Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-23 CPC Packeti11wai THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLEASE NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by attending the meeting in person at City Hall in the Council Chambers, 216 4th St N, by logging into https://www.zoomgov.com or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 160 877 9021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 23rd, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of January 26th, 2022 regular meeting minutes IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2. Case No. 2022-01: Consideration of a Variance to the minimum size lot in order to split their lot into two separate lots. Property located at 1330 5th St S in the RB district. Jamie Jacobson, property owner. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. VIII. DISCUSSION IX. FYI — STAFF UPDATES 3. Supporting Local Control for Zoning X. ADJOURNMENT ilivater THE 1INTNYLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 26, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Dybvig called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Dybvig, Commissioners Hansen, Hoffman, Knippenberg, Steinwall, Councilmember Odebrecht (via Zoom, arrived at 7:35 p.m., left at 8:01 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Meyhoff Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of December 29, 2021 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the minutes of the December 29, 2021 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2022-01: Consideration of a Variance to the minimum size lot in order to split their lot into two separate lots located at 1330 5th St S in the RB district. Jaimie Jacobson, property owner. City Planner Wittman explained the case. The property owner is requesting a resubdivision to split the property into two lots. The 13,420 square foot parcel is 1,580 square feet shy of the required 7,500 square feet (s.f.) required for each lot in the RB - Two Family Residential (RB) zoning district. Therefore, the owner is requesting variances to the minimum lot area requirements for each of the proposed properties. Additionally, the parcel proposed to retain the existing home (Parcel A/Lot 8) has several impervious surface improvements (i.e. driveway, walkways, patio) and might exceed the maximum 25% of the proposed lot area. The proposed property would contain 1,951 s.f. of other impervious surface area. The applicant is proposing 237 s.f. of that area would be removed if the resubdivision were approved. However, 25.80% of the property would still be encumbered by other impervious surfaces. The following variances are being requested: 1) 788 s.f. variance to the 7,500 s.f. minimum lot area for Lot 8, to total 6,712 s.f.; 2) a 792 s.f. variance to the 7,500 s.f. minimum lot area for Lot 7, to total 6,708 s.f.; and 3) a variance to the maximum 25% impervious surface lot coverage requirement to allow Lot 8 to have a total other impervious surface lot coverage of 25.80%. Planning Commission January 26, 2022 Staff finds that with certain conditions, the request conforms to the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and recommends approval of all three variances with four conditions. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hansen asked if adjusting the plat was considered, so that only one of the properties would be out of conformance? Ms. Wittman explained that the minimum lot width is 50 feet, so if the line were moved, one lot would meet the minimum lot area but the other lot would not meet the minimum width. Commissioner Hansen noted it was obviously platted as two standard sized lots for the era, the resubdivision is reasonable and fits well in the neighborhood. Commissioner Hoffman added that the applicant is trying to get as close as possible to the other requirements and acting in good faith. Chair Dybvig agreed. He would question the condition that no future variances would be granted, but feels that if City Attorney Land suggested that condition, it's OK. Ms. Wittman said City Attorney Land did not read the specific language, but she stated that a condition of this type would be reasonable. Commissioner Hansen asked if the condition prevents future Planning Commissions from granting variances. Ms. Wittman replied it means that future development must conform to the code. The condition would run with the land in perpetuity. Commissioner Steinwall said the Commission may want to tweak proposed Condition #3, and provide some way for that condition to be removed at some point if needed. Ms. Wittman said the phrase could be added, "so long as the two lots remain separate from one another. " She understands the concern that this condition may bind a future commission. The case could be tabled for consultation with legal counsel on how to allow future flexibility. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Chair Dybvig, to table Case No. 2022-01, Variance to the minimum size lot in order to split their lot into two separate lots located at 1330 5th St S, and to direct staff to clarify the language in Condition #3 so that it allows for flexibility if needed. All in favor. Case No. 2022-02: Consideration of a Use Permit Amendment for the property located at 927 Churchill St W in the RB district. Eric Siskow representing Lakeview Hospital, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that Lakeview Hospital has a 1,500-gallon oxygen tank with 300-gallon reserve tank system located near the western entrance to the site, off Greeley St S. A Conditional/Special Use Permit Amendment is sought to replace and upgrade the existing oxygen tank system by installing a 6,000-gallon tank and a 900-gallon tank for reserve. The two new tanks will be placed directly to the north of the existing tanks on a new concrete pad; the existing concrete pad will be utilized for the system's regulator manifold, alarm box, shut off valves and vaporizers. It will be enclosed by an 8' tall, 12" concrete masonry unit block wall on the east and chain -link and bollards on all other sides. Staff finds that, with certain conditions, the proposed amendment would not be a detriment or nuisance to the general public and conforms to adopted codes and plan. Therefore, staff recommends the Commission approve the amendment with four conditions. Page 2of4 Planning Commission January 26, 2022 Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. He closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knippenberg noted the greatest concern is probably height but the proposed landscaping plan mitigates this. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to approve Case No. 2022-02, Use Permit Amendment for the property located at 927 Churchill St W, with the four staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2022-03: Consideration of a Short -Term Home Rental Type B license to be located at 418 Holcombe St S in the RB district. Scott and Deidra Swenson, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicants are requesting approval of a Type B Short Term Home Rental license for the property at 418 Holcombe St S. The property owners will reside in the primary residence and will be onsite, or within a 30-minute drive, during all guest stays. There will be no more than three overnight guests. Staff finds that the application meets all of the requirements of the City Code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a one-year provisional Type B Short Term Home Rental license with two conditions. Seven public comments were received raising concern about transient renters, licensing, nuisances and public safety. Deidra Swenson, applicant, responded to the concerns raised, summarizing the information provided in the agenda packet. She clarified that no more than two guests will be allowed in the unit. She reviewed the rental rules. She pointed out there is a five-plex and two BnBs and another VRBO in the neighborhood. