HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunication with planner and attorneysCity of Little Rock
Thomas M. Carpenter City Hall
City Attorney 500 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201-1400
501 /371-4527
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Mayor Dailey and Members of the Board of Directors
From: Thomas M. Carpenter-=�
City Attorney
Re: Little Rock Historic District Commission:
Procedures concerning the proposed demolition
of Kramer School
Date: March 9, 1994
The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss whether
the City has the authority to order the demolition of
Kramer School despite the fact the Little Rock Historic
District Commission has denied a certificate of
appropriateness. As a secondary matter, the memorandum will
discuss one means of avoiding the "demolition by neglect"
problem that can occur within historic districts.
The page numbers in parenthesis within this report
refer to the handwritten numbers in the bottom right hand
corner of the attached materials.
Whether to raze Kramer School first became an issue
in 1988. Pulaski Bank and Trust Co. took over the property
as a result of financial difficulties experienced by Sidney
Weniger. (72). At the time demolition was suggested,
preservationists within the City stated that "[o]ur
position on it is just flat-out 'no'." (72). Pulaski Bank
had received a notice that the structure constituted a
public nuisance on July 6, 1988. (45). An application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the structure
was filed by Pulaski Bank on October 21, 1988 (47), and a
hearing was scheduled for December 1, 1988.
The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program opposed
this demolition for three reasons: (1) Kramer, constructed
in 1895, was the oldest existing school building in Little
Rock; (2) If the structure were demolished, it would be
gone forever; (3) Since the applicant had no plans for the
site, even in a dilapidated condition, the school was a
greater asset to the District than an empty lot would be.
(54) .
This issue was never fully resolved because Dr.
Hampton Roy purchased the structure for $150,000 in
January, 1989. (70-71). The initial reason given for the
purchase of the structure was to donate it to the Arkansas
Museum of Science and History (AMSH). (70). However, in
December, 1989, Dr. Roy applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to redesign the structure as a residence.
(30). Mr. Charles Witsell, a Little Rock architect, was
listed as the agent for Dr. Roy. This plan included the
removal of two newer portions of the building, creation of
a masonry fence, and several other features. (31-32).
Memorandum to Mayor Dailey and Members of the Board
Re: Little Rock Historic District Commission:
Procedures concerning the proposed demolition of
Kramer School: March 9, 1994: Page 2
Although there were several comments from the preservation
interests, there was general acceptance of this plan.
(36-39).
Dr. Allison Sanchez, director of the AMSH, commented
that Dr. Roy had offered the school to the museum in
December, 1988. (34). However, the grant application would
not be completed until November, 1989, and that without the
grant AMSH could not accept the building.
Despite all of these efforts, the museum board is
still not in a position to immediately accept
ownership of Kramer School and cannot do so until we
receive official permission from the City Board. In
all fairness of Dr. Roy, other sites may still be
considered. (34). [Italics added]
The application was approved. (29). But, the project was
never brought to fruition.
As far as City involvement, essentially nothing was
done with the school until June 3, 1993. At that time, Dr.
Roy's request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
demolish the school was considered by the Commission. (19).
The Arkansas Historic Preservation program opposed
demolition because (1) the school was the oldest standing
public school in the City; (2) it was one of the "finest
surviving examples of the Romanesque Revival style of
architecture in the city;" (3) its demolition would "set a
precedent for demolishing historic structures within the
district that the commission has valiantly fought for
years." (20).
The Quapaw Quarter Association, after a vote of its
board of directors, opposed demolition stating that "Kramer
School is such an important landmark that we want to be
certain no stones are left unturned in seeking a way to
save it." (21) QQA recognized that the cost of
rehabilitation would be costly. (21).
The Commission denied the application for a
certificate of appropriateness to tear down the structure.
(22) .
On November 23, 1993, Assistant City Manager Bob Lane
sent City Manager Charles Nickerson a memorandum noting
that the City had discussed the possibility of the City
taking over Kramer School as a multipurpose center to house
City, social and other provider organizations. (3). To do
so, each organization would have to be responsible for part
of the cost of remodeling. Further, it was necessary to
repair the roof and the floor. (3).
Mr. Nickerson ordered the Public Works Department to
inspect the building and evaluate its possible renovation.
On December 8, 1993, Bob Lane sent a memorandum setting out
the parameters of the inspection and required that Bill
Tannenberger (an architect), Dale Gunter (Chief Engineer),
Memorandum to Mayor Dailey and Members of the Board
Re: Little Rock Historic District Commission:
Procedures concerning the proposed demolition of
Kramer School: March 9, 1994: Page 3
Chuck Givens (Codes Chief) and other building inspectors be
a part of this team. (4). There was also a request that the
inspection be completed by December 17, 1993.
As a result of the inspection, the City declared the
school to be a public nuisance and ordered its demolition.
(5-6). The order of demolition was extended by 60 days at
Dr. Roy's request. (8).
On February 2, 1994, Charles Witsell sent a letter to
Mr. Nickerson noting that it would cost $15,000 to conduct
a study of the feasibility to restore the school. (9-11).
This letter noted the deterioration of the building and
said, "the front porch has collapsed, so if one were to
walk up the front steps in the dark, you would fall into
the basement." (9).
Based upon the City's decision to have the building
secured or be subject to demolition, the Historic District
Commission objected claiming that only it had jurisdiction
to make such a decision. (1-2). In a letter dated January
12, 1994, and signed by all members of the Commission, the
Commission contended that City staff acted improperly in
light of the Commission's earlier denial of a Certificate
of Appropriateness.
Perhaps the most important problem arising out of
this situation is not Kramer School itself, but the
fact that if this manipulated demolition is allowed
to proceed with the Board's support, the authority of
the Little Rock Historic District Commission will
have been effectively gutted. The City established
the Commission to protect the area around McArthur
Park .... The Commission is not always popular, but we
have been very effective so far in maintaining the
historic character of an area that is vital to the
city for attracting tourists, conventions and
potential new residents and businesses. (2).
A central question is whether the Board has the
authority to order this demolition based upon staff's
recommendation. While the District has considerable
authority, and is asked to consider public health
considerations, the ultimate decision on the issue of
public safety rests with the Board. One section of the
Historic District statute states that "[n]othing in this
subchapter shall be construed... to prevent the... demolition
of any {exterior architectural] feature which the building
inspector, or similar agent, shall certify is required for
the public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous
condition...." Ark. Code Ann. § 14-172-210 (Michie
1987)(Explanation added].
The Commission debates whether the phrase "any
exterior architectural feature" is broad enough to include
the entire building. We believe that it is.
Memorandum to Mayor Dailey and Members of the Board
Re: Little Rock Historic _District Commission:
Procedures concerning the proposed demolition of
Kramer School: March 9, 1994: Page 4
However, this does not mean that an applicant can
apply directly to the City for a demolition permit. The
City, of course, has the authority to order the demolition
of a dangerous building. Little Rock, Ark., Rev. Code §
20-29 (1988). This process does not require the City to
apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness. However, if the
owner wishes to demolish a structure in the District, the
owner must first obtain the Certificate of Appropriateness.
In short, an owner cannot demolish a structure at its
behest without the Commissions' approval. However, if the
City becomes aware of a dangerous condition, it is still
free to order the demolition.
While this may permit the City to order the
demolition of Dr. Roy's property, it does not resolve the
issue of historic structures. The Commission is quite
correct that the current status of the law would suggest a
potential bypass to Commission rulings that obviously has
not been the intent of the Board. To this end, I make the
following recommendations.
Recommendations
First, the Board should adopt quickly an ordinance
that requires enhanced maintenance standards for structures
within an historic district. These standards would assure
that "demolition by neglect" does not occur. In other
words, aggressive enforcement of these maintenance
standards should prevent many structures from reaching the
point where demolition is required for public safety
purposes.
Second, the City should specially train some or all
of its building and codes inspectors to be sensitive to the
nature of historic district structures. The value of
rehabilitation probably often exceeds the present value of
structures within a district. Yet, cost is only one aspect
of why these buildings are rehabilitated. Therefore, our
inspectors should be sensitive to the structures that are
structurally with a bias is in favor of "mothballing"
(73-85) rather than demolition.
Third, decisions for demolition on public safety
grounds, despite resting ultimately with the City Board of
Directors, should never be madeuntil after consultation
with an architect involved with historic preservation. This
person might be an architect that serves on the Historic
District Commission, or the City may wish to establish a
list of such persons. While conflicts will ultimately be
decided by the Board of Directors, this cooperative effort
should help assure that such conflicts are extremely
limited.
Fourth, the City Attorney's office should be required
and funded to aggressively pursue lien actions for
structures within the District. Once a "board and secure"
lien is in place, the City should pursue collection on the
Memorandum to Mayor Dailey and Members' -of the Board
Re: Little Rock Historic District Commission:
Procedures concerning the proposed demolition of
Kramer School: March 9,--1994: Page 5
lien or the forfeiture of the property to the City if the
lien is not repaid. Similarly, the new environmental court
should be used to aggressively pursue sanctions aVainst
properly owners that do not maintain structures within an
historic district.
Conclusions
1. The City is free to order the demolition of a
structure within an historic district despite the fact a
Certificate of Appropriateness has not been obtained.
2. Individuals are not free to seek such demolition
and the Board should avoid being treated as an alternative
to the Historic District Commission.
3. Enhanced maintenance criteria within the historic
districts should be adopted and aggressively enforced.
4. As a part of this process, building inspectors
should be trained especially to deal with historic
structures, and preservation architects should be consulted
before public safety hazard demolitions are recommended.
