Zoning Ordinance Update

Dear Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commission Members,

I am writing as a resident of Minnetonka and I oppose the proposed rezoning provision that would replace R-1 Single Family zoning with a “Low Density” district allowing duplexes on any conforming lot of at least 18,000 square feet. I respectfully ask the Council to remove this provision entirely.

I understand the goal of expanding housing options for young families and first-time buyers, and I share it. This provision will not achieve that goal, and it will cause lasting harm to established neighborhoods.

It doubles the households on lots designed for one. Our neighborhood was built around half-acre lots. Allowing a duplex on every conforming lot puts two households where one lives today, on lots that would also shrink to 18,000 square feet. That is a fundamental change to the density and character of neighborhoods residents chose for their space.

It will increase traffic on streets not built for it. Every duplex adds another household’s cars, trips, deliveries, and guests to residential streets. Our neighborhood streets were designed for single-family traffic, with no sidewalks in many places and children walking to bus stops, biking, and playing nearby. Added parking demand will push cars onto the street, narrowing already tight roads and making them less safe for pedestrians, cyclists, and emergency vehicles. Multiplied across the city, this is a significant traffic increase that existing streets were never planned to carry.

It will target older, more affordable neighborhoods. Redevelopment follows land cost. In newer neighborhoods with homes worth $1 million or more, tearing down a house to build a duplex makes no financial sense. In older neighborhoods like ours, it does. A developer can buy a modest older home for about $450,000, demolish it, and build two units that each sell for over $1 million. That replaces one of the city’s most affordable homes with two of its most expensive ones, and the home that could have been a young family’s way into the city is gone permanently.

New-construction duplexes are not adding affordable homes. They are removing them.
For these reasons, I urge the Council to remove the duplex provision from the rezoning proposal and keep single-family zoning in our established neighborhoods.

Thank you for your service to our community and for considering these concerns.

Sincerely,

Jill Buck

Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and Planning Commission Members,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed changes to the City of Minnetonka’s zoning ordinance. I urge the City Council to reject the proposed residential zoning changes and reconsider the direction of this initiative.

I have been selling real estate in Minnetonka for 25 years. I am also a longtime Minnetonka resident. I have spent decades helping people buy and sell homes in this community, and I have firsthand knowledge of what attracts buyers to Minnetonka, what drives demand, and what makes our neighborhoods so desirable.

Minnetonka’s character is not a problem that needs to be solved. It is an asset that deserves to be protected.

People choose Minnetonka because of its established neighborhoods, larger lots, mature trees, green space, privacy, and the sense of community that comes with thoughtful residential planning. These qualities did not happen by accident. They are the result of decades of development standards and zoning decisions that have helped shape the city we know today.

Minnetonka is a largely developed community. We are not planning an entirely new city on undeveloped land. We are talking about changing the rules within existing neighborhoods, where homeowners have already made substantial financial investments based, in part, on the character and established development patterns of those neighborhoods.

I strongly oppose the proposal to consolidate existing single-family zoning districts, reduce and standardize lot sizes and setbacks, and permit two-family dwellings in areas traditionally developed with single-family homes.

These are not simply administrative changes to an outdated ordinance. They are substantive changes to how Minnetonka can be developed and redeveloped for generations to come.

From my experience in real estate, I can tell you that buyers place tremendous value on neighborhood consistency, privacy, lot size, mature landscaping, and the surrounding homes. Buyers are not simply purchasing four walls and a roof. They are investing in a neighborhood and the expectations that come with it.

Introducing duplexes into established single-family neighborhoods raises legitimate concerns about neighborhood character, buyer demand, and the potential effect on surrounding property values. Reducing setbacks raises additional concerns about privacy, tree preservation, drainage, and the loss of open space between homes.

I recognize that additional housing options are an important topic. However, I do not believe that goal should automatically take precedence over protecting existing residential neighborhoods and the homeowners who have invested in them.

