[0:08] [music]

[0:11] Good evening at 6 o'clock. We'll call the meeting to order. Abby, are you

[0:15] taking the role? >> Sure. Commissioner Applic

[0:20] » here. >> Commissioner Goodwin,

[0:21] » present. >> Commissioner Steeler

[0:23] » here. >> Commissioner Young

[0:24] » here. >> Commissioner Wagner

[0:26] » here. >> Vice Chair Stender

[0:28] » here. and chair dread >> here. We're asking if you're able please

[0:32] stand and join us for the pledge of >> allegiance

[0:38] to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands nation.

[0:57] Chair is looking for a motion to approve the agenda as presented or with changes.

[1:02] » Move to approve. >> I have a motion to approve. I have a

[1:04] second. >> Second.

[1:06] » I have a motion in a second. It's a non-debatable motion. All those in favor

[1:09] signify by saying I. >> I.

[1:11] » Opposed. Abstensions.

[1:14] Motion carries. We've come to the open form.

[1:19] » Could you let some folks know there are still some seats in the front? Oh, just

[1:22] like church. We got seats in the front row, close to the front there.

[1:27] » Act like you like each other. >> Yeah.

[1:34] » Sure.

[1:38] » Thank you. We've come to the open forum part of the

[1:43] meeting. This is where we ask anyone in the audience that would like to come up

[1:48] and spend a couple minutes giving their thoughts on any issue. We'd be happy to

[1:51] hear from them. I have a list that we will start with that goes down in order.

[1:57] Once we have been through the list, if anyone else wishes to talk, you will

[2:00] welcome you up to the podium. And when you finish, please sign this sheet when

[2:05] you're done. So, with that, um, you do need to come up and state your name and

[2:11] address for the record and spend just a couple minutes. got a lot of people here

[2:15] and I don't think we want to be here till tomorrow, but we're interested in

[2:19] what you have to say. So, I have Daniel Bud Budkkey and I apologize in advance

[2:26] for all the names I massacred tonight at 4926210th.

[2:32] Sir, again, start you you can state your name

[2:37] and address for the record. Daniel Budkey 4926 210th Street North Forest

[2:42] Lake Minnesota 55025 part of the Southside Clear Lake

[2:47] neighborhood. Uh I guess we're just all here I would

[2:50] assume to try to object to the building of this multi-tenant housing unit which

[2:56] none of us are really looking forward to. Um I want to bring up two quick

[3:00] points. I don't want to be here all night. I'm not going to lecture for

[3:02] long. My two quick points are this. Number one is simply that the it's going

[3:06] to directly hinder or possibly destroy the already deteriorating water quality

[3:11] of our lake. And it's well all over well documented the uh Minnesota DNR website.

[3:17] Uh really quick couple things. I got this off Minnesota Pollution Control

[3:21] Agency this morning that the mercury and PFOS PFOS in the lake are already

[3:27] extremely high and unsafe. We're only allowed to have one serving of fish now

[3:32] per month safely. That's what's recommended. And in fact, they even

[3:36] said, and I have right here that uh let's see, species, all species are

[3:41] contaminated. Do not eat all sizes. And it says PFOS and mercury is also

[3:49] involved per the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Obviously, runoff from

[3:53] this facility would greatly hinder the health of the lake. Um the marsh land

[3:59] that would be filled in to build this complex

[4:03] can't be simply moved somewhere else because

[4:07] it's directly located between highway 97 and the lake. That lake is then filtered

[4:13] through the marsh. The runoff from 97 filtered through the marsh. The all the

[4:18] phosphorus and all the chemicals which are greatly filled naturally through

[4:23] that marsh into the lake. So, if this is removed, it can't be replaced. You can't

[4:30] just simply move it somewhere else in a Forest Lake, somewhere in a corn field

[4:33] or whatever, and have it filter into our lake, which is already contaminated via

[4:39] the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota DNR. It's

[4:45] broadly documented per those two websites. So, I think a lot of people

[4:49] are going to talk to the health a little late coming up, so I can stop now. on

[4:54] that. My main concern though, however, is far uh graver. Uh it's the traffic

[4:59] load at Everton and 97. Now, if you all look at the monitors, I have a Google

[5:06] Earth image of the previous layout of the intersection.

[5:12] Now, note note the um left turn lane from eastbound Highway 97

[5:20] to northbound Everton. You see? And then if you look at the

[5:25] left turn lane on westbound 97 towards southbound Everton, you see how those

[5:31] two directly line up face to face. All these years we've been turning left and

[5:35] never given a thought about it because if there's a semi park there turning

[5:39] left into Quick Trip and we're heading eastbound turning north on Everton, we

[5:43] can still see any vehicle in front of us. We can still see down the road. You

[5:48] see what I'm saying? Now, this is the new layout.

[5:55] You see how it's offset? Now, that is a design flaw or something

[6:00] MDOT didn't catch. I don't know. But now, the brief period has been opened.

[6:04] I've almost been t-boned several times taking that left turn because now you

[6:09] are blinded by any vehicle turning left into Quick Trip or turning left into

[6:14] Southbound Everton. You cannot see beyond that vehicle.

[6:19] And especially if it's a large truck, a box truck, a bus, a semi, anything

[6:24] larger than a standard small car. And even then, you're injured. It's an

[6:28] incredibly dangerous situation already. And now you want to pile 228, possibly

[6:34] 500 residents, 228 apartments, 500 residents piled in there, probably with

[6:40] mult, you know, all with cars. And they're all going to be piling in,

[6:43] taking that left turn during rush hour in the afternoons when people are doing

[6:48] 60 m hour, 70 mph down this road. And at 60 m hour, a car travels 210 I mean,

[6:55] sorry, uh 105 ft in 1 second. At 60 m hour, there's no way you're going to see

[7:02] those cars coming. You got to inch out. And in one second, in two seconds, that

[7:06] car is 210 ft behind you or behind the obstacle. You can't see it. It's not

[7:12] possible. So, in the two seconds it takes you to inch out into that

[7:17] intersection, you're done. And it's going to happen. If you load overload

[7:23] this intersection with people, someone's going to die.

[7:27] Someone's going to get killed. Hands down. The only reason that hasn't

[7:31] happened, as I showed you earlier, we could see all these years, you could

[7:34] easily turn left safely. Now, you can because of this design.

[7:40] So, if you overload that right there, people are not going to be able to see.

[7:45] People are going to be rushing. And I know what you're thinking. You're going

[7:47] to say, "Well, we'll just put up a turn on green arrow only sign up." Hey,

[7:52] problem solved, right? No. Makes it just as dangerous in a different way. Then

[7:56] what happens is they shortened the left turn lane now. So, this new design is

[8:00] shorter. So the cars pile up quicker and now because it's so overloaded with

[8:05] people that you're going to go out in the main uh flow of traffic in that main

[8:09] lane and we all know it's all backed up almost all the way to light several

[8:13] times all the way to the light in Columbus.

[8:17] So now people are going to get frustrated and they're going to jam out

[8:20] onto the shoulder saying, "Well, I'm going right. I'm going to turn into a

[8:24] quick trip anyway. I don't need to wait in this and someone else can have the

[8:27] same idea and they're going to hit. Someone's going to get rear ended or god

[8:31] forbid someone's going to go up on the pedestrian path and hit somebody on a

[8:34] bike or walking an elderly couple taking a walk, a baby in a stroll. Who knows?

[8:40] It's going to happen. And these cars are not doing 60. They're doing 70.

[8:45] So, I'm just telling you, this is an incredibly dangerous situation. Left

[8:49] turn on green arrow isn't going to solve the problem by any stretch of the

[8:52] imagination. It doesn't matter. And that traffic is going to pile all the way

[8:56] back up to the highway almost every single rush

[9:00] hour every single day, especially on Friday afternoons when everyone's

[9:04] jamming to the cabin. So this creates an incredibly dangerous

[9:08] situation and someone's going to be killed. So your decision here today is

[9:12] immense. Someone's life in this room probably

[9:16] depends on it. And statistically speaking, it does. So don't make the

[9:21] wrong choice. I'm telling you, this can't go through. Move it somewhere. I'm

[9:25] not saying don't build the thing. I'm saying just pivot. Move somewhere. The

[9:29] land can be repurposed. Reszone perhaps. We can always reszone. Nice high-end

[9:34] homes. Perfect. Done. No pressure on the intersection.

[9:38] No pressure [clears throat] on the resources really. So, that's what I want

[9:43] to say. >> Thank you for your time.

[9:47] [applause]

[9:51] I will ask for decorum. There will be no clapping, cheering, etc. We need to get

[9:56] through this. Please let everyone just comment. With

[10:02] that, we have Dana Bona. Did I pronounce it?

[10:07] » Yep. >> My name is Dana Bona. Um, I live at

[10:11] 505010th Street North, Forest Lake, Minnesota. I've lived there since 1999.

[10:17] I was born and raised in Forest Lake. I was born here in 74. I resided over at

[10:22] 456 Southshore Drive my entire life. I love Forest Lake. Um I'm a little

[10:28] emotional because I'm really upset about this. I purposely lived out we bought

[10:32] out at Clear Lake because of the fact that it was kind of getting out in the

[10:35] country, but yet I was still in the city. The lake was small. It wasn't

[10:39] overcrowded like I grew up on Forest Lake where we couldn't water ski. Um the

[10:44] lake was a clean lake. No weeds, none of the other crap going on. And when I come

[10:49] home to find out that we're trying to build an apartment complexes at the end

[10:54] of my road and I don't want that. I don't want the riff raff. You don't want

[10:57] the riff raff. And you can honestly tell me we were here in what 22 I think it

[11:02] was the headarters you guys were in section 8 housing in. There was a huge

[11:06] fight about that one and we were assured by the city council, oh it won't it'll

[11:10] be great. It'll be fine. We're going to overcome this. We're going to cover it.

[11:14] There won't be any problems. And the following year, the Force Lake Times

[11:18] wrote that over 50% of our police force calls were being sent to that section 8

[11:24] housing. So the rest of Forest Lake, we get the other 50% of the police and

[11:30] now we're going to add more housing over here. That's apartments. And I know

[11:32] right now you're all like, "Oh, it's just apartments, guys. Don't worry. It's

[11:36] not just apartments. Our city has one of the highest of rental. We're at 23 to

[11:42] 25% depending on the month and the the non occupancy. That's a high amount of

[11:48] rental already. And for the arch police force and our fire departments and

[11:52] things like that to have to cover that entire area and we were talking what 21

[11:57] you guys were trying to dismantle our police department? I mean, what are we

[12:01] going to do? Just let them run a muck and the next thing that's going to

[12:04] happen is, oh, this apartment buildings are no longer for just apartment

[12:07] buildings. They're going to be section 8 because now the city can get more money

[12:10] off that. I don't want that. I don't want the riff raff coming down and

[12:14] burglarizing my cars, which I hear our friends on the south side or on the

[12:18] north side have a problem from the section 8 housing wandering into their

[12:22] neighborhoods and riff rafting. They have to make sure their cars are locked.

[12:26] I don't have to make sure my car is locked. My cars are left unlocked right

[12:29] now. Hell, my front door is unlocked right now. I know every person around my

[12:34] lake that's sitting here today, we go out, we pontoon, tie up, we do things

[12:38] together. We're all really tight. We don't want this apartment complex here.

[12:44] This apartment complex is going to bring the crowd that we don't want for psych

[12:47] to be erected. This is a town where your kids can walk the streets. Now we have

[12:52] drugs that we have to worry about. There's talk that the police are having

[12:55] to watch loves because they're a traffic jam for drug drive. The mules drop off

[12:59] the drugs there and the rest run up to Duth. I mean, this is just getting

[13:03] worse. What are we going to do? This is our foot. We're putting it down. I will

[13:08] tell you this. our neighborhood is this strong and this tight. We've already

[13:11] started interviewing attorneys. I am aware by two different attorneys. There

[13:17] are precedents in the state of Minnesota where personal parties hired attorneys

[13:21] and sued the city to stop them from doing something like this. And if that's

[13:26] what we have to go to, we have to go to But they did win. The city actually was

[13:30] a were sued for the devalument of those properties. This apartment building will

[13:35] devalue my property. every one of my neighbors properties because now you

[13:40] have to constantly have the police out there. The police right now come out

[13:43] there and if they're sitting there writing their paperwork, we're giving

[13:45] them water. Pop, how you doing? That isn't why they're going to be there in

[13:50] the future. They're going to be there because somebody's stuff got broken

[13:53] into, stuff got wrecked. I don't want that. That's not what I want to be. I

[13:58] don't want to be in the forake times because our block got vandalized.

[14:02] Do you guys want in your houses? Do you want me to build an apartment building

[14:05] right down in your neighborhood? I can honestly say I know each and every one

[14:09] of you don't want that. So, I'm begging you, please think about

[14:13] if this was your neighborhood and I was the one, some developer saying, "Hey,

[14:17] I'll give you some money. I can make your life real easy. I can make you guys

[14:20] meet budget. There's other ways to meet budgets for the city than doing this to

[14:26] us." Because once it starts with us, we're just the first pipeline of the

[14:30] city going to hell. And I don't want it to be. And there are towns out there

[14:34] that have said, "We're not going to have this. We need to be that town. We need

[14:38] to say, "We've done this. That area is done. We're not doing it anymore. It

[14:42] will kill our neighborhood. You will kill the south side of the lake." I'm

[14:46] begging you, please think about that and take care of us in that tune.

[14:51] Thank you. >> Thank you,

[14:56] » Kathy Rodville. I correct on that.

[15:05] Hi, I'm [clears throat] Kathy Rodold. I live on the Southshore on 4946 210th

[15:10] Street. And I'm going to build a little bit on what Dan had to say. It's bad

[15:14] enough with what's going to happen with the traffic jam at 97 in Everton. What

[15:18] about all these people that are going to be able to go in and out off of Everton?

[15:23] That's a small little road and a few houses down from there, it goes onto a

[15:27] dirt road. There's no way it's going to be able to handle the kind of traffic

[15:31] that's going to want to come in and out of there. That right now that community

[15:36] pe the kids can bike ride, they can walk, you can walk your baby, you can

[15:39] talk to your neighbors. It's a quiet small community. It's a quiet small lake

[15:44] and this is a small area of land on off the southwest corner of our lake that

[15:50] will destroy what a wonderful place this is. You know, right now we're safe and

[15:55] we're not going to be safe if you put that in. It's just the way it is.

