Carmel housing panel reviews zoning maps, finds single-family zoning dominant and renter cost burden high

Carmel — The Mayor's Advisory Commission on Housing on July 10 reviewed a package of zoning maps, parcel data and Census Bureau estimates that commission staff and city GIS personnel said are intended to ground upcoming policy work on zoning, housing diversity and preservation.

The commission's presentation, led by Adrienne Keeling of the Department of Community Services, summarized maps and tables that compare zoning districts, parcel characteristics, age and form of housing, and cost‑burden metrics for owners and renters. Keeling said the material will be posted on the city’s website and refined for future meetings.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the maps clarify where different housing types are allowed today, how much land is limited to single‑family detached houses, and where residents appear to be cost‑burdened. Those patterns matter for any zoning change, missing‑middle housing initiatives, or programs aimed at preserving affordable homes.

Key findings presented - Zoning and permitted uses: Keeling and staff reported that about 81.8% of the city’s zoned acreage permits some form of residential use. However, when measured by districts that allow only single‑family detached housing (S1, S2, R1, R2), “just over 72%” of zoned land is limited to single‑family detached homes. Planned unit developments (PUDs) were said to cover roughly 10% of land and are counted separately in parts of the analysis. - Housing form: Staff showed parcel‑level data on year built and building height. Keeling said roughly one quarter of housing stock is single‑story while the majority are two‑story and higher; staff noted more than 20,000 units in the dataset are two‑story, which relates to discussions about seniors seeking single‑level housing. - Unplatted parcels and open acres: Staff displayed a map of unplatted parcels (land not in a subdivision). Keeling emphasized that “unplatted” does not mean vacant; many unplatted parcels are privately owned and may have houses on them. Parcel‑size layers (0–5 acres, 5–10, 10–20, 20+) and floodplain overlays were shown to indicate where assemblage or development could be feasible. - Cost burden: Using American Community Survey data (five‑year estimates), staff reported a citywide estimate that 15.5% of owners with mortgages spend 30% or more of household income on housing costs. For renters, the estimate presented was 42.6% spending 30%+ on rent and utilities. Keeling noted those renter percentages vary by census tract and identified tracts in the central areas and parts of the far west with the highest concentrations. - Accessory dwellings and other allowances: Keeling said accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are allowed by right in only a small portion of the city (C1/C2 commercial districts and a few overlay/PUDs); staff estimated roughly 1% of land allows ADUs by right in the analyzed layers. Staff also noted multifamily allowances and other residential types make up smaller shares (multifamily ~5.8%, two‑family ~4%, attached/row/ADU under 2% in the presented breakdown).

Caveats and data limits: Staff repeatedly noted caveats: PUDs and overlay zones were not fully included in some tabular breakdowns; county parcel records (used for years‑built) are separate from city zoning layers; and “unplatted” parcels may be occupied or privately held and not truly available for development. Keeling said the software portal for an unrelated rental registration ordinance is still under development and that the ordinance excludes short‑term rentals and build‑to‑rent product types.

Commission discussion and follow‑up requests: Commissioners and staff discussed implications for protecting existing neighborhoods, where to target missing‑middle housing or smaller footprints (first‑floor master, ranch style) and how to preserve tree canopy and open space. Several commissioners asked staff to return with comparative cost‑burden data for neighboring communities, a clearer breakdown of housing within PUDs, a map layer of truly vacant or unimproved parcels (excluding parcels with existing houses), and the fraction of land where ADUs are allowed when overlays are included.

Staff said they will refine the maps and datasets and try to recruit an outside expert on “missing‑middle” housing for a future meeting. Mike (staff) said he was pursuing a speaker; Adrienne Keeling described planned refinements including an “unimproved” filter for unplatted lands so parcels with a house can be excluded when identifying potential assembly opportunities.

Votes at a glance - Approval of minutes (motion to approve the meeting minutes): Motion moved and seconded; voice vote recorded as “aye” and the motion carried. (Mover/second not specified on the record.)

What’s next: Keeling said staff will post materials on the Department of Community Services page on the city website and prepare additional drill‑downs for the commission’s next scheduled meeting (staff mentioned dates including Sept. 25 and Nov. 25). The commission also noted a related senior housing commission meeting on July 23 at 5:30 p.m. where downsizing and senior housing will be discussed.

Sources and direct quotes: The presentation and the majority of factual detail came from Adrienne Keeling, Department of Community Services staff, and city GIS staff (Shane Burnham). Keeling described the parcel age map as, “This map might be the coolest map we'll see all morning,” and repeatedly cautioned that mapping layers have caveats (PUDs and overlays not fully captured in all tables). Director Hollibaugh and multiple commissioners pressed for additional comparative and neighborhood‑level data.

Ending: Commissioners said the maps helped focus the group on where reforms or protections might produce the greatest effect, but they emphasized that any zoning changes would be a separate legislative process requiring more data, public engagement and careful attention to neighborhood scale and preservation.