HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-85-0610di" OF MIAMI. FL O111SA
Wrtft-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
tb. Sergio Pereira DATE:
City Manager may 23, 19�5
sutrECT: ITEM TO BE PLACED ON AGENDA
POR 3UNE 13, 1985 i
PRO* Demetrlo ere z , 3r • pErERENCES:
Y6ff1TtilSSl ner ENCLOSURES: Brief History
I hereby request that the attached item be placed on the next agenda.
The City Attorney has already received data on this item involving
Mr. Rolando Barrero and the permanent injunction against the demolition
{ of the building located at 2000 SW 24 Street.
ti
cc: Lucia Dougherty, City Attorney
MoTiDN
as-slo
11
s ; �. ••_ �:, lip'! fie THE
40
L AYb
bA
��+�LL1P WARyER,
Plaifi.�:i�+
V
'M ROPOLITAN FINANCIAL
C NSL'kTANTS, INC.set eI.
Oefendinti.
ars+.ar.�rc
*"A*t 90. 91•I'P2.14 121)
ORDER ON PLAINT! W 9 !MOTION TOR
i - Plblkk I L" _ -
'�&'%A.-At. --'•6742j
THIS CAtSE CAFE cat: tl+ 'ba SOArA upon the Motion of the.
Plaintiff, PHILLI^ RA1Vr_.?, tt en! otft the City r` its
agents and esplovees frox cetc`.ishing tha• Po-ta°n building
located at !000 S.W. Z4t!- etreet, M°aTi, rlor ea. Uron this
Ccurt's notine t�Rt r unspl for the City of viam! and counsel
for the Plei•t:•« r.•e :c- t th-.F 'hpsring he..d Yarcti 29,
'r =984, at 8.0: •.M.. 3 t t`�is Court being fully advised in
00 premises, it •.s •Prp!-•
ORDERS^ AN" A^ ".:.Z �
1. That •i^r. for a Timo-tary 'restraining
Order as to the demo'•.r• of the subject pro"er ty is hereby
p cr.tac ane that the C=r . of Miami s4R11 be tr•oorariiv enjoined
fret' cemo:iq'ii^c t,- . . p toe of *'.even (11` days,
wh'.=h -hal'. ter= hate , - t -a -e r 2us'.ness on , ril ?. 1984,
subject to the fol'.owing requirement- and en - ,ea required of
Plaintiff and his g•antq•. Rolando Re••ero.
' 2. Plaintiff gr.ante! shall post a rerformr•nee bond
:*+ the amount of ,en ir�vretion bond in •he em'3vnt of
"75,000.00 and -shall nan- -he :•ty ,f Yirmt ex an sddittonal
insured on property, haze ,-e '.�Rb'.tity aurannp or the subject
'property.
3. Said injunctio- bore Oa'.'. be posted re, later than
5;0.1 P.M. March 30, 198:: se-c w,rlor-ar•ce bond shall be posted
i
no later than April necersgr• -,roof of moe4.vication of
nrlperty, -hazard 4r.d i.nF• rr-ce shall tie oresen!ed tp
t
✓ t.
the Fire, Restus and lespettlbn
Se:vltes Uvistoft And the Itlgk
Management biviftion of the City
e1 KiLzi nb later that April 9i
198�.
`. That vithin ten
days of the date hereof, sealed
Plans and architects/engineers`
reports shall be filed wlih 'the
City of Miami Fire, Rebeue and
Inspection Services Division.
along with the application for
all neCassary permits at) payments .
of all required fees.
S. That rehabilitation
on the buy;:oi:.g shall commence
within ten (10) days of te: tae
approval o: tc.e plans and reports
specified in paragraph 4 above,
and the issuance of the necessary
- permits by the City of Miami.
i
6. That a .y ot`.3r permits wh:c:� are reSuirec ehall be
applied for and all neLesae: y fees
sha!�i be pal.. within ten (1G)
days after the approval c: the
rls.i.. and issuance of the buildin;
permit.
7. That the owner or his ;;rantee shall fence the building
and otherwise secure the premises ac of this .a, cud cc.ztiaue
same through the rehabilitation and confitricL:oa process; idreing
and securing of the building shall be accob; liahed within five ,
s
(5) days of the date hereof; the fence shall be not less than six
(6) feet high nor more :: ar. eight :eet high and a: -.all be of
1
chain link construction.
