Ordinance No. 27-10

Radical Changes in Development

Ordinance No. 27-10 proposes a number of a number of radical changes in West Lafay-

ette development rules for central business districts and multiple unit residences. The rules in

the ordinance changes represent a dramatic departure from both the current ordinance require-

ments and the typical guidelines applied to planned developments in the past. Many of these

changes appear to be somewhat technical, but have critical real world consequences.

History of Multi-Unit Student Housing

As students began making the move out of traditional university based housing (dorms,

organized group housing units, married student courts) in large numbers, the conversion of

housing in older neighborhoods to rentals created various concerns and problems. The existence

of multi-unit zones in the south end of the city and in various “spot zones” in other locations

created issues between existing single-family neighborhoods and the newer rental housing.

Problems included: (1) 3

1/2 story structures (with

35 foot overall height)

towering over existing

housing, (2) insufficient

parking, and (3) exces-

sive density. The solution

to the problems was the

R3W zone and a new for-

mula for parking require-

ments. The R3W zone

included an important re-

striction on height. That

restriction was that the

uppermost floor could not be at a greater elevation that 14 feet. The previous restriction was a

35 foot overall height. The change limited the structure design to 2 1/2 stories with a conven-

tional roofline. The 35 foot overall limit had allowed 3 1/2 story buildings with low slope roof-

lines. These buildings towered over neighboring single-family dwellings. They were simply

“out of scale” for the neighborhoods. The parking requirements were changed from 2 per unit to

a schedule that depended on the size of the unit: 825 sq. ft. and over—3; 650 - 824 sq. ft.—

2.25; 470 - 649 sq. ft.—1.6; under 470 sq. ft.—1.1; efficiency—1. The combination of these

two important development standards restricted the overall density. At this time, an R4W zone

was established to allow higher density (although with the revised increased parking).

History of CBW Development

West Lafayette adopted the CBW zone to enable more “urban” redevelopment that fit

the specific circumstances of the university community. These rules related to patterns of use in

the university community, which included a mix of pedestrian and vehicle based users. The mix

typically varied based on how far the location was from the actual campus. In addition, CBW

properties typically were mixed use, with commercial on the first floor and multi-unit residen-

tial above. Another part of the history was the fact that most off-campus students bring a car to

campus (needing a parking space). In addition to developments under the CBW rules, numerous

mixed use developments in the Village and Levee areas occurred under specific planned devel-

opments. However, planned developments shared several characteristics and guidelines. These

included:

1. A restriction on the number of occupants in residential dwelling units;

2. A requirement of one parking space per each residential occupant;

3. Requirements for commercial parking, based on the type of use and distance from campus

(based on an estimate of pedestrian/vehicle users);

4. Specific landscape and amenity requirements; and

5. A list of permissible uses (that was consistent with the location and prescribed parking).

In addition, planned developments included the requirement of a specific architectural design,

including building materials. This has resulted in project with good architectural design and

quality materials and

finishes. Examples in-

clude the following.

State Street Towers

Chauncey Square

State Street Commons

Wabash Landing

River Market

Parking Wars

The proposed change would result in two dramatic parking changes: (1) residential

parking would be decreased from one per occupant (the planned development guideline) to one

per bedroom, and (2) commercial parking requirements would be dramatically reduced or elimi-

nated. These changes will be in direct conflict with the reality that residents and many commer-

cial customers have cars. If they can’t park where they live and shop, they will “poach” parking

wherever they can.

Throughout all of West

Lafayette near the campus,

apartments sport signs restrict-

ing parking to “tenants only.” If

higher density apartment devel-

opment is allowed with reduced

parking requirements, the battle

for parking spaces will inten-

sify. If only one person occu-

pies each bedroom, the result

would be similar to now. How-

ever, many landlords will likely yield to the temptation to increase their profits by designing

buildings to reduce the parking requirements (and acreage needed per student paying rent).

The math is simple. A two bedroom apartment with two occupants would require two

parking spaces (as a Village area PD). Under the new proposal, a landlord could design one

bedroom apartments for occupancy by two tenants with only one parking space. This would re-

duce the parking requirements for a building with 60 occupants from 60 spaces to 30 spaces. Of

course, most of the other 30 tenants will still

have cars. Where will they be parked? Perhaps

in adjoining neighborhoods on illegal gravel

lots and in the yards. Perhaps on the streets of

distant neighborhoods without timed parking

restrictions. History teaches that over 90% of

off-campus occupants will have cars and they

have to go somewhere. If developers are

permitted to design new projects without

space for these cars, they will go some-

where and that somewhere will be a prob-

lem for other property owners and

neighbors, but enriching the developer

who pushes the problem off onto others

under this proposal.

The commercial parking changes

for the

Village would reduce parking for all commercial uses to zero.

