def-counter pltf resp to mtn for order to show cause and immediate abatement of nuisance(2014!07!23)

8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)

1/42

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

CITY OF DETROIT,A Michigan Municipal Corporation

Plaintiff

v.

TRIPLE-A VENTURE LLC,A Michigan Limited Liability Coand 139 Bagley, Detroit, Michiganand any Unknown, or Unnamed Claimants, Owners,Spouses of Owners, Lienholders, Devisees, Heirs, orAssignees, or Successors/Subsidiaries/Affiliates in

Interest, of 139 Bagley, Detroit, Michiganindividually, jointly and severally,

Defendants,

and

TRIPLE-A VENTURE LLC, a Michigan limitedliability company,

v.

THE CITY OF DETROIT, the DETROITECONOMIC GROWTH CORPORATION, aMichigan corporation, and the DETROITDOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, apublic body corporate

Counter- and Third-Party Defendants.

Case No. 14-008057-CHHon. Robert J. Colombo, Jr.

DEFENDANT/COUNTER-

PLAINTIFF TRIPLE-A VENTURE,

LLCS RESPONSE TO MOTION

FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

AND FOR ENTRY OF ORDER

REQUIRING IMMEDIATE

ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE

/City of Detroit Law DepartmentBy: Melvin B. Hollowell (P37834)

Charles Raimi (P29746)Stanley L. de Jongh (41462)Assistant Corporation Counsel

Attorneys for Plaintiff

2 Woodward Ave., Suite 500Detroit, MI 48226(313) [email protected]

Schafer & Weiner, PLLCDaniel J. Weiner (P32010)

Michael R. Wernette (P55659)Attorneys for DefendantTriple-A Venture, LLC

40950 Woodward Ave., Suite 100Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304(248) [email protected]

{00524636.1}

FILED IN MY OFFIC

WAYNE COUNTY CLE

7/23/2014 8:22:27

CATHY M. GARRE

14-008057-CH
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/42

DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF TRIPLE-A VENTURE, LLCS RESPONSE TO

MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR ENTRY OF ORDER

REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Triple-A Venture LLC (hereafter Triple-A), states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

The instant motion must be denied because Plaintiff, the City of Detroit (the City) has

failed to meet its heavy burden to demonstrate that the subject property, consisting of land and a

five-story building (the Building) located at 139 Bagley Avenue, Detroit, Michigan (together,

the Property) is a nuisance, and has failed to show why, even if some aspect of the Property

could be considered a nuisance, the draconian abatement remedy of demolition of the Building

is necessary or appropriate. It is not, as demonstrated by the professional engineers building

inspection report attached as Exhibit 4.

FACTS

1. The subject real property, owned by Triple-A (the Property), is located at 139

Bagley Avenue in the heart of a triangle of land (the Statler Site) which is one of the most

prime real estate development areas in downtown Detroit. The Property is half a block from

Grand Circus Park, directly across the street from the Columbia Park neighborhood to be built as

part of the new $650 million dollar Red Wings Arena District, and is within walking distance of

everything else in Detroits entertainment district -- Comerica Park, Ford Field, the new Red

Wings arena site, the Fox Theater, Fillmore Theater, and the Opera House and Music Hall. See

maps, Exhibit 1.

2. Triple-As Property is the only remaining privately-owned parcel in that valuable

Statler Site triangle of land, because the City, over time, has acquired all of the other Statler Site

parcels. See portion of VG Holdings proposal to the Counter-Defendants, Exhibit 2.

{00524636.1} 2


3/42

3. Triple-A seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages to redress a

scheme of illegal threats, illegal City Council hearings, and other harassment by the City and the

other Counter-Defendants which is designed to forcibly take the Property or coerce Triple-A into

selling it to a private developer for less than Triple-A considers fair value so the developer can

increase its profits on a proposed $40 million dollar apartment and retail complex (dubbed

Statler City) that the developer wants to build on Triple-As Property.

4. The developer, Village Green Holding LLC (VG Holding), received

preliminary City approval1in late March, 2014 of a plan for Statler City which shows the

project being built over the entire Statler Site, including Triple-As Property-- in other words,

the City-approved plan requires that Triple-A be divested of its ownership of the Property.2

Neither the City nor VG Holdings ever notified Triple-A of their intentions to build on Triple-

As Property before announcing to the public that the Statler City project would be built on

Triple-As Property.

5. Shortly after approving VG Holdings Statler City development plan, the City

moved rapidly to take the Property from Triple-A with improper strong-arm tactics:

(a) In late April, 2014, the City demanded (through its primary development

agent, the DEGC) that Triple-A (which subsequent to the announcement of the proposed

project, had been negotiating with VG Holding for a possible sale of the Property) lower

its asking price for the Property-- and threatened economic retaliation against a Triple-A

affiliate if Triple-A failed to comply with the Citys pricing demand.

1The DDA, acting for and in concert with the City, authorized the DEGC in late March, 2014 tonegotiate a development agreement with VG Holding for the Statler City project.2The City-approved plan also provides that the City will give all of its Statler Site parcels to VGHolding for one dollar ($1).

{00524636.1} 3


4/42

(b) In early June, 2014, the City threatened to use an illegal City Council

hearing3to declare the Property dangerous and order the five-story building on the

Property (the Building) demolished at Triple-As expense. The hearing was

purportedly based on aJune, 2011inspection of the Building, but there was no

inspection -- at most, a drive-by viewing -- as no City inspector ever asked to access

the Building and the Building was surrounded by a locked security fence. The City

withdrew that threat after Triple-A pointed out how the City Council hearing would have

violated both state law and the Citys own ordinances.4

(c) Then on June 27, 2014, the City filed this lawsuit against Triple-A seeking to

demolish the Building (as an alleged public nuisance) at Triple-As expense and to

appoint a receiver to sell the Property without Triple-As consent (to VG Holding). On

the same day it filed this lawsuit, the City obtained an ex parteorder from this Court to

appear for a hearing on Friday, July 25, 2014, purportedly to show cause why the City

should not be granted an order requiring the Building to be demolished within 20 days.

(d) Next, on July 16, 2014, before Triple-As time to even respond to this

lawsuit, the City threatened yet another illegal City Council dangerous building hearing

to order the Building demolished at Triple-As expense, to take place onMonday, July

28, 2014. That hearing is also illegal, for the same reasons and under the same state law

and City ordinance as the first attempted City Council hearing was illegal, and it also

purports to be based on a drive-by rather than any actual inspection of the Building

(which the City has never requested or performed).

3Including without limitation MCL 125.540(3) and (4), MCL 124.541(1) through (4), andCity ordinance 12-11-28.4(a), (c) and (d).4See, e.g. letter to Mayor Duggan and City Council Members, Exhibit 3, especially at pp. 3-5.

