12/15/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regarding Item 14, dealing with the heights of doorways to upstairs bedrooms, Mr. Farrar presented photographs of the doorways and noted in reference to one e photograph that the doorway was to an original bedroom, not a later conversion. He noted that a previous owner, Jerome Kramer, had, in 1961, raised the roof of the upstairs to expand bedroom area. Mr. Farrar felt that changing the heights of the bedroom doorways would necessitate major construction. He said it was a fact that the doorways complied with applicable laws governing doorway height at the time of construction, since there were no applicable laws. Mr. Farrar noted that City staff had concurred that there were no such applicable laws. Regarding staff.s suggestion that the matter referred back to the Construction Code Board of Appeals, Mr. Farrar said that this matter had already been drawn out long enough. He said he had filed his appeal on October 15. He said that he had received no rent on the dwelling since June 20, 1982. He said he had been holding the dwelling vacant since receipt of the inspection report, since the City insisted that life safety issues were involved in the matters cited in the inspection report. Mr. Farrar asked that the council dismiss Item 14 due to code considerations. Regarding Item 12, dealing with variance in stair rise heights, Mr. Farrar said he wished first to take issue with the facts in the complaint. He said that the top rise was 4" and that all other rises were 7-1/2", not 8" as stated in the HCC complaint report. Mr. Farrar said that the basis cited in the report for this item was Section 8.305(12) of the City.s Housing Code, dealing with exits. He said the code exempted buildings which complied with applicable laws at the time of construction. He said that at the time of construction there was no requirement. Mr. Farrar cited Section 1404 and Sections 3302, 3307, and 3314 of the 1943 Building Code. He said he believed that, under the provisions of these articles, the stairs were exempt from width, rise, tread, and enclosure e requirements. He noted that Building Code requirements permitted an 89-percent gradient. He said that the stairway in his building had a safer 75-percent gradient. Mr. Farrar said he believed that since his stairway complied with applicable codes at the time of construction, it should be allowed to continue. Mr. Farrar submitted an affidavit signed under oath by a previous owner, Jerome Kramer, who had remodeled the subject stairs to eliminate a previous 90-degree turn. In the affidavit, Mr. Kramer stated that the stair remodeling had been inspected before and after the remodeling. Mr. Kramer further stated that he had asked at the time of the remodeling whether the top half of the stairway had to be reconstructed and was told that it did not. Mr. Farrar said he had referred the complaint on the stairs to the State Construction Code Board of Appeals and that that board had denied jurisdiction on the basis that this was a Housing Code matter. Mr. Farrar gave information to support an estimate that the stairs in the house had had considerable use--90,OOO descendings--and that there was no evidence that any of these descendings had resulted in an accident. He proposed that the council move to dismiss this item. Mr. Farrar noted that he had, since the time of the HCC report, voluntarily installed a second handrail on the stairway. He submitted photographs of the stairway with the second handrail. tit MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 5