Loading...
02 02 2021 Planning Commission Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY FEBRUARY 2, 2021 7:00 P.M. Due to the Centers for Disease Control’s recommendation limiting the number of people present at a meeting, and pursuant to MN Statute §13D.02, the Shorewood Planning Commission meetings will be held by electronic means. For those wishing to listen live to the meeting, please go to http://ci.shorewood.mn.us/current_meeting/ for the meeting link. Contact the city at 952.960.7900 during regular business hours with questions. For link issues at meeting time, call 952.960.7906. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE MADDY (FEB) ______ GORHAM (MAR) ______ EGGENBERGER (NOV) _ _ GAULT (DEC) ______ RIEDEL (JAN) ______ COUNCIL LIAISON (Callies) ______ 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  January 5, 2021  January 12, 2021 Joint Meeting with Parks Commission 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (This portion of the meeting allows members of the public the opportunity to bring up items that are not on the agenda. Each speaker has a maximum of three minutes to present their topic. Multiple speakers may not bring up the same points. No decisions would be made on the topic at the meeting except that the item may be deferred to staff for more information or the City Council.) 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) PUD Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat Applicant: Stoddard Companies Location: North of Highway 7 between Eureka Road and Seamans Drive 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. OTHER BUSINESS - None 7. REPORTS A) Council Meeting Report B) Draft Next Meeting Agenda 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2021 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M. Chair Maddy explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Eggenberger, Gorham, and Riedel; Planning Director Darling; and Planning Technician Notermann Absent: Commissioner Gault 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda for January 5, 2021, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  December 1, 2020 Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2020, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Chair Maddy explained the procedure for public hearings. A. PUBLIC HEARING – CUP for Verizon Wireless Antennas on the West Water Tower Applicant: Verizon Wireless Location: 26352 Smithtown road Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the request by Verizon Wireless for a CUP to co- locate six telecommunication antennas on top of the west water tower at the Minnewashta Elementary School site. Staff finds the application consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as well as present and future land uses and recommends approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. She noted that the City received one e-mail in support of this application. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 5, 2020 Page 2 of 10 Commissioner Riedel asked about the revenue this could generate and asked if this was part of a competitive negotiation process. Planning Director Darling stated that there is a fixed lease rate. Chair Maddy asked if a Building Permit would be needed in order to attach something to the side of a water tower. Planning Director Darling explained that applicants submit all the structure review for the equipment that would be installed on the water tower through the structural consultants so that part does not require a Building Permit. She stated that sometimes there are things on the site such as a concrete pad or other equipment that would need to be installed per building code requirements which would require a permit. She stated that she is keeping that language in here just in case there may be one that would apply. Commissioner Riedel asked whether there was requirement consent from the other utility providers that they will not interfere with each other’s equipment. He asked if the City had ever been caught in the middle of disputes. Planning Director Darling stated that the City does not get caught in the middle because the providers work with each other on tens of thousands of antenna sites throughout the country and explained that the FCC oversees complaints for the various communications providers. Rob Viera, Buell Consulting, explained that Verizon Wireless was simply wishing to add capacity for bandwidth. He noted that there will not be an additional structure on the property because they are working on an agreement with AT&T to place equipment inside of their existing structure. He stated that they are fine with the conditions recommended by staff and if approved by the City, they expect to start construction in either the spring or summer of 2021. Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:21 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Maddy closed the public hearing at 7:22 P.M. Gorham moved, Eggenberger seconded, recommending approval of the CUP request by Verizon Wireless antennas on the West Water Tower located at 26352 Smithtown Road, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Variance for Setback to Property Line for a Firepit/Patio Applicant: Roger and Roberta Aronson Location: 5730 Club Lane Planning Technician Notermann explained that the applicants have requested a variance in order to install a patio with a firepit in their backyard 24 feet from the side property line that abuts a public street. She noted that the City code requires 35 feet in this situation. She explained that this request is an after the fact request because the patio was installed earlier this fall. Staff recommends denial of the request because this is a self-created situation and not a unique situation. Commissioner Riedel asked about the alternatives because it appears as though the patio itself is the problem and not just the firepit. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 5, 2020 Page 3 of 10 Planning Technician Notermann stated that she had spoken with the applicant today. She noted that the applicant had asked if they could just remove a certain number of pavers from the patio to make it 35 feet back and suggested that the Commission asked the applicant about their ideas for alternatives. Commissioner Riedel asked if it was simply the pavers or are there other masonry aspects or benches that are built in. He stated that he would like to get a sense for what level of investment was made by the applicants. Commissioner Eggenberger asked why the variance request was after the fact. Planning Technician Notermann stated that her understanding is that the contractor did not know that the patio needed to adhere to the setbacks and considered it landscaping that did not need to adhere to any of the setback rules. Chair Maddy asked how many pavers are needed to make it a patio because it is not illegal to put a paver at the side of your yard, but it is to have a patio. He asked where the City drew the line in that instance. Planning Director Darling stated that once there are a joined group of pavers and lawn furniture is put on it or other such improvements, that constitutes a patio. Commissioner Gorham asked if the alternatives were also required to be 25 feet from the house. Planning Technician Notermann stated that if it was a portable fire pit and portable lawn chairs, they would not be required to meet a setback. Roberta Aronson stated that in the construction of their home, their contractor was not the one who did the patio and the firepit. She stated that they used Collins Construction for that work. She stated that they were a reputable company that had good reviews. She stated that when they asked if permits would be required, they were told they were not needed because it was landscaping and they believed him. She stated that they were not trying to sneak anything by the City. She asked what the setback requirements would be for the backyard for a firepit or patio. Planning Director Darling stated that the setback for a patio is 40 feet, except you are allowed to project an extra four and a half feet into the setback, so it is essentially 35.5 feet. Ms. Aronson stated that they do meet the backyard setback requirement but there are a few other things she would like the Commission to take into consideration. She noted that their backyard neighbor’s home is 100 feet from the location where their firepit is currently placed. She stated that there are people building along the south property line and with the location of the rain garden, it would have been closer to their property which was another reason for the selection of its current placement. She noted that there are no storm sewers along Club Lane and so they had to put in the rain garden. She stated that the foundation is about 1,300 square feet which is not an especially large footprint. She explained that the current location of the firepit does not interfere with the raingarden that is accepting off-shed water flow. She stated that they do have a landscape plan with the four-foot fence that is being placed 20 feet from Smithtown Road and is an additional 20 feet from the firepit, which is a total of 40 feet in from the curb of Smithtown Road. She stated that they have put in five arbor vitae this fall to shield the view for the public and are planning to put in 15-20 additional arbor vitae along the north side of the property line to add additional shielding from the firepit. She stated that their intent was to impose a minimal effect on CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 5, 2020 Page 4 of 10 the community. She stated that the there are no permanent chairs or other structures such as a barbeque and this is simply an in-ground firepit and a 13-foot diameter section of pavers that are flush to the ground. Commissioner Riedel asked if the center fire ring was poured concrete. Ms. Aronson explained that it was a metal fire ring that is dug into the ground and noted that the pavers have a special product to secure them so they don’t slip around. Commissioner Eggenberger asked how many pavers were in place. Ms. Aronson stated that she does not know other than it is 13 feet across minus the 3 feet of the firepit ring. Roger Aronson stated that their north property line is unique in that it doesn’t abut another residence and asked if that was taken into consideration when they look at the setbacks should be. Planning Director Darling noted that setbacks are all measured from the property lines. Chair Maddy asked how many non-conforming structures there are along that stretch of Smithtown Road. Planning Director Darling stated that on the south side, there are at least two homes that are non- conforming. Chair Maddy wondered if it may make sense to average it out similar to what they do for front setbacks on houses. Commissioner Eggenberger commended the Aronson’s for coming forward even though it was after the fact. He asked what the difficulty would be in moving the firepit over in order to make it conforming. Ms. Aronson stated that they brought this up to their contractor and did not get very far with them, so they would have to pay to have to redone by another contractor. Commissioner Riedel stated that within the confines of the lot, including the setbacks, he believes that there is a place to locate the patio and meet all the requirements. Ms. Aronson suggested that the Commission take a look at the grading on the lot. Chair Maddy noted that although this was not a public hearing, he wanted to give an opportunity for public input at 7:46 P.M. There was no public testimony. Commissioner Riedel stated that this is a difficult situation because although it seems reasonable, it is non-conforming, it is newly constructed, and there is nothing that suggests a variance is appropriate. He stated that he would advise the applicant to hold the contractor liable. Commissioner Gorham stated that he is torn on this request also and noted that he had built a similar patio in 2017 and does not like the idea of moving it. He stated that the infiltration area exists because of the problem this area and the whole City is having with water infiltration. He CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 5, 2020 Page 5 of 10 stated that he would have a hard time approving this even though he feels terrible about what happened with their contractor. Commissioner Riedel stated that he had the same experience with a contractor telling him that no permit was required for things where permits were clearly required and stated that he is fully sympathetic with the Aronson’s situation. Chair Maddy stated that in looking at the elevation marks on the survey, there is more angle than you would think. He noted that he believes there would be about a foot difference in elevation from one side of the patio to the other if it was moved. Planning Director Darling noted that the Commission could use that information as a practical difficulty and include it in their findings. Ms. Aronson stated that the elevation levels definitely pose a bit of a problem. Commissioner Gorham stated that if an infiltration area is not a practical difficulty then he does not think the grading would be either. Commissioner Riedel stated that he does not think the Commission would have recommended a variance before the fact, but recognizes that there are real dollars involved in this situation. