02-10-2020
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
January 27, 2020, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
4. Discussion – Tobacco Sales
5. Discussion – Narrow Lots
‐‐Short Recess‐‐
6. Council Liaison Report
7. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals, and other meetings
8. Other Business
9. Adjournment
February 10, 2020 – 7 pm
Council Chambers
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Blum
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Ari
Prohofsky, Ryan Sadeghi, and Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioners absent:
Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planner Myles Campbell
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Segelbaum, seconded by Baker to approve the agenda of January 27, 2020, as
submitted and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Blum, asked for a motion to approve the minutes from January 13, 2020.
Commissioner Johnson requested an edit to page six when he referenced the bylaws for the
Planning Commission, the perceived direction of the group, and the environmental exception.
As a result, there was a consensus to strike the following section from the January 13th, 2020
minutes:
Zimmerman mentioned the zoning chapter in the city code creates an overlap in responsibility as it states:
Sec. 113‐2. ‐ Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to regulate land use within the City, including the
location, size, use, and height of buildings, the arrangement of buildings on lots, and
the density of population within the City for the purpose of promoting the health,
safety, order, convenience, and general welfare of all citizens of the City.
Therefore, this topic is relatable to the Planning Commission as defined by Sec. 113‐2.
Johnson requested an edit to page five, within the tobacco ordinance item. Johnson requested adding to
public record his vocalization that adding draft language and edits of an ordinance was not relevant to
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
Council Chambers
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
2
the Planning Commission but that the final language was. Johnson restated that he disagreed with
providing the draft language as that is policy related and not Planning Commission related.
As a result, the following section was added for clarity:
Commissioner Johnson asked if the City has already approved licensing changes related to tobacco sales and
Campbell responded affirmatively and reminded the commissioners the information is in their agenda packet.
Based on the fact that the license and ordinance changes were approved, Johnson asked why the redlined
draft document was presented to the Planning Commission. Campbell responded that he added the draft so
the commissioners could see what the old language was and what the new approved language is. He expanded
that the Planning Commission is not approving any language changes in the licensing or the ordinance.
Johnson made a final comment that the group was not presently discussing the changes in the ordinance or
the licensing requirements.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Pockl to approve the January 13,
2019, minutes after edits and the motion carried.
4. Continued Informal Public Hearing – CUP Amendment
Applicant: Health Care Plus, Inc.
Address: 800 Boone Avenue North
Purpose: To modify an existing condition that limits the use of Boone Ave for loading,
unloading, and parking of buses and vans
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the Commission that the following presentation and
conversation is a continuation of one started in December 2019. By way of background, the operators
are requesting an amendment to the current CUP in order to modify a condition that prohibits the use of
Boone Ave for loading, unloading, and parking of vehicles related to the adult day care business. This
amendment to the CUP occurred in 2018, due to safety concerns, and required loading, unloading, and
parking of vans and buses to take place in the parking lot.
Zimmerman continued that after a tour and conversations, the applicant has stressed the need for
Boone Ave access to continue due to restrictions imposed by the parking lot and the building access
point from the lot. The applicant has indicated that 26 buses/vans arrive on Boone Avenue in the
morning over a period of about an hour (7:50 am to 8:55 am). The timing is staggered so that only two
vehicles arrive at a time; it takes 5‐10 minutes to unload each vehicle. In the afternoon, 20 buses/vans
arrive between 1:40 and 2:45 pm to pick up clients. During the day, approximately 8 vehicles depart and
return between the hours of 10:00 am and 12:30 pm; in the summer, additional field trips occur
between 10:00 am and 1:30 pm. Each of these individual trips require a bus or van to be parked on
Boone Avenue for approximately 30 minutes.
After laying out zoning and engineering considerations, Zimmerman stated staff supports the request to
continue loading and unloading on the east side of Boone Ave, with the caveat that future restrictions
may be imposed in light of the pending conversation around on‐street bicycle lanes. In 2020 it is likely
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
3
parking will be removed from Boone because on‐street bike lanes will be added and staff believes it’s
advantageous to the applicant to plan for an area to load/unload on site.
Based on the findings, staff recommends approval of the amended CUP, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The adult day care shall be limited to 350 clients, as specified by the Minnesota
Department of Human Services license issued August 1, 2019.
2. All necessary licenses obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and
the Minnesota Department of Health shall be kept current.
3. The hours of normal operation for the adult day care shall be from 7 am to 5:30 pm,
Monday thru Friday.
4. The adult day care facilities shall not be used for any activities that are not permitted
in the Zoning Code.
5. Subject to any additional posted traffic regulations, all vans and buses shall be loaded
and unloaded along the east side of Boone Avenue. No vans or buses shall be loaded,
unloaded, or parked along the west side of Boone Avenue. No vans or buses may be
parked in the angled parking stalls or in the first 21 perpendicular stalls located south of
the building along the drive aisle.
6. No alcohol shall be served or distributed on‐site without first obtaining the proper
license or permit.
7. All outdoor trash and recycling containers shall be screened in a manner acceptable
to the Physical Development Department.
8. The applicant shall provide an on‐site bicycle rack allowing parking for a minimum of
five bicycles.
9. The requirements found in the memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and
Zoning, from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, and dated May 17, 2011, shall become
a part of these requirements.
10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
Failure to comply with one of more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP.
Commissioner Baker asked when the CUP amendment with the modified condition regarding loading
and unloading was added. Zimmerman responded in October/November of 2018. Baker followed up
with asking if staff now thought that amendment was a mistake. Zimmerman responded that in 2018
staff recommended limiting loading and unloading to the east side of Boone and the Commission
adopted the broader parking lot restriction. Baker reiterated his question and Zimmerman responded in
the affirmative and without findings of a safety issue, staff recommends approval of the current
amendment.
Commissioner Segelbaum mentioned previous confusion on if the applicant was the business owner or
the property owner. He followed up by asking if the CUP should more clearly state which owner is
responsible for the conditions. Zimmerman responded that in a situation where a building has multiple
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
4
tenants, either the property or business owner can apply. Both the property owner and the operator are
present for the CUP Amendment agenda item.
Zimmerman continued on to specific conditions mentioned by the commissioner and gave examples of
amended word choices to assist in clarification.
Segelbaum followed up by asking if the operator were to leave, would the CUP follow the operator or
the property. Zimmerman stated that the CUP is filed with the county so it’ll stay at the property. In the
event that there is a violation, the property owner is responsible.
If the business owner is the one to apply for a CUP, then the property owner signs it, stating
acknowledgement. Therefore either entity can apply but the property owner is responsible for violations
to the CUP.
The discussion continued into the cap for the number of clients at the facility and who determines that
number. Staff reminded the commissioners that previous conditions stated the Department of Human
Services would determine that client cap as they’re issuing the operating license. The cap on the
operator’s current license is 350 clients; staff said they hadn’t considered reducing that cap to then
create the city’s own limit, but rather looked into further enforcing the current cap. This conversation
evolved to addressing the operating hours; the city’s condition is a weekday window of 7:30‐5:30 and
the operator is choosing to operate from 8‐4:30 weekdays.
Chair Blum invited the applicant and operator to make comments.
Christine Eid, attorney on behalf of Healthcare Plus, introduced herself and then introduced Inessa
Marinov from Healthcare Plus, and Randy Engel, the architect for the same company. Eid reminded the
commissioners that they were before the Commission in December 2019 and after a series of poignant
questions raised, they accepted a continuance to collect the necessary information to reappear. Eid
thanked staff for their work through this process and the report presented before the Commission. Eid
went on to address the discussed violation to the CUP granted in 2007 to allow for an adult daycare
facility in the 800 Boone Ave building. Eid went on to read Golden Valley City Code as it pertains to adult
daycare facilities and concluded that all clients at this operation qualify without further evaluation. Part
of the daily accommodations include providing the most accessible and shortest path from the buses to
their daily activities. This accommodation necessitates utilizing the east side of Boone for bus drop offs
and pick‐ups.
Eid went on to address the violation to the CUP granted in 2007. This was not an operator violation, but
lead to an amendment in 2018 to prohibit drop‐off/pick‐up on the east side of Boone, which did directly
and negatively impact the operator. Eid addressed the conditions listed in the staff presentation and
their team agrees to work with city staff and the planning commission to cap the cliental at 350. The
team would like to amend condition number five due to its broad nature and would like to participate in
conversations with the city to ensure a bike lane may co‐exist with regular drop‐offs and pick‐ups.
Randy Engel, Healthcare Plus Architect, presented a map of the 800 Boone building and listed minimal
physical characteristics for an adult day care facility. Engel elaborated on the building structure and its
split between businesses, he added that not every door to the building equates direct access to
Healthcare Plus. Engel went on to explain the space requirements to accommodate the current cliental
as well as the space options already considered by the operator in order to accommodate future possible
clients.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
5
Commissioner Segelbaum asked if the team has discussed edits to the fifth condition with city staff and
how they concluded the line item “Subject to any additional posted traffic regulations,” meant removal
of vehicle access due to a bike lane. Eid responded that while she doesn’t specifically know that is what it
means, she understands a bike lane on Boone is being discussed and would like her team to be part of
that conversation. Eid went on to state that she knows the City has full right to the right of way but
currently she would like to see that condition item be silent.
Commissioner Brookins asked what the future intent is for the number of people being served. The
operator responded that the intent is to serve the cap number of people, per the license granted by the
Department of Human Services. The company has the staff, space, and met requirements to meet the
needs to serve 350 people. Currently the organization serves 241 clients.
Blum noted that the required public hearing for this item occurred in December of 2019 and at the time
of this meeting, attendees of the meeting consisted of: City staff, Commissioners, Applicant and team,
and City Council Member. Segelbaum made a motion to open the floor for a public hearing and at 8:19
pm, Chair Blum formally opened the floor for a public hearing. No comments were made and the hearing
was closed.
Segelbaum commented that originally tabling this item was so the applicant and City staff could come to
a compromise. He believes the applicant has a point about the condition they addressed and
commented that the City Attorney may be the best person to address it. With that in mind, Segelbaum
believes it may be premature for the Planning Commission to address the agenda item. Baker and
Brookins echoed Segelbaum. Segelbaum asked for the time limit on responding to the applicant and
Zimmerman responded that it needed to be to City Council by February 22nd or the applicant would need
to agree to an extension in writing. Brookins commented that he’d like to make a determination today
and that will give staff time to make recommendations when this item is presented to City Council.
Commissioner Pockl echoed this statement. Commissioner Baker commented that putting a transition
plan in place for the applicant when a bike lane occurs may be beneficial.
The conversation continued on to the possibility of capping the clients at a number below the cap
provided by the MN Dept. of Human Services. Concerns about this Commission’s authority to override
the Dept. of Health’s cliental cap was raised. Commissioner Sadeghi pointed out that the concern for this
committee was traffic related and therefore instead of capping the client number, could client
transportation be reconfigured so the number of drop‐offs could be capped. Staff replied that it’s
possible but there is concern about who would enforce that cap on vehicles.
This conversation moved on to condition five, as addressed by the applicant.
The applicant/operator chimed in and added that during the architect’s presentation, he showed that
open space for new clients is in the back of the building. Therefore, any addition of clients, will be loaded
and unloaded in the parking lot by way of following the operator’s policy of providing the most
accessible and shortest path from the buses to their daily activities. An increase in clients will not cause a
direct impact on Boone Ave. Blum stated that based on the drawing provided, it appears the capacity
will increase in the front of the building, directly accessible by Boone Ave.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
6
Commissioner Johnson stated that according to the Secretary of State Website, all the organizations in
800 Boone Ave are related to one another. Because of that, it’s disingenuous for the applicant to assert
that there’s nothing to be done, internally, to accommodate the conditions. Johnson added that it seems
within the purview of the Planning Commission to discuss condition five and if the City Attorney
determines that’s inaccurate, then the Commission should be given a finding to support that.
Zimmerman asked the Commission to address the two questions posed:
1. If the Commission was interested in amending the condition to allow or not allow use of the east
side of Boone for loading and unloading.
2. Regardless of that choice, is there any consideration for a cap on the number of clients to be
served, even if it’s lower than the current number of clients allowed on their residence.
Regardless of the choice there should be reasonable findings to support the decision.
Baker stated he’s opposed to revising condition five as requested by the applicant. Blum is concerned
about loading and unloading on the west side of the street, crossing the street for this cliental is
inherently dangerous. It’s reasonable to restrict loading/unloading to the east side of the street. Pockl
echoed Blum’s statement and added that the loading/unloading may occur on the street but to
encourage use of the parking lot.
Commissioners continued their conversation on if they should cap the number of clients aside from the
current DHS license the applicant holds. The conversation moved back to the impact of loading and
unloading of vehicles on Boone and what the impact of the city is and evolved on to if a traffic study
would help create a solution. Pockl circled back to the original recommendation and stated that the
commission still hasn’t shown findings to support forbidding loading/unloading on Boone. Brookins
added that car dealerships are not allowed to load and unload on the street in front of the business.
Blum noted a parking restriction on Boone based on its proximity to Hwy 55 is reasonable.
MOTION made by Baker, to accept the recommendations of city staff with the exception that condition
five is not included; to prohibit loading and unloading on Boone. Motion was seconded by Brookins, with
an amendment to return some language from the 2007 CUP regarding client numbers to be determined
by DHS and approved by the City. Brookins suggested that cap be determined at 350. Baker accepted
that amendment to his motion. Zimmerman added that the commission can’t strike condition five but
can choose to not accept the amended language to condition five.
Johnson suggested to remove the first sentence in the condition and change no parking on the west side
of Boone to say entirety of Boone. Baker withdrew his motion. Blum asked for a new motion.
MOTION made by Johnson to accept the recommendations made by staff, regarding the CUP, with the
exception of condition 5, to then look like this:
5. Subject to any additional posted traffic regulations, all vans and buses shall be loaded
and unloaded along the east side of Boone Avenue. No vans or buses shall be loaded,
unloaded, or parked along the west side entirety of Boone Avenue. No vans or buses
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
7
may be parked in the angled parking stalls or in the first 21 perpendicular stalls located
south of the building along the drive aisle.
Brookins seconded this motion. Approval of the motion went to vote and was failed 3‐4.
Ayes: Baker, Brookins, Johnson
Nays: Blum, Pockl, Sadeghi, Segelbaum
Based on that denial, Blum asked for a further motion.
MOTION made by Blum to accept staff recommendation and approve the CUP application and to not
amend condition 1 but to amend condition 2 to replace the word “by” with “from”. Condition five is
accepted with edits, so condition five reads:
5. Subject to any additional posted traffic regulations, all vans and buses shall may be loaded
and unloaded along the east side of Boone Avenue. No vans or buses shall be loaded, unloaded,
or parked along the west side of Boone Avenue. No vans or buses may be parked in the angled
parking stalls, or in the first 21 perpendicular stalls located south of the building along the drive
aisle, or on the east side of Boone Ave.
Segelbaum seconded this motion and the motion was approved 4‐3.
Ayes: Blum, Pockl, Sadeghi, Segelbaum
Nays: Baker, Brookins, Johnson
Zimmerman stated the February 18th City Council meeting will receive this information.
5. DISCUSSION – Narrow Lots
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, presented a summary of the public forum held at Golden
Valley City Hall, on January 16th, 2020.
Zimmerman listed the specific items City Council directed to the Planning Commission.
Investigate possible modifications to the City Code for narrow lot development
Focus on lots 50’ wide or less but note ideas that might apply more broadly
Involve outside experts – realtors, architects, and builders
Solicit resident feedback
Aim to bring forward recommendations before the spring building season
Zimmerman followed with a list of items already addressed and presented the Commission with a
revised timeline of events. City Council will hold a public hearing on this topic on April 7th.
Public Forum Summary:
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
8
Divided into three parts
1. Overview of study
2. Small group discussion
a. City Staff provided a few questions as conversation starters.
3. Large group report out and Q&A
a. Commonly raised issues revolved around height restrictions, setbacks, impact on
residents, green space and trees.
Next steps include addressing non‐zoning regulations and policy questions that arose at the meeting
and looking at the purview of the BZA for variances to ensure consistency.
Commissioner Baker commented that height restrictions and the resulted shading of neighbors
seems to be a top concern. Baker revisited the comments from a local builder on the public forum
panel who suggested height restriction were possible while introducing dormers for space. Baker
stated that it seems possible to find a solution that won’t restrict the purchase of and building on
narrow lots while also ensuring quality of life for neighboring residents. Commissioner Pockl echoed
this statement and asked staff for optional solutions versus the Commission inventing their own
ideas for solutions. Zimmerman presented a list of such options.
Develop language around incentivizing reduction in height in exchange for dormer space
Increase some side yard setbacks
Lower maximum lot coverage and/or impervious percentages to preserve open space
Eliminate two stall garage requirements similar to R2 single‐family zoning regulations
Reduce existing secondary front yard setbacks on corner lots in order to eliminate need for
variances
Baker mentioned the desire to require the preservation of old trees in conjunction with
developments. Pockl asked how many houses on narrow lots have alley access and what the process
to construct an alley is. Zimmerman responded he can provide that information but that public and
builder feedback shies away from creating alleys. Chair Blum stated that bringing BZA into alignment
with resident preferences is a priority. In conjunction, there are points to consider with
comprehensive plan consistency, zoning elements, and essential character elements that are all
reflected in City ordinances. Blum stated that the setback consideration he’s gravitating towards are
larger than historically seen: 10 ft setbacks on a 40 ft wide lot. This considerations seems consistent
with resident feedback while setting the city up for flexibility in development in the future. Blum
continued that while incentivizing houses to reduce height is reasonable, he suggests incentives to
reduce tax parcel division of larger lots all together. Commissioner Brookins stated that he thinks the
setbacks are satisfactory but that the focus should be height requirements, building envelope, and
neighborhood character preservation. Commissioner Segelbaum stated the need for precise
language and the clear differentiation between subdivision and tax parcel division.
Television portion of the meeting concluded at 10:06pm
‐‐Short Recess‐‐
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 27, 2020 – 7 pm
9
6. Council Liaison Report
Gillian Rosenquist introduced herself as the new City Council liaison to the Planning Commission. Council
Member Rosenquist gave a brief description of her background on the City Council and other
committees. She praised the Planning Commission for their ongoing work and asked for their thoughts
on how the Council Liaison role could be improved to provide more information to Commissioners.
Rosenquist provided additional information on upcoming projects and items, including: potential BRT
along Highway 55, upcoming bonding projects, and the City Council’s goal setting meeting for 2020.
7. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals, and other meetings
No other reports were given.
8. Other Business
Staff provided a brief update on some upcoming goals of the City’s HRA.
9. Adjournment
MOTION made by Commissioner Pockl, seconded by Commissioner Baker and the motion carried
unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:27 pm.
________________________________
Adam Brookins, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
1
Date: February 10, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: Zoning Code Text Amendment – Discussion – Amending Zoning Districts to
Regulate Tobacco Sales
Summary
Recognizing the role of the City as a promoter of public health, and hearing a growing concern
throughout the state around youth tobacco consumption, the Golden Valley City Council asked
the Planning Commission to consider amendments to the City’s zoning code regarding tobacco
sales. After initial discussion of the topic at its January 11th meeting, the Planning Commission
decided to focus on providing proximity restrictions between tobacco retailers and uses that are
typically considered “youth‐oriented facilities” such as schools or parks. After this initial
discussion, staff has created additional mapping scenarios to illustrate what these types of
potential proximity restrictions could look like.
Requested Action
Staff is seeking consensus from Commissioners on the zoning category or uses that will carry
tobacco proximity restrictions, and what the distance of those restrictions should be.
Background
After the first Planning Commission discussion on the topic, staff highlighted three major
takeaways:
In looking at what zoning districts should allow tobacco retailers, Commissioners were
supportive of allowing the use solely in the Commercial district.
Commissioners were more interested in proximity restrictions for tobacco retailers from
youth‐oriented facilities rather than between multiple tobacco retailers.
Commissioners wanted a variety of examples and flexibility with the definition of youth‐
oriented facilities.
2
Youth Facilities
Based on these takeaways, staff produced scenario maps that laid out options for varying levels
of proximity restrictions, this time only using future commercial land as eligible locations for a
tobacco retailer to locate. The maps illustrate the potential “no sale” areas around defined youth‐
oriented facilities. Staff first applied the proximity restriction to the future land use and zoning
categories of assembly and parks – Scenarios A, B, C, D, and G. These future zoning categories
were selected because they contained permitted uses such as schools, ballfields, playgrounds,
and community centers, which typically are considered youth‐oriented facilities.
In addition to the scenarios that used future zoning categories, staff also divided the restricted
uses beyond their zoning designation for scenarios that more narrowly defined the scope of
youth‐oriented facilities. For example, in Scenarios E and F, churches and parks without active
recreation facilities were removed and no longer had a proximity restriction buffer. In Scenario H,
a single large buffer was provided from schools, athletic fields and playgrounds.
Comparing scenarios that use pre‐defined zoning districts and those with a uniquely defined set
of youth‐oriented facilities, both have their pros and cons. If the City chose to base its proximity
restrictions off zoning districts, similar to its handling of firearm sales, it is a much simpler process
of confirming that a new business is meeting its proximity restrictions. The standardization also
ensures that the ordinance will be applied in an identical fashion, as it leaves less room for
interpretation or confusion in the future. The downside is that by virtue of including all assembly
and park uses, you may also include uses that don’t typically attract youth activity.
For a customized approach, the opposite is true. The City has more latitude to set which types of
sites and uses should carry proximity restrictions. It also can allow the City to set different
distance requirements for uses that may otherwise share a zoning district. For example, a higher
proximity restriction could be set on schools versus recreation centers. However, this added
detail and complexity has its own effects. Greater complexity means more staff hours put into
managing compliance when new applications for tobacco retailers are received.
Proximity Buffer Width
Among all the scenarios a variety of options were provided in terms of the distance to be
provided between youth facilities and tobacco retailers. Distances used generally fell between
500 and 1200 feet; anything less felt ineffective and anything greater would eliminate more
commercial areas. Mapping staff generally found that parks were located throughout the City
such that they had a greater impact on the commercial land available for future tobacco retailers.
This was true at both the high and low end of the distance range. One potential solution found
was to eliminate natural or scenic recreational parks and private golf courses. Assembly uses had
more flexibility to employ distances on the higher range of the scale without unduly affecting
available land for tobacco retailers.
Recommendations
3
Staff will draft a preliminary round of ordinance language based on the direction and consensus
of the Planning Commission. Staff is looking for consensus among Commissioners on the
following:
1. Should proximity restrictions be based off of a zoning category, or a defined set of uses?
2. If defining a set of Youth‐Oriented Facilities or other set of uses, what should be included?
3. What should the distance of the proximity restriction be?
To direct this discussion staff is presenting two recommended options or scenarios to
Commissioners:
Option A: Tobacco retailers carry a proximity restriction in relation to the Assembly and Parks &
Open Space zoning districts. This would be implemented with a 750’ buffer from properties
zoned assembly and 500’ buffer from parks. Scenario D (attached).
Option B: Tobacco retailers carry a 1000’ proximity restriction from any youth‐oriented facility
(includes only schools, playgrounds, athletic fields). Scenario H (attached).
Attachments
Maps of Proximity Buffers (8 pages)
k
k
k
k
k k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
Medic
i
neLakeBranchIkePond
Colonial Pond
Ottawa Pond
Glen-woodPond
EgretPond
LilacPond
DuluthPond
St.CroixPond
Chicago Pond
LilacPond
Pond CTurners PondGlen 1 Pond
DuckPond
Loop EPond
Loop FPond Sweeney LakeWirth LakeTwin LakeB a s s ett Creek
Hampshire Pond
DecolaPond A
NorthRicePond
West RingPond Cortlawn Pond
DecolaPonds B & C
Westwood Lake
SchaperPond
SouthRicePond
East RingPond Bassett CreekDecolaPondE
DecolaPond F
BreckPond
NatchezPond
MinnaquaPond
WirthPond
Toledo/AngeloPond
HoneywellPond
StrawberryPond
DecolaPond D
Ba
s
s
e
tt Cr
e
e
k
BassettC
r
e
e
k
Basset
t Cr
eekBassettC re ek
BassettC reekSweeney L akeBranchSweeney Lake BranchNW LoopPondBoone Avenue PondMain Stem
Pond B
Pond C
Bassett Creek NatureArea Pond
Medicine Lake
BrookviewPond A
Hidden LakesPond 1
Pond 2A
Pond 2B
Pond 3
Schaper BallfieldPond
Pond O
Pond J
Spirit of Hope Church Pond
GoldenRidgePond
Golden Meadows Pond
SoccerFieldPond
WestPond
201GeneralMillsPond
HaroldPond
Medicine Lake Road Pond
Xenia MitigationPond
10th AvePond
SpringPond
Briar-woodPond
LaurelHills Pond
JFB NWPond
LogisPond
BrownieLake
BirchPond
MinnaquaWetland
GrimesPondBassett CreekPark Pond
SweeneyLakeBranchPond M
Pond F
Pond DPond E
BrookviewGolf Course
LionsPark
WesleyPark
Sochacki Park
SchaperPark
ScheidParkHampshirePark
MedleyPark
Briarwood
Laurel Avenue Greenbelt
Glenview TerracePark
North TyrolPark
Western AvenueMarsh
Nature
Area
GeartyPark
Sandburg AthleticFacility
NatchezPark
ValleyView ParkPennsylvaniaWoods
BassettCreekNature Area
WildwoodPark
IsaacsonPark
SouthTyrol Park
SeemanPark
AdelineNature Area
YosemitePark
StockmanPark
Golden OaksPark
St CroixPark
LakeviewPark
SweeneyPark
Perpich CenterBall Fields
Ronald B. Davis Community Center
Brookview Park
Westwood HillsNature Center (SLP)
(MPRB)
Theodore WirthRegional Park
Eloise Butler WildflowerGarden and Bird Sanctuary
Wirth LakeBeach
Golden RidgeNature Area
General Mills NaturePreserve
General Mills ResearchNature Area
BooneOpenSpace
GoldenHills Pond
MadisonPond
SouthTyrolPond
LibraryHill
IdahoWetland
GeorgiaOpen Space
ArdmoreNorth&SouthPonds
JanalynPond
MeadowPond
O p en S p ace
OrklaOpenSpace
PicnicPavilion
Chalet
SochackiPark (Three Rivers Park Dist.)