[15:59] There's just no possible way that that will happen. I understand progress has

[16:04] to be made. Maybe some building done, but do you have to come on and off of

[16:09] Everton? Can you go out to the frontage road? Can you make bigger access off of

[16:13] 97? Something where you're not going to pull all that traffic in our

[16:17] neighborhood. And with the construction that's gone on on Highway 97, when they

[16:21] did the park by Quick Trip, well, people don't think they have to go around our

[16:25] neighborhood. They come on on Falcon and they come flying down 210th until they

[16:30] see, oh, we can't get out back onto 97. And now that that part of 97 is open and

[16:36] it's closed by Falcon, every day there's somebody that comes down Everton, comes

[16:41] flying down 210th until they see they can't go out. Well, people aren't going

[16:46] to want to wait at that intersection and they're not going to that's only

[16:50] right-hand turns in and out of 97. The way in and out of that area is going to

[16:55] be off of Everton. the majority of the traffic and that is going to put all of

[16:59] us at huge risk. So my neighbors all have something else to say. I beg you do

[17:04] not do this. Thank you for your comments. Rob Olsen.

[17:12] [cough] [clears throat]

[17:17] » Good evening members of the planning commission. My name is Rob Olsen. I live

[17:20] at 21700 Fondant Avenue along with my wife

[17:24] Ginger. Uh, I'm like a lot of people. I mean, we live on the lake on the

[17:29] northeast side. I I guess a couple things. When we received everything, I

[17:34] from what I could understand, there hasn't been an informal environmental

[17:38] impact review of this. There sounds like there maybe hasn't been a traffic study

[17:43] like the gentleman had talked about. I'd never even I drove over there before

[17:48] this with my neighbor and looked at it because we were kind of wondering where

[17:51] is this anyways and you know Everton and then we drove down the little private

[17:56] dirt road I guess that we probably shouldn't have gone on and it's it seems

[18:01] like you're shoehorning quite a bit into an area that has a lot of lowlands. So

[18:05] the concern I have is the effect upon the lake. You know the runoff to the

[18:11] lake and is there going to be the same And so I

[18:16] would ask that the planning commission would insist on further environmental

[18:20] studies to look at it because you know you know I like everybody I have concern

[18:25] for the quality of the water in that lake. Uh I'm not excited about the fact

[18:29] that we can't eat the fish we used to but I know that has nothing to do with

[18:32] this complex but it is going to have 480 cars. I was kind of astounded by that

[18:38] that, you know, you're talking a pretty decent size apartment complex and that's

[18:44] a lot of vehicles, a lot of runoff. How is that going to be taken care of so it

[18:48] doesn't go into the lake? Uh, also, as the gentleman said about the traffic, I

[18:53] think there really does need to be a traffic study or something done to

[18:56] Everton because, you know, when I first heard Everton, I said, "Yeah, Everton,

[19:00] that's a big road." But then when you turn right, it's not a very big road.

[19:03] when you turn to the north when I say right. Uh so I'd ask that that also be

[19:08] considered by the county the highway engineers whoever the city that does

[19:13] that type of stuff. So uh just instead of I don't believe that this is the

[19:18] stage in the process where anybody's got an application for actually approval.

[19:23] This is more just a information type meeting unless I'm wrong. Uh but it to

[19:28] that extent I'd ask that any approvals be subject to further environmental

[19:33] studies and further traffic studies. Thank you. Thank you.

[19:40] Ian shortly.

[19:47] » Uh and your name?

[19:56] » I didn't hear Barb. I'm sorry. >> Yeah,

[19:59] » I I I crossed you off. I I checked you. I didn't cross you off. I checked you

[20:04] off that you had already spoke. So, my apologies. You're next then because you

[20:08] were Barb, you were third on the list. So, my apologies.

[20:13] Come on up. [snorts]

[20:18] » I'm Barb Bassie and I live on 4864 210th Street. And for those of you who don't

[20:26] know the area, it's uh you know, everybody's talking Everton, but when

[20:30] you take a right, all those homes are on 210th Street. And I we we all know how

[20:37] people just race on that street. And it's not even a it really I don't think

[20:42] is legally a street because I think it was probably a dirt road that they put

[20:46] pavement on when people started living there because there's no there's no

[20:51] curbing, there's no sidewalks. The is not wide enough for hardly two cars to

[20:56] pass. And because it's such a peaceful, quiet little neighborhood, people walk

[21:01] their dogs on the street, little kids ride their bikes on the street, uh

[21:05] people go side by side talking while they're walking because there's room on

[21:10] the street. And we just don't have that kind of traffic. And it was mentioned

[21:15] that people will come in from Falcon. And you know darn well they will because

[21:18] they don't want to deal with the street light at Everton. they'll come in on

[21:22] Falcon, go zipping down 210th, go take a left, and go right into this

[21:28] new development. And um so that's my concern. Another concern is the quality

[21:34] of the lake. And um I don't know if people realize this, but that lake is

[21:39] 28t deep. Um White Bear Lake is 83 feet deep. Bone Lake. Bone Lake smaller than

[21:47] Clear Lake is actually more is deeper than um Clear Lake. And so right now

[21:53] there's about 150 to 180 residents on Clear Lake. And you know when you say

[22:00] 240 units, that's easily spouse, kids, we're talking maybe 500 more people.

[22:08] Now, is that is that possible that you can say that this little community can

[22:15] sustain that? The other thing is is that really when you think about it, so those

[22:20] people live in an apartment building, they buy a jet ski, they buy a

[22:24] speedboat, all they have to do is go around to the little public access and

[22:28] those people are going to be zip, zip, zipping all over our lake, 28 feet deep.

[22:33] You're ruining the bottom of that lake. you're you're sending all the weeds and

[22:38] every tearing up all the weeds and everything and and are those people

[22:42] paying six7,000 to live there in taxes? Hell no, they're not. And so, you know,

[22:48] we as the payers and and um the um I'm trying to think of the word and I can't,

[22:56] but we have we've got skin in the game. You know, we take care of that lake and

[23:01] right now it's as uh Dan mentioned, it's already really high and it is on the

[23:08] states impaired uh lakes because it's so full of pollution already and um we just

[23:16] can't we can't add that many more people and especially with such easy access to

[23:22] to buy a jet ski just go to the boat landing and put it in, you know, it it's

[23:27] not fair to the rest of us. It's not that big of a lake. Um this lake is 429

[23:33] acres. Um, White Bear Lake is 2400 acres. You know, they just can't bring

[23:41] speedboats. And and our lake is a little pontoon, fishing boats, you know, couple

[23:47] people have jet skis, couple have speed boats, but it's not the zip, zip, zip,

[23:52] zip, zip, you know, it can't handle it. And the other thing I want to mention,

[23:57] which I think is extremely important, is um [clears throat] that this area used

[24:03] to be was an Indian burial ground. And this is a direct quote. It said, "The

[24:09] immediate surrounding region is deeply significant and rich in indigenous

[24:14] history. Located just west of Forest Lake, this area contains some of the

[24:19] oldest known Native American burial mounds in Minnesota." Now, did any of

[24:25] you know that? But that should give you a little food for thought that that they

[24:31] should not be putting in that big in there.

[24:36] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[24:42] Uh Era Swenson, I apologize that I may have

[24:47] a little trouble reading that 483927.

[24:56] » [laughter] >> I I apologize if I massacred the name,

[24:59] but uh >> Eric Swenson,

[25:02] » you know, we don't need to know cursive anymore, just so you know. [laughter]

[25:07] » Yeah. So, um a lot of what I would say has already been said. Um

[25:14] [clears throat] you know, the lake is um we have a really strong lake

[25:20] association. Um they do a great job. Um There have

[25:26] they we have been working with the DNR and the um University of Minnesota and

[25:32] Rice Creek to improve it. We currently are running some tests on planting

[25:38] native species in the lake and things like that. Um, one of the things with

[25:43] the access to the lake is I was over there this morning just kind of checking

[25:48] it out and um there's 250 ft of uh lily pads to get to that access currently and

[25:58] those would have to be cleared out in order to make any kind of access to that

[26:04] 37 or 40 feet to get to our lake um that they currently have. So, that's

[26:11] a concern I have of ripping out a bunch of lily pads. I know it's legal through

[26:17] the DNR in certain ways and things like that, buying permits and whatever, but

[26:24] uh that's ruining a lot of our native species of that lake. Um the other

[26:30] concern I have is at the end of that 240 ft, um the lake level is about 40

[26:37] inches. Um at a at about 50 ft. It's two feet.

[26:43] So, you put a speedboat in there, you put a pontoon in there, the the level of

[26:51] the motor, the bottom of the motor where the prop is is obviously going to stir

[26:55] up the muck and continue to muddy up the water and things like that. So with all

[27:02] that extra traffic that's pro could go to that additional dock that may be

[27:08] there um that's going to really in increase the uh clarity or decrease the

[27:16] clarity of our water. So I could see our water quality going down significantly

[27:22] with that kind of traffic. Um the other thing I noticed was there's a lot of um

[27:29] through the Rice Creek wershed. I went online and looked at the uh the um

[27:36] uh low water basin in that area and a lot of that area is um low water or high

[27:46] high water area 100year flood plane area and that would have to be looked at

[27:52] pretty closely um on how they filter the water and that's already been said

[27:57] before so I'm not going to go into that But if you uh if you look at the

[28:02] 100redyear water plane or the flood plane in that area, it's pretty

[28:07] substantial. Um obviously it goes through the trail

[28:12] that would need to be made to get to the lake or dock or whatever they're going

[28:17] to do. But um that's another concern of of mine as well is how they're how

[28:23] they're going to get to the lake and what they're going to do to the the low

[28:28] lake lowle areas in that uh swamp area. So that's all I have.

[28:34] » Thank you. >> Yep.

[28:37] » Teresa Nistler.

[28:46] » Yeah. So I have somewhere to set.

[28:51] Good evening, planning commission chair, commissioners, and commissioner, vice

[28:55] chair. My name is Theresa Nishler, and I reside at 21045 Everton Avenue North. My

[29:01] spouse and I have owned this property since 2000, over 25 years. We believe in

[29:07] your website slogan, forest lake, as good as it sounds, is the primary reason

[29:13] we purchased the property on Clear Lake and across the street from forest,

[29:17] wetlands, and wildlife management areas containing abundant wildlife, protected

[29:22] eagles, and the diversity of plants that come with such a beautiful, serene

[29:26] environment. We are here tonight after submitting our

[29:30] concerns, which should have been included in your packet. So, I hope

[29:33] you've read it. If you haven't, please read those comments. My neighbors have

[29:38] done a great job bringing up lots of wonderful points about why this is a

[29:43] negative impact to not only our community but Forest Lake overall.

[29:48] Um, we are here to request that the planning commission little different

[29:51] take on the comments I submitted that you actually abide by the stated vision

[29:57] and goals of your existing 2040 comprehensive plan. The vision

[30:03] statement, and I'm paraphrasing, the city of Forest Lake is known for its

[30:07] natural resources and outdoor recreation. The city's overall vision is

[30:12] to serve as a regional hub while maintaining its national natural

[30:16] resources and providing a range of recreational

[30:19] opportunities. As development is proposed, the emphasis

[30:24] will be again the protection of natural resources. That has been highlighted

[30:28] numerous times tonight. Your number one goal is protect natural

[30:32] resources. There is absolutely nothing about this concept plan that is going to

[30:37] protect the natural resources of this area.

[30:41] Um I can tell you as another gentleman stated that the Clear Lake Association

[30:45] has worked diligently to not only protect but also provide access through

[30:49] our public boat landing education on invasive species and investing large

[30:54] financial resources along with our critical partners to add a fishing pier.

[30:59] We're working on access. We try to make sure that the public has access to the

[31:03] resources. This concept plan being presented is replicating what we're

[31:08] already providing. It's attempting to add a six slip boat marina in an

[31:12] extremely shallow vegetation filled area of the lake and a complete disregard for

[31:17] protecting this natural resource by adding a a boardwalk connecting the

[31:22] development to the proposed marina. Because as the applicant Stephen Cavan

[31:27] said, I thought it'd be a nice amenity. Well, I can tell you this is not a nice

[31:31] amenity for any of the people in this room. We are not seeing any of this as

[31:36] an amenity. I'm aware of this commission's discussions in March of

[31:40] this year beginning to scope the 2050 comprehensive plan and I just ask you to

[31:45] abide by what you've already said you want to do. And this project does none

[31:50] of it. Forcelake's current community community designation is emerging

[31:55] suburban edge. The planning challenges for this designation require innovative

[32:01] planning to ensure sustainable development and needs to address

[32:04] infrastructure and environmental concerns. Again, this concept plan does

[32:09] neither of those. The concept plan being presented tonight

[32:13] does not address the lack of infrastructure by funneling, as others

[32:16] have stated, close to 500 vehicles down a small residential road that was not

[32:21] designed for that level of activity. Nor is the newly finished Highway 97

[32:25] construction. This concept plan presented as presented would completely

[32:30] waste the taxpayer dollars that went into the redesign of 97 and it would

[32:34] also require rework and additional construction on Everton Avenue North

[32:38] that was just finished. We respectfully request that this

[32:43] planning commission recommend three things because I know you don't make

[32:48] decisions yourself. You're making recommendations. We ask that you

[32:51] recommend to your decision makers, the full council,

[32:56] eliminate the boardwalk, eliminate the boat marina,

[33:00] and eliminate any entrance or exits off of Everton Avenue North. You've heard

[33:05] that over and over and over again. Everton cannot handle this kind of

[33:09] traffic. There's plenty of open land and Forest Lake for this type of multif

[33:12] family development. This property is not the place to put this development.

[33:17] Absolutely not. There's lots of other concerns. People

[33:21] have talked about erosion. People have talked about um the runoff.

