WAYZATA — The Wayzata City Council is scheduled to meet in closed session Monday, May 5, as the city weighs its legal options following a Hennepin County judge’s ruling that voided Wayzata’s short-term rental ban, including whether to appeal the decision.
According to a closed meeting notice posted April 28, the special meeting will be held at 5 p.m. under the attorney-client privilege exception to Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law. The notice says the meeting will allow the council to meet with its attorneys to “review, and candidly and openly discuss” confidential and privileged matters related to two pending short-term rental lawsuits.
The May 5 meeting marks the second closed meeting the council has held on the issue since a Hennepin County judge voided the city’s short-term rental ban earlier this spring.
The litigation involves two cases brought by property owners against the City of Wayzata. The first names Adlon C. Adams, 225 Manitoba Ave LLC, Olivia A. Adams, Wayzata Cottage LLC, and Robert C. Fisher, as trustee of the Robert C. Fisher Trust dated July 8, 2016, as plaintiffs and petitioners. The second names Jeffrey Lee Holmers, 306 Barry Ave N LLC, Scott Tripps, 1020 Lake Street E LLC, Anna Ovsyannikova, and Yevgeniy Ogranovich as plaintiffs and petitioners.
The latest closed session follows a March 30 ruling by Hennepin County Judge Joseph R. Klein, who held that Wayzata’s Ordinance 852 functioned as a zoning ordinance and was void because the city did not follow the procedures required for zoning changes. The ordinance had been adopted in 2025 to prohibit rentals of fewer than 30 consecutive days in licensed rental dwellings.
The council previously met in closed session on April 7 after approving an emergency interim ordinance imposing a 12-month moratorium on new short-term rentals. That measure passed 4-1, with Mayor Andrew Mullin casting the lone dissenting vote.
The May 5 meeting is closed to the public because it concerns attorney-client communications related to pending litigation. No public action is expected during the closed portion of the meeting.
Proposal would have divided two existing residential lots into four single-family lots
The Wayzata City Council voted 3-2 on April 21 to deny a proposed subdivision at 190 Gleason Lake Road and 121 Gleahaven Road, rejecting a plan that would have divided two existing residential lots into four single-family lots in the Gleahaven neighborhood.
The application was submitted by Lake West Development LLC on behalf of property owner Dave Heil. The two parcels sit near the southeast corner of Gleason Lake Road, also known as County Road 15, and Gleahaven Road.
Community Development Director Alex Sharpe told the council the property is guided low-density residential, allowing one to three units per acre, and is zoned R-3, Single and Two Family Residential District.
“The proposal would still meet that maximum density,” Sharpe said.
Sharpe also said the proposed lots met the R-3 zoning requirements for minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, lot coverage and impervious surface coverage. Because the property is within the Shoreland Overlay District, he said the proposal also included stormwater treatment facilities to address impervious surface requirements.
But the denial did not turn simply on whether the proposal met zoning standards. Instead, council members weighed the city’s broader subdivision ordinance, which allows consideration of possible adverse effects, including neighborhood character, lot size, scale, pattern, grading and property values.
City Attorney David G. Schelzel clarified that the property’s zoning was not in dispute.
“I don’t think there’s any question that that is the zoning now,” Schelzel said. “We may not know exactly when it happened or why there was a change, but it’s been reaffirmed and recodified. That is legally what the zoning district is.”
The Planning Commission previously reviewed the proposal and recommended denial. Sharpe said the commission’s recommendation came after significant discussion of the city’s subdivision criteria.
The Planning Commission’s concerns included whether the four-lot subdivision would fit the existing scale, pattern and character of the neighborhood. Sharpe noted that the proposed lots would be smaller than most of the lots in the surrounding 11-parcel Gleahaven Road neighborhood.
“The majority of the lots within the 11 lot subdivision neighborhood would be larger than the subject parcels proposed,” Sharpe said.
The applicant had held a neighborhood meeting Feb. 2, which was not required but was recommended by staff. The City Council tabled the matter in March at the applicant’s request, allowing time for additional neighborhood outreach. A second neighborhood meeting was held April 9.
Sharpe said public comments received by the city centered on increased density, tree removal, reduced property values and negative effects on neighborhood character.