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. Bob Ainsbury, 304 Holcombe St S, asked about the intent of public comment, given the staff's recommendation for approval. He also asked if the City has ever denied STHR applications. Chair Dybvig said the purpose is to get more information to help make a better decision and determine what may be unique about this property versus other STHRs on the South Hill. Ms. Wittman added that the City has not denied any STHR license application that has come before the Planning Commission. Gretchen Perkins, 507 Oak St W, said she felt blindsided by the letter about this application because neighbors usually talk to each other. The windows of the STHR look right down onto their property. She feels the proposal infringes on her sense of security and she is concerned about protecting the neighborhood. Carmel Rubel -Carver, 513 Oak St W, agreed with Ms. Perkins. She shared a photo taken from her bedroom window showing they look right into the loft. She would like conditions requiring a permanent way to protect privacy of her backyard, and extra City patrols during peak times such as Lumberjack Days, to protect residents from transient people. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Commissioner Steinwall said she appreciates the neighbors' concerns but she has not heard anything that is in conflict with the licensing issuance. If problems crop up, it is a provisional license and the City may take action at that time. Commissioner Hansen agreed with Commissioner Steinwall's comments. He recognized it is awkward when neighbors hear about these applications for the first time in a public setting. Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission January 26, 2022 Ms. Rubel -Carver asked the Commission to address her request for a condition protecting her privacy from the windows of the loft. Chair Dybvig pointed out the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Knippenberg, to approve Case No. 2022-03, Short -Term Home Rental Type B license to be located at 418 Holcombe St S. All in favor. Case No. 2022-04: Consideration of a Short -Term Home Rental Type B license to be located at 816 William St N in the RB district. Jim and Sarah McFarland, property owners. Chair Dybvig stated he lives within the 150 foot notification area and is willing to recuse himself, but he does not feel his property is impacted enough to influence his decision. No one asked that Chair Dybvig recuse himself. Ms. Wittman stated that the property owners have applied for a Type B1 Short Term Home Rental (STHR) license for the Accessory Dwelling Unit located above the detached accessory structure. The property owners will reside in the primary residence and will be onsite, or within a 30-minute drive, during all guest stays. Concerns from neighbors were voiced in regard to traffic and safety issues that may arise. Staff has found that the application meets all the requirements of City Code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a one-year provisional Type B Short Term Home Rental license for the property, with two conditions. Sarah McFarland acknowledged that they will only allow three guests and expect to have little impact on the neighborhood, as similarly stated by the previous applicants. Chairman Dybvig opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Dybvig closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2022-04, Short -Term Home Rental Type B license to be located at 816 William St N, with the two staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. DISCUSSION There were no discussion items. FYI STAFF UPDATES Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that the Zoning Administrator position is being reworked and the vacancy will be advertised soon. A consulting firm will be helping with some planning services in the meantime. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to adjourn the meeting at 8:03 p.m. All in favor. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner John Dybvig, Chair Page 4of4 Uwater THE RTHPLACE O F M i N N E S O 1 A PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission MEETING DATE: February 23, 2022 APPLICANT: Jamie Jacobson LANDOWNER: Jamie Jacobson CASE NO.: CD 2022-01 REQUEST: Consideration of Variances associated with a proposed Resubdivision LOCATION: 1330 5th Street South DISTRICT: RB — Two Family Residential zoning district NCD — Neighborhood Conservation (Overlay) District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION At the Commission's last regularly -scheduled meeting in January, the Commission reviewed variance requests from Jamie Jacobson. The requests come before the Commission as the property owner would like to Resubdivide her property at 1330th Street South. However, neither of the properties proposed would meet the minimum lot area requirements and the lot proposed to retain the exiting home and driveway, would be slightly over coverage limitations allowed in the RB — Two Family. After opening the public hearing and taking public testimony, the Commission closed the hearing and discussed the matter. While the Commission seemed favorable to the granting of all variances, the Commission discussed in detail how their action — including potential conditions of approval — would have effect on the property in the future. In essence, the Commission did not want to bind a future Commission into having to grant a variance while also protecting the property from being able to request potentially -needed variances in the future. The Planning Commission elected to table consideration of the matter and directed City staff to work with the City Attorney on the development of appropriate conditions of approval. City Attorney Land has reviewed the case file and understands the Commission's concerns about future variances on either property. She recommends the Commission consider adding the following condition of approval: The approval of the lot split for Lots 7 and 8 shall not be used as justification for a practical difficulty when considering a variance for minimum setback, building or impervious surface coverage maximum and/or maximum height, or massing regulations. CD 2022-01 PC — February 23, 2022 Page 2 Additionally, since the time of the Public Hearing, city staff has discussed the request with the applicant's neighbors. Specific concern was raised about the allowance of an additional home in this area and whether or not single or two-family dwellings would be permitted on each lot; speculation was raised the existing dwelling was being utilized as a two-family residence. It was not until after this concern was raised that City staff learned that the City has been billing this property for two units since (at least) 2005, even though building, planning and zoning records do not indicate approval as a two-family dwelling and the Washington County Assessor's Office has classified this as a single-family residence,. On February 15, 2022 City staff conducted a site visit of the property. While city staff observed two kitchens in the dwelling, there was free and open access between the upstairs and the downstairs living spaces. In other words, the upstairs and the downstairs did not have any separation between them that would classify the property as a two-family dwelling. Though the back entry could be utilized as a separator between these living areas, no doors were installed as barriers. However, door jams do exist; which, if doors were installed, the property would be classified as containing two separate living units. Thus, so long as the dwelling maintains free and open access between the upstairs and the downstairs, the property