{00524636.1} 4


5/42

6. The threats of retaliation, illegal City Council hearings, and this lawsuit, are

nothing more than a shakedown of Triple-A by the Counter-Defendants to force a sale of a

portion of the prime, developable Statler Site for a low-ball price. The Counter-Defendants

know the Building on the Property is neither dangerous nor a nuisance. It is fully secured from

trespass, completely surrounded by a locked eight-foot security fence, the windows are boarded

on the first floor and in the process of being boarded on all upper floors, and there are no falling

bricks or other hazards present at the Property. See Report of Titus Associates, P.C., an

architecture, structural engineering, and construction management firm, Exhibit 4. The Property

is structurally sound and poses no danger. Id. In fact,the City itself leases its adjacent Statler

Site parcels to third parties to park their vehicles within less than ten feet of the Building . See,

e.g. photos included in Exhibit 4.

7.

Furthermore, as alleged in detail in Triple-As Counterclaim and Third Party

Complaint, filed today, the City is responsible for the damage which currently exists at the

Building. The Citys demolition contractor, when demolishing the City-owned Statler Hilton

Hotel which abutted the Building, dropped sections of steel beams onto the roof of the Building,

destroying the elevator penthouse, breaking off part of the parapet wall around the roof, and

breaking through a section of the roof itself. The Citys contractor also rained sparks and hot

slag from cutting torches down onto the roof of the Building, starting a fire which further

damaged the Building. The Citys contractor was required to take specific steps to protect the

Building from damage during the demolition of the Citys Statler Hilton Hotel, but the City

failed to require its contractor to take any such steps. The City never offered to repair or pay for

the damage to the Building, and now seeks to use the damage for which it responsible as a

pretext to take the Property.

{00524636.1} 5


6/42

8. The City has engaged in a scorched-earth campaign of harassment and violations

of Triple-As rights in an attempt to work an unlawful taking of the Property or coerce Triple-A

to sell it cheaply to VG Holding.

LAW and ARGUMENT

The City cannot have the Building demolished as a nuisance of any kind, or otherwise,

on the basis of conditions for which the City is responsible. See, e.g. 6A McQuillin, Municipal

Corporations(3d ed), 24:64 (Nor can a city cause or create a nuisance on one's property and

then abate it at the property owner's expense or require him or her to abate it), City of Mason v

Buchman, 49 Mich App 98; 211 NW2d 552 (1973). Here, the City is responsible for the damage

that currently exists at the Building, and it has never offered to repair the damage or compensate

Triple-A. The City cannot rely on that damage now to force demolition of the Building, especially

when the Building is structurally sound and not dangerous, see Exhibit 4.

Furthermore, both the Citys Verified Complaint and its Motion consist almost entirely of

boilerplate statements and legal conclusions. At a hearing on an order to show cause why

injunctive relief should not issue, the party seeking the injunctive relief bears the burden of

establishing that it should be issued, regardless of the form of an order stating that the other party

must show cause. MCR 3.310(4). The City has never actually inspected the Building, because

the Building is secured from unauthorized entry by a locked, eight-foot security fence and the City

has never requested access. The Citys inspections are essentially curbside viewings. Titus &

Associates, P.C., performed a detailed inspection of the Building, with testing for structural

integrity, and strongly disagrees with the Citys curbside assessment that the Building is in any

{00524636.1} 6


7/42

way dangerous. Exhibit 4. The City has not, and cannot show that the Building must be

demolished right away (as the City asks this Court to impose) under the guise of abating a nuisance.

Moreover, Triple-A has filed a detailed Answer and Affirmative Defenses, as well as a

Counterclaim and Third Party Complaint, in this action and the parties have already commenced

depositions. Triple-A is entitled to discovery and a trial on all disputed material facts before any

attempt should be made to determine whether any abatement is necessary. There is no hurry

because as shown in the Titus & Associates report, the Building poses no danger to the public.

In the final analysis, the City is simply strong-arming Triple-A to try to effect an unlawful

taking or coerce Triple-A into selling on the cheap to VG Holding.

Triple-A has rights as the owner of the Property. It is willing to negotiate with VG Holding

and is interested in development of the Property and the surrounding City parcels, but not at the

point of a gun.

WHEREFORE, Triple-A respectfully requests that this honorable Court deny the instant

motion.

Respectfully submitted,

SCHAFER & WEINER, PLLC

_/s/ Michael R. Wernette________Daniel J. Weiner (P32010)Michael R. Wernette (P55659)

Attorneys for Defendant

Triple-A Venture, LLC

40950 Woodward Ave., Suite 100Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304(248) [email protected]

July 23, 2014.

{00524636.1} 7
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


8/42

{00524636.1} 8


9/42

XH

I IT

FILED IN MY OFF

WAYNE COUNTY CLE

7/23/2014 8:22:27 A

CATHY M. GARRE

14-008057-C


10/42

Page

1 of 1

/i'ri

r^J I r * IL

( ' 7

: .

'

i : ij

' J .

li

4

iiMf.-i

a

C

l

v 4 ,

//

H

j

;'S8S^'/ :

ij

it

v > I:.,,.

? ste- i- ^3^aWiW3iT-& f;afa^gigE


11/42

Google Maps

&

-

% .-s

>

^

r

- -

\rm

-s

. ^

av m

-

v

? .

4.. -

-imm

'

\ ' ' ^

~

i * ^ , T r -

*%

V

% :

' 1 . V ^

'

- S j r ' ,S2014DigitaIGicbe, t-irst Base Solutions,

Sanborn, U.S Geological

Survey, USDA

FarmServ

https://www.google.coni/maps/@42.3365309,-83

.04612 1

6,803m/data= 3ml 1

e3


12/42

EXHIBIT2


13/42

i

E

R

C

A

P

A

R

DtTR

OIT

. MiC

HiSA

f

N

TS

A

P

RE

SE

NTA

TIO

N T

O

TH

E D

ET

RO

IT

ECO

N

OM

IC

GROWTHCORPORATION

AND

DOWNTOWr

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

TA

UTH

O

RIT

Y

REQ

UES

T FOR

PR

OPO

SAL:

DDA

BO

ARD

M

EET

ING:

50

0GR1

SWO

LD

STR

EET

D

ETR

OIT

Ml

48

226

>

M L

ov

cC 1

f

f

o

3

S

L

;;;;

a

P

v

nn

Z

J: A

A

R

T

W

i 3

S

S

z

S

A

p;

O

s

PRE

SEN

TED BY

VI

LLAG

E GREE

N

I

s

f s

X

W

1 3

to

H

?

n

o

x


14/42

159

67

P

R

IV

A

T

E

O

W

N

E

R

D

B

A

A

U

T

O


15/42

a

V

AG

E

fi

ft

N

We are

su

bmitting for

review

an

d

appro

val th

e conc

ept renderin

gs

for

Statler City

Apar

tments

base

d on

our

pre

vious

meetin

gs and feed

back f

rom

the Octo

ber 2013

tour

of our apartm

ent

p

rojects

in

Minn

eapolis

.

