Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minneapolis City Planning Department Report <br />Text Amendment <br /> <br />What problem is the Amendment desh!ned to solve? <br />Planning staff could not find a factual basis for the purpose of this overlay to create affordable housing. <br />Instead, Planning staff found that accessory dwellings could have benefits as they relate to the <br />following: <br />1. Promote home ownership. <br />2. Allow a variety of housing types, costs and arrangements including older <br />homeowners, single parents, young homebuyers, students, artists and disabled <br />persons. <br />3. Assist with implementing Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) <br />principles. <br /> <br />Of course, Planning staff believes this type of development should occur only if the potential, negative <br />impacts can be mitigated. <br /> <br /> <br />What public purpose will be served bv the amendment? <br />One policy of The Minneapolis Plan found in Chapter 4, Marketplaces: Neighborhoods, states that <br />"Minneapolis will reasonably accommodate the housing needs of all of its citizens." Another policy of <br />this chapter states "Minneapolis will improve the range of housing options for those with few or <br />constrained choices." This amendment would address these policies. <br /> <br />What problems mi2ht the amendment create? <br /> <br />Emergency Medical Access and Fire Protection: <br />The Fire Department has indicated that an unobstructed pathway leading from the public street to the <br />accessory dwelling would need to be provided for emergency vehicle and personnel access. <br /> <br />Owner-Occupancy: <br />Problems that were identified by other communities that have ordinances for accessory dwellings were <br />maintenance issues and preservation of the character of the neighborhood and how that relates to rental <br />versus owner-occupied units. Research shows there is a correlation between these problems and units <br />that are rented versus those that are owner-occupied. Other problems identified included awareness that <br />the ordinance served a handful of owners to increase their income by effectively creating multiple rental <br />properties with absentee landlords. This activity resulted in a depreciation of surrounding land value. <br />Owner-occupancy can be a regulation ofland use (Sounhein v. City of San Dimas). <br /> <br />In the Planning staff report dated April 30, 2001, for the NP Overlay text amendment, a provision that <br />one unit be owner-occupied was required and justified. Please see following summary from the April <br />30, 2001, Planning staff report: <br /> <br />A. A goal of the Ventura Village program is to create home ownership opportunities. Because of <br />the Land Subdivision Regulations, the single zoning lot could not be subdivided and therefore <br />only one of the two units could remain as owner-occupied. It should be noted however, that each <br />unit could be owner-occupied if a condominium plat was recorded. <br /> <br />B. Another goal of the program is to increase the viability of home ownership through the provision <br />of rental income. The net profit for a homeowner can not be determined based on the unknown <br />costs of financing, construction, maintenance and potential tax benefits for landlords. It appears <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />