Evening at 6 o'clock. We'll call the meeting to order. Stephen, are you taking a role tonight? >> Abby. >> Abby. Whoever takes >> Commissioner Appalacowski here. Commissioner Hyman. Commissioner Stellar >> here. >> Commissioner Wagner >> here. >> Commissioner Young >> here. >> Commissioner Stinder. Chair Gerard >> here. We ask if you're able please stand and join us for the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. to the stands nationy for all. >> Chair is looking for a motion to approve the agenda as presented or with changes. >> So moved. >> I have a motion. I have a second. >> I'll second it. >> I have a motion and a second. It's a non-debatable motion. All those in favor signify by saying I >> I >> opposed abstensions. Motion carries. We have come to the part of the meeting which is an open form. We invite anyone who wishes to speak uh on any issue to please step up. State your name and address for the record. Spend a couple minutes giving your thought. I will tell you if you're here for uh the Amberly Woods project, there will be a public hearing specifically for that project a little later in the meeting. So, I would appreciate if you'd hold your comments for that development until uh that public hearing. But if you'd like to discuss any other issue, we're more than happy to hear from you. So, with that, does anyone wish to speak this evening? Thank you. We'll move on to item six, the consent agenda. There are no items. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> So, we just move to item seven. I'm a little confused there. What I have to do when there's no items in a consent agenda. >> Pardon me. Oh, I said we are too. Yeah, we got you. There's nothing. >> There is there are no consent items this evening. >> So, we just skipped six. >> Just skip six. >> Perfect. >> Moving right along. >> We have our first regular agenda item is a public hearing for Amberly Woods 21.032.21.23.00002 TCL Land Holdings LLC. We will discuss both a preliminary plat and a PUD preliminary plan. The way this will work this evening is that the city staff will present the application as they understand it. When they finished the commissioners will ask any clarification questions that need. We will then ask if the um applicant would like to add any comments and we may possibly have questions for the applicant. After we've done that, then we will have the public hearing. I'll give further instructions at that time. At the end of the public hearing, it'll come back here for um a decision by the planning commission. So, with that, I believe Nathan, you are presenting. >> Yep. Uh good evening, Chair Gerard and members of the commission. So, before I get started on the uh presentation here, I just kind of reintroduce myself. I'm Nathan First, a planner with Bold Bank. I work with Stephen and and Abby periodically on development review. So, now you know who I am or maybe you remember now who I am. So anyways, I'll jump right into uh the Amberly Woods project review. So again, as the chair mentioned, this is a preliminary plat and PUB request. Uh the the developer is Twin Cities Land Development. TLDD Land Holdings is the is the applicant here. Um so the the parcel is on the screen circled in in yellow. Um you'll probably recognize this property from various concepts the commission's reviewed in the past. Uh what's proposed here with the preliminary plat MPUD are 56 single family homes. The property is just under 39 acres in area and the net density of this proposed project is uh 3.3 units per acre. And so we'll talk about how some of that breaks down. So on the screen you can see uh cutting right to the chase here is the plan that was proposed for this project. Um, generally speaking, you'll see um, street connections made from uh, or connecting Granada Avenue. And in addition, uh, those connections are also made to a connection on Good View Avenue. So those are the streets with the 56 residential units on the west side of the property. On the east side of the property, u there are quite a bit of wetlands. And so we'll talk about um, what is proposed with that area, the open space area. So uh we typically want want to start with the land use analysis. So looking at the city's um comprehensive plan and zoning standards for this particular land use the site is uh zoned MXR1 that's consistent with the comprehensive plans guidance for the property low to medium residential. The uh the lowest uh development density that can occur in this area is three units per acre. So, we have a 39 acre site and on that site we have uh over 15 acres of wetlands. When I was looking at the plans, I counted at least 10 wetlands uh that are on this property that will be preserved through um the the land dedication proposed on this project and uh um there are a couple of wetlands on the Good Vu Avenue corridor as well. So, a fair number of wetlands and the associated buffers that protect them. And there is an upland area on the east side of the property. We'll talk about that. That's proposed as part of the open space dedication for the project. So, that leaves us with a net developable area of about 17 acres and 3.3 units per acre. So, as I mentioned, there are this is a site that's really uh covered by wetlands. Um, so you can see the roughly 15 acres of wetlands and the buffer that's around them. Um, the upland area that I was referring to on the east side is in that kind of darker hatched area. So, we'll talk about parkland education of course later in this presentation. Uh you can see that the development is largely concentrated on the uh the west side of this site really to help you know preserve the wetlands the areas that protect them um and cluster the development towards the good view avenue corridor. So looking at the what I call bulk standards these are the lot area lot width and setbacks. Uh there are two different types of lots proposed in this project. There are lots that have a 50 foot wide that are 50 feet 55 feet wide and there are 25 of those lots proposed and there are uh 31 65 foot wide lots. So uh on the table you can see in blue those are the areas where uh those 55 foot wide lots would not uh would be requested to have flexibility I should say from the city's ordinance through the planned unit development. So the minimum lot area required here is 7,500 ft uh for those 55 foot wide lots. The lot areas proposed to be 6,875 square ft and up from there. Uh and then again with the uh minimum standards in the MXR1, the minimum width is 65. Uh but through the PUD, the developer is requesting that 55 foot wide flexibility for 25 of those lots. So uh there are no other setbacks or other flexibilities requested for this project. So the flexibilities have been minimized by the developer to those two areas. just uh providing a kind of a brief overview of what's proposed here in terms of the public uh improvements, the streets, the trails and the utilities. Uh as I noted, there are public street connections required here uh connecting Granada Avenue uh through the project and uh in addition creating that connection to Good View. There is a sidewalk proposed on one side of all streets except for the culde-sac for the city's policy. Um, street A is uh is the street that connects to Good View. The city engineers comments do include a requirement to move the sidewalk from the north side of street A to the south side. That's really to help uh provide future connectivity for pedestrians in the area. There's a park uh if if you cross the street across Good View Avenue, there is a park on the south side of that street. So that that's why that comment was provided. There is also a trail that's proposed on the south side of this project coming off of Granada Avenue North. Uh that trail is currently shown to kind of um just dead end into the open space area and that's intentional. That's because the future of that trail corridor has not yet been figured out. The alignment has not yet been fully uh detailed. uh city water and sewer connections will be made through the street corridors, public rightway serving the single family home units. On this slide, I did show in a red box an area where there will be a um utility corridor planned that will connect utilities that currently terminate on the south side of the development north of this site. That would need to be connected through this site should development ever occur uh in in the surrounding area. So um in the conditions for approval, there is a requirement that the developer provide appropriate easements for that utility and potentially potentially roadway corridor. So here's an aerial of the property. I just want to talk pretty quickly about tree removal and landscaping. So, as you'll notice, uh the trees on this property, the woodlands are primarily concentrated on the east side of the site, and those trees will be largely preserved through this project and the land dedication that's proposed. So, we did get a removals plan from the developer that shows um some tree removals that will occur on this property. You know, obviously try to minimize the tree removal by concentrating the development on the west side of the site. The landscaping plan shows uh trees that will be planted when the development is is constructed. There are four trees provided per lot which would meet the city's landscaping minimums for residential projects. Um this landscaping plan may need some revisions as we move into the final plat um portion of the development just to make sure that there's no issues with utility conflicts or something like that. All right. So, I mentioned land dedication. Uh, the developer is proposing to dedicate the um east half of this site to the city as um open space and parkland dedication. So, the city's ordinance requires 3.27 acres of parkland dedication. Um, looking at the east side of this development, you know, the city's ordinance really allows or requires usable land to be provided. Usable land is really land that's not encumbered by either a wetland or a buffer that's supposed to protect the wetland. So, that land has to be usable by the city. Uh, there are 6.21 acres of of um called it upland areas that are proposed by the developer. So, that would more than satisfy the city's parkland dedication requirements. Um staff have had some pretty high level conversations about this area and there are some unique opportunities with the type of park that could be potentially implemented here. Moving into the review of the planned unit development. Of course we talked about um some of the flexibilities that have been requested and the benefit of the city to the city through this project. So staff have provided PUD criteria. I'm not going to read them all, but they're in the report, and we can talk about them if you have any questions. Uh staff