WAYZATA, MN — The Wayzata City Council voted 3-2 to deny the proposed Ferndale Bluffs subdivision at 565 Ferndale Road West on Tuesday, April 15, 2025, following a lengthy and contentious discussion that raised critical issues about the proposed road’s impact on the neighborhood, its compliance with city codes, and the potential legal ramifications of the decision. The project, which sought to subdivide an 11.87-acre lot into three residential lots, faced a variety of concerns from both city officials and local residents, and the failure to approve the subdivision sets the stage for potential litigation.
The Ferndale Bluffs subdivision has sparked disagreement among some of Wayzata’s most prominent residents, with long-time property owners and influential figures on Ferndale Road voicing differing opinions on the project’s impact. While some support the development, others are concerned about its effect on the neighborhood’s character and environmental integrity.
The Applicant’s Efforts and Legal Considerations
The applicant, represented by Dray Trustee LLC (Samantha Capen Muldoon, Allison Capen, Heather Capen Cox ), had initially proposed a four-lot subdivision but reduced the plan to three lots after consulting with city staff and addressing community concerns. This proposal had already garnered unanimous support from the Wayzata Planning Commission, which voted in favor of the project on February 24, 2025. The planning commission’s approval was based on the belief that the subdivision met all zoning and environmental requirements, with the design carefully accounting for the property’s steep topography and its sensitive environmental features.
“I felt this addressed their concerns as much as we could within the fire code, a 20 foot road, a hammerhead, at 10% grade–that’s as good as it’s going to get.”
Samantha Capen Muldoon
However, when the project reached the city council on March 25, 2025, council members expressed concerns about the public road’s impact. In particular, the road’s grading, the removal of trees, and the proposed retaining walls were seen as potential disruptions to the neighborhood’s character. The council tabled the item and directed the applicant to meet with city staff to discuss potential road design modifications.
Following a collaborative meeting on April 2, 2025, the applicant and city staff presented two revised options for the road design. The applicant favored Exhibit A (Hammerhead design), which would have had a narrower road and a steeper grade, believing it would reduce environmental impacts significantly. However, city staff endorsed Exhibit B (Cul-de-Sac design), arguing that it better met fire safety and road design standards.
In addition to the proposed road modifications, the applicant’s legal team presented a letter to the city council requesting approval of the preliminary plat with a condition that the final plat be modified in the final application, contingent upon the council’s approval of a text amendment to the city’s subdivision code. The proposed amendment would allow for the creation of a new category of “Minor Local Roads,” which would provide flexibility for small subdivisions like Ferndale Bluffs.
The applicant’s attorney, Patrick Steinhoff of Malkerson Gunn Martin LLP, stated that the project fully complied with the city’s subdivision ordinance and that denying the application based on subjective criteria, such as the neighborhood’s character, would not be legally supportable. The applicant’s legal team emphasized that past experiences with similar projects had resulted in litigation, and they warned the city council that denying the project could lead to another lawsuit.
“Voting to deny the proposed preliminary plat because the proposed road purportedly adversely affects the ‘character of the neighborhood’ is also not legally supportable…”
Patrick steinhoff
Capens Advocate for Property Rights and Rule Adherence After 60 Years
Joan and Gary Capen, the parents of the applicant for the Ferndale Bluffs subdivision, shared their perspective on the proposed project in a letter to the Wayzata City Council. Having owned their property and paid taxes on it for 60 years, they expressed that, during their long tenure in the neighborhood, it never occurred to them to object to a neighbor’s development or the use of their property, even when it wasn’t to their personal preference. They reflected on past neighborhood changes, such as the demolition of a nearby house and the removal of trees for better views, which they accepted as part of the natural evolution of the area.
“Our daughters are following the rules, and have already made concessions to accommodate the neighbors while following the rules. This shouldn’t be up to a popular vote by the neighbors. It is about the rules, and the rules are clear.”
Joan and gary capen
The Capens emphasized the importance of adhering to the established rules and regulations, rather than making decisions based on the opinions of neighbors. They urged the council to consider property rights and the broader community’s long-standing norms when making a decision, reflecting their deep respect for the city’s code and the need for consistency in its application.
The Public’s Response: Strong Division Between Support and Opposition
Public comments were divided, with several residents expressing strong opposition to the project, particularly due to the proposed public road and its potential impact on the neighborhood. Sue Schwalbach, a resident of Lower Ferndale Road West, voiced concerns about the width of the proposed road, the loss of trees, and the visual impact of the retaining walls. She argued that the road would disrupt the natural landscape and change the character of the neighborhood permanently.
Geoff Martha, another resident, echoed these concerns, pointing out that Ferndale Road is already narrow and adding a new road that is wider would be visually jarring. He also raised concerns about the potential disruption caused by construction traffic.
However, other residents, including Kathy Jones, voiced support for the project, highlighting the applicant’s commitment to environmental sustainability and thoughtful development. Jones noted that the applicant had taken care to preserve the environment and reduce tree removal, while also complying with zoning regulations. She argued that the project would blend well with the community and that the proposed road modifications would significantly minimize its impact.
After hearing public comments, the council began deliberating on the proposal, carefully considering the concerns raised by residents as well as the applicant’s efforts to address those concerns.
Parkhill Prefers Existing Driveway
Councilmember Jeff Parkhill acknowledged the applicant’s efforts to address the concerns raised by the city council, particularly in reducing the road’s environmental impact. However, he emphasized that the primary issue remained the road’s impact on the neighborhood, particularly its grading and the loss of trees. He commended the applicant for bringing forward creative solutions but expressed a preference for a different approach. Parkhill noted his interest in utilizing the existing private driveway as the road, as it could reduce the overall disruption. However, he recognized that the current city code and fire code made this approach difficult.
