Council hears update on High Point Crossing plan; sewer capacity stalls MUSA amendment, some members favor smaller rural alternative

City planning staff and the project developer updated the Lake Elmo City Council on Oct. 21 about a proposed comprehensive plan amendment to add roughly 78 acres (High Point Crossing) to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and adopt a new low-density open-space future land-use category.

Staff said the site had previously received preliminary plat and open-space PUD approval for 65 homes, served by a community septic system. Additional due diligence by the developer showed soils were not suitable for a community septic system, so the developer sought a MUSA amendment to bring public sewer to the site. The council was told that before the city can add the property to the MUSA, staff must complete a sewer-capacity analysis that includes coordination with the Metropolitan Council about downstream capacity where the city’s system connects to regional interceptors. Staff said that analysis is not complete and no firm timetable for Met Council modeling exists; engineering staff cautioned that, even in a best-case schedule, significant upgrades would be several years out.

The developer and staff presented two lower-density rural alternatives in case sewer capacity is not available: (1) a 30-lot rural plan with minimum lot sizes of about 1.5 acres (public water but private or modified road approaches possible), and (2) an 11-lot rural concept with much larger lots (smallest roughly six acres) served by private drives and private wells or, if needed, a later water extension. The developer said the 11-lot concept would preserve more than 50% open space and has lower infrastructure costs, while the 30-lot concept would require design exceptions and potential wetland/ponding in lot areas.

Council members asked numerous technical questions: whether wells would be allowed given the property’s proximity to White Bear Lake, whether Met Council modeling could be expedited, and how road and water standards (PVC vs. ductile iron) would affect costs. Planning staff advised that any exceptions would require thorough vetting and that if the council wanted to pursue a rural alternative staff should prepare specific design standards before accepting subdivision applications.

Multiple council members said they were sympathetic to the 11-lot alternative as a reasonable fallback if sewer capacity is not forthcoming; others urged patience and recommended staff continue the MUSA/cooperation with the Met Council. The council set a new deadline for the applicant’s MUSA decision timeline at Jan. 23, 2026, and asked staff to continue sewer-capacity work and bring the item back at a later date or to a workshop for further guidance.

The developer said they would begin working on a refined 11-lot plan and asked the council for indication whether that concept would be acceptable should sewer capacity remain unavailable. Several councilors expressed openness to the 11-lot concept and directed staff to prepare further analysis and propose specific design exceptions if the council elects that path.