[5:23] No, it's fine. [Music]

[5:26] Uh, I will call to order for Typicanw County Executive Committee for October

[5:32] 1st, 2025 public hearing. Uh, first on the agenda is the roll call. Eric

[5:38] Jackson Bogen present.

[5:40] Larry Leins present.

[5:41] Diana Looper present.

[5:43] Myrt Kathy Parker

[5:46] here. Jerry Reynolds

[5:48] present. Gary Schroeder

[5:49] here. Forum present.

[5:52] Next on the agenda is approval of minutes. Jerry

[5:54] move to approve the minutes from September 3rd, 2025 public hearing as

[5:59] submitted. I second it. I

[6:01] have a motion a second to approve the minutes. Any comments or corrections?

[6:06] Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I.

[6:10] Opposed. That motion carries. Next case, cherry.

[6:14] I move to hear and vote on resolution PD25-12.

[6:21] I second it. Okay.

[6:26] Good afternoon. Nathan McNet, APC staff. We've got resolution 25-12 for research

[6:33] village phase 3. um picture of the zoning map. It is adjacent to um

[6:39] research village phase one and two which are not PDS. Um and then we have an O

[6:45] zone property to the south there that's owned by Purdue Research Foundation.

[6:50] Um some close-up pictures of the property.

[6:55] It the project is going to be um all single family homes. Um, it'll be up to,

[7:02] I think, 27 detached products. See, 27 front front loaded single family

[7:10] lots, 14 rear loaded single family lots, and 34 town homes. Um, the town homes

[7:16] will front right there along Round Table Road. Um, this portion of

[7:22] Round Table Road has been constructed. Um, you'll be voting on this uh without

[7:27] the final plat. So, it'll just be the FDPs and the construction plans.

[7:34] And there you go. Thank you, petitioner. The

[7:40] representative Ryan

[7:44] Ryan Mutton with RTS Law here. On behalf of the petitioner, uh we can with

[7:48] staff's report and recommendation and request your approval. Our client is

[7:52] excited to get started. Um have member of Kimley Horn here as well with me to

[7:56] help answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Very good. Thank you,

[7:59] Ryan. Anyone in the audience wish to comment on this petition.

[8:06] Questions or comments from the board?

[8:11] Hearing? None. We have a yellow ballot.

[8:38] We have a unanimous ballot for approval. Very good. Thank you, Ryan. So, now that

[8:44] we enter the public hearing portion of our meeting, I have a statement to read.

[8:49] For those of you unfamiliar with our procedures, the commission would like

[8:52] for you to know the following. When we hear request to subdivide land, we're

[8:57] only concerned with whether the actual drawings join the division into lots

[9:01] meets the technical requirements of our ordinance. The question of

[9:04] appropriateness has already been determined. Anyone wishing to make a

[9:08] comment or provide us with information regarding any subdivision petition will

[9:13] be given an opportunity to do so. We are a seven member body with a majority of

[9:18] seven is four. Regardless of how many commissioners are actually present, at

[9:23] least four votes in favor or four votes against are required for our action to

[9:27] be official. If fewer than four of us agree to either approve or disapprove an

[9:31] action, the case must be heard again next month. Honor, our vote on a request

[9:36] to subdivide is final. When addressing the commission, please state your name

[9:40] and address for the record. And we have a signin sheet over at the desk. If you

[9:45] could sign in after you speak, please limit your statements to no more than 5

[9:49] minutes. And we ask that you not repeat what others before you have already

[9:53] said. Cell phones must be turned off while the meeting is in session. You

[9:57] need to use your phone. Please step out before doing so. All exhibits presented

[10:01] to the commission become property of the commission. Jerry, I move that there be

[10:06] incorporated to the public hearing portion of each application to be heard

[10:10] this evening and become part of the evidence as such hearing. The unified

[10:14] zoning ordinance, the uni unified subdivision ordinance, the comprehensive

[10:19] plan, the bylaws of the area plan commission, the application and

[10:23] documents documents filed therew with staff report and recommendations on the

[10:29] application to be heard this evening and response from the checkpoint agencies. I

[10:34] second it. All those in favor say I. I.

[10:37] Opposed. That motion carries. I move to hear and vote on S5292

[10:42] Hall estates minor subdivision minor sketch.

[10:46] I second it Amanda.

[10:51] Thank you. So you have before you a request for a minor subdivision. Um we

[10:57] are in um Randolph Township. The subject property is 2.4 acres. It is

[11:05] a parent track that's been in existence well before 1979. Our parent track date.

[11:10] You can see here the surrounding zoning is all uh select agricultural AA as

[11:16] well.

[11:20] The proposal is for two lots um one one acre and one just over one acre

[11:29] um done through the minor subdivision process. Um we are recommending

[11:35] conditional primary approval contingent on the conditions that are found in your

[11:39] staff report. Happy to answer any other questions.

[11:42] Very good. Thank you, Amanda. Petitioner, the representative, please.

[11:49] Star Associates. Uh Todd Star, 215 Alabama Street. Um we agree with the

[11:55] staff report and uh here to answer any questions you might have.

[11:59] Very good. Thank you, Todd. We may have some. Any comments or questions from the

[12:03] commission?

[12:09] Anyone? Did I ask anyone in the audience wish to comment? Okay. Questions from

[12:13] the staff hearing? None. We have a white pallet for that. And I don't believe

[12:18] there's bonding requested.

[12:51] We have unanimous ballot for approval. Very good. Thank you, Ryan. Approval of

[12:56] the October APC public hearing agenda. Move to place amendment number 123 on

[13:03] October 15th, 2025. area public hearing. I second it.

[13:09] All those in favor say I. I.

[13:11] Oppos. That motion carries. I move the following subdivision

[13:15] petition be placed on the October 15, 2025 area plan commission hearing agenda

[13:21] at petitioner's request. Placement thereon being without reference to

[13:25] compliance or non-compliance adopted subject.

[13:30] I second it. Wait a second. I got S.

[13:36] 5300 Thompson Thrift and Milbrook Major Pre

[13:41] Preliminary. Okay. All those in favor say I.

[13:45] I. Opposed? That motion carries. Cherry. I

[13:48] move the following reszone condition be placed on October 15, 2025 area plan

[13:53] commission hearing agenda. Z 30004 Diana B Garcia R2 to NB Z30005

[14:04] Sterling 27 LLC A to R1B. I second it.

[14:10] All in favor say I. I. Opposed. That motion carries. I move

[14:15] the following petition be placed on October 22nd area board of zoning

[14:19] appeals public hearing BZA 2212 William P and Gail Gettings

[14:27] and BZA 2213 BC LLC.

