Loading...
03-397ORIGINAL RESOLUTION CITY.OF Presented Referred To Date WI�REAS, a legislative hearing was conducted on Tuesday, Apri18, 2003, to consider the appeal of Tim Gelking, 2100 Skyway Drive, to Saint PauPs Legislative Code Chapter 50 referring to required separations from the well to the sewage tanks and the soil treatments azeas; and WI-IEREAS, it was deternuned that not granting this variance would cause undue hardship given the geography of the site and neighbors' unwillingness to connect to City sewer; and WIIEREAS, placement of the primary soil treatment area meets both City and State setback requirements; now therefore be it RESOLVED, a variance is hereby granted allowing a septic system under the following conditions: 1. The septic tanks will be required to meet all City of Saint Paul setback requirements and they will be installed as far as possible from the well in a location that is easily accessible for maintenance. 2. The bluff line must be staked on the property to establish a 40 foot set back for the primary soil treatment area. The primary soil treatment area will meet all City of Saint Paul setback requirements and will be installed as far as possible from the well. 3. The secondary soil treatment area (additional soil treatment area) will be designated as far as possible from the well. If the secondary soil treatment area cannot meet the City of Saint Pau175 foot setback requirements, a variance is granted if the following conditions are met: 1) meets the State of Minnesota's 50 foot setback requirement, 2) the proposed location is approved by the Office of License, Inspecfions and Environmental Protection (LIEP), and 3) a site plan drawn to scale showing the location of all proposed sewage treatment system components, proposed and existing structures in relation to the boundary lines of the property, present or proposed location of water supply facilities and water supply piping, and all required setback distances submitted to LIEP for approval. PAUL, MINNESOTA Council File # � 3- 3q�t Cneen Sheet # 200656 �� Green Sheet 200656 QR�GI�fAL 03 - 3q`t Yeas Nays Absent Benanav i / Blakey �- Bostrom � Coleman , Aarris � La�try ,� Reiter ✓ �j O Q Adopted by Adoption B J Date _�� `� �� �. p p3 Council Secretarv •.�� .� � .. .. � —�� "='�=_��� Requested by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � 2 � o� -3g'1 DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL on7E IxPnnTm , City Council Offices April 16 zoo3 GREEN SHEET No 200656 CON7ACT PQ250N 8 PfiONE mmallMe� in�s Marcia Moertnond, 266-8560 u[.�n,mronFCro, mrcar,ci MUSi BE ON CIXINCIL AGEMDA BV (DA'(t� /145WN NIIY8Q2PoR Orv1TfOMEY tlIY4iAK ROUfIN�i � fN14MG1FLiFNVKFfOR �RUMCYLiFRV/�GCT6 ❑ WVORl�Y9SlAMj ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION RE-0UESTED - " Approving the April 14, 2003, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on an appeal for 2100 Skyway Drive. RECOMMEND TION Approve (A) w RejeM (R) PERSONALSERVICE CONiRACfS MUSTANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1. HasthispersoMrmeverworkeduntleracontractiafhiedepartmeM7 PLANNING COMMiSSiON YES NO CIB COMMfTTEE 2. Nas thie persaJfirm e�er Eeen a cily empbyee? CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION , vES NO 3. Does thia persorJfim pucess a sldlt not mrmaltyposseusetl by amr curteM ciry employee7 YES NO 4. Is this pelsaMrm a tarpeted veMq? YES NO E�lein all yes a�wers on separate sheet aM attach to preen sheei INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Wlio, Whak When, Where, Why) AWANiAGES iF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COSTIREVENUE BUDGETm (GRCLE ONE) VES NO PUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATON (IXPWN) �� �� � l�. NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, April S, 2003 Room 330 City Hali, 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd Mazcia Moermond, Legisiative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 138 p.m. STt1F�' PRESENT: Brian Krawiecki, Office of License, Inspections, Environmental Protection; Phil Owens, Fire Prevention 1069 Hudson Road (No one appeared.) Mazcia Moermond denied the appeal on the Vacant Building Registration Notice dated Mazch 7, 2003. 1044 Front Avenue Phil Owens reported the issue in the appeal is the requirement to provide mechanical release hardwaze at the Como Masonic Lodge at 1044 Front Avenue. The occupancy load is 310 having 215 on tHe First Floor and 95 in the basement. He believes the panic release bars aze required and would facilitate evacuation in a emergency situation. Steven R. Kufus for Como Park Masonic Lodge, Spruce Tree Centre, 1600 University Avenue West, appeazed and stated he is appealing because of the cost. They are a small masonic hall. It is used four evenings a month for a couple of hours. They are lucky to have I S people at each meeting. A couple of times during the year, they have a social function where maybe 100 people come in for dinner. There have not been more than 30 people in the lodge hall since he has been a member. When people aze in the building, the doors are not locked or they have thumb release on them if they are locked. They are dwindling in numbers, like all masonic lodges, which are fraternal organizations. It is a struggle for the lodge to pay property taxes, heat, and light. They would like to be exempt from that requirement because of the limited