On Tuesday this past week, Bloomington’s city council dealt with 11 amendments to its unified development ordinance (UDO). They were thought to be the final amendments to the UDO. The first of the council’s special sessions devoted specifically to UDO amendments took place on Nov. 13.
But the council’s work on the update to the city’s basic planning and zoning document is not quite done.
Four new amendments appear on the council’s agenda for its final session on the UDO. Three are technical or semantic in character, but one is substantive. The substantive amendment, sponsored by councilmember Piedmont-Smith, would allow a flat-roofed building in a residential district, if the building has more than 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
The final UDO session will take place on Wednesday, Dec. 18—just before the last regular city council meeting of the year. Other scheduled sessions on the UDO have been cancelled
After the last of the four amendments are considered on Wednesday, the council will consider the UDO, as amended, for final adoption. That comes after consideration of 72 proposed changes to the document that the city’s plan commission had recommended in late September on a 9–0 vote.
Two of the last four amendments are purely technical, meant to revise wording to be consistent with changes that were made in previous amendments.
One of the last four amendments is a revised version of something that councilmember Steve Volan had proposed previously, and then withdrawn. Am 45-R, as presented on Dec. 3, would have reduced parking allowances for several possible land uses. That’s in addition to changing the wording from maximum “requirement” to “allowance,” or in some cases “limit.”
The wording change, to give an accurate portrayal of the impact of the ordinance, got a favorable reception from Volan’s colleagues, when he presented it a week and a half ago. But the reduction in the number of parking spaces allowed didn’t get a positive reception. So for the revised amendment, Volan stripped out the reductions in numbers, and left intact the change in terminology.
The final new amendment to be considered is one that would allow flat roofs in residential zoning districts, as long as the building is big enough. That’s defined as “larger than 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.”
The strict pitched-roof requirement was, according to the amendment notes meant to prevent mobile homes in a residential district. Mobile homes have their own assigned zoning district, which is called RMH.
- Am 70 (CM Piedmont-Smith & staff) – Affects 20.04.020 & Table 4-2 – Adjusts Table 4-2 to incorporate changes made by Amendments 60 and 61.
- Am 71 (CM Rollo & staff) – Affects 20.04.020(e) & Table 4-6 – Updates Table 4-6 to use defined terms rather than language originally proposed in Amendment 63.
- Am 45-R (CM Volan) – Affects 20.04.060(e) & (h) – Replaces the term “requirement” with the terms “allowance” or “limit” and converts many of the maximum allowances to a standard measurement of “[number of spaces] per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA.”
- Am 72 (CM Piedmont) Allows flat roofs in residential zoning districts for primary structures which have a minimum size