The Carmel Land Use Committee voted to send a positive recommendation to the City Council for an Edward Rose apartment development on the Michigan Road corridor, while committee members raised concerns about infrastructure, stormwater, zoning and whether the project aligns with the city’s broader housing strategy.

Committee members said the proposal would allow roughly 366–371 dwelling units on the site and would generate $2,100,000 in parks impact fees if it proceeds. Land use members also noted the site lies at a junction of multiple jurisdictions, including Zionsville and county authorities, and urged a corridor plan for Michigan Road before large-scale construction begins.

Why it matters: the site sits at a key interchange (Michigan Road near US 421 and 465) where speaker after speaker warned that piecemeal improvements could create a patchwork of