2024.04.01 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Council Meeting Minutes for April 1, 2024 Page 4 of 5 making it more affordable. She said the bills were changing every week, and the League of Minnesota Cities had been to the legislature testifying on them. She explained it was a bipartisan bill that would replace city zoning regulations with state mandates. It would require cities, “by-right” to allow six types of housing other than singe family to be built on any residential lot and in any zoning district. It would force administrative approvals, prohibit public hearings, and allow accessory dwelling units on residential properties. It also would limit off-street parking to one space per unit. Juba talked about how this legislation would cause problems by departing from how cities plan for infrastructure. There were also concerns about lack of parking to support development, impacts to the neighborhoods, residents' inability to voice concerns at a public hearing, and impacts to the equipment CIP and the environment. Juba stated this legislation would not adequately address housing availability and affordability challenges, and instead the State could look at their existing mandates and learn how they have an impact. The State could provide tools and resources to make progress towards housing goals. Petryk, as a representative on the Transportation Advisory Board, said she was aware of money being spent on mass transit solutions and the need to build ridership in areas with a certain density of housing. She questioned why they were not focusing on the intercity areas. Juba explained the bill contained more requirements for areas in close proximity to transit. Petryk asked what was being heard from the other cities on these bills and the likelihood that they would pass. Juba responded that it was a bipartisan bill, and Metro Cities and the League of MN Cities are in opposition, and other communities have testified in opposition, Miron questioned whether the Metropolitan Council had weighed in on this since infrastructure was built to support their density targets, and how would they support the infrastructure with unknown growth targets. Juba responded that she did not know Met Council’s views on this. Klein talked about the need to address water if they were developing policies to create greater density. He also voiced concerns about not allowing local conversations in the decision-making process. Miron agreed and said he supported a letter stating opposition, not because a problem didn’t exist, but because there was an issue concerning purposeful planning, and what they were proposing would create unintentional consequences. Weidt talked about how the legislation would create larger problems. Mandates from the State had created a lot of costs on building, but cutting fees seemed to just increase the builders’ profits. The proposed legislation took away the citizens’ ability to have a voice and public input. He said he fully supported a strong letter of opposition and was willing to be a part of the conversation to solve this. Weidt made motion, Klein seconded, to send a letter opposing this legislation to representatives and to the hearing committee. All Ayes. Motion carried.