The AREA PLAN COMMISSION of Tippecanoe County
Citizens Participation Committee Meeting Date...... November 28, 2017 Time...... 7:00 PM Place...... County Office Building Grand Prairie Room 20 North 3rd Street Lafayette, Indiana AGENDA I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 3, 2017 MEETING
A. DRAFT - CPC MEETING MINUTES 10/03/2017
Documents:
1 10.03.2017 Minutes.pdf
II. FEEDBACK AND DISCUSSION FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
l Bike Walk Greater Lafayette Safety Plan www.tippecanoe.in.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/14654
III. PROGRAM
l Annual Listing of Obligated Projects, FY 2017 www.tippecanoe.in.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/14895 l Student Rental Study l US 231 Corridor Study
Documents:
Draft - Rental Study.pdf US 231 Corridor Plan 8-15-2017 DRAFT.pdf
IV. CPC 2018: A NEW DIRECTION
l Meeting format l Meeting date/time
V. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Planning for Lafayette, West Lafayette, Dayton, Battle Ground, Clarks Hill and Tippecanoe County The AREA PLAN COMMISSION of Tippecanoe County
Citizens Participation Committee Meeting Date...... November 28, 2017 Time...... 7:00 PM Place...... County Office Building Grand Prairie Room 20 North 3rd Street Lafayette, Indiana AGENDA I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 3, 2017 MEETING
A. DRAFT - CPC MEETING MINUTES 10/03/2017
Documents:
1 10.03.2017 Minutes.pdf
II. FEEDBACK AND DISCUSSION FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
l Bike Walk Greater Lafayette Safety Plan www.tippecanoe.in.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/14654
III. PROGRAM
l Annual Listing of Obligated Projects, FY 2017 www.tippecanoe.in.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/14895 l Student Rental Study l US 231 Corridor Study
Documents:
Draft - Rental Study.pdf US 231 Corridor Plan 8-15-2017 DRAFT.pdf
IV. CPC 2018: A NEW DIRECTION
l Meeting format l Meeting date/time
V. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Planning for Lafayette, West Lafayette, Dayton, Battle Ground, Clarks Hill and Tippecanoe County 1
AR E A P L AN CO M M ISSION OF T IPPEC ANO E COU NT Y CIT IZEN P ART ICIP AT ION COM M ITT EE M INUT ES
DAT E...... Oc tober 3, 201 7 PL ACE ...... GrandP rai rieRoom Count y Bu il din g 20 Nort h 3rd Stre et Laf a yet te, I N 4 790 1
AT T END EE S N AM E ORG ANIZ AT ION Ste ve C le ve nger Citi ze n Cind y Murra y Laf a yet te C it y Cl erk Curt As h end el W es t Laf a yet te Bik e & Ped estrian C om m ittee Ste wart Fr esc as Bic yc le L af a ye tte L yn n Ne ls on Oak land Ne igh borho od J ohn W eis Bic yc le L af a ye tte Rose Kac zm arows k i Bic yc le L af a ye tte J an M yers Citi ze n Sha nno n Stan is Bic yc le L af a ye tte Kaitl in Ke ll y-Thom pson Bic yc le L af a ye tte Susan Sc hec h ter Virtu o u s C yc les/H is toric Jef f ers on Neig hborh ood Marg y De vera ll Cit y of Laf a ye tte
ST AF F T IT LE Doug Po ad Sen ior T rans portat ion P lan ner
Doug c a ll ed t he m eetin g to order an d th ank ed e ver yo n e f or c om ing .
1. AP P RO V AL OF M EET ING M INUT ES
T he m inutes f rom the A pril 25, 2 017 CP C m eeting wer e ap prov ed as subm itted .
2. FEED B ACK AN D DI SCU SSION F RO M PREVIOU S M EET ING
Doug exp la ine d the reas on f or the 2045 ME TRO POLITAN TRANS PORTA TION PLAN and h igh li ght ed the c ontents.
Susan ask ed if there is an ythin g cit i zens can do t o h elp brin g th e b ic yc l e projects note d in th e p lan to f ruit ion.
Doug th ink s it wou ld b e good t o ha ve s om e ass is tanc e in c reat ing m om entum in the j urisdic tio n f or all ne w proj ects. He talk ed wi th W est Laf a yet te a bout the H a pp y H ollo w T rail and Sa ga m ore Park wa y T rail proj ects and i t is alwa ys g ood f or the m ayo rs , c ount y c om m is s ioners , c it y c ou ncils to k no w th eir c ons tit ue nts want the b ic yc le f aciliti es an d th at th e y are n eede d .
Susan th ink s that m eans c iti zens c a n h elp b y ta lk ing wi th the dec is ion m ak ers . Sh e a dde d t hat s he dr oppe d s om eone of f in the traff ic m es s at the Feas t and noti c ed that there is a trail ver y c l ose t o prov id in g f ull c onnec tio n to th e Fort. It wou ld be ver y nic e t o b e ab le to p ark as far out as the am phithe ater and ri de yo ur bik e to t he F e ast. 2 Doug exp la ine d that the p revi ous Coun t y E ng ine er wante d to put a trail all along S outh R iv er Road bu t it was dif f ic ult work ing with t he pr opert y o wn ers and th at m ade it d if f ic ult to s ta y in b ud get. He add ed th at s oon t h ere wil l be d is tanc e m ark ers along the tra il.
Marg y dro ve to the Feast a nd t ook Ne wm an Road. Yo u cou ld re ach t he si te if yo u bik e tha t rout e. Sh e a dde d that it would m ak e it better if there was an organ i zed p ark ing area f or bik es lik e the y h ave h ad at th e Sta te Fair f or m an y ye ars . She th ink s the His tor ic al As s ociat ion wou ld be h app y to port ion of f a park ing area f or b ik es.
Curt s aid CI BA ru ns the Ind y B ik e Clu b an d th e y ha ve a tem plate t he y m ight let us use.
Marg y is int eres ted t o k now wh at ne eds to b e do ne to m ak e it work bec aus e s he k nows you ha ve to ha ve p o rtable bik e rack s .
Sha nno n s he ask ed if ther e is an yth ing to id ent if y th e pro pert y o wne rs wh ere t he p la n ta lk s about c onn e c tiv it y trails .
Doug re plie d th at e ach proj ects bel ongs t o a j urisd ic ti o n .
Curt k nows th ere is a q ues t ion of who o wns th e Farm Herita ge T rail. T here is no l ead m unic ip alit y e ither.
Susan s aid a l ot of t itl e s e arc h work needs t o b e do ne f or th at pr oject to m ove f orward. S he s u gg ested we us e Purdu e interns in t he spr ing to con duc t th e d eed r esear c h.
Sha nno n ask ed if t here is an im m ediate p la n to work on the c on nec ti vi t y on th e Harris on Br idg e. Sh e k now s t he c ount y o wns th e brid ge b ut W est Laf a yet te has p ut in the bic yc le l anes o n t heir s id e but t here is noth ing o n Laf a yet te’s si de.
Marg y s aid the Laf a ye tte Develo pm ent Off ic e has c ontracted wit h BF & S to loo k at that and als o the r am ps. T he prelim inar y f ind in gs, af ter m eas u ring the roa d and l o ok ing at b ik e lan es, s ig nag e, a nd m ark eting, is th at t h ere is a probl em with the H arr is on Brid ge an d c enter railin g where is goes o ver the railr oad. W es t Laf a ye tte was a ble to sk inn y-d o wn the l anes but right no w tha t is not an opt i on o n t he Laf a ye tte s ide. N o w t h e b ik e lan e o nl y goes to 6 t h Street on S alem Street b ut the p la ns to repa ve Sa lem Street incl ud e a b ik e lane . Laf a ye tte no w h as a bik e gui del in e bo ok and there is a s harrow des i gn th at m ak es it lo ok lik e there is lane with in a la n e. It is n ot c ont i nuous but i nclud es arr o ws s ho wi ng bik es. She won ders if we c an do s om ethin g l ik e that e ver y 15 0’ or s o. L af aye tt e is interest ed in not onl y del in eati ng where bik es s hould and c a n be thro ugh s ign ag e but als o do ing s om ething abo ut the road t hat m ight s lo w traf f ic down. BF & S wi ll re vis i t that is s ue but L af a yett e is activ el y work ing to c om e up with s om ethin g s oon. L af a ye tte is ver y dis a ppo int ed th at th e c ons ult ants c ou ld no t c o m e up with s om ethin g th at look s lik e W est Laf a ye tte ’s .
