All right, welcome everyone. Uh, is it being right six o'clock? We'll get started. Jolene, will you please take a role? >> Council members Ericson >> here, >> Larson >> here, >> Miller >> here, >> here. Mayor Roberts >> here. Right. And if you're able, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, council. We have an agenda in front of us. Is anyone willing to make a motion to approve tonight's agenda? >> Also move. >> I'll second. >> Motion a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I opposed. We have an agenda. We have no awards and presentation tonight. So, we will go into open forum. Um, if council is agreeable, uh, we do have a a a topic on later on in the agenda. Chestnut Creek second edition. I know there's a number of people that would like to speak to that. If you're agreeable, I would give the option to whoever if they want to speak during open forum or they could speak when that when the item comes up. Okay, with that said, uh we do have the open forum. This is an opportunity to anyone to come up and speak uh to any city matter. Please give us your status your name and address and limit you to about three minutes or so. The first one on tonight's list is uh Terry Steamlock. >> Hi, mayor and council members. I'm Terry Steamlock, 568 Southshore Drive. Um, I'm the former chair of the parks, trails, and lakes commission, and I know that Abby provided you with a document that I shared that had all of the history regarding Chestnut Creek. However, I wanted to take a few moments tonight to share um comments in relation to the park dedication and the Chestnut Creek area. Uh, the original decision that was made in 2016 was well before my time on the commission. However, if you watch the video discussion around that meeting, it's easy to see that there was some confusion um as conversations bounced back and forth uh between phase one and phase two. And I know in talking with some of the former commissioners uh that were there at that time, they felt that they were voting for only phase one and and not phase two at that time. Um, part of the reason behind that was because back in those days, uh, the park dedication fees was based on the lots and then a specific dollar amount. The lots that were talked about at that meeting, um, were the I think it was 80 81 or 82 lots at that time. So, it wasn't the full spectrum of all the lots at that particular time. Um, in addition to that discussion, the uh builder did not pay the park dedication fees for phase 2 at that time. Um, there were conversations that occurred in 2021 and I was part of those conversations as the chair of of that commission at that time and it was very clear um that the intent was to have a park in phase two of that uh Chestnut Creek development. Um, and I know in 2016 and just a few weeks ago, the FI city felt that there was adequate park land in that particular area. And I would challenge that logic because of the safety and the distance issues that that creates um in that particular area. uh having um having a park was a concern of the planning commission when they met this past uh September, their meeting and then it was discussed again at the September 17th parks commission meeting. Uh the builder was in attendance at the parks commission meeting and she did say that they were not against a park um as long it was as long as it was a public park and that they received credit for that park. Um at the meeting the parks, trails and lakes commission did vote to take parkland in lie of the dedication fees. So you know at the time this was a significant development if probably phase 2 is probably a significant development as well. And I think that there were several missed opportunities in 2016 and I would hate to see the city miss some opportunities in 2025 and kind of repeat some of the things that happened in those early days. Um, and I would say that there's nothing wrong with saying that we've missed an opportunity and call a timeout. Um, I would recommend that you take this time um, a as a new opportunity to build collaborative relationships between the city, the residents of Chestnut Creek, and the new developer. And I do understand that the time is ticking and you're against a 120day uh, time frame that's coming due in November. However, if discussions begin immediately, there's still time and I would strongly encourage you to either vote no to taking the parkland dedication fees in lie of the land and follow the decision of your parks, trails, and lakes commission or table the decision until there's an opportunity for the city, the developer, the neighborhood, and the parks commission to work together and find a solution that does include a park. Um, I'll remain available if there's historical questions at all during that portion of the meeting. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Terry. >> Uh, Mac, would you do you want to speak now or to speak when the agenda item comes up? >> Okay. City Council members, >> if you could just state your name and address for the record. >> Thank you. Um, my name is Mackenzie Gupt. I go by Matt Guptal. I live at 7163208 Cove North. So, I'm in phase one. And, um, I'm here to address the council. I'm here to address my neighbors and my community members. Uh one thing that I want to identify um I guess to start with my perspective is there are two different uh subtopics that I ask you to take some consideration on. One is to require um a park to have a park in phase two. Uh the other one is to consider um the overall aesthetic um direction of the new development phase two as it relates to a continuation of phase one and the fact that the houses from our view are going to be a lot closer together. Um that there is going to be uh I think a a lower setback requirement and that aesthetically we're worried about how that looks in the overall community. And the reason why I say that and say th those are the conclusions I'm going to to present you with is that before I get there, I want to thank you for your time. Um the individuals in this room and I have been in a process over the last couple of months where we've been at a planning commission. We've been at a parks commission and we've talked to council member Larson who has come to our development to walk around. Mayor Roberts who's come to our development and walk around. And as a resident and a member of Forest Lake, I have been so impressed with the patience and the open-mindedness and the listening that I've received that it makes me really happy to live here. And that's how I want to come forward and ask you to look at the overall packet when you look at the factf finding that's been done. There are some citations and quotations in the report about how you get to the pod process that it's not supposed to be strict that sometimes there has to be some creativity sometimes there has to be some flexibility that it is not stringent but it's a process and so the concern that I want to give to you and leave you with is the idea that that process has resulted in two different advisory and kind of factf finding bodies telling you or advising you is probably a better way to say it that there should be a park in that area. And so if you think about the idea that this is a process that the parks um body said, "Hey, you should have land dedication. You shouldn't have cash in loop." That the planning commission has said, "Hey, you should have a a land dedication. You shouldn't have cash in loop." how you would go forward now and say but staff recommends that we don't have the ability to do that that there is some inefficiencies that would exist for the purposes of having a park. The reason why you're going to hear individuals if there's anybody else that's going to talk past me or you've seen it in the packet as far as representations is because the need for a park in that area continues to show the community harmony. Not to mention the fact that that was something that was promised all the way back when phase one was talked about. The other concern that exists is the fact that adding these houses in kind of these these closerknit um areas, meaning they're going to be a little bit closer than the than phase one. It causes us in the community concerns about whether or not there's going to be appropriate congestion, whether or not there's going to be appropriate safety, whether or not there's going to appropriate aesthetic harmony. And to a certain extent, there is some exceptions here where this is the preliminary plat. The idea is, well, we're going to figure that out in the final plat. And I understand that part, but I still want to make sure that when you're looking at what the final authorization is going to be today, that you take into account those concerns that we have. What I would say in the final conclusion is that there is a need for that area to be dedicated for land for the park and that the the factf finding that is represented in the city's position meaning the staff position is down the road we will have another development that will have a bigger park and we've heard that before and I think that's the concern that I want to leave you with the idea that well down the road we'll fix that down the road we'll take a look at There is a submission that is on 186 of your packet that was done by one of my neighbors, Adam Ericson, and I would ask that you take a look at that because the bullet points that he put together, I think, effectively cover the concerns of this community that will be the neighboring and really the part of phase two. So, thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. Eugene Hirststelle. >> Eugene Hurstell, one234 204 Street North. Uh just a quick uh I'd supposed to be really good weather in the next couple weeks here. And we know that they do close the parks October 15th or you know, but we were hoping maybe they could keep the nets up if the weather holds out if the pickle ball people would like uh to continue a little bit longer and and if that's feasible, boy, we'd really appreciate it because we we'll be out there at 50° or even less sometimes. And then if the sun's out and warm, that really helps. So do that. The other thing is that I see that we've got a 12 plus point u increase on the budget. Um please uh I don't think inflation is up as like it has been in the previous years in that. Uh it's hard for I mean my taxes went up $600 in one year last year. Uh it's getting harder and harder for everyone. not well maybe some people have a easy time and I know there's a lot of expenses coming up and uh we're looking at uh a new building for maintenance and stuff uh all the different things that are coming up but that you and I realize that you can it'll be less than the 12point plus I understand that I've been here enough times to always you know hear that but look at it very closely ly and consider to bring it down as far as you can and that hopefully we've had a couple new businesses coming in. We've got the car wash, we've got Ford, we've got some of that that's come in to help alleviate some of it. And maybe there's some others that you do know know of, but we'd really appreciate it. I, you know, I fought for many years. I've been doing this for 25 years. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't, but please be considerate of the taxpayer. Thank you. >> Thanks, Eugene. >> Uh there's with no one else being signed up. Uh if you want to speak, you're still able to. Again, if you want to speak to Chestnut Creek, we'll allow that time during that agenda item. Anyone else want to speak now? Come forward. State your name, address. Hello everyone. My name is Chelsea Langless. My address is 70128th Street North. I am a homeowner in Chestnut Creek, a mother of three, as well as a Forestlike High School graduate. My family first moved here in Blaine in 2001 when my grandma had told my dad we needed to for the family and for the lake. Years later, like many after graduating, I left for college and found job opportunities that weren't available in town at the time. After owning homes in multiple cities around the metro and starting a family, I convinced my talented husband, originally from Apple Valley, to move up to Forest Lake from our home in Egan for family and for the lake. We found a beautiful home in Chestnut Creek. I was honestly surprised and impressed by two things when moving back here. First, how the city had grown and changed over the last nearly 25 years. Many new amenities and businesses. It's so awesome to see and get to experience now with my young children. And second, I was surprised that nearly a hundred of the houses in that neighborhood were people who chose to move here from all over the cities, which hadn't been my expectation. And wow, guys, they are great people. I love my neighbors. They are my friends. and they bring such talent, skill, business, influence, and impact to our community. They care. And look, many of them are here today and the multiple meetings they've attended this last month. They are invested in our community. And we are collectively raising a good portion of the next generation of residents in our neighborhood. I think just the eight houses on our end has about 26 kids, if you can believe that. And if you ever drive down, they're probably running wild at the end of the road. I fully support development and growth. And though I'll list I'll miss the view of the land, I understand the opportunity that comes with overall community growth and increasing our population. I've gotten to see firsthand what that can do. I remember back when we moved here, there was two signs you had to add together to figure out our population. With forest like township and forest like the city, we've really come a long way. But my concern is that I believe we not we need to not just think bigger, we need to think better. For example, we were told there would be a park as you've heard from many people in the next phase and we purchased our home over six years ago. I was both surprised and very disappointed to see one not on the plans when they finally decided to develop this. We had thought it would be that next year in 2020 and we know things have gone crazy since. But very surprising. Listen, we need to attract more of the people that we have back here. My neighbors, my community that I love that has changed and grown over this time. They're awesome. We have teachers and nurses and firefighters and lawyers. I mean, I've never been a part of a process like this. and they've taught me so much just in these last few weeks, even got me to speak here today. So, in general, this phase, all other future developments, I'm just here to urge you to not think just bigger first, I want you to think better. So with this, when you're thinking about this phase and this park, I think about the hundreds of houses that we're adding. And with that, when we list these homes, we're going to miss out on a huge population demographic of people who will look, I don't have a park or anywhere to walk within walking distance. And I think we're going to miss out in an opportunity of bringing people here with that talent, that skill, the business, bring additional money into our city that may end up going to other communities to Blaine and Hugo and White Bear that maybe have a basic amenity such as a park or somewhere safe to go with the kids. Whether people choose to utilize that park or not, that's something that someday when I go to sell my home and hey, I hope to live on the lake myself, as my grandma once got us excited about. I want to put that on the listing. Here's my home. It's a beautiful place. You can also walk to many places. This is what it looks like. Here's our community. And hopefully I get a great demand so I can get an awesome offer and improve my home value. And I believe everyone else is interested in having that satisfied in our first phase. and I'd like to think so into that next phase. So my respectful ask to the council tonight is simple. First to take the recommendation of the park trails and lakes from the September 17th commission for land dedication over the cash fee for this phase of the development. This may mean slightly fewer lots or asking the development to revise the plan. And I urge you to continue to think tonight with the lens of ambitions for and expectations for better so we in turn can grow bigger. I appreciate all that you do. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. All right. Again, so we can speak if anyone wants to speak to um this weekend at the time that's up on the agenda. All right. Next item, consent agenda. Uh council, before we approve or vote to approve the consent agenda, I did ask the department heads to uh comment on some of these great hires we had. We've got a lot of positions here that have been open for a long time. And so I thought it just uh was worthwhile to take a minute or two to to learn a little over that. So we can just go in order uh starting with building official uh if that's okay. >> Thank you, Mayor Roberts. Uh members of the council tonight for your consideration is the acceptance of hiring Jason Wagner. Jason uh for the building official position. Jason would come to us is planning to come to us from the city of Weisetta where he has held the same position for the last seven years. was an inspector for two years prior to that with Weisetta and then also served in worked in the private sector. So, his combination of both private sector construction and public sector experience really makes him um a desirable candidate and asset to our community. We're really excited since this position has been vacant since our former building official left in August of 24. So, it's been over a year without an in-house building official. >> Great. Thank you. Uh, Chief Pearson. >> Yeah, Mayor and City Council members, first off, I want to mention that the new police officer recommendation for hires to fill one of four current vacancies for police officer that we have. Uh, Ashley Loren is being recommended to fill one of those positions of police officer. Ashley has worked for the Sherburn County Sheriff's Office since 2022 and she is very excited to start her career with the Force Lake Police Department and start serving the citizens of Force Lake. Secondly, I want to mention a little back history about officer Tom Cochburn, who I am recommending to be promoted to the open position of sergeant. Many may not know that Tom's father, Bob Cochburn, worked with the Forest Lake Police Department for 30 years, and I had the honor of working alongside Bob for three years at the beginning of my career um prior to his retirement. Tom was a police explorer with the Forest Lake Police Department and uh for many years and graduated from Forest Lake High School. He has been serving Forest Lake since 2011 and he is very excited for the promotion to sergeant. >> Thank you. And Dave. >> Yeah. Uh pending a our retirement. I would like to thank Denny Zil too for uh putting eight years with the city. Uh he's retiring on November 3rd and we kind of sped up this process to try to somebody to fill in this position before winter happened. Uh we're offering this job to Chris Larson. Uh he met all the preferred and um hit all the standard and preferred qualifications for this job and also bring some forestry arborist uh uh pesticide treatment, that kind of application that the city doesn't have. It's a little bit of a nice niche to add to the bag of tricks that public works has. So, u a thank you to Danny Zal for his eight years here and then looking forward to uh having Chris and the team here at the end of the month. >> And Abby again. >> Uh yeah. So um up for tonight, you're hiring of Michael Burchland for vacant planner position. That position's been vacant since um Ken Roberts left in early April. Um, we had a number of qualified candidates, but Michael really rose to the top and he served in the the city of Palm Beach County, excuse me, the county of Palm Beach County, Cal or Florida. Understand that is a second Florida hire in uh the community development department, but he spent nearly five years in a similar capacity and before that just exclusively zoning administration. So, it definitely is going to bring uh the needed technical skills to our community development department that we haven't had now for uh well, I can't that we've been filling in an interm part-time capacity for the last six months. So, really excited to have him join the team in just a couple weeks even. So, >> great. Well, that's just it's great news. Uh a lot of these these positions are been empty or not filled for a number of years and we greatly need these people. So, welcome to the new hires and a special congratulations to uh now Sergeant Cochburn. So, it's great news. With that, I would be willing to entertain a a motion to approve tonight's consent agenda. >> Also move that we approve consent agenda items 7A through 7S. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Consent agenda passes. All right. Our first item 8A, uh, Forslake Garage Condos, and Abby's going to walk us through that. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor Roberts. Uh, members of the council tonight before your consideration is a preliminary plat for Forest Lake Garage Condos, an application that's been proposed by Austin Halberg of Halberg Marine. The development plan would uh take a 30 acre limited industrial piece of land, vacant piece of land on Forest Road North and turn it into two separate parcels with a couple different types of uh land uses on there. We'll note the planning commission or the um city did receive the concept plan in June of this year. So, this may not be um shouldn't be brand new. I think for most of the council was here in June when you took a look at it. So, taking a look at that uh development plan, we would be looking at two um parcels. North is on the left side just for for reference, Forest Road North here. The southerntherly parcel would be a single user, a contractor business with a contractor service yard. And the northerly parcel would be split into a series of up to 121 individually owned garage condo units. and then two multi-tenant 30,000 square foot um office flex um spaces. So kind of think um could be an office, could be a small contractor, could be even maybe some light um manufacturing. Any of those uses would be allowed in there as long as they were allowed in the zoning code. I do want to note that even though um we do indicate multi-tenant and you will see the design detail in a minute that looks kind of like a strip mall, these aren't retail spaces. And additionally, even though I used the word condominium on the garage condo units, these are not residential living units. These are um individually owned garages uh for storage or other types of garage use. I don't I don't know. Um the planning tonight for your consideration is the planning commission's recommendation to the count council of approval of preliminary plat and PUB. We look at uh the consistency with the comprehensive plan and the zoning code. This uses these uses are consistent with our zoning code. That contractor service yard on that southern parcel that I first mentioned is cons is allowed by the um is allowed in our zoning code. Not only the type of use in the building, but that outside storage associated with the contractor service yard. The multi-tenant commercial structures or multi-tenant industrial structures are also allowed in our zoning code. The portion of the zoning code um that has come up in quite some discussion is the use of outside storage associated with the multi-tenant structure. The city's code does not allow for outside storage as its own use or even as an accessory use outside of the contractor storage yard business um or the contractor's business. So, as discussed by the planning commission and noted in your staff report, staff is recommending that this is removed from the uh proposed development plan. The PUD does meet all dimensional regulations. I know in the staff report, we do talk a little bit about the minimum lot area not being met for each of these garage condo units, but that's when those units are condominiumized. Overall, the the bulk and size of the lots do conform with the intent of the development regulations for the limited industrial zoning district. Talking about environmental considerations in the staff report, um do want to just note there will be significant wetland protection on the property as well as some historic drainage patterns that will be preserved and enhanced through this site. Um the landscaping is proposed to have significant woodland tree preservation if that area in the back is not disturbed. Otherwise um 175 excuse me 70 75 overstory trees are required but only 46 are proposed and they are proposing about a third of their understory trees and shrubs. Simply put, even though we recently updated our landscaping ordinance, when our ordinance does allow for so much impervious surface on a property, it's really hard to achieve some of those um def landscape features that we'd like to see. Um but the planning commission did provide comments to the developer regarding helping um enhancing that landscaping plan prior to final plat. Um, one thing worth note is the development plan does require the developer to uh improve the public utilities, not only in enhancing Forest Road through here, but also extending the utilities in front of Forest Road. Um, they are aware that this council has entered into a similar an agreement with an adjacent property owner for the potential um delay and assessment of costs for the improvement of Forest Road. Um, I do believe that this developer would be looking at the potential to have a similar agreement with the city and through this we are still hopeful through the final platting process that we might be able to um I don't know arm wrestle to see who's going to get to build the road and um because our goal is we do want to improve forest road as part of the overall development but we also don't want forest road being developed in a peace meal fashion and then getting torn up when adjacent development occurs. um the visual interest of the buildings. The thing that staff did point out and the planning commission did um also concur with is just to increase a little bit of that visual in interest of not only the multi-tenant building along Forest Road um in in a few different ways that could be achieved, but also the backside of buildings on Forest Road as well given the fact that they will be visible from the Hardwood Creek Trail. that is area where landscaping could be improved. The developer and I have already discussed that. So, um a neighborhood meeting was held a few weeks ago. No, nobody attended. Um public hearing was held by the planning commission. I don't believe I don't recall there being public comment at that either. So tonight for your consideration is resolution 10132504 which does recommend approval of the um Forest Lake Garage Condos preliminary plat and plan with a series of conditions um as discussed and amended by the planning commission developers here if you have questions of them. Do you have questions for me >> council? Any any questions or feedback or thoughts? >> I just have one. Um, and maybe the developer could come to speak to this. Uh, the desire or or want for outdoor storage. Um, I personally am especially in this location. I know it's very limited in the city, but I'm open to that. Um, you know, a lot of times, you know, if we're looking for value to the city, a lot of times, uh, when you have properties that that are valued, a lot of it is income based value. And so, I don't know if that's something that would be a reason why we'd be more open to that. We do have outdoor storage right next door at Interstate currently. And, um, you maybe the developer would want to speak to more to that, what what degree they want that that desire is there. Well, if you don't mind, I know that could speak on behalf that the desire is there because it's on the development application. Um, I think the could speak to the fact that sometimes some of these units get changed out seasonally. So the adoption of um storing you know winter things inside during this I'm never going to do it right but um the idea of having that seasonal uh nature um we rec staff does recognize that this is an area where when you're looking at this development plan the gray areas are outside storage and the question is raised well why right here but not right here and that's simply because the zoning code says when you have that contractor service business, you can have that contractor service yard. I know that the planning commission did discuss these multi-tenant flex spaces and the question of whether or not a contractor would end up in either any of those and if this could be utilized as that contractor storage area. Um, I don't believe that that's the intent of that space, but it could be the reason and grounds in which the city would allow for this outside storage is that there's the potential to serve those contractors in those multi-tenant spaces. Does that help answer your question? >> Anyone have thoughts on that? I do have a number of thoughts, but um you know, as as a member of planning for many years, um the one thing that I'm always amazed with, Abby, is when we get to the landscaping requirements, it seems like we have these requirements, but every single application we look at, they want to do half of what we basically require. And even in some cases when we approve a certain number of landscaping items that need to be done, these developers are not completing them. And there's a probably a few around the city currently that are operating without completed landscaping requirements. I'm wondering how come in this case and maybe you could comment on it because I wasn't there at or maybe commissioner Larson can or council member Larson can because I know he attends some of these is is what was the belief or what was the reason why planning brought it forward saying h maybe that's okay. Um I think it's not entirely. So there is a condition of approval and I would have to just take a minute to find that is to um enhance that landscaping plan and this is a preliminary plat. Um your approvals are preliminary and we will have one more chance. So a lot of times this is that preliminary feedback to say you know that's a nice landscape plan but do better and a lot of times we get better. Um, I can't speak to necessarily development applications before my time. I know that one of the reasons uh that the city has recently adjusted its landscaping regulations is they they were pretty pretty we we really valued the forest in Forest Lake and we really want to see that our our sites are welldeveloped. Um, I do think that there are additional opportunities on this these properties for additional landscaping. Um, I do want to I would want to double check at least if our standard for the 76 trees, 75 trees and 46 being proposed if portions of that were on this property as well. No landscaping is being proposed on that southern site because that will come back for site plan review. by the planning commission when that building is built. Um, but I do think that there is the opportunity for increased landscaping through here as did the planning commission. >> Okay, just one of my thoughts and then the outdoor storage has always been it seems like an issue. Um uh you know I guess some of the reasons have been depending upon what's being stored there, what type of surface it's being stored on um possible ground contamination, things like that. Um I guess I would like to know from the developer if they can speak as to what is their intention with that space to give us a little better idea. >> Any Any other question from council for staff? With with that said, if the developer would like to come up and speak, state your name and address for the record. Can I shut this? >> Good evening, mayor, council members. Scott Peterson, 8860, 152nd Street North, Hugo, Minnesota. Here representing Halberg Marina as the applicant. Um, first off, I just want to say I think uh to level set for a second, it's really hard to understand scale with this is a 30 30 acre parcel. So, what you'll see is that we've shifted the outdoor storage about 500 ft off of the Forest Road North Road, right? And so, the question of, you know, is outdoor storage necessary? Our answer to that is absolutely with what we're trying to sell here, which is an out, you know, condominiumized garage condo aspect. I would also say that outdoor storage is very much in the spirit of the zoning right from an industrial standpoint. If you look at other assets along 61, they do have industrial zoning right now. They have storage because it's a permitted use as a contractor yard. Our argument is that it's a permitted use because of what we're trying to sell, which is a multi-tenentic condominiumized project. And so that's kind of where we at where we envision it as a necessity. We also think it falls in the spirit of of the current zoning. So, I'd urge you to reconsider planning commission's amendment to the recommendation. And then lastly, our full intent here is that this is only available to people already inside of this development. So, it's a it's a secondary offering for somebody that maybe has a a camper, maybe has boats, maybe has snowmobiles, but also has a big flatbed trailer, and they just say, "Listen, we we're okay. The things that need to get conditioned are going to stay in our condo space. We we'd like to have a flatbed trailer here or we'd like to have some sort of horse trailer out here that maybe doesn't require the same level of of long-term kind of care, indoor climate control, etc. >> Maybe it's described in there, but the surface, what's the surface of outdoor storage? >> Yeah. So, right now, um, it's called class 5 crushed aggregate, and part of that is is it's a preferred surface for calculating runoffs with with, uh, Rice Creek WHED, and that's how we presented it to that entity as well. Any questions for the additional questions for the developer? >> So to your your point, you're anticipating horse trailers or boats or campers or used cars to be parked out there. I I guess I would say it would be a it would be available for anybody who's purchased a garage condominium unit and would like an additional space to store something outside. Um I I would say all of those elements could potentially fall underneath that category. Um I believe a condition as well in outdoor storage is it for it to be fenced as well. Um, but yes. >> And so just so I understand, if you own one of the condo units, you pay additional for the outdoor storage. >> That would be our intent. >> And is there a limit to what the uh each occupant could put out there? I mean, can they each have one thing out there or could one condo owner have 10 things out there? >> Yeah. So, typically outdoor storage is subdivided like parking stalls. It's flagged, dimensioned, it has a parking space, and that's how the lease term would go, the rent term would go. when it comes to, you know, we're just starting to get into kind of our our declaration documents now that we've cleared kind of preliminary plat prelim. So, we'll work through those concepts, but it will be a delineated specific space per per renter >> and you anticipate how many spaces or what size spaces? >> Yeah, that's a good question. I would say you're going to have typ typical parking stall is 19 by 18, which is probably where this would be on the small side and then we'd go probably larger from that. Excuse me. 9 by 18, excuse me. >> Thank you. Right. Maybe Abby, if you just want to review like preliminary what's next steps and what are we agreeing to or not agreeing to yet? >> So tonight for your con tonight for your consideration is the preliminary plat and plan. Um are it's a platting process that is a three-step process. concept plan that you saw in the spring preliminary plat that flushes out quite a bit of the sausage making so to say and then coming back before you um planning commission and the council will be a final plat and plan um if the council approves tonight's resolution with or without modifications um I think the you know based on the discussion from the planning commission the resolution encompasses the planning commission's um discussion topics. I think that there's always options if this council is wanting to change something such as making that outdoor storage area um permissible would be an amendment then to the resolution. I'd have to again just double check that resolution. I'm going to just actually unplug really quick so I can take a look at that. Um but for your consideration tonight is the approval of the preliminary platin plan which gives them the direction to move forward with all their final documents. Engineering site plan, landscaping plan, design details. We are requiring the owner's declaration be submitted for our review. All of that then would be need to be just submitted before the final plan and plat could be up for consideration and approval. >> Well, you know, so much here tonight, but I think the idea of outdoor storage in that space, I kind of agree with Mayor Roberts in the sense that it's going to be directly behind the contractor open storage or or outside storage. I don't know if anybody passing by would know the difference necessarily if it was that contractor's material or the condo um owner's material other than perhaps, you know, the quality of the of the product that's sitting out there. So, I'm certainly open to um striking item 1 C, the removal of the proposed out exterior storage area of the resolution if that's agreeable by council. Abby, could uh so if we did strike that by the time it came to final, that could be taken back out, right? This is just the one more step or >> um it could be, but generally speaking, uh final plats and plans conform with the approvals you give tonight. So, if you ended up taking it out, I think we'd be having that hard conversation at final if it was added back in. I will say this is an area that is tucked away. Um, they are proposing to retain some wooded area for that and screening for for that area. Um, and it is an otherwise um I can't say unusable space. They could put condos back in that area, but it is a high area that is not contiguous to the development that helps preserve some sort of land development option there. Limited land development option there. >> I I guess that's how I look at when I see that space. It just seems like it'd be a waste of space not to generate some type of revenue. Therefore, then would translate into tax value to the city uh with as long as it's screened properly. That's kind of why when I first looked at it where I went. But >> Mr. Mayor, council members, um Abby, could you comment on how visible that area is to the airport? Uh I know at the airport we're looking at some commercial uh hangers in that area behind there. Uh I don't know the distance from that area to that and how visible it is. >> Sure. I'm going to just pull up our aerial image again from the site plan included in your packet. Here's Forest Lake Area Airport, uh Forest Road North. All of the wooded area here is wooded and wetland. There is some removals being proposed. I'm going to flip to my next page here. You can see how that kind of finger went out. We're going to cut that back a little bit. um you'd still have some wooded area uh preserved around it, the wooded wetland areas around the um around the site. So, it would be kind of tucked in back up in here. It is going to be visible from the runway, certainly from the air, um uh probably from some of those newer development areas. Um, that would be a possibility >> and my only concern would be would that have any effect on any of those hanger owners and some of the commercial businesses they might want to put in there. Um, one uh thought too could be to require or request that they explore reducing the area slightly, keeping some of that vegetative existing vegetative buffer along that line, enhancing landscaping on the outside of those fencing areas. That is something that we did require of the land owner to the north when they were coming forward with their expansion plan. Yeah, I guess the one comment I would have is, you know, the far on the south east side, which is, you know, according to this picture, pretty wide open, you know, that's closest to the general use hangers, that's going to be the contractor yard. Correct. >> That is correct. >> So, that's going to be fully visible, you know, save any screening that they do. So, this area, I see it be more tucked into the to the woods to some degree. Um, >> the one thing I will just say, uh, Council Member Ericson, is that again, we will end up having to do site plan review on that property and would likely, um, to be talking about some of those buffer landscaping requirements along that south property line. That is an area coming from the south that you will be able to kind of see into the site more than coming from the north or even if you're just looking headon on from the street. So, um, those are areas that we've talked with the, uh, prospective landowner, developer about just in the future needing some greater landscaping there. >> Yeah. I mean, I certainly understand our code and why we don't want to just have open storage, you know, on a parcel, I mean, due in large part to the tax base, but in a property like this, an acreage like this, it's going to be welldeveloped. Um, if this is a an add-on feature that creates more marketability, I don't see how it hurts us, especially with, you know, that contractor yard directly in front of it on the roadside and as well as on the north with interstate. I guess that's where I'm coming from. >> Mr. Mayor, if I may, um, is there maybe a way that, uh, Abby or maybe Amanda, is there a way for us to sort of leave that question open, giving the preliminary, uh, plant PUD approval with that question of, you know, allowing them to explore that? I I think there are a number of good questions here about that outside storage if we were to allow it. I think I heard, you know, campers that immediately gave me concern about the potential for people living trying to go through that process as we've seen play out in a number of different scenarios before and how difficult that can be. Obviously, there want to be some restrictions on those on what can be stored there and how um I think that's tan out or I think it's important um relevant I should say to the question of whether or not we should allow it is the restrictions that go on it right. I think with some restrictions maybe you feel comfortable without those restrictions you don't. I think being that um your approval of whether or not you should have outside storage is contingent upon what kind of restrictions you might be able to put on there. Is there a way to make this approval with exploration of those those conditions allowing us to deny it if we can't get satisfactory conditions I guess right and just another comment and I like Mark's suggestion is some of those contractor yards you know we went round and around and around about can you sit and change oil out in the middle of the yard or they need to be going into the buildings to be changing oil things like that. that so they