[0:08] [music]
[0:11] Good evening at 6 o'clock. We'll call
the meeting to order. Abby, are you
[0:15] taking the role?
>> Sure. Commissioner Applic
[0:20] » here.
>> Commissioner Goodwin,
[0:21] » present.
>> Commissioner Steeler
[0:23] » here.
>> Commissioner Young
[0:24] » here.
>> Commissioner Wagner
[0:26] » here.
>> Vice Chair Stender
[0:28] » here. and chair dread
>> here. We're asking if you're able please
[0:32] stand and join us for the pledge of
>> allegiance
[0:38] to the flag of the United States of
America and to the stands nation.
[0:57] Chair is looking for a motion to approve
the agenda as presented or with changes.
[1:02] » Move to approve.
>> I have a motion to approve. I have a
[1:04] second.
>> Second.
[1:06] » I have a motion in a second. It's a
non-debatable motion. All those in favor
[1:09] signify by saying I.
>> I.
[1:11] » Opposed.
Abstensions.
[1:14] Motion carries.
We've come to the open form.
[1:19] » Could you let some folks know there are
still some seats in the front? Oh, just
[1:22] like church. We got seats in the front
row, close to the front there.
[1:27] » Act like you like each other.
>> Yeah.
[1:34] » Sure.
[1:38] » Thank you.
We've come to the open forum part of the
[1:43] meeting. This is where we ask anyone in
the audience that would like to come up
[1:48] and spend a couple minutes giving their
thoughts on any issue. We'd be happy to
[1:51] hear from them. I have a list that we
will start with that goes down in order.
[1:57] Once we have been through the list, if
anyone else wishes to talk, you will
[2:00] welcome you up to the podium. And when
you finish, please sign this sheet when
[2:05] you're done. So, with that, um, you do
need to come up and state your name and
[2:11] address for the record and spend just a
couple minutes. got a lot of people here
[2:15] and I don't think we want to be here
till tomorrow, but we're interested in
[2:19] what you have to say. So, I have Daniel
Bud Budkkey and I apologize in advance
[2:26] for all the names I massacred tonight
at 4926210th.
[2:32] Sir,
again, start you you can state your name
[2:37] and address for the record. Daniel
Budkey 4926 210th Street North Forest
[2:42] Lake Minnesota 55025
part of the Southside Clear Lake
[2:47] neighborhood.
Uh I guess we're just all here I would
[2:50] assume to try to object to the building
of this multi-tenant housing unit which
[2:56] none of us are really looking forward
to. Um I want to bring up two quick
[3:00] points. I don't want to be here all
night. I'm not going to lecture for
[3:02] long. My two quick points are this.
Number one is simply that the it's going
[3:06] to directly hinder or possibly destroy
the already deteriorating water quality
[3:11] of our lake. And it's well all over well
documented the uh Minnesota DNR website.
[3:17] Uh really quick couple things. I got
this off Minnesota Pollution Control
[3:21] Agency this morning that the mercury and
PFOS PFOS in the lake are already
[3:27] extremely high and unsafe. We're only
allowed to have one serving of fish now
[3:32] per month safely. That's what's
recommended. And in fact, they even
[3:36] said, and I have right here that uh
let's see, species, all species are
[3:41] contaminated. Do not eat all sizes. And
it says PFOS and mercury is also
[3:49] involved per the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. Obviously, runoff from
[3:53] this facility would greatly hinder the
health of the lake. Um the marsh land
[3:59] that would be filled in to build this
complex
[4:03] can't be simply moved somewhere else
because
[4:07] it's directly located between highway 97
and the lake. That lake is then filtered
[4:13] through the marsh. The runoff from 97
filtered through the marsh. The all the
[4:18] phosphorus and all the chemicals which
are greatly filled naturally through
[4:23] that marsh into the lake. So, if this is
removed, it can't be replaced. You can't
[4:30] just simply move it somewhere else in a
Forest Lake, somewhere in a corn field
[4:33] or whatever, and have it filter into our
lake, which is already contaminated via
[4:39] the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
and the Minnesota DNR. It's
[4:45] broadly documented per those two
websites. So, I think a lot of people
[4:49] are going to talk to the health a little
late coming up, so I can stop now. on
[4:54] that. My main concern though, however,
is far uh graver. Uh it's the traffic
[4:59] load at Everton and 97. Now, if you all
look at the monitors, I have a Google
[5:06] Earth image of the previous
layout of the intersection.
[5:12] Now, note note the um left turn lane
from eastbound Highway 97
[5:20] to northbound Everton.
You see? And then if you look at the
[5:25] left turn lane on westbound 97 towards
southbound Everton, you see how those
[5:31] two directly line up face to face. All
these years we've been turning left and
[5:35] never given a thought about it because
if there's a semi park there turning
[5:39] left into Quick Trip and we're heading
eastbound turning north on Everton, we
[5:43] can still see any vehicle in front of
us. We can still see down the road. You
[5:48] see what I'm saying? Now, this is the
new layout.
[5:55] You see how it's offset?
Now, that is a design flaw or something
[6:00] MDOT didn't catch. I don't know. But
now, the brief period has been opened.
[6:04] I've almost been t-boned several times
taking that left turn because now you
[6:09] are blinded by any vehicle turning left
into Quick Trip or turning left into
[6:14] Southbound Everton. You cannot see
beyond that vehicle.
[6:19] And especially if it's a large truck, a
box truck, a bus, a semi, anything
[6:24] larger than a standard small car. And
even then, you're injured. It's an
[6:28] incredibly dangerous situation already.
And now you want to pile 228, possibly
[6:34] 500 residents, 228 apartments, 500
residents piled in there, probably with
[6:40] mult, you know, all with cars. And
they're all going to be piling in,
[6:43] taking that left turn during rush hour
in the afternoons when people are doing
[6:48] 60 m hour, 70 mph down this road. And at
60 m hour, a car travels 210 I mean,
[6:55] sorry, uh 105 ft in 1 second. At 60 m
hour, there's no way you're going to see
[7:02] those cars coming. You got to inch out.
And in one second, in two seconds, that
[7:06] car is 210 ft behind you or behind the
obstacle. You can't see it. It's not
[7:12] possible. So, in the two seconds it
takes you to inch out into that
[7:17] intersection, you're done. And it's
going to happen. If you load overload
[7:23] this intersection with people, someone's
going to die.
[7:27] Someone's going to get killed. Hands
down. The only reason that hasn't
[7:31] happened, as I showed you earlier, we
could see all these years, you could
[7:34] easily turn left safely. Now, you can
because of this design.
[7:40] So, if you overload that right there,
people are not going to be able to see.
[7:45] People are going to be rushing. And I
know what you're thinking. You're going
[7:47] to say, "Well, we'll just put up a turn
on green arrow only sign up." Hey,
[7:52] problem solved, right? No. Makes it just
as dangerous in a different way. Then
[7:56] what happens is they shortened the left
turn lane now. So, this new design is
[8:00] shorter. So the cars pile up quicker and
now because it's so overloaded with
[8:05] people that you're going to go out in
the main uh flow of traffic in that main
[8:09] lane and we all know it's all backed up
almost all the way to light several
[8:13] times all the way to the light in
Columbus.
[8:17] So now people are going to get
frustrated and they're going to jam out
[8:20] onto the shoulder saying, "Well, I'm
going right. I'm going to turn into a
[8:24] quick trip anyway. I don't need to wait
in this and someone else can have the
[8:27] same idea and they're going to hit.
Someone's going to get rear ended or god
[8:31] forbid someone's going to go up on the
pedestrian path and hit somebody on a
[8:34] bike or walking an elderly couple taking
a walk, a baby in a stroll. Who knows?
[8:40] It's going to happen. And these cars are
not doing 60. They're doing 70.
[8:45] So, I'm just telling you, this is an
incredibly dangerous situation. Left
[8:49] turn on green arrow isn't going to solve
the problem by any stretch of the
[8:52] imagination. It doesn't matter. And that
traffic is going to pile all the way
[8:56] back up
to the highway almost every single rush
[9:00] hour every single day, especially on
Friday afternoons when everyone's
[9:04] jamming to the cabin.
So this creates an incredibly dangerous
[9:08] situation and someone's going to be
killed. So your decision here today is
[9:12] immense.
Someone's life in this room probably
[9:16] depends on it. And statistically
speaking, it does. So don't make the
[9:21] wrong choice. I'm telling you, this
can't go through. Move it somewhere. I'm
[9:25] not saying don't build the thing. I'm
saying just pivot. Move somewhere. The
[9:29] land can be repurposed. Reszone perhaps.
We can always reszone. Nice high-end
[9:34] homes. Perfect. Done. No pressure on the
intersection.
[9:38] No pressure [clears throat] on the
resources really. So, that's what I want
[9:43] to say.
>> Thank you for your time.
[9:47] [applause]
[9:51] I will ask for decorum. There will be no
clapping, cheering, etc. We need to get
[9:56] through this.
Please let everyone just comment. With
[10:02] that, we have Dana Bona.
Did I pronounce it?
[10:07] » Yep.
>> My name is Dana Bona. Um, I live at
[10:11] 505010th Street North, Forest Lake,
Minnesota. I've lived there since 1999.
[10:17] I was born and raised in Forest Lake. I
was born here in 74. I resided over at
[10:22] 456 Southshore Drive my entire life. I
love Forest Lake. Um I'm a little
[10:28] emotional because I'm really upset about
this. I purposely lived out we bought
[10:32] out at Clear Lake because of the fact
that it was kind of getting out in the
[10:35] country, but yet I was still in the
city. The lake was small. It wasn't
[10:39] overcrowded like I grew up on Forest
Lake where we couldn't water ski. Um the
[10:44] lake was a clean lake. No weeds, none of
the other crap going on. And when I come
[10:49] home to find out that we're trying to
build an apartment complexes at the end
[10:54] of my road and I don't want that. I
don't want the riff raff. You don't want
[10:57] the riff raff. And you can honestly tell
me we were here in what 22 I think it
[11:02] was the headarters you guys were in
section 8 housing in. There was a huge
[11:06] fight about that one and we were assured
by the city council, oh it won't it'll
[11:10] be great. It'll be fine. We're going to
overcome this. We're going to cover it.
[11:14] There won't be any problems. And the
following year, the Force Lake Times
[11:18] wrote that over 50% of our police force
calls were being sent to that section 8
[11:24] housing. So the rest of Forest Lake,
we get the other 50% of the police and
[11:30] now we're going to add more housing over
here. That's apartments. And I know
[11:32] right now you're all like, "Oh, it's
just apartments, guys. Don't worry. It's
[11:36] not just apartments. Our city has one of
the highest of rental. We're at 23 to
[11:42] 25% depending on the month and the the
non occupancy. That's a high amount of
[11:48] rental already. And for the arch police
force and our fire departments and
[11:52] things like that to have to cover that
entire area and we were talking what 21
[11:57] you guys were trying to dismantle our
police department? I mean, what are we
[12:01] going to do? Just let them run a muck
and the next thing that's going to
[12:04] happen is, oh, this apartment buildings
are no longer for just apartment
[12:07] buildings. They're going to be section 8
because now the city can get more money
[12:10] off that. I don't want that. I don't
want the riff raff coming down and
[12:14] burglarizing my cars, which I hear our
friends on the south side or on the
[12:18] north side have a problem from the
section 8 housing wandering into their
[12:22] neighborhoods and riff rafting. They
have to make sure their cars are locked.
[12:26] I don't have to make sure my car is
locked. My cars are left unlocked right
[12:29] now. Hell, my front door is unlocked
right now. I know every person around my
[12:34] lake that's sitting here today, we go
out, we pontoon, tie up, we do things
[12:38] together. We're all really tight. We
don't want this apartment complex here.
[12:44] This apartment complex is going to bring
the crowd that we don't want for psych
[12:47] to be erected. This is a town where your
kids can walk the streets. Now we have
[12:52] drugs that we have to worry about.
There's talk that the police are having
[12:55] to watch loves because they're a traffic
jam for drug drive. The mules drop off
[12:59] the drugs there and the rest run up to
Duth. I mean, this is just getting
[13:03] worse. What are we going to do? This is
our foot. We're putting it down. I will
[13:08] tell you this. our neighborhood is this
strong and this tight. We've already
[13:11] started interviewing attorneys. I am
aware by two different attorneys. There
[13:17] are precedents in the state of Minnesota
where personal parties hired attorneys
[13:21] and sued the city to stop them from
doing something like this. And if that's
[13:26] what we have to go to, we have to go to
But they did win. The city actually was
[13:30] a were sued for the devalument of those
properties. This apartment building will
[13:35] devalue my property. every one of my
neighbors properties because now you
[13:40] have to constantly have the police out
there. The police right now come out
[13:43] there and if they're sitting there
writing their paperwork, we're giving
[13:45] them water. Pop, how you doing? That
isn't why they're going to be there in
[13:50] the future. They're going to be there
because somebody's stuff got broken
[13:53] into, stuff got wrecked. I don't want
that. That's not what I want to be. I
[13:58] don't want to be in the forake times
because our block got vandalized.
[14:02] Do you guys want in your houses? Do you
want me to build an apartment building
[14:05] right down in your neighborhood? I can
honestly say I know each and every one
[14:09] of you don't want that.
So, I'm begging you, please think about
[14:13] if this was your neighborhood and I was
the one, some developer saying, "Hey,
[14:17] I'll give you some money. I can make
your life real easy. I can make you guys
[14:20] meet budget. There's other ways to meet
budgets for the city than doing this to
[14:26] us." Because once it starts with us,
we're just the first pipeline of the
[14:30] city going to hell. And I don't want it
to be. And there are towns out there
[14:34] that have said, "We're not going to have
this. We need to be that town. We need
[14:38] to say, "We've done this. That area is
done. We're not doing it anymore. It
[14:42] will kill our neighborhood. You will
kill the south side of the lake." I'm
[14:46] begging you, please think about that and
take care of us in that tune.
[14:51] Thank you.
>> Thank you,
[14:56] » Kathy Rodville.
I correct on that.
[15:05] Hi, I'm [clears throat] Kathy Rodold. I
live on the Southshore on 4946 210th
[15:10] Street. And I'm going to build a little
bit on what Dan had to say. It's bad
[15:14] enough with what's going to happen with
the traffic jam at 97 in Everton. What
[15:18] about all these people that are going to
be able to go in and out off of Everton?
