Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-08-26 City Council Workshop Packet
City Council Workshop 3880 Laverne Avenue North Tuesday, September 8, 2026 6:30 p.m. AGENDA Call To Order CSAH 10/17/CR 17B Intersection Improvements Presentation COUNCIL MEMO -CSAH 10_CSAH 17 INTERSECTION IMP PRESENTATION.PDF LAYOUT -CSAH10_17_17B INTERSECTION_ROUNDABOUT.PDF PRESENTATION -CSAH10_17_17B INTERSECTION.PDF Lake Elmo Prosecution Services COUNCIL MEMO -PROSECUTION SERVICES.PDF PRESENTATION -LAKE ELMO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION SERVICES UPDATE 2026.PDF Civic District Redevelopment –LE Elementary/Fury Motors STAFF REPORT -CIVIC DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT 9.8.2026.PDF PRESENTATION -CIVIC DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT 9.8.26.PDF Community Engagement On 180 Acres CC MEMO -CE ON 180 ACRES 9.8.2026.PDF ATTACHMENT CE 180 ACRES REPORT COMPRESSED.PDF CC PRESENTATION -180 PROJECT AND NEXT STEPS.PDF Annual Water Updates COUNCIL MEMO -ANNUAL WATER UPDATES.PDF PRESENTATION -LAKE ELMO WATER CONCERNS 9 -8 -2026.PDF Future Agenda Items FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.PDF Adjourn Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner in Partnership with our Community In accordance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. Section 13D.02, members may participate remotely via interactive technology. I. II. Documents: III. Documents: IV. Documents: V. Documents: VI. Documents: VII. Documents: VIII. City Council Workshop3880 Laverne Avenue NorthTuesday, September 8, 20266:30 p.m.AGENDACall To OrderCSAH 10/17/CR 17B Intersection Improvements PresentationCOUNCIL MEMO -CSAH 10_CSAH 17 INTERSECTION IMP PRESENTATION.PDFLAYOUT-CSAH10_17_17B INTERSECTION_ROUNDABOUT.PDFPRESENTATION-CSAH10_17_17B INTERSECTION.PDFLake Elmo Prosecution ServicesCOUNCIL MEMO -PROSECUTION SERVICES.PDFPRESENTATION -LAKE ELMO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION SERVICES UPDATE 2026.PDFCivic District Redevelopment –LE Elementary/Fury MotorsSTAFF REPORT -CIVIC DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT 9.8.2026.PDFPRESENTATION -CIVIC DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT 9.8.26.PDFCommunity Engagement On 180 AcresCC MEMO -CE ON 180 ACRES 9.8.2026.PDFATTACHMENT CE 180 ACRES REPORT COMPRESSED.PDFCC PRESENTATION -180 PROJECT AND NEXT STEPS.PDFAnnual Water Updates COUNCIL MEMO -ANNUAL WATER UPDATES.PDF PRESENTATION -LAKE ELMO WATER CONCERNS 9 -8 -2026.PDF Future Agenda Items FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.PDF Adjourn Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner in Partnership with our Community In accordance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. Section 13D.02, members may participate remotely via interactive technology. I.II.Documents:III.Documents:IV.Documents:V.Documents:VI. Documents: VII. Documents: VIII. STAFF REPORT DATE: September 8, 2026 PRESENTATION TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Nate Stanley, City Engineer AGENDA ITEM: CSAH 10/17/CR 17B Intersection Improvements Presentation CORE STRATEGIES: ☐ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community ☐ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance ☒Managed Growth ☐ Efficient, reliable, innovative services ☒ Balanced Finances now and future ☒ Resilient Infrastructure BACKGROUND: Washington County is leading a road improvement project to reconstruct the intersection of CSAH 10 (10th Street North) and CSAH 17/CR 17B (Lake Elmo Avenue) to improve safety, replace aging infrastructure, add pedestrian facilities, plan for future growth and development in the area, and improve traffic operations. The project is planned to begin construction in 2028. The County is working through a comprehensive agency and public engagement process to achieve community acceptance and meet long term transportation goals of Washington County and the city of Lake Elmo. The County has completed identification of issues and opportunities along the corridor, initial stakeholder goal setting, public engagement meetings, and evaluation of alternatives. The design team has developed a preferred design and is seeking feedback from the City Council. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should staff bring this issue before a future council meeting with recommendations for adopting a Resolution of Support? PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Washington County will be in attendance to make a presentation on the project and the preferred design for consideration. Lake Elmo staff have been a part of the PMT since the project began in May 2025 and have been coordinating with County staff regularly. The County is aware of the multiple interests in the area including the new Lake Elmo Elementary School, the Cimarron Park Community and residential properties along the corridors. The County is also aware of the city’s interest in extension of pedestrian facilities along County corridors to serve the area and are committed to an intersection design that will allow for future connection. To keep the project schedule on track the County is seeking feedback from Lake Elmo on the recommended alternative and is hoping to obtain a Resolution of Support for the preferred design in the Fall of 2026. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost participation by the City of Lake Elmo has not been determined in detail. The County has indicated that the City’s costs will be based on Washington County’s Cost Participation Policy and are currently estimated in the range of $525,000 to $625,000. Once the final project is developed and agreed upon, Washington County will present the City with a Cooperative Agreement for the cost sharing of the improvement prior to advertising the project for contractor bids. The city’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) currently shows a budget amount of $650,000 in 2028 for the city’s share of the project costs. OPTIONS: 1.Direct staff to bring this issue before a future council meeting with recommendations for adopting a Resolution of Support. 2.Direct staff to take no action and to schedule a future workshop for additional and continuation of council discussion. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and provide feedback on the improvements and directs staff to bring this issue before a future council meeting with recommendations for adopting a Resolution of Support. ATTACHMENTS: 1.CSAH 10/CSAH 17/CR 17B Preferred Design Layout (Roundabout) NEW ELEMENTARY FFE: 931.00 (ARCH: 100'-0") X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X XXXX X XX X X XXXX X XX X XX X X X X X X X X X XX X X X 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET N DRAFT OPTION 2: ROUNDABOUT LAKE ELMO AVE N (CR 17B)LAKE ELMO AVE N (CSAH 17)10TH ST N (CSAH 10) 10TH ST N (CSAH 10)LAVERNE AVE NLAYTON AVE NPROPOSED EASEMENT PROPOSED EASEMENT LEGEND EXISTING R/W EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL (2026) PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING SIDEWALK/TRAIL GAS STATION CIMARRON COMMUNITY FARM CIMARRON PARK OFFICE LA MARIA TAQUERIA FOOD TRUCK CIMARRON GOLF COURSE CIMARRON FAMILY MEANS YOUTH CENTER CIMARRON WEST CIMARRONNORTHCIMARRONEAST Washington County Highway 10, 17, 17B Intersection Improvement Project September 8, 2026 Presentation Topics CSAH 10, 17, & CR 17B Intersection Improvement Project •Project Background •Issues and Opportunities •Project Goals •Project Schedule •Project Engagement Activities •Staff -Recommended Preferred Alternative •Anticipated City Cost Share •Next Steps •Discussion Project Background CSAH 10, 17, & CR 17B Intersection Improvement Project Issues and Opportunities CSAH 10, 17, & CR 17B Intersection Improvement Project •Transportation system needs due to community growth •New destinations and neighborhoods •Capacity •County roads are frequent reliever to Interstate 94 •School bus, parent, & staff traffic •Multi-modal access to nearby destinations •Cimarron businesses – gas station, liquor store, golf course •Lake Elmo Park Reserve Project Goals CSAH 10, 17, & CR 17B Intersection Improvement Project •Improve safety for all users •Plan for future growth and property development •Construct multi-modal connections •Evaluate access management options •Minimize impacts to private property and the environment •Mindful of project costs Project Schedule CSAH 10, 17, & CR 17B Intersection Improvement Project Project Bidding and Construction Public Outreach Preliminary Design and Public Outreach Begins Spring 2028 Spring 2025 2028 Construction School District Completes School Construction Fall 2026 Support of Preferred Design Cost and Maintenance Agreement Coordination Final Design and Property Acquisition Begins Project Engagement Activities – Phase 1 CSAH 10, 17, & CR 17B Intersection Improvement Project Open House #1 Pop Up Event #1 Scan for materials: Project Engagement Activities – Phase 2 CSAH 10, 17, & CR 17B Intersection Improvement Project Open House #2 Cimarron Park Community Meeting Scan for materials: Project Engagement Activities – Phase 3 CSAH 10, 17, & CR 17B Intersection Improvement Project Open House #3 Pop Up Event #3 Scan for materials: 10 Staff -Recommended Preferred Alternative Proposed Improvements CSAH 10, 17, & CR 17B Intersection Improvement Project •Remove traffic signal •Roundabout •Off-road trail connections •Access management •New raised medians •Storm sewer system •Pavement markings •Signing 11 Staff -Recommended Preferred Alternative Roundabout CSAH 10, 17, & CR 17B Intersection Improvement Project Pedestrians have a shorter crossing distance and more control of their safety Roundabout geometry would require slower speeds to navigate the intersection Traffic flow will operate well into the future 12 Anticipated City Cost Share CSAH 10, 17, & CR 17B Intersection Improvement Project Agency Estimate Cost Washington County $4,725,000 - $5,625,000 City of Lake Elmo $525,000 - $625,000 Total:$5,250,000 - $6,250,000 •Costs are based on preliminary design layout •Includes total costs on the project •Design engineering, property acquisition, construction, and construction engineering/administration •City of Lake Elmo costs: •10% of total cost per County cost policy •City public utility coordination ongoing Next Steps CSAH 10, 17, & CR 17B Intersection Improvement Project •Resolution of Support – Requested City Action (Fall 2026) •Commence Final Design •Acquisition of Necessary Easements •Cost & Maintenance Agreements - Requested City Action (Spring 2028) •Advertisement of Bid Package •Project Award •Pre-Construction Communications •2028 Construction 14 Thank You STAFF REPORT DATE: September 8, 2026 WORKSHOP TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Nicole Miller, City Administrator AGENDA ITEM: Lake Elmo City Prosecution services CORE STRATEGIES: ☐ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community ☒ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance ☐Managed Growth ☒ Efficient, reliable, innovative services ☐ Balanced Finances now and future ☐ Resilient Infrastructure BACKGROUND: Tonight Joe Van Thomme and Alexis McKim from Eckberg Lammers will provide updates on the scope of services their office provides, along with case numbers and current trends. The existing contract for City Prosecutor services will expire December 31, 2026, presenting the City Council with an opportunity to evaluate next steps. Staff is seeking Council direction on whether to negotiate a contract renewal with the incumbent prosecutor or issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit competitive bids for these services. City staff have been very satisfied with the services provided by our current prosecutor. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Does the Council with to continue with Eckberg Lammers for City prosecution services or go out for an RFP? PROPOSAL DETAIL/ANALYSIS: The City contracts with an outside legal firm/individual to handle the prosecution of municipal code violations, misdemeanor offenses, and local traffic infractions within our jurisdiction. Our current City Prosecutor, Eckberg Lammers, has served the city since 2016. Over the course of the contract, the prosecutor has been responsible for: Reviewing police reports and determining appropriate charges, drafting formal complaints, represent the City in all municipal court arraignments, pre-trial conferences, trials, and sentencing hearings. Coordinating with local law enforcement to ensure consistent enforcement standards and successful case resolution. The current agreement details total compensation per year, broken down into monthly payments. In 2026, the cost is $52,983.00 or $4,415.25 per month. The city also receives court fines as revenue, which helps offset the total cost of providing prosecution services. Below are the revenues received over the last few years: 2023-$44,700 2026 YTD-$31,200 2024-$53,000 2026 Projected-$62,400 2025-$64,400 To ensure continuity of legal services and responsible fiscal management, staff have identified two pathways forward. Option 1: Continue Contract with Current Prosecutor Pros: Ensures seamless operational continuity; eliminates the administrative time and expense of a formal bidding process; capitalizes on existing familiarity with city staff, sheriff’s department, and historical case files. Cons: Misses the opportunity to test the current market rate; does not allow the City to formally evaluate alternative firms prosecution strategies. Option 2: Authorize Staff to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) Pros: Ensures fiscal accountability and transparency by testing the competitive market; allows the City to review varying fee structures, experience levels, and innovative legal approaches. Cons: Requires significant staff time to draft, distribute, and evaluate proposals; introduces potential operational disruption or transition periods if a new firm is selected. FISCAL IMPACT: Included in the 2027 budget is an increase of 4%. ATTACHMENTS: Criminal Prosecution Update presentation Lake Elmo Criminal Prosecution Update -2026 Joe Van Thomme and Alexis McKim Prosecution Services Scope Prosecution of: •Petty Misdemeanors (e.g. non-criminal adult traffic offenses, some traffic offenses for 16 or older) •Misdemeanors (e.g. DWIs, assaults, thefts, property crimes, ordinance violations etc ) •Gross Misdemeanors (e.g. more serious DWIs, assaults etc) Does not include: juvenile offenses, some statutorily assigned GMs Criminal Prosecution Update Prosecution Services Scope Criminal Prosecution Work Flow: 1.Case initiated either by officer-issued citation or criminal complaint 2.Legal team opens electronic file 3.Request and review reports, evidence; conflict check for necessary parties 4.Complaint drafted within timelines, submitted to court 5.Evidence and discovery processed and disclosed to defense/defendant 6.Prosecutors review evidence for issues, necessary witnesses, and victim involvement 7.Hearing process: Arraignment/bail omnibus/pre-trial contested/motion/evidentiary hearing jury trial/court trial sentencing 8.Probation Violations, Appeals, Expungements Criminal Prosecution Update Prosecution Services Scope Prosecution Team •Six (6) full-time prosecutors; two (2) back-up prosecutors •Eight (8) legal assistants, including five (5) with dedicated victim-witness coordinator role •Two (2) law clerks to assist with research, writing, drafting projects •Electronic case and evidence management systems •Specialization/Focus on: community leadership, domestic violence, traffic/DWI enforcement, law enforcement training, firearms laws and gun violence prevention Law Enforcement Team •Eight (8) deputies assigned to patrol/response; Sgt. Ty Jacobson lead Criminal Prosecution Update Criminal Prosecution Update Total Adult Criminal Cases by Highest Degree of Offense Case numbers provided by State Court Administrator’s Office Filed Year Highest Degree Type Cases Total 2021 Gross Misdemeanor 60 782 2021 Misdemeanor 305 2021 Petty Misdemeanor 417 2022 Gross Misdemeanor 29 597 2022 Misdemeanor 255 2022 Petty Misdemeanor 313 2023 Gross Misdemeanor 40 727 2023 Misdemeanor 341 2023 Petty Misdemeanor 346 2024 Gross Misdemeanor 56 881 2024 Misdemeanor 399 2024 Petty Misdemeanor 426 2025 Gross Misdemeanor 65 1159 2025 Misdemeanor 489 2025 Petty Misdemeanor 605 2025 Law Enforcement Incident Response Locations Criminal Prosecution Update Case numbers provided by Washington County Sheriff’s Office 2025 Case Numbers •21 domestic assault, domestic assault related, protective order violations opened •47 impaired driving related files opened DWI files •Approximately 85% of 2025 cases were traffic related* *According to State Court Administrator’s Office Criminal Prosecution Update Trends and Takeaways •Increase in overall cases numbers, especially PM traffic •Traffic offenses typically have higher likelihood of challenges in court, due to laws surrounding vehicle stops •Population growth appears to have coincided with increase in case numbers •Potential for continued increase in cases, especially traffic, as population increases and local speed limit adjustments Criminal Prosecution Update Going Forward •Continue to invest in staff and technology to manage increased caseload •Ensure that Hearing Officer has updated guidelines to resolve payable traffic offenses efficiently •Remain victim-centric by early engagement •Ensure defendants are treated fairly and justly •Maintain active relationships with law enforcement regarding training, new cases, laws and up-to-date guidance Criminal Prosecution Update QUESTIONS? STAFF REPORT DATE: 9/8/2026 Workshop TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jason Stopa, Community Development Director AGENDA ITEM: Civic District Redevelopment – LE Elementary/Fury Motors CORE STRATEGIES: ☐ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community ☒ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance ☐ Managed Growth ☒ Efficient, reliable, innovative services ☒ Balanced Finances now and future ☐ Resilient Infrastructure BACKGROUND: The EDA requested the City Council hold a workshop to discuss whether the City would be interested in purchasing both the former Lake Elmo Elementary School and Fury Motors property and leading a redevelopment project on the site. Currently, the former school site is not being used, and the Fury Motors site is underutilized. The combined site is approximately 18.5 acres (12 acres school and 6.5 acres Fury Motors) with buildable acreage around 15.5 acres. The Valley Community Center has an option to purchase the school site, and the Fury Motors site is listed for sale. Prior city planning, including the most recent Village Visioning Study, supports a walkable mixed-use area that connects to the traditional Village south Stillwater Blvd. The proposed redevelopment initiative is intended to evaluate opportunities to redevelop both sites and expand the traditional Village area toward City Hall. The initiative responds to several objectives identified for further discussion: • Respond to the EDA-requested workshop. • Provide an alternative to conventional suburban chain stores and apartment development. • Increase private investment in the area. • Implement placemaking concepts identified in the Village Study. • Promote opportunities for small businesses. The concept would consider the two sites as part of a larger area rather than evaluating each property independently. A coordinated approach could allow the City to evaluate how streets, buildings, residential development, commercial activity, and public spaces could work together to create a traditional Village environment. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: 1. How interested is the City Council in pursuing the purchase and redevelopment of the area? 2. Is the City open to master planning the site as a coordinated development area? 3. Is the City willing to commit to a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) approach? 4. Is the City Council interested in pursuing a business subsidy policy for redevelopment? 5. Is the City willing to consider financial tools that could help facilitate the desired development? PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Before proceeding with a detailed master planning effort, several fundamental policy and development questions should be addressed by the City Council. City Council Interest in Purchase and Redevelopment How interested is the City Council in pursuing the purchase and redevelopment of the area? The City Council should establish its level of interest in pursuing acquisition of the area and advancing a comprehensive redevelopment strategy. A clear indication of Council interest would help determine whether the City should invest additional resources in master planning, financial analysis, property acquisition evaluation, and discussions with potential development partners. The Council’s direction should also help establish the City’s desired level of involvement, including whether the City should take an active role in assembling property, planning the area, coordinating infrastructure, and facilitating redevelopment. Master Planning Is the City open to master planning the site as a coordinated development area? Master planning would allow the City to establish an overall framework for land uses, streetscape, development densities, residential and commercial uses, and potential small-business areas before individual development proposals are advanced. Traditional Neighborhood Development Is the City willing to commit to a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) approach? A TND approach would provide the framework for evaluating development that incorporates a mix of uses and residential units while emphasizing streetscape, placemaking, and connections between uses. This is more easily achieved through master planning. Business Subsidy Policy Is the City Council interested in pursuing a business subsidy policy for redevelopment? The Council should determine whether it is interested in establishing a business subsidy policy that could provide a framework for evaluating financial assistance for redevelopment projects. A formal policy could establish consistent criteria for determining when and how the City may consider financial assistance, including potential business subsidies, TIF, land discounts, or other redevelopment tools. Establishing a policy before evaluating individual projects could provide greater consistency and transparency when considering future redevelopment proposals. Financial Participation Is the City willing to consider financial tools that could help facilitate the desired development? Potential tools identified for consideration include: • Business subsidies; Tax increment financing (TIF); and Land discounts. The appropriate use of these tools would need to be evaluated based on the project’s financial feasibility, public objectives, development costs, and anticipated tax revenues. Staff believe financial participation will be necessary for the project to be feasible. Proposed Development Concept The proposed concept is a Traditional Neighborhood Development that would expand the traditional Village area toward City Hall. The planning effort should examine examples of successful TNDs and use those examples to establish a framework appropriate for the City’s sites. A preliminary site plan has been developed to illustrate how the sites could function as a cohesive neighborhood. Streetscape The site plan should evaluate the streetscape as a key component of the development. Streets, sidewalks, buildings, landscaping, and other public-realm elements should be considered together to support the desired Village character. The County has a corridor study along Stillwater Blvd planned for 2027. Valley Community Center (VCC) The plan should identify appropriate acreage for VCC and evaluate how that use could be incorporated into the overall development concept. Currently, the VCC has a purchase option for entirety of the old school site. Staff have discussed providing the VCC with a longer option to purchase and develop. Staff have worked with them to determine the location and required land area. The site plan sets aside 3-4 acres. Small Business Area A dedicated area for small businesses should be evaluated as part of the TND concept. The objective would be to promote opportunities for smaller commercial users rather than relying solely on conventional suburban chain-store development. The average rent for commercial new construction in the area is $50-$60 sq.ft. per year. Depending on the use, most local businesses can only support rent at around $25 sq.ft. To promote small businesses, staff believe a business subsidy will be required. The entire site would have between 5,000 – 10,000 sq.ft. of retail, services, restaurants, etc. Residential Mix The site plan should include a mix of residential units. The appropriate mix and density would be evaluated as part of the zoning and development planning process. Staff believe the site would be a mix of townhouses and apartment/condominium style housing at 3 stories and possible mixed use. The site will need around 250 – 275 housing units to offset investment risk. The 15-acre site could comprise of 10 acres of housing. Financial Impact and Feasibility Financial feasibility will be a critical component of the redevelopment evaluation. The City should understand the relationship between development costs, site value, potential public participation, and future tax revenues before making a commitment to a particular development strategy. Development Process The planning process should evaluate whether infrastructure would be primarily City-driven or developer-driven. This distinction will affect the timing, cost, financing, and risk associated with redevelopment. The process should also examine: • Appropriate zoning (land use and zoning will need to be amended); • Potential development densities (maximum density for Village Mixed Use is 10 units per acre limiting development to 207 units with the old city hall) • TND developers and potential development partners (Potential development partners include xxxxx; and • The appropriate role of the City in facilitating redevelopment. Development Costs The financial analysis should identify and estimate the principal costs associated with redevelopment, including: • Land costs; $9.2 million total (school $4.2 million and Fury Motors is listed at $5 million) • Predevelopment costs; and (planning, environmental, demolition, survey & platting, acquisition costs, legal, etc.) • Infrastructure costs. Sanitary Sewer: $138,000 Watermain: $175,000 Street (32’): $800,000 Parkway: $448,000 Parking Area: $100,000 Sub Total: $1,661,000 Cont. (10%): $166,000 Total: $1,827,000 These costs should be incorporated into a development pro forma to determine whether the proposed development concept is financially feasible. Site Value and TIF The analysis should evaluate the potential value of the sites under the proposed redevelopment concept. Tax increment financing should be considered as one potential mechanism for addressing project costs and supporting redevelopment, subject to a detailed financial and legal evaluation. Tax Revenues The financial analysis should estimate the potential revenues generated by the completed development. These revenues should be compared with anticipated development and infrastructure costs to help determine the overall public financial impact. Tax Revenue compared to suburban development. TND Projected Tax Value Lots Use Acres Improved Property Value Low Improved Property Value High Tax value low Tax value high 1 VCC 2.9 Nonprofit exempt Nonprofit exempt 0 0 2 Apt NW 2.6 $ 23,400,000 $ 23,400,000 $ 81,900 $ 81,900 3 School 0.75 $ 900,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 3,937 $ 5,250 4 Apt SW 2.4 $ 17,280,000 $ 21,600,000 $ 75,600 $ 94,500 5 MU 2.4 $ 17,280,000 $ 21,600,000 $ 75,600 $ 94,500 6 Apt SE 2.15 $ 15,480,000 $ 19,350,000 $ 67,725 $ 84,656 $ 74,340,000 $ 87,150,000 $ 304,762 $ 360,806 Suburban Projected Tax Value Lots Acres Improved Property Value Low Improved Property Value Mid Improved Property Value High Tax value low Tax value mid Tax value high 1&2 VCC/NW Apt 1&2 combined 5.5 $ 30,000,000 $ 37,500,000 $ 49,500,000 $ 131,250 $ 164,063 $ 216,563 3&4 Gas Station 3.15 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 5 Comm 2.4 $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 6 Comm 2.15 $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Total Buildable 13.2 $ 39,000,000 $ 46,500,000 $ 58,500,000 $ 170,250 $ 203,063 $ 255,563 Value Comparison TND Improved Value $80-$85M Suburban Improved Value $40-$50M TND Tax Value $315,000-$350,000 Suburban Tax Value $175,000-$220,000 Considerations • A TND would generate around $130,000 more per year and $2.6M over 20 years • The TND projection is based on 19% & 16% townhouses, respectively. Increasing townhouses and reducing overall density can create the same tax value (250 units, 16%THs = 222 units, 31%THs) • The development would align with the city’s planning vision for the area FISCAL IMPACT: Cost to hire an urban design consultant to refine plan and unit types OPTIONS: • Pursue the site and revise concepts to capture updated costs and projected values • Do not pursue the site • Do not pursue the site but develop a business subsidy policy/plan for the site RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff with direction by discussing the Issue Before the Council questions and select an option. ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Civic District Redevelopment LE Elementary/Fury Motors Civic District Redevelopment LE Elementary/Fury Motors Council Workshop | September 8, 2026 Background The EDA requested the City Council hold a workshop to discuss whether the City would be interested in purchasing both the former Lake Elmo Elementary School and Fury Motors property and leading a redevelopment project on the site. The combined site is approximately 19 acres (12.5 acres school and 6.5 acres Fury Motors) with buildable acreage around 15.5 acres. The Valley Community Center has an option to purchase the school site ($4.2M), and the Fury Motors site is listed for sale ($5M). Site Village Visioning Study & Comp Plan Village Visioning Study Summary: Bike Ped Connectivity | Appreciate the Village historic charm and preserve the area | Support businesses and residents with new, complementary commercial and residential development Housing Types: For Townhouses, residents prefer classic, walk-in townhouses with garages that are rear-loaded. For Small-/Mid-sized Apartments, residents prefer three- story apartment buildings with more vibrant exterior materials with architectural interest. Land Uses: Restaurants and entertainment. More retail (no strip malls) 2040 Comp Plan LU Goal #4. Create strong and vibrant districts in the Village Planning Area that becomes a destination for all residents of the community. LU Goal #5. Identify and Explore opportunities to improve the streetscape in the Old Village District, Elmo Station District and Civic Center District to create a more walkable environment. LU Goal #6. Maintain and Strengthen the small-town charm of the Old Village District. Issue Before the Council 1.How interested is the City Council in pursuing the purchase and redevelopment of the area? 2.Is the City open to master planning the site as a coordinated development area? 3.Is the City willing to commit to a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) approach? 4.Is the City Council interested in pursuing a business subsidy policy for redevelopment? Is the City willing to consider financial tools that could help facilitate the desired development? Considerations 1.Adaptive Reuse & preservation of the old school building 2.Outside developer interest in parcels. Suburban development vs. TND 3.Valley Community Center’s long-term plan City Council Interest in Purchase and Redevelopment A clear indication of Council interest would help determine whether the City should invest resources in master planning, financial analysis, property acquisition evaluation, and discussions with potential development partners. The Council’s direction should also help establish the City’s desired level of involvement, including whether the City should take an active role in assembling property, planning the area, coordinating infrastructure, and facilitating redevelopment. Why? Without investment from the city, the site will most likely follow a suburban development pattern. Master Planning Master planning would allow the City to establish an overall framework for land uses, streetscape, development densities, residential and commercial uses, and potential small-business areas before individual development proposals are advanced. Why? Master planning allows for the city to develop a holistic plan that addresses infrastructure, maximizes density & tax value, and creates predictable outcomes. Traditional Neighborhood Development A Traditional Neighborhood Development, or TND, also known as a village-style development, includes a variety of housing types, a mixture of land uses, an active center, a walkable design and often a transit option within a compact neighborhood scale area. TNDs can be developed either as infill in an existing developed area or as a new large-scale project. (National League of Cities) Why? A TND approach would provide the framework for a walkable, connected, mixed uses development that includes space for small businesses and a community center while emphasizing streetscape, placemaking, and connections to the historic Village. This is more easily achieved through master planning. TNDs are popular and a relevant design approach to the Village Area. They generally create more interest, attraction, and long-term value. Serenbe, Seaside, and Liberty Landing Business Subsidy Policy & Financial Participation The Council should determine whether it is interested in establishing a business subsidy policy that could provide a framework for evaluating financial assistance for redevelopment projects. A formal policy could establish consistent criteria for determining when and how the City may consider financial assistance, including potential business subsidies, TIF, land discounts, or other redevelopment tools. Establishing a policy before evaluating individual projects could provide greater consistency and transparency when considering future redevelopment proposals. Potential tools identified for consideration include: Business subsidies; Tax increment financing (TIF); and Land discounts. The appropriate use of these tools would need to be evaluated based on the project’s financial feasibility, public objectives, development costs, and anticipated tax revenues. Why? Staff believe financial participation will be necessary for the project to be feasible. Proposed Development Concept Proposed Development Concept Valley Community Center Currently, the VCC has a purchase option for entirety of the old school site. Staff have discussed providing the VCC with a longer option to purchase and develop. The site plan sets aside 3 acres. •Traditional Town Planning. Uses a terminated vista concept. Building at the end of a street Streetscape •The County has a corridor study along Stillwater Blvd planned for 2027. •Extend Lake Elmo Ave into development with median and angle parking •37th St N is extended with angle parking VCC Concept VCC Concept Proposed Development Concept Small Business Area The objective would be to promote opportunities for smaller commercial users rather than relying solely on conventional suburban chain-store development. •Average rent for commercial new construction in the area is $50-$60 sq.ft. per year. Depending on the use, most local businesses can only support rent at around $25 sq.ft. •To promote small businesses, staff believe a business subsidy will be required. The entire site would have between 10,000 –15,000 sq.ft. of retail, services, restaurants, Residential Mix The site plan should include a mix of residential units. The appropriate mix and density would be evaluated as part of the zoning and development planning process. Staff believe the site would be a mix of townhouses and apartment/condominium style housing at 3 stories and possible mixed use. The site will need around 200 –250 housing units to offset investment risk. The 15-acre site could comprise of 10 acres of housing. The old school building could be re-used. Valley Community Center (VCC) Center For Community: Goals & Objectives GOAL 1) Improve Access to Shared Public Resources While Retaining the Heirloom Vibrancy of the Village A community rec center aligns well with the City of Lake Elmo’s comprehensive planning goals, including expanded community amenities & thoughtful growth. GOAL 2) Fill a Gap in Family Amenities Key priorities include: Public Pool, Versatile Gathering Space, Child Watch & Indoor Play, Multi-Purpose Gymnasium, Individual and Group Fitness. At this time, no equivalent community resource exists in the St. Croix Valley region, and the need is well documented. Valley Community Center (VCC) Center For Community: Goals & Objectives Financing Model •A ~53,500-SF model civic anchor suits a rapidly growing region, funded primarily through private capital and philanthropy, supported by federal incentives and a phased public investment, and operated by a proven community recreation partner (operating partner TBA). •The building itself could be financed through a blended public/private model (TBA). •Annual operating budget of approximately $4.1 million. •Revenue mix that will include membership (71%); special programming (20%); rentals (11%); and daily admissions (2%). •A sliding scale for membership including resident and non-resident fees achieves affordability. This model is comparable to peer facilities in Moorhead, Golden Valley, Lino Lakes, Forest Lake and Shoreview, which have proven to be sustainable Valley Community Center (VCC) Scale Scenarios Old School Building Adaptive Re-use •Institutional to Commercial Use. •Short term rental, boutique hotel, apartment •Attempt National Register designation through the State’s Office of Historic Preservation. Tax Credit Eligible 20% Federal 20% State Old School Building Old School Building Old School Building Financial Impact & Feasibility Development Process The planning process should evaluate whether infrastructure would be primarily City- driven or developer-driven. This distinction will affect the timing, cost, financing, and risk associated with redevelopment. •Appropriate zoning (land use and zoning will need to be amended) •Potential development densities (maximum density for Village Mixed Use is 10 units per acre limiting development to 207 units with the old city hall) •TND development partners will need to be identified •Appropriate role of the City in facilitating redevelopment. 1.City purchases, plans, installs infrastructure, and sells lots to developers 2.City purchases, plans, and sells to a developer to install infrastructure Financial Impact & Feasibility Development Costs Land costs; $9.2 million total (School $4.2M and Fury Motors is listed at $5M) Predevelopment costs; and (planning, environmental, demolition, survey & platting, acquisition costs, legal, etc.) CDA could assist. Infrastructure costs. Sanitary Sewer: $138,000 Watermain: $175,000 Street (32’): $800,000 Parkway: $448,000 Parking Area: $100,000 Sub Total: $1,661,000 Cont. (10%): $166,000 Total: $1,827,000 Financial Impact & Feasibility Site Value and TIF The analysis should evaluate the potential value of the sites under the proposed redevelopment concept. Tax increment financing should be considered as one potential mechanism for addressing project costs and supporting redevelopment, subject to a detailed financial and legal evaluation. Site values compared to suburban development. Tax Revenues The financial analysis should estimate the potential revenues generated by the completed development. These revenues should be compared with anticipated development and infrastructure costs to help determine the overall public financial impact. Tax Revenue compared to suburban development. Financial Impact & Feasibility 12 6 5 4 3 Lots Use Acres Units per acre Units low Units high 1 VCC 2.9 0 0 0 2 TH NW 2.6 15 39 39 3 School 0.75 4 3 4 4 Apt SW 2.4 24-30 57.6 72 5 MU 2.4 24-30 57.6 72 6 Apt SE 2.15 24-30 51.6 64.5 Buildable 13.2 209 252 Projected TND Tax Value 12 6 5 4 3 Lots Use Acres Improved Property Value Low Improved Property Value High Tax value low Tax value high 1 VCC 2.9 Nonprofit exempt Nonprofit exempt 0 0 2 TH NW 2.6 $ 23,400,000.00 $ 23,400,000.00 $ 81,900.00 $ 81,900.00 3 School 0.75 $ 900,000.00 $ 1,200,000.00 $ 3,937.50 $ 5,250.00 4 Apt SW 2.4 $ 17,280,000.00 $ 21,600,000.00 $ 75,600.00 $ 94,500.00 5 MU 2.4 $ 17,280,000.00 $ 21,600,000.00 $ 75,600.00 $ 94,500.00 6 Apt SE 2.15 $ 15,480,000.00 $ 19,350,000.00 $ 67,725.00 $ 84,656.25 $ 74,340,000.00 $ 87,150,000.00 $ 304,762.50 $ 360,806.25 Estimates for the TND do not include commercial values because it assumes a business subsidy, 26-year redevelopment TIF. Suburban Alternative 12 6 5 4 3 Lots Use Acres Units low Units Mid Units High 1&2 VCC/NW Apt 1&2 combined 5.5 100 125 165 3&4 Gas Station 3.15 0 5 Comm 2.4 0 6 Comm 2.15 0 Buildable 13.2 100 125 165 Projected Suburban Tax Value 12 6 5 4 3 Lots Acres Improved Property Value Low Improved Property Value Mid Improved Property Value High Tax value low Tax value mid Tax value high 1&2 VCC/NW Apt 1&2 combined 5.5 $ 30,000,000 $ 37,500,000 $ 49,500,000 $ 131,250 $ 164,063 $ 216,563 3&4 Gas Station 3.15 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 5 Comm 2.4 $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 6 Comm 2.15 $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Total Buildable 13.2 $ 39,000,000 $ 46,500,000 $ 58,500,000 $ 170,250 $ 203,063 $ 255,563 Considerations •The high value scenario assumes coordination between both sites to maximize housing density. •The middle value scenario assumes coordinating density on the school site and maxing out the developable area •The low value scenario assumes coordinating density on the school site and maxing out the developable area with VCC occupying 3 acres. •The school building will be demolished, and VCC site is uncertain. Value Comparison 12 6 5 4 3 Considerations •A TND would generate around $130,000 more per year and $2.6M over 20 years •The TND projection is based on 19% & 16% townhouses, respectively. Increasing townhouses and reducing overall density can create the same tax value (250 units, 16%THs = 222 units, 31%THs) •The development would align with the city’s planning vision for the area TND Improved Value $80-$85M Suburban Improved Value $40-$50M TND Tax Value $315,000-$350,000 Suburban Tax Value $175,000-$220,000 Next Steps & Timeline 12 6 5 4 3 Get to an Offer 4 months to refine numbers to then decide whether to make an offer and sign a Letter of Intent 1.Develop a site plan and refine development numbers/costs •Infrastructure •Planning, environmental, demolition, survey & platting, acquisition costs, legal, etc.) •Preferred Housing Units and Values •VCC’s commitment •Potential commercial users/small businesses 2.Identify development partners 3.Develop and adopt a business subsidy policy (Guidelines for this development) 4.Visioning Workshop for the Site 5.VCC Workshop conducted by VCC Next Steps & Timeline 12 6 5 4 3 Letter of Intent –Due Diligence Make an offer and then 6-12 months of Due Diligence 1.Create a site plan with infrastructure design and watershed considerations •Infrastructure/soil testing •Planning, environmental Phase I & II, demolition, survey & platting prep work, title work and legal 2.Design standards and guidelines are created. Architectural theming is determined 3.VCC signs an option 4.Business subsidy framework is created for the development 5.Development partners submit concept plans and sign LOIs 6.Potential commercial users sign LOIs Discussion 1.How interested is the City Council in pursuing the purchase and redevelopment of the area? 2.Is the City open to master planning the site as a coordinated development area? 3.Is the City willing to commit to a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) approach? 4.Is the City Council interested in pursuing a business subsidy policy for redevelopment? Is the City willing to consider financial tools that could help facilitate the desired development? Considerations 1.Adaptive Reuse & preservation of the old school building 2.Outside developer interest in parcels. Suburban development vs. TND 3.Valley Community Center’s long-term plan STAFF REPORT DATE: 9/8/2026 REGULAR TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Ashley Monterusso, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Jason Stopa, Community Development Director AGENDA ITEM: Community Engagement on 180 Acres CORE STRATEGIES: ☒ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community ☐ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance ☒ Managed Growth ☐ Balanced Finances now and future ☐ Resilient Infrastructure ☒ Efficient, reliable, innovative services BACKGROUND: The City of Lake Elmo owns approximately 180 acres of undeveloped land on the city’s western edge. This acreage, the result of a 2019 settlement with 3M Corporation, sits at an important intersection for the city. The City has maintained its intention to sell this property and expects that future development will occur in three phases. At the City Council workshop in March 2026, City Council guided staff to conduct community engagement for the 180-acres in house as one of the next steps in the process of developing the city-owned site. Community engagement included: • Working with Communications to creating a project webpage on the city website • Holding public hearing at an EDA meeting - June 16, 2026 • Public Open House at City Hall - June 30, 2026 • Polco Survey – Open for 4+ weeks, closed July 3, 2026 The goals of this process have been to inform community members about this ongoing project, foster transparency, and create a space for the community to voice their opinions. ANALYSIS: Staff have created a report as an overview of community engagement process. DISCUSSION: Themes and recommendations are in the attached report and will be discussed with council at the workshop. Next steps for the overall project will also be discussed. ATTACHMENTS: City of Lake Elmo 180-acres Community Engagement Report 2026 Community Engagement Report More Information: lakeelmo.gov 180 acres Prepared by: Lake Elmo Staff 2 0 2 62026 This report provides an overview of community engagement for the development of the City-owned 180 acres (Ideal Ave. & 34 St/CSAH 14). The goals of this process are to inform community members about this ongoing project, foster transparency, and create a space for the community to voice their opinions. The feedback gathered in this process is shared with the City Council to support future decision making. th Engagement Methods There were three components to community engagement on the project from June to July of 2026. A note about the survey: The survey tool was intended both to inform community members about the property and potential future uses and to provide an opportunity for community members to share their preferences. The survey materials stated that the project intent is to sell the land for development. Despite this context, many participants utilized the survey as an outlet to advocate for anti-development and pro- preservation stances. This process has remained focused on learning about community preferences for the land's future while acknowledging and incorporating this opposition. Key Theme Findings Throughout Engagement 1. Prioritizing Green Space and Preservation: Respondents across engagement methods expressed strong interest in preserving the land as-is and/or preserving/maximizing as much green space as possible across parcels. 2. Maintaining Community Character: Community members strongly emphasized the importance of maintaining a distinct, local sense of character and identity for the City of Lake Elmo. 3. Mitigating Public Nuisances: A significant number of respondents raised concerns regarding the everyday disruptions caused by development, specifically prioritizing the concerns of effects of increased traffic, elevated noise levels, and neighborhood safety risks. 4. Ensuring Long-Term Environmental and Financial Sustainability: Many community members highlighted a need to secure the city's long-term sustainability, focusing on natural resources (such as open space and water), and responsible financial stewardship. Introduction and Engagement Overview Purpose/Goals The goals of this process are to inform community members about this ongoing project, foster transparency, and create a space for the community to voice their opinions. The feedback gathered in this process is shared with the City Council to support future decision making. There were three components for engagement in this process: A) a Public Hearing at EDA Meeting, B) a Public Open House at City Hall, and C) Polco Survey. Executive Summary 2 A. Public Hearing at EDA B. Community Open House C. Online tool – Polco Sur vey B. Public Open House at City Hall Description: A self-guided open house for the project was hosted at City Hall on June 30, 2026 from 4- 6:30pm. Staff and two EDA members (Tony Manzara and Don Place) were available for conversations. The Open House included stations for a) Background/Overview; b) Site Information and Knowns/Unknowns; c) Feedback Station with dot stickers for feedback about Concerns and Opportunities; d) Feedback Station with Sticky Notes for feedback on the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) concept plan. Participation: ~30 community members Included in the appendices: Open House posters, Open House photos, Open House Feedback Form (Don Place, Tony Manzara, Ashley Monterusso) and Comment Cards A. Public Hearing at EDA Meeting Description: A Public Hearing was held at the EDA Meeting on June 16, 2026. A Public Hearing Notice was sent to property owners near the project site to notify them of the public hearing and a notice was also published in the Stillwater Gazette. Additionally, the meeting was published on the project webpage. Participation: Five community members spoke at the meeting, and twelve public comments were received and summarized in the presentation. Included in the appendices: Meeting minutes; written public comments 3 C. Polco Sur vey Description: The survey was created to invite the community to share feedback to help guide City Council’s decision-making regarding the City-owned 180 acres. The survey was open for over 4 weeks and closed on July 3, 2026. Participation: 404 respondents, 327 Lake Elmo residents Included in the appendices: Polco survey, Polco Survey Report How did you hear about the project? Community event 2% Flyer 1% 5% 7% Word of mouth 13% Newsletter 39% Other 23% Facebook Nextdoor 9% Polco Source: Polco 1. Prioritizing Green Space and Preservation 2. Maintaining Community Character 3. Mitigating Public Nuisances 4. Ensuring Long-Term Environmental and Financial Sustainability Theme #1 – Prioritizing Green Space and Preservation Respondents across engagement methods expressed strong interest in preserving the land as-is and/or preserving/maximizing as much open space as possible across parcels. When digging in further, the reasoning given in both in-person and qualitative responses via the survey indicated that the reason for wanting the open-space preservation varied. Many respondents cited concern for wildlife, water conservation/issues, and anti-development as their overall reasoning. Some of these sub-themes are referenced in adjacent key theme findings. 4 Level of Support for Developing 180-acres All Respondents strongly oppose 30.7% somewhat support 26.9% somewhat oppose 18% strongly support 17% don't know 7.5% Key Theme Findings Throughout Engagement Survey responses indicate a consensus for environmental conservation at the proposed development site, with a correlation between the desire for green space and broader anti-development sentiment. Community sentiment regarding the proposed development is divided, with opposition slightly offsetting support in the overall sample. A combined 49% of respondents oppose the initiative (31% strongly opposed and 18% somewhat opposing the property's development). Conversely, 44% of participants favor the project, (27% who somewhat support it and 17% who strongly support it) while the remaining 7% of those surveyed did not know if they supported it or not at this stage of the project. Looking exclusively at Lake Elmo residents shift favorability upward by two percent (46%), indicating a slightly higher concentration of support from those living directly within the municipality. Additionally, the survey data illustrates that community members prioritize environmental preservation and natural elements for the site's development. When asked what features are important to them, "landscaping, green space, and natural features" ranked as the top priority, selected by 34% of respondents. Relatedly, 27% of participants emphasized the importance of "connectivity (trails, walkways)," while 26% favored public gathering spaces. This interest in preservation significantly outpaced built-environment features. All Respondents Landscaping, Green Space, Natural Features 33.7% Connectivity, trails 26.7% Public Gathering Spaces 25.7% Architectural Character 7.9% Public Art 4% Not Important 2% Most Important Public Space Features Source: Polco Source: Polco Theme #2 - Maintaining Community Character Community members strongly emphasized preference for maintaining a distinct, local sense of character for the City of Lake Elmo. Many respondents who express a desire to preserve green space are the same respondents who place high value on protecting the neighborhood’s established identity. The survey data indicated that respondents may feel like preserving the site as open green space serves as a safeguard for the community’s agricultural character. During the Open House and Public Hearing, staff heard comments that supported the sentiment of “preserving the character of Lake Elmo”. Staff heard similar feedback in survey comments and in written and verbal public comments for the EDA Public Hearing (available in appendices). Theme #3 - Mitigating Public Nuisances The community expressed concern about potential nuisances with any upcoming development at the 180- acre site. More specifically, people had anxieties about increases to traffic, noise from additional daily traffic, and safety. Notably, during both in-person engagement efforts, traffic impacts were the primary point of conversation. Particularly, during in-person engagement at the Open House, this issue emerged as a leading topic. This was validated later in the survey results when respondents were asked about potential issues for concern related to the development. 