weren't necessarily dripping that down into the ground, especially on a surface that it will penetrate. So, what I'm hearing from the council at least is um that you may be favorable to that outside storage area as this minor accessory use. um but that there are some concerns about the visibility in the area, the types of items being stored in that area, and that um you wouldn't maybe wholesaly agree with the planning commission's recommendation of item 1C, I think it is condition 1C, and that you may want to modify that condition that would be to um explore the proposed exur area to serve the garage condo's use to minimize its impacts to its site and the surrounding and the neighboring properties. >> From my perspective, yes. As well as as limitations as to who's using it. Is it only the condo owners? And is that going to be in writing somewhere part of the rules or is it going to be just extra space that's designated for anybody? Your honor, council, uh, if I could hop in here. So, when you're approving the preliminary plat, um, and if you are essentially granting the outdoor storage now, it's really hard to, as Aby's already mentioned, pull that back at final plaid and say, "Never mind, you can't do that." What's a lot easier is to have the restrictions stronger now and then at preliminary plat sort of toggle that back or you know so um if you're I I would have a recommendation that you don't explicitly authorize outdoor storage but as has been suggested to potentially explore that bring that you know back as part of final platt um for additional consideration but not expressly remove the condition here, leave it in for now with the direction to please work on a new plan and then hopefully we have a plan where we have performance standards that would allow for outdoor storage to work in the situation because we can't toggle it the other direction if that makes sense. >> Yeah, and I could be agreeable to that. I guess just, you know, kind of thinking through a couple of the the concerns. I mean, the idea of somebody living in their camper outside, it's it's not more likely than them living in the camper in their garage, you know. So, what kind of access are we going to have to these private units to make sure no one's living in there, you know, that's been a point of conversation with other spaces in town. So, that's something to be thinking about. Um, and then also to to uh Council Member Miller's point about, you know, who's going to have access to it. you know, we've got to trust the developer that, you know, their intention is to make it only accessible to those who are owners that that's what their intention is. But, um, I guess, yeah, I'd be agreeable to take council's advice. Um, but I I certainly would like us to continue to explore it. I think that it is, you know, a value add to the property. Um, and something that's worth worth our our consideration. It's it's certainly not allowing just a vacant piece of land to be all of a sudden become outside storage. That's not the intent. um here nor would I be supportive of that in and of itself. >> Mayor Roberts, if I might just um add on to or to address one item council member Ericson brought up. Um I did state in we stated in the staff report we've stated verbally planning commission um and city council. We've shared with the applicant their representatives that people are not going to be living. These are not residential units. So, that's one of the reasons we've asked to review the owner's declarations. And um I do believe that condition onee is proposed owners declarations must be cityitted for review is good um to keep in here to take a look at some of those things that may be in conflict with the zoning code with the city's regulations the discussions that are had um and for those to kind of be ironed out quite a bit through those private documents as well. Um is our private properties Yes, we will be monitoring for zoning code enforcement, but at the same time, we also are really hopeful that like other owners associations, the owners association has some responsibility and helps out in the enforcement of some of those activities that are not permitted on the property. >> All right. Well, with that then, how do we suggest we make this motion? And >> Sure. >> So, I do just want to iterate one thing. I think Aby's spot on. I think the protection for city and council's already written in here with the the review of the proposed HOA declaration to be included uh and submitted for city review. The eitheror scenario doesn't really work for us. I mean, we're moving quickly to a Rice Creek submitt. This has wetland impacts and we've got to cross it. We've got c certain storm order calculations done on that. So to to leave here with a come back and restudy it probably doesn't work for the schedule, doesn't work for the documents where we're at it. So, I guess the way we've submitted it and the way the storm water calculations are both presented to the city as well as Rice Creek is with this space calculated. And so, I guess, you know, we'd like to see it as as any concerns. First off, we'd like to see it included. Let me be clear about that. Secondly, we think that the backs stop provided by the city is the HOA declaration. And then, you know, secondly, we'd be opening things like, you know, you have to have a current, you know, registration and title on any asset that's there or a certain year duration. I mean, those are all things that that we want to do. And I I want to be clear here as well. We have to get this right as well. Right. Because we're selling this is probably a $25 million project when it's all said and done. And not not getting that right means we're not going to be successful. So I don't want this to feel like it's an outdoor storage and we're just providing this back in the corner. We do think it's a need. We think when we drive around this market specifically and you look at people that have these sort of uh recreational toys, let's say, whether they're boats or snowmobiles, etc., this is a need. And and um again by limiting it to only people inside the already existing development we think is a another way to kind of put a second control mechanism on it. So thank you. >> So then with that we could if we if council was interested we could approve this minus 1 C but then all those concerns we have could be addressed in those deca decoration declarations. >> Yes. But I would encourage you to maybe not remove 1 C but to modify 1 C to um uh uh explore the propo explore options to minimize the proposed exterior storage areas um and minimize its impacts on adjacent land uses. Those weren't great words. I didn't get them all well, but I would be hesitant to remove it completely. Um, and but to really kind of set firm at least like we recognize it's here. We we're generally in support, but we are concerned and we want to see the uses redefined, some increased landscaping or buffering as possible. And that amendment could be as specific as that. It could be a motion to approve resolution 10132504 with an amendment to condition 1C that indicates the exterior storage area for the garage condos shall be um to minimize its impacts to the fullest extent on the surrounding area and explore restrictions on the type of m uh material stored in that area. Anybody write that down? I >> I tried. >> Now I would say that I would be open to that. Otherwise, if we don't have some amendment like that, I would be a no for this taking that out. >> Your one other point that you would also need to amend uh one E >> E >> because right now it says proposed owner declarations must be submitted to the city for review. Nothing about approval. And so if the backs stop is these declarations, then what we actually want is to be able to edit them to include restrictions that may be necessary such as providing the registration or, you know, prohibiting people from sleeping in them, etc., etc. Whatever the things are that we're trying to prevent, we need to be able to both review and approve their declarations. >> Kevin, do you want to I don't know if I could uh put all that in proper language, but um so let's try this, Abby. And >> do you want me to? >> Yes. Move to approve uh resolution 13 10132504 with modification to 1C um requiring exploration of minimizing the impact to the existing site and surrounding areas and limiting the material and type of items stored and editing one E that the proposed owner's declarations must be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to final So that's a motion. >> Yes. >> Motion. Do we have a second? >> Second that. >> Uh any further discussion? >> I you know we we value the planning commission's view on this. I just think that >> you know that land, you know, there's a value. There's 30 acres here. This is going to be a great project for Forest Lake. We're going to be talking about density here in the next uh agenda item and people are going to need areas to put spaces. So, I think this is going to be a great project and um so with that we have a motion to second. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Motion carries. >> Thanks. >> All right. Uh 8B Chestnut Creek POD and Abbey. >> Just a moment. Get myself set up here. Okay, that's fine. All right. Thank you. Roberts, members of the council, tonight for your consideration is um again a preliminary platinum PUD for Chestnut Creek and I should have put Chestnut Creek phase 2. Um, as the council is aware, Chestnut Creek uh has was approved by the city in 2016 as a two-phased planned unit development. So, up on the board there for your review is that phase one that was approved in 2016, the plat was approved, but the entire development proposal was proposed by the city council at that time. The original planned unit development was for the entire 114 acres of 220 lots in two phases. A preliminary plat was for approval of 108 units. And at the time the council did accept parkland in lie of land dedication for the first phase. And I will just note that the PUD approval did not show any park land. it was all residential lots. So tonight um showing up on the board is the proposed plat and PUB for the phase two. This is 58 remaining acres of the site with 116 lots. Um so you will just basic math take a look 116 plus 108 of the original is slightly more lots proposed than the original PUD has seven new lots. Um so that PUB approval um that is being considered is amendment to allow those seven additional lots and to reduce the sideyard setback on corner lots up to 20 ft. Um additionally one thing that is new compared to the original PUD is an additional 1 acre of wetland buffer that is being proposed on the west half of or on this second phase of the development. Um public comments were received in a variety of different ways. Comments were submitted in writing. Comments were provided in the planning commission meeting um that was held last month. Um this is a highlevel idea. There's very thorough comments included in the packet. All of them were verbatim without taking out um any information that was provided by them in writing. The comments can be summarized in four categories. the narrow lot sizes and that a lack of additional garage stall. Um, this application has been running kind of parallel with garage condos and that isn't the first time that that was brought up as a an alternative. Um, those wetland buffers. So, just concerns for the increased storm water and the existing restrictions on the wetland buffer areas, especially in that first phase. Um staff will note just for the record, wetland buffers were a requirement of the first phase, but it does not appear that all many of the homeowners were made aware of those buffers and it was much later that those buffers were brought up to existing homeowners as something that would restrict the use of their property. Um, with regard to the wetland buffers, the wetland buffers will be mapped out, will be um, delineated, will show up on every single survey. These are things that the developer has indicated they would advise new land owners of. We can't do much about those first phase restrictions. Um, those are in place. Those apply to the existing properties. We can only just do better on that second phase. Traffic was also brought up and the traffic was twofold. One was on Harrow Avenue outside of the development area and then the other traffic concerns are internal. The concerns on Harrow Avenue really have to do with its connection points in a lot of ways. Also speeds, but connection points with the other major roadway systems, Highway 97 and then where it loops down around County Road 50 and 202 and Highway 61. Um, with regard to the external traffic concerns, it has been brought up the request for the city to conduct a traffic study, but it is noted that there have not been any additional development demands in this area since the since this original PUD was approved. Therefore, the traffic conditions have not changed in those areas. While we acknowledge that they're not great traffic conditions, this second phase does not create the any greater impact than the PUD had originally when it was contemplated and approved by the city in 2016. Additionally, um, legal council or administrator stats might be able to also comment that it's really hard for cities to look at uh to require impact studies to kind of that regional system because of this one development. you really have to look at its primary connecting points and um access on to Harrow. Um when it comes to the internal traffic concerns, many of our de developments when they're phased start at the front and we work our way back and therefore we have that development p the development traffic, trucks coming in, contractors come coming and bringing in building materials, all that's going to come through that first phase. Um, that is a part of development and I think had there not been a 10-year gap, it just would have maybe been just part of the standard operating procedure for that neighborhood like it is right now in Hidden Creek's neighborhood. Um, one of the things that was brought up was a primary concern was the number of school children living in the community and the concern for how the traffic internal would operate specifically. Um, and especially when it came to things like bus routes and bus stops. So staff has um included in the packet um and a condition of approval for the request for an internal traffic pl safety plan. That was something that we also requested of the Hidden Creek neighborhood that's also being developed in those phases. And then lastly, um not to say that any of those other comments are not um legitimate and of concern, but the biggest um portion of comments you're going to hear, you've already heard, you've written, you received in writing is of public parkland. Um the comments really stem from three things. One is the original assumption that there would be a park in this neighborhood. Um, I've heard from residents that bought early and I heard from residents that bought late that everybody believed that there would be a park here. They were told that by the developer, they were told that by their realtor, if not in that first phase, in that second phase. And the really hard part that I have to share with you is that there was no park approved. And so that's that is a hard part of this whole thing. Um the other concerns are the distance to the existing system and I'll show you a little bit in the park um when we go a little bit more detail in the park analysis that distance to the existing system. The closest parks are um Bridal Pass, that's the name of it, which is not accessible from the first phase. The second phase will make will make it accessible. That's to the west. But the other one then is off of Harrow Avenue. Manor Manor Park that is being manor south of Harrow >> Manor Park that's being redeveloped up off of you know further to the north. Um that the concern is that while these are the exi the parks in the existing system they are not accessible to this neighborhood. Staff does acknowledge that as well. And then also just the lack of future development plans. So while we have said and well staff has said that there has been plans for future development, this neighborhood has heard that for 10 years now. And so that question of what does that really do for the future of or for this park, these were some of the concerns that are heard. So the recommendations before you um as you've noted in the staff report, staff continues to recommend uh the council approve the planned unit development and plan. There are number of reasons for this. One is the prior approval by this council. The planned unit development was previously approved. Um the developer is asking for new to open that up and so there is that opportunity to negotiate new um parkland dedication requirements for that second phase. However, the original plaque did not include that. Second, the public benefit test. When we're looking at planned unit developments, we look to see what is the public benefit. That process of if you want some concessions, what are what is the public getting? And in this staff would argue we're finishing a legacy development. We're increasing those parkland buffers. And then also our future parkland development and long-term parkland system doesn't really want to see smaller neighborhood parks like we have in the past. We like to see slightly larger parks that are serving maybe two neighborhoods or more at a time within a 10-minute walk of each of the neighborhoods. Planning commission did consider this application on September 10th of 2025. They recommended two things. The first is to deny the planned unit development on the basis that there is not enough public benefit. The planning commission did not make recommendation specific to the park but did reference that the lack of park means that there's lack of a public benefit. Then the other thing the council did the planning commission did is they did recommend you approve the preliminary plat. So what that means is the planning commission is saying you should probably move a forward this plat but if the developer wants concessions then we should get more benefit. A flat with no concessions is is grounds for moving things forward. Parks and recreation commission reviewed this on September 17th of 25 and they did recommend parkland dedication through an amended planned unit development. There was no specific stating of how much parkland staff just assumed it would be the full 10% required by um the city ordinance. I do want to note in the packet there was a lot of talk about discussions that occurred in 2016 about development in Chestnut Creek and adjacent developments and land in Birwood Estates. This is Birwood Estates and Chestnut Creek. The two properties do not touch and have never touched. This is one of the things that I at least just want to point out at the moment of parkland conversations that have been occurring right now. Birchwood Estates is no longer a development that's being active or being planned. This is owned by a new development firm and staffs with the hope that something will come in in the next six to 18 months. Up for the uh city's consideration right now, this development here is Amberly Woods. I guess it goes all the way to Good View Avenue. Up for park consideration, park and recreation consideration. This Wednesday night is the consideration of dedication of land of almost half of this property. There is um uh wet wetland and woodland, but there is approximately six acres of highland in here that would serve at least the minimum requirements beyond the minimum requirements for Amberly Woods. So just know that at least in my tenure here, three and a half years, the conversations have always been so focused on the kind of four corners park area that we would be trying to seek land in these areas, not necessarily in Chestnut Creek. This was supported with the city's 2040 comprehensive plan that does show future parkland um in this area. For reference, Chestnut Creek is right in here. Guess kind of up in here, slightly south of where that that search area was. It's not an exact science. It could have been that we always thought that there'd be something in Chestnut Creek. It's just that isn't really well supported. I will also note that the city used to use what was called the halfmile service area to determine if a neighborhood was needed in an in a park or in a development. Chestnut Creek neighborhood. Again, we're looking in this area right here. You can see that first half um that first half and even that second half is being serviced by in that half mile area. You've already heard though that we do determine that that might not be sufficient. And the new um draft park and recreation plan does start to look at that 10-minute walkshed area, rethinking how it is that we can get um neighborhoods to parks. looking at that 10-minute walkshed area um that uh the entire area really isn't well serviced at all by parks. It's shown that new park that we are looking at would be in this area, the D land dedication with Ambry Woods and those four other properties. And then recently this land here has come up for sale. Um and all preliminary conversations we've also talked about the uh lack of parkland in that area. I only bring these up to let the council know that this is part of at least what has come into staff's recommendation is I understand that there's been a 10-year history here of there'll be a park someday, there'll be a park someday, but we have to use our planning documents to help guide their conversations and direct our developers. Um, that being said, I think when I met the applicants