Progress for demolishing B-100, the building nearest US 62 on the Community Center site, hit a snag at the Oct. 5 Historic District Commission meeting, so Community Center Foundation (CCF) board members Al Larson and Glenn Crenshaw presented a new architect’s rendering of the modification they proposed at the Sept. 7 meeting.
At the September meeting, they announced the architect had recommended modifying the original plan of retaining the northwest corner portion of the glass block wall both as a tribute to students who had studied there and a “backdrop for a stage.” One reason for the change was that CCF realized a more appropriate place for the stage area was not in a corner, but toward the center of the west edge of the property. A more commanding reason, however, was the engineers pointed out the corner section of the wall would not stand on its own without the roof and the rest of the building to hold it up.
In addition, CCF and the school district discovered part of the wall was not on district property, so the supporting buttresses for the wall would be either on Highway Department property or on property whose owner is undetermined. Engineers estimated supporting the wall might cost as much as $100,000.
The adjusted plan, according to Larson, would be to disassemble the glass blocks and rebuild a wall with them along the rear of a stage area that would be more toward the center of that edge of the property. Upon hearing about the proposed change at the Sept. 7 meeting, commissioner Melissa Greene asked for something more specific, so Larson and Crenshaw appeared at the October meeting with their answer.
The new architect’s rendering showed the change in the stage area Larson had described and other proposed uses for the property as well. He said 1500 glass blocks would be retained, cleaned up and put to use as the backdrop of the stage.
Chair Dee Bright pointed out the Planning Commission had recently denied an application for constructing a stage on Main Street beside the Cathouse Lounge, and asked if the plan should go to Planning first.
Greene commented she understood concern about the extra expense for supporting the wall, but HDC had approved the original plan with the idea the wall would be preserved. The building, though dilapidated, was an “icon of mid-century architecture.”
Larson stated they had received bids for the demolition that they could accept and the work could begin once HDC approved their plan, so there was timeliness to the request.
“But it’s an important icon,” Greene continued, and asked for more information about the expenses.
Crenshaw reiterated the wall is on the property line, and saving it would mean reinforcing it on property they do not have. Even some of the wall strayed across the property line.
Larson said the demolition could occur within weeks and they have the bids. The asbestos is gone from the building, so the next thing is to take the building down.
Crenshaw assured commissioners the glass blocks would be put on pallets and wrapped up tightly as those tasks were part of the bids.
Bright and others continued to want further assurance the glass blocks would be used in the project. Larson repeated that using the blocks was in the contract for which they received bids. Crenshaw mentioned there was an expense involved in saving them, so the Foundation was not going to let them be lost in the process.
Greene said she was reticent to hold up progress, but asked for a drawing of how the blocks would fit into the plan. Larson said an architect could produce another drawing, but he did not want to rush a drawing just to have one and then later regret rushing.
Greene was still unsure, and Bright asked what would happen to the pallets of glass blocks if Planning denied the application to put up the stage. Larson responded that the stage was a central feature of the plan, and this stage was not all the same as the previous stage rendering that was denied.
Crenshaw assured Bright that the CCF board had spent hundreds of hours deliberating on best use of the blocks.
Commissioner Virgil Fowler did not argue the change of plans, but stated the commission wanted the blocks to be used in one place as one structure, as that was the original plan.
Bright added the commission exists to preserve buildings in town, and they were still dismayed the building had been left to deteriorate in the first place.
“We’re doing the best we can with this situation,” Crenshaw said.
Vote on approving the modification was 3-2, Greene and commissioner Ronnie Fanning voting No. Bright, as Chair, could only vote in the affirmative, which she chose not to do, so the modification was denied.
Greene said, “Please come back to us with some new idea.”
Larson replied, “It will be a concept, but we’ll be back.”
Greene told Larson and Crenshaw that if before the next HDC regular meeting they were ready to demolish the building, commissioners would convene a special meeting for considering their ideas. She did not want to hold them up, but wanted a more detailed drawing of how the blocks would be used.
Larson said he would proceed with setting up a school board meeting to vote on the bids.
Commissioners then approved the other application on the agenda:
- 1 Wood Circle – new construction: storage shed
Commissioners also approved items on the consent Agenda:
- 60 Crescent – raise existing carport
- 36 N. Main – replace rough stone steps
- 8 Washington – new paint colors
The Consent Agenda items are Level I applications that the City Preservation Officer believes to be in accordance with the Design Guidelines.
Bright presented these Administrative Approvals, which are applications for repair and work involving no changes in materials or color but which also includes changes in roofing color.
- 30 Glen – re-roof
- 104 Spring – re-roof
- 36 N. Main – rebuild existing stairway
- 14 Angle – re-roof
Next meeting will be Wednesday, Oct. 19, at 6 p.m.