[15:23] That's a small little road and a few
houses down from there, it goes onto a
[15:27] dirt road. There's no way it's going to
be able to handle the kind of traffic
[15:31] that's going to want to come in and out
of there. That right now that community
[15:36] pe the kids can bike ride, they can
walk, you can walk your baby, you can
[15:39] talk to your neighbors. It's a quiet
small community. It's a quiet small lake
[15:44] and this is a small area of land on off
the southwest corner of our lake that
[15:50] will destroy what a wonderful place this
is. You know, right now we're safe and
[15:55] we're not going to be safe if you put
that in. It's just the way it is.
[15:59] There's just no possible way that that
will happen. I understand progress has
[16:04] to be made. Maybe some building done,
but do you have to come on and off of
[16:09] Everton? Can you go out to the frontage
road? Can you make bigger access off of
[16:13] 97? Something where you're not going to
pull all that traffic in our
[16:17] neighborhood. And with the construction
that's gone on on Highway 97, when they
[16:21] did the park by Quick Trip, well, people
don't think they have to go around our
[16:25] neighborhood. They come on on Falcon and
they come flying down 210th until they
[16:30] see, oh, we can't get out back onto 97.
And now that that part of 97 is open and
[16:36] it's closed by Falcon, every day there's
somebody that comes down Everton, comes
[16:41] flying down 210th until they see they
can't go out. Well, people aren't going
[16:46] to want to wait at that intersection and
they're not going to that's only
[16:50] right-hand turns in and out of 97. The
way in and out of that area is going to
[16:55] be off of Everton. the majority of the
traffic and that is going to put all of
[16:59] us at huge risk. So my neighbors all
have something else to say. I beg you do
[17:04] not do this. Thank you for your
comments. Rob Olsen.
[17:12] [cough]
[clears throat]
[17:17] » Good evening members of the planning
commission. My name is Rob Olsen. I live
[17:20] at 21700
Fondant Avenue along with my wife
[17:24] Ginger. Uh, I'm like a lot of people. I
mean, we live on the lake on the
[17:29] northeast side. I I guess a couple
things. When we received everything, I
[17:34] from what I could understand, there
hasn't been an informal environmental
[17:38] impact review of this. There sounds like
there maybe hasn't been a traffic study
[17:43] like the gentleman had talked about. I'd
never even I drove over there before
[17:48] this with my neighbor and looked at it
because we were kind of wondering where
[17:51] is this anyways and you know Everton and
then we drove down the little private
[17:56] dirt road I guess that we probably
shouldn't have gone on and it's it seems
[18:01] like you're shoehorning quite a bit into
an area that has a lot of lowlands. So
[18:05] the concern I have is the effect upon
the lake. You know the runoff to the
[18:11] lake and
is there going to be the same And so I
[18:16] would ask that the planning commission
would insist on further environmental
[18:20] studies to look at it because you know
you know I like everybody I have concern
[18:25] for the quality of the water in that
lake. Uh I'm not excited about the fact
[18:29] that we can't eat the fish we used to
but I know that has nothing to do with
[18:32] this complex but it is going to have 480
cars. I was kind of astounded by that
[18:38] that, you know, you're talking a pretty
decent size apartment complex and that's
[18:44] a lot of vehicles, a lot of runoff. How
is that going to be taken care of so it
[18:48] doesn't go into the lake? Uh, also, as
the gentleman said about the traffic, I
[18:53] think there really does need to be a
traffic study or something done to
[18:56] Everton because, you know, when I first
heard Everton, I said, "Yeah, Everton,
[19:00] that's a big road." But then when you
turn right, it's not a very big road.
[19:03] when you turn to the north when I say
right. Uh so I'd ask that that also be
[19:08] considered by the county the highway
engineers whoever the city that does
[19:13] that type of stuff. So uh just instead
of I don't believe that this is the
[19:18] stage in the process where anybody's got
an application for actually approval.
[19:23] This is more just a information type
meeting unless I'm wrong. Uh but it to
[19:28] that extent I'd ask that any approvals
be subject to further environmental
[19:33] studies and further traffic studies.
Thank you. Thank you.
[19:40] Ian shortly.
[19:47] » Uh and your name?
[19:56] » I didn't hear Barb. I'm sorry.
>> Yeah,
[19:59] » I I I crossed you off. I I checked you.
I didn't cross you off. I checked you
[20:04] off that you had already spoke. So, my
apologies. You're next then because you
[20:08] were Barb, you were
third on the list. So, my apologies.
[20:13] Come on up.
[snorts]
[20:18] » I'm Barb Bassie and I live on 4864 210th
Street. And for those of you who don't
[20:26] know the area, it's uh you know,
everybody's talking Everton, but when
[20:30] you take a right, all those homes are on
210th Street. And I we we all know how
[20:37] people just race on that street. And
it's not even a it really I don't think
[20:42] is legally a street because I think it
was probably a dirt road that they put
[20:46] pavement on when people started living
there because there's no there's no
[20:51] curbing, there's no sidewalks. The is
not wide enough for hardly two cars to
[20:56] pass. And because it's such a peaceful,
quiet little neighborhood, people walk
[21:01] their dogs on the street, little kids
ride their bikes on the street, uh
[21:05] people go side by side talking while
they're walking because there's room on
[21:10] the street. And we just don't have that
kind of traffic. And it was mentioned
[21:15] that people will come in from Falcon.
And you know darn well they will because
[21:18] they don't want to deal with the street
light at Everton. they'll come in on
[21:22] Falcon, go zipping down 210th,
go take a left, and go right into this
[21:28] new development. And um so that's my
concern. Another concern is the quality
[21:34] of the lake. And um I don't know if
people realize this, but that lake is
[21:39] 28t deep. Um White Bear Lake is 83 feet
deep. Bone Lake. Bone Lake smaller than
[21:47] Clear Lake is actually more is deeper
than um Clear Lake. And so right now
[21:53] there's about 150 to 180 residents on
Clear Lake. And you know when you say
[22:00] 240 units, that's easily spouse, kids,
we're talking maybe 500 more people.
[22:08] Now, is that is that possible that you
can say that this little community can
[22:15] sustain that? The other thing is is that
really when you think about it, so those
[22:20] people live in an apartment building,
they buy a jet ski, they buy a
[22:24] speedboat, all they have to do is go
around to the little public access and
[22:28] those people are going to be zip, zip,
zipping all over our lake, 28 feet deep.
[22:33] You're ruining the bottom of that lake.
you're you're sending all the weeds and
[22:38] every tearing up all the weeds and
everything and and are those people
[22:42] paying six7,000 to live there in taxes?
Hell no, they're not. And so, you know,
[22:48] we as the payers and and um the um I'm
trying to think of the word and I can't,
[22:56] but we have we've got skin in the game.
You know, we take care of that lake and
[23:01] right now it's as uh Dan mentioned, it's
already really high and it is on the
[23:08] states impaired uh lakes because it's so
full of pollution already and um we just
[23:16] can't we can't add that many more people
and especially with such easy access to
[23:22] to buy a jet ski just go to the boat
landing and put it in, you know, it it's
[23:27] not fair to the rest of us. It's not
that big of a lake. Um this lake is 429
[23:33] acres. Um, White Bear Lake is 2400
acres. You know, they just can't bring
[23:41] speedboats. And and our lake is a little
pontoon, fishing boats, you know, couple
[23:47] people have jet skis, couple have speed
boats, but it's not the zip, zip, zip,
[23:52] zip, zip, you know, it can't handle it.
And the other thing I want to mention,
[23:57] which I think is extremely important, is
um [clears throat] that this area used
[24:03] to be was an Indian burial ground. And
this is a direct quote. It said, "The
[24:09] immediate surrounding region is deeply
significant and rich in indigenous
[24:14] history. Located just west of Forest
Lake, this area contains some of the
[24:19] oldest known Native American burial
mounds in Minnesota." Now, did any of
[24:25] you know that? But that should give you
a little food for thought that that they
[24:31] should not be putting in that big in
there.
[24:36] Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[24:42] Uh
Era Swenson, I apologize that I may have
[24:47] a little trouble reading that
483927.
[24:56] » [laughter]
>> I I apologize if I massacred the name,
[24:59] but uh
>> Eric Swenson,
[25:02] » you know, we don't need to know cursive
anymore, just so you know. [laughter]
[25:07] » Yeah. So, um a lot of what I would say
has already been said. Um
[25:14] [clears throat] you know, the lake is um
we have a really strong lake
[25:20] association.
Um they do a great job. Um There have
[25:26] they we have been working with the DNR
and the um University of Minnesota and
[25:32] Rice Creek to improve it. We currently
are running some tests on planting
[25:38] native species in the lake and things
like that. Um, one of the things with
[25:43] the access to the lake is I was over
there this morning just kind of checking
[25:48] it out and um there's 250 ft of uh lily
pads to get to that access currently and
[25:58] those would have to be cleared out in
order to make any kind of access to that
[26:04] 37 or 40 feet to get to our lake
um that they currently have. So, that's
[26:11] a concern I have of ripping out a bunch
of lily pads. I know it's legal through
[26:17] the DNR in certain ways and things like
that, buying permits and whatever, but
[26:24] uh that's ruining a lot of our native
species of that lake. Um the other
[26:30] concern I have is at the end of that 240
ft, um the lake level is about 40
[26:37] inches.
Um at a at about 50 ft. It's two feet.
[26:43] So, you put a speedboat in there, you
put a pontoon in there, the the level of
[26:51] the motor, the bottom of the motor where
the prop is is obviously going to stir
[26:55] up the muck and continue to muddy up the
water and things like that. So with all
[27:02] that extra traffic that's pro could go
to that additional dock that may be
[27:08] there um that's going to really in
increase the uh clarity or decrease the
[27:16] clarity of our water. So I could see our
water quality going down significantly
[27:22] with that kind of traffic. Um the other
thing I noticed was there's a lot of um
[27:29] through the Rice Creek wershed. I went
online and looked at the uh the um
[27:36] uh low water basin in that area and a
lot of that area is um low water or high
[27:46] high water area 100year flood plane area
and that would have to be looked at
[27:52] pretty closely um on how they filter the
water and that's already been said
[27:57] before so I'm not going to go into that
But if you uh if you look at the
[28:02] 100redyear water plane or the flood
plane in that area, it's pretty
[28:07] substantial.
Um obviously it goes through the trail
[28:12] that would need to be made to get to the
lake or dock or whatever they're going
[28:17] to do. But um that's another concern of
of mine as well is how they're how
[28:23] they're going to get to the lake and
what they're going to do to the the low
[28:28] lake lowle areas in that uh swamp area.
So that's all I have.
[28:34] » Thank you.
>> Yep.
[28:37] » Teresa Nistler.
[28:46] » Yeah.
So I have somewhere to set.
[28:51] Good evening, planning commission chair,
commissioners, and commissioner, vice
[28:55] chair. My name is Theresa Nishler, and I
reside at 21045 Everton Avenue North. My
[29:01] spouse and I have owned this property
since 2000, over 25 years. We believe in
[29:07] your website slogan, forest lake, as
good as it sounds, is the primary reason
[29:13] we purchased the property on Clear Lake
and across the street from forest,
[29:17] wetlands, and wildlife management areas
containing abundant wildlife, protected
[29:22] eagles, and the diversity of plants that
come with such a beautiful, serene
[29:26] environment.
We are here tonight after submitting our
[29:30] concerns, which should have been
included in your packet. So, I hope
[29:33] you've read it. If you haven't, please
read those comments. My neighbors have
[29:38] done a great job bringing up lots of
wonderful points about why this is a
[29:43] negative impact to not only our
community but Forest Lake overall.
[29:48] Um, we are here to request that the
planning commission little different
[29:51] take on the comments I submitted that
you actually abide by the stated vision
[29:57] and goals of your existing 2040
comprehensive plan. The vision
[30:03] statement, and I'm paraphrasing, the
city of Forest Lake is known for its
[30:07] natural resources and outdoor
recreation. The city's overall vision is
[30:12] to serve as a regional hub while
maintaining its national natural
[30:16] resources
and providing a range of recreational
[30:19] opportunities.
As development is proposed, the emphasis
[30:24] will be again the protection of natural
resources. That has been highlighted
[30:28] numerous times tonight.
Your number one goal is protect natural
[30:32] resources. There is absolutely nothing
about this concept plan that is going to
[30:37] protect the natural resources of this
area.
[30:41] Um I can tell you as another gentleman
stated that the Clear Lake Association
[30:45] has worked diligently to not only
protect but also provide access through
[30:49] our public boat landing education on
invasive species and investing large
[30:54] financial resources along with our
critical partners to add a fishing pier.
[30:59] We're working on access. We try to make
sure that the public has access to the
[31:03] resources. This concept plan being
presented is replicating what we're
[31:08] already providing. It's attempting to
add a six slip boat marina in an
[31:12] extremely shallow vegetation filled area
of the lake and a complete disregard for
[31:17] protecting this natural resource by
adding a a boardwalk connecting the
[31:22] development to the proposed marina.
Because as the applicant Stephen Cavan
[31:27] said, I thought it'd be a nice amenity.
Well, I can tell you this is not a nice
[31:31] amenity for any of the people in this
room. We are not seeing any of this as
[31:36] an amenity. I'm aware of this
commission's discussions in March of
[31:40] this year beginning to scope the 2050
comprehensive plan and I just ask you to
[31:45] abide by what you've already said you
want to do. And this project does none
[31:50] of it. Forcelake's current community
community designation is emerging
[31:55] suburban edge. The planning challenges
for this designation require innovative
[32:01] planning to ensure sustainable
development and needs to address
[32:04] infrastructure and environmental
concerns. Again, this concept plan does
[32:09] neither of those.
The concept plan being presented tonight
[32:13] does not address the lack of
infrastructure by funneling, as others
[32:16] have stated, close to 500 vehicles down
a small residential road that was not
[32:21] designed for that level of activity. Nor
is the newly finished Highway 97
[32:25] construction. This concept plan
presented as presented would completely
[32:30] waste the taxpayer dollars that went
into the redesign of 97 and it would
[32:34] also require rework and additional
construction on Everton Avenue North
[32:38] that was just finished.
We respectfully request that this
[32:43] planning commission recommend three
things because I know you don't make
[32:48] decisions yourself. You're making
recommendations. We ask that you
[32:51] recommend to your decision makers, the
full council,
[32:56] eliminate the boardwalk, eliminate the
boat marina,
[33:00] and eliminate any entrance or exits off
of Everton Avenue North. You've heard
[33:05] that over and over and over again.
Everton cannot handle this kind of
[33:09] traffic. There's plenty of open land and
Forest Lake for this type of multif
[33:12] family development. This property is not
the place to put this development.
[33:17] Absolutely not.
There's lots of other concerns. People
[33:21] have talked about erosion. People have
talked about um the runoff.