Curt ask ed if the s harrow is bein g propose d as the f ina l s olut ion or wil l the rep avin g proj ect open th e door f or other pos s ibili ties.
t h Marg y s aid Salem Street, e ast of 6 Str eet, is be in g re pav ed so it wil l n ot d irectl y c onnec t with the brid ge.
Susan s a id the brid ge is no t c ohesiv e an d the wh ole s tructure s hould be s tan dard i zed a nd h arm oni zed with r egard to pe des tria ns an d b ic yc l es.
th Marg y agree d but s a id th at wo uld be p oss ible if there was one c ons is t ent roa d d esign f rom 6 S treet i n Laf a ye tte all th e wa y to Lit t le ton in W est Laf a ye tte . R ight n o w t h ere is a h odg e -po dge of railin gs, s id e wa lk s , etc. T he road is not e ve n cons is t ent.
Susan think s that is n ot to o m uch to ask f or.
Marg y rep li ed that th at a pr oject lik e th at wou ld c ost m ill ions of dol lars . She th ink s t he c o unt y d id a great j ob o n th e bridg e but the widt h of the road wa y is n ot c ons is t ent on bot h s id es. T he road actual l y expa nds an d c ont racts. Laf a yet te is j ust tr yi ng t o co m e up f or a solution where there is not en oug h room f or a s eparat e b ik e lane .
Sha nno n tra vels th at rout e and rig ht n o w it is s af er to ride in th e la nes bec a use the g utters are f ull of rock s and dips. S he f eels the bik e la nes took awa y her rig ht to occ up y the ri ght h and lan e and f eel c onf id ent. She ask ed whose job it is to k eep t hat area f ree of debr is bec a use the co unt y o wns the bri dge .
Doug s a id he heard Laf a ye tte was goi ng t o k eep th e b ridge c lea n b ecaus e t he y h ave a s treet swee per. 3
Marg y s ug ges ted g etti ng a n interl ocal agre em ent la yi n g ou t wh o wil l do it and ho w of ten t he brid ge is c le ane d . T hat wa y som eone wi ll be h eld a c c ountab le.
Sha nno n s aid sig nag e is a n is s ue when tra velin g to L af a yett e.
Marg y s a id Laf a yett e is loo k ing at m ore additi ona l s ig n age an d one of the s ig ns s ho ws a ram p, a lane, a bik e lan e, and an arr o w te ll ing a m otoris t ho w t o yie ld to t he bik e.
J an s aid all th e s igna ge o n the Harris on Br idg e is too hig h f rom a pedes trian po i nt of vie w an d there ar e no vis ua l m ark ers f or an y p eo ple wit h s igh t d is abi l iti es. Ma n y pedes tri ans wil l n ot g o o n thos e br idg es. T here s hou l d be whit e m ark ers at the shou ld ers and o n a ll the ed ges of the si de wa lk s where the y a but t he br idg e roa d surf ace.
Curt s aid he att end ed t he m eetings ab out the Harri s on Bri dge a c o up le of ye ars ago. O pal K uhl , t h e pr evious Count y En gineer , s aid t he l ong - ran ge plan f or t he brid ge is th at t he c enter m edia n wil l b e rem oved th at whe n th e dec k ing is do ne and tha t wi ll allo w f or an extra 3 ’ of de ck ing to be used f or bik e/pe d f acilit ies.
3. PROGR AM
Draft Bik e Walk G reat er L afayett e Safety Pl an
Marg y s a id th e t wo c ities, t he c ou nt y and c yc lis t grou ps c am e together in 20 15 af ter a c yc l is t was hit o n the H arr is on Brid ge bec aus e there were c o ncerns ab o ut th e f act that t he acc ide nt hap pen ed o n th e c ou nt y b ridge with c it y pr ojects on eit her s ide of the br idg e. T he pur pos e was to s e e wha t c an be do ne to m ak e roads s afe f or all users and not j ust ve hic le s . Ev er yo ne k ne w t he Sta te S treet proj ect was c om ing an d th at would m ean m ore bic yc l es on the Harris o n B ridge to a vo id St ate S treet . T he group had m an y go od dis c uss ions an d exam ples of s af et y a ware nes s f rom other areas were lo ok ed at to s ee what c oul d be do ne h e re. Opal the n s ugg ested t h e three j urisdic tio ns c ontrib ute part of their Federa l aid m one y t o ward a s af et y a wareness educat ion pr ogram . She to ok the ERC tra in ing and Laf a ye tt e’s Ec on om ic Developm ent Departm ent took the l ead on the proj ect. T he goa l f or the f irs t year was to c om e up with a 3 - ye ar pla n look ing at b est prac t ic es thr oug hou t the n ation an d initia te pro gram s over the nex t t wo ye ars . T he c om m ittee had to re l y o n partners lik e the hos p ita ls a nd s c hoo ls to m ak e thes e t hin gs happ en a nd at th e s am e tim e had to lo ok f or additi on al f unding s ourc es and m ark eting a nd ad ver t is in g pro gram s. W e k now en gin eeri ng is out t here bu t ri ght no w t he pla n f ocuses o n m otor is t ed ucat ion. BF & S is th e l ead c ons ulta nt b ut oth er prof ess ionall y grou ps c ontrib ut ed. T he plan h as lof t y g oals a nd a ll h ave be en work ing dil ig ent l y f or alm ost a year to c om e up with th e pla n. T he p la n s um m arizes a ll the plans t hat ha ve c om e bef ore as wel l as the pre vio us po li c ies, m aps , and c rash d ata. A lo t of tim e was s pent reac h in g out to d if f erent organ i zations /a genci es in t he c om m unit y th at c ou ld h elp us partn er wit h to und e rs tand wh o the y ar e s erv in g and what th e nee ds are. T he plan la unc h was at th e 2 017 Bik e to W ork Da y i n Ma y. A websit e was de velop ed a nd the goa l f or year t wo of the p l an is c om e up wit h a s c op e lis t t o ge t a b etter und ers tanding of wh at s ti ll n eed s to b e done bef ore the t wo c iti es and th e c ount y c an t ak e over , what th e respons ibil i ties wil l be, a nd wh at f unding wil l b e need ed. Sh e p ointed ou t th at th e W est Laf a yet te Po lic e Dep artm ent and P ark s Departm ent are ver y e nga ge d an d atten d alm ost all the m eeting. T he Laf a yette Polic e D epartm ent attends ab out h alf the m eetings an d the La f a y ett e Park s Departm ent has n ever att end ed a m eetin g. Sh e th ink s there m ight be a bit of a d is c onn ect with r e gard t o who m oves f orwar d wi th t h e pl an.
Curt poi nte d out t hat M arg y work s in the in th e Laf a yette De ve lo pm ent Departm ent an d atte nd ed e ver y m eeti ng but t he W est Laf a yet te D evelo pm ent Departm ent ne ve r atten ded a m eeting .
Marg y s a id a l ot of dif f erent peo ple f rom the c ities atten ded a nd th at was go od to s ee. S he ad de d tha t W est Laf a yet te has had a bik e/ped ad vis or y group f or m an y ye ars . Laf a ye tte pas s ed a n ordi nance esta blis h ing a Bik /Ped Cit i zen A dvis or y C om m ittee in Ma y and i nclu ded id ent if yin g a s taf f pers on with in the c it y t o be the s upport f or that ad vis or y com m ittee (Bik e/Ped Co ordin ator) .
Sha nno n ask ed if the staf f pers on wil l b e som eone wh o a lre ad y work s f or Laf a ye t te or a ne w em plo ye e.
Marg y s aid she is the coord inat or an d h er ne w dut ies a re in add it ion to what sh e is alrea d y do in g.
Rose ask ed Marg y h o w he r da y wi ll work out related t o acti vat ing t he respons ib il i ties to th is c om pared to the other duti es. S he t hink s the ne w pos it ion sh ou ld b e a f ull t im e job. She ca n’t he lp if she does n ot k now wha t is g oin g on. 4
Marg y re plied th at ever y da y is dif f erent at work but this is s om ething s he is ver y i nterested in. S he wi ll ta lk with the Ma yo r abo ut gett in g the A d vis or y C om m ittee establ is h ed onc e th e Pl an is ado pte d. It was to s tart in Sep tem ber but the C it y E ng ine er s ubm itte d her resi gn ation. W e dec ided t o s it do wn with the in terim director, Ci nd y M urr a y, a nd the Ma yor s oo n. Once the Com m ittee i s f orm ed s he wil l ha ve a b etter i de a of what it wil l l ook lik e f or her goin g f orward.
Curt ask ed Marg y to doc u m ent ever yt hing ver y we ll.
Susan ask ed ho w t he W est Laf a ye tte bik e/ped grou p interacts wit h th e cit y with r egard t o p la nni ng .