[33:26] Many of us are on private wells. There's already concern about the impact not

[33:31] only of spring flooding, but of the impact of the wells. This development is

[33:37] going to just exasperate the problems we've been dealing with. And we've all

[33:41] dealt with them in this community together. We've worked together on so

[33:46] many things and we care about each other and we want to keep our neighborhood as

[33:51] it is a lovely serene place to live in peace. Thank you.

[33:57] » Thank you, >> Dina Smith.

[34:05] [clears throat]

[34:10] Hello, I'm Deanna Schmidt, 211049 Everton Avenue. The home is located at

[34:16] the beginning part of the Dead End Street on the south side of the lake.

[34:20] The homes directly across from us above up to the proposed uh apartment

[34:26] building. Um, as I stated in the email I sent to you yesterday, I have worked in

[34:31] the apartment business uh, management for 40 years. So, I want to be clear

[34:36] that I am not opposed to the building of apartments. Um, apartment buildings are

[34:42] very important for housing in communities. However, I am opposed to

[34:48] the development of a 200 uh, 228 unit apartment building in this location.

[34:55] Um, many Clear Lake residents have made sub substantial investments in their

[35:00] homes and properties, accepting higher property taxes in exchange for unique

[35:05] character, natural beauty, and residential settings that lakefront

[35:10] living provides. With that investment comes a reasonable expectation that we

[35:15] would not suddenly find multiple large three-story apartment buildings directly

[35:21] behind our homes and in our backyards. We also have the expectation that the

[35:26] city will protect our property values and our right to the peaceful enjoyment

[35:30] of the property we have invested in. While many residents and I would prefer

[35:35] that no development occur on this site, I understand that growth and change are

[35:41] inevitable and I recognize that that this project has development rights

[35:46] under the current zoning. I respectfully submit that the commission's role

[35:51] extends beyond determining whether a project is legally permissible. Your

[35:57] recommendations and your guidance carry significant weight and can meaning

[36:02] meaningfully influence this project's development.

[36:07] Development of this site should occur in a manner that respects the expectations

[36:12] of existing residents and preserve qualities that attracted the existing

[36:17] families to this area in the first place.

[36:22] If this project moves forward, I encourage the commission to use its

[36:26] influence to advocate for meaningful modifications that better balance

[36:31] development with neighborhood impacts. Such considerations should include

[36:37] reduced building heights, fewer units or perhaps town homes or

[36:43] detached town homes in lie of apartments to ensure overall compatibility with the

[36:48] surrounding community. Additional consideration should include increased

[36:53] setbacks, enhance landscaping and buffering, stronger measures to address

[36:58] traffic, parking, lighting, and storm water, and consider impacts to existing

[37:04] wildlife and the environment. My hope is that the applicant, the commission, and

[37:10] neighborhood residents will work collaboratively to find a balanced

[37:15] solution, one that addresses my concerns and those of my neighbors while

[37:20] preserving character, safety, natural environment, and the quality of life

[37:26] that make Clear Lake such a special place to call home. I respectfully ask

[37:30] that these concerns along with those outlined in my me email become part of

[37:34] the public record and be carefully considered as the project moves forward.

[37:39] Thank you for your time and your service to the community.

[37:42] » Thank you. I have reached the end of my list. So if anyone else wish to address

[37:48] the planning commission, we ask that you come up, state your name and address so

[37:52] you guys can work out who comes next. Um come up, state your name and address for

[37:56] the record. We are going to put this sheet over where Mr. Larson is there if

[38:01] he raises his hand if you would sign that upon your completion of your

[38:07] comments. So, ma'am, go ahead. >> I think you skipped me. I'm on the list.

[38:11] » The list left, but I apologize. >> My name is Ruth Bloomquist. Uh, you've

[38:17] heard from me before in letter form. I live at 211071 [clears throat] Everton

[38:22] Avenue North. Tonight I have more concerns and more

[38:27] questions. Respectfully, what are we doing here?

[38:34] High density housing on a wetland wedged between state conver conservation land

[38:40] and next to a single family residential neighborhood. Multi-generational

[38:45] families that have been here for decades. Really, this is simply a very

[38:49] poor choice. There are better areas for this. Regardless of zoning, I was always

[38:55] under the understanding that the wetland was not buildable,

[39:00] that nothing could be built on the halfway land. Don and Judy knew it was a

[39:04] wet land. They also knew that their land was infested with buckthornne, which is

[39:09] why the state didn't want to buy the land. What has happened that allows for

[39:15] this now? What laws have changed in Minnesota? What happens with this land

[39:20] directly affects how much pollution runs into our lake. I understand that there

[39:27] is a shortage of affordable housing, but really 22 actual buildable acres. You're

[39:33] going to put six threestory apartment buildings filled with a minimum of 228

[39:39] people. This is more than double the amount of residents currently living on

[39:45] the lake. Now, where's the sense in that? Where is the

[39:52] transportation that's available to them? How far is the closest transportation

[39:56] center park and ride for these people is stuck in this apartment?

[40:00] Clear Lake is a small lake that has a strong association that has denied

[40:05] requests for community dock slips in the past. The lake association needs to be

[40:10] consulted before any boat slips are planned. Our lake is impaired. We have

[40:16] fought Eurasian water mil foil and now have zebra muscle invasion. The entire

[40:21] concept is a slap in the face to the existing residents and our continued

[40:27] contributions to the betterment of the lake. Why is this happening?

[40:32] Because some developer bought the wetland for a song and is trying to make

[40:38] a silk purse out of a sa's ear. So why is this land zoned to mixed use? Because

[40:44] a long time ago, someone thought this area should be the gateway to Forest

[40:48] Lake. Is that what you want for Forest Lake? Our gateway to be six threestory

[40:53] apartment buildings? Since we want [snorts] to be more friendly to

[40:57] developers, let me just ask this. Do we have to let them walk all over our

[41:02] rights as taxpayers and property owners because the Met Council would like us

[41:06] to? What's the Met Council going to do for us?

[41:11] What about the airport? Those of us in a single family residential zone were not

[41:15] allowed to build three stories because of the airport. Consequently, these

[41:19] apartment buildings, as they are currently drawn in the proposal, will

[41:23] block our sun will block the sun to the existing homes. So, at what point does

[41:30] this bad idea get shut down? The proposal is incompatible with the

[41:36] existing neighborhood. Additionally, the proposal calls for rows of single

[41:42] garages rather than underground parking. MU2 calls for underground parking, which

[41:48] tells me that the land is not suitable for the amount of excavation and

[41:52] displaced materials this project would require.

[41:57] MU2 calls for it and we need a separation of a fence or a

[42:03] wall to keep our privacy and people out of

[42:08] our yards. The proposal shows two buildings and garages that partially

[42:13] fall within the lake overlay. They need to be moved farther south or eliminated.

[42:19] Growth is important. It must be responsible growth. I respectfully ask

[42:25] that you protect Clear Lake, protect the surrounding neighborhood, and require

[42:30] that this proposal meet both the letter and spirit of city standards before

[42:36] moving forward. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[42:42] Anyone else wish to address? Come on up. [cough]

[42:54] My name is Jody Dayne. I live at 21191 Everton Avenue on the south side of the

[42:58] lake. I wasn't going to speak, but I have been standing in the back watching

[43:03] and listening and I can't stay silent. I want you to look at the people out here.

[43:08] The majority of them are retirees, as is the majority of the lake, over 50%.

[43:15] This is their final home. That's a horrible way to say it, but it's all

[43:21] going to end for us someday. They want to spend their last years in

[43:27] peace and not have to worry about who's going to come through their yard

[43:32] trespassing because the people that will reside in

[43:38] these buildings hold no ownership. They don't care. And they will come across

[43:44] our yards to get to the lake. They will follow the lake shore and come up

[43:50] through our yards. The BCA has statistics on how areas like this there

[43:56] is an increased property damage level, trespassing level, and break-in level.

[44:04] These people don't deserve that. They have worked all of their lives

[44:11] to be able to enjoy their properties. I have to talk about the human factor

[44:18] here because everybody has talked about the road and the lake quality and

[44:22] absolutely [snorts]

[44:25] that's important. I live on the lake. I know how important that is. I have

[44:30] worked for government agencies in the state of Minnesota. I have worked with

[44:33] the Met Council. I know how the Met Council operates and I know you're being

[44:37] strongarmed and it's through the law. Legally, they can do that.

[44:43] But what they can't do is they can't tell you where these types of projects

[44:50] go. That control lies with you. And as

[44:55] you've heard from other citizens, there are other places in Forest Lake where

[45:00] these requirements by the Met Council can be met.

[45:05] And the other piece of that is 20% at minimum

[45:10] is going to be subsidized through different funding that's coming out of

[45:14] the state and the Met Council, which is a great incentive for a developer.

[45:20] I heard today that this project is a go and this basically tonight is just a

[45:27] formality that you need to follow to let us have our voices heard.

[45:34] I hope you look at these faces and hear what they're saying underneath

[45:42] the lake quality and the traffic issue. This is their lives.

[45:49] Thank you.

[45:52] » Does anyone else wish to speak?

[45:58] » I'll ask one more time. Does anyone else wish to address the planning commission

[46:02] this evening? >> I just have a question. What are the

[46:07] next steps? >> Please step up. We're on TV, you know,

[46:11] so we don't want anyone to miss. >> Okay. Judge Judy. Okay. Um, [laughter]

[46:18] » what are the next steps? I mean, is the decision actually final at this point or

[46:25] is it just that we're we're going through a procedure to say, "Well, at

[46:30] least they listen to us." So, what are the next steps?

[46:33] » I tell you what, how about if I answer that in a little bit and I can lay out

[46:37] the whole thing for you, you know, because it is quite a process before we

[46:42] get to the end result. So, I want to make sure we've heard from everybody.

[46:49] And I see no one else coming forth and no other hands going up.

[46:54] We'll close the open forum. I first I want to thank everyone who participated

[46:59] in it tonight. We always like to get the input. You wouldn't believe how many

[47:04] meetings that are here that there is no one in the audience. So it's nice to see

[47:08] that the citizens have come out and made their thoughts and opinions known. So

[47:14] before I assume that when we move to the next item or in a couple items we'll

[47:20] cover this and but the basically the process to answer your question. This is

[47:25] the concept plan tonight. This is a nonbinding meeting to have with the

[47:30] developer and the planning commission. Purpose of which is for the developer to

[47:35] get input on what we like and dislike about this. Um and then when the

[47:42] developer comes back with a formal application or the preliminary is when

[47:49] uh they'll have locked it down what they want to do.

[47:53] The expectation is they take our comments tonight into consideration

[47:59] once the preliminary is platt is if it moves forward and it gets approved which

[48:05] this approval would come through the council. So it comes to us and we would

[48:09] to make a recommendation. Then when then it'll be at a final and

[48:14] the final should line up with what's act will line up with what actually is going

[48:18] to be built. So that'll take care of all of the excuse me that'll take care of

[48:22] all of the changes that they need to be made. Typically in that case there's

[48:26] some adjustments that they have to make once all of the uh wetlands have been

[48:31] delineated. All of the distances are known. Um all the parking spots may may

[48:38] have lost some stuff. Uh all of that would be in the final. All the

[48:43] engineering uh that's required for the sewer, the

[48:46] water, [snorts] the water runoff.

[48:50] What else did I miss? All of that kind of stuff would be in the final then. So

[48:55] this is like I say a nonbinding. If this project, if the applicant

[49:01] decides to move forward with this project, it'll come before us again as

[49:05] the preliminary and that'll be a public hearing also right during that time

[49:10] instead of the open form. So that's what what would happen next. Abby, have I

[49:15] misspoke? >> No. Uh just to clarify though, uh the

[49:20] this is the first step in the process, a concept plan. There'll be two other proc

[49:24] applications, the preliminary plat and the final plat. Each of those could take

[49:29] up to 120 days a piece. So just know that this is the start of a pretty long

[49:33] process that we go through with all land development projects.

[49:37] » Thank you. So with that, we'll move to item number

[49:42] six, the consent agenda. Chair is looking for a motion to approve the

[49:47] consent agenda as presented, which is approve the minutes from the regular

[49:51] meeting of June 24, 2026. Do I have a motion?

[49:56] » So moved. So I have a motion and a second. Any any discussion?

[50:03] » I will be abstaining since I was absent. >> So with that, no other comments. All

[50:09] those in favor signify by saying I. >> I.

[50:12] » Opposed. >> Abstensions.

[50:14] » Yes. >> I. Two abstensions. I wasn't here,

[50:18] right? >> Was I here?

[50:23] » Hold on a second. >> I think you were here.

[50:25] » I don't think I was. I was on vacation. >> Actually, you weren't you weren't

[50:29] present in the minutes.

[50:36] » That wasn't the one that you missed. >> It'll pass with or without you. You can

[50:39] still abandain. >> I'll still abstain because I wasn't

[50:42] here. [laughter] I was in Wisconsin. I know where I was.

[50:47] All righty. That's good. So we'll move to our regular agenda item item seven

[50:53] which is the Clear Lake Apartments PIN 1 19.032.21.21.000014

[51:04] Steve Kavan I apologize if I'm wrong. uh applicant. It's a concept plan review

[51:11] case file number PZ26-1431.

[51:17] And this is an advisory review. The way this will work is that I believe uh

[51:23] Stephen, you're going to give a presentation. He'll tell us the uh

[51:27] application as he understands it. The planning commission will then ask

[51:31] questions of the city. Once all of those roles have been answered, we'll ask the

[51:35] applicant to come up and answer any questions. He's probably got a pad full

[51:40] of or she I think it's a gentleman sitting here um has probably have some

[51:46] answers for us. Once we have all that, we will have a discussion amongst the

[51:50] planning commission and the applicant and the city to give further direction.

[51:55] So with that, I believe Stephen, you're giving the presentation.

[52:01] Sorry, it's the only time I get to order my boss around.

[52:06] So, I think uh we have we have had a lot of comments on this and

[52:12] it would it's all been very civil and appreciative and I really appreciate

[52:16] everybody coming out tonight, especially the uh full house. Um, as chair Gerard

[52:20] said, it's not often we have a full house and we have to pull chairs out.

[52:24] So, it's a a good situation and at the very least at least we brought this

[52:27] neighborhood together. Um, so let me begin. Um,

[52:32] » yeah, true. I stand corrected. >> You're wasting our time.

