Other older but successful high-rise residential condominium buildings nearby include Tree Tops and West River. 7. 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 neighborhoods of Canal Pointe and River Bend. A brief overview of these two existing neighborhoods and the proposed River Tower is as follows: Planning Commission letter Page 3 April 20, 2004 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 mid -rise, many with river views ($500,000 to $1,000,000). River Tower: 50 high-rise luxury condominium residences ($600,000 to $1,500,000). It is strongly believed that such a concentration of high quality residential housing of varying, complementary types will be beneficial to each individual neighborhood. 8. At the onset of the planning process, we asked our architect to use the following design criteria so as to provide: Enclosed, secure parking. • A full amenity package including guest suites, fitness facility, activity room, pool, courtyard, etc. • River views for all units. ■ The smallest possible building width at the common boundary with River Bend. ■ The largest possible portion of the eastern one-half of the site (closest to River Bend) for landscaped common areas. • The visitor and service vehicles to be limited to the western one-half of the site (closest to Riverfront Drive). ■ Sufficient units to justify the land costs and the cost of the services to be provided to the residents. 9. The design of River Tower follows the above design criteria. Please see the exhibits attached. 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 by 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 to 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 rather than by looking directly to the east. Here is where I believe we stand today: 1. I have held 4 meetings with residents of Canal Pointe and River Bend to explain River Tower and to address their questions and/or concerns. 2. In spite of these efforts on my part, there is strong neighborhood opposition from some of the residents of River Bend. By contrast, there is no organized opposition from the residents of Canal Pointe even though some Canal Pointe residents live closer to the site than many of the residents within River Bend. 3. Those residents of River Bend who oppose River Tower have complained that the building is too close and too tall. However, they have refused to provide specifics. The official message from the Board of the POA is that they are open to dialogue but a core group opposes anything to be built other than low-rise residential. This is unrealistic in view of the 0-3 zoning in place and the price of the land. Planning Commission letter Page 4 April 20, 2004 4. The Planning Staff has recommended denial of the request as filed, and, in so doing, has left the door open for an amended submission. 5. In an effort to reconcile these differences, I have asked our architect to look at each and every way that River Tower could be altered without destroying the economics of the project. 6. As a result, I have proposed two alternatives to the Planning Staff and have asked if they will change their recommendation if one or the other is proposed. 7. The first alternative (Alternative 3A) retains the same shape of the building but allows the building to be moved 25' further away from the common boundary with River Bend and entails eliminating one floor. This means that River Tower would be reduced from 50 units to 44 units, would be 50' from the common boundary, and would be reduced in height from the roof of the penthouse by 12'8" from 153'6" to 140'. 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 50' further back at the tower and to be set 30' further back at the base than for Alternative 3A. If this were done the total distance would be over 80' from the base and over 108' from the tower to the common boundary with River Bend. Under 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 eight To Base To Tower Total I Top of PH # Units Original 25' 32'8" 8 + PH 168'6" J 153'6" 50 3A 50'6" 58'2" 7 + PH 156' 140'10" 44 4A 80'6" 1082" 1 9 + PH 1812" 1662" 38 Note: The total height is to the top of the mechanical penthouse which will constitute approximately only 1,134 SF and which will be located at the edge of building fronting Riverfront Drive. The top of the Penthouse (PH) is a more realistic version of the height. 