Please let me know if you have any additional
questions.
cc: Charles Nickerson, City Manager
Robert Lane, Assistant City Manager
Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods & Planning
Mike Batie, Director of Public Works
John Bush, Chair, Little Rock Historic District Comm.
Mollie Satterfield, Neighborhoods & Planning
City of Little Rock
Thomas M. Carpenter
City Attorney
August 4, 1995
William W ylton III
Attor at Law
15 South Elm Street
ittle Rock, Arkansas 72204
City Hall
500 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201-1400
501/371-4527
Re: F. Hampton Roy, et al. v. City of Little Rock, et al.
U.S.D.C. LR-C-95-303
Dear Bill:
Enclosed is a copy of the City's Brief in Reply to
Plaintiffs' Response to the City's Motion to Dismiss which I
filed today in District Court.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Carpenter
City Attorney
,,-kt
By: Patricia Y. Hays
Deputy City Attorney
TMC:PJH:dab
Enclosure
cc/enc: Molly Satterfield
t-I -j d In t�:
W N (D (D N
rt W n3 0
rF A� Fi
F-� Fi (D
(D (D rt rt O
5 N F-
zJ (D �
O 0 14
n rF
x sv cn
Fs0xa
P' rh F�• rt'
(n &
7d p► z & (D
m0K
F'• Fi I-h
--] U] Q N- F'-
N rh ' r 0 (D
N Fi V H
o(D O 0�l
F- (D Fi F'•
rr �r (n
O rt
On
SZ P.
N C)
rt
Iv
�% 0
R+ O
Ili
H Fj-
I) m
En
;3 F'•
F'• O
:� :j
w
r
m
Pd
0
0
CID
a
0
F"
W w0
� o
• arq
w
0CD CDo'
o a
0
P7
r 9
o�
o g:
�coa�m
�v •ion
�.
� cn
to
9
3
v
tiv0m�:
r• w (D (D m
rt w'cS 0
H z Fwi (D
EA w F-4
0 �t3k", 1-4
Q Z ct .
xw
�i0ww
x F-h F'• ct
mon
P- H rh
v Cn tq P. H"
N ct `,V 0 (D
N Fi V F-i
o (D O CJ 01
F- M fi N•
fi�rN
0 ct
O fi
¢, W
N (]
ft
w
�n
a0
ro�
Fr H-
w iA
D]
r• O
w
Qu7apaw Quarter Association
1315 South Scott Street • P.O. Box 165023 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 • 501-3 71-0075 • FAX 501-374-8142
PRESENT
Robin Imcks
PRMENT-ELE= June 25, 1993
Rorie Rule
VICE-PRESIDII"TrS Ms. Molly Satterfield
Judith Faust
Secretary
Thom: McGowan
Little Rock Historic District Commission
crag Rains
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
SECRETARY
Wally Nuon
TREASURER
Dear Molly:
Felton Lamb
With regard to Dr. Hampton Roy's application to demolish Kramer School, the
Quapaw Quarter Association board of directors voted at its June 14th meeting to
BoARDOFDmEmRs
oppose the school's demolition. It is the QQA's belief that the building remains
salvageable, though its rehabilitation obviously will be costly, and that all
S„su, Gunter
Sandra xochsterter
possibilities for saving it have not been explored. Kramer School is such an
Jam McNally
important landmark that we want to be certain no stones are left unturned in seeking
Carl menymn
a way to save it. In the meantime, to slow the building's deterioration and alleviate
Beth Perk -Cooper
some of the concerns of neighbors in the area, the QQA urges that the structure be
T. Jack Walsh
boarded and secured, that the grounds be cleaned up, and that the fence around the
William Wieiedowei
Robert Wilson
grounds be repaired.
Mark Zoeller
ExEECVIIVE DME=
Cheryl Nichols Sincerely,
Cheryl Nichols
Executive Director
r�i 5e
7if
11�
Qda-'Paw Quarter Association
1315 South Scott Street • P.O. Box 165023 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 • 501-371-0075 • FAX 501-374-5142
PRESIDENT
Robin Louder
pRESIDE„'r-E ECT June 25, 1993
Renie Rule
VIC;PRESIDFNIS Ms. Molly Satterfield
Judith Faust
err
Secretary
Thomas McGowan
Little Rock Historic District Commission
Craig Rains
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
SECRETARY
Wally Nixon
Dear Molly:
TREASURER
Felton lamb
Concerning 519 East Eighth Street, the Quapaw Quarter Association applauds the
efforts of the Greater Little Rock Revolving Fund for Historic Preservation to save
BakmoFDm=Rs
the cottage. Portions of the rehabilitation plans were shown to me by David
Mobley, one of the contractors for the project, and I recommended that the design
Susan Gunter
Sandra xochstetter
generally be simplified. Specifically, I suggested these things:
Jane McNally
Carl Menyhart
1) The dentils should be removed from the gable. Even though the proposed
Beth Peck -Cooper
dentils would echo the porch's denticulated cornice, I doubt that the porch dentils
T.Jack Walsh
are original (I would guess that they date from an early 20th century remodeling),
William wiedower
and dentils should not be applied to the cottage in a location where they did not exist
Robert Wilson
Mark Zoeller
originally.
2) If Italianate-style square porch columns are used, the columns should not
be fluted, but the comers should be chamfered. (As I explained to David Mobley,
ExEczmvE Dmi cnoR
because this house appears to have been built in the early 1880's, its original porch
Cheryl Nichols
might have had either Italianate or Queen Anne detailing —or a combination of both.)
Care also should be taken to make sure the columns, and the balustrade, are of the
proper dimensions. Also, the dentils on the porch cornice should be removed if the
porch is to be returned to a 19th century appearance.
3) The restored window sashes should be either two -over -two or one -over -
one. I have never seen a 19th century window in the two -over -one configuration
shown on the plans for the cottage. On a simple cottage such as this one, my guess
is that the windows originally would have been two -over -two because smaller
panes of glass were less expensive.
In more recently looking at the plans for the cottage, I noted that the existing
concrete steps are to be replaced by new concrete steps. I would suggest the
construction of wooden steps, like the cottage originally would have had. (The
difference in cost between concrete and wooden steps might be made up by
removing the proposed balustrades on either side of the steps, since the balustrades
are not absolutely necessary.)
Molly Satterfield
6/25/93
Page 2
Although the QQA does not want to delay the rehabilitation of 519 East Eighth Street, we
encourage the Historic District Commission to make certain the rehab work is as historically
accurate as possible, within the constraints of the owner's budget.
Sincerely, f-s
Cheryl h
Executive Du ector
Aff,
Qi apaw Quarter Association
1315 South Scon Street • P.O. Box 165023 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 • 501.371-0075 e FAX 501-374 8142
PFMWENT
Rcbin lauds
PRESIDENT -EL= June 25, 1993
Rorie Rule
vICS-PREWEN-Is
Ms. Molly Satterfield
Judith Faust
Secretary
a..'" McGowan
Little Rock Historic District Commission
Craig Rains
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
SECMARY
Wally Nunn
TREuvR� 17ear Molly:
Fel1on Lamb With regard to Dr. Hampton Roy's application to demolish Kramer School, the
Quapaw Quarter Association board of directors voted at its June 14th meeting to
Bo�RnoFDmEcmn appose the school's demolition. It is the QQA's belief that the building remains
8osas Gunter salvageable, though its rehabilitation obviously will be costly, and that all
Sandra X=hA tier possibilities for saving it have not been explored. Kramer School is such an
Jane MCNalfy important landmark that we want to be cer in no stones are left unturned in seeldng
W Menybatt a way to save it. In the meantime, to slow the building`s deterioration and alleviate
Bekpe&-C° some of the concerns of neighbors in the area., the QQA urges that the structure be-
T. Jackwahb boarded and secured, that the grounds be cleaned up, and that the fence around the
William lvedower
Robert wikwn grounds be repaired.
Mark Zoelkr
ExE= t DtRECMR
Cheryl Nichols Sincerely,
V� T.
Cheryl Nichols
Executive Director
Quarter Association
1315 Sbuth Scott Street • P.O. Box 165023 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 • 501-371-0075 • FAX 501-374-5142
PROWFxr
Robin buds
PRESDEN _E= June 25, 1993
Ra+ie Rule
VlCF-PF=a, IS Ms. Molly Satterfield
lu&& Faust
Th.= McGo-,"
Secretary
Little Rock Historic District Commission
Craig Rairs
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
SECRETARY
Wally Moon
Dear Molly:
TREA_
Felton Lai
Concerning 519 East Eighth Street, the Quapaw Quarter Association applauds the
efforts of the Greater Little Rock Revolving Fund for Historic Preservation to save
BOARD oF DmEcmlts
the cottage. Portions of the rehabilitation plans were shown to me by David
Mobley, one of the contractors for the project, and I recommended that the design
Susan Gunter
Sandia Ha,,atrt,er
generally be simplified. Specifically, I suggested these things:
lane McNally
Carl Menybut
1) The dentils should be removed from the gable. Even though the proposed
sen peck{O°�
dentils would echo the porch's denticulated comice, I doubt that the porch dentils
T.1ack Wakli
are original (I would guess that they date from an early 20th century remodeling),
William lied°.yet
and dentils should not be applied to the cottage, in a location where they did not exist
Robert Wikoa
Mark Zoeller
originally.
2) If Italianate-style square porch columns are used, the columns should not
be fluted, but the corners should be chamfered. (As I explained to David Mobley,
F-XECL71NEDnrcroR
because this house appears to have been built in the early 1880's, its original porch
Cheryl Nidok
might have had either Italianate or Queen Anne detailing --or a combination of both.)
