The Wayzata City Council voted 4-1 Tuesday night to approve an emergency interim ordinance imposing an immediate 12-month moratorium on new short-term rentals, with Mayor Andrew Mullin casting the lone dissenting vote, citing concerns largely centered on procedural sequencing.
The action follows a March 30 district court order that voided the city’s earlier short-term rental ordinance, setting off a new round of discussion over how Wayzata should regulate the use moving forward. City staff said the emergency pause is intended to give the council time to study the issue and consider changes to the city’s zoning ordinance and other official controls.
Community Development Director Alex Sharpe opened the discussion by outlining the legal and procedural backdrop. He said the city adopted Ordinance 852 on Oct. 9, 2025, prohibiting short-term rentals through its rental dwelling licensing regulations, but that approach was later challenged in court by short-term rental operators.
“On March 30th, 2026, the district court issued an order declaring that Ordinance 852 was a zoning regulation and therefore void,” Sharpe told the council.
Sharpe said staff brought forward the moratorium as a possible tool while the city considers a new zoning-based framework. He emphasized that staff was not explicitly urging the council to adopt the moratorium, but said it was being presented for consideration because of the risk that additional operators could apply before new zoning rules are in place.
“Specifically, we’ve had already one, potentially two new applicants that were not short-term rental operators in 2025 apply for short-term rental licenses in 2026,” Sharpe said.
He later confirmed those were not just preliminary inquiries. When asked whether the applications were complete or still in an early phase, Sharpe said: “They’re complete applications with fees paid,” adding that rental inspections had not yet occurred.
That timing, Sharpe explained, could carry long-term consequences. He told the council that once a use is lawfully established, it can become a legal nonconforming use if the city later changes its zoning rules. In practical terms, that means a newly approved short-term rental could potentially continue even after a new ordinance is adopted, so long as it complies with applicable provisions and does not lapse for more than a year.
Council Member Molly MacDonald said she supported both the moratorium itself and the decision to adopt it on an emergency basis, framing the vote as a continuation of the city’s earlier work on the issue.
“We had really studied this, engaged the community, and I think really came to the right conclusion,” MacDonald said. “While there may be some debate about how we got there, I think where we got was the right place.”
Council Member Ken Sorensen also backed immediate action, saying the temporary pause was consistent with the city’s earlier direction and would give the council time to continue discussing the issue without allowing additional applications to move forward in the meantime.
“I’m in favor of this moratorium. I think we should enact it as soon as possible,” Sorensen said. He said the move was “very consistent with where we ended up with the ordinance we passed last year,” and noted the city had already received two new applications.
“I think we could expect more if we don’t enact a moratorium,” Sorensen said. Sorensen said the emergency measure would create space for the council to continue evaluating its options. “It gives us the time we need to really think this through,” he said.
Mayor Andrew Mullin said his opposition was procedural rather than substantive. He said the council had not yet received “a full legal briefing on the status of our existing case, which we lost,” and that he wanted the city to signal to the community that it was still evaluating all available paths before acting. In his view, adopting a moratorium before receiving that briefing felt “out of order,” and he said he would have preferred to table the matter and revisit it after council had a clearer understanding of the court ruling and its options. “We are looking at all options and we are going to take the path that makes the most sense,” Mullin said, indicating those options could include an appeal, zoning regulations, or a return to what he described as responsible regulations.
Mullin said he considered the move premature because the council still did not know what path it would ultimately choose. “It doesn’t mean that I’m not in support of it,” he said, but added that his concern was “how the information is coming to us and not having a full understanding of the implications of court ruling.” He said he would have preferred to consider the moratorium after receiving a fuller legal briefing.
Mullin also read a statement into the record from existing short-term rental license holders Theresa and Bob Fisher, who he said were unable to attend the meeting. Their message urged the city to include current operators in the discussion rather than treating them as outsiders to the community.
“We sincerely want our voice to be heard,” Mullin read from the statement. “We would welcome an opportunity to work with a task force or related group to come up with ideas and an action plan to identify and address the issues of short term rentals.” The Fishers added that local owners want “to have a positive relationship with our fellow community members, be responsible residents, and want to be treated as part of the community.”
In the public forum portion of the council meeting, Benton Avenue resident Marilyn Richter urged the council not to lose momentum on regulation despite the recent court ruling. Richter said the need for short-term rental rules “still exists for Wayzata” and pointed to ongoing problems on Benton Avenue, where she said issues tied to a concentration of short-term rentals had persisted for at least two years.
Richter told council members that the city should not let its planning efforts be derailed by the lawsuit. “Please don’t let your interest in planning be dropped because of the lawsuit,” she said, adding that “there has to be a way” to regulate short-term rentals, noting that similar issues have been addressed in communities across the country.
The ordinance approved Tuesday imposes a 12-month moratorium on any new short-term rental use in the city while staff studies whether and to what extent Wayzata’s official controls should be revised. Under the ordinance, the moratorium does not apply to short-term rentals with licenses that are active and in good standing as of the ordinance’s effective date, or that were active and in good standing when Ordinance 852 took effect.
Because at least four of the five council members voted to declare an emergency, the moratorium took effect immediately upon adoption rather than waiting for an additional reading and publication. Staff had told the council that without emergency adoption, the ordinance likely would not have taken effect until sometime in May.
In the ordinance preamble, the council found that short-term rentals “have the potential to negatively impact the health, safety and welfare” of the city if not properly regulated, and that the city needs time to study the issue and consider “necessary and appropriate changes” to its policies, ordinances and official controls.