Curt f eels it is not a pro ble m but the quest ion is ho w m uc h the c it y is wil li ng t o l i s ten. P ark s , Engin eer’s Of f ic e and Develo pm ent Off ic e directors have all turne d over in th e last ye ar or s o and the pr obl em lies wit h thos e wh o do no t s ee it as a pri orit y and tr yi n g to c o n vince th em to bu y i n. T he b etter s trat eg y is to hav e t he m a yor t e l l t he dire c tors that it is a pri orit y.
Marg y s aid t he Com plete S treets p olic y reso lut io n as wel l as an ordi nanc e es ta blis hin g t he ad vis or y com m ittee a n d a bik e/pe d coord ina tor was b y C it y Co unc i l reso lut ion a nd th at m eans it is in the bo ok s .
J an s aid U SDO T is real l y p ushin g p edestri an/ bik e an d that is a big d ea l b ecaus e t he y are revers ing the word s . She is am a zed ho w litt le at tent i on is pai d to pedes tr ians a nd poi nte d out Sa gam ore Park wa y in W est Laf a yett e as an exam ple. Sh e s a id it is i m poss ible to walk f rom Yeager Roa d t o R iv er Ro a d bec a use t here is n o c o ntin uous s ide wa lk . USDO T is givi ng a lot m ore m one y an d em phasis on th e pe d s ide of things bec aus e it af f ects everyb o d y. T he ped s i de o f things is c overe d u nd er AD A and th is c om m unit y is in s eri ous vi olat io n of AD A all o ver the place. W e need to be a ware that t his com m unit y has a b ig ris k bec aus e we do not com ply wi th U SDO T regulations .
Ste wart po int ed out t hat pe des trian ad voca tes are poo rl y or gan i zed.
J an s aid e ver yo ne is a ped estrian.
Susan agre ed b ut m ost pe des trians do not walk m ore than f rom their car to t he f ront d oor of a s tore .
Marg y s a id s he went t o th e Nationa l W alk Sum m it in St. P aul with 600 + ot her a ttend ees an d it was e ye -o p eni ng. Our c ons ult ants c o nstant l y warne d us not to f orge t th e pe ds dur ing th is p lan nin g proc ess . T he org an i zatio n an d pla nni ng beh in d th e walk in g m ovem ent is c om pletel y dif f erent f rom bic yc li ng and s he d id not ant ic ip ate tha t. Muc h of it c om es f rom the p ub lic hea lth s ide an d t he y t alk ed abo ut incl usio n a nd eq uit y in pla nn ing a nd s p end in g f or lo w incom e areas as we ll as in af f luent nei ghb orho ods . S he un ders tan ds the value of havi ng b oth a bik e plan and a ped pla n b ecaus e ha vin g th em together is prob lem atic .
L yn n s a id dog wa lk ers in h er ne igh borho od are t he c r im e watch an d h avin g g oo d s id e wa lk s is im portant to he lp them to get o ut a nd abo ut i n the com m unit y.
Kaitl in s a id s he li ves b y C o lum bian P ark and the s c ho ol a nd s he was s urpris ed t o s ee th at th ere are no c ro s s ings f or people t o get across the s treet bet wee n the p ark and th e s c hoo l. T hat m ak es peopl e j a y - wa lk all th e ti m e on a bus y s treet . A ll t he int ers ections h ave we ird a ng les an d the walk ing s i gna l is not on l ong eno ugh to l et a ped estria n c ross the street.
J an s aid at var ious m eeting s s he invit ed c it y/c ount y of f ic ial s to tak e a walk wit h her on round f eet . She s aid D e nnis Cars on to ok a wa lk wit h h er and s h e recou nted inc id ents in vo l vi ng p edestri ans tr yin g to na vi gat e Ma in Str eet i n Laf a yet te wi th th e ne w s tre etsc ape. T wo p eop le in wh eelc h airs s hou ld be abl e to pas s and th at c ann ot be d o ne on Mai n Street, even af ter al l t he m one y t hat was spen t.
Susan ask ed what co nsult a nt d id t he p la ns f or Main Str eet.
Marg y rep li ed tha t Ha nn a W aggle & Kl ine was t he c ons ult in g f irm the c it y use d f or the Ma in Str eet s tre e tsc ape proj ect.
Susan heard it s aid th at th e Mai n Stre et proj ect was “b uil t f or c ars ”. She think s it woul d be nic e t o s ee s om e k ind of m eas ures to see what has been acc om plis hed.
Marg y exp la ine d t hat a “b a s e li ne” was e s ta blis hed wi th th e initia l s ur ve y t hat we nt o ut a nd we plan t o c o nd uct a f ollo w-u p surve y t o g aug e t he pro gres s . 5 Rose ask ed ho w m an y part ic ipa ted in the sur ve y.
Sha nno n s aid th ere were 8 57 respo nders .
Susan ask ed ho w m uch it would cost to do a stat is ti c a ll y sig nif ic ant sam pling bas ed o n po pu lat ion.
Curt th ink s the cost wi ll be hig h beca use you wou ld ha ve t o sam ple ab out 10, 000.
Susan is no t as conc ern ed abou t th e c yc l is ts as she a bout the dri ve rs .
Curt po int ed out t hat t he plan h as ver y l itt le on driv ers and t here is no recogn i zed m ethod to reac h out to dr iv ers .
Marg y s aid it is e as y t o sa y “c ulture ch ang e” but hard t o ac c om plis h.
Curt agre es tha t is u natt ain abl e.
Kaitl in do es not think it is im pos s ible bec aus e s he is f rom a c it y wh ere it d i d happ en an d it was all abou t inf rastructure an d m ak ing p eop le m ore c om f ortable ge t ting on a b ik e or walk ing so m ewhere.
Curt agre ed but sa id t he f u ndi ng f or the plan ex c ludes inf rastructure .
Ste wart th ink s there is an opport un it y f or a “ watch th i s s pac e” in W es t Laf a yette bec aus e h e h as perc eive d there are a lot m ore people wa lk ing f rom downto wn W est Laf a yette to th e Lev ee at a ll ti m es of the da y. It is a s ham e the s ide wa lk s are ver y narro w. It is m uch easier to rid e yo u r bik e up an d d o wn the hill t han it use d to be.
Curt rem inded Ste wart th at a rai li ng was put in to act a s a ps yc ho lo gic a l prot ector f or pedestria ns.
Kate li n th ink s the sid e wa lk s on Stat e Str eet were wide ned goi ng do wn th e h il l.
Curt agre ed t hat s ide walk s on b oth si des are sli ght l y wi der.
J an ap prec iat es wha t has b een don e on St ate Stre et b ut s he is wa iti ng t o see ho w s no w rem oval goes.
Rose s aid s he att en ded a n Are a Pl an C om m iss ion m eeting a nd it was ap pare nt to her that th e d ecis io n m ak ing proc ess and ho w proposa l s f or developm ent are p ut f orward do n ot inclu de s i de wa lk c ons iderat ions . W hen a s ubdivis ion was appr oved out b y McCu tcheo n it was an af tertho ught to i nclu de a s ide walk goin g up to th e s c hool. She agre es th at lea ders hip is a n is s ue . Peo ple work in g ou t o n Sout h Street b y L o we’s h a ve to c ross a ditch an d s tand o ut in t he o pen to cat c h a bus . T hat is a s ham e.
J an s aid an other USDO T e ndea vor is to ref er to pe des trian tr ails and side wa lk s as bridg es to opp ortun it y.
Susan s a id s he h as att end ed thre e m eeting i n th e l ast 24 hours a nd m ost of them have to do with s ide walk s tha t would g o across m ore m ajor s treets. T he y t ak e out th e ha ndic a p ram ps that g o a c ross the s treets an d pe de s trians would ha ve t o wa lk along t he m ain s treet to a m ore dis tant c ross ing . T hat was d one a lon g Ferr y S treet a nd no w the y ar e doi ng tha t alo ng C olum bia and Sout h Stre et. She was to ld it is bec a use peop le with dis a bili ties s ho uld no t c ross unless there is a c ont rolle d i nters ecti on. A pers o n in a whe el c h air m ight ha ve t o go s e vera l b lock s to cross a s treet. S he s e es peo ple in whee lc ha irs j ust cross the street a n ywa y. T he conc ept i s delus ion al.
J an s aid s h e h as n ever h eard of that. Her whe elc h air g oes 7m ph and s he c an tra ve l 30 m iles at that s peed . Manu al whee lc ha irs are a dif f erent s tor y a nd th e y wil l c ross where th e y c a n. P e opl e using walk ers wi ll n ot go an extra lo op arou nd t o cross a street. T he bes t plan f or a n y c it y or a dd iti on is a grid with straig ht s tree ts. In the 1950 ’s and 196 0’s we wa nted m eanderi ng stree ts wit h cul -d e- s acs but tha t is n ot t he cas e no w.