Care also should be taken to make sure the columns, and the balustrade, are of the
proper dimensions. Also, the dentils on the porch cornice should be removed if the
porch is to be returned to a 19th century appearance.
3) The restored window sashes should be either two -over -two or one -over -
one. I have never seen a 19th century window in the two -over -one configuration
shown on the plans for the cottage. On a simple cottage such as this one, my guess
is that the windows originally would have been two -aver -two because smaller
panes of glass were less expensive.
In more recently looking at the plans for the cottage, I noted that the existing
concrete steps are to be replaced by new concrete steps. I would suggest the
construction of wooden steps, like the cottage originally would have had. (The
difference in cost between concrete and wooden steps might be made up by
removing the proposed balustrades on either side of the steps, since the balustrades
are not absolutely necessary.)
Iviolly Satterfield
6/25/93
Page 2
9 Fast Although the QQA does not want to delay the �� Of 51 rehab work Eighth as historically
encourage the Historic District Cornmissian
accurate as Passible, within the constraints of the owner's budget
Sincerely,
Cheryl h
Executive Dixe�tr
City of Little Rock
(Li HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
June 24, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AND INTERESTED PARTIES
FROM: MOLLY SATTERFIELD �w
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Please be advised of a Historic District Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday,
July 1, 1993 at 5:00 p.m. in the Board of Directors Chambers, Second Floor, City Hall,
500 West Markham. The agenda session will be at 4:30 p.m. in the City Manager's
Conference Room.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 371-4790.
Thank you.
MS:aa
Enclosure
ARKANSAS
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
PROGRAM
June 9, 1993
Ms. Molly Satterfield
Little Rock Historic District Commission
Planning Department
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Proposed Demolition of the Kramer School in Little Rock, AR
Dear Molly:
The staff at AHPP has reviewed the above referenced project and determined that
demolition of the Kramer School Building would have an adverse effect on the MacArthur
Park Historic District. The 1895 structure is the oldest public school building still standing
in Little Rock and one of the finest surviving examples of the Romanesque Revival style of
architecture in the city.
Not only would its demolition create a major hole in the surrounding streetscape, but it
could set a precedent for demolishing historic structures within the district that the
commission has valiantly fought for years.
If you have questions concerning this transmittal, please contact me at 324-9880.
Sincerely,
4a'
Cathy Buford ter
State listori reservation Officer
CBS:RJ:kg
1500 Tower Building C 323 Center • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 • Phone (501) 324-9150
Fax (501) 324-9154
A Division of the Department of Arkansas Heritage
STEPHANZWMERMANN
Phn: (501)374-9404 P.0.Box 25 Fax: (501)374-9428
Little Rock AR 72203
June 21 1993
Little Rock Historic District Commission
Office of Comprehensive Planning
City Hall
Little Rock AR 72201
re: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness
Demolition of Kramer School, 701 Sherman, Little Rock
To whom it may concern:
I am the owner of record of 618 Ferry Street, Little Rock, a single family residence lying within
the 150 foot zone of subject property. Kramer School in its present condition is both an
eyesore and nuisance, attracting derelicts and potentially criminal elements to the
neighborhood. Wine, beer and liquor bottles are strewn around the property, evidencing
transient occupation of the property. The fence surrounding the property has been breached
in more than one location, making it a potentially hazardous site for children and young adults.
It is a generally undesirable building in the midst of otherwise well -kept older homes. A well
cared -for empty lot would be much more conducive to the area than the derelict structure as
it now stands.
As a permanent resident at this address, I fully endorse the proposed demolition of Kramer
School.
Sincerely,
Stephan Zi.i Znnaiin
June 22, 1933
Office of Comprehensive Planning
City Hall
Markham & Broadway
Little Rock, Ar 72201
Re: Demolition of Kramer School
Gentlemen & Ladies:
We are owners of apartment 8-L in Quapaw Towers
condominium and at this time we are expressing our strong desire to
support the demolition of this monstrosity as soon as possible.
Since the plan to build a residence on this property was abandoned
after the Quapaw Quarter Association threw up so many objections, we
have had to tolerate this eyesore and watch the building and grounds
deteriorate.
This is especially true since the City (no doubt) leased the grounds
to the contracting company who used it as parking lot and storage
area for sand, gravel and asphalt. The fence and gate has been
abused and it continues to be a haven and sleeping quarters for the
homeless. It is a blight on the whole area and we would like to see
it removed and cleaned up. Maybe someone will buy it then.
If the Quapaw Quarter Association prevents this from taking place
they can no longer count on our support.
Sincerel
Rex J. ThoMhpson & Bettye S. Thompson.
�
(ERLCity of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
June 24, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AND INTERESTED PARTIES
FROM: MOLLY SATTERFIELD
HISTORIC DISTRICT COM SSION SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Please be advised of a Historic District Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday,
July 1, 1993 at 5:00 p.m. in the Board of Directors Chambers, Second Floor, City Hall,
500 West Markham. The agenda session will be at 4:30 p.m. in the City Manager's
Conference Room.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 371-4790.
Thank you.
MS:aa
Enclosure
A I
F#1
Qdapaw Quarter Association
1315 South Scott Street • P.O. Box 165023 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 • 501-371-0075 • FAX 501-374-8142
PRESIDENT
Robin Loucks
PRESENT $LEA' June 25, 1993
Renie Rule
VIC&PRESIDENTS Ms. Molly Satterfield
Judith Faust
Secretary
Thomas McGowan
Little Rock Historic District Commission
Craig Rains
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
SECRETARY
Wally Nixon
Dear Molly:
TREAs=
Felton Lamb
Concerning 519 East Eighth Street, the Quapaw Quarter Association applauds the
efforts of the Greater Little Rock Revolving Fund for Historic Preservation to save
BOARD of D1RECToRs
the cottage. Portions of the rehabilitation plans were shown to me by David
Mobley, one of the contractors for the project, and I recommended that the design
Susan Gunter
Sandra Hostetter
generally be simplified. Specifically, I suggested these things:
Jane McNally
Carl Menyhart
1) The dentils should be removed from the gable. Even though the proposed
Beth Peck -Cooper
dentils would echo the porch's denticulated cornice, I doubt that the porch dentils
T. Jack Walsh
are original (I would guess that they date from an early 20th century remodeling),
William Wiedower
and dentils should not be applied to the cottage in a location where they did not exist
Robert Wilson
Mark Zoeller
originally.
2) If Italianate-style square porch columns are used, the columns should not
be fluted, but the corners should be chamfered. (As I explained to David Mobley,
EX&CUTIVEDIRECTOR
because this house appears to have been built in the early 1880's, its original porch
Cheryl Nichols
might have had either Italianate or Queen Anne detailing --or a combination of both.)
Care also should be taken to make sure the columns, and the balustrade, are of the
proper dimensions. Also, the dentils on the porch cornice should be removed if the
porch is to be returned to a 19th century appearance.
3) The restored window sashes should be either two -over -two or one -over -
one. I have never seen a 19th century window in the two -over -one configuration
shown on the plans for the cottage. On a simple cottage such as this one, my guess
is that the windows originally would have been two -over -two because smaller
panes of glass were less expensive.
In more recently looking at the plans for the cottage, I noted that the existing
concrete steps are to be replaced by new concrete steps. I would suggest the
construction of wooden steps, like the cottage originally would have had. (The
difference in cost between concrete and wooden steps might be made up by
removing the proposed balustrades on either side of the steps, since the balustrades
are not absolutely necessary.)
Molly Satterfield
6/25/93
Page 2
Although the QQA does not want to delay the rehabilitation of 519 East Eighth Street, we
encourage the Historic District Commission to make certain the rehab work is as historically
accurate as possible, within the constraints of the owner's budget.
Sincerely, f ,
Cheryl zh
Executive Direct r
Historic Preservation Alliance of Arkansas
Partner Organizations
Batesville Preservation
Association
Heckatoo Heritage
Foundation December 28, 1993
Quapaw Quarter
Association
Board of Directors
Dr. Skip
Russellville ernalhy
Dear Mayor Dailey and City Board Directors:
Mayor Melinda Baran
Hot Springs
Gary Clements
f
North ittle Rock
W. L. "Bill" Cook, 11
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Historic Preservation
Alliance of Arkansas, I am writing to express our organization's
FrEl Drado
Camden
support of the Little Rock Historic District Commission's
Dr. Ann Arkadelphiay
position of not allowing the demolition of Kramer School.
Linde Fritz
Marion
Roger Giddings
As you are aware, Kramer School is the oldest remaining school
Hot Springs
Shirley Goodner
building in Little Rock and is located in one of our most historic
Mena
Dr. Tom Greer
neighborhoods. We feel the preservation of this structure and
Arkadelphia
the historic fabric of the neighborhood is of upmost importance
Jenny Harmon
Rogers
to both downtown Little Rock and the State of Arkansas.
Mary Ann Hollowell
Helena
hrey
VernLittleRock
We urge the Little Rock City Board of Directors to support the
Tommy Jameson
decisions and recommendations made by the Historic District
Little Rock
DessieP. Kennedy
Commission and help prevent this historic building from
Helena
destruction.
John Kennett
Paragould
W. J. "Bill' McCuen
Little Rock
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Carl Miller, Jr.
