[music]
Good evening at 6 o'clock. We'll call the meeting to order. Abby, are you
taking the role? >> Sure. Commissioner Applic
» here. >> Commissioner Goodwin,
» present. >> Commissioner Steeler
» here. >> Commissioner Young
» here. >> Commissioner Wagner
» here. >> Vice Chair Stender
» here. and chair dread >> here. We're asking if you're able please
stand and join us for the pledge of >> allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands nation.
Chair is looking for a motion to approve the agenda as presented or with changes.
» Move to approve. >> I have a motion to approve. I have a
second. >> Second.
» I have a motion in a second. It's a non-debatable motion. All those in favor
signify by saying I. >> I.
» Opposed. Abstensions.
Motion carries. We've come to the open form.
» Could you let some folks know there are still some seats in the front? Oh, just
like church. We got seats in the front row, close to the front there.
» Act like you like each other. >> Yeah.
» Sure.
» Thank you. We've come to the open forum part of the
meeting. This is where we ask anyone in the audience that would like to come up
and spend a couple minutes giving their thoughts on any issue. We'd be happy to
hear from them. I have a list that we will start with that goes down in order.
Once we have been through the list, if anyone else wishes to talk, you will
welcome you up to the podium. And when you finish, please sign this sheet when
you're done. So, with that, um, you do need to come up and state your name and
address for the record and spend just a couple minutes. got a lot of people here
and I don't think we want to be here till tomorrow, but we're interested in
what you have to say. So, I have Daniel Bud Budkkey and I apologize in advance
for all the names I massacred tonight at 4926210th.
Sir, again, start you you can state your name
and address for the record. Daniel Budkey 4926 210th Street North Forest
Lake Minnesota 55025 part of the Southside Clear Lake
neighborhood. Uh I guess we're just all here I would
assume to try to object to the building of this multi-tenant housing unit which
none of us are really looking forward to. Um I want to bring up two quick
points. I don't want to be here all night. I'm not going to lecture for
long. My two quick points are this. Number one is simply that the it's going
to directly hinder or possibly destroy the already deteriorating water quality
of our lake. And it's well all over well documented the uh Minnesota DNR website.
Uh really quick couple things. I got this off Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency this morning that the mercury and PFOS PFOS in the lake are already
extremely high and unsafe. We're only allowed to have one serving of fish now
per month safely. That's what's recommended. And in fact, they even
said, and I have right here that uh let's see, species, all species are
contaminated. Do not eat all sizes. And it says PFOS and mercury is also
involved per the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Obviously, runoff from
this facility would greatly hinder the health of the lake. Um the marsh land
that would be filled in to build this complex
can't be simply moved somewhere else because
it's directly located between highway 97 and the lake. That lake is then filtered
through the marsh. The runoff from 97 filtered through the marsh. The all the
phosphorus and all the chemicals which are greatly filled naturally through
that marsh into the lake. So, if this is removed, it can't be replaced. You can't
just simply move it somewhere else in a Forest Lake, somewhere in a corn field
or whatever, and have it filter into our lake, which is already contaminated via
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota DNR. It's
broadly documented per those two websites. So, I think a lot of people
are going to talk to the health a little late coming up, so I can stop now. on
that. My main concern though, however, is far uh graver. Uh it's the traffic
load at Everton and 97. Now, if you all look at the monitors, I have a Google
Earth image of the previous layout of the intersection.
Now, note note the um left turn lane from eastbound Highway 97
to northbound Everton. You see? And then if you look at the
left turn lane on westbound 97 towards southbound Everton, you see how those
two directly line up face to face. All these years we've been turning left and
never given a thought about it because if there's a semi park there turning
left into Quick Trip and we're heading eastbound turning north on Everton, we
can still see any vehicle in front of us. We can still see down the road. You
see what I'm saying? Now, this is the new layout.
You see how it's offset? Now, that is a design flaw or something
MDOT didn't catch. I don't know. But now, the brief period has been opened.
I've almost been t-boned several times taking that left turn because now you
are blinded by any vehicle turning left into Quick Trip or turning left into
Southbound Everton. You cannot see beyond that vehicle.
And especially if it's a large truck, a box truck, a bus, a semi, anything
larger than a standard small car. And even then, you're injured. It's an
incredibly dangerous situation already. And now you want to pile 228, possibly
500 residents, 228 apartments, 500 residents piled in there, probably with
mult, you know, all with cars. And they're all going to be piling in,
taking that left turn during rush hour in the afternoons when people are doing
60 m hour, 70 mph down this road. And at 60 m hour, a car travels 210 I mean,
sorry, uh 105 ft in 1 second. At 60 m hour, there's no way you're going to see
those cars coming. You got to inch out. And in one second, in two seconds, that
car is 210 ft behind you or behind the obstacle. You can't see it. It's not
possible. So, in the two seconds it takes you to inch out into that
intersection, you're done. And it's going to happen. If you load overload
this intersection with people, someone's going to die.
Someone's going to get killed. Hands down. The only reason that hasn't
happened, as I showed you earlier, we could see all these years, you could
easily turn left safely. Now, you can because of this design.
So, if you overload that right there, people are not going to be able to see.
People are going to be rushing. And I know what you're thinking. You're going
to say, "Well, we'll just put up a turn on green arrow only sign up." Hey,
problem solved, right? No. Makes it just as dangerous in a different way. Then
what happens is they shortened the left turn lane now. So, this new design is
shorter. So the cars pile up quicker and now because it's so overloaded with
people that you're going to go out in the main uh flow of traffic in that main
lane and we all know it's all backed up almost all the way to light several
times all the way to the light in Columbus.
So now people are going to get frustrated and they're going to jam out
onto the shoulder saying, "Well, I'm going right. I'm going to turn into a
quick trip anyway. I don't need to wait in this and someone else can have the
same idea and they're going to hit. Someone's going to get rear ended or god
forbid someone's going to go up on the pedestrian path and hit somebody on a
bike or walking an elderly couple taking a walk, a baby in a stroll. Who knows?
It's going to happen. And these cars are not doing 60. They're doing 70.
So, I'm just telling you, this is an incredibly dangerous situation. Left
turn on green arrow isn't going to solve the problem by any stretch of the
imagination. It doesn't matter. And that traffic is going to pile all the way
back up to the highway almost every single rush
hour every single day, especially on Friday afternoons when everyone's
jamming to the cabin. So this creates an incredibly dangerous
situation and someone's going to be killed. So your decision here today is
immense. Someone's life in this room probably
depends on it. And statistically speaking, it does. So don't make the
wrong choice. I'm telling you, this can't go through. Move it somewhere. I'm
not saying don't build the thing. I'm saying just pivot. Move somewhere. The
land can be repurposed. Reszone perhaps. We can always reszone. Nice high-end
homes. Perfect. Done. No pressure on the intersection.
No pressure [clears throat] on the resources really. So, that's what I want
to say. >> Thank you for your time.
[applause]
I will ask for decorum. There will be no clapping, cheering, etc. We need to get
through this. Please let everyone just comment. With
that, we have Dana Bona. Did I pronounce it?
» Yep. >> My name is Dana Bona. Um, I live at
505010th Street North, Forest Lake, Minnesota. I've lived there since 1999.
I was born and raised in Forest Lake. I was born here in 74. I resided over at
456 Southshore Drive my entire life. I love Forest Lake. Um I'm a little
emotional because I'm really upset about this. I purposely lived out we bought
out at Clear Lake because of the fact that it was kind of getting out in the
country, but yet I was still in the city. The lake was small. It wasn't
overcrowded like I grew up on Forest Lake where we couldn't water ski. Um the
lake was a clean lake. No weeds, none of the other crap going on. And when I come
home to find out that we're trying to build an apartment complexes at the end
of my road and I don't want that. I don't want the riff raff. You don't want
the riff raff. And you can honestly tell me we were here in what 22 I think it
was the headarters you guys were in section 8 housing in. There was a huge
fight about that one and we were assured by the city council, oh it won't it'll
be great. It'll be fine. We're going to overcome this. We're going to cover it.
There won't be any problems. And the following year, the Force Lake Times
wrote that over 50% of our police force calls were being sent to that section 8
housing. So the rest of Forest Lake, we get the other 50% of the police and
now we're going to add more housing over here. That's apartments. And I know
right now you're all like, "Oh, it's just apartments, guys. Don't worry. It's
not just apartments. Our city has one of the highest of rental. We're at 23 to
25% depending on the month and the the non occupancy. That's a high amount of
rental already. And for the arch police force and our fire departments and
things like that to have to cover that entire area and we were talking what 21
you guys were trying to dismantle our police department? I mean, what are we
going to do? Just let them run a muck and the next thing that's going to
happen is, oh, this apartment buildings are no longer for just apartment
buildings. They're going to be section 8 because now the city can get more money
off that. I don't want that. I don't want the riff raff coming down and
burglarizing my cars, which I hear our friends on the south side or on the
north side have a problem from the section 8 housing wandering into their
neighborhoods and riff rafting. They have to make sure their cars are locked.
I don't have to make sure my car is locked. My cars are left unlocked right
now. Hell, my front door is unlocked right now. I know every person around my
lake that's sitting here today, we go out, we pontoon, tie up, we do things
together. We're all really tight. We don't want this apartment complex here.
This apartment complex is going to bring the crowd that we don't want for psych
to be erected. This is a town where your kids can walk the streets. Now we have
drugs that we have to worry about. There's talk that the police are having
to watch loves because they're a traffic jam for drug drive. The mules drop off
the drugs there and the rest run up to Duth. I mean, this is just getting
worse. What are we going to do? This is our foot. We're putting it down. I will
tell you this. our neighborhood is this strong and this tight. We've already
started interviewing attorneys. I am aware by two different attorneys. There
are precedents in the state of Minnesota where personal parties hired attorneys
and sued the city to stop them from doing something like this. And if that's
what we have to go to, we have to go to But they did win. The city actually was
a were sued for the devalument of those properties. This apartment building will
devalue my property. every one of my neighbors properties because now you
have to constantly have the police out there. The police right now come out
there and if they're sitting there writing their paperwork, we're giving
them water. Pop, how you doing? That isn't why they're going to be there in
the future. They're going to be there because somebody's stuff got broken
into, stuff got wrecked. I don't want that. That's not what I want to be. I
don't want to be in the forake times because our block got vandalized.
Do you guys want in your houses? Do you want me to build an apartment building
right down in your neighborhood? I can honestly say I know each and every one
of you don't want that. So, I'm begging you, please think about
if this was your neighborhood and I was the one, some developer saying, "Hey,
I'll give you some money. I can make your life real easy. I can make you guys
meet budget. There's other ways to meet budgets for the city than doing this to
us." Because once it starts with us, we're just the first pipeline of the
city going to hell. And I don't want it to be. And there are towns out there
that have said, "We're not going to have this. We need to be that town. We need
to say, "We've done this. That area is done. We're not doing it anymore. It
will kill our neighborhood. You will kill the south side of the lake." I'm
begging you, please think about that and take care of us in that tune.
Thank you. >> Thank you,
» Kathy Rodville. I correct on that.