As stated

in

o

ur

Janua

ry 2014 pres

entation

we

are

p

roposin

g to

move

forw

ard

with the

a

cquisitio

n

a

nd dev

elopme

nt of the Sta

tler h

otel

site. We h

ave descri

bed the

parcels w

e

propo

se to ac

quire

and dev

elop atta

ched

hereto.

PU

RCHAS

E C

ONSID

ERAT

ION

We propos

e

to

a

cquire t

he four

p

arcels

o

v/nsd

by the C

ity of

Detroit

and amlia

tes: 150

1

Washington Boulevard

155: and

163

Bagley -owned by the

Downtown

Development

Authority

DDA

);

and

153

9

and 1565

Wa

shington

Bouleva

rd and

167 Bagley own

ed

by

the

City

of

De

troit.

The

primary

consid

eration fo

r the

co

nveyan

ce

of th

e

p

arcels

will be the

dev

elopme

nt of a

200-

250 un

it apartm

ent comp

lexwith

the as

sociated

ame

nities.

The t

otal deyelo

pmsnt cost

is

estima

ted betwe

en

35-40 millio

n.

R

ESPO

NSIBILI

TY OF V

ILLAGE

GRE

EN:

VILL

AGE

GREEN

wi

ll

be

respon

sible for p

aying f

or the

clean

-up of t

he

site

wh

ich inclu

des

the

rem

oval of th

e foundati

ons a

nd

u

ndergro

und s

tructure

s left

in place

with site

dem

otion.

In

add

ition,

f

unding

will

b

e requi

red

to hand

le clean u

p of

exp

ected

environ

mental

co

ntamin

ation and re

mediati

on o

f other soil co

nditions

as n

ecessar

y to perm

it const

ruction

to proceed.

The

site co

asMs

of

five

pa

rcels and

on

e

of

the parce

ls

priv

ateiy ow

necl Vil

lage Gre

en

h

as

m

ade a

formal o

ffer and

intends

tonegoti

ate

in good faith and

acqu

ire the private

par

cel for

a

market value

pric

e. Villag

e

Green has

retai

ned

F

riedman

R

eal Estate

as i

ts b

roker

rep

resenta

tive.

W

.

u

w-

.

Mill Dist

rictCity

Apartme

nts

M

inneapolis

MM


16/42

EXHIBIT3


17/42

SCHAFER

WENER

I LLC

LAW

OFFCES

ARNOLDSCHAFER

DANELJ.WENER

MCHAEL

E.

BAUM

**

HOWARD

MBORN

LEONN

MAYER

JOSEPHK.

GREKIN

MCHAELRWERNETTE

KIM

K.

HLLARY

JOHN.STOCKDALE

JR

BRENDAN

GBEST

JEFFERYJSATTLER

JASONL.WENER

*ALSO

ADMITTED

INELOB.IDA

**BOAR.D

CERTIFIED-BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY

LAW

AMERCAN

BOARD OF CERTIFICATION

40950

WOODWARD

AVENUE

SUITE

lOO

BLOOMFELDHLLSMCHGAN48304

TELEPHONE(248

5403

34O

www.schaferandweiner.com

June 12, 2014

Detroit

City Council

Members

ViaEmail

and

FederalExpress

Brenda Jones,

George Cushingberry, Jr.,

Saunteel

Jenkins, James Tate, Scott Benson,

Andre

L.

Spivey,

Mary Sheffield,

Raquel

Castenada-Lopez, and Gabe

Leland,

and

The

Honorable

Mayor

Mike

Duggan

Re:

Noticeof

Re-Hearing forJune

16,

2014 regardingreal

property located

at

139

Bagley, Detroit,Michigan

Dear Council Members andMayorDuggan:

This

firm

represents

the

owner of

the

real property

located

at

139

Bagley in

Detroit,

Michigan

(the Property ). The Property is

ownedby

Triple-AVenture LLC, a

Michigan

limited liability

company

(the Owner ).

The

City

ofDetroit

(the

City )

Officeof

the CityClerk

recently issued

a Notice

of

Re

Hearing to

S

L S 1 CORP (copy attached, tab

1),

dated May27, 2014,

stating

that a 're

hearing' concerning the Property will be held on

June 16,

2014. The Owner objects inthe

strongest

possible

terms

to

any

such hearing occurring on

June 16,

2014, or at any

time if

based

on the NoticeofRe-Hearing.

Forat

least

thefive (5) independent reasons

setforth

below, no ere-hearing

'or

proceedingconcerning

the Propertymay lawfully

be

heldon June16, 2014, andthe

Owner

respectfully

submits that the NoticeofRe-Hearingmustbe withdrawnandany

hearing

canceledor

rescheduled.

Should

the City

see fit

to convene any hearings

regarding the

Property,

it

should

at

a

minimum

cancel the

're-hearing'

set

for

June

1

6,

issue

a

Notice

to

the

Owner, addressed as provided below, and set any

hearing

for a new date not less

than

ten

(10)

days

after

service

ofthe newNotice. Any

attempt

to proceed

on

June 16 would, among other

things, constitute aviolationofthe Owner's

due

process and equal protectionof

laws

rights

as

guaranteedby the Constitutions of the United

States

and

the

State of

Michigan.

{00518456.1}


18/42

S

CHAFE

R v/W

EINERp

c

B

tVJy L W OFFI

ES

Detroit City C

ouncil

and Mayor Du

ggan

Ju

ne 12,

20

14

Page2 o

f

6

First, theNo

tice ofR

e-Hearingwas

not

i

ssued

to or

se

rved u

pon the Owner

a

s required

by

law. C

ityofDetroit

Ordinance

No. 12-04, Ch.

9, Art.

II, section 1

2-ll-28.4(a) (

attached, tab

2) cle

arly

req

uires notices

su

ch as the

NoticeofRe-He

aring

to

be s

erved

up

on th

e

ow

ner ofthe

subject property

, and furth

er

r

equires the

City to

first

b

efore serving

such a No

tice~ de

termine

thewho t

he

owner

of

the

pro

perty is

by exam

ining th

e records oftheWayne Cou

ntyRegis

ter of

De

eds

an

d

t

he Wayne County

and

CityofDetro

it tax

assessment records. The

Noticeo

fRe

H

earing was directe

d

to

and served

upo

n SLS Corpo

ration, w

hichhas not been

the owner

of

the

Pro

perty

since2006.

The City

failed to make the requir

ed examina

tion

of

r

ecords

and failed

to issue an

d ser

ve theNoti

ce

ofRe-He

aring

inaccorda

ncewith

the

req

uirements of 12-1

1

-

28.4 a .

