The Forest Lake City Council on Wednesday approved a preliminary plat and amended planned unit development (PUD) for Chestnut Creek Phase 2, but asked the developer and city staff to work toward delivering neighborhood parkland or a combination of land and fees to construct a park.

The issue dominated public comment, with multiple residents saying they were told in prior years that a park would be part of Phase 2. "We were told there would be a park," said Nikki Searing, a Chestnut Creek homeowner, adding that children now play in the neighborhood streets because they have no close playground. "We just need somewhere for the kids to go."

Council approved resolution 10 13 25 05, as amended, after a lengthy discussion that included developer representatives from D.R. Horton and city staff. The amendment directed the developer to work with staff on a combination of land dedication and a fee that will be used at least in part to build the park, and left final details to be settled before final plat and with further review by the parks commission.

Why it matters: Residents said the park was repeatedly promised during the earlier approvals and that the neighborhood’s rapid growth—and the presence of many young children—means a nearby, walkable park is necessary for safety and community life. City staff noted changes in park-planning standards since the original 2016 approval and reminded the council that large park dedications reduce cash contributions available for construction. "A half-acre could accommodate a playground and some green space," Abby, city planner, told the council, while also explaining a full 10% land dedication would be about 3.5 acres under city code and would materially reduce park-fee revenue.

Public comment emphasized three principal concerns: the presence and enforcement of wetland buffers, internal vehicle and school-bus safety on narrow lots and streets, and the absence of a nearby, accessible park for children. Residents provided photos and first-hand accounts of standing water and flooding in backyards; several asked for a current traffic study to reassess connections at Harrow Avenue and Highway 97.

Developer response: Mike So, representing D.R. Horton, said the company was "open to a park" and prefers a combination of a smaller dedicated land parcel and cash to allow the project to remain financially feasible. He said a one-acre dedication would cost the developer roughly six to eight lots; two to three acres would cost many more lots and could imperil the project’s feasibility. "If we start getting over an acre, then we gotta start relooking at our numbers," he said.

City staff noted the development will be required to meet current stormwater and watershed rules, including Rice Creek Watershed District standards, and that new stormwater controls use more stringent grading and swales than when Phase 1 was built. City engineering staff said projects must demonstrate rate and volume control and, if necessary, increase pond sizes or add other best-management practices.

What the council decided: Council members signaled support for a park and asked staff and the developer to craft a plan that balances land, construction funding and timing. The council approved the preliminary plat and PUD amendment with an explicit instruction that the developer work with staff and the parks commission to identify a park solution (land, fee, or combination) that will be used, at least in part, to build park improvements. The motion did not specify an exact acreage beyond directing staff and the developer to pursue a viable solution; council discussion repeatedly noted a need to avoid dedicating land that could not be improved because of the city’s limited immediate construction budget.

Next steps: Staff will bring draft language and options back to the council and coordinate a park discussion with the parks commission. The developer will continue engineering, wetland delineation, and stormwater design work; final plat approval will be required before construction. The council and staff indicated they expect additional neighborhood meetings and a parks-commission review before final approval.

Ending: Residents who addressed the council said they were relieved the council affirmed interest in parkland. Council members said they will seek a compromise that delivers usable park space without creating an unfunded land-holding that the city cannot build out.