S. If the Plaintiff's grantee(s) do noL comply with the
terms hereof and the bu:ldine is demolished as a result, t`e excess
cost of the demolition.shall be charged again:._ the bond specified
herein.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Dade•County, Florida
1
this 3 : day of
..:,T JUCcE
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
Copies to:
Leon M. Firtel, Asst, City Attorney
Victor K. Rones, Esq. (Attorney for Plaintiff,Warner)
85-610.
I "I Tll� e Ct lt.�VIT tolvwpop Tmt M.MSIT4
Alm.*IAL CIRCUIT.* I AND POR DAN
PINILLIP WAWA COUNTY, PLORIDA
18214 t22)
cage No.:
1119. DIVISION!
'TROPOLITAN rINANCIAL C0NSV!!r,%N1'8 INC.
Ml a
ORDER
THIS hpv.inq cwc- ne
heard on Defendant's/Plainti
C fC:jUSE
Motion
and the Court having 11,3ard argument of
counsel, and being otherwise adviset
in #,4 Prerniser, it is her-�pon,
ORL AND A2-J'J DIC 7
.3:d Votio- b% and tlips
t,a4- - -ame is hereby
T'-.eth-rE rarty cori
rt ha I bl- ccp.s:.ee-ej as a second C ur
r ehe
t- - 9!P 04afni shall..
C; t, V (1, o ---- th, i
_0
f! re. cl on "-.,i 10,34 is hcrel)y
:-.p-ril 19,
ij t aj- -rcc; -1--ro!nts here-;na-17ter set
-exte-ic-o(1—until
ccLip'ie' with.
r �y 0i
I . -(,inf
Ewlan(llo Ba -rrero tT 7
1': !1 t :J -t �tec, shall =p, his
rV
h t S -- n- hi I i a b-- 21
-r,.vor of th!-� City
7 i-ur:incv r- f t'i ami
�
: - , P. , .-
t.le al
I I;- ;'.. ! 1, itii e c;rt e re d ap.
ty
DONE AND OR DEPF.D Chambers,
at Dade Courty, F'orida
this day of
'19—
*nddittional. 4-nsu-r(-5
a cn,x -of sat_' .-olicy -ithin
r-ays hereo.
T -e in;unctloD -old
14c; i-evised to rvC.- thac the
Ci * ty of Niiatni has
a
and solely na-mect. ps t'-0
IQ*?$
Copies furnished:
7T7U
o
85-610.
Y
�_ I
11
Pt��LtP WA�N��i
V
METROPOLITAN Mn';IAL
CONSULTANTS* INC,* TRt
CITY OF MIAM19 et ao.,
�b+�fercatita.
IN T tt CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
s t:l 'Vb' CtAm CtECUIT, Its AND
p0 t bAbi' COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVERAL JURISDICTION bIMION
CASE No. 82.18234 (22)
11 i
ORDMAR ON MOTION FOR PERMANENT
I�.�V�tCfiIbN
f, LA. SikR #146742)
THIS CACSE CAME cn to by heard on May 3 and May 7,
1984, upon Plaintiff's `:otio•i for the Entry of a Permanent Injunction
against the demel'_t'.on of the building located at 2000 S.W. 24th
Street, Mimi, rade County, Flor ia, and the .ourt having considered
the testimony cf tle •,7itnes9e4 ca%led by the '•-aintiff, the Defendant,
CITY OF MIAMI and the grantee, the argument of counsel,
and it being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court makes
the followfn£ findings of fact:
1. That the Plaintiff is the owner of the subject
premises ° ;: v:.rtue c: a Certificate of Tilt_ issued by the Clerk of
the Circuit Court, Dace Ccun`y, Florida, in April 1984; t':at said
Certificate of "title rv.sulted r-om a foreclosure sale upon the
subject property.
?. That the sub_fe^t pronert% was to have been
demolis`-ed by virtue of its abandonment pursuant to the South Florida
Building Code..
3. That all proceedings resulting in the Order for
Demolition were conducted v_th due notice having been given.
4. That. P:H.'_ntiff applied for and was granted a
Temporary Restraining Order agrin-t the City of Miami, enjoining the
said demolition by virtue of Orders entered by this Court on March
30, 1984, April 9, 19'4 and April 19, 1984 (oral).
S. "hat the testimur.-: nresen:._d at the hearings on
Plaintiff's Motion for a Permanent Injunction held May 4th and continued
on May 7, 1984*, established that the value of the building is approx-
imately $113,000.00 and that the costs of repairs and renovations
85--f 10.