5 My kids and I love to bike to Pebble Park and getting there is scary because of the amount of cars and speed they are going. With another development being built will only increase the amount of traffic traveling down Ideal. I have two hopes for it, Lake Elmo convinces Washington County to lower the speed limit to 30 mph and put a 4- way stop sign in on Lake Jane Trail and Ideal. – Submitted Written Comment by Lake Elmo Resident Theme #4 - Ensuring Long-Term Environmental and Financial Sustainability Throughout the engagement efforts, community members consistently emphasized the importance of ensuring both long-term environmental and financial sustainability to protect both the city’s natural assets and its economic future. When asked about the importance of development on the land generating more tax revenue for the community than it costs in public services and infrastructure, survey results show that a combined 71% of the community places at least some value on the development generating more tax revenue for the community than it costs in public services and infrastructure of development while 25% of the respondents do not value generating additional revenue. Qualitative insights from both in-person engagement and open-ended survey questions reveal an expectation that the community wants to ensure that funds generated from the new development are managed transparently and used to benefit existing community members. 6 – Submitted Written Comment by Lake Elmo Resident Take advantage of this GIFT of land and use it wisely for its current and future residents. Additional Notable Sur vey Highlights Parcel 1 and 2 Overall, respondents expressed largely similar preferences for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. See “Preferred Land Use” table below. The most notable difference was a slightly higher preference for commercial uses on Parcel 2, compared with industrial uses. There was also a significant number of “Other” responses for both parcels. Many of these respondents indicated a preference for leaving the land undisturbed or as parkland while others suggested uses such as community space or provided other miscellaneous responses. Parcel 3 For Parcel 3, the survey described the property as expected to support a mix of housing and commercial development and asked respondents how they would prioritize those uses. Responses were divided: 33% preferred mostly housing with less commercial space, 33% favored a balanced mix of housing and commercial development, and 33% preferred mostly commercial development with less housing. Overall, the results indicate a relatively balanced range of preferences for Parcel 3, with a slight preference toward greater emphasis on housing after Polco weighted for ranking. Parcel 1 Other 25% Commercial/Retail 24% Business Park/ Light Industrial 19% A mix of uses 14% Parcel 2 Commercial/Retail 30%Other 26% A mix of uses 14% Business Park/ Light Industrial 11% Preferred Land Use Single Family Housing 9% Single Family Housing 8%Source: Polco What would make a successful development of the land? The survey responses suggest that respondents define successful development of the land broadly, with a strong emphasis on community benefit, environmental stewardship, and maintaining the area’s character. Because this prompt was open text, a lot of qualitative data was captured. Key themes included: Community character Community gathering spaces: Respondents frequently described success in terms of creating shared community amenities, such as parks, community centers, and other places for people to gather. Economic development and commercial activity: Economic vitality was another theme found throughout the written responses, including interest in commercial or economic development that could benefit the broader community. Green space and land preservation Housing: Responses included a preference to minimize the amount of housing, suggesting that residential development was not viewed as the primary measure of success, especially on Parcels 1 & 2. Mitigating nuisances: A smaller set of responses focused on avoiding or reducing potential noise, traffic, or other nuisances associated with increased traffic and development. Several responses strongly stated opposition to data centers. Walkability and pedestrian-scale commerce: Many respondents envisioned a walkable, pedestrian-oriented environment, potentially including smaller-scale commercial activity. Some comments noted they do not prefer big box retailers on the site. Wildlife and environmental impact: Many respondents wanted development to minimize impacts on wildlife and the natural environment. For some, the preferred approach was not developing the land at all. 7 Prefer red features at Overall Site Overall, responses suggest that community members place a strong value on creating an attractive, connected, and community-oriented site, with an emphasis on natural spaces and opportunities for people to gather and move throughout the area. 8 Communications: Share community engagement results on project page on the City website to report back to the public. Share information on the project as it progresses to help educate the public about project decisions and developments and to help build trust in City processes. . Update FAQs on project page as needed. Financial Decisions: Consider explaining how income from the sale could be used at a later date. Conservation Easements: Environmental stewardship is important to many community members. When moving forward with this project, the City may consider conservation easements on portions of the properties to preserve open space. Mitigating Potential Nuisances: Consider incorporating significant buffers, berming and landscaping to mitigate potential nuisances with regard to traffic, noise, safety, and to preserve open space. Design Standards: Design standards should be placed on all three parcels relevant to use. The city’s current Design Standards Manual should be used to develop standards to guide development. Building design, parking, transportation connectivity (including bike/pedestrian), and open space preservation should be considered. Enhancing design standards above and beyond the adopted design standards may be considered. Use: Determine how the City would like to regulate uses such as trucking on Parcels 1 & 2. Determine if the City should require a certain mix of business park/light industrial uses on the site. Preferred and prohibited uses should be established. Parcel 3 :A Master Plan mixed-use developer should be identified that can promote a similar vision to the Urban Land Institute (ULI) plan. This would promote buffers, open space, mitigate nuisances, and promote higher property tax revenue than a standard suburban development. Staff should revise the ULI plan, so the new plan can be marketed to potential developers. Next Steps and Recommendations 9 List of Appendices Appendix A: Public Comment from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 Appendix B: Meeting minutes from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 Appendix C: Open House posters & Photos Appendix D: Open House Feedback Forms & Comment Cards Appendix E: Polco Sur vey Appendix F: Polco Over view Sur vey Repor t Outlook Sale and development of 180 acres of city owned land. I have one big concern about the development going to be built. The traffic will increase. Ever since the new development in oakdale was built the traffic has increased significantly. It has made it hard to sit outside because of the noise. My kids and I love to bike to Pebble Park and getting there is scary because of the amount of cars and speed they are going. With another development being built will only increase the amount of traffic traveling down Ideal. I have two hopes for it, Lake Elmo convinces Washington county to lower the speed limit to 30 mph and put a 4 way stop sign in on Lake Jane Trail and Ideal. Hope you take these concerns into consideration. er Appendix A: Public Comment from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 Outlook Re: City-180Acres (Ideal Ave. & 34th St./CSAH 14 Sent from my iPad > > > Mr. Mayor and City Council- > > I am sending this e-mail in regard to the sale and future of the city owned 180 acres of property in west Lake Elmo. > > We have many concerns about the future use of this property, what is about to be developed in our vicinity and it’s affect on our neighborhood. They are as follows: > > *Raised levels of noise, traffic, light pollution, people and crime. The roads in the neighborhood do not support additional traffic. We already have issues during rush hours at the stop signs at the corner of Inwood and Stillwater Boulevard. At times the traffic is backed up beyond 27th heading north. The traffic going into Lake Elmo off of Hwy. 5 heading East after the roundabout backs up at rush hour. You will be adding to the traffic congestion by building the new sports facility on the farm property that was purchased near Sunfish Lake. If you add high density housing, stores, warehouses to this area, all of the above will be a bigger problem for our neighborhood. Leave the warehouses and high density housing development over off of I-94 where you are already building them. > > *We will suffer a loss of natural restorative areas that support the wildlife in our area. We need more green areas preserved for the environment. > > *We have enjoyed living in a peaceful rural setting within close proximity of the city. The current elected officials seem to feel like we need to compete with Woodbury which has cut down groves of trees, filled just about every farm field with commercial buildings, more shopping and restaurants and high density housing with people crammed into any open space. Do we really want to become Woodbury #2? We are heading that way quickly. Maybe it’s time to slow things down and think about the residents instead of filling a quota and beyond of the unelected Metro Council forcing this growth on our area. We already have so many developments with postage stamp properties with large concentrations of people in Lake Elmo. One more thing is that we have polluted water. Why do we keep building when we don’t have enough clean water to support all of these people? > > *Seems like every time building takes place, it has a negative tax implication to the existing residents Appendix A: Public Comment from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 verses a greater shared revenue base as promised. Taxes always seem to increase and never decrease from new builds. > > *What we don’t want built on the 180 acres: > > No big store complexes. > No warehouses. > No high density housing/apartments/tall buildings/rows of townhouses. > No bars or restaurants. > No commercial buildings. > *More appropriate usage of the land for our neighborhood: > > Rural housing single family homes with property consisting of 2 acre lots. > Parks with green space, heavily forested boulevards, ponds, walking and bike paths. > Country living near the city. > Quiet, safe, peaceful neighborhoods where people have room to breathe and not living on top of one another. > > There are more than enough stores and restaurants in Woodbury, Oakdale and Stillwater a short distance away. We don’t need more on our doorstep. We don’t need more warehouses, multiple family high density housing in our area. Oakdale has developed that on the other side of Ideal. Please let us maintain our peaceful way of living in this neighborhood. > Thank you for your consideration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Outlook Economic Development Authority Good afternoon Ashley, I got a letter about the economic development that will be happening and I’m concerned about how it’s near where I live which is and about the noises that might occur when you or the team have decided on what to make or build there. I have 5 kids under the age of 18 that will have school this upcoming school year and I am worried about if it will affect their sleep. I also am not looking forward to more apartments as you’ve already added some by the Target. Sent from my iPhone Appendix A: Public Comment from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 Outlook Economic Development Authority Meeting June16 comment F I am sorry I am not able to attend the June 16 meeting as I am out of the country. I hope and ask that all comments are read aloud so that members of our Lake Elmo community can listen to one another’s thoughts. I think the city may be short sighted in selling this property at this time. We do not know what the city’s needs will be in the future and does the city need to rush into selling the land? Just recently the city spent a great deal of money to buy land for a potential baseball complex. Why didn’t the city contemplate using this land rather than expending funds and raising taxes of our citizens? It has been said the city is having financial problems due to the contaminated water. Could you provide that information in written form with a discussion so we could eye the problem and better understand the need for the selling of the property? If this land is to be sold due to contamination and development of public water, will the taxes go down for all Lake Elmo residents? Or will this revenue only help taxes for residents on public water and not for those on private wells? How much money has been spent on consultants and what other expenditures are expected? How much more will the city spend once this proposed development is completed? It is expensive to develop and grow, services cost money! Appendix A: Public Comment from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 Outlook 180 acre development planning Good morning Ashley, I am a concerned resident of the city of Lake Elmo. I would like to know that our voices are being heard about the development of Parcel 3. We understand housing development is going to occur, but do not believe more brick and mortar and heavy commercial is necessary in this Parcel. Keep that down in Parcels 1 & 2. We also want to make it VERY CLEAR that the impact of this development can be minimized by creating natural and park buffers adjacent to the existing neighborhoods. DO NOT connect the new development to existing neighborhoods with roads/trails/outlets. Access and exits can be utilized on the highways of Cty Rd 14 and Ideal. PLEASE preserve our current safety and security of our neighborhoods by maintaining our minimized traffic to ourselves. Preserve the current residents neighborhoods value, and overall impact by minimizing the visual, audible and security impact. This city desperately needs more parks, fields, and public use space among its residents. I hope this is a major part of the planning in Parcel 3. You will never have a better opportunity of location and minimal financial impact than with this land! Take advantage of this GIFT of land and use it wisely for its current and future residents. Thank you for all you do, Appendix A: Public Comment from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 Outlook RE: Notice of Public Hearing - Sale & Development of City-Owned 180 Acres (Ideal Ave. & CSAH 14) To the Members of the Economic Development Authority, I am writing to formally register my strong opposition to the proposed sale and three-phase development of the 180 acres of City-owned vacant land situated near Ideal Ave. & CSAH 14, as detailed in the public hearing notice dated 04 June [2026]. While I understand the drive for community growth, the compounding strains on our infrastructure, environment, and residents have reached a critical point. My opposition stems from these core concerns: 1.Severe Water Infrastructure Strains: According to the 2026 Lake Elmo Water Report, our city is already enforcing mandatory summer irrigation restrictions and scheduling designated watering days to protect water tower levels. Furthermore, the Minnesota DNR has imposed strict daily water-use limits of 75 gallons per person due to ongoing legal and environmental mandates surrounding White Bear Lake. Adding a massive, multi-phase development will only accelerate these unsustainable demands on an already rationed water system. 2.Escalating Utility Costs and Property Tax Burdens: Our community has faced a clear history of rising costs alongside city expansion. As detailed in the 2026 Lake Elmo Water Report, residents are absorbing substantial utility rate updates starting with April bills - including a 20% increase in water rates, a 15% increase in sewer rates, and an 8% increase in stormwater rates, culminating in a 14% overall increase for a typical household. Beyond utilities, rapid expansion creates an increased need for city and county resources - such as public safety, emergency services, and administrative oversight - that inevitably lead to continued property tax increases for existing homeowners. 3.Increased Traffic Congestion and Road Funding Demands: Developing 180 acres directly along the CSAH 14 and Ideal Avenue corridors will accelerate a surge in local traffic. This influx will eventually necessitate costly road infrastructure Appendix A: Public Comment from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 enhancements that existing residents will be forced to fund through their tax dollars. Furthermore, my home is located at a key intersection along a primary route to our neighboring city, Woodbury. Drivers already increasingly use this thoroughfare as a shortcut to avoid congestion at the Interstate 696/94 interchange. This localized bottleneck will severely impact my property, destroying the peace of what was a quiet neighborhood just ten years ago. 4.Erosion of Community Character: Lake Elmo has traditionally valued a lower- density, semi-rural character compared to neighboring communities. Developing this massive tract of vacant land fundamentally degrades the neighborhood's identity. For these reasons, I urge the Economic Development Authority to deny the sale and development of this property and instead prioritize stabilizing our current infrastructure and protecting our existing neighborhoods. Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community. Sincerely, Outlook portant Dear Ms. Monterusso, I am writing as a resident of the Wildflower Shores neighborhood regarding the upcoming public hearing on Tuesday, June 16th, concerning the city-owned 180 acres adjacent to our community. I would like to formally express my support for the neighborhood feedback previously submitted to the City. It is essential to my family and to our community that any future development or use of this land is consistent with the safety, environmental integrity, and overall character of the surrounding neighborhood. I respectfully request that this correspondence be included in the official public record for the June 16th hearing Thank you for your attention to the concerns and priorities of our community. Appendix A: Public Comment from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 Outlook Dear Ashley, I am a resident of 38th Street and am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development of the City-owned 180-acre property located near Ideal Avenue and 34th Street/CSAH 14. As a nearby resident, I would be directly and significantly impacted by any commercial, industrial, or residential development on this site. While I understand the City's stated goals of generating tax revenue and responding to market demands, I believe preserving this land in its natural state would provide far greater long-term benefits to the community and better reflect the character of Lake Elmo. My primary concerns include: Sound Pollution Development of this scale would inevitably increase traffic, construction activity, and ongoing commercial or residential noise. The current undeveloped land serves as a natural buffer and contributes to the quiet residential environment enjoyed by nearby residents. Increased noise levels would diminish the quality of life for those of us who live adjacent to the property. Light Pollution The addition of businesses, parking lots, streets, residential buildings, and associated lighting would significantly increase nighttime light pollution. The loss of dark skies would negatively affect nearby residents and alter the rural and natural character that has long defined this area of Lake Elmo. Wildlife Impacts The property currently provides valuable habitat and migration corridors for birds, pollinators, deer, and other wildlife. Development would fragment or eliminate these habitats, increasing the risk of wildlife displacement, vehicle collisions, and ecological degradation. Once these natural areas are lost, they cannot easily be restored. Loss of Green Space Open land is becoming increasingly scarce throughout the region. This 180-acre property represents a rare opportunity to preserve a significant natural area for future generations. The City's project goals mention maximizing community benefit and maintaining Lake Elmo's character. Preserving this land as Appendix A: Public Comment from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 open space would accomplish both goals more effectively than commercial, industrial, or residential development. Rather than selling the property for development, I urge the City to consider permanently preserving the land as a natural preserve, conservation area, or public park. Such a use would provide recreational opportunities, protect wildlife habitat, maintain community character, and serve as a lasting community asset. A preserved natural area would offer benefits to residents for decades without the negative impacts associated with large-scale development. I respectfully request that City leaders prioritize conservation and open-space preservation when evaluating the future of this property. As a resident of 38th Street who would be heavily affected by development, I strongly oppose any commercial, industrial, or residential use of this site and encourage the City to leave the land undeveloped or convert it into a public park or preserve. Thank you for your consideration and for providing residents the opportunity to share feedback during this process. Sincerely, Outlook Re: Economic Development Authority meeting on June 16. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. My wife and I moved to Lake Elmo 33 years ago, attracted to the rural atmosphere so close to the conveniences of the city. We understand the Met Council and the courts forced us into more housing developments and expansion in general, but that is something we have always opposed. Our voice is this: Please keep Lake Elmo as rural and open-spaced as possible! We are against developing the parcel of land situated near Ideal Ave and Cty Road 14. Fields, soy beans, and corn are what we want! Appendix A: Public Comment from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 Outlook 180 Acre - Public Hearing 1 attachment (51 KB) Comments on 180 Acre Developennt.pdf; Ashley, Please find attached my written comments for tonights public hearing. I do plan to attend and address the highlights of my submitted comments but wanted to get them out in advance should time become a factor at the hearing. Thank you for including this in the EDA packet for the members. Appendix A: Public Comment from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 June 16, 2026 To: Members of the Economic Development Authority – City of Lake Elmo, MN By way of background, I worked as a commercial contractor and developer for 25 years and served on an Economic Development Authority for 14 years, including 10 years as chair. I oPer this information only to provide context for the observations below. I have read the ULI/TAP report from October 2025 and reviewed key elements of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as well. Most of my comments are regarding Parcel 1. Overall, I am in support of the City presenting these properties to the development community to get high quality development completed in the City and get them back on the tax rolls. My concerns are centered on providing good guidance and following through with the stated vision, provided it continues to make sense. All too often these things start with good intentions and end with “we’ll take what we can get”. Parcel 1 had several potential uses listed in the ULI study: 1. Industrial buildings up to 250,000 s.f. in a couple configurations. This to me seems appropriate for the site if the market supports it without major subsidy and the heavy vehicle traPic can be ePectively managed both in the short and long-term. I think noise and lighting buPer will be important if this becomes the path given the adjacent residential areas. 2. The study cited this parcel as a “good location” for 100-150 units of workforce housing. Unless I missed it, the study never explains why this is a good location, which I don’t believe it is. It also states, residents generally commute to work outside of the community. If this is accurate, it raises an important question regarding the intended beneficiaries of workforce housing at this location. Is the objective to serve Lake Elmo's workforce needs, or primarily the workforce needs of surrounding communities? A few quick items on the idea of “workforce” housing. a. The term workforce housing is ill-defined and can describe a wide array of products. If we intend to allow this product on this site, or any other, it should be firmly defined in advance so we can maintain the strategic vision and not settle for something less. Establishment of intended AMI% thresholds and other key guidelines should be established in advance of RFP issuance. Appendix A: Public Comment from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 b. There is little doubt in my mind that if the selected broker is provided with the options of industrial space or workforce housing, they will have 3-5 developer proposals for housing in very short order. The site is very conducive to a quick start and carries little market risk. Unless this is absolutely what is desired on this site those proposals should be made to wait and give reasonable opportunity for the industrial developers to react. This will allow the EDA and Council a better understanding of what’s possible. c. Review of the current Comp Plan makes several relevant and clear statements on the topic of workforce housing while addressing Land Use Goals: i. The City shall require development consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. ii. The City shall protect and add to Rural Residential areas consistent with the City’s rural tradition. iii. The employment and aPordable housing requirements will be provided for within the MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) and are not expected to be met within the Rural Residential Areas. d. This parcel is not in the originally designated MUSA and is currently zoned Rural Residential that abuts Rural Estate and Rural Single Family. (There is an updated version of the 2040 Future Land Use Map that designates this as MUSA and industrial zoning.) It is diPicult to see how we can now pivot to a Medium or High-Density Residential zoning and remain compliant with or even attempting to honor the intent of the existing Comp Plan. e. If there is to be workforce housing in the 180-acre plan, it should be located on Parcel 3 where it can be intentionally integrated with complementary housing types, services, and amenities. This would better support long-term resident success than placing it in a more isolated location adjacent to the rail corridor. 