[52:36] » So, um, uh, tonight we are reviewing the Clear Lake Apartments, uh, concept plan.

[52:41] This is an early non-binding review as it's been discussed. Uh, the applica is

[52:45] not asking for approval tonight and the planning commission is not being asked

[52:48] to approve or deny the project. The purpose of tonight's discussion is to

[52:53] provide early non-binding feedback before a formal preliminary platinum

[52:56] plan unit development application is submitted. That feedback is helpful

[52:59] because this site has several issues to better understand, including access,

[53:03] storm water, utilities, shoreland rules, wetlands, nearby homes, and its location

[53:08] near Clear Lake. We have also received significant public comment. Many of

[53:12] those comments raise planning questions about traffic, lake access, storm water,

[53:16] groundwater, environmental review, construction impacts, and neighborhood

[53:19] compatibility. Tonight's review is not intended to resolve every one of those

[53:23] issues. The purpose is to identify them clearly so the applicant understands

[53:27] what the city reviewing agencies, planning commission and public would

[53:31] like to see considered in an updated plan. So the main question tonight

[53:35] saying tonight is not is this project approved. It is what would be helpful

[53:38] for the applicant to understand before submitting a formal application. With

[53:42] that purpose in mind, I'll start with a quick overview of what's being proposed.

[53:47] The concept plan shows a proposed 228 unit apartment development southwest of

[53:52] Clear Lake. The plan includes six apartment buildings, each three stories

[53:55] tall with 38 units in each building. Because the full concept plan is

[53:59] difficult to read at this slide size, I've added colored dots to help provide

[54:03] context for the main parts of the site layout. These dots are not intended to

[54:07] replace the full plan. They're just a visual guide for the presentation. The

[54:11] apartment buildings are identified with blue dots. The primary vehicle access is

[54:15] identified with a pink dot and the possible secondary vehicle access is

[54:18] identified with a magenta dot. The concept also includes parking areas and

[54:23] detached garages with the garages identified by green dots on the plan.

[54:26] The playground is shown with a brown dot, the dog park with a peach dot, the

[54:30] boardwalk connection toward Clear Lake with an orange dot, and the proposed six

[54:34] slip community dock with a yellow dot. The concept was presented to the parks

[54:38] commission on June 17th. The parks commission recommended cash and loo for

[54:42] any required park dedication rather than land dedication because there does not

[54:47] appear to be a clear location for the site that would work well as a public

[54:51] neighborhood park. The more usable portions of the site are generally shown

[54:54] for buildings, parking, storm water, and private resident amenities. The

[54:58] remaining areas appear to be wetlands, buffers, shoreline, and other

[55:01] constrained areas. That matters because accepting parkland also means accepting

[55:05] long-term city maintenance responsibility. Staff generally does not

[55:09] recommend accepting land that is isolated, difficult to access,

[55:12] environmentally constrained, or unlikely to function as a usable public park

[55:15] space. Cash and would still require a park contribution, but it will allow

[55:19] those funds to support parks, trails, or recreation improvements where they can

[55:22] better serve the broader public. The parks commission also recommended a

[55:26] trail connection to the Highway 97 trail system, which could generally follow the

[55:30] proposed secondary access route if that alignment works with future access

[55:34] grading and agency review. A number of public comments focused on the size of

[55:39] the project and whether a 228 unit apartment dep development fits the

[55:43] location. This is one of the central questions for future review. The city's

[55:47] land use and zoning rules help answer whether the general use is allowed. The

[55:51] PUD and preliminary plat process help evaluate whether the specific design

[55:55] works on this particular site. At this concept stage, staff is not saying the

[56:00] current layout is acceptable as is. staff is identifying the issues the

[56:04] applicant should be aware of and may want to address if they move forward.

[56:08] Those include how the buildings relate to nearby homes, how traffic enters and

[56:11] exits the site, how leak access would be managed, how agency comments would

[56:15] affect the plan, and whether an updated design could better respond to the

[56:19] concerns that have been raised. That leads into the land use and zoning

[56:22] question because several public comments asked why apartments are being

[56:26] considered on this property.

[56:30] Based on staff's review, the property is guided mixeduse in the city's

[56:33] comprehensive plan and is zoned MU2 general mixeduse. The MU2 designation is

[56:38] not new. The properties were identified for mixeduse development as part of the

[56:41] city's 2030 comprehensive plan, which is approved by the city council in 2008

[56:45] 2009. The zoning map that applied the MU2 designation to this area was later

[56:49] approved by the city council through ordinance 596 on February 8th, 2010.

[56:55] That is important context because multif family residential is an allowed use in

[56:58] the MU2 district. The district encourages a mix of uses but does not

[57:02] require every individual project or building to include multiple uses. A

[57:07] residential apartment development is therefore not automatically inconsistent

[57:11] with MU2 zoning. The comprehensive plan identifies a target residential density

[57:16] range of 10 to 15 units per acre for this land use category. Based on the

[57:20] concept information provided, staff estimates this proposal at about 10

[57:24] units per net developable acre that appears to be within the planned density

[57:28] range, although a f future formal application would provide a more

[57:32] detailed buildable area calculation. So to answer that public comment directly,

[57:36] the city does not appear to be starting from a place where apartments are

[57:39] prohibited on this site. The general use appears to be allowed under the current

[57:43] land use and zoning framework. But that that does not mean the current concept

[57:47] is automatically acceptable because the project includes multiple apartment

[57:51] buildings. It would need to be reviewed through the planned unit development

[57:54] process. That process would allow the city to look more closely at site

[57:58] design, compatibility, access, sidewalk screening of the development from the

[58:02] view of the surrounding neighborhood, lake access, storm water, and any

[58:06] flexibility the applicant may request from city rules. So the zoning answer is

[58:11] only the first step. The more important question is whether the specific plan

[58:15] can be refined in a way that better addresses nearby homes, Clear Lake, and

[58:19] the site constraints. Traffic and access were among the most

[58:23] common public concerns. Residents raised um residents raised questions about

[58:28] Highway 97, local street traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety, emergency

[58:33] response, school busing, and whether the surrounding road system can support this

[58:37] level of development. Since a staff report was prepared, the city received a

[58:41] concept received concept level comments from Mandot. Mandot views the proposed

[58:46] Everton access as the primary access point for the development. Mandot also

[58:50] indicated that the existing full access on Highway 97

[58:54] is permitted for the daycare and would be considered secondary access for the

[58:58] apartment development. Men do also encourage the daycare access to be

[59:02] realigned to use the primary access point on Everton. As a project moves

[59:06] forward, Mandot would re-evaluate the Highway 97 full access conditions and

[59:10] may consider changes that would allow right in right out secondary access for

[59:15] both the daycare and the development. So to answer the public comments on traffic

[59:18] and safety, those concerns are being carried forward into the review. At this

[59:22] concept stage, staff is not saying the access plan is final. Staff would like

[59:26] to see future plans more clearly explain the primary access, the secondary

[59:30] access, and how the daycare access may be realigned, and how highway 97 access

[59:35] would function after MDOT review. The city engineer also identified several

[59:39] items he would like to see studied or addressed in more detail with a future

[59:42] application. These include sewer capacity, water main looping, fire

[59:47] track, fire truck turning movements, entrance design, and Everton Avenue

[59:51] improvements extending north of the proposed site entrance to address

[59:55] impacts from the development. He also identified storm water grading,

[59:58] utilities, lighting, landscaping, and tree preservation as future review

[1:00:02] topics. The main point is that access and infrastructure are major future

[1:00:06] review items. A future preliminary plat and PUD application should provide

[1:00:10] enough traffic access emergency route and utility information for the city,

[1:00:14] MINDOT, the fire department and the public to better understand how the site

[1:00:17] may function. A large portion of the public comments

[1:00:22] focused on Clear Lake, the proposed docks, storm water, groundwater,

[1:00:25] wetlands, wildlife, and nearby natural resource areas. Residents raised concern

[1:00:30] about lake use, boat traffic, the proposed six slip dock, shoreline

[1:00:34] erosion, invasive species, storm water runoff, private wells, soils,

[1:00:38] construction impacts, eagle nest, blandings turtle, and the nearby Lampry

[1:00:42] Pass Wildlife Management Area. Staff agrees that these are important issues

[1:00:46] to understand if the project moves forward. At the same time, it is

[1:00:48] important to be clear about the city's role. The city is not the permitting

[1:00:52] authority for every environmental issue raised in the public comments. Rice

[1:00:55] Creek Wershed District would review items such as storm water management,

[1:00:59] erosion and sediment control, flood plane alteration, and wetland related

[1:01:03] permits if the project proceeds. RCWD also indicated that more information

[1:01:07] about wetland impacts would be helpful, including whether certain impacts could

[1:01:12] be avoided or reduced. The DNR also provided concept level comments. DNR

[1:01:17] asked for more information about how boat slips would be limited and how

[1:01:20] storm water would be treated. DNR also provided comments related to Blandings,

[1:01:23] turtle, rare plants, building height, and wildlife sensitive lighting. For

[1:01:27] tonight's purposes, the city is not making those agency determinations. The

[1:01:31] more appropriate question is how those agency comments and site constraints

[1:01:35] should be reflected in an updated plan. That could include changes to the

[1:01:39] layout, access, dock area, boardwalk, grading, storm water approach, lighting,

[1:01:44] or other design details. Staff also notes that based on the proposed 228

[1:01:49] units, the project does not appear to trigger a mandatory environmental

[1:01:52] assessment worksheet based on unit count alone. However, that does not mean

[1:01:56] environmental review ends there. The site's constraints would still be

[1:01:59] reviewed through the city, RCWD, DNR, MINDOT, and other applicable agencies if

[1:02:04] the project moves forward. The main message is that Lake Shoreland and

[1:02:08] agency review issues are not separate from the planning discussion. They are

[1:02:12] part of what should shape any future preliminary platin PUB application.

[1:02:17] To close, I want to summarize how staff is treating the public comments. The

[1:02:20] city recognizes that this concept has generated significant public interest

[1:02:23] and concern. A neighborhood meeting was held on June 3rd and approximately 78

[1:02:28] residents attended. The city also received written public comments which

[1:02:31] were included in the packet. Staff also received an additional written comment,

[1:02:35] two additional written comments now opposing the proposal as presented which

[1:02:39] has been which have been provided to the planning commission this evening and are

[1:02:42] available on the desk. Taken together, the comments raise several issues that

[1:02:47] are directly relevant to future review. These include the project's scale and

[1:02:50] compatibility with nearby homes, traffic and safe access, clear lake and dock

[1:02:55] use, storm water, groundwater, environmental concerns, agency review

[1:02:59] and site constraints, and whether additional information would be helpful

[1:03:02] before formal review. The additional written comment is generally consistent

[1:03:06] with those broader themes, and also request denial of the proposal as

[1:03:09] currently presented. The graphic on this slide organizes those comments into the

[1:03:13] main themes staff heard neighborhood fit traffic and safe access clear lake and

[1:03:18] docu agency review and site constraints and more information and more

[1:03:23] information before review. Some questions can be addressed tonight. This

[1:03:26] is not an approval. The applicant does not have to permission to build and the

[1:03:30] planning commission is not being asked to approve or deny the project. Also,

[1:03:34] based on staff's review, the general multif family use appears to be allowed

[1:03:37] under the current MU2 zoning and mixeduse land designation. Other

[1:03:41] questions cannot be fully answered from the concept plan alone. The current

[1:03:44] concept does not provide enough detail to fully evaluate traffic access, lake

[1:03:49] access, storm water, groundwater utilities, construction impacts, or

[1:03:53] final site compatibility. Some issues will also require review by other

[1:03:56] agencies, including MDOT, RCWD, and DNR. This is what staff is asking for. This

[1:04:02] is why staff is asking for non-binding feedback tonight. The most helpful

[1:04:05] feedback is what the applicant should should consider changing, studying or

[1:04:09] explaining before submitting a formal preliminary plat application. Helpful

[1:04:14] feedback could include site design changes to explore studies or

[1:04:17] explanations that would help agency comments that would should be reflected

[1:04:21] in the next plan or issues the city council should understand when it

[1:04:24] provides its own concept feedback which would be this coming Monday. Again,

[1:04:29] tonight is not the final decision point. The goal is to help the applicant

[1:04:32] understand the public concerns and planning issues that should be

[1:04:35] considered if this concept moves forward. The applicant is here this

[1:04:39] evening and is available to answer questions about the concept. Staff is

[1:04:42] also available to answer questions about the city's review process, zoning, land

[1:04:46] use, public comments, agency comments, and what would typically be reviewed at

[1:04:50] a public preliminary platin stage. With that, staff would be happy to answer the

[1:04:55] questions and the applicant is available as well.

[1:04:58] » Commissioners, any question for staff?

[1:05:04] Susan, >> um, is is that the end of your

[1:05:08] presentation regarding the the project? >> Yeah.

[1:05:12] » Okay. Yes. Um, do we know the the Highway 97

[1:05:19] um improvements were planned 10 to 12 years ago? Do we know what the design

[1:05:24] parameters for um the Everton access 297 were? Um in other words, when

[1:05:34] Mindot designed that that access, they looked at what they thought would be the

[1:05:40] long how how the maximum number of cars in and out. Do we know what those design

[1:05:47] parameters were? and were does this fit within those design

[1:05:53] parameters? >> I can say that uh one of the things that

[1:05:56] the city engineers outline that the current Everton on north of 97 is is not

[1:06:01] to standard for this and one of the requirements that we would want to see

[1:06:05] in a preliminary plat is the potential update to that uh road into 97 u to

[1:06:11] better address this additional um you know vehicle. the uh vehicle load.

[1:06:18] » Um we do have an an ordinance in the city that says that you cannot um build

[1:06:24] something so high that it will prevent the adjoining properties from um using

[1:06:30] solar or wind uh generation. Um folks tonight said are concerned about

[1:06:38] shading the threetory buildings, shading their properties. Um as as this moves

[1:06:43] forward, We need to take a look and make sure that a three-story building

[1:06:49] adjacent would would not violate our ordinance on solar gain or wind gain.

