HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HAPC) Meeting Minutes July 2, 2014

CALL TO ORDER The July 2, 2014 meeting of the Oxford Historic and Architectural Preservation Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Laura Henderson, Chair. Members present were Kim Peterka, Vice-Chair; Daniel Haizman; Mike Kohus; Mike Smith, City Council Representative; Robert Benson, Planning Commission Representative and Bobbe Burke. Staff present was Sam Perry, Planner.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Haizman made motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Benson seconded the motion. All were in favor.

REQUEST FOR REVIEW HAPC-2014-11 28 W. Walnut Street, demolition and construction of a new 4-story structure, Tom Kacachos, Applicant

Mr. Perry provided a staff report. Mr. Perry referred to the Applicant’s submitted graphics. Mr. Perry stated that the Applicant was proposing to demolish an existing structure and replace it with a four story mixed use structure. A reuse plan was provided for the HAPC’s review. Mr. Perry referred to the section of the Code which outlines what is required in order for a demolition in an historic district to proceed. Two of the five conditions must be evident for demolition approval.

Mr. Perry reviewed the structure. This structure is part of the Uptown Oxford Historic Walking Tour and located in the Uptown Historic District. Mr. Perry referred to the architect’s reuse plan and photographs provided along with a narrative/professional opinion from Tom Kacachos. Mr. Perry noted he has been through the building. Mr. Perry began review of the five conditions: Condition A - has the structure incurred extensive damage to its basic structural elements such as the roof, walls, and foundation requiring substantial reconstruction. Mr. Perry noted that the Chief Building Official has not made a declaration on this building, so is not applicable; Mr. Perry felt that structural integrity was pretty typical of its age and the structure seemed in good shape and solid to him. Mr. Perry continued that of course old wiring, but typical for the age. No staining on the ceiling. Basement was not finished and a little bit of moisture was present. There are cracks in the basement walls. Didn’t see any sagging floor joists. In Mr. Perry’s opinion didn’t see any structural damage to it, but noted that he was not a professional engineer, or code official or building official. Mr. Perry stated that however, he had in the past conducted home inspections. Mr. Kacachos addressed some items, roof, HVAC, structural cracks, that would need brought up to code. Mr. Kacachos provided a figure of $240,000 to bring things up to code. Condition B – The structure is contributing and has been declared a public nuisance and its removal will not adversely affect the architectural or historic integrity of the streetscape. Mr. Perry stated was not applicable as the structure had not been declared a public nuisance. Mr. Benson questioned the sentence as it seemed hard to understand. Condition C – The structure is not consistent with other structures in the district in terms of historic character, architectural style, construction material, height, and setback or mass. Mr. Perry stated that there was only three of the same exact type of structure in the UP District, all being on W. Walnut Street; several others though have similar styled architectural elements and other structures throughout the district of similar height, setback and mass. Therefore, the structure is consistent with other structures in the district. Condition D – the square foot cost of meeting the minimum building code would exceed the square foot market value of similarly used and improved structures in the historic district. Mr. Perry referred to the cost from Mr. Kacachos. Mr. Perry inquired Mr. Kacachos in a previous email what were obvious items for improvement (electric, heating). Mr. Kacachos felt structural issues as well was an obvious improvement. Condition E – Reuse plan, including height/scale, style, material, zoning compliance. Mr. Perry addressed basics like the height and scale, style materials and zoning compliance. The height and scale referred to in the Design Guidelines stated that new construction should follow the rhythm of the façade’s overall spacing, setbacks and proportions of adjacent structures. Mr. Perry described adjoining structures, noting that placing a 4 story structure between the two existing structures will be a pretty big difference. Mr. Benson referred to the neighboring property housing Oxford Real Estate and inquired if the structure was really a two story with a basement showing due to a grade change.

Mr. Perry continued with his description of surrounding properties. Mr. Perry referred to the Style Design Guidelines stating that the proposed structure did not stand out as falling into a categorical historical architectural style, but the design did contain features sensitive to the district. Materials for the exterior may be provided in this discussion by the applicant. Mr. Perry stated that as far as zoning compliance, of course no plans have been submitted for zoning review.

Mr. Perry concluded that he didn’t see that Conditions A, B or C was shown as of now and that at this point didn’t think there was enough evidence to grant approval.