3.And finally, the footnote of using Parcel 1 for an expanded public works. This option makes a lot of sense to me in serving the City and its future for the following reasons: a.First, while I am not familiar with the current or anticipated future constraints on the existing facility, I am guessing there are demands, given the City’s growth, that can be better met with an updated and expandable facility. b. Second, as noted in the study, the current location is highly visible and likely the most marketable from a retail standpoint. This site should be leveraged as a true “Gateway” to drive what has the potential to be something great for the City on parcel 3. c. Third, Parcel 1 appears particularly well suited to the operational requirements of a modern Public Works facility. with the opportunity for outside storage and activities as well as expansion space. The need for expanded facilities is likely inevitable and with zero acquisition costs it makes the most sense to use Parcel 1 for this function. The value of the existing lot could go a long way in oPsetting the new construction costs. In closing, I would ask the EDA and Council to avoid making a decision based primarily on short-term market opportunities. While a multifamily housing project may be easier to advance and generate near-term tax revenue, it could limit the City's ability to achieve a more strategic and enduring development outcome that serves Lake Elmo's long-term interests. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Outlook Public Comment: 180-Acre Parcel Adjacent to Wildflower Shores (Hearing: June 16) Dear Ms. Monterusso, We are writing as residents of the Wildflower Shores neighborhood regarding the upcoming public hearing on Tuesday, June 16th, concerning the city-owned 180 acres adjacent to our community. We want to formally submit our support for the neighborhood feedback that has been previously delivered to the city. It is incredibly important to our household that the development or use of this land aligns with the safety, environment, and overall character of our surrounding neighborhood. We understand the opportunity development presents to the city, but do not want it to come at the expense of the existing neighboring communities. The multi-story, multi-family housing development idea included in the report you published is particularly concerning for the traffic they would bring, in addition to ruining the rural aesthetic of this corner and entrance into Lake Elmo. Please ensure that this correspondence is included in the official public record for the June 16th hearing. Thank you for your time, leadership and consideration of our community's perspective. Sincerely, Appendix A: Public Comment from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 Outlook 180 Acres Thank you for allowing submission of comments regarding development of city-owned acreage. Last time around I made a phone call, attended a meeting, spoke publicly and submitted a survey. I was encouraged by the planning commission stating they would like to make something special of this land since it is a gateway to Lake Elmo- open space, ball fields, dog park,etc. Unfortunately the hopes were changed. I still resonate with the hopes and the opportunity to do something "special" with the land. Our backyard borders the acreage adjacent to the red barn and we would so appreciate a buffer zone as noise and development continues to increase. Thank you, Appendix A: Public Comment from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 Lake Elmo Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes 6.16.26 1 City of Lake Elmo Economic Development Authority Meeting City Council Chambers – 3880 Laverne Avenue North Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 16th, 2026 CALL TO ORDER: Commission Chair Manzara called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Economic Development Authority at 6:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Charles Cadenhead, Jeff Holtz, Anthony Manzara, Don Place, Brandon Quam COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Nina Waldoch, Mitchell McNeil STAFF PRESENT: City Administrator Miller, Community Development Director Stopa, Senior Planner Jensen, City Planner Monterusso 1.Approve Minutes: M/S/P: Place/Cadenhead made a motion to approve the 4/7/2026 meeting minutes. Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously. 2.Public Hearing a.Sale and Development of City-Owned 180 Acres: The City of Lake Elmo’s EDA is holding a public hearing to invite community members to share feedback regarding the future of the of the City- owned vacant land situated near Ideal Ave. & 34th St/CSAH 14 (PIDs: 1602921240002, 1602921230003). The land is guided to be sold and developed in three phases. Community Development Director Stopa gave presentation on the development plan for the 180 acres of city-owned property. Stopa reviewed the project goals, guiding principles, potential community benefits, land use, timeline, and written public comments. M/S/P: Manzara/Place moved to open the public hearing at 6:12 PM. Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. Public Comments: Andrew Wolfram (8308 Stillwater Blvd N): Spoke regarding concerns on truck traffic volumes, safety, and noise pollution. Would like speed limits reduced and intersections improved. Robert Dew (3036 Inwood Ave): Spoke in support of the development. Does not believe workforce housing makes sense on Parcel 1, recommends putting parameters on workforce housing, and believes that workforce housing is not supported by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Recommends moving the Public Works facility to Parcel 1. Jennifer Stoltenow (3857 Ironwood Trl N): Spoke regarding city character and the “lights off”, quiet feeling when driving into Lake Elmo. Has concerns regarding environmental protection and Watershed District requirements. Lucien Justin (3918 Ironwood Trl N): Would like to see revenue and tax numbers. Has questions about how the City will use the money from the sale/taxes. Zach Diesslin (8030 38th St N): Has questions about the city process, taxes, considerations, and water restrictions and contamination. Appendix B: Meeting minutes from EDA Meeting 6/16/2026 Lake Elmo Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes 6.16.26 2 12 written public comments summarized in presentation, not read into record. M/S/P: Place/Cadenhead moved to close the public hearing at 6:30 PM. Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. Discussion was held regarding the public hearing comments and questions, and staff answered questions. 3.New Business and Communication a.Old City Hall Community Development Director Stopa gave an update on next steps for the Old City Hall. Plans for the site will be discussed at the City Council July workshop. b.Sale of Old Fire Station and Parks properties Community Development Director Stopa gave update that offers will be discussed at the July 14th closed session. c.Solar Landfill Update Community Development Director Stopa gave update that the site does not fit Excel’s needs. d.Lake Elmo featured in Business View magazine Community Development Director Stopa gave update that the city was featured in Business View magazine, and it can be found on the website. e.Upcoming meetings: i.August 18, 2026 ii.October 20, 2026 M/S/P: Quam/Manzara moved to ask City Council to explore the purchase of the Fury property. Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. 4.Meeting adjourned by Manzara at 6:54 PM. Respectfully submitted, Miranda Moulis, Planning Assistant This land was acquired as part of the City’s settlement with 3M in 2019. 3M Settlement Zoning After receiving the land, the city updated the future zoning to be a combination of business park, commercial, park, and low-density residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.The council directed the city to bring in advisors who could help hypothesize possible ways to move forward with the land. In 2025, the City works with the Urban Land Institute (ULI) on a Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) for guidance and recommendations on how to best approach the project. Urban Land Institute Technical Assistance Panel (ULI TAP) City issues RFP for brokers to market and sell property in Fall 2026 . (starting with Parcel 1) Broker RFP How did we get here?How did we get here? The TAP Report suggests that development at the site has the potential to provide the following contributions to the Lake Elmo community* URBAN LAND INSTITUTE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL (ULI TAP) REPORT New attractors and services for Lake Elmo could take the form of new jobs, new retail and services, and perhaps new destinations for community members to enjoy. Fiscal and economic benefits New services Housing at the site should cater to different lifecycle choices. These could include one-floor living options or smaller homes with less associated maintenance. Smaller homes/lots may provide the community with new price points that could cater to first-time homebuyers, young professionals. New and enhanced housing options The location of the site, so close to Oakdale, positions it as a gateway to Lake Elmo, and it should serve as a welcoming point to the community. The city’s parks and trails are important community amenities, and trails and connectivity across the site can help fill some of the gaps currently experienced in the city’s green network. Green space network Gateway to Lake Elmo Taxes, increased daytime population, and increased spending by new residents and employees at businesses locating on the site can all support the economic health of the city. *Full details in ULI TAP Report POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CITY The City of Lake Elmo owns approximately 180 acres of undeveloped land on the city’s western edge. This acreage is the result of a 2019 settlement with 3M Corporation. The City’s plan remains to sell the land and anticipates the project taking place over three phases. The acreage is spread across three parcels and sits at an important intersection for the city. City maintains its intention to sell this property and expects future development to occur in three phases, with the intent to market and sell Parcel 1 first. No sale has occured yet, and timing will depend on future steps in the City’s review and property sale process. Property is planned for future sale The City has adopted future land use guidance for these parcels as part of its long-range planning. This provides a general vision for how the area is intended to evolve, while recognizing that guidance can be refined or updated over time through future proposals and review processes. Future land use guidance WHAT IS KNOWNWHAT IS KNOWNWHAT IS KNOWNWHAT IS KNOWN WHAT IS NOT YET KNOWNWHAT IS NOT YET KNOWNWHAT IS NOT YET KNOWNWHAT IS NOT YET KNOWN The ULI TAP report is a planning document that provides analysis of the site and surrounding context, along with recommendations to help inform future decision-making. It does not establish final outcomes for the property, which will be determined through future proposals and public review process. ULI TAP Report provides analysis and recommendations The City has issued an RFP for a broker to market the land. A broker has not been selected yet. Future developer(s) of the site unknown Because the property has not yet been sold and no developer has been selected, there are no building plans or site layouts for the land. Detailed plans - such as building size, placement, layout, and buffers are developed later by the future owner and reviewed by the City through the approval process. Building plans and site layouts Development timeline is not yet known The City’s Public Works Facility sits North of 34 St. and North of Parcel 2 th Rail runs through Parcel 1 & 2 There is an easement on the property for both overhead power lines and underground utilities The City of Oakdale is directly across the street to the West of the property THE LANDTHE LANDTHE LANDTHE LAND SITE FACTSSITE FACTSSITE FACTSSITE FACTS Size: ~20 acres, southern parcel Future zoning: Business Park, shoreland overlay Sewer access available Most flexible and market ready Anticipated to sell first (Phase I) Size: ~51 acre site, middle parcel Future zoning: Business Park Sewer access not yet available Anticipated to sell second (Phase II) PARCEL #1 PARCEL #2 Size: ~102 acres, northern site Future zoning: Business Park, Commercial, Low-density residential, Park, and adjacent to Public Facilities zoning (Public Works) Sewer access not yet available Anticipated to sell third (Phase III) PARCEL #3OAKDALEOAKDALELAKE ELMOLAKE ELMOParcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3 Business Park/Light Industrial Commercial Low-density Residential Public Facilities Park CITY-OWNED PARCELSCITY-OWNED PARCELS Final use of the property not yet determined The future use of the propery has not been finalized because a developer or end user has not yet been selected. Once ownership changes, the specific use of the site will be proposed and reviewed through the City’s planning and approval process. Current site conditions The property is currently owned by the City and is leased for agricultural (farm) use. The site is largely undevelolped. The City’s Public Works building is located at the southwest corner of Parcel 3. Timing for the project will depend on future steps, including the property sale process and subsequent planning and approval reviews. FUTURE LAND USE GUIDANCEFUTURE LAND USE GUIDANCE PROJECT GOALS/GUIDING PRINCIPLES AS LAID OUT IN URBAN LAND INSTITUTE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL (ULI TAP) REPORT* Establish design and performance standards Remain ready and responsive to the market Generate tax revenue through the development of the sites Integrate open space and trails at the site to enhance community connectivity where possible/Advance sustainability and resiliency Effectively manage the transition of the site from farmland to development with a focus on open communication and easing community concerns *Full details in ULI TAP Report Maintain the image and character of Lake Elmo through development at the site Use the site to maximize community benefit Aldenaire & Partners Feedback Station What potential concerns do you have about the development of the parcels generally? You have 4 dot stickers/chips. Place them in the boxes next to the areas that matter most to you. CONCERNS OPPORTUNITIES What do you consider are the most imporant potential opportunities for development at the site? TRAFFIC IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS GENERAL NUISANCE CONCERNS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING AREA LACK OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/JOB CREATION PROVIDE HOUSING FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS COMMUNITY AMENTIES (TRAILS, GATHERING SPACES) EXPAND LOCAL RETAIL/COMMERCIAL OPTIONS PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL FEATURES COMMUNITY CHARACTER/SENSE OF PLACE Aldenaire & Partners Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential Retail/Commercial Industrail/Warehouse Stormwater Management Areas of Restored Prairie Parcel 3 Parcel 2 Parcel 1 Business Park Business Park Commercial Residential 80' wide lots 40' wide lots Public Works Feedback Station This is a concept plan that was developed as part of the ULI TAP Report to explore potential future opportunities for the site. This activity is intended to inform discussion and DOES NOT represent an approved plan, proposal, or City decision. HELP US UNDERSTAND YOUR PERSPECTIVE BY ADDING STICKY NOTES DIRECTLY TO THE MAP. Green Sticky Notes Yellow Sticky Notes Pink Sticky Notes What works about this concept? What concerns do you have about this concept? Please place your note near the area of the map your comment relates to. What is missing? Appendix D: Open House Feedback Forms & Comment Cards Appendix D: Open House Feedback Forms & Comment Cards 180-acres Open House Notes 6/30/2026 Staff/Commissioner: AM Overall community response: ☐Positive ☐ Mixed ☐ Concerned ☐ Informational / Questions Only Community Feedback Concerns raised: -Traffic -Financial implications, how will city use money from sale? -Safety due to traffic Supportive comments / positive feedback: -Housing supported for parcel one (two community members spoke at length) - Pro large buffers -Pro conservation Suggestions or ideas shared: -Senior living on parcel one -Easement over pipeline information Appendix D: Open House Feedback Forms & Comment Cards Appendix D: Open House Feedback Forms & Comment Cards Appendix D: Open House Feedback Forms & Comment Cards Appendix E: Polco Survey Appendix E: Polco Survey Appendix E: Polco Survey Appendix E: Polco Survey Appendix E: Polco Survey Appendix E: Polco Survey Appendix E: Polco Survey Appendix E: Polco Survey City-owned 180 acres | Community Engagement (Main Version) Survey Results FINAL 09/01/2026 Appendix F: Polco Overview Survey Report Please select the following to describe your connection to Lake Elmo: Number ofvotes per option: Lake Elmo Resident 81% (327) Lake Elmo Business-owner 0% (2) I work in Lake Elmo, I do not live in Lake Elmo 2% (7) Visitor 3% (12) Oakdale Resident 10% (42) Other 3% (13) Text Responses: Stillwater residents who frequently visit West Lakeland resident, frequents Lake Elmo: library, Main Street shops/coffee Baytown township resident Washington County Resident Stillwater/daughter owns in Lake Elmo Previous resident for 20 yearz Stillwater resident Stillwater Resident Grant resident Former LE resident. Frequent visitor. Live in Stillwater Loved ones live in Lake Elmo Lake Elmo Resident and work in Lake Elmo In which category is your age? Number ofvotes per option: 18-24 years 0% (2) 25-34 years 11% (43) 35-44 years 31% (123) 45-54 years 21% (83) 55-64 years 21% (84) 65-74 years 13% (51) 75 years or older 4% (17) What is your gender? Number ofvotes per option: Woman 61% (245) Man 39% (155) Identify in another way 0% (0) What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) Number ofvotes per option: American Indian or Alaska Native 1% (5) Asian 2% (8) Black or African American 1% (5) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0% (1) White 91% (376) A race not listed 4% (17) How close do you live or work to the project site? Number ofvotes per option: Within .5 mile of the site 23% (91) Within 1 mile of the site 23% (92) Over 1 mile from the site 55% (221) How did you become aware of this project? Number ofvotes per option: City Newsletter (The Fresh)23% (109) Facebook 39% (182) Nextdoor 9% (42) Flyer 1% (5) Word of mouth 13% (61) Community event 2% (10) Polco platform 5% (23) Other 7% (35) Text Responses: city website Planning Commission Meeting Minutes What's Happening in Lake Elmo email Resident Former Planning Commissioner Planning commission Ongoing various over the past few years HOA A neighbor who is on the city counsel City, community and neighborhood communications Commission member Member of the Lake Elmo Economic Development Authority Someone posted about the study on facebook Facebook Not sure HOA Daughter Mailed letter, neighborhood communication City council meetings The mayor When Lake Elmo tried to strong arm Meijer and they walked away from project. email; Email from lake Elmo Email email Received an email Mailing to our house email from city e-mail My daily newbrief created by AI Website Generally, how do you feel about development of this property? Number ofvotes per option: Strongly support 17% (68) Somewhat support 27% (108) Somewhat oppose 18% (72) Strongly oppose 31% (123) Don't know 7% (30) Which goal do you believe should be highest priority for the future development of the city? Choose and rank up to three options. (Click on the small square dots and then drag to prioritize choices.) Number ofvotes per option: Focus on development that increases tax revenue and costs less to serve 13% (115) Focus on development that may lower long-term city infrastructure costs 13% (111) Increase housing options 4% (35) Attract employers and jobs 9% (75) Preserve open space and rural character 37% (323) Support local businesses 17% (151) Other 7% (62) Text Responses: Baseball fields Add grocery and shopping options Support pollinators and wildlife habitat Preserve agricultural land Parks and family friendly opportunities Seems growth as exploded! Let's focus on creating a strong infrastructure first! LE can't handle any more growth, poor traffic patterns for the amount that live here, water that can't keep up and schools that couldn't keep up. Make sure the basics are strong enough to support this growth. We really need some kind of pool facility. Something like Shoreview or Apple Valley has. Develop with climate change in mind Parkland Remove pickleball courts from neighborhood parks & place them closer to Public Works bldg. in order to eliminate noise complaints.., We moved to lake Elmo partly because it was not highly developed and would be extremely disappointed to see further development of this land. I do not support selling this land and developing it. More paved trails for all types of activities in summer and winter. The city lacks loops that can be used all year long. Home depot, lowes, Walmart costco Support native ecosystem Need for additional bike paths More park/field/public use spaces Become statewide leader in parks and recreation (actual recreation not just open space) Anything but more housing. Community focus business, such as local restaurants etc. Strengthen the capability of City Staff to appropriately control this and future development opportunities Bring a restaurant into the neighborhood Maintain green space and open land Parks/fields to support the young generation of kids coming in Keep lake Elmo a small community, we are NOT woodbury Community spaces Townhall multy-use stadium Pick a worthy developer who will build something that’s not cookie cutter in terms of homes, layouts and better water management and environmentalism Trails, nature preservation, walking, small business (minimize chains/franchises in Lake Elmo) Let’s not be Woodbury! This city does not have to build on every square inch of it. What about the water shortage? Community center Keep the small town feel of this suburb, as this is why I moved here in 2018 Support wildlife and keep noise pollution to an absolute minimum Focus on use that would require the least amount of water Leaving natural spaces is not only important, but critical. Parks or athletic complex to serve the growth of the community Park/field/public use space Restaurants We need less homes and more commercial Ensure we can protect our water. We were told there would be a moratorium on building when we moved here 6 years ago. Larger single family home lots over .25 acre to give a different option from what has already been done Focus on getting the lack of water issue resolved before additional building. Focus on development that provides services to the community Nothing Public EV charging station for renters walking distance to their apt If there is to be additional housing, I would recommend not having communities like Northstar or legacy where the houses are smooshed together on small parcels. I believe this leads to unattractiveness in Lake Elmo. 55 plus villas affordable Minimize traffic impact designated year round Farmers market area (example Lyndale mnpls) Parks and recreation Build a baseball complex with fields to support the Lake Elmo Baseball Association. Preserve open spaces and rural character Community Center or Spaces For part of the area bring in a family dining place that bring in people and revenue Community rec center with Pool Limit the impact on existing neighborhoods. Provide a community center like the one shore view has! Creating/preserving a safe place to live for residents and surrounding areas. Protect the land, wildlife, and people who live there currently!!! Deeply thought-out development that encompasses much community/resident input, water shed district input based on current land/environment structure that will have a positive and enduring affect on the area. When considering development of these sites, how important is it that the development generates more tax revenue for the community than it costs in public services and infrastructure? Number ofvotes per option: Essential 19% (73) Very important 22% (87) Somewhat important 30% (117) Not at all important 25% (98) Don't know 5% (19) What priorities should guide future development in the business park district? Please select/rank up to three priorities that are most important to you. (Click on the small square dots and then drag to prioritize choices.) Number ofvotes per option: Choosing business types that fit the community needs 15% (160) Limiting outdoor storage of equipment, materials, and products 9% (94) Limiting truck trailer and large vehicle storage 10% (108) Preserving green space, trees, and natural buffers 28% (303) Encouraging environmentally friendly and sustainable design 14% (145) Adding walking/biking trails and pedestrian connections 18% (194) High-quality building design and improved streets/utilities 6% (69) What type of land use would you prefer on Parcel 1? Number ofvotes per option: Business Park, light industrial 19% (75) Commercial/retail 24% (94) Single family homes 9% (37) Work force housing 2% (6) Live-work housing ("Live-work" means a dwelling unit in combination with a shop, office, studio, or other work space within the same unit, where the resident occupant both lives and works)7% (29) A mix of uses 14% (54) Other 25% (97) Text Responses: Tiny home community single level townhomes for aging in place no more housing or buildings that sit empty. Lake Elmo is losing its charm with all of the over