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.
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.
The Wayzata City Council voted unanimously on August 19 to approve Resolution 20-2025, officially creating a permanent Public Art Committee to oversee and advise on art installations throughout the city.
The decision follows nearly a year of work by the Public Art Steering Committee, established in September 2024 to explore whether a standing body should be formed. That group—chaired by Councilmember Alex Plechash and including Councilmember Molly MacDonald along with residents Joanie Cunningham, Roger Miller, and Judd Nelson—met five times in 2025 before unanimously approving draft bylaws for the new committee.
City staff highlighted that the initiative was included in the 2024–2026 Strategic Plan as a priority under the goal of sustaining community character and safety. Interim City Manager Mike Kelly and Parks and Environment Planner Nick Kieser explained that, until now, Wayzata relied on a 2015 policy that created ad hoc art committees for individual projects, such as the “Big Water” sculpture at the Lake Street roundabout. The new committee will provide ongoing guidance and a more cohesive approach.
Under its bylaws, the Public Art Committee’s mission is to “advance a cohesive, elegant, and community-oriented public art program that enhances the city’s identity, quality of life, and cultural vibrancy.” Responsibilities include developing a long-term public art plan, advising on placement and maintenance of art in city spaces, reviewing art in private development applications, and helping secure funding through grants and partnerships. Membership will consist of five to seven appointees, serving staggered three-year terms, with eligibility extended to residents, business owners, artists, civic leaders, and student representatives.
Councilmember Molly MacDonald praised the collaborative work that led to the resolution’s adoption, noting the range of voices on the steering committee—including local artists and residents with public service experience. “I’m enthusiastically endorsing this, I can’t wait to vote yes on it,” she said during deliberations. She added that Councilmember Plechash, who chaired the steering group, “has been looking forward to this and excited about [it] for quite some time”.
With the resolution now in place, the city will begin advertising committee openings this fall alongside other board and commission seats. The first Public Art Committee meetings are expected to be scheduled in 2026. To support future projects, the Council has also allocated $100,000 to a new Public Art Capital Improvement Fund.
Mayor Andrew Mullin thanked the steering committee and staff for their leadership and affirmed that the permanent committee will play a key role in strengthening Wayzata’s cultural identity.
Stay tuned to Wayzata.com for updates on the call for applications and upcoming public art initiatives.
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 on July 1, the Wayzata City Council approved a full exemption for golf courses from the city’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, clearing a regulatory path for ongoing renovations at both Woodhill Country Club and Wayzata Country Club.
The decision follows nearly two years of dialogue between Woodhill officials and city staff. Golf course representatives argued the ordinance—which was designed to regulate tree removal by residential developers—created excessive costs and delays for institutions with proven land stewardship practices.
“We have two golf courses in our community… They are both very highly regarded,” said Councilmember Ken Sorensen. “I think if you’ve got attention to that environment at all, courses—especially these—are extremely good stewards of their properties.”
Why the Change?
Adopted in 2022, Wayzata’s current Tree Preservation Ordinance aimed to combat mass clear-cutting by requiring replacement plantings, steep per-inch fees for tree removal, and multi-year escrow deposits. While this has worked in residential neighborhoods, golf courses say it presents a burdensome and inappropriate fit for large-scale green institutions.
“This tree ordinance is designed for residential development, [but] now treats us like a subdivision project,” said Erik Tolzmann, Woodhill’s Building and Grounds Superintendent. “We’ve experienced a number of failures from a fallen tree, multiple near-miss incidents, and just recently had a very large limb fall dangerously close to members…”
Tolzmann added: “We need the authority to make safety decisions quickly and effectively without bureaucratic impediments.”
Mayor Mullin Clarifies: Safety Always Comes First
While golf course leaders argued the ordinance delayed preventative action, Mayor Andrew Mullin clarified that the ordinance already permits emergency removals: “There is a failure clause which says… we will never penalize the tree manager for making a safety-based call.” He emphasized that dangerous limbs or trees may be removed at any time, regardless of ordinance procedures.
Three Options, One Clear Vote
Council reviewed three possible ordinance amendments:
Option One – A full exemption from all fees and requirements.
Option Two – A case-by-case exemption, with reduced fees and a required tree plan.
Option Three – A Planning Commission-recommended hybrid requiring a detailed Tree Management Plan for long-term exemption.
Ultimately, the Council unanimously passed Option One. Councilmember Molly MacDonald noted the importance of being able to revisit the decision if needed: “If something goes wrong, can we change that? … If you guys start not managing your property right, we need to have some sort of repercussion.”
City Manager Jeff Dahl confirmed: “Council can always come back and amend the code.”
Historic Stewards of the Land
Founded in 1915, Woodhill Country Club has maintained its 140-acre grounds along Lake Minnetonka for more than a century. Wayzata Country Club, established in 1956, is also in the midst of major renovations. Both clubs operate across city borders and maintain thousands of mature trees, often with certified arborists and national consultants.
“I also am very proud of our tree preservation ordinance,” said Councilmember Alex Plechash. “But we were thinking entirely about residences… I think you know where I’m going with this. I kind of like option number one.”
Councilmember Molly MacDonald agreed with the direction but floated the idea of a one-time park dedication fee for institutional exemptions. “It doesn’t quite seem fair [to exempt them entirely],” she said. “Maybe consider a one-time fee to cover staff time or offer the public a good.”
Even so, support for a full exemption remained strong. Councilmember Jeff Parkhill noted: “I would say option one… You guys are qualified to manage your own properties. You’re incented in the right way.”
What’s Next
The exemption applies to all golf courses within Wayzata city limits—currently Woodhill and Wayzata Country Club—and is expected to serve as a model for how similar communities handle the intersection of environmental policy and institutional land use.
