YIMBY-ana YIMBY-ana
YIMBY-ana

Blog Smart Growth Policy Changes to Bloomington’s Unified Development Ordinance

Our technical document proposing concrete changes to improve the housing market in Bloomington

June 19, 2024

Introduction

Like many cities across the country, Bloomington faces a pressing need for affordable housing. The 2020 Housing Study noted a rental vacancy rate from a landlord survey of around 2%, far lower than a healthy range of 5-6%, which ensures adequate supply and demand while avoiding price inflation. Many people are priced out of Bloomington and face difficulty finding housing. Meanwhile, homelessness, which has been closely linked to rising housing costs, is a persistent problem. This status quo makes people’s lives financially more burdensome and encourages sprawl and greenhouse gas emissions from car dependency. The primary driver of this affordable housing crisis is the lack of adequate housing supply, particularly “missing-middle” housing—the housing options between single-family homes and large apartment complexes, such as duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes, which often serve as dense walkable city infill development. The leading cause of this supply shortage is restrictive zoning and building regulations codified in our city’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). This proposal identifies the most problematic issues in Bloomington’s UDO and suggests changes to allow sufficient housing supply and more gentle density to secure our community’s future. It accomplishes this by extending property rights in Bloomington by reducing unnecessary regulations that impede the housing market. This proposal focuses on policies to increase missing middle housing, create more walkable and vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods, better pair affordable and market-rate housing, and relax height limits and parking minimums.

Legalize missing middle housing

Missing middle housing is medium-density, moderately priced housing that includes duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and rowhouses. It provides people with affordable family-sized homes that are energy-efficient and easy to maintain. Missing middle housing is the most affordable housing type because it is simpler and easier to build than high-rise towers and requires less land than single-family homes. However, current regulations make it extremely hard to build missing middle housing, and sometimes, these options are outright banned.

lafayette-park-1603398_1280

Problems in the UDO

According to an analysis of Bloomington’s UDO and conversations YIMBY-ana has had with city staff and residents, it is prohibitively difficult to build this type of housing in most of Bloomington's residential zones due to excessive requirements and complicated approval processes for conditional use.

Solutions:

  1. Amend the UDO 20.03.020 use table to permit (P): cottage developments, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, and live/work dwellings in all residential and mixed-use zones.
  2. Create new attached use types: attached live/work, duplex, triplex, and fourplex, to allow vertically stacked and/or horizontally arranged homes that attach to other townhomes. These, along with attached single-family homes, should be (P) in zones R2-R4, RM, RH, and all mixed-use zones.
  3. Amend UDO 20.04.020 so that front, rear, side, and garage/carport setback requirements are uniformly 8 feet in R1, and 5 feet in all other residential zones, with the exception of 0-foot side setbacks for attached homes.
    1. Justification: This change allows for interior courtyards, larger backyards, and more living space per lot. It also allows these buildings to increase their land and energy efficiency. Allowing garages or carports to be flush with the front of the home allows for homes that include garages to have more compact designs, requiring less impervious ground coverage.
  4. Make these amendments if attached homes, live/work, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes are stuck with (P*)
    1. Remove UDO 20.03.030(b)(2)(B), to allow rows of townhomes longer than 2.
    2. Remove UDO 20.03.030(b)(3)(C)(iv), to allow duplexes to accommodate larger families.
    3. Remove UDO 20.03.030(b)(3)(D) and 20.03.030(b)(3)(E), to allow more duplexes to be built.
    4. Remove UDO 20.03.030(b)(4)(C)(iii), to allow triplexes and fourplexes to accommodate larger families.
    5. Remove UDO 20.03.030(b)(6)(B) and 20.03.030(b)(6)(C), so live/work housing can be occupied by occupants unrelated to the colocated business. Otherwise, these homes have little resale value and aren’t economical to build.
  5. Amend UDO 20.04.020 to remove all lot width minimums, remove lot area minimums for mixed-use zones, and reduce lot area minimums in residential zones by one-half. Amend UDO 20.02.060 to remove lot width minimums and area minimums in all overlay districts, so only zone-based limits apply, except in the case that the overlay district allows lower area minimums.
    1. Justification: The downtown zones currently have no lot width and area requirements, and this has created a welcoming and quaint environment with small shops and close-in homes that should be extended to other zones. Reducing lot area requirements for residential zones could allow for a new variety of small and affordable homes, reduce suburban sprawl, and increase the number of lots to be built on over time. Buyers will not accept inadequately sized or shaped subdivided plots, so these decisions should be left to their judgment.
  6. Amend UDO 20.04.020 to allow up to 60% impervious coverage in zones R1-R4, so more family-sized housing can be built on smaller lots.
  7. Amend UDO 20.04.020 to allow up to 70% impervious coverage in all mixed-use zones, and adjust landscape area minimums accordingly, so dense housing can be built more efficiently.
    1. Justification: The MS and ME zones already allow 70% impervious coverage, and allowing more homes in dense and tall zones can reduce the need for sprawl, traffic, and new impervious road surfaces.
  8. Remove UDO 20.04.070(d)(5), so buildings neighboring other zones are not restrained to the limits of the neighboring zone.
  9. Remove UDO 20.04.070(e), so buildings neighboring historic buildings are not restrained by the heights or features of the historical buildings.
  10. Amend UDO 20.06.050(c) to remove “contributing” buildings from the demolition delay permit process.