Tuesday’s vote marks the city’s latest move in an ongoing fight over short-term rentals, as Wayzata shifts from a court-rejected prohibition toward a temporary freeze designed to preserve time for a new regulatory approach.
Council cites zoning standards, downtown retail policy as factors in 5–0 vote
The Wayzata City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to deny a request to further reduce required ground-floor retail space at 401 Lake Street East, affirming a recommendation from the Planning Commission and reinforcing long-standing retail policies for the downtown core.
The application, submitted by Studio BV on behalf of property owner Fish Base LLC, sought a variance to reduce required retail frontage and area along Lake Street from 22 percent—already lowered by a 2020 variance—to approximately 11 percent. The proposal would have allowed part of the existing Brick + Linen retail space to be converted into a conference room for the building’s third-floor office user.
File photo.
The property sits at the northeast corner of Lake Street and Manitoba Avenue, directly across from the Wayzata Depot to the south and Five Swans to the west. It is zoned C-4 Central Business District, where city code requires at least 50 percent of ground-floor frontage and area along Lake Street to be devoted to retail or service commercial uses.
Planning Commission recommendation
The Planning Commission reviewed the request in November and, on Dec. 1, adopted findings recommending denial. Commissioners concluded the applicant had not demonstrated the “practical difficulties” required for a variance under state law and city code, and that a further reduction in retail space would be inconsistent with the city’s comprehensive plan and the intent of Lake Street as a retail-oriented corridor.
Applicant explanation
During the council meeting, Mayor Andrew Mullin asked the applicant to explain what was driving the request. Aaron Foley, representing Fish Base LLC, said the ground-floor retail tenant has a lease running through 2029 but has struggled to make the retail component work. Foley said the proposal was intended to provide some relief to the tenant while allowing time to explore subleasing options, and to accommodate expansion needs for the office use on the third floor.
Foley confirmed there had been no additional sublease activity since the Planning Commission meeting, noting the tenant was waiting on the council’s final decision before moving forward.
Council discussion
Council members expressed empathy for the challenges facing downtown retailers, while repeatedly returning to the legal standards governing variances.
Councilmember Molly MacDonald said she supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation, citing its focus on maintaining retail in the downtown core. “I was really heartened to see and observe the Planning Commission’s commitment to retail in our downtown,” MacDonald said. “I support their findings and their recommendation for this application.”
Councilmember Dan Koch said he “struggled with this one,” noting the city’s history of allowing some flexibility in retail requirements for other Lake Street developments and his concern about vacant storefronts. However, he said the building had already received concessions at the time of approval and said he would respect the commission’s findings and support denial.
Councilmember Ken Sorensen agreed, describing the request as “a variance to a variance” and emphasizing the cumulative effect of repeated reductions in retail space. Sorensen acknowledged that vacant retail is a significant downtown issue, but said the broader challenge should be addressed separately from the application before the council.
Councilmember Alex Plechash called the situation unfortunate and said resizing the retail space could benefit both the tenant and the property owner without materially changing the building’s character. Still, he said the request did not meet the city’s code requirements and highlighted the need for a future policy discussion about requiring retail in locations where it may not function well.
Mayor Mullin said the variance criteria made approval difficult. “If you just look at the standard of variance, it’s hard to find the criteria that would support it,” Mullin said.
Mullin also pointed to rising commercial property taxes and operating costs as a growing pressure on downtown retailers, noting that Wayzata businesses are competing with regional shopping centers offering lower rents and higher traffic. He said the city should convene stakeholders to explore tools it can control—such as zoning definitions, potential tax relief, or other policy adjustments—to better support downtown retail over the long term.
Vote and next steps
After discussion, the council adopted Resolution 46-2025 denying the variance by a 5–0 vote.
While the decision leaves the existing retail requirements in place at 401 Lake Street East, several council members signaled interest in revisiting downtown retail policy more broadly in future workshops, separate from the variance process.
WAYZATA, Minn. (Dec. 2025) — After holding its annual Truth-in-Taxation hearing, the Wayzata City Council voted to adopt the 2026 final property tax levy and budget, closing out a months-long process that balances rising service demands with a continued commitment to fiscal restraint.
The Council approved Resolution 53-2025, certifying a final levy of $7,241,697, and Resolution 54-2025, establishing a total 2026 budget of $23,120,220. The action reduces the levy increase from the 7.5% reflected on residents’ preliminary notices down to 4.9%, a notable adjustment achieved through targeted refinements to the General Fund levy.
A Budget Shaped by Public Safety and Long-Range Planning
Staff walked the Council through the full financial landscape for the year ahead, beginning with the General Fund — the City’s primary operating account. Public safety remains Wayzata’s largest budget category, reflecting the community’s long-standing priority of maintaining a safe, responsive, and well-trained department. General government, public works, parks and recreation, community development, and fire services round out the remaining shares of the operational budget.
The City’s enterprise and special revenue funds — including water, sewer, stormwater, solid waste, motor vehicle services, liquor operations, cable TV, the cemetery, and the Wayzata Arena — were also reviewed. Together, these funds make up more than half of the City’s financial activity and are supported by user fees rather than property taxes. The combined liquor operations, one of Wayzata’s largest enterprise funds, continue to play a major role in supporting city services.
When all funds are combined, the 2026 total budget stands at $23.1 million, with the General Fund comprising nearly half.