[14:33] I second it. All in favor say I.

[14:36] I opposed. That motion carries. I move the following results from var

[14:42] variance from the unified zoning ordinance are not request for the use of

[14:47] variance prohibited consideration ordinance and statute.

[15:00] We're good.

[15:04] That's two number 2025-23 Typican New County Land Holdings, Inc.

[15:11] 2225-27 Janet Yokum 2025-28

[15:18] Central Avenue Revocable Living Trust and 2025-29

[15:23] Myers Store Limited Partnership. I second it. All

[15:27] in favor say I. I. Opposed. The motion carries.

[15:33] Budget report. Jerry, I move to approve September 2025 budget

[15:37] report as submitted. I second it.

[15:41] Ryan.

[15:44] Any questions for Ryan on the budget report?

[15:48] Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I.

[15:52] Opposed. That motion carries. Any other business?

[15:58] Last motion, Jerry. I move to adjourn. So, we're turned, but

[16:02] we're going to start the ordinance committee here real shortly.

[16:09] Like, we have a crowd. So, let's go ahead and get started.

[16:13] And I will call to order the area plan commission of Tikun County Ordinance and

[16:18] bylaw Committee for October the 1st, 2025.

[16:22] And we do not have a roll call, but we do have a quorum present. So the first

[16:27] motion would be for the approval of minutes for September 3rd, 2025.

[16:36] Okay, we have a sec. We have a motion, a second. Comments or corrections?

[16:43] Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I.

[16:46] Opposed? That motion carries. Large data center amendment.

[16:56] So, large data centers are on the agenda tonight because um it was brought up

[17:01] briefly at last month's meeting um to to start considering this because they've

[17:07] been in the news a lot lately and before we have a chance to really dig into what

[17:13] these mean for our community, if they're good, if they're bad, just any kind of

[17:18] research, um APC staff thought that it would be best to get something in in the

[17:23] books in case these large data centers are looking around for a place in

[17:28] Typicanw County. We have something that can protect us until we have a more

[17:33] thorough understanding of what they mean for the community and if they're okay

[17:36] here, what kind of restrictions might need to be placed on them, if any. We

[17:41] don't know. The point of this is just to put a bit of a pause on allowing them.

[17:46] Um so we found the best location for them in our ordinance which would be

[17:53] under a current SIC code um 737 computer programming data

[17:59] processing and other computer related services.

[18:02] We created an a definition to address uh what we're talking about with large data

[18:10] center also known as a server farm. is a large group of computer servers

[18:16] typically used by organizations or companies for the remote storage,

[18:19] processing or distribution of large amounts of data. A large data center

[18:23] building or grouping of buildings is 5,000 square ft in area or larger. So

[18:28] that would not count any existing such facilities that we already have in the

[18:34] county. We're talking about things that are much much larger in nature. So, um

[18:40] the proposed ordinance would allow them in I2 zoning districts by special

[18:46] exception only and it would also make them um conform to the section 4-10, the

[18:54] industrial performance standards from the UCO. So again, this was meant as

[18:58] kind of a quick fix until we have a little bit more time to review these

[19:03] data centers to see what the ordinance should reflect for that. um if we are

[19:10] wanting to discuss this at any length, we can definitely do that, but we just

[19:14] wanted to uh see if this could get through a little bit more quickly to

[19:18] allow us a little bit more time. I know the main event here tonight is the

[19:22] downtown plan for West Lafayette. So happy to answer any questions, but

[19:27] again, we really want to get to the West Lafayette downtown plan so we can u

[19:31] maybe talk about this a little bit further out of the full APC meeting,

[19:34] which it has already been um published to go to APC this month as well.

[19:43] Very good. Anyone from the audience wish to comment on this?

[19:51] Zachary Vale 124 Connelly Street. Um, I just wanted to get on the record with

[19:56] this as well. Uh, as far as being considered the data centers, they they

[20:01] can be quite uh gigantic, 100, 200, 300,000 plus square feet. I would

[20:06] encourage it. It doesn't seem like this would stop it. It would still come under

[20:09] a special exception in the I2 area. I didn't know if there's anything that

[20:12] could be done to actually place a cap on the size of any data center that could

[20:16] be developed inside there. So, I would encourage this ordinance committee and

[20:20] the APC staff to consider putting a cap on those developments as well. Thank

[20:23] you. Very good, good point. Anyone else

[20:25] wishing to speak to this from the audience?

[20:35] Good evening. Uh Joe Sowski, 938 Cheps Lane. Uh great to see you all again. Um

[20:40] I'm uh just up here again as a concerned citizen. Um I think in the preamble

[20:45] before this which was in the packet um staff even noted that there's a lot of

[20:49] negative externalities associated with these data centers noise high

[20:53] electricity uses water usage um and I noticed on you know this initial

[20:58] ordinance um development it's very minimum and there's not a lot of

[21:03] buildout like you see for solar energy systems or for the wind energy systems

[21:07] that we had before. Um, also there's some issues too because SIC 737 doesn't

[21:13] fall under the 410 categories which are only I believe 20 to 39. So, you know, I

[21:19] think there's going to be some missteps if you go with this barebones um

[21:23] ordinance as is. Now, there are many counties that have ordinances Indiana on

[21:28] the books um that have a much more lengthy, much more detailed look at

[21:33] those negative externalities such as size, noise, electricity, etc. So I

[21:38] would strongly encourage um the staff to kind of build this out a bit further

[21:42] beyond just section two and actually have a section a subsection much like

[21:47] where other largecale industrial uses where it lays out these criteria. Thank

[21:52] you. Good. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to

[21:56] comment

[21:59] questions or comments from the commission?

[22:07] I'll I I'll start off. So, and then you guys fill in. But, and I looked at the

[22:12] email, you evidently did not receive an email that Jody Hamilton sent out that

[22:19] called that referenced the

[22:26] data center that Wine has and has had for decades, I suppose, out on 350. Uh,

[22:33] and I wouldn't call that a large one, but she points out that that's 7200

[22:36] square ft, which is not very large. That was I mean, when they planted that and

[22:41] it's in an I3 zone, so it would make that nonconforming.

