07-21-20 City Council Agenda
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by
the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by watching on Comcast
cable channel 16, by streaming on CCXmedia.org, or by calling 1-415-655-0001 and entering the
meeting code 133 652 5920. The public may participate in this meeting during public comment
sections, including the public forum beginning at 6:20 pm, by calling 763-230-7454. Additional
information about monitoring electronic meetings is available on the City website. For technical
assistance, please contact the City at 763-593-8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov. If
you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit the costs to the City for reimbursement
consideration.
1. Call to Order
A. Pledge of Allegiance Pages
B. Roll Call
2. Additions and Corrections to Agenda
3. Consent Agenda
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine
by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these
items unless a Council Member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the
general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
A. Approval of Minutes:
1. City Council Meeting – June 16 and July 7, 2020 3-15
B. Approval of City Check Register 16
C. Licenses:
1. Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License – Born Passion 17
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Human Rights Commission – April 28 and May 26, 2020 18-23
2. Rising TIDES Task Force – April 12 and May 14, 2020 24-27
3. Special Civil Services Commission – May 5, 2020 28-29
4. Human Services Commission – May 11, 2020 30-31
5. Open Space and Recreation Commission – May 18, 2020 32-35
6. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission – May 21, 2020 36-42
E. Approval of Bids, Quotes and Contracts:
1. Authorize Agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for Minnesota
GreenCorps Host Site
43-55
2. Approve Purchase of Ionization Devices for City Buildings 56-58
F. Accept Resignation from the Human Services Commission 59
G. Approve Agreement with Hennepin County for Assessing Services 60-71
July 21, 2020 – Immediately
Following HRA meeting
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting
July 21, 2020 – Immediately
Following HRA Meeting
2
4. Public Hearing
A. Public Hearing – Ordinance #684 – Amending Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning
District Narrow Lot Regulations
72-262
B. Public Hearing – MS4 General Permit, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program,
Annual Report to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Res. 20-45
263-265
5. Old Business
6. New Business
All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input.
A. Public Art Committee Report on 10 West End Development 266-285
B. Adopt Resolution Transferring CARES Act Funds to the HRA to Implement a Rent and
Household Assistance Program Res. 20-46
286-287
C. COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Administrative Actions 288-290
D. Emergency Ordinance #685 Regarding Face Coverings 291-297
E. Review of Council Calendar 298
F. Mayor and Council Communications
1. Other Committee/Meeting updates
7. Adjournment
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
In light of the recently declared COVID-19 health pandemic, the Mayor of the City of Golden Valley
declared a local emergency under Minnesota Statute, section 12.37. In accordance with that declaration,
beginning on March 16, 2020, all meetings of the City Council held during the emergency were conducted
by telephone or other electronic means.
The City used WebEx to conduct this meeting electronically. Members of the public were able to monitor
the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it on CCXmedia.org, and by dialing
in to the public call-in line. The public was able to participate in this meeting during public comment
sections, including the public forum, by dialing in to the public call-in line.
1. Call to Order
Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
1A. Pledge of Allegiance
1B. Roll Call
Present: Mayor Shep Harris, Council Members Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Gillian Rosenquist
and Kimberly Sanberg
Staff present: City Manager Cruikshank, City Attorney Cisneros and City Clerk Luedke
1C. Proclamation Recognizing Dr. Evans-Becker Principal of Meadowbrook Elementary School
Council thanked Dr. Evans-Becker for her leadership in the City of Golden Valley and the Meadowbrook
Elementary Community. Dr. Evans-Becker thanked the City for their partnership with Meadowbrook
School. Mayor Harris read the proclamation.
MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Sanberg to adopt the
Proclamation recognizing Dr. Evans-Becker Principal of Meadowbrook Elementary School. Upon a vote
being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian
Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
2. Additions and Corrections to Agenda
City Manager Cruikshank said item 3E3-Approve Emergency Repairs to Winnetka Avenue Storm Sewer
Crossing should be removed from the agenda because the item was no longer necessary.
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Harris to amend the agenda
of June 16, 2020. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris,
Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion
carried.
June 16, 2020 – 6:30 pm
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 16, 2020 - 6:30 pm
2
2. Additions and Corrections to Agenda - continued
MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to approve the
agenda of June 16, 2020, as amended. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry
Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted
against: none and the motion carried.
3. Approval of Consent Agenda
MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Harris to approve the
consent agenda of June 16, 2020, as revised: removal of 3F-Establishing Polling Place Changes for the
2020 State Primary and General Elections, 3I-Board and Commission Appointments and 3J-Receive and
File Rising TIDES Task Force Recommendations Report. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in
favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the
following voted against: none and the motion carried.
3A. Approval of Minutes:
3A1. City Council Meeting – May 19, 2020
3A2. Special City Council Meetings – May 29, 2020
3B. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted.
3C. Licenses:
3C1. Approve renewal of the liquor license for the applicant listed below for the license period
of July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021:
Wine On-Sale (including strong beer) and 3.2 Malt Liquor: Mill Valley Market
Approve renewal of the liquor licenses for the applicant listed below for the license period
of July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021 contingent upon a successful back ground
investigation:
Wine On-Sale (including strong beer) and 3.2 Malt Liquor: Mort’s
3C2. Approve the issuance of the of On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License with Sunday Sales for
New Bohemia Wurst & Bier Haus located at 8040 Olson Memorial Highway for the license
period of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 contingent upon provision of minor items
missing from application materials.
3D. Minutes of the Boards and Commissions:
3D1. Planning Commission – May 11 and May 27, 2020
3D2. Open Space & recreation Commission – April 27, 2020
3D3. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission – April 16, 2020
3E. Approval of Bids, Quotes and Contracts:
3E1. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute an agreement for the Welcome Avenue
Sanitary Sewer Extension Project with Schneider Excavating, incorporated in the form
approved by the City Attorney for the construction of the Welcome Avenue Sanitary
Sewer Extension Project in the amount of in the amount of $37,962.75.
3E2. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a Limited Use Permit with Three Rivers
Park District for Permitting Land Usage on the Trunk Highway 100 Pedestrian Bridge.
3F. Establish Polling Place changes for the 2020 State Primary and General Elections.
3G. Approve an extension to June 18, 2021, for Conditional Use Permit 166.
3H. Approve an extension until October 2, 2020, for Conditional Use Permit 161.
3I. Board/Commission Appointments.
3J. Receive and file the Rising TIDES Task Force Recommendations Report.
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 16, 2020 - 6:30 pm
3
3. Items Removed From the Consent Agenda:
3F. Establishing Polling Place Changes for the 2020 State Primary and General Elections
Council Member Rosenquist said she would like to notify Golden Valley residents of the polling location
change for precinct 4. The location is changing from LOGIS to Sandburg Middle School.
City Clerk Luedke provided additional information on the precinct change and added that the City does
need additional election judges for 2020 elections.
MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Sanberg to adopt
Resolution 20-35, establishing polling place changes for the 2020 State Primary and General Elections.
Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris,
Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
3I. Board/Commission Appointments
Council Member Fonnest said the Council interviewed Ms. Naamah Murphy and Mr. Brian Wright. He said
he would like to make a motion to appoint Ms. Murphy to the Human Rights Commission as a youth
member and Mr. Wright to the Open Space & Recreation Commission.
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to appoint Ms.
Murphy to the Human Rights Commission as a youth member with a term to expire May 2021 and Mr.
Wright to the Open Space & Recreation Commission with a term to expire May 2021. Upon a vote being
taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and
Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
3J. Receive and file the Rising TIDES Task Force Recommendations Report
Council Sanberg thanked the Rising TIDES Task Force for their recommendations and encouraged
residents to reach out to the City Council with any questions or comments. City Manager Cruikshank
answered questions from Council.
There was Council discussion regarding the Rising TIDES Task Force Recommendation report.
MOTION made by Council Member Sanberg, seconded by Council Member Harris to receive and file the
Rising TIDES Task Force Recommendations report. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor
of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following
voted against: none and the motion carried.
4. Public Hearing
4A. Public Hearing - Amending Sections 113-1: Definitions, 113-92: Commercial Zoning District of
the City Code in order to restrict the Sale of Tobacco
Planner Campbell presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager
Cruikshank answered questions from Council.
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 16, 2020 - 6:30 pm
4
4A. Public Hearing - Amending Sections 113-1: Definitions - continued
Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one requested to speak. Mayor Harris closed the public
hearing.
There was Council discussion regarding amending the City Code to restrict the sale of tobacco in the City.
Council thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their work on the ordinance. Council Member
Fonnest said the City received a letter from the Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota in support of the
City’s efforts in updating the City Code in respect to tobacco sales in the City.
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Sanberg to adopt Ordinance
683 – Amending Sections 113-1: Definitions, 113-92: Commercial Zoning District of the City Code in order
to restrict the sale of tobacco in the city. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry
Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted
against: none and the motion carried.
4B. Public Hearing to Vacate Easements at 1421 Rhode Island Avenue North
Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one requested to speak. Mayor Harris closed the public
hearing.
MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Harris to adopt Resolution
20-36, vacating Easements at 1421 Rhode Island Avenue North. Upon a vote being taken, the following
voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg,
the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
5. Old Business
6. New Business
6A. Variance Appeal – 1421 & 1435 Rhode Island Avenue North
Planner Campbell presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. Physical Development
Nevinski and Planning Manager Zimmerman answered questions from Council.
Mayor Harris asked if Council would like to hear from the property owner regarding the variance appeal.
City Attorney Cisneros recommended that the Council allow the applicant to speak if he wished to. The
Council agreed with the recommendation.
Mr. Ward, property owner, said he was told if he removed the current driveway that he could lay down
landscaping crushed rocks but said it would not make sense to do so because of snow removal. He said he
planned to build next door so he would not have an issue with the driveway that is currently there and
added he would like to keep the curb cut. Mr. Ward answered questions from Council.
There was Council discussion regarding variance appeal at 1421 and 1435 Rhode Island.
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 16, 2020 - 6:30 pm
5
6A. Variance Appeal – 1421 & 1435 Rhode Island Avenue North - continued
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to deny the
variance request of a waiver of the second garage requirement in order to keep an existing secondary
curb cut. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep
Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion
carried.
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to deny the
variance request of 3 feet off the required 3 feet to a distance of 0 feet at the paved area’s closest point
to the side yard property line. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest,
Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none
and the motion carried.
6B. Variance Appeal – 4725 Olson Memorial Highway
Planner Campbell presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. Assistant City
Engineer Kakach and City Attorney Cisneros answered questions for Council.
Mayor Harris asked if the Council would like to hear from the property owner regarding the variance
appeal. The Council said that they would like to hear from the property owner.
Mr. Brit Amundson, applicant, said his company does not currently have an employee with needs for the
ADA parking spaces but they may in the future. He said his company does have customers that come to
their building and added there is another tenant in the building but said he was not sure of what their
needs were. He said the building is a split level and is currently not easily accessible for customers with
mobility issues. He said that the proposed hard cover is a lot less than what was presented to the Planning
Commission and added his company would be happy to comply with the three contingencies from the
engineering department. Mr. Amundson answered questions from Council.
There was Council discussion regarding variance appeal at 4725 Olson Memorial Highway.
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to approve the
addition of two ADA compliant parking spots at 4725 Olson Memorial Highway contingent upon the three
conditions outlined by city staff are incorporated into the project. Upon a vote being taken, the following
voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg,
the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
6C. Approval of Plat – Ward Addition (1421 Rhode Island Avenue North)
Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to adopt
Resolution 20-37, approval of Plat – Ward Addition. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor
of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following
voted against: none and the motion carried.
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 16, 2020 - 6:30 pm
6
6D. Adopt COVID-19 Operations Recovery and Readiness Plan
Human Resources Director Santelices presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
Council thanked City staff for their hard work on the COVID-19 Operations Recovery and Readiness Plan
and the Business and Community members for working with the City.
MOTION made by Council Member Sanberg, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to adopt the City
of Golden Valley COVID-19 Operations Recovery and Readiness Plan and repeal all Temporary Worksite
Safety Policies and the Temporary Screening and Symptoms and Flexible Work Arrangements Policies.
Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris,
Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
6E. Adopt Resolution Ending Local Emergency
City Attorney Cisneros presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
MOTION made by Council Member Harris, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to adopt Resolution
20-38, terminating the local emergency related to the civil unrest in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Upon a vote
being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist,
and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
6F. COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Administrative Actions
City Attorney Cisneros presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Harris to ratify Emergency
Administrative Actions 20-50 through 20-52. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of:
Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted
against: none and the motion carried.
6G. Review of Council Calendar
Some Council Members may attend the Market in the Valley on June 21, June 28 and July 5, 2020, from
9 am to 1 pm in the City Hall Campus Parking Lot.
Some Council Members may attend the virtual Golden Valley Business Council meeting on June 25, 2020,
at 9 am.
The City Offices will closed on July 3, 2020, in observance of Independence Day.
The next City Council meeting will be held virtually on July 7, 2020, at 6:30 pm.
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 16, 2020 - 6:30 pm
7
6H. Mayor and Council Communication
Council Member Harris provided an update on the upcoming Community Conversation forum which
would be held in July. Council Member Harris also reminded residents that Friday, June 19 was Juneteenth
and provided information on Juneteenth.
Council Member Rosenquist said the League of Minnesota Cities will hold their annual conference
virtually on June 24 through 26 and said it may be possible that three or more Council Members may be in
attendance virtually at the same time.
Mayor Harris said that on June 18 at 5:30 pm there will be a peaceful demonstration in honor of George
Floyd at the intersection of Highway 55 and Winnetka Avenue. He also said he wanted to acknowledge
that June is Pride month.
7. Adjourn
MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Sanberg to adjourn the
meeting at 9:35 pm. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice
Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the
motion carried.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
In light of the recently declared COVID-19 health pandemic, the Mayor of the City of Golden Valley
declared a local emergency under Minnesota Statute, section 12.37. In accordance with that
declaration, beginning on March 16, 2020, all meetings of the City Council held during the emergency
were conducted by telephone or other electronic means.
The City used WebEx to conduct this meeting electronically. Members of the public were able to
monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it on CCXmedia.org,
and by dialing in to the public call-in line. The public was able to participate in this meeting during
public comment sections, including the public forum, by dialing in to the public call-in line.
1. Call to Order
Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
1A. Pledge of Allegiance
1B. Roll Call
Present: Mayor Shep Harris, Council Members Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Gillian Rosenquist
and Kimberly Sanberg
Staff present: City Manager Cruikshank, City Attorney Cisneros and City Clerk Luedke
2. Additions and Corrections to Agenda
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to approve the
agenda of July 7, 2020, as submitted. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry
Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted
against: none and the motion carried.
3. Approval of Consent Agenda
MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Sanberg to approve the
consent agenda of July 7, 2020, as revised: removal of 4E4-Authorize Agreement for Phase III of the
Downtown Study, F1-Accept Donation of Park Bench for Brookview Park, 3F2-Accept Donation of Tree
for Brookview Park, 3F3-Accept Donation from Golden Valley Federated Women’s Club, 3G-Appoint
Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board for Primary Election August 11, 2020, 3I-Support
Application by West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust to Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
for Community Homeownership Impact Funds and 3L-Accept Resignation from the Civil Service
Commission. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris,
Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the
motion carried.
3A. Approval of Minutes:
3A1. City Council Meeting – June 2, 2020
3B. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted.
July 7, 2020 – 6:30 pm
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020 - 6:30 pm
2
3. Approval of Consent Agenda - continued
3C. Licenses:
3C1. Approve the issuance of a Massage Therapist Establishment License for Everybody
Healing Center located at 8085 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 10 for the license period of July 7,
2020 through December 30, 2020, contingent upon provision of minor items missing
from application materials.
3D. Minutes of the Boards and Commissions:
3D1. Planning Commission – June 8, 2020
3D2. Environment Commission – May 18, 2020
3D3. Board of Zoning Appeals – April 28 and May 26, 2020
3E. Approval of Bids, Quotes and Contracts:
3E1. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute an agreement for the Pennsylvania
Woods Habitat Restoration with Landbridge Ecological Services in the form approved
by the City Attorney for the Restoration Project No. #20-07 in the amount of
44,855.753.
E2. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute purchase contract with UHL Company,
Inc. in the form approved by the City Attorney to purchase ionization devices for City Hall
and Public Safety ventilation systems in the amount of $23,250.
E3. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute Annual Bobcat Equipment Trade-Out
Purchase Contract with Tri-State Bobcat, Inc. in the form approved by the City Attorney
to purchase a Bobcat 5600 Toolcat in the amount of $54,091.22 and trade in Unit 718
in the amount of $49,591.22 and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute
Annual Bobcat Equipment Trade-Out Purchase Contract with Tri-State Bobcat, Inc. in
the form approved by the City Attorney to purchase a Bobcat 5610 Toolcat in the
amount of $49,709.33 and trade in Unit 460 in the amount of $45,209.33.
E4. Authorize an agreement to conduct Phase III of the Downtown Study with Hoisington
Koegler Group Inc.
3F. Acceptance of Grants and Donations:
F1. Adopt Resolution 20-39, accepting the donation from the Wittman Family for the
addition of a park bench in Brookview Park to honor of Lisa Wittman.
F2. Adopt Resolution 20-40, accepting the donation from the Osbeck Family for the
addition of a tree in Brookview Park to honor of Violet Lucille Osbeck.
F3. Adopt Resolution 20-41, accepting a donation from the Golden Valley Federated
Women’s Club for the 2021 Summer Concert Series.
3G. Adopt Resolution 20-42, approving appointment of the Election Judges and Absentee Ballot
Board for the Primary Election to be held on August 11, 2020.
3H. Amend the 2020 Council meeting calendar by moving the Wednesday, August 5 City Council
meeting to Tuesday, August 4 and the Tuesday, October 6 City Council meeting to Wednesday,
October 7, 2020 due to the 2020 Minnesota Night to Unite date change.
3I. Adopt Resolution 20-43, supporting an Application by West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land
Trust to Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for Community Homeownership Impact Funds.
3J. Receive and file the May 2020 Financial Reports.
3K. Adopt Resolution 20-44, amending 04-20 City of Golden Valley Donation/Gift Policy.
3L. Accept the resignation of Ralph Schulz from the Civil Service Commission.
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020 - 6:30 pm
3
3. Items Removed From the Consent Agenda:
4E4. Authorize Profession Services Agreement for Phase III of the Downtown Study
Council Member Harris asked staff what was involved in phase III of the Downtown Study.
Physical Development Director provided information on the third phase of the study including which
quadrants of the City would be the main focus and the proposed timeline.
MOTION made by Council Member Harris, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to authorize an
agreement to conduct Phase III of the Downtown Study with Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Upon a
vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian
Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
3F1. Acceptance of Donation of Park Bench for Brookview Park
Council Member Rosenquist said Lisa Wittman had been a long time City staff member and asked
Physical Development Director Nevinski if he would say a few words regarding Lisa. Mr. Nevinski said
Lisa had worked for the City for many years and had done a great job and is dearly missed.
MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Sanberg to adopt
Resolution 20-39, accepting the donation from the Wittman Family for the addition of a park bench in
Brookview Park to honor of Lisa Wittman. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of:
Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following
voted against: none and the motion carried.
3F2. Acceptance of Donation of Tree for Brookview Park
Council Member Sanberg said that Violet Osbeck was her neighbor and a longtime Golden Valley
resident. She thanked Ms. Osbeck’s family for the donation.
MOTION made by Council Member Sanberg, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to adopt
Resolution 20-40, accepting the donation from the Osbeck Family for the addition of a tree in
Brookview Park to honor of Violet Lucille Osbeck. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor
of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following
voted against: none and the motion carried.
3F3. Acceptance of Donation from Golden Valley Federated Women’s Club
Council Member Rosenquist thanked the Golden Valley Federated Women’s Club for their donation
towards the summer concert series.
MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt
Resolution 20-41, accepting a donation from the Golden Valley Federated Women’s Club for the 2021
Summer Concert Series. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest,
Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against:
none and the motion carried.
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020 - 6:30 pm
4
3G. Appoint the Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board for Primary Election August 11, 2020
Council Member Rosenquist thanked the election judges for serving the City at the upcoming Primary
election and asked residents to still consider becoming an election judge for the November election.
City Clerk Luedke answered questions from Council regarding absentee voting.
MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Harris to adopt
Resolution 20-42, approving the appointment of the Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board for the
Primary Election to be held on August 11, 2020. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor
of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following
voted against: none and the motion carried.
3I. Supporting Application by West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust to Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency for Community Homeownership Impact Funds
Council Member Harris said this is an important item and asked staff to explain how the grant if
approved would benefit the City of Golden Valley.
Physical Development Director Nevinski provided information on the Affordable Housing Land Trust
and how it could affect the City and answered questions from Council.
MOTION made by Council Member Harris, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to adopt
Resolution 20-43, Supporting Application by West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust to
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for Community Homeownership Impact Funds. Upon a vote being
taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist,
and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
3L. Accept Resignation from the Civil Service Commission
Council Member Fonnest thanked Mr. Ralph Schultz for his service on the Civil Service Commission.
MOTION made by Council Member Harris, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to accept the
resignation of Ralph Schulz from the Civil Service Commission. Upon a vote being taken, the following
voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg,
the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
4. Public Hearing
5. Old Business
6. New Business
6A. COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Administrative Actions
City Attorney Cisneros presented the staff report. Ms. Cisneros also answered questions from Council
regarding mandating face coverings in the City and possible enforcement issues.
Finance Director Virnig answered questions from Council.
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020 - 6:30 pm
5
6A. COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Administrative Actions - continued
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to ratify
Emergency Administrative Actions 20-53 through 20-56. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted
in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the
following voted against: none and the motion carried.
6B. Review of Council Calendar
Some Council Members may attend the Market in the Valley on July 12 and July 19, 2020, from 9 am
to 1 pm in the City Hall Campus Parking Lot.
The next Council/Manager meeting will be held virtually on July 14, 2020, at 6:30 pm.
The next Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting will be held virtually on July 21, 2020, at 6:30
pm.
The next City Council meeting will be held virtually on July 21, 2020, immediately following the HRA
meeting.
Some Council Members may attend the virtual Golden Valley Business Council meeting on July 23,
2020, at 8:30 am.
Some Council Members may attend the virtual Building An Equitable Golden Valley: A Discussion with
City Leadership on July 28, 2020, from 6 to 7:30 pm.
6C. Mayor and Council Communication
Council Member Harris provided information on the upcoming Equitable Golden Valley Discussion.
City Manager Cruikshank provided information on agenda items from the upcoming Council/Manager
and City Council meeting. He also provided information on the resurfacing project on Theodore Wirth
Parkway and said it was currently closed.
Finance Director Virnig provided information on the CARES relief fund dollars that the City had received
and what items the funds may be used for. Ms. Virnig and City Manager Cruikshank answered from
Council.
Mayor Harris provided information on illegal activities that had happened at the unofficial beach in
Theodore Wirth Park which is operated by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and said the
Park Board may be making decisions regarding the beach that would impact Golden Valley. He said the
Human Rights Commission was working on a Welcome Statement video. He also provided information
on two upcoming news articles that he was interviewed for and on the Blue Line Coalition meeting that
he attended.
Council Member Rosenquist said the League of Women’s Voter Golden Valley will be hosting a
candidate forum via CCX for the City’s Congressional District 5 on July 20, 2020, starting at 6:30 pm.
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 7, 2020 - 6:30 pm
6
6C. Mayor and Council Communication - continued
Council Member Sanberg said the Golden Valley Human Services Commission was accepting
applications from non-profits to receive grants for the 2021 funding period.
7. Adjourn
MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adjourn the
meeting at 8:11 pm. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice
Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and
the motion carried.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020
Agenda Item
3. B. Approval of City Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
The check register has a general ledger code as to where the claim is charged. At the end of the
register is a total amount paid by fund.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
Supporting Documents
Document is located on city website at the following location:
http://weblink.ci.golden-valley.mn.us/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=717279&dbid=2&repo=GoldenValley
The check register for approval:
o 07/10/20 Check Register
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020
Agenda Item
3. C. 1. Temporary On-Sale Liquor License – Born Passion
Prepared By
Kris Luedke, City Clerk
Summary
The Born Passion Organization located at 4294 Dahlberg Drive, Golden Valley has applied for a
temporary on-sale liquor license for August 21, 2020, from 12 to 7 pm for the Chip’n for Charity 4th
Annual Golf Tournament located at Theodore Wirth Golf Course, 1301 Theodore Wirth Parkway.
The City Code does provide for temporary sales of liquor with Council approval. Also, required is a
certificate of liquor liability insurance naming the City as an additional insured in the amount of
1,000,000. The Born Passion Organization has provided this certificate for their event.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Fees received for temporary liquor licenses help to defray costs the City incurs to administer license
requirements.
Recommended Action
Motion to approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for Born Passion, 4294 Dahlberg Drive, Golden
Valley for their event at Theodore Wirth Golf Course, 1301 Theodore Wirth Parkway on August 21,
2020.
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 pm by Chair Mitchell.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Chris Mitchell, Teresa Martin, Jonathan Burris, Carrie Yeager, Kyle Scott,
Destiny Nathan, Leah Persky and Eve Clarkson
Staff present: Tomás Romano, Assistant to the City Manager’s Office/Acting Staff Liaison
The Commission took a moment to recognize and thank Commissioner Clarkson for her time and service
to the Commission and congratulated her on being accepted into college.
Approval of Agenda
MOTION by Chair Mitchell to approve agenda. Approved by unanimous consent.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION by Commissioner Scott to approve January 28, 2020 meeting minutes as
submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Nathan. Motion Carried 7-0.
New Business
Commission Member Annual Guidelines Review
Staff Romano provided an overview of the Commission’s bylaws attendance guidelines changes
approved by the City Council at their regular meeting on April 21. New amendments reaffirm the
expectation of regular attendance to all Commission meetings, including the annual board and
commission joint meeting. Attendance will continue to be tracked at each meeting and every April, the
City Manager’s Office will review records for the preceding calendar year (April-March). Any member
that has missed two consecutive or three total meetings will receive a standardized letter of warning.
The Commission acknowledged the changes presented by staff.
Old Business
2020 Work Plan Discussion
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic the Commission may discuss proposals to change the 2020 Work
Plan.
The Commission reviewed the tentative outline on the proposed Work Plan and discussed it at length.
They identified which items had been already affected in some way by the Stay at Home orders.
April 28, 2020 – 6:30 pm
Remote Webex Meeting
City of Golden Valley Human Rights Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
Apr 28, 2020 – 6:30 pm
2
The Commission decided that Golden Valley Pride planning will be removed from Q1 of the workplan
and instead moved to Q3, since the festival has been postponed to August 29. The Commission also
decided to remove Equal Rights Amendment and 100th Anniversary of Women’s Suffrage planning from
Q2. Commissioner Scott asked about timing on future discussion around considering continuation of the
two topics which did not occur.
MOTION by Commissioner Scott to switch item “consider continuation of annual MLK Day Contest”
from Q1 to Q2. Seconded by Commissioner Burris. Motion carried 7-0.
Commissioner Martin suggested to start exploring remote capabilities for Human Rights Day. There was
discussion on social services organization PRISM and their approach to accepting volunteers at the
moment. An agreement was reached in terms of researching and understanding whether or not
opportunities to collaborate exist. The Commission will revisit the topic in the May meeting.
On the topic of Land Acknowledgment, Chair Mitchell introduced discussion on completing research and
providing information to the Council. Commissioners Nathan and Giese explained that this can be done
individually from home. Chair Mitchell asked Staff to inform the Commission on Council expectations
regarding the timeline of the report for this topic. Commissioner Martin requested Staff shared the Land
Acknowledgment handout that was provided at a previous meeting.
The Commission agreed that for the time being, Quarters 3 and 4 will remain as is on the Work Plan
given that the topics are yet far into the future.
Subcommittee Discussion (as result of the 2020 Work Plan Discussion)
Commissioner Nathan shared with the rest of the commissioners that she had been in contact with Staff
Santelices about the potential for the City to release a statement on the topic of racism surrounding
COVID19. There was discussion on the possibility to post on the City’s social media and the Commission
expressed interest in pursuing this. The Commission also planned to reach out to HRC Council Liaison
Maurice Harris. For this matter Chair Mitchell suggested appointing a subcommittee that would draft the
communication to the Council Liaison. Commissioner Nathan and Persky volunteered to form the
subcommittee.
MOTION by Chair Mitchell to appoint commissioners Nathan and Persky to the new subcommittee.
Approved by unanimous consent.
Commissioners Nathan and Persky will work on the language for the communication and touch base with
the commission on the next month.
Chair Mitchell asked Commissioner Giese if she had specific questions on the Work Plan or the
Commission in general. Commissioner Giese asked for clarification on expectations for researching land
acknowledgment. Chari Mitchell said to collect as much information from as many different sources
possible- he suggested UMN Duluth and UMN Twin Cities as reliable sources.
Commissioner Clarkson was once again thanked for her services.
City of Golden Valley Human Rights Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
Apr 28, 2020 – 6:30 pm
3
Adjourn
MOTION by Chair Mitchell to adjourn at 7:42 pm. Seconded by Commissioner Yeager.
Motion carried by unanimous consent.
Chris Mitchell, Chair
ATTEST:
Tomás Romano, Acting Staff Liaison
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 pm by Chair Mitchell.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Chris Mitchell, Destiny Nathan, Leah Persky, Mary Giese, Teresa Martin,
Carrie Yeager, Jonathan Burris (6:44pm), and Kyle Scott (technical issue,
arrived 7:04 pm),
Commissioners absent:
Staff present: Kirsten Santelices, Human Resources Director/HRC Staff Liaison
Approval of Agenda
MOTION by Vice Chair Yeager to approve agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Persky.
Approved 6-0.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION by Commissioner Martin to approve April 28, 2020 meeting minutes as submitted.
Seconded by Vice Chair Yeager. Motion Carried 6-0.
New Business
Land Acknowledgment
Commissioner Martin shared guidance that she had received on land acknowledgments and will share
that guidance with the whole Commission. Commissioner Nathan also shared research and content from
NativeGov.org, which discussed land acknowledgements. Commissioner Giese suggested that any land
acknowledgement should have someone from the tribe to be a voice in the decisions, and statements,
and in particular part of the tobacco offering. Commission acknowledged that this needs to be done for
good reason and include ongoing work, not just “do it to do it.” Commission further agreed that it should
be educational in nature. Commissioners Martin, Giese, and Mitchell formed a subcommittee to find out
more and work together.
Day of Service
The Commission discussed whether or not PRISM was available and discussed other ideas. The
Commission discussed having two different opportunities to engage, one with the Environmental
commission, and potentially one with PRISM. Briefly discussed the community garden initiative, and
realized it is not to be set until 2022. Will discuss more next meeting.
MLK Literary Contest
The Commission discussed what do to with the essay contest. The discussion included:
Should the purpose be wider than MLK?
May 26, 2020 – 6:30 pm
Via Cisco Webex Meeting
City of Golden Valley Human Rights Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 26, 2020 – 6:30 pm
2
Should the contest be more about other creative media, like paintings, collages, and videos,
rather than essays?
Should the Commission partner with one specific school, rather than keep it open to all schools?
What is the goal of the contest?
Can we get it in front of teachers ahead of time?
Should it be organized around a different time of year, like Human Rights Day?
Should the theme change depending on the work of the HRC, (ie, equal rights amendment in
2020)?
How would the work be evaluated if it wasn’t an essay contest?
The Commission discussed in detail all of these items and decided to make their decision at the next
meeting, or at least by the end of the July meeting.
Human Rights Day
The Commission discussed ideas for celebrating Human Rights Day. Chair Mitchell shared that Ellen
Kennedy reached out about CEDAW and would like to present at a future meeting. Commissioner Persky
has example proclamations of support from CEDAW that can be shared. The Commission agreed that this
may be a natural connection to a Human Rights Day Celebration. Additionally, the Commission discussed
Women’s Rights to Vote topic as a part of the celebration, referencing the speech Council Member
Rosenquist gave on the topic. Commissioner Martin also mentioned the work of Sylvia Kaplan, who
shared she would be willing to come back and be part of a speaking engagement moving forward. The
Commissions will discuss more at the next meeting.
COVID-19 Response Discussion
Staff shared the statement that initially went out about human rights and COVID-19. Commissioners
Persky and Nathan will continue on the subcommittee and perhaps contact other cities like Bloomington,
Richfield, and Edina, who were recently in the paper for their work on human rights impact of COVID-19.
Staff will work with subcommittee to look into it more.
Future Agenda Items
Commissioner Burris shared that the PRIDE Festival was cancelled, but they were doing a virtual event
Jun 1-Jun 14. The Commissions discussed sponsorship and what that means, and if they could still donate
to PRIDE.
MOTION by Commissioner Scott to donate $300 to PRIDE if they could and would accept
the donation. Seconded by Commissioner Burris.
The Equal Rights Amendment Topic should be added to a future agenda.
Adjourn
MOTION by Commissioner Burris to adjourn at 8:15 pm. Seconded by Commissioner Scott.
Motion carried by unanimous consent.
Chris Mitchell, Chair
City of Golden Valley Human Rights Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 26, 2020 – 6:30 pm
3
ATTEST:
Kirsten Santelices, Staff Liaison
Rising TIDES Task Force
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:17 pm by Chair Allen.
Roll Call
Members present: Joelle Allen, Ruth Paradise, Alex Moreno, Amber Alexander, Brad Taylor-
White, Melissa Johnson, Myat Thanda Tun, Fartun Hussein, and Ajani
Woodson
Members absent: Sam Powers and Sheri Hixon
Staff present: Kirsten Santelices, Human Resources Director
Approval of Agenda and March Meeting Minutes
MOTION by Member Paradise to approve the agenda. Seconded by Member Johnson.
Motion carried 9-0.
Approval March 10 Meeting Minutes
MOTION by Vice Chair Alexander to approve the March 10, 2020 meeting minutes.
Seconded by Member Taylor. Motion carried 9-0.
Open Forum Recap
Chair Allen led the Task Force through a discussion on the March 11, 2020 Open Forum. Staff
Santelices went through the open forum table in the packet, which was a compilation of the topic
questions and verbatim feedback from the community. The second table was a condensed table from
the October Open Forum by topic and community feedback. The group shared their appreciation for
the feedback from the community on the topics.
Draft Recommendations for Council Discussion
At Chair Allen’s request, Santelices shared next steps, to present a final document of
recommendations for each topic to the City Council at the June Council Manager meeting. The
format of the final report is up to the Task Force. Staff Santelices shared that the Task Force can
expect that the City Council will review the draft recommendations ahead of the meeting, the group
would present at the meeting, and open dialogue would likely occur. Additionally, the group can all
be at the meeting if they wish to, but typically the Chair and Vice Chair are present to represent the
group at the meeting. Chair Allen encouraged the group to be overly prepared and ensure all input
from the group is given before bringing the report to the City Council. Chair Allen further encouraged
the group to think about all of the alternative items that have been brought up during the course of
the past year that were not formally discussed as part of the recommendations, but may need
further considerations. Furthermore Chair Allen suggested to the group that a formal
recommendation to extend the life of the Task Force for a minimum of one more year.
April 12, 2020 – 5:15 pm
Via Cisco Webex
MEETING MINUTES – Rising TIDES Task Force
March 10, 2020
2
Members Alexander and Taylor would like to know the priorities of the City Council and use those to
direct the work of the Task Force. The Task Force may also have recommendations on post-COVID-19
response and recovery. The group agreed that a concise introduction, the prioritized
recommendations within each topic, and include the full community input reports as appendices.
The Task Force broke up into groups and using their own expertise, the initial recommendations,
community input, and any other information available to them, they will finalize the
recommendations for their assigned topics.
Communicating Equity with the City – Joelle, Alex, Fartun, Sam
City Contracts and RFPS – Joelle, Alex, Fartun, Sam
Increasing Diversity on Boards and Commissions – Amber, Brad, Myat
Diversifying Recruitment and Retention – Amber, Brad, Myat
Community Outreach and Education – Ruth, Melissa, AJ, Sheri
Process Ensuring Equity in City Programming and Facilities – Ruth, Melissa, AJ, Sheri
Staff Santelices will email the group the projected timeline and email distribution list, including the
location of all the relevant information (meeting minutes, meeting agenda topics, and open forum
data) from all the meetings over the past year.
The recommendations will include:
1. Everything that was considered – including community input, areas of expertise, etc.
2. Final Recommendations
3. Why the final recommendations were chosen
4. Ideas for the future – “phase two” of the task force.
The groups will send their recommendations to Kirsten to be part of the packet. The entire group will
discuss at the May meeting and finalize for the City Council Meeting in June.
The group circled back around to the impact of COVID-19 on the community. Including the lack of
awareness community members have about the resources that are available. Each group should
include their thoughts on this as part of item 4 (above) in their recommendation reports.
Adjournment
MOTION by Member Johnson. Seconded by Vice Chair Alexander. Meeting adjourned at
6:14 pm.
Joelle Allen, Chair
ATTEST:
Kirsten Santelices, Human Resources Director
Rising TIDES Task Force
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:16 pm by Chair Allen.
Roll Call
Members present: Joelle Allen, Ruth Paradise, Alex Moreno, Amber Alexander, Brad Taylor-
White, Melissa Johnson, Myat Thanda Tun, Fartun Hussein, Ajani Woodson,
Sam Powers and Sheri Hixon
Members absent:
Staff present: Kirsten Santelices, Human Resources Director
Approval of Agenda and April 12, 2020 Meeting Minutes
MOTION by Member Moreno to approve the agenda and meeting minutes. Seconded by
Member Johnson. Motion carried 11-0.
Recommendations Discussion
Vice Chair Alexander discussed the topics for their assigned subcommittee: Diversifying Boards and
Commissions, followed by Diversifying Recruitment and Retention. The group explained that with
COVID-19, there has been a slight shift in the recommendations, and the group focused on items that
they felt could best be implemented under the current conditions of the pandemic. Members
discussed additions to consider as part of the proposed recommendations for both topics, including
ensuring that inclusivity and belonging as a top priority.
The second subcommittee discussed recommendations on Community Outreach and Education and
Ensuring Equity in Programming and Facilities. The group accepted the recommendations as written,
and mentioned spelling out acronyms, like NOAH (Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing).
Chair Allen discussed the recommendations report on the two topics for her subcommittee:
Communicating Equity with the City and Reviewing City Contracts and RFPS to eliminate bias and
barriers.
The group discussed additional forums, and using tools that the City has available, including Next
Door to communicate with the community. The group agreed to discuss some creative options to
hosting future events in the current climate.
Member Taylor-White asked about using Census Data, and staff Santelices shared that Census data
would not be available for another year.
The group discussed the next steps as: reviewing recommendations again to ensure all are present
and prioritizing the recommendations under each topic. Prioritizations should be considered by
May 14, 2020 – 5:15 pm
Via Cisco Webex
MEETING MINUTES – Rising TIDES Task Force
May 14, 2020
2
budget and the ability to complete during the current climate of COVID-19. Chair Allen will create the
final presentation and staff will send to the group for review. Additionally, the group will think more
about what Phase II of the Task Force would look like if the Council approves the recommendation to
continue the Task Force. The group agreed that a crisis operations in response to COVID-19 should be
considered as part of the work.
Adjournment
MOTION by Vice Chair Alexander. Seconded by Member Taylor-White. Meeting
adjourned at 6:16 pm.
Joelle Allen, Chair
ATTEST:
Kirsten Santelices, Human Resources Director
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 1:02 pm by Chair Schulz.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Ralph Schulz, Chair
Gloria Kumagai, Secretary
Andrew Wold
Commissioners absent: None
Council Member Present: Gillian Rosenquist
Staff present: Jason Sturgis, Chief of Police
Dave Kuhnly, Commander
Amanda Johnson, Police Operations Supervisor
Approval of Agenda
Motion by Commissioner Kumagai to approve the meeting agenda as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Wold. Motion carried 3-0.
Approval of Minutes
Motion by Commissioner Wold to approve the February 3, 2020 meeting minutes. Seconded by
Commissioner Kumagai. Motion carried 3-0.
Agenda Item
Commissioners discussed the revision the city council made to the bylaws. Commissioner Wold stated
the council is unable to revise the commission bylaws and should have considered the statutory
authority given to Civil Service Commissions. Commissioner Wold further advised some of the language
in the revisions seemed generic and did not appear to consider the meeting schedule of this commission.
Commissioner Schulz stated the reference to commissions that meet once a month or twice a month
would likely fit the schedule of other city commissions, but does not seem applicable to this commission.
Council Member Rosenquist reported frequent attendance issues with members of other city boards and
commissions, which prompted the council to update city commission bylaws with attendance
requirements.
May 5, 2020 – 1:00 pm
Public Safety Conference Room
Golden Valley Police Department
7700 Golden Valley Road
City of Golden Valley Civil Service Special Meeting Minutes
May 5, 2020– 1:00 pm
2
Motion by Commissioner Wold to revise the second paragraph of the proposed bylaws, Article II:
Membership, Appointments, Terms, Officers, Meetings, and Attendance; Section E. Meeting &
Attendance to state:
Members are expected to attend all meetings, including the annual board and commission joint
meeting. If a member is unable to attend a meeting, they should contact the staff liaison, who will
inform the chair. If a quorum cannot be attained, the meeting will be canceled. Staff liaisons will
track attendance at each meeting. Each April, the City Manager’s office will review attendance
records for the preceding calendar year (April-March) and send a standardized letter of warning to
any member that has missed more than fifty percent (50%) of the preceding year’s meetings” and to
strike the third paragraph that reads:
Because attendance is so important to the work of the City’s boards and commissions, the City
Manager may ask the member to explain the reasons for their absences. If circumstances prevent the
member from committing to consistently attending future meetings, the member may be asked to
step down. The City Manager will not ask the member to step down if their inability to attend
meetings is due to health reasons. If the member’s attendance does not improve within 3 months
after receiving a warning, the City Manager or their designee shall ask the member to step down. If
the member chooses not to step down, the Council may take action to remove the member.”
Seconded by Commissioner Kumagai. Motion carried 3-0.
Chief Sturgis reported in response to COVID-19 patrol officers have moved to a 5-on/10-off schedule
rotation in order to keep officers working with the same team and limit cross-contamination potential
between officers, and investigators and some administrative staff members are working remotely.
Commission Communications
Adjourn
Motion by Commission Kumagai to adjourn the meeting at 1:22 pm. Seconded by Commissioner Wold.
Motion carried 3-0.
Ralph Schulz, Chair
Amanda Johnson, Police Operations Supervisor
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:45 pm by Aaron Black, Chair.
2. Roll Call
Commissioners present: Aaron Black, Jonas Courneya, Stephanie Devitt, Katie Hart,
Denise La Mere-Anderson, Caitlin Peick, and Toots Vodovoz
Commissioners absent: Hilmer Erickson and Joel Nelson
Staff present: Brian Erickson, Staff Liaison, Sheila Van Sloun, Recording Secretary;
and Kimberly Sanberg, City Council.
3. Approval of April 13, 2020 – Regular Meeting Minutes
MOTION made by La Mere-Anderson and seconded by Black to approve the April 13, 2020 regular
meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Approval of April 28, 2020 – Special Meeting Minutes
MOTION made by Hart and seconded by La Mere-Anderson to approve the April 28, 2020 special
meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Old Business
A. Budget—Black shared and reviewed the budget with Commissioners. Discussion
focused on ways the pandemic could affect future revenues.
B. Special Allocation—Council member Sanberg said the Council is very supportive of the
emergency allocation and is very happy with how the Commission took initiative in this
time of need.
C. Run The Valley—Erickson shared registration numbers with the Commission, stating
there are a total of 188 participants. He then discussed options for distributing shirts to
all the participants. Mail and distanced pick-up were options discussed. Several
Commissioners volunteered their time to help with the distribution. La Mere-Anderson
encouraged all the Commissioners to register and participate in Run The Valley. Peick
suggested keeping registration open after the race start date for those that still want to
participate. Erickson agreed with the idea and will adjust dates.
May 11, 2020 – 6:45 pm
Virtual WebEx Meeting
City of Golden Valley Human Services Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2020
2
5. New Business
A. Commission Orientation—Before Erickson presented the commission orientation, he
introduced new commission member Caitlin Peick. Peick shared that she is married,
lives in the South Tyrol neighborhood, and works in Marketing at Children’s Hospital.
Commissioners then introduced themselves. Erickson then shared a PowerPoint
presentation for the commission orientation.
B. Bylaws Review—Erickson shared and reviewed the commission bylaws. Discussion then
focused on attendance.
C. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair—Black asked if anyone was interested in serving as
Chair or Vice-Chair. After no one stepped forward, La Mere-Anderson offered to serve
as Chair, and Black offered to serve as Vice-Chair. Each will serve one year terms.
D. Allocation Application for 2021—Erickson said the application should be available at the
end of May or early part of June, for agencies to apply for funding. He said the
applications will be brought to Council for approval in November.
6. Adjournment
MOTION moved by Black and seconded by Devitt to adjourn at 7:55 pm. Motion carried
unanimously.
Aaron Black, Chair
Brian Erickson, Staff Liaison
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
1.Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:40 pm by Mattison.
2.Roll Call
Commissioners present: Roger Bergman, John Cornelius, Max Hyberger, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Bob
Mattison, Linden Weiswerda, Matthew Sanders, Dawn Speltz, and Della
Daml
Commissioners absent: Bill Delaney
Staff present: Rick Birno, Director of Parks and Recreation, Ben Disch, Golf Course
Manager; and Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant
3.Agenda Changes or Additions
None.
4.Approval of April 27, 2020 Minutes
Mattison suggested listing all the youth athletic associations on our recognized list, to the motion in
section 8.
MOTION moved by Speltz and seconded by Weiswerda to approve the April 27, 2020 meeting
minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
5.Hopkins Girls Basketball Association – Maggie Niska
Niska shared a short introduction. She went on to say the organization is trying to build the programs
offered for younger ages by spreading out over multiple cities and using multiple resources for
advertising. She said she has also been talking with John Stutzman, Recreation Supervisor, on how to
boost the program. She said she had a plan together for spring opportunities, but everything was put
on hold with the pandemic.
Niska shared there are sixty participants in grades 4-8, with a significant number of the 4th graders
being from Golden Valley.
Hyberger asked where practices take place. Niska said at various facilities within the district, but they
would love to be able to practice at Davis Community Center. Birno noted that Parks and Recreation
staff will work with the group to find some practice time at Davis.