Bassett Valley Open Space
ByrdBluffOpenSpace
→
FishingDock
PaisleyPark
XeniaOpenSpace
DahlbergOpenSpace
Minnaqua Greenbelt
(TRPD)
(Mpls Park & Rec Board)
Plymouth Avenue The Trailhead
456766
456770
456766
456740
456740
4567156
4567102
§¨¦394
§¨¦394
Æÿ55
Æÿ55
Æÿ100
Æÿ100
£¤169
£¤169
34th Ave N
Medicine Lake Rd
BroggerCir Knoll St Lilac Dr NLilac Dr NThotland Rd
Mendelssohn AveWinnetka Ave NSunnyridgeCir
Western Ave
(Wat
erfordDr)Hillsboro Ave NZealandAve
N
Aquila Ave NOrkla DrWisconsin Ave N23rd Ave N
KalternLn
Wynnwood Rd
25th Ave N
Bies DrJonellen Ln
Sumter Ave NRhodeIslandAveNPatsy Ln Valders Ave NWinnetka Ave NDuluth St Florida Ave NSandburg Rd HeritageCirKentley Ave
Wynnwood Rd
Kenneth Way
Unity Ave NB a s s e t t C r ee k DrQuailAveNScott Ave NLilac Dr NLowry Ter
33rd Ave N
Noble Ave NCross LnQuail Ave NScott Ave NRegent Ave NToledo Ave NIndiana Ave N(BridgewaterRd)(WaterfordCt)(Hid
d
e
n
LnkesPkwy)Meadow Ln NFrance Ave NTopel Rd
Unity Ave NPhoenix St
Parkview TerWelcomeAveNWelcomeC ir
Welcom
eAveNXeniaAveNZ
a
n
e Av
e
N
Lindsay St
St Croix Ave N
St Croix Ave N
Yosemite Ave NWolfberryLnBrunswick Ave NCounty Rd 102Westmore Way
Green Valley Rd
Louisiana Ave NKelly DrMaryland Ave NOlympia St
Winsdale St
Winnetka Ave NYukon CtWesleyDr WesleyDr
Plymouth Ave N
10th Ave N
Kelly DrVarner CirPennsylvania Ave NFaribault StQuebec Ave NRhode Island Ave NPhoenix St
Knoll St
County Rd 156Jersey Ave NCountryClubDr
P h o e n ix S tDouglas DrGeorgia Ave NCou
nty
Rd40
Hampshire Ave NWestch e sterCirJersey Ave NGardenParkQue
b
e
c
Av
e
SWinnetka Ave NWally St
Ensign Ave N7th Ave N
Golden Valley Rd Decatur Ave N10th Ave N
Natchez Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Olson Memorial Hwy
Cutacross Rd
Olson Memorial Hwy
Earl St
Flag Ave NHampshire
LnJersey Ave NFloridaAveNEdgewoodAve NDouglas DrDuluth Ln
Scott Ave N
Drake Rd
Lowry Ter Kyle Ave NQuail Ave NPerry Ave NNoble Ave NCulver Rd
Dawnview Ter
Dona Ln
Noble Ave NScottAveNGlendenTer
Culver Rd
Marie Ln W
Hampton Rd
RegentAveNPerryAveNLilac Dr N27th Ave N
Merribee Dr Kyle Ave NHampton RdOrchard Ave NMarie Ln E
Lee Ave NKyle Ave NDres
de
n
L
n
Kewanee Way
26th Ave N
Meridia
n D
r
P
ark
vie
w
Blv
d Terrace LnManor DrMcNair DrByrd Ave N
Bas
s
e
ttCreekDrMaryHillsDrZenith Ave NVista DrXerxes Ave NYork Ave NS t M a rg are t D rZephyr PlXerxes Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)(SkylineDr)Spruce TrKyle PlWestbrook Rd Noble Ave Frontage RdCircleDownOrchard Ave NPerryAveNWindsorWayWestbendRdUnity Ave NG reenviewLn
Regent Ave NSorell Ave
FrontenacAveQuail Ave NStCroixAve N
Winsdale St StCroixCirAngelo DrUnity Ave NAlfred Rd Spring Valley RdN
o
bl
e
DrMajor DrAdeline LnAngelo DrAngelo DrWills PlToledo Ave NOttawa Ave NKillarney DrZane Ave NWoodstock Ave Woodstock Ave
Loring LnYosemiteAveN
Turners Crossroad NWestchesterCirN
F
r
ontageRdFlorida Ave NHampshire Ave NPlymouth Ave N
Idaho Ave NOlympia StHampshire Ave NArcher Ave NKelly DrPennsylvania Ave NDuluth St Xylon Ave NWisconsin Ave NSumter Ave NBoone Ave NWinsdale St
Meadow Ln N
DahlbergD r
Woodstock Ave
Poplar Dr Meadow Ln NChatelain Ter
Natchez Ave NEdgewood Ave NK i ng s t o n C i r
Glenwood Ave
Country Club DrValdersAveNOrkla DrElgin PlDecaturAveN
Indiana Ave NRoanoke CirWestern Ave Western Ave
Harold Ave
Loring Ln
WestwoodDrNArdmoreDrWinsdale St
Knoll St
Oak Grove CirDuluth St Zane Ave NDouglas Dr27th Ave N
B
on
nieLn
Medicine Lake Rd
Madison Ave W
Nevada Ave NLouisiana Ave NCounty Rd 70
ValdersAve NValders Ave N23rd Ave N Rhode IslandAve NCounty Rd 156Medicine Lake Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinsdale St
St Croix Ave N June Ave NLegend DrLegendLn
General Mills BlvdBoone Ave NSunnyridge LnGlenwood Ave
Janalyn CirJanalyn CirGlencrest Rd Meadow Ln SWayzata BlvdWestwood Dr SWestwoodLn
StrawberryLnOttawa Ave NOttawa Ave SNatchez Ave S Tyrol Crest
SussexRdJune Ave SWayzata Blvd
FairlawnWayNatchez Ave SOttawa Ave SPrincetonAve SDouglas Ave
Circle DownTurners Crossroad SGolden Hills Dr
Laurel AveLaurel Ave
Hampshire Ave SDakota Ave SBrunswick Ave SKing Hill RdGlenwood Ave
Colonial Dr
Medicine Lake Rd
FloridaAveSAlley
Market StMarket St
Louisiana Ave SLaurel AvePennsylvania Ave SRhode Island Ave SSumter Ave SUtah Ave SGregory Rd
VermontAve SWi
sco
nsi
n
AveSGeneral Mills BlvdHanley RdRidgeway Rd
Laurel Ave QubecAve S County Rd 102Nevada Ave SColonial RdLouisianaAveSKentucky Ave SJersey Ave SHeathbrookeCir
G le n w o o d P k w y
(Carriage Path)Xenia Ave SFlorida CtLilacDr
NOlson Memorial Hwy
Schaper Rd
Lilac Dr NG o ld en V a lle y R d
Lilac Dr N(WoodlandTrail)(Wat.Dr)
BassettCreek Ln
(NobleDr)France Ave S (Mpls)N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd Olson Mem HwyAdair Ave NAdair Ave NWestbrookRd
34th Ave N
Mendelssohn Ave NAlley-Unimproved--Unimproved-
Wayzata Blvd
Wayzata BlvdBoone Ave NG o ld e nValley D rSchullerCirN Fr on t ag e Rd S F r o n ta g e R d
Rhode IslandAve N Pennsylvania Ave SAlley
Alley
(Private)AlleyAlleyLilac Dr NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Harold Ave WestwoodDr
N
Ardmore DrT
h
e
o
d
o
re
Wirth
P
k
w
y
Tyrol Tr(Mendelssohn Ln)AlleyS Frontage Rd
Al
pinePassBrenner
Pa
ssDougl a s Ave
QuentinAveSTyrol TrailTyrol
Tra ilSunsetRidge
Westw
oodDrS
RavineTrTyrol
Tr
ail
Janalyn C irMaddusLn
MeadowLnS
AvondaleRdBurntsideDr Su nnyridgeLnBru
n
s
wickAveNLeberLn
C lo v e rle afDrCloverLnC
loverleafD
r TheodoreWirthPkwyBeverly Ave
B u rn tsideDrSpringValleyRdToledoAveN
DuluthSt
GoldenV alle y R dSpringValleyCirCounty Rd 66
(IslandDr)(IslandDr)GoldenValleyRd
TheodoreWirthPkwyW irth P k w y
Wayzat
a
Bl
vd
G le n w o o d P kwyPlymouthAve N (Mpls)ZenithAveNCr
est
vi
ewAve
Byr d A v e N
Hwy 55
Glenwood Ave
Bassett CreekDrLegend DrLeeAveNLeeAveNMajorAveNLeeAveNEl m daleRd
Adell A veM in n a quaDr M innaq uaD r
ToledoAveNOrdwayMarkayRidge Orchard Ave NNor m a n d y Pl
CherokeePlQuailAveNRegentAveNTri t o n D rTr ito n D r
L o w r y Ter
3
3rdAveN
SandburgLn Lamplighter
Ln
BrookridgeAveNValeCrestRdWinfieldAveCountyRd 66
ParkPlaceBlvd
(SLP)I-394SF r ontage Rd (SLP)Xeni
aAve
SCounty Rd 70
L ila cD rNLilacDrNLilacD
r
NConstanceDrWConstanceDrESandburg Rd
S Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd N Frontage RdOlsonMemorialHwy
S F r o n t a g e R d
O l s o n M e m o r i a l Hw y
OlsonMemorialHwy Valleywo
odCirYosemite CirLawn TerRadissonRd
Turnpike
RdAlley
AlleyTurnpikeRd Col
o
nialDr
GlenwoodAve
BrunswickAve NMeanderRd
MeanderRdIdahoAveNHaroldAve
Wayzata Blvd
I-394SFrontageRd
Edgewo
o
dAveSIdahoAveNCortlawnCirWCortlawn Cir S
CortlawnCirN
Dawnvie w TerCounty Rd 70
EdgewoodAveSK in g CreekRdKentu
ckyAveNLouisianaAveNMarylandAve SRhodeIslandAveSRidgewayRdEwaldTe rWestern Ter
FieldD r Brookview Pk w y N Harold Ave
HalfMoonDr
RidgewayRdG oldenValleyR d (B assett Creek
Blvd)Lewis Rd
10thAveN
EllisLn
P lym outhA v eN Plymouth Ave N
Faribault St
OrklaDrCastleCt Winnetka Heights D rKelly
Dr
Maryland
Av
eNHampshire Pl
OlympiaSt
Oregon Ave NQuebecAveNValdersAveNOrklaDrKnoll StWisconsinA
veNWinsdaleSt
Mandan
AveNCounty Rd 102AquilaAveNAquila
A
veNZealandAveNJulianne Ter Jul ia n neTerPatsy Ln
WisconsinAveNAquilaAveNWestbendRd
WinnetkaHeightsDr
ZealandAveNOrklaDrValdersCtValdersAve NWinnetkaHeights Dr
Aq uilaAveNZealandAveNS c ottAveNRose
ManorDuluthSt
Duluth St CavellAveNEnsignAveNElg in Pl
23rd Ave N
Medley L n
(Medley Rd)
(Medley C ir)H illsboroAveN(English Cir)(MayfairR
d
)
(Kin
g
s
V a lleyRd)(K ings
V
al
leyRdE)(KingsValleyRd W)
(Stro
d
en
Cir)(Tamarin Tr)
(Mar
qui
sRd)
Ski Hill
Rd MajorCirLeeAveNMajorAveNRhodeIslandAveNG o ld e n V a lle yR d
G o ld e n V a lle yR d
G o ld e n V a lle y R d
Hwy100Hwy100Hwy1
0
0Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100Hwy 394
Hwy394 Hwy394
Hwy 394 Hwy394ColoradoAve NHwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Colorado Ave SGoldenHil l s DrPaisleyLnPaisleyLn
I-394NFrontageRd I-394 N FrontageRd
WayzataBlvd
I-394SFrontag e Rd
York
A
veNValeryRdW
asatchLn
Hwy 55
Hwy 55
H w y 55
Olson Memorial HwyHwy 55
H wy 5 5
County Rd 40
County Rd 40 Glenwoo d A ve
County R d 4 0
CountyRd40
GoldenValleyRd
C o unty Rd 66ManchesterDr
County Rd 156OregonAveS24thAve N
LilacDrNRoanokeRdLouisianaAveN
Turnpike RdLilacLoop (Sunnyridge Ln)WisconsinAveN
GettysburgCt(LaurelPt)
(Laurel Curv)Independence Ave NGettysburg Ave NFlag Ave NWheelerBlvdAlleyNaper St
Be tty CrockerDr Decatur Ave N(WesleyCommonsDr)Winnetka Ave S Winnetka Ave SHanley RdBrookviewPkwySWayzataBlvd
I-394 S Frontag e R d
Olympia St
Independence Ave NHillsboro Ave NGettysburg Ave NCity of Golden Valley7800 Golden Valley RoadGolden Valley, MN 55427-4588763-593-8030www.goldenvalleymn.gov
Tobacco Sales
0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200400
Feet
IPrint Date: 12/3/2019
Sources:
-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2019)
-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.
Scenario A
k Existing Tobacco License
Sale Restrictions
Assembly - 500 ft buffer
Parks and Natural Areas - 500 ft buffer
No Sale Property Buffer
Commercial (63)
Sales Allowed - Full Property (25)
Sales Allowed - Partial Property (22)
Sales Disallowed - Partial Property (22)
Sales Disallowed - Full Property (16)
k
k
k
k
k k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
Medic
i
neLakeBranchIkePond
Colonial Pond
Ottawa Pond
Glen-woodPond
EgretPond
LilacPond
DuluthPond
St.CroixPond
Chicago Pond
LilacPond
Pond CTurners PondGlen 1 Pond
DuckPond
Loop EPond
Loop FPond Sweeney LakeWirth LakeTwin LakeB a s s ett Creek
Hampshire Pond
DecolaPond A
NorthRicePond
West RingPond Cortlawn Pond
DecolaPonds B & C
Westwood Lake
SchaperPond
SouthRicePond
East RingPond Bassett CreekDecolaPondE
DecolaPond F
BreckPond
NatchezPond
MinnaquaPond
WirthPond
Toledo/AngeloPond
HoneywellPond
StrawberryPond
DecolaPond D
Ba
s
s
e
tt Cr
e
e
k
BassettC
r
e
e
k
Basset
t Cr
eekBassettC re ek
BassettC reekSweeney L akeBranchSweeney Lake BranchNW LoopPondBoone Avenue PondMain Stem
Pond B
Pond C
Bassett Creek NatureArea Pond
Medicine Lake
BrookviewPond A
Hidden LakesPond 1
Pond 2A
Pond 2B
Pond 3
Schaper BallfieldPond
Pond O
Pond J
Spirit of Hope Church Pond
GoldenRidgePond
Golden Meadows Pond
SoccerFieldPond
WestPond
201GeneralMillsPond
HaroldPond
Medicine Lake Road Pond
Xenia MitigationPond
10th AvePond
SpringPond
Briar-woodPond
LaurelHills Pond
JFB NWPond
LogisPond
BrownieLake
BirchPond
MinnaquaWetland
GrimesPondBassett CreekPark Pond
SweeneyLakeBranchPond M
Pond F
Pond DPond E
BrookviewGolf Course
LionsPark
WesleyPark
Sochacki Park
SchaperPark
ScheidParkHampshirePark
MedleyPark
Briarwood
Laurel Avenue Greenbelt
Glenview TerracePark
North TyrolPark
Western AvenueMarsh
Nature
Area
GeartyPark
Sandburg AthleticFacility
NatchezPark
ValleyView ParkPennsylvaniaWoods
BassettCreekNature Area
WildwoodPark
IsaacsonPark
SouthTyrol Park
SeemanPark
AdelineNature Area
YosemitePark
StockmanPark
Golden OaksPark
St CroixPark
LakeviewPark
SweeneyPark
Perpich CenterBall Fields
Ronald B. Davis Community Center
Brookview Park
Westwood HillsNature Center (SLP)
(MPRB)
Theodore WirthRegional Park
Eloise Butler WildflowerGarden and Bird Sanctuary
Wirth LakeBeach
Golden RidgeNature Area
General Mills NaturePreserve
General Mills ResearchNature Area
BooneOpenSpace
GoldenHills Pond
MadisonPond
SouthTyrolPond
LibraryHill
IdahoWetland
GeorgiaOpen Space
ArdmoreNorth&SouthPonds
JanalynPond
MeadowPond
O p en S p ace
OrklaOpenSpace
PicnicPavilion
Chalet
SochackiPark (Three Rivers Park Dist.)
Bassett Valley Open Space
ByrdBluffOpenSpace
→
FishingDock
PaisleyPark
XeniaOpenSpace
DahlbergOpenSpace
Minnaqua Greenbelt
(TRPD)
(Mpls Park & Rec Board)
Plymouth Avenue The Trailhead
456766
456770
456766
456740
456740
4567156
4567102
§¨¦394
§¨¦394
Æÿ55
Æÿ55
Æÿ100
Æÿ100
£¤169
£¤169
34th Ave N
Medicine Lake Rd
BroggerCir Knoll St Lilac Dr NLilac Dr NThotland Rd
Mendelssohn AveWinnetka Ave NSunnyridgeCir
Western Ave
(Wat
erfordDr)Hillsboro Ave NZealandAve
N
Aquila Ave NOrkla DrWisconsin Ave N23rd Ave N
KalternLn
Wynnwood Rd
25th Ave N
Bies DrJonellen Ln
Sumter Ave NRhodeIslandAveNPatsy Ln Valders Ave NWinnetka Ave NDuluth St Florida Ave NSandburg Rd HeritageCirKentley Ave
Wynnwood Rd
Kenneth Way
Unity Ave NB a s s e t t C r ee k DrQuailAveNScott Ave NLilac Dr NLowry Ter
33rd Ave N
Noble Ave NCross LnQuail Ave NScott Ave NRegent Ave NToledo Ave NIndiana Ave N(BridgewaterRd)(WaterfordCt)(Hid
d
e
n
LnkesPkwy)Meadow Ln NFrance Ave NTopel Rd
Unity Ave NPhoenix St
Parkview TerWelcomeAveNWelcomeC ir
Welcom
eAveNXeniaAveNZ
a
n
e Av
e
N
Lindsay St
St Croix Ave N
St Croix Ave N
Yosemite Ave NWolfberryLnBrunswick Ave NCounty Rd 102Westmore Way
Green Valley Rd
Louisiana Ave NKelly DrMaryland Ave NOlympia St
Winsdale St
Winnetka Ave NYukon CtWesleyDr WesleyDr
Plymouth Ave N
10th Ave N
Kelly DrVarner CirPennsylvania Ave NFaribault StQuebec Ave NRhode Island Ave NPhoenix St
Knoll St
County Rd 156Jersey Ave NCountryClubDr
P h o e n ix S tDouglas DrGeorgia Ave NCou
nty
Rd40
Hampshire Ave NWestch e sterCirJersey Ave NGardenParkQue
b
e
c
Av
e
SWinnetka Ave NWally St
Ensign Ave N7th Ave N
Golden Valley Rd Decatur Ave N10th Ave N
Natchez Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Olson Memorial Hwy
Cutacross Rd
Olson Memorial Hwy
Earl St
Flag Ave NHampshire
LnJersey Ave NFloridaAveNEdgewoodAve NDouglas DrDuluth Ln
Scott Ave N
Drake Rd
Lowry Ter Kyle Ave NQuail Ave NPerry Ave NNoble Ave NCulver Rd
Dawnview Ter
Dona Ln
Noble Ave NScottAveNGlendenTer
Culver Rd
Marie Ln W
Hampton Rd
RegentAveNPerryAveNLilac Dr N27th Ave N
Merribee Dr Kyle Ave NHampton RdOrchard Ave NMarie Ln E
Lee Ave NKyle Ave NDres
de
n
L
n
Kewanee Way
26th Ave N
Meridia
n D
r
P
ark
vie
w
Blv
d Terrace LnManor DrMcNair DrByrd Ave N
Bas
s
e
ttCreekDrMaryHillsDrZenith Ave NVista DrXerxes Ave NYork Ave NS t M a rg are t D rZephyr PlXerxes Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)(SkylineDr)Spruce TrKyle PlWestbrook Rd Noble Ave Frontage RdCircleDownOrchard Ave NPerryAveNWindsorWayWestbendRdUnity Ave NG reenviewLn
Regent Ave NSorell Ave
FrontenacAveQuail Ave NStCroixAve N
Winsdale St StCroixCirAngelo DrUnity Ave NAlfred Rd Spring Valley RdN
o
bl
e
DrMajor DrAdeline LnAngelo DrAngelo DrWills PlToledo Ave NOttawa Ave NKillarney DrZane Ave NWoodstock Ave Woodstock Ave
Loring LnYosemiteAveN
Turners Crossroad NWestchesterCirN
F
r
ontageRdFlorida Ave NHampshire Ave NPlymouth Ave N
Idaho Ave NOlympia StHampshire Ave NArcher Ave NKelly DrPennsylvania Ave NDuluth St Xylon Ave NWisconsin Ave NSumter Ave NBoone Ave NWinsdale St
Meadow Ln N
DahlbergD r
Woodstock Ave
Poplar Dr Meadow Ln NChatelain Ter
Natchez Ave NEdgewood Ave NK i ng s t o n C i r
Glenwood Ave
Country Club DrValdersAveNOrkla DrElgin PlDecaturAveN
Indiana Ave NRoanoke CirWestern Ave Western Ave
Harold Ave
Loring Ln
WestwoodDrNArdmoreDrWinsdale St
Knoll St
Oak Grove CirDuluth St Zane Ave NDouglas Dr27th Ave N
B
on
nieLn
Medicine Lake Rd
Madison Ave W
Nevada Ave NLouisiana Ave NCounty Rd 70
ValdersAve NValders Ave N23rd Ave N Rhode IslandAve NCounty Rd 156Medicine Lake Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinsdale St
St Croix Ave N June Ave NLegend DrLegendLn
General Mills BlvdBoone Ave NSunnyridge LnGlenwood Ave
Janalyn CirJanalyn CirGlencrest Rd Meadow Ln SWayzata BlvdWestwood Dr SWestwoodLn
StrawberryLnOttawa Ave NOttawa Ave SNatchez Ave S Tyrol Crest
SussexRdJune Ave SWayzata Blvd
FairlawnWayNatchez Ave SOttawa Ave SPrincetonAve SDouglas Ave
Circle DownTurners Crossroad SGolden Hills Dr
Laurel AveLaurel Ave
Hampshire Ave SDakota Ave SBrunswick Ave SKing Hill RdGlenwood Ave
Colonial Dr
Medicine Lake Rd
FloridaAveSAlley
Market StMarket St
Louisiana Ave SLaurel AvePennsylvania Ave SRhode Island Ave SSumter Ave SUtah Ave SGregory Rd
VermontAve SWi
sco
nsi
n
AveSGeneral Mills BlvdHanley RdRidgeway Rd
Laurel Ave QubecAve S County Rd 102Nevada Ave SColonial RdLouisianaAveSKentucky Ave SJersey Ave SHeathbrookeCir
G le n w o o d P k w y
(Carriage Path)Xenia Ave SFlorida CtLilacDr
NOlson Memorial Hwy
Schaper Rd
Lilac Dr NG o ld en V a lle y R d
Lilac Dr N(WoodlandTrail)(Wat.Dr)
BassettCreek Ln
(NobleDr)France Ave S (Mpls)N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd Olson Mem HwyAdair Ave NAdair Ave NWestbrookRd
34th Ave N
Mendelssohn Ave NAlley-Unimproved--Unimproved-
Wayzata Blvd
Wayzata BlvdBoone Ave NG o ld e nValley D rSchullerCirN Fr on t ag e Rd S F r o n ta g e R d
Rhode IslandAve N Pennsylvania Ave SAlley
Alley
(Private)AlleyAlleyLilac Dr NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Harold Ave WestwoodDr
N
Ardmore DrT
h
e
o
d
o
re
Wirth
P
k
w
y
Tyrol Tr(Mendelssohn Ln)AlleyS Frontage Rd
Al
pinePassBrenner
Pa
ssDougl a s Ave
QuentinAveSTyrol TrailTyrol
Tra ilSunsetRidge
Westw
oodDrS
RavineTrTyrol
Tr
ail
Janalyn C irMaddusLn
MeadowLnS
AvondaleRdBurntsideDr Su nnyridgeLnBru
n
s
wickAveNLeberLn
C lo v e rle afDrCloverLnC
loverleafD
r TheodoreWirthPkwyBeverly Ave
B u rn tsideDrSpringValleyRdToledoAveN
DuluthSt
GoldenV alle y R dSpringValleyCirCounty Rd 66
(IslandDr)(IslandDr)GoldenValleyRd
TheodoreWirthPkwyW irth P k w y
Wayzat
a
Bl
vd
G le n w o o d P kwyPlymouthAve N (Mpls)ZenithAveNCr
est
vi
ewAve
Byr d A v e N
Hwy 55
Glenwood Ave
Bassett CreekDrLegend DrLeeAveNLeeAveNMajorAveNLeeAveNEl m daleRd
Adell A veM in n a quaDr M innaq uaD r
ToledoAveNOrdwayMarkayRidge Orchard Ave NNor m a n d y Pl
CherokeePlQuailAveNRegentAveNTri t o n D rTr ito n D r
L o w r y Ter
3
3rdAveN
SandburgLn Lamplighter
Ln
BrookridgeAveNValeCrestRdWinfieldAveCountyRd 66
ParkPlaceBlvd
(SLP)I-394SF r ontage Rd (SLP)Xeni
aAve
SCounty Rd 70
L ila cD rNLilacDrNLilacD
r
NConstanceDrWConstanceDrESandburg Rd
S Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd N Frontage RdOlsonMemorialHwy
S F r o n t a g e R d
O l s o n M e m o r i a l Hw y
OlsonMemorialHwy Valleywo
odCirYosemite CirLawn TerRadissonRd
Turnpike
RdAlley
AlleyTurnpikeRd Col
o
nialDr
GlenwoodAve
BrunswickAve NMeanderRd
MeanderRdIdahoAveNHaroldAve
Wayzata Blvd
I-394SFrontageRd
Edgewo
o
dAveSIdahoAveNCortlawnCirWCortlawn Cir S
CortlawnCirN
Dawnvie w TerCounty Rd 70
EdgewoodAveSK in g CreekRdKentu
ckyAveNLouisianaAveNMarylandAve SRhodeIslandAveSRidgewayRdEwaldTe rWestern Ter
FieldD r Brookview Pk w y N Harold Ave
HalfMoonDr
RidgewayRdG oldenValleyR d (B assett Creek
Blvd)Lewis Rd
10thAveN
EllisLn
P lym outhA v eN Plymouth Ave N
Faribault St
OrklaDrCastleCt Winnetka Heights D rKelly
Dr
Maryland
Av
eNHampshire Pl
OlympiaSt
Oregon Ave NQuebecAveNValdersAveNOrklaDrKnoll StWisconsinA
veNWinsdaleSt
Mandan
AveNCounty Rd 102AquilaAveNAquila
A
veNZealandAveNJulianne Ter Jul ia n neTerPatsy Ln
WisconsinAveNAquilaAveNWestbendRd
WinnetkaHeightsDr
ZealandAveNOrklaDrValdersCtValdersAve NWinnetkaHeights Dr
Aq uilaAveNZealandAveNS c ottAveNRose
ManorDuluthSt
Duluth St CavellAveNEnsignAveNElg in Pl
23rd Ave N
Medley L n
(Medley Rd)
(Medley C ir)H illsboroAveN(English Cir)(MayfairR
d
)
(Kin
g
s
V a lleyRd)(K ings
V
al
leyRdE)(KingsValleyRd W)
(Stro
d
en
Cir)(Tamarin Tr)
(Mar
qui
sRd)
Ski Hill
Rd MajorCirLeeAveNMajorAveNRhodeIslandAveNG o ld e n V a lle yR d
G o ld e n V a lle yR d
G o ld e n V a lle y R d
Hwy100Hwy100Hwy1
0
0Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100Hwy 394
Hwy394 Hwy394
Hwy 394 Hwy394ColoradoAve NHwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Colorado Ave SGoldenHil l s DrPaisleyLnPaisleyLn
I-394NFrontageRd I-394 N FrontageRd
WayzataBlvd
I-394SFrontag e Rd
York
A
veNValeryRdW
asatchLn
Hwy 55
Hwy 55
H w y 55
Olson Memorial HwyHwy 55
H wy 5 5
County Rd 40
County Rd 40 Glenwoo d A ve
County R d 4 0
CountyRd40
GoldenValleyRd
C o unty Rd 66ManchesterDr
County Rd 156OregonAveS24thAve N
LilacDrNRoanokeRdLouisianaAveN
Turnpike RdLilacLoop (Sunnyridge Ln)WisconsinAveN
GettysburgCt(LaurelPt)
(Laurel Curv)Independence Ave NGettysburg Ave NFlag Ave NWheelerBlvdAlleyNaper St
Be tty CrockerDr Decatur Ave N(WesleyCommonsDr)Winnetka Ave S Winnetka Ave SHanley RdBrookviewPkwySWayzataBlvd
I-394 S Frontag e R d
Olympia St
Independence Ave NHillsboro Ave NGettysburg Ave NCity of Golden Valley7800 Golden Valley RoadGolden Valley, MN 55427-4588763-593-8030www.goldenvalleymn.gov
Tobacco Sales
0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200400
Feet
IPrint Date: 12/3/2019
Sources:
-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2019)
-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.
