At the October 8th meeting, the Wayzata City Council voted against enacting an emergency moratorium, opting instead for a standard zoning ordinance that will impose a 90-day moratorium on new development in the R-3A district after two readings and publication–sometime in November. This decision primarily revolves around the exploration of garage placement, particularly the trend of constructing front-load garages with short driveways versus traditional back-load garages with longer driveways.
Council member Molly Macdonald has been a key proponent of this initiative, voicing concerns about the impact of front-load garage designs on her neighborhood and the surrounding R-3A district north of Wayzata Boulevard. She emphasized the importance of examining how these design choices affect hardcover calculations, home sizes, and the overall character of the community.
While those with pending permit applications may continue with their plans, residents should note that the average building permit review process takes approximately six weeks. Consequently, a significant influx of new applications prior to the moratorium taking effect is not expected. The city plans to utilize the upcoming 90-day period to thoroughly assess zoning regulations related to garage placement and ensure that future developments align with the desired neighborhood character.
Public Input
KC Chermak, a seasoned local homebuilder and resident of Wayzata, addressed the City Council during a recent meeting to discuss the proposed moratorium on development in the community. With nearly three decades of experience in homebuilding and having worked under four different mayors and numerous council members, Schermack brought a wealth of knowledge to the discussion.
He expressed concerns that the moratorium might be a “knee-jerk reaction,” indicating that such a significant measure should be carefully considered. “If you do decide to do some sort of a moratorium, please state that you’re being very serious about it and you’re trying to send a message to people on the other side,” he urged the council.
Chermak emphasized the thorough evaluations conducted by previous city leaders, asserting, “The system has been heavily evaluated by your predecessors… and they’ve done a wonderful job.” He stressed that the current regulatory framework has been developed with the community’s best interests in mind and that changes should be based on concrete evidence of problems rather than assumptions or complaints.
Instead of halting development, Chermak advocated for a more constructive approach to improve architectural standards in the city. “We cannot mandate good architecture…, but we have plenty of rules that help us get to a good finish line,” he explained, suggesting that incentives could be offered to encourage better design and more thoughtful construction. He argued that the focus should be on fostering community engagement to identify and solve potential issues rather than resorting to a moratorium, which he felt could be counterproductive. “If there is [a problem], let’s find it… not just the stopgap that really doesn’t… solve anything,” he stated, urging the council to explore long-term solutions that would benefit the community.
Chermak concluded by expressing his commitment to improving the city and his pride in being part of the Wayzata community. He encouraged the council to consider alternative methods that would engage the community and enhance the overall living experience in the area. “I just want you to hopefully take what I’m saying to heart… I believe there’s other ways to get an outcome that would be much more appealing and come across much more engaged with the community,” he remarked.
Council Discussion
Council member Ken Sorensen voiced a cautious stance during the discussion of the proposed moratorium on redevelopment in the R-3A district. After personally touring the affected neighborhood, he acknowledged the contrasting appearances between new and older homes and the importance of preserving neighborhood character. However, he expressed concerns over the severity of the proposed action. “I’m very supportive of the study that we’re doing… but it does seem reactive,” he remarked, hinting that a moratorium might be an extreme measure to address the issue.
Sorensen questioned whether an emergency moratorium was necessary, pointing out that the neighborhood’s development trends are not new. “The declaration in front of us states that there is an immediate pressing and emergency need to impose a moratorium. I’m not sure I agree with that,” he said, casting doubt on whether the issue truly warranted halting all development.
He also highlighted the potential unintended consequences of freezing development, such as financial impacts on residents and property investors. “If you made an investment to purchase one of these properties, sell one of these properties, invest in one of these properties… the monthly load on that is pretty significant,” he stated. Ultimately, he expressed reservations about supporting the moratorium, citing the possibility of broader, unintended impacts and the optics of singling out one neighborhood for such a drastic measure. “It feels a little heavy-handed to me,” Swanson concluded.
Council member Alex Plechash expressed strong support for the proposed moratorium, emphasizing the broader impact of new developments on surrounding neighbors. He pointed out that while developers may build and move on to their next project, the effects of those developments remain long-term for the neighborhood. “When a home is put there that is dramatically different than the other homes surrounding it, it changes the character of the neighborhood,” the council member stated, underscoring the ripple effect that a single development can have on the community.
Reflecting on past decisions, Plechash admitted that while zoning regulations were originally put in place with good intentions, unforeseen consequences have emerged over time, particularly in more compact areas. “I think we have made mistakes in the past, unintentional,” he acknowledged, noting that those mistakes have now played out and highlighted the need for reassessment.
Despite a general aversion to moratoriums, Plechash saw this as an opportunity to prevent further harm, explaining, “As much as I hate moratoriums, in this case, I would be in favor of it because I think we could stop a wrong before it happens.” He recommended the moratorium take effect immediately, while offering a small concession to a developer who had a pending permit, suggesting the moratorium begin at the close of business the following day to give the developer a chance to finalize their paperwork. In their view, 90 days was a reasonable period to sort out the issues, particularly with winter approaching, which would naturally slow development activities. He concluded by expressing full support for the moratorium as a necessary step to protect the character of the neighborhood while the city reconsiders its zoning regulations.
Council member Molly MacDonald emphasized that the push for the moratorium is rooted in real concerns, stating, “This issue and these ideas haven’t come from nowhere.” MacDonald highlighted the significant changes in their neighborhood, noting that 17 homes have been torn down in the last five years, prompting a deeper examination of community impacts. She acknowledged the need to balance the rights of property owners with the experiences of current residents who are witnessing substantial alterations to their surroundings.
MacDonald expressed a desire to look at the building code more holistically, suggesting it might be too restrictive and could encourage less desirable types of construction. “I want to look at it and say, okay, we made these determinations in ’08… so that’s not that recent,” she stated, advocating for a review of zoning regulations that could foster better architectural outcomes. She concluded by expressing optimism that the 90-day moratorium would serve as a catalyst for discussions on improving the building code to benefit both developers and the community.
Mayor Johanna Mouton reflected on her long-term experience in the neighborhood, stating, “I too have seen just a staggering amount of change.” She noted that while lot sizes remain the same, the desires of homeowners have evolved significantly over the years, leading to a need for a reassessment of zoning regulations.
Expressing support for the moratorium, they acknowledged the financial implications for homeowners looking to build new homes, saying, “I’m very sympathetic to that.” Mayor Mouton emphasized that the goal of the moratorium is not merely to impose restrictions but to explore various solutions, including potential accommodations like water credits and permeable pavers, while striking a balance between being restrictive in some areas and less so in others. She concluded by noting that the 90-day period would allow the council to assess whether they are moving in the right direction.
Read More:
A second reading of the ordinance will occur at the next council meeting.