Little Rock
Tish Miller
i n (; rely,
Little Rock
Jim Pfeifer
Little Rock
Kathy Keenan Price(
Lf—
Dardanelle
-J� •
Paul Post
Altus
j mye Landis
Dr. Stephen Recken
Little Rock
Executive Director
Molly Satterfield
Little Rock
Betty Sloan
cc: Mr. Charles Nickerson, City Manager
Jonesboro
Jonesboro
Sen. Vic Snyder
Little Rock
Mark Stodola
Little Rock
Cyrus Sutherland
Fayetteville
Missy Whitfield
Lonoke
Ex Officio
Cathy Buford
Slate Historic
Preservation Officer
Post Office Box 305 0 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-0305 0 Telephone 501 / 372-4757
City of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
July 6, 1993
F. Hampton Roy, M.D.
Arkansas Cataract Center, P.A.
1000 Medical Towers Building
9601 Life Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
RE: Kramer School Demolition
Dear Dr. Roy:
The Little Rock Historic District Commission on July 1, 1993 denied the application for
demolition of Kramer School at 701 Sherman Street.
If you have questions or need further information, please contact me at 371-6821.
Sincerely,
G 7
Molly SatterfieldV
Historic Preservation Administrator
MS:aa
-Vision for the future"
Arkansas Cataract Center, P.A.
Medical Towers Building, Suite 1000
9601 Lile Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
301-227-6980
Fax# 501-227-8144
June 11 1993
Hampton Roy, M.D.
Robert L. Berry, M.D.
Fellows of the American Academy of Ophthalmology
Certified by American Board of Ophthalmology
Fellows of the American College of Eye Surgery
Certified by the American Board of Eye Surgery
Ms. Molly Satterfield
Secretary, Historic District Commission
Department of Neighborhoods and Planning
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Ms. Satterfield:
I have enclosed the Certificate of Appropriateness
and attachment concerning the property at 701 Sherman
(IZramer School) .
If you need anything else, please let me know.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
F. iampton Ro , M.D.
FHR/mp
Encls.
'Vision for the Future'
Arkansas Cataract Center, P.A.
Medical Towers Building, Suite 1000
9601 Lile Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
501-227-6980
Fax# 501-227-8144
June 2, 1993
Ms. Molly Satterfield
Secretary, Historic District Commission
Department of Neighborhoods and Planning
7'23 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE:
Dear Ms. Satterfield:
Hampton Roy, M.D.
Robert L. Berry, M.D.
Fellows of the American Academy of Ophthalmology
Certified by American Board of Ophthalmology
Fellows of the American College of Eye Surgery
Certified by the American Board of Eye Surgery
F. Hampton Roy, M.D.
701 Sherman
I mailed a Certificate of Appropriateness to you on
June 1, 19931 however the legal description of the property
may have been incorrect. The description I sent to you, I
had taken from the contract with the real estate company,
however in going through the file today I found the deed
with the attached description of the property at 701
Sherman.
me.
If there is anything else I need to do, please contact
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
VInnington
Mary P
Attachment
Kramer School Property
701 Sherman
Little Rock, AR
Owner: F. Hampton Roy, M.D.
PART OF BLOCK 3, JOHNSON' S ADDITION TO 'lilt CITY OF LITI.L,E ROCK,
SAID BLOCK BEING 130UNDED BY LAST 7111, EAST 8TH, SHERMAN AND 1,'ERRY
STREETS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, BLOCK 1, JOHNSON'S ADDITION, RUN SOU11-I 89
DEGREES 18 MINUTES 22 SECONDS WEST 30.0 FEET TO I IE POINT OF BEGINNING,
SAID POINT BEING LOCATED ON `I1ii? CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY OF FERRY
STREET, CLOSED BY CITY ORDINANCE A1451; ITIENCE SOU11I 89 DEGREES
17 MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST 317.79 FEET ALONG THE NORT[I RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF EAST 8I1-I S'TRi;LJ' TO A POINT ON 'I1IE EAST RIGHT 011 WAY
LINE OF SHERMAN STREET; THENCE N3R'111 00 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 05 SECONDS
EAST 227.75 FEET ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO A POINT ON
114E SOUTH ;RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EAST 711I S`1'REE1; 'IlIENCE SOU111 81
DEGREES 59 MINUTTES 04 SECONDS EAST319.08 FEf"1 ALONG SALD SOULI1
LINE TO A POINT ON 11IE CENTERLINE OF CLOSED FERRY STR11;1`1:; TIJI1'VCE
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST 179.37 FELT ALONG SAID
CENTERLINE TO T[--IE POINT OF BEGINNING.
June 22, 1933
Office of Comprehensive Planning
City Hall
Markham & Broadway
Little Rock:, (fir 72201
Fie; Demolition of Kramer School
Gentlemen & Ladies. -
We are owners of apartment S-L in Quapaw Towers
condominium and at this time we are expressing our strong desire to
support the demolition of this monstrosity as soon as possible.
Since the plan to build a residence one this property was abandoned
after the Quapaw Quarter Association threw up so many objections, we
have had to tolerate this eyesore and watch the building and grounds
deteriorate.
This is especially true since the City (no doubt) leased the grounds
to the contracting company who used it as parking lot and storage
area for sand, gravel and asphalt. The fence and gate has been
abased and it continues to be a haven and sleeping quarters for the
homeless. It is a blight on the whole area and we would like to see
it removed and cleaned up. Maybe someone will buy it then.
If the Quapaw Quarter Association prevents this from taking place
they can no longer count on our support.
Sincerely,
Rex J. , h , pson & Bettye S. Thompson.
5!21 1 4 4
o7. n
HAMPTON Roy
!&)0 AP CH STREET
ROCK, ARKANSAS 712Chi
(5w)?27-080
t
-i ro-
4
JRN 11 194 09:35 TO:5013716863 FROM:DEPT.OF RR HERITRGE T-514 P.02
d
I
i
3) The city could accept Kramer School as it did the Mosaic Templars Building to
save it for posterity.
I hope the City of Little Rock Board of Directors will thoughtfully reconsider its ruling in this
case for the benefit of the general public, the continuation of preservation at large, and the i
repercussions this decision will have on preservation commissions statewide.
If you have questions, please contact me at 324-9880.
Sincerely,
Cathy Bufor la er
State Histor reservation Officer
CBS:PJ:kg
cc: Sharon Priest
Hamp Roy
Jeff Sharp
John Lewellen
Jesse Masan, Jr.
Jim Dailey
Joan Adcock
Erma Fingers Hendrix
Carl F. Scheibner
Michael Keck
Linda K. Joyce
Molly Satterfield
Cheryl Nichols
JAN 11 '94 09:35 TO:5013716863
FROM:DEPT.OF AR HERITAGE T-514 P.01
January 10, 1994
Mar. Charles Nickerson.
Little Rock City Manager
City lull, Room 203
500 Nest Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Pulaski County - Little Rock
Demolition of Kramer School
Dear Mr. Nickerson:
ARKANSAS
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
-PRO-GRAM
Post -It"' brand fax transmittal memo 76711 # of pages I.
rj
Our office is extremely concerned about the city board's ruling regarding the fate of the Kramer
School. By usurping the authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission the board
has effectively rendered. the Commission impotent, powerless to enforce its decisions concerning
the MacArthur Park Historic District. Not only will this set a precedent for demolition of other
neglected properties (creating gaps in, the historic streetscapes), it will also set a precedent for
denigrating the authority of other historic district commissions throughout the state.
It is common knowledge that the city has the option of boarding and securing condemned
structures bather than demolishing them. For the city to totally disregard this option is a breach
of faith with the preservation community and can only contribute to further loss of significant
historic structures throughout the city.
Although Dr. Roy has explored various options for divesting himself of Kramer School, we feel
that there are other possible solutions:
1) Dr. Roy could donate Kramer School to a non-profit revolving fund for
preservation thereby securing a tax deduction for a charitable contribution.. (The
Greater Little Rock. Revolving Fund for Historic Preservation has indicated it
would accept Krasner School, providing Tar. Roy will donate it.)
2) Certified Local Government grant funds could be used to board and secure the
structures. This office (AHPP) will guarantee a CLG grant up to $20,000.00 to
secure Kramer School.
Suite 200 . 225 East Markham • Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201. + Phone (501) 324-9346
A Division of the Department of Arkansas Heritage
r ;
Quapaw Quarter Association
1315 South Scott Street • P.O. Box 165023 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 • 501-371-0075 • FAX 501-374-8142
February 3, 1994
Mr. Ken Grunewald
Deputy Director
Arkansas Historic Preservation Program
1500 Tower Building
323 Center Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Ken:
As we discussed yesterday, I want to "formally" suggest that at least a portion of the
$20,000 CLG grant that has been committed to Kramer School be made available to
fund, or partially fund, a feasibility study of the building. Because of the building's
deteriorated appearance, its condition easily can be used as a reason for not
considering it, for example, as a potential site for the Museum of Science and
History. Without solid information on the building's condition, we cannot set the
record straight and disprove the idea that the building is "too far gone" to save.
Please call me if you need additional information or explanation.
Sincerely,
-mil
Cheryl Nichols
Executive Director
cc: Little Rock Historic District Commission
r—.toc
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
)OHN IIUSH
I ;lilt Back. ;vkans:lw 7'l20'L
tiIKi'i1rf'r it. i:l1-CS
t dvAlLirai'�'Sr)f5�t^
I'iir Bali ko lilt ltl
l.d+ll• Rotk. Ark:i uan7L'll!1
A MN I) 1ARK--IRD
login l). Pnrr vd, Arcrt:Icct
17M) ;iprir.}"
I tdk— k o'ck., AA?,nsa87220G
!ttiirhat'1 JUEItiSTr)^i
lr.tta
I.Ililt^ Hark Ark.:n�ts i'L'211'<'
!WAIN 1 fU('KS
1n!2 5prin.
