Loading...
7.b ii Comments received 03 18 19 from John LindelRECEIVED MAR 18 2019 J CITY OF SCANDIA Jensen Application For Driveway Variances — German Lake My name is John Lindell and I live directly across from the proposed driveway which would be used for access to a proposed structure on German Lake. The Application and the Scandia Govt review of the Application are deficient and the Application for variances should be denied. I will provide more information during your meeting but I wanted to highlight important information in advance. 1) Jenefer Sorensen is the State Government representative who reviews applications for proposals that have water and other environmental impacts such as the German Lake development being proposed. Her review is required for compliance with State Laws. I have attached three emails from Jenifer Sorensen to Merritt Smith and Neil Solstis which highlight reasons to deny these variance requests. a) the lot is not ideal for development will require more variances; b) many concerns regarding runoff and failure to address alternative driveway placement; c)the mapping is not sufficient and the applicant failed to provide alternatives for the driveway as required. A no build alternative is required under State Law Also attached are maps which are pertinent for judging this Application. John Lindell rom: "Sorensen, Jenifer (DNR)"<tenifer.sorensen(a7state.mn.us> To: Merritt Clapp -Smith <merritt.ciapp-smith-,tkda.com> Cc: Bcc: Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 18:48:42 +0000 Subject: RE: Variance Application - Brent Jensen Meritt — This lot is not ideal for development in shoreland, as the place to develop and meet the standards is within the power line easement. The OHW for German Lake (82005600) is 955.50 feet (NGVD 1929). The OHW line for the bay just to the west of the proposed house is not shown correctly. The OHW contour goes into this bay a ways, and the OHW setback line is not shown on the survey for this part of the lake. Please have the proposer provide an actual survey for the OHW elevation (the lines shown on the survey are based on 2 -foot LIDAR contours, not an on -the -ground survey). This would determine if the proposed structure is within the OHW setback or not. At this point, it is my opinion that the structure is within the OHW setback, but this is not shown on the survey. Has a variance been requested for the proposed structure, or just for the driveway and proposed septic area? I'd be interested in seeing a draft of your staff report, if you could send that to me. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this variance application. Jen Jenifer Sorensen East Metro Area Hydrologist (Ramsey and Washington Counties) Division of Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 651-259-5754 Email: ienifer.sorensen@state.mn.us From: Merritt Clapp -Smith <merritt.clapp-smith b-tkda.cor-n> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 3:17 PM To: Sorensen, Jenifer (DNR) <ienifer.sorensen a-.state.mn.us> Subject: FW: Variance Application - Brent Jensen Importance: High Jenifer, From: "Sorensen, Jenifer (DNR)"<jenifer.sorensen(a-),state.mn.us> To: Neil Soltis <n.soltis(c_ci.scandia.mn.us> Cc: Merritt Clapp -Smith <merritt.clapp-smith _,tkda.com>, Jim Shaver <ishaver croscwd.or >, "'Jay Riggs"' <JRiggs(ZDmnwcd.org>, "Meyer, Ben (BWSR)" <ben.meyer@state.mn.us> Bcc: Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 20:23:58 +0000 Subject: RE: German Lake Development driveway Neil — I can't just judge which path is the best, based on a binary choice of whether impacts are to a WCA wetland or public water. The applicant should have provided some analysis and justification within his application as to why he chose the path for the driveway that he did, to help justify the variance request. Factors to determine the best driveway layout include topography, where water runoff would flow, how wide the driveway would be, how close the proposed driveway would be to the OHW, and how much fill in a WCA wetland would be required. Hopefully these factors were taken into consideration in the staff report and by the City Council when they made the decision to approve the variance. I am concerned that this was a variance just for driveway placement, but that the proposed house location (to which the driveway goes) is likely within the OHW setback. So, by approving the drive, the City has set up a situation for a variance for the structure to be required, without formally evaluating this request first. Jen From: "Sorensen, Jenifer (DNR)" <'enifer.sorensen state.rnn.us> To: Neil Soltis <n.soltisaci.scandia.mn.us> Cc: Merritt Clapp-Smith <merritt.claPP-smith@tkda.com> Bcc: Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 20:01:59 +0000 Subject: RE: German Lake Development driveway Neil — Attached are the comments that I sent regarding the variance request for a driveway in the shoreland district of German Lake. The OHW elevation for German Lake (82005600) has been surveyed by DNR and is 955.50 feet (NGVD 1929). DNR does a vegetation survey to determine the OHW for a public water. DNR does not provide a survey to locate the OHW on their property, typically the OHW elevation is found on the ground by a surveyor and added to a survey of the site. In my comments, I requested that the OHW be shown on the site plan submittal, to determine if the proposed structure would be placed within the OHW setback (it likely would be). As I understand it, a variance was requested only for the driveway, but since the drive goes to the proposed house, it would make sense to also understand the status of the setbacks for the structure. Jen w Lj WOOT -•.V C Mor Cb 4 N Ln VI Lj WOOT — — — — — — — — — — — — -•.V C Mor — — — — — — — — — — — — CS ` - i r l7� j rr� i �% fr r y` �Y -I .l i I y i •`�� 1 Pii . f. � i' — � � 11f 1 � • 1 "1 •11 �, � I I R I I _ • 1' .. _ -^� s:',- 1� fXr• _ �,f.. ••Fr 1.y!;•1' 1 J�:�� i• I•—i•••1• I�1' [. _ •.,• � '_v..� ` I .I? t. i�• ti ,.ij �' � I�I'I.i � �I'•.';I1 .�i i I1� � 1 I ?",IF .: F=1 r .--��-[[v!! : E. +r� 1� •! I 1 j, r'. t f. ,lY • i.. •111 I• f�•_ I •—i• :1_ 1 I 1 I .~� + � •� - _ • i 'I • I1 � r I I :ye: rrr•. __ .. � r S• 1 ' - •• y' I ^� f ((� , [ :'--I'1-'�;. E r i• •11 ~•rye Wl, 1. X1:..1 1. f.•�j�. 'E r: 1••..:1„ [, I �2�aJ �� � ~I' IE JCS I + � --- .r. __•._ _ .. - '-_��- --�. {f) �� .�• _ ___ � - ,% ! ' r � F 1, I 1 r `I � -''�- •'� ---- �' ' � -r-- -~tel`~