Scenario B
k Existing Tobacco License
Sale Restrictions
Assembly - 750 ft buffer
No Sale Property Buffer
Commercial (63)
Sales Allowed - Full Property (42)
Sales Allowed - Partial Property (13)
Sales Disallowed - Partial Property (13)
Sales Disallowed - Full Property (8)
!(l
!(l
!(l
!(l
!(l !(l
!(l
!(l !(l
!(l
!(l
!(l
!(l
!(l
!(l
Medic
i
neLakeBranchIkePond
Colonial Pond
Ottawa Pond
Glen-woodPond
EgretPond
LilacPond
DuluthPond
St.CroixPond
Chicago Pond
LilacPond
Pond CTurners PondGlen 1 Pond
DuckPond
Loop EPond
Loop FPond Sweeney LakeWirth LakeTwin LakeB a s s ett Creek
Hampshire Pond
DecolaPond A
NorthRicePond
West RingPond Cortlawn Pond
DecolaPonds B & C
Westwood Lake
SchaperPond
SouthRicePond
East RingPond Bassett CreekDecolaPondE
DecolaPond F
BreckPond
NatchezPond
MinnaquaPond
WirthPond
Toledo/AngeloPond
HoneywellPond
StrawberryPond
DecolaPond D
Ba
s
s
e
tt Cr
e
e
k
BassettC
r
e
e
k
Basset
t Cr
eekBassettC re ek
BassettC reekSweeney L akeBranchSweeney Lake BranchNW LoopPondBoone Avenue PondMain Stem
Pond B
Pond C
Bassett Creek NatureArea Pond
Medicine Lake
BrookviewPond A
Hidden LakesPond 1
Pond 2A
Pond 2B
Pond 3
Schaper BallfieldPond
Pond O
Pond J
Spirit of Hope Church Pond
GoldenRidgePond
Golden Meadows Pond
SoccerFieldPond
WestPond
201GeneralMillsPond
HaroldPond
Medicine Lake Road Pond
Xenia MitigationPond
10th AvePond
SpringPond
Briar-woodPond
LaurelHills Pond
JFB NWPond
LogisPond
BrownieLake
BirchPond
MinnaquaWetland
GrimesPondBassett CreekPark Pond
SweeneyLakeBranchPond M
Pond F
Pond DPond E
Dover HillPondLiberty BasinBrookviewGolf Course
LionsPark
WesleyPark
Sochacki Park
SchaperPark
ScheidParkHampshirePark
MedleyPark
Briarwood
Laurel Avenue Greenbelt
Glenview TerracePark
North TyrolPark
Western AvenueMarsh
Nature
Area
GeartyPark
Sandburg AthleticFacility
NatchezPark
ValleyView ParkPennsylvaniaWoods
BassettCreekNature Area
WildwoodPark
IsaacsonPark
SouthTyrol Park
SeemanPark
AdelineNature Area
YosemitePark
StockmanPark
Golden OaksPark
St CroixPark
LakeviewPark
SweeneyPark
Perpich CenterBall Fields
Ronald B. Davis Community Center
Brookview Park
Westwood HillsNature Center (SLP)
(MPRB)
Theodore WirthRegional Park
Eloise Butler WildflowerGarden and Bird Sanctuary
Wirth LakeBeach
Golden RidgeNature Area
General Mills NaturePreserve
General Mills ResearchNature Area
BooneOpenSpace
GoldenHills Pond
MadisonPond
SouthTyrolPond
LibraryHill
IdahoWetland
GeorgiaOpen Space
ArdmoreNorth&SouthPonds
JanalynPond
MeadowPond
O p en S p ace
OrklaOpenSpace
PicnicPavilion
Chalet
SochackiPark (Three Rivers Park Dist.)
Bassett Valley Open Space
ByrdBluffOpenSpace
→
FishingDock
PaisleyPark
XeniaOpenSpace
DahlbergOpenSpace
Minnaqua Greenbelt
(TRPD)
(Mpls Park & Rec Board)
Plymouth Avenue The Trailhead
456766
456770
456766
456740
456740
4567156
4567102
§¨¦394
§¨¦394
Æÿ55
Æÿ55
Æÿ100
Æÿ100
£¤169
£¤169
34th Ave N
Medicine Lake Rd
BroggerCir Knoll St Lilac Dr NLilac Dr NThotland Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinnetka Ave NSunnyridgeCir
Western Ave (Wat
erfordDr)Hillsboro Ave NZealandAve
N
Aquila Ave NOrkla DrWisconsin Ave N23rd Ave N
KalternLn
Wynnwood Rd
25th Ave N
Bies DrJonellen Ln
Sumter Ave NRhodeIslandAveNPatsy Ln Valders Ave NWinnetka Ave NDuluth St Florida Ave NSandburg Rd HeritageCirKentley Ave
Wynnwood Rd
Kenneth Way
Unity Ave NB a s s e t t C r ee k DrQuailAveNScott Ave NLilac Dr NLowry Ter
33rd Ave N
Noble Ave NCross LnQuail Ave NScott Ave NRegent Ave NToledo Ave NIndiana Ave N(BridgewaterRd)(WaterfordCt)(Hid
d
e
n
LnkesPkwy)Meadow Ln NFrance Ave NTopel Rd
Unity Ave NPhoenix St
Parkview TerWelcomeAveNWelcomeC ir
Welcom
eAveNXeniaAveNZ
a
n
e Av
e
N
Lindsay St
St Croix Ave N
St Croix Ave N
Yosemite Ave NWolfberryLnBrunswick Ave NCounty Rd 102Westmore Way
Green Valley Rd
Louisiana Ave NKelly DrMaryland Ave NOlympia St
Winsdale St
Winnetka Ave NYukon CtWesleyDr WesleyDr
Plymouth Ave N
10th Ave N
Kelly DrVarner CirPennsylvania Ave NFaribault StQuebec Ave NRhode Island Ave NPhoenix St
Knoll St
County Rd 156Jersey Ave NCountryClubDr
P h o e n ix S tDouglas DrGeorgia Ave NCou
nty
Rd40
Hampshire Ave NWestch e sterCirJersey Ave NGardenParkQue
b
e
c
Av
e
SWinnetka Ave NWally St
Ensign Ave N7th Ave N
Golden Valley Rd Decatur Ave N10th Ave N
Natchez Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Olson Memorial Hwy
Cutacross Rd
Olson Memorial Hwy
Earl St
Flag Ave NHampshire
LnJersey Ave NFloridaAveNEdgewoodAve NDouglas DrDuluth Ln
Scott Ave N
Drake Rd
Lowry Ter Kyle Ave NQuail Ave NPerry Ave NNoble Ave NCulver Rd
Dawnview Ter
Dona Ln
Noble Ave NScottAveNGlendenTer
Culver Rd
Marie Ln W
Hampton Rd
RegentAveNPerryAveNLilac Dr N27th Ave N
Merribee Dr Kyle Ave NHampton RdOrchard Ave NMarie Ln E
Lee Ave NKyle Ave NDres
de
n
L
n
Kewanee Way
26th Ave N
Meridia
n D
r
P
ark
vie
w
Blv
d Terrace LnManor DrMcNair DrByrd Ave N
Bas
s
e
ttCreekDrMaryHillsDrZenith Ave NVista DrXerxes Ave NYork Ave NS t M a rg are t D rZephyr PlXerxes Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)(SkylineDr)Spruce TrKyle PlWestbrook Rd Noble Ave Frontage RdCircleDownOrchard Ave NPerryAveNWindsorWayWestbendRdUnity Ave NG reenviewLn
Regent Ave NSorell Ave
FrontenacAveQuail Ave NStCroixAve N
Winsdale St StCroixCirAngelo DrUnity Ave NAlfred Rd Spring Valley RdN
o
bl
e
DrMajor DrAdeline LnAngelo DrAngelo DrWills PlToledo Ave NOttawa Ave NKillarney DrZane Ave NWoodstock Ave Woodstock Ave
Loring LnYosemiteAveN
Turners Crossroad NWestchesterCirN
F
r
ontageRdFlorida Ave NHampshire Ave NPlymouth Ave N
Idaho Ave NOlympia StHampshire Ave NArcher Ave NKelly DrPennsylvania Ave NDuluth St Xylon Ave NWisconsin Ave NSumter Ave NBoone Ave NWinsdale St
Meadow Ln N
DahlbergD r
Woodstock Ave
Poplar Dr Meadow Ln NChatelain Ter
Natchez Ave NEdgewood Ave NK i ng s t o n C i r
Glenwood Ave
Country Club DrValdersAveNOrkla DrElgin PlDecaturAveN
Indiana Ave NRoanoke CirWestern Ave Western Ave
Harold Ave
Loring Ln
WestwoodDrNArdmoreDrWinsdale St
Knoll St
Oak Grove CirDuluth St Zane Ave NDouglas Dr27th Ave N
B
on
nieLn
Medicine Lake Rd
Madison Ave W
Nevada Ave NLouisiana Ave NCounty Rd 70
ValdersAve NValders Ave N23rd Ave N Rhode IslandAve NCounty Rd 156Medicine Lake Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinsdale St
St Croix Ave N June Ave NLegend DrLegendLn
General Mills BlvdBoone Ave NSunnyridge LnGlenwood Ave
Janalyn CirJanalyn CirGlencrest Rd Meadow Ln SWayzata BlvdWestwood Dr SWestwoodLn
StrawberryLnOttawa Ave NOttawa Ave SNatchez Ave S Tyrol Crest
SussexRdJune Ave SWayzata Blvd
FairlawnWayNatchez Ave SOttawa Ave SPrincetonAve SDouglas Ave
Circle DownTurners Crossroad SGolden Hills Dr
Laurel AveLaurel Ave
Hampshire Ave SDakota Ave SBrunswick Ave SKing Hill RdGlenwood Ave
Colonial Dr
Medicine Lake Rd
FloridaAveSAlley
Market StMarket St
Louisiana Ave SLaurel AvePennsylvania Ave SRhode Island Ave SSumter Ave SUtah Ave SGregory Rd
VermontAve SWi
sco
nsi
n
AveSGeneral Mills BlvdHanley RdRidgeway Rd
Laurel Ave QubecAve S County Rd 102Nevada Ave SColonial RdLouisianaAveSKentucky Ave SJersey Ave SHeathbrookeCir
G le n w o o d P k w y
(Carriage Path)Xenia Ave SFlorida CtLilacDr
NOlson Memorial Hwy
Schaper Rd
Lilac Dr NG o ld en V a lle y R d
Lilac Dr N(WoodlandTrail)(Wat.Dr)
BassettCreek Ln
(NobleDr)France Ave S (Mpls)N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd Olson Mem HwyAdair Ave NAdair Ave NWestbrookRd
34th Ave N
Mendelssohn Ave NAlley-Unimproved--Unimproved-
Wayzata Blvd
Wayzata BlvdBoone Ave NG o ld e nValley D rSchullerCirN Fr on t ag e Rd S F r o nta g e R d
Rhode IslandAve N Pennsylvania Ave SAlley
Alley
(Private)AlleyAlleyLilac Dr NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Harold Ave WestwoodDr
N
Ardmore DrT
h
e
o
d
o
re
Wirth
P
k
w
y
Tyrol Tr(Mendelssohn Ln)AlleyS Frontage Rd
Al
pinePassBrenner
Pa
ssDougl a s Ave
QuentinAveSTyrol TrailTyrol
Tra ilSunsetRidge
Westw
oodDrS
RavineTrTyrol
Tr
ail
Janalyn C irMaddusLn
MeadowLnS
AvondaleRdBurntsideDr Su nnyridgeLnBru
n
s
wickAveNLeberLn
C lo v e rle afDrCloverLnC
loverleafD
r TheodoreWirthPkwyBeverly Ave
B u rn tsideDrSpringValleyRdToledoAveN
DuluthSt
GoldenV alle y R dSpringValleyCirCounty Rd 66
(IslandDr)(IslandDr)GoldenValleyRd
TheodoreWirthPkwyW irth P k w y
Wayzat
a
Bl
vd
G le n w o o d P kwyPlymouthAveN (Mpls)ZenithAveNCr
est
vi
ewAve
Byr d A v e N
Hwy 55
Glenwood Ave
Bassett CreekDrLegend DrLeeAveNLeeAveNMajorAveNLeeAveNEl mdaleRd
Adell A veM in n a quaDr M innaq uaD r
ToledoAveNOrdwayMarkayRidge Orchard Ave NNor m a n d y Pl
CherokeePlQuailAveNRegentAveNTri t o n D rTr ito n D r
L o w r y Ter
3
3rdAveN
SandburgLn Lamplighter
Ln
BrookridgeAveNValeCrestRdWinfieldAveCountyRd 66
ParkPlaceBlvd
(SLP)I-394SF r ontage Rd (SLP)Xeni
aAve
SCounty Rd 70
L ila cDrNLilacDrNLilacD
r
NConstanceDrWConstanceDrESandburg Rd
S Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd N Frontage RdOlsonMemorialHwy
S F r o n t a g e R d
O l s o n M e m o r i a l H w y
OlsonMemorialHwy Valleywo
odCirYosemite CirLawn TerRadissonRd
Turnpike
RdAlley
AlleyTurnpikeRd Col
o
nialDr
GlenwoodAve
BrunswickAve NMeanderRd
MeanderRdIdahoAveNHaroldAve
Wayzata Blvd
I-394SFrontageRd
Edgewo
o
dAveSIdahoAveNCortlawnCirWCortlawn Cir S
CortlawnCirN
Dawnvie w TerCounty Rd 70
EdgewoodAveSK in g CreekRdKentu
ckyAveNLouisianaAveNMarylandAve SRhodeIslandAveSRidgewayRdEwaldTe rWestern Ter
FieldD r Brookview Pk w y N Harold Ave
HalfMoonDr
RidgewayRdG oldenValleyR d (B assett Creek
Blvd)Lewis Rd
10thAveN
EllisLn
P lym outhA v eN Plymouth Ave N
Faribault St
OrklaDrCastleCt Winnetka Heights D rKelly
Dr
Maryland
Av
eNHampshire Pl
OlympiaSt
Oregon Ave NQuebecAveNValdersAveNOrklaDrKnoll StWisconsinA
veNWinsdaleSt
Mandan
AveNCounty Rd 102AquilaAveNAquila
A
veNZealandAveNJulianne Ter Jul ia n neTerPatsy Ln
WisconsinAveNAquilaAveNWestbendRd
WinnetkaHeightsDr
ZealandAveNOrklaDrValdersCtValdersAve NWinnetkaHeights Dr
Aq uilaAveNZealandAveNS c ottAveNRose
ManorDuluthSt
Duluth St CavellAveNEnsignAveNElg in Pl
23rd Ave N
Medley L n
(Medley Rd)
(Medley C ir)H illsboroAveN(English Cir)(MayfairR
d
)
(Kin
g
s
V a lleyRd)(K ings
V
al
leyRdE)(KingsValleyRd W)
(Stro
d
en
Cir)(Tamarin Tr)
(Mar
qui
sRd)
Ski Hill
Rd MajorCirLeeAveNMajorAveNRhodeIslandAveNG o ld e n V a lleyR d
G o ld e n V a lle yR d
G o ld e n V a lle y R d
Hwy100Hwy100Hwy1
0
0Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100Hwy 394
Hwy394 Hwy394
Hwy 394 Hwy394ColoradoAve NHwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Colorado Ave SGoldenHil l s DrPaisleyLnPaisleyLn
I-394NFrontageRd I-394 N FrontageRd
WayzataBlvd
I-394SFrontag e Rd
York
A
veNValeryRdW
asatchLn
Hwy 55
Hwy 55
H w y 55
Olson Memorial HwyHwy 55
H wy 5 5
County Rd 40
County Rd 40 Glenwoo d A ve
County R d 4 0
CountyRd40
GoldenValleyRd
C o unty Rd 66ManchesterDr
County Rd 156OregonAveS24thAve N
LilacDrNRoanokeRdLouisianaAveN
Turnpike RdLilacLoop (Sunnyridge Ln)WisconsinAveN
GettysburgCt(LaurelPt)
(Laurel Curv)Independence Ave NGettysburg Ave NFlag Ave NWheelerBlvdAlleyNaper St
Betty CrockerDr Decatur Ave N(WesleyCommonsDr)Winnetka Ave S Winnetka Ave SHanley RdBrookviewPkwySWayzataBlvd
I-394 S Frontag e R d
Olympia St
Independence Ave NHillsboro Ave NGettysburg Ave NCity of Golden Valley7800 Golden Valley RoadGolden Valley, MN 55427-4588763-593-8030www.goldenvalleymn.gov
Tobacco Sales
0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200400
Feet
IPrint Date: 2/3/2020
Sources:
-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2019)
-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.
Scenario C
!(l Existing Tobacco License
Sale Restrictions
Assembly - 1000 ft buffer
Parks and Natural Areas - 750 ft buffer
No Sale Property Buffer
Commercial (63)
Sales Allowed - Full Property (6)
Sales Allowed - Partial Property (22)
Sales Disallowed - Partial Property (22)
Sales Disallowed - Full Property (35)
!(l
!(l
!(l
!(l
!(l !(l
!(l
!(l !(l
!(l
!(l
!(l
!(l
!(l
!(l
Medic
i
neLakeBranchIkePond
Colonial Pond
Ottawa Pond
Glen-woodPond
EgretPond
LilacPond
DuluthPond
St.CroixPond
Chicago Pond
LilacPond
Pond CTurners PondGlen 1 Pond
DuckPond
Loop EPond
Loop FPond Sweeney LakeWirth LakeTwin LakeB a s s ett Creek
Hampshire Pond
DecolaPond A
NorthRicePond
West RingPond Cortlawn Pond
DecolaPonds B & C
Westwood Lake
SchaperPond
SouthRicePond
East RingPond Bassett CreekDecolaPondE
DecolaPond F
BreckPond
NatchezPond
MinnaquaPond
WirthPond
Toledo/AngeloPond
HoneywellPond
StrawberryPond
DecolaPond D
Ba
s
s
e
tt Cr
e
e
k
BassettC
r
e
e
k
Basset
t Cr
eekBassettC re ek
BassettC reekSweeney L akeBranchSweeney Lake BranchNW LoopPondBoone Avenue PondMain Stem
Pond B
Pond C
Bassett Creek NatureArea Pond
Medicine Lake
BrookviewPond A
Hidden LakesPond 1
Pond 2A
Pond 2B
Pond 3
Schaper BallfieldPond
Pond O
Pond J
Spirit of Hope Church Pond
GoldenRidgePond
Golden Meadows Pond
SoccerFieldPond
WestPond
201GeneralMillsPond
HaroldPond
Medicine Lake Road Pond
Xenia MitigationPond
10th AvePond
SpringPond
Briar-woodPond
LaurelHills Pond
JFB NWPond
LogisPond
BrownieLake
BirchPond
MinnaquaWetland
GrimesPondBassett CreekPark Pond
SweeneyLakeBranchPond M
Pond F
Pond DPond E
Dover HillPondLiberty BasinBrookviewGolf Course
LionsPark
WesleyPark
Sochacki Park
SchaperPark
ScheidParkHampshirePark
MedleyPark
Briarwood
Laurel Avenue Greenbelt
Glenview TerracePark
North TyrolPark
Western AvenueMarsh
Nature
Area
GeartyPark
Sandburg AthleticFacility
NatchezPark
ValleyView ParkPennsylvaniaWoods
BassettCreekNature Area
WildwoodPark
IsaacsonPark
SouthTyrol Park
SeemanPark
AdelineNature Area
YosemitePark
StockmanPark
Golden OaksPark
St CroixPark
LakeviewPark
SweeneyPark
Perpich CenterBall Fields
Ronald B. Davis Community Center
Brookview Park
Westwood HillsNature Center (SLP)
(MPRB)
Theodore WirthRegional Park
Eloise Butler WildflowerGarden and Bird Sanctuary
Wirth LakeBeach
Golden RidgeNature Area
General Mills NaturePreserve
General Mills ResearchNature Area
BooneOpenSpace
GoldenHills Pond
MadisonPond
SouthTyrolPond
LibraryHill
IdahoWetland
GeorgiaOpen Space
ArdmoreNorth&SouthPonds
JanalynPond
MeadowPond
O p en S p ace
OrklaOpenSpace
PicnicPavilion
Chalet
SochackiPark (Three Rivers Park Dist.)
