Planning Commission denies Chestnut Creek PUD amendment and urges parkland discussion; preliminary plat recommended with conditions

Forest Lake City planners, residents and developers debated a proposed 119‑lot addition to the Chestnut Creek subdivision Wednesday, focusing on lot size, wetland buffers, stormwater, traffic and the absence of promised parkland. The commission denied the requested planned‑unit‑development (PUD) amendment and recommended conditional approval of the preliminary plat subject to revisions to conform with the original PUD and further review by the Parks Commission.

The nut graf: Residents pressed the commission on recurring flooding, narrow roads and a nine‑year delay in the park that had been discussed during earlier phases; the commission concluded the requested PUD changes offered insufficient demonstrable public benefit and asked the developer to return with a plan that honors previously approved standards and addresses parkland and infrastructure concerns.

What was proposed: Abby, city planning staff, presented a D.R. Horton proposal for Chestnut Creek Second Edition, a roughly 52‑acre addition with about 119 single‑family detached homes on a mix of 55‑foot and 65‑foot lot widths. Staff noted a discrepancy in density reporting (an initially stated net density of about 3.36 units per acre versus a gross density of 2.3 units per acre in the staff report) and explained the proposed flexibilities: reduced minimum lot area (from the 7,700 square feet in the original approvals to 7,100 square feet in 1 instance) and reduced exterior corner yard from 25 feet to 20 feet for some lots.

Engineering, wetlands and stormwater: Ryan Bloom, civil engineer for the project, described the existing graded basins and the effects of recent heavy rains and clay soils that have allowed ponds and wetlands to hold higher water. He said the development will install storm sewer infrastructure, pond controls and treatment benches and that the proposed revised buffers and pond work should normalize pond levels and improve water quality. Neighbors and the commission pressed for detail and timeline; Bloom said updated stormwater submittals and Comfort Lake‑Forest Lake Watershed District review and approval remain pending.

Public comment and concerns: The commission heard more than a dozen residents, many from Chestnut Creek Phase 1, who described persistent backyard flooding and regular sump‑pump activity, scant or delayed parkland promised with the original development, safety risks at nearby intersections, school‑bus stop congestion, and the cumulative traffic impact of several hundred additional cars. Speakers described the neighborhood as close‑knit and said earlier representations by builders and sellers led residents to expect a park and larger lots. Several residents urged denial or major revisions, citing public‑safety and environmental concerns.

Developer response: Deb Ridgeway, representing D.R. Horton, said the builder's target market is families and that typical lot and building pads would leave about 30 feet from the house to the wetland buffer, allowing backyard decks; she also said the developer is open to providing a parkland parcel on the site if the city desires.

Commission action: After discussion, Commissioner Susan moved to deny the PUD amendment as presented, stating it did not provide sufficient public benefit, including concerns about uniform lots, circulation, open space and public infrastructure; the motion passed. The commission then voted to recommend approval of the preliminary plat only if the developer revised the plan to meet the original PUD standards (including minimum lot area) and after the Parks Commission considers parkland dedication; that recommendation carried.

Why it matters: The action preserves the city's prior expectations for lot sizes and public benefits associated with a PUD and signals the commission's intent that parkland and infrastructure (stormwater and transportation) considerations be resolved before final approval. The denial also sends a clear message to the City Council and developer that current public concerns — especially long‑standing wetland and flood issues and the lack of a nearby park — must be addressed.

Next steps: Staff will forward the Planning Commission recommendations and the public comments record to the Parks and Recreation Commission (scheduled for its next meeting) and to the City Council for final action. The developer may revise the PUD and preliminary plat and resubmit; the city and watershed reviews of stormwater design remain ongoing.

Votes at a glance: The Planning Commission denied the PUD amendment (motion carried) and recommended approval of the preliminary plat with modifications and parkland consideration; both votes were recorded as carried by the commission.

Context note: City code requires that residential subdivisions dedicate 10 percent of land area for parkland or provide cash‑in‑lieu; staff noted the city can accept cash in lieu and that prior approvals and market changes influenced the current negotiations.