Good evening and welcome to this Prayer Lake City Council meeting of Tuesday, June 23rd. If you would please uh stand, join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Good evening, and it's wonderful to see so many in the council chambers this evening. Uh first item on our agenda is the public forum. The public forum is that opportunity for those in the council chambers to come before the city council and share with us uh anything that may be on your mind with one loan exception and that is uh at this time we cannot hear from any uh residents in regards or for any testimony that is better kept for a planned hearing or for a hearing that's already taken place. Also, I would point out that there are some um business items, new business items on our agenda this evening, and those also would not be uh uh subjects for which we would accept comment during the forum. So, with those exceptions, is there anyone that would like to come before us this evening? Sir, please if you would uh go to the side lect turn um share with us your name and your address for the record and um I look forward to uh we look forward to hearing your testimony and your comments. Please. >> Okay. I told you about a year ago about the mediacom monopoly that you granted and I found out that Comcast is going to have their infrastructure in place in about 15 months to they can provide service here. And I called them up and I asked them, you know, I gave them what kind of a package I wanted. They said that would be $165 a month. Okay. So my first question is why am I paying 74% more than that to Mediacom? Two months of Mediacom gets me 3.48 months of Comcast. Now I'm not an expert. Is it extortion robbery or what? Okay, if you don't believe me, call them up, tell them what package you want and get a price. Okay, my second point is I live by the post office. Tower Street from the post office to the stop sign is in horrible condition. If you turn left at the stop sign, that street is in horrible condition. That gets you to the stop sign at the back of the mall. If you turn right, that street is even in worse condition. Can I reasonably expect these streets to be repaired by the end of summer? If not, why? If not, when? Thank you. Thank you so much for your uh testimony and we'll go ahead and save and see if there's any additional comments for forum before addressing some of your points. Anyone else like to come before us for the forum? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and conclude the forum. If I could, um, manager Wedell, if you would maybe address and council, if you want to have any comments first, let's address, um, cable andor, uh, fiber providers in uh, city of Per Lake and then maybe take on the road issue second. Thank you, man. >> Thank you, mayor, council members, members of the audience. So, thank you for the the the feedback on Comcast and their costs. As the city, we've heard from our residents and you mentioned you were here last year asking about additional options for internet which New Vera in the last two years have run new fiber optic throughout the city. So now new Vera is an option for a lot of folks. Um Comcast will now present a third option which is good. As a city, we don't necessarily dictate what they charge residents for their services, but having three providers now, you can already see the competition happening. I I live in town and I've get notices in my mailbox probably once a week from Mediacom about their new lower rates for television and internet. And I think it's largely due to the fact that they now have to compete with New Vera and and Comcast. So that's what we can do as a city is try to encourage additional providers to come to town and provide options. Uh the pricing is it's the it's the kind of the free market and it's and it's Sir, if I can and again points taken, but at this time I'd like to maintain or not have a discussion going across the day. >> Yeah, understood. Thank you for your your points on that. And they are going to have to everybody's going to have to sharpen their pencils if they want to get business because now there's there's a finite number of properties and there's three competing interests for those properties. So um and we are seeing that in mediacom already. Uh in related to the streets, we just literally sat down with the city council an hour before this meeting to review our capital improvement plan, which is where we plan out in looking out five years on which streets we've identified for improvements. Um we look at the city as a whole. Uh we try to maintain a certain level of quality and and rides. So we rate all of our streets every year on a system of scale of 0 to 100. 100 being a brand new perfect street and a zero would be a street that's completely falling apart. And we try to average about a 70 across the city system as a whole. And then we allocate the funds we have out of our tax levy each year to do pieces of that system um when we can. This year we're focusing on the Northwood Road neighborhood. So, if you've been over there, you've seen that we've got that road all torn up. um the roads you identified I don't recognize as being in our five-year plan, but I will talk to our public works director and we can when we evaluate them again this year and we rank doing that scale of 0 to 100, we can certainly take a look at that one again and see where it fits into the the timing and how it compares to the needs we have elsewhere in the city and see if it rises as a priority. But I I can't tell you we're going to get it done this year. >> And manager Wedell, I think it's Village Park and Tower were the two streets for you to take >> by the post office. >> By the post office. Yep. Yep. >> Um and and again, all I would add and council, I don't know. Um the roads there there are roads in our community that are in serious serious need. I I don't uh disagree, sir, that um although I don't drive it with the frequency you do, we wish we could get to greater than 10 miles a year, right? And the realities are both fiscally as well as contractually, we're challenged to do so, but we're doing all we can to, as Manager Wedell said, maintain a level of quality that's expected of our peric residents. So, we can always do better. Thank you for your testimony in that end. Um or to that end, uh council, any additional comments. With that, um I'd like to go ahead and move along to the approval of the agenda this evening. Um if there's no additions, modifications, and entertain a motion to approve as submitted. >> I move to approve the agenda as written. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Churchill, second by council member Braid to approve the agenda as submitted. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. Motion carries. bringing us to the meeting minutes and that is the approval of the June 9, 2026 city council meeting minutes. Again, council, if no additions, modifications, changes, I would accept a motion to approve as submitted. >> I move to approve the minutes. Second. >> We have a motion by council member Lake to approve the meeting minutes. A second by council member Helier. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Abstain. >> And one abstension. That brings us to the consent agenda this evening. And I'd like to go ahead and hand that over to manager Wedell to introduce both what is the consent agenda as well as those items before us uh this evening. Manager Wedell, please. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council members and members of the audience. So, our consent agenda is for those items that are considered routine or non-controversial. They're placed all together on the consent agenda. So, unless the mayor or council member asks for an item to be removed for separate consideration, they're all approved together under a single motion, second, and a vote. If an item were to be removed for separate consideration tonight, it would be placed under item 10 on the agenda. So tonight, we have the following items on consent. We have the approval of the claims listing. We have the approval of the building permit summary report for the month of May. Approval of the animal control services report for the month of May. A resolution approving the purchase of fire of prior lake fire department turnout gear. approval of the 2026 refuse hauler license renewals. And finally, the resolution authorizing the purchase and installation of network switches to complete the city's fiber optic ring. >> Thank you so much, Manager Woodell. Council, are there any items before us on the consent agenda that you would ask be removed? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to approve as submitted. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Council Member Braid, second by Council Member Churchill to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor say I. >> I. That motion carries, bringing us to item 9A on our agenda this evening this evening, which is a resolution authorizing the competitive negotiated sale of general obligation bonds series 2026A. And I believe we are going to have finance director Kleener present to us this evening. Director Kleener, we look forward to your presentation. >> Mayor and counselors, tonight we are asking the council to authorize the sale of general obligation bonds series 2026A. Proceeds from the bonds will be used to finance construction for Northwood Road phase one, project design and construction for Northwood Road phase two, project design for the Green Heights area, and facilities replacement and capital improvement projects. The estimated PAR amount of the bonds needed to finance these project costs is $5,45,000. For the next steps in the bonding process, the city will use a competitive sale process to solicit proposals from underwriters. And on July 28th, the city will receive bids from interested underwriters and the low bid will be determined. We anticipate closing on the bonds in mid August. Northland Public Finance is the city's municipal adviser. Tammy Amdall from Northland is here tonight and she's available to answer any questions related to council approval of the bond sale. After any questions are answered, I would ask for a motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the sale of the general obligation bonds series 2026A. >> Council, any questions for Finance Director Collectner? Uh, Council Member Braid, please. >> Not a question, I guess statement. I mean, this has been one we've been working on for years, right? getting this project put together and um with the hard work and diligence of city staff, you know, having the AAA bond rating will help us immensely and all those years of work to get there, now we're starting to get the, you know, the benefits of that. So, um I'll be in support of it tonight. >> Uh council, with that, I would accept a motion. I'll make a motion authorizing the competitive negotiated sale of general obligation bonds series 2026A. >> I will second that. >> We have a motion by council member Braid, a second by council member Lake um to approve um that sale. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. That motion carries. That brings us to item 9B uh on our agenda this evening and that is a resolution determining a commercial marina expansion does not meet the threshold for environmental review per Minnesota rule 4410.4300 sub paragraph 25 and I can see we have community development director uh McCabe and again Mr. McCabe we look forward to your presentation this evening. >> Thank you mayor. Good evening councelor. So, a little bit of background on on this item. Um, the DNR issued a permit to JKL Docks, which was Captain Jack's in 2007 for the marina. Uh, that was out in front of Captain Jacks, which is now Charlie's on prior. There were previous marina permits, um, but the 2007 and 2008 were the ones that are were causing some questions here. Um, that permit was amended the following year in 2008 for a 20 foot dock extension, but there's a discrepancy on the 2008 permit with the exhibit A, which is the image that is shown on the right hand side of your screen and the cover letter. So, the DNR cover letter identified a previously approved conditional use permit and DNR permits allowing for 81 boat slips on the property, but attachment A uh has an a dock exhibit with moing spaces for 98. So, this has been a question over the last several years of how many permits are actually or how many dock slips are actually approved. What is the dock configuration that is approved? In 2015, Lakers Holdings, which is doing business as Charlie's on Prior, purchased the property and they assumed the previous Captain Jack's permit. This image shows a aerial photo of the 2018 dock slip, which occupied approximately 4,100 square feet and had moing space for 76 watercraft. The dock remained in that configuration for several years. And in 2023, Charlie's on Prior purchased a parcel which is highlighted on your screen, lot 19, Green Heights, first edition. So that parcel previously was not owned by Charlie's on Prior. It was in private ownership and it was used as an informal unpermitted uh you know essentially neighborhood marina for plus or minus six boat slips depending on on the season. So later in 2024, that property was combined with the Charlie's on Prior property, which extended the shoreline of the Charlie's on Prior property by about 70 ft. So the that following year in 2024, uh the marina was expanded with the new uh shoreland area and occupied an area of about 55,700 square feet and had space for approximately 97 watercraft. In 2025, it was the dock was reconfigured along the shoreline as well. uh still docking for 97 watercraft, but the area is about 63,800 square feet. To clean all of this up, Charlie's on prior applied to the DNR for a an amendment to the previously approved permit. Um they wanted to account for the additional shoreland added with the combination of that adjacent parcel acquired a couple years earlier. They wanted to resolve the discrepancy between the identified number of slips on the cover letter and the number of slips in the dock configuration exhibit. And just kind of moving forward to clarify dock dimensions that are approved by the DNR. What is the dock configuration? What is the actual number of slips uh going in the future? So, the Minnesota administrative rules has a few mandatory EAW categories um that that identifies areas where an environmental assessment worksheet needs to be completed. Uh there is a category related to marinas which is subp part 25 and that language relates to construction or expansion of a marina that results in a 20,000 or more square foot uh new marina or addition uh used for docking or maneuvering of watercraft and in those instances the city of Prior Lake is the responsible government unit approving and monitoring the EAW. The mandatory EAW categories also includes language that has a three-year look back rule essentially stating that if a project is an expansion of an existing project, the cumulative total must be included uh if construction was begun within three years of the date of application, which is not the case here. So the DNR has indicated to city staff that they will not, you know, they're prepared to, but they will not issue the dock permit until the city of Prair Lake as the RGU makes an official environmental review determination. So that is what we are asking the council for this evening. Um staff did discuss this with our EAW consultant at WSB and neither city staff nor the WSB consultant feel that this project would require an EAW and that's kind of based on the the three bullet points below. The first one is the available area photographs show that the marina expansion from 2018 to 2025 does not meet that 20,000 square foot threshold for a mandatory EAW. And even if it did, uh the three-year look back rule exempts this expansion from a mandatory EAW as that expansion has been in place for greater than three years. Um staff also notes that the acquisition of the adjacent parcel that had historically been that private docking facility and incorporating that with the Charlie's on prior parcel along with the private investment that Charlie's on prior made in that shoreland uh restoration. It's an improved environmental condition now compared to when this parcel was acquired by Charlie's in in 2015. So, city staff is recommending the council as the responsible government unit approves a resolution determining the commercial marine expansion at Charlie's on prior does not meet the threshold for environmental review and the city will not order an environmental review or an EAW and I would be happy to take any questions from the council. Director McCabe, thank you so much. Council, any questions for Mr. McCabe? Council member Brad. >> Director McCabe, thank you for your detailed report. Um, when it comes to boat slips in Prior Lake, we know that that gets people's attention, right? And, uh, this is one kind of going through it and talking about um, you know, the environmental assessments and what we would have to do. It clearly that doesn't meet that threshold. So, um, it seems pretty straightforward to to me tonight based on the information that you presented that, um, you know, I'll be in support of of the resolution tonight. >> Uh, Council Member Helier, >> just out of curiosity and really for the record, what if a review was to happen, um, what does that look like? Um, do you know how long that would take? Just curious on what the details are on those. >> Um, Councelor Helier, I I have not been involved with an EAW on a marina. So, I'm not exactly sure, but generally an EAW is going to be six months minimum to nine months. Um, I am not sure in this case what they would find. So, ideally an EAW is a first step, a study of a of a larger area and then that the results of that study will indicate if there's any potential for environmental impact, which would then require an EIS be completed as kind of a second step. Um, in this case, I believe this project would be exempt from an EIS anyway because these improvements have been in place for longer than three years. So, it is not clear in my mind what what the purpose of the EAW would be. Um, but I'm sure, you know, they would look at, you know, lake bed and and habitat and, you know, fish spawning areas and different things like that. But if there were any environmental impact, it would have happened in 1974 probably when when the first marina went in this area. >> Great. Thank you. >> Um Mr. McCabe, um if I can first comment, of course, it's the DNR that provides permit for this this marina. Um DNR has full oversight over this marina. I'm curious in statute if you can um make a comment how a it comes to the city council for this item relative to the determination of if indeed so that's question one right just from a statute perspective. The other piece is there's certainly mandatory if greater than 20,000 this does not uh hit mandatory. So if not mandatory what would the other category be discretionary? Um so if you could a comment on both of those items, the first being um >> Sure. >> preferred. >> Yep. Uh mayor, uh while it's fresh in my mind, maybe I'll start with the second part uh first. So yes, the council could order a discretionary EAW if they didn't feel it met the mandatory uh category. And this permit is uh managed and administered by the DNR because it's classified as a commercial marina. So the city of Prior Lake has two commercial marinas, one being Nadior, one being Charlie's on Prior and those are marinas that provide two or more ancillary services in addition to docking. So restaurant, fuel storage, boat repair, bait, those types of things uh constitute a commercial marina. Uh the DNR previously regulated all marinas greater than six slips and in the early 2000 decided they didn't want to be in that business any longer. So they passed those permits back to the city for administration other than commercial marinas. And this is before the council this evening because the council is the responsible government unit, the RGU for EAW administration. So the council action tonight is not weighing in on the permit that the DNR is considering for Charlie's. The council is not approving configuration or number of slips. The council's only being asked to make this environmental determination for the EA. >> Excellent. Thank you so much, Council Member Churchill. >> Um, what would the cost of an EAW be to the city? >> Uh, there would not be a cost to the city. It would be a a pass through cost from the applicant uh who would cover the fees from our consulting engineers. >> Any additional questions or comment? If none, I would entertain a motion on this item. >> I'll make a motion to approve a resolution to determine a commercial marina expansion does not meet the threshold for environmental review for Minnesota rule 4410.43000 subchapter 25. >> Second. >> We have a motion by council member Brad and a second by council member Churchill. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> That um motion passes bringing us to item 9 C. this evening. Um, which is a resolution approving an amendment to the 2040 city of Prior Lake Future land use map. Ordinance amending the official zoning map. Resolution approving an easement vacation. Resolution approving It's a lot of resolutions, Casey. That's five. Um, resolution approving a negative EAW declaration, ordinance approving a preliminary plan, unit development plan, and PUD overlay district for a development to be known as Marlo Ridge, and a resolution approving a prelim preliminary plat for Marlo Ridge, second edition. Uh, community development director McCabe, we look forward to your presentation. Now, I know what you do with the consent agenda. Jason, >> thank you, Mayor Council. I I will try to make sense of all of these items as we go through. Uh the request the the applicant in this case is PY Homes of Minnesota and they are proposing a development on property currently owned by Verling Family Limited Partnership. As the mayor mentioned, uh the council's being asked to consider approval of one ordinance and four resolutions. They are related to an EAW negative declaration uh similar to the last uh last item, but in this case, an EAW has been completed. a future land use plan amendment, an amendment to the city's zoning map, an easement vacation, a preliminary planned unit development plan, and a preliminary plat for Marlo Ridge second edition. All of these items relate to a 262 lot proposed development that would be low and medium density residential on the highlighted portion of property on your screen. I will kind of break each of these requests down item by item and and review them individually. So, just as a a reminder, a little background, the city council approved a plat for Marlo Ridge which was recommended by the city council in May. Uh this was an outlot only plat. And what this plat did is it took what was previously one large, you know, roughly 165 acre parcel and created three separate