boa_01 15 1973LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
M I N U T E S
JANUARY 15, 1973
MEMBERS PRESENT
Darrell D. Dover,
S. Spencer Compton,
L. Dickson Flake
Lawrence S. Woolsey
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
STAFF PRESENT
Don R. Venhaus
John L. Taylor
Louis E. Barber
Richard Wood
James Finch
Dorothy Light
OTHERS PRESENT
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Perry V. Whitmore, City Attorney
R. Armbrust, Democrat Reporter
J. Huddleston, Gazette Reporter
9.nn P M
There being a quorum present, the meeting was called to order by the Chairman
at 2:00 p.m. A motion was made for approval of the minutes of the last meeting
as mailed, which was seconded and passed.
Action was taken on the following advertised items:
Tract No. 1 - Z-2673
Applicant: St. Marks Episcopal Church
Location: 1000 North Mississippi Avenue
Description: Long legal
Classification: "A" One -family District
Variance: Applicant requests Board of Adjustment's
interpretation of zoning ordinance as
related to church sponsored elderly housing.
Is this a permitted accessory use in an 01A"
zoning district? If not, does Board of
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
January 15. 1973
Adjustment have jurisdiction under Section
43-22-(4) to permit use. If so, applicant
requests permission under the provisions
of Section 43-22-(4)-(d) of the Code of
Ordinances to permit housing for elderly
as church accessory use.
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommendation
will be furnished by separate memorandum."
Mr. Allan W. Horne was present to represent the church. He stated that the
church owns 23 acres. It is improved with a sanctuary, parish hall and
office and classroom building, housing the staff, Sunday School and nursery
school. They operate a day school, or kindePgarpen, five days a week. The
church fronts east on Mississippi Avenue and there are no streets open on
the south or the west. The entire tract is zoned "A" Single-family. The
churches proposal is to build a home for the elderly with 120 units to be
planned by CPS. The development involves the establishment of a non-profit
corporation which would be up -der the control of the church through its
members serving on the non-profit corporation's board. The church would
sell the rest of the property (approximately 10 acres) to the non-profit
corporation, and the non-profit corporation would be the institute that
would develop the property.
The Chairman asked what the purpose was of this sale.
Mr. Horne replied it was to get it out of the ownership of the church which
is a non -incorporated association into a non-profit corporation which could
do the development. They also plan to do it with Federal funds; and, as I
understand it, it would be a necessity to have a non-profit corporation under
Federal law.
Mr. Flake asked who would own the stock in a non-profit organization.
Mr. Horne answered that there are no stockholders in a non-profit corporation.
It would be incorporated .under the non -corporate provision of the Arkansas
law, and under that law, there are no stockholders.
The Chairman asked if there was any prohibition in this particular Federal
law against loans to churches or religious organizations.
Mr. Horne said he did not know the answer to that question but assumed that
in their particular situation, it could not be done because they are an
unincorporated association. He further said that the determination for the
Board is -first under Section 43-22 (3) (4) (a) under which we contend that
the church could do this as a matter of right. Among the authorized uses
permitted in an "A" zoning district under these particular sections are
churches, accessory buildings and uses customarily incident to any of the
above uses. We go back to the definition of an "accessory building and use"
- 2 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
January 15., 1973
and we find that is defined as a "subordinant building located on the
same lot with the main building, or subordinant use of land, either
of which is customarily incident to the main building or the principal
use of the land."
A decision as to whether the housing facilities for the elderly, pro-
vided on a non-profit basis, is an accessory use involves a determi-
nation of what is customary for the scope of the churches ministry.
It is presently recognized by the Board that there are certain uses
that churches are permitted in "A" Single-family district and these
include multi -purpose facilities, recreational facilities, schools,
gymnasiums, etc. In so far as what is customary for churches to do,
I think we have to look at what churches have done and what they are
presently doing. There are two examples that come to mind -- the
operation of the former Albert Pike Hotel as housing for the elderly
owned by the Second Baptist Church and Presbyterian Village operated
under the auspices of the Presbyterian Church, Also, the Board
approved (April, 1971) the construction of a gymnasium on the prop-
erty of the First Christian Church about two blocks away.
