pc-agenda-jul-25-22
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Planning Commission meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote
options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in this meeting
during the planned public comment sections. Some members of the Commission may attend virtually.
Members of the public may attend virtually by following instructions below.
Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by watching
on cable channel 16, streaming on CCXmedia.org, streaming via Webex, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001
and entering access code 2453 661 2143.
Members of the public wishing to address the Commission remotely have two options:
• Via web stream ‐ Stream via Webex and use the ‘raise hand’ feature during public comment
sections.
• Via phone ‐ Call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting code 2453 661 2143. Press *3 to raise your
hand during public comment sections.
1. Call to Order & Land Acknowledgement
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendments for THC Product Sales
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
4. Discussion – ADUs ‐ Survey Discussion
– End of Televised Portion of Meeting –
To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 2453 661 2143.
5. Council Liaison Report
6. Other Business
a. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings
7. Adjournment
July 27, 2022 – 6:30 pm
Council Chambers
Hybrid Meeting
1
Date: July 25, 2021
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: Zoning Text Amendments for THC Product Sales
Summary
Following a recent change in state statute, the City Council has directed the Planning Commission
to examine new zoning regulations to regulate products containing Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
This memo provides a brief summary of the new rules surrounding THC products and suggests a
path forward regulating these uses under zoning using a similar methodology as for tobacco
products.
Legislation Overview
The Minnesota legislature recently passed a law regulating the sale of food and beverage
products containing hemp-derived cannabinoids, including tetrahydrocannabinoids (THC). This
law was the result of a 2018 federal law and 2019 state law allowing the production, sale, and
possession of hemp products. As a result of the 2018 and 2019 laws, products containing THC
were for sale in Minnesota prior to the 2022 Minnesota law change. However, the 2022 law
clarified that the sale of food and beverage products containing THC is permissible in Minnesota
and press coverage of the law change has the potential to increase the demand for such
products.
According to the League of Minnesota Cities,
“Previous law authorized a product containing nonintoxicating cannabinoids to be sold, but the
authority to sell edible CBD products was unclear. The new law expands the authority to include
nonintoxicating cannabinoids, including edible cannabinoid products, provided they do not
contain more than 0.3% of any THC. An edible cannabinoid product also cannot exceed more
than five milligrams of any THC in a single serving, or more than a total of 50 milligrams of any
THC per package.”
2
While the law makes it legal to sell these products and sets requirements for labelling, testing
and marketing, it does not set a statewide licensing standard and leaves regulation on sales
largely to local municipalities.
City Council Discussion
The topic of expanded THC product types was first discussed by the Golden Valley City Council at
their July 12th work session and then at the July 19th regular meeting. Initial discussions
considered the possibility of a moratorium on sales for any product containing THC, however this
option raised concerns about impacting existing businesses that are already selling these
products. At the July 19th meeting, instead of enacting a moratorium, the Council adopted the
first consideration of a licensing ordinance and directed planning staff to add consideration of a
zoning ordinance to the next Planning Commission agenda.
Staff has had the opportunity to sit in on some meetings between other communities’ staff and
leadership, and various groups interested in the topic, such as the Municipal Legislative
Commission. It is understood that this law will be a topic of further revision and action in the
2023 state legislative session. Knowing that next year’s legislative session is at least one year out,
staff proposed that the City enact some degree of local control via zoning restrictions on where
THC products could be sold and a licensing requirement for such businesses. At the same time,
because the state statute may be revised in the near future and that work may make a city
license irrelevant, staff also thought that there should be an emphasis on putting the zoning and
licensing solutions into place quickly, and therefore should utilize work from previous code
changes, most notably tobacco.
Zoning and Licensing THC
In 2019 and 2020, the City added new regulations to the City Code regarding tobacco retailers.
First, it established a licensing requirement for stores that sold tobacco and with that set a cap on
the total number of license holders, as well as banning menthol and other flavored tobacco
products. From the zoning perspective, the Planning Commission recommended limiting new
tobacco retailers to the Commercial zoning district and requiring that such users be 500 feet from
a youth-oriented facility, which was defined in code as “a school, park, athletic field, or
playground.”
The City Council would now like to largely use the tobacco ordinances as a solution to the THC
sales question. While licensing may require more revision, in theory translating the zoning
restrictions from tobacco to THC are straightforward and get at the principal concern of the City
Council which is to provide a buffer between these uses and schools.
The Council has directed the Planning Commission to act quickly on a recommendation regarding
a zoning ordinance because, under zoning and land use law, the City cannot establish a zoning
regulation and then retroactively apply it to nonconforming users. If a business is operating
legally in a location that is later made illegal under the zoning code, the City cannot force that
user to close and relocate. Rather, the retailer would have legal protection as a legally
3
nonconforming use. Therefore, the sooner the City regulates the location of THC product sales,
the less opportunity there is to establish new nonconforming uses. If the City were to wait a year
until the legislature establishes further clarity around THC sales, there is the possibility that
additional stores will open in the meantime.
In terms of code changes, staff recommends revising three zoning code:
• Sec. 113-1. Definitions
o Add a definition of THC Product Retailers
• Sec. 113-87. Summary Use Tables
o Add THC Product Retailers as a restricted use to the Commercial zoning district
• Sec. 113-92. Commercial Zoning District
o Add a 500 foot buffer from youth facilities as well as language around multi-use
buildings to a THC product restriction
At the request of the Council, staff has brought this item forward as an informal public hearing.
While moving more quickly than is our standard procedure, staff supports the Council’s desire to
consider these changes on an expedited timeline. If recommended tonight for Council to
consider, the zoning ordinance would be in front of Council as soon as its second meeting in
August, which allows for time to put the required notice in the SunPost and to post the proposed
ordinance online.
Staff is also less concerned with the faster timeline given that it is based in large part on the
earlier analysis of the Planning Commission for tobacco. The 500 foot buffer was not arbitrarily
set and Commissioners will recall that many other iterations of the attached map were similarly
produced, some with buffers around only schools, some including churches, and ranging in
distance from 250 to 1,000 feet.
Given the circumstances, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission vote on the
proposed text amendments and forward them to the City Council. Staff is in any tweaks to the
analysis you may have or if you have any thoughts on a broader ordinance discussion around THC
products that could be revisited when there is less urgency to put new regulations in place.
Action Request
Recommend approval of draft language for a zoning text amendment regarding the sale of
products containing Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
Attachments
Draft Zoning Text Revisions (1 page)
THC Sales Restriction Map (1 page)
Cities and Regulation of Edible Cannabinoid Products (11 pages)
Underlined/Overstruck Language for THC Product Sales Zoning Code Text Amendments
Sec. 113-1. - Definitions.
THC Products: Any product that contains tetrahydrocannabinol and that meets the requirements
to be sold for human or animal consumption under Minnesota Statutes, section 151.72.
…….
Sec. 113-87. - Summary Use Tables.
Table 87-2 Economic and Business Land Uses
Land Use Description C LI I O
Retail establishments
that sell THC products R X X X
…….
Sec. 113-92. - Commercial Zoning District.
(e) Restricted Uses. The following restricted uses shall be permitted within the
Commercial Zoning District:
(1) Retail establishments that sell THC products, as defined in City Code, section
16-158, provided the following restrictions are observed:
a. The retail establishment shall be located not less than 500 feet from all
youth-oriented facilities, as measured at the lot line.
b. In the case of a multi-use building, distances from the retail
establishment shall be measured from the portion of the structure
occupied by the retailer.
(2) ...
Cities and Regulation of Edible
Cannabinoid Products
Published: July 15, 2022
A new law was enacted at the end of the 2022 legislative session that allows certain edible and
beverage products infused with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to be sold. Since the enactment of
the law, the League of Minnesota Cities has been researching and collecting information from
state agencies and stakeholders to answer questions pertaining to local regulatory authority,
law enforcement, taxing, and employment. The following frequently asked questions (FAQ)
aim to provide information to cities on the new law to assist local governments in making
decisions related to the law. The League will continually update the information below as
necessary.
(Updated July 20, 2022)
Get answers to FAQs regarding the new law allowing certain edible and beverage products
containing THC extracted from hemp to be sold.
General information
Q1. What does the new law do?
Q2. Under the new law, where are edible cannabinoids allowed to be sold? (Updated July 20,
2022)
Q3. Could my cityʼs municipal liquor store sell the edible cannabinoid products? (Updated July
20, 2022)
Q4. What regulations are in place for packaging for edible cannabinoids?
Q5. Are these products legal under federal regulations?
Q6. Where do the edible cannabinoid products come from?
Q7. How are the new products taxed?
Enforcement and public safety
Q8. How is the new law enforced?
Q9. What are penalties for someone who violates?
Q10. How do our officers determine if a driver is under the influence of these new products?
Q11. Could cities prohibit the sale of edible cannabinoids entirely? (Updated July 19, 2022)
Q12. Is our city required to adopt regulations under the new law?
City Licensing
Q13. What authority do cities have regarding licensing the sale of edible cannabinoids?
Q14. What types of restrictions should we consider in regulating cannabinoids? (Updated July
19, 2022)
Q15. Can a city add edible cannabinoid products to its existing tobacco licensing program?
Q16. If our city licenses edible cannabinoid products, how much can we charge as a license
fee?
Zoning
Q17.What authority do cities have regarding zoning for where the products could be sold?