parcels, outlaws A, B, and C. So outlot A on the north side of the screen is roughly 22 and a half acres. It is guided for business office park and the Verling family limited partnership will retain ownership of that parcel. Outlaw B is what PY is proposing to acquire for the residential development that we will we're about to review. And then outlaw C is the lake parcel roughly 55 acres that is guided for lowdensity residential and the Beerling family will retain ownership of that parcel as well. So everything in the presentation tonight, everything in your agenda report only relates to outlaw B. There is no development proposals currently for outlaw A or outlot C. So for the EAW, the environmental assessment worksheet, the city is the responsible government unit. So in this case, an EAW was prepared to assess potential impacts and determine if environmental impact statement was needed. So the EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, the EQB, and circulated for review to uh anyone who wished to comment, but also the required distribution list. All received a notice. Uh the city also published the notice of avail availability on the EQB monitor and on the city website in early May. The public review and comment period closed after uh 30 days. Comments were received which are shown in attachment 13 of your council packets. Comments were received from the Met Council, the DNR, the MPCA, the Prair Lake Spring Lake watershed district, and the Shakape Metawakan Sue community. So all comments were considered and responses were provided and incorporated into the EAW document. Based on the EAW, the responses to comments and the findings of fact within the EAW, city staff is recommending that the council find that all requirements for environmental review have been met. The EAW has generated adequate information to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental impacts. The city has included proper mitigative responses and mitigation will be required to be incorporated as part of the project and based on the criter criteria in Minnesota rules 44101700 a finding that this project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts and an EIS is not going to be required for this project. The future land use plan map request there. The image to the left shows the current land use guidance in the city of Prior Lakes's 2040 comprehensive plan. There is roughly just under 28 acres guided for business office park, 42 acres for lowdensity residential, and 18 acres for medium density residential. The developer is proposing an amendment which would have 34 acres of lowdensity residential, 52 and a half acres of medium density and 1.3 acres of business office park which would be the north half of the Fountain Hills Rightway business office park. So Prior Lake values the preservation of commercial industrial property. It's an important asset to our community. it is needed to diversify the tax base. Um, reguiduing commercial property for residential purposes is rare. I cannot recall a time in recent memory where the council where the planning commission recommended or the council approved it, but in certain cases it may make sense and and staff believes this is one of those. So staff re supports this request for amendment primarily because the business office park acreage south of Fountain Hills is largely covered by wetland and buffer area. So there's about 10 acres of buildable property that we have guided for business office park. um that 10 acres I kind of have highlighted on the screen here and you can see that there are significant topographic challenges where the high point at the southeast portion of the site is at a 936 elevation and where the street comes through is at about an 870. So this is dropping 60 ft over a very short area. So for commercial development to work, there would need to be a a series or very large retaining walls to get a relatively flat uh commercial pad that commercial or business park or industrial require where it's a little bit easier to navigate with a residential development where you can have more more flowing topography. Um onto the zoning map. Much like the comprehensive land use plan map amendment, the developer is requesting to amend the zoning to match land use guidance and to match their development proposal. So there's currently a mix of lowdensity residential, highdensity residential, neighborhood commercial and business office park on the subject property. The developer is proposing to reguide the western half roughly of the parcel for R2 which is our medium density residential and the east half is R1 which is low density residential. So the line shown here the curving line on the exhibit is a proposed north south collector street. So the the medium and low density residential would be divided at the center line of that rightway. So, Prior Lake City Code addresses amendments to the zoning map. It's a process that is very similar to our land use map amendments. So, if the future land use plan amendments are ultimately approved by our city council and the metropolitan council, it would make all the sense in the world to amend the zoning map to match our future land use plan guidance. Um, the permitted uses prop or the excuse me, the uses proposed as a R1 and an R2 which is a low and a medium density residential district would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods in this area. Onto the easement vacation. So, the city of Prior Lake acquired easements via condemnation proceedings in 1995. The easements are highlighted at the bottom of your screen. The applicant is requesting the vacation of the roadway drainage and utility easements as they would no longer be necessary if this development is approved. So if approved the plat the final plat that the developer uh brings in would address all the necessary utilities. They would be relocating infrastructure. So these 1995 easements are not would not be necessary. The preliminary plat I'm excuse me the preliminary planned unit development plan is shown on your screen. The site is just under 88 acres and just under 70 net acres. So 70 developable acres. Again, it's a 262 unit mix of low and medium density residential with topography ranging from 870 to 958 at the highest point in the southeast corner of the development. So there is a wide range of topography and changing elevation. The developer is proposing four different housing types. Um I will review each of them quickly. So the first is a a town home concept where there will be uh moving back to the exhibits. The town homes are proposed along Carriage Hills Parkway along the southern portion of the development. There is a twin home concept that we will see that is located south of Fountain Hills and west of the north south collector. And then on the right hand side there are two different housing pad styles for single family detached homes. a 65 foot lot and a 75 foot wide lot. So, the town homes are targeted towards firsttime homeowners, singles and couples. They have three different floor plans. The units range from 1,800 to 2,000 square feet and these are proposed in four and six unit attached buildings along Carriage Hills Parkway. The single family detached homes. These are some images of a home that they would propose for the 65 foot wide lots. five different floor plans, 2500 to 3,300 square feet excluding basement areas. There's a larger kind of a more move up or executive single family detached home style for a 75 ft lot. These would be 3,00 to 3500 square feet, again excluding the basement square footage. And then they also have a twin home uh project. So, the twin homes are geared towards a 55 plus audience, a 1600 