Th

eNo

tice ofRe-Hearing

does n

ot com

ply with the requirement

s

of law an

d

cannot

s

erve as

the basis

for a re-hearin

g or other

proceeding

against the P

roperty.

To

theextent

the

C

itym

ay inthe future seek

to issue

any

notice

concer

ning

the

Prope

rty,

such

notice

should be

address

ed

to

and served up

on theOwner as

follow

s:

Ms

. Wendy Grenlce

Triple-AVentu

re, LL

27390Floral

Roseville,

M

I

48006

Secon

d

the

Notice ofRe-Hea

ring f

ails

to

identify

the alleged daneer

ous co

ndition

that

pu

rports to b

e

the

subjectofthe

re-hearins

. TheNoticeof

Re-Hea

ring states t

hat onJune 16,

2014

at 10 a.

m.

a hea

ringwill

be

held

as

in

dicated in the Dange

rous

uildingNo

tice se

nt toyou

regarding the dangerous

condition

ofthe abo

ve

dangerous structure(s)

(italics

added) an

d that

SLS Corporation is

req

uested

to

bep

resent an

d

show

ca

use

why

said structure

(s) sho

uld not

be o

rdered demolished or

otherwise

made safe. No

Dange

rous B

uilding

No

tice wa

s included or

attached,

and

no

Dangerous Building

Notice

was eve

r

sent t

o

the

Owner,

or upon inform

ation

and be

lief to the

entity

t

hat is

suppos

ed

show

ca

use (SLS

Cor

poration).

What,

specifica

lly,

is the alleged dang

erous cond

itiono

f

the

above

dange

rous

struc

ture(s) ? The

seco

nd pageof

t

heNotice

of

R

e-Hearing

makes ob

lique

refer

ence to

an inspec

tionpurp

ortedly made on

June 17,

201 nearl

y

threeyears ago

an

d

cl

aims t

hat such

inspec

ted

re

vealed that

N

10. Wh

at is

V/O? No expla

nation has

been provided

. Howcould Own

er or

anyone else

have a

fair and

proper opport

unity

to

pa

rticipate

in

a hearin

g concern

ing analleg

ed dangero

us condition,

much less

show

cause, w

henno

no

tice has

been

pro

vided

as to wha

t the alleged da

ngerous

con

dition is?

{00518456.1

}


19/42

S CHAFERa rWEINERp o

fiTvy

L AW

OFFICES

Detroit

City

Council

and Mayor

Duggan

June 12, 2014

Page

3

of6

Evenif

he purported

June 1 6 re-hearing had

been

properly noticed, it could not proceed

lawfully because the

Owner

has

not

been

apprised

ofthe substance ofthe allegations concerning

the condition ofthe Property.

Third, ifhe

subjectof

the

Notice

of

Re-Hearine is a

three-year

old inspection, the

hearing

has

no basis. As noted above, the

only

clue as to the basis

for any

hearing

is

the oblique

reference

on

the secondpage

ofthe Notice ofRe-Hearing that the last inspection

made

on

June

17 ,

201

1

allegedly

revealed

that V/O. If

hat is

the

basis for

the

hearing, then evenif

V/O

had

been explained

in

detail ~

which

it has not ~Owner

submits

that an inspectionthat took place

three years

ago is not a proper

basis for

a

hearing

now.

Fourth, the Notice ofRe-Hearing

purports

to

convene

a

hearing

that

clearly

violates

the

procedures and

safeguards

codifiedin City Ordinance section

12-11-28.4.

CityofDetroit

Ordinance

No. 12-04, Ch. 9, Art. II,

section

12-1 l-28.4(a) (attached,

tab

2)

provides

that

[n]otwithstanding any other

provision

of

this

ordinance, when abuilding is

found

to be

a

dangerous building, the proceedings must occur

inspecific steps,

none ofwhichhave been

compliedwith

by

the Cityhere:

(1) First, service ofa

notice

to

appear, on the owner ofthe subjectbuilding, whom the

City shall identity

hy examining certainpublic

records.

(2)

Second, an initial

hearing before

a

hearing

officer,

appointed

by

the

Mayor, who

shall notbe anemployee of

the

Buildings

and Safety Engineering Department ( BSED ), at

which the Owner is entitled to appear.

12-1

l-28.4(a).

(3)

Next, /f he hearing officerdetermines that the building should be

demolished,

repaired

or otherwise

made

safe, then the hearingofficer

shall

so order

and fix

a

time

for

the

owner

to comply

withthe order. 12-1l-28.4(c)

(italics added).

(4) Next, if

he

owner fails to comply with

the order issuedby

the hearing officer, then

the

hearing officer

shall file

a report ofhis

or her

finding withCity

Council

and

request

that

the

buildingbe demolished, repaired or

otherwise

made

safe,

and a

copy

of

the hearing

officer's

decision, including the

findings

and order of

the hearing officer,

shall

be

served

on

the

owner

....

12-ll-28.4(c).

(5) Then, after steps (1) through (4), the CityCouncil

shall

hold

a

show

cause hearing

not

less than 30

days after

the initial hearing required under

step

(2)

above, andshallgive

notice to the owner

of

the

City.

Council

hearing.

12-11-28.4(d). The owner

shall

be given

the

{00518456.1}


20/42

PX-X-C

CHAFER Sv/WEINERr

flcVy

LAW

OFFICES

Detroit

City

Council

andMayorDuggan

June

12, 2014

Page 4 of6

opportunity to

show

cause at the City

Council hearing why the

order

ofthe

hearing

officer,

resulting

from

the initial

hearing

described in

step

(2)

above,

should

not be

enforced.

Id.

The

City

Council may approve, disapprove, or modify the order ofthe

hearing

officer.

Id.

(6)

If

he

CityCouncil

determines, after steps (1) through

(5),

that the order ofthe

hearing officer should be enforcedor modified (as opposed to disapproving the order), the City

Council shall take

steps

to

enforce the order ofthe hearing officer. 12-11 -2

8.4(d).

(7)

An

owner aggrievedby

a

final decision or order ofthe City

Council

under

Subsection (d)

... may appeal the

final

decision

or order

to

the

circuit court

by

filing a petition

for

an

order ofsuperintending

control

within

twenty (2)

days

from

the

date

ofthe decision or

order. 12-ll-28.4(h).

The

foregoing

process

and

procedure is the

only

one that the Citymay

employ:

[a]ll

ordinances, or partsof

ordinances,

that conflictwith

this

ordinance are repealed. 12-1 1-28.4

at

Section

2.

The

City

has

not complied

with any

of

the required

processes and

procedures

codified

in the ordinance

and is

attempting

to

violate the express

language of

the

ordinance.

The

Notice ofRe-Hearing

was

not properly issued or served on the Owner

as

discussed above (step (1)).

The Notice ofRe-Hearing purports

to

skip steps (2), (3)

and

(4)

completely

and

go straight to step

(5), a

City Council

hearing

(see

tab 1, p.