are also recommending certain conditions of approval should the city approve the project. So, there are five here with some I call them sub conditions. Uh generally, these are fairly standard conditions for approval. uh things like making corrections to the final plans, making sure that we get the necessary easements that I've discussed, um making sure that the development improvements are at the developer's expense, making sure wetland buffers are protected, and um if mass grading does occur before the final plan, making sure there's an agreement in place. So, uh staff are very comfortable recommending an approval, um to the planning commission and city council. Uh but I do need to mention that we do have a public hearing as you know for this item. So um I know that the city has received one written comment um regarding the project. I believe you all have. Uh and I would also note that there was a neighborhood meeting held on September 24th uh here at city hall that the developer attended and provided just some time for answering questions from nearby residents. So I know that some folks were able to make it out to that. So that's all I have formally prepared for you. Of course, there's the staff report as well, but I'm happy to take your questions. >> Before we I go into questions, are you looking for one motion or two tonight? >> One for the PUD and one for the >> um It depends on, I suppose, what is preferred by the planning commission or development director. Yeah, I think uh you certainly can make it in one motion, but it hasn't been uncustomary for this planning commission to choose to make it in two separate ones, especially if um you want to approve a portion but deny a different portion of it. >> Thank you. Questions for staff? Susan, >> what is the impervious surface calculations generally on these lots? As as I look at at at the maps and and I played with some of the with some of the numbers, um, this is an area that it's swampy. It doesn't have a whole lot of of drainage to it. Um, I'm I'm really concerned with with runoff and impervious and I I need to trust um y'all that you've done and that Forest Lake Comfort Lake has done the calculations, but it as with a couple of our our other developments recently, um there is not a lot of infiltration area here. >> I'm happy to take a crack at the question here. So, the the developer has had has provided a storm water management and storm water report that the city's engineering department's review. There are two storm water ponds that are planned on the site. Those storm water ponds are planned and designed to take the storm water that's generated on this property so that it does not intensify any storm water issues in this area. Uh the developer has had an opportunity to review the MXR1 impervious surface and has not requested flexibility to impervious for these individual single family home lots. >> And this is a a staff question. um these backyards that are fronting onto the storm water ponds and the infiltration areas. Um, I I understand that a condition is going to of of approval is going to be that each yard be marked with um a lathe or whatever to to say this is the limit beyond which you can um put a deck or or a shed or whatever. Um those last about half a season. What is the city's plan for enforcing those limitations as as we've seen more and more of these shallow backyards and more interest in residents in saying, "Okay, I want a deck area. I want to be able to have some um some uh fire pit or some put a shed or something back there." How are what is the city's plan for enforcing these over time? I can start by saying, well, typically the city's going to require the installation of wetland buffer signage that hopefully lasts more than one season. You know, usually the materials that are provided are sturdy enough to do that, not removed. So, I guess that would be the first part of the answer to that question, but I'll uh see if Abby has anything else to add in terms of long-term. >> Um, so Nathan is correct. At least when it comes to wetlands and wetland buffers, they are required to be marked and yes, neighbors take them out. Sometimes wershed district also does have um regular compliance um inspections that occur. When it comes to storm water ponding, we don't necessarily have those same limitations as we do of non-disturbance like we do towards a wetland. Um but properties do are required to have um I was just looking it up. I believe it's a 30 foot minimum setback in that rear yard area. Um, so we will allow for sheds in those areas. That is something that does is allowed by our code, but our structures including decks and other opportunes would not be allowed in there through that standard building permitting process. Um then if there was some sort of other construction, it would be a complaint based like anywhere else in the city because we're not actively going through backyards to monitor um the development back there. Does that help address the question? >> Um I'm hoping that that as these homes are sold that folks are told you aren't going to have room for, you know, significant decks and and and things like that behind your homes. >> Um We'll let at least just let you know that one of the practices the city staff does have is when we are reviewing building permits. Um if we do see things like ledger boards on a building permit plan, we will require that they show how a deck could be built within that setback area, even if they're not proposing that deck at this time, just to help ensure that we're not building to that setback now with the presumption that an additional, you know, feature could be added later. We do have some checks and balances in place to help prevent those um what I think have kind of maybe been some historic sometimes communities had variances where people come and say I bought this house and I didn't know it has the ledger board and I should be able to build a deck but you're telling me it's built to the lot line or to the setback line. We try to make sure that that sort of stuff doesn't happen like it maybe did in the past. >> I didn't realize that. Thank you very much. Other questions of staff? Excuse me. Hearing none. Would the applicant I assume the applicant's here. Would you like to say a few words? I asked you state your name and address for the record, please. >> Yep. Tracy Rust with Twin Cities Land Development. Uh chair and commissioners, thank you very much. Um we um welcome the opportunity to come to Forest Lake. Nathan, thank you for the uh presentation. Not a lot to add. Um did want to though address the storm water. Um so if you look at that plan and there are those two ponds that one is actually very large and that's for a reason. So what we we have looked at the engineering um and honestly I am actually a civil engineer as well. So I can speak the language. I haven't designed in years but um that pond is bigger because we are taking we're actually digging out to raise the site. So that yes, there's a reason that there are a lot of wetlands on the site. It's because it is low, it's flat. Um so we're using those basins to actually raise it up so that we do have good drainage and um which then also in turn we do have that volume in those ponds as well. So um but other than that, yeah, if you have any questions for me, um it's pretty straightforward, I like to think. Um we're excited to be here at Forest Lake. So >> Susan, >> yeah, >> what's your target market? Uh we have for this one um first time and um and buy buyers as well. So that's why there's there's two different products. So the 55 um honestly can be anything from first-time buyers. Um it can be single um moving in for the first time. It can be families, new families with smaller kids. Um it can also be for um buyup buyers as well. So, second houses for the 65 foot lots. >> One of the things that I did notice in your in your materials that you provided to us ahead of time was that um you know, one one of your targets was families that are are moving into the school district for for good reason. Um, my concern is that by the time you have a couple of 16 year olds, well, five to 13 year olds, there just isn't much room for them to play and do basketball. And um, I'm a soccer fan, so that Yeah. Um, and and two, I am really concerned about the on street parking. Um especially since we have restrictions in the wintertime against any on street parking. >> Um any thoughts on that, please? >> Um I well I will say that I have a I have a 16-year-old so and I do get it. Um I guess to touch on kids and play areas and parks and things like that. Obviously this area has been um discussed uh at length I think and um will continue to be discussed. Um I did sit in on the um park meeting and then also the last uh the Chestnut Creek second edition. I was here for that meeting as well. Um we do have other we have other properties that are under contract right in this vicinity. So um we are interested in talking about how how all that park works you know from not just not just the east side of our development but further out further east and maybe south and maybe even a little north um on how all that comes together um as far as how that park works. So for us, the intent is that you know there's no park here. Um there's sidewalks, there's trails to get people to those locations. Um so that again I I know the city has a or is trying to come up with a plan as to what that looks like. Um but which is why we don't have any park here instead of doing the little pocket parks that the city then has to maintain. Um this is providing that connectivity to what will become more of a city larger park area. So, >> I am trying to learn from my previous mistakes and um since you were here at the Chestnut Creek um meeting telling folks that there will be a park in the future um and it doesn't happen is not something that I want to repeat here. >> Right. >> So, thank you very much. which is again that that dedicating that east side there um dedicating more and hoping that can also connect to other properties as well. Um as far as the parking I mean the streets are um they are to code. Uh so and we do all live in Minnesota and you're not the only ones that restrict parking in the winter time. So >> I think everybody you know knows that for the most part. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Another question for the applicant. >> I'll get one. Yeah. >> Yes. Uh what was your target market price for these houses? >> So these will start we do have the builder already um for this development and they're saying they'll probably start at the low 400s. >> And also as everybody knows in Forest Lake we love our toys. So >> there's really nowhere to put a shed or storage for let's say a boat, ATV, motorcycle, jet ski. >> So I was at the meeting that the Chestnut Creek second was at and I believe that they did they did approve um you know I think that's one of the reasons why that um not Chestnut Creek but I I can't remember the name >> the condominium. Uh yeah, you know, I think that's why those things are coming in too is because you can't, you know, there isn't always room, you know, on your property to have all that stuff. So, um >> you know, at what point do you you know, is it is a fourc car garage enough? Is a fivecar garage enough? I mean, I think everybody's different and >> Well, I know like in our neighborhood, the lots are wider and longer. I have a threecar attached garage. I have a threec car detached garage and they're all full. Plus the yard is full. But >> yeah. Right. Right. >> The more room you have, the more stuff you have. Right. >> For in force like we we do like our boats. So to find a spot to like there's only seven and a half ft next to your garage. So you can't really >> right >> tuck a boat in there. And you know it is it's it's based on this location too and trying to be that you know we're sandwiched in between two existing developments um and two different densities as well. So we're trying to um meet the density that's required for this and that also try to which is why we put the smaller lots to the north and the larger lots to the south. And um yeah if we went with larger lots we're just we're not going to hit the density on this one. I think it's the area. >> I I know we always have this density issue, but and I missed the January meeting which was the um concept, but I I will voice my displeasure and you're going to get the brunt of it on these 55 foot wide lots. I'm not a fan of them. >> Um we went from 15,000 square foot lots and 80 foot width to 7565. The expectation being we would not have to go under that. Here I got almost 50% of the development that's going to be 55 ft. So since you have other properties you're working on I would like you to keep that in mind that you got one guy who's not happy about the 55. >> I don't need an apology. I don't need a you know >> understood. >> You know I'm just I'm not a fan. You one of the reasons we went to the smaller lots is to eliminate PUDS also. We didn't want to do as many PUDs and as soon as we go to these smaller lots now we have to do a PUD. So it's just a comment that where I sit on the planning commission that I like conformance to the half the lot size we were requiring. >> So >> thank you for taking my comment. >> Well and I would express uh I am also not a fan of the small lots. >> Um especially with the requirements to put in four trees per lot. what little bit of green space you have is now going to have a tree that once it becomes mature often times has to be wedged around the house. Um so I think we need to have a bigger discussion as a city on whether or not we want to keep these density requirements but making exceptions to make the lots even smaller I think is is really something that we shouldn't continue to do. Any other comments for the developer? >> And I I I just want to remind us that that the density that the city has been saying we need to meet need to meet as is stated in the staff report is future land use densities. um not as if if what's in here is correct is not on the on the requirements today and and I understand the desire of staff to to work with developers who who are looking for the increased densities. Um it it it goes to you know your ability to to profitably develop but um >> losing me Susan >> been there never mind go >> chair can I just make a comment for the record um the property is guided for the low to medium density residential that needs to meet a minimum of three units per acre but can go up to six units per acre. The city adopted that that future land use plan and that future land use plan is for the future of when it is being developed when it's going from that agricultural use to this what is going to be its next lifetime probably forever. Um, we have some challenges as a community with density and achieving those density requirements and we are staff is working with our Met Council partner on how we might be able to re-evaluate the um calculation for density but right now we are very limited on the land area that can be exempted to help achieve that density. So I agree with you, Chair Gerard. We did just within the last few years reduce that minimum lot area to try to achieve those densities, but unfortunately it was not enough. If you took the developable land area and take out what we can pull out by Met Council standards and just did 65 foot lots, this development would not meet the comp plan requirements that we adopted of a minimum of three units per acre. And I only state that for the record as just a reminder that we do have the comp plan that we are is guiding the development that's before you that it isn't always necessarily the developer asking for concessions because they want more or want an increased profit. They are trying to achieve our demands in our comp plan. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. At some point on a future planning commission meeting, um I would like us to explore um if we were to change our comp plan so that we were allowing the larger lots that most of us have thought of considered um what the penalties would be and uh how enforcable the the Met Council's thoughts I certainly can prepare something for you, but they will stop providing us with sewer for our developments. That's um an action that they take in in the Met Council boundary. >> That's the big stick. >> That's the big stick. >> It's a very big stick. >> All right. Thank you. We may have questions later after the public hearing. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Or if someone needs clarification. Thank you for coming this evening. Excuse me. This is a public hearing. We ask if anyone wants to speak to this application, step up, state your name and address for the record, spend a couple minutes giving your thoughts on the proposal. Once we have heard from everyone interested in speaking, we will close the public hearing and then it will um we will bring it back from further discussion and a decision uh by the planning commission. And I have one name on the open for the sign in. And so I have Julie Severson. >> Hi, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Julie Severson. My address is 6511 207th Street North in Forest Lake. Um, and I am directly affected by this this development that's going in because it backs up to my backyard. Um, I wrote down a whole bunch of notes that I wanted to go over, but you guys have pretty much covered most of it already. Um the major major thing was the skinny itty bitty little lots, 55 foot lots. Um when I was here talking to the developer a couple weeks ago, um one of the things that came up was that the green space was not going to be developed. >> What I'm wondering is was that green space, the wetlands ever going to be developed or is it just going to is that going to be eyed up for future development? Um because what I'm was also told was that that green space with the wetland space was not going to be developed in exchange for the 55 foot lots. So if that's the case, what guarantees do we have in the community that that green space once it's dated over to Forest Lake that will never ever ever be developed? I mean, if that's a trade-off for these itty bitty little lots that you can't put a swing set on, you can't put a shed on, you can't put a deck on, you can't do anything. What guarantees do we have that we're going to be stuck with these lots, but the green space at some point then will be eyed up and then developed. Then we kind of traded our backyards for more development. Um, even the 65 foot lots still I I believe are are rather small. They made them 65 ft, but they also shortened them so they they're not really that much bigger than the 55t lots. Um, and the 7 and 1/2 ft between a house and the property line. I mean, you're talking 15 feet between one house and the next house. You're going to be able to look into the next person's window and see what they're having for breakfast. I mean, these are there's not a lot of room for moving around, running around, anything like that. Um, so that's my biggest concern is the size of these lots. Um, uh, the drainage I believe has already been addressed. I know somebody emailed about drainage. Um, and there's overflow um, ponds to address that. U, one of the other questions I had was about basement. And I was told that all of these houses were going to have basements. Well, it's kind of questionable wetlandy type property, you know, land. Are we really going to are they really going to have basements? Because then I turn around, I worry about property values. Me and all my neighbors have the larger lots. We have basements. We have, you know, a little bit of room. If they turn around and say, "Oh, no. We're going to put slap houses because of whatever reason." Um, then what's that going to do to my property value? Um, and I like the idea about the, you know, going back for the future land use densities. Um, I tell you what, we have all these apartment buildings going up all over the place. Isn't that taken into account for the land use densities? Because we got a lot of apartment buildings going in. I guess I would like to see larger lots in Amberly Woods rather than the smaller lots is is my big thing. I have a four-year-old granddaughter. She's going to be learning to ride a bike here. Um I don't want to have to worry about her trying to dodge cars with the construction equipment and everything else, which I know it's going to happen. This is the better outcome of developers coming in and giving plans as compared to past developers, which I'm sure everybody knows. So, I mean, everybody in the neighborhood is kind of resigned to the fact that this is going to happen. It's just a matter of we want to do it with the least amount of stress to the people that are currently living here and um you know, the least amount of just damage um everything that that's involved with with the development. >> And that's all I had. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to this application? >> Hi, my name is Rachel Goblish. I live at 20653 Granada Avenue North. I really just have a question. I'm sorry if I'm coming in uneducated. Can you show me or describe how Granada Avenue North will come into the Sterling Oaks neighborhood? >> Can we get the You have a little better. There we go. So if you look at the right side of the screen, that's street C. >> Yep. >> That will attach to Granada, which is currently there. >> Yep. >> And then >> and then we lost a picture. >> Sorry. >> I was trying to find a better aerial. >> That's okay. And then it comes through and it becomes street B. And then street B will connect to Granada to the south. It essentially takes a jog. >> Yeah. >> So, leaving Sterling Sterling Oaks, it would go west, >> correct? >> To connect. >> Okay. >> Sterling Oaks. >> Sterling Oaks is to the north. >> The Granada Avenue on the top. I'm sorry. Yeah. Granada Avenue. >> That's that street C there. You can see it on the right side of the screen. >> Yep. >> And then it curves. Then it drops down and becomes street B and street B joins up with Granada on the south end. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Anyone else wish to speak to this application? For the record, we did receive one email um from Marlene Weiss concerning uh drainage in the wetlands which we covered um and then some safety issues with children in the smaller lots. So um last call for anyone who wishes to speak to this application. Seeing no one come forward and having no more uh emails to read into the record, we'll close the public hearing at 6:40m. Commissioners, what's your pleasure? >> Chair Jer, may I address one inquiry that was made during the public comment portion about the preservation of the open space being deed to the city? >> Yes. >> Um the city would require that that is deed as Parkland. And when we deed something as parkland, it is bound to that use in perpetuity. Um, this would be owned by the city. The city is not looking to build the road extending through Greystone through here. The intent is to um have the land for a wooded parkland area. Yes, we don't have a plan. We understand that some neighborhoods are in areas that don't have park directly built right away. Um, but we see this as an opportunity for uh parkland dedication of a significant woodland stand of forest in Forest Lake um where we don't really have this type of recreational amenity. And so we have been in discussions with adjacent land owners and prospective developers and builders about the acquisition, future acquisition of additional dedicated parkland to create a larger uh woodland and active recreation system um to service quite a large uh part of the neighborhood or you know the several of the neighborhoods in this area. But back to the question that shown up on there, that e whole east half would be dedicated um for parkland purposes. The only caveat is we will need to extend a utility line through here >> and as we need to do that, we are reserving the right to extend Greystone should we ever need maybe a parkway through the park. Um but we don't anticipate building that. Um, but we are reserving that right for a roadway and utility easement through the park. >> Thank you, >> commissioners. Discussion, comments, motions. >> I I'll make a comment if I may. I mean, >> absolutely. >> I'm I'm as all of us, we're in agreement on lot size. This is something we struggle with and have. I've been on the commission I don't know how many years now and it's a constant struggle to meet this three units per acre. Um I actually uh in terms of the the development and the way they've done the streets um it's I think they've done a good job with it with what they have but um our our hands are tied in a lot of ways when it comes to that those lot sizes. Um, in terms of the streets, the the one nice thing about the way it's laid out, you know, you're not going to have, yes, cars are going to be going through there, but with the intersections and the turns and such, I would think the speeds and that sort of thing is not going to be as as much of an issue. Um, but all of us agree that it's it's a challenge making making that three three lots per acre or three uh three uh I'm sorry, three units Yeah. >> Other comments, concerns, questions? Hearing? None. The chair is looking for a motion. Abby, we have done some two motion and some single motion. Does staff have a preference? >> My preference if you're moving to approve both of them is just doing it with a single motion. >> One swell hoop >> in one fell swoop. >> Two birds, one stone. >> How many could we do tonight? Huh? >> Okay, Mr. Chair, I will make a motion that we recommend to the city council um the preliminary plat and the planned unit development subject to the conditions in the staff report um regarding the need to meet the requirements of the city engineer. um the requirements for the public right ofways. Um the applicant developer being responsible for installing all their required rightway improvements to ensure the long-term wetland and buffer compliance and clarity for future homeowners. Um and should the applicant desire to conduct the mass grading um that they enter into an agreement with the city and that they meet all requirements of the city engineer and the forest lake comfort lake watershed district. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> I have a motion in a second. Do I have any discussion? Chair, can I just ask a a clarifying question on the motion? >> Um, Commissioner Young, were you just stating summarizing for the record the conditions that are listed um in the staff report? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify. I I went through them and it looks like we caught them all, but there was, you know, there's subp parts and stuff there. And I just want to verify that it's with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. and and with the specific statement of meeting all conditions of the city engineer and the forest lake comfort lake wershed association. >> I have a motion second. Any other discussion? >> Yeah. Um the developers have done a very good job following the rules and the guidance presented to them. I think what this commission is saying that not specifically to this project but to all projects in the future, we need to as a city decide whether or not we're going to be governed by we're pretty much as far away from the metros you can get by still being in the seven county. Why should we be held to the same standards as urban metro areas? So I hope the council can hear that there's frustration from this board that we have to accept these small lots. And I want to remind the city that Forest Lake was one of the first communities to go in on the transportation tax. Um, and the Met Council abandoned us. We are with regard to the transit that the city established. um their bad faith on that should help to color our responses. Thank you. Other comments hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed abstensions. Motion carries unanimously. >> So what happens now is that we are making a recommendation to the city council. The city council will take this up >> Monday. >> Next Monday. >> Oh, >> which is I know someday >> October 27th. >> October. Thank you. >> Right here at 6 PM. >> Um they will not be taking public comment during the discussion of this. If you want to comment, you will need to comment at the open forum at the beginning of the meeting. So it'll be 7 o'clock here on Monday evening. or chair jer also um any comments written in in writing we can include in the packet for distribution or hard copy distributed before the meeting at the meeting thank you all for coming tonight good luck with your project moving on item eight it's discussion a headarters 123 land use >> hi chair Gerard members of the planning commission In 2026, the city approved a planned unit development for the Forest Lake final um the Headart PUD. As part of that, uh Headwaters 123, now commonly referred to as Headarters 123 was included in that planned unit development and guided the property for town home and uh single family. Included that original plan from the early 2000s for your reference. In early 2021, the city um after recommendation, and I don't know which way the planning commission recommended, but the city council approved a comprehensive plan amendment and a zoning map amendment to reszone and reguide the Headarters 123 property for business park use. At the time, it really was the desire to start marketing the property for office medical and industrial uses. Um then the last year um and I should note there was a specific desire to try to um secure a data center on the site. Um we've learned within the last year that site is not desirable um a desirable site for a variety of reasons for a data center. And in a um a meeting with the EDA and the city council earlier this year, the EDA and the council said, "Hey, you know, you're in negotiations for the data center right now, but if they end up walking, let's let's really revisit what we're doing here because the intent of changing the code was to create a job center, create, you know, some more tax base, and the city has been hanging on this property for a while with none of that." Um and at the time they reviewed some older concept plans, even some newer concept plans that the EDA had review or had drafted um 20 four maybe um that kind of looked at some data center sites or job center sites or designs. Um, at the meeting, the EDA and the council said, "Hey, if a data center isn't really in the cards, we should probably rethink our development pattern through here and really start to focus on building opportunities for new living wage jobs and an increased tax base, like one of the number one goals for the site. um consider maybe a portion of that headwaters site along the parkway for some maybe additional service retail. A small amount, but almost to kind of bookend or mirror the north side, kind of when you're heading in, you've got a little bit of a service retail center uh right at the end kind of intersectionish with Highway 61. And then potentially a smaller portion of the site for some residential. This was most specifically talked about in the southwest corner because there's been recent um inquiries about um a request was made to the city council to sell a portion of Headarters 123 for residential development in the southwest corner. All of this came to staff from the e uh EDA and the council when I mentioned to them if we wanted to sell this for residential tomorrow we could. But the council and the EDA said we really we really don't think it's in our best interest to go back to residential. So the EDA has determined that they'd like to move forward with finding a development partner and to try to start looking at um developing an overall concept plan, development plan for the site um likely through an RFP, a request for proposal process. The idea being, let's throw this out to the development community and see if see if somebody wants to partner with us and what kind of partnership they envision. Um, prior to moving forward though, the EDA said, "Hey staff, why don't you go back to the planning commission and talk about land uses just to make sure that before we start any processes, public processes, um, that if there needs to be any sort of zoning amendments or not that the