[22:46] Um, and I think as Zach said, a lot of those that we're may be concerned about

[22:52] 100,000, 300,000, 500,000 opposed to a small data center that

[22:59] someone um might just use in their business like

[23:04] Windche has, which has been around for a long time, used to be in town and moved

[23:09] out and built a data center. So, seems like for me anyway, it would take a

[23:14] little more consideration, maybe some input from those that have an existing

[23:18] data center. Any other comments from

[23:25] Yeah, the other thing I'd like to highlight from from the email as well is

[23:28] that uh it spoke about the building size, not the size of the actual data

[23:35] storage or data center. Um, but in in my limited amount of time of researching

[23:41] large scale data centers, uh, one of the things that it always talks about is

[23:45] scalability. And I I would doubt that anyone's coming in can't predict to

[23:50] build a 5,000 square foot data center to scale it to 300,000 square ft. Uh, and

[23:56] so I I I feel like we're a little shy and potentially hurting some right now

[24:01] that we wouldn't want to hurt. And so a couple tweaks might be made to

[24:05] assist those. So, are we thinking of raising that limit from 5,000 to 8 or 9

[24:11] or 10,000 square ft? Is that what I'm hearing?

[24:15] If your comment previously was, we just want to put this on the book. So, we got

[24:19] something, but we're going to come back in short time and talk about it.

[24:23] Absolutely. And we have some input from communities

[24:25] and maybe from people that have data centers.

[24:28] Yeah. Oh, sure.

[24:31] I was the zone that we picked because we don't have a whole lot of I2 here in the

[24:36] county. So, it would force a reszone action on top of the special exceptions.

[24:41] So, if there were concerns about data centers coming in under this, if this

[24:47] gets passed, um it would have like most likely have to undergo two separate

[24:53] public hearing processes.

[24:59] I totally appreciate what we're trying to accomplish with this, but

[25:06] um I think more we need more information to make the right decision and and how

[25:13] we're going to because as in which Ryan, it went to

[25:17] you, but you guys were probably already up here just so you know. Um the email

[25:21] from Jody, they're in I3 zone which is also going to cause an issue. So, um I

[25:28] just think for us to make a good decision, we need a lot more information

[25:34] and to be brought forth.

[25:42] Is there a way to put it on and sunset it so that

[25:47] it gives us a timeline to uh come up with a more comprehensive

[25:53] review?

[25:56] I mean this is kind of what the commissioners did with the mortorium on

[25:59] solar to give time right so we're trying to go about this

[26:04] by a different mode so that's kind of the question before you is do you agree

[26:09] with putting something in here to buy time or not?

[26:16] So, we either put something in here to try to buy time by some mode, either

[26:23] some sort of, you know, legislative body action or some sort of

[26:28] legislative action like this to try to uh

[26:34] I guess put some constraints so that we can have time to study it further and

[26:38] see what's most appropriate. Uh or we kind of leave it the way it is. hope for

[26:43] the best that Amazon, Meta, the rest of them don't show up with their mega

[26:47] centers. But to Jackson's question, can we put

[26:51] can we sunset that? And maybe that's a question to Eric, so we can sunset that.

[26:55] So we could approve this, tweak it, prove it, maybe give it one year

[26:58] and so that it holds holds our feet to the fire so that we

[27:01] right, we don't drop the ball. Yeah,

[27:04] that was I I'm all in favor. I like I like where this going. I just want to

[27:08] make sure Okay, that's what I want to make sure.

[27:10] Yeah. Okay. Do you agree with some sort of action to

[27:14] Yeah. allow for a pause? Yeah, that was the

[27:16] first thing that we kind of need to get out of the way is like, do you agree on

[27:19] pausing this or Yeah. Okay, cool. So, the sunset provisions perfectly

[27:24] allowed in the UIO. All right. I've not seen one in my time here, so I

[27:29] wasn't sure about the legalities of that. Okay.

[27:32] I don't think it's used very often um for a lot of reasons, but it's certainly

[27:36] legal to do it. Okay, good to know. put that tool in the

[27:40] box. Yeah. But but it see also seems like we

[27:43] as you know the ordinance committee doesn't like to make people

[27:45] non-conforming to build something and you know it may be that we change that

[27:50] to 10,000 I2 I3 zone since we're going to come back and revisit it and that

[27:55] knocks out all the big data centers anyway. Well, that's why when I spotted

[27:59] Jod's email, I I just glanced at it briefly because it came really late and

[28:04] I didn't know she was in the business. And so I'm like, well, perhaps she knows

[28:08] like what are the biggest ones around. All right. Well, of the local ones that

[28:13] are around, if they're the biggest, maybe that's that's our ceiling, you

[28:17] know, because that that's not Meta or Amazon or Google, you know, that these

[28:21] are the Wintex, these are the smaller ones, you know. Um, so,

[28:25] right. So yeah, maybe we come back, you know,

[28:28] and adjust that number to so that there are no nonconformities

[28:34] um out right out of the gate proposing we we do it today. I don't

[28:38] know what the rest of the board thinks, but

[28:40] we certainly can do it at the APC meeting as well.

[28:43] Oh, I see that uh because it's on the agenda. So we can go

[28:46] into that meeting make all sorts of amendments at the

[28:49] hearing, but we cannot amend that here is what

[28:52] you're saying. Oh, you can't make a re

[28:54] Oh, yeah. Yeah. recommendation. Okay.

[28:57] Okay. So, we'd send it forward with our tweaks if if it the

[29:02] certainly commission sees that to be correct.

[29:08] Ryan, can I ask you one more question? What are your thoughts on square footage

[29:11] of an occupied building? I could see an old warehouse and uh somebody taking up

[29:17] 10,000 square feet of 100,000 square foot warehouse for their own, we'll just

[29:21] say windche, right? for their own usage of a data center, not the large scale

[29:26] data center like we're talking about. And what we have right now is 10 thou

[29:29] 5,000 square foot building. Well, they would be inside a building. Let's say it

[29:35] was 6,000 square feet. So, it doesn't Yeah.

[29:39] Is there a way to word it that it and and Jody brought up a good example

[29:43] back to enforcability has one inside of one of their buildings. Their building

[29:47] is much larger than 5,000 ft or even 10,000 square feet. And

[29:51] I think the question also came up among staff. Are we talking about total

[29:56] building square footage or just ground floor area? Ground floor.

[30:00] Good point. Square footage.

[30:02] I don't know if their 7200 is their entire building or if it's just the

[30:07] footprint. Single story.

[30:09] Single story. But we could we could um clarify that in

[30:14] the definition that we're talking about ground floor area only.

[30:22] Did you have an did you have a response to his question on the

[30:25] Sorry, I was thinking about the ground floor, so I didn't hear your question.

[30:29] So, my my concern Did one of us answer your question?

[30:32] What's that? Did one of us answer your question,

[30:34] Jackson? No.

[30:34] Oh, okay. Um, so my my concern is if we have

[30:38] somebody that goes in for their own purpose, we'll use Windche as the

[30:42] example, and they're going to occupy 6,000 square feet of an existing

[30:46] building that is 100,000 square feet. The way this is worded now is that's

[30:51] greater than 10,000. If we change it to 10,000, that's greater than 10,000

[30:56] square feet, but they're only the center that we're referring to is only six.