would be considered single family and a lot split could be approved. Staff has revised the originally -recommended conditions of approval to reflect the single-family dwelling use requirement and requests the property owner remove all door jams. SPECIFIC REQUEST Consideration of the following variances to allow for a Resubdivision: 1. A 788 s.f. variance to the 7,500 s.f. minimum lot area for Lot 8, Block 2, Churchill's Second Addition to Stillwater to be 6,712 s.f. total; and 2. A 792 s.f. variance to the 7,500 s.f. minimum lot area for Lot 7, Block 2, Churchill's Second Addition to Stillwater to be 6,708 s.f. total; and 3. A Variance to the maximum 25% impervious surface lot coverage requirement to allow Lot 8, Block 2, Churchill's Second Addition to Stillwater to have a total other impervious surface lot coverage of 25.80%. ANALYSIS As staff indicated in the Commission's January staff report, the property's condition (of one house on two, historically -platted lots) is not a result of the applicant and is quite unique in this neighborhood. The proposed configuration, though smaller than average, is not inconsistent with the neighborhood it is situated in. The property owner has made a reasonable request to create two lots from one that fit with the size of others within the neighborhood. They have shown that, with slight property modifications, both properties generally conform to the intent of the Zoning Code's minimum lot area and impervious surface maximum. Therefore, findings can be made that — with certain conditions — the request conforms to the requirements set forth for the issuance of variances. ALTERNATIVES CD 2022-01 PC — February 23, 2022 Page 3 A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the request in conformance to the City Code requirements for the issuance of a variance, it could approve the variance with (at least) the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be substantially similar to those found on file with Case CD 2022-01, except as modified by the conditions herein. 2. Both properties shall be utilized as single-family residences meaning there shall be no separation between floors and/or living spaces in existing or future structures. 3. Door jams on doorways separating the living spaces of the structure at Lot 7, Block 2, Churchill's Second Addition to Stillwater must be removed prior to the City's release of new property deeds. 4. The 237 s.f. walkway parallel to the north property line of Lot 8 and the 18 s.f. of steps on Lot 7 shall be removed prior to the City's release of approved new property deeds. 5. The approval of the lot split for Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Churchill's Second Addition to Stillwater shall not be used as justification for a practical difficulty when considering a variance for minimum setback, building or impervious surface coverage maximum and/or maximum height, or massing regulations. 6. Construction of the proposed new dwelling is subject to the approval of a Design Permit from the City's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) prior to issuance of a Building Permit. The Building Plans included in this packet are for reference only. Nothing in this Variance Case shall be considered architectural approval of the home itself. 7. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director in advance. Any major changes will need to the Planning Commission for Use Permit amendment review and approval. B. Table. If the Planning Commission finds the request to have incomplete information, the case could be tabled. C. Denial. If the Planning Commission finds the request to be inconsistent with City Code, it could be denied. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that — with reasonable conditions — the request conforms to the standards set forth for the issuance of a variance and recommends approval of all three variances with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Certificate of Survey cc: Jamie Jacobson LU 812 705 818 815 813 812 = 817 816 815 814 w 813 814 815 808 816 a E.HUDSON ST o = x 882 t 820 817 w 817 901 514 826 822 821 aoo ., 906 911 502 z ° 824 tit_ 823 O= WEST >>CHURCHILL STREET illwater F 505 w 421 902 904 219 _ oo 913 910 = 908 908 909 o 15 913 911 912 912 l ' 925 0 913 917 916 922 �- 921 921 919 920 924.. 924 923 1002 923 1002 1003 Ai 1 ,�." - C 1001 1004 1006; - -- 1006 1009 1007 1008 H ar 9e Y ^"_ _ S a D D 01013 1010 z 1014 1016 0 1015 1016' it)6 ,g 1 " > 1018 1017 1020 1021 1024 1019 1022 _ a WEST HANCOCK STREET E The Birthplace of Minnesota N I W ��E . N Site Location ... 501 411 319 1104 1104 Lit_ 4210. " ` c, 1111 1108 1111 1112j F- x 01116 (1)i 506 1111 1117 1117 1118 III BL 1123 1124 1123 = 1206 1207 1206 "� — w o 1330 5th Street South 1205 1206 1205 09 H 1215 1212 u> 1215 1214 1I Subject Property 1209 1209 1212 1 1214 1214 iF./5 1212 1213 121, 1215 ' 1211 = 1216 = 1218 1219 1216 1217 1218 z w L 1215 1220 LL 1213 1222 22 122 224 ~ 1221 1224 1225 1226 1221 > w 1225 WEST MARSH STREET EAST MARSH STREET 1303 1302 1301 130, 1303 1306 1303 1304 1302 1303 317 523 1309 1306 1307 1312 1309 ° 1305 1312 z 1311 1312 1309 1310 EA 1316 1 1315 1314 1314 w 1318 1314 1325 1324 1323 1309 1317 1321 1318 1323 1320 1324 1323 1322 1323 1322 1333 1330 1327 1326 1334 1325 1329 1328 1323 1333 M 1330 1329 = 1329 1338 0 275 550 1,100 = 1339 F 1334 1333 1334 1333 1336 H = 1338 = 1339 z 1338 = 1338 1337 o 1337 1342 LL_ 1401 Feet 0 1422 0 ° 1339 1342 ai o 1340 1405 1426 1342 o 1345 1344 u' 1341 1346 1343 1346 General Site Location 1345 1346 WEST ORLEANS STREET C S A H 24 65TH STREET NORTH EAST ORLEANS STREETC S®®A.F�■�2 5 �I"I� N 6472 = 111 14907 14929 w 375 N. = 6450 o Y 11,1 Ink li 1 •• ..,_..�.I r.. �.. .IIII n11Lts�„• gy tRI� % �'���ir �. �• •� < Z 14894 6440 a • 6429 6438 0 6450 ST CROIX STREET 64TH ST N 64TH STREE ■1 -��!1� , ►��./r���j ;,,•1■ r�'•, �G �• I•• 6388 Li, il 6381 6381 w 0 6381> P �r��•ICi'•���1L....., may: ��li�� ni�. r � LI'Ir�, ii --- -. � Illlllr �, ED �.► 1 1 \�1` t a . •�r��.• UPPER 63RD S I� N. � r•+ �,r�\• 6373 z z z 15055 w ¢ w a 6303 0 6355 > o C ! : o .� . �.i _-,-�- � �i r�. hIII � ` vCdii �� 11� -7+pi, - ®®", �.. _ p 63RD STREET NORTH < 63RD STREE �; - �(�jj'� '!'. ,o � I �_�_Ilo.�-,r__—• NC o6282 14810 14870 z 14940 ci_a —,� _.._.._.._.._ �::•iii . ..� lam,,, 0 15048 Created 1/20/2022 (City of Stillwater November 23, 2021 Jamie Jacobson 1330 5th Street South Stillwater, MN. 55082 Re: Variance to split my lot into to parcels at 1330 5th St. S, Stillwater MN Dear Stillwater Planning Commission The owner of 1330 5th St S. proposes splitting her double lot into 2 6708 Sq Ft lots allowing new owner of split lot to build a single family house taking no more than 1400 sq ft total of the 6708 Sq ft. lot. Practical Difficulties . Lot will be 792 sq ft. below current requirement for lot size. . This variance will not be out of place for the neighborhood as many of the lots in the area are at or smaller then proposed lot. . House that will be built on proposed lot will be under city requirements and will not look out of place. Thanks you for your consideration. Best Regards, Jaimie Jacobson Survey Done For: Michelle Dunn 1333 Sixth Street South Stillwater, MN 55082 Jamie Jacobson 1330 Fifth Street South Stillwater, MN 55082 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY BARRETT M. STACK STILLWATER, MINN. 55082 MINNESOTA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR Tel. No. 439-5630 Existing Overall Parcel Description: (per Doc. No. 4119084) Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Churchill's Second Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota PROPOSED PARCEL A Description: (Existing House Parcel) Lot 8, Block 2, Churchill's Second Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. PROPOSED PARCEL B DESCRIPTION: (Currently Vacant Land) Lot 7, Block 2, Churchill's Second Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Notes: Orientation of this bearing system is an assumed datum. 