[33:26] Many of us are on private wells. There's
already concern about the impact not
[33:31] only of spring flooding, but of the
impact of the wells. This development is
[33:37] going to just exasperate the problems
we've been dealing with. And we've all
[33:41] dealt with them in this community
together. We've worked together on so
[33:46] many things and we care about each other
and we want to keep our neighborhood as
[33:51] it is a lovely serene place to live in
peace. Thank you.
[33:57] » Thank you,
>> Dina Smith.
[34:05] [clears throat]
[34:10] Hello, I'm Deanna Schmidt, 211049
Everton Avenue. The home is located at
[34:16] the beginning part of the Dead End
Street on the south side of the lake.
[34:20] The homes directly across from us above
up to the proposed uh apartment
[34:26] building. Um, as I stated in the email I
sent to you yesterday, I have worked in
[34:31] the apartment business uh, management
for 40 years. So, I want to be clear
[34:36] that I am not opposed to the building of
apartments. Um, apartment buildings are
[34:42] very important for housing in
communities. However, I am opposed to
[34:48] the development of a 200 uh, 228 unit
apartment building in this location.
[34:55] Um, many Clear Lake residents have made
sub substantial investments in their
[35:00] homes and properties, accepting higher
property taxes in exchange for unique
[35:05] character, natural beauty, and
residential settings that lakefront
[35:10] living provides. With that investment
comes a reasonable expectation that we
[35:15] would not suddenly find multiple large
three-story apartment buildings directly
[35:21] behind our homes and in our backyards.
We also have the expectation that the
[35:26] city will protect our property values
and our right to the peaceful enjoyment
[35:30] of the property we have invested in.
While many residents and I would prefer
[35:35] that no development occur on this site,
I understand that growth and change are
[35:41] inevitable and I recognize that that
this project has development rights
[35:46] under the current zoning. I respectfully
submit that the commission's role
[35:51] extends beyond determining whether a
project is legally permissible. Your
[35:57] recommendations and your guidance carry
significant weight and can meaning
[36:02] meaningfully
influence this project's development.
[36:07] Development of this site should occur in
a manner that respects the expectations
[36:12] of existing residents and preserve
qualities that attracted the existing
[36:17] families to this area in the first
place.
[36:22] If this project moves forward, I
encourage the commission to use its
[36:26] influence to advocate for meaningful
modifications that better balance
[36:31] development with neighborhood impacts.
Such considerations should include
[36:37] reduced building heights,
fewer units or perhaps town homes or
[36:43] detached town homes in lie of apartments
to ensure overall compatibility with the
[36:48] surrounding community. Additional
consideration should include increased
[36:53] setbacks, enhance landscaping and
buffering, stronger measures to address
[36:58] traffic, parking, lighting, and storm
water, and consider impacts to existing
[37:04] wildlife and the environment. My hope is
that the applicant, the commission, and
[37:10] neighborhood residents will work
collaboratively to find a balanced
[37:15] solution, one that addresses my concerns
and those of my neighbors while
[37:20] preserving character, safety, natural
environment, and the quality of life
[37:26] that make Clear Lake such a special
place to call home. I respectfully ask
[37:30] that these concerns along with those
outlined in my me email become part of
[37:34] the public record and be carefully
considered as the project moves forward.
[37:39] Thank you for your time and your service
to the community.
[37:42] » Thank you. I have reached the end of my
list. So if anyone else wish to address
[37:48] the planning commission, we ask that you
come up, state your name and address so
[37:52] you guys can work out who comes next. Um
come up, state your name and address for
[37:56] the record. We are going to put this
sheet over where Mr. Larson is there if
[38:01] he raises his hand if you would sign
that upon your completion of your
[38:07] comments. So, ma'am, go ahead.
>> I think you skipped me. I'm on the list.
[38:11] » The list left, but I apologize.
>> My name is Ruth Bloomquist. Uh, you've
[38:17] heard from me before in letter form. I
live at 211071 [clears throat] Everton
[38:22] Avenue North.
Tonight I have more concerns and more
[38:27] questions. Respectfully, what are we
doing here?
[38:34] High density housing on a wetland wedged
between state conver conservation land
[38:40] and next to a single family residential
neighborhood. Multi-generational
[38:45] families that have been here for
decades. Really, this is simply a very
[38:49] poor choice. There are better areas for
this. Regardless of zoning, I was always
[38:55] under the understanding that the wetland
was not buildable,
[39:00] that nothing could be built on the
halfway land. Don and Judy knew it was a
[39:04] wet land. They also knew that their land
was infested with buckthornne, which is
[39:09] why the state didn't want to buy the
land. What has happened that allows for
[39:15] this now? What laws have changed in
Minnesota? What happens with this land
[39:20] directly affects how much pollution runs
into our lake. I understand that there
[39:27] is a shortage of affordable housing, but
really 22 actual buildable acres. You're
[39:33] going to put six threestory apartment
buildings filled with a minimum of 228
[39:39] people. This is more than double the
amount of residents currently living on
[39:45] the lake. Now,
where's the sense in that? Where is the
[39:52] transportation that's available to them?
How far is the closest transportation
[39:56] center park and ride for these people is
stuck in this apartment?
[40:00] Clear Lake is a small lake that has a
strong association that has denied
[40:05] requests for community dock slips in the
past. The lake association needs to be
[40:10] consulted before any boat slips are
planned. Our lake is impaired. We have
[40:16] fought Eurasian water mil foil and now
have zebra muscle invasion. The entire
[40:21] concept is a slap in the face to the
existing residents and our continued
[40:27] contributions to the betterment of the
lake. Why is this happening?
[40:32] Because some developer bought the
wetland for a song and is trying to make
[40:38] a silk purse out of a sa's ear. So why
is this land zoned to mixed use? Because
[40:44] a long time ago, someone thought this
area should be the gateway to Forest
[40:48] Lake. Is that what you want for Forest
Lake? Our gateway to be six threestory
[40:53] apartment buildings? Since we want
[snorts] to be more friendly to
[40:57] developers, let me just ask this. Do we
have to let them walk all over our
[41:02] rights as taxpayers and property owners
because the Met Council would like us
[41:06] to? What's the Met Council going to do
for us?
[41:11] What about the airport? Those of us in a
single family residential zone were not
[41:15] allowed to build three stories because
of the airport. Consequently, these
[41:19] apartment buildings, as they are
currently drawn in the proposal, will
[41:23] block our sun will block the sun to the
existing homes. So, at what point does
[41:30] this bad idea get shut down? The
proposal is incompatible with the
[41:36] existing neighborhood. Additionally, the
proposal calls for rows of single
[41:42] garages rather than underground parking.
MU2 calls for underground parking, which
[41:48] tells me that the land is not suitable
for the amount of excavation and
[41:52] displaced materials this project would
require.
[41:57] MU2 calls for it
and we need a separation of a fence or a
[42:03] wall
to keep our privacy and people out of
[42:08] our yards. The proposal shows two
buildings and garages that partially
[42:13] fall within the lake overlay. They need
to be moved farther south or eliminated.
[42:19] Growth is important. It must be
responsible growth. I respectfully ask
[42:25] that you protect Clear Lake, protect the
surrounding neighborhood, and require
[42:30] that this proposal meet both the letter
and spirit of city standards before
[42:36] moving forward. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[42:42] Anyone else wish to address? Come on up.
[cough]
[42:54] My name is Jody Dayne. I live at 21191
Everton Avenue on the south side of the
[42:58] lake. I wasn't going to speak, but I
have been standing in the back watching
[43:03] and listening and I can't stay silent. I
want you to look at the people out here.
[43:08] The majority of them are retirees, as is
the majority of the lake, over 50%.
[43:15] This is their final home. That's a
horrible way to say it, but it's all
[43:21] going to end for us someday.
They want to spend their last years in
[43:27] peace and not have to worry about who's
going to come through their yard
[43:32] trespassing
because the people that will reside in
[43:38] these buildings hold no ownership. They
don't care. And they will come across
[43:44] our yards to get to the lake. They will
follow the lake shore and come up
[43:50] through our yards. The BCA has
statistics on how areas like this there
[43:56] is an increased property damage level,
trespassing level, and break-in level.
[44:04] These people don't deserve that. They
have worked all of their lives
[44:11] to be able to enjoy their properties.
I have to talk about the human factor
[44:18] here because everybody has talked about
the road and the lake quality and
[44:22] absolutely
[snorts]
[44:25] that's important. I live on the lake. I
know how important that is. I have
[44:30] worked for government agencies in the
state of Minnesota. I have worked with
[44:33] the Met Council. I know how the Met
Council operates and I know you're being
[44:37] strongarmed and it's through the law.
Legally, they can do that.
[44:43] But what they can't do is they can't
tell you where these types of projects
[44:50] go.
That control lies with you. And as
[44:55] you've heard from other citizens, there
are other places in Forest Lake where
[45:00] these requirements by the Met Council
can be met.
[45:05] And the other piece of that is 20% at
minimum
[45:10] is going to be subsidized through
different funding that's coming out of
[45:14] the state and the Met Council, which is
a great incentive for a developer.
[45:20] I heard today that this project is a go
and this basically tonight is just a
[45:27] formality that you need to follow to let
us have our voices heard.
[45:34] I hope you look at these faces
and hear what they're saying underneath
[45:42] the lake quality and the traffic issue.
This is their lives.
[45:49] Thank you.
[45:52] » Does anyone else wish to speak?
[45:58] » I'll ask one more time. Does anyone else
wish to address the planning commission
[46:02] this evening?
>> I just have a question. What are the
[46:07] next steps?
>> Please step up. We're on TV, you know,
[46:11] so we don't want anyone to miss.
>> Okay. Judge Judy. Okay. Um, [laughter]
[46:18] » what are the next steps? I mean, is the
decision actually final at this point or
[46:25] is it just that we're we're going
through a procedure to say, "Well, at
[46:30] least they listen to us." So, what are
the next steps?
[46:33] » I tell you what, how about if I answer
that in a little bit and I can lay out
[46:37] the whole thing for you, you know,
because it is quite a process before we
[46:42] get to the end result. So, I want to
make sure we've heard from everybody.
[46:49] And I see no one else coming forth and
no other hands going up.
[46:54] We'll close the open forum. I first I
want to thank everyone who participated
[46:59] in it tonight. We always like to get the
input. You wouldn't believe how many
[47:04] meetings that are here that there is no
one in the audience. So it's nice to see
[47:08] that the citizens have come out and made
their thoughts and opinions known. So
[47:14] before I assume that when we move to the
next item or in a couple items we'll
[47:20] cover this and but the basically the
process to answer your question. This is
[47:25] the concept plan tonight. This is a
nonbinding meeting to have with the
[47:30] developer and the planning commission.
Purpose of which is for the developer to
[47:35] get input on what we like and dislike
about this. Um and then when the
[47:42] developer comes back with a formal
application or the preliminary is when
[47:49] uh they'll have locked it down what they
want to do.
[47:53] The expectation is they take our
comments tonight into consideration
[47:59] once the preliminary is platt is if it
moves forward and it gets approved which
[48:05] this approval would come through the
council. So it comes to us and we would
[48:09] to make a recommendation.
Then when then it'll be at a final and
[48:14] the final should line up with what's act
will line up with what actually is going
[48:18] to be built. So that'll take care of all
of the excuse me that'll take care of
[48:22] all of the changes that they need to be
made. Typically in that case there's
[48:26] some adjustments that they have to make
once all of the uh wetlands have been
[48:31] delineated. All of the distances are
known. Um all the parking spots may may
[48:38] have lost some stuff. Uh all of that
would be in the final. All the
[48:43] engineering
uh that's required for the sewer, the
[48:46] water, [snorts]
the water runoff.
[48:50] What else did I miss? All of that kind
of stuff would be in the final then. So
[48:55] this is like I say a nonbinding.
If this project, if the applicant
[49:01] decides to move forward with this
project, it'll come before us again as
[49:05] the preliminary and that'll be a public
hearing also right during that time
[49:10] instead of the open form. So that's what
what would happen next. Abby, have I
[49:15] misspoke?
>> No. Uh just to clarify though, uh the
[49:20] this is the first step in the process, a
concept plan. There'll be two other proc
[49:24] applications, the preliminary plat and
the final plat. Each of those could take
[49:29] up to 120 days a piece. So just know
that this is the start of a pretty long
[49:33] process that we go through with all land
development projects.
[49:37] » Thank you.
So with that, we'll move to item number
[49:42] six, the consent agenda. Chair is
looking for a motion to approve the
[49:47] consent agenda as presented, which is
approve the minutes from the regular
[49:51] meeting of June 24, 2026. Do I have a
motion?
[49:56] » So moved. So I have a motion and a
second. Any any discussion?
[50:03] » I will be abstaining since I was absent.
>> So with that, no other comments. All
[50:09] those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I.
[50:12] » Opposed.
>> Abstensions.
[50:14] » Yes.
>> I. Two abstensions. I wasn't here,
[50:18] right?
>> Was I here?
[50:23] » Hold on a second.
>> I think you were here.
[50:25] » I don't think I was. I was on vacation.
>> Actually, you weren't you weren't
[50:29] present in the minutes.
[50:36] » That wasn't the one that you missed.
>> It'll pass with or without you. You can
[50:39] still abandain.
>> I'll still abstain because I wasn't
[50:42] here. [laughter]
I was in Wisconsin. I know where I was.
[50:47] All righty. That's good. So we'll move
to our regular agenda item item seven
[50:53] which is the Clear Lake Apartments
PIN 1 19.032.21.21.000014
[51:04] Steve Kavan I apologize if I'm wrong. uh
applicant. It's a concept plan review
[51:11] case file number PZ26-1431.
[51:17] And this is an advisory review. The way
this will work is that I believe uh
[51:23] Stephen, you're going to give a
presentation. He'll tell us the uh
[51:27] application as he understands it. The
planning commission will then ask
[51:31] questions of the city. Once all of those
roles have been answered, we'll ask the
[51:35] applicant to come up and answer any
questions. He's probably got a pad full
[51:40] of or she I think it's a gentleman
sitting here um has probably have some
[51:46] answers for us. Once we have all that,
we will have a discussion amongst the
[51:50] planning commission and the applicant
and the city to give further direction.
[51:55] So with that, I believe Stephen, you're
giving the presentation.
[52:01] Sorry, it's the only time I get to order
my boss around.
[52:06] So, I think uh we have we have had a lot
of comments on this and
[52:12] it would it's all been very civil and
appreciative and I really appreciate
[52:16] everybody coming out tonight, especially
the uh full house. Um, as chair Gerard
[52:20] said, it's not often we have a full
house and we have to pull chairs out.
[52:24] So, it's a a good situation and at the
very least at least we brought this
[52:27] neighborhood together. Um, so let me
begin. Um,
[52:32] » yeah, true. I stand corrected.
