Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews two residential concept plans; Serene gains favorable feedback, smaller Leiba/Frank plan faces concerns
Summary
City staff and developers presented two concept plans: Twin City Land Development’s Serene plan (about 38 acres, 61 single‑family lots on western half) received favorable informal review, while Sheldon Frank’s 10‑acre plan (27 lots) drew staff and Planning Commission concern over smaller lots, private streets and utility feasibility.
Forest Lake City Council on Jan. 27 reviewed two residential concept plans during the regular agenda. City planning staff said the concept‑plan stage is an informal, nonbinding review to help developers align proposals with the comprehensive plan and local regulations.
Twin City Land Development presented the Serene concept for roughly 38 acres, proposing about 61 single‑family lots on the west half of the property, preserving about 7 acres of wetland and leaving the east half undeveloped for now. Planner Abby said the site is zoned MXR‑1 (mixed residential) with a 7,500 square‑foot minimum lot size and a 65‑foot minimum lot width; the developer requested some lots narrower than the code minimum (down to about 6,500 square feet and 55 feet wide) and would pursue a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay to seek flexibility. Developer Ben Schmidt told the council the plan intends to dedicate the proposed parkland to the city and locate narrower detached single‑family lots where they back up to higher‑density attached units to the north. Staff and the Planning Commission offered generally favorable informal comments and said the items would be flushed out at preliminary plat, including parkland dedication and trail and utility connections.
A second concept plan for a roughly 10‑acre parcel submitted by Sheldon Frank (Leiba/Frank) proposed 27 single‑family lots after wetlands are excluded. Staff said the plan would require several concessions from the MXR‑1 zoning (proposed lots as small as about 4,700–5,600 square feet and 45–53 feet wide, plus private streets). City engineering staff and the Planning Commission flagged feasibility concerns: long water‑main extensions (almost 2,000 feet), sanitary sewer depth and potential need for lift stations, pavement extensions on Fenway Avenue and uncertain cost‑sharing for major roadway work. Planning Commission members recommended the council deny the concept plan at its Jan. 8 hearing; staff recommended revisiting the concept with additional justification for private roads, smaller lots and preliminary utility data before advancing to a preliminary plat.
Councilmembers and staff discussed whether the smaller, denser proposal might be better considered in the context of broader Headwaters 123/Tech Corridor planning. Several councilmembers suggested the EDA and a joint workshop with the council would be appropriate to evaluate whether the larger area should remain reserved for data‑center/tech uses or could accommodate mixed uses that would affect how this parcel should be developed.
No formal council action was taken on either concept plan; both developers were advised to work with staff on next steps if they wish to proceed.
