Proposal would have divided two existing residential lots into four single-family lots
The Wayzata City Council voted 3-2 on April 21 to deny a proposed subdivision at 190 Gleason Lake Road and 121 Gleahaven Road, rejecting a plan that would have divided two existing residential lots into four single-family lots in the Gleahaven neighborhood.
The application was submitted by Lake West Development LLC on behalf of property owner Dave Heil. The two parcels sit near the southeast corner of Gleason Lake Road, also known as County Road 15, and Gleahaven Road.
Community Development Director Alex Sharpe told the council the property is guided low-density residential, allowing one to three units per acre, and is zoned R-3, Single and Two Family Residential District.
“The proposal would still meet that maximum density,” Sharpe said.
Sharpe also said the proposed lots met the R-3 zoning requirements for minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, lot coverage and impervious surface coverage. Because the property is within the Shoreland Overlay District, he said the proposal also included stormwater treatment facilities to address impervious surface requirements.
But the denial did not turn simply on whether the proposal met zoning standards. Instead, council members weighed the city’s broader subdivision ordinance, which allows consideration of possible adverse effects, including neighborhood character, lot size, scale, pattern, grading and property values.
City Attorney David G. Schelzel clarified that the property’s zoning was not in dispute.
“I don’t think there’s any question that that is the zoning now,” Schelzel said. “We may not know exactly when it happened or why there was a change, but it’s been reaffirmed and recodified. That is legally what the zoning district is.”
The Planning Commission previously reviewed the proposal and recommended denial. Sharpe said the commission’s recommendation came after significant discussion of the city’s subdivision criteria.
The Planning Commission’s concerns included whether the four-lot subdivision would fit the existing scale, pattern and character of the neighborhood. Sharpe noted that the proposed lots would be smaller than most of the lots in the surrounding 11-parcel Gleahaven Road neighborhood.
“The majority of the lots within the 11 lot subdivision neighborhood would be larger than the subject parcels proposed,” Sharpe said.
The applicant had held a neighborhood meeting Feb. 2, which was not required but was recommended by staff. The City Council tabled the matter in March at the applicant’s request, allowing time for additional neighborhood outreach. A second neighborhood meeting was held April 9.
Sharpe said public comments received by the city centered on increased density, tree removal, reduced property values and negative effects on neighborhood character.
Public comments submitted to the city largely opposed the subdivision. A petition from Gleahaven Road residents asked the council to deny the application and requested a moratorium on future proposals until the city could further review why the street is zoned R-3 rather than R-2. The petition cited concerns about tree removal, grading, drainage, density, neighborhood character, lot size, traffic and possible property-value impacts.
The petition argued that the proposed lots, averaging 15,363 square feet, were substantially smaller than the historic pattern of the neighborhood. Residents wrote that, before the 2013 subdivision across the street, the average lot size in the neighborhood was 26,136 square feet. Even after that subdivision, they said the average lot size was 23,664 square feet.
Ryan Schultz, of 108 Gleahaven Road, wrote that his family chose the neighborhood for its “quiet streets, low density, and mature tree canopy.” Schultz argued that meeting minimum zoning standards “is not the same as being appropriate for this location,” and raised concerns about school-bus safety near Gleahaven Road and Gleason Lake Road.
Michelle Schultz, also of 108 Gleahaven Road, wrote that the proposal would “fundamentally and permanently alter” the neighborhood’s low-density, heavily treed character. She argued that the increase in density, loss of mature trees, traffic impacts and changes to views would negatively affect nearby property values.
Kumar and Kathy Das Gupta, of 110 Gleahaven Road, wrote that the street is a “quiet cul de sac” with a natural, serene atmosphere, privacy and varied architecture. They said four homes near the corner could add an estimated eight to 10 vehicles entering and exiting multiple times per day near an intersection they described as already difficult for pedestrians, children and dog walkers.
Pete Trinh and Morgan Kaufman, of 167 Gleahaven Road, wrote that their young family opposed the proposal because they believed it would take away from the established cul-de-sac and increase traffic near Gleason Lake Road. They wrote that it is already “scary” to walk as a family, walk a dog or cross the street.