(Updated July 19, 2022)
Q18. Could cities adopt a moratorium prohibiting the sale, manufacturing or, distribution of
cannabinoids so it can study the issue?
City employment and personnel issues
Q19. Does the new Minnesota legal cannabinoid law change anything about how we do drug
testing for CDL holders?
Q20. Does the new law change anything related to employees who carry a firearm?
Q21. Are there now “acceptable” limits of cannabinoids for non-CDL employees for purposes of
drug testing at work (i.e., those we test under state drug and alcohol testing law)?
Q22. Can we still prohibit employees from being under the influence of cannabinoids while at
work? Does the League have a model policy with updated language?
Q23. Can employees be in possession of edibles or other cannabinoid products while at work?
Q24. Do we need to change anything in our collective bargaining agreement with regard to
discipline of employees who use cannabinoid products?
Q25. Can employees use cannabinoid products off-duty?
Q26. How does this impact the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act?
Q27. Should my city still continue to include marijuana as a pre-employment panel screen for
my Non-DOT employees? (Updated July 19, 2022)
General information
Q1. What does the new law do?
A1. It is now legal to sell certain edibles and beverages infused with tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), the cannabis ingredient extracted from hemp.
The new law was passed by the Legislature as part of Chapter 98. Article 13 makes several
changes to Minnesota Statutes, section 151.72 regarding the sale of certain cannabinoid (CBD)
products. The changes took effect on July 1.
The new law amends the scope of sale of any product that contains cannabinoids extracted
from hemp and that is an edible cannabinoid product or is intended for human or animal
consumption.
Previous law authorized a product containing nonintoxicating cannabinoids to be sold, but the
authority to sell edible CBD products was unclear. The new law expands the authority to
include nonintoxicating cannabinoids, including edible cannabinoid products, provided they
do not contain more than 0.3% of any THC. An edible cannabinoid product also cannot exceed
more than five milligrams of any THC in a single serving, or more than a total of 50 milligrams
of any THC per package.
Q2. Under the law, where are edible cannabinoids
allowed to be sold?
A2. The new law does not limit where edible cannabinoids products may be sold. However,
certain businesses by their nature maybe be limited on their ability to sell the products. Liquor
stores, for example, are limited to selling specific items set by Minnesota Statute, section
340A.412, subd. 14. The Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division (AGE) of the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety has advised the League of Minnesota Cities that products
containing CBD, hemp, or THC are not allowed for sale at an exclusive liquor store. In addition,
AGE has informed LMC that a liquor storeʼs ability to sell food pursuant to Minnesota Statute,
section 340A.412, subd. 14 (b), does not include edible cannabinoid products.
Q3. Could my city ’s municipal liquor store sell the
edible cannabinoid products?
A3. Liquor stores are limited to selling specific items set by Minnesota Statute, section
340A.412, subd. 14. The Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division (AGE) of the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety has advised the League of Minnesota Cities that products
containing CBD, hemp, or THC are not allowed for sale at an exclusive liquor store. AGE has
advised LMC that CBD, hemp, or THC infused beverages are not intended to be mixed with
alcoholic beverages and are not considered so drinks. In addition, AGE has informed LMC
that a liquor storeʼs ability to sell food pursuant to Minnesota Statute, section 340A.412, subd. 14
(b), does not include edible cannabinoid products. Due to this guidance, LMC recommends
cities refrain from selling such products at their municipal liquor stores.
Q4. What regulations are in place for packaging for
edible cannabinoids?
A4. Along with testing and labeling requirements, an edible cannabinoid must meet several
requirements, including that it:
Not bear the likeness or contain cartoon-like characteristics.
Not be modeled a er a brand of products primarily consumed or marketed to children.
Not be made by applying an extracted or concentrated hemp-derived cannabinoid to a
commercially available candy or snack food item.
May not contain an ingredient, other than a hemp-derived cannabinoid, that is not approved
by the federal Food and Drug Administration.
May not be packaged in a way that resembles any commercially available food product.
Must not be packaged in a container that could reasonably mislead any person to believe that
it contains anything other than an edible cannabinoid product.
Q5. Are these products legal under federal
regulations?
A5. The 2018 Farm Bill made several changes to federal law related to hemp. Under the law,
hemp was removed from the controlled substance act, including derivates, extracts, and
cannabinoids, provided those substances contained less than 0.3% THC concentration.
Pursuant to the Farm Bill, Minnesota has legalized the production of hemp through its
industrial hemp program.
Although hemp extracts that meet the mandated THC level are no longer controlled
substances, the Farm Bill did not alter the authority of other federal agencies, including the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from regulating hemp and hemp byproducts. Under
current FDA regulations, CBD or THC products cannot be sold as a dietary supplement and
cannot be added to food for humans or animals.
Q6. Where do the edible cannabinoid products come
f rom?
A6. Under current law, these products can be manufactured in Minnesota but also imported
from other states. Growing hemp in Minnesota is governed by the Department of Agriculture,
though the MDA Hemp Program does not regulate cannabis extracts, development and
manufacturing of cannabis extracts, or the retail and marketing of cannabinoid products.
Cities may want to consider zoning implications for manufacturing and production of
cannabinoid products.
Q7. How are the new products taxed?
A7. It is the understanding of LMC that edible cannabinoid products legalized under the new
law are subject to Minnesota sales tax. LMC is waiting for more guidance from the Minnesota
Department of Revenue to determine if any exemptions apply. The new law does not authorize
cities to tax the products in their communities, however LMC is waiting on more information
as to whether the products would be subject to a local food and beverage tax.
Return to top of page
Enforcement and public safety
Q8. How is the new law enforced?
A8. The Minnesota Board of Pharmacy has regulatory authority over drug products that are
implicitly or explicitly intended for human or animal consumption. This includes products
regulated in the new law. If a product does not meet all the requirements of the new law, the
product may be considered misbranded or adulterated. The sale of a misbranded or
adulterated product is a misdemeanor-level crime which is to be prosecuted by the county
attorney where the offense took place. Questions regarding whether a specific product deviates
from the requirements of the new law should be forwarded to the Minnesota Board of
Pharmacy.
In addition, the new law limits the sale of CBD and THC products to persons over the age of 21.
The sale of CBD and THC products to a person under the age of 21 is a misdemeanor-level
crime which is to be prosecuted by the county attorney where the offense took place. Cities will
need to work with local law enforcement and the county attorney to determine how to enforce
this requirement.
If cities desire to further regulate CBD and THC products within their jurisdiction, they will
need to work with their city attorney to adopt local regulations.
The League is working with the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association and Minnesota Sheriff ʼs
Association to understand potential implications for law enforcement and identify additional
questions pertaining to the enforcement of these new products along with employment related
questions for law enforcement.
Q9. What are penalties for someone who violates?
A9. A violation of the new law is a misdemeanor. In most cases, the county attorney is charged
with prosecuting these violations.
Q10. How do our of cers determine if a driver is under
the in uence of these new products?
A10. The new law does not change the current rules relating to driving under the influence of a
cannabinoid. Officers should use the same process to determine sobriety as they have used if
they suspected a driver was under the influence of marijuana.
Q11. Could cities prohibit the sale of edible
cannabinoids entirely ?
A11. In most states that have adopted adult use cannabis legislation, local governments are
given the option to either opt-in or opt-out of cannabis in their communities. This framework
helps to maintain local control of the cannabis issue. The new Minnesota law does not provide
such an option. Therefore, the new law makes the new cannabinoid products legal in every city
throughout the state.
Without a clear opt-out option, the question as to whether a city could completely prohibit the
sale of edible cannabinoids is an open question. One potential approach would be to follow the
Minnesota House Researchʼs suggestion to LMC that it may be possible for a city to classify
cannabis edibles containing THC as an intoxicating cannabinoid and therefore would not be
allowed under the new law.
Arguments have also been made that a city may be able to prohibit the sale of edible
cannabinoids products under its authority to provide for the health safety and welfare of its
community. If a city were to attempt to prohibit edible cannabinoids under this authority, it
would need to work with its city attorney to develop findings that clearly show the dangers of
edible cannabinoids products and the need to prohibit the products. Cities may want to look at
communities that have banned the sale of flavored tobacco products as a model for such
prohibitions.
Q12. Is our city required to adopt regulations under
the new law ?
A12. The new law does not require cities to take action in regulating the new products. If a city
chooses not to adopt additional regulations, the sale and production of these new products will
be governed by the cityʼs existing zoning and other regulations. In addition, the new law gives
local law enforcement power to enforce violations as a misdemeanor.
Return to top of page
City licensing
Q13. What authority do cities have regarding
licensing the sale of edible cannabinoids?
A13. A cityʼs authority to license comes from either a specific grant of authority from the
Legislature or from its authority to provide for its general health, safety, and welfare. When a
city official proposes local licensing of any activity or occupation, a city first must determine
whether the state already licenses that activity and, if so, whether the law forbids or allows a
local license.
Q14 . What types of restrictions should we consider in
regulating cannabinoids?
A14. If a city decides to regulate edible cannabinoids or other cannabinoid products, the types
of regulations can vary from city to city. Some items a city may consider when dra ing these
regulations include:
What areas of the city edible cannabinoids may be sold or manufactured or distributed.
What business should be allowed to sell edible cannabinoids.
Age of person selling the product.
Location of products within retail establishment.
Pop-up sales.
Transient merchants.
Vending machines.
Distance from other uses (schools, parks, residential, etc.).
Distance between retailers.
