Minnetonka City Council — Transcript
Thursday, July 24, 2025
Flood Plane Alteration and Tree Variance Request for Pulk Residence
Marsh Run 3 Apartment Development Proposal
Votes (2)
Flood Plane Alteration Permit with Tree Variance for a new home at 3440 Larchwood Drive (Pulk Residence)
Dissent: Commissioner Henry voted against the motion, maintaining support for upholding the tree ordinance as recommended by staff, while the motion passed with a condition for the applicant to work with the city on additional plantings.
Moved by Commissioner Hansen [1:35:10] · Seconded by Commissioner Minion [1:35:55]
Staff presented a proposal for a new home requiring a flood plane alteration permit and a tree variance. The new home's footprint is roughly double the existing, and the flood plane alteration of 65 cubic yards meets city standards and will be compensated on-site. The key contention was the tree variance, as the proposal exceeded the high-priority tree removal threshold by one tree (Tree #45, a box elder, due to critical root zone impact from a retaining wall). Staff recommended denial of the tree variance, arguing it did not meet variance standards (intent of ordinance, unique circumstances). The applicant stated they felt blindsided by the tree issue late in the two-year planning process, having spent significant architectural fees based on prior staff indications of compliance. They offered to plant additional trees. Commissioners debated the balance between the tree ordinance and site constraints, with some emphasizing the ordinance's importance and others viewing the single tree as a minor issue given the overall project and unique circumstances.
Master Development Plan, Site and Building Plans, Expansion Permits, and Variances for Marsh Run 3 at 11800 Wisetta Boulevard
Dissent: Significant public opposition was voiced during the public hearing, citing concerns over parking, infrastructure, and lack of community engagement.
Moved by null · Seconded by null
Staff presented a proposal for a 44-unit, four-story apartment building, including 20% affordable units, on a 1.2-acre parcel. The project would replace an existing office building, consistent with the area's mixed-use comprehensive plan and ongoing redevelopment. Staff highlighted compliance with city codes for parking (exceeding demand), storm water management (improving current conditions), and tree protection. Variances for flood plane/wetland setbacks and FAR/front yard setbacks were deemed reasonable due to site constraints and comparable to previous approvals. Public speakers, primarily residents from adjacent townhome and condominium complexes, expressed strong opposition. Their main concerns included an existing 'parking crisis' in the neighborhood exacerbated by previous developments (Burke, Veil), the developer's broken promises regarding overflow parking, lack of adequate neighborhood input, strain on local infrastructure (traffic, pedestrian paths, snow removal), increased dog waste, and a perception that the city was rushing the approval process without holistic planning for the entire corridor. They urged a pause and a return to concept planning with greater community engagement.
Notable Quotes (9)
Staff is supporting the flood plane alteration permit. We believe those codes are standards are met. However, we do not agree that the variance standards are met. With the variance, there are certain things we look at and ask ourselves. First, does it um does it follow the intent of the zoning ordinance? Essentially, the tree protection ordinance is balancing property owner rights and preserving trees limiting tree removal.
We believe the tree does not technically have to be removed. We we've designed and complied without tree with the tree not being removed. Correct. But now 11 days before the commission, they called and told me I needed a a tree ordinance variance because that box elder has greater than 30% root damage and that I that was never explained a year ago, 6 months ago, 8 months ago, four months ago, never explained to me that roots would be an issue.
Having one box elder tree go is not a big deal to me. Um, if I met Withers, I would say we would move forward and say it's okay. I do think a boxelder tree is a good tree. Um, however, from what I read, we're looking at you still have nine of 14 high priority trees in this property. It's a little over was a 0.54 acres and you still have nine of 15 significant trees left.
My first recommendation would be that you um vote on the um recommendation of of city staff. So vote that up or down. Then I think that you're going to want to make another recommend or another recommendation after that which would be to adopt the resolution approving a flood plane alteration permit and a tree variance. And the reasons that I heard you say are that um the site is very constrained given the existing easements giving flood plane um and given the fact that it's already a buildable lot because there is an existing home on it.