The concept would involve a residential church -type community. The
units would be built in very close proximity to the church. It is
invisioned that the tenants would have ready free, easy access to the
church and to participate in its spiritual, recreational and social
activities. We feel that this is a promising way to meet a need, I
think, is recognized both nationally and in our state, and in our
community which is the housing and furnishing of facilities for the
elderly.
With respect to the second alternative assuming that you rule that
we do not have this right as a matter of right, we would urge that
it would come within Section 43-22 (4) (d) which authorizes the
Board to permit the location of institutions of a religious or
philanthropic nature. Among the specific examples given in this
particular section are: airports, nurseries, greenhouses, libraries,
museums, community centers, hospitals, institutions of an educational,
religious or philanthropic nature. We urge that this is both a
religious and a philanthropic nature and the Board ought to make an
exception for the church so it could be used for these purposes.
The Chairman asked if he was familiar with the zoning of the two
examples.
Mr. Horne replied he thought it was not "A" Single-family at the
Albert Pike.
The Chairman seated that it was 91H11 Commercial.
- 3 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
January 15, 1973
Mr. Horne said the point that he was trying to bring out was that
these are things that are customarily done by churches and when
we talk about the term "customary" we have to look and see what
churches customarily do and those are citations of authority if
you will to show what is a custom in so far as the church considering
the whole thing is concerned and there are two extremely good
examples of what is custom in so far as churches are concerned.
But neither of those in my understanding would come within "A"
Single-family district.
The Chairman asked if he knew of any other examples in the Little
Rock area.
itr. Horne said that he had not done that much research on it.
Mr. Woolsey asked if the proposed facility would be opened to
tenants from the public at large or limited to church members, or
Episcopalians.
Mr. Horne said it would be open to the public at large but hope-
fully there would be a large concentration of Episcopalians.
The Chairman asked if the Federal funding required that it be open
to any applicant that might want to apply.
Mr. Horne said it would, but even if it were not done with Federal
funds, it would be the consent of the church that it be opened to
the public at large.
Mr. Venhaus asked what would be the minimum age requirement.
Mr. Horne said they had in mind the age of 55 but that it has not
definitely been settled as yet.
Mr. Venhaus asked if that would be a matter for the non-profit board
to decide upon or would that be a Federal requirement?
Mr. Horne said he thought that would be a matter for the Board to
decide. No doubt Federal would have something to say about it.
It definitely would be for the elderly.
Mr. Venhaus asked if there were any income limitations.
Mr. Lorne stated that there are certain subsidies that are provided
under the particular Federal Act where the incomes .are between
certain amounts. I think the minimum amont is $5500.
- 4 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
January 15, 1973
While we have done a lot of planning, this necessarily is the initial
step in moving forward with further planning. In other words, if we
don't go beyond the Board then there is no point in doing a lot of
other planning and seeking out. Conversations have been had with a
representative of HUD who is guiding and helping us in this respect.
Mr. Tom Dungan, Senior Warden of the Board of Directors of the Church,
was present. He said that they had ten or twelve undeveloped acres
surrounding the church. We enjoy the trees as much as anyone. We
feel that this land is valuable. We don't feel it is quite fair for
us to continue to sit on this valuable piece of land when there are
crying needs for money in our parish. We have been considering since
1966, when the present church was built on these grounds, how best to
utilize this land. The primary consideration was monetary. Any value
obtained by the parish would be used to a certain extent to reduce
the indebtedness on the mortgage. The parish is pretty unanimous in
the fact that we don't want to sell this land for development or
develop it ourselves unless we can extend our ministry. Much thought
has gone into this in the past six years and consideration has been
given from a cemetery to a school; _and after considerable deliberation,
it is our best feeling that we can extend the church's ministry by
providing housing for the elderly. We think there is a need for this.
The people in the parish have expressed an interest in either they,
themselves, or their elderly relatives living on this property. We
hope to have this property developed in such a way that it will be
tied in both physically and spiritually with our parish.
Mr. Venhaus asked if it would be the opinion of his Board that they
would utilize this property in one way or another. Had they given
serious consideration in subdividing the property and building single
family ,dwellings on it if it cannot be used as he proposes today?
