Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parkland Dedication topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parks commission recommends city accept 6.21-acre Amberly Woods land donation
Summary
Forest Lake Parks & Recreation and Trails Commission voted to recommend the City Council accept a proposed 6.21-acre parkland dedication from the Amberly Woods developer, saying the woodland would help meet the city’s trail and natural‑area needs under Minnesota law.
Get email alerts on the Parkland Dedication topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Forest Lake Parks & Recreation and Trails Commission on Oct. 15 voted to recommend that the City Council accept a land donation proposed as part of the Amberly Woods preliminary plat.
City planner Kyle (last name not specified) told commissioners the Amberly Woods subdivision, located north of County Road 50 and Goodview Avenue, would create 56 single‑family lots and comes with a developer proposal to dedicate about 6.21 upland woodland acres to the city. Kyle said Minnesota Statute 462.358 and Forest Lake City Code section 152 authorize a municipality to require parkland dedication or cash in lieu during subdivision, and that residential subdivisions typically require a 10% dedication. For the 17 developable acres on the west half of the site, Kyle said the 10% requirement would be 3.27 acres; the developer’s 6.21‑acre offer therefore exceeds that minimum.
Staff recommended accepting the land, citing the city’s 2040 comprehensive plan and a draft parks plan that identifies the area as a neighborhood park search area and notes a deficit of about 20 miles of natural‑surface hiking trails. Kyle described the donated tract as heavily forested and containing wetlands and buffers, and said the woodland would provide a “premier” natural area that would help serve an expanding walkshed as the surrounding properties develop.
Commissioner Karen moved to recommend the council accept the land donation as proposed; Commissioner Aaron seconded. The commission verbally approved the recommendation on a voice vote. The developer representative from Twin Cities Land Development attended but did not take part in the formal motion.
The recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for a final decision. The commission did not specify conditions such as maintenance responsibility, park improvements, or an estimated timeline for acquisition and development; those details were not provided in the meeting record.