Key Drivers Behind the 4.9% Levy Increase
Several factors shaped the final levy:
Addition of a full-time Fire Chief, scheduled to begin in the second quarter of 2026
Cost-of-living wage adjustments for city staff
Market-based pay adjustments for police officers to ensure competitive recruitment and retention
These investments align with the City’s strategic priorities: strengthening public safety staffing, advancing initiatives from the 2024–2026 Strategic Plan, and maintaining service levels without overburdening residents.
Staff also provided regional comparisons showing that Wayzata’s 4.9% levy increase is well below preliminary increases adopted by many Lake Minnetonka-area communities. With a 2026 projected tax rate of 19.6%, Wayzata continues to track lower than most peer cities — a point of pride for a community committed to careful financial stewardship.
Property tax distribution data further shows that only a portion of a resident’s total bill supports city operations, with schools, Hennepin County, and other jurisdictions making up the majority of the average tax payment.
Council Comments
Mayor Andrew Mullin opened the discussion by encouraging residents to stay engaged in the upcoming school district referendum. “I want residents aware of it and tune into it,” he said, noting that the proposed measure carries a direct financial impact. “If that levy is approved, the implication to it is $303 for every $650,000 of home value.” Mullin emphasized that he was not taking a position for or against the referendum, adding that his goal was simply to ensure residents had clear information as they evaluate the proposal. “The 4% preliminary looks nice, except when you look at a half billion dollar referendum… I’m just trying to provide information.”
Mullin explained why he would not support the final levy. “I’m gonna vote no on this tonight and I wanted to state my reasons,” he said. While he commended staff for reducing the projected levy from 14.5% to 4.9%, he pointed to external forces driving unusually high tax pressures across Hennepin County. “There’s some unique circumstances going on… pushing a significant burden to our property tax,” he said, noting that Wayzata saw an average 22.1% increase in property valuations — the highest in the county — while parts of the east metro experienced commercial decline. “It’s a double-edged sword…” he said, citing examples of property tax bills rising 10%, 25%, even 48% in a single year. He added that “we need to work harder to control what we can control” and said he “would have preferred to see a number in the threes versus 4.9.”
Councilmember Dan Koch offered a clarification during the budget discussion, noting that one of the reductions used to reach the 4.9% levy increase involved a proposed position—not an existing one. “I just want to make a point of clarification that we are not cutting an existing community service officer,” he said. Koch explained that the budget initially included a new CSO position, but after receiving input regarding operational needs and management considerations, the City chose not to move forward with adding the fourth role. “We’re just not increasing that,” he said. “We’ll maintain our three community service officers.”
Councilmember Alex Plechash underscored the significance of the work that went into lowering the levy during the Truth-in-Taxation process. “We’re about to approve a 4.9% increase, but I’d like the viewing audience to realize what went into that is that we still invested very well into public safety, in police, in fire, in our city staff, and we didn’t shortcut that at all,” he said. Plechash noted that the preliminary levy “initially started at 14.5%, something like that,” and emphasized that the City’s final number reflects substantial refinement without compromising essential services. “We were able to get that down to 4.9% and still not sacrificing public safety,” he said.
Councilmember Ken Sorensen reflected on the broader financial approach that shaped this year’s budget process, noting the value of the City’s longstanding fiscal discipline. “I think our overall strategy and a little conservatism has played well with this city and I think we are continuing now to be a little more aggressive with it,” he said. Sorensen added that his perspective on the 2026 budget was positive, emphasizing the collaborative effort behind it. “Overall I think my comments are generally complimentary to this team and the staff about the process we’ve been through this year.”
Next Steps: Capital Projects on Deck
With the operating budget and levy now finalized, the Council will turn its attention to the 2026–2035 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) at its December 16 meeting. The CIP outlines long-term investments in streets, utilities, parks, buildings, and major equipment — the infrastructure that shapes Wayzata’s future.
The Wayzata City Council narrowly approved a controversial variance request Tuesday evening, voting 3-2 to grant a shoreland setback variance at 547 Harrington Road, a peninsula property on Browns Bay owned by Dick and Elaine Swanson.
The action, adopted under Resolution 35-2025, reduces the required setback from Lake Minnetonka from 260.5 feet to 108 feet—a variance of 152.5 feet. While no redevelopment plans are on file, the variance establishes a larger buildable area should a future owner demolish the existing home and construct a new residence.
Mayor Andrew Mullin and Councilmembers Jeff Parkhill and Ken Sorensen supported the request, while Alex Plechash and Molly MacDonald opposed it. The applicant, represented by Kyle Hunt, argued the lot’s unusual shape, narrow width, topography, and position on a sharp bend of the shoreline created “practical difficulties” under city code.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18 and later recommended approval of the request, subject to conditions. Those included a requirement that a shoreland impact plan be submitted with any future building permit, and that certain non-buildable wedge areas offered by the applicant be permanently recorded to protect neighboring sight lines.
Swansons Seek Variance to Preserve Future Use of Property
Property owners Dick and Elaine Swanson, who have lived at 547 Harrington Road for decades, are preparing to sell their nearly century-old family home. To aid in that transition, the couple hired builder Kyle Hunt of Kyle Hunt Partners to act as a consultant in seeking a variance that would preserve the lot’s usability for future owners.
Hunt told the Council the application was not tied to a specific redevelopment plan, but rather to establishing a reasonable building envelope so the property could be marketed and eventually rebuilt. Without a variance, he explained, the lot’s pie-shaped layout and position on a sharp bend of Browns Bay—combined with the unusual 299-foot setback of the neighboring Leavenworth home to the north—would push most of the buildable area toward Harrington Road, leaving the site effectively unbuildable.
