HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-18-26 Parks Commission Meeting PacketParks Commission Meeting
3880 Laverne Avenue North
February 18, 2026
6:30 p.m.
AGENDA
Call To Order
Pledge Of Allegiance
Approve Agenda
Approval Of Minutes
JANUARY 2026_CITY OF LAKE ELMO PARKS COMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 2026_ CITY OF LAKE ELMO PARKS COMMISSION
MINUTES.PDF
HIGHPOINTE CROSSING REVISED CONCEPT PLAN
PARKS REPORT - HIGHPOINTE CROSSING REVISED CONCEPT.PDF
WASHINGTON COUNTY REGIONAL TRAIL
WASHINGTON COUNTY LEPK RT LRP_LAKE ELMO PARKS COMMISSION
03182026.PDF
Ridge Park Concept
RIDGE PARK 2ND CONCEPT REPORT.PDF
2026 -02 -12_UPDATED CONCEPT PLAN_REDUCED.PDF
Public Comment
Communications/Updates
Adjourn
Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner in Partnership
with our Community.
1.
2.
3.
4.
a.
Documents:
5.
Documents:
6.
Documents:
7.
Documents:
8.
9.
10.
Parks Commission Meeting3880 Laverne Avenue NorthFebruary 18, 20266:30 p.m.AGENDACall To OrderPledge Of AllegianceApprove AgendaApproval Of MinutesJANUARY 2026_CITY OF LAKE ELMO PARKS COMISSION MINUTESJANUARY 2026_ CITY OF LAKE ELMO PARKS COMMISSION MINUTES.PDFHIGHPOINTE CROSSING REVISED CONCEPT PLANPARKS REPORT - HIGHPOINTE CROSSING REVISED CONCEPT.PDFWASHINGTON COUNTY REGIONAL TRAILWASHINGTON COUNTY LEPK RT LRP_LAKE ELMO PARKS COMMISSION 03182026.PDFRidge Park ConceptRIDGE PARK 2ND CONCEPT REPORT.PDF2026-02 -12_UPDATED CONCEPT PLAN_REDUCED.PDFPublic Comment
Communications/Updates
Adjourn
Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner in Partnership
with our Community.
1.2.3.4.a.Documents:5.Documents:6.Documents:7.Documents:8.
9.
10.
City of Lake Elmo Parks Commission Minutes
14 January 2026
Members Present: Chair Hank Hoelscher, Vice Chair Ellen Esch, Commissioners; Giovanni Bloyer, Peter Kastler,
Tracy Petersen and Tammy Sturtz
Absent: Pat Barrett
Staff Present: Public Works Interim Director, Adam Swanepoel
The meeting was called to order by Hoelscher at 6:30PM.
Petersen moved to accept the agenda, Kastler seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
Approval of December Meeting Minutes
The noted approval of the November meeting, stated: “Sturtz suggested including attachments”. Correction; Sturtz
suggested including amendments.
Esch moved to accept the December minutes. Sturtz seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
Election of Officer
Hoelscher nominated Esch for Chair of Parks Commission, Sturtz seconded. Motion passed 6-0
Hoelscher nominated Peterson for Vice Chair of Parks Commission, Kastler seconded. Motion passed 6-0
Future Playground Replacement
Swanepoel, Public Works Interim Director, gave background information. Council asked commissioners review and
assess the amenities and playgrounds at each park. The life cycle of most playground equipment is 25 years.
Assessment recommended looking at these parks a year prior to end of their lifespan. Lake Elmo has15 playground
total, 5 slated for replacement in the next 8 years. How would Park Commission like to prioritize or review the
playground replacement?
Esch recommends looking at each park on the CIP followed by general discussion. Swanepoel recommends having
agreed upon criteria outlined for each park. (accessibility, usage, demographics, trail access)
Agreed upon criteria
Does the park classification merit a play feature? Current or proposed classification.
Is the play feature redundant?
Is there a nearby playground that is accessible(location)/suitable if said playground was removed? If so, are
there suitable alternative amenities that would be a good fit?
What is the community feedback? Is the park being used and is neighborhood anticipated to change soon?