May 18, 2020 – 6:30 pm
Virtual WebEx
City of Golden Valley Open Space & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 18, 2020 – 6:30 pm
2
To increase participation in the City’s youth basketball K-1 program, Speltz suggested allowing a
friend request. Birno will share the recommendation with staff.
6. Annual Board and Commission Orientation Review
Birno reviewed the orientation with the Commissioners.
Mattison reiterate the importance of following the open meeting law with the Commissioners.
Kuebelbeck inquired about the possibility of a regular online meeting link for Board and Commission
meetings. She noted many members travel for business, are out of town for seasonal variations, and
sometimes have unavoidable personal family commitments and therefore not able to attend
meetings in person. Many members with meeting conflicts could still attend if virtual attendance was
allowed. Mattison agreed with making this a regular option. Birno said it’s not currently an option,
however would share the recommendation with the City Manager.
7. COVID-19—Park and Recreation Services Update
Birno said Golden Valley Parks and Recreation is closed until further notice. He said currently all
programs, meetings, and rentals are cancelled through June 12. He said some of the programs have
been able to shift to a virtual option.
Adult Athletics, Older Adult Programs, and Youth Athletic Association activities are on hold until
further notice.
8. COVID-19—Brookview Golf 2020 Season Operation Update
Disch shared brief updates on the 2020 winter and spring season. He said it’s been the most unique
start to a golf season in his 21 years with Brookview.
Disch said winter Pub Curling and the Three One Six Bar + Grill had great participation numbers and
the entire 2020 operation was set up to have a great season before the pandemic.
Disch said staff worked hard on policy and safety procedures for the April 18 opening. He said they
were sold out on opening day and were very pleased with how respectful guests were with the new
safety procedures in place for the pandemic. He said they started the season with no power carts and
only walking allowed. Since then, power cart restrictions have changed, but golfers walking the
course during play has stayed very steady as golfers are opting to continue to walk versus renting a
cart.
Disch said the driving range is open with social distancing parameters in place, but the building
remains closed. Staff is working on opening the golf shop on June 1st. Tee times are currently being
accepted over the phone with credit card payments only. Golf lessons are not being offered and lawn
bowling remains closed until further notice.
City of Golden Valley Open Space & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 18, 2020 – 6:30 pm
3
Kuebelbeck asked if the patio at the Three One Six Bar + Grill will open with social distancing
parameters in place. Disch said they will need to wait until May 20 when Governor Walz addresses
the issue.
Mattison asked about goose mitigation. Disch said they would revisit options and the entire situation
in the near future. Currently, they are still using the Denier light system installed a few years back to
try and scatter the geese.
Daml asked if the Three One Six Bar + Grill is delivering. Disch said they are offering carry out only at
this time. Hyberger suggested partnering with Uber Eats. Disch said business is pretty slow with a
limited menu at the moment, but they could have a conversation in the future about the possibility.
Sanders asked if kids’ golf camps and lessons would be taking place. Disch said due to the executive
order in place, these programs are currently on hold. He also said that junior play on the course has
skyrocketed. Speltz encouraged Disch to find a way to offer the junior programs this summer.
Kuebelbeck agreed.
Disch shared a comparison between last year when they opened on April 4, 2019 and this year
opening April 18, 2020, that their rounds are ahead of last year with the two week delayed opening
and multiple restrictions. He shared that’s the upside of all that’s going on right now.
9. Elect Chair John Cornelius and Vice Chair Bob Mattison (Terms begin June 22, 2020)
Birno thanked Mattison and Speltz for their time and service as Chair and Vice Chair.
Bergman nominated Cornelius as Chair and Mattison as Vice Chair beginning June 22, 2020 for one
year terms. Upon a vote being taken, vote was 9-0 in favor; vote approved.
10. Commission and Staff Update
Staff and Commission Updates
Mattison announced Hyberger’s resignation due to moving, and thanked him for his
service. Commissioners also shared well wishes to Hyberger.
Mattison said he recently walked Bassett Creek Trail and suggests adding a crosswalk
signal on the trail where is crosses Duluth Street so pedestrians have a safer crossing.
Birno said with Three Rivers extending the trail along Golden Valley Road to Douglas
Drive, it’s a good time to open up the discussion with city staff, Three Rivers, and
Hennepin County. Birno also said he would talk to Golden Valley Engineering staff about
discussing issues with the OSRC.
Fee Based Virtual Recreation Programs
Birno said virtual options for some of the recreation programs is going well. He said the
department will continue exploring this option and do as many programs virtually when
needed.
City of Golden Valley Open Space & Recreation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 18, 2020 – 6:30 pm
4
Bike Rodeo Recap
Birno said the Bike Rodeo was offered virtually this year with over 200 participants logged in.
He said it was a very good success.
Next OSRC Meeting Date is June 22, 2020
Mattison reminded Commissioners that the next meeting will be held June 22 at 6:30 pm via
WebEx.
11. Adjournment
MOTION moved by Kuebelbeck and seconded by Hyberger to adjourn at 8:25 pm. Motion carried
unanimously.
Bob Mattison, Chair
Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant
1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 8:31 a.m. via video conference, Chair Prom called the meeting of the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) to order.
Commissioners and city staff present:
City Commissioner Alternate Commissioner Technical Advisory Committee
Members (City Staff)
Crystal Dave Anderson Vacant Position Absent
Golden Valley Stacy Harwell (Treasurer) Jane McDonald Black Jeff Oliver
Medicine Lake Absent Gary Holter Absent
Minneapolis Michael Welch (Vice Chair) Vacant Position Liz Stout
Minnetonka Mike Fruen Vacant Position Leslie Yetka
New Hope Absent Patrick Crough Megan Hedstrom
Plymouth James Prom Absent Ben Scharenbroich
Robbinsdale Vacant Position Wayne Sicora Marta Roser, Richard McCoy
St. Louis Park Jim de Lambert Absent Erick Francis
Administrator Laura Jester, Keystone Waters
Engineer Karen Chandler, Jen Koehler, Patrick Brockamp - Barr Engineering
Recorder Dawn Pape, Lawn Chair Gardener
Legal Counsel Dave Anderson, Kennedy & Graven
Presenters/
Guests/Public
Alan Catchpool, Kimley-Horn; Steve Christopher, BWSR; Rachael Crabb, Minneapolis Park &
Recreation Board; Logan Schmidt and Brady DeVoe, Dominium Development and Acquisition,
LLC
Sam Trebesch, Loucks; Mike Blank
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
Minutes of Public Hearing and Regular Meeting
Thursday, May 21, 2020
8:30 a.m.
Via video conference due to the COVID-19 global pandemic
BCWMC May 21, 2020 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 7
2. PUBLIC FORUM ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to approve the agenda. Alternative Commissioner Holter seconded the motion.
Upon a rollcall vote, the motion carried 9-0.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Welch asked to remove two items from the consent agenda: 4A Draft Minutes from April 16, 2020
Commission meeting and 4L- New Hope 2020 Infrastructure Improvement Project.
MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to approve the consent agenda as amended. Alternate Commissioner Holter
seconded the motion. Upon a rollcall vote, the motion carried 9-0.
The following items were approved as part of the consent agenda: May financial report, payment of invoices,
reimbursement request from Golden Valley for Channel Maintenance Funds, approval of agreement with Met Council for
Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program (WOMP), approval of agreement with Met Council for 2020 Citizen Assisted
Monitoring Program (CAMP), approval of Updated Data Practices Policy, approval of BCWMC 2019 Annual Report for
Submittal to BWSR, acceptance of BCWMC Fiscal Year 2019 Financial Audit, approval of Resolution 20-05 Not to Waive
Monetary Limits on Municipal Tort Liability, and approval of Ridgedale Sears Redevelopment Project, Minnetonka.
The general and construction account balances reported in the May 2020 Financial Report are as follows:
Checking Account Balance 804,758.03
TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE 804,758.03
TOTAL CASH & INVESTMENTS ON-HAND (5/13/20) 2,860,324.82
CIP Projects Levied – Budget Remaining (4,956,023.52)
Closed Projects Remaining Balance (584,746.41)
2012-2017 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue 8,425.14
2018 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue 11,050.60
Anticipated Closed Project Balance (565,270.67)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Receive Comments from Cities and Public on Proposed Minor Plan Amendment
Chair Prom opened the public hearing at 8:39. Administrator Jester gave an overview of the purpose for the public
hearing – to hear comments on the proposed minor plan amendment including additions to the Capital
Improvement Program and revisions to the wetland management policies.
There were no citizen comments made during the hearing. Administrator Jester noted that Hennepin County
requested the comment period be extended until August 14th to accommodate County Board meeting schedules.
BCWMC May 21, 2020 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 7
MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to close the public meeting and extend the comment period to August 14,
2020. Alternate Commissioner Crough seconded the motion. Upon a rollcall vote, the motion carried 9-0.
The public hearing closed at 8:42 a.m.
6. BUSINESS
A. Consider Agreement with Dominium Regarding CIP Funds for Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Project
Administrator Jester noted that at the April meeting the Commission conditionally approved the project plans
for the redevelopment of Four Seasons Mall site by Dominium, including plans to remove at least 100 lbs. of
total phosphorus “above and beyond” the required treatment, making the project eligible for BCWMC CIP
funds. At that meeting, the agreement with Dominium for design, construction, and maintenance of the project
and to transfer CIP funds was tabled until this meeting. She noted that the attached agreement shows changes
from the last draft which was emailed just ahead of the April meeting. She noted it included some revisions
reflecting additional input from the Commission’s Legal Counsel and Vice Chair Welch. Dominium legal counsel
reviewed and approved the latest revisions. Commissioner Welch offered praise for Attorney Dave Anderson for
his hard work on this. There was no other discussion.
MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to approve the agreement with Dominium regarding CIP funds for the
Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Project. Alternate Commissioner Crough seconded the motion. Upon a
rollcall vote, the motion carried 9-0.
B. Consider Agreement with City of Plymouth Regarding Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Project
Administrator Jester noted that this item was also tabled at the April meeting and that an agreement with the
city of Plymouth is needed to ensure that access is granted by the city for project construction and that ongoing
maintenance will performed by the city, when appropriate, and required by the city of the developer. She
reported the attached agreement was drafted by BCWMC Legal Counsel and reviewed by the city’s attorney.
There was no discussion.
MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to approve the agreement with City of Plymouth regarding Four Seasons
Mall Redevelopment Project. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. Upon a rollcall vote, the motion
carried 9-0.
C. Review Draft Feasibility Studies for 2021 Capital Improvement Projects
ii. Mt. Olivet Stream Restoration and Parkers Lake Drainage Improvement Projects
Administrator Jester reported that at the August 2019 meeting, the Commission approved a proposal from the
Commission Engineer to complete a feasibility study for two projects, which are both in Plymouth. Commission
Engineer Jen Koehler gave an overview of the projects:
The Mt. Olivet Stream Stabilization Project and the Parkers Lake Drainage Improvement Project are both stream
restoration projects aimed at reducing erosion, total suspended solids and phosphorous loading to Medicine
Lake and Parkers Lake downstream, respectively. Engineer Koehler also reported on extremely high chloride
concentrations originating from a subwatershed north of Parkers Lake and flowing down through the drainage
area to be stabilized. She noted that Parkers Lake is impaired for chlorides and that the CIP project could include
chloride reduction practices and projects. There was some discussion about the possibility of County Road 6
being a significant source of chlorides in the area.
Engineer Koehler then reviewed the Mt. Olivet feasibility study more closely, noting it looked at two different
alternatives, both of which use mostly bio-stabilization techniques. Alternative 1 includes wetland restoration
and a manhole drop structure off the Mt Olivet Church parking lot. Alternative 2 includes riprap at the edge of
the church parking lot and a stream meander rather than wetland restoration. Mt. Olivet Church is interested in
BCWMC May 21, 2020 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 7
adding a pedestrian bridge outside of the project scope. Engineer Koehler noted that staff recommends
Alternative 1 after input from the city was received as well as from the public meeting.
There was a discussion about tree removal and replacement. Engineer Koehler replied that tree replacements
are included in the budget and that it is a balancing act between leaving trees and vegetation restoration.
Engineer Koehler added that tree removal was discussed at the public meeting and that there may be
opportunities to engage church volunteers in native plantings. She noted there were no negative comments
received at the public meeting.
TAC member Ben Scharenbroich mentioned that the City of Plymouth hasn’t heard from private property
owners, but many of the trees within the ravine are undercut and would fall anyway. Some trees that are
removed would be used in the stabilization of the banks.
Administrator Jester clarified that engagement with the apartment complex to the east and a private property
owner in the northwest corner of the project area will be needed. She also reiterated that building a pedestrian
bridge would be outside the scope of the CIP funding.
Commissioner Welch commented that the large amount of impervious surface at the church made for a good
education opportunity about stormwater management. He also strongly encouraged outreach to the apartment
and others.
MOTION: Commissioner Harwell moved to approve the Mount Olivet Stream Restoration feasibility report and
to select Alternative 1 for implementation. Commissioner Fruen seconded the motion. Upon a rollcall vote, the
motion carried 8-1, with the City of Minneapolis voting against the motion.
Engineer Koehler then presented the results of the feasibility study for the Parkers Lake Drainage Improvement
Project. She noted that Alternatives 1 and 2 are not very feasible because permitting by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers wouldn’t be likely and the alternatives are expensive with high cost per pound pollutant removal
figures. She reported that Alternatives 4 and 5 use more traditional stormwater best management practice
strategies. Alternative 4 would use enhanced filtration and but would not greatly improve water quality.
Alternatives 5a/5b would use wet retention ponds. Engineer Koehler directed the Commission’s attention to
Alternatives 3 and 6 as the preferred alternatives. Alternative 3 involves stream stabilization utilizing bio-
engineering techniques and alternative 6 includes chloride reduction demonstration projects in the northern
watershed tributary to Parkers Lake to reduce salt usage and chloride loads to the lake.
There was a brief discussion on using trees removed from one project area in another project and how bidding
would work. TAC member Scharenbroich noted the city has space to store trees until needed for a project.
Engineer Koehler reviewed examples of chloride-reduction projects and their costs noting the information came
from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the City of Plymouth. Commissioner Harwell asked about using
salt with permeable pavements because there may be a groundwater contamination problem. Engineer Koehler
replied that permeable pavements typically do not need as much salt because ice doesn’t build up.
Commissioner Welch agreed with Engineer Koehler’s assessment and he shared that he thought Alternative 3 is
a straightforward selection and Alternative 6 offers a great opportunity for community engagement, which will
take a considerable amount of staff time. He was not sure whether it should be included with a capital
improvement project.
TAC member Scharenbroich added that he thought about 98% of this Parker’s Lake watershed is privately
owned, so responsibility does rest on individual property management. He agreed that it is crucial to educate
the property owners and the city would take the lead on doing that.
Dawn Pape also noted her support for Alternative 6. In fact, BCWMC’s education program is aiming to achieve
the “bottom up” approach with educating property owners as opposed to the state-wide program which is
BCWMC May 21, 2020 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 7
taking the “top down” approach with educating applicators. She thought it offers the perfect opportunity to
implement what the Commission has been talking about for so long. Commissioner Harwell agreed and added
that the cost/benefit for Alternative 3 is so low that it makes sense to implement.
MOTION: Commissioner Harwell moved to approve the Parkers Lake Drainage Improvement Project portion of
this feasibility study and to implement Alternatives 3 and 6. Alternate Commissioner Holter seconded the
motion.
Commissioner Harwell leaves the meeting. Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black is voting member for
Golden Valley.]
Discussion: Commissioner Welch noted that for the chloride reduction portion of the project, staff should
determine which approaches may make sense or be viable for the area.
Commissioner Welch offered an amendment to the motion directing Administrator Jester, Dawn Pape, and
Plymouth city staff to work with property owners and further analyze alternatives. He noted this may help the
county be more comfortable with the levy for this project. Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black added that
this was a great opportunity to have measurable results with monitoring station already in place. TAC member
Scharenbroich noted it’s possible the city’s new high efficiency street sweeper may be able to sweep private
properties with proper agreements in place.
VOTE: Upon a rollcall vote, the motion carried 9-0.
i. Main Stem Lagoon Dredging Project
Administrator Jester noted that in August 2019, the Commission approved a proposal from the Commission
Engineer to complete a study to examine the feasibility of dredging accumulated sediment from three of seven
lagoons in the Main Stem of Bassett Creek just north of Highway 55, in Theodore Wirth Regional Park.
Commission Engineer Chandler provided the Commission with the details of the study results as well as a history
of the development of the lagoons and the goals to restore the lagoons’ original pool storage, improve water
quality, and provide flooding storage. She noted that sediment islands and deltas have formed in the lagoons
over time and that some of the islands have scrub trees growing on them. She reported the project would
remove accumulated sediment from the lagoons to re-establish their original aesthetic and function and be
implemented in 2021 and 2022.
Engineer Chandler reported that based on concentrations of contaminants in the sediment of the lagoons, all
dredged material would require landfill disposal. She reviewed two alternatives: dredging to a four-foot depth
or a six-foot depth. She recommends Alternative 2, six-foot dredging depth, because this alternative has a
significantly longer project lifespan and increased project benefits. Within this alternative, there are three
options. Option 1 includes all lagoons, Option 2 is only lagoon E, and Option 3 is lagoon D only—which is the
lowest cost. Engineer Chandler noted that the project cost is very high due to the contaminated soils, but that
the cost benefit for pollutant removal is very low compared to other Commission CIP projects. She believes that
Option 1 (dredging all lagoons) is the best option and noted the project could be implemented in future years
and the cost can be spread over multiple years.
Commissioner Welch noted that originally, he didn’t believe the project would offer much benefit and was
surprised to see the pollutant reduction numbers and the low cost per pound pollutant removal. He noted these
are toxic lagoons in a popular park and that sediment leaving the lagoons and flowing downstream
contaminates Bassett Creek and the Mississippi River. There was discussion about the permitting process, which
would be complicated and lengthy. It was noted that although the project is extremely expensive, it addresses
multiple Commission goals including improving water quality, reducing flooding, and improving habitats – all in
an underserved area in a regional resource.
Rachael Crabb with MPRB echoed Commissioner Welch in restating that this sediment is very contaminated. She
will continue to work with the MPRB to possibly offer some CIP funds to the project.
BCWMC May 21, 2020 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 7
MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to approve Alternative 2, Option 1 (dredging all lagoons to a 6-foot
depth) for the Main Stem Lagoon Dredging Project. Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black seconded the
motion.
Discussion: Commissioner Anderson and Chair Prom voiced concerns about the high cost and the possibility of
pushing out other projects. Commissioner Anderson indicated he is not comfortable with voting in favor of the
project until he can understand how it will be funded.
Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black agreed it was daunting to spend so much money, but noted the
project has a high benefit/cost. Administrator Jester gave her opinion on how high the cost of the project may
make it unviable right now given the economic crisis of the country. Commissioner Welch stated the
Commission should get started with investing funding options and asked that Administrator Jester bring options
back to the June meeting before a maximum levy for 2021 is set.
Upon a rollcall vote, the motion carried 6-3, with the Cities of Crystal, Plymouth and St. Louis Park voting
against.
D. April Minutes revision (Item 4A from Consent Agenda)
MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to amend the minutes to reflect that the April Meeting was held via web
video conference due to the global pandemic and to approve the minutes as amended. Alternate Commissioner
McDonald Black seconded the motion. Upon a rollcall vote, the motion carried 9-0.
E. Approval of New Hope 2020 Infrastructure Improvement Project (Item 4L from Consent Agenda)
Commissioner Welch noted that this project is an example of a linear project with 6 acres of fully redeveloped
impervious surface but no treatment requirements due to the Commission’s revised standards for linear
projects. He noted the Commission should reassess their linear project requirements. TAC member Megan
Hedstrom (New Hope) noted the city will be implementing a water quality treatment project for the watershed
outside of this project, which will be submitted to the Commission for review.
MOTION: Alternate Commissioner Crough moved to approve the New Hope 2020 Infrastructure Improvement
Project. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. Upon a rollcall vote, the motion carried 8-0, with
Minneapolis abstaining from the vote.
F. Review Budget Committee Recommendations on 2021 Operating Budget
Budget Committee Chair McDonald Black reviewed the proposed 2021 operating budget noting that it includes a
1.5% increase in city assessments. She reported the BCWMC Budget Committee met twice in April to discuss 2021
budgets. Over the two meetings, the committee reviewed and clarified activities, needs, and annual changes in
budget levels for several line items with input from the Administrator, Commission Engineer, and TAC. She noted
the committee discussed city assessments, Channel Maintenance Funds, technical services, monitoring,
administrator hours, MAWD dues, education activities, number of meetings, use of fund balance, etc.
Committee Chair McDonald Black reported on the revenue collected through some activities, noting that
information was added to the budget spreadsheet. She noted that technical services continue to increase slightly
due to additional work requested of the engineers. She also indicated a need to have a discussion about MAWD
membership and whether or not it offers enough benefit.
Commissioner Welch complimented the committee for their great work and added that he thought it is really
important to be a member of MAWD. Administrator Jester updated the Commission that the 2021 MAWD dues
are actually $3,750 in 2021 and expects them to go to $7,500 in 2022.
BCWMC May 21, 2020 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 7
MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to approve the proposed 2021 operating budget with changes to MAWD
dues. Commissioner Fruen seconded the motion. Upon a rollcall vote, the motion carried 9-0.
7. Communications
A. Administrator’s Report
i. Watershed Based Implementation Funding Convene Meeting. Administrator Jester updated the
Commission that all entities west of the Mississippi River held their first convene meeting and are working
together to determine which projects should receive funding. She noted the group agreed that approval will
require a supermajority of voting members and that the next meeting will be held in early June.
B. Chair
Thanked commissioners for their patience and good discussion given the virtual meeting format.
C. Commissioners
Commissioner Welch mentioned that the Governor’s new order regarding permitted gatherings amid the
pandemic did exempt government entities. There was a discussion about the format for the June meeting.
Administrator Jester stated that the Governor’s order still strongly encouraged video conferencing
whenever possible and she recommended holding the June meeting via video conference.
Commissioner Welch also updated the Commission on the new U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding the
Federal Clean Water legislation, noting it shouldn’t affect the commission’s business.
D. TAC Members
Nothing to report
E. Committees
i. Budget Committee- Reported in Item 6D
F. Education Consultant
Two new videos have been produced since the last meeting. The April video was about a person’s “water
footprint” and the other one is about alternative lawns. These videos can be found on our Facebook page as
well as our website.
G. Legal Counsel
Nothing to report
H. Engineer
i. Sweeney Lake Water Quality Improvement Project
Commission Engineer Chandler said that the curly-leaf pondweed treatment was done on Tuesday.
Residents have been notified and given an “opt-out” option. She also reported that herbicide contractor will
be back on the lake next week to treat areas they missed.
8. INFORMATION ONLY (Information online only)
A. CIP Project Updates http://www.bassettcreekwmo.org/projects
B. Grant Tracking Summary and Spreadsheet
http://www.bassettcreekwmo.org/application/files/4815/8648/1919/Item_7B_Barr_Grant_Tracking_Database_April
2020_MN_Metro.pdf
C. 2020 BCWMC Administrative Calendar
D. WCA Notices of Decision, Plymouth
E. WCA Notices of Application, Plymouth
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:29 a.m. by Chair Prom.
Signature/Title Date
Signature/Title Date
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020
Agenda Item
3. E. 1. Authorize Agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for Minnesota GreenCorps
Host Site
Prepared By
Eric Eckman, Environmental Resources Supervisor
Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist
Summary
Minnesota GreenCorps is an AmeriCorps program that began in 2009. The goal of Minnesota
GreenCorps is to preserve and protect Minnesota’s environment while training a new generation of
environmental professionals. The program places members with host sites around the state to assist
communities and local governments in addressing a variety of statewide needs. For the 2020-2021
program year, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) anticipates placing and supporting up
to 42 full-time GreenCorps members throughout Minnesota. More information is available at:
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/mngreencorps/program-information.
The City has successfully applied for GreenCorps members in the past with members focused on
GreenStep Cities initiatives, developing the City’s Resilience & Sustainability Plan, and improving the
City’s waste and recycling efforts. On March 4, 2020, the Council approved Resolution #20-20,
supporting submittal of an application to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to again be a
GreenCorps Host Site in 2020-2021.
The GreenCorps member will work remotely and at City Hall on a full-time basis from September
2020 to August 2021. The GreenCorps member would assist the City with its Partners In Energy
program, waste reduction, and energy reduction goals, objectives, and implementation actions.
The City is required to provide in-kind support in the form of staff supervision, office materials,
mileage reimbursement or use of a city vehicle, safety gear, and training as needed.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
In-kind contributions for member workspace, safety training, professional development, and
supervision totaling a value of approximately $5,500.
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
July 21, 2020
2
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute an Agreement for the GreenCorps Host
Site with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in the form approved by the City Attorney.
Supporting Documents
Resolution #20-20 Supporting Submittal of Application to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for
Minnesota GreenCorps Host Site (1 page)
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency GreenCorps Host Site Agreement (10 Pages)
RESOLUTION NO.20-20
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION
TO MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
FOR MINNESOTA GREENCORPS HOST SITE
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley is eligible to apply for the placement of one
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency GreenCorps member at City Hall for the nwd program
year (September 2020-August 2021); and
WHEREAS, the selected candidate would work with staff and the Environmental
Commission to implement the City's Resilience & Sustainability Plan, GreenStep Cities
program, and Partners In Energy Initiatives; and
WHEREAS, the selected candidate would focus on assisting the City with Its energy
consumption and efficiency goals, objectives, and implementation actions; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed all terms and conditions of this funding opportunity
and finds them to be satisfactory,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Golden Valley that the
Council is supportive of staffs submittal of an application to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency for the placement of one Minnesota GreenCorps member at City Hall from
September 2020 to August 2021.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 41' day of March, 2020.
j -
She p. M. Harris, ' ayor
ATTEST:
L 4&
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
DocuSlgn Envelope ID: 9CAEA8�E329-480A-8801-38880C365800
Esaentlal functions and measures for project aucce■■
•Assist with tha collecllon, benchmarking, and reporting of bueUne and current data on energy and water Ul8
and GHG emt11ions for publlc buildlngs using existing databases and tools such as the state of Minnesota
Bulldlnga, Benchmarks and Beyond (B3}, ICLEI and/or Energy Star.
•Retrofit publlc structures to Improve energy efficiency, which Include■ Implementing energy conservation
meuurea to reduce operational energy COl"llllmption, upgrading thermal perfonnance, or Improving buUdlng
maintenance. (Examples Include aligning the operation of llghtlng and HVAC equipment wllll occupant
schedules, upgrading to more afflclent llghtlng or equipment, cwtomlzlng facllitle8 operations manuals,
lnatalllng smart power strips/sensors/vending misers, explortng plug loadAnformatlon technology power
management strategies. A. buldlng 18 considered retrofitted If tha combined energy savings total at least 10,000
kWh per year for structuraa 15,000 square feet or greater, and prorated for smaller structuras.).
•Identify and facllltate state/local govemmant opportunities to finance energy audits, retrofit projects and rab'o
commlaalonlng through the Guaranteed Energy Savlnga Program GESP), Local Enetgy Efficiency Program
(LEEP), Energy Savings Partnerahlp, atate master contracts, or opportunities 111 appllcable.
•Engage employees to change commuting habits and to make energy and water aavlng behavioral changes at
work and home.
•Encourage reduction of vehlcle mlles traveled and Improved air quallty through safe routes to school, biking and
walklng Initiatives (active llvlng), Improved vehicle and fleet efficiency, complete streets planning and
implementation, education about multl-modal transportation, and facllltation of safety and lnfraatructure
Improvements.
•Implement transportation projects with mauurable outcomes that reduce vehicle mll91 traveled by substituting
walking, biking, and public transit methods to reduce emlaalona and Improve pubUc health.
•Promote and encourage the u■a of hybrid and electrtc vehicles through education and outreach and aaslsting
with developing lnfraatructure for elactrtc vehicles, Including charging atatlons and workplace charging.
•Provide elecb1c vehicle lnformstlon to fleet managers to encourage use In publlc fleets, Including operation and
maintenance coat savings.
•Promote emiulon reductions to community members through educational campaigns that target practices and
behavio11 that allevlate air pollutlon (I.e., sir alert education, carpoollng, publlc transl� biking, car ahartng), and
those that contribute to air pollutlon (I.e., bum barrels, gaa-powered lawn equipment, backyard ftres, vehicle
ldllng, single occupancy vehlcles, and low-efficiency wood-burning boilers/stovel/flraplaces).
•Anlat faclHties m.,agement and public work1 to Incorporate best management practices for chloride (road salt)
prevention (Improved snow removal equipment), product storage, and appllcatlon.
•Conduct 1urvays or collect pre/poat information from participants In trainings, events, workshops, etc., on
commitments to change and changes In behavior with energy conservation and transportation-related
practices.
•As appNcable, coordinate above activities with the lmplementatlon of bulldlngs and lightlng, transportation,
renewable energy, and community resillence best practice■, Including those referenced In the Minnesota
GreenStap CltlN program.
•A.aalat local governments and their partners with planning on how to Institutionalize ongoing savings In energy
and water usage and reducllons In vehlcle mHes traveled and vehicle eml11lons through tracking and follow-up,
revised building and vehlcle operations and maintenance practices, program marketing, and continued
employee engagement
•Identify, engage, and asslat local governments in developing outreach on wood smoke reduction from
recreatlonal fires and/or wood heaters.
Marglnal function• (not to exceed 340 hours)
•Mobilize volunteera to a11lst In the lmplamentatJon of activftlea.
•Assist with addltlonal sustalnablllty-ralated projects as outlined In the green Infrastructure Improvements, waate
reduction, recycling and organics management, and community readiness and outreach position descriptions
within the host site community. Hoat altN are required to ouUlne tllHe actlvltlN In the member'e work
plan.
•lnfonn and educate host site employees, community organizations, and citizens about member projectl and
accomp/18hments via media and public outreach efforts.
www.pcutate,mn.LJ1 • 651-� • 800-657-3864 •
p-mgc2-D9 • 7/5118
Use your preferred relay service • Avallabll In altematlve formats
Page2o/10
DocuSlgn Envelope ID: 9CAEA804-E329-480MISD1-3B860C38680D
If a Member exitstheMinnesota GreenCorps Program ear1yeitherfor cause or compelling personal clrcumatancea, orlarelocatedtoadifferentHostSite, this agreement will automatically and on thelast day of theMember's88rvica atthisHostSite.
Fallure toadheretopollclea or tofulfill responsibilities outlined In thisAgreementwlllbecomepartofthe HlectloncriteriaIntheavantofare-appllcatlon proceu forfuture year programs.
Termination forInsufficient funding. The State may Immediately terminatethisAgreement If Itdoes not obtainfundingfromServeMlnnesotaorotherfundingsource; or Iffunding cannot be continued at a level aufflclent toallow forthepaymentoftheworkacopecoveredhere. Termination must be by writtenor faxnoticetoIhaHost Site. TheStateIsnotobligatedtopayforanyworkperformedafternoticeandeffectivedateoftermination. However, theHost Sitewillbeentitledtopayment, determined on a pro ratabasis, forservlcas aatlafactorilyperformed tothe extent thatfundsareavallable. TheStatewlllnotbe aaseased any penalty Ifthe Agreement Is terminated because ofthe decisionoftheMinnesotaLegislatureorotherfundingsourcenottoappropriatefunds. The Statemust provide the Host Site noticeofthelackoffundingwithinaraaaonabletimeoftheState'sreceivingthatnotice.
By signing thisAgreement, I acknowledge that I have read, understand and agreetoalt terms and conditions ofthisAgreement.
HoetSlte
The Host Sitecertifies that theappropriate persons have executed the Agreement on behalf ofthe Hoat Site as required by
applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances.
Non-encumbrance verification
www.pca.state,mn.us • 651-296-6300 •800-657-3864 •
p-mgc2-D9 • 7/51 8
July 13, 2020
Useyourpreferred relayservice • Avallable In altematlve formats
Page10af10
OF GOLDEN VALLEY:
By: _________________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
By: _________________________________
Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020
Agenda Item
3. E. 2. Approve Purchase of Ionization Devices for City Buildings
Prepared By
Tim Kieffer, Public Works Director
Summary
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)
have established protocols for building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems to
protect workers and visitors from COVID-19. In addition to installing MERV 13 air filters, the City
Council approved the purchase of ionization devices for City Hall and Public Safety to help disinfect the
interior air. Staff continued to work with the contractor to evaluate the rest of the buildings. Staff
proposes to install ionization devices in the remaining buildings, except Schaper Park Shelter and
Animal Impound because these buildings are not occupied for any significant length of time to justify
installation.
The patented ionization devices produce positive and negative ions that attach to fine particles and
pathogens so they are easier to filter. Additionally, the ions have been shown to neutralize COVID-19
by 99.4% within 30 minutes. The devices are ozone-free and passed the RCTA DO-160 aircraft
standard.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
The total cost to purchase and install the ionization devices is $38,425. Staff anticipates to be
reimbursed for this purchase with CARES relief funds.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute Purchase Contract with UHL Company, Inc. in
the form approved by the City Attorney to purchase ionization devices for City buildings in the amount of
38,425.
Supporting Documents
UHL Company, Inc. Quote (2 pages)
Proposal #:
Date:
To: Project:
Attention:
All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be completed in a substantial workmanlike
manner for the sum of:
Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra cost will be executed only upon written
order and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. This proposal is valid for days.
Respectfully submitted:
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The prices, specifications and additional Terms and Conditions set forth on the next page of this proposal are
satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do work as specified. Payment will be made as
outlined herein.
Accepted by: Name (print):
Title: Company Name:
Date:
9065 Zachary Lane N. PROPOSAL
Maple Grove, MN 55369
JL20063
7/15/2020
City of Golden Valley GPS Ionization
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55426
Al Lundstrom
We propose to furnish the material and perform the labor necessary to:
Add Global Plasma Solutions ionization iMOD rods, control panels, and FC-48-AC ionization
units to (4) air handling units, (12) residential furnaces, and (2) roof top units located at the following
buildings. Park Maintenance, Street Maintenance, Vehicle Maintenance, Utility Maintenance,
Brookview Community Center, Golf Maintenance, Fire Station #2, Fire Station #3, Gearty Park
Building, Scheid Park Building, Hampshire Park Building, Wesley Park Building, Medley Park
Building, Lakeview Park Building, Lions Park Building.
All GPS ionization units to be powered from unit they are serving
The patented technology uses an electronic charge to create a plasma field filled with a high
concentration of + and - ions. As these ions travel with the air stream they attach to particles,
pathogens and gases. The ions help to agglomerate fine sub-micron particles, making them filterable.
The ions kill pathogens by robbing them of life-sustaining hydrogen. The ions breakdown harmful
VOCs with an Electron Volt Potential under twelve (eV<12) into harmless compounds like O2, CO2,
N2, and H2O. The ions produced travel within the air stream into the occupied spaces, cleaning the air
everywhere the ions travel, even in spaces unseen.
Startup and verification of operation
One year parts and labor warranty
38,425.00
30
Jake Lehmann
Account Manager
Page 1 of 2
Uhl Company, Inc. – Terms and Conditions of Service
1.Uhl Company will use competent personnel and state of the art equipment to perform its work in a timely and professional
manner.
2.Uhl Company warrants it is covered by Worker’s Compensation insurance, general liability insurance, automobile liability
insurance, and excess liability policies. Certificates for all such insurance policies will be provided to you upon written
request. You will carry Builder’s Risk with full owner and contractor coverage’s and other necessary insurance for the project.
3.Payment is due within 30 days of Uhl Company’s invoice date. Interest shall accrue on any unpaid balance at a rate of 1.5%
per month. Acceptance by Uhl Company of partial payments shall not constitute any release of collection or lien rights.
4.In the event of your default, Uhl Company will give 10 days notice to cure. If you remain in default, Uhl Company may
terminate this agreement and recover the balance due. You will pay all expenses, damages and cost, including reasonable
attorney’s fees, incurred by Uhl Company in collecting the outstanding debt.
5.If, for any reason, you direct a cessation of the work on all or any part of the project, Uhl Company shall be paid at least for
the portion of its work completed at the time of cancellation, including all expenses incurred by Uhl Company.
6.Unless otherwise specified in the proposal, Uhl Company will not furnish any performance or material payment bond.
7.All repair labor is guaranteed for 90 days (except in the case of compressor replacements which carry a thirty day warranty),
while materials and parts are warranted per manufacturer specifications. Warranties do not apply where failure is a result of
faulty installation or abuse, or incorrect electrical connections or alterations made by others, or use under abnormal operating
conditions or misapplication of the products and parts. Uhl Company makes no other warranty expressed or implied; and any
implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose which exceeds the foregoing is hereby disclaimed by
Uhl Company and excluded from any agreement made by acceptance of an order pursuant to this proposal. Under no
circumstance shall Uhl Company be liable for prospective or speculative profits, or special, indirect, incidental, consequential,
or punitive damages and/or physical injuries. Under no circumstances will Uhl Company’s liability exceed the dollar amount
of this proposal and shall terminate one year after the completion of Uhl Company’s work, and Uhl Company may, at its
option, provide a repair or replacement remedy.
8.All material and equipment furnished and installed by Uhl Company will carry the manufacturer’s standard warranty. In many
cases, this warranty will include an allowance for the cost of labor and related costs such as crane rental, refrigerant, etc., for
correcting defects in material and workmanship, for a period of 90 days after installation. However, if the standard
manufacturer’s warranty does not provide for this additional coverage, the owner will be responsible for payment of these
repairs. THIS WARRANTY SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES COVERAGE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, SUCH
AS MOLD. UHL COMPANY HAS MADE NO INSPECTION FOR, NOR REPRESENTATION REGARDING THE
EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF MOLD ON THE OWNER’S PREMISES. UHL COMPANY HAS FURTHER
MADE NO PROMISE OR AFFIRMATION THAT THE MATERIALS AND LABOR PROVIDED WILL ASSIST IN THE
PREVENTION OR REMEDIATION OF MOLD OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.
9.Everyone is concerned over the potential threat to our environment by the release of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants (C.F.C.’s)
into the atmosphere. Uhl Company has for many years had a “no pollution, we care” policy with contaminants including
refrigerants and refrigerant oil. Our technicians are trained to reclaim, filter, and re-use these refrigerants or, if badly
contaminated, recycle them for re-use. All used refrigerant oils are disposed of through a licensed disposal organization. Many
contractors are talking about doing something about pollutants – Uhl Company IS DOING IT.
10.Our pricing does not cover any cost that may be incurred due to hazardous material or its removal or disposal, unless
specifically provided for in the attached proposal. If such costs are incurred by Uhl Company, they will be passed on to you at
Uhl Company’s actual cost without the need for written approval.
11.All estimated labor is to be performed during Uhl Company’s normal working hours unless specified elsewhere in this
proposal.
12.For compressor replacements, Uhl Company will perform an acid test after the drier change (testing for any unsafe acidic oil
levels). If more drier and oil changes are needed, you will be informed, and the cost of these additional changes will be added
to the contract price.
13.This contract constitutes the entire agreement and complete understanding between the parties. No verbal representations shall
be binding on either party and you have not relied on any representation made by Uhl Company that is not contained herein.
14.These Terms may in some instances conflict with some of the terms and conditions or other document issued by you. In such
case, the Terms contained herein shall govern and acceptance of this Proposal is conditioned upon your acceptance of the
Terms herein.
15.Uhl Company shall not be liable for any penalty or damage, delay or injury, or for failure to give notice of delay, or to
perform, when such damage, delay, injury or failure is due to the elements, acts of god, acts of the owner, act of civil or
military authority, war, riots, terrorism, concerted labor action, strikes, shortages of materials, accidents or any cause beyond
the reasonable control of Uhl Company. The completion date shall be deemed extended for a period of time equal to the time
lost due to any delay excusable under this provision.
Page 2 of 2
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020
Agenda Item
3. F. Accept Resignation from the Human Services Commission
Prepared By
Tomás Romano, Assistant to the City Manager´s Office
Summary
Commissioner Katie Hart has submitted her resignation from the Human Services Commission
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Not applicable
Recommended Action
Motion to accept the resignation of Katie Hart from the Human Services Commission.
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020
Agenda Item
3. G. Approve Agreement with Hennepin County for Assessing Services
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The County has been providing assessing services to the City for many years. They have consistently
performed these services in a professional and efficient manner and at a cost that has been
significantly lower than what the City would have paid to operate its own assessing department. Staff
is recommending entering into an agreement with Hennepin County to provide assessing services from
August 1, 2020 through July 31, 2024. The Agreement Number will be added once assigned by
Hennepin County.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
For 2021 through 2024, the annual contract amount is $295,000. That amount may be increased due to
amount of new construction if it exceeds 7.5% as outlined in the contract and will inform the city by
June 15 of any year for the next calendar year.
Recommended Action
Motion to approve signing the Agreement with Hennepin County for Assessing Services from August 1,
2020 through July 31, 2024.
Supporting Documents
Agreement with Hennepin County for Assessing Services (11 pages)
Contract No. A20____
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as
the "COUNTY", and the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, a political subdivision of the State
of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "CITY";
WHEREAS, said CITY lies wholly within the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN and
constitutes a separate assessment district; and
WHEREAS, under such circumstances, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 273.072 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 permit the County Assessor to
provide for the assessment of property; and
WHEREAS, said CITY desires the COUNTY to perform certain assessments
on behalf of said CITY; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to cooperate with said CITY by completing
the assessment in a proper manner;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained
herein, it is agreed as follows:
1. The COUNTY shall perform the 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 property
assessment for the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY in accordance with property
assessment procedures and practices established and observed by the COUNTY, the
validity and reasonableness of which are hereby acknowledged and approved by the
CITY. Any such practices and procedures may be changed from time to time, by the
COUNTY in its sole judgment, when good and efficient assessment procedures so
require. The property assessment by the COUNTY shall be composed of those
2)
assessment services which are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part
hereof by this reference, provided that the time frames set forth therein shall be
considered to be approximate only.
2. All information, records, data, reports, etc. necessary to allow the
COUNTY to carry out its herein responsibilities shall be furnished to the COUNTY
without charge by the CITY, and the CITY agrees to cooperate in good faith with the
COUNTY in carrying out the work under this Agreement.
3. The CITY agrees to furnish, without charge, secured office space needed
by the COUNTY at appropriate places in the CITY's offices. The keys thereto shall be
provided to the COUNTY. Such office space shall be sufficient in size to accommodate
reasonably three (3) appraiser and any furniture placed therein. The office space shall
be available for the COUNTY's use at any and all times during typical business hours,
and during all such hours the COUNTY shall be provided with levels of heat, air
conditioning and ventilation as are appropriate for the seasons.
4. The CITY also agrees to provide appropriate desk and office furniture as
necessary, clerical and secretarial support necessary and reasonable for the carrying
out of the work herein, necessary office supplies and equipment, copying machines and
fax machines and their respective supplies, and telephone and internet service to the
COUNTY, all without charge to the COUNTY.
5. It shall be the responsibility of the CITY to have available at the CITY's
offices a person who has the knowledge and skill to be able to answer routine questions
pertaining to homesteads and property assessment matters.
3)
6. In accordance with Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the
County Commissioners' policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded
from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service or
activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status,
sexual orientation, public assistance status, ex-offender status or national origin; and no
person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws, rules and regulations
against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination.
7. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be
construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of joint venturers or
co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the CITY as the agent,
representative or employee of the COUNTY for any purpose or in any manner
whatsoever. Any and all personnel of CITY or other persons, while engaged in the
performance of any activity under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship
with the COUNTY and shall not be considered employees of the COUNTY and any and
all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of
Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and
all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of
employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination
against the CITY, its officers, agents, CITY or employees shall in no way be the
responsibility of the COUNTY, and CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold the COUNTY,
its officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless from
any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal,
agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require
nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever fro m the
4)
COUNTY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and
vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Re-employment Compensation, disability,
severance pay and retirement benefits.
8. CITY agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the COUNTY, its
elected officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless
from any and all liability (statutory or otherwise) claims, suits, damages, judgments,
interest, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees, witness fees and
disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) resulting from or caused by the
negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the CITY, its officers, agents, contractors,
employees or duly authorized volunteers in the performance of the responsibilities
provided by this Agreement. The CITY’s liability shall be governed by Minn. Stat.
Chapter 466 and other applicable law, rule and regulation, including common law.
9. COUNTY agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the CITY, its
elected officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless
from any and all liability (statutory or otherwise) claims, suits, damages, judgments,
interest, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees, witness fees and
disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) resulting from or caused by the
negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the COUNTY, its officers, agents,
contractors, employees or duly authorized volunteers in the performance of the
responsibilities provided by this Agreement. The COUNTY’s liability shall be governed
by Minn. Stat. Chapter 466 and other applicable law, rule and regulation, including
common law.
10. The COUNTY shall endeavor to perform all services called for herein in an
efficient manner. The sole and exclusive remedy for any breach of this Agreement by
5)
the COUNTY and for COUNTY's liability of any kind whatsoever, including but not
limited to liability arising out of, resulting from or in any manner related to contract, tort,
warranty, statute or otherwise, shall be limited to correcting diligently any deficiency in
said services as is reasonably possible under the pertinent circumstances.
11. Neither party hereto shall be deemed to be in default of any provision of
this Agreement, or for delay or failure in performance, resulting from causes beyond the
reasonable control of such party, which causes shall include, but are not limited to, acts
of God, labor disputes, acts of civil or military authority, fire, civil disturbance, changes in
laws, ordinances or regulations which materially affect the provisions hereof, or any
other causes beyond the parties' reasonable control.
12. This Agreement shall commence on August 1, 2020, and shall terminate
on July 31, 2024. Either party may initiate an extension of this Agreement for a term of
four (4) years by giving the other written notice of its intent to so extend prior to March 1,
2024. If the party who receives said notice of intent to extend gives written notice to the
other party of its desire not to extend prior to, April 15, 2024 this Agreement shall
terminate on July 31, 2024.
Nothing herein shall preclude the parties, prior to the end of this Agreement, from
agreeing to extend this contract for a term of four (4) years. Any extended term hereof shall be
on the same terms and conditions set forth herein and shall commence on August 1, 2024.
