Sweeping legislative changes to the way many Minnesota cities regulate multi-family housing, especially for housing dubbed “the missing middle,” passed its first committee on its first try Tuesday.
The proposals come with top DFL support and GOP cosponsorship and would make it difficult for cities and suburbs to stop the construction of duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in single-family areas. If adopted, cities also would be required to allow apartment buildings, especially those that provide affordable housing, in commercial zones. And the legislation would lessen the opportunity for public comment meant to halt housing development in cities.
It aligns with proposals in other states meant to increase the supply of housing, especially at lower-cost levels sometimes called starter homes.
This package that passed out of the House Housing Committee on a unanimous voice vote is the latest iteration of a years-long battle, without resolution, between cities protective of local control of development and housing builders who have complained about onerous rules they say increases costs.
But the reason 2024 could be different is a change in the political coalition behind reforms. Complaints about the impacts of city zoning had been mostly a Republican issue. But now, density advocates and their DFL allies are weighing in on the side of making it easier to build more housing in cities. A coalition called Minnesotans for More Homes includes Realtors, home builders, Habitat for Humanity, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, the social justice group ISAIAH, the Sierra Club, transit advocates, the Minnesota Housing Partnership and density advocates like Neighbors for More Neighbors.
“In my time in the Legislature, I haven’t seen a coalition like this,” said House Housing Committee chair Mike Howard, DFL-Richfield.
“Where zoning reform has been successful across the country, it has required a coalition like this one — legislators, builders, cities and towns, trades and housing advocates from all perspectives come together,” said Sen. Lindsey Port, the Burnsville DFLer who is chair of the Senate Housing Committee. “It’s Minnesota’s turn to recognize the enormous housing needs facing our state and to take action.”
But while Port mentioned cities and towns during a press conference Tuesday, and while some individual city council members stood behind her and other sponsors, associations representing local governments oppose the changes. They say the bills would weaken local control, add costs for water, sewer and other infrastructure and make it more difficult for locally elected officials to respond to the concerns of their residents.
Bradley Peterson, a lobbyist who represents the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, did not hide his frustration with the proposals.
“The substitution of the Legislature’s judgment over that of local, on-the-ground elected officials, utility operators and planning professionals skates past the real complexity of implementing legislation such as this,” Peterson told the House Housing Committee.
Daniel Lightfoot, who represents the League of Minnesota Cities, said in an interview that while a duplex or fourplex by itself might not impact city services, a widespread increase in density could.
“But a city that is now forced to accept between two and 10 units on a residential lot must account for and pay for the resizing of infrastructure to support that increased density,” Lightfoot said.
It could be a lonely opposition, given the coalition lined up for the bills. City lobbyists are now trying to offer suggestions for making the bill less troublesome, and sponsors are sympathetic to how cities would pay for increased water and sewer capacity. Smaller cities outside the Twin Cities metro would be exempt from many of the requirements. But it is unlikely to change the overall push behind the bill.
“Minnesota has a massive housing shortage that is driving up the cost of housing for everyone,” Howard said. “Now is the time to legalize more housing choices for Minnesotans so we can build more of the homes that Minnesotans desperately want.” He said finding an affordable home is like finding a needle in a haystack “and then getting in a bidding war with 10 people for that needle.”
Two of the leading GOP lawmakers on the housing committees are cosponsors, Sen. Rich Draheim, R-Madison Lake, and Rep. Jim Nash, R-Waconia. Nash joked Tuesday that when he repeatedly asked Howard to talk about local housing zoning last session, “I felt like I was being patted on the head and told ‘not today.’ But today is now that day.” The former Waconia mayor said he supported local control “but not local out-of-control.”
Introduced as two bills but combined into one by Howard on Tuesday, the proposals make changes in two areas: missing middle housing meant to get more housing in single-family areas with smaller projects and multi-housing reform that would clear the way for apartments and condos in commercial zones.
