[music] [music] [music] [music] >> Yeah, I Well, I'll start. Good evening. And I we have the wrong thing up here. Uh Tonight is April 27th, 2026. This is a regular meeting of the Minnetonka City Council. Call this meeting to order. I'd invite those of you are who are able to please stand and join us for 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. Ms. Larson, please call roll. Maxwell? Here. Wilbern? Here. Calvert? I believe she may have had to step away, but she may be rejoining us. Remely? Here. Coakley? Here. Foster Bolton? Here. Schack? Here. Uh first item four is approval of the agenda. Um and Mr. Funk, there's an addenda. Yes, thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I have three items for your consideration for tonight's addenda. First is related to 12 A, an ordinance regarding short-term rentals. After distribution of the packet from last Thursday, uh there's been public comment received, and so a part of your addenda is that public comment. And those are attached for your review. The next item is related to item 14 A, which is a conditional use permit and a site and building plan review for building expansion, new bus corral, and parking reconfiguration Minnetonka Middle School East, 17000 Lake Street Extension. Public comment was received after the distribution of the packet from last Thursday, so you do have that correspondence attached to this addendum. And then last is related to item 14 B, which is a conditional use permit requesting accessory dwelling unit or an ADU at 15815 Minnetonka Boulevard. The staff report incorrectly stated that the Council first vote on April 13th was a three to three decision to deny the request. The actual motion to deny failed on a two to four vote, so the staff report noted that incorrectly. It is accurately reflected in the minutes. So, with that, Mayor and Council, the staff recommendation is to approve the agenda as amended. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Funk. All right, Council, I'll take a motion to approve. Council Member Remely. I'll make I'll move to approve the agenda as amended. Thank you. Council Member Maxwell. I'll second. I have a motion by Council Member Remely, a second by Council Member Maxwell. Ms. Larson, please call roll. Maxwell? Yes. Wilbern? Yes. Calvert? Yes. Remely? Yes. Coakley? Yes. Foster Bolton? Yes. Schack? Yes. Motion carries. And before we move on to item five, I will just my weekly reminder that if you intend to speak on item eight, citizens wishing to discuss matters not on the agenda, or on either of the public hearings tonight, we have these white cards out in the lobby. Fill one of those out and we'll make sure to give you your opportunity to speak. Everybody has 3 minutes. What I will say is that consistent with policy and our previous practice, we do I do see I have a note here for item 12 A, which is an ordinance introduction. We do not take public comment on ordinance introductions. The public hearing on those happens at the planning commission level, and then that will come back to us with the planning commission's recommendation. Often we take some limited comments from the public at that council meeting, but in the interest of letting the planning commission do their work, we decline to take public comment at this stage in the process. I will say many emails have come in today and over the weekend, but frankly, even over the course of the past several weeks since we first discussed this, we're reading our emails. I I can attest on behalf of the Council here, and those are taken into account, and anything that's here in this packet is also going to be presented to the planning commission. So, sorry to spend so much time on that, but I wanted to just be clear on kind of how we manage public hearings uh relative to ordinance introductions here. All right. So, on to item number five, approval of the minutes. We have three sets of minutes, uh the March 2nd, 2026 study session minutes, the April 13th, 2026 regular meeting minutes, and the April 13th, 2026 LBAE uh meeting minutes. Council. Council Member Calvert. Thank you. Um uh thank you, Mayor. I'd move approval of the March 2nd, 2026 study session minutes, the April 13th, 2026 regular meeting minutes, and the April 13th, 2026 um LBAE meeting minutes. Thank you. Council Member Remely. I'll second. I have a motion by Council Member Calvert, a second by Council Member Remely. Ms. Larson, please call roll. Maxwell? Yes. Wilbern? Yes. Calvert? Yes. Remely? Yes. Coakley? Yes. Foster Bolton? Yes. Schack? Yes. Motion carries. On to special matters, and we've got some great special matters this evening. Uh 6 A, which is the National Therapy Animal Day Proclamation, and we have our very own therapy dog here, Samson. So, Samson, why don't you come on up so that you can stand up here while we um read this proclamation. And I know that Council Member Calvert is bereft at the fact that she's not here tonight. There's another one. And we've got another Yes. This is Rowan. Rowan. Rowan is here tonight, too. Deb, I'm really sorry that you can't see Rowan. >> [laughter] >> Um So bummed. I saw it's a golden, too. I saw. Yes. Okay, well, we've got a Council Member here who has a warming relationship, soon to be dog lovers. I've asked Council Member Foster Bolton >> [laughter] >> to please read the National Therapy Animal Day Proclamation. Okay. Um just some other information. I have become over the last couple of years more and more of a dog lover. Um and that wasn't the case 2 years ago. Where what? 61. Yeah. Yeah, it does. Whereas National Therapy Animal Day is a day to recognize and honor the thousands of therapy animal teams who serve their communities across the country. And whereas therapy animals provide comfort and healing to people of all ages in a wide range of settings, including hospitals, schools, nursing homes, disaster areas, emergency services, and more. And whereas the positive impact of the bonds between humans and animals has been recognized for decades, with animal-assisted interventions growing into a respected and powerful complement to traditional care and support services. And whereas the presence of therapy animals has been shown to reduce stress and anxiety, improve cardiovascular health, stimulate memory and communication, and foster a greater sense of connection and hope. And whereas these trained animals offer invaluable emotional support and help regulate emotions for those who may be facing physical, mental, and emotional challenges. And whereas Samson, the trained therapy dog living and working within the Minnetonka Police Department, exemplifies the the compassion, service, and connection therapy animals provide each day, offering comfort to community members in times of crisis, and supporting the well-being of officers and staff. And whereas April 30th is recognized by national organizations, advocates, and volunteer teers as a time to honor the extraordinary contributions of therapy animals and their handlers, and to raise awareness about the importance of animal-assisted interventions. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Minnetonka City Council does hereby declare April 30th National Therapy Animal Day. Thank you, Council Member Foster Bolton. And thank you to Samson for the work that he does in our community every day. He's He's tuckered out. And to Rowan for coming. Thank you all. My previous dog, Gabby, did a lot for the city. Oh, excellent. >> Yes, she was at up, you know, of your schools, so Well, thank you so much for your engagement and for reaching out. Appreciate it. Thank you so and my favorite staff member >> [laughter] >> I thought that was me. All right. Uh why don't you come to the microphone just very briefly? We're kind of not following protocol, but Sit. So, I represent Northstar Therapy Animals. We have over 300 teams, everything from rats to llamas and alpacas. We are a nonprofit organization and we are serve the larger metro area. Um we have a website with facility requests, so we're all over the place, all of our animals. And um we are meeting at the Mall of America on the 30th, the day of with all of our proclamations to do a big celebration. We'll have therapy animals there, so um I just want to thank you all for voting us in. Excellent. >> Being a part of it. Sounds like a great thing to do on the 30th. All right, we've got another great proclamation here, 6B, which is bike month proclamation, which we're very excited for. And I have asked our resident um long distance biker Council Member Wilburn to read that proclamation. Whereas cycling is an important and healthy activity that encourages physical fitness, promotes environmental sustainability, provides significant travel cost savings, and fosters a sense of community. And whereas biking provides residents with an enjoyable and environmentally friendly transportation option that reduces traffic congestion, air pollution, environmental damage, and the city's carbon footprint. And whereas Minnetonka is a city known for care and dedication to outdoor access for people of all ages, backgrounds, and ability levels. And whereas Minnetonka is home to more than 100 miles of biking, running, and walking trails, and more than 50 parks that provide residents and visitors with tremendous opportunities to explore the natural and inherent beauty of the city. And whereas cycling enhances the quality of life for individuals of all ages by improving health, pro- promoting mental well-being, and reducing stress. And whereas cycling is essential to the affordability, livability, and sustainability goals of the city of Minnetonka. And whereas Minnetonka's robust cycling community includes passionate cyclist, local organizations, and businesses dedicated to pro- promoting bike safety, education, and advocacy. And whereas the celebration of bike month in May encourages residents to embrace biking as a regular activity and recognize the benefits of cycling for health, recreation, and transportation. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Minnetonka City Council does hereby proclaim the month of May 2026 as bike month in the city of Minnetonka and encourage the community to join in the celebration by cycling for transportation, fun, health, and sustainability, and to support efforts that make Minnetonka a more bike friendly city for all. Thank you, Council Member Wilburn. Next, we have 6C, which is a report and presentation from our embedded social worker, Kelly Fraley, and I invite Chief Boerboom to come up for the introduction. Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. Uh before I have Kelly come up, I'll just give you a little background on our uh embedded social work program. In fact, it started in 2019 and we were one of the first cities to partner with Hennepin County Human Services and we had an embedded social worker that was a Hennepin County employee that worked out of our police department full-time. And the reason for that was we have a lot of calls where we have repeat calls. And so, we felt there was a need for some aftercare follow-up. And so, instead of having officers call back repetitively, you know, day one, day two, and day three, uh our social worker would go out and make contact and try to find um avenues and resources to to discontinue those calls for service. Well, now we're, you know, 6 years later and we've evolved even further looking at um you know, additional calls for service. Every year we're at about 500 right now. And so, we're really um leaning on Kelly to do a lot. And so, she still does that aftercare work. And we have a number of officers who also go out with her and provide aftercare. What we're looking at doing in in moving forward is a co-responder. So, we have aftercare will always be here. We have follow-up visits, but we also have a a need to in real time respond with a social worker. And so, Kelly's going to uh fulfill that role to some extent and then we're working with some interns and uh leaning on our fire department as we as we as they become more uh full-time. And so, I asked Kelly to come and say hi and introduce her herself and talk a little bit about what she does. And obviously, as we continue to track mental health calls, I'll be coming uh back to give more data on some of the stuff that we're seeing and some of the results, but I thought it would be nice for her to at least come before you and say hi and and talk about her role here at Minnetonka. And then when she's done, um feel free to ask questions. We'll both stick around. Thanks, Chief. >> Come on up, Kelly. >> Ms. Fraley, come on up. We're so glad to have you here. Thanks for coming. Well, thanks for allowing the opportunity to update you on my position here. Um a little bit about me, I have been a social worker for 23 years. And during this time, I've primarily worked with Carver County. And during the time I worked there, I had many roles. I worked in child protection. I worked with intake for adult and child protection. I worked with teen parents. And then for the last 8 years I worked there, I provided therapy in the schools to children. Um I have also worked at Buffalo Hospital as a casual social worker and provided truancy intervention when I worked at Wright County for a short stint. Um I say all of that because I use skills from all of those roles pretty much every day in this job because of all the varied reports that I get from officers. Um My role within the police department, as Chief said, I started here 3 years ago um Friday last week as an embedded worker through Hennepin County. About a year and a half ago, the department hired me directly and that was nice because there was a lot of constraints and restrictions on my role as a Hennepin County employee. Since the change, I've had greater flexibility. I've been able to work late a few days a week, which is nice to help the night shift officers who don't always have extra supports in their on their calls. And also, it allows me to reach some folks that are not reachable during the work day for calls pers- personally. Um Start- Since starting as the social worker at Minnetonka PD, referrals have steadily increased. In 2023, I received 416 referrals to follow up with residents. And last year, it was just around 700 referrals. Um the types of calls that are referred to me include, obviously, mental health, homelessness, food insecurity, domestic violence, financial scams, and vulnerable adult calls. And [snorts] there's lots of other calls, substance use, and pretty much anything officers think someone could use a little little Sorry, a little additional support. Currently, my role is primary as a follow-up model where I receive reports from officers once they've been out to the home and have determined there's additional supports needed. Um sometimes officers reach out to me for assistance while they're on a call and I can respond out. I also have access to the computer system to see calls in action and I can self-assign if I think that I might be helpful on a call. The majority of reports that I receive are for mental health follow-up. This could be from dis- heightened level of stress due to unmet needs, um an escalation of mental health symptoms, or to thoughts that someone might want to die by suicide. In these situations, I've provided clinical assessment assistance for transport holds, and also supports and resources both to clients and their family members that are on the scene, maybe they've called in for a welfare check. Um A larger Another large amount of reports are substance use related and homelessness. For these situations, I've been able to assist people with accessing treatment and with housing supports like shelter care and provided food for basic needs. To address some of the community needs that I encounter regularly, I have partnered with His House for housing supports for those facing eviction as well as those who are unsheltered. I have acquired a supply of food from the ICA food shelf that I keep at our police department for me or officers to provide to folks that we have contact with outside of ICA hours. Uh I do often pick up their emergency bags and deliver those to people who can't drive to get them. Um I have acquired some Narcan and fentanyl strips um test strips from the Steve Rummler Foundation, which people can use to prevent an accidental overdose. And those have been well received at tabling events where I also provide um medication disposal bags that our evidence technician has received. Um While it's often hard to determine the number of calls that are prevented from my work at the PD, I do believe that one result of my role has been the reduction in frequent 911 calls. Um sometimes these people are calling not because they need emergency assistance, but because they don't know who else to call. These frequent calls are often a result of unmet medical, mental health, or resource needs. And there have been quite a few of these situations where I have assisted with obtaining these additional resources or more appropriate housing to meet their needs, which has reduced their 911 calls. There have been many situations that I would consider success stories, which demonstrate the significant significance of having a social worker embedded with the police department. One is a situation where a resident had a substance use struggle and as a result had interactions with law enforcement. I assisted this individual with navigating the legal system and all the associated requirements with that process. I assisted them with obtaining county assistance and I provided support that she didn't have otherwise. Another was a resident who was elderly and she lived alone with very few family supports. In fact, she had no family. Um this person frequently called 911 due to symptoms of dementia and she had associated delusions of people breaking into her home that wasn't actually happening. Uh I developed a relationship with this person and as a result they diverted their calls to my phone instead of 911, so officers weren't having to go out there. I worked with a family friend to get court order guardianship for her and then she's now been moved to a more suitable living arrangement for her to meet her needs. I'm currently working with an elderly resident who has been financially scammed out of nearly a million dollars um over the last 7 years. This person's now out of their life savings and their bank sent them to the police department for help. The officer asked me to meet with this person when they came in and I was able to get some of the money intercepted by contacting FedEx on her behalf and getting that those checks returned to her and now we're working with the Department of Revenue because she has a large tax burden from pulling money out of IRA accounts and she's unable to pay those debts. Um Looking to the future, I anticipate that the need for social work intervention from the police department is probably going to increase both because our referrals continue to grow and the officers are more comfortable sending reports to me cuz they know that they can trust I'll follow up and help these folks and it reduces their time on scene. Um To address this growing need, I have pursued an intern as Chief said for this semester. There are opportunities for other interns through other programs that are longer in duration that we might pursue. I also today started a co-response pilot where I'm responding to calls with an officer dedicated for 1 month to track the time on scene saved from officers and how efficiently that improves my follow-up with folks. Later in the year, I'll be working with fire department on their pilot program to partner up with a firefighter to see how that kind of response impacts our call volume and the need for services there. And then also Captain Meehan and I recently applied for a state funded grant to hopefully add a second position that will be funded fully by the grant. It would be over a 2-year duration and if we're able to receive that grant funding, I'm hoping to be able to do co-response with that second person doing follow-up and I can expand some of the types of calls that I respond to in the the co-response way. With mental health awareness month starting on Friday, I wanted to express my appreciation for the support that the city has provided the department's mental health initiatives. I believe our officers are really well trained. They do a wonderful job recognizing and supporting our residents in their time of need and it takes it makes my job a lot easier to know that my partners are well trained and very empathetic and passionate about mental health. So I appreciate it. Thank you so much. Um I learned a lot and I thought I knew a lot about what you do. So thank you. Council, any questions for either Ms. Fraley or the chief? He can come on up, too. Council member Remely. Um Kelly, thank you for your work first of all and could you just repeat cuz I was trying to take notes, but just uh what are the calls that you're receiving the most right now? Did you say substance abuse? Mental health is the most frequent call. Uh it's I would say the next highest is probably substance use or a combination of mental health and substance use. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Council? Okay, I'm not seeing any. Again, thank you so much and I'm I don't know how you do it all. I mean, glad we're might have some opportunities to get you some help because I I think it makes sense for so many reasons. So thanks again for coming and taking the time and thanks Chief and and Deputy Chief Tate as well. All right. Okay, Council. Let's get back at it. Where are we? All right. Item seven, reports from city manager and council members. Mr. Funk. Yeah, thank you again. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Couple things [clears throat] for you this evening. I'll first start with public works. We are entering that construction times period and I just want to publicly note a couple of big projects here in Minnetonka. First is the 394 ramp closure and I I know Council we've communicated as staff to you. We're communicating to the public on that, but we are going to see some disruptions at the Hopkins Crossroads and I-394 ramp. So just letting our community know that there will be some disruptions just due to MnDOT updating some traffic signals in that area. Next, we also have Highway 12. So just a little further west from what I just described is the Highway 12 project. As that project begins, the first road closure will take place the first weekend of May. Both these projects and all of our city projects are on our city website. So always encourage residents to visit our website, certainly call city hall, talk to our staff if there's any questions about these numerous projects that are coming up this summer cuz they can be disruptive. I just also then want to mention natural resources staff are partnering with the Hennepin County and the Natural Resource Partner Coalition, the NRPC, to develop tools that streamline habitat restoration on public lands. So really appreciate the efforts of our staff. Further, this work will include habitat management planning resources, standard specifications, and contracting templates. And so really good work by our staff in this effort. Then want to just pivot towards the Marsh. The Marsh will celebrate its third anniversary. Hard to believe that it's been in city ownership for the last 3 years. There is an open house coming up on Saturday, May 2nd. With that open house style event, there will be number of events being hosted. So certainly we encourage anyone to come and celebrate here with the city. I think I mentioned this 2 weeks ago at our regular meeting, but may want to make note of it again. That is the Minnetonka annual tree sale goes live on Monday, May 4th at 8:00 p.m. Anyone that's interested in participating, certainly they can go to our website even before May 4th cuz our website has all great information in terms of if you haven't had it if you don't have an account with the city, set up your account. You can preview the trees that are going to be available for this year, learn about tree care and more. It's always a fantastic event. We we sell a lot of trees and we get a lot of residents involved. Next is the Silver Skates Ice Review. That's our 51st annual review. We do this every year. Really appreciate John Heckman, our ice rink manager and the work that his team do on that. I always make a plug for my niece that skates. I go to that. It's a really well-attended event, a lot of fun participants. The place is packed for 3 nights. So it does start April 30th, excuse me, Thursday, April 30th, Friday, the May 1st and then Saturday, May 2nd. I believe that starts at 6:30 all 3 nights. So look forward to that event. And then last, we had our clothing swap. So that's a newer event the last couple years. We had 370 participants swing by and get involved in that event. So lots of fun things happening in the city and with that, Mayor and Council, turn it back to you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Funk. All right, Council. Anybody? Council member Calvert. Thank you, Mayor. Um I just [clears throat] wanted to mention briefly that um this past week was the um Southwest Suburban Cable Commission meeting and you know, it doesn't sound like a super sexy meeting. However, um there are numerous pieces of legislation at the um at in Congress right now that are being considered. Some of them have sort of been put on hold that would preempt a lot of local control having to do with um recovering franchise fees to pay for um or even any kind of um oversight of like when people when companies dig up your front lawn to lay um cable like a fiber optic cable or to put it other kinds of infrastructure in your yard. Um it would be very hard for uh cities to guarantee sort of the quality of the work to make sure that things were uh you know, your driveway and your lawn were repaired and even to guarantee the safety and quality of the work. And so um if anybody is interested in some of the details of that, um please contact me at my city email um or you know, you can look up the legis- pieces of legislation and contact your um congressional members because it really would um it have that some of these pieces of legislation have some misleading titles to make it seem like that they are deploying broadband more broadly, but it actually wouldn't necessarily guarantee um that those uh positive outcomes for consumers and it would come at a tremendous cost to cities financially and otherwise also to public safety and just the ability of localities to control the the appearance and and use of their rights of way. So I just I just wanted to throw that out there because um it's an especially intense um period for these issues in our in Congress. So thank you. Thank you Council member Wilburn. Council anybody else? Council member Remely. Just wanted to give a shout out to the staff for a terrific boards and commissions dinner that we had last week and I imagine the mayor will say something else but I just wanted to congratulate the uh planning commission table for taking first in Minnetonka trivia. And then also just a quick announcement that while we support all of our city our community partners Resource West is having a fundraiser this Friday evening. There's still time to get tickets and attend so I'll be there hope to meet some of my residents or my neighborhood folks there as well. Thank you. Thanks Council member Remely. Anybody else? Just uh as Council member Remely said the boards and commissions dinner was lovely. It was a a lot of fun and and despite all because of all that or whatever I think that it bears repeating publicly how appreciative of the hard work the folks who volunteer on our boards and commissions do and they really do give us good perspective recommendations volunteer work and we rely heavily on them as we do our work here. So we are so appreciative of them. And thanks to staff for putting on such a fun event. Um just a quick update you know we've been working through our um our funding request for infrastructure which could potentially come as a sales tax issue that we've been discussing here. And I was Mr. Funk and I were at the capital testifying on our request last week. We're very fortunate to have the support of our legislators as we move that forward. So we're hoping this is something that the community will hear a lot more about going forward if we get the legislative permission and then that this community would ultimately have the opportunity to vote on that request. So um it seems to be going along. It's out of our hands I think at this point. It's a part of a larger tax bill and so we're hopeful that that will get across the finish line. All right. Moving along I have item number eight which is citizens wishing to discuss matters not on the agenda and I just have one resident comment tonight and that's Kevin Ringhofer. Come on up Kevin. Thank you mayor and council. Good to be with you this evening. Kevin Ringhofer Indian Road West. Uh first I want to thank you for the decision that you made at last week's study session to look at extending the pre-eviction notice to 30 days. Think that is very important and I think the recommendation was to look at making it a permanent change. Also people were interested in doing it temporarily as well and I would ask that you consider both enacting a temporary change immediately for four or five months because expediency is important. ISIS still operating in the area although they may not be as visible on this or on the scale that they were they are still operating and many people are still feeling the effects and are afraid. So rental assistance will continue to be needed and if mutual aid groups that people have been using quite a bit are not able to continue to provide this the assistance on the level that they have or in the manner that they have people will likely need to turn to other sources and it will probably take longer for them to get assistance. So the 30 days will be will be important. Um renters and people looking for assistance seem to be connected to the mutual aid folks and that's where they're probably turning first at least at this point. Um during the four or five months of providing temporary assistance that will be a good test period to gather further information to see how a 30-day um time period works and to gather information about it as well. So um I've just asked that making the temporary extension to 30 days will provide the time that's important for people right now to provide what they need and will provide some time to actually look at is this something that you want to do permanently as well. And then what I I was going to speak a little bit on short-term rental but I'm assuming you'd probably rather I didn't but You you will have a opportunity at the planning commission and you can feel free to send us an email and we'll review that as well. All right. Thank you mayor and council. Thank you Mr. Ringhofer. All right. Um moving on to item nine which is bids and purchases. And I hope Mr. Manchester has his water ready cuz he's got a few of these. Mr. Manchester the first item A which is bids for Red Circle Drive Sidewalk Improvements. All right. Thank you mayor. Good evening mayor and council. Got three items for bids and purchases. You've seen all three before but I'll certainly recap as I go through each. The recommendation tonight on the first is a motion to award the contract for the Red Circle Drive Sidewalk Improvements project 23607 to Clark Companies in the amount of 299,000 857 and 40 cents and then a motion to authorize the city engineer to expend the allocated funds for the project costs without further council approval provided the cost do not exceed a project budget of 600,000. This is related to our strategic profile and enhances our infrastructure as well as our connectivity specifically in this case for Shady Oak Road and then the Green Line Extension. Just to kind of recap the project improvements on Red Circle there's an 8-ft wide sidewalk installation. It connects a gap of approximately 750 ft. Um there are some storm sewer and road improvements included in this. It is funded through TIF and then the budget there was a phase one to this project and now we're on to phase two. This is phase two of the project. We did receive five bids. The low bidder is Clark Companies. They have not done direct work for the city but they have been a subcontractor to another company in the past. Just to kind of talk about some of the estimated project costs and funding there was additional work on this outside of the actual bid. We did need to obtain an easement from a property owner part of that. We did agree to um relocate a monument sign as well as repair parking lot area and then restoration that goes with that as well. And so some of those costs are in the construction for the easement and then the relocation and repairs. Our schedule tonight is your consideration of the contract award. Construction would start this spring and be completed this summer. We continue to update the area with our usual correspondence email updates newsletters project signs and then our construction updates. We did on our project page notify anyone that was signed up tonight that this would be considered at tonight's meeting. So they were notified last week. And then I'll turn it back with the same motion. I won't