While many uses do attract significant pedestrian users, the re-

ality, clear to anyone who observes the Village today (and over

the past decades), is that many users, including students who

live not only all over West Lafayette, but in Lafayette and out

US 52 West, can only access the Village businesses by car. The

result today has been rabid signs warning against parking in the

wrong lot and dueling tow trucks to enforce the “turf” of each

developer. Both the signs and tow trucks are common through-

out virtually all commercial developments in the Village,

Levee and elsewhere in the campus-adjacent area. The restric-

tions are enforced day and night by fleets of tow trucks. Addi-

tional development coupled with reduced parking will

likely make West Lafayette the setting of a new cable tele-

vision reality show: Tow Wars.

The parking changes in the ordinance would also

reduce parking requirements in the Levee area. Bar/

restaurants there are now subject to the one space per 100

square feet of business premise requirement. The ordinance

would change that to one space per 250 square feet of busi-

ness premise. Bruno’s and Nine Irish Brothers are excellent

examples of the foolishness of this proposal. Both Bruno’s

and Nine Irish Brothers have added additional parking be-

yond what was originally required, in order to meet actual

customer demand. In addition, they both violate the zoning/

greenspace ordinances by parking on the grass/landscaping. They both sport signs with dire

warnings against non-customers using their parking lots.

Another longstanding parking conflict in the Levee has been between the Levee Plaza

owner and the theater, over parking. Both Levee Plaza and the theater have the required park-

ing. How much worse would the conflict be when parking requirements are reduced for both

commercial uses and future multi-unit residential in the area? The proposed change defies com-

mon sense.

Quality Development Versus Cheap Development

This proposal would cede all control over the quality of mixed use development in the

Village (and Levee, too, for that matter). Currently, developers can request planned develop-

ment status in order to increase the height of a building and to reduce parking if the developer

can demonstrate a sufficient mix of pedestrian users. In exchange, the community can demand

quality design and architecture, often improved tree plantings, and be assured of the total resi-

dential density and mix of permitted business uses. The city council (representing all of the

city’s voters) is the body responsible for approving such planned development rezonings.

It is an open secret that the owners of Chauncey Hill (the 70’s-style strip center) plan to

replace it with a 10 story high rise. If this project was one that the community would be proud

of, they would have already proposed it as a planned development. Or at least, they would bring

it forward as a poster child for this zoning change. No, the details are under wraps. Draw your

own conclusion about whether this redevelopment would make the community proud. Do we

want to buy this “pig in a poke?”

The Towering Infernal

The proposal would place towering 3 1/2 story apartment buildings within and adjacent

to older neighborhoods. This will completely undo all the planning work that culminated in the

R3W zoning that provided for an intermediate lower density multi-unit zone (with the R4W

zone for higher density development).

Will the residents of the Schilling Addition welcome this next door (in place of the cur-

rent two story garden apartments)?

The change from the 14 foot top

floor height to 35 foot overall

height will enrich some devel-

opers, but impoverish our older

neighborhoods insofar as quality

of life. We will also see more

yard parking as adjoining prop-

erties bear the burden of accom-

modating cars that new rules do

not require new developments to provide. What about 65 foot tall buildings near Stadium and

Northwestern towering over the older neighborhood on Dodge and Evergreen Streets?

Reference the zoning map at the end to see where the conflicts will occur.

An Inapt Comparison

The rationale advanced for the CBW zoning change is that restrictions should be similar

to downtown Lafayette. There are two significant flaws in this comparison. Downtown Lafay-

ette has two large public parking garages—the county garage between 2nd and 3rd and the city

garage between 4th and 5th. In addition, there are private parking garages with the Chase Build-

ing and Renaissance Place. Perhaps the bigger problem with the comparison is the difference in

uses.

In addition to some restaurants and bars, much of downtown Lafayette consists of office

uses, as well as various retail, including burgeoning arts and crafts shops. These uses are low

intensity in terms of the number of employees and customers on the premises at one time. The

commercial uses in the West Lafayette Village are a mix that is much heavier on fast food and

bars. These uses are much more intense in terms of the number of employees and customers per

square foot. Think fast food versus and art gallery. Harry’s versus an antique shop. The parking

needs (even with a significant pedestrian customer base) are simply much higher for these more

intense uses.

The ongoing turf wars over parking spaces and the ordeal by towing prove that vehicu-

lar customers and parking are an important part of the mix in the West Lafayette Village and

Levee. For the proposed change to pretend otherwise is to ignore both history and what we can

see with our own eyes. Will the taxpayers be called on to provide the parking garages later at a

cost of millions of dollars? That is a policy question that should be considered honestly and up

front, not by passing a zoning change to externalize the parking costs of new developments and

force them to be addressed afterward.

A Worthy Goal, but a Dubious Roadmap

The goal of increasing density in the Village and Levee is a worthy one. It is a more ef-

ficient use of the land. By reducing commuting to campus, it can reduce vehicular/pedestrian

conflicts and accidents. However, this zoning change to encourage increased density ignores the

reality that most students bring cars and many customers come by car. The result will be devel-

opers getting rich and nearby neighborhoods and taxpayers paying the bill for the problems it

will create. The existing planned development process and its guidelines provided a responsible

route to higher density development under the control of our council representatives without

externalizing the problems and costs onto others.