The proposal is to downzone SK hynix’s initial site so there’s ‘no net increase in industrial use’ north of Kalberer Road. West Lafayette City Council expected to vote Monday evening.
I think this is a decent compromise. This will allow SK Hynix to use the Site B preferred site that has more gap between the factory and homes. And then prevent Site A which is next to homes from being industrial. Site B will be an office space buffer similar to building in the Research Park now, Ross Building, Purdue Technology Center, Etc.
This is not a reasonable middle ground—it’s a strategic maneuver, plain and simple. The timing and nature of this proposal suggest they anticipate losing the rezoning vote. By pushing for an OR designation on Site A, they open the door for backdoor approvals. Under OR zoning, they can quietly request exceptions—such as for chemical storage—without needing city council approval or community awareness. It’s a workaround designed to sidestep public scrutiny, introduced at the eleventh hour to muddy the waters and divert attention.
So, instead of one unrestricted I3 parcel and one <strike>agricultural parcel,</strike> <bold>residential</bold> parcel you'd have one I3 parcel with commitments and one OR zone. That's a net win if you're resigned to the fact that Site A has been zoned I3 for decades and are looking to avoid doubling the industrial footprint. <strike>(I don't think anyone really thinks Site B is likely to remain agricultural indefinitely.)</strike>
If you want the existing I3 to go away entirely somehow, obviously that proposal is no improvement.
(Edit: Added some tags to show how I would edit the original comment if tags did any good.)
Actually site B is zoned R1 (residential single family homes). But you’re right about not wanting the heavy industrial zoning to more than double. Site A is 90 acres and site B is 121.5 acres.
I notice that the company has not offered to locate some of its suppliers on the extra 31 acres it would gain in this uneven swap. Seems reasonable to limit the Site B rezone to 90 acres.
My mistake. I saw tan and row crops on the zoning map and jumped to that conclusion. I guess the "A" zones are more of a greenish. But, you're right, that is currently zoned R1.
It sounds like SK hynIX has received assurances on this point. From Dave's Q&A:
"We have been offered investment attractions at both the original site (Site A) and the opportunity to rezone a neighboring site (Site B). The site for rezoning was originally scheduled to be a future supply chain partner area."
Now, that word "scheduled" could be doing a lot of work in that sentence. Any reading sure sounds like upzoning (?) Site B was baked into the deal for them.
(Yes, my new stylization of the company name reflects their likely attitude to the Butlerian Jihad. What's up, nerds?)
I've been a little surprised that people seem to just now be discovering that Site B was always part of the plan, as that was made clear last year. For instance, in his November 21 newsletter last year Dave writes of that space:
"The West Lafayette Redevelopment Commission’s moves Wednesday also proposed carving out other portions of the KCB Tax Increment Finance district to create what was dubbed the Research Advancement District. That TIF district would bring in land near the SK hynix ground, stretching east to County Road 50 West, expected to attract support businesses for the semiconductor giant."
I don't think it's ever been a secret that there was the hope or intent to use that space as described in this quote.
Proper zoning is a point of contention, but I think we can all agree that making machines in the likeness of a human mind is basically the point of this commercial enterprise.
I don't understand the proposed sequence of events now. Surely the City Council will not vote yes on the Site B proposal tonight since, to put it mildly, trust is clearly an issue. Will this all happen after the APC gets it next month?
I think this is a decent compromise. This will allow SK Hynix to use the Site B preferred site that has more gap between the factory and homes. And then prevent Site A which is next to homes from being industrial. Site B will be an office space buffer similar to building in the Research Park now, Ross Building, Purdue Technology Center, Etc.
Hopefully the CC will approve SiteB rezone.
This is not a reasonable middle ground—it’s a strategic maneuver, plain and simple. The timing and nature of this proposal suggest they anticipate losing the rezoning vote. By pushing for an OR designation on Site A, they open the door for backdoor approvals. Under OR zoning, they can quietly request exceptions—such as for chemical storage—without needing city council approval or community awareness. It’s a workaround designed to sidestep public scrutiny, introduced at the eleventh hour to muddy the waters and divert attention.
Of course it’s a strategic maneuver. One that is a compromise and is better then the other option, they just build on Site A.
It's a smaller ask but by no means a compromise.
Hello Mike. There are still plenty of industrial developments that can occur in an OR zoned property.