square foot unit. These would be HOA style units with mowing and uh snow plowing provided. And then there's also a private shared park within the development that we will see in a little bit. The PUD plan has four wetlands on the property. Uh the largest obviously is the one to the west. It's 13.4 acres. And then there's three others that total 0.5 acres combined. So the developer is proposing to impact two acres of wetlands uh primarily due to the construction of Fountain Hills which needs to be located in this area because that's where it lines up with the adjacent uh intersection. And then there's a few smaller wetlands. This there's a pond proposed in this corner and then these would be impacted with construction. All of the proposed impacts will comply with the wetland conservation act requirements be reviewed by the technical evaluation panel. And then they're also proposing at the Prey Lake Spring Lake wershed district's request to work with the wershed district to improve the quality of the large wetland here. And that'll be done through bringing additional storm water that direction and raising the elevation of the wetland. And with the additional depth, that would allow for a future phosphorus treatment to control sediment at the bottom of that wetland instead of currently discharging into downstream into Pike Lake. So the overall density, so the low density residential area which is highlighted in pink on your map, our comprehensive plan has a minimum 2 and a half and a maximum 3.9 unit per acre standard for our lowdensity residential district. Medium density residential is four units to 7.9 units per acre. So the developer in this case is proposing 262 units on just under 70 acres of developable property. The overall density is 3.75 units per acre. The low density area is 2.64 units per acre, which is just above our low density minimum. And the medium density is proposed at 4.7 units per acre, which is above our minimum of four. So both the low and the medium would comply with our standards setbacks. So the center column is our standard R1 and R2 zoning setbacks and the far right column is what is proposed. So the developer is asking for a a decrease setback in the front yard from 25 ft to 20 ft and that is primarily related to a a change in our in our public works standards for rightway requests for a development like this. So we previously worked with the developer in the Trillium Cove neighborhood. At that time, a 50- foot rideway was what was requested. Now, we're requesting a 60- foot rideway. So, the feel from the curb will still it'll feel like a traditional 25 foot setback um from from the house to the curb, but it'll only be a 20 foot front yard. Uh sideyards, they're requesting a seven and a half foot sideyard requirement as opposed to the standard 10. Uh rear yard is proposed to remain at 25. And then the sideyard abunding a street much like the front yard requirement is being requested from 25 down to 20 feet. Uh several storm water plans uh storm water ponds throughout bofiltration basins and ponds. So these will accomplish the rate and volume control necessary for this development. The storm water management plan will decrease the peak discharge rates below the existing conditions in a twoyear, a 10 year and a 100year storm event. So with the ponding in place, the engineered plans indicate that it will be a better situation following development than it is currently for discharge rates. Tree removal. This is a lot of numbers, so I'll go through it quickly, but there's, you know, roughly 4,500 caliber inches of trees on the site. The developers are allowed to remove 35% of those trees without replacement. Anything over and above that, they need to replace at one half caliber inch per inch removed. They're also receiving a credit for preservation of heritage trees, which they receive a two times credit. So, that all adds up to 482 inches of required replacements. And the developers are proposing,50 in so above our replacement requirement and they have a nice mix of overstory coniferous and ornamental trees planted. The streets, so the developer will be dedicating and constructing Fountain Hills, which is a collector street east west. So Fountain Hills currently terminates on the northeast portion of the property. They will connect to County Road 21. They will also be dedicating and constructing Siri lane which is a north south minor collector within the subdivision. And then all local streets will dedicate a 60 foot rightway and provide a 32 foot wide curb to curb street. And all streets and culde-sacs have been reviewed and will be constructed to our public works and engineering standards. Sidewalks and trails. Uh don't need to spend a lot of time on this one. You can see highlighted in red, they have sidewalks and trails all the way through their neighborhood providing good pedestrian and bicycle connections. So overall with the PUD request, the developer is requesting a planned unit development overlay district for exceptions to minimum lot width, lot area, front side, and corner side abudding street setbacks. The developer is proposing public benefits that include enhancing a large existing wetland on the property, additional trail and sidewalk connections, the construction of two important collector streets, and also providing a variety of housing options at varying price points to serve current and future Prior Lake residents. Uh the developer will also be through the final plat process be contributing towards a future County Road 21 in Fountain Hills intersection improvement. The preliminary plat is a so this is a multi-phase development. The lots that you see highlighted in the bottom center of your screen are what is proposed for phase one. So phase one would be the Fountain Hills rightway, the Suriri rightaway. So the two main collectors and the developments adjacent to Suriri, the developer is proposing to to start the project along the southern property line because that area has all four of those of their housing products. So by building down here, they can build both single family detach models, they can build town homes, and they can build twin homes and begin marketing them as soon as possible. Sanitary sewer is available and will be extended south from Fountain Hills Lane into phase one and water will come up north from Carriage Hills Lane to serve phase one. The density of the of the first phase uh is going to be just under 2.9 units per acre for the low density residential and about 4.8 units per acre for the medium density residential. Both are within the identified ranges, you know, somewhat on the lower end. So, two and a half is our low end for low density and four is our lowend for medium density. Public hearing comments. So, there have been two public hearings held on this item already. The first one was again related to that outlot plat. So, we weren't really we were taking comments, but the intent was not to take comments on the actual development. And then there was a second public hearing held on June 1st. I would like to compliment the planning commission that I thought did an outstanding job navigating uh a very lengthy about three-hour public hearing just on this item. Um also the residents and adjacent property owners who spoke and and raised very thoughtful comments and good questions. So, I wanted to acknowledge that and run through these comments quickly so the council has a sense on what what was provided from from the neighborhood residents and and how the planning commission and staff has responded along with the developer. So, comments on density. So we got a lot of folks that talked about the overall number of units because 