This transcript identifies the speakers based on the context of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission meeting. Note that while the prompt provided City Council names, the individuals presiding here are **Planning Commissioners**. **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)** serves as the primary staff presenter. [0:00] **Planning Commission Chair**: All right, there it is. At 6:30 on July 28th, calling to order the July 28th, 2025 meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission. And our first order of business will be to rise and say the pledge of allegiance. [0:12] **All**: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [0:24] **Planning Commission Chair**: Thank you. Uh the next item, I guess, is to approve the agenda. Before we do that, I would like to make a motion to change the agenda for an introduction to our newest planning commissioner. [0:32] **Planning Commissioner**: Second that. [0:34] **Planning Commissioner**: Second. Sorry. [0:35] **Planning Commission Chair**: All in favor? [0:36] **All**: I. [0:37] **Planning Commission Chair**: The eyes have it. So, our newest planning commissioner, please introduce yourself Danielle. [0:42] **Danielle Sorrow**: My name is Danielle Sorrow and I live here in Lake Elmo in the Inwood development. My husband and I have been here for about seven years and we absolutely love it. [0:53] **Planning Commission Chair**: Yay. Awesome. Welcome. Welcome. Thanks. And with that, uh, motion to approve the agenda. [1:00] **Planning Commissioner**: I move to approve the agenda of July 28th 2025. [1:04] **Planning Commissioner**: I'll second that. [1:06] **Planning Commission Chair**: All in favor? [1:07] **All**: I. I. [1:08] **Planning Commission Chair**: The agenda is approved. Next item on the approved agenda is to approve the meeting minutes for May 27th, 2025, which feels like a long time ago. [1:15] **Planning Commissioner**: What was the date of them? Sorry. [1:18] **Planning Commission Chair**: May what? May 27th. [1:20] **Planning Commissioner**: Well, then I will move to approve the minutes of the May 27th, 2025 meeting. [1:25] **Planning Commissioner**: Second. [1:26] **Planning Commission Chair**: All in favor? [1:27] **All**: I. I. [1:28] **Planning Commission Chair**: The meeting minutes from the 27th have been approved. All right. Next item on the agenda is the public hearing for High Point Crossing. [1:36] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: All right. Uh good evening chair, members of the commission. Hope everyone's having a good summer so far. So uh this item is called the High Point Crossing and OP LDR comprehensive plan amendment. I do want to provide an overview and we'll provide some more background for why we're here. So, if you'll recall, uh, last September of 2024, the city did approve a preliminary and plat and open space planned unit development for the High Point Crossing project. So, uh, summary of that project is on the screen. We're—the site is—I think you all are familiar in the city—is on Inwood and um the property itself is just over 78 acres. Uh there are six wetlands on the property, one existing homestead. Uh there's uh approved on the preliminary plat. We had 65 residential units with um over 50% of the property being preserved as open space. The development would have city water. It was proposed with the community septic system and it would make a required roadway connection from Inwood to Imperial Avenue. [2:45] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: Um, in the time since the September 2024 approval, the developer has done additional due diligence on the site and had additional soil uh testing done and the developer can speak to all of the due diligence that they have gone through. Um but at the end of the day they found that the community septic system which they were initially proposing for the open space PUD um wasn't going to meet the state standards. And so instead of trying to push forward something that wasn't going to work, uh they kind of explored their options. We brought the options to a recent city council workshop and talked about what uh the alternatives were for this project to move forward. Um the alternatives would be either individual septic systems which have a lower threshold for um operation... or uh the city could explore serving this parcel with public sewer and effectively allowing for the uh development that was initially approved but just with public sewer. [3:45] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: So after a discussion uh council provided guidance to explore the creation or explore basically providing sewer to this development and the creation of a future land use category um was discussed... In this new category called the open space low-density residential district, we'd be looking at a density range of between two to three units per acre. And we would also be looking at a requirement for any new project to dedicate at least half of the land area or provide at least half of the land area to the city as open space. [6:38] **Planning Commissioner**: I may have missed it, Nathan. The two to three range is driven by? [6:43] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: So, this is what um after looking at this idea staff are proposing a density range in this category of between two to three units per net acre and that's based on Met Council's guidance. It's based on partly—so the city's obligation is to go 3.0 units per acre citywide in the sewer areas within the MUSA. And so if we create a new category that allows development to be below three units per acre, it needs all the MUSA area to average out above three units. [7:12] **Planning Commissioner**: I just think that's important that you clarify. It's not citywide. It's just within the MUSAs within the city. [7:17] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: Correct. MUSA equals Met Council requirements. Outside of the MUSA, we're not tied. [7:22] **Planning Commissioner**: Correct. I'll ask you a question later. [7:25] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: With no other questions, I'll keep moving... Generally speaking, as I mentioned and