Mr. Tom Kacachos and Mr. Greg Meyer the architect were present. Mr. Kacachos distributed additional information to the HAPC. Mr. Kacachos stated that he would be speaking about structural conditions and cost analysis. Mr. Kacachos provided 150 photographs to the HAPC. Mr. Kacachos described the sloping specifically three inch sloping basement and five inch first floor sloping. Mr. Kacachos provided pictures showing this sloping. Mr. Kacachos referred to there being a lot of joist deflections. Mr. Kacachos continued discussing the various joists issues: cracks and cut out joists. Mr. Kacachos discussed approximately 34 pictures of joist issues, stating there were newer and older cracks. Mr. Smith stated he felt there was a way to remedy all of these joists to make them perfectly fine. Mr. Kacachos said no because of the severe sloping issues. Ms. Peterka asked for clarification of photographs J30 and J31 (joists) as she thought it appeared as if someone just pulled out a nail. Mr. Kacachos stated that further up the wall it was more superficial. Ms. Henderson inquired about termite damages. Mr. Kacachos stated there was no termite damage. Mr. Kacachos referred to a forward bulge on the south wall, and waiving on the basement wall. Mr. Kacachos referred to photograph S3 wall showing more horizontal cracking that expanded the entire length of the wall. Mr. Kacachos described cracked walls and their locations in various photographs. Mr. Kacachos stated he didn’t see any water invasion along the south wall. Mr. Kacachos stated there were some front porch cracks. Mr. Kacachos described east wall cracks, some water damage could be a possibility in the basement on the east wall. Mr. Kacachos referred to the north wall, which is the back of the building and the location for the electrical panels. Mr. Kacachos stated there was some cracking and water infiltration and that some of these cracks are visible from the outside as well. Mr. Kacachos stated that honeycombing was happening throughout the wall. Mr. Haizman stated that could be fixed. Along the northwest part of the building cold patch cracks were located. This is the most apparent of that. Large cracks. Along the west wall were vertical cracks and horizontal cracks and water penetrating through this area as well as honeycombing and cold patch cracks. Mr. Kacachos stated that the basement middle wall was concrete blocked. Mr. Kacachos stated that structural cracks exist, stair cracks, and a concrete mix over occurred at some time in the past. Water infiltration exists and there is a lot of dampness in the basement.

Mr. Kacachos began discussion of the exterior. The original stucco has been patched and painted. Discussed stucco cracking. Mr. Kacachos stated that the west wall was the worst. It was noted that the house is occupied for the next school year. Mr. Kacachos stated that the front of the building was also bad. The siding shakes are actually shingles. Mr. Kacachos stated there have been bats getting in for the past two years. Mr. Kacachos stated he wasn’t sure if the chimney needed rebuilt. Mr. Kacachos stated that porch patching existed.

Mr. Kacachos provided documentation from a third party for a structural engineering report he had hired. The report summarized the structure as having extensive damages. Mr. Kacachos stated that he felt it to be important that he brought in an outside party to provide a review.

Windows were discussed and whether egress grandfathering applied. Mr. Perry stated he didn’t think we had any egress grandfathered building codes. Mr. Kacachos shared information regarding having hired W. R. Gebhart Contractors and Alt & Witzig Engineering to conduct inspection to determine the condition of the structure and costs to repair the structure.

Mr. Gebhart conducted an extensive structural analysis which determined costs would be significant. Mr. Kacachos noted that there could be other things structurally not seen until you get into the repairs. Every single wall has structural damage. Main problem with the roof is no ventilation system, etc.; didn’t get into the attic because of previous bat issues.

Mr. Kacachos reviewed some of the building code requirements and quotes received from contractors for specific repairs – roofing, HVAC, bat proofing, retrofitting.

Mr. John Broering (Park Place) and Greg Meyer, Treadon & Associates, spoke about the floor structure unevenness adding that a new floor system would be needed.

Mr. Kacachos discussed the previous bat issue that cost $7,000 to $8,000.

Mr. Smith inquired when Park Place acquired the structure and stated that he felt that a lot of the issues didn’t just happen in the past year. Mr. Kacachos defended their huge amount of maintenance they tackle at their properties, with over 1,000 work orders per year. Structural issues are a stretch to tie back to maintenance. Mr. Benson identified many of the repairs not having happened recently as they had an age to them. Discussion followed. Mr. Benson added that Park Place should have known at the time of purchase the shape of the structure.