Image source: Swanson narrative.
City code required a 260.5-foot shoreline setback at the site, yet the existing home sits just 91.9 feet from the water. The variance reduces that requirement by 152.5 feet, establishing a new setback line of 108 feet. That would still move any future home about 16 feet farther from the lake than the current structure.
To address concerns from neighbors, the Swansons also offered to record non-buildable “red triangle” areas on the lot to preserve lake views from adjacent homes.
Red triangles, courtesy of the Swansons.
As Hunt explained in his presentation to council: “The reason why we introduced the idea of the red triangles was to honor and take into consideration the neighboring properties when you look through the lens of sight lines from their structures to the lake and from the interior of their homes looking lakeside or lake setback side. In both cases, we’ve tried to look at that triangulation and offered that under free will.”
Public Hearing Brings Sharp Divide on Shoreline Impact
Neighbors Tracy and Dan Cosentino of 549 Harrington Road opposed the request. Their attorney, Jack Perry, urged the Council to deny the variance, warning it would invite litigation and stall any redevelopment of 547 Harrington Road.
“The reality is that 108 feet versus 175 feet is a major, major, major change — a major blockage of the lake for 549,” Perry said. “And 549 is going to [assert] rights. If you say yes, that will cause litigation. Litigation will hold this thing up for 12 months at a minimum, which no buyer is going to pay because of the setback until that’s resolved.”
Perry explained that his clients had worked with attorney Chris Pierson to develop an alternative method of measuring the setback, disregarding the unusually deep setback at 543 Harrington Road and instead using the next-nearest home to the north. That calculation produced a 175-foot shoreline setback and a 45-foot side yard setback, which the Cosentinos argued was “almost as close to the lake as possible” while still protecting their views.
In August 2025, Pierson also submitted a formal letter during the Planning Commission review, pressing for denial. “The Application does not satisfy the conditions for approval required … by Chapter 991,” Pierson wrote. “Granting the sought variance would severely adversely impact the shoreline and lake views of the Cosentinos. In addition, the Application is motivated solely by economic considerations … and granting the variance without construction and other required plans is likely to lead to problems the City should seek to avoid.” He urged commissioners to reject the request.
The Council also heard directly from Dan Cosentino, who said he was surprised to learn that the Swansons’ application sought a 108-foot setback “shaped kind of like a hexagon” without building plans, architectural drawings, or a shoreline impact assessment. Cosentino explained that he had retained Pierson and the architectural firm Mohagen Hansen to prepare 3D models showing how potential homes could affect his family’s views. Both concluded the variance would have an adverse impact.
In response, Cosentino said he directed Pierson to craft what he considered a fair compromise: a 175-foot shoreline setback with a 40-foot side yard, compared with the 188-foot setback of his own home. He described this as a “very generous variance proposal” aimed at avoiding conflict.
Not all neighbors opposed the request. Several letters of support were submitted, urging the Council to allow the variance.
Ted Bigos, a longtime property owner in the community, wrote that the application aligned with Wayzata’s residential character. “I am writing in support of the variance request for 547 Harrington Road. Based on my review, the proposed variance is both reasonable and consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood,” Bigos said.
Tom and Lindsay Pohlad also submitted a letter backing the request. They argued that the strict shoreline setback stems from rules dating back more than a century and would effectively prevent any new home from being built on the site today. “The requested variance, as we understand it, does not impact views of neighboring properties, and should be considered for approval,” they wrote.
David Erickson, a neighbor on Harrington Road, described the proposal as fair and forward-looking. “The proposed variance by the owners of 547 Harrington Road, as requested, is more than generous to existing neighbors and appears to solve the problems created by what may now be an outdated practice given the circumstances at the site. As neighbors on Harrington Road, we favor City approval,” Erickson wrote.
Anne Johnson, another Harrington Road resident, called the request both reasonable and appropriate for the site. “As a resident of Harrington Road, I can confirm that the variance requested regarding 547 Harrington Road is very reasonable and does not impact any neighbors. I am familiar with the property and also believe that the existing setback no longer makes any sense due to the site’s topography,” Johnson wrote.
From just down the street, James E. Johnson and Lucy Rosenberry Jones expressed their backing for the application. “We live at 562 Harrington Road and fully support the Swanson’s request for a variance,” they wrote.
Hans and Carolyn Hagen, neighbors on Harrington Road, urged the Council not only to approve the variance but to make it permanent. “As neighborhood residents, we support the Wayzata Planning Commission resolution granting the variance to the shoreline setback requested by the owner of Tract B, the Swanson family,” they wrote. The Hagens emphasized that the Swansons’ proposed setback and view corridor matched existing conditions established by adjacent homes to the north and south, and argued that the family would face “an unusual hardship” if the variance were denied.
John Nolan, who lives nearby on Harrington Road, said he carefully reviewed the Swansons’ application before weighing in. “After reviewing their request, I feel the request is reasonable, appropriate and meets both the spirit and the technical requirements for variance relief for all the reasons expressed in their variance application. I am in support of the city approving this request,” Nolan wrote.
Carole Hunter added her voice in favor of the application. “Hello – we are fine with the variance request for the Swansons,” she wrote.
Joann W. Leavenworth, whose family home at 543 Harrington Road sits immediately north of the Swansons, pointed to the site’s natural challenges. “Because of the topography of this property, the existing 1920s house is located where it is. It would not meet the current ‘lakeshore set back’ code. Please take this into consideration … One look and the situation would be very apparent to you,” Leavenworth wrote.
