Chiropractic clinic owners worry demolition of ‘derecho building’ could harm their downtown property

The eyesore of downtown Newton for these past five years is finally being dealt with — much to the delight of the community — but the owners and operators of the neighboring chiropractic office are worried about the safety of their building and are frustrated the recommendations of their hired engineer were not followed.

Koenen Chiropractic is next door to the former Apples of Gold building, 209 W. Second St. N., owned by Jeremy Chedester of Chedester Properties. In 2020, the structure was heavily damaged by the derecho and lost much of its facade. The city inevitably sued Chedester and demanded the building be destroyed.

Jay and Kelly Koenen of Koenen Chiropractic can hear and feel the demolition. Last week the city notified its residents that the road directly in front of the Chedester property was closed to make way for the demolition work by DeCarlo Demolition Company, a reputable expert in the field. Progress has been swift.

However, each vibration gives the Koenens pause. They worry the shared wall between their properties could collapse.

In 2024, the couple confronted city council about their concerns in tearing down the building. While they absolutely wanted to see the structure gone, they also worried about their business being damaged in the process. Kelly Koenen told council that any property owner would want to have a clearer understanding.

Prior to that city council meeting the Koenens said the city was communicating well with them and answered most of their questions. Staff even provided them International Building Code (IBC) language — specifically IBC Section 3307.1 — that suggested protection of adjoining buildings was required for demolitions.

According to the code, adjoining public and private property shall be protected from damage during construction, remodeling and demolition work.

Protection shall be provided for party walls and numerous other structural elements. The person making or causing an excavation must provide written notice within 10 days to the owners of the adjoining buildings advising them that the excavation is to be made and that adjoining buildings should be protected.

“We’re happy to see progress, but we’re not happy on how the city’s not following their code,” Jay Koenen said, referring to the International Building Code.

When communication with the city began to fall through, it was recommended the Koenens retain counsel. Under the city’s direction, they hired a lawyer. Their lawyer recommended they hire an engineer. The engineer made an assessment of the building and drafted a report that was sent to the city and Chedester.

Tometich Engineering developed a detailed plan that included full shoring of the shared foundation wall — between the Chedester property and the Koenen property — to allow for safe demolition. Shoring is a construction technique used to provide temporary support or stability to structures in danger of collapsing.

Kelly Koenen said the city requested a wall layout drawing. The Koenens paid their engineer to produce the drawing.

Following the report from Tometich, Chedester eventually hired StructSolve Engineering to conduct another review. The firm developed its own concept involving the construction of temporary interior walls to allow for demolition without directly shoring the shared foundation wall.

StructSolve Engineering noted it was “clear that the current condition of the wall necessitated further evaluation as demolition continued.”

Another engineer from StructSolve conducted a site visit in July to reassess the current conditions, and he was given more information about post demolition plans for the property. StructSolve inevitably amended its recommendation to follow the initial plans proposed by Tometich rather than go with the interior walls.

“Upon careful inspection, I observed that the shared foundation wall is in an advanced state of deterioration, and in my professional opinion, its load-bearing capacity is highly questionable,” the StructSolve engineer said, noting temporary interior walls are no longer sufficient for the long-term health of the building.

StructSolve advised the shoring approach developed by Tometich be followed to ensure the long-term structural stability and safety of the adjacent Koenen property following the demolition. StructSolve noted that this change may impact the planning and coordination efforts already underway.

“Our recommendation is grounded in our duty to prioritize safety and engineering integrity above all else,” the StructSolve engineer said.

Both Chedester and the city were notified of this report, and they acknowledged it in a subsequent court hearing. However, Jay Koenen said the judge told them he could not do anything about it because he did not issue the demolition permit. Chedester’s counsel said it had the permit in-hand and wanted to move forward.

The judge asked if the city wanted to pull the demolition permit in light of this new report. The attorneys indicated the city wanted the building torn down.

“The judge then said, ‘Well, Mr. Koenen, if you end up having damage to your building, it sounds like you have two entities to go after: The City of Newton and Mr. Chedester.’ And that was what the judge said,” Jay Koenen said. “And that was the end of it.”

THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Originally built in 1885-86, the building back then was known as the Fehleisen Building, named after its German-born contractor and builder. Historian Larry Hurto said due to the radically changed facades the building is not considered a contributing property to Newton’s Historic Downtown District.

Lately, the property has been known as the “derecho building” or the “derecho monument.” The building’s condition has been a considerable talking point among residents these past few months, with many ridiculing just how long it has been left standing the past five years.

Petitions from both the city and a Facebook page dedicated to spoofing the building’s place in the community have brought the issue back to the public eye.

Uncharacteristically, several city officials have spoken out against the building owner and the prolonged processes to get the structure demolished. The city’s petition requested the courts uphold a settlement agreement established two years ago with Chedester Properties, LLC.

According to a copy of the settlement agreement obtained by Newton News, Chedester must demolish the building at his expense. A copy of the contract between Chedester and the demolition contractor was to be submitted to the city no later than Oct. 16, 2023.

The settlement requires the contractor to also submit a completed demolition permit application and demolition plan documents no later than Nov. 2, 2023. The work must be completed to the requirements of the approved demolition permit and the City Code, including its adopted building codes like the IBC.

Newton will then accept a demolition plan which does not require the removal of the foundation and basement floor. However, treatment of the floor to promote water drainage must be included in the plans. The seeding and sodding is waived, but erosion control measures must be implemented.

While much of the settlement required to have the preparations completed in 2023, the settlement gave Chedester until Feb. 2, 2024 to finish the job. The city also stipulated it would reasonably facilitate the work of the demolition contractor to permit completion, and it would not impede in any manner.

When the contractor is finished with the demolition, the property owner must execute a quit-claim deed and transfer the property to the city within 14 days of completion of the work. Property taxes and assessments will be prorated to the date of the quit-claim deed.

Upon execution of the agreement the city and Chedester will inform the court that they have resolved the matters, and the city will dismiss the case upon receipt of the quit-claim deed. The parties will bear their own costs and attorney fees. The settlement was signed by Chedester and then-Mayor Mike Hansen.

Although the property will be transferred to the city’s control, the Koenens worry about the shared wall. Jay Koenen questioned if those demolition plan documents were submitted with proposals on how to handle the shared wall. He said Chedester’s legal counsel argued the wall would be surrendered.

Iowa Code §563.4 states the repairs and rebuilding of walls in common are to be made at the expense of all who have a right to them. Any coproprietor of a wall in common may be exonerated from contributing to the same by giving up their right in common if no building belonging to that person is supported by such wall.

“I hope God watches over everybody and nobody gets hurt and everything stays,” Jay Koenen said. “…We also want people to do what’s right.”

The Koenens are worried about the future of their building and 26-year-old local business. The chiropractic office has a sandstone foundation. Jay Koenen has doubts about whether any backfilling will hold. He argued that if they were to not follow codes on a construction or renovation job, they would be in trouble.

Kelly Koenen said patients have been asking them about the building every single day these past five years, and it frequently gets mentioned outside of business hours. The daily inquiries — even those that are well-intentioned — are weighing heavy on the family.

“It would have been nice if this was taken care of sooner than now, but at least there’s something happening,” Kelly Koenen said. “We just pray that our building will be alright.”