MOUNT VERNON — The city’s Historical Review Commission wants more clarity and information on the city’s proposal to demolish downtown buildings to make way for an expanded court and justice center.
Commission members voted 4 to 1 at their Oct. 9 meeting to deny a certificate of appropriateness for demolishing the buildings at 10-18 N. Main St. and 6 E. Chestnut St.
Mayor Matt Starr and Safety-Service Director Tanner Salyers recused themselves from the meeting.
Commission member Lacey Filkins of Experience Mount Vernon recused herself from the vote to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest since the buildings are in the downtown area.
The commission noted several reasons for denying the certificate.
For one, the city does not have renderings for the new justice center. That is primarily because the city decided to move to the COTC building just this spring.
“I think it would be in the best interest of the city … to put together those renderings ahead of time,” Commission member Sibley Poland said.
Poland also wants a cost analysis of maintaining the facades on the buildings — at least the Curtis Building — or rebuilding the facade to its current appearance, reusing the flagstone.
Commission member Todd Hawkins wants clarity on why the buildings are not conducive to a courthouse.
“I would be interested in getting some more engineering background as to why it wouldn’t work, in addition to the renderings,” he said.
“If we’re just going to bulldoze this, and it’s going to be a block building, that’s going to be a problem.”
The commission also requested a cost-benefit analysis comparing the complete rehabilitation of the historic buildings with demolishing and rebuilding them.
Dilapidated building conditions
During a 75-minute session, Don Wheat of Pizzutti Solutions explained the buildings’ condition and why the city proposes to demolish them and build a new justice center.
He also recapped the city’s plans to move to the COTC building and interim plans for moving offices.
Pizzutti represents the city in matters relating to municipal buildings. Wheat is an architect with specialized training in historic preservation.
“We’ve assessed the condition of the buildings. One of the challenges we have is the way a lot of these historic buildings are constructed will not allow us to really create the space that we need in the new building,” Wheat told the commission members.
(Below is a PDF of the city’s photos showing inside the buildings.)
He cited wood framing that does not allow the spans needed to create a modern courtroom space and functions such as the secure transport of detainees as examples.
Wheat said the building systems are “really almost nonexistent in terms of what we would need for any kind of modern reuse.”
“Mechanical systems, plumbing systems, electrical systems would have to all basically be completely removed,” he said. “We view them as functionally obsolete from the standpoint of being usable for any kind of an expanded justice center.”
Law Director Rob Broeren said that when the city evicted a prior tenant, two employees of a subcontractor came into contact with methamphetamine and required hospitalization.
“So there are significant safety issues in the building. They have to be remediated no matter what,” he said.
Maintaining the facades
Poland suggested a potential compromise: keeping the Curtis Building and razing the other two.
Resident Sarah Wagner suggested removing the Chestnut Street and Plaza buildings and retaining the North Main structures.
“In the process of taking one down, I think we’re concerned that it would lead to a domino effect, whether we wanted it or not,” Wheat said.
Additionally, he said it would “add an additional financial burden to the city’s project budgets.”
Several commission and community members want the city to maintain the facades of the buildings facing North Main Street.
Wheat said the city is committed to salvaging historical components of the facades. The contractor could incorporate them into the new court building or use them in some other manner.
Components include the windows and the keystones with the Curtis logo over the windows.
Broeren said the Curtis Building regularly loses pieces of the facade that land on the sidewalk.
“The city has attempted to shore up and to protect that, but it’s sort of a losing battle,” he said. “When you start thinking about preserving that sort of facade, once again, you’re looking at what can the city afford and what do we have to spend money on.”
Building behind the facades
Resident Susan Ramser advocated for the city to maintain the North Main Street facades and demolish the buildings behind them.
Wheat said that entails building a new structural steel framework to support the facade components because they cannot stand alone.
“That can be done, but there’s a significant cost associated with it,” he said.
Debra Riedmiller agreed with maintaining the historic facades and questioned whether enough thought and investigation had gone into other sites for the justice center.
She also noted that the city would incur the cost of new electrical and plumbing systems, whether it rehabbed the buildings or built new.
“The point was made that the Justice Center is the heart of the downtown. I disagree. City Hall is the heart of downtown,” she said, adding that the heart is Public Square, not South Main Street.
Resident Sarah Wagner suggested flipping the plans and putting offices in the North Main structures and the court in the current City Hall.
“It seems like there could be more thought put into the layout of the new spaces,” she said.
She also agreed with maintaining the facades if the structures are not salvageable.
Broeren said that none of the entrances to the facades comply with ADA standards. Making them compliant would be costly.
He reviewed the process the city undertook over the past few years to reach the point of demolishing the North Main and Chestnut Street buildings.
Broeren also reviewed the steps the city undertook to preserve the history of the Curtis Building.
Efforts include a 3D scan of the buildings, including City Hall, and an oral history of the buildings. The city also created a video featuring some residents of the facilities and the downtown area.
Public comment
Vicki Fitzgerald noted several concerns in a letter to the commission. She believes the commission is inconsistent in how it treats historic buildings and has fallen short on protecting and preserving rather than demolishing.
She acknowledged the 10-18 N. Main St. buildings are deteriorating, but said they are not necessarily in worse condition than the Plaza Building, which the city has poured money into to keep it standing.
“The city has an unsafe municipal court building that can be torn down to accommodate the expansion of the new courthouse in the City Hall building,” she wrote.
She also asked the commission how long it will allow the lots to be empty if it insists on demolishing the buildings, and if it will prevent them from becoming a parking lot.
Marsha V. Adams’ letter said she was passionate about the Curtis Building.
“It does need a lot of work due to past owners not doing any kind of maintenance. There are fundraisers, grants, and volunteer work that could be done to come up the funds,” she wrote.
“It is no less important than the Woodward building and can be restored and be a jewel in the city.”
Susan Ramser questioned in this day of violence whether it is wise to put a building on Public Square that could potentially attract threats.
Broeren said that the Ohio Supreme Court has specific security standards that buildings used as a courthouse must meet. While older courthouse buildings do not have to meet all of the standards, a new courthouse would.
What happens if the city does not demolish the buildings?
Poland asked about the fate of the buildings if the commission voted against razing them.
Broeren noted the city cannot require a landlord, whether public or private, to use a building in a certain way.
(Below is a PDF from the City of Mount Vernon showing the three buildings housing 10-18 N. Main St. and 6 E. Chestnut St.)
Regarding rebuilding on the current Plaza Building at 5 N. Gay St., Broeren said, “I don’t believe that given the amount of money that we’ve had to sink into just protecting the parking garage as it is, that it would be economically feasible to rebuild over that,” he said.
Responding to Ellsworth’s question about keeping the parking garage, Broeren noted residents’ previous comments about surface lots popping up over the city.
“By keeping a parking garage, we eliminate the need to take other land for parking,” he explained.
Because the commission denied the certificate of appropriateness, administration officials must come back with a revamped proposal for what exactly would happen after demolition occurs.
Blankenhorn noted that future plans for the site would come back to the commission to approve the building design.
