Lake Elmo reviews concept plan for 22-home open-space PUD north of Clear Lake; council seeks guidance on water, stormwater

City planning staff presented a concept plan to the Lake Elmo City Council on May 20 for an open-space planned unit development (OPPUD) north of Clear Lake that would place 22 single-family homes on roughly 48.7 upland acres and leave about 12–13 acres within Clear Lake as water.

The plan, submitted by Twin Cities Land Development, shows 22 units at “approximately 0.45 units per acre,” with lots described in the presentation as larger than 16,000 square feet and more than 100 feet wide. The project as drawn would include a community septic system, buffers around homes, two small stormwater ponds north of the lake and 50% upland open space, and a roughly 2,000-foot cul-de-sac with a proposed water main under the road. City staff repeatedly emphasized that the presentation was for advisory feedback only: “There is no action to be taken on this. We’re really just looking at this advisory feedback,” a staff member told the council.

Why it matters: council members said the concept raises infrastructure and environmental questions that must be settled before the development advances. The city’s shoreland overlay ordinance requires an 80,000-square-foot minimum lot for natural environment lakes in unsewered areas, but the ordinance includes a shoreland PUD path that allows smaller lots after a tiering density analysis. Staff said the developer used that tiering method and that the Department of Natural Resources reviewed and agreed with the approach. Staff also noted the project would require a conditional use permit (CUP) for a shoreland PUD.

Water service options and concerns dominated the discussion. Staff laid out four alternatives: (1) require a looped water main extension so the cul-de-sac is not a dead end; (2) allow a dead-end water main and accept the operational requirement of frequent flushing; (3) permit private wells (which would reverse a long-standing city policy that new development must connect to city water); or (4) deem the development premature until supporting infrastructure is extended. The presentation flagged local PFAS contamination and said private wells could require point-of-use or point-of-entry treatment paid by property owners and potentially supported by MPCA grants, but that would represent a departure from city policy established when PFAS was first discovered.

Developer Ben Schmidt of Twin Cities Land Development told the council he prefers city water and that looping the connection is the ideal solution, but he said looping to the southeast would likely require crossing multiple properties and that securing easements could be difficult and expensive. “I think it should be on a a city water,” Schmidt said.

Council members and staff pressed on practicalities: staff noted the proposed 2,000-foot dead-end main exceeds the city’s engineering standards, and public works staff highlighted the operational cost of repeated flushing and the water-waste implications while the city is trying to lower per-capita usage. Council members expressed consistent reluctance to approve private wells for new subdivisions in the Clear Lake area given the known PFAS advisories nearby and the city’s long-standing connection policy.

Stormwater reuse and parks: council members and staff said the city has required stormwater reuse for many recent projects and would likely expect to see reuse shown on plans if the project advances on city water. The parks commission discussed whether a park is needed in this OPPUD and recommended a cash-in-lieu payment instead; staff told the council trails along Keats/40th Avenue and connections to nearby neighborhoods are being discussed and could affect crediting under the parks and trail requirements.

What happens next: staff asked the council for direction on water service (loop, dead end, wells or premature), the council’s expectations about stormwater reuse, and any additional comments. No final decision was taken; staff and the developer will use the feedback to shape future submittals.

Clarifying detail: staff said the three parcels total just over 60 gross acres, with about 12–13 acres in water, leaving roughly 48.7 non-lake acres; the concept shows 22 units, a density equal to the OPPUD maximum of 0.45 units per acre; the presentation said lots would be larger than 16,000 sq ft and wider than 100 feet.

Ending: Councilors asked staff to return materials and any technical analyses required at the preliminary plat stage; the developer was on hand to answer questions but the council took no formal action at the meeting.