HomeMy WebLinkAboutCourt actionsIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS
DIVISION
FRANK LYON, JR.
PLAINTIFF
VS. CASE NO. CV -2008- V _
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AND CR1n e�4
MARK STODOLA, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MAYOR DEFENDANT
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is a complaint for declaratory judgment, challenging certain City of Little Rock (the
"City") ordinances amending the City's Future Land Use Plan (the "Land Use Plan") and the
zoning classification of property located directly adjacent to property owned by the Plaintiff
Frank Lyon, Jr. (the "Plaintiff'). Just months before adopting the ordinances, the City's
Planning Commission and Board of Directors approved an amendment to the Land Use Plan for
this same property. Now the City has again amended the Land Use Plan, acting solely at the
request of the owner of the property and for the owner's economic gain. No circumstances have
changed that justify the City's action. Thus, the City's enactment of the ordinances was
arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable and constitutes illegal spot zoning. Therefore, the
Plaintiff requests this Court to declare the ordinances invalid.
Parties
1. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
2. The City is a municipality of the State of Arkansas.
J"03•a
Jurisdiction and Venue
3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties hereto and subject matter
jurisdiction over this action.
4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 16-60-101
and 16-60-116.
Facts
Plaintiff owns real property located at 18800 Cantrell Road, Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas, and such property is Plaintiff s primary residence ("Plaintiff's Property").
6. FC Grass Farms Partnership owns certain property of approximately forty (40)
acres directly east of Plaintiffs Property near the present terminus of Valley Ranch Drive west
of Patrick Country Road (the "Subject Property").
7. The Subject Property currently is undeveloped.
8. In approximately February of 2008, Ed Willis on behalf of FC Grass Farms
Partnership (the "Applicant") sought an amendment to the Land Use Plan, changing the land use
classification of the Subject Property from Single Family to Low Density Residential ("LDR')
and also changing the land use classification of an adjacent ten acres from Single Family to
Office. The Applicant sought this amendment to the Land Use Plan to accommodate the
Applicant's contemporaneous request to re -zone an adjacent ten acre tract from R-2 to 0-3
General Office District. See February 28, 2008 Planning Commission Minute Record, relevant
portions attached hereto as Exhibit A.
9. At the February 28, 2008 meeting and public hearing of the Planning
Commission, at which the above-described amendment to the Land Use Plan and re -zoning were
considered, the Planning Commission staff noted as follows:
M01%3.3 2
While there are several hundred acres of undeveloped Single Family shown on the
Land Use Plan north of this area, there is no Low Density Residential shown in
the near vicinity. The closest parcel shown as Low Density Residential is over one
mile west of this location on the south side of Cantrell Road and west of Highway
300 and that is less than 6 acres. There seems to be a need for additional LDR for
this area. North of this application area will remain Single Family on the Future
Land Use Plan. Staff feels this amendment would be appropriate with the Low
Density Residential to provide a buffer between the Office and Single Family.
The land immediately north of this application site is still zoned R-2 single family
and shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan. The proposed Low
Density Residential area would protect future Single Family developments while
still allowing for more office in the immediate future and provide other housing
options besides just Single Family and Multi Family for this area.
Id. (emphasis added). The Commission approved the amendment to the land use plan
and also the Applicant's requested re -zoning.
10. According to the record of the Planning Commission's February 28 meeting, there
was no discussion of any need for multi -family housing in the area of the Subject Property. In
fact, the Planning Commission staff noted that there was a specific need for LDR, that LDR land
use would provide the buffer needed to protect future Single Family developments, and that LDR
also would provide other housing options besides just Single Family and Multi -Family.
11. Based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, on April 1, 2008, the City
Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 19,941, amending the Land Use Plan with respect to
the Subject Property from Single Family to LDR. See Ordinance No. 19,941, attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
12. Just six months later, in August of 2008, the "Applicant filed another application
with the City to again amend the Land Use Plan with respect to the Subject Property from LDR
to MF (multi -family). The Applicant needed this amendment in order to accommodate its
request to change the zoning classification of the Subject Property from R-2 (single family) to
MF -18 (multi -family). See Notice of Public Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit C.
193013.2
13. The purpose of these requests was to "sell after rezoning... Owner would like to
rezone 39.9 acres of undeveloped land from single family residential to apartment development."
Id.
14. At the Planning Commission meeting and public hearing on August 21, 2008, the
Commission considered the Applicant's requests. Counsel for the Plaintiff appeared and
objected on several grounds, including the fact that there had been no change in circumstances
justifying the requested amendments since the amendment to the Land Use Plan just six months
earlier. See August 21, 2008 Planning Commission Minute Record, relevant portions attached
hereto as Exhibit D.
15. The Planning Commission staff analysis prepared for this meeting noted as
follows:
[T]here has been a new upswing in demand for multi family developments.
Traditionally, multi family developments are used as sort of a step down in
intensity between single family developments and non residential developments.
This was the original intent of the Low Density Residential section in this area.
Multi Family, while more intense than Low Density Residential, could still act as
this buffer for the future single family developments north of this area.
16. The Planning Commission staff noted at the meeting that "[t]here is continuing
demand for multifamily and much of the areas proposed and zoned for that use to the east and
some to the west have been developed. Commissioner Adcock asked if there had been any
studies to see how much more need there was. Mr. Malone [of the Planning Commission staff]
indicated he was not aware of any studies of that nature." Id.
17. At this August 21, 2008 meeting, the Applicant amended its re -zoning request
from MF -18 to MF -12. Walter Malone of the Planning Commission staff informed the
Commission that an MF -12 zoning, as opposed to MF -18, would not require an amendment to
193053-2 4
the Land Use Plan from LDR to W. Therefore, the Applicant withdrew the request for an
amendment to the Land Use Plan. The Commission then approved the re -zoning from R-2 to
MF -12, with the condition that a 100 foot buffer remain on the west side of the Subject Property.
See id.
18. Subsequent to the meeting, counsel for Plaintiff informed counsel for the City and
a member of the Planning Commission staff that the LDR land use classification does not permit
MF -12 zoning. According to Ordinance No. 16,222, the Land Use Plan classifications of LDR
and MF are as follows:
Low Density Multi-Famil LMT : This category accommodates a broad range of
housing types including single family attached, duplex, and townhomes, with densities
not to exceed 10 units per acre.
Multi -Family Residential : The multi -family category accommodates residential
development of 10 to 36 dwelling units per acre.
See Ordinance No. 16,222, attached hereto as Exhibit E. The Land Use classifications
are also set forth on the City's website as follows:
Low Density Residential — LDR
This category accommodates a broad range of housing types including single
family attached, single family detached, duplex, townhomes, multi -family and
patio or garden homes. Any combination of these and possibly other housing
types may fall in this category provided that the density is between six (6) and ten
(10) dwelling units per acre.
Multi -Family Residential — MF
Multi -Family Residential — The multi -family category accommodates residential
development of ten (10) to thirty-six (36) dwelling units per acre.
See Planning and Development: Land Use Categories, attached hereto as Exhibit F.
19. After these comments from Plaintiff's counsel, the Planning Commission staff
sent the land use amendment issue back to the Commission at its October 2, 2008 meeting and
public hearing. At this meeting, the Planning Commission again considered the amendment to
19)053.3
the Land Use Plan and determined "it would be appropriate to amend the Land Use Plan [to MF]
when a rezoning is to a density greater than that stated in the Land Use classification." See
October 2, 2008 Planning Commission Minute Record, relevant portions attached hereto as
Exhibit G.
20. Subsequently, on October 21, 2008, based on the Planning Commission's
recommendation, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 20,035 amending the Land Use
Plan with respect to the Subject Property from LDR to W. The Board also passed Ordinance
No. 20,036 amending the zoning classification of the Subject Property from R-2 to MF -12, with
the west 100 feet of the property to be maintained as an undisturbed buffer area. See Ordinances
attached hereto as Exhibits H and I.
Grounds for Declaratory Judernent
21. The Planning Commission's and the City's approval of the amendments to the
Land Use Plan and the re -zoning with respect to the Subject Project was arbitrary, capricious,
and unreasonable.
22. Over the last year, the Planning Commission and the City have been presented
with requests by the Applicant to change the land use of the Subject Property: (a) from Single
Family to LDR; (b) then to Multi -Family, with MF -18 zoning; (c) then to MF -12 zoning with
LDR land use; and (d) then back to MF -12 with Multi -Family land use. These changes have
been requested by the Applicant solely to make its property more valuable and solely for its
pecuniary benefit, not for the benefit of the City or its citizens.
