HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunication with Mayor Dailey from Thomas M. Carpenter, City attorneyof Little
Thomas M. Carpenter
City Attorney
To: Mayor Dail
From: Thomas M.
City Attor
Re: Little Ro
Procedures
of Kramer
Date: March 9, 1
CM
City Halt
500 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201-1400
501/371-4527
M E M O R A N D U M
and Members of the Board of Directors
District Commission:
the proposed demolition
The purpo a of this memorandum is to discuss whether
the City has he authority to order the demolition of
Kramer School :sSipite the fact the Little Rock Historic
District Commi on has denied a certificate of
appropriateness. lAs a secondary matter, the memorandum will
discuss one mea s of avoiding the "demolition by neglect -
problem that can occur within historic districts.
The page Inumbers in parenthesis within this report
refer to the ha written numbers in the bottom right hand
corner of the attached materials.
Whether tc 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). kt the time demolition was suggested,
preservationists within the City stated that "[o ur
position on it just flat-out Ill (72). Pulaski Bank
had received a notice that the structure constituted a
public nuisance ci July 6, 1988. (45). An application for a
Certificate of ppropriateness to demolish the structure
was filed by Pulaski Bank on October 21, 1988 (47), and a
hearing was scheduled for December 1, 1988.
The Arkans s Historic Preservation Program opposed
this demolition f r three reasons: (1) Kramer, constructed
in 1895, was the oldest existing school building in Little
Rock; (2) If t e 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 pur hased the structure for $150,000 in
January, 1989. 70-71). The initial reason given for the
purchase of the 5tructure was to donate it to the Arkansas
Museum of Scien a and History (AMSH). (70). However, in
December, 1989, Dr. Roy applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness o redesign the structure as a residence.
(30). Mr. Charl s Witsell, a Little Rock architect, was
listed as the a ent for Dr. Roy. This plan included the
removal of two n wer portions of the building, creation of
a masonry fence and several other features. (31-32).
Memorandum to Ma or Dailey and Members of the Board
Re: Little Roc Historic District Commission:
Procedures conce ning the proposed demolition of
Kramer School: M rch 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 co pleted by December 17, 1993.
As a resu t of the inspection, the City declared the
school to be a jublic nuisance and ordered its demolition.
(5-6). The ordei of demolition was extended by 60 days at
Dr. Roy's request. (a).
On Februar 2, 1994, Charles Witsell sent a letter to
Mr. Nickerson n ting that it would cost $15,000 to conduct
a study of the easibility to restore the school. (9-11).
This letter no d the deterioration of the building and
said, "the front porch has collapsed, so if one were to
walk up the frcnt steps in the dark, you would fall into
the basement.^ (9).
Based upo the City's decision to have the building
secured or be s ject to demolition, the Historic District
Commission objec ed claiming that only it had jurisdiction
to make such a d cision. (1-2). In a letter dated January
12, 1994, and si ned by all members of the Commission, the
Commission conte ded that City staff acted improperly in
light of the Com ission's earlier denial of a Certificate
of Appropriatenes .
Perhaps the most important problem arising out of
this situa ion is not Kramer School itself, but the
fact that f this manipulated demolition is allowed
to proceed ith 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 c aracter 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 or er 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 "[nothing in this
subchapter shall a construed... to prevent he... demolition
of any [exteriorarchitectural] feature which the building
inspector, or similar agent, shall certify is required for
the public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous
condition...." k. Code Ann. § 14-172-210 (Michie
1987)[Explanation dded].
The Commis on debates whether the phrase "any
exterior archite ural feature" is broad enough to include
the entire buildi We believe that it is.
Memorandun to Major Dailey and Members of the Board
Re: Little Roc Historic District Commission:
Procedures conce ning the proposed demolition of
Kramer School: M rch 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 against
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. Individ als are not free to seek such demolition
and the Board sh uld avoid being treated as an alternative
to the Historic District Commission.
3. Enhancei maintenance criteria within the historic
districts should De adopted and aggressively enforced.
4. As a pirt of this process, building inspectors
should be trai ed especially to deal with historic
structures, and p eservation architects should be consulted
before public saf ty hazard demolitions are recommended.
Please let me know if you have any additional
questions.
cc: Charles Nick rson, City Manager
Robert Lane, Assistant City Manager
Jim Lawson, i
rector of Neighborhoods & Planning
Mike Batie, irector of Public Works
John Bush, C air, Little Rock Historic District Comm.
Mollie Satte field, Neighborhoods & Planning