Related Historical Preservation Code Changes:

  1. Amend municipal code 8.08.020(a) so that “contributing” and “non-contributing” buildings are exempt from the certificate requirements.
  2. Remove municipal code 8.08.020(a)(1)(D) and 8.08.020(a)(3)(C), so new buildings are not restricted by historic and preservation districts.
  3. Amend municipal code 8.12.010(b) so that “contributing” and “non-contributing” buildings are exempt from certificate requirements.
  4. Amend municipal code 8.12.010(d)(3)(A) so that no notice is required for the demolition of “contributing” and “non-contributing” buildings.
    1. Justification: Historic designations tend to cause displacement of minorities through a combination of a low supply of homes and a lack of diversity in housing types. If the city’s goal is to preserve historic buildings, conservation should be limited to “notable” and “outstanding” buildings that have specific historical significance. Significant portions of downtown Bloomington, which is the ideal location for diverse, missing middle infill development, are historic districts, or are otherwise designated as “contributing” or “non-contributing”.
vermont-5168254_1280

Create more walkable and dynamic mixed-use neighborhoods

The legacy zoning approach separates residential and commercial areas, in a pattern known as “Euclidean zoning.” This regulation historically encouraged suburban sprawl and car dependency, making it very difficult to do anything without driving. It isolates a significant fraction of the population, including children, older adults, and people with disabilities who cannot drive, and creates a proliferation of big-box stores and malls while suppressing local businesses. Mixed-use zoning, the default in historic development patterns, fosters vibrant, walkable communities by integrating residential and commercial uses within the same area. The United States’ most desirable, historic neighborhoods are great examples of this more free and open type of zoning. This approach promotes economic vitality through increased foot traffic for local businesses, reduces reliance on cars, and enhances residents' overall quality of life. By encouraging diverse development patterns, mixed-use zoning can create more inclusive, dynamic neighborhoods that cater to a broader range of needs and preferences compared to the rigid separation of uses enforced by Euclidean zoning.

Problems in the UDO

Many areas near the Indiana University campus and downtown fall outside mixed-use zoning designations. This reality makes it much more difficult to develop and build housing where there is a strong demand for commercial activities.

Solutions

  1. Upzone all properties within a 15-minute walk (about ¾ of a mile) of IU’s campus or Downtown to MM (mixed-use medium density).
  2. Enable transit-oriented and trail-oriented development. Rezone all properties within a 10-minute walk (about ½ of a mile) of fixed-route or rapid-transit bus services and protected bike trails to at least MN (mixed-use neighborhood density) or MM (mixed-use medium density).
    1. Justification: To encourage walkable neighborhoods and car-light transportation modes, Bloomington should encourage denser development near transit and dedicated bike infrastructure. Many cities have done this near rapid-transit systems, such as Indianapolis near its Purple Line bus-rapid-transit line. With the upcoming Green Line east-west corridor, Bloomington can enact similar changes by updating the UDO to rezone neighborhoods and properties near transit and bike infrastructure to encourage car-light mobility choices.
  3. Amend the UDO 20.03.020 use table to permit (P) multifamily dwellings in all mixed-use zones by right, so dense housing can be built efficiently and without excessive processes in these areas.
  4. Remove 20.03.010(e)(1) and 20.03.030(b)(5)(D), so any amount of residential units can be built on the ground floor in downtown areas.
    1. Justification: Some sites outlined in this section, such as the Bloomington Iron & Metal site, may not currently have enough foot traffic to support the number of retail spaces required, so developers will pass on building in these areas for opportunities with more favorable conditions. This rule also limits the availability of wheelchair-accessible ground floor homes in high-demand areas.
  5. Amend the UDO 20.03.020 use table to permit (P*) grocery stores and supermarkets in all residential zones, to alleviate food deserts.
    1. One Condition: Non-accessory grocery stores in these zones should not occupy lots larger than ½ acre, so neighborhoods aren’t demolished for big-box grocers.
    2. Justification: Food deserts tend to affect lower-income areas, and have negative health and economic impacts. Small-scale grocers can also greatly improve walkability while providing jobs close to homes.
  6. Amend the UDO 20.03.020 use table to permit (P) daycare centers in all zones.
    1. Justification: The cost of childcare is one of the largest and fastest-growing expenses in America. Currently, the UDO’s requirements for opening a childcare center are prohibitive, including conditional use approval processes, minimum distances from other centers, and excessive landscaping requirements. Enabling childcare centers in neighborhoods can help improve the availability and cost of childcare, as well as the walkability and family-friendliness of neighborhoods.
  7. Amend UDO 20.03.010(c)(1), so that grocery stores and daycares can be allowed to share residential lots with homes as permanent primary uses. This would allow homes to be built alongside or above these uses, making the neighborhood more walkable without sacrificing space for homes.
  8. Amend UDO 20.04.020 to eliminate side setback requirements in all mixed-use zones, so mixed-use buildings can be attached. This allows mixed-use buildings to increase their land and energy efficiency.