>> You're wasting our time.
[52:36] » So, um, uh, tonight we are reviewing the
Clear Lake Apartments, uh, concept plan.
[52:41] This is an early non-binding review as
it's been discussed. Uh, the applica is
[52:45] not asking for approval tonight and the
planning commission is not being asked
[52:48] to approve or deny the project. The
purpose of tonight's discussion is to
[52:53] provide early non-binding feedback
before a formal preliminary platinum
[52:56] plan unit development application is
submitted. That feedback is helpful
[52:59] because this site has several issues to
better understand, including access,
[53:03] storm water, utilities, shoreland rules,
wetlands, nearby homes, and its location
[53:08] near Clear Lake. We have also received
significant public comment. Many of
[53:12] those comments raise planning questions
about traffic, lake access, storm water,
[53:16] groundwater, environmental review,
construction impacts, and neighborhood
[53:19] compatibility. Tonight's review is not
intended to resolve every one of those
[53:23] issues. The purpose is to identify them
clearly so the applicant understands
[53:27] what the city reviewing agencies,
planning commission and public would
[53:31] like to see considered in an updated
plan. So the main question tonight
[53:35] saying tonight is not is this project
approved. It is what would be helpful
[53:38] for the applicant to understand before
submitting a formal application. With
[53:42] that purpose in mind, I'll start with a
quick overview of what's being proposed.
[53:47] The concept plan shows a proposed 228
unit apartment development southwest of
[53:52] Clear Lake. The plan includes six
apartment buildings, each three stories
[53:55] tall with 38 units in each building.
Because the full concept plan is
[53:59] difficult to read at this slide size,
I've added colored dots to help provide
[54:03] context for the main parts of the site
layout. These dots are not intended to
[54:07] replace the full plan. They're just a
visual guide for the presentation. The
[54:11] apartment buildings are identified with
blue dots. The primary vehicle access is
[54:15] identified with a pink dot and the
possible secondary vehicle access is
[54:18] identified with a magenta dot. The
concept also includes parking areas and
[54:23] detached garages with the garages
identified by green dots on the plan.
[54:26] The playground is shown with a brown
dot, the dog park with a peach dot, the
[54:30] boardwalk connection toward Clear Lake
with an orange dot, and the proposed six
[54:34] slip community dock with a yellow dot.
The concept was presented to the parks
[54:38] commission on June 17th. The parks
commission recommended cash and loo for
[54:42] any required park dedication rather than
land dedication because there does not
[54:47] appear to be a clear location for the
site that would work well as a public
[54:51] neighborhood park. The more usable
portions of the site are generally shown
[54:54] for buildings, parking, storm water, and
private resident amenities. The
[54:58] remaining areas appear to be wetlands,
buffers, shoreline, and other
[55:01] constrained areas. That matters because
accepting parkland also means accepting
[55:05] long-term city maintenance
responsibility. Staff generally does not
[55:09] recommend accepting land that is
isolated, difficult to access,
[55:12] environmentally constrained, or unlikely
to function as a usable public park
[55:15] space. Cash and would still require a
park contribution, but it will allow
[55:19] those funds to support parks, trails, or
recreation improvements where they can
[55:22] better serve the broader public. The
parks commission also recommended a
[55:26] trail connection to the Highway 97 trail
system, which could generally follow the
[55:30] proposed secondary access route if that
alignment works with future access
[55:34] grading and agency review. A number of
public comments focused on the size of
[55:39] the project and whether a 228 unit
apartment dep development fits the
[55:43] location. This is one of the central
questions for future review. The city's
[55:47] land use and zoning rules help answer
whether the general use is allowed. The
[55:51] PUD and preliminary plat process help
evaluate whether the specific design
[55:55] works on this particular site. At this
concept stage, staff is not saying the
[56:00] current layout is acceptable as is.
staff is identifying the issues the
[56:04] applicant should be aware of and may
want to address if they move forward.
[56:08] Those include how the buildings relate
to nearby homes, how traffic enters and
[56:11] exits the site, how leak access would be
managed, how agency comments would
[56:15] affect the plan, and whether an updated
design could better respond to the
[56:19] concerns that have been raised. That
leads into the land use and zoning
[56:22] question because several public comments
asked why apartments are being
[56:26] considered on this property.
[56:30] Based on staff's review, the property is
guided mixeduse in the city's
[56:33] comprehensive plan and is zoned MU2
general mixeduse. The MU2 designation is
[56:38] not new. The properties were identified
for mixeduse development as part of the
[56:41] city's 2030 comprehensive plan, which is
approved by the city council in 2008
[56:45] 2009. The zoning map that applied the
MU2 designation to this area was later
[56:49] approved by the city council through
ordinance 596 on February 8th, 2010.
[56:55] That is important context because multif
family residential is an allowed use in
[56:58] the MU2 district. The district
encourages a mix of uses but does not
[57:02] require every individual project or
building to include multiple uses. A
[57:07] residential apartment development is
therefore not automatically inconsistent
[57:11] with MU2 zoning. The comprehensive plan
identifies a target residential density
[57:16] range of 10 to 15 units per acre for
this land use category. Based on the
[57:20] concept information provided, staff
estimates this proposal at about 10
[57:24] units per net developable acre that
appears to be within the planned density
[57:28] range, although a f future formal
application would provide a more
[57:32] detailed buildable area calculation. So
to answer that public comment directly,
[57:36] the city does not appear to be starting
from a place where apartments are
[57:39] prohibited on this site. The general use
appears to be allowed under the current
[57:43] land use and zoning framework. But that
that does not mean the current concept
[57:47] is automatically acceptable because the
project includes multiple apartment
[57:51] buildings. It would need to be reviewed
through the planned unit development
[57:54] process. That process would allow the
city to look more closely at site
[57:58] design, compatibility, access, sidewalk
screening of the development from the
[58:02] view of the surrounding neighborhood,
lake access, storm water, and any
[58:06] flexibility the applicant may request
from city rules. So the zoning answer is
[58:11] only the first step. The more important
question is whether the specific plan
[58:15] can be refined in a way that better
addresses nearby homes, Clear Lake, and
[58:19] the site constraints.
Traffic and access were among the most
[58:23] common public concerns. Residents raised
um residents raised questions about
[58:28] Highway 97, local street traffic,
pedestrian and bicycle safety, emergency
[58:33] response, school busing, and whether the
surrounding road system can support this
[58:37] level of development. Since a staff
report was prepared, the city received a
[58:41] concept received concept level comments
from Mandot. Mandot views the proposed
[58:46] Everton access as the primary access
point for the development. Mandot also
[58:50] indicated that the existing full access
on Highway 97
[58:54] is permitted for the daycare and would
be considered secondary access for the
[58:58] apartment development. Men do also
encourage the daycare access to be
[59:02] realigned to use the primary access
point on Everton. As a project moves
[59:06] forward, Mandot would re-evaluate the
Highway 97 full access conditions and
[59:10] may consider changes that would allow
right in right out secondary access for
[59:15] both the daycare and the development. So
to answer the public comments on traffic
[59:18] and safety, those concerns are being
carried forward into the review. At this
[59:22] concept stage, staff is not saying the
access plan is final. Staff would like
[59:26] to see future plans more clearly explain
the primary access, the secondary
[59:30] access, and how the daycare access may
be realigned, and how highway 97 access
[59:35] would function after MDOT review. The
city engineer also identified several
[59:39] items he would like to see studied or
addressed in more detail with a future
[59:42] application. These include sewer
capacity, water main looping, fire
[59:47] track, fire truck turning movements,
entrance design, and Everton Avenue
[59:51] improvements extending north of the
proposed site entrance to address
[59:55] impacts from the development. He also
identified storm water grading,
[59:58] utilities, lighting, landscaping, and
tree preservation as future review
[1:00:02] topics. The main point is that access
and infrastructure are major future
[1:00:06] review items. A future preliminary plat
and PUD application should provide
[1:00:10] enough traffic access emergency route
and utility information for the city,
[1:00:14] MINDOT, the fire department and the
public to better understand how the site
[1:00:17] may function.
A large portion of the public comments
[1:00:22] focused on Clear Lake, the proposed
docks, storm water, groundwater,
[1:00:25] wetlands, wildlife, and nearby natural
resource areas. Residents raised concern
[1:00:30] about lake use, boat traffic, the
proposed six slip dock, shoreline
[1:00:34] erosion, invasive species, storm water
runoff, private wells, soils,
[1:00:38] construction impacts, eagle nest,
blandings turtle, and the nearby Lampry
[1:00:42] Pass Wildlife Management Area. Staff
agrees that these are important issues
[1:00:46] to understand if the project moves
forward. At the same time, it is
[1:00:48] important to be clear about the city's
role. The city is not the permitting
[1:00:52] authority for every environmental issue
raised in the public comments. Rice
[1:00:55] Creek Wershed District would review
items such as storm water management,
[1:00:59] erosion and sediment control, flood
plane alteration, and wetland related
[1:01:03] permits if the project proceeds. RCWD
also indicated that more information
[1:01:07] about wetland impacts would be helpful,
including whether certain impacts could
[1:01:12] be avoided or reduced. The DNR also
provided concept level comments. DNR
[1:01:17] asked for more information about how
boat slips would be limited and how
[1:01:20] storm water would be treated. DNR also
provided comments related to Blandings,
[1:01:23] turtle, rare plants, building height,
and wildlife sensitive lighting. For
[1:01:27] tonight's purposes, the city is not
making those agency determinations. The
[1:01:31] more appropriate question is how those
agency comments and site constraints
[1:01:35] should be reflected in an updated plan.
That could include changes to the
[1:01:39] layout, access, dock area, boardwalk,
grading, storm water approach, lighting,
[1:01:44] or other design details. Staff also
notes that based on the proposed 228
[1:01:49] units, the project does not appear to
trigger a mandatory environmental
[1:01:52] assessment worksheet based on unit count
alone. However, that does not mean
[1:01:56] environmental review ends there. The
site's constraints would still be
[1:01:59] reviewed through the city, RCWD, DNR,
MINDOT, and other applicable agencies if
[1:02:04] the project moves forward. The main
message is that Lake Shoreland and
[1:02:08] agency review issues are not separate
from the planning discussion. They are
[1:02:12] part of what should shape any future
preliminary platin PUB application.
[1:02:17] To close, I want to summarize how staff
is treating the public comments. The
[1:02:20] city recognizes that this concept has
generated significant public interest
[1:02:23] and concern. A neighborhood meeting was
held on June 3rd and approximately 78
[1:02:28] residents attended. The city also
received written public comments which
[1:02:31] were included in the packet. Staff also
received an additional written comment,
[1:02:35] two additional written comments now
opposing the proposal as presented which
[1:02:39] has been which have been provided to the
planning commission this evening and are
[1:02:42] available on the desk. Taken together,
the comments raise several issues that
[1:02:47] are directly relevant to future review.
These include the project's scale and
[1:02:50] compatibility with nearby homes, traffic
and safe access, clear lake and dock
[1:02:55] use, storm water, groundwater,
environmental concerns, agency review
[1:02:59] and site constraints, and whether
additional information would be helpful
[1:03:02] before formal review. The additional
written comment is generally consistent
[1:03:06] with those broader themes, and also
request denial of the proposal as
[1:03:09] currently presented. The graphic on this
slide organizes those comments into the
[1:03:13] main themes staff heard neighborhood fit
traffic and safe access clear lake and
[1:03:18] docu agency review and site constraints
and more information and more
[1:03:23] information before review. Some
questions can be addressed tonight. This
[1:03:26] is not an approval. The applicant does
not have to permission to build and the
[1:03:30] planning commission is not being asked
to approve or deny the project. Also,
[1:03:34] based on staff's review, the general
multif family use appears to be allowed
[1:03:37] under the current MU2 zoning and
mixeduse land designation. Other
[1:03:41] questions cannot be fully answered from
the concept plan alone. The current
[1:03:44] concept does not provide enough detail
to fully evaluate traffic access, lake
[1:03:49] access, storm water, groundwater
utilities, construction impacts, or
[1:03:53] final site compatibility. Some issues
will also require review by other
[1:03:56] agencies, including MDOT, RCWD, and DNR.
This is what staff is asking for. This
[1:04:02] is why staff is asking for non-binding
feedback tonight. The most helpful
[1:04:05] feedback is what the applicant should
should consider changing, studying or
[1:04:09] explaining before submitting a formal
preliminary plat application. Helpful
[1:04:14] feedback could include site design
changes to explore studies or
[1:04:17] explanations that would help agency
comments that would should be reflected
[1:04:21] in the next plan or issues the city
council should understand when it
[1:04:24] provides its own concept feedback which
would be this coming Monday. Again,
[1:04:29] tonight is not the final decision point.
The goal is to help the applicant
[1:04:32] understand the public concerns and
planning issues that should be
[1:04:35] considered if this concept moves
forward. The applicant is here this
[1:04:39] evening and is available to answer
questions about the concept. Staff is
[1:04:42] also available to answer questions about
the city's review process, zoning, land
[1:04:46] use, public comments, agency comments,
and what would typically be reviewed at
[1:04:50] a public preliminary platin stage. With
that, staff would be happy to answer the
[1:04:55] questions and the applicant is available
as well.
[1:04:58] » Commissioners, any question for staff?
[1:05:04] Susan,
>> um, is is that the end of your
[1:05:08] presentation regarding the the project?
>> Yeah.
[1:05:12] » Okay.
Yes. Um, do we know the the Highway 97
[1:05:19] um improvements were planned 10 to 12
years ago? Do we know what the design
[1:05:24] parameters for um the Everton
access 297 were? Um in other words, when
[1:05:34] Mindot designed that that access, they
looked at what they thought would be the
[1:05:40] long how how the maximum number of cars
in and out. Do we know what those design
[1:05:47] parameters were? and were
does this fit within those design
[1:05:53] parameters?
>> I can say that uh one of the things that
[1:05:56] the city engineers outline that the
current Everton on north of 97 is is not
[1:06:01] to standard for this and one of the
requirements that we would want to see
[1:06:05] in a preliminary plat is the potential
update to that uh road into 97 u to
[1:06:11] better address this additional um you
know vehicle. the uh vehicle load.
[1:06:18] » Um we do have an an ordinance in the
city that says that you cannot um build
[1:06:24] something so high that it will prevent
the adjoining properties from um using
[1:06:30] solar or wind uh generation. Um
folks tonight said are concerned about
[1:06:38] shading the threetory buildings, shading
their properties. Um as as this moves
[1:06:43] forward, We need to take a look and make
sure that a three-story building
[1:06:49] adjacent would would not violate our
ordinance on solar gain or wind gain.
