New housing bill was chief authored by Rep. Kraft of St. Louis Park
by Anja Wuolu
APG of East Central Minnesota
A good amount of a city’s time is spent poring over zoning maps, holding public hearings for zoning changes and discerning whether a proposed project can be allowed. The Missing Middle Housing Bill seeks to change the way cities tackle housing. This is an effort to expand the state’s stock of housing by increasing middle housing.
Middle housing is defined by the bill as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard apartments, cottage housing and single-family detached homes.
The new bill (HF4009) is chief authored by Rep. Larry Kraft (DFL-St. Louis Park) along with Sen. Nicole Mitchell (DFL-Woodbury).
According to national organization Up for Growth, Minnesota is 95,000 units away from an “adequate housing supply.”
“To be clear, the status quo isn’t working,” Kraft said. “This project by project approach isn’t working. We need to do something different. Now, I come very recently from a city council background and I generally am someone that really favors local control. But the thing about this is this is a statewide issue. ... This bill is about removing systemic impediments and setting up incentives so the result is right for housing and climate change.”
Notably, the bill would require cities to authorize middle housing other than single-family detached homes to be built on residential lots in the city to achieve the density requirements. Requirements differ for cities with populations larger than 10,000 or located in the metro. The 10,000 number came from an amendment by Andrew Myers (R-Tonka Bay). Originally the bill stated 5,000.
The bill would allow multifamily residential developments in any commercial zoning district. It would prohibit a city from requiring more than one off-street parking space per residential unit. Parameters for minimum lot sizes are articulated by middle housing type and city size.
There are a number of details and the commissioner of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency would need to develop and publish a model ordinance if the bill passes.
Kormasah Deward from SEIU Healthcare Minnesota and Iowa spoke at a Feb. 20 House Housing Finance and Policy Committee meeting. Deward said her union supports the bill. She also told lawmakers about a personal experience when she was homeless with five children, struggling to find a place to live. Deward asked lawmakers to approve HF4009 to increase the housing supply.
“I understand that a lot of people would like a big house and a big yard,” Deward said. “That’s my dream too, But it [shouldn’t be] the only kind of housing when you’re struggling. You want a roof, some walls – you will also want stable housing and a safe place. It would be legal everywhere to build places like this. It would help people like me to have more options. It won’t hurt anyone.”
About 20 people spoke, mostly in favor of the bill, including Richfield City Council Member Ben Whalen and former Minnetonka City Council Member Bradley Schaeppi, who said the current system is “incredibly taxing” on city councils.
“I would argue their primary job now is refereeing land use decisions,” Schaeppi said. “Not addressing, perhaps homelessness or youth needs, but just truly refereeing land use decisions.”
Minnetonka Community Development Director Julie Wischnack advocated against the bill.
Generally, people against the bill voiced concern that the bill did not consider nuance of local situations. People in favor of the bill emphasized the need for more housing.
Lawmakers also received a number of letters, including one from the City Engineers Association of Minnesota.
“[It] seems unclear whether important limitations such as impervious surface maximums, storm water management systems, sanitary sewer capacity restrictions, water service limitations and setback requirements that are important for public infrastructure maintenance are allowed conditions and requirement for the affordable housing and lots within certain radii of major transit stops,” the association wrote.
The Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities and the Greater Minnesota Partnership sent a letter together that shared concerns about water as well as other infrastructure capacity. The letter asserted that the housing crisis came not from a lack of middle housing but because “the cost to construct a unit of housing is more than what our economies can support in rent or mortgages.”
The League of Minnesota Cities, Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, Metro Cities, Minnesota Association of Small Cities, and Municipal Legislative Commission sent a joint letter in opposition to The Missing Middle Housing Bill, stating “the bill as written replaces existing zoning and land use authorities with an overly broad and rigid framework that eliminates the ability for all cities to account for nuances and be responsive to local conditions.”
Greater Twin Cities United Way wrote a letter in support, stating “legalizing missing middle housing will be a significant step toward reducing the nearly 20,000 individuals and families experiencing homelessness on any given night in our state.”
Organizations who wrote in support of the bill included Homeownership Minnesota, Housing First Minnesota, Neighbors for More Neighbors, ISAIAH, Minnesota Housing Partnership, Move MN, Sierra Club, SEIU Healthcare MN & IA, Sustain Saint Paul, the Central Minnesota Builders Association, AARP Minnesota, Second Harvest Heartland and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.
The bill was sent forward to the State and Local Government Finance and Policy Committee.
Most Popular
Comments / 0