Sen. Rich Draheim, R-Madison Lake, comments on housing bills during a Senate Housing and Homelessness Prevention meeting on March 11, 2025. Draheim is one of the authors of the Transforming Main Street Act. Photo by Madison McVan/Minnesota Reformer.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers, including leaders of the House and Senate housing committees, introduced a package of bills aimed at increasing the supply of housing in Minnesota.
The state, like the rest of the country, is facing a massive housing shortage, which is driving up home prices and rents.
Housing developers say strict city zoning rules, exhaustive public hearings and aesthetic requirements make construction more expensive and reduce the number of units built.
Local governments — which successfully blocked the passage of similar legislation last year — want to retain control over zoning, and worry that sudden increases in housing density will strain local water and sewer infrastructure.
The “Yes to Homes” coalition is backing a group of bills that would legalize the construction of small single-family homes, duplexes, accessory dwelling units like mother-in-law suites, and apartments across the state.
With a split Legislature, bills will need bipartisan support to reach the governor’s desk.
Here are the key provisions in the bills backed by housing leaders on both sides of the aisle. They are likely to be amended and wrapped together into a larger bill in the coming weeks. Some of the bills contain duplicate language.
Minnesota Starter Homes Act
This bill (SF2229/HF1987) would legalize duplexes and accessory dwelling units on residential lots statewide, and would allow townhomes on vacant lots and new developments.
Cities could still restrict development if the public infrastructure is inadequate.
It also would also block cities from setting minimum lot sizes larger than one-eighth of an acre for homes connected to city water and sewer services.
Municipalities could not require the use of certain building materials or construction methods beyond the requirements in the state building code.
The bill would also require cities to create an administrative review process — i.e. sidestepping city councils — for the approval of housing development permits.
Cities could not impose any more restrictive standards and procedures for multifamily developments than those used for the review of single-family home construction.
Local governments could only use a conditional use permit or planned unit development agreement — a process developers describe as time-intensive negotiations between cities and developers that result in higher costs and fewer units — when the development poses health and safety concerns.
Transforming Main Street Act
This bill (SF2286/HF2018) would require local governments to allow apartment construction in areas currently zoned for commercial use, with some exceptions.
It also provides a “bonus” for affordable housing developments, allowing more units than city zoning standards allow.
Cities could require developers to maintain the first floor of the building as commercial space if businesses already exist in the area.
The bill contains provisions that would limit cities’ ability to set height limits on apartment buildings. Large cities would have to allow buildings up to 75 feet tall.
More Homes, Right Places Act
This bill (SF2231/HF2140) is the successor to last year’s “Missing Middle” bill, aimed at increasing residential density along transit corridors.
It would direct cities to designate zones along main roads — the location would largely be up to the city — and allow higher-density development there.
In those zones, cities would have a limited ability to impose setbacks, square footage minimums, parking mandates and other requirements.
Odds and ends
Lawmakers have also introduced standalone bills barring aesthetic mandates (HF2013) and parking minimums (SF1268/HF1309)