the very first time I met them, I said the park land will be a a a discussion topic. So tonight for your discussion and your consideration is uh the action of preliminary approval of a action of a preliminary planned unit development and a preliminary plat. As noted tonight, you do have a little bit more time. We do have 120 days to consider um land or uh land subdivision applications. Um if that would be the circumstance the council needs to table with specific action for the developer and staff to work through to bring that back. But staff has prepared resolution number 10132505 with 11 stated conditions which does include that internal traffic safety plan uh requirement for installation and development of public rightways and easements and construction of public improvements. As the resolution is written, it is written as staff's recommendation. The council just as you did with the um Forest Lake Garage condos does have the right to amend those resolutions as you see fit based on the discussion. So, the application uh the applicants representatives uh from Dr. Horton are here tonight. Do you have any questions for me? >> Council questions for >> I'll wait. Wait. >> I'll wait till after. >> Oh, okay. If if there's no questions for staff, then um I guess we'd have the uh representatives from the Valper, come up. Just want to state your name and address for the record. >> Good evening. I'm Mike S with Dr. Horton, 20860 Kenbridge Court, Lakeville, Minnesota. Um, we're happy to be here tonight and excited to be in Forest Lake hopefully. Um, with me tonight is our engineer, Ryan Bloom from Westwood. Um, Frank Hagen and Deb Rididgeway, two of my colleagues at Dear Horton. Um, just a couple clarification. You said a PU a new PUD development, but this is an amendment, correct, Abby? >> Um, yes, that is correct. An amended PUD. >> Didn't miss anything. Um, looking at some of the residents concerns that they were brought up was we're not changing our sideyard setbacks from what was originally approved. The only only condition we are asking to change is to go with the corner setback difference. Our actual sideyard setbacks between houses will stay the same as what was originally approved. Um, we've modified our lot sizes from the planning commission meeting to match in what was originally approved. And, um, some of the thoughts on what we see as public value is, um, we're fixing the wetland buffer issue that sits out there. There are homes in the first edition that have encroached into the wetlands and we've met with staff and the watershed to try to come up with a way to find this one acre, but they don't have to go back to the existing residents and tell them tear out yards, tear out whatever. I don't think anybody here wants to do that. So, we've been trying to figure out that. So, when we went to resolve the wetland buffer, we had to switch some of the streets around on the west side of the site. That resulted in our lot counts adjusting some with some lot sizes, but our lot sizes, our lot widths are no smaller than what was approved. Originally, it was approved at 52 foot wide lots and we our smallest lots are 55. So, we thought we were doing good staying within the original PUD um approval and providing um additional wetland buffers. As Abby says, we're also trying to complete a site that was half done, which will provide the city with additional water pressure in this area and then provide them with streets over the existing sewer that sits out there that they can't access as easy as they could if the streets were in. With regards to the park, we have we're open to a park out there. We just need some guidance from the council staff, whoever it be. Do you want all five acres of parkland, which may make the site really hard to then try to figure out how do you find five acres and still make it feasible? Or are you looking for a combination of a smaller park and some cash dedication? Because in my past life and other cities that we develop in, some cities are land rich in parkland. But finding the actual dollars to build the park improvements gets hard because your dollars get chewed up quickly is in parks as you guys all know better than we do. So, we just need some directions. Are you thinking a smaller park here? And we did provide staff with a small park that we had placed in the center of the site, but maybe as we talk through this as we go forward, maybe we move that park to the very south end on the street that's coming out to the south there. So then it could maybe connect into the bigger park that may come with Birwood. We're designing as we go here, Abby. But we So that's that's one thought. So we're open to having a discussion, but I think we just need some guidance from you. We've heard the residents, but we don't we don't get to make the decision on if it's land versus cash. though I think we just need some direction on from you folks that we can how you want us to see going forward and how what you think should come back when we bring the final plat. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Quick quick question. If a 5acre park makes it possibly unfeasible, what size park would be feasible? >> Um it gets down to how how many lots we're going to lose because we have to be able to build the streets and pay for all everything else. >> Um, some of it is I don't know what you count for parkland because I've we've looked at your maps in the past and some of your parks have been a lot of wetlands and open space and not so much uplands. So, I can't remember what your code calls for park dedication. We would prefer somewhere around a one to one and a half acre, just a smaller park with a playground, maybe a half basketball court or just more grass areas for folks to play. >> But when you get to a 5 acre, it's a whole different animal, and I don't know if that can work here. >> Yeah. All right. Thank you, >> Kevin. You said you mentioned you have some questions. Okay. I guess the one question I'd have is um I'm trying to remember, you know, I was on planning commission for almost 14 years. So I'm remembering this project bits and pieces now. Were you involved in it from day one? >> No, we've just come in the last 3 four months. >> Correct. >> And we have no history with what went on in the past. We know there's been different builders out there. >> Yes. between Capstone LAR which is a national builder and some smaller ones way at the beginning but >> correct >> we're we're trying to finish up a second edition that we had no >> correct >> part of >> you have salespeople on site >> yes >> and are you aware your salespeople potentially are telling people there's a park >> um we don't we haven't ever sold a home out here >> so >> so you're not doing it >> nope and we're pretty good on our training I won't say we're perfect but Deb meets with every new sales person. We want to make sure that we don't sell any disclose anything that could come back to us because we are a national builder, but Dr. Horton's been in the Twin Cities for 29 years and we never change who we are, how we sell, so we're we're not leaving. We hopefully this is the start of a long-term relationship with the city of Forest Lake. So, we want to do good on the first one and not cause your staff and the council to hear about us ever again. And you have sites in the first phase that you're still selling? >> No, we we own nothing. >> Okay. Did you see plats of the first phase? >> Yes, we've seen the plats. We've seen the PU >> on those plats. Did you see anything about a park? >> Nope. I've not Wasn't until Abby told us way back when that the park land came up, but right >> the sellers never mentioned park. So, >> Yep. That's all I wanted to know. Thanks. >> Other questions? First of all, I'd like to say thank you for undertaking something that was probably wronged in the beginning. And that's why you have all these people here. They don't want to see this next phase come into a a build where they have the same situation that they're in with the watershed, which uh they made a mistake with. It sounds like on the hat. Um other part of it is they're here because they'd like a park. There's a lot of lot of talk. We went out and walked around, myself and Mayor Roberts. Uh they want to park bad. on the other part of it. Um, we have certain areas that we've already set for Parkland area, but I don't know how the rest of the council feels about this, but we'd like to try to come up with something uh work with you folks to come up with some type of a resolution to have some type of parkland. At least that's my thought. So, whatever we can kind of work out as a the developer, as a community, and the council to maybe see if we can get some parkland for these folks. >> Yeah. And we've heard them pretty loud and clear because they've been pretty vocal. They've been respectful in their comments, but um we just need some direction. The other thing I would ask the council to decide is if we take x amount of land, it limits your cash and I have no idea where the city of Forest Lakes Park fund sits. So maybe you have dollars that you can build this park tomorrow, but just providing them land doesn't get the park built for these folks. So I think I think whatever we do, we have to try to come up with a combination of some land and some cash fees that gets us the park hopefully in our phase one that we build next year. That would be our goal is to try to get it built next year as we work through all the other development stuff, but we'll wait for your guys' directions or you want to move. >> There's been conversations between you and Abby or your company and Abby regarding this. It sounds like >> Oh, we've had lots of conversations of whatifs with Abby, but Abby always says it's up to you guys to provide directions to all of us if I'm correct. >> Yeah. I mean from the beginning uh what shared with DR the concern would be for parkland um we've met a number of times we've talked about the potential for parkland in the area um the developers do have a right to at least see the application through right you have to take act action on the application that's before you so I had advised that they didn't shouldn't be amending plans midstream right um to really kind of bring this to the council, gauge the council's uh feedback on the matter, whether or not it's an approval, an amended approval. Um but to really kind of hone in on what does the city council really want to see here um in terms of long-term improvements before amended plans would be developed? Go ahead. >> Just a couple more. I don't have any more questions unless you do. >> Uh well, any any more questions for the developer? I I guess I so I um I when we did tour that that existing neighborhood and my day job, I'm a part-time delivery, flower delivery guy. So, I'm in that neighborhood quite a bit and it's a beautiful neighborhood. Uh they've taken they take great pride in that neighborhood. They have an HOA there. Is there any consideration of an HOA in the second edition? Uh I know those HOAs can cut either way, but in this example where that current neighborhood is, it's really served seemed to serve it really well. >> Uh we have found in our experience that um HOAs don't survive long term if there's not a good reason for it. Neighbors are still going to become neighbors in communities if they're not in an HOA. We still see that in our neighborhood. So, we don't see the need for an HOA. Um, we certainly we'll take one last look at it, but we don't see any need for an HOA in this neighborhood. >> So, there's no public space that shares >> in that that current. Um, uh, I don't have anything any questions of you. Obviously, we have some conversation about parks here. So, I guess one question that comes is what um what are we talking about dollars? And this for me it's kind of here or there because I I really do strongly believe we need a park there. But if there was no park contemplated here or which there isn't, what is the dollar amount and is that worked into our 10-year like park plan budget? >> Um the to answer the second question, yes. Um we always account for at least um one 100 or 100 units new units in our capital our long-term part capital plan. So we the dedication requirement of 100 units is kind of that minimum cash that we believe we're going to inject into that capital plan each year >> and that's 100 at 2500 >> 100 at 2500. Um, so when we're looking at the minimum contribution on 116 lots, we'd be looking at a minimum contribution of 290,000 if it was the 2500 per lot. If but it is right the 2500 >> it is um argument can be made that we do have a right to assess fair market value and take um ask for dedication that is 10% of the land value. Um now that would be kind of different than what has historically been conversations on this development. Um I understand that those were 10 years old. Um, but I don't I think that would be a little bit more surprising to DR. Um, I believe that they purchased this with the prospect of the $2,500 per lot land dedication. >> Any other thoughts on park? >> Well, I can share some of the knowledge that I remember. Um, you know, there was never a park planned for this neighborhood. I'm not sure what salespeople and models were telling people. It has always been an area that has been park dedicated fees from my experience and my remembrance on the planning commission. There was talk about trail systems because like Abby said, we are looking at two developments in the near future. One to the south called Amber Leewoods and one a little bit further called Birwood Estates. Both of those had huge parks planned for them. Birwood Estates had a lot. Is Birchwood Estates Abby the one with all the wetlands and we were going to do the natural park? Was the discussion? >> Um, do you remember? >> No, that would be the serving Amberly. Okay. So Amber Lee, you know, half of that property was wetlands. And so we talked about building trail systems and a beautiful natural wetland park in there. Well, that project kind of died as we got into that discussion because the developer wasn't able to develop enough land to make it worthwhile at this point because of the cost of the property. Birchwood Estates, which is just a very short distance from there. The anticipation was there would be trails, bike trails or walking trails from Chestnut Creek down into Birwood Estates. Again, future that aren't there yet that are planned to come. Obviously, I agree with you. I see a need for a park there, but that was the plan. From from that point on, then I'm not sure where these discussions went or how they got to this point where they came back to planning or they came back to the parks committee and now they're talking about it. We sat at a planning commission meeting one time and were told by the mayor that we have to be careful about park dedications because not only do you get the dedication of the land, but then you have to have the money to build out that park. As an example, Belts Park, which we just remodeled, was over a million dollars. Our city doesn't have that extra money just sitting there to develop land that we have necessarily. And so, we have to then plan for that as well. So, the land is great, but you also have to have the money to build it out. So, when you get the dedication fees, that's what we use that money for is to build out these other parks that we've got into our 10 and 20 year plans. That's my understanding from my experience on the planning commission. Again, I see the need for this, but I'm not sure we're capable of doing it at this point. That's what I have to say. >> So, right or wrong, it was a different mayor, though, right? >> It It was different mayor. Yes. Right or wrong, it was a different mayor. Yes. >> Yeah. So, uh we're just going to have a little bit more conversation here. As I mentioned before, we'll allow, uh the public to speak, uh in just a moment. So, uh, >> hearing this discussion tonight, um, and being the parks lison, I would like to see a park there. Um, knowing that there hearing the conversation in the history and knowing that there wasn't a park um in the in phase one originally, to me, that doesn't necessarily matter in the fact of moving forward in the sense that um, I think there's just a demand if you look at that area. And then two, looking at the developments that are south from Chestnut Creek in the sense that there'll be um like walking trails and stuff, which that would be a nice amenity to have. I think these neighborhoods, Chestnut Creek, if I'm not mistaken, would be more looking for a park that would be for children. Trails are great for adults, but not necessarily for children. And I think um differentiating the two, I think Chestnut Creek for both uh phase one and phase two, I just think in this area would really benefit from a park. And if we could do I think a the mixture of a smaller park um I think just you know exploring the options um to make sure that this phase 2 goes through so that we can just everyone can um find find something that works for the the developer, the city, and then um the neighborhood. I think I think we can get there. Um and I and that's where I'd like to see us go. A question on that wetland buffer being an acre. Is that space would any of that space be able to be used for open green space or or parkland at all? >> I mean, it's it's open green space. It's going to be in people's backyards. >> So, it's a combination of an acre throughout the whole >> Yeah, it's combination throughout and and they're usually non-disturbance uh areas. Um you can usually put natural surface trails in them or walking paths. Um but that So up on the screen there, you see you'll have some um increase through here. Um but you kind of get spit out here. Otherwise, you'll have a little bit more increase along the edges of the others. It's not really good contiguous um kind of pathway options. I know we did um when we I looked at Chestnut Creek shortly after I got here with somebody started with the city with another developer, we did look at the possibility of you know trails kind of coming in. The original plat called for little narrow lots and so it's tricky to kind of get those public amenities in those backyard areas. >> Okay. Is uh council ready to hear more comments from public? So, uh, if you've spoke already, you're you're more than welcome to come again, but I would keep your comments a little bit more limited and allow time for those who have not spoke. So, let's start with those who have not spoke yet this evening. Just state your name and address for the record. >> Your honor, could we just make a clarifying statement? My understanding is that the required public hearing for the project was held at the planning commission and and so correct. >> Correct. >> And so, the the purpose of this is obviously council's discretion. You have the uh right to open up a public hearing. You also have a right at any point to end the public hearing. Um and again, we already have met the requirements under the law to hold the official public hearing. So, this is a bonus a bonus public hearing. Just wanted to clarify for the record. >> So, do you want to officially call it a public hearing? >> Could could you open it as a public hearing and then close it as a public hearing? >> Okay. So, um I'm looking for a motion to approve opening a public hearing at uh 7:37 on Chestnut Creek, second edition. >> So, moved. >> I'll second. Okay, we we are open. Oh, all in favor? >> I opposed. We're open. Um, go ahead. Speaker your or your name and address again. >> Thank you. My name is Nikki Seiring. My address is 20710 Hamlet Court North. Good evening. I've been a resident of Forest Lake for the past eight years. We custom built our home in the Chestnut Creek development. I haven't had the pleasure to meet you guys when you did come to our neighborhood, but I was one of the original ones that got to custom build my home. It was not from a national builder. We got to choose where we wanted to live. We had the opportunity before there were homes there. But that's where we wanted to raise our family. That's where I wanted my children to grow up. We got that choice and I chose to build there. Now, I know you say the park was not in the plans. In our governing documents, it states a park. Okay? We pay yearly for an HOA. That yearly HOA is to keep our neighborhood looking nice. I'm not saying your neighborhoods don't look nice. I'm not saying that by any means. But there's restrictions. We don't allow campers sitting there. We don't allow the boats sitting on the streets. We already have compacted streets enough that it's very hard to have that in place to have structure, the cosmetics, everything to match what we all had to do to build our homes there from a previous developer and land owner to watch how it has changed in those 10 years from the preliminary plat. Things all change, children change, times change. I'm a business owner in the community. I support all of our children's youths, all of our children's programs, all of the things. My kids are 12 and nine. I don't think that the park's going to do any justice for my children alone. They're in activities, sports, they're running around. It's not going to be for them. It's going to be for the future kids coming in. I took this picture tonight before I came here on my way out of the neighborhood. And this is where you are going to find four year olds, three-year-olds, and two-year-olds at the end of our dead-end street playing with tractors, sand, grass, shovels, because there's nowhere for them to play. I don't think we need this massive structure like Belts Park. It's beautiful. It's close by. I've