Hi, I'm [clears throat] Kathy Rodold. I live on the Southshore on 4946 210th
Street. And I'm going to build a little bit on what Dan had to say. It's bad
enough with what's going to happen with the traffic jam at 97 in Everton. What
about all these people that are going to be able to go in and out off of Everton?
That's a small little road and a few houses down from there, it goes onto a
dirt road. There's no way it's going to be able to handle the kind of traffic
that's going to want to come in and out of there. That right now that community
pe the kids can bike ride, they can walk, you can walk your baby, you can
talk to your neighbors. It's a quiet small community. It's a quiet small lake
and this is a small area of land on off the southwest corner of our lake that
will destroy what a wonderful place this is. You know, right now we're safe and
we're not going to be safe if you put that in. It's just the way it is.
There's just no possible way that that will happen. I understand progress has
to be made. Maybe some building done, but do you have to come on and off of
Everton? Can you go out to the frontage road? Can you make bigger access off of
97? Something where you're not going to pull all that traffic in our
neighborhood. And with the construction that's gone on on Highway 97, when they
did the park by Quick Trip, well, people don't think they have to go around our
neighborhood. They come on on Falcon and they come flying down 210th until they
see, oh, we can't get out back onto 97. And now that that part of 97 is open and
it's closed by Falcon, every day there's somebody that comes down Everton, comes
flying down 210th until they see they can't go out. Well, people aren't going
to want to wait at that intersection and they're not going to that's only
right-hand turns in and out of 97. The way in and out of that area is going to
be off of Everton. the majority of the traffic and that is going to put all of
us at huge risk. So my neighbors all have something else to say. I beg you do
not do this. Thank you for your comments. Rob Olsen.
[cough] [clears throat]
» Good evening members of the planning commission. My name is Rob Olsen. I live
at 21700 Fondant Avenue along with my wife
Ginger. Uh, I'm like a lot of people. I mean, we live on the lake on the
northeast side. I I guess a couple things. When we received everything, I
from what I could understand, there hasn't been an informal environmental
impact review of this. There sounds like there maybe hasn't been a traffic study
like the gentleman had talked about. I'd never even I drove over there before
this with my neighbor and looked at it because we were kind of wondering where
is this anyways and you know Everton and then we drove down the little private
dirt road I guess that we probably shouldn't have gone on and it's it seems
like you're shoehorning quite a bit into an area that has a lot of lowlands. So
the concern I have is the effect upon the lake. You know the runoff to the
lake and is there going to be the same And so I
would ask that the planning commission would insist on further environmental
studies to look at it because you know you know I like everybody I have concern
for the quality of the water in that lake. Uh I'm not excited about the fact
that we can't eat the fish we used to but I know that has nothing to do with
this complex but it is going to have 480 cars. I was kind of astounded by that
that, you know, you're talking a pretty decent size apartment complex and that's
a lot of vehicles, a lot of runoff. How is that going to be taken care of so it
doesn't go into the lake? Uh, also, as the gentleman said about the traffic, I
think there really does need to be a traffic study or something done to
Everton because, you know, when I first heard Everton, I said, "Yeah, Everton,
that's a big road." But then when you turn right, it's not a very big road.
when you turn to the north when I say right. Uh so I'd ask that that also be
considered by the county the highway engineers whoever the city that does
that type of stuff. So uh just instead of I don't believe that this is the
stage in the process where anybody's got an application for actually approval.
This is more just a information type meeting unless I'm wrong. Uh but it to
that extent I'd ask that any approvals be subject to further environmental
studies and further traffic studies. Thank you. Thank you.
Ian shortly.
» Uh and your name?
» I didn't hear Barb. I'm sorry. >> Yeah,
» I I I crossed you off. I I checked you. I didn't cross you off. I checked you
off that you had already spoke. So, my apologies. You're next then because you
were Barb, you were third on the list. So, my apologies.
Come on up. [snorts]
» I'm Barb Bassie and I live on 4864 210th Street. And for those of you who don't
know the area, it's uh you know, everybody's talking Everton, but when
you take a right, all those homes are on 210th Street. And I we we all know how
people just race on that street. And it's not even a it really I don't think
is legally a street because I think it was probably a dirt road that they put
pavement on when people started living there because there's no there's no
curbing, there's no sidewalks. The is not wide enough for hardly two cars to
pass. And because it's such a peaceful, quiet little neighborhood, people walk
their dogs on the street, little kids ride their bikes on the street, uh
people go side by side talking while they're walking because there's room on
the street. And we just don't have that kind of traffic. And it was mentioned
that people will come in from Falcon. And you know darn well they will because
they don't want to deal with the street light at Everton. they'll come in on
Falcon, go zipping down 210th, go take a left, and go right into this
new development. And um so that's my concern. Another concern is the quality
of the lake. And um I don't know if people realize this, but that lake is
28t deep. Um White Bear Lake is 83 feet deep. Bone Lake. Bone Lake smaller than
Clear Lake is actually more is deeper than um Clear Lake. And so right now
there's about 150 to 180 residents on Clear Lake. And you know when you say
240 units, that's easily spouse, kids, we're talking maybe 500 more people.
Now, is that is that possible that you can say that this little community can
sustain that? The other thing is is that really when you think about it, so those
people live in an apartment building, they buy a jet ski, they buy a
speedboat, all they have to do is go around to the little public access and
those people are going to be zip, zip, zipping all over our lake, 28 feet deep.
You're ruining the bottom of that lake. you're you're sending all the weeds and
every tearing up all the weeds and everything and and are those people
paying six7,000 to live there in taxes? Hell no, they're not. And so, you know,
we as the payers and and um the um I'm trying to think of the word and I can't,
but we have we've got skin in the game. You know, we take care of that lake and
right now it's as uh Dan mentioned, it's already really high and it is on the
states impaired uh lakes because it's so full of pollution already and um we just
can't we can't add that many more people and especially with such easy access to
to buy a jet ski just go to the boat landing and put it in, you know, it it's
not fair to the rest of us. It's not that big of a lake. Um this lake is 429
acres. Um, White Bear Lake is 2400 acres. You know, they just can't bring
speedboats. And and our lake is a little pontoon, fishing boats, you know, couple
people have jet skis, couple have speed boats, but it's not the zip, zip, zip,
zip, zip, you know, it can't handle it. And the other thing I want to mention,
which I think is extremely important, is um [clears throat] that this area used
to be was an Indian burial ground. And this is a direct quote. It said, "The
immediate surrounding region is deeply significant and rich in indigenous
history. Located just west of Forest Lake, this area contains some of the
oldest known Native American burial mounds in Minnesota." Now, did any of
you know that? But that should give you a little food for thought that that they
should not be putting in that big in there.
Thank you. >> Thank you.
Uh Era Swenson, I apologize that I may have
a little trouble reading that 483927.
» [laughter] >> I I apologize if I massacred the name,
but uh >> Eric Swenson,
» you know, we don't need to know cursive anymore, just so you know. [laughter]
» Yeah. So, um a lot of what I would say has already been said. Um
[clears throat] you know, the lake is um we have a really strong lake
association. Um they do a great job. Um There have
they we have been working with the DNR and the um University of Minnesota and
Rice Creek to improve it. We currently are running some tests on planting
native species in the lake and things like that. Um, one of the things with
the access to the lake is I was over there this morning just kind of checking
it out and um there's 250 ft of uh lily pads to get to that access currently and
those would have to be cleared out in order to make any kind of access to that
37 or 40 feet to get to our lake um that they currently have. So, that's
a concern I have of ripping out a bunch of lily pads. I know it's legal through
the DNR in certain ways and things like that, buying permits and whatever, but
uh that's ruining a lot of our native species of that lake. Um the other
concern I have is at the end of that 240 ft, um the lake level is about 40
inches. Um at a at about 50 ft. It's two feet.
So, you put a speedboat in there, you put a pontoon in there, the the level of
the motor, the bottom of the motor where the prop is is obviously going to stir
up the muck and continue to muddy up the water and things like that. So with all
that extra traffic that's pro could go to that additional dock that may be
there um that's going to really in increase the uh clarity or decrease the
clarity of our water. So I could see our water quality going down significantly
with that kind of traffic. Um the other thing I noticed was there's a lot of um
through the Rice Creek wershed. I went online and looked at the uh the um
uh low water basin in that area and a lot of that area is um low water or high
high water area 100year flood plane area and that would have to be looked at
pretty closely um on how they filter the water and that's already been said
before so I'm not going to go into that But if you uh if you look at the
100redyear water plane or the flood plane in that area, it's pretty
substantial. Um obviously it goes through the trail
that would need to be made to get to the lake or dock or whatever they're going
to do. But um that's another concern of of mine as well is how they're how
they're going to get to the lake and what they're going to do to the the low
lake lowle areas in that uh swamp area. So that's all I have.
» Thank you. >> Yep.
» Teresa Nistler.
» Yeah. So I have somewhere to set.
Good evening, planning commission chair, commissioners, and commissioner, vice
chair. My name is Theresa Nishler, and I reside at 21045 Everton Avenue North. My
spouse and I have owned this property since 2000, over 25 years. We believe in
your website slogan, forest lake, as good as it sounds, is the primary reason
we purchased the property on Clear Lake and across the street from forest,
wetlands, and wildlife management areas containing abundant wildlife, protected
eagles, and the diversity of plants that come with such a beautiful, serene
environment. We are here tonight after submitting our
concerns, which should have been included in your packet. So, I hope
you've read it. If you haven't, please read those comments. My neighbors have
done a great job bringing up lots of wonderful points about why this is a
negative impact to not only our community but Forest Lake overall.
Um, we are here to request that the planning commission little different
take on the comments I submitted that you actually abide by the stated vision
and goals of your existing 2040 comprehensive plan. The vision
statement, and I'm paraphrasing, the city of Forest Lake is known for its
natural resources and outdoor recreation. The city's overall vision is
to serve as a regional hub while maintaining its national natural
resources and providing a range of recreational
opportunities. As development is proposed, the emphasis
will be again the protection of natural resources. That has been highlighted
numerous times tonight. Your number one goal is protect natural
resources. There is absolutely nothing about this concept plan that is going to
protect the natural resources of this area.
Um I can tell you as another gentleman stated that the Clear Lake Association
has worked diligently to not only protect but also provide access through
our public boat landing education on invasive species and investing large
financial resources along with our critical partners to add a fishing pier.
