Good evening and welcome to this Lake City Council meeting of Tuesday, June 9th, 2026. If you would please um stand, join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the stands and justice for all. >> Good evening and it is so nice to see so many in attendance this evening. Um the first item on our agenda is the public forum. public forum is that opportunity for those in the council chambers to come before the city council and share with us anything that you might have on your mind. The exception to that is at this time we would not be able to take any testimony on any hearings, public hearings or for hearings that have either taken place or for which a hearing has been scheduled. But with that loan exclusion, is there anyone that would like to come before us this evening? Seeing none, I would move along to uh item three on our agenda, council, which is the approval of the agenda itself. And if there are no modifications or changes, I would uh encourage a motion to approve it as submitted. >> I would move to approve the agenda as submitted. >> I will second. >> Motion by council member Churchill, second by council member Lake to approve the agenda as submitted. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. That motion carries. Bringing us to the meeting minutes. Uh council, it has been some time since our last meeting. Um, this is for the approval of the May 12th, 2026 city council meeting minutes. Again, council, if no changes, modifications, I would entertain a motion to approve as submitted. >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. So, moved. >> Motion by council member Lake, second by council member Helier to approve those meeting minutes. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. That motion carries. Bring us to the consent agenda this evening. And what I'd like to do is to uh hand that over to assistant city manager Lori Olsen if she would both in introduce the consent agenda as well as those items before us this evening. >> Thank you Lori. >> Thank you mayor. City council. Items on the cons on the city council agenda considered routine or non-controversial are included as part of the consent agenda unless the mayor or a council member requests an item to be removed and considered separately. Items on the consent agenda are considered under one motion, second, and vote. Any item removed from the consent agenda will be placed on tonight's agenda under removed consent agenda items. Approval of claims listing. Resolution to receive the quote and award a contract for a pump upgrade at the Summit booster station. Resolution authorizing final payment for the 150th Street Lift Station Rehabilitation. Resolution receiving quotes and awarding a contract for pavement repair on Spring Glenn Circle Northwest. Resolution approving a work order for professional engineering services for the 2026 2027 storm water pond maintenance project. Resolution approving a work order for professional engineering services for the 2026 miscellaneous miscellaneous drainage project. Approval of April 2026 treasurer's report. Approval of a resolution approving the combined preliminary and final plat for Marlo Ridge. Resolution approving an extension to the recording deadline for the residents at Crestwoods. approval of the animal control services report, approval of the April building permit summary report, and finally, approval of the March animal control services report. >> Thank you so much. Um, Assistant Manager Olsen, Council, are there any items before us on the consent agenda that you would ask be removed and taken up under item 10? Excuse me. If none, then I would entertain a motion to uh approve the agenda. the consent agenda as submitted. >> I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. I >> have a motion by Council Member Lake, second by Council Member Churchill to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. That motion carries bringing us to item 6A this evening, which is a resolution approving the 2025 annual financial report and management letter. And I can see we have finance director Cluckner for this item this evening. Director Thank you, Mayor and Council. And presenting our audit report for us tonight is Jim Iikton, and he is the principal at our audit firm, LB Carlson. There we go. Mayor, members of council, administration, my name is Jimden with LB Carlson CPA. Uh here this evening to present the uh audit results uh for the uh year ended December 31st, 2025. Um it is a requirement um in state law that the city have an annual financial statement prepared and um that particular financial statement is required to be audited by an independent certified public accountant, the CPA, which is my role uh here with the city. Uh the city has issued an a beautiful financial report um just recently um and has that has been audited. Um that particular financial report is quite lengthy. It's about 125 pages long. So if you get a moment to review that, it's a great document. But uh as part of our particular process, um we do uh provide a number of steps to issue that report and I'll go through those. Um thanks for um doing the PowerPoint over there for me. Um uh so as part of this particular uh audit, we do uh issue an opinion as I mentioned on those financial statements. Um, the city uh also is required to have what's called a single audit of federal awards if you were to receive more than $750,000 of federal revenue and and in this particular year you did have a a trail project that exceeded that amount. So, we did complete that particular process this year and I'll I'll get to some of the results related to that. uh in both of those areas, both the financial uh statement as well as the schedule of federal awards, we are required to test your internal controls over those aspects alone, specifically related to financial reporting and um uh the single audit of federal awards. Uh also, we are required to audit your compliance with Minnesota laws and regulations. um uh we don't audit all the statutes that you are required to comply with only those statutes that are listed on a a list provided by the office of state auditor. So as as part of my particular process um you can go to the next