Public comments submitted to the city largely opposed the subdivision. A petition from Gleahaven Road residents asked the council to deny the application and requested a moratorium on future proposals until the city could further review why the street is zoned R-3 rather than R-2. The petition cited concerns about tree removal, grading, drainage, density, neighborhood character, lot size, traffic and possible property-value impacts.
The petition argued that the proposed lots, averaging 15,363 square feet, were substantially smaller than the historic pattern of the neighborhood. Residents wrote that, before the 2013 subdivision across the street, the average lot size in the neighborhood was 26,136 square feet. Even after that subdivision, they said the average lot size was 23,664 square feet.
Ryan Schultz, of 108 Gleahaven Road, wrote that his family chose the neighborhood for its “quiet streets, low density, and mature tree canopy.” Schultz argued that meeting minimum zoning standards “is not the same as being appropriate for this location,” and raised concerns about school-bus safety near Gleahaven Road and Gleason Lake Road.
Michelle Schultz, also of 108 Gleahaven Road, wrote that the proposal would “fundamentally and permanently alter” the neighborhood’s low-density, heavily treed character. She argued that the increase in density, loss of mature trees, traffic impacts and changes to views would negatively affect nearby property values.
Kumar and Kathy Das Gupta, of 110 Gleahaven Road, wrote that the street is a “quiet cul de sac” with a natural, serene atmosphere, privacy and varied architecture. They said four homes near the corner could add an estimated eight to 10 vehicles entering and exiting multiple times per day near an intersection they described as already difficult for pedestrians, children and dog walkers.
Pete Trinh and Morgan Kaufman, of 167 Gleahaven Road, wrote that their young family opposed the proposal because they believed it would take away from the established cul-de-sac and increase traffic near Gleason Lake Road. They wrote that it is already “scary” to walk as a family, walk a dog or cross the street.
Dan Poss.
Neighbor Dan Poss, who said he lives at 133 Gleahaven Road adjacent to the proposed development, urged the council to look beyond technical compliance and consider the established feel of the cul-de-sac.
“Our neighborhood is unique,” Poss said.
Poss said Gleahaven Road has long had a low-density feel, with about 10 homes on roughly six acres before a previous subdivision in 2013.
“To say it’s not going to change the character of the neighborhood, that’s a pretty subjective statement to make,” Poss said. “And I would say, of course, it’s going to change the character of the neighborhood. Some for the positive, of course. New homes. They look real shiny and nice. But from a density standpoint, it’s going to be tremendously character changing.”
Poss said he was not opposed to all redevelopment, but suggested three homes as a possible compromise. “My compromise would be three homes,” Poss said.
Council Members Alex Plechash, Molly MacDonald and Ken Sorensen supported the denial, pointing to the Planning Commission’s findings and the proposal’s fit within the existing neighborhood.
MacDonald said she saw a disconnect between the R-3 zoning designation and the actual character of the Gleahaven neighborhood.
“This doesn’t feel like an R-3 neighborhood,” MacDonald said, adding that she would support taking a closer look at the zoning history of the area.
MacDonald said adding four lots to the area would have a lasting impact.
“To add another four lots to that feels like it would change the character of this neighborhood forever,” MacDonald said.
Sorensen said he is typically supportive of property rights and credited Lake West for trying to develop a workable plan. But he said he could not get past the shape and layout of the proposed lots.
“The issue I can’t shake a bit though is the shape of these lots,” Sorensen said.
Sorensen said the existing cul-de-sac includes wider and pie-shaped lots that create more space between homes, contributing to what he called a “very pleasant area.” He said the proposed four-lot subdivision would place homes much closer together than the existing pattern.
“While it does comply with many of the criteria of the subdivision ordinance, it doesn’t make it always appropriate,” Sorensen said.
Sorensen said he agreed with the Planning Commission’s conclusion that the proposal would create adverse effects, particularly because of how the new lots would affect the scale, pattern and character of the neighborhood.
“If it were something less than four lots, it would be much more — I think many issues we talked about would probably go away,” Sorensen said.
Curt Fretham.
Developer Curt Fretham told the council Lake West believed it had brought forward a fully compliant proposal. He said the applicant was willing to discuss lowering grades on the site, even though doing so would require hauling material away and add cost.