Delivery services.
Online sales.
Limit number of establishments within the city.
Age verification.
Hours.
Background checks.
Q15. Can a city add edible cannabinoid products to its
existing tobacco licensing program?
A15. The requirements and legal authority for tobacco products are unique to those products.
While some aspects of tobacco regulations may be used when regulating edible cannabinoid
products, the products and the authority to regulate them are quite different. If a city chooses
to license edible cannabinoid sellers, it would be best to do so separately from tobacco
regulations or be sure to carefully dra new language in an existing ordinance that follows the
unique requirements of the new law.
Q16. If our city licenses edible cannabinoid products,
how much can we charge as a license fee?
A16. When setting fees, cities should consider a number of things. First, cities should not view
municipal licensing as a significant source of revenue. License fees must approximate the
direct and indirect costs associated with issuing the license and policing the licensed activities.
License fees that significantly exceed these costs are considered unauthorized taxes.
This means a license fee may not be so high as to be prohibitive or produce any substantial
revenue beyond the actual cost to issue the license and to supervise, inspect, and regulate the
licensed business.
Return to top of page
Zoning
Q17.What authority do cities have regarding zoning
for where the products could be sold?
A17. Nothing in the new law limits a cityʼs zoning authority related to CBD and THC products.
No Minnesota court has interpreted the limits on zoning authority in this context, but at least
one court in another state has ruled that a state law related to cannabis did “not nullify a
municipalityʼs inherent authority to regulate land use under [state] law so long as the
municipality does not prohibit or penalize all medical marijuana cultivation … and so long as
the municipality does not impose regulations that are unreasonable and inconsistent with
regulations established by state law.” DeRuiter v. Township of Byron, 505 Mich. 130, 949 N.W.2d 91
(2020). It is unknown if a Minnesota court would come to the same conclusion.
Cities should be thoughtful and intentional about how zoning regulations related to
cannabinoid products affect their communities and work with their city attorney to determine
what, if any, zoning restrictions should be adopted. Cities will need to consider not only zoning
regulations related to retail sales of CBD and THC products but also the manufacturing and
production of the products within the city. Unless specifically differentiated in a zoning
ordinance, a cityʼs general manufacturing and production zoning provisions will likely apply to
CBD and THC production as well.
Q18. Could cities adopt a moratorium prohibiting the
sale, manufacturing or, distribution of cannabinoids
so it can study the issue?
A18. A moratorium is a tool cities use to pause specific uses in order that the city may study the
issue in anticipation of future regulations. A moratorium is limited to a period of one year. To
adopt a moratorium, a city must follow the procedures in Minnesota Statute, section 462.355,
subd. 4. The statute specifies the specific instances where a city may adopt a moratorium. If a
city were to adopt a moratorium prohibiting the sale or manufacturing of edible cannabinoid
products, it should work with its city attorney to clearly state the legal justification for the
moratorium.
If a city does adopt a moratorium, it must actually review and study the issue or meet one of
the other requirements of the statute. More information on moratoriums can be found in the
LMC Zoning Guide for Cities.
Return to top of page
City employment and personnel issues
Q19. Does the new Minnesota legal cannabinoid law
change anything about how we do drug testing for
CDL holders?
A19. No, cities with positions requiring an employee to hold a commercial driverʼs license
(CDL) will recall these positions are regulated by federal law, and those regulations are
supervised by the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT). Federal law preempts state law
related to cannabinoid use; in fact the DOT states in its DOT Recreational Marijuana Notice it
does not authorize the use of Schedule I drugs, including marijuana, for any reason. As a result,
cities should continue to follow their drug-testing procedures related to CDL holders and may
enforce prohibitions against any use of cannabinoids for CDL holders, regardless of state law
protections.
Cities can find more information on the effects of the new law on drug testing in the LMC Drug
and Alcohol Testing Toolkit, starting on page 22.
Q20. Does the new law change anything related to
employees who carry a rearm?
A20. No. Public safety employees who carry a firearm cannot lawfully use cannabis under
federal law. Federal law prohibits cities from providing firearms or ammunition to an employee
it knows or has reason to think is using cannabis.
Q21. Are there now “acceptable” limits of
cannabinoids for non-CDL employees for purposes of
drug testing at work (i.e., those we test under state
drug and alcohol testing law)?
A21. There isnʼt a clear answer, since THC can remain in the body for several weeks a er usage
(and long a er any intoxicating or impairing effects have since disappeared), so positive test
results may not indicate any wrongdoing on the employeeʼs part and may just be evidence of an
employeeʼs lawful actions done outside of work. The League of Minnesota Cities recommends
that employers thoroughly document any suspicions of an employee being under the influence
and to work closely with their city attorney(s) before taking any action against the employee.
With this new area of law, a city may want to avoid relying on the results of traditional tests that
detect metabolites remaining in a personʼs body (for many days or weeks a er using marijuana)
and instead focus on implementing reasonable-suspicion drug-testing protocols to detect
marijuana intoxication based on behavioral observations. Keep in mind, employers may
prohibit all employees from being under the influence while the employee is working. That
would include employees who operate vehicles. Employers may want to revise their policies to
clarify that employees still may not be under the influence of cannabis, legal or otherwise,
while at work.
The National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance offers a toolkit to help employers work through the
complex and confusing issue of marijuana and the workplace.
Q22. Can we still prohibit employees f rom being
under the in uence of cannabinoids while at work?
Does the League have a model policy with updated
language?
A22. Yes, employers can continue to prohibit employees from being under the influence of
cannabinoid products, including edibles, while at work. Although employersʼ obligations and
restrictions related to marijuana use vary widely across the states, there is no law we are aware
of that requires employers to allow cannabinoid use during work hours or to allow an
employee to report to work impaired. Thus, employers may continue to maintain drug-free
policies at the workplace and discipline employees who use cannabinoids during working
hours or who report to work impaired. In fact, one could argue that under the Occupational
Safety and Health Administrationʼs (OSHA) General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, employers are required to furnish a workplace free from recognized hazards that
are likely to cause serious physical harm. This provision of the Act is typically used in accident
cases where toxicology screens are positive.
OSHAʼs new electronic recordkeeping rule, clarified on 10/11/2018, states “If the employer
chooses to use drug testing to investigate the incident, the employer should test all employees
whose conduct could have contributed to the incident, not just employees who reported
injuries,” with respect to using drug testing to evaluate the root cause of a workplace incident
that harmed or could have harmed employees. Thus, if a city has a non-DOT drug-testing policy
in place, a protocol following this guidance is important.
The League has a Non-DOT Drug and Alcohol Testing and Drug-Free Workplace Act model
policy that has been updated initially, and will be continually updated as the League learns
more.
Q23. Can employees be in possession of edibles or
other cannabinoid products while at work?
A23. Cities may enact policies prohibiting employees from bringing cannabinoid products,
including edibles, to work.
Q24. Do we need to change anything in our collective
bargaining agreement with regard to discipline of
employees who use cannabinoid products?
A24. No, but ensure your cityʼs drug-testing policy has been updated and your supervisors are
trained on the behavioral signs and symptoms associated with impairment. Of course, if the
collective bargaining agreement includes language that policy changes need to be negotiated,
then there would need to be a meeting with the union if the cityʼs policy changes.
Q25. Can employees use cannabinoid products off-
duty ?
A25. It depends. Certain types of employees, such as law enforcement officers and other
employees issued firearms and ammunition as part of their jobs, are subject to regulations
from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which prohibits firearms and
ammunitions to be given to individuals who do or are believed to use illegal drugs. As noted
above, city positions required to hold a commercial driverʼs license are subject to Department
of Transportation regulations and are not authorized for the use of Schedule I drugs, including
marijuana, for any reason. Thus, these types of employees could be prevented from using
cannabinoid products both on and off duty. Other employees who are not subject to that or
other federal regulations would likely be able to use cannabinoid products while they are off
duty, as there is nothing under Minnesota law which prohibits certain classes of employees
from using cannabinoid products off duty, as long as they are not impaired at work.
If there are any questions regarding whether an employee could be prevented from using
cannabinoid products while off-duty due to federal regulations, please consult your city
attorney before any action is taken.
Q26. How does this impact the requirements of the
Drug-Free Workplace Act?
A26. It does not. The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (DFWA) requires federal grantees and
contractors to implement a drug-free workplace policy and establish a drug-free awareness
program as a precondition for receiving a federal grant or a contract. However, the DFWA does
not require covered employers to test employees for drugs or terminate them for drug-related
violations, so the new Minnesota state law does not impact the DFWA directly. Minnesota law
allows employers to prohibit employees from bringing legal cannabinoid products to work and
permits employers to prohibit employees from being under the influence while at work. It
would be best practice for cities with drug-free work policies to keep those in effect. If a city
wishes to do so, it can update its policy to include lawful cannabinoid products within its scope.
Q27. Should my city still continue to include
marijuana as a pre-employment panel screen for my
Non-DOT employees?
A27. That is for each city to decide for itself. Because currently there are no devices or blood
tests available that measure marijuana impairment, and because a best practice approach for
Non-DOT marijuana drug testing is to base testing on behavioral observations, some employers
are excluding marijuana from their pre-employment Non-DOT drug screens. Some states even
prohibit an employer from refusing to hire an applicant simply because of a positive drug test,
but Minnesota is currently not one of these states at this time. Any city that chooses to continue
to test for THC for Non-DOT positions must be aware of the fact that these substances may
remain in an individualʼs system for weeks a er the impairing effect of the drug has worn off.
