Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
APC committee tables lot-coverage change, moves height measurement and ADU issues forward
Summary
The Tippecanoe County Ordinance Bylaw Committee discussed increasing building coverage limits, standardizing height measurement in R3/R3W zones, and revisiting ADU size caps; the lot-coverage proposal was tabled to February for builder feedback while staff will draft a height amendment for January consideration and research ADU-size impacts.
The Tippecanoe County Ordinance Bylaw Committee spent substantial time on Dec. 3 considering proposed zoning-code tweaks: a proposed 5-percentage-point increase in maximum building coverage for selected suburban zones, a request from West Lafayette to change how building height is measured in R3W zones, and a review of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) size limits.
On lot coverage, staff presented a recommendation to increase the maximum building coverage for R1, R1A and R1B zones (for example, from 30% to 35% in R1), citing recent project designs and an observed trend toward larger single-story homes. Staff framed the change as incremental "a step in the right direction" to address cases where developers sought rezonings or used R3-with-R1-lot commitments to achieve higher house sizes. Commissioners raised questions about density trade-offs, how percentage limits translate to perceived house size from aerial views, and whether builders had been consulted. After discussion the committee voted to table the proposal and seek builder feedback; a member amended the postponement from January to February and the motion carried.
On height measurement, staff explained that West Lafayette measures height differently (from the finished floor of the uppermost story) and asked for a consistent approach; staff noted that changing to a 40-foot standard would have eliminated several recent variances. Committee members agreed staff should draft ordinance-amendment language and return it to the APC in January for formal consideration.
Planner Nathan McBurnett briefed the committee on ADUs, saying the county has received inquiries and at least one likely BZA case in January for ADU sizes above the current 750-square-foot limit; McBurnett said some applicants appear to be pursuing ADUs over 1,000 square feet. The committee discussed whether ADU size should vary by lot size or zone and whether mortgage and insurance markets would support larger ADUs; members asked staff to research practical implications and return with recommendations.
The committee did not adopt final ordinance language on any of the three topics; it directed staff to gather builder feedback on lot coverage, draft a height amendment for January, and provide additional analysis on ADU size considerations.