“We brought what we thought was a fully compliant plan,” Fretham said.
Fretham said the developer tried to avoid asking for variances or exceptions. “I’m not touching this project unless it is absolutely completely conforming,” Fretham said.
Council Member Dan Koch said he understood the neighborhood character concerns, but had difficulty supporting denial when the proposal appeared to meet the city’s zoning and guidance.
“I agree about character of neighborhoods and trying to maintain the character of neighborhoods,” Koch said. “There’s probably, I guess everybody has probably some different opinions of what that means.”
Koch said market forces can also change neighborhoods over time as homes turn over, are torn down and rebuilt under existing zoning rules. “When you look at it on the facts and no variances conforms with every piece of zoning and guidance, I have a tough time denying it because of the facts,” Koch said.
Mayor Andrew Mullin also framed the issue as a difficult balance between property rights and the city’s subdivision standards.
“I’m generally a pro-property rights person,” Mullin said. “And I struggle when you are balancing subjective criteria.”
Schelzel said the subdivision ordinance differs from the zoning ordinance and requires officials to consider possible adverse effects when reviewing a preliminary plat. “The key thing that the ordinance calls out is that you’re supposed to consider possible adverse effects,” Schelzel said. “And so by its nature, it’s sort of a judgment call.”
Ultimately, a majority (3-2) of the council sided with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and adopted Resolution 14-2026 denying the preliminary plat. The decision blocks the proposed four-lot subdivision, leaving the two existing parcels in place for the time being.
In a Feb. 23 letter to the city, Lake West’s attorney argued that the city’s broader subdivision criteria must be applied consistently with the objective standards in its zoning code.
The most obvious legal tension, if the denial is challenged in court, would likely be whether Wayzata’s more subjective subdivision criteria — including neighborhood “character” and “scale” — can support denial of a project that the applicant says met the city’s measurable zoning, density and grading requirements.
Brunken Consulting to assist with newsletters, social media, and website updates during staffing transition
The Wayzata City Council approved a professional services agreement with Brunken Consulting, LLC for temporary communications support as part of its consent agenda at the April 21, 2026, council meeting.
The agreement is intended to help fill a short-term staffing gap in the city’s Administration Department. According to the agenda report prepared by City Manager Aurora Yager, the department currently has vacancies in the Deputy City Manager, HR Generalist, and Communications Coordinator positions. While those roles are expected to be filled, staff indicated there is an immediate need for day-to-day communications support that cannot be effectively absorbed by the city manager or existing staff.
Under the agreement, Brunken Consulting will provide approximately 10 hours of support per week for about 16 weeks. The work is expected to include assistance with the Wayzata Weekly, Portal Newsletter, social media posts, and website updates.
The contract authorizes payment of $5,800 per month, with a total not to exceed $29,000. The agenda report states that the estimated cost is about $3,300 less than what the city had budgeted for the Communications Coordinator position over the same period.
The professional services agreement became effective April 22, 2026. Michelle Brunken is listed as the contractor’s main point of contact, while the city manager is listed as the city’s main point of contact.
Because the item was approved on the consent agenda, it passed without separate council discussion during the meeting. Staff had recommended approval of the agreement as presented.
Council approves development agreement 4-1; rezoning and easement vacation pass unanimously
The Wayzata City Council approved key agreements for the proposed Walser Lamborghini dealership on April 21, but not without a split over how tightly the city should define and control the use.
The council voted 4-1 to approve the Planned Unit Development agreement for the project at 1022 and 1042 Wayzata Boulevard East, with Council Member Molly MacDonald opposed. The council then voted 5-0 to approve the first reading of Ordinance 860, rezoning the property from C-3 Service District to PUD Planned Unit Development District, and 5-0 to approve the vacation of drainage and utility easements tied to the redevelopment.
The proposal would allow Walser Real Estate, LLC to redevelop the former Mulberrys Dry Cleaning site into a Lamborghini dealership with a showroom, service bays, customer lounges, office space, surface and underground parking, and related site improvements. The property includes two parcels totaling approximately 0.88 acres at the southeast corner of Wayzata Boulevard East and Central Avenue South.
The debate centered on a late-stage request from Walser to remove language related to the volume of vehicles shown, sold and serviced at the site — language city officials had included after earlier Planning Commission and City Council discussions about intensity of use.