read it again but turn it back to the mayor and council for any questions. Thanks. Thank you Mr. Manchester. Council any questions? Pretty straightforward not seeing any. I would take motion on this. Council member Wilburn. I move that we award the contract for Red Circle Drive Sidewalk Improvements project number 23607 to Clark Companies in the amount of 299,857 dollars and 40 cents. And I move that we authorize the city engineer to expend the allocated funds for project cost without further council approval provided the total project costs do not exceed the project budget of 600,000 dollars. On the second. Council member Remely. I'll second. All right. I have a motion by Council member Wilburn a second by Council member Remely. Ms. Larson please call roll. Maxwell. Yes. Wilburn. Yes. Calvert. Yes. Remely. Yes. Coakley. Yes. Foster Bolton. Yes. Schack. Yes. Motion carries. Item 9B bids for Shady Oak Road Sidewalk Improvement Project. Mr. Manchester. All right. Thank you mayor and council. This project is adjacent to the one we just looked at uh in that area. So the motion tonight on this is to award the contract for the Shady Oak Sidewalk Improvements project number 26607 to Clark Companies in the amount of 199,977 dollars. And then a motion to authorize our city engineer to expend these funds for the project costs without council approval provided they do not exceed a project budget of 425,000. Again it relates to the strategic profile similar to mention last time. It enhances providing some safe transportation and connectivity in the area. Uh, the Shady Oak project, it is a sidewalk replacement. It includes widening uh, right along Shady Oak Road and then it will increase uh, a 4-ft boulevard between the sidewalk and curb. There are some storm sewer improvements and there's pedestrian signal modifications at the actual traffic signal as [snorts] well as some roadway improvements. It is funded through TIF and then uh, the budget is included uh, in the TIF funding that future projects will also be presented at upcoming. Uh, we again received five bids. Clark Companies was again the low bidder uh, for this project. Uh, just to kind of talk about some of those costs. This isn't a typical um, engineering admin fee for something like this. We did work directly with Hennepin County. Uh, there was some additional signal improvement modifications that they wanted us to model and look through as well as some geometric uh, items that did not end up being included in the plan, but something we looked at see if there was other enhancements the county would be willing to proceed with. And so some of that design work was included in the costs for the project. Uh, tonight is the consideration um, of the contract award. Construction would occur in the spring and then the summer um, if you choose to go forward. Again, our communications plan includes the email updates, newsletters, project signs and then construction updates. Uh, we did also send this out to anyone signed up for this project uh, just in case they were interested in attending this evening or had questions. And then our recommendation again, I won't read it, but I will turn it back to the mayor and council for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Manchester. Council, any questions on this one? Uh, Council Member Remely. Just two quick ones. Um, did the were you able to work with the county on those enhancements? Were they Yeah, Council Member Remely or Mayor and Council. We did We did on some. You know, some of it was signal modifications. We did look at some geometric design our city engineer had been considering just They were small, but uh, they were open to reviewing them, but in the end it was they wanted to leave it the way the plan is designed, so um, we're okay with it, but we thought it might be a little better, but certainly it's their road and Worth a shot. Worth a try. Yeah. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Anybody else? All right, not seeing any, I would take a motion. Council Member Remely. I move to award the contract for the Shady Oak uh, road sidewalk improvements project number 26607 to Clark Companies in the amount of $199,977. I also make the motion to authorize the city engineer to expend all expend the allocated funds for project costs without further further council approval provided that the total project costs do not exceed the project budget of $425,000. And a second? Oh, Council Member Copley. I'll second. Thank you. I have a motion by Council Member Remely and a second by Council Member Copley. Miss Larson, please call roll. Maxwell. Yes. Wilbern. Yes. Calvert. Yes. Remely. Yes. Copley. Yes. Foster Bolton. >> Yes. Schack. Yes. Motion carries. We're on to item 9C, which is bids for the Cedar Lake Road and Ridgedale Drive improvement project. Mr. Manchester. Okay, Mayor and Council. Uh, this is our final bid for tonight. Again, you have seen this project in the past. Uh, tonight's motion is to award the contract for the Cedar Lake Road and Ridgedale Drive improvement project 26609 to Park Construction Company in the amount of 2,731,000 $859.51 and then a motion to authorize our city engineer to expend those funds uh, for the project costs without council approval provided it does not exceed the project budget of 4.7 million. Uh, this is our infrastructure and asset management related to our strategic priority outcome 5.2 for safe quality and well-maintained road systems. It certainly improves the safety. It extends the pavement life and then it is well it it makes better connectivity in this area for pedestrians. Uh, there's two portions to this project as you've seen in the past. There's Cedar Lake essentially from 169 to Hopkins Crossroads. Uh, those improvements include our 2-in mill and overlay. Uh, we are looking at additional striping so there's a three-lane section out there. We'd make sure those lanes are are around 11 ft uh, to provide for additional room for pedestrians. Uh, there's reduced vehicle widths so that helps with our traffic calming. Um, we repair damaged curb and sidewalk. There's storm sewer and retaining wall just repairs in the area. >> [snorts] >> Uh, it increases the shoulder and then bike lanes. We will have a 10-ft on the south side as well as a seven on the north. Um, we are replacing signals in three locations. Hopkins North Middle School, Greenbrier and Royals. Um, and then we have two additional crossings uh, at Ford and Hedberg. And so uh, there's center medians and signage in those two other locations. The push buttons will be at the signals which is our safest areas to cross at those new signal locations. And then they do follow ADA upgrades as well as uh, we'll replace street signs in the area. Uh, we looked at this last time, but just kind of an example of some of the enhancements with crosswalks. We're looking at double uh, white line striping just to delineate the lanes further for pedestrians and bikers. Uh, we're looking at bike markings and additional uh, skips across intersections just to enhance the pedestrian safety. Uh, the Ridgedale Ridgedale piece is Cartway Lane and Ridgedale Drive uh, just adjacent to Plymouth Road. Uh, we are replacing a signal here at Cartway and Ridgedale. This is a 2-in mill and overlay. We repair damaged curb and sidewalk in the area and then we'll make sure there's reduced lane widths for vehicles as well as replace street signs. Bids were opened on the 17th. We did receive five bids. Uh, the low bidder Park Construction has done work in Minnetonka in previous years. Uh, the construction costs for this project do include about 700 $743,385 that you saw at the last uh, item uh, that ordered some of the signal equipment just to make sure we could meet the time frames because some of this work is adjacent to the school and there's a long lead time on those materials to get them produced for those signals. Uh, the bid opening uh, like as mentioned was the 17th. Your consideration of the award is tonight. Construction would occur in the summer. Uh, the main uh, construction activity, you know, the biggest area we're concerned about is certainly the school to make sure we try to get that work done in the summer when school is not in session. Uh, there is based on timing, we think some work will remain, but we'll certainly work with the school as we go our in an ideal world we'd try to get it done before then, but just in case we'd coordinate directly with Hopkins schools. Again, uh, email updates, newsletters, project signs, construction updates. We'll make sure we send out information on a regular basis to make sure uh, everyone's getting what's going on. And then as well as the others we sent them out uh, last week to just let everyone know the council's considering these projects at tonight's meeting. And again, I won't read this again, but I'll turn it back to the mayor and council for any questions. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Manchester. Council, any questions? We've talked about this one quite a bit. Okay, I would take a motion then. Council Member Copley. Thank you, Mayor. I make the motion to award the contract for the Cedar Lake Road and Ridgedale Drive improvement project number 26609 to Park Construction Company in the amount of 2,731, 859.51 cent 51 cent and a motion to authorize the city engineer to expend the allocated funds for project costs without further council approval provided the total project costs does not exceed the project budget of 4,700,000. Thank you. And Council Member Remely. I'll second. Motion by Council Member Copley and a second by Council Member Remely. Miss Larson, please call roll. Maxwell. Yes. Wilbern. Yes. Calvert. Yes. Remely. Yes. Copley. Yes. Foster Bolton. Yes. Schack. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Manchester. All right, on to uh, consent agenda item 10, which is items requiring a majority vote. These are items that are routine in nature and placed on this section of the agenda and intended to be um, approved in one vote. However, if anybody would like to address any of the items and have them pulled from the consent agenda, uh, there's an opportunity for you to do that. So, our consent agenda 10A is a resolution authorizing the expenditure of fiscal year 2026 and 2027 opioid settlement funds. 10B is a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit at 130110 Wood Woodbridge Trail. Anybody want to pull any of those either of those items? If not, I would take a motion to approve. Council Member Wilbern. Uh, I move acceptance of consent agenda items 10A and 10B. Council Member Foster Bolton. I'll second. I have a motion by Council Member Wilbern and a second by Council Member Foster Bolton. Miss Larson, please call roll. Maxwell. Yes. Wilbern. Yes. Calvert. Yes. Remely. Yes. Copley. Yes. Foster Bolton. Yes. >> Schack. Yes. Motion carries. Uh, item 11 is consent agenda items requiring five votes. We have none of those tonight. Item 12 is introduction of ordinances and we have one ordinance to be introduced, a ordinance regarding short-term rentals. And I don't have this pulled up. Ms. Wishnak, is that you? Yes, thank you, Mayor and council members. Uh I have about maybe 10 minutes of slides for you to review and then uh you can get to your discussion about the draft of the ordinance. So, in March, at your March study session, staff did present some research to you about short-term rentals. And as you recall from that, and this is more for the audience's sake than your sake, but uh there were about 24 registered short-term rentals in Minnetonka. So, our registration program, for those who don't know, we have registration in Minnetonka for all rental units within the city. During that process, they indicate what kind of rental they have. Is it long-term or short-term? That's how we have that data. We have checked that data with uh other sources like the websites for various rental uh like Airbnb and and um I might VRBO uh those kinds of sites and it it's pretty similar to what is being advertised. And just again, for definition's sake, it's really where an owner of a property rents all or part of their home for guests that are staying less than 30 days. And when you were talking about the issue of short-term rentals, you mentioned a couple of things during the discussion. So, I want to recap that. You talked about investors or corporations purchasing large amounts of properties for short-term rentals. That was a big concern. The next thing was impact on property values. You discussed low-income residents and access to housing stock. I have some If you want to get further into that, I have some numbers for you in terms of the types of houses that are in the category short-term rental. There were safety concerns mentioned as well as absentee landlords. And then you did uh discuss different levels of regulations. And I think we had to kind of start somewhere. And so, this is where we started. The council at that point did not have a consensus to do a total ban on short-term rentals. And uh really was in There were a couple of areas that you mentioned. You wanted to look at a cap. You wanted to review uh maybe locations. I I got mixed reviews on that, but not sure um how we would do that, but I'll talk about that later. Um then also you talked about homesteaded status or primary ownership type model, something in that realm. And so, um I think staff said we'll think about it and try to figure out what to do. And so, we have some ideas for you tonight. Uh >> [snorts] >> then you just uh basically wanted to make sure we had an ordinance ready for you. And uh we are doing that tonight. So, this is just showing you kind of the scattering of uh cities that were looked at. And you saw this information in March as well. Uh if you want to look to the left side of the screen, uh you might find cities more like Minnetonka in terms of population. You know, think of an Edina or uh we're smaller, obviously, than Bloomington. We're bigger than St. Louis Park. So, you can kind of get geography a little bit more on the left side, whereas the right side's mostly the lake area. But, you know, each has its own quality. If you were paying attention more to the west side of the city, you're going to go to the right side of the screen. If you're going to the uh other 28 square miles of Minnetonka, you might want to look at different pieces of different ordinances. And that's really what the city uh staff did in their review. I do want to just talk about Wayzata litigation because there has been recent um since your March 2nd meeting, there's been a decision, at least initially, on this litigation between their short-term rental ban. Um And basically, there was uh the way they set up their ordinance, they allowed it through a rental license. And they adopted that in the fall of 25. And uh litigation was brought forward by the short-term rental owners. And they challenged that adoption. And then in April, this month, a judge actually determined that the zoning ordinance um and the city was required to comply with the Municipal Planning Act. For those of you who are not familiar with Municipal Planning Act, I just to be really short about it, it basically deals with the land use uh of a city and how that is regulated. And the judge basically said they did not comply with how that act is um written. And so, they declared the ordinance void. So, there are some procedural issues with that. But, if you go back to the chart, there's still some pending litigation in both Apple Valley and Bloomington at the current moment. So, there That's just one of the cases, but we did talk about it quite a bit in our session. So, I wanted to make sure you had um that information. And of course, that decision is subject to appeal. So, we don't know any more than that. So, I wanted to give you that update. In terms of drafting the ordinances, besides looking at all those ordinances from other cities, uh there was definitely a consideration in the way we wrote it to think about how to implement. And so, really the administrative constraint were using existing staff to do the ordinance enforcement. And we didn't add any staff. We're not contemplating that at the time uh we've drafted this. We looked at license duration, interior inspections, posting requirements in the unit, any property standards, maintenance records, background checks, multi-family apartment buildings, whether or not they would be allowed in multi-family buildings, etc. So, there were a lot of subject matters I think that we looked at as we considered. So, I think it sounds easy, "Hey, just adopt a short-term rental ordinance." But, really there's a lot to consider if you're um going to allow any of those short-term rentals in the community. So, the eligibility kind of was the first thing we really had to get through then to kind of set the tone for the rest of the ordinance drafting. And okay, well, that's not helpful when you're talking without slides. Um just wait for the generators kick back in. It'll be just a second here. Uh This was my important slide, too. >> [laughter] >> It did. I was doing my presentation in front of Susan, and the same exact thing happened on the same slide. Uh All right, Mayor, we're back. Uh so, basically, deciding what kind of regulation the city might pursue. So, we considered the land use um path or licensing. And now, while this is the same thing that kind of happened in Wayzata, the procedural steps by which are followed is the important part if you choose a licensing path. So, we've laid out out where we think we meet the Municipal Planning Act requirements. But, we are choosing in this ordinance draft to go the business licensing um route. So, uh the regulatory approaches that we looked at is looking at only homesteaded properties, capping it, restricting locations, and then this owner plus one. So, I'm going to just going to walk through these so that you understand we chose the last one, but I I want to explain why we got there. So, the only homesteaded properties, we had a lot of um thought about limiting the number of properties available with really no flexibility for non-homesteaded, meaning those that go to a different state maybe for a period of time. Think people who go to Florida or some other state, and they're doing some kind of um that's not their primary residence any longer, the one they own in Minnetonka, but yet they would like to rent it in those off seasons. And so, that is uh a consideration for that only homestead property. So, just depends on your thought process about whether or not you think that's the the way to go, but staff was going to uh kind of want this owner plus one idea. The cap on uh short-term rentals, we were perplexed, I guess that's the best word to say, how you would regulate. Um and it really may not address the underlying concerns that uh we might have. So, you pick a max number, and we talked to some cities who had done that. And either um they felt like people weren't um licensing, and they were going around the licensing requirement, and then you're getting a bunch of illegal licensed unlicensed facilities. Or uh they under they overestimated how many they needed, and the cap was kind of immaterial. The other thing they could do is just people could go ahead and get a license just to preserve their right, thus taking up kind of the capacity of short-term rentals. So, we didn't think that was maybe the way to go. Um restricting location, now you've just flipped into a land use kind of um uh type ordinance. And what would happen here is you would have to um pick certain geographies in the city, and it seems very difficult. It also seems very much clear to us that you would not have um you would grandfather in the ones that are existing. Um it's very clear-cut that that is the path that would be taken. Um but location and then deciding which locations were most appropriate also was a problem. Like do you pick every village center? Are you in the village center? Are you not in the village center? Are you close enough to certain things? Are you not? So there there was just a lot of head-scratching about where the right places were and you're really picking kind of winners and losers in that situation about who could and who who could not do uh short-term. Then this owner plus one. This is kind of following the Minneapolis model and it does allow basically homesteaded property owners to rent one additional in the city. And so there has to be and I think this gets to some of what the council was saying about having some ownership interest, having some connection to Minnetonka. But then they would be allowed to have an ownership interest in another one uh in the city somewhere. And it does offer a little bit more flexibility, um but it also gets rid of this issue of uh corporate or corporation ownership. And I think a lot of people go, "Well, you can't track that. They'll just set up another LLC. They'll do, you know, some other kind of thing." Well, the way in which and we do this all the time for other types of licensing is we actually get the incorporation documents. We understand how to check on people's uh ownership in other LLCs or an S corp or whatever the corporation type is for a business. And they have to disclose whether or not they have a certain percentage ownership within any other company. And that's how you track whether or not there's ownership interest in more than one. Um if we find out that they have more than one, their license is removed and we'll talk about penalties and and violations in a second. So hopefully that that just seemed like the fairest and the easiest way to track uh for the city what's going on uh and also allow some ability to do uh short-term. The way the ordinance is drafted has a duration of 3 years. And the inspection is required at the time of initial application and also during renewal or change of ownership would also cause that. And we also would conduct additional inspections if complaints are received. That could be by someone using the short-term rental, a neighbor, whatever the case might be. They actually have to uh submit all the application materials that uh are required and a fee, etc. It's very similar to our other licensing laws. And then there also has to be a management plan addressing noise, trash, parking, or other matters that we deem necessary. This is kind of repeating what's in the nuisance code, but it does make the owner think very clearly and concisely about how they're going to manage those issues in the rental. And then uh they're required to post all this information including emergency contact information, safety information, and other nuisance codes of the city has to be included in the unit. And then in the violation section, we're pretty strong in this area in terms of there's multiple ways you could do enforcement. You could do a civil uh process. There could be criminal penalties. I think this is the the most um effective is the last one, revocation of the license. So if you have a short-term rental that's giving you trouble, you pull the license, you revoke the license, um and it's probably the easiest and the the cleanest way to get rid of the short-term rental if they don't meet ordin- ordinance requirements. And uh we did add other types of processes. You can go to city court, you can go to district court. There's all different options, but I think in my experience and we've done this before where we revoke somebody's license, it's very effective and it takes care of of the issue. In terms of the timeline, we have intro tonight and I'll give you some options if you don't really you're not liking the draft that we have so far. That's okay. We have other options for you to consider. But if we went this way, you would have tomorrow what we would open up the Minnetonka Matters page and we'd start to talk about when we would want people to weigh in um in the Minnetonka Memo and that's probably at your doorstep tomorrow. It just says watch for this information about short-term rentals. It doesn't really say what because the production of that's way ahead of where we were in the conversation. So um it just says go to the Minnetonka web page or Minnetonka Matters website and we'll tell you what's going on. Um then we would have a meeting with existing short-term rental owners. We've already been getting calls from folks that own uh short-term rentals. And then also any interested parties. So if people have specific concerns they want to talk to us about, we'll hold some online meetings or in-person meetings, whatever is more convenient. And then the plan is to have a planning commission public hearing and then bring that back to the city council meeting and at that meeting you would look at not only what the planning commission said, but all your resident feedback and then whatever final drafting of the ordinance comes of that. So if there are uh changes requested, that sort of thing, we'll bring that back to And then that's not a you have to actually do a process. So I'm just forecasting if you do the licensing, there's a lot more to do. Now if you decide not to go that route, some of this chart has to change and that's okay. We we can put in different um different dates for different things. But from June to August, we would develop the licensing and inspection process. And then we would do more outreach in September to current owners, you know, depending on what their situation is and then implementation in January uh of the new year. So staff is recommending that you provide feedback and introduce the ordinance. I think that you have some alternative actions that could be taken. You could direct uh direct staff to make specific changes and then bring it back to you one more time before you go ahead allow for public feedback. That's one choice. And then another choice would be just table it and provide us further direction. Maybe you want to talk about it some more. Um in either case, we'll just adopt the timeline and we'll adjust the timeline depending on your wishes. So with that, Mayor, uh we'll turn it back to you for any questions and discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wishnak. All right, council. So let's start with questions here. Council member Wilbern. I have several. Um So uh my first was you just you mentioned something about um new owners, but isn't it isn't the way it's written in it that it's not transferable? So if somebody new buys the property, then the the license doesn't transfer to them? Ms. Wishnak. Mayor and Council member Wilbern, yes, they would have to reinspect and reapply. Yes, you're right. Uh let me go back to that cuz I right here. So an inspection is required at the initial and during renewal uh and then also if a complaint is received, but I should have said {comma} and if a new ownership is uh involved. Got it. Mhm. Um So my next question is I did read the the draft ordinance. Um it's not 100% clear to me when in the the violation portion um I get that, you know, if if somebody doesn't follow the the steps that are required for the license. Um but what if there's [clears throat] a a property that um that there are problems recurring from the renters themselves. So um noise ordinance violations trash left out, whatever whatever the thing, but if there are repeated problems with a particular property, what is the recourse under this ordinance? Ms. Wishnak. Mayor and council members, uh you have choices and and that's usually my decision and the licensing coordinator, we talk about uh issues and we do this today. We do it with massage, we do it with tobacco, liquor, all of those. And you hear from us when there is an issue, right? Um however whenever we revoke a license, does it that's probably the procedure I would use in the cases that you mentioned. Um when we revoke a license, there's always opportunity to appeal. So the city council could hear it because the owner is unsatisfied with our decision you know, dissatisfied with our position. So I would say that probably would be the most common. I'm trying to think of a situation um maybe we'd do a like a city court citation. Let's just say it's only happened once, whether it's garbage overflowing. I don't think that's a revocation type situation. If it happens every single week, that's different. But let's just say it happened one time and we captured it and we verified the complaint. That sounds like a city court uh violation to me. Um and so I think we use our best judgment to see what penalty fits the the issue. And I think we are pretty good at deciding that. I don't find to go to city court either, but uh and it's high penal there's financial penalties for doing that, too. So. Okay. And my my last two are sort of related. So um one is what what is the the recourse or the the what happens if you find an unlicensed uh someone who's running an unlicensed uh short-term rental. And then related to that, do we would we contact like Airbnb and Vrbo and the places that we know about if we were to pass this ordinance and say this ordinance is in place so that they could like require the their potential renters to show them their license um before being on the site. Mr. Wishnak, I'm going to call a friend on this one. So, we're going to call in the city attorney and just um maybe talk through that situation a little bit more. Thank you. Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Wilburn, uh yes for the hosting platforms, you know, that that the city as part of our implementation phase would reach out to them and provide uh some notification of the ordinance. I think a lot of the hosting platforms are now used to dealing with municipal ordinances and and having some indication on each of the listings of a license actual license number. Um with that said, I know there are cities that uh and and maybe initially maybe they were one of the earlier cities to regulate found some difficulty uh achieving compliance with the hosting platforms and so there are cities that have taken even the additional step of actually licensing the hosting platforms themselves. So, after they created a regulatory regime for short-term rentals, there was a later phase where they actually created a license type for the hosting platforms and then it has very you know, clear requirements to maintain their their hosting license to list properties in that city. Um so, yes, that is that is something that you know, the staff would would um uh handle it during that implementation phase and and provide some education to the to the hosting platforms. Um but for it it is good to know that there is an option out there if we ran into a recalcitrant platform that wasn't going to comply or is not communicative and that that cities do have uh potential authority to license. And if we found uh an unlicensed that someone was operating unlicensed Yeah. So, this ordinance would you know, establishes and I think there is an actual line that talks about it's illegal to operate an unlicensed to not have a license and to operate. And uh as Director Wishnak mentioned, there are um yeah, you know, staff has enforcement options when it comes to any sort of ordinance violation ordinance violations in general by charter can be enforced through a criminal proceeding. It can be a misdemeanor prosecution. Uh or you can we do have here in Minnetonka an an administrative citation program which we refer to as city court. So, that is a civil enforcement mechanism. It's it's primarily financial penalties that can escalate for continuing violations. So, it does allow you to establish a presumptive fine amount and if the if they continue to operate it allows in under certain circumstances for the city staff enforcement staff to double the fine. Uh so, you can you can that can escalate to a a fairly significant amount. So. Okay, Council Council member Remley, did you Okay, go ahead. Um first of all, thanks to staff. They really thought through a lot of these options. So, I appreciate the um thought that went into it. Um do have a several questions uh mostly for Mr. Nelson. Um so, following up on uh the description of the Wayzata court challenge. Um my understanding can you kind of flush this out is that right now the current challenge is regarding process rather than the ban. Mr. Nelson, uh short-term rentals. Thank you, Mayor. Uh Council member Remley, that's that's correct. The the the judge um voided struck down the ordinance based on a procedural issue and did not reach the substantive arguments at this point. Thank you. Um just a couple more questions if I could. Um so, Wayzata and the other um cities that were kind of alluded to were Bloomington and Apple Valley which are all undergoing litigation right now. All of those cities uh ban all short-term rentals investor and homesteaded or those renting out their primary residence. Is that correct? Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Remley, that is correct. Uh perhaps some distinction between whether they allowed them initially at some phase and then instituted a an official prohibition. So, for example, I think Bloomington had always prohibited them and then actually did a an ordinance-based prohibition. The um in Wayzata as Director Wishnak mentioned, they were allowed and at one point and they had some active licenses and then they instituted a an ordinance prohibition. Thank you. Um and then also just given that um in your kind of legal opinion are bans like like banning investor uh short-term rentals more difficult or more open to challenge than say just a primary or homesteaded short-term rentals. So, cities who allow um short-term rentals by primary, you know, homestead residents um you know, are those less likely to be challenged than an outright ban on all short-term rentals? Mr. Nelson. Mayor Council member Remley, I think I think that's fair to say. Um you know, the what you have typically is if you have some some legally established operating uses, so they have a vested amount of interest financially and otherwise in a property and then the city moves to prohibit that that that's just a very important consideration to to evaluate in terms of policy development. How do you handle that? Because with a vested, you know, a significant vested interest like that uh and if the city is looking to then drastically change that ability that those are of course more likely to to face potential suit. Thank you. And then uh lastly um actually one or two more. Um so, regarding the shell um LLCs, um I understand that there's ways to check ownership and making sure that there aren't shell LLCs. Um two-parter. Um first of all, does that you know, a lot of times I've heard from you know, people in this community where not in this community but in the you know, STR community where people will not have a group ownership or an investor like an institutional investor, it'll be husband, wife um uncle uh kids and you know, there are ways to kind of skirt that investor because we think of investors and we think of large corporate investors but actually many um investor short-term rentals are um like somebody who may live in Mound where they don't allow any short-term rentals and so they buy a property in Minnetonka. Is that correct? Mr. Nelson and it looks like Mr. Wishnak. >> That's fine. You go ahead. Mayor Council member Remley, that and yeah, I I might defer to Director Wishnak who has experience in some of this uh with other ordinances. Um we tried to get at that as as best we could with our definition of interest in a licensed short-term rental to try to broaden that uh um scope in terms of the the prohibition of of you know, homestead plus one. Um so, it does reference various forms of interest. Uh I don't know if it gets to gets at the exact point that you're mentioning. It does reference anybody with a legal or equitable ownership interest in whole or in part um in residential property and so sometimes some of those relationship uh aspects may may you know, that may fall under that but I I I can't I I can't say with certainty. I can just say from personal experience my father did the exact same with me. Um and then secondly, what is Yeah, I had a Mr. Wishnak. I had a response. Yeah, please. Um so, Mayor and Council members, I think my point in mentioning this is because we deal with this issue pretty regularly with other kinds of licenses licenses that the city issues. I think the key here is when you look at their incorporation documents and it doesn't matter to me if they're a big company or if they're a small family of uh investors because it's whether or not you hold interest in any other short-term rental in Minnetonka. So, you have the homestead, you have somebody who has to live here and then you have the plus one meaning you have ownership interest in one more. And what you're doing is you're checking to make sure they don't have own additional ownership in any other entity. And so, that there's an affidavit that needs to be signed as well as the check on the articles of incorporation for that LLC. That's where you verify the information. So, I I mean, other than that, I don't know how else you would Yep. I I understand. Yep. I understand. Um and then how much uh Mr. Nelson, you know, in terms of staff time in terms of you know, kind of making those verifications um versus if you didn't have to you know, kind of make those verifications are we looking at? That and Mayor Council member Remley, that that might be best question for uh the director as well. That you know, that's where we did try to create some touch points with the homesteaded status and and that's a you know, something that you can verify and check. Pretty easily. >> And yep. Yep. And some of these other aspects in that um yeah, sort of the the homestead plus one. Um there certainly might be more sort of some of the sort of investigative research that is required that the director mentioned. I one point and was briefly mentioned is that we would have conceivably some sort of affidavit that would force put the onus on the applicant to to divulge provide and to the fact that they don't have ownership in any other um property that would violate our essentially cap. That's Technically. Yep. Thank you. And then just if somebody a council member or Amelia Ms. Wishnak wanted to respond to that. Because we do process all the applications, I thought I'd just give you a general gist of what happens that the paperwork is processed by the licensing coordinator and myself. So, that is it's very very similar to what we do in liquor and tobacco and all those other kind of more I would call them more deeper dives into people's ownership and and entity interests in property. So, we get everything from leases to incorporation documents to taxes to whatever is required. So, I I would say we do a pretty deep dive on other kinds of licenses that's similar to what we're talking about in this proposal. Mhm. Thank you. Um I guess the yeah, I'll save that for my comments. And then just in terms of revoking license if we if it gets to the point and there's lots of process involved in getting to that point of revoking a license, would it be challengeable as a taking? How difficult is that going to be? You know, it's one thing to say that we're going to do that. How difficult would that actually be in reality? Mr. Nelson. Mayor and council member Remley, it's it's difficult to say a property owner can certainly challenge their their the city's taking away of their property interest in a license through a legal action that would allege potentially a a taking among other things. That's always going to be a consideration. That's why the city is very careful in terms of setting the predicate evidence and and following the process very closely in terms of revocation. So, anytime we would take adverse license action which could be suspension for a period of time or full revocation. There are rights that are provided to the applicant in terms of procedural due process, you know, notice and opportunity to be heard. Opportunity to cure? It goes through there would there would be an opportunity to cure before that. Yep, that's correct. And then ultimately as the director noted previously, there they have a right to appeal to the council. And so, there there are these bites at the apple that have occur where the record is developed. Ultimately, they they they do have the right for judicial review in the court if they if they still feel aggrieved. All right. Thank you. Council Council member Calvert, did you have questions? Go ahead. I actually do. So, this is a particular kind of rental and and that's why we're talking about it tonight because it's it's different than than other kinds of rental and um we have, you know, this rental registry and not rental license. This rental licensing is is uh a much more intensive process for our staff. It would be it would require, as I understand it, additional staff and um it's some amount of investment and so, I just wanted to ask Ms. Wishnak So, how does this how does this fit in the landscape of um rental licensing? We have said that we're not ready, you know, to do right now. Ms. Wishnak. Mayor and council members, uh I think to answer your question, I would see this as a subset of rental property and it would be licensed. So, that subset, the 24 plus whatever comes in future years would be absolutely licensed. If the council decided at some point in the future to license all types of rental property, that's a future decision and you're right, council member Calvert, that we have talked about the cost of that and the need of staff to implement a full register full rental license program in the city and so, that was a pretty big lift and quite a bit of money to get that started. So, I think you're right in in mentioning we've had that discussion. I think just last year, last July and the council did not proceed on that. This would be a subset. So, there's still be the registry for all rental property that's longer than 30 days and then the other subset would be for the licensed short-term rental if that makes sense. So, if I may um Yes, go ahead. Um so, I it just gets me to thinking about again sort of staff capacity um and if you could describe a little bit what you might anticipate on that you know, sort of the how it would alter your workload and um you know, how it would affect staff capacity in this endeavor. Ms. Wishnak. Mayor and council members, I think we've thought about that a little bit. I I don't think we wanted to get too far into implementation till we know we knew where the council was headed for sure. We have thought about how many inspections. We thought about rolling out the inspections over time. So, that's why you see some time built in that you don't have to do them all at once. And then giving some leeway until January to actually do a full implementation. So, you you can kind of see us trying to deal with not only the ones that are existing today, but then what if there are more that come along, you know, and I I really don't think there's this run on short-term rentals. I mean, I don't and my prediction and I shouldn't predict anything, but the you know, based on what we've seen over the last two decades in terms of what's happened with short-term rentals, it just hasn't had this huge uptick. Um does is that going to change drastically? Um 20, 30 more units could be in our future. Not sure exactly when that would happen over what time period, but that does add to the required inspections. It adds to the paperwork required and application processing etc. So, there's there's things to do when you implement an ordinance like that. I think again, it just depends on where the council finally lands as far as whether you go the licensing or the land use route. Thank you, Mayor. Yes. All right. Council member Fasten Bolton. Thank you, Mayor. >> [clears throat] >> Ms. Wishnak, you talked about you had some information about how this would affect affordable housing. Ms. Wishnak. Yes, and I'm going to pull up the chart. I would say just Can you give me a second, Mayor? Maybe go on to another question cuz I have a I did have a file open and now I closed it. So, come back to me on that one. Council member Maxwell or Coakley, do you have question any questions? Go ahead. Council member Coakley. >> a question. I know when we were in a study session and I'm a little confused about this, so that's why I'm trying to be clear about it. But I remember um council member Remley had mentioned um the person of their owner had to be homestead and when I'm reading the ordinance, it's it's like we have bullet points on like what's suggested, but I don't see where we're mentioned um in this ordinance that we're asking them to be a homestead owner or that's not recommended in the ordinance. Yeah. Ms. Wishnak. Mayor and that's the point. What was that? In Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Wishnak. Thank you. Council members, the owner plus one does mention the homesteaded properties have to own a home that's homesteaded in the city of Minnetonka to then ask for one additional that they can rent a short-term rental. So, we were trying to get at the issue that the council mentioned about there has to be some homesteading. But if you take the left side of this picture, just homesteading some of those issues I mentioned before come up whether or not somebody's in in Minnesota 6 months and 1 day of the year or not and if they have a different home in a different state, that could become an issue and that was mentioned as a concern. So, trying to balance both those uh maybe points of view, but not sure if we landed on the right spot. Thank you. Are you Are you having the numbers? Okay, go for it. I would say the large majority of the values are 500 plus of the 20 four units that are registered. There are a few more affordable, maybe I have one that is a condo unit which is in an affordable, I would say a very affordable under 200,000. So, one out of 25 there that I would consider an affordable. Thank you, Ms. Wishnak. Uh, member Maxwell. Yeah, I'm more confused now after your question than I was before on what the proposal is or what the definition of is owner in owner plus one additional. Um, the second sentence that all other owners would be allowed ownership interest in only one STR makes me think that you could have one without having any homestead in Minnetonka. So, is that Do you need any homestead to have short-term rentals in the owner plus one additional or what is the definition of an owner uh, in that proposal? Ms. Wishnak. Yes, Mayor and Council members. Um, the intention was to have homesteaded properties to then be able to also rent a short-term rental. And And this is I think what's confusing here is you could have an ADU that short-term rents on their property, but if it's homes You know what I mean? That That The only the option isn't only one property and then another property. If that makes sense, you also have the option of ADU on your own property. Does that make sense? No? Okay. >> make sense, but in order to have any STRs with the owner plus one additional, you must have a homesteaded property. You must live more than six six months or more of the year in Minnetonka in a residence in Minnetonka. Is that correct? Go ahead, Eric. Mayor Um, Mr. Nelson, why don't you go ahead? Mayor Council member Maxwell, yeah, in rereading this I I think you're I think you are correct. If you look at the in the draft 535.032 it has the limitation the license It's the license limitation provision. It does reference and it hinges on our definition of having interest in a short-term rental, but it does start off with the proposition that nobody may have an interest in more than one. So, under the way it's currently drafted could someone without a homesteaded property have one? Yes. So, we would if if if it is the will of the Council to have something different, yes, we would need to tweak that a little bit. And I think that was our intention, Mr. Nelson, was it not? Yeah. So, I think we just need to firm up that language. Yeah. So, to So, to be clear you could own a you could own a property in St. Louis Park not live in Minnetonka. You could buy a property in Minnetonka and rent it out as a short-term rental. In that instance, you're limited to that one property. If I own my property in Minnetonka and I buy my neighbor's home I could rent out my basement or I could rent my home out when I'm traveling and I could rent out the home my neighbor's home. So, those are only if you live in Minnetonka and homestead in Minnetonka can you use that home in addition to the limit. So, that Really, it should say there's a limit on one short-term rental. You can have a second if it's your homestead. Yep. And sorry for the confusion. Again, if somebody want If you want to read your packet, it's again, I know Mr. Nelson mentioned it, but it's number two is the where you find that language under 535.03. So, Can I just You should go ahead, Council member Wilbern. >> Um, so if I'm understanding correctly, wasn't the reasoning behind this language to uh, address the the people like that might live in Minnetonka 5 months and 28 days out of the year and then live in Florida for the rest of the year that they could that they could rent out their property while they're in Florida or wherever. So, Yeah, Ms. Wishnak. Yes, I think that is the intent. I think you're pointing out some language issues, so I think we can work on that. So, I have that noted. If If this is about you choose cuz I don't know where you're headed. So, So, here's what I want to do for purposes of process and I'm just going to repeat what I said earlier in the meeting, which is where we've been pretty deliberate over the past couple years of not taking public comment at the introduction of an ordinance because we've got Planning Commission to handle that. And so, want to stay consistent cuz we don't want to give people different expectations for different meetings. So, again, we won't be taking public comment, but I encourage the public to weigh in through Minnetonka Matters when and if this gets to the Planning Commission all those. And we've read lots of emails that have come over the past few weeks across lots of different perspectives. Um, what I want to do is get have give Council an opportunity to kind of check in on how they feel about this and where we're at in process as far as Is this an ordinance we want to refer to the Planning Commission to get more feedback on? And I I couldn't be more serious about that is not an approval of the ordinance or even a implied approval of the ordinance. It's really saying we want public comment on this. And so, we're going to refer it to you. Or as Ms. Wishnak said, we can ask if we can come up with some kind of consensus on changes that we'd like to see before we formally introduce the introduce the ordinance. I'm um, of the understanding that staff could probably make those changes in fairly short order and get this back to us at an upcoming meeting so that we can somewhat stay on on track depending on how far we go with the changes. So, that's a process check. So, I'm going to let Council weigh in on where they think we are with this, where they'd like to see it go and then we can regroup. So, um, who wants to start? Council member Wilbern. Um, I would say since it's an introduction and there is the the potential to to make changes before a final um, draft comes to us or even if at the final draft, I would say I I'm comfortable with uh, sending it on to Planning Commission as is. And who wants to go next? Council member Remely. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, again, just want to thank staff for the uh, thoughtfulness and the time they put into uh, you know, getting this information together. Um, I just want to clarify cuz I wasn't sure that it was very it was totally clear to everyone that the ordinance as written is the proposed ordinance as being introduced would allow anybody, resident or non-resident um, to have an investment short-term rental in Minnetonka. Um, so, you know, the way it's written right now I mean, first of all, I'm going to preface by saying 10 out of 12 other cities that border Lake Minnetonka plus St. Louis, Edina, Prior Lake, Bloomington and others have all banned either all short-term rentals or investor short-term rentals in residential area areas. Um, Minnetonka and Minnetonka Beach, which has a population of 410 are the only communities bordering Lake Minnetonka right now um, that do not regulate short-term rentals. So, in my perspective, nobody is going to like this proposed ordinance as as written for a lot of for several reasons. Um, investors, potential investors aren't going to like it cuz it supposedly technically limits them to one investor property. Um, residents are not going to be thrilled about it because compared to other cities that border the lake um, a the licensing uh, which varies from a half page to a one page or two page form plus no inspections no management plan or anything like that. That's what they offer, whereas our residents um, who are doing short-term rentals only would have to do a much more onerous um, licensing process that would include interior inspections that would include coming up with, you know, a management plan even if they want to rent out their house 2 weeks a year while they go to Florida on vacation or when they go visit their kids. And for people who are on, you know, fixed incomes or lower incomes um, that's going to be difficult. And a lot of people only rent out their houses as STRs for 2 weeks because of something called the Augusta rule, which essentially lets you rent out your home as a short-term your primary residence, your homesteaded residence as a short-term rental and you only and without paying any income taxes on the rental income for 14 days. Thereafter, you have to pay uh, income taxes on that. So, that's for that reason a lot of primary residences and homesteaded short-term rentals are only usu- often 14 days or less. Um, so anyway, there's going to be this much more onerous process than in other cities that um, allow only homesteaded uh, short-term rentals. And I guess I would also say, you know, it's I I find it kind of interesting that we would require rental licensing only for short-term rentals and not all rentals at this point um, because there's just as much uh, you know, kind of room for abuse. I've certainly heard from uh and you know, from people in our community who have long-term rentals or who live next to long-term rentals in the neighborhoods and also have issues. So, it seems to me if we're going to do it for short-term rentals, the same you know, issues not as on greater scale can happen with long-term rentals. Um you know, in terms of you know, kind of fairness or the ability for Minnetonka residents say I think the example was brought up of a married couple who both own houses in Minnetonka before they get married or and and then combine households or if they somehow buy another home and have that for a rental property. There's nothing precluding them from renting out that investment property as a long-term rental. Um and in some ways, you know, it can be more lucrative on a year-round basis because we don't have the summer weather. Um you know, that otherwise would be um and then you know, in terms of the resident concerns that I've heard, neighborhood disruption including from some of my own neighbors along my street has been cited as a huge problem when when they are next to short-term rentals especially in the summer lots of loud parties and drunkenness and drug use and bad language, yelled at underage girls, um things like that going on, traffic, speeding, so on and so forth. So, that's been an a situation that has occurred and it's more likely to happen with investor short-term rentals because you know, people who live in their neighborhoods, you know, have a stake in their home. It's their primary residence. They're more likely to take care of their home and to care about their relations with their neighbors and their neighborhood in general than would um investor rentals. And I would say even, you know, including residents. If you're not living on that block and you're unless you've bought as a short-term rental a house right next to your own, it could still be a problem and it's not going to impact you as directly as if you are living on, you know, right next to that short-term rental. Um So, you know, uh I actually did speak for a quite a length of time with the mayor of Tonka Bay um yesterday and I just happened to run into him at a different event and asked him about the uh ordinance that they had uh adopted within the last couple years. Both they and Excelsior have done so within the last 2 years. The mayor um Adam Jennings who happens to also be running for state auditor um and is a business owner said that, you know, his that this was something that he championed was having only primary residence homesteaded short-term rentals and banning investor rentals because of, you know, these reasons. And again, they do have like a half-page rental licensing. They don't have inspections or anything like that. Um so, I mean, my concern is that, you know, the licensing, the fairness, the staff time, the difficulties for um residents in doing so, that's one thing. But that's secondary to the whole question of whether or not we have uh you know, investor rentals, short-term rentals at all. I think there's, you know, certainly room for residents to have long-term rentals and that's great as investments or even, you know, other people to have those. Although some people, you know, are worried about investor rentals and things like that, but studies have shown that, you know, having investor rentals does move the needle in terms of maybe um in terms of rental costs and I'm not talking about just affordability. I'm talking about attainability. So, most of us I hear from residents all the time who are frustrated because their kids can't afford to buy or rent in Minnetonka. And I'm not talking about low-income housing or affordable housing per se. I'm talking to people about, you know, who are just above that. Young families who can't afford to buy even at 500 or you know, 550,000 and seeing those um housing prices tick up um you know, due to short-term rentals or our rental housing because you're taking supply off the market and that's going to drive costs up. So, you know, that that is an issue I think that is worth considering as well. So, in short, those are my concerns and also the concerns I've been hearing from residents over the last few days and uh and weeks. And um so, I think you know, I think it's still very worth considering in this conversation or another conversation before it goes to planning commission to really think about that question again of whether you want to have investor short-term rentals given what the other cities bordering Lake Minnetonka are doing, what St. Louis Park, what Bloomington, you know, what other cities, especially those that are kind of, you know, have a lot of lakefront and we have almost 180 uh homes that are directly on Lake Minnetonka or have deeded access to Lake Minnetonka or live across the street and even more that live across the street and in the neighborhoods from those. So, you know, and it's not but it's not just those. I mean, those can these can be problematic wherever you are in Minnetonka. So, you know, I would really hope to see either a revision or a rediscussion of this or at the very least um having, you know, the thing is is if we send out this proposed ordinance now, yes, we can have another bite at the apple and go back later, but it's going to be a lot more difficult cuz planning commission would then consider this question not in it would be a yes or no. Rather than having the nuanced you know, kind of discussion that we're, you know, that I'm bringing forth and others have brought forth in terms of their concerns. So, for that reason, I would, you know, either like to see us, you know, relook at this and relook at this proposed ordinance or offer these other choices which is what we talked about originally last July when we decided City Council first discussed this last July and there was uh the two main items were either banning short-term rentals outright or it was banning investor short-term rentals. And those were the two questions that we were primarily discussing then um under the former mayor who um then directed us to come up with an ordinance that would be implemented by April 1st. We can't do that now, but you know, I think going back to that original question for all the reasons, you know, staff time being onerous in terms of licensing for, you know, residents, um you know, the the housing attainability and affordability, um you know, I think those are all real reasons. I think we should listen to the residents who have been reaching out to us and and considering this uh a little bit in a more nuanced matter and bringing it giving residents uh more of a choice in what they're going to be deciding and engaging about. Thank you. All right. Uh Council Member Maxwell. Um We're comments, right? Not questions. So, um there two big concerns that I see that were not addressed by the staff preference of that um owner plus one option. The absentee landlords is not addressed I feel and then large quantities or disproportionate uh distribution throughout the city is not addressed with that one. Um so, I would prefer to send to planning commission the homestead only or a homestead plus one option rather than owner plus one. I think allowing anyone anywhere to have one uh rental or short-term rental in Minnetonka is not the way that we ultimately want to go and I would rather have the discussion be around the more strict um proposal and then with a chance to potentially loosen it, but I'd rather have that discussion happen at planning commission than what um this ordinance is proposed by staff. Council Member Cockley. I also would like for the um ordinance to go to the planning commission with the homestead um owner. Council Member Foster Bolton. That's homestead, that sounds good. What Kizzy just said. And Council Member Calvert. Thank you, Mayor. Um yeah, I I'm kind of thinking along the same lines. Uh I really appreciate all of the work staff, but um uh Council Member Remaley has done a lot of research on her own, clearly has studied the issues and um this one Sorry. >> [laughter] >> I have a little person in my house. Um has studied um the issues very closely and brought the brought a lot of issues. Um I agree about that. I think that's something that I mentioned um in the study session and um So, I agree with my fellow council that score. Thank you. Okay, so it looks like and I'll just weigh in briefly and um we're having feedback issues, so folks can just make sure to have their mics turned off. Um I you know, I I have been the one and I'm I don't have really strong feelings about this other than, you know, I I think we're lying to ourselves if we think we're going to have a ban on short-term rentals except with a homestead with no kind of enforcement mechanism such as a licenser or any other mechanism. So, I'm I'm a little perplexed on how we would avoid licenser and also have such a such a strict um limitation because there's a lot I think there's a lot of nuance to that issue. Um but I'm hearing my my fellow council members. I will also say, you know, I to me in a um I think we have 19,000 some odd households in Minnetonka and we have 25 short-term rentals. So, while if you are next to a problem short-term rental, that's one of the 25, that's a problem for you. I absolutely acknowledge that. I don't want to conflate that into being a city-wide problem. So, I want to be very deliberate in my opinion about how we handle this. Um and I think that there are 25 short-term rental units um that are going to be very upset with us if we ban short-term rentals and that's something we'll have to deal with and take into account. Um They're businesses in our city essentially. So I'm I'm not sure how we solve because we have nuance issue or um nuisance issues would be kind of the manner for solving this I assume. Is that correct, Ms. Wishnak? If there's no license, you'd have to go through the nuisance process, correct? >> That's correct, Mayor. So, that process looks a lot like what we talked about with the license piece without maybe some of the immediate um enforcement. So, I I I just want to make sure that's really clear. Um and perhaps I'm thinking too much like a lawyer and not enough like a mayor, but that's my perspective. I'm going to finish my comments. Um so what I will say is it sounds like and I want to be really careful here what council is asking is a property needs to be homestead, meaning the person needs to live there more than 6 months in order for it to be allowable as a short-term rental. And we are not ask and we want to remove the licenser piece. We want this to be a land use. Okay, maybe I'm misunderstanding the comments about the licenser piece then. So, go ahead, Ms. Wishnak. Uh so, if I caught the general consensus of what I heard is basically changing the last bullet to say homesteaded property owners are allowed to have an additional in addition to their homestead piece, um the property have one STR. No? Okay. So, what I'm hearing council say is >> left then. You You would just take the left. You would not be able to have any short-term rental unless you had your property homesteaded and I would refrain to from using 6 months. I gave you that example. Um I just There are lots of different um reasons why or how people homestead their property and it's state law, so I don't want to say anything I, you know, that's counter to that. So, I would just say homestead and you're going with the first column then, not the last column. True? Is that just thumbs up? That's what people want? Deb, thumbs up. I just I think that what I heard >> Let's Let's just try to We'll We'll take I mean, Kimberly has something she wants to say and then I'm trying to get a read without, you know, going too far down a rabbit hole. Okay, Council Member Welburn. I just was going to say that I didn't I wasn't hearing people say that they didn't want licenser. I was just hearing that they wanted to the change in the homestead status requirement. Okay. So, that would be if you if you rent out for 2 weeks, you would have to get a license, correct? >> Correct. Okay. Council Member Remely. Yeah, I think at least what I'm hearing from folks is that it's not up to the license like, you know, Tonka Bay has a half-page license and some documentation you, you know, hand in, but you don't have interior inspections or have to, you know, provide a management plan. It's just, you know, much simpler and and easier, but you still have accountability measures built into the licensing and the ordinance. Um you know, that