Promoting affordable housing and market-rate housing developments simultaneously

Market-rate housing plays a crucial role in maintaining housing affordability and relieving price pressures. A healthy supply of market-rate units can prevent artificial scarcity and ensure a variety of options for residents with diverse incomes and preferences. When the market is balanced, competition among developers and landlords naturally drives down prices, making housing more accessible for everyone. This is especially evident in the building of a housing ladder, where multiple housing options are available to different levels of income, eventually opening up options for lower-income households. Recent studies have shown that this process can happen quickly within a few years. However, excessive burdens and requirements imposed on developers for affordable units can hinder the development of market-rate housing. If developers face high costs and complexities in meeting affordable housing mandates, they may be forced to compensate by raising prices on market-rate units to remain profitable or simply pass on development opportunities, thereby reducing the market-rate housing unit supply. This unintended consequence can inadvertently exacerbate the affordability crisis and limit the availability of diverse housing options, thus hindering the trickle-down effect that benefits lower-income households. Therefore, striking a balance between promoting affordable housing and ensuring a viable market for market-rate development is essential. By implementing reasonable regulations and incentivizing a mix of housing types, the city can create a sustainable housing ecosystem that benefits all residents and fosters a thriving community.

Problems in the UDO

Bloomington has included incentives for developers to build new affordable housing. However, these incentive structures need to be more realistic and effective. Bloomington should significantly overhaul these incentives in the short term and move towards using municipal dollars to invest in public housing and encourage non-market housing in the long term.