According to the city’s agenda report, Resolution 12-2026 included a condition requiring the development agreement to address “the volume of cars shown, sold, and serviced.” Staff noted that both the Planning Commission and City Council had emphasized the importance of regulating intensity of use on the parcel during earlier review.
Walser pushed back on that condition in an April 7 letter to the city, arguing that a monthly vehicle sales or service cap is not an appropriate land-use regulation.
“Sales volume is an economic and operational metric, not a land-use characteristic,” Walser stated in the letter.
Walser argued that the project already includes enforceable controls tied to the site and operation, including limited building size, no more than six service bays, indoor vehicle inventory, restricted hours, predetermined test-drive routes, noise and lighting requirements, landscaping, fencing, buffering and a neighborhood liaison.
Community Development Director Alex Sharpe presented the council with several options: approve the development agreement with Walser’s requested removal of the volume condition, approve it without the requested changes, or direct the applicant, staff and city attorney to draft alternative language addressing vehicles shown, serviced and sold without numerical limits. Staff noted that regulating intensity of use could be more difficult without numerical thresholds or other objectively verifiable data.
MacDonald said her concern was not about limiting Walser’s success, but about understanding the actual impact of the use on a small city with nearby residential areas.
“As some of you may know, I am in retail, so I also can’t imagine someone telling me that I couldn’t sell the amount that I set a goal to sell,” MacDonald said. “So I just want to explain why that information feels relevant to me to understand what the impact of a car dealership is.”
MacDonald also said she viewed the proposed use as a car dealership, regardless of how narrowly the applicant described it.
“You guys all don’t kind of think of it as a car dealership,” MacDonald said. “Some place where you buy a car, service a car, and trade it your used car, that’s a car dealership.”
She said one of the most frequent complaints she hears from constituents involves loud vehicles.
“The other thing looming in my head is the feedback I get the most often complaint from my constituents is noisy, loud vehicles,” MacDonald said.
MacDonald said Wayzata already has a “car kind of culture” near Lake Street, which she said is a concern for some residents. She said that was part of why she wanted more information about expected volume.
“That’s why I’ve been trying to get a handle on this volume because of the disruption this kind of car brings to a small town of one and half square miles, 4,500 people,” MacDonald said.
She also questioned whether the use belonged in that location.
“So it’s not about trying to keep you from doing good, positive business,” MacDonald said. “It’s trying to decide if that good, positive business deserves, or should be — not deserves, pardon me — belongs in a central core lot next to a very difficult road that’s hard to navigate.”
MacDonald raised a separate concern about language that appeared to broaden the agreement beyond Lamborghini by referring more generally to “exotic” vehicles. She questioned who would define that term if the property or operation changed in the future.
“There was a definition on the screen of what exotic meant, but I wonder whose definition is of that?” MacDonald said. “Is that a universal definition of exotic?”
She said the proposed change from Lamborghini-specific language gave her pause.
“The whole time it’s been Lamborghini, Lamborghini, Lamborghini,” MacDonald said. “And now today, or this packet, it’s well maybe exotic. So that to me, all this has felt a little bit of a withholding situation. That’s why I really struggled with it.”
Mayor Andrew Mullin supported the agreement as presented and said he was comfortable with the rezoning and easement vacation.
“I’m fine with the rezoning. I’m fine with the vacation. Take that off the table,” Mullin said.
On the PUD agreement, Mullin pointed to language allowing used vehicle sales only when ancillary to a new vehicle sales franchise. He said that provision helped address concerns that the site could become a mass-market dealership or used car lot.
“That takes off the table, mass market, Toyota, Kia, all of those,” Mullin said.
Mullin also said the site’s size and land cost make a high-dollar-volume use more likely than a high-unit-volume dealership.
“Really, you have to have a lot of high volume dollar, dollar volume, not unit volume, right, to make it work under any scenario,” Mullin said. “I don’t see it.”
If the site were to shift to a different future use, Mullin said, it would likely become something other than a used car lot.
“If it does move into a different future use, it’s likely to be a different use, not a used car lot,” Mullin said. “And this language gives me comfort.”