We're working on access. We try to make sure that the public has access to the
resources. This concept plan being presented is replicating what we're
already providing. It's attempting to add a six slip boat marina in an
extremely shallow vegetation filled area of the lake and a complete disregard for
protecting this natural resource by adding a a boardwalk connecting the
development to the proposed marina. Because as the applicant Stephen Cavan
said, I thought it'd be a nice amenity. Well, I can tell you this is not a nice
amenity for any of the people in this room. We are not seeing any of this as
an amenity. I'm aware of this commission's discussions in March of
this year beginning to scope the 2050 comprehensive plan and I just ask you to
abide by what you've already said you want to do. And this project does none
of it. Forcelake's current community community designation is emerging
suburban edge. The planning challenges for this designation require innovative
planning to ensure sustainable development and needs to address
infrastructure and environmental concerns. Again, this concept plan does
neither of those. The concept plan being presented tonight
does not address the lack of infrastructure by funneling, as others
have stated, close to 500 vehicles down a small residential road that was not
designed for that level of activity. Nor is the newly finished Highway 97
construction. This concept plan presented as presented would completely
waste the taxpayer dollars that went into the redesign of 97 and it would
also require rework and additional construction on Everton Avenue North
that was just finished. We respectfully request that this
planning commission recommend three things because I know you don't make
decisions yourself. You're making recommendations. We ask that you
recommend to your decision makers, the full council,
eliminate the boardwalk, eliminate the boat marina,
and eliminate any entrance or exits off of Everton Avenue North. You've heard
that over and over and over again. Everton cannot handle this kind of
traffic. There's plenty of open land and Forest Lake for this type of multif
family development. This property is not the place to put this development.
Absolutely not. There's lots of other concerns. People
have talked about erosion. People have talked about um the runoff.
Many of us are on private wells. There's already concern about the impact not
only of spring flooding, but of the impact of the wells. This development is
going to just exasperate the problems we've been dealing with. And we've all
dealt with them in this community together. We've worked together on so
many things and we care about each other and we want to keep our neighborhood as
it is a lovely serene place to live in peace. Thank you.
» Thank you, >> Dina Smith.
[clears throat]
Hello, I'm Deanna Schmidt, 211049 Everton Avenue. The home is located at
the beginning part of the Dead End Street on the south side of the lake.
The homes directly across from us above up to the proposed uh apartment
building. Um, as I stated in the email I sent to you yesterday, I have worked in
the apartment business uh, management for 40 years. So, I want to be clear
that I am not opposed to the building of apartments. Um, apartment buildings are
very important for housing in communities. However, I am opposed to
the development of a 200 uh, 228 unit apartment building in this location.
Um, many Clear Lake residents have made sub substantial investments in their
homes and properties, accepting higher property taxes in exchange for unique
character, natural beauty, and residential settings that lakefront
living provides. With that investment comes a reasonable expectation that we
would not suddenly find multiple large three-story apartment buildings directly
behind our homes and in our backyards. We also have the expectation that the
city will protect our property values and our right to the peaceful enjoyment
of the property we have invested in. While many residents and I would prefer
that no development occur on this site, I understand that growth and change are
inevitable and I recognize that that this project has development rights
under the current zoning. I respectfully submit that the commission's role
extends beyond determining whether a project is legally permissible. Your
recommendations and your guidance carry significant weight and can meaning
meaningfully influence this project's development.
Development of this site should occur in a manner that respects the expectations
of existing residents and preserve qualities that attracted the existing
families to this area in the first place.
If this project moves forward, I encourage the commission to use its
influence to advocate for meaningful modifications that better balance
development with neighborhood impacts. Such considerations should include
reduced building heights, fewer units or perhaps town homes or
detached town homes in lie of apartments to ensure overall compatibility with the
surrounding community. Additional consideration should include increased
setbacks, enhance landscaping and buffering, stronger measures to address
traffic, parking, lighting, and storm water, and consider impacts to existing
wildlife and the environment. My hope is that the applicant, the commission, and
neighborhood residents will work collaboratively to find a balanced
solution, one that addresses my concerns and those of my neighbors while
preserving character, safety, natural environment, and the quality of life
that make Clear Lake such a special place to call home. I respectfully ask
that these concerns along with those outlined in my me email become part of
the public record and be carefully considered as the project moves forward.
Thank you for your time and your service to the community.
» Thank you. I have reached the end of my list. So if anyone else wish to address
the planning commission, we ask that you come up, state your name and address so
you guys can work out who comes next. Um come up, state your name and address for
the record. We are going to put this sheet over where Mr. Larson is there if
he raises his hand if you would sign that upon your completion of your
comments. So, ma'am, go ahead. >> I think you skipped me. I'm on the list.
» The list left, but I apologize. >> My name is Ruth Bloomquist. Uh, you've
heard from me before in letter form. I live at 211071 [clears throat] Everton
Avenue North. Tonight I have more concerns and more
questions. Respectfully, what are we doing here?
High density housing on a wetland wedged between state conver conservation land
and next to a single family residential neighborhood. Multi-generational
families that have been here for decades. Really, this is simply a very
poor choice. There are better areas for this. Regardless of zoning, I was always
under the understanding that the wetland was not buildable,
that nothing could be built on the halfway land. Don and Judy knew it was a
wet land. They also knew that their land was infested with buckthornne, which is
why the state didn't want to buy the land. What has happened that allows for
this now? What laws have changed in Minnesota? What happens with this land
directly affects how much pollution runs into our lake. I understand that there
is a shortage of affordable housing, but really 22 actual buildable acres. You're
going to put six threestory apartment buildings filled with a minimum of 228
people. This is more than double the amount of residents currently living on
the lake. Now, where's the sense in that? Where is the
transportation that's available to them? How far is the closest transportation
center park and ride for these people is stuck in this apartment?
Clear Lake is a small lake that has a strong association that has denied
requests for community dock slips in the past. The lake association needs to be
consulted before any boat slips are planned. Our lake is impaired. We have
fought Eurasian water mil foil and now have zebra muscle invasion. The entire
concept is a slap in the face to the existing residents and our continued
contributions to the betterment of the lake. Why is this happening?
Because some developer bought the wetland for a song and is trying to make
a silk purse out of a sa's ear. So why is this land zoned to mixed use? Because
a long time ago, someone thought this area should be the gateway to Forest
Lake. Is that what you want for Forest Lake? Our gateway to be six threestory
apartment buildings? Since we want [snorts] to be more friendly to
developers, let me just ask this. Do we have to let them walk all over our
rights as taxpayers and property owners because the Met Council would like us
to? What's the Met Council going to do for us?
What about the airport? Those of us in a single family residential zone were not
allowed to build three stories because of the airport. Consequently, these
apartment buildings, as they are currently drawn in the proposal, will
block our sun will block the sun to the existing homes. So, at what point does
this bad idea get shut down? The proposal is incompatible with the
existing neighborhood. Additionally, the proposal calls for rows of single
garages rather than underground parking. MU2 calls for underground parking, which
tells me that the land is not suitable for the amount of excavation and
displaced materials this project would require.
MU2 calls for it and we need a separation of a fence or a
wall to keep our privacy and people out of
our yards. The proposal shows two buildings and garages that partially
fall within the lake overlay. They need to be moved farther south or eliminated.
Growth is important. It must be responsible growth. I respectfully ask
that you protect Clear Lake, protect the surrounding neighborhood, and require
that this proposal meet both the letter and spirit of city standards before
moving forward. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Anyone else wish to address? Come on up. [cough]
My name is Jody Dayne. I live at 21191 Everton Avenue on the south side of the
lake. I wasn't going to speak, but I have been standing in the back watching
and listening and I can't stay silent. I want you to look at the people out here.
The majority of them are retirees, as is the majority of the lake, over 50%.
This is their final home. That's a horrible way to say it, but it's all
going to end for us someday. They want to spend their last years in
peace and not have to worry about who's going to come through their yard
trespassing because the people that will reside in
these buildings hold no ownership. They don't care. And they will come across
our yards to get to the lake. They will follow the lake shore and come up
through our yards. The BCA has statistics on how areas like this there
is an increased property damage level, trespassing level, and break-in level.
These people don't deserve that. They have worked all of their lives
to be able to enjoy their properties. I have to talk about the human factor
here because everybody has talked about the road and the lake quality and
absolutely [snorts]
that's important. I live on the lake. I know how important that is. I have
worked for government agencies in the state of Minnesota. I have worked with
the Met Council. I know how the Met Council operates and I know you're being
strongarmed and it's through the law. Legally, they can do that.
But what they can't do is they can't tell you where these types of projects
go. That control lies with you. And as
you've heard from other citizens, there are other places in Forest Lake where
these requirements by the Met Council can be met.
And the other piece of that is 20% at minimum
is going to be subsidized through different funding that's coming out of
the state and the Met Council, which is a great incentive for a developer.
I heard today that this project is a go and this basically tonight is just a
formality that you need to follow to let us have our voices heard.
I hope you look at these faces and hear what they're saying underneath
the lake quality and the traffic issue. This is their lives.
Thank you.
» Does anyone else wish to speak?
» I'll ask one more time. Does anyone else wish to address the planning commission
this evening? >> I just have a question. What are the
next steps? >> Please step up. We're on TV, you know,
so we don't want anyone to miss. >> Okay. Judge Judy. Okay. Um, [laughter]
» what are the next steps? I mean, is the decision actually final at this point or
is it just that we're we're going through a procedure to say, "Well, at
least they listen to us." So, what are the next steps?
» I tell you what, how about if I answer that in a little bit and I can lay out
the whole thing for you, you know, because it is quite a process before we
get to the end result. So, I want to make sure we've heard from everybody.
And I see no one else coming forth and no other hands going up.
We'll close the open forum. I first I want to thank everyone who participated
in it tonight. We always like to get the input. You wouldn't believe how many
meetings that are here that there is no one in the audience. So it's nice to see
that the citizens have come out and made their thoughts and opinions known. So
before I assume that when we move to the next item or in a couple items we'll
cover this and but the basically the process to answer your question. This is
the concept plan tonight. This is a nonbinding meeting to have with the
developer and the planning commission. Purpose of which is for the developer to
get input on what we like and dislike about this. Um and then when the
developer comes back with a formal application or the preliminary is when
uh they'll have locked it down what they want to do.
The expectation is they take our comments tonight into consideration
once the preliminary is platt is if it moves forward and it gets approved which
this approval would come through the council. So it comes to us and we would
to make a recommendation. Then when then it'll be at a final and
the final should line up with what's act will line up with what actually is going
to be built. So that'll take care of all of the excuse me that'll take care of
all of the changes that they need to be made. Typically in that case there's
some adjustments that they have to make once all of the uh wetlands have been
delineated. All of the distances are known. Um all the parking spots may may
have lost some stuff. Uh all of that would be in the final. All the
engineering uh that's required for the sewer, the
water, [snorts] the water runoff.
What else did I miss? All of that kind of stuff would be in the final then. So
this is like I say a nonbinding. If this project, if the applicant
decides to move forward with this project, it'll come before us again as
the preliminary and that'll be a public hearing also right during that time
instead of the open form. So that's what what would happen next. Abby, have I
misspoke? >> No. Uh just to clarify though, uh the
this is the first step in the process, a concept plan. There'll be two other proc
applications, the preliminary plat and the final plat. Each of those could take
up to 120 days a piece. So just know that this is the start of a pretty long
process that we go through with all land development projects.
» Thank you. So with that, we'll move to item number
six, the consent agenda. Chair is looking for a motion to approve the
consent agenda as presented, which is approve the minutes from the regular
meeting of June 24, 2026. Do I have a motion?
» So moved. So I have a motion and a second. Any any discussion?
» I will be abstaining since I was absent. >> So with that, no other comments. All
those in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
» Opposed. >> Abstensions.