1). Before the matter

can

be

referred to City Council, however, the Owner is entitled

to an

initial

hearing

before

a

hearing officer appointed

by

the Mayor

who cannot

be a BSED employee. That

has

not

occurred,

and

cannot

occur on June

16

because ofall of

the

defects

discussed

in the

pages

above.

Moreover, the Notice ofRe-Hearing appears to indicate

that what

the

City

Council

intends

to

consider at

the

hearing is

a recommendation

by the BSED

-

which is

expressly prohibitedby the

ordinance.

As noted above, the

City

Council

must

only

consider

the

findings

and

order ofthehearing

officer

who shall

not

be a BSED

employee.

The Owner is entitled to a copy ofthe

hearing officer's

findings

and

the hearing

officer'sorder fromthe initialhearing.

No

suchhearing

has

occurred and

Owner

has

been provided

withno

purported findings or

order

ofa

hearing

officer.

{00518456.1}


21/42

SCHAFER

akrrWENER

P U L C

LAWOFFCES

Detroit CityCouncil and Mayor Duggan

June

12,

2014

,

Page

5

of

6

Only anorder ofthe hearing officer, after

the initial

hearing, can

be placed

before

the City

Council,

and no such

order

exists.

Fifth the Case

referencedin

the Notice ofRe-Hearing

wasdecided

and

disposedofin

2011.

and there are no

vrovisions

in

the

ordinance allowinga re-hearinsof

a previously-

decidedmatter

after almost three years,

or any

time.

TheNoticeofRe-Hearing purports

to

address

CaseNumberDNG20 1 0- 1 63 1 3 .

See

tab 1 .

It appears

that

that case was

disposed

ofbythe City

as

ofSeptember 8, 20 1 1 and

the proceeding

against

the Property was

withdrawn. See

tab

3.

That

disposition

came

several months after

the

purported

last inspection

ofthe

Property

made

on

June

17,

201

1

(tab

1,

p.

2).

The

City

Council determination is

the

last step by

the

City inhandling an

alleged

dangerous

building

issue.

See the

steps set forthinthe

ordinance,

listed above.

There

is no new

inspection

and no

new proceeding, and

the

ordinance does

not permit

a dangerous

building

hearing, once

disposedofat

the

CityCouncil

level, to

be

're-heard,'

nearly three years

after

itwas

decided

or

at

any

time.

Ifhe City sees fit to

hold

any dangerous

building

proceeding concerning the

Property,

it

must

begin a

new proceeding

and

followthe mandated, codified procedures,

beginning withstep (1).

This letter does not address the substance ofany issue related to whether the Property

includes a dangerous

building, inpart because of

the City'sfailure

to provide the appropriate

notice

and basis forany attempt to

classify the Property as

such.

Owner

reserves

all

rights. To

the extent the City attempts

to go forward

withany hearing or proceeding concerning the

Property, Owner

will

vigorously

contest any

attempt

to

classify the Property as

a

dangerous

building. The

City found

in201

1 that

the

Property

wasnot a dangerous

building

and

nothing

has

changed. The

Property

is secure fromtrespass, is

listed

for sale

by

a licensedreal

estate

broker, and is otherwise

not

ina condition

that

meets

any

ofthe criteria

for

being

classified

as a

dangerous

building.

The Owner

questions whether the Notice

ofRe-Hearing,

coming now,

andbeing based

onnothing

new,

is

in fact an

attempt

to exert improper leverage

for

the

benefitofaprivateparty

with

whom Owner

has

been

negotiating

a

possible

sale

of

the Property.

If

his matter

proceeds,

the

Owner

will assert all rights,

claims

and defenses, including

the

several Constitutional issues

and

claims

which bar the action

which the

City

appears

poised to take. These Constitutional

issues, at

a minimum,

will require

legal

briefing

which the Owner

intends to

provide should the

Citymove forward on

its

current course.

{00518456.1}


22/42

PLLC

LAWOFFCES

S CHAFER SvrWEINER

LAWOF

Detroit

City

Council

and

Mayor

Duggan

June 12,

2014

Page

6

of

6

In

any event, please confirm

immediately

that

the

're-hearing' set for

June

16, 2014 is

canceledor

adjourned

andwill not

go

forward. I look

forward to hearing

fromyou and you may

reachme at

(248) 703-6808

or at

[email protected]

Verytruly yours

SCHAFER

AND

WEINER PLLC

M v L J

iz

Michael

R. Wemette

MRW:tbm

Enclosures

cc: Anthony V

Pieroni

Dilip

Patel, City

of

Detroit

{00518456,1}


23/42

TAB1


24/42

JaniceM.

Winfrey

CityClerk

S LS I CORP

CERTIFIED

MAEL

-

RETURN RECEIPT

REQUESTED

CITY

OFDETROIT

OFFICE OF THE CITYCLERK

NOTICE

OF

RE-HEARING

Case

Number: PNG2010-16313

139

BAGLEY BLDG ID: 101.00

Parcel

No.: 2 315.

RobinUnderwood

Deputy

City

Clerk

May

27. 2014

220 BAGLEY, 800

DETROIT,

MI 48226

Dear

Sir

or Madam:

The Detroit

City

Council

has been informed

that th e Buildings, Safety

Engineering

and

Environmental

Department

will hold

a

hearing

as

indicated in th e Dangerous Building

Notice

sent

to

you

regarding

the dangerous

condition

of

t he a bove dange rous st ructure(s). The Buildings, Safety Engineering and Environmental Departm ent

will

recommend if the s t ruc ture (s ) should

be

removed and

the

cost for such removal assessed against

th e

property.

In-as-much a s th e recorded ownership of th e

property is

inyour

name, you

are hereby notified, in accordance

with

Detroit City

Ordinance

290-H

that

a Detroit City

Council hearing will be

held

in th e Commttee

Room,

13th Floor,

Coleman

A. YoungMunicipal Center, 2

Woodward Avenue,

Detroit

on June 16,2014

10:00 AM

r:=:*

at

which

time

you

are

requested

to

be

present

to show

cause

wh y

said

structure(s) should

not

b e o rd ere d

demolished

or

other wise made safe.

If

you

have

no opposition to

the demoli tion of this

structure(s), or ifyou

have

no fur ther

interest

in said

property,

it

is not

necessary

for you

to

attend

the

above City Council hearing. If

you have additional

questions

regarding thestructure ),

you may

call

the

Buildings, Safety

Engineeringan d Environmental Department at

(313)224-321

5

for

information.

