Loading...
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 -