Minnetonka council approves floodplain alteration and grants tree-removal variance for 3440 Larchwood Drive with replanting condition

Minnetonka — The City Council voted 5–2 on Aug. 11 to approve a floodplain alteration permit and a tree‑removal variance for a proposed new home at 3440 Larchwood Drive, granting the developer permission to shift floodplain storage on the site and to remove one more high‑priority tree than city rules normally allow. The motion included a condition requiring the applicant to plant replacement trees at twice the caliper of any lost tree, at the city’s discretion.

The decision followed a lengthy staff presentation and public hearing in which planning staff said they supported the site’s floodplain alteration but opposed the requested tree‑removal variance. “The variance is not based on a circumstance unique to the property,” planning manager Susan Thomas told the council, saying the request arose from the owner’s chosen building footprint and design rather than an unavoidable site constraint. Thomas said staff’s recommended resolution approved the floodplain alteration permit but denied the tree‑removal variance.

Why the council considered the request

City staff described the property as tightly constrained by wetlands, floodplain and setback requirements. The existing home—built in the 1980s—has a roughly 2,200‑square‑foot footprint; the proposed replacement would have a footprint of about 4,000 square feet and roughly 4,700 square feet of total floor area, staff said. Engineering work to reconfigure floodplain storage would involve approximately 65 cubic yards of earthwork, staff said, and would avoid any net loss in floodplain storage by relocating it on the site.

Staff also reported the project would affect five high‑priority trees—one more than the city’s threshold—leading them to recommend denying the tree variance. Thomas noted the ordinance is designed to protect “structurally sound, healthy trees” and that trees already dead or expected to fail are not counted in the calculation.

Applicant response and timeline

The project team said they had worked through multiple design iterations dating to 2024 and that the current plan reflected site and floodplain constraints. The applicant’s representative, David Steingas of Steiner & Koppelman, said earlier plan versions were evaluated and that the design team had been told a tree variance was not required at one point. “We did an extensive tree survey of the home, complied with the tree count … until 11 days before [the planning commission] they came to us and said there’s a root situation with a box elder tree,” Steingas said. Owner Chase Polk said the new home is slab‑on‑grade because a basement is infeasible on that part of the site; that design choice increased the proposed footprint compared with the current structure.

Planning commission split, staff recommendation and council action

The planning commission recommended approval of both the floodplain alteration and the tree variance by a 4–1 vote; staff had recommended approval of only the floodplain alteration and denial of the tree variance. Council members debated whether approving a variance based on home design would set a fairness precedent for other properties. Council member Calvert and others described the burden of repeated redevelopment activity for neighbors; Council member Wiersum described the question as one of following the rule of law versus making an exception for this project.

Council member Coakley moved to approve the floodplain alteration permit and the tree‑removal variance; Council member Foster Bolton seconded. Council member Ramelli offered a friendly amendment to require the applicant to replace any lost tree with new trees totaling twice the lost caliper, at staff’s discretion; Coakley accepted the amendment and Foster Bolton concurred. The roll call was Foster Bolton—yes; Schack—yes; Wilburn—yes; Calvert—no; Romilly—yes; Coakley—yes; Wirsum—no. The motion carried 5–2.

What the approval does and conditions

The council’s decision allows the project team to proceed with the planned floodplain alteration and to remove one additional high‑priority tree beyond the ordinance threshold, subject to the replanting requirement. Staff will finalize plan details and the tree replacement plan during permit review; the council’s vote did not change the city’s underlying tree protection ordinance or floodplain code.

What proponents and opponents said

The applicant and supporters argued the house could be redesigned but that alternatives would either reduce needed habitable space or move the safe/utility areas the owner needs; the owner emphasized the desire to maintain a three‑car garage and a music studio space. Opponents, including several long‑time neighbors, said the council should not erode the tree ordinance and warned of a slippery slope if variances were granted for design preferences.

Next steps

The applicant will proceed with final engineering and building permit applications under the conditions set by the council. Staff will track compliance with the tree replacement condition at plan check and permit stage.

Ending

The vote concluded one of the meeting’s longest, most contested land‑use items; council members voting “yes” said they were addressing a constrained site and adding objective mitigation, while dissenting members said the project failed to meet the ordinance’s standards for a variance.