Solutions

  1. Remove 20.02.050(b)(3), 15% permanent income-restricted units in PUD zones, and replace it with a 15% public housing requirement in PUD zones.
    1. Justification: The city should invest in high-quality public housing to rapidly alleviate homelessness, and start to make progress in housing affordability, independent of private developers. Many cities worldwide have used public housing (or non-market housing) to improve their housing markets, without compromising quality or aesthetics. For example, in Singapore, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, 77% of the population lives in public housing. Public housing is also an opportunity to mix in public uses like libraries, schools, and childcare centers, and possibly provide affordable public retail space for small businesses. Bloomington can fund public housing initially by issuing bonds, and later through the increased tax revenue brought in by our other proposals. Currently, the federally-funded public housing options managed by Bloomington Housing Authority only offer around 320 units and BHA maintains a waitlist for their Housing Choice Voucher program.
  2. Remove any requirement that a housing unit be occupied by a “family” as defined in UDO 20.07.
    1. Justification: This can allow families that are not necessarily related but have close ties to live together. It can also permit residents to rent out unused rooms to students, or allow students to share homes that are not explicitly “student housing.” This can effectively reduce the demand for housing, by letting residents who want to live together find the most cost-effective home for their situation, rather than fewer people living in more homes.
  3. Amend the UDO 20.03.020 use table to permit (P) supportive housing by right in RM, RH, and all mixed-use zones.
    1. Justification: These homes include homeless shelters and domestic violence shelters. They should be brought into dense walkable areas so residents have access to services and opportunities that can help them move forward. This also reduces the need for nonprofits and developers to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Stigma exists around homelessness, and public meetings can often act as a veto on vitally important services to address a significant problem in Bloomington while creating arbitrary and unequal processes. Providing these services is an important function in the community, and nonprofits should have the freedom to build and provide for those in need.
  4. Replace current affordable housing development bonuses in UDO 20.04.110(c)(2) with redefined affordability incentives.
    1. Tier 1 affordability definitions currently require: a minimum of 15% of the total dwelling units are income-restricted permanently… to households making up to 120% of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Area Median Income (AMI) for Monroe County (This falls under the city’s workforce housing program, per a definition in the UDO connecting Workforce Housing with Tier 1 standards.)
      1. Comments: to maintain consistency with the workforce housing program, this Tier 1 standard could remain the same.
    2. Tier 2 affordability definitions currently require: a minimum of 7.5% of the total dwelling units are income-restricted permanently… to households making up to 120% of the HUD AMI for Monroe County AND a minimum of 7.5% of the total dwelling units are income-restricted permanently… to households making up to 90% of the HUD AMI for Monroe County.
      1. Changes: 5% of total dwelling units are income-restricted permanently… to households making up to 120% of the HUD AMI for Monroe County AND a minimum of 5% of the total dwelling units are income-restricted permanently… to households making up to 90% of the HUD AMI for Monroe County AND a minimum of 5% of the total dwelling units are income-restricted permanently… to households making up to 60% of the HUD AMI for Monroe County.
      2. Justification: Currently, 90% of AMI is quite high, at $56,970 for an individual in 2023. According to HUD, Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers administered by Bloomington Housing Authority are only available to families and individuals making up to 50% of a County’s AMI. There is also currently a sizable waitlist for the program. Therefore, there is a significant income gap between where an individual or family would qualify for an HCV and where they would qualify under existing affordable housing/workforce housing definitions in Bloomington’s housing programs. Austin, TX uses 60% Median Family Income as a threshold for low-income housing in its affordable housing definitions for development bonuses. Because Bloomington has a relatively high AMI, lowering the income threshold would ensure greater inclusion of lower-income families in these affordability bonuses definitions.
    3. Tier 1 Incentives: Projects that meet the tier 1 affordability standards may increase the primary structure height by 2 floors.
    4. Tier 2 Incentives: Projects that meet the tier 2 affordability standards may increase the primary structure height by 4 floors.
      1. Justification: Currently, the Transform Redevelopment Overlay (TRO) District in the Hopewell neighborhood provides these affordability incentives, so they are established bonuses in the UDO. We believe it’s necessary to offer stronger affordability incentives city-wide to add additional affordable and market-rate units. Developers must receive more floor area than they dedicate to affordable units for it to make sense for them to seek affordable housing incentives.
  5. Add a new incentive in order to encourage the development of more owner-occupied homes.
    1. Proposal: Projects that have 5% of total dwelling units deed-restricted to owner-occupancy may increase the primary structure height by 1 floor, while projects that meet this requirement and either tier of affordability requirement may increase the primary structure height by 2 floors in addition to the floors awarded for affordability.
    2. Justification: More owner-occupied, market-rate units can contribute to the housing ladder effect and investment in the community, while projects with both affordable and owner-occupied units can lead to more class diversity and upward mobility within the area.

Relax height and shape limits to allow economically efficient construction and lower housing prices

Problems in the UDO

Currently, height limits are quite low citywide. Profitable development demands economies of scale, which means increased building height. Arbitrarily setting height limits forces developers to make economically inefficient choices, often prioritizing unit types that appeal to the highest-income renters, such as amenity-rich “luxury style” housing developments. With high land values in Bloomington, putting fewer units on expensive lots makes rental or owned units more expensive.

