Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ULI panel lays out industrial, mixed-use and greenway options for Lake Elmo’s 180-acre site
Summary
Urban Land Institute advisors recommended a phased plan for a 180-acre Lake Elmo site that balances industrial and residential uses, emphasizes greenways and buffering, and called for targeted infrastructure sequencing; panelists estimated land value and full build-out market value for planning purposes.
Lake Elmo city council on the record heard a technical advisory presentation from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) focused on a 180-acre property under study, with panelists proposing a range of uses — industrial, commercial and mixed residential — paired with an integrated trail and greenway network.
John Slack of ULI, who introduced himself at the meeting, said the panel developed a set of guiding principles after stakeholder interviews and recommended maximizing community benefit while maintaining the city’s image and character. “First is really maximize community benefit,” Slack said, adding the team emphasized “maintain overall image and character” and “integrate open space and trails.”
Panelists described three distinct parcels: a southerly parcel they identified as ready for industrial use (utilities are in place), a central parcel that will need sewer extended under the railroad before development, and a northerly parcel better suited to commercial frontage and higher-density residential along 34th Avenue. The ULI presentation noted the southern parcel could support large industrial buildings and even a short rail spur; the panel cited brokers’ feedback that rail access favors industrial tenants that receive bulk materials by rail.
Market and fiscal illustrations were included to help the council weigh options. The panel presented an example 230,000-square-foot industrial building as a baseline development scenario and a land-value estimate “about $12,000,000” if utilities are available to parcel edges. The panel also showed a fully built-out illustrative market value approaching $94,000,000 for planning comparisons and tax-revenue scenarios.
On housing, the panel suggested a range of product types: “you could probably get anywhere from 80 to a 120 units on the site, with parking,” Slack said while describing residential alternatives that would transition from 3–4-story apartments to townhomes and then single-family lots at the northern edge.
Council members asked whether municipal financial tools such as tax-increment financing (TIF) would be necessary. Panelists said some market-rate projects can proceed without public subsidy but noted TIF is commonly used to enable affordable housing components where rents are restricted. On utilities, the panel reported city sewer capacity can meet proposed needs once lines are extended and recommended sequencing critical infrastructure (for example, extending sewer under the railroad to reach the central parcel) before broader onsite investments.
Panelists also stressed community engagement and clear development standards to give interested developers predictability. As a next step staff recommended bringing TAP findings to the planning commission and the economic development authority (EDA), vetting options with the public and returning with workshops and comp-plan language.
The presentation concluded without any council vote on land disposition or funding; staff said the TAP findings will be reviewed by planning bodies and returned to council for future action.