as we clarified here, the this new category called OPLDDR would be located within the MUSA... Looking at the next development cycle, the Met Council's policy is that cities meet a density citywide of 3.5 units per acre across the city. So, in other words, the requirement is that density in sewer areas is required to go up and that's in the next cycle that begins in 2030. [12:30] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: So, next steps... Generally, it's presented in a chronological format... The recommendation from staff is on the screen here. We can certainly come back to this. Um, that’s all I have formally prepared for you, but I imagine that you have some questions for me. Um, I would remind you that we also have a public hearing, so there may be folks that have comments. And then lastly, um, the developer is here to talk a little bit more about their, you know, their decision-making and and kind of how they've come to this point as well. So, I'll pause and, uh, see if you have any questions for me. [13:08] **Planning Commissioner**: I've got just one here. So, if I understand it right, the more um, of the OPLDDR parcels of land that we would do, it would actually since it’d be lower than the 3. point soon to be 5... it would it would then put pressure to increase other areas to make that average come out. [13:28] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: Yes, that that is generally correct. Um it’s, you know, the conformance with Met Council policy is a little bit of a math game um in some respects. [13:42] **Planning Commissioner**: I've got a quick question. Um, whenever this new Musa area was developed, did this come from the developer? Because you're saying it's primarily for single family homes and yet whenever I look at the schematic, it's pretty much all townhouses. [13:58] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: That’s a great question, Commissioner. So, um, yes, the developer was was analyzing their their options... after some review and discussion, the twin home concept plan is not supported by staff. It doesn't really, um, meet the the what's written at this point for the OPLDR as proposed. [14:18] **Planning Commissioner**: And if I number two, this is 2025 and we're working at the with a 2040 comprehensive plan at this point in time right? Correct. That's correct. And I looked back at what was approved on um November 5th, 2019 and it shows this as rural residential. So I was just wondering, you know, what what happened? I mean, can you just kind of change things? [14:48] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: So, I think your question is based on community designation which is a part of how the Met Council classifies communities... In areas of Lake Elmo that were guided for um that weren't weren't currently guided for sewer, it was called rural residential. [15:40] **Planning Commissioner**: I'm sorry I wasn't here last year when this was first discussed but I'm just trying to comprehend why we would want to shoot something up Inwood whenever they're just redoing the road there and so on right now but it just something doesn't seem quite right to me. So that's all for now. [16:02] **Planning Commission Chair**: Any other questions right now for Nathan? [16:05] **Planning Commissioner**: Yeah, I have a question. Um, you wrote here that if this was approved, the new future land use category may be used elsewhere in the city where um found appropriate. Where would those locations be? [16:16] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: That’s something that, you know, I mentioned the city is not yet gone through that... We think you know there are certain areas south of Stillwater Boulevard that seem like it could be an appropriate future land use category where there's where there's sewer that's approximate. [16:45] **Planning Commissioner**: I've got one more question on I believe I brought this up to you whenever I called and talked to you the other day. I really miss the maps that we used to have in our city council chambers because right on the map on the wall it showed soils of Washington County and you knew the soil types by looking up at there. You didn't have to have this "oh we thought this however we did some more borings and it wasn't any good." So I was wondering if perhaps there just wasn't the due diligence done ahead of time. [17:28] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: I think the question is, you know, what due diligence was done in terms of soils. Um, you know, part of that that question I would have to have the developer answer and certainly the developer is here. [17:50] **Planning Commission Chair**: We'll hear from the developer and then we'll open the public hearing. [18:05] **Paul (Rachel Development)**: Good evening, chairman, planning commissioners. I know none of us want to see me back here. I get that. Uh and uh you know I didn't want to be back here either. And I will address some of these questions during my presentation... About over a year ago, a year and a half ago, we started on this project... [Developer provides detailed timeline of soil testing, mounding studies, and the failure of the community septic plan]. [25:10] **Paul (Rachel Development)**: So, all that red area that you saw up there, that was the community septic system. It was huge. That’s gone... the HOA is still maintaining it as far as the open space but now the trails are actually open to all the neighbors to use... eliminates the concern about future failing septic systems. [26:40] **Planning Commissioner**: So, what if you don't get sewer? What's your other option? [26:44] **Paul (Rachel Development)**: I think we'll have to see cross that bridge when we come to it. [27:05] **Planning Commissioner**: One of the write items that said primarily single family homes, not the twin homes. Somewhere in there the word primarily was there but it is this this particular plan is also single family. [27:18] **Paul (Rachel Development)**: Yep. Yep. Villas. I I think every property obviously is going to have different characteristics... I think we made it work, but it might have been that we might have needed a little bit more density to get to