Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout#02 - Highpointe Crossing STAFF REPORT DATE: 6/10/2025 Workshop TO: Lake Elmo City Council FROM: Nathan Fuerst, Consulting Planner AGENDA ITEM: Highpointe Crossing - Revised PUD Concept Plan REVIEWED BY: Jason Stopa, Community Development Director Sophia Jensen, Senior City Planner Jack Griffin, Senior Engineering Project Manager CORE STRATEGIES: ☐ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community ☐ Efficient, reliable, innovative services ☐ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance ☐ Balanced Finances now and future ☒ Managed Growth ☒ Resilient Infrastructure BACKGROUND: Rachel Development (the “Developer”) has re-applied for a concept plan review following findings that the community septic system for the project cannot meet criteria established for such systems. This project first received a preliminary plat approval in September of 2024 following several concept plan reviews by the City’s staff and Council. After the initial approval, the Developer’s consultants conducted further testing and confirmed the site cannot meet required state permitting criteria. The Developer is now reviewing different alternatives for site design in an effort to move some form of the project forward. There are two different alternatives that the Developer has requested feedback on from the City: 1. Connect to the MUSA (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) – Building the previously approved development, but instead of a community septic system, the development would connect to the regional sanitary sewer system. 2. Private Septic – Larger lot rural development incorporating private septic systems on lots with a minimum area of 1.5 acres. This would require PUD flexibility and utilizing a zoning district (Rural Single Family) that was discontinued after 2005 in favor of 2.5 acre minimum lot areas in the Rural Estates District. Once a preferred alternative is identified, the Developer will move forward with an application for a revised preliminary plat approval by the City. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Although no development rights are granted at this stage of development review. The City Council is asked to provide feedback on the proposed alternatives for Highpointe Crossing. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Alternative 1 - MUSA Connection/Comprehensive Plan Amendment To connect this development to the regional sanitary sewer system, several amendments will be required to the City’s Comprehensive plan. A MUSA Map amendment would be required to sewer this lot along with a physical connection to the regional sanitary sewer system along Inwood Avenue to the south of this project area. Additionally, this development is at a lower density (.86 units/acre as approved in September 2024) than is permitted in any future land use category in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Staff do not advise on the use of existing sewered future land use categories for this project as it would not conform to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Staff therefore find that it would be most appropriate to create a new future land use category for this type of development and have discussed a new future land use category called OP-LDR (Open Space – Low Density Residential). This category would be similar in concept to what is allowed/required by the OP PUD ordinance already in place. Primarily, open space comprising 50% of developments would be required to be placed under permanent easements allowing public access and restricting future development. Negative impacts to the Citywide density within the City’s MUSA boundary could be limited by requiring open space preservation of 50% of the land area. Using Highpoint Crossing as an example, the development density could be interpreted in different ways: Highpointe Crossing Density Comparison* Current Approach OP-LDR Approach Total Units 65 Gross Acres 78.24 78.24 Net Out - Wetlands 2.58 2.58 Net Out - Open Space (no ponds/wetlands) 40.83 Total Net Acres 75.66 34.83 Net Density .86 units/acre 1.86 units/acre *This table shows the difference between how staff would review the Highpoint Crossing Development approved in September 2024 (65 units) in an existing future land use category versus a new category that is designed to encourage sewered open space developments. Staff propose that density in a new OP-LDR future land use category be an allowable range between 2-3 units per acre. This would help to further reduce the impacts on Citywide density, and minimize changes that may be needed elsewhere in the City’s Comprehensive Plan to achieve a target of 3.5 units per acre within the City’s MUSA boundary. If the City adopts a density range between 2-3 units per acre, the plans for Highpointe Crossing must be further revised to meet 2.0 units per acre. Should the City Council provide feedback supportive of this alternative, the next step would be for the Developer to begin compiling a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request. City staff will recommend connection to the City sewer along Inwood at the Developer’s cost. City Staff would also require a revised