gotten my daughter in the car, I can say over 50 times this summer alone to go up to Forest View and Forest Lake Elementary so she can go to a nice park. I don't think it's that the 10-minute walk. I agree. We all need 10-minute walks. But I will be damned if I will let my 12-year-old walk down Harrow to go to the park that's being reconstructed that's going to have swings now. I don't allow that to happen. And anyone here that thinks that we are supposed to take our children and allow them a 10-minute walk up Harrow with 50 to 55 mph drivers that don't look out for children are insane. It's insanity, you guys. For real. So, I don't know that. Like I said, I don't think it has to be a massive park. We just need somewhere for the kids to go. If it's a half basketball court, if it's a net for the soccer kids, if it's little things for them to do, I think that we really, really need to focus on that. I also in one of the unfortunate ones of the wetland buffer. I don't have one post in my yard for wetland, but I will tell you, I've had the city come out to my yard five years ago and place drain tile for the constant water flow. It hasn't stopped it. It hasn't changed it. I constantly have six inches of standing water in my backyard to the point where my poles raise after winter because of the ice heaves because of so much water that continu stands. Being a business owner in the community, I talked to other business owners. A lot of them have memberships over at Forest Hills Golf Course. They're all having a lot of issues with the wershed because of the movement of the water and the waterheds that's having to be placed over there and all the other places. And I just really ask that we focus on the clay soil. There's nowhere for the water to go. It it it's got to literally be moved or we need to bring in different soil to soak up the water there. There has to be something more. We need to dig in deeper for this. We can't just say this is what it is and we're going to put a couple more drains in because with the national builder, they're going to come in, they're going to build it up, and they get to walk out. They get to walk away and then we're here suffering like I am still eight years later with water in my basement with zero resolution. And so I just urge all of you because I have faith in this community. That's why we're still here. It's why my kids still go to school here, I run businesses out of here, is because I have faith in all of us. I love it here. I love everything. So, I think that we can all work together to come up with resolutions to fix the problems and the things that we've already seen to make them better for when phase 2 gets done. And I just urge my children are my life. Um, my own family lives in my neighborhoods and I just hope that we really think this whole project through before we continue forward with not saying a park or here's the watershed or multiple things. There's more layers to peel off in this project than just a simple approval. And thank you all for your time. >> Thank you. I just want to clarify one historical point that Commissioner Miller made. He was probably on the planning commission at the same time I was on the parks commission. And Donovan Hart, who was responsible for the PUDS at that time, came forward to the parks meeting. And we had extensive conversations in 2021 about phase two of this development and a park and the fact that it could be centrally located and then the other development would have something near it as well. So again, it it we may not have seen the POD or we may not have talked, but the person who developed the PUDS for this city came forward to the parks commission and we talked about a park in phase two of this development and it is documented on public video and again I put it in my timeline. If you need me to point that out to you, I will. While the planning commission may have had a different point of view, the parks commission who is responsible for making that determination came from the standpoint of there would be a park in phase two of this development and we talked about it with the person who developed the PUDS. So, I just wanted to clarify that point of history. >> Thank you. Ryan Nelson, 20873 Hardwood Road North. Um, I'm right first house as you're coming into the neighborhood. Sorry, I have a shy vocals. Um, I'd like to say Abby, I think you said something about parks, uh, more for multiple developments or neighborhoods earlier. Um, I just wanted to state that this is multiple. I mean, besides the one across the street on Arrow that come in, the kids come in and play with our kids, uh, phase two is a separate neighborhood. They don't have an HOA. they're not part of our neighborhood. Um, so it is multiple neighborhoods. So, a park for multiple neighborhoods. This is a perfect time. Um, I I told the commission before, I know the developer very well, Ron Pastier, uh, the declarant, Steve Saddowski, I know him, okay, but I know Ron really well. And Ron came up Uh there there was no there was money put away for phase one. They gave them money instead of land for a park. They never talked about phase two. It wasn't done yet. Ron sat in my backyard with me, had a couple of drinks and barbecue one night and rolled out this beautiful plan for a park that was going to be above that uh northern wetland. uh filtration pond and it was going to take away a couple probably like six or seven lots right there. But it was going to have walking past the natural walking path in a park. And it was a beautiful I'm going to try to reach out to him so that I can send that see if he still has that plan. Uh it's probably more than what Dr. Horton would like to dedicate because I believe it was like six or seven acres I think is what he told me at the time. But there was plans for one because they hadn't talked about or paid money on phase two yet. So instead of paying the money, they were talking about dedicating the land and he came up with a beautiful park plan for it. So uh for Dr. Horton, thank you. I do appreciate I do want these taken care of built. So, thank you for looking at it. I know Ron or Steve was asking a ton of money for that land, so it sat forever. So, thank you for coming in. Um, but I do I looked at some of your neighborhoods in the Twin Cities area. The majority have HOAs. I know you plan on doing this in one phase and I know a lot of times you put in HOAs if it's multiple phases because you want it to stay looking nice as you're building out multiple phases. You don't want it to look bad so you throw in the HOAs because this is a phase one. I'm asking you to please think about the HOA. Just because it's a single phase doesn't mean ram it through, put it all out there, put all the specs up, sell it, and don't put an HOA. We have an HOA. Uh they can share the monument cost for us, help us bring our HOA down. They're going to be coming through our beautiful entrance, you know, sharing that. So, you know, that's part of that is my property. This the signs across the street, but part of that monument is on my property. Uh I just asked please look at that and and set some kind of guidelines. Uh our neighborhood is beautiful stonefront. I don't see anything on theirs that require that kind of stuff. And um I'm just asking that they build it out to look similar to what the phase one currently looks like and and think about an HOA even if it's minimum. You know, $12 a month, it doesn't cost a whole lot because there is no shared property. But thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening. Carrie Chavez, 6992 208th Street North. I'm in phase one of Chestnut Creek. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight and I'm here to address the prelim preliminary plot for the Chestnut Creek phase 2 development. Originally approved nearly 20 years ago. Maybe not by any of you, it sounds like. Um, but as it stands, this PL has not advanced to final approval or full buildout as we know. And given the time that this has passed, I think it should be considered expired and reviewed again. Since original approval, Forest Lake has adopted updated sub uh subdivision regulations, engineering standards, and zoning ordinances. These changes reflect our city's commitment to responsible growth, environmental protection, and public safety. Any future development under this plat should be reviewed and reapproved under today's standards in my opinion and not those from two decades ago. I also want to draw attention to the significant issues that occurred during phase one of Chestnut Creek as Mr. Larson acknowledged. Um let's not have this happen again. These include significant drainage failures, infrastructure uh deficiencies in some aspects, and erosion problems. These problems have real impacts on residents, my neighbors, and the surrounding environment, and they must be carefully considered before any future phases move forward. Furthermore, I have concerns about the resolution enclosed in tonight's agenda. While I understand the attempt is to allow some flexibility, I believe certain provisions could unintentionally open the doors to decisions that compromise the integrity of our community's planning process. If not carefully managed, this flexibility could damage the reputation of Forest Lake and further complicate the legacy of phase one. We owe it to our community to ensure that any future development is held to the highest standards. That meaning that means requiring a full relication and review of the preliminary plat under current laws with a cleareyed understanding of past challenges and a commitment to doing better moving forward. Um, I was at the planning commission meeting and although it shows that they approved this plan and denied the amended, it was very much pushed forward that they could not deny it. They had to approve it because it was already approved. And I really want to acknowledge that that's not necessarily true and you can deny this and you can ask to have it reapproved. It has been too long. No one's done anything with this and it needs to be reviewed again. Um, I made several notes to a lot of the things that may be addressed. Um, they start on page 188. I'm sure you all since Thursday have thoroughly been reviewing this agenda. Um but you know just to just to name and I I'll just um kind of shorten the items but really traffic studies and the safety around that not only within our community but hero to 97 and I know this is really hard for us to make these calls but the safety of that is very concerning. It is already very difficult to get out on 97 without risking your life. I have teenage drivers. I am very worried about them driving on 97. Um, so please consider a traffic study uh that needs to be done current. And I know it sounds like maybe things haven't changed, but right now 97 is closed and we have actually a better flow throughout that area right now. So, I would even say that it can't be done until 97 is fully opened for us to really realize the traffic that's going through through that area. Um, water drainage, again, another significant concern. There's my sump pump is running constantly on the last house before the first yellow blob next to the orange. Um, so I would say that it's a concern in regards to where is all of that water going to go. Uh, Dr. Horton kind of explained they want to make those uh, ponds smaller and restrict them because they've gotten so big. And I think there's a reason why they got big, right? The water needs to go somewhere. And we've heard significant water drainage issues all the way through um Forest Hills on the other side of Harrow. Um infrastructure and design with this with this second phase. I will say that um I have also seen some of the Dr. Horton builds in in uh the recent areas. There are some really nice layouts that they're providing in their packet to us. Although we can't guarantee that someone's going to put a threecar garage on a 55 foot lot, right? That's a very very small lot for a house of that size. So, we're imagining that a lot of these um amendments that were in or things that were approved in the original plan like 52 foot lots and even some setbacks that were apparently approved should really be reviewed again. Those are very close to the street. that doesn't allow for even more than two cars to park in a driveway. Um, and it also pushes all of the house up houses up to the street to make it even look a little less I would say synchronized with how our current phase one looks. Um, so that I would say is also a concern is the number of different um housing formats. or templates that they're providing. And really, there's no guarantee of what's going to be built out there. It's likely going to need to fit um some of those smaller properties. Park and amenities. I'll move on, but uh it would be nice to have a park there. I have a little one myself probably in that picture. Um the HOA commitment, I think, to the aesthetic and the similar community expectations is um something that should be considered. We are all paying uh a small amount to kind of upkeep including the monument. We've been told there will be no no other monument on the um other exit towards Good View which I would say um would be nice to have another monument on that side if you're going to be coming in from both sides. But again, they should share the costs of the Chestnut Creek monument if they are going to be considered part of our um phases. Um, and then I would say that the last one is really I do feel that it would be important to acknowledge that this meeting um was quickly put in place and didn't allow for a lot of our neighbors to be able to join tonight. Um, so I also would note that even it sounds like um even some neighbors just you know on that side of Good View as well as on the side of Forest uh Forest Hills didn't didn't uh get notified of this development too. And so I do want to put um that into um your heads as well is that I do feel like there are more people that um have something to say about this and didn't exactly get the chance to do that um whether it was during the planning commission meeting or today. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Good evening. My name is Steve Lucking. I live at 20882 Hardwood Road North. Uh the park situation is an important issue, but I don't know if there's been enough attention paid to the water issue. We're going to have houses that are 50, you know, 55 foot lots, 119 of them or whatever. That's a lot of roofs, a lot of driveways, and a lot of black top. The situation now is the runoff comes into that low area, which would be just west of my house. There's two little creeks that come together. Then that runs through a very significant culvert under 208 into a ponding area over there. And then it goes under the road towards the golf course. And after it gets crossed that uh a harrow when it gets under hero and gets in it gets into people's front yards and they have a ditch that has water running through it. It's a creek. And I'm not an engineer but I suspect that adding more water. You're going to double the volume of water going through the last few years when it's been so wet. These these uh culverts down in that area south uh east of us are half to three almost 3/4 full of water. I'm not so sure that that draining system can handle additional water. It just it's at its limit now. And I would like people to, you know, answer the question on that is if whether or not if all that water is going to go into the same area where it goes now, how is it going to get to the other end of the down to Silven Lake down here? Or not Silvin, but uh >> what's which one? Which lake? What's >> Yes, Shields Lake. Yeah. And uh that's just my concern. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else want to speak? >> Good evening, Karen Morehead, 943 Southeast 12th Avenue. Thank you, Mary and Council, for listening to the residents, listening to the history. I'm kind of overwhelmed to think that you are all going to be in favor of having a park. It was designated to that. I would not be very much happy to live here and know that we've misrepresented to all those people who have been so patient. But now I'm thinking when you talk about a small park and money, this is a big area. They have a lot of kids. I think they've proven that to you with pictures and with coming and so I know public works doesn't appreciate a lot of small parks. I don't think they need a belts park. I don't think they're asking for that. And that was a whole different situation how that got paid for. But I'm wondering if discussion could wait park to commission is meeting this next week and let the commission look at you know you went from one one acre to five acres and in my brain there's a whole lot of numbers in between there that we could maybe talk about park dedication money and maybe a three acre park. I don't think you want to keep putting in tiny little pocket parks that aren't going to be what the residents want. Um, right now I think they're so happy to get anything they would take whatever you give them. But I would like to have a chance. I'm only one person on the parks commission. I would like to have a a time with them to find out how much park dedication money we have available, what we would need, and then decide what size of a park. But for now, I'm very, very happy to see all of your heads saying, nodding that this des development deserves a park. So, we'll see what you can all come up with. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, with that, >> Roberts, I do have two public comments that got entered into the record just today, so if you give me a quick second to read them. One of them is addressed to city council members and staff. My name is Lori Ward. I'm one of the owners and owners representative of the ward properties directly north of Chestnut Creek and the property ID are cited. We support the pro proposed development of Chescript Creek but request the city make a condition that the utility sewer and water and roads are extended to the property which they will be in a way that make the word parcels developable in the future. This may require oversized pipes to the property line and road extensions. As of now, there is a sewer capacity issue and we expect development on our property in the future. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. We're excited to see the development continue in Forest Lake. And then additionally, I received another one from Mitch and Carrie Bradshaw. Dear community development team and city council members, as a res resident of Chestnut Creek neighborhood and a parent of three young children, six, four, and three, I'm ready to respectfully ask the city re-evaluate the parkland dedication decisions related to our development. Our neighborhood has grown up into a vibrant community filled with families and many children. Yet, despite being one of the city's largest residential developments, Chestnut Creek remains without a dedicated park or safe accessible green space. The nearest parks are not realistically walkable or safe for children to access due to traffic lack of shoulder sidewalks on Harrow Avenue and distance. I understand the history surrounding the parkland dedication process for this development is complex. However, as the city considers this second phase and the possibility of a new developer, this feels like the right moment to revisit the decision with current community needs in mind. The intent of the original parks, trails, and lakes commission discussions and even the city's own strategic plan clearly reflected desire and expectation for the park area. Ideally, one that could connect with the Birchwood Estates Parkland to create a larger shared space. Our children deserve a safe spa place to play close to home, a space that builds community, supports active lifestyles, and reflects the value of Forest Lake as a family oriented city. Currently, children are commonly found playing in the street due to lack of community options. This will become more of a safety concern with the added traffic and construction of phase two. I'd encourage the city to work collaboratively with the new developer to explore solutions that could finally make this a reality. Whether through a revised parkland dedication plan, a small interim park using existing funds, or a partnership approach that balances the needs of both the developer and residents. The future of our community depends on the decisions being made now. Thank you for your time, your service, and your thoughtful consideration of the families of Chestnut Creek. respectly Mitch and Carrie Bradshaw and our three young children Chestnut Creek resident. >> Okay, with that council uh make a motion to close this evening's open form or >> public forum public forum. Yes, >> I move. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Uh any further discussion? All in favor? >> I >> opposed. All right. We are closed our form at 8:04. Let's go back and do discussion here and council thoughts on everything that was shared here this evening. >> Well, there certainly was a lot >> and we appreciate everyone's time and you know it's getting late here in the evening, but you know, um I think we can really I know we can land somewhere that's going to be uh a win-winwin for the city, the residents, and the developer. And that's that that's our goal. I think it's clear that everyone on up here is in support of some type of a park uh in that neighborhood and so uh you know there's some work to be done there. Uh I have some concerns a little bit uh some of the top the people mentioning the water um when we did tour the neighborhood talking about um basements and some pumps running uh just to and I'm assuming our engineer went through that and and has this development is been engineered to handle those different those additional loads of water. I don't know if you can speak on that. Ryan >> Mayor Roberts just a couple comments related to storm water. Uh yeah, the project will have to meet the city uh local storm water permitting requirements along with the watershed district which are much stricter than the city. So we'll make sure those are in compliance with that. Uh one significant change that has occurred from when phase one was built to where phase two is going to go through approvals is on phase one side uh uh lot line swailes and rear lot line swils were only required to be at a 2% grade. uh current standards are that we've adopted and this project will be reviewed to is that uh all side lot line swailes will be two and a half percent rear lot line uh soils will be 3%. So in a 55 ft lot just take that for example that's over a foot and a half drop just from back to corner uh to get the water out of there better >> and then therefore going into these holding ponds to to kind of hold that that water back. So they'll go through a storm water modeling exercise and submit all the storm water data that'll show their rate and volume control that they're going to have to meet those requirements to the city and the MPDS permits and uh the local wershed rules and requirements before they would be approved. If they don't meet those with what's before us here, they would then obviously have to look at increasing uh the pond size or other BMPs that they could construct on site for infiltration filtration. But because of the clay soils, they're not going to meet that. Then they um have elevations they'll put in with the storm sewer infrastructure that'll control that rain volume. >> Yeah. And just to the public on that, in the last 10 12 years, those standards have increased significantly. And with uh the watershed, I I I'm pretty confident we'll be able to make sure that this doesn't create any more issues than you already have going forward. just just knowing what wershed's requirements are in this day and age. Any other comments? I guess we have decision to make. Um I think there is an option. We have uh more time if we want to table this and talk. It seems like park might be the biggest thing, but there might be some other things that we want to explore a little bit more. Yeah, I'd be in favor of tableabling this to get it get the park part of it right, but I'd also be curious um from the developer if there's a strong reason for not having an HOA. We've heard quite a bit of that tonight. You know, is that a marketability issue um or, you know, not only, you know, those funds typically provide for some public space, but also it does create those documents that dictate dictates whether or not you can, you know, park an RV in your parking lot or whatever driveway. So, I'd just be really curious to learn more about that. Mr. Mayor, if we're going to table, I don't mean to presuppose, but is there any um interest in having financial analysis of the impact to the park plan and to the levy? >> Yes, that would be valuable information. >> Um if I may just add uh on that um administrator stock's comment on the impact of the levy in discussions with Dr. Horton who have indicated they would be willing to put in a playground or would be able would be willing to dedicate land and cash including construction of a playground so that their dedication requirements were fulfilled through that combination would then not have any impact on the current levy. Um it could on the long range capital plan for future replacement and or maintenance. I don't know if that >> I think what I'm looking at as the as you mentioned before we're counting on the revenue of 100 homes this year in 2026 I should say. So that does have a direct impact that lack of revenue. So not any more expenses but lack of revenue. So it would certainly mean pushing back other projects to um you know just quickly typing into the 10-year plan. Um we would be in deficit in the park dedication fund in 2027 or 28 I can't remember here but without you know moving some of those other projects back. So certainly good discussion tonight and certainly not saying you shouldn't build a park here. Um just everyone has to be eyes wide open that that means other projects shift or taxes go up to accommodate that. Right. >> I think it's a good part of conversation to include. >> Mr. Mayor, could I ask one could I ask the developer one question? >> Sure. >> So Mr. Su um if you wouldn't mind. Let's say um you're willing to give up an acre for parks. How many units does that cost you in terms of houses? that just depending on where it goes. So, we're still haven't settled on a spot is six to eight, >> six to eight, >> six to eight for an acre. >> And so, if you were to expand that and you went to two acres or three acres or four acres, you could be giving up as many as >> 20 >> 30 20 30 homes. Yeah. >> Which impacts your revenue, which impacts the likelihood whether you can develop this neighborhood or not. >> Yeah. That >> would that be correct? >> Correct. At 20 to 30, it doesn't work. And just to clarify on Aby's statement is yes, we're open to land dedication and paying the cash. The question with land dedication, if it's a smaller number, like it's an acre, that's fine. We can make we can make that work plus still give the cash dedication. If we start getting over in an acre, then we got to start reooking at our numbers to see where all the balls land when we're done. So, we're open to a discussion. Um, one question I would ask is just how how do we want to go forward with the parks? I think we all agree that the parks coming or is desired. Is it something where we meet with staff in the neighborhoods? I I don't think the first place we should go is show up at the parks and try to have this design like Abby and I are doing right now at a podium. I think we should either take a moment and have a neighborhood meeting with the residents out there and talk through what they think of the park and then start trying to see if we can settle on between staff, the existing neighborhood and us on what a park could look like and then bring it back to your park commission. At least at least have a starting point on the conversation if I could be so bold to throw that out there. >> If staff's comfortable with that plan. Um, yeah, I mean, we are at preliminary plat and I think the the question is, you know, it's not going to change if the council wants to see a park in here. So, I think that then gives us the time to to vet through what that looks like. Lots of numbers have been thrown around. The land dedication requirement is 10%. Um, that's 10% of the existing land uh developable land of the existing subdivision. So that would only be 3.5 acres max would be the the requirement as as per our code. Can always I suppose ask for more but that is setting a precedence that I don't know that we want to start. Um, you know, in our preliminary conversations about parkland, um, a half acre is kind of what we have been able to see could easily potentially fit in the neighborhood and put a playground on that with some green space. Um, comparable to Bay View Park. Um, if you take out maybe Bay View Parks parking lot, that green space and park land around Bayiew is um, what could easily be achieved in the development area. Um, anything greater than an acre is going to be a little bit challenging just in terms of citing it in a way um because of the way the streets are already laid out. This is a reminder this isn't raw vacant land that we're entire yes it's vacant land but it's already been masqueraded. we already know how that street network's going to be. Um to really help make sure that we can kind of make that in a way that's not just this kind of long linear thing doesn't really provide good efficient use of the land in this landscape. Um I think that if the council wants to table it that is fine. Um that's your prerogative but we need some very clear direction on what you're seeking. If it's just that you want to see a park and you want to bring back a park, I do think that this body could move to approve a PUD and flat requiring parkland dedication andor a combination with cash. And that gives the developer and staff time to work not only with the each other but developer to work with the neighborhood. bring that back to the parks commission before bringing back a final plat before the planning commission. And the frankly um I will agree with the applicant design workshops with com by committee don't always work well and we could just be sitting here in another couple months without much movement. >> Well, so but but we need I mean unless it was agreed to extend it. It's November or something is when >> Yeah. It's like the 20th I want to say. So we have you know it's less than a month. Um so it okay it's a month and one week but when we look at the actual meeting publication dates um we wouldn't probably be able to prepare something for parks commission this week. Yeah. >> Um so we'd be looking at a month out for a parks commission which then if we have to wait until the November parks commission we're over a month before we're getting that back to you. I I I think I personally still would like to table this um just to have some more defined answers on on parks. I mean I I if I'm a little hesitant to approve it and like we're just going to throw a park in there somewhere and we'll work it out. I just don't know if I feel 100% comfortable with that. But um maybe we have the ability to have that flexibility to approve plinary and still work out those details. But um I'm not sure if this in there in here or not, but we know both planning commission and parks recommended that we do park dedication or land. Is there any clarity as to what they were looking for in terms of size or scope or just the fact that we need a park? >> Um no. I think there was discussion at the parks commission certainly from members that had been on the previous parks lakes trails commission of the um land dedication as part of phase two that would be combined with and then there was concern that maybe that or conversation that maybe that was the first phase and the second phase but a larger than small neighborhood pocket park. Um simply put that we can't take land from that first phase into this second phase. So, what we have is the up to 3.5 acres. Um, I'd have to double check on that 10% requirement, but I believe it's 3.5 acres is what we state in our code and what statutoily we um can could require, >> right? It sounds like that's not feasible. I mean, in all intents and purposes, >> it might be feasible, but we do bring up the what are we doing taking land with no improvements. Is that really serving the public's need in this neighborhood? I think that is a very important question of we've taken land before and not developed it. Um we've developed neighborhoods without parks. So it seems like that happy medium is potentially trying to find a way to get land and cash to improve the improvements in the neighborhood um with or without potentially pulling some money into those park dedication funds. >> So if you can kind of imagine image of dials, right? You the more you dial up the size of this park, the more you dial down the amount of park dedication fees you would get from the developer. And also at the same time, turning those dials means you turn up the amount of money you need to spend on this park, right? So, if you got all three and a half acres, that means you're going to get zero park dedication money. So, that's minus 290,000. And then plus you need to invest let's say a 100,000 into a playground and a basketball court. So that's again minus 100,000. You know you dial that down and you say well how about a half an acre. You can get that half an acre and get a basketball court and a playground put in there. Yes, it's tight and there's not a whole lot of you know space maybe. But you can get that all paid for and you're now you're only out only out 290,000. you're not out investment in those things. So I think you get what I'm saying. It's just that the larger the park, the more of a financial issue that is going to become. The smaller the part, the less of a financial issue is >> I guess my only concern with with, you know, if we table it, what are we looking for? >> Right. I know we need direct we need >> I don't think we can wait till the next >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Park commission. >> Um well, with that said, council, do you have any other take park out of it? Any other concerns on the development? We've heard a lot of different comments non-p park related. >> HOA. >> HOA. So, are there some other things that you would have gives you pause to approve this? I guess of all the things the HOA is my least concern only because they have the right to develop this land. We don't have the right to tell them what the restrictions are that they have to put on it. >> I mean, just because the one neighborhood decided to develop it as an HOA, if that developer would have continued developing phase two or phase three or how many phases, they could have had those restrictions in there or not, but I don't I don't think we can really set those rules. The developer can do that. >> One thing I will note that um I did ask legal this matter. we at because of the planned unit development nature we can require an HOA. I don't know the city's past practice in ever doing that. Um the other thing too is when the HOA was developed the second phase wasn't included in that and so I don't I you know I hear that it was always the plan but generally your developer will pl will record that against the entire property if that's really the plan. I'm just curious. I mean, you you want to speak to it as a developer reason why you are or aren't thinking about it? >> Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Deborah Ridgeway. I'm kind of the HOA expert in our office. >> So, um we prefer not to and Mike already alluded to the fact that there's no common area. So, when you have a single family homeowners association, it's hard to have it's hard to sell an HOA to buyers when there's not a common area. Um, with this particular HOA with Chestnut Creek, the property that we're purchasing is additional real estate. So, there is the opportunity to add it to the HOA. However, we're not the declarant and so we don't have that right as the declarant to add the property. Um and then also after 10 years that declarant right expires and that's coming up in 26 2026. >> So what does that mean? >> That means that you would need to get a vote of all the HOA members to bring in additional property. >> Does it does it hinder the development as far as marketability if you have it? because I what I heard from the residents that spoke to it wasn't so much that it's a high-cost item that maintains public space, maybe a monument, was more about the kind of the covenants that says, "Hey, we're not going to park RVs in our driveways." >> And and you get both sides of it. You get people that want that restrictive uh restrictions on the property, and then you get others that you can't tell me what to do on my property mentality. Um, we don't like to just because there is the um the chance that they'll just dissolve. If there's nothing holding that HOA to be an HOA, the disillusion is is greater. >> And we when we set up our HOAs, we've hired professional management companies. And so there's there are a added costs to having an HOA, not just maintaining a monument. You have to hire someone to manage that. >> So So are you saying if the first phase, if that HOA voted to take on this, that could be an option for an HOA for the second edition? >> We would have to approach that HOA. And quite honestly, it's harder for us as a new home builder to go into an existing HOA because there are um there are architectural requirements that they have and then we need to go in front of their board to get our plans approved and that's just something that we're not interested in. >> All right. Thank you. Yeah. >> Right. So, um, no, no other concerns council on anything other than park related. And if this, you know, we talked about water as far as that has to meet standards and guidelines. So, that's going to be reviewed. Um again I asked you the fir on this on the first um project for the garages what are next steps and what are the abilities for more input from from the from the community at this point after if this was approved tonight. >> Uh the next steps are that it would move into the final plan application. There are no scheduled public hearings. It would be scheduled public meetings that would be noticed as part of our standard notification process of posting it on our our website before the meetings. Um, you know, the the the planning processes are really vetted through the preliminary plat and why we have them is to put you in this position you're in right now is to hear the neighborhood say, "We'd like to have parkland in this area." And then I think it's up to the council to figure out do you want to see a park here? Um and if if yes, maybe. But we need more information. That's fine. We just need to know what exactly you're looking for and if you need that before you made your final determination or if you can wait until the final plot. I you know to uh administrator's talk about size. I think there is a a happy medium where it's not too massive but it's it it is enough that there's some space but there's some amenities there where you just don't have a empty lot. Um I I do like that area at that idea and the thought is that you know in some time and I know it it probably won't come quick enough for this neighborhood but that larger park just to the south there would you know make that even more of a space for people to use for these new all these new homes. Um, so I I think if you're looking for direction, my my my choice would be that it would be a mediumsiz acre, acre and a half park with some amenities that would be all part of this the development um agreement >> with that. If >> one quick one quick followup um the comment was made I think by the developer that those you know maybe that on that very south end of what's on the screen right now. Would that tie in in theory to that next development or not necessarily? >> No. >> Oh no. It's way over to the right. >> Yeah. Um well so uh Amberly Woods is the piece that we'd be obtaining now but the two lands don't touch. >> Right. Uh we don't have any development plans for what is known as the Sheelander property, but if you look at the plat that's proposed, this uh roadway would be proposed to extend directly into that. I have seen concept plans or we could just even call them napkin sketches. This road does come down, snakes through, and you just have lots through here. I have advised anybody that's um inquired about any four of these properties that we are seeking land in these areas for larger public parkland. But to actually guarantee land dedicated at Chestnut Creek in this south or souththeast corner could connect into this. I cannot guarantee that. >> I was just seeking clarity. Thank you, >> Nabie. As long as you have this up. 207th connects to uh Preserve Park, which is in what area? >> Uh >> which they'll 207th will connect into Chestnut Creek now, right? >> Yes. So you'd be connecting around 207th or up through Greystone here. >> Okay. And Bridal Pass is continuing up a little bit higher. There's no roads that will connect up with Bridal Pass at this point on 210th or will there be? >> No, not until the property to the north of Chestnut Creek develops. >> Right. Okay. But they would have access to uh and I'm not sure how far it is to Bridal Pass. I'm sorry, Preserve. >> Uh yep. So, you'd end up at uh Preserve Park and there's a little bit of green open space as well on that 207th. >> Okay. Um, so thoughts on park size? If we're not going to t if we're not going to table this, I think we need some direction, right? Either way, if we're going to table or not, some direction on park size and desire there. >> Um, I think it's I appreciate the direction of of park size. Um I you know addressing administrator S's really good analogy of kind of turning up the dial turning down the dial. My only concern is if the direction tonight is to provide exactly one to one and a half acre park and we want to see it developed whether or not the developer could actually achieve that. And so I think the essence the thing that I would really like to glean from the council tonight is if you're favorable to have a park in this and you'd like to see that develop the developer develop a park here. How can they bring back a maybe it's the direction to bring back a final plat that shows a park that is developed that can service the neighborhood that you know is conforms maybe to some of the things we find that are missing in our existing parks plan um that doesn't have a negative impact on our future budget. The idea being, let's find a way that we can get some land, get it developed, and maybe even get some cash out of it. >> No. >> All right. So I hear you saying is that you'd like to see a resolution an approval tonight with some clarity around it be a park be included >> some combination of land and cash to fulfill the parkland dedication requirements for Chestnut Creek to um to be brought back with the final plan. So, does there have to be uh it called out that that parkland dedication fee, those dollars go to support this park or to build this park out? >> I think that um you certainly should say a land or a fee to that would develop. So, a combination of land and fee that's developed into the park. Um and leaving that flexibility for us to work through. It could be that they don't use all of the required fee in lie of the it's it's possible the land values and improvements still don't exceed and so I wouldn't want to commit that if that we got to spend all of the parkland. >> Yeah. My concern is is around just that it goes into the park dedication fund and then it doesn't get spent here. I mean like >> we're we're going to make sure it's developed that this park is developed and if excess of what just that's what I was cleared. Yes. >> Yeah. I mean that's what we would be aiming for is that we get good public infrastructure put in place and maybe there's a little bit of reserve that goes into the parkland dedication as well. >> The the other um only thought on tableabling um was that the concern about some of the neighborhood not being aware of tonight's meeting until last night. um you know the the fact that some of these people that are on the the Goodview side probably didn't get much notice of anything of this um new development. >> Um I would have to double check. I mean we we have a 350 foot requirement from property lines that does get extended depending on the the district. Um we'll never notice enough people there. I mean that's that's just always the case. And yes, there were people that I said I would let them know when this was going back to council and I I made the mistake that I forgot. Just forgot. And so because it's not our standard practice, it was a courtesy thing and I forgot. Um it's not a requirement that future plat um concept plants or final plats come our notification requirements are are required. anything you'd like to bring this back in two weeks for >> I'm just bringing that up for for conversation >> entertain a motion. >> Yeah, I would like to try a motion uh if we can see if we can make this happen or or not. Uh but my motion would be to approve resolution number 101 132505 approving the Chestnut Creek second edition preliminary plat and plan development amendment with the following four conditions. Adding a fifth condition that we would work with the developer to come up with a one to one and a half acre park and fee to build out that park. Can I >> offer a friendly amendment? And we not include a park size, but just in the amendment that the developer work with city staff to develop a park. And the the their requirement is a land dedication and fee which will be used at least in part to cover the cost of the park buildout. >> Yeah, I like that better. >> Yes. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second the motion. >> All right, any further discussion? All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you everyone for coming tonight and everyone's feedback. Looking forward to working with Horton as well. Thank you. All right, we are 8 C scope and field fee proposal for judicial ditch 4. And Tim from Bolton Mink. Um, if you're ready to present, >> I think the PowerPoint should be loaded up on Tim. Mr. Mayor and Council, I'll just I'll just set this up here for Tim. Um, this is a project that um, it's been sort of a long time in coming. We've got some congressionally or legislatively directed spending here. Um and uh been working hard with the DNR to make sure that whatever work we're doing um is grant eligible. And that was kind of the sticking point. That's why it's taken so long for us to come back is that Amanda and Tim have been working hard to figure out a way in which we can do all the work we need to do with this project without spending city dollars and make sure that we are maximizing our grant funds um in the way that they were intended which is to do this project. Um and uh just a quick reminder that this project is to uh provide a planned corridor for storm water retention um both in conjunction with development and as an added um flood storage for the region. And so that's sort of why the the grant money is here because we're doing something good for the region. side benefit for all of us is that we're going to have a corridor that's going to act as a greenway corridor and also have nicely planned spaces for storm water infrastructure from our future developments. So that should make our future developments more efficient and um just better planned in general. This will be in areas where the storm water quote unquote wants to go. Engineers kind of talk in terms of that all the time that storm water wants to go here. That's where we're going to be, right? We're going to be in the low line line areas. And so um it should be a win-win for us. We're going to get some um land that's going to be um developed in such a way or or purchased in such a way that we can efficiently put those storm water ponds there, do something good for the region, all at no cost to the city and and or the land owners. There's no sort of taking here for the land owners. So with that, I would um open it up to Tim if you're ready, Mr. Go ahead. Thank welcome Tim. >> Yes. Good evening, council and mayor. Uh my name is Tim Olsson. I'm a water resources engineer with Bolton and Mink. Um this will admittedly be review for some of you again. Um but I'm happy to go through it. I suspect that we'll have uh more conversation about the grant agreement itself and you know what's in front of you this evening. Um so tonight I'm I'll just go through the project background again um as a review. We'll talk about the project area and where we've landed as our as our priorities. Um we'll talk about the grant agreement itself and what's included in terms of property acquisition and preliminary design. Um there'll be uh I'll have a brief discussion here too about schedule. Um although that's that's relatively flexible. Um and then we'll talk uh some more at the end about this request for an approval of the of the grant agreement. Um so if you if you recall um you know we're looking at the judicial ditch 4 system um the main branch uh branch 2 branch four there there's numerous branches along this this agricultural drainage system uh currently serves agricultural drainage um as you're aware Hidden Creek is actively developing on the north side. So there were some already some impact to the main branch of judicial ditch 4. Um you know as Mr. Stats had mentioned earlier, you know, building these these storm water management facilities ahead of development in these low-lying areas maximizes the flood benefit and the water quality improvement benefit that comes with uh development and storm water management. Um, you know, we if we're looking at green space and we're looking at, you know, wetland protection and storm water management, uh, integrating park spaces with those, uh, with with that development, um, you know, could be a nice added bonus here as well. Um, you know, we're looking at protecting those downstream systems from flooding. This has been a longtime conversation with Rice Creek Wershed District. Uh, Forest Lake sits at the top of two very significant wersheds. So, all of the water that drains here drains ultimately into the Rice Creek chain of lakes. They have historically had issues with flooding, flood control, water quality downstream. Um, so this is just sets a great standard for top of watershed um and and managing that storm water before it leaves the the city's boundaries. uh we've really looked at at three primary locations in this study uh for a number of years. Um the the northernmost component uh you know was identified as a high priority area early on uh since that is under now active development. The opportunities to develop more regional systems there are kind of starting to diminish a little bit with development proposals. Um we've been in conversation you know early on on storm water management here too and and just looking at sizing of facilities. The real opportunity we believe is in that second area kind of the middle the middle area. I believe that's branch branch four. Um where we have you know large you know potential for wetland restoration. There's there's a nice corridor along the current uh judicial ditch alignment. Um that is the low point. There are some wetlands in here. I have a graphic coming up that'll show some of those wetland areas. So more extensive wetland delineation which is kind of notorious for forest lake. Lots and lots of wetlands around. Uh so making sure that those are draining properly uh during larger events especially when development occurs. Uh and then finally on the southern part you know that there's really just some future concepting at this point. Um there are you know the the drainage ditch corridor itself uh is just a little bit more naturalized. Um you know and has has been relatively less impacted by agricultural development. Um the in terms of the grant you know this was awarded uh back in 2023. Um the DNR has presented that grant agreement. We can open up conversation for that. Um the the total is $5.7 million. It's been allocated to the project. We're estimating approximately 5 a.5 million for property acquisition and 200,000 for some additional design. There is flexibility within that. Um I presented a scope and fee to the Minnesota DNR for approval just to make sure that all of the tasks that we're proposing um to be served in that $200,000 were approved within the agreement. And I think we've had positive feedback so far from the DNR. Uh there is a five-year grant timeline from the effective date of the agreement. So there again, I'll I'll show you a schedule here that's that's really to set set the tone for what the next couple of years could look like, but a five-year grant window um is is nice. It provides some flexibility. All right. So here again, just reviewing this this um this higher priority area. We're looking at the drainage areas that may uh that may be contributing to these these locations. Um you know the the large red square uh it really just represents a closed contour, a closed surface contour. Um there is a national wetland inventory wetland boundary in here as well. That would all have to be delineated to ensure um that that's properly sized. The corridor here is approximately 400 feet wide along the jud judicial ditch um to try and encompass the drain tile that's there now. Um you know it it just it it'll really help with some of the 103e processes later on. Conceptually um you know we could be looking here at a at a more significant wetland restoration uh with some uh park you know park and recreation improvements that come along with it. Um but ideally just you know looking at the wetlands that are already in this judicial ditch corridor uh protecting those and then building storm water features around those uh to to you know ensure compliance with future development that for those drainage areas that drain to it. So there's kind of an added benefit here for water quality and flood control most certainly uh meeting current future regulation for Rice Creek Wershed District. Uh and then creating this integrated park space. Just a just a rendering concept here for what something like this could look like um with connectivity to residential and and um having having this water feature and access to the water. Uh this is a little bit hard to see on the screen, but there are some wetland boundaries in here. Uh with Headarters Parkway, the extension, there have been some wetland delineation studies that have been done through here already uh to make sure that we're not impacting wetlands with the roadway construction. Um Headwaters Parkway and this dedicated land would would integrate at some point. Um and then extending that wetland delineation even further um would be a good idea here in the in the first phase. So, in terms of timelines, again, uh I think there's some variability here, some some flexibility here. Um you know, right now it would be the right time to finalize this grant agreement and set in motion that five-year timeline. Um you know, in the next few years, working towards um you know, the preliminary construction documents, enhancing the study, uh you know, looking at at conversations with property owners, making sure everybody's comfortable there. um and then pursuing, you know, the the um securing those properties through land valuation assessments. Um in spring of 2026, I would recommend an extended wetland delineation uh through through this area. Um and then, you know, around the time of new development proposals, we would re-engage with Rice Creek Wershed District to make sure that all of the regulatory compliance measures are in place. Um I think a meeting with Rice Creek here in the next even couple of months is a good idea too just to update them with with process and and progress. Uh Rice Creek was a funding partner in the original study. Uh so they have a vested interest here as well. Um and then again ahead of construction executing that 103E partial transfer process. Uh we went through that in Hidden Creek as well. That'll be required here. Two uh early is probably better. >> Want to explain what a 103E is? Yeah, it's it's the it's a state statute that requires partial transfer of certain ditches. So the the a good example really is Hidden Creek. So um the during the headarters uh early phases of the headarters development um part po portions of judicial ditch 4 were transferred to the city uh you know in terms of of terms of ownership and maintenance. Um as Hidden Creek came online that the rest of the main branch of judicial ditch 4 was partially transferred to the city of Forest Lake. So now the city of Forest Lake actually owns and manages that entire section. Ultimately as development comes in um that tile is replaced with storm sewer and infrastructure. Uh but until that happens um the city's responsible for maintaining uh agricultural access to the to the ditch. So that process would have to happen here as as additional segments are are essentially developed. >> Yeah, that's it's an important step for sure. Um and it it it the Rice Creek wershed district and and the state statutes do not allow any sections to be orphaned. So in this particular case, if the downstream most segment was was uh developed for storm water first, really the entire branch would have to be transferred to the city. So that's that's an important thing we can talk about too. Yeah. Okay. All right. With that, um we're here to request approval of the Minnesota DNR grant agreement. the scope of work I believe has also been presented to you that is kind of integral to the grant agreement itself. Um so that that could also be approved here. Um but really that was just to set set in motion um you know those scoping items for uh for the DNR. So but with that I'd be happy to answer any questions and >> Mr. Mayor K if I could just clarify and this is no fault Tim it's been a long road here but um in May you did approve the grant agreement but as Tim mentions you know part and parcel to that is the scope of services. So, we sort of brought this back. Um, really what's on your agenda is simply the approval of the scope of services for Bolton M tonight um to go along in concert with that grant agreement authorized back in May. Um, but certainly um it's as Tim mentions, it's part and parcel. We would not have moved forward this project if we couldn't come to an agreement on the scope of fee scope and fee proposal that was supported by the grant. So that the ask tonight is as it's on your agenda the scope and fee proposal approval um from B to make further services on judicial ditch for questions or comments seems seems pretty straightforward. If you're open to it, I'll make a motion that we uh accept the scope and fee proposal as presented by Bolton and Mink and approve the DNR Minnesota DNR grant agreement. >> Motion is a second. >> I'll second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I I >> opposed. Motion carries. >> Thanks, Jim. >> Thank you. 8 paid on call retirement benefit level increase request and Chief Newman. Mayors and members of the council, up for consideration is a uh pension benefit level increase request for paid on call firefighters that would increase their annual uh benefit level from $6,350 a year to $7,000 a year per year of service. Um our process is uh every year in September we'll approach the joint fire or the forest lake fire department relief association will present to the joint fire board uh their audited results for our pension plan and uh if we meet a certain level of uh funding ratio then the joint fire board would consider an increase in our benefit level. If uh the joint fire board approves that benefit level increase, then we would bring that forth to the council for council approval. And that's where we are tonight as well. Um our annual benefit level or funding ratio for uh 2024 was 273%. So our funds well funded and can absorb uh this increase. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions? Council um myself and council member Larson part of the fire board, joint fire board and they laid this out quite clear and uh the funds in great position and um it's it's kind of a no-brainer for me and allows uh these firefighters paid even more for their service which they're underpaid as it is but we try to do as much as we can. So um Anyone interested to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve the proposed fire relief benefit level increase. >> Second motion to first second. Is any further discussion? >> All in favor? >> Opposed? >> Motion carries. >> Uh 8E approval of Lakes Floral invoices. Uh this is pulled out separately. Uh many people know I'm I'm uh one of the owners of Lakes Floral that does provide some uh goods and services to the city. Uh so anyone will make a motion to approve uh 8 E. >> I'll make a motion to approve the invoice from Lakes Floral item 8E. >> Motion to second. >> I'll second it. >> Any further discussion? >> All in favor? Opposed? >> Abstension. All right, we are going to our discussion portion of the meeting. U I am going to hand this over to council member Valento uh and and acting me member Valento u because of a perceived or potential um interest. Um so I would hand that over to you then. So with the discussion, it is cannabis business regulation and zoning review and it looks like Jolene and Abby will lead the discussion. >> Thank you, Council Member Valento. Um, if council recalls back in December of 2024 the previous Oh, I'm sorry. >> Sorry. Can we can we just make a note for the record that the mayor has actually left the room? >> He's not here for this discussion now. Sorry. Just because I realize the camera might not show. >> Thanks. Um, previous council approved ordinance 746 which addressed the local registration process for adult use cannabis businesses. Um, at that time the legislature had in place a cannabis sales tax or a local government cannabis aid program which provided some tax incentives to the city for maintaining registration. Since that time, the state has repealed that tax aid program. So that's no longer a benefit to the city as we're looking at registration because of that change and an additional change which the legislature brought forward of a requirement of registration for low potency hemp edible products. Um, I thought it was prudent to bring this back to council because there's been a change in circumstances to see if council wants to maintain registration here at the local level or if council would prefer to delegate the registration portion of adult use cannabis to the county as allowed by state statute. Um, couple considerations for council. zoning would still be maintained here or a zoning review and certification process would still be maintained here at the local level whether we kick or delegate registration to the county or if we maintain it here locally. So that means that applicants who are looking to open a a cannabis um business here in town would still have to go through the IUP process through community development, the planning commission, and then eventually through council approval for the IUP. Um, in addition, if the council would like to look at perhaps delegating this to the county, we need to talk about local fees. So, our fee schedule was amended with adoption of ordinance 746 to include registration fees for these um cannabis businesses. So, if we were to delegate any of this registration process over to the county, the county would then be able to take it on those fees. We would not have any benefit from any fees um for any businesses that were would be operating here in the city. um maintaining local registration here would kind of bene be a benefit to the city because we would maintain some local control over those businesses and oversight of those cannabis businesses and we would maintain that modest collection of those fees. So really looking tonight for direction from council um if council would like to continue local registration under 746 or have discussion about delegating that authority to Washington County. If the council would like to maintain local registration here at the city level, um staff will have to bring forward an amendment to ordinance 746 to expand to include the registration for low potency hemp edibles. So that would expand registration requirements to all businesses who currently are already selling those products. So um right now it's anyone who holds a uh an off-sale liquor license and um other tobacco stores are selling those products here locally, too. Right now, they're only required to register with the Minnesota Department of Health, and now that's transitioning over to the Office of Cannabis Management, so we would be required to register them as well. So, um Abby, did you want to comment at all on where we're at with applications so far? >> Sure. Currently, we have received our third uh interim use permit for a cannabis based business in the city. It is also along Highway 61. If approved, it'd be the third interim use permit. We receive numerous inquiries a day. And I will say every single inquir is surprised we do not have a cap. In talking with some of our peer communities, I just had a meeting last week with Stillwater and Oakdale and both of them have capped the number of their um licenses at to three total. Um now that being said, we can issue as many interim uses as we want, use permits as want. We can keep processing those. Um our concern is the actual staff's concern, I've brought this up a few times, is the number of licenses. Um, right now it could be unlimited and we I would still encourage you to consider thinking keeping those limit those license numbers limited to start especially since we're seeing program expansion opening up in a in a few different ways than we didn't anticipate when we adopted this ordinance. I don't know 18 month 18 months ago. Our re our zoning ordinance. >> Yeah, it was December. 