I also question why a city with Minnetonka’s established identity should adopt zoning changes that could fundamentally alter the characteristics that distinguish it from neighboring communities.

Not every community needs to look the same, have the same density, or offer the same development opportunities. Minnetonka’s distinct residential character is one of its greatest strengths.

Before moving forward, I believe the city owes its residents clear, documented answers to several important questions:

1. Has the city conducted an independent study of the potential impact these zoning changes could have on neighboring single-family property values?
2. How many existing single-family properties could become eligible for two-family redevelopment under the proposed ordinance?
3. What analysis has been completed regarding the cumulative impact on traffic, parking, stormwater management, tree preservation, and existing infrastructure?
4. What protections would remain for homeowners who purchased properties in established single-family neighborhoods?
5. Why is it necessary to make these broad residential zoning changes rather than pursue targeted development opportunities in areas already suited to higher density?

I believe homeowners deserve answers supported by meaningful data before the city makes decisions with potentially permanent consequences.

Modernizing an ordinance to make it easier to understand and administer is one thing. Fundamentally changing residential development rights across established neighborhoods is something entirely different. The two should not be treated as though they are interchangeable.

I am not opposed to progress. I am opposed to the assumption that greater density automatically constitutes progress, particularly when the potential consequences for existing homeowners have not been clearly established.

Protecting what makes Minnetonka desirable is not resistance to progress. It is responsible planning.

After 25 years of selling real estate in this community, I believe that Minnetonka’s larger lots, established single-family neighborhoods, mature trees, and residential character are meaningful contributors to its appeal and market demand. Those qualities should not be compromised without compelling evidence that the proposed changes are necessary and will serve the long-term interests of the community.

I respectfully but firmly request that the City Council reject the proposed residential zoning changes in their current form, preserve existing single-family zoning protections, and engage in a more comprehensive discussion with residents before considering changes of this magnitude.

Minnetonka does not need to fundamentally change its identity to demonstrate that it is moving forward.

Some things are worth preserving. Our neighborhoods are among them.

Sincerely,

Stacy Cranbrook
Minnetonka Resident

We moved to Minnetonka 13 years ago to escape the small lots, rental properties, racial strife, crime, light pollution, rampant apartment projects and congestion of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Shortly after we settled in we were disheartened to hear calls for urbanization from city officials. Seems like all the so-called consultants the city has hired have had a globalist agenda for moving everyone into 15-minute cities and punishing those who sought the things we moved here for. In short, the city seems to care more about people who don't yet live here than the people who pay the taxes and are rooted in the community and are more welcoming of voices from outside the community. We love our 1 acre property and over the years have transformed it from an overgrown monoculture into a native growth and pollinator landscape. Every shift the city makes towards higher density and subsidized housing brings us closer to moving away from Minnetonka to enjoy our golden years in peace and solitude that is being slowly destroyed by political idealogues.

I would like the City of Minnetonka to consider expanding its residential traffic and parking regulations to establish consistent, measurable standards for all residential properties, rather than limiting these restrictions to home occupations and certain temporary activities.

Under the existing home-occupation ordinance (§300.15, subd. 14), additional vehicle traffic is limited to 10 trips per day, averaged over five days. Each arrival and departure counts as a separate trip. Additionally, garage sales are limited to two periods of no more than three consecutive days each per year.

These provisions recognize that traffic volume, frequency, and duration can affect residential neighborhoods. However, comparable traffic impacts may also arise from other uses of residential property.

I request that the updated zoning ordinance consider:

1. **Daily traffic limits:** Establish objective limits on recurring, additional vehicle trips generated at residential properties, using the existing 10-trip-per-day home-occupation standard as a starting point.

2. **Consecutive-day limits:** Require additional review when unusually high vehicle activity continues for more than three consecutive days or repeatedly occurs throughout the month.

3. **Parking requirements:** Require sufficient off-street parking for recurring nonresident vehicle activity, rather than shifting ongoing parking demand onto surrounding residential streets.