'o Indicates #13774 iron pipe set. • Indicates #25718 Iron Pipe Found. (D Thurmess LS) Offsets shown to existing structures are measured to the outside Building wall line, unless shown or noted otherwise. Any projections from said wall lines, such as eaves, sills, steps, etc., will impact indicated offsets accordingly. Underground or overhead, public or private utilities, located in conjunction with this survey, unless shown otherwise Existing Parcel A Impervious' Surface Area: House: Garage: Garage Apron: - Slab No. of Garage: Bituminous Drive: Egress Wells: Easterly Walk & Steps: Total 1'084 so. ft. 8 a sq. ft. - 48 sq: ft. 289 sc. ft. 1252 sq. ft. # 25.80% 13 sq. ft. 130 sq. ft. 3400 sq. ft. = 50.66% 24.85% on or adjacent the parcels were not (1668 Sq. Ft.) (1732 Sq. Ft.) of Parcel A Proposed Parcel B: Final Config. will be Vacant Land. h/ovs� o; /_?3 9 • PARCEL B Revision Note: December7, 2021'_- Rcvision'Note: Added Approx. Loc. of Possible Future House, Garage, Walks and Drive per general plans supplied: No formal plans were supplied: Impervious' Areas:'Parcel B House & Roofed Entry 1216 sq. ft.+- equals 18.13 % of Parcel Area. Driveway and Walks 601 sq. ft.+-'or or 8.96% of Parcel Area. . Possible Proposed.Impervious J ,1 Area Totals 1817 sq. ft. or �¢ 27 09% of Parcel T Area. 0 G y6y L 444 �•r�NiF,ss Lor, 7 67629 •P�m o krro r4F7� 4 .SvLiv. /Ya. %/4 r4,40z9,P�A or</ 4a r .e/rY'S �- S19°.33'48'!,/ G 7/2 5 ,, F% f F,I,eC L II 2S9 4 ✓ 2¢Z C 1' t.4.4gvE5) 4 6-42- N 5:94 7 480 Btu 44 Goe A4'So. 45 rf7OFgo E.v7,er /Z/‘fq/2 �.POPDSEIJ /7Db'5 . �4C. '` 2a. 7 ,Nrolm t /2.7 243 ¢.7,4- IA h' - 30' 3 Ae/✓z- l,,//I/.,e5 60 / Sd . Fr, .P./3 Z /+7 /3.<4¢ 237t, —.• _ a C'Ar✓C . Iq. rC `f—v'L 2 7. 9 • \ .8/r /Z5'Z/ /�3.'/3--_— /P• /3 '2 r l�J /joust Nov. 12, 2021 'Revision -Notes : .Revised mapping to shown specific proposed and - existing impervious area details. \NN 27, S 1 t") I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date Nov. 8, 2021 Reg.No 13774 iliwater THF B' F T H P L. A- E Q F M i N N F ti O f A MEMO TO: Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) and Planning Commission DATE: February 16, 2022 TOPIC: City Council Adopts Resolution Supporting Housing and Local Decision -Making Authority (League of Minnesota Cities Model Resolution) REPORT BY: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION The City Council recently adopted a Resolution supporting the protection of Local Decision - Making as it relates to Zoning, Development Fee and Building Permit Fees. This report is for informational purposes. The City Council has adopted the attached model resolution (on February 15, 2022). ANALYSIS Over the past several years, a number of Bills at the Minnesota Legislature have challenged local authority over zoning and development. Some of these Bills are gaining popularity and probability of success. Several advocacy groups representing local Builders and Developers have advocated for various changes to State Statutes. These Bills restricting land use authority for local municipalities are often known as 'Pre-Emption'. Essentially, this means that this Bills would reduce authority for land use decisions currently found in various State Statutes. As it relates to the work of the Heritage Preservation Commission, past legislative bills have included language that would restrict the ability for cities to require certain exterior materials unless already required by State Building Code. This would have a significant effect on our Design Review Districts. As it relates to the work of the Planning Commission, recent bills would reduce existing zoning authority currently found in Minnesota Statutes. Of key note, recent legislation would restrict the use of Planned Unit Developments, a tool commonly used in Stillwater. Additionally, indirectly related to the work of the Planning Commission, recent bills include language would restrict the use of certain development fees, important to fund necessary infrastructure related to new development. February 16, 2022 Page 2 While the City acknowledges that housing affordability is an issue that needs to be addressed in terms of fees, regulations and process, Staff feels that these issues are not solely the responsibility of local municipalities and are decisions are best left at the local level. Several recent Bills, while intended to help with affordability of housing, likely would not have the intended outcome. Attachments: Memo to City Council Model Resolution League of Minnesota Cities Advocacy Toolkit Additional League of Minnesota Cities Resources Metro Cities Housing Paper cc: Abbi Wittman, City Planner iliwater THF B' F T H P L. A - E OF M i N N F S O f A MEMO TO: City Council MEETING DATE: February 15, 2022 TOPIC: Consider Resolution Supporting Housing and Local Decision - Making Authority (League of Minnesota Cities Model Resolution) REPORT BY: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SPECIFIC REQUEST The City Council is asked to consider a Resolutio' -porting tti irotection of Local Decision -Making as it relates to Zoning, DeveJ ment ee and Buiiaing Permit Fees. ANALYSIS Over the past several years, a nu of Bi nnesota Legislature have challenged local authority over zoning and df elopment. e of these Bills are gaining popularity and probability of success. Several ad acy group epresenting local Builders and Developers have advocated for various -' -rig - State S ' utes. These Bills restricting land use authority for local mu palities are u_ - _.own as 'Pre-Emption'. Essentially, this means that this Bills would r ce author' for land use decisions currently found in various State Statutes. While the City acknowledge lousing affordability is an issue that needs to be addressed in terms of fees, regulations and process, Staff feels that these issues are not solely the responsibility of local municipalities and are decisions are best left at the local level. Several recent Bills, while intended to help with affordability of housing, likely would not have the intended outcome. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached model resolution. Attachments: Model Resolution League of Minnesota Cities Advocacy Toolkit Additional League of Minnesota Cities Resources Metro Cities Housing Paper cc: Abbi Wittman, City Planner League of Minnesota Cities TEMPLATE HOUSING & LOCAL AUTHORITY RESOLUTION Please consider personalizing and presenting this resolution to your city council. You can access this draft template at www.lmc.org/HDresolution If your city council passes the resolution, please have a copy sent to advocacy@lmc.org so your city can be added to the League's master list and shared with legislators. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesot RESOLUTION #_ A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING HOUSING AND Lu __ '1ECISION-MAKING AUTHOV _ _ WHEREAS, local elected decision - determine the health, safety, an needs of their constituents; a are in the best position to ons that best serve the unique WHEREAS, zoning reg tion is an i' portant planning tool that benefits communities econo nd -tally, it troves health and wellness, and helps conserve the envirr ent; and WHEREAS, al zoning gulation allows communities to plan for the use of land transparently, i in: dents through public engagement; and WHEREAS, cities across the state are keenly aware of the distinct housing challenges facing their communities and they target those local housing challenges with available tools; and WHEREAS, multiple bills restricting local decision -making related to housing have been introduced in the 2021-2022 biennium. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city of Stillwater that this Council supports local decision -making authority and opposes legislation that restricts the ability for local elected officials to respond to the needs of their communities. LET IT ALSO BE RESOLVED that this Council supports housing policy that advances solutions to support full housing spectrum solutions, local innovation, incentives instead of mandates, and community -specific solutions throughout Minnesota. ADOPTED by the Stillwater City Council this 15th day of February, 2022. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk LMC LEAGUE ct MINNESOTA CITIES Advocacy Tool kit: Housing and Development Background The League of Minnesota Cities has a model resolution supporting the authority of local elected officials and city staff to make land use decisions in their community. Housing industry groups have recently attacked city land use to such as zoning and planned use developments. They claim incorrectly that these basic regul- ry functions are prohibiting the building of more affordable housing stock, when market fact such as labor costs, land, and materials are creating the market failures we see toaa This is particularly obvious in Greater Minnesotr .nes . d can also 1, een in metro data indicating that 84% of metro cities have zonir aistricts at allow residential property to be built on a 1/4-acre lot or less. In addition, the League has drafted leg' ' * wo,. ' 'dvance solutions to local housing challenges without imposing one-siz s-all man. on . 'es with diverse housing needs. • Read the League's policies relattto housing iihe 2022 City Policies (pdf) • SD-1 - Local Contr • LE-8 - Foreclos and Neighbr •hood Stabilization (p. 72) • LE-9 - Housing .y (p. 73) • LE-10 - Resources fo1 ale Housing (p. 75) • LE-11 - Greater Minnesota Housing (p. 77) • LE-15 - Inclusionary Housing (p. 81) • LE-33 - Workforce Housing (p. 94) • Find handouts on city housing and development topics including zoning and fees How can the city help? STEP 1: PASS a resolution and send it to your legislators Download the model resolution (doc) Note: Send a copy of the resolution to the League at advocacy@lmc.org so you can be added to the list we're compiling. STEP 2: SHARE your resolution with local media and via social media (use #HousingIsLocal). STEP 3: FOLLOW UP with your legislators and local media with information about: • The specific housing need(s) of your community. • The action your city is taking to address housing challenges. • What support you need from stakeholders instead of state mandates. Please let League staff (advocacy@lmc.org) know when you have done any of the above advocacy efforts (or if we can help you with any of the above). Note: The model resolution referenced here is different from the one created by the League in support of infrastructure development fees. Your LMC Resource Irene Kao IGR Counsel (651) 281-1260 or (800) 925-1122 ikao@lmc.org Daniel Lightfoot IGR Representative (651) 281-1295 or (800) dlightfoot@lmc.org L Starter Homes Welcome Here LEAGUE of MINNESOTA CITIES Most metro cities offer lot sizes of a quarter -acre or less, which allow for starter homes to be built. While cities offer higher density zoning for housing, additional state incentives are needed to ensure affordability. Metro zoning data shows ... 84% of cities have zoning districts that allow residential property to be built on a 1/4-acre lot or less. Of the residential land in the metro LW 11 11 11 11 43% allows for a reside str uctur to be built on a 1/4 ac or less. Most cities provide a range of different residential zones that include: Over 60°f cities allow for single- f - hed homes and other identia • ictures to be built on a acre lot Jr less. 31% allows for single-family detached homes built on a 1/4 acre or less. • Single-family detached homes • Smaller lot sizes for various residential structures • Multi -family unit development of varying densities — sometimes within the same zoning district. What works? Full housing spectrum solutions, local innovation support, incentives instead of statewide mandates, and community -specific solutions throughout Minnesota can help local communities address their housing needs most effectively. #HousinglsLocal www.lmc.org/housingdevelopment Daniel Lightfoot IGR Representative, (651) 281-1295 or (800) 925-1122, dlightfoot@lmc.org Irene Kao IGR Counsel, (651) 281-1260 or (800) 925-1122, ikao@Imc.org LMCLEAGUE of MINNESOTA CITIES Housing Needs in Cities: State Policy Solutions That Work Cities across the state are keenly aware of the unique housing challenges that face their communities, which can include shortages, high construction costs, and racial disparities. Cities are targeting these local housing needs with the tools available to them. In fact, housing development in cities is ahead of pace to meet a state goal of building 300,000 homes by 2030. Despite that, we can do better. Legislative action focused on supporting cities must be a part of this solution -oriented approach. What works: Full housing spectrum solutions Each city is sustained by a different mix of housing stock, which may include but is not limited to: affordable housing, market -rate housing, and rental. WHAT CITIES ARE DOING: Housing rehabilitation programs, tax abatement, inclusionary housing policies, and more. LEGISLATIVE NEED: Adequately funded state housing programs and policy changes that support construction and preservation of housing across the housing spectrum. What wor .s: Incentives instead , F mandatE Market forces such as demano, t of la labor shortages, and materials ar private sector market failures. Partnerships and outside resources can bridge the gap for developers and create more affordability. WHAT CITIES ARE DOING: Low or no cost city - supplied lots, tax increment finance districts, free electrical service for construction sites, and more. LEGISLATIVE NEED: Incentives for the private sector to construct less profitable housing statewide, additional flexibility for cities to construct and attract development when the private market won't meet community needs. What works: Local innovation support Cities crea e policy and finance solutions to target to -identified housing needs. WHAT CITI r divers e. ARE DOING: Mixed -use s, monetary and policy incentives ing stock, fee waivers, and L- 'SLATIVE NEED: More flexibility and more uthority to use tools and resources that foster local innovation to address unique, individual mmunity needs. What works: Community -specific solutions throughout Minnesota From Baudette to Bloomington, housing solutions must be responsive to the circumstances and unique characteristics of each city. WHAT CITIES ARE DOING: First-time homebuyer down -payment assistance, local housing trust funds, density bonuses, and more. LEGISLATIVE NEED: Support of city land use decisions that make sense for their communities, infrastructure solutions that protect taxpayers and resident safety. www.lmc.org/housingdevelopment Daniel Lightfoot IGR Representative, (651) 281-1295 or (800) 925-1122, diightfoot@Imc.org Irene Kao IGR Counsel, (651) 281-1260 or (800) 925-1122, ikao@lmc.org LMC LEAGUE of MINNESOTA CITIES www.Imc.org/ housingdevelopment Irene Kao IGR Counsel (651) 281-1260 or (800) 925-1122 ikao@Imc.org Daniel Lightfoot IGR Representative (651) 281-1295 or (800) 925-1122 dlightfoot@lmc.org Zoning: Why It's Important Zoning regulation is an important planning tool that benefits communities economically and socially, improves health and wellness, and helps conserve the environment. Local zoning regulation allows communities to plan for the use of land transparently, involving residents through public meetings. Zoning regulates the kinds of uses a property may be used for — typically residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. This prevents