02/23/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? Chairmau Burk read the requests and admuustered the oath to Mr. Gareau, owner of the property. Mr. Gareau explained that he obtained computer drawn plans for a deck which he and his carpenter modified because the carpenter believed that it would be stronger. There are two decks, one is 20 by 20 and the other approximately 11 foot, 6 inch by 15 feet. The carpenter was not aware of the fact that the spindles had to be no less than 4 inches apart, part of the deck is only 30 inches above grade, but it is 5 feet high where the grade falls off. On the portion that is less than 30 inches high, the spindles can be 6 inches apart so this code apparently was designed to prevent a child from falling through the spindles, since there is an open 4 foot wide stauway in the middle of the deck little would be accomplished by changing the spindles in this case. Regarding the header, he believed that the code was designed for a one or two story design, not a deck so he has asked an architect, who works as a builder, to check the deck and to calculate the load which has been submitted to the Building Commissioner. The builder also advised that some of the figures were inconect, the headers were 7 foot on center, not 8 foot, and the beams were 5 foot, 6 inches on center, not 6 foot on center and it is also number 1 lumber. Building Commissioner Conway advised that he had submitted the calculations to the City Engineer who agreed that the $eams are adequate to support the load. 1V1r. Kazak advised that he had visited the site, and Mr. Gareau was correct, the dimensions shown were not correct, he also stated that most of the spindles were 5. inches apart, they do vary a bit so the inspeotor might have measured one that was 5.5. Also, Mr. Gareau explaiued that there was another issue regarding spindles on a spiral staircase which also were less than 4 inches apart, and explained that at the top of the staircase, it would be impossible to put the spindles closer because of the wrought iron railing. An inspector suggested that he put in a wood newel, but that would not be compatible with a wrought iron staircase. Mr. Kazak noted that there was a little more gap there than between the other rails, perhaps about 7 inches.. Mr. Gareau explained how the premanufactured staircase was constructed. Mr. Kazak agreed that it would be impossible to correct. The agenda was amended to include the railings in tlus discussion. Mr. C'rareau advised that the other violations listed in the inspector's report had been corrected. In reference to spindles, Mr. Conway clarified that originally the code read 6 inches, but after a study was made showing that a child could get through a 6 inch space, it was changed to 4. The concern was mainly about falling. Regarding the spiral staircase, J. Kazak moved to approve the spindles on the staircase as it was built by the manufacturer since there was little that could done to rectify it because it was built that way, seconded by W. Fiar, and unauimously approved. Regarding the spindles on the deck, W. Kazak stated that the board had approved a similar situation on the interior of a structure previously where there was an 8 foot drop, and at the highest point here the drop is about 5 feet. Mr. Gareau pointed out that there is a 4 foot wide staircase right in the middle of the deck which would allow a child to fall if falling were a concem. Mr. Conway agreed that the code was probably revised for public places, but he had to apply the it here. W. Piar moved to accept the spindles as they are, seconded by J. Kazak, and unauiiuously approved. Since the load has been approved, D. Spoerke moved to accept the headers as approved by the City Engineer, seconded by R Burk, and unanimously approved. V. NEW BUSINESS: No items. 2