Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Unit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves ADU at Minnetonka Mills but denies a rear‑yard setback variance
Summary
After extended debate about precedent and zoning, the council approved a conditional‑use permit for a carriage‑house–style accessory dwelling at 13131 Minnetonka Drive but denied the requested rear‑yard setback variance; planning commission recommended approval of the CUP and denial of the variance.
The Minnetonka City Council on May 18 voted to approve a conditional‑use permit (CUP) for a detached carriage‑house accessory dwelling at 13131 Minnetonka Drive, while denying the applicant’s requested rear‑yard setback variance.
City staff recommended denial of the CUP and the setback variance, arguing the proposed accessory structure exceeded the ordinance’s intended size limits for accessory uses. By contrast, the planning commission recommended approval of the CUP (but denial of the variance), concluding the structure would be subordinate in scale to the main house and would not adversely affect neighbors.
Applicant Andy Madsen, who identified himself as the property owner, urged council approval and emphasized the house’s history and context in Minnetonka Mills. "This is the second oldest standing structure in the Minnetonka Mills area," he said, and described the carriage‑house design as intended to preserve the home’s historic character while providing modest, multigenerational housing on site.
Council debate centered on two themes: fidelity to the city’s zoning rules and the council’s discretion to consider unique property circumstances. Council member Romeli said that although she had previously opposed a different ADU application she found this proposal “much more reasonable” and cited differences in lot context. Council member Calvert said she felt the council must apply rules consistently and was "very conflicted." Several council members noted the council has discretion under the code to approve variances when standards are met.
Council member Wilburn moved a resolution reflecting the planning commission action: approve the conditional‑use permit and deny the setback variance. Council member Foster Bolton seconded. Roll call produced a unanimous vote in favor (7–0).
The resolution requires the applicant to meet the planning commission’s recommended conditions and to locate the structure consistent with the code‑required setback rather than the requested variance. The council’s action will allow the project to proceed to building‑permit review subject to those conditions.
The item prompted extended discussion about how the council applies ADU rules and whether further study of ADU policy or ordinance amendments is warranted; several council members suggested an ADU study session to consider code updates and fairness questions raised in ongoing cases.