23. It is illegal for the City to amend a zoning ordinance for the economic gain of an
owner or solely to put the tract to its most remunerative use, and the City's actions amount to
illegal spot zoning.
1,00534
24. Only six months prior to the approval of the Land Use Plan amendment and re-
zoning at issue, the Planning Commission determined that LDR was the right land use for the
area because (a) there was no LDR in the vicinity of the Subject Property, with the closest parcel
being over a mile away and less than six acres in area; (b) there was a need for additional LDR in
the area; (c) LDR would provide an appropriate buffer to protect future Single Family
developments while still allowing for more office; and (d) LDR would provide more housing
options for the area besides Single Family and Multi -Family. See Exhibit A.
25. The Planning Commission staff specifically noted the need for LDR and the fact
that LDR, as opposed to MF, provided the appropriate protection while also providing more
housing options than just MF. See id. The LDR land use permits single family attached and
detached, duplex, townhomes, multi -family, patio, and garden homes. See Exhibits E and F.
26. The Planning Commission and the City decided that LDR land use was
appropriate for the area. There are no circumstances that have changed since that time to warrant
changing that decision.
27. The Planning Commission staff has admitted it is not aware of any studies
regarding a need for additional Multi Family housing, and the records of the meetings of the
Planning Commission on this issue do not reveal any other evidence showing that there is no
longer a need for LDR in the area and instead, that there is an increase in need for Multi Family.
In fact, to Plaintiff s knowledge, there is currently no project planned for the Subject Property.
28. The City cannot show that the Land Use Plan amendment and re -zoning are
necessary for the public health, morals, safety, and welfare, rather than for the mere economic
gain to the Applicant so that the zoning will provide the Applicant with the maximum flexibility
to sell the property.
29. In addition, not only are the City's actions arbitrary and capricious, the Plaintiff
will suffer damages as a result of the re -zoning and development of the area as multi -family,
with an increase in traffic and noise near the Plaintiff s Property.
30. When Plaintiff purchased his Property, he relied on the surrounding property's
zoning classification as single family. A residential owner who has relied on a residential zoning
classification is entitled to consideration, and the use of a particular tract may be restrained so as
not to cause him injury.
31. For the reasons set forth herein, the City's actions are arbitrary, capricious, and
unreasonable.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for the Court to declare Ordinance Nos. 20,035 and
20,036 to be void. The Plaintiff further requests all other good and appropriate relief to which he
may be entitled
ROSE LAW FIRM
a Professional Association
120 East Fourth Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 375-9131
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
By:
Stephen N. R,tier
Ark. Bar No. 87093
(501) 377-0329
sjoiner@roselawfinn.com
Robyn P. Alhmendinger
Ark. Bar No. 2002120
(501) 377-0343
rallmendinger@roselawfirm.com
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS
SIXTH DIVISION
FRANK LYON, JR. PLAINTIFF
V. CASE NO. CV -2008-12880
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AND
MARK STODOLA, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MAYOR DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANTS
Frank Lyon, Jr. (hereinafter "Plaintiff) propounds this First Set of Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents to the City of Little Rock and Mark Stodola, in his
Official Capacity as Mayor (hereinafter collectively, "Defendants")
DEFINITION
Please note the following definition when responding to the following Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents:
1. "Subject Property" means the approximately forty (40) acres of real property
referred to by Plaintiff in paragraph 6 of the Complaint that was reclassified from Low Density
Residential to Multi -Family Land Use and rezoned from R-2 to MF -12 (with condition) on
October 21, 2008.
INTERROGATORY NO, 1: Please state the name and address of the person(s)
responding to these Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. If more than one
person is listed in response to this Interrogatory, identify the Interrogatory to which each named
person is responding.
146W
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify each person you intend to call as a witness
at trial in the litigation of this matter, and with regard to each such person, include the following
information:
(a) name, address, and telephone numbers;
(b) occupation; and
(c) a brief statement of the nature of his or her anticipated testimony.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify expert witnesses you intend to call in the
trial of this matter, and with regard to each such expert witness, include the following
information;
(a) name, address, and telephone numbers;
(b) occupation;
(c) credentials;
(d) all the facts upon which such expert will base an opinion; and
(e) a brief statement of the nature of his or her testimony.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce a copy of the curriculum
vitae of, all reports generated by, and all documents or reports reviewed by or relied upon by
every person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 3.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify each and every document that Defendants
intend to introduce as an exhibit or otherwise use at the trial of this matter.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 4.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify each and every person who has knowledge
of any relevant material facts related to the issues in this lawsuit, including but not limited to
MW 2
each member of the staff of the Little Rock Planning Commission (hereinafter, the "Commission
Staff') who was involved in the analysis of and recommendation to the Little Rock Planning
Commission (hereinafter, the "Commission") of the amendment to the Land Use Plan for the
Subject Property from Single Family to Low Density Residential and then to Multi -Family and
also the rezoning of the Subject Property from R-2 to MF -12. As to each such person identified,
please provide a brief description of the facts of which that person has knowledge.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report or other document upon which the Commission Staff based its
decision to recommend to the Commission, at the Commission's February 28, 2008 meeting, the
amendment to the Land Use Plan for the Subject Property from Single Family to Low Density
Residential, including but not limited to the Commission Staff's statement, as contained in the
minutes of the Commission's February 28, 2008 meeting, that "[tjhere seems to be a need for
additional LDR for this area."
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 6. fV
INTERROGATORY NO. 7. Please state the basis for the Commission Staffs and the
Commission's determination that Low Density Residential, as opposed to Multi -Family, was the
�S
appropriate Land Use classification for the Subject Property at the time of the approval of such
amendment at the Commissions February 28, 2008 meeting.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce a copy of each application
and other document filed or provided by Ed Willis or FC Grass Farms Partnership in connection O'
with the amendment of the Land Use Plan with respect to the Subject Property from Single
Family to Low Density Residential.
1:+5957
6-1 6`6
k
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Commission based its decision to
approve the amendment to the Land Use Plan for the Subject Property from Single Family to
Low Density Residential at the Commission's February 28, 2008 meeting.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 8.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Little Rock Board of Directors
based its decision to amend the Land Use Plan for the Subject Property from Single Family to
Low Density Residential at the Board's April 1, 2008 meeting.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 6: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 9.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Commission Staff based its rv�
decision to recommend to the Commission, at the Commission's August 21, 2008 meeting, the
re -zoning of the Subject Property from R-2 to MF -12 (with condition), including but not limited
to the Commission Staff s statements, as contained in the minutes of the August 21, 2008
meeting, that "[w]hile the single family development market has been slowing, there has been a
new upswing in demand for multi family developments" and that "[t]here is continuing demand
for multifamily."
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 10.
MM 4
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Commission based its decision to
fC,
approve the re -zoning of the Subject Property from R-2 to MF -12 (with condition) at the
Commission's August 21, 2008 meeting.
RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 11.
INTERROGATORY N0.12: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony, 6,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Commission Staff based its ►�
decision to recommend to the Commission, at the Commission's October 2, 200$ meeting, the
amendment to the Land Use Plan for the Subject Property from Low Density Residential to
Multi -Family, including but not limited to any change in circumstances or facts since the time of pa'
the Commission's approval of the Land Use Plan amendment for the Subject Property from
Single Family to Low Density Residential on February 28, 2008, and also including but not
limited to the Commission Staff s statements, as contained in the minutes of the October 2, 2008
meeting, that "[w]hile the single family development market has been slowing, there has beena
new upswing in demand for multi family developments" and that "[tjhere is continuing demand
for multifamily."
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 12.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Commission based its decision to
approve the amendment to the Land Use Plan for the Subject Property from Low Density
Residential to Multi -Family at the Commission's October 2, 2008 meeting.
14615T
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 13.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Little Rock Board of Directors
based its decision to amend the Land Use Plan with respect to the Subject Property from Low
Density Residential to Multi -Family at the Board's October 2, 2008 meeting.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 14.