Final adoption of the amendment will take place at a second reading later this month.
New construction home at 617 Park Street East in Wayzata.
WAYZATA — Despite a Planning Commission recommendation to deny the request, the Wayzata City Council voted 4–1 on May 20 to move forward with approving a variance for a home under construction at 617 Park Street East. Councilmember Molly MacDonald cast the only vote against the measure.
The variance relates to a one-foot encroachment by roof eaves into the east side yard setback. Under city code, eaves are allowed to extend two and a half feet into a side yard; in this case, they extend three and a half feet. While the home’s walls meet the required 10-foot setback, the overhanging eaves exceed the allowed projection.
City staff acknowledged the error was missed during the permit review process. Crucially, the plans submitted by Custom One Homes, a Woodbury-based builder, were never compliant with city code. Staff said the building elevations showed the extended eaves, but those dimensions weren’t reconciled with the setback requirements shown on the survey.
“It was a miss—by both staff and the builder,” stated Development Director Alex Sharpe. “But it should have been caught. The submitted plans simply didn’t comply.”
Bob Jossart speaks to the Wayzata City Council.
Property owner Bob Jossart, who is building the home for himself, told the council the error was unintentional. “The design we approved should have been compliant,” he said. “If the house were one foot farther to the west, we wouldn’t be here. I’m sorry we’re in this position.”
Wayzata Council Moves to Approve Controversial Variance at 617 Park Street East
The Planning Commission voted 4–3 to recommend denial. While one neighbor submitted a letter of opposition, the neighbor most directly affected by the encroachment expressed reluctant support. Several councilmembers said they believed the variance request was reasonable given the narrow scope of the encroachment and the lack of strong neighborhood opposition.
“I appreciate the homeowner’s transparency,” said Councilmember Alex Plechash. “There was no intent to deceive, and there’s no easy fix at this point that wouldn’t diminish the integrity of the home.”
Councilmember MacDonald took a firmer stance. “This is the largest, flattest lot on the block,” she said. “There was every opportunity to build a compliant home. We’ve been studying this zoning district closely for compatibility and scale, and I just don’t believe this variance meets the standards.”
Neighbors Support Variance—But Criticize Builder Conduct
Mayor Andrew Mullin noted that adjacent neighbors, including Gareth Goodall as well as Sarah & Elliot Randall, urged the council to approve the variance despite serious concerns with the builder’s conduct. Mullin said both households were frustrated by what they described as Custom One Homes being “tone deaf,” inattentive to neighbor concerns, and generally unresponsive during construction—citing issues with parking, communication, and a lack of courtesy.
“They were emphatic that they want this project to move forward,” said Mullin. “But they were also clear that they’ve had a difficult experience with the builder and felt their concerns were dismissed.”
Next Steps
The council directed staff to draft findings of fact and a resolution to approve the variance, which will be brought back at the next regular meeting. If approved, the variance will legalize the existing eave overhang despite it exceeding the city’s allowable encroachment limit by 12 inches.
Concept rendering of the Retreat in Wayzata. Image courtesy SPERIDES REINERS ARCHITECTS, INC..
WAYZATA — The Wayzata City Council voted unanimously Tuesday evening to approve a conditional use permit (CUP) amendment and design deviation allowing The Retreat, a long-standing residential recovery center, to rebuild and expand its men’s wing.
Located at 1221 Wayzata Boulevard East, The Retreat sits on 7.44 acres nestled within the Big Woods and protected in part by a Minnesota Land Trust conservation easement. The center has operated in Wayzata since 2003 and has helped more than 33,000 individuals in recovery, according to its president and CEO John Curtis.
The proposal includes demolishing the existing west wing of the main building and replacing it with a new three-story structure, adding a third story to a previously two-story section, and incorporating modernized amenities such as rooftop mechanical equipment—screened and set back to minimize visibility. The project does not increase the facility’s capacity, which remains at 91 residents.
City Planner Eric Zweber explained the design fits within the city’s institutional zoning guidelines for height, setbacks, and use. A design deviation was needed only because rooftop mechanicals are not normally permitted in the Bluff District, though they would be allowed under other nearby zoning classifications. Staff noted the equipment would not be visible from outside the property.
The Retreat also updated its landscaping plan after a revised tree preservation review revealed a healthy 29.5-inch sugar maple would not survive construction. To meet city ordinance, the facility will plant 60 inches’ worth of new trees, exceeding the required replacement.
Council members praised the facility and its partnership with the city.
“This is a really special partnership,” said Mayor Andrew Mullin. Council Member Molly MacDonald echoed the sentiment, calling The Retreat one of Wayzata’s most exceptional institutions.
Curtis emphasized the organization’s ongoing commitment to architectural integrity, noting that their design team has been with them since their early projects. “We want it to look like it’s always been there,” he said.
With the approval of Resolution 14-2025, The Retreat will move forward with construction, subject to compliance with all city codes and the revised landscape plan. No public comments were received in opposition.
History of the Retreat
The Retreat sits on the historic Greenridge Estate, a 7.4-acre site tucked within Wayzata’s Big Woods. Originally built as a private home in 1934, it later became the Cenacle Woods, operated by Catholic nuns for decades. In 2003, it was purchased by The Retreat, which has continued the property’s legacy of reflection and healing as a residential recovery center.
The property is part of the protected Wayzata Big Woods—a rare remnant of native forest preserved through a Minnesota Land Trust conservation easement. This protection, championed by local residents, limits development and ensures the woods remain untouched. Any changes, like the recent men’s wing rebuild, must comply with strict environmental standards to preserve the site’s natural beauty and quiet character.
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.