Thus, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the positive test indicates
usage in violation of the cityʼs drug-free workplace policy or indicates lawful usage during an
employeeʼs time-off from work. Cities should consult with their city attorneys prior to taking
any action based upon a positive drug test for THC.
Return to top of page
Your LMC Resource
Research & Information Service staff members are ready to help you apply their broad
knowledge to the issues youʼre dealing with today.
Access online form to submit a question, or call us: (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122
Date: July 25, 2021
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units – Survey Discussion
Summary
The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to examine new zoning regulations to
allow for Accessory Dwelling Units within the R-1 and R-2 residential zoning districts.
This memo will focus on a brief summary of the online survey that was conducted on ADUs over
May/June. Golden Valley Communications staff compiled a full report on the results of this
survey, a first draft copy of which has been attached with this memo.
Survey Overview
The survey ran from May 25-July 2, and over that time collected 307 responses. The survey
application did limit respondents by their IP address, only allowing 1 response per IP. Marketing
for the survey included the article in the May/June issue of CityNews, articles on the City website,
and two social media reminders.
Of 307 participants, 302 completed the demographics questions at the end of the survey, which
meant a very high rate of completion. In terms of demographics, respondents were mostly
spread through all 4 quadrants of the city (with 6 respondents answering they did not currently
live in the city.) While the amount of responses were uneven between quadrants, this is likely
also due to the area covered and amount of homes in each Quadrant.
2
Figure 1: Quadrant Response Rates
Almost 90% of respondents answered that they lived in a single-family home currently, and the
majority of those owned said home. This is expected, one because of Golden Valley having a high
proportion of single-family housing to start, and because ADUs are designed and planned for
single-family parcels if added to code. Staff would’ve liked to see more participation from renters
or multi-family housing residents, who might be potential users for ADUs, but we did get good
feedback in other parts of the survey on use for housing family members.
In terms of age demographics represented in the survey, the two most common categories were
ages 30-50 (53%) and 50+ (50%). Note these are not restricted to the person answering the
survey, as the question asked which age groups were represented in households. While a smaller
proportion of survey respondents had children in their household, all households with under 18s
made up over 30% of respondents.
The majority of survey participants noted that they had only heard about the concept of ADUs
within the last few years (52%), with some participants noting that the city newsletter article was
their first time hearing about the topic.
39% 29%
22% 8%
3
Under the category of “other” ways to hear about ADUs, some common responses included
hearing about it from a friend, family, realtor, or church community.
Survey Data Summary
Staff received this report shortly before Commissioners and are still parsing through the full
range of comments on the survey, but wanted to provide some of the initial takeaways here in a
summary prior to the meeting. Staff also encourages the Commission to read through the full
report if they can prior to discussion at the meeting, in order to be able to raise
thoughts/questions in the moment.
At a high-level, the survey results show a slight preference towards ADUs, but far from an
outright majority. For example, question 5 asked respondents directly if they would consider
building an ADU if they owned a home.
4
All four options had some participation, but none had an outright majority on their own. Both
pro-build options made up a combined majority, at approximately 59% of respondents who were
leaning or would definitely be interested in building an ADU. Anti-build options were
approximately 42% of responses. This question was somewhat indicative for other responses as
well. We have two groups on either extreme of the discussion, and a large portion of people in
the middle who have yet to make up their mind, or who’s ultimate opinion depends on how
ADUs are implemented. This is shown clearly in question 4, which asked participants about
detached ADUs specifically.
While supporters of detached ADUs were the largest group at 40% of respondents, the next most
common response were those people who were on the fence and wanted to know more about
5
regulations at 34%. Taking the time to put together regulations which ensure high quality ADUs
will be critical in meeting the expectations for this group of participants who are undecided on at
least detached ADUs.
Returning to question 5, which asked whether participants would consider building an ADU. This
question was one of the few in the survey with logic associated and which led to branching
questions depending on the participants response.
Participants who responded “definitely no” were asked why they would not consider building an
ADU, and then whether they thought others should be allowed to build ADUs. As to reasons why
people were uninterested in building an ADU, some people answered that they did not think
their lot was suitable for an ADU, either because of its size, layout, or existing demand for parking
for family members. Others also noted they had no need for one themselves. Other participants
noted that they were unsupportive of ADUs more broadly, and had concerns around the impacts
of the new use around potential issues of traffic, loss of open space, and concerns around rental
units.
On whether they would be supportive of other residents building ADUs, 57 of the 79 participants
asked this question said they were not supportive, with a much smaller group either being
comfortable with others building ADUs, or being undecided without further information on the
code requirements.
For participants who answered question 5 with either: definitely yes, leaning yes, or leaning no,
they received a follow up question asking them why or for what reasons they would consider an
ADU.
6
Most commonly listed by a wide margin was housing an aging parent or relative, which was
selected by 159 out of the 226 responses, 70%. Next most common was to use the ADU as a
guest house w/ a kitchen (45%), to house an adult child (43%). Using the ADU as a rental unit was
listed in approximately a third of all responses, and the multiple choice nature of this question
means that folks may be planning for multiple future uses, such as housing an aging parent in the
immediate term before using it as a rental in the future.
Questions 9 and 10 both addressed the question of added density associated with ADUs.
Question 9 asked whether residents were concerned about additional density, and like with
previous examples, participants were split.
7
53% of participants said they were either “not so concerned” or “not at all concerned”, with 39%
being “extremely concerned or “very concerned” Question 10 provides a bit more detail as to
areas of specific concern.
The two most commonly selected options were parking/traffic and increase in activity. After
these options was a response that the participant was not concerned, followed up by visual
8
appearance of the ADU and increasing impervious surface cover. A write in option was also
provided. Many of the responses here highlighted a concern around rental units and
crime/safety, with another set being concerned as to whether city infrastructure such as utilities,
parks, and trails could support additional population. A small number of write in responses used
the space to support added density.
Finally, question 3 was a slightly different format from the multiple choice options otherwise
presented in the survey, and was intended by staff to highlight which aspects of ADU code would
need the most vetting or which had the greatest interest from the public.
In a hypothetical scenario where a neighbor was building an Accessory Dwelling, participants
were most interested or concerned in the quality and exterior finish of the ADU, followed by:
setbacks, stormwater runoff, construction impacts, parking, height, notice for the project, the
eventual user of the ADU, and finally the square footage of the unit. While all these aspects will
need to be regulated in some fashion under zoning code or another part of city code, it is
important to analyze how these priorities from residents should be reflected in code.
Staff Analysis
From the survey, and with the caveat that we are looking at a sample of the Golden Valley
residential population (geographically diverse, majority single-family, majority middle-aged and
older), we can begin to look at next steps. In reading written comments especially, it is easy to
tell how important this topic is all residents, both those for and against ADUs. The challenge
9
moving forward is to find the balance between these interest groups, managing the concerns of
residents around parking, stormwater, and visual appearance, and providing a clear process and
ordinance for those that wish to pursue a project.
From questions 3, 6, and 10 especially we have a better idea now of what concerns residents will
have around ADUs in their neighborhood.
• Visual Appearance and location
o Is the ADU built and maintained to a quality that won’t detract from other
properties? Is there enough space on the lot or sufficient setbacks that the ADU
won’t infringe on privacy?
• Stormwater
o How will the added hardcover from an ADU be managed, what amount of open
space per lot is preserved?
• Parking
o Will off-street parking be provided for the added residents and avoid spillover into
street parking?
• Construction and notice
o How will residents learn about ADU projects, how will construction occur?
• Rental units
o How will secondary units be regulated under rental licensing, property
maintenance; what happens in case of sale?
While some of these areas of concern begin to extend outside the control of zoning code,
particularly in the case of construction impacts and fears around renters, staff is otherwise
confident these concerns can be met and accounted for by code. Many of these topics are the
same that have been under discussion by Commission already, such as setbacks or stormwater
runoff. Given the survey feedback, additional regulation on visual appearance requirements may
be a good idea to include in the code, as well as potentially upping the overall parking
requirement if it is an area of significant concern for residents.
Fortunately, in some cases these concerns are already addressed in the draft code. For example,
the Planning Commission has thus far not considered any exception or waiver from the lot cover
and impervious surface requirements for R-1 and R-2 zoned properties. That means an ADU is
subject to the same regulations as any other remodeling project in terms of the maximum
allowed hard surface on a lot. Recent discussion around setbacks for detached ADUs are also very
much in line with residents concerns around location of these structures: not allowed in front
yards, set back from property lines to protect privacy, etc.
In addition to learning about resident concerns around ADUs, it is reassuring to learn more about
the intentions of residents interested in ADUs and to see that there is significant interest for this
type of housing. Question 8 and its responses confirmed some of the anecdotal conversations
staff has had with residents on the topic, and that by far the most common stated reason to build
an ADU would be to house an aging family member. In question 11, we saw some additional
reasoning for allowing ADUs, with residents noting it was allowed in almost all adjacent
10
communities, that they wanted to see greater flexibility in housing options, and again that they
supported the idea because of the need to house aging family.
