12/15/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Donna Turring, 350 Ful-Vue, said she believed that Mr. Farrar's case was symptomatic of problems of other homes in Eugene, due to the work of the the HCC Department and the Building Division. She related the story of the owner of one . dwelling who paid a large sum to have all the complaints in one HCC inspection report corrected only to receive a second set of complaints when the first set of projects was reinspected. She felt that upgrading the City's housing stock was a good idea but not when it took on the proportions of harassment of home- owners. She discussed experience with the HCC Department designating ceiling heights as unsafe when the City and State Fire Marshals said that the ceilings were safe. She felt that City Building and Housing Codes need to be overhauled to provide for upgrading houses without condemning them. She also felt that the appeals process should be speeded up. She did not believe Mr. Farrar should have had to wait from July to December to have his problems resolved. Laura Johnson, 1810 Fairmount Boulevard, said she was supportive of Mr. Farrar's arguments. She said she had attended the Construction Code Board of Appeals hearing. She hoped that the council would decide in Mr. Farrar's favor. LaVerne Edwards, 1260 President Street, supported Mr. Farrar's appeal and felt that the appeal process should not have taken so long. She said that tall people learned to adapt to low door heights and that Mr. Farrar's low doors should not be considered a problem. She felt that City Codes should not require destruction of older houses. There being no further public testimony, Mayor Keller closed this portion of the public hearing, noting that staff would be allowed to respond to testimony and that the appellant would be allowed to rebut. Mr. Reed, referring to Mr. Farrar's comment that he had been holding the subject e property vacant, said that staff had never said that the property had to be kept vacant. He said the Code required only that prospective tenants or buyers be informed of the Code deviations. Regarding the consideration of the stairway, Mr. Reed said that the Code prior to 1960 has allowed only a 3/16" deviation in riser height. He noted that staff had suggested that, with the addition of the second handrail, the hazard would be mitigated. He did point out, however, that the recently installed handrail needed to be returned to the wall, so there was no trip-and-fall danger in catching or looping clothing over the exposed rail end. Mr. Reed said that most of the facts that Mr. Farrar had presented in his discussion of the upstairs bedroom doorway heights were accurate. Mr. Reed noted that the Construction Code Board of Appeals did not have the information on Code language conflict when it heard the appeal. Mr. Reed said that if the City Council felt that there was not a head knock hazard with the low door heights, it could resolve the matter without referring it back to the board. Mr. Farrar presented his rebuttal. He read a portion of page 7 of the minutes of the September 27,1982, Construction Code Board of Appeals hearing, containing reference to a statement by Building Division staff member Darrell Kahl which Mr. Farrar felt required him to keep the dwelling vacant. Mr. Farrar said that he had been in the process of evicting the tenant in the building at the time . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 6