[1:06:56] » I think that's good feedback for the for the developer and what we should expect

[1:06:59] to see in the primary plan. >> Um, a big piece of this is within the

[1:07:06] shoreland overlay. >> We typically do not encourage building

[1:07:12] within the shoreline overlay. Most of those the properties for folks tonight

[1:07:17] were put in before that was even even a thing. Um and and we're used to

[1:07:25] non-conforming uses. Um but our planning commission has tried to

[1:07:32] reduce the amount of nonconforming uses.

[1:07:38] How will staff be looking at the area that's within the shoreline overall like

[1:07:45] which is quite frankly the majority >> almost all of it. Yeah.

[1:07:48] » The dwelling units. >> Um I think it would be the same as as

[1:07:53] they had there's an impervious cap that we'd be looking at to make sure it was

[1:07:56] was protected. And I think one of the feedbacks that we heard tonight is the

[1:07:59] potential inclusion of underground parking garage if if this site is

[1:08:03] suitable to minimize some of those impacts. I think that is is good

[1:08:07] feedback for the developer as well of what what should be something we look

[1:08:10] at. >> Um, one of my other concerns is one that

[1:08:14] that that our city typically does not consider ever. Um, and that is

[1:08:23] from a geomorph point of view, these soils are awful. They're they're just

[1:08:28] bloody awful. Um, and when we are going to be looking building

[1:08:35] permit for these buildings. Um,

[1:08:40] will the city be looking at the structure needed to support these

[1:08:46] buildings in a highly plastic soil structure and what kind of of of

[1:08:55] underllayment is going to be required, porings, etc. We all know what Mindot

[1:09:00] had to go through, but I know that the stuff closer to the lake itself

[1:09:05] um is a little more challenging. And I think in the discussions that I've had

[1:09:09] with our city engineer on this subject, he's very cognizant of the potential

[1:09:13] buildability of the site and is would be really focused on making sure and

[1:09:18] bringing in the right uh knowledge to make sure that what is being developed

[1:09:23] here uh met city met code and what would be safe uh to be able to be developed

[1:09:29] there. And I I want to say you're you're correct on the your your you know

[1:09:34] discussion of the the type of soils that are there and that the developer

[1:09:37] understands it too and some of the and that's just one of the kind of potential

[1:09:42] challenges with the site. >> We have buildings and and a couple of

[1:09:46] multi-units that that were built um in areas that of similar soil structure. Um

[1:09:53] the developer goes away, the building owner changes and um 10 years later

[1:09:59] there are challenges and issues. We do not have a rental

[1:10:04] licensing ordinance really. We we don't do that sort of thing. Uh folks can't

[1:10:09] come to us with mold issues. So that will our opportunity to prevent

[1:10:15] future problems is in the before it's built.

[1:10:20] Um would the city I I understand the

[1:10:25] concern of the neighborhood u with folks being able to walk through the

[1:10:29] backyards. Um is is fencing along the apartment property line if

[1:10:36] it's if it goes up um to prevent access to backyards.

[1:10:42] Is that something that that will be considered? I think I think the feedback

[1:10:47] that that staff will be providing after discussion would be uh put the potential

[1:10:51] redesign of the site around that north side to maximize uh screening would

[1:10:58] ideally it wouldn't be uh man-made. It would be utilizing uh woodlands to

[1:11:04] maintain that screening and minimize that access.

[1:11:08] » Yeah. >> Looking at at what's proposed, I'm not

[1:11:12] sure. Well, I want to say it's a concept right now. It's just the shapes on a

[1:11:17] shapes on a page. >> I I understand that.

[1:11:20] » Um, it's my understanding Rice Creek hasn't really weighed in on where

[1:11:26] they're looking at because there are significant

[1:11:31] wetland issues here >> and and the developers been in a lot of

[1:11:35] discussion with Rice Creek. We've had a lot of discussion with Rice Creek on the

[1:11:39] site. they understand the the the complexity of it and they're they're

[1:11:44] will provide uh feedback and requirements to to meet the permitting

[1:11:49] codes that he'll have to get to be able to build build here.

[1:11:55] Um and then I I would strongly recommend against

[1:12:02] having act trail access from this if it goes forward along the secondary um

[1:12:10] access path. Um that is not where the ped crossing is and um we have enough

[1:12:20] challenges in areas now where we have a marked pet crossing and um and

[1:12:29] there are they're not adhered to um by by the

[1:12:35] cross traffic. Um so if if we're looking at at ped crossing, it's it's got to be

[1:12:42] something that is at least where the the existing crossing

[1:12:49] is and and the trail built to that. Um, >> those are my my big ones across the top.

[1:12:57] » Commissioner Young, can I ask a clarifying question of the pedestrian

[1:13:00] access? Do you mean on off of Highway 97 with the

[1:13:04] » Yeah, it would I I heard potential trail access through the the secondary

[1:13:12] » um access on 97. >> Yeah. So currently there is a trail that

[1:13:16] runs from that point to the light at Everton

[1:13:21] » on the north side of of 97. >> Yeah, it was built as

[1:13:26] » or it was planned from the day. >> When I drove it tonight, I didn't see

[1:13:30] it. >> Okay, then we'll double check because I

[1:13:32] do believe it is part of the plans as the highway 97 project from the daycare

[1:13:36] to the light. But

[1:13:41] » yes, there is a trail on the the south side. Yes, we do recognize that.

[1:13:45] » What I don't want folks doing is trying to cross 97

[1:13:50] at another location other than the light.

[1:13:54] » Yeah, thank you for that clarification. >> Susan, are you finished with your

[1:13:59] comments for now? >> For now. Yes.

[1:14:01] » Other commissioners, >> do you want our comments now or should

[1:14:04] we listen to the applicant and then >> you can do it either way.

[1:14:07] » I'll listen to the applicant first. That's what I'm going to do personally.

[1:14:10] But uh we welcome any other questions just to clarify. I do have one before we

[1:14:15] go any further and it has to do with the underground parking that we require in

[1:14:19] this district. He's showing all garages. Um are we thinking the water tables too

[1:14:25] high? So, or it's just not aware that he needs to

[1:14:29] have underground. >> And I think I think one of the things

[1:14:31] about that is it obviously the the code prescribes that through the PUD process

[1:14:37] could potentially be one of the flexibilities that that come through

[1:14:40] that. But ideally, it would be find a way to minimize that impervious because

[1:14:45] that that that would be one of our our main concerns.

[1:14:50] » Other commissioners for the staff? >> I have one. I mean, I think we're

[1:14:56] identifying that there's been a lot of mistakes made by different entities over

[1:15:00] the years that are all being compounded, and I don't think throwing more mistakes

[1:15:05] on top of it just because is a way to go. The first time I drove down the new

[1:15:10] 97, I said, "What did they do?" You know, it's it's like, "Are we in the

[1:15:14] middle of nowhere?" They build this two this great big bridge with multiple

[1:15:17] lanes going across, all these extra turn lanes, and for some reason, when it hits

[1:15:21] Forest Lake, boom, one lane. And now we're going to pack a bunch of other

[1:15:25] houses into an area that I think this concept is pie in the sky. I don't think

[1:15:31] we're going to get anywhere near there, but it's going to be tried to be

[1:15:35] maximized to the point where again mistakes that were made long before I

[1:15:40] know I was here and I'm sure other commissioners and staff were here. So

[1:15:42] I'm not trying to point fingers, but at some point you do have the

[1:15:47] responsibility to not make more mistakes. So I think I'm going into this

[1:15:54] » [applause]

[1:15:57] » going into this with the concept of prove that you can do this, not we have

[1:16:02] to allow this. >> All right, having said heard that the

[1:16:09] applicant is here. Please state your name and address for the record.

[1:16:13] Spend a little time giving us your thoughts or we can just fire away. But I

[1:16:17] think we'd rather hear your thoughts first.

[1:16:19] » Sure. I appreciate it and thank you everyone for taking the time the chair

[1:16:24] commission residents for coming out here. Um my name is Steve Cavan. I live

[1:16:28] at three goldfinch lane in North Oaks, Minnesota. Um

[1:16:33] I also want to thank city staff for preparing a thorough report. um uh

[1:16:39] concept plan review process is a non-binding process and they've done um

[1:16:44] kind of above and beyond to identify issues and help think through the

[1:16:48] process which I appreciate. Um that was the reason for the application

[1:16:53] um to get feedback. So that is very much appreciated.

[1:16:58] Um uh let's see here. I had a larger amount

[1:17:04] but given the interest of time I'll kind of a few points here. Um, one thing I

[1:17:10] just want to point out, there have been 13 soil borings done on the site and so

[1:17:14] we do have uh geotechnical work done on the site. Um, wetland delineations have

[1:17:20] also been done as have rare plants um studies and when Mindot was going

[1:17:27] through their uh design phase, they were well aware of

[1:17:31] the plans for the site. So although we have to go through the formal process

[1:17:36] and receive MDOT's formal review, um they at least were aware of what was

[1:17:42] what the [clears throat] site was zoned for and what the potential density was

[1:17:46] going into their construction.

[1:17:50] Um let's see here.

[1:17:55] Um, I do want to point out that prior to coincidental with pursuing

[1:18:02] development, um, I have reached out to and had

[1:18:06] conversations with the Minnesota DNR who owns the site to the west,

[1:18:10] um, with Washington County Land Trust who has funds to buy sites like this and

[1:18:16] Minnesota Land Trust. Um, none of those organizations have deemed this a site

[1:18:21] that they think is high enough to preserve. And so this kind of leads me

[1:18:27] to where I'm at here. Um,

[1:18:32] let's see here.

[1:18:39] So with that, I guess [clears throat] I open it up for your questions and happy

[1:18:43] to try to answer them to my best of my abilities.

[1:18:47] Don, we'll start with you. >> Okay. Um, I guess my primary concern is

[1:18:55] is um regarding the community dock area and this has been brought up by the

[1:19:01] residents and um around the lake because I know that's come up before before this

[1:19:06] commission. I don't know if it's on this lake or on Forest Lake more than one

[1:19:11] time before that I've been here. And that's something that's been um shot

[1:19:16] down very quickly and I I find that it's going to be a tough one to fly. I just

[1:19:21] don't see that passing or getting getting through this process. Um that's

[1:19:27] just my own personal thoughts on it for all the reasons that you heard today of

[1:19:32] various residents and lakefront uh neighborhood owners speaking about and

[1:19:37] and other uh logistical issues if it's a community dock and safety and but not

[1:19:44] even getting into that. So that's a a big concern of mine. um the the

[1:19:50] residents around the lake um have raised all the other issues that I would have

[1:19:56] uh raised as well and I think you probably heard those in the previous

[1:19:58] meeting. I don't know if anything new came out today along those lines. Um I

[1:20:04] made a couple notes when some folks were speaking. I know some folks thought that

[1:20:08] a decision was going to be made here today. I'll make it clear if it isn't

[1:20:11] clear. No decisions are made here today. This is just for you to hear everybody's

[1:20:16] input. Um

[1:20:20] um

[1:20:24] and and there was a a mention Ruth mentioned something about not being able

[1:20:28] to construct three stories high due to the airport. That's actually something I

[1:20:33] had not heard before. So I if the city can add that to their list under the uh

[1:20:39] site constraints or what have you. I I was not aware of that if that is a

[1:20:43] constraint. That's the first time I've heard it brought up. Um,

[1:20:47] other than that, the um I think the the participation by the folks here,

[1:20:55] I've kind of raised all the issues and and the city's uh synopsis of it here in

[1:20:59] the in the packet kind of covers all the all the concerns that I have on it, but

[1:21:04] they're they're very much concerns. >> Thank you,

[1:21:09] » Commissioner. >> Have a couple questions. Um, what

[1:21:14] demographic are you going after with these apartments? Are they going to be

[1:21:18] higherend apartments, lower end, middle?

[1:21:24] Um, it's too early. So, at this point, um, and I I should, if I step back, I am

[1:21:29] not an apartment builder. Um, and there is not, um, kind of an apartment

[1:21:35] developer builder under contract. So, it could be, you know, I think this would

[1:21:40] be a great senior housing site. Um, I don't know where where it will end up.

[1:21:46] This process helps uh potential apartment developers or

[1:21:52] builders to understand what the constraints are of the site, what the

[1:21:56] city's review process has been, so they can go through and design what is best

[1:22:00] for the site. And similarly, I I have had uh a couple different groups look at

[1:22:07] the site in the past and and they have not wanted to do the boardwalk or the

[1:22:11] dock. That was something I put in there. I thought it'd be a nice amenity.

[1:22:15] Clearly, um people feel otherwise. Um but that was something that I think at

[1:22:21] the end of the day, the feedback and then just the extra cost. It's it's a

[1:22:25] big cost for a developer, an apartment builder to incur. And so, you know, I

[1:22:31] can't say definitively if it will go happen or not, but the parties I've

[1:22:34] spoken to have not been in favor of it. >> And I know this is just a sketch on

[1:22:40] paper, but rather than having square block apartments, is it possible to make

[1:22:46] the buildings a little more appealing, like more radiused or have architectural

[1:22:51] detail that's a little nicer for the neighborhoods?

[1:22:59] Um without knowing what is going to be designed, it's hard to answer that. Um

[1:23:05] that would be ultimately if it's a senior housing, whatever it ends up

[1:23:09] being designed at that point. >> Okay,

[1:23:15] » Commissioner, >> just one last thing. Um,

[1:23:22] in a previous iteration with with the city, um,

[1:23:29] I

[1:23:32] did clearly came to the city requesting assistance and another lake in the city

[1:23:40] came to the city asking for assistance. And one of the things that always may be

[1:23:45] very favorable to requests from the Clear Lake Association is that you have

[1:23:52] at at that time better than 90% of your residents that are part of the Clear

[1:23:58] Lake Association. that kind of cohesion and responsibility

[1:24:05] and and and and demonstrated caring about not only your own home and your

[1:24:13] own dockage but the lake as a whole. the way that you all have coordinated weed

[1:24:19] and invasives um control not only for your own

[1:24:23] properties but for the center for the with with the DNR is is really something

[1:24:30] that that you can be very very proud of and um that other lake um at the time

[1:24:37] had less than 33 or 30% of their residents that were really stepping up

[1:24:42] the way that you do Um, I see it. I appreciate it deeply. I

[1:24:49] appreciated it then and I still do.

