On Tuesday, September 9, the Wayzata City Council passed the first reading of Ordinance 852, a measure that would prohibit short-term rentals across the city. The action follows years of discussion dating back to 2018 and builds on the city’s 2024 licensing ordinance, which had required all short-term rental operators to obtain a license.
Mayor Andrew Mullin began the evening by acknowledging the strong feelings surrounding the issue. He urged residents to keep their testimony respectful and emphasized that all perspectives would be heard.
Staff Presentation
Community Development Director Alex Sharpe then introduced the staff presentation. “This has been a process where we have wanted to ensure that engagement with all parties can be heard,” Sharpe said, noting that the city created a dedicated short-term rental webpage with council packets, engagement session notes, and background research.
Sharpe also reminded the council that the proposed ordinance reflects clear direction given at a recent workshop. “Short-term rentals should be prohibited for all residential housing types,” he said. “Neighborhood character was disrupted by short-term rental operations, which negatively impacted neighbors, and regulations should serve current residents first and foremost rather than visitors.”
During the council’s questioning, Councilmember Alex Plechash raised a scenario: what if a landlord drafted a 31-day lease but in practice only rented a property for a long weekend?
Sharpe acknowledged the difficulty of enforcement in such cases. “First, we would work off of a complaint basis. We would need to know that this is occurring,” he said. “Every case like that is going to end up being a relatively weak case. Are we determining it from the parking? Are we determining it from finding it online? Seeing it posted through a website? That’s a kind of choose-your-own-adventure style of violation.”
City Attorney input followed, clarifying that even if a lease were written for 31 days, the substance of the rental would control. In other words, if evidence showed a three-day stay, it would still be a violation of the ordinance.
Public Input
The first resident to speak was Penny Sherry of Lake Street East, who lives next door to a short-term rental and said five such properties now cluster within a block of her home. With a three-day minimum stay, she noted, “we for sure see new people every three days for many weeks.”
With her husband often traveling for work, Sherry said the constant turnover has left her feeling unsettled: “We’ve started closing our blinds for privacy on that side of the house and setting the alarm every night… they’re tourists, it feels like we live next door to a mini hotel.”
While most guests have been respectful, she argued the model is commercial in nature. One nearby property, she said, charges $2,100 for a four-day stay — potentially $15,000 a month if booked continuously. “This is not a homeowner renting out their house occasionally. This is a full-scale commercial operation in a residential area,” Sherry said.
She urged the council to act without exceptions: “Wayzata has a designated business district. Our residential streets were never intended to be part of it.”
Dave Larson of Benton Avenue also spoke in favor of the ban, drawing on more than 20 years in Wayzata.
“I’ve lived in Wayzata for 7,390 days — that’s over 20 years,” Larson said. “What I think is so incredibly valuable about being a citizen of this community are our neighborhoods.”
He praised the sense of connection on his block but said that trust has been eroded by short-term rentals at the end of his street. “The reality is that change has not been a positive one. We don’t know these people. They don’t have a strong commitment to the community and certainly not to the neighborhood.”
Larson urged the council to act: “We take pride in our history and we relish our neighborhoods. I believe short-term rentals are deteriorating them. I really hope the council does not go forward with short-term rentals.”
Jeff Nelson of Lake Street East, who moved to Wayzata three years ago, said the house next door recently shifted from a longtime neighbor to a short-term rental. “It’s a very different feeling when you are sandwiched between two businesses,” he said.
Nelson urged the council to consider what kind of community Wayzata wants to be: “Will it be a place where people feel comfortable living, or will it be a place where it’s business across the entire community?”
He stressed his support for Wayzata’s downtown businesses but opposed them operating within residential districts. “You see somebody different every day and you don’t have any idea if they should be there or not,” Nelson said, calling the issue one of safety and comfort.
Amid the many residents speaking in favor of a ban, Scott Tripps stood out as one of the few to urge a different approach. Tripps, who owns and operates a short-term rental adjacent to his home, acknowledged the challenges but argued that outright prohibition would go too far.
“I’m sorry for those who have not had a good experience, but what I can guarantee is that it’s possible to have a good experience,” Tripps said. He noted that his family lives next door to their own short-term rental and, aside from a single complaint early on that was quickly resolved, they have had no further issues.
Tripps cautioned that Ordinance 852 risked swinging “from one extreme to the other.” He reminded councilmembers that in private conversations, many had previously expressed a desire for a balanced solution. “You would prefer to find a win-win solution, that you don’t necessarily think this is the ideal solution to prohibit,” he said.