(demographics/population, etc.)
Considering the new sports complex
Agreed upon process
Starting with document listing criteria.
Look at each park separately.
Recommend to Council findings
Discussion between Tablyn Park (community park) and Ridge Park (neighborhood park). Esch requests Swanepoel
gather community feedback from above criteria.
Communications/Updates
Ice rink conditions have been poor due to warm weather. PW has and will be adding layer of water in the
next few days with the colder weather coming back.
Grooming operations – done twice this year, due to lack of snow.
Thank you for attending the Parks and City Council workshop. We hope to continue these meetings in the
future, as they foster strong communication and collaboration.
Discussion of the Ridge Park concept is scheduled for February.
Update on Lions Park: The item was brought to City Council; however, the deadline for a cost reduction
was missed, resulting in an additional $10,000. A request for funds will be addressed at the City Council
meeting on the 20th. If denied, Public Works will install the safety chips and remain within the approved
budget.
The hiring of the Public Works Director will be discussed at the next City Council meeting.
Next Parks Commission Meeting: Wednesday 18 February, 6:30pm
Esch adjourned to end the meeting at 8:07 PM. Peterson seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
Esch adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully Submitted
Angie Gruber - Administrative Assistant, PW/F
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 2/18/2026
Item#: _____
Motion
TO: Parks Commission
FROM: Sophia Jensen, Senior City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Concept Review – Revised Highpointe Crossing Concept Plan
REVIEWED BY: Jason Stopa, Community Development Director
Nathan Fuerst, Planning Consultant Bolton and Menk
BACKGROUND:
In 2023 the Parks Commission reviewed a request from Rachel Development for an open space planned unit
development (OP-PUD) concept plan application. The proposal is for 64 single-family homes with a
community septic system. The project had private open space with grass trails and rest areas. The Parks
Commission voted to recommend acceptance of fee in lieu of land for this concept.
Since the project’s approval in fall of 2024, additional testing and due diligence on the soils for the community
septic system resulted in a finding that the system would not be viable. The developer has since revised the
plans to meet the Residential Estate (RE) zoning district with an 18 unit large rural lot development with
independent septic systems. Since the site has had significant revisions, it is required to be re-reviewed by the
Parks Commission.
The property is roughly 78.24 acres and currently used for agricultural activities. The proposed project would
require approval of a PUD and plat. No development rights are granted at this stage.
ISSUE BEFORE THE PARKS COMMISSION:
The Parks Commission is being asked to review the revised concept to provide feedback on the proposal to
meet the Park Land Dedication Requirements.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
• Property Owner: Caroline M Eberhard Trs
• Applicant: Rachel Development
• Parcels: 21.029.21.32.0001
• Site Area: 78.24 acres
• Land Use Guidance: Rural Single Family (RSF)
• Zoning: Open Space Planned Unit Development (OP-PUD)
• Surrounding Land Use: The property abuts Inwood Ave and the Lake Elmo Park Reserve to the East,
rural residential estate zoning to the North and South, and the City of Oakdale to the West.
PARKS PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
To satisfy park dedication requirements for land in a rural residential zoning district the City has three options:
1) Fee in Lieu of Land (~$119,631) the actual fee will be determined once the development moves into the
final plat stage, or 2) 5% of the land area (3.9 acres), or 3) A combination of both.
Comprehensive Plan – Parks.
Chapter 6 Parks, Trails & Open Space has area and site specific recommendations that should influence the
recommendation of the Parks Commission. The plan identifies the property is not within a park search area.
2
Comprehensive Plan - Trails.
Chapter 6 Parks, Trails & Open Space has area and site specific recommendations that should influence the
recommendation of the Parks Commission. The plan identifies that the property is not within the trail search
corridor.
The City of Oakdale has expressed interest in a possible trail connection through this development to allow
Oakdale residents to access the Lake Elmo Park Reserve. City Staff is still reviewing the feasibility of this
request based on site conditions.
Parks Master Plan – Gap Analysis.
