Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutQQA for your files Exhibit 1 and 2 - 2 with deleted summaryMike Fa USAIS, usn QUAPAW QUARTER ASSOCIATION fi ._ Post Office Box 1104 j Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 `tet h"M �? Mr. Mike Dooley Office of Comprehensive Planning City Hall Markham & Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 F{RST LUTHERAN CHURCH :914 FAST FtGHTH STHEFT Roger A. Kruger, Pastor Little Rock Historic District Commission City Hall Little Bock, Arkansas 72201 Attention: Mr. W. Mike .Dooley Gentlemen: May 26, 1981 I I i I LE HOCK. ARKANSAS 72202 YH[1NL (bol) 372-1023 First Lutheran Church of Little Rock, Arkansas, is planning a major renovation of its Christian Education Building. The structure is unsafe and no longer suits the needs of the church. Studies were initiated last fall by the Building Committee to determine type of occupancy and a general design philosophy. On February 26, 1981, a contract was executed with David E. Blaine, A. I. A. The design schedule developed provided for com- pletion of plans and specifications by May 15, 1981, with a tentative advertising date of May 22, 1981. The design selected by the church and developed by the architect is submitted for your review and the granting of a Certificate of Appropriateness. The inclosed drawings and narrative description present the changes desired to the existing building. It is the intent and desire of the congregation to provide a companion structure to the church that will provide compatibility and safety. Your favorable consideration of this submission will be appreciated. Yours very truly, Thomas W. Calder President TWC:Tn.s Incl: 3 drawings Statement Alterations and additions to an Existing Educational Building For THE FIRST LUTHERAN CrURG 714 Rock atreet Little Rock, Arkansas Outline materials and mgthods specifications for the exterior renovation. . D�::OLTTIUN 1. Complete rer-.oval of the existing exterior, deteriorated, sand pressed brick masonry to the Foundation line. 2. Remove the existing deteriorated and out -sized wood windows, doors, and supporting framing. 3. Remove the existing concrete front entry steps both to the main level and those going to the basement. 4. Remove the existing flag pole and steel fire escape steps on the front and rear elevations of the building that were installed during the period that the building was used as an elementary school educational facility. B. RE-CUTISTRUCTION 1. Install a cast stone base wainscote matching, approximately, in elevation the cast stone base wainscote on the neighboring church structure. 2. Re -bricking from the wainscote base to the cornice line with brick that matches the brick on the neighboring church and parsonage building. 3. Installing cast stone window and door trim with cast stone spandrel panels at the floor locations. 4. replace and reduce the existing glass area with aluminum anodized awning windows with insulating glass, color bronze. 5. Relocate and install aluminum anodized doors at ground level to facilitate access to the building from the church to the south of the educational building and the drive to the north of the building. This access arrangement eliminates dangerous exterior steps. 6. Construction of an entry court to be partially paved, leaving planting areas. This area is to be delineated from public areas by means of low matching brick wall with openings as required by circulation. 1. W t , M 7. The roof has been replaced and tiviii not require additional work except for new pltuubin.Le; vents as may be required by interior toilet area revisions, etc. 8. Because of deterioration, beginnii,, to oecoir�e serious, in many of the exposed rafter tails, ie have elected to box in the roof cornice to snatch the nei6hboring church and parsonaLe. 2. i. QUAPAW QIJARTTER ASSOC 5 June 1981 Mr. Thomas M. Calder President First Lutheran Church 3.14 East 8th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Mr. Calder: As I promised in my letter to you on May 18th, the Association has completed a thorough analysis of the masonry veneer on the Christian Education Building. A copy of my Preservation Services Coordinator's four-page report is enclosed. If you, the project architect, or the building committee have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Since I last wrote, the QQA Board of Directors has had another opportunity to review the drawings .for the proposed renovations to the Christian Education Building. At its meeting on June 1st, the directors unanimously voted (with one abstention) to strongly oppose the approval of your architect's plans at the next meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission. The basis of our objection is simply this: Mr. Blaine's treatment of the building appears to lack any appreciation of its handsome character or historic setting. In addition, he seems to have misinter- preted some of the structure's technical problems and proposed inappropriate design solutions. The QQA stands ready to meet with any authorized representatives of the church to explore reasonable alternatives to the plans now being reviewed by the Historic District Commission. As I wrote in May, the Association shares your desire to