Mullin also pointed to drainage and regrading improvements as a benefit to the neighborhood, saying the area has had long-standing runoff issues affecting nearby properties.
“That is a huge benefit to the neighborhood,” Mullin said. “And without having private dollars in investment to remedy that, that’s been a longstanding 25 or probably longer than that issue with that embankment and the drainage and the runoff that’s been really problematic for the neighborhood.”
Neighboring property owner Greg Hoglund also spoke in support of the development. Hoglund said he owns property next to the site and has attended previous meetings on the proposal.
“It’s my understanding, I’ve heard several times that this is a boutique dealership and they sell less than 50 cars a year,” Hoglund said. “That may be accurate or not, but I am not concerned about the volume.”
Hoglund said he found it unusual that the council was reviewing redlines to a development agreement during the meeting and questioned whether similar requirements would be placed on other retailers.
“I just went to, I’m trying to think of Walgreens across the street,” Hoglund said. “Is there language in Walgreens that says how many customers will be coming through this on a daily basis?”
He said he did not understand the basis for requiring sales information in the agreement.
“I cannot fathom, I’m not a lawyer, that there’s precedent where you’re asking a company to list out their sales data in a legal agreement,” Hoglund said.
In its letter to the city, Walser also said the site has been “rough, underutilized, and visibly dilapidated” for nearly two decades and argued that the project would bring significant private reinvestment, new jobs, tax base and a quiet, appointment-driven use to the corridor.
The votes allow the project to continue through the city’s approval process, with the rezoning ordinance still requiring a second reading before taking effect.
The split on the PUD agreement reflected the council’s remaining tension over the site: whether the conditions already in the agreement are enough to protect the surrounding neighborhood, or whether the city should have held more tightly to limits tied to vehicle volume and future use.
Wayzata officials discussed the anticipated impacts of Highway 12 construction during the April 21 City Council meeting, with city leaders warning that the project could affect not only residents and daily commuters, but also visitors trying to reach downtown Wayzata and the businesses that depend on them.
City Manager Aurora Yager said residents should expect changing traffic conditions as the project moves forward, including lane shifts that may change throughout the day.
Yager said the city will work to keep residents informed through its own social media channels and website, but emphasized that MnDOT remains the primary source for the most current construction updates.
“We’re going to try our best on social media and the website to amplify MnDOT’s messages,” Yager said. “But I highly recommend residents sign up on MnDOT’s website to get email notifications about construction updates.”
Yager said MnDOT’s email notifications will be the fastest way for residents, commuters and visitors to learn about changes to construction timelines or traffic impacts.
Mayor Andrew Mullin said the project could have a significant effect on access into Wayzata, particularly if key ramps or roadways are restricted without clear sequencing or adequate advance communication.
He said the city needs more clarity on “the order of the exits that are going to be impacted and when,” noting that the project will affect traffic broadly, but some closures could have a more serious effect than others.
“Everything’s going to be impacted, but when you get to the first two exits and then closing access to Shoreline Drive, that’s where it gets nuclear,” Mullin said.
For residents, the concern is daily mobility: getting to and from home, work, school, errands and appointments. For guests, the issue is whether they can easily understand how to reach downtown Wayzata during construction. And for restaurants, retailers and service businesses, any loss of convenience or clarity could translate directly into fewer visits.
Mullin said he has been hearing from restaurant owners and members of the broader business community who want the city to help communicate alternative routes into town.
“The second request I get from our business community is, is there a way we can get information out there about alternative paths to get into town?” Mullin said.
Mullin suggested the city consider hosting an open house, potentially with assistance from Sen. Julia Coleman Johnson, to create more clarity around the timing of ramp and access closures. He also said the city and county should scenario-plan routes into Wayzata based on the order of construction.
“If we had some understanding of that order, we could say, early in the construction project, please use 112 and return back to the city,” Mullin said. “If 494 is done first, then we could say later in the project, use 494 and coming back through McGinty and Bushaway.”
Mullin said the city does not yet have all of the answers, but said there is “a strong preference in the community” for the county to help scenario-plan access routes so Wayzata can better communicate with residents, visitors and customers.
Image courtesy of Wayzata Beach Bash.com / Rick Born Productions.