Little' I(ai K. A!'k.+a mkt 7:!2uFi
CIIARLKS, MAR)bUT
M;urV Q Aw,ciotcs
1' a box loA4;tK
sl'Itt!1. ntrl'c1J:I;(NonA,tier'i
North !.litho Kook, Ark;�rj,r_;7;LIIli
MIUXR
11 !(ox I.11 I
I Inc kiit h, 7YGCl2
%1A1tK Nli-110IS
Va h„!., il'r!Il,ti Lr,: rltor. 4t!urnev5
u. K of 17
Wtir R-k'r,, ArK.th?L,7U10i
!MJ. P1•U11F:1'11A'17
Wuith(•r Bjr.k;: Trust, Cvmparp
I,III!c I('. rk Alkor.S:s i22Q3
;'Lll. Srna,l�v::+ri:r.•li
:�lt'nllcns, Inc.
1' O. )lox 3507
1.Illl� iwkan.w7.22('1
A) AN 51
rwrn C icy Hunk
Une R::.:rn :It Plook.
Y'rr'•.ri lmtic Ruck. Ark.WS;15 i2113
�fia�l i�ILKN
531 E't l i tli Strco
Lr,t:c R:!ck, A;`. -coney 72202
2 FEBRUARY 1993
DR. HAMPTON ROY
1800 SOUTH ,ARCH
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206
RE: KRAMER SCHOOL
DEAR HAMP,
AS -A FOLLOW UP TO YOUR RECENT CONVERSATION WITH
CHARLES MARRATT, A BOARD MEMBER, CONCERNING THE
DONATION OF THE KRAMER SCHOOL TO THE GREATER
LITTLE ROCK REVOLVING FUND, I WANT TO EXPRESS
AGAIN OUR INTEREST IN BEING CONSIDERED.
IN THE THREE YEARS SINCE ITS FORMATION THE FUND
HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN PLACING TWO ENDANGERED
PROPERTIES IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
PRESERVING THEM. I FEEL THE KRAMER SCHOOL IS OF
SUCH IMPORTANCE TO THE COMMUNITY THAT FUNDS COULD
BE FOUND TO SECURE AND MAINTAIN IT IF IT WERE
OFFERED.
THE FUND IS STILL YOUNG, AND HAS NOT YET
ESTABLISHED A CONTINUED SOURCE OF INCOME THAT
WOULD ALLOW IT TO MAINTAIN A STAFF OR PURCHASE
PROPERTIES BUT AS A TAX EXEMPT CORPORATION, WE CAN
OFFER ,A CONTRIBUTOR A SOURCE Off` TAX REDUCTION IN
EXCHANGE FOR PROPERTIES.
YOUR PAST LEADERSHIP IN THE EFFORT TO PRESERVE OUR
HISTORIC DOWNTOWN HAS NOT BEEN FORGOTTEN. I STILL
REMEMBER SEEING YOU AND A, HELPER CLINGING TO THE
PARAPET TO THE QUAPAW METHODIST CHURCH TOWER WHILE
REPAIRING THE TERRACOTA. I HOPE YOUR VISION OF
WHAT URBAN LITTLE ROCK COULD BX HAS NOT BEEN
CLOUDED BY THOSE WHO WOULD DISAGREE ON HOW TO
ACHIEVE IT AND IF YOU DECIDE TO DONATE THE SCHOOL,
THE REVOLVING FUND WILL BE CONSIDERED.
SINCERELY,
JOHN D. JARRARD, CHAIRMAN
!771t
Qu—a-paw Quarter Association
1315 South Scott Street • P.O. Box 165023 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 • 501-371-0075 • FAX 501-374-8142
PRESIDENT
Robin Loucks
PRESIDENT-ELECT June 25, 1993
Renie Rule
VICE-PRESIDENTS Ms. Molly Satterfield
Judith Faust
Secretary
Thomas McGowan
Little Rock Historic District Commission
Craig Rains
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
SECRETARY
Waliy Nixon
TREAsum
Dear Molly:
Felton lamb
With regard to Dr. Hampton Roy's application to demolish Kramer School, the
Quapaw Quarter Association board of directors voted at its June 14th meeting to
BOARD oFDTRECTORs
oppose the school's demolition. It is the QQA's belief that the building remains
Susan Gunter
salvageable, though its rehabilitation obviously will be costly, and that all
Sandra Hochstetter
possibilities for saving it have not been explored. Kramer School is such an
Jane McNally
important landmark that we want to be certain no stones are left unturned in seeking
Carl Menyhart
a way to save it. In the meantime, to slow the building's deterioration and alleviate
Beth Peck -Cooper
some of the concerns of neighbors in the area, the QQA urges that the structure be
T. Jack Walsh
boarded and secured, that the grounds be cleaned up, and that the fence around the
William Wiedower
Robert Wilson
grounds be repaired.
Mark Zoeller
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Cheryl Nichols Sincerely,
Cheryl Nichols
Executive Director
JOIN 11 '94 09:35 TO:5013716863 FROM:DEPT.OF RR HERITRGE T-514 P.01
AMONSAS
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
�RO.�3AM
Post -It '" brand fax transmittal mainn 7A71
January 10, 1994
Mr. Charles Nickerson.
Little Rock City Manager
City Hall, Room 203
500 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Pulaski County - Little Rock
Demolition of Kramer School
Dear Mr. Nickerson:
Our office is extremely concerned about the city board's ruling regarding the fate of the Kramer
School. By usurping the authority of the Little Rocks Historic District Commission the board
has effectively rendered the Commission impotent, powezless to enforce its decisions concernwg
the MacArthur Park Historic District. Not only will this set a precedent for demolition of other
neglected properties (creating gaps in the historic streetscapes), it will also set a precedent for
denigrating the authority of other historic district commissions throughout the state.
It is common knowledge that the city has the option of boarding and securing condemned
structures .rather than demolishing them. For the city to totally disregard this option is a breach
of faith with the preservation community and can only contribute to further loss of significant
historic structures throughout the city.
Although Dr, Roy has explored various options for divesting himself of Kramer School, we feel
that there are other possible solutions:
1) Dr. Roy could donate Kramer School to a non-profit revolving fund for
preservation thereby securing a tax deduction for a charitable contribution., (The
Greater Little Rock Revolving Fund for Historic Preservation has indicated it
would accept Kramer School, providing Dr. Roy will donate it.)
2) Certified Local Government grant funds could be used to board and secure the
structures. This office (AHPP) will guarantee a CLG grant up to $20,000.00 to
secure Kramer School.
Suite 200 .225 East Markham • Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201 • Phone (501) 324-9346
A Division of the Department of Arkansas Heritage
w
JAH 11 194 09:35 TO:5013716663 FROM:DEPT.OF AR HERITAGE T-514 P.02
3) The city could accept Kramer School as it did the Mosaic Templars Building to
save It for .posterity.
I hope the City of Little Rock Board of Directors will thoughtfully reconsider its ruling in this
case for the benefit of the general public, the continuation of preservation at large, and the
repercussions this decision will have on preservation commissions statewide.
If you have questions, please contact me at 324-9880.
Sincerely.
Cathy Bufor later
State Histor reservation Officer
CBS:RJ:kg
cc: Sharon Priest
Hamp Roy
Jeff Sharp
John Lewelien
Jesse Mason, Jr.
Jim Dailey
Joan Adcock
Erma Fingers Hendrix
Carl F. Scheibner
Michael Keck
Linda K. Joyce
Molly Satterfield
Cheryl Nichols
n
L�
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
BOB LANE
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
CHARLES NICKERSON
CITY MANAGER
KRAMER SCHOOL
NOVEMBER 23, 1993
For sometime I have been discussing the possibility of the City acquiring Kramer School from Dr.
Roy. He indicated that he would be willing to donate this facility to the City. My thoughts were
that it would make an outstanding multipurpose center to house any number of City, social and
provider organizations. Each organization could also be responsible for remodeling its portion of
the building, thus reducing the overall cost. Dr. Roy would like to be able to either dedicate this
property to the City or tear it down this year. There are two additional factors that I would like for
you to investigate as quickly as possible:
1. The necessity and cost of a new roof for the facility
2. The cost of repairing a portion of the floor which has deteriorated
Please provide me with some estimates on these items as soon as possible.
CN:kaw
Qugaw Quarter Association
1315 South Scow Street • P.O. Box 165023 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 501.3 71-DO75 FAX 501-374-8142
PR»Fxr
Robin Lords
PRESMEN-r-ELECr June 25, 1993
Renie Rule
vlCS�PFMWII"-ls
Ms. Molly Satterfield
Judith Faust
Secretary
Tboa+as McGowan
Little Rock Historic District Commission
Craig lam
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
SECmARY
Wally Nunn
Felton Lamb
BoARD of Dntr=n
Susan Gunter
Sandra Hod,ste ter
Jane McNally
Car! Meaylutt
Seth Peck -roper
T.Jack Walsh
William Wiedower
Robert Wilson
Mark Zoeller
ExE=L LPICTOR
Cheryl Nichols
Di;ar Molly:
With regard to Dr. Hampton Roy's application to demolish Kramer School, the
Quapaw Quarter Association board of directors voted at its June 14th meeting to
oppose the school's demolition. It is the QQA's belief that the building remains
salvageable, though its rehabilitation obviously will be costly, and that all
possibilities for saving it have not been explored. Kramer School is such an
important landmark that we want to be certain no stones are left unturned in seeldng
a way to save it. In the meantime, to slow the building's deterioration and alleviate
some of the concerns of neighbors in the area, the QQA urges that the structure be
boarded and secured, that the grounds be cleaned up, and that the fence around the
grounds be repaired.
Sincerely,
V
Cheryl Nichols {
Executive Director
r�Sr
ram.
