12/15/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

III. PUBLIC HEARING re: APPEAL OF CONSTRUCTION CODE BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 544 WEST 20TH AVENUE (Paul Farrar) (memo; - additional information, including findings, distributed) Mr. Gleason asked councilors in their consideration of this item to treat code enforcement issues as a matter separate from the code interpretations issues raised in the appeal. He reminded councilors that they had recently authorized staff to work on changes in the Housing Code and possible integration of that code with building inspection. He said the technical points of the appeal must be resolved at the council hearing and recommended that the council confine its deliberations to these technical points, since a recommendation on the code issue would soon be coming before the council. Mr. Gleason introduced Larry Reed, Assistant Superintendent of Building Inspection. Mr. Reed said he was present on behalf of the administration of the Construction Code Board of Appeals, of which he was Administrative Secretary. Mr. Reed said that in response to a complaint from a tenant at 544 West 20th Avenue, the Department of Housing and Community Conservation (HCC) had inspected the dwelling at that address and had sent a notice to the owner, Paul Farrar, of violations of code found during the inspection. He said that an administrative hearing on the matter had been held through HCC. He said the second step in the appeals process had involved a hearing before the Construction Code Board of Appeals. Mr. Reed said that three of the points of the original inspection report were still under appeal by the property owner and had been appealed to the City Council. Mr. Reed said the the Eugene Housing Code was based on the 1973 edition of the Uniform Housing Code and provided for retroactive applica- tion of standards to existing buildings. He said that the standards of the Housing Code were generally lower than those for new construction. e Regarding the appeal of Item 4 of the original inspection report, Mr. Reed said staff believes that the point is moot. Staff felt the Construction Code Board of Appeals was well within its authority in its decision, based on concerns for safe and sanitary conditions, in its determination on this item. Mr. Reed read the text of the board's determination from the staff report of October 12, 1982. He said that inspection of the dwelling subsequent to the board's hearing showed that the kitchen drain in question was not a hazard. He said staff therefore recommended that the council uphold the staff finding that the drain was not a health hazard. Regarding the appeal of Item 12 of the original inspection report, Mr. Reed said the matter dealt with requirements for equal run and rise in stairs to prevent a trip-and-fall hazard. He said that the Eugene Building Code has continuously had these requirements (i.e., run and rise) since 1940 and that the stairs in question were therefore not built to code standards. Mr. Reed said staff recom- mended that the council follow the second option presented on page 10 of the City of Eugene Fact Sheet (prepared Novembe~ 8, 1982), which had previously been distributed to councilors. He said this action would allow the stairs to remain as presently constructed if the owner installs and maintains an additional code-complying handrail (one on each side of stairs). e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 3