Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning & Development Services

 

TO:

David L. Corliss, City Manager

 

FROM:

Brian Jimenez, Code Enforcement Manager

 

CC:

Scott McCullough, Director Planning and Development Services

 

Date:

March 22, 1010

 

RE:

1313 Haskell

 

 

This memorandum provides supporting evidence to confirm staff’s professional opinion that the principal building (house) and accessory building (garage) located at the property commonly known as 1313 Haskell Avenue are unsafe or dangerous structures and should be repaired or demolished within a reasonable amount of time to be determined by the City Commission.  The supporting evidence includes the building inspection history, actions taken by staff, search warrant inspection results along with photographs taken during the inspection which clearly identifies the deteriorated conditions of both structures.    

 

History

 

The property at 1313 Haskell Avenue is owned by Greg Seibel.  Mr. Seibel relocated the house and detached garage to the property in October of 2005. Prior to the move, the structures had been located as one structure at the southwest corner of 15th and Haskell and were commonly known as the Hanscom-Tappan house.  Soon after the move, Mr. Seibel obtained a building permit for the rehabilitation of the structures.  Over the course of a three year period Mr. Seibel scheduled 23 building inspections which resulted in 18 of those inspections being disapproved upon inspection or cancelled by Mr. Seibel prior to the inspection taking place.  The foundation inspections, electrical service inspection and the footing inspection for the front porch are the only inspections that were approved by inspection staff.  After receiving several extensions, the building permit expired on December 29, 2008, due to the prolonged inactivity which consisted of Mr. Seibel failing to schedule any inspections within a six month period of time.

 

The Code Enforcement Division was simultaneously involved with the property during the time period when the building permit was active and after the permit expired as there were and are continuous property maintenance code violations that involve both the yard and structure.  Staff worked with Mr. Seibel on many occasions in an attempt to bring the property into compliance.  It became apparent to staff that Mr. Seibel would be unable to bring the property into compliance with all applicable city codes.   As a result of his non-compliance, staff sent blight violation complaints to Municipal Court for prosecution on two separate occasions.  The most recent case resulted in a trial occurring on January 21, 2010 in which Mr. Seibel was found guilty on all counts and was sentenced to 30 days in jail and was assessed a total of $1,560.00 in courts costs/fines.   He has since appealed the court’s decision to District Court therefore the appeal process must run its course.  In addition to these two court proceedings the following actions have been initiated by staff.

 

On April 30th, 2009, staff received a complaint from a neighbor adjacent to the property that Mr. Seibel appeared to be staying in the house overnight.  Staff placarded the house as an unsafe structure unfit for human occupancy on that date and advised Mr. Seibel that he could not live in the house until all building inspections had been approved.  Mr. Seibel denied living there but admitted he was there often which included late at night.

 

On August 12, 2009, staff notified Mr. Seibel through a letter that he would be required to obtain the services of a City licensed Class C residential contractor due to his documented lack of ability to complete the work and the failure to move the project towards completion.  

 

On October 5, 2009, Mr. Seibel submitted a new building permit for review which identified the licensed contractor as Struct/Restruct LLC.  Plan review staff verified the contractor listed on the permit had no intentions of taking on the project therefore the permit was denied.  Mr. Seibel was informed of this decision and has not resubmitted a building permit application for staff to review.

 

From October 2009 to March 3, 2010 it appeared Mr. Seibel completed little if any work to improve the structures’ blighted conditions. The only change staff noticed during this time period was the re-configuration of the support posts for the roof porch of the house.   The roof was originally supported with angle bracing that was attached to the east exterior wall.  The support posts now sit on the footings that were approved. 

 

Once the trial was completed in January staff determined the next step of enforcement would consist of either obtaining consent from Mr. Seibel to inspect the structures or applying for a search warrant if consent was denied.  Staff attempted to obtain Mr. Seibel’s consent but he did not return any of staff’s phone calls. On March 3, 2010 staff obtained a search warrant through District Court.  On March 4, 2010 the warrant was executed by entering the curtilage and interior of the structures. 

 

Inspection Results

 

The house and garage both appear to have remained in relatively the same dilapidated condition as when the structures were moved to the property in 2005.   As the attached pictures demonstrate the majority of the house’s interior is full of junk, refuse and miscellaneous items. Maneuvering throughout the house was difficult due to the significant amount of items piled up throughout the 1st floor and basement.  In addition, the garage was completely full of junk items which prevented entry. 

 

 

The following are the essential findings of the inspection.

 

Highlights of staff’s findings (house)

 

·         The house does have electrical service; however, staff could only locate operable receptacles in the basement. 

·         The house is absent an HVAC system and would need heating facilities installed along with the appropriate duct work. 

·         There is no city water/sewer service to the house.

·         Chimney chase is fully exposed from the basement to the roof.

·         Roof has large opening at the point of where the chimney chase is located which is allowing weather elements to enter the structure.

·         There are numerous broken windows and windows that have no glass throughout the house.

·         Porch roof is supported but there is no decking to porch and there are no steps to the exterior doors.

·         Interior staircase to 2nd floor is a hazard as there are 2 X 4’s nailed to the stair stringers in lieu of code complaint treads and risers.

·         Numerous areas where the ceilings and floor coverings are in severe disrepair.

·         Second floor bathroom is in a complete state of disrepair and is not a functional, code compliant bathroom.

·         Steel I beam (north to south) in basement for floor joist support not appropriately secured.

·         Steel I beam (west to east) not properly supported above the pilaster.

·         West exterior load bearing wall not properly supported and not enclosed. 

·         House attachment to the foundation has not been approved.  Owner has fabricated steel foundation attachments.

 

Highlights of staff’s findings (garage)

 

·         South wall not enclosed.

·         Roof severely deteriorated at south end and it appears the opening at the ridge used to be the location of the chimney chase when the garage was originally attached to the north side of the house.

·         Siding and soffit on the west side is rotted.

·         Siding, soffit and garage doors are severely deteriorated on the east side

·         Garage is completely full of junk which prevented staff from being able to access the interior.

 

Staff’s Conclusion

 

The deteriorated conditions staff discovered during the inspection confirm staff’s belief that both structures are unsafe or dangerous structures as regulated under the provisions of K.S.A 12-1750 et seq.   

 

Furthermore, Seibel’s documented lack of ability to successfully complete the rehabilitation leaves staff no other prudent options to consider other than proceeding with a resolution seeking the demolition of both structures.  Therefore, staff recommends that the City proceed with the demolition of both structures (house and garage) within a specified amount of time.  Staff recommends allowing Mr. Seibel two weeks to remove all personal belongings within the structures prior to their demolition. 

 

Action Requested

 

Staff is requesting that the City Commission adopt Resolution No. 6879, setting a hearing pursuant to K.S.A 12-1750 et seq. to take place on May 18, 2010, to hear from the owner, owner’s agent, or any lienholder to show cause why such structures should not be repaired or demolished.