[1:24:54] » Other commissioners?

[1:24:57] » No, I think they covered the points that I was looking at the traffic concerns at

[1:25:01] 97 Edon. We'll get the traffic studies on

[1:25:05] that. Uh, I want to hear from the Rice Creek and I appreciate the comments from

[1:25:09] the city tonight. Thank you for everybody coming out.

[1:25:14] One more. >> Steve, you did a really nice job with

[1:25:17] the the PowerPoint and the slide thing. >> That that I appreciate it very much.

[1:25:23] » Yeah, thank you. >> Go ahead, Cy.

[1:25:28] » I mean, I understand like we're at the beginning stages and what we're seeing

[1:25:31] on paper, it's effectively the bare minimum of what you're presenting and

[1:25:35] what can be developed into. Um, but it really does to me look like just there

[1:25:41] has been no consideration for the surrounding area. Um, just the road, the

[1:25:44] traffic, the things that have been raised overall. Um, I I think coming

[1:25:49] from somebody who grew up in the suburbs of a bigger city, um, traffic sucks when

[1:25:54] you start packing in more and more people. Accountability of people in that

[1:25:58] very dense area, um, or very small area that's very dense, um, sucks. Um, so I

[1:26:04] think the concerns have been brought up. I don't want to just regurgitate them,

[1:26:08] but I think it's very some very much something to consider in terms of what

[1:26:12] you're putting into that area. It is not just that area. It is that whole street,

[1:26:17] that whole neighborhood, the entrance to Forest Lake. Um, and I think it's going

[1:26:21] to it's not going to hit the way it looks on paper in personal opinion

[1:26:26] overall. >> Thank you,

[1:26:27] » Andy. Um, would this property have voting rights

[1:26:32] as part of the lake association? That might be more of a staff question.

[1:26:37] » It's actually a private property owner matter just because lake association is

[1:26:40] private property. They do touch the lake. So, it all just depends on that

[1:26:44] association's documents. >> So, that theoretically this new

[1:26:48] apartment building could overrule all the votes on the lake depending on how

[1:26:51] it's done. >> So, that's a concern. I don't know how

[1:26:54] that >> this is a legitimate concern for the

[1:26:56] lake that needs to be addressed before things get down the road too far. Um I

[1:27:02] think not having a partner for what this thing will really look like I think is a

[1:27:08] red flag. I understand this is very preliminary. Um I'm going to reiterate I

[1:27:12] think mistakes were made in the past in previous organizations plannings. Um,

[1:27:17] and I appreciate that other entities don't think that this is a wildlife area

[1:27:24] that matters, but the wildlife don't look at that line on a map and say, "Oh,

[1:27:28] gee, I can't go over there." We're seeing fencing put along 97 and 35 that

[1:27:34] accommodate to prevent turtles from crossing roads. I mean, that's a

[1:27:38] reality. The the animals are going to go where they're going to go. And if you

[1:27:41] literally turn the entire area into impervious surface, that's not okay in

[1:27:47] my opinion. That's not something that's balancing into our city the way we want.

[1:27:51] It's not that I'm against departments. I used to do property management. Um, but

[1:27:56] this this area in my opinion was probably zoned the wrong way and I don't

[1:28:00] think we should continue with the mistake. Um, I do have one specific

[1:28:04] question for the for the for the map. It says swim area in a lot of several

[1:28:09] places. Storm water management. >> Storm water management.

[1:28:13] » You know what? I need the same as it used to be. I apologize.

[1:28:16] » You need your glasses, Andy. [laughter] >> That explains a lot. That makes more

[1:28:19] sense. Thank you. >> Yeah. And if you don't mind, just uh I

[1:28:23] can respond to some comments that were made. As part of the process, Rice uh

[1:28:28] Creek Watershed District um will require that the storm water runoff does not

[1:28:34] change um and will likely go down from its current state. Um, and that's what

[1:28:39] this I brought that up because that's what the storm water ponds are for to

[1:28:43] control runoff. And even though you have up to 25% impervious surface, that water

[1:28:50] will go into those ponds and then be metered out so that the pace of the

[1:28:54] water infiltration is uh at or below its current level.

[1:29:00] » That's also a city build requirement that you cannot have any runoff come

[1:29:04] from >> correct

[1:29:05] » your development. >> Yes. So, I will just say I've dealt with

[1:29:09] Rice Creek wershed in the past and the problem is when you're the low spot on

[1:29:14] the on the on the map, you are the final spot when the heavy rains come.

[1:29:20] » And even though you plan for what you're supposed to plan for, it gets worse. And

[1:29:24] if when we get the 100 and 500y year floods

[1:29:29] taking up that much impervious area in a wet land like this whether it's wetland

[1:29:34] now or not it is the natural buffer that this area needs.

[1:29:39] » Thank you. So I don't live on Clear Lake but I live

[1:29:43] on Forest Lake and Northshore Apartments which is fairly large complex over

[1:29:47] there. They have no dock and they seem to get along just fine. And it seems

[1:29:52] that all the neighbors like that also. So just that's one comment. I'm a little

[1:29:59] disappointed you don't have a builder. Um because what we could see next could

[1:30:03] be radically different than this. So that doesn't warm the cockles of my

[1:30:10] heart as my mother would say. Um I have a lot of concern on the traffic in and

[1:30:15] out going down uh I believe that's Everton. I always screw up the streets

[1:30:20] over there. I apologize. Um, it goes into a neighbor and dumping 200

[1:30:26] and some apartments on it at site. It's a side street. It is not a thorough

[1:30:31] fair. It's not like um 61 or 97 or even Northshore which we

[1:30:38] got more dumping on. The whole apartment dumps on there. It's not a problem, but

[1:30:41] there's nowhere to go except I believe I measured it today if I understand it

[1:30:46] right about 300 feet from there to the light. So you get about 10 12 cars max

[1:30:52] stacked waiting at the light which seems to me it's not going to go well. Um so I

[1:31:00] realize that development will probably happen here. I mean we know that it's

[1:31:05] it's eligible. You know they can do auto repair there auto sales. They can build

[1:31:10] a bank. They can put a restaurant and a bar in there. All that's allowed in the

[1:31:14] zoning district. Um, so you may be the least of the evils, but I think we have

[1:31:20] a long way to go based on what you presented today when you don't have a

[1:31:25] partner yet. This zone does require underground parking. So, as Steve said,

[1:31:31] uh, as part of the PUD, you probably looked at garages instead, but I think

[1:31:37] that needs to be looked at seriously also.

[1:31:41] And I think that kind of ends

[1:31:46] my comments. >> And the last thing about a PUB is

[1:31:50] » PUD is designed to give some flexibility to a developer,

[1:31:56] but in return there should be significant specific benefits to the

[1:32:01] city. um in in in return for that flexibility

[1:32:09] and I grant that this is very very prelim

[1:32:13] preliminary but I don't see those yet

[1:32:20] commissioners. Any other comments? Staff, would you like to see any other

[1:32:25] comments from us? Any concerns? Any issues we did not discuss?

[1:32:29] » No, I think I think this has been thorough. Um, just want to remind

[1:32:32] everybody in this room that uh the man sitting to my left will be uh up there

[1:32:37] on Monday uh for the city council and you're all welcome to come and provide

[1:32:42] additional comment for this being heard at that city council meeting. I'm sure

[1:32:46] everybody would like to um have that opportunity to at least go to the city

[1:32:50] council. They'll be [snorts] providing uh kind of the city's uh co

[1:32:54] comprehensive comment uh taking all the comments that have come from parks the

[1:32:59] public as well as uh this board right here this commission and providing like

[1:33:03] the official here's here's a recommendation. So uh that's Monday

[1:33:06] night at 6 in this room >> and that runs just the same as tonight.

[1:33:09] It's not a public hearing. Comments will be accepted during open forum, but I

[1:33:13] will be there to to encap encapsulate everything that's been discussed

[1:33:17] tonight. Everything that's been in the record or anything submitted before that

[1:33:20] meeting will be entered into the record as well. But again, their decision is

[1:33:24] non-binding feedback for the developer to determine if he wants to move

[1:33:28] forward. >> Mr. Kevin, you have any other comments

[1:33:31] or any information you would like from the commission or the staff?

[1:33:34] » No, I do not. Thank you all for taking the time.

[1:33:37] » Thank you for coming this evening. Thank you for coming tonight.

[1:33:40] » Thank you for all coming and participating this evening. Uh you're

[1:33:44] more than welcome to stay for the next item. I know it'll be even more

[1:33:48] riveting. >> Well,

[1:33:51] quite frankly, um >> no

[1:33:55] » data centers is a big deal. >> So, data centers in Forest Lake.

[1:34:00] » No, no, no. >> Let's just

[1:34:04] » No.

[1:34:12] you. >> We'll let the room clear for a minute

[1:34:15] here. >> Thank you.

[1:34:18] » Thank you. >> How you doing, Pat?

[1:34:25] » He was on the commission >> probably 15 years ago,

[1:34:31] » maybe 10. Uh Pat

[1:34:46] could become the deadliest inter.

[1:34:59] » We we ask you please clear the room so we continue our meeting. [laughter]

[1:35:04] » I don't

[1:35:08] trying to make the big bucks tonight. >> Thank you all.

[1:35:14] I lost uh we'll move to item eight or uh zoning code land use review data

[1:35:22] centers. Abby, I saw your name at the top. Are you the one presenting or

[1:35:27] Steve? >> I'd be happy to. So,

[1:35:30] » it's all yours. >> Excellent. Thank you. Um, so I just

[1:35:33] wanna like I think Steve puts right at the beginning like what's the top, you

[1:35:38] know, what's the highlight here. The highlight is staff wants to have a

[1:35:41] preemptive conversation with both the planning commission and hopefully then

[1:35:45] the city council about enacting a up to one-year moratorum on data centers in

[1:35:51] Forest Lake. So, as many of you may have known, unless you've been sleeping under

[1:35:56] rocks lately, is that there's been a lot of interest in all states, um, but in

[1:36:01] the metro area about data centers. Um, and a lot of cities are finding

[1:36:06] themselves either maybe backed against a wall or not well protected in terms of

[1:36:10] whether or not data centers are addressed in their zoning code. So, City

[1:36:15] of Forest Lake actually owns 123 acres that our city was actively marketing for

[1:36:20] a data center up until more recently when the EDA and the council decided to

[1:36:25] kind of maybe move away from that a little bit recognizing that there might

[1:36:30] be higher and better land uses for this. >> Abby, can you describe where the 123

[1:36:36] acres >> uh at the inner southeast intersection

[1:36:38] of Fenway Avenue and um Headwaters Parkway? So, Kitty Corner from Leela,

[1:36:44] there's a big open vacant land that city owns. That's the piece of property that

[1:36:48] Headwaters 123 is what it had been dubbed. Um, it was more recently the EDA

[1:36:54] and city council has directed me to kind of work towards marketing it in a

[1:36:58] different way to maximize the land developability there, more jobs, more

[1:37:03] tax base than a data center would provide. Um, so

[1:37:08] flash forward, fast forward to to to now when cities are kind of finding

[1:37:14] themselves a little backed against the wall. Staff took a look at our code and

[1:37:17] we outright permit data center questionably outright permit data

[1:37:23] centers in our in our business park districts. I believe that our zoning

[1:37:28] code was set up this way, maybe with a little ambiguity to not know for sure if

[1:37:33] it's exactly a data center or a data center. for what size or if a data

[1:37:36] center is a part of a different type of use. Um regardless, I believe that it

[1:37:42] was set up that way specifically because of Headarters 123 and the city's desire

[1:37:46] to potentially, you know, attract a a data center at some point. So, um, staff

[1:37:53] wanted to bring this to you because what we believe we should be doing is, um,

[1:37:58] asking the city council to enact a moratorum that would give us up to one

[1:38:02] year to one, define data centers. to have a conversation um planning

[1:38:09] commission, city council, and the community of whether or not we'd like

[1:38:12] data centers and where we would like data centers and how big of data centers

[1:38:16] versus um you know, a standalone data center versus a portion of a property as

[1:38:21] part of a data center. You know, all those conversations

[1:38:25] um and then performance standards about them. So, tonight you heard on um the

[1:38:31] Clear Lake Apartments garages need to be underground. That's a performance

[1:38:35] standard specific to the M parking for MU2. Right now, we don't have any

[1:38:40] performance standards for these types of uses. And that I do believe is where we

[1:38:45] could be most liable if we ended are not liable.

[1:38:49] » Um liable is not a good word. >> Exposed

[1:38:51] » exposed um because our maybe screening standards might not quite address this

[1:38:57] type of use or the ancillary requirements of this type of use. So

[1:39:01] tonight I'm asking you to discuss this and to make a hopefully you consider

[1:39:05] making a recommendation to the city council that the city council enact a

[1:39:09] moratorum on data centers to give us some time to define them uh establish

[1:39:14] whether or not we'd like to see them where we'd like to see them and then

[1:39:17] performance standards for them within the city.

[1:39:20] » Commissioner, >> any questions?

[1:39:22] » Yeah. How would we be exposed without putting on this official moratorum? What

[1:39:28] what's our exposure? I mean someone coming in and saying we want to put it

[1:39:31] in a data center >> and provide water and electricity to us.

[1:39:35] » Um >> well there would be there would be a

[1:39:37] whole bunch of negotiation. I mean these are these are companies with a lot of

[1:39:41] financial backing. >> Yep.