Survey Improvements
While extremely useful to gauge resident interest and beliefs around ADUs, the survey was also
good practice in engagement for Planning and there are also takeaways for future surveys:
• Length of survey seemed good, 302 out of 307 participants completed the entire survey
rather than dropping off partway
• Multiple participants noted they’d have preferred questions not use
“interested/concerned” because they were either interested in ADUs or concerned about
ADUs, not both
• For question 2, “other” was one of the most common responses, a category of “From a
friend or relative” might have collected a more useful data point
• Branching questions got at lots of good information (questions 6-8) could use more of
these in the future, as the additional questions shouldn’t add to survey length if they only
appear for certain responses.
This was the first major online survey for a zoning code update in some years. Staff is open to
more feedback from Commissioners and Communications staff also requested any feedback on
the report format itself.
Action Request
This item is not a public hearing or voting item.
Attachments
Golden Valley ADU Survey Report (30 pages)
Accessory Dwelling Units
COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 1
Contents
Overview…………………………………………………………….………………2
ADU Knowledge And Opinions…………………………..…………………….… 3
Demographics………….………………………………………………….……....22
Appendix A: Social Media Reach And Engagement…………………….…….26
Appendix B: Additional Community Feedback…………………………………28
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 2
Overview
Soliciting public input was a major component of the Golden Valley Planning Commission’s
consideration of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
Staff solicited input from the community through an online survey regarding:
• ADU allowance
• ADU concerns
• interest in building ADUs
To promote the survey and the issue, the City published a news story in the May/June issue of
CityNews and multiple online news stories. All information included links to the online survey.
The City further promoted the survey and issue through social media posts on Facebook, Twitter, and
NextDoor.
Online Survey
The survey was active from May 25–July 2, 2022, was limited to one response per IP address, and had
307 responses.
See survey responses starting on page 3.
Social Media Outreach
The City posted information and reminders about the the survey two times on Facebook, Twitter, and
NextDoor between May 26, 2022 and June 15, 2022.
See Appendix A for reach and engagement details for each post.
Additional Community Feedback
See Appendix B for additional feedback submitted to the City.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 3
ADU Knowledge And Opinions
1. When did you first learn about ADUs?
Of the 307 respondents, 102 (33 percent) learned about ADUs in the last few years, 94 (31 percent)
learned about ADUs in the last few months or year, 65 (21 percent) learned about ADUs 5–10 years
ago, and 40 (13 percent) learned more than 10 years ago. Six (2 percent) answered “other” (see
below).
Other
Very recently
This article and survey. Though they were common in Cloquet near where I grew up after the 1918 fire.
I don't know what you mean "learn about". I've known they exist. Didn't know the acronym.
I’m
Just now
From Golden Valley city news May/June 2022
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 4
2. How did you first hear about ADUs?
Of the 307 respondents, 89 (29 percent) heard about ADUs via a newspaper or on TV, 74 (24 percent)
heard about ADUs via the Golden Valley City newsletter or website, and 67 (22 percent) heard about
ADUs via adoption of ADUs in another municipality or area. Fifty-seven (18 percent) answered “other”
(see below).
Other
Pinterest
from property owners
Realtor
Costco
Some friends that were discussing real estate investments and long term extended family planning.
Place of employment
friend
We’re eagerly waiting for approval to build.
my previous neighborhood in n Mpls
Seeing them in our previous neighborhood
News
Realtor
They used to be called 'granny apartment'
From cities like Seattle.
Democratic caucus event in Plymouth MN
Friends
Don’t know
Personal research
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 5
in a class
Carriage house conversion
I read about them in a magazine...or the New York Times.
HGTV and other media
Looking at houses
Family
Adus in other cities who have more ADUs
I’ve seen them
We lived in the San Francisco Bay Area
TV shows on hgtv
Have seen them in other places.
Seeing them in Airbnb listings
When I previously worked as a mover, I moved a resident into an ADU above a primary house
an adu project done through my employer
friend
church
other
church
church
church friend
friend
church
friend
Other cities allowing them
Golden Valley Housing Coalition
Youtube videos (Not Just Bikes channel)
friend
Real estate industry
Knew someone who had rented the detached cottage of a St. Paul mansion.
My brother-in-law rented one.
Researching possible rental options for our property
We lived in one
Seeing an ADU in person at friend's parent's home - above garage apartment
In process of building an addition for adult disabled children hoping for ADU
Researching to add our own adu
No idea - it’s a pretty common/basic concept
Learning about living with less
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 6
College
I work in the senior living industry
3. If a neighbor was planning to build an ADU, what would you be interested in or
concerned about? Rank from Not at all interested/Concerned (1) to Extremely
interested/Concerned (5).
Based on response averages, the area respondents are most interested or concerned about is Quality of build or
exterior finish, and the area respondents are least interested or concerned about is Square footage of unit. See
Other answers below.
Item Not at all
interested/
Concerned
(1)
Not too
interested/
Concerned
(2)
No
opinion
(3)
Very
interested/
Concerned
(4)
Extremely
interested/
Concerned
(5)
Weighted
Avg
Square footage of unit 60 62 33 85 63 3.1
Height of the unit 37 53 17 115 81 3.5
Setbacks from property
lines
27 52 19 119 89 3.62
Quality of build or
exterior finish
23 31 26 133 92 3.79
Parking provided 39 45 38 92 91 3.5
Advanced notice of the
project
39 39 57 91 79 3.43
Construction impacts 31 43 52 89 87 3.52
Planned user of the unit 70 38 56 64 77 3.13
Planning for storm water
runoff
34 39 38 105 87 3.57
Other
Most concerned about changing the nature of our City's zoning regulations which have served the
residents well for so long.
also excess garbage, recycling and foot traffic
And my answer is reflective of concerned not interest at all, and against all above.
Tree removal. Smaller footprint project might need stricter replacement requirements.
interested in who was architect, builder, so could learn from
interested in how they did it, so I could learn and eventually do on my property
Would be very interested, want to do this myself
noise, crime, congestion, loss of suburban feel
How it will affect my views out my windows and my property value.
Please allow soon.
Obscuring sight lines or blocking sun
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 7
Concerns on trash/recycling/garbage collection and accessibility in snow for ADU's
To make sure it isn't going to be rented out or used as a vrbo or something of the sort. Basically, that it
will be used for someone in the immediate family and that any rental would be temporary and require
some sort of permit that would have a stiff penalty for letting said ADU become a rental long term.
Number if people to live there
Who would be renting the unit, relative, friend, etc.??
I would be interested in how the ADU would affect the architectural design of the existing house (ie,
would it make it ugly and affect my property values).
Additional Cars, street parking. People renting as Air BnB, so people coming in and out.
Does the property owner have to live in either the ADU or the home or will they be able to rent out
both
prefer incentives so unit is energy efficient, solar powered
as it think of this for our family , I envision a small well built unit for our adult daughter and think-
whats the problem. but then I start thinking of bigger units speciifally for rental purposes and I find
that more worrisome. I specifically would not like a VRBO unit in my back ground. Complicated idea
but I guess its coming so lets just be sure we do it right.
Design of build - needs to match primary home. No trailers, Mobile Homes, Shipping Containers.
Golden Valley has done a very poor job of managing stormwater in the past -I’d like to see that this has
changed
my neighbor has a large extra building on his property and he doesn't maintain it nor his yard. We
bought in Golden Valley because we like the setbacks, the large yards. I am upset that the look and
quality of our neighborhoods will be crowded. My neighbor already has a large out building of about
16 x 24 that is full of junk. I don't want all of our block to have so many extra people and cars. This is a
horrible idea
I would be extremely concerned about and opposed to the potential addition of an ADU.
general design and impact on adjoining properties
Important to ensure ADUs are built in a proper quality for residence (aligning with style/quality of
neighborhood homes), ensuring ADUs weren’t used for short term rentals but for longer term
residency.
Utility impact (power, sewer, etc)
This is a great tool for people to age in place, care for aging parents or provide secondary income by
renting the unit out. Love this idea!
Would prefer ADUs be limited to homes that are homesteads
Impact to my backyard (would a giant window be facing my patio for “strangers” to look at…assuming
it’s a short term rental). (In short, ordinances to protect enjoyment of property while allowing ADUs)
How many people will live there? Will there now be two families next door to me?
sight lines, landscaping
Lower quality Tennant and increase in crime
Removal of trees and green space is a concern as this is what makes GV popular
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 8
4. Should Golden Valley allow freestanding (detached) ADUs in rear yards in
addition to attached ADU options?
Of the 307 responses to this question, 124 (40 percent) answered Yes, 79 (26 percent) answered No,
and 104 (34 percent) answered Maybe, but it depends on the regulations on location and size.
5. If you were a homeowner, would you ever consider building an ADU on your
property if allowed by City Code?
Of the 307 respondents who answered this question, 101 (33 percent) answered Definitely Yes, 79 (26
percent) answered Leaning Yes, 48 (16 percent) answered Leaning No, and 79 (26 percent) answered
Definitely No.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 9
6. Why not?
This question was only asked if the respondent answered Definitely No to question 5. It was open-
ended and gathered no statistical data.
Answers
I moved to this city because I liked the fact that the houses were not all crammed together on
80x100 lots
I want to preserve the current housing zoning ordinance
Parking is already an issue at my home;
Poor use of green space, crowded parking, excess garbage and neighborhood noise and possibly
pets. Already no pet ordinance in GV. This is just a scheme to get more taxes
What for, we have gotten along this long why now?
I moved to Golden Valley for less density than the city. This adds density.
I enjoy the larger yards, privacy.