slide. Uh um we do provide a summary of audit results and what's called a management report. And in that management report you um that we go through a number of items including um providing required communications and some financial results uh related to that and I'm going to go through some of the highlights of that particular report uh today. So uh first and foremost we were able to issue what's called an unmodified opinion on those financial statements. Uh uh that would be considered a clean opinion, a positive opinion related to that financial results. uh we were also able to issue an unmodified opinion a clean opinion on that schedule of federal awards specifically that uh the main component of that was the one grant I I referred to. Um so as part of the internal control testing we did we did find two uh findings um um in that particular area. Uh the first one related to um the single audit of federal awards and and specifically the internal controls over one aspect of that particular process. Um the anytime the federal uh government anytime you're spending federal dollars, you are required to to determine if if the the if the vendor that you're using is suspended or debarred. Um suspended or debarred is is um uh I won't say easy. the the check to determine if they're supprened or devoured is really a search on a Google site that internet site that the federal government keeps track of. So, we determined as part of our particular single audit that that particular process was not occurring. Uh it's not all that unusual to have a finding of this nature given that you don't have federal awards all the time. It it really, you know, I can't remember the last time the city had a single audit. So, it's not all that surprising that this particular requirement isn't a finding. That being said, nonetheless, it is a finding. Um, uh, you'll note that in in as it relates to this particular finding that it is listed under the internal controls. So, what we what we determined as part of the audit is that the controls were we were weak, but we did not issue an opinion uh on compliance, a negative opinion on compliance. You were complying. This vendor per se was not suspended or debarred. So it's mostly related to the internal controls you were complying with the laws and regulations which is very important distinction for me um to to to be clear on um related to that particular area. Uh the second area I wanted to talk about we did have issue one uh finding related to internal controls specifically related to um what's actually on the next slide if you want to go to there it is on your Minnesota legal compliance. Um, as I mentioned, we don't issue uh uh we don't audit every law, but then in this particular area, we do uh um uh issue opinions on your compliance with providing quotes for uh purchasing. So, the rules in the state of Minnesota require that you prov to obtain two or more quotes for um contracts that exceed $25,000 that are less than $175,000. And what we noted in this in two of the the contracts that we that were um tested, the the city did not obtain two or more quotes, but had um um defaulted to uh a policy that stated that you were using preferred vendors. Um and I don't have the the the specifics related to these uh um acceptance or use of preferred vendors is really really uh um okay. And you can do that at all at at any time. But you are required to evaluate um with every contract. Should I have obtained two or more quotes or should should there is there an opportunity here to not just default to that particular preferred vendor? I should have gone through a process to look at well are is there a new vendor? Is there a possible vendor that I could be using that is better or more useful for the city? And that should be happening with every contract. Uh, in this case, the there there was the city was just defaulting to, yep, we've used this vendor in the past. We're not going to get two or more quotes. Um, so it's subtle, I'll say the finding is, and and it it it's uh something that is more more of an um documentation item than anything concerning related to those contracts. But it is something that should be um uh developed in terms of the purchasing policy they have that that there is documentation on those two to getting two or more quotes or at least evaluating the need for two or more quotes with all contracts within that particular range. So I want to evaluate uh this these audit results in in this vein. Um every time you come in front of an audit or I come in front of an audit do an audit I say this audits come with findings. It's just what it is. I I've done this for a long time and I've provide findings. What I find most important is the corrective action plan. What is the city council doing? What is the administration doing so that we can correct this? What are the new controls? What are the new systems that are going to be put in place? Uh the city has issued a uh a corrective action plan with plans in place to correct it so that I can come back here next year and say, "Yep, we had findings last last year and they were corrected. We tested them again. No issues moving forward. Um so that's an important aspect of of this particular um process. So moving forward on my presentation um uh we did issue some information uh in my management report on the financial results and you can see uh on the on the uh PowerPoint here that the city's uh overall fund balances in their governmental funds uh increased about 900,000. Uh the general fund was the most significant uh increase in there. the general fund increased its equity position by about 900,000. Uh some of the capital funds went up and down. They all kind of netted together, but capital funds go up and down depending on projects and and the funding of of those as as can be shown there. Um the ne next graph I believe shows there we go your general fund financial position. Um this particular graph is showing um the general fund uh year-end balance over the last five years. um in in in a sense the uh unassigned fund balance as well as the assigned fund balance and it shows certainly the improvement uh in the general fund of that 900,000 I was talking about. Um this