262 was a large number and then you know some felt it was it was too dense as an overall development. So we were asked on the first public hearing item uh with the outlaw to provide a comparison of other developments similar in the city of Prior Lake that we've approved recently. Um that was difficult because this property is a mix of business office park, medium density residential and low density residential. And most every other project we do it's either medium density or it's low density. So we don't have a truly applesto apples comparison but we have some to provide some context. So Trillium Cove was another one just further east of this development south of 42 that PY Homes completed several years ago. Um that was guided for lowdensity residential, but it was of similar size at 207 total units and it did include a mix of 142 single family detached and 65 town homes. That overall density was 3.4 units per acre. Haven Ridge, which was an M&I and Winkler land project, primarily M&I homes, um that was guided again for low density residential, that's at 3.8 units per acre and that's 165 single family detached villa style homes. And then Summit Preserve north of 42 east of Crest Avenue. That one was guided for medium density. So in that 4 to 7.9 target range that did include a mix of 122 town homes and 71 single family detach and that was nearing five units per acre. And again, this development is overall 3.75 units per acre. So, a little bit less than M&I Homes, a little bit more than um Summit Preserve, but this includes both medium and low density. So, the low density area east of Suriri Lane, which is the pink area, again, that's 2.65 units per acre. in the medium density is going to be in that 4.7 range in the green to the west. We did get comments at the public hearing about parks. Um Marlo Ridge staff is not requesting a park. They are proposing a one acre private park for the benefit of primarily it's going to be in that sidebyside twin home area of the development. It's not a traditional park with playground structures and that, but it'll be more of a social gathering space. So the city is not seeking additional parkland as the council is aware uh in areas that have existing parks to serve them. So based on the failure of the park referendum vote, the lack of funding to develop and maintain existing parks and recommendations in our park and trail system plan. So following the rejection of the park levy, uh the city shifted its focus to identifying opportunities to enhance our existing parks with limited funds. Unless there is not a park in close proximity, then the city would look at creating a new park. Um again, I'll go through this quickly because the council's very familiar. It's a fairly fresh report, but our park and trail system plan showed that in most in instances, Prior Lake far exceeds recreational standards for parks and amenities that are expected of a community of our size. So, a few examples is the National Recreation and Park Association would recommend one park per 1900 rec residents. Prior Lake has 49 parks. So, we have one park for 540 residents. Uh we have much more acres of parkland, many more playgrounds, many more basketball courts, and many more basketball fields than are recommended by those standards. There are also two existing parks that would be available to serve this within the target 1 half mile radius. So two high quality neighborhood parks. Carriage Hills, which is a 5acre park, has playground, picnic shelters, trails, half basketball court, volleyball court, and there's also Knobill Park, which is a 13 and a half acre park with again playground, picnic shelters, trails that also has wetlands and larger areas of open space and wooded areas. Several comments on traffic. That's something the planning commission hears at almost every public hearing they do, no matter what the topic is, is that we can't handle the increased traffic and we totally understand that comment. It is very reasonable to have that reaction. Um, but in this case, we have internal information and the developer also did a traffic impact study. So, Carriage Hills Parkway is a major collector designed for 6 to 9,000 cars a day and it carries about 1,900 currently. So, the traffic impact study completed for this development. So, they that also anticipated the commercial development north of Fountain Hills. So that found uh estimated AM and peak uh AM and PM peak hours for the residential development would not generate the need for any intersection improvements at this time. Those would come down the road when that commercial area develops. So which is why as a staff we're proposing to collect escrow funding from the developer for the this phase and then look to do the improvement when it's warranted in the future. uh traffic uh concerns about safety at intersection. The traffic impact study did not identify any crashes at the Carriage Hills 21 intersection. I mean, I drive that. The council drives that. I'm sure, you know, we're all it's not, you know, sight lines are are decent, not great, and it does give you a pay attention feeling. So, I understand that comment, but there was no accidents identified in the study. Uh I'll quickly go through the the level of service. So intersections receive a level of service based on how they flow. Um rated A through F. A being the best, F meaning the demand exceeds capacity. So the Carriage Hills 21 intersection is currently in AB during the morning and afternoon peak hours. in the traffic study included that in a 20 37 based on the residential development only that intersection will function at an A and a B in the AM and an A and a C in the PM. Again, that study does note that assuming the full buildout of the commercial area, that drops to an A to E in the PM hours, and that's when an intersection would be evaluated uh based on when future intersection improvements would be needed. That's going to be based on traffic warrants. And under the 2030 and 2037 build scenarios which assume that business office park is built, then traffic warrants will be met for intersection improvements. The speed of traffic was one that we heard a few times that traffic goes too fast down Carriage Hills Lane. And then the assumption being more vehicles, more residents means more speed. Uh but city staff has found that in most cases that is not the case. additional development could potentially be a traffic calming measure. So, uh the thought being vehicles if you're driving next to a cornfield are going to drive faster than you are if you're driving next to a neighborhood. So, Prior Lake periodically conducts vehicle speed studies throughout the community. We did have a speed study completed of this area of Carriage Hills in 2025. So, this is a two-day study. uh results are outputed in 15 minute intervals and it found that the eastbound lane of Carriage Hills had 976 vehicles a day on average with a peak volume of 43 in the afternoon on May 20th. The average speed was 37 miles an hour which is 2 miles over the posted speed limit but the 85th percentile speed meaning where 85% of the vehicles are driving at or below or was a 41.84 miles an hour. So, a little fast on the eastbound lane. The westbound was faster at 43 and a half miles per hour with an average speed of 38. And again, a peak volume of 32 over a 15 minute time frame in the morning, which makes sense. Vehicles westbound in the morning and eastbound in the afternoon. Uh, but the higher speeds for the westbound traffic adjacent to the undeveloped property kind of coincided with staff's thought of vehicles drive faster when there's not a development around and they have better sight lines and there's not