Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floodplain Easement Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission backs two‑lot Hidden Valley Road subdivision with floodplain alteration, easement changes at 16515 Hidden Valley Road
Summary
The Minnetonka Planning Commission on June 5, 2025 voted 5-0 to recommend the City Council approve a two‑lot subdivision at 16515 Hidden Valley Road, including a proposed floodplain alteration, easement vacation and relocation of a water line serving a neighboring property; staff recommended tree-mitigation conditions and utility coordination.
On June 5, 2025, the Minnetonka Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the preliminary and final plats for Hidden Valley Road Third Edition, a two‑lot subdivision at 16515 Hidden Valley Road, together with associated floodplain alteration and an easement vacation.
Planner Raines (Ms. Raines) presented the application and described the roughly 1.4‑acre site as previously developed with a house and tennis court (recently removed under a demolition permit), floorplain crossing the property from northwest to southeast, and existing utility easements. Staff explained the proposal would relocate an on-site water service so that a neighbor to the east would retain water service; staff added a condition requiring the applicant to coordinate with the neighbor and obtain authorization for the relocation. Staff also reported the applicant proposes 340 cubic yards of floodplain alteration, and that each new lot would include its own underground stormwater facility. The west lot is planned to include a swimming pool.
On tree protection, staff said the property currently has 36 protected trees. The applicant proposes removing 11 trees (9 characterized in staff remarks as high-priority and 2 as significant); staff noted that removal percentages fall under the thresholds allowed by the tree protection ordinance and recommended a standard tree mitigation condition as part of approval.
An engineer in the audience who identified himself as representing Veil Site Group answered commissioner questions about on-site parking and construction management; staff noted that construction management plans (including stockpile placement and parking) are reviewed administratively at the building permit stage. Commissioners asked about how moving the water line would affect the neighboring property and staff explained coordination and a letter of authorization would be required. The commission voted 5-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council; staff said the council would hear the resolution at a future June council meeting as announced in the record.