“I would like to explore something that uses what is there. Let’s use the road that is there already and just add one more home.”
jeff parkhill
Ultimately, Parkhill voted against the project, believing that while the road design modifications were a step in the right direction, they did not go far enough to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. He stated that the road’s effect on the neighborhood was too significant to approve, even with the proposed changes.
MacDonald on Neighborhood Character and Subjective Evaluation
Councilmember Molly MacDonald expressed concerns that, while the application met the objective criteria, it did not sufficiently address the subjective criteria, particularly the impact on the neighborhood’s character. She pointed out that while the proposal complied with city codes, it did not fully take into account the effects on the surrounding area. MacDonald stated that the road’s grading and width, as well as the loss of mature trees, would significantly alter the character of the neighborhood.
“I believe this proposal is not compliant. It was quite clear.”
molly macdonald
MacDonald also emphasized that the council should not make decisions based solely on the fear of litigation, stating that the public interest should not be driven by concerns about potential lawsuits. She felt that the proposal, as presented, did not adequately respect the character of the neighborhood, and therefore, she voted against subdivsion.
Plechash Concerned with Road Width
Councilmember Plechash acknowledged the efforts made by the applicant to address concerns, particularly the road design, which he saw as a positive step. He commended the reduction from four to three lots and the attention to environmental concerns. However, Plechash raised a significant concern about the width of the proposed new road, especially in comparison to the existing 19-foot Ferndale Road.
“Listing the width of Ferndale—19 feet—actually argues against this new street, as the new street would be wider than the main street. To me, that’s a bit of an issue.”
Alex Plechash
While recognizing the design’s compliance with city codes, Plechash felt it did not adequately consider the subjective impacts on the neighborhood’s character. He believed the new road would materially affect the neighborhood, particularly in terms of disruption and visual impact. As a result, Plechash voted for denial of the subdivision.
Sorensen Prefers Hammerhead Design
Councilmember Ken Sorensen acknowledged that the subdivision met the objective criteria but emphasized that the primary issue remained the proposed road’s impact. He commended the applicant for their collaborative efforts with city staff, consultants, and legal advisors, noting that the process had been productive. Sorensen felt that the modifications made to the road design were a significant step toward addressing the concerns, especially regarding the road cutting through the hill.
“I think what we’ve come up with together with the staff and the applicant has been creative, it’s been collaborative, it’s gone significantly down the path of meeting the objectives of trying to deal with the adverse conditions that we saw in the road.”
ken sorenson
While Sorensen supported moving forward with the project, he also expressed concerns about the potential of using a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or a private road, noting that it would still be constrained by fire code regulations. He ultimately favored Exhibit A (the Hammerhead design) as the best solution to minimize the road’s impact on the neighborhood, emphasizing that it was the most non-intrusive option available, and voted in support of the subdivision.
Mayor Mullin: Creative Solution Instead of Litigation
Mayor Andrew Mullin supported the approval of the Ferndale Bluffs subdivision, recognizing the applicant’s efforts to engage with city staff and neighbors to find a solution that would minimize the road’s impact. He proposed the idea of an “Option C,” which would modify the road design even further to reduce its impact on the neighborhood, including a narrower road, a slightly steeper grade, and a hammerhead turn-around. Mullin argued that this approach would provide a balanced solution that addressed both safety concerns and the community’s desire for a less intrusive development.
Mullin also raised the issue of the city’s subdivision code, which he believed forced the applicant into a public road design that was not ideal for the project or the neighborhood. He warned that denying the project could lead to legal battles, citing previous experiences where the city was forced to approve a private road over a public road mandated by the city’s subdivision ordinance.
“What I’m genuinely fearful of, if this goes down with the denial, is we’ll end up right back in court, we’ll end up right back in a situation where this is pressed and guess what will happen as an outcome? A public road will prevail, a public road will have to be built, the neighborhood loses, the applicant loses, the City loses.”
andrew mullin
Despite his strong support for the subdivision and the proposed road modifications, Mullin ultimately faced opposition from his fellow council members, who felt the changes still did not adequately address the concerns about neighborhood character and environmental impact.
The Council’s Votes: Denial of the Project
After a lengthy deliberation, the city council first voted on the motion to approve the subdivision with the proposed road modifications. This motion failed, with Councilmembers Parkhill, Plechash, and MacDonald voting against it due to concerns about the road’s impact on the neighborhood.
The second motion, to deny the subdivision and preliminary plat, passed with a 3-2 vote, with Councilmembers Parkhill, Plechash, and MacDonald voting for the denial. The council cited the significant impact of the proposed public road, including its grading, the loss of trees, and the alteration of the neighborhood’s character, as the primary reasons for denial. The resolution highlighted that the proposed road did not meet subjective criteria related to the neighborhood’s character and that the environmental impact was too significant to approve.
Looking Ahead: Potential Legal Challenges
With the 3-2 vote to deny the project, the Ferndale Bluffs subdivision may now move toward litigation. The applicant’s legal team has indicated that they believe the project fully complies with the city’s subdivision ordinance and that the denial could result in a legal challenge. The proposed text amendment to the subdivision code, which was not approved by the council, could have allowed for greater flexibility in future small subdivisions, but that option was not pursued.
“My wish for City leadership is to seek compromise as a reasonable outcome and continue moving things forward.”
Andrew mullin
Wayzata.com will keep you updated on any potential legal filings related to the denial, as the applicant and their attorneys stated that the request was fully compliant with city regulations.
This article has been updated to accurately reflect the name of a public commenter and to clarify previous legal battles the city faced during the Enchanted Woods subdivision action that involved private roads and safety personnel access.
