Clients who want to live in an old neighborhood have few choices. The open land is gone. Most homes that are in the neighborhood are in good enough shape to add value to the lot upon which they are perched. Ideally, the clients want to find a tear down, or a home is such rough shape that most everyone cannot see a renovation opportunity. But it doesn’t stop there. As this thread explains, there are more issues in play.
Had a buyer reach out about building a new single family house on this empty lot. Right out the gate, they sent me completed borings, structural & architectural plans and details from seller. Fishy yes.. why would an owner have this much info available for empty land 🤔 1/5 pic.twitter.com/NDMflYU5AA
— J. Smith, Architect (@AmbitiousThnkr) June 10, 2024
Soil testing and estimates for debris removal and site prep are easy numbers to come by. The tricky bits of information is whether the plan the clients have in mind will fit on the parcel and still comply with the building codes and municipal ordinances.
Lack of information results in uncertainty. Too much uncertainty and people do not want to move forward. That’s not progress!
A coalition of diverse groups, it was reported, were all coming together for a housing bill. That was sixty days ago.
(KNSI) — The Central Minnesota Builders Association is throwing its support behind a piece of legislation aimed at addressing the lack of housing and the high cost of new construction.
A coalition of housing advocates and bipartisan lawmakers joined together at the State Capitol to call for an increase in access and affordability in housing through the Minnesotans for More Homes initiative.
The bill (HF 4009/SF 3964) legalizes missing middle housing and new starter homes across Minnesota.
From the builders association to affordable housing advocates, an unlikely melange of interested parties were looking for ways to reduce housing costs. How better to lower expenses then to reduce barriers to building by rolling back the rules. This bill brought authority over what can be built where to statewide control.
Once the implications of un-zoning the neighborhood hit local communities, residents weren’t impressed. Here are some of the changes proposed.
Sets a base level for density allowed on any residential lot by right (or without needing to go through a discretionary review processes) regardless of size at 2 units statewide and 4 units in cities of the first class. If certain conditions are met, 8 units are allowed in second-, third-, and fourth-class cities and 10 units may be allowed per lot in cities of the first class.
Forces administrative approvals of projects that meet the standards in the bill language and prohibits public input in the approval process.
Limits minimum lot size requirements to no greater than 2,500 square feet for first class cities and 4,000 square feet for all other cities except for Greater Minnesota cities with populations of less than 5,000.
Requires all cities to accept Accessory Dwelling Units on all residential lots regardless of size and allows property owners to subdivide their lots by right.
Prohibits off-street parking from being required close to major transit stops and limits off-street parking minimum requirements to 1 spot per unit in other areas.
Allows multifamily buildings to be built up to 150 feet tall on any lot in a commercial zoning district.
Broadly prohibits design standards for residential development and eliminates minimum square footage and floor area ratio requirements.
The cities organized and alerted their constituents who must have followed thorugh with calls to their state representatives as the bills is no longer progressing through the chambers. I doubt constitutents will agree to handing over local property rights to the state. This seems like a heavy handed, top down approach.
So how does one encourage increased density? Why- the market of course!
A new bill is being introduced in St. Paul concerning zoning. An eclectic mix of backers from builders to affordable housing advocacy groups, from the National Association of Realtors to progressive politicians, are in support eliminating exclusive zoning of single family homes across the state of Minnesota. Here’s are some of the highlights of the bill as provided by Edina Realty’s president Sheri Schmid- who did a nice job of presenting all sides of the issue at today’s company wide sales meeting.
The first bullet point is interesting. The public is denied the right to speak to their city council. It seems to me that there is an effort to take the NIMBY’s out of the conversation. Yet aren’t many, many city council meetings filled with advocacy groups doing their best to talk the loudest? Are they to be muted as well? This might be a public service.
I am an advocate for missing middle housing. In a 50s built neighborhood, it is common to see nice looking duplexes mixed in with single family homes. They blend in well and come at all levels of housing from a modest one bedroom to significant four bedroom units. They are also the main means of aquiring investment property for those entry entrepreneurs who would like to give rental property a try. I just wonder if these multifamily buildings sync with people today. The buyers in the 50s were still feeling the effects of the depression and thought of a little rental income on the side as comforting. Also families would buy a two unit property for siblings to live side by side, for instance. You just don’t hear those same demands anymore.
Let’s leave the next few points about building heights and parking for another time. Here are the points given that necessitate a shift of control from the very local level of the municipality to the state level.
The first bullet point in valid. There are too many regulations in the building process. But regulating by zoning is only one of the areas in question. Even after this is removed, said building would need to meet a whole host of other building regulations and set backs and still fit on the lot. Furthermore, these plans need to go through a planning approval process. It seems like whenever a change goes into effect on complicated process it takes the bureaucracies years to smooth out their systems.
Last I heard, considering the second bullet point, the production of new housing was on track to meet the Governor’s Task Force recommendation of 300,000 additional dwellings by 2030.
Do we need more affordable housing? Sure- the most disadvantaged in society will always, simply on a comparison scale, need to be accomodated to catch-up to the average. Minnesota has a poverty rate of just under 10 percent and folks in that income bracket have real and pressing needs. But what are the best housing opportunities for these families, and more importantly where are they?
Building more housing brings down the overall cost of housing. But helping people in need of housing as well as all the other components to a good life is a multidemential problem. I don’t think we’ve tackled all of the aspects involved. But I do think cities are at a much better vantage point to connect people to housing than the state.
Home Economics 