Bassett Valley Open Space
ByrdBluffOpenSpace
→
FishingDock
PaisleyPark
XeniaOpenSpace
DahlbergOpenSpace
Minnaqua Greenbelt
(TRPD)
(Mpls Park & Rec Board)
Plymouth Avenue The Trailhead
456766
456770
456766
456740
456740
4567156
4567102
§¨¦394
§¨¦394
Æÿ55
Æÿ55
Æÿ100
Æÿ100
£¤169
£¤169
34th Ave N
Medicine Lake Rd
BroggerCir Knoll St Lilac Dr NLilac Dr NThotland Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinnetka Ave NSunnyridgeCir
Western Ave (Wat
erfordDr)Hillsboro Ave NZealandAve
N
Aquila Ave NOrkla DrWisconsin Ave N23rd Ave N
KalternLn
Wynnwood Rd
25th Ave N
Bies DrJonellen Ln
Sumter Ave NRhodeIslandAveNPatsy Ln Valders Ave NWinnetka Ave NDuluth St Florida Ave NSandburg Rd HeritageCirKentley Ave
Wynnwood Rd
Kenneth Way
Unity Ave NB a s s e t t C r ee k DrQuailAveNScott Ave NLilac Dr NLowry Ter
33rd Ave N
Noble Ave NCross LnQuail Ave NScott Ave NRegent Ave NToledo Ave NIndiana Ave N(BridgewaterRd)(WaterfordCt)(Hid
d
e
n
LnkesPkwy)Meadow Ln NFrance Ave NTopel Rd
Unity Ave NPhoenix St
Parkview TerWelcomeAveNWelcomeC ir
Welcom
eAveNXeniaAveNZ
a
n
e Av
e
N
Lindsay St
St Croix Ave N
St Croix Ave N
Yosemite Ave NWolfberryLnBrunswick Ave NCounty Rd 102Westmore Way
Green Valley Rd
Louisiana Ave NKelly DrMaryland Ave NOlympia St
Winsdale St
Winnetka Ave NYukon CtWesleyDr WesleyDr
Plymouth Ave N
10th Ave N
Kelly DrVarner CirPennsylvania Ave NFaribault StQuebec Ave NRhode Island Ave NPhoenix St
Knoll St
County Rd 156Jersey Ave NCountryClubDr
P h o e n ix S tDouglas DrGeorgia Ave NCou
nty
Rd40
Hampshire Ave NWestch e sterCirJersey Ave NGardenParkQue
b
e
c
Av
e
SWinnetka Ave NWally St
Ensign Ave N7th Ave N
Golden Valley Rd Decatur Ave N10th Ave N
Natchez Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Olson Memorial Hwy
Cutacross Rd
Olson Memorial Hwy
Earl St
Flag Ave NHampshire
LnJersey Ave NFloridaAveNEdgewoodAve NDouglas DrDuluth Ln
Scott Ave N
Drake Rd
Lowry Ter Kyle Ave NQuail Ave NPerry Ave NNoble Ave NCulver Rd
Dawnview Ter
Dona Ln
Noble Ave NScottAveNGlendenTer
Culver Rd
Marie Ln W
Hampton Rd
RegentAveNPerryAveNLilac Dr N27th Ave N
Merribee Dr Kyle Ave NHampton RdOrchard Ave NMarie Ln E
Lee Ave NKyle Ave NDres
de
n
L
n
Kewanee Way
26th Ave N
Meridia
n D
r
P
ark
vie
w
Blv
d Terrace LnManor DrMcNair DrByrd Ave N
Bas
s
e
ttCreekDrMaryHillsDrZenith Ave NVista DrXerxes Ave NYork Ave NS t M a rg are t D rZephyr PlXerxes Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)(SkylineDr)Spruce TrKyle PlWestbrook Rd Noble Ave Frontage RdCircleDownOrchard Ave NPerryAveNWindsorWayWestbendRdUnity Ave NG reenviewLn
Regent Ave NSorell Ave
FrontenacAveQuail Ave NStCroixAve N
Winsdale St StCroixCirAngelo DrUnity Ave NAlfred Rd Spring Valley RdN
o
bl
e
DrMajor DrAdeline LnAngelo DrAngelo DrWills PlToledo Ave NOttawa Ave NKillarney DrZane Ave NWoodstock Ave Woodstock Ave
Loring LnYosemiteAveN
Turners Crossroad NWestchesterCirN
F
r
ontageRdFlorida Ave NHampshire Ave NPlymouth Ave N
Idaho Ave NOlympia StHampshire Ave NArcher Ave NKelly DrPennsylvania Ave NDuluth St Xylon Ave NWisconsin Ave NSumter Ave NBoone Ave NWinsdale St
Meadow Ln N
DahlbergD r
Woodstock Ave
Poplar Dr Meadow Ln NChatelain Ter
Natchez Ave NEdgewood Ave NK i ng s t o n C i r
Glenwood Ave
Country Club DrValdersAveNOrkla DrElgin PlDecaturAveN
Indiana Ave NRoanoke CirWestern Ave Western Ave
Harold Ave
Loring Ln
WestwoodDrNArdmoreDrWinsdale St
Knoll St
Oak Grove CirDuluth St Zane Ave NDouglas Dr27th Ave N
B
on
nieLn
Medicine Lake Rd
Madison Ave W
Nevada Ave NLouisiana Ave NCounty Rd 70
ValdersAve NValders Ave N23rd Ave N Rhode IslandAve NCounty Rd 156Medicine Lake Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinsdale St
St Croix Ave N June Ave NLegend DrLegendLn
General Mills BlvdBoone Ave NSunnyridge LnGlenwood Ave
Janalyn CirJanalyn CirGlencrest Rd Meadow Ln SWayzata BlvdWestwood Dr SWestwoodLn
StrawberryLnOttawa Ave NOttawa Ave SNatchez Ave S Tyrol Crest
SussexRdJune Ave SWayzata Blvd
FairlawnWayNatchez Ave SOttawa Ave SPrincetonAve SDouglas Ave
Circle DownTurners Crossroad SGolden Hills Dr
Laurel AveLaurel Ave
Hampshire Ave SDakota Ave SBrunswick Ave SKing Hill RdGlenwood Ave
Colonial Dr
Medicine Lake Rd
FloridaAveSAlley
Market StMarket St
Louisiana Ave SLaurel AvePennsylvania Ave SRhode Island Ave SSumter Ave SUtah Ave SGregory Rd
VermontAve SWi
sco
nsi
n
AveSGeneral Mills BlvdHanley RdRidgeway Rd
Laurel Ave QubecAve S County Rd 102Nevada Ave SColonial RdLouisianaAveSKentucky Ave SJersey Ave SHeathbrookeCir
G le n w o o d P k w y
(Carriage Path)Xenia Ave SFlorida CtLilacDr
NOlson Memorial Hwy
Schaper Rd
Lilac Dr NG o ld en V a lle y R d
Lilac Dr N(WoodlandTrail)(Wat.Dr)
BassettCreek Ln
(NobleDr)France Ave S (Mpls)N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd Olson Mem HwyAdair Ave NAdair Ave NWestbrookRd
34th Ave N
Mendelssohn Ave NAlley-Unimproved--Unimproved-
Wayzata Blvd
Wayzata BlvdBoone Ave NG o ld e nValley D rSchullerCirN Fr on t ag e Rd S F r o nta g e R d
Rhode IslandAve N Pennsylvania Ave SAlley
Alley
(Private)AlleyAlleyLilac Dr NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Harold Ave WestwoodDr
N
Ardmore DrT
h
e
o
d
o
re
Wirth
P
k
w
y
Tyrol Tr(Mendelssohn Ln)AlleyS Frontage Rd
Al
pinePassBrenner
Pa
ssDougl a s Ave
QuentinAveSTyrol TrailTyrol
Tra ilSunsetRidge
Westw
oodDrS
RavineTrTyrol
Tr
ail
Janalyn C irMaddusLn
MeadowLnS
AvondaleRdBurntsideDr Su nnyridgeLnBru
n
s
wickAveNLeberLn
C lo v e rle afDrCloverLnC
loverleafD
r TheodoreWirthPkwyBeverly Ave
B u rn tsideDrSpringValleyRdToledoAveN
DuluthSt
GoldenV alle y R dSpringValleyCirCounty Rd 66
(IslandDr)(IslandDr)GoldenValleyRd
TheodoreWirthPkwyW irth P k w y
Wayzat
a
Bl
vd
G le n w o o d P kwyPlymouthAveN (Mpls)ZenithAveNCr
est
vi
ewAve
Byr d A v e N
Hwy 55
Glenwood Ave
Bassett CreekDrLegend DrLeeAveNLeeAveNMajorAveNLeeAveNEl mdaleRd
Adell A veM in n a quaDr M innaq uaD r
ToledoAveNOrdwayMarkayRidge Orchard Ave NNor m a n d y Pl
CherokeePlQuailAveNRegentAveNTri t o n D rTr ito n D r
L o w r y Ter
3
3rdAveN
SandburgLn Lamplighter
Ln
BrookridgeAveNValeCrestRdWinfieldAveCountyRd 66
ParkPlaceBlvd
(SLP)I-394SF r ontage Rd (SLP)Xeni
aAve
SCounty Rd 70
L ila cDrNLilacDrNLilacD
r
NConstanceDrWConstanceDrESandburg Rd
S Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd N Frontage RdOlsonMemorialHwy
S F r o n t a g e R d
O l s o n M e m o r i a l H w y
OlsonMemorialHwy Valleywo
odCirYosemite CirLawn TerRadissonRd
Turnpike
RdAlley
AlleyTurnpikeRd Col
o
nialDr
GlenwoodAve
BrunswickAve NMeanderRd
MeanderRdIdahoAveNHaroldAve
Wayzata Blvd
I-394SFrontageRd
Edgewo
o
dAveSIdahoAveNCortlawnCirWCortlawn Cir S
CortlawnCirN
Dawnvie w TerCounty Rd 70
EdgewoodAveSK in g CreekRdKentu
ckyAveNLouisianaAveNMarylandAve SRhodeIslandAveSRidgewayRdEwaldTe rWestern Ter
FieldD r Brookview Pk w y N Harold Ave
HalfMoonDr
RidgewayRdG oldenValleyR d (B assett Creek
Blvd)Lewis Rd
10thAveN
EllisLn
P lym outhA v eN Plymouth Ave N
Faribault St
OrklaDrCastleCt Winnetka Heights D rKelly
Dr
Maryland
Av
eNHampshire Pl
OlympiaSt
Oregon Ave NQuebecAveNValdersAveNOrklaDrKnoll StWisconsinA
veNWinsdaleSt
Mandan
AveNCounty Rd 102AquilaAveNAquila
A
veNZealandAveNJulianne Ter Jul ia n neTerPatsy Ln
WisconsinAveNAquilaAveNWestbendRd
WinnetkaHeightsDr
ZealandAveNOrklaDrValdersCtValdersAve NWinnetkaHeights Dr
Aq uilaAveNZealandAveNS c ottAveNRose
ManorDuluthSt
Duluth St CavellAveNEnsignAveNElg in Pl
23rd Ave N
Medley L n
(Medley Rd)
(Medley C ir)H illsboroAveN(English Cir)(MayfairR
d
)
(Kin
g
s
V a lleyRd)(K ings
V
al
leyRdE)(KingsValleyRd W)
(Stro
d
en
Cir)(Tamarin Tr)
(Mar
qui
sRd)
Ski Hill
Rd MajorCirLeeAveNMajorAveNRhodeIslandAveNG o ld e n V a lleyR d
G o ld e n V a lle yR d
G o ld e n V a lle y R d
Hwy100Hwy100Hwy1
0
0Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100Hwy 394
Hwy394 Hwy394
Hwy 394 Hwy394ColoradoAve NHwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Colorado Ave SGoldenHil l s DrPaisleyLnPaisleyLn
I-394NFrontageRd I-394 N FrontageRd
WayzataBlvd
I-394SFrontag e Rd
York
A
veNValeryRdW
asatchLn
Hwy 55
Hwy 55
H w y 55
Olson Memorial HwyHwy 55
H wy 5 5
County Rd 40
County Rd 40 Glenwoo d A ve
County R d 4 0
CountyRd40
GoldenValleyRd
C o unty Rd 66ManchesterDr
County Rd 156OregonAveS24thAve N
LilacDrNRoanokeRdLouisianaAveN
Turnpike RdLilacLoop (Sunnyridge Ln)WisconsinAveN
GettysburgCt(LaurelPt)
(Laurel Curv)Independence Ave NGettysburg Ave NFlag Ave NWheelerBlvdAlleyNaper St
Betty CrockerDr Decatur Ave N(WesleyCommonsDr)Winnetka Ave S Winnetka Ave SHanley RdBrookviewPkwySWayzataBlvd
I-394 S Frontag e R d
Olympia St
Independence Ave NHillsboro Ave NGettysburg Ave NCity of Golden Valley7800 Golden Valley RoadGolden Valley, MN 55427-4588763-593-8030www.goldenvalleymn.gov
Tobacco Sales
0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200400
Feet
IPrint Date: 2/3/2020
Sources:
-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2019)
-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.
Scenario D
!(l Existing Tobacco License
Sale Restrictions
Assembly - 750 ft buffer
Parks and Natural Areas - 500 ft buffer
No Sale Property Buffer
Commercial (63)
Sales Allowed - Full Property (21)
Sales Allowed - Partial Property (25)
Sales Disallowed - Partial Property (25)
Sales Disallowed - Full Property (17)
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k !(k
!(k
!(k !(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
Medic
i
neLakeBranchIkePond
Colonial Pond
Ottawa Pond
Glen-woodPond
EgretPond
LilacPond
DuluthPond
St.CroixPond
Chicago Pond
LilacPond
Pond CTurners PondGlen 1 Pond
DuckPond
Loop EPond
Loop FPond Sweeney LakeWirth LakeTwin LakeB a s s ett Creek
Hampshire Pond
DecolaPond A
NorthRicePond
West RingPond Cortlawn Pond
DecolaPonds B & C
Westwood Lake
SchaperPond
SouthRicePond
East RingPond Bassett CreekDecolaPondE
DecolaPond F
BreckPond
NatchezPond
MinnaquaPond
WirthPond
Toledo/AngeloPond
HoneywellPond
StrawberryPond
DecolaPond D
Ba
s
s
e
tt Cr
e
e
k
BassettC
r
e
e
k
Basset
t Cr
eekBassettC re ek
BassettC reekSweeney L akeBranchSweeney Lake BranchNW LoopPondBoone Avenue PondMain Stem
Pond B
Pond C
Bassett Creek NatureArea Pond
Medicine Lake
BrookviewPond A
Hidden LakesPond 1
Pond 2A
Pond 2B
Pond 3
Schaper BallfieldPond
Pond O
Pond J
Spirit of Hope Church Pond
GoldenRidgePond
Golden Meadows Pond
SoccerFieldPond
WestPond
201GeneralMillsPond
HaroldPond
Medicine Lake Road Pond
Xenia MitigationPond
10th AvePond
SpringPond
Briar-woodPond
LaurelHills Pond
JFB NWPond
LogisPond
BrownieLake
BirchPond
MinnaquaWetland
GrimesPondBassett CreekPark Pond
SweeneyLakeBranchPond M
Pond F
Pond DPond E
Dover HillPondLiberty BasinBrookviewGolf Course
LionsPark
WesleyPark
Sochacki Park
SchaperPark
ScheidParkHampshirePark
MedleyPark
Briarwood
Laurel Avenue Greenbelt
Glenview TerracePark
North TyrolPark
Western AvenueMarsh
Nature
Area
GeartyPark
Sandburg AthleticFacility
NatchezPark
ValleyView ParkPennsylvaniaWoods
BassettCreekNature Area
WildwoodPark
IsaacsonPark
SouthTyrol Park
SeemanPark
AdelineNature Area
YosemitePark
StockmanPark
Golden OaksPark
St CroixPark
LakeviewPark
SweeneyPark
Perpich CenterBall Fields
Ronald B. Davis Community Center
Brookview Park
Westwood HillsNature Center (SLP)
(MPRB)
Theodore WirthRegional Park
Eloise Butler WildflowerGarden and Bird Sanctuary
Wirth LakeBeach
Golden RidgeNature Area
General Mills NaturePreserve
General Mills ResearchNature Area
BooneOpenSpace
GoldenHills Pond
MadisonPond
SouthTyrolPond
LibraryHill
IdahoWetland
GeorgiaOpen Space
ArdmoreNorth&SouthPonds
JanalynPond
MeadowPond
O p en S p ace
OrklaOpenSpace
PicnicPavilion
Chalet
SochackiPark (Three Rivers Park Dist.)
Bassett Valley Open Space
ByrdBluffOpenSpace
→
FishingDock
PaisleyPark
XeniaOpenSpace
DahlbergOpenSpace
Minnaqua Greenbelt
(TRPD)
(Mpls Park & Rec Board)
Plymouth Avenue The Trailhead
456766
456770
456766
456740
456740
4567156
4567102
§¨¦394
§¨¦394
Æÿ55
Æÿ55
Æÿ100
Æÿ100
£¤169
£¤169
34th Ave N
Medicine Lake Rd
BroggerCir Knoll St Lilac Dr NLilac Dr NThotland Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinnetka Ave NSunnyridgeCir
Western Ave (Wat
erfordDr)Hillsboro Ave NZealandAve
N
Aquila Ave NOrkla DrWisconsin Ave N23rd Ave N
KalternLn
Wynnwood Rd
25th Ave N
Bies DrJonellen Ln
Sumter Ave NRhodeIslandAveNPatsy Ln Valders Ave NWinnetka Ave NDuluth St Florida Ave NSandburg Rd HeritageCirKentley Ave
Wynnwood Rd
Kenneth Way
Unity Ave NB a s s e t t C r ee k DrQuailAveNScott Ave NLilac Dr NLowry Ter
33rd Ave N
Noble Ave NCross LnQuail Ave NScott Ave NRegent Ave NToledo Ave NIndiana Ave N(BridgewaterRd)(WaterfordCt)(Hid
d
e
n
LnkesPkwy)Meadow Ln NFrance Ave NTopel Rd
Unity Ave NPhoenix St
Parkview TerWelcomeAveNWelcomeC ir
Welcom
eAveNXeniaAveNZ
a
n
e Av
e
N
Lindsay St
St Croix Ave N
St Croix Ave N
Yosemite Ave NWolfberryLnBrunswick Ave NCounty Rd 102Westmore Way
Green Valley Rd
Louisiana Ave NKelly DrMaryland Ave NOlympia St
Winsdale St
Winnetka Ave NYukon CtWesleyDr WesleyDr
Plymouth Ave N
10th Ave N
Kelly DrVarner CirPennsylvania Ave NFaribault StQuebec Ave NRhode Island Ave NPhoenix St
Knoll St
County Rd 156Jersey Ave NCountryClubDr
P h o e n ix S tDouglas DrGeorgia Ave NCou
nty
Rd40
Hampshire Ave NWestch e sterCirJersey Ave NGardenParkQue
b
e
c
Av
e
SWinnetka Ave NWally St
Ensign Ave N7th Ave N
Golden Valley Rd Decatur Ave N10th Ave N
Natchez Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Olson Memorial Hwy
Cutacross Rd
Olson Memorial Hwy
Earl St
Flag Ave NHampshire
LnJersey Ave NFloridaAveNEdgewoodAve NDouglas DrDuluth Ln
Scott Ave N
Drake Rd
Lowry Ter Kyle Ave NQuail Ave NPerry Ave NNoble Ave NCulver Rd
Dawnview Ter
Dona Ln
Noble Ave NScottAveNGlendenTer
Culver Rd
Marie Ln W
Hampton Rd
RegentAveNPerryAveNLilac Dr N27th Ave N
Merribee Dr Kyle Ave NHampton RdOrchard Ave NMarie Ln E
Lee Ave NKyle Ave NDres
de
n
L
n
Kewanee Way
26th Ave N
Meridia
n D
r
P
ark
vie
w
Blv
d Terrace LnManor DrMcNair DrByrd Ave N
Bas
s
e
ttCreekDrMaryHillsDrZenith Ave NVista DrXerxes Ave NYork Ave NS t M a rg are t D rZephyr PlXerxes Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)(SkylineDr)Spruce TrKyle PlWestbrook Rd Noble Ave Frontage RdCircleDownOrchard Ave NPerryAveNWindsorWayWestbendRdUnity Ave NG reenviewLn
Regent Ave NSorell Ave
FrontenacAveQuail Ave NStCroixAve N
Winsdale St StCroixCirAngelo DrUnity Ave NAlfred Rd Spring Valley RdN
o
bl
e
DrMajor DrAdeline LnAngelo DrAngelo DrWills PlToledo Ave NOttawa Ave NKillarney DrZane Ave NWoodstock Ave Woodstock Ave
Loring LnYosemiteAveN
Turners Crossroad NWestchesterCirN
F
r
ontageRdFlorida Ave NHampshire Ave NPlymouth Ave N
Idaho Ave NOlympia StHampshire Ave NArcher Ave NKelly DrPennsylvania Ave NDuluth St Xylon Ave NWisconsin Ave NSumter Ave NBoone Ave NWinsdale St
Meadow Ln N
DahlbergD r
Woodstock Ave
Poplar Dr Meadow Ln NChatelain Ter
Natchez Ave NEdgewood Ave NK i ng s t o n C i r
Glenwood Ave
Country Club DrValdersAveNOrkla DrElgin PlDecaturAveN
Indiana Ave NRoanoke CirWestern Ave Western Ave
Harold Ave
Loring Ln
WestwoodDrNArdmoreDrWinsdale St
Knoll St
Oak Grove CirDuluth St Zane Ave NDouglas Dr27th Ave N
B
on
nieLn
Medicine Lake Rd
Madison Ave W
Nevada Ave NLouisiana Ave NCounty Rd 70
ValdersAve NValders Ave N23rd Ave N Rhode IslandAve NCounty Rd 156Medicine Lake Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinsdale St
St Croix Ave N June Ave NLegend DrLegendLn
General Mills BlvdBoone Ave NSunnyridge LnGlenwood Ave
Janalyn CirJanalyn CirGlencrest Rd Meadow Ln SWayzata BlvdWestwood Dr SWestwoodLn
StrawberryLnOttawa Ave NOttawa Ave SNatchez Ave S Tyrol Crest
SussexRdJune Ave SWayzata Blvd
FairlawnWayNatchez Ave SOttawa Ave SPrincetonAve SDouglas Ave
Circle DownTurners Crossroad SGolden Hills Dr
Laurel AveLaurel Ave
Hampshire Ave SDakota Ave SBrunswick Ave SKing Hill RdGlenwood Ave
Colonial Dr
Medicine Lake Rd
FloridaAveSAlley
Market StMarket St
Louisiana Ave SLaurel AvePennsylvania Ave SRhode Island Ave SSumter Ave SUtah Ave SGregory Rd
VermontAve SWi
sco
nsi
n
AveSGeneral Mills BlvdHanley RdRidgeway Rd
Laurel Ave QubecAve S County Rd 102Nevada Ave SColonial RdLouisianaAveSKentucky Ave SJersey Ave SHeathbrookeCir
G le n w o o d P k w y
(Carriage Path)Xenia Ave SFlorida CtLilacDr
NOlson Memorial Hwy
Schaper Rd
Lilac Dr NG o ld en V a lle y R d
Lilac Dr N(WoodlandTrail)(Wat.Dr)
BassettCreek Ln
(NobleDr)France Ave S (Mpls)N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd Olson Mem HwyAdair Ave NAdair Ave NWestbrookRd
34th Ave N
Mendelssohn Ave NAlley-Unimproved--Unimproved-
Wayzata Blvd
Wayzata BlvdBoone Ave NG o ld e nValley D rSchullerCirN Fr on t ag e Rd S F r o nta g e R d
Rhode IslandAve N Pennsylvania Ave SAlley
Alley
(Private)AlleyAlleyLilac Dr NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Harold Ave WestwoodDr
N
Ardmore DrT
h
e
o
d
o
re
Wirth
P
k
w
y
Tyrol Tr(Mendelssohn Ln)AlleyS Frontage Rd
Al
pinePassBrenner
Pa
ssDougl a s Ave
QuentinAveSTyrol TrailTyrol
Tra ilSunsetRidge
Westw
oodDrS
RavineTrTyrol
Tr
ail
Janalyn C irMaddusLn
MeadowLnS
AvondaleRdBurntsideDr Su nnyridgeLnBru
n
s
wickAveNLeberLn
C lo v e rle afDrCloverLnC
loverleafD
r TheodoreWirthPkwyBeverly Ave
B u rn tsideDrSpringValleyRdToledoAveN
DuluthSt
GoldenV alle y R dSpringValleyCirCounty Rd 66
(IslandDr)(IslandDr)GoldenValleyRd
TheodoreWirthPkwyW irth P k w y
Wayzat
a
Bl
vd
G le n w o o d P kwyPlymouthAveN (Mpls)ZenithAveNCr
est
vi
ewAve
Byr d A v e N
Hwy 55
Glenwood Ave
Bassett CreekDrLegend DrLeeAveNLeeAveNMajorAveNLeeAveNEl mdaleRd
Adell A veM in n a quaDr M innaq uaD r
ToledoAveNOrdwayMarkayRidge Orchard Ave NNor m a n d y Pl
CherokeePlQuailAveNRegentAveNTri t o n D rTr ito n D r
L o w r y Ter
3
3rdAveN
SandburgLn Lamplighter
Ln
BrookridgeAveNValeCrestRdWinfieldAveCountyRd 66
ParkPlaceBlvd
(SLP)I-394SF r ontage Rd (SLP)Xeni
aAve
SCounty Rd 70
L ila cDrNLilacDrNLilacD
r
NConstanceDrWConstanceDrESandburg Rd
S Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd N Frontage RdOlsonMemorialHwy
S F r o n t a g e R d
O l s o n M e m o r i a l H w y
OlsonMemorialHwy Valleywo
odCirYosemite CirLawn TerRadissonRd
Turnpike
RdAlley
AlleyTurnpikeRd Col
o
nialDr
GlenwoodAve
BrunswickAve NMeanderRd
MeanderRdIdahoAveNHaroldAve
Wayzata Blvd
I-394SFrontageRd
Edgewo
o
dAveSIdahoAveNCortlawnCirWCortlawn Cir S
CortlawnCirN
Dawnvie w TerCounty Rd 70
EdgewoodAveSK in g CreekRdKentu
ckyAveNLouisianaAveNMarylandAve SRhodeIslandAveSRidgewayRdEwaldTe rWestern Ter
FieldD r Brookview Pk w y N Harold Ave
HalfMoonDr
RidgewayRdG oldenValleyR d (B assett Creek
Blvd)Lewis Rd
10thAveN
EllisLn
P lym outhA v eN Plymouth Ave N
Faribault St
OrklaDrCastleCt Winnetka Heights D rKelly
Dr
Maryland
Av
eNHampshire Pl
OlympiaSt
Oregon Ave NQuebecAveNValdersAveNOrklaDrKnoll StWisconsinA
veNWinsdaleSt
Mandan
AveNCounty Rd 102AquilaAveNAquila
A
veNZealandAveNJulianne Ter Jul ia n neTerPatsy Ln
WisconsinAveNAquilaAveNWestbendRd
WinnetkaHeightsDr
ZealandAveNOrklaDrValdersCtValdersAve NWinnetkaHeights Dr
Aq uilaAveNZealandAveNS c ottAveNRose
ManorDuluthSt
Duluth St CavellAveNEnsignAveNElg in Pl
23rd Ave N
Medley L n
(Medley Rd)
(Medley C ir)H illsboroAveN(English Cir)(MayfairR
d
)
(Kin
g
s
V a lleyRd)(K ings
V
al
leyRdE)(KingsValleyRd W)
(Stro
d
en
Cir)(Tamarin Tr)
(Mar
qui
sRd)
Ski Hill
Rd MajorCirLeeAveNMajorAveNRhodeIslandAveNG o ld e n V a lleyR d
G o ld e n V a lle yR d
G o ld e n V a lle y R d
Hwy100Hwy100Hwy1
0
0Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100Hwy 394
Hwy394 Hwy394
Hwy 394 Hwy394ColoradoAve NHwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Colorado Ave SGoldenHil l s DrPaisleyLnPaisleyLn
I-394NFrontageRd I-394 N FrontageRd
WayzataBlvd
I-394SFrontag e Rd
York
A
veNValeryRdW
asatchLn
Hwy 55
Hwy 55
H w y 55
Olson Memorial HwyHwy 55
H wy 5 5
County Rd 40
County Rd 40 Glenwoo d A ve
County R d 4 0
CountyRd40
GoldenValleyRd
C o unty Rd 66ManchesterDr
County Rd 156OregonAveS24thAve N
LilacDrNRoanokeRdLouisianaAveN
Turnpike RdLilacLoop (Sunnyridge Ln)WisconsinAveN
GettysburgCt(LaurelPt)
(Laurel Curv)Independence Ave NGettysburg Ave NFlag Ave NWheelerBlvdAlleyNaper St
Betty CrockerDr Decatur Ave N(WesleyCommonsDr)Winnetka Ave S Winnetka Ave SHanley RdBrookviewPkwySWayzataBlvd
I-394 S Frontag e R d
Olympia St
Independence Ave NHillsboro Ave NGettysburg Ave NCity of Golden Valley7800 Golden Valley RoadGolden Valley, MN 55427-4588763-593-8030www.goldenvalleymn.gov
Tobacco Sales
0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200400
Feet
IPrint Date: 2/4/2020
Sources:
-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2019)
-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.
Scenario E
!(k Existing Tobacco License
Sale Restrictions
Assembly* - 1000 ft buffer
Parks and Natural Areas** - 500 ft buffer
No Sale Property Buffer
Commercial (63)
Sales Allowed - Full Property (29)
Sales Allowed - Partial Property (22)
Sales Disallowed - Partial Property (22)
Sales Disallowed - Full Property (12)
*Assembly excluding churches unless a school facility
also resides there. Libraries were added in.
**Natural Areas excluding those which have no
recreational opportunities such as playgrounds,
ballfields, trails, or open grassy areas.
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k !(k
!(k
!(k !(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
Medic
i
neLakeBranchIkePond
Colonial Pond
Ottawa Pond
Glen-woodPond
EgretPond
LilacPond
DuluthPond
St.CroixPond
Chicago Pond
LilacPond
Pond CTurners PondGlen 1 Pond
DuckPond
Loop EPond
Loop FPond Sweeney LakeWirth LakeTwin LakeB a s s ett Creek
Hampshire Pond
DecolaPond A
NorthRicePond
West RingPond Cortlawn Pond
DecolaPonds B & C
Westwood Lake
SchaperPond
SouthRicePond
East RingPond Bassett CreekDecolaPondE
DecolaPond F
BreckPond
NatchezPond
MinnaquaPond
WirthPond
Toledo/AngeloPond
HoneywellPond
StrawberryPond
DecolaPond D
Ba
s
s
e
tt Cr
e
e
k
BassettC
r
e
e
k
Basset
t Cr
eekBassettC re ek
BassettC reekSweeney L akeBranchSweeney Lake BranchNW LoopPondBoone Avenue PondMain Stem
Pond B
Pond C
Bassett Creek NatureArea Pond
Medicine Lake
BrookviewPond A
Hidden LakesPond 1
Pond 2A
Pond 2B
Pond 3
Schaper BallfieldPond
Pond O
Pond J
Spirit of Hope Church Pond
GoldenRidgePond
Golden Meadows Pond
SoccerFieldPond
WestPond
201GeneralMillsPond
HaroldPond
Medicine Lake Road Pond
Xenia MitigationPond
10th AvePond
SpringPond
Briar-woodPond
LaurelHills Pond
JFB NWPond
LogisPond
BrownieLake
BirchPond
MinnaquaWetland
GrimesPondBassett CreekPark Pond
SweeneyLakeBranchPond M
Pond F
Pond DPond E
Dover HillPondLiberty BasinBrookviewGolf Course
LionsPark
WesleyPark
Sochacki Park
SchaperPark
ScheidParkHampshirePark
MedleyPark
Briarwood
Laurel Avenue Greenbelt
Glenview TerracePark
North TyrolPark
Western AvenueMarsh
Nature
Area
GeartyPark
Sandburg AthleticFacility
NatchezPark
ValleyView ParkPennsylvaniaWoods
BassettCreekNature Area
WildwoodPark
IsaacsonPark
SouthTyrol Park
SeemanPark
AdelineNature Area
YosemitePark
StockmanPark
Golden OaksPark
St CroixPark
LakeviewPark
SweeneyPark
Perpich CenterBall Fields
Ronald B. Davis Community Center
Brookview Park
Westwood HillsNature Center (SLP)
(MPRB)
Theodore WirthRegional Park
Eloise Butler WildflowerGarden and Bird Sanctuary
Wirth LakeBeach
Golden RidgeNature Area
General Mills NaturePreserve
General Mills ResearchNature Area
BooneOpenSpace
GoldenHills Pond
MadisonPond
SouthTyrolPond
LibraryHill
IdahoWetland
GeorgiaOpen Space
ArdmoreNorth&SouthPonds
JanalynPond
MeadowPond
O p en S p ace
OrklaOpenSpace
PicnicPavilion
Chalet
SochackiPark (Three Rivers Park Dist.)