The Wayzata City Council approved a special event permit for two concerts as part of James J. Hill Days 2026, restoring a major live-music component many viewed as one of the festival’s signature attractions.
The concerts are planned for Sept. 11 and 12, 2026, in conjunction with James J. Hill Days, with promoter Rick Born and RB Productions proposing two ticketed shows at the Boatworks property. City staff said the event is expected to draw about 2,500 attendees each night and recommended approval with conditions related to security, crowd management, marina and beach access, parking, public safety staffing and noise mitigation.
The approval comes a year after the council denied a similar WAAM Fest proposal for 2025, a decision that reopened broader questions about noise, timing, format and what kind of entertainment belongs within Wayzata’s signature community festival.
Without the concert last year, James J. Hill Days still brought crowds downtown — but to many, the festival felt like it was missing its capstone event. The headlining concerts had the potential to serve as the crown jewel or pinnacle of the weekend, particularly for older teens, young adults and others looking for a marquee nighttime draw tied directly to the celebration.
This year, council’s discussion was less about whether live music belongs as part of James J. Hill Days and more about the conditions under which it should return.
City Manager Aurora Yager told council that staff supported the permit application but recommended a 10:30 p.m. music cutoff. She said the applicant had requested an 11 p.m. permitted end time, while staff’s recommendation reflected complaints tied to recent concerts. Yager noted that previous events had been permitted until 11 p.m. with the understanding that music would generally end around 10:30, but said complaints from 2023 and 2024 led staff to recommend a firmer end time for music this year.
Born told council the request for an 11 p.m. permit was not about routinely pushing the concert later, but about providing flexibility if weather or technical issues delayed the start. He said the intended target remains a 10:30 p.m. finish, adding that “10.35 is probably the average.”
He also explained that the extra time matters financially for an outdoor event. If weather interrupts a show and a headliner cannot perform long enough to satisfy ticket holders, he said, the promoter may still have to pay the artist while also refunding the crowd. “If a headliner artist, that’s what we pay all the money to,” Born said. “And it can be three, four or $500,000.”
One notable part of the discussion involved the kind of lineup Born hopes to bring in this year.
Rather than committing to two nights of the same genre, Born said he is trying to book two different genres of music. “I’d like to have a 1 and 1,” he said, explaining that different music styles attract different audiences. He said that would be his preference, while also noting that booking flexibility remains important as plans come together.
That point addressed one of the lingering tensions from last year’s debate, when the proposed Electronic Dance Music format became part of the council conversation and, for some, part of the controversy.
Several of the same undercurrents remained present this time. Some council members emphasized Born’s long track record in Wayzata and expressed comfort in giving him room to operate, pointing to his experience producing large events and his willingness to adjust based on prior feedback. Others remained cautious about the possibility of repeating two nights of back-to-back EDM-style programming, citing the amount of negative reaction that followed earlier events.
Still, the broader result was clear: the concerts are back as part of James J. Hill Days.
That matters because large-scale live music has long been part of the festival’s identity and its after-dark energy. Last year’s absence made that easier to see. For many attendees, James J. Hill Days without a major concert felt incomplete — a successful community festival, yes, but one missing the big finish.
This year’s approval restores that piece of the weekend while also showing that council is still trying to balance two priorities at once: preserving a major entertainment draw for one of Wayzata’s biggest annual celebrations, while setting conditions that reflect neighborhood concerns and lessons from prior years.
Born also told council that a two-night format is important economically because of the cost of staging an event of this scale. Infrastructure such as fencing, sound, lighting, security and portable restrooms is expensive, he said, and far harder to justify for a one-night-only event.
Several council members said they remained mindful of the noise complaints that followed earlier concerts and acknowledged concern about again fielding calls from residents if sound levels became a problem. Even so, the council ultimately voted 5-0 to approve the permit and bring the concerts back as part of James J. Hill Days 2026.
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.
WAYZATA — The City of Wayzata is taking a fresh look at its park dedication requirements, with City Council members beginning to explore alternative approaches as part of a broader ordinance review.
At issue is how the city calculates park dedication—fees or land contributions required when property is subdivided. The tool is widely used across Minnesota to help fund parks and public spaces. But under state law, those requirements have to be tied to the impact of new development.
“This is really about trying to bring it up to the standards and compliance with state statute…”, stated Community Development Director Alex Sharpe in a March 24th workshop.