[1:06:56] » I think that's good feedback for the for
the developer and what we should expect
[1:06:59] to see in the primary plan.
>> Um, a big piece of this is within the
[1:07:06] shoreland overlay.
>> We typically do not encourage building
[1:07:12] within the shoreline overlay. Most of
those the properties for folks tonight
[1:07:17] were put in before that was even even a
thing. Um and and we're used to
[1:07:25] non-conforming uses. Um
but our planning commission has tried to
[1:07:32] reduce the amount of nonconforming
uses.
[1:07:38] How will staff be looking at the area
that's within the shoreline overall like
[1:07:45] which is quite frankly the majority
>> almost all of it. Yeah.
[1:07:48] » The dwelling units.
>> Um I think it would be the same as as
[1:07:53] they had there's an impervious cap that
we'd be looking at to make sure it was
[1:07:56] was protected. And I think one of the
feedbacks that we heard tonight is the
[1:07:59] potential inclusion of underground
parking garage if if this site is
[1:08:03] suitable to minimize some of those
impacts. I think that is is good
[1:08:07] feedback for the developer as well of
what what should be something we look
[1:08:10] at.
>> Um, one of my other concerns is one that
[1:08:14] that that our city typically does not
consider ever. Um, and that is
[1:08:23] from a geomorph point of view, these
soils are awful. They're they're just
[1:08:28] bloody awful. Um, and
when we are going to be looking building
[1:08:35] permit for these buildings.
Um,
[1:08:40] will the city be looking at
the structure needed to support these
[1:08:46] buildings in a highly plastic soil
structure and what kind of of of
[1:08:55] underllayment is going to be required,
porings, etc. We all know what Mindot
[1:09:00] had to go through, but I know that the
stuff closer to the lake itself
[1:09:05] um is a little more challenging. And I
think in the discussions that I've had
[1:09:09] with our city engineer on this subject,
he's very cognizant of the potential
[1:09:13] buildability of the site and is would be
really focused on making sure and
[1:09:18] bringing in the right uh knowledge to
make sure that what is being developed
[1:09:23] here uh met city met code and what would
be safe uh to be able to be developed
[1:09:29] there. And I I want to say you're you're
correct on the your your you know
[1:09:34] discussion of the the type of soils that
are there and that the developer
[1:09:37] understands it too and some of the and
that's just one of the kind of potential
[1:09:42] challenges with the site.
>> We have buildings and and a couple of
[1:09:46] multi-units that that were built um in
areas that of similar soil structure. Um
[1:09:53] the developer goes away, the building
owner changes and um 10 years later
[1:09:59] there are challenges and issues. We do
not have a rental
[1:10:04] licensing ordinance really. We we don't
do that sort of thing. Uh folks can't
[1:10:09] come to us with mold issues. So
that will our opportunity to prevent
[1:10:15] future problems is in the
before it's built.
[1:10:20] Um
would the city I I understand the
[1:10:25] concern of the neighborhood u with folks
being able to walk through the
[1:10:29] backyards. Um is is fencing
along the apartment property line if
[1:10:36] it's if it goes up um to prevent access
to backyards.
[1:10:42] Is that something that that will be
considered? I think I think the feedback
[1:10:47] that that staff will be providing after
discussion would be uh put the potential
[1:10:51] redesign of the site around that north
side to maximize uh screening would
[1:10:58] ideally it wouldn't be uh man-made. It
would be utilizing uh woodlands to
[1:11:04] maintain that screening and minimize
that access.
[1:11:08] » Yeah.
>> Looking at at what's proposed, I'm not
[1:11:12] sure. Well, I want to say it's a concept
right now. It's just the shapes on a
[1:11:17] shapes on a page.
>> I I understand that.
[1:11:20] » Um, it's my understanding Rice Creek
hasn't really weighed in on where
[1:11:26] they're looking at because there are
significant
[1:11:31] wetland issues here
>> and and the developers been in a lot of
[1:11:35] discussion with Rice Creek. We've had a
lot of discussion with Rice Creek on the
[1:11:39] site. they understand the the the
complexity of it and they're they're
[1:11:44] will provide uh feedback and
requirements to to meet the permitting
[1:11:49] codes that he'll have to get to be able
to build build here.
[1:11:55] Um and then
I I would strongly recommend against
[1:12:02] having act trail access from this if it
goes forward along the secondary um
[1:12:10] access path. Um that is not where the
ped crossing is and um we have enough
[1:12:20] challenges in areas now where
we have a marked pet crossing and um and
[1:12:29] there are
they're not adhered to um by by the
[1:12:35] cross traffic. Um so if if we're looking
at at ped crossing, it's it's got to be
[1:12:42] something that is
at least where the the existing crossing
[1:12:49] is and and the trail built to that. Um,
>> those are my my big ones across the top.
[1:12:57] » Commissioner Young, can I ask a
clarifying question of the pedestrian
[1:13:00] access? Do you mean on off of Highway 97
with the
[1:13:04] » Yeah, it would I I heard potential trail
access through the the secondary
[1:13:12] » um access on 97.
>> Yeah. So currently there is a trail that
[1:13:16] runs from that point to the light at
Everton
[1:13:21] » on the north side of of 97.
>> Yeah, it was built as
[1:13:26] » or it was planned from the day.
>> When I drove it tonight, I didn't see
[1:13:30] it.
>> Okay, then we'll double check because I
[1:13:32] do believe it is part of the plans as
the highway 97 project from the daycare
[1:13:36] to the light. But
[1:13:41] » yes, there is a trail on the the south
side. Yes, we do recognize that.
[1:13:45] » What I don't want folks doing is trying
to cross 97
[1:13:50] at another location other than the
light.
[1:13:54] » Yeah, thank you for that clarification.
>> Susan, are you finished with your
[1:13:59] comments for now?
>> For now. Yes.
[1:14:01] » Other commissioners,
>> do you want our comments now or should
[1:14:04] we listen to the applicant and then
>> you can do it either way.
[1:14:07] » I'll listen to the applicant first.
That's what I'm going to do personally.
[1:14:10] But uh we welcome any other questions
just to clarify. I do have one before we
[1:14:15] go any further and it has to do with the
underground parking that we require in
[1:14:19] this district. He's showing all garages.
Um are we thinking the water tables too
[1:14:25] high? So,
or it's just not aware that he needs to
[1:14:29] have underground.
>> And I think I think one of the things
[1:14:31] about that is it obviously the the code
prescribes that through the PUD process
[1:14:37] could potentially be one of the
flexibilities that that come through
[1:14:40] that. But ideally, it would be find a
way to minimize that impervious because
[1:14:45] that that that would be one of our our
main concerns.
[1:14:50] » Other commissioners for the staff?
>> I have one. I mean, I think we're
[1:14:56] identifying that there's been a lot of
mistakes made by different entities over
[1:15:00] the years that are all being compounded,
and I don't think throwing more mistakes
[1:15:05] on top of it just because is a way to
go. The first time I drove down the new
[1:15:10] 97, I said, "What did they do?" You
know, it's it's like, "Are we in the
[1:15:14] middle of nowhere?" They build this two
this great big bridge with multiple
[1:15:17] lanes going across, all these extra turn
lanes, and for some reason, when it hits
[1:15:21] Forest Lake, boom, one lane. And now
we're going to pack a bunch of other
[1:15:25] houses into an area that I think this
concept is pie in the sky. I don't think
[1:15:31] we're going to get anywhere near there,
but it's going to be tried to be
[1:15:35] maximized to the point where again
mistakes that were made long before I
[1:15:40] know I was here and I'm sure other
commissioners and staff were here. So
[1:15:42] I'm not trying to point fingers, but at
some point you do have the
[1:15:47] responsibility to not make more
mistakes. So I think I'm going into this
[1:15:54] » [applause]
[1:15:57] » going into this with the concept of
prove that you can do this, not we have
[1:16:02] to allow this.
>> All right, having said heard that the
[1:16:09] applicant is here. Please state your
name and address for the record.
[1:16:13] Spend a little time giving us your
thoughts or we can just fire away. But I
[1:16:17] think we'd rather hear your thoughts
first.
[1:16:19] » Sure. I appreciate it and thank you
everyone for taking the time the chair
[1:16:24] commission residents for coming out
here. Um my name is Steve Cavan. I live
[1:16:28] at three goldfinch lane in North Oaks,
Minnesota. Um
[1:16:33] I also want to thank city staff for
preparing a thorough report. um uh
[1:16:39] concept plan review process is a
non-binding process and they've done um
[1:16:44] kind of above and beyond to identify
issues and help think through the
[1:16:48] process which I appreciate. Um that was
the reason for the application
[1:16:53] um to get feedback. So that is very much
appreciated.
[1:16:58] Um
uh let's see here. I had a larger amount
[1:17:04] but given the interest of time I'll kind
of a few points here. Um, one thing I
[1:17:10] just want to point out, there have been
13 soil borings done on the site and so
[1:17:14] we do have uh geotechnical work done on
the site. Um, wetland delineations have
[1:17:20] also been done as have rare plants um
studies and when Mindot was going
[1:17:27] through their
uh design phase, they were well aware of
[1:17:31] the plans for the site. So although we
have to go through the formal process
[1:17:36] and receive MDOT's formal review, um
they at least were aware of what was
[1:17:42] what the [clears throat] site was zoned
for and what the potential density was
[1:17:46] going into their construction.
[1:17:50] Um let's see here.
[1:17:55] Um, I do want to point out that
prior to coincidental with pursuing
[1:18:02] development,
um, I have reached out to and had
[1:18:06] conversations with the Minnesota DNR who
owns the site to the west,
[1:18:10] um, with Washington County Land Trust
who has funds to buy sites like this and
[1:18:16] Minnesota Land Trust. Um, none of those
organizations have deemed this a site
[1:18:21] that they think is high enough to
preserve. And so this kind of leads me
[1:18:27] to where I'm at here.
Um,
[1:18:32] let's see here.
[1:18:39] So with that, I guess [clears throat] I
open it up for your questions and happy
[1:18:43] to try to answer them to my best of my
abilities.
[1:18:47] Don, we'll start with you.
>> Okay. Um, I guess my primary concern is
[1:18:55] is um regarding the community dock area
and this has been brought up by the
[1:19:01] residents and um around the lake because
I know that's come up before before this
[1:19:06] commission. I don't know if it's on this
lake or on Forest Lake more than one
[1:19:11] time before that I've been here. And
that's something that's been um shot
[1:19:16] down very quickly and I I find that it's
going to be a tough one to fly. I just
[1:19:21] don't see that passing or getting
getting through this process. Um that's
[1:19:27] just my own personal thoughts on it for
all the reasons that you heard today of
[1:19:32] various residents and lakefront uh
neighborhood owners speaking about and
[1:19:37] and other uh logistical issues if it's a
community dock and safety and but not
[1:19:44] even getting into that. So that's a a
big concern of mine. um the the
[1:19:50] residents around the lake um have raised
all the other issues that I would have
[1:19:56] uh raised as well and I think you
probably heard those in the previous
[1:19:58] meeting. I don't know if anything new
came out today along those lines. Um I
[1:20:04] made a couple notes when some folks were
speaking. I know some folks thought that
[1:20:08] a decision was going to be made here
today. I'll make it clear if it isn't
[1:20:11] clear. No decisions are made here today.
This is just for you to hear everybody's
[1:20:16] input. Um
[1:20:20] um
[1:20:24] and and there was a a mention Ruth
mentioned something about not being able
[1:20:28] to construct three stories high due to
the airport. That's actually something I
[1:20:33] had not heard before. So I if the city
can add that to their list under the uh
[1:20:39] site constraints or what have you. I I
was not aware of that if that is a
[1:20:43] constraint. That's the first time I've
heard it brought up. Um,
[1:20:47] other than that, the um I think
the the participation by the folks here,
[1:20:55] I've kind of raised all the issues and
and the city's uh synopsis of it here in
[1:20:59] the in the packet kind of covers all the
all the concerns that I have on it, but
[1:21:04] they're they're very much concerns.
>> Thank you,
[1:21:09] » Commissioner.
>> Have a couple questions. Um, what
[1:21:14] demographic are you going after with
these apartments? Are they going to be
[1:21:18] higherend apartments,
lower end, middle?
[1:21:24] Um, it's too early. So, at this point,
um, and I I should, if I step back, I am
[1:21:29] not an apartment builder. Um, and there
is not, um, kind of an apartment
[1:21:35] developer builder under contract. So, it
could be, you know, I think this would
[1:21:40] be a great senior housing site. Um, I
don't know where where it will end up.
[1:21:46] This process helps
uh potential apartment developers or
[1:21:52] builders to understand what the
constraints are of the site, what the
[1:21:56] city's review process has been, so they
can go through and design what is best
[1:22:00] for the site. And similarly, I I have
had uh a couple different groups look at
[1:22:07] the site in the past and and they have
not wanted to do the boardwalk or the
[1:22:11] dock. That was something I put in there.
I thought it'd be a nice amenity.
[1:22:15] Clearly, um people feel otherwise. Um
but that was something that I think at
[1:22:21] the end of the day, the feedback and
then just the extra cost. It's it's a
[1:22:25] big cost for a developer, an apartment
builder to incur. And so, you know, I
[1:22:31] can't say definitively if it will go
happen or not, but the parties I've
[1:22:34] spoken to have not been in favor of it.
>> And I know this is just a sketch on
[1:22:40] paper, but rather than having square
block apartments, is it possible to make
[1:22:46] the buildings a little more appealing,
like more radiused or have architectural
[1:22:51] detail that's a little nicer for the
neighborhoods?
[1:22:59] Um without knowing what is going to be
designed, it's hard to answer that. Um
[1:23:05] that would be ultimately if it's a
senior housing, whatever it ends up
[1:23:09] being designed at that point.
>> Okay,
[1:23:15] » Commissioner,
>> just one last thing. Um,
[1:23:22] in a previous iteration with with the
city, um,
[1:23:29] I
[1:23:32] did clearly came to the city requesting
assistance and another lake in the city
[1:23:40] came to the city asking for assistance.
And one of the things that always may be
[1:23:45] very favorable to requests from the
Clear Lake Association is that you have
[1:23:52] at at that time better than 90% of your
residents that are part of the Clear
[1:23:58] Lake Association.
that kind of cohesion and responsibility
[1:24:05] and and and and demonstrated caring
about not only your own home and your
[1:24:13] own dockage but the lake as a whole. the
way that you all have coordinated weed
[1:24:19] and invasives
um control not only for your own
[1:24:23] properties but for the center for the
with with the DNR is is really something
[1:24:30] that that you can be very very proud of
and um that other lake um at the time
[1:24:37] had less than 33 or 30% of their
residents that were really stepping up
[1:24:42] the way that you do Um,
I see it. I appreciate it deeply. I
[1:24:49] appreciated it then and I still do.