use. The other items have been taken care of. This is the only item they are appealing. Ninety percent of the time, the building is vacant. Ms. Moermond asked for the cost. Mr. Kufus responded it is over $1,000 a door. Mr. Owens reported $1,000 sounds like the top end if the door had to be replaced also. If they are able to instali the panic hardware on the existing doors, it would be about $300 to $400 on each door. There are two doors. He has no objections to giving the lodge an extended period of time to comply. If the occupancy load is 300 or less, they would only need the panic release on the rear door and they could still have the thumb turn on the front door. He can recalculate the occupancy load to make sure that is conect. Ms. Moermond asked is the occupancy load caiculated by square footage. Mr. Owens responded yes and the use. The basement area is tables and chairs. The upper area is mostly an open floor. D3-39Z NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF APRIL 8, 2003 Page 2 Depending on how they aze using it, the occupancy load calculation figure would be different from the chairs. If they were using tables and chairs, the occupancy would be half of the posting. The Fire Department knows what the space is and what it is capable of being used for. If they have 30 members and use the building one night a week, then they are using it every week of the month. On the weekends when they aze having their banquets, they couid be full. Mr. Kufus says there aze usually 12 to 14 people at a weekly meeting. He does not understand the purpose of a panic baz on a door that cannot be locked from the inside. There aze two banquets a yeaz. It is a hardship for them. Ms. Moermond responded economic hazdship is not one of the thangs she can consider in looking at this issue. Ms. Moermond asked for clarification on the tabies and chairs. Mr. Kufus responded that twice a year they use tabies and chairs for a dinner. On the first floor, the lodge hall is a large open room with a stage in the front and benches along the side. There is a short flight of stairs that goes down to a front door that is metal. The back door is the same thing. Those doors are open when there are people in the building. Ms. Moermond asked are mechanical and utility spaces in a building counted. Mr. Owens responded it is the net visible area where the people would be. Regarding the upper floor, the space in the middle is empty. He asked is that arranged for masonic rituals only. For the occupancy load, all that square footage is counted. A stage space is not counted. The middle space is empty except for a table and an alter. If it is set up as a lodge and is never used for anything but the lodge, he may be able to do something there; however, the code does not recognize the fact that it is not the lodge. At their whim, they could take down the alter. Ms. Moermond stated she would like to look at redefining the occupancy load of the building and looking at that as a stage space. Mr. Owens responded the stage space is already not counted in the occupancy. It is the net area where the benches and alter is set up. With discretion, he could discuss it with the Fire Marshall, and then recalculate the occupancy load based on the fixed seating. That wouid come out to be the number of about 150. It is a big stretch. Ms. Moermond stated it would be a way for her to grant a limited vaziance. Mr. Owens responded it would establish perimeters, they would not have to have the panic release, but the lodge space could not be used for a place of assembly for more ihan what the fi�ced seating comes out to be. Mr. Rufus responded he wouid be happy to reach a compromise along those lines. Mr. Owens stated he will meet with the staff, and tell them his proposal. If they agree, this issue will go away. The code does not recognize individual uses. It recognizes the square footage of a particular use. He can look at it. There may be some latitude based on their actual use. But there would have to be some suong pazameters. It is not the overflow area for a big banquet. Ms. Moermond laid over to the May 13, 2003, Legislative Hearing at 130 p.m. D3-397 NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF APRIL 8, 2003 Page 3 � 2100 Sl.�v�vav Drive Marcia Moermond stated that this is an appeal of a variance for separation of sepric and weil. Brian Krawiecki reported that he has looked at the fi]e and the notes that Tom I,eClair (LIEP) has left him. The separation distance from the well for an on-site sewer system only met the 50 feet setback that the state has required for a minimum setback for a septic system. In Saint Paui, the minimum setback is 75 feet. Mr. Krawiecki does not know if the designer designed this to incorporate the City's minimum setback requirements. Mr. Krawiecki understands the existing well would be costly to replace. That is the issue here. Tim Gelking, owner, appeazed and stated he does not think there is room in any other place to put the septic. Because of the RLL, they are saying he has to do a septic, so he has to find a way to put it in. He went down the path to petition for a sewer system in the area, and Kathy Lantry said he needs a majority vote. Ms. Moermond stated she understands that he got 3 of 18 in the affected area to sign. Mr. Gelding responded he is the fourth. Based on the site of the well, stated Mr. Gelking, there is no other