would kind of take care of those nuisance things. That's what I see in Tonka Bay and Excelsior's experience. Um those are the most recent uh cities that have adopted um homestead only uh short-term rental. So, I think that, you know, you can kind of have a middle ground there where you still have licensing if necessary, but it's not onerous licensing either either for residents or for staff. So, with that, um Ms. Wishnak, I think what we're looking at I'm most interested cuz we learned with garbage cans and we learned with parking that we're going to get a lot of and probably some surprising comments because we certainly were surprised by the feedback we got there. And so, I'm most interested in getting something to the residents for resident feedback and then, you know, going from there. So, I Go ahead. >> Yeah, I could suggest uh so, we could make this change very easily on the homestead side. Um the piece that got a little fuzzy for me was licensing or no licensing. So, let me just put it this way. If you don't want to do licensing, that's okay because you have register these properties anyway and we can remove the licensing requirement cuz you have a registration. We already do that process. So, you have the owner's name, you have the doesn't matter. I mean, if you're not going to have any of the license criteria that it's inspected and all of that and you don't really want to go that far, it's okay cuz you already register them. So, then I would just leave off the piece with licensing. >> So, what Council Member Remely is referencing is more or less what we're doing via registry anyway. >> [snorts] >> So, what are your suggestions? >> Well, the part is I we can definitely change the ordinance to include just homestead and that's an easy change. We can change out that language in the section I mentioned before. That's easy. The part that I didn't understand from the group consensus was whether or not you wanted licensing to continue and licensing comes with all of the things we put in the ordinance or you just wanted to delete all that language. We can change that as well, too, but that wasn't clear to me what you wanted to do with that. So, as far as So, what I'm hearing is from licenser, it's going to be kind of a version of what we have in the ordinance now or we can say change it to just be consistent with any rental registration that we have. So, what Why don't we start with Council Member Maxwell? Go down the line. Um do you have a preference um on between those two? I do not. Council Member Welburn. Um I would prefer licensing. I just think having a management plan is part of what would hopefully prevent some of the problems that are happening with short-term rentals. Council Member Foster Bolton. Yeah, I I don't care which one. Okay. Well, all right. Council Well, we want to give staff direction and there's a possibility what I'm hearing Ms. Wishnak say is if we are prescriptive enough, we may be able to still introduce something with verbal edits that could get keep moving cuz time is of the essence as I understand it from this council. So, if we can do that, we can get this to the planning commission in May. So, Council Member Kopley. Um I think we should have I would prefer the registry because I do think about if someone who has lower income who wants to do this as well, then it would prevent them because they would need to go through all the licenses and maybe they they home maybe don't look as as appealing or maybe won't even pass as much. I don't know, but I prefer the registry. Council Member Calvert. Well, I just as reflected in my questions or and or comments earlier, I just I do get I get concerned about um staff capacity with licenser. I don't really know how much more you know, is required, but I know it'll be more and I do appreciate what Council Member Welburn said about, you know, if you have licenser, hopefully you're taking care of things up front before before they develop. I also sort of feel like if it's a homesteaded property it's sort of reflected on your taxes and that might you know help first of all establish that they are homesteaded and um so I'm I'm a little torn. I just I'm really reluctant to keep adding to the staff load um but to your point mayor you know there's only 25 properties that were talking about right now. So I mean I can come convinced fully either way but I'm sort of leaning towards registry. Okay. Thank you Councilmember Calvert. Councilmember Remley. Thank you. Yeah I'm ambivalent because I could see doing if the registry accomplishes what is reflected say in Tonka Bay's or Excelsior's regulations where they already do this. I would be fine with that. I'd rather maybe start on the side of being less onerous for the reasons that Councilmember Coakley elucidated and then we can always require licensing you know subsequently if it becomes an issue in terms of you know noise nuisance other issues. Great. Thank you. So what I'm hearing is of the people who provided input meaningfully they we heard from the people who were supporting more of the registry piece of it. So if we could go so I think we're probably in a position to introduce an ordinance consistent with this ordinance with the following changes. One that the short-term rentals will be allowed in properties that are homesteaded only and two those properties will be required to be a part of the rental registry consistent with all other rental properties in the city. And with those changes we're in a position then if Mr. Nelson thinks we're not building that plane while we're flying it. Um to introduce the ordinance. Is that fair? I'm seeing Ms. Wishnek nod vigorously and Mr. Nelson look uncomfortable. >> [laughter] >> I'm the lawyer I'm supposed to be uncomfortable right? Um no I I I I the director and I will certainly work together and if if she thinks it's workable I do too. Um just just noting that the res you know the registration program is um already does require you know property that including homestead of any that's rented for any period of time to be on the registry. So um uh that you know as as we originally conceived this it was the licensing was sort of another layer sort of an additional you know look. So Are we okay with what I with a what I recited though as the motion to be the motion? Yep. Okay. So I'm looking for somebody to make that motion to introduce the ordinance as I indicated. Councilmember Foster Bolton. I make a motion to introduce the ordinance as Mayor Shac described. And a second. Councilmember Maxwell. Second. All right. We have a motion by Councilmember Foster Bolton and a second by Councilmember Maxwell. Ms. Larson please call roll. Maxwell. Yes. Wilbern. Yes. Calvert. Yes. Remley. Yes. Coakley. Yes. >> Foster Bolton. >> Yes. Shac. Yes. Motion carries. All right. Mayor if I may. Yes Ms. Wishnek. >> a minor amendment to the schedule. So it'll take us just a couple of days to redraft according to your motion. So just know that the Minnetonka manager's page will go live tomorrow and I'll say ordinance pending and and so we'll post it as soon as it's ready. I just wanted to alert you to that. The rest of the dates should be intact. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you so much and thanks for being nimble. I know we appreciate that. Okay. Let's let's I think we can get through the rest of this in a more efficient manner but that was an important conversation. All right. So we're on to public hearings. We have two fun public hearings. Item 13A which is a temporary on-sale liquor license for Immaculate Heart of Mary Church at 13505 Excelsior Boulevard and Ms. Wishnek this is you. Thank you Mayor and Councilmembers. This temporary license is for their event on Saturday June 13th. As you know they've had a block party for many years and have done this pretty consistently. So there are some parking things that are implemented according to the police department's input and we should be okay in terms of the parking and the accessibility. So with that we'll make a motion to we'll recommend that you have a motion to grant the temporary one-day license to the church at 13505 Excelsior Boulevard. Thank you Ms. Wishnek. Um Council any questions? If not I'll open the public hearing. And is the applicant here and would like to talk about this? We'd be happy. Father come on up. Welcome. Thank you. Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers. I'm Father John Bauer the pastor here at Immaculate Heart of Mary. We're just requesting the temporary liquor license for our parish block party. It'll be held on June 13th at 4:30 p.m. after after our 4:30 p.m. mass. It's our annual community event for our parish our school families and neighbors and many come from across Minnetonka. The evening's centered on hospitality good food music fellowship kids running around neighbors meeting one another and building community together. So we'd be grateful for your approval and of course all of you are very warmly welcome to join as well. Thank you. Thank you so much and thank you for hanging out with us tonight. Appreciate it. >> Um this is always a very popular event and any comments or questions Council otherwise I would take a motion to grant the temporary one-day liquor license. Councilmember Remley. I move to grant the temporary one-day liquor license to IHMC at 13505 Excelsior Boulevard. Thank you. Councilmember Maxwell. Second. Thank you. We have a motion by Councilmember Remley and a second by Councilmember Maxwell. Ms. Larson please call roll. Maxwell. Yes. Wilbern. Yes. Calvert. Yes. Remley. Yes. Coakley. She's coming. >> [laughter] >> I know she she's okay with this one. Yes. Foster Bolton. >> Yes. Shac. Yes. Motion carries. Well everybody get to that event and I think some couple years it's been the same day as Summer Fest and this year it's not. So we can all have you know multiple weekends in June to celebrate. All right. Moving on. Um 13B temporary on-sale liquor licenses for Unmapped Brewing LLC at 14625 Excelsior Boulevard and I believe Ms. Wishnek that's you. >> Thank you Mayor and Councilmembers. These are it's kind of two applications in one. So we have two events. One is June 20th that's their anniversary party that they hold obviously every year on their anniversary. October 3rd also they're holding the Flannel Roots Music and Beer Festival. So that event was held previously as well. We always worry about parking in Glen Lake but we haven't had parking complaints about these events in the past. So as long as they stick to the time frames for the music etc. we should be okay with the events and they do have agreements with various area property owners for the parking. So that is also addressed. With that Mayor I'll turn it back to you. We do recommend approval. Thank you Ms. Wishnek. Council any questions about this one? We've seen these both before. All right. Well then I will open the public hearing and I'll invite the applicant to come on up and tell us about the events. Thanks for hanging out. >> Yeah. Thank you Mayor. Good evening Council staff. Um yeah not to sound like a broken record we're going to throw a very similar party the following weekend. So June plans are filling up. >> Yeah. Um yes this is our ninth anniversary and then actually I just realized today it's our 10th Flannel Roots Festival. So I guess it's a a big big year for us. Um we're it's going to be a very familiar um process as in the past. So I'm happy to answer any questions but it it'll look very similar to what it has in the past. Excellent. Thank you. I've been to both those events over the years and they're a lot of fun. Um I doubt the Council has any questions. Council? No? Okay well thank you. >> I will uh anybody else like to speak on this item? If not I'll close the public hearing and Council any comments otherwise I would take a motion to approve these licenses. Council member Coakley. I'll make a motion to grant the temporary liquor license to MAP Brewing LLC. And then am I supposed to do the other one? Uh there's two and that's covered by your one motion. Okay. All right. Thank you. And I'll second. >> Council member Calvert. All right. Thank you. I have a motion by Council member Coakley, a second by Council member Calvert. >> Ms. Larson, please call roll. Maxwell. Yes. Wilburn. Yes. Calvert. Yes. Remaley. Yes. Coakley. Yes. Foster Moulton. Yes. Schack. Yes. Motion carries. Great. All right. Item 14, other business. 14A is a conditional use permit and a site and building plan review for a building expansion, new bus corral, and a parking lot reconfiguration at Minnetonka's Minnetonka Middle School East at 17 17000 Lake Street Extension and Ms. Thomas. Uh thank you, Mayor Schack. Uh this evening staff is recommending that the Council adopt resolutions approving both the conditional use permit and the final site and building plans. As I'm sure you uh know, uh Minnetonka Middle School is located on the north side of Lake Street Extension. It has about a 200,000 square foot school building built uh over time starting in in the 1960s, though the applicant can remind me if that's that's incorrect. There's a variety of athletic fields to the west. Uh 22 stall um bus parking area to the south of the building and then over 200 parking stalls uh located to the east of the building. The school district is proposing both uh building and site changes and these were part of the referendum package that went to uh Minnetonka School District voters uh last fall. The building changes include additions to the west side of the building, a new gymnasium and auditorium area, some science classrooms and labs, and then some interior uh restrooms in existing courtyards. In total, uh these additions add about 11% uh to the building size. Architecturally, they would be consistent with uh the existing school building both in materials and styles. The site changes uh are on the west and east sides of the building. The first is a new bus corral that would be constructed with a new um entry on the west side. It would have space for 22 buses, but it could also be used to up to 93 uh passenger vehicles during other times. So, think uh evening events, uh weekend sporting activities. To make this area uh work, which is a planning term, not an engineering term, there would be um earth brought in to that area to raise uh the site and a retaining wall constructed on the west side. This grading activity has been reviewed by engineering and natural resources staff and found to meet um their standards. The east side changes are uh we can do those east side changes really because the bus corral is moving from the south area to the west side. As many of you may know, uh city staff has met with school district representatives over the last probably year and a half to really discuss um on-site circulation issues. Specifically, student drop-off and pick-up that just really doesn't work well there and in fact causes some folks to park in the neighborhoods south of the building rather than or south of Lake Street, I should say, rather than get in that line and kind of get stuck there. Um as proposed here, a new turnaround or a kind of a mini cul-de-sac would be built on the north side of the site allowing for two um rows of vehicles to enter. The two rows would then flow southward to three new student pick-up areas and those aisles or those drive aisles would flow actually along the building rather than through the parking lot uh improving safety uh there. The lane closest to the building would be for the actual drop-off and pick-up, um whereas the lane further from the building would be kind of a uh a pass-through lane. So, um think of you're dropping off your your child or you're picking up your child, you can then get into the far left lane and exit the site rather than waiting in the site. There's also an opportunity if your child is not ready for pick-up when you get to the pick-up area that you can recirculate um through the site. Uh the city's traffic consultant has indicated that this new plan will really improve safety and traffic operations and overall staff believes it will um also improve that traffic flow and hopefully folks will be less reluctant to enter the site knowing that they um will not be stuck on the site, that they'll be it'll be easier for them to exit. The building additions and the site changes do require an amendment to the existing conditional use permit as well as approval of final site and building plans and as was outlined in the written report, we do support those as staff. Uh first and foremost, they meet the conditions uh of conditional use permit and site and building plan review. They meet our engineering and natural resources standards and again, this really is expected to improve overall uh