Minn. committee advances bill to require allowance of triplexes, quadplexes in many cities

Senate File 2231, a bill by Sen. Lindsey Bolden that would require many Minnesota cities to allow triplexes and quadplexes in designated mixed-housing and commercial corridor districts, was recommended to pass and re-referred to the Committee on State and Local Government after a public hearing and debate.

The bill’s author said the proposal is intended to increase housing variety and supply across urban, suburban and rural communities. “This bill is one piece of a larger package of bipartisan bills backed by the Yes to Homes Coalition,” Senate Majority Author Lindsey Bolden said, adding that the bill legalizes specific housing types and establishes where and how they may be built.

Supporters at the hearing focused on affordability and permitting efficiency. Charlie Gardner, research fellow at the Mercatus Center, said restrictions that limit housing types and density raise costs and that the bill would both increase allowable density and add a streamlined administrative approval like an existing Section 15.99 process. “Restoring property owners' flexibility to build housing in different configurations and at higher densities is an essential step toward bringing rents and prices under control,” Gardner said.

Local government testifiers raised concerns about the bill’s effects on existing comprehensive plans, infrastructure costs and local control. Greg Kruske, community development manager for the City of Owatonna, testified that the city recently spent about $135,000 on a comprehensive plan adopted in October 2024 and said mandatory changes could impose further six‑figure costs. Jill Hutmacher, director of community development for the City of Eagan, representing Metro Cities and the League of Minnesota Cities, said the bill could “impose density in cities across the state without any local consideration of feasibility and reasonableness” and flagged potential life‑and‑safety risks tied to an automatic approval provision.

Speakers representing smaller cities said infrastructure and market factors often limit multifamily development. Craig Clark, city administrator for Austin and a member of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities board, said his city faces high infrastructure costs (he cited a recent comprehensive-plan cost of roughly $425,000) and that the primary barriers to production in many Greater Minnesota communities are hard construction costs, land and financing—not zoning alone.

Committee members pressed authors on definitions and scope. Sen. Roger Clark asked for clarification of the bill’s “urban municipality” definition for municipalities within one mile of cities over 150,000 population; Bolden said staff and authors are working to refine language to avoid unintended impacts and that infrastructure limitations (for example, locations on septic) are intended to be excluded. Several senators urged continued negotiation with cities, particularly on comp‑plan implementation timelines and administrative-review details.

The bill contains multiple subsections: definitions (Subdivision 1); requirements for municipalities to create mixed‑housing zones and conditions based on city classifications (Subdivision 2); restrictions on municipal regulation of residential construction in mixed‑housing and commercial corridor districts (Subdivision 3); an administrative review process for multifamily projects intended to keep timelines moving (Subdivision 4); implementation timelines by city size (Subdivision 6); and a prohibition on interim ordinances that delay the law’s application (Subdivision 7). Authors said accessory dwelling units are included and that some provisions were changed after stakeholder consultations.

Sen. Bolden moved the author's amendments (A2 then A3) during the hearing; both were adopted. After discussion and testimony, Sen. Bolden moved that SF 2231, as amended, be recommended to pass and re‑referred to State and Local Government. The motion carried; the committee chair announced the bill “passes and is sent to state and local government.”

What happens next: the bill will go to the Committee on State and Local Government for further consideration, where authors and stakeholders said they will continue refining language on implementation timelines, definitions of affected municipalities and infrastructure exceptions.

Ending note: supporters framed the bill as one part of a broader, bipartisan effort to increase housing supply; local officials asked for more flexibility to reflect local plans, cost realities and infrastructure constraints.