The discussion traces back to a January 22nd action, when applicant Dray Trustee formally reserved the right to test the city’s requirements. Rather than wait for a challenge, the Council directed staff to take a closer look.
“The agreement was to reserve the applicant’s right to test the park dedication,” stated Sharpe.
What Wayzata Requires
Under current code, Wayzata requires:
10% of land value for residential development
6% for commercial properties
Those numbers are applied at the time of subdivision. In some cases, land can be dedicated instead of cash, but most of the recent discussion has focused on fees paid in lieu of land.
“What we’re really trying to address… is the fee in lieu of…” stated Sharpe.
Where the Pressure Is Coming From
The structure itself isn’t unusual. What’s drawing attention is how it plays out in a place like Wayzata.
Because the formula is tied directly to land value, the same percentage produces much larger fees here than in most surrounding communities.
In at least one recent example discussed in the materials, the required dedication reached into six figures for a single project. That outcome isn’t an outlier—it’s how the formula works when applied to high-value land.
That’s where the legal question starts to come into focus: whether those numbers still reflect the actual impact of development on the park system.
How Other Cities Do It
A comparison of nearby cities shows just how different these policies can look in practice.
Some cities use flat, per-unit fees:
Shakopee charges about $5,500 per unit
Blaine is closer to $6,500
West St. Paul is around $3,000
Others base it on land area:
Minnetonka uses an acreage model, typically in the $7,000 to $8,000 per acre range
Maple Grove combines acreage, land value, and caps
And some use percentage-based systems, though often at lower levels:
Excelsior applies 3.5% of market value, with a minimum but no cap
Bloomington ties fees to a proportional share of park demand
Against that backdrop, Wayzata’s 10% requirement stands out—not necessarily in structure, but in scale once land values are factored in.
What Happens Next
City staff are now reviewing the ordinance, including how it aligns with state law and how other cities are structuring similar requirements. Any changes would come back to the Council at a future meeting.
For now, no decisions have been made.
But the direction is clear: the city is taking a closer look before the issue is forced by a formal challenge.
At its March 24 workshop, the Wayzata City Council took an initial step toward a possible return of the historic Steamboat Minnehaha, focusing not on a final decision—but on whether there is conceptual support to move the project forward.
A Threshold Question: Is the Council Open?
City Manager Aurora Yager framed the discussion around a simple but pivotal question: whether the Council is open, in concept, to allowing the Minnehaha to operate from Wayzata again—specifically with a home base at the Depot docks.
This early signal is critical. The Lake Minnetonka Historical Society needs direction from the City before advancing fundraising and final logistics.
A Complex Relaunch Plan Taking Shape
The Historical Society outlined a multi-part plan to relaunch the 1906 steamboat by 2027, including:
A winter storage and maintenance facility in Minnetrista, in partnership with Three Rivers Park District
A one-time launch from a site in Excelsior before redevelopment eliminates access
Seasonal operation between Wayzata and Excelsior, as in past years
Overnight docking in Wayzata, which remains the key operational need
Speakers emphasized that aligning all of these moving pieces—funding, launch access, storage, and docking—must happen simultaneously for the project to succeed.
Why Wayzata Matters
Supporters highlighted Wayzata’s historical connection to the vessel:
The Minnehaha was described as having its “birthplace” in Wayzata, reinforcing its symbolic return
Its proximity to the Depot Museum creates a natural cultural anchor on the waterfront
The vessel previously operated successfully from Wayzata for decades
Councilmembers acknowledged its potential to draw visitors and enhance the lakefront experience, with one noting the “indirect benefits” it could bring to the city.
The Core Tension: Limited Dock Space
Charter Boat Slips
The primary concern remains logistics at the Depot docks:
Wayzata has two charter boat slips but issued six licenses in the most recent season
Dedicating one slip to the Minnehaha would significantly constrain other operators
Overnight docking—not daytime use—is the key constraint
Councilmembers expressed support for the concept, but raised fairness concerns about how to balance access among charter operators and avoid congestion.