[1:39:43] » And if we have concerns such as water and electricity and all those things you

[1:39:47] could bring them to them and they could possibly bring a lot of positive things

[1:39:52] to the city. 100% I do believe I I do want to say

[1:39:55] » I'm just curious what >> Yep. From staff's perspective, I'm not

[1:39:58] saying that data centers are the evil enemy that you might see a lot of people

[1:40:02] thinking they are. They do provide for um construction jobs. They might not

[1:40:07] term provide for long-term um jobs, but they do provide for construction

[1:40:12] positions for a few years within community. They are strong tax base

[1:40:15] earners within a community and they are designing systems that can be more

[1:40:19] self-reliant than older systems that don't take as much um pressure on the

[1:40:25] natural resources. I don't necessarily think that they are a bad thing and I

[1:40:29] want to reiterate that staff doesn't think that that's the reason we should

[1:40:32] do this. The concern that I have is we should probably take a pause to look at

[1:40:38] our code to see if we are well protected. Just as a reminder, outright

[1:40:43] permitted uses, you don't really get a whole lot of say in them, right? When we

[1:40:50] conditionally approve something or when we end up doing a planned unit

[1:40:54] development, then we have that a lot more

[1:40:59] we'll trade this for that, you know, type of thing. Sometimes when you have

[1:41:03] an outright permitted use, you have to go by the standards that are in place

[1:41:08] either for that type of use or that type of design. And I would say that in

[1:41:13] looking at our design standards for the business park district, um especially

[1:41:18] with some of the accessory type of features that they might have, cooling

[1:41:22] towers, solar panels, um you know, ex exterior power

[1:41:28] generation that I just don't believe that our code as it sits right now would

[1:41:33] adequately screen from adjacent properties um and may not

[1:41:40] pro We may not have a good design in the end should we choose to allow for a data

[1:41:46] center or should a data center application come forward. Does that make

[1:41:49] sense? >> Now if it was on our property yes Don

[1:41:53] Don I think that's a really great if it's on the city's headarters 123 then

[1:41:57] yes I think we can say before we would sell you this we want XYZ. What I am

[1:42:01] concerned is there is more business park land zoned within the city that is not

[1:42:06] owned by the city >> because my concern would be if we we

[1:42:08] throw a moratorum on it then do we possibly miss out on a an opportunity

[1:42:14] » well >> because though they well they can't do

[1:42:17] it here they go on to Wyoming or or wherever to to to do it.

[1:42:21] » Yep. That it that is a good question. when we are in the technology corridor.

[1:42:26] So there's several cities and counties along I35. Um Kexus and and XL Energy

[1:42:32] have been partners in trying to market these for high energy users. Um it could

[1:42:39] happen that it could go, you know, to a Wyoming to a north branch. I think

[1:42:44] taking a pause and I keep saying for up to one year statutoily we can only do up

[1:42:48] to one year. It would be my hope that we kind of work through that process. uh

[1:42:54] you know with maybe even by the end of this year.

[1:42:56] » Yeah. >> So

[1:42:58] » and then we could shorten a moratorum then end a moratorum.

[1:43:01] » Yeah. You end the moratorium when you adopt an ordinance if you want to adopt

[1:43:05] an ordinance or you just say nope. We're done. We're okay with our code.

[1:43:09] » So is this going to affect my zoning corridor or updates?

[1:43:14] » Everything affects your zoning code updates at the moment.

[1:43:18] » Just wanted to hear it live. >> Yep.

[1:43:21] » All right. Other comments, concerns? >> I definitely have some concerns with the

[1:43:26] length of time, a full year for it. I think we could be missing the boat. If

[1:43:31] they're looking to develop in this area, um,

[1:43:36] a year is a long time to go, especially if they're doing it right now.

[1:43:40] » I only included that to point out the statutory requirement. We don't actually

[1:43:44] have to state any time in the I may have put recommendation for a one-year

[1:43:50] moratorum. You could say six months, you could say six weeks. That's not the

[1:43:54] thing necessarily. It's the the pause that gives us that ability for up to a

[1:43:59] year. I certainly would take the planning commission's discussion and

[1:44:02] recommendation on where we kind of feed this into our priority level, but we are

[1:44:07] also in peak development and inquir new inquiries are coming in every day. So,

[1:44:12] as much as we want to work this in, I do think that this probably would be a

[1:44:16] closer to fall where we'd have a lot more time to to work on it.

[1:44:21] » Andy, >> um, I think it would be very

[1:44:26] citizenfriendly to make sure the whatever ordinance changes we do include

[1:44:30] that we do not have NDAs as part of these negotiations. That is a very

[1:44:35] common practice for data centers. when they approach a city, they sign NDAs and

[1:44:39] then the city cannot disclose to their citizens what they're allowing in the

[1:44:43] city. So, I think if you want to see the room 10 times fuller than this, you

[1:44:47] include NDAs um or you don't require you allow NDAs. Um I am not

[1:44:54] » prohibit NDAs. >> Yes, we want to prohibit if if the city

[1:44:58] allows them to require NDAs for negotiations, you're going to have a

[1:45:03] very upset citizenry. Um >> Sure. I will say that's generally not

[1:45:07] something you'd put in your zoning code, but that is something that I think that

[1:45:11] I can take and bring to the the council in regards to policy, city policy.

[1:45:16] » Um because I think why I do think it's important to do some type of moratorium

[1:45:21] to get our ducks in a row is what if we were talking about a data center on the

[1:45:28] Clear Lake land? I mean, that's not a very good use next to a bunch of

[1:45:32] residential and wildlife. So, I think it's important for us to make sure we

[1:45:36] get this right. Hitting pause. Um, and I think I I think you are not prepared for

[1:45:42] the amount of people who do not want data centers near them. So, I don't

[1:45:46] think embracing them with open arms is quite the right approach.

[1:45:53] » Susan, >> as I remember our 2030 comp plan, um, we

[1:46:00] all we need to think about another we need

[1:46:04] to be thinking about um the water that we're supplying to our residents. And um

[1:46:10] I I I was really sobered when I was up at the neighborhood meeting and realized

[1:46:15] how much along County Road 50 north of north of 50 and toward the the

[1:46:24] Harrow area, the sheer number of dwelling units that are going in there

[1:46:29] that we have, you know, platted and and and together. And um I I just want to

[1:46:36] make sure that considering what the requirements or what we would ask of the

[1:46:40] data center would be. Um that we we we make sure that that the water and energy

[1:46:49] requirements balanced against the water and energy requirements of our residents

[1:46:54] um are are a big piece of the evaluation.

[1:47:01] I will say that at the moment it it without a moratorum I don't know that

[1:47:06] staff is going to just take this on it. We recognize that we need to um but we

[1:47:12] also have to be able to work on it peace mill and so I I will write that down if

[1:47:16] we do end up if that is something the city chooses to do

[1:47:20] » and I'm sorry to interrupt but did I would consider those as reasons for a

[1:47:25] moratorum because we need to really understand

[1:47:29] what our development. I consider a development boom right now. Yeah.

[1:47:33] » Um where we are with water and sewer and and electrical needs.

[1:47:39] » Yeah. That's a really good point because um we are you know in some areas of the

[1:47:44] city I would say that until there's additional electrical capacity uh

[1:47:49] electrical generation created that there is some that there are areas where there

[1:47:53] is lower amount of uh electrical availability and water especially as we

[1:47:58] move into the southwest corner of the city

[1:48:02] » and the northeast doesn't have water. >> Yeah. Well, it never did so was never

[1:48:06] planned for it. I I'll make a note of that and we'll

[1:48:11] take a look at that. >> Yeah, it's been noted.

[1:48:14] » One of one of the other issues I've as these have been going across the country

[1:48:19] is if your city is not prepared, you have to allow them in and then if

[1:48:25] they're underpowered, the residents get their bills increased to make up that

[1:48:30] difference. So there's there's a lot of moving parts to make sure that we're

[1:48:34] ready so that our residents aren't negatively impacted financially to help

[1:48:39] this business make money >> and I really appreciate that staff wants

[1:48:44] to be proactive on this. Thank you very much.

[1:48:48] » Other comments? Should we take a straw poll of how many

[1:48:52] are in favor? >> Yeah, for a moratorum

[1:48:58] I

[1:49:01] I think we uh we're in favor. >> Is that all we need tonight?

[1:49:04] » Uh well, and I put it on as discussion, but I would like it if you made a motion

[1:49:08] for a recommendation to the city council.

[1:49:11] » I will make a motion that we do up to one-year moratorum for the city to

[1:49:16] analyze and develop a data center plan. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[1:49:23] » Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any

[1:49:25] discussion on the motion? Any discussion hearing? None. All those

[1:49:30] in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I.

[1:49:33] » Opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries unanimously.

[1:49:39] » Anything else you need, Abby? >> Not at this time. I'll we'll keep you

[1:49:42] posted on that and what kind of our timeline on that plan will be.

[1:49:45] » All right. Thank you. We'll move to number nine, our updates. We'll start

[1:49:48] with our honorable council person Larson.

[1:49:55] » Evening chairman, commissioners. Um, it's been a little while since we've

[1:49:59] met. I hope everybody had a nice holiday. Um,

[1:50:04] uh, not pertaining to the commission, but I'd just like to say that, uh, I was

[1:50:08] at the inaugural of the farmers market out here in the lot, and it was

[1:50:12] fabulous. >> Great response. Uh, lots of people, a

[1:50:17] lot of vendors, >> uh, they want to bring in, but they

[1:50:20] don't want to have nine people that are selling bread.

[1:50:23] » So, they're kind of moving it around a little bit.

[1:50:27] When is that? >> Pardon, sir.

[1:50:28] » When is that? >> Saturdays from 8 until noon and July

[1:50:34] 11th. This coming Saturday, the corn will be coming to this farmers market.

[1:50:40] » There you go. You got it straight. Uh the other thing is Arts in the Park.

[1:50:44] There's been phenomenal participation. Um the weather's been cooperative to a

[1:50:51] point. It's been hot and stuff like that. Uh but we've had a lot of uh a lot

[1:50:56] of people out there. I was fortunate enough to be out there the first Tuesday

[1:51:03] uh at our booth and stuff and everybody was having a great time and uh yeah, I

[1:51:09] think it was well well enjoyed by everybody. So, if you do get a chance or

[1:51:13] have not, please maybe take a Tuesday night, come out with your lawn chair,

[1:51:18] listen to some music or whatever and take in some of our our fine vendors and

[1:51:22] community members there. As far as other city business goes, I

[1:51:27] don't really have anything right now. Um, due to the long holiday and things

[1:51:32] like that, we haven't really had a council meeting. So, as you all know,

[1:51:35] we're meeting Monday and we have a a lot on our plate for that. So, um, if you

[1:51:42] have any questions of me or anything I can help you with, I will do my very

[1:51:45] best. >> How is budget development going?

[1:51:48] » It's a work in progress. Okay. [laughter]

[1:51:52] » You're getting good at this. >> I'm I'm doing my best. There is There's

[1:51:55] been a lot of things and that have kind of

[1:51:59] been produced and stuff like that. Um we're

[1:52:05] we're cautious with what we're doing because there is a

[1:52:10] lot of things. So I think as far as staff goes, uh the council goes working

[1:52:16] with the city engineer and stuff to try to making smooth progression with

[1:52:21] things. We want progression. the recession part of it. Um but we want

[1:52:28] to make sure as say we want to do it right.

[1:52:32] So um but lots of things going on >> with the

[1:52:38] expected increase in bowling units. There will be an increased demand on

[1:52:43] city services. >> Yes, there will be. And as you know,

[1:52:47] you've seen we had some retirements in our police department. But again, uh not

[1:52:53] too long ago, we in addition to our fire department. So now we have an assistant

[1:52:57] chief. So um I think Mr. Newman is gearing that gentleman up for all his

[1:53:03] his uh procedures and things like that to uh

[1:53:08] maybe eventually retire at some point. He's a very busy man as well. So

[1:53:13] » say himself. >> So as far as city staff goes, I think uh

[1:53:18] we've been doing well. Um haven't really we haven't hired anybody. bank or

[1:53:24] whatever. Maybe Abby can help me out with that side of the fence there a

[1:53:28] little bit. Um, are we still we're still behind a little bit on a few staff

[1:53:32] members? >> Yeah, I mean I think the city has filled

[1:53:38] all positions that councils prior to all prior to the 26 budget. So positions

[1:53:46] approved in like 24 and 25. I think that they are all filled. On the

[1:53:50] administration side, I can't speak for PD and fire. I just they're kind of they

[1:53:56] do their own thing. Um, we do have at least uh one vacancy in building

[1:54:02] inspections, but that's been a long-standing vacancy. So, we are

[1:54:05] actually doing interviews later this week. Um, there were staffing requests

[1:54:09] made to the city council, but the city council hasn't made any determination of

[1:54:13] whether or not they want to include those requests in the 2027 budget. So

[1:54:20] Jolene is the official city administrator now.

[1:54:23] » Acting city administrator >> interim. So

[1:54:26] » acting interim city administrator. >> Is that a vacancy or not a vacancy?

[1:54:30] » It's not a it's not a position that the city is actively um seeking to fill at

[1:54:36] the moment, but I do believe the intent is to after the election.

[1:54:39] » Correct. >> Thank you.

[1:54:42] » Any other questions for Mr. Larson? Thank you for participating this

[1:54:49] evening. >> For the July 4th, public works, police,

[1:54:53] fire, all stepped up big time and it's appreciated.

[1:54:57] » Yeah. Thank you again all for your participation.

[1:55:02] We all appreciate you. So, thank you again.

[1:55:06] » You Steve, anything for us? >> Oh, man. Do I ever. Uh I hope you

[1:55:11] enjoyed tonight. Uh we're kind of uh I think the next uh planning commission I

[1:55:15] was just going through our u our schedule the next planning commission uh

[1:55:20] should be uh you know maybe a little breather for you. Uh maybe not. We have

[1:55:25] another concept plan. We have a neighborhood meeting tonight. It's for

[1:55:28] uh Birwood Estates U KJ Walk. Next week they go to parks in two weeks. They'll

[1:55:33] be here with another concept plan for a development just south of Amberly Woods

[1:55:37] that just got approved. Um so um as Commissioner Young was pointing out,

[1:55:42] this is one of the the giant development areas that the city is seeing and a boom

[1:55:46] is is very much an understatement for the historical growth that this city is

[1:55:52] uh is under in the amount of developments looking to to expand here.

[1:55:57] Um so our work is cut out for us and I had Abby here tonight to make sure that

[1:56:01] she heard uh the chair Gerard bring up the code updates. Um a big part of the

[1:56:06] reason why uh those have been delayed is because of the gang busters of

[1:56:10] developments that we have coming in. Uh so uh uh good good times across the

[1:56:15] board. >> Just so you know, Steve, that your

[1:56:17] problem not I said could you come here and cover me?

