Westfield council denies Shamrock Apartments proposal as last-minute agenda item

An $18 million apartment-and-retail project proposed near U.S. 31 and Main Street was turned down Monday night after Westfield City Council members debated whether a petition for the project should even be considered.

Birch Dalton, managing director of Westfield-based EdgeRock Development, asked Sunday that the council delay its review of his proposed four-story apartment and retail building at 17655 Shamrock Boulevard, near Riverview Health Westfield Hospital and Westfield Intermediate School.

After councilor Mike Johns requested the council hear the proposal anyway, councilers voted to review the petition during Monday’s meeting, then denied the proposal.

After some councilors said they hadn’t reviewed the project because it wasn’t on the agenda, the council voted 4-2 to deny the project, with councilors Jake Gilbert and Scott Willis dissenting and councilor Joe Edwards absent.

“I think that’s the opposite of transparency,” Gilbert said of allowing the petition to be heard. “With that not being on (the agenda), there could be people who aren’t here tonight because they thought that was not going to be discussed.”

The proposal for a roughly 100-unit apartment building with 30,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space received a favorable review from the Westfield Plan Commission on May 6.

Johns said he had concerns about the increased traffic near the hospital and middle school, the building’s increased height and the project’s intended occupants.

“We already have 2,428 existing apartment units in Westfield, and we’ve got an additional 1,241—that’s 50% more—that have been approved and permitted,” Johns said. “For the last six years, we as a city have been expecting that we’d have assisted living and independent senior living on that site. I really don’t think that it’s a good location for what the petitioner has said is ‘large family’ housing.”

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: IBJ is now using a new comment system. Your Disqus account will no longer work on the IBJ site. Instead, you can leave a comment on stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Past comments are not currently showing up on stories, but they will be added in the coming weeks. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

8 thoughts on “Westfield council denies Shamrock Apartments proposal as last-minute agenda item

  1. Nonetheless in the Westfield Carmel area there is a severe lack of affordable median income housing, apartments etc. as to achieve both working and living in Westfield or Carmel.

    Too many heads are in the sand of this vital link to the area’s continued growth.

  2. I agree with Jake Gilbert, the new council has spoken about more transparency in decision making. Discussing a project not on the agenda seems hypocritical.

  3. The geniuses from the City of Westfield “have been expecting that we’d have assisted living and independent senior living on that site.” Do they have any clue that assisted and independent living is currently HIGHLY overbuilt in not just Westfield but all of Hamilton County? Stick to what you know, Westfield – youth sports fields and McMansions.

  4. Those council members should resign. Zero transparency, a surprise vote, and for the sake of what sounds like it might be someone’s pet project to add to a completely saturated market for assisted-living? I’d be checking their bank statements.

  5. How about understanding it was on the agenda until nearly 3pm yesterday and removed in an unusual step? It was returned to the agenda per agenda item for agenda changes. The PUD still exists and can be built. It was a denial of an amendment adding 13’ height to design a 4-story building next to 1-story single family, reasonably priced, established housing in downtown. The project is next door to the school campus and across from the hospital and creates serious traffic safety issues. It passed APC 5-4 with both Council members voting against. Not a surprise the Council then voted it down. Also interesting a 5th Councilor was telling others he was against the project just hours earlier.