planning commission, you know, is favorable to that." Great point. Right. So, the tonight before you is to um really talk about the existing business park use, whether or not you're you're liking that business park use still, which staff isn't recommending changing, nor was the EDA. Um, but more for commission discussion is kind of the land on the north side of Headwars Parkway zoned um the the land on the north side of the parkway right now is zoned neighborhood commercial. whether or not you'd want to see some of those neighborhood commercial services for the neighborhood along that parkway on the south side of the parkway and then whether or not you'd want to see on the west side of Fenway Avenue any sort of residential knowing that residential will be on the west side of Fenway Avenue. Um tonight this is just a discussion item. All we're here to do is to gain from you your thoughts on what do we are you in favor of the direction the ED and council have um guided us for and um if not you know what do you what do you think about kind of those future land uses? I understand that oh shoot uh give me just a second to get my screen. Um, >> well, that was our serenity moment. >> It's that serenity moment. I always think that'd be nice to be there, >> but I'm love that I'm here right now. >> Oh, smooth. >> Almost. >> Yeah, almost believable. I'm with Andy on that one. >> I actually, as I was speaking, I'm like, don't go there. Don't go there. You're going You're doing great. Um, no, I I am happy to be here to have this conversation. I think this is a really important conversation for the community. Um, so again, here is the final master PUB that was a part of the headarters kind of I think about that as headarters village, but then that residential component from early 2006. Here again is that residential component. Not going to point it out, but those are some little lots. Look at those 50 60 52 foot wide lots. Um anyways, uh 2017 a mixeduse concept where we did again have some larger potentially retail uses, some rowhouse units and then maybe some single family along the golf course and along some wetland areas. And then um in 20 I think it's 24 probably says it on here. Nope, doesn't. Um the EDA kind of went through this exercise of looking at these different concepts with a consultant to look at kind of a campus side uh design with a data center. Um the idea of a job center. The EDA really kind of focused on at the time um the it was this I must have just only included I think there was four but more of this job center design. But at the time, the EDA didn't want to show this to the public. They were like, "Yeah, we want to try to break this up." Probably not quite like that, and we didn't want to give anybody the image of that. Um, so what uh again that would be so what staff and the EDA or what the EDA and the council kind of directed staff to do is explore utilizing the vast majority of the the site for the jobs based um business park uses technology manufacturing officing officing. >> Yeah. >> Uhuh. Look at these two over here. They're like Yes. Yes. um that maybe some of those uses along the Parkway, especially where they sneak up closer to Highway 61, kind of mirror that north side. And then down in this southwest corner, we've got one piece of property that's a very funky property of whether or not some residential down in this bordering the um golf course might be appropriate. So, I'm going to just stop talking and throw it out there to hear what your your thoughts are on the EDA moving forward with an RFP and potential land uses along through here. >> Commissioners, >> can you pull up like an map? >> Just an aerial. >> Yeah. Just to see what's really already developed and what's not. >> Sure. and working with this RFP. I mean, we're not committed to anything. We're just joining with some developers that have experience uh and can bring us some ideas based on other areas. >> What the RFP process does is it's a a request for proposals. >> Yeah. >> What we're doing is we're say in development community, we're interested in finding a development partner. What can you offer and how would you how would you structure a partnersh public private partnership? We're not obligated in any way to enter into any partnership with anyone, but the whole idea was we're probably not going to get somewhere if we don't start engaging with the development community on this. Um so, uh, Commissioner Applicity, just for reference, this is the new, um, Bridge Academy and Sweet Living, so a daycare, child care center, Bell Bank. This is the new Forest Creek Apartments, the vet center, the uh county service center, and the YMCA is kind of what's on that north side that I think the um the EDA saw some opportunity just maybe right through here to kind of bookend that entrance. I don't know if there's a better way to kind of say it, but to maybe kind of feel like, okay, you you get a little bit of that service for the neighborhood right there, but then really uh and kind of buffering from potential technology officing. >> All those lots to the right of the 123. Those are all in private hands, correct? >> These are all in private hands. Um many of the homes, not sure if I'll be able to click on them, sit on their own little kind of um it, you know, tax parcel where the tillable acreage in the back sits on its own. Uh I the city has not been in contact, city staff has not been in contact with any of these land owners through here. Um we have had uh we've heard some of them um may be interested in um selling property but at the same time we have not been going out and soliciting anybody's opinion on the matter at the moment. >> Well, we haven't been real fond of being land owners. >> Pardon? >> The city hasn't been real fond of being land owners for being >> acquiring more land. >> Well, I mean >> we are land owners. We are land owners and frankly I mean before I the city invested in the community development department my position you didn't have anybody that was even in a great position to be going out and helping buy and sell land on our behalf. Um it takes some energy and having those resources just hasn't been something the city has had. I would not advocate right now that we necessarily go out to try to purchase land adjacent to Headarters 123 because as my mom would say with what buttons are good looks. Um but again engaging with the private development community might have better desire to go to adjacent land owners to be looking at how could that we include them in a process such as this. Commissioners, this is free reign in here. So, anyone's got a comment, have at it. >> I was pretty adamantly opposed to putting the apartments um the the two sets of apartments in in that area. um and have not been a fan of apartments on the Shadow Creek site because there are a large number of dwellings both in headwaters existing in those apartment buildings and the future apartment buildings in the Chestnut Creek and and and things to the west of Chestnut Creek that have no access to services such as a grocery store, a stop and pardon me. I call them stop and robs. Uh the convenience stores. Um that's what we called them at Tulsa. Um they there's nothing in this area for that people can get at. But we've put really really high density in there as transit oriented or you know walkable or whatever. >> We need we need some some services. >> Cub's a long way away. Festival down in Hugo is a long way away. And and if we are saying that we are community and we want people to to shop and to to be able live in this community without having to go elsewhere for their stuff. Um, we got nothing in this area. No. Um, so a few years ago, I'm going to zoom out a little bit. Um, a few years ago, uh, we did have a conversation with the Met Council about the transit system because we do have a transit center right in that area. Mhm. >> Um Met Council Transit uh that daily service isn't coming back anytime soon, but >> they they've said ever. >> I never heard never. Um but we still maintain with the county and Met Council that we will retain that service center for the hope of transit. I I will note um a few years ago I had heard that Forest Lake has had a saturation in the grocery industry market um because of Cub Aldi and both Target and Walmart are considered grocerers right they do provide those services and now we also have Mike's discount foods uh that being said um I have also heard talk that there is a ger We're exploring the Highway 97 corridor right now. Don't know where that could go. Um, but know at least um that market might be changing some, but for the city's population, this isn't a desirable spot because the the population there isn't enough households to support it. Now, >> the problem isn't the number of places. There's there's empty squat places. >> I understand the proximity. >> They're not the right place. Um >> generally I mean cities and through their EDAs do things like attract grocerers um by providing land subsidies those sorts of things for them to relocate for certain time periods within you know um a a time frame that they would stay. I think one of the challenges with this is u there isn't that's often done with local grocerers, right? So I mean you can't even get a cup of coffee in this area. >> Well, I think see that that's a good point. The grocery thing I think is changing. I think it's changing incredibly. I mean I think of how much I used to go to Cub Foods. I never go to Cub Foods now. I I do the pickup. I do my order all my groceries online. I go to pickup in Walmart or whatever and they load them in my truck. I am there and out of there in 10 minutes and a lot of people are doing the same thing. I don't think grocery is much coffee shops and you know places to get your haircut or you know that yeah that's needed in this in this community but the grocery thing I I don't know that it's it's not what it used to be. I I think that's changing um with all these pickup and delivery now. I mean, I could get Walmart or Target or whoever delivering my groceries, too. I I don't, but a lot of people do. >> Nobody picks out my fruits, vegetables, >> well, see and and see and maybe that's what it needs. Maybe it's a maybe it's a a produce something then and you're getting your other stuff delivered because I'm the same way. Yeah. I want to go pick out my avocados or whatever, but I don't I don't go up and down the aisles. No way. But uh I do it all for my phone. Wake up in the middle of the night and I think of what I'm need. >> Add it to the list. >> Yeah. You know, to me, you know, I find this area a hard cell, you know, and and the reason I say that is we have the freeway at Broadway there and you have access to everybody in their brother, whether it's Chicago, Wyoming, Stacy, actually