» Yes. >> I. Two abstensions. I wasn't here,
right? >> Was I here?
» Hold on a second. >> I think you were here.
» I don't think I was. I was on vacation. >> Actually, you weren't you weren't
present in the minutes.
» That wasn't the one that you missed. >> It'll pass with or without you. You can
still abandain. >> I'll still abstain because I wasn't
here. [laughter] I was in Wisconsin. I know where I was.
All righty. That's good. So we'll move to our regular agenda item item seven
which is the Clear Lake Apartments PIN 1 19.032.21.21.000014
Steve Kavan I apologize if I'm wrong. uh applicant. It's a concept plan review
case file number PZ26-1431.
And this is an advisory review. The way this will work is that I believe uh
Stephen, you're going to give a presentation. He'll tell us the uh
application as he understands it. The planning commission will then ask
questions of the city. Once all of those roles have been answered, we'll ask the
applicant to come up and answer any questions. He's probably got a pad full
of or she I think it's a gentleman sitting here um has probably have some
answers for us. Once we have all that, we will have a discussion amongst the
planning commission and the applicant and the city to give further direction.
So with that, I believe Stephen, you're giving the presentation.
Sorry, it's the only time I get to order my boss around.
So, I think uh we have we have had a lot of comments on this and
it would it's all been very civil and appreciative and I really appreciate
everybody coming out tonight, especially the uh full house. Um, as chair Gerard
said, it's not often we have a full house and we have to pull chairs out.
So, it's a a good situation and at the very least at least we brought this
neighborhood together. Um, so let me begin. Um,
» yeah, true. I stand corrected. >> You're wasting our time.
» So, um, uh, tonight we are reviewing the Clear Lake Apartments, uh, concept plan.
This is an early non-binding review as it's been discussed. Uh, the applica is
not asking for approval tonight and the planning commission is not being asked
to approve or deny the project. The purpose of tonight's discussion is to
provide early non-binding feedback before a formal preliminary platinum
plan unit development application is submitted. That feedback is helpful
because this site has several issues to better understand, including access,
storm water, utilities, shoreland rules, wetlands, nearby homes, and its location
near Clear Lake. We have also received significant public comment. Many of
those comments raise planning questions about traffic, lake access, storm water,
groundwater, environmental review, construction impacts, and neighborhood
compatibility. Tonight's review is not intended to resolve every one of those
issues. The purpose is to identify them clearly so the applicant understands
what the city reviewing agencies, planning commission and public would
like to see considered in an updated plan. So the main question tonight
saying tonight is not is this project approved. It is what would be helpful
for the applicant to understand before submitting a formal application. With
that purpose in mind, I'll start with a quick overview of what's being proposed.
The concept plan shows a proposed 228 unit apartment development southwest of
Clear Lake. The plan includes six apartment buildings, each three stories
tall with 38 units in each building. Because the full concept plan is
difficult to read at this slide size, I've added colored dots to help provide
context for the main parts of the site layout. These dots are not intended to
replace the full plan. They're just a visual guide for the presentation. The
apartment buildings are identified with blue dots. The primary vehicle access is
identified with a pink dot and the possible secondary vehicle access is
identified with a magenta dot. The concept also includes parking areas and
detached garages with the garages identified by green dots on the plan.
The playground is shown with a brown dot, the dog park with a peach dot, the
boardwalk connection toward Clear Lake with an orange dot, and the proposed six
slip community dock with a yellow dot. The concept was presented to the parks
commission on June 17th. The parks commission recommended cash and loo for
any required park dedication rather than land dedication because there does not
appear to be a clear location for the site that would work well as a public
neighborhood park. The more usable portions of the site are generally shown
for buildings, parking, storm water, and private resident amenities. The
remaining areas appear to be wetlands, buffers, shoreline, and other
constrained areas. That matters because accepting parkland also means accepting
long-term city maintenance responsibility. Staff generally does not
recommend accepting land that is isolated, difficult to access,
environmentally constrained, or unlikely to function as a usable public park
space. Cash and would still require a park contribution, but it will allow
those funds to support parks, trails, or recreation improvements where they can
better serve the broader public. The parks commission also recommended a
trail connection to the Highway 97 trail system, which could generally follow the
proposed secondary access route if that alignment works with future access
grading and agency review. A number of public comments focused on the size of
the project and whether a 228 unit apartment dep development fits the
location. This is one of the central questions for future review. The city's
land use and zoning rules help answer whether the general use is allowed. The
PUD and preliminary plat process help evaluate whether the specific design
works on this particular site. At this concept stage, staff is not saying the
current layout is acceptable as is. staff is identifying the issues the
applicant should be aware of and may want to address if they move forward.
Those include how the buildings relate to nearby homes, how traffic enters and
exits the site, how leak access would be managed, how agency comments would
affect the plan, and whether an updated design could better respond to the
concerns that have been raised. That leads into the land use and zoning
question because several public comments asked why apartments are being
considered on this property.
Based on staff's review, the property is guided mixeduse in the city's
comprehensive plan and is zoned MU2 general mixeduse. The MU2 designation is
not new. The properties were identified for mixeduse development as part of the
city's 2030 comprehensive plan, which is approved by the city council in 2008
2009. The zoning map that applied the MU2 designation to this area was later
approved by the city council through ordinance 596 on February 8th, 2010.
That is important context because multif family residential is an allowed use in
the MU2 district. The district encourages a mix of uses but does not
require every individual project or building to include multiple uses. A
residential apartment development is therefore not automatically inconsistent
with MU2 zoning. The comprehensive plan identifies a target residential density
range of 10 to 15 units per acre for this land use category. Based on the
concept information provided, staff estimates this proposal at about 10
units per net developable acre that appears to be within the planned density
range, although a f future formal application would provide a more
detailed buildable area calculation. So to answer that public comment directly,
the city does not appear to be starting from a place where apartments are
prohibited on this site. The general use appears to be allowed under the current
land use and zoning framework. But that that does not mean the current concept
is automatically acceptable because the project includes multiple apartment
buildings. It would need to be reviewed through the planned unit development
process. That process would allow the city to look more closely at site
design, compatibility, access, sidewalk screening of the development from the
view of the surrounding neighborhood, lake access, storm water, and any
flexibility the applicant may request from city rules. So the zoning answer is
only the first step. The more important question is whether the specific plan
can be refined in a way that better addresses nearby homes, Clear Lake, and
the site constraints. Traffic and access were among the most
common public concerns. Residents raised um residents raised questions about
Highway 97, local street traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety, emergency
response, school busing, and whether the surrounding road system can support this
level of development. Since a staff report was prepared, the city received a
concept received concept level comments from Mandot. Mandot views the proposed
Everton access as the primary access point for the development. Mandot also
indicated that the existing full access on Highway 97
is permitted for the daycare and would be considered secondary access for the
apartment development. Men do also encourage the daycare access to be
realigned to use the primary access point on Everton. As a project moves
forward, Mandot would re-evaluate the Highway 97 full access conditions and
may consider changes that would allow right in right out secondary access for
both the daycare and the development. So to answer the public comments on traffic
and safety, those concerns are being carried forward into the review. At this
concept stage, staff is not saying the access plan is final. Staff would like
to see future plans more clearly explain the primary access, the secondary
access, and how the daycare access may be realigned, and how highway 97 access
would function after MDOT review. The city engineer also identified several
items he would like to see studied or addressed in more detail with a future
application. These include sewer capacity, water main looping, fire
track, fire truck turning movements, entrance design, and Everton Avenue
improvements extending north of the proposed site entrance to address
impacts from the development. He also identified storm water grading,
utilities, lighting, landscaping, and tree preservation as future review
topics. The main point is that access and infrastructure are major future
review items. A future preliminary plat and PUD application should provide
enough traffic access emergency route and utility information for the city,
MINDOT, the fire department and the public to better understand how the site
may function. A large portion of the public comments
focused on Clear Lake, the proposed docks, storm water, groundwater,
wetlands, wildlife, and nearby natural resource areas. Residents raised concern
about lake use, boat traffic, the proposed six slip dock, shoreline
erosion, invasive species, storm water runoff, private wells, soils,
construction impacts, eagle nest, blandings turtle, and the nearby Lampry
Pass Wildlife Management Area. Staff agrees that these are important issues
to understand if the project moves forward. At the same time, it is
important to be clear about the city's role. The city is not the permitting
authority for every environmental issue raised in the public comments. Rice
Creek Wershed District would review items such as storm water management,
erosion and sediment control, flood plane alteration, and wetland related
permits if the project proceeds. RCWD also indicated that more information
about wetland impacts would be helpful, including whether certain impacts could
be avoided or reduced. The DNR also provided concept level comments. DNR
asked for more information about how boat slips would be limited and how
storm water would be treated. DNR also provided comments related to Blandings,
turtle, rare plants, building height, and wildlife sensitive lighting. For
tonight's purposes, the city is not making those agency determinations. The
more appropriate question is how those agency comments and site constraints
should be reflected in an updated plan. That could include changes to the
layout, access, dock area, boardwalk, grading, storm water approach, lighting,
or other design details. Staff also notes that based on the proposed 228
units, the project does not appear to trigger a mandatory environmental
assessment worksheet based on unit count alone. However, that does not mean
environmental review ends there. The site's constraints would still be
reviewed through the city, RCWD, DNR, MINDOT, and other applicable agencies if
the project moves forward. The main message is that Lake Shoreland and
agency review issues are not separate from the planning discussion. They are
part of what should shape any future preliminary platin PUB application.
To close, I want to summarize how staff is treating the public comments. The
city recognizes that this concept has generated significant public interest
and concern. A neighborhood meeting was held on June 3rd and approximately 78
residents attended. The city also received written public comments which
were included in the packet. Staff also received an additional written comment,
two additional written comments now opposing the proposal as presented which
has been which have been provided to the planning commission this evening and are
available on the desk. Taken together, the comments raise several issues that
are directly relevant to future review. These include the project's scale and
compatibility with nearby homes, traffic and safe access, clear lake and dock
use, storm water, groundwater, environmental concerns, agency review
and site constraints, and whether additional information would be helpful
before formal review. The additional written comment is generally consistent
with those broader themes, and also request denial of the proposal as
currently presented. The graphic on this slide organizes those comments into the
main themes staff heard neighborhood fit traffic and safe access clear lake and
docu agency review and site constraints and more information and more
information before review. Some questions can be addressed tonight. This
is not an approval. The applicant does not have to permission to build and the
planning commission is not being asked to approve or deny the project. Also,
based on staff's review, the general multif family use appears to be allowed
under the current MU2 zoning and mixeduse land designation. Other
questions cannot be fully answered from the concept plan alone. The current
concept does not provide enough detail to fully evaluate traffic access, lake
access, storm water, groundwater utilities, construction impacts, or
final site compatibility. Some issues will also require review by other
agencies, including MDOT, RCWD, and DNR. This is what staff is asking for. This
is why staff is asking for non-binding feedback tonight. The most helpful
feedback is what the applicant should should consider changing, studying or
explaining before submitting a formal preliminary plat application. Helpful
feedback could include site design changes to explore studies or
explanations that would help agency comments that would should be reflected
in the next plan or issues the city council should understand when it
provides its own concept feedback which would be this coming Monday. Again,
tonight is not the final decision point. The goal is to help the applicant
understand the public concerns and planning issues that should be
considered if this concept moves forward. The applicant is here this
evening and is available to answer questions about the concept. Staff is
also available to answer questions about the city's review process, zoning, land
use, public comments, agency comments, and what would typically be reviewed at
a public preliminary platin stage. With that, staff would be happy to answer the
questions and the applicant is available as well.