Figure 3.13 All Park Distribution and Gap Analysis Map illustrates the current park system and identifies gaps in
service areas that should influence the recommendation of the Parks Commission. The plan identifies this area to
be served by multiple parks and is not located in a gap.
FINDINGS
1. The site is not within a park search area in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
2. The site is not within a trail search area in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
3. The site is not located in a gap area in the 2024 Parks Master Plan.
4. The site is within 1 mile of the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve, a neighborhood park, and a natural
area park.
5. The developer is proposing large lots with room for independent recreation on each lot.
3
OPTIONS:
The Commission may recommend to that:
• The City accept cash in lieu of land; or
• The City accept land in lieu of cash; or
• The City accept a combination of both.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Parks Commission recommend to the City Council the following motion (this is the same
recommendation as the prior concept review from 2023):
“Move to recommend approval of the Revised Highpointe Crossing Concept Plan with the acceptance of
cash in lieu of land based on the findings listed in the staff report.”
ATTACHMENT:
1. Application Package
2. Map 6-7. Search Areas for New Parks and Facilities (Comprehensive Plan)
3. Map 6-8. Future Trail Plan (Comprehensive Plan)
4. Figure 3.13 All Park Distribution and Gap Analysis Map (2024 Parks Master Plan)
4180 Napier Ct NE
St. Michael, MN 55376
Office: 763.424.1500
www.racheldevelopment.com
January 9, 2026
City of Lake Elmo
Staff and Council
Sketch Plan Narrative
RE: Residential Estate Plan for Highpointe Crossing – 2298 Inwood
Background:
At the October 17, 2025 City Council meeting, we discussed alternatives to the previously
approved 65-lot plan for the property, for which sanitary sewer service was being pursued.
Two rural, large-lot alternatives were presented: an 11-lot plan and a 30-lot plan.
During that discussion, the Council indicated a preference for the lower-density, 11 Lot
concept. I explained at the time that implementing that plan would require several
exceptions to City code and policy, including the use of private wells instead of City water
and shared private driveways in lieu of a City roadway.
Following the meeting, we met with City staff and came to understand that obtaining those
exceptions would likely be challenging and time consuming. As a result, we reevaluated the
project and shifted our focus to using the City’s existing Residential Estate zoning district.
The Residential Estate district is one of the two zoning districts identifled in the
Comprehensive Plan that were later combined into the Rural Single Family land use
category that guides this property. This zoning district was also used for the two adjacent
developments and aligns with what both the Planning Commission and neighboring
residents have indicated is their preferred development pattern.
While it appears that Residential Estate zoning has not been used since 2009, it remains an
adopted zoning district and provides a clear and predictable framework for moving forward.
Unlike the earlier OP-PUD concept, we proactively identifled suitable septic locations on
each lot and submitted them to the County for approval. . That approval letter is attached
in Exhibit B.
2
Our proposal still requires some minor fiexibilities. Most of these fiexibilities or exceptions
would not have been considered exceptions or fiexibilities in past Residential Estate
neighborhoods and were actually commonly found in Residential Estate developments.
They include ponding and wetlands within the lotted areas and use of rural roadway
sections. These items will be addressed is greater detail later in the narrative.
Proposal
1. Basic Facts
a. Acres
i. Gross Acres - 78
ii. ROW – 5.12 Acres
iii. Lotted Area – 64 .3 Acres
iv. Ponding Outlots – 6.58 acres
b. 18 Lots (including one lot with existing homestead)
c. Gross Density - 0.25 units/acre
d. Average Density – 78/18 = 4.3 acres/unit (exceeds the 3.3 acres/unit required
by Residential Estate)
2. Comprehensive Plan
As mentioned in the background above the property we are developing is guided
Residential Single Family (RSF). This land use combination Rural Single Family and
Residential Estate land uses. We have been told that the City intended to create a
new zoning district to best flt this guiding but that never happened. We tried the OP-
PUD but could ultimately not get a community septic system approved so now we
are following the Residential Estate zoning which is at the lower end of the density
range allowed within RSF. The allowed density range within RSF is 0.1 to 2.0 units
per acre. Our proposal is 0.25 units per acre.
3. Zoning
We are using the city’s existing Residential Estate Zoning District.