compared to a a budget that projected about a $700,000 decline in in the overall fund balance equity position. So you are quite a bit more better than a budget expected expectations which is certainly what you would expect or hope for as a city. Uh so the next graph shows that the um the fund balance as a percentage of expenditures. Uh the city does have um a goal fund balance policy that states that that um uh you have will obtain a minimum fund balance in the general fund to strive to maintain a fund balance of between 40 to 50% of budgeted expenditures. the city has that particular fund balance policy because you're receiving taxes u um pretty much on a twice a year basis. So you need an equity position to more or less cash flow your general fund. This particular graph certainly shows that that fund balance percentage as a percentage of expenditures has exceeded that minimum threshold. Uh over the last five years as presented this past year you ended the year at 59.8% 8% which is above um that particular threshold which is very important uh as a as a city to be in a good financial position overall. So that's very positive there. Um a couple of graphs that we do present in my management report shows some trends in general fund revenues. Um this particular graph shows the general fund revenues over a five-year period. Um um the city's the the overall uh results in this particular year, the general fund revenues were about um about a million dollars more than what was expected in the budget. Uh inter um some intergovernmental revenues, some grants were higher than expected. Um your investment income were actually higher than projected and there were some some tax increment proceeds from a closed tax increment fund that that generated some higher than higher than budgeted expectations. Um but overall the general fund revenues are are what you would expect. Um so the next graph shows general fund expenditures. Um general fund expenditures were under budget by about 700,000. Um you add that in you have almost the perfect result. Uh revenues being higher than expected, expenditures being lower than expected. Um this particular graph, what's always stands out to me is the uh increase in public safety. Um uh the uh um uh the costs in that particular over the last five years are really uh increasing but not only in your city but all cities within the the met the metropolitan area and it really be highlighted on that particular graph. U public safety craft uh costs in the city increased almost a million dollars um mostly mostly for for personnel um related costs which can be seen in that particular graph. Uh the next graph does then get into your enterprise funds. Your enterprise funds are what I would describe as business type activities. You have a water, a sewer, and a water quality fund. All three of which are showing positive operations this past year. The next graph will show a five-year trend of your water fund. Uh the the lines there that stand out to me are the red and green lines which really are showing operating income as well as operating income after depreciation. All of which are in a positive light. Overall revenues in this fund did increase by about 8% this past year mostly related to to a rate increase. The next graph is similar. When you look at the sewer fund, the red and green lines have been very positive for the past five years. Um, this particular fund increased its revenues by about 11%. Uh, in this case, it was a combination of usage as well as a rate increase. And then lastly, I think the water quality fund is the last graph. And this graph as well is showing very positive results uh from a financial perspective. Uh, revenues increasing about 400,000 as seen on the on the graph. um uh as well as those green and and red lines uh showing very positive trends in financial results. So overall your fun your funds your enterprise funds are doing quite well. Uh the next graph uh I get into my management report a little bit more detail but it's important to understand that uh the city does uh uh take a lot of uh importance in implementing new accounting standards. There's been a lot of them over the past five years. And again, we did implement a new counting standards this year. There are more coming if you're interested. The last couple pages of my report goes into the detail of those particular standards which I won't touch on. But so that's the end of my presentation. Uh I think there's a summary page. Um oh that's okay. Uh overall uh I did issue a clean opinion on those financial statements. As I mentioned, uh they did have a single audit of federal awards which was very positive. We did have those two findings to report which uh the city's working on uh um you know the corrective action planned even discussions as I came in the room we talked about a little bit uh earlier. Um and overall your financial results are improving both in the general fund as well as your enterprise funds um um are having very positive operating results. Um but lastly I wanted just to point out that the city uh continues to have a high level of commitment to its audit process. One thing you can state uh that uh we experienced this year is a change in personnel at the highest level in the finance department and uh the audit process went as smooth as it ever has. Um that doesn't always happen in our world. When you have change, change can cause disruption. We did not experience that whatsoever. and it really just shows a commitment to overall quality of your financial results as well as the commitment to the audit process. Uh so with that, I'll open up to uh the city council and the chair uh for uh questions. Thank you so much, Mr. Actton. Council, are there any questions in regards to the presentation? Seeing none, I the work before us is uh council. We need a resolution approving the 2025 annual financial report and uh management letter. >> I'd make a motion to approve a resolution for the 2025 annual financial report and management letter. >> Second. Motion by uh council member Helier and a second by uh council member um Lake um to um approve the 2025 annual financial report management letter. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. And that motion carries. Thank you so much. Um for your presentation. Um that brings us uh council to item 7A which is a public hearing for the new on sale intoxicating liquor license application for Teresa's um Mexican restaurant. And I can see we have >> I'm doing >> Oh. Oh, assistant city manager Wilson. >> Excuse me. I didn't >> as I look over to community or Yeah. community development director um McCabe. So, please lead on. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, city council public. Teresa's Mexican Restaurant located at 6680 Bordon Street Northwest is under new ownership and therefore requires a new license to conduct their liquor services. Staff has completed the review process and verified that there is no money owed or property taxes due to the city. In addition, staff is confirmed. There are no other items that would have been identified under Minnesota's state statute 340A that would preclude the city from issuing this license to Teresa's under their new its new ownership. So, Mr. for mayor and city council as part of the approval process. We ask that you open the public hearing take any public testimony and once that has been heard consider approval of an on sale intoxicating liquor license for Teresa's Mexican restaurant. Thank you. >> Thank you so much councelor. Are there any questions uh for assistant uh city manager Olsen prior to us opening the public hearing? Um council member Helier, please. >> Thank you, Mayor. A quick question. Are we aware of any violations in the last couple years at Teresa's? >> I can take that. Um, in the old ownership, Teresa's did have a compliance violation in December of 2025. However, that would fall under the previous owners, not the new owners. Um, the new owners also took over the franchise in Lakeville, and neither finding from either city had any reason to not approve it. >> Great. Thanks. Any additional questions? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to open the public hearing. >> All moved. >> Second. >> Motion to open the public hearing on this item by Council Member Helier. Second by Council Member Churchill. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. That motion carries. The hearing is open at 7:22. Is there anyone that would like to come before us and be heard on this item this evening? >> Going once. Going twice. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second >> motion by council member Lake, second by council member Churchill to close the public hearing. Um all those in favor I >> I I that motion carries. Hearing is closed at 7:23. Um and again any discussion council on this item? If none I would entertain that motion uh to um approve. I'll make a motion to um approve on sale intoxicating liquor license for Teresa's Mexican Restaurant. >> Second. >> Motion by Council Member Helier, second by Council Member Churchill to approve that on sale intoxicating liquor license. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. That motion carries. Bringing us to item 9A, which is a resolution approving a preliminary platin ordinance approving a preliminary plan unit development overlay district for Campbell Shores. And for that we have community development director Case McCabe. Um director McCabe, we look forward to your presentation. >> Thank you, mayor. Good evening, counselor. So the applicant for this request is Pinnacle Family Homes and they're requesting preliminary plat approval and a preliminary planned unit development plan for a project known as Campbell Shores. The planned unit development plan proposes adjustments to some of our dimensional standards to allow for a 62 unit single family detached residential development. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the County Road 17 or Marshall Road intersection with County Road 12 and 170th Street East. So the property is west of Marshall Road and east of Campbell Lake. Campbell Lake is a natural environment lake. So that uh makes this a little bit more complicated of a planned unit development plan. The site has 2 point just under 2.4 acres of wetlands. And it has a wooded shoreline and also a portion of the property along the southern peninsula along 170th Street that is not proposed for development, but that is also a wooded area. And then agricultural fields cover most of the property today. Our 2040 comprehensive land use plan designates this area for lowdensity residential development. In our zoning, it's currently within the city limits. It is zoned for R1, which is our lowdensity residential district with within a shoreland overlay district within thousand feet of the lake. So, the comp planning and the zoning both uh guide this property for lowdensity residential development, which is what is proposed. and the development requires a minimum of 2.5 units per acre. So with a natural environment lake, there's a higher development standards. It's kind of a complex uh spreadsheet on in front of you on your screen, but the planned unit development approach is necessary in this case in order to meet our minimum 2 and a half unit per acre requirement as our standard R1 lots of 15,000 feet on the shoreland and 12,000 square feet for D uh non-reparian parcels cannot be met. The third column down shows what the natural environment standards are uh for DNR rules and city of Prior Lake ordinance. So that would require a 40,000 square foot repairarian parcel and a 20,000 foot non-reparian parcel. So a development like this could not meet our 2 and a half unit per acre requirement needed to get the sewer extension permits. Uh the developer is proposing lots ranging from 8600 to nearly 20,000 square feet. They are not proposing any adjustments to the front or rear setback requirements. They are proposing a 7 and 1/2 foot sideyard setback requirement. Uh the impervious surface will be 25% per tier. Uh we'll get into tiering in just a minute here with an average of 30% per lot. And then lot widths range from 65 to 70 feet in width. So again, 62 single family units. You can see the preliminary plan there. There is a large area also of protected shoreland shown on the plans that we'll get into. So with a shoreland PUD, there is a specific density per