INTERROGATORY NO, 15: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Board based its decision to re -zone
the Subject Property from R-2 to MF -12 (with condition) at the Board's October 2, 2008
meeting.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 15.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. I3: Please produce a copy of each application
and other document filed or provided by Ed Willis or FC Grass Farms Partnership in connection
with the rezoning of the Subject Property from R-2 to MF -12 (with condition) and the
amendment of the Land Use Plan for the Subject Property from Low Density Residential to
Multi -Family.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce a copy of any data, studies
or reports produced within the last five years related to traffic counts or conditions within three
miles of the Subject Property,
0057 6
INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Did Ed Willis or FC Grass Farms Partnership state or
suggest to any Commission Staff member prior to February 28, 2008 that Ed Willis or FC Grass
Farms would or might apply for rezoning of, or an additional land use plan change for, the
Subject Property? If so, please identify the name(s) of the Commission Staff member(s) and the
date(s) on which they received such information.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please identify each and every fact or document of
which Defendants are aware that is relevant or material, or that Defendants contend is relevant or
material, to the issues in this lawsuit not already identified in response to the foregoing
interrogatories.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 17.
Rose Law Firm,
a Professional Association
120 East Fourth Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 375-9131 [telephone]
(501) 375-1309 [facsimile]
Attorneys for Frank Lyon, Jr.
By;
Aelp"llen l`1IJtJlller
Arkansas Bar No. 87093
(501) 377-0329
sjoiner@roselawfirm.com
Robyn P. Allmendinger
Arkansas Bar No. 2002120
(501) 377-0343
rallmendinger@roselawfirm.com
1 Ew557 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon William C. Mann, III, Chief
Deputy City Attorney, City Hall — Suite 310, 500 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201,
by placing the same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid on January 23, 2009.
Lyon Vs City, of Little Rock
Interrogatoa No. 5
The rezoning from R-2 to MF -12.
Monte Moore: Field work; presents all information to staff for review and prepares staff
analysis. Part of the staff discussion on the request to develop staff s position.
Dana Carney: Part of discussion and review to develop staff's position:
Tony Bozynski: Part of discussion and review to develop staff's position.
Interrogatory No. 10
As noted in the "Staff Analysis" for the August 21, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda
write-up and "Background" for the Board of Directors Communication for the October
21, 2008 Agenda:
1. The property is located along Patrick Country Road which is classified as a
Collector Street by the City's Master Street Plan.
I A medium -density residential development of this property will be appropriate to
serve as a transition from the 0-3 zoning immediately to the south to the R-2
zoned property to the north.
3. It is staff's opinion that future medium -density residential development of this
property will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general
area.
4. Staff noted that site plan review approval would be required by the Planning
Commission if multiple buildings were proposed.
The quotes referred to in Interrogatory No. 10 are not found in the rezoning case File
Z -8301-A. They are found in the "Staff Analysis" and August 21, 2008 Planning
Commission Minute record in the Land Use Plan Amendment File LU08-20-02.
Lyon vs. Little Rock
Interrogatory 5.
• Eve Gieringer, Planner I — conducted site and area review (current uses, zoning,
land use plan, neighborhood plan, MSP etc) develop existing conditions
statement; takes applications, sends notices, receives contacts from interested
persons; develops the case file; develops of the staff report
• Brian Minyard, Planner II — Discussion with Planner I and Planner Manager to
develop preliminary recommendation on requested change.
• Walter Malone, Planning Manager — Discussions with Planner I and Planner II to
develop preliminary recommendation on requested change; review of staff report
including possible edits and changes; presentation of the Staff report and
recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Interrogatory 6.
• Field review of conditions, review of exiting zoning, LUP, neighborhood plan
recommendations, MSP streets, etc. Staff noted the lack of Low Density
Residential on the Plan in the general area.
Production 3. Case file (LU08-20-01)?
Interrogatory 7.
■ Staff did not do this. Staff recommended that a change from Single Family to
Low Density Residential was appropriate - Since it is not unusual with the `node'
concept to have higher density residential next to non-residential and there was a
developing attached housing to the east, not much LDR shown in the area, and
there would still be a undeveloped single family available
Production 4. Application with survey
Interrogatory 12.
• Field review of conditions, review of exiting zoning, LUP, neighborhood plan
recommendations, MSP streets, etc. Staff noted that most of the Multifamily in
the area had been developed — supply was falling. In the last few months staff
had seen several site plans for new multifamily developments as well as Planned
Zoning District applications in west Little Rock reducing the available areas for
multifamily use. Staff had received comments from larger property owners in
west Little Rock and developers of a continuing interest in multifamily sites for
development.
Production 9. Case file (LU08-20-02)?
Interrogatory 16.
■ The action itself implies there would be a future action, since the zoning was
Single family and the Plan changed from Single Family to a higher density
residential. However we have no knowledge or memory that the applicant
indicated what or when he might file a reclassification of the zoning.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS
SIXTH DIVISION
FRANK LYON, JR. PLAINTIFF
VS. CASE NO. CV -20008-12880
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AND
MARK STODOLA, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MAYOR DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
The Defendants, City of Little Rock and Mark Stodola, in his official capacity as Mayor,
submit their Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents propounded to Defendants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state the name and address of the person(s)
responding to these Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. If more than one
person is listed in response to this Interrogatory, identify the Interrogatory to which each named
person is responding.
ANSWER: William C. Mann, III, Chief Deputy City Attorney, 500 West Markham,
Suite 310, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. Mr. Mann assisted in coordinating the responses to each
of the interrogatories. Walter Malone, Planning Manager, 723 West Markham, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72201. Mr. Malone provided information used to answer Interrogatory Nos. '5, 6, 7, 12
and 16. Monte Moore, Zoning and Enforcement Administrator, 723 West Markham, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72201. Mr. Moore provided information used to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify each person you intend to call as a witness
at trial in the litigation of this matter, and with regard to each such person, include the following
information:
(a) name, address, and telephone numbers;
(b) occupation; and
(c) a brief statement of the nature of his or her anticipated testimony.
ANSWER: At this time, Defendants anticipate calling as witnesses the following
individuals.
1. Tony Bozynski
Director
Planning & Development Department
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Telephone: 501/371-6818
Mr. Bozynski will likely provide general testimony about the City of Little Rock Land
Use Plan and the concept of transitional zoning. He may also provide general testimony about
City planning and the process that is followed. By providing this brief description of Mr.
Bozynski's possible testimony, Defendants do not intend to limit in anyway the possible
testimony that he may provide and do not waive the right to elicit additional testimony from Mr.
Bozynski as the need may arise.
2. Walter Malone
Planning Manager
Planning & Development Department
723 West Markham
Little Rock; Arkansas 72201
Telephone: 501/371-6819
Mr. Malone will provide testimony about the amendment to the Land Use Plan that is the
subject of this lawsuit. He will explain the process that was followed and why more than one use,
such as Low Density Residential ("LDR") and Multi -Family 12 ("MF -12"), could both be
appropriate in a particular area. Mr. Malone will also explain that LDR allows a range of six (6)
to ten (10) units per acre while MF -12 allows only two additional units per acre. In addition, he
will testify that any specific project that is proposed to be constructed on the subject property
-2-
will be subject to site plan review by the Planning Commission. At that time, the concerns raised
by Plaintiff in his Complaint, to the extent they have any legitimacy, can be addressed. By
providing this brief description of Mr. Malone's possible testimony, Defendants do not intend to
limit in anyway the possible testimony that he may provide and do not waive the right to elicit
additional testimony from Mr. Malone as the need may arise.
3. Monte Moore
Zoning and Enforcement Administrator
Planning & Development Department
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Telephone: 501/371-4792
Mr. Moore may testify about the rezoning of the subject property from R-2 to MF -12. By
providing this brief description of Mr. Moore's possible testimony, Defendants do not intend to
limit in anyway the possible testimony that he may provide and do not waive the right to elicit
additional testimony from Mr. Moore as the need may arise.
As additional potential witnesses are identified, Defendants will supplement the answer
to this interrogatory.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify expert witnesses you intend to call in the
trial of this matter, and with regard to each such expert witness, include the following
information:
(a) name, address, and telephone numbers;
(b) occupation;
(c) credentials;
(d) all the facts upon which such expert will base an opinion; and
(e) a brief statement of the nature of his or her testimony.
-3-
case.
ANSWER: Defendants do not anticipate consulting an outside expert witness in this
RE I QUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce a copy of the curriculum vitae
of, all reports generated by, and all documents or reports reviewed by or relied upon by every
person identified in your response to Interrogatory No.3.
RESPONSE: See Answer to Interrogatory No. 3.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify each and every document that Defendants
intend to introduce as an exhibit or otherwise use at the trial of this matter.
ANSWER: At this time, Defendants have not made a final decision on possible exhibits.
However, it is likely that a DVD of the meeting of the Little Rock Board of Directors of October
21, 2008, will be offered. Also, select documents from the Planning file on the Land Use Plan
amendment from LDR to MF -12 and the rezoning from R-2 to MF -12 will be offered.