4. Residential Estate Lot Standards
We are following all of the Residential Estate Zoning Standards. In the past I have
mentioned that many of the standards in the Residential Estate Zoning are not
friendly or practical standards. That said, we have nonetheless designed the
neighborhood to accommodate the standards as stated in the code. They include:
3
a. Setbacks
i. Front 100’
ii. Rear 100’
iii. Side 50’
iv. Side (Public Street) – 80’
b. Minimum Lot Area - 2.5 acres
c. Average Density - 3.3 overall average (proposed 4.3 acres/unit)
d. Other Code requirements
i. 250’ radius needs to flt inside each lot (shown on plans)
ii. 3:1- Lot depth to lot width (ex. 200’ wide lots can be 600’ deep) All of
the lots meet this criteria when length is measured at the middle of
the lot and width at the front setback.
5. Site Plan
In addition to the formal plan set two colored site plans are attached highlighting
our preferred plan with storm water ponds within the lots and the current plan with
the storm ponds in outlots.
6. Wetlands
The site contains Type 2 wetlands, which require a 50-foot buffer or a 25-foot buffer
with approved buffer averaging. Buffer averaging has been applied where
appropriate and is shown on the plans.
7. Septic
We have completed the required initial testing for both primary and secondary
areas. The County has issued their preliminary approval (Exhibit B). As a part of their
approval process, they ask for a 10,000 sf area of suitable soils. According to the
County this is enough area for a primary and secondary areas, so they no longer
require showing two separate areas.
a. Setbacks to treatment areas follow county and state setbacks and rules
i. 10’ to property lines
ii. 10’ to watermains
iii. 10’ to occupied buildings
iv. 75’ to wetland or unclassifled body of water (this does not include
ponds). There was an initial comment from staff about setback to
storm water ponds. None are required by the state or county.
b. Finally, the methodology used for the initial approval is meant to show that
the time of platting a lot there is enough area on the lot to accommodate
4
primary and secondary septic sites. A flnal detailed septic design is required
as a part of building a new home. That design process often ends up with
septic systems being located in areas outside of the original 10,000 sf test
area.
8. Flexibilities and/or Possible Flexibilities
a. Keeping existing driveway on Inwood - We believe this is a County issue
and we will be meeting with the County on this and on the type of bypass
lane needed for our development. We assume that Lot 1, Block 1 can keep its
existing driveway since this was already approved by the County with the
previously approved preliminary plat for Highpointe Crossing.
b. Setback for existing home and accessory structures . We are leaving the
option open to sell the existing homestead as is. Much like with the
previously approved preliminary plat we will need a 20’ front yard set-back
variance to accommodate the existing homestead. In large part this is
needed because of dedicating additional ROW for Inwood and because the
RE zoning has a signiflcantly increased front yard setback from historic
standards.
c. Wetlands(Lot Area) – Including wetlands within the lotted area of lots has
been the past practice in all Residential Estate developments to date. There
is no code requirement that we could flnd requiring wetlands to be excluded
from lots. From what we can tell excluding wetlands has been an unwritten
policy of City for more recent urban development projects. It is unclear if this
is now applied to rural areas so we are asking for this fiexibility proactively if
needed.
d. Ponds – Although we have shown that we can accommodate ponds in
outlots we are also asking the City to waive this engineering policy. This
policy much like wetlands has been a practice used in more urban styled
developments but has not historically been applied in the rural areas and
rural developments within the City.
e. 3:1 Length to Width Ratio – We believe that all of the lots meet this criteria
when length is measured at the middle of the lot and width at the front
setback. If length is measured at the longest side of a lot there are three lots
5
that could be slightly over this ratio with the longest lot having a ratio of 3.2:1.
If these ratios are rounded to the nearest whole number we would also meet
this code requirement. In any case we believe we meet the intent of the code
as well as how the code has been implemented in past Residential Estate
developments but are bringing this up proactively in case fiexibility is
needed.
