Skip to main content

THE CITY COUNCIL DENIED THE BOATWORKS APPLICATION AND OUR ZONING LAWS ARE OFFICIALLY SECURE!! THIS IS A MASSIVE VICTORY FOR EVERYONE WHO FOUGHT TO KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE PROTECTED. STAY ALERT AND KEEP WATCHING TO ENSURE THIS PRECIOUS RESULT REMAINS FINAL!!

June 28, 2020

Petition requesting city council deny Boatworks’ application to exceed city’s maximum building height

Petition requesting city council deny Boatworks’ application to exceed city’s maximum building height

🏆 Won — 297 supporters Verified

Final supporters

J
Jan C.
S
Someone
S
Stephen H.
S
Steve
S
Suzy E.
D
David K.
C
Cheryl K.
B
Barbara S.
C
Carolyn H.
J
Joan N.
+287 more
R
Started by Rufus Winton 6 years, 5 months ago

We, the undersigned residents of Wayzata request the City Council deny the application of the Boatworks seeking a zoning variance to exceed the city’s maximum height restriction of 3 stories and 35’ to allow construction of a 49’ tall, 4 story luxury condominium, office and parking garage at their May 5th hearing.

This is at least the 4th attempt by the Boatworks to exceed the city’s maximum building height. All of these requests have been unanimously rejected by the planning board. Granting this request will violate our zoning laws and conflict with our Comprehensive Plan and thus can not legally be granted.

The current 3 story, 35’ maximum height restriction has long been the law and a restriction required of all other properties in the CBD in the Bluff District to the lake shore. The newly completed and successful condominium project directly across the street has the same bad soils/high water table conditions and was required to comply with the city’s 3 story and 35’ maximum height limit. Thus, in addition to violating the city’s zoning laws and comprehensive plan, granting relief from the maximum height requirement would be arbitrary and capricious.

Respectfully,

Residents of Wayzata

Updates

Reached 250 supporters

May 1, 2020

Reached 100 supporters

April 29, 2020

116 Comments

L
Lyle Kasprick
6 years ago Featured

rick born knew the rules when he acquired the property. he is now trying to cash in on the huge increase in value if he can pull of this redevelopment. what a shame to put residences right on the lake, on the south side of the tracks. why would the city administration give him the variances and give him (and his partners) the windfall?

A
Anonymous
6 years ago Featured

We just purchased a unit in Wayzata Blu, just across the street and behind the Boat Works. A four-story building in the Boat Works location would block our view of the lake.

B
Bob Ambrose
6 years ago Featured

Wayzata needs to adhere to the three stories/35 feet maximum that has been in place for decades and that everyone understands when they purchase property in this zone. This is crucial when a property is literally on the shore of Lake Minnetonka and can block the lake views from other nearby projects that have followed the rules.

L
Laurie Patton Thompson
6 years ago Featured

Zoning requirements are in place for a reason. Please do not stray and let this builder change the rules. They are also wasting valuable taxpayer dollars by coming back time after time to try to change the variance. We love our beaches and small town feel.

S
Shirley Etheridge
6 years ago Featured

No variance for this property. The city of Wayzata has spent years on the Lake Effect project, how does a four story building fit in to that plan? Will this gigantic building enhance or degrade the plans that we have all worked so hard on? The answer is obvious! Follow the zoning requirements, period!

P
Phil Harder
6 years ago Featured

My family built in the Highlands in 1950, and while my mother and father are no longer with us, both would be appalled that this project is even being proposed. The scale is simply not consistent with the neighborhood or the character of our city.

B
Brent Asplund
6 years ago

Enough is enough. Reject this variance, and leave the last few pockets of what made Wayzata great, intact and unchanged.

P
Phil Soran
6 years ago

I am not supportive of this variance