Defendants will supplement this answer as soon as a decision is made on the exhibits.
REQUEST. FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No.4.
RESPONSE: See the attached DVD and copies of the Planning file attached to the
answer to Interrogatory No. 4. Other exhibits will be provided as soon as a decision is made on
what will be offered.
INTERROGATORY N.O. 5: Please identify each and every person who has knowledge
of any relevant material facts related to the issues in this lawsuit, including but not limited to
each member of the staff of the Little Rock Planning Commission (hereinafter, the "Commission
Staff) who was involved in the analysis of and recommendation to the Little Rock Planning
Commission (hereinafter, the "Commission") of the amendment to the Land Use Plan for the
Subject Property from Single Family to Low Density Residential and then to Multi -Family and
-4-
also the rezoning of the Subject Property from R-2 to MF -12. As to each such person identified,
please provide a brief description of the facts of which that person has knowledge.
ANSWER: As to the Land Use Plan amendment, Eve Gieringer, Planner I, conducted
the site and area review. This includes current uses, zoning, Land Use Plan, neighborhood plan
and master street plan. After the review, she developed an existing conditions statement. She also
accepted the applications, and was responsible for sending the requisite notices. She received
contacts from any interested persons and developed the case file and staff report.
Brian Minyard, Planner II, was responsible for discussing the application with the
Planner I and Planning Manager to develop a preliminary recommendation on the requested
change in land use plan�g)
Walter Malone, Planning Manager, was responsible for working with the Planner I and
Planner II to develop a preliminary recommendation on the requested changes in land use, an4
ne reviewed the staff report, made any necessary changes and presented the staff report
and recommendation to the Planning Commission.
With respect to the rezoning request, Monte Moore did the field work, presented all
information to staff for review and prepared the staff analysis. Also, along with Dana Carney
and Tony Bozynski, he was part of the staff discussion involved in developing staff's position.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report or other document upon which the Commission Staff based its
decision to recommend to the Commission, at the Commission's February 28,2008 meeting, the
amendment to the Land Use Plan for the Subject Property from Single Family to Low Density
Residential, including but not limited to the Commission Staffs statement, as contained in the
minutes of the Commission's February 28,2008 meeting, that "[t]here seems to be a need for
additional LDR for this area."
-5-
ANSWER: A field review of conditions, including existing zoning, the Land Use Plan � nPj"
pA
neighborhood plan recommendations, and the master street plan. Staff noted the lack of LDR on
the Plan in the general area. The review is contained in Case file LU08-20-01. N���No
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No.6.
RESPONSE: See attached Case file LU08-20-01.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please state the basis for the Commission Staffs and the
Commission's determination that Low Density Residential, as opposed to Multi -Family, was the
appropriate Land Use classification for the Subject Property at the time of the approval of such
amendment at the Commission's February 28,2008 meeting.
ANSWER: Staff did not do this. Staff recommended that a change from Single Family
to LDR was appropriate. This is because it is not unusual with the "node" concept to have higher
density residential next to non-residential. In addition, attached housing was developing to the
east of the subject property. There was not much LDR shown in the area and there would still be
undeveloped single family available. With respect to the Planning Commission itself, please see
the attached DVD of the Planning Commission meeting of February 28, 2008.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce a copy of each application
and other document filed or provided by Ed Willis or FC Grass Farms Partnership in connection
with the amendment of the Land Use Plan with respect to the Subject Property from Single
Family to Low Density Residential.
RESPONSE: See attached.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Commission based its decision to
M
approve the amendment to the Land Use Plan for the Subject Property from Single Family to
Low Density Residential at the Commission's February 28;2008 meeting.
ANSWER: Please see the DVD of the February 28, 2008, meeting of the Planning
Commission attached to these answers.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. S: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 8.
RESPONSE: See Answer to Interrogatory No. 8.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Little Rock Board of Directors
based its decision to amend the Land Use Plan for the Subject Property from Single Family to
Low Density Residential at the Board's April 1, 2008 meeting.
ANSWER: Please see the copy of the DVD of the Board of Directors' April 1, 2008,
meeting attached to these answers.
REOU'EST FOR PRODUCTION NO. G: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No.9.
RESPONSE: See Answer to Interrogatory No. 9.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Commission Staff based its
decision to recommend to the Commission, at the Commission's August 21,2008 meeting, the re-
zoning of the Subject Property from R-2 to MF -12 (with condition), including but not limited to
the Commission Staff s statements, as contained in the minutes of the August 21, 2008 meeting,
that "[w]hile the single family development market has been slowing, there has been a new
upswing in demand for multi family developments" and that "[t]here is continuing demand for
multifamily."
-7-
ANSWER: As noted in the "Staff Analysis" for the August 21, 2008 Planning
Commission Agenda write-up and "Background" for the Board of Directors Communication for
the October 21, 2008 Agenda:
1. The subject property is located along Patrick Country Road which is classified as a
Collector Street by the City's Master Street Plan.
2. A medium -density residential development of this property would be appropriate to
serve as a transition from the 0-3 zoning immediately to the south to the R-2 zoned property to
the north.
3. It was staff's opinion that future medium -density residential development of this
property would have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
4. Staff noted that site plan review approval would be required by the Planning
Commission if multiple buildings were proposed.
The quotes referred to in Interrogatory No. 10 are not found in the rezoning case File Z-
8301 -A. They are found in the "Staff Analysis" and August 21, 2008 Planning Commission
Minute record in the Land Use Plan Amendment File LU08-20-02.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 10.
RESPONSE: A complete copy of File LU08-20-02 is attached.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Commission based its decision to
approve the re -zoning of the Subject Property from R-2 to MF -12 (with condition) at the
Commission's August 21,2008 meeting.
ANSWER: Please see the DVD of the Planning Commission's August 21, 2008,
meeting along with the minutes of that meeting.
-8-
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 11.
RESPONSE: The DVD is attached. You already have a copy of the minutes.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Commission Staff based its
decision to recommend to the Commission, at the Commission's October 2, 2008 meeting, the
amendment to the Land Use Plan for the Subject Property from Low Density Residential to
Multi -Family, including but not limited to any change in circumstances or facts since the time of
the Commission's approval of the Land Use Plan amendment for the Subject Property from
Single Family to Low Density Residential on February 28, 2008, and also including but not
limited to the Commission Staffs statements, as contained in the minutes of the October 2,2008
meeting, that "[w]hile the single family development market has been slowing, there has been a
new upswing in demand for multi family developments" and that "[t]here is continuing demand
for multifamily."
ANSWER: There was another field review of conditions, review of existing zoning, the Lil $
s�
Land Use Plan, s, and the master street plan. Staff noted that
most of the Multi -Family in the area had been developed, thereby reducing the available supply.
In the preceding few months staff had seen several site plans for new Multi -Family
developments as well as a Planned Zoning District applications in west Little Rock all of which
reduced the available areas for Multi -Family use. Staff had received comments from larger
property owners in west Little Rock and developers of a continuing interest in Multi=Family sites
for development. Please see case file number LU08-20-02.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 12.
RESPONSE: A complete copy of File LU08-20-02 has been provided.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Commission based its decision to
approve the amendment to the Land Use Plan for the Subject Property from Low Density
Residential to Multi -Family at the Commission's October 2,2008 meeting.
ANSWER: Please see the DVD of the October 2, 2008, Planning Commission meeting
along with the minutes of that meeting
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 13.
RESPONSE: See Answer to Interrogatory No. 13.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Little Rock Board of Directors
based its decision to amend the Land Use Plan with respect to the Subject Property from Low
Density Residential to Multi -Family at the Board's October 2,2008 meeting.
ANSWER: See the certified copy of the minutes of the Board's October 2, 2008,
meeting.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 14.
RESPONSE: See Answer to Interrogatory No. 14.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify each and every fact, opinion, testimony,
statement, analysis, report, or other document upon which the Board based its decision to re -zone
the Subject Property from R-2 to MF -12 (with condition) at the Board's October 2,2008 meeting.
-10-
ANSWER: See certified copy of the minutes of the Board's October 3, 2008, meeting.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 15.
RESPONSE: See Answer to Interrogatory No. 15.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce a copy of each application
and other document filed or provided by Ed Willis or Fe Grass Farms Partnership in connection
with the rezoning of the Subject Property from R-2 to MF -12 (with condition) and the
amendment of the Land Use Plan for the Subject Property from Low Density Residential to
Multi -Family.
RESPONSE: See attached.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce a copy of any data, studies
or reports produced within the last five years related to traffic counts or conditions within three
miles of the Subject Property.