Council Discussion
Councilmember Alex Plechash gave a detailed critique of the application, saying he recognized the property’s unique challenges but felt the requested relief went too far. “The fact that the residence to the north was built so far back creates a setback requirement that is skewed and untenable in my opinion. I think everyone agrees on that … As it is, an appropriately sized house would be unbuildable within the constraints delineated and begs for a variance,” he said.
Even so, Plechash argued the proposal was “granting a variance in a vacuum” without construction plans and could set a troubling precedent. He said the request would still adversely affect views from 549 Harrington Road and was not in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. “The letter of the law on a setback requirement for this property is draconian, but the requested variance goes too far, I think … The bottom line is that for all the reasons stated, I will be voting to deny the variance tonight.”
Councilmember Molly MacDonald echoed many of Plechash’s concerns, while adding that the city’s focus on preservation was being overlooked. “Our comp plan does value a diverse housing stock and neighborhood charm … maybe someone would appreciate a beautiful 100-year-old well-built home to not be just thrown away,” she said. MacDonald agreed a variance was needed but felt the Swansons’ request went too far. She also questioned claims that the proposal would preserve trees and concluded it would negatively affect shoreline views. “With all of that said, I will not be voting to support this variance request,” she said.
Councilmember Ken Sorensen said he saw strong arguments on both sides but ultimately leaned toward approval. He noted the property’s unusual topography and shoreline bend created genuine practical difficulties. Sorensen said that while a home built at 108 feet might be partially visible from 549 Harrington Road, “to me, [that’s] not adverse, not significant,” especially given that mature trees already obscure the shoreline from that vantage point.
He also pointed out that pushing construction farther back would force a new house into steep ravines and heavily wooded areas, creating other challenges. Reviewing the variance standards, Sorensen concluded the request was in harmony with the ordinance and comprehensive plan, and not driven solely by economics. He added that the Council should not base its decision on litigation threats. “I’m inclined to approve this variance,” he said.
Councilmember Jeff Parkhill acknowledged the difficulty of the decision, noting that both the Swansons and the Cosentinos had strong arguments. He said the property’s topography created an “insurmountable burden” under the code, making a variance necessary. Parkhill praised the Swansons’ approach of shaping the building envelope with “red triangles” to protect views, calling it considerate.
After visiting both homes, he concluded any obstruction to 549 Harrington’s lake view would be minor and not significantly adverse. “There may be minor and inconvenient and distant view obstructions of the lake, but not something that I believe to have a significant adverse effect,” he said. While he wished the neighbors had reached a compromise privately, Parkhill stated he was inclined to support the variance as a reasonable solution to a difficult situation.
Mayor Andrew Mullin said the Council’s role was not to redraw a different setback line but to decide on the application before them. He noted the challenge of weighing subjective criteria like views and neighborhood character alongside objective standards.
Mullin pointed to several factors that led him to support approval: the setback would remain more than 75 feet from the water, satisfying the base ordinance; the Planning Commission had found no adverse impact on shoreline or lake views; and a shoreline impact plan would be required to address erosion and tree loss.
He also stressed that the property’s difficulties were unique and not created by the Swansons, and that economic considerations could not be the sole reason to grant or deny relief. “I’m a very pro property rights individual,” he said. “I’m leaning in support of this variance for all the reasons I’ve stated.”
In the end, the Council split 3–2, with Mayor Andrew Mullin, Jeff Parkhill, and Ken Sorensen voting in favor of the variance, while Alex Plechash and Molly MacDonald opposed. The decision allows Dick and Elaine Swanson to move forward with a shoreline setback of 108 feet at 547 Harrington Road, though any future redevelopment will still require a shoreline impact plan and compliance with all other city codes. The debate underscored the tension between preserving neighbor views, respecting property rights, and applying ordinances to unusual sites along Wayzata’s shoreline—questions the city is likely to face again as more historic lake homes come up for reinvention.
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.
WAYZATA – The Wayzata City Council voted 3-1 Tuesday night to deny a special event permit for the proposed WAAM Fest, an electronic dance music (EDM) concert planned for September 5–6 in conjunction with James J. Hill Days. Despite a long track record of concerts hosted by applicant Rick Born and RBA Productions, council members and city staff raised concerns about the timing, neighborhood impact, and—most notably—the musical format itself. Mayor Andrew Mullin was the dissenting vote.
City staff expressed concern that the late submission of the WAAM Fest permit—received just 60 days before the proposed event—did not meet the 90-day advance requirement outlined in Wayzata’s updated special event ordinance. Interim Police Chief Jamie Baker noted that the compressed timeline could make it difficult to adequately staff the event, particularly in coordinating police and public safety personnel.
While the public works team indicated they could manage setup logistics due to prior experience with similar events, the reduced lead time posed significant challenges for ensuring public safety coverage, especially given the expected crowd size of up to 2,500 attendees per night.
While Mr. Born promised to cover all police and public safety costs, he acknowledged the event was filed late—just 60 days prior—and said he hoped the city would consider his production team’s efforts to improve sound control. A detailed sound mitigation plan had been developed for 2024, including subwoofer phasing, decibel limits, absorption barriers, and vehicle-based baffling strategies to reduce bass projection into neighborhoods.
But council sentiment was mixed: while some members focused on the late application and noise concerns, others pointed to broader questions about the event’s musical format and how well it aligns with the community.