Ste ve s aid R iv er Ro ad and US 23 1 ar e g ood exam ple s bec aus e the y put s ig ns i n th e m iddl e of th e s i de wal k and actual l y to ok out sections o f the side walk .
Susan s a id the y t ell you this is the sta ndard bu t th at is not t he case.
J an s aid she would lo ve t o k now wh ere th e y got those s tandards b ecaus e sh e h as not re ad a n yt h ing lik e tha t.
Marg y is sk eptic al abo ut t h ose stand ards to o. 6 Lynn said it is difficult to walk around with a push wheel chair, wheel walker, or on crutches .
Kaitlin asked if having people get around in a push wheel chair, wheel walker, or on crutches could be a training exercise.
Shannon said Health by Design does audits.
Margy said a walk audit is one of the first activities in the plan.
Curt pointed out that most of the developments done on a grid in the 40's and 50's have lousy sidewalks and are not well-maintained because they have not been updated in years . All the developments in the 60's, 70's, and 80's do not have sidewalks because of the meandering roads and cui-de-sacs. Many cities have ignored the poor neighborhoods and focused on putting the sidewalks along the main roads .
Lynn said South 24th Street is a major route kids walk on to get to school and there is not continuous sidewalk on either side. Kids literally walk down the middle of the street. She does not think Safe Routes to School is much better.
Doug said the Technical Transportation Committee will review the Plan and make a recommendation to the Policy Board for approval. If approved, the Plan will go to APC to be included as part of the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. All six member jurisdictions will need to adopt the Plan so it can be part of the County's Comprehensive Plan for Tippecanoe County.
Steve believes some graphs are missing in the Plan .
Stewart thinks the book "How" is an excellent book and thinks it should be discussed at a future meeting. There is a lot in there that would be very helpful.
Doug asked if the next meeting should be November 28th but that is the Tuesday after Thanksgiving. He said This Committee can meet that day or on December 5th.
The Committee chose to meet on November 28th .
4. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
None
5. ADJOURNMENT:
Doug thanked everyone for coming.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30pm . 2017 UPDATE Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report The Area Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County November 2017
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report update could not have been produced without the kind assistance of the following:
• Purdue University: Off-Campus Student Services, Housing & Food Services, Office of Enrollment Management Analysis and Reporting, Parking & Transportation Services, Fire Department, Physical Facilities, and the Office of Fraternity, Sorority, and Cooperative Life. • City of West Lafayette: Department of Engineering, Department of Development, and the Department of Information Technology.
INTRODUCTION
This update continues to build our storehouse of data by augmenting the previous four reports with the latest information. As with the previous reports, our objective is to identify emerging trends in the state of our community’s student housing market to better inform elected and appointed officials as they make decisions on future developments both near campus and countywide.
This report contains four parts:
1. An analysis of existing data and other relevant public information; 2. An analysis of vacancy data; 3. Conclusions and recommendations; and 4. An appendix.
The first part involves a review of a variety of data sources containing historical and current information regarding population and housing. The second part involves an analysis of vacancy data from HUD/USPS concerning residential vacancies by census tract. The third part draws conclusions from the data sets and survey results and identifies any patterns or trends that the data from all four years may reveal.
The landlord survey, which had been part of the previous four reports, was not conducted for the 2016-2017 school year. Due to past year-to-year findings drawing similar conclusions staff has elected to conduct the survey every two years to make better use of staff time and resources. As the procurement and analysis of the HUD/USPS data requires less staff time and resources, we are relying on this data set only relative to the residential vacancy analysis.
Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report – November 2017 Page | 2
PART 1: DATA & INVENTORY
Multiple sources were used to capture as much relevant public information as possible pertaining to the status of student-oriented housing. The entities that provided data included:
1. US Bureau of the Census 2. US Department of Housing and Urban Development & US Postal Service 3. Purdue University 4. Tippecanoe County Assessor 5. City of West Lafayette Rental Inspection Program
The 2010 Census and Census Estimates
According to the Census, the total population of Tippecanoe County in 2010 was 172,780 persons. Population growth county-wide is projected to remain steady in future years as reflected in the Census estimates for 2011 (173,186), 2012 (175,204), 2013 (180,174), 2014 (183,074), 2015 (185,826) and 2016 (188,059). This estimated growth represents an approximate 8.1% increase between 2010 and 2016 and a 1.1% decrease in the population’s projected growth rate reported in last year’s report.
Figure 1 – Tippecanoe County Population 1950-2016
Tippecanoe County Population 200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000 Population 80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Source: US Bureau of the Census (* indicates estimate only)
Page | 3 Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report – November 2017 Purdue University Student Population
At the start of the fall 2016 semester, the total student population (both undergraduate and graduate students) of the West Lafayette campus of Purdue University was 40,451 students. Compared to the previous year (39,409 students), this represents an approximate 2.64% increase in population. As shown in Figure 2 below, the fall 2016 population figure is the highest recorded not only within the last ten years but the highest recorded in the university’s history.
Figure 2 – Purdue Student Population 2006 – 2016
Purdue Student Population Over 10 Years 41000
40500
40000
39500
39000
38500
38000
37500
Source: Purdue University – Office of Enrollment Management Analysis and Reporting
Purdue University Housing
In the fall of 2016, Purdue University Housing’s housing stock totaled 13,237 bedspaces (an increase of 947 bedspaces from the previous year owing to the leasing of private, off-campus student apartments for Purdue University Housing’s purposes). Of the 40,451 students enrolled at the West Lafayette campus beginning in the fall of 2016 there were 13,043 students living in university housing units (an increase of 633 from the previous year), 194 vacant bedspaces and 27,408 students living in non-university housing situations (an increase of 409 students from the previous year).
Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report – November 2017 Page | 4
Purdue University Fraternities, Sororities and Cooperatives
Of the 27,408 students living off-campus during the fall 2016 semester, 3,189 lived in a fraternity, sorority or cooperative (a decrease of 92 students from the previous year). The total capacity among the 62 houses was 4,098 (a capacity increase of 42 persons from the previous year).
Purdue University Parking
The “C” parking permit is required for all commuter students who seek to park their vehicle on campus and reside outside the University-imposed, near-campus boundary. Those students living within the boundary but not on-campus are generally not eligible for a parking permit. As illustrated in Figure 3, the boundary (recently updated in 2017 to include portions of downtown Lafayette and stretching to US 231) surrounds the campus and is roughly rectangular.
Figure 3 – Parking Permit C Boundary
Source: Purdue University Parking & Transportation Services
Page | 5 Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report – November 2017 For the fall of 2016, Purdue University’s Parking and Transportation Services Office issued 4,810 “C” permits for those commuter students who resided beyond this boundary surrounding campus (an increase of 106 permits over the previous year).
Purdue Commuter Student Parking Facility Number of C-permits issued C Parking Lots 3,954 Northwestern Garage 223 Wood Street Garage 114 Grant Street Garage 234 Harrison Street Garage 285
Total 4,810
For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that the vast majority of the 24,219 remaining off-campus students who have not applied for “C” permits and don’t live on- campus or in a fraternity, sorority or co-op likely lived within the C-permit boundary. These 24,219 students, generally assumed to be within the C-permit boundary, represent a slight increase over last year’s 23,718 students.
Tippecanoe County Assessor and City of West Lafayette Data
The Tippecanoe County Assessor and the City of West Lafayette both maintain data sets of residential rental units. In addition, the City of West Lafayette through its rental inspection program, keeps data on the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit. By utilizing both data sets and excluding Purdue’s 13,237 bedspaces, the following inventory has been created:
According to the Tippecanoe County Assessor, as of March 1, 2017 there were in Tippecanoe County:
• 37,845 owner-occupied units, an increase of 2,164 from last year’s report. • 37,007 rental units, an increase of 1,597 from last year’s report.
The rental units comprise all housing types including, single, two, and multi-family units, manufactured homes and mobile home trailers. As with prior reports, the geographic distribution of the rental units is more concentrated near the densely urbanized areas in Lafayette (west of Sagamore Parkway and north of Brady Lane) and West Lafayette (east of Northwestern Avenue, south of Sagamore Parkway West and south of State Street).
Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report – November 2017 Page | 6
City of West Lafayette Rental Inspection Program Data
Relative to the City of West Lafayette’s Rental Inspection Program data for 2016, out of the 37,007 rental units in Tippecanoe County approximately 24% or 8,913 units containing 19,184 bedrooms were within the city limits of West Lafayette and subject to the rental inspection program. These figures represent an approximate 1.27% decrease in units, but a 0.34% increase in bedrooms from last year’s report. Of these West Lafayette rental units, there were:
• 796 single-family units containing 2,643 bedrooms • 242 two-family units containing 588 bedrooms • 177 three-family units containing 366 bedrooms • 7,698 multi-family units containing 15,587 bedrooms
PART 2: VACANY DATA RESULTS
US Department of Housing and Urban Development and US Postal Service Data
Since 2005 the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the US Postal Service (USPS) jointly has produced quarterly reports of mailing address vacancies by Census Tract for residential and non-residential properties. This data is made available to local governments by request and does not discriminate between owner-occupied and rental. The USPS mail carriers that collected the data, while not capturing vacancy data for all units in a tract, have collected a large enough sample of units in each tract that the results can reasonably be relied upon to identify trends or patterns for the entire tract.
For the following analysis we have only made use of the residential unit vacancy data for the years 2013 through the second quarter of 2017. As shown in Figure 4, the “West Lafayette Area” includes the following Census Tracts: 51.01, 51.02, 52, 53, 54, 55, 102.03, 102.04, 103, 104, 105 and 106. The “Lafayette Area” includes these Census Tracts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.01, 15.02, 16, 17, 18, 19, 108 and 111.
Again, the vacancy data does not discriminate between a rental unit and an owner- occupied unit. Through our agreement with HUD, we can present the following findings (Figure 5) on residential vacancies in these tracts:
Page | 7 Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report – November 2017 Figure 4 – Greater Lafayette Urban Area Census Tracts
Source: US Bureau of the Census
Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report – November 2017 Page | 8
Figure 5 – West Lafayette Area Residential Vacancy Rates
West Lafayette Area Year Average 2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0% Residential 0.5% Vacancy %
0.0% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*
Figure 6 – Lafayette Area Residential Vacancy Rates
Lafayette Area Year Average
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
Residential 1.0% Vacancy %
0.0% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017*
Sources for Figures 5 & 6: US Department of Housing & Urban Development
*Represents the first and second quarter of 2017 only
Page | 9 Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report – November 2017 As shown in Figure 5, over the last four-and-a-half years the West Lafayette Area has experienced on average an approximate 1.93% residential vacancy rate while in Figure 6 the Lafayette Area experienced on average a 4.39% residential vacancy rate (up from 1.83% for West Lafayette and down from 4.64% for Lafayette relative to last year’s report). As with our past reports, these figures were calculated by averaging the quarterly data into single years and averaging the years (including the first two quarters of 2017).
Generally, there were no dramatic fluctuations in each area’s vacancy rates over a 4½ year period. The main difference between the two areas remains the relationship each area’s core has with its periphery.
The urban periphery of the West Lafayette Area (which includes tracts 51.02, 52, 102.03, 102.04 and 106) averaged 2.61% in residential vacancy (up from 2.3% last year) while the area’s core tracts (53, 54, 55, 103, 104 and 105) had, on average, a 1.26% vacancy rate (down from 1.36% last year). Meanwhile in the Lafayette Area, the tracts in and near the urban core (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 111) have the highest average vacancy rate at 6.53% (down from 6.9% last year), while the urban periphery of the Lafayette Area (tracts 13, 14, 15.01, 15.02, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 108) averaged 2.57% in residential vacancy (down from 2.8% last year).
So, the inverse relationship between the two cities, as it relates to residential vacancies, remains as was reported in our past analyses: Residential vacancies remain highest near Lafayette’s urban core and lowest in its urban periphery while vacancies remain lowest in West Lafayette’s urban core and highest in its urban periphery.
PART 3: CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Population Growth
US Census estimates continue to show steady increases in the overall population of Tippecanoe County. The estimated 8.1% increase from 2010 to 2016 continues to highlight the stability and economic vitality of the community and its ability to attract newcomers. Purdue University’s student population decreases after 2012 have long since reversed with the 2.64% jump in population experienced during the 2016-2017 school year compared with the previous school year. And this growth appears to be continuing: The 2017 fall student population jumped to a new record of 41,573 students (a 2.7% increase from the fall of 2016).
Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report – November 2017 Page | 10
Residential Vacancies Overview
As with previous reports’ conclusions from past years, no great fluctuations have occurred relative to the analysis of the USPS/HUD data. Residential unit vacancies generally remain higher near Lafayette’s core and in the areas surrounding the C-permit boundary in West Lafayette. Conversely, the lowest residential unit vacancies in the community are found within the C-permit boundary in West Lafayette and around the outer parts of Lafayette.
Residential Vacancies in the West Lafayette Area
From the West Lafayette Area’s HUD/USPS data set, we reported a four-and-a-half- year average 1.93% residential vacancy rate (1.83% was reported last year). Along the urban periphery of the West Lafayette Area the residential vacancy rate climbed to 2.61% (up from 2.3% a year ago). Meanwhile, within the urban core of the West Lafayette Area, the residential vacancy rate dropped to 1.26% (down from 1.36% a year ago).
The conclusion to draw from the analysis for the West Lafayette Area remains similar to our past reports: With lower vacancies in the core areas as compared with the periphery areas, continue to support the responsible urban densification of the near-campus area while discouraging dramatic increases in large, undergraduate-student-oriented, multi- family housing developments in the outlying areas of West Lafayette. The exception to multi-family expansion in the periphery remains units that cater to a mix of student and especially non-student groups which are adjacent and walkable to major commercial activity centers and public transit.
Comprehensive Plan support for this conclusion continues to be found, in part, in some of the implementation strategies within the New Chauncey Neighborhood Plan:
• “Goal 2 – Neighborhood Redevelopment – Objective 1, Strategy 2 – Focus all residential density along the Northwestern and Fowler corridors per the future land use map.” • “Goal 2 – Neighborhood Redevelopment – Objective 3, Strategy 1 - Develop neighborhood plans for Chauncey Village, Hills & Dales and the neighborhood south of State Street.” • “Goal 2 – Neighborhood Redevelopment – Objective 3, Strategy 2 – Direct urban density residential projects to primarily rental neighborhoods like Chauncey Village and the neighborhood south of State Street through land use planning, reduced parking ratios, on-street permit parking for residents, and the construction of public parking facilities.”
Page | 11 Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report – November 2017 • “Goal 2 – Neighborhood Redevelopment – Objective 3, Strategy 3 - Analyze existing zoning districts and develop an Overlay Plan that respects the Land Use Plan and provides specific direction for development to the appropriate areas within the New Chauncey Neighborhood.”
Residential Vacancies in the Lafayette Area
As with our previous reports, the HUD/USPS data continues to report residential vacancies in Lafayette being highest in and around the downtown core. The four-and- half year average residential vacancy rate fell to 6.53% (down from 6.9% reported last year). Beyond this core area, the city’s outlying tracts reported a four-and-half year vacancy rate average of 2.57% (down from 2.8% reported last year).
As with our previous reports’ conclusions, the Lafayette rental market continues to cater to a more diverse collection of tenant groups than West Lafayette and it is that defining quality which sets it apart from the West Lafayette Area. This difference should continue to be promoted in housing policy for the city; policy which the Historic Centennial Neighborhood Plan already supports in such strategies as Task 1 of Implementation Strategy 1 which calls for the promotion of “urban living” to non-student groups in core neighborhoods like Centennial.
Looking to the Future
Dramatic changes in the student housing marking have begun to occur in the near- campus neighborhoods since our first report four years ago. The well-established pattern of urban densification of the near-campus neighborhoods (begun in earnest over 17 years ago with the first large mixed-use planned developments like Wabash Landing and River Market) has given way to even larger projects centered on West Lafayette’s traditional central business district of Chauncey Village.
Looking ahead, it is important to note the following as new student-oriented rental and other multi-family projects are considered:
1. Purdue’s student population: After modest declines in student enrollment since 2009, Purdue’s student population growth rebounded in the fall of 2015 with a 1.65% increase followed by a 2.64% increase in the fall of 2016. With a student population at now record levels, the demand for new residential units will naturally follow in the years ahead.
2. Purdue’s On-Campus Housing: The on-campus housing totals increased during the 2016-2017 school year from the previous year (947 bedspaces) largely due to Purdue leasing private off-campus student apartments. At present there are no new on-campus housing projects in the construction pipeline.
Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report – November 2017 Page | 12
3. New multi-family projects in the near-campus area that are either under construction or approved to submit construction plans include:
In West Lafayette:
• 302 Vine Street Planned Development (under construction): 73 units, 117 bedrooms • The Hub at West Lafayette Planned Development (under construction): 270- 300 units, 599 bedrooms • Rise at Chauncey Planned Development (under construction): 300 units, 675 bedrooms • The Hub Plus on State Street Planned Development (under construction): 200-260 units, 630 bedrooms • Wabash Landing Apartments II Planned Development (approved): 115 units/bedrooms • 202 S. Chauncey Avenue Planned Development (approved): 56 units, 104 bedrooms • Innovation Place Apartments Planned Development (approved): 375 units, 835 bedrooms
In Lafayette:
• The Marq Lafayette (under construction): 99 units, 122 bedrooms • Uptown Flats (under construction): 20 units, 26 bedrooms • J&C Building Apartments (under construction): 24 units/bedrooms • Painters & Decorators Building Apartments (under construction): 32 units/ bedrooms • Glen Vick Apartments (under construction): 6 units, 9 bedrooms
Guiding Policies & Recommendations
To best manage future growth and ensure that sound planning principles work in concert with market forces, applicable policies from the 2011 Housing Element of the Tippecanoe County Comprehensive Plan, found in Appendix A-1 of this report, should be respected along with the following recommendations:
1. Support the land use recommendations in the New Chauncey Neighborhood Plan and create land use plans for West Lafayette’s downtown (Chauncey Village and the Levee) and the neighborhood south of State Street.
Page | 13 Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report – November 2017 2. Continue to support redevelopment efforts centered on West Lafayette’s downtown (Chauncey Village and the Levee), along Northwestern Avenue (from State Street to Meridian Street), and the neighborhood south of State Street. 3. Require compelling data from developers that supports significant increases in student-oriented residential density, particularly along the fringe areas of the campus and West Lafayette city limits. 4. Prepare for the adaptive re-use of multi-family rental units built for students beyond the near-campus area. 5. Discourage the development of student-oriented, multi-family, residential developments on the urban fringe that are not along a transit route and not adjacent and walkable to a major commercial activity center. 6. Explore the creation of near-campus, municipal public parking facilities and investigate creating a residential parking permit program for the neighborhood south of State Street to increase parking efficiency and availability for residents while discouraging commuter students, faculty and staff from parking there. 7. Continually monitor Purdue’s on-campus housing planning and construction efforts to ensure proposed off-campus residential development is in fact needed.
Conclusion
Purdue’s record population growth combined with no new dormitory construction in the pipeline continues to be the most significant factor affecting the student housing market. The private market is responding with numerous projects, including three high-rises near campus, already under construction. By 2019, the bulk of these new student- oriented projects will be completed and leasing. As the full effect of this record influx of new units near campus has year to be determined, it is incumbent upon APC and West Lafayette to guard against over-saturation by prudently weighing the timing of any new influx of units in the short term even if current land use policy, the data in this report, and market forces might direct otherwise. Ultimately, if the current influx of units produces no negative impacts in city-wide vacancy rates, then APC and West Lafayette can reasonably respond by encouraging the continued densification of the urban core so long as the fundamentals impacting it (Purdue’s growth, housing policies, etc.…) remain favorable.
As the urban densification in both cities unfolds, the continued reliance on sound land use polices, informed by the most reliable data, will continue to be the guiding force that ultimately shapes these development pressures into projects of lasting value and identity for the greater Lafayette community.
Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report – November 2017 Page | 14
PART 4: APPENDIX
Appendix A-1: Policies of the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Element
• Policy 5 - In relation to established needs multi-family development should be encouraged on lands located near major activity centers. • Policy 14 - Create land use plans that emphasize vibrant neighborhoods and support growth in Downtown Lafayette, the Levee area, and West Lafayette Village areas. • Policy 23 - Significant new residential construction, regardless of density and configuration, is to be constructed only in the presence of, or in conjunction with, sufficient levels of public services, facilities, and all modes of transportation. • Policy 24 - Housing specifically intended to serve low and moderate income and student populations is to be built within reasonable proximity to major shopping facilities and established public transportation routes. • Policy 27 - Zoning and land use decisions regarding housing development and redevelopment shall be guided, in part, by adopted neighborhood plans. A neighborhood plan found to be outdated relative to the neighborhood's current situation shall be updated as APC staff resources allow. In developing neighborhood plans, staff shall encourage the active participation of neighborhood associations with all other property owners and residents. Continued development of neighborhood associations and property owner associations is strongly encouraged. • Policy 28 - Zoning and land use decisions impacting neighborhoods rich in diversity, including those near Purdue University, shall consider all competing interests and promote an improved quality of life for all neighborhood residents.
Page | 15 Tippecanoe County Student Rental Report – November 2017
US 231 Corridor Plan
An Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan DRAFT August, 2017 THE AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY
US 231 CORRIDOR PLAN
Area Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County
www.tippecanoe.in.gov 20 North 3rd Street Lafayette, Indiana (765) 423.9242
Gerry Keen, President Sallie Dell Fahey, Executive Director Adoption: Jurisdiction Resolution Date APC
West Lafayette
This document was prepared by the staff of the Area Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County.
Table of Contents
01 Introduction ...... 09
02 Profiles ...... 13
03 Vision & Goals ...... 23
04 Implementation ...... 27
05 Future Land Uses ...... 39 • Future Land Use Plan Map...... 45
Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduction
Purpose With the completion of the “new” US 231 by the Indiana Department of Transportation in 2013 and annexation of the land surrounding it by the City of West Lafayette in 2014, new opportunities for development and urban expansion have arisen. Seeing these opportunities, the city council adopted on May 2, 2016, Resolution 10-16 requesting the Area Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County to study the US 231 Corridor and create a corridor land use plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Tippecanoe County.
Within this document are goals, policies, and implementation strategies that provide recommendations for future improvement within the corridor. Following adoption, this plan will serve as a decision- making tool for the Area Plan Commission, the City Council, the City staff, and the local development community among others. In embracing this plan, the ongoing partnership between these and other partners will result in a steady realization of the established goals and objectives found within the plan.
Location and Study Area Boundary As depicted the map, the US 231 Corridor study area (as approved by the West Lafayette City Council) stretches from the River Road intersection in the south to the Sagamore Parkway intersection in the north and contains approximately 28,074 acres or nearly 44 square miles.
US 231 Corridor Plan | 1: Introduction 8-2017 | 9
History
West Lafayette was originally settled in the early 1820’s in the area now known as Chauncey Village. With the founding of Purdue University in 1869 land near the corridor began to develop beyond the established agricultural pattern. The first major development in the corridor began with the establishment of the Purdue University Airport in 1930 on land donated by David Ross.
Located in the southernmost portion of the corridor, the airport was expanded in the 1960’s and today still remains the second busiest in the state, in terms of number of flights per year, behind Indianapolis International Airport.
Purdue’s continued expansion in the corridor also introduced an element of conservation. In 1967 the 24-acre Purdue Horticulture Park opened to the public and still contains large areas of natural woodlands along with a variety of plant species first introduced in the 1940’s by C.W. Beese, a Purdue professor of engineering and plant enthusiast.
More recently, with the relocation of the Purdue Grand Prix in 2009 and expansion of university athletic facilities off Cherry Lane, the growing commercial development on the north end of the corridor, and the emerging Purdue Research Park Aerospace District near the airport, it is clear the US 231 corridor is only just beginning to realize its potential.
Process of Public Engagement This planning process employed specific public outreach efforts to gather information from pertinent stakeholders to provide an avenue to share their concerns and hopes for the future. The following is a brief summary of the public engagement process.
10 |8-2017 1: Introduction | US 231 Corridor Plan
Project Steering Committee In early of 2017 a Steering Committee was formed from stakeholders. The body consisted of:
Purdue Research Foundation – Jeff Kanable West Lafayette City Council – Wang, Deboer West Lafayette City Staff – Erik Carlson Developer of Single Family Homes – Derrin Sorenson Developer of Apartments – Keith Long Developer of Commercial Properties – Alan White Single Family Homeowner – let district reps pick Non-Student Apartment Renter – let district reps pick Student Apartment Renter – let district reps pick
US 231 Corridor Plan | 1: Introduction 8-2017 | 11
12 |8-2017 1: Introduction | US 231 Corridor Plan
Chapter 2: Profiles
Profiles
Land Use Existing Land Use In early 2017 APC staff surveyed the corridor to create a land use inventory. With vacant land or land in agricultural production dominating approximately 47% of study area, the land use development pattern can best be described as “emerging” north of the Purdue Airport vicinity.
At the State Street and US 231 intersection, emerging high- technology industries connected with Purdue and its airport (typified by the new Rolls Royce facility at the southwest corner of the intersection) can be found. North of this, the Horticultural Park and Purdue athletic facilities can be found. Moving farther north to the Lindberg Road intersection, the emerging development pattern is solidly residential with a mix of residential densities already in place.