In the opinion of staff we do think that this proposal is reasonable and appropriate. It continues those redevelopment activities that have long occurred in this corridor. We do understand that this would um continue um development in an area that has experienced development fatigue. Um we also understand that redevelopment of this site is inevitable, be it this project or another project proposed in the near future or the or the distant future.
Well, uh to be perfectly transparent, uh we didn't have uh staff support on that. Um we uh struggled with design. We ran through many complications uh with regard to indoor parking and uh setbacks, all those things. And when it came down to it, we didn't have support of staff. So, we decided not to go forward. We we post not postponed but we withdrew our uh we didn't withdraw we stalled our our application uh and then started working with staff again about okay what could really work here and what could you support and that took many months and so that's how we got here today.
My answer to that question is this land, this last parcel matters more than anything because it's the last emergency valve that we have in this whole corridor. The Burke was admittedly underparked. The Deveil the the I shouldn't say that improperly parked in that it was very little surface. They have an abundance of underground parking that people don't want to use. Um we went through a lot to get no parking on Fairfield Court. Fair or Fairfield Road. Fairfield Road is very narrow.
Something I guess I just want to reiterate about our neighborhood, we we already contributed to density in the city and we had, according to my calculations, we had 190 owner owner owned units of either town homes or condos in the three associations that are most affected by this. We're now outnumbered. The apartments already have 372 between the Veil and the Burke and they have to go through our property to get to Oberlin Park. So that all the way there there's usually dog bags and dog waste all along the sidewalk and then they come back into our property.
I was on the original council when we decided to make this area as you had mentioned and staff has been wonderful. It was a lot of little houses and this and that and we made it a tax increment financing district. We did indeed move the church. We did indeed um make some plans. you have the original. Thank you so much. I was going to ask for that, but this was not at all what we had in mind.
Ordinances & Resolutions (28)
City's overall planning document, referenced for consistency with development proposals.
City's regulations for land use and development, key to variance discussions.
City's rules governing the division of land.
Approved by City Council for a temporary classroom building at Glen Lake Elementary.
A two-lot subdivision approved by City Council with minimum lot area variances.
Required for work impacting flood plains; subject of discussion for 3440 Larchwood Drive and administratively approved for Marsh Run 3.
Requested for exceeding tree removal limits under the tree protection ordinance, specifically for 3440 Larchwood Drive.
Official document for approving permits or plans.
Issued for water and sewage line disconnection at 3440 Larchwood Drive.
Issued for demolition at 3440 Larchwood Drive.
Required for new construction; triggers review from watershed organizations and construction management plans.
Required for redevelopment in the I394 corridor, sought for Marsh Run 3.
Detailed plans for development, subject of review for Marsh Run 3.
Requested for Marsh Run 3 due to non-conformance with setback requirements, though proposed conditions improve existing.
Requested for Marsh Run 3; comparable to other approvals in the neighborhood.
Requested for Marsh Run 3; comparable to other approvals in the neighborhood.
City ordinance limiting tree removal, central to the variance discussion for 3440 Larchwood Drive and compliance for Marsh Run 3.
City ordinance setting parking requirements, updated in 2023, relevant to Marsh Run 3.
Commission that reviewed and supported the affordability levels for Marsh Run 3.
Legal framework referenced for variance standards.
Local regulations referenced for variance standards.
Watershed district with jurisdiction over the Marsh Run 3 site.
Organization whose parking demand data is used by the city for ordinance updates.
Required for building permits to address construction logistics and parking.
Condition of approval for Marsh Run 3 to manage construction impacts.
A condition of approval for Marsh Run 3 to formalize parking sharing between adjacent apartment buildings.
Program used by architect to achieve energy savings in building design.
Designation for the I394 corridor redevelopment area, dating back to the mid-1990s.