Mayor Andrew Mullin voiced mixed feelings about the proposed WAAM Fest, noting that while he supports community events and appreciates efforts to bring safe entertainment to younger residents, he has reservations about the event’s format. “Where I get a little stuck is more about the format and how that fits the makeup of the people who live here versus visitors as it’s a bit of a nuisance,” Mullin said.
He acknowledged the importance of providing local opportunities for youth and shared that he was “we owe it to them” and he was “heartened to see families” at the most recent event. However, he also cited personal experience with the noise, noting, “I live right up the corridor on Berry Avenue and I could hear this on my front porch.” Mullin suggested that genres like rock and country may better align with the preferences of Wayzata residents and acknowledged the community’s division over such events. While generally supportive of WAAM Fest, he noted concerns about staffing and said he would only consider approval with a firm 10 p.m. cutoff.
Councilmember Molly MacDonald raised strong concerns about the timing and cumulative impact of the proposed event. “I’ve always had an issue with how early it starts—it just sort of takes up everyone’s entire evening in the community,” she said, describing the 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. timeframe as a “nonstarter.” She noted that even a recent event ending at 10:30 p.m. felt too late for many residents.
Citing the “visceral reaction” to the recent EDM show that “shot up the hill into the community,” MacDonald said she wasn’t ready to revisit a similar format so soon. While she acknowledged the applicant’s experience and agreed that events for all ages are important, she emphasized the strain of back-to-back festivals and deviation from city guidelines. “There’s just too many,” she said, ultimately siding with staff’s recommendation to deny the permit.
Councilmember Alex Plechash expressed ongoing concern with the type of music associated with WAM Fest, specifically electronic dance music (EDM). “I’m not really a fan of EDM,” he added. “If you had Lindsey Stirling or Hauser up there, I’d be all over it and selling tickets for you.” Ultimately, citing persistent resident concerns about noise complaints, Plechash supported the staff recommendation to deny the special event permit.
Others commented discussed recent events—particularly “HiFi on the Lake,” also EDM-focused—had sparked 6 public complaints.
Councilmember Ken Sorensen expressed appreciation for Born’s professionalism and event history but shared concerns about pushing past the city’s typical 10 p.m. curfew. WAAM Fest had requested an 11 p.m. end time both nights.
City policy currently allows for two Level 3 events per month in September. While the application technically met the matrix for consideration, the council chose not to allocate one of those spots to WAAM Fest.
Despite the denial, several council members emphasized that their vote should not be taken as a rejection of Born’s broader contributions to the city’s entertainment offerings.
Councilmember Ken Sorensen expressed appreciation for the applicant’s past contributions and made clear that any decision should not be taken as a personal slight. “Regardless of what happens tonight, I wouldn’t want you to take any action we take as anything other than support of your efforts in the future,” he said.
Whether EDM will find future footing in Wayzata remains unclear. For now, the city appears to be drawing a boundary—between bass and balance, format and fit.
WAYZATA — In a unanimous vote Tuesday night, the Wayzata City Council approved the Landmark Wayzata redevelopment, clearing the way for the former TCF headquarters at 200 Lake Street East to be replaced with a six-building, mixed-use development along the city’s most visible stretch of lakefront.
The council adopted Resolution 13-2025, approving a Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept plan, general plan, zoning amendment, shoreline conditional use permits, and a design deviation for street tree spacing. It simultaneously denied a requested deviation related to massing breaks, affirming that each building core must be separated by a full three-story void.
Consultant Planner Eric Zweber opened the discussion with a concise presentation outlining the scope of the request. The project includes six distinct building cores stretching between Ferndale Road and Barry Avenue, with a mix of ground-floor commercial space, upper-level residential units, and underground parking. “This is a long, narrow site with high visibility and significant impact on the downtown lakefront,” Zweber said. “The proposal meets city code for height, parking, and shoreline requirements, with 162 parking stalls provided for 156 units.”
Zweber emphasized that although the development includes massing breaks at the ground level, the applicant had sought approval to connect the second and third floors between the cores—effectively eliminating the upper portions of the breaks. City staff and the Planning Commission had recommended denial of that request.
The council concurred, with each member offering remarks before the vote.
Council Member Jeff Parkhill supported the resolution, calling the requirement for full massing breaks “a reasonable compromise.” “These voids amount to just 5.5% of the project,” he said. “It’s not a big ask, and the added light and air—especially on the north side in winter—will benefit everyone.”
Council Member Alex Plechash, who served on the Design Standards Task Force, reflected on the original intent behind the city’s architectural rules. “The term ‘massing break’ was created to prevent exactly what we see in the lakeside rendering—a single, massive structure,” he said. “This requirement is about ensuring the building remains consistent with Wayzata’s scale and character.”
Council Member Ken Sorensen agreed. “This long façade without full breaks just doesn’t align with the purpose of the PUD district or our comprehensive plan,” he said. “We’ve talked about this at length, and the planning facts are clear.”
Council Member Molly MacDonald added that she was “proud of the work done by staff, the Planning Commission, the applicant, and the community” in bringing the project to this final stage. “I support the resolution as written,” she said.
Mayor Andrew Mullin acknowledged he had a “slight difference of opinion” regarding the definition of a massing break but agreed that the subjective and objective criteria of the PUD provided sound rationale for requiring the open separations. “I would’ve preferred something closer to the Planning Commission’s version,” he said, “but there isn’t the will of the council to move in that direction, and I support the consensus.”