spot to put any kind of septic. It has nothing to do with where the house is. They are inside the 75 but outside the state code of 50. There is no other room up there. He asked the excavator to find a spot to put it. If he has to go to a code variance, that is the option, but the excavator said there is no other option up there unless he has a different design in his head that she does not know about. Ms. Moermond stated it meets the State requirement but it does not meet the City requirement. Mr. Gelking responded only a portion of it is inside the 75. Half of it is outside the 75. Mr. Krawiecki asked is that primary or secondary. Mr. Gelking responded primary. Mr. Krawiecki stated he could switch those around and it would meet the 75 foot setback. Mr. Gelding responded that would be fine. Mr. Krawiecki stated that would be a compromise. The only other issue is the septic tank in their location. He asked are those existing tanks. Mr. Gelking responded no. Mr. Krawiecki responded that they could be moved outside the 75 foot part, too. Mr. Gelking stated he had thought of that, but he was in the process of this variance. Mr. Krawiecki stated the septic systems aze designed for about 25 to 30 yeazs. If they used the secondary site far the primary site, they may never need to use that other variance. They might have the sewer up there by then. Ms. Moermond asked would a secondary site inside the setback be acceptable. Mr. Krawiecki responded it stili would not meet the code requirements. There is a place to move the well, but he does not know how much it would cost to move it. The secondary and primary sites would meet the code. Mr. Gelking responded that the cost of moving the well is $10,000. There is only one spot where it could go. If he has to move the weil, it will have to go to the right side of the V d � � 1 i NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF APRIL 8, 2003 Page 4 skinny part of the house. Then, both of those would probably fit. Mr. Krawiecki responded then it would meet the code requirements. Mr. Gelking asked why they would not be able to go with the secondary item. Mr. Krawiecki responded there still needs to be a variance. Ms. Moermond asked is there a cost difference between the primary and secondary sites. Mr. Gelking responded he would prefer it to be the other way. Ms. Moermond asked it is okay with him if they get the variance on the secondary sites being within the City setback. It still meets the State setback requirements. Mr. Krawiecki responded in the affirmative. Mr. Krawiecki stated the variance would not include the setback for the sewage tanks because those are going to be new and will still have to meet the 75 foot setback from the well. As long as the tanks are outside the 75 foot setback and the primary field, the variance for having the secondary field inside the 75 foot mark will probably be alright. In 20 years, the owner may have to drill a new well if something happens with this one. At that time, people will make sure they locate the well properly. (Mr. Gelking showed Ms. Moermond on the map where the well wiil be located.) Ms. Moermond's decision is as follows: WHEREAS, a legislative hearing was conducted on Tuesday, April 8, 2003, to consider the appeal of Tim Gelking, 2100 Skyway Drive, to Saint Paul's Legistative Code Chapter 50 referring to reguired separations from the well to the sewage tanks and the soil treatments areas; and WHEREAS, it was deter^mined that not granting this variance would cause undue hardship given the geography of the site and neighbors' unwillingness to connect to City sewer; and WHEREAS, placement of the primary soil treatment area meets both City and State setback requirements; now therefore be it RESOLVED, a variance is hereby granted allowing a septic system under the following conditions: I. The septic tanks witl be required to meet all City of Saint Paul setback requirements and they will be installed as far as possible fram the well in a location that is easily accessible for maintenance. 2. The bluffline must be staked on the property to estabZish a 40 foot set back for the primary soil treatment area. The primary soil h-eatment area will meet all City of Saint Pau1 setback requirements and wi11 be installed as far tts possible from the well. 3. The secondary soil treatment area (additional soil treatment area) will be designated as far as possible from the well. If the secondary soil treatment area cannot meet the Ciry of NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF APRIL 8, 2003 Page 5 Saint Paul 75 foot setback requiren2ents, a variance is granted if the foZlowing conditions are met: 1) meets the State of Minnesota's 50 foot setback requirement, 2) the proposed location is approved by the Office ofLicense, Inspections and Bnvironmental Protection [LIEPJ, and 3) a site plan drawn to scale showing the location of a11 proposed sewage treatment system components, proposed and existing structures in relation to the boundary Zines of the property, present or proposed location of water suppZy facilities and water supply piping, and all required setback distances submitted to LIEP for approval. 929 Albemarle Street (J0301A) (This matter was rescheduled from the morning meeting to accortunodate the owner.) (No one appeared.) Mazcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment. The meeting was adjourned at 2:09 p.m. rtn