overlapping incompatible uses, like having a home next door to a factory. Why is zoning important for the economy? .... .... ... II II II II Zoning can: • Balance property uses foesidential, industrial, commercial, and agricultural u rs. • Incentivize the types o tures needed in the community, including a ` as housing • Ensure c,, al tr ,sportation options, which drives commerce • romotes community livability. g I ortant for social and civic life? for new residents and innovative mixed -use -L:h as residential and commercial uses in the e area). • F serve historic and culturally significant buildings and sites. Why is zoning important for health and wellness? Zoning can: • Ensure adequate public infrastructure like sewer, water, and stormwater. • Maintain parks and trails. Why is zoning important for the environment? Zoning can: • Preserve unique natural resources like shoreland, wetlands, and other terrain, and protect air and water quality. • Implement local plans to improve energy efficiency and other comprehensive plan goals. • Prevent or mitigate flooding and soil erosion. LMCv LEAGUE MINNESOTA CITIES Four Kinds of City Development Fees www.lmc.org/development 1. Safety/Inspection These costs are related to the review and inspection of development in accordance with state and local standards to ensure the safety and well-being of residents. Examples: Engineering, plan review, building permit fees 3. Utilities These fees provide for services like water and sewer for residents in the new development. They cover the costs of the new connection or increased capacity. Examples: Sewer/water connection fees, water availability charges (WAC), sewer availability charges (SAC) 2. Infrastructure Construction of public streets, sidewalks, curbs, and drainage are needed to support new development. These fees are used instead of charging special assessments or increasing property taxes for existing property owners. Examples: Infrastructure, street improvement, stormwater fees 4. Park and Recreatio These fees may be re dedicating private I. d for p purposes. Use to protect th Examples: F, eveloper instead of rk and recreation es reflec ommunity's goals t and improve quality of life. on, tree preservation, trail fees Your LMC Resource Contact Aisia Davis Research Attorney (651) 281-1271 or (800) 925-1122 adavis@lmc.org Contact Irene Kao IGR Counsel (651) 281-1260 or (800) 925-1122 ikao@lmc.org Contact Daniel Lightfoot IGR Representative (651) 281-1295 or (800) 925-1122 dlightfoot@lmc.org LMC LEAGUE MINNESOTA CITIES Cities and Residential Development Fees This information can help you discuss how development fees and expenses work in your city. Published August 2019; Updated November 2019 The Issue • Development in a community should pay for development. Related public infrastructure necessary for homes both within a new residential development and infrastructure outside of the development that is connected to the development shr !Id be funded by developers, not by existing property taxpayers who already reside in thommunity. • Cities have a responsibility for the health, welfare t f residents, and for providing essential neighborhood infrastructure —safe streets, wa sewer service, and utilities. Cities won't sacrifice home safety, building durab iecessary lstructure so builders can make more money. • The existing funding mechanism for publi ructure development includes city collections of developer fees. T ov e city's costs related to the review, approval, and inspection of the develo ent—cite ar , ese fees on a cost -recovery basis. • Developers are not coerced enter into developgre development. ent with the city. Instead, they negotiate and es that outlines what is paid for to support the • Development f don't alwaayover all of a city's costs related to new development. Therefore, the city has to tat, to the o ther source of funds: local taxpayers. • There isn't a one -size -fits -all approach to how cities plan for residential development. Every Minnesota city is unique, from its size and economics to its infrastructure and geology. The city resources necessary to build a development in Lakeville varies from what it would take to build it in Medford — and the corresponding costs vary, too. There can't be a one -size -fits -all approach across the state. Misleading Housing Affordability Reports • A recent report distributed by a developers' advocacy organization called the Housing Affordability Institute and titled "Priced Out: The True Cost of Minnesota's Broken Housing Market" paints an incomplete and inaccurate picture of the role that development fees play in housing development costs for consumers. 145 University Avenue West PH: (651) 281-1200 FX: (651) 281-1299 St. Paul, Minnesota 55103 TF: (800) 925-1122 www.lmc.org Cities and Residential Development Fees November 2019 Page 2 • The Housing Affordability Institute is an industry organization created by the Builders Association of the Twin Cities — also known as Housing First. They are using misleading industry reports to bully cities to increase builders' profits. • The report examined 10 cities selected by the authors, approximately 1% of all cities in the state. • Though the report focuses on city fees, the largest cost variables for building a home remain labor and materials at 48-55% (dictated by the developer), followed by land costs. City costs are not explicitly listed as significant cost variables in the report. • The report is muddy and misleading when it comes to defir g a fee. In one published example cited by the authors, costs for a pool that a develo r chose to build is inaccurately portrayed as a city fee. • Calculations included in the report failed to a for in -an it monies that were returned to developers as escrows or credits and w• re• - the net to, fees charged to them. • The report makes references to affordaomes, but half of its data is based on construction of 4-bedroom, 3-bathroom, 3 »rage, 2,500 square -foot homes —hardly a typical Minnesota home, part ny st-t, homeowners. • In another report, the Housi ; Affordabilit istitute failed to share that the state requires "Building permit fees shall la, ased on vale :ion." The value of the home varies from community to co • The report the -picked data failing to include available information on development related expenses readil -ported on DLI annual report. With inclusion of these numbers, the data does no ' •ort t dvocacy organization's narrative. For more information, visit www.Imc.org/housingfees. LMC LEAGUE ct MINNESOTA CITIES Housing and Development 25 City Tools for Housing Affordability and Developer Assistance Cities use both well -established and innovati policy and finance tools available to them to support the develop ent and housing needs of their communities. Minnesota cities regularly assist with the constr reservation, id rehabilitation of housing that meets unique, local housing nee ld is ai rdable, safe, and high quality. View assistance for developers and builders View assistance for residents with r While not a complete list, below residents and help builders and d se to address housing affordability for ct or redevelop housing units their communities need acro " ;ect Hof hour' — including senior living, single-family new development, multi-f y workforce , and transitional housing. Additional resources: • In the news: See these houe. g and development tools in action • View this 25 City Tools for Housing Affordability and Developer Assistance table as a PDF Assistance for developers and builders Financial Assistance 1. Tax Increment Financing TIF takes the increases in tax capacity and property taxes from (TIF) development or redevelopment to pay upfront public costs. 