» Commissioners, any question for staff?
Susan, >> um, is is that the end of your
presentation regarding the the project? >> Yeah.
» Okay. Yes. Um, do we know the the Highway 97
um improvements were planned 10 to 12 years ago? Do we know what the design
parameters for um the Everton access 297 were? Um in other words, when
Mindot designed that that access, they looked at what they thought would be the
long how how the maximum number of cars in and out. Do we know what those design
parameters were? and were does this fit within those design
parameters? >> I can say that uh one of the things that
the city engineers outline that the current Everton on north of 97 is is not
to standard for this and one of the requirements that we would want to see
in a preliminary plat is the potential update to that uh road into 97 u to
better address this additional um you know vehicle. the uh vehicle load.
» Um we do have an an ordinance in the city that says that you cannot um build
something so high that it will prevent the adjoining properties from um using
solar or wind uh generation. Um folks tonight said are concerned about
shading the threetory buildings, shading their properties. Um as as this moves
forward, We need to take a look and make sure that a three-story building
adjacent would would not violate our ordinance on solar gain or wind gain.
» I think that's good feedback for the for the developer and what we should expect
to see in the primary plan. >> Um, a big piece of this is within the
shoreland overlay. >> We typically do not encourage building
within the shoreline overlay. Most of those the properties for folks tonight
were put in before that was even even a thing. Um and and we're used to
non-conforming uses. Um but our planning commission has tried to
reduce the amount of nonconforming uses.
How will staff be looking at the area that's within the shoreline overall like
which is quite frankly the majority >> almost all of it. Yeah.
» The dwelling units. >> Um I think it would be the same as as
they had there's an impervious cap that we'd be looking at to make sure it was
was protected. And I think one of the feedbacks that we heard tonight is the
potential inclusion of underground parking garage if if this site is
suitable to minimize some of those impacts. I think that is is good
feedback for the developer as well of what what should be something we look
at. >> Um, one of my other concerns is one that
that that our city typically does not consider ever. Um, and that is
from a geomorph point of view, these soils are awful. They're they're just
bloody awful. Um, and when we are going to be looking building
permit for these buildings. Um,
will the city be looking at the structure needed to support these
buildings in a highly plastic soil structure and what kind of of of
underllayment is going to be required, porings, etc. We all know what Mindot
had to go through, but I know that the stuff closer to the lake itself
um is a little more challenging. And I think in the discussions that I've had
with our city engineer on this subject, he's very cognizant of the potential
buildability of the site and is would be really focused on making sure and
bringing in the right uh knowledge to make sure that what is being developed
here uh met city met code and what would be safe uh to be able to be developed
there. And I I want to say you're you're correct on the your your you know
discussion of the the type of soils that are there and that the developer
understands it too and some of the and that's just one of the kind of potential
challenges with the site. >> We have buildings and and a couple of
multi-units that that were built um in areas that of similar soil structure. Um
the developer goes away, the building owner changes and um 10 years later
there are challenges and issues. We do not have a rental
licensing ordinance really. We we don't do that sort of thing. Uh folks can't
come to us with mold issues. So that will our opportunity to prevent
future problems is in the before it's built.
Um would the city I I understand the
concern of the neighborhood u with folks being able to walk through the
backyards. Um is is fencing along the apartment property line if
it's if it goes up um to prevent access to backyards.
Is that something that that will be considered? I think I think the feedback
that that staff will be providing after discussion would be uh put the potential
redesign of the site around that north side to maximize uh screening would
ideally it wouldn't be uh man-made. It would be utilizing uh woodlands to
maintain that screening and minimize that access.
» Yeah. >> Looking at at what's proposed, I'm not
sure. Well, I want to say it's a concept right now. It's just the shapes on a
shapes on a page. >> I I understand that.
» Um, it's my understanding Rice Creek hasn't really weighed in on where
they're looking at because there are significant
wetland issues here >> and and the developers been in a lot of
discussion with Rice Creek. We've had a lot of discussion with Rice Creek on the
site. they understand the the the complexity of it and they're they're
will provide uh feedback and requirements to to meet the permitting
codes that he'll have to get to be able to build build here.
Um and then I I would strongly recommend against
having act trail access from this if it goes forward along the secondary um
access path. Um that is not where the ped crossing is and um we have enough
challenges in areas now where we have a marked pet crossing and um and
there are they're not adhered to um by by the
cross traffic. Um so if if we're looking at at ped crossing, it's it's got to be
something that is at least where the the existing crossing
is and and the trail built to that. Um, >> those are my my big ones across the top.
» Commissioner Young, can I ask a clarifying question of the pedestrian
access? Do you mean on off of Highway 97 with the
» Yeah, it would I I heard potential trail access through the the secondary
» um access on 97. >> Yeah. So currently there is a trail that
runs from that point to the light at Everton
» on the north side of of 97. >> Yeah, it was built as
» or it was planned from the day. >> When I drove it tonight, I didn't see
it. >> Okay, then we'll double check because I
do believe it is part of the plans as the highway 97 project from the daycare
to the light. But
» yes, there is a trail on the the south side. Yes, we do recognize that.
» What I don't want folks doing is trying to cross 97
at another location other than the light.
» Yeah, thank you for that clarification. >> Susan, are you finished with your
comments for now? >> For now. Yes.
» Other commissioners, >> do you want our comments now or should
we listen to the applicant and then >> you can do it either way.
» I'll listen to the applicant first. That's what I'm going to do personally.
But uh we welcome any other questions just to clarify. I do have one before we
go any further and it has to do with the underground parking that we require in
this district. He's showing all garages. Um are we thinking the water tables too
high? So, or it's just not aware that he needs to
have underground. >> And I think I think one of the things
about that is it obviously the the code prescribes that through the PUD process
could potentially be one of the flexibilities that that come through
that. But ideally, it would be find a way to minimize that impervious because
that that that would be one of our our main concerns.
» Other commissioners for the staff? >> I have one. I mean, I think we're
identifying that there's been a lot of mistakes made by different entities over
the years that are all being compounded, and I don't think throwing more mistakes
on top of it just because is a way to go. The first time I drove down the new
97, I said, "What did they do?" You know, it's it's like, "Are we in the
middle of nowhere?" They build this two this great big bridge with multiple
lanes going across, all these extra turn lanes, and for some reason, when it hits
Forest Lake, boom, one lane. And now we're going to pack a bunch of other
houses into an area that I think this concept is pie in the sky. I don't think
we're going to get anywhere near there, but it's going to be tried to be
maximized to the point where again mistakes that were made long before I
know I was here and I'm sure other commissioners and staff were here. So
I'm not trying to point fingers, but at some point you do have the
responsibility to not make more mistakes. So I think I'm going into this
» [applause]
» going into this with the concept of prove that you can do this, not we have
to allow this. >> All right, having said heard that the
applicant is here. Please state your name and address for the record.
Spend a little time giving us your thoughts or we can just fire away. But I
think we'd rather hear your thoughts first.
» Sure. I appreciate it and thank you everyone for taking the time the chair
commission residents for coming out here. Um my name is Steve Cavan. I live
at three goldfinch lane in North Oaks, Minnesota. Um
I also want to thank city staff for preparing a thorough report. um uh
concept plan review process is a non-binding process and they've done um
kind of above and beyond to identify issues and help think through the
process which I appreciate. Um that was the reason for the application
um to get feedback. So that is very much appreciated.
Um uh let's see here. I had a larger amount
but given the interest of time I'll kind of a few points here. Um, one thing I
just want to point out, there have been 13 soil borings done on the site and so
we do have uh geotechnical work done on the site. Um, wetland delineations have
also been done as have rare plants um studies and when Mindot was going
through their uh design phase, they were well aware of
the plans for the site. So although we have to go through the formal process
and receive MDOT's formal review, um they at least were aware of what was
what the [clears throat] site was zoned for and what the potential density was
going into their construction.
Um let's see here.
Um, I do want to point out that prior to coincidental with pursuing
development, um, I have reached out to and had
conversations with the Minnesota DNR who owns the site to the west,
um, with Washington County Land Trust who has funds to buy sites like this and
Minnesota Land Trust. Um, none of those organizations have deemed this a site
that they think is high enough to preserve. And so this kind of leads me
to where I'm at here. Um,
let's see here.
So with that, I guess [clears throat] I open it up for your questions and happy
to try to answer them to my best of my abilities.
Don, we'll start with you. >> Okay. Um, I guess my primary concern is
is um regarding the community dock area and this has been brought up by the
residents and um around the lake because I know that's come up before before this
commission. I don't know if it's on this lake or on Forest Lake more than one
time before that I've been here. And that's something that's been um shot
down very quickly and I I find that it's going to be a tough one to fly. I just
don't see that passing or getting getting through this process. Um that's
just my own personal thoughts on it for all the reasons that you heard today of
various residents and lakefront uh neighborhood owners speaking about and
and other uh logistical issues if it's a community dock and safety and but not
even getting into that. So that's a a big concern of mine. um the the
residents around the lake um have raised all the other issues that I would have
uh raised as well and I think you probably heard those in the previous
meeting. I don't know if anything new came out today along those lines. Um I
made a couple notes when some folks were speaking. I know some folks thought that
a decision was going to be made here today. I'll make it clear if it isn't
clear. No decisions are made here today. This is just for you to hear everybody's
input. Um
um
and and there was a a mention Ruth mentioned something about not being able
to construct three stories high due to the airport. That's actually something I
had not heard before. So I if the city can add that to their list under the uh
site constraints or what have you. I I was not aware of that if that is a
constraint. That's the first time I've heard it brought up. Um,
other than that, the um I think the the participation by the folks here,
I've kind of raised all the issues and and the city's uh synopsis of it here in
the in the packet kind of covers all the all the concerns that I have on it, but
they're they're very much concerns. >> Thank you,
» Commissioner. >> Have a couple questions. Um, what
demographic are you going after with these apartments? Are they going to be
higherend apartments, lower end, middle?
Um, it's too early. So, at this point, um, and I I should, if I step back, I am
not an apartment builder. Um, and there is not, um, kind of an apartment
developer builder under contract. So, it could be, you know, I think this would
be a great senior housing site. Um, I don't know where where it will end up.
This process helps uh potential apartment developers or
builders to understand what the constraints are of the site, what the
city's review process has been, so they can go through and design what is best
for the site. And similarly, I I have had uh a couple different groups look at
the site in the past and and they have not wanted to do the boardwalk or the
dock. That was something I put in there. I thought it'd be a nice amenity.
