Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal LetterAXEL M.H. ULLRICH RECl I TSAN W ALI' P.O.Box 331326 — Miami,F1. 33233 TELEFON (305) 502 6680 - TELEFAX 305) 774 1738 E-MAIL: axelullrich @ yahoo.com Axel M.H. Ullrich. F.O.Box 331326, Miami, F1.33233 City of Miami Office of Hearing Boards ATTN: Teresita Fernandez 444 SW 2nd Ave, 7th Floor Miami, FL33130 February 1, 2004 1010 NW 9 Court, Miami; resolution of the HEP board of Jan. 20, 2004 resolution with reasons received on Jan.22, 2004 by e-mail Herewith 1 appeal the decision of the HEP Board of Jan. 20, 2004 in the matter 1010 NW 9th Court Reasons: The applicant asked for a special certificate of appropriateness for demolition for the property/ structure 1010 NW 9d' Court, Miami. The HEP board denied the application. The board did not uphold the guidelines set forth in the Miami City Code Chapter 23. It gave unsubstantiated statements for the refusal at the applicant's application. 1.1. The applicant stated that the structure at 1010 NW 9t1' Court is unsafe. As evidence he submitted a report of the structural engineer Edward Landers and a letter of the Unsafe Structure Department of the City of Miami. The structure was inspected by building inspector Humberto F. Mijarez. The applicant reported about a telephone conversation he had with the building inspector who confirmed that the building was structurally unsafe. The HEP board did not pay any attention to the applicants arguments but considered the letter of the Department of Unsafe Structures to be a common regular affair. The board should have questioned Mr. Mijarez about his inspection of the property/ structure before coming to the decision that his letter and evaluation was a standard letter that required no further investigation. 1.2. Mr. Douglas Wood, a structural engineer who is commonly hired by the City of Miami, in particular the department for historic preservation inspected the property/ structure 1010 NW 9th Court. His evaluation and findings are stated in his report which the applicant encloses. Mr. Wood's professional reputation is impeccable. Mr. Wood came to the same conclusion about the safety of the structure as Mr.Landers and Mr. Mijarez: the structure is unsafe and can collapse (recommendations, in particular no. 4 and 5, inadequate capacity to resist wind forces). The trees growing on the roof, in particular on the south roof, threaten to cause the roof to collapse. The applicant cannot under these circumstances expose the public to the unsafe structure and himself to claims of possibly injured people. Seite 2 It is — according to the structural engineer Mr. Wood - not even feasible to rehabilitate the structure. The applicant refers in so far to Mr. Wood's report. In trying to safe the facade one actually would have to destroy it. Basically the whole facade, the bearing walls are rotten (wood) and the cement is loose. The deterioration of the whole structure is beyond reparability. The applicant offered and asked Ms. Eaton before the hearing to personally have a look inside the house, he asked the members of the HEP board to inspect the house. Though the applicant presented proof that the structure was not reparable his evidence and statements were not taken serious. 1.3. Furthermore Mr. Wood states, that - highly hypothetically— a rehabilitation of the structure could never meet the code requirements which can not be waved for all the rehab work. The findings of the board in this point (waiver of code requirements) were very general, unsubstantiated and wrong. For all the above reasons, in particular because the structure cannot be saved and is unsafe, demolition permit should be granted. Further considerations, in particular about the proposed new structure must not interfere with the decision about the demolition, as the condition of the structure of the house is totally independent from the structure to be built. The applicant would have to conform with building codes and codes/ requirements set forth in Chapter 23 of the Miami City Code. 2. Highly hypothetically - if the board had assumed that the structure could have been saved (this assumption was based on Mr. Edward Landers report, which turned out to be not fully accurate), the applicant would argue against the decision of the HEP board as follows: 2.1. It was undisputed that costs for rehabilitation would be approximately 3.5 as much as reconstruction. It was further undisputed that the costs for rehabilitating the property, appr. $ 640,000 cannot be financed. The applicant held a mortgage broker license for appr. 3 years and worked in the field of financing. Besides that, it is common knowledge that banks and mortgage lenders do not finance more than (at most) 100% of the appraised/ assumed value of the property. The value of the property is — according to properties sold in Spring Garden — appr. $ 160 per sf. living space. The latest comp print out is enclosed from Febr. 1, 2004 is enclosed. The highest price that was paid for