[31:01] Mhm. So, if they're a tenant of a building,

[31:04] not not not the occupied space for the data center, maybe.

[31:08] Right. Well, I guess if

[31:11] if they uh if they're limited to that square footage that they're leasing,

[31:18] like say like you're are you saying in that scenario they're leasing 6,000 of

[31:22] the 100,000? Got it.

[31:24] Okay. And this says a grouping of buildings

[31:28] 5,000 5,000 square feet in area or larger.

[31:34] Okay, I see what you're saying. Well,

[31:39] it I know it we're all about addressing the impacts of these facilities, you

[31:44] know, which has to do with the, you know, from what I've learned so far, you

[31:48] know, the water that they take, the um the emissions that they exude, both

[31:58] sound and uh uh vapors. Um and so, you know, if those how those are calculated

[32:08] from the square footage of the space, you know, versus the empty space they've

[32:14] not, you know, they're air conditioning in a space, you know, in the building,

[32:20] you know, if that is a a contained environment that can be calculated and

[32:26] determined, then then it's enforcable, you know, and then if they have an

[32:29] option to lease more space, well, then we could they would necessarily if it's

[32:33] a special exception have to come back expand and that and then we we have

[32:38] controls over its expansion at that point. So, you know, that logic, yeah, I

[32:43] could see that making sense, having allowances for someone who is coming

[32:48] into an existing facility only leasing part of it.

[32:51] Correct. You know, I just I would just want

[32:52] enforcement controls to have some ability to, you know,

[32:57] Yeah. So, yeah,

[33:02] account for those sorts of situations.

[33:07] Okay.

[33:12] So, what what do we feel like we want to do? Do we want to make some tweaks, pass

[33:17] it? Do we want another month, leave it as it is?

[33:26] Vicki, did Jod's email provide like a ceiling? Did she reference a facility

[33:30] that was bigger? because perhaps we could adjust that number to accommodate

[33:34] that facility and maybe inflate the number a bit to

[33:39] give us some buffer. It says she lists two buildings, one's

[33:43] on Purdue,

[33:46] right? Just says that they're over the

[33:49] right trustee own property is off the books. So if it's Purdue property, it's

[33:56] not regulated. I just again I just I wish Jody was here

[34:02] because I feel like she's the viewer that could have added a lot more

[34:05] commentary and

[34:10] Oh yeah, I'm sorry Vicki, your mic's not on.

[34:12] I'm sorry. Yeah. Um anyway, and without her here, I

[34:16] just feel like again, I do appreciate where we're going with this, but I feel

[34:20] like

[34:24] either extended a month or we pass it with the sunset close so that we

[34:30] keep working on it behind the scenes. I don't think it's refined

[34:36] or explored. Jackson uh like Vickiy's points much uh I would

[34:43] make recommendations to change it to 10,000 square feet uh change it to I2

[34:48] and I3 with a sunset clause of one year that goes that should based off what

[34:54] we've heard that makes sure should something happen to we don't hurt that

[34:58] operation and all the operations that they serve and gives us a time uh limits

[35:03] the size of something that somebody can build. I don't think they're coming

[35:05] that's not what I think we're concerned about. Right.

[35:07] Correct. Um and then it also puts pressure on us

[35:11] to have something done within a year. I can live with that. Is that a motion?

[35:15] I'll make that a motion. Okay. And then we just need a second for

[35:18] that. I'll second.

[35:19] Have a motion and second, if I understand that right, to change it to

[35:23] 10,000 ft, I2 and I3 zone, and a sunset clause of one year.

[35:29] And we have a motion, a second on that. And is there more discussion on that?

[35:33] I just had a question on clarification. 10,000 ft is the building or 10,000 ft

[35:38] is the usage. Back to the enforcability question usage

[35:44] more difficult thing to enforce because I'm worried about the existing

[35:47] what we have in place now and Purdue's exempt. Uh so I'll say building for now

[35:52] and that's something we can explore. Thank you. prior to the one-year sunset

[35:58] comments from the Ber line commission. I saw someone in the

[36:05] someone in the audience maybe wanted to speak.

[36:08] Cleger, I thought there was somebody behind you maybe, but Okay.

[36:15] Yeah. Steve Clevenger, 411 Black Forest Lane. I do have a question. If lint is

[36:21] 7200 square ft and you're raising it to

[36:24] 10,000, why do you need to include I3? Because they are they are I3.

[36:30] They are I3 but they would be under the 10,000 which means that this would not

[36:35] apply to them. That that way you still have that

[36:40] reszone with the legislative body until you get something else in place.

[36:44] I'd like to amend. Thank you.

[36:47] Thank you. Good points, Steve. Uh, I'd like to mend mine uh to remove

[36:54] the I3 and keep it at I2, please. Would you like me to restate everything?

[36:59] Okay. Who second? Well, we're waiting on that.

[37:02] Well, I was just wondering. Second that again, if you would pick

[37:07] with your microphone on if you agree with

[37:09] I Well, I want a point of clarific

[37:15] from this in general the definition. Yeah, because it doesn't apply to

[37:19] Windche since they're under Okay.

[37:22] Wintech. All right. Second. Okay. We have a motion second to amend

[37:26] his motion to remove the I3 zoning. Comments, other discussion.

[37:34] Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. I.

[37:37] Opposed. That motion carries. So now we're amended to just uh

[37:43] 10,000 square feet 10,000 ft one year sunset clause.

[37:48] Okay. Well, that's now on the floor. Any other discussion on that?

[37:51] And that will go to full APC on the 15th.

[37:55] Yeah. Right. So, yep.

[37:57] Okay. Correct.

[38:02] No other discussion. All those in favor say I.

[38:05] I. I. Post. Okay. So

[38:09] that's going forward. We just need a motion that Steve can

[38:12] never retire.