Bassett Valley Open Space
ByrdBluffOpenSpace
→
FishingDock
PaisleyPark
XeniaOpenSpace
DahlbergOpenSpace
Minnaqua Greenbelt
(TRPD)
(Mpls Park & Rec Board)
Plymouth Avenue The Trailhead
456766
456770
456766
456740
456740
4567156
4567102
§¨¦394
§¨¦394
Æÿ55
Æÿ55
Æÿ100
Æÿ100
£¤169
£¤169
34th Ave N
Medicine Lake Rd
BroggerCir Knoll St Lilac Dr NLilac Dr NThotland Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinnetka Ave NSunnyridgeCir
Western Ave (Wat
erfordDr)Hillsboro Ave NZealandAve
N
Aquila Ave NOrkla DrWisconsin Ave N23rd Ave N
KalternLn
Wynnwood Rd
25th Ave N
Bies DrJonellen Ln
Sumter Ave NRhodeIslandAveNPatsy Ln Valders Ave NWinnetka Ave NDuluth St Florida Ave NSandburg Rd HeritageCirKentley Ave
Wynnwood Rd
Kenneth Way
Unity Ave NB a s s e t t C r ee k DrQuailAveNScott Ave NLilac Dr NLowry Ter
33rd Ave N
Noble Ave NCross LnQuail Ave NScott Ave NRegent Ave NToledo Ave NIndiana Ave N(BridgewaterRd)(WaterfordCt)(Hid
d
e
n
LnkesPkwy)Meadow Ln NFrance Ave NTopel Rd
Unity Ave NPhoenix St
Parkview TerWelcomeAveNWelcomeC ir
Welcom
eAveNXeniaAveNZ
a
n
e Av
e
N
Lindsay St
St Croix Ave N
St Croix Ave N
Yosemite Ave NWolfberryLnBrunswick Ave NCounty Rd 102Westmore Way
Green Valley Rd
Louisiana Ave NKelly DrMaryland Ave NOlympia St
Winsdale St
Winnetka Ave NYukon CtWesleyDr WesleyDr
Plymouth Ave N
10th Ave N
Kelly DrVarner CirPennsylvania Ave NFaribault StQuebec Ave NRhode Island Ave NPhoenix St
Knoll St
County Rd 156Jersey Ave NCountryClubDr
P h o e n ix S tDouglas DrGeorgia Ave NCou
nty
Rd40
Hampshire Ave NWestch e sterCirJersey Ave NGardenParkQue
b
e
c
Av
e
SWinnetka Ave NWally St
Ensign Ave N7th Ave N
Golden Valley Rd Decatur Ave N10th Ave N
Natchez Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Olson Memorial Hwy
Cutacross Rd
Olson Memorial Hwy
Earl St
Flag Ave NHampshire
LnJersey Ave NFloridaAveNEdgewoodAve NDouglas DrDuluth Ln
Scott Ave N
Drake Rd
Lowry Ter Kyle Ave NQuail Ave NPerry Ave NNoble Ave NCulver Rd
Dawnview Ter
Dona Ln
Noble Ave NScottAveNGlendenTer
Culver Rd
Marie Ln W
Hampton Rd
RegentAveNPerryAveNLilac Dr N27th Ave N
Merribee Dr Kyle Ave NHampton RdOrchard Ave NMarie Ln E
Lee Ave NKyle Ave NDres
de
n
L
n
Kewanee Way
26th Ave N
Meridia
n D
r
P
ark
vie
w
Blv
d Terrace LnManor DrMcNair DrByrd Ave N
Bas
s
e
ttCreekDrMaryHillsDrZenith Ave NVista DrXerxes Ave NYork Ave NS t M a rg are t D rZephyr PlXerxes Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)(SkylineDr)Spruce TrKyle PlWestbrook Rd Noble Ave Frontage RdCircleDownOrchard Ave NPerryAveNWindsorWayWestbendRdUnity Ave NG reenviewLn
Regent Ave NSorell Ave
FrontenacAveQuail Ave NStCroixAve N
Winsdale St StCroixCirAngelo DrUnity Ave NAlfred Rd Spring Valley RdN
o
bl
e
DrMajor DrAdeline LnAngelo DrAngelo DrWills PlToledo Ave NOttawa Ave NKillarney DrZane Ave NWoodstock Ave Woodstock Ave
Loring LnYosemiteAveN
Turners Crossroad NWestchesterCirN
F
r
ontageRdFlorida Ave NHampshire Ave NPlymouth Ave N
Idaho Ave NOlympia StHampshire Ave NArcher Ave NKelly DrPennsylvania Ave NDuluth St Xylon Ave NWisconsin Ave NSumter Ave NBoone Ave NWinsdale St
Meadow Ln N
DahlbergD r
Woodstock Ave
Poplar Dr Meadow Ln NChatelain Ter
Natchez Ave NEdgewood Ave NK i ng s t o n C i r
Glenwood Ave
Country Club DrValdersAveNOrkla DrElgin PlDecaturAveN
Indiana Ave NRoanoke CirWestern Ave Western Ave
Harold Ave
Loring Ln
WestwoodDrNArdmoreDrWinsdale St
Knoll St
Oak Grove CirDuluth St Zane Ave NDouglas Dr27th Ave N
B
on
nieLn
Medicine Lake Rd
Madison Ave W
Nevada Ave NLouisiana Ave NCounty Rd 70
ValdersAve NValders Ave N23rd Ave N Rhode IslandAve NCounty Rd 156Medicine Lake Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinsdale St
St Croix Ave N June Ave NLegend DrLegendLn
General Mills BlvdBoone Ave NSunnyridge LnGlenwood Ave
Janalyn CirJanalyn CirGlencrest Rd Meadow Ln SWayzata BlvdWestwood Dr SWestwoodLn
StrawberryLnOttawa Ave NOttawa Ave SNatchez Ave S Tyrol Crest
SussexRdJune Ave SWayzata Blvd
FairlawnWayNatchez Ave SOttawa Ave SPrincetonAve SDouglas Ave
Circle DownTurners Crossroad SGolden Hills Dr
Laurel AveLaurel Ave
Hampshire Ave SDakota Ave SBrunswick Ave SKing Hill RdGlenwood Ave
Colonial Dr
Medicine Lake Rd
FloridaAveSAlley
Market StMarket St
Louisiana Ave SLaurel AvePennsylvania Ave SRhode Island Ave SSumter Ave SUtah Ave SGregory Rd
VermontAve SWi
sco
nsi
n
AveSGeneral Mills BlvdHanley RdRidgeway Rd
Laurel Ave QubecAve S County Rd 102Nevada Ave SColonial RdLouisianaAveSKentucky Ave SJersey Ave SHeathbrookeCir
G le n w o o d P k w y
(Carriage Path)Xenia Ave SFlorida CtLilacDr
NOlson Memorial Hwy
Schaper Rd
Lilac Dr NG o ld en V a lle y R d
Lilac Dr N(WoodlandTrail)(Wat.Dr)
BassettCreek Ln
(NobleDr)France Ave S (Mpls)N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd Olson Mem HwyAdair Ave NAdair Ave NWestbrookRd
34th Ave N
Mendelssohn Ave NAlley-Unimproved--Unimproved-
Wayzata Blvd
Wayzata BlvdBoone Ave NG o ld e nValley D rSchullerCirN Fr on t ag e Rd S F r o nta g e R d
Rhode IslandAve N Pennsylvania Ave SAlley
Alley
(Private)AlleyAlleyLilac Dr NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Harold Ave WestwoodDr
N
Ardmore DrT
h
e
o
d
o
re
Wirth
P
k
w
y
Tyrol Tr(Mendelssohn Ln)AlleyS Frontage Rd
Al
pinePassBrenner
Pa
ssDougl a s Ave
QuentinAveSTyrol TrailTyrol
Tra ilSunsetRidge
Westw
oodDrS
RavineTrTyrol
Tr
ail
Janalyn C irMaddusLn
MeadowLnS
AvondaleRdBurntsideDr Su nnyridgeLnBru
n
s
wickAveNLeberLn
C lo v e rle afDrCloverLnC
loverleafD
r TheodoreWirthPkwyBeverly Ave
B u rn tsideDrSpringValleyRdToledoAveN
DuluthSt
GoldenV alle y R dSpringValleyCirCounty Rd 66
(IslandDr)(IslandDr)GoldenValleyRd
TheodoreWirthPkwyW irth P k w y
Wayzat
a
Bl
vd
G le n w o o d P kwyPlymouthAveN (Mpls)ZenithAveNCr
est
vi
ewAve
Byr d A v e N
Hwy 55
Glenwood Ave
Bassett CreekDrLegend DrLeeAveNLeeAveNMajorAveNLeeAveNEl mdaleRd
Adell A veM in n a quaDr M innaq uaD r
ToledoAveNOrdwayMarkayRidge Orchard Ave NNor m a n d y Pl
CherokeePlQuailAveNRegentAveNTri t o n D rTr ito n D r
L o w r y Ter
3
3rdAveN
SandburgLn Lamplighter
Ln
BrookridgeAveNValeCrestRdWinfieldAveCountyRd 66
ParkPlaceBlvd
(SLP)I-394SF r ontage Rd (SLP)Xeni
aAve
SCounty Rd 70
L ila cDrNLilacDrNLilacD
r
NConstanceDrWConstanceDrESandburg Rd
S Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd N Frontage RdOlsonMemorialHwy
S F r o n t a g e R d
O l s o n M e m o r i a l H w y
OlsonMemorialHwy Valleywo
odCirYosemite CirLawn TerRadissonRd
Turnpike
RdAlley
AlleyTurnpikeRd Col
o
nialDr
GlenwoodAve
BrunswickAve NMeanderRd
MeanderRdIdahoAveNHaroldAve
Wayzata Blvd
I-394SFrontageRd
Edgewo
o
dAveSIdahoAveNCortlawnCirWCortlawn Cir S
CortlawnCirN
Dawnvie w TerCounty Rd 70
EdgewoodAveSK in g CreekRdKentu
ckyAveNLouisianaAveNMarylandAve SRhodeIslandAveSRidgewayRdEwaldTe rWestern Ter
FieldD r Brookview Pk w y N Harold Ave
HalfMoonDr
RidgewayRdG oldenValleyR d (B assett Creek
Blvd)Lewis Rd
10thAveN
EllisLn
P lym outhA v eN Plymouth Ave N
Faribault St
OrklaDrCastleCt Winnetka Heights D rKelly
Dr
Maryland
Av
eNHampshire Pl
OlympiaSt
Oregon Ave NQuebecAveNValdersAveNOrklaDrKnoll StWisconsinA
veNWinsdaleSt
Mandan
AveNCounty Rd 102AquilaAveNAquila
A
veNZealandAveNJulianne Ter Jul ia n neTerPatsy Ln
WisconsinAveNAquilaAveNWestbendRd
WinnetkaHeightsDr
ZealandAveNOrklaDrValdersCtValdersAve NWinnetkaHeights Dr
Aq uilaAveNZealandAveNS c ottAveNRose
ManorDuluthSt
Duluth St CavellAveNEnsignAveNElg in Pl
23rd Ave N
Medley L n
(Medley Rd)
(Medley C ir)H illsboroAveN(English Cir)(MayfairR
d
)
(Kin
g
s
V a lleyRd)(K ings
V
al
leyRdE)(KingsValleyRd W)
(Stro
d
en
Cir)(Tamarin Tr)
(Mar
qui
sRd)
Ski Hill
Rd MajorCirLeeAveNMajorAveNRhodeIslandAveNG o ld e n V a lleyR d
G o ld e n V a lle yR d
G o ld e n V a lle y R d
Hwy100Hwy100Hwy1
0
0Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100Hwy 394
Hwy394 Hwy394
Hwy 394 Hwy394ColoradoAve NHwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Colorado Ave SGoldenHil l s DrPaisleyLnPaisleyLn
I-394NFrontageRd I-394 N FrontageRd
WayzataBlvd
I-394SFrontag e Rd
York
A
veNValeryRdW
asatchLn
Hwy 55
Hwy 55
H w y 55
Olson Memorial HwyHwy 55
H wy 5 5
County Rd 40
County Rd 40 Glenwoo d A ve
County R d 4 0
CountyRd40
GoldenValleyRd
C o unty Rd 66ManchesterDr
County Rd 156OregonAveS24thAve N
LilacDrNRoanokeRdLouisianaAveN
Turnpike RdLilacLoop (Sunnyridge Ln)WisconsinAveN
GettysburgCt(LaurelPt)
(Laurel Curv)Independence Ave NGettysburg Ave NFlag Ave NWheelerBlvdAlleyNaper St
Betty CrockerDr Decatur Ave N(WesleyCommonsDr)Winnetka Ave S Winnetka Ave SHanley RdBrookviewPkwySWayzataBlvd
I-394 S Frontag e R d
Olympia St
Independence Ave NHillsboro Ave NGettysburg Ave NCity of Golden Valley7800 Golden Valley RoadGolden Valley, MN 55427-4588763-593-8030www.goldenvalleymn.gov
Tobacco Sales
0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200400
Feet
IPrint Date: 2/4/2020
Sources:
-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2019)
-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.
Scenario F
!(k Existing Tobacco License
Sale Restrictions
Assembly* - 750 ft buffer
Parks and Natural Areas** - 500 ft buffer
No Sale Property Buffer
Commercial (63)
Sales Allowed - Full Property (31)
Sales Allowed - Partial Property (21)
Sales Disallowed - Partial Property (21)
Sales Disallowed - Full Property (11)
*Assembly excluding churches unless a school facility
also resides there. Libraries were added in.
**Natural Areas excluding those which have no
recreational opportunites such as playgrounds,
ballfields, trails, or open grassy areas.
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k !(k
!(k
!(k !(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
Medic
i
neLakeBranchIkePond
Colonial Pond
Ottawa Pond
Glen-woodPond
EgretPond
LilacPond
DuluthPond
St.CroixPond
Chicago Pond
LilacPond
Pond CTurners PondGlen 1 Pond
DuckPond
Loop EPond
Loop FPond Sweeney LakeWirth LakeTwin LakeB a s s ett Creek
Hampshire Pond
DecolaPond A
NorthRicePond
West RingPond Cortlawn Pond
DecolaPonds B & C
Westwood Lake
SchaperPond
SouthRicePond
East RingPond Bassett CreekDecolaPondE
DecolaPond F
BreckPond
NatchezPond
MinnaquaPond
WirthPond
Toledo/AngeloPond
HoneywellPond
StrawberryPond
DecolaPond D
Ba
s
s
e
tt Cr
e
e
k
BassettC
r
e
e
k
Basset
t Cr
eekBassettC re ek
BassettC reekSweeney L akeBranchSweeney Lake BranchNW LoopPondBoone Avenue PondMain Stem
Pond B
Pond C
Bassett Creek NatureArea Pond
Medicine Lake
BrookviewPond A
Hidden LakesPond 1
Pond 2A
Pond 2B
Pond 3
Schaper BallfieldPond
Pond O
Pond J
Spirit of Hope Church Pond
GoldenRidgePond
Golden Meadows Pond
SoccerFieldPond
WestPond
201GeneralMillsPond
HaroldPond
Medicine Lake Road Pond
Xenia MitigationPond
10th AvePond
SpringPond
Briar-woodPond
LaurelHills Pond
JFB NWPond
LogisPond
BrownieLake
BirchPond
MinnaquaWetland
GrimesPondBassett CreekPark Pond
SweeneyLakeBranchPond M
Pond F
Pond DPond E
Dover HillPondLiberty BasinBrookviewGolf Course
LionsPark
WesleyPark
Sochacki Park
SchaperPark
ScheidParkHampshirePark
MedleyPark
Briarwood
Laurel Avenue Greenbelt
Glenview TerracePark
North TyrolPark
Western AvenueMarsh
Nature
Area
GeartyPark
Sandburg AthleticFacility
NatchezPark
ValleyView ParkPennsylvaniaWoods
BassettCreekNature Area
WildwoodPark
IsaacsonPark
SouthTyrol Park
SeemanPark
AdelineNature Area
YosemitePark
StockmanPark
Golden OaksPark
St CroixPark
LakeviewPark
SweeneyPark
Perpich CenterBall Fields
Ronald B. Davis Community Center
Brookview Park
Westwood HillsNature Center (SLP)
(MPRB)
Theodore WirthRegional Park
Eloise Butler WildflowerGarden and Bird Sanctuary
Wirth LakeBeach
Golden RidgeNature Area
General Mills NaturePreserve
General Mills ResearchNature Area
BooneOpenSpace
GoldenHills Pond
MadisonPond
SouthTyrolPond
LibraryHill
IdahoWetland
GeorgiaOpen Space
ArdmoreNorth&SouthPonds
JanalynPond
MeadowPond
O p en S p ace
OrklaOpenSpace
PicnicPavilion
Chalet
SochackiPark (Three Rivers Park Dist.)
Bassett Valley Open Space
ByrdBluffOpenSpace
→
FishingDock
PaisleyPark
XeniaOpenSpace
DahlbergOpenSpace
Minnaqua Greenbelt
(TRPD)
(Mpls Park & Rec Board)
Plymouth Avenue The Trailhead
456766
456770
456766
456740
456740
4567156
4567102
§¨¦394
§¨¦394
Æÿ55
Æÿ55
Æÿ100
Æÿ100
£¤169
£¤169
34th Ave N
Medicine Lake Rd
BroggerCir Knoll St Lilac Dr NLilac Dr NThotland Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinnetka Ave NSunnyridgeCir
Western Ave (Wat
erfordDr)Hillsboro Ave NZealandAve
N
Aquila Ave NOrkla DrWisconsin Ave N23rd Ave N
KalternLn
Wynnwood Rd
25th Ave N
Bies DrJonellen Ln
Sumter Ave NRhodeIslandAveNPatsy Ln Valders Ave NWinnetka Ave NDuluth St Florida Ave NSandburg Rd HeritageCirKentley Ave
Wynnwood Rd
Kenneth Way
Unity Ave NB a s s e t t C r ee k DrQuailAveNScott Ave NLilac Dr NLowry Ter
33rd Ave N
Noble Ave NCross LnQuail Ave NScott Ave NRegent Ave NToledo Ave NIndiana Ave N(BridgewaterRd)(WaterfordCt)(Hid
d
e
n
LnkesPkwy)Meadow Ln NFrance Ave NTopel Rd
Unity Ave NPhoenix St
Parkview TerWelcomeAveNWelcomeC ir
Welcom
eAveNXeniaAveNZ
a
n
e Av
e
N
Lindsay St
St Croix Ave N
St Croix Ave N
Yosemite Ave NWolfberryLnBrunswick Ave NCounty Rd 102Westmore Way
Green Valley Rd
Louisiana Ave NKelly DrMaryland Ave NOlympia St
Winsdale St
Winnetka Ave NYukon CtWesleyDr WesleyDr
Plymouth Ave N
10th Ave N
Kelly DrVarner CirPennsylvania Ave NFaribault StQuebec Ave NRhode Island Ave NPhoenix St
Knoll St
County Rd 156Jersey Ave NCountryClubDr
P h o e n ix S tDouglas DrGeorgia Ave NCou
nty
Rd40
Hampshire Ave NWestch e sterCirJersey Ave NGardenParkQue
b
e
c
Av
e
SWinnetka Ave NWally St
Ensign Ave N7th Ave N
Golden Valley Rd Decatur Ave N10th Ave N
Natchez Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Olson Memorial Hwy
Cutacross Rd
Olson Memorial Hwy
Earl St
Flag Ave NHampshire
LnJersey Ave NFloridaAveNEdgewoodAve NDouglas DrDuluth Ln
Scott Ave N
Drake Rd
Lowry Ter Kyle Ave NQuail Ave NPerry Ave NNoble Ave NCulver Rd
Dawnview Ter
Dona Ln
Noble Ave NScottAveNGlendenTer
Culver Rd
Marie Ln W
Hampton Rd
RegentAveNPerryAveNLilac Dr N27th Ave N
Merribee Dr Kyle Ave NHampton RdOrchard Ave NMarie Ln E
Lee Ave NKyle Ave NDres
de
n
L
n
Kewanee Way
26th Ave N
Meridia
n D
r
P
ark
vie
w
Blv
d Terrace LnManor DrMcNair DrByrd Ave N
Bas
s
e
ttCreekDrMaryHillsDrZenith Ave NVista DrXerxes Ave NYork Ave NS t M a rg are t D rZephyr PlXerxes Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)(SkylineDr)Spruce TrKyle PlWestbrook Rd Noble Ave Frontage RdCircleDownOrchard Ave NPerryAveNWindsorWayWestbendRdUnity Ave NG reenviewLn
Regent Ave NSorell Ave
FrontenacAveQuail Ave NStCroixAve N
Winsdale St StCroixCirAngelo DrUnity Ave NAlfred Rd Spring Valley RdN
o
bl
e
DrMajor DrAdeline LnAngelo DrAngelo DrWills PlToledo Ave NOttawa Ave NKillarney DrZane Ave NWoodstock Ave Woodstock Ave
Loring LnYosemiteAveN
Turners Crossroad NWestchesterCirN
F
r
ontageRdFlorida Ave NHampshire Ave NPlymouth Ave N
Idaho Ave NOlympia StHampshire Ave NArcher Ave NKelly DrPennsylvania Ave NDuluth St Xylon Ave NWisconsin Ave NSumter Ave NBoone Ave NWinsdale St
Meadow Ln N
DahlbergD r
Woodstock Ave
Poplar Dr Meadow Ln NChatelain Ter
Natchez Ave NEdgewood Ave NK i ng s t o n C i r
Glenwood Ave
Country Club DrValdersAveNOrkla DrElgin PlDecaturAveN
Indiana Ave NRoanoke CirWestern Ave Western Ave
Harold Ave
Loring Ln
WestwoodDrNArdmoreDrWinsdale St
Knoll St
Oak Grove CirDuluth St Zane Ave NDouglas Dr27th Ave N
B
on
nieLn
Medicine Lake Rd
Madison Ave W
Nevada Ave NLouisiana Ave NCounty Rd 70
ValdersAve NValders Ave N23rd Ave N Rhode IslandAve NCounty Rd 156Medicine Lake Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinsdale St
St Croix Ave N June Ave NLegend DrLegendLn
General Mills BlvdBoone Ave NSunnyridge LnGlenwood Ave
Janalyn CirJanalyn CirGlencrest Rd Meadow Ln SWayzata BlvdWestwood Dr SWestwoodLn
StrawberryLnOttawa Ave NOttawa Ave SNatchez Ave S Tyrol Crest
SussexRdJune Ave SWayzata Blvd
FairlawnWayNatchez Ave SOttawa Ave SPrincetonAve SDouglas Ave
Circle DownTurners Crossroad SGolden Hills Dr
Laurel AveLaurel Ave
Hampshire Ave SDakota Ave SBrunswick Ave SKing Hill RdGlenwood Ave
Colonial Dr
Medicine Lake Rd
FloridaAveSAlley
Market StMarket St
Louisiana Ave SLaurel AvePennsylvania Ave SRhode Island Ave SSumter Ave SUtah Ave SGregory Rd
VermontAve SWi
sco
nsi
n
AveSGeneral Mills BlvdHanley RdRidgeway Rd
Laurel Ave QubecAve S County Rd 102Nevada Ave SColonial RdLouisianaAveSKentucky Ave SJersey Ave SHeathbrookeCir
G le n w o o d P k w y
(Carriage Path)Xenia Ave SFlorida CtLilacDr
NOlson Memorial Hwy
Schaper Rd
Lilac Dr NG o ld en V a lle y R d
Lilac Dr N(WoodlandTrail)(Wat.Dr)
BassettCreek Ln
(NobleDr)France Ave S (Mpls)N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd Olson Mem HwyAdair Ave NAdair Ave NWestbrookRd
34th Ave N
Mendelssohn Ave NAlley-Unimproved--Unimproved-
Wayzata Blvd
Wayzata BlvdBoone Ave NG o ld e nValley D rSchullerCirN Fr on t ag e Rd S F r o nta g e R d
Rhode IslandAve N Pennsylvania Ave SAlley
Alley
(Private)AlleyAlleyLilac Dr NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Harold Ave WestwoodDr
N
Ardmore DrT
h
e
o
d
o
re
Wirth
P
k
w
y
Tyrol Tr(Mendelssohn Ln)AlleyS Frontage Rd
Al
pinePassBrenner
Pa
ssDougl a s Ave
QuentinAveSTyrol TrailTyrol
Tra ilSunsetRidge
Westw
oodDrS
RavineTrTyrol
Tr
ail
Janalyn C irMaddusLn
MeadowLnS
AvondaleRdBurntsideDr Su nnyridgeLnBru
n
s
wickAveNLeberLn
C lo v e rle afDrCloverLnC
loverleafD
r TheodoreWirthPkwyBeverly Ave
B u rn tsideDrSpringValleyRdToledoAveN
DuluthSt
GoldenV alle y R dSpringValleyCirCounty Rd 66
(IslandDr)(IslandDr)GoldenValleyRd
TheodoreWirthPkwyW irth P k w y
Wayzat
a
Bl
vd
G le n w o o d P kwyPlymouthAveN (Mpls)ZenithAveNCr
est
vi
ewAve
Byr d A v e N
Hwy 55
Glenwood Ave
Bassett CreekDrLegend DrLeeAveNLeeAveNMajorAveNLeeAveNEl mdaleRd
Adell A veM in n a quaDr M innaq uaD r
ToledoAveNOrdwayMarkayRidge Orchard Ave NNor m a n d y Pl
CherokeePlQuailAveNRegentAveNTri t o n D rTr ito n D r
L o w r y Ter
3
3rdAveN
SandburgLn Lamplighter
Ln
BrookridgeAveNValeCrestRdWinfieldAveCountyRd 66
ParkPlaceBlvd
(SLP)I-394SF r ontage Rd (SLP)Xeni
aAve
SCounty Rd 70
L ila cDrNLilacDrNLilacD
r
NConstanceDrWConstanceDrESandburg Rd
S Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd N Frontage RdOlsonMemorialHwy
S F r o n t a g e R d
O l s o n M e m o r i a l H w y
OlsonMemorialHwy Valleywo
odCirYosemite CirLawn TerRadissonRd
Turnpike
RdAlley
AlleyTurnpikeRd Col
o
nialDr
GlenwoodAve
BrunswickAve NMeanderRd
MeanderRdIdahoAveNHaroldAve
Wayzata Blvd
I-394SFrontageRd
Edgewo
o
dAveSIdahoAveNCortlawnCirWCortlawn Cir S
CortlawnCirN
Dawnvie w TerCounty Rd 70
EdgewoodAveSK in g CreekRdKentu
ckyAveNLouisianaAveNMarylandAve SRhodeIslandAveSRidgewayRdEwaldTe rWestern Ter
FieldD r Brookview Pk w y N Harold Ave
HalfMoonDr
RidgewayRdG oldenValleyR d (B assett Creek
Blvd)Lewis Rd
10thAveN
EllisLn
P lym outhA v eN Plymouth Ave N
Faribault St
OrklaDrCastleCt Winnetka Heights D rKelly
Dr
Maryland
Av
eNHampshire Pl
OlympiaSt
Oregon Ave NQuebecAveNValdersAveNOrklaDrKnoll StWisconsinA
veNWinsdaleSt
Mandan
AveNCounty Rd 102AquilaAveNAquila
A
veNZealandAveNJulianne Ter Jul ia n neTerPatsy Ln
WisconsinAveNAquilaAveNWestbendRd
WinnetkaHeightsDr
ZealandAveNOrklaDrValdersCtValdersAve NWinnetkaHeights Dr
Aq uilaAveNZealandAveNS c ottAveNRose
ManorDuluthSt
Duluth St CavellAveNEnsignAveNElg in Pl
23rd Ave N
Medley L n
(Medley Rd)
(Medley C ir)H illsboroAveN(English Cir)(MayfairR
d
)
(Kin
g
s
V a lleyRd)(K ings
V
al
leyRdE)(KingsValleyRd W)
(Stro
d
en
Cir)(Tamarin Tr)
(Mar
qui
sRd)
Ski Hill
Rd MajorCirLeeAveNMajorAveNRhodeIslandAveNG o ld e n V a lleyR d
G o ld e n V a lle yR d
G o ld e n V a lle y R d
Hwy100Hwy100Hwy1
0
0Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100Hwy 394
Hwy394 Hwy394
Hwy 394 Hwy394ColoradoAve NHwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Colorado Ave SGoldenHil l s DrPaisleyLnPaisleyLn
I-394NFrontageRd I-394 N FrontageRd
WayzataBlvd
I-394SFrontag e Rd
York
A
veNValeryRdW
asatchLn
Hwy 55
Hwy 55
H w y 55
Olson Memorial HwyHwy 55
H wy 5 5
County Rd 40
County Rd 40 Glenwoo d A ve
County R d 4 0
CountyRd40
GoldenValleyRd
C o unty Rd 66ManchesterDr
County Rd 156OregonAveS24thAve N
LilacDrNRoanokeRdLouisianaAveN
Turnpike RdLilacLoop (Sunnyridge Ln)WisconsinAveN
GettysburgCt(LaurelPt)
(Laurel Curv)Independence Ave NGettysburg Ave NFlag Ave NWheelerBlvdAlleyNaper St
Betty CrockerDr Decatur Ave N(WesleyCommonsDr)Winnetka Ave S Winnetka Ave SHanley RdBrookviewPkwySWayzataBlvd
I-394 S Frontag e R d
Olympia St
Independence Ave NHillsboro Ave NGettysburg Ave NCity of Golden Valley7800 Golden Valley RoadGolden Valley, MN 55427-4588763-593-8030www.goldenvalleymn.gov
Tobacco Sales
0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200400
Feet
IPrint Date: 2/4/2020
Sources:
-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2019)
-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.