tier. So each of our lake classifications, whether it's a recreation, lake, natural environment, general development, they have their own tiering standards that applicants must follow for development. So in this case, Campbell has four tiers. The first three are within the shoreland entirely and the fourth is partially. Uh the applicant in this case um or any applicant, you can push density out to further out tiers, but you can't push density closer to the lake. So, our system has, you know, based on the area in your first tier, you get X number of units. If you're not using all of those units, let's say you can get 15, but you can only fit 12 lots, you can push those three to a further out tier, uh, which we're doing in this case. The PUD requirements uh, for a shoreland PUD require 50% open space on the entire property. And then, uh, natural area protection is also a requirement of the PUD. So, our first tier is to that that pink line. Uh the zoning ordinance would allow for 19 units in there, but the developer is proposing 13. So, six are being transferred outward from the lake uh to the other parcels. Tier two, which is the green, allows for 22 units. The applicant is proposing 27 within tier two. So, they're using five of those six bonus lots. And then tier three would allow for 18. They're proposing 19 to use uh the remaining bonus lot. And then there are three lots proposed outside of the shoreland tiers. So each tier will have a maximum of 25% impervious with lot flexibility. So, uh, much like we've done for other developments in shoreland PUDs, a developer can propose, you know, maybe some of the lots are 25% coverage, some of the lots are 30% coverage, but overall they will average 30 throughout uh, all of the parcels. And then those those actual numbers will be finalized before we would come back with a final PUB plan and a final plat. So, most of the significant trees on the property are being preserved. Uh the applicant is proposing to remove approximately 30% of the caliper inches. That does not require any tree replacement under our city code because we allow for 35% removal. Uh but the applicant will be planting a significant number of subdivision trees along with with the development. This development would propose a trail along Campbell Lake, which is the the darker red line all the way around the shore and then along 170th Street extending up along Marshall Road. And they have sidewalks uh for pedestrian circulation within the development. And the the applicant is also working with Scott County on a future intersection project at the 12 and 17 intersection which will include an underpass under county road 17 for pedestrian access and they are accommodating that within their design. So the green areas are conservation easements and open space proposed for the development. This project did go in front of our planning commission and the developer received a variance from the 50% open space requirement. So they are at 47% is is their new requirement. The justification for the open space is again it's the the cooperation of this developer with Scott County on their intersection project. So, they're they're working with the county to oversize some storm water ponding, um provide necessary right ofway, provide trail easements and connections. So, that additional land area that, you know, for lack of a better term, was lost by the developer and utilized by the county. That was used for justification and rationale for granting the variance because had they not done that, they would have been able to propose a development with 62 lots um meeting our requirements. But because they lost all of that land area, they essentially lost two developable lots. So the planning commission did grant a variance to allow them to maintain their their 62 lot development. Uh the applicant is also providing the planning commission found a higher quality open space and conservation easement with the preservation of significant areas of woodland and the entire shoreline of Campbell Lake. So the PUD criteria uh things that are looked at are you know it allows for a flexible approach to develop a property that still meets the the purpose and intent of our comprehensive plan and our zoning ordinance. It allows for creative and effective use of land creating a sense of place and providing for more interaction among people. Uh increased transportation pedestrian options with walking trails and biking and sidewalks. Effective and efficient use of streets and existing utilities and public facilities to serve the area and support high quality development and preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics which they're doing with the uh tree and shoreland preservation. The planning commission held a public hearing on this on May 18th and they recommended 50 that the city council approved the preliminary plat and the preliminary planned unit development plan. And staff is recommending a motion and second approving the resolution that would approve the preliminary plat and the preliminary PUB overlay district. And council, I would be happy to take any questions. The applicant is also in attendance if you have questions for them. >> Thank you so much, Director McCabe. Uh, council, are there any questions for Director McCabe on this item? Any comments? Uh, Council Member Lake, please. Just a quick comment. Uh, thank you to staff and the developer uh for working through some of these difficulties and making this development happen and also the Scott County um being part of it as well. So, I'll be in support of this. >> Thank you so much. Um, Council Member Lake, I too would like to make some comments. Um, first off, the u uh this development um and the collaboration across city county and the uniqueness of uh this is the the first I believe in my time 10 years this whole three tier um in terms of the the the lake and how density moves and and the uniqueness of this development in our community. It really is stands to be something special in prayer lake. So my um please my um recognition to the developer and and all the team that have pulled this together. I know that um there also been conversations with the county, us and the city around some of the challenges of the site, most notably the some of the frontage and of course uh county road um or 170th. Um, and I I certainly look forward to very positive resolution on on some of those challenges that sit before us as well, but I too will be in full support of this. And I also want to acknowledge and recognize the work of our planning commission when we do see a 50 recommendation council. Um, especially on something as complex as this. It it it speaks volumes. So, um, yes, I will be supporting and if there are no additional comments, I'd be looking forward to a resolution. I will make a motion to approve a preliminary PL an ordinance approving a preliminary planned unit development overlay district for Campbell Shores. >> Second >> motion by council member Lake and a second by council member Helier. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. And that motion carries and we look forward to uh the next steps. Thank you so much. That that brings us council to item 9B on our agenda this evening, which is a resolution approving a major amendment to the Shepherd's Path Plan unit development plan. And again, uh, community development director McCabe. Thank you, Mayor. So, the applicant for this request is Presbyterian Homes and Services, and they are working in partnership with Senior Housing Partners. They're requesting a major amendment to an existing planned unit development plan known as Shepherd's Path. So, uh, the amendment, uh, to the PUB would allow for the applicant to construct a 72 unit independent living building, uh, on a piece of property previously anticipated for a skilled nursing or assisted living facility. Uh, the applicant is also proposing to adjust some of our dimensional standards to accommodate their design. So, the site location is located west of Shephard's Path Northwest. This is north of County Road 42 next to the existing uh McKenna Crossing Presbyterian Homes facility, the former YMCA and Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church. The subject site is is highlighted in yellow and then the red box indicates where where this proposed building would be located. Another aerial photo showing the location uh BA with the existing aerial photo. So, a similar building when this was approved in 2006 was anticipated as part of the Shepherd's Path planned unit development plan. That planned unit development anticipated a skilled nursing facility in this location. Uh the demand and the market conditions according to the applicant have changed since that original plan and now they see a significant demand for independent living in this location. So, the current assisted living facility, uh, it's a mix of 85 independent living, 51 assisted, and 18 memory care units for a total of 154 units currently on the site. This is the original 2006 planned unit development plan. The project location is is shown here in the yellow box highlighted. So, you can see there was a three-story building anticipated in this general location. And so a similar size building in a similar location. So the PUD encompasses the entirety of the Shepherd's Path PUD is about 80 acres north of County Road 42. There are uh DNR protected wetlands on the site, but there are no proposed wetland impacts related to this project. And then the site is zoned for planned unit development based on that original 2006 plan. So again, the PUB plan contemplated a three-story skilled nursing facility on the site with an R3 zoning district. So again, this zoning is PUD. It's not R3, but our R3, which this would qualify under, is a max height of 45 ft. The planned unit development amendment would allow for the construction of a fourstory independent living. And then there's also one level of partially exposed below grade parking. So the building height when it's measured from how we measure in the city code from the finished grade level along the public rightway would range from just under 52 feet to just under 63 feet. But it also has a pitched roof to match the existing design. So we make that measurement to the midpoint of the pitch. So here at the bottom of your screen shows kind of a side profile elevation of how this building will fit in relation to the existing. So the new building is on the right, existing building is on the left. The the four stories that are occupied on this structure would meet that 45 foot requirement, but when including this lower level exposed parking and the upper level uh midpoint of the pitch, that's when you're going to get to your to your higher point. Uh the applicant also worked uh on their plans to push the building back from the street from both the east and the north. uh to provide a greater setback and reduce that perceived scale or impact of the building height. So here are a few again just concept elevations to give the council a feel of what the building may look like. So this lower level that you see exposed is parking. Um upper level they will have a proposed as a pitched roof. This is a flat roof elevation. Side profiles again the top is the east elevation of the building. The bottom is the west elevation. They're using nice quality uh building materials, variations on building walls, bumpouts, uh and different materials as well. So, here's an aerial showing how the building will fit in with the existing McKenna Crossing Press Homes facility and where it will sit in relation on the property. So the PUD request it would increase the total proposed building area by approximately 31,000 square feet which will result in a floor area ratio of.336 an increase of approximately 3% from the previously approved floor area ratio of 326. The maximum floor area ratio in our R3 high density district is a 0.35. So this is well in right in line with that. And then there there's also an overall reduction of planned units. So the original 2006 plan anticipated 80 total units. 72 is currently proposed. So that would reduce the density on this site from 8.3 to 8.2 units per acre. For parking, our city code requires one and a half parking stalls per unit. So that would be 108 parking stalls. The applicant is proposing 86. 