At the Cumberland Road intersection and north to the Sagamore Parkway intersection, the combination of an established commercial zoning pattern and already commercially developed sites has solidified these two intersections as important regional commercial nodes.
US 231 Corrior Plan | 2: Profiles 8-2017 | 13
Building Conditions In early 2017, using a standard scoring system previously employed in past survey efforts, APC staff surveyed and noted the physical condition of all existing structures in the corridor. The grading categories, from the Comprehensive Plan of Tippecanoe County, are:
A – GOOD = Structures in the good designation should be of high quality and of sound condition. New structures or older units that have been extensively rehabbed or perpetually maintained are included. The structure must be free of a visible need of repair. The property must also be well maintained.
B – MAINTENANCE = Buildings with maintenance ratings are in good structural condition and are in need of minor repairs. As a structure ages, it naturally requires maintenance. Fix-up work could include new paint, minor screen or window repair, a loose piece of the exterior material, or replacement of a few strips of siding.
C – REPAIR = A building in the repair category is in need of major repairs. If a major repair such as a new roof, additional structural support, or complete exterior rehab is needed, the building falls into this category. If a structure is neglected as it ages, small repairs mount into larger problems. Therefore, an aggregate of smaller repairs also constitutes a building needing major repair. A conglomeration of exterior problems might be an indication of additional serious issues inside the structure.
D – DILAPIDATED = Buildings that are unfit for human habitation, structurally unsound, and unsafe can be classified as candidates for dilapidated. These buildings have serious conditions requiring substantial investment. Serious problems might include but are not limited to major structural faults, advanced weathering of materials, and a foundation or footing that is not level or solid.
14 | 8-2017 2: Profiles | US 231 Corridor Plan
Given that so much of the study area is undeveloped, it is no surprise the results of the survey showed approximately 85% of the 442 lots as having “No Structure”. The remainder of the lots with buildings on them (excluding Purdue Airport buildings which were not surveyed) fell into the remaining categories accordingly: approximately 9% received the “A” rating, approximately 2% received the “B” rating, approximately 1% received the “C” rating, and approximately 0.5% received the “D” rating.
US 231 Corrior Plan | 2: Profiles 8-2017 | 15
Future Transportation Improvements In anticipation of future growth the US 231 Corridor’s transportation infrastructure has several improvements planned. The following improvements are contained within the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the 2018- 2021 Transportation Improvement Program:
Purdue Airport Improvements include an environmental assessment, the rehabilitation of runways and taxiways and expanded facilities for rescue/fire vehicles.
New Sidewalks & Trails A host of new 5’ sidewalks and 10’ trails are proposed throughout the corridor as shown on the map.
New Roads Two new roads are proposed including an extension of Cherry Lane to intersect with US 231 and an extension of US 231 north of the Sagamore Parkway intersection.
Road Improvements Improvements to existing roadways include the widening of State Street and the reconstruction of Cherry Lane in anticipation of its extension to US 231.
16 | 8-2017 2: Profiles | US 231 Corridor Plan
Parks, Paths and Trails The US 231 Corridor already has a strong foundation of parks, paths and trails upon which to build as the corridor develops. The following sites and facilities make up portions of West Lafayette’s open space network along the corridor:
Purdue Horticulture Park This large and well established park along State Street near US 231 contains an extensive internal trail system through a variety of forested and landscaped environments.
US 231 Trail With the construction of US 231 came its trail system with runs nearly the full length of corridor on both sides of the roadway. This important bike and pedestrian facility will be the spine from which all future facilities should connect to.
Cumberland Avenue Trail When Cumberland Avenue was extended to intersect with US 231 and sidewalk and trail system was incorporated along the roadway.
Proposed Park A future park containing the relocated historic Morris School building is proposed along Cumberland Avenue east of the US 231 intersection.
US 231 Corrior Plan | 2: Profiles 8-2017 | 17
Sewer Infrastructure Adequate public infrastructure is needed for development. The existing sewer infrastructure in the US 231 Corridor is a critical piece of the development puzzle. Maintenance by both the city, county and property owners is the key to ensuring its ability to expand and serve this high-growth area.
Sanitary and Storm Sewer Wastewater in the corridor is collected through a network of sanitary sewer, stormwater sewer pipes that convey the waste to the City of West Lafayette’s wastewater treatment plant located along the Wabash River at the southeastern corner of the city limits.
The US 231 Corridor is served primarily by a long sanitary sewer main stretching from just east of the US 231 and Cumberland Avenue intersection, roughly parallel with US 231, to nearly the southern limit of the corridor near Purdue University airport.
County storm sewer facilities were constructed with the Cumberland Avenue extension and are largely limited to that road’s corridor.
18 | 8-2017 2: Profiles | US 231 Corridor Plan
Wetlands While there is no Floodplain zoning found within the corridor boundary. The following map (with areas shown in red) inventories wetland areas identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory map.
US 231 Corrior Plan | 2: Profiles 8-2017 | 19
20 | 8-2017 2: Profiles | US 231 Corridor Plan
Chapter 3: Vision & Goals
US 231 Corridor Vision
“A vibrant, mixed-use corridor, where attaining the highest quality of life is achieved through preserving the natural environment, promoting a unique and attractive aesthetic appearance, and encouraging a diverse mix of commercial, residential, and university-related uses which provide for the long-term vitality of the city and the region.”
Corridor Goals and Objectives
The Steering Committee members, selected for the US 231 Corridor Plan and representing the principle stakeholders in the corridor, endorse the following goals and objectives which, when realized, will achieve the Vision of the US 231 Corridor. The following goals and objectives are based on public input and the guidance of the Steering Committee.
To accomplish the Vision of the US 231 Corridor, the following goals and objectives are established to promote and support:
1. Diverse Residential Development
2. Regional Commercial Node Development
3. Environmental Preservation and Quality of Life
4. University Research and Innovation Development
US 231 Corridor Plan | 3: Vision & Goals 8-2017 | 23
1) GOAL 1: DIVERSE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT a) Objective: Provide for the future residential needs of a growing and increasingly diverse population based on a future land use plan and support its adoption as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
b) Objective: Ensure that there is proper code enforcement and property maintenance.
c) Objective: Promote neighborhood identity and a sense of place.
d) Objective: Expand city and community resources that benefit the residents and businesses in the corridor.
2) GOAL 2: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL NODE DEVELOPMENT a) Objective: Provide for local and regional commercial/business needs based on a corridor future land use plan employing a nodal development philosophy and support its adoption as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
b) Objective: Ensure commercial development is appropriate in scale and character with existing and emerging neighborhoods both within the corridor and immediately adjacent to it.
3) GOAL 3: ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION AND QUALITY OF LIFE a) Objective: Protect existing park natural open spaces and support their expansions based on a future land use plan and support its adoption as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
b) Objective: Ensure there is adequate passive and recreational open space opportunities throughout the corridor that serve both a local and regional need.
c) Objective: Support the expansion of transit and alternative forms of transportation and ensure public infrastructure is sufficient to meet future needs.
d) Objective: Encourage public art at important locations and intersections throughout the corridor, particularly near Purdue University.
4) GOAL 4: UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT a) Objective: Support the expansion of Purdue University’s research and development uses (including supportive residential and commercial uses) based on a future land use plan and support its adoption as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
b) Objective: Ensure university-related development is appropriate in scale and character with existing and emerging developments both within the corridor and immediately adjacent to it.
24 | 8-2017 3: Vision & Goals | US 231 Corridor Plan
Chapter 4: Implementation
Implementation Tables
Consistent with the corridor’s vision, goals and objectives, the following implementation strategies matrix offers action steps and suggests roles that a variety of stakeholders will play to realize the vision of the corridor. The strategies are placed in categories based on the goals and objectives found in Chapter 3. The following strategies have been assigned approximate time frames but are subject to budgets, the market and many other factors:
Short-Term Opportunities Immediate to 18 months following the Plan’s adoption. Mid-Term Opportunities 2 - 5 years. Long-Term Opportunities 6 - 15 years. Priority levels are generalized in terms of low, medium and high. These levels represent a general order of importance relative to fulfilling the vision of the corridor and accomplishing the goals and objectives. Some of the individuals or organizations taking responsibility for the following tasks include: City = City of West Lafayette staff APC = Area Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County staff PRF = Purdue Research Foundation PU = Purdue University BUS = Greater Lafayette Public Transportation Corporation ART = City of West Lafayette Public Art Advisory Group BSO = Business Owners
US 231 Corridor Plan | 4: Implementation 8-2017 | 27
GOAL 1: DIVERSE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE A: Provide for the future residential needs of a growing and increasingly diverse population based on a future land use plan and support its adoption as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Strategy Strategy Description Term Priority Responsibility Develop a future land use plan that promotes a diverse range of residential options in the 1 Short High APC, City corridor and ensure that it is adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Make changes in the corridor’s existing zoning 2 districts to ensure the policies of the future land Short Mid APC, City use plan are realized Periodically review and update the future land 3 use plan to ensure it continues to meet the Long Low APC, City, PRF residential needs of the city.