Scenario G
!(k Existing Tobacco License
Sale Restrictions
Assembly* - 1200 ft buffer
Parks and Natural Areas** - 500 ft buffer
No Sale Property Buffer
Commercial (63)
Sales Allowed - Full Property (26)
Sales Allowed - Partial Property (22)
Sales Disallowed - Partial Property (22)
Sales Disallowed - Full Property (15)
*Assembly excluding churches unless a school facility
also resides there. Libraries were added in.
**Natural Areas excluding those which have no
recreational opportunities such as playgrounds,
ballfields, trails, or open grassy areas.
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k !(k
!(k
!(k !(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
!(k
Medic
i
neLakeBranchIkePond
Colonial Pond
Ottawa Pond
Glen-woodPond
EgretPond
LilacPond
DuluthPond
St.CroixPond
Chicago Pond
LilacPond
Pond CTurners PondGlen 1 Pond
DuckPond
Loop EPond
Loop FPond Sweeney LakeWirth LakeTwin LakeB a s s ett Creek
Hampshire Pond
DecolaPond A
NorthRicePond
West RingPond Cortlawn Pond
DecolaPonds B & C
Westwood Lake
SchaperPond
SouthRicePond
East RingPond Bassett CreekDecolaPondE
DecolaPond F
BreckPond
NatchezPond
MinnaquaPond
WirthPond
Toledo/AngeloPond
HoneywellPond
StrawberryPond
DecolaPond D
Ba
s
s
e
tt Cr
e
e
k
BassettC
r
e
e
k
Basset
t Cr
eekBassettC re ek
BassettC reekSweeney L akeBranchSweeney Lake BranchNW LoopPondBoone Avenue PondMain Stem
Pond B
Pond C
Bassett Creek NatureArea Pond
Medicine Lake
BrookviewPond A
Hidden LakesPond 1
Pond 2A
Pond 2B
Pond 3
Schaper BallfieldPond
Pond O
Pond J
Spirit of Hope Church Pond
GoldenRidgePond
Golden Meadows Pond
SoccerFieldPond
WestPond
201GeneralMillsPond
HaroldPond
Medicine Lake Road Pond
Xenia MitigationPond
10th AvePond
SpringPond
Briar-woodPond
LaurelHills Pond
JFB NWPond
LogisPond
BrownieLake
BirchPond
MinnaquaWetland
GrimesPondBassett CreekPark Pond
SweeneyLakeBranchPond M
Pond F
Pond DPond E
Dover HillPondLiberty BasinBrookviewGolf Course
LionsPark
WesleyPark
Sochacki Park
SchaperPark
ScheidParkHampshirePark
MedleyPark
Briarwood
Laurel Avenue Greenbelt
Glenview TerracePark
North TyrolPark
Western AvenueMarsh
Nature
Area
GeartyPark
Sandburg AthleticFacility
NatchezPark
ValleyView ParkPennsylvaniaWoods
BassettCreekNature Area
WildwoodPark
IsaacsonPark
SouthTyrol Park
SeemanPark
AdelineNature Area
YosemitePark
StockmanPark
Golden OaksPark
St CroixPark
LakeviewPark
SweeneyPark
Perpich CenterBall Fields
Ronald B. Davis Community Center
Brookview Park
Westwood HillsNature Center (SLP)
(MPRB)
Theodore WirthRegional Park
Eloise Butler WildflowerGarden and Bird Sanctuary
Wirth LakeBeach
Golden RidgeNature Area
General Mills NaturePreserve
General Mills ResearchNature Area
BooneOpenSpace
GoldenHills Pond
MadisonPond
SouthTyrolPond
LibraryHill
IdahoWetland
GeorgiaOpen Space
ArdmoreNorth&SouthPonds
JanalynPond
MeadowPond
O p en S p ace
OrklaOpenSpace
PicnicPavilion
Chalet
SochackiPark (Three Rivers Park Dist.)
Bassett Valley Open Space
ByrdBluffOpenSpace
→
FishingDock
PaisleyPark
XeniaOpenSpace
DahlbergOpenSpace
Minnaqua Greenbelt
(TRPD)
(Mpls Park & Rec Board)
Plymouth Avenue The Trailhead
456766
456770
456766
456740
456740
4567156
4567102
§¨¦394
§¨¦394
Æÿ55
Æÿ55
Æÿ100
Æÿ100
£¤169
£¤169
34th Ave N
Medicine Lake Rd
BroggerCir Knoll St Lilac Dr NLilac Dr NThotland Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinnetka Ave NSunnyridgeCir
Western Ave (Wat
erfordDr)Hillsboro Ave NZealandAve
N
Aquila Ave NOrkla DrWisconsin Ave N23rd Ave N
KalternLn
Wynnwood Rd
25th Ave N
Bies DrJonellen Ln
Sumter Ave NRhodeIslandAveNPatsy Ln Valders Ave NWinnetka Ave NDuluth St Florida Ave NSandburg Rd HeritageCirKentley Ave
Wynnwood Rd
Kenneth Way
Unity Ave NB a s s e t t C r ee k DrQuailAveNScott Ave NLilac Dr NLowry Ter
33rd Ave N
Noble Ave NCross LnQuail Ave NScott Ave NRegent Ave NToledo Ave NIndiana Ave N(BridgewaterRd)(WaterfordCt)(Hid
d
e
n
LnkesPkwy)Meadow Ln NFrance Ave NTopel Rd
Unity Ave NPhoenix St
Parkview TerWelcomeAveNWelcomeC ir
Welcom
eAveNXeniaAveNZ
a
n
e Av
e
N
Lindsay St
St Croix Ave N
St Croix Ave N
Yosemite Ave NWolfberryLnBrunswick Ave NCounty Rd 102Westmore Way
Green Valley Rd
Louisiana Ave NKelly DrMaryland Ave NOlympia St
Winsdale St
Winnetka Ave NYukon CtWesleyDr WesleyDr
Plymouth Ave N
10th Ave N
Kelly DrVarner CirPennsylvania Ave NFaribault StQuebec Ave NRhode Island Ave NPhoenix St
Knoll St
County Rd 156Jersey Ave NCountryClubDr
P h o e n ix S tDouglas DrGeorgia Ave NCou
nty
Rd40
Hampshire Ave NWestch e sterCirJersey Ave NGardenParkQue
b
e
c
Av
e
SWinnetka Ave NWally St
Ensign Ave N7th Ave N
Golden Valley Rd Decatur Ave N10th Ave N
Natchez Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Olson Memorial Hwy
Cutacross Rd
Olson Memorial Hwy
Earl St
Flag Ave NHampshire
LnJersey Ave NFloridaAveNEdgewoodAve NDouglas DrDuluth Ln
Scott Ave N
Drake Rd
Lowry Ter Kyle Ave NQuail Ave NPerry Ave NNoble Ave NCulver Rd
Dawnview Ter
Dona Ln
Noble Ave NScottAveNGlendenTer
Culver Rd
Marie Ln W
Hampton Rd
RegentAveNPerryAveNLilac Dr N27th Ave N
Merribee Dr Kyle Ave NHampton RdOrchard Ave NMarie Ln E
Lee Ave NKyle Ave NDres
de
n
L
n
Kewanee Way
26th Ave N
Meridia
n D
r
P
ark
vie
w
Blv
d Terrace LnManor DrMcNair DrByrd Ave N
Bas
s
e
ttCreekDrMaryHillsDrZenith Ave NVista DrXerxes Ave NYork Ave NS t M a rg are t D rZephyr PlXerxes Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)(SkylineDr)Spruce TrKyle PlWestbrook Rd Noble Ave Frontage RdCircleDownOrchard Ave NPerryAveNWindsorWayWestbendRdUnity Ave NG reenviewLn
Regent Ave NSorell Ave
FrontenacAveQuail Ave NStCroixAve N
Winsdale St StCroixCirAngelo DrUnity Ave NAlfred Rd Spring Valley RdN
o
bl
e
DrMajor DrAdeline LnAngelo DrAngelo DrWills PlToledo Ave NOttawa Ave NKillarney DrZane Ave NWoodstock Ave Woodstock Ave
Loring LnYosemiteAveN
Turners Crossroad NWestchesterCirN
F
r
ontageRdFlorida Ave NHampshire Ave NPlymouth Ave N
Idaho Ave NOlympia StHampshire Ave NArcher Ave NKelly DrPennsylvania Ave NDuluth St Xylon Ave NWisconsin Ave NSumter Ave NBoone Ave NWinsdale St
Meadow Ln N
DahlbergD r
Woodstock Ave
Poplar Dr Meadow Ln NChatelain Ter
Natchez Ave NEdgewood Ave NK i ng s t o n C i r
Glenwood Ave
Country Club DrValdersAveNOrkla DrElgin PlDecaturAveN
Indiana Ave NRoanoke CirWestern Ave Western Ave
Harold Ave
Loring Ln
WestwoodDrNArdmoreDrWinsdale St
Knoll St
Oak Grove CirDuluth St Zane Ave NDouglas Dr27th Ave N
B
on
nieLn
Medicine Lake Rd
Madison Ave W
Nevada Ave NLouisiana Ave NCounty Rd 70
ValdersAve NValders Ave N23rd Ave N Rhode IslandAve NCounty Rd 156Medicine Lake Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinsdale St
St Croix Ave N June Ave NLegend DrLegendLn
General Mills BlvdBoone Ave NSunnyridge LnGlenwood Ave
Janalyn CirJanalyn CirGlencrest Rd Meadow Ln SWayzata BlvdWestwood Dr SWestwoodLn
StrawberryLnOttawa Ave NOttawa Ave SNatchez Ave S Tyrol Crest
SussexRdJune Ave SWayzata Blvd
FairlawnWayNatchez Ave SOttawa Ave SPrincetonAve SDouglas Ave
Circle DownTurners Crossroad SGolden Hills Dr
Laurel AveLaurel Ave
Hampshire Ave SDakota Ave SBrunswick Ave SKing Hill RdGlenwood Ave
Colonial Dr
Medicine Lake Rd
FloridaAveSAlley
Market StMarket St
Louisiana Ave SLaurel AvePennsylvania Ave SRhode Island Ave SSumter Ave SUtah Ave SGregory Rd
VermontAve SWi
sco
nsi
n
AveSGeneral Mills BlvdHanley RdRidgeway Rd
Laurel Ave QubecAve S County Rd 102Nevada Ave SColonial RdLouisianaAveSKentucky Ave SJersey Ave SHeathbrookeCir
G le n w o o d P k w y
(Carriage Path)Xenia Ave SFlorida CtLilacDr
NOlson Memorial Hwy
Schaper Rd
Lilac Dr NG o ld en V a lle y R d
Lilac Dr N(WoodlandTrail)(Wat.Dr)
BassettCreek Ln
(NobleDr)France Ave S (Mpls)N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd Olson Mem HwyAdair Ave NAdair Ave NWestbrookRd
34th Ave N
Mendelssohn Ave NAlley-Unimproved--Unimproved-
Wayzata Blvd
Wayzata BlvdBoone Ave NG o ld e nValley D rSchullerCirN Fr on t ag e Rd S F r o nta g e R d
Rhode IslandAve N Pennsylvania Ave SAlley
Alley
(Private)AlleyAlleyLilac Dr NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Harold Ave WestwoodDr
N
Ardmore DrT
h
e
o
d
o
re
Wirth
P
k
w
y
Tyrol Tr(Mendelssohn Ln)AlleyS Frontage Rd
Al
pinePassBrenner
Pa
ssDougl a s Ave
QuentinAveSTyrol TrailTyrol
Tra ilSunsetRidge
Westw
oodDrS
RavineTrTyrol
Tr
ail
Janalyn C irMaddusLn
MeadowLnS
AvondaleRdBurntsideDr Su nnyridgeLnBru
n
s
wickAveNLeberLn
C lo v e rle afDrCloverLnC
loverleafD
r TheodoreWirthPkwyBeverly Ave
B u rn tsideDrSpringValleyRdToledoAveN
DuluthSt
GoldenV alle y R dSpringValleyCirCounty Rd 66
(IslandDr)(IslandDr)GoldenValleyRd
TheodoreWirthPkwyW irth P k w y
Wayzat
a
Bl
vd
G le n w o o d P kwyPlymouthAveN (Mpls)ZenithAveNCr
est
vi
ewAve
Byr d A v e N
Hwy 55
Glenwood Ave
Bassett CreekDrLegend DrLeeAveNLeeAveNMajorAveNLeeAveNEl mdaleRd
Adell A veM in n a quaDr M innaq uaD r
ToledoAveNOrdwayMarkayRidge Orchard Ave NNor m a n d y Pl
CherokeePlQuailAveNRegentAveNTri t o n D rTr ito n D r
L o w r y Ter
3
3rdAveN
SandburgLn Lamplighter
Ln
BrookridgeAveNValeCrestRdWinfieldAveCountyRd 66
ParkPlaceBlvd
(SLP)I-394SF r ontage Rd (SLP)Xeni
aAve
SCounty Rd 70
L ila cDrNLilacDrNLilacD
r
NConstanceDrWConstanceDrESandburg Rd
S Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd N Frontage RdOlsonMemorialHwy
S F r o n t a g e R d
O l s o n M e m o r i a l H w y
OlsonMemorialHwy Valleywo
odCirYosemite CirLawn TerRadissonRd
Turnpike
RdAlley
AlleyTurnpikeRd Col
o
nialDr
GlenwoodAve
BrunswickAve NMeanderRd
MeanderRdIdahoAveNHaroldAve
Wayzata Blvd
I-394SFrontageRd
Edgewo
o
dAveSIdahoAveNCortlawnCirWCortlawn Cir S
CortlawnCirN
Dawnvie w TerCounty Rd 70
EdgewoodAveSK in g CreekRdKentu
ckyAveNLouisianaAveNMarylandAve SRhodeIslandAveSRidgewayRdEwaldTe rWestern Ter
FieldD r Brookview Pk w y N Harold Ave
HalfMoonDr
RidgewayRdG oldenValleyR d (B assett Creek
Blvd)Lewis Rd
10thAveN
EllisLn
P lym outhA v eN Plymouth Ave N
Faribault St
OrklaDrCastleCt Winnetka Heights D rKelly
Dr
Maryland
Av
eNHampshire Pl
OlympiaSt
Oregon Ave NQuebecAveNValdersAveNOrklaDrKnoll StWisconsinA
veNWinsdaleSt
Mandan
AveNCounty Rd 102AquilaAveNAquila
A
veNZealandAveNJulianne Ter Jul ia n neTerPatsy Ln
WisconsinAveNAquilaAveNWestbendRd
WinnetkaHeightsDr
ZealandAveNOrklaDrValdersCtValdersAve NWinnetkaHeights Dr
Aq uilaAveNZealandAveNS c ottAveNRose
ManorDuluthSt
Duluth St CavellAveNEnsignAveNElg in Pl
23rd Ave N
Medley L n
(Medley Rd)
(Medley C ir)H illsboroAveN(English Cir)(MayfairR
d
)
(Kin
g
s
V a lleyRd)(K ings
V
al
leyRdE)(KingsValleyRd W)
(Stro
d
en
Cir)(Tamarin Tr)
(Mar
qui
sRd)
Ski Hill
Rd MajorCirLeeAveNMajorAveNRhodeIslandAveNG o ld e n V a lleyR d
G o ld e n V a lle yR d
G o ld e n V a lle y R d
Hwy100Hwy100Hwy1
0
0Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100Hwy 394
Hwy394 Hwy394
Hwy 394 Hwy394ColoradoAve NHwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Colorado Ave SGoldenHil l s DrPaisleyLnPaisleyLn
I-394NFrontageRd I-394 N FrontageRd
WayzataBlvd
I-394SFrontag e Rd
York
A
veNValeryRdW
asatchLn
Hwy 55
Hwy 55
H w y 55
Olson Memorial HwyHwy 55
H wy 5 5
County Rd 40
County Rd 40 Glenwoo d A ve
County R d 4 0
CountyRd40
GoldenValleyRd
C o unty Rd 66ManchesterDr
County Rd 156OregonAveS24thAve N
LilacDrNRoanokeRdLouisianaAveN
Turnpike RdLilacLoop (Sunnyridge Ln)WisconsinAveN
GettysburgCt(LaurelPt)
(Laurel Curv)Independence Ave NGettysburg Ave NFlag Ave NWheelerBlvdAlleyNaper St
Betty CrockerDr Decatur Ave N(WesleyCommonsDr)Winnetka Ave S Winnetka Ave SHanley RdBrookviewPkwySWayzataBlvd
I-394 S Frontag e R d
Olympia St
Independence Ave NHillsboro Ave NGettysburg Ave NCity of Golden Valley7800 Golden Valley RoadGolden Valley, MN 55427-4588763-593-8030www.goldenvalleymn.gov
Tobacco Sales
0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200400
Feet
IPrint Date: 2/4/2020
Sources:
-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2019)
-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.
Scenario H
!(k Existing Tobacco License
Sale Restriction
Athletic Field, Playground, or School -
1000 ft buffer
Public Athletic Space
Public Playground
No Sale Property
Commercial (63)
Sales Allowed - Full Property (37)
Sales Allowed - Partial Property (11)
Sales Disallowed - Partial Property (11)
Sales Disallowed - Full Property (15)
1
Date: February 10, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: 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. An online survey about narrow lots was conducted during the month of
January; a report on the results of the survey is attached. Based on past conversations with
subject experts and with feedback from residents, staff is prepared to lead a discussion on
possible changes to the side yard and corner lot setback requirements.
Requested Action
Staff is looking for discussion and possible consensus around modifications to side yard and
corner lot setbacks for narrow lots.
Online Survey
Throughout the month of January 2020, the City conducted an online survey that asked questions
regarding impressions around narrow lots. Postcards were mailed to all single‐family property
owners. Different survey links were provided to narrow lot owners and to non‐narrow lot
owners; the only difference between the two surveys was the narrow lot owners were asked a
handful of additional questions about their properties.
369 responses were recorded. In general, the concerns expressed regarding narrow lots mirror
the comments made at the Public Forum held on January 16. Residents are worried about the
height and massing of new homes on narrow lots, the size of the side yard setbacks, stormwater
runoff, and general impacts to neighborhood character. A full accounting of all of the responses –
along with emails received by staff – is attached.
2
Side Yard Setbacks
After the height of new homes being built on narrow lots, the question of side yard setback width
was one of the most frequently mentioned concerns. As summarized at an earlier Planning
Commission meeting, Golden Valley sets side yard setbacks based on lot width and uses three
key thresholds for determining the minimum side yard setback:
Lot Width Side Yard Setback
Lots with width 100 feet or greater 15 feet
Lots with width greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet 12.5 feet
Lots with width 65 feet or less
North or west side yard setback 10% of the lot width
South or east side yard setback 20% of the lot width
Looking at the side yard setbacks of peer cities, staff also demonstrated that Golden Valley
already has larger setbacks on its narrowest lots. For 40 foot wide lots, Golden Valley requires a
minimum of 12 feet of setback. Most other cities allow the total setback to be as little as 10 feet.
City Side Yard Setback
Golden Valley 8 feet and 4 feet for narrowest lots
St. Louis Park 7 feet and 5 feet
Robbinsdale 5 feet
Crystal 5 feet
Richfield 5 feet
Roseville 5 feet
Edina Begins at 5 feet, increases with greater lot width
Minneapolis Begins at 5 feet, increases with greater lot width
There is a close relationship between the side yard setbacks on narrow lots and the design/floor
plan of the homes that are built. The setback size is more critical for lots that are 50 feet or less
because of the limitations that then result for the width of the building envelope. Coupled with
the City requirement that each single‐family lot have a two‐car garage, there is little room for
creativity in design and the result is a garage dominated façade. The table below shows the
relationships between lot size, setback size, and the subsequent width of the building envelope.
(all measurements in feet)
Lot Width Side Setback 1 Side Setback 2 Total Setback Building Envelope Width
100 15 15 30 70
80 12.5 12.5 25 55
65 12.5 6.5 19 46
60 12 6 18 42
55 11 5.5 16.5 38.5
50 10 5 15 35
45 9 4.5 13.5 31.5
40 8 4 12 28
3
The narrowest reasonable width of a two‐car garage is roughly 22 feet. Subtracting this from
building envelope width demonstrates how little distance remains to create a welcoming front
entry, let alone a front porch or window out to the front yard. The impact is greatest for lots less
than 50 feet wide.
(all measurements in feet)
Lot Width Building Envelope Width Two‐car Garage Width Entry Width Remaining
100 70 22 48
80 55 22 33
65 46 22 24
60 42 22 20
55 38.5 22 16.5
50 35 22 13
45 31.5 22 8.5
40 28 22 6
Staff is proposing a two part solution to this problem.
First, revise the minimum side yard setback requirements so that they never fall below 15 feet in
total setback width, which is the current total setback for 50 foot wide lots. Keeping the smallest
of the two setbacks (the one that is 10% of the lot width) at a minimum of 5 feet avoids building
and fire code issues which require additional fireproofing for any structure closer than 5 feet
from the property line. The side yard setbacks for lots under 65 feet in width could continue to be
split at 10% and 20% of the lot width, or they could be divided evenly at 15% of the lot width on
each side. That would result in side setbacks of 7.5 feet (or 15 feet of total setback) for any lot 50
feet wide or less.
Second, allow lots 50 feet in width or less to construct a home with only a one‐car garage, similar
to single‐family homes in the R‐2 zoning district (which are also allowed to subdivide at a distance
of as little as 50 feet in width). The R‐2 regulations limit the width of the front garage wall to 65%
of the building façade, which then allows (requires) enough front façade width to remain in which
to construct a wider and more attractive front entry. Assuming a one‐car garage could take up as
little as 12 feet in width (though it could be wider), the following widths remain within the
building envelope:
(all measurements in feet)
Lot
Width
Total Setback Building Envelope
Width
One‐car Garage
Width
Entry Width
Remaining
50 15 35 12 23
45 15 30 12 18
40 15 25 12 13
On a 40 foot wide lot, a one‐car garage could be up to 16.25 feet wide (using the 65% rule). Even
then, there would be room remaining for an 8.75 foot wide entry.
4
Secondary Front Yards
Front yard setbacks, as applied to corner lots, have also been an area of concern from residents
and members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, who have received variance requests related to
this issue. For narrow lots, the typical 35 foot front yard setback – if applied – could render the
lot unbuildable as the amount of total setback (side and front yard) could be more than the
entire width of the lot. Up until 1983, a provision in the Zoning Code carved out an exception to
the front yard setback on the second front yard (or “side” yard) in order to preserve a buildable
envelope. This regulation was removed from the City Code 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.
Evaluation of peer city regulations show that exceptions have been made for these secondary
front yards, requiring a setback that is much less than that of the primary front yard.
(all measurements in feet)
City Front Yard Secondary Front Yard Setback
Golden Valley 35 35
St. Louis Park 25 15 or 9 for lots less than 60 feet wide
Robbinsdale 30 15 or 5 for 40 foot wide lots
Crystal 30 10
Richfield 30 12
Roseville 30 10
Edina 30 15
Minneapolis 20 8
Using the side yard setback adjustments outlined above, staff further recommends setting the
secondary front yard at 15 feet for lots 65 feet in width or less, with the caveat that this setback
be reduced when necessary in order to keep the building envelope at the 22 foot minimum,
similar to the previous code provision.
Under the scenario, some lots under 47 feet in width would need to have the secondary front
yard reduced further (shown in yellow below) – potentially to as little as 8 feet. This would avoid
the need for variances.
(all measurements in feet)
Lot Width Side Setback Secondary Front Yard Setback Building Envelope Width
100 15 35 50
80 12.5 35 32.5
65 a 6.5 15 43.5
65 b 12.5 15 37.5
60 a 6 15 39
60 b 12 15 33
55 a 5.5 15 34.5
55 b 11 15 29
5
50 a 5 15 30
50 b 10 15 25
45 a 5 15 25
45 b 10 13 22
40 a 5 13 22
40 b 10 8 22
Lot widths “a” are on the south or east faces of the block; lot widths “b” are on the north or west
faces of the block. This positioning results in different widths of interior side yard setbacks.
Side Wall Articulation
Finally, attention should be paid to the issue of side wall articulation. The current code requires
side walls over 32 feet in length to articulate in or out 2 feet for a minimum distance of 8 feet.
Certain structural elements – bay windows and chimney chases, for example – are allowed to
extend into the side yard setback to meet this requirement. Residents have expressed concern
that these additional extensions into the side yard setbacks can effectively reduce the distance to
the property line to as little as 2 feet for a 4 foot side yard setback. Even under the revised
scenario proposed above, a 5 foot side yard setback could feel like a 3 foot setback with the
presence of a large bay window.
There are two potential solutions to this concern. Option 1 would be to remove the side wall
articulation requirement for one or both sides of lots under a certain width. Option 2 is to
prohibit these structures from extending into the side setback area and require the articulation
take place within the building envelope.
The drawback to the first option is that has the potential to create long flat side walls that are
unattractive and act like a “canyon” between homes. The drawback to the second option is that it
has the potential to effectively reduce the width of the building envelope by 2 to 4 additional
feet.
Staff suggests considering Option 2, which would likely result in more attractive home designs,
though construction costs could increase in order to accommodate shifting portions of long side
walls in by at least 2 feet.
Next Steps
Staff will continue to bring forward options for zoning modifications to height, massing, and lot
coverage/impervious percentages on narrow lots.
Attachments
Narrow Lot Study – Community Input Report (92 pages)
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 ……………………………….……………………....... 22
Questions For Narrow Lot Owner Only………………………………………... 52
Appendix A: Social Media Engagement Report ……………………………… 64
Appendix B: Consultant’s Summary Of Open House ……………………….. 66
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.