64 of them would be structured underneath and 22 would be surface stalls. That parking supply is based on the applicants what they feel their need is. So they have over 60 of these similar facilities around uh other senior living communities and they believe their data shows a 1.2 parking stall per unit ratio is more than enough to handle staff and residents and guest parking. The original uh planned unit development plan does not establish specific setback requirements. Um in our R3, again, not an applesto apples comparison because this is a PUD zone. Uh but we would require a 30- foot front yard setback for the building and the sideyard setbacks would be a minimum of 15 feet and they would increase in distance based on the building height. The applicants in this case are proposing a 65 foot setback along Sheepard's Path. So, it's more than one foot per per foot in height of their building and 43 feet along North Baron's Road to the north. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in Shephardd's Path. The utilities currently, I know this isn't the best graphic for you, council, but the utilities currently cut through the corner of the property because that's where the road alignment used to be. The road is now set at 90 degrees. So, the applicant uh will be moving the water man within the public rightway. They are not going to move the sewer line due to some difficulties with moving that and staff supports leaving the sewer line where it currently is within an easement. They're going to direct storm water towards uh storm water facilities that already exist on the site. The previous uh planned unit development plan that anticipated a building on this site uh included storm water facilities. So there's no additional storm water improvements that are needed. This site is already designed to accommodate this building. So for major amendments to a PUB plan, our city code requires uh there's major amendments and there's minor amendments. A major amendment is any change in an approved use classification, changes to a final plat, increases in density, building height or parking, reductions in open space, or any changes that are anticipated in off-site impact. So this qualifies as a major imp uh a major amendment. Um they're reviewed. We just went through the criteria in the previous item. So I will go uh quickly through this. But a flexible approach to de development, creating a sense of place, uh increasing economic de vitality, more efficient and effective use of streets and utilities that are already there to support the development, enhanced incorporation of recreational public and open space components, and preserving and enhancing the site characteristics. The applicant is proposing to amend the previously approved PUD plan just to change the use from planned skilled nursing facilities to independent living. The overall number of units in the building and the scale of the building is similar to what was previously proposed. And then the PUD would include flexibility for the developer related to building height, density, dimensional standards, parking and setbacks. The planning commission considered this item. They held a public hearing on May 18th. They did recommend city council approval on a 50 vote and staff is also recommending approval. So I would be happy council to take questions and the applicants are in attendance as well if you have questions for them. Thank you so much. Uh Director McCabe council any questions? Um I've got a a couple questions actually. Casey, could you take me back to the parking? And this is one I wish I would have picked up. during my review and I missed it. Specifically the parking ratios. Um so here I can see um parking supply is based on demonstrated demand from the applicant 60 plus senior living communities. I guess my question applicant andor Casey would be um would that be like u occupant? So in other words, this was originally skilled nursing facility and I don't know what a parking requirement would be for a skilled nursing facility as compared to a independent living facility. Um so please share with me the um the parking and also applicant if you might have context for um demographic or like independent liver or living individual for the adjacent facility. Is it a similar uh occupant because I'd be very interested in what those parking ratios were when that building was constructed 21 years ago. >> 20 Yeah. 20 years ago. >> Um, so again, parking questions and a little context for me on the parking questions if I may say so. We the city accepted in a 55 plus development some data from the developer and let's just say the data created challenges for the city um which which put us in a kind of a difficult bind. So that's the context for my question. I wish I would have gone a little bit deeper on this prior to just because again I hate gotchas. This is not designed to be a gotcha. So anyway, um those are my questions on the parking. >> Absolutely. Well, thank you so much for your time tonight. Um in terms of parking, one note that I don't think was in the presentation is we did provide proof of parking as well. So those additional required stalls, should we ever see a need for it with our residents, we would be able to install those. Um, it's a it's a leasing issue for us as well. People don't want to live in a community if they can't park there. So, we would never want to provide less than it would be required to, you know, lease up those units. Um, in terms of the question about skilled nursing versus independent living, uh, it's a little bit hard to compare because the skilled nursing component has a much larger staff component. Um, and those staff are traversing much more frequently than you would have a resident um, of the community. So, I don't know what the original parking was, but uh we feel very comfortable with the amount we're providing. We're only adding about, I think, four staff total with this additional um density. So, most of the staff of the community is already parking on the campus um as it is operating today. So again, not knowing what the ratios were on the on the previous building 21 years ago, and again, I'm not going to challenge us with that information at the meeting, but it would be interesting to see how those ratios were 21 years