Following a roll call vote, the council unanimously adopted the resolution. A second vote approved the first reading of Ordinance 849, which updates the official zoning map to reclassify the site from its 1989 designation for office and banking uses to a 2025 PUD district for mixed-use residential and commercial.
“Congratulations to the developer,” Mullin stated. “We wish you well as you bring this project forward to construction.”
Final permitting is expected to proceed later this year, with construction anticipated to begin shortly thereafter. The development joins other transformative lakefront projects such as Panoway, Meyer Place, and The Promenade—redefining the western gateway to downtown Wayzata.
City Manager Jeff Dahl, Interim Police Chief Jamie Baker, Community Development Director Alex Sharp, Councilmember Molly MacDonald, Public Works Director Mike Kelly, Councilmember Ken Sorensen, Mayor Andrew Mullin, and Fire Chief Kevin Klapprich.
WAYZATA — Residents of the central core gathered at The Wayzata Depot on Monday evening for a public listening session led by MayorAndrew Mullin, City Manager Jeff Dahl, and members of the Wayzata City Council and staff. The event aimed to deepen community engagement and foster direct dialogue on key city priorities, including revenue diversification, public safety, and lakefront improvements.
“Our brand new mayor has made engagement a top priority,” said City Manager Jeff Dahl in his opening remarks. “Events like this show how seriously our elected officials take that responsibility.”
Among those present were longtime Councilmember Molly MacDonald, owner of Highcroft on Lake Street, and Councilmember Ken Sorensen, the council’s newest member, who brings a background in development.
Dahl also introduced key city staff, including Interim Police Chief Jamie Baker, Deputy City Manager Aurora Yager, Community Development Director Alex Sharp, Public Works Director and City Engineer Mike Kelly, Fire Chief Kevin Klapprich—who was recognized for over 46 years of service—and Communications Coordinator Liv Marandino.
The city’s legislative priorities took center stage as Dahl outlined plans for a local option sales tax and a potential food and beverage tax to reduce dependency on property taxes. “We’re working to capture some of the revenue generated by visitors to help offset the cost of police, public works, and keeping our city safe and clean,” said Dahl. He noted that state approval would be required and that upcoming engagement sessions will be held next week to gather feedback from residents and business owners.
Other discussion topics included updates to Wayzata’s short-term rental ordinance, with the city now exploring additional regulations following concerns about neighborhood disruption.
On the Panoway front, Dahl provided an update on the lake walk, noting that redesigned dock bumpers will be piloted in coming weeks to better protect boats. He also announced that long-anticipated step-down platforms—allowing public access to the lake—will be installed shortly.
City Manager Jeff Dahl shared an encouraging update on the Section Foreman House restoration, describing it as “the most shovel-ready project we have.” According to Dahl, all design work is complete, and a significant portion of the necessary funding has already been secured. The city is currently awaiting additional private contributions or the approval of a state bonding bill to move forward. Once finalized, the long-anticipated project would restore the historic lakefront structure as a public asset, reinforcing Wayzata’s commitment to preservation and placemaking.
Public Safety
Interim Police Chief Jamie Baker concluded the session by addressing seasonal public safety concerns as summer activity ramps up in Wayzata.
Interim Police Chief Jamie Baker addressed current staffing levels, enforcement priorities, and ongoing public safety efforts as Wayzata enters the busy summer season.
“I’m Jamie Baker, the Interim Police Chief for the City of Wayzata,” she said. “I’ve been with the department for about three years and bring 21 years of prior law enforcement experience.”
Baker reported that the department currently has 15 sworn officers, with a full complement of 18 positions. “Due to recent retirements—including our former chief and a sergeant—we’re temporarily below full strength, but we’re actively working to fill those roles,” she said. “That includes the hiring of a new sergeant and a permanent Police Chief.”
Join the Wayzata Police Department: Now Hiring Officers
In addition, the city is onboarding three new Community Service Officers (CSOs), with training expected to be completed by early summer.
Baker emphasized the importance of community involvement in maintaining safety. “While our officers are committed and responsive, they can’t be everywhere at once,” she said. “We rely on residents to be our eyes and ears. If there are recurring issues, especially in specific locations, please call us with details like dates and times. That makes all the difference in how effectively we can respond.”
A growing concern across the metro, she noted, is the misuse of electric bikes and scooters—particularly among juveniles. “We’re not alone in this,” she said. “Every agency in the area is dealing with it. That’s why we’re drafting a citywide ordinance tailored to e-bikes and e-scooters. It’s critical we get the language right so we can enforce it properly.”
Chief Baker also reminded residents to call 911—not the city’s non-emergency number or email—for anything that seems suspicious or requires a timely response. “It might seem unusual, but the same dispatchers answer both lines,” she explained. “911 ensures your concern is prioritized and acted on immediately. Emails, on the other hand, are not monitored in real time.”
She closed with an update on a new security feature coming to the Mill Street parking ramp. “For those who live above the ramp, you’ve likely noticed some late-night activity over the years. We’ve approved and ordered a security gate to limit access after hours. It should be installed within the next month.”
City Engineer on Infrastructure
City Engineer Mike Kelly provided a brief update on key infrastructure projects underway in Wayzata this season, most of which are focused on maintenance. “Most of what we’re doing this year involves mill and overlay work—removing the surface layer of the street and repaving it,” Kelly explained.