Solutions

  1. Increase height maximums in UDO 20.02.020 - 20.04.020 to 12 stories or 150 feet in zones MS, ME, MD-DC, MD-ST, and RH; 8 stories or 100 feet in zones MM, MC, MI, MD-CS, MD-UV, MD-DE, and MD-DG; 6 stories or 75 feet in zones RM, MN and MH; and 4 stories or 50 feet in R1-R4. These changes allow the market to more freely respond to development needs, while maintaining some height distinctions between zones.
    1. Justification: Currently, the tallest buildings in Bloomington are around 11-12 stories, all being residence halls on IU Bloomington’s campus. The most efficient way to build housing is upward. This can help prevent suburban sprawl, and its associated traffic and flash flooding, while providing affordable homes close to amenities and job centers. It also requires less new infrastructure per home than single-family housing, while raising far more property tax revenue per acre than single-family residences. Therefore, the city should increase the highest height limits to 12 stories or 150 feet so the local housing market can be responsive to increased demand in an affordable and environmentally friendly way.
  2. Remove all floor plate limitations in the UDO (20.02.060(b)(9)(B)(vi)(1), 20.03.030(b)(5)(C), 20.03.030(b)(13)(C)) and focus on height-related affordability incentives.
    1. Justification: Floor plate limitations force developments to be broken up into multiple smaller buildings, increasing material costs, reducing energy efficiency, and limiting the amount of housing that can be built. Impervious coverage limits already restrict the sizes of buildings based on their lot size, so floor plate limits are redundant.
  3. Remove 20.03.030(b)(5)(D), so that student housing height is only subject to the zone’s height limits.
  4. Amend UDO 20.04.070(f)(1) to only apply to a percentage of residential units on the ground floor, so height is not restricted by this requirement.
  5. Remove UDO 20.02.060(a)(1)(B) and 20.02.060(a)(5)(B), so buildings along Kirkwood and downtown can make better use of their upper floors.
  6. Remove 20.02.060(a)(8), 20.04.070(d)(2)(D), 20.04.070(d)(2)(E), 20.04.070(d)(3)(H), 20.04.070(d)(3)(J), which call for facade articulations and color pattern changes.
    1. Justification: Facade articulation and color patterns make buildings less land, material, and energy efficient, increasing costs per home, reducing the amount of housing that can be built, and reducing the space for architectural creativity. This produces building designs that are focused on compliance rather than beauty. In historic towns, buildings with relatively flat facades are decorated with plaster, brick, and stone detailing, making them more beautiful than modern but bland compliance-oriented buildings. Many IU campus buildings are examples of this simple architectural beauty.

Remove parking requirements to lower construction costs and housing prices

Building and maintaining parking lots is expensive; once built, parking lots encourage driving over all other more sustainable and economical modes. Excessive parking mandates contribute to urban sprawl, hamper economic development by severely increasing development costs, and discourage alternative modes of transportation like walking, biking, or public transit. By reducing or eliminating these requirements, the city can incentivize more efficient land use, promote denser and more affordable development, and create a more sustainable and accessible transportation system. Furthermore, parking minimums disproportionately impact lower-income residents who may not own cars and are forced to subsidize parking through higher rents or housing prices.

Problems in the UDO

UDO 20.04.060 specifies minimum vehicle parking requirements, which force businesses and housing developments to build a certain number of parking spots, even when they are not necessary. Each parking spot adds about $28,000 (on average; it can be much higher depending on land value and types of structure) to the cost of development, making housing significantly less affordable especially where excessive parking available is not essential (e.g., near the city center). Surface lots are the cheapest means of meeting parking requirements, so developments default to them, causing excessive sprawl, urban heat island effects, and flash flooding. See “The High Cost of Free Parking” by Donald Shoup for more information.

Solutions

  1. Remove vehicle parking minimums specified in UDO 20.04.060.
    1. Justification: Businesses and builders should have the freedom to decide exactly how much parking space they need. Parking minimums add unnecessary costs to projects while reinforcing car dependency that contributes to climate change. Allowing existing businesses to subdivide and sell their parking lots for the development of green space or housing with “green” roofs can improve the housing market, reduce flash flooding, and decrease urban heat island effects.

Final Thoughts: A Plan for Smart Growth

The cost of housing in Bloomington remains persistently high and with strong demand due to student, staff, and faculty populations associated with Indiana University, price pressures will continue to burden all residents and hamper sustainable growth until the city ensures an adequate mixture and supply of housing is available. To provide diverse, abundant, and affordable housing options, Bloomington must significantly overhaul its current zoning laws in the UDO. Increasing missing middle housing, prioritizing mixed-use neighborhoods near transit, rethinking affordability, relaxing height limits, and eliminating parking minimums will significantly improve Bloomington's current land use rules to enable more housing construction to reduce prices.

This proposal is not assumed to be comprehensive nor the only path forward. But it presents specific, practical, well-researched, and tangible improvements to the current UDO. These proposals will alleviate housing costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by popularizing alternative modes of transportation, a stated goal of Bloomington’s Climate Action Plan. Ensuring adequate housing supply and diversity is essential for continued population growth and municipal financial solvency. Denser developments produce significantly more property tax revenue per acre than single-family homes, whereas single-family zones’ infrastructure tends to be subsidized by the city. Denser developments also substantially reduce the cost of infrastructure (e.g., roads and utility), ensuring the strong financial future of Bloomington as well as alleviating tax burdens for many existing homeowners. In short, these smart-growth proposals will empower Bloomington to continue to draw in new talent and residents while maintaining or improving the quality of life and affordability current residents have grown to expect.

Signed By

Matt Gleason

Kyle Davis

YY Ahn

Thomas Landis

Deborah Myerson

Crystal Killian

Joan Middendorf