Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dangerous Structure 1004 New York topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate finds 1004 New York Avenue a dangerous structure, orders permits and inspection before Feb. 18 hearing
Summary
After testimony from the building official and fire marshal, the special magistrate found exterior evidence that 1004 New York Ave poses a dangerous fire and collapse risk, ordered a COA extension application and interior inspection by Feb. 6, and continued the case to Feb. 18 with fines possible if deadlines aren't met.
The City of Saint Cloud's special magistrate on Thursday found exterior evidence that 1004 New York Avenue, a long-running renovation owned by Saint Cloud Hotel LLC, presents a dangerous structure and continued the case to allow inspections and a narrow path to permits.
The magistrate's partial ruling follows testimony from city building and fire officials who described exposed structural framing, open stairwells and an absent sprinkler system. "This building is unsafe and a life safety hazard," Fire Marshal Richard Tonks said, warning the structure is "essentially a giant tinderbox" without drywall protecting structural members.
City building official Bob Deatherage said the project has been stalled for more than six years and that interior structural members remain uncovered, stairwells are open and the building is not watertight—conditions he said would hinder firefighting and increase collapse risk. "There is no permit for the building now," Deatherage testified.
The project manager, Matteo Hodo, told the magistrate he has overseen the renovation since 2019 and disputes aspects of the city's timeline. Hodo said the team resubmitted plans after an earlier permit expired and attributes a December disapproval to the city having reviewed incorrect files. He also said the building has a live fire-monitoring system and that a roof-manufacturer inspection is scheduled for Jan. 26.
Magistrate Drew Smith distinguished monitoring from active fire protection: monitoring detects events but does not replace a sprinkler system that can slow or stop a fire. Smith cited the lack of sprinklers, open elevator and floor holes, and limited recent inspections as reasons for concern.
To give the project a route forward, the magistrate ordered the respondent to file an application to reopen and extend the July 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) by Feb. 6, 2026, and required the city to perform an interior inspection before that date. Smith also ordered the respondent to have ground‑floor windows ordered before the next hearing and continued the matter to Feb. 18, 2026, for supplemental evidence and a fuller cure plan. He said he would consider fines up to the statutory maximum if the deadlines are not met, but did not enter an immediate daily monetary penalty in the partial order.
City counsel said the enhanced fine request is supported by the city's ordinance for municipalities above 50,000 in population; the magistrate accepted the legal basis but focused the order on measurable milestones that would restart construction and permit activity.
The magistrate recorded specific findings under the International Property Maintenance Code sections cited by staff: an increased risk of fire and collapse based on exterior conditions, but he did not find the structure currently "unsecured" for attractive‑nuisance purposes because windows and openings appear boarded. The magistrate said he will supplement the written order after the Feb. 18 hearing once the interior inspection evidence is submitted.
The case remains open and is scheduled for Feb. 18, 2026; the magistrate directed the parties to coordinate inspections and to present any interior photographs or documentation at that hearing.