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 67 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
Erick Kroeger There are efficiencies and affordability for small homes on smaller lots.
Maia setterholm-
Wright
I think people should be able to build. It increases home values for
everyone and newer, nicer homes add to positive community growth.
Michelle Jorgenson I don't want to see new homes crammed in to our neighborhoods.
Erick Kroeger There are efficiencies and affordability for small homes on smaller lots.
Aaron Huppert Natural light impacts to existing houses
Aaron Huppert Natural light impacts to existing houses
juan
parking, tucked under garage, people diving their lots bigger than 100
feet
Jamie Fitzgerald
Concern for home owners of narrow lots and ability to improve their
property
Aaron Huppert Natural light impacts to existing houses
Aaron Huppert Natural light impacts to existing houses
Keppen Kettering
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.
nina Bentley
How Size and Position of Home can affect personal privacy for both
parties
Eugene F. and
Catherine
Schlumpberger
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.
Neal Kielar
The city's continual selling out to moneyed developers with little regard
for residents and the long term character of the community.
Maggie Bostrom
sunlight obstruction, noise, light from larger buildings so close, water
run off onto smaller house and property, and privacy!
Maggie Bostrom
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....
Alvin Stobbe
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.
LW
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)
Jon Mehus
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
Art Obinger Destroys the charm of GV
Laura
Marahrens
big houses on small lots means fewer trees, affects the wooded feel of your
neighborhood
Ellen Brenna 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.
Claire
DeBerg
environmental impacts
Norma Boe I want to maintain infrastructure to meet the needs of our growing population
Charles
PArkhurst
Undermining existing character of the city
Dick
Edwards
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.
David Miller Impact on livability of existing homes
SharonBovie Dense population boundaries and snow issues piling up!
Charles
Quimby
View, shading and other impingement on adjoining properties (same as with any
construction).
Adams 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.
John
Lehman
Environmental impacts of increasing density of population in neighborhood.
Tony Riley 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.
Karen Norell
Dung
Truong
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.
Gene
Scheffler
street parking may increase heavily
Stephen
Glomb
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
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 12
of the homes that are no longer desirable because they are adjacent to much
larger homes.
Tom
Hegblom
Aesthetic issues
Tracey
Ruzicka
Residents who fight change, growth and development
Damon
Struyk
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.
Gwen
Daniels
I like the variety of the houses!
Heidi
Annexstad
loss of green space, the undesirability of crowded, cluttered neighborhoods
steve
Shapiro
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
Howard
Wirth
Ruining the existing character of neighborhoods. That character is what makes GV
a desirable location for both new and existing residents
Amy Lee Environmental; wildlife; impact on infrastructure
Rabi
Vandergon
shading nearby homes
Annie
Gillette
Cleveland
Some of the new houses are too big for the small lot size; there should be a ratio
of foot print to lot size
Lena
Lakoma
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.
Millicent
Flowers
Must create enough setback to allow for adequate drainage on both sides.
John
Magers
Impact of greater density on roads and infrastructure; on environment
Andrew
Snope
Infringing on property owners rights, taking of land.
brittany
Remme
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.
Jaroslav
Alexandra
Cervenka
Disturbing esthetic rhythm of the houses around ( etween low houses suddenly
huge and tall ones)
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 13
Paul
Schneck
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.
William
Linder
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
Kris
baggenstoss
Impact of privacy and enjoyment of adjoining lots.
Susan Miller Building on narrow lots detracts from the look and feel of the community.
Nancy J.
Crichton
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.
Jackie
DesJarlais
Cluttering up our neighborhood with more and more houses. What makes our
neighborhood beautiful are the expansive lots with nice big yards.
Debra
Whalen
Environmental : old growth tree reduction, surface water run-off issues
Greg
Reierson
Housing density, ugly mcmansions on undersized lots
elizabeth see below
Michael
Schock
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.
Bryan
Kreske
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
Chris and
lauren
LaBounty
Water quality, potential to increase flooding in city, homes too close to eachother
George
Boyse
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 their homes as being reserved for themselves. Does
Golden Valley consider the impact that too many cars could have on a
neighborhood?
Nancy This is gentrification and is promoted by the builders to amplify their income.
Thomas
Hansen
Environmental impact, more
Thomas
Hansen
Environmental impact, more impervious surface area, less green space
Kenneth
Valentas
If the section along Laurel Avenue is an example of narrow lots it is absolutely
unattractive .
Virginia
Komarek
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.
Kathleen
Thorsell
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
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 14
Sara
Mausser
overbuilt homes for the lot sizes. Looming.
David
Grosser
Impact of privacy for neighbors
Virginia
Avery
Too dense
John
Griffiths
Narrower setbacks
bonnie
creason
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)
Wendy
Lulavy
I think you destroy neighborhoods by creating such tight lots. Golden Calley was
special because of the size of the lots
Stephanie
Jaynes
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!
Mae Held 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!!!
Sonia Casey 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.
Muffie
taggett
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.
Brian
Koberstein
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.
Janice
Downing
Materials used to build the home will not reflect high end housing
Taylor Ward To many regulations on lots even at 80ft are getting hard for people to build on.
Driving out people that want to build.
Kathy
Longar
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?
Barbara
Krenn
Not in line with the history of properties in Golden Valley
Paul Rust 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.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 15
Kimberley A
Albee
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.
Kolasa
Robert
Joseph
Outsize homes built by developers on lots that are too small.
cathy
waldhauser
Narrow compacted areas between homes that are too dark to plant and increase
runoff.
Patricia
Pennington
Potential fire hazard being so close to each other
Cheryl Scott The cheap building materials being used!! Not enough surprise inspections!!
MaryPat and William Gibbs
Heather
Fraser and
Jonathan
McDonagh
Construction noise throughout the neighborhood. Environmental concerns about
tear-down/rebuild. Increased pervious cover. Loss of mature trees.
Trish Mintz 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 16
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 17
Narrow Lot “Other” Responses
Ann Frisina Large house for people looking for new homes between 500,000-750,00
mary jo
stromberg
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!
Maia
setterholm-
Wright
Yes, love new homes!
Jeffrey
Remakel
New properties, bringing new tax dollars and updated building into the
community
C S None of these have been affordable
John Baranick more tax base for the city govt
Craig Paschke More tax base for the city
juan bigger tax base,
nina Bentley the home really should meet the standard upgrade appearance for that
neighborhood, Too Large is not always attractive.
Eugene F. and
Catherine
Schlumpberger
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.
Leslie Hacking None. One beauty of GV is larger lot sizes.
Neal Kielar No advantages. Sub-dividing lots will ruin the character of neighborhoods and
harm home values of adjacent properties.
Maggie
Bostrom
Maggie
Maggie
Bostrom
nothing, these homes are huge, out of proportion mcmansions towering over
existing homes, taking sunlight, privacy, and destroying folliage.
LW More energy efficient, more density, more social connectedness
Non-Narrow Lot “Other” Responses
Art Obinger 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!
Laura
Marahrens
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
Lois and
James Fruen
Removing houses that have not been maintained; keeping the neighborhood from
turning into an area of rental homes
Ellen Brenna 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.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 18
Claire DeBerg How would a NEW home on a narrow lot offer reinvestment in OLDER
properties?? This question does not make sense.
Kevin Pleban None of the above Higher profits for developers
Norma Boe We need more affordable housing in the Cities - Poor people are paying too much
of their income on housing
Sharon
Doran
The homes we have seen built on narrower lots have not been more affordable or
smaller.
David Miller David
SharonBovie Increased profits for all developers and NO REAL BENEFIT for any affordable
housing since there is ALREADY PLENTY OF AFFORDABLE PLACES IN GOLDEN
VALLEY!
Charles
Quimby
In-law structures
Jean Hughes
Leveque
Jean
Jeff
dotterweich
Developers to make a buck, there are no "oppurtunities" that benefit the existing
neighborhood.
John Lehman Narrow lots would destroy the charm and tax value of our neighborhood.
Karen Garren Allow builders to put more houses in an older, larger lot. This is not desirable for
the existing neighbors.
Tony Riley Money for developers and politicians
Karen Norell
Dung Truong
I don't want to live in an "affordable" neighborhood. We saved and waited for
years to move here from Minneapolis.
Stephen
Glomb
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."
Tracey
Ruzicka
Potential to attract downtown families seeking more space, a beautiful home,
better schools and diversity.
Aaron
Johnson
updating & enhancing delapiting neiborhoods
Jeff vick Narrow homes
steve Shapiro If developed in character with the existing neighborhood it can afford an
opportunity to maintain and upgrade the housing stock
Howard
Wirth
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.
Amy Lee 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
Julie larsen None of these apply it is developers that are looking to make $$$$
Micah garber None other than what exists today
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 19
Russel
Snyder
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.
Amy
Lotsberg
Only a benefit is for builders/developers
Bruce Osvold No opportunity
Britta
Chatterjee
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.
Annie
Gillette
Cleveland
More property taxes for GV
richard
Sienko
more taxes
Lena Lakoma Developer investments. Oversized houses.
Millicent
Flowers
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.
Eric Schafer More profits for builders who have little regard for quality or character.
jacob stoesz Development oppurtunities for developers...increased gross property tax
Andrew
Snope
Increase tax base, by increasing density within reason.
Brian Liedtke Increased tax base
Erik Nelson property tax revenue
Paul Schneck 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.
William
Linder
buildign a 2 story mansion on a smaller lot, surrounded by older 1 story homes
degrades the entire neighborhood
Whitney
Clark
I think it makes Golden Valley more like Minneapolis- which is not necessarily a
good thing.
Susan Miller None of the above
Dan Leavitt 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.
Nancy J.
Crichton
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
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 20
because of high taxes and costs in general. Retirees do not flock here, so I don’t
think they would be a factor.
Debra
Whalen
regulations could help direct development toward affordability and home size
Michael
Schock
Increased density -> sustainable local commerce (eg a walkable city)
Daniel
Blocher
McMansions to be built with runoff into older properties.
Lucas
Krasnekov
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.
Cory Johnson Ability for owners of extra large lots to subdivide and sell unused land.
Terry Bock NONE
Jon Segner More efficient use of developable land
George
Boyse
The best use of narrow lots would be for older residents wanting to downsize.
Dale
Simonson
none
Nancy 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.
Thomas
Hansen
Golden Valley to collect more taxes from more houses
Adam
Meyerring
Increased property values
Lonnie R.
Johnson
I don't think narrow lots allow any positive opportunities
Karen Olson Golden Valley has always had homes built on wider lots. It shows. It is an asset to
our community.
Kathleen
Thorsell
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.
Virginia
Avery
I do not support narrow lots....This is Golden Valley
Sara Pearson I don't see any of these opportunities being implemented. I see large, skinny, mini
mansions obstructing views and disrupting neighborhood character.
Dale Berg 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.
Nathan
Koepsell
Opportunity to collect more property taxes thereby discontinuing the constant
increases to existing property owners
Sharon
Schulz
None
Linda
Caruthers
None
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 21
Wendy
Lulavy
I don’t see opportunities here
Stephanie
Jaynes
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?
Jane None!!! Re-model/renovate the existing house!! Keep the same footprint/square
footage!!
Sonia Casey Consider green homes that are lower impact to the environment.
Chris Hodapp None
Anita
Momsen
More crime as cheaper the property
Mary Distel 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.
Janice
Downing
More diverse neighbors
Doug and
steph larsen
None. I don’t see any benefits at all in narrowing the Lots.
Kathy Longar 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.
James
Norkosky
i feeel they should not be allowed.
Kristin Baden We have many smaller homes in golden valley
Aletta None
Craig larson None!!
Toni Ihrke none
Kolasa
Robert
Joseph
Opportunities for developers to build over priced homes on lots that are too
small.
cathy
waldhauser
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.
Cheryl Scott A gold mine for the developers!!!! They are not affordable housing for first-time
home buyers.
MaryPat and
William
Gibbs
Nothing because they usually overbuild on narrow lots
boyd ...
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 22
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 23
Narrow Lot “Other” Responses
david Graumann whatever owner wants
Maia setterholm-
Wright
I think we need to deregulate building. We should have similar building
regulations to Minneapolis as we are a first ring suburb.
C S NO VARIANCES
Michelle Jorgenson I am ver concerned about the height of the new structures that may be built in
our neighborhoods.
janine Laird 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.
Craig Paschke 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.
Brooke 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.
Eugene F. and
Catherine
Schlumpberger
You have the the know how in building, just let them build a home suitable to
the neighborhood
Paul and Barb
Green
Building a home sideways on the lot should not be allowed
Karol Chamberlin I don't undertsand enough to comment on this question
Neal Kielar This question lacks context and/or assumes a level of technical knowledge
most of us don't have.
Maggie Bostrom come take a look at 316 Meadow lane N.... A picture is worth a thousand
words. This subdivide has destroyed my home value.
LW Require no new gas furnaces, electric heat preferably
Don Valley Side setbacks should be by footage, not percentage
Non-Narrow Lot “Other” Responses
Art Obinger Fit in with current neighborhood design
Lois and James
Fruen
We trust the City Council to make informed judgments on whether or not these
regulations are appropriate.
Ellen Brenna Tree removal and replacement
Norma Boe 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.
SharonBovie Keep NEW building developments similar to area being inserted into!
Jeff dotterweich Height should be restricted to mean height based on adjacent properties 3-5 lots
on each dirction
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 24
Adams I am not informed enough to respond to this question
Karen Norell
Dung Truong
We would like to see strictest codes possible, with no revisions.
Stephen Glomb 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.
Tracey Ruzicka 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.
Howard Wirth 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.
Russel Snyder 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.
Annie Gillette
Cleveland
Tree replacement rule is excessive
Chris Should increase allowable accessory structure / garage sizes
Millicent Flowers Lot coverage should be 50-60 percent on narrow lots. We need enough open
space for aesthetics but allow more than enough for drainage.
Andrew Snope Adjusting corner lot set back requirements. Counting only 1 side as the “front
setback”.
Paul Schneck 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.
William Linder 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.
Dan Leavitt I'm not sure I am knowledgeable enough about this but those are the two I came
up with.
Nancy J. Crichton 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.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 25
elizabeth There will not be enough side setbacks for narrow lots, 10 and 20 percent (4ft / 8
ft) will not be enough.
Michael Schock City council needs to stop allowing exceptions to lot coverage and impervious
surfaces regulations!
Lucas Krasnekov Really need to allow larger accessory structures to allow greenhouses, detached
garages, and workshops to coexist on larger lots
George Boyse Should be able to make some adjustments on an as needed basis when it
benefits all concerned.
Nancy Idiotic barns, low quality builders, cheap plans are the current practice by
investors who care zero about neighborhood.
Virginia Komarek Option to Expand limits by 10-15% square footage. Open opportunities for above
garage apartments or legal ceiling height increases for minibrooms or storage.
Karen Olson Do not revise the existing site regulations
Maren Ahlberg 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.
Kathleen
Thorsell
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
David Grosser We should look at permitting tiny houses/ granny pods. Existing regulations help
ensure that main structure doesn't overtake lot in undesirable ways.
Dale Berg 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.
bonnie creason 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.
Wendy Lulavy I am unsure how to answer
William Parks Unknown
Mae Held 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!
Brian Koberstein Use common sense and limit the size of these newer homes on narrow lots.
Mary Distel As read this question I feel need to check with a Real Estate lawyer and or
developer to even understand this question.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 26
Doug and steph
larsen
I am not informed enough to comment
Taylor Ward Setback should be on front and back and side of house position. not on Map
direction.
Jamie Holm I don’t think building giant houses on sMall lots makes sense. Small houses on
small lots are fine
Kathy Longar 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?
Barbara Krenn The new home should fit into the neighborhood exsisting homes.
Kristin Baden They all might need some revisions if you are allowing smaller lots
Mark Kolesar Limitations regarding "out" buildings and no "supplemental" parking areas for
boats, trailers, motor-homes, etc...
Toni Ihrke Please do not consider smaller lots....this is Golden Valley.
Kolasa Robert
Joseph
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!!.
Cheryl Scott 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.
Trevor Bieber not informed enough to make educated choice of answers
Heather Fraser
and Jonathan
McDonagh
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 27
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 28
Narrow Lot “Other” Responses
Erick Kroeger Green, Green, Green including additional water use assistance, geothermal,
solar, Xcel Energy's Windsource and community solar gardens.
Maia setterholm-
Wright
Less Regulations!
janine Laird Please note that my interest is in exploring these options, not necessarily
adopting them.
Craig Paschke Set back for all new construction. The apartme t complex on Xenia feels like
the Planning Commission was neglectful.
Jamie Fitzgerald Exceptions for current narrow lot owners to improve property
Jack Olson No new regulations
Brooke I would like to see homes that match the original design of the homes being
replaced.
Eugene F. and
Catherine
Schlumpberger
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.
Paul and Barb
Green
Building a home sideways on the lot should not be allowed
Nick Koester Second item above is checked but would not like to see flat roof garages.
Cheryl I don't know
Neal Kielar 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.
Maggie Bostrom 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!
Casey Pavek 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.
Kyra Hayes 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).
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 29
Non-Narrow Lot “Other” Responses
Lois and James
Fruen
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.
Ellen Brenna Allow the PC to officially take overall neighborhood character into account
when deciding on variences.
Megan Ferris 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.
Kevin Pleban No new regulations
Sharon Doran Don't support new rules or regulations.
Karen Norell
Dung Truong
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.
Stephen Glomb 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.
Tracey Ruzicka 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.
Damon Struyk 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.
Jeff vick Allow more garage
Howard Wirth 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.
Russel Snyder 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.
Amy Lotsberg I'd rather they stop allowing splitting up lots
David None
Annie Gillette
Cleveland
I don’t know how you define “garage dominant”
Chris None
richard Sienko nothing
Thomas Johannsen None
Millicent Flowers 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.
Greg Brunello None
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 30
Paul Schneck Regulation designed to lessen the impact of building on neighboring
residences and the neighborhood in general.
Dan Leavitt 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.
Nancy J. Crichton 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’?
Debra Whalen Reduction of building footprint to promote "green space"
Lucas Krasnekov Change all zoning to allow for multifamily units on all lots-similar to
Minneapolis
Lisa Roden none
Nancy Consider water, snow, ice runoff; get some architects, for God’s sake; assess
the geological underlay of the entire block.
Karen Olson Do not allow two houses to be built on a lot that originally had one before it
was torn down.
Kathleen Thorsell 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.
Nathan Koepsell explore reducing the already excessive amounts of regulations on builders and
homeowners
bonnie creason Minimum aesthetic requirements, just like we have to ensure the main drains
work properly, we should ensure a minimum aesthetic code
Wendy Lulavy I don’t think that Golden Valley wants to become what some other
communities have become
Steven Schmidgall None
Sonia Casey Ensuring that homes leave enough green space for growing natural habitat for
our wildlife and pollinators.
Muffie taggett Zoning regulations that prioritize the existing "aesthetic" of that
neighborhood/community, whether that be natural or man-made.
Nathan Lee I'm not sure I would support additional regulations.
Mary Distel again you are asking questions your average homeowner cannot answer.
Doug and steph
larsen
I do not have enough knowledge on this to comment
Shelley Parker I do not support flat garage roofs.
Toni Ihrke none.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 31
Kolasa Robert
Joseph
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.
Laura Hoey 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
Cheryl Scott I would to see the old house setback reused.
Trevor Bieber not informed enough to make educated choice of answers
Heather Fraser and
Jonathan
McDonagh
Non-shading requirements.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 32
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 33
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 34
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 35
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 36
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 37
Do you have any other comments related to narrow lots?
This question was open ended and gathered no statistical data.
Narrow Lot Responses
Ann Frisina
The narrow lots will create a building frenzy in this neighborhood which is
extremely disruptive.
david Graumann let the owner do whatever as long as some codes are implemented
Erick Kroeger
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!
mary jo stromberg
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.
Maia setterholm-Wright
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.
Jeffrey Remakel
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
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 38
much rather be closer to Downtown Mpls and Golden Valley can be an
option for them.
C S
Please do not give builders any variances and have more respect for
neighboring residents and their properties
Michelle Jorgenson
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.
janine Laird
It may be challenging to legislate for proportionately sized homes on
small/narrow lots but it's a discussion that needs to happen.
Craig Paschke
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.
Andrew Schuler Emulate successful examples in towns comparable with Golden Valley.
Jamie Fitzgerald
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.
Jack Olson
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.
Brooke
I hope there is another survey that captures the views of home owners
not living on narrowed lots.
Maria Wetherall
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.
Dave Wilzbacher
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.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 39
Keppen Kettering
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.
nina Bentley
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
Eugene F. and Catherine
Schlumpberger
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...……………….
Marilyn Pederson
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.
Nick Koester
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.
Cheryl
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 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.
Jean Rainbow
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.
Neal Kielar
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
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 40
been the case in my neighborhood as developers have carved up lots and
jammed in expensive homes.
Maggie Bostrom
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........
Brenda Johnson, Kevin
Johnson
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.
Casey Pavek
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
Tracy Anderson
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.
Nora Trombley
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?
Alvin Stobbe
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
Linda Gallant
Do not allow a stated opposition to narrow lots be a euphemism for
opposition to smaller, less expensive homes; the latter are affordable!
Kyra Hayes
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 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.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 41
Jon Mehus
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.
Connie Kusche
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.
Don Valley
Not anti-narrow lots. Just because current zoning has 80 ft lots, doesn't
mean that narrow lots should be restricted.
Nathan Medbery
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
Art Obinger
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!
Laura Marahrens
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.
Nancy Skophammer New homes should not overpower existing homes, decreasing the value of existing
home by overshadowing older homes.
Jan Green I would like to see new construction that would resemble the homes currently in the
adjoining properties.
Lois and James Fruen
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
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 42
make informed judgments on appropriate regulations that will benefit new builds
while protecting rights of owners on neighboring properties.
Ellen Brenna
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 encourage residents and developers to keep their mature
trees. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on the matter.
Suzanne Herberg Stop McMansons
Megan Ferris
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
Tony Carlson
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.
Jennifer Valorose,
John Scheef
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.
Claire DeBerg
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.
Michael
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.
Norma Boe
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.
Toni Pangborn
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.
Sharon Doran We do not support changing regulations that would allow narrow lots.
Dick Edwards
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.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 43
David Miller I do not support narrow lot structures.
SharonBovie Leave PERFECT City of Golden Valley AS IS! You can only ruin a good city with bright?
ideas of greedy people!!
Pamela Lott
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.
Jeff dotterweich
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.
Todd Carsen keeping height maximums and side setbacks are most important to me.
Jim, Barb Thomson Scale of home on narrow lot should not be out of character with adjacent homes.
Tony Riley
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.
Karen Norell Dung
Truong
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.
Stephen Glomb
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.
Bruce Pappas
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?
Tracey Ruzicka
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.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 44
Dornbusch You should be able to build what you want as long as you’re following the current
reasonable zoning codes.
Aaron Johnson I believe Golden Valley is underutelized & should support urban growth with less
restrictive zoning & building restrictions
Damon Struyk
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.
steve Shapiro
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.
Jeremiah Battles
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.
Julie larsen Less is more
Micah garber I am in favor of retaining the current character of Golden Valley. If someone is
seeking something else, then look elsewhere.
Russel Snyder
#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.
Amy Lotsberg 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.
Britta Chatterjee
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.
Annie Gillette
Cleveland Examples of bad plans would be the two enormous new houses on tiny lots on
Meadow Lane North.
Justin Johnson I per lots not to be split. There is already enough high destiny living in Golden Valley.
Millicent Flowers
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
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 45
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.
Joni J. Beckers 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.
Laura Kehrberg
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.
jacob stoesz
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.
Andrew Snope
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?
James Vos
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.
Erik Nelson
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.
brittany Remme
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.
Paul Schneck
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
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.
William Linder
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
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 46
Lu Jacobson
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.
Steve Collette
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.
Kris baggenstoss
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.
Susan Miller
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.
Dan Leavitt
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.
Nancy J. Crichton
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.
Ruth Paradise At the time a property is being subdivided, I would consider connected townhomes,
one on each parcel, as an option.
Marcia Fluer and J.
Philip Zaugg
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.
Sue Schneck
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.
Greg Reierson We don't want to be Minneapolis. We don't want higher density.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 47
elizabeth
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?
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.
Michael Schock
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
Chris and lauren
LaBounty
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.
Lucas Krasnekov
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.
Terry Bock
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.
Lisa Roden I do not support narrow lots in GV.
Jon Segner
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.
George Boyse Not at this time
Dale Simonson 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.
Nancy
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.
Thomas Hansen
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.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 48
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.
Adam Meyerring
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.
Virginia Komarek
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.
David Johnson Common sense clause: new/remodeled homes should be comparable in appearance
to homes already existing in the block/neighborhood
Melissa Caulfield 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.
Karen Olson
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.
Maren Ahlberg
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.
Kathleen Thorsell
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.
Janice Prazak Reducing lot size will negatively affect property values and quality of life in Golden
Valley
Sara Pearson
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.
Dale Berg
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.
John Griffiths I believe that neighbors should have input on whether narrow lot development is
appropriate in their neighborhood.
mark stanley
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.
bonnie creason
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.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 49
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.
Wendy Lulavy I think the subdividing should stop
Sarah Schulte
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.
Stephanie Jaynes
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.
Steven Schmidgall
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!
William Parks
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 lots were then divided in half and rebuilt with 2
homes it could throw off the look and feel of the neighborhood.
Mae Held
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...
Sonia Casey 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.
Muffie taggett
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
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 50
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
Bob McCarthy 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.
Philip Krasowski
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.
Penny Thompson-
Burke 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.
Mary Distel
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.
Janice Downing I am interested in owning one.
Kathy Longar
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.
David and Kelly
Docherty Thank you
Barbara Krenn
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.
Shelley Parker
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 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.
Merrie Forstein
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.
Lisa Jacobson Fit in with the neighborhoods current "look".
Kimberley A Albee 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.
Kolasa Robert Joseph I do not want to see developers engaging in another land rush to split 80 foot lots lots
into two 40 ones.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 51
Ron Lundquist
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?"
Cheryl Scott I think all lots should be built of the old site area.
Heather Fraser and
Jonathan McDonagh
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.
Anna Horning
Nygren
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 52
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
Ann Frisina my house is on a 50 foot lot with distance between both adjacent homes.
Erick Kroeger allowed son to stay in same school district.
mary jo stromberg these houses are not lower cost!
Maia setterholm-Wright
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.
Jeffrey Remakel
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.
Chuck Anderson n/a, just filling up one of three required choices, because this question
does not even apply to me.
C S I don't
John Baranick n/a; ignore responses, they were required to complete survey
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 53
janine Laird
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.
Aaron Huppert
Craig Paschke Not applicable
Melanie Randall I don't live on a narrow lot. Why am I being asked to fill out this question?
Aaron Huppert NA
Karen Boehne My lot isn’t a narrow lot
James Salter Does not apply
Erika Tamminen I do not live on a narrow lot
Jamie Fitzgerald Smaller foot print to environment
Jack Olson N/A
Brooke I don’t want to choose 3. Please remove “investment equity”
Maria Wetherall DO NOT LIVE ON NARROW LOT
Dave Wilzbacher N/A the survey forces me to pick 3. I do not live or own a narrow lot.
Keppen Kettering no, i live on a standard 80 ft lot ( didn't want to select the other checks
but the survey required three checks)
nina Bentley 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.