I think city lots in GV are already crowded, and many park on the street. Let’s clean up the
properties we have before allowing folks to build makeshift apartments.
why would I want to
I’m on a 8000 squad ft lot. Where would I put it..ah..the front yard next to my 4 garbage cans! Nice
!
Ruins property nearby. More people, more traffic. Stop this now
would only be in favor of attached ADUs
Property not large enough, “look of the neighborhood”, etc
As a green step city we should consider environmental impacts
Size of lot
Privacy
too dense, parking issues, lose neighbor feel, rental issues
increased population leads to increased conflict and less ability to enjoy the neighborhood. I
already have to contend with rental resident that smoke pot, are loud, and generally detract from
the enjoyment of my property. I don't want this worsened by the addition of more residents.
No need
Not worth the cost - not needed.
Because I don't want increased population density in our neighborhood
No space.
Adversely impacts home values of adjacent dwellings
No reason to.
No need
No need
Over-population of areas not meant to support increased density
More to maintain. Adds population density. Potential liability.
Small lot
Trashy in a yard meant for a yard. Too many people in small area. Don’t want to be around areas
like this since I enjoy privacy.
Because I chose to live in a single family zoned district, otherwise I would have decided to live in a
multi-family dwelling area.
No room
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 10
We would not build an ADU because we specifically bought our property for the large outdoor
space and to have reasonable privacy from our neighbors.
Not enough room on my property, and no reason for one.
We pride ourselves in having lots that are open and have room for gardening. Space between
the houses is wonderful in Golden Valley. It is one reason we chose to live here over 50 years
ago.
Neighborhoods designed for single family homes shouldn’t be turned into fractured design. Let’s
jus park an airstream or mobil fish house and drop some power and call it a ADU. Don’t like this
idea, well I am not enthused about yours either!
Lot sizes that currently exist are already very small. An ADU would take up too much space and
make the neighborhood feel tight and cluttered.
No reason to do so
Rules are not always followed we live in Basset Creek drainage area and am concerned about
water run off. People say they're building a garage and load the yard with crap. Have a shed built
almost on my property. I see a big problem with shed placement. Only use them to store more
junk. This is a terrible Idea with half acre lots.
Crowding & destruction of the single family ambiance of Golden Valley.
Added paving for parking, added vehicles, visual density. I already feel like I’m in a commercial
parking lot with all the cars and home businesses in my neighborhood.
no need
Not appropriate
Once a 2nd building is established, it becomes "secondary" and not the main focus of the
homeowner. the maintenance won't be inspected, illegal rentals, variance requests and neighbor
relations just get worse, especially when the property is sold and any 'commitments' either
disappear or are neglected with no enforcement. It's going to cost the city/taxes a LOT to keep
this building type performing at a high level. If you have an ADU, you need to be in a housing
zone where multi-family is approved. Let the large lots divide up, that's fine, but doubling-up
actual dwellings as separate buildings where they are not zoned is not appropriate for GV. I'm all
for attached/integrated, but detached is too far and has many many unintended consequences
that the city/taxpayers of GV's size simply doesn't have the $$$ to afford.
High density housing should be placed on repurposed commercial real-estate. The layout of the
current housing stock is what makes the city attractive to potential buyers. ADU will now doubt be
a blight of bad design, poor planning, and weak over site and will make neighborhoods less
desirable.
If I wanted to live in a dense housing block I would buy in Mpls or St Paul. I hate the idea of more
cars, people and renters. A couple of houses near me have renters which has caused problems
with upkeep, police calls, etc. Why does our city council think we want to have our city be
crowded?
The reason I live in a single family home is because I do not want to live in or near high density
housing. There is plenty of high density housing available in Golden Valley. We don't need to ruin
single family homes by adding ADU's in the backyard!
The question should be why do people want one.
It is a bad idea for the community.
I don't like people
I like the suburban layout of GV
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 11
Why is that any of your business?
It is a weird idea.
We do not need back yard rentals in Golden Valley.
I would be upset if my neighbors did this. I love the quiet of my back yard.
It is a stupid idea
I do not need additional space.
It is abad idea.
The charm of Golden Valley is large suburban lots. This is not an urban community.
There are plenty of apartments going up right now in Golden Valley, so the premise that there is a
shortage of rental housing is not supported.
It is one thing to have a family member live in the ADU, but over time people will rent them out for
additional income and I have chosen not to live in a rental neighborhood. There will be parking
issues, noise issues, added traffic. If they become short term rentals, we would have many new
people coming and going in our neighborhoods. I do worry about safety and crime.
Our lot is too small
I choose and pay to live in a single family community not a high density area with apartment type
renters.
Because there isn't enough room on almost any property in the city, and the added congestion
and close proximity would be uncomfortable.
All of the reasons previously listed
I would add on to my home before doing an adu
My lot is not big enough
The disruption to the character and quality of life in Golden Valley would be unacceptable and
greatly degree the quality of the community.
Changes the feel of the neighborhood and increases density, already have too many apartment
buildings!
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 12
7. Would you be supportive of others having the option to build an ADU in
Golden Valley?
This question was only asked if respondents answered Definitely No to question 5. Of the 79
respondents who answered this question, 57 (72 percent) would not be supportive of others having the
option to build an ADU in Golden Valley, 6 (8 percent) would be supportive, and 16 (20 percent) would
maybe be supportive, but it would depend on City Code restrictions.
8. For what reasons would you consider building an ADU? (select all that apply)
This question was only asked if respondents answered Definitely Yes, Leaning Yes, or Leaning No to
question 5. Of the 226 responses, 159 (70 percent) would consider building an ADU to house an aging
parent/relative, 102 (45 percent) would consider building an ADU as a guest house, and 97 (43
percent) would consider building an ADU as a secondary unit for an adult child.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 13
9. Adding ADUs to single-family residential districts could impact the overall
density of housing units in a given area, depending on if ADUs are widely built.
How concerned are you of this potential impact on single-family areas?
Of the 303 respondents who answered this question, 70 (23 percent) are extremely concerned, 49 (16
percent) are very concerned, 100 (33 percent) are not so concerned, 61 (20 percent) are not at all
concerned, and 23 (8 percent) have no opinion.
10. If you are concerned about increased density from ADUs, what aspects are of
the most concern? (select up to three)
Of the 303 respondents who answered this question, 136 (45 percent) are concerned about
parking/traffic demand, 122 (40 percent) are concerned about an increase in activity/noise, and 97 (32
percent) are concerned about visual impacts. 114 (38 percent) are not concerned about added density.
Twenty-eight (9 percent) answered “other” (see below).
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 14
Other Answers
Do we have enough parks, trails, and sidewalks to support increased density and more livable spaces? Right
now I’d say GV has a split personality between an urban community and historically suburban planning.
Renters have no stake in ownership, thus, more inclined to not care…
More people, more crime
General safety and crime. Pressure on wildlife.
My property value
crime that comes with more populated areas (in general)
Move forward with environmental precaution.
Random people coming in and out of rentals
Concerned about loss of privacy from increased housing density
No room for gardens and other outdoor activities.
All of the above
Potential Decrease in property value
Crime
is there a maximum square footage? based on lot size?
There could be environmental impacts, such as a lot with some large trees or shrubs could be removed.
potential increase in prime due to increase in rentals and lack of investment in the neighborhood and
aesthetics that often come with renting over owning.
Concerned about water in my basement
Rental properites in a single family area.
We need more housing in GV
less privacy
Primary concern is for detached ADU. Integrated is a better option for our community. Once a 2nd building
is established, it becomes "secondary" and not the main focus of the homeowner. the maintenance won't
be inspected, illegal rentals, variance requests and neighbor relations just get worse, especially when the
property is sold and any 'commitments' either disappear or are neglected with no enforcement. It's going
to cost the city/taxes a LOT to keep this building type performing at a high level. If you have an ADU, you
need to be in a housing zone where multi-family is approved. Let the large lots divide up, that's fine, but
doubling-up actual dwellings as separate buildings where they are not zoned is not appropriate for GV. I'm
all for attached/integrated, but detached is too far and has many many unintended consequences that the
city/taxpayers of GV's size simply doesn't have the $$$ to afford.
Developers that would buy property to build these units in speculation
decrease in property values
Potential loss of backyard privacy. Perhaps a zoning change to allowable height of privacy fences could
mitigate this concern
access routes to ADU. Means building more drive way, utility lines, etc.
Increased demand on city resources
Tree/Vegetation Removal
Contrary to many opinions - e.g. in the narrow lots study - I believe increased density is good for people and
the environment. Denser neighborhoods are more "walkable" and require less infrastructure per capita
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 15
11. Do you have any other thoughts or comments to share on the topic of ADUs
to include in the engagement report? (optional) 500 characters max
This question was open-ended and gathered no statistical data.
Answers
Support ADUs, please adopt flexible ADU ordinance
Preserve the current zoning ordinance at it is today with no added density. Added density should
take place outside of the residential areas in Highrise developments, all efforts should be made to
require developers to include low income accessible units into their developments as the city is now
so admirably requiring. Keep up that good work! ts
Given the increasing expense of housing with incomes not increasing as quickly as inflation this is
an affordable option for multigenerational housing.
Agree with poster in FB group that permit to build should be dependent on owner occupation of the
primary dwelling to minimize flipping and create a vested interest in neighborhood peace/tranquility.
Provisions should be out in place regarding setbacks and asthetics (including height). And STRs
should be licensed/regulated with a limit to numbers granted. This is a great way for families to
take care of each other.