create an attractive, functional, and enduring facility for your congregation. But again, we believe this goal is best reached through the enhancement of the existing building, and not by an expensive, unnecessary remodelling. We genuinely appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important church project and look forward to a chance to assist your building committee in an evaluation of the design work done thus far. Sincerely, Ralph J. Megna Executive Director RJM/st :308 East Eighth $fleet + R.O. Box 1104 + Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 ® 501-371-0075 TECHNICAL, REPORT: Masonry Exterior First Lutheran Church Lducation Building PREPARED BY: Quapaw Quarter Association Preservation Services Program June 1981 Summary The First Lutheran Church's ChristiAn Education Building exterior masonry veneer is in deteriorated, but repairable, condition. Its principal problems are the result of water damage caused by inadequate control of rainwater drainage. Direct roof run-off, indirect splash -back from building elements and ground surfaces, and site flooding have all contributed to the present problems. A well executed rehabilitation of the structure should attack these causes, rather than focus on the symptoms. The repair of the existing masonry would save the church the cost of replacing the entire exterior and provide a highly functional and handsome building to house the various activities of the congregation. Material Conditions The existing veneer brick is soft with an easily erodable surface. It is, however, generally structurally sound with only a few localized areas of severe damage. These include the front pediment, the bases of all walls, areas around attached metal stairways, and at a below -grade entrance to the basement. There has also been some vandalism of the walls; this chiefly takes the form of words and initials carved into the bricks. In the damaged areas, some bricks have been badly eroded and their soft interiors are exposed. Cracking of individual units is also apparent; none of these failures, however, appear to be the result of major structural flaws. Previous attempts to repair the damage by parging the surface were ill-advised and may complicate future rehabilitation work. The mortar is also soft. it is severely eroded in those areas where serious brick damage has taken place. The rest appears sound. 2 The cast concrete trim is very badly detLoriorated in the front pediment; adjacent brick units are also in poor condition. Similar functional and decorative elements elsewhere on the building (such as around doors and windows) are, in good condition. Problems Nearly all the building's troubles can be traced to inadequate control. of rainwater. At some point in the building's history -its I gutters and downspouts were removed, allowing rain to slosh, and cascade about the outside of the structure. Direct run-off from the roof accounts for a great deal of the damage to the brick and mortar joints. This is an especially severe problem in the front pediment, where water has been allowed to stream into the back of this decorative feature. Projections such as the watertable coursing and brick window trim are also susceptible to this damage. Indirect splash -back is also a serious problem. Rainwater now rebounds from secondary roof surfaces, stairways, and asphalt parking areas near the building. It picks up grit and chemicals from these sources and deposits them on the walls, resulting in both surface damage and discoloration. The lack of downspouts, combined with improper site grading and surfacing, forces water to pond around the building during rain- storms. Almost all lower wall damage is attributable to this drainage problem. Q - I , , 4., 4, --- The-- The repair (or replacement, for that matter) of the building's exterior would be a fruitless enterprise if adequate measures are not taken to deal with the water control problem. Three specific actions which must be taken include: 1) An adequate building drainage system needs to be installed. This should include crickets behind elements such as the front pediment,'gutters on all roof edges, and downspouts which directly feed into the local storm sewer system. 2) The site should be regraded to form a landscaped plaza around the structure. The new ground slope should move water away from the building on all sides, perhaps into storm drains. Landscaping at the base of the building might provide an absorbant surface for the rainfall, thus preventing splashback as well as enhancing the site. Vegetation could also be used to limit access to the building surface, and thereby reducing the future vandalism of its brick veneer. 