Either party may terminate this Agreement for "just cause" as determined by the Commissioner
of Revenue after hearing for such a determination is held by the Commissioner of Revenue
and which has been attended by representatives of COUNTY and CITY or which said
representatives had a reasonable opportunity to attend, provided that after such determination,
any party desiring to cancel this Agreement may do so by giving the other party no less
6)
than 120 days' written notice. If the CITY should cancel this Agreement, as above provided,
before the completion of the then current property assessment by the COUNTY, the CITY
agrees to defend and hold the COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees and duly
authorized volunteers harmless from any liability that might ensue as a result of the non -
completion of a property tax assessment.
For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "just cause" shall mean the failure of
any party hereto reasonably to perform a material responsibility arising hereunder.
13.A. In consideration of said assessment services, the CITY agrees to pay the
COUNTY the sum of Two Hundred Ninety Five Thousand Dollars ($295,000) for each
assessment, provided that any payment for the current year’s assessment may be
increased or decreased by that amount which exceeds or is less than the COUNTY's
estimated cost of appraising new construction and new parcels for the current year’s
assessment. The amount of any increase or decrease shall be specified in the billing
for the current year’s assessment.
13.B. Regarding each assessment, in addition to being subject to adjustment in
the above manner, said assessment cost of $295,000 may also be increased by the
COUNTY if:
1) The COUNTY determines that any cost to the COUNTY in carrying
out any aspect of this Agreement has increased, including but not
limited to the following types of costs: new construction and new
parcel appraisals, mileage, postage, supplies, labor (including
fringe benefits) and other types of costs, whether similar or
dissimilar; and/or
2) The COUNTY reasonably determines that other costs should be
included in the costs of assessment work.
If the COUNTY desires to increase the assessment cost pursuant to this paragraph
13(B), it shall give written notice thereof by June 15 of any year and such increase shall
7)
apply to the assessment for the calendar year next following the current calendar year. Any
such notification shall specifically set forth the amount of any new construction and new
parcel appraisal charges. Notwithstanding any provisions herein to the contrary, if any such
increase, exclusive of any charge for the estimated costs of new construction and new parcel
appraisals, exceeds seven and one half percent (7.5%) of the amount charged for the
assessment for the then current calendar year, exclusive of any charge for the estimated
costs of new construction and new parcel appraisals, the CITY may cancel this Agreement
by giving to the COUNTY written notice thereof, provided that said cancellation notice must
be received by the COUNTY not later than July 24 of the then current calendar year and said
cancellation shall be effective no earlier than five (5) days after the receipt of said notice by
the COUNTY and not later than July 31 of said next calendar year. Supportive records of the
cost increase will be open to inspection by the CITY at such times as are mutually agreed
upon by the COUNTY and CITY.
Failure of the COUNTY to give the CITY a price-change notice by June 15 shall
not preclude the COUNTY from giving CITY such notice after said date but prior to
September 1 of any year, provided that if such price increase exceeds said ten (10%) -
all as above set forth - the CITY may cancel this Agreement if the COUNTY receives
notice thereof not later than thirty-nine (39) days from the date of receipt by the CITY of
any said late price-change notice, provided further that any such cancellation shall be
effective not earlier than five (5) days after COUNTY's receipt of said cancellation notice
and not later than forty-six (46) days after the CITY's receipt of any said price -increase
notice.
Payment for each assessment shall be made in the following manner:
Any bill from the COUNTY for the current year’s assessment which is received by the
8)
CITY before August 18 of the current year shall be due on September 7 of said year,
provided that the City may elect to pay said bill before said date. Any bill received by
the city after August 18 shall be due no later than twenty-one (21) days after the CITY’s
receipt thereof.
The COUNTY may bill the CITY after the aforesaid dates and in each such case, the
CITY shall pay such bill within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof.
14. Any notice or demand, which may or must be given or made by a party
hereto, under the terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance, shall be in writing
and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party addressed as follows:
TO CITY: City Manager
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
TO COUNTY: Hennepin County Administrator
2300A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
copies to: County Assessor
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
copies to: Assistant County Assessor
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
9)
Any party may designate a different addressee or address at any time by giving
written notice thereof as above provided. Any notice, if mailed, properly addressed,
postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, shall be deemed dispatched on the
registered date or that stamped on the certified mail receipt and shall be deemed
received within the second business day thereafter or when it is actually received,
whichever is sooner. Any notice delivered by hand shall be deemed received upon
actual delivery.
15. It is expressly understood that the obligations of the CITY under
Paragraphs 7, 8, 12, and 13 hereof and the obligations of the CITY which, by their sense
and context, are intended to survive the performance thereof by the CITY, shall so survive
the completion of performance, termination or cancellation of this Agreement.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed by its duly authorized officers and delivered on its behalf, this 21 day of July,
2020.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Reviewed by County
Attorney’s Office: By:
Chair of the County Board
Date: _________________ And:
Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator
ATTEST:
Deputy/Clerk of the County Board
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
By:
Its
And:
Its
City organized under:
Statutory ______Option A ______ Option B ______Charter
Mayor
City Manager
11)
Contract No. A20____
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
During the contract term, the County shall:
1. Physically inspect and revalue 20% of the real property, as required by
law.
2. Physically inspect and value all new construction, additions and
renovation.
3. Adjust estimated market values on those properties not physically
inspected as deemed necessary per sales ratio analysis.
4. Prepare the initial assessment roll.
5. Print and mail valuation notices.
6. Respond to taxpayers regarding assessment or appraisal problems or
inquiries.
7. Conduct valuation reviews prior to Board of Review or Open Book
Meetings, as determined by the City – approximate dates: March through
May 15.
8. Attend Board of Review or conduct Open Book Meeting. Prepare all
necessary review appraisals. Approximate dates: April 1 – May 31.
9. Maintain an updated property file – current values, classification data and
characteristic data.
10. Prepare divisions and combinations as required.
11. Administer the abatement process pursuant to Minn. Stat. §375.192.
12. Prepare appraisals; defend and/or negotiate all Tax Court cases.
13. Provide all computer hardware and software applications necessary to
complete contracted services.
14. Process all homestead and special program applications.
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020
Agenda Item
4. A. Public Hearing – Amending Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District Narrow Lot Regulations
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
In 2019, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to engage in discussion around the zoning
regulations for narrow lots (generally those under 65 feet in width and specifically for those 50 feet or
less in width) and to propose any recommended changes to help mitigate impacts on surrounding
properties. The Planning Commission held numerous meetings on this topic, and staff conducted an
Online Survey, hosted a Public Forum, and created an online Information Session to engage the public.
On June 22, the Commission voted to recommend the City Council adopt a number of text
amendments to the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. In addition, the Commission
encouraged the City Council to be thoughtful regarding how narrow lots are utilized when building for
the future and creating housing equity in the city.
Background
The following is a summary of the meetings and actions taken on this topic:
November 14, 2017 – Initial discussion at the Council/Manager meeting on lot divisions
May 14, 2019 – Second Council/Manager discussion on concerns regarding lot divisions
October 10, 2019 – Council/Manager discussion on narrow lots; direction to staff and Planning
Commission to explore possible changes to regulations
October 14, 2019 – Planning Commission discussion of current Golden Valley regulations
October 28, 2019 – Planning Commission discussion of narrow lot regulations in other cities
November 12, 2019 – Planning Commission panel of realtors
December 9, 2019 – Planning Commission panel of designers/builders
January 2020 – Online Survey targeting single-family residential property owners
January 16, 2020 – Narrow Lots Public Forum
January 27, 2020 – Planning Commission update on results of Public Forum
February 10, 2020 – Planning Commission update on results of Online Survey; discussion of side
setback and garage issues
March 9, 2020 – Planning Commission discussion of building envelope, side wall articulation,
secondary front yard setback, lot coverage, and impervious percentage issues
May 11, 2020 – Planning Commission review and discussion of draft changes
May 2020 – Online Information Session on proposed changes with public comment forms
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
July 21, 2020
2
June 8, 2020 – Planning Commission public hearing to consider code changes
June 22, 2020 – Continued Planning Commission public hearing and vote to recommend approval
of zoning text amendments to narrow lot regulations (7-2)
All staff memos, exhibits, and minutes from these meetings can be viewed through links on the City’s
Narrow Lots web page: http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/planning/housing/narrow.php
Over the course of the spring and early summer, staff worked with the Planning Commission to identify
proposed changes to eight topics related to the regulation of narrow lots. All of these are found within
the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District (Section 113-88 of the City Code). A video
presentation documenting these changes was uploaded to the Narrow Lots page on the City website in
May and advertised via a postcard sent to all single-family property owners in the city as well as
through the City’s social media. The site included a comment box to pose questions to staff or to the
Planning Commission and a form to provide public testimony in place of calling-in to a virtual meeting.
This comment box remained open through July 15. All questions and comments received via this page
have been documented in an attachment to this memo (see Appendix C of the Narrow Lot Study
Community Input Report).
Over the course of this investigation, residents most frequently listed the following concerns regarding
the (re)development of narrow lots:
The height of new homes and the impacts of height on adjacent properties
The size of setbacks and the amount of open space between structures
The impact of the new construction process on existing residents
The loss of trees, vegetation, and green space
Changes in neighborhood character
At the same time, some property owners and builders expressed fear that severe limitations on narrow
lots development could result in the construction of less than desirable homes or homes left to suffer
neglect rather than undergo reinvestment.
Staff and the Planning Commission primarily worked to try and address the first two points above,
while also considering generally the impacts to neighborhood character as controlled through zoning.
The City’s regulations around trees, vegetation, stormwater, and construction are managed through
other sections of the City Code, outside of the purview of the Planning Commission.
Topics to be Addressed
There are eight specific areas of narrow lot regulation that are proposed for amendment as a part of
the City Council’s public hearing:
Side Yard Setbacks
Garage Requirements
Building Envelope Size/Shape
a. Slope
b. Side Wall Height
c. Dormers
Side Wall Articulation
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
July 21, 2020
3
Secondary Front Yard Setbacks
Lot Coverage
While the changes to any one of these areas may seem minor, when taken together they can result in
significant alterations to the size, shape, and character of a new home on a narrow lot.
Side Yard Setbacks
Staff recommends adjusting the minimum side yard setback for lots under 50 feet in width by
increasing it to 5 feet. When applying the current regulations, which set side setbacks at 10 percent
and 20 percent of the lot width, a side yard setback on a 40 foot lot may be as little as 4 feet. This
change would give slightly more yard space along the north or west side of a home – providing more
options for directing surface stormwater flow – and when combined with the side yard setback to the
south or east of the adjacent property would result in 13 to 15 feet of spacing between structures.
Not allowing a setback of less than 5 feet also addresses an area of concern for the City’s Inspections
Division, which requires additional fireproofing of structures if they are positioned within 5 feet from
the property line.
Garage Requirements
Staff recommends adjusting the garage requirements for lots 50 feet in width or less by allowing
homes to be built with a one-stall garage and by limiting the width of the front wall of a garage to 75
percent of the front façade. Current regulations require two garage stalls be constructed (or prove that
a second stall can legally be added) and set no limits on the amount of the front façade that can be
taken up by a garage wall. These recommended changes are similar to what the City allows for 50 foot
wide single-family lots in the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District.
Restricting the size of the garage on the front façade allows for greater creativity in design, more
variety in floorplans, and the option of a wider front entry or other non-garage portion of the home. It
has been the position of the Planning Commission in the past that garage-dominated façades are not
desired. Other options, such as utilizing a garage space to the rear of the home or constructing a
detached garage, may be possible.
Building Envelope Size/Shape
There are three elements of zoning that specifically address the size and shape of the building
envelope (the three dimensional area within which a home can be constructed).
Slope
Staff recommends adjusting the slope of the tent-shaped building envelope for lots under 65 feet in
width and setting it at a 2:1 ratio to match the regulations applied to other single-family lots in the city.
Current regulations allow the slope to increase to a 4:1 ratio on narrow lots, resulting in taller roof
peaks and greater shading of adjacent properties. Flattening this slope would impact the usable second
story floor space.
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
July 21, 2020
4
Side Wall Height
Staff also recommends lowering the maximum wall height at the side yard setback line and setting it at
13 feet for lots 65 feet in width or less. Current regulations allow the wall to extend to 15 feet.
Reducing the ratio and lowering the side wall height would provide some relief for adjacent properties
by reducing the massing and pushing any new two-story side wall further from the property line. It
would, however, have a negative impact on the second stories of homes on narrow lots by reducing
available headroom and narrowing floor plans.
Dormers
In order to help compensate for the loss of this usable second story area, staff recommends allowing
dormers on lots 65 feet wide or less to extend outside of the building envelope. If the height, width,
and location of the dormers are successfully managed, they can be an interesting architectural feature
that creates usable second story floor space while still breaking up the shading the might otherwise fall
on an adjacent property.
In general – The total dormer length along one side of a home may be broken into more than one
section. The total dormer length is limited to 40 percent of the main wall below. No part of a dormer
may extend above the ridge line of the roof.
Shed dormers – The front wall of the dormer must be set back at least 2 feet from the plane of the
main wall below. The side walls of the dormer must be set back at least 4 feet from the front or back
wall of the home. The maximum height as measured to the top of the front eave line is limited to 20
feet above average grade.
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
July 21, 2020
5
Gable dormers – The front wall of the dormer must be set back at least 2 feet from the plane of the
main wall below. The side walls or furthest extent of the dormer must be set back at least 4 feet from
the front or back wall of the home. The maximum height as measured to the top of the dormer peak is
limited to 25 feet above average grade.
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
July 21, 2020
6
At the request of the Planning Commission, staff created a series of key images to help visually
compare the amount of shadowing generated by homes on narrow lots (see attached Dormer Shading
Study).
Image 1 shows the massing of a building on a 40 foot lot under the current regulations. Images 2 and 3
show buildings that would be allowed using the proposed regulations – the first with a shed dormer
and the second with gable dormers. All three images are shown with shadows generated by the sun’s
position at 1:00 pm on June 20, September 22, and December 21, using the rough latitude and
longitude from the North Tyrol neighborhood and oriented similarly to the properties on the east side
of Meadow Lane North.
All three images use a 5.5 foot setback to the north and an 8 foot setback to the south. The height of
the buildings in Images 2 and 3 tops out at 22 feet. For comparison, the height of the building in Image
1 is 29 feet at the peak.
As anticipated, modifying the maximum massing of the home on the narrow lot reduces the impact of
shading on the adjacent property in the fall and winter, even with the addition of second story dormers.
Side Wall Articulation
Staff recommends prohibiting any structural elements used to meet the side wall articulation
requirement from extending into the side yard setback for lots 50 feet in width or less, and never
allowing them to extend any closer than 5 feet from side property lines. Current regulations allow
certain elements, such as chimney chases or bay windows, to extend into the side yard setback area by
up to 2 feet, potentially reducing the distance from a structure to a side property line to as little as 2
feet on a 40 foot wide lot.
Eliminating this option helps preserve the distance between the principal structure on a narrow lot and
the side property line and provides more open yard space between structures for adjacent properties.
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
July 21, 2020
7
The side wall articulation requirement would not be dismissed, but architects/builders would need to
find other ways to create articulation when a wall is longer than 32 feet.
Secondary Front Yard Setbacks
Staff recommends the setback for secondary front yards – or what are commonly viewed as exterior
side yards on corner lots – be allowed to be reduced as lots narrow below 65 feet in width in order to
maintain a building envelope 27 feet wide, which is the minimum building envelope width
recommended above for non-corner lots.
For some 50 foot lots, this could result in a secondary front yard setback along a street to the north or
west to be reduced to 13 feet. For some 40 foot lots along the north or west side of a block, this could
result in a secondary front yard setback of only 5 feet; however, staff identified only eight lots of this
type in the city. Corner visibility requirements would remain in effect and ensure clear sight lines at
intersections of streets and alleys.
This change would reduce the number of variances needed to develop existing corner lots that would
otherwise be unbuildable. Up until 1983, a provision in the Zoning Code explicitly carved out an
exception to the 35 foot front yard setback for a secondary front yard in order to preserve a buildable
envelope. This regulation was removed as part of a larger code clean-up with no details recorded as to
why this particular change was made or if the ramifications were considered.
Lot Coverage
Staff recommends modifying the amount of lot coverage allowed for lots under 6,000 square feet and
setting it at 30 percent, similar to the amount set for lots over 10,000 square feet. Lots between 6,000
and 10,000 square feet would continue to be allowed to have coverage of 35 percent. Current
regulations allow up to 40 percent of some small lots to be covered by building footprints.
Restricting the percentage of a narrow lot covered by structures would reduce the footprint available
to construct a new home and provide additional space for stormwater to be managed.
Comments and Concerns
As of July 16, 59 comments from residents had been submitted through the Narrow Lots web page, in
addition to others received previously as part of the Online Survey and Public Forum. The full text of
these comments can be found in Appendix C of the attached document (Narrow Lot Study Community
Input Report), but in general they can be summarized in four points:
1. The proposed regulations don’t go far enough in restricting the scale of new development and
protecting adjacent properties. Numerous residents continue to ask that no development of
narrow lots be allowed at all.
2. Open/green/landscaped/natural areas need to be protected and adding density only hurts this.
3. Certain proposed regulations might be problematic (allowing homes to be built with just a
single-car garage was the most common concern).
4. A handful stated the City should be promoting diversity in housing and these proposed
regulations seem reasonable for narrow lots.
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
July 21, 2020
8
Three individuals called-in to the virtual Planning Commission meeting held on June 8. Two were
supportive of the changes and hoped that homes on smaller lots could provide additional affordable
housing in the city; one expressed concerns that the regulations did not go far enough and supported
the concept of smaller homes on smaller lots. Three emails were received subsequent to the Planning
Commission vote.
A local builder who has designed homes for narrow lots in Golden Valley expressed strong concerns
with a few of the recommendations. Specifically, he was worried about the impact of the change to the
building envelope (reducing the allowed slope and lowering the side wall height) due to the restrictions
it would place on the design of the upper level of these homes. He was also concerned that creating
regulations that encouraged, or even required, a single-car garage design would result in homes that
were unattractive to buyers. The limitations on attached garage width, coupled with the current
maximum impervious coverage amounts, could make owning two cars unmanageable on some
properties.
Impacts of Proposed Regulations
While the true impacts of these proposed changes on the construction of homes on narrow lots may
not fully be known until building plans are submitted, evaluated, and implemented, staff experiences,
discussions among Planning Commissioners, and feedback from other professionals provide a good
basis for anticipating what may result.
The adjustment to the side setback requirement is small and would not dramatically impact the
spacing between homes. It would address a concern from Building Inspections staff related to
fireproofing and would maintain a sufficient building envelope width to allow flexibility in home design.
Imposing new restrictions on the width of garages would have some impact on 40 foot wide lots, but
should produce more attractive public-facing façades. Modifying the garage stall requirement would
also provide more flexibility for residents who might only desire to own one car.
The changes in the size and shape of the building envelope would have the largest impact, reducing the
height of structures in the portions of a lot closest to the side property line and breaking up the overall
massing of these homes by shifting to a greater use of dormers. It is likely that the amount of second
story floor space would be reduced and it is possible that construction costs would increase due to the
design of more complicated roof lines.
Modifying the side wall articulation requirements would help maintain spacing between homes on 40
and 50 foot wide lots, but could make designing structures with the proper articulation more
challenging.
Allowing a reduction in the secondary front yard setback would help avoid the need for variances on
most corner lots and would allow redevelopment to take place that is consistent with past practices.
Adjusting the amount of lot coverage allowed on smaller lots is mostly a preventative measure as
recent developments on narrow lots have remained just below the proposed limit.
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
July 21, 2020
9
Overall, the proposed changes would continue to allow owners of narrow lots to take advantage of
their right to build, while dialing back on the size and scale of what could be constructed in order to
reduce the impacts to adjacent properties.
Summary of Recommendations
Staff is recommending the following modifications to the zoning regulations, as documented in the
attached underlined/overstruck section of code:
1. Establish side yard setbacks of at least 5 feet, regardless of lot width.
2. Allow lots 50 feet in width or less to construct a home with only a one-car garage. Limit the
garage to a maximum of 75 percent of the front façade.
3. Set the vertical:horizontal ratio of the building envelope at 2:1 instead of 4:1 for all lots.
4. Lower the side wall height from 15 feet to 13 feet at the side yard setback line for lots 65 feet in
width or less.
5. For lots 65 feet in width or less, allow second floor dormers to extend outside of the building
envelope but with restrictions on location, size, and height.
6. Prohibit articulation elements from extending into the side yard setback for lots 50 feet wide or
less.
7. Reduce the secondary front yard setback for corner lots 65 feet in width as needed in order to
maintain a 27 foot wide building envelope.
8. Modify the lot coverage maximum for lots under 6,000 square feet to be 30 percent.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
There are no financial or budgetary considerations for the City.
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance #684, Amending Section 113-88: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning
District Narrow Lot Regulations.
Motion to adopt Summary of Ordinance #684 for Publication based on the finding that the title and
summary clearly inform the public of the intent and elect of the ordinance.
Supporting Documents
Memos to Planning Commission dated June 8 and June 22 (16 pages)
Planning Commission Minutes dated June 8 and June 22 (7 pages)
Dormer Shading Study (3 pages)
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report (108 pages)
Underlined/Overstruck Language for Sec. 113-88: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District (10
pages)
Ordinance #684 - Amending Section 113-88: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District Narrow
Lot Regulations (3 pages)
Summary of Ordinance #684 (1 page)
1
Date: June 8, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendments – Proposed Adjustments to
Narrow Lot Regulations
Summary
The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to engage in discussion around the zoning
regulations for narrow lots (generally those under 65 feet in width and specifically for those 50
feet or less in width) and to propose any recommended changes to help mitigate impacts on
surrounding properties. Based on past conversations with Commissioners and subject experts
and with feedback from residents, a public hearing is being held to consider text amendments to
the Zoning Chapter of the City Code.
Background
The following is a summary of the actions taken on this topic to date:
November 14, 2017 – Initial discussion at the Council/Manager meeting on lot divisions
May 14, 2019 – Second Council/Manager discussion on concerns regarding lot divisions
October 10, 2019 – Council/Manager discussion on narrow lots; direction to staff and
Planning Commission to explore possible changes to regulations
October 14, 2019 – Planning Commission discussion of current Golden Valley regulations
October 28, 2019 – Planning Commission discussion of regulations in other cities
November 12, 2019 – Planning Commission panel of realtors
December 9, 2019 – Planning Commission panel of designers/builders
January 2020 – Online Survey targeting single-family residential property owners
January 16, 2020 – Narrow Lots Public Forum
January 27, 2020 – Planning Commission update on results of Public Forum
February 10, 2020 – Planning Commission update on results of Online Survey; discussion of
side setback and garage issues
March 9, 2020 – Planning Commission discussion of building envelope, side wall articulation,
secondary front yard setback, lot coverage, and impervious percentage issues
May 11, 2020 – Planning Commission review and discussion of draft changes
2
May 2020 – Online Presentation on proposed changes with public comment forms
Staff memos, exhibits, and minutes from these meetings can be view through links on the City’s
Narrow Lots web page: http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/planning/housing/narrow.php
Staff has worked with the Planning Commission to identify proposed changes to eight topics
related to the regulation of narrow lots. All of these are found within the Single-Family
Residential (R-1) Zoning District (Section 113-88 of the City Code). A video presentation
documenting these changes was uploaded to the Narrow Lots page on the City website in May
and advertised via a postcard sent to all single-family property owners in the city as well as
through the City’s social media. The site includes a comment box to pose questions to staff or to
the Planning Commission and a form to provide public testimony in place of calling-in to a virtual
meeting. All questions and comments received via this page through June 4 have been
documented in an attachment to this memo (see Narrow Lots Info Session Feedback).
Over the course of this investigation, residents most frequently listed the following concerns
regarding the (re)development of narrow lots:
The height of new homes and the impacts of height on adjacent properties
The size of setbacks and the amount of open space between structures
The impact of new construction on existing residents
The loss of trees, vegetation, and green space
Changes in neighborhood character
At the same time, some property owners and builders expressed that they feared that severe
limitations on narrow lots development could result in the construction of less than desirable
homes.
Staff and the Planning Commission primarily worked to try and address the first two points
above, while also considering generally the impacts to neighborhood character as controlled
through zoning. The City’s regulations around trees, vegetation, stormwater, and construction
are managed through other sections of the City Code, outside of the purview of the Planning
Commission.
Topics to be Addressed
There are eight specific areas of narrow lot regulation that are under consideration for
adjustment as a part of this public hearing:
Side Yard Setbacks
Garage Requirements
Building Envelope Size/Shape
a. Slope
b. Side Wall Height
c. Dormers
Side Wall Articulation
Secondary Front Yard Setbacks
3
Lot Coverage
While the changes to any one of these areas may seem minor, when taken together they can
result in significant alterations to the size, shape, and character of a new home on a narrow lot.
Side Yard Setbacks
Staff recommends adjusting the minimum side yard setback for lots under 50 feet in width by
increasing it to 5 feet. When applying the current regulations, which set side setbacks at 10
percent and 20 percent of the lot width, a side yard setback on a 40 foot lot may be as little as 4
feet. This change would give slightly more yard space along the north or west side of a home –
providing more options for directing surface stormwater flow – and when combined with the side
yard setback to the south or east of the adjacent property would result in 13 to 15 feet of spacing
between structures.
Not allowing a setback of less than 5 feet also addresses an area of concern for the City’s
Inspections Division, which requires additional fireproofing of structures if they are positioned
within 5 feet from the property line.
One consideration in setting this setback side is the width of the building envelope that would
result. For a 50 foot wide lot, the building envelope would be 35 feet; for a 40 foot wide lot, the
building envelope would be only 27 feet. At the May 11 Planning Commission meeting,
Commissioners asked if a 27 foot wide building envelope (and therefor e a 27 foot wide home)
was an unusual width and might in fact be encouraging only a 26 foot wide structure. Staff
consulted with the City’s Building Inspectors and discovered that while 27 foot rafters are an
uncommon length, they can be prepared on a custom basis. Even rafter lengths of 26 or 28 are
much more common.
Garage Requirements
Staff recommends adjusting the garage requirements for lots 50 feet in width or less by allowing
homes to be built with a one-stall garage and by limiting the width of the front wall of a garage to
65 percent of the front façade. Current regulations require two garage stalls be constructed (or
prove that a second stall can legally be added) and set no limits on the amount of the front
façade that can be taken up by a garage wall. These recommended changes match what the City
allows for 50 foot wide single-family lots in the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning
District.
Restricting the size of the garage on the front façade allows for greater creativity in design, more
variety in floorplans, and the option of a wider front entry or other non-garage portion of the
home. It has been the position of the Planning Commission in the past that garage-dominated
façades are not desired. Other options, such as utilizing a garage space to the rear of the home or
constructing a detached garage, may be possible.
For a 40 foot wide lot maximizing the width of the allowed building envel ope, a garage would be
limited to approximately 17.5 feet of width, leaving approximately 9.5 feet of non -garage façade.
4
Building Envelope Size/Shape
There are three elements of zoning that specifically address the size and shape of the building
envelope (the three dimensional area within which a home can be constructed).
Slope
Staff recommends adjusting the slope of the tent-shaped building envelope for lots under 65 feet
in width and setting it at a 2:1 ratio to match the regulations applied to other single-family lots in
the city. Current regulations allow the slope to increase to a 4:1 ratio on narrow lots, resulting in
taller roof peaks and greater shading of adjacent properties. Flattening this slope would impact
the usable second story floor space.
Side Wall Height
Staff also recommends lowering the maximum wall height at the side yard setback line and
setting it at 13 feet for lots 65 feet in width or less. Current regulations allow the wall to extend
to 15 feet.
Reducing the ratio and lowering the side wall height would provide some relief for adjacent
properties by reducing the massing and pushing any new two-story side wall further from the
property line. It would, however, have a negative impact on the second stories of homes on
narrow lots by reducing available headroom and narrowing floor plans.
Dormers
In order to help compensate for the loss of this usable second story area, staff recommends
allowing dormers on lots 65 feet wide or less to extend outside of the building envelope. If the
height, width, and location of the dormers are successfully managed, they can be an interesting
architectural feature that creates usable second story floor space while still breaking up the
shading the might otherwise fall on an adjacent property.
Staff recommends the following restrictions on dormer location, size, and height:
In general – The total dormer length along one side of a home may be broken into more than one
section. No part of a dormer may extend above the ridge line of the roof.
Shed dormers – The total length along one side of a home is limited to 50 percent of the length of
the main wall below. The front wall of the dormer must be set back at least 2 feet from the plane
of the main wall below. The side walls of the dormer must be set back at least 4 feet from the
front or back wall of the home. The maximum height as measured to the top of the front eave
line is limited to 20 feet above average grade.
5
Gable dormers - The total length along one side of a home is limited to 40 percent of the length
of the main wall below. The front wall of the dormer must be set back at least 2 feet from the
plane of the main wall below. The side walls or furthest extent of the dormer must be set back at
least 4 feet from the front or back wall of the home. The maximum height as measured to the top
of the dormer peak is limited to 25 feet above average grade.
6
Side Wall Articulation
Staff recommends prohibiting any structural elements used to meet the side wall articulation
requirement from extending into the side yard setback for lots 50 feet in width or less, and never
allowing them to extend any closer than 5 feet from side property lines. Current regulations allow
certain elements, such as chimney chases or bay windows, to extend into the side yard setback
area by up to 2 feet, potentially reducing the distance from a structure to a side property line to
as little as 2 feet on a 40 foot wide lot.
7
Eliminating this option helps preserve the distance between the principal structure on a narrow
lot and the side property line and provides more open yard space between structures for
adjacent properties. The side wall articulation requirement would not be dismissed, but
architects/builders would need to find other ways to create articulation when a wall is longer
than 32 feet.
Secondary Front Yard Setbacks
Staff recommends the setback for secondary front yards – or what are commonly viewed as
exterior side yards on corner lots – be allowed to be reduced as lots narrow below 65 feet in
width in order to maintain a building envelope 27 feet wide, which is the minimum building
envelope width recommended above for non-corner lots. Scaling this secondary front yard
setback to respond to the width of the lot, rather than being set at a fixed amount, was
requested by the Planning Commission during discussion at the May 11 meeting.
For some 50 foot lots, this could result in a secondary front yard setback along a street to the
north or west to be reduced to 13 feet. For some 40 foot lots along the north or west side of a
block, this could result in a secondary front yard setback of only 5 feet; however, staff identified
only eight lots of this type in the city. Corner visibility requirements would remain in effect and
ensure clear sight lines at intersections of streets and alleys.
This change would reduce the number of variances needed to develop existing corner lots that
would otherwise be unbuildable. Up until 1983, a provision in the Zoning Code explicitly carved
out an exception to the 35 foot front yard setback for a secondary front yard in order to preserve
a buildable envelope. This regulation was removed as part of a larger code clean-up with no
details recorded as to why this particular change was made or if the ramifications were
considered.
At the May 11 meeting, the Planning Commission considered maintaining a 22 foot wide building
envelope (22 feet being the minimum building width allowed). After examining a recent variance
granted for a 40 foot wide corner lot which resulted in a 28 foot wide building envelope, staff is
suggesting this in increased to 27 feet in order to match the build ing envelope size for non-corner
lots. Should the Commission choose to a width less than 27 feet, there would likely be challenges
providing garage access from the primary, or shorter, front yard. Hopefully, this would be offset
by the option to provide garage access along the secondary, or longer, front yard.
Lot Coverage
Staff recommends modifying the amount of lot coverage allowed for lots under 6,000 square feet
and setting it at 30 percent, similar to the amount set for lots over 10,000 square feet. Lots
between 6,000 and 10,000 square feet would continue to be allowed to have coverage of 35
percent. Current regulations allow up to 40 percent of some small lots to be covered by building
footprints.
8
Restricting the percentage of a narrow lot covered by structures would reduce the footprint
available to construct a new home and provide additional space for stormwater to be managed.
Comments and Concerns
As of June 4, 47 comments from residents had been submitted through the Narrow Lots web
page. The full text of these comments can be found in the attached document, but in general
they can be summarized in four points:
1. The proposed regulations don’t go far enough in restricting the scale of new development
and protecting adjacent properties. Numerous residents continue to ask that no
development of narrow lots be allowed at all.
2. Open/green/landscaped/natural areas need to be protected and adding density only
hurts this.
3. Certain proposed regulations might be problematic (allowing homes to be built wit h just a
single-car garage was the most common concern).
4. A handful stated the City should be promoting diversity in housing and these proposed
regulations seem reasonable for narrow lots.
The proposed changes were shared with a local builder who has designed homes for narrow lots
in Golden Valley. He expressed strong concern s with a few of the recommendations.
First, he was worried about the impact of the change to the building envelope (reducing the
allowed slope and lowering the side wall height) due to the restrictions it would place on the
design of the upper level of these homes. Although the allowance of some dormer space would
help, he believes the protrusion of dormers outside of the building envelope would have a
negative impact on neighboring properties as the massing would continue to loom over them and
perhaps be even more severe.
Second, he was very concerned that creating regulations that encouraged, or even required, a
single-car garage design would result in homes that were unattractive to buyers. The limitations
on attached garage width, coupled with the current maximum impervious coverage amounts,
could make owning two cars impossible on some properties.
With his permission, staff has included the text of his comments below:
In my opinion, the reduction of buildable width from 28' to 27', along with a rule of a
65% garage to house, will be the biggest negative impact. While the intent of the
65% rule for garage width is to maximize front exposure of house, the net result is
actually very little has changed. In my "current rules" elevation using a 20' wide
double garage, we have 8' left for entry. In the "proposed rules" elevation using a
27' wide house and 17.5' for garage, we only grew to 9.5' for entry. It does not
accomplish diminishing garage dominance unless the design starts to really
undersize the garage down to 11'-12' wide. Homeowners will not be interested in a
garage that small.
9
I took an upper level of a home we have designed that fits current rules, and
revised it to fit the proposed new height restrictions (tent), and tried to use as few
dormers as possible. It took me 3 dormers along the side walls, all roughly 18' -
20' long, in order to fit the same 3 bedrooms, 2 baths and a laundry/hallway. I did
have to sacrifice room sizes somewhat to get there, but it was doable, so this rule
would depend on the limits set for using dormers. Several fairly large ones will be
needed. Those 3 dormers however create vertical walls set directly on the
minimum setback line. That will not diminish the shading impact much on the
neighboring homes.
Staff agrees that the proposed changes would strongly encourage, if not require, some single-car
households on lots between 40 and 50 feet wide. Similarly, houses on these lots constructed with
a reduced building envelope may be forced to shrink the amount of floor area available on the
upper level and/or utilize fewer bedrooms or baths in their design. These builder comments were
submitted prior to the details of the dormer regulations being unveiled, so they may need to be
revisited given the specific language that is being proposed.
Impacts of Proposed Regulations
While the true impacts of these proposed changes on the construction of homes on narrow lots
may not fully be known until building plans are submitted, evaluated, and implemented, staff
experiences, discussions among Commissioners, and feedback from other professionals provide a
good basis for anticipating what may result.
The adjustment to the side setback requirement is small and would not dramatically impact the
spacing between homes. It would address a concern from Building Inspections staff related to
fireproofing and would maintain a sufficient building envelope width to allow flexibility in home
design.
Imposing new restrictions on the width of garages would only impact homes on 40 foot wide lots,
but should produce more attractive public-facing façades. Some of the narrowest lots would only
be allowed to have a single-stall garage, which would likely limit the market for potential buyers.
The changes in the size and shape of the building envelope would have the largest impact,
reducing the height of structures in the portions of a lot closest to the side property line and
breaking up the overall massing of these homes by shifting to a greater use of dormers. It is likely
that the amount of second story floor space would be reduced and it is possible that construction
costs would increase due to the design of more complicated roof lines.
Modifying the side wall articulation requirements would help maintain spacing between homes
on 40 and 50 foot wide lots, but could make designing structures with the proper articulation
more challenging.
Allowing a reduction in the secondary front yard setback would help avoid the need variances on
some corner lots and would allow redevelopment to take place that is consistent with past
practices.
10
Adjusting the amount of lot coverage allowed on smaller lots is mostly a preventative measure as
recent developments on narrow lots have remained just below the proposed limit.
Overall, the proposed changes would continue to allow owners of narrow lots to take advantage
of their right to build, while dialing back on the size and scale of what could be constructed in
order to reduce the impacts to adjacent properties.
Summary of Staff Recommendations
Staff is recommending the following modifications to the zoning regulations, as documented in
the attached underlined/overstruck section of code:
1. Establish a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet, regardless of lot width.
2. Allow lots 50 feet in width or less to construct a home with only a one-car garage. Limit
the garage to a maximum of 65 percent of the front façade.
3. Set the vertical:horizontal ratio of the building envelope at 2:1 instead of 4:1 for all lots.
4. Lower the side wall height from 15 feet to 13 feet at the side yard setback line for lots 65
feet in width or less.
5. For lots 65 feet in width or less, allow second floor dormers to extend outside of the
building envelope but with restrictions on location, size, and height.
6. Prohibit articulation elements from extending into the side yard setback for lots 50 feet
wide or less.
7. Reduce the secondary front yard setback for corner lots 65 feet in width as needed in
order to maintain a 27 foot wide building envelope.
8. Modify the lot coverage maximum for lots under 6,000 square feet to be 30 percent.
Next Steps
The proposed zoning text amendments are tentatively scheduled to be considered by the City
Council on Tuesday, July 7. The Narrow Lots web page will continue to operate and provide an
option for residents to provide on-line comments through Wednesday, July 1.
Recommendation
Staff recommends amending the text of the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District as
detailed in the attached document.
Attachments
Narrow Lots Info Session Feedback (19 pages)
Underline/Overstruck Language for Sec. 113 -88: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District (10
pages)
1
Date:June 22,2020
To:Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:Jason Zimmerman,Planning Manager
Subject:Continued Item Zoning Text Amendments Proposed Adjustments to Narrow
Lot Regulations
Summary
The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to engage in discussion around the zoning
regulations for narrow lots generally those under 65 feet in width and specifically for those 50
feet or less in width)and to propose any recommended changes to help mitigate impacts on
surrounding properties.At the June 8 Planning Commission meeting,staff presented a series of
recommendations for potential text amendments to the Zoning Chapter of the City Code.At the
conclusion of the public hearing,Commissioners voted to continue the item to the next meeting
in order to provide time for staff to address outstanding questions related to dormers.
Background
Staff has worked with the Planning Commission to identify proposed changes to eight topics
related to the regulation of narrow lots.All of these are found within the Single Family
Residential R 1)Zoning District Section 113 88 of the City Code).Questions regarding one of
these topics,the use of second story dormers,were the cause of the continuation to the June 22
meeting.It is anticipated that following the staff presentation and discussion around dormers,
the Commission will resume its consideration of a package of recommended changes that can be
forwarded to the City Council at their July 21 meeting.
The attached underlined/overstruck language for the City Code includes one modification around
garages based on consensus at the previous meeting.Instead of limiting the garage width to 65
percent of the front façade,the amount has been increased to be 75 percent of the front façade.
Many individuals provided electronic comments on the proposed changes and these were
attached to the previous agenda packet.Two additional comments were received after the
agenda packet had been distributed;these comments are also attached.
2
Dormers
In order to help compensate for the loss of this usable second story area,staff recommends
allowing dormers on lots 65 feet wide or less to extend outside of the building envelope.If the
height,width,and location of the dormers are successfully managed,they can be an interesting
architectural feature that creates usable second story floor space while still breaking up the
shading the might otherwise fall on an adjacent property.
The specific regulations around dormers are repeated in the text and images below,but at the
request of the Planning Commission staff has attached a series of key images to help visually
compare the amount of shadowing generated by homes on narrow lots.
Image 1 shows the massing of a building on a 40 foot lot under the current regulations.Images 2
and 3 show buildings that would be allowed using the proposed regulations the first with a
shed dormer and the second with gable dormers.All three images are shown with shadows
generated by the sun’s position at 1:00 pm on June 20,September 22,and December 21,using
the rough latitude and longitude from the North Tyrol neighborhood and oriented similarly to the
properties on the east side of Meadow Lane North.
All three images use a 5.5 foot setback to the north and an 8 foot setback to the south.The
height of the buildings in Images 2 and 3 tops out at 22 feet.For comparison,the height of the
building in Image 1 is 29 feet at the peak.
As anticipated,modifying the maximum massing of the home on the narrow lot reduces the
impact of shading on the adjacent property in the fall and winter,even with the addition of
second story dormers.
Staff’s original recommendations regarding dormer location,size,and height which were used
to generate the images are listed below:
In general The total dormer length along one side of a home may be broken into more than one
section.No part of a dormer may extend above the ridge line of the roof.
Shed dormers The total length along one side of a home is limited to 50 percent of the length of
the main wall below.The front wall of the dormer must be set back at least 2 feet from the plane
of the main wall below.The side walls of the dormer must be set back at least 4 feet from the
front or back wall of the home.The maximum height as measured to the top of the front eave
line is limited to 20 feet above average grade.
3
Gable dormers The total length along one side of a home is limited to 40 percent of the length
of the main wall below.The front wall of the dormer must be set back at least 2 feet from the
plane of the main wall below.The side walls or furthest extent of the dormer must be set back at
least 4 feet from the front or back wall of the home.The maximum height as measured to the top
of the dormer peak is limited to 25 feet above average grade.
4
Comments and Concerns
As of June 19,55 comments from residents had been submitted through the Narrow Lots web
page.The full text of these comments can be found in the documents attached to the two staff
memos,but in general they can be summarized in four points:
5
1. The proposed regulations don’t go far enough in restricting the scale of new development
and protecting adjacent properties.Numerous residents continue to ask that no
development of narrow lots be allowed at all.
2. Open/green/landscaped/natural areas need to be protected and adding density only
hurts this.
3. Certain proposed regulations might be problematic allowing homes to be built with just a
single car garage was the most common concern).
4. A handful stated the City should be promoting diversity in housing and these proposed
regulations seem reasonable for narrow lots.
Three individuals called in to the virtual meeting held on June 8.Two were supportive of the
changes and hoped that homes on smaller lots could provide additional affordable housing in the
city;one expressed concerns that the regulations did not go far enough and supported the
concept of smaller homes on smaller lots.
Impacts of Proposed Regulations
While the true impacts of these proposed changes on the construction of homes on narrow lots
may not fully be known until building plans are submitted,evaluated,and implemented,staff
experiences,discussions among Commissioners,and feedback from other professionals provide a
good basis for anticipating what may result.
Overall,the proposed changes would continue to allow owners of narrow lots to take advantage
of their right to build,while dialing back on the size and scale of what could be constructed in
order to reduce the impacts to adjacent properties.
Summary of Staff Recommendations
Staff is recommending the following modifications to the zoning regulations,as documented in
the attached underlined/overstruck section of code:
1. Establish a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet,regardless of lot width.
2. Allow lots 50 feet in width or less to construct a home with only a one car garage.Limit
the garage to a maximum of 65 percent of the front façade.
3. Set the vertical:horizontal ratio of the building envelope at 2:1 instead of 4:1 for all lots.
4. Lower the side wall height from 15 feet to 13 feet at the side yard setback line for lots 75
feet in width or less.
5. For lots 65 feet in width or less,allow second floor dormers to extend outside of the
building envelope but with restrictions on location,size,and height.
6. Prohibit articulation elements from extending into the side yard setback for lots 50 feet
wide or less.
7. Reduce the secondary front yard setback for corner lots 65 feet in width as needed in
order to maintain a 27 foot wide building envelope.
8. Modify the lot coverage maximum for lots under 6,000 square feet to be 30 percent.
Next Steps
6
The proposed zoning text amendments are scheduled to be considered by the City Council on
Tuesday,July 21.The Narrow Lots web page will continue to operate and provide an option for
residents to provide on line comments through Wednesday,July 15.
Recommendation
Staff recommends amending the text of the Single Family Residential R 1)Zoning District as
detailed in the attached document.
Attachments
Dormer Shading Studies 3 pages)
Narrow Lots Info Session Feedback 1 page)
Underline/Overstruck Language for Sec.113 88:Single Family Residential R 1)Zoning District 10
pages)
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 8,2020 7 pm
2
4.Informal Public Hearing Zoning Code Text Amendment
Applicant:City of Golden Valley
Purpose:Proposed Adjustments to Narrow Lot Regulations
Jason Zimmerman,Planning Manager,gave a presentation on this item’s history and background
from November 2017 when the initial discussion took place through May 2020 when the Planning
Commission reviewed and discussed the staff’s draft of changes.He reviewed the City Council’s
request,locations where these lots exist,and all the meetings held to address this concern.
Zimmerman displayed the list of nine items for code amendments and staff recommends 1 8 have
changes and 9 stays as is:
1.Side yard setbacks
2.Garage stall requirements
3.Slope of tent”portion of building envelope
4.Side wall height at side setback line
5.Second story dormers
6.Side wall articulation
7.Secondary front yard setbacks
8.Lot coverage
9.Amount of impervious surfaces to stay as is)
Zimmerman expanded on each item throughout the presentation and responded to questions as
Commissioners posed them.
Zimmerman moved on to review the public comments that City staff received regarding the narrow
lot topic.54 total comments were received via the Golden Valley website or email to Planning staff.
10 of those comments were from folks living on a narrow lot,8 addresses total as more than one
person at an address made comment.44 comments were from people not on a narrow lot and the
commenters were mostly from the North Tyrol area.None of the commenter addresses were
immediately adjacent to blocks with narrow lots.Most commenters were within a block or two but
some were over a mile and a half away.
The top 5 comment themes were as follows:
1.Don’t reduce lot sizes or allow more lot splits.
2.Do more to restrict home construction on narrow lots.
3.Do more to protect open/green/landscaped/natural areas.
4.Certain proposed changes are too restrictive or problematic single car garage provision,
limiting second floor space)
5.Changes seem reasonable and help provide housing diversity.
In addition to these comments,a local designer/builder that has offered perspective before
commented on their concern for reducing building envelope and imposing garage restrictions.
Commissioner Baker chimed in to clarify by saying staff is not proposing tighter garage restrictions
but rather loosening them.Zimmerman responded by saying that staff is no longer requiring two
garage stalls even though most people want them.Limiting a garage façade may lead to a single
stall garage for some lots.Commissioner Segelbaum asked if in general,these new regulations are
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 8,2020 7 pm
3
more restrictive for builds than currently exist.Zimmerman responded that’s accurate except for
dormer space,however that’s in response to being more restrictive in other areas.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 7:42 pm,there were two callers in the queue at the time
of opening.