intersections and there's less room for danger. Uh, one of the comments that we got at the public hearing, um, the planning commission asked the developer to look at on street parking and the town home area of the development. So, this didn't hold up their recommendation, but they asked the developer to look into it and see what they could do. So the developer provided this to staff showing uh the parking provided private in garage, private on driveway and public on street. So we require as a city two parking stalls per unit. We do not uh require them to be in a garage. We just require two. So there's four per unit. And then they've showed a plan here with 60 on street parking stalls for guests or someone visiting. um that does have parking on both sides of the two access streets here. If they just did parking on one side, then they would be at about 50 off- streetet parking stalls to support these uh 96 units, I believe. Another document provided by the developer was some sighteline analysis. This was a comment raised during the public hearing. It's part of our standard review with their development anyway. Um, but this is a document that they provided which has been reviewed by your engineering staff to show that there's adequate sight distances at the intersections. I believe this is my last comment. I know the council's probably getting tired of listening to my voice, but uh we did get some comments and questions about what impact this development would have on the school district. So, we did, you know, request the school district provide us some comments on this one. We do meet, you know, whether we have a development project like this or not, city and school district staff do meet annually to discuss what developments we're currently working on, what developments we see down the road. The school district is regularly reviewing housing data forecasts. They have their own forecasting and demograph demographic trends for their planning purposes. and they said this their projections and their forecasts do anticipate a development of this size in this location. So the Prairie Lake Savage Area School District is currently experiencing enrollment declines about a half a percent per year. So their comments back to the city where residential growth can help stabilize enrollment and provide per people funding needed to support staffing and programs. They did indicate that Marlo Ridge was anticipated and it is not expected to create any overcrowding issues and then this area would be served by Jeffers Pond Elementary which has capacity across grade levels to accommodate this enrollment. The planning commission public hearing on June 1st considered five items of the six on your agenda this evening because the EAW negative declaration does not go to planning commission for review and approval. But again, thank you to the planning commissioners for their very diligent deliberation and discussion. Uh following that, they did recommend approval of all five items they considered on a 50 vote. and staff's recommendation is on the screen. If the council has any questions, I'd be happy to take them. I do know the applicant is in attendance as well if you have questions for them. Thank you. >> Thank you so much, Mr. McCabe, uh, for your very thorough presentation. Council, are there any questions you have of Director McCabe? Uh, Council Member Brad. >> So, in your presentation, uh, Director McCabe, the all the streets in here are public, correct? >> Correct. Okay. Um, and when I was going through the your very detailed report, so thank you. Um, you walked us through a lot and we covered a lot of ground. Um, you know, this is an area that we've known was going to be developed for years and years and years, right? Um, you know, things I like about the development is there is no park as the city has four times the national average. Um, I like that is on the lower end of the the density component um of what we typically guide. I think that makes for um really nice neighborhoods and I like the mixture of the housing product where we're able to touch multiple demographics. If it's growing families or 55 plus, I think it it's a really well done and I think that Trillium Co was a very well done uh development as well. Um I like the fact that the streets are public so we're continuing to put the shovel down as it pertains to private streets with public infrastructure underneath it. I think that was real smart on uh city staff's part to say we're not going to continue to to go down that road. Um and I like that the the traffic component has has been addressed. Um because when I I look at those the streets and the collector and the main arterials, I mean this whole area has been designed for this development or a development like this for for years. um you know the the heartburn is the the business zoning to residential and in 10 years I've not done that once to my record election um and I don't want developers or anybody to hear or planning commissioners that I would ever be in support of that or my fellow counselors again um because I I won't but this makes sense and how you explained it on the last meeting where you said hey we we just kind of overlay it we don't do all of the elevation to be able to determine what it is for for each made a lot of sense for me and that's how I got there. Um so a lot of that makes sense to me. Um you know I think it'll be a pretty good um development moving forward. So um thank you for the detailed report. You answered all my questions. So >> council any additional comments council member lake >> just thank you for all the work that goes into it. I think we often don't realize what it takes to, you know, get here. Um, the staff, the developer, the residents, the council, and we still have years of work to do before this fully develops. Um, so thank you for that. And as uh, Council Member Braid said that we're very protective of our commercial space here, land in in in Prior Lake. And uh but we're also logical and this makes a lot of sense. Um we're going to get more out of it than trying to preserve that little um chunk with topographical challenges. So I'll be in support of this. Thank you. Um I've got some comments. Actually, I was going to see if the developer might stand for questions if I can. Not to put Mr. Hoyer on the spot or uh PY, but I I do have one question. I'm going to be in support of this uh project. So, just to let you know very much so in support and I've got some nice things to share quite honestly. First, I want to thank the family um you know the development of this property uh that you've shephered over this land for hold up fingers how many generations? Um it's a number a number of years and I want to thank you. >> 1864. So there's uh again I'm gonna struggle with it. Somebody somebody give me the number 150. Well it's it's a bunch of years. So first off thank you um PY Homes um working through this plan use development. Um you've done a fantastic job in meeting the city. As Mr. Brad said parks we don't need any additional parks. However, we do have some park amenities that do need to be completed for the benefit of the residents in this Marlo Ridge for the benefit of one of the things that this project's going to unlock quite honestly is going to be the ability for our residents to traverse as pedestrians or bicyclists all the way around this community. that's what this neighborhood is going to enable as part of the longer vision of this. So, um that's a huge ad. The other thing is you were very attentive to the demands this will put on our road network and the traffic study included that and their set aside for that that if and when and if I may thank PY Holmes