development of land. None - leave it alone Leave it alone Non development or community space Sport fields and athletic facilities No more houses! If something had to go there, mixed retail/restaurants that fit with Target/Aldi/Chipotle that is there now. Please preserve some green space!!!! Green space Park None Open space Park Green space a nature area/no housing or business No development Why the rush to sell land today? Value will only increase over time giving more money to Lake Elmo in the future. Why not focus on solving water and electrical grid problems today. Keep land and sell after the growth problems are fixed. Please do not develop this land at all. One of the best things about Lake Elmo—it’s the reason I moved here—is the rural feel. The farmland look is so beautiful. Nature reserve Leave it alone don't ruin it like Shiltgen debacle None. Leave it as a buffer to the residents who live near there and the wildlife who dwell there. We chose this area for it's lack of industry. Trails for a park or leave it alone few buildings, mostly open space Greenspace Business Park up to heavy industrial that would benefit from the railroad proximity, meeting environmental regulations, and avoid excessive water requirements such as needed by some types of "data center" None; the area is becoming too heavily trafficked near the Village and Tri Lakes None. Leave it alone. There is already too much building in our beautiful and unique community. Traffic is getting bad infrastructure is being sacrificed, etc.. A community pool! There are none around and I would pay for a season pass Park land, natural habitat. Stop pushing out wildlife. Preserve open/green space None of the above! Stop cramming things into Lake Elmo. People moved here for the peace and quiet and you guys are ruining this beautiful city with utility buildings and 5000000 homes. Stop ruining the land. We moved out of the city for a reason. We don't want to be a mini St Paul or Woodbury. Make it a park A park or preserving our green spaves None None Green space/nature preserve/conservancy. Perhaps trails (paved or dirt) within green space for citizens to use. Acreage plots for single family farms Community/public use space Keep it undeveloped Open space or park. Lake Elmo has lots of growth already None of the above Green space Would love to have sustainable apartments Parks This site could be the new City 30 million dollar Ballfield complex that is to be rented out to other cities. This high use complex would be near existing intense use commercial and could fit in with its lights , noise, traffic that would be disruptive to the Regional Park Reserve , Sunfish Lake Environmental Park. Trails, Ponds, Trees Open space Don’t make it a business park. Open land. Green dpace STOP BUILDING!! Lake Elmo is depressing to even drive through. Park Personally I think you will do what you want Leave it natural!! Why do we have to build on every little piece of property in Lake Elmo. Enough is enough! Lake Elmo is not the same quiet community it once was. Too much traffic and increase of people loitering in neighbors that don’t live there. A park open space or athletic complex (Ball fields, park, fields) Leave it alone, we didn't move here to be the next Woodbury N/A Leave rural for wildlife habitat. Maybe add a walking path and small parking lot but so much wild life is being pushed out. Continue to use the land as farm land Leave as undeveloped space. Relocation of public works building to this site if not left as undeveloped space. Leave it prairie. You’ve done enough Woodburying of Lake Elmo. Please don’t develop this Upscale car condo garages Parks, nature preserve, ball fields Park housing coop, daycare coop, extended family housing, rentable commercial kitchen, community garden Leave as a natural barrier between Lake Elmo and Oakdale Keep it open. The city does not have the water infrastructure to support this. Natural park zones for wildlife Green space/land preservation Community pool like Shoreview Park None of the above. Preserve the natural land. There is a dead office building behind Aldi/Starbucks/Chipotle. Stop building areas that are dying before they launch. Sports complex not developed Leave as is. None. It should be used for an athletic complex No opinion Stop with the insane amount of over development and leave as green space. You keep destroying Lake Elmo and everyone with a brain is leaving. Please ONLY work with local builder, we don’t want national junk houses Green space. Enough housing!!!! Community Center Parks Community parks, nature trails Parks and Green Spaces for families to enjoy and for the natural wildlife. We love seeing the deer and turkeys out there. We are so sad to see this land being developed like every other space is in Oakdale, Lake Elmo and Woodbury. We need more nature. None don’t build houses or low income homes Green space Leave it be Leave the green space and don't build Unimproved open space/park Open space rather than developing every open parcel of land PARK LEAVE IT ALONE Leave it alone What type of land use would you prefer on Parcel 2? Number ofvotes per option: Business Park, light industrial 11% (42) Commercial/retail 30% (115) Single family homes 8% (30) Work force housing 1% (5) Live-work housing ("Live-work" means a dwelling unit in combination with a shop, office, studio, or other work space within the same unit, where the resident occupant both lives and works)10% (37) A mix of uses 15% (58) Other 26% (99) Text Responses: Baseball fields single level townhomes for aging in place Historical land has been destroyed to make way for housing developments that look like a gray cookie cutter house that was slapped together in record time. Lake Elmomis quickly becoming another overgrown and overpopulated city like its neighboring cities. None - leave it alone Leave it alone Non development or community space Sport fields and athletic facilities Sorry same anser, no more houses! If something had to go there, mixed retail/restaurants that fit with Target/Aldi/Chipotle that is there now. Please preserve some green space!!!! Green space Park None Open space Park Green space a natural area/no business or housing dp not development, save the land for development in future such as 25-60 years No development See comment above. Another idea is to rent small garden plots on the land. Keep land as is. Earn some money. Still able to sell the land in the future at a higher price due to inflation. Please do not develop this land at all. One of the best things about Lake Elmo—it’s the reason I moved here—is the rural feel. The farmland look is so beautiful. Nature reserve Open space.. this is getting very redundant None. Leave Lake Elmo as the small town the residents in this area like. We DONT want or need more manufactured housing Food hall for local businesses and artists to display artwork in the hall few buildings, mostly open space Greenspace Business park, light industrial up to heavy industrial, meeting zoning and environmental regulations (avoid high water usage) None; the area is becoming too heavily trafficked near the Village and Tri Lakes None. It has already gotten out of control the building of new Return to larger lots for single family homes with extensive parkland and preservation areas. Preserve open/green space None of the above. Stop cramming things into Lake Elmo. We aren't Woodbury!!!! Park with ball fields Preserving green spaces None None Green space/nature preserve/conservancy. Perhaps trails (paved or dirt) within green space for citizens to use. Agriculture Public land/community space Keep it undeveloped Stadium and shops Open space - park None…let’s not be Woodbury add more green space to this city Natural space, and community center, early childhood and family center Have protected land to support wildlife. I would love trees Open space, Parks and Rec Community center, space for gatherings inside/out, pool, splash pad A welcoming to Lake Elmo that just isn't a continuation of the inner city. Nothing Open space Open land Athletic fields & parks Green space Preserve nature. Stop building. As above Leave it natural- plant trees Nothing, don’t build! Leave it as it is! A park Open spaces Park or open space No housing N/A Continue to use as farm land. Prairie Please don’t develop this Parks, nature preserve, ball fields Community resources Green space housing coop, daycare coop, extended family housing, rentable commercial kitchen, community garden Leave as a natural barrier between Lake Elmo and Oakdale Keep it open. The city does not have the water infrastructure to support this. Natural wildlife Green space Community Playground None. Keep the land natural with no more building. Sports complex not developed leave as is. None. It should be used for an athletic complex Nature park No opinion Stop with the insane amount of over development and leave as green space. You keep destroying Lake Elmo and everyone with a brain is leaving. Green space. Enough housing!!! Community parks, nature trails Parks, trails, space to enjoy wildlife and for the wildlife to actually live. We keep destroying every open space just to cram in houses. My preference would be agricultural. I'm still annoyed that the city council chased the Schiltgen horse farm away from the entrance to the old village by denying them a conditional use permit for riding lessons; I didn't know the Schiltgens but that horse farm was a lovely and unique use for the entrance to an old village and was true to the "rural character" that council members campaign on. Since you are determined to develop this parcel, I'll say Business Park with berming and trees so the west entrance to our city is not an eye sore. Green space Leave it be Do not build, keep the green space Unimproved open space/park Same as above PARK Mix of Business Park, light industrial, Commercial/retail, and Live-work housing Please leave it alone. At most making the space an area to benefit the community (park, walking trails, etc.) The disruption of light and noise pollution cannot be outweighed with tax benefits. Leave nature alone or help it along. Leave it alone How supportive are you of Parcel 3 being zoned to include public facilities, commercial, business park and residential uses? Number ofvotes per option: Strongly support 15% (60) Somewhat support 26% (102) Somewhat oppose 17% (67) Strongly oppose 36% (140) Don't know 6% (23) The site is expected to include a mix of housing and commercial development. How would you prioritize the balance between these uses? Please rank the following options in order of preference. (Click on the small square dots and then drag to prioritize choices.) Number ofvotes per option: Mostly housing with less commercial space 33% (404) A balanced mix of housing and commercial development 33% (404) Mostly commercial with less housing space 33% (404) Which public space features are most important to you for the overall development site? Please choose up to three options and rank in order of preference. (Click on the small square dots and then drag to prioritize choices.) Number ofvotes per option: Public gathering spaces (plazas, parks, squares)26% (259) Public art (murals, sculptures)4% (36) Distinct architectural design and character 8% (76) Landscaping, green space, natural features 34% (331) Connectivity (trails, walkways)27% (263) This is not important to me 2% (20) What are the most important outcomes you’d like to see from this development for all three sites? Please choose up to three options and rank in order of preference. (Click on the small square dots and then drag to prioritize choices.) Number ofvotes per option: Job creation/economic development 5% (53) Strong character, sense of place 10% (104) Community amenities (trails, gathering spaces, etc.)22% (219) Housing development 2% (18) Commercial/retail spaces 7% (70) High quality design 7% (69) Improved infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.)4% (39) Becoming a regional destination 3% (34) Green space preservation, sustainability 25% (252) Balance of uses (live, work, play)11% (106) Other 3% (27) Text Responses: A park Please don't try and development a new downtown I do not support development of this land Keep it farmland Best outcome from a public finance viewpoint - LE has high debt to pay off As a long-time Lake Elmo resident, all of this development in the greater perimeter around the old Village is completely out of sync with the rural nature of what Lake Elmo once was. We cannot agree with recent building developments and high density housing and commercial development. That they aren’t overly developed Not becoming Woodbury No affordable housing Low density development Stop developing ever last square inch of nature. open space - lake elmo is becoming woodbury and it is really sad We have enough new housing Preserve trees, reduce traffic congestion that would come with cramming a bunch of houses in here Encouraging environmentally friendly and sustainable design Baseball Complex Keep the land natural and stop needless development that will bring down the charm of Lake Elmo. generate revenue for city to LOWER TAXES!! A place for small business and not chain restaurants or businesses. We need more grocery stores, community pool, ice skating rink, things to bring the community to stay in lake Elmo instead of putting money in other communities. A community pool would be amazing like the one in Eden prairie. Nice for competition pool but also a place for exercise and swimming park Community pool Parks and trails Leave it be! Don't become another Woodbury The city should retain a portion of the property to create a pickleball center in order to remove the nuisance of pickleball noise from neighborhood parks. Unimproved open space/park Leave it alone. There is tooooooo much traffic and idiots that speed through here and drag race. No cops that stop them. What type of concerns might you have about the development of the site? Please choose up to three options and rank. (Click on the small square dots and then drag to prioritize choices.) Number ofvotes per option: Compatibility with surrounding area 12% (130) Environmental impacts (wildlife, stormwater, loss of natural area)24% (255) Impact on neighbors (property value, construction impacts)14% (146) General nuisance concerns (noise, lighting)14% (151) Increased traffic 19% (197) Lack of community benefits 13% (133) No major concerns 2% (20) Other 2% (19) Text Responses: Impact to school district Lake Elmo can drop the “ maintain the rural roots of the City” language. ZERO percent of all the development since the met council decision has had any real preservation of rural/nature. Creating something that more Oakdale citizens benefit from vs LE citizens Additional strain on public services. Focus on fixing water and electrical grid before expansion. If we don’t fix these items every Lake Elmo resident is impacted. We have lived in Lake Elmo 6 years and have had a lawn watering ban for a majority of the time. Too much housing, not enough retail for Lake Elmo My concern is to avoid excessively enriching a developer at the cost of long-term benefits to the City No more development!! We choose lake Elmo because we like the country feel Too much ‘cookie cutter’ housing that lacks character of Lake Elmo Amount of water use needed We already don’t have adequate water A generic retail/strip mall area. Unique retail, restaurant, and entertainment area with unique features is my preference Section 8 Section 8 housing brings crime and violence into the community Keep it open. The city does not have the water infrastructure to support this. No more housing developments Limit the park space, we have more than enough Overcrowding Becoming another Woodbury Demand on safe water supply In your opinion, what would make the development of all three parcels feel like a benefit to the community? Text Responses: Walkable and bikeable connections; same theme for buildings, signs, etc. Ball fields make the most sense here. Close to the highway. If it reflected the surrounding neighborhoods like Lake Elmo Heights. Minimized impact on wildlife. Finalize trail connection along Stillwater Blvd. An increase to the tax base to slow or reverse the constant increase of property taxes on current residents. Reflects Rural nature of Lake Elmo - Acts as one of the Gateway/Entrances to the city. Add retail or commercial businesses that residents would utilize and shop at. Also adding parks and trails that the public can use No more housing developments Places for community to gather and socialize. Creating a sustainable environment and connectivity of the community. Not bringing more light pollution, car pollution, displacing wildlife, more housing to overpopulate, more commercial businesses that make the traffic worse and pollutes the environment. It’s really disappointing to see the direction Lake Elmo is going in, it’s seems greedy and inconsiderate of the beauty of the environment to pack as many houses and buildings as they can into a space. LE is the next Woodbury. If there was space for the community to enjoy there like a splash pad and park. A nice development like Central Park in Eagan. Ball fields, splash pad, playground Keep the rural spirit of lake Elmo and focus on green spaces and very limited development. less housing and industrial. more essentials for the already exponential population growth Leave it alone. The animals need a space stop taking it away the city continues to push growth and approving massive development of apartments along 5th street, Hudson, and I-94 corridor. It makes sense to continue to push people to OTHER areas of Lake ELMO. Spread the growth. We did not buy homes here to have hundreds of renters surrounding out. Send those folks to other areas of the city. Something that both are youth can enjoy, and something that draws others from outside our community to it. The more they want to return to Lake Elmo, the better. Please think generationally about the development of this area. Lake Elmo doesn't need more chains and corporations, and the character of the community that drew many of us here is diminishing quickly with the addition of more large homes and the destruction of green space, agricultural space, and landmarks like the historic Schiltgen farm site. If the land needs to be developed it should benefit the entire community. Focus on something that continues the rural traditions (community gardens, open space ect) and health focused (parks, playgrounds, dog parks ect). Park and community space, a splash pad Increased revenue without potential pollution risk (noise, etc) No massive warehouses (warehouse/office)like Hudson road in Woodbury the past 5 years!! Keep as rural space to make Lake Elmo more desirable Keep it an open space!!!! This is hard - based on my taxes and what I see in growth in LE, roads, traffic, water, etc. I don't feel like this can be supported. Who made Urban Land in charge? Why can't it sit undeveloped? If something had to go there, think a small version of Centennial Lakes Park in Edina. Green spaces, walking, shops, etc. Install a native planting. Or- if it’s going to be developed commercially, make it solar and wind generating to lower LE’s use of non renewable resources. If light industrial, warehousing was only allowed in parcel 1. Retail commercialin parcel 2 and only southernmost quarter on parcel 1. I will oppose housing development if single family home is below $400,000 as it will lower my property value too much. Development that brings outside visitors to spend and increase tax revenue. I really think selling off two parcels for homes and maybe some commercial/retail would be fine so long as ONE of those parcels ended up a community rec center. There really isn't a great place for families to use, for scouts, etc... and with so many kids coming into LE it seems a miss not to try and do something like Shoreview or Apple Valley have. Why not a park Truly listening to what the community wants then communicating the results - be open about how these decisions are being made. A mix of commercial and residential spaces while making sure to maintain lots of greenery and nature as to not disrupt the tranquility of the area. None. You’ve added enough housing to the southern and central part of our city. They are open vacant warehouses on the southern portion of our city. Stop this insanity with the continued development of every inch. Taxes are fine if you want to raise them on individual houses go ahead and do it! Keep it open and natural setting Parks and open space. Maybe additional park amenities that we don't have much of. Keep it rural as much as possible No Make it into a beautiful entrance into Lake Elmo A community center especially with a community pool. Keep these areas natural green spaces for wildlife, preserve more green space in Lake Elmo to retain a rural feel. We need more park space or a nature preserve before everything is built up and the land is all lost. Stop building housing and businesses all over the place. We don’t want it to be horrible here like Woodbury. We have lived here for the peace. It’s all being destroyed one development at a time. Everything doesn’t have to be built up and paved over. You’re already planning on building a sports facility down the road. We don’t need more traffic, noise and crime in the area. Anything but more houses Retail/food shops, high quality businesses, environmentally conscious design and increase in bike paths/sidewalks/trails Some park and community benefits. Light retail but no industrial. Provide something that we don’t have now to improve our community no development at this time, hold land for what the city may need in 25-60 years Allowing community input in the development. Contain something that every current resident would find useful. Generate tax revenue. Somehow retain small town Lake Elmo flavor. Nothing, leave the land alone and keep Lake Elmo more rural. Doing nothing. Garden. Park. Walking trails. Planting trees. Keeping land to sell for the future city when we may need the funds in the future. Parcel 1 and 2 could be developed to match Target area. Parcel 3 should remain open space or community walking trails/nature. There is a lot of wildlife that calls the fields home Development to help the city tax base with minimal impact to existing neighbors. 1) maintain rural feel, maintain continuity with lake elmo village area; rural feel less density (don't become oakdale, maplewood, woodbury); 2) use area to maintain future use for city public works / future infrastructure needs 3) sustainable design - such as technology to create water capture for reuse by city (lessen cost to residents); potential geo thermal site for power to lake elmo/lake elmo residents More paved loops connecting all parcels and a sculpture garden that can be used all year long Keeping it farmland would feel like a real “win” for what Lake Elmo has historically been and what makes it such a beautiful place to live. Don’t develop them. Fix the water. Leave everything else alone Costco, homedepot or lowes no ma and pop crap Lake Elmo has an abundance of housing but absolutely not enough parks and usable open space There is a benefit only to aggressive building contractors who live elsewhere. Leaving it as is Leave it alone No industrial development light or heavy Stop making it Woodbury. Please for the sake of residents don’t put in more townhomes or apartments. Please do not. Open Space, Gardens, Trails Nothing. None of the residents near the area liked the idea when it was proposed a few years ago. None of us want to live in an area of industrial park. Strong tax value, that benefits they city. Ensuring a design is selected and developed that incorporates a natural buffer between any of the current Lake Elmo neighborhoods. A thriving ecosystem to combat the loss of native landscape in MN preserve rural character of Lake Elmo. This is what has attracted us to Lake Elmo Trails that connect all three. Splash pad or pool few buildings, mostly open space Small businesses in parcel 1, same in 2 with some housing, parcel 3 should be very green-walking path, park, ball fields. I would be open to the idea of Parcel 3 being used for more business-like things (restaurants, etc.) as long as if they fit the character of Lake Elmo. I love the idea of maintaining the beauty of Parcels 1 and 2 and adding more trails (biking, etc.). In order to benefit the community, all three parcels should be kept as is, or at most, a nature preserve may be created out of all three parcels. The sunrise over these parcels of land is stunningly beautiful, and it is the responsibility of the city to maintain this natural beauty. Other developmental interests strongly contradict the wishes of local residents. Connectivity and accessibility I understand Commercial development on parcels one and two, but do not think any commercial development on parcel three is necessary at all. This city and community severely lack park/field/court spaces, and general public space to utilize by its residents. I understand some residential development for parcel 3, but for a 180 acre parcel, mixing residential and park/family/field space would sufficiently fill that space- especially with the existing surrounding neighborhoods and living spaces already there. Think of the benefits the entire city and its residents would be able to enjoy here! We don't need brick and mortar or any business wasting its usefulness. Put that in Parcels 1 and 2. Bring real public parks and recreation amenities to the city If they were left to nature More activities for community engagement The draw of Lake Elmo has always been its rural setting and strong community. The explosion of "pop-up housing" has drastically diminished this, so this new development needs to embrace those qualities before we become another Woodbury or Eagan. We need more connectivity as a community. Gathering places, walking paths, ways for people ot walk to downtown etc. Maintain the character of the city by not shoving warehouses down our throats. Provide additional tax revenue that benefits through a site that will attract high quality services, businesses, housing. Please maintain a high standard while you consider any development and do references on developers. Lake Elmo needs to use the income to pay unreimbursed costs associated with the PFAS remediation. Do a phased development so that the income from phase I sales can be used to pay for installing infrastructure to make the phase II plots more valuable positive cost impact (lower taxes) to neighboring residents, safe and clean area, minimal impact on water (usage) and cost Please reference above noted concerns. Leave as green, wildlife, reserve areas. We don’t want to look like Woodbury with dozens of commercial buildings springing up all over the place! Keeping the rural feel by not cramming structures onto every inch of space so it still feels rural. I really think a large community pool with water features would be a big win and draw revenue while supplying jobs to teenagers (lifeguards, snack shack, check-in, etc). minimal commercial buildings and