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