#2 Discuss status of old Case Feed building
Community Development Department Memorandum
Date: June 8, 2010
TO: Janesville City Council
FROM: Gale S. Price, AICP, Building & Development Services Manager
SUBJECT: Update regarding status of 922 Rockport Road, Case Feed Raze or
Repair Order
A raze or repair order was issued by the Community Development Department for the
former Case Feed Property located at 922 Rockport Road on October 20, 2009. The
raze or repair order was issued as the result of ongoing dilapidation of the structure.
Specifically a large hole in the exterior brick at the southeast corner of the building had
developed and brick had continued to separate from the rest of the façade in other
locations. There are numerous other code violations with the current status of the
structure in addition to exterior brick issues noted above. At this time the brick
continues to dilapidate and in the opinion of Community Development Department staff
the brick will ultimately separate from the structure and fall either on the sidewalk or the
adjacent street.
The raze or repair order was issued in accordance with City Code and Section 66.0413
of the Wisconsin Statutes. The Statutes allow for a raze order if “a building is old,
dilapidated or out of repair and consequently dangerous, unsafe, unsanitary or
otherwise unfit for human habitation and unreasonable to repair”. The raze or repair
order gives 30 days for an owner to either enter into a compliance agreement to fix the
building or request a demolition permit to remove the structure from the site. Staff
believes that the current state of the building meets the standard for the raze order as
the building is significantly out of repair, dangerous and unsafe with the continued
dilapidation of the brick façade, unsanitary and unfit for human habitation. The standard
for “unreasonable to repair” is that the repairs to the building to occupy are greater than
50 percent of the value of the structure (or 80 percent for a building in an historic
district). As staff worked through the raze or repair agreement for the potential
purchaser, it is clear that the cost will exceed the required threshold.
Two structural reports have been submitted for the building. The first report is not valid
as it indicated that the building brick was structural in nature. A second structural report
has been provided to staff from the prospective buyer indicating that the west portion of
the building appears to be structurally sound but that the east portion of the building
needs structural repairs. Although it indicates that the west portion of the building is
sound, it recognizes that the brick is separating from the building. The separation of the
brick does not make the building “structurally unsound” since the brick is a veneer, but
the likelihood of the brick collapsing onto the adjoining sidewalk and street makes the
building unsafe. As noted above, Staff believes that the building clearly meets the
standard for a raze order.
The order is to be recorded with the Rock County Register of Deeds. That recording
document is a Lis Pendens and serves as notice to anyone reviewing title to the
property that there is a significant issue with the property. That document is recorded to
protect the interests of any party potentially involved with the property. Under
66.0413(1)(f), if the property owner does not comply with the raze or repair order the
building inspector or other designated officer (for the City it is the Manager of Building
and Development Services) “may proceed to raze the building through any available
public agency or by contract or arrangement with private persons”. At this time the City
can remove the structure without further notice.
Staff had been working with a prospective buyer since December who was working
towards entering into a compliance agreement for the building. After significant and
diligent work, it is our understanding that the buyer felt that the financial commitment to
proceed with the project was too great and they withdrew their offer to purchase. The
City was notified of this on May 26, 2010. On June 2, 2010 City staff provided notice to
the owner that the City would allow the owner one last opportunity to repair the building
by repairing the exterior brick, securing the building, board up broken windows,
demonstrate that they have sufficient funds to complete the work and pay outstanding
charges for the property (copy of notice is attached). If the owner completed the work
after entering into a compliance agreement, the City would allow the owner to market
the property for sale and the future owner would be required to submit a plan for a raze
or repair agreement for rehabilitation of the rest of the structure. The deadline for that
notice is 30 days. Staff was not required to provide that notice or another opportunity to
repair the structure but given the historic nature of the building, Staff felt it was prudent
to give the current owner one last opportunity.
The June 2 notice does indicate that if an agreement to repair the structure is not
reached, the City will proceed to demolish the building under the original raze or repair
order which remains in effect. Staff will make arrangements for removal of the building
if needed.
City Manager discussion:
After reviewing the situation, I have come to the following conclusions.
?
The Case Feed building is owned privately and has been allowed to deteriorate
slowly over many years by the private land owners. While I believe it provides
significance to the area, the basic fact is that it has deteriorated in private
ownership of which the City has previously had to provide notice on nuisance
and structural issues.
?
The Case Feed building was provided as an example of a building that the City
would like to see redeveloped using the building itself and its architecture. This
was cited in the Fourth Ward / Look West Neighborhood Plan.
?
Unfortunately, despite our desire to see the building reused, it has been allowed
to deteriorate by the landlord to the state of condition that it appears unlikely to
be able to feasibly rehabilitate the building.
?
As the City Manager, I was supportive of providing assistance to the landlord or
prospective buyer for an economically feasible project.
?
Finally, even in the attached letter, it has been laid out by Gale Price that the City
is requesting that the owner fix the building structurally to the point that it can
continue to be marketed. This approach was used due to the desire by the City
to provide the property owner every opportunity to correct the basic deficiencies
with the building. If the owner chooses not move forward in correcting the basic
corrections noted, it is likely that the City will be required to move forward with
the raze and repair.
cc: Brad Cantrell