two units per acre. [27:45] **Planning Commissioner**: And who's um who's going to be the builder and what's the price point of the single family homes? They're not villas then. You're building single family. [27:54] **Paul (Rachel Development)**: I mean, it’s single family homes... Prices are probably going to start in the 1.1 to 1.3 range, something like that. [28:45] **Planning Commissioner**: Have you ever done or are you aware of any developments here in the metro that have 7 and a half foot sideyards? [28:51] **Paul (Rachel Development)**: Oh, I mean I'm doing multiple developments with five [foot] single family home... 15 feet between homes. Don't put windows and yeah... [30:00] **Planning Commissioner**: Yeah. One more. Um, just looking at your drawing here... are all of the homes going to pretty much be at the same like you have the setback, but will they all be right up to that setback from the street or are you going to stagger them a little bit? [30:20] **Paul (Rachel Development)**: They’re I mean they're going to be similar to each other, but there will be some staggering... You'll be able to get walkout lots on all of these. [31:10] **Planning Commission Chair**: Thank you. All right. Uh, next would be to open the public hearing and we need a motion to do so. [31:18] **Planning Commissioner**: I move to open the public hearing. [31:20] **Planning Commissioner**: Second that. [31:21] **Planning Commission Chair**: All in favor? I. Motion's passed. We will open the public hearing. Uh at 7:16... we do have one public comment that got emailed to the commission, and I will read that for the record. [Chair reads email from Ann Buchek urging denial of the amendment and citing concerns about spot zoning]. [34:32] **Planning Commission Chair**: Do we have anyone else who'd like to speak for the public hearing? If you can give your name and your address for the record. [34:38] **Rosemary Armstrong (Public Speaker)**: Sure. I'm Rosemary Armstrong. I live at 829 15th Street North in Lake Elmo... [Rosemary expresses concerns about traffic on Inwood Avenue, the rural character, and moving the MUSA line]. [36:45] **Planning Commission Chair**: Thank you, Rosemary. Anyone else? All right. Do we have a motion to close the public hearing? [36:52] **Planning Commissioner**: I move we close the public hearing. [36:54] **Planning Commissioner**: Second. [36:55] **Planning Commission Chair**: The public hearing is closed at 7:23. [37:05] **Planning Commissioner**: Can I ask one more question of Nathan? [37:10] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: All questions are fair. [37:12] **Planning Commissioner**: If this the whole septic and it not accepting the soil... if it were to be less units, would it be able to have the septic? ... I'll let the developer answer your question. [37:45] **Paul (Rachel Development)**: The mounding study would still fail even with probably half the amount of units... we found 30 or 40 places for perk tests to pass on the site. So I mean so there is an option for... I don't remember how many units I had in that but 22 or 23 something like that. [39:05] **Planning Commissioner**: Just to clarify, 22 23 single family homes with individual septic. That section was never presented to us. [39:15] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: Oh, for sure. And it's because it was not on you, right? [39:25] **Planning Commissioner**: So do I just real quick... what I see this commission is breaking down to is there's two issues on the table... whether this development gets brought into the MUSA and the second one is the OPLDDR designation. [41:15] **Planning Commissioner**: Nathan, I have a question. So if you're going to run sewer a mile and a mile, two miles north on Inwood, are you going to require or place capacity... to support all the developments that are along that? [41:33] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: That’s a good question... that would be a city council and another council decision would be who pays. [42:15] **Planning Commissioner**: Quick question, Nathan, for you. I would have preferred it been in reverse, right? That we come up with a strategy or a comprehensive plan... I just want to make sure it's not the other way around. [42:45] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: I think that’s a great question... staff see as something that can be applied outside of this development... but as you know and we've discussed there's going to be that that question about density and as we get to 3.5 how do we get there. [44:15] **Planning Commissioner**: Nathan, my question is on the 2030 population target where where are we with that right now? [44:22] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: That’s a good question... I think the city—the last population estimate that we saw from the Met Council—it seemed as though the city was tracking along. [45:45] **Planning Commission Chair**: Can you give me just a timeline approximate? [45:50] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: So, are you referring to a timeline for this development... [Nathan explains the timeline through spring 2026]. [47:20] **Planning Commissioner**: I'll make a motion. I move that we table this plan for future review. [47:28] **Planning Commissioner**: I'll second. [47:35] **Planning Commissioner**: [Discussion regarding concerns about agriculture preserve, rural feel, and "spot zoning" sentiment]. [48:30] **Planning Commissioner**: I'll rescind my motion and I'll make a new motion to deny. [48:35] **Planning Commissioner**: I'll second that. [49:00] **Planning Commission Chair**: All in favor of denial? [49:02] **All**: I. I. [49:05] **Planning Commission Chair**: The motion is passed. The recommendation is denied. Thank you. And with that is the next item on the agenda. [49:15] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer)**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council updates. The Primrose Daycare... was approved June 3rd... upcoming meetings August 11th and August 25th. [49:45] **Planning Commission Chair**: All right. Thank you, Nate. We will adjourn the 7/28/2025 planning commission meeting at 7:49. Meeting adjourned. Thank you.