[1:24:54] » Other commissioners?
[1:24:57] » No, I think they covered the points that
I was looking at the traffic concerns at
[1:25:01] 97
Edon. We'll get the traffic studies on
[1:25:05] that. Uh, I want to hear from the Rice
Creek and I appreciate the comments from
[1:25:09] the city tonight. Thank you for
everybody coming out.
[1:25:14] One more.
>> Steve, you did a really nice job with
[1:25:17] the the PowerPoint and the slide thing.
>> That that I appreciate it very much.
[1:25:23] » Yeah, thank you.
>> Go ahead, Cy.
[1:25:28] » I mean, I understand like we're at the
beginning stages and what we're seeing
[1:25:31] on paper, it's effectively the bare
minimum of what you're presenting and
[1:25:35] what can be developed into. Um, but it
really does to me look like just there
[1:25:41] has been no consideration for the
surrounding area. Um, just the road, the
[1:25:44] traffic, the things that have been
raised overall. Um, I I think coming
[1:25:49] from somebody who grew up in the suburbs
of a bigger city, um, traffic sucks when
[1:25:54] you start packing in more and more
people. Accountability of people in that
[1:25:58] very dense area, um, or very small area
that's very dense, um, sucks. Um, so I
[1:26:04] think the concerns have been brought up.
I don't want to just regurgitate them,
[1:26:08] but I think it's very some very much
something to consider in terms of what
[1:26:12] you're putting into that area. It is not
just that area. It is that whole street,
[1:26:17] that whole neighborhood, the entrance to
Forest Lake. Um, and I think it's going
[1:26:21] to it's not going to hit the way it
looks on paper in personal opinion
[1:26:26] overall.
>> Thank you,
[1:26:27] » Andy. Um,
would this property have voting rights
[1:26:32] as part of the lake association? That
might be more of a staff question.
[1:26:37] » It's actually a private property owner
matter just because lake association is
[1:26:40] private property. They do touch the
lake. So, it all just depends on that
[1:26:44] association's documents.
>> So, that theoretically this new
[1:26:48] apartment building could overrule all
the votes on the lake depending on how
[1:26:51] it's done.
>> So, that's a concern. I don't know how
[1:26:54] that
>> this is a legitimate concern for the
[1:26:56] lake that needs to be addressed before
things get down the road too far. Um I
[1:27:02] think not having a partner for what this
thing will really look like I think is a
[1:27:08] red flag. I understand this is very
preliminary. Um I'm going to reiterate I
[1:27:12] think mistakes were made in the past in
previous organizations plannings. Um,
[1:27:17] and I appreciate that other entities
don't think that this is a wildlife area
[1:27:24] that matters, but the wildlife don't
look at that line on a map and say, "Oh,
[1:27:28] gee, I can't go over there." We're
seeing fencing put along 97 and 35 that
[1:27:34] accommodate to prevent turtles from
crossing roads. I mean, that's a
[1:27:38] reality. The the animals are going to go
where they're going to go. And if you
[1:27:41] literally turn the entire area into
impervious surface, that's not okay in
[1:27:47] my opinion. That's not something that's
balancing into our city the way we want.
[1:27:51] It's not that I'm against departments. I
used to do property management. Um, but
[1:27:56] this this area in my opinion was
probably zoned the wrong way and I don't
[1:28:00] think we should continue with the
mistake. Um, I do have one specific
[1:28:04] question for the for the for the map. It
says swim area in a lot of several
[1:28:09] places. Storm water management.
>> Storm water management.
[1:28:13] » You know what? I need the same as it
used to be. I apologize.
[1:28:16] » You need your glasses, Andy. [laughter]
>> That explains a lot. That makes more
[1:28:19] sense. Thank you.
>> Yeah. And if you don't mind, just uh I
[1:28:23] can respond to some comments that were
made. As part of the process, Rice uh
[1:28:28] Creek Watershed District um will require
that the storm water runoff does not
[1:28:34] change um and will likely go down from
its current state. Um, and that's what
[1:28:39] this I brought that up because that's
what the storm water ponds are for to
[1:28:43] control runoff. And even though you have
up to 25% impervious surface, that water
[1:28:50] will go into those ponds and then be
metered out so that the pace of the
[1:28:54] water infiltration is uh at or below its
current level.
[1:29:00] » That's also a city build requirement
that you cannot have any runoff come
[1:29:04] from
>> correct
[1:29:05] » your development.
>> Yes. So, I will just say I've dealt with
[1:29:09] Rice Creek wershed in the past and the
problem is when you're the low spot on
[1:29:14] the on the on the map, you are the final
spot when the heavy rains come.
[1:29:20] » And even though you plan for what you're
supposed to plan for, it gets worse. And
[1:29:24] if when we get the 100 and 500y year
floods
[1:29:29] taking up that much impervious area in a
wet land like this whether it's wetland
[1:29:34] now or not it is the natural buffer that
this area needs.
[1:29:39] » Thank you.
So I don't live on Clear Lake but I live
[1:29:43] on Forest Lake and Northshore Apartments
which is fairly large complex over
[1:29:47] there. They have no dock and they seem
to get along just fine. And it seems
[1:29:52] that all the neighbors like that also.
So just that's one comment. I'm a little
[1:29:59] disappointed you don't have a builder.
Um because what we could see next could
[1:30:03] be radically different than this. So
that doesn't warm the cockles of my
[1:30:10] heart as my mother would say. Um I have
a lot of concern on the traffic in and
[1:30:15] out going down uh I believe that's
Everton. I always screw up the streets
[1:30:20] over there. I apologize. Um,
it goes into a neighbor and dumping 200
[1:30:26] and some apartments on it at site. It's
a side street. It is not a thorough
[1:30:31] fair. It's not like
um 61 or 97 or even Northshore which we
[1:30:38] got more dumping on. The whole apartment
dumps on there. It's not a problem, but
[1:30:41] there's nowhere to go except I believe I
measured it today if I understand it
[1:30:46] right about 300 feet from there to the
light. So you get about 10 12 cars max
[1:30:52] stacked waiting at the light which seems
to me it's not going to go well. Um so I
[1:31:00] realize that development will probably
happen here. I mean we know that it's
[1:31:05] it's eligible. You know they can do auto
repair there auto sales. They can build
[1:31:10] a bank. They can put a restaurant and a
bar in there. All that's allowed in the
[1:31:14] zoning district. Um, so you may be the
least of the evils, but I think we have
[1:31:20] a long way to go based on what you
presented today when you don't have a
[1:31:25] partner yet. This zone does require
underground parking. So, as Steve said,
[1:31:31] uh, as part of the PUD, you probably
looked at garages instead, but I think
[1:31:37] that needs to be looked at seriously
also.
[1:31:41] And I think that kind of ends
[1:31:46] my comments.
>> And the last thing about a PUB is
[1:31:50] » PUD is designed to give some flexibility
to a developer,
[1:31:56] but in return there should be
significant specific benefits to the
[1:32:01] city.
um in in in return for that flexibility
[1:32:09] and
I grant that this is very very prelim
[1:32:13] preliminary
but I don't see those yet
[1:32:20] commissioners. Any other comments?
Staff, would you like to see any other
[1:32:25] comments from us? Any concerns? Any
issues we did not discuss?
[1:32:29] » No, I think I think this has been
thorough. Um, just want to remind
[1:32:32] everybody in this room that uh the man
sitting to my left will be uh up there
[1:32:37] on Monday uh for the city council and
you're all welcome to come and provide
[1:32:42] additional comment for this being heard
at that city council meeting. I'm sure
[1:32:46] everybody would like to um have that
opportunity to at least go to the city
[1:32:50] council. They'll be [snorts] providing
uh kind of the city's uh co
[1:32:54] comprehensive comment uh taking all the
comments that have come from parks the
[1:32:59] public as well as uh this board right
here this commission and providing like
[1:33:03] the official here's here's a
recommendation. So uh that's Monday
[1:33:06] night at 6 in this room
>> and that runs just the same as tonight.
[1:33:09] It's not a public hearing. Comments will
be accepted during open forum, but I
[1:33:13] will be there to to encap encapsulate
everything that's been discussed
[1:33:17] tonight. Everything that's been in the
record or anything submitted before that
[1:33:20] meeting will be entered into the record
as well. But again, their decision is
[1:33:24] non-binding feedback for the developer
to determine if he wants to move
[1:33:28] forward.
>> Mr. Kevin, you have any other comments
[1:33:31] or any information you would like from
the commission or the staff?
[1:33:34] » No, I do not. Thank you all for taking
the time.
[1:33:37] » Thank you for coming this evening. Thank
you for coming tonight.
[1:33:40] » Thank you for all coming and
participating this evening. Uh you're
[1:33:44] more than welcome to stay for the next
item. I know it'll be even more
[1:33:48] riveting.
>> Well,
[1:33:51] quite frankly, um
>> no
[1:33:55] » data centers is a big deal.
>> So, data centers in Forest Lake.
[1:34:00] » No, no, no.
>> Let's just
[1:34:04] » No.
[1:34:12] you.
>> We'll let the room clear for a minute
[1:34:15] here.
>> Thank you.
[1:34:18] » Thank you.
>> How you doing, Pat?
[1:34:25] » He was on the commission
>> probably 15 years ago,
[1:34:31] » maybe 10.
Uh Pat
[1:34:46] could become the deadliest inter.
[1:34:59] » We we ask you please clear the room so
we continue our meeting. [laughter]
[1:35:04] » I don't
[1:35:08] trying to make the big bucks tonight.
>> Thank you all.
[1:35:14] I lost uh we'll move to item eight or uh
zoning code land use review data
[1:35:22] centers. Abby, I saw your name at the
top. Are you the one presenting or
[1:35:27] Steve?
>> I'd be happy to. So,
[1:35:30] » it's all yours.
>> Excellent. Thank you. Um, so I just
[1:35:33] wanna like I think Steve puts right at
the beginning like what's the top, you
[1:35:38] know, what's the highlight here. The
highlight is staff wants to have a
[1:35:41] preemptive conversation with both the
planning commission and hopefully then
[1:35:45] the city council about enacting a up to
one-year moratorum on data centers in
[1:35:51] Forest Lake. So, as many of you may have
known, unless you've been sleeping under
[1:35:56] rocks lately, is that there's been a lot
of interest in all states, um, but in
[1:36:01] the metro area about data centers. Um,
and a lot of cities are finding
[1:36:06] themselves either maybe backed against a
wall or not well protected in terms of
[1:36:10] whether or not data centers are
addressed in their zoning code. So, City
[1:36:15] of Forest Lake actually owns 123 acres
that our city was actively marketing for
[1:36:20] a data center up until more recently
when the EDA and the council decided to
[1:36:25] kind of maybe move away from that a
little bit recognizing that there might
[1:36:30] be higher and better land uses for this.
>> Abby, can you describe where the 123
[1:36:36] acres
>> uh at the inner southeast intersection
[1:36:38] of Fenway Avenue and um Headwaters
Parkway? So, Kitty Corner from Leela,
[1:36:44] there's a big open vacant land that city
owns. That's the piece of property that
[1:36:48] Headwaters 123 is what it had been
dubbed. Um, it was more recently the EDA
[1:36:54] and city council has directed me to kind
of work towards marketing it in a
[1:36:58] different way to maximize the land
developability there, more jobs, more
[1:37:03] tax base than a data center would
provide. Um, so
[1:37:08] flash forward, fast forward to to to now
when cities are kind of finding
[1:37:14] themselves a little backed against the
wall. Staff took a look at our code and
[1:37:17] we outright permit data center
questionably outright permit data
[1:37:23] centers in our in our business park
districts. I believe that our zoning
[1:37:28] code was set up this way, maybe with a
little ambiguity to not know for sure if
[1:37:33] it's exactly a data center or a data
center. for what size or if a data
[1:37:36] center is a part of a different type of
use. Um regardless, I believe that it
[1:37:42] was set up that way specifically because
of Headarters 123 and the city's desire
[1:37:46] to potentially, you know, attract a a
data center at some point. So, um, staff
[1:37:53] wanted to bring this to you because what
we believe we should be doing is, um,
[1:37:58] asking the city council to enact a
moratorum that would give us up to one
[1:38:02] year to one, define data centers.
to have a conversation um planning
[1:38:09] commission, city council, and the
community of whether or not we'd like
[1:38:12] data centers and where we would like
data centers and how big of data centers
[1:38:16] versus um you know, a standalone data
center versus a portion of a property as
[1:38:21] part of a data center. You know, all
those conversations
[1:38:25] um and then performance standards about
them. So, tonight you heard on um the
[1:38:31] Clear Lake Apartments garages need to be
underground. That's a performance
[1:38:35] standard specific to the M parking for
MU2. Right now, we don't have any
[1:38:40] performance standards for these types of
uses. And that I do believe is where we
[1:38:45] could be most liable if we ended are not
liable.
[1:38:49] » Um liable is not a good word.
>> Exposed
[1:38:51] » exposed um because our maybe screening
standards might not quite address this
[1:38:57] type of use or the ancillary
requirements of this type of use. So
[1:39:01] tonight I'm asking you to discuss this
and to make a hopefully you consider
[1:39:05] making a recommendation to the city
council that the city council enact a
[1:39:09] moratorum on data centers to give us
some time to define them uh establish
[1:39:14] whether or not we'd like to see them
where we'd like to see them and then
[1:39:17] performance standards for them within
the city.
[1:39:20] » Commissioner,
>> any questions?
[1:39:22] » Yeah. How would we be exposed without
putting on this official moratorum? What
[1:39:28] what's our exposure? I mean someone
coming in and saying we want to put it
[1:39:31] in a data center
>> and provide water and electricity to us.
[1:39:35] » Um
>> well there would be there would be a
[1:39:37] whole bunch of negotiation. I mean these
are these are companies with a lot of
[1:39:41] financial backing.
>> Yep.
