Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends approval of ADU but denies variance request for historic Minnetonka carriage house
Summary
The Minnetonka Planning Commission recommended approval of a conditional use permit for an ADU at 13131 Minnetonka Drive while recommending denial of a rear‑yard setback variance, citing ordinance size limits and precedent concerns; the City Council will consider the recommendation May 18.
The Minnetonka Planning Commission on April 30 recommended that the City Council approve a conditional use permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit above a detached garage at 13131 Minnetonka Drive but recommended denying the applicant’s request for a rear‑yard setback variance.
Staff presented the proposal and recommended denial. Planning staffer Miss Rooney said the proposed carriage‑house structure totals roughly 1,800 square feet — far above the city’s ADU cap (about 1,000 square feet or 35 percent of the principal dwelling, whichever is less). Rooney told commissioners the property lacks the “practical difficulty” required to justify a setback variance and that staff views the building’s scale and floor area as more consistent with a secondary primary residence than a subordinate ADU.
Owner and applicant Andy Madson described the property’s history and said the design had been revised to reduce perceived bulk, including lowering a roofline. Madson said the finished‑floor area of the primary residence is 3,245 square feet, argued much of the carriage‑house includes sloped ceilings and non‑compliant head‑height areas, and said the ADU’s usable living area is below 600 square feet by his calculations. “We love telling guests about the history of Minnetonka Mills,” Madson said, adding the proposal is intended to keep the house in family stewardship and provide modest multigenerational living.
Commissioners split on the application. Several members praised the design and its sensitivity to the historic home, but others said approving both a variance and an oversized ADU would set a difficult precedent and appear inconsistent with the ordinance. After debate, a motion to recommend denial of the entire request failed. The commission then voted to recommend that the council approve the conditional use permit but deny the variance, handing the final decision to the City Council; the council will consider the item May 18.
The commission’s recommendation record notes there were no public comments submitted for this agenda item during the meeting.
What’s next: The City Council will review the planning commission recommendation at its May 18 meeting. If the council follows the commission’s recommendation, the CUP could be approved while the variance would be denied, requiring the applicant to modify the proposal to meet setback rules to proceed.
