Planning commission backs Polk property floodplain alteration and tree-variance recommendation to council

The Minnetonka Planning Commission on July 24 voted to recommend that the City Council approve a floodplain alteration permit and a variance to the city’s tree protection ordinance for property owner Chase Polk at 3440 Larchwood Drive.

Staff had recommended approval of the floodplain alteration but recommended denying the tree-variance request. City planning staff reported the proposal would raise and regrade areas of the lot to meet floodplain setbacks and meet the city’s floodplain standards, while also noting the proposal would remove slightly more high-priority tree resource than the tree ordinance allows.

City planning staff member Bria Raines told commissioners the proposal included filling and excavation to achieve “no net fill” compensation for floodplain alteration and that the property’s proposed new house footprint would be about 4,200 square feet (rough footprint) and approximately 4,750 square feet gross floor area — roughly twice the size of the existing home. Raines said the project proposes about 65 cubic yards of floodplain alteration and removes one more high-priority tree than the ordinance allows; the parcel originally had 29 regulated trees, 15 classified as significant and 14 as high priority.

Applicant representatives said the house redesign responded to damage and floodplain constraints. Builder David Steingass and owner Chase Polk told the commission the existing house had roof and mold damage and that code limits on repairs left them with the practical option of rebuilding. “We basically lose our lower level that’s existing,” Polk said, explaining the need to raise finished grade and enlarge the footprint to create a three-car garage and usable living space while meeting wetland and floodplain setbacks. Steingass described two years of work with staff and said the applicant was prepared to plant replacement trees: “I will plant 2 maples on the property. A 100%,” he said.

Commissioners questioned the timing and communications around the tree-protection determination. Commissioner Patrick Henry noted staff’s record showed the project would not meet the tree protection ordinance and said that history weighed against granting a variance. Commissioner Minyon and others asked staff to explain when natural-resources staff inspected the site and how root-zone impacts had been calculated; Raines and colleagues said natural-resources staff walk the site after revised surveys are submitted and that a critical-root-zone impact greater than 30 percent counts as a loss under the code.

The commission first voted on a staff-recommended motion to approve the floodplain alteration and deny the tree variance; that motion failed 2–3 (Banks and Henry voting yes; Hansen, Minyon and Chair Waterman voting no). Commissioner Hansen then moved to recommend approval of both the floodplain alteration and the tree-variance request; the motion passed 4–1 (Banks, Hansen, Minyon and Chair Waterman voting yes; Henry voting no). Commissioners did not adopt a numeric mitigation formula but the approved recommendation to council included a constraint that the applicant “work with the city to meet the tree ordinance” and plant additional trees as part of follow-up, a condition the commission discussed verbally when casting the approving votes.

The commission record shows the city will forward the recommendation and materials, including public comments, to the City Council for final action. Staff told the applicant the council will consider the item on Aug. 11. The council will receive the commission’s recommendation and the staff report summarizing the technical reviews, including natural-resources and watershed/engineering comments.

Clarifying details from the staff presentation: the lot is just over a half-acre and contains wetland, floodplain, and drainage/utility easements; 65 cubic yards of floodplain alteration were proposed; city code allowed removal of up to 35 percent of high-priority trees and 50 percent of significant trees for this property, and the proposal exceeded the allowed high-priority tree removal by one tree (calculated at 35.7 percent). The applicant stated the lower level of the existing home would be lost due to floodplain elevation changes and that they had held a disconnect permit (final Dec. 2024) and a demolition permit (May 2025). Raines and other staff noted the property will also require any applicable permits from the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District as a separate jurisdictional requirement.

The commission discussion distinguished between staff’s technical recommendation and the commission’s final policy recommendation to council. Staff emphasized the commission’s recommendation and all public comments will be included in the council packet.

The commission’s action was a recommendation only; the City Council has the final approval authority on both permits and is scheduled to consider the items at its Aug. 11 meeting.