[1:39:43] » And if we have concerns such as water
and electricity and all those things you
[1:39:47] could bring them to them and they could
possibly bring a lot of positive things
[1:39:52] to the city. 100% I do believe I I do
want to say
[1:39:55] » I'm just curious what
>> Yep. From staff's perspective, I'm not
[1:39:58] saying that data centers are the evil
enemy that you might see a lot of people
[1:40:02] thinking they are. They do provide for
um construction jobs. They might not
[1:40:07] term provide for long-term um jobs, but
they do provide for construction
[1:40:12] positions for a few years within
community. They are strong tax base
[1:40:15] earners within a community and they are
designing systems that can be more
[1:40:19] self-reliant than older systems that
don't take as much um pressure on the
[1:40:25] natural resources. I don't necessarily
think that they are a bad thing and I
[1:40:29] want to reiterate that staff doesn't
think that that's the reason we should
[1:40:32] do this. The concern that I have is we
should probably take a pause to look at
[1:40:38] our code to see if we are well
protected. Just as a reminder, outright
[1:40:43] permitted uses, you don't really get a
whole lot of say in them, right? When we
[1:40:50] conditionally approve something or when
we end up doing a planned unit
[1:40:54] development, then we have that a lot
more
[1:40:59] we'll trade this for that, you know,
type of thing. Sometimes when you have
[1:41:03] an outright permitted use, you have to
go by the standards that are in place
[1:41:08] either for that type of use or that type
of design. And I would say that in
[1:41:13] looking at our design standards for the
business park district, um especially
[1:41:18] with some of the accessory type of
features that they might have, cooling
[1:41:22] towers, solar panels,
um you know, ex exterior power
[1:41:28] generation that I just don't believe
that our code as it sits right now would
[1:41:33] adequately screen from adjacent
properties um and may not
[1:41:40] pro We may not have a good design in the
end should we choose to allow for a data
[1:41:46] center or should a data center
application come forward. Does that make
[1:41:49] sense?
>> Now if it was on our property yes Don
[1:41:53] Don I think that's a really great if
it's on the city's headarters 123 then
[1:41:57] yes I think we can say before we would
sell you this we want XYZ. What I am
[1:42:01] concerned is there is more business park
land zoned within the city that is not
[1:42:06] owned by the city
>> because my concern would be if we we
[1:42:08] throw a moratorum on it then do we
possibly miss out on a an opportunity
[1:42:14] » well
>> because though they well they can't do
[1:42:17] it here they go on to Wyoming or or
wherever to to to do it.
[1:42:21] » Yep. That it that is a good question.
when we are in the technology corridor.
[1:42:26] So there's several cities and counties
along I35. Um Kexus and and XL Energy
[1:42:32] have been partners in trying to market
these for high energy users. Um it could
[1:42:39] happen that it could go, you know, to a
Wyoming to a north branch. I think
[1:42:44] taking a pause and I keep saying for up
to one year statutoily we can only do up
[1:42:48] to one year. It would be my hope that we
kind of work through that process. uh
[1:42:54] you know with maybe even by the end of
this year.
[1:42:56] » Yeah.
>> So
[1:42:58] » and then we could shorten a moratorum
then end a moratorum.
[1:43:01] » Yeah. You end the moratorium when you
adopt an ordinance if you want to adopt
[1:43:05] an ordinance or you just say nope. We're
done. We're okay with our code.
[1:43:09] » So is this going to affect my zoning
corridor or updates?
[1:43:14] » Everything affects your zoning code
updates at the moment.
[1:43:18] » Just wanted to hear it live.
>> Yep.
[1:43:21] » All right. Other comments, concerns?
>> I definitely have some concerns with the
[1:43:26] length of time, a full year for it. I
think we could be missing the boat. If
[1:43:31] they're looking to develop in this area,
um,
[1:43:36] a year is a long time to go, especially
if they're doing it right now.
[1:43:40] » I only included that to point out the
statutory requirement. We don't actually
[1:43:44] have to state any time in the I may have
put recommendation for a one-year
[1:43:50] moratorum. You could say six months, you
could say six weeks. That's not the
[1:43:54] thing necessarily. It's the the pause
that gives us that ability for up to a
[1:43:59] year. I certainly would take the
planning commission's discussion and
[1:44:02] recommendation on where we kind of feed
this into our priority level, but we are
[1:44:07] also in peak development and inquir new
inquiries are coming in every day. So,
[1:44:12] as much as we want to work this in, I do
think that this probably would be a
[1:44:16] closer to fall where we'd have a lot
more time to to work on it.
[1:44:21] » Andy,
>> um, I think it would be very
[1:44:26] citizenfriendly to make sure the
whatever ordinance changes we do include
[1:44:30] that we do not have NDAs as part of
these negotiations. That is a very
[1:44:35] common practice for data centers. when
they approach a city, they sign NDAs and
[1:44:39] then the city cannot disclose to their
citizens what they're allowing in the
[1:44:43] city. So, I think if you want to see the
room 10 times fuller than this, you
[1:44:47] include NDAs um or you don't require you
allow NDAs. Um I am not
[1:44:54] » prohibit NDAs.
>> Yes, we want to prohibit if if the city
[1:44:58] allows them to require NDAs for
negotiations, you're going to have a
[1:45:03] very upset citizenry. Um
>> Sure. I will say that's generally not
[1:45:07] something you'd put in your zoning code,
but that is something that I think that
[1:45:11] I can take and bring to the the council
in regards to policy, city policy.
[1:45:16] » Um because I think why I do think it's
important to do some type of moratorium
[1:45:21] to get our ducks in a row is what if we
were talking about a data center on the
[1:45:28] Clear Lake land? I mean, that's not a
very good use next to a bunch of
[1:45:32] residential and wildlife. So, I think
it's important for us to make sure we
[1:45:36] get this right. Hitting pause. Um, and I
think I I think you are not prepared for
[1:45:42] the amount of people who do not want
data centers near them. So, I don't
[1:45:46] think embracing them with open arms is
quite the right approach.
[1:45:53] » Susan,
>> as I remember our 2030 comp plan, um, we
[1:46:00] all
we need to think about another we need
[1:46:04] to be thinking about um the water that
we're supplying to our residents. And um
[1:46:10] I I I was really sobered when I was up
at the neighborhood meeting and realized
[1:46:15] how much along County Road 50
north of north of 50 and toward the the
[1:46:24] Harrow area, the sheer number of
dwelling units that are going in there
[1:46:29] that we have, you know, platted and and
and together. And um I I just want to
[1:46:36] make sure that considering what the
requirements or what we would ask of the
[1:46:40] data center would be. Um that we we we
make sure that that the water and energy
[1:46:49] requirements balanced against the water
and energy requirements of our residents
[1:46:54] um
are are a big piece of the evaluation.
[1:47:01] I will say that at the moment it it
without a moratorum I don't know that
[1:47:06] staff is going to just take this on it.
We recognize that we need to um but we
[1:47:12] also have to be able to work on it peace
mill and so I I will write that down if
[1:47:16] we do end up if that is something the
city chooses to do
[1:47:20] » and I'm sorry to interrupt but did I
would consider those as reasons for a
[1:47:25] moratorum because we need to really
understand
[1:47:29] what our development. I consider a
development boom right now. Yeah.
[1:47:33] » Um where we are with water and sewer and
and electrical needs.
[1:47:39] » Yeah. That's a really good point because
um we are you know in some areas of the
[1:47:44] city I would say that until there's
additional electrical capacity uh
[1:47:49] electrical generation created that there
is some that there are areas where there
[1:47:53] is lower amount of uh electrical
availability and water especially as we
[1:47:58] move into the southwest corner of the
city
[1:48:02] » and the northeast doesn't have water.
>> Yeah. Well, it never did so was never
[1:48:06] planned for it.
I I'll make a note of that and we'll
[1:48:11] take a look at that.
>> Yeah, it's been noted.
[1:48:14] » One of one of the other issues I've as
these have been going across the country
[1:48:19] is if your city is not prepared, you
have to allow them in and then if
[1:48:25] they're underpowered, the residents get
their bills increased to make up that
[1:48:30] difference. So there's there's a lot of
moving parts to make sure that we're
[1:48:34] ready so that our residents aren't
negatively impacted financially to help
[1:48:39] this business make money
>> and I really appreciate that staff wants
[1:48:44] to be proactive on this. Thank you very
much.
[1:48:48] » Other comments?
Should we take a straw poll of how many
[1:48:52] are in favor?
>> Yeah, for a moratorum
[1:48:58] I
[1:49:01] I think we uh we're in favor.
>> Is that all we need tonight?
[1:49:04] » Uh well, and I put it on as discussion,
but I would like it if you made a motion
[1:49:08] for a recommendation to the city
council.
[1:49:11] » I will make a motion that we do up to
one-year moratorum for the city to
[1:49:16] analyze and develop a data center plan.
>> I have a motion. Do I have a second?
[1:49:23] » Second.
>> Have a motion and a second. Any
[1:49:25] discussion on the motion?
Any discussion hearing? None. All those
[1:49:30] in favor signify by saying I. I.
>> I.
[1:49:33] » Opposed. Abstensions.
Motion carries unanimously.
[1:49:39] » Anything else you need, Abby?
>> Not at this time. I'll we'll keep you
[1:49:42] posted on that and what kind of our
timeline on that plan will be.
[1:49:45] » All right. Thank you. We'll move to
number nine, our updates. We'll start
[1:49:48] with our honorable council person
Larson.
[1:49:55] » Evening chairman, commissioners. Um,
it's been a little while since we've
[1:49:59] met. I hope everybody had a nice
holiday. Um,
[1:50:04] uh, not pertaining to the commission,
but I'd just like to say that, uh, I was
[1:50:08] at the inaugural of the farmers market
out here in the lot, and it was
[1:50:12] fabulous.
>> Great response. Uh, lots of people, a
[1:50:17] lot of vendors,
>> uh, they want to bring in, but they
[1:50:20] don't want to have nine people that are
selling bread.
[1:50:23] » So, they're kind of moving it around a
little bit.
[1:50:27] When is that?
>> Pardon, sir.
[1:50:28] » When is that?
>> Saturdays from 8 until noon and July
[1:50:34] 11th. This coming Saturday, the corn
will be coming to this farmers market.
[1:50:40] » There you go. You got it straight. Uh
the other thing is Arts in the Park.
[1:50:44] There's been phenomenal participation.
Um the weather's been cooperative to a
[1:50:51] point. It's been hot and stuff like
that. Uh but we've had a lot of uh a lot
[1:50:56] of people out there. I was fortunate
enough to be out there the first Tuesday
[1:51:03] uh at our booth and stuff and everybody
was having a great time and uh yeah, I
[1:51:09] think it was well well enjoyed by
everybody. So, if you do get a chance or
[1:51:13] have not, please maybe take a Tuesday
night, come out with your lawn chair,
[1:51:18] listen to some music or whatever and
take in some of our our fine vendors and
[1:51:22] community members there.
As far as other city business goes, I
[1:51:27] don't really have anything right now.
Um, due to the long holiday and things
[1:51:32] like that, we haven't really had a
council meeting. So, as you all know,
[1:51:35] we're meeting Monday and we have a a lot
on our plate for that. So, um, if you
[1:51:42] have any questions of me or anything I
can help you with, I will do my very
[1:51:45] best.
>> How is budget development going?
[1:51:48] » It's a work in progress. Okay.
[laughter]
[1:51:52] » You're getting good at this.
>> I'm I'm doing my best. There is There's
[1:51:55] been a lot of things and that have kind
of
[1:51:59] been produced and stuff like that. Um
we're
[1:52:05] we're cautious
with what we're doing because there is a
[1:52:10] lot of things. So I think as far as
staff goes, uh the council goes working
[1:52:16] with the city engineer and stuff to try
to making smooth progression with
[1:52:21] things. We want progression.
the recession part of it. Um but we want
[1:52:28] to make sure as say we want to do it
right.
[1:52:32] So um but lots of things going on
>> with the
[1:52:38] expected increase in bowling units.
There will be an increased demand on
[1:52:43] city services.
>> Yes, there will be. And as you know,
[1:52:47] you've seen we had some retirements in
our police department. But again, uh not
[1:52:53] too long ago, we in addition to our fire
department. So now we have an assistant
[1:52:57] chief. So um I think Mr. Newman is
gearing that gentleman up for all his
[1:53:03] his uh
procedures and things like that to uh
[1:53:08] maybe eventually retire at some point.
He's a very busy man as well. So
[1:53:13] » say himself.
>> So as far as city staff goes, I think uh
[1:53:18] we've been doing well. Um haven't really
we haven't hired anybody. bank or
[1:53:24] whatever. Maybe Abby can help me out
with that side of the fence there a
[1:53:28] little bit. Um, are we still we're still
behind a little bit on a few staff
[1:53:32] members?
>> Yeah, I mean I think the city has filled
[1:53:38] all positions that councils prior to all
prior to the 26 budget. So positions
[1:53:46] approved in like 24 and 25. I think that
they are all filled. On the
[1:53:50] administration side, I can't speak for
PD and fire. I just they're kind of they
[1:53:56] do their own thing. Um, we do have at
least uh one vacancy in building
[1:54:02] inspections, but that's been a
long-standing vacancy. So, we are
[1:54:05] actually doing interviews later this
week. Um, there were staffing requests
[1:54:09] made to the city council, but the city
council hasn't made any determination of
[1:54:13] whether or not they want to include
those requests in the 2027 budget. So
[1:54:20] Jolene is the official city
administrator now.
[1:54:23] » Acting city administrator
>> interim. So
[1:54:26] » acting interim city administrator.
>> Is that a vacancy or not a vacancy?
[1:54:30] » It's not a it's not a position that the
city is actively um seeking to fill at
[1:54:36] the moment, but I do believe the intent
is to after the election.
[1:54:39] » Correct.
>> Thank you.
[1:54:42] » Any other questions for Mr. Larson?
Thank you for participating this
[1:54:49] evening.
>> For the July 4th, public works, police,
[1:54:53] fire, all stepped up big time and it's
appreciated.
[1:54:57] » Yeah. Thank you again all for your
participation.
[1:55:02] We all appreciate you. So, thank you
again.
[1:55:06] » You Steve, anything for us?
>> Oh, man. Do I ever. Uh I hope you
[1:55:11] enjoyed tonight. Uh we're kind of uh I
think the next uh planning commission I
[1:55:15] was just going through our u our
schedule the next planning commission uh
[1:55:20] should be uh you know maybe a little
breather for you. Uh maybe not. We have
[1:55:25] another concept plan. We have a
neighborhood meeting tonight. It's for
[1:55:28] uh Birwood Estates U KJ Walk. Next week
they go to parks in two weeks. They'll
[1:55:33] be here with another concept plan for a
development just south of Amberly Woods
[1:55:37] that just got approved. Um so um as
Commissioner Young was pointing out,
[1:55:42] this is one of the the giant development
areas that the city is seeing and a boom
[1:55:46] is is very much an understatement for
the historical growth that this city is
[1:55:52] uh is under in the amount of
developments looking to to expand here.
[1:55:57] Um so our work is cut out for us and I
had Abby here tonight to make sure that
[1:56:01] she heard uh the chair Gerard bring up
the code updates. Um a big part of the
[1:56:06] reason why uh those have been delayed is
because of the gang busters of
[1:56:10] developments that we have coming in. Uh
so uh uh good good times across the
[1:56:15] board.