Public Comments:
Ruth Paradise,8515 Duluth Street,said designers may have mentioned a trend of more
bedrooms,but in her neighborhood,there are a few houses with one person living there.
Some have said they wanted a smaller house but couldn’t find one.Ms.Paradise stated this
could be an opportunity for smaller single family homes.
Cathy Waldhauser 3220 Orchard Ave N,stated that the Planning Commission compromises
are spot on,they will solve most concerns about homes being too large for narrow lots.
Waldhauser stated that she hopes development can occur in other parts of the city with this
compromise.She’d like to see clusters of smaller homes on smaller lots in the city,she
understands this isn’t the goal now but maybe Golden Valley can head in that direction.
Chair Baker stated he’s becoming convinced that the dormer size/information with only details
from designers and builders isn’t sufficient and would like input from others who are thinking
ahead to the future of construction.Commissioner Segelbaum responded he believes the
Commission has been careful not to weigh too heavily any one opinion,but to look at the
collective.
The conversation moved into lots that are marketable and buildable.
Mary Jane Pappas,20 Ardmore Drive,stated when thinking about the future,we all need
to be more mindful of how much raw material is being used.We also need to be more
economic when considering building a home and leaving green space when possible.
Pappas agrees with two bathrooms and two garage stalls because it creates resale value but
economic value needs to be considered.Many people prefer smaller homes as it cuts down
on costs and maintenance.
Commissioner Brookins stated the group shouldn’t require minimum or max garage size.He would
feel more comfortable not having that requirement at all as he feels that he can’t justify it.
The conversation continued regarding the topics listed by staff,past conversations,public input,
and the idea of considering building for projected demand instead of what’s desirable today.A
number of Commissioners stated they considered public input and were troubled that some
residents didn’t feel their input was actually considered.
Baker requested discussion on dormer dimensions and stated he would not support a
recommendation today.He then suggested the group go through each of the 9 items and asses the
group’s agreement.Segelbaum pointed out that each item is dependent on another so if one
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 8,2020 7 pm
4
changes then the others will too.Brookins stated the group should come to a decision otherwise
the conversation may continue for a few more months.
Mary Jane Pappas,20 Ardmore Drive,commented on Baker’s statement about needing a
model to see what the shading is with dormers.She suggested looking at an architect’s
plans and using that as a guide for minimum requirements.
Commissioner Sadeghi stated that he has access to a program that has a sun setting and that
creating a model and utilizing the sun shade setting would be easy.
The Commission moved on with staff to review all the listed items and restate Commissioners
previous opinions on each;discussion followed.
Chair Blum closed the public hearing at 8:44pm
Commissioners entered in to a conversation regarding the garage stall requirements and
transitioned into a conversation about dormers.Baker wanted to know the shadowing effect based
on dormers at different percentages.Commissioner Pockl asked if the regulations presented are
similar to those a previous builder suggested.Staff clarified that the dormer regulations were
stricter than the builder originally stated they’d like to see.These dormer regulations are to
address second floor usability but not to give back”space and mimic a full second floor.Brookins
stated he likes the dormer percentages even if they seem a bit too strict to him.Based on
questions,staff clarified gable and shed dormers.
The discussion transitioned into specific percentages,measurements,and the desire to see
modeling to understand proximity and shading.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to table the item
to the June 22,2020 meeting with staff providing more information on dormers.
Staff took a roll call vote and it passed 5 2.
Aye:Baker,Blum,Johnson,Pockl,Segelbaum
Nay:Brookins,Sadeghi
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 9:46 pm
5. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist updated the Commission on the City Council meeting where the
Schuller’s rezoning was discussed.The applicant withdrew prior to the staff presentation and will work
to find a compromise solution before the summer of 2021.She also mentioned the recent
Council/Manager meeting and the fact that the City will move forward with hiring an Equity,Inclusion,
and Volunteer Manager.Chair Blum asked a question about composting.
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
This meeting was held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by
the City under Minn.Stat.12.37.In accordance with that declaration,beginning on March 16,
2020,all Planning Commission meetings held during the emergency were conducted
electronically.The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were
able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16,by streaming it on
CCXmedia.org,or by dialing in to the public call in line.The public was able to participate in this
meeting during public comment sections,by dialing the public call in line.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Blum.
Roll Call
Commissioners present:Rich Baker,Ron Blum,Adam Brookins,Andy Johnson,Lauren Pockl,Ryan
Sadeghi,Chuck Segelbaum,
Commissioners absent:None
Staff present:Jason Zimmerman Planning Manager,Myles Campbell Planner
Council Liaison present:Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker,seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the agenda
of June 22,2020,after corrections are made.Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried
unanimously.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the minutes from June 8,2020.
Commissioner Baker asked for edits to the minutes on page 3 regarding a title error,an edit to a
statement he made,and a change to who made a statement.Chair Blum made an edit to the first
page,noting the order of when items occurred needed to be edited.
MOTION made by Commissioner Pockl,seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the May
27,2020 meeting minutes.Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Continued Item Zoning Code Text Amendment Proposed Adjustments to Narrow Lot Regulations
Jason Zimmerman,Planning Manager,gave a brief introduction on the City Council request,and
highlighted a few items of public concern that were not actually included in this amendment.
June 22,2020 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 22,2020 7 pm
2
Zimmerman displayed the list of items reviewed at the June 8th meeting and reminded the group
that the meeting was continued to today was because of discussion around second story dormers;he
reviewed what is currently allowed and what the proposed changes are.
Second story dormers:
Currently allowed,but must be within building envelope
Proposed change:
o Allow second story dormers to extend outside of building envelope in limited
amounts
o (+)Breaks up the shading that falls on adjacent properties
o (+)Creates more interesting architectural features on new homes
o ()More complicated framing more expensive)
Zimmerman expanded on dormers by discussing shed dormers and gable dormers,as well as the
regulations when building them in to a second floor.Staff created a number of stills,mimicking
shadows on and around a property when dormers are in place.Of particular concern to
Commissioners was the amount of potential shade dormers would create,so staff showed
examples of three times in the year:Summer Solstice,Fall Equinox,and Winter Solstice,utilizing
actual location coordinates of a narrow lot and its neighbor.Displayed were examples of the
current regulations,then what the shading would look like with both types of dormers on the home
on the narrow lot.
Zimmerman moved on to address the previous meeting and the public hearing.He captured the
number of comments,those from folks who live on narrow lots and otherwise.He listed the
neighborhoods where most of the commenters live and their proximity to a narrow lot.He
reminded the group of the three phone calls that came in during the hearing and listed the top five
themes addressed in public comment.
Zimmerman ended by recapping the eight proposed changes and staff recommendation.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if the shading models would become the standard for future
discussion around massing or density.Zimmerman responded that shading was just one of the
pieces considered when looking at topics like the one today.City Council specifically requested the
Commission and staff look at ways to reduce impacts of narrow lots and shading happened to be
one of those impact reduction items reviewed.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked how the sizes of the houses were determined in the shading
model.Zimmerman responded that they mimicked the two real homes,both on narrow lots,as
closely as possible.Myles Campbell,Planner,displayed a model showing the dormer options next
to current regulations.Baker pointed out two bungalows next to each other and noted the level of
shading in winter,adding that dormers do not drastically add to the shading at this particular time
of year.Commissioner Pockl asked to be reminded how much additional usable space is provided
on each dormer.Zimmerman stated there are a lot of variables but it’s somewhere between a half
and a full second story.Staff added that people tend to want a full second floor but there are
houses in Golden Valley that utilize dormers.Staff surmised that gable dormers tend to be used
less for added space and more for adding natural light.The conversation continued around
dormers,height options,split level homes,and other options to gain floors without adding height.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 22,2020 7 pm
3
Baker apologized to the Commissioners and the public for addressing the dormers so late in this
process.He remains concerned that the approach to building on narrow lots may be flawed
because it assumes any new home must be of a certain square footage and must have a full second
floor.Baker said he remains convinced that houses of that assumed size may be beyond what’s
suitable for the smaller lots.He also said that the group should pass along to City Council that the
City should focus and build smaller starter homes on smaller lots,this will create housing equity.
Commissioner Sadeghi said the thinks the group was getting too specific on percentages of
building items and staff has done a great job finding the right balance for the city code.The real
issue at hand is the subdivision of lots and that should be where the focus is.He’s concerned that
the group may create too restrictive of a code and make it too hard for owners to either rebuild on
their property or to do renovations.Sadeghi added that he remains firm on the stance he had two
weeks ago on this issue.The conversation continued around reducing impact and harm to existing
homes and neighborhoods as a whole.
The discussion circled back to dormers and potentially changing the percentages or removing
dormers all together.When looking at the dormer plan as presented by staff,three Commissioners
stated they were opposed:Baker,Blum,Pockl.Brookins stated his support of staff
recommendation as did Johnson and Sadeghi.Johnson added that if moving the shed dormer
percentage from 50%to 40%would help the vote,he recommends the group change that
percentage amount in order to move the recommendation to Council.Commissioners continued
their discussion and included staff on clarifications and shading examples.
Chair Blum thanked the Commissioners for the long process and quality discussions on this item.
He added a thank you to everyone who had a public comment and contributed points that helped
the discussions occur.Baker added that he wants the Council to consider equity in housing as a
modifier.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker and seconded by Commissioner Brookins to adopt the
recommendation made by staff with two conditions:shed dormers be limited to a 40%maximum
and that the Planning Commission ask Council to reconsider aspects of building for the future and
housing equity in addressing how the City’s few smallest lots should be developed.
Segelbaum asked that the housing equity recommendation be a second motion.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Commissioner Baker
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker and seconded by Commissioner Brookins to adopt the
recommendation made by staff with the condition that a home have a shed dormer regulation of
40%maximum.
Staff took a roll call vote and it passed 5 2.
Aye:Baker,Brookins,Johnson,Sadeghi,Segelbaum
Nay:Blum,Pockl
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 22,2020 7 pm
4
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker and seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum that the Planning
Commission ask Council to reconsider use of small lots in terms of building for the future and creating
housing equity in Golden Valley.
Staff took a roll call vote and it passed 5 2
Aye:Baker,Johnson,Pockl,Sadeghi,Segelbaum
Nay:Brookins,Blum
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 9:08 pm
5. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist updated the Commission on the City Council discussion around housing
and equity and reported that the HRA would be more active in the future.The Rising TIDES task force
had provided the Council with some recommendations and action on those recommendations would
be coming soon.The City would also be moving forward to hire an Equity,Inclusion,and Volunteer
Manager.She reported on the variance appeals that were heard at the June 16 City Council meeting
and that the DMV would be opening by appointment only.Also,staff had produced a CORR plan for
addressing safety during the pandemic.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked about the response to temporary outdoor dining.
6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,City Council,Board of Zoning
Appeals,and other meetings
None.
7. Other Business
Zimmerman informed the Commissioners that the City Council,at its meeting reviewing the work of
the Board of Zoning Appeals,had suggested that they would like to explore having a set representative
or two from the Planning Commission that would handle all BZA meetings.This direction was intended
to create more consistency at BZA meetings and allow the representative Commissioner to develop a
greater background with the operations of the Board.Commissioners were hesitant to leave behind
the rotation method that had been adopted in recent years,as it helped balance the additional burden
of a third meeting each month.Commissioners Brookins and Sadeghi both volunteered to attend more
meetings if that was the direction from the Council.Zimmerman stated that he would go back to City
Council and let them know the first preference of the Commissioners was to keep the existing format
of rotating members.
8. Adjournment
MOTION made by Commissioner Pockl,seconded by Commissioner Brookins and the motion
carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 PM.
Image 1A Existing Conditions,Summer
Image 1B Existing Conditions,Fall
Image 1C Existing Conditions,Winter
Image 2A Shed Dormer,Summer
Image 2B Shed Dormer,Fall
Image 2C Shed Dormer,Winter
Image 3A Gable Dormers,Summer
Image 3B Gable Dormers,Fall
Image 3C Gable Dormers,Winter
NARROW LOT STUDY
COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 1
Contents
Overview ..……………………………………………………………..…………. 2
Demographics …………………….……………………………………………... 4
Golden Valley Housing Characteristics ………..…..…………………………. 5
Narrow Lot Concerns .…………………………………..………………………. 6
Narrow Lot Regulations ……………………………….……………………....... 20
Questions For Narrow Lot Owner Only………………………………………... 46
Appendix A: Social Media Engagement Report ……………………………… 57
Appendix B: Consultant’s Summary Of Open House ………………………..
Appendix C: Information Session Feedback…………………………………..
59
85
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 2
Overview
Soliciting public input was a major component of the Golden Valley City Council’s consideration on
amending the City’s zoning code in regards to narrow lots.
Staff solicited input from the community through online surveys, social media, and a public forum
regarding the following areas:
demographics
Golden Valley housing characteristics
narrow lot concerns
narrow lot regulations
To promote the survey and the forum, the City published multiple news stories to its website and social
media along with stories in the Nov/Dec 2019 and Jan/Feb 2020 issues of CityNews. News reports
were published in the Sun Post and broadcast on CCX Media. All publications and stories included
information on the surveys and the forum.
Online Surveys
The City sent postcards with links to an online survey to every single-family residential property in
Golden Valley. Those living on non-narrow lots received one survey, while those living on narrow lots
received a separate survey. Each survey was identical aside from five additional questions on the
survey specifically for narrow lot owners. The survey asked for public input on each of the areas under
consideration along with the respondent’s name, address, and number of years living at that address.
Links to each survey were only published on the postcard to avoid non-narrow lot residents taking the
incorrect survey, and vice versa. Still, results were skewed by residents sharing links via social media
and other formats.
The postcards were delivered in late Dec 2019/early Jan 2020. The survey was active until Jan 31,
2020, was limited to one response per IP address, and had 369 responses (66 from narrow lot owners
and 303 from non-narrow lot owners).
Public Forum
The City hosted a moderated, interactive public forum Jan 16, 2020 at City Hall, where community
members could voice concerns regarding the potential development of narrow residential lots in Golden
Valley. The City’s Planning Division staff, the chair of the City’s Planning Commission, and a building
and design professional were on hand to provide information and answer questions.
Information Session
The City published a Narrow Lots Information Session video on the City website, social media, and
YouTube May 27 for residents to learn more about what the Planning Commission expected to present
to the City Council regarding Zoning Code changes. The video can be viewed on the Narrow Lot Study
web page on the City website.
After watching the video, viewers were asked to share their comments online in lieu of participating in
any of the public hearings on the topic. All submitted comments can be found in Appendix C
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 3
Social Media Outreach
The City posted information and reminders about the forum and survey six times on Facebook and five
times on Twitter between Dec 30, 2019 and Jan 21, 2020. See Appendix A for reach and engagement
details for each post.
Additional Information
In addition to the online and social media responses, staff received input from members of the public
via email (see Appendix B).
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 4
Demographics
How long have you lived in your current home?
A majority of respondents in both surveys have lived in their home for more than 10 years, while only a
combined 62 respondents have lived in their homes for less than four years.
Narrow Lot Respondents
Non-Narrow Lot Respondents
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 5
Golden Valley Housing Characteristics
Which of the following characteristics do you feel best describe Golden Valley's
existing housing market? (select all that apply)
Respondents to both surveys favored the characteristics Desirable, Varied, and Traditional when
describing Golden Valley’s existing housing market.
Narrow Lot Respondents
Non-Narrow Lot Respondents
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 6
Narrow Lot Concerns
On a scale of 1-10, how involved have you been so far in the conversation
surrounding narrow lots in Golden Valley? (1 being little involvement, 10 being a lot of
involvement)
Most Narrow Lot Survey respondents felt as if they hadn’t been very involved in the narrow lot
conversation, as 1, 2, and 3 were the most popular answers. Responses to the Non-Narrow Lot Survey
showed the most popular answers were 1, 2, and 5.
Narrow Lot Respondents
Non-Narrow Lot Respondents
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 7
On a scale of 1 to 10, how familiar are you with the City's existing zoning
regulations? (1 being little familiarity, 10 being a lot of familiarity)
Overall, responses to this question received a wide variety of answers between both surveys. In both
surveys, the most common answer was 1 while the least common answers were 9 and 10, showing
most respondents have very little familiarity with the City’s current zoning regulations.
Narrow Lot Respondents
Non-Narrow Lot Respondents
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 8
The City requires new subdivided lots to be at least 80 feet wide. What size lots
would you consider to be "narrow lots" for regulatory purposes?
Of the respondents who answered this question, a majority consider narrow lots to be all lots less than
80 feet wide.
Narrow Lot Respondents
Non-Narrow Lot Respondents
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 9
What concerns do you have about new homes on narrow lots? (select all that
apply)
Both surveys received a similar proportion of votes per choice, with Impact of construction on directly
abutting properties and Impact on neighborhood community or character being the top two answers.
The Narrow Lot Survey received 16 “Other” responses and the Non-Narrow Lot survey received 76
Other” responses, all of which are compiled below.
Narrow Lot Respondents
Non-Narrow Lot Respondents
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 10
Narrow Lot “Other” Responses
There are efficiencies and affordability for small homes on smaller lots.
I think people should be able to build. It increases home values for everyone and newer, nicer
homes add to positive community growth.
I don't want to see new homes crammed in to our neighborhoods.
There are efficiencies and affordability for small homes on smaller lots.
Natural light impacts to existing houses
Natural light impacts to existing houses
parking, tucked under garage, people diving their lots bigger than 100 feet
Concern for home owners of narrow lots and ability to improve their property
Natural light impacts to existing houses
Natural light impacts to existing houses
Over-regulation and confusing regulation disproportionately affecting people with tighter
budgets and fewer resources to higher expensive professionals. Make sure homeowners (not just
rich developers) can still make projects work.
How Size and Position of Home can affect personal privacy for both parties
taxes, sun blockage leaving ice,losing the appeal for the other neighborhood homes, to close,
utilities facing our home, position of house, loss of privacy to south house, ice on our walk out
step on drivway and gutters.
The city's continual selling out to moneyed developers with little regard for residents and the
long term character of the community.
sunlight obstruction, noise, light from larger buildings so close, water run off onto smaller house
and property, and privacy!
Loss of sunlight, privacy, noise from building so close(not just the construction), water runoff
from large structure so close and tall directly on property and dwelling of smaller preexisting
structure, damaged shrubs, plants, and trees near lot line, the light from larger home shining into
smaller structure windows....
That the narrow home design fits the lot & neighborhood. Building a standard style home on a
lot sideways is not a good way to build a narrow lot home.
Impact on affordable housing, smaller is more likely affordable and desirable, impact on tax base
also a less biased way to ask about than “property value”, a coded way of talking about
undesireables)
Water run off to existing properties, mature trees being cut down & not being replaced.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 11
Non-Narrow Lot “Other” Responses
Destroys the charm of GV
big houses on small lots means fewer trees, affects the wooded feel of your neighborhood
I am the city forester for an east metro city and am concerned about mature tree removal in GV
without much required mitigation. I believe high-value (landmark) trees should be replaced at a
3:1 ratio at least on all GV lots. This type of ordinance has encouraged developers in my city to
retain and protect more mature trees. Newly planted trees don't have the best survival rate
usually.
environmental impacts
I want to maintain infrastructure to meet the needs of our growing population
Undermining existing character of the city
So long as construction on a narrow lot meets current codes (setbacks, FAR, and height) then I
have no objection to the development on a narrow lot.
Impact on livability of existing homes
Dense population boundaries and snow issues piling up!
View, shading and other impingement on adjoining properties (same as with any construction).
They need to have professional architectural design. Some floor plans can be very creative with a
small lot just so it does not infringe on neighbors or appear crowded or block the sun.
Environmental impacts of increasing density of population in neighborhood.
Builders do not care about the design or quality of materials. Minneapolis suffered under this
very sort of thing and the builders were like locust once the variances were granted. Now they
have a bunch of uninspired cookie-cutter 3-6 floor apartments and condos in an area that used to
have character. Building that look like box cars stacked on top of one another. Rubbish. I will
work to fight this change. I moved to Golden Valley for the character of its neighborhoods and
the value of the property I purchased.
Too many to list here. We saved our money to move from a tiny lot in Minneapolis to a
neighborhood with large lots. We feel really let down by Golden Valley.
street parking may increase heavily
I am concerned about loss of pervious ground surface and water management, loss of
trees/native habitat, overcrowding of homes when two are built where one previously existed,
loss of solar potential for existing homes when homes are built too close to them, overbuilding by
developers who are motivated only by maximizing square footage of new builds, etc. When
large, out-of-scale homes are built directly next to existing properties, there is the potential for
these existing homes to be relegated to teardowns, so I'm also concerned about property values
of the homes that are no longer desirable because they are adjacent to much larger homes.
Aesthetic issues
Residents who fight change, growth and development
Small lots shouldn’t be all things to all builders. Green space destruction by large homes on small
lots contributes nothing to what the rest of us preserve and what makes this a desirable place to
live.
I like the variety of the houses!
loss of green space, the undesirability of crowded, cluttered neighborhoods
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 12
DDevelopers have found ways to "stretch" the rules by manipulating the regrating of lots An
example is the requirement to raise the grade atleast 2 feet for drainage purpose, but there is no
restriction on raising it higher allowing homes to barely meet the height requirement for the
front but allow the backs to be excavated to create a large three level structure which from the
street nominally meets city code
Ruining the existing character of neighborhoods. That character is what makes GV a desirable
location for both new and existing residents
Environmental; wildlife; impact on infrastructure
shading nearby homes
Some of the new houses are too big for the small lot size; there should be a ratio of foot print to
lot size
Although this is a part of the “community character” it is also an environmental issue. Removal of
mature trees. Many cities in Europe, for example, that face a similar dilemma: close to a large
city, rapid development of older large lots) have laws that protect old trees. Removal has to be
approved or avoided. Like in GV, these trees And the gardens they are in, is what makes those
towns/neighborhoods unique.
Must create enough setback to allow for adequate drainage on both sides.
Impact of greater density on roads and infrastructure; on environment
Infringing on property owners rights, taking of land.
I do not agree With large homes being built on narrow lots that swarm the surrounding houses.
The houses should not be built to fill up the entire lot leaving little room between the house and
the house next door.
Disturbing esthetic rhythm of the houses around ( etween low houses suddenly huge and tall
ones)
I am concerned that builders are not as concerned with neighboring residences and how the
building impacts the neighbors. So i think the city needs to be concerned and make sure the
concerns of the neighbors are addressed.
the zoning laws are there to ensure conssitency, good aesthitics and safety. This has gone out the
window with some newer structures-look at 35th and Kyle
Impact of privacy and enjoyment of adjoining lots.
Building on narrow lots detracts from the look and feel of the community.
Any new housing being constructed on an open lot in an existing neighborhood should be
designed to blend in with the existing homes; NOT stand out like a sore thumb.
Cluttering up our neighborhood with more and more houses. What makes our neighborhood
beautiful are the expansive lots with nice big yards.
Environmental : old growth tree reduction, surface water run-off issues
Housing density, ugly mcmansions on undersized lots
see below
Balance between increased density while protecting the permeable land, Another concern is the
city council not staying with regulatory statutes. Making too many exceptions on large houses.
Potential property tax increases for established home if new home has a value significantly above
existing homes. Don’t want people priced out of their homes
Water quality, potential to increase flooding in city, homes too close to eachother
I am concerned that narrow lots may not have adequate off street parking. This would create
problems for snow removal. I find that home owners like to think of the street parking infront of
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 13
their homes as being reserved for themselves. Does Golden Valley consider the impact that too
many cars could have on a neighborhood?
This is gentrification and is promoted by the builders to amplify their income.
Environmental impact, more
Environmental impact, more impervious surface area, less green space
If the section along Laurel Avenue is an example of narrow lots it is absolutely unattractive .
There will be plenty of tear downs in the next decade. Find a balance of growing a new bigger
foot print without being awkward to older neighbors.
Houses that loom over other houses in the block, blocking sun from neighbors, houses that look
misplaced by their enormous size from the rest of nearby homes. Harold Ave is an example, on
Zealand south of Wesley there is a huge house that took sun from the neighbor to the north.
Don't want GV to look like some areas of Edina where houses are huge
overbuilt homes for the lot sizes. Looming.
Impact of privacy for neighbors
Too dense
Narrower setbacks
It also appears the smaller lots/houses tend more likely tend to be rentals, which should not be
scattered in many GV neighorhoods (prefer they be in concentrated areas)
I think you destroy neighborhoods by creating such tight lots. Golden Calley was special because
of the size of the lots
I moved from the West Coast where they had very similar small lot sizes that are currently being
built in GV. My current lot size is what drew me to GV, large, open. Not looking directly into
someones home!
I live on one of the largest lots in the city. A few years ago, residents were angry that lots were
being subdivided. They expected big lots to provide them GREEN SPACE. Drive down Colonial
Drive - there are no two homes the same. I have NO desire to live in a "homogenous"
neighborhood! Why does this "look like existing homes" concept keep coming up? Golden Valley
is not a gated community with an HOA!!!
Impact on trees and habitat. We saw a huge lot on Triton Dr. lose beautiful "old growth" oak
trees that were valuable to the habitat of our urban environment.
Natural Asthetic and View (Trees, Greenery, Sky, etc). Decision to move here was how well the
houses were laid out and abundance of Trees. My neighborhood is all small houses but with
generous space between lots/buildings.
Placing larger taller homes directly next to smaller homes places the smaller homes in the
shadow of the larger home. It destroys the character of the neighborhood and will inevitably
result in more taller homes taking the place of the smaller homes...and then we will look like
Plymouth.
Materials used to build the home will not reflect high end housing
To many regulations on lots even at 80ft are getting hard for people to build on. Driving out
people that want to build.
The increase in impervious area in our community may contribute to water problems that are
getting worse and worse. Yes, the weather seems to be getting wetter and warmer, but is GV
also causing problems by increases in impervious area?
Not in line with the history of properties in Golden Valley
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 14
They change existing neighborhoods. The main concern is too large of homes on too
narrow/small of a lot. We are not seeing small homes being built on small lots.
I believe that owners should be able to build what they want on their lot as long as it conforms to
zoning code. This brings in updated ideas and architecture, and allows GV to change with the
times.
Outsize homes built by developers on lots that are too small.
Narrow compacted areas between homes that are too dark to plant and increase runoff.
Potential fire hazard being so close to each other
The cheap building materials being used!! Not enough surprise inspections!!
Construction noise throughout the neighborhood. Environmental concerns about tear-
down/rebuild. Increased pervious cover. Loss of mature trees.
My concern is stupidly huge houses on small lots. Like those off Perry just east of 100 and west
of noble. They look ridiculous and diminish the character of the neighborhood.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 15
What opportunities do you think new homes on narrow lots might allow? (select
all that apply)
Of the Narrow Lot Survey responses, the two most popular answers were Opportunities for first-time
home buyers and Smaller homes and lower maintenance costs for older residents looking to downsize.
Results from the Non-Narrow Lot survey reflected similar results for the top two answers. The Narrow
Lot Survey received 15 Other responses and the Non-Narrow Lot survey received 89 Other responses,
all of which are compiled below.
Narrow Lot Respondents
Non-Narrow Lot Respondents
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 16
Narrow Lot “Other” Responses
Large house for people looking for new homes between 500,000-750,00
the chance for developers to make a lot of money. The houses that are being built cost 2 to 3
times the amount of the houses they are replacing. It is NOT affordable housing the average
family!
Yes, love new homes!
New properties, bringing new tax dollars and updated building into the community
None of these have been affordable
more tax base for the city govt
More tax base for the city
bigger tax base,
the home really should meet the standard upgrade appearance for that neighborhood, Too Large
is not always attractive.
We have the location! Build a home that will fit in with the current homes. We think GV wants
the tax revenue for these ridicules mcmansions, our opinion will not matter.
None. One beauty of GV is larger lot sizes.
No advantages. Sub-dividing lots will ruin the character of neighborhoods and harm home values
of adjacent properties.
Maggie
nothing, these homes are huge, out of proportion mcmansions towering over existing homes,
taking sunlight, privacy, and destroying folliage.
More energy efficient, more density, more social connectedness
Non-Narrow Lot “Other” Responses
None>just higher density. I can look across the street at Crystal that has 3 homes in my size lot.
Nothing desirable about it. It lowers my value being across the street from narrow lot homes!
I'm sorry but no one puts small houses on these lots, they are always big and tall/skinny and I
would not qualify tearing down houses as "reinvestment" nor as "affordable." The only argument
you can make is they are new and more efficient
Removing houses that have not been maintained; keeping the neighborhood from turning into an
area of rental homes
I don't see much benefit in smaller lots myself. These smaller lot homes in Tyrol haven't really
been cheaper than the larger lot homes so far. They do remove trees, stormwater infiltration
areas, and sunlight from surounding homes however.
How would a NEW home on a narrow lot offer reinvestment in OLDER properties?? This question
does not make sense.
None of the above
Higher profits for developers
We need more affordable housing in the Cities - Poor people are paying too much of their income
on housing
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 17
The homes we have seen built on narrower lots have not been more affordable or smaller.
David
Increased profits for all developers and NO REAL BENEFIT for any affordable housing since there is
ALREADY PLENTY OF AFFORDABLE PLACES IN GOLDEN VALLEY!
In-law structures
Jean
Developers to make a buck, there are no "oppurtunities" that benefit the existing neighborhood.
Narrow lots would destroy the charm and tax value of our neighborhood.
Allow builders to put more houses in an older, larger lot. This is not desirable for the existing
neighbors.
Money for developers and politicians
I don't want to live in an "affordable" neighborhood. We saved and waited for years to move
here from Minneapolis.
If the city cannot prevent existing lots from being split into two narrow lots, then the city should
put in place some measures to ensure that these homes 1) respect the size/scale of the lots on
which they sit , 2) are not significantly larger than the surrounding homes on the block, or in the
neighborhood, and 3) are accessible to EVERYONE, and not just the wealthiest residents who can
afford a "McMansion."
Potential to attract downtown families seeking more space, a beautiful home, better schools and
diversity.
updating & enhancing delapiting neiborhoods
Narrow homes
If developed in character with the existing neighborhood it can afford an opportunity to maintain
and upgrade the housing stock
Refresh the housing stock by tearing down older dilapidated homes (for example 501 Meadow Ln
N & 500 Indiana Av N), but just one house per existing lot (no subdivision) and don't allow
building on lots less than 80 ft. wide.
I would be in favor of many of these but so far the data suggests the primary opportunity has
been to advantage developers not lower income or older or first time buyers. Prices of the new
homes have not indicates these will be the buyers. homes
None of these apply it is developers that are looking to make $$$$
None other than what exists today
Not placing too many restrictions on the ability of existing owners to sell and get best market
value for their property. They should be able to go to the 40' lots if the platting allows. there are
some very good examples of this done properly in North Tyrol in addition to the two recent "bad"
examples.
Only a benefit is for builders/developers
No opportunity
I would say that it's an opportunity for more affordable housing, but the developers are putting
very large, very expensive homes on these lots. So, if they were small homes--fine, but they're
not. They're big expensive homes so that doesn't help us with economic diversity either. Just
developers making more money.
More property taxes for GV
more taxes
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 18
Developer investments. Oversized houses.
Smaller homes, ability to create energy efficient/wind/solar options. Tuck under garages with
living space in back and on top. Small sunny yards in back for gardens and place to play.
More profits for builders who have little regard for quality or character.
Development oppurtunities for developers...increased gross property tax
Increase tax base, by increasing density within reason.
Increased tax base
property tax revenue
I am not in favor of tearing down older homes especially when the new homes are very large, tall,
etc, and do not fit the lot or the neighborhood.
buildign a 2 story mansion on a smaller lot, surrounded by older 1 story homes degrades the
entire neighborhood
I think it makes Golden Valley more like Minneapolis- which is not necessarily a good thing.
None of the above
I suppose narrow lots might allow for more affordable housing but that might not necessarily be
true. I also think there are certain areas I can not live in because I can't afford a house. For
example, on Lake Minnetonka. For that reason, I look for a place that I can afford. I don't expect
people to build a house on Lake Minnetonka that is affordable.
I’m not sure, I don’t think it would enhance the surrounding neighborhood if the existing homes
are not on similar sized lots and similar sized homes. I don’t think there would be lower costs for
older residents seeking to downsize. Taxes are horrendous and going up every year. The school
tax is a huge part of that. Golden Valley or even Minnesota specifically is not a retirees’ dream
location because of high taxes and costs in general. Retirees do not flock here, so I don’t think
they would be a factor.
regulations could help direct development toward affordability and home size
Increased density -> sustainable local commerce (eg a walkable city)
McMansions to be built with runoff into older properties.
Somewhere to live-duh. Downside is so damn many apartments being built is causing expanding
population and overcrowding everywhere-try going to Costco these days.
Ability for owners of extra large lots to subdivide and sell unused land.
NONE
More efficient use of developable land
The best use of narrow lots would be for older residents wanting to downsize.
none
Pushes serious landscape challenges off to their neighbor. Robs neighbors of sunlight and
visibility. Depletes drastically the percent green space and drops all the mature trees because
builders are allowed to destroy these trees.
Golden Valley to collect more taxes from more houses
Increased property values
I don't think narrow lots allow any positive opportunities
Golden Valley has always had homes built on wider lots. It shows. It is an asset to our
community.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 19
If the houses are done to scale that fits in with existing homes it could be a good thing. But, I read
that GV requires 2 car garage so how would that fit? Instead of 2 story homes, they should design
1 1/2 story to fit in.
I do not support narrow lots....This is Golden Valley
I don't see any of these opportunities being implemented. I see large, skinny, mini mansions
obstructing views and disrupting neighborhood character.
I don't think a subdivided lot equates to 2 smaller homes. Seems like the sub divided lots equate
to two large, tall, expensive homes.
Opportunity to collect more property taxes thereby discontinuing the constant increases to
existing property owners
None
None
I don’t see opportunities here
The only things that I've seen are negative, small homes on top of another home and developers
asking rediculous prices for these new developments. How is that affordable to first time home
buyers, downsizing or affordable housing?
None!!! Re-model/renovate the existing house!! Keep the same footprint/square footage!!
Consider green homes that are lower impact to the environment.
None
More crime as cheaper the property
As long as there is an appropriately sized home on the narrow lot, I see no opportunity at all. This
is a poorly worded question because "opportunity" is not part of the equation. It sounds to me
that you are looking to help developers.
More diverse neighbors
None. I don’t see any benefits at all in narrowing the Lots.
I don't think it is realistic for GV to have low cost affordable homes. Housing, yes, but homes --
no. There are areas of the cities, like the smaller homes near Southdale, that are a possible place
to buy for first time homeowners.
i feeel they should not be allowed.
We have many smaller homes in golden valley
None
None!!
none
Opportunities for developers to build over priced homes on lots that are too small.
Too much focus on first-time buyers will degrade the quality of homes in Golden Valley. We need
single family or attached homes that have or could be expanded for 2nd and 3rd children.
A gold mine for the developers!!!! They are not affordable housing for first-time home buyers.
Nothing because they usually overbuild on narrow lots
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 20
Narrow Lot Regulations
In your opinion, which existing site regulations should the City consider revising
regarding narrow lots? (select all that apply)
Of the Narrow Lot Survey responses, the two most popular answers were Side setbacks and Maximum
height. Results from the Non-Narrow Lot survey showed the top two answers as Side setbacks and Lot
coverage. The Narrow Lot Survey received 14 Other responses and the Non-Narrow Lot survey
received 49 Other responses, all of which are compiled below.
Narrow Lot Respondents
Non-Narrow Lot Respondents
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 21
Narrow Lot “Other” Responses
whatever owner wants
I think we need to deregulate building. We should have similar building regulations to Minneapolis
as we are a first ring suburb.
NO VARIANCES
I am ver concerned about the height of the new structures that may be built in our neighborhoods.
I would prefer to see new housing that is proportional to the lot size. GV is known for its mature
forest and open green spaces-including residential lots. I would not care for a McMansion on a lot
that is smaller than 80' in width.
To get this detailed, you really need to have an open forum. The City Manager should present
existing regulation, show what that looks like with visuals, and collect input.
I wonder if the issue is more with the enforcement of current regulations as I feel there are many
newly built properties in the neighborhood that don’t appear to meet these regulations.
You have the the know how in building, just let them build a home suitable to the neighborhood
Building a home sideways on the lot should not be allowed
I don't undertsand enough to comment on this question
This question lacks context and/or assumes a level of technical knowledge most of us don't have.
come take a look at 316 Meadow lane N.... A picture is worth a thousand words. This subdivide has
destroyed my home value.
Require no new gas furnaces, electric heat preferably
Side setbacks should be by footage, not percentage
Non-Narrow Lot “Other” Responses
Fit in with current neighborhood design
We trust the City Council to make informed judgments on whether or not these regulations are
appropriate.
Tree removal and replacement
I think tall narrow houses are fine and I don't think we need houses to be as set back from the street
as they currently are.
Keep NEW building developments similar to area being inserted into!
Height should be restricted to mean height based on adjacent properties 3-5 lots on each dirction
I am not informed enough to respond to this question
We would like to see strictest codes possible, with no revisions.
All efforts should be made to ensure that structures built on narrow lots are of modest size and in
proportion with the neighboring structures. This ensures that these new constructions do not
compromise the existing character of the neighborhood, while respect existing/legacy residents'
rights on their own properties.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 22
I’d advise not allowing homes to be built too close to one another (like in Edina), and for commercial
development to not have buildings too close to roads.
The above regulations are way too liberal. For example, side setback on a 50 foot lot would be only
5 feet at 10%, that is way too little. Setback should be at least 10 feet, if not more. Also lot coverage
of 40% and impervious surfaces of 50% have negative consequences for runoff of rain water. Lot
coverage for structures should be mandated at way less than 40% max, and impervious surfaces
should be way less than 50%. We need more open space, not larger houses.
I am very opposed to some peoples thoughts to restrict the houses to single story. Even with south
sideyards there are good examples of how to build two stories on narrow lots with totally shading
out the neighbor to the south.
Tree replacement rule is excessive
Should increase allowable accessory structure / garage sizes
Lot coverage should be 50-60 percent on narrow lots. We need enough open space for aesthetics
but allow more than enough for drainage.
Adjusting corner lot set back requirements. Counting only 1 side as the “front setback”.
We need regulations that would deter builders from putting up the largest home possible with no
regard for the neighboring residents or the neighborhood in general.
The variance granted for 35th and Kyle was not in harmony with the general plan, it is a monstrosity
and inconsistent with all properties around it. Looks like a bribe to all of us.
I'm not sure I am knowledgeable enough about this but those are the two I came up with.
Forget all the picky percentages and go with common sense: Any new structure whether on a
narrow” lot or regular lot should have to BLEND into the neighborhood. If there are mainly
ramblers, splits and walkouts - don’t build a two or three story home as it does not fit in and ruins
the whole ambiance of a neighborhood.
There will not be enough side setbacks for narrow lots, 10 and 20 percent (4ft / 8 ft) will not be
enough.
City council needs to stop allowing exceptions to lot coverage and impervious surfaces regulations!
Really need to allow larger accessory structures to allow greenhouses, detached garages, and
workshops to coexist on larger lots
Should be able to make some adjustments on an as needed basis when it benefits all concerned.
Idiotic barns, low quality builders, cheap plans are the current practice by investors who care zero
about neighborhood.
Option to Expand limits by 10-15% square footage. Open opportunities for above garage
apartments or legal ceiling height increases for minibrooms or storage.
Do not revise the existing site regulations
I don't know if existing regulations are sufficient. There have already been tall, narrow houses
jammed on lots that look ridiculous. They are not inexpensive, either.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 23
I cannot envision these numbers, but think that the homes the city has already allowed on narrow
lots ( divided one lot to 2 on Harold AVe. ) the current set backs and heights and overall square
footage is far too big and has impacted neighbors unfairly
We should look at permitting tiny houses/ granny pods. Existing regulations help ensure that main
structure doesn't overtake lot in undesirable ways.
For a single family home, there should be a decent size yard to enjoy. If you want small lot, large
home, move to new development in Plymouth/Wayzata.
I'm not familiar enough with narrow lot regulations, but I feel the quality and aesthetic are much
lower on these homes due to the kind of buyer they attract. Really prefer not to see gravel
driveways, lack of landscaping/retaining walls, lower quality construction materials.
I am unsure how to answer
Unknown
1000 Square feet is too small! Other suburbs allow much more square footage for accessory
structures. This is ESPECIALLY ridiculous for owners of large lots. The city should allow residents to
do MORE with their property than pay property taxes on them!
Use common sense and limit the size of these newer homes on narrow lots.
As read this question I feel need to check with a Real Estate lawyer and or developer to even
understand this question.
I am not informed enough to comment
Setback should be on front and back and side of house position. not on Map direction.
I don’t think building giant houses on sMall lots makes sense. Small houses on small lots are fine
How can you revise regulations regarding narrow lots if you don't allow people to build on them? I
think all lots should have the same regulation. Grandfather in those homes that don't meet
standards for new regulations. For example, a couple up the street has a circular driveway. They
have lived there at least 25 years. Why should one of their street entrances be curbed over next
year during the PMP?
The new home should fit into the neighborhood exsisting homes.
They all might need some revisions if you are allowing smaller lots
Limitations regarding "out" buildings and no "supplemental" parking areas for boats, trailers, motor-
homes, etc...
Please do not consider smaller lots....this is Golden Valley.
Side setbacks should be wider. 4 feet on a potential 40 foot lot would be ridiculous. That might mean
8 feet between you and a similar neighbor. Golden Valley is not south Minneapolis. Impervious
surfaces should be reduced from the current 50%.Reduce the size of allowed accessory structures.
1000 square feet means someone could have a 20 x 50’ structure. That’s as long as my current
home. What kind of accessory structure would someone need that is that big, and for what purpose?
Housing RVs? A small plane? 40 foot yacht? One could build an entire separate small 950 square-foot
home!!.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 24
The maximum height should equal the housing stock on either sides of the house. The building codes
need to be revised by individuals living in the area. Not by city employees that live outside the city
limits on GV.
not informed enough to make educated choice of answers
If people are going to build on narrow lots that were platted many years ago before the decision was
made to give GV a more suburban feel, they should build homes of the mass that would have been
in use at the time. (Meaning small Bryn Mawr style bungalows, not the giant birdcages we see now.)
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 25
What new rules or regulations would you be interested in seeing the City
explore? (select all that apply)
The most popular response from both surveys was Establishing incentives for builders who incorporate
design elements that reduce impacts on surrounding properties, such as flat roof garages, stepped-
back second floors, and green stormwater infrastructure. The Narrow Lot Survey received 15 Other
responses and the Non-Narrow Lot survey received 46 Other responses, all of which are compiled
below.
Narrow Lot Respondents
Non-Narrow Lot Respondents
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 26
Narrow Lot “Other” Responses
Green, Green, Green including additional water use assistance, geothermal, solar, Xcel Energy's
Windsource and community solar gardens.
Less Regulations!
Please note that my interest is in exploring these options, not necessarily adopting them.
Set back for all new construction. The apartme t complex on Xenia feels like the Planning
Commission was neglectful.
Exceptions for current narrow lot owners to improve property
No new regulations
I would like to see homes that match the original design of the homes being replaced.
The City Plannes should be able to tell the builder what type of new home to build (to fit in the area.)
a good example is at 2625 Medicine Ridge Rd, Plymouth 55441. The home is not overbearing and
the new style.
Building a home sideways on the lot should not be allowed
Second item above is checked but would not like to see flat roof garages.
I don't know
Rules that prevent developers from building structures different from submitted plans. Rules that
prevent developers from clear-cutting trees and then not getting fined for doing it.
A new home's roof should never be so close and tall that rain and now run off to the preexisting
home's siding and property; with no recourse but to ask the new build to please put gutters(there its
no city ordinance)..... they did not!
New rules are not necessary. There is nothing wrong with big homes on small lots. 40 foot lots
contribute more green space as a percentage than anyone else.
Would love to see Golden Valley be a pioneer in the local metro by relaxing zoning requirements
around accessory dwelling units or tiny houses. Alternatively, it would be wonderful to see multi-
family homes incentivized to increase density (such as recent new construction for extended family
units featured in the Star Trib).
Non-Narrow Lot “Other” Responses
We support case-by-case approval because blanket regulations don't fit every case. When our
neighbor wanted a variance that was not within code, we were involved in the city approval process.
Perhaps this kind of collaboration would be better than absolute regulation.
Allow the PC to officially take overall neighborhood character into account when deciding on
variences.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 27
We are already very congested been surrounded by 3 very large apartment building, so we only
want housing similarity to current housing as replacements Use other areas of GV as we are maxed
out.
No new regulations
Don't support new rules or regulations.
We are not in favor of narrow lots and wish the city would not allow their creation--without regard
to the original plots/plans of the neighborhood.
I think all of these ideas are worth exploring. However, I would be skeptical of any "incentives" for
builders that could be later modified or altered down the road without consequence.
Allow homes to be on the tall side. The new homes on Harold by Lions Club Park are beautiful and a
welcomed addition to the neighborhood. Those homes will attract families who want to stay in GV
long term.
Strict height and side offsets limitations. Small lots do not need to accommodate everyone’s large
dream home. These lots provide small affordable homes for more people while reducing the impact
on neighboring properties.
Allow more garage
An absolute maximum of size of structure(s) and impervious surfaces as a percentage of lot size.
Prohibit subdivision of lots, require 80 lots, allow teardowns but only allow replacing homes on a
one-to-one basis. One house torn down equals only new house to be built which must adhere to
regulations.
I do not have abig concern about some folks seeming obsession with "garage' dominated. Again, at
least one very good modern contemporary design a few blocks from me with a two car garage in
front on a 40' lot.
I'd rather they stop allowing splitting up lots
None
I don’t know how you define “garage dominant”
None
nothing
None
Garage roofs don't have to always be flat if there is living space on top. I also support maximum
height for all homes, not just narrow lots.Two livable levels above the street level should be
sufficient, not 3.
None
Regulation designed to lessen the impact of building on neighboring residences and the
neighborhood in general.
I'm not sure how this could be a rule or regulated, but I think if someone buys a lot and intends to
live in the house, I'm not sure I want the city to impose rules and regulations on that person's
property. My issue is with outside investors who are 100% focused on maximizing profits and could
care less about the impact on the neighborhood.