Quapaw Quarter Association
1315 South Scon Street a P.O. Box 165023 a Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 e 501-371-0075 • FAX 501.374-6142
PRESIDENr
Robin Loads
PREmLNz ELECT June 25, 1993
Renie Rule
VIC&PRES elm Ms. Molly Satterfield
Judith Faust
rbonw McCawaa
Secretary
Little Rock Historic District Commission
Craig Ram
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
SECTARY
Wally ?;=i n
Dear Molly.
TRFASOZFR
Felton Iamb
Concerning 519 East Eighth Street, the Quapaw Quarter Association applauds the
efforts of the Greater Little Rock Revolving Fund for Historic Preservation to save
BwmoFDlft=RS
the cottage. Portions of the rehabilitation plans were shown to me by David
Mobley, one of the contractors for the project, and I recommended that the design
su-, center
Sandra Hodwetter
generally be simplified. Specifically, I suggested these things:
lane McNally
Carl MMYMA
1) The dentils should be removed from the gable. Even though the proposed
ScnPeck-C° er
dentils would echo the porch's denticulated cornice, I doubt that the porch dentils
T. lack Walsh
are original (l would guess that they date from an early 2M century remodeling),
William W1edower
and dentils should not be applied to the cottage in a location where they did not exist
Robert Wilson
Mark zoeller
originally.
2) If Italianate-style square porch columns are used, the columns should not
be fluted, but the corners should be chamfered. (As I explained to David Mobley,
F.XF-CUMVE DIRECMR
because this house appears to have been built in the early 1880's, its original porch
Cheryl N1601,;
night have had either Italianate or Queen Anne detailing --or a combination of both.)
Care also should be taken to make sure the columns, and the balustrade, are of the
proper dimensions. Also, the dentils on the porch cornice should be removed if the
porch is to be returned to a 19rh century appearance.
3) The restored window sashes should be either two -over -two or one -over -
one. I have never seen a 19th century window in the taro -over -one configuration
shown on the plans for the cottage. On a simple cottage such as this one, my guess
is that the windows originally would have been two -aver -two because smaller
panes of glass were less expensive.
In more recently looking at the plans for the cottage, I noted that the existing
concrete steps are to be replaced by new concrete steps. I would suggest the
construction of wooden steps, like the cottage originally would have had. (The
difference in cost between concrete and wooden steps might be. made up by
removing the proposed balustrades on either side of the steps, since the balustrades
are not absolutely necessary.)
Molly Satterfield
6/25/93
Page 2
the �QA does not want to delay �� abilitation of 519 make certain the rehab work is as historically
�I.hoee theHistoric Distrith Consct -,jint 3
accurate as possible, within the constraints of the owner's budget -
Sincerely,
exk
Cheryl h
Executive Di rectOr
ARKANSAS
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
PROGRAM
Tune 30, 1993
Ms. Molly Satterfield
Little Rock Historic District Commission
Planning Department
723 West Markham
Little Rock AR 72201
Post -It" brand fax transmittal memo 7671
0 of pages ►
To f O 11 1 �
! JJ
From
Co.
eo.
Dept.
Phone
w 71 «R6_
f�x>r cl- 9(,5(1
RE: Proposed. Rehabilitation of 519 E. Sth Street
Dear Molly:
My staff has reviewed the above referenced project and determined that the rehabilitation of 519
E. 8th Street will enhance the MacArthur Park Historic District. Although we applaud the
revolving fund and Mr. Corkern for their proposed project we have certain reservations
concerning the re -design of the property:
1) Returning the windows to their original size is appropriate, but what is the basis
for the two over one pane arrangement? If there is evidence that this window
design is original to the structure, fine, otherwise, a one over one design would
be more appropriate.
2) The proposed denti.l molding for the porch and front gable is not accurate for the
architectural style of the house and should not be applied.
3) The fluted square columns and turned balusters are conjectural and should be
simplified - use chamfered posts or simple turned columns and plain square
balusters. According to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the new porch
should blend in size, scale, and materials but remain an obvious new addition..
If you have questions concerning this transmittal, please contact Randy Jeffery of my staff at
32.4-9880.
Sincerely,
Cathy Buf . Slater
State 14 to is Preservation Officer
CS:Imo.kg 1500 Tower Building + 323 Center • Little Rock. Arkansas 7220) o Phone (501) 324-9880
Fax (501) 324-9154
A Division of the Department of Arkansas Heritage.
a]
ArkanaFls Nuseum of Science and History
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Robert Lanford (Chairman)
Carl S. Whlllock (Vice -Chairman)
Margaret Batch (Secretary)
James Engstrom (Treasurer)
Joe Abston
Robert Franke
Kathy Gardner
Ellen Gray
Patricia Gray
Richard Holbert
David Jones
Charles Kelly
September 1, 1989
Historic District Commission
Attn: Molly Satterfield
Office of Comprehensive Planning
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Commissioners:
Julie McDonald
Ted Phillips
Charles Preston
Phillip Rayford
Patton Rudder
Betty Dortch Russell
Don Steeley
Welter Stephens
Read Thompson, Jr.
Tom Wlttenburg
Because of the article that appeared in the Gazette regarding the
Kramer School and because of many recent inquiries that have been made to
the museum as a result! I would like to clarify the museum's position on
this for your information. As the article stated, Dr. Roy had made the
offer of the Kramer School to the museum last December but could not hold
IC -he offer open indefinitely. Since the offer was made, the museum has
seriously considered the possibility of renovating the Kramer School to
house new hands-on science exhibits and an IMAX theater. Approximately
$30,000 has been raised or pledged from people interested in saving the
Kramer School. A $15,000 feasibility study was conducted and indicated
that the site was suitable and that the IMAX would produce income to
support the expanded museum. Following the feasibility study, an
application for a million dollar Challenge Grant was submitted to the
Naticnal Endowment for the Humanities. In November we will find out
whether this will be successful. Two potential six figure donors have
been identified so far, and we are awaiting word at the end of this month
as to whether a $150,000 grant from a private foundation to fund
fundraising activities will be awarded. We have also received indication
of potential support for this project from the City Manager, City Board of
Directors and the Downtown Partnership.
Despite all of these efforts, the museum board is still not in a
position to immediately accept ownership of the Kramer School and cannot
do so until we receive official permission from the City Board. In all
fairness to Dr. Roy, other sites may still be considered. I personally
think that the Kramer School would be the ideal site because its floor
MacArthur Park, Little Rock, AR 72202 (501) 371-3521
plan is like a mini -Smithsonian Natural History Museum. It also fits very
well with the intellectual plans we have to make a natural science
"discovery trail" downstairs and a physical science "discovery trail"
upstairs.
If you have any questions or need any further information, please let
me know.
Sincerely,
t
Alison B. Sanchez, Ph.D.
Executive Director
=: City of Little Rock
- Bob Lane
Assistant City Manager
February 17, 1994
Dr. Hampton Roy
Medical Towers Building
Suite # 1000
9601 Lile Drive
Little Rock, AR 72205
City Hall
500 W. Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1429
(501)371-4510
FAX (501) 371-4498
RE: Kramer School - 715 Sherman Street ,
Dear Dr. Roy:
In reference to the Kramer School, please be advised that the option of removing the structure
during the extended deadline of May 1, 1994, which option had previously been available to
you, has been suspended for the duration of the time extension. However, the ability to repair
the structure before May 1, 1994, remains valid.
Additionally, the current unsecured condition of the structure is unacceptable and presents a
danger to public safety. As a result, you must -board and secure the structure iaum' .t ', if
you have not boarded and secured the structure within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter,
then the City of Little Rock (City) will initiate and complete this process for you, and a lien will
be placed upon your property by the City for the costs of this procedure.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 371-4510.
Sincerely,
�
Bab Lane �
Assistant City Manager
BL/AWB:mt
cc: Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planningl/
Anthony Black, Assistant City Attorney
Chuck Givens, Building Codes Manager
15kCity of Little Rock
Uepaitmenl of
Public" Works
July 6, 1988
Mr. Jim East
Pulaski Bank
P.O. Box 7299
Little Rock, AR 72217
Re: 5800 "R" Street,
Dear Mr. East:
701 West Markham
Little flock, Arkansas 72201
371-4800
Little Rock, AR
ORDER OF BUILDING OFFICIAL
Engineering Division
You are hereby notified that the building described as Kramer School
located at 715 Sherman Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, is found by the
Building Official of Little Rock to be unsafe, open and unsecure.
This structure needs to be secured against entry of all unauthorized.persons
within seven (7) days from receipt of this notice, by appropriate closing
of all accessible exterior openings within twelve (12) feet of adjacent
exterior or grade level. Your failure to accomplish this work may result
in legal action being taken.
Enclosed, you will find printed excerpts from the Building Code pertaining
to this notice and your right of appeal from this notice. If you wish to
appeal to the Board of Building Code Appeals from this order, please notify
this office in writing to such effect within the time stated above for
compliance herewith. If no notice of appeal is received, then the order
herein shall be final.
Your prompt attention to this notice will be helpful in making it possible
to correct the problem described above with the least difficulty and
inconvenience to all concerned.
Sincerely,
Roy G. Beard, Jr.
Building Official
RGB:vc
cc,- -molly tterfield
Office of Comprehensive Planning
-} ��LITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC
r�r D I S T R I C T
6:s
January 12, 1994
Sharon Priest
Greater LR Chamber of Commerce
#1 Spring Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Director Priest,
The Little Rock Historic District Commission is deeply concerned about a situation that
has been created concerning historic Kramer School, owned by City Director Dr. Hampton Roy.
Four main issues of impropriety and conflict of interest appear obvious.