None
These type of units may provide needed housing but not easy access to other needs such as
transportation, health care and food resources.
I'm sure there will be concerns, but some of those could be mitigated by requiring builders or
owners of properties with ADUs to live onsite.
Given the growing unavailability of affordable housing, I see this as a progressive and inclusive
step forward. I am hugely in favor of it.
As a resident of Golden Valley, i feel like we have the perfect home/lots for ADUs as the lots are
larger than usual. Having ADUs availability will help diversified the city, which is always great for a
town. Where I’m from ADUs are so very common these are great for everyone, kids going to
college, extra office space specially now that many of us work from home. Family members visiting
from out of town, caring for elderly parents.. so many good things. I’m very excited!
Many homes already have 4 cans for trash, yard waste, recycling and compost. Adding more users
adds more trash, noise, foot traffic and congestion. This is a not needed way to garner more taxes
and inc pop density
No
Homeowners already have jumbo sized trailers, campers, boats & other various things stored in the
front yards, driveways or streets. I’m concerned about safety, too many people jammed in too small
areas always leads to an increase in crime. Golden Valley should focus on getting their police force
filled & taking care of the infrastructure we already have. I would like to see an environmental study
on the effects on run off, levels of tree removal, & climate impact.
LOVE these. This city has huge lots and lots of wasted space to house aging relatives and adult
children getting their lives started. It adds affordable housing options that aren’t apartments or full
size single homes and as long as airBNB isn’t part of the equation, it’s an almost universal positive
for the community.
please allow all forms of ADUs without owner-occupancy requirement
Are you people insane??? How about just leave our neighborhoods alone!!!!
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 16
I fully support allowing ADUs to be built, but I think there should be a requirement that the owner
live on the property in order to be allowed to build an ADU. I think it’s great for people to be able to
house their parent(s) or adult children or even to rent, but I do not want house flippers doing this all
over GV for no reason.
How is an ADU different from a “mother-in law apartment.” I don’t know how common these are in
Golden Valley specifically, but I wasn’t aware that zoning of a single family residence could be used
to prevent a home from including a mother-in law apartment and/or that I would need special
zoning to provide a living space in my home for an elderly relative.
This trashes the city. Stop implementing this garbage in our once nice area. Property taxes are
already ridiculous
GV is narrowing streets when they promised they wouldn’t, how will parking work with narrow
streets? Where do these cars for the adus go in a snow storm? With narrow streets we can’t get
garbage truck traffic and fire truck traffic through, where are these extra vehicles parking? Home
values will decrease. If you’re sitting on your patio or deck and have the ability to not see in the
neighborhood, what happens to neighborhood watch? If you can’t see around these dwellings,
safety is a concern.
GV is popular for its trees and large lots, do we want GV to look like uptown or st Louis Park etc?
An ADU would be a significant help to family caregivers. Working caregivers would benefit greatly. I
was a weekend caregiver before I became my mom's live-in caregiver. The commute took time,
especially in winter.
please allow ADUs
favor ADUs, should allow
I support ADUs in Golden Valley
With increasing rental and housing costs I believe this would be an excellent way to support
families.
If neighboring towns allow this, we should too or risk declining property values relative to competing
towns
Was surprised Golden Valley didn’t allow this, thought all MSP cities did.
I’m quite for the idea, especially given the shift back to more multigenerational living. It gives people
options and real flexibility with their home property. I think if done well it would only enrich Golden
Valley’s livability.
Highly in favor of them. Our home in Golden Valley had a full walk out apartment and allowed for
multi generational living—first with my aunt and uncle, then my grandmother and then my adult
sister. It’a a way increase a sense of community and enhance Golden Valley’s appeal for aging
people who can no longer deal with the large yard work of so many properties. Highly interested in
this proposal moving forward and highly likely to take advantage of it.
500 characters is insufficient to convey additional thoughts. Will send follow up comments to
planning department.
I think it’s a wonderful opportunity that could allow for aging residents to continue living with family
out of a nursing home
we would move out of Golden Valley if this passes
Thinking about this for my disabled to have a sense of autonomy while staying safe, close, and
keeping dignity
I have twin disabled sons. One of my sons could live in a detached ADU. Having a detached ADU
will allow him autonomy while being close to us for when he needs help. Being detached is very
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 17
important is us. An attached ADU would not work for our family due to how loud my other disabled
son is and they need space from each other.
The arguements presented are flawed, seniors want to stay in their homes, not move into
someone's back yard. The more likely outcome is that the city will have an influx of renters in
residential areas which will detract from the peaceful environment Golden Valley has cultivated.
I think this would really ruin the esthetic of the neighborhood. GV is so nice and spacious, we will
start to look like SLP.
Fail to see why it is needed.
I generally support more flexible housing options and policy that enables denser housing.
Please focus on makung golden valley more affordable by capping taxes and reducing waste in city
programs... Not by cramming more people into smaller areas
I acknowledge that there is not enough accessible housing options for people and this could be a
way to help accommodate people.
Thank you for moving this forward.
GV lots are typically quite large and, as long as the regulations are well stipulated, should be able
to handle usage. The rules that I see applying: some %-size restriction the house that is originally
on the lot. man’s some aesthetic requirements. Hip roof house, hip roof adu. Color of orig house =
color of adu.
support this as an affordable housing option in our community
Im concerned that the city may want to force me to have ADUs
Big issue is the reduction of permeable surface, a huge environmental concern
They should be prohibited from being used in higher transient scenarios such as vacation rental
units (VRBO's) or Air B&B's. These would bring unpredictable activity to any neighborhood and
create a source of stress for seniors and those with small children.
What are the size and height limitations.
I think we need to seriously consider the ramifications of ADU's , and what "worst case" scenarios
could occur by legally pushing the boundaries of any type of "OK"
ADUs are expensive to build, so will probably have limited uptake, but adding more affordable
housing is one of the biggest social equity things we can do.
Do not allow for rentals like Airbnb. Allow for older adults or family guest and keep these units for
maximum 2 people and under a certain sq footage. Not for rentals
Sounds like a good step towards something similar to Minneapolis’ 2040 plan
Many people on Golden Valley have large yards and plenty of room for an ADU.
Regardless of what type is allowed, thinking about population density, additional noise and traffic
should be minimally impacted within a few block area.
Need bigger lots first.
Necessary due to cost of housing now!
Do not allow in Golden Valley
I have huge zoning questions, property tax questions. Either areas are zoned single family
residential or they should be multi family dwelling zone, but NOT mixed.
None
GV has copious restrictions on primary dwelling height, seize and lot placement. Not to mention
auxiliary space. ADU's go against the spirit of the landscape all of these restrictions are intended to
preserve.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 18
Build quality and water runoff should be prioritized along with keeping the height and square
footage to a minimum.
We purchased our home/property in Golden Valley specifically because it was less dense than
other cities like Minneapolis and St Louis Park. I am very opposed to increasing density in areas
that are currently zoned for single family dwellings.
I think short term rentals should be prohibited in ADUs
There must be other ways to solve this problem without ADUs.
I like the idea of providing families affordable ways to support aging parents or adult children in
place, near the family, and I've wondered if we could do something for our parents here.
Housing AND eldercare are super expensive and they sound like a great way to provide affordable
living for an adult child or care for aging parent.
Most concerned about parking with current increased car theft and break ins…
This is a dump idea not suited for GV. Let Mpls build their high density in a city setting!
I’m concerned that Golden Valley is trying to pack more housing into stable neighborhoods that
currently have a decent amount of space between each. I would hate to see Golden Valley
become as densely packed as St. Louis Park and parts of Hopkins. In my opinion, it lowers the
desirability to live in the area and lowers property values.
I would like to see studies on how this is working in other areas of the country. Are the goals that
were set being met? Or did they find that there was a different outcome? It would be nice to see
actual pictures of homes that have ADUs (or Granny Flats as they called them in CA) not just
illustrations.
Definitely most concerned with size of building
Most Golden Valley lots are too small to support this idea
I’m generally in favor of this, so long as planning and enforcement of regulations are upheld. Our
neighbors are already loud and have people over all the time. I worry about what would happen if
some of those people were living there full time, or for extended periods. How do we ensure these
don’t just become party houses?
Allowing ADUs to be built is an easy thing for the city council, but unless incentivized, I don't forese
this gaining much traction (unfortunately)
If we want to solve housing cost issues, we need to be willing to increase the density of our own
neighborhoods
I have a detached garage, can I also have an ADU, so three structures on my property
I assume this relates to detached ADU's only and not attached ADU's. If attached ADU's are being
researched then please send out a specific survey for attached ADU's. I also think the topic of
tearing down the house and restructuring the buildings on the property should be topic that needs
to be addressed to include multi unit ADU's.
Setbacks, size of unit, and minimum tenant requirements should be codified in city ordinances and
zoning requirements. It will also be important to codify quality of build and minimum requirements -
to ensure they go beyond she-shed, he-shed level and have appropriate visual appeal.
good idea, allow
pass an ordinance, should have one already
I’ll build what I want to take care of my family. It’s my property. I pay taxes, don’t mess with me.
Didnt think I needed permission to take care of my family and build what I wanted on my land.
If I want to build something for my parents, I’ll do it. Don’t get in my way.