single family homes Single family homes only with minimum lot size of 1 acre. No large commercial properties. Large natural habitat areas, particularly near creeks and woods. No more housing, the area can’t sustain more people living here with our current water availability issues. More open spaces, parks, walking trails. It has to somehow preserve the rural character of Lake Elmo. This should not become “Oakdale East”. Don't do it Park like, walkable business community that can double as a stunning gathering location for residents. Would be great to host fine art shows, orchestras/bands during non business hours… Permitting will be key. Control of event types will be crucial to make sure it doesn’t become a negative. Absolutely NOT Parks, walking trails, Maintain the transition barrier we have from surrounding communities to keep Lake Elmo rural feel It would benefit the community to have green space and community gathering space, park space. We are in need of more parks and open space not industrial and office space. Leave undeveloped Keeping it open space Commercial development in parcels away from the current neighborhood to prevent noise and traffic pollution. Leaving green said space and trails to keep the extensive wildlife currently occupying parcel 3. opportunity to use some of parcel 3 for mandated high-density housing If all three parcels were used as a nature preserve with trails. If the land was used in this way, residents could enjoy time outdoors while native species and salient ecosystems could be protected. Lake Elmo is far too developed and has a rapidly growing population that it’s infrastructure cannot support. Frequently, we face issues pertaining to water restrictions and power outages, likely due to the expanding population, that the city is unable to accommodate. Also, part of Lake Elmo’s appeal/charm is that it feels like a small town but is conveniently located near grocery stores and activities in nearby suburbs. If these parcels are used to put up more housing or to introduce more businesses, Lake Elmo will lose part of what makes it desirable. I care very deeply about this city. Please preserve the open fields and the nature that inhabits it before it’s too late. Thank you for reading my response, and I hope you take my thoughts into consideration. If they were sold to single family homes with agricultural zoning A focus on community spaces and not development of the land Nothing Open space, parks, trails Mixed use where it’s easy to walk to a park, restaurant, coffee shop, church or gym. Think about the things you can walk to in a town environment like White Bear Lake or Afton and recreate the vibe. Maybe the centerpiece is a theatre, outdoor music venue or a community orchard or skating rink. Less franchising to make this feel more like a community and less like Woodbury sprawling (suburban expansion). Preserving green space Not becoming Woodbury! Open space/land is healthy and inviting! Parks a large park with walking trails etc. No more housing enough is enough. If a businesses go in there, small businesses that fit and benefit the community. As long as it’s not a sea of homes- that is unattractive and we lose the small town and farm town feel I would love more ecofriendly designs and have protected lands. It would be nice to have apartments with many trees surrounded Not sure exactly what as you are in a difficult position - hard to find a balance that will satisfy everyone. Lower taxes would benefit everyone but so would having some commercial development that we don't currently have in the area Creating opportunities for affordable housing in addition to job creation by bringing in business development. Adding some sort of amenity that would benefit the residents across the City (e.g., noisy pickleball courts or a skatepark could be well suited to co-occur within industrial/commercial areas such as those being proposed in parcels 1 and 2). In parcel 3, creating a "complete" neighborhood focused on people (vs cars or only commercial), where people can easily live, work, recreate, access transportation, and attend to other common matters (e.g. groceries, medical care, etc). Development of especially Parcel 3 should only happen if absolutely necessary. If it is absolutely necessary, it should not destroy the scenic lakeside demeanor of the community, but should add community benefits that complement existing development and preserve green trees and wildlife corridors and habitats as much as possible. Increased tax revenue for the City with minimal cost impact. Replacing farmland. None Preservation of the natural beauty but an area that showcases Lake Elmo as a distinct community. Nothing that would create noise, eys sore, impact of the residential communities nearby. Parcel 1: Commercial with walking trails; Parcel 2: Commercial, housing and open space; Parcel 3: Park, trails and other open space A mix of commercial and possibly high-density residential space (tomehomes/apartments) Long-term thinking. Connecting the communities. Develop in such a way that all pockets of Lake Elmo have reason to interact with the new spaces rather than simply drive by the ‘new’ neighborhood. Adding retail options that the community would use and shop at (grocery, small businesses), community center with athletic and crafting spaces. Community usability and economic opportunities In order to benefit the community, there should be careful consideration for land preservation, environmental impact. and emphasis on green energy. Planning must include ease of use for pedestrians, cyclists and public transportation. Residential buildings should have a mix of options to accommodate all income levels. Green spaces must be included and an emphasis on sustainability and community benefit. Commercial spaces and businesses should use green materials whenever possible. Increased structures and spaces for current residents - community center, baseball fields, trails, community gathering spaces Lake Elmo needs to retain its small town charm. Create something like Mendota Heights has - a community gathering place, business offices, high end housing, restaurants, a mini downtown feel with space would take advantage of our beautiful spring, summer and fall MN weather. Area is perfectly situated for local residents to visit as well as close to the freeway to attract others. Do something unique and beautiful! The 25 to 39 million dollar construction cost estimates for a new Ballpark could be paid by the rental fees from other cities thus saving the pristine natural areas that are so irreplaceable. Safety would be better . Open space for people and woods for wildlife. Park and event space Keep as much of the rural feel as possible. Don't turn it into another 50 shades of gray, small lot, big house, all-look-alike housing development. Develop parcels so the operating and maintenance costs of PFAS filtration are mitigated using the revenue pool acquired through development and increased tax dollars. More retail Balance of mixed use, land/green preservation, revenue generating. Truthfully, the thought of this development is an awful shame to the Lake Elmo I’ve always known. We are killing our charm by continuing to develop. By doing this, you’re simply contributing to Lake Elmo becoming Woodbury, and no one wants that. Please stop doing this. Some tax revenue, housing, and trails would benefit the community. Integrated parks/ open space and tax revenue generated No more churches, banks, and gas stations Libraries and small restaurants are nice. Maintain the rural, open Lake Elmo feel If it is a space that can be used by the community and to attract people to the area. Stop all of the development and try to preserve some of the natural areas and wildlife that make the area lucrative. We don't need another Woodbury! Sad to see all of the building that wasn't supposed to be allowed in previous comprehensive plans for Lake Elmo. Don’t develop. Listen to the community. No one wants increased development. Green space, open space, high quality design Don’t overdo it, nobody that lives in Lake Elmo wants to live in Woodbury, so don’t make it look/feel like Woodbury. Big warehouses, franchise retail, and cookie cutter houses that are densely packed together is the antithesis of the character of Lake Elmo. Leave them Alone as open green space instead of filling every single space with crap We need businesses to support our residents - places to eat, shop, etc. For example, the restaurants in town are so crowded, you can't get a table many times. Some casual food places, or even a pizza delivery business. Beautiful landscaping with desirable businesses To leave us with undeveloped space. Lake Elmo is not only becoming depressingly developed, but it also lacks any whatsoever and the box-like houses and cheap construction and architecture, along with the the decimation of all of the trees and greenspace is truly truly sad. Terrible city planning and no concern for future. We have so many housing developments but not enough outdoor parks to allow the kids to play, families to gather, etc. The new Lions park is not big enough, you can’t even have a picnic, or congregate. A park with covered picnic tables, maybe a single ball field and some playground equipment would be great for all the new families If the completed parcels have something everyone in the community will shop/visit/attend/tour, etc. It won’t help my taxes. By the questions you have already made your decisions. We already have issues for drinking water so how does this work? Community center / indoor park Lowering tax burden Nothing Keep it natural. Stop pushing out the wildlife. All this building needs to stop! Some sort of community space/park None. Stop with the development of every single parcel of land. The tax revenue argument needs to be put to rest, as you've developed land near 94 for the last 7 years. Let there be some buffer for Lake Elmo residents and existing businesses. Should be all commercial with NO housing!!!! We have too much already. We need the commercial to offset all the housing. Way too much development and light pollution around the regional park already. Need to connect regional park to sunfish lake park with a wildlife overpass on hwy 14. Too many dead deer and other animals struck by traffic. Only a benefit if it was natural with limited development Jobs and or commercial that would benefit the city. Park and open green space for residents. A variety of restaurants Perhaps maybe a smaller Dog perk area some benches place for community to sit and gather amenities for the existing community like replacing the things the other expansion took away Business tax revenue to offset the growth in housing. Continue funding all of the work the city is doing to support the community. Tax revenue generation Keep commercial and brick and mortar on parcel 1 & 2. Housing and park/field/light retail on Parcel 3. This city doesn't need more industrial/brick and mortar. Desperately needs more community parks/field/public use. Understand housing needs to naturally increase, but doesn't need to impact surrounding existing neighborhoods. It depends on the use. Opposed to More single family homes A commercial hub and gateway to the village area of Lake Elmo. Retail and places for people to visit and locals to work. If housing is involved, community would benefit from premium options instead of affordable housing. Increase tax base and economic value of our city Putting in more restaurants shopping etc Commercial Lake Elmo has no medical no grocery store High quality shopping and walkable trails Community center. Splash pad, something lake Elmo children can use for little cost No housing Not much - there’s so little green space left. We’re losing what makes Lake Elmo beautiful. Would love to see pHave to increase shopping and restaurants to keep up with the amount of development in that area. Limit the townhomes and apartments to allow for a more single family homes on .25 acre lots or larger that can actually allow for some privacy. Keeping some of it open while increasing connectivity to the area Until the water issue is resolved put a hold on new building. It generates significant revenue while not looking like typical suburban sprawl. Connectivity The value of this community has been its opposition to development. Whatever you build, destroys the value of this community. If it improved the sense of community, appealed to young families who will help the surrounding area grow and prosper. A family friendly destination that still has a small town community feel with places for gathering (splash pad), restaurants, other outdoor options Please don’t do a bunch of cookie cutter new builds. We don’t need that Nope, keep it farm land or green space. Less housing Keeping all section 8 out. Car condo with club house and area to hold community events Lake Elmo's had many housing and business developments over the last few years, and with them, the green space is disappearing. Please try to incorporate nature and sustainability into whatever you choose. As I noted in the next question, it feels like we are turning everything into concrete and lights. Also consider the residents who live here. We aren't opposed to change, but we live here and have to live with the results. There is already businesses south of 14, so businesses there would be appropriate. They should just be the kind that minimize traffic, including no large trucks in and out. Since the north side has been overgrown with new home development, it would be better to leave more natural space. If they are anything except those large shipping style buildings you see along the south side of 94/Manning Ave. in Woodbury. Too many of those going up everywhere. Make something unique to attract new businesses. No more houses Keep Lake Elmos character and unique environment with the development. Help make it a “must live” in area Green space, commercial retail. No high density high rise buildings Having more environmental friendly areas. Reducing speed limit on ideal. Not making it more congested then it already is If the speed limit on ideal was lowered to 30mph. It is like a freeway now and will only get worse with all this development. If the sports complex were situated here, if it retained significant green space and it had a strong sense of place. Not allowing commercial development Unique thoughtful architecture, businesses that benefit the community and are good neighbors. Not another fast food spot, gas station or car wash . Stop building More green space, less development More business, enough with all the houses Added retail, commercial & restaurants Keep as much green space as possible, add lots of trees, allow buildings no more than 2 stories high, no industrial, no equipment storage outside of a building, limited businesses, housing with larger lots Maintaining a barrier between Lake Elmo and Oakdale. With this being developed, I’d fear continued development would happen between this and downtown lake Elmo. I would like to see development that prioritizes preserving the character of Lake Elmo rather than maximizing the number of homes on every available piece of land. Instead of high-density housing, I believe future neighborhoods should include larger 1- to 2-acre lots that reflect the rural, open feel that makes Lake Elmo unique. Preserving farmland, open space, and the community’s agricultural character is important. Growth should be thoughtful and balanced, ensuring Lake Elmo retains the qualities that residents value while accommodating responsible development. Maintain as much rural green space as possible. None None Keep it open. The city does not have the water infrastructure to support this. Prioritizing of green space Natural forests and parks for wildlife Lake Elmo needs more community, if businesses prefer small rather than big business. 55 plus one level living affordable would be ideal. Not in the $500,000 starting. If it maintained the rural history of Lake Elmo and preserved more open spaces and parks for current residents. Leave as is. We enjoy the fields. I loved this area due to the country appeal while being close to the city if you lose the "wilderness appeal" you lose residents Preserve beauty and character Keep the safe and calm natural of the neighborhoods Defining the space in a way that makes it useful and accessible to current residents while preserving the small-town feel that Lake Elmo has become known for. If you added a baseball complex that would support the Lake Elmo Baseball Association Business park/industrial doesn't make sense at all. What kind of small manufacturing jobs would you actually attract? There's already tons of empty office space in the surrounding areas. The area would benefit from keeping a larger percentage of open space than the Willowbrooke neighborhood did. Community center - gym - pet store - park No new housing, no new businesses, and no new office parks- all are eyesores that have zero growth potential. Light retail, a restaurant, trees, bike path We could use a diner like Mac's in North St. Paul. Creating paved trails to get there. Pickleball/tennis courts away from residential areas. If made residential, refer back to the 1acre lots rather than another high-density development. Preserving space, but if you need to have community things like a nature hiking trail, parks, etc. Something we can all enjoy and a little development isn't awful, but ensuring we are preserving the place we all fell in love with. I think we should make sports fjekds like specified previously Leave rural charm make it small Preserve our open space To leave as is Bike paths A community pool, or outdoor water park like at Eagan, ice skating rink, soccer dome, something that keeps our residents in lake Elmo versus going to other cities to spend money. No more chain restaurants, we don’t need more Starbucks or chick fil A. We need small businesses. Sunshine coffee has brought so much community to downtown lake Elmo. I’d rather support small businesses all day. A community center with a pool, park and facilities That it brings in more money than it costs. Maybe leave this space empty for a while for future (in-predictable) needs. Small businesses with some single family housing, NOT section 8! You should create an athletic complex. More retail mixed with open space and character that matches Lake Elmo. Maintain the natural setting as much as possible. Careful consideration to the existing commercial options in the area, prioritizing any non-existent essential resources and housing over duplicative retailers. Not developing them! You have already destroyed every inch of what made Lake Elmo great with over development and all of these garbage apartments and town homes. Decreasing all of our property values and making everyone with a brain move out of the state. Leave it 3/4 natural parks and wetlands and then add in homes that are built by a local builder like Creative Custom who has shown they care about the land and build locally Creating and attracting true living wage jobs to allow residents to both live and work in the City of Lake Elmo. This is beneficial to the city from a revenue perspective and also minimizes traffic concerns. Long term thinking. On the order of 50 to 100 years. Maintaining green space Community Center Make them fit the area. Don't just put in trashy Lennar homes again like you allowed in Savona. Keeping natural spaces Spaces that encourage the community to gather and bringing in small businesses and local restaurants. Need to have business there that are used day to day not every now and then. Need to bring people back into Lake Elmo & Oakdale away from Woodbury to the monies stay in our area. Community green space, maybe a restaurant and a small housing development, but majority nature preservation With all the construction happening in Lake Elmo, I'm hoping there is some preservation of open parcels of land for recreation. Leave space for the community to be in nature. Save habitats and trees for the animals to live and for us to enjoy. We have so many new builds crowding in... by cheap builders. Please prioritize keeping natural habitat. Preserving open space. Using trees and berms. Having the buildings be of high quality and distinctive design. Protecting the community from development drawbacks such as increased traffic, noise, and light at night. A family restaurant No not at all No more houses Fits with the overall goals of the community, isn't an eye sore, not a public nuisance with sound and sight If there was a priority for a community rec center with a community pool Preserving the environmental space. We moved out of Woodbury because it was so overdeveloped. The natural space should be protected and so should the wildlife within it. It is was made this community. Prioritizes and protects the health and wellbeing of the community and environment that supports the community Maintaining as much green open space as possible. There are so many townhouse going up already, we really need more? Leave it be. We don’t want anymore apartments The benefit is leaving the green open space alone. If no longer farming the space then plant lots of trees Living wage housing combined with ample green spaces If the density of the development was kept at a low level and reducing impact to the existing neighborhoods was a top priority. Community center geared toward families Something that would make the community proud to have So many opportunities to add to the Lake Elmo character and set it apart from other suburbs. Lake Elmo has the opportunity to attract all ages, including younger folks if the development includes mixed-use housing. Doing nothing, leaving the green space as is Any development of parcels 1 & 2 are likely to have a negative impact on home values in the area, not to mention the likely increase in traffic. Parcels 1 & 2 could be turned into a mix of retail and commercial as it could be argued we need more of those in the area. Green Space and parks that the kids and residents can use. Lake Elmo park system is poor Increased tax revenue, utilities and service improvements. Development at a much slower pace than what is currently happening in Lake Elmo - over development. Maintaining a rural feel - I chose to live here because there is very little commercial space and traffic. I remember the day when Gorman's had tp fright to get a permit for a take out window because the city council didn’t want a “McDonalds” feel in Lake Elmo. Light industrial, are you kidding? Oakdale and Woodbury have a “developed”feel with many nearby amenities and commercial spaces for all to use when wanted. We aren’t living there for a reason. “You don’t know what you’ve got until its gone” Parks and greenspace with trails maintain feel of small town, green space and connected community Job creation that is not subsidized by tax payers and does not become an unattractive blight for the community. no At most creating spaces for the community (parks, trails, etc.) NOT industrial spaces, NOT housing developments. Either leave nature alone or help it along. I would love to see further implementation of walkways and trails that connect and bolster traveling by bicycle throughout Lake Elmo. No benefit at all to the people who live here. You just want to make money and screw everyone else. The sale and development of these parcels will only be a benefit to the community if you hold true to reducing the 31% debt service. Is there anything else you’d like decision-makers to consider when planning this project? Text Responses: Anticipate a light rail connector station somewhere in the vicinity Lake Elmo is still a small town, and we need to keep it that way. Whatever happens here should focus on keeping the Old Village small and quaint without taking away from the great small businsses that rely on that location. Expansion for the tax base is important with this project, but not at the risk of damaging the Old Village area. Please include Basketball in any parks planned, and find a way to connect trails to make the city more bike/ pedestrian friendly. I also think the city could use more grocery options No more housing developments Traffic and pedestrian safety and flow. If you’re trying to over develop the town either way don’t be fake with asking the community what they want and then totally ignore it. That’s what the city has been doing and i’m sure will continue to do. Be with the people if you actually care about our opinions. No one wants Lake Elmo to be the next shopping center town. Keep Lake Elmo rural and SAFE. Single family homes, green space and businesses > workforce housing, transitional housing, apartments, high density. we have enough housing sprouting up everywhere. how about some amenities let's bring in other developers besides massive apartment complexes and Lennar homes. Please build a softball pinwheel complex. Prioritize the wishes of current neighbors of the three parcels. We live here. WHY was the community not informed earlier? What city council meeting minutes included Lake Elmo's "decision" to sell the land? The lack of clarity, visability and input is embarssing and does not serve the people of Lake Elmo who truely own the land. If commerical keep it nice like Eagle Point. We already have way too many apartments along I-94 with more to come in Limmerick Village!! No more housing - negative impact to school district/schools/emergency services. Makes Lake Elmo less desire able to live NO DATA CENTER!!!!!!!!!!! Stop turning lake Elmo into Woodbury. Honestly, I think it was a dumb decision to buy land near sunfish lake park to create a ball field vs, using part of parcel 3. This land is the main introduction to Lake Elmo. With the ease of getting out to 694 and other retail across ideal I think it's a waste to dedicate too much to indistrial/warehousing. I'd love to see more entertainment, retail and community space. There should be a bike trail/path on north side of 34th st, county 14 to Manning. Lake Elmo has a horrible walkability. No baseball or sport specific development as not all LE citizens play baseball or other sports. Keep the rural feel of the city. Please think long term. We never thought Tartan Park would turn into executive homes. Any businesses will bring in tax dollars, but the best ones can also provide for the community both with jobs and services (retail, commercial, experiential, etc). Please stop developing every inch and parcel of land in the entire city. Understand the Met Council has forced your hand for many years but at what point do you give it a rest and allow residence to actually live in the space? Please don’t over crowd our town with dense population centers We aren't getting tax revenue from the land now and we're doing just fine. Please don't prioritize money over long term sustainability and park benefits. No high density housing or low,income housing No Please consider this as the “gateway” into Lake Elmo, so think about the overall Aesthitiq for people driving in from the west. 3M gave our community this as a result of contaminating our water would be fitting to have something positive