I have the same comment: Mandate the design of the new home fit in with the existing homes on
the block so that it looks homogeneous and not like it doesn’t fit in the neighborhood. I assume
there are no flat roof homes OR garages allowed in Golden VAlley. As for setbacks they should be in
alignment with existing homes. Side setbacks should be appropriate to allow for privacy and noise
issues. Obviously you can’t build a home on a 20’ wide lot! Just use some common sense. I would
like to know the definition of a ‘narrow lot’?
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 28
Reduction of building footprint to promote "green space"
Change all zoning to allow for multifamily units on all lots-similar to Minneapolis
none
Consider water, snow, ice runoff; get some architects, for God’s sake; assess the geological underlay
of the entire block.
Do not allow two houses to be built on a lot that originally had one before it was torn down.
If one goal is to create affordable starter or smaller homes do not allow 2 story homes that are huge.
Allow a one car garage. Do 1 1/2 story homes or single story for affordability and seniors or singles
who want a house and not an apartment. Not every house has to be huge.
explore reducing the already excessive amounts of regulations on builders and homeowners
Minimum aesthetic requirements, just like we have to ensure the main drains work properly, we
should ensure a minimum aesthetic code
I don’t think that Golden Valley wants to become what some other communities have become
None
Ensuring that homes leave enough green space for growing natural habitat for our wildlife and
pollinators.
Zoning regulations that prioritize the existing "aesthetic" of that neighborhood/community, whether
that be natural or man-made.
I'm not sure I would support additional regulations.
again you are asking questions your average homeowner cannot answer.
I do not have enough knowledge on this to comment
I do not support flat garage roofs.
none.
Base height or setback requirements on Comparable, neighboring site conditions. Avoid putting in
homes that stick out like a sore thumbs compared to surrounding homes.
Far more oversight on the loss and replacement of trees. The lot across from us saw more than 15
200+ year old treesdestroyed. Yes, they were replaced, but on
I would to see the old house setback reused.
not informed enough to make educated choice of answers
Non-shading requirements.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 29
I would support further restricting the maximum allowable height for homes on
narrow lots.
Of the Narrow Lot Survey respondents, 33 (54 percent) support further restricting the maximum
allowable height for homes on narrow lots while 21 (34 percent) do not, and 7 (11 percent) have no
opinion. Of the Non-Narrow Lot Survey respondents, 181 (67 percent) are in support while 55 (20
percent) are not, and 36 (13 percent) have no opinion.
Narrow Lot Respondents
Non-Narrow Lot Respondents
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 30
I would support increasing the side setbacks for narrow lots.
Of the Narrow Lot Survey respondents, 31 (52 percent) support increasing the side setbacks for narrow
lots while 21 (35 percent) do not, and 8 (13 percent) have no opinion. Of the Non-Narrow Lot Survey
respondents, 157 (58 percent) are in support while 69 (26 percent) are not, and 43 (16 percent) have
no opinion.
Narrow Lot Respondents
Non-Narrow Lot Respondents
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 31
I would support relaxing the street-side setback for narrow corner lots.
Of the Narrow Lot Survey respondents, 33 (54 percent) support relaxing the street-side setback for
narrow corner lots while 20 (33 percent) do not, and 8 (13 percent) have no opinion. Of the Non-Narrow
Lot Survey respondents, 73 (28 percent) are in support while 147 (55 percent) are not, and 45 (17
percent) have no opinion.
Narrow Lot Respondents
Non-Narrow Lot Respondents
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 32
I would support requiring more of the area of a narrow lot to be left unbuilt or
unpaved.
Of the Narrow Lot Survey respondents, 27 (44 percent) support requiring more of the area of a narrow
lot to be left unbuilt or unpaved while 24 (39 percent) do not, and 10 (16 percent) have no opinion. Of
the Non-Narrow Lot Survey respondents, 165 (62 percent) are in support while 59 (22 percent) are not,
and 42 (16 percent) have no opinion.
Narrow Lot Respondents
Non-Narrow Lot Respondents
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 33
I would support efforts to maintain the affordability of homes on narrow lots.
Of the Narrow Lot Survey respondents, 37 (62 percent) support efforts to maintain the affordability of
homes on narrow lots while 10 (17 percent) do not, and 13 (22 percent) have no opinion. Of the Non-
Narrow Lot Survey respondents, 135 (52 percent) are in support while 65 (25 percent) are not, and 59
23 percent) have no opinion.
Narrow Lot Respondents
Non-Narrow Lot Respondents
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 34
Do you have any other comments related to narrow lots?
This question was open ended and gathered no statistical data.
Narrow Lot Responses
The narrow lots will create a building frenzy in this neighborhood which is extremely disruptive.
let the owner do whatever as long as some codes are implemented
GV's post card states "We need reasonable regulations that address all of the issues around narrow
lots". Reasonable can be interpreted differently depending on frame of mind. Energy efficiency
should be the #1 priority!
The house next door to us was torn down and the lot divided. We had no warning or notification.
The house would have been a greater starter home for a family - in the $300,000.
Instead the developers built two houses - one for$ 600,000 and one for $700,000.The house nest
door was to built to the VERY EDGE of the set back - towering over our house. The first floor of the
house is 15 feet from our house and 6 feet higher that our first floor. There are no gutters and the
eves are 24 inches from our lot line. The lot next door was filled to be two feet higher than our lot.
Our back yard floods with every rain. Our basement flooded for the first time - we have lived in this
house for 30 years. When we called the inspector out he said there was nothing the city could
do....but WE could offer to pay for installing gutters on the house next door if they agreed. There is
no consideration or protection for existing properties. We have spent more that $20,000 to try to
mitigate the issues caused by the development. If we had been informed of the possibility of this
happening we would have purchased the property ourselves - but we had no warning. The house
was never offered for sale so we had no chance and no warning. Golden Valley regulations are
weighted entirely on the side of the developers with NO consideration of the existing neighbors.
We want to stay in our neighborhood long term and our current home does not fulfill our needs. We
love seeing new home construction in our community. It increases the home values for everyone. If
regulations increase, we will not be able to build our dream home and we will have to move out of
the city that we love. Please allow current residents to utilize their property to best fulfill their
needs.
Golden Valley can either be welcoming to new development and rejuvination of the homes in the
community like cities like Minneapolis or Edina or it can be antiquated and have a lot of structures
from the 1960s and 1970s continue to degrade. Narrow lot building brings new families to the
community. We have been very happy moving here with our young family and speakign with our
friends who choose to move out to cities like Chaska and Victoria for the ability to build a home, they
woudl much rather be closer to Downtown Mpls and Golden Valley can be an option for them.
Please do not give builders any variances and have more respect for neighboring residents and their
properties
I have been seeing the huge homes being built in Edina after 50's ramblers being torn down. It is
very sad to see the older homes go. It takes the more affordable homes off the market for potential
new homeowners. I also see the fact that these huge homes take away a lot of natural light for the
smaller homes next and around to them. I have a love for flower gardening and if that size home
were to be going up next to me, I would move for sure digging up my garden and taking it with me.
It may be challenging to legislate for proportionately sized homes on small/narrow lots but it's a
discussion that needs to happen.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 35
Please refrain from making more lots like those pictures off of Harold by hwy 55. Nicely built homes,
but barrack feel. We really love the integrity past councils (not recent years) have upheld. Please be
mindful of lasting impact and not only dollars.
Emulate successful examples in towns comparable with Golden Valley.
Consideration needs to be made by zoning to allow narrow lot owners to maintain and improve their
property. Larger lots in the same neighborhood should be monitored to keep larger home projects
from negatively impacting narrow lot property owners and their lot value.
Owners of narrow lots should have as much latitude as possible to build and develop on those lots.
The city should refrain from placing burdens on home/property owners.
I hope there is another survey that captures the views of home owners not living on narrowed lots.
I support fair regulation of narrow lots. I believe the vast majority of residents have only minimal
understanding of regulations guiding building on Golden Valley lots including narrow lots and are
likely not inclined to dive deeply into a better understanding unless they are likely to be immediately
or directly impacted. With that said I think a majority of residents would agree that structures built
on narrow lots blend in well with existing homes and structures in neighborhoods, enhance the
overall appearance of the neighborhood while potentially improving access to affordable housing
options for home ownership to new neighbors.
Structures built on narrow lots that are excessively high or wide and which do not blend with the
character of the neighborhood will only create friction and frustration for neighbors which is a bad
way to begin relationships in your new home.
If someone wants to build a new home that should only increase Golden Valley's tax base and make
our property values increase. There are plenty of run down homes around, why not allow new
investment in our neighborhoods. Few restrictions and progress are the way to go.
Having affordable smaller homes is a good thing for SO many demographics! A smaller footprint
doesn’t equal a bad (unsafe, undesirable) neighborhood. Not everyone dreams of a massive 4,000 sf
home. What a waste of resources for a single person to live in! I live in an 1,800 SF home with my
husband and two children and that’s plenty big! Giant unsustainable homes are an old way of living
and if Golden Valley want diverse, young, stronger, more resilient neighborhoods, communities have
to have zoning regulations that encourage that. Not regulations that make it harder to explore
different ways of living in our homes.
Privacy is important,narrow lots only have the backyard for personal outdoor space. its important to
consider these items when designing and building new home on narrow lots. TY
I'm sure GV likes the tax revenue for those larger square footage homes. I'm not sure our concerns
will be considered. We feel our improvements will be worthless, because we will see more homes
go up for sale, (three bedroom ramblers) and they will be torn down, and the larger homes taking
over. We have the LOCATION!!
Our new neighbors told us...……………….
Concern regarding how the remodeling of a single story home to a two-story affects the next-door
home's diminished daylight through the windows.
Rebuilding on narrow lots can be seen in St Louis Park, Richfield, Edina, Chanhassen and practically
every other suburb. Over-restricting such builds in Golden Valley will lead to more tired old
properties and incentize potential buyers to choose the other cities.
In this time of such a shortage of homes that lower to middle income earners can afford, I think
smaller lots are a great opportunity to build/rehab smaller homes. It's sad, to me, that many young
families can't afford to buy a home for their family because prices are so inflated and there is a
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 36
shortage of smaller homes.Also, small homes without steps, and which are otherwise handi-capped
accessible would be great for our aging population. Thank you for the opportunity to attend a
meeting, and for soliciting our input.
As per discussion at council meeting, if lots were platted 100 years, maybe a good idea to build a
home of a size that would have been built on that lot then. I think it’s better to build smaller more
affordable homes on the narrow lots than the biggest most expensive homes that could be possible
especially when they don’t look like they fit in the neighborhood and create negative impacts on
their next door neighbors existing homes.
We moved to Golden Valley because of the character of the neighborhoods, characterized by
generous lot sizes and lack of density that provides. For people who prefer to live in a densely
developed community, there are plenty of municipalities they can choose. And please don't conflate
narrow lots with affordable housing. That has not been the case in my neighborhood as developers
have carved up lots and jammed in expensive homes.
It's really tragic being next to something like this. The love of my cute little house was destroyed,
including the one maple separating the homes.... over 60% of roots were cut digging the hole for the
new mcmansion. Honestly, I invite you to come take a look. I wrote an editorial, and did a local news
TV interview(northwest suburbs). It's sad. The water run off is a really big deal, let alone sunlight,
and privacy........
I think it is important to build homes that fit on the lot with adequate set backs that allow "green
space". The tendency to fill the lot with as much housing square footage as possible should be
avoided. This type of building tends to overpower both the lot and the neighborhood.
Thank you for taking the time to do this. I see it simply as a personal property rights argument. One
is entitled to do with their land what they want. If I lived next to a big house, I'd just make friends
and move on with my life. Oh I do, and I did.
Good luck.
Cp
The situation in question 21 did happen in my neighborhood. 2001 Gettysburg. The new
construction house is a big white 2 story box. The front of the house has a garage dominated facade
and very limited yard. I'm surprised it complied with zoning when the footprint of the housed is
compared to the size of the lot. Narrow lots are just small lots. You can't put a huge house on a small
lot. You have to respect the limitations.
Questions.
1. With two narrow lots not totaling 80' (40' + 40'), example: one 65' and other 50', and wanting to
combine into one lot, would this be under a strict zone with variance or a permissible code with no
variance?
2. Would it be even possible to combine?
3. If two lots were owned, and separation was suggested, would there be a choice to separate a) into
predetermined lot sizes or b) choice of lot size?
I have no problem with narrow lots. 40' lots like they have in St. Louis Park are too narrow. 50' wide
narrow lot would be a better option
Do not allow a stated opposition to narrow lots be a euphemism for opposition to smaller, less
expensive homes; the latter are affordable!
I personally feel that the houses on narrow lots do not fundamentally alter the character of the
neighborhood, and most of the houses seem well-designed within the existing space constraints. I
think increased density will be a draw for future residents of Golden Valley, keeping it as a desirable
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 37
place to live as people continue to move closer to Minneapolis core. I also appreciate that the zoning
department is so open to working directly with the community to make an effort to hear everyone
and adjust the code if needed.
This issue is being driven by developers, realtors & builders who are not residents. They will build
what makes the most money for them w/out regard for the neighborhood at large. They just don't
care. Golden Valley is known for larger lots, green space & mature trees. All these characteristics
are being disregarded. Trees are cut down to never be replaced. No thought given to future
generations.
I believe the city needs to look at the homes that are built on multiple narrow lots. If the current
home sits comfortably on the two lots, the land should be replatted into one plat.
Not anti-narrow lots. Just because current zoning has 80 ft lots, doesn't mean that narrow lots
should be restricted.
I understand the desire to make sure development of narrow lots does not negatively affect various
situations, like neighborhood character, neighboring lots, or price of nearby property. In general, I
prefer fewer regulations and do not think there should be many rules limiting what people can do on
their lot. That being said, some rules to limit the direct impact on neighbors does seem appropriate
e.g. to control water run-off and not directly damage neighboring properly/construction). I would
like to see a fairly permissive construction code, but with regulations to limit direct impact on
neighboring property.
I do not want to see as many regulations related to what the building has to look like or how high it
can be etc. Also, do not restrict the value of the construction artificially. Let the market dictate if it
can or should be built as a given cost, size, or design.
Non-Narrow Lot Responses
Affordability addressing #16. What does that mean? Public/city $$$??? GV was never your run of the mill
inner ring burn, it has architectural charm and lots with room in most areas. Let’s keep the charm of GV, it
may be an older burb now but is considered more desirable than most inner ring suburbs!
When we moved here, Golden Valley appealed to us because of the large tracts of woods and large lots, as
well as the wide range of housing types (small starter to very large homes, sometimes all on one street). Our
neighborhood for the most part does not qualify as a narrow lot neighborhood, but subdividing of large lots
into smaller ones, loss of the woods, and many more houses that all look the same, has drastically changed
the character. It is depressing and disappointing.
New homes should not overpower existing homes, decreasing the value of existing home by overshadowing
older homes.
I would like to see new construction that would resemble the homes currently in the adjoining properties.
We are in very much in favor of new houses being built in North Tyrol Hill. We have been seeing a growing
trend of poorly maintained houses that come up for sale at low prices—a trend that brings down property
values. We are also seeing some of these poorly maintained houses becoming even more poorly maintained
rentals, which is also not healthy for our area. We believe that North Tyrol has benefitted from the
revitalization that new builds have brought. We trust the City Council to make informed judgments on
appropriate regulations that will benefit new builds while protecting rights of owners on neighboring
properties.
There aren't very many cities/neighborhoods so close to downtown that have an abundance of mature trees
on larger lots with wider setbacks between homes. We purchased in Tyrol in Golden Valley because it had all
those things. I work for a city myself and understand the need to maintain property rights and incentivize
development. I do think that tree ordinances in Golden Valley could be stronger and more specific in order to
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 38
encourage residents and developers to keep their mature trees. I appreciate the opportunity to share my
thoughts on the matter.
Stop McMansons
Please don't destroy our neighborhoods. The apartments across the street took all of our green space away.
Keep open lots of green space in our community. We have already built a ton of apartments for incoming
residents. GV is a very small community and cannot accommodate thousands of new people as other suburbs
can, like Plymouth and Minnetonka
Support new development of narrow lots. Development spurs economic growth and property appreciation.
You should allow duplexes on narrow lots; up/down duplexes can work on narrow lots and provide two
housing units. More units increases supply and can help alleviate rent increases and increase affordability.
I think there’s two separate issues related to narrow lots: 1) wide lots that are divided and 2) double lots with
1 hone on them carefully. The city needs to be careful about #2, as people living on double lots don’t have to
split their lots in order to build 2 homes.
We moved to Golden Valley because it did not get sucked in to the downward spiral which is Minneapolis
neighborhoods. If people want smaller homes built close together...they should consider Minneapolis.
I've seen St. Louis Park go through a similar turnover. Although maybe not narrow lots there have been many
older single story homes that were demolished and replaced with two story homes in a very scattered
pattern. When it was first starting it created out of place homes towering over the long established single
story homes in the neighborhood. I was always curious as to how that affected property values. At the very
least they stood out and distracted from the neighborhood's history and character. I hope that does not
happen with Golden Valley.
My home is on a narrower lot -- 75 ft -- and in all likelihood it will be sold as a tear-down. I am worried that
new restrictions on narrow lots would prevent or discourage potential buyers. The house across the street
almost identical to ours) sat on the market until someone bought it for a tear-down. Also, I worry that
because I'm ignorant of terminology my opinion isn't presented accurately in the survey. I am in favor of high
density housing especially if it is affordable for middle and lower income families. I don't care about the
character" of Golden Valley. I care about people finding homes.
Reduce the 2 car garage requirement for the smaller lots, and allow the building of permanent tiny houses. I
think more people would like to live in a tiny house as long as it could hookup to city water/sewer services.
Additionally, consider allowing a small home to be built above the garage (like an ADU) as long as it conforms
to the height limits, etc. that are determined to be best for those small lots.
We do not support changing regulations that would allow narrow lots.
Existing Narrow lots are non-conforming and therefore should abide by existing dimensional and coverage
requirements. If the proposal is for the allowance to create new ‘narrow’ lots, existing dimensional
requirements should apply.
I do not support narrow lot structures.
Leave PERFECT City of Golden Valley AS IS! You can only ruin a good city with bright? ideas of greedy people!!
I would like to see more restrictions on the removal of large mature trees. The stumps of the forest formerly
on the southwest corner of Glenwood and Hi 100 serve as a constant reminder not to trust to the promises of
developers who are motivated solely by their profits.
Lots are being developed without considering current established neighborhood. Code is very generic and
does not properly represent established neighborhood characteristics regarding use of lots and lot coverage
BOTH narrow and wide lots. Massing and placement of new houses on sites often does not consider existing
neighborhood. Things not a 35' setback may be in code but all other houses on st exceed that much more.
The character of north tyrol is slowly erroding.
keeping height maximums and side setbacks are most important to me.
Scale of home on narrow lot should not be out of character with adjacent homes.
Don’t screw up this city. You want to build affordable housing? Build mixed use along 55. Revamp the existing
shopping and build up. Keep these garbage designs out of our beloved neighborhoods.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 39
Just that we chose Golden Valley over Edina, Linden Hills, etc., because we saw what was happening there--
building mega-houses on small lots. Not all neighborhoods can be accessible/affordable to anyone who
wants to live there. We planned and saved for years and years to move to a quiet, older neighborhood with
large private yards. We vote NO! on narrow lots.
I appreciate the city's efforts to consider a number of diverse solutions to tackle the problem of narrow lots.
As someone who lives in the area of North Tyrol that contains the greatest number of potential narrow lots
after lot uncouplings), I can tell you that we need the city's support and protection on this issue. Our
neighborhood has changed tremendously in the past five years--I fear that it will be unrecognizable in another
five if the city doesn't do something soon to discourage developers and investors from ruining our
neighborhood with their greed driven projects that show no respect for the people who have lived here for
years.
The City of Golden Valley has a unique opportunity to truly "lead the way" with respect to protecting its
unique neighborhoods, its natural beauty, and its residents. I hope that the Planning Commission and City
Council will take this survey feedback seriously, and will use it to develop a series of recommendations that
will stabilize our neighborhood and protect us from the get-rich-quick developers who have taken over.
There is no incentive for builders to build small affordable homes on these lots. They want to maximize their
profits and buildable area.
Has the City considered replatting these lots?
I’d like to see homes that although may cost more than typical starter or existing homes in GV, attract families
who want to invest and stay in GV for the the long term. GV could be very attractive to downtown families
who want to keep Minneapolis in their backyard, but seek more space, better schools and want diversity.
New construction doesn’t necessarily mean bad construction. I’d like to give the city as much flexibility as
possible to work with residential home developers who want to build beautiful homes in GV. I’d also like
existing home owners to be able to renovate and build up or out as needed to create a more beautiful home.
You should be able to build what you want as long as you’re following the current reasonable zoning codes.
I believe Golden Valley is underutelized & should support urban growth with less restrictive zoning & building
restrictions
This issue should have been resolved 3-4 years ago when the new zoning code was researched and adopted.
The fact that it wasn’t and there are problems now again raises questions as to the competency of city
planning staff. I say “again” because current staff was entirely negligent in allowing the house built next to us.
At the time, this same staff was applying the incorrect subdivision standard, and was unaware of the code’s
average width and rear setback requirements. Staff then engaged in improper efforts to correct these issues
while also improperly allowing the political renaming of lot lines to accommodate the builder next door. The
final straw was when we discovered city staff was applying the incorrect side offsets requirements, and had
been doing so since 2008. The impact on us and our own property was devastating, and we still haven’t
recovered years later. The concern we have is with the competency of this staff in arriving at an acceptable
code...one that it is actually able to read and enforce properly.
My general concern is that by not controlling the size (height, etc) and the side set back requirements,
narrow lot homes will become oversized for the lot and ironically become McMansions in their own way. A
McMansion is in reality a house visibly oversized for its lot A huge house on a huge lot may be less of a
McMansion then a large house on a tiny lot.
Golden Valley needs to provide opportunities for newer smaller homes to diversify the housing stock, enable
a more first time home buyers opportunities, and enable opportunities for those looking to down size. There
are too many poorly designed mcmansions going up. Allowing smaller lots will help to mitigate this. Smaller
lots will also increase the density which is needed for more sustainable development.
Less is more
I am in favor of retaining the current character of Golden Valley. If someone is seeking something else, then
look elsewhere.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 40
16: I think the affordability issue is a bit of a red herring. Some of these lots with houses that are for all
practical purposes tear-downs would require a house north of $1M to make it work as a single full size lot and
that's not practical. As it is an old 80' lot divided into two 40' lots is marketable at $700k +/- each. It's not like
in North Tyrol with the existing land values is going to lend itself to anything that could be remotely billed as
affordable". I care about the aesthetics of the neighborhood but not at the total expense to my neighbors
land/house values.
Quit splitting up lots. There are enough houses here. We moved here because of big yards and less people
than Uptown. Don't over populate.
It just needs to be thoughtful. Otherwise we're turning into a standard subdivision which is not desirable--and
for what? For the benefit of developers, not for the benefit of our community. If we want to benefit our
community, put regulations in place that cap the sizes of homes and make them build thoughtfully.
Examples of bad plans would be the two enormous new houses on tiny lots on Meadow Lane North.
I per lots not to be split. There is already enough high destiny living in Golden Valley.
I support the affordability of ALL homes, not just narrow lots. I would NOT like to see Habitat for Humanity
homes because they are NOT affordable. I would like Golden Valley to consider these ideas for all lots, not just
narrow lots. I would like an initiative to move toward Green stormwater infrastructure for all of us, with all
new construction/additions/upgrades of existing homes. Golden Valley can lead in encouraging natural
landscaping/native planting to create a whole city with a more natural environment.
If you are able to purchase the property and build a brand new house, you are NOT doing this for affordable
housing. What a ridiculous push of a point that has no merit.
80 ft lots seem an ok size to me, but I think how houses fill a lot is important. It seems like developers aren’t
keeping this in mind and are more concerned with the biggest house they can fit on a lot.
For our neighborhood of N Tyrol, I am very much opposed to narrow lots. I assume other neighborhoods
would agree.
For increasing density, if that is the goal, redevelopement of larger commercial spaces makes more sense.
With Minneapolis changing its zoning reg's, Golden Valley has the oppurtunity to be a near in refuge. It will
only get more needed to have our GV neighborhoods. Please protect them.
When someone builds a home in which the neighborhood doesn’t like, the alarm is sounded. Change is hard.
However, there is a trend for higher density, less lot size and less yard to upkeep. People who currently own
2 small lots that have been taxed as one are now seeing this trend as an advantage for them, while the
demand is there. Restricting the build ability of these lots is nothing short of taking land and decreasing a lot
owners value. If I were a landowner I would be investigating my legal options at this point. As citizens of
Golden Valley it is in our best interest to be a desirable place to live. Creating higher density residential areas,
smaller lots and updated homes with a smaller carbon foot print is what people desire. Attracting more
residents to our city also increases our tax base and reduces our taxes individually. With this in mind, why are
we doing so much to create MORE restrictions and turning builders and future home buyers away?
Neighborhood consistency seems a relevant guideline. Some neighborhoods enjoy larger lots and should be
permitted to retain the character/design standards on which current homeowners based the purchase of
their homes. Areas with greater variation or already smaller lots are candidates for further lot size
adjustments.
Generally, I think Golden Valley should allow people to build what they want subject to reasonable (limited)
and site-specific setback restrictions to prevent encroachment on adjoining properties. The traditional large
lots in GV are not where we should expect future building to be. We should expect and support that future
building should be more dense.
I think there needs to be consideration of scale of the surrounding houses when building on narrow lots. The
homes should "fit in" with the neighborhood. They should not fill up the entire lot.
I think what happened to Maggie on Meadow Lane, and the new, huge houses built there, is a bad thing. I
would encourage regulations designed to prevent this in the future. Not sure what the city can do about it,
but the idea that somehow the homeowners rights are being protected is a fallacy. The person who sold the
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 41
property next to Maggie's home did not get their rights protected, except their right to have a developer pay
rock bottom for the property and then go on to divide the lot, build two huge homes, and realize a big profit.
I think the city should do what it can do to stop this practice.
In some of these newer large builds on smaller lots you can stand between them and touch each house--that
is way too close for comfort, privacy and aesthetics--not what GV stands for
One of the main reasons I moved to Golden Valley was because of the large lot sizes. I would like others to
have the same opportunity. I've lived in Minneapolis where lots are 40-ft and it felt like I was living on top of
my neighbors with no privacy and you always hear more noise. I would agree to nothing less than 80-ft - - -
maybe.
There are two people in my neighborhood that are driving this topic insanely. They are actively interfering
with ongoing and/or proposed projects. They want to live in a 1950's neighborhood in their non-updated
rambler, and look at all change as somehow negative. I STRONGLY feel that opportunities to develop narrow
lots and older homes improves the value of our neighborhood.
My biggest concern is adding large homes on small lots. New homes should fit the character of the
surrounding homes and be of similar size or smaller. Consideration should be made on how new homes will
affect neighbors.
In the neighborhood I used to live in (in NY), narrow lots created the following:
1. Increase in population density (since two families could live on the same land that one family could before)
2. Did not reduce housing costs. Prices for all homes remained the same or increased. This was probably good
for the city from a property tax perspective, but did not make houses more affordable.
3. Changed the neighborhood character from a greener, more relaxed, open space to a "house-dense"
environment that looked and felt crowded.
4. Lack of height restrictions caused a number of the narrow lot homes to become three stories, which added
to the crowded look.
In general, creating narrow lots of 40' needs to be carefully considered to avoid turning the lovely
spaciousness of suburban Golden Valley into a densely-populated urban environment.
Again, I'm not sure I support the city getting more involved or creating more rules and regulations on new or
existing Golden Valley homeowners. I am for the city controlling outside builders, realtors, and others who
have zero interest in making a home for themselves and their families and simply care about maximizing
profits.
What are the parameters which define a ‘narrow lot’? Is there a minimum and a maximum witdth? Depth?
Our lot is approximately 89’ wide, I believe. We were able to build a 1100 sq ft home where we lived and
raised one child for over 47 years; our setbacks are just like our neighbors and we have a mix of homes from
the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s on through the more recent decades and they all pretty much fit in. Thank you.
At the time a property is being subdivided, I would consider connected townhomes, one on each parcel, as an
option.
Let's not make Golden Valley into a Richfield or South Minneapolis where homes are so close to each other
that emulating that would drastically change the character of Golden Valley.
While every neighborhood in Golden Valley has it’s unique characteristics, the North Tyrol neighborhood has
been desirable because of the lot sizes and distance between homes. It was purposely designed to maintain a
more open, woodsy, park like feeling as it is so close to Wirth Park. Increasing density in this neighborhood
will destroy the character that has always drawn people to the area and possibly have a negative effect on the
home values. I think we should be more concerned with current home owners who plan on staying in the
neighborhood than developers or those who are looking to sell and move away.
We don't want to be Minneapolis. We don't want higher density.
Depending on the design of new houses on narrow lots, they could negatively impact existing neighbors and
the look of the neighborhoods.
With lots so narrow (40 ft) and everything that would be in the front of the house like the gas line, water and
sewer, sidewalk, garage, driveway, etc., would it even be possible to plant trees and bushes in the front
yards? 40 ft wide, but how many feet to the front of the garage/house?
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 42
If built close to the side lot lines (4ft and 8 ft?), the new house could impact how water drains and move
water toward neighboring homes. Drainage could be a real problem with close houses, not just from
rainwater and possibly sump pumps, but from snow melt as well.
If built as multi-level, they could block sunlight to existing neighbors and their trees/bushes/plants.
If dormers are built on a 2nd or 3rd story and assuming they would include windows, the new house could be
too close to existing homes and look down into the existing homes (single level) and yards, impacting privacy.
New homes should look like the existing neighborhood's homes. otherwise they just look out of place.
Yes, we have a number of examples where the city council was weak and granted major building exceptions. I
do not have a problem with increased building height, but hold builders accountable for current regulations.
Stop being pushovers eg. 603 Parkview Terrace, 280 Janalyn Circle
We like that the City is looking for opportunities with these lots to provide affordable homes for new families,
seniors, etc. We do not support relaxing regulations so that new high end homes can be built in the city and
where setbacks don't provide for yards/green space.
Yes, they're narrower than wider lots. To reiterate, larger, and multiple accessory structures should be
allowed, including granny flats. Allow multifamily zoning on all lots. We don't need a garage "police" telling
us how big or small a garage can be. Most of the homes in Golden Valley are butt-ass ugly, so maybe require
an architect to design all new buildings to avoid another vinyl sided, multi-gabled eyesore to be built, which is
about all I see being constructed.
I do not support the creation of narrow lots and believe that we need to have new regulations to prevent
them. They undermine the character and value of the neighborhoods.
I do not support narrow lots in GV.
I have concerns that the GV planning commission is in over their heads. they have allowed inferior builders
into the city that have trampled the rights of neighboring homeowners without repercussion.
Not at this time
We love the spacious lots in many parts of Golden Valley and are willing to continue to pay high or higher
taxes to keep it that way.
There is obvious gentrification going on. There are no requirement for builders to have an established positive
reputation based on several years of building. There need to be fines assessed on builders who violate rules
and allow their mess to spread over the area. There need to be hours and days limited for building and
limiting excessive noises.
I would like to understand the impetus for this conversation. What is the objective we as a community are
trying to achieve? My concern is we are accommodating developers and I thiink Golden Valley will become to
dense. We have many multi unit complexes being built, additional rezoning along Laurel, on top of many
subdivisions. Now narrow lots. I've heard the benefit of smaller lots will be more affordable housing but the
opposite seems to be playing out. Lastly, how much more growth can the city support without investments in
infrastructure, schools, and other services.
As a first ring suburb I believe GV should embrace density, mixed use zoning and urbanization. Housing
density should decrease as you distance from the core city and we should not be a donut of low density
housing right next to Mpls. It's unrealistic to think that as a community we should be exactly as we were 40
years ago when further out cities such as Plymouth were hardly developed. We should adapt as a mature
community and find ways to continue growth through density.
Thank you for allowing feedback.
These small lot homes are a breath of fresh air to yesteryears simplicity. Sadly, people have more stuff.
Home building is very creative these days. Let gifted people design and build quaint and efficient homes to
replace or update these neighborhoods.
Common sense clause: new/remodeled homes should be comparable in appearance to homes already
existing in the block/neighborhood
I live in N. Tyrol, which has larger lots. I would not want my neighbors to subdivide their lots. It would change
the character of the neighborhood.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 43
There are three homes within our immediate neighborhood that are monstrosities compared to the houses
on either side. They do not fit in to our neighborhood. I would be happy to identify where they are....but I
am certain you could see them for yourselves on Orkla Drive.
I'm really not sure what the appeal of a bunch of tall, skinny, cheap houses is, besides perhaps for those who
desire new construction in an inner-tier suburb. A lot of the houses built here mid century have good bones,
even if they're dated. I'd prefer those over ugly, cheap new construction. Don't we already have an
overabundance of apartment homes in Golden Valley? Now we're trying to squeeze row homes into beautiful
neighborhoods? Ugh.
Please don't allow contractors to build over sized houses. Climate change, water issues, environment needs
to be considered. Heating and cooling affect the environment. Build houses that are truly more affordable
for starter homes, singles and seniors or folks who wish to make their energy impact less.
Reducing lot size will negatively affect property values and quality of life in Golden Valley
I strongly support limiting the height and size of new homes being built in the older, more established areas of
Golden Valley. There is a giant home in our neighborhood that dwarfs the homes on either side. It also sold
for at least 300k more than others in the neighborhood. The house should be in Eden Prairie, not Golden
Valley.
I think families want large lots for kids to play and spend time outside. With all the sub-divided lots and
apartment projects that have little green space(Xenia/Laurel), seems like the city is promoting fewer families,
and more temporary residents.
I believe that neighbors should have input on whether narrow lot development is appropriate in their
neighborhood.
very concerned about any new housing that effectively blocks sunlight to any neighboring roof, and/or
reducing sunlight into gardening areas of neighbors. Roofs of all neighbors must have full potential for solar
energy panels to be installed, or solar tiled roofs.
Golden Valley has a great neighborhood reputation and almost our whole neighborhood has turned over in
our 5 years of buying. Every house has been upgraded at some point and upholds the quality of living that we
moved here for. Sale of older and narrower homes helps promote upgrades to be competitive, which is good
as there are many dated homes in GV. I feel this should be looked at holistically - some areas are higher
quality than others and that should be maintained. Some are more affordable and that can remain. I simply
don't want to see the quality of my neighborhood go down - minimally I want it maintained, upgraded if
necessary during sale.
I think the subdividing should stop
I think it is important to take into account how new building in neighborhoods affects houses that are already
present. Tall houses can block the light in yards or houses of neighbors. Houses very close to property lines
changes the feeling of neighborhoods. Part of the beauty if GV is that we’re so close to the city but can easily
feel like we live much further out. New additions/remodels or new builds should be in character with the
neighborhood. My family added on to our house about 10 years ago as we decided to stay in GV rather than
move. With an architect and builder’s help, we were able to design a house that provided the space we
needed but in keeping with the neighborhood and the original house’s character.
The current new homes that have been built on these narrow lots look horrible. They are so close to each
other...not at all the look that Golden Valley has or the appeal it has to those who want to live here. Also,
newer homes being built on these lots next to long standing homes do not blend in and are hideous to look
at; from the front facade to the heights that tower over the existing homes in the neighborhoods. I'm sure the
city planners and powers the be like the idea of narrow lots = more homes, more money for the city.
The existing zoning ordinance is more than adequate. The current preoccupation with narrow lots is cowardly
pandering by the Mayor for ONE complaining Resident! The Mayor needs to grow a set and provide
leadership, a concept foreign to him!
I'm concerned about the discontinuity that narrow lots would bring to the character of established
neighborhoods. For example, if any of the houses in my neighborhood were demolished and their 1/3 acre
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 44
lots were then divided in half and rebuilt with 2 homes it could throw off the look and feel of the
neighborhood.
Agree that as long as the structure conforms to city code, the structure should be allowed to be built on a
narrow lot.
This city is nearly totally developed. None of the homes in MY neighborhood are like the others - why do
some residents think they have a RIGHT to change codes at this point? Landowners should be allowed to
build what they want as long as they're compliant. Governing by NEIGHBORS is ridiculous.
Eden Prairie has 2000 sq. ft. unattached - as does Brooklyn Park. Golden Valley is out of line with their 1000
sq. ft. restriction.
Why restrict smaller homes? Crystal, New Hope, etc., have smaller lots and smaller homes - and those homes
are in demand - especially for first-time homebuyers and seniors looking to downsize. Golden Valley needs to
realize this...
Ensuring we preserve the green areas of the property as people become more interested in growing
pollinators gardens, pollinator yards, and grow their own food.
The "aesthetic" of Golden Valley should be the priority . Love the idea of challenging builders to get creative
with the space and build to allow for more affordable housing but maintain the surrounding aesthetic. Two
blocks east of me, a builder is putting in an oversized house on a narrow lot. It literally dwarfs the
neighborhood and blocks quite a bit of sunlight for abutting properties. It stands out like a sore thumb and I
would so hate to see more builders without accountability or respect for neighbors and the neighborhood.
The impact is more than structural and it does affect/change us as a community. Thanks
I chose to live in Golden Valley because of the larger lot sizes. It is a selling point for the city. If I had wanted a
smaller lot I would have chosen another suburb.
The City's existing zoning requlations are satisfactory, if enforced fairly. Regarding the issue of "narrow lots"
neighbors have become unneighborly. Disappointing regarding a city that has been our home for 35 years
and we had thought better of.
I'd like homes to for the character of the neighborhood. We have an extremely tall home on our block that
doesn't fit the feel of the neighborhood.
I wish this survey had not been written in builder lingo. You have excluded many of Golden Valleys residents
from understanding the wording of several questions. My guess is you have already made up your minds and
sent this survey out hoping for a low response.
I am interested in owning one.
Homes are expensive. My 24 year old son, a college graduate, is having breakfast right now before heading
off to work. His sister spent a year at home after graduation as well. It is unrealistic to think that GV should
be a target location for first time home buyers. South Minneapolis and Hopkins have many smaller homes
that could be a good place for a first time home buyer.
I appreciate that the city is trying to understand homeowner concerns. Part of the draw of the city is that
there is a sense of spaciousness -- the 28 foot wide streets, the many parks, the nature area... It doesn't take
much to change the character of a place. Also, there are increasing concerns about water.
Thank you
I worry every time a home goes up for sale that the house will be torn down and 2 or more homes will be built
on the property. While it may help our tax base, it goes against the size of lots that help make Golden Valley a
beautiful place to live in.
I moved here 33 years ago when starting to expand my family. We chose Golden Valley over St. Louis Park
because of the greater lot size and less cramped-character of the neighborhood. I would like to see young
families want to move here. I don't believe the problem has been the housing - it's the lack of indoor
recreational facilities and schools within Golden Valley, such as SWIMMING POOL, and indoor hockey, and the
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 45
low youth population. That had been the biggest downfall for us when our family was young. It's been even
more disappointing that GV's focus over the past few decades has been to attract and increase residences for
seniors over young families.
I haven't heard any presentations about it so can only use my imagination and that is not good enough. I
would love to see examples as well as examples where and why they worked and where and why they didn't
work. Then this questionnaire would make more sense to me and I could answer with reasons, not guesses.
Fit in with the neighborhoods current "look".
I think we need to remain open to building on any size lot as it serves the population base and attractiveness
of GV as a first ring suburb.
I do not want to see developers engaging in another land rush to split 80 foot lots lots into two 40 ones.
Take a drive through Edina and witness the "McMansions" that disrupt the continuity of a neighborhood to
understand the importance of getting this right. Or tour Minneapolis neighborhoods and view the three level
mid-70's home nestled between others that reflect craftsmanship of the 1920's and '30's. For sure there will
be a push-back from those who feel there economic opportunities may be hindered by proposed changes.
For those doing so, remember to examine or discover their goals. What's in it for them? My view would be
What's in it for the community of Golden Valley?"
I think all lots should be built of the old site area.
I would suggest against relaxing the street-side setback for most corner lots. Making it possible to build on a
corner lot means that people whose houses front on a street then have to share the street with the side of a
home. Far less attractive than sharing the street with a home set back from the corner.
I am not familiar with the regulations but I’m concerned about the impact the new large narrow lot homes
have on the livability and access to light on the existing smaller homes. I understand new homes present a
chance for affordable housing and redevelopment of housing stock but I’d like to see it done without
negatively impacting existing smaller homes.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 46
Narrow Lot Owners Only
If you live/own a home on a single narrow lot, what factors led you to choose that
home over a larger property? (Choose up to three)
Of the responses to this question, Right fit for household size, Lower Cost, and No particular reason
were among the top answers. The question also received 35 Other responses, all of which are
compiled below.
Other” Reponses
my house is on a 50 foot lot with distance between both adjacent homes.
allowed son to stay in same school district.
these houses are not lower cost!
We currently have a double lot and would like to split it to a single lot. Sell one and build on the
other. We love golden valley and want to stay but our old home is too much maintenance and our
yard is way too big to manage every spring/summer.
we realized that if we wanted a new home in golden valley, we were going to have to buy a home on
a narrow lot. We feel that this has helped with the overall quality of Golden Valley- the homes that
were on this property before were junky and unsightly. Now, there are 9 new homes, with young
vibrant families and diverse families that bring a lot to the community both in human capital and in
tax capital.
n/a, just filling up one of three required choices, because this question does not even apply to me.
I don't
n/a; ignore responses, they were required to complete survey
I live on a two/thirds acre size lot- this question is not applicable to me and answers should be edited
to include that choice. I have now been redirected to answer this question for a third time. Please
fix your survey tool.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 47
Not applicable
I don't live on a narrow lot. Why am I being asked to fill out this question?
NA
My lot isn’t a narrow lot
Does not apply
I do not live on a narrow lot
Smaller foot print to environment
N/A
I don’t want to choose 3. Please remove “investment equity”
DO NOT LIVE ON NARROW LOT
N/A the survey forces me to pick 3. I do not live or own a narrow lot.
no, i live on a standard 80 ft lot ( didn't want to select the other checks but the survey required
three checks)
Its a 2 lot home, the third lot to this home was sold before we purchased-No knowledge of the size
of home to be build on neighboring lot.
Location!!! Cost at the time,
We did not consider the lot size. Decision was based on the house.
Says choose up to three, but won't accept only two. I only have two things I want to choose
NA
Lot size was not a buying consideration.
It was a cute affordable home in a terrific hood.... there was a single similar home next to me when I
bought 18 years ago.
It was a new home and is plenty big. Less yard to maintain.
We liked the natural setting of the home
Up to 3” and I chose one - directions do not mandate selection of three.
wanted a small yard.
This question required me to pick 3 items in order to submit my responses. My house is not on a
single narrow lot.
Live on two narrow lots (forced a third answer and investment option does not apply)
timing of the purchase and tax benefits
If you live/own a home on a single narrow lot, what factors led you to choose that home over a
larger property? (Choose up to three)
my house is on a 50 foot lot with distance between both adjacent homes.
Have you ever decided not to pursue an improvement to your property due to a
real or perceived conflict with zoning regulations?
This question was open ended and gathered no statistical data.
Other” Reponses
No
yes , city planners don't listen
Don't believe so.
NO
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 48
We are just beginning to dive into this.
not applicable
no
No
Yes
n/a
Ni
no
No
I want to subdivide my large lot. Can't do it under the current restrictions so I would be interested in
any loosening of the set back and lot sizes to allow me to subdivide my lot.
No
No.
Yes! I wanted to add a 2 car garage on the side of my home home and was told the variance was not
likely. I also needed a variance for my deck. I’m improving my home and have significant increased
its value!
no
No
no
No
No
Yes. I feel as if my ability to maintain and improve my property is limited due to zoning. I have lost
set backs due to both a neighbor moving a fence to the property line and street improvements
moved the street and curb further into the set back.
Yes
Yes.
NO
No
No
Yes
no
yes-
No, we have an ideal location.
Yes. We wanted to build a deck off our kitchen, but couldn’t
No
no
No
Yes
NA
No
No, dealing with the defensive city of Golden Valley is so frustrating, it is not worth my happiness.
The only thing i could do to get a little sunlight back is to go up; which is too cost prohibitive for me
at this point.
No
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 49
Yes. I had wanted to put in a brick retainer wall on the roadside hill.
No
No, we have followed the established process to obtain variances necessary for our improvement
projects.
Yes, building a garage. But also without an alley it is hard too.
yes
No. It's a small lot... Common sense tells you you ca't put two pounds of something in a one pound
bag!
Yes.
no
No
No
No
Yes. The two car garage requirement limits the options we have for building an attached garage on
our current property, and we were also told that we can't build another house on our adjacent lot
521 Indiana) without knocking down our current house because there would not be enough space
between the properties to put in a driveway and two car garage.
No.
No
No
No
No
No
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 50
Would you prefer a stronger zoning code that protects against negative impacts
to adjacent properties but which can be adjusted with variances, or a more
permissive code that leaves less flexibility for variances?
This question was open ended and gathered no statistical data.
Other” Reponses
I would prefer a stronger zoning code that protects against negative impacts to adjacent properties.
More permissive
While I like the concept of being allowed to build what owners want, we must find ways to ensure
newly built homes are more & more energy efficient especially to address the reality that CO2, etc
emissions are the major cause of climate change.
We need a stronger zoning code that gives protection to existing properties. Right now there is NO
protection.
No, the more flexibility the better.
no
More permissivity - People should be able to build what they want.
Stricter - I have seen tree trunks literally sliced in half from the top down to make room for these Mc
Mansions - it's disgusting.
Neither. We know where variances can go. Why even have zoning codes in that case?
stronger
Stronger with variances
I prefer using common sense to make decisions on a case by case basis. Can that happen?
This question’s wording is loaded. If anyone says yes to this, it’s yes but agreeing to modifications if
the city wants it?? I understand working with an owner (please notice I did not say builder) but can’t
answer yes or no in this.
No.
Yes
Permissive.
More permissible code as the process today is difficult.
no
Yes
Strong code but adjustable with variances
Protects against negative impacts
Yes
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 51
I would prefer flexibility on variances for narrow property owners that allow them to maintain and
improve their properties to the standard or above the standard of neighboring properties.
More permissive
Uncertain. I’m open to hear both sides.
