Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westfield BZA approves variance to allow stamped concrete panels in Wheeler Landing PUD
Summary
The Westfield Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance to permit stamped architectural concrete panels instead of UDO-defined masonry on certain external facades in area four of the Wheeler Landing PUD, adopting findings of fact after a petitioner presentation and brief board questioning; no public comments were received.
The Westfield Board of Zoning Appeals voted to approve a developer request to use stamped architectural concrete panels in place of masonry materials for buildings in area four of the Wheeler Landing Planned Unit Development.
Dane Crabtree, with the Community Development Department, told the board the petition (26-VS-06) seeks a variance because the Unified Development Ordinance requires external facades visible from a street or adjacent residential district to be at least 60% masonry. Crabtree said stamped concrete panels can resemble masonry but “do not explicitly meet this definition, hence the request for the variance.” The parcel in question totals about 65.01 acres in the Wheeler Landing PUD.
Justin Lashik, representing SBWL Westfield LLC and Skiles Properties, presented building renderings and examples of past projects using stamped architectural concrete panels, including work in Greenwood and for a FedEx Ground site in Dayton. Lashik said the panels are cast with liners that emulate brick or stone texture, are painted on site, and offer easier long-term maintenance: “it turns into a really good product, and you drive down the street, you have no real idea unless you're getting up and really inspecting it that it's not the true masonry brick material.”
Board member Larry pressed the petitioner on why the building was designed before seeking a variance: “Did you guys know this rule when you your architect designed the building?” Lashik replied that while the team understood the PUD standards, they were asking the board to consider the variance because of construction constraints on large industrial/warehouse façades and industry practice. Staff and the president noted that past approvals and PUD amendments have allowed similar treatments in particular circumstances.
After brief discussion, a motion to accept the department's recommended findings for the case (referred to in the motion as 2606-BS-06) was made and seconded. Roll-call votes were recorded as Yes from Dr. Keen, Jeff Boller, Mr. Clarino and Mr. Bonkofski; the motion carried and the variance was approved. The board then unanimously adopted findings of fact supporting the decision.
The board opened the public hearing at 7:09 and closed it at 7:10 after confirming there were no emailed comments and no in-person speakers. With the variance and findings adopted, the board concluded the item and moved on to brief Plan Commission updates before adjourning at 7:15.