Dr. Roy applied to the Commission to have the structure demolished. In July 1993, the
Commission held a public hearing to consider Dr. Roy's request. After hearing from neighbors
adjacent to the structure, evaluating Dr. Roy's testimony, and considering all evidence before us
on public safety , the financial burden to the applicant and the historic significance of the
structure, the Commission properly exercised the authority vested in it by the Historic Districts
Act to deny Dr. Roy's petition for demolition.
Issue #1: Dr. Roy subsequently approached other City Staff about the property and
an inspection insued, resulting in the issuance of a letter of condemnation on December 30,
1993, telling him he has 30 days to secure the building or have it demolished. There is a strong
appearance of impropriety by Dr. Roy, a City Board member. He knew his demolition request
had been denied after a fair hearing and all due consideration by the Historic District
Commission. If he was dissatisfied with that decision, it was his right to appeal to the courts.
Instead, he chose to use his influence as a City Director by seeking demolition authority
elsewhere in city government. The Commission requests that the City Board of Directors
immediately withdraw its acquiesence and participation in this manipulation.
Issue #2: The Code Enforcement office acted improperly by issuing a condemnation
letter for property in the Historic District to Dr. Roy without contacting and deferring to the
Commission or its staff. The letter did not contain the customary statement to the owner
advising that any demolition would have to have the approval of the Commission first. The
Code Enforcement office had no authority to issue such a letter after the Commission had
already denied Dr. Roy's request. The Commission requests that the City Board of Directors
investigate and admonish the Code Enforcement office in the improper issuance of this
condemnation letter.
723 West Markham Street ' Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ° Phone (501) 371-4790
City of Little Rock Department of Neighborhoods & Planning
Page Two January 12, 1994
Issue #3: Kramer School, located at 7th and Sherman, is an important historic asset
to the McArthur Park Historic District. It was built in 1895 and is the oldest standing public
school building in the state. The primary and oldest part of the structure is stone, and is still
structurally sound, although Dr. Roy has allowed its continued deterioration since he bought it.
After learning of the condemnation letter, the Commission approached the City Attorney and
requested that he seek to enjoin demolition. The City Attorney refused to do so, ostensibly
because he also represents the Board of Directors, Dr. Roy, and Code Enforcement. If
demolition plans proceed, the Commission may be forced to seek an injunction through private
counsel.
Issue #4: Perhaps the most important problem arising out of this situation is not
Kramer School itself, but the fact that if this manipulated demolition is allowed to proceed with
the Board's support, the authority of the Little Rock Historic Commission will have been
effectively gutted. The City established the Commission to protect the area around McArthur
Park. Its success is obvious: just drive one block outside of the district boundaries and you will
see a drastic drop in the quality of the neighborhood. If Dr. Roy is allowed to manipulate the
demolition of the Kramer School property after the Commission voted to deny such a
demolition, then there is nothing to prevent other applicants from doing the same thing. The
Commission is not always popular, but we have been very effective so far in maintaining the
historic character of an area that is vital to the city for attracting tourists, conventions and
potential new residents and businesses.
Additionally, the Historic District Commission has suggested numerous alternatives to
demolition to Dr. Roy. After the passage of the recently enacted sales tax, it would seem
feasible to use the building to house the Museum of Science and History, which is in need of
new quarters. The structure is ideally suited to being a museum, and would have ample parking
if the rear additions were torn down (to which the Commission would not object). By donating
the building to the Museum, Dr. Roy would save the $40,000 he would have to spend for
demolition, and the City of Little Rock would have a showplace for its museum, saving a
historic structure in the process.
Regardless of the use found for this particular building, the Commission hopes that you as City
Directors can appreciate our concerns about the Historic District as a whole and our future
ability to protect it, according to the statutory authority vested in us.
Sincerely,
John Bush, Chairman
Carl Menyhart, Vice Chairma
Jeanette Heinbockel
Julie Wiedower
Bob Roddey
February 4, 1994 ARKANSAS
HISTORIC
Dr. Hampton Roy PRESERVATIONPROGRAM
1800 Arch Street
Little Rock AR 72206
RE: Funding for Securing Kramer School
Dear Dr. Roy:
In hopes of helping you as you determine the fate of Kramer School, I want to offer information
concerning the Certified Local Government program (CLG) of which the City of Little Rock is
a participating member.
The CLG program is administered by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AHPP) as
directed by the National Historic Preservation Act. Under this program the AHPP is required
to set aside a minimum of 10 % of its federal funding for grants to local governments
participating in the CLG program. These grants are used to promote historic preservation
through various projects - surveys for National Register historic districts, educational programs,
production of walking and driving tour brochures, sinage for historic districts, bricks and mortar
work on historic structures - just to name a few.
The City of Little Rock is one of our participating Certified Local Governments. As concern
for the fate of Kramer School mounts, the City has expressed interest in applying for a CLG
grant to effect the stabilization of Kramer School and fund a feasibility study for its usage.
Kramer School would certainly qualify for a bricks and mortar grant in that it is listed in the
National Register of Historic Places. Our office would certainly consider a grant request of this
nature a viable project for Little Rock's CLG program in order to help save this historic
structure.
If you should have questions concerning this letter and the CLG program, please contact me at
324-9880.
Si erely, f�
Randy Jeffery
Jeffe ` c
Tax/Technical Services Coordinator
RJ: kg
Enclosure
cc: The Honorable Jim Dailey
Mr. Charg6oTkq�&,[ 323 Center • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 a Phone (501) 324-9880
Fax (501) 324-9154
A Division of the Department of Arkansas Heritage
ARKANSAS
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
PROGRAM
June 9, 1993
Ms. Molly Satterfield
Little Rock Historic District Commission
Planning Department
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Proposed Demolition of the Kramer School in Little Rock, AR
Dear Molly:
The staff at AHPP has reviewed the above referenced project and determined that
demolition of the Kramer School Building would have an adverse effect on the MacArthur
Park Historic District. The 1895 structure is the oldest public school building still standing
in Little Rock and one of the finest surviving examples of the Romanesque Revival style of
architecture in the city.
Not only would its demolition create a major hole in the surrounding streetscape, but it
could set a precedent for demolishing historic structures within the district that the
commission has valiantly fought for years.
If you have questions concerning this transmittal, please contact me at 324-9880.
Sincerely,
Cathy Buford ter
State Histori reservation Officer
CBS:RJ:kg
1500 Tower Building • 323 Center • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 • Phone (501) 324-9150
Fax (501) 324-9154
A Division of the Department of Arkansas Heritage
Fj PO TUH 25 "_71-3 12:
Quapaw QlIf--,Irter As-sociatien
1315 S,,uth Sc(-.ct a P.O. BON 16;c7 3 . ! —0i-371-C' -,rrie. P,�Jk, -,%rL 7 16 a 5
PRESMEN-1
R"k m Louts
P-ex ST F T- sr-- Juiie .25, 1993
V -zit Pule
Saq,, -.,�id
judi:h F�j6t
SecTe
Thomas MtGo—
Little Rock Historic- District Commiss-ton
C'A:g RAv's
721 West Markham Street
"L<ock' -1%T1"'-n'CaS 7 2101
Wz!ly ?-."z
TIRE A S I _F:-
Felm L-nib
Wit'lk re,!-ard to Dr, Hampton Roy's application to de-mclish Kraemer S;�tnjel, Oi,ti;
01.�rtcr MSociatir-,iboard of dim5ctor% voted at irs June- 1401 roveig. 10
BoAmo or- D:l�L:m�
Onvf),e the �cbool'sdetnohtion. It is the QQA'g, belief that Ili,- building
salvageabl.-, though its rehabilitation ob-vioustv xvill be Cosay, an-d that all
C, . �
possibilities for saving it have not been exploted Klitmw School LS SU-A in
Jane MeNally
ry
impo-,)mim landmark that we want to be muin no scones ilre lefT unto in 5 k ng
Carl Men.v�--
a wav to save it. hi the meantime, to slow die, buildin. s dettrioration and alieviate
BethPeck-Cooper
C.O"'ne of the concerns of neighbors in the ayes., die tit A a-TCS drat the structw-e'?x
T. ja.ck I% aL.
boarded and -,--cured, that the grounds be Cleaned up. and that Ue fence around tht
WiLl�-7' -• 7
RotwC Was,k)
g ,rounds tv npaired.
Mafk zc""r
tr� -vI
-N
Directar
C K CL ti -- 0. 4 4 P 1
Arkansas Caw: x, Cv, nl- i. P.A.
tiainpEon Roy. MD; RoNnl &nry. MD
Im-,10 Pledicat Tower, 50 1 ding
Lite Dilvk:
Ut-Ve Rock, Ao ioii 7,,-, S 7 �205
50.1 -227IW80
8 6,
L n'll '.3 Cer ti f icate, Qi 11 IR 9 S
q Lk. s e.,, z� E, til t Ct
lIZI-7e ally qu,�-Inial col.c e 1: e
in my office.