J
10
s
' n
i
4ould elteeed $1005000- fib. that As b'uth the proposed rapair aad
rehabilitition violate the tritaria §et farvs itt Chapter 24 Section,
202.2(b) of the South Pl htida but. �rt.r. tbt j, 1074.
based upon the forehW.t ,;, it is hereby
ORDERED A+ d Ab3WDCt�.
A. That Plaintiffs lktoeioh for a Pe manent Injunction
enjoining the demolition o: the building located at 2000 S.W. 24th
Street, Miami, bade County, Plorica is aetiied.
S. That demolition, o4 the subject building is hereby
stayed until June 6, 1964 in order t;,at P:a:r..:.ff may file his appeal.
C. That the prior requiremetts set for..... by this Court
in its prior Grders as to bands, insurance a:td acturity to be posted
by Plaintiff"and/or ,is grantee ar: hereby nullified and rescinded.
DONE AND ORDERED in Coam'bers at Miami, Dade County,
1�
Florida, this , day of _ ;�', , ,1984.
.,ULM
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
COPIES TO:
LEON M. FIR':EL, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
VICTOR ROVES, ESQUIRE
LAW RENCE FELS, ESQ.
v
85w"610
VCT P"M'AL MIL TIME Shins
To pT PIANO MOTI 10
AND, I." pILIbt btSpOM M
N THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
or FLORIDA
J7
_M
THIM DISTRICT OctT '? '
Appellant#
CASE MO. 84-1330
CITY 07 MIAM3 ,
Opinion filer. Oc_cber b, 1994.
An Appeal- from a ncr_-final or-Wer frost the Circuit Court
for Cade County, Rcbe rt P . ::ay„ , Judg^
Schwartz and Nash and : ..e A. Hec':er_s. for
Jose Garcia -Pedrosa, City Attorney and Gisela
Cardonne, Assistant City At_orney, or
r
' 3efcre PEARSCN,"ERG': _ Ox and JORG'�•ti�OA , JJ .
r,. FERGUSON, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff below, appeals from a non -final order denying
his motion to pe=arent? y erjo .. the City of Muni from demolishing
Yt-s building.
Plaintiff, Phillip Warm•, reacruiroc% a gro••c of apar:men: bui di..ngs
throuch a foreclosure sale. Attu t!,e sale plaintiff moves'. for -
temporary restraining order to pravert the demolition of c;..: of the
buildings. The City of Miami had scheduled the demolition because the
approximately fifty -year -old, fine -damaged buildinc had been abandoned)
by the former owner and mortc.-yor. •P a nti.Fc ved. for a temp.?orary
=
n • 'Inn fact, the bui;.c, ^c c�,►�4 ..a- 'pl. - _„4
85-610
c
rostr&iniha order to prevent the dear'k lition, An order vas entered
�l
by the trial court setting forth certain requirements to be met
by plaintiff before renovation a d eaon:traction of the buildft
ing could proceed. The order was extehiE ra A. tits-ws so that the
City could file a report on the strut t;r;:l in-erz-ity of the building
and the plaintiff could provide proof of insurance.
At the hearing on plaintiff's motion for a permanent in�unctioh,
.. 7
the City of Miamils expert witnes_ testyfiud •h&t the building was
structurally sound. The trial court, nonethe.esa, denied the motion
s.
and ordered demolition based on its +ind;,nq that the value of the
building was approximate!,, $113 , 000 and the cost of repairs and reno-
vations would exceed $I 0 , 000 . it reasoned :.ae cost of the prc,-
posed repair and rehabilit--lion exceeded 50 percent o: value -- the
criteria set forth in Section 202. 2 (b; (II), Solt... r for+da �. A.dinq
Code (1979) -- and therefore demolition was mandated. The tr�-F.a
court stayed the de.�.olition of the bu:.lcing perc:ing ti�is appeal.
i
' Warner appeals the non -final order and cdntends that. (l) when
the trial court applied the "50 percent rule" contained in Section
202.2 (b) (1) , it incorrectly use' ;:he current real estate tax roll
figure to determine the value of tza buildi.Zg rat:.er than the replace-
! ment vague re r Suired by Section l04 . 5, ar.G (" si :ce zestl:nony
presented by the City of Miani wi _gout contradiction,
that the replacement value was appzoxi7.atel1 $'oi,COG, the cost of
repairs does not exceed 50 percent o__ the value of the property.
4 i
}
a Appellee, City of Miam_., asserts that plaintiffs motion for a
permanent inDunction was correc_ly denied becaase t:.e tax roll assess-
ment was the correct b4 ;is for dote-^*:::ing the building's value.
