Council adopts Town Road Crossing PUD amendment after neighbor concerns about floodplain ownership
Loading...
Summary
After neighbor Chad Hughes raised concerns that a wooded floodplain adjacent to his property might be privately sold after development, the council approved the Town Road Crossing PUD amendment with developer commitments limiting uses, rental caps and protections for tree preservation; the motion passed 6‑1.
Westfield — The City Council voted 6‑1 to adopt an amendment to the Town Road Crossing Planned Unit Development (PUD) after the developer agreed to written commitments and pledged to work with adjacent property owners over preservation and potential purchase of floodplain/open space.
Dane Crabtree of the Community Development Department introduced the ordinance amendment, saying it would update the 2007 PUD to align with current PUD standards and the State Road 32 overlay. John Dubosevich of Nelson Frankenberger, representing the applicant Platinum Properties, summarized the developer’s commitments: aesthetic enhancements along State Road 32, limits on auto‑centric uses, a cap on drive‑through restaurants, a minimum 20,000‑square‑foot anchor retail building (explicitly “not a CVS” or medical use), masonry requirements on all four sides of homes, limits on single‑builder concentration, and a rental cap reduced to 10% (the developer had previously proposed 15%).
Neighbor Chad Hughes, who said he lives on Little Eagle Creek Avenue, told the council the property line between his yard and the wooded floodplain is ambiguous and asked that the possibility of purchasing the green space be addressed before council adoption. Hughes said multiple surveys showed inconsistencies and that homeowners feared later clearing or logging of the floodplain. “Once you guys vote on it tonight, it’ll be a moot point and then we’re at the mercy of the new development,” he said.
Council members pressed the applicant on whether privately sold open space would still count toward open‑space requirements. Dubosevich and developer Paul Rio confirmed the ordinance includes a provision allowing the open space to be privately owned while still counting toward the project’s open‑space minimums; Dubosevich pointed to specific ordinance sections on tree preservation and neighbor outreach (page 13, sections 7.4(b) and 10.1(b) in the revision packet). Rio said he had worked with neighbors in the past and committed to meeting with them and discussing purchase possibilities after approvals.
Council debate mixed procedural concerns and substantive changes. One council member noted frustration that many commitments were made after the Plan Commission review; others said the commitments were stricter than the prior PUD and represented an improvement over the original 2007 standards. After a motion and second, the council called the roll: five councilors voted yes, one voted no (Victor McCarty), and the motion carried 6‑1.
The ordinance includes a provision that no commercial building permit in the State Road 32 commercial area will be issued until the council adopts a final enhancement plan by resolution. The developer requested adoption conditioned on signing and recording the written commitments.
