Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff MinutesGL City of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 1989 Item #1: Chateau Roy (Excerpt from minutes) 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 nayes. 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 nayes. (Z) C) C� 76ia tl=- ._..p CJVID- LAP-' IS } e-q C (/GGvh r A/tc X71- . C'6 i-� zti-P Gejrl�4�' el 64 C Gc1= CP? 01/ cLG4� ix scGc, ��• /%�% .t a ),f�H,Aivaa. �y�•� t r►, J r f6%IYiiANP. _� AL�J�1 l"NA.f/6Gt qi .nwCN y� Q � -Off ✓al /1.EFAl.�t�c ��„i/)o Mll , P Marti► f'. rt A � .(iN, - l - ll I A vC&tW� 00�--'2 Lia Ljit-� Gee v�� MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MAY 17, 1984 4:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: MR. JOHN JARRARD, CHAIRMAN MR. GEORGE WORTHEN MS. BETH FOTI MR. BILL KENNEDY, III MEMBERS ABSENT: MR. SAM STRAUSS, JR. STAFF PRESENT: W. MIKE DOOLEY 96 60 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: Wengroup Company Address: 715 Sherman Street Request: 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 acces- sory building. The main building was constructed in 1895 and is the oldest standing public school building in the City of Little Rock. The structure 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's and has been vacant for the last 5 years. Last year, the Little Rock School Board declared the structure "surplus property" 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 shaved and described existing deterioration on the exterior and interior and provided elevations explaining specific restoration 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 archi- tectural 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 pre- viously 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 the utility 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 to the neighborhood and that the structure was the last remaining major historic building in the neighborhood that has not undergone restoration, and further that there is a need for and desire to locate additional residential use in the area which 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 effort to create a quality design. Mr. Jarrard asked for an explanation of the lattice and railing work for the accessory structure. P. 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 changed 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 Arkansas 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 "pop-up" 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 des- cribed 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 that 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 "check -off" 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 con- formance 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 asked 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 construction within 60 days. He stated that the owner was agreeable to returning 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 0 41 NAME Mr. William H. Chairman (Quapaw Quarter Rose Law Firm 120 East Fourth Little Rock, AR 375-9131 1988 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Kennedy, III Assoc. Member) Street 72201 Mr. Thomas Johnson Vice -Chairman (Property Owner) 623 Midland Little Rock, AR 72205 375-0334 Mr. John Jarrard (Architect) 1700 South Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72206 375-4249 Ms. Cheryl Nichols (At Large) 1721 South Gaines Little Rock, AR 72206 375-2686 Nut Ms. Kathleen McNally � Res dent Property Owner) 1323 Cumberland Street Little Rock, AR 72202 378-4256 DATE FIRST APPOINTED 6/02/83 8/18/87 6/15/78 12/16/86 co M M 1 SS i 04Fr' 9/2 0/8 8 Recommending Agencies Ms.. Angel a Meeks ✓ ohanged State Historic Preservation Program Suite 200, Heritage Center East 225 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 371-2763 EXPIRATION DATE 6/15/90 6/15/90 6/15/91 6/15/91 6/15/8 9 Ms. Jennifer Polk Executive Director Quapaw Quarter Assoc. 1321 Scott Street P.O. Box 1104 Little Rock, AR 72203 371-0075 AGENDA LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1988 4:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL II. FINDING A QUORUM III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES IV. ITEM NO. 1 Owner: Pulaski Bank - Agent: James C. East Location: 715 Sherman (Kramer School) Request: Demolition V. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Adoption of a calendar for 1989 VI. ADJOURN Cfty 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,Ill 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 it - 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'a.round 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 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 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 0 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