Council Reaction: Cautious Support
The tone of the discussion leaned positive:
Multiple councilmembers expressed enthusiasm, calling the idea “pretty cool” and emphasizing its historical charm
Others voiced support contingent on resolving scheduling and operational logistics
There was recognition that the boat had operated successfully in Wayzata before, suggesting a path forward is feasible
What Comes Next
No formal action was taken. Instead, the Council signaled general interest while identifying key issues to resolve:
Dock space allocation and scheduling
Coordination with existing charter operators
Final approvals, including LMCD permissions
Most importantly, the Historical Society now has early feedback as it continues fundraising and refining plans.
Bottom Line
The conversation marks a meaningful first step: Wayzata appears open to bringing the Minnehaha home—but only if logistics can match the vision.
WAYZATA — A proposed subdivision at 190 Gleason Lake Road and 121 Gleahaven Road will return to the Wayzata City Council next month after the developer requested additional time to work with nearby residents and address concerns raised during the review process.
During a recent council meeting, city officials noted that the applicant’s attorney had requested the item be tabled until April 21, 2026, postponing consideration of Resolution 14-2026, which would formally deny the preliminary plat. The council amended its agenda to reflect the request.
Lake West Development has proposed a 4 lots subdivision off of Gleason Lake Road.
The proposal, submitted by Lake West Development, seeks to subdivide two existing residential parcels near the entrance to Gleahaven Road into four single-family home sites. According to the developer’s attorney, the proposal complies with the dimensional standards of Wayzata’s R-3 zoning district, including requirements for lot size, width, density, and impervious surface coverage.
In a letter to the city, attorney Megan C. Rogers of Larkin Hoffman, representing the applicant, wrote that the proposed subdivision satisfies the objective requirements of the zoning code and aligns with the density framework outlined in Wayzata’s Comprehensive Plan.
The four proposed parcels would average approximately 15,363 square feet, which the applicant argues falls within the range of existing lot sizes in the surrounding neighborhood.
Despite those arguments, the Wayzata Planning Commission has recommended denial of the preliminary plat, citing concerns tied to the city’s subdivision ordinance. Those concerns include the project’s relationship to the character of the surrounding neighborhood, as well as questions related to grading, topography, and preservation of natural features on the site.
Developer Seeks Time for Dialogue
The request to delay the council vote was made through the applicant’s attorney and provides time for the developer to continue discussions with neighbors and consider whether modifications could address concerns raised during the public review process.
Subdivision proposals in established neighborhoods often involve multiple layers of review, including both the measurable standards contained in the zoning code and broader planning considerations outlined in the city’s subdivision ordinance.
Neighborhood Residents Voice Opposition
Several residents of Gleahaven Road submitted written comments and a petition asking the city to deny the proposal.
The petition argues that replacing two existing homes with four new residences could significantly change the character of the small cul-de-sac neighborhood and require the removal of mature trees. Petitioners also raised concerns about drainage, grading, and the overall scale of the development compared with surrounding properties.
In a letter to the city, Ryan Schultz of 108 Gleahaven Road wrote that his family chose the neighborhood because of its quiet setting and mature tree canopy, stating that replacing two homes with four would permanently alter the feel of the street.
Other residents cited traffic and safety concerns near the intersection of Gleahaven Road and Gleason Lake Road, where sight lines are limited by the hill and curve along the roadway and where children often wait for school buses.
In a separate letter, Pete Trinh and Morgan Kaufman of 167 Gleahaven Road said the addition of four homes could increase traffic and change the established character of the cul-de-sac.
Residents Kumar and Kathy Das Gupta of 110 Gleahaven Road also expressed concerns about potential impacts to neighborhood safety and property values if the subdivision were approved.
Recent Decisions Provide Context
The debate over the Gleason Lake Road subdivision comes amid several recent land-use decisions in Wayzata where questions about zoning standards and subdivision review have drawn public attention.
Taken together, those cases illustrate the balance cities often weigh between objective zoning requirements—such as lot size and density—and broader planning considerations, including neighborhood character and natural site conditions.
Next Step
With the Gleason Lake Road proposal now tabled, the Wayzata City Council is expected to revisit the preliminary plat on April 21.
In the interim, the developer and nearby residents may continue discussions about the proposal and whether revisions could address the concerns raised during the public review process.
The council will ultimately determine whether to uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendation of denial or allow the subdivision to proceed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.