with water (ie with a large pool local swim teams and hs can host meets and events which would bring in revenue and people to the area) No more business developments and housing projects. Preserve this open space and keep it natural. Best thing would be to let the farmers keep working the land. We need the green spaces. Make a nature preserve there. Anything but more houses Please anything we do keep Lake Elmo feeling rural. This is why we came here because of all the parks and green space. How is this business park going to be different than recent developments like 4 front across the street No AI data center or Amazon warehouse the city needs to hold a city-wide open meeting to discuss this project. Is the city in financial difficulty and needs to sell this for financial gain? Currently, just as in cities across the country, pickleball noise is a growing issue. I feel strongly that the City should combine an equal or greater number of pickleball courts in one large center. If it doesn't fit into the new complex next to Sunfish Lake Park, placing it near the Public Works building would be an ideal spot. It can be placed away from current and new residential spaces to avoid noise complaints. Removing courts from existing neighborhood parks will leave areas for different types of park amenities to be added to our parks. There has been enough building and development of land in Lake Elmo. No more. Culture of Lake Elmo. We moved to Lake Elmo for nature, outdoors and open spaces. In the 6 years we have been here, it feels more like Woodbury everyday. We specifically chose Lake Elmo over Woodbury for those reasons. At the growth rate, Lake Elmo no longer has the charm it once did. I would encourage city to understand what makes Lake Elmo so special and ensure the decision meets the city’s vision statement of the residents. think sustainable and quality of life; maintain the unique feel Lake Elmo has of being "rural suburb" ----do not become just another suburb or an urban center Consider a food hall like they’ve done at The Market at Malcom Yards in Minneapolis. It allows for many businesses and creates a community space. It feels to me like the ship has already sailed on this project. Still, if I am wrong on this and there is still someone who has the power to decide to leave the land as farmland, that would be the absolute best choice. The rural feel is the best part about Lake Elmo and is the reason I moved here in the first place. My responses to this survey will have no effect whatsoever on the “decision makers”. They are seeking a rubber stamp for what they are already going to do. Costco No commercial properties AT ALL Noise pollution Leave it alone take care of what you've already ruined.. most of lake Elmo in the past 23 years I've been here continued questionable development style,tactics, vision ...with limited experience individuals really frustrating. Leave the open space alone before you ruin every single spot there is. what a gateway to lake Elmo... industrial warehousing lovely just a joke sick of these inconsequential surveys with absolutely no results. last time submitted... One day late and was disregarded completely. By the way Ive tried calling public works building sometime with an issue never call back... Why don't you tackle something like that which actually could potentially be handled?? So over your head in most of these instances people are sick of it More retail in this area as well as community space will bring more ppl into the area and increase the quality of life for residents. Don’t take Lake Elmo away from us. There’s a reason we all love to live here. And it’s not for the mega developments, rentals, townhomes, etc. Money should not be the number reason to rush into developing the open lands. We don't need to develop every piece of open land. We need open spaces to preserve our rural feel and sense of Lake Elmo community. Please take time to consider all options for this property and ensure any design and development of parcel 3 gives extra considerations to the two existing Lake Elmo neighborhoods. This site should have a strong nature focused aesthetic in the landscaping and site design features. Consider holding on to some land for future city needs or uses. Parcel 1 and 2 should be designed in a way that any building and site uses blend into the landscape and have lighting controls to eliminate or greatly reduce light pollution. The city owes it to our residents to do this right and just not sell out. Make this something special that makes even the most strongly opposed realize the potential. Less than 1% of mn's native prairies remain. In order to support our future for generations to come we must work to restore these spaces. Please consider the effects on Wildflower Shores (neighborhood directly east and downhill of parcel 3) with the addition of the commercial development in parcel 3. Commercialization of this parcel will have a significant impact on the neighborhood with increased lighting, noise, traffic and commercialization of the rural area that attracted us to this area and we love More for kids enough building in that area - limit commercial spaces to the I94 corridor in the south part of the city We live right across the street from Parcel 1. We moved to Anna's Grove a couple years ago because we love the rural feel. We're significantly disheartened at the thought of having Parcels 1 and 2 being dedicated to "light" or "heavy industrial" use. Enough to make us question if we should move. We can make a concession with the thought of the area being dedicated to single family homes since we know there is a housing crisis and this could alleviate some of that strain on the market. But we moved here mainly because the beauty of the area so we're really discouraged at the thought of that being taken away so quickly after moving here. We hate the thought of exiting Anna's Grove daily only to look at business buildings filled with employee parking (or worse - semitrucks parked or outdoor storage). We're less worried about Parcel 3 developments and are more open to that being developed for some smaller businesses (like restaurants, etc.). I've talked to quite a few of the neighbors and I know a lot of them feel the same way. One of our neighbors has already decided to move, and I'm sure there might be more to follow if plans were to dedicate Parcels 1 and 2 to heavy industrial use. If you need more info from me, I live at 7819 31st St. in Anna's Grove across the street from Parcel 1. Thanks, and sorry to complain. I know you have a difficult job and are only trying to help do things like provide more services, reduce taxes, add more housing options to reduce strain on the market, etc. I totally get it. Just wanted to be honest about how the whole development is making us feel. Thanks. ~Michael Daniels The sincere wish of residents to maintain the current beauty of all three parcels. Also want to make very clear there is no need to connect the existing neighborhoods to it with trails and/or roads. All that would do is increase unnecessary traffic and impede on safety and security of these neighborhoods- which is a grave concern of ours. If having 2+ entrance/exits to this area is the concern, that could be fulfilled utilizing Cty Rd 14, and Ideal Ave. I want real parks and recreation to make lake Elmo a city to rival Wayzata and cities that develop true “third place” for their residents No through street to Iris Ave in the third parcel.People use the street for walking , running and biking. Please consider looking at other cities and seeing how their planning mistakes have impacted the people who live there. Also, please consider the amount of utility resources like water are needed before construction actually begins. thanks for your work on thsi project ensure streets are adequate for traffic It’s already getting jammed in an overcrowded leave some nice open space Not at this time. Keep in mind the infrastructure, or lack thereof. Traffic flows in the area are worsening already. Any development here will also impact co rd 6 and Inwood interchange. Additionally, the roundabout at 14 & 6 is crumbling already. Increasing traffic loads will significantly impact the roads. It would be good to have more places that the community can utilize for gathering, recreation, community education, etc. Not sure Lake Elmo is a rural community at heart with green open spaces that its residents love. Let’s please keep it that way. Keep Lake Elmo beautiful. We don’t want to be Woodbury. We don’t want every square inch covered with thoughtless retail, tight living spaces/lots or apartments. Keep it all green space. Add ball fields and soccer fields along with playgrounds, picnic areas and walking trails Extremely disappointed at the idea of developing this and building more houses. We moved to lake Elmo ten years ago for the rural and country like setting. No more cookie cutter houses. WE DO NOT WANT TO BECOME THE NEXT WOODBURY Please do your best to balance tax needs and maintaining community look and feel Please keep in mind the residents of the surrounding area and their property values when making decisions on developing this land. Thank you Some areas of Lake Elmo have contaminated water. Is there a plans to handle any issues that arise from that area as it looks like its close Consider compatibility near the neighborhoods with walking paths and parks in between any commercial or residenetial building to prevent unwanted activity. development of parcels should not increase financial burden of residents. development should be a cash positive plan See answer to previous question. To reiterate my previous point, I would urge decision-makes to consider avenues outside of those that would be most profitable. In the time I’ve lived here, I’ve watched several parcels of land turn into housing developments and their natural beauty destroyed. Not only has this fast paced development of the city resulted in residential turmoil and distress, but in doing so, it has put profit over the environment (and the people inhabiting it!). Please consider turning this land into a green space with trails for citizens to use. The city cannot sustain this current exponential population growth, which would undoubtedly increase if more housing or businesses were introduced. Thank you for your time and consideration. Stop developing. We have had power grid issues since the development across the road was put in. Those problems need to be addressed before considering adding additional strain. Also, we have seen property tax increases every year over the last few years - I strongly oppose further development if it will continue that trend. Please don’t extend a road into the Wildflower Shores development Be an example of how to manage storm water without collecting it in “pollution ponds” Preservation of the farm heritage by trails, nature, and features that speak to the history of lake elmo. Benches, signs, walking, biking, spots to gather, parks. Perhaps it might be a good idea to be sure adequate water is available to the Lake Elmo community before any additional development occurs. Don’t be like Woodbury! Light pollution Lake Elmo use to have a small town feel. Now all we see is house upon house, trees being remover and green space disappearing. What about the big water shortage? Community family center and gym with swimming and trails- focus on community gathering The use of trees as it can help minimize the runoff. I would love the space to reduce storm runoff as it causes pollution to waterways. Adding some sort of amenity that would benefit the residents across the City (e.g., pickleball courts could be well suited to co-occur within industrial/commercial areas such as those being proposed in parcels 1 and 2). Please think carefully before selling these properties. Once sold or leased, another piece of the valuable and cherished rural character of Lake Elmo will be lost forever. Less housing please. There’s already so much traffic on Ideal The site should represent current businesses and residential development in neighboring community of Oakdale and provide commercial services that benefit Lake Elmo and regional residents. Keeping in mind green space and linking to current trails and paths. Long-term thinking. Would love more shopping options in Lake Elmo, especially for groceries Design that fits the surrounding natural landscape N/a We don’t want to become a smaller Woodbury Please deal with the water issues before considering new development Make sure you are reaching out and listening to the residents in the OP development and also addressing the need of our maintenance garage. Too much money being spend. on consultants who do not live in Lake Elmo or care about the community. Don't overly commercialize the land. No banks or credit unions No data centers No I would like you to consider preserving the undeveloped land. No. Traffic stress in the area Please keep the character of Lake Elmo in mind when planning out the project. Lake Elmo is close to so many things and places but still has that removed and rural feeling, and it would be easy for the city sprawl to eliminate that with a lot of commercial or shopping center development. Does Lake Elmo really need more development? New welcome to lake Elmo Sign is “Land for Sale”. Does the city council or mayor know how to say “No” I have been a Lake Elmo resident for 13 years. Infrastructure has not been implemented successfully for growth. For example, lack of water, increased traffic, consistent black-outs. Also, the development has been low quality with little character. North Star neighborhood (dense & little green space) franchise businesses (aldi, Starbucks & chipotle) are examples. Lastly, property tax increases are significant year to year even though Lake Elmo is growing. Why? Lake El The ridiculous amount of development is destroying this community. Thank you for asking residents opinions! Lake Elmo went from sweet, quaint, and refreshing to very sad development that I have heard even young children comment on. Lake Elmo residents built homes in Wildflower Shores with farmland all around them. Let’s not turn this into a commercial property! Keep those areas near the freeways not peoples homes. Lower cost of services and increase tax base. Also, maintain rural character. As above- disappointed but if you feel better asking these questions - good for you. Lake Elmo needs more foot and bike paths, it’s too pretty here to make it another driving-only suburb Make it make sense. Too much of the developed space has become a mini Woodbury and it’s hard to take back space once it’s developed into townhomes & apartment buildings. Lake Elmo used to be unique. Why do we have to pave over and develop every single inch of open land? Our taxes are over $5K for a normal home now - what more do you want?? Keep it the way it is! Stop pushing out all the wildlife and inviting all sorts of of nuisances into the community. This is no longer the quaint safe feeling community that it once was. Business and low income housing is only inviting more problems. Well designed with trees and walking paths. Consider not making every single piece of land or green space into a parking lot or apartment building. No one wants more expensive apartments. If you want to build houses. fine, but we are all SO tired of apartment buildings going up. It increases traffic and usually they are huge so they take away any chance of green space any one else could use. Stop with the development of every single parcel of land. The tax revenue argument needs to be put to rest, as you've developed land near 94 for the last 7 years. Let there be some buffer for Lake Elmo residents and existing businesses. Revenue > expense I’d like the city to think about what’s best for the city long-term and be leary of very loud voices who don’t support the best thing for the city…you’re in your seats to make the hard decisions, not the popular ones. This is the perfect and logical area for commercial. Please do not include housing or mixed use which had put a strain on our infrastructure and schools! How many residents does LE need? Where are the small sustainable and affordable houses that are needed? The questions are all biased toward pro development. Are you going to make Lake Elmo Ave a four lane street or punch Keats avenue through the regional park as a four lane to accommodate all the future traffic being created? Please stop trying to develop every square mile of Lake Elmo! Our taxes are too high already. We don’t need to be Woodbury. The homes bordering the north of parcel 3 are rural. We would appreciate a large buffer or green space between our homes and any development to maintain the value and character of our neighborhood. We have a lot to wildlife serenity now, that is why we moved here, please create a nice buffer space. No more houses please we need some community areas where people can gather in a social setting perhaps more outdoor restaurant styles why does there need to be continued expansion, if we have hit our quotas the stop, the other business areas are not populating, the proposed restaurants have not opened...sustainment is key Tax revenue generation Minimal impact on surrounding existing neighborhoods. NO BRICK AND MORTAR on parcel 3 - at the very LEAST, not adjacent to existing neighborhoods. DO NOT connect Parcel 3 to existing neighborhoods with roads/trails/outlets. Preserve our safety and security of limiting traffic to our current neighborhood residents. Implement green space between existing neighborhoods and Parcel 3 to create a natural buffer and minimize impact. We understand housing is going to be increased, but this city desperately needs more park/field/public use space among them. Business and commercial can go on the south parcels 1 & 2. Do not want lake elmo to become the next Woodbury. Too Much traffic and noise Non-chain dining experiences in the commercial area. And high quality light industrial spaces and design in zone 1. I think there is too much new housing and not enough shopping and restaurants Make sure it's commercial Don't make it look like Oakdale I am so tired of watching you tear up green spaces and trees!! We moved here for the green space and rural area. Send life all the City is doing is trying to be the next Woodbury! I am so disappointed in this curry! You are doing a get job with helping increase global warming Might be a good area for a pickle ball park too. Avoid low income housing Na No housing That’s kind of the gateway from Oakdale to Lake Elmo - how you handle it sets the tone for the rest of the area and what is to come. Soon you won’t be able to distinguish Lake Elmo from Oakdale, Woodbury or Oak Park Heights. Such a waste. We are so tired of the crammed developments with associations and cookie cutter national builders all over the area. Bring in more local builders on larger lot sizes (at least .25 - .50) that actually can allow for a yard, shed, etc while keeping the investment more local. We would love to move into Lake Elmo, but hate the tight crammed neighborhoods with restrictive HOAs and poor quality from national builders. We have several friends in the same boat as well waiting for this type of option to happen at a reasonable price point ($550k- $600k). Consider all the other residential development we've already had and the commercial/retail facilities were missing Lake Elmo needs jobs more than it needs another housing development Splash Pad Here or Downtown Think about young families and their needs Don’t develop it We need little shops and restaurants not insurance agencies banks and nail salons Do something unique. What defines Lake Elmo As a long time resident (over 26 years) who lives in the property directly north of Parcel 3, I would like to encourage the decision makers to please consider a balance of progress with maintaining some of the rural charm of the area. Please consider those of us that live here, people and wildlife. The development of the property on the west side of Ideal has caused a large amount of traffic, along with noise & light pollution (headlights shining in my windows at all hours, along with the parking lot lights). It has also displaced the wildlife that lived there. We have a many deer, turkeys and other wildlife living in the fields and woods of Parcel 3 (I'm sure 1 & 2 are the same). Whatever changes are made, please try to incorporate nature into the decisions, and keep Lake Elmo beautiful. What's been done so far has not done a great job of that. Ideal Ave. is all concrete (some trees in the median would have been nice), and roundabouts would have been much preferred over intersections (for future stoplights). They look nicer with grass and flowers, but also slow down the large number of cars going way too fast on Ideal (ask me how many times a week we almost get rear-ended trying to turn into our driveway). There are many open lots in the Oakdale business park just to the west. It would be nice to have something different than these, like nicer restaurants. Just to make it unique to the area. Would rather it be left empty than see the big shipping/storage buildings that have been going up everywhere. Some fun places to compete with top golf and other local entertainment businesses. Restaurants. Keep it green as possible No high density high rise building The amount of traffic on ideal is my biggest concern. Consider making the 76 acres purchased for the sports complex into oak-savanna restoration and add it to Sunfish Lake Park. We need more of the "old lake elmo" neighborhoods. 2+ acre lots. Not developments from national builders on 0.25 acre lots who's buyers are first time home buyers and let their yards grow out of control. Good community input . Thanks for the opportunity to share. We have expanded too much already. Fire station needs All the expansion has changed Lake Elmo too much Don’t repeat the Meijer fiasco. Please keep the vibe of rural MN. We don't want another Woodbury with every possible retail or business. I hope future development focuses on creating a true sense of community, not just maximizing revenue. I’d love to see investments in amenities that benefit Lake Elmo families, such as a community center similar to Shoreview’s with pools, parks, gathering spaces, and outdoor recreation that residents can enjoy year-round. As the city grows, I also hope new businesses are thoughtfully selected to complement the surrounding neighborhoods and meet the needs of residents. It’s equally important to preserve our trails, natural areas, and open spaces while planning housing that fits the character of Lake Elmo, rather than simply maximizing the number of homes that can be built. Thoughtful, balanced growth will help maintain the qualities that make Lake Elmo such a special place to live. I love driving 14 into lake Elmo and how rural it feels and is. Building businesses in the parcels by target makes sense. Keep parcels 3 rural feeling with residential with acreage. There are very few new build homes with acreage in the area. Nonenone Nonenone Keep it open. The city does not have the water infrastructure to support this. Pollution of natural waters. Wildlife habitats. Noise and light pollution. Increased traffic. Lake Elmo is still considered charming. Keep it that way I ask that they consider prioritizing current residents rather than future and prospect residents. I’ve watched my home town be torn apart by a council that does not have any vested interest in the unique historical and rural culture of Lake Elmo. Less lighting, noise and traffic. Stop with the overpriced apartments already Don’t let LE become Woodbury. Enough with the cookie-cutter houses! Safety! Don’t bring in more crime. I have serious concerns about Lake Elmo being over-developed. It is rapidly moving away from the type of community that drew me in originally. Lake Elmo has turned into tract housing; small lots, horrible design, not sustainable at all. you had the opportunity to do the right thing for the environment and you sold out to developers whose only goal is to squeeze every dollar they can out of the land. The city has been sitting on fund to build these fields for years. N/a No heavy industry, no High rises Increased traffic, increased population in Lake Elmo. The parcels are closer to Oakdale and North St. Paul. They will be more likely to support Oakdale and North St. Paul small business, not Lake Elmo. Just remember community and listen to what they have to say. There are people who chose to live near these parcels and it will affect them greatly. Be considerate. No As a donation from 3M; if this area is to be developed; it best be a great revenue generator for the city because the water expenses should have been fully the responsibility of 3m!! Safe on bikes Small businesses. Indoor competition pool and outdoor water park! Bring the enter tainment to Lake Elmo. The city could run it like Eagan or Eden Prairie. No Don’t rush the planning or the design, it’s easy to feel pressured from developers to rush to decisions but the city should be careful and deliberate to best serve the community now AND in the future. This site would be ideal for an athletic complex. It seems paramount that any construction would not completely close 34th St or Ideal, and especially their intersection, for any significant portion of time, since that is an important traffic flow to 694 and Lake Elmo/Stillwater. Do the right thing and fix this mess you’ve put us all in! The infrastructure needs to support the development and the businesses that invest in our community. We have ENOUGH housing. Preserve the green space that once made Lake Elmo such a desired space and community to be a part of. Make sure the home owners are okay with this that are surrounded by this area. YOu continue to put in apartment complexes off of 5th w/o approval or telling the current home owners. This is more rental and decrease in property values for existing tax payers. To many houses being built. Schools are already full. Children’s education more important then taxes and revenue With all the Development going on now in Lake Elmo our traffic flow has increased dramatically. We need to lower the speed limits. Environmental concerns are significant. We need to make sure water resources are not impacted. Moved out to this community for more of the rural/suburban mix. There are 3 current developments in Lake Elmo, there doesn’t need to be a 4th! Please do not crowd in a bunch of new homes and consider keeping the woods and some farm land for wildlife to roam (even paths around the natural habitat for us to enjoy). We have lost SO much land from neighboring new communities already. It feels so crowded and sad to see so many trees and nature gone. Don't turn us into Oakdale or Woodbury. We do not need more apartments or section 8 homes in this area Think long term and how it may set precedence for future development and influence the direction of the character of the community Please consider family friendly amenities like a public pool we can walk/bike to. Traffic has already increased so much in the area. Drivers