Plan commission asks for more detail on Schlegel Commerce Park rezoning; schedules workshop review

The Westfield Washington Township Area Plan Commission heard a public presentation and discussion on Monday, Oct. 6, 2025, for a proposed rezoning to create the Schlegel Commerce Park PUD on approximately 3 acres on the east side of Grassy Branch Road.

Why it matters: The site sits adjacent to recently approved Northpointe industrial development and near residential neighborhoods and a church; the rezoning would permit smaller enclosed industrial and office uses that could shape traffic, architecture and nights‑time lighting patterns in the immediate area.

What was proposed

Matt Pleasant, representative for Pleasant Cities LLC, introduced the petition on behalf of applicant Austin Schlegel. Pleasant said the petition would rezone the parcel to an enclosed industrial (EI)‑style PUD that aligns closely with the Northpointe Area 3 PUD standards for architecture and design but would be more restrictive in permitted uses than the larger industrial district to the north. Key points mentioned by the petitioner and staff:

- Site and ownership: approximately 3 acres on the east side of Grassy Branch Road, immediately north of North Circle Church and adjacent to the Northpointe PUD area. - Intended uses: smaller industrial/multi‑tenant commercial spaces and offices such as construction trade offices, general offices, medical offices and small fitness or studio spaces (petitioner said a typical small gym would be limited to about 7,500 square feet in the concept). Pleasant said the intent was to avoid heavy distribution or large‑scale warehouse uses and to prohibit outdoor storage. - Scale estimate: petitioner described a conceptual building in the 25,000–35,000 square‑foot range (Pleasant said "around a 30,000 square foot building" as a planning‑level example). - Design and compatibility: the petitioner said the PUD would borrow architectural standards from Northpointe Area 3 to achieve visual compatibility and added landscaping and other restrictions requested by neighbors. - Operations and lighting: neighbors expressed concern about nighttime lighting and truck access. The petitioner proposed that parking‑lot and monument sign lighting be turned off at night (petitioner described turning exterior lighting off after 10 p.m. on weekdays and after 11 p.m. on weekend nights as a proposed limitation during the discussion). - Annexation and right‑of‑way: Pleasant said the property would be annexed into the city at the time of development and the required right‑of‑way dedication would be provided.

Commissioners’ concerns and requested follow‑up

Commissioners generally expressed that the concept could fit the area but asked for more detail before a formal vote. Specific requests and concerns included:

- Uses and limits: several commissioners asked for clearer, more targeted lists of permitted uses and suggested a square‑footage cap or limits on tenancy (for example, multiple smaller tenants rather than a single large tenant) so the building type remains consistent with the neighborhood and nearby Northpointe character. - Architecture and site context: commissioners asked for exhibits showing the proposed building footprint in context with the adjacent Northpointe development and the neighboring church and homes so the commission can evaluate how the building would fit visually. - Lighting and safety: commissioners asked for a clarified lighting plan that balances neighbor concerns about glare and nighttime illumination with safety and operational needs for tenants who may access the site after dark.

Next steps and outcome

The public hearing was held and then closed with no public speakers registered. Commissioners indicated they will bring the item back for additional review in a workshop setting to allow the petitioner and staff to provide more targeted exhibits (e.g., illustrative site plan, context map showing adjacent Northpointe parcels and a clearer list of permitted uses and maximum building sizes). No vote to approve or deny was taken at the Oct. 6 meeting.

Ending: The petitioner and staff were instructed to return to a workshop with more detailed exhibits addressing uses, building scale, architecture and lighting; the commission did not set a specific date for the workshop during the Oct. 6 hearing.