4. **Consistent enforcement:** Apply objective standards to all residential properties regardless of ownership, rental status, or whether the activities generate business revenue.

5. **Reasonable exceptions:** Protect ordinary household travel, occasional gatherings, caregiving, emergencies, temporary home improvements, and accommodations required by law.

My concern is the measurable impact of sustained vehicle activity on neighborhood traffic, safety, and parking availability not the identity of the residents or the nature of their household.

I ask the Planning Commission and City Council to evaluate these citywide standards as part of the current zoning ordinance rewrite.

As a long time resident of Minnetonka who lives in the Glen Lake area, I was very happy to see that the city is considering making it easier to build duplexes. This update along with shrinking the lot size/setbacks and making it easier to build an ADU will hopefully begin the process of modernizing our community and making Minnetonka a more accessible place to live. It is a small step, but it is an important one. I fully support this update and hope that the council will pass it.

I would say that it does not go far enough to address the lack of affordable housing in Minnetonka. Why are we not allowing triplexes? Or larger townhome style buildings? Can there be and should there be affordable housing requirements in the new zoning ordinance? These are steps that would move us towards being a diverse and welcoming community that many of us speak about, but that is not yet a reality. Please, consider expanding the number of units allowed in our low density zones as you work through the process of ratifying this proposal.

There will likely be loud voices of opposition and moneyed interests who will press to keep Minnetonka the same. From my experience these loud voices do not represent the majority of the people who live, work and attend public schools here. Those I speak with, and lately that has been a large cross section of the population, believe we should make it easier and more affordable to live here.

Again, I appreciate the difficulty of helping Minnetonka along on the path to a higher density, inclusive place that has walkable neighborhoods and allows for people that labor here to also live here. This first step is important and should be passed through the city council, but we need to do a lot better as we move forward.

I would like the City of Minnetonka to consider expanding its residential traffic and parking regulations to establish consistent, measurable standards for all residential properties, rather than limiting these restrictions to home occupations and certain temporary activities.


Under the existing home-occupation ordinance (§300.15, subd. 14), additional vehicle traffic is limited to 10 trips per day, averaged over five days. Each arrival and departure counts as a separate trip. Additionally, garage sales are limited to two periods of no more than three consecutive days each per year.


These provisions recognize that traffic volume, frequency, and duration can affect residential neighborhoods. However, comparable traffic impacts may also arise from other uses of residential property.


I request that the updated zoning ordinance consider:


1. Daily traffic limits: Establish objective limits on recurring, additional vehicle trips generated at residential properties, using the existing 10-trip-per-day home-occupation standard as a starting point.


2. Consecutive-day limits: Require additional review when unusually high vehicle activity continues for more than three consecutive days or repeatedly occurs throughout the month.


3. Parking requirements: Require sufficient off-street parking for recurring nonresident vehicle activity, rather than shifting ongoing parking demand onto surrounding residential streets.

4. Consistent enforcement: Apply objective standards to all residential properties regardless of ownership, rental status, or whether the activities generate business revenue.


5. Reasonable exceptions: Protect ordinary household travel, occasional gatherings, caregiving, emergencies, temporary home improvements, and accommodations required by law.


My concern is the measurable impact of sustained vehicle activity on neighborhood traffic, safety, and parking availability not the identity of the residents or the nature of their household.


I ask the Planning Commission and City Council to evaluate these citywide standards as part of the current zoning ordinance rewrite.

Thank you for working on updating the zoning code. I understand that the changes will allow for slightly more housing density, which I support. I would like to see owning a home in Minnetonka becoming more affordable to people with low or median incomes. These changes are a step in the right direction.

Lastly, I want to note that I have been a homeowner in Minnetonka for the last 10 years and am raising my family in this town. It is a great place to live. Let’s make our town more welcoming by increasing the amount of affordable housing!

