10-21-25 City Council Meeting Packet

Home Browse Search

Option A: 30 Lot Rural Development This option is similar to the option initially presented to the City Council along with the 65 lot sewered project. The concept consists of 30 lots ranging from 1.5 to 3 acres all served by individual private septic systems and public water. If the city were to approve this request, t he following general flexibilities would be anticipated as previously discussed: • Wetlands and ponding allowed on certain lots. • PVC vs. Ductile Iron for watermain through the project area • Minimum Lot size of 1.5 acres • Rural road section – Applicant may reconsider request to eliminate ribbon curb. Option B: 11 Lot Rural Development This option is preferred by the Applicant if the project is to be constructed without sewer. It would create 11 large residential lots ranging from 5-10 acres with individual private septic systems and, as proposed, individual private wells. If the city were to approve this request, the following general flexibilities would be anticipated: • Wetlands and ponding allowed withing private lots. • Two Private drives serving five, and six homesites, respectively. • No public road connection from Imperial to Inwood. • Private wells serving each homesite as opposed to through a public watermain in conformance with the City’s development policies. REVIEW COMMENTS: This proposed comprehensive plan amendment request was sent to adjacent or affected jurisdictions as follows: City of Oakdale, City of Oak Park Heights, City of Stillwater, City of Woodbury, Baytown Township, Grant Township, West Lakeland Township, VBWD, SWWD, and Washington County. No adjacent or affected jurisdiction comments have been received. PUBLIC COMMENTS: A duly noticed public hearing was held at the Planning Commission’s regular meeting on July 28. One written public comment was received prior to the meeting and one resident provided public testimony. Generally, public comments received on this project include concerns about expansion of the MUSA for sewered development and concerns about the density of the development and possible associated impacts such as traffic. RECOMMENDATION: This item is advisory only and an action is not requested from the City Council on this item. The Applicant has requested an extension on the timeline to make a decision on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment until more information is available on sewer capacity. The City Council is asked to provide feedback, as appropriate, to the Applicant on alternatives for rural development should sewer capacity not be available. ATTACHMENTS: • Highpointe Crossing Location Map • Extension Request • Narrative and Rural Concepts