ANSWER: See attached.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Did Ed Willis or FC Grass Farms Partnership state or
suggest to any Commission Staff member prior to February 28,2008 that Ed Willis or FC Grass
Farms would or might apply for rezoning of, or an additional land use plan change for, the
Subject Property? If so, please identify the name(s) of the Commission Staff member(s) and the
date(s) on which they received such information.
ANSWER: The application itself implies there would be a future action since the zoning
was Single Family and the Land Use Plan changed from Single Family to a higher density of
residential use (LDR). However staff has no knowledge or memory that the applicant indicated
what or when he might file for a reclassification of the zoning.
- 11 -
INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please identify each and every fact or document of which
Defendants are aware that is relevant or material, or that Defendants contend is relevant or
material, to the issues in this lawsuit not already identified in response to the foregoing
interrogatories.
ANSWER: Defendants believe that all facts and documents relevant to this case have
been identified.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce a copy of each and every
document identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 17.
RESPONSE: Any such documents have been provided
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas M. Carpenter
City Attorney
UO -A
William C. Mann, III, #79199
Chief Deputy City Attorney
City Hall - Suite 310
500 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 371-4527
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon Stephen N. Joiner, c/o
Rose Law Firm, 120 East Fourth Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, by placing the same in the
U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this day of February, 2009.
William C. Mann, III
-12-
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS
SIXTH DIVISION
FRANK LYON, JR.
V. CASE NO. CV -2008-12880
PLAINTIFF
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AND
MARK STODOLA, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MAYOR DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff Frank Lyon, Jr. ("Plaintiff") responds as set forth below to Defendants' First Set
of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Directed to Plaintiff:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state the name, address and telephone number of
each person providing information used to respond to the following interrogatories and requests
for production of documents.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Rick Shutt
One Riverfront Drive
Suite 400
North Little Rock, AR 72114
501-376-2116
Garland J. Garrett
Rose Law Firm
120 E. Fourth Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
501-377-0316
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please state your home address and how long you have
resided at this address.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Plaintiff resides at 18800 Cantrell Road,
Little Rock, Arkansas 72223. Plaintiff has resided at this address since February of 2000.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please state the date when you purchased the property
located at 18800 Cantrell Road in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Plaintiff and his spouse purchased the
property located at 18800 Cantrell Road, Little Rock, Arkansas on February 10, 2000,
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: In paragraph 9 of the Complaint you state that the Little
Rock Planning Commisgion approved an amendment to the City's Land Use Plan at its February
28, 2008 meeting which resulted in the Subject Property being included in the Low Density
Residential land use classification rather than the former Single Family use. Did you or your
representative attend the meeting and object to this amendment to the Land Use Plan? If so,
please set forth in full detail each and every objection asserted by you or your representative and
the underlying factual basis for each objection.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Neither Plaintiff nor a representative
attended the subject meeting and objected to the referenced Land Use Plan amendment.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Did you or your representative present any documents in
support of your argument in opposition to the amendment of the Land Use Plan referred to in
Interrogatory No. 4? If so, please identify each such document.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: See Response to Interrogatory No. 4.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please provide a copy of each and every
document identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 5.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: See Response to
Interrogatory No. 4.
2 19.S744-1
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Did you or your representative attend the Little Rock
Board of Directors meeting held on April 1, 2008 to object to the Land Use Plan amendment
approved on that date which reclassified the Subject Property from Single Family to Low
Density Residential land use? If so, please set forth in full detail each and every objection
asserted by you or on your behalf and the underlying factual basis for each objection.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Neither Plaintiff nor a representative
attended the subject meeting to object to the referenced amendment.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Did you or your representative present any documents in
support of your argument in opposition to the amendment to the Land Use Plan referred to in
Interrogatory No. 6? If so, please identify each such document.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: See Response to Interrogatory No. 6.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please provide a copy of each and every
document identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 7.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: See Response to
Interrogatory No. 6.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Do the minutes of the August 21, 2008 meeting of the
Little Rock Planning Commission, attached to the Complaint as Exhibit "D", reflect each of the
arguments made by your representative in opposition to rezoning the Subject Property from R-2
to MF -12 (with condition)? If your answer is "no", please set forth in full detail each and every
argument made by your representative that is not contained in the minutes.
RESPONSE'F0 INTERROGATORY NO. 8. The minutes of the August 21, 2008
meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission, relevant portions of which are attached to
Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit "D", do not reflect each of the arguments made by Gary Garrett
195744-I
of Rose Law Firm, as Plaintiff's representative, in opposition to both the rezoning of the Subject
Property and the Land Use Plan amendment. A video recording of the August 21, 2008 meeting
of the Little Rock Planning Commission was made and is available to Defendants through the
City of Little Rock's website. Such video recording speaks for itself as to every argument made
by Plaintiff's representative at such meeting as to the rezoning and the Land Use Plan
amendment with respect to the Subject Property.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Did your representative present any documents in support
of your argument in opposition to the rezoning referred to in Interrogatory No. 8? If so, please
identify each such document.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: In support of Plaintiff's opposition to
the rezoning and the Land Use Plan amendment with respect to the Subject Property, Plaintiff's
representative, Gary Garrett, presented to the Planning Commission certain documents including
copies of a map of the Subject Property and surrounding area that was prepared by the Planning
Commission, a map of the Subject Property and surrounding area from Google Earth, and
excerpts from the staff analysis and minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held on
February 28, 2008.
REQ uEs,r FFR PIZODUC'T10N NO. 3: Please provide a copy of each and every
document identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 9.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Copies of the documents
referenced in Response to Interrogatory No. 9 were presented to the Planning Commission, and
thus, should be in Defendants' possession. Neither the Plaintiff nor his representatives have
exact copies of the referenced maps and documents.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Do the minutes of the October 2, 2008 meeting of the
Little Rock Planning Commission, attached to the Complaint as Exhibit "G", reflect each of the
arguments made by your representative in opposition to amending the Land Use Plan to
reclassify the Subject Property from Low Density Residential to Multi -Family? If your answer is
"no", please set forth in full detail each and every argument made by your representative that is
not contained in the minutes.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: The minutes of the October 2, 2008
meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission, relevant portions of which are attached to
Plaintiff s Complaint as Exhibit "G", do not reflect each of the arguments made by Gary Garrett,
as Plaintiff's representative, in opposition to the Land Use Plan amendment. A video recording
of the October 2, 2008 meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission was made and is
available to the Defendants through the City of Little Rock's website. Such video recording
speaks for itself as to every argument made by Plaintiff's representative at such meeting
regarding the Land Use Plan amendment with respect to the Subject Property.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Did you or your representative present any documents in
support of your argument in opposition to the Land Use Plan amendment referred to in
Interrogatory No. 10? If so, please identify each such document.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff s
representative presented documents in support of Plaintiff s argument in opposition to the Land
Use Plan amendment referred to in Interrogatory No. 10 at the October 2, 2008 meeting of the
Little Rock Planning Commission.
RE VEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please provide a copy of each and every
document identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 11.
5 107""
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: See Response to
Interrogatory No. 11.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Did you or your representative attend the October 21,
2008 meeting of the Little Rock Board of Directors to argue in opposition to rezoning the
Subject Property from R-2 to MF -12 (with condition)? If so, please set forth in full detail each
and every argument you or your representative made to the Board with regard to the rezoning.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Plaintiff s representative, Gary
Garrett, attended the October 21, 2008 meeting of the Little Rock Board of Directors to argue in
opposition to rezoning the Subject Property and the amendment of the Land Use Plan. A video
recording of the October 21, 2008 meeting of the Little Rock Board of Directors was made and is
available to Defendants through the City of Little Rock's website. Such video recording speaks
for itself as to every argument made by Plaintiff s representative at such meeting regarding both
the rezoning and the amendment to the Land Use Plan with respect to the Subject Property.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Did you or your representative present any documents to
the Board of Directors in support of your argument in opposition to the rezoning referred to in
Interrogatory No. 12? If so, please identify each such document.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiffs
representative presented documents at the October 21, 2008 meeting of the Board of Directors in
support of Plaintiffs arguments in opposition to the rezoning referred to in Interrogatory No. 12
or the amendment of the Land Use with respect to the Subject Property.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5.: Please provide a copy of each and every
document identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 13.