traffic operations. The planning commission did uh consider this proposal on April 16th and also recommended that the Council approve the project. And so with that, I would turn it back to you, Mayor Schack. Thank you. Council, questions about this? Just Council member Remaley. Thank you. Um really really good plan. I did hear from one uh resident who had concerns about this and um so my question was on the west side between the corral um the new corral bus corral and um I see the ball fields are still going to be right on the other side. So, there's no opportunity for screening or anything like that for, you know, kind of neighbors you know, kind of the neighbor to the west having to look at buses where I mean I can't to be honest right now, I can't remember having just driven by there what what that situation is. Um cuz it's winter and the trees haven't or still barely spring and the trees haven't, you know, really come out full. So, it looks like there is adequate screening there for the house to the west. Okay, that's what I wanted to check. Thank you. Council, any other questions? Council, any other questions? Okay, great. Well, um we had the public hearing at Planning Commission on this, but I would invite the applicant to come up if there's anything more that you want to share, please uh feel free to come up. And please provide us with your name and address, please. Thank you. My name is David Maroney. I'm president of ATS&R Architects and Engineers and I have the delight of working with the Minnetonka Public Schools on this project. Uh Paul Bourgeois, the director of finance and operations, would have loved to have been here, but literally half an hour before the meeting started, he sent me a picture of Minnewashta's boiler room which had flooded and it's underwater and school's going to be canceled tomorrow. I just got an email from him and he he sends his best. >> [laughter] >> But he is um he's taking care of business tonight, so he would have been here. Uh you know, this was the first bond referendum that passed by that school district or with actually they even saw it in the last three decades. So, it's a real exciting time for the school district. I think the improvements that we're proposing here are amazing in in that it really enhances the learning environment for these students. Uh the additional gymnasium station uh which also doubles as a performance station with proper seating, venue for 750 parents to delight in watching the activities and uh that are going on and with a with a stage that doesn't take up the room of the cafeteria, which is tight and really needed. The science rooms, you know, they're they're teaching a certain amount of science, but they're in regular classrooms right now, so these new science rooms are really going to enhance that delivery of the education. So, you know, I I I'm just very excited about it and of course, not to mention the site. Uh I had three kids went through the school myself and uh you know, what we're going to do on the east side when we uh laid this out and ran it by uh Principal Demmitt, he is so excited. Uh he just thinks that this is really going to fix this. And um we're excited, too. He was so excited, he said, "Can we please implement it this summer instead instead for the rest of the project?" so we went on the fast track with that and um we received bids on that. So, that's that's actually underway now. We're going to be able to start that uh middle of June. The um the bus on the left side, that's going to be a game-changer. You know, we're adding a lot more uh parking spaces for events because of that and also freeing up the old bus corral as parking. We're picking up significant parking on this site, so that's very good. Little thing that may or may not be noticed, but it's the north parking lot. We're actually reorienting all of the the traffic pattern in there. So, instead of a north-south lane, we're turning it into an east-west lane, which that really serves the pool entry, the gym entry, and it's going to be a lot more user-friendly. We're going to take the the uh handicap spots and put them right up by the building and have a designated path that's safer. So, it's so the wheelchairs um visitors aren't going through the parking lot to get there. We're also adding a legitimate elevator at that entry. I don't know if anyone of you have ridden that little lift in that entry, but it was it's kind of an experience. Uh gets the job done, but certainly not ideal. So, uh district's investing heavily into that, too, and uh I think it's really going to be um a real improvement at this building, much needed, too. Great. Council, any questions? No, not seeing any. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. Okay. Um again, the public hearing has already taken place, but if there was somebody, and maybe somebody in the audience that wanted to make a comment, I'd be happy to entertain that. Not seeing anybody. Okay, well, Council, it's up to us. So, why don't we get the recommendation page up here? Thank you. Uh any comments? Otherwise, I know that this is probably long awaited by many of us, so we would take a motion, too. Council member Romilly. Um I just want to quickly say I'm so pleased. I've had two kids go through MME and, you know, trying to do pickups and drop-offs that, you know, revised traffic pattern is going to be amazing. So much better than worrying about your kids darting, you know, at some point in the line and darting across traffic to to get to the school entrance. So, that's that's going to be a good. And then, I've heard from residents who are quite frankly very tired of uh people parking on side streets across uh from MME. Uh MME is in uh Ward 3, so uh I I hear about this quite a bit. And so, it's really nice that this is going to hopefully be a a much better uh solution to that issue. So, thanks so much. And the performing arts, that'll be great trying to book into the high school in advance when you want to have um MME performances, I know, is uh sometimes difficult, so it'll be nice to have a on-campus venue for that. So, great job. Excellent. Anybody else? Okay, well, let's Council member Romilly. >> something, Mayor. Yep, go ahead, Council member Calvert. Those those plans just look uh lovely and I appreciate um the tree preservation. There, you know, there are a lot of trees actually on the campus and um the tree loss is pretty minimal and, you know, there's some grading and whatnot, but I just think the placement of the buildings is thoughtful. Um I I know anything to improve traffic patterns at schools is appreciated by the neighbors and um I'm just really I'm excited for the students because I think those buildings are two uh wonderful additions and uh the parents will be happy about the traffic flow and the parking. So, uh good job. Thank you, Council member Calvert. I guess I will just make one brief comment, which was I know that this, you know, to to put a project together, we're not giving it you you're not getting any more land, so to put make this work and reconfigure is a lot of work and a lot of back and forth and coordination with staff, and we appreciate your diligence on making sure that it suits your needs, it suits our needs, and most of all, the needs of the students and the neighbors. So, thank you for that. All right. Now, are we ready for a motion? Council member Romilly. Okay, I'll make the motion to adopt the resolution approving the conditional use permit and site and building plan review for building expansion, new bus corral, and parking lot reconfiguration at Minnetonka Middle School East at 17,000 Lake Street Extension. Thank you. And a second? Council member Calvert. I'll second, Mayor. Thank you. I have a motion by Council member Romilly and a second by Council member Calvert. Miss Larson, please call roll. Maxwell. Yes. Wilbern. Yes. Calvert. Yes. Romilly. >> Yes. Coakley. Yes. Pastor Bolton. Yes. Schack. Yes. Motion carries. Well, hopefully you can hustle and get it done for your principal. Good luck. All right. Uh 14B, conditional use permit request for an accessory dwelling unit at 15815 Minnetonka Boulevard. Miss Thomas. Thank you again, Mayor Schack. Uh this evening, staff is recommending the Council adopt a resolution either approving or denying uh this specific request. Um the Council originally considered this at your last meeting on April 13th. You'll recall that the property owners, it's a 1.35-acre property, they're proposing to remove the existing two-story ADU, about 915 square feet, and construct a two-story uh ADU just under 2,400 square feet. Staff had recommended denial of the request at your last meeting. Um although we believe the ADU is attractively designed and and we understand the applicant's desire to include the various components of the uh ADU, uh it was and continues to be our opinion that it does not meet the intent of an accessory dwelling unit. After considering uh staff's recommendation and uh the Planning Commission's recommendation, which reflected staff's, and then hearing the applicant's presentation, the Council took uh two votes. The first was to adopt the resolution denying the request, and that vote failed on a two-four vote. Uh that was incorrect in your report, but uh correct in the minutes and corrected in the addendum this evening. The second vote was to direct staff to prepare a resolution and bring it back to you approving the proposal as presented, and and staff um has done that. The resolution is included in your packet. It includes findings that any impact of the larger uh square footage and taller height of the ADU would be minimized by one, the lot size, again, 1.35 acres, two, significant setbacks from adjacent roadways and existing and proposed homes, and then three, existing and proposed landscaping. We did include uh as a condition of approval, if the uh Council chooses to approve this project, um that the applicant would have to post some financial security um associated with that proposed landscaping just to ensure one uh full growing season, as we typically do um for landscape plans. With that, I would turn it back to the Mayor. Thank you, Miss Thomas. Council, any questions about kind of where we're at procedurally on this? We spent some significant time talking about this at the last meeting, and so um but I want to give Council members an opportunity if they if they there's anything more they want to share briefly, hopefully. Council member Coakley. Thank you, Mayor. So, I wasn't here at the last meeting, but I did um kind of talk to um City Manager a little bit about this prior to coming prior to you all having the meeting. And then also just kind of hearing what happened at the meeting, um the Council meeting, and so um I just want to, you know, when I do make my vote, that I am aware of kind of what happened. So. Great. Thank you, Council member Coakley. All right. Not see Council member Romilly. Sorry, I just have one quick question I just remembered, and maybe I missed this in the presentation somehow, but I just wanted to kind of clarify um that this is basically what the purpose is. This is for like the use of you know, we already approved the structure um or the vote, you know, we kind of handled that matter. So, is this just the, you know, kind of approving it for use as an ADU? Or or, you know, cuz we've already kind of gone through the building. So, it just Can you clarify that for me? Sorry if I messed up. >> Yeah, Miss Thomas. Mayor Schack and Council member Romilly, um this vote is kind of all-encompassing. So, it is for the structure and the ADU. Um one of the conditions of an accessory dwelling unit is that it can't be over 1,000 square feet or 35% of the principal dwelling. Um and this proposal covers is over both of those things. So, the size was was not voted on last time. I think I can clarify what where we're at procedurally was we staff asked for an opportunity asked us to continue this item to this hearing or to this meeting because to give them time to prepare the resolution for the direction that council had given at the last meeting. All right, thank you. Council member Oakley. Can you state what the what the direction was of the council? Uh sure council member Oakley. We the council direct directed staff to prepare resolution approving the accessory dwelling unit as consistent with what Ms. Thomas explained. So, staff had recommended denial and that the motion to deny was not successful and so council asked staff to prepare new resolution to approve the accessory dwelling unit. Okay. Um I guess we're going to vote on that, right? Presumably if we get a motion, yes, if we do get a motion to approve that's what we will be voting on. Mhm. Council member Calvert. Thank you mayor. Is there an opportunity to make a couple of comments because it's I'm very much where I was last time we voted on it and I'm happy to take more comments. I'm you know, we do have a record with everybody's position that's included. So, if you feel compelled to to give comments, please be as brief as possible. I will be brief. So, council member Remaley and I both and I'm not going to put words in her mouth tonight, but certainly from my perspective, I I have an issue with setting a precedent. Um this is so much bigger than any other ADU. It just doesn't even resemble an ADU and it's very difficult for me to deny the applicant knowing the applicant. They had some compelling arguments and I I very much like the applicant and wish I could vote yes. I it just it's it does not fit our ordinances and we have said over and over we have to vote on the ordinances we have, not the ordinances that we want and I really wish that perhaps we could wait till the zoning rewrite is done that might be able to address some of these issues and provide some clarity or if they could come back with something that that even resembled anything um in the in the size ballpark of other ADUs, but this one makes me feel very uncomfortable and I'm I'm going to vote the same way I did last week. Thank you council member Calvert. Um council member Remaley. Yeah, I'll have to reiterate and again, I mean this is it was difficult because I kind of was going forward on the assumption that this was just you know, kind of the use of it as an ADU cuz we already you know, kind of I thought kind of went over. I didn't realize we're basically kind of re-voting again on this. So, um I feel like we already kind of established that, but if we haven't and we're back to where we were then I would probably have to vote the same way that I did if we're voting on the same thing. Otherwise, for the reason that we you know, voted down something else within the last year or so that really wasn't that different. So, it's more of a fairness doctrine as much as a precedent doctrine. If it was just the conditional use as as in terms of the use of the building as an ADU, then I would be yes because we had already you know, kind of I thought we had established, but we haven't. If that's not the case then I would probably be back where I was previously. Council member Calvert Oakley. I know I wasn't here, but for me I would vote no on this because and I've said this several times and I've said it over and over and over again. It seems like we pick and choose when we want to approve something and I feel like if this is not within this ordinance and it's larger than what the ordinance says, then I don't I would vote no for this. Okay. All right, so I want to give folks an opportunity to make comments. I feel like I feel satisfied with the comments that were made at the last meeting. Um so, what we're looking for is a motion on this which which is what we directed staff to do and we can see what happens with this. So, I'm looking over here because I think these are the folks that were council member Maxwell. Um I guess continuing with our last meeting. I won't make comments, but I'll make a motion similar to where we were last week. I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution approving the conditional use permit at 15815 Minnetonka Boulevard. Council member Wilburn. I'll second. All right, I have a motion by council member Maxwell second by council member Wilburn Wilburn. Ms. Larson, please call roll. Maxwell. Yes. Wilburn. Yes. Calvert. No. Remaley. No. Oakley. No. Foster Bolton. Yes. Schack. Yes. Motion carries. All right. Now, we are on to appointments and reappointments. We have none. On to item 16 which is adjournment. Council member Wilburn. I move adjournment. And a second. Council member Foster Bolton. I'll second. I have a motion by council member Wilburn a second by council member Foster Bolton. All in favor say I. Opposed. Motion carries. We are adjourned. Thank you. >> [music]