2024. Time flies. >> Feels like a year and a half ago. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh so I guess additionally, yeah, that's another thing that I'd like council to to consider is do we want to maintain this no cap on our registrations? Um, state statute does require that if the city were to put a cap on registration, we have to have at least one license for every 12,500 residents. So that would mean that the city could would have to have at least two registrations or licenses available. And we could cap it at a higher number than that, but our we would have to have at least two licenses available or registrations available. And we currently have that. Correct. We're at two. Right now, >> no licenses have been issued. Two interim use permits have been issued. Correct. >> And we have a third application, right? So that >> correct. >> You can't resend the any action you took tonight that those folks would have the right to have that interview permit reviewed. Is that fair to say? I think it's probably fair to say that even if our we had a license were capped, we could still potentially consider interimm use permits knowing the license could go away. But you can address that, Amanda. >> Yeah. So, a couple um and I know we keep using the word license, but technically what we're doing is registering because the state does the license, we do the registration. We're going to constantly call it license because it feels weird to say registration. So we can limit our number of registrations. Uh Julian is correct. It minimum of two given our current population. Uh that doesn't have anything to do with an interim use permit that we would be approving. Although generally what we are recommending for conditions of the interim use permit is that they have a valid registration and a valid license with uh the office of cannabis management. So it's sort of a useless interim use permit because they wouldn't be meeting the conditions under their permit to be operating. Uh Other note is if the council wanted to direct staff to change our ordinance to limit the number of reg registrations just for example to two or three. Um we would need to check with the county because they my understanding is they do not care about our caps. In other words, they wouldn't honor our registration caps. And so then potentially we'd have to keep the registration process here because they're not going to make sure that they've only issued two registrations to two Forest Lake locations. That's what my understanding is, but I would defer to Julian if she's heard differently. >> Yeah, I guess I haven't had that conversation with the county. I know Mark has had a very preliminary conversation with the county um and they just they advise that they could certainly work with us if that's something that council decides they want to do is to defer the registration or delegate that registration over to them. Um they do have some sample ordinances that they would be willing to provide to us, but that would be a further discussion if council wants to look at that option that we could have with the county um and then bring that back to council. From a practicality perspective, what that basically means is those compi annual compliance checks are no longer our responsibility, right? So, um, going in and making sure that they're selling. Um, it it removes a little bit of our ability to have, if you recall when we talking about this, the bat line to the OCM member, they have a designated line for your local authority. Well, that wouldn't be us anymore. That would be the county. Um, so it it limits some of our enforcement mechanisms, but as um both Julian and Abby have alluded to, really our enforcement mechanism is that IUP. From a practical perspective, it's not really reasonable to assume that we're going to be able to revoke somebody's registration or use the registration process as a um response to a poorly performing or illegally, you know, acting or whatever badly performing um business. The best mechanism is going to be our IUP. Chief Peterson, do you I mean the if we maintain the registration, the work falls on you guys to do the monitoring, correct? Just like the tobacco and alcohol. >> From what I Yeah, exactly. From what I understand, that that would fall on us then would be the uh compliance checks for um just age verification. I guess I mean does staff have a strong opinion about whether or not we maintain the registration? >> Uh we don't just just based on the the changes at the state level. We thought it was important to make sure that council was aware of those in case you wanted to pivot and and delegate this over to the county. >> Sure. Yeah. Um, >> from an administration standpoint right now, I can, you know, honestly say that it's going to be a lot, especially with the change, um, that we are also going to be now required to register these low potency hemp edible locations. Um, it that that adds I mean, I would say it probably quadruples, if not more, the the responsibility placed upon administration to complete those registrations, but also the responsibility on our law enforcement um teams to complete those compliance checks. Uh Jolene, if if we um did have the county monitor this, other than some of the staff um obligations, obviously our police obligations, is there any monetary disadvantage to the city not to do this? I mean, you mentioned some of those registration fees and things would go to the county, >> correct? in terms of dollars and cents. Um, >> so our current ordinance allows for $500 registration fee for an initial registration for adult use cannabis. Um, and then renewal after the first year is up to $1,000 per location. So potentially that's $3,000 a year. Um, the state has limited the registration fees that the city or a local unit of government can apply for adult I'm sorry, for low potency hemp edibles to $125 per location. So, I think when you take into consideration the administrative time that it's going to take to process these registrations for the low potency hemp edibles. Um, in addition to the resources from our our law enforcement folks to complete these compliance checks, that might be a little bit of a consideration that council wants to take because $125 doesn't go very far. >> Yeah. And that was why I asked. I would be more than in favor of taking the burden off of our local police and and our staff to have the county deal with this. Um, and I would also be more in favor of limiting the amount of um, uh, registrations we allow in our city. >> I would agree. I guess I'd like clarity if that cap would be enforced by the county. If we're going to hand the first off to the county, that'd be my concern. >> Might as well. But yeah, if we get clarity, I would agree with you, um, Kevin, if if we get clarity that they'll honor our cap, then I would concur with what you're suggesting if Mr. Council's in agreement. >> I agree with that. >> Yep. I agree. >> Just for staff clarification, what number would you want to cap it at? >> Staff's recommendation would be more than one more than the minimum requirement. >> Yeah, I think following suit with the other our peer cities would make sense and three >> and then I think >> so we'd actually say no more than one than our minimum requirement. >> I mean you can say it by three or you could say no more than one over our minimum. So then you don't have to amend that, >> right? Because if the city grows exponentially or whatever. >> Makes sense. So right now based on our population we'd be at uh two. >> Two is our minimum >> right? >> So one more at three. >> Yeah I'm good. I'm good raising a round number. >> Well with that any other comments questions? It seems like we came to a decision. >> I think you know tonight's item is just on here for discussion. So staff will bring a little bit more information back, some a little bit more clarity on some of the how this logistically will work with the county taking on registration and that kind of thing. >> So we'll bring an actionable item for you next week. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I'd just like to note that um we are up against some timelines because OCM has um declared that the city must begin registering low potency hemp edibles um after October 31st. So that's coming down the pike pretty quick here. Um, so I would suspect that at our next meeting we'll bring back some information about the the cap for the county and if they would enforce that. Um, and if so, we'll bring back a couple different options for council to consider with regard to the ordinance, whether that could be a repeal and an a resolution to delegate that authority or an amendment to 746 to include those registration requirements and a cap if the county would not be enforcing that cap. Yeah, I think that I think the goal would be if we can get a clearancer from the county because of our deadline of October 31st based on council's um instruction tonight, we would bring back an ordinance that puts everything to the county for registration and reduces the registrations to three. those would that would be an ordinance for your consideration hopefully at the October is that 27 27 um meeting or conversely if the county does not allow for caps then then I guess that's the question if the county does not allow for caps then would you want to keep the registration process and keep your cap >> so great question is Still Water maintaining their registration delegation >> is that by there. You can speak confidently that those cities have their >> Yes. Still only very very tiny towns right now have hunted to the county. Correct. >> There's nobody of notable size that's done it. >> So I'd say that if they're not going to honor our cap, then we would probably make sense for us to maintain that registration like our peer communities. >> Okay. Is that I'd be fine with that. So then I guess what I'm saying is either way there'll be an ordinance on the 27 act. It will either be um registration's leaving and cap is three or it's registration staying. Oh, sorry. We're also doing the low potency registration and cap is three. Does that make sense? >> Yes. >> Okay. Because I know we have to get some notice stuff. So that >> Yeah. Get that. >> Great. Thank you. >> Perfect. Okay. With that not hearing anything and seeming like a conclusion was made, um we will move to staff updates with uh Mayor Roberts coming back in. All right, >> let's start from this end and go this way. So, Chief Peterson. >> Yep. Uh, Captain Higgraph and myself have no updates for you unless you have any questions for us. Uh this last week uh Force Lake Fire presented fire prevention in the in the schools. Uh we taught kindergarten through 2 grade fire safety. Uh we attended uh or taught at six different schools almost just shy of a thousand kids. On Saturday we had our fire department open house. The weather was great. Attendance was adequate. Uh on October 1st, we had five new firefighters that started paid on call. Uh they will start their classes right after the first year for EMR and firefighter one, firefighter 2. And then on Thursday, October 7th, uh we took delivery of two new brush trucks and a utility truck. The two brush trucks replaced our 2001 and 2004 brush truck. And the uh utility truck replaced our 1995 utility truck which was sold last year uh for a lot more than we purchased it for. That's all I have for updates. >> Thank you, Dave. >> Uh other other than all the stuff I put in the weekly report for updates, one thing that happened in between now and then is uh the sanitary lining project uh started today. So you hear about people seeing steam flying in the air or uh and that kind of stuff. They're starting in the southwest area and bouncing around. So they'll be doing that for the next two to three weeks uh fixing clay pipe underneath the ground. That's it. Thanks, Abby. >> The city did receive notice that uh Forest Lakes, the city's arts in the park has been nominated for a Forest Lake area chamber gala award. Um I think it's a community event, best community if I remember correctly. So, just wanted to let you know that that was on the weekly update as well. Um, but share that with the public at our great every week night or every Tuesday night event in the summer is um being recognized. So, as a nominee, >> just quick update, you saw that we had quite a few hiring recommendations this evening. We're excited to be bringing these new staff on board. Um, we're transitioning how we bring those recommendations forward, taking that responsibility off of the department heads on what they once they've gone through the interview process and putting that more in the administration HR arena. So, you'll be seeing more recommendations coming just from administration in the future for that so that our department heads can focus on their wheelhouse in their departments and not have to worry about wearing an HR hat in addition to all their other duties that they're doing. So, No other updates. >> Thank you, Ryan. >> Mayor, city council, a couple road updates. Uh, Northshore Trail, final workhorse, uh, final lift by two minutes was placed. This week, the contractor is working on shouldering, touching up driveways, putting in signage, and then dynamic speed signs are planned to be installed next week. Highway 97, MDOT, is shooting for first part of November to uh, open up the roadway to traffic. It's likely though there will be an allway stop at Everton until the signal is completed which they're thinking closer to Thanksgiving. Uh the final lift or workhorse for that project is planned to be installed on October 22nd, 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Uh they're going to put out uh controlled message board signs, giving the public a 7-day notice. Uh their communications team will work directly with the daycare and school buses to account for that road closure. Um so that way they can pave that final lift and then uh those signs will go up this Wednesday. So you'll see some of that going up. >> Thanks, Ellie. >> On the October 20th workshop, we will be discussing the budget. So if anything comes up and you have any ideas or any questions or thoughts, please send them my way prior to that workshop and we'll continue discuss it until the truth and taxation meeting on December 9th. Amanda, >> no updates. >> Mark, anything? >> A couple of updates here. Uh, just a reminder that October 25th from 8:00 a.m. to 2 uh p.m. at the Invisible Wounds Project uh headquarters here in in town. Um, we will be hosting uh our council retreat that is open to the public. It's just a essentially a council workshop. So, if anyone from the community wants to attend, they're welcome to do that. Um, and then um And so staff has been preparing for that and we're we've got a lot of good content for you and I think we got a good facilitator that's going to have a nice discussion. So I'm excited for that. Um Northshore Trail being opened. Uh you know I know that we have had some comments about people saying the speed is a an issue and we certainly we anticipate that anytime you pave a road people are going to amp up the speed. We did um Chief Peterson and I did talk about having some extra patrols out there just to make sure that people are aware that um this is the speed limits are still going to be posted here like they were before. Um, and we want to make sure that folks are adhering to those. Um, and then we've been kind of back and forth, I know, in terms of reporting into you on when the class and comp study is going to be shown to you. Um, we do anticipate that with that workshop on the 20th, we will be um, also addressing or presenting the report from the consultant on the classification and compensation studies. So, it'll be a busy workshop and we're looking forward to it. Thanks, Council Member Miller. >> Yeah, it was a busy week. Um, so a week ago, uh, I attended, uh, a public meeting that the VFW hosted for the Comfort Lake Forest Lake wershed. Uh, Mayor Roberts was there as well and, um, we were introduced to, uh, their very large staff, uh, and and people that work for the Comfort Lake Forest Lake wershed. and they talked about a lot of things, but the most important thing that came out of that, in my opinion, was their levy increase that they're proposing of 32%. And the mayor had asked a question about that, and I don't know if the mayor wants to comment when we get to him, but so that was that. Um, Forest Lake schools, another uh very interesting meeting uh took place last week and um the Forest Lake school board sent letters to the attorney general of our state and the state high school leagues uh trying to mandate and and and uh help them uh insist that they comply with the Title 9 federal ban that's in place uh banning males from female sports. Uh their reasons were they were afraid they were going to lose a number of federal funds that are available to them. Uh that if they don't comply they will lose. And as all of us are aware they um you know they don't plan to have based on the last meeting I heard they don't plan to ask for any more levies this year but they did in January extend their levy that's currently in place which they could do. Um uh and they say that the only thing that they're going to have on the ballot this year is their Forest Lake board uh for elections. >> Thank you member. >> Um just that I attended the Belts Park uh grand opening and the commission picnic last week and both events were uh well attended and fun. Especially Belts Park looks great. Kids were loving it. It was a good day and that's it. Council Merrick. >> Yeah, I will say that Ela Park turned out fantastic. I drive by there every day, several times a day, and it it it's always busy, which is really fun to see. But beyond that, no additional updates tonight. >> Uh just a quick note on the 9th, Thursday the 9th, we held a thank you barbecue for all our commissioners uh from the council and the mayor here held at Lakeside Park. It was attended well. It was our first annual. Um, I think everybody enjoyed themselves and hopefully we'll have it again. And I'd like to say thank you to Jolene for all her help and planning and picking up the food and stuff and, uh, Fire Chief Newman for providing us with a grill. Thank you. >> Yeah, that was a great event. Thank you, uh, Council Member Larson for cooking and spearheading that. >> I really don't have much. I will add to I'll correct you, Kevin. I think it was 24% is what that levy increase is and so I did ask the question it was the state of the wershed and it was uh quite honest with you little disappointing that that was not brought up that their levy in the state of the wershed they do a lot of great things um so I just asked the question um and you know they've they've had some projects that went over budget they have a uh some loans that now were at 0% now are a 7% they attributed that by the large increase but was disappointing is that um the president pointed out that you know it is the smallest portion of your property taxes and I would uh I would comment on that is they do the least amount. I mean we are here providing 247 police protection uh plowing streets, roads, parks and so of course they're going to be the smallest part and not to mention what the school district does in in educating students and transportation. So, it's a little bit disingenuous and disappointing, but um we're going to I I personally put some pressure on them to really uh be more mindful on that on that budget going forward. So, that's all I have this evening. Uh we do have a closed session. So, is anyone willing to make a motion to get get us into close session? >> Sure. Make a motion to um move to close the meeting pursuing to Minnesota's statute section 13 DO3 to discuss a strategy for labor developments related to possible adjustments to death benefits for Forest Lake Police Department officers who die while employed by the city in conjunction with the public policy of chapter 179A regarding the promotion of a constructive relationship between LS 111 and 326 in the city. The close session will be held in the Forest Slate conference room and will commence immediately. Once the close session is completed, the city council will reconvene the regular meeting in council chambers and as there is no other items on the agenda, we'll adjourn the meeting. >> All right, we have motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? I >> opposed. We're in close session. [Music]