Very truly yours,

Janice M. Winfrey

City Clerk


25/42

SAFETY ENGINEERING &

ENVIRONMENTAL

F L O O R , COLEMAN A. Y O U N G

MUNICIPAL

C E N T E June

16'

2014

-STT Xyn/~TTTO ATwT AOnZ

NOTICEOFRE-HEARING RE:DANGEROUS BUILDINGS

10:00AM

HONORABLE

CITYCOUNCIL

Case Number: DNG2010-16313

RE: 139 BAGLEY BLDGID: 101.00

S BAGLEY

25

EXC W 12 FT

TAKEN

FOR

ALLEYPLAT

OF

SEC 10 GOVERNOR

&JUDGES

I

LAN L34 P553 1

BETWEEN

CASS AND

CLIFFORD

ON J.C.C. PAGES 999

PUBLISHED

, YOUR

HONORABLE

BODY RETURNE

JURISDICTION

OF

THE

ABOVE-MENTIONED

PROPERTY TO

BUILDINGS,

SAFETY ENGINEERINGAND

ENVIRONMENTAL ,

DEPARTMENTTOREINVESTIGATEANDPROVIDECOUNCILWITHADDITIONAL

INFORMATIONON

SAID

PROPERTY FORFINALDISPOSITION BY

YOUR

HONORABLEBODY.

Cune_17,

20lT^>

THELAST

INSPECTIONMADE

ON

REVEALED

THAT:

V/O.

ITIS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTEDTHAT

YOURHONORABLE

BODY APPROVE

THEORIGINAL

RECOMMENDATIONOF

THIS

DEPARTMENTPUBLISHED (J.C.C.

PAGES 999),

TO

DIRECTTHEDEPARTMENTOF BUILDINGS,

SAFETY

ENGINEERNGANDENVIRONMENTAL

T

HAVE

THIS

(THESE) DANGEROUS

STRUCTURE(S)

BARRICADED/REMOVED ANDTOASSESS THE

COSTS

OF

REMOVAL/BARRICADESAGAINST

THE

PROPERTY DESCRIBED

ABOVE.

R ESPE dTFU L L Y SU BM ITTE D,

DAVIDBELL

BUILDINGOFFICIAL

BUILDINGS, SAFETY

ENGINEERING&

ENVIRONMENTAL

UNSAFEBLDG.

RPT.

C:

DEPTOF PUBLIC

WORKS

BOARDOF

ASSESSORS

LAW

DEPARTMENT

PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT

S

L

S ICORP

220 BAGLEY, 800

DETROIT, MI

48226

139BAGLEY BLDG

ID: 101.00


26/42

TAB2


27/42

ORDINANCE NO. 02-07

ORDINANCE NO. 02-07

CHAPTER

9

ARTICLE II

AN ORDINANCE

TO

AMEND

CHAPTER

9, ARTICLE

II,

OF THE 1984

DETROIT CITY CODE

BY

AMENDING

ORDINANCENO. 290-H, AS

AMENDED,

THE

ADMINISTRATIVE

RULES

AND REGULATIONS

OFTHE

OFFICIAL BUILDING

CODE OF THE

CITY OF DETROIT,

WHICH

IN

ACCORDANCE

WITH SECTION 1-1-7

OF THE

1984

DETROIT CITY CODE

IS

SAVED FROM

REPEAL

IN

THE

1964

DETROIT

CITY

CODE AND IS

INCORPORATED

BY

REFERENCE

INTO THE 1984 DETROIT CITY CODE,

AND

ORDINANCE NOS.

15-88,

9-91

AND

12-04,

WHICH

IN

ACCORDANCE

WITH SECTION 1-1-7 OF THE 1984

DETROIT CITY CODE ARE

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

INTO THE 1984 DETROIT CITY CODE,

BY AMENDING

SECTION 12-11-28.4

TO DELINEATETHEPROCEDURE

FOR DEFERRALOR RECISSION OF A

DEMOLITION

ORDER

ISSUED BY THE

CITY COUNCIL,

ETC.

AN ORDINANCE

to

amend Chapter 9,

Article

II,

of the

1984

Detroit

City

Code by amending

Ordinance

No.

290-H,

as amended.

The Administra

tive Rules and Regulations of the

Official BuildingCodeof the City

of

Detroit, which in accordance with

Section 1-1-7

of

the 1984 Detroit City

Code is saved from

repeat

in the

:

1964

Detroit City

Code

and

is

incor

porated

by

reference into

the 1984

Detroit City Code, and Ordinances

Nos. 15-88, 9-91

and

12-04, which In

accordancewith Section

1-1-7

of

the

1984

Detroit City

Code

are

incorpo

rated

by

reference into the

1984

Detroit City Code,

by

amending

Section

12-11-28.4

to delineate

the

procedure

for

deferral or recission

of a demolition

order issued

by

the

City

Council by incorporating

the

Revised Rules

for

Deferral

and/or

Recissionof

CityCouncilDemolition

Orders

for

Private Properties

that

were

promulgated

by the Buildings

and Safety Engineering Department

and became effective on October 7,

1996;

to

provide

that

the failure

of

the

owner(s) of record to comply

with the requirements

for

deferra or

recission may

result

in the deferral

being rescinded

at any time and

in

the buildingdemolished; and to

pro

vide

that

only

three

(3)

deferrals

may

be

granted

to

any

property owner

for

each property

unless

extenuating

circumstances

are

recommended

by

theBuildingsand

Safety

Engineering

Department

or

determined by the

City Council.

IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED

BY

THE PEO

PLE OF THE CITY OF DETROIT THAT:

Section

1.

Chapter 9,

Article II,

of the

1984

Detroit

City Code

be

amended by

amending Ordinance No. 290-H, as

amended, which in accordance with

Section 1-1-7 of the 1984 Detroit City

Code is

saved from

repeal

in

the 1964

Detroit City Code

and is incorporated by

referenceinto the 1984 Detroit City Code,

and Ordinances Nos. 15-88,

9-91

and

12-04, which

in

accordance with Section

1-1-7

of

the 1984

Detroit City

Code are

incorporated

by

reference into

the

1984

Detroit City Code, by amending Section

12-11-28.4, to read as follows:

THE

ADMINISTRATIVERULES

AND REGULATIONS

OF

THE

OFFICIAL BUILDING CODE OF THE

CITY OF DETROIT

Section

12-11-28.4. Notice

of dan

gerous building; show

cause hear

ing at the Buildings and Safety

Engineering Department; show

cause

hearing

before the

City

Council; demolitiondeferra or recis

sion;

lien; appeal:

(a) Notice of Dangerous Building.

Notwithstanding any other provisions

of

this ordinance, when

the

whole or any

part

of

any building or

structure

is found

to

be a dangerous

building, the Building

Official shall issue a notice

to

the owner or

owners of record that the building

or

structure is

a dangerous building and to

appear before

a

hearing officer, who shall

be

appointed

bv

and shall

serve

at

the

pleasure

of the Mayor,

to

show

cause at

the hearing why the building

or

structure

should not be demolished, repaired, or

otherwise

made safe.