Let me do what I want on my land, for my family. Get out of my way.,
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 19
Terrible survey. Great idea, perfect solution for my Dad. When can I get one?
good solution for seniors, GV should allow
just learned about these, great idea, disappointed aren’t allowed already
Maybe it would work on corner lots if drainage were worked out. My sump pump works often when
we have a great deal of rain. Golden Valley has many low areas.
ADUs are a good thing, they should be allowed in GV
Golden valley should be open to modern living
I am mostly interested in this option as it relates to aging in place
This is a fantastic move that the city should make, for the benefit of the entire city. What we are
talking about is basically a home addition, but without being attached to the house. All the usual
code requirements will apply. Looking forward to seeing this option for Golden Valley's future
My wife grew up in a desirable middle class community in California that started allowing ADUs 40
years ago. Within a short time crime, crowding, lack of parking, and an influx of a demographic that
did not reflect the values of the neighborhood caused it to become little more than a slum. A retail
mall which had thrived there closed because crime was out of control. Why risk doing that to our
lovely city?
I think adding ADUs is a great idea for our single-family zoning districts. It’s a more efficient use of
space than strictly single-family lots and offers cheaper housing options in today’s market
Already allowing single family homes to be remodeled into a duplex is adding to paved yards and
multiple cars. Pls don’t allow ADU’s.
husband and I are now working from home at least 2x / week, need extra office space
I don't find an ADU very different from an addition that people build on to their houses for a family
or TV room
Cost of skilled nursing and assisted living housing is unaffordable to most, much better to invest in
your home and add an ADU.
Allow units that existing residents can downsize into and continue living in the same neighborhood.
Need housing that is wheelchair accessible, not just the ADUs over garages in Minneapolis. Older
residents want to be able to continue living in Golden Valley.
DON’T RESTRICT PROPERTY RIGHTS. LET PEOPLE BUILD WHAT THEY WANT, AS LONG
AS COMPLIES WITH BUILDING CODE
Should allow ADUs that are accessible to disabled
Golden Valley is behind, need an ordinance as good or better than neighboring towns, quickly.
Parents are aging!
I think the biggest thing is these units need to be well designed to fit in existing neighborhoods and
well managed to keep up/enhance neighborhoods and property values by offering additional
housing options. Many single people/aging people/extended family living situations require thinking
differently than traditional family concept.
I really don't know how low to mid income adults kids will be able to get into housing. I think we
have to be open minded to explore but to be careful to protect some of what we have come to
value about our back yards. We should find out what other cities have done to make this more
acceptable
It would negatively affect my property value is neighbor built one
Primary concern is against detached ADUs. Integrated is a better option for our community.
It’s a terrible idea. The benefit of having ADUs is dwarfed by the potential negative impact.
Nope
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 20
This is a horrible idea and I will not vote for any council person that has this go forward. why do
you think people love Golden Valley? Don't ruin it with this
It's about time that we move into this new era. This could be a solution to the need for higher
density housing.
I beg you to NOT add ADU's to single family housing neighborhoods. There are plenty of
apartments available for people who want to live in high density housing. Please stop this and help
protect Golden Valley's neighborhoods!
Homeowners bought their properties. In as broad a way as possible they should be able to
use/develop that property as they can.
Thank you for the opportunity to share opinions.
golden Valley in nice and quiet do not need to be MPLS
No
My mom lives 5 minutes away from us, but her house is too much to take care of long-term.
Having an attached, or detached ADU would give us the chance to have multi-generational living.
We have a strange lot layout, so I am concerned we wouldn't even be eligible for this but staying
hopeful.
There should be a zoning category that specifically allows roomers, so neighborhoods zoned for
single-family occupancy can stay that way if they want.
ADUs make sense and should be allowed in zoning with proper considerations.
I am for ADUs with specific size and location restrictions. People should be able to make
reasonable ADUs for family and income. I DO NOT want people to be able to put a second home
on their lot - ONLY small structures or additions to allow for small 1-2 bedroom structures interior or
exterior.
Definite yes
I'm very interested in building a garage loft on a detached building. Likely for personal use, but
could be for a guest or rental in the future. Looking forward to learning more from the city!
My neighborhood in GV has huge lots. Its not sustainable for few people to take up so much land.
This is a good idea of a way to reinvest within our very own community. Provide more people using
the same resources (water and sewer) vs extending new roads and infrastructure out etc.
This has to be done extremely carefully, if we are doing it. The criteria to allow it must be clear. The
size of the lot should be GIANT in order to allow it. Neighbors should get to weigh in in the process
If this is allowed at some point, I hope they would limit the use to family members only or long term
rental only.
Would like to see this allowed since it directly impacts my family situation
With an aging mother of my own, I’m extremely interested in ADUs and we have been looking to
move outside of GV to accommodate this need since it’s not allowed here.
Great opportunity
ADUs should be restricted to homes that are also homesteads
Yes, survey should have offerred something less than very concerned as an option.
ADUs above a detached garage are nice. We regularly stay at one in Florida.
Thank you for asking!!!! Great information!
This will be a great addition to the city.
I appreciate the opportunity to utilize existing property to fit our lifestyle and stay in our community.
I think it's something to be talking about at a minimum. Very common in other parts of the US.
Please approve!
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 21
No
Concern over rental property of the units, density of people, noise, and visual view of them.
Poorly written survey! "Interested" is very separate from "concerned" & should NOT be linked. Your
results will be inaccurate. We are interested but are NOT concerned
Rentals could also be an issue. If u need in-law space you can redo your current residence without
adding an extra dwelling
I think this is necessary to help solve the affordable housing crisis. I have an adult son who cannot
find an affordable apartment. Also, when my elderly father could no longer live in his own home, it
would have been a preferable solution rather than putting him into an assisted living facility.
Having an accessible space for my aging/mobility impacted parents to stay with us is a high priority
as is the potential to age in place with our adult children. We’d sell and move elsewhere to
accomplish this.
I’m glad to see this conversation starting! It’s an important time to talk about housing access as
more first time homeowners get priced out and aging populations need housing options.
set backs should be somewhat maintained to prevent GV becoming like a congested modern
suburb
If allowed it will be another reason to consider leaving Golden Valley
I think allowing ADUs is an important step to increase housing options since the housing stock is
inadequate for demand. I want regulations to be thoughtful though so ADUs don't negatively impact
neighbor's property (too close/big, not enough off street parking, storm water impacts). I think
requiring property owners to live on the property with the ADU could be a way to ensure fewer
neighbor complaints/conflicts with absent landlords about their tenants.
I want the same options on my property as people do in neighboring towns. I don’t want to move or
not be able to care for aging family / others.
It is a very bad idea.
We need to increase density for environmental reasons and types of housing for cultural reasons.
I think if there are clear parameters around the ADU builds that would be just fine to them. The
parameters I would care about are environmental, implications and impact of to neighbors and then
aesthetics.
I am a big proponent of the proposal to allow ADUs, and I am happy to see the city trying to make
progressive improvements to housing and infrastructure. I would also be happy to see more mixed-
use zoning, and would be interested in any proposal or discussion around that.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 22
Demographics
12. In which quadrant of Golden Valley do you live?
Of the 302 respondents who answered this question, 117 (39 percent) live north of Hwy 55, west of
Hwy 100, 88 (29 percent) north of Hwy 55, east of Hwy 100, 67 (22 percent) live south of Hwy 55, west
of Hwy 100, 24 (8 percent) live south of Hwy 55, east of Hwy 100, and 6 (2 percent) live outside of
Golden Valley.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 23
13. Which of the following age ranges are represented in your household? (Check
all that apply.)
Of the 302 responses, 160 (53 percent) have people of ages 30–50 in their household, 152 (50
percent) have people ages 50+, and 41 (14 percent) have people ages 18–29 in their household.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 24
14. What type of housing do you currently live in?
Of the 302 respondents who answered this question, 268 (89 percent) live in a single-family house, 11
(4 percent) live in a townhouse/rowhouse, and 8 (3 percent) live in a condominium. 4 (1 percent)
answered “Other” (see below).
Other Answers
what does it matter, I pay taxes, fucking stupid survey
none of your business
Split entry near Olsen School with a hard working sump pump
rambler with finished basement, No walkout
Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 25
15. Which of the following best describes your current housing situation?
Of the 302 respondents who answered this question, 259 (86 percent) own a single-family home, 16 (5
percent) own a multi-family or attached home (condo or townhome), 9 (3 percent) rent a multi-family or
attached home (duplex, apartment, townhome, etc), and 14 (5 percent) prefer not to say. 1 (0.3
percent) answered “Other” (see below).
Other Answers
Cohabitate with parent who owns property, and we pay rent (% of mortgage) to them.
APPENDIX A
Social Media Reach And Engagement
Page 26
SOCIAL MEDIA REACH AND ENGAGEMENT
Accessory Dwelling Units
Reach = Number of people who saw the post
Engagement = Number of people who interacted with the post
May 26, 2022
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 1823 349 20 4 5
Twitter 292 6 0 0 0
Comments
NAME COMMENT
Carol Hedberg YES, sensible and essential for our aging parents and their families!
Mike Jorgensen Yes please. So many cities already allow ADU's. This would be fantastic!
Abe Desta This would be nice and make a step forward on Housing access in the TC metro.
Looking forward to hearing more about this.
Julie Billups Definitely yes!
Larissa Griffin-
Sponsler
About time!
June 15, 2022
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 2382 268 4 5 0
Twitter 115 4 0 1 0
APPENDIX B
Additional Community Feedback
Page 28