[38:16] Just

[38:24] Okay. Next on the agenda is West Lafayette downtown plan second amendment

[38:29] draft. Okay. I'm going to provide a brief

[38:32] introduction to this. So, uh, uh, Larry Leins has asked that the ordinance

[38:38] committee be, uh, used to provide a forum for public, uh, input for this

[38:44] effort. This is sort of the opening of public, uh, discussion on this proposed

[38:50] amendment. So, this is I want to make that clear. This is by no means any sort

[38:54] of definitive. This is the closing of a process. This is actually the opening of

[38:59] it. So, um, as, uh, he had mentioned at the beginning of, uh, last month, uh, at

[39:06] city council, uh, we kicked off sort of a, uh, public comment period, um, for

[39:13] amending the, uh, West Lafia downtown plan that was originally adopted, uh,

[39:18] about, uh, 5 years ago. Um, and the amendment is to essentially make some

[39:25] adjustments and mostly to create an expansion area. And let's go ahead and

[39:30] roll to that slide. It's probably like maybe the third or fourth one in come to

[39:36] the first purple map. That's probably the best one to land on there. Um,

[39:42] you can. Yeah. Next one. All right. So, the purple map is what

[39:47] was the study area from 2020. And there were uh all sorts of policy

[39:53] prescriptions and a future land use map that were included in that. Um the city

[39:58] staff uh was interested in creating an expansion area in yellow where the

[40:04] yellow area is and they um referred to uh most of it as sort of the Oakwood uh

[40:11] neighborhood. and uh they gave me a map to kind of go

[40:16] by and so we kind of created this expansion area and so we necessarily had

[40:21] to go in and put in new land use categories to to fill these spaces. And

[40:27] um while doing that there was also interest in sort of making some

[40:32] adjustments to what we had done in 2020 um and also to update the street grid or

[40:41] the levy because well it's under construction. And in 2020 there were a

[40:46] bunch of concepts and ideas for the street grid that didn't necessarily all

[40:51] communicate with each other that we kind of threw out option A, option B. Uh well

[40:56] now there's a preferred option. The city went out and hired an engineer uh

[41:00] engineering firm to uh kind of complete that concept and so now there's an

[41:06] established plan for that and that's reflected in the amendment. So that

[41:10] obviously necessitated an update uh as well. So uh that was the genesis behind

[41:17] what prompted this. City council did pass a resolution authorizing APC to uh

[41:23] begin this process. uh city staff didn't feel at the time it was necessary to

[41:28] kind of go back and redo everything again with a new steering committee and

[41:32] all the rest. We said, "Well, let's make these adjustments and then open it up

[41:35] for public discourse." And so that's what we're doing here. So, um, so we're

[41:42] going to take comment tonight, um, until we normally end the meeting, which is at

[41:48] 6 PM. Um, if, uh, we don't get to everybody that wants to speak. Um, I'm

[41:53] happy to hold another meeting, whether it's this one or at another venue. Uh,

[41:59] we can, Larry and I, we can talk about, you know, what might be appropriate for

[42:02] another, uh, venue, but we'll see what we get to here. Um, and of course people

[42:08] are continue to welcome to send me comments via email. I've had personal

[42:11] discussions in my office with folks and I appreciate them. Uh, so I'll get out

[42:16] of the way and uh, let people talk. But first, are there any questions about any

[42:19] of this? I can tell you that there's really no action item for you. This is

[42:24] Am I getting things right, Larry? This is kind of how you wanted it to roll.

[42:27] Okay. Yes.

[42:28] All right. Thank you.

[42:29] Yeah, Gary, I think I understand it. So, the purple

[42:32] area has already been done. Yes. That's from the 2020 plan. 2020

[42:35] with the steering committees and now we're just focused on the yellow area.

[42:39] Correct. Yeah. Yellow area is the expansion area. Correct.

[42:43] That that doesn't have any plan currently.

[42:45] It doesn't have any plan currently. So this this plan u creates uh one for it.

[42:52] Uh but we did make amendments to the uh some of the purple area as well as part

[42:57] of this. So uh that's why you may hear about the purple area.

[43:01] Right. Okay. Gotcha. Thank you for that.

[43:02] Yeah. So this this second amendment's a little thinner than the first one cuz I

[43:06] we basically just show where the changes were uh because uh and we make reference

[43:12] to that there are items from the original plan that are still being

[43:15] carried forward because there were no changes made. So

[43:19] Okay. All right. We'll do our best tonight. Yes.

[43:21] Ryan, uh can you give a little idea what timeline might look like on this?

[43:26] Yes. This is the beginning of the kind of the public comment period. So, um,

[43:31] like I said, we've already heard from a lot of key neighborhood folks, uh,

[43:35] especially in the New Chanty neighborhood, which has been great. A

[43:37] lot of their comments are, you know, very thoughtful, very reasonable, and I

[43:42] think very easy to accommodate in my opinion. So, um, I think from a staff's

[43:49] perspective, and I think I can speak for city staff as well, we we really want

[43:54] this to try to be a consensus effort. And so, um, to the extent that we can,

[43:59] uh, address all of these comments, you know, whether there were errors that

[44:03] people flagged or just, you know, uh, you know, actual changes that that are

[44:08] made, we will try to address all of those, make a general update, and when

[44:11] that update is ready, bring it back as a comp plan amendment to this body and

[44:17] then to the ABC and then to city council. So, um, you know, it really

[44:22] kind of depends on when the public comment period closes. And so if you

[44:26] know presumably if we you know I I I really can't give a time but you know

[44:32] you know probably over the winter you know I would think um so

[44:38] unless there has been a change of direction from city council and they're

[44:41] interested in this coming sooner rather than later but I've not received such

[44:45] direction. So um I'm kind of letting this process move organically at this

[44:49] time. Thank you.

[44:52] Very good. Before we start taking public comment, anybody up here, especially

[44:56] west side, want to make any comments before we

[45:01] uh I'll just I'll just comment that um uh as you see on the map, the the

[45:07] primary emphasis of the uh amendment is the yellow area or adding the yellow

[45:13] area to it as as Ryan said. Uh and and myself, I don't know if Kathy has, but I

[45:20] haven't heard any comments on that part of it. Uh the comments I've heard are

[45:27] really the comments um about the changes in uh building height limits along

[45:35] Fowler on the on the south side of Fowler. Um we have a building already in

[45:44] block one. We already we approved a building for block two. Um so looking at

[45:50] in the new plan looking at blocks 3 4 uh

[45:58] maybe five but 7 8 9 10 somewhere along in there. Uh it's page 53 in the new

[46:04] plan. There you go. Yeah.

[46:10] So this is the future land use plan.

[46:15] And I I concur with that. Most of the comments I had have been from um I would

[46:19] say folks from the New Chanty neighborhood. Uh the bound the official

[46:23] boundary of New Chanty Avenue is is Fowler Avenue there. I'm sorry, Wiggins.

[46:29] Fowler Fowler. And um yeah, there was interest in

[46:34] dropping the building heights along there after the Sullivan project because

[46:39] that was just recently approved heading east,

[46:41] dropping them to four stories. Um and uh I'm fine with that. So

[46:49] I think they'll be, you know, for folks that that that's their main

[46:54] issue, they're certainly welcome to bring it up, but yeah, that's that's

[46:56] fine. Okay.