3) Repair of the damaged areas of brick and trim should be undertaken with professional guidance. Some brick may be replaced with compatible new units; cast concrete decorative elements can be duplicated in a variety of materials. All joint repointing should be done with a mortar compatible in both appearance and bonding strength with the original. areas which were previously parged should be stripped -out and replaced with new units. In general, the woodwork around most doors and windows can be rehabilitated; only a few sills and water -damaged trim pieces may have to be replaced with like -kind materials. Increased energy efficiency could be achieved with storm windows at a fraction of the cost of new units. Following repair, the surface should be very gently cleaned with a non-ionic cleaner to remove the worst discoloration and dirt deposits. Suitable detergents include "Triton" by GAF; it is available through Ozark Chemical. In addition to these essential improvements, several other steps might be taken to increase the longevity of the building and enhance its appearance. For example, to help the bricks shed water they could be treated with a 4% solution of silicone in a naphtha -based solution; this must be renewed every few years to remain effective and might, over long periods of time, lead to some surface spalling. The Education Building eight also be painted, a common treatment for structures made of soft brick (e.g., Tr..apnall Hall, the Terry 4 Mansion, and the Villa Marre). Paint would hide a great many of the repairs and give the building a uniform appearance. A respon- sible contractor will apply a masonry conditioner as a prime coat before treating the structure to a latex exterior finish. Like the use of silicone, painting may --- over the very long run -- have some damaging effects and should only be used after additional research and the evaluation of some test patches. Other changes which might be appropriate include the addition of window and door awnings (particularly on the west side) for sun control; thorough site reconstruction to improve water run-off and handicapped access; and the removal of below -grade entrances. Exterior photographs are included to show examples of major problems. No attempt to identify every case of surface deterioration was made. v IF 1. Ground Ponding & Fant ,rowth on Base 2. Stair Splashback on Wall. 3. Below -grade Entrance Ponding 1. Direct Run-off on �edime nt b Projection 1/107- F I R ST L UITH L, R A R X)NAL BUILDING. EDUCAl F:t �ff f f ter;' t _ �rt 1. Direct Run-off on Water Table Coursing 2. Ground Run-off & Splashback on Base a I 1. Secondary RoofSplashback on W<<11 2. Stair Splashba k on Wall 3. Direct Run --off on Wall 4. Structural Setlilement 5. Par.ging Repair 6. Ground Ponding & S lashback on BasCI I 19. y_� 1 Y Tr r - 1'. I 19. y_� 1 Y Tr r - { � r - QUA-PAXN7QUARTElk ASSOCIATION 5 June 1981 Mr. Thomas M. Calder President First Lutheran Church 314 East 8th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Mr. Calder: As I promised in my letter to you on May 18th, the Association has completed a thorough analysis of the masonry veneer on the Christian Education Building. A copy of my Preservation Services Coordinator's four-page report is enclosed. If you, the project architect, or the building committee have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Since I last wrote, the QQA Board of Directors has had another opportunity to review the drawings for the proposed renovations to the Christian Education Building. At its meeting on June 1st, the directors unanimously voted (with one abstention) to strongly oppose the approval of your architect's plans at the next meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission. The basis of our objection is simply this: Mr. Blaine's treatment of the building appears to lack any appreciation of its handsome character or historic setting. In addition, he seems to have misinter- preted some of the structure's technical problems and proposed inappropriate design solutions. The QQA stands ready to meet with any authorized representatives of the church to explore reasonable alternatives to the plans now being reviewed by the Historic District Commission. As I wrote in May, the Association shares your desire to create an attractive, functional, and enduring facility for your congregation. But again, we believe this goal is best reached through the enhancement of the existing building, and not by an expensive, unnecessary remodelling. We genuinely appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important church project and look forward to a chance to assist your building committee in an evaluation of the design work done thus far. Sincerely, Ralph J. Megna Executive Director RJM/st East V-19lath Street f3nx 1104 + Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 * 501-371-0075 TECHNICAL REPORT: Masonry Exterior First Lutheran Church Education Building PREPARED BY: Quapaw Quarter Association Preservation Services Program June 1981 Summary Material Conditions The existing veneer brick is soft with an easily erodable surface. It is, howaver., generally structurally sound with only a few localized areas of severe damage. These include the front pediment, the bases of all walls, areas around attached metal stairways, and at a below --grade entrance to the basement. There has also been some vandalism of the wails; this chiefly takes the form of words and initials carved into the bricks. In the damaged areas, some bricks have been badly eroded and their_ soft interiors are exposed. Cracking of individual units is also apparent; none of these failures, however, appear to be the result of major structural flaws. Previous attempts to repair the damage by parging the surface were ill --advised and may complicate future rehabilitation work. The mortar is also soft. It. is severely eroded in those areas where serious brick damage has taken place. The rest appears sound. 