preliminary plat to have development plans revised in order to detail connection to the City’s sewer system. Alternative 2 – Large Lot Rural Development: To shift the development to private septic systems on each proposed residential lot, the Development plans would need to be significantly revised to accommodate a primary and secondary drain field on each lot. This would significantly decrease lots from 65 as already approved with community septic to a maximum of 31 with individual septic systems. The Developer’s narrative includes a possible layout for this alternative. The concept layout details 30 residential lots ranging from 1.5 to 2.9 acres. The City currently does not permit non-sewered developments with less than 2.5 acres per lot. There is an existing zoning district called the Rural Single Family district, which was discontinued in 2005 but remains an active district to keep older sewered and unsewered residential lots in conformance with the City’s zoning standards. Currently, planned unit developments in unsewered areas are subject to conformance with the City’s OP PUD requirements. As proposed, this project would not meet the OP PUD requirements for 100’ buffers (not part of lot areas) and 50% open space. Therefore, the project would require either a modification of the City’s zoning ordinance, or supermajority approval from the City Council for flexibility. If modification to the City’s ordinance is the desired path, staff would likely consider a modified version of the OP PUD standards, or modification of an existing zoning district as suggested by the Developer. If this alternative were to move forward, the Developer is requesting the following additional flexibility from City Requirements: • Construction of a rural, rather than urban (with curb and gutter), road section. • To allow wetlands and stormwater ponds be within lot areas as opposed to being platted as separate outlots. • Use of PVC vs. ductile iron watermain. Historically, staff have been opposed to all three requested flexibilities for various reasons. The City has experienced poor quality construction and high maintenance requirements for rural roads, enforcement issues with ponds and wetlands on private lots (even within public easements) and has a uniform standard for watermain not typically altered on a development-by-development basis. Stormwater Reuse for Irrigation: The Preliminary Plat for Highpointe Crossing, as approved in September 2024, included stormwater reuse for irrigation. It is not clear how the plans for the individual septic alternative would provide a stormwater reuse system. The Council should clarify whether it would relax or carry forward the requirement for stormwater reuse with Alternative 2, as described above. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. Fiscal impacts will vary depending on which alternative is selected. OPTIONS: No decisions are made at the time of Concept/sketch Plan Review. This process is advisory only. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the City Council review the concept to provide general feedback on the conceptual development and provide staff with guidance on how to proceed with requirements for a connection to City water and for Stormwater Reuse. ATTACHMENTS: • Rachel Development Narrative 4180 Napier Ct NE St. Michael, MN 55376 Office: 763.424.1500 www.racheldevelopment.com Date: 4/28/2025, updated 5/23/25 To: City of Lake Elmo From: Rachel Development Request: We are requesting the Council to consider two options for developing the Eberhard Property. 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment creating and guiding PID #21-029-21-32-0001 with a new land use that would allow OP-PUD’s to connect to city sanitary sewer. We are calling this land use “Open Space - Low Density Residential” (OS-LDR). 2. Alternatively, if the City would like to see a larger lot rural development and/or does not want to extend sanitary sewer to the property, we would ask the Council to support zoning the property Rural Single Family (RS) or a PUD that provides similar standards. These options are clarified in greater detail below. Background: In August of 2024 the City Council approved a preliminary plat for Highpointe Crossing. Shown below This plan relied on sanitary sewer service using a package plant community septic system. Community systems and the regulations and review surrounding them have changed over the past few years. These changes are one of the reasons we are asking for either a comprehensive plan amendment or a rezoning to Rural Single Family. After much work and design, it was determined that the soils on the property 2 could not support infiltrating the amount of water needed for a community septic system. This is described in greater detail below. Issue with OP-PUD: Community Septic System - After conducting numerous soils tests, we believed that we had found an area of the site that would be acceptable for a community septic system. Our consultants were very confident and that is why we moved forward with the preliminary plat and with a fully designed community septic system. Our consultants held severa l pre-application meetings with the state regarding our application. We thought