The hearing officer

shall

be a person who has expertise in

housing matters,

lor example,

one

who is

an

engineer, architect, building inspector,

or members of a community housing

organization.

An employee

of the

Buildings

and Safety

Engineering

Department

shall

not be appointed as a

hearing

officer. The

department

shall

file

a

copy of th e notice

that the

building or

structure is

a

dangerousbuildingwith the

hearing officer.

.All

notices shall be in writ

ing and shall

be

served upon the person

to whom the notice is directed by an agent

of

the

department, or shall be sent by reg

istered or

certified

mail, return receipt

requested, to the

last

known

address

of

such owner or

owners. In

determining the

mmm

a


28/42


29/42


30/42

The City

shall

have a lien on the property

for the

amount of a judgment obtained

under

this

subsection. The

lien provided

for in

this subsection shall

not take

effect

until

notice of the lien is filed or recorded

as provided by

law.

The lien

does

not

have

priority over prior filed or recorded liens

and encumbrances.

(i) Appea from City Council Action. An

owner aggrieved

bv

a

final

decision or

orcfer of

the

City

Council

under

Subsection

(d)

of

this section

may appeal

the tinal decision or order to the Circuit

Court

by

filing

a

petition to r

an

order of

superintending

control within twenty

(20)

days from

the

date

of the

decision or

order.

Section

2.

All ordinances, or parts

of

ordinances, that are in conflict with this

ordinance are repealed.

Section 3. This ordinance is

declared

necessary for the preservation

of

the pub

lic peace, health, safety,

and

welfare of

the People of the City

of

Detroit.

Section

4. In the event that this ordi

nance is passed by a two-thirds (2/3)

majority

of

the

city

council members serv

ing,

it

shall

be

given

Immediate

effect

and

become effective

upon

publication in

accordance

with

Section

4-116 of

the

1997 Detroit City Charter. Where this ordi

nance is passed

by less

than two-thirds

(2/3) majority of the city council members

serving,

shall become effective no

later

than thirty (30) days after

enactment in

accordance with

Section

4-115 of

the

1997 Detroit

City

Charter.

(J.C.C.

pg.

Passed:

Approved:

Published:

Effective:

)

January 31 , 2007

February

5,

2007

February

9, 2007

February

9, 2007

JANICE M. WINFREY

City

Clerk


31/42

TAB

3


32/42

Cttp of Jietrott

OFFICE

OF

TH E

CITY

CLERK

.

Janice

M.

Winfrey Vvian

A.

Hudson

City

Clerk Deputy

City

Clerk

September 8,2011

S LS ICorp., 220Bagley,

Ste.

800, Detroit, MI48226

Bagley Acquisition

Corp., 220Bagley,

800

MichiganBldg.,

Detroit,

MI48226

Dear Sir

or

Madam:

On

July

6,

2011, the

Detroit

City

Council returned

jurisdiction of

the

above-captioned

property

to

the

Buildings and

Safety EngineeringDepartment for the reason indicated:

? Property barricaded

? Owner/interested

party

giveneeks

to

properly barricade

?

New owner/interested

party involved

? Buildings &Safety Engineering

Departmentto

barricade

O City

/

HUD owned

? Removed,

no action

necessary .

? Return

to

jurisdiction ofthe Buildings

&

Safety Engineering Department

V Withdraw

? Withdraw, razed, occupied

or

maintained

?

JANICE

M. WINFREY

Detroit CityClerk

JMW/cf/mgw

200Colemon

A, Young

Municipa

Csnler

Delroll,

Michigan

48226-3400

(313)

224-3260

Fax

(31 3)

224-1

466


33/42

E

X

H

I

B

IT


34/42

TitusAssociates,

P.C.

Architecture, StructuralEngineering, Consulting, ConstructionManagement

BUILDING

CONDITION REPORT

139 Bagley

Street, Detroit, Michigan

48226

dD toaJ

uuuu

wm

m

WEST ELEVATION

Property

Owner:

Report Completed:

Triple-A Venture, LLC

220 Bagley Street

Detroit,

Ml 48226

21 July,

2014

St.

Clair

Shores, MI 313.516.8482


35/42

TitusAssociates,

P.C.

Architecture, Structural Engineering, Consulting, Construction

Management

July

21, 2014

BUILDING CONDITION REPORT

The

building

at

139 Bagley is a 5 story (includingmezzanine) masonry load-bearing

exteriorwallswith

steel main frame infill. There are

several openingson the front (west)

south, and the rear (east) elevations. There are no openingson the north

elevation.

There is a steel fire

escape

on

the

south elevation. The

building

is currently unoccupied.

We have observed

the building'sexteriorwalls,window

openings, and

structure,

as

well

as

the

roof. The

exteriorwalls

were inspectedvisually

and

throughmasonry

scraping

Qoints and

bricks)

and no problemswere

identified. We

observed the

exteriorwalls to

be

plumb

and

true, and

without

majordamage

to

suggest

any

impendingstructural failure.

This

structure

is

in

no way

in

immediate

dangerof collapse.

The masonrywalls

are

secure and braced by the remaining

floor

joists

and

roof

joists

as they

are.

All

door

and

window

openingson

the

first

two

floorshave

been

secured with plywood

that

has

been painted.

Windows

on the3rd through 5th floorshave

not

been

secured and

some

have

been damaged by

vandalism,

othersdamaged duringthedemolition

of

the

adjacent property.

The

window

units

aresecure in

their attachment

tothe

building.

It is our understanding

that

the

roof and

roofstructureof

139 Bagley

weredamaged by

the

City of

Detroit

or thoseunder its employ during

the

process

of

demolishingthe

adjacentStatler

Hotel

someyears

ago. Elements of

that

buildingwere

allowed

to

fall

onto the roofof 139

Bagley

and thuscause thecurrent visibledamage. No measures

were

taken

and

no offerswere

made by

the

City

torectifythe

damage caused by their

forcessince theywere incurred. While a portionof the roof is missing, the remaining

roof

and

floor

elements

provide

adequatestructureand bracing,

and

again

based upon

our experience, and

what

we have seen

on-site,

thisstructure is in no way in

immediate

dangerof collapse.

As the

building is

open

to

the

elementswe

do

recommendsecurely

enclosing

the

windows

on

the

upper

floors

to prevent

furtherdamagetothewalls

and

structureof the

buildingfrom

exposure to theelements.

It is our

understanding

that theOwner,

Triple

A Venture, LLC has retainedGrunwell-

Cashero Co.

of

Detroit

to

secure

all

windowson theupper floorsagainst

intrusion

by

the

elements.

St. Clair Shores,

MI TitusAssociates,P.

C. 313.516.8482


36/42

TitusAssociates,

P.C.