He framed the issue as one of principle. “Integrity is doing the hard things that are right,” Tripps told the council. “Right now, I don’t think we’re doing what’s right. We’re doing what’s reactive.”
Instead of banning short-term rentals outright, Tripps urged the council to expand the regulatory framework. He suggested that stronger licensing requirements, inspections, and oversight could address neighborhood concerns while still allowing responsible operators to continue. “The list of regulations for long-term rentals is actually too short,” he said, arguing that applying a more robust set of standards to short-term rentals would ensure quality and accountability.
“My ask would be that the council press pause on saying no,” Tripps concluded, “and have a good discussion on finding ways to address the challenges.”
Bruno Silikowski focused on the legal framework, noting that Minnesota law defines short-term rentals as lodging, a category already recognized by the Department of Health and Department of Revenue as a retail service operation.
“From Wayzata’s own code, lodgings are prohibited in R-3A districts,” Silikowski said, pointing out that most short-term rentals are clustered in those residential zones.
He argued that enforcement costs fall unfairly on taxpayers. “We should be charging the people who are profiting from these operations,” he said. “It’s costing every taxpayer in Wayzata money for somebody else’s profits.”
Silikowski concluded by supporting the ban: “I don’t agree with the STRs, and I think going forward with the approach you’re taking will help eliminate them and bring control.”
Councilmember Sorensen: Neighborhood Character Over Compromise
Councilmember Ken Sorensen spoke at length during Tuesday’s debate, framing his remarks as a balance of perspectives while ultimately leaving little room for middle ground.
A commercial builder and developer by trade, Sorenson said he has “great respect for property rights” and is not typically one to favor more regulation. Still, he argued that short-term rentals are a commercial use inconsistent with residential zoning. “We don’t allow hotels in residential areas,” Sorenson said, in a carefully framed back-and-forth exchange with Community Development Director Alex Sharpe that underscored his analogy between STRs and “mini hotels.”
Sorenson acknowledged that short-term rentals bring some positives, including housing diversity and income for operators, but said those benefits are outweighed by the impact on neighbors. “If you don’t live near one, it’s kind of like, what’s the big deal?” he said. “But it’s significantly different if you live next to one.”
He listed two sets of concerns: nuisance issues such as parking, noise, and weekly maintenance visits, and what he called the greater loss of neighborhood character. Citing a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, Sorenson warned that short-term tenants “are here today and gone tomorrow,” and do not contribute to the fabric of community life.
“I think what we’re talking about is an operating business in a residential neighborhood,” Sorenson said. “That was never the intent of our zoning plan.”
Looking to peer cities, Sorenson noted that communities such as Deephaven, Greenwood, Edina, and Woodland have already imposed outright bans or minimum stays of 60 days. He said attempts at compromise had proven “too complicated” and costly elsewhere.
Sorenson opposed grandfathering existing operators, saying that would only prolong a problem the city has faced for years. He suggested one narrow exception — allowing short-term rentals in homesteaded homes — but even then expressed doubt about whether it could work.
“Our highest priority and our most sacred issue is to do what’s best for those who live here,” Sorenson said.
Councilmember MacDonald: From Regulation to Prohibition
Councilmember Molly MacDonald described her thinking on short-term rentals as an evolution. When the topic first emerged several years ago, she said she believed STRs might support downtown businesses by drawing more visitors. “I thought, great, this is a great town and great for downtown business,” she recalled. “This community will be in favor of it.”
Since then, after workshops, engagement sessions, and many conversations with residents, MacDonald said her perspective had shifted. “I haven’t heard from any of my peers on Lake Street that this is moving the needle in their business. I have heard from more residents,” she said. One resident’s account of living next to a short-term rental especially struck her, leading her to conclude that she would not want to be in the same situation.
In 2023, MacDonald supported additional regulation, but she said attempts to identify workable rules proved unsatisfying. “I wished I could just pick a winner and a loser and say you’re okay but you’re not, and that is just not our role up here,” she said.
She emphasized that residents have property rights too, including the right to feel safe in their homes and know their neighbors. “You have the right to live in a residential neighborhood and know your neighbors and feel really safe and not feel like you have to hide behind closed blinds,” she said.
