WAYZATA – In a wide-ranging discussion at the May 6th council workshop, Mayor Andrew Mullin outlined concerns with how information surfaces to the Wayzata City Council, raising questions about transparency, responsiveness, and early engagement on major development projects.
Mullin called for a more inclusive process that would allow individual councilmembers—or a minority of two—to more easily bring forward items for discussion, even if they fall outside the city’s annual strategic work plan. Currently, Mullin said, staff often require a majority of the council to approve such requests before allocating time or resources.
“That’s not how we operated under Mayor Wilcox,” Mullin said, referring to a prior administration. “It’s not what I’m used to, and it’s not what I’m comfortable with. In many cities, it doesn’t require a majority position to request information—it requires a minority to take action.”
The mayor cited best practices from cities including Minnetonka, Maple Grove, Plymouth, Orono, and Long Lake, noting that several of them use a “form system” that logs councilmember requests and places them into the staff queue once two members sign on.
The workshop item was presented as informational only, with no immediate action required. Mullin said the topic will be brought back during the council’s upcoming strategic planning sessions in June for further discussion.
Rethinking Development Reviews
Mullin also introduced the idea of holding early-stage public workshops—sometimes called “sketch plan workshops”—to vet major land use proposals before applicants spend significant resources on engineering and detailed plans. He argued that recent developments such as the Ferndale Bluffs subdivision and Woodhill Country Club’s tree management plan became mired in technical details before broader policy questions were addressed.
“We start designing pipes and streets before we’ve even decided what the policy decision is,” he said. “It’s a disservice to applicants, staff, and the community when we get to conflict late in the process.”
Concept Plan Discussions
One recent example was a request from the CoV restaurant ownership group for an informal review of a proposed bar addition extending into the public right of way. “We’d rather have a no than a maybe—it’s especially a lot cheaper for us,” said John Davis, who represented the group during the workshop discussion.
Under Mullin’s proposal, the Planning Commission, Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA), and City Council could jointly host preliminary workshops to identify major concerns and provide directional feedback before staff and applicants dive into technical work.
“We’d rather have a no than a maybe—it’s especially a lot cheaper for us…”
John davis, Cov Restaurant Group
“We’re not looking to take action in those settings,” he said. “We’re just trying to align earlier.”
Planning Commission Chair Cameron, Vice Chair Platton, and HRA Chair Tom Shaver were all said to be supportive of exploring such a process, which Mullin emphasized is used by many Minnesota cities as a best practice.
Other communities regularly engage with developers prior to any formal application so as to provide guidance to applicants without unnecessary investments in staff time, consulting, and holding costs.
One such example occurred recently in Plymouth, where a developer informally presented a proposal for a 200-unit apartment complex at the corner of County Road 6 and Highway 101 to gather early feedback—well before submitting a formal application. This approach allowed city staff and stakeholders to provide guidance without expending unnecessary resources on a fully developed submittal.
Council Response: Cautious, Curious, Divided
Reactions from councilmembers were mixed. While some expressed openness to further discussion, others questioned whether a problem truly exists.
“I’ve been on the council now for over eight years, and I haven’t seen any change in this process,” said Councilmember Alex Plechash. “It seems like we’re making a problem where there isn’t a problem.”
Mullin pushed back. “It’s a problem to me,” he said. “And I have every right—as you do—to bring it up for the group’s consideration.”
Councilmember Molly MacDonald raised concerns about side conversations or process transparency, saying that the existing “New Agenda Items” section at the end of council meetings already offers a clear venue to surface ideas. Mullin countered that this approach still requires majority agreement to move forward.
“This isn’t about taking action. It’s about how we get something on the table in the first place,” he said.
In closing, the mayor reaffirmed that the ultimate decision rests with the council as a group.
“I’ve shared my observations,” he said. “If the will of the council is no change, then we won’t change. But I think we owe it to ourselves—and to the public—to talk about how we lead together.”
The council will revisit the discussion during strategic planning sessions scheduled for June.