Clearly, um people feel otherwise. Um but that was something that I think at
the end of the day, the feedback and then just the extra cost. It's it's a
big cost for a developer, an apartment builder to incur. And so, you know, I
can't say definitively if it will go happen or not, but the parties I've
spoken to have not been in favor of it. >> And I know this is just a sketch on
paper, but rather than having square block apartments, is it possible to make
the buildings a little more appealing, like more radiused or have architectural
detail that's a little nicer for the neighborhoods?
Um without knowing what is going to be designed, it's hard to answer that. Um
that would be ultimately if it's a senior housing, whatever it ends up
being designed at that point. >> Okay,
» Commissioner, >> just one last thing. Um,
in a previous iteration with with the city, um,
I
did clearly came to the city requesting assistance and another lake in the city
came to the city asking for assistance. And one of the things that always may be
very favorable to requests from the Clear Lake Association is that you have
at at that time better than 90% of your residents that are part of the Clear
Lake Association. that kind of cohesion and responsibility
and and and and demonstrated caring about not only your own home and your
own dockage but the lake as a whole. the way that you all have coordinated weed
and invasives um control not only for your own
properties but for the center for the with with the DNR is is really something
that that you can be very very proud of and um that other lake um at the time
had less than 33 or 30% of their residents that were really stepping up
the way that you do Um, I see it. I appreciate it deeply. I
appreciated it then and I still do.
» Other commissioners?
» No, I think they covered the points that I was looking at the traffic concerns at
97 Edon. We'll get the traffic studies on
that. Uh, I want to hear from the Rice Creek and I appreciate the comments from
the city tonight. Thank you for everybody coming out.
One more. >> Steve, you did a really nice job with
the the PowerPoint and the slide thing. >> That that I appreciate it very much.
» Yeah, thank you. >> Go ahead, Cy.
» I mean, I understand like we're at the beginning stages and what we're seeing
on paper, it's effectively the bare minimum of what you're presenting and
what can be developed into. Um, but it really does to me look like just there
has been no consideration for the surrounding area. Um, just the road, the
traffic, the things that have been raised overall. Um, I I think coming
from somebody who grew up in the suburbs of a bigger city, um, traffic sucks when
you start packing in more and more people. Accountability of people in that
very dense area, um, or very small area that's very dense, um, sucks. Um, so I
think the concerns have been brought up. I don't want to just regurgitate them,
but I think it's very some very much something to consider in terms of what
you're putting into that area. It is not just that area. It is that whole street,
that whole neighborhood, the entrance to Forest Lake. Um, and I think it's going
to it's not going to hit the way it looks on paper in personal opinion
overall. >> Thank you,
» Andy. Um, would this property have voting rights
as part of the lake association? That might be more of a staff question.
» It's actually a private property owner matter just because lake association is
private property. They do touch the lake. So, it all just depends on that
association's documents. >> So, that theoretically this new
apartment building could overrule all the votes on the lake depending on how
it's done. >> So, that's a concern. I don't know how
that >> this is a legitimate concern for the
lake that needs to be addressed before things get down the road too far. Um I
think not having a partner for what this thing will really look like I think is a
red flag. I understand this is very preliminary. Um I'm going to reiterate I
think mistakes were made in the past in previous organizations plannings. Um,
and I appreciate that other entities don't think that this is a wildlife area
that matters, but the wildlife don't look at that line on a map and say, "Oh,
gee, I can't go over there." We're seeing fencing put along 97 and 35 that
accommodate to prevent turtles from crossing roads. I mean, that's a
reality. The the animals are going to go where they're going to go. And if you
literally turn the entire area into impervious surface, that's not okay in
my opinion. That's not something that's balancing into our city the way we want.
It's not that I'm against departments. I used to do property management. Um, but
this this area in my opinion was probably zoned the wrong way and I don't
think we should continue with the mistake. Um, I do have one specific
question for the for the for the map. It says swim area in a lot of several
places. Storm water management. >> Storm water management.
» You know what? I need the same as it used to be. I apologize.
» You need your glasses, Andy. [laughter] >> That explains a lot. That makes more
sense. Thank you. >> Yeah. And if you don't mind, just uh I
can respond to some comments that were made. As part of the process, Rice uh
Creek Watershed District um will require that the storm water runoff does not
change um and will likely go down from its current state. Um, and that's what
this I brought that up because that's what the storm water ponds are for to
control runoff. And even though you have up to 25% impervious surface, that water
will go into those ponds and then be metered out so that the pace of the
water infiltration is uh at or below its current level.
» That's also a city build requirement that you cannot have any runoff come
from >> correct
» your development. >> Yes. So, I will just say I've dealt with
Rice Creek wershed in the past and the problem is when you're the low spot on
the on the on the map, you are the final spot when the heavy rains come.
» And even though you plan for what you're supposed to plan for, it gets worse. And
if when we get the 100 and 500y year floods
taking up that much impervious area in a wet land like this whether it's wetland
now or not it is the natural buffer that this area needs.
» Thank you. So I don't live on Clear Lake but I live
on Forest Lake and Northshore Apartments which is fairly large complex over
there. They have no dock and they seem to get along just fine. And it seems
that all the neighbors like that also. So just that's one comment. I'm a little
disappointed you don't have a builder. Um because what we could see next could
be radically different than this. So that doesn't warm the cockles of my
heart as my mother would say. Um I have a lot of concern on the traffic in and
out going down uh I believe that's Everton. I always screw up the streets
over there. I apologize. Um, it goes into a neighbor and dumping 200
and some apartments on it at site. It's a side street. It is not a thorough
fair. It's not like um 61 or 97 or even Northshore which we
got more dumping on. The whole apartment dumps on there. It's not a problem, but
there's nowhere to go except I believe I measured it today if I understand it
right about 300 feet from there to the light. So you get about 10 12 cars max
stacked waiting at the light which seems to me it's not going to go well. Um so I
realize that development will probably happen here. I mean we know that it's
it's eligible. You know they can do auto repair there auto sales. They can build
a bank. They can put a restaurant and a bar in there. All that's allowed in the
zoning district. Um, so you may be the least of the evils, but I think we have
a long way to go based on what you presented today when you don't have a
partner yet. This zone does require underground parking. So, as Steve said,
uh, as part of the PUD, you probably looked at garages instead, but I think
that needs to be looked at seriously also.
And I think that kind of ends
my comments. >> And the last thing about a PUB is
» PUD is designed to give some flexibility to a developer,
but in return there should be significant specific benefits to the
city. um in in in return for that flexibility
and I grant that this is very very prelim
preliminary but I don't see those yet
commissioners. Any other comments? Staff, would you like to see any other
comments from us? Any concerns? Any issues we did not discuss?
» No, I think I think this has been thorough. Um, just want to remind
everybody in this room that uh the man sitting to my left will be uh up there
on Monday uh for the city council and you're all welcome to come and provide
additional comment for this being heard at that city council meeting. I'm sure
everybody would like to um have that opportunity to at least go to the city
council. They'll be [snorts] providing uh kind of the city's uh co
comprehensive comment uh taking all the comments that have come from parks the
public as well as uh this board right here this commission and providing like
the official here's here's a recommendation. So uh that's Monday
night at 6 in this room >> and that runs just the same as tonight.
It's not a public hearing. Comments will be accepted during open forum, but I
will be there to to encap encapsulate everything that's been discussed
tonight. Everything that's been in the record or anything submitted before that
meeting will be entered into the record as well. But again, their decision is
non-binding feedback for the developer to determine if he wants to move
forward. >> Mr. Kevin, you have any other comments
or any information you would like from the commission or the staff?
» No, I do not. Thank you all for taking the time.
» Thank you for coming this evening. Thank you for coming tonight.
» Thank you for all coming and participating this evening. Uh you're
more than welcome to stay for the next item. I know it'll be even more
riveting. >> Well,
quite frankly, um >> no
» data centers is a big deal. >> So, data centers in Forest Lake.
» No, no, no. >> Let's just
» No.
you. >> We'll let the room clear for a minute
here. >> Thank you.
» Thank you. >> How you doing, Pat?
» He was on the commission >> probably 15 years ago,
» maybe 10. Uh Pat
could become the deadliest inter.
» We we ask you please clear the room so we continue our meeting. [laughter]
» I don't
trying to make the big bucks tonight. >> Thank you all.
I lost uh we'll move to item eight or uh zoning code land use review data
centers. Abby, I saw your name at the top. Are you the one presenting or
Steve? >> I'd be happy to. So,
» it's all yours. >> Excellent. Thank you. Um, so I just
wanna like I think Steve puts right at the beginning like what's the top, you
know, what's the highlight here. The highlight is staff wants to have a
preemptive conversation with both the planning commission and hopefully then
the city council about enacting a up to one-year moratorum on data centers in
Forest Lake. So, as many of you may have known, unless you've been sleeping under
rocks lately, is that there's been a lot of interest in all states, um, but in
the metro area about data centers. Um, and a lot of cities are finding
themselves either maybe backed against a wall or not well protected in terms of
whether or not data centers are addressed in their zoning code. So, City
of Forest Lake actually owns 123 acres that our city was actively marketing for
a data center up until more recently when the EDA and the council decided to
kind of maybe move away from that a little bit recognizing that there might
be higher and better land uses for this. >> Abby, can you describe where the 123
acres >> uh at the inner southeast intersection
of Fenway Avenue and um Headwaters Parkway? So, Kitty Corner from Leela,
there's a big open vacant land that city owns. That's the piece of property that
Headwaters 123 is what it had been dubbed. Um, it was more recently the EDA
and city council has directed me to kind of work towards marketing it in a
different way to maximize the land developability there, more jobs, more
tax base than a data center would provide. Um, so
flash forward, fast forward to to to now when cities are kind of finding
themselves a little backed against the wall. Staff took a look at our code and
we outright permit data center questionably outright permit data
centers in our in our business park districts. I believe that our zoning
code was set up this way, maybe with a little ambiguity to not know for sure if
it's exactly a data center or a data center. for what size or if a data
center is a part of a different type of use. Um regardless, I believe that it
was set up that way specifically because of Headarters 123 and the city's desire
to potentially, you know, attract a a data center at some point. So, um, staff
wanted to bring this to you because what we believe we should be doing is, um,
asking the city council to enact a moratorum that would give us up to one
year to one, define data centers. to have a conversation um planning
commission, city council, and the community of whether or not we'd like
data centers and where we would like data centers and how big of data centers
versus um you know, a standalone data center versus a portion of a property as
part of a data center. You know, all those conversations
um and then performance standards about them. So, tonight you heard on um the
Clear Lake Apartments garages need to be underground. That's a performance
standard specific to the M parking for MU2. Right now, we don't have any
performance standards for these types of uses. And that I do believe is where we
could be most liable if we ended are not liable.
» Um liable is not a good word. >> Exposed
» exposed um because our maybe screening standards might not quite address this
type of use or the ancillary requirements of this type of use. So
tonight I'm asking you to discuss this and to make a hopefully you consider
making a recommendation to the city council that the city council enact a
moratorum on data centers to give us some time to define them uh establish
whether or not we'd like to see them where we'd like to see them and then
performance standards for them within the city.
» Commissioner, >> any questions?
