Laserfiche WebLink
<br />HF 2018 (Kozlowski)Multifamily Housing in Commercial Districts <br /> <br />- Sections 1 & 2: Similar concerns as noted for HF 1987. In addition, the language prohibiting <br />cities from considering traffic, noise or nuisance concerns for developments with less than 300 <br />units virtually excludes all Greater Minnesota housing development from these considerations. <br />- Section 3: The bill requires that residential developments be permitted in any zoning district <br />allowingcommercial uses other than heavy industrial and precludes stakeholder engagement. <br />This has concerning implications for a city’s ability to diversify their tax base to lift the property <br />tax burden from residential property, and may have impacts for how far residents have to travel <br />for goods and services. <br /> <br />- We appreciate language allowing cities to establish local controls for developments that replace <br />existing commercial or industrial structures, however language overall remains broadly <br />prescriptive. <br />- Line 3.28: The bill sets strict standards related to floor area ratios. Under the bill, a floor area <br />ratio of 2.5 or greater would seem to effectively gut most floor area ratio requirements. Allowing <br />total building floor area of 2.5 times lot size is a substantial increase in building volume. <br />- Lines 3.29 – 4.8: The height limitation language isespecially problematic for cities under 10,000 <br />in the metropolitan area to accommodate. Additionally, what all other cities must allow seems <br />overly complex and it may be challenging for some to readily figure out. We recommend <br />language to address scalability and compatibility. <br />Section 3, Subdivision 4: We have concerns with language that stipulates a city’s failure to deny <br />a building permit or subdivision request within 60 days provided results in an automatic <br />approval. These are particularly challenging for smaller cities and could lead to approvals for <br />unsuitable projects. Cities need to ensure structural integrity and project compatibility, and this <br />provision could lead to the perverse effect of permit denial if a city does not have sufficient time <br />to ensure infrastructure adequacy, and this system could be manipulated by an unsavory <br />applicant <br />- Section 3, Subdivision 6: Similar concerns as noted for HF 1987-Igo. <br /> <br />- Section 3, Subdivision 7: Similar concerns as noted for HF 1987-Igo. <br /> <br />HF 2140 (Kraft) – Mixed-Use Housing Zones <br /> <br />Sections 1 & 2: Similar concerns as noted for HF 1987-Igo. <br /> <br />Lines 2.16-2.18: While we appreciate language on scalability for first-, second-, and third-class cities, <br />this language is problematic for cities under 10,000 population in the metropolitan area. <br /> <br />Section 3, Subdivision 2: Weappreciate language allowinga city to enact an ordinance related to mixed- <br />use housing zones, and the extension to June 30, 2027, but continue to have significant concerns with <br />requiring municipalities to createmixed-use housing zones that authorize a residential or mixed-use <br />development either: <br />o containing three residential units on a lot as a permitted use in an area covering 80 <br />percent of land within one-half mile of a municipal state aid street (MSAS) or: <br />60 <br /> <br />