MacDonald expressed caution about creating exceptions for homesteaded properties, saying the details could be difficult to define and enforce. “Bringing it on the fly or day of isn’t something I’m looking at,” she noted. At this point, she said she was not comfortable with carveouts.
MacDonald concluded by supporting the ordinance as written, siding with residents who had urged the council to prioritize neighborhood stability over further attempts at regulation.
Councilmember Plechash: Weighing Pros and Cons
Councilmember Alex Plechash prefaced his remarks by noting his long tenure in the city. “I have now lived in Wayzata for 31 years. It is my home, this is the place I intend to stay,” he said.
Reading from notes he had taken during the evening, Plechash said the fundamental question was whether short-term rentals benefit the city or not. He described having spoken with many residents, operators, and visitors in the lead-up to the vote, hearing good arguments on both sides.
On the positive side, he said short-term rentals offer larger families or senior citizens visiting relatives a more convenient and economical alternative to hotels. They can provide financial benefits to owner-occupants and add to the city’s diversity and vibrancy.
But he also emphasized the downsides. “A good renter one weekend could be followed by a bad renter the following week,” he said, citing concerns about safety, security, parking, and loss of community feel.
Plechash questioned whether Wayzata wanted to become more of a tourist town, saying the views of those living closest to short-term rentals should weigh most heavily. “Those views represent the people who are most affected by what we do here tonight, and that matters,” he said.
While he acknowledged the dramatic shift from licensing to prohibition, Plechash signaled that the cumulative weight of concerns led him to side with residents who favored a ban.
Councilmember Parkhill: From Seeking Compromise to Supporting the Ban
Councilmember Jeff Parkhill began his comments by thanking residents who spoke, acknowledging the difficulty of addressing such a contentious issue in public. He also praised staff for their extensive work in processing complaints and researching the matter.
Parkhill said he came into the meeting hoping to find middle ground. “I came here tonight thinking that I wanted to find a compromise,” he said, noting that he uses short-term rentals himself and initially thought they could work in Wayzata with tighter rules. He floated ideas such as two-week minimum stays, limits on the number of rentals per month, and even a self-governing association of operators.
But after listening to his colleagues and reflecting on years of debate, Parkhill said no workable compromise had been presented. “We’ve been talking about a solution for several years, and there hasn’t been a viable presentation of that. I even requested from several people that they present one tonight, and I didn’t hear it,” he said.
While acknowledging the role STRs have played in supporting visitors and local businesses, Parkhill said the balance had shifted too far toward tourism at the expense of neighborhood life. “We are a beautiful, nostalgic, and charming community,” he said. “I believe we are on the precipice of becoming a community that is really focused on tourism versus on the community. And that concerns me greatly.”
Parkhill concluded that Wayzata needed to “solidify our community and get back to the neighborhoods,” siding with the motion to prohibit STRs.
Mayor Mullin: Property Rights, Regulation, and Legal Risk
Mayor Andrew Mullin reflected on his own experience living on multiple Wayzata streets over the past 30 years, noting that he has seen both the positives and negatives of rental properties firsthand. “I’m generally a pro–property rights individual. My position on this has stayed consistent, and it’s going to stay consistent tonight,” he said.
Mullin reiterated his support for allowing short-term rentals in Wayzata, but only under “common sense regulation.” He emphasized his responsibility as mayor to provide a balanced perspective and placed several ideas into the record that had been suggested by operators, including capping the number of licenses, limiting stays to a set number of days per month, and requiring annual training or orientation for hosts.
While acknowledging that a ban appeared likely, Mullin raised concerns about fairness and legal exposure. He cautioned that abruptly eliminating licenses after March 31, 2026 could leave the city vulnerable in court. “I’m not afraid of litigation,” Mullin said. “I’m afraid of litigation where you’re going to go in the ditch and lose and make it worse for the community.” He urged the council to consider extending the sunset period and to think carefully about how the ordinance might be interpreted if challenged.
Mullin also suggested the council might explore a narrowly defined allowance for on-site, homesteaded operators, though he did not press the point to a vote. “If there’s consensus for that, I’m going to recommend it,” he said.
Though in the minority on this issue, Mullin framed his position around two themes: that property rights deserved weight in the discussion, and that the city had a responsibility to regulate thoughtfully rather than act in a way that could backfire in court.
The council voted to adopt the first reading of the short-term rental license ordinance, 4-1 with Mullin against. The second reading is scheduled for consideration at its next meeting.
You must be logged in to post a comment.