Committee sends Edward Rose US‑421 PUD rezoning back for more refinement; developer agrees to crosswalk and bike parking requirements
Loading...
Summary
The committee on April 1 continued consideration of Edward Rose & Sons’ US‑421 (Michigan Road) PUD rezoning and asked the petitioner to return in May with refined ordinance text, detailed architectural standards and updated sidewalk and retail exhibits.
The committee on April 1 discussed Edward Rose & Sons’ proposed rezoning and PUD for the Michigan Road/US‑421 corridor (docket PZ2024‑00222) and voted to send the item to the May committee meeting for further refinement after the petitioner supplied additional exhibits addressing architecture, sidewalks, tree preservation and retail layout.
Attorney John Davoshewicz, representing Edward Rose, said the petitioner has submitted text and exhibits addressing staff comments including architectural character text tied to illustrative exhibits, a sidewalks and paths exhibit showing five‑foot sidewalks and 10‑foot paths, and an enlarged tree preservation area increased from 1.5 acres to 2 acres. Davoshewicz also said the developer agreed to require the long‑term bicycle parking recommended by staff rather than treating it as encouragement.
On pedestrian safety, the petitioner said it will pursue a signalized pedestrian crosswalk across Michigan Road at either 90th Street or at Retail Parkway, and will coordinate applications and sequencing with the state and the city. “Jeremy said he would be supportive of an additional crosswalk to be constructed at one of those two locations,” Davoshewicz said, referring to the city’s Chief Infrastructure Officer. The developer said it will either be the applicant to the State of Indiana for that crossing or support the city’s application.
Petitioners told the committee they are not proposing to include subsidized or federally regulated affordable housing units in the development. “Edward Rose isn't proposing to include any, thing from an affordable, federally regulated standpoint,” Davoshewicz said. He added the company manages market‑rate multifamily and is not seeking municipal subsidy for below‑market units.
Staff told the committee the petitioner addressed many comments and submitted additional materials but that staff remains in technical review on architectural standards, boulevard cross‑sections and the retail layout. Staff recommended the committee discuss the design direction and then forward the item to the next committee meeting in May so remaining ordinance text and exhibits can be finalized.
Votes at a glance Motion: Forward docket PZ2024‑00222 (US‑421 / Edward Rose & Sons PUD rezoning) to the May committee meeting for further refinement and continued discussion. Tally: Ayes 5, Nays 0 Outcome: Item continued to May committee; final ordinance and exhibits to be circulated in advance of next meeting.
The petitioner said it would provide a revised ordinance and redline and new exhibits at least 10 days before the next meeting so commissioners can review the updated PUD language, architectural character standards and any required crosswalk application materials.