>> Just so you know, Steve, that your
[1:56:17] problem not
I said could you come here and cover me?
[1:56:22] Could you cover me with uh Chair Gerard?
We will be uh getting into that. I think
[1:56:26] it will be pushed to probably when we
get out of this um really fast-paced
[1:56:31] development season. And speaking of that
development season, again, Birchwood
[1:56:34] Estates will be here the 22nd um at the
next meeting. But also, I wanted to give
[1:56:39] you a heads up that Hidden Creek South,
if you remember, we had a public hearing
[1:56:43] and it was immediately tabled in
February. Um then, uh there's
[1:56:47] discussions that the developer uh was
having with the council regarding some
[1:56:52] um improvements to Headarters Parkway.
Um those those conversations have been
[1:56:57] ironed out, decisions have been made.
Now, the developer is wanting to uh
[1:57:01] continue. Um so, we're working with uh
him to uh get an updated kind of set
[1:57:08] that reflects the the decisions that
have been made by the council. So, we're
[1:57:13] looking at probably August 13th or the
um August 8th. Um I'm looking trying to
[1:57:18] look at my schedule. Um August 12th uh
meeting that would potentially be uh
[1:57:24] that coming back as well as a number of
public hearings for some variances that
[1:57:27] are on the docket. So, uh, you may get a
little bit of a reprieve on the the at
[1:57:32] the next planning commission, but come
August 12th, it's going to be
[1:57:36] a real real it's going to be a big
meeting. Um, it as it's planned. Now, I
[1:57:41] also wanted to say it was brought up uh
arts in the park um and how great it is.
[1:57:45] It's not great yet because our we're
we'll be out there and I mentioned this
[1:57:49] last time. We'll be out there the 21st
of this month, August 4th and August
[1:57:53] 18th. And um the community development
department will be out there to kind of
[1:57:57] discuss some of the plan, what's being
proposed uh potentially for improvements
[1:58:02] to the the park down there, especially
with the specific question of our our
[1:58:07] the visitors and residents of the area
of the boat launch that's there. Um
[1:58:13] there are some discussions of uh
potentially expanding the green space,
[1:58:18] including an amphitheater there. So, we
are bringing that option as a
[1:58:22] interactive kind of exhibit uh for uh
the visitors of Arts in the Park. So, if
[1:58:27] you see us out there, uh, make sure you
stop by and you put a sticker on the
[1:58:31] poster that you like the most. One that
either has the boat boat launch or one
[1:58:36] that has a new amphitheater with a kayak
launch, non-motorized launch is what's
[1:58:40] uh kind of being suggested with some of
our planning. So, we'll be out there
[1:58:43] again the 21st, the 4th, and the 18th.
So, come by, say hi, and get a lollipop.
[1:58:50] » Question for Steve.
[snorts]
[1:58:53] » Didn't he do a fabulous job tonight on
presentation?
[1:58:57] on
>> fabulous job.
[1:58:59] » I think it's it's more impressive the I
say this
[1:59:04] again I'm not used to such decorum with
something that's so uh with a lot of
[1:59:09] passions uh and I'm constantly impressed
by the city and their ability to uh be
[1:59:14] able to communicate without yelling not
quite the situation in the state that I
[1:59:18] just moved from. So I really appreciate
that about here.
[1:59:21] » So do I.
>> Yeah, [laughter] absolutely.
[1:59:25] Abby.
>> Um, so I know we all talk about this
[1:59:28] boom that we're going through. Just for
reference, I think it's 10 different
[1:59:33] land development plats that are being
processed through the city in some
[1:59:37] fashion or another right now. And that
doesn't even include um we have about
[1:59:41] half dozen eight just site plan reviews.
So commercial redevelopment, reuse of
[1:59:45] existing sites. Um, and that's just
going through those planning stages, not
[1:59:51] what has actually been already approved
by you, but are meeting the conditions
[1:59:54] of approval, and we're working through
legal agreements. So, we are right now,
[1:59:58] I would say, at the best I can kind of
tell in terms of planning of at least
[2:00:03] where the city was kind of just post
recession, we maybe haven't seen
[2:00:06] construction that we're going to gear up
for now since at least 2012 or even
[2:00:12] pre-recession. So, um, just for
reference, there's a lot going on. Part
[2:00:18] of the reason Stephen hasn't gotten to
the zoning code, and I haven't gotten
[2:00:21] after him. So, I do do want to defend
him of that. He did mention that long
[2:00:26] range planning kind of project, the
downtown plan called for a long lakeside
[2:00:32] park shoreline study that would look to
stabilize the shoreline. As part of that
[2:00:38] conversation was whether or not the boat
launch should be moved. Um several years
[2:00:43] ago the council said, "Yeah, that boat
launch should be moved." New parks
[2:00:47] commission said, "You know what? We we
really would like to vet this out with
[2:00:50] the public." So that is the big intent
to really kind of see should this launch
[2:00:54] be moved. Should we put an amphitheater
or amphitheater? Is that what we calling
[2:00:58] it? Not amphitheater.
>> I think it's amphitheater.
[2:01:01] » But it's not isn't
>> stand.
[2:01:05] Who knows what it's going to look like
quite yet? But a larger performance
[2:01:08] stage. But the biggest reason that the
city is trying to do this is because our
[2:01:11] shoreline needs to be stabilized and we
need to finalize the plan for what that
[2:01:16] shoreline is going to look like. And so
um do encourage you to go out there or
[2:01:20] tell your friends. There are some online
surveys out right now. If you're a
[2:01:24] launch user, there's a special survey
and then there's another one of just
[2:01:27] users. So um other long range planning
things, the city started to work with
[2:01:32] Washington County on a county road 50
corridor study. So this is the corner of
[2:01:39] county um highway 61 where kind of the
airport meets and crosses over um into
[2:01:46] Susan's world [laughter] or in you but
where a lot of our development is
[2:01:51] happening. So that corridor study is
going to look all the way from county
[2:01:54] road 60 or state highway 61 all the way
to Manning Avenue. So city staff right
[2:02:00] now is working with a project management
team in the county on what that corridor
[2:02:05] is going to look like and Um, so you
might see some public engagement
[2:02:08] opportunities coming out probably closer
to fall on that one. Um, additionally,
[2:02:15] city's been working with the cities of
Hugo, Columbus, Lino Lakes, and the EDAs
[2:02:21] of both Washington and Anoka County on a
corridor study of Elmrest Avenue. That's
[2:02:26] our western boundary gravel road right
now. But we've got a little bit of
[2:02:30] asphelt at the top and a little bit of
asphalt in line of lakes and it and
[2:02:34] developments moving towards it. And so
really trying to look at what that
[2:02:38] corridor looks like in the long run. Um
lots of just in general long range
[2:02:43] planning going because we want to stay
in front of some of that development
[2:02:48] stuff. Next week the parks commission I
believe will look at an updated will
[2:02:52] consider recommendation of approval on
an updated parks plan master parks
[2:02:57] trails open space plan. So, that's out
there for folks to take a look at. Got
[2:03:02] some crinkles over there. Susan, any
questions?
[2:03:04] » I I need to take a look.
>> Um, and then, uh, I know, uh, that there
[2:03:10] was conversation here about the desire
for a joint workshop with the city
[2:03:15] council. staff has been in discussions
with uh interim administrator Jolene um
[2:03:21] with with Stephen um taking a look at
also just our timeline for um
[2:03:28] comprehensive plan update. I think we'll
be aiming for that workshop in the fall
[2:03:33] to be addressing some precursors to
engagement of uh for comprehensive plan.
[2:03:38] Also talking about some of the
opportunities that the city has in terms
[2:03:43] of how we can better partner with the
Met Council. Um so if there's other
[2:03:49] things you think about along the way
that you want to have conversations
[2:03:53] about uh feel free to reach out to
Stephen and I. are happy to see what we
[2:03:57] can try to maximize that to make sure
that we're working in coordination
[2:04:01] planning commission and city council.
I know that was a lot probably not a lot
[2:04:06] you get but you don't see me as much
anymore. I want to fill you with a lot
[2:04:09] of things that are happening and why you
don't see me as much anymore.
[2:04:12] » We do thank you for gracing us with your
presence this evening.
[2:04:15] » I appreciate it.
>> Other questions for
[2:04:19] » It's hard to not It's hard to keep my
mouth shut. I'm not I try really hard to
[2:04:22] just let you guys keep doing what you're
doing. So, you're all doing great and I
[2:04:25] appreciate you.
>> One quick question. You said we haven't
[2:04:28] seen building numbers like this since
2012. How many roofs are we talking
[2:04:32] about? How many individual homes?
>> Well, right now the actual permitting is
[2:04:35] still pretty low. Um the number of homes
that are getting, you know, potentially
[2:04:39] platted. I would say in the next um 3 to
5 years, we're going to see probably
[2:04:44] numbers close to 150 homes per year. So,
it might be another 500 homes in the
[2:04:50] next three years is really feasible. Um,
>> that's less than what we've already
[2:04:56] platted, we've already approved.
>> So, you think it's going to take like
[2:05:03] probably 10 years to build out what
we've already
[2:05:06] » I don't think it'll uh what I don't we
haven't we haven't platted 500 homes.
[2:05:11] » You're talking about actually completing
the houses?
[2:05:13] » Yeah, I'm talking about completing the
homes. Probably 150 per year over the
[2:05:18] next three years. So, that 500 um the
plat. So, um We may have planned planned
[2:05:25] unit development uh for more than 500
when you look at Hidden Creek and you
[2:05:31] look at Chestnut Creek, but what I'm
talking about is the actual then phasing
[2:05:35] of the final plat. So a good example is
Hidden Creek fourth has come in, it's
[2:05:39] only 18 homes. Um Chestnut Creek,
Havenwood,
[2:05:46] Havenwood, Havenwood, even though it's
120
[2:05:50] » 160.
>> Thank you. um their first phase is only
[2:05:53] coming in with
>> 61.
[2:05:55] » So, you know, that's where and then
those 61, you know, between the 18 at
[2:06:00] Hidden Creek and 61 at Havenwood
of those going to be built in 27
[2:06:06] probably might not be all. I don't know
that for sure, but I'm trying to stay
[2:06:12] still mildly conservatively because I
think anything more than about 150, the
[2:06:18] system, the city's systems are going to
be taxed. And not just our emergency
[2:06:23] response, but I talk about our building
permitting abilities, our inspections,
[2:06:28] uh, engineering, you know, all of those
things.
[2:06:30] » I assume we we haven't talked about we
don't talk about schools in this
[2:06:34] commission. We haven't ever, but I
assume that's a concern when you're
[2:06:38] putting in that many new roofs.
>> We got plenty of room in the schools.
[2:06:42] » Oh, do we? I don't honestly know that.
So, that's good to hear.
[2:06:45] » We closed one building, we tore down
another one.
[2:06:47] » Okay. Well, that's news to me.
>> I mean, we haven't had any conversations
[2:06:50] with the district lately, but I do think
that there is room within the system as
[2:06:54] it sits right now. As a reminder though,
our household size is going down and the
[2:07:01] average age isn't getting younger. And
so that it does reflect that even though
[2:07:06] we are adding rooftops, we might not
always be adding school age children.
[2:07:12] All great questions though.
>> Anything else for Abby?
[2:07:17] » Okay, Jesse?
>> Nothing.
[2:07:20] » Yeah, the wall there. What's going on?
>> No, I just I just noticed it when I
[2:07:24] walked in tonight.
>> It's on somebody's to-do list here.
[2:07:27] » We'll make sure to we'll take a look at
it.
[2:07:29] » Maybe snazz it up for the council
meeting. We're down here.
[2:07:34] » I get a push.
>> You get a push pin up there or
[2:07:37] something.
>> Push pin.
[2:07:39] » I think there may have been discussion
about actually resurfacing them. You can
[2:07:44] see some areas where they're the panels
look like they're either have a relief
[2:07:49] or a little
>> supposed to be even is my understanding.
[2:07:53] » I can get you an update on that at your
next meeting.
[2:07:56] » Can you make a note of that?
>> Drives me nuts, but I don't think
[2:08:00] they're meant to be even.
And I'm
[2:08:06] » Well, no, but like the one in between
the two with the vents up there, there's
[2:08:09] a there's a wave where you can
definitely see it's been peeling apart
[2:08:13] some. So,
>> all right. Now that we can treat the
[2:08:16] walls, uh Andy, anything?
>> Nothing. Thank you,
[2:08:20] » Tim.
>> I'm good.
[2:08:22] » Nothing.
>> Susan,
[2:08:23] » the farmers market has been so much fun
and we've got some really great vendors.
[2:08:28] There's a mix of um veggie folks and
honey and syrup. And um we're trying to
[2:08:34] bring in some some meat vendors. Um uh
baked goods, both gluten-free and and
[2:08:41] and real. Um there's there's a lady
there that's got some um
[2:08:47] » kombucha.
[2:08:50] It's pretty cool. And it's right here.
And the beauty of it is
[2:08:55] you're close. You're not to carry 12
pounds of veggies for 12 blocks
[2:09:01] » and it is growing each week.
>> Staff is strategically trying to add
[2:09:05] vendors that are not not to excessively
compete with one another, but continues
[2:09:11] to add new vendors each week. So,
>> Saturday 8 to noon.
[2:09:15] » Saturday 8 to noon.
>> Are you guys getting commission on this
[2:09:17] or something? [laughter]
[2:09:21] » The staffing of it, the the Lions
provided the funding and the Rotary is
[2:09:26] providing the
[2:09:29] It's just it's brand new. I think we've
only been doing it two weeks. So, trying
[2:09:32] to get some marketing in three weeks
marketing out.
[2:09:36] » I only have one comment. Um I was at the
last planning.
[2:09:40] » You were?
>> I was going to make that comment.
[2:09:42] » Um but that was on June 10th and a meet
a agenda tonight said it was on the 24th
[2:09:50] of June and we cancelled that meeting,
but it didn't occur to me that. So, I
[2:09:55] was here. So, I apologize for not
knowing I was at the last meeting.
[2:09:59] » Is there somebody you want me to beat
for that?
[2:10:01] » No, we're good. Interesting's happened.
>> With that, the chair is looking for a
[2:10:06] motion to adjourn.
>> So moved.
[2:10:08] » I got a motion. I got a second.
>> Second.
[2:10:11] » Got a motion, a second. Non-debatable
motion. All those in favor signify by
[2:10:14] saying I. I.
>> Opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries.
[2:10:20] Thank you all. Enjoy the summer.
>> [music]