2. Local Tax Abatement 3. Planning and Development -Related Fee Waivers Property tax abatement reduces the amount of taxes owed for a specific period, which often translates to lower -cost units. Cities incur costs to build development -related infrastructure. Some cities reduce fees, such as water/sewer fees, for affordable housing. 4. City Fee Reductions Land Use and Zoning 5. Low or No Cost City - Supplied Land 6. Higher Density Zoning 7. Lot Size Reduction 8. Elimination of Minimum Building Size Requirements 9. Elimination of Single - Family Zoning 10. Parking Minimum Modifications 11. Density Bonuses 12. Adjustment of Setb 13. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Bonus Permitting and Review Process 14. Streamlined Review Process 15. Same or Similar Plan Cities often reduce other fees, including park dedication, for housing projects that meet locally identified housing needs. Cities have sold city -owned land at low/no cost for the construction of mixed -income and affordable homes. Higher density zoning allows for more units to be built on a lot, which reduces land costs per unit. Many cities allow for smaller lot sizes in a residential development to encourage building of more affordable homes. Elimination of minimum building requirements allows for the construction of smaller, more affor le homes. Eliminating single-f allowing constr Cities ensure n par oning can i i-family uni se housing capacity by n all residential zones. sidential developments provide off-street 1 vehicles of new residents. Some cities quirements for certain developments. builders to increase the allowed dwelling hange for affordable housing in the s are the space between the house and the front, rear, and roperty lines, and can be adjusted to meet unique project eeds. A FAR bonus allows increased density by increasing the buildable space relative to the area of the land upon which the building is sited. Many cities have increased coordination between departments for permit review and employed "one -stop permit systems." Cities reduce the plan review fee and expedite the review process Review when there are multiple homes with the same/similar building plan. 16. Online Permitting Review Some cities have funded online permitting systems with real-time inspection progress updates and online submission of building plans. Return to top Assistance for residents with housing affordability Land Use and Zoning 17. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 18. Inclusionary Zoning Financial Assistance 19. Local Housing Trust Funds 20. Low Income Rental Classification Program (LIRC) 21. First -Time Hom Assistance 22. Down Payment Assistance Preservation 23. Home Rehabilitation and Preservation Programs 24. Housing Improvement Areas (HIAs) 25. Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing Preservation (NOAH) ADUs are smaller residential units on the same lot as a primary home. ADUs provide additional affordable housing options. City -required minimum percentag f affordable units in new developments that are often paired h city incentives. City -dedicate. enue to r affordable housing, including construction o d. ousing and down payment assistance. LI t .. re. • n in property taxes if the property owner the is affordable. Some cities offer added ent of the state application, free energy ants for energy efficiency upgrades. cities provide grants or deferred loans to help first-time home with closing costs and other costs in the homebuying process. funding to help qualified homebuyers with grants and loans to assist with the cost of a down payment. City -provided deferred loans to help qualifying homeowners for certain maintenance and repairs. HIAs are defined areas where housing improvements in condominium or townhome complexes can be financed with city assistance. Cities provide financial assistance for NOAH preservation and/or have policies to protect low-income tenants from rent increases when affordable rental properties are sold. Return to top Return to Housing and Development Resources Your LMC Resource Aisia Davis Research Attorney (651) 281-1271 or (800) 925-1122 adavis@lmc.org Irene Kao IGR Counsel (651) 281-1260 or (800) 925-1122 ikao@lmc.org Daniel Lightfoot IGR Representative (651) 281-1295 or (800) 925-1122 dlightfoot@lmc.org /../6/iSaV". BUILD IT RIGHT MINNESOTA CITIES FOR SAFE, QUALITY HOMES BATC Papers: Top Five Inaccuracies In 2019, the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (now known as Housing First Minnesota) issued two papers that included incomplete, inaccurate data to promote an agenda resulting in increased profits for developers and higher taxes for local residents. They then made recommendations based on this faulty data. It is important that legislators have accurate information as they make important decisions around housing and city fees for Minnesota. In the Building Permit Fees: Boosting the Bottom Line for Minne ta Cities, BATC claims cities profited $78 million in building permit fees, but this is patently f. -. In the last decade, cities Those expenses related to residential development were not covered by building berm' Leaning cities are left with those costs and thus, subsidize development. BATC cher 'c data anmy provided partial information for how cities account for planning deveJ ment in order to claim cities were making a profit. subsidized development costs to the tune of $244 nflated their numbers by over -iced Out paper, it claims that city fees unt for up to 33% of the cost of bme, but in reality city fees only account %. 3B omits any analysis of r bor a materials, which accounts for over 50% conveys- s to address labor chal on to address affordable housing issues must also include of ost to build a home. cost of building materials. Toe this about affordable housing is wildly off base and a disservice to those who are doing real, tful work in this space. BATC based their data on higher -end market rate homes with four bedrooms, three bathrooms and three -car garages with an average price of $394,726. This is not affordable housing. Not a single home comparison in their reports are based on anything that would be considered affordable housing stock. 1 Cities have over 25 tools for housing affordability and developer assistance. At no point does BATC acknowledge all the work cities do to directly assist builders and developers to address affordable housing in their communities. The state should be bolstering these local efforts, not hindering them. TO LEARN MORE, VISIT LMC.ORG/FEES LMC LEAGUE MINNESOTA CITIES METRO CITIES Association of Metropolitan Municipalities HOUSING ISSUE PAPER INTRODUCTION Metro Cities represents the shared interests of cities in the metropolitan region at the executive, legislative and metropolitan branches of government. Housing proposals have and continue to receive significant legislative debate, some of which impose considerable restrictions on local zoning, regulations, and development/infrastructure fees. Legislation that would set a one -size state zoning policy and restrict cities' ability to set and manage local infrastructure fees for new housing is under consideration. Such proposals are chiefly supported by the building industry that would presumably stand to gain in terms of savings and profits. GOVERNMENT ROLES I Housing is predominantly built b nonprofit sectors. 95 percent of t state is privately owned. Cities an government support housing needs limited but important roles and responsi.i ies. CITIES: Cities ensure the structural integrity 11 of housing through land use planning, zoning, subdivision regulations, building inspections, code enforcement, and rental licensing. Cities consider aging populations, workforce housing, affordability, racial disparities, and the preservation of existing housing. Cities provide long-term public infrastructure to serve new developments. Many cities offer financial incentives to advance housing and apply for resources through state programs. a STATE: The state finances and administers Hoprograms to support affordable, lifecycle, supportive, senior, workforce, and family housing. State funding is a critical component in meeting housing needs and current funding is insufficient. Metro Cities supports local zoning authority and opposes legislation that would impede cities in this function as well as in cities' ability to manage public infrastructure needs and costs. 