we were well on our way. During one of the final meetings with the state it became clear that the state would be requesting a study we had not completed called a mounding study. This is a relatively new requirement for community septic systems. We completed an initial mounding study. That study indicated there could be some issues with the hydraulic conductivity assumptions we were using that came from tests done by the St. Anthony Falls Laboratory of the University of Minnesota. So, to be safe, we hired Braun InterTech to conduct additional soil tests to make a more precise hydraulic conductivity assessment of the soils at Highpointe Crossing. These tests were completed in late December. The results of the test were entered into the water mounding model in early January. After entering these test results into the model, it became clear, based on the mounding study, that the community system would eventually fail and could fail as soon as in the first year of operation. A surprise to us and our consultants. Now What? This left us with a couple possible alternatives. 1. See if a rural lot individual septic system development was feasible. 2. Develop Highpointe Crossing as approved except with a connection to a municipal sanitary sewer in the City of Lake Elmo or in the City of Oakdale. Alternative 1 - Large lot rural development with individual septic systems vs. community system We spent a couple months evaluating plans for individual rural septic lots. We initially tried this using the Residential Estate (RE) zoning district. In the end that zoning district did not provide us with enough homesites to pay for the development of the neighborhood. Also, some of the standards in the district, like the 100’ front yard set-back, created constraints that would have made it difficult to locate individual septic systems on the homesites. So, we then designed a neighborhood using the Rural Single Family (RS) zoning district as our guide. We realize that this is an older district that is being phased out and that it has only been used in limited situations. That said, it is refenced in the Comprehensive Plan as one of the two districts that were combined to create the Rural Single Family (RSF) designation which is what the Eberhard property is 3 designated. An excerpt from the Comprehensive Plan that is referencing the merging of these two districts is included below. With the RS district we were able to get much closer to creating a neighborhood that could be successful. If the Council did not want to use the RS we could use a PUD approach with similar lot standards to that of RS. In addition to zoning there are a couple considerations needed to make a rural neighborhood work, and these are described in greater detail below. Before describing the additional considerations, I wanted to clarify how the soils, which do not work for a community septic system, appear to work for individual systems. In the last few months we worked with an individual septic designer/installer who has installed and worked on many of the systems in the nearby area including in the adjacent development Torre Pines. He was very familiar with the area and the soils and conducted 20-30 informal test holes across the Eberhard property to see if the soils would likely meet the requirements for a mound system. All but three of the test holes informally completed met the requirements for mound systems. There is still a lot to do to make sure we have the 10,000 sq area needed on every lot and while there still could be areas that potentially fail, there appears to be a good likelihood that if we use the RS zoning, we will be able to be creative and locate areas for treatment systems on the vast majority of homesites if not all of the homesites. The requirements for individual systems are not as stringent as for community systems and more importantly the water infiltration needs of individual systems are not as great as community systems. Based on our initial analysis it appears that individual systems will work on the site. There could be some additional costs due to the types of soils and impervious nature of the soils, but this does not prevent us from developing the homesites. The RS zoning district includes the following standards: o Lot Size – min. 1.5 acres o Lot Width – min. 125’ o Side Yard setback – min. 10’ o Front Setback - min. 30’ o Rear Setback - min. 40’ o Maximum Impervious - 25% Using this RS zone allows us to find the needed 10,000 sf of suitable area for a primary and alternative septic site on the properties. The RS zone in theory could allow for as many as 40+ units on the property. 