Mr. Dungan said that we have considered the development in single
family dwellings by simply selling the property to a developer or
actually developing the land ourselves as a consideration of how to
best use the property. We have given no consideration to this if our
project housing for the elderly is in some way aborted we have not
made any decision on our secondary consideration for the property. I
think the feeling of the parish is that we can use this land in other
ways; for instance, an Episcopal School. Trinity Episcopal School has
a waiting list at all grade levels at the present time. We hate to
simply use this land for a residential development just for the monetary
return. We feel an obligation to extend our ministry in a meaningful
way.
Mr. Jim Summerlin, member of the church and CPS Corporation, stated that
he has been a very active member of the committee on land -use to deter-
mine what use the church wants to put on this land. We have already had
- 5 -
little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
January 15, 1973
L two meetings with adjacent property owners of the Leawood neighborhood
r and went over the plans in detail with them. We received a letter
from the Trinity Methodist Church located nearby endorsing this pro-
ject. He further stated in presenting the layout of the proposed
project that there are 17 acres of heavily wooded undeveloped land.
The project will include three two-story buildings containing 120
' units of one and two -bedrooms with the community building in the
center which will contain recreational and dining facilities. These
will be in a cluster arrangement. The community building will be
connected by a covered walkway from its main entrance to the main
entrance of the church. The purpose of this type of construction is
to provide more green and open space. In regards to sewer lines,
there would be adequate lines to serve this project. We think the
drainage would be very much improved over the situation that now
exists.
Mr. Woolsey asked if they contemplate any future expansion into those
green areas.
Mr. Summerlin said that we have not considered any future expansion.
The proposal was to get 120 units and leave as much green space as
we could. This proposal was not laid out for future expansion.
There are two acres which would be very difficult to expand because
of the terrain.
Mr. Compton asked if there would be any retaining walls, terraces --
ff ��
just what would the adjacent property owners be looking at?
d: Mr. Summerlin explained that they anticipate no retaining walls along
this property line. They plan to construct the project according to
the present contour of the land so there should be a minimum of earth
work. However, there may possibly be a need for some terraced areas
in the parking lot.
J The Chairman asked Mr. Horne, "Does this phrase in connection with the
first phase of your application about accessory uses, does the phrase
"customarily incident" in the definition of accessory use not give you
any trouble? 'In your judgment, are apartment complexes customarily
incident to use of property for church purposes?"
Mr. Horne replied, "I think if the church undertook to build an apart -
went on a commercial basis, I don't think that it would come within
that language. I do think that if churches undertake to furnish
physical facilities such as gymnasiums, kindergartens and schools,
that these things can come about as a matter of custom as being things
that churches furnish. It does not appear to us that the extension of
this concept to a home for the elderly is far removed from what is
customarily done by churches. I don't know of other instances as I
have not undertaken to do the research, but we do have two rather
dramatic instances in our own city where by custom it has been
- 6 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
January 15 1973
established that a part of the churches mission and its customary use
of the property is the furnishing of housing facilities for the
elderly, and that is the construction that I contend for. I readily
concede,and I don't think anybody could make an argument, that a church
could not use any part of its property in an "A" district for a com-
mercially functioning apartment building. The point is, in my
judgment, you determine what are the customs of the community by seeing
what is done."
The Chairman asked,"Would you say these two instances would establish
a custom for the community of 400 to 500 churches?"
Mr. Horne replied, "Yes, I would. These are obviously projects of
great magnitude and you wouldn't find very many of them being built."
There were several persons present in opposition.
Mr. Ted Bueter, 17 Pamela Drive, was present in opposition. He said
that his residence is at the rear of the proposed project. There is a
four foot drainage ditch between this residential area and the church
property. The proposed community building would be on the highest grade
of the church property. They would have no privacy in their back yard.
Also, there would be another driveway coming out onto Evergreen Drive
where children would be walking to and from school. He said, "What
happens if this project does not go over? Will we be left with an eye-
sore?"
Mr. Murray Smith of Lot 24 was present in opposition. He stated that
he has 208 ft. of continuous boundary with the church property. He
thought single family dwellings would be a better development for the
church to get rid of its indebtedness.