Eugene F. and Catherine
Schlumpberger Location!!! Cost at the time,
Paul and Barb Green We did not consider the lot size. Decision was based on the house.
Cheryl Says choose up to three, but won't accept only two. I only have two things
I want to choose
Leslie Hacking NA
Neal Kielar Lot size was not a buying consideration.
Maggie Bostrom 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.
Carl Pearson It was a new home and is plenty big. Less yard to maintain.
Brenda Johnson, Kevin
Johnson We liked the natural setting of the home
Linda Gallant “Up to 3” and I chose one - directions do not mandate selection of three.
Jon Mehus wanted a small yard.
Connie Kusche This question required me to pick 3 items in order to submit my
responses. My house is not on a single narrow lot.
Don Valley Live on two narrow lots (forced a third answer and investment option
does not apply)
Nathan Medbery timing of the purchase and tax benefits
Name 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)
Ann Frisina my house is on a 50 foot lot with distance between both adjacent homes.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 54
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
Ann Frisina No
david Graumann yes , city planners don't listen
Erick Kroeger Don't believe so.
mary jo stromberg NO
Maia setterholm-Wright We are just beginning to dive into this.
Jeffrey Remakel not applicable
Chuck Anderson no
C S No
Michelle Jorgenson Yes
John Baranick n/a
David Cera Ni
janine Laird no
Craig Paschke No
Melanie Randall
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.
Aaron Huppert No
Andrew Schuler No.
Margaret Lahammer
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!
Mark Kochendorfer no
Karen Boehne No
juan no
James Salter No
Erika Tamminen No
Jamie Fitzgerald
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.
Jack Olson Yes
Brooke Yes.
Maria Wetherall NO
Dave Wilzbacher No
Schulzetenberg No
Judy Engel Yes
Keppen Kettering no
nina Bentley yes-
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 55
Eugene F. and Catherine
Schlumpberger No, we have an ideal location.
Marilyn Pederson
Paul and Barb Green Yes. We wanted to build a deck off our kitchen, but couldn’t
Nick Koester No
Cheryl no
Jean Rainbow No
Leslie Hacking Yes
Karol Chamberlin NA
Neal Kielar No
Maggie Bostrom
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.
Bob Krussow No
Jane Moelter Yes. I had wanted to put in a brick retainer wall on the roadside hill.
Carl Pearson No
Brenda Johnson, Kevin
Johnson
No, we have followed the established process to obtain variances
necessary for our improvement projects.
Casey Pavek Yes, building a garage. But also without an alley it is hard too.
Ric Lager yes
Tracy Anderson
No. It's a small lot... Common sense tells you you ca't put two pounds of
something in a one pound bag!
Nora Trombley Yes.
Alvin Stobbe no
LW No
Scott Anderson No
Linda Gallant No
Kyra Hayes
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.
Jon Mehus No.
Dianne Drumm No
Connie Kusche No
Zoe Cunniff No
Don Valley No
Nathan Medbery No
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 56
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
Ann Frisina I would prefer a stronger zoning code that protects against negative
impacts to adjacent properties.
david Graumann More permissive
Erick Kroeger
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.
mary jo stromberg We need a stronger zoning code that gives protection to existing
properties. Right now there is NO protection.
Maia setterholm-Wright No, the more flexibility the better.
Jeffrey Remakel no
Chuck Anderson More permissivity - People should be able to build what they want.
C S Stricter - I have seen tree trunks literally sliced in half from the top down
to make room for these Mc Mansions - it's disgusting.
Michelle Jorgenson Neither. We know where variances can go. Why even have zoning codes
in that case?
John Baranick stronger
David Cera Stronger with variances
janine Laird I prefer using common sense to make decisions on a case by case basis.
Can that happen?
Craig Paschke
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.
Melanie Randall No.
Aaron Huppert Yes
Andrew Schuler Permissive.
Margaret Lahammer More permissible code as the process today is difficult.
Mark Kochendorfer no
Karen Boehne Yes
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 57
juan Strong code but adjustable with variances
James Salter Protects against negative impacts
Erika Tamminen Yes
Jamie Fitzgerald
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.
Jack Olson More permissive
Brooke Uncertain. I’m open to hear both sides.
Maria Wetherall YES
Dave Wilzbacher A more permissive code
Schulzetenberg Yes
Judy Engel
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.
Keppen Kettering I prefer clear zoning codes that don’t give wealthy people and unfair
advantage.
nina Bentley prefer stronger zoning codes and opportunity for discussion before new
design home build starts.
Eugene F. and Catherine
Schlumpberger
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.
Paul and Barb Green Stronger code
Nick Koester Prefer a code that protects against negative impacts to adjacent
properties but which can be adjusted with variances.
Cheryl stronger code.
Jean Rainbow More permissive less flexibility
Leslie Hacking Yes
Karol Chamberlin
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
Neal Kielar Stronger zoning with fewer variances.
Maggie Bostrom
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!
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 58
Bob Krussow Less flexibility for variances. A variance in and of itself is being flexible.
Jane Moelter More permissive code.
Carl Pearson Current code seems fine.
Brenda Johnson, Kevin
Johnson I think a stronger zoning code that allows for case by case examination of
the situation with the possibility of variances.
Casey Pavek No. The existing codes are logical and clean cut. Adding complexity will
only make things worse.
Ric Lager yes
Tracy Anderson On narrow lots your are very close to your neightbors. Things like leaving
exterior lights on and snow removal impact overall livability.
Nora Trombley Strong zoning codes usually does not allow for many variances and a
permissive code would not need many variances.
Alvin Stobbe The stronger code
LW
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.
Scott Anderson stronger zoning code
Linda Gallant
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.”
Kyra Hayes
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.
Jon Mehus
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.
Dianne Drumm Yes
Connie Kusche I would prefer a stronger code that protects against negative impacts, but
can be adjusted with variances.
Zoe Cunniff Adjustments with variances. Flexibility is ok.
Don Valley Support stronger zoning code to protect against negative impacts, but
that's subjective
Nathan Medbery generally, more permissive code with fewer variances.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 59
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
Ann Frisina 2 car tuck under attached with alley access
david Graumann Attached and or not , I feel if homeowner wants 2 driveways, should be
granted
Erick Kroeger yes, two car.
mary jo stromberg detached garage multi car garage set back from house
Maia setterholm-Wright 732 Rhode Island Ave S
Single car detached
Jeffrey Remakel Multi-car, attached
Chuck Anderson yes, 2-car, street, attached.
C S Attached 2-car
Michelle Jorgenson double detached
John Baranick multi, attached
David Cera No
janine Laird single car tuck under
Craig Paschke Two car, street access
Melanie Randall Yes. Double car. Street Access. Attached.
Aaron Huppert Multi detached street access single width driveway
Andrew Schuler No.
Margaret Lahammer Single car tuck under. I wast a two car garage for my disabled dad who
lives with me.
Mark Kochendorfer multi car street access attached
Karen Boehne Tuck under garage
juan 2 car attached
James Salter Single car, side driveway space
Erika Tamminen Yes. Street access, attached
Jamie Fitzgerald Yes, tuck under.
Jack Olson Yes - detached 2 car
Brooke Multi-car detached via shared driveway
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 60
Maria Wetherall YES MULTI-CAR TUCK UNDER
Dave Wilzbacher Street access 2 car garage detached
Schulzetenberg Multi via alley
Judy Engel Yes. Multi-car. Detached in alley.
Keppen Kettering multi-car attached
nina Bentley 1917 Gettysburg Ave. North, detached.
Eugene F. and Catherine
Schlumpberger Yes, street access, single car, detached garage setback15 feet from the
house,
Marilyn Pederson 1415 Zealand Av. N.
double-car garage
Paul and Barb Green Yes, 2 car, street access, attached
Nick Koester two-car detached
Cheryl Yes. Double, detached, street access.
Jean Rainbow 2 car attached
Leslie Hacking Multi car street access
Karol Chamberlin Yes, single car, attached, street access
Neal Kielar Two-car, attached garage with alley access.
Maggie Bostrom 316 Meadow lane N
Maggie Bostrom 316 Meadow lane N....... tuck under, alley
Bob Krussow 411 Sunnyridge Lane, multi-car garage with alley access and is detached.
Jane Moelter detached single car garage with street access.
Carl Pearson Yes, 2-car with street access.
Brenda Johnson, Kevin
Johnson single car tuck under garage
Casey Pavek No. I built a shed for the bikes and we park in the driveway.
Ric Lager yes
Tracy Anderson Yes, double detached at the back of the lot.
Nora Trombley Yes, there is a garage. 2 car, attached at back of house. (not facing street)
Alvin Stobbe 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.
LW 2-car partially attached
Scott Anderson 4108 Beverly Ave. 2-car attached, street access
Linda Gallant Yes, single car, tuck under, driveway access only (no alley).
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 61
Kyra Hayes No garage.
Jon Mehus Yes, alley access, tuck under.
Dianne Drumm Single car tuck under
Connie Kusche Double attached tuck under with alley access
Zoe Cunniff attached, tuck under garage
Don Valley Yes
Single detached
Nathan Medbery Yes. Single-car, attached (tuck under), with street access
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?
Ann Frisina Not applicable
david Graumann yes
Erick Kroeger Not applicable.
mary jo stromberg NO
Maia setterholm-Wright Yes! We have a double lot. We want to demolish our current home, sell
one lot and build on the other.
Jeffrey Remakel not applicable
Chuck Anderson n/a
C S I don't
Michelle Jorgenson na
John Baranick n/a
David Cera Yes
janine Laird I do and I would not consider selling the undeveloped lot.
Craig Paschke Emphatic No.
Melanie Randall I have a double lot with streets on both sides. Would be very interested in
subdividing my lot if the city would allow it.
Aaron Huppert No
Andrew Schuler No.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 62
Margaret Lahammer Na
Mark Kochendorfer n/a
juan No
James Salter Not applicable
Erika Tamminen No
Jamie Fitzgerald not applicable
Jack Olson No
Brooke NA
Maria Wetherall NO
Dave Wilzbacher N/A
Schulzetenberg No
Judy Engel N/A
nina Bentley not at this time-
Eugene F. and Catherine
Schlumpberger
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
Nick Koester Yes
Jean Rainbow No. Not unless all of my surrounding neighbors already did so.
Leslie Hacking No
Neal Kielar If I did own such a lot, I would be unlikely to allow it to be crowded with
multiple homes.
Maggie Bostrom
NO. At least not like what has happened on Meadow lane. Architecturally
there were other options, these people chose volume.....because they
could.
Bob Krussow N/A
Jane Moelter N/A
Brenda Johnson, Kevin
Johnson The topography of our two lots would not allow development of each
narrow lot.
Casey Pavek
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.
Ric Lager yes
Tracy Anderson If I was in that situation I would do so only if I was selling the lot.
Narrow Lot Study Community Input Report Page 63
Nora Trombley N/A
Alvin Stobbe Yes, I did this 49 years ago in the first home I owned in GV
LW N/a
Linda Gallant Not applicable
Kyra Hayes Yes if it was feasible within the zoning code.
Jon Mehus n/a
Connie Kusche
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.
Zoe Cunniff No
Don Valley Yes
APPENDIX A
Social Media Engagement
Page 64
SOCIAL MEDIA REACH AND ENGAGEMENT
Title
Reach = Number of people who saw the post
Engagement = Number of people who interacted with the post
Dec 30, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 958 56 8 0 0
Twitter 375 6 0 1 0
Jan 11, 2020
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 807 32 6 1 0
Twitter 359 3 0 0 0
Jan 14, 2020
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 692 17 4 1 0
Twitter 431 13 3 0 0
Jan 16, 2020
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 479 31 7 0 0
Jan 16, 2020
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 969 207 14 0 1
Twitter 478 12 1 0 0
Comments
NAME COMMENT
Shepard Harris Thank you to our residents who came out tonight, despite cold temps. Good suggestions and feedback from residents & our panel of experts.
Jan 21, 2020
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 601 18 3 0 0
Twitter 280 5 1 0 0
Comments
NAME COMMENT
APPENDIX B
Additional Information
Page 66
From:Romano, Tomas
To:Zimmerman, Jason
Subject:FW: Email the City Manager"s Department [#679]
Date:Friday, January 17, 2020 9:05:49 AM
Attachments:image001.gif
image002.jpg
Tomas Romano | Assistant to the City Manager’s Office | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-3991 (Direct)
763-593-8109 (Fax) | 763-593-3968 (TTY) | tromano@goldenvalleymn.gov
From: City of Golden Valley
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 4:34 PM
To: Romano, Tomas
Subject: Email the City Manager's Department [#679]
Name *Ken Linden
Email *
Comments *
We live at 303 Sunnyridge Ln. There are 2 large houses on 40 ft lots built and being built behind our
home on Meadow Lane N.
We have a post card that says to participate in a survey at surveylegend/s/1xba. When you access
this site it says the site is for people living on 40 foot lots. I go on the Golden Valley website and
look at the city council meetings and the zoning meeting is not listed.
I would like the mayor and the city council to come out to this location and look at the houses being
built on these to 40 foot lots. They do not fit the neighborhood. The houses large footprint do not
make sense if the city is worried about water run off and losing mature trees. It is too late for us to
have input into what is being built on the lots behind us. But please reconsider developments of 80
foot lots that can be split into 40 foot lots.
We live on an 80 foot lot that can be split lot but would never do that to our neighbors. 40 foot lots
are good but consider how big a building you are allowing to be built on 40 foot lots
. We put a sunroom on the back of our house in 2006 and had to have a document signed by our
adjacent neighbors to approve our addition before we could build it and had to go before the city
council to have it approved.
Does Golden Valley care about current residents or just developers?
From:Cruikshank, Tim
To:Zimmerman, Jason
Subject:FW: lot uncoupling
Date:Thursday, January 2, 2020 6:25:08 AM
Attachments:Screen shot 2019-12-31 at 5.48.32 PM.png
image001.gif
fyi
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: Cruikshank, Tim
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 8:18 AM
To: Golden Valley Council Members ; Weiler, Cheryl ; Kueny, Robert ; Gates, Danielle
Subject: Fwd: lot uncoupling
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Harris, Shep" <SHarris@goldenvalleymn.gov>Date: January 1, 2020 at 12:58:27 AM CSTTo: "Cruikshank, Tim" <TCruikshank@goldenvalleymn.gov>Subject: Fwd: lot uncoupling
FYI - See below re: survey trouble and opinion on uncoupling for lots. Can you share with
new Council?
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lois Fruen <>Date: December 31, 2019 at 6:12:14 PM CSTTo: "Harris, Shep" <SHarris@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Shep,
I tried to take the survey on regulating development of narrow lots in Golden Valley but got a notice that surveylengend.com uses an
unsupported protocol (see screenshot below). I'd like to express my
views.
My husband and I are in very much in favor of new houses being built in Golden Valley because we believe our neighborhood has benefitted from the revitalization that the new builds have brought. We urge the Council
not to be pressured into stopping contractors from continuing this work
in the neighborhood.
A number of years ago, some residents in the neighborhood forced out acontractor who was building wonderful homes on subdivided lots, two of
which are the nicest homes on Westwood Drive S today. At an open
house, he spoke with us about his decision not to continue building in
Golden Valley because of the way he'd been treated—not by the Councilbut by residents in the neighborhood.
We want you to know that we trust the City Council to
make informed judgments on whether or not
subdivisions and uncoupling are appropriate. Thank
you again for all you are doing for Golden Valley.
James and Lois Fruen
4510 Westwood Lane
Screen shot 2019-12-31 at 5.48.32 PM.png
From:Paul Schneck
To:Fonnest, Larry; Zimmerman, Jason
Subject:Fwd: narrow lot and other residential Bldg issues in GV and North Tyrol
Date:Monday, October 28, 2019 1:00:22 PM
I tried to send this to Larry and Jason but got the addresses wrong. Hope this goes through.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Date: October 28, 2019 at 11:45:30 AM CDTTo: sharris@goldenvalleymn.gov, jclausen@goldenvalleymn.gov, sschmidgall@goldenvalleymn.gov, jzimmerman@golddenvalleymn.gov,
mcampbell@goldenvalleymn.gov, lfonnnest@goldenvalleymn.gov, grosenquist@goldenvalleymn.govCc: Subject: narrow lot and other residential Bldg issues in GV and North Tyrol
Dear Mayor, Council, Planning Commission members and Planning
Department:
(I do not have the individual planning commissioners e-mails, so Mr. Zimmerman or Mr. Campbell, please forward this to them, thank you.)
I am writing because I am very concerned about maintaining the character
of the neighborhoods in Golden Valley. I have lived here for over 33 years,
and raised my family and probably will never move. So I and my family have enjoyed the character of our neighborhood and community.
I guess the immediate issue are narrow lots and avoiding situations like
that of Maggie, the homeowner who had a huge house built right next to hers, completely overshadowing hers, on Meadow Lane, of which you are
all familiar. But I am concerned in general about proposed subdivisions,
separating of joined lots, following the fairly recent changes to the building
codes, etc.
In general, I think the problem is that developers who are interested in
making the most possible money are being allowed too much leeway in
the homes they build or remodel. This includes those that are planning on living in the remodeled homes for a short time, and then selling. There is
nothing wrong with making money, but there is also nothing wrong with
the residents of Golden Valley seeking to protect the character of their
neighborhoods.
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 allowdevelopers 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 characterof 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 ordevelopers. 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 sometime 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 realizesthat 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 thecitizens 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.
Maybe I have this wrong, but I am pretty sure that the city employees and
all elected and appointed persons serve solely, and at the pleasure of, the
citizens. They have been chosen by the citizens to regulate the city in an
organized manner. So the primary duties should be to protect and
represent the citizens of the city. The citizens' interests should be the primary interest of those we have elected, appointed or hired to run the
city for us, right?
Paul Daniel Schneck
8014 Olson Memorial Highway, #255
Golden Valley, MN 55427
From:Dan Leavitt
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
Lori and Dan Leavitt
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.
Lori and Dan Leavitt
From:Claire DeBerg
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 thatincludes 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 bemindful 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 ofthe 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 meanwhileour 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 overdevelopmentby 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 isprecisely 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 withNO 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 directconflict with how you promised to lead residents.
This is madness.
Please place thoughtful restrictions on subdivisions + uncouplings + any future wordgames meant to shroud what is really being delivered to the land and people in GoldenValley: 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 throughdistortion or unwarranted alteration. Please do not run on a violence platform...we alreadyhave 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 slipperyas 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 killplants, trees, ecosystems and community, imagine the power of goodness that could come
from soulful leaders like yourself who can open up their hearts to us in order to create a morebeautiful future!
That said...here is what I love about beautiful Golden Valley:
1.I love the space...my neighbors are not on top of me, I'm not on top of them. One ofthe 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 wonderfulpeople to wonderful Golden Valley.
2.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 itssimplicity and architecture (not to knock it down and rework it in some cheap
approach to a dwelling to make a quick buck).3.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 nameof convenience. It's embarrassing and wrong. Come on. Everyone knows we need
trees.4.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, snappingturtles, geese, hawks, kites, opossum, raccoon, pileated woodpecker, hummingbirds,
coyote, butterflies and the myriad songbirds, birds of prey and yard animals hoppingaround. They were here first.
5.I love the traffic...or lack thereof. My son is a scooter maniac. He's 7. He kicksaround the neighborhood on his scooter any chance he gets. With MORE houses (and
by the looks of the lax hold Golden Valley has on development that could mean 3houses 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 theneighborhood. It's just ludicrous. Stop.
6.I love my neighbors...they care and they connect. North Tyrol Hills is not sosprawling 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 theother neighborhood children alive. Please let the wildlife live. Please keep our air andnature 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
writer + model
clairedeberg.com + @clairedeberg
blog + linkedin + fb + youtube
From:Marcia Fluer
To:Harris, Shep; Clausen, Joanie; lfonnest@goldenvallelymn.gov; Schmidgall, Steve; Rosenquist, Gillian;Zimmerman, Jason
Subject:narrow lots
Date:Monday, October 7, 2019 7:28:02 PM
Dear Mr. Mayor, members of the Golden Valley City Council and City Manager Cruikshank:
re: narrow lots:
If I'd wanted to live in Mpls or Richfield 27 years ago when we bought in Golden Valley, we
would have bought there. Please protect the integrity of this unique city by turning downnarrow lots.
As for set backs, my neighbors and I fought more than ten years ago for more stringent rules
and won that battle when the issue was McMansions. I would hate see those efforts crushed bynew rules that would put many homes in the shadows.
Marcia Fluer
225 Janalyn Circle
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 CDTTo: "Cruikshank, Tim" Subject: Fw: Endless subdivisions
FYI:
The latest blast!
Please share with appropriate staff.
Larry Fonnest
From: Pamela Lott
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,
Pamela S. Lott
220 Sunnyridge Lane
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.
Tereza Cervenka, MD
215 King Creek Roa
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: Daniel Charette <danielcharette@comcast.net>Date: September 28, 2019 at 7:11:33 PM CDTTo: sharris@goldenvalleymn.gov, jclausen@goldenvalleymn.gov,
lfonnest@goldenvalleymn.gov, sschmidgall@goldenvalleymn.gov,grosenquist@goldenvalleymn.govSubject: 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.
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 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.
Sincerely,
Daniel and Kristen Charette
327 Burntside Drive
Golden Valley, MN 55422
From:Cruikshank, Tim
To:Zimmerman, Jason
Subject:FW: Coupling of lots
Date:Monday, September 30, 2019 7:19:27 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 1:20 PM
To: Cruikshank, Tim
Subject: Fwd: Coupling of lots
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Micah Garber <>Date: September 29, 2019 at 12:13:42 PM CDTTo: "sschmidgall@goldenvalleymn.gov" <sschmidgall@goldenvalleymn.gov> Subject: Coupling of lots
Hi Steve,
I am distressed and very unhappy about these potential changes to our neighborhood.
Either squeezing in another house or even worse, townhouses is unacceptable. I feel that
this would alter mid century feel of our neighborhood for the short term gain of a developer
who will do this development and then be gone. We will have to live with the results of this.
I feel that it is the Mayor and City Council that should be protecting us against short term
developers.
I feel that all I have is my vote. I feel that I can not vote for anyone that is in a position to stop these short term actions. I know that many of my neighbors feel as I do.
I hope that you will stop this now.
Thanks,
Micah Garber
427 Westwood Drive North
Golden Valley, MN 55422
From:Cruikshank, Tim
To:Zimmerman, Jason
Subject:FW: Tyrol HIlls Lot division activities
Date:Monday, September 30, 2019 7:19:18 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 1:21 PM
To: Cruikshank, Tim
Subject: Fwd: Tyrol HIlls Lot division activities
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: JeffandLidka <>Date: September 29, 2019 at 1:18:56 PM CDTTo: sschmidgall@goldenvalleymn.govSubject: Tyrol HIlls Lot division activities
As a resident of North Tyrol my family reaches out to the city council for help in
protecting our North Tyrol Neighborhood.
I have received a letter that 421 Burntside and 448 Westwood are to be combined and
form 3 lots. This directly impact us as we are across the corner from this. I have spoken
to a majority of the homeowners that are directly adjacent this property and none of
them are okay with this happening. This Lot re-division is extremely concerning and
part of a larger picture in the neighborhood.
I suspect this is the tipping point and many residents will be coming out of the
woodwork now and approaching City Council. In the past 7-10 days residents have
learned of 3 different lot changes. This rash of development is becoming an issue City
council is going to have to confront. Many residents are getting alarmed what is
happening and you may have already heard from them.
I ask for a Moratorium be placed immediately on all lot activity that impacts the
Character of the neighborhood before any more approvals are granted. This issue
needs further study and a clear plan developed and integrated into the zoning code. I
personally have spoken to many residents they all share a common concern and are
growing increasingly frustrated with both the lack of protection from uncoordinated
development in our neighborhood nor have any tools to control development that
destroys the character of the neighborhood
Now is the opportunity to preserve the Tyrol Hills neighborhood it before it is too late.
Once it is gone it cannot be re-established
Tyrol hills has unique character that is difficult to find, large lots, unique a unique
diversity of architecture. Many residents are very proud of this. It is also noted by
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.
Jeff Dotterweich & Lidia Zylowksa
336 Burntside drive
From:Cruikshank, Tim
To:Zimmerman, Jason
Subject:Fwd:
Date:Saturday, September 28, 2019 2:40:53 PM
FYI
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Schmidgall, Steve" Date: September 28, 2019 at 1:15:44 PM CDTTo: "Cruikshank, Tim" Subject: Fwd:
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lois Fruen <>Date: September 27, 2019 at 5:48:17 PM CDTTo: sschmidgall@goldenvalleymn.gov
Steve,
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 can bring 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 whether or not subdivisions and uncoupling are
appropriate.
James and Lois Fruen
4510 Westwood Lane
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Stephen Glomb
Zimmerman, Jason; Stephen Glomb
Nevinski, Marc; Rebekah Anderson and Rich Baker; Blum, Ron;
Re: Timeline for Narrow Lot Discussion with Planning Commission
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 7:30:20 PM
Jason,Thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions...I appreciate it. Since you included the
Planning Commission on your last response, I have cc:d them here as well.
Re: your second point, I believe that it's difficult to have an unbiased and balanced discussionof these important issues when the real estate agent(s) you have selected have a financial
interest in increasing the sale prices of homes in our area (in order to increase theircommissions). I can almost promise you they're going to argue in favor of larger homes, and
limiting restrictions on height, square footage, etc. It's like asking a panel of tire salesmen ifthey think we should all put snow tires on our cars for the winter, or asking a panel of bicycle
shop owners if they think we should have more bike lanes. It just seems like a very obviousconflict of interest that could be avoided by selecting real estate agents who are familiar with
Golden Valley, yet are not actively selling in our neighborhood. Andy, not to call you out, butyou admitted to me just last week that these sorts of panels can easily sway or influence the
decision in whatever direction you want it to go (in your example, you referenced the issue ofbike lanes). Does no one on the Commission feel that this presents a conflict of interest?
Re: your first point, I do hope that there will be more than one agent present in order to have a
more well-rounded discussion, so hopefully the others who you've invited will be able to makeit. In any event, our task force will be inviting several members of the real estate community
to be present in order to listen to the discussion and capture any biased or false informationthat may be shared by your panelist(s). We will then follow up with the Commission after next
Monday's meeting with any additional information we think might be important to add to thediscussion. I hope this is okay...as this is not a public input meeting, we would like some
opportunity to participate in this important stage in the process if there is missing informationwe can provide.
Finally, re: your last point, I am not confident that we will be able to pull together any
summary data for the Commission on such short notice, as we are all doing this in our limitedspare time. We will do our best to send something to the Commission prior to Monday's
meeting, but I'm not too optimistic. However, I'm surprised that your analysis doesn't alreadyinclude some actual sales data and objective information, rather than just the opinions of a few
real estate agents. All of those data are readily available, and it seems like that wouldencourage a more thorough and unbiased discussion of these issues.
Stephen Glomb
4116 Beverly Avenue
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Zimmerman, Jason <JZimmerman@goldenvalleymn.gov>wrote:
Stephen,
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: Stephen Glomb <>
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 5:16 PM
To: Zimmerman, Jason <JZimmerman@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Cc: Blum, Ron <>; ; Stephen Glomb
<>
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 ofhomes 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 somepoint?
Thanks for considering these questions...I look forward to hearing from you. Have a greatweekend!
Stephen Glomb
4116 Beverly Avenue