YES
A more permissive code
Yes
More restrictive, but with realistic ability to obtain variances. The problem is that each lot/home is
different. What might make sense on one lot, might not on another, even if they are the same exact
size.
I prefer clear zoning codes that don’t give wealthy people and unfair advantage.
prefer stronger zoning codes and opportunity for discussion before new design home build starts.
Zoning that protects against negative impacts on current residents. (size) Most important, the new
home built should be compatible with the surrounding homes. Our neighbor McMansion is to large
for the lot size.
Stronger code
Prefer a code that protects against negative impacts to adjacent properties but which can be
adjusted with variances.
stronger code.
More permissive less flexibility
Yes
I'm not sure at this point. I just don't what has happened to Edina to happen in Golden Valley.
Monstrous houses on too small lots, has destroyed the character and negatively impacts the value of
the remaining small homes
Stronger zoning with fewer variances.
Stronger codes to protect the taxpayers who have lived in the neighborhood and improved their
homes and gardens, adding to the charm that golden Valley once enjoyed. Developers have changed
the nature of this city, and city officials have allowed it to happen. I'm not anti development; but, it
is so out of hand!
Less flexibility for variances. A variance in and of itself is being flexible.
More permissive code.
Current code seems fine.
I think a stronger zoning code that allows for case by case examination of the situation with the
possibility of variances.
No. The existing codes are logical and clean cut. Adding complexity will only make things worse.
yes
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 52
On narrow lots your are very close to your neightbors. Things like leaving exterior lights on and snow
removal impact overall livability.
Strong zoning codes usually does not allow for many variances and a permissive code would not
need many variances.
The stronger code
Permissive! Build demand with larger ranges and better mixes of housing types to create a stronger
community. When my mom retires, I’d love to have her move to a small house nearby rather than an
apartment or big house by herself.
stronger zoning code
I amVERY concerned about how “negative impacts” are defined, and by whom, so can not answer.
ALSO, there should not be an expectation of variances - if it’s a zoning code, then only VARY in rare,
extenuating, unexpected circumstances. “Adjusted with variances” is like saying “we won’t follow
our zoning requirements.”
That sounds like the same end result to me. I guess I would say a more permissive code with less
variance flexibility to make the process as fair as possible.
Less flexibility, I believe variances are granted more easily for developers & builders who are not
homeowners/residents than residents that live & pay taxes in the community.
Yes
I would prefer a stronger code that protects against negative impacts, but can be adjusted with
variances.
Adjustments with variances. Flexibility is ok.
Support stronger zoning code to protect against negative impacts, but that's subjective
generally, more permissive code with fewer variances.
Does your home have a garage? If so, what kind (single-car vs multi-car, street
access vs alley, attached vs detached)?
This question was open ended and gathered no statistical data.
Other” Reponses
2 car tuck under attached with alley access
Attached and or not , I feel if homeowner wants 2 driveways, should be granted
yes, two car.
detached garage multi car garage set back from house
732 Rhode Island Ave S
Single car detached
Multi-car, attached
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 53
yes, 2-car, street, attached.
Attached 2-car
double detached
multi, attached
No
single car tuck under
Two car, street access
Yes. Double car. Street Access. Attached.
Multi detached street access single width driveway
No.
Single car tuck under. I wast a two car garage for my disabled dad who lives with me.
multi car street access attached
Tuck under garage
2 car attached
Single car, side driveway space
Yes. Street access, attached
Yes, tuck under.
Yes - detached 2 car
Multi-car detached via shared driveway
YES MULTI-CAR TUCK UNDER
Street access 2 car garage detached
Multi via alley
Yes. Multi-car. Detached in alley.
multi-car attached
1917 Gettysburg Ave. North, detached.
Yes, street access, single car, detached garage setback15 feet from the house,
1415 Zealand Av. N.
double-car garage
Yes, 2 car, street access, attached
two-car detached
Yes. Double, detached, street access.
2 car attached
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 54
Multi car street access
Yes, single car, attached, street access
Two-car, attached garage with alley access.
316 Meadow lane N
316 Meadow lane N....... tuck under, alley
411 Sunnyridge Lane, multi-car garage with alley access and is detached.
detached single car garage with street access.
Yes, 2-car with street access.
single car tuck under garage
No. I built a shed for the bikes and we park in the driveway.
yes
Yes, double detached at the back of the lot.
Yes, there is a garage. 2 car, attached at back of house. (not facing street)
My home has a detached garage. Homes need to be designed for families to have 2-3 cars parked.
Suburban life is not walkable life.
2-car partially attached
4108 Beverly Ave. 2-car attached, street access
Yes, single car, tuck under, driveway access only (no alley).
No garage.
Yes, alley access, tuck under.
Single car tuck under
Double attached tuck under with alley access
attached, tuck under garage
Yes
Single detached
Yes. Single-car, attached (tuck under), with street access
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 55
If you own a lot consisting of two platted narrow lots, would you ever consider
selling and or developing one or both of the narrow lots?
This question was open ended and gathered no statistical data.
Name
If you own a lot consisting of two platted narrow lots, would you ever
consider selling and or developing one or both of the narrow lots?
Not applicable
yes
Not applicable.
NO
Yes! We have a double lot. We want to demolish our current home, sell one lot and build on the
other.
not applicable
n/a
I don't
na
n/a
Yes
I do and I would not consider selling the undeveloped lot.
Emphatic No.
I have a double lot with streets on both sides. Would be very interested in subdividing my lot if the
city would allow it.
No
No.
Na
n/a
No
Not applicable
No
not applicable
No
NA
NO
N/A
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 56
No
N/A
not at this time-
N/A We live on one lot frontage 60' by 142.22', this does not include the one half of the alley that
was not put in.
Lakeview Heights
Yes
No. Not unless all of my surrounding neighbors already did so.
No
If I did own such a lot, I would be unlikely to allow it to be crowded with multiple homes.
NO. At least not like what has happened on Meadow lane. Architecturally there were other options,
these people chose volume.....because they could.
N/A
N/A
The topography of our two lots would not allow development of each narrow lot.
If I owned a split able lot, I would do whatever made me the most money when I sold it. If that
meant adding sweat equity til it exceeded the value of just the land itself I would do that. I in fact
did that. If my house were more valuable as a teardown, I'd live in it until my personal economics
made menchangw my mind.
yes
If I was in that situation I would do so only if I was selling the lot.
N/A
Yes, I did this 49 years ago in the first home I owned in GV
N/a
Not applicable
Yes if it was feasible within the zoning code.
n/a
I believe our house is platted as two lots, I would not consider making it into 2 lots. It is a beautiful
lots with 4 large trees, the house fits nicely in the center of the lot with plenty of space between our
home and our neighbors.
No
Yes
Regarding Maggie's situation, for instance, one of the developer-inclined
attendees at the recent Planning Commission meeting expressed the
view, in discussion after the meeting with others present, that Maggie
should be allowed to build a second story herself to maintain her view, etc.
So do not make rules to prevent her from doing so.
There you really have the problem in a nutshell. Are we going to allow
developers to do whatever they want in our city or protect the people that
actually live here? Should Maggie have to be forced to match the
development next to her, which she may not want to do or afford, or have
to move, or have her current home protected.
One thing I think important is to decide whose interests we are going to
put first. I think first should be the residents of the city who are planning on
staying in their current homes and raising their families, paying taxes, etc.
This does not include recent homebuyers who plan on putting the biggest
possible house on their land and then selling, making as big a profit as
possible, and then moving on to the next project. Again, there is nothing
wrong with that for them, but we do not have to let them ruin the character
of our neighborhoods in doing so.
Also not primary should be residents who are selling and want to 'cash in'
on their investment. Our neighborhoods are not investments for retirees or
developers. Our neighborhoods are where we live and raise our families.
Someone who has lived here their entire lives and raised their families and
enjoyed the character of our neighborhoods should be able to sell their
home and make a reasonable profit. Anyone who has lived here for some
time will do so regardless of who they sell it to. But the city can protect
those neighbors who are staying by not allowing those leaving to make the
most possible profit at the expense of the character of our neighborhoods.
Last in consideration should be flippers and developers. They have a right
to do this, and I am sure most do it in a reasonable way, but it should be
within rules that protect the character of our neighborhoods and of those
residents who are simply trying to enjoy their lives, not make money.
That same person at the recent meeting who wanted to protect Maggie's
right to build her own McMansion, also stated that making rules to limit
what flippers and developers can do is nefarious. Not sure if he realizes
that means wicked or criminal.
Finally, I have noticed at city meetings, council, planning commission,
managers' meetings, etc, there seems to be a tendency to discuss the
citizens of Golden Valley as just another sector to consider. You know
there are the citizens, the developers, the city employees, the elected or
appointed councilpersons or commissioners, etc.
From:
To:Harris, Shep; Clausen, Joanie; Fonnest, Larry; Schmidgall, Steve; Rosenquist, Gillian; Zimmerman, Jason;
Cruikshank, Tim; Nevinski, Marc
Subject:306 and 310 Meadow Lane N
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2019 6:03:11 PM
Hello
I've done a bit more research as a result of the proposed subdivision
in our neighborhood and wanted to ask all of you if in anything more
can be done to research these two properties.I'm not suggesting that
anything illegal has been done,and in fact I assume they followed all
laws,but I do wonder if talking to the two homeowners would be
valuable to better understand this trend.I recall that at the last
community meeting that I attended,it was suggested that at future
meetings realtors and developers are also invited.I'm not sure if
either of these parties would accept and invitation,but it would be
interesting if they did.
310 Meadow Lane N is a home that was recently built and according to
Hennepin County is owned by Kathryn and Timothy Deming.I walk by
this property daily,and although it looks to be completed,I don't
believe anyone lives here.It further seems that Tim is a RE/MAX
agent and my bet would be that he simply bought this lot to build a
home as an investment and is now waiting to homestead this property
before selling it.
306 Meadow Lane N is an empty lot owned according to Hennepin County
by Benjamin Kalahar.Ben also seems to be a realtor,and I assume is
the person who originally bought the lot and subdivided it in to two
lots.From what I can tell,this lot has been sold but for now the
buyer is not listed.
Again,I am not suggesting anything illegal has been done by either of
these two parties.However,I do wonder if this is what we want to
turn Golden Valley and North Tyrol in to.A city and neighborhood
where outside investors,who have zero plans of living in our
community,can come in and do whatever they legally are able to do
just to make money.If so,I am concerned this will have a
considerable negative impact on Golden Valley and North Tyrol.
Thank you
Re: Development and Construction in North Tyrol Hills Neighborhood
City of Golden Valley Representatives:
My wife and I live at 436 Westwood Drive North, where we have lived since buying this home in 1999. My
wife, however, also grew up at 101 Westwood Drive North, which her parents built and owned until they
moved out about 15 years ago. Although she did move out of the neighborhood for a period, she came back
because of her love for the neighborhood and the quality of life for our kids. We love our neighborhood, the
ample yards and green space, our neighbors, the diversity in people and properties, and the quality of life we
and our neighbors have.
In recent years, our neighborhood has seemingly experienced a high turnover in homeowners. That has
brought many new families to the neighborhood, a lot of kids, and a lot of remodeling of homes. We are
excited and supportive of all of this. What we are not supportive of, are those who do not live in the
neighborhood; do not care about our community, but who are targeting homeowners for the sole purpose of
profiting from the development and/or redevelopment of their homes and property. We would hope our
elected city officials would care about this, care about us, care about our neighbors, and care about our
neighborhood enough to do something about this.
As we walk our dogs in the neighborhood, this is what everyone now wants to talk about. We were
encouraged to see so many attend a recent meeting at City Hall and anticipate that participation will continue
and even increase. What we don’t think you will hear from neighbors is that they are resistant to change or
not open to different architecture from new homeowners. What we do think you will hear is that the
neighborhood wants to retain the qualities that drew them to Golden Valley and this neighborhood, especially
the lot sizes, mature trees and wildlife. We are also confident that there are a lot more people that would
jump on the opportunity to move into this neighborhood and support the maintenance of these qualities.
As a concerned resident of the North Tyrol Hills neighborhood of Golden Valley, we are encouraged to see that
the Council has made “Strategic Development and Redevelopment” one of its strategic priorities in 2019
including, but not limited to, protecting neighborhood character, fixing housing code to address 40-foot lots,
and altering current setbacks). We believe it is time for the Mayor and City Council to start putting in place
some measures to discourage the rapid development of our neighborhood, particularly when it is happened at
such an accelerating pace, and when it so fundamentally and irreversibly alters the landscape of our
neighborhood.
We believe that these and other issues deserve your immediate attention in the coming year, and we
encourage you to make these issues a priority in the coming months. We thank you for your consideration of
these important issues.
From:
To:Zimmerman, Jason
Subject:GOLDEN VALLEY // North Tyrol Hills Neighborhood // JASON
Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2019 10:38:01 PM
Dear Jason,
Thank you for serving our Golden Valley community in the role as City Planning Manager. It
was good to meet you last week. I feel confident knowing you share a vision for leading that
includes deep listening and wise direction.
I have several items in this vein you must hear concerning the North Tyrol Hills
Neighborhood:
HEIGHT + SIZE RESTRICTIONS //
If someone can build a 25-foot home DIRECTLY on a property line...how is that not a
complete abuse of the term "house?" That is more distinguishable as a 25' fence. Please be
mindful of the neighborhood and personhood impacts of homes built to max out height and
width restrictions. No one (and I mean not one single person) likes or appreciates the abuse of
the land at 312 Meadow Lane in our city. The "builder/vulture" is squatting and seemingly not
invested in the community here and is staying only until they can sell it for a profit meanwhile
our neighbor has lost her beloved Golden Valley neighborhood experience because of a 25-
foot wall of a house/fence built directly to her property line for a profit-motivated build.
It's embarrassing to Golden Valley.
Please discover a creative way to protect neighborhood character from overdevelopment
by restriction of height and size builds on narrow lots.
SUBDIVISIONS + UNCOUPLING //
Stop. This is silly. I moved to GOLDEN VALLEY (from South Minneapolis) and it is
precisely because I was no longer interested in the way South Minneapolis operated their
neighborhoods (with homes packed together with little regard for nature, noise pollution,
wildlife, quality of life and, well, life in general). From what I understand of my neighbor
across the street the uncreative plan perpetuated by someone NOT from Golden Valley with
NO interest in keeping our neighborhood, community and Golden Valley people or wildlife
safe and healthy, the proposed lot subdivision at 421 Burntside & 448 Westwood is in direct
conflict with how you promised to lead residents.
This is madness.
Please place thoughtful restrictions on subdivisions + uncouplings + any future word
games meant to shroud what is really being delivered to the land and people in Golden
Valley: violence. Violence to the land and the people on it is creeping into the loose codes in
our city. One definition of violence is what is being perpetuated already: damage through
distortion or unwarranted alteration. Please do not run on a violence platform...we already
have enough of that...it's uncreative.
WHAT I LOVE ABOUT GOLDEN VALLEY //
I could also title this section: WHAT IS AT THREAT IN GOLDEN VALLEY. Because the
From:Cruikshank, Tim
To:Zimmerman, Jason
Subject:Fwd: Endless subdivisions
Date:Monday, September 30, 2019 5:56:28 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Fonnest, Larry"
Date: September 30, 2019 at 3:58:46 PM CDT
To: "Cruikshank, Tim"
Subject: Fw: Endless subdivisions
FYI:
The latest blast!
Please share with appropriate staff.
Larry Fonnest
From:
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 3:39 PM
To: Fonnest, Larry
Subject: Endless subdivisions
I wish our city Council had already put clear protections in place to protect our beautiful and unique City of Golden
Valley to maintain and increase property values here. Apparently, a huge loophole was overlooked. Do we need a
city wide referendum to insure that the voice of the taxpayers is finally respected? At a minimum a moratorium on
further subdivisions and “lot uncouplings” is in order. This issue has arisen time and time again. Clearly, the
developers are using smarter lawyers than our Golden Valley government has been utilizing.
Golden Valley voters deserve to be reassured that proper setbacks are observed with no shenanigans regarding
exceptions whose only purpose is to allow developers to make additional profits.
Golden Valley voters deserve to be assured that our precious tree canopy is not wantonly destroyed so that an extra
home can be crammed in.
Golden Valley voters deserve to be assured that our city government is making an attempt to maintain and
rehabilitate its charming older housing stock instead of replacing it with identical cookie cutter homes full of fake
pillars and multiple roof lines.
Golden Valley voters deserve be reassured that the development of any new homes will be respectful of their voting
neighbor's property regarding height and size.
The intelligent Edina Government has taken steps to legally control un controlled development. I would like to think
that our city would have the will do the same.
This issue has touched a nerve for a lot of voters. I am only one of many who will be observing the actions or
inactions of our Golden Valley officials at this crucial time. This election year would be a good time for you to take
action instead of engaging in meaningless rhetoric.
Golden Valley has been a wonderful refuge for wildlife (and even wilder children) to inhabit. What will your
grandchildren say to you for your part in the careless squandering of their birthright? Isn’t it time time to make a
stand for their future?
With hope,
Golden Valley MN
Re: Development and Construction in North Tyrol Hills Neighborhood
9/30/2019
Dear Council Member:
As a concerned resident of the North Tyrol Hills neighborhood of Golden Valley (since 1969), I am encouraged
to see that the Council has made “Strategic Development and Redevelopment” one of its strategic priorities in
2019 (including, but not limited to, protecting neighborhood character, fixing housing code to address 40-foot
lots, and altering current setbacks). I believe it is time for the Mayor and City Council to start putting in place
some measures to discourage the rapid development of our neighborhood, particularly when it is happened
at such an accelerating pace, and when it so fundamentally and irreversibly alters the landscape of our
neighborhood.
A recent survey of Golden Valley residents identified the following priorities, which we encourage you to
consider before the end of 2019:
Density of homes in the neighborhood—The Council needs to block both 1) subdivision of existing lots
into two or more, as well as 2) “uncoupling” of 2 or more lots that had been previously combined to
house one property. An analysis regarding possible re-platting of dual properties has been discussed,
and needs to be completed as soon as possible.
Setbacks and spaces between houses that respect the rights of the surrounding homes— Setbacks
need to be increased for homes constructed on 40-foot lots to discourage developers from
overbuilding” on small lots in the area. Issues such as distance between homes, privacy, sunlight,
energy, landscaping, water runoff, etc. should all be considered.
Size or massing of homes on lots—Restrictions need to be placed on both the size and height of homes
in relation to lot size. We believe you need to create more stringent size and height restrictions on
homes built on 40-foot lots in particular to protect the rights of neighboring residents.
Standards on new housing to maintain the character of neighborhood—The City Council needs to do
more to preserve native habitat and prevent elimination of old trees. Tree inventory ordinances need
to discourage developers from eliminating existing trees in order to make room for new construction,
particularly after division of lots.
Teardown vs. Renovation—The City Council needs to create incentives for buyers to renovate, as well
as disincentives or obstacles to prevent teardowns. The City Council should also explore ways to
influence design considerations that respect the nature of the community.
We believe that these and other issues (Rail Road noise) deserve your immediate attention in the coming
year, and we encourage you to make these issues a priority in the coming months. We thank you for your
consideration of these important issues.
From:Cruikshank, Tim
To:Zimmerman, Jason
Subject:FW: Recent developments (pun intended) in Tyrol Hills area
Date:Monday, September 30, 2019 7:19:40 AM
Attachments:image001.gif
Timothy J. Cruikshank | City Manager | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8003 | 763-593-8109 (Fax) | 763-593-
3968 (TTY) | tcruikshank@goldenvalleymn.gov
From: Schmidgall, Steve
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2019 8:14 AM
To: Cruikshank, Tim
Subject: Fwd: Recent developments (pun intended) in Tyrol Hills area
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: <@
Date: September 28, 2019 at 7:11:33 PM CDT
To: sharris@goldenvalleymn.gov, jclausen@goldenvalleymn.gov,
lfonnest@goldenvalleymn.gov, sschmidgall@goldenvalleymn.gov,
grosenquist@goldenvalleymn.gov
Subject: Recent developments (pun intended) in Tyrol Hills area
Dear Council Members:
As a concerned resident of the North Tyrol Hills neighborhood of Golden Valley, I am encouraged to see that
the Council has made “Strategic Development and Redevelopment” one of its strategic priorities in 2019
including, but not limited to, protecting neighborhood character, fixing housing code to address 40-foot lots,
and altering current setbacks). I believe it is time for the Mayor and City Council to start putting in place
some measures to discourage the rapid development of our neighborhood, particularly when it is happened at
such an accelerating pace, and when it so fundamentally and irreversibly alters the landscape of our
neighborhood.
A recent survey of Golden Valley residents identified the following priorities, which we encourage you to
consider before the end of 2019:
Density of homes in the neighborhood—The Council needs to block both 1) subdivision of existing lots
into two or more, as well as 2) “uncoupling” of 2 or more lots that had been previously combined to
house one property. An analysis regarding possible re-platting of dual properties has been discussed, and
needs to be completed as soon as possible.
Setbacks and spaces between houses that respect the rights of the surrounding homes— Setbacks need to
be increased for homes constructed on 40-foot lots to discourage developers from “overbuilding” on
small lots in the area. Issues such as distance between homes, privacy, sunlight, energy, landscaping,
water runoff, etc. should all be considered.
Size or massing of homes on lots—Restrictions need to be placed on both the size and height of homes
in relation to lot size. We believe you need to create more stringent size and height restrictions on homes
built on 40-foot lots in particular to protect the rights of neighboring residents.
Standards on new housing to maintain the character of neighborhood—The City Council needs to do
more to preserve native habitat and prevent elimination of old trees. Tree inventory ordinances need to
discourage developers from eliminating existing trees in order to make room for new construction,
particularly after division of lots.
architectural groups as a rare pocked of very good example Mid-Century architecture.
In the few years my family has been here we have become more concerned and
alarmed of the type of changes to the lots and the accelerating rate of uncontrolled
development. Tyrol hills is not a blighted neighborhood, it does not need a developer
free for all cash grab. It needs to be preserved and respected for what it is.
The majority of homes have wide yards and deep setbacks most likely excess of what
the zoning code currently requires. Historically many lots were combined to create
large yards. Over the course of the century the prevalent character established itself as
a neighborhood is large lots with large setbacks. This has become expected in this
neighborhood. 2 lots or 1 lot it did not matter. Back at the turn of the century when the
neighborhood was plotted it was common for owners to purchase two lots that were
combined to build one house. There are a few pockets that have smaller lots with one
house, however these lots for the most part have smaller houses as well and
appropriate massing.
In addition to the re-division of 2 lots into 3 that directly impacts my home value. I see
two other patterns that have been happening in the Tryol neighborhood.
1. Uncoupling of lots to form 2 lots where there was 1 house since its inception
and planning to build 2 narrow tall house to fit on the lot. . There was a brief
moratorium back in 2014-2015 but it seems developers now found a loophole
they can manipulate. We are aware city council is meeting on Oct 10th to
discuss this. An example of recent activity is 312 Meadow lane. There is now a
tall vertical narrow house placed amongst smaller single family house, with an
empty dirt lot waiting for the next tall one. Most residents regard it as an
eyesore. Developers have discovered this loophole and are uncoupling these
lots and building houses that do not utilize the sites the same way as the rest of
the neighborhood. This pattern is beginning to erode the underlining character
of the North Tryol neighborhood. Further erosions occur once a lot is
uncombined or split developers begin to manipulate variance requests to
demonstrate “well the lot is so small now I don’t have any other options” is a
common excuse. I am an Architect with 25 years of experience, I am very
familiar all the tools developers use to get their way. I can also share my
experiences how I have seen cities utilize successful zoning and planning
policies to preserve neighborhoods.
2. The second pattern that is becoming apparent is bad site utilization for
various reasons such as: Combining of lots, cutting down trees, poor placement
of a house on site, and poor massing of new construction. As an example. You
can look at the intersection of Beverly and Ardmore In the past few years 3
houses where construction in this area. I’m not calling these houses out as
terrible houses I’m using it as an example of what happens when you start to
see multiple departures from the typical use of lots in the neighborhood. The 3
new houses are utilizing the sites differently than the existing neighborhood.
The massing of the houses also add to erosion of the prevalent characteristics
of the immediate neighborhood. As the pattern continues the characteristics
that make the neighborhood special dissipates and it becomes harder to see
what is lost. This issue is not to be confused with telling people what their own
individual Aesthetics of their house may be. Part of what makes Tyrol hills
special is the uniqueness of each and every house.
Developers do not care about the neighborhood they just want the money. The current
trend of splitting lots for more density or combining lots to build an out of context
house is not meshing well with the existing neighborhood. Tyrol hills is desirable for a
reason, once they developers have their way and finish, they move on and Tyroll Hills
has lost its charm and desirability and property values will be affect.
The City Council should immediately place a moratorium on lot subdivision and any
construction that has the potential to change the scale, density and character of the
Tyrol neighborhood. Time should be allocated for this issue to be properly studied. A
reasonable and mutually beneficial master plan should be integrated into the City's
zoning code. I've seen this done successfully in many other cities. I am an Architect with
25 years of experience much of with was Real Estate Entitlement. What I see
happening in my neighborhood and the lack of protections for its residents is very
alarming to me. The city council needs to arm the Planning dept with tools and
mechanisms to protect the neighborhood of north Tyrol, that’s an entire discussion
that needs to happen once a moratorium is placed to pause the accelerating erosion of
our neighborhood. I am more than glad to share my experiences and ideas what may
work for our neighborhood in future discussions. There are many options that can
appease all stakeholders.
Just in the past 7-10 days the neighborhood has learned of 3 different lot use activities
that will significantly alter the character of the neighborhood:
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I would really like to hear back from
you with your thoughts on how city council can take steps to protect the residents or
North Tyrol.
A few quick responses – I am also copying the entire Planning Commission in my response as a
BCC as you only included two Commissioners in your initial email.
1. I have at least one realtor coming to the meeting on November 12. I have another who is likely
to attend, but is prepared to submit written responses to advanced questions if a possible conflict
arises that is in the wings. I have a third realtor who will be out of town but will submit written
responses to advanced questions.
2. Our goal at this meeting is to increase our understanding of the housing market in the western
Twin Cities, but specifically Golden Valley and perhaps even the North Tyrol neighborhood. Our
thinking is that realtors who work is this geographic area will have the most insight and
perspective. For that reason I have encouraged participation by these realtors, contrary to your
suggestion that they be excluded.
3. Finally, if you have additional information from other sources you are welcome to summarize it
and/or provide it to the Planning Commission. If the information is specific to the real estate
market, I suggest your source submit it to staff this week so that it can be shared with the
Commissioners in advance. Otherwise, it could be shared during the meeting targeted for resident
comments in December (the format of the meeting is still being discussed).
Jason
From: <>
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 5:16 PM
To: Zimmerman, Jason <JZimmerman@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Cc: Blum, Ron <>; ;
Subject: Timeline for Narrow Lot Discussion with Planning Commission
Jason,
I've attended that last two Planning Commission meetings, and was hoping to get some
clarification on a few questions that have come up. My apologies you are not the best person
equipped to answer these questions.
In your initial proposed timeline for the narrow lots analysis/discussion, you mentioned a
panel" of realtors would be consulted as part of this project; however, this past Monday you
mentioned that "a realtor" would be present at the next meeting to answer questions. Can
you clarify whether it will be one realtor, or rather, a panel of realtors?
In addition, how will the realtor/realtors be selected for participation? Eliminating bias in the
analysis/discussion will be important, so I'm hoping you could share a bit more about how
they will be selected. As you know, there are a few realtors who do a significant amount of
business in our neighborhood, and should probably be excluded for that reason.
Last, we have a real estate professional on our neighborhood task force who has compiled
some compelling historical sales data for Golden Valley that might be useful to consider
alongside the discussion later this month. She has analyzed different prices brackets of
homes on metrics such as days on market, inventory, # of sales, % of asking price, etc. Is
there any opportunity to share this information with the Planning Commission at some
point?
Thanks for considering these questions...I look forward to hearing from you. Have a great
weekend!
APPENDIX C
Information Session Feedback
Page 85
Information Session Feedback 1
NARROW LOTS
Info Session Feedback
Name Address Comment
John Gan-
non
1532 Boone
Ave N
Golden Valley,
MN 55427
United States
If you approve a single car garage it might be worth considering that the drive-
way be built double wide rather than rely on a single lane that would most likely
be widened at a later date. Very few households have only one car and I have
seen paved parking spots down by the street in front of a house. Not a pretty
site.
Russel
Snyder
4124 Poplar
Drive
Minneapolis,
Minnesota
55422
United States
I do like not requiring a double garage but do not like limiting the front garage
to 65% of the facade width. That should be the owners choice. The proposal is
really saying you CANNOT have a two car garage. It should be a choice, not
mandated either way. You are replacing one bad rule with another bad rule. The
reasoning stated was simply aesthetics. That is completely subjective and not
like some of the other issues being addressed which can be shown objectively
to adversely impact neighbors(shading, drainage, fire protection etc). There are
good examples of homes on 40 foot lots in my neighborhood with both single
and double car garage fronts.
Bruce Still-
man
7350 Half
Moon Dr
Golden Valley ,
Mn 55427
United States
Dear Commission,
I have witnessed allowing lots to be split in
my nearby neighborhood.
Where one home is replaced with two I am
Not For Such.
Golden Valley mustn’t become a Mpls copycat
Skinny and long homes aren’t nearly as beautiful across the landscape. Take a
look at what
Harold avenue looks like when one of these projects goes thru. Now just imag-
ine it all those lots became such. Ick Ick Ick. Please reconsider
Once we destroy the neighborhood, we can’t get it back
Respectfully submitted
Bruce Stillman
Information Session Feedback 2
Name Address Comment
Pamela
Lott
220 Sunnyridge
Lane
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
It appears that the Golden Valley city council is determined to ignore the clear
wishes of the residents of Golden Valley again despite several forums, question-
naires, and public discussions on this topic.
The only people who support changing lot size limitations are the builders
and developers eager to make quick profit from out charming neighborhoods.
PLEASE read the inputs and objections which have been raised time and again
by your constituents.. PLEASE follow the example set by Edina to control in-
appropriate out of control development by passing sensible lot size and setback
rules. In doing so they have preserved the charm and valuation of the homes
in Edina. Access to light and air and to the shelter of mature trees have a very
real effect on the continuing appreciation of our neighborhoods. Please do not
sacrifice the long term goals for a short term benefit!
Martina
Sailer
307 Sunnyridge
Lane
Golden Valley,
Mn 55422
United States
Golden Valley
The proposed regulation is not enough. We now live in the shadows of 2 enor-
mous homes both squeezed into 40 foot lots. Probably the most outrageous
issue is their height - from the back, they are approx. 40 feet high and tower over
all other homes in the area. Our grass is no longer green and my husband and
5 year old gave up their annual tomato plant tradition because of lack of sun.
Not just the width and lack of setbacks but the height (from all sides!) should be
considered with narrow lots.
Claire De-
Berg
433 Westwood
Dr N
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
Dear Golden Valley,
I have several items in this vein you must hear concerning the North Tyrol Hills
Neighborhood:
HEIGHT + SIZE RESTRICTIONS //
If someone can build a 25-foot home DIRECTLY on a property line...how is
that not a complete abuse of the term “house?” That is more distinguishable as
a 25’ fence. Please be mindful of the neighborhood and personhood impacts
of homes built to max out height and width restrictions. No one (and I mean
not one single person) likes or appreciates the abuse of the land at 312 Meadow
Lane in our city. The “builder/vulture” is squatting and seemingly not invest-
ed in the community here and is staying only until they can sell it for a profit
meanwhile our neighbor has lost her beloved Golden Valley neighborhood ex-
perience because of a 25-foot wall of a house/fence built directly to her property
line for a profit-motivated build.
It’s embarrassing to Golden Valley.
Please discover a creative way to protect neighborhood character from overde-
velopment by restriction of height and size builds on narrow lots.
Continued on next page...
Information Session Feedback 3
Name Address Comment
SUBDIVISIONS + UNCOUPLING //
Stop. This is silly. I moved to GOLDEN VALLEY (from South Minneapolis) and
it is precisely because I was no longer interested in the way South Minneapolis
operated their neighborhoods (with homes packed together with little regard
for nature, noise pollution, wildlife, quality of life and, well, life in general).
From what I understand of my neighbor across the street the uncreative plan
perpetuated by someone NOT from Golden Valley with NO interest in keeping
our neighborhood, community and Golden Valley people or wildlife safe and
healthy, the proposed lot subdivision that was proposed at 421 Burntside & 448
Westwood is in direct conflict with how you promised to lead residents.
This is madness.
Please place thoughtful restrictions on subdivisions + uncouplings + any fu-
ture word games meant to shroud what is really being delivered to the land and
people in Golden Valley: violence. Violence to the land and the people on it is
creeping into the loose codes in our city. One definition of violence is what is
being perpetuated already: damage through distortion or unwarranted alter-
ation. Please do not allow people to run fr Golden Valley offices on a violence
platform...we already have enough of that...it’s uncreative.
WHAT I LOVE ABOUT GOLDEN VALLEY //
I could also title this section: WHAT IS AT THREAT IN GOLDEN VALLEY.
Because the slope has already been prepared by those who came before you and
it is getting very slippery as each day passes. If developers are allowed to come
to Golden Valley and open up their virtual trench coat to sell us rotten junk in
the form of aesthetically tone deaf houses that kill plants, trees, ecosystems and
community, imagine the power of goodness that could come from soulful lead-
ers who can open up their hearts to us in order to create a more beautiful future!
That said...here is what I love about beautiful Golden Valley:
I love the space...my neighbors are not on top of me, I’m not on top of them.
One of the reasons we moved here was looking ahead to our daughter’s high
school graduation party. Truly. Now we have the yard that can bring all these
wonderful people to wonderful Golden Valley.
I love the architecture...we love modern architecture. Some people say
Mid-Century Modern” but that is redundant because modern architecture
means that implicitly. ANYway, we chose our 50s home in order to maintain the
beauty of its simplicity and architecture (not to knock it down and rework it in
some cheap approach to a dwelling to make a quick buck).
Continued on next page...
Information Session Feedback 4
Name Address Comment
I love the trees...my goodness the trees! I learned more than 20 trees were CUT
DOWN to make way for some of these obnoxious, heartless new builds in the name
of convenience. It’s embarrassing and wrong. Come on. Everyone knows we need
trees.
I love the fox...he roams around my neighborhood and let’s me see him on occasion
for which I am so grateful. He is joined by buck, turkeys, fawns, does, snapping
turtles, geese, hawks, kites, opossum, raccoon, pileated woodpecker, hummingbirds,
coyote, butterflies and the myriad songbirds, birds of prey and yard animals hop-
ping around. They were here first.
I love the traffic...or lack thereof. My son is a scooter maniac. He’s 8. He kicks
around the neighborhood on his scooter any chance he gets. With MORE hous-
es (and by the looks of the lax hold Golden Valley has on development that could
mean 3 houses per LOT!?) that means more traffic, more cars in the streets and
more opportunities for my son to be hit or killed while he’s scooting around the
neighborhood. It’s just ludicrous. Stop.
I love my neighbors...they care and they connect. North Tyrol Hills is not so sprawl-
ing that we’re disconnected yet not so close together that we’re apathetic.
Please keep the neighbors, the city that voted you in, here. Please keep my son and
the other neighborhood children alive. Please let the wildlife live. Please keep our
air and nature clean by preserving and planting more trees. Please appreciate the
architecture. Please let the land breathe.
Make these issues a priority.
With respect,
Claire DeBerg
Information Session Feedback 5
Name Address Comment
Susan Eder 1635 KELLY
DR
Golden Valley,
Minnesota
55427
United States
I am in favor of allowing construction of new homes on narrow lots, and I am
in favor of allowing for lots of 40 - 79 feet to be platted from existing lots. I
believe this will serve the purpose of providing affordable housing, allow ag-
ing residents to downsize within the community, and provide diversity in the
housing stock and overall population of Golden Valley. This is in direct align-
ment with the City of Golden Valley’s stated equity plan, which was adopted in
January 2018. https://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/about/pdf/Equity-Plan-Updat-
ed-7-16-18.pdf
In addition, this would increase the tax base for the City, which would in turn
benefit all residents. This would also increase the stock of modern housing in
our City, which will be needed as people move out of Minneapolis and look for
a first-ring suburb to live. Our aging population is increasing - over 40% of our
residents are over age 55 - and they will need to downsize to stay in this com-
munity. In addition, diversifying the housing stock will also allow for inclusion
within our suburb by creating housing that is affordable to a larger demograph-
ic, which will in turn promote diversity among our neighbors and within the
City staff.
This zoning change - allowing for lots less than 80 fee wide - would affect me
personally. I am interested in dividing my current 164 x 146 lot into a 99 x 146
foot lot and a 65 x 146 foot lot, so that I am able to sell my current 4 Bed 2 Bath
home and build a smaller 2 Bed 2 Bath home on the smaller lot, which would
afford me the opportunity to age in place. I grew up in Golden Valley, and want
to stay here. I imagine there are other property owners like me who would like
this opportunity, and I believe that our aging population would benefit from
being able to age in place.
We are a first-ring suburb of a major metropolitan city, and I believe that we
have the opportunity to improve diversity and modernize the housing stock in
our City through the promotion of small lots.
Whitney
Clark
4224 Glencrest
Road
Golden Valley,
MN 55416
United States
Reducing side setbacks further starts to impact floor plans”. This is what the
City Planning Manager said for why they did not increase side yard setback
by more than one foot. What an atrocious reason- the city does not work for
developers so that they can have their desired floor plans, the city works for the
current, tax-paying residents. Many residents have spoken that they want lots to
be kept larger- please keep it that way; or else come up with a better reason that
doesn’t make he City Planning office sound bought and paid for by developers.
Information Session Feedback 6
Name Address Comment
Katrina
Busick
832 Utah Ave S
Golden Val-
ley, Hennepin
55426
United States
When we requested a variance for our property last year we were asked how we
would ensure that the aesthetic of the neighborhood wouldn’t be changed by
our project. Has this question been asked? An integral part of Golden Valley
single family homes is that there is a substantial amount of green space. Has
there been any impact study on how this loss of green space will affect wildlife/
insects? How about the added use of public systems like roads and sewers? It
goes far beyond aesthetic changes when you look into it, and for us to have to
prove due diligence for a second garage stall is understandable, for the city (and
developers) to not answer that question, as well as many others is not.
Harry
Pulver
105 Meadow
Lane N orth
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
Please do not make any further changes to lot sizes and setbacks in Golden
Valley. If anything, make the lot sizes and set backs larger. Please support your
residents wishes.
Patricia
Lucas
Address is 225
Dakota Ave S,
golden valley,
MN 55416
we are writing here because we see no other option for submitting public tes-
timony that is regarding changing lot size regulations. We wish to voice our
strong objection to a zoning change of lot size. Lot size is what keeps our neigh-
borhood in its pastoral manner. Decreasing lot size does not contribute enough
to density issues. Instead it allows developers to maximize dollars at the expense
of homeowners quality of life. Let’s work to increase a tax base and provide
housing for more people with other more, appropriate measures; as urban plan-
ners can study to solve this issue. Giant houses right next to each other are ugly
and negatively create a picture of excess and a lack of respect for nature. Patricia
and John Lucas
John
Broadhurst
1560 Sumter
Ave N
Golden Valley
55427-4048
Looking at the narrow lot problem, I would like to suggest a requirement sim-
ilar to the English “ancient lights” rule. That says that a new building must nor
subtend an angle of more than 45 degrees from the sill of the the window of
lowest occupied room off an existing building. (garages, store rooms therefore
not included). This avoids a narrow but tall building badly blocking light from
an existing building. but avoids having to specify an absolute height. for new
construcyion
Daniel
Sheran
3339 Lee Ave N
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
When the 80 feet wide limitation was enacted, the City of Golden Valley either
knew or should have known of its impact on future development. The un-
derlying rationale for opposing development on small lots is even more valid
today. Those reasons include environmental impact; quality of life issues; traffic
congestion; economic strain on existing water, gas and sewage systems; noise
pollution; interference with existing homeowners views and sunlight exposure
among many other reasons). Inviting a law that allows development on small
lots could also invite costly litigation from angry residents. The City has a duty
to promote and protect the general health and welfare of its residents. Allowing
development on small lots is a breach of that duty.
Information Session Feedback 7
Name Address Comment
Dan
Browdie
7001 Olson
MemorialHigh-
way
Golden Valley,
MN 55427
United States
Hello. We are against any zoning change that allows structures to be built closer
to the property line or larger or taller than is currently code. This includes total
footprint of the structure and garage and driveway. We have a lot next to us and
are concerned that any change to the code will result in a structure closer and
larger then is currently allowed.
Thank you,
Dan and Kim Browdie
Mary
Sanderlin
2565 Vale Crest
Road
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
These seem well thought out. I don’t have any particular reservations. It seems
that some residents really dislike the “oddball” house on the street and would
favor some regulation.
Philosophically speaking I am of the opinion that Golden Valley needs to have a
variety of housing options. Some people love a big yard, some don’t. We should
have all kinds of options available.
Bruce Pap-
pas
20 Ardmore Dr
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
I would encourage the Planning Commission to limit houses on narrow lots to
one story, per the suggestion of the builder during the public forum. It’s hard for
a layperson to understand what the suggestions will do to create housing that
is in keeping with surrounding buildings. But I would encourage you to create
such a document.
I also encourage you to consider replatting all of the affected areas, so that own-
ers commit to making their lots into one or putting their multiple lots on the tax
records as such.
Staff Response:
Bruce,
Thank you for offering your comments. While the proposed changes would not
prohibit a second story on these narrow lots, they would make constructing a
full second story much more difficult – especially on lots as narrow as 50 or 40
feet wide. If you’ve followed along with the extensive discussion that has been
conducted at Planning Commission meetings, you’ll recall that the costs of con-
struction tend to be such that creating a larger footprint to gain square footage
is disproportionately more expensive than building up to gain square footage.
Therefore, the Commissioners have tried to craft solutions that allow for some
second story height while trying to reduce impacts on neighboring properties.
I encourage you to watch the informational video and tune in to the Planning
Commission public hearing on June 8 for more.
Individual property owners are certainly welcome to replat their properties in
order to create 80 (or 100) foot lots, rather than owning two 40 (or 50) foot lots.
They are already identified this way by Hennepin County for tax purposes, but
I have yet to find anyone interested in limiting their future options by going
through an “official” replatting. The City does not have the ability to forceany-
one to take this action.
Information Session Feedback 8
Name Address Comment
Karen Hills 6533 Winsdale
St
Golden Valley,
Minnesota
55427
United States
I am concerned about the height of new builds on narrow lots. A house being
built next door to us is going to block out sun and make us feel more boxed in
by the new build. I also wonder if there is any concern of how the new house fits
into the neighborhood. Ours is rather modest with a mix of houses of all ages
and styles. Does a “mcmansion” fit into the neighborhood? Will it affect taxes
and property values?
Of course, maybe a “fancy” new house might encourage the neighborhood to
keep their properties in better shape.
Information Session Feedback 9
Name Address Comment
Stephen
Glomb
4116 Beverly
Avenue
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
If the city cannot prevent existing lots from being split into two narrow lots,
then the city should at least put in place some measures to ensure that these new
homes 1) respect the size/scale of the lots on which they sit, 2) are nor nega-
tively impacting the surrounding homes on the block, or in the neighborhood,
3) ensure accessibility to all types of buyers to increase the diversity of Golden
Valley neighborhoods, and 4) protect existing residents’ rights to things like
privacy, sunlight, etc. The modifications to the code that are being proposed are
extremely minor, and will not accomplish these objectives, nor will they prevent
unfortunate and irreversible outcomes like what we’ve seen on Meadow Lane,
and in other areas of the City.
The number one concern among survey respondents was the “impact of con-
struction on directly abutting properties,” and the modest restrictions that are
currently being proposed will do little to prevent builders from coming into
North Tyrol, splitting large lots in half, and then building two of the biggest
houses that they possibly can in order to increase their profits. The unfortunate
situation we’ve all seen unfold on Meadow Lane is going to be repeated over and
over again, and all of this planning and discussion will be for naught if these
minor revisions are approved and codified.
The Planning Commission has an opportunity to propose a stricter zoning code
for these narrow lots that will allow current residents to develop their narrow
lot properties, while at the same time, protect neighboring residents from the
ill effects of over-building and development. Specifically, I encourage you to
reconsider the current proposal around side yard setbacks and increase them to
ensure a more reasonable amount of space between homes on narrow lots. Add-
ing one additional foot on one side isn’t going to accomplish anything. Similarly,
I would encourage you to consider absolute height limits on homes to ensure
that builders aren’t simply building “up”, since they can’t built “out” (the builder
that you invited to give testimony on your panel made a public recommenda-
tion that Golden Valley not allow two story homes on narrow lots; it seems as
though you’ve chosen to ignore this recommendation).
After reading literally every single open-ended comment contained in the
Public Input Report, the prevailing neighborhood sentiment is clear; Golden
Valley residents want protection from overbuilding on narrow lots, and they are
frustrated that developers have gotten away with ruining our neighborhoods
with their profit-driven projects. I feel that the proposed recommendations
show more concern for the interests of builders and developers of the communi-
ty than they do for the Golden Valley residents who have been living and paying
taxes in this City for decades.
Information Session Feedback 10
Name Address Comment
Dan
Leavitt
436 Westwood
Drive N
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
My main concern continues to be that this is being driven by developers, build-
ers, and realtors that are simply interested in maximizing profits. Most if not all
do not live in Golden Valley or the neighborhoods that are being impacted. I
could be more understanding if a homeowner remodeling their home wanted
this but that does not seem to be the case. We continue to live in a great city and
I think there are plenty of people who would be looking for a large lot to build
on and not one that was subdivided. In fact I know this is true as we have had
numerous new homes build in the past few years on lots that could have been
subdivided but were not.
Amy Le 105 Westwood
Drive South
Golden Valley,
MN 55416
United States
I am perplexed by the disconnect between resident input and the proposal. I
attended multiple open meetings that the committee and council, respectively,
hosted, and completed and reviewed the resident survey. What is now, finally,
presented in these recommendation is not a reflection of the majority of resi-
dents perspective and seems disappointing in its minimalist approach to con-
cerns and wishes.