8. In summary, we are 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 can not further reduce the number of units without jeopardizing the concept of a high-rise building with views and/or destroying the economics of the development. Here is why you should vote for this application as revised. 1. Quality. River Tower will be highest quality building of its kind in the state. 2. Land Use. The majority of the remaining undeveloped land in Riverdale, including this parcel, is zoned for office use. River Tower will utilize one of the office zoned parcels for residential purposes thereby enhancing the mixed use concept already established in Riverdale. 3. In -Fill Development. This is classic in -fill development. There will be no need to build any new streets or utility lines. No new fire or police stations will be required. Instead, additional high priced residences will be built between the Heights/Hillcrest and downtown. It is good public policy to encourage this type of development. Planning Commission letter Page 5 April 20, 2004 4. Tax Base. The projected sell out of River Tower will add $39,000,000± to the Pulaski County property tax rolls. 5. Alternative Uses. The land is now zoned 0-3. This classification allows by right the construction of a 60' tall, 5 story building within 30' of the common boundary with River Bend with the balance of the site in surface parking with only code level landscaping. Such a building can 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 its parking to the west. This would allow a sea of windows overlooking River Bend at lower heights. As you also know, the 0-3 district allows a number of other less desirable uses to be built either by right or via a special use permit. All of this is being conveniently ignored by those who oppose the development of River Tower. The site has been vacant for years and they will not acknowledge that it is being offered for sale at a price which will dictate a far more intensive use than for low density, low-rise residential purposes. 6. Living Close Together. Canal Pointe and River Bend vary somewhat as to housing styles but have an important similarity in that residents of both neighborhoods live in close proximity. Small lots (50'x80' as an example) and very narrow building setback lines are the rule in Canal Pointe. In River Bend the 4 story buildings already are close to, and look down on, the one and two story buildings within the same development. There are multiple windows opposite other windows in relatively close quarters. In addition, the buildings fronting the river have side by side adjacent patios. Yet the style of living is gracious because the residents are used to it within their gated communities. This is ironic given the opponents attitude to date toward River Tower. i. What is best for this site? As the developer, I am clearly biased. But I am also a neighbor. My home is in Canal Pointe no more than 180' away from the site. Speaking as a resident of Canal Pointe. For the subject site, I would much rather have a specific, high-rise building devoted to luxury residences than a mid -rise office building of unknown placement, design, or tenancy. It is a better use for the land and it removes the uncertainty of how the land beside my residential neighborhood will be developed. Many others in Canal Pointe - - and in River Bend - - have told me that they feel exactly the same way. In summary - • We have worked hard to conceive a quality project which represents classic in -fill development within a mixed use area. The residents within one surrounding neighborhood have expressed no opposition in spite of repeated attempts by some residents within River Bend to "stir them up". Some of the residents within River Bend say they are opposed to River Tower but they are really opposed to anything other than low-rise residential development on this site. Such development will simply not occur