[47:00] But you can see the new street grid there as well. It's it obviously has

[47:04] some uh some changes have been made to it from the uh from the original, but

[47:10] that's uh this is the one that was the Kimley Horn initiative that the city uh

[47:15] embraced and uh this is the one we're moving forward with and is under

[47:18] construction now.

[47:22] All right. Very good. Thank you, Ryan. Any other comments? Hearing none, we

[47:27] will open that up to public comment if anyone wishes to comment on this plan.

[47:38] Good evening. My name is Don Teter. I live at 21106 South 7th Street and I'm

[47:42] here to uh talk about 250 Sheet Street uh piece of property that we have that

[47:47] uh is I think erroneously identified as historic property. I didn't know this is

[48:03] Um you know on page 11 it talks about historic properties and uh by definition

[48:12] um a property has to be built pre1940 and um go on page 12 of the of the

[48:20] overlay plan. It identifies 250 uh Sheet Street as uh uh contributing in regards

[48:29] to the ratings of historic structures. And um

[48:35] the the uh next page in the in the packet there, and I apologize once again

[48:39] for not having enough of them, but it it identifies 250 Sheet Street as being a

[48:46] historic property. Um well, if you look at the county

[48:50] records, it indicates that it's been it was built in in uh 2000.

[48:55] And other words, it was constructed that property was constructed in 2000. And if

[49:00] you uh look at the uh the next page, which is a picture of the property, and

[49:05] you probably can't see it, but

[49:12] uh

[49:17] by definition, by by your definition, it doesn't meet the the requirements for

[49:22] historic property. So I I would respect respectfully request that you take it

[49:27] off of this plan in regards to historic property. Thank you very much for your

[49:33] time. Very good. Thank you, Todd.

[49:37] Any quick comments from the staff on that or we can just

[49:43] Yeah, I think the city's database needs to be

[49:47] updated. Okay, that's my guess.

[49:49] You don't disagree with that? Okay. No, I don't disagree. We We'll verify and

[49:53] make sure and if it's an error, we'll fix it.

[49:55] Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to comment on

[50:00] post? Yes. Hi, my name is Andrew Lane, 127

[50:04] Westwood Drive. Um I am actually um as I was reading

[50:10] through the report and the changes um unfortunately I'm not going to be

[50:15] speaking on the additional um the piece um to the what southwest um but I want

[50:22] to make mention of the uh the current land use that is going on um

[50:29] specifically between the bridges um and then east of North River Road. Um so if

[50:36] W bash landing you know um uh everything that is involved with um Neon Cactus if

[50:44] you look at that map and you see um I think it's the next one down that it

[50:50] talks about the improvements needed. Um, and yeah, so if you look at all those

[50:55] properties, um, they're all rated in C, repairs needed. Um, and then you also

[51:02] look at them and, um, just generally the majority of that property, which in my

[51:08] opinion, um, riverfront property, um, next to a downtown and in between a

[51:14] downtown and a university, would probably be our most valuable property

[51:18] to have um, and to, um, and to leverage. um for housing because all of that is

[51:25] parking. All all of it, you know, the neon cactus that the levy, all of that

[51:29] is is parking. If you look, we have a great park, Tapoingo, with no houses

[51:35] anywhere near it. Um, and then for me as someone who um I spend a lot of time

[51:41] both downtown Lafayette and uh West Lafayette and campus and you know as a

[51:45] resident of West Lafayette um I like to walk back

[51:50] you know to and from uh the cities and I don't know if you've done it or not.

[51:55] It's a hike like uh you know I'm I'm pretty uh active and I guess a little

[52:01] more willing to uh walk the extra mile quite literally. Um but

[52:08] I think it should be in consideration in the planning of the development um with

[52:13] the area planning commission that there needs to be a reduction in uh commercial

[52:19] property zoning there um and and honestly an increase in residential and

[52:25] if there is any way um that you know the city can uh be involved or the county

[52:31] can be involved to help uh bring more of that to the public use and to the

[52:37] citizens of West Lafayette um to be used 365 days a year and not just you know to

[52:45] be partially used by the students that are in the closest proximity to it. Um,

[52:51] so I think as our one of our most valuable resources in the area, uh, we

[52:56] should definitely, um, capitalize on it and and try to keep the members of our

[53:02] community in the center of our community. And because if uh, any of you

[53:08] are from here or or uh uh, you know, have lived here for very long, uh, I

[53:13] don't know how many times you've gone into the W bash landing, any of those

[53:16] stores. you know, uh there's a couple

[53:20] restaurants that are nice, but you know, any of the the larger stores, they just

[53:23] don't get foot traffic because people don't live there.

[53:27] You know, uh their apartments and their students apartments. So, please um let's

[53:32] push for more housing in our most valuable section. Um and thank you for

[53:36] your time and everything. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else

[53:42] wishing to speak the plan?

[53:50] Zachary Bale, 124 Connelly Street. Um, appreciated hearing some of the

[53:54] conversation at the top. Um, so as as we discussed earlier, um, there

[54:02] was the Sullivan that was approved and apparently we can't even follow the the

[54:06] plan when it exists there because that was a PDMX sixtory when it was

[54:09] previously previously designated as a downtown edge fourstory max. Um, while

[54:15] I'm sure I could speak to other portions of this plan um that are concerning, my

[54:20] comments today are focused on the north central area currently designated as two

[54:24] to four-story downtown edge zones along Fowler, Wiggins, and North Streets,

[54:27] which is uh above the New Chanty neighborhood where I live. Want to make

[54:31] sure that it's on the record that the new Chanty neighborhood had a land use

[54:35] plan since 2013, so 7 years prior to this 2020 downtown plan's approval.

[54:41] And if the Oakwood Village neighborhood is the main thrust of this amendment as

[54:44] stated and it is to the southwest of the originally designated downtown area, why

[54:48] are we updating and densifying the north central portion of the plan? This seems

[54:52] to be another attempt to change the terms of the 2020 plan mid-stream to the

[54:57] benefit of developers and generate potential additional tax revenue. I've

[55:02] yet to hear any convincing argument articulated by city officials elected or

[55:05] appointed why this change is something the community should celebrate and

[55:08] support. What I have heard, as you heard also from uh people here tonight, is

[55:13] opposition from this particular proposal. While it's often been said

[55:18] over the past decades that large-scale student apartment developments will draw

[55:21] students out of the new chanty neighborhood, we have not seen this bear

[55:24] out empirically. New chanty was 60% rentals in 2013. According to the land

[55:28] use plan, I know my nearby streets have fallen to more rentals, transient guest

[55:33] houses, and kitty condos since that time. It's a smaller sample of course,

[55:37] but it supports the assertion that owner occupancy has gone down in the

[55:40] neighborhood, not up. And I look forward to seeing the updated data that the city

[55:43] of West Lafayette is currently gathering on the non owner and non-owner occupied

[55:49] distribution of housing in West Lafayette.

