Champaign — The Champaign City Council on June 24 directed city staff to prepare a zoning text amendment that would allow “missing middle” housing in all residential zoning districts and to remove citywide minimum parking requirements, after a study-session presentation by city planners.

Senior Planner Eric Van Buskirk and Zoning Administrator Kat Trotter presented the package, which staff said would permit small-scale multiunit housing types — duplexes, fourplexes, sixplexes, cottage courts and similar buildings with two to eight units — in more neighborhoods and would eliminate minimum on-site vehicle parking requirements for new development. Van Buskirk said the proposals are intended to be “gradual and small scale and widely distributed across the community.”

The council gave council-direction votes during the study session: members picked a sliding-scale floor-area-ratio (FAR) approach over a strict “build-in-the-box” model; asked staff to work with building safety and fire to explore limited local building-code changes for small multifamily buildings (including evaluating use of the International Residential Code and single-stair configurations for very small buildings); asked staff to create an administrative planned-development review process for cottage courts; directed staff to study faith-based properties as possible sites for missing-middle housing; and directed staff to prepare a draft text amendment for plan commission and council consideration that would incorporate those choices.

Why it matters

Staff estimated that about 83% of the city’s properties currently zoned single-family (more than 11,000 parcels) would be eligible to build at least a duplex under the proposed location criteria; staff said the proposal emphasizes walkable, transit- and amenity-connected areas and sets design limits to keep new buildings house-scale. The package is intended to expand housing choice and help produce smaller, potentially more attainable units without wholesale neighborhood upzoning.

Key elements of the proposal

- Missing middle citywide: Staff proposed allowing small multiunit buildings (two to eight units) in all residential zoning districts where parcels meet location criteria tied to proximity to downtown, neighborhood commercial centers, parks, schools and frequent transit service. Design limits proposed include a 2.5-story maximum in most neighborhood contexts, unit counts capped at eight, and building footprints generally targeted in the 2,800–3,500 square-foot range so new buildings maintain a house scale.

- Sliding-scale FAR vs. build-in-the-box: Staff presented two regulatory options for how to translate unit counts to allowable building bulk. Under the sliding-scale FAR approach (favored by staff and chosen by council direction), allowable FAR would increase slightly with the number of units, producing units that are larger and more marketable than under a strict reapplication of single-family FAR limits. The alternative, a “build-in-the-box” approach, would keep the base zoning FAR and setbacks but allow multiple units within that envelope; staff warned that could make some missing-middle projects infeasible on smaller lots or prompt lot assembly in high-demand areas.

- Eliminate parking minimums, add parking design standards: The draft would remove minimum vehicle-parking requirements citywide for residential and commercial projects. Staff said developers would still be free to provide parking; the change would remove a requirement that forced minimum spaces. The proposal would add or retain minimum design standards for parking when provided (dimensions, access, lighting and landscaping), require pedestrian connections through parking areas, and establish minimum bicycle-parking requirements decoupled from vehicle parking.

- Development standards and consolidation: Staff proposed revising outdated 1965-era floor-area and height maximums to clarify bulk limits that align with modern construction while accounting for the removal of parking minimums. The MF3 high-density district would be consolidated with MF2 to reduce sudden large-scale redevelopment adjacent to low-density neighborhoods.

- Building-code changes and administrative review: Staff asked for direction to work with building safety and fire to explore applying the International Residential Code for buildings of eight units or fewer, reduce sprinkler triggers where safe, and permit single-stair buildings under restricted conditions. The council also directed staff to create an administrative plan-review pathway for cottage-court developments and similar small-scale projects that may need limited waivers (shared common open space, lot area adjustments, and parking accessed via alleys).

- Faith-based missing middle: Staff proposed exploring opportunities for places of worship and religious institutions to use underutilized land or parking to build missing-middle housing, often via partnerships with experienced affordable-housing developers.

Private covenants and enforcement

Staff clarified that private covenants and homeowners association rules are enforceable only by the covenant parties and that the city cannot deny a zoning-compliant permit on covenant grounds. As one staff member said, “As long as the permitting process passes all of our zoning rules, we will issue the permit. But if someone believes that it violates one of the covenants, then a person that’s a party to the covenant has to assert that in court.”

Public comment and council reaction

Speakers at the public comment period generally supported the package and urged staff to broaden eligibility near transit and parks, streamline administrative review, and favor the sliding-scale FAR. Jared Fritz, a Champaign resident, said the package “restores the housing types that Champaign was built with” and urged caution against making the location scoring too restrictive. Multiple council members expressed preference for the sliding-scale FAR and asked staff to make administrative paths as simple as possible.

Next steps

Council directed staff to draft a text amendment that incorporates the chosen options and to return it for plan commission and city council consideration; staff will work with building safety and fire on code changes and prepare the administrative review process. A specific schedule for drafts and hearings was not set during the study session.

Vote and formal actions (summary)

At the start of the meeting the council approved routine minutes and consolidated several reappointment resolutions (council bills 2025-118 through 2025-122). Those council bills were adopted by roll call, recorded as passing 9–0. The study-session items were acted on as council directions/polls rather than formal ordinance votes; staff recorded unanimous direction on the listed options during the session and will return with formal text.