The missing middle provisions are sponsored by Rep. Larry Kraft, DFL-St. Louis Park, and Sen. Nicole Mitchell, DFL-Woodbury. They would:
- Require cities and suburbs to allow at least six types of missing middle housing from a list that includes duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard apartments, cottage housing and single-family detached homes
- Lots in single-family zones would need to allow more than a single home. Depending on the size of the city, whether lots are near transit, whether they are considered affordable and whether the houses are all-electric, cities would have to allow up to six to 10 units on a lot.
- Cities could continue to have rules to protect public health, safety and the general welfare but would be limited in dictating architectural features, minimum house square footage, garage square footage and ratios that dictate the floor area of a home based on the size of the lot.
- Require cities to allow the construction of accessory dwelling units, sometimes called mother-in-law units
- Limit city rules on how much off-street parking must be provided and block requirements for off-street parking close to transit lines.
- Restrict demolition of affordable housing unless equal numbers of affordable housing units are included in a new project
The multifamily provisions are led by Sen. Susan Pha, DFL-Brooklyn Park and Rep. Alicia Kozlowski, DFL-Duluth. They would:
- Mandate that multifamily residential buildings be allowed in commercial zones
- Restrict a city’s authority to cap building heights by saying new buildings can be as tall as the tallest buildings within a quarter mile but no taller than 150 feet
- Tell cities they can’t require more than one parking space per unit
- Mandate that any multifamily project that benefits from the extra benefits granted to build affordable housing keep the units affordable for 30 years.
Minneapolis’ 2040 plan already incorporates many of these changes, and St. Paul has passed zoning reforms as well. While court action has slowed implementation in Minneapolis, legislation is being prepared that could make those types of legal challenges more difficult, Howard said.
One area of the proposals that drew particular attention from local government lobbyists is how it treats public participation. Most zoning decisions now require public meetings where testifiers can raise objections. Both proposals would require cities to create an administrative review process to decide whether proposed projects meet state and local rules. Such reviews would not require a public meeting or formal approval by city councils, and decisions would need to be made within 60 days. Public hearings would still be required on proposals involving historic preservation laws.
Lightfoot said cities want to involve residents in decisions about land use.
“Swinging the pendulum so far in the other direction to eliminate any ability for public input in the process is concerning,” Lightfoot said. Cities like Minneapolis that made significant changes in how zoning codes respond to density did so after robust public processes.
“That would all be replaced by a rigid framework that removes the ability for that level of discussion and for the ability of a property owner to bring forward concerns regarding something that impacts their property.”
- Will a break-in put the brakes on the Minnesota DFL’s state government trifecta?
- MinnPost analysis: Cities, suburbs helped ensure housing density measures’ defeat despite broad support
- Legislative leaders: Lottery for Minnesota cannabis licenses and head start for growers still being considered
Sponsors, however, said public objections too often come from a small group of residents but that elected council members are pressured to reject proposals.
“Public comment is important so we’re trying to strike the right balance.” said Kraft, a former St. Louis Park City Council member. “But sometimes it’s gone too far in terms of keeping people out, of keeping housing out.”
Mitchell said she knows of cities that would like to reform zoning rules but “sometimes it is a loud minority that will come and fight more housing coming in. So that can be a hard decision for a city council member or a mayor to make.
“If we have a state law that helps with that framework, they don’t have to make that decision that could cost them in a future election,” she said.
“We are fighting project-by-project, 30 units at a time, to create more housing when there are 100,000 new homes that we need,” Anne Mavity, the executive director of the Minnesota Housing Partnership, told the housing committee. “We cannot be fighting that 30 units at a time.”
But while he supports the bill, Nash said he wants to find a way to allow more public participation than the current version would allow.
“This bill is not in its final form yet,” he said.
Peter Callaghan
Peter Callaghan covers state government for MinnPost. Follow him on Twitter @CallaghanPeter or email him at pcallaghan@minnpost.com.