Ms. Burke inquired if this property was one of their worst. Mr. Kacachos replied yes, based upon the bats, basement, and exterior stucco.

Ms. Henderson reviewed Smith Library’s additional history on the property. Ms. Henderson stated this was an example of demolition by neglect.

Mr. Kacachos stated that he didn’t think to bring in work orders to this meeting to prove the maintenance perspective of our working on the property.

Discussion followed.

Mr. Kohus noted that the HAPC needed to look at the property as is now, and that how it got that way was irrelevant. Mr. Kacachos referred to a portfolio of houses that they try and maintain their original look.

Mr. Meyer spoke. Mr. Meyer stated they were proposing a four story building including first story commercial. Mr. Meyer stated that the design kept the required setback on the south side along Walnut Street, that all of the walls were a minimum of three feet off the property line. Mr. Meyer referred to the height of the new building to the north, and that their structure would blend well. Mr. Meyer stated that the structure may end up at 48 feet in height; thus, eight to nine feet of the 15 S. Beech building would be seen behind. Discussion took place of building a mansard roof. Discussion of the roof took place. Mr. Meyer referred to a patio being built in front of the first floor commercial space. Mr. Meyer stated that they would be using the same masonry supplier as Park Place’s headquarters located on High Street, along with other similar details. Mr. Meyer stated they were open to the color of windows and welcomed HAPC design ideas. Mr. Meyer mentioned that the roof may be a flat roof. Mr. Kohus inquired if they could incorporate a mansard roof into the fourth floor. Discussion followed. Mr. Haizman, in his opinion, felt the fourth floor didn’t blend with the current landscape. Discussion followed. Mr. Kacachos thought his building complemented 15 S. Beech and felt the structure was overall consistent with the Uptown. Ms. Burke stated that she felt it out of place with other structures facing Walnut Street. Ms. Burke described the design as overpowering. Ms. Burke continued saying that she felt 15 S. Beech so massive, and that she couldn’t agree with their argument of it fitting in with the landscape. Mr. Kacachos referred to Buffalo Wild Wings, the City parking garage, and this structure was consistent with the Uptown District and Walnut Street. Mr. Smith stated he felt that 15 S Beech was appropriate for the landscape because of its location. Ms. Henderson stated she liked the idea of a three story structure. Mr. Haizman liked 2-1/2 story structure even better. Several referred to the 1-1/2 story house located next door to this structure and the extreme height difference, along with the 2 story structure occupied by Oxford Real Estate on the other side of this structure. Mr. Meyer inquired why you would build 2- 1/2 story structure when the building behind it is 58 feet tall. Discussion followed. Ms. Henderson expressed that if the structure was three stories in height, it would help soften and blend better with the streetscape. Ms. Henderson inquired if it would be feasible with three stories?

Mr. Meyer inquired about the demolition process. Ms. Henderson inquired should the HAPC table. Mr. Perry responded that the HAPC had enough information to make a decision. Discussion followed.

Mr. Kacachos referred to having proven clear evidence of two of the conditions in order to demolish the structure. Mr. Kacachos felt that the structural and cost analysis conditions were met. Mr. Haizman stated he would like to look at the information distributed to the HAPC at the meeting. Ms. Peterka stated she would like to see other basements as this one seemed normal. Mr. Kacachos stated he was surprised at what he provided wasn’t enough for HAPC to make a decision. Mr. Kacachos stated he felt the HAPC was venturing outside of the requirements and that he wasn’t sure of the relevance of looking at other basements. Mr. Kacachos stated that was why they had brought in other outside engineers to give their professional opinions. Mr. Haizman inquired if all the things that they say need done really necessarily have to be done. Ms. Henderson stated that the HAPC has so many requests for demolitions and the HAPC doesn’t have legal power to say no you can’t tear down the structure. We are trying to protect them and there are not many like this one around.