1 City officials must guide local land uses in a manner that balances existing and future uses jbility as well as physical and fiscal nd local input by residents. Local the best position to make these and comp constraint officials ar ties' policit. cognize private and public roles , the need tL , sufficient resources, and the n of local decision -making that allows cities ss a range of local housing needs. State funding is a critical and significant component in meeting housing needs. Current funding is insufficient, with many programs chronically oversubscribed. FEDERAL: Federal investments maintain and increase affordable and life cycle housing as well as help first time homebuyers, and aid affordability through rental assistance programs. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL: The Metropolitan Council determines regional needs for new affordable housing production and in collaboration with local governments sets requirements to ensure land is guided to meet this need and to meet overall forecasted growth. Density requirements vary based on local characteristics and regional infrastructure needs. HOUSING CHALLENGES: CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Incomes are Not Keeping Pace with Housing Costs Between 2000 and 2019, the median renter income in Minnesota increased by just 1 percent, while median gross rent for the state increased by 14 percent. Homeowner income went up six percent, while home values increased 24 percent. 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2000 2019 Renter Income Median Rent Homeowner Income Home Value Renter Households Year Income Rent 2000 $39,295 $838 Homeowner Households Year Income Value 2000 2019 $39,637 $977 2019 $81,900 $181,152 $86,805 $223,900 [Source: Minnesota Housing Partnership] State Funds are Oversubscribed 3:1 Projects from across the metropolitan region submit requests for affordable housing projects to Minnesota Housing's Consolidated RFP every year. In the last five years, the following cities did not receive funding awards from MN Housing due to limited state resources: Anoka, Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Burnsville, Carver, Chaska, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Cottage Grove, Crystal, Eden Prairie, Edina, Elko New Market, Forest Lake, Fridley, Hopkins, Jordan, Long Lake, Maple Grove, Maplewood, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Mounds View, Plymouth, Ramsey, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Rogers, Rosemount, Roseville, Saint Anthony Village, Saint Louis Park, Saint Paul, Savage, Shakopee, Shoreview, Vadnais Heights, Waconia, and Woodbury. Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Averages Apps Received Apps Selected # of Non - selects of Apps that were Selected of Apps that were Non -select 78 71 55 63 77 81 64 70 23 25 25 25 38 33 22 27 55 46 30 38 39 48 42 43 29% 71% 35% 65% 45% 40% 60% 49% 5 41% 3 [Source: Minnesota Housing Fi Affordable Homes for Sale Affordable homeownership opportunities are available for first-time and lower -income Minneso existing homes sold since 2008 have sold for less than $300,000. For new construction, builde larger, more expensive houses. Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $0 - $199,999 % Total Home Sal 7149 35% 9209 47% 7944 45% 7708 48% 10493 46% 13183 43% 13893 43% 13372 39% 16942 34% 14577 29% 10670 24% 8777 19% 2748 15% $200,000 - $299,999 7289 6209 5215 4448 6348 9170 9827 11436 16359 16865 15695 15971 5309 % Total ome Sal 36% 32% 30% 28% 28% 30% 30% 33% 33% 34% 35% 34% 30% $300,000 - $499,999 4083 3169 3121 2811 4201 6093 6391 7301 11818 13278 13925 16112 7111 % Total ome Sales . Over 50 percent o re often choosi 20% 1 16% 1071 18% 1262 17% 1097 19% 1601 20% 2123 20% 2146 21% 2219 24% 4209 27% 5061 31% 4974 34% 6242 40% 2636 000+ 55% build Total ,ne Sales 8% 5% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 9% 10% 11% 13% 15% [Source: Metropolitan Council] ADDRESSING HOUSING NEEDS: LOCAL TOOLS, REGIONAL POLICY, HOUSING PRODUCTION Regional Density Requirements Regional minimum densities are intended to guide orderly growth while maintaining local land use flexibility. All metropolitan cities guided land at or above minimum required densities in 2018 comprehensive plan updates. OVERALL DENSITY EXPECTATIONS FOR NEW GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT, AND REDEVELOPMENT Metropolitan Urban Service Area: Minimum Average Net Density Urban Center Urban Subu an Edge Suburban Edge enter 20 units/acre 10 units/acre 5 units/acre 3-5 units/acre 3-5 units/acre 3-5 units/acre minimum [Source: Metropolitan Council] Single Family and Multifamily Housing Since 2008, production of single-family housing has doubled, and higher density multifamily construction outpaces single family construction almost two -to -one. Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Single Family - attached, detached, ADU 3251 3219 3475 3410 4925 5911 5262 5289 6238 6793 6808 7353 7251 % Total Homes 63% 72% 59% 53% 45% 48% 49% 44% 45% 43% 39% 35% 36% MultiFamily 2+ units 1880 1227 2409 2972 6018 6505 5461 6864 7508 8988 10535 13363 12796 37% 28% 41% 47% 55% 52% 51% 56% 55% 57% 61% 65% Eh 64% ■ [Source: Metropolitan Council] Tools and Resources Cities Use to Advance Housing Include: • Reduce Lot Size Requirements • Allow planned unit developments to add density or to lower development costs • Down Payment Assistance • HRA, CDA, EDA contributions • Local Fee Waivers • Land Subsidies, Assembly and Donations • Property Tax Reductions, including Abatement and Low -Income Rental Classification • Local Housing Trust Funds • Tax Increment Financing (TIF) • Reduced Parking Minimums • Density Bonuses and Higher Density Zoning • Adjusted Setbacks • Expedited Plan Reviews • Elimination of Minimum Building Size Requirements • Mixed Income Housing Policies • Rental Licensing and Inspections • Tenant Protection Ordinances METRO CITIES' POLICY POSITIONS ON HOUSING Metro Cities Policies Support: • Local zoning authority. • Increased funding for state housing programs. • Affordable housing tax credit. • Programs that help alleviate foreclosures, increase homeownership, and increase homeownership for BIPOC populations. • Preserving tools that enhance local innovation. • Clarification of state laws on infrastructure fees. • Strategic partnerships and financial assistance from the state and federal governments to help address housing needs. • Increased Section 8 funding and federal funding to assist HRAs in facilitating tax exempt bonds for housing. Key State Programs upported by Metro Citi • State Housing Infrastructure and GOW • State Challenge Program • State Match for Local Housing Trust Funds • Pre- and post -purchase education, counseling, and training; mortgages and downpayment/closing- cost assistance loans; home improvement loans • Rental assistance, supportive housing, homelessness prevention resources • Fix up Funds for Rental Homes Metro Cities Opposes: • Preempting local zoning decision -making authority on zoning, planning and land use. • Prohibitions and restrictions on planned unit development (PUD) agreements. • Restrictions on local housing development and financing tools. • Policies that shift costs for infrastructure for new housing to existing taxpayers. • Preempting local voter -approved rent control authority.