6
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: See Response to
Interrogatory No. 13.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Did you or your representative attend the October 21,
2008 meeting of the Little Rock Board of Directors to argue in opposition to amending the Land
Use Plan to classify the Subject Property as Multi -Family? If so, please set forth in full detail
each and every argument you or your representative made to the Board with regard to the land
use amendment.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: See Response to Interrogatory No, 12.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Did you or your representative present any documents to
the Board of Directors in support of your argument in opposition to the land use amendment
referred to in Interrogatory No. 14? If so, please identify each such document.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff's
representative presented documents at the October 21, 2008 meeting of the Little Rock Board of
Directors in support of Plaintiff's arguments in opposition to the Land Use amendment referred
to in Interrogatory No. 14 or the rezoning of the Subject Property.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please provide a copy of each and every
document identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 15.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: See Response to
Interrogatory No. 15.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please describe in full detail the factual basis for the
allegation in paragraph 29 of the Complaint where you allege that you `will suffer damages as a
result of the re -zoning and development of the area as multi -family, with an increase in traffic
and noise near the Plaintiff s Property."
7 19P4411
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Plaintiffs residence at 18800
Cantrell Road is located directly to the east of Little Rock Christian Academy ("LRCA") and to
the west of Valley Ranch Drive. LRCA is a private school, with an enrollment for the 2008-
2009 school year of over 1,250 students, plus 215 faculty and staff, according to LRCA's
website. As Plaintiffs representative stated at the August 28, 2008 Planning Commission
meeting, there currently is a traffic problem near Plaintiff s property as a result of the volume of
traffic going to and coming from LRCA. At the morning drop off and afternoon pick up times
for LRCA, traffic is very heavy on this stretch of Cantrell Road near Valley Ranch Drive and the
entrance to Plaintiff s property, and this volume of traffic requires two police officers to be
present to direct traffic at these times. Often, the entrance to Plaintiff s residence will be blocked
by this traffic. Plaintiff has posted a sign at the entrance to his property asking drivers not to
block the entrance; however, it remains a problem for Plaintiff. With the MF -12 zoning, this
problem would only increase the damages resulting to Plaintiff.
Mr. Joe White, the applicant's representative at the Planning Commission meetings,
stated at the August 28, 2008 and October 2, 2008 meetings of the Planning Commission, that
Valley Ranch Drive would be developed as a collector street and will be extended to the east and
have frontage along the southern boundary of the Subject Property. He also stated at the August
28 meeting that there has been "talk" of abandoning Patrick Country Road. If Valley Ranch
Drive would be the main ingress and egress to the multi -family development on the Subject
Property, in addition to the hundreds of vehicles traveling in front of Plaintiff s property to and
from LRCA, there would be hundreds more vehicles as a result of multi -family development.
The City of Little Rock's MF -12 zoning classification permits up to twelve (12) dwelling
units per acre. To Plaintiffs knowledge, there currently is no specific project or development
195144.1
proposed for the Subject Property. However, assuming the forty (40) acre Subject Property site
were developed with MF -12 zoning, as many as 480 dwelling units would be permitted on the
Subject Property. Assuming the residents of each dwelling unit possess at least one vehicle, an
additional 480 vehicles would be traveling on Valley Ranch Drive to and from the Subject
Property and near the entrance to Plaintiff s property on a daily basis. Assuming 1.5 vehicles per
dwelling unit, there could be an additional 720 vehicles traveling to and from the Subject
Property. The development of the Subject Property as an MF -12 development would damage
Plaintiff by increasing the traffic congestion, which is already a problem, near the entrance to
Plaintiff s property, as well as increasing the noise level near Plaintiff s single family residence
property.
Furthermore, with Multi -Family Land Use, the current MF -12 zoning could be changed
again at the applicant's or another party's request to MF -18 or MF -24, thereby further increasing
the traffic congestion and noise levels near Plaintiff s property.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as additional facts and documents
become known and available to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff s Response is in no way a waiver of any
additional arguments supporting Plaintiff s claims.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you have had a traffic study
prepared which reflects that there will be an increase in traffic and noise near your property as a
result of the rezoning of the Subject Property from R-2 to multi -family 12 ("MF -12") (with
condition).
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: As of the date of these Responses,
Plaintiff has not had a traffic study prepared which reflects the increase in traffic and noise near
9 19$144-1
Plaintiff s property as a result of the rezoning of the Subject Property from R-2 to MF -12 (with
condition).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION -NO. 7: Please produce a copy of any traffic study
identified in your answer to the preceding interrogatory.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: See Response to
Interrogatory No. 17.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18: If you have not had a traffic study prepared as stated in
Interrogatory No. 17, please identify all facts and documentary evidence upon which you rely to
support your claim that the rezoning to MF -12 (with condition) will result in increased traffic
and noise as opposed to the previous zoning classification of R-2.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: See Response to Interrogatory No. 16.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please provide a copy of each and every
document you contend supports your answer to Interrogatory No. 18.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Plaintiff encloses herewith
a copy of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinances for the MF -12 zoning classification and a
copy of LRCA's website page showing the enrollment of over 1,250 students and 215 faculty
and staff for the 2008-2009 school year. In addition, please see the documents that the Plaintiffs
representative provided to the Planning Commission and that were attached to the Complaint.
Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as additional facts and documents
become known and available to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff s Response is in no way a waiver of any
additional arguments supporting Plaintiff's claims.
10
INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Please set forth in full detail the factual basis for your
claim that you will suffer damages as a result of amending the Land Use Plan to reclassify the
Subject Property from Low Family Residential to Multi -Family.
RESPONSE TO IN'T'ERROGATORY NO. 19: See Response to Interrogatory No. 16.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please provide a copy of each and every
document you contend supports your answer to Interrogatory No. 19.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N4_9: See Response to Request
for Production No. 8.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20: To the extent you have not already done so, please set
forth in full detail the factual basis for your claim that you will suffer damages due to the fact
that the Subject Property was rezoned from R-2 to MF -12.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: See Response to Interrogatory No. 16.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please provide a copy of each and every
document you contend supports your answer to Interrogatory No. 20.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: See Response to Request
for Production No. 8.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please set forth in full detail all factual and documentary
evidence upon which you base your allegation that rezoning the Subject Property from R-2 to
MF- 12 (with condition) constitutes illegal spot zoning.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Factual and documentary evidence
supporting Plaintiff's claim that the rezoning of the Subject Property from R-2 to MF -12 (with
condition) constitutes illegal spot zoning is contained in Plaintiff s Complaint and the attached
exhibits. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend his Complaint and/or to supplement this Response
11 19$744.1
as additional facts and documents become known and available to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's
Response is in no way a waiver of any additional arguments supporting Plaintiff's claims.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please provide a copy of each and every
document you contend supports your answer to Interrogatory No. 21.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: See exhibits attached to
Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Response as additional
documents become known and available to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's Response is in no way a
waiver of any additional arguments supporting Plaintiff s claims.
INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Please identify all persons whom you presently expect to
call as an expert witness at a trial of this matter. For each such person, please state the subject
matter on which the expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions to which
the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Plaintiff has not yet identified any
persons whom he might call as expert witnesses at a trial of this matter.
IN'T'ERROGATORY NO. 23: Please identify each and every document upon which
any expert witness identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 21 relied upon in reaching any
opinions the expert will express at trial.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: See Response to Interrogatory No. 22,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please provide a copy of each and every
document identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 23.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: See Response to
Interrogatory No. 22.
12
INTERROGATORY NO. 24; Please identify all persons whom you presently expect to
call as lay witnesses at a trial of this matter. Please include the subject matter of each such
person's expected testimony, and update your answer to this interrogatory sufficiently in advance
of the discovery cutoff to permit Defendants to schedule depositions.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: The trial witnesses' identities have not
yet been determined. Potential witnesses include Mr. Shutt, Mr. White, Mr. Willis, staff of the
Little Rock Planning Commission, members of the Planning Commission, members of the City
of Little Rock Board of Directors and such other persons who may become known to Plaintiff
during the course of discovery.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: To the extent you have not done so already,
please provide a copy of each and every document you may refer to, rely on or seek to introduce
into evidence at a trial of this action.
RESPONSE TO RE VEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Plaintiff has not yet
determined what documents and exhibits he will offer in evidence at the trial of this action.
Potential exhibits include documents attached to the Complaint and documents produced by both
parties during the course of discovery.
13
Dated January 30, 2009.
Rose Law Firm,
a Professional Association
120 East Fourth Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 375-9131 [telephone]
(501) 375-1309 [facsimile]
Attorneys for Frank Lyon, Jr.
