HDC_09 07 1989City of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 7, 1989
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman,
William Kennedy,III at 5:00 p.m. A quorum was present.
(William Kennedy,III, Thomas Johnson, John Jarrard,
Cheryl Nichols, and Kathleen McNally).
A motion was made by Commissioner Mcnally and seconded by
Commissioner Nichols to approve the minutes of the previous
meeting.
Item #1 - Application by Dr. And Mrs. Hampton Roy - 715
Sherman Street - Old Kramer School
Mr. Charles Witsell, of Witsell, Evans & Rasco Architects
and Mr. Davis Sergent were present to propose for Dr. & Mrs.
Roy the plan for the conversion of Kramer School. Dr. Roy
was also present to entertain questions later if needed.
Mr. Witsell presented drawings and pictures of the site.
Mr. Witsell pointed out that one section of the building was
the original building that was built in 1895 and there are
two subsequent additions that are proposed to be removed.
The proposal is to enter the building as a single family
residence from the east side to the new entry on the area
where the addition will be removed. The eastern slant which
is more than half of the ground, will be landscaped. The
area to the west and to the north will be landscape with a
series of walls. He said there is a proposed wall around
the property with open iron work at the entry area. The
application calls for that to be a 10 to 12 foot wall but
the Roys have built the mockup of the heights of the wall on
the site since the application and have come to the
conclusion that the wall should be 8 feet high instead of 10
to 12 feet. The proposed plan and elevation is to adapt the
building in form by adding elements to a building that is a
Victorian version of a Chateau of France. However, the
building , roof structure, and window opening is the same.
There is a garden wall that separates the front wall from
the rear areas and the parking court and garage on one side
and a garden structure on the other side. The only major
addition to the building will be a front porch across the
new front of the building which is about 2 feet. The rear
elevation would be very much the same except for a new roof
Ank structure on the old tower. The window opennings are the
same, however, slate on the roof and new chimneys.
Commissioner Nichols wanted to know about the west elevation
where two windows were missing. Mr. Witsell said that they
were intentionally missing and that one was converted into a
door.
In conclusion, Mr. Witsell stated that he supported the
project whole heartedly and very strongly because in his
judgement, the proposed project does not destroy the
building's relationship with its neighborhood. The only
changes that they are doing is chimneys and small roof
elements. Secondly, he believes that it is a more desirous
addition to the neighborhood than the 59 unit apartment
complex most recently proposed there. To have a large
single family house in their neighborhood well landscaped
and well maintained, he thinks it succeeds the expectation.
He said that in his view it is economically stagnant and
desperatly needs some excitment and he thinks that this
proposal is one that would do that. This project is
personal in that it reflects the Roy's interest and desires
for the building. Mr. Witsell said that he knows that the
Roys are for quality and if he did not think so, he would
not be putting his architectural standards on the line. He
urged the commissioners to grant the application.
In regards to Commissioner Johnson's discussion on the
detached buildings (garage and the green house), Mr. Witsell
stated that there were two proposed detached buildings. The
garage would back up to the property line and excess from
the garage coming in from the parking court and pulling into
the garage. There is a second drive which is a service
drive which will also come through. On the side would be a
free standing greenhouse within the wall which will be 15 x
25 feet and the only visible structure would be the
perimeter wall. He said that Molly Satterfield had notified
them of the engineer's concern of the City in that they must
maintain a 20 foot setback from the corners of the opaque
wall and they would comply with that.
Commissioner Kennedy said the principal objection seems to
be from the State Historic Preservation and the QQA of the
opaque walls around the property. Commissioner Kennedy
related to Mr. Witsell that he had indicated in his open
remarks that they would be dropped from 10 to 12 feet to 8
feet in height. He also asked Mr. Witsell when this was
discussed with the QQA, was there any dialogue about this or
had he considered their request that the fence not be
opaque?
Mr. Witsell said that they had seen the specific request
,Mk only about 4 0' clock today and they have not discussed it
other than reading the letter. He said that they are aware
of the concern and the Roy's desire is that they have a
degree of privacy. However, the City only requires a
variance over 6 feet, but it is still their desire to have
an 8 foot wall.