» Yeah. How would we be exposed without putting on this official moratorum? What
what's our exposure? I mean someone coming in and saying we want to put it
in a data center >> and provide water and electricity to us.
» Um >> well there would be there would be a
whole bunch of negotiation. I mean these are these are companies with a lot of
financial backing. >> Yep.
» And if we have concerns such as water and electricity and all those things you
could bring them to them and they could possibly bring a lot of positive things
to the city. 100% I do believe I I do want to say
» I'm just curious what >> Yep. From staff's perspective, I'm not
saying that data centers are the evil enemy that you might see a lot of people
thinking they are. They do provide for um construction jobs. They might not
term provide for long-term um jobs, but they do provide for construction
positions for a few years within community. They are strong tax base
earners within a community and they are designing systems that can be more
self-reliant than older systems that don't take as much um pressure on the
natural resources. I don't necessarily think that they are a bad thing and I
want to reiterate that staff doesn't think that that's the reason we should
do this. The concern that I have is we should probably take a pause to look at
our code to see if we are well protected. Just as a reminder, outright
permitted uses, you don't really get a whole lot of say in them, right? When we
conditionally approve something or when we end up doing a planned unit
development, then we have that a lot more
we'll trade this for that, you know, type of thing. Sometimes when you have
an outright permitted use, you have to go by the standards that are in place
either for that type of use or that type of design. And I would say that in
looking at our design standards for the business park district, um especially
with some of the accessory type of features that they might have, cooling
towers, solar panels, um you know, ex exterior power
generation that I just don't believe that our code as it sits right now would
adequately screen from adjacent properties um and may not
pro We may not have a good design in the end should we choose to allow for a data
center or should a data center application come forward. Does that make
sense? >> Now if it was on our property yes Don
Don I think that's a really great if it's on the city's headarters 123 then
yes I think we can say before we would sell you this we want XYZ. What I am
concerned is there is more business park land zoned within the city that is not
owned by the city >> because my concern would be if we we
throw a moratorum on it then do we possibly miss out on a an opportunity
» well >> because though they well they can't do
it here they go on to Wyoming or or wherever to to to do it.
» Yep. That it that is a good question. when we are in the technology corridor.
So there's several cities and counties along I35. Um Kexus and and XL Energy
have been partners in trying to market these for high energy users. Um it could
happen that it could go, you know, to a Wyoming to a north branch. I think
taking a pause and I keep saying for up to one year statutoily we can only do up
to one year. It would be my hope that we kind of work through that process. uh
you know with maybe even by the end of this year.
» Yeah. >> So
» and then we could shorten a moratorum then end a moratorum.
» Yeah. You end the moratorium when you adopt an ordinance if you want to adopt
an ordinance or you just say nope. We're done. We're okay with our code.
» So is this going to affect my zoning corridor or updates?
» Everything affects your zoning code updates at the moment.
» Just wanted to hear it live. >> Yep.
» All right. Other comments, concerns? >> I definitely have some concerns with the
length of time, a full year for it. I think we could be missing the boat. If
they're looking to develop in this area, um,
a year is a long time to go, especially if they're doing it right now.
» I only included that to point out the statutory requirement. We don't actually
have to state any time in the I may have put recommendation for a one-year
moratorum. You could say six months, you could say six weeks. That's not the
thing necessarily. It's the the pause that gives us that ability for up to a
year. I certainly would take the planning commission's discussion and
recommendation on where we kind of feed this into our priority level, but we are
also in peak development and inquir new inquiries are coming in every day. So,
as much as we want to work this in, I do think that this probably would be a
closer to fall where we'd have a lot more time to to work on it.
» Andy, >> um, I think it would be very
citizenfriendly to make sure the whatever ordinance changes we do include
that we do not have NDAs as part of these negotiations. That is a very
common practice for data centers. when they approach a city, they sign NDAs and
then the city cannot disclose to their citizens what they're allowing in the
city. So, I think if you want to see the room 10 times fuller than this, you
include NDAs um or you don't require you allow NDAs. Um I am not
» prohibit NDAs. >> Yes, we want to prohibit if if the city
allows them to require NDAs for negotiations, you're going to have a
very upset citizenry. Um >> Sure. I will say that's generally not
something you'd put in your zoning code, but that is something that I think that
I can take and bring to the the council in regards to policy, city policy.
» Um because I think why I do think it's important to do some type of moratorium
to get our ducks in a row is what if we were talking about a data center on the
Clear Lake land? I mean, that's not a very good use next to a bunch of
residential and wildlife. So, I think it's important for us to make sure we
get this right. Hitting pause. Um, and I think I I think you are not prepared for
the amount of people who do not want data centers near them. So, I don't
think embracing them with open arms is quite the right approach.
» Susan, >> as I remember our 2030 comp plan, um, we
all we need to think about another we need
to be thinking about um the water that we're supplying to our residents. And um
I I I was really sobered when I was up at the neighborhood meeting and realized
how much along County Road 50 north of north of 50 and toward the the
Harrow area, the sheer number of dwelling units that are going in there
that we have, you know, platted and and and together. And um I I just want to
make sure that considering what the requirements or what we would ask of the
data center would be. Um that we we we make sure that that the water and energy
requirements balanced against the water and energy requirements of our residents
um are are a big piece of the evaluation.
I will say that at the moment it it without a moratorum I don't know that
staff is going to just take this on it. We recognize that we need to um but we
also have to be able to work on it peace mill and so I I will write that down if
we do end up if that is something the city chooses to do
» and I'm sorry to interrupt but did I would consider those as reasons for a
moratorum because we need to really understand
what our development. I consider a development boom right now. Yeah.
» Um where we are with water and sewer and and electrical needs.
» Yeah. That's a really good point because um we are you know in some areas of the
city I would say that until there's additional electrical capacity uh
electrical generation created that there is some that there are areas where there
is lower amount of uh electrical availability and water especially as we
move into the southwest corner of the city
» and the northeast doesn't have water. >> Yeah. Well, it never did so was never
planned for it. I I'll make a note of that and we'll
take a look at that. >> Yeah, it's been noted.
» One of one of the other issues I've as these have been going across the country
is if your city is not prepared, you have to allow them in and then if
they're underpowered, the residents get their bills increased to make up that
difference. So there's there's a lot of moving parts to make sure that we're
ready so that our residents aren't negatively impacted financially to help
this business make money >> and I really appreciate that staff wants
to be proactive on this. Thank you very much.
» Other comments? Should we take a straw poll of how many
are in favor? >> Yeah, for a moratorum
I
I think we uh we're in favor. >> Is that all we need tonight?
» Uh well, and I put it on as discussion, but I would like it if you made a motion
for a recommendation to the city council.
» I will make a motion that we do up to one-year moratorum for the city to
analyze and develop a data center plan. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second?
» Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any
discussion on the motion? Any discussion hearing? None. All those
in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I.
» Opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries unanimously.
» Anything else you need, Abby? >> Not at this time. I'll we'll keep you
posted on that and what kind of our timeline on that plan will be.
» All right. Thank you. We'll move to number nine, our updates. We'll start
with our honorable council person Larson.
» Evening chairman, commissioners. Um, it's been a little while since we've
met. I hope everybody had a nice holiday. Um,
uh, not pertaining to the commission, but I'd just like to say that, uh, I was
at the inaugural of the farmers market out here in the lot, and it was
fabulous. >> Great response. Uh, lots of people, a
lot of vendors, >> uh, they want to bring in, but they
don't want to have nine people that are selling bread.
» So, they're kind of moving it around a little bit.
When is that? >> Pardon, sir.
» When is that? >> Saturdays from 8 until noon and July
11th. This coming Saturday, the corn will be coming to this farmers market.
» There you go. You got it straight. Uh the other thing is Arts in the Park.
There's been phenomenal participation. Um the weather's been cooperative to a
point. It's been hot and stuff like that. Uh but we've had a lot of uh a lot
of people out there. I was fortunate enough to be out there the first Tuesday
uh at our booth and stuff and everybody was having a great time and uh yeah, I
think it was well well enjoyed by everybody. So, if you do get a chance or
have not, please maybe take a Tuesday night, come out with your lawn chair,
listen to some music or whatever and take in some of our our fine vendors and
community members there. As far as other city business goes, I
don't really have anything right now. Um, due to the long holiday and things
like that, we haven't really had a council meeting. So, as you all know,
we're meeting Monday and we have a a lot on our plate for that. So, um, if you
have any questions of me or anything I can help you with, I will do my very
best. >> How is budget development going?
» It's a work in progress. Okay. [laughter]
» You're getting good at this. >> I'm I'm doing my best. There is There's
been a lot of things and that have kind of
been produced and stuff like that. Um we're
we're cautious with what we're doing because there is a
lot of things. So I think as far as staff goes, uh the council goes working
with the city engineer and stuff to try to making smooth progression with
things. We want progression. the recession part of it. Um but we want
to make sure as say we want to do it right.
So um but lots of things going on >> with the
expected increase in bowling units. There will be an increased demand on
city services. >> Yes, there will be. And as you know,
you've seen we had some retirements in our police department. But again, uh not
too long ago, we in addition to our fire department. So now we have an assistant
chief. So um I think Mr. Newman is gearing that gentleman up for all his
his uh procedures and things like that to uh
maybe eventually retire at some point. He's a very busy man as well. So
» say himself. >> So as far as city staff goes, I think uh
we've been doing well. Um haven't really we haven't hired anybody. bank or
whatever. Maybe Abby can help me out with that side of the fence there a
little bit. Um, are we still we're still behind a little bit on a few staff
members? >> Yeah, I mean I think the city has filled
all positions that councils prior to all prior to the 26 budget. So positions
approved in like 24 and 25. I think that they are all filled. On the
administration side, I can't speak for PD and fire. I just they're kind of they
do their own thing. Um, we do have at least uh one vacancy in building
inspections, but that's been a long-standing vacancy. So, we are
actually doing interviews later this week. Um, there were staffing requests
made to the city council, but the city council hasn't made any determination of
whether or not they want to include those requests in the 2027 budget. So
Jolene is the official city administrator now.
» Acting city administrator >> interim. So
» acting interim city administrator. >> Is that a vacancy or not a vacancy?
» It's not a it's not a position that the city is actively um seeking to fill at
the moment, but I do believe the intent is to after the election.
» Correct. >> Thank you.
» Any other questions for Mr. Larson? Thank you for participating this
evening. >> For the July 4th, public works, police,
fire, all stepped up big time and it's appreciated.
» Yeah. Thank you again all for your participation.
We all appreciate you. So, thank you again.
» You Steve, anything for us? >> Oh, man. Do I ever. Uh I hope you
enjoyed tonight. Uh we're kind of uh I think the next uh planning commission I
was just going through our u our schedule the next planning commission uh
should be uh you know maybe a little breather for you. Uh maybe not. We have
another concept plan. We have a neighborhood meeting tonight. It's for
uh Birwood Estates U KJ Walk. Next week they go to parks in two weeks. They'll
be here with another concept plan for a development just south of Amberly Woods
that just got approved. Um so um as Commissioner Young was pointing out,
this is one of the the giant development areas that the city is seeing and a boom
is is very much an understatement for the historical growth that this city is
uh is under in the amount of developments looking to to expand here.
