HDC_05 17 1984MINUTES
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MAY 17, 1984
4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: MR. JOHN JARRARD, CHA IRMAN MR. GEORGE WORTHEN MS. BETH FOTI MR. BILL KENNEDY, III
MEMBERS ABSENT: MR. SAM STRAUSS, JR.
STAFF PRESENT: W.MIKE DOOLEY
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. John Jarrard, at 4:05 P.M. and finding a quorum to exist, the Commission moved and accepted the Minutes of the previous meeting as recorded.
Staff reported that the required notification had been properly mailed to the owners of property within the area of influence of the Kramer School Project and that proof of said notification had been received.
Item No. 1 was announced and described as:
Owner: Address: Request:
Wengroup Company 715 Sherman Street Restoration of Kramer School to 56 housing units and addition of another 10 unit structure at the northeast corner of subject property.
Mr. Ralph Megna, Vice President of the Renaissance Corporation, who is consulting developer for the owner Wengroup Company represented the application and noted that Mr. Joe Johnson, architect on the project was in attendance.
Mr. Megna noted that when completed, this project would be the largest residential restoration ever completed within the State. The projected cost would likely be $3 million and involve the restoration of the Kramer School building into a maximum of 56 units with the addition of 9 units in an accessory building. The main building was constructed in 1895 and is the oldest standing public school building in the City of Little Rock. The strtl'cture was modified at the turn of the century with the second addition approximately the same size as the original building. In 1930, an auditorium and cafeteria were added to the rear. He stated the building had been in use as a school until the late 1970 1 s and has been vacant for the last 5 years. Last year, the Little Rock School Board declared the structure 11 surplus property 11 and appraised it for sale at $195,000. The property eventually went for sale to the highest bidder who was Wengroup Company. The Renaissance Corporation was selected as developer and the Cromwell Firm was chosen as architect for the project.
Mr. Megna, using a slide presentation, outlined the elements of the project.' He showed an isometric drawing of the total project as proposed, describing the three (3) sections of the existing structure. He shewed and described existing deterioration on the exterior and interior and provided elevations explaining specific restor ation and new construction features, including walls, floors, skylight, dormers, front tower, turrets, elevators, fire exists, windows and the addition of a 3rd floor onto the auditorium. In regard to the accessory structure, Mr. Megna explained that there were basically three (3) ways to place the new construction next to a historic building. They were: 1.) bury the structure, 2.) utilize a very high architectural design, or 3.) an anonymous addition. He stated that they had chosen the last alternative due to lack of user preference and excessive costs to the , other alternatives. He explained the architectural detail of the proposed accessory building which included a pitched roof, brick exterior walls, facade punctuation by many windows and hip roof dormers. He stated that they have eliminated a unit from the accessory structure thereby, enabling them to slide the structure 20 ft. to the east and thus provide better sight distance to the main structure. He stated that the Little Rock Board of Adjustment has previously approved a 5 ft. setback on Seventh Street although he would consider modulating the building or setting it back another few feet to give relief to the sidewalk. He showed slides of a granite block wall which, although not
original to the structure, is suspected of being constructed by using key stones from the original bell tower. Mr. Megna brought the Commission's attention to the setback of various structures surrounding the subject site and noted that all but two (2) structures were within 13 ft. of their respective sidewalks and the majority were within 6 ft. Mr. Megna stated that the covered parking on the southeast portion of the property has been abandoned due to aesthetic and economic factors. Lastly, he explained that on the perimeter of the site, where there is no existing granite wall, there will be constructed a low brick wall of +30" with 4 ft. pilasters. He indicated that they were negotiating with theutility companies for the removal of the overhead power, phone and cable lines.Mr. Megna concluded by noting that the multi-family land use was appropriate tothe neighborhood and that the structure was the last remaining major historicbuilding in the neighborhood that has not undergone restoration, and further thatthere is a need for and desire to locate additional residential use in the areawhich is both an exciting proposal and practical development.
