Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8301-A Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-8301-A Owner: FC Grass Farms Limited Partnership Applicant: Ed Willis Location: West side of Patrick Country Road, approximately 0.44 mile north of Cantrell Road Area: 39.9 Acres Request: Rezone from R-2 to MF-18 Purpose: Future multifamily development Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING 0 North — Undeveloped property; zoned R-2 South — Undeveloped property; zoned 0-3 East — Undeveloped property (across Patrick Country Road); zoned R-2 West — Undeveloped property and single-family residence; zoned R-2 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Patrick Country Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. A dedication of right-of-way 30 feet from centerline will be required. This dedication should along the eastern property line. 2. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies that Valley Ranch Drive Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of- way to 30 feet from centerline. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route- C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. 69LU�0150] WA: 1 W O MZI D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2 to MF-18. A Land Use Plan Amendment is a separate item on this agenda (LU08- 20-02). Master Street Plan: Valley Ranch Drive is shown as a Local Street on the Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site and might require street improvements even if there is no entrance or exit. BicVcle Plan: A Class II bikeway is shown along Cantrell Road according to the Master Street Plan bicycle section. A Class II bikeway is located on the street as either a 5' shoulder or six foot marked bike lane. Additional paving and right-of-way may be required. Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: FC Grass Farms Limited Partnership, owner of the 39.9 acre property located along the west side of Patrick Country Road (approximately 0.44 mile north of Cantrell Road), is requesting to rezone the property from "R-2" Single Family District to "MF-18" Multifamily District. The rezoning is proposed to allow future multifamily development of the property (up to 18 residential units per gross acre). The property is currently undeveloped and wooded, and is located at the north end of Patrick Country Road. The property has varying degrees of slope. 2 FILE NO.: Z-8301-A (Cont.- The 39.9-acre property is surrounded almost entirely by undeveloped property. Undeveloped R-2 zoned property is located to the north, east and west. There is a large single-family residence to the southwest. Undeveloped 0-3 zoned property is located immediately south, with office uses further south along Valley Ranch Drive, which will extend along the south boundary of this property in the future. There is an existing multifamily development, also zoned MF-18, to the southeast along the east side of Patrick Country Road. The City's Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Low Density Residential. A Land Use Plan Amendment application for a change to Multifamily is a separate item on this agenda.. Staff is supportive of the requested rezoning to MF-18 and Land Use Plan Amendment to Multifamily. Staff views the request as reasonable. The property is located along the west side of Patrick Country Road, which is classified as a collector street by the City's Master Street Plan. The ordinance requires that MF-18 zoning be located along a collector or arterial street. Staff feels that a medium -density residential development of this property will be appropriate to serve as a transition from the 0-3 Office zoning immediately to the south and the R-2 Single Family zoning to the north. Staff believes future MF-18 development of this property will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Future deve.lopment of this property will likely consist of multiple buildings. This will require site plan review and approval by the Planning Commission. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested MF-18 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 21, 2008) Joe White was present, representing the application. There was one (1) objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Joe White addressed the Commission in support of the application. He explained that there was a demand for multifamily property in the area. Gary Garrett addressed the Commission in opposition. He noted that he represented the property owner immediately to the west. He explained that the land use designation of this property was recently changed to Low Density Residential (LDR), and expressed comments made at the time of the change. He discussed the abutting streets to the subject property. He discussed possible conditions to be placed on the rezoning. M FILE NO.: Z-8301-A (Cont. Mr. White noted that Valley Ranch Drive was constructed as a collector street. He also noted that a future site plan review could address buffering between this property and the property to west. He asked if MF-12 zoning fit within the LDR land use plan designation. Walter Malone, Planning Staff, explained that MF-12 zoning would be considered Low Density Residential and the Land Use Plan would not have to be changed. Mr. White noted that the property owners to the north and east were not opposed to the rezoning. Mr. White amended the application to be a rezoning to MF-12, with a 100-foot undisturbed buffer along the west property line. He requested to withdrew the Land Use Plan amendment. The Commission voted to withdraw the Land Use Plan amendment. The issue of the buffer was discussed. Staff noted that the buffer would be an undisturbed buffer. Mr. White noted that it would be an undisturbed buffer. Mr. Garnett noted that he was still opposed. There was a motion to approve the application, as revised. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The revised application was approved. M August 21, 2008 ITEM NO.: 3.1 FILE NO.: Z-8301-A Owner: FC Grass Farms Limited Partnership Applicant: Ed Willis Location: West side of Patrick Country Road, approximately 0.44 mile north of Cantrell Road Area: 39.9 Acres Request: Rezone from R-2 to MF-18 - Purpose: Future multifamily development Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North — Undeveloped property; zoned R-2 South — Undeveloped property; zoned 0-3 East — Undeveloped property (across Patrick Country Road); zoned R-2 West — Undeveloped property and single-family residence; zoned R-2 A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Patrick Country Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. A dedication of right-of-way 30 feet from centerline will be required. This dedication should along the eastern property line. 2. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies that Valley Ranch Drive Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of- way to 30 feet from centerline. B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. August 21, 2008 ITEM NO: 3.1 (Cont. D. LAND USE ELEMENT: FdII kU61W : c QWill This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2 to MF-18. A Land Use Plan Amendment is a separate item on this agenda (LU08- 20-02). Master Street Plan: Valley Ranch Drive is shown as a Local Street on the Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site and might require street improvements even if there is no entrance or exit. Bicycle Plan: A Class II bikeway is shown along Cantrell Road according to the Master Street Plan bicycle section. A Class II bikeway is located on the street as either a 5' shoulder or six foot marked bike lane. Additional paving and right-of-way may be required. Neiahborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: FC Grass Farms Limited Partnership, owner of the 39.9 acre property located along the west side of Patrick Country Road (approximately 0.44 mile north of Cantrell Road), is requesting to rezone the property from "R-2" Single Family District to "MF-18" Multifamily District. The rezoning is proposed to allow future multifamily development of the property (up to 18 residential units per gross acre). The property is currently undeveloped and wooded, and is located at the north end of Patrick Country Road. The property has varying degrees of slope. 2 August 21, 2008 ITEM NO: 3.1 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8301-A The 39.9-acre property is surrounded almost entirely by undeveloped property. Undeveloped R-2 zoned property is located to the north, east and west. There is a large single-family residence to the southwest. Undeveloped 0-3 zoned property is located immediately south, with office uses further south along Valley Ranch Drive, which will extend along the south boundary of this property in the future. There is an existing multifamily development, also zoned MF-18, to the southeast along the east side of Patrick Country Road. The City's Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Low Density Residential. A Land Use Plan Amendment application for a change to Multifamily is a separate item on this agenda. Staff is supportive of the requested rezoning to MF-18 and Land Use Plan Amendment to Multifamily. Staff views the request as reasonable. The property is located along the west side of Patrick Country Road, which is classified as a collector street by the City's Master Street Plan. The ordinance requires that MF-18 zoning be located along a collector or arterial street. Staff feels that a medium -density residential development of this property will be appropriate to serve as a transition from the 0-3 Office zoning immediately to the south and the R-2 Single Family zoning to the north. Staff believes future MF-18 development of this property will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Future development of this property will likely consist of multiple buildings. This will require site plan review and approval by the Planning Commission. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested MF-18 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 21, 2008) Joe White was present, representing the application. There was one (1) objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Joe White addressed the Commission in support of the application. He explained that there was a demand for multifamily property in the area. Gary Garrett addressed the Commission in opposition. He noted that he represented the property owner immediately to the west. He explained that the land use designation of this property was recently changed to Low Density Residential (LDR), and expressed comments made at the time of the change. He discussed the abutting streets to the subject property. He discussed possible conditions to be placed on the rezoning. 3 August 21, 2008 ITEM NO: 3.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8301-A Mr. White noted that Valley Ranch Drive was constructed as a collector street. He also noted that a future site plan review could address buffering between this property and the property to west. He asked if MF-12 zoning fit within the LDR land use plan designation. Walter Malone, Planning Staff, explained that MF-12 zoning would be considered Low Density Residential and the Land Use Plan would not have to be changed. Mr. White noted that the property owners to the north and east were not opposed to the rezoning. Mr. White amended the application to be a rezoning to MF-12, with a 100-foot undisturbed buffer along the west property line. He requested to withdrew the Land Use Plan amendment. The Commission voted to withdraw the Land Use Plan amendment. The issue of the buffer was discussed. Staff noted that the buffer would be an undisturbed buffer. Mr. White noted that it would be an undisturbed buffer. Mr. Garnett noted that he was still opposed. There was a motion to approve the application, as revised. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The revised application was approved. 2 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 Plaintiffs 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 10. 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 123 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. Bozyriski'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. Bo2ynski as the need may arise. 2. Walter Malone Planning Manager Planning & Development Department 123 West Markham Little Rock; Arkansas 72201 Telephone: 5 01 /3 71-6 819 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, I uch as Low Density Residential ("LDR") and Multi -Family 12 ("MF42"), 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 'lniit 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- [WMT-1 ANSWER: Defendants do not anticipate consulting an outside expert witness in this 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. 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 UT-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 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 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 and zoning. 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 and Zoning. He 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, 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. 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 Staffls 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 VC 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 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. 5: 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 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 MY-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 Commiission 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- RE VEST 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 Land Use Plan, neighborhood plan recommendations, 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. M 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. RE UEST 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. RE UEST 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 William C. Mann, IlI, #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-