Loading...
03-611n� � . E �� U i i V I'l !.,_ �/fY/f�/O�J/ t/ u�z � or'.5� aD03 RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MtNNESOTA Presented by Referred To Committee Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Councii of the City of SainY Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 10, 2003, decisions of the Legisiative Hearing Officer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Correcfion Notices, and Correction Orders on the foilowing address: Propertv Anpealed Ap elu lant ''t`O 4r�9-$rookline Street Gina Madigan Decision: Regarding the 7une 5, 2003, letter from the Office of License, Inspections, Environmental Protection, the variance is granted to allow the owner to have 63 feet, instead of 75 feet, between the Well and the Septic System. Yeas Nays Absent Benanav � Blakey Bostrom Coleman � Harris � Lanhy � Reiter ✓ Adopted by Council: Date q3 Adoptio�n CerF� ed by Council Secretu � ' By —�--1�' �- _ t��--�— Date � � �' � Requested by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � Council File # a � � Green Sheet # 3001701 � 63 -��t x� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � �.,�t Departmentloffice/couneil: Date Initiated: co -��� ���N-� Green Sheet NO: 3001701 Contact Person & Phone- Deoarlment SeM To Person Initial/Date Marcia Mcertnond � 0 oancil 2 �� Assign Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number For Routing Order 7oqi # of Signature Pages _(qip All Locations for Signature) � Ac6on Requested: Agproving the decision of the Legislative Aearing Officer on an appeal at 760 Brookline Street. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this personffirm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this personlfirm ever been a city empfoyee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any � current city employee? Yes No Euplain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantapes If Approved: Council Research Center DisadvantageslfApproved: � � � - ; . ' °'° ,a. - 1 ......d. \f �.;u-s�+ _ Disadvanqges If Not Approved: `� . - :' � ' F: Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: Transaction: Fundinp Source: Activity Number: Financial Information: • (Euplain) 03-�Ii NOTES OF THE LEGISLAZ'IVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, June 10, 2003 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevazd West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to arder at 133 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Brian Krawiecld, License, Inspections, Environmental Protection (LIEP) 760 Brookline Street Gina Madigan, owner, appeared. Brian Krawiecki reported he and Gina Madigan were going over the plans for the new home prior to the start of this hearing. The well and septic system are existing. They will be taking down an old house and putting up a new one. Because this is a parcel that has already been built upon, stated Ms. Moermond, she asked is there a policy about replacement, hooking up to City sewer, etc. Mr. Krawiecki responded that his understanding is that City sewer will not be available there for a number of years. Ms. Madigan stated she thought she was coming here for the distance from the well to the septic system and the well and the drainage field. She did not think there was a problem with the permit. Mr. Krawiecki responded that Tom Leclair (LIEP) has not approved that application pending the variance. The City standard is 75 feet between the well and the septic system. On this particular property, there is 68 feet from the drain field to the well. There may be 63 feet from the sepric tank to the well. Through discussion, he understands the septic system was approved when it was installed; however, the legal setback has been changed from 50 feet in the 1990's to the present 75 feet. Ms. Moermond asked aze there many situafions like this where there are existing septic systems and wells on properiy. Mr. Krawiecki responded this is the first one he is aware of. Ms. Moermond asked aze there any options. She saw in the application for appeal that they want to put the house in the same place as the current house. Ms. Madigan responded the well was under the home. They want to anove the house over and have a distance from the well and house. They wanted to be able to get to it. Ms. Moermond asked is there a possibility the water that damaged the foundation is making this a less appropriate option. Mr. Krawiecki responded he is not sure the change in the foundafion would have caused any change in the soil that would make a huge difference. His main concern is that the well meets the current code requirements. If it is inside the house, it could be an older well that did not meet the well code requirements. 03-l�Ll NOTES OF'I'HE LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR JCJNE 10, 2003 Page 2 Ms. Madigan stated it is not inside the house. (She described where the well is located.) Mr. Krawiecki asked is the well above ground oz above the surface. If he was going to look at the well, will he see it standing on the sidewalk outside the house. Or, would he have to look under something that is below the grade level. Ms. Madigan responded the well is not under the house per se. It is built so that a person could get from the gazage to the house without having to go all the way azound if the weil was there. Mr. Krawiecki asked has the water been tested. Ms. Madigan responded every two yeazs. Mr. Krawiecki stated if there was any reason for her to have a new well, they would want to make sure there aze setback distances. If this one is okay, he does not see any cause for concem right now. If they need to work on the foundation and disturb that well casing, there could be a problem. Ms. Madigan responded she talked to someone from the well company, and he said he would come out and cap it to make sure it is taken caze of before the existing house is taken out. He said he would extend it up because the properiy is so jagged. They would have to install an extension. The property has five different levels. It would be up and away from the house ten feet. Tt is hazd to explain. Ms. Moremond stated this is a variance request for separation of the well and the septic. She asked should she be looking at one for the well and the house as well. Mr. Krawiecki responded if they are going to put ten feet from the well and the house, that would meet the current code requirements. Mr. Krawiecld stated that the owner has to keep in mind that the setback distances are minimums. The owners should be trying to get as far away as possible from the septic system and the well. Ms. Moermond stated she has not looked at these plans in terms of secondary sites. (Mr. Krawiecki explained the map.) As far as future location, Mr. Krawiecki stated, when that time comes, they should make sure they maintain a maximum distance between the well regazdless of the lot line setbacks. Ms. Moermond stated when she looks at the plan, there are not a lot of layout options for the house. Mr. Krawiecki responded if they stay ten feet from the well, that is not going to move the well locafion. The variance they came for is the variance from the well and the septic system. As far as the house location, he is not sure that is relevant. He would recommend approving the variance. They would have to take a pernut out for the alternate site and the request for a variance comes up at that time. He would want to make sure tixat if the welllocation does change, it would meet the 75 feet setback. After the construcfion, if it shows the water is contaminated, she would have to redrill and meet the 75 foot setback. d3-t�tl NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR JLJNE 10, 2003 Page 3 Ms. Moermond stated she will grant a variance from the June 5, 2003, letter from the Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection allowing the owner to have 63 feet, instead of 75 feet, between the Well and the Septic System. The hearing was adjoumed at approximately 1:45 p.m. � Note: appeal was withdrawn on 938 Larpenteur Avenue West.