I have loved living in Minnetonka for 43 years. The longer I have lived in the metro area, the more I have realized how large the lots are in Minnetonka are compared with many other suburbs. We love the size of our lot - and we also realize changes in city zoning laws would make room for more diversity in housing, as well as affordable housing for so many that can't afford it hat work in our community. Please make changes that would allow for a mix of lot sizes and types of housing, including duplexes and triplexes. If we can make room for mega size houses, we can make room for this. Let us be known for openness to different kinds of housing, not just those that showcase wealth. Thank you for all your time and effort to making changes to the zoning code.

Our neighborhood is defined by a mix of lots and has a large existing stock of modest single-family homes that are already affordable. Allowing duplexes and triplexes would go against that character. It would encourage developers and those wanting to rent to tear down the existing homes that keep this area within reach for working families and replace them with denser, likely more expensive or rental units. Our streets and infrastructure weren't designed for that density, either.

I oppose the ordinance provision allowing duplexes on any conforming lot. This puts older neighborhoods with more affordable single family homes at risk. Such neighborhoods are part of the character of the city and a significant reason people live here. Developers will quickly start buying up and eliminating these older homes to make a profit. Why can’t the city keep some of these classic old neighborhoods as part of their diversity and character?

Thank you for investing in updating our zoning code. As a Minnetonka resident of 24 years, I am in favor of increasing density and smaller lot sizes in order to accommodate more diverse housing types and homes. As construction costs continue to climb exponentially, allowing more permit builds that are not overly burdened by public processes is a small step that can help reduce costs.

I appreciate the efforts the City of Minnetonka is making to promote changes in the code and the potential the new code contains to vary housing types and increase housing stock in the city. I believe diversity of housing stock contributes to making Minnetonka the diverse and inclusive community our city's mission promotes and that I want to see.

The proposed zoning changes are a meaningful step in the right direction and I believe we can go further. Here are other changes I would like to see in our new code.

1. Allow triplexes in low-density areas.
2. Relax parking requirements to allow for more building types.
3. Raise height requirements in medium and low density zones. Expanding the height requirement to 45 feet would allow more building types.
4. Lower the proposed minimum lot size to 17,400. This will allow greater flexibility when we develop our next comprehensive plan.
5. Decrease the percentage of allowable lot coverage by structure. This would discourage the building of large luxury homes on smaller lots, a concern some citizens have expressed in response to the draft of the new code.
6. Allow for the building of multi-unit buildings in the medium density zone (something the current code allows but is missing from the new code).

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed changes to the Minnetonka Zoning Ordinances. The proposal to completely rewrite the zoning ordinance seems to focus on increasing housing capacity by ignoring significant reasons why people want to live in Minnetonka. The unique character of the many neighborhoods, the abundant natural resources, and the affordability of homes are hallmarks of the city.

This plan will not benefit young families looking to move into well kept older homes at an affordable price. It will benefit developers and those who can afford to live in $1 million duplexes.

These components of the Minnetonka 2040 Comprehensive Guide Plan need to be retained:
“...older homes tend to be the more affordable housing stock in Minnetonka. The preservation of these homes is critical to providing homeownership opportunities for those who could normally not afford to live in the community.”
“The city has also initiated flexible standards for residential development to allow smaller lot sizes, if in keeping with the neighborhood character and not in conflict with valued natural resources.

Character and natural resources vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. What may be true for one may be completely wrong for another. To account for this, the City Council MUST retain an authority and associated process, which includes neighborhood input, on each project.

The 2040 Plan is correct...valued natural resources need to be protected. There are significant questions as to how this proposal intends to do that, if at all.

Replacing a single structure on a typical lot will more than double the square footage of impervious surfaces. This will significantly increase infiltration and inflow to the sanitary sewer system, when the long-term goal should be to reduce it. Some additional runoff will not enter the sanitary system. Where will this additional runoff be collected? Has the watershed district approved this plan?

Inevitably, the existing trees between the roadway and the front of the dwellings will be removed. Many on the sides will also be removed. In a quick check of the six homes in my immediate vicinity, this would be over 50 trees. I thought Minnetonka viewed trees as an asset and protected them. There can be no “plan” to replace a 60-year-old tree!
The highest and best use concept is predominately a financial issue. There are issues involved in this decision that intrinsic value that must be considered. I urge you to stop this proposed change to the zoning ordinance.

