Minnetonka Planning Commission reviews concept for 55+ building at Moreland; residents worry about height, traffic and wetlands

The Minnetonka Planning Commission on June 4 heard a concept review for a proposed 55+ residential building on a roughly four‑acre parcel near Roland and Moreland roads, and commissioners asked the developer for more visuals, traffic analysis and a tree‑replacement plan before any formal application moves forward.

The proposal, presented by the project team, envisions a compact building footprint with subterranean parking and rooftop amenities intended to limit ground‑level disturbance. Evan Jacobson of Tushumacam Architects told the commission the site offers a 1,900‑square‑foot existing flat area and that the design team hopes to provide “hopefully that is a 2,500 to 3,000 square foot green space that we can make an outdoor amenity directly adjacent to the entrance.”

Neighbors who live directly across Roland Road said the building’s proposed height—typically discussed as six stories during the meeting—would substantially change views and light and could affect a nearby wetland and wildlife corridor. A resident from 5901 Roland Road said many of the trees on the berm are ash or poplar and urged that “those trees get replaced and that they continue to be somewhat of a shield.”

Another nearby resident, Bob Stankey of 5833 Roland Road, described safety and congestion concerns at the road curve and said frequent emergency vehicle activity adds to his worry about additional traffic. “What we’re talking about if the development goes forward is adding another 100 cars, or maybe more depending on Amazon and other deliveries,” Stankey said, urging the commission and developer to study traffic and emergency access.

Commissioners generally said the site has merit for residential reuse and that a 55+ community could fit the neighborhood, but multiple members urged reductions in height or massing and asked staff and the applicant for additional analysis. Commissioner Johnson said the concept is promising but suggested the project be reduced “from 6 to 4 stories” if that better meets neighborhood expectations while remaining financially viable.

Other commissioners raised technical issues they want the applicant to address before a formal submission: sight‑line and turning visibility at the site entrance, the degree of steep slopes and fire‑access arrangements on a 30% slope, guest parking needs given deliveries, and a recommended tree‑diversity study to replace ash trees vulnerable to emerald ash borer. Commissioner Minyon specifically suggested exploring solar‑ready roofs or geothermal during excavation stages.

The applicant’s presentation emphasized preserving existing trees where feasible and keeping parking underground to reduce surface impacts; the commission asked for clearer visual simulations showing the building from surrounding homes and for traffic and environmental studies to be provided with any future application.

The commission took no formal action on the concept review. Chair Waterman summarized the feedback, said the project “has merit” contingent on resolving the listed concerns, and indicated the commission expects the applicant to return with more refined plans and studies if they advance the project.

What happens next: the project remains at concept stage. The planning commission requested additional visuals, traffic and fire‑access analysis, and a tree replacement/diversity plan; no vote or recommendation was recorded at the June 4 session.