Commissioner Nichols stated that there were some points that
were mentioned in the QQA letter that she would like to
clarify because they say they have made their recommendation
based on some changes in the proposal that the Roys told
them would be made. Mr. Witsell said that there had been
some miscommunication.
Commissioner Nichols stated that it seemed that the proposal
was a little contradictive as discussed in terms of
maintaining the structure as a part of the neighborhood
which is certainly something the Commission want to see.
She thinks that the QQA and the Preservation program
recommendations for a 6 foot wrought iron fence are much
more desirous because not only is the wrought iron more in
keeping with traditional fencing in the MacArthur Park
Historic District, but also you can see through it and the
building would not turn in to such a fortress looking
structure in the the neighborhood. She said she felt it
wouldn't be removed from the neighborhood, as proposed to a
large opaque wall being put up around it.
Commissioner Nichols said she also was concerned that the
wall keep its original facade and the schools front door
would be visible from the street so that people would still
recognize Kramer School from Sherman Street. Mr. Witsell
said that they would still be able to do that.
There were no objectors present, however, several people
were present to speak in favor of the project.
Mrs. Jodie Davis (and husband William E. Davis), who lives
at the corner of 6th and Sherman spoke in favor of the
application. Mrs. Davis said that the area and Kramer School
is very special to them, they are concerned about what is
happening to it. She also said that they are very happy
about what the Roys are trying to do and she and some of the
other neighbors had talked and they are for the project.
Mr. Bill Bowen who spoke in favor of the application said
that he agreed with Mrs. Davis, that the only residents that
would be upset would be the pigeons and the wino's, and the
derelicts that had been living in the building. He said he
did understand The Quapaw Quarter Association concerns, but
he would like to ask the Commission to think about it in
making their decision regarding this proposal. First, how
long has the building been vacant? How long has it been
neglected? and to see that it is falling down. He said that
people have great ideas but no one has the finances, much
less the courage, to undertake a project of this nature
especially, in making it into a family resident, which he
feel is great. Mr. Bowen pointed out that he is a member of
St. Edwards Parish which is located at 815 South Sherman
Street. He is Chairman of the St. Edwards Parish Council,
and he is Vice - President of St. Edwards School and that they
are one 100% in favor of the proposal. In conclusion, Mr.
Bowen said that he hopes that the difference can be worked
out and that the project can get under way.
John Bush who resides at 7th and Cumberland spoke in favor
of the project. He said that he supports maintaining or
trying to improve the residential integrity of the MacArthur
Park Historic District. He said that he felt that MacArthur
Park would be far better served by residents than they would
be by having another empty lot. He said that the MacArthur
Park needs to become more of a neighborhood rather than just
a district with historic buildings.
Mr. Bob Roddy who lives at 624 Ferry spoke in favor of the
project. Mr. Roddy said that he had one reservation, and
that is, he would prefer wrought iron fence as oppose to the
solid opaque fence because it would be more in keeping with
the neighborhood. He does urge the commission to approve
the application and he hopes that some modification can be
made regarding the fence.
Michael Swanda who represents the State Historic
Preservation Office, said that they did have some concerns.
They do not have any strong objection however, they are
concerned with several issues: one being the original intent
and architectural style of the building which needs to be
taken into consideration. He asked the Commission as they
considered the project, to look at the proposed plans and
see how strongly the original architectural and historic
association are comprised or accounted for in the project,
and secondly, they strongly oppose the construction of solid
masonry wall around the project for most of the same reasons
that have been discussed previously. They feel that an
enclosure such as that is certainly not compatible with the
residential buildings within the district. They feel like
construction of a more open type fencing would be more
appropriate.
Elissa Gross who represents Quapaw Quarter Association
stated that they strongly support what the Roys are doing.
Ms. Gross read a letter to the Commissioners which stated
that they did highly endorse the spirit of the applicant's
proposal to redevelop the Kramer School property. Ms. Gross
said that the only other major feature to be considered, is
the proposed 10 to 12 foot wall which is now a 8 foot wall
in which the applicant wishes to replace around the entire
block. She said the QQA could not endorse the wall plan as
submitted because it does not meet City Codes. She said
they were proposing an alternate fencing which would not be
no more than 6 feet tall and would be of a more open fabric
such as wrought iron. She said however, a solid masonry
wall would be accepted across the back of the property on
the west side only.