F THV; T; T =, 7,,CETVZD PRrj[7,EFL%l 'AS-' '% 'N? 'FN RAL
7
Int
Quapaw Quarter Association
1315 South Scott Street • P.O. Box 165023 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 • 501.371-0075 • FAX 501-374-8142
PRESIDENT
Robin Loucks
PRESIDENT-ELECT June 25, 1993
Renie Rule
VICE-PRESIDENTS Ms. Molly Satterfield
Judith Faust
Secretary
Thomas McGowan
Little Rock Historic District Commission
Craig Rains
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
SECRETARY
Wally Nuon
Bear Molly:
TRFASLIRER
Felton Lamb
With regard to Dr. Hampton Roy's application to demolish Kramer School, the
Quapaw Quarter Association board of directors voted at its June 14th meeting to
BoARD oFDIRECroRs
oppose the school's demolition. It is the QQA's belief that the building remains
Susan Gunter
salvageable, though its rehabilitation obviously will be costly, and that all
Sandra Aochstetter
possibilities for saving it have not been explored. Kramer School is such an
Jam McNally
important landmark that we want to be certain no stones are left unturned in seeking
�l McSyhart
a way to save it, In the meantime, to slow the building's deterioration and alleviate
Beth Peck -Cooper
some of the concerns of neighbors in the area, the QQA urges that the structure be
T. Jack Walsh
boarded and secured, that the grounds be cleaned up, and that the fence around the
William Wieiedower
Robert Wilson
grounds be repaired.
Mark Zoeller
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Cheryl Nichols Sincerely,
Cheryl Nichols
Executive Director
�5R
Qualpaw Quarter
Association
1315 South Scott Street • P.O. Box 165023 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 • 501-371-0075 • FAX 501-374-8142
PRESIDENT
Robin Loucks
pRESID2qT_p June 25, 1993
Renie Rule
VLC&PRESIDENIS Ms. Molly Satterfield
Judith Faust
Secretary
Thomas McGowan
Little Rock Historic District Commission
Cxaig lains
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
SECRETARY
Wally Nixon
Dear Molly:
TRFASLJRER
Felton Lamb
Concerning 519 East Eighth Street, the Quapaw Quarter Association applauds the
efforts of the Greater Little Rock Revolving Fund for Historic Preservation to save
BOARD of DIREmoRs
the cottage. Portions of the rehabilitation plans were shown to me by David
Susan Gunter
Mobley, one of the contractors for the project, and I recommended that the design
Sandra Hochstetter
generally be simplified. Specifically, I suggested these things:
Jane McNally
Carl Menyhart
1) The dentils should be removed from the gable. Even though the proposed
Beth Peck -Cooper
dentils would echo the porch's denticulated cornice, I doubt that the porch dentils
T. Jack Walsh
are original (I would guess that they date from an early 20th century remodeling),
William Wiedower
Robert Wilson
and dentils should not be applied to the cottage in a location where they did not exist
Mark Zoeller
originally.
2) If Italianate-style square porch columns are used, the columns should not
fluted, but the corners should be chamfered. (As I explained to David Mobley,
E.KFbe
`FOR
because this house appears to have been built in the early 1880's, its original porch
Cheryl Nichols
might have had either Italianate or Queen Anne detailing --or a combination of both.)
Care also should be taken to make sure the columns, and the balustrade, are of the
proper dimensions. Also, the dentils on the porch cornice should be removed if the
porch is to be returned to a 19th century appearance.
3) The restored window sashes should be either two -over -two or one -over -
one. I have never seen a 19th century window in the two -over -one configuration
shown on the plans for the cottage. On a simple cottage such as this one, my guess
is that the windows originally would have been two -over -two because smaller
panes of glass were less expensive.
In more recently looking at the plans for the cottage, I noted that the existing
concrete steps are to be replaced by new concrete steps. I would suggest the
construction of wooden steps, like the cottage originally would have had. (The
difference in cost between concrete and wooden steps might be made up by
removing the proposed balustrades on either side of the steps, since the balustrades
are not absolutely necessary.)
Molly Satterfield
6/25/93
Page 2
Although the QQA does not want to delay the rehabilitation of 519 East Eighth Street, we
encourage the Historic District Commission to make certain the rehab work is as historically
accurate as possible, within the constraints of the owner's budget.
Sincerely,
Cheryl h
Executive Direct r
Page Two January 12, 1994
Issue #3: Kramer School, located at 7th and Sherman, is an important historic asset
to the McArthur Park Historic District. It was built in 1895 and is the oldest standing public
school building in the state. The primary and oldest part of the structure is stone, and is still
structurally sound, although Dr. Roy has allowed its continued deterioration since he bought it.
After learning of the condemnation letter, the Commission approached the City Attorney and
requested that he seek to enjoin demolition. The City Attorney refused to do so, ostensibly
because he also represents the Board of Directors, Dr. Roy, and Code Enforcement. If
demolition plans proceed, the Commission maybe forced to seek an injunction through private
counsel.
Issue #4: Perhaps the most important problem arising out of this situation is not
Kramer School itself, but the fact that if this manipulated demolition is allowed to proceed with
the Board's support, the authority of the Little Rock Historic Commission will have been
effectively gutted. The City established the Commission to protect the area around McArthur
Park. Its success is obvious: just drive one block outside of the district boundaries and you will
see a drastic drop in the quality of the neighborhood. If Dr. Roy is allowed to manipulate the
demolition of the Kramer School property after the Commission voted to deny such a
demolition, then there is nothing to prevent other applicants from doing the same thing. The
Commission is not always popular, but we have been very effective so far in maintaining the
historic character of an area that is vital to the city for attracting tourists, conventions and
potential new residents and businesses.
Additionally, the Historic District Commission has suggested numerous alternatives to
demolition to Dr. Roy. After the passage of the recently enacted sales tax, it would seem
feasible to use the building to house the Museum of Science and History, which is in need of
new quarters. The structure is ideally suited to being a museum, and would have ample parking
if the rear additions were torn down (to which the Commission would not object). By donating
the building to the Museum, Dr. Roy would save the $40,000 he would have to spend for
demolition, and the City of Little Rock would have a showplace for its museum, saving a
historic structure in the process.
Regardless of the use found for this particular building, the Commission hopes that you as City
Directors can appreciate our concerns about the Historic District as a whole and our future
ability to protect it, according to the statutory authority vested in us.
Sincerely,
John Bush, Chairman
Carl Menyhart, Vice Chairma
Jeanette Heinbockel
Julie Wiedower
Bob Roddey
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
)r1HN I;lfBH
1 7 lb
1.;11!r li'n k.:'vk:3n3n T:'dh'L
tiiha'i16fiiC i;ILl;ti
1'I(v hall Hn�t13'�.ilr)
IAI It, i(xk. ,1rkYuas7SZ1r]
)(jI(N 1) JARR1k1)
hihfl U. lm:!N, Areil:4-cl
I(11) S7ainl;
I.=lilt• N k, Arkan3a: r2206
::o,� liaa Ir.!13
lAtIo Vork Irk, mme.. 722112
1(uR1S IPUC'K`:
('llAliLF:5 >1:1NWT
1, U. box I69llt
1at11v R, l� AN 7 u
;T , 4 T'',f V..,o,1
N-01, hill, ld.rk, Ark;.ns.,;%116
..1:;1 :•ll; .r;lt
I-unt• Ku•, h :irK,riltir.'. 7G'UJ3
Vt h' 11. N'r:116 L,,: rtt:r. 4!tr,rneas
,11t1,• !G k'} , Ar✓.m1 ,v 73).)03
isa.�.• i'l'I'13F,1'J 1.1'Lf
1Y�11hen )i Trust t:vrrlpary
I,011v ltutk Nk,,r o i2203
i'lill, )11!:LfAPI1�Gtlt
:�tr•1713i•n5, Inc.
I' I1, 11ax;t5U7
j.l_]_�ny tiISY•
f'-'n city IIy1R
Ont
N all, Lntic 1 -0% ,1tk. ism.7211 %
TOM 11ILKti
511 k',:,1'1tS151rcet
LoCc R;xk.:lrr;�r.•a•; �22p2
2 FEBRUARY 1993
DR. HAMPTON ROY
1800 SOUTH ARCH
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206
RE: KRAMER SCHOOL
DEAR HAMP,
AS -A, FOLLOW UP TO YOUR RECENT CONVERSATION WITH
CHARLES MARRATT, A BOARD MEMBER, CONCERNING THE
DONATION OF THE KRAMER SCHOOL TO THE GREATER
LITTLE ROCK REVOLVING FUND, I WANT TO EXPRESS
AGAIN OUR INTEREST IN BEING CONSIDERED.
IN THE THREE YEARS SINCE ITS FORMATION THE FUND
HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN PLACING TWO ENDANGERED
PROPERTIES IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
PRESERVING THEM. I FEEL THE KRAMER SCHOOL IS OF
SUCH IMPORTANCE TO THE COMMUNITY THAT FUNDS COULD
BE FOUND TO SECURE AND MAINTAIN IT IF IT WERE
OFFERED.
THE FUND IS STILL YOUNG AND HAS NOT YET
ESTABLISHED A CONTINUED SOURCE OF INCOME THAT
WOULD ALLOW IT TO MAINTAIN A STAFF OR PURCHASE
PROPERTIES BUT AS A TAX EXEMPT CORPORATION, WE CAN
OFFER A CONTRIBUTOR A SOURCE OF TAX REDUCTION IN
EXCHANGE FOR PROPERTIES.
YOUR PAST LEADERSHIP IN THE EFFORT TO PRESERVE OUR
HISTORIC DOWNTOWN HAS NOT BEEN FORGOTTEN. I STILL
REMEMBER SEEING YOU AND A HELPER CLINGING TO THE
PARAPET TO THE QUAPAW METHODIST CHURCH TOWER WHILE
REPAIRING THE TERRACOTA. I HOPE YOUR VISION OF
WHAT URBAN LITTLE ROCK COULD BE HAS NOT BEEN
CLOUDED BY THOSE WHO WOULD DISAGREE ON HOW TO
ACHIEVE IT AND IF YOU DECIDE TO DONATE THE SCHOOL,
THE REVOLVING FUND WILL BE CONSIDERED.
SINCERELY,
JOHN D. JARRARD, CHAIRMAN