9. Storm Water Treatment
Unlike past Residential Estate Development, we will need to meet today’s modern
storm water treatment requirements which will require more ponding areas than
previous RE developments. We are working with Valley Branch Watershed District
(VBWD) on designing a storm water system to meet their code. This will likely
include a combination of ponds and flltration areas. We will likely have met with
VBWD prior to the February Council Meeting and will be able to better address how
we will comply with their rules.
As mentioned above the storm water system will be designed with flltration areas
and ponds but will also include swales. These swales will contribute to the
treatment of the water but also convey water between the lots to the ponding and
flltration areas. Most of these swales will be located in drainage and utility
easements and not in outlots.
As shown we have placed the ponds and ponds accesses in city outlots. We would
prefer that these also be located within in the lots and in drainage and utility
easement and not outlots. This appear to have been the practice in all Residential
Estate developments in the City to date.
10. Roadway
You may recall that one of the fiexibilities we were asking for was to use a rural
roadway without ribbon curb. From our discussions it was clear that this City
wanted more protection of the roadway edges. We discussed the City’s ribbon curb
standard which had been used in more recent rural roadway projects. While I
believe that there are numerous rural roadways across the state that function
without this added protection we are no longer asking for that fiexibility and plan on
following the standard (Exhibit A) for rural roadways.
6
We are proposing to build a 28’ wide public road with ribbon curb within a 70’ right of
way.
11. Utilities
You may recall that I asked the City to consider PVC versus ductile iron for
watermain. Ductile iron is an outdated standard that the majority of cities have
gone away from. That said, we are planning on water connections to Inwood and
Imperial using ductile iron pipe and we are no longer asking for any exception to this
standard.
The City has told us that the water system we are installing will require a pressure
reducing value. We respectfully ask that those details be provided to us for
preparation of our preliminary plat.
12. County
We are working with County on roadway access. We will have had a meeting with
the County prior to meeting with the Council in February.
We look forward to discussing our Residential Estate plans with the Council. We hope and
believe you do as well that this will be the last plan you will need to review for developing
this property.
Paul Robinson
Development Director, Rachel Development
37
FIGURE 3.13 | ALL PARK DISTRIBUTION AND GAP ANALYSIS MAP
Washington County
Lake Elmo to Phalen-Keller Regional Trail
Lake Elmo Parks Commission –February 18, 2026
2
Agenda
•Introduction
•Lake Elmo to Phalen-Keller Regional Trail
Long Range Plan
•Other Projects at Lake Elmo Park Reserve
•Questions/Discussion
3
County Park & Trail System
•5000+ acres
•12+ miles regional trail
•Regional and County Parks
•Park Reserves
•Regional Trails
•Historic Courthouse
•1.9 million annual visits
4
Lake Elmo to Phalen-Keller Regional Trail
Long Range Plan
5
Regional Trail Long Range Plans
Regional Trails
•“Tree trunks” or "highways" of system
•Standard: 10 ft wide paved trail, with
10 ft buffer
•Quality signage and amenities
Long Range Plans
•Guidance on future alignment,
development, management
•Eligible for funding
•Engagement with partners and public
6
Regional Trail Project Timeline
Community
Vision
Long Range
Plan
•Develop high-
level concept
•Identify areas
for additional
study
Feasibility
Study /
Preliminary
Design
•Reengage
stakeholders
•Work through
challenges,
refine designs
and costs
Final Design
•Finalize
design
•Formalize
funding and
agreements
Construction
• Construction
coordination,
likely in phases Open to
Public
Stakeholder Engagement
7
Corridor Background
•~5 mile West -East
Arterial Trail
•West: County line
•East: Lake Elmo Ave
•Link between Lake Elmo,
Oakdale, & Maplewood
/ Ramsey County
•Build on existing plans &
studies, including Central
Greenway Regional Trail
8
Engagement Structure
KEY STAKEHOLDERS
PROJECT LEADERSHIP
PMT
Planning
Parks
Engineering
Consultant
TAC
GENERAL
PUBLIC
Popup Tables
City & Town
Meetings
Open Houses
County Staff