By: 2&�_
eplien N. J64er
Arkansas Bar No. 87093
(501) 377-0329
sjoiner@roselawfinn.com
Robyn P. Allmendinger
Arkansas Bar No. 2002120
(501)377-0343
rallmendinger@roselawfum.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon William C. Mann, III,
Chief Deputy City Attorney, City Hall — Suite 310, 500 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas
72201, by hand delivery this 30th day of January, 2009.
Ste ben N. Ager
14 195744-1
Little Rock Christian Academy
Page 1 of 2
Our Story
-Welcomo-
Mission Statement
Profile
Annual Review 07-08
View Book
Board Members
Admissions
Academics
Arts
Athletics
Student Life
Giving
Alumni
Campus News
Parents - Resources
SCHOOL PROFILE
Little Rock ChrlsOan Academy is an Independent, co-educational, college -preparatory Christian day
school committed to 'excellence In the pursuit of truth from a Christ -centered worldvlew," This page Is designed to
give you Just a glimpse of our school. If you want to really discover what makes Little Rock Christian such a unique
place come vlslt us and check out the spirit of this Institution.
2008/2009 School Year
Grades
K4-12
Enrollment
1256
High School (9-12)
426
Middle School (6-8)
324
Elementary (2.5)
344
Early Childhood (11(4-1)
162
Founded
1977
Faculty
120
Equivalent full time positions
95
Studentlreacher
14;1
Average,Class Size
20
National Merit Finalists (07108)
5
Achievement Merit Finalists (07108)
1
SCHOOL PROFILE
C n I. 1 I. G E
P1.AC E 1's Tv `I`
PRICK RECORD
Curriculum;
• EIgID$rWy_Currlykim
• Middle School Curriculum
• Hlah Scud Y4.U.rse. [ I; I•ng
Accredited by:
Association of Christian Schools International, the
Arkansas Non -Public Schools Accrediting Association.
Membership In:
The College Board, National Honor Society, and
National Beta Club
Testing Results:
Six year SAT graduating class average:
Verbal 606, Math 574;
ACT Average: 24.4
Distinctions & Awards:
5 National Merit Semi-finalists;
1 National Achievement Semi-finalist;
Duke TIP National School of Distinction 1999,
2001, 2003; First in state Mathcounts - 2002
Graduation Requirements:
English (4), Math (4), Science (3), Worldvlew (4),
History (3), Foreign Language (2), Fine Arts (1), PE
(112), Health & Safety (112), Oral Communication (112),
Electives (1 112)
Total 24 Credits
Biblical Worldvlew Is a series of courses designed to authenticate faith and learning In ways that can be actualized.
Class discussion Is socratic and includes readings from a variety of contemporary and historical figures that have
contributed to Western Intellectual history (Machiavelli, Aristotle, Freud, Marx, Darwin, Enlightenment figures, current
editorial writers, etc.). As biblical truth Is placed in Juxtaposition to these works, students are challenged to think
critically In order to formulate thelr own biblically based woddvlew and lifestyle.
Atlllcic Qfier; "rt s:
Little Rock Christian Hlgh School athletics Include the following: Football, Basketball, Volleyball, Wrestling, Soccer,
Baseball, Fast Pitch Softball, Goff, Swimming, Tennis, Track, Cross Country and Cheerleading.
http://www.littlerockchristian.com/ourstory/profile.aspx 1/9/2009
Little Rock Christian Academy Page 2 of 2
Students entering middle school at Little Rock Christian can participate In the following athletics; Football,
Basketball, Soccer, Volleyball, and Cheerleading
Team Name - Warriors
School Colors - Navy, Forest Green, and White
League Afflllatlon- Arkansas Activities Association
EXtI-ircurricuIar ACtiVitiCS:
Student Council, Quiz Bowl, Literary Club, FCA, Drama and Musical Productions, Middle and Senior High Band,
Jazz Band, Mixed and Girls Chorus, and Yearbook.
Go Wanloral Pepe Last Updated:1013012008
http://www.littlerockehristian.com/ourstory/profile.aspx 1/9/2009
CODE City of LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Codified through Ord. No. 20,044, adopted... Page 1 of 4
Preliminaries
REVISED 1988
CODE
City of
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
Codified through
Ord. No. 20,044, adopted Nov. 3, 2008.
(Supplement No. 54)
THE LITTLE ROCK CITY CODE,
GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
Published by Order of the City Commission
Adopted, September 28, 1988
Effective, September 28, 1988
Published by Municipal Code Corporation
Tallahassee, Florida 1988
OFFICIALS
of the
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
AT THE TIME OF THIS CODIFICATION
Lottie Shackelford
Mayor
F. G. "Buddy" Villines, Vice Mayor
Sharon Priest
J. W. "Buddy" Benafield
Tom Milton
Charles Bussey
Tom Prince
http://library6.municode.com/default/DoeView/11170/1 /2 1/9/2009
CODE City of LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Codified through Ord. No. 20,044, adopted... Page 2 of 4
Board of Directors
Tom Dalton
City Manager
Maris Stodola
City Attorney
Jane Czech
City Clerk
PREFACE
This Code constitutes a complete recodification of the ordinances of the City of Little Rock,
Arkansas of a general and permanent nature.
Source materials used in the preparation of the Code were the 1961 Code, as supplemented
through March 5, 1986, and ordinances adopted by the board of directors. The source of each section
is included in the history note appearing in parentheses at the end thereof. The absence of such a note
indicates that the section is new and was adopted for the first time with the adoption of the Code. By
use of the comparative tables appearing in the back of this volume, the reader can locate any section of
the 1961 Code, as supplemented, and any ordinance included herein.
The chapters of the Code have been conveniently arranged in alphabetical order and the
various sections within each chapter have been catchlined to facilitate usage. Footnotes which tie
related sections of the Code together and which refer to relevant state laws have been included. A table
listing the state law citations and setting forth their location within the Code is included at the back of
this volume.
Numbering System
The numbering system used in this Code is the same system used in many state and municipal
codes. Each section number consists of two component parts separated by a dash, the figure before
the dash referring to the chapter number and the figure after the dash referring to the position of the
section within the chapter. Thus, the first section of Chapter 32 is numbered 32-1 and the tenth section
of Chapter 1 is 1-10. Under this system, each section is identified with its chapter and at the same time
new sections or even whole chapters can be inserted in their proper place simply by using the decimal
system for amendments. By way of illustration: If new material consisting of three sections that would
logically come between sections 1-9 and 1-10 is desired to be added, such new sections would be
numbered 1-9.1, 1-9.2 and 1-9.3 respectively. New chapters may be included in the same manner. If
the new material is to be included between Chapters 8 and 9, it will be designated as Chapter 8.5. Care
should be taken that the alphabetical arrangement of chapters is maintained when including new
chapters. New articles and new divisions may be included in the same way or, in the case of articles,
may be placed at the end of the chapter embracing the subject, and, in the case of divisions, may be
placed at the end of the article embracing the subject, the next successive number being assigned to
the article or division.
Index
The general index of the Code has been prepared with the greatest of care. Each particular item
has been placed under several headings, some of the headings being couched in lay phraseology,
others in legal terminology, and still others in language generally used by municipal officials and
employees. There are numerous cross references within the index which stand as guideposts to direct
http://Iibrary6.municode.com/default/DoeView/11170/1/2 1/9/2009
CODE City of LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Codified through Ord. No. 20,044, adopted... Page 3 of 4
the user to the particular item in which he is interested.
Looseleaf Supplements
A special feature of this Code to which the attention of the user is especially directed is the
looseleaf system of binding and supplemental servicing for the Code. With this system, the Code will be
kept up-to-date periodically. Upon the final passage of amendatory ordinances, they will be properly
edited and the appropriate page or pages affected will be reprinted. These new pages will be
distributed to holders of copies of the Code, with instructions for the manner of inserting the new pages
and deleting the obsolete pages.
Successfully keeping this Code up-to-date at all times will depend largely upon the holder of the
volume. As revised sheets are received, it will then become the responsibility of the holder to have the
amendments inserted according to the attached instructions. It is strongly recommended by the
publisher that all such amendments be inserted immediately upon receipt to avoid misplacing them
and, in addition, that all deleted pages be saved and filed for historical reference purposes.
Acknowledgments
The publication of this Code was under the direct supervision of Roger D. Merriam, Supervising
Editor of the Municipal Code Corporation, Tallahassee, Florida. Credit is gratefully givers to the other
members of the publisher's staff for their sincere interest and able assistance throughout the project.
The publisher is most grateful to Mr. Mark Stodola, City Attorney, and to Attorney Mr, Robert H.