Mr. Meyer stated he could draw up some three story designs. Ms. Henderson stated that she felt this to be the beginning of the end for this block, as it may become a four story block. Mr. Kohus thanked Mr. Kacachos for all of his work. Mr. Kohus agreed they have met the structural and cost analysis conditions and that at this point was not very practical to repair. Mr. Kohus continued that in general he didn’t think the costs were far off, and that what is done is done. Mr. Kohus felt that Condition D was at least met, and with some work on the design, could tone down the visualness of it.

Mr. Kyger stated he liked the patio. Ms. Henderson inquired about parking for the new building. Mr. Perry stated that there was no parking requirement.

Costs were discussed. Heights of the 15 S. Beech structure and this building were discussed.

Mr. Perry noted that Zoning does require commercial on the first floor.

Discussion followed regarding surrounding properties. Several of the HAPC inquired if the Architect could provide a rendering at street level. Ms. Henderson stated she would like to see three stories as well. Mr. Kacachos responded that he would have to expand the building out to the lot lines, thus losing windows.

Mr. Smith made motion to table HAPC-2014-11 to the August 6, 2014 meeting. Mr. Haizman seconded the motion. All were in favor.

CORRESPONDENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Peterka stated she would be unable to attend the August meeting.

Mr. Perry reported on Bethel AME roof replacement funding. Mr. Perry shared that they planned to replace the metal roof with a metal roof. Mr. Haizman suggested a baked finish metal roof. Mr. Perry stated that they didn’t have funding yet, but were working on it. Mr. Perry reported that the roof was leaking as well. Ms. Henderson inquired that she didn’t see where Bethel AME had received a Smith grant to pay for their plaque. Ms. Henderson stated she thought they knew.

Ms. Henderson reported on a conference in Indianapolis that she and Mr. Kohus attended. The subject was on economic development and historic preservation, “Economics of Place” written by speaker Donovan Rypkema. Ms. Henderson stated she would email her notes from the conference to the HAPC. Ms. Henderson stated that the speaker focused on historic preservation and the importance of it. Discussion followed. Ms. Henderson stated Mr. Rypkema was very dynamic. Ms. Henderson shared he spoke of place keeping. Ms. Henderson shared other speakers’ topics as well. Mr. Kohus noted that some of the most “greenest” structures are the older structures. Ms. Henderson added that material flow is more costly with demolition, etc. Mr. Perry stated we need to work more closely with Richmond, Indiana as there are a lot of similarities with Oxford.

Ms. Henderson shared that during her recent travels she met Mr. Greg Roberts, a Miami graduate who has created apps for historic tours.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 21, 2014 and JUNE 4, 2014 MEETINGS Mr. Benson made motion to approve the May 21, 2014 minutes as written. Mr. Haizman seconded the motion. All were in favor.

Mr. Benson made motion to approve the June 4, 2014 minutes as written. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All were in favor.

OLD BUSINESS Mr. Perry inquired the HAPC if September 4, 2014 would work for everyone for the Historic Marker Award Ceremony. Everyone agreed to the date. Ms. Henderson stated she could prepare the food.

Mr. Perry inquired about speakers for the event. Mr. Perry thought about tying in with African American history. Discussion followed. Ms. Jacky Johnson’s name was discussed. Mr. Perry to follow up.

NEW BUSINESS Mr. Smith inquired about the BZA appeal for Sigma Chi Foundation. Mr. Perry stated that the appeal would take place on July 16, 2014. Mr. Perry encouraged attendance especially if you spoke at the May 7, 2014 or May 21, 2014 HAPC meetings.

ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS HAPC-2014-12 29 E High Street, Collected Works, new wall sign and gooseneck lights, Rachel Pfeiffer, Applicant, Agent.

Administratively approved.

COMMISSION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Mr. Benson suggested adding to the HAPC goals and objectives ways to prevent demolition by neglect. Mr. Benson referred to the several latest applications for demolition. Mr. Benson felt this to be a good time to discuss. Mr. Kohus expressed his frustration in seeing a building that with a little effort could be spared demolition. They can always show that there is work to be done that now costs too much money to repair. The HAPC discussed further. Ms. Henderson inquired Mr. Smith, City Council representative, to share with Council.

Mr. Perry to add “prevention of demolition by neglect” as an HAPC goal. Discussion followed regarding this topic as possibly part of Historic Preservation Month. A time to meet was discussed.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. Benson made motion for adjournment. Ms. Peterka seconded the motion. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.