a (non waterfront) residence with a 4000 sf bigger lot and a home twice as big by living space as the "rehabbed property" was $ 420,000. The value of the rehabbed property would have been less than average, because it would have been functionally obsolescent. The applicant refers to the already submitted drawings of Mr. Landers. It has to be assumed, that this house would not be sellable or only with a big discount to the regular market price. The HEP board did not take that into consideration. It was up to the HEP board to define what they consider "an onerous and excessive financial burden that destroys reasonable and beneficial use of property and that would amount to the taking of property without just compensation". The statements of the board "Just because the cost of rehabilitation is greater than that of demolition and new construction does not create an undue economic hardship. if this were the case, it is likely that any house in a deteriorated condition would then qualify for demolition" are common places, unsubstantiated and argue with potential effects of upholding the law. The courts gave guidelines for the decision making which are logical and reasonable. Money wise a person should not have to spend more on rehabilitation and acquisition costs of a property than the property market value after the rehabilitation of the house. "Just because the costs..." — here the board failed to give an indication what the line for "excessive costs" in absolute amounts or percentage wise had to be to create undue economic hardship. 2.2. The boards argument that the applicant also fails to take into consideration that the square footage of the house could be increased by constructing an addition in the rear and/or on the sides does not take into consideration: 2.2.1 each sf. of addition to the house costs — and that is common knowledge — about $110- 120 at new construction. An addition of 1000 sf. to the house — which would be adequate Seite 3 with the size of the lot — cost another $ 120,000. The costs of the property would increase to appr. $ 760,000 in construction plus $ 130,000 cost of the land purchase, a total of $ 890,000 (appr. $470,000 more than the 2700 sf. home with a more than 16000 sf. lot) 2.2.2 The board does not into consideration that the rehabbed house is still functionally obsolescent with its 20" thick walls, the cave like appearance inside, the reduced light flow. These facts are undisputed, though the board has not lost one word about it. 3. Furthermore it should be stated again, that the issuance of a demolition permit must not depend on the new proposed structure, as the architecture of the new structure is irrelevant for the questions/ answers whether the current structure is unsafe, whether rehabilitation is feasible and potential rehab costs are excessive, meaning exceeding cost of reconstruction. Though addressing the issue the applicant must say further comments of the board in regards of the current existing structure and the design of the new house are vague and unsubstantiated. It disagrees with the decisions of the board of the Spring Garden neighborhood association. 3.1 the applicant's property is considered to be a disgrace to the neighborhood by the Spring Garden neighborhood association. All neighbors want something to be done with the property and appreciate the applicant's initiative. In its current condition the structure is a negative focal point of the community. The loss of the non savable and non rehabbable structure would not affect the community adversely but - even if there was an empty lot improve the neighborhood. 3.2 The Department for Historic Preservation considers the applicants property a focal point of Spring Garden. This statement was not substantiated. What kind of design makes it special? And if it really was one of Spring Gardens most distinctive properties - has she ever by her own initiative contacted the previous owner and asked him to rehab the building? To the best of the applicants knowledge that has not happened. So far Ms. Eaton could not show which attempts have been made by the City to preserve the house. The property is actually located right beside a multifamily building on one side and a single family home on the other side. 3.3 The design of the proposed new construction is in conformance with the style of the other properties in Spring Garden. The neighborhood association voted "yes" on the design and would welcome it. The board might explain what is understood of being a product of the 21. century. Just by conforming with the building, using the required materials (windows, doors) and the elevations make the new construction visibly a product of our (current) time. The proposed garage with it's elevation is certainly a product of our time. Though in this case the board calls the distinction non compatible. The board does not substantiate its statements. 