Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Udo Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts UDO change to incent affordable units but limits impervious-surface increase
Summary
The Common Council adopted Ordinance 20-26-01 (amended) to expand affordable-housing incentives in the Unified Development Ordinance, including increased impervious-surface allowances for qualifying projects, after passing a council amendment that tiered increases (R1→40%, R2→50%, R3→60%, R4→65%); the vote was 6–2 and drew strong environmental and procedural debate.
The Bloomington Common Council voted Feb. 4 to adopt Ordinance 20-26-01, a package of amendments to Title 20 of the Bloomington Municipal Code (the Unified Development Ordinance) intended to strengthen affordable-housing incentives. Council adopted the ordinance as amended by a 6–2 roll-call vote.
The ordinance, as presented by Assistant Director Jackie Scanlon of the Department of Planning and Transportation, includes three primary changes summarized by the clerk: (1) increased maximum impervious-surface coverage allowances for certain owner-occupied or incentivized affordable projects; (2) adjusted landscape-area and impervious-surface thresholds for tier-2 affordability projects; and (3) higher payment-in-lieu amounts and clearer administrative procedures for payment in lieu of on-site affordable units. Scanlon told council staff expect to contract for a nexus study in 2026 to better quantify economic impacts and to refine payment-in-lieu calculations.
Council debate focused heavily on the proposed impervious-surface increases, which staff initially proposed as an 80% cap across residential zoning districts for qualifying projects. Council members Flaherty and Rallo sponsored Amendment 1 to replace the uniform 80% figure with tiered increases: R1 maximum impervious coverage would rise from 30% to 40%; R2 from 40% to 50%; R3 from 45% to 60%; and R4 from 50% to 65%. Sponsors argued the compromise maintains a meaningful incentive while reducing potential stormwater and heat-island impacts.
Environmental reviewers and multiple public commenters urged greater caution. Matt Kaldi, representing the Bloomington Environmental Commission Planning Committee, read the commission’s statement warning that higher impervious coverage increases risks for stormwater runoff, urban-heat island effects and reduced tree health. The commission cited studies linking percentage increases in impervious surface to higher flood risk and urged tiered, more modest changes.
Supporters of the amendment and the ordinance argued the incentives will make some small-scale affordable developments financially feasible and that other regulatory safeguards — tree-preservation rules, stormwater detention and CBU (community utilities/engineering) review — remain in force and will still govern final build outcomes. Staff said subdivisions and site plans remain subject to Title 13 stormwater and detention requirements, which are designed to assess maximum impervious coverage and require detention when needed.
The council also discussed payment-in-lieu controls. Scanlon said the ordinance directs administrative details to the department’s manual and that payment-in-lieu will be restricted to larger projects (the administrative approach cited a threshold of 30 units, per staff explanation during Q&A) so that small projects will be required to provide on-site units rather than make a cash payment.
On the vote, Amendment 1 passed by roll call 6–2; the ordinance as amended then passed by roll call 6–2 and was adopted. Council members who voted in favor cited incremental progress on affordability and staff safeguards; those opposed cited environmental risks, process concerns and a preference for broader UDO reforms (for example, minimum-lot-size changes) over incremental adjustments.
Ending: Staff said a nexus study will follow to better calibrate payment-in-lieu values and that additional administrative implementation details will be provided through the planning department’s manual; the ordinance establishes new statutory limits and incentives but many details (nexus calculations, administrative manual amounts, and enforcement mechanisms for owner-occupancy) will be addressed in forthcoming staff actions.