[55:52] There's also a stated goal, goal one, objective C, which is to ensure new

[55:56] development is appropriately sized for compatible with historic structures.

[56:00] With the current increase from a four-story to a six-story maximum, how

[56:03] does this plan meet the particular objective? Possibly six-story buildings

[56:06] will be across the street from single family homes which belong in a

[56:08] designated historic district along with the east portion of Fowler to the

[56:12] detriment of my neighborhood no goal or objective states that it will ensure the

[56:15] preservation of the new chanty neighborhood. There's a strategy that

[56:19] says developing zone tools to ensure that redevelopment efforts adjacent to

[56:22] historic assets are appropriate in scale and style, similar to what was talked

[56:27] about with some of the housing and buildings before. But again, the

[56:30] downtown plan is silent on abiding existing plans, goals, and objectives

[56:34] such as the new chanty land use plan from 2013 and the historic district that

[56:38] it resides in. If one overlays the new chanty land use map with this

[56:42] amendments, you can clearly see the six-story proposal is not appropriately

[56:45] sized given the single family homes in this area. I've made a map and I'll

[56:49] provide that to you after my comments here. I would encourage uh future maps

[56:53] made by the APC staff to include the surrounding areas to provide everyone

[56:56] with insight into what transitions and abutments are being proposed. And also

[57:01] one final point, this amendment also decouples the height information that

[57:05] was previously associated with block designations. For instance, the downtown

[57:09] edge description no longer states that it should be two to four stories. So in

[57:13] summary, uh asking you to oppose this draft amendment as written, remove the

[57:17] proposals of densification along Fowler, Wiggins, and North Streets, returning to

[57:20] the original two to fourtory classification that was designated for

[57:23] the downtown edge, and help ensure there is more opportunity for public input and

[57:27] its representatives to argue, debate, and discuss this important question that

[57:31] is before us today. The future of my neighborhood depends on it. Thank you.

[57:36] Very good. Thank you. Um, anyone else wishing to speak to this?

[57:50] Hi everybody. I'm Jay McCann. I live at 902 Vine Street. Um, thanks very much

[57:55] for this opportunity to speak. Uh, Ryan, it's been a while since we worked

[57:59] together. I was a member of the original 2013 land use steering committee

[58:04] for New Chy. Um, so I'll just lend my voice to what, uh, Zachary just

[58:10] circulated. Um, uh, yeah, I'd like to see the APC retain the downtown edge

[58:15] buffer between Fowler and North Street. I I really do think that the the the

[58:20] original uh plan in 2013 and it was uh echoed in 2020 was to allow for some

[58:27] reasonable development and density along the periphery of Neutron City but then

[58:31] step down uh rather quickly and make it you know much more uh uh family housing

[58:38] oriented. Um so um so just you know that that's my piece and and it sounds like

[58:44] you've gotten a lot of other input as well through various channels. Uh let me

[58:48] also commend Ryan for for your point about uh wanting more forums like this

[58:53] especially with in the neighborhoods. I think that's important as we take the

[58:57] next steps. Thanks. Now very good. Thank you Jay. Anyone else

[59:01] wishing to speak to this?

[59:10] Anyone else? I'm sure someone here wants to make a comment.

[59:23] My name is Katherine Gman. I live at 705 North Chony. And I just want to speak on

[59:28] the record that um really just lending my support to what Zach said and what

[59:33] Jay said. I will just add that I've lived here only 30 years, which may not

[59:38] uh entitle me to say that I'm from here, but I've raised my children here in that

[59:43] neighborhood. It is a jewel of a neighborhood and I just think that we

[59:48] all should be on board to do everything that we can to protect this near campus

[59:54] walkable neighborhood. And so my uh my uh main

[1:00:01] point again is that buffer zone should be honored. And I did notice on the two

[1:00:06] maps, as I think Jay just said, so sorry for the repetition, but I'm a slow

[1:00:11] learner, that in the map of 2020, it says um designated the buffer area,

[1:00:19] those, you know, uh between uh north and uh Wiggins

[1:00:25] is designated as stories could be two to four, but on the amendment, it just says

[1:00:31] four. I don't know if that's semantics or if it matters or I don't know if the

[1:00:35] intention is to go higher and not to go lower, but anything we can do that

[1:00:39] protects that one neighborhood, the one I live in, uh I think it's worth all of

[1:00:45] our efforts. Other thing I want to say that's only indirectly related is that

[1:00:52] sometimes I hear that all the housing going up is going to benefit the new

[1:00:56] Chrony neighborhood. I'm not convinced. And the reason I say that is I talked to

[1:01:00] a lot of students. I'll be recorded

[1:01:03] and they don't want Can I continue?

[1:01:06] No, continue, please. I They don't all want to live in

[1:01:09] highrises and it's 50% more than living in New Chanty. So, I'm not sure that

[1:01:17] Let's see how to say this. The highrises are good for Purdue. They

[1:01:22] need them. We need Purdue. So, there it is. but it's not helping new chanc

[1:01:33] uh as a R1 single family houses that from which sometimes we have lots of

[1:01:41] kids who go to our schools and we support that.

[1:01:47] Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Just sign in at

[1:01:50] the table, please. Anyone else wishing to comment?

[1:02:05] anyone else? Okay, now back to staff. What what we've

[1:02:11] we've had some comments. Yes. Um

[1:02:14] where do we need to go from here? Maybe that's a question.

[1:02:17] Yeah, from here. Um, and I like I said, I have received a a lot of emails and um

[1:02:23] I I do promise to uh reply to everyone that um I haven't gotten that many that

[1:02:29] I can't I can't reply to everybody. So, I will reply to everybody. So, uh and

[1:02:34] there's some people in this room that have emailed me that uh that I will

[1:02:37] reply to. um and others that are not here that h that I will um you know and

[1:02:42] so uh the the objective now is to uh kind of gather what we have. We'll

[1:02:49] continue to leave the the uh comment uh opportunity, you know, uh open, you

[1:02:57] know, on our website. You know, you can continue to email comments, send them,

[1:03:01] call in. Um, but I'll be scheduling time with the city staff essentially to bring

[1:03:08] all these together uh get them organized into where their essential component

[1:03:15] parts so we can start seeing where the changes need to be directed and then um

[1:03:21] you know start to identify where we need to start making some uh amendments. Um

[1:03:26] and then um my task will then be and my primary uh person of contact is the

[1:03:32] development director Jian Skyber and uh she's sort of like you know the maestro

[1:03:38] here. So when I'm done with that I all right where do you want this to go from

[1:03:42] here? So once we have an amended draft I'll kind of ask well where do you want

[1:03:46] how do you want this presented? Do you want us to do another presentation like

[1:03:50] perhaps in this forum perhaps something over in West Lafayette? You know and so

[1:03:54] some some place. so the public can see it. Obviously, we can post it on our

[1:03:57] website. We can do another media blast, another outreach, uh let people look at

[1:04:02] the second draft and see if it speaks to their concerns.

