Forest Lake parks commission recommends land dedication for Chestnut Creek, not cash in lieu

The Forest Lake Parks and Recreation Commission on Sept. 17 voted to recommend that the City Council accept land dedication for the Chestnut Creek preliminary plat instead of cash in lieu of land dedication.

The recommendation followed a staff presentation by Abby Whitman, Forest Lake's community development director, who explained the city's subdivision rules and the history of Chestnut Creek's approvals. Whitman told the commission that Minnesota Statutes §462.358 allows cities to require parkland dedication or cash in lieu at subdivision and that the city's subdivision code (chapter 152) and the comprehensive plan guide how those requirements are applied.

Chestnut Creek was approved in 2016 as a planned unit development (PUD) covering roughly 108–114 acres and to allow about 220 homes across two phases, Whitman said. The current preliminary plat before the commission covers the remaining phase 2—about 58 acres with roughly 119 lots as proposed—and relies on the prior PUD approvals, which Whitman said did not include any required parkland at the time of the 2016 approvals.

Whitman also told commissioners the city has a separate, pending preliminary plat for about 22 acres immediately southwest of Chestnut Creek that the city has identified as a potential future neighborhood park; that parcel is wooded and contains wetlands, and staff do not have a definitive acquisition or development schedule. She added the city's draft parks and trails plan is reconsidering service-area metrics, moving from a traditional half-mile service area toward a 10-minute walk shed standard, which affects whether Chestnut Creek would be considered served by nearby parks.

Representatives from D.R. Horton, the applicant and prospective developer, told the commission they were not the original developer and are proposing mostly to follow the 2016 preliminary layout. Deb Ridgeway of D.R. Horton said the company is willing to consider a park on the site as a public park and would request credit for park fees if land is dedicated. Ridgeway described a pocket-park concept discussed with neighbors—“a pocket park with a playground ... we had shown a half basketball court”—and estimated its size at about 15,000–16,000 square feet (less than a half-acre).

Commissioners and nearby residents at prior planning meetings raised concerns that the second phase lacks parkland and recalled earlier neighborhood discussions that suggested a park might be planned between phases 1 and 2. Whitman and other staff reiterated that written approvals from 2016 document no parkland requirement and that the previous advisory body and the city council accepted cash in lieu for the entire PUD at that time.

Discussion at the dais also touched on maintenance implications for the city if small pocket parks were created with every infill subdivision, and on the possibility that the city's acquisition of the 22-acre tract to the southwest—if pursued—could satisfy neighborhood park needs on a larger scale. Commissioners pressed on whether the city could require parkland now; staff explained amending the PUD or negotiating with the developer are possible paths, but the 2016 approvals affect what can be required without an amendment.

After discussion, Commissioner Karen moved and a colleague seconded a recommendation that the City Council accept land dedication instead of cash in lieu for the Chestnut Creek preliminary plat. The commission voted in favor; members present answered “Aye” and the motion passed.

The commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Staff indicated the Chestnut Creek application and related park-acquisition prospects will return to the commission in October for further review and to give staff time to assemble additional materials requested by commissioners.