Hall, for their cooperation and assistance during the progress of the work on this Code. It is hoped that
their efforts and those of the publisher have resulted in a Cade of Ordinances which will make the
active law of the city readily accessible to all citizens and which will be a valuable tool in the day-to-day
administration of the city's affairs.
MUNICIPAL_ CODE CORPORATION
Tallahassee, Florida
ORDINANCE NO. 15,559
An Ordinance Adopting and Enacting a New Code for the City of Little Rock, Arkansas;
Providing for the Repeal of Certain Ordinances Not Included Therein; Providing a Penalty for
the Violation Thereof; Providing for the Manner of Amending Such Code; Providing When Such
Code and This Ordinance Shall Become Effective; and Declaring an Emergency.
Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained by the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas:
Section 1. The Code entitled "The Little Rock City Code, Revised 1988," published by
Municipal Code Corporation consisting of Chapters 1 through 36, each inclusive, is adopted.
Section 2. All ordinances of a general and permanent nature enacted on or before July 18,
1988, and not included in the Code or recognized and continued in force by reference therein, are
repealed.
Section 3. The repeal provided for in Section 2 hereof shall not be construed to revive any
ordinance or part thereof that has been repealed by a subsequent ordinance that is repealed by this
ordinance.
Section 4. Unless another penalty is expressly provided, every person convicted of a violation
of any provision of the Code or any ordinance, rule or regulation adopted or issued in pursuance
thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500,00) or double such sum
for such repetition thereof. If the violation is, in its nature, continuous in respect to time, the penalty for
allowing the violation to continue is a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for each day
that the same is unlawfully continued. If a violation is a misdemeanor under state law, the penalty for
http://library6.municode.com/default/DocView/I 1170/1/2 1/9/2009
CODE City of LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Codified through Ord. No. 20,044, adopted... Page 4 of 4
the violation shall be as prescribed for the state offense. The penalty provided by this section,
unless another penalty is expressly provided shall apply to the amendment of any Code section
whether or not such penalty is reenacted in the amendatory ordinance. In addition to the penalty
prescribed above, the City may pursue other remedies such as abatement of nuisances, injunctive
relief, and revocation of licenses or permits.
Section 5. Additions or amendments to the Code when passed in the form as to indicate the
intention of the City to make the same a part of the Code shall be deemed to be incorporated in the
Code, so that reference to the Code includes the additions and amendments.
Section 6. Ordinances adopted after July 18, 1988 that amend or refer to ordinances that have
been codified in the Code, shall be construed as if they amend or refer to like provisions of the Code.
Section 7. Emergency Clause. The present Code of Ordinances for the City of Little Rock has
had more than 90 supplements since it was first published in 1962 [1961]. Copies of certain portions of
these supplements no longer exist. Further, pagination of the old Code is confusing. In addition, there
have been occasions when ordinances of the Board of Directors have amended original ordinances,
but on other occasions have only amended the codification of the ordinances. The ability to pass a
single codification of ordinances and, in doing so, assure that all prior ordinances and codifications are
properly stated is a matter of great importance that affects the health, safety and welfare of the entire
community since it helps assure that actions taken by the Board, or by the various City departments,
are done pursuant to a set of ordinances that has been formally adopted in the proper fashion by the
Board of Directors. An emergency is therefore declared to exist and this codification of ordinances and
this ordinance shall become effective on the date of passage.
Passed: September 28, 1988
TABLE INSET:
Jane Czech _ i!y Clerk Lottie Shackelford Mayar
Approved as to Form:
Mark Stodola, City Attorney
http://library6.municode.com/default/DocView/11170/1/2 1/9/2009
ARTICLE V. DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Page 13 of 103
(3) Rear yard. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than twenty-five
(25) feet.
(4) Lot area regulations. There shall be a lot area of not less than seven thousand
(7,000) square feet. In addition, there shall be a lot width of not less than seventy (70)
feet and a lot depth of not less than one hundred (100) feet.
(5) Other area regulations and siting standards. The following minimum siting
standards shall apply to all instances of placement of a manufactured home in the R-4
two-family district by conditional use permit:
a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater.
b. Removal of all transport elements.
c. Permanent foundation.
d. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the neighborhood.
e. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures.
f. Underpinning with permanent materials.
g. All homes shall be multisectional.
h. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard.
(6) Accessory structures and additions. Accessory structures or principal building
additions of conventional on-site construction are permitted by right.
(Code 1961, Ch. 43, § 7-101.4; Ord. No. 15,247, § 1, 2-17-87; Ord. No. 15,438, § 1, 2-16-88; Ord. No.
16,341, § 1(c), 1-19-93; Ord. No. 16,861, § 1(aa), 3-21-95; Ord. No. 18,324, § 1(h), 8-1-00)
Sec. 36-257. MF -6 and MF -12 multifamily districts.
(a) Purpose and intent. The MF -6 and MF -12 multifamily districts are established to provide
suitable areas for medium -density residential development. It is the intent of this section that
these districts be located in those areas of the city where adequate public facilities and
environment exist or can be provided. This section applies to such districts.
(b) Use regulations.
(1) Permitted uses. Permitted uses are as follows:
a. Housing, elderly, at six (6) units per acre in MF -6 and twelve (12) units per
acre in MF -12.
b. Structures utilizing townhouse development types not exceeding six (6) units
per gross acre in the MF -6 district and twelve (12) per gross acre in the MF -12
district.
c. Multifamily residential structures not to exceed six (6) units per gross acre in
the MF -6 district and twelve (12) units per gross acres in the MF -12 district.
d. Two-family residences.
e. Orphanage.
(2) Accessory and temporary uses. Accessory and temporary uses allowed within the
MF -6 and MF -12 districts shall be the same as those in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4
districts except that certain nonresidential uses such as laundry rooms and recreation
rooms will be interpreted as accessory uses if they serve only the residents of a
http://library6.municode.com/default/DocView/11170/1/168/173 1/9/2009
ARTICLE V. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page 14 of 103
multifamily complex.
(3) Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows:
a. Same as in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 residential districts.
b. Rooming, lodging and boarding facilities.
(4) Special uses. Special uses are as follows:
a. Same as in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts.
(c) Height regulations, No building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall exceed a
height of thirty-five (35) feet.
(d) Area regulations:
(1) Exterior yards. All exterior yards or yards which abut dedicated public streets shall
have a depth of not less than twenty-five (25) feet.
(2) Interior yards. All interior yards or yards which abut interior property lines or any lot
of record shall have a depth equal to the height of any proposed building or structure.
(3) Detached building separation. All detached buildings shall be separated by a
distance of not less than ten (10) feet.
(4) Lot area per family. In the MF multifamily district, every building for single-family
attached or multifamily use hereafter erected or structurally altered shall provide a
minimum lot area per family as follows:
a. MF -6 district, seven thousand (7,000) square feet.
b. MF -12 district, three thousand six hundred (3,600) square feet.
(5) Site area. The minimum site area of the MF -6 and MF -12 districts shall be one (1)
acre.
(e) Landscape requirements. All landscaping and screening of vehicular use areas shall be in
accordance with chapter 15, article IV.
(Code 1961, Ch. 43, § 7-101.5; Ord. No. 15,553, § 1y, bbb, 9-20-88; Ord. No. 16,341, § 1(d), 1-19-93)
Sec. 36-258. MF -18 and MF -24 multifamily districts.
(a) Purpose and intent. The MF -18 and MF -24 multifamily districts are established in order to
provide suitable areas in the city for medium -density residential uses and structures at a density
of not more than eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) units per gross acre respectively. It is the
intent of this section that these districts be utilized in both the developed and urbanizing portions
of the city. Both districts shall be restricted to sites abutting collector or arterial streets and may
be developed either adjacent to or in conjunction with neighborhood commercial or shopping
center developments. Adequate commercial facilities, public utilities and urban services shall
either exist prior to development or be provided in conjunction with development. These districts
may also be used as a transitional or buffer zone between single-family districts and other uses
which are not compatible with a low density residential environment. Within the MF -18 and MF -
24 districts, all buildings, structures or uses having commercial characteristics and not planned
as an integral part of the total residential development shall be excluded, whether operated for
profit or otherwise. Accessory and conditional uses and home occupations expressly provided
for in this chapter, however, shall be allowed, provided they do not have objectionable
characteristics, and provided further that they otherwise conform to the specific provisions of
this chapter.
(b) Use regulations.
http://Iibrary6.municode.com/default/DocView/I 1170/1 /168/173 1/9/2009