on this 0-3 zoned parcel. Planning Commission letter Page 6 April 20, 2004 The Planning Staff "feels the use is appropriate for the site and the proposed development will no doubt be a quality development." However, the Staff has recommended denial of the request as filed, citing concerns about height and setback. We have proposed two alternatives for consideration by Staff and the Commission. Both alternatives would reduce the number of units and allow the building to be moved further from River Bend. Under one alternative we will also eliminate 1 floor. Under the other alternative - - which allows the maximum setback - - we need to add a floor to maintain the economic viability. We are trying to be reasonable in an effort to reach a compromise. This is too good a project to be turned down. A yes vote is a vote for good development in Little Rock! Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, James E. Hathaway, Jr., CRE Vice Chairman JEH:jlr Attachments cc: Mayor Jim Dailey Bruce Moore Bob Turner Steve Beck Donna James Dana Carney Tommy Polk Reese Rowland Bill Clark Joe White, Jr. THE HATHAWAY GROUP March 19, 2004 Little Rock, AR 72202 SUBJECT: RIVER TOWER Dear: As you know, a small group of local investors has formed River Tower, LLC for the purpose of developing a luxury, high-rise residential condominium building at the corner of Riverfront Drive and River Bend Road in Riverdale. River Tower, LLC has made an application to the City of Little Rock for the rezoning of the property from 0-3 (Office) to PRD (Planned Residential Development). This matter will be considered by the Little Rock Planning Commission at a public hearing to be held at City Hall on April 22, 2004 beginning at 4:00 p.m. The Hathaway Group has been retained by River Tower, LLC as the developer for the project and as the agent for the rezoning application. Other professionals who comprise the development team include: the architect, Polk, Stanley, Rowland, Curzon, & Porter; the contractor, CDI; and the civil engineer, White-Daters. Over the years, it has been my practice, whenever possible, to meet with nearby property owners in advance of any public hearing to provide them with a thorough briefing about the proposed project. You are therefore invited to one of a series of meetings which I plan to hold with neighboring property owners. During these meetings, I will provide a briefing and attempt to answer any questions you may have. We are holding multiple meetings so as to allow an informal setting and the maximum opportunity for good communication. You are invited to meet with me in the offices of The Hathaway Group at 1001 North University on at 5:30 p.m. We should be through by 7:00 p.m. Please RSVP to Jeri Rich at 978-4966. If you cannot attend on the night you have been invited and would like to attend one of the other scheduled meetings, please let me know and I will work out the date you desire. Sincerely James E. Hathaway, Jr., CRE Vice -Chairman JEH/slm cc: Donna James Tommy Polk Joe White, Jr. Bill Clark Note on cc's copies only: This letter has been sent to all of the residents of Canal Pointe and River Bend. The meetings have been scheduled for March 29 and 30, and April 5 and 7. 1 am advising you of these meetings in the event that any of the nearby property owners mention the project to you. Jim TC N W O R L D W I D E 1001 N. University, Suite 100 EI Little Rock AR 72207 1H 501.663.5400 it FAX 50 1.663.5408 ® www.hathawaygroup.com Commercial, Industrial and Investment Realtors® LETTER 1 — MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 29, 5:30 PM AT THG Canal Pointe Property Owners List Name Salutation F Address City State Zip Home Ph 1. Mr. and Mrs. Frank Judy and Frank 1909 Canal Little AR 72202 666.5143 Bauer Pointe Drive Rock 2. Mr. and Mrs. Philip Lavie and Philip 1801 Canal Little AR 72202 663.0271 Hargrave Pointe Drive Rock 3. Mr. and Mrs. Roger Paula and Roger 1809 River Little AR 72202 663.8119 Glasgow Heights Drive Rock Linda 1817 River Little AR 72202 663.7635 4. Ms. Linda Hogg Heights Drive Rock 5. Ms. Laura Hornor Laura 1801 River Little AR 72202 663.8170 Heights Drive Rock 6. Ms. Nancy McKenzie Nancy 1915 Canal Little AR 72202 666.5432 Pointe Drive Rock 7. Mr. and Mrs. Dan Ann and Dan 1804 River Little AR 72202 664.2825 Kemp Heights Drive Rock 8. Ann Blair and Bert Ann and Bert 1815 Canal Little AR 72202 664.1445 Parke Pointe Drive Rock 9. Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Elizabeth and 1810 River Little AR 72202 664.4647 Patterson Ralph Heights Drive Rock Little 10. Mr. and Mrs. Larry Carol and Larry 2006 Canal AR 72202 664.7419 McAdams Pointe Drive Rock 11. Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Hayden and 1805 River Little AR 72202 664.6662 Rather Mr. and Mrs. Milton Gordon Heights Drive Rock 12. Tammy and 1914 Canal Little AR 72202 663.9699 Miller Milton Pointe Drive Rock 13. Goldwaithe Sirs 120 E. 4'h Little AR 72201 Corporation Street Rock 14. MSDG Little Rock Sirs 908 Bowling KY 42108 Broadway Green 15. Riverdale School Sirs P.O. Box Little AR 72203 Properties 3157 Rock LETTER 1 — MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 29, 5:30 PM AT THG Canal Pointe Property Owners List Name Salutation Address Home Ph Work Ph Dr. Ted Bailey Dr. Bailey 31 Riverpoint 660.4347 374.5050 Mrs. Noland Bass Betsy 34 Riverpoint 666.8137 376.6671 Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Bova Steve and Barbara Bo and Sissy 10 River Glen Circle 664.5674 537.4555 Mr. and Mrs. David C. Clinton 19 River Bend Road 11 River Bend Road 664.6072 225.0544 Mr. and Mrs. Sterling Cockrill Sterling and Adrienne 666.1186 Mr. and Mrs. Ted Darragh Ted and Babs 14 River Glen Circle 663.6466 375.8164 Judge & Mrs. G. Thomas Eisele Tom and Kathryn 24 Riverpoint 666.0786 324.5969 Ms. Glenda Ensminger Glenda 21 Riverpoint 663.8031 Mr. and Mrs. Curtis Finch Curtis and Jackye 6 River Glen Circle 666.1264 Mr. and Mrs. Edmond Freeman Ed and June 33 Riverpoint 664.6496 Mrs. James K. Hamilton Jeane 6 Sand Bar Lane Max 6 Rivermist Circle Jo Clair 23 Riverpoint -'[Mrs. 666.1562 664.3626 Mr. Max Harris 666.8626 E. T. Hays 664.3261 Mrs. Gaines N. Houston Sonny 4 Sand Bar Lane 663.0510 Ms. Carolyn Johnson Mrs. William H. McLean Carolyn Marjorie 17 River Bend Rd. 4 River Glen Circle 666.4454 663.1294 688.8801 Mr. and Mrs. Maurice Mitchell Dr. and Mrs. Burton Moore Maurice and Betty 2 Rivermist Circle 663.8321 Burton and Lee 21 River Bend Road 666.5994 664.4161 River Bend Property Owners List 2/24/04 LETTER 2 — MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 30,5:30 PM, AT THG Canal Pointe Created 2/25/04; Revised 3//17/04 LETTER 3 — MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 5,5:30 PM AT THG Name Salutation Address Home Ph 1. Mr. and Mrs. Otto Verch Anne and Otto 2116 Canal Pointe 663.3763 Drive 2. Mr. and Mrs. Jack East III Mary Ann and Jack 1820 Canal Pointe 666.2425 Drive 3. Mr. and Mrs. Louis Schaufele Carolyn and Louis 2115 Canal Pointe 666.3353 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Smith Drive 4. Susan and Richard 1809 Canal Pointe 666.3444 Drive 5. Mr. and Mrs. Don Ward Rebecca and Don 2017 Canal Pointe 664.4673 Drive 6. Mr. Charles Williamson Buddy 1920 Canal Pointe 603.0001 Drive 7. Mr. and Mrs. Shelby Woods Diane and Shelby 2100 Canal Pointe 663.5151 Drive 8. Mr. and Mrs. Frank Heigel Mary and Frank 2120 Canal Pointe 664.4764 Mr. and Mrs. Steve Hoffman Drive 9. Norma and Steve 1800 Canal Pointe 663.6619 Drive 10. Ms. Joann Ridout Joann 1900 Canal Pointe Drive 11. Mr. and Mrs. Tommy Hodges Carol and Tommy 1921 Canal Pointe Drive 12. Mr. and Mrs. Mary Brierley Mary and Bill 1917 Canal Pointe Drive Canal Pointe Created 2/25/04; Revised 3//17/04 LETTER 3 — MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 5,5:30 PM AT THG Name Salutation Address Home Ph Work Ph Mr. and Mrs. James T. Dyke Jim and Helen 8 River Glen Circle 664.5164 376.2921 Mr. and Mrs. W. Cal Partee Cal and Debbie 1 River Birch Road 664.7552 870.234.4081 Mr. and Mrs. Tom Pugh Mrs. Ben Rand Tom and Susie 4 Rivermist Circle 661.0466 870.737.2240 Eva 2 Riverbend Circle 663.1341 Raymond 8 River Bend Circle 663.8191 _ 1 Frances 8 Rivermist Circle 664.3118 Mr. Raymond Rauch Mrs. Devany Shackleford I Mr. and Mrs. Robert Sherman Sheila Jo