Amanda
Zweerink
400 WEST-
WOOD DR S
GOLDEN
VALLEY, MN
55416-3347
United States
My family and I moved to North Tyrol Hills in Golden Valley three years ago
from South Minneapolis, where the homes are too close together, and getting
closer by the day thanks to developers who are cramming enormous homes
onto tiny lots. We loved the space we found in North Tyrol, the sense of priva-
cy, the individual character of the mid-century homes. Since we’ve moved in,
the neighborhood has started changing in ways that sadden us. Developers are
starting to take over in the same way we saw in S. MPLS — also, neighborhoods
like Linden Hills and Edina are beyond belief in terms of enormous houses on
tiny lots. I do not want my neighborhood to become like those. I do not want
my neighbor’s home demolished and an enormous home tossed up that leaves
my house in a shadow and kills my grass. I do not want to look out across my
front lawn and see two enormous homes where there was once one. I’m be-
ing dramatic because I believe that the wimpy narrow lot restrictions the city
council is considering now will lead us down this path. I believe developers and
tax dollars are driving decisions, and that the city council is not interested in
preserving the character of our neighborhoods, the very reason why so many
people desire to live here! I urge you to look at these restrictions again, and
make them more aggressively in favor of homeowners and not developers.
Casey
Pavek
109 Maddaus
Lane
Golden Valley,
MN 55416
United States
Let’s welcome new build families into our neighborhood, not shun them for
the appearance of their home, or their decision to buy or build what they want.
Kinda feels like high school, and there’s some club that they can’t join.
John Mag-
ers
105 Westwood
Drive South
Golden Valley,
MN 55416
United States
I am disappointed and concerned by the lack of representation of resident input
on the recommendations, Many of us invested time to learn, listen, and share
our perspective as residents. The proposal favors developers’ input over ours and
makes the process feel disingenuous. I honestly cannot see how the committee
got from the various sources of input it sought to this set of recommendation,
For those of us who took it seriously and have taken time to seek and to consid-
er multiple stakeholder positions and different perspectives and who believed
elected and appointed officials were honoring the process and their electorate’s
input, this is disappointing at best.
Information Session Feedback 11
Name Address Comment
Eva Jensen 4010 Roanoke
Circle
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
The narrow lot subdivision that is now deemed allowable within Tyrol Hills,
based on historic property registrations is a surprise that has the potential to
significantly and negatively impact residents on adjacent properties. In addition,
the negative impact on the highly valued quality and historic design of Tyrol
Hills is certain (values documented and confirmed in the 2005-6 neighborhood
surveys and meetings). In order to mitigate these impacts, it is crucial to in-
crease side-yard setbacks and height restrictions on construction and remodels
on small lots. It is crucial to stop the practice of “grandfathering” in exceptions
that allow building codes to be violated. Air-space rights, natural light rights,
and privacy rights must be valued and protected by codes that are developed
and adopted.
Alexandra
Cervenka
4205 Beverly av
Golden Valley ,
MN 55422
United States
Definitely disapprove on dividing lots and building on narrow lots ugly build-
ings! ( Meadow lane N)
Jeff
Hanscom
212 Natchez
ave n
Golden valley,
Mn 55422
United States
Please put moratorium on reducing current lot size in Golden Valley.
Heather
Fraser
115 Maddaus
Ln
Golden Valley,
MN 55416
United States
Do not allow regular building setbacks on corner lots less than 60 feet wide. If
this makes a narrow corner lot unbuildable, it will need to remain as part of the
adjoining lot.
40-foot lots platted “back in the day” should have homes built on them that
are no larger or more massed than moderate homes of that time would have
been.
It’s unnecessary to mandate a single-car garage for narrow lots. That’s not the
problem.
No more than 2 building permits per 40-foot lot per year, per block, for blocks
that include 40-foot lots. This will help preserve the quiet of the neighborhood
for other residents.
Side yards must be at least 5 feet and must total at least 17 feet. So 5/12, 6/11,
7/10, 8/9, etc.
Kent John-
son
324 Sunnyridge
Ln
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
Ideally I would like current lot sizes to stay intact. By creating two or more
narrow lots on an existing lot only adds to detract from the ambiance of this
beautiful neighborhood. Obviously a developer wants to maximize their profits.
They finish and move on. They don’t live here. Let’s try and keep the integrity of
this neighborhood. It’s one of the reasons most of us moved here and why this
neighborhood is in high demand.
Information Session Feedback 12
Name Address Comment
David
Knaeble
227 Sunnyridge
Lane
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
To PC and CC -
As a resident of Golden Valley, a Professional Civil Engineer, a Licensed Real-
tor and having done a couple of small development projects in the west metro,
I have some concerns regarding the proposed code revisions for small lots in
Golden Valley. I think the current codes that are in place do a great job of bal-
ancing the rights of the property owners to remodel or build a modest house on
their property while limiting the impacts to the surrounding houses and neigh-
borhood.
Regarding the specific recommended code revisions, the one I am most con-
cerned with is the current recommendation to limit the ability to build a two car
garage on the front of a house on the small 40’ wide lots. In my experience, this
would be very detrimental to the value of the property and would be undesir-
able for most buyers. Most people looking to either buy a home or build a home
will not even consider a house unless it has a two car garage.
The other concern I have are about the suggested revisions is the recommended
change to not allow the City required side house bump-out in the setback. This
can greatly impact the amount of living space that people could have on their
property. I am not a builder or a house designer, but I know that this would be
very detrimental to a person or family who was looking to remodel or build a
house on one of the small lots.
Before any decisions are made regarding the code changes, I would recommend
that you know exactly what type of house would fit on these lots after any of
these changes are implemented. The City would not want to inadvertently limit
the ability for a current resident to be able to remodel or build a home in this
City and require them to do that in another surrounding community.
Thanks,
David Knaeble
Debra
Whalen
4116 Glencrest
Road
Golden Valley,
MN 55416
United States
Lot size must have height and width proportional balance. Far too many homes
are constructed/remodeled beyond proportion to lot size and existing neighbor-
ing structures. I live next to one of these teardown reconstructs. Reduced natu-
ral light and airflow, not to mention excess roof run off and height has negative-
ly affected our property enjoyment and possibly value. Please consider the fabric
of the existing home structures when ruling on new height width restrictions,
our community is counting on it.
Valerie
Dahlman
117 Meadow
Ln So
Golden Valley,
MN 55416
United States
PLEASE do not allow narrow/smaller lots in North Tyrol. We have lived here for
almost 40 years and consider the heavily treed, large, irregular lots to be a big
part of the beauty of this area. It is heartbreaking to see older homes leveled and
2 (or more) homes going up on the same lot. Thank you for hearing and honor-
ing my voice and the voices of so many of our neighbors.
Information Session Feedback 13
Name Address Comment
Heidi An-
nexstad
4009 Roanoke
Circle
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
I appreciate your efforts to increase side yard minimums and would encourage
you to consider a six foot minimum. In close quarters, every foot makes a differ-
ence.
One wonderful thing about GV and particularly the North Tyrol area where
I live is the huge variety of architectural styles, including modest mid-centu-
ry ramblers, cottage-style 2 stories, and some very fine modernist houses. I’m
concerned that the emphasis on dormer windows for additional mass will lead
developers to build very uniform, many-dormered houses (as in the Meadow
Lane/Sunnyridge area). Is there any way we can continue to encourage architec-
tural diversity, perhaps by offering incentives for smaller, bolder houses? Con-
sider the Rapson house on Glenwood between Meadow Lane & Ardmore.
STUART
Kaufman
15 westwood
drive south
GOLDEN
VALLEY, MN
55416
United States
I am a resident of North Tyrol neighborhood of Golden Valley for the past 26
years. We residents enjoy a bucolic setting within minutes of downtown Min-
neapolis. We are a neighborly group and seem to get along well together. We
do not want lots to be made smaller, and new large homes built on smaller
lots, which would change the character of our neighborhood. I am against any
changes in zoning that permit building on lots smaller than the current stan-
dard.
To increase population density requires apartment buildings in neighborhoods
zoned for apartments.
We have many areas of Golden Valley where those buildings can and are being
built. I am against zoning changes that will change the housing density in North
Tyrol.
Sincerely,, etc,
Stuart Kaufman
jennifer
Rubin
615 parkview
terrace
golden valley,
mn 55416
United States
As a senior citizen and someone who has lived here for 35 years, it has been a
hardship to have so many warm seasons ruined by construction noise, flat tires,
lost trees, greenspace, lost skyline and natural light (even GV building height
regulations ingnored), difficult street parking and navigating my own driveway
due to vehicle congestion, and, not least, surging taxation. Residential properties
in Tyrol Hills, which began in the late 1930s, were designed to be in harmony
with Wirth Park, the wildlife, and the ecology of this unusual corner of the
metropolitan region. There is a big difference between thoughtful and elegant
design versus the ostentatious, almost palatial, residences being developed on
yards that are not palatial in size or, in many cases, on divided lots for the devel-
opers and speculators to create even more wealth when they purchase a proper-
ty instead of a traditional home purchase.
Information Session Feedback 14
Name Address Comment
STUART
Kaufman
15 westwood
drive south
GOLDEN
VALLEY, MN
55416
United States
Having just seen the video of the 9 zoning elements, I need to amend
my previous comments.
How about NOT allowing larger homes to be built on the small lots that
are currently build on?
The new homes would have to be built on a similar percentage of the lot
as the previous older home is built on.
John
Lehman
104 Maddaus
Lane
Golden Valley,
MN 55416
United States
Please do not allow the division of lots in North Tyrol. We bought here due to its
charm, space, nature, and proximity to
the city. We have lived here four years and I regularly walk and run the neigh-
borhood. I have not seen a single instance
of dividing lots/narrow lots have a positive impact on aesthetics or property
values. Please fight to protect the integrity
of our neighborhood. It would be an irreversible travesty to permit this. We pay
A LOT in property taxes, and I hope and
pray that these requests to eliminate and/or prohibit narrow lots do not fall on
deaf ears. The highest earners, highest
tax paying residents in our neighborhood feel the same way. Please protect what
we paid for. Thank you.
Cindy Wit-
tkowske
1827 Toledo
ave n
Golden Valley,
mn 55422
United States
I am not in favor of narrow city lots. Our streets are already too busy
with cars. More development=more demand on city services, water etc.
Although narrow lots may offer increased tax revenue, I don’t believe it
would be enough to justify squeezing more housing into a tiny lot and
changing the appeal of Golden Valley.
Neal Kielar 4121 Beverly
Avenue
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
This process is a sham, from the inadequate communications and poorly con-
structed survey to the inappropriate developments the city already has allowed
in many neighborhoods. We see these monstrosity houses every day and
witness the damage they’ve done to existing neighbors, the excessive loss of tree
cover and other environmental harms. The pro-developer bias is so palpable
that it should lead people to wonder what money is changing hands to
slide these changes through. The mayor, many council members and the plan-
ning staff already have decided that money trumps quality of life and communi-
ty character.
David
Welter
2800 Kyle Ave-
nue North n/a
n/a, Minnesota
Golden Valley
United States
I live next door to a narrow lot, I do not want to see a McMansion built
on it. I do feel for the current residents not having a garage and other
things. But I do not want a new house over shadowing my house.
Information Session Feedback 15
Name Address Comment
Barbara
Klaas
309 Meadow
Ln S
Golden Valley,
MN 55416
United States
Please, don’t allow building and plot divisions that take away the light
coming into existing homes. Not only is space between houses
important, especially given the characteristics of lots and houses as
currently spaced, but also the height of new housing in retaliation to
surrounding houses. I understand that current owners have rights,
given the property specifications for their property, but any new
development or construction must Take into consideration the loss of
light and privacy of the houses abutting the site.
Brian
Taylor
4113 Beverly
Ave
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
I oppose any adjustments to current city lots sizes. Predatory builders
must be kept out of our beautiful, unique neighborhoods. Let them
build their ugly McMansions somewhere else, not here
Jon Mehus 4121 Beverly
Avenue
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
Based on your conclusions, once again you ignore the residents who actually
live in the community. I must remind you the planning commission doesn’t give
a damn about bettering our neighborhood. When the city invited developers &
realtors to speak to the planning council, every member was there. It was ex-
tremely important to hear the viewpoints of these people. When the community
was invited to express our concerns, you couldn’t be BOTHERED to show up,
oh I’m sorry, two of you did. Its a rigged & dirty city hall, you care only about
the developers & the pockets they can fill. When the community showed up,&
there were more than 80 of us, we wanted something that actually will have an
impact. You chose to ignore us & any input we had. These houses that they are
proposing & building are too big for these small lots. they unfairly infringe on
housing that is already there.
Rebecca
Goldberg
4113 Beverly
Ave
Golden Valley,
Minnesota
55422
United States
Don’t allow predatory builders to invade Golden Valley.
vicki
mcginty
4500 sunset
ridge
Gv, Mn 55416
United States
I can only think that with all of the meetings and input and concerns it
must be so clear that so very few are NOT against the small lots, I truly
do not know what else could be said. The neighborhood is desirable
because of what we are not what we would be. Thank you for listening
to all of us passionate souls.
Information Session Feedback 16
Name Address Comment
Jon Mcaab 501 Burntside
Dr
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
I feel that Golden Valley with North Tyrol Hills in particular is very well orga-
nized and dense enough. There really is not enough resources to warrant dens
urban living in this neighborhood.
If it were more mixed use with businesses and options for walkable work life
balance, it could make sense for more density in housing and buildings.
It is not setup that way. It is a respite from dense urban living.
Let’s keep it that way. Let’s keep it with room to breath. Let’s keep it with nature.
Let’s keep it from becoming too developed.
The wildlife will not have a place to be and the water runoff will not have any
natural places to go. It’ll detract from our living experience and force the city to
come up with expensive ways to deal with the added water runoff.
I don’t think north Tyrol needs more density than it already has.
Emma
Charleswo-
rth-Seiler
6610 GLEN-
WOOD AVE-
NUE
GOLDEN
VALLEY, MN
55427
United States
From reading the Community Input Report, it seems that many of the concerns
with allowing development of narrow lots is the impact it will have on neigh-
boring houses (crowding, sunlight, construction noise, etc). Much of this could
be addressed if the zoning codes included regulations for house size on these
lots. In particular, I would highly suggest considering changing codes to allow
tiny homes on wheels in these spaces. These dwellings are typically just 12-30
feet long and 13.5 feet tall which would address the issue of crowding space and
blocking sunlight from neighbors. They are almost always already constructed,
so there would be no construction nuisance. They are single family homes and
the lots would not be in danger of being developed by people intending to sell
large houses or changing the “character” of the neighborhood with monochro-
matic mansions. In addition, allowing tiny homes in Golden Valley would be a
first for the Twin Cities area and would put our city at the forefront of a growing
movement. There are many people with tiny homes on wheels who would love
to live near the cities in a community like ours.
I’m happy to share further information on specific zoning and building code
recommendations for change if the interest
arises. There are many other cities across the country that have changed their
zoning requirements and building codes
to legalize tiny homes.
mark stan-
ley
213 janalyn
circle
golden valley,
mn 55416
United States
please consider more space between houses on small lots, and more
restrictions on height. the current proposed changes do little to address
this communities concerns.
Information Session Feedback 17
Name Address Comment
Steven
Shapiro
219 Meadow
Lane N
Minneapolis,
MN 55422
United States
I support take an active role in controlling micro-subdivision which leads to
houses that a very oversized for their lots. Developers are very adept at regrad-
ing lots to make houses that meet the letter of the zoning code from the front,
but very much skirt the spirit of the code from the sides and back. Meadow
Lane North has atleast three examples of the this extensive regrading to put big
houses into small spaces.
There has been much concern about “McMansions” in the past. McMansions
are houses greatly overized for their lots These micro-subdivisions are their own
form of McMansions because they are also grossly oversized for their micro lots
and deserve as much regulations of a traditional McMansion
Paul
Schneck
122 Burntside
Drive
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
My view of the plans is that they cater too much to the input of the realtors and
builders, and not enough to the interests of the people who plan on continu-
ing to make Tyrol the place where they live. We need to protect the beauty and
integrity of our neighborhood and what makes it unique. We do not need to
sacrifice all of that so builders and realtors can make money.
Barbara
Lund
4010 Roanoke
Circle
Golden Valley ,
MN 55422
United States
1-The city needs to STOP allowing exceptions and variances!!! No more grand-
father in -- this is a manipulative process.
2-The side yard setbacks MUST be increased !
3-Focus on protection of air, sunlight, and privacy rights for neighbors.
4- Protect and honor nature--mature trees, planting trees, and open space.
5-Limit and reduce height allowance of contruction--NO DORMERS!!
6-
Information Session Feedback 18
Name Address Comment
Carrie
Schneider
416 Westwood
Drive N
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
I absolutely do not agree with narrowing lots. Our North Tyrol Hills neighbor-
hood is amazing because of the lot sizes and space that we have between houses.
It’s why we moved here and why we fell in love with the neighborhood. North
Tyrol Hills would NOT be the same if you let people and builders profit off of
dividing lots. THEY WILL NOT LIVE HERE and only care about the money.
The rest of us suffer from the loss of trees. The loss of space. The loss of thetran-
quility we purchased our homes for. We would have stayed in South Minneap-
olis if we wanted to be living on top of people. Let’s care about the environment
and stop allowing profits and selfishness to infiltrate our neighborhoods. I abso-
lutely disagree with allowing this horrific practice continue—think about it—the
people diving won’t live here. They won’t have the impact is their decision to live
with, just their greedy money in their banks. I 100% feel that the neighborhood
we live in will only remain this gorgeous one-of-a-kind area to live in if we keep
these amazing large lots and keep the neighborhood charming and full of green
space and trees. We could be one of those houses to divide our lot, but we would
NEVER DO THAT, because we know it will destroy the integrity of the entire
neighborhood we live in. We are not that selfish and greedy. Please, do not allow
people to destroy more for profit. Keep our neighborhoods the ones we all fell in
love with. Keep them for the people that live here, not the ones that are leaving.
Please do not allow lot splitting. Save the trees. Save the beautiful homes. Save
our neighborhood.
Brian
Schneider
416 Westwood
Dr N
Golden Valley,
Minnesota
55422
United States
I don’t think there’s a need for more narrow lots in North Tyrol Hills or any-
where for that matter. There are already so many small lots in so many cities
and neighborhoods around the metro. Why can’t we preserve some of the larger
lot areas where there are less houses close together and more green space? Why
allow this just for developers or owners looking to sell their property who only
care about increased profits? There are already good profits to be made when
selling or flipping a house. This could bring down property values for those of
us still living in the neighborhood by increased congestion of people, car traf-
fic, and street parking. This seems to only be about making more money off the
land and not caring so much about the consequences. Notice how I emphasized
more money and not just starting to make a profit. I don’t think I’ve heard a
good argument for adjusting the narrow lot regulations. Base your judgement
on there being very few positive points for only a select group of people and far
more negative points for the vast majority of us who want to keep our neighbor-
hood spread out, numerous old growth trees, and neighbors not almost within
reach of the next house. I appreciate your time and trust you to make the right
ethical decision to not adjust the city’s narrow lot regulations to allow for nar-
row lots.
Information Session Feedback 19
Name Address Comment
Ashley
Raak
119 Edgewood
Ave N
Golden Valley,
MN 55427
United States
Overall, the proposed adjustments seem okay. The more we can tighten the rules
on narrow lots, the better. I’m all in favor of more emphasis on yard/green space
on lots vs home.
A lot of this could be avoided if we stopped allowing builders/investors/home-
owners to sell lots and then replace one home with 2 or 3. You’re making our
city more dense, which takes away from the allure and what’s special about
Golden Valley. If I wanted to live on top of my neighbors, I’d move to Minne-
apolis or St Louis Park. Plus, it breaks my heart to see a perfectly good home be
torn down so some cookie cutter nonsense can go in its place. I’ve seen this a
lot, especially in my neighborhood
Peter
Knaeble
6001 Glenwood
Ave
Golden Valley,
MN. 55422
Hi Jason,
Please forward these comments to the Planning Comm.
Thanks
Planning Commission members:
In regards to the proposed narrow lot standards I have the following comments:
I think that it is a mistake to limit any new home design to a single car ga-
rage. Any new home should be allowed a two car garage that faces the street.
No builder or home owner would build a $500K+ new home with a single car
garage (or a tandem garage).
I would recommend that any new narrow lot standards only be adopted if the
City can prove that a reasonable home (3 br, 3 ba, 2 car garage, 2 story, 2400 sf)
can be built. The City needs to hire a home designer or builder to prepare some
typical home designs that will meet any new home standards that are proposed.
If a reasonable home cannot be designed, the new standards are too strict.
Thank you
Information Session Feedback 20
Name Address Comment
M Peters 4810 Lowry
Terrace N
GOLDEN
VALLEY, MN
55422
United States
1. Will GV allow narrow lots in established neighborhoods with standard 80’
lot widths? There is a concern that this will negatively impact established neigh-
borhoods. 2. Changing a 2 car garage requirement to a 1 stall garage will put
more parked cars in the driveway and on our streets. 3. How will storm water be
addressed - can retaining walls be within the ‘setbacks’? 4. Firepits - our neigh-
borhood is saturated with firepits that require us to go inside/close our windows
on a nightly basis - how will this be managed?
Thank you in advance for your response
Staff Response:
Hello,
1. No changes to the current regulations, which require 80’ lots, are being
considered. Only older platted lots that pre-date current regulations are being
addressed. These are in a handful of concentrated locations across the city.
2. Noted.
3. Stormwater is managed through a stormwater permit when building
plans are submitted. Retaining walls (with certain limitations on height) may be
located within setbacks.
4. Backyard fires are permitted through our Fire Department. There isa
web page with more information (http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/fire/permits/
recreational-fires.php) or you should contact the Fire Department directly at
763-593-8055.
Carolyn
Oldre
325 BRUNS-
WICK AVE S
MINNEAPO-
LIS, MN 55416
United States
I I oppose the passing of narrow lots.
Information Session Feedback 21
Name Address Comment
Stephen
Glomb
4116 Beverly
Avenue
Golden Valley,
MN 55422
United States
City Council Members,
The issue of narrow lots is extremely important to me, and to many of the
people who live north of Glenwood in the North Tyrol Hills neighborhood. We
have witnessed the disastrous actions of developers who are exploiting the rare
and unique platting of several blocks in our neighborhood, which has resulted
in more narrow lots than virtually anywhere else in Golden Valley (there are
currently 32 properties within two blocks of my house that could be split into
64 new narrow lots). It deeply worries us every time another tax parcel division
has been approved because we know what the outcome will be each time—lots
will be split, mature trees will be wiped out, and two of the biggest houses that
the zoning code will allow will stand on what was once a single lot. Without
some significant changes to the current zoning code, the few blocks around our
houses are a prime target for over-development by investors who are looking to
maximize their profits by overbuilding on these narrow lots. We have seen this
play out on Meadow Lane, and in several other parts of the city. This is only go-
ing to get worse unless the City Council does something to discourage or stop it.
I am disappointed that the Planning Commission has proposed only very mi-
nor changes to the zoning code. The people have spoken, and they are seeking
greater protection from over-development; this much is clear and undeniable
to anyone who has taken the time to read the public comments, or attend the
public Open House held earlier this year. The current changes being proposed
are not enough to protect my neighbors and my neighborhood, and they are
not enough to discourage the rapid overdevelopment that we’ve seen in recent
years. I implore you to listen to the residents of Golden Valley and honor their
feedback. They want stability and protection, and the Planning Commission’s
proposal isn’t going to be enough.
Commissioner Baker issued a motion that the City Council consider creative
uses for these narrow lots to serve the current and future residents of Golden
Valley. I believe this idea deserves thorough consideration. Regardless, whatever
solution you come up with shouldn’t be about keeping developers incentivized;
our neighborhood doesn’t need revitalization, and if developers think the zon-
ing codes are too strict, then they can build elsewhere. The City Council needs
to do the right thing and protect the residents of my neighborhood who have
been investing in this community for years, making it the great place that it is
today. The City Council has an obligation to listen to its constituents and take
their feedback under advisement. For many of us who have been following the
Planning Commission’s work on this issue, it doesn’t feel like that has happened
yet. I am hopeful that the City Council will do its part to keep the conversation
centered on what’s best for the people of Golden Valley, and will come up with a
solution that puts its current and future residents first.
Information Session Feedback 22
Name Address Comment
Maggie
Bostrom
316 meadow
lane M
Golden valley ,
Mn 55422
United States
I believe there needs to be more distance between the homes, particularly if
the one being built is much taller and towers over the existing one. The loss of
sunlight, privacy, sound, and water issues have been devastating. I’d like to see
gutters included in a city ordinance, especially when there is a situation such as
mine. One can not rely on inconsiderate neighbors to do the right thing. A fence
is to be put in this week, by the new homeowners, on the south side of my front
garden. The lack of sunlight will destroy plants there. A wider setback would
help. There is literally no place to move these 60 yr old peony’s. I’ve probably
said more than you want or need; but, this has been such a horrible destruction
of my home life happiness, I was compelled to type. I pray this doesn’t happen
to any of my neighbors who have spent time creating and caring for their home.
Is the financial gain from a situation such as mine really worth it, for the new
resident, the city’s reputation, the ecosystem, and most importantly the tax pay-
ing resident who has lived there(18 years for me).
Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback.
Nathan
Denton
416 Burntside
Drive
Golden Valley,
Minnesota
55422
United States
Please put a stop to the continued narrowing of lots in our neighborhood.
I write this note because I want our neighborhood to retain the charm and
character that brought so many of us here, and keep us here. My wife and I
moved from Chicago to Golden Valley last July. We know what narrow lots are
all about, and the thing that brought us to GV over other parts of the city were
the rolling hills, beautiful landscaping, and room to call a corner of this city our
own. Further narrowing and division of existing lots puts all of those wonderful
attributes at risk and will really change the personality of the area. This neigh-
borhood is so unique, and I would hate to see that charm disappear because de-
velopers continue to want to optimize investments, while sacrificing the quality
of life people that live here have become accustomed to.
Thank you and please vote against further narrowing of lots,
Nathan & Dara Denton
Sec. 113-88. - Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
a) Purpose. The purpose of the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District is to provide for
detached single-family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and
complementary uses.
b) District Established. Lots shall be established within the R-1 Zoning District in the manner
provided for in Section 113-29. The district established and/or any subsequent changes to such
district shall be reflected in the Official Zoning Map of the City as provided in Section 113-56.
c) Principal Uses. The following principal uses shall be permitted in the R-1 Zoning District:
1) Single-family dwellings, consistent with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy
2) Residential facilities serving six or fewer persons
3) Foster family homes; and
4) Essential services, Class I.
d) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the R-1 Zoning District:
1) When the property owner resides in the dwelling, rental of single sleeping rooms to
not more than two people for lodging purposes only; and
2) In-home child care licensed by the State.
3) Home occupations, as governed by the following requirements:
a. The use of the dwelling for the occupation or profession shall be incidental and
secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes.
b. The exterior appearance of the structure shall not be altered for the operation
of the home occupation.
c. There shall be no outside storage or display of signage or anything related to or
indicative of the home occupation.
d. An accessory structure, including a garage, shall not be used for a home
occupation.
e. A permitted home occupation shall not result in noise, fumes, traffic, lights,
odor, excessive sewage or water use or garbage service, electrical, radio, or TV
interference in a manner detrimental to the health, safety, enjoyment, and general
welfare of the surrounding residential neighborhood.
f. No physical products shall be displayed or sold on the premises those incidental
to the permitted home occupation.
g. No signs or symbols shall be displayed other than those permitted for
residential purposes.
h. Clients, deliveries, and other business activity where persons come to the
home shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
i. No more than 20 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling shall be used for
the home occupation.
j. Parking related to the home occupation shall be provided only on the driveway
of the property where the home occupation operates.
k. A home occupation shall not generate more than eight client trips per day and
serve no more than two clients or customers at a time.
l. There shall only be one outside employee allowed on the premises at which a
home occupation is located.
m. All other applicable City, State, and Federal licenses, codes and regulations
shall be met.
n. The following uses are prohibited home occupations:
1. Repair, service, building, rebuilding or painting of autos, trucks, boats,
and other vehicles
2. Repair and service of items that cannot be carried by one person and
repair and service of any item involving an internal combustion engine or
motor
3. Retail sales
4. Medical/dental clinic or similar
5. Restaurants or cafes
6. Animal hospital
7. Veterinary clinic
8. Stable or kennel
9. Funeral home, mortuary, or columbarium; and
10. Sale or repair of firearms.
e) Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning
Commission and approval by the City Council in accordance with the standards and procedures
set forth in this chapter:
1) Residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons; and
2) Group foster family homes.
f) Principal Structures. Principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the
following requirements:
1) Setback Requirements. The following setbacks shall be required for principal
structures in the R-1 Zoning District. Garages or other accessory structures which are
attached to the dwelling or main structure shall also be governed by these setback
requirements, except for stairs and stair landings of up to 25 square feet in size and for
accessible ramps.
a. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any
front lot line along a street right-of-way line. Decks and open front porches, with
no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front lot line along a street right-of-
way line. This requirement shall not reduce the building envelope on any corner
lot to less than 27 feet in width.
b. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be 25 feet.
c. Side Setbacks. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the
minimum required front setback line. The distance between a structure and the
side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements:
1. In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side
setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 feet or less in height shall be 15
feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than 15 feet
in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1
beginning at a point 15 feet directly above the side setback line (see figure
below).
2. In the case of lots having a width greater than 65 feet and less than 100
feet, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 feet or less in
height shall be 12.5 feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure
greater than 15 feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping
plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point 15 feet directly above the side
setback line (see figure below).
3. In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks
for any portion of a structure 1513 feet or less in height along the north or
west side shall be 10 percent of the lot width and along the south or east
side shall be 20 percent of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). In no case shall
a side setback be less than 5 feet. The side setback for any portion of a
structure greater than 1513 feet in height measured to an inwardly sloping
plane at a ratio of 42:1 beginning at a point 1513 feet directly above the
side setback line (see figure below).
d. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the side yard setback, use the shorter front
lot line.
e. Building Envelope. Taken together, the front, rear, and side setbacks and the
height limitation shall constitute the building envelope (see figures below). No
portion of a structure may extend outside the building envelope, except for:
1. Cornices and eaves, no more than 30 inches
2. For lots greater than 50 feet in width, Bbay windows or chimney chases,
no more than 24 inches but no closer than 5 feet from the side property
line
3. Chimneys, vents, or antennas
4. Stairs and stair landings up to 25 square feet in size; or
5. Accessible ramps.; or
6. For lots 65 feet in width or less, dormers, subject to the following
requirements:
a. In general.
i. The total dormer length along one side of a structure may
be broken into more than one section.
ii. The total dormer length along one side of a structure is
limited to 40 percent of the main wall below.
iii. No portion of any dormer shall extend above the ridge
line of the roof.
b. Shed dormer. A dormer with a flat eave line that runs parallel to
the primary roof line.
i. The front wall of a shed dormer shall be set back a
minimum of two feet from the plane of the main wall below.
ii. The side walls of a shed dormer shall be set back a
minimum of four feet from the plane of the main wall below
on each end of the structure.
iii. The maximum height of a shed dormer shall be 20 feet
as measured from the average grade to the front eave line
of the dormer.
c. Gable dormer. A dormer with a peaked roof.
i. The front wall of a gable dormer shall be set back a
minimum of two feet from the plane of the main wall below.
ii. The side walls or furthest extent of a gable dormer shall
be set back a minimum of four feet from the plane of the
main wall below on each end of the structure.
iii. The maximum height of a gable dormer shall be 25 feet
as measured from the average grade to the dormer peak.
2) Height Restrictions. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District
with a building height exceeding 28 feet as measured from the average grade at the front
building line. The average grade for a new structure shall be no more than one foot higher
than the average grade that previously existed on the lot.
3) Structure Width Requirement. No principal structure shall be less than 22 feet in width
as measured from the exterior of the exterior walls.
4) Side Wall Articulation. For any new construction, whether a new dwelling, addition, or
replacement through a tear-down, any resulting side wall longer than 32 feet in length
must be articulated, with a shift of at least two feet in depth, for at least eight feet in
length, for every 32 feet of wall.
5) Decks. Decks over eight inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as
the principal structure in the side and rear yards.
6) Kitchens. No more than one kitchen and one kitchenette shall be permitted in each
dwelling unit.
7) Manufactured Homes. All manufactured or modular homes must meet the provisions
of the zoning and building codes.
g) Accessory Structures. Accessory structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by
the following requirements:
1) Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks
shall be required for accessory structures in the R-1 Zoning District:
a. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the
rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an
accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback than the principal
structure.
b. Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 35 feet from
the front lot line.
c. Side and Rear Setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than
five feet from a side or rear lot line.
d. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches
into a required setback.
e. Separation Between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less
than 10 feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure.
f. Alleys. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five feet from an alley.
g. Fences. For the purposes of setbacks, fences are not considered structures.
2) Height Restrictions. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District
with a height in excess of one story, which is 10 feet from the floor to the top horizontal
component of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened (known as the "top
plate"). For the purposes of this regulation, the height of a shed roof shall be measured to
the top plate.
3) Area Limitations. Each lot is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the following
accessory structures: detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses,
and gazebos. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. No one detached
accessory structure may be larger than 800 square feet in area and any accessory
structure over 200 square feet in area requires a building permit. No accessory structure
shall occupy a footprint larger than that of the principal structure.
4) Zoning Permits. The following shall require a zoning permit to ensure a conforming
location on the lot:
a. Fences
b. Patios
c. Any accessory structures less than 200 square feet in area; and
d. Decks and platforms that do not require a building permit.
5) Garage Provisions. Garages in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the
following requirements:
a. Minimum Garage Stalls. For lots greater than 50 feet wide, Nno building permit
shall be issued for a single-family dwelling not having a two-stall garage unless
the registered survey submitted at the time of the application for the building
permit reflects the necessary area and setback requirements for a future two-stall
minimum) garage. Lots 50 feet in width or less may be constructed with one
garage stall.
b. Maximum Garage Width. For lots 50 feet in width or less, the width of the front
wall of an attached garage shall not exceed 75 percent of the width of the
dwelling's front facade. For purposes of this subsection, a dwelling's front facade
means that portion of the dwelling's building facing a front lot line that includes
any front wall of a garage and provides vehicular access to the garage.
1. Measurement of Front Facade. The width of the front facade shall be
the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the dwelling's exterior side
walls at the front facade's widest point.
2. Measurement of Front Garage Wall. For purposes of this subsection,
the front wall of a garage shall be the wall of the garage facing the front lot
line, including any door providing vehicular access to the garage. The
width of the front wall shall be the direct, linear, horizontal distance
between the exterior or outermost location of the garage's two side walls
at their intersection with the garage's front wall.
6) Roof Style. Gambrel and mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory structure
with a footprint of more than 200 square feet.
7) Decks. Freestanding decks or decks attached to accessory structures shall meet the
same setback requirements for accessory structures.
8) Garden Structures. Garden structures shall be located no closer than five feet to any
lot line. Garden structures shall not exceed 10 feet in height.
9) Play Structures. Play structures shall be located no closer than five feet to any lot line.
Play structures shall not exceed 10 feet in height.
10) Swimming Pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location
requirements for accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the lot line to
the pool's edge. Decks surrounding above-ground pools shall meet setback requirements.
11) Photovoltaic Modules. Freestanding photovoltaic modules, including solar panels
and other photovoltaic energy receivers, which are in excess of three square feet shall
meet the same setback, location, and height requirements for accessory structures.
12) Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall be prohibited in a
front yard.
h) Temporary Storage Units. Temporary storage units in the R-1 Zoning District shall be
governed by the following requirements:
1) Duration. Temporary storage units shall not be stored on a lot for more than 14 days.
2) Location. Temporary storage units shall be stored on a hard surface and be located
completely on private property.
i) Pre-1982 Structures. For all existing structures constructed in the R-1 Zoning District prior to
January 1, 1982, the following structure setbacks shall be in effect:
1) Front Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than 25
feet to the front lot line.
2) Side Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than three
feet to the side lot line.
3) Rear Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than 10
feet to the rear lot line.
4) Accessory structures. The structure setback for accessory structures shall be no
closer than three feet to the side or rear Lot lines. At the discretion of the City Manager or
his/her designee, a property owner may be required to move an accessory structure if it is
located in a public easement area.
j) Pre-April 15, 2015, Structures, Building Permits and Applications. For all structures
constructed and building permits issued or applied therefor in the R-1 Zoning District prior to April
15, 2015, if the height and side setbacks were deemed by the City to be compliant with the
zoning code at the time a building permit was issued or applied therefor, the height and location
shall be deemed conforming to current zoning code. However, in all cases, new construction and
additions to such properties must comply with current requirements of the zoning code.
k) Buildable Lots. No dwelling or accessory structure shall be erected for use or occupancy as a
residential dwelling on any tract of unplatted land which does not conform with the requirements
of this section, except on those lots located within an approved plat. In the R-1 Zoning District a
platted lot of a minimum area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum width of 80 feet at the front
setback line shall be required for one single-family dwelling.
l) Lot Coverage. No lot or parcel in the R-1 Zoning District shall have lot coverage of more than
30 percent for a lot or parcel over 10,000 square feet or greater in area, 35 percent for a lot or
parcel betweengreater than 56,000 square feet and less than 9,99910,000 square feet in area
and 430 percent for a lot or parcel less than 56,000 square feet or less in area. This requirement
excludes swimming pools.
m) Impervious Surfaces. The total amount of impervious surfaces on any lot shall not exceed 50
percent of the area.
n) Paved Areas. Paved areas in the R-1 Zoning District, including those constructed of concrete,
bituminous pavement, or pavers, are governed by the following provisions:
1) Driveways. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005, shall be
paved.
2) Setbacks. Paved areas shall be set back three feet from a lot line, except for shared
driveways used by multiple property owners pursuant to a private easement.
3) Coverage. No more than 40 percent of the front yard may be covered with concrete,
bituminous pavement, or pavers.
4) Street Access. Each lot may have only one street curb cut access, except the
following lots may have up to two street curb cut accesses:
a. A lot that contains two legally constructed garages.
b. A lot of a resident who requires additional driveway access qualifying for a
reduced class rate for homestead property as defined by Minn. Stats. § 273.13,
subd. 22, Class 1b.
ORDINANCE NO. 684
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Section 113-88: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District
Narrow Lot Regulations
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Section 113-88, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (f)(1)(a) is
hereby amended to read as follows:
a. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any
front lot line along a street right-of-way line. Decks and open front porches,
with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front lot line along a street
right-of-way line. This requirement shall not reduce the building envelope on
any corner lot to less than 27 feet in width.
Section 2. City Code Section 113-88, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (f)(1)(c)(3) is
hereby amended to read as follows:
3. In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks for any
portion of a structure 13 feet or less in height along the north or west side
shall be 10 percent of the lot width and along the south or east side shall be
20 percent of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). In no case shall a side setback
be less than 5 feet. The side setback for any portion of a structure greater
than 13 feet in height measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1
beginning at a point 13 feet directly above the side setback line (see figure
below).
Section 3. City Code Section 113-88, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (f)(1)(e) is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Ordinance No. 684 -3-
e. Building Envelope. Taken together, the front, rear, and side setbacks and the
height limitation shall constitute the building envelope (see figures below). No
portion of a structure may extend outside the building envelope, except for:
1. Cornices and eaves, no more than 30 inches
2. For lots greater than 50 feet in width, bay windows or chimney chases,
no more than 24 inches but no closer than 5 feet from the side
property line
3. Chimneys, vents, or antennas
4. Stairs and stair landings up to 25 square feet in size
5. Accessible ramps; or
6. For lots 65 feet in width or less, dormers, subject to the following
requirements:
a. In general.
i. The total dormer length along one side of a structure may
be broken into more than one section.
ii. The total dormer length along one side of a structure is
limited to 40 percent of the mail wall below.
iii. No portion of any dormer shall extend above the ridge
line of the roof.
b. Shed dormer. A dormer with a flat eave line that runs parallel to
the primary roof line.
i. The front wall of a shed dormer shall be set back a
minimum of two feet from the plane of the main wall
below.
ii. The side walls of a shed dormer shall be set back a
minimum of four feet from the plane of the main wall
below on each end of the structure.
iii. The maximum height of a shed dormer shall be 20 feet
as measured from the average grade to the front eave
line of the dormer.
c. Gable dormer. A dormer with a peaked roof.
i. The front wall of a gable dormer shall be set back a
minimum of two feet from the plane of the main wall
below.
ii. The side walls or furthest extent of a gable dormer shall
be set back a minimum of four feet from the plane of the
main wall below on each end of the structure.
iii. The maximum height of a gable dormer shall be 25 feet
as measured from the average grade to the dormer peak.
Section 4. City Code Section 113-88, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (g)(5) is hereby
amended to read as follows:
5) Garage Provisions. Garages in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by
the following requirements:
Ordinance No. 684 -3-
a. Minimum Garage Stalls. For lots greater than 50 feet wide, no building
permit shall be issued for a single-family dwelling not having a two-stall
garage unless the registered survey submitted at the time of the
application for the building permit reflects the necessary area and setback
requirements for a future two-stall (minimum) garage. Lots 50 feet in width
or less may be constructed with one garage stall.
b. Maximum Garage Width. For lots 50 feet in width or less, the width of the
front wall of an attached garage shall not exceed 75 percent of the width
of the dwelling's front facade. For purposes of this subsection, a
dwelling's front facade means that portion of the dwelling's building facing
a front lot line that includes any front wall of a garage and provides
vehicular access to the garage.
1. Measurement of Front Facade. The width of the front facade shall
be the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the dwelling's
exterior side walls at the front facade's widest point.
2. Measurement of Front Garage Wall. For purposes of this
subsection, the front wall of a garage shall be the wall of the
garage facing the front lot line, including any door providing
vehicular access to the garage. The width of the front wall shall be
the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the exterior or
outermost location of the garage's two side walls at their
intersection with the garage's front wall.
Section 5. City Code Section 113-88, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (l) is hereby
amended to read as follows:
l) Lot Coverage. No lot or parcel in the R-1 Zoning District shall have lot
coverage of more than 30 percent for a lot or parcel 10,000 square feet or
greater in area, 35 percent for a lot or parcel greater than 6,000 square feet
and less than 10,000 square feet in area and 30 percent for a lot or parcel
6,000 square feet or less in area. This requirement excludes swimming
pools.
Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions” and Sec. 1-8 entitled
General Penalty; Continuing Violations” are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 7. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication
as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 21st day of July, 2020.
s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
s/ Kristine A. Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 684
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Section 113-88: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District
Narrow Lot Regulations
This is a summary of the provisions of the above Ordinance which has been approved
for publication by the City Council.
This Ordinance amends language in the Zoning Code to update the regulations related
to narrow lots throughout the City. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its
passage and publication as required by law.
A copy of the full text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk’s Office.
Adopted by the City Council this 21st day of July, 2020.
s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
s/Kristine A. Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020
Agenda Item
6. A. Public Art Committee Report on 10 West End Development
Prepared By
Myles Campbell, Planner
Summary
As part of the Planned Unit Development approvals for the office building and parking ramp
development at 10 West End, a requirement was included to develop a plan for a public art installation
on the site. At the time, this requirement called out the northeast corner of the parking ramp for visual
enhancement through a mural or other façade treatment.
As part of this requirement, the developer was asked to work on this art installation in collaboration
with a Committee consisting of:
A member of the Golden Valley Community Foundation
A Golden Valley Planning Commissioner
Two residents from the South Tyrol/Kenney Addition neighborhood
One St. Louis Park resident
Two members from the developer’s team
One St. Louis Park planning staff
One Golden Valley planning staff
Over a series of meetings with the Public Art Committee, the proposal shifted from a mural or façade
object, to a pedestrian-scale sculpture that could be located in the on-site park/greenspace. The
Committee felt this type of installation would better serve the community and provide more
opportunity for interaction. Tonight, members of the Committee will provide additional background on
their process, as well as further details on the proposed installation. Based on the committee’s
reasoning for the sculpture, and the quality of the overall process, staff is supportive of the committee
recommendation.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
There are no financial or budgetary considerations for the City.
Recommended Action
Motion to support the recommendation of the 10 West End Public Art Committee.
Supporting Documents
Copy of the Committee’s Presentation Materials (19 pages)
THE EXCELSIORGROUP10WestEnd
Public Art Installation
6/18/2020 1
AGENDA
1.0 Project History
2.0 Art Requirement
3.0 Meeting Evolution
4.0 Final Recommendation
5.0 Conclusion
6/18/2020 2
PROJECTHISTORY1.0
Affiliate of The Excelsior Group acquires land from Duke Realty –2015
Development Agreement –2015
Among other obligations, developer is obligated to install public art on the ramp
Land is sold to an entity that includes affiliates of The Excelsior Group and Ryan
Companies
Amended & Restated Development Agreement –2019
Among other obligations, developer is obligated to install public art on the ramp
Groundbreaking –2019
6/18/2020 3
DEVELOPER OBLIGATION –PUBLIC ART2.0
6/18/2020 4
Developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement…for the maintenance of the
public art…to be installed on the ramp…before the issuance of the Certificate of
Completion…
The Public Art Maintenance Agreement shall be developed after the Public Art has
been selected pursuant to the process described…herein…
DEVELOPER OBLIGATION –PUBLIC ART2.1
6/18/2020 5
Developer shall develop more specific plans and specifications for the Public Art with
input from the public according to the following process:
Developer shall engage community members in the design process fore the Public
Art by forming a committee…consisting of…
Art Committee was formed in 2019 in accordance with the Development Agreement
DEVELOPER OBLIGATION –PUBLIC ART2.2
6/18/2020 6
Developer shall develop the Public Art, with the input of the Committee according to the
following process:
GV & SLP Planning staff to meet with development team and artist to discuss timeline,
the execution process, and plans for community input –completed 4Q19
Committee meets to review precedence images and provide input to artist and
landscape architects on the design direction –completed 4Q19
Committee meets a second time to show 2 to 3 concept alternatives –completed 1Q20
Committee meets a third time to discuss enhanced final concept –completed 2Q20
DEVELOPER OBLIGATION –PUBLIC ART2.3
6/18/2020 7
Developer shall develop the Public Art, with the input of the Committee according to the
following process (cont.):
Developer installs Public Art –planned for fall 2020
Developer hosts a Community Engagement Day with community members after
installation of the Public Art is complete –planned for spring 2021
PREVIOUSMEETINGS3.0
Meeting 1: December 12, 2019
Meeting 2: March 19, 2020
6/18/2020 8
MEETING 1 -IMAGES3.1
6/18/2020 9
MEETING 1 –POST MEETINGNOTES3.2
Focus on destination murals
Include 3 dimensional features on the parking structure
Focus on screening the north face of the parking structure
Consider incorporating the history of Lilac Way
6/18/2020 10
MEETING 2 -IMAGES3.3
6/18/2020 11
MEETING 2 –POST MEETINGNOTES3.4
Focus on destination sculpture
Focus on northeast stair tower of parking structure
Focus on engagement with park visitors
Focus on the art representing the visitors and the people of Golden Valley
6/18/2020 12
4.0
CURRENT PROPOSAL –COMMITTEE COMMENTS
6/18/2020 13
Focus on destination sculpture
Focus on three-dimensional art
Focus on engagement with park visitors
Design that reflects all of the population
Lilac theme
4.1
CURRENT PROPOSAL –RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
6/18/2020 14
WE” for togetherness as a community
WE” for the boarder between Golden Valley & St. Louis Park
WE” for West End
Subtle hints of lilac to acknowledge the area’s history as Lilac Way
Multiple three-dimensional structures that allow for physical engagement
4.2
CURRENT PROPOSAL –IMAGES
6/18/2020 15
4.3
CURRENT PROPOSAL –MATERIAL
7/13/2020 16
4.4
CURRENT PROPOSAL –North Placement
7/13/2020 17
4.5
CURRENT PROPOSAL –North Placement
6/18/2020 18
CONCLUSION
The Art Committee supports the recommendation
The Art Committee recognizes that the final concept is not physically attached to the
parking ramp
The developer is investing $150,000 (3 times the amount escrowed with the City)
6/18/2020 19
5.0
Sec. 113-88. - Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District is to provide for
detached single-family dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and
complementary uses.