[1:04:07] Um ultimately the hope is is that, you know, with the second draft, oh, we

[1:04:13] don't get any comments. Everyone's like, "Okay, that that nails it. Let's let's

[1:04:16] move forward." And so um and then I think we'll we'll feel confident you

[1:04:21] know bringing that second potentially third draft uh to this body and then

[1:04:27] into the approval process. Okay. So that answers my question.

[1:04:31] Approval is the approval process is typically the public hearing back to the

[1:04:35] ordinance committee then to the plan commission then back to city of West

[1:04:39] Lafayette city council. Correct. For ordinance.

[1:04:42] Right. So, we'll have at the very least, you know, three public hearings ahead of

[1:04:47] us um with uh with a a revision, you know, that uh reflects things we've

[1:04:54] heard tonight, things that we've already received and um so we'll get on it.

[1:05:01] Okay. Very good. Thank you. Any other comments from the commission? area just

[1:05:06] just to for the people here tonight. Uh we I can also um uh

[1:05:15] forward that I forward is not the right word, but give you that information too

[1:05:19] as Ryan puts out new uh uh drafts as as new drafts come forward, as

[1:05:27] changes are made and they become public, uh I can notify on uh council

[1:05:33] quicknotes. um you know that that's come that's a that's out there. You can see

[1:05:39] it and where you can find it.

[1:05:44] And I'll make sure on the cover page we kind of had the date. This was the the

[1:05:49] August, you know, so that it'll kind of be archived. So for those folks like

[1:05:54] that guy over there, not Nick, you you might do it too, Nick,

[1:05:58] but but definitely that guy. um you know you those who want to compare and

[1:06:02] contrast you know we you can do that but we'll have a new date for whenever it'll

[1:06:07] be whether probably be October my guess so

[1:06:14] very good we're done with

[1:06:16] we're done with this item we're done with this item so next on the

[1:06:20] agenda is just citizens comments anyone have any comments in general

[1:06:28] please come forward

[1:06:32] Is this on? Okay. Hi, I'm sorry. I'm really nervous. Uh, my name is Noel

[1:06:36] Hill. I live at 107 Deadsh Court and I work at 200 West State Street located

[1:06:43] right in this area. Um, and I know this is just public comments, but just in

[1:06:46] general, while we're discussing, you know, this plan to develop West

[1:06:51] Lafayette and while we're thinking about all this, I don't know because I haven't

[1:06:55] read the document, but I really think all these concerns that have been

[1:07:00] brought are very valid, but also I would just like to speak to the staggering of

[1:07:04] development because um, I personally have felt very impacted by construction.

[1:07:10] Um, you know, it impacts my business every day. it impacts my livelihood and

[1:07:14] I know all these things are going to be great for the community long term but

[1:07:18] while we're talking about things like the commute um you know and I'm sure the

[1:07:22] people who live in this area as well have felt this but just as I don't know

[1:07:27] if there's any sort of like system in place to like kind of control for that

[1:07:32] but if there is not I think that there should be because it is hard on the

[1:07:36] community when we have multiple roads closed and areas that are hard to

[1:07:40] traverse and It just can be very hard on everyone. So, I really appreciate you

[1:07:46] guys. Okay. Thanks for your comments. If you'd

[1:07:49] sign in over there, please. Any other citizens comments?

[1:07:57] Hearing none. We'll take that last motion.

[1:08:00] Move to journ. So, we are ajourned. Thanks everybody.

[1:08:14] This and this is the original these

[1:08:20] blocks are listed as two to four

[1:08:27] buildings. Okay. In the new document, these are

[1:08:32] sixtory buildings, right? So, we just try to increase the

[1:08:36] density, I assume.

[1:08:39] I really appreciate this map. I want to see side by side, top to

[1:08:44] bottom. I don't care. Whatever.

[1:08:46] All right. I'm going to chastise you for what they You are too smart to be

[1:08:51] shooting rumors back at me. So, it's a rumor.

[1:08:57] I'm letting you know what I hear. That's why I said it was a rumor. I'm letting

[1:09:00] you know. Okay.

[1:09:01] Well, you sound like you sounded like you believed that rumor.

[1:09:04] What's the rumor? I didn't hear it. Beth, the mayor and the and and

[1:09:08] the city the the city staff and the council

[1:09:12] are all doing this so we can create more money and help the developers.

[1:09:17] Well, no push increase development in that area

[1:09:21] and help the developers. I'm letting you know that's perception

[1:09:23] that's out there. So

[1:09:28] it's not true. You can spread that fact. Spread that fact.

[1:09:34] But thanks for the math. Yeah, no problem.

[1:09:38] No, I think that it was critical. It came to me like two iterations in

[1:09:43] overlay. I really appreciate it because I'm

[1:09:46] constantly like I I need to see the current one, too. So,

[1:09:49] you do have I mean, you can complain about the Sullivan. Across the street

[1:09:54] from the Sullivan is a four-story building that's on the north side of

[1:09:59] Fowler, but it's already in our plane one. Like,

[1:10:02] we knew that given up. Yeah. Yeah. No, I know. But we the the

[1:10:06] whole plan was we negotiated density here,

[1:10:10] but now we're trying to increase density along where we don't have

[1:10:13] And I think you heard I think you heard people are open to that.

[1:10:20] No problem. Now I can look at the rest of the

[1:10:25] Thank you. I appreciate it. I really appreciate your response.

[1:10:27] Okay. So, thank you. He said, "Yeah, I didn't mean

[1:10:30] I was buying those hook lines for him to give you a flavor of

[1:10:33] We have too many rumors flying around town these days."

[1:10:37] I mean, to your point, too, having um your uh your council quick.

[1:10:43] I think that's great. Well, it it was a it was a response for

[1:10:49] those people who who don't pay attention, right,

[1:10:52] and and say, "Well, you never told us about this." They wanted me to like

[1:10:57] create my own newsletter. Why would I do that when the city has

[1:11:01] You want it hand delivered? You want You want us to put door hangers on?

[1:11:05] Yeah. Pay attention. There is a

[1:11:09] responsibility.

Tippecanoe County, Indiana APC Exec/Ordinance Committee 2025 10 01

Agenda

Transcript