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed with Commissioner Riedel. Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded, recommending denial of the Variance Request for Setback to Property Line for a Firepit/Patio by Roger and Roberta Aronson at 5730 Club Lane. Commissioner Riedel noted that this request will still go before the Council and it is simply the Planning Commission’s job to explain the letter of the law but they will have the chance to make their case to the Council. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0. B. Variance to OHWL Setback of Lake Minnetonka Applicant: Christian Dean Architecture Location: 454 Lafayette Avenue Planning Director Darling stated that this application is a request for a variance to the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) setback of Lake Minnetonka. The applicant is proposing to put an addition onto the home and would like to add a second story and put a at-grade patio on the north side. They are requesting a variance to allow an encroachment on the southwest corner of the home as well as a patio on the north side of the home. The City received one letter regarding this application that addressed concerns with the impact of the changes to the Shorewood Yacht Club than on this variance. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Eggenberger suggested that the wording should be changed in the conditions from “submit” information on the permeable driveway materials, to something that clearly outlines that the city has to approve of the permeable materials. Commissioner Gorham asked for further clarification on the practical difficulties. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 5, 2020 Page 6 of 10 Planning Director Darling stated the existing home was built in 1955 and the Shoreland regulations were approved in about 1987, so the home does not currently conform to the 50-foot setback requirement. The addition on the east side of the home meets the requirements and noted that they are taking off a sloped roof and putting on a flat roof to have a rooftop deck. She explained that because it is not enclosed, she does not see anything that would increase the non- conformity. She noted that the only issue with the second-floor living area is the connection from one side of the building to the other which would be a new encroachment. Christian Dean, architect for the property owners, explained the reasoning behind their design approach. He stated that the extension of the roof deck over the southwest corner of the home is just a means of connecting the second-floor living space to the western most roof deck. He stated that it is a flat roof overhang. He stated that the north terrace is 3.5 feet further toward the OHWL than the adjacent house and is proposed to be of stone materials. He stated that it is about 2.5 feet above existing grade and noted that he can consult with the property owners about meeting Planning Director Darling’s request to align with the adjacent house and bring it back a few feet. He stated that they are proposing to replace a portion of the driveway and use a permeable paver product. He gave an overview of the other plans to reduce the paved areas. Commissioner Riedel stated that the code allows eaves to project 2 feet into the setback. He stated that this home is already non-conforming but the plans are for it to project 5 feet. Mr. Dean stated that essentially, they are trying to align the roof deck so there is access to the second-floor bedroom spaces and to have access to get to the western portion of the home. He stated that they recognize that it is non-conforming, but their thought process was that it was not disturbing the land or a full structure and is just a roof guard rail and deck. Commissioner Riedel stated that he agrees with that and noted that it seems reasonable. He stated that this is a very creative way to “mostly” meet code by building on the areas that are conforming. Commissioner Gorham stated that the plans seem pretty minimally invasive. Patrick Foss, 456 Lafayette Avenue, Excelsior, stated that he feels this design is brilliant and the property owners also reached out to the neighbors and explained everything they intended to do. He stated that his property also requires a variance for anything they want to do. He stated that he supported their plans as submitted and feels the overhang does not interrupt anyone’s site lines. He stated that he has spoken with some of the other neighbors and they also support it as has been submitted. Chair Maddy opened this item up for public testimony at 8:18 p.m. Ralph “Inky” Campbell, 450 Lafayette Avenue, stated that he has lived here for twelve years. He stated that he agrees with Mr. Foss that this is a very creative design that will do nothing but improve the neighborhood. He stated that the one concern he has is the new roadway and asked if there was a way to avoid putting the final coat on it until the construction work for this home is completed. He reiterated that the neighbors in the area all think this is a wonderful design and hope the Commission will support it. Ben Steadman, stated that he did not want his letter to be interpreted as not supporting this variance. He stated that this variance will not impact him in any way and he is for it and thinks the design will help save the house and make it look beautiful. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 5, 2020 Page 7 of 10 There being no additional public testimony, Chair Maddy closed the public testimony at 8:23 p.m. Commissioner Gorham asked about Planning Director Darling’s recommendation regarding the patio. Planning Director Darling stated that her recommendation is that at no point should the patio be closer than 44.7 feet which is the setback for the home next door. Commissioner Gorham stated that he thinks this is a really smart design but feels the Commission cannot be swayed by a great design for reasons outside of the variance criteria. He stated that he does feel there are some practical difficulties here and the applicants appear to be doing the minimum to alleviate that and are being really concise with their design decisions nor is anything they are doing extravagant. He stated that he does agree with the recommendation to reduce the patio size. Commissioner Riedel stated that he fully agrees and feels there are considerable practical difficulties. He stated that he appreciates the way the architect designed this and feels it seems reasonable and well thought out. He stated that he agrees with the recommendation to reduce the size of the patio. Chair Maddy asked if it makes more sense to say that the width is limited rather than trying to have them match the curvature of the OHWL. Commissioner Gorham stated that he does not think anyone is suggesting that option. Chair Maddy stated that is the way the recommendation was written. Commissioner Riedel suggested changing the language to be that the closest point would be no closer than 44.7 feet. Mr. Foss stated that if the City is using the home to the right of this property as a reference point, these are unique properties and would suggest that the Commission come out and look at the property. He stated that he understands the variance process, but losing all of the deck space does not make sense just to bring it into conformance. He reiterated that he supports this proposal, as designed. Mr. Dean asked if they could orthogonally align with the adjacent home and strike the line straight across the entire terrace so they do not have to impose a harsher setback on the western side of the terrace. He stated that he thinks the property owners would be okay with an 11-foot-deep terrace, but contouring it seems challenging. Mr. Campbell stated that he is inclined to support Mr. Foss’s statement, but acknowledging the architect’s offer. He stated that he agrees that if the Commission were to see the adjacent home and how they are all situated on the point, he thinks they would agree that they want the deck to be substantial. Commissioner Riedel stated that he agrees with Mr. Dean even though it means approval of increasing the non-conformity in this situation. He stated that this approach seems reasonable and noted that this is a very challenging site. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would also agree. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 5, 2020 Page 8 of 10 Chair Maddy stated that it sounds like there is a great desire by the Commission to have a rectangular patio and asked if the Commission wanted to set a specific number of leave it up to the Council. Commissioner Riedel stated that he was swayed by the architect’s suggestion of 11 feet with the same width from east to west. Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, recommending approval of the Variance Request for OHWL Setback of Lake Minnetonka by Christian Dean, for property located at 454 Lafayette Avenue, subject to the patio being aligned with the existing house to the east and protrude 11 feet from the house with the same width from east to west, and conditions as outlined in the staff report. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0. C. Variance to OHWL Setback of Lake Minnetonka Applicant: Lecy Brothers Location: 4320 Dellwood Lane Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the request for a variance to OWHL setback at 4320 Dellwood Lane on Enchanted Island. She stated that this a request to swap out several of the steps and stoops and replace them with newer, nearly at grade steps. She stated that the problem is that the entire home is non-conforming to the OHWL and is another home that was constructed prior to the adoption of the Shoreland regulations. She stated that the home was built around 1987 and noted that there have been improvements made to the property since that time that have increased the impervious surface to 32.38%. She stated that staff is recommending that the two non-conforming patios be removed to reduce the impervious surface. She noted that staff does recommend approval of the variance request itself. Commissioner Riedel asked what type of material the existing patios are made out of or if they were merely pavers in the ground. Andy Johnan, Lecy Brothers, stated that the new patios will be built with a footing and a concrete stoop. He stated that the prior improvements were done prior to the current owners purchasing the property. He noted that the main patio has a fire pit that is built up and is not just pavers. He gave an overview of the existing stoop situation and explained that they have been removed because they were all sinking and did not have proper footings. He stated that they are reducing the size of the stoops in elevation as well as towards the lake. He explained that they are proposing to remove 609 square feet and add 375 square feet, which is a net reduction of 234 square feet. He stated that there is a stone walkway, a raised garden area and a stone monument that is on the lake that will be removed. He stated that he understands the staff recommendation regarding removing the patios that are non-conforming, but reiterated that those are the primary patios for the property. Commissioner Eggenberger asked when the two non-conforming patios were put in. Planning Director Darling stated that by looking at older aerial photos, it appears as though they were not there in 1996 nor were they shown on the surveys from when the gazebo was added, but were there in 2000. Tim Ehlen, 4320 Dellwood Lane, stated that he feels the efforts they have made to reduce the non-conforming land cover have been remarkable. He stated that if those patios are removed, they will have no outdoor space to use. He explained that one of the reasons they fell in love with CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 5, 2020 Page 9 of 10 this property was the patios that are now in question and noted that they are not visible from the lake. He stated that this is a very unique property and losing those outdoor gathering areas would be traumatic. Chair Maddy opened this item for public testimony at 8:56 p.m. There being no testimony, he closed that portion of the meeting. Commissioner Riedel stated that this is tough because he can see the argument that was made by the homeowner that the firepit area is a huge part of the value of the property. He stated that he feels this would be punishing the home owners for a code violation committed by the previous owners. He stated that he agrees with granting the variance for all aspects of the stoops, but questions the remainder and struggles with whether the sins of the past should be forgiven or not. Commissioner Gorham stated that he completely agrees. He asked if the plans to reduce the impervious surface areas were in response to staff comments or if it was done on their own. Planning Director Darling stated that staff had told the applicant that if they were increasing, they would have to reduce somewhere else on the property. Chair Maddy noted that they applicant decided to go a bit above and beyond in the reduction. Commissioner Riedel stated that the homeowners bought this property fully expecting that they could enjoy what was already on the property and cannot be attributed to be their fault. He stated that he does not want to send the message to homeowners that they shouldn’t apply for permits if they have non-conforming portions of their property because the City may force them to do something. He stated that he would much rather have people apply for permits than not. Commissioner Gorham stated that his thought is that this is not about the patios it is about the stairs and he is inclined to approve the variance. He stated that he feels they have done enough in other areas with the removal of other areas to reduce the hard cover. Chair Maddy stated that the question is whether the Commission wants to punish them for something a previous owner did to the property. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that if this was the owner that put in the patios, he would say that they need to be removed, but because this is a new owner, he plans to recommend approval. Gorham moved, Eggenberger seconded, recommending approval of the variance request to the OHWL Setback of Lake Minnetonka by Lecy Brothers for property located at 4320 Dellwood Lane, with the conditions as listed in the staff report, without the need to remove the two non-conforming patio spaces. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Gorham noted that he has not been getting any of the e-mails that staff has referred to being sent out. Commissioner Riedel stated that he also has not. Chair Maddy stated that he has also not received the e-mails. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 5, 2020 Page 10 of 10 Commissioner Eggenberger noted that the e-mail system was updated and the Commission needed to go in and do some housekeeping. Planning Director Darling stated that the Commission needs to log in and set it up to reforward the e-mails. She stated that she will re-send the instructions for updating this information. 7. REPORTS • Council Meeting Report Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the December 14, 2020 Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Director Darling stated there is a PUD development stage plan for the Villas at Shorewood Village and the draft Comprehensive Plan slated for the next Planning Commission meeting. She noted that there is also a joint meeting with the Park Commission next week to continue the fire lane discussion. 8. ADJOURNMENT Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 5, 2021, at 9:20 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all Motion passed 4/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD JOINT PARK/PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION SHOREWOOD CITY HALL TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE JOINT PARK/PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION Park Chair Mangold convened the meeting via Zoom at 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Park Chair Mangold, Commissioners Garske, Schmid, Hirner, and Gallivan; Planning Chair Maddy, Commissioners Gorham, Eggenberger, Gault, and Riedel; Planning Director Darling; Park and Recreation Director Grout Absent: None B. Review Agenda There was a consensus to approve the agenda, as presented. 2. DISCUSSION ITEM: A. Fire Lanes Planning Chair Maddy reminded the Commission that the discussion tonight would involve Fire Lanes #1, #3, #4, #5, and #6. Planning Director Darling reminded the Commissions of the purpose for discussing these fire lanes was that the group thought they warranted more discussion. She stated that the primary questions they were considering were to really look at the allowed use; are any additional uses appropriate; or should improvements be done in order to allow the site to serve as public lake access. She stated that there had been quite a bit of discussion about no longer having some of these fire lanes and vacating them. She stated that she had provided additional information on vacating the fire lanes at the November meeting. She stated that the DNR has indicated that they would do several tests on our discussions surrounding vacations. She stated that she has also had discussions with the Fire Department about public access points that can be used as observation points when there are emergencies on the lake. She stated they would also like to have a discussion about the fire lanes being able to be used for smaller vehicle access in case of emergency and also have a place to launch drones for observation. She stated that the Fire Department has also asked that the fire lanes be more identifiable so all of the fire fighters would actually know where they are. She stated that the bottom line is that the Fire Department would like to maintain some public use for public safety purposes of the fire lanes. She stated that in November she had also given the Commissions a quote for providing a 10-foot path on each of the fire lanes out to the water and that was $25,300. Park Commissioner Schmid asked for the specific definition of a fire lane. Planning Director Darling explained that a fire lane is defined as a public access onto one of the two lakes in the City. She explained that they are divided into different classifications and that JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 2 OF 21 code section was included in the packet. She noted that one classification allows pedestrian access only and one allows some vehicle access. Park Commissioner Schmid stated that it sounds like, in theory, these should all be left open so emergency vehicles can access these areas. Planning Director Darling stated that they are not just for emergency access but also for public access. Park Commissioner Schmid asked if people could park a vehicle at the fire lanes. Planning Director Darling explained that there is one fire lane where a vehicle can be parked and that is at Crescent Beach and noted that other than that, the vehicles should not be on the fire lanes themselves, but out on public streets. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that the information she shared from the Fire Department is new information that they have an interest in maintaining the fire lanes for emergency access. He asked if they had indicated which fire lanes had the most value as these access points. Planning Director Darling stated that the Fire Chief does not want any of the fire lanes to be vacated and would like as many potential access or observation points as possible. Planning Commissioner Riedel asked if this recommendation applied to the fire lanes that were located along Lake Williams. Planning Director Darling stated that the recommendation did apply and reiterated that the Fire Chief does not want any of the fire lanes in the City to be vacated. Planning Chair Maddy asked if the Mound Fire Department, who serves the islands, had similar desires for the fire lane access points on the islands. Planning Director Darling stated that was correct. Planning Commissioner Garske asked if the Fire Chief had visited the fire lanes or if he was just asking for more information. Planning Director Darling stated that the Fire Chief has gone out to every single fire lane. Park Commission Chair Mangold noted that information that the City received back from the DNR regarding the potential of vacating the fire lanes related to “present and future access to the public”. He stated that, while not impossible, it would make it difficult to vacate the fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that based on the DNR feedback and the information from the Fire Chief, that is a future public use, so it cannot be vacated. Planning Commissioner Maddy asked if any of the Commissions had an appetite for vacating fire lanes now that the information from the DNR and the Fire Department have been shared. There was Consensus of the Joint Park and Planning Commission to take the idea of vacating fire lanes off the table. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 3 OF 21 Park Commissioner Garske noted that if the Commission decides that the fire lanes will be kept for Fire Department access to the lake, there needs to be a discussion about who will fund the maintenance because some of them are currently impassable and will take work to get them usable. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he agreed and gave the example of Fire Lane #5 because he does not see how this fire lane could be of any use to the Fire Department with the way it is currently constructed. He stated that he does agree that the information shared by both the DNR and the Fire Department takes vacation off the table, but feels there will need to be discussion about the classification and maintenance of the fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he does not think it makes sense that the Fire Department wants, for example, to keep both Fire Lanes #3 and #4 because they are only about 100 yards from each other. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he thinks the Fire Chief was basically saying that whatever access he can get to the lake, he will take, regardless of where it is located. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he agrees with the sentiment behind what Planning Commissioner Gault stated, but given the DNR’s regulations around this and the position of the Fire Chief, vacating any of these would be an uphill battle. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he could make the same argument about the proximity between Fire Lanes #5 and #6. Park Chair Mangold suggested the group start the discussion and Fire Lane #1 and work their way through the rest. Fire Lane #1 Planning Chair Maddy reminded the Commissions of the location of this fire lane and noted that there is some private development on this fire lane. He reviewed the questions that Planning Director Darling asked the Commissions to consider as part of their discussions. Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding Fire Lane #1. Planning Chair Maddy asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to speak regarding Fire Lane #1. There being no public comment, he asked the Commissioners to give input on Fire Lane #1. Park Commissioner Hirner asked if the equipment and material from the private home owner and the yacht club that was placed on the fire lane had been removed. Planning Director Darling explained that the answer is yes and no. The City had asked the property owner at the home to the south if they would cut off their irrigation at their property line and that has been done. She explained that they had also taken their personal items out of the fire lane, however the yacht club still has a section of dock being stored in the area that has not been moved. She noted that the boundary between the fire lane and the yacht club property had JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 4 OF 21 not been clearly defined. She stated that she has not required them to remove it at this point since the boundary is not clearly defined. She stated that she has also not required the home owners to remove the boulders and landscaping that has been placed over the years to essentially make it look like private property and noted that some of it was done before the current owners moved to the property. Planning Chair Maddy explained that this is a Class 1 fire lane which means it is basically designed for pedestrian use, canoes, small boats, cross country skiing and generally quiet lake access. Planning Commissioner Riedel reminded the Commission of past discussion that parking for this fire lane will be a huge issue for public access because there is no place to park. He stated that whoever would use it would be a resident on the island or someone who could find a place to park and walk to the access point. Planning Director Darling stated that the yacht club has indicated that there may be room out there to build a few parking spaces. Councilmember Callies introduced herself and explained that she is the new Council liaison to the Planning Commission and noted that she may not be able to stay for the entirety of the meeting. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger recommended that the City define the boundary, not vacate the fire lane, leave it as a Class 1, provide signage, and maintain it. Park Commissioner Garske asked if recommending a parking space or two would require changing the classification of the fire lane. Planning Director Darling stated that parking would be under a different classification. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that this access could provide good western access for things like snowmobiles and ATVs. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he feels it may be a bit premature to change the classification for snowmobiles and suggested waiting to see how it goes with the existing use and the increasing the awareness of the fire lane. Park Chair Mangold stated that he agreed that this fire lane is best left as Class 1 and defined by boundaries and signs. There was a Consensus of the Commissions to keep Fire Lane #1 as Class 1, not allow new uses, define clear boundaries, maintain the area, and provide signage. Fire Lane #3 Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding Fire Lane #3. She noted that have been some private improvements by the adjacent land owner that are in the public right of way, but staff has not provided any direction to the property owner as of yet. She noted that the lathe marking the location of the fire lanes have been removed, but the subgrade/survey markers are still there so they can be reidentified. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 5 OF 21 Planning Chair Maddy stated that identifying the boundaries will be an important part of the fire lanes. Park Commissioner Gallivan asked about the interaction between Fire Lane #3 and #6 regarding snowmobile access. He asked for clarification on past input that you could not truly access the lake from Crescent Beach with a snowmobile because it is mostly on the Shorewood side and is really mostly a drainage ditch and the other side of Crescent Beach is Tonka Bay and it is not classified for snowmobile access. Planning Director Darling noted that she believes that Tonka Bay is also discussing their fire lanes but stated that she had discovered that Shorewood does allow snowmobile access, but Tonka Bay does not. She stated that it is challenging to find the actual boundary right between Tonka Bay and Shorewood. She stated that it does appear that the Shorewood side is mostly within the drainage ditch or along some of the upland property that looks like the adjacent home. Planning Chair Maddy asked if there were any members of the public that would like to give input on Fire Lane #3. Michael Blomquist, 5425 Grant Lorenz Road, stated that Fire Lane #3 is totally accessible. He noted that right now it is just foot traffic and everyone is being totally responsible and obeying the rules and going down to Crescent Beach because that it the most accessible fire lane in the City. He stated that this access is lighted and is probably the safest access point. He stated that according to information shared by Planning Director Darling this fire lane should be 25 feet wide and he would like to know where the other 18 feet of it went because that is about how wide it is. Planning Director Darling stated that if it is found that there are private improvements within the fire lane, the City can ask that they be removed, but explained that she had stopped asking adjacent residences to do this until the Commissions had finished their discussions. Mr. Blomquist asked why Planning Director Darling had stopped making those requests. Planning Director Darling explained that if the Commissions were proposing to vacate some of these fire lanes it seemed pointless to request that the private improvements be removed. Mike Melnichek, 25360 Birch Bluff Road, asked if there were any variances granted for any improvements along Fire Lane #3. Planning Director Darling stated that there no variances granted because the City cannot grant variances for uses within the right of way. Mr. Melnichek clarified that the improvements were made without City approval. He asked if there had been any attempt, to date, of trying to enforce the changes. Planning Director Darling stated that there may have been some discussions with the property owner regarding the camera, but that was another staff person. Planning Chair Maddy reviewed the questions that needed to be considered. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 6 OF 21 Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that the only reason the City is discussing all of the fire lanes is because of the issues surrounding this particular fire lane. He that this fire lane is clearly classified as not allowing motorized use and the adjacent property owner has expressed his objection to the motorized use. He stated that regardless of the fact that people have been using it for snowmobile access for many years, he cannot see a case being made that the City should change the use classification. He stated that based on principle, he believes this fire lane should remain non-motorized access. Park Chair Mangold stated that if there needs to be discussion about snowmobiles having more access to the lake, he believes that can be discussed. He stated that he feels allowing snowmobile access in this location just because it has always been done here is a slippery slope because it means the City was not enforcing what it should have been. He stated that he is leaning towards agreeing with Planning Commissioner Riedel. He stated that he feels the City should be enforcing what is already in place which means there should also not be trucks down there removing docks. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the homeowner should also not be able to park vehicles on the fire lane and he agrees with the other Commissions that the use should retain its current classification and the City should enforce it. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he feels there can be a case made for common usage and the City has received about 10 letters from people who feel they were sold their house with the idea that they would have this access to the lake. He stated that he feels the feedback has been overwhelming to continue the common usage as it has been used for decades. He stated that he doesn’t think it would be right for the City to now come in and just say it should have been enforcing this all along. He stated that it is not legal to access the lake from Birch Bluff Beach because the Shorewood portion is unusable and it is not allowed on the Tonka Bay portion. He stated that by insisting this be retained as Class 1, he feels it would be telling the residents, that the City will not allow you to have motorized access to the lake from Shorewood property which he doesn’t feel is something that a City with the name “shore” in it should be telling its citizens. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that normally he would agree with Commissioners Riedel, Eggenberger and Park Chair Mangold in this situation, however the homeowner seems amenable to supporting the neighborhoods enjoyment of using the fire lane for snowmobile access. He stated that he is afraid of a potential liability issue with the homeowner, but feels that if the City can find a way to make this work with what the homeowner would be agreeable to, he doesn’t know why the City wouldn’t work towards that end. Park Chair Mangold stated that if the Commissioners are saying that this is the best, safest access to the lake moving forward, then he is more on board with that argument than the argument that the City is going to continue doing it because it has always allowed it. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that his point is that the City has heard from a lot of people who want the allowed usage in this location to change and the adjacent property owner is willing to accept change with some caveats and he believes the City should explore in that direction rather than being rigid. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he would like to leave it, as is, for right now, but thinks the City should explore the point that Planning Commissioner Gorham was getting at and speak to the adjacent homeowner and get some clarity with what he would be okay with. He stated that JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 7 OF 21 he is not entirely clear on what that homeowner’s position is. He stated that he also thinks the City should engage in a conversation with Tonka Bay when it comes to Crescent Beach. He asked if the City truly believed this is the safest and best access for snowmobiles in the City. He stated that he would not be comfortable moving forward until some of these questions are answered and reminded the Commissioners that the homeowner did his due diligence and checked with the City and found out the classification of the fire lane prior to purchasing this property. Planning Chair Maddy stated that his understanding of the discussion thus far is that many of the Commissioners do not want to see the classification changed right away, but see a chance for a compromise and an opportunity to work with the adjacent neighbors. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he feels that is just kicking the can down the road. He stated that he thinks the question for the Commissions to answer is whether it will be left as a Class 1 or if they will recommend it be changed to a Class 2 with conditions. Park Commissioner Gallivan asked if there were currently hours of operation and noted that he does not know how the City can enforce this type of thing. He asked if it was realistic to expect people not to use it between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. just because a sign is posted when they have already been using the fire lane in a manner that they aren’t supposed to. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he believes people were using in that manner because they did not know it wasn’t allowed. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that he is on the middle ground for this issue and thinks that it is not one or the other. He stated that he feels there should be a way to satisfy everyone’s concerns. He stated that some of the things that could be considered is installing a fence to help deflect noise and look at the timing of the hours of operation. He stated that he understands that the homeowner did their due diligence, however there is a long-term use and thinks there is a viable reason to come to an amenable agreement with all the parties. He stated that he is not comfortable with this group making that decision without having more information from the parties involved and getting their opinions on what they are willing to accept. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the City has already gathered this information and he keeps hearing over and over that the Commissions need to recognize the concerns of one homeowner. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he does not see that as a fair characterization. Planning Chair Maddy stated that the one homeowner he is referencing has the law on his side, as well. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that people are saying that they are open to changing it with conditions, but are also suggested that this be discussed with the one homeowner. He stated that the fact that the Commissions are having this conversation is an acknowledgement that the City is open to listening to their concerns. He stated that he agrees with Park Commissioner Hirner that the City can engage in conversations so this does not kick the can down the road. Planning Commissioner Gault asked if the posted hours of operations for snowmobiles also applied to City streets. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 8 OF 21 Planning Director Darling confirmed that those hours are valid within the City. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the only reason snowmobiles will be running around on City streets is in order to access the lake. He stated that it seems unreasonable to limit their access to the lake more than the access would be limited to the City streets. Planning Commissioner Riedel noted that people are only permitted to drive their snowmobile from their residence on the most direct path to the lake access, which means people are not allowed to just go joy riding on City streets with their snowmobile. Park Commissioner Garske asked what would happen if the City just decided to change the classification to a Class 2. Planning Director Darling stated that there are legal avenues that the homeowner could take. She stated that one of the letters included in the packet had a photo of some new signage that the City of Tonka Bay just put up in their fire lane. She read aloud the sign that says, “No Snowmobiles or other Motorized Vehicles Allowed in Fire Lanes between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.” and is also winter access only. She stated that this sign is posted at Crescent Beach. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that this information changes the discussion if Crescent Beach has snowmobile access because people along Birch Bluff Road have that option for lake access. Park Chair Mangold stated that he does not think this picture was taken at Crescent Beach. Planning Director Darling stated that she was mistaken and the sign is posted at the bay access near Manitou Road. Mr. Blomquist, asked if there had ever been a parking issue at this fire lane with vehicles and trailers. Planning Director Darling stated that she had not heard of parking issues. Mr. Blomquist stated that he agrees with the times that have been discussed. He stated that he has a friend that lives on Lake Independence and he has a private access that is a gate, with a locked gate that works really well. He noted that there is not a sign at Crescent Beach. Mr. Melnichek also stated that there is not a sign at Crescent Beach. Planning Chair Maddy took a poll of the Commissioners to gauge their feelings about a proposal to allow snowmobile and ATFV access on Fire Lane #3, which means a change to Class 2 with extra conditions – Ayes – Hirner, Garske, Gorham, Gault, Nay – Mangold, Gallivan, Schmid, Eggenberger, Riedel, Maddy Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he thinks if the City pursues a collaborative route, that may change the consensus to a different vote. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 9 OF 21 Park Commissioner Garske stated that he is torn because he can see both sides and thinks they both have valid points. He stated that his decision to support changing this fire lane to a Class 2 was because having access to the lake is a value add to the community. Park Chair Mangold stated that he thinks there are two choices: to present this to Council as is, showing that both Commissions are very split on this issue and get them to weigh in, or can attempt to refine the question. Park Commissioner Schmid asked if there is another option for snowmobilers getting onto the lake other than through the fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that there is not. He suggested that the Commissions recommend to Council that this be put out to a public hearing with the notification that the City is considering reclassifying Fire Lane #1 from a Class 1 to a Class 2. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would support that suggestion. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he thinks of that as a totally different conversation or path forward. He stated that he is totally fine engaging in conversations with the homeowner and Tonka Bay but voted no because he felt he was being asked if he was ready to classify it as a Class 2 fire lane tonight. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes this is the fourth public meeting the City has held regarding fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that holding another public hearing is just kicking the can on this issue. He stated that the group has voted 6 to 4 and doesn’t know what else needs to be said. Park Chair Mangold stated that he is fine sending this to the City Council with the reality that the group is very split and leave it in their lap. He stated that he does not think this group should just kick the can and should either send it to Council as it or continue to talk about it until there is a clearer consensus on the action. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the Commission keep talking about Crescent Beach being the alternate access, however the part that is within the City cannot be used as access. He stated that it seems like the City is just saying people can just use the Tonka Bay side, but asked what would happen if Tonka Bay doesn’t agree to that idea. He asked what would happen if Tonka Bay felt this was a good idea, but only for Tonka Bay residents. He stated that he believes as a City, it is incumbent on us to provide access to the lake within the City. Commissioner Riedel stated that he disagrees and feels the letter of the law would absolutely prevail in this situation. He stated that the letter of the law is clear that motorized access is not allowed and the homeowner, if he chose to contest a change in the use of the fire lane, he would prevail in court and the City would lose. He stated that it is like adverse possession and it is very hard to make the case that people have used it this way, so that is now the rule. He stated that he has sympathy for the person who bought the property thinking that there would not be snowmobile access to the lake. He stated that he also does not think this issue should be kicked down the road and noted that the opinion of that homeowner is pivotal to this discussion because if he would be agreeable to a change allowing motorized access with enforcement and rules, then JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 10 OF 21 that would change his vote. He stated that this is the fourth public meeting and doesn’t think those should just continue to be held and this continued to be discussed. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that changes in the classification with restrictions is dependent on the homeowner agreeing to the changes. He stated that it will not stop him from suing if the City does it without his consent. He stated that he was suggesting Class 2 with restricted access and enforcement, but the homeowner needs to indicate support of it. Park Commissioner Gallivan moved that if the homeowners at the adjacent properties are amenable to the change in classifications with restrictions, that the Joint Park and Planning Commission would support reclassifying Fire Lane #3 to Class 2. Park Commissioner Hirner seconded the motion. Park Commissioner Garske noted that reclassifying to a Class 2 would remove the ability to fish from shore at this location. Planning Director Darling stated that the classifications could be amended. She explained that this really only applies to Crescent Beach because it is a swimming beach. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that there may need to be a larger discussion about wat the word “amenable” means in this instance and may be something the City Attorney may need to weight in on. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he is not comfortable with the idea of giving two people veto power over this decision. Ayes – Hirner, Gallivan, Schmid, Garske, Gorham, Eggenberger, Gault, Riedel Nays – Mangold, Maddy. Motion carried 8-2. There was discussion of the use of barriers. There was a Consensus of the Commissions to provide signage with hours of operation, define clear boundaries, maintain the area for Fire Lane #3. Fire Lane #4 Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding Fire Lane #4. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that although this is close to Fire Lane #3, he goes back to the public safety aspect of the fire department needing to have access to the lake. Planning Commissioner Maddy opened this item up for public participation. There was no public input. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that if the City is going to leave it as a fire lane, it will need signage and maintenance. Planning Commissioner Gault noted that it appears as though there are some fairly mature trees located in this fire lane. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 11 OF 21 Park Commissioner Garske stated that he visited this location today and there are some large trees in the middle of it, but noted that on foot it is fairly easy to get to the water. He stated that he spoke with one of the homeowners who explained that the fire lane used to be used much more open, but then other homeowners had planted things in the fire lane to make it look nicer, which also made it feel more like private property, so they stopped using it. Park Chair Mangold stated that if the City has already determined that it will not vacate the fire lanes, that this fire lane should be enforced and signed the same way the other Class 1 fire lanes are. Planning Chair Maddy asked if he meant taking out the trees for vehicle access or just having a pedestrian trail, defining the boundaries and providing signage. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he would echo Park Chair Mangold and feels signage is important and they must be maintained as City property. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he remembers this fire lane being well maintained and looking nice so what would it mean to have the City maintain it. He asked if that meant getting rid of the encroachments. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes the idea is to maintain it in a way that a pedestrian could cross it without feeling like they are trespassing. Park Chair Mangold stated that he believes that this will involve eliminating encroachments. He reiterated that if this remains a Class 1 then it needs to be enforced and maintained the same way as all the other Class 1 fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he believes there may be a small storage building located in the fire lane, so that encroachment would need to be removed. He stated that he believes “maintain it” is a very ambiguous direction. He stated that this one is already “maintained” and is being mowed. Park Chair Mangold stated that it may be a situation where the City has it on a schedule to be mown every two weeks and then the homeowner takes it upon themselves to mow it the week in between. He stated that the question becomes is the homeowner doing it as community service or is he making it his own property. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that the rules prohibit private citizens from performing any improvements on the property. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he does not think mowing a lawn is an improvement, but would agree that putting a shed on the land would be an improvement. Park Commissioner Gallivan noted that because the City has not maintained the fire lanes, nearby residents have been forced to do it. Planning Director Darling stated that she believes the code states that there is not supposed to be any private maintenance of the public way. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 12 OF 21 Park Commissioner Garske stated that the City could set a basic standard of how it will be maintained and the code says that no one shall maintain it without approval by the City. He stated that if the City gave permission, the residents could, for instance, mow the area. Park Chair Mangold stated that would be a stretch of the Adopt a Garden program. He stated that the City had kept Fire Lane #2 for utility access, but will not be marked as a fire lane. He asked if this one was more that kind of classification as not really Class 1 but still being City access. He stated that in that case it would not be marked, but it would be retained and, in the future, could be changed back if needed. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he kind of likes that idea for both Fire Lane #4 and Fire Lane #5. Planning Commissioner Riedel asked if the Fire Chief or the DNR would have objections to this remaining City property, but not be classified as a fire lane with no further discussion about use. He asked what that would mean and whether the public could use it as an access point if it is not a fire lane. Planning Director Darling stated that they could but that would be even more of an uncomfortable situation for the residents that want to use it because it will appear even more as though it is private property. Planning Chair Maddy suggested that the City state that this will be minimally maintained and that a pedestrian trail be maintained from the waterfront to the street. Park Chair Mangold asked what the City was calling Fire Lane #2. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes that the only recommendation was that it was not needed as a fire lane and no action has been taken by the Council. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that the recommendation was that there would be some signage that said it was City property for City use only for utilities or something similar. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that could be gated then if it was only needed for City staff to access. Planning Director Darling stated that would be tricky because there is a separate property that is beyond the City property in this location. She noted that she is not prepared with details and photos for Fire Lane #2 since there was not a plan to discuss that fire lane. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he does not think the group generally had the thought of gating the fire lanes. Park Chair Mangold stated that he thinks that Fire Lane #4 could be classified the same as whatever Fire Lane #2 is classified as because it is a full access point for the City. Planning Director Darling stated that it would be an unmaintained public right of way. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he believes the City would still have to go to the DNR in that instance. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 13 OF 21 Planning Director Darling stated that the City would not have to go to the DNR because they would not be vacating anything. Planning Chair Maddy stated that unmaintained is what got the City into this situation in the first place. Park Chair Mangold stated that he can get behind this being considered Class 1 and treating it as a Class 1. Planning Chair Maddy stated that would mean marking the boundaries and putting up signage but asked what kind of maintenance would be recommended. Park Chair Mangold stated that he believes there is a maintenance chart for different levels of parks, so he thinks that would be up to Public Works based on their chart. Planning Director Darling cautioned that if the Commissions decide to leave the maintenance to Public Works discretion, that will probably mean it will be maintained the same as its current condition. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that in many ways the fire lanes are mini-parks. Park Chair Mangold noted that he cannot remember all the details of the different tiers for maintenance, but believes there are 5 tiers. Planning Chair Maddy suggested that the Commissions keep the discussion surrounding uses and not maintenance. Park Commissioner Garske stated that he believes the expectation should be very minimal maintenance regimen that will provide access to the lake. He stated that the fire lanes are not mini-parks. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated when he visited the fire lanes 6 months ago there were a few that he could not have walked through to get to the lake without going on private property because so much brush and trees have grown on the fire lanes. He stated that he doesn’t think it makes sense to do nothing and maintain it the same as its current condition. There was a Consensus of the Commissions to provide signage with hours of operation, define clear boundaries, and maintain the area for Fire Lane #4. Planning Commissioner Gorham asked if the Commissions should also recommend that the encroachments will be removed. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes that point goes without saying and that improvements that were not the cities should be removed. He asked if the Commission needed to explicitly say that private property cannot be stored on public property. Planning Director Darling agreed that it would be good to have some direction related to this fire lane. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 14 OF 21 There was a Consensus of the Commission that any private property on Fire Lane #4 shall be directed to be removed. Park Chair Mangold stated that he would like the Commission, as a group, be clear that any private property located in any of the fire lanes should be removed. There was a Consensus of the Commission that any private property located in any of the fire lanes should be removed. The Commission discussed the potential difference between private property and landscaping or vegetation that have been planted within the fire lane. Mr. Blomquist stated that he feels the Commissions are inconsistent with who has property encroaching on fire lanes. He stated that he feels like they are allowing certain things but not allowing other things. Park Chair Mangold stated that he had just suggested that the Commission be clear that all private property located in any of the fire lanes should be removed, so that is consistent. Mr. Blomquist stated that it appears to him that Fire Lane #3 is supposed to be 25 feet wide and is down to about 7 feet and the Commissions are letting sheds and other things stay. Planning Chair Maddy stated that the Commissions have already stated that they will be addressing the encroachments and that will mean sheds and even landscaping in some areas of the fire lanes will have to be removed. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he thinks the confusion may be coming from Planning Director Darling’s statement that she had not contacted the adjacent homeowners with the need to remove their private property from the public land until it was resolved on whether or not the City was going to vacate the fire lane. He stated that the Commissions have now decided that they will not vacate any of the fire lanes, so now it will be appropriate for the City to move forward in addressing the encroachments on the fire lanes. There was additional Consensus that the Commissions feel that all private property on public right of way is to be removed. Fire Lane #5 Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding Fire Lane #5. Park Commissioner Garske asked how access used to be made to the lake since it is such a steep access point. Planning Director Darling stated that there had been some sort of steps at one time. She stated that is it a bit steep and property footwear would be needed in order to navigate the area. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that this one is so overgrown you need to go onto private property in order to gain access to it. He stated that this one will require a significant amount of work in terms of maintenance and getting it cleared out. He suggested that this one should go to JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 15 OF 21 the unmaintained public right of way and leave it as that. He noted that he does not think this one should have signage or boundaries marked. Planning Commissioner Gault suggested reclassifying this fire lane to a Class 1. He stated that he doesn’t agree with the idea that the City should not spend money to maintain this and thinks this area has the most potential for a park-like usage. He stated that perhaps it could just be something like cutting a 3-foot walking path through the property. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that the City should have been maintaining this and has not. He stated that there is a lot of work that would need to be done to this site and doesn’t think there is really legitimate access to the lake. He stated that he is not opposed to doing the work but thinks the City needs to choose to really do the work to fully clean it up or take the unmaintained approach. Planning Commissioner Gault asked how the fire department would be able to use this if it was just left as is. Planning Director Darling stated that she assumes they would use it for observation. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that it appears as though they would need to use private property in order to get out there because it is so overgrown you cannot get through to access the lake. Planning Chair Maddy stated that the City could cut a walking path through it. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that it looks like it will be significant work, but it will be one time work because then it will be maintained. He stated that if they cut a 3-foot path through there and then get it on a maintenance schedule and that will not be too hard. Park Commissioner Hirner asked if there really had been a dock in this location. Planning Director Darling stated that there had been a dock at one point, but not for 15 years or so. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that if the City cuts a walking path through the area, the dock may be something that reappears. The Commission discussed the possibility of a community dock being allowed in this location. Park Commissioner Garske stated that he is in favor of keeping the classification as a Class 3. Park Chair Mangold stated that he sees this fire lane as having more potential for future use than most of the other fire lanes. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that the City needs to commit to doing the maintenance and also feels there will need to be a barrier at the top for safety purposes or putting in satisfactory stairs. He stated that he is not comfortable just putting in a half solution of kind of cleaning it up. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 16 OF 21 Planning Commissioner Gault stated that if the City is going to bring these fire lanes up to the level that they can be used, the City needs to be committed to doing the initial work and then to actually maintaining them. Park Commissioner Garske stated that because the embankment in this location is so steep, he feels some fencing may be needed in order to keep people from getting too close. He asked if that also meant the City needed to install stairs so there is actually lake access which may be very expensive. Planning Director Darling suggested installing a sign that states “No Access Beyond This Point”. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he has been in many parks that have had some dangerous terrain and feels that you need to have some self-responsibility. Park Chair Mangold agreed that he does not think there is a huge liability issue here. He stated that he thinks this fire lane could be one that the City addresses piece by piece. He stated that they could just start by clearing out a place to walk so the fire department would have access to this as an observation point or to send up a drone. There was a Consensus that Fire Lane #5 be kept as Class 3, signage marking the fire lane, signage warning of the bluff, define clear boundaries, and maintain enough to get pedestrians to the bluff area for Fire Lane #5. Fire Lane #6 Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding Fire Lane #6. Park Chair Mangold asked if the City was maintaining anything at Crescent Beach. Planning Director Darling explained that most of the maintenance dollars at Crescent Beach go towards maintenance of the beach. Park Chair Mangold stated that he thought Tonka Bay had taken over all maintenance for this beach. Park and Recreation Director Grout confirmed that Tonka Bay does handle all the maintenance for Crescent Beach, but believes that the City contributes money towards those costs. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that this drainage ditch is very important to the City and feels similar to Fire Lane #2. Planning Chair Maddy asked if there was any input from the public regarding this fire lane. Mr. Melnichek stated that he owns the property just west of the fire lane. He stated that he thinks there are some things that need to be clarified. He stated that he wants to make clear the boundaries of this fire lane and in its current state it cannot be used by anyone for any practical reason. He stated that all of the access is being used through Crescent Beach and nothing is going through the fire lane area. He stated that he is a former fire fighter, and does not agree with the Fire Chief that there is any practical use of the fire lanes within the City. He stated that JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 17 OF 21 for emergency services or public service, they can go on private property in those situations. He stated that the fire lanes are not marked nor has there been any training and disagrees with the Fire Chief that the fire lanes are valuable assets. He stated that as a short-term resident of the City he feels they have consistently demonstrated an inconsistent enforcement of the City ordinance with regard to these fire lanes and has really contributed to or caused the mess that is in place today. He stated that he challenged the Commissions to rename the fire lanes to what they really are, which is public access to the lake. He stated that regarding Fire Lane #6, he has reached out to the City numerous times about maintaining it and until recently, when he spoke with Mayor Labadie, he has finally been told that this area will get some attention. He stated that the fire lane area is a complete mess and is an embarrassment for him. He stated that there are dead trees constantly falling on his property and even had a dead tree fall on one of his building structures last year. He stated that he is not allowed to maintain this area, but already has plans to do it in the spring for the safety of him and his pets, since the City has not had any enforcement. He stated that he doesn’t understand the City’s desire to hold so tightly to the fire lanes, but yet they have done nothing to maintain them. He asked the Commissions to abandon all the fire lanes because they serve no purpose. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believe the Commissions agree with much of what Mr. Melnichek stated and are trying to move forward in a better path. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that it this a drainage ditch and he believes it needs to be kept as that, but it needs to be maintained. He stated that he would suggest reclassifying it to the same as Fire Lane #2 that will be kept because of the utility access. He stated that he would agree with Mr. Melnichek that the City should probably call these public accesses and not fire lanes, except for Fire Lanes #2 and #6 because they are not public access. Park Chair Mangold asked if there was snowmobile access at this point and noted that he is not completely clear on what is happening with Tonka Bay at Crescent Beach. He stated that he would like to know what Tonka Bay’s expectations are and noted that he feels the entire beach needs to have consistent rules and consistent enforcement. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he feels this area is unusable as a snowmobile access point. Planning Director Darling stated that she can have a conversation with Tonka Bay before this goes to City Council to clarify some of these issues. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he thinks that is a good idea and would like to see what Tonka Bay allows because if the City reclassifies this to something that does not allow snowmobiles, that may disallow snowmobiles to the entire beach. Park Chair Mangold stated that he agreed that the City needs to think about how this issue plays out with Tonka Bay and how this balances that situation. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he was out there yesterday and it appears as though the snowmobilers were driving right on the western boundary. He stated that he understands that this is a drainage ditch and is not a great access point, but some snowmobile drivers are aware of the regulations and are hitting the most western point which appears to be passable for snowmobiles. He stated that theoretically the drainage ditch could be improved or modified to actually allow snowmobile access in this location on the Shorewood side. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 18 OF 21 Planning Chair Maddy asked how many snowmobiles Mr. Melnichek heard or saw on a regular basis cutting through this area. Mr. Melnichek stated that there has been a bit less snowmobile traffic this year because of the thin ice and lack of snow. He stated that he would estimate 6-12 snowmobiles a day. He stated that he has seen more ice fishing traffic with people parking their cars and walking out to the ice. He stated that the reason snowmobilers are using the west side for access is because the dock and parking is on the other side. He stated that nobody is using the ditch for anything. He reiterated his request for the City to maintain the vegetation all along the ditch area. He stated that he would like the conversation to focus on the City’s fire lane because Shorewood cannot do anything about Tonka Bay and reiterated his request that the City cleans this thing up. Park Chair Mangold stated that he thinks there is more to this fire lane than just the ditch. He stated that Tonka Bay is an active partner with the City and he believes everything the City has done has been to maintain and build upon that partnership and this would be another key element of that because we are small town neighbors. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he does not see the need to change the classification for this fire lane. He stated that it is clear that the City has to take care of it and what has been done recently has not been enough. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that could say that generally about all the fire lanes and suggested it be put forward to the Council that the City needs to properly maintain the fire lanes/public access points so they are usable for City residents. He stated that he thinks the Commission may need to word it strongly that every one of these fire lanes need to be maintained so it can be used as classified. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that despite the fact that this meeting has been going on for 3 hours, it does not feel as though much has been accomplished. He stated that he is not in favor of changing the classification because it is a legitimate access point for snowmobiles. He asked if there was consensus that this should be the snowmobile access point for Shorewood and whether it should be maintained for that purpose. He stated that would mean maintaining or modifying the drainage ditch so there is a level area to the west of the ditch for snowmobile access. Park Chair Mangold stated that he would agree because the City has this access and needs to clean it up so it can be used for its proper use. There was Consensus of the Commissioners to retain Fire Lane #6 as a Class 2 Fire, install signage with hours of operations, establish boundaries, coordinate on snowmobile access with Tonka Bay, that the area be maintained and cleaned more frequently because of its proximity to the beach. Fire Lanes #7, #8, #9, and #10 Planning Chair Maddy stated that the Commissions will want to let the Council know that originally, they had recommended vacation of three of these fire lanes, but with the new information received regarding regulations, it makes sense for the City to sit on them until a future use is found. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 19 OF 21 Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that there should also be signage and maintenance for these fire lanes as well. Park Chair Mangold stated that he feels that would be another subclassification. He asked what the plan was for Fire Lane #2, and noted that he feels these four fire lanes should be treated the same. He noted that it has basically been decided that the City will keep them for utility and future use but not having them in the public access classes of fire lane. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes that is the recommendation since they will not be vacated. Planning Director Darling confirmed that the DNR will have the same position on the Lake William fire lanes as it does on the Lake Minnetonka fire lanes. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he would be more comfortable sitting on these fire lanes and seeing what happens once the City cleans up the ones discussed earlier tonight. He stated that he does not think the City needs to clean them all up in one fell swoop. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he is comfortable with keeping these as unmaintained public accesses because these from a maintenance standpoint are completely different. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he is having a hard time understanding why the City would maintain a fire lane such as Fire Lane #4 but not one on Lake William is the City is going to keep them. Planning Chair Maddy stated that there is a lot more traffic on Lake Minnetonka than there is on Lake William. He stated that he doesn’t think that is saying that the City will not maintain these fire lanes in the future. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that it appears as though the City could be vacating these fire lanes if it could get the approval from the DNR which does not appear likely. Park Chair Mangold stated that this is correct and the question now is, if the City is going to keep them, if they are interested in some kind of subclass that is not defined today or should these be the same as the Lake Minnetonka fire lanes. Planning Chair Maddy stated that is an interesting idea to create a fourth class that maintains it as City property, not let anyone store or build anything on it, but perhaps not mark it, make a pedestrian trail through it. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that is basically what Fire Lane #2 is because the City has lots of little parcels of land that are owned by the City and are public, but there is no requirement to maintain them and is at staff’s discretion. He stated that he feels that would be the easiest solution. Park Chair Mangold stated that he believes that they do all have maintenance requirements and are not just ignored, and gave an example of certain parcels that are just checked twice a year. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that it is clear that the City needs to do a better job maintaining the Lake Minnetonka fire lanes and differentiating them helps. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 20 OF 21 Park Chair Mangold suggested that the Commissions look at this as a group that they are willing to keep, that they are not maintained currently because there is not high demand or a safety concern, but confirm this with the Fire Department that there is not a need to clear something out. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that someone drowning on Lake William is just as important as someone drowning on Lake Minnetonka. Park Chair Mangold stated that he believes they have access right off of Minnetonka Boulevard, but that is the reason to ask the Fire Department that question and see if there would be a benefit to clearing any of these fire lanes for use. Park Commissioner Garske stated that he is of the opinion that the City should still attempt to vacate these fire lanes and communicate to the DNR that the City has no present or future use for the fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would agree. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he also agreed. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he would also agree to that approach. Planning Chair Maddy stated that recommendation has already gone to the Council, so the Commissions can wait and see what the Council says with the new information about vacation. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if there was any appetite to stop calling these “fire lanes” and call them lake access. He asked if there was any legal reason to keep the name fire lanes. Planning Director Darling stated that was something that was discussed at an earlier meeting and does not think there are any legal ramifications to that change. There was a Consensus of the Commissions to recommend that fire lanes be called Shorewood Public Lake Access. Park Chair Mangold asked if the Commission felt these should be shown on the City’s Parks and Trail map of the City. There was Consensus of the Commissions to include the fire lanes/Public Lake Access on the City’s Parks and Trails map. Mr. Melnichek stated that he just had a survey completed of his property which includes the fire lane information. He noted that it has been staked and marked out and clearly shows where it is located. He suggested that any of the interested Commission members come out to look at Fire Lane #6 because a portion of his house encroaches on it and would prevent there being a walkway built in the area. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he is concerned that the City has all these intentions and then there be a lack of execution. He stated that he would like to commit to this group meeting regularly, even if it is just once a year to revisit the success of what they are trying to accomplish. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 21 OF 21 Planning Chair Maddy stated that he likes that idea and asked for input from the other Commissioners. There was Consensus of the Commissions that they would like to see a Joint Park and Planning Commission meeting scheduled at least once a year. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that there has been a lot of discussion about maintenance and asked who will follow up to ensure that it is getting done as requested. He asked if that would be the responsibility of the Park Commission. Park Chair Mangold stated that their standard operating system in the park system is to outline generally what they would like to see done and then they ask for a progress update from Public Works. He stated that he assumes that they could also get a summary of where things are at with the fire lanes and that information could be added to the packets for both the Planning Commission and the Park Commission. He noted that once a year the Park Commission visits every park and questioned whether the fire lanes needed the Commissions to circle back and check on what City staff has done. Mayor Labadie thanked the Commissions for their work, time and effort to address this issue. She stated that she thinks they have been very thoughtful in their considerations tonight. She commended the Commissions for the respect they have shown each other throughout the meeting. Planning Director Darling explained that she would compile a written report for the Council based on the two joint meetings and separate meetings in November. 3. ADJOURN Planning Commissioner Riedel moved to adjourn the Joint Park and Planning Meeting of January 12, 2021 at 10:20 p.m. Park Chair Mangold seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – All. Motion carried 10-0. Location Map MEMORANDUM Date: January 27, 2021 To: Marie Darling, Planning Director From: Andrew Budde, PE/Matt Bauman, PE Subject: Villas at Shorewood Village_Stoddard Companies_Preliminary Plat Review 2 City of Shorewood Project No.: C16.121661 Local Surface Water Management Plan and Engineering Standards: Shorewood PUD Preliminary Plat Application Civil Engineering Plans dated 1/11/2021, including existing conditions, site plan, grading plan and utility plan Drainage Calculations dated 1/11/2021 Proposed model home staging plan received 1/8/2021 This review included the documents listed above and additional prior PUD Concept Stage Application materials, primarily dealing with grading, modelling and stormwater management. A marked-up utility plan is included with this review to clarify some comments. General 1. The development shall be designed and constructed according to the City Standard Specifications and Details. 2. Prior to the start of any construction, permits shall be secured with the following at a minimum: a.MnDOT right of way and drainage b. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District c. MPCA Construction General Permit d. Minnesota Department of Health e. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 3. Staff recommends model home building not be allowed until allpublicutility work is complete and the aggregate base is in place. A construction entrance and gravel surfacing for the model home staging shall be placed to prevent tracking onto Eureka Road. 4. With the filling of wetland 3 and other low blow counts observed from the soil borings, the development will need to ensure solid soil foundations are provided for all structural improvements including roads, sidewalks, driveways and building pads. Streets and Pedestrian Access 5. The roadway may be constructed to less than City standard width, but no less than 24-foot face of curb to face of curb (surmountable curb). A 6-foot sidewalk is required. (Ȁ͐3(7$͐#ΐΕΐΑΐΕΕΐ͐ΐ͑#®±±¤²͐#͑4® /³§¤±²͐ΑΏΑΐȃΏΐȃΑΖ͑3³®££ ±£͑0±¤«¨¬ 0« ³͑2¤µ¨¤¶ Αȁ£®¢· Name: Stoddard PUD Date: January 27, 2021 Page: 2 6. Modify the cul-de-sac to meet the dimensions of city detail RDW-03 face of curb (note a difference in radii on site plan verses grading plan and utilities plan). 7. A marked pedestrian crossing shall be provided at Eureka to connect the new sidewalk to the existing trail and nearby Freeman Park, including crosswalk markings and advanced warning signage. 8. The minimum length of the turn lane from the beginning of the taper shall be 110 feet, and designed in accordance with MnDOT Design of Turn Lane Guidelines document. A 50-foot turn bay and 60-foot taper is appropriate. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain 9. Change the watermain diameter to 12-inch and only extend the main southward on Seamans Drive right of way. The City will be responsible for the additional material costs between the . a. Watermain connection fees are $10,000 per lot and charges are reimbursable for watermain and services in the public right of way up to $140,000. Charges beyond that are the responsibility of the developer. 10. Hydrants shall be placed at a 400-foot minimum distance. A hydrant should be added at the south termination of Seamans Drive installation. 11. Additional comments on sanitary and watermain may be forthcoming in future plan submittals. Surface Water Management and Grading 12. Suggest adding maintenance access routes to the proposed stormwater areas for future maintenance needs. 13. Provide drainage and utility easement for proposed stormwater area 1 on Block 1 Lots 1 and 2, including 10-feet for each side of the stormwater pipe. 14. Include Wetland 2 normal and high-water levels on the plans. 15. The ditch bypass piping will need to provide a velocity 3.0 feet per second for pipe cleanout when flowing full. Which requires a minimum grade of 0.15%. 16. Define Wetland 1 overland EOF elevation and route on the plans. In lieu of an overland EOF, model the site with back to back 100-year storm events while maintaining a 1-foot separation from the low building opening. 17. The property must meet the City of Shorewood Surface Water Management Plan Regulations (Section 5.3)and should be summarized in a reportin future submittals. a. Ensure the full roadway and curb and gutter width and revised sidewalk width is accounted for in future submittals. 18.Owners of private stormwater facilities shall enter into an agreement with the City describing responsibility for the long-term operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities and shall be executed and recorded with the final plat. An operations and maintenance plan for the proposed stormwater system should be included with future submittals. 19. The low area filtration basin will be inundated with water for a longer period than existing conditions. We recommend planting this area with plants suitable for a rain garden that can withstand periodic inundation. a. Additional detail to ensure the basins drain dry between storm events will be required with future submittals. 20. Additional comments on stormwater management and grading may be forthcoming in future plan submittals.