2 The cast concrete trim is very badly deteriorated in the front pediment; adjacent brick units are also in poor condition. Similar functional and decorative elements elsewhere on the building (such as around doors and windows)are in good condition. Nearly all the building's troubles can be traced to inadequate control of rainwater, At some point in the building's history its gutters and downspouts were removed, allowing rain to slosh and cascade about the outside of the structure. Direct run-off from the roof accounts for a great deal of the damage to the brick and mortar joints. This is an especially severe problem in the front pediment, where water has been allowed to stream into the back of this decorative feature. Projections such as the watertable coursing and brick window trim are also susceptible to this damage. Indirect splash -back is also a serious problem. Rainwater now rebounds from secondary roof surfaces, stairways, and asphalt parking areas near the building. It picks up grit and chemicals from these sources and deposits them on the walls, resulting in both surface damage and discoloration. The lack of downspouts, combined with improper site grading and surfacing, forces water to pond around the building during rain- storms. Almost all lower wall damage is attributable to this drainage problem. The repair (or replacement, for that matter) of the building's exterior would be a fruitless enterprise if adequate measures are not taken to deal with the water control. problem. Three specific actions which must be taken include: 1) An adequate building drainage system needs to be installed. This should include crickets behind elements such as the front pediment,'gutters on all roof edges, and downspouts which directly deed into the local storm sewer system. 3 2) The site should be regraded to form a landscaped plaza . around the stricture. The new ground slope should move water away from the building on all sides, perhaps into storm drains. Landscaping at the base of the building might provide An absorbant surface for the rainfall, thus preventing splashback as well as enhancing the site. Vegetation could also be used to limit access to the building surface, and thereby reducing the future vandalism of its brick veneer. 3) Repair of the damaged areas of brick and trim should be undertaken with professional guidance. Some brick may be replaced with compatible new units; cast concrete decorative elements can be duplicated in a variety of materials. All joint repointing should be done with a mortar compatible in both appearance and bonding strength with the original. Areas which were previously parged should be stripped -out and replaced with new units. In general, the woodwork around most doors and windows can be rehabilitated; only a few sills and water -damaged trim pieces may have to be replaced with like -kind materials. Increased energy efficiency could be achieved with storm windows at a fraction of the cost of new units. Following repair, the surface should be very gently cleaned with a non-ionic cleaner to remove the worst discoloration and dirt deposits. Suitable detergents include "Triton" by GAF; it is available through Ozark Chemical. in addition to these essential improvements, several other steps might be taken to increase the longevity of the building and enhance its appearance. For example, to help the bricks shed water they could be treated with a 4% solution of silicone in a naphtha -based solution; this must be renewed every few years to remain effective and might, over long periods of time, lead to some surface spalling. The Education Building might also be painted, a common treatment for structures made of soft brick (e.g., Trapnall Hall", the Terry 4 Mansion, and the Villa Marre). Paint would hide a great many of the repairs and give the building a uniform appearance. A respon- sible contractor will apply a masonry Conditioner as a prime co, -it before treating the structure to a latex' exterior finish. Like the use of silicone, painting may -- over the very long run ­ have some damaging effects and should only be used after additional research and the evaluation of some test patches. Other changes which might be appropriate include the addition of window and door a I Wnings (particularly on the west side) for sun control; thorough site reconstruction to improve water run-off and handicapped a'cce'ss; and the removal of below --grade entrances. Exterior photographs are included to show examples of major problems. No attempt to identify every case of surface deterioration was made. a t 40 s,V- i. Ground Ponding S plant rowth on Base 2. Stair Splashback on Wall 3- Belcw-grade En-,�-rance ponding 1. Directt Run-off on Pro jectir)n P e J i r"I e n t EDUCATIONAL BUIL-UNG, Pam, 43. d : 1. Direct Run-off on Water Table Coursinc; 2. Ground .tun -of f & Splash)ack on Base 1. . Secondary Roof Splashback on lq�i 1 1 2. Stair Splashback on Wall 3. Direct Run -Off on wJ111. 4. Structural Settlement 5. Parging Repair 6. Ground Ponding & Spl ashbaCk on Base I'M WMBNPW 77-= -77 WMBNPW