Neighbor Dan Poss, who said he lives at 133 Gleahaven Road adjacent to the proposed development, urged the council to look beyond technical compliance and consider the established feel of the cul-de-sac.
“Our neighborhood is unique,” Poss said.
Poss said Gleahaven Road has long had a low-density feel, with about 10 homes on roughly six acres before a previous subdivision in 2013.
“To say it’s not going to change the character of the neighborhood, that’s a pretty subjective statement to make,” Poss said. “And I would say, of course, it’s going to change the character of the neighborhood. Some for the positive, of course. New homes. They look real shiny and nice. But from a density standpoint, it’s going to be tremendously character changing.”
Poss said he was not opposed to all redevelopment, but suggested three homes as a possible compromise. “My compromise would be three homes,” Poss said.
Council Members Alex Plechash, Molly MacDonald and Ken Sorensen supported the denial, pointing to the Planning Commission’s findings and the proposal’s fit within the existing neighborhood.
MacDonald said she saw a disconnect between the R-3 zoning designation and the actual character of the Gleahaven neighborhood.
“This doesn’t feel like an R-3 neighborhood,” MacDonald said, adding that she would support taking a closer look at the zoning history of the area.
MacDonald said adding four lots to the area would have a lasting impact.
“To add another four lots to that feels like it would change the character of this neighborhood forever,” MacDonald said.
Sorensen said he is typically supportive of property rights and credited Lake West for trying to develop a workable plan. But he said he could not get past the shape and layout of the proposed lots.
“The issue I can’t shake a bit though is the shape of these lots,” Sorensen said.
Sorensen said the existing cul-de-sac includes wider and pie-shaped lots that create more space between homes, contributing to what he called a “very pleasant area.” He said the proposed four-lot subdivision would place homes much closer together than the existing pattern.
“While it does comply with many of the criteria of the subdivision ordinance, it doesn’t make it always appropriate,” Sorensen said.
Sorensen said he agreed with the Planning Commission’s conclusion that the proposal would create adverse effects, particularly because of how the new lots would affect the scale, pattern and character of the neighborhood.
“If it were something less than four lots, it would be much more — I think many issues we talked about would probably go away,” Sorensen said.
Developer Curt Fretham told the council Lake West believed it had brought forward a fully compliant proposal. He said the applicant was willing to discuss lowering grades on the site, even though doing so would require hauling material away and add cost.
“We brought what we thought was a fully compliant plan,” Fretham said.
Fretham said the developer tried to avoid asking for variances or exceptions. “I’m not touching this project unless it is absolutely completely conforming,” Fretham said.
Council Member Dan Koch said he understood the neighborhood character concerns, but had difficulty supporting denial when the proposal appeared to meet the city’s zoning and guidance.
“I agree about character of neighborhoods and trying to maintain the character of neighborhoods,” Koch said. “There’s probably, I guess everybody has probably some different opinions of what that means.”
Koch said market forces can also change neighborhoods over time as homes turn over, are torn down and rebuilt under existing zoning rules. “When you look at it on the facts and no variances conforms with every piece of zoning and guidance, I have a tough time denying it because of the facts,” Koch said.
Mayor Andrew Mullin also framed the issue as a difficult balance between property rights and the city’s subdivision standards.
“I’m generally a pro-property rights person,” Mullin said. “And I struggle when you are balancing subjective criteria.”
Schelzel said the subdivision ordinance differs from the zoning ordinance and requires officials to consider possible adverse effects when reviewing a preliminary plat. “The key thing that the ordinance calls out is that you’re supposed to consider possible adverse effects,” Schelzel said. “And so by its nature, it’s sort of a judgment call.”
Ultimately, a majority (3-2) of the council sided with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and adopted Resolution 14-2026 denying the preliminary plat. The decision blocks the proposed four-lot subdivision, leaving the two existing parcels in place for the time being.
In a Feb. 23 letter to the city, Lake West’s attorney argued that the city’s broader subdivision criteria must be applied consistently with the objective standards in its zoning code.
The most obvious legal tension, if the denial is challenged in court, would likely be whether Wayzata’s more subjective subdivision criteria — including neighborhood “character” and “scale” — can support denial of a project that the applicant says met the city’s measurable zoning, density and grading requirements.
You must be logged in to post a comment.