Commissioner Jarrard stated that he needed more information
before he could make a decision. He said is reasons were
that he felt there are a lot of detailing that is not
spelled out.
Mr. Witsell said that the drawings were preliminary at this
point, and he would like the Commission to go ahead and vote
on the item as presented.
After a lengthy discussion, Commissioner Johnson made a
motion that the preliminary drawings be approved as
presented as to the architectural character with the
exception of the perimeter wall; and that a committee be
formed to review further detailing of the structure as these
details are available; and that such detailing and final
drawings be resubmitted to the full Commission for final
approval. Commissioner McNally seconded.
The vote was taken. Motion passed. 3 ayes and 2 nays.
Chairman Kennedy appointed Commissioners Tom Johnson and
John Jarrard to serve as the committee.
Commissioner Jarrard made a motion that the issue of the
wall be deferred until more detailed information is
available. Commissioner McNally seconded.
The vote was taken. Motion passed. 5 ayes and 0 nays.
Item # 2 - Pizza Hut - Stanley Conrad, Manager
Mr. Bruce Wall, area General Manager for Pizza Hut was
present to represent the application regarding a drive
through window being added to the Pizza Hut. He said that
the reason for this is that, 80% of their business at the
unit involves lunch traffic compared to evening business.
He also stated that they had a limited number of parking
spaces that were also crowded during lunch. Mr. Wall said in
order to increase their productivity and to serve as many
people as they can, they need the addition.
Commissioner McNally asked that since most people are
already dressed when they get there, could this not be
handled as take -out instead of drive -thru? Mr. Wall stated
that the problem there would be congestion in the way that
their buildings are designed.
After discussion, Commissioner Jarrard made a motion that
the application be granted with the condition that no open
speaker phones be allowed but something resembling a
telephone for ordering be installed. Commissioner Johnson
seconded. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
Old Business: 1609 East Capitol Demolition
The Commission agreed to send and a letter of protest and a
request for any legal action that the City might initiate.
Also they would like for the City to give some assurance
from whoever is in charge of that department that procedures
are set in place to prevent this from happening again. Also
it was stated that if there is anyway the City could
initiate some type of punitive action, they would like to
see that done.
Commissioner Nichols said she would like to ask Steve what
he had come up with in his investigation? To answer
Commissioner Nichols' question, Attorney Giles stated that
other than a mistake on part of the City Staff and an
overlook, they are still investigating. He said there are
still some loose ends that they wanted to tie up which may
involve interviewing a couple of people. He said since it
is an on -going investigation he could not comment on the
public record other than to say they are still looking at it
and he has talked with Mark about it. Mr. Giles said that
even though they had not finished the investigation, but it
seems to him that legal action would have to come from the
Historic District Commission.
Commissioner Kennedy said that the Commission would be
prepared to entertain under the Ordiance whatever avenues
were open unto them. Commissioner Kennedy also related to
Mr. Giles that he and the Commission would do whatever he
and Mr. Stodola advised them, but he would urge them to do
everything that can be done in terms of taking action.
There were other discussions regarding the issue. It was
decided by the full Commission that they were not willing to
forget about it.
Ms. Satterfield said that she had spoken with Mr. Mike Batie
and he said that he would be happy to meet with the
Commission.
Commissioner Kennedy said that he would still like the
Commission to go on record and go ahead with a letter.
Authority granted.
Ms. Jeanette Krohn, who is a member of the Board of
Directors of the Quapaw Quarters Association, said that she
would like for their comments to go on record in that they
do urge the Historic District Commission to take any
appropriate legal action that could be taken against Mr.
Cashion. She said that they would also urge the Commission
to see that the City's action in this matter are thoroughly
investigated and see that procedures are changed which would
prevent this from happening again. She said this does not
seem like a mistake from one or two people, but that it is a
basic problem.
New Business:
It was stated that the Arkansas Historic Preservation
Program has approved this year's Certified Local Government
Grant Awards and Little Rock had been awarded the full
amount requested in their proposal.
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
nm