3.4 The location of houses on the properties in the Spring Garden district varies tremendously. All kinds of locations of houses are to be found, even all styles of house designs. The remarkable thing about the historic Spring Garden is that houses and properties have no uniform styles but more than appr. ten different styles/ designs can be found. The properties have very often irregular shapes and odd house locations. The suggested location conforms to the current situation of houses/ properties in Spring Garden. Besides that - the applicant does not intend to build another house. 4. Applicant is concerned that Staff (Ms. Sarah Eaton) is prejudice and not bipartisan. 4.1 Applicant is referring to the last paragraph of the resolution and Ms. Caton comments about demolition. It is true that applicant inquired about requirements of demolition - as a last resort, if rehabilitation was impossible/ feasible. Though in these conversation he expressed his willingness to rehab the structure and mentioned, that the walls were made - according to the seller — of poured concrete. A partial demolition of the inside of the house thus should be feasible. Ms. Eaton did not mention the whole content of the conversation and showed the board a very one sided picture at the first hearing. In this hearing applicant explained that only Seite 4 after the purchase he got knowledge of the fact, that the structure was not made from solid poured concrete as assumed. Mr. John Colluci, a neighbor from the Spring Garden District confirmed the applicant statements in the first hearing. Nevertheless Ms. Eaton made in the second hearing exactly the same comments - as stated in the resolution. Applicant must assume that Ms. Eaton has a set mind about the demolition of the structure and tries under all circumstances, even with tainted comments, to accomplish her goal. The applicant questioned Ms. Jennifer Warren about the potential buyers Ms. Sarah Eaton mentioned in the resolution. The applicant found it quite unusual that not he, as the owner of the property was contacted, but Ms. Eaton. Ms. Warren response was that somebody who happened to be at the department and heard(? how?) about the property said he might be interested. She did not have the name of the interested person, address etc. Obviously the inquiry was not serious, otherwise the applicant/ owner would have been contacted. The applicant finds a very unprofessional and misleading to make unsubstantiated statements as Ms. Eaton did in a hearing and base decisions on it. 4.2 Highly hypothetically - even if the applicant had the intention of demolishing the structure the reasoning of the applicant for the demolition permit was based on the current structure being unsafe, the rehab being not feasible and rehabilitation would be an excessive financial hardship. In this case a decision can only based on this arguments. The statement "Therefore, Staff is not persuaded that the applicant will be the victim of undue economic hardship if he is not permitted to demolish the house." in the context is totally inappropriate. Neither did Ms. Eaton know at time of her statement whether there was serious, willing and capable buyer for the property nor are her statements about the intend of the applicant true - and above all, they must not have a bearing in the decision of the demolition application. 5. Applicant presented sufficient proof that • Building is structurally unsound and can collapse by pure wind force • Rehabilitation is not feasible • Highly hypothetically the rehabilitation would be an excessive financial burden, the market value of the rehabbed property would be less than half as much as the total costs; about $450,000 below costs ($ 760,00 - $450,000 = for a structurally obsolescent house). Even an addition would not change the ratio much because of the related additional costs ($ 760,000 plus $ 120,00 = $ 860,000 costs, assumed market value appr. $ 400,000 - $ 420,000). SUBJECT 01-3135-027-0320 BED BTH ADJ SQFT SL CLUC ZONING W G V LOT SIZE 1010 NW 9 CT 4 2 1,922 01 01 12,100 CORRELATED PROPERTY AVERAGES SCAN 23 FOLIOS FOR 12 MATCHES AVERAGING 1,628 SQ FT @ $105.18 /SOFT SALE -HIGH: 420,000 LOW: 0 AVG: 171,225 AVG ASMT: 131,952 AVR 1.297 ASSESSED RATIO AMT: 87,874 ADJUSTED SQFT AVERAGE: 202,156 X PROPERTY ADDR, NUMBER BD BTH SQ FT DATE AMOUNT T I LOTSZE $ISF YB AVR _ 942 NW 8 RD 2 1 1127 0104 0 4 250 0.0 30 0.0 820 NW 9 AVE 3 2 1801 1003 84700 4 7650 47.0 26 0.8 _ 803 NW 9 AVE 2 1 1585 0903 275000 8 4840 173.5 28 2,2 _ 654 NW N RIVER DR 2 1 1326 0903 375000 8 14892 282.8 28 1.2 713 NW RD 3 2 1541 0803 285000 8 7000 184.9 20 2.5 _ 920 NW 9 CT 2 1 1255 0703 30000 8 6200 23.9 47 0.4 _ 617 NW 7 RD 3 2 2052 0703 0 8 P 7000 0.0 74 0.0 _ 1010 NW 9 CT 4 2 1922 0603 125000 1 12100 65.0 23 1.8 _ 804 NW 7 RD 3 2 2719 0603 420000 1 16974 154.4 26 2.1 1022 NW 8 RD 8 2 2048 0603 310000 1 5350 151.3 20 2.6 691 NW 7 RD 1 1 717 0503 0 4 P 7000 0.0 58 0,0 850 NW 7 RD 3 2 1443 0403 150000 5 11081 103,9 48 1.2 851 NW 7 RD 3 1 2371 1202 295000 1 7000 124.4 35 1.6 811 NW 7 RD 2 1 1250 1002 230000 1 7000 184.0 40 1.8