all the way up to North Branch. You're in fact past North Branch, you want to go to Manage or Home Depot. And then you get the people that are cutting over to Wisconsin. um on 97, but to come down another half a mile up I to me the location doesn't yield retail to me. I mean it's in to me it's like a desert here of >> more industrial >> you don't you know you don't have you don't have access on 61 you you don't have any visibility it's kind of you know I have pizza pub right out by me and restaurant after restaurant's gone in there but there's no year round visibility so it's hard for these places to succeed then versus let's take the log cabin on 97 a billion people not a billion but a lot of people five currently not as many with the freeway closed over but you know so I I think this is going to be a hard sell property regardless of I look at it from a commercial standpoint and if you got semis coming in your freeway access is marginal it's not it's doable and maybe to Don's comment if you get the haircuts and some retail in there you might be able to get a doctor's office um you know or something. But I I think that's a lot of land for >> staff would never recommend that we change this to retail. I do support the EDA and the council's direction that the large majority of the land is still retained for business park for some sort of manufacturing technology again officing. Um but a small port that question of a small portion of retail service along the parkway as a that capstone to as the other half of the capstone to um the northern side and I think that's the part that is would be slightly inconsistent with that underlying zoning and maybe more the big opinion of the commission is would you rather see this all for jobs or would you want to try to reserve a little bit of land area along the parkway? Maybe it's this location, this location for some of those things that are just kind of supporting that those neighborhoods. >> If you live south of 9, I mean, y'all live well, I don't know if all of you if you live south of 97, you're toast. I mean, your options are Cub and trying to get there from south of 97 and east of 61 to the Royal Payment Tail or Festival down in Hugo. Um, so so I grant that that we're in kind of a weird place, those of us that are that are south of 97, but that's where we're putting a boatload of houses now. are south of 97. >> It's where land is guided. It's where developments >> could use a gas station. >> Well, that corner at Highway 50, that south east corner was guided originally as a convenience store. >> It's still guided for neighborhood commercials. the land that the city owns. >> And as we have been looking at the um future public works building, looking at the position, the opportunity for an outlot for still potentially sell off for commercial development in there. It is, I will note, on the kind of opposite side. It's the going home route, right? It's not the usually, you know, if you're if you're heading westbound on on County Road 50, access into that's going to be a little trickier probably. >> Where do we sit with um you know, we we've guided, not unanimously, but the southwest corner of the city. Where do we sit with the interstate connection? Has there been any discussion if it's going to go to 180th or 170th? um staff has worked to establish um a consortum we'll say with the other four the four cities Columbus, Hugo, Lino Lakes and us >> Hugo >> Columbus, Hugo, Loakes and US. >> Yes. >> Um as well as um the economic development divisions of the respective counties. So both Anoka County and Washington County, we have a draft. It's not yet ready for release and consideration, but a draft kind of cooperative agreement where we are all starting to cooperatively work together for a design on the Elmrest Avenue corridor because that's moving up. Otter Lake extension in Lo Lakes is getting um extended and all of it's leading to dirt road between and I'll give a really high level here. So this is our Elm Crest Avenue's boundary is the black. This is Hugo in the kind of southeast. Lo is the southwest and Columbus is that northwest. Um the Otter Lake extension and forgive me because eventually my you know my kind of run out. But if I remember right, like Otter Lake extension kind of comes up uh right here. I think this is it right here. And it's going to lead into this elm crest that's going to spit everybody out onto gravel roads. And so the four cities and the EDA said this is this is a challenge and we need to agree to a design to the Elmrest corridor at this point. um while also working towards agreement on an interchange and where we can all say that we agree it should be um because there has not been unilateral agreement from all four cities and the counties of where this will go. MINDOT does not have it in their long range plans at 170th, 180th, 190th, 195th, you name it, because the cities and the counties aren't in agreement. Additionally, MDOT would say there's no way we would even discuss or plan for an interchange if the local system is not built out yet. So the first step in a lot of this is this baseline kind of regional planning for us to kind of look at what is the design of that roadway and how do we get that built and how do we start getting development in those areas that we all know is going to come. It's just we need to get those that infrastructure in place first. Does that answer your question Paul? >> Well well it does sort of >> but the answer is no. We don't know where it's going. Well, no, we don't. >> So, the point being >> it's going to go on 170th or 180th. >> Yeah. >> 180th would be fabulous for us because >> one mile away wouldn't be bad either. >> Yeah, if they develop the property, the road to get up there, but there could be a lot of manufacturing and because you're close to the freeway, you have freeway acts, you got semis running in and out of there all day. This is where I say, is this corner better than the 123? And I'm not here to debate the EDA. They're the ones who've got the brains on development of business here. Um, but it just seems it's kind of a one or the other thing for that kind of work for manufacturing. Now, if you want to say this 123 is medical and officing for the four people that still go in, um, more power to us. You know, I I don't honestly know how you could fill up 123 acres with commercial in that area. It to me it doesn't. So then let's talk about other, you know, I've said it to all three bodies. Um the council and the EDA would not want to see this completely reverted back to guided towards residential. But then that question about residential along Fenway or residential along the golf course, are those things that this commission would be in support of? >> The the the mayor and council are talking about rooftops. They want rooftops because that's how folks are going to get the restaurants that they think that they want. Why anybody would go to the Buffalo Wild Wings, I don't know, but whatever. Um, but they they've been talking rooftops and if you're looking for density of rooftops, quite frankly, that's that's what an area where we actually have infrastructure in place. Um and and it sort of fits without trying trying to shove more residential into that the wetland areas that are in much of the rest of the city. I mean, I I I I hear the desire for commercial, but it's a chicken and the egg thing. We're not going to get significant commercial in that area because Paul's right, you can't get there from anywhere anywhere else or a significant industrial facility just because getting the semis in and out is is is a royal pain in the tail. Even with the roundabout at 61 and 97, even with an improved 97, it it's still a challenge. And and I don't see without the city putting really big subsidies in there, us seeing significant commercial industrial activity there. and and I I'm I'm not seeing a benefit of the city sinking even more subsidies into some of the the the the folks that we've given TIFF funding to and really haven't seen a big return on our investment. >> So, you brought up two words tonight that I have not subsidies and tiff and neither of those are being contemplated right now. the properties generally um Greenfield is not eligible for tax increment financing. There's some strict limitations in its use. Um I you know again I would maintain that the city should not build this out as residential. We have a lot of land area guided for residential. And as a reminder, for every large vacant residential piece of property we have, it gets added into that density pool and does affect our density requirements as a city. If we want to build this out with multifamily to be able to offset those large lots we want elsewhere, that could be a conversation we have in this next comp plan round. But right now it's guided for business park. And if we're going to go through if the planning commission's desire would be to go back to um uh uh residential, that's a comp plan amendment and I would say hold up, we're about to do a whole comp plan process. Let's just sit. But the EDA doesn't want to move forward in this way. And the question is, are you in it's business park? we'll just go out with for an RFP with Business Park. Do you would you want to incorporate a little bit of residential and and service if the market thought that that was something that could be fitting there? >> Annie, you had a comment. >> Um, I think I would support going out to try to get someone to do some market research to see what this land could be used for. I think the desire for business is noble, but we've given a lot of red flags of why someone wouldn't want to develop this for a commercial. Um, if you go drive around the metro, anywhere along a highway, they're putting up warehouses, you know, um, because transit is is king. I think Forest Lake is positioned probably very advantageously from a regional eastern Minnesota aspect of if you could find the right bigname destination something or other Costco for instance people will go a little off the road to get to it. You know, people coming down from Duth no longer have to go all the way down to Maple Grove or Maplewood or something like that. But not that it has to be Costco, but something like that that is a rare unique destination would be something that probably would make sense to be that far off the highway. I think the desire to find and they're closing doctor's offices. They're not building them right now. Um, so I think getting some experts to say this is what you could do with this to guide us rather than us trying to figure out how we want to use it would be a really wise thing because I think what we all want differs on this board and it's going to differ between board to board. So I I would support doing some type of research >> and and and I