boa_01 12 1973M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Board of Adjustment
.FROM: Don R. Venhaus, Director, Community Development
RE: Z-2673 - Elderly Housing - Mississippi and Evergreen
DATE: January 12, 1973
This application is the most complex and difficult matter to
come before the Board of Adjustment to date. It is extremely important that
all members understand the issues and the applicable provisions of the zoning
ordinance. The purpose of this memo is to explain the request, refine the
issues, relate the ordinance and, if necessary, provide substantive review
of the proposed development.
The subject application contains three basic issues:
1) A requested interpretation of the ordinance to determine
whether or -not St. Mark's Episcopal Church is required by ordinance to secure
the review and approval of the Board of Adjustment or rezoning for their pro-
posed housing project or whether the proposed elderly project can be construed
as a reasonable church accessory with no reviews, approvals or rezoning
required.
2) If the Board determines that the project is reasonably
implied by the ordinance as an accessory church use then no zoning or Board
of Adjustment review or approval would be necessary. The applicants would be
required to subdivide the property, submit a development plan and secure a
building permit. On the other hand, if the Board determines that the housing
project is not an implied church accessory use, a further interpretation is
required to determine whether or not the Board has the authority to take juris-
diction over the project as a religious and/or philanthropic institution as
provided by Article V, Sec. 43-22, para. 4, article (d) of the Little Rock
Code of Ordinances. If the Board determines that they have the authority under
the above referenced article to take jurisdiction over the project, the appli-
cants request substantive review and approval of their proposal. If the Board
determines that they have no jurisdiction under the ordinance, the applicants
would be required to seek appropriate rezoning to pursue the project.
STAFF POSITION
The staff is fully convinced that the questions of interpretation
are properly presented before the Board, Article V, Sec. 43-22, para. 4,
article (a) empowers the Board to render definitive interpretation to the
ordinance where the ordinance is ambiguous or not fully explicit. The ordin-
ance provides for churches as a use by right in A and B zoning districts.
Additional uses such as rectories, education buildings, recreation facilities,
playground equipment and gymnasiums have been construed as reasonable
accessory uses for churches and reasonably implied by right without review or
authorization by the Board or rezoning. No positive or definitive limits
have been established to identify what functions are authorized to churches
TO: Board of Adjustment Page Two
RE; Z-2673 - Elderly Housing
in single-family districts, with or without Board approval.
ISSUE #1
With respect to the first question of interpretation (whether
the church is required to secure rezoning or Board review and approval),
the staff believes that additional approval is required. Apartment develop-
ment, regardless of ownership or clientle is so uniquely and characteristically
different from the uses commonly associated with churches, that such develop-
ment cannot reasonably be construed as a common or usual accessory to a
principal church use. In fairness to the applicant's request it should be
noted that the Board on October 18, 1971 rendered an interpretation holding
that a detached multi -use facility including meeting rooms, a gymnasium and
stage facilities was a common and usual accessory to a church and, therefore,
beyond the jurisdiction of the Board to review. However, the project pro-
posed implies a full time residential use of the property and the necessary
buildings and facilities to support a residential community. This aspect in
our judgement requires that the project be considered as something other than
a common or usual church accessory.
ISSUE #2
Assuming that the Board finds that the proposed project cannot
be construed as an'accessory use and, therefore, a use by right, does the
Board have the authority to take jurisdiction over the project under the
provisions of Article V, Sec. 43-22, para. 4, article (d) of the ordinance?
This section of the ordinance authorizes the Board to locate certain uses in
single-family districts that are otherwise prohibited on the basis of sub-
stantive review and approval. These uses include "....airport, nursery,
greenhouse, library, museum, community center, hospital, institutions of an
educational, religious or philanthropic nature and parking lot". Some of
the uses are specifically and definitely listed such as hospital, airport,
etc.. It seems reasonable to assume that the Board must define, through its
authority to interpret the ordinance what is meant by religious, educational
and philanthropic institutions. If the proposed church -sponsored housing
project is reasonably analagous to any of these uses it would seem to be as
a religious institution. It seems fair to conclude that such things as
convents, monastaries, dormitories, orphanages and quarters for religious
per adjacent to church facilities might be reasonably included as
"religious institutions". In each case such uses involve full time residen-
tial facilities utilized for extended periods of time. In this context the
proposed elderly project, in the staff's opinion can be reasonably construed
as coming within the authority and jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment.
Although the staff believes the Board has jurisdiction over the project and
is obliged to review the matter, we believe the authority, is discretionary
and the Board could deny, amend, revise or require that the property be
rezoned. Since the Board would be extending to the church an exception and
a privileged use substantially different from the uses authorized by the
zoning on the property, it could and should exercise control over all design
and development facets of the project if the project is authorized.
ISSUE #3
If the Board determines that they have jurisdiction over the
project and choose to exercise that jurisdiction, the applicants request
substantive review and approval of the proposed project and permission to
proceed. The staff recommends that the Board authorizes the project with
TO: Board of Adjustment Page Three
RE: Z-2673 - Elderly Housing
the following conditions:
1) That the total number of residential units not exceed 100,
2) That the natural terrain, trees, shrubs, etc. be conserved
to the fullest extent possible,
3) That special attention be given to the relationship
between the development and existing adjacent residential development,
4) That occupancy of the project be restricted to elderly
persons and not opened to the public for general residential occupancy,
5) That the property be subdivided and a detailed development
plan be submitted in support of the building permit application,
6) That the Board of Adjustment exercise discretionary approval
over all development aspects including design, drainage, use of topography,
screening, set -backs, circulations and height.
7) That the Board of Adjustment authorize preliminary approval
of the project not to exceed 100 units, and reserve final approval of all
plans and development details pending staff approval and recommendation.