Claire 4 River Bend Circle 22 Riverpoint 661.1962 Mrs. Jo Claire Trotter 280.0678 Mr. and Mrs. Roy Turner Roy and Betty 12 River Birch Road 664.0101 Mrs. Seth Ward Vonnie 9 River Bend Road 666.5724 Mr. and Mrs. C. Murrelle Watkins Sport and Jane Kirby Carl and Margaret 2 River Glen Circle 666.5656 Ms. Kirby Whetstone 32 Riverpoint 664.6422 666.0339 Mr. and Mrs. Carl Whillock 1 River Bend Road 663.7998 Mr. and Mrs. Jackson Williams Jack and Alice 15 River Bend Road 664.1276 372.0800 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Wilson Bob and Jane 12 River Glen Circle 664.2364 376.7166 River Bend Property Owners List 2/24/04 LETTER 4 — MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7 C 5:30 PM AT THG No THE HATHAWAY GROUP February 23, 2004 Ms. Donna James (via email and hand delivery) Subdivision Administrator City of Little Rock Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 dia mes W ittlerock.state.ar. us SUBJECT: Tract RH-8 Riverdale Subdivision Application for Planned Zoning Development -Short Form Dear Donna: Confirming our telephone call last week, River Tower, LLC is requesting a deferral for its application to reclassify the subject property from the 0-3 district to the PRD district. This request has been made because we have not yet finalized the plans for the exterior design of the proposed project and because we are still looking into a variety of details associated with the site plan which was submitted with our application in late January. As a result, we are requesting that this matter be deferred until the April 22 Planning Commission meeting. Assuming your agreement to grant this deferral, please let me know the date for the Subdivision Subcommittee meeting which would precede the April 22 Planning Commission meeting. Also as per our telephone discussion, I want to confirm that it is my plan to invite the residents of River Bend and Canal Pointe to a series of informal meetings to be held preceding the Planning Commission meeting. During those meetings, I will utilize the final version of the design and site plan in order to provide those residents with a thorough briefing about the proposed project. Thank you for your cooperation concerning this matter. Sincerely, James E. Hathaway, Jr. CRE Vice Chairman JEH:jlr cc: Joe White, Jr. Tommy Polk 1001 N. University, Suite 100 N Little Rock AR 72207 ■ 501.663.5400 i FAX 501.663.5408 ■ www.hathawaygroup.com Commercial, Industrial and Investment RealtorsO © WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. [] 24 Rahling Circle 0 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 February 2, 2004 Ms. Donna James, Subdivision Administrator City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: The River Tower Ms. James, Attached please find eighteen copies of the PRD submittal for the above referenced project. The developer, Jim Hathaway is proposing a 12 story high-rise residential project for Tract RH-8 Riverdale Subdivision. The individual units will be owned under a Horizontal Property Regime. The development consists of a single 12 story building on 3.2 acres of property at the northeast corner of Riverfront Drive and Riverbend Road. Living areas consists of 180,000 sq. ft. while the parking deck has 54,000 sq. ft. of area. The maximum building height is 175 ft. This is slightly less than the existing Alltel building located to the southeast. The floors will consist of the following: Floors Use 1-2 Parking Deck Amenities 4-11 Living Units 12 Living Units Description 50 Spaces/Level Exercise, Storage, Meeting, Guest Suites 6 Units/Floor (48 Units) 2 Penthouse Units The layout provides 43 spaces above ground for visitors, staff, and event parking. The combined parking area gives the development 2.8 spaces per unit. Landscape areas are significant with approximately 30% of the development reserved for green space. Please place this item on the next available Planning Commission agenda. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Ja;D. ite, Jr. CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING The Ashford The Hathaway Group, Inc. Current Project Overview and Comparison Last Revised: 1/21/2008 5:38 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 l st & 2nd) 2 levels 1 st & 2nd) Amenity Floor 1 level(3rd) 1 level(3rd) Residence Floors 8 levels 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 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 August 18, 2004 Mr. Joe White White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 Re: Z-7585 — River Tower Long -form PD -R — located on the northeast corner of River Bend Road and Riverfront Drive Dear Mr. White: Enclosed please find a copy of an Ordinance adopted by the Board of Directors at their June 15, 2004 Public Hearing approving a planned development for the above referenced project. The Planning Commission made a recommendation of approval at their May 6, 2004 Public Hearing of these requests. Please submit three copies of the approved site plan to me as soon as possible so your file maybe closed out. If you have any questions concerning this ordinance, please feel free to call me at 371-6821. Sincerely, Donna James, AICP Subdivision Administrator Page 1 of 1 James, Donna From: Johnny Kincaid Ukincaid@hathawaygroup.com] Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 7:37 PM To: James, Donna Cc: Reese Rowland (E-mail); Jim Hathaway / Subject: River Tower Dear Donna, Pursuant to your request at our recent meeting to discuss the captioned project, tomorrow I am having two (2) sets of drawings that will include the following: Site Plan, South Fence Elevation, West Building Elevation, South Building Elevation, and East Building Elevation. I will be out of the office tomorrow, Tuesday and Wednesday. If you have a question or comment and need to talk, please call me at 779-1884. If I miss you, please leave a message and I'll get back to you ASAP. Thank you, Johnny Kincaid The Hathaway Group Senior V.P. Development & Real Estate Management 1001 N. University Ave., Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663-5400 (main) 501-978-4970 (direct) 501-779-1884 (cell) %incaid(�?hathawaygroup com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti -Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 8/14/2005 8/26/2005 October 24, 2008 The Honorable Mark Stodola Mayor, City of Little Rock 500 West Markham, Room 203 Little Rock, AR 72201 Subject: The Ashford Dear Mark: COLDWELL BANKER COMMERCIAL HATHAWAY GROUP 2100 RIVERDALE RD., SUITE 100 PO BOX 3730 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203-3730 BUS. (501) 663-5400 FAX (501) 663-5408 www.hathawaygroup.com I am writing on behalf of River Tower, LLC to let you know that my partners and I have reluctantly decided to terminate our pre -construction activity regarding the development of The Ashford. Given the enormous amount of time and money which has been invested to date by everyone concerned, this has been a difficult decision. However, a lower than projected level of pre -sales together with the downturn in the housing market and the uncertainties of our current business cycle have made it clear that it would not be prudent to continue our efforts at this time. I want to again thank you and the "City Family" for the support and encouragement you have collectively shown for this project. If circumstances later allow us to resurrect The Ashford, you and your staff will be advised at once. cerely, James ii�E. Hathaway, Jr., CRE CC: Charles Ensminger Curtis Finch, Jr. John C. Kincaid Tom Carpenter Tony Bozynski Erma Hendrix Ken Richardson Stacy Hurst Valerie Dawson Pruitt Lucas Hargraves Obray Nunnley William F. Rector, Jr. Darrin L. Williams Brad Cazort Michael Keck Doris Wright B.J. Wyrick Dr. Dean Kumpuris Gene Fortson Joan Adcock Pam Adcock J.T. Ferstl Troy Laha Jerry Meyer Chauncey Nick Taylor Jeff Yates Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated. •az 2 Luc w �� • rlf � 1 . A=~ f RA •• r OXv �qcT RK -3 T,varr RM -s �oLDTN�9zTF Co1(P• SGC) I sora H r.vr IrY�I1L! �f�l wa�.e 9.W5� wwt arc •.o+ �•b K4w n+! ra. �[�!-'Y, � "• iI ``. f.43-;ar. tib, "eta � ' w. r +' :. ��Y� ;„ -r •.fir•.'►� F- �-. �� - y••� • / �•��-"'PPP��,`` ��- FIT• �[r i ��•w%• = -�.�. .� fe ol Ir LIlkBit- • n [2ivpr . - ■ • • • . ■ • IT--qt