Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies request to expand development area at Oakland Estates subdivision after staff cites tree‑protection concerns
Summary
The Minnetonka City Council on June 9 denied a developer’s request to amend the approved development area for the four‑lot Oakland Estates subdivision at 1922 Oakland Road, saying the expanded disturbance would risk the loss of high‑priority trees contrary to the city’s tree protection standards.
The Minnetonka City Council on June 9 denied a developer’s request to amend a condition of approval for the four‑lot Oakland Estates subdivision (1922 Oakland Road) that would have expanded the approved development area to allow a pool and accessory building on Lot 4.
Background: The original preliminary plat and associated approvals were granted in 2019 with a specified grading, drainage and erosion control plan that showed a development limit (silt‑fence) line. That plan was part of the council’s condition of approval for the subdivision. Since 2019 one home has been completed on a northerly lot, another is under construction, and the owner of the southerly lot (Lot 4) requested the amendment to construct a backyard pool and an accessory building.
Staff recommendation and reasons for denial: City staff recommended denial for three primary reasons: (1) the development inventory performed for the requested amendment showed that several trees on the neighboring northern lot had been preserved but that those trees were owned by that separate lot and therefore could not be credited to the applicant; (2) if the expanded development area had been included in the original 2019 plan it would have exceeded the Tree Protection Ordinance threshold for removal of high‑priority trees (the city’s tree ordinance limits high‑priority tree removal to 35%); and (3) the city forester reviewed photos and site conditions and determined the trunk and bark damage already sustained by certain large spruce and pine trees made their long‑term survivability questionable.
Applicant response: The developer, Lake West Development, and the lot’s future resident presented plans showing the proposed pool located to minimize impacts on five high‑priority trees, and they said they had repaired tree protection fencing and applied treatments to damaged bark. The applicant argued the pool plans were in substantial conformance with the 2019 grading plan and said the project would remove fewer than the ordinance’s maximum allowed number of high‑priority trees.
Council action and vote: Councilmember Calvert moved to adopt the resolution denying the requested amendment; Councilmember Foster Bolton seconded. The roll call vote was unanimous in favor of denial.
Why it matters: Council members who discussed the item cited the city’s tree‑protection goals and a history of prior similar requests when weighing whether to allow a post‑approval amendment. Several council members expressed that the tree ordinance and the judgment of the city forester carried weight in preserving neighborhood canopy and water‑quality protections.
Next steps: The council’s denial means the applicant cannot proceed with the proposed pool under the requested amendment; the applicant retains standard permitting and appeal options under city code, including the two‑year wait provision the applicant referenced as an alternative route to achieve some changes after an owner-occupancy period.