(b) District Established. Lots shall be established within the R-1 Zoning District in the manner
provided for in Section 113-29. The district established and/or any subsequent changes to such
district shall be reflected in the Official Zoning Map of the City as provided in Section 113-56.
(c) Principal Uses. The following principal uses shall be permitted in the R-1 Zoning District:
(1) Single-family dwellings, consistent with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy
(2) Residential facilities serving six or fewer persons
(3) Foster family homes; and
(4) Essential services, Class I.
(d) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the R-1 Zoning District:
(1) When the property owner resides in the dwelling, rental of single sleeping rooms to
not more than two people for lodging purposes only; and
(2) In-home child care licensed by the State.
(3) Home occupations, as governed by the following requirements:
a. The use of the dwelling for the occupation or profession shall be incidental and
secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes.
b. The exterior appearance of the structure shall not be altered for the operation
of the home occupation.
c. There shall be no outside storage or display of signage or anything related to or
indicative of the home occupation.
d. An accessory structure, including a garage, shall not be used for a home
occupation.
e. A permitted home occupation shall not result in noise, fumes, traffic, lights,
odor, excessive sewage or water use or garbage service, electrical, radio, or TV
interference in a manner detrimental to the health, safety, enjoyment, and general
welfare of the surrounding residential neighborhood.
f. No physical products shall be displayed or sold on the premises those incidental
to the permitted home occupation.
g. No signs or symbols shall be displayed other than those permitted for
residential purposes.
h. Clients, deliveries, and other business activity where persons come to the
home shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
i. No more than 20 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling shall be used for
the home occupation.
j. Parking related to the home occupation shall be provided only on the driveway
of the property where the home occupation operates.
k. A home occupation shall not generate more than eight client trips per day and
serve no more than two clients or customers at a time.
l. There shall only be one outside employee allowed on the premises at which a
home occupation is located.
m. All other applicable City, State, and Federal licenses, codes and regulations
shall be met.
n. The following uses are prohibited home occupations:
1. Repair, service, building, rebuilding or painting of autos, trucks, boats,
and other vehicles
2. Repair and service of items that cannot be carried by one person and
repair and service of any item involving an internal combustion engine or
motor
3. Retail sales
4. Medical/dental clinic or similar
5. Restaurants or cafes
6. Animal hospital
7. Veterinary clinic
8. Stable or kennel
9. Funeral home, mortuary, or columbarium; and
10. Sale or repair of firearms.
(e) Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning
Commission and approval by the City Council in accordance with the standards and procedures
set forth in this chapter:
(1) Residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons; and
(2) Group foster family homes.
(f) Principal Structures. Principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the
following requirements:
(1) Setback Requirements. The following setbacks shall be required for principal
structures in the R-1 Zoning District. Garages or other accessory structures which are
attached to the dwelling or main structure shall also be governed by these setback
requirements, except for stairs and stair landings of up to 25 square feet in size and for
accessible ramps.
a. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any
front lot line along a street right-of-way line. Decks and open front porches, with
no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front lot line along a street right-of-
way line. This requirement shall not reduce the building envelope on any corner
lot to less than 27 feet in width.
b. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be 25 feet.
c. Side Setbacks. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the
minimum required front setback line. The distance between a structure and the
side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements:
1. In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side
setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 feet or less in height shall be 15
feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than 15 feet
in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1
beginning at a point 15 feet directly above the side setback line (see figure
below).
2. In the case of lots having a width greater than 65 feet and less than 100
feet, the side setbacks for any portion of a structure 15 feet or less in
height shall be 12.5 feet. The side setbacks for any portion of a structure
greater than 15 feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping
plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point 15 feet directly above the side
setback line (see figure below).
3. In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks
for any portion of a structure 1513 feet or less in height along the north or
west side shall be 10 percent of the lot width and along the south or east
side shall be 20 percent of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). In no case shall
a side setback be less than 5 feet. The side setback for any portion of a
structure greater than 1513 feet in height measured to an inwardly sloping
plane at a ratio of 42:1 beginning at a point 1513 feet directly above the
side setback line (see figure below).
d. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the side yard setback, use the shorter front
lot line.
e. Building Envelope. Taken together, the front, rear, and side setbacks and the
height limitation shall constitute the building envelope (see figures below). No
portion of a structure may extend outside the building envelope, except for:
1. Cornices and eaves, no more than 30 inches
2. For lots greater than 50 feet in width, Bbay windows or chimney chases,
no more than 24 inches but no closer than 5 feet from the side property
line
3. Chimneys, vents, or antennas
4. Stairs and stair landings up to 25 square feet in size; or
5. Accessible ramps.; or
6. For lots 65 feet in width or less, dormers, subject to the following
requirements:
a. In general.
i. The total dormer length along one side of a structure may
be broken into more than one section.
ii. The total dormer length along one side of a structure is
limited to 40 percent of the main wall below.
iii. No portion of any dormer shall extend above the ridge
line of the roof.
b. Shed dormer. A dormer with a flat eave line that runs parallel to
the primary roof line.
i. The front wall of a shed dormer shall be set back a
minimum of two feet from the plane of the main wall below.
ii. The side walls of a shed dormer shall be set back a
minimum of four feet from the plane of the main wall below
on each end of the structure.
iii. The maximum height of a shed dormer shall be 20 feet
as measured from the average grade to the front eave line
of the dormer.
c. Gable dormer. A dormer with a peaked roof.
i. The front wall of a gable dormer shall be set back a
minimum of two feet from the plane of the main wall below.
ii. The side walls or furthest extent of a gable dormer shall
be set back a minimum of four feet from the plane of the
main wall below on each end of the structure.
iii. The maximum height of a gable dormer shall be 25 feet
as measured from the average grade to the dormer peak.
(2) Height Restrictions. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District
with a building height exceeding 28 feet as measured from the average grade at the front
building line. The average grade for a new structure shall be no more than one foot higher
than the average grade that previously existed on the lot.
(3) Structure Width Requirement. No principal structure shall be less than 22 feet in width
as measured from the exterior of the exterior walls.
(4) Side Wall Articulation. For any new construction, whether a new dwelling, addition, or
replacement through a tear-down, any resulting side wall longer than 32 feet in length
must be articulated, with a shift of at least two feet in depth, for at least eight feet in
length, for every 32 feet of wall.
(5) Decks. Decks over eight inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as
the principal structure in the side and rear yards.
(6) Kitchens. No more than one kitchen and one kitchenette shall be permitted in each
dwelling unit.
(7) Manufactured Homes. All manufactured or modular homes must meet the provisions
of the zoning and building codes.
(g) Accessory Structures. Accessory structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by
the following requirements:
(1) Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks
shall be required for accessory structures in the R-1 Zoning District:
a. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the
rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an
accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback than the principal
structure.
b. Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 35 feet from
the front lot line.
c. Side and Rear Setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than
five feet from a side or rear lot line.
d. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches
into a required setback.
e. Separation Between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less
than 10 feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure.
f. Alleys. Accessory structures shall be located no less than five feet from an alley.
g. Fences. For the purposes of setbacks, fences are not considered structures.
(2) Height Restrictions. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District
with a height in excess of one story, which is 10 feet from the floor to the top horizontal
component of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened (known as the "top
plate"). For the purposes of this regulation, the height of a shed roof shall be measured to
the top plate.
(3) Area Limitations. Each lot is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the following
accessory structures: detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses,
and gazebos. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. No one detached
accessory structure may be larger than 800 square feet in area and any accessory
structure over 200 square feet in area requires a building permit. No accessory structure
shall occupy a footprint larger than that of the principal structure.
(4) Zoning Permits. The following shall require a zoning permit to ensure a conforming
location on the lot:
a. Fences
b. Patios
c. Any accessory structures less than 200 square feet in area; and
d. Decks and platforms that do not require a building permit.
(5) Garage Provisions. Garages in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the
following requirements:
a. Minimum Garage Stalls. For lots greater than 50 feet wide, Nno building permit
shall be issued for a single-family dwelling not having a two-stall garage unless
the registered survey submitted at the time of the application for the building
permit reflects the necessary area and setback requirements for a future two-stall
(minimum) garage. Lots 50 feet in width or less may be constructed with one
garage stall.
b. Maximum Garage Width. For lots 50 feet in width or less, the width of the front
wall of an attached garage shall not exceed 75 percent of the width of the
dwelling's front facade. For purposes of this subsection, a dwelling's front facade
means that portion of the dwelling's building facing a front lot line that includes
any front wall of a garage and provides vehicular access to the garage.
1. Measurement of Front Facade. The width of the front facade shall be
the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the dwelling's exterior side
walls at the front facade's widest point.
2. Measurement of Front Garage Wall. For purposes of this subsection,
the front wall of a garage shall be the wall of the garage facing the front lot
line, including any door providing vehicular access to the garage. The
width of the front wall shall be the direct, linear, horizontal distance
between the exterior or outermost location of the garage's two side walls
at their intersection with the garage's front wall.
(6) Roof Style. Gambrel and mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory structure
with a footprint of more than 200 square feet.
(7) Decks. Freestanding decks or decks attached to accessory structures shall meet the
same setback requirements for accessory structures.
(8) Garden Structures. Garden structures shall be located no closer than five feet to any
lot line. Garden structures shall not exceed 10 feet in height.
(9) Play Structures. Play structures shall be located no closer than five feet to any lot line.
Play structures shall not exceed 10 feet in height.
(10) Swimming Pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location
requirements for accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the lot line to
the pool's edge. Decks surrounding above-ground pools shall meet setback requirements.
(11) Photovoltaic Modules. Freestanding photovoltaic modules, including solar panels
and other photovoltaic energy receivers, which are in excess of three square feet shall
meet the same setback, location, and height requirements for accessory structures.
(12) Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall be prohibited in a
front yard.
(h) Temporary Storage Units. Temporary storage units in the R-1 Zoning District shall be
governed by the following requirements:
(1) Duration. Temporary storage units shall not be stored on a lot for more than 14 days.
(2) Location. Temporary storage units shall be stored on a hard surface and be located
completely on private property.
(i) Pre-1982 Structures. For all existing structures constructed in the R-1 Zoning District prior to
January 1, 1982, the following structure setbacks shall be in effect:
(1) Front Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than 25
feet to the front lot line.
(2) Side Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than three
feet to the side lot line.
(3) Rear Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than 10
feet to the rear lot line.
(4) Accessory structures. The structure setback for accessory structures shall be no
closer than three feet to the side or rear Lot lines. At the discretion of the City Manager or
his/her designee, a property owner may be required to move an accessory structure if it is
located in a public easement area.
(j) Pre-April 15, 2015, Structures, Building Permits and Applications. For all structures
constructed and building permits issued or applied therefor in the R-1 Zoning District prior to April
15, 2015, if the height and side setbacks were deemed by the City to be compliant with the
zoning code at the time a building permit was issued or applied therefor, the height and location
shall be deemed conforming to current zoning code. However, in all cases, new construction and
additions to such properties must comply with current requirements of the zoning code.
(k) Buildable Lots. No dwelling or accessory structure shall be erected for use or occupancy as a
residential dwelling on any tract of unplatted land which does not conform with the requirements
of this section, except on those lots located within an approved plat. In the R-1 Zoning District a
platted lot of a minimum area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum width of 80 feet at the front
setback line shall be required for one single-family dwelling.
(l) Lot Coverage. No lot or parcel in the R-1 Zoning District shall have lot coverage of more than
30 percent for a lot or parcel over 10,000 square feet or greater in area, 35 percent for a lot or
parcel betweengreater than 56,000 square feet and less than 9,99910,000 square feet in area
and 430 percent for a lot or parcel less than 56,000 square feet or less in area. This requirement
excludes swimming pools.
(m) Impervious Surfaces. The total amount of impervious surfaces on any lot shall not exceed 50
percent of the area.
(n) Paved Areas. Paved areas in the R-1 Zoning District, including those constructed of concrete,
bituminous pavement, or pavers, are governed by the following provisions:
(1) Driveways. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005, shall be
paved.
(2) Setbacks. Paved areas shall be set back three feet from a lot line, except for shared
driveways used by multiple property owners pursuant to a private easement.
(3) Coverage. No more than 40 percent of the front yard may be covered with concrete,
bituminous pavement, or pavers.
(4) Street Access. Each lot may have only one street curb cut access, except the
following lots may have up to two street curb cut accesses:
a. A lot that contains two legally constructed garages.
b. A lot of a resident who requires additional driveway access qualifying for a
reduced class rate for homestead property as defined by Minn. Stats. § 273.13,
subd. 22, Class 1b.
ORDINANCE NO. 684
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Section 113-88: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District
Narrow Lot Regulations
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Section 113-88, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (f)(1)(a) is
hereby amended to read as follows:
a. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any
front lot line along a street right-of-way line. Decks and open front porches,
with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front lot line along a street
right-of-way line. This requirement shall not reduce the building envelope on
any corner lot to less than 27 feet in width.
Section 2. City Code Section 113-88, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (f)(1)(c)(3) is
hereby amended to read as follows:
3. In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks for any
portion of a structure 13 feet or less in height along the north or west side
shall be 10 percent of the lot width and along the south or east side shall be
20 percent of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). In no case shall a side setback
be less than 5 feet. The side setback for any portion of a structure greater
than 13 feet in height measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1
beginning at a point 13 feet directly above the side setback line (see figure
below).
Section 3. City Code Section 113-88, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (f)(1)(e) is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Ordinance No. 684 -3- July 21, 2020
e. Building Envelope. Taken together, the front, rear, and side setbacks and the
height limitation shall constitute the building envelope (see figures below). No
portion of a structure may extend outside the building envelope, except for:
1. Cornices and eaves, no more than 30 inches
2. For lots greater than 50 feet in width, bay windows or chimney chases,
no more than 24 inches but no closer than 5 feet from the side
property line
3. Chimneys, vents, or antennas
4. Stairs and stair landings up to 25 square feet in size
5. Accessible ramps; or
6. For lots 65 feet in width or less, dormers, subject to the following
requirements:
a. In general.
i. The total dormer length along one side of a structure may
be broken into more than one section.
ii. The total dormer length along one side of a structure is
limited to 40 percent of the mail wall below.
iii. No portion of any dormer shall extend above the ridge
line of the roof.
b. Shed dormer. A dormer with a flat eave line that runs parallel to
the primary roof line.
i. The front wall of a shed dormer shall be set back a
minimum of two feet from the plane of the main wall
below.
ii. The side walls of a shed dormer shall be set back a
minimum of four feet from the plane of the main wall
below on each end of the structure.
iii. The maximum height of a shed dormer shall be 20 feet
as measured from the average grade to the front eave
line of the dormer.
c. Gable dormer. A dormer with a peaked roof.
i. The front wall of a gable dormer shall be set back a
minimum of two feet from the plane of the main wall
below.
ii. The side walls or furthest extent of a gable dormer shall
be set back a minimum of four feet from the plane of the
main wall below on each end of the structure.
iii. The maximum height of a gable dormer shall be 25 feet
as measured from the average grade to the dormer peak.
Section 4. City Code Section 113-88, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (g)(5) is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(5) Garage Provisions. Garages in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by
the following requirements:
Ordinance No. 684 -3- July 21, 2020
a. Minimum Garage Stalls. For lots greater than 50 feet wide, no building
permit shall be issued for a single-family dwelling not having a two-stall
garage unless the registered survey submitted at the time of the
application for the building permit reflects the necessary area and setback
requirements for a future two-stall (minimum) garage. Lots 50 feet in width
or less may be constructed with one garage stall.
b. Maximum Garage Width. For lots 50 feet in width or less, the width of the
front wall of an attached garage shall not exceed 75 percent of the width
of the dwelling's front facade. For purposes of this subsection, a
dwelling's front facade means that portion of the dwelling's building facing
a front lot line that includes any front wall of a garage and provides
vehicular access to the garage.
1. Measurement of Front Facade. The width of the front facade shall
be the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the dwelling's
exterior side walls at the front facade's widest point.
2. Measurement of Front Garage Wall. For purposes of this
subsection, the front wall of a garage shall be the wall of the
garage facing the front lot line, including any door providing
vehicular access to the garage. The width of the front wall shall be
the direct, linear, horizontal distance between the exterior or
outermost location of the garage's two side walls at their
intersection with the garage's front wall.
Section 5. City Code Section 113-88, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (l) is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(l) Lot Coverage. No lot or parcel in the R-1 Zoning District shall have lot
coverage of more than 30 percent for a lot or parcel 10,000 square feet or
greater in area, 35 percent for a lot or parcel greater than 6,000 square feet
and less than 10,000 square feet in area and 30 percent for a lot or parcel
6,000 square feet or less in area. This requirement excludes swimming
pools.
Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions” and Sec. 1-8 entitled
“General Penalty; Continuing Violations” are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 7. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication
as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 21st day of July, 2020.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Kristine A. Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 684
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Section 113-88: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District
Narrow Lot Regulations
This is a summary of the provisions of the above Ordinance which has been approved
for publication by the City Council.
This Ordinance amends language in the Zoning Code to update the regulations related
to narrow lots throughout the City. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its
passage and publication as required by law.
A copy of the full text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk’s Office.
Adopted by the City Council this 21st day of July, 2020.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/Kristine A. Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020
Agenda Item
4. B. MS4 General Permit, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, 2019 Annual Report to the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Prepared By
Eric Eckman, Environmental Resources Supervisor
Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist
Summary
As authorized by the Clean Water Act of 1972 and its amendments, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) oversees the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program
which regulates point and non-point sources of pollution into our nation’s waterways. Point sources
include pipes and ditches, and non-point sources include overland precipitation runoff. The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) manages the permit program for EPA in Minnesota.
Cities like Golden Valley, which operate their own storm sewer systems, are required to obtain a
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit from the MPCA. The permit allows
Golden Valley to discharge stormwater into public receiving waters. It also requires that the City
develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) to reduce the
contamination of stormwater runoff and prohibit illicit discharges.
Golden Valley’s SWPPP addresses the six minimum control measures outlined in the MS4 permit
requirements:
1. Public Education and Outreach
2. Public Involvement and Participation
3. Illicit Discharge, Detection, and Elimination
4. Construction Site Runoff Control
5. Post Construction Runoff Control
6. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping
The holding of an annual public meeting and preparation of an annual report are requirements of the
MS4 permit. The meeting has been advertised for July 21st, 2020. The City must create a record of the
public comments received, either written or oral. The public input must be considered and a record of
decision must be added to the annual report to MPCA.
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
July 21, 2020
2
Financial Or Budget Considerations
None
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Issuing a Negative Declaration of Need for Revisions to the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Program.
Supporting Documents
•Resolution Issuing a Negative Declaration of Need for Revisions to the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Program (1 page)
RESOLUTION NO. 20-45
RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED
FOR REVISIONS TO THE
STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City prepared and submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) a permit application for operation of the City's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) on March 10, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the City was reissued coverage by MPCA for its current MS4 permit on April 14, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the permit requires that the City develop and implement a plan for
regulating and Improving stormwater discharge, commonly referred to as the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP); end
WHEREAS, staff has been working to meet the objectives set forth in the SWPPP
and Is required to report to the MPCA on the status of the plan's implementation on an annual basis; and
WHEREAS, the City has placed notification of a public hearing in the City's official newspaper and has held a public hearing to report on progress made in implementation of the SWPPP and to take public testimony; and
WHEREAS, comments made during the public hearing will be incorporated into the
City Council record.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Golden Valley has determined
that no revisions to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program are required and staff is
hereby directed to file the annual report with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Passed by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 21st day of July 2020.
__________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020
Agenda Item
6. A. Public Art Committee Report on 10 West End Development
Prepared By
Myles Campbell, Planner
Summary
As part of the Planned Unit Development approvals for the office building and parking ramp
development at 10 West End, a requirement was included to develop a plan for a public art installation
on the site. At the time, this requirement called out the northeast corner of the parking ramp for visual
enhancement through a mural or other façade treatment.
As part of this requirement, the developer was asked to work on this art installation in collaboration
with a Committee consisting of:
• A member of the Golden Valley Community Foundation
• A Golden Valley Planning Commissioner
• Two residents from the South Tyrol/Kenney Addition neighborhood
• One St. Louis Park resident
• Two members from the developer’s team
• One St. Louis Park planning staff
• One Golden Valley planning staff
Over a series of meetings with the Public Art Committee, the proposal shifted from a mural or façade
object, to a pedestrian-scale sculpture that could be located in the on-site park/greenspace. The
Committee felt this type of installation would better serve the community and provide more
opportunity for interaction. Tonight, members of the Committee will provide additional background on
their process, as well as further details on the proposed installation. Based on the committee’s
reasoning for the sculpture, and the quality of the overall process, staff is supportive of the committee
recommendation.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
There are no financial or budgetary considerations for the City.
Recommended Action
Motion to support the recommendation of the 10 West End Public Art Committee.
Supporting Documents
• Copy of the Committee’s Presentation Materials (19 pages)
THE EXCELSIOR GROUP10 West End
Public Art Installation
6/18/2020 1
AGENDA
1.0 Project History
2.0 Art Requirement
3.0 Meeting Evolution
4.0 Final Recommendation
5.0 Conclusion
6/18/2020 2
PROJECT HISTORY1.0
•Affiliate of The Excelsior Group acquires land from Duke Realty –2015
•Development Agreement –2015
•Among other obligations, developer is obligated to install public art on the ramp
•Land is sold to an entity that includes affiliates of The Excelsior Group and Ryan
Companies
•Amended & Restated Development Agreement –2019
•Among other obligations, developer is obligated to install public art on the ramp
•Groundbreaking –2019
6/18/2020 3
DEVELOPER OBLIGATION –PUBLIC ART 2.0
6/18/2020 4
•Developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement…for the maintenance of the
public art…to be installed on the ramp…before the issuance of the Certificate of
Completion…
•The Public Art Maintenance Agreement shall be developed after the Public Art has
been selected pursuant to the process described…herein…
DEVELOPER OBLIGATION –PUBLIC ART 2.1
6/18/2020 5
•Developer shall develop more specific plans and specifications for the Public Art with
input from the public according to the following process:
•Developer shall engage community members in the design process fore the Public
Art by forming a committee…consisting of…
•Art Committee was formed in 2019 in accordance with the Development Agreement
DEVELOPER OBLIGATION –PUBLIC ART 2.2
6/18/2020 6
•Developer shall develop the Public Art, with the input of the Committee according to the
following process:
•GV & SLP Planning staff to meet with development team and artist to discuss timeline,
the execution process, and plans for community input –completed 4Q19
•Committee meets to review precedence images and provide input to artist and
landscape architects on the design direction –completed 4Q19
•Committee meets a second time to show 2 to 3 concept alternatives –completed 1Q20
•Committee meets a third time to discuss enhanced final concept –completed 2Q20
DEVELOPER OBLIGATION –PUBLIC ART 2.3
6/18/2020 7
•Developer shall develop the Public Art, with the input of the Committee according to the
following process (cont.):
•Developer installs Public Art –planned for fall 2020
•Developer hosts a Community Engagement Day with community members after
installation of the Public Art is complete –planned for spring 2021
PREVIOUS MEETINGS3.0
•Meeting 1: December 12, 2019
•Meeting 2: March 19, 2020
6/18/2020 8
MEETING 1 -IMAGES3.1
6/18/2020 9
MEETING 1 –POST MEETING NOTES3.2
•Focus on destination murals
•Include 3 dimensional features on the parking structure
•Focus on screening the north face of the parking structure
•Consider incorporating the history of Lilac Way
6/18/2020 10
MEETING 2 -IMAGES3.3
6/18/2020 11
MEETING 2 –POST MEETING NOTES3.4
•Focus on destination sculpture
•Focus on northeast stair tower of parking structure
•Focus on engagement with park visitors
•Focus on the art representing the visitors and the people of Golden Valley
6/18/2020 12
4.0 CURRENT PROPOSAL –COMMITTEE COMMENTS
6/18/2020 13
•Focus on destination sculpture
•Focus on three-dimensional art
•Focus on engagement with park visitors
•Design that reflects all of the population
•Lilac theme
4.1 CURRENT PROPOSAL –RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
6/18/2020 14
•“WE” for togetherness as a community
•“WE” for the boarder between Golden Valley & St. Louis Park
•“WE” for West End
•Subtle hints of lilac to acknowledge the area’s history as Lilac Way
•Multiple three-dimensional structures that allow for physical engagement
4.2 CURRENT PROPOSAL –IMAGES
6/18/2020 15
4.3 CURRENT PROPOSAL –MATERIAL
7/13/2020 16
4.4 CURRENT PROPOSAL –North Placement
7/13/2020 17
4.5 CURRENT PROPOSAL –North Placement
6/18/2020 18
CONCLUSION
•The Art Committee supports the recommendation
•The Art Committee recognizes that the final concept is not physically attached to the
parking ramp
•The developer is investing $150,000 (3 times the amount escrowed with the City)
6/18/2020 19
5.0
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020
Agenda Item
6. B. Adopt Resolution Transferring CARES Act Funds to the HRA to Implement a Rent and Household
Assistance Program
Prepared By
Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director
Summary
The State of Minnesota recently allocated $1.6M in CARES Act funds to the City of Golden Valley to assist
with expenses and impacts related to the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Treasury Department has provided
guidance regarding the use of the funds. The guidance states that CARES Act funds may be used to 1)
prevent evictions and assist in preventing homelessness due to COVID 19, 2) provide emergency
assistance to individuals and families directly impacted by a loss of income due to COVID-19, and 3)
CARES act funds may be allocated to non-profits to distribute assistance to individuals in need of
financial assistance related to COVID-19.
PRISM, the City’s local food shelf and housing assistance provider, has seen a 65% increase in visits for
household assistance since last year for the period of March through May. PRISM reports rental
assistance calls have remained steady compared to last year, at about 54 per month, although calls are
expected to increase significantly once the eviction moratorium is lifted.
In order to address these needs within Golden Valley, a rent and household assistance program has
been developed by the HRA, contingent on receiving program funding from the City. The Council is
asked to adopt the attached resolution transferring a portion of the CARES Act funds received from the
State to the HRA to fund the implementation of the program.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Funding for the Rent and Household Assistance Fund will come from the City’s CARES act allocation.
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Transferring CARES Act Funds to the HRA to implement a Rent and
Household Assistance Program.
Supporting Documents
• Resolution Transferring CARES Act Funds to the HRA to implement a Rent and Household Assistance
Program (2 pages)
RESOLUTION NO. 20-46
RESOLUTION ALLOCATING CARES FUNDS TO HRA TO IMPLEMENT A RENT AND
HOUSEHOLD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WHEREAS the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted residents of Golden Valley
through job loss and illnesses, placing extraordinary financial and emotional demands on
households; and
WHEREAS increased demand for food assistance has been documented by
PRISM, the local food shelf, since the start of the pandemic and an increased need for
rental assistance is expected when the Governor’s eviction moratorium is lifted; and
WHEREAS the State has distributed to the City of Golden Valley over $1.6M in
CARES Act funds to mitigate the costs and impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic within the
City; and
WHEREAS The guidance from the Treasury Department states that CARES Act
funds may be used to 1) prevent evictions and assist in preventing homelessness due to
COVID 19, 2) provide emergency assistance to individuals and families directly impacted
by a loss of income due to COVID-19, and 3) CARES act funds may be allocated to non-
profits to distribute assistance to individuals in need of financial assistance related to
COVID-19; and
WHEREAS Minnesota Statues 465.039 authorize the governing body statutory city,
or of a to appropriate each year out of its general fund, or other unrestricted money, an
amount to be determined by the governing body to provide grants to nonprofit
organizations operating community food shelves that provide food to the needy without
charge.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Golden Valley City Council to transfer
$100,000 of the City’s CARES Act allocation to the HRA to distribute for rent and food
assistance to eligible residents in Golden Valley.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 21st day of July, 2020.
__________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020
Agenda Item
6. C. COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Administrative Actions
Prepared By
Tim Cruikshank, City Manager
Maria Cisneros, City Attorney
Summary
The City Manager and City Attorney recommend that the City Council ratify the attached Emergency
Administrative Actions that staff has taken since July 7, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The new actions include:
•Emergency Administrative Action 20-57 Delegating authority to the City Manager to approve
administrative changes to the COVID-19 Operations Recovery and Readiness Plan
•Emergency Administrative Action 20-58 Waiving Requirement for Two Considerations to Adopt
and Ordinance.
The City Manager and City Attorney recommend the Council ratify these Emergency Administrative
Actions.
Financial or Budget Considerations
Not Applicable
Recommended Action
Motion to ratify Emergency Administrative Actions 20-57 through 20-58 and adopt all
recommendations contained therein.
Supporting Documents
•Emergency Administrative Actions 20-57 through 20-58 (2 pages)
EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 20-57
ADOPTING THE PARKS & RECREATION SECTION OF
THE COVID-19 OPERATIONS RECOVERY AND READINESS PLAN
Pursuant to Mayoral Proclamation and Council Resolution effective March 17, 2020, the
City Manager hereby recommends that the City Council delegate to the City Manager
the authority to administratively approve minor administrative amendments to the City
of Golden Valley COVID-19 Operations Recovery and Readiness Plan, provided all such
changes are filed with the City Clerk and posted on the City website within 24 hours of
the change taking effect.
Date: July 17, 2020 ____________________________________
Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager
EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 20-58
WAIVING REQUIREMENT FOR TWO CONSIDERATIONS
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE
Pursuant to Mayoral Proclamation and Council Resolution effective March 17, 2020, the
City Manager hereby recommends that the City Council waive the requirements of City
Code, section 2-42(a), requiring two considerations for the adoption of a new ordinance,
so that the Council may adopt, after one consideration, an emergency ordinance
mandating the use of masks in the City of Golden Valley.
Date: July 17, 2020 ____________________________________
Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 21, 2020
Agenda Item
6. D. Emergency Ordinance Regarding Face Coverings
Prepared By
Maria Cisneros, City Attorney
Summary
Background
The City of Golden Valley and the State of Minnesota have been in a state of peacetime emergency since
March, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite emergency measures taken by the City and State,
the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 continues to spread. As of the writing of this report, Minnesota
has 45,013 confirmed positive cases and 1,533 deaths and Golden Valley has 222 confirmed cases
resulting in 22 deaths.1 In parts of the United States, the number of coronavirus infections is surging,
creating threats to the response capacity of hospitals and healthcare workers. In response, members of
the City Council have expressed interest in discussing whether to adopt an ordinance requiring
individuals to wear face coverings.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), the coronavirus spreads through
respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks. These are the same
droplets we see crystalize when we exhale in the winter and can “see our breath.” Exhaled respiratory
droplets can land in the mouths or noses of others who are nearby. They can also be inhaled into the
lungs. Additionally, a significant number of people infected with the virus may be asymptomatic or
presymptomatic, giving no outward sign of being ill. These people may unintentionally spread the virus
to others without knowing it. These factors make the virus difficult to control when people interact with
others from outside of their household, particularly in public places with unpredictable traffic patterns.
Scientific evidence suggests that cloth face coverings help prevent people who have COVID-19 from
spreading the virus to others. According to the CDC, “cloth face coverings are a critical tool in the fight
against COVID-19 that could reduce the spread of the disease, particularly when used universally within
communities.”2 In a recent study, scientists found that after three weeks of mask mandates in 15 states
1 The number of cases and deaths in Hennepin County is current as of July 17, 2020. The number of cases in Golden Valley is
current as of July 14, 2020.
2 CDC Editorial in JAMA: Brooks JT, Butler JC, Redfield RR. Time for universal masking and prevention of transmission of SARS-
CoV-2. JAMA. Published online July 14, 2020.
doi:10.1001/jama.2020.13107 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/10.1001/jama.2020.13107external icon
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
July 21, 2020
2
and the District of Columbia, the daily COVID-19 growth rate slowed by two percentage points, resulting
in as many as 230,000–450,000 COVID-19 cases possibly averted by May 22, 2020.3
The CDC and the Minnesota Department of Health have issued guidelines that recommend wearing face
coverings in public. Governor Walz strongly encourages Minnesotans “to wear a manufactured or
homemade cloth face covering when they leave their homes and travel to any public setting where
social distancing measures are difficult to maintain.”
A growing number of cities and countries around the world are enacting mask mandates to protect
people from coming into contact with other people’s respiratory droplets and, in particular, to protect
people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic from spreading the virus to others unknowingly. As of
the date of this report the following Minnesota jurisdictions have adopted some form of face mask
requirements: Blaine (only in government buildings), Duluth, Edina, Excelsior, Mankato, Minneapolis,
Minnetonka, Rochester, St. Paul, Winona. Additionally, several large retailers have recently announced
that they will require all customers to wear masks when entering their stores.
Proposed Ordinance
Requirements
Staff prepared the attached proposed ordinance for City Council consideration. The proposal requires
individuals to wear masks indoors in all spaces of public accommodation and on public transportation,
unless one of the enumerated exceptions applies. In the ordinance, “spaces of public accommodation”
means a “business, refreshment, entertainment or recreation facility, or an institution of any kind,
whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public.”
Exemptions
The proposed ordinance does not apply to:
1. County, state, or federal buildings.
2. Personal care services/salons that already have state face covering requirements.
3. Medical facilities that already have face covering requirements.
4. Children two years of age or younger (as recommended by the CDC).
5. Individuals who have trouble breathing, are unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to
remove a face covering without assistance.
6. Individuals temporarily removing a face covering to actively eat or drink.
7. Individuals temporarily removing a face covering for identification purposes.
8. Individuals unable to wear a face covering due to medical, disability, or developmental reasons.
9. Individuals speaking to an audience, whether in person or through broadcast, as long as the
speaker remains six feet or more away from all other individuals.
10. Individuals speaking to someone who is deaf or hard of hearing and requires the mouth to be
visible to communicate.
3 Wei Lyu and George L. Wehby, Community Use of Face Masks and COVID-19: Evidence From a Natural Experiment of State
Mandates in the US, Health Affairs (June 16, 2020), https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
(“Mandating face mask use in public is associated with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and
2.0 percentage-points in 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and 21+ days after signing, respectively. Estimates suggest as many as
230,000–450,000 COVID-19 cases possibly averted By May 22, 2020 by these mandates”).
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
July 21, 2020
3
11. Participants actively engaged in youth and adult sports and individuals actively performing indoor
exercise, provided the facility meets all other applicable City and State requirements.
Enforcement
There are several different enforcement models that the City may choose from. Some cities have chosen
to preserve the option to treat mask mandate violations as a misdemeanor offense (maximum fine of up
to $1,000 and up to 90 days imprisonment). Others have chosen to make violations an administrative
offense. Most cities have built in the option of taking adverse license action against businesses that do
not follow the ordinance.
After careful consideration and discussion with the police department, staff does not recommend
criminalizing violations of the proposed ordinance. Instead, staff proposes that violations be enforced by
the issuance of a letter of warning, an administrative citation, or, in the case of businesses who hold
City-issued licenses, taking the following adverse action against the business’s license. The penalties for
administrative citations are $100 for a first violation, $250 for a second violation, and $500 for all
subsequent violations in a 12-month period.
The enforcement section of the proposed ordinance also requires businesses and property owners to
enforce the mask mandate with their customers. If a customer refuses to wear a mask, the business may
call the police department to request help removing the violator from the business’s property (usually
treated as a trespass in similar situations).
Effective Date
If the Council adopts a face covering mandate it will need to determine an effective date. Staff
recommends an effective date one week after the date of adoption (July 28, 2020). This will give Golden
Valley residents, businesses, and property owners time to prepare for the new requirements and it is
consistent with the approach of neighboring cities.
Process
Under City Code section 2-42(a), ordinances require two considerations before adoption. However, due
to the emergency nature of this ordinance and its nexus to the existing local emergency declared on
March 16, 2020, staff recommends the Council exercise its emergency powers to waive the second
reading requirement (see Emergency Administrative Action 20-58 in the agenda item immediately
before this one).
Financial or Budget Considerations
If the Council adopts a mask mandate, there may be a small cost to provide informational posters or
other materials to local retailers to explain the requirements to the public. These costs would likely be
covered by the CARES Act funds.
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Emergency Ordinance #685 mandating the use of face coverings indoors.
Supporting Documents
• Ordinance #685, an Emergency Ordinance Mandating the Use of Face Coverings Indoors (4 pages)
ORDINANCE NO. 685
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE MANDATING THE
USE OF FACE COVERINGS INDOORS
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. Preamble.
Since, March 16, 2020, the City of Golden Valley has been under a local state of
peacetime emergency due to the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. The conditions that gave
rise to the state of emergency continue to exist. The United States now leads the world in
the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases, and in some parts of the United States, the
number of confirmed cases is surging, posing a threat to the response capabilities of health
care facilities. Growing scientific evidence indicates that wearing face coverings in public
significantly reduces the risk of infection from the coronavirus. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Mayo Clinic, and
Governor Tim Walz have all urged the use of face coverings as a measure to reduce or
prevent the spread of COVID-19. This ordinance is adopted in response to the emergency
and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 419.221, subdivision 32 to promote and
protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Section 2. Findings.
The Golden Valley City Council makes the following findings:
(a) COVID-19 presents a serious health risk to the residents of Golden Valley. As of
July 17, 2020, there have been 3,555,877 confirmed cases in the United States,
resulting in 137,864 deaths, 45,013 confirmed cases in Minnesota, resulting in
1,533 deaths, and 14,348 cases in Hennepin County resulting in 798 deaths. As of
July 14, 2020, there were 222 confirmed cases in Golden Valley resulting in 22
deaths.
(b) Scientific studies suggest that wearing a face covering significantly reduces the risk
of infection from the coronavirus and that face covering mandates could save
hundreds of thousands of lives in the United States.
(c) On June 28, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the “CDC”)
issued the following guidance on face covering use:
(1) The CDC recommends that individuals wear cloth face coverings in public
settings and when around people who do not live in their household,
especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain.
(2) Cloth face coverings may help prevent individuals who have COVID-19 from
spreading the virus to others.
(3) Cloth face coverings are most likely to reduce the spread of COVID-19 when
they are widely used by individuals in public settings.
Ordinance No. 685 2 July 21, 2020
(4) Cloth face coverings should NOT be worn by children under the age of two or
anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, is incapacitated, or is
otherwise unable to remove a mask without assistance.
(d) Many businesses in the City of Golden Valley already require face coverings for
employees and customers, and others have indicated that they would also require
face coverings if it were required by a local jurisdiction.
(e) The primary benefit of most face coverings is that they reduce the spread of
infection by the wearer to others. Because many individuals infected with the
coronavirus may be asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic, without any reason to know
that they have the disease, a face covering mandate protects the health of others,
such as business employees who provide essential services to the public.
(f) Businesses are adversely impacted when employees become infected or must be
quarantined due to exposure to COVID-19. Employee illness can result in the
temporary closure of some businesses. Reducing the rate of employee illness
provides an economic benefit to individual businesses and to the economy as a
whole. The State of Minnesota encourages businesses to “Mask Up” and “Stay
Safe to Stay Open.”
(g) This ordinance is enacted for the purpose of protecting the public health, promoting
the local economy, minimizing the need for future reclosing based on public health,
and reducing the demand that COVID-19 cases place upon the healthcare system.
Section 3. Requirements.
(a) Definitions.
(1) For purposes of this ordinance “face covering” means a manufactured or
homemade cloth covering that fully covers an individual’s nose and mouth.
The terms “mask” and “face covering” are synonymous.
(2) For purposes of this ordinance, a “space of public accommodation” means a
business, refreshment, entertainment or recreation facility, or an institution of
any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise
made available to the public. Examples include, but are not limited to, retail
stores, commercial and residential rental establishments, restaurants and
bars, city-owned buildings, service establishments, recreational facilities, and
service centers. This definition also includes establishments and facilities that
offer food and beverage not for on-premises consumption, including grocery
stores, markets, convenience stores, pharmacies, drug stores, and food
pantries.
(b) Requirements.
(1) All individuals shall wear a face covering in indoor spaces of public
accommodation and on all public transportation unless exempted under
section 2(c) below.
Ordinance No. 685 3 July 21, 2020
(2) With respect to public transportation, all individuals shall wear a face covering
before boarding any public transportation and shall wear the face covering
until exiting the vehicle.
(3) Owners, occupants, and managers of spaces of public accommodation shall
include in their COVID-19 Preparedness Plan a requirement that all
employees wear a face covering when the individual is within any area open to
the public or within six feet of another person.
(4) Owners, occupants, and managers of spaces of public accommodation shall
post written notice of this ordinance at all doors used by the public to access
the property.
(c) Exemptions.
(1) This ordinance does not apply to:
i. Facilities operated by the county, state, or federal government.
ii. Personal care services/salons that already have state face covering
requirements.
iii. Medical facilities that already have face covering requirements.
iv. Children two years of age or younger.
v. Individuals who have trouble breathing, are unconscious, incapacitated,
or otherwise unable to remove a face covering without assistance.
vi. Individuals temporarily removing a face covering to actively eat or drink.
vii. Individuals temporarily removing a face covering for identification
purposes.
viii. Individuals unable to wear a face covering due to medical, disability, or
developmental reasons.
ix. Individuals speaking to an audience, whether in person or through
broadcast, as long as the speaker remains six feet or more away from
all other individuals.
x. Individuals speaking to someone who is deaf or hard of hearing and
requires the mouth to be visible to communicate.
xi. Participants actively engaged in youth and adult sports and individuals
actively performing indoor exercise, provided all other applicable City
requirements are met and all requirements of the State of Minnesota
are met.
(2) Individuals shall only be required to wear a facial covering in multi-family
residential buildings and multi-tenant office buildings when in common areas
of the building, including but not limited to hallways, corridors, lobbies,
restrooms, mail rooms, elevators, laundry rooms, and other spaces owned or
used in common by the residents, employees, or tenants of the building.
(3) Places of public accommodation may allow employees to remove face
coverings when the individual is within any area that is not open to the public
and the individual is not within six feet of another person, provided all other
applicable City requirements are met and all requirements of the State of
Minnesota are met.
Ordinance No. 685 4 July 21, 2020
(4) With respect to polling locations, no voter may be told to leave the premises
for refusal to wear a mask.
Section 4. Enforcement.
Violation of this ordinance is not a criminal offense; however:
(a) Businesses, organizations, and property owners shall ask any individual who fails to
comply with this ordinance to leave the premises. If the individual refuses to leave,
the business, organization, or property owner may seek assistance from law
enforcement and law enforcement may enforce trespassing laws or any other laws
the individual may violate.
(b) A violation of this ordinance by an individual, a business, an organization or a
property owner may be enforced by the issuance of a warning letter or administrative
citation pursuant to Golden Valley City Code, section 1-9.
(c) Businesses, organizations, and property owners may rely on an individual’s
statements if the individual claims to be exempt from this Ordinance due to age,
medical condition, disability, or developmental reasons.
(d) Any business, organization, or property owner violating this ordinance may be subject
to administrative action upon any licenses issued by the City.
(e) This ordinance supersedes inconsistent or conflicting provisions of the City Code and
any resolution or ordinance while this ordinance remains in effect. To the extent that
this ordinance directly conflicts with Emergency Executive Order 20-74 of Minnesota
Governor Tim Walz, or any subsequent emergency order of Governor Walz that
supersedes or replaces Executive Order 20-74, the language of the Emergency
Executive Order shall take precedence.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be effective as of 11:59 p.m. on July 28, 2020. The ordinance shall
expire on the earliest of:
(a) The termination of the local emergency to which it relates;
(b) The issuance of an executive order by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz that mandates
the wearing of face coverings for any geographic area that includes the City of
Golden Valley.
(c) The repeal of this ordinance by the City Council.
Adopted by the City Council this 21st day of July, 2020.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Kristine A. Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEETINGS AND EVENTS
Three or more Council Members may attend the following
JULY
19 Market in the Valley 9 am-1 pm City Hall Campus
20 League of Women’s Voter Golden Valley Candidate 6:30 pm - GOP candidates Held Virtually via CCX Media
Forum for the Congressional District 5 8 pm - DFL candidates
21 Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting 6:30 pm Held Virtually
21 City Council Meeting Following HRA Held Virtually
23 Golden Valley Business Meeting 8:30-10 am Held Virtually
26 Market in the Valley 9 am-1 pm City Hall Campus
28 Building An Equitable Golden Valley: A Discussion 6-7:30 pm Held Virtually
With City Leadership
AUGUST
2 Market in the Valley 9 am-1 pm City Hall Campus
4 City Council Meeting 6:30 pm Held Virtually
(2020 Minnesota Night to Unite has been moved from Tuesday, August 4 to Tuesday, October 6)