for that as well, Mr. Hoyer. >> Thank you. that this um as we know as it builds out in totality, it's going to impact the surrounding road network. You've seen to that and I thank you. Um and I too am favorably the very first project that came before this council when I was elected was Trillium Cove and the three different housing types. I'm going to lead up to my loan question that I'm going to have for you. um really hits the demographic demands that I hear about in this community. So again, I have no reason to believe other than this the absorption of these homes is going to fill up very quickly. Casey, if you would pull up the high density where the parking where the planning commission asked about the parking and Mr. uh and I and I think you're going to know where I'm coming from on this one. Perfect. Um, right now as you in your analysis, marketing analysis on this housing product type, if I may, Mr. Hoyer, what do you see the buyers or the inhabitants of these homes want to have in the way of parking? What are they asking PY? because I do see you're providing two covered garage spots and you're providing two driveway spots for each one of those residences. Dare I say, is that too much parking based on based on what you're hearing? And um you know the sorts of questions we get in St. Paul, so you know the genesis of my question. Yeah. So, if you would please comment on the parking for this housing type and how it is that you believe this fits what you're going to hear from your >> Mr. Mayor, city council. Thank you. It's great to be here this evening. >> City ordinances on guest parking and parking in general for town home neighborhoods varies considerably. They're generally from, don't hold me to this, but something like a quarter stall per unit to a half a stall per unit. This is 96 units, half is 48 if I'm doing my math right. Um, and we have 60. So, that leads us to be comfortable. Sometimes when cities have, you know, at the low end of that, the quarter the quarter um per unit, sometimes we're not comfortable with that and we want to be a little bit higher. So we base this on our experience in the past um like cities have learned on their residential roads and and how they designed them you know from the past. So we're comfortable with this um from our experience this is uh more than what um cities typically require and we're very comfortable with it. >> Wonderful. Well, that was uh my lone question. Um because indeed the um the three different the housing types in here um again I know going to meet the the demands and I wish you nothing but success and thank you for working with the city and again my thanks to the family. Um my thanks to to all that participated. Um with that um you're more than welcome to to take your seat and council. I would uh look to you to make a motion on >> Mr. Mayor. Can I can I just apologize for something? >> Oh, please do. >> When we met in January, I think I told you all that we'd never need a traffic signal at Fountain Hills Drive and uh and Eagle Lake Avenue. I was wrong. Um it's still a chance it's not going to be required depending on the business office park and those users and whether or not it's enough to trigger that. Um but I was probably wrong. So, I wanted to go on the record and let you know that. >> Well, first off, thank you for for that, but I also know that you've made you acknowledge that that the demands in that area could be significant and certainly we have a fire we have a public safety amenity right there across the way. So, I thank you for working through that with the uh with the city and also for your acknowledgement this evening. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, again, council, it it's it's there in the bold face, and I have a sip of water before you start before you start reading it. But, uh, there's the motion before us. All right. Um, I'll make a motion to approve a resolution approving a negative EAW declaration, a resolution amending the 2040 city of Prior Lake Future Land use map, an ordinance amending the official zoning map, a resolution approving an easement vacation, an ordinance approving a PUD overlay district for a development to be known as Marlo Ridge, and a resolution approving a preliminary plat for Marlo Ridge, second edition, conditioned upon the developer addressing staff comments in the May 19th, 2026 memorandum. >> And I'll take the easy road. >> I I will second that >> motion by council member braid, a second by uh council member lake. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. And that motion carries. Council, that brings us to the final agenda item, which is our council member leazison on updates item 11. And again, true to our past, uh Mr. Helier. >> Thank you, Mayor uh council. On the 12th, I attended the scale meeting where we got a legislative update on the end of session and had a spirited conversation about bonding projects or lack thereof. Uh on the 18th, the uh community engagement committee met. Uh we took a tour of the public safety uh facility at the SMSC and then also got to tour Flame and Flora. Uh that was on the 18th. And then yesterday I had my agenda review with councelor or with councelor braid. >> Thank you so much council member Heli or council member lake. >> Thank you. On the 12th of June I attended the scale general meeting um as well. On the 17th I attended the tab uh executive uh committee meeting in St. Paul and on that same day the tab general membership meeting uh in St. call and on the 22nd I had my agenda review and that concludes my report. >> Thank you so much, Council Member Lake. Council member Churchill. >> Thank you, Mayor. On uh the 12th, I attended the scale general meeting and on the 13th I participated in the Prior Lakeup dive of PI um of Prior Lake, Upper Prior Lake. On the 16th, I had the Prior Lake Spring Lake watershed district meeting. On the 17th, the MVTA met. I did not attend. And on the 22nd, I had my agenda review. >> Thank you, Council Member Churchill. Council member Brad, >> mayor, members of the council, uh enjoyed a little bit of time off. Uh the EDA meeting was cancelled in June. On 6:21, I attended the U amphitheater soft opening. Uh that's a a heck of a venue out there and a nice amenity for um our residents here in Prior Lake. So, and then I attended my agenda review with Council Heler on um Monday. >> Thank you so much, Council Member Brad. I have but one item to share and that was I attended the scale general meeting last Friday and of course major review with U city manager. City manager Wedell, anything you'd like to add? >> Yeah, thank you mayor and council members. Uh just a note that coming up on July 10th is our annual beach party at Sandp Point Park from 11:00 a.m. to 2 pm. So always look forward to that. And then also just a note uh for the month of July. Historically we've only had one council meeting in the month of July because it one of the meetings usually falls very close to the 4th of July holiday. However, this year with the calendar being what it is, uh our meetings fall on July 14th and 28th. So, we will actually have two council meetings in the month of July. >> Thank you. I guess the only thing additionally I'd like to add is just uh Council Member Helier, uh Manor Wedell and I are heading off to the League of Minnesota Cities annual conference in Rochester tomorrow. So, look forward to a productive meeting and looking forward to learning what's new on the on the city front. With that, uh we entertain a motion for that final item, item 13. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second >> motion by council member Helier, second by council member Brad to adjourn the meeting.