State/Fed Agencies
City/Townships
Parks Commission
9
Long Range Plan Timeline
Winter – Spring
2026
•Visioning &
Site Analysis
Summer – Fall
•Engagement
& Data
Collection
Fall - Winter
•Route
Development &
Plan Drafting
Spring –
Summer 2027
•Final Draft &
Approval
Process
10
Other Projects at Lake Elmo Park Reserve
•2027: Lake Elmo Park Reserve Single Track
Trail – Phase 1 (PARK-3020)
•2027-2028: Lake Elmo Park Reserve Pavilion
Facilities (PARK -3021)
•Ongoing: Natural resource restoration and
maintenance projects (e.g. native seeding,
seasonal burning, invasive species removal)
•2027: CSAH 14 - Lake Elmo Park Reserve to
39th Street Study (RB-2702)
Andrea Rehm
Planner II
651-430-4332
andrea.rehm@washingtoncountymn.gov
Questions
&
Discussion
STAFF REPORT
DATE:02/18/2026
Discussion
TO: PARKS COMMISSION
FROM: Assistant Public Works Director – Adam Swanepoel
AGENDA ITEM: Ridge Park Concept Design
CORE STRATEGIES:
☒ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community ☐ Efficient, reliable, innovative services
☒ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance ☐ Balanced Finances now and future
☐ Managed Growth ☐ Resilient Infrastructure
BACKGROUND:
In October 2025 staff presented two separate concept plans that were prepared for Ridge Park by Bolten
and Menk. Initiatives from the Parks Master Plan were integrated to make a strategic vision that
accommodates future growth and phased implementation. Several community members were in
attendance at the meeting and provided input and feedback on the concepts. Overall concern from the
public was the large rendering and changes throughout the park and potential noise that could occur from
users. Attendees supported future improvements but were concerned about the toll the changes might take
on their community.
Commissioners provided feedback and were interested in seeing what other amenities could be used in
the park in place of a ball field or soccer fields. In addition, commissions were interested in other
amenities that may fit into this park that the city currently does not have.
ISSUE BEFORE PARKS COMMISSION:
Are there any questions about the rendered Ridge Park concept plan?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Bolton & Menk has created an additional concept plan for Ridge Park, incorporating valuable feedback
and insights provided by city staff. This refined concept builds upon the two earlier designs to create a
larger vision that aligns with both community needs and park planning goals. By combining the strengths
of the previous concepts, the final plan offers a flexible framework that supports future amenities,
recreational opportunities, while conserving environmental stewardship. The new concept addresses key
concerns raised during the planning process—such as accessibility, environmental impacts, and
neighborhood impacts—ensuring that Ridge Park continues to be attractive to users, inclusive, and
engaging public space for all users.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no financial obligation, commissions members should take into consideration the annual
cost of their items for budgeting purposes.
RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, staff is not presenting a formal recommendation. Instead, staff encourage the Commission to
use the information provided to make recommendations to the park and CIP going forward.
RIDGE PARK | CONCEPT DESIGN
LAKE ELMO, MN
IV
O
R
Y
A
V
E
N
15TH ST N5
2
1
3
4
7
8
6
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
89
9
10
11
LEGEND:
1. EXPANDABLE PARKING LOT - Parking lot can be expanded
in each direction based on future parking demand.
2. PLAYGROUND - Surfacing Type to be determined. Bench
seating around perimeter
3. PICNIC SHELTER - Accomodates 2-4 Picnic Tables
4. POTENTIAL AMENITY LOCATION - Considerations include
Tennis, Basketball, Fitness Court, Ice Skating, Skatepark,
Basketball Court, or other use.
5. OPEN FLEX LAWN SPACE - Can accomodate various field
sports (Football field shown for scale)
6. POTENTIAL BRIDGE/BOARDWALK AND STOMRWATER FEATURE, at low
area of park.
7. TRAIL NODE - Seating and signage opportunities, connection to nature
trails.
8. DISC GOLF COURSE - 9 holes shown - Varying hole lengths from 200-450’.
9. EXISTING TREE BUFFER to Remain
10. PAVED BITUMINOUS TRAIL LOOP - Circles main park area
11. GRAVEL SECONDARY TRAILS - Throughout southern portion of the
park.
INWOOD AVE N