ago since we're going to have essentially the same resident in this building just to compare apples to uh apples, so to speak. But you did say um so there is space available when you say leasing from your adjacent property or elsewhere it should the need arise. >> Should the need arise it would be um immediately east of the property. So we've positioned the building to be able to accommodate I think it's 22 additional parking stalls. >> Wonderful. Um and I guess my only other question Casey if you can come up with the map of the site map. Um the one that shows this. Here we go. There you go. Perfect. Um my assumption is these residents are going to be uh very much so interacting with the adjacent building is my assumption. >> Correct. >> Um as applicant may be aware that there is a trail that is used uh frequently by the residents and uh unfortunately we have an amenity within this space specifically a bridge. Um and we the city have been um unfortunately we had a park referendum that was on our ballot um last November that uh this bridge was an amenity that we were hopeful um because it now is closed. This bridge is closed and manager Wedell and I have uh had meetings out here with these residents that um have questions in regards to this bridge. I'm very familiar with um the mechanism by which that bridge got built, how things occurred. This is one that I I guess I am challenged. I will be supporting this this evening. Um because I believe the need in our community is high for this type of development. Um, I'm hopeful to maybe encourage a conversation uh between applicant and city and quite honestly with uh your your co- um residents here around the significance of this bridge. need it be um constructed or it has its time and as an as an amenity potentially gone its way. And so that is a I guess a favor or a request that I would have. I would like some thoughtful discussion to occur outside of the purview of the city in regards to that trail system and to what extent it would provide your residents that have not yet been disappointed with the absence of an amenity because should they be disappointed I think I know where those phone calls would go. Um if that kind of makes some sense to you. >> Yes, completely understand and we're we're happy to work with you on um figuring out a way to work together. Well, again, I I certainly know that um you having conversations internally with development um because again, your answer back uh one way or the other and that would would certainly inform us as we're looking as to what we can do as a as a city to support the varied use um of our of our park system. So, uh with that, I have no additional comments. Um, and council, I would, as we can see before us, um, entertain a motion on this one. And you're free. I think we're done with Yeah. questions. >> Um, I'd make a motion to approve a major amendment to the Shepherd's Path Plan unit development plan. >> Second. We have a motion by Council Member Helier and a second by Council Member Lake uh to approve the major amendment. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. And that motion carries. >> Um bringing us council to um item 11 on our agenda which are those council member lays and updates. And if we can look to council member Helier to kick it off. >> Thank you mayor. Uh members of the council. It's been a minute since we met. So I got a few things. Uh on May 18th we had the planning commission meeting. Uh which as you can tell by this meeting was a long busy meeting. It followed by the soft opening at Chulas. on the 21st had the uh community engagement committee. Got a great presentation from Scott County and the uh future of the county. On the 28th uh went to the IWG meeting uh with Scott County and our neighboring communities and had a good presentation and conversation within that council uh planning commission again on the 1, the chamber on the 3, and then agenda review today with councelor Lake. And that's it. Thank you so much, Councelor Heli or Council Member Lake. >> Mayor, councilors, on uh May 15th, I attended the scale executive committee meeting. And then on U Memorial Day, which was the 25th, I had the honor to participate in Memorial Day parade um organized by our great VFW. Um and I was part of that event and it was a great day and great turnout uh for our city. On the 8th of June, the EDA meeting was cancelled and today I had my agenda review. That concludes my report. >> Thank you so much, Councelor Lake, Council Member Churchill. >> Thank you, Mayor. On May 19th, I had the Prior Lake Spring Lake watershed district meeting. On the 27th of May, I had my MVTA board meeting and the 5th of June, I had my agenda review. >> Thank you so much, Council Member Churchill. Um, as council member Helier said, it has been a minute. Um, is is a reflect back. So, u, I had the distinct pleasure attending the youth appreciation lunchon with that put on by our optimist club on the 13th of May. Um, had the opportunity to participate with manager Wedell with the state of the city update to the chamber of commerce on the 14th. On the 21st, uh, manager Wedell and I attended the Met Council state of the region presentation. And finally, um, on May 25, we cut the ribbon on Chula's, uh, restaurant, which has not only opened, it has been very, very busy. And that concludes my, uh, update, and I'd like to turn now to Assistant City Manager Olsen to see if she would like to add some other items. >> Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of quick reminders. Want to remind everyone out there that the annual coin carnival is going to be held this Friday in Lakefront Park from 4:00 to 7 o'clock. So hopefully the weather will agree with us. It's a fun time especially with those with little kiddos. And also a reminder that um next Friday the 19th is Junth. That is a state holiday. So city offices will be closed next Friday, June 19th. That's it. >> Thank you so much. And with that council, I would look to item 13. I will make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Motion by council member lake to adjurnn this a second by council member Helier. All those in favor say I. I. I. >> I. And meeting is adjourned at 7:54.