‘Do it now!’: City gives owner final chance to save or demolish unsafe structure

The former Gambles building in downtown Aurora was declared a “dangerous building” Tuesday by the Aurora City Council, with owner Stan Valasek being told he must vacate, repair and/or demolish the building immediately as a matter of public safety.
Tuesday’s action came hours after city officials received a report from engineer Jason Suelter of Vector Structural Design, who had inspected the building on the east side of the downtown square June 26, two days after a portion of the east wall fell to the ground. Suelter’s report concluded, based on observations which were documented with photographs from numerous angles, that the current condition of the building exhibits defects which make it a dangerous building as defined by city code.
That report prompted a public hearing Tuesday, which stirred candid, sometimes emotional testimony from local residents and neighboring property owners, as well as Valasek himself.
After hearing input for approximately 30 minutes, the council voted unanimously to declare the structure at 1118 13th St. a dangerous building. The council then took an additional step to begin planning for the city to address the issue on its own in case Valasak does not.
“You need to do it now,” City Attorney Ross Luzum informed Valasak, emphatically. “I don’t think we can be more clear.”
“We’re not trying to take it away from you,” added Mayor Marlin Seeman. “We’re trying to tell you that the public cannot wait, based upon the designation of our structural engineer. You now know that you have no leeway if this ordinance is, in fact, adopted. You have to present us with the reconstruction plan, or demo plan, or we have to take proactive action, preventing risk to our public.”

Background information
Tuesday’s public hearing began with a summary review of the building’s status in recent years, as presented by Luzum. As city attorney, Luzum reported that the property has been the subject of city code enforcement dating back to 2022, when Valasek was encouraged to address the issue voluntarily. When that didn’t happen, Luzum said he filed a criminal complaint in Hamilton County Court alleging that Valasek was maintaining a nuisance property contrary to city code. The case went to trial in March of 2023, when Valasek was convicted of maintaining a nuisance property, fined, and instructed by the court to abate the nuisance.
Less than a year later, Luzum reported that no progress had been made, prompting him to file a second criminal complaint in the same court, where Valasak was again convicted of the same violation in April of this year.
Then on June 19, a portion of the north wall fell to the ground, prompting the city to request a structural engineering report, which was the basis of Tuesday’s public hearing and council action.

Valasek responds
“All I can say is sorry, guys,” Valasek responded. “At this point, with that background included, I know you’ve given me a couple chances to remedy it and I didn’t do that. Currently I was working on it to raise the floor so I could push the foundation. In hindsight, to have a clearer vision, I should have started on top.”
Valasek then said he was disappointed with the council, noting that he left the council meeting two weeks earlier expecting to be contacted with more information about how he should proceed. He stayed out of the building, he said, thinking he was not allowed to be on the premises pending the structural review.
“I was just kind of leaving them alone to find out what I could do,” he said. “Then I take a jab from Ross today when I try to get a little information from him … saying I haven’t fixed anything. I can understand that, because this is round three. I get that, but I’ve had a lot of changes in my life. 
“In 2020 (there was) COVID, I lost my bowling alley and almost lost my life,” he explained. “So I’ve taken control of my health, which I thought was the most important thing for me to do. I finally admitted that I’ve been an alcoholic and had been fooling myself for over 30 years. I’m really sorry that that building basically has been allowed to be a black eye, as it was mentioned earlier, in the community, but I don’t think she’s ready to go down yet. That building’s got some life to it. It’s got history.”
Valasek shared that he bought the building in 2006 with an initial vision to convert it into a steak house. He said that is no longer his vision, but he does intend to do whatever is necessary to rebuild the structure.
“I’m here to do what needs to be done, jump through the hoops that need to be jumped through, but it’s going to take a little time,” he pleaded. “The one thing I’m finding out is that the guy I was five or six years ago I’m starting to turn back into now, is that I do things right and I get it done. I’m saying that in front of you to record it, so you can hold me accountable however you want. Set some goals, some deadlines. I do have a lot of property in that building and it’s my hope that you wouldn’t lock me out of it.”
Luzum asked Valasak if he disputed the engineering report which concluded his property is a dangerous building as defined by city code. Valasak responded by saying that it is now, but that he has begun working with an unnamed source who indicated if the back lean-to portion of the building is removed then the foundation, second floor and roof could all be stabilized in a layered process.
“He says it just takes time,” Valasek said. “They do it all the time. They put the life back into buildings like that.”
That comment drew a response from Michaela Robertshaw-Garrett, who owns the building just to the north along with her husband, Chad.
“That building is leaning this way and it is going to fall toward the north, which is my property,” she said. “Is there a liability policy in place, because you are liable as that property owner to protect the properties. I have a tenant that cannot work in her business right now because of the danger, and I cannot either.”
Council member Esther Bergen then asked Valasak if there is insurance in place to cover such losses, and he said there is not.
“I’d like to put it back together, but I can also give them time to take it out,” he said. “We can take it down. I’ve talked to people about demo and we could do that, too.”
Aurora resident Sarii Thomas then spoke up, questioning Valasak’s lack of progress on the building since he bought it in 2006.
“You had almost 20 years to fix it up and it’s gotten to the point where these walls are falling apart and you’re saying that you didn’t know that any of this with the city was going on,” she said. “I think at some point there needs to be a line drawn in the sand where you need to say, ‘This is my dream, but I can’t make it happen with this building.’”
“It’s no longer my dream to put a bar in it,” Valasak responded. “I just want to get it back into a feasible building and do it safely. Whatever it takes.”
Chad Garrett, who owns a construction business and is also co-owner of the building to the north, said he has observed cracks running all the way down the north wall, through three layers of brick, which in his view makes the building unsafe, unfixable and a risk to his property.
“Just sticking to the facts and the structural engineering report, time is of the essence for me,” he said. “And from what has been said I think we’re just out if there is no insurance as far as liability, so I mean we would have to eat that cost. So to me, I want the foot on the gas.”
Valasak then said he has cleared his schedule for the next month so that he can concentrate his time and effort on this issue.
“With all due respect, you have had years to do it and the second that first brick dropped … you lost the ability to do anything that you should have done,” said Jannelle Seim, a 2026 candidate for city council who attended the hearing. “My heart goes out to you because I can tell that it’s an emotional thing for you, but it is dangerous. They (the city) have to do what’s right for the community and not what’s right for you.”
That ended the public hearing, and minutes later the council voted unanimously to declare the structure a dangerous building. A companion resolution was then passed, also by unanimous vote, directing Valasak to take immediate action to repair or demolish the building. 
A third resolution was then approved, authorizing the city to declare a public emergency in order to waive the estimate and bid requirements for the city to address the issue itself.
Asked to clarify which party will be allowed to address the building first, Seeman responded by saying “We don’t want it to be a dangerous building. That’s the answer,” he said. “This resolution, if I understand it correctly, defines that immediate repair, being vacated or demolition, removes that dangerous building designation because it would be repaired in such a way by whatever means necessary, based upon the conversations over discussion from the council.”
No deadlines were discussed or determined as to how much time Valasak will be allowed before the city would begin taking action.