I strongly support much of the proposed zoning ordinance update, but I have concerns about allowing duplexes as a "permitted use" in all single family lots of 18,000 square feet or larger, without notification or review by the city council or the public. This provision could allow for drastic changes in some areas that would certainly have a negative effect on the "character of the neighborhood."

I support allowing for duplexes, but there must be some provision for residents and their representatives on the city council to comment and discuss the impact of each proposal.

I know the citizen zoning committee and city staff have worked hard to make changes in the zoning ordinance to improve, update, clarify and modernize it. Thank you for that work. I hope the ordinance can proceed through the approval process with changes/additions/corrections to the duplex provisions that allow for full public and city council review and discussion.
Karen J. Anderson

Minnetonka homeowners, be alert to dramatic, far-reaching changes in the proposed new City of Minnetonka zoning ordinance. Your single family neighborhood may be targeted for expensive McMansion-style duplexes on single family lots.

The ordinance eliminates single-family zoning, reduces 22,000 square foot lot sizes to 18,000, and allows duplexes and detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) everywhere. Duplex provisions further reduce lot sizes to 9,000 square feet.

The ordinance directly negates Minnetonka’s 2040 Comprehensive Guide Plan, which maintains Minnetonka must protect itself by “(s)trengthening neighborhoods by improving and preserving the existing housing stock.” Older existing homes are naturally occurring affordable housing, helping many young families move into Minnetonka. Attracting young families also helps support our local schools. Unfortunately, the economics of redevelopment targets these same neighborhoods. An older $450,000 home would likely be replaced by two $1 million or more duplexes, at a price unaffordable to many families.

Minnetonka neighborhoods have three duplex risk categories:

1. Neighborhoods with smaller, older homes and 18,000 sf (4/10 acre) lots have extreme risk. Of my Minnetonka Mills block’s 16 homes, for example, lots for 7 homes are assessed at 45% or more of total property value. Developers can buy a home for the price of 2 vacant lots, tear it down, and have land for two expensive McMansions.

2. More expensive neighborhoods have less risk. Tearing down homes for McMansion-plexes profits where land values are larger fractions of total property value.

3. Neighborhoods with lots under the 9,000 sf (2/10 acre) per duplex home limit have less duplex invasion risk, although the City can still grant variances for large duplexes.

Permitting giant duplexes and reducing lot sizes is unfair to older Minnetonka neighborhoods. Understand your neighborhood’s duplex risk. Click the Hennepin County Property map for lot sizes, here: https://gis.hennepin.us/property/ For a home’s assessed land and building values, type its street address here: https://www16.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/?articleId=by_address#by_address and click “Search.”

We must ask the objective of this rezoning. If it’s providing affordable housing opportunities, I think we’ll all agree that won’t be the result. Please join me in sharing your concerns with our Planning Commission and City Council members.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME... Go to one of the neighboring cities or Minneapolis if you want tiny subdivided lots, ADU's, and houses crammed in like sardines. The current R-1 22,000 sq.ft (0.51 acre) min lot size prevents this from happening. With the new proposed 18,000 sq.ft (0.41 acre) lot size, developers could subdivide any lot over 0.83 acres without any neighborhood input.
I'm a 30+ year resident of Minnetonka... and based on some of city council's recent decisions, it seems they are NO longer working for the PEOPLE of Minnetonka, they are working for the developers and trying to mirror neighboring cities.

The proposed changes in the zoning ordinance make sense to me. They mainly simplify the rules for low density housing zones. This will help developers, but it will also help lower costs for people who want to buy homes by decreasing regulations. In fact, some other changes that would help include permitting triplexes, slightly decreasing minimum lot sizes, increasing building heights to 45’, and relaxing parking requirements.