are rude and drive way too fast. They have no concern for pedestrians or animals crossing. It has become so dangerous. None In all the priorities above for the parcels, there were no options outside of commercial or housing (e.g. green space ideas) which feels like this survey was something you had to do (e.g. you already decided) Think of the wildlife Stop building apartments and homes for low income section 8. No more homes, no more office spaces that sit empty. There is plenty of that across the street in Oakdale that are EMPTY and not being occupied. Keep any housing development low density. There is already enough new high-density housing on the Oakdale side of Ideal Ave. Why do we need to develop it at all? I think the decision makers have to look carefully at the impact to home values in the area - including the Lake Elmo side of the border. I believe that most people chose to live in this area because it "felt" rural. Our property values and taxes reflect that given how high they are. Putting something that has any chance of decreasing those values is likely to have an overall negative impact on the cost/benefit of this development. Community involvement. young families moving in and no where to let the kids or pets run. water without restrictions to existing homeowners before any further development in Lake Elmo. Do we need to develop every open piece of land, which ultimately increases property taxes Increasing tax base requires increased maintenance, service, equipment, bigger staffs, etc. - why grow if only to spoil the environment, the peace, the well deserved reputation of being a very unique place to live? Does this community really need to be like every other community or do we want to maintain and grow what we already have? No doubt you are going to do something that increases the coffers of the city and “use” the land. Well designed mixed housing neighborhoods get my vote; that would solve a problem, not create a new one. Everyone I know moved here because of the small town feel. Building warehouse type facilities is going to negatively impact the reason why we are here. Change can be positive; Lake Elmo is known for its semi-rural, neighborhood vibe - What would be the point of changing that? Does anyone on that committee actually live in Lake Elmo? Please consider the existing wildlife. A park, a true destination park, would be very beneficial to the community. There are already so many new housing developments in the area. long-term perspective 25 + years; do not be short-sighted Do not create a long term financial borden for the city and tax payers. no apartment complexes or workforce housing Consider the future of all the beings who live there. NOT only humans. DONT develop this land for the sake of capitalism. Traffic! The city doesn’t plan for traffic then passes the buck saying it’s a county road and we have no control. This should always be considered. Leave it alone. There is traffic now starting at 1:00 a.m. through midnight. There is no break it is constant. Deeply thought-out development that encompasses much community/resident input, water shed district input based on current land/environment structure that will have a positive and enduring affect on the area. Please be innovative in the planning and development of this area. Please hold the developer(s) accountable to their approved plans from day 1. This is a great opportunity to make this an exceptional entryway/corridor into the city, something to be valued beyond the current generation and far into the future. Community Engagement on City-owned 180 Acres (Ideal Ave 34th St./CSAH 14)City 180-acres Project Next Steps Community Engagement on City-owned 180 Acres (Ideal Ave & 34th St./CSAH 14) & City 180-acres Project Next Steps City Council | September 8, 2026 * Please note presentations may change slightly ahead of meeting date Background •The City of Lake Elmo owns approximately 180 acres of undeveloped land on the city’s western edge. •This acreage, the result of a 2019 settlement with 3M Corporation •The City has maintained its intention to sell this property and expects that future development will occur in three phases. •At the City Council workshop in March 2026, City Council guided staff to conduct community engagement for the 180-acres in house as one of the next steps in the process of developing the city-owned site. •The goals of this process are to inform community members about this ongoing project, foster transparency, and create a space for the community to voice their opinions. Community Engagement Overview A. Public Hearing at EDA Meeting: June 16, 2026 •A Public Hearing Notice was sent to property owners near the project •Published in the Stillwater Gazette and on City project page •Participation: Five community members spoke at the meeting, and twelve public comments were received and summarized in the presentation B. Public Open House at City Hall: June 30, 2026 C. Polco Survey: Open 4+ weeks, closed July 3 •Participation: 404 respondents, 327 Lake Elmo residents •Self guided tour with feedback stations •Staff and EDA available for conversations •Participation: ~30 community members Key Theme Findings Throughout Engagement 1. Prioritizing Green Space and Preservation 2. Maintaining Community Character 3. Mitigating Public Nuisances 4. Ensuring Long-Term Environmental and Financial Sustainability 1. Prioritizing Green Space and Preservation Respondents across engagement methods expressed strong interest in preserving the land as-is and/or preserving/maximizing as much open space as possible across parcels. Reasoning varied: •Concern for wildlife •Water/Conservation issues •Anti-development sentiment Strongly/ Somewhat Oppose Strongly/ Somewhat Support Don’t know Level of Support for Developing 180-acres generally 2. Maintaining Community Character •Community members strongly emphasized preference for maintaining a distinct, local sense of character for the City of Lake Elmo •Many of those that preferred keeping the land “as-is” or who had open space preference on the parcel may have felt that preservation meant maintaining the City’s character. It is anticipated that work with the consultant may shed light on some of these considerations. 3. Mitigating Public Nuisances • Traffic impacts •Noise •Safety •Speed •Noise generally •Safety generally 4. Ensuring Long-Term Environmental and Financial Sustainability Throughout the engagement efforts, community members consistently emphasized the importance of ensuring both long-term environmental and financial sustainability to protect both the city’s natural assets and its economic future. •Expectation that community wants to ensure that funds generated from the new development are managed transparently and used to benefit existing community members. Additional Notable Survey Highlights Parcel 1 & 2 Parcel 3 Survey described the property as expected to support a mix of housing and commercial development and asked respondents how they would prioritize those uses… Responses were divided: •33% preferred mostly housing with less commercial space, •33% favored a balanced mix of housing and commercial development, •33% preferred mostly commercial development with less housing Additional Notable Survey Highlights What would make a successful development of the land? •Community character •Community gathering spaces: parks, community centers, and other places for people to gather. •Economic development and commercial activity: interest in commercial or economic development that could benefit the broader community. •Green space and land preservation •Housing: Responses included a preference to minimize the amount of housing, suggesting that residential development was not viewed as the primary measure of success •Mitigating nuisances: traffic, or other nuisances associated with increased traffic and development. Several responses strongly stated opposition to data centers. •Walkability and pedestrian-scale commerce: Many respondents envisioned a walkable, pedestrian-oriented environment, potentially including smaller-scale commercial activity. Some comments noted they do not prefer big box retailers on the site. •Wildlife and environmental impact: Many respondents wanted development to minimize impacts on wildlife and the natural environment. For some, the preferred approach was not developing the land at all. Next Steps/Recommendations Communications: Share community engagement results on project page on the City website to report back to the public. Share information on the project as it progresses to help educate the public about project decisions and developments and to help build trust in City processes. Update FAQs on project page as needed. Financial Decisions: Consider explaining how income from the sale could be used at a later date. Discussion: Next Steps/Recommendations Conservation Easements: Environmental stewardship is important to many community members. When moving forward with this project, the City may consider conservation easements on portions of the properties to preserve open space. Mitigating Potential Nuisances: Consider incorporating significant buffers, berming and landscaping to mitigate potential nuisances with regard to traffic, noise, safety, and to preserve open space. Design Standards: Design standards should be placed on all three parcels relevant to use. The city’s current Design Standards Manual should be used to develop standards to guide development. Building design, parking, transportation connectivity (including bike/pedestrian), and open space preservation should be considered. Enhancing design standards above and beyond the adopted design standards may be considered. Questions for Council •Do you want to create open space buffers on the parcels, greater setbacks, or enhanced berming? •Do you want to consider enhancing design standards above and beyond the adopted LE Guidelines? What would you like to see? Other - •The plan is that all offers will go to directly to council as they come in •30-60 day listing – meeting with CBRE on 9/15, to be discussed in more detail •EDA reviewing Parcel 1 & 2 Discussion: Next Steps/Recommendations Use: Determine how the City would like to regulate uses such as trucking on Parcels 1 & 2. Determine if the City should require a certain mix of business park/light industrial uses on the site. Likely uses would be: 1.Warehousing & Distribution – Truck heavy, trailer stalls, etc. 2.Manufacturing – Truck loading areas required 3.Office Park – Limited Trucking. Loading required Questions for Council •Do you want to limit Warehousing & Distribution, trailer stalls? •Do you want to require a portion of the site be developed as Manufacturing or Office Park? •Do you want to have use requirements for the NW corner? •Do you want to require sewer connection to Parcel 3 as soon as feasible? •Would the City want to build the sewer if the parcel does not have not development plans by 2029? Other - •The plan is that all offers will go to directly to council as they come in •30-60 day listing – meeting with CBRE on 9/15, to be discussed in more detail •EDA reviewing Parcel 1 & 2 Discussion: Next Steps/Recommendations Parcel 3: A Master Plan mixed-use developer should be identified that can promote a similar vision to the Urban Land Institute (ULI) plan. This would promote buffers, open space, mitigate nuisances, and promote higher property tax revenue than a standard suburban development. Staff should revise the ULI plan, so the new plan can be marketed to potential developers. Parcel 3 Next Steps 1.Create a plan that can be marketed. The plan would include units mix, density, architectural theming, open space/buffer requirements. 2.Council and EDA will review the plan prior to marketing. 3.Market online through a dedicated page and actively solicit developers STAFF REPORT DATE: 9/8/2026 Workshop TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Clark Schroeder Special Projects Manager AGENDA ITEM: Water topics in Lake Elmo CORE STRATEGIES: ☐ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community ☐ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance☒ ☐ Managed Growth ☐ Efficient, reliable, innovative services ☒ Balanced Finances now and future ☒ Resilient Infrastructure BACKGROUND: : Lake Elmo has several different concerns related to water currently. This workshop is an updated from Special Projects Manager Clark Schroeder. Clark Schroeder represents the city on the 3M priority one workgroup and the White Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Mr. Schroeder will cover the following topics at the workshop: 1.White Bear Lake Workgroup update 2.DNR water permit and legal update 3.3M settlement group update 4.PFAS studies being done PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Presentation from staff and receiving of feedback from Council. FISCAL IMPACT: Unqualified at this time. OPTIONS: Provide feedback for further study. RECOMMENDATION: (No action requested) ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint and associated documents. LAKE ELMO WATER September 8, 2026 Clark Schroeder, Special Projects Manager cschroeder@lakeelmo.gov 01 02 03 04 05 TOPICS DNR/WBL Legal Update White Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup 3M PFAS Settlement Priority 1 Workgroup Long Term Funding Current Research being done with PFAS DNR / White Bear Lake Legal Update/Lawsuits 01 Timeline of court cases ongoing since 2012 Here is the timeline. 03 In 2012, a lawsuit was filed against the DNR claiming that excess groundwater permits in the east metro led to unacceptably low lake levels. This led to the White Bear Lake Comprehensive workgroup The Court ruled that cities with wells within 5 miles of WBL must decrease their water use, ban irrigation during low lake levels and move to surface water. 02 04 White Bear Lake Lawsuit Timeline 2012 White Bear Lake Restoration Assn & White Bear Lake Homeowners Assn Vs DNR Lawsuit Filed 2014 Plaintiffs and DNR Reach Settlement Agreement 2016 No Legislative Funding to Shift to Surface Water Use 2017-18 Ramsey County District Court Order and Resulting Permit Modifications 2018 Court Order Changes, Legislation, DNR Appeal, Sustainability Analysis Completed 2019 Appeals Proceedings 2020 Supreme Court Ruling and Subsequent Steps 2020-22 Additional Court Order Implementation 2023-24 Contested Case Hearing Results 2025-26 Court of Appeals Reverses Residential Irrigation Ban/ Approves 75/90 GPD Condition White Bear Lake Lawsuit Recent Update •In May of 2024, Judge Lipman issued a ruling that upheld the 75/90 GPD condition and invalidated the residential irrigation ban condition •In July 2025, the Court of Appeals reversed this ruling. They said that Lipman erred by universally invalidating the residential irrigation ban and by universally approving the 75/90 GPD condition. They sent it back to Lipman to consider individual circumstances for each city for those two conditions. •The Cities requested a Minnesota Supreme Court review, which was denied. •Judge Lipman retired in January 2025; Judge Megan McKenzie requested briefing from all parties and will rule by September 21, 2026. White Bear Lake DNR Conditions •The court ordered the DNR to amend existing groundwater permits within a five-mile radius of White Bear Lake with the following stipulations: •Require a residential irrigation ban when the water level of White Bear Lake drops below 923.5 feet. The ban remains in effect until the water level reaches 924 feet. •Require all permittees to develop a per capita water use plan to reduce residential per capita water use to 75 gallons per day and total per capita water use to 90 gallons per day. Our current use is around 110 •Require public water suppliers to develop a contingency plan to shift their source of water from groundwater to surface water. •Require all permittees to report to the DNR annually on collaborative efforts with other north and east metro communities to develop per capita water use plans. White Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup A workgroup was established to create a comprehensive plan that ensures communities in the White Bear Lake area have access to sufficient, safe drinking water. This plan aims to support municipal growth while ensuring the sustainability of surface water and groundwater resources to meet community needs. 01 There are 15 different studies being done or considered by the group 15 studies link . This is the current Lake level. Protective water level of 922, with total irrigation ban at 923.5 100 year lake levels 02 Legislative allocation of $2.75 million was allocated to fund this group 03 White Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup 10 year WBL levels Irrigation ban lifted Total irrigation ban TWhite Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup Recommendations. 01 02 The goal of the workgroup is to come to a consensus the fall of 26 on the preferred “solution” to support WBL lake levels. The recommendation will come with a preferred way to finance it. White Bear Lake Comprehensive Plan Work Group Possible funding sources: The group rated preferred funding This conversation will happen this fall/early winter 26/27. 03 City Council weighing in: Councils will be having discussions with MET Council WBL staff in winter 2027, with a goal of having the preferred solution and funding signed on by all the cities in March/April 27 and submitted to the MN legislature in June 27. Timeline White Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup Some of the proposed solutions to support WBL lake levels •Taking water from East Vadnais, treating it, and pumping up to 2 billion gallons per year into the lake over the 8-month open-water period. Estimated costs around $176 million, plus O&M yearly. White Bear Lake study 7B •Taking Mississippi water via the St Paul Water Works system and switching some cities from groundwater to surface water. Costs vary based on how many cities you supply. Estimates range from $250 million to one billion dollars. White Bear Lake study 2 •Taking stormwater and creating a regional system for less/non-potable water uses. Things like irrigation and commercial/industrial uses that don’t need drinking water. Realistic capital costs of $340 million; could be 1.14 billion. White Bear Lake Study 4 •Redirect stormwater to augment WBL. Unknown costs at this time and challenging water quality concerns. White Bear Lake Study 1 White Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup Some of the proposed solutions to support WBL lake levels •Raise the outlet pipe for WBL. Temporary buffer during dry periods, and in wet periods it would flood out a number of properties. Would involve buying out properties in the new flood zone for a few hundred million dollars. White Bear Lake 9B •Lawn irrigation limits and smart controllers White Bear Lake Study 8 • Low-input turf White Bear Lake Study 13 - Potential water savings from alternative low-input turf grasses •Using treated wastewater to augment the lake. Cost around $200 to $325 million. Aquifer injection and lake augmentation - study 6 There could one or multiple solutions proposed to city councils. Funding will naturally be a sticky point for cities that don't touch WBL. White Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup Members Bryan Bear, City of Hugo Clark Schroeder, City of Lake Elmo Michael Grochala, City of Lino Lakes Bob Goebel, City of Mahtomedi Craig Schlichting, City of New Brighton Kevin Kress, City of North Oaks Morgan Dawley, City of North St. Paul Chris Volkers, City of Oakdale Tom Wesolowski, City of Shoreview Shawn Sanders, City of Stillwater Racquel Vaske, Saint Paul Regional Water Services White Bear Lake Comprehensive Workgroup Members (continued) Jim Hauth, City of Vadnais Heights Paul Kauppi, City of White Bear Lake Mary Van Milligen, City of Woodbury Pat Christopherson, White Bear Township David Weum, Department of Health Jason Moeckel, Department of Natural Resources VACANT Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee (MAWSAC) Liz Kaufenberg, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency PFAS 3M Priority One Workgroup In 2018 3M settled with the State of Minnesota for PFAS contamination they created in the east metro. This fund of $850 million dollars is overseen by Trustees that approve grants to cities/township affected by the contamination. A workgroup was created to help guide this fund to provide clean drinking water for the east-metro. Minnesota 3M PFAS Settlement 3M Priority One Workgroup This group is composed of one representative each from the MPCA, DNR, 3M, Washington County, and one representative from each of the following communities: Afton, Cottage Grove, Lake Elmo, Lakeland, Lakeland Shores, Maplewood, Newport, Oakdale, St. Paul Park, Woodbury, the townships of Denmark, Grey Cloud Island, and West Lakeland, and the Prairie Island Indian Community. MAP All the past meetings and notes This fund is managed by Trustees who review and approve projects according to their charter. This document is from 2020, so some members’ names have changed. Annual report for 2025 Approved projects are more expensive than the conceptual estimate, hence they are anticipating the fund will be fully allocated by the end of 2027. PFAS 3M Priority One Workgroup 3M Priority One Workgroup 3M is requesting mediation to resolve disputes with the MPCA regarding “what is reasonable and necessary” in both the 2018 and 2007 agreements. What’s next after the 3M settlement fund runs out of money? In 2007, the MPCA and 3M negotiated a Consent Order to bring the investigation and cleanup of the three disposal sites under the formal Superfund process. These sites are in Oakdale, Woodbury, and Cottage Grove. The Washington County Landfill (WCL) in Lake Elmo was not included. 2007 Decree, 2018 settlement agreement Listing from the AG office of exhibits from the 2018 settlement. ©Angelina Katsanis/Star Tribune/TNS 3M Priority One Workgroup Lake Elmo Projects Well 2 PFAS Treatment Plant Project completed July 3, 2025. Zero PFAS detected post-treatment. South Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and Wells Test well #6 completed, and we now have recommendations for a treatment plan. Looking to purchase the property and design the treatment plant. North Water Treatment Plant (WTP) for Well 4 and Well 5 Preparing the preliminary design and Site analysis for the North Water Treatment Plant for Well 4 and Well 5. Well #2 Treatment Plant PFAS Research in Lake Elmo •Supercritical Water Oxidation(SCWD): PFAS Destruction Technology Summer of 2025 •Surface Active Foam Fractionation: (SAFF) MPCA brings cutting-edge technology to Lake Elmo •UV-Photochemical destruction: ClarosTechUV PFAS Destruction System PFAS Research in Lake Elmo (continued) •DE-FLUORO: Electrochemical Oxidation •Thermal Plasma: Onvector Plasma destruction •Bioremediation: U of M study of microbes in the soils/waters of Lake Elmo Freshwater Additional studies: Project 1007 destruction summary PFAS Plume 01 Lake Elmo’s concern for both City water supplies and private wells Our plume is also influenced by Project 1007, which stabilized lake levels in the tri-lakes area from 1987 onward but also created a path for PFAS transmission further downstream. Project MPCA is investigating the extent and magnitude of the contamination in the commingled plume. 02 03 One possible goal is to decrease the PFAS in the aquifers. The only way to do that is to pump out the water and reinject it back in, or divert some of it to drinking water Project 1007- Highway for PFAS Transmission . Project 1007- Highway for PFAS Transmission . Project 1007 Multi-Benefit Well Arrays Proposal 1 . Long Term Funding Long-Term Funding . In 2019, the city approved an agreement that settled a multi-year lawsuit against 3M for contamination in our drinking water. This was a condition in order to gain access to the $850 million dollar settlement with the State. The agreement released 3M from any liability for PFAS, a fluorinated organic substance, in Lake Elmo. The lawsuit agreement is HERE. Because of this agreement, Lake Elmo cannot sue 3M for costs related to PFAS cleanup or treatment. Funding needs to come from the settlement fund, the State’s Closed Landfill Program, or the 2007 consent order. vs. Long Term Funding . 3M and the MPCA are mediating the transition from the 2018 settlement to the 2007 Consent Decree. It is expected that, due to our commingled plume, some funding would be from 3M and other funding from the Closed Landfill program. In discussions with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), efforts are underway to develop a funding framework for both private and public water treatment in Lake Elmo; however, the details are still being finalized. Lake Elmo staff will continue to work closely with the MPCA and the 3M trustees. Washington County Landfill . 01 Lake Elmo’s concern for both City water supplies and private wells Due to the plume being made up of a different molecular mix from the Oakdale Landfill and another mix from the Washington County Landfill, we have a comingled plume. Private well tests show different molecules if you look at each well. 02 PFOS is the primary PFAS constituent at the Oakdale site, whereas the Washington County Landfill has a PFBA/PFOA signature. The main point is that both landfills have a mix of different PFAS, and when we test downstream in the aquifer, it is hard to tell what came from where. Washington County Landfill . The City has owned the landfill since 1995. Both Washington County and Ramsey County utilized the landfill from 1969 until 1975. Landfill page The State is still determining the extent of the plumes, and that will inform the next steps regarding potential shared responsibility and a shared funding structure. Lake Elmo Water page QUESTIONS? Clark Schroeder Special Projects Manager cschroeder@lakeelmo.gov Date Type Due date for packet Order Agenda Section Agenda item 9/15/2026 CC Meeting 9/8/26 Regular Agenda 2027 Preliminary Levy Regular Agenda Strategic Financial Plan Discussion Landfill Solar Initiative - EDA Chair Tony Manzara Consent Agenda Appoint Election Judges 10/6/2026 CC Meeting 9/29/26 Regular Agenda 3rd Quarter Goals Update Regualr Agenda CIP F-012 Ladder 1 Replacement Approval 10/13/2026 CC Workshop 10/6/26 Legislative priorities 2026-2027 10/20/2026 EDA Meeting 6:00pm 10/20/2026 CC Meeting 10/13/26 Consent Agenda 3rd Quarter Financials and Dashboard Regular Agenda Bonding - Set Sale Resolution Regular Agenda 4455 Olson Lake Trail Comprehensive Plan Amendemtn Regular Agenda 11055 32nd St Variance 11/4/2026 CC Meeting Regular Agenda 11/10/2026 Special Meeting Canvass Election Results 11/10/2026 CC Workshop Employee Policies Updates 11/17/2026 CC Meeting Regular Agenda Bond Sale - Awarding Resolution 12/1/2026 CC Meeting UB Certifications Regular Agenda Approve Statewide Volunteer Firefighter Plan Benefit Level Increase 12/8/2026 CC Workshop Obstructions in ROW 12/15/2026 EDA Meeting 6:00pm 12/15/2026 CC Meeting 2027 Budget / Truth in Taxation 2027-2036 CIP Future Council Agenda Items *Please note: This list is subject to change*