4 We do not intend to maximize the density based on the standards shown above. An initial rough concept is included below, this example includes 30 homesites. We will agree to not exceed an overall density of 2.5 acres per unit or a maximum of 31 units with any proposed rural plan. In addition to using the RS zoning district we would be asking the City for the following additional considerations. • Allowing the use and construction of rural road (no concrete curb or concrete ribbon) vs urban roads with concrete curb and gutter. We understand the City has had issues in the past with rural roads. I would say that construction standards have changed, and rural roads can last as long as roads with curb and gutter so long as they are built correctly and have gravel shoulders to protect the edge of the roadway. Most paved roadways in outstate Minnesota and Wisconsin in rural areas use rural standards roads. We would follow the rural road standards shown in the City’s engineering standards. • Allow wetlands, wetland buffers and ponding areas to be located within single family lots with drainage and utility easement over them. Drainage and utility easements give cities similar rights as outlot ownership to access and maintain ponds and wetland areas. This is very common throughout the twin cities. • Allow the use of PVC vs. ductile iron watermain – I mentioned this in our initial sketch plan review as well, but we did not pursue using PVC. Using PVC is more common in the Twin Cities than ductile iron. In large part because of cost but there are other benefits as well. We will also be connecting to two existing watermains that are made out of plastic(HDPE), one along Inwood and one along Imperial Ave. It seems logical to continue with plastic vs. ductile iron through our 5 development. While this is not a huge savings, PVC currently saves about 10-12% over ductile iron and every little bit helps. By using RS zoning with the other considerations described above we can create a beautiful luxury rural neighborhood that will have on a gross acre basis an average area per lot exceeding 2.5 acres and no more than 31 homesites. Alternative 2 - City Sanitary Sewer Connection Another reasonable path forward would be to allow us to create the neighborhood already approved and instead of using a using a community septic system allow us to connect the neighborhood to city sanitary sewer. When the development was approved some of the more significant concerns of the neighbors were the longevity of the community septic system, the proximity to the system to the adjacent homes, and the visual impact that the development would have on their properties. If we were to be provided with city sanitary sewer service, we would not have to protect the area along the perimeter of the property for a community septic system. Instead, we could landscape this area to help buffer our development from the adjacent uses. Changing from a community system to a city sanitary sewer connection helps address some of the neighbors’ more significant concerns, especially along the northern boundary of the property. How we are proposing to accomplish this, with your help, is to have the City add a new land use designation to the Comprehensive Plan called “Open Space - Low Density Residential ?” (OS-LDR). This would allow Open Space Planned Unit Developments (OP-PUD) to have access to sanitary sewer service if they fall within certain parameters. Which would include qualifying for an OP-PUD as described below in the City code. Current zoning on the Eberhard property is Rural Residential. If properties qualify for the OP-PUD, they can seek to get to a sanitary sewer connection so long as they are also within an area guided Low Density Residential – Open Space. With this land use designation, they can seek a sewer connection using a gravity system or a lift station and forcemain. Again, this would only be allowed if they met the general requirements of an OP-PUD. 6 We propose that the density range for the Low Density-Open Space land use designation would be 1.5- 2.5 units per acres so long as 50% of the site is dedicated as open space broadly defined as all land not in lots or in road right of way. While the Met Council does not include ponding the City still can when defining open space for their own purposes. We will show the math for this and believe that the City has enough units and acres in their current calculations to accommodate this property being guided to “Open Space - Low Density Residential ” now in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as a test case for this idea. Then, when working on the upcoming Imagine 2050 Comprehensive Plan update the City could evaluate if this concept would work on a larger scale for the City. It is not uncommon or unusual across the Twin Cities to find sewered Low Density Residential Land Use Designations with lower density ranges than 2.5 units per acres as is currently the low end of the range in Lake Elmo. City of Minnetonka’s Low Density Residential Land Use is 1 - 4 units/acre, Chanhassen is 1.2 - 4 units/acre, Woodbury 2 - 3.5 units/acre, Hugo 2 - 4 units/acre, Cottage Grove 2 - 4 units/acre and Minnetrista 1.15 - 4 units/acre to name a few. That said, if the Council feels like they need a higher minimum density like 2.0 units/acre, additional units could be added using twin homes. Impacts on the City Transfer of Density If property guided for rural development like the Eberhard Property is moved into the Metropolitan Urban Service Area(MUSA) for sewered development, it would be subject to the provisions and density calculations required by the Met Council to show that the city is meeting 3.0 units/acre on average obligations overall in the City (in the future the Imagine 2050 plan will require 3.5 units/ac). Currently, the