Mr. Jarrard asked how the facia trim would be attached to the accessory buidling.
Mr. Megna stated that the facia and trim would replicate the existing building and that the extra cost involved in the accessory structure was worth the eff ort to create a quality design.
Mr. Jarrard asked for an explanation of the lattice and railing work for the accessory structure.
Mr. Megna explained the columns and posts which will include painted lattice work facing the interior courtyard.
Mr. Megna stated that they would rehabilitate the original 12 over 12 window sashes on the main building. He stated the trim color of the original building was in olive or grey and was later chang ed to white and they would like to return it to a darker color.
Mr. Worthen asked what the main tower would be used for.
Mr.' Megna stated that it would be a living area for one of the apartments by enclosing it and placing a cap on it, and that he was flexible as to the materials to be used.
Mr. Kennedy asked for a description of the four (4) items that the Ar�ansas Historic Preservation Program has identified as important to the restoration.
Mr. Megna listed them as follows:
1.) Bell Tower restoration and what materials to be used.
2.) The Turrett on the North side and are they allowed to add an additional stage to provide adequate head room.
3.) Are they allowed to 1 1 pop-up 11 the roof on the auditorium portion and put a hip or gable roof rather than the existing flat roof design?
4.) Are they allowed to design and place the accessory building as described in the presentation?
Mr. Megna stated that the major non-negotiable items as far as the developer
is concerned are the matter of the roof on top of the auditorium, (that they need that space for the request number of units and that it was more in keeping with the rest of the structure), and that the treatment to the turrett and tower were so essential to the interior space that the top floor would not be restored and dormers replaced without having the usage of those described rooms. He stated he felt they could come to terms with AHPP and the National Park Service on those items.
Mr. Kennedy asked if any thought had been given to brick material for the elevator.
Mr. Megna stated th at the proposed stucco treatment was utilized to show the difference between the original and new portions of the restoration project and was included at this location in compliance with the National Register restoration guidelines.
Mr. Worthen asked if the brick wall would tie into the granite wall.
Mr. Megna stated that they would not compete for space and that where there exists granite, there would be no brick.
Mr. Kennedy asked about the ground treatment between the sidewalk and the accessory building.
Mr. Megna stated that it would most probably be ivy or other green cover with low maintenance. �
Ms. Eve Yancey representing the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program stated that she and their staff had met several times with Mr. Megna, the Cromwell Firm and City Staff on the project and discussed the four (4) items previously mentioned that need to be resolved prior to the approval of tax certification. She went further to state that AHPP recommended the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness in the event that those items are sufficiently resolved.
Mr. Kennedy asked Ms. Yancey how the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness would effect their review for the tax certification approval.
Ms. Yancey stated that there is a 1 'check-off 11 on their review list as to whether or not the project has been reviewed by a local Historic District Commission, but that the two processes were separate, and although the local requirements are not mandatory in her review process, the fact that they have prepared a detailed recommendation on the exterior would bring the two processes close to reviewing the same design particulars. She stated that in the past there have been approvals of Certificates of Appropriateness based on the conformance to certain conditions stated at the meeting and that was her intention in recommending approval. She explained that the project could proceed without tax certification if the owner so desired, but that if the tax certification process changed the project significantly, that the owner would have to come back to the Historic District Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness based on those changes.
Ms. Foti a�ked Mr. Megna why he requested review by this Commission prior to receiving tax certification and resolution of the four (4) unresolved items.
Mr. Megna stated that timing was a major consideration along with the interest costs and consultant fees born by the owner. He stated that he wished to begin constr uction w1thin 60 days. He stated that the owner was agreeable to ret urning to the Commission if there are any significant changes to the plan submitted.
Mr. Worthen asked if the project would continue if the tax certification was not approved.
Mr. Megna stated that it would not.
Mr. Worthen moved to approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness based on adequate resolution of the four (4) items which have been identified.
Ms. Foti seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4 for, 0 against, 1 absent.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 P.M.
WMD/se