HomeMy WebLinkAboutemail Dawson on rehearing amendmentPage 1 of 2
Malone, Walter
From: Dawson, Cindy
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:14 PM
To: Malone, Walter
Cc: Bozynski, Tony; Carpenter, Tom; Mann, Bill; Beebe, Shayla
Subject: resubmitting land use plan amendment for vote at Planning Commission
Walter
You have asked whether I think it is appropriate for the Planning Department to resubmit to the
Planning Commission for a vote a land use item, LU 08-20-02, as your Department has
decided that it wants to do.
LU 08-20-02 was a land use plan amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) to (MF)
Multi -Family, and it was associated with a rezoning of 39.9 acres at the terminus of Valley
Ranch Drive (just north of Cantrell Road) from R-2 to MF -18 (file number Z8301 -A). The staff
recommendation was for approval of both items.
The applicant, Ed Willis, was represented by Joe White and there was opposition to the land
use plan amendment and the rezoning from a neighbor, Frank Lyon, represented by attorney
Gary Garrett. Mr. Garrett objected to the land use plan being changed so soon after its last
review, which if I am not mistaken was about 6 months earlier. Mr. White noted the concern
from the abutting owner about the increased density and stated that he was amending the
application to MF -12 instead of MF -18 and provided a 100 -foot undisturbed buffer on Mr.
Lyon's side of the property sought to be rezoned.
A question about the definition of LDR (Low Density Residential) arose, and that definition is 6
to 10 units per acre. The Multi -Family zoning sought was a maximum density of 12 units per
acre. A commissioner asked about the staff recommendation and you addressed the
commission and stated that the Planning Department's past practice was to not seek a LUP
amendment for property with a land use plan designation of LDR when a rezoning to MF -12
was sought for that property. You stated that was because the amount (12) was so close to
the upper range of the MF zoning (10) (keeping in mind that the LU plan is only a guide).
There is not an MF -10 zoning, but there is MF -6 and MF -12 zoning. At that point, the
Department decided to withdraw the LUP item to be in accord with its past practices and the
commission unanimously voted for the withdrawal and took a vote on recommending the
rezoning, which was approved unanimously despite the continuing opposition.
The opposition to the items is of the opinion that the Planning Department took the wrong
course of action by not seeking a land use plan amendment when there is a rezoning for MF -
12 because they don't match up (6-10 under the LUP definition vs. 12 for the rezoning). Your
department has considered the issue and believes as a result of its evaluation that it would be
better in the future to seek a land use plan amendment for LDR-designated property when a
rezoning to MF -12 is at issue. You also would like to re -submit the LU plan amendment LU
08-20-02 to the Commission at its next meeting so that it can be voted on and can then be
heard by the Board of Directors at the same time as the rezoning request. You also need an
answer from us no later than this Friday so the legal notices can go out.
8/27/2008
Page 2 of 2
I am of the opinion that you should re -submit the LUP item to the Commission. While it is
understandable that you proceeded in accord with past practice, since the LDR designation
definition falls outside the rezoning requested, even though close, I think it is appropriate for
the commission to consider the item. In Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code § 36-83 Guidelines for
decision, it states that "[i]n determining whether to grant a requested [zoning] amendment, the
board of directors may consider, among other things, the recommendations from the planning
commission and the designated department of the city having planning responsibility and
authority and use the provisions of the comprehensive plan, master street plan, master parks
plan, and community facilities plan, as well as any other appropriately approved document
created to provide the required public facilities necessary to protect the public interest."
It is true that a land use plan is meant to be just that, a plan, and it is not to be legally binding
on the city. Taylor v. City of Little Rock, 266 Ark. 384, 583 S.W.2d 72 (West 1979). 1 can find
nothing in state law that requires a city to adhere to a land use plan when deciding on a
rezoning matter, but your department has made the decision that the commission should hear
a rezoning when it does not precisely agree with the existing land use plan and I agree with
that decision.
If Tom determines otherwise, he can let you know.
Cindy
8/27/2008