If you look at the UZO (https://www.tippecanoe.in.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37843/UZO?bidId=) there is a lot of overlap between OR and I3.
For example, in an OR, just like an I3, you can have by right:
- Chemicals and allied products
- Fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment
- Electronic and electrical equipment and components, except computer equipment
- Industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment
- Measuring, analyzing and controlling instruments; photographic, medical and optical goods; watches and clocks
- Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
- Stone, clay, glass and concrete products
And by special exception:
- Laboratory animal farms
So, instead of one unrestricted I3 parcel and one <strike>agricultural parcel,</strike> <bold>residential</bold> parcel you'd have one I3 parcel with commitments and one OR zone. That's a net win if you're resigned to the fact that Site A has been zoned I3 for decades and are looking to avoid doubling the industrial footprint. <strike>(I don't think anyone really thinks Site B is likely to remain agricultural indefinitely.)</strike>
If you want the existing I3 to go away entirely somehow, obviously that proposal is no improvement.
(Edit: Added some tags to show how I would edit the original comment if tags did any good.)
Actually site B is zoned R1 (residential single family homes). But you’re right about not wanting the heavy industrial zoning to more than double. Site A is 90 acres and site B is 121.5 acres.
I notice that the company has not offered to locate some of its suppliers on the extra 31 acres it would gain in this uneven swap. Seems reasonable to limit the Site B rezone to 90 acres.
Originally SK said they wouldn’t use all of the 121 acres of Site B initially but that this would give them room to expand in the future.
My mistake. I saw tan and row crops on the zoning map and jumped to that conclusion. I guess the "A" zones are more of a greenish. But, you're right, that is currently zoned R1.
Hello Townie. You can still have industrial developments in an OR zoned property.
If you look at the UZO (https://www.tippecanoe.in.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37843/UZO?bidId=) there is a lot of overlap between OR and I3.
For example, in an OR, just like an I3, you can have by right:
- Chemicals and allied products
- Fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment
- Electronic and electrical equipment and components, except computer equipment
- Industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment
- Measuring, analyzing and controlling instruments; photographic, medical and optical goods; watches and clocks
- Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
- Stone, clay, glass and concrete products
And by special exception:
- Laboratory animal farms
Ok. But you should post this four or five more times.
Will do, Townie. Different threads, different discussion, similar response.
What are your thoughts about these by-right industrial uses in OR?
It sounds like SK hynIX has received assurances on this point. From Dave's Q&A:
"We have been offered investment attractions at both the original site (Site A) and the opportunity to rezone a neighboring site (Site B). The site for rezoning was originally scheduled to be a future supply chain partner area."
Now, that word "scheduled" could be doing a lot of work in that sentence. Any reading sure sounds like upzoning (?) Site B was baked into the deal for them.
(Yes, my new stylization of the company name reflects their likely attitude to the Butlerian Jihad. What's up, nerds?)
I've been a little surprised that people seem to just now be discovering that Site B was always part of the plan, as that was made clear last year. For instance, in his November 21 newsletter last year Dave writes of that space:
"The West Lafayette Redevelopment Commission’s moves Wednesday also proposed carving out other portions of the KCB Tax Increment Finance district to create what was dubbed the Research Advancement District. That TIF district would bring in land near the SK hynix ground, stretching east to County Road 50 West, expected to attract support businesses for the semiconductor giant."
I don't think it's ever been a secret that there was the hope or intent to use that space as described in this quote.
Interesting and you are correct. I missed that until they started talking about Site B.
Proper zoning is a point of contention, but I think we can all agree that making machines in the likeness of a human mind is basically the point of this commercial enterprise.
This is hardly a compromise. Don't fall for this PR stunt.
If you look at the UZO (https://www.tippecanoe.in.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37843/UZO?bidId=) there is a lot of overlap between OR and I3.
For example, in an OR, just like an I3, you can have by right:
- Chemicals and allied products
- Fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment
- Electronic and electrical equipment and components, except computer equipment
- Industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment
- Measuring, analyzing and controlling instruments; photographic, medical and optical goods; watches and clocks
- Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
- Stone, clay, glass and concrete products
And by special exception:
- Laboratory animal farms
I don't understand the proposed sequence of events now. Surely the City Council will not vote yes on the Site B proposal tonight since, to put it mildly, trust is clearly an issue. Will this all happen after the APC gets it next month?
Great question! It will be interesting to see how this plays out because PRF isn’t known for their transparency.