I agree with that. One of the things that I've said for a very long time is that we have a unique place above the split so that you know via highway 97 you can get to both the western suburbs and and east. Um and that's that's something that we have really not taken advantage of in in any way. Um, yes, it's harder as you're south of 97 to to get to the interstate. You have to go to 97. But, um, you know, being above the split is advantageous from a residential perspective. It's advantageous from a business perspective. I'm just not sure how we beat that chicken and the egg thing for for this piece of property. And yes, I would like to see in that little I'll call it the ele it looks like an elephant to me, the elephant's head and trunk. I would like to see some services, community neighborhood services there. >> You got a comments? >> No, I just reiterating that. Yeah, I I think getting an RFP out there, getting the the right people who understand development and what the possibilities are to get some ideas from them is is the right way to go. >> I I'm all for the RFP. You asked a question that no one answered up here is about the residential and I think down Fenway because I believe just on the other side of Fenway is a Taylor Farm. >> That's correct. >> And that will eventually because he's >> all this is guided for residential the the MXR1. >> I think that having some kind of residential on Fenway as a buffer to the businesses instead of going all the way to Fenway with businesses, you could put a buffer in there of town houses or row houses and down by the golf course. It might be a nice view for an office, but that's some primo real estate when you're on the golf course. might be better than lakefront. Not in my opinion, but so that's my two cents on the residential part. I would not guide the whole thing for residential. I don't I'm with you. We need to get a larger tax base of something besides residential. So, I hear there's consensus that finding a partner to help us is not a bad thing and that you're all in support of the EDA moving forward with that. >> And some of you have said, you know, some service along here wouldn't be good again if that development partner maybe agreed with that. And I've heard from at least one of you to say a some maybe I don't want to use the word higher density, some higher densities along Fenway of multi- of family a reser I would use higher density >> to to help buffer from those non-residential uses could be really good land use through there >> yeah because I think the other side is pretty much uh single family once you cross Fenway >> yes >> yep um so the last question I think I put in my memo was does anyone um as the EDA starts to work on this process we'll end up kind of working through some of this with a committee. Um, does there anyone on this commission that would like to help in terms of things like reviewing proposals or doing interviews or making recommendations to the ED and council regarding future proposals that we might get? And if no one is, that's fine because you do have staff that does help support, you know, implementing the comp plan, understanding the zoning. Um, it is your commission is a little different in that you've got now almost a fully staffed team. >> Yeah. >> To help convey um at least the intent. I've >> got a lot of experience in RFPs and and and this will be very interesting to me. Um I yeah I but I would yield to anyone else up here who is who's interested. >> I'm interested but I have a full plate. So you you have more interest than me. >> I don't know the commitment right now. We haven't quite scoped it out. I will say the EDA has even gone so far as said that they wouldn't mind finding a firm to even draft the RFP. that's really well tuned with the development community to make sure that we've got a proposal that's going out there that is kind of consistent with industry standards that kind of hits the buzzwords. I don't know. So, they're still kind of working through what that process is going to look like, but we anticipate the first maybe second quarter at most in um 2026 being a focus to get this done at least to see is there is now the time. And I I agree with you uh Commissioner Young and probably all of you that can say we are we're a really special community, you know, just above the split. We're really desirable for a lot of ways. We are rural but urban, right? We are standalone. I just said it to somebody read it the other day. You know, we have this downtown and we've got the cute farm fields and we have the lake and we have a Target, you know, and a Walmart and, you know, it makes us really, really unique. And it could just be that we're just still just far enough out. We've been just far enough out, but we're starting to see that development really really flipping and we're really starting to think that we want to be at the forefront of that that flip. So, >> I think that's a solid plan. >> All right. Well, I've got enough direction to move forward. >> We'll move to updates then. We'll start with our esteemed council person Mr. Larson, >> you know, you don't you can just sit there if you want. >> It's okay. I need to limp along. Thank you, though. >> You look better on camera there. >> Thank you very much, Commissioner. And, uh, chair, uh, don't really have too much to pass on. I'd like to say thank you for those that were able to attend on the 9th for our little barbecue. Uh, we had some nice weather, but windy. Um, and we enjoyed some hamburgers and BRZ and some things that folks brought. And I think we had a pretty good turnout for our first annual. And hopefully we can maybe continue it down the road and we'd like to see other more other commissioners and such join us for a nice day. >> And my thanks for you spearheading that. >> My pleasure, sir. Thank you. Um, other than that, I don't really have a lot other than just to say thank you very much for all your time and your dedication to our community. Uh, it's a thank kind of a thankless job and, uh, I know we all appreciate you as far as council members and and staff. So, thank you for that. >> Any hot issues or budget update? >> The budget still remains. We had a uh workshop on Monday and it was attended pretty well. A lot of people were interested in our so-called sales tax matter. Uh it was kind of like the third item down in our agenda. So, they got to see some of our other things like our top three for our con road construction stuff. And some of those folks afterwards were very much enlightened on how much work, planning, processes, and cost goes into all this stuff. So, it's not just throwing some pavement down, rolling it out, and saying, "Here you go. Here's your $10 million road." So, um, I think there's some insight on that. The budget still stands at 12.6. Uh we do have some things that we are looking at and that will be a more of a topic of discussion in the weeks here to come. So uh we are looking at the possibility of getting it down into single numbers. Can't promise anything or I can't throw out a certain number but uh we're working hard on that. So >> questions. >> One of the hardest lessons I ever learned was that your budget is your policy direction for not only that year but the next 5 to 10 years. >> Yeah. Unfortunately, things were stalled out for a while and we're trying to pick that up and we're the brunt of bad bad news and so forth and I guess take it on the chin, but we're moving forward and we're doing the best we can with what we have to offer. So, we live here, too. We make decisions that affect us as well. So, I have a question along those lines. Since we're like, we were looking at a subdivision today with with 60 homes. And when you look at a subdivision like that and you look at what that's going to bring to the community in terms of revenue and property tax, just property, I don't know what other revenues you look at that come to the city. What do you figure the city's I mean you figure I think they were saying the average price of the home was like 400,000 or something like that. So you figure what $4,000 a year in property tax that goes to the county and then what comes to the city is what half of that. Uh, is there a number? Ethan has an answer for that. >> We we don't um necessarily have I mean there is probably specific numbers in there. I don't know what they are right now. >> Um I can tell you that we not only account for uh the individual tax on a home, but also any sort of >> um fees for the development, all of those things, you know, are calculated in that next year's projection. Um, we do that on uh what I would say is I think if I remember right, we're projecting a hundred homes in the 2026 budget. Um, so we do account for that as part of the revenue. >> Okay. >> I'll just kind of go I know the the development fees and those are kind of a one-time thing. It's the property tax that is forever and increases forever. And and it is that is accounted for in the 10-year plan that projected growth on an annual basis. Yes. >> I was just curious how Okay. >> The actual number I don't know. >> Yeah. I understand. I understand. Okay. Yes, ma'am. >> In what I'll call the olden days when I was on that side of the table, we considered that a residential house cost a city over time one and a half times what the property taxes that it brought in. Well, then why were you saying we should convert 100 acres? >> I said that I'm hearing rooftop rooftop rooftop to get the restaurants and additional grocery stores. >> That's what I'm hearing. I didn't say that it I thought was a great idea. >> That's what I'm hearing. But it it residential properties cost a city more because uh Rosenbower doesn't need a whole lot of police and fire protection. and they've got their own stuff, but a house needs the additional fire protection, police protection, sewer services, more wear and tear on the roads, >> building permitting. I mean, all of the things. Yes, that is a a statistic. I don't know how that number balances out anymore, but I think his question was more about are we accounting for that tax revenue as part of the budget and then that long-term financial plan? And yes, we are. If you wanted to see specific numbers, we >> No, no, I I didn't. I was just um it's kind of a bigger topic and I'll take it up with Jeff at a later time, but um that was just I was just curious if there was a yeah if there was a set formula or whatever, but um anyway, >> there is we have people in Excel spreadsheets that do that. >> We have people we have people we got people >> I understand >> they're not very interesting to talk to, but we got people >> Well, specifically Ellie Lurin, our finance director. So, if there are things that that you're looking for, we certainly can get that information. >> Again, I I'll communicate