Section 202.2 (b) (1) (3) , Sout Florida Building Cone (1979) ,
4`--
provides:
(b) VALUATION CRITERIA:
h
I
If the cost of altezat-on,
repair and/or
replacement of an unsafe
or structure
or part thereof exceeds 50 percent
of its value,
+>.
such building shall be demolished
and removed
from the premises. If the cost of
alteration,
'
repair and/or replacement of an unsafe
building
'.a
or structure or part therec` Noes
not exceed
'
50 percent of such replacemen- cost,
such
building or structure may be repaired
and made
-2-
r
85--610
.r
Uf6i as provided in Section 104 and i1i the
4VP11 Ab1§ mirkiMUt hoesin; code....
(1) In order to determine the val -Jg of a
building or s--ruCture and the cast of altera"
tuns, repairs and replacenent, the euidea and
Standards provided in Section 104 Sh ll apply.
Section 104.5 is the Code provisiodn.referred to in Section 202.2(b)(3)
Which sets forth the following, standard z...)r determining the value of
{ a buildinIt
[T]he value of a .i:3anc or structure s:lail-
t; be the estimated cost of co�:strurtiiT.c a new
I building of like size . r.esicn an-i ,,ate&—ials
at the site o- t:u; oziyr.nal struc:.ure, as-
suming such site to --e dear and deducting
r therefrom an anount -or c:preciation,
deterioration and damage before such proposed
new construction is starter,. For t :e ;purpose
of this sectycn, cost of auC-itions, ai=era-
tions and repa:.rs shall 'e j.onstrued as the
total cost of lvbc,: , materials an,: services,
based on current prices for new -materials.
The utilizatlon off the Dade `dun-zj, tax rolls C' trial col:+t
in making its determ�.nation that the val-,:e of t.:e builr.ing was ap-
proximately $113,000 constitutes plain error :.n view of the unambigu-
ous language of Sezt:ons 104 ': anu 202.2 (b) (1) which ins =ruet that
value be based on replacement cost.
Reversed and remanded with :nstructiors to enter a permanent
injunction.
l
8
W3W
r
85--Sig
V
5
^ P
i
i..:a
"DTI
r
MaeurING DATE: PLAITING 26, 1984 PAGE NO 3
A NL TIC] Il45'I'FUC"I'INC THr "r FOCR_= A FMNRI.VG =Mr TIE �
M-84-4 91 �
APPFJPs'2.t`AT£ CIR70 T JM,-Z Cj'j*y' S PT77, I'IM' FOR 'DF7' �.'' or;
2V=: CAF2OIZZ
CF Py UNSAFE aJT- ING 11; 7iE `'`�J'J'�'17?A''/cr? �*�'� BUTT AREA; F_=R RE-
S7'C=: wxyIN._
QUF.= TL'4G T�-iE CITY A 0 RN F Y '_''_'
lo D2 ,HIS r "; Al E���'^`rY B O I S � T- M,717
PF,r' ; -, SAND 4--Zm 73 nU-- COMT�ln- ' 'IS:AT 71 _S S:JI=NG OCN=1� 'TLC POGE.
? A NC'TION Yi,%ti.'= TO CLxIv"rY M = ".% cS u,.,IVE.l
t
h5 64-492
PAC:ANT" HOST T�` C_'-'Y CF tiL;.;" LT. r'.T1•27: -- $166,000
�VYTD: CAMLLO
IN CQN%7=1, 9 W!7' I'I-T , O
Tii C : -'Y l+;A' --'J '; C'X_ FY�,C=' �1CL. : =
MSS : P� &
MM T.mt�'�T�G� ^tf'*-:A _ R rn p C �r:+VUP
-: +�": T7--CtA+�.�_ � LS+�uI:.r
+i Ni. L�,:... C�+1
BE A PT0w l' 7 ,=� SFr,.'-r' Cr
A n7: ICN' o � l'� "' or 7-� crm, �^ � � T c^v THAT F.AoC r� :-R 1
M-84-501
OF THE CCM'�-SS IO\ 3E AF F: _ A= Y*", T.M OF 9 C C y4 * N-M- OF OFFI r."T t`
I D\M : PUMER t'
S?A: - AT Cr.'Y urn, F3--FE, ] ME C=' M COME ?.)a (
SEMND: DAPM2Z
C_'_ .-' t','•ev.=SS=C'C _^ ' :. _ _O C"-' '�'T.'I'�::� PyN� r"tI'+ _ -'2=0N BY
A3S:.1T: P EZ &
M-.'F..CAROLLO
t
i
Y.:
85-610