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`~