Um so our work is cut out for us and I had Abby here tonight to make sure that
she heard uh the chair Gerard bring up the code updates. Um a big part of the
reason why uh those have been delayed is because of the gang busters of
developments that we have coming in. Uh so uh uh good good times across the
board. >> Just so you know, Steve, that your
problem not I said could you come here and cover me?
Could you cover me with uh Chair Gerard? We will be uh getting into that. I think
it will be pushed to probably when we get out of this um really fast-paced
development season. And speaking of that development season, again, Birchwood
Estates will be here the 22nd um at the next meeting. But also, I wanted to give
you a heads up that Hidden Creek South, if you remember, we had a public hearing
and it was immediately tabled in February. Um then, uh there's
discussions that the developer uh was having with the council regarding some
um improvements to Headarters Parkway. Um those those conversations have been
ironed out, decisions have been made. Now, the developer is wanting to uh
continue. Um so, we're working with uh him to uh get an updated kind of set
that reflects the the decisions that have been made by the council. So, we're
looking at probably August 13th or the um August 8th. Um I'm looking trying to
look at my schedule. Um August 12th uh meeting that would potentially be uh
that coming back as well as a number of public hearings for some variances that
are on the docket. So, uh, you may get a little bit of a reprieve on the the at
the next planning commission, but come August 12th, it's going to be
a real real it's going to be a big meeting. Um, it as it's planned. Now, I
also wanted to say it was brought up uh arts in the park um and how great it is.
It's not great yet because our we're we'll be out there and I mentioned this
last time. We'll be out there the 21st of this month, August 4th and August
18th. And um the community development department will be out there to kind of
discuss some of the plan, what's being proposed uh potentially for improvements
to the the park down there, especially with the specific question of our our
the visitors and residents of the area of the boat launch that's there. Um
there are some discussions of uh potentially expanding the green space,
including an amphitheater there. So, we are bringing that option as a
interactive kind of exhibit uh for uh the visitors of Arts in the Park. So, if
you see us out there, uh, make sure you stop by and you put a sticker on the
poster that you like the most. One that either has the boat boat launch or one
that has a new amphitheater with a kayak launch, non-motorized launch is what's
uh kind of being suggested with some of our planning. So, we'll be out there
again the 21st, the 4th, and the 18th. So, come by, say hi, and get a lollipop.
» Question for Steve. [snorts]
» Didn't he do a fabulous job tonight on presentation?
on >> fabulous job.
» I think it's it's more impressive the I say this
again I'm not used to such decorum with something that's so uh with a lot of
passions uh and I'm constantly impressed by the city and their ability to uh be
able to communicate without yelling not quite the situation in the state that I
just moved from. So I really appreciate that about here.
» So do I. >> Yeah, [laughter] absolutely.
Abby. >> Um, so I know we all talk about this
boom that we're going through. Just for reference, I think it's 10 different
land development plats that are being processed through the city in some
fashion or another right now. And that doesn't even include um we have about
half dozen eight just site plan reviews. So commercial redevelopment, reuse of
existing sites. Um, and that's just going through those planning stages, not
what has actually been already approved by you, but are meeting the conditions
of approval, and we're working through legal agreements. So, we are right now,
I would say, at the best I can kind of tell in terms of planning of at least
where the city was kind of just post recession, we maybe haven't seen
construction that we're going to gear up for now since at least 2012 or even
pre-recession. So, um, just for reference, there's a lot going on. Part
of the reason Stephen hasn't gotten to the zoning code, and I haven't gotten
after him. So, I do do want to defend him of that. He did mention that long
range planning kind of project, the downtown plan called for a long lakeside
park shoreline study that would look to stabilize the shoreline. As part of that
conversation was whether or not the boat launch should be moved. Um several years
ago the council said, "Yeah, that boat launch should be moved." New parks
commission said, "You know what? We we really would like to vet this out with
the public." So that is the big intent to really kind of see should this launch
be moved. Should we put an amphitheater or amphitheater? Is that what we calling
it? Not amphitheater. >> I think it's amphitheater.
» But it's not isn't >> stand.
Who knows what it's going to look like quite yet? But a larger performance
stage. But the biggest reason that the city is trying to do this is because our
shoreline needs to be stabilized and we need to finalize the plan for what that
shoreline is going to look like. And so um do encourage you to go out there or
tell your friends. There are some online surveys out right now. If you're a
launch user, there's a special survey and then there's another one of just
users. So um other long range planning things, the city started to work with
Washington County on a county road 50 corridor study. So this is the corner of
county um highway 61 where kind of the airport meets and crosses over um into
Susan's world [laughter] or in you but where a lot of our development is
happening. So that corridor study is going to look all the way from county
road 60 or state highway 61 all the way to Manning Avenue. So city staff right
now is working with a project management team in the county on what that corridor
is going to look like and Um, so you might see some public engagement
opportunities coming out probably closer to fall on that one. Um, additionally,
city's been working with the cities of Hugo, Columbus, Lino Lakes, and the EDAs
of both Washington and Anoka County on a corridor study of Elmrest Avenue. That's
our western boundary gravel road right now. But we've got a little bit of
asphelt at the top and a little bit of asphalt in line of lakes and it and
developments moving towards it. And so really trying to look at what that
corridor looks like in the long run. Um lots of just in general long range
planning going because we want to stay in front of some of that development
stuff. Next week the parks commission I believe will look at an updated will
consider recommendation of approval on an updated parks plan master parks
trails open space plan. So, that's out there for folks to take a look at. Got
some crinkles over there. Susan, any questions?
» I I need to take a look. >> Um, and then, uh, I know, uh, that there
was conversation here about the desire for a joint workshop with the city
council. staff has been in discussions with uh interim administrator Jolene um
with with Stephen um taking a look at also just our timeline for um
comprehensive plan update. I think we'll be aiming for that workshop in the fall
to be addressing some precursors to engagement of uh for comprehensive plan.
Also talking about some of the opportunities that the city has in terms
of how we can better partner with the Met Council. Um so if there's other
things you think about along the way that you want to have conversations
about uh feel free to reach out to Stephen and I. are happy to see what we
can try to maximize that to make sure that we're working in coordination
planning commission and city council. I know that was a lot probably not a lot
you get but you don't see me as much anymore. I want to fill you with a lot
of things that are happening and why you don't see me as much anymore.
» We do thank you for gracing us with your presence this evening.
» I appreciate it. >> Other questions for
» It's hard to not It's hard to keep my mouth shut. I'm not I try really hard to
just let you guys keep doing what you're doing. So, you're all doing great and I
appreciate you. >> One quick question. You said we haven't
seen building numbers like this since 2012. How many roofs are we talking
about? How many individual homes? >> Well, right now the actual permitting is
still pretty low. Um the number of homes that are getting, you know, potentially
platted. I would say in the next um 3 to 5 years, we're going to see probably
numbers close to 150 homes per year. So, it might be another 500 homes in the
next three years is really feasible. Um, >> that's less than what we've already
platted, we've already approved. >> So, you think it's going to take like
probably 10 years to build out what we've already
» I don't think it'll uh what I don't we haven't we haven't platted 500 homes.
» You're talking about actually completing the houses?
» Yeah, I'm talking about completing the homes. Probably 150 per year over the
next three years. So, that 500 um the plat. So, um We may have planned planned
unit development uh for more than 500 when you look at Hidden Creek and you
look at Chestnut Creek, but what I'm talking about is the actual then phasing
of the final plat. So a good example is Hidden Creek fourth has come in, it's
only 18 homes. Um Chestnut Creek, Havenwood,
Havenwood, Havenwood, even though it's 120
» 160. >> Thank you. um their first phase is only
coming in with >> 61.
» So, you know, that's where and then those 61, you know, between the 18 at
Hidden Creek and 61 at Havenwood of those going to be built in 27
probably might not be all. I don't know that for sure, but I'm trying to stay
still mildly conservatively because I think anything more than about 150, the
system, the city's systems are going to be taxed. And not just our emergency
response, but I talk about our building permitting abilities, our inspections,
uh, engineering, you know, all of those things.
» I assume we we haven't talked about we don't talk about schools in this
commission. We haven't ever, but I assume that's a concern when you're
putting in that many new roofs. >> We got plenty of room in the schools.
» Oh, do we? I don't honestly know that. So, that's good to hear.
» We closed one building, we tore down another one.
» Okay. Well, that's news to me. >> I mean, we haven't had any conversations
with the district lately, but I do think that there is room within the system as
it sits right now. As a reminder though, our household size is going down and the
average age isn't getting younger. And so that it does reflect that even though
we are adding rooftops, we might not always be adding school age children.
All great questions though. >> Anything else for Abby?
» Okay, Jesse? >> Nothing.
» Yeah, the wall there. What's going on? >> No, I just I just noticed it when I
walked in tonight. >> It's on somebody's to-do list here.
» We'll make sure to we'll take a look at it.
» Maybe snazz it up for the council meeting. We're down here.
» I get a push. >> You get a push pin up there or
something. >> Push pin.
» I think there may have been discussion about actually resurfacing them. You can
see some areas where they're the panels look like they're either have a relief
or a little >> supposed to be even is my understanding.
» I can get you an update on that at your next meeting.
» Can you make a note of that? >> Drives me nuts, but I don't think
they're meant to be even. And I'm
» Well, no, but like the one in between the two with the vents up there, there's
a there's a wave where you can definitely see it's been peeling apart
some. So, >> all right. Now that we can treat the
walls, uh Andy, anything? >> Nothing. Thank you,
» Tim. >> I'm good.
» Nothing. >> Susan,
» the farmers market has been so much fun and we've got some really great vendors.
There's a mix of um veggie folks and honey and syrup. And um we're trying to
bring in some some meat vendors. Um uh baked goods, both gluten-free and and
and real. Um there's there's a lady there that's got some um
» kombucha.
It's pretty cool. And it's right here. And the beauty of it is
you're close. You're not to carry 12 pounds of veggies for 12 blocks
» and it is growing each week. >> Staff is strategically trying to add
vendors that are not not to excessively compete with one another, but continues
to add new vendors each week. So, >> Saturday 8 to noon.
» Saturday 8 to noon. >> Are you guys getting commission on this
or something? [laughter]
» The staffing of it, the the Lions provided the funding and the Rotary is
providing the
It's just it's brand new. I think we've only been doing it two weeks. So, trying
to get some marketing in three weeks marketing out.
» I only have one comment. Um I was at the last planning.
» You were? >> I was going to make that comment.
» Um but that was on June 10th and a meet a agenda tonight said it was on the 24th
of June and we cancelled that meeting, but it didn't occur to me that. So, I
was here. So, I apologize for not knowing I was at the last meeting.
» Is there somebody you want me to beat for that?
» No, we're good. Interesting's happened. >> With that, the chair is looking for a
motion to adjourn. >> So moved.
» I got a motion. I got a second. >> Second.
» Got a motion, a second. Non-debatable motion. All those in favor signify by
saying I. I. >> Opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries.
Thank you all. Enjoy the summer. >> [music]