Mr. Boyce Love, 1007 North Mississippi, was present in opposition. He
stated that he lives directly across the street from the church. He
pointed out that this property was located in one of the largest single
family districts in the city. If this type project gets started on
Mississippi, this area will be ruined.
Mr. Jim Bryant was present in opposition and stated that in his opinion,
there are bound to be some drainage problems if this project is built.
If it does turn out to be a project for the elderly, it seems logical
that sooner or later there will have to be some kind of auxiliary
services available for these tenants such as the Presbyterian Village
has. This would affect the integrity of the single family residents.
Mr. Jack Alsup, No. 5 Thad Lane, was present. He stated that he was not
associated with the church in any way. An elderly housing project would
be a much better development than any alternative, including the develop-
ment of a single family area. If it is opened as single family, there
would be much more traffic, and in regards to privacy, there would be
- 7 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
January 15, 1973
some possibility of two-story houses constructed on the property and
these would overlook the adjacent back yards. He further stated that
he would favor a 50 ft. green belt between the properties, and that
the lighting held down to a low level.
Mr. Horne read a letter from Trinity Methodist Church approving the
proposed project. He stated that for several reasons they feel the
need to develop this property at this time. It is not going to stay
the way it is. We are quite willing to go into this project with
cooperation with the City Planning Department. We have met with the
property owners here and others in an attempt to acquaint them with
what we have in mind and what our plans are, and to get their views
as to how we can make this whole area more compatible and more
reasonable to them. We are quite willing whether you decide we have
this right, as a metter of right, or under the second alternative, to
move ahead with the cooperation of the City in whatever conditions
there may be attached to the application and approval thereof as a
reasonable condition.
Mr. Neal Quinn, 23 Pamela Drive, was present in opposition. He said
he had no choice but to oppose the proposed project. He feels that
this will cause his property to depreciate in value.
Mr. Ray McClelland, 25 Pamela Drive, was present in opposition. He
stated that he feels there would be a drainage problem and also the
lighting could be a problem.
Rev. H. K. Keannereti, 24 Lorna Drive, was present representing the
Board of the Highland Heights Presbyterian Church. He asked that the
Board of Adjustment defer the case for 30 days for further study,
particularly the drainage problem.
Mr. Richard Davidson, 1015 North Mississippi Drive, was present in
opposition. He said he had moved into this area of single family
residences in order to get away from an apartment area. He said
that it was very undesirable to live close to apartments, and this
sounds just like an apartment complex.
The Chairman asked if there was a motion on the first phase which has
to do with accessory use.
Mr. Flake said, "In my opinion, it would not be an accessory use
customarily incident, and I move that we interpret accordingly."
The motion was seconded and passed.
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
January 15, 1973
The Chairman said, "In regards to the second phase of the ordinance
since the Board has determined that the church does not have the
right to use the property for apartment uses as a matter of right
as an accessory use, do I hear a motion with respect to whether or
not this Board should exercise its discretion and permit this usage
as a special use?"
Mr. Woolsey said, "This is a use that requires zoning board action
and we should refer this to the appropriate board and reject it on
its merits."
The Chairman said, "The motion is that the application be denied,
which was seconded and passed."
Tract No. 2 - Z-2674
Applicant: Gulf Oil Company by Jim Adams
Location: 7200 Block of Asher Avenue (north side)
Description: Long legal
Classification: "F" Commercial District
Variance: Requests permission under provisions of
Section 43-22-(4)-(e) of the Code of
Ordinances to permit a public garage in
a "F" zone
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends
that a garage operation be permitted on this property under the pro-
visions of Section 43-22 (4) (e).
Mr. Jim Adams, 8705 Herrick Lane, was present.
There were no objectors present.
Mr. Flake asked if they plan to build a retaining wall at the north
end of the property.
Mr. Adams replied that they were going to do this.
A motion was made for approval of the application, which was seconded
and passed.
A motion was made to defer the election of new officers until the February
19th meeting, which was seconded and passed.
There eing no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
r
Loa 4 D
on R. Venhaus, Secretary
Darrell D. Dover, Chairman
- 9 -