Who will benefit from these regulation changes that slightly increase housing density? Anybody who wants to own their own home but can’t afford Minnetonka’s median home price of $507,000 as of August, 2026. Think young families, single parents, retirees and new homeowners. Many of these people want to live near where they work in Minnetonka!

Remember we’re not talking about building large apartment buildings in areas of mainly single family homes.

Oppose. Oppose. Oppose. I am submitting this message to formally register my complete disapproval of the proposed zoning adjustments and higher-density housing plans for Minnetonka. The principal draw of our Minnetonka has ALWAYS been its low-density layout, peaceful streets, and abundant open space. Higher density leads directly to increased demand for public services and accelerated wear on our roads—costs that inevitably fall on taxpayers who are already stretched to their limit. Many of my neighbors have already left Minnetonka for communities further west specifically to escape these mounting tax burdens.

My wife was born in Minnetonka, and I've lived in Minnetonka for most of the last 40 years. Some of the proposed ordinance changes make sense, like standardizing on a single lot size, but others I find kind of baffling, namely, the ability to start building multi-family homes in every residential area.

I do not understand who this benefits other than developers who view our city as a profit center and nothing more. We've already seen in our neighborhood the carelessness with which they treat our city. This proposed change will only accelerate this disregard as it will be even more lucrative for them to build here. Multiple family units are far more profitable than building single family homes. The ability to take a home on a large lot, tear it down, chop the lot up into smaller pieces, and then put multiple two-family homes in its place will drastically alter the feel of any neighborhood and greatly decrease property values for the homes surrounding it. This proposal therefore has a significant chance of negatively affecting countless residents while providing no benefit in return.

An example from our neighborhood: a single family home on a ~1.8 acre lot was sold and torn down. This happens and it's nothing that should be restricted. It was cut up into three lots of roughly equal size, which matches most of the lots in the neighborhood. This did not alter the feel of the area nor did it negatively affect those surrounding it. Under this new proposal a developer could come in, buy that lot, turn it into four lots, and build housing for eight families.

Instead of living next to a single family, or three families as is what happened in the above example, you now will be living next to eight. And instead of the lot sizes next to you being at least 18,000 sqft, they will in reality be as small as 9,000 sqft as each family would have half of that lot, which is smaller than anything allowed in the city currently. If another lot next to you did the same thing, you would now have sixteen families living adjacent to your property.

The only people benefiting from this would be the developers. The citizens of the city would receive all of the downsides: significant increases in traffic, noise, light pollution, and a drastic decrease in their home’s value. I don't understand how that is something our elected officials would be in favor of.

As others have noted, we have a wide variety of wonderful cities to call home in the metro area, each with their own charm, characteristics, pluses, and minuses. Minnetonka has its position in that array of options. We do not need to drastically alter it.

The Minnetonka City Council is there to represent the interests of the citizens of Minnetonka. This part of the proposal does not do that in any way, shape, or form. I also find it rather disingenuous to claim that we are standardizing our minimum lot size at 18,000 sqft. In reality, that number is 9,000 sqft, roughly the size of a lot in much of Minneapolis.

I'm a Minnetonka homeowner and wanted to add a supportive voice, while recognizing that many neighbors here care about the same things I do: green space, quiet streets, and the feel of our neighborhoods.

After spending a lot of time reading the city's summary and draft ordinance, I think the draft is more measured than it may first appear. Most of our neighborhoods would still be zoned low density. Today there are three separate low-density zones, each with its own rules. The draft combines them into one, which means one clear set of rules instead of several. That makes it much easier for any of us to understand what we can and can't do with our own property. The draft also sets a single minimum lot size for new lots, which is actually larger than what some neighborhoods allow today.

I appreciate the flexibility this gives families for a variety of potential circumstances while maintaining the feel of our neighborhoods and community. Simpler rules about how close homes can be to property lines should also mean fewer homeowners have to ask the city for special permission just to add a garage or a bedroom.

Thank you to city staff and the workgroup, and to everyone taking the time to weigh in.