[1:56:22] Could you cover me with uh Chair Gerard? We will be uh getting into that. I think

[1:56:26] it will be pushed to probably when we get out of this um really fast-paced

[1:56:31] development season. And speaking of that development season, again, Birchwood

[1:56:34] Estates will be here the 22nd um at the next meeting. But also, I wanted to give

[1:56:39] you a heads up that Hidden Creek South, if you remember, we had a public hearing

[1:56:43] and it was immediately tabled in February. Um then, uh there's

[1:56:47] discussions that the developer uh was having with the council regarding some

[1:56:52] um improvements to Headarters Parkway. Um those those conversations have been

[1:56:57] ironed out, decisions have been made. Now, the developer is wanting to uh

[1:57:01] continue. Um so, we're working with uh him to uh get an updated kind of set

[1:57:08] that reflects the the decisions that have been made by the council. So, we're

[1:57:13] looking at probably August 13th or the um August 8th. Um I'm looking trying to

[1:57:18] look at my schedule. Um August 12th uh meeting that would potentially be uh

[1:57:24] that coming back as well as a number of public hearings for some variances that

[1:57:27] are on the docket. So, uh, you may get a little bit of a reprieve on the the at

[1:57:32] the next planning commission, but come August 12th, it's going to be

[1:57:36] a real real it's going to be a big meeting. Um, it as it's planned. Now, I

[1:57:41] also wanted to say it was brought up uh arts in the park um and how great it is.

[1:57:45] It's not great yet because our we're we'll be out there and I mentioned this

[1:57:49] last time. We'll be out there the 21st of this month, August 4th and August

[1:57:53] 18th. And um the community development department will be out there to kind of

[1:57:57] discuss some of the plan, what's being proposed uh potentially for improvements

[1:58:02] to the the park down there, especially with the specific question of our our

[1:58:07] the visitors and residents of the area of the boat launch that's there. Um

[1:58:13] there are some discussions of uh potentially expanding the green space,

[1:58:18] including an amphitheater there. So, we are bringing that option as a

[1:58:22] interactive kind of exhibit uh for uh the visitors of Arts in the Park. So, if

[1:58:27] you see us out there, uh, make sure you stop by and you put a sticker on the

[1:58:31] poster that you like the most. One that either has the boat boat launch or one

[1:58:36] that has a new amphitheater with a kayak launch, non-motorized launch is what's

[1:58:40] uh kind of being suggested with some of our planning. So, we'll be out there

[1:58:43] again the 21st, the 4th, and the 18th. So, come by, say hi, and get a lollipop.

[1:58:50] » Question for Steve. [snorts]

[1:58:53] » Didn't he do a fabulous job tonight on presentation?

[1:58:57] on >> fabulous job.

[1:58:59] » I think it's it's more impressive the I say this

[1:59:04] again I'm not used to such decorum with something that's so uh with a lot of

[1:59:09] passions uh and I'm constantly impressed by the city and their ability to uh be

[1:59:14] able to communicate without yelling not quite the situation in the state that I

[1:59:18] just moved from. So I really appreciate that about here.

[1:59:21] » So do I. >> Yeah, [laughter] absolutely.

[1:59:25] Abby. >> Um, so I know we all talk about this

[1:59:28] boom that we're going through. Just for reference, I think it's 10 different

[1:59:33] land development plats that are being processed through the city in some

[1:59:37] fashion or another right now. And that doesn't even include um we have about

[1:59:41] half dozen eight just site plan reviews. So commercial redevelopment, reuse of

[1:59:45] existing sites. Um, and that's just going through those planning stages, not

[1:59:51] what has actually been already approved by you, but are meeting the conditions

[1:59:54] of approval, and we're working through legal agreements. So, we are right now,

[1:59:58] I would say, at the best I can kind of tell in terms of planning of at least

[2:00:03] where the city was kind of just post recession, we maybe haven't seen

[2:00:06] construction that we're going to gear up for now since at least 2012 or even

[2:00:12] pre-recession. So, um, just for reference, there's a lot going on. Part

[2:00:18] of the reason Stephen hasn't gotten to the zoning code, and I haven't gotten

[2:00:21] after him. So, I do do want to defend him of that. He did mention that long

[2:00:26] range planning kind of project, the downtown plan called for a long lakeside

[2:00:32] park shoreline study that would look to stabilize the shoreline. As part of that

[2:00:38] conversation was whether or not the boat launch should be moved. Um several years

[2:00:43] ago the council said, "Yeah, that boat launch should be moved." New parks

[2:00:47] commission said, "You know what? We we really would like to vet this out with

[2:00:50] the public." So that is the big intent to really kind of see should this launch

[2:00:54] be moved. Should we put an amphitheater or amphitheater? Is that what we calling

[2:00:58] it? Not amphitheater. >> I think it's amphitheater.

[2:01:01] » But it's not isn't >> stand.

[2:01:05] Who knows what it's going to look like quite yet? But a larger performance

[2:01:08] stage. But the biggest reason that the city is trying to do this is because our

[2:01:11] shoreline needs to be stabilized and we need to finalize the plan for what that

[2:01:16] shoreline is going to look like. And so um do encourage you to go out there or

[2:01:20] tell your friends. There are some online surveys out right now. If you're a

[2:01:24] launch user, there's a special survey and then there's another one of just

[2:01:27] users. So um other long range planning things, the city started to work with

[2:01:32] Washington County on a county road 50 corridor study. So this is the corner of

[2:01:39] county um highway 61 where kind of the airport meets and crosses over um into

[2:01:46] Susan's world [laughter] or in you but where a lot of our development is

[2:01:51] happening. So that corridor study is going to look all the way from county

[2:01:54] road 60 or state highway 61 all the way to Manning Avenue. So city staff right

[2:02:00] now is working with a project management team in the county on what that corridor

[2:02:05] is going to look like and Um, so you might see some public engagement

[2:02:08] opportunities coming out probably closer to fall on that one. Um, additionally,

[2:02:15] city's been working with the cities of Hugo, Columbus, Lino Lakes, and the EDAs

[2:02:21] of both Washington and Anoka County on a corridor study of Elmrest Avenue. That's

[2:02:26] our western boundary gravel road right now. But we've got a little bit of

[2:02:30] asphelt at the top and a little bit of asphalt in line of lakes and it and

[2:02:34] developments moving towards it. And so really trying to look at what that

[2:02:38] corridor looks like in the long run. Um lots of just in general long range

[2:02:43] planning going because we want to stay in front of some of that development

[2:02:48] stuff. Next week the parks commission I believe will look at an updated will

[2:02:52] consider recommendation of approval on an updated parks plan master parks

[2:02:57] trails open space plan. So, that's out there for folks to take a look at. Got

[2:03:02] some crinkles over there. Susan, any questions?

[2:03:04] » I I need to take a look. >> Um, and then, uh, I know, uh, that there

[2:03:10] was conversation here about the desire for a joint workshop with the city

[2:03:15] council. staff has been in discussions with uh interim administrator Jolene um

[2:03:21] with with Stephen um taking a look at also just our timeline for um

[2:03:28] comprehensive plan update. I think we'll be aiming for that workshop in the fall

[2:03:33] to be addressing some precursors to engagement of uh for comprehensive plan.

[2:03:38] Also talking about some of the opportunities that the city has in terms

[2:03:43] of how we can better partner with the Met Council. Um so if there's other

[2:03:49] things you think about along the way that you want to have conversations

[2:03:53] about uh feel free to reach out to Stephen and I. are happy to see what we

[2:03:57] can try to maximize that to make sure that we're working in coordination

[2:04:01] planning commission and city council. I know that was a lot probably not a lot

[2:04:06] you get but you don't see me as much anymore. I want to fill you with a lot

[2:04:09] of things that are happening and why you don't see me as much anymore.

[2:04:12] » We do thank you for gracing us with your presence this evening.

[2:04:15] » I appreciate it. >> Other questions for

[2:04:19] » It's hard to not It's hard to keep my mouth shut. I'm not I try really hard to

[2:04:22] just let you guys keep doing what you're doing. So, you're all doing great and I

[2:04:25] appreciate you. >> One quick question. You said we haven't

[2:04:28] seen building numbers like this since 2012. How many roofs are we talking

[2:04:32] about? How many individual homes? >> Well, right now the actual permitting is

[2:04:35] still pretty low. Um the number of homes that are getting, you know, potentially

[2:04:39] platted. I would say in the next um 3 to 5 years, we're going to see probably

[2:04:44] numbers close to 150 homes per year. So, it might be another 500 homes in the

[2:04:50] next three years is really feasible. Um, >> that's less than what we've already

[2:04:56] platted, we've already approved. >> So, you think it's going to take like

[2:05:03] probably 10 years to build out what we've already

[2:05:06] » I don't think it'll uh what I don't we haven't we haven't platted 500 homes.

[2:05:11] » You're talking about actually completing the houses?

[2:05:13] » Yeah, I'm talking about completing the homes. Probably 150 per year over the

[2:05:18] next three years. So, that 500 um the plat. So, um We may have planned planned

[2:05:25] unit development uh for more than 500 when you look at Hidden Creek and you

[2:05:31] look at Chestnut Creek, but what I'm talking about is the actual then phasing

[2:05:35] of the final plat. So a good example is Hidden Creek fourth has come in, it's

[2:05:39] only 18 homes. Um Chestnut Creek, Havenwood,

[2:05:46] Havenwood, Havenwood, even though it's 120

[2:05:50] » 160. >> Thank you. um their first phase is only

[2:05:53] coming in with >> 61.

[2:05:55] » So, you know, that's where and then those 61, you know, between the 18 at

[2:06:00] Hidden Creek and 61 at Havenwood of those going to be built in 27

[2:06:06] probably might not be all. I don't know that for sure, but I'm trying to stay

[2:06:12] still mildly conservatively because I think anything more than about 150, the

[2:06:18] system, the city's systems are going to be taxed. And not just our emergency

[2:06:23] response, but I talk about our building permitting abilities, our inspections,

[2:06:28] uh, engineering, you know, all of those things.

[2:06:30] » I assume we we haven't talked about we don't talk about schools in this

[2:06:34] commission. We haven't ever, but I assume that's a concern when you're

[2:06:38] putting in that many new roofs. >> We got plenty of room in the schools.

[2:06:42] » Oh, do we? I don't honestly know that. So, that's good to hear.

[2:06:45] » We closed one building, we tore down another one.

[2:06:47] » Okay. Well, that's news to me. >> I mean, we haven't had any conversations

[2:06:50] with the district lately, but I do think that there is room within the system as

[2:06:54] it sits right now. As a reminder though, our household size is going down and the

[2:07:01] average age isn't getting younger. And so that it does reflect that even though

[2:07:06] we are adding rooftops, we might not always be adding school age children.

[2:07:12] All great questions though. >> Anything else for Abby?

[2:07:17] » Okay, Jesse? >> Nothing.

[2:07:20] » Yeah, the wall there. What's going on? >> No, I just I just noticed it when I

[2:07:24] walked in tonight. >> It's on somebody's to-do list here.

[2:07:27] » We'll make sure to we'll take a look at it.

[2:07:29] » Maybe snazz it up for the council meeting. We're down here.

[2:07:34] » I get a push. >> You get a push pin up there or

[2:07:37] something. >> Push pin.

[2:07:39] » I think there may have been discussion about actually resurfacing them. You can

[2:07:44] see some areas where they're the panels look like they're either have a relief

[2:07:49] or a little >> supposed to be even is my understanding.

[2:07:53] » I can get you an update on that at your next meeting.

[2:07:56] » Can you make a note of that? >> Drives me nuts, but I don't think

[2:08:00] they're meant to be even. And I'm

[2:08:06] » Well, no, but like the one in between the two with the vents up there, there's

[2:08:09] a there's a wave where you can definitely see it's been peeling apart

[2:08:13] some. So, >> all right. Now that we can treat the

[2:08:16] walls, uh Andy, anything? >> Nothing. Thank you,

[2:08:20] » Tim. >> I'm good.

[2:08:22] » Nothing. >> Susan,

[2:08:23] » the farmers market has been so much fun and we've got some really great vendors.

[2:08:28] There's a mix of um veggie folks and honey and syrup. And um we're trying to

[2:08:34] bring in some some meat vendors. Um uh baked goods, both gluten-free and and

[2:08:41] and real. Um there's there's a lady there that's got some um

[2:08:47] » kombucha.

[2:08:50] It's pretty cool. And it's right here. And the beauty of it is

[2:08:55] you're close. You're not to carry 12 pounds of veggies for 12 blocks

[2:09:01] » and it is growing each week. >> Staff is strategically trying to add

[2:09:05] vendors that are not not to excessively compete with one another, but continues

[2:09:11] to add new vendors each week. So, >> Saturday 8 to noon.

[2:09:15] » Saturday 8 to noon. >> Are you guys getting commission on this

[2:09:17] or something? [laughter]

[2:09:21] » The staffing of it, the the Lions provided the funding and the Rotary is

[2:09:26] providing the

[2:09:29] It's just it's brand new. I think we've only been doing it two weeks. So, trying

[2:09:32] to get some marketing in three weeks marketing out.

[2:09:36] » I only have one comment. Um I was at the last planning.

[2:09:40] » You were? >> I was going to make that comment.

[2:09:42] » Um but that was on June 10th and a meet a agenda tonight said it was on the 24th

[2:09:50] of June and we cancelled that meeting, but it didn't occur to me that. So, I

[2:09:55] was here. So, I apologize for not knowing I was at the last meeting.

[2:09:59] » Is there somebody you want me to beat for that?

[2:10:01] » No, we're good. Interesting's happened. >> With that, the chair is looking for a

[2:10:06] motion to adjourn. >> So moved.

[2:10:08] » I got a motion. I got a second. >> Second.

[2:10:11] » Got a motion, a second. Non-debatable motion. All those in favor signify by

[2:10:14] saying I. I. >> Opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries.

[2:10:20] Thank you all. Enjoy the summer. >> [music]

Forest Lake Planning Commission July 8th, 2026

Transcript