Architecture,

Structural

Engineering, Consulting, ConstructionManagement

Based upon

our

inspection

of

the building

at

139

Bagley

in Detroit

we

strongly

disagree

with

theallegations

containedwithin

thecurrent lawsuit, particularly thedangerous

building

allegations.

Based upon oureducation

and

over 30 years

of

design and

construction

experience, we

find

that

thisbuildingdoes not pose

an immediate

hazard

to

thepublic. Further, we find

that

the

building

can remain stable

and

safe

without

any

additional

measures beyond

our

recommendations

herein

and normal maintenance

for

the next threetofiveyears.

The Dangerous BuildingOrdinance was

intended to

quickly rectify

hazardous conditions

that

have

immediate impact

upon

the

public'shealth,

safety

and

welfare.

We

believe

that

this

Ordinanceshould

not

be used

to improperly

strong-arm

individualstosell

their

property

tootherdevelopers. While it's

obvious

that thebuildingat 139 Bagley

in

Detroitwill need work

in

the

future,

theapplication

of the

DangerousBuilding

Ordinance

is grossly

premature.

St . Clair Shores,MI TitusAssociates,P. C. 313.516.8482


37/42

TitusAssociates, P.C.

Architecture,

StructuralEngineering, Consulting,

Construction

Management

is*

T

ton 'Mtoy

fr

gg gfg ^

IB

SIS SI

7

SS'

lis

m

KEi SB

Sa

is

lor

s:

I

1ilT

ffffWWWm

mB

m

FOR

SALE

=--'4S9 -.b-r

nstv; /*q

West Eevation-Doors

and

windowssecuredon first two floors. Minordamageto

windows

on

thirdand

fourth

floors. Missingglass in windowunitson fifth floor. Parapet

copingcompleteandsecure.

TitusAssociates,P. C.t. Clair

Shores, MI

313.516.8482


38/42

TitusAssociates,

P.C.

Architecture,

StructuralEngineering,Consulting,

Construction

Management

iiill

B

8

9

3

i

*(IIi

.

-

South

Eevation-Doorsandwindowssecuredon

first

two

floors. Windowson third

floor

partiallysecured. Windows

on fourth

floor intact. Missingglass in

window

unitson fifth

floor. Parapet copingcompleteandsecure. Steel fireescape

from

roof to third

floors

-

secure.

St. Clair

Shores,

MI TitusAssociates,

P.

C.

313.516.8482


39/42


40/42

TitusAssociates,P.C.

Architecture,

Structural

Engineering,

Consulting, Construction

Management

< 1

m

North Eevation -Parapet copingmissing. Damaged parapet -some

loose

brick tobe

removed/secured.

St. ClairShores, MI

TitusAssociates, P. C.

313.516.8482


41/42

TitusAssociates,

P.C.

Architecture, Structural Engineering,

Consulting,

ConstructionManagement

At

TitusAssociates,

an

architecture

and

engineering firm,

we

are

committed

to

providing

ourclients the high

level

of

services necessary

to

preserve their

historic

buildings

or

create

new

structurescompatiblewith theexistinghistoric

fabric. Our

extensive

experience

allowsus

to

go beyond

a

blind

application ofstandards, to achievea

deep

understandingof

a property's

significancetocreatesolutions

for

contemporary living

that respect a sense

of

place.

Our extensiveexperience in

designing

new

lifefor

existing

buildings

through

thevarious

jurisdictionsand applicableordinances and codes translates intoefficiency forour

clients. Renovation, restoration, rehabilitation, and preservationmaysound like

interchangeableterms; they are not.

These

are

distinct

treatment approaches

for

existingstructures. At TitusAssociates

we have used

theseapproaches

on

successfully

completedprojects

and

can

use

thisexperiencetohelp

you

select the best approach

for

your

project. Our proactiveapproach and extensivebackground has

earnedTitus

Associatesrecognition from theDetroit Hstoric

District

Commission;

we are

on the

list of

architects it

maintainsfor use

in

theCity's historic

districts.

We are well versed

in

the

Secretary

of

theInterior'sStandardsforRehabilitation. We understand the requirements

of

various funding resources

and can

aid in theapplication process. We exceed the

Secretary

of the Interior'sProfessional Qualifications

Standards.

We

provide

a comprehensive evaluation

of thecurrent building

conditions. Our

services

include:

Fa5ade Easement

Grant Reports

HstoricStructuresReports

National RegisterNominations

HstoricTax Credit and GrantApplicationAssistance

Preservation, Restoration, Rehabilitationdocumentation

Adaptive

reusedesignanddocumentation

Infill planning

anddesign

From

initial

hands-on

evaluation

through construction

operationsto project close-out,

Titus

Associates

provides

professional

architectural

and engineering

services tomeet

and exceed

established

expectations.

Original signed

and sealed,

Ronald

Titus, A.I.A.

St. Clair Shores, MI

Titus

Associates,

P.

C. 313.516.8482


42/42

Ed

ucation:

hav

e an archite

ctural degree five-yea

r bac

helors profess

ional deg

ree.

am a registered

archi

tect in Michig

an for

over

2

0years and

have myn

ational c

ertification NC

ARB .

Assistance:

was assi

sted inmy an

alysis of the

buildin

g

by

James

P

artridge,

PE

was a

lso

assisted

by

Ed

All

ison,

who has a

degree inconstruc

tion enginee

ring U

niversityof

Tenness

ee .

Scone

ofWo

rk:

We ma

de seve

n 7

visits

to the

Building o

ver

a

two 2

week per

iod. During tho

se inspection

s,

w

e performed the

follow

ing tasks, amongothe

rs:

Tested samp

les of mo

rtar

between br

icks in several are

as scra

pe tests, both w

et

anddry

and

det

ermined

that th

ere

is litt

leor

no deteriora

tionof the

brickstruct

ure, whic

h

is

stable.

2.

Used lase

r-scope

to v

erify

true plumbness

of the

maso

nry walls,

th

e results

of

which

showe

d all walls are

wit

hin

accep

table

tolerances

except whe

re noted,

which

may

re

quire so

me

re

medial work

on the

p

arapet

withina

year

o

r two .

3.

Viewed the

interio

r

of

the Building

. Itwas not

possible to g

ain

access

to

the inter

ior by

the

door

without dam

aging it s

o

a

ll observ

ations wer

e

ma

de from

ladders, thr

ough various

windows.

S

ome f

ire

da

mage

was

ob

viouslyevident

but

we

didno

t obse

rve anyd

amage likely t

o

result

in

s

tructural

instab

ility.

4.

W

ewere unable to

gain access

to the roof

butwe

viewedvariou

s

pi

ctures

of the damage

fr

om belo

w and

conclude t

here is a suff

icient area of

the

remaining portion of

the roof

to maintain

structura

l stab

ility

by

bracing o

f the exi

sting

wall

s.

def-counter pltf resp to mtn for order to show cause and immediate abatement of nuisance(2014!07!23)

Documents