One active project includes a water main replacement and resurfacing in the East Neighborhood—specifically on Hampton Street, LaSalle Street, Wise Avenue, and Central Avenue. Broadway Avenue, north of Wayzata Boulevard, is also undergoing improvements. “If you experienced delays last week, it was related to that intersection project and the installation of a new traffic signal,” he noted, estimating completion in about three weeks.
Looking ahead, Kelly flagged a major Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) project scheduled for next year: resurfacing Highway 12 from I-494. “There will be delays, and we want residents to be aware that it will impact travel through the area,” he said.
Quality of Life Issues Addressed by Mayor Mullin
Mayor Andrew Mullin took the mic to thank residents for showing up. “It’s encouraging to see so many people here,” he said. “We’ve heard that formal community meetings can feel intimidating, so we’re trying new formats like this one—and others across neighborhoods—to make it easier for residents to speak up.”
Mullin also highlighted his informal monthly meetups at Wayzata Bar & Grill. “On the second Monday of each month, I’ll be there for anyone who wants to talk—whether over a beer or water,” he said.
Mullin addressed the community’s growing frustration with traffic, noise, public disturbances, and late-night behavior. “We’re hearing you loud and clear,” he said. “More people bring more problems, and we’re taking it seriously.” He pointed to new investments in police staffing, including increased patrols, community service officers on foot and bike, and even a reserve officer scheduled to start this summer. “He’s actually a urologist by profession, and he’ll be helping report issues while biking the city,” Mullin added.
In addition to increased staffing, the city has raised fines for various ordinance violations. “Exhibition driving, public drinking, noise—if you get cited twice for something like exhibition driving, it’s now a mandatory court appearance and a $1,000 fine,” Mullin said. “We’re sending a clear message that we will not tolerate behavior that degrades quality of life in Wayzata.”
Mullin concluded with a candid acknowledgment: “I’m not going to pretend we’ve solved it all. But we’re taking specific, meaningful steps to address your concerns.”
Public Engagement and Resident Feedback
Following city updates, the evening transitioned into an open forum where residents had the opportunity to ask questions and share concerns directly with city staff and councilmembers. Community members raised a range of issues—many focused on livability, enforcement, and neighborhood integrity. Councilmembers Molly MacDonald and Ken Sorensen remained on hand to field questions, while staff members provided clarification on policies, ongoing projects, and next steps.
Following city updates, the evening transitioned into an open forum where residents had the opportunity to ask questions and share concerns directly with city staff and councilmembers. Community members raised a range of issues—many focused on livability, enforcement, and neighborhood integrity. Councilmembers Molly MacDonald and Ken Sorensen remained on hand to field questions, while staff members provided clarification on policies, ongoing projects, and next steps.
City leaders reiterated their commitment to transparency and responsiveness. Residents were encouraged to attend upcoming meetings, submit feedback through official channels, and continue participating in the city’s evolving engagement efforts.
A packed house at Gleason Lake Elementary: every seat filled as Wayzata and Plymouth residents gather for a joint safety meeting on neighborhood traffic and pedestrian concerns. Submitted photo.
PLYMOUTH — More than 100 residents gathered Monday evening at Gleason Lake Elementary for a community safety meeting focused on pedestrian and traffic concerns along County Road 101 between Highway 12 and Gleason Lake Elementary, near the Wayzata–Plymouth border. The event brought together a wide range of public officials and agency staff, signaling renewed momentum toward collaborative solutions for a complex, multi-jurisdictional area.
Neighborhoods represented included Hollybrook, Shady Lane, Harmony Circle, Pond Ridge, and Waycliffe in Wayzata, along with Kingswood Farms in Plymouth. Together, these communities share school zoning, trail access, and traffic corridors—yet they’ve long faced challenges tied to speed, volume, and infrastructure inconsistencies across city lines.
According to WayzataMayorAndrew Mullin, 104 residents attended the meeting, along with 16 representatives from partner agencies and units of government. Those in attendance included officials from Wayzata Public Schools, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Three Rivers Park District, the City of Plymouth, and the City of Wayzata.
Plymouth Mayor Jeffry Wosje and three members of the Plymouth City Council joined the discussion, along with Wayzata Council Members Ken Sorensen and Jeff Parkhill, State Senator Amy Johnson Stewart, and Hennepin County Commissioner Heather Edelson.
The meeting provided a forum for residents to share lived experiences and propose solutions related to safety, walkability, and transportation flow. Concerns centered on student routes, regional trail crossings, and the need for coordinated traffic-calming measures.
In speaking with him after the meeting, Mayor Mullin shared that he was encouraged by the strong turnout and hopeful that the collective engagement would help prompt forward progress among agency partners.
Residents voiced a range of specific safety concerns during the meeting, many of them centered around traffic patterns and crossings near Gleason Lake Elementary.
Residents also raised concerns about driver speed along the corridor and cited the recent removal of a static “No Turn on Red” sign at the Highway 12 westbound off-ramp. They say the change has led to a noticeable increase in near-misses and unsafe exits from neighborhoods like Hollybrook.
While no formal decisions were made, the gathering marked a significant step toward interagency coordination. Discussions included options for enhanced pedestrian crossings, safer street design, and long-term infrastructure planning.
Follow-up conversations are anticipated as officials evaluate potential design concepts, jurisdictional roles, and funding strategies. Residents are encouraged to stay engaged as the cities and partner agencies work together on next steps.
Samantha Capen Muldoon, representing the Muldoon family and Dray Trustee, LLC, alongside attorney Patrick Steinhoff of Malkerson, Gunn Martin LLP, at the Wayzata City Council meeting on April 15, 2025.
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, 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…”
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.