with Jeff and we can go back and forth on some things, but I Yeah. So, yeah. >> Andy. >> Yeah. Um I would just as we're looking at potential business growth in the city, I would encourage not considering sales tax, local sales tax. Um being in Washington County, we're already at a competitive advantage to the areas around us. Um I looked at my receipt from Wisconsin this weekend when we picked up some stuff at the Walmart over there. it's only five and a half%. Um, so people will drive 15 miles to save that that amount of money on larger purchases. So, as you're working on that, >> I think the example that was kind of given is like the XL Energy, there is a tax and there's a tax on it from the city added on to that >> franchise fee. >> Yep. Franchise fee, if you will. Um, and there hasn't been any change on that, I guess, since like 2013 or 2014. So, like anything else, cost of living increases, the cost of doing business and things like that, that stuff is going to creep up. So, I think as far as the city goes, I think we're kind of looking for something that can also help us with maybe having some extra funding for our building. of businesses or community or infrastructure and things like that. We're looking to try to do something more along that line to help us out with our budget stuff. Nobody wants to see the budget up. Everyone wants to see come down, but we have a fine line of things that our wants and needs list obviously. So, um we have to be very particular and careful in our wants and needs list. And then just to once again reiterate that um in the next comp plan that we reconsider, you know, what our lot sizes are and maybe consider being one of the cities that says they're going to shut off our sewers if we don't do what they want and maybe challenge them on that because that's not democracy. >> Yeah. No, I I totally understand where you're coming from, Andy. Um, like I say, I don't think a lot of us, I think, are a real big fan of that council really right now with all the stuff that's going on. And they kind of do have us by the short hairs in some respect, but like uh, Commissioner Young said, you know, we're the furthest point, and they haven't really done any favors for us either on on that hand. So, um, I don't know if we can get some of our legislation and and stuff behind us a little bit to kind of give it a shove. Yeah, I it >> if you could sit down and talk to people, it's illogical to say the only way you can have water and sewer is if you maximize the use of the land of crime in as many houses as you possibly can. >> Yeah, >> it doesn't make sense. >> Our wetland problem is huge. >> They're increasing sewer demand by making us do that. >> Yeah, correct. >> Correct. >> Thank you, sir. Thank you folks. Appreciate you, >> Abby. >> Yeah. So, on the lines of the comp plan, the kind of comp the every 10-year comp plan process has kicked off with the Met Council's release of the system statement for Forest Lake. We received that two and a half weeks ago or so. Um I've poured through it uh to really look to see if there are items in it that the city should be objecting to which is a different kind of a process in which we one consult with the Met Council staff but do have a formal appeal process that we could undertake. At this time I don't see anything but do anticipate that your next meeting I will be providing an update based on my recommendations of the analysis of that. Um the Met Council has proposed uh increasing the city's uh density to 3.3 units of an acre citywide. We get to choose how we want that housing to be distributed. So when we take all of the open acreage and all of the acreage we say is going to be housing, we get to say this is where we want large, this is where we want mediumsiz lots, this is where we want smallsiz lots, this is where we want apartment buildings. The larger the lots that we want, the more high density we have to put elsewhere. There are those trade-offs. And so I do think that um it is a conversation that I've heard from the community and I've heard from some of the council of taking a harder stance uh with the the Met Council in terms of the density requirements and also some of the affordable housing allocation. But I would say that if it is something that this commission is vehemently opposed to um the um the overall premise of density requirements that that is a conversation we need to have with council and have the council quick. um because I had not heard that in my three and a half years here that we would ever object completely to the density requirements that we have. Um which there are communities that have done that. One in Washington County and that Washington County city did not win. and I can provide you with all of that information, but now is the time that we really need to put that in writing to the Met Council. that again this this is this is from my memory but a lot of their density requirements were based on having transit opportunities in the community having ways of minimizing vehicular traffic and the way to get those things was to was to increase density um you know in in in the garbage business. Okay. If I'm going to going to take on a new city, I want to have as many stops per mile as I can get. All right. That's that's that's how you decide if you're going to go there or not. And and in a way, that's you still look to density to try and reduce your cost. That's not something that is going to be helpful for Forest Lake because the Met Council did inform us through their last transportation plan that they will not be bringing transit at least in the next 25 to 30 years to the Forest Lake area. Yeah, we still got Greyhound. Okay. And they're they're still doing their thing. But um in terms of the reasons for increasing density um and having a density requirement from the Met Council, >> we still have Huh. >> It's the one that goes between here and Duth. It goes from St. Paul to Duth and it goes like twice a day. >> It's the Arrowhead Transit. >> Thank you. And you can take a Met Council uh transit link to the bus station here or the transit center here and get on aerial headlink which services portions of Chicago County and goes all the way to Duth. >> As somebody who is now driving for Thrive um because folks in our community have not been able to get Transit Link on a regular basis. Um that service is woefully inadequate. >> We've had you we've had to compensate with a bunch of volunteers driving people in force like they can't use their service. On that note, I just will say on that note, we are in discussions with Washington County and new tracks about expanded services for senior citizens in the community to not only include expanded services on the standard operating day on Wednesdays, but the potential for adding another day. Um, so I'll keep all of you posted as the council and county work through um potential agreement amendments. Nathan, anything? >> Uh, no updates for me tonight. >> Stephen, >> of course I do. I also wanted to echo uh Councilman Larson's mentioning of the picnic. Was a wonderful time. I really appreciate um him and the council spearheading that. Uh mostly because it gave me the opportunity to have the very best brownies I've ever had in my life made by uh Commissioner Young. Uh you have you were sold out as soon as I asked about them. So, uh, one thing I want to implore is that, um, you give me the recipe because I'm convinced it will get me out of any dog house that my mouth builds with my wife, uh, because they were absolutely stellar. So, uh, congrats on having that wonderful recipe. Um, uh, have a few updates from, uh, from staff. Uh, next Tuesday, we'll begin the, uh, first day of our new planner, Michael Burchland. Uh, uh, like myself, this was not in cahoots. Uh he's a a Fidian refugee uh coming up here experiencing this autumn for the probably the very first time in his life like I am and you guys have a good one up here. It has been uh absolutely beautiful. >> Um in addition uh we will uh we're having a our next meeting on November 12th. We currently have two public hearings scheduled. One is for a new IUP for a cannabis uh retail store. The other is for a zoning ordinance for uh one of our citizens. Um and in addition um yesterday we found out that we will be uh one of the uh current commissioners on this on this board. Uh we'll be uh unable to support going forward. So we'll have be out looking working with you and uh to find a a suitable person that's willing to uh uh serve the people of this city in this capacity uh for next term. >> That's it. >> Thank you. >> Something I said >> probably probably I I have nothing. >> Susan, >> nothing. >> Dan, >> no. >> Jesse, >> one question. Have we ever explored like a uh uh hospitality tax at all? >> Yes. >> Um just before the COVID pandemic, the city and the chamber explored a lodging tax. Um, we did find at least with because we do have a limited number of lodging facilities in Forest Lake that to be beneficial it would have to be a larger kind of cooperative with adjacent jurisdictions. Um, also the council then at the time wanted to make sure that there was support from the local lodging institutions and it sounds like at least at that time one of them may not have been favorable but had later become favorable but it was in the middle of a pandemic and so it kind of dropped off. the council has looked at uh or has asked us to look at that the e it is kind of in a the back of the EDA in the back of the chambers's mind like we need to do that but it's just you know at the moment it has not been on any sort of like a strategic plan work plan for anybody >> as well as like there's a lot of rentals in town that are not licensed you know >> places yeah we don't have a licensing program, any rental registration, licensing for short or long term. >> But could we do that as a revenue stream possibly in the future? >> Um, there is the potential to license and register and then if a lodging tax went into place on rentals. However, the state uh lodging tax regulations do limit the amount of money in those that can be used by the municipality. uh you have to create a kind of a um like convention and visitor bureau, but it's not really I don't think it has to be a CVB um that does then community marketing with the funds. So, it's not necessarily it while it could generate a lot of revenue, um it's not going to generate as much for the city because only a nominal portion of it can be kept for administrative costs. >> Okay. Anything else? >> No, that was it. >> Okay, I have nothing. So, with that, chair is looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> So, move. >> I have a motion. I have a motion and a second. Non-debatable motion. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much for all your efforts.