Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
APC reviews two West Lafayette rezonings from Thomas Developers; one wins unanimous recommendation
Summary
Two Thomas Developers petitions for higher‑density West Lafayette housing (R3/R3W to R4W) were heard. One parcel raised staff concerns about small lot size; the other received a unanimous favorable recommendation after staff support and petitioner commitments not to exceed six units.
The Area Plan Commission considered two rezoning petitions from Thomas Developers on Dec. 17 that would allow higher‑density housing in a West Lafayette neighborhood.
Z3014 concerned a parcel in the Oakwood Village area proposed to change from R3W to R4W. APC staff said the commission's primary concern was the small size of the lot and recommended denial in principle, arguing that consolidation to produce a larger project would better align with the downtown plan. The petitioner (presented in the record as 'Bridal Mundo' with RTS Law) provided a conceptual site plan showing six units (two 1‑bedroom and four 2‑bedroom) and said West Lafayette staff had been consulted and were supportive. The petitioner said they would seek variances for height, parking and lot area and had committed to not exceed the six‑unit layout. The APC took a yellow ballot and staff reported "12 recommending approval" (transcript fragment; opposing count not specified in the excerpt).
Z3015, a nearby Thomas Developers petition changing R3 to R4W, was presented with a conceptual plan showing six 4‑bedroom units (about 28.5 units per acre). Staff noted the parcel's size and adjacencies made it better suited to higher density, recommended approval, and the petitioner reiterated commitments to unit count and variances. Commissioners asked about parking and the potential for off‑site parking agreements. The APC's record shows a unanimous ballot for approval on this case.
Both petitions included proposed variances and commitments limiting unit counts on the conceptual plans; final approvals remain subject to the county review and any variances the developer must secure.