City’s lowest density guiding is Low Density Residential which requires that project fall between 2.5 - 4 units/acre. As mentioned above, this is more restrictive than many similar cities across the metropolitan area within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Council. What we are asking for is to create a limited experimental district, “Open Space - Low Density Residential”, to be used use in conjunction with the OP-PUD zoning. We would ask for a density range within this land use of 1.5 to 2.5 units/acre. With the exception mentioned above where twins are added to increase the minimum density to 2.0 units per acre. Currently the way the Met Council calculates net density requires ponding, right of way, and lotted area all need to be included in the net density acres. Wetlands, buffers, and dedicated open space can be subtracted. Our approved Preliminary Plat for Highpointe Crossing using the Met Council net acre definition is 1.87 units/acre. This is shown below and falls within the 1.5 to 2.5 units/acre density range of the new Land Use “Low Density Residential – Open Space” we are proposing be added to the Comprehensive Plan. 7 Current Base and Gross Density Item Gross Density Net Density Gross Acres 78.24 78.24 Wetlands 2.58 Ponding 5.60 5.60 Open Space - No Ponds or Wetlands 40.83 Inwood ROW 2.27 2.27 ROW 4.85 4.85 Lotted Area 22.11 22.11 Net Acres 78.24 34.83 Units 65 65 Units Per Acre 0.83 1.87 Below is the City’s Density table in the Comprehensive Plan. This has been updated to reflect the changes that would occur if the City Council and Met Council agree and approve the “Open Space Low Density Residential” land use designation for Highpointe Crossing. Due to the limited impact of the change, the numbers below in RED show there would be no impact on the overall densities that the City has pledged to the Metropolitan Council in its 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Net Developable Acreage of Residential Land Uses 2040 Comp Plan Modified 2040 Future Land Use Density Range u/ac Acres Residential Density Acres Residential Density Low Density Residential – Open Space (LDR-OS) 1.5 – 2.5 - - 34 51 Low Density Residential (LDR) 2.5 - 4 210 525 210 525 Medium Density Residential (MDR) 4.01 - 8 134 535 134 535 High Density Residential (HDR) 8.01 - 15 72 577 72 577 Mixed Use – Commercial (MU-C)* 10 - 15 59 591 59 591 Mixed Use - Business Park (MU-B)* 6-10 41 249 41 249 Village – Low Density Residential (V- LDR) 1.5 - 3 128 193 128 193 Village – Medium Density Residential (V-MDR) 3.01 - 8 63 190 63 190 Village – High Density Residential (V- HDR) 8.01 - 12 8 144 8 144 Village – Mixed Use (V-MU)* 5-10 18 38 18 38 Total 2020-2040 Residential 733 3,042 767 3,093 Net Density 2020-2040 4 4 du/acre 4.0 4 du/acre Residential Plats 2010 - 2020 1,107 2,444 1,107 2,444 Total Sewered Households 2010-2040 1,840 5,486 1,874 5,537 Total Net Density 2010-2040 3 3 du/acre 3 3 du/acre 8 There are several other land use designations in the City that also take up small portions of the City such as Village-Mixed Use, Mixed Use-Business Park, Village-Medium Density, High Density Residential, etc. Adding the “Low Residential – Open Space” is just another smaller area of land use that the City would be guiding among others and would not be unusual addition within this City’s Comprehensive Plan. Provision of Sanitary Sewer Service – City of Lake Elmo It is our understanding that there is a sewer service connection and future capacity at CR 10 and Island Trail. That is about 1.78 miles from the Eberhard property south on Inwood, east on CR 10 to Island Trail in the Inwood development as shown on the exhibit below. This would require a lift station with a forcemain extended from the Eberhard Property to the Inwood Development. We were told that the capacity for the connection will not be available until the downstream projects by the Metropolitan 9 Council for trunk expansion and lift station upgrade have been completed which is scheduled for some time in the summer of 2026. We think we can work within that timeframe. Provision of Sanitary Sewer Service – Oakdale There is also a possibility of physically connecting to the sanitary sewer system in the City of Oakdale. Initial discussions and requests of the City of Oakdale indicated that they were not interested in contemplating a connection at this time. We never took this request formally to the City Council and would do that if a City of Lake Elmo connection is not possible and if the City of Lake Elmo agrees to pursue a connection to the City of Oakdale. Timeline At this point we are working towards a 2026 construction start. Homesites would be ready at the earliest for sale in the fall of 2026 and homes would not be completed until early 2027. Therefore, the timeframe for sewer availability appears to match well with our current proposed timeline. Conclusion We realize we have been on a long and complicated road with this project. We believe that having a Charles Cudd neighborhood would be a great amenity in this part of the City and we would like to make that a reality. This narrative is to help inform a discussion with the City Council to see if we can find a mutual path forward.