Urban Land Institute panel recommends mixed-use, phased development for Lake Elmo’s 180‑acre site

Urban Land Institute consultants presented a set of recommendations to the Lake Elmo City Council on a 180‑acre site, urging a phased, mixed‑use approach that balances industrial, commercial and residential uses while protecting the city’s rural character.

The presentation, delivered by John Slack of ULI and Mark Haughey (co‑chair of the panel), laid out guiding principles including "maximize community benefit," maintaining the city’s image and character, flexible design standards, and integrating open space and trails. Slack said those principles emerged from stakeholder interviews and guided the panel’s recommendations.

Mark Haughey summarized market‑feasibility findings and valuation estimates. Using an industrial example of a southern parcel with 230,000 square feet of buildings, Haughey said immediate land value in that scenario would be "about $3,400,000" and that, assuming utilities at parcel edges, total land value across the three main parcels could be roughly $12,000,000; the panel’s full‑build estimate was about $94,000,000, depending on timing and infrastructure. "We took the net operating income and capitalized it," Haughey said, describing the valuation approach.

ULI illustrated three parcels: a southerly parcel described as "most ready to go" because utilities already reach it; a central parcel that brokers identified as attractive for industrial or office‑warehouse use but that will likely require sewer extended beneath the railroad; and a northerly parcel where higher‑density residential and commercial along 34th could transition to townhomes and single‑family homes.

Slack said the team also considered non‑development benefits, including jobs and services, and estimated that parts of the site could support roughly 80–120 multifamily units on a parcel with parking. The panel emphasized buffering and managed transitions to protect adjacent single‑family neighborhoods and suggested dedicating a greenway corridor for stormwater and trails.

Council members pressed presenters on policy tools and tradeoffs. When asked whether tax‑increment financing or other incentives were necessary, Haughey said it would depend on the project—"it will depend on the attributes of the site and what you're expecting the developer to do"—and noted that TIF is often used to support affordable housing components. Addressing concerns about a potential rail spur, panelists said a rail connection appeals to manufacturers that receive raw materials by rail and that grade and spur length will constrain feasibility.

The panel also urged the city to secure utility capacity and to coordinate with county partners on a recommended intersection east of Ideal Avenue; Haughey recommended staff work with Tammy Omdahl of Northland Securities for a deeper fiscal analysis. Presenters told the council they had spoken with Jack Griffith (utility contact) and that sewer capacity checks were favorable for the proposed plan.

Director Stobah said staff will bring the ULI report to the planning commission and the Economic Development Authority, and plan additional community engagement and a future council workshop.

The presentation did not propose immediate sale or major city infrastructure spending; instead, the panel recommended clarifying development rules, sequencing sewer extension and intersections, and structuring community outreach before committing city funds.