28 | 8-2017 4: Implementation |US 231 Corridor Plan
OBJECTIVE B: Ensure that there is proper code enforcement and property maintenance.
Strategy Strategy Description Term Priority Responsibility Improve property maintenance through 1 preventive measures such as education and Short Medium City communication. Periodically review property maintenance, zoning 2 and building codes to ensure the highest Mid High City, APC standards are maintained. Support and expand the efforts of the City’s rental inspection program with an emphasis on curbing over-occupancy and increasing property 3 Short Medium City maintenance. Consider providing incentives to landlords who maintain their property above and beyond the minimum code requirements. Improve animal control operations and ensure 4 Long Low City there is a no-kill policy for adoptable animals. 5 Progressively increase fines for repeat violations. Short High City
US 231 Corridor Plan | 4: Implementation 8-2017 | 29
OBJECTIVE C: Promote neighborhood identity and a sense of place.
Strategy Strategy Description Term Priority Responsibility Improve a system of wayfinding signage directing 1 the public to parks, trails and other amenities in Mid Medium City, PRF, PU the corridor. Discourage the placement of billboards along the 2 Short High City US 231 corridor Promote the inclusion of public art at important 3 Mid Medium City, ART intersections and community spaces
OBJECTIVE 4: Expand city and community resources that benefit the residents and businesses in the corridor.
Strategy Strategy Description Term Priority Responsibility Ensure that community recreation resources 1 Short Medium City keep pace with residential growth. Promote the expansion of public library branches 2 Long Low City, BSO into the corridor’s neighborhoods as they grow
30 | 8-2017 4: Implementation |US 231 Corridor Plan
GOAL 2: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL NODE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE A: Provide for local and regional commercial/business needs based on a corridor future land use plan employing a nodal development philosophy and support its adoption as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Strategy Strategy Description Term Priority Responsibility Develop a future land use plan that promotes a diverse range of commercial development 1 options in the corridor and ensure that it is Short High APC adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Make changes in the corridor’s existing zoning 2 districts to ensure the policies of the future land Short High APC, City use plan are realized Periodically review and update the future land 3 use plan to ensure it continues to meet the Long Medium APC, City commercial and business needs of the city.
OBJECTIVE B: Ensure commercial development is appropriate in scale and character with existing and emerging neighborhoods both within the corridor and immediately adjacent to it.
Strategy Strategy Description Term Priority Responsibility Support the future land use plan’s policy for commercial development along the corridor 1 Long High City, APC, BSO discourage commercial rezone petitions that would deviate from it. Discourage commercial strip development and support commercial development that is 2 Long Medium APC, City, BSO designed with pedestrians and transit users in mind. Investigate the creation of an Architectural 3 Mid Medium APC, City Review Board.
US 231 Corridor Plan | 4: Implementation 8-2017 | 31
GOAL 3: ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION & QUALITY OF LIFE OBJECTIVE A: Protect existing park natural open spaces and support their expansions based on a future land use plan and support its adoption as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Strategy Strategy Description Term Priority Responsibility Create a corridor-wide parks and open spaces plan based on the future land use plan and 1 Long Medium City, PRF, PU periodically update it to meet the community’s needs. Provide development incentives to both commercial and residential developers who 2 Long Medium APC, City provide active and passive open spaces in their developments.
OBJECTIVE B: Ensure there is adequate passive and recreational open space opportunities throughout the corridor that serve both a local and regional need.
Strategy Strategy Description Term Priority Responsibility Investigate the use of impact fees to assist in the 1 funding of future public passive and active Short Medium APC, City recreational open spaces. Update zoning and subdivision ordinances to 2 require the inclusion of public active and Mid Medium APC, City recreational open spaces. Investigate allowing cluster subdivisions in the 3 Short Low APC subdivision ordinance.
32 | 8-2017 4: Implementation |US 231 Corridor Plan
OBJECTIVE C: Support the expansion of transit and alternative forms of transportation and ensure public infrastructure is sufficient to meet future needs.
Strategy Strategy Description Term Priority Responsibility Update zoning and subdivision ordinances to require commercial and higher-density 1 Mid High APC, City, BUS residential developments provide bus stop facilities. Promote the use of transit as it becomes 2 available throughout the corridor with HOA’a, Long Medium City, BUS, PRF, PU business associations and the university
OBJECTIVE D: Encourage public art at important locations and intersections throughout the corridor, particularly near Purdue University.
Strategy Strategy Description Term Priority Responsibility
1 Create a public art plan for the corridor. Mid Low City, ART, PRF, PU Create literature for a public art walking/driving 2 Long Low ART tour along the corridor.
US 231 Corridor Plan | 4: Implementation 8-2017 | 33
GOAL 4: UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE A: Support the expansion of Purdue University’s research and development uses (including supportive residential and commercial uses) based on a future land use plan and support its adoption as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Strategy Strategy Description Term Priority Responsibility Adopt and periodically update a future land use 1 plan for the corridor that provides for all Long Medium APC, City university-related development. Update all zoning and subdivision ordinances to 2 better accommodate the needs of university- Mid Medium APC, City oriented development
34 | 8-2017 4: Implementation |US 231 Corridor Plan
OBJECTIVE B: Ensure university-related development is appropriate in scale and character with existing and emerging developments both within the corridor and immediately adjacent to it.
Strategy Strategy Description Term Priority Responsibility Investigate the creation of a university overlay 1 district to better realize the mixed-use potential Long Medium APC, City, PRF of the areas along and adjacent to State Street. Investigate the creation of an Architectural Review Board to ensure a harmonious 3 Mid Low APC, City development pattern, particularly along State Street.
US 231 Corridor Plan | 4: Implementation 8-2017 | 35
36 | 8-2017 4: Implementation |US 231 Corridor Plan
Chapter 5: Future Land Uses
The Future Land Use Plan
The Future Land Use Plan, consisting of land use classifications and the Future Land Use Map is intended to set policy and act as a guide for development of the corridor. The Plan does not affect the existing uses of property, but influences future development proposals, requests to rezone property and requests for variances and special exceptions from the ABZA.
Low Density Residential This classification allows for single-family detached homes. Certain lower impact uses such as churches and parks may be encouraged within this category. Development standards should be consistent with the R1, R1A and R1B zones unless Planned Development zoning is utilized.
Medium Density Residential This classification allows for a variety of single, two-family and multi-family residential buildings. Development standards should be consistent with R1B, R1Z, R2 and R3 zones, unless Planned Development zoning is utilized.
Regional Commercial This classification allows for a variety of commercial retail and service uses that serve both a neighborhood and regional need. Unless Planned Development zoning is utilized, development standards shall be consistent with GB and NB zones.
Aerospace District This classification allows for a mix of university-oriented aerospace research, development and manufacturing uses. Unless Planned Development zoning is utilized, development standards shall be consistent with OR and I1 zones.
Innovation Mixed-Use This classification allows for a diverse mix of university-oriented uses that may contain residential, commercial, office and light industrial and manufacturing uses. Multiple uses within a single building or on a single development site are encouraged. Development standards shall be urban in character and should typically utilize Planned Development zoning.
Recreational The category contains a variety of active, passive, public and private open spaces including university athletic properties.
Airport This classification encapsulates all the primary and accessory uses contained with the Purdue Airport property.
State of Indiana This classification identifies properties currently owned by the State of Indiana and managed by the Indiana Department of Transportation.
US 231 Corridor Plan | 5: Future Land Uses 8-2017 | 39
40 | 8-2017 5: Future Land Uses | US 231 Corridor Plan
US 231 Corridor Plan | 5: Future Land Uses 8-2017 | 41
42 | 8-2017 5: Future Land Uses | US 231 Corridor Plan
US 231 Corridor Plan | 5: Future Land Uses 8-2017 | 43
44 | 8-2017 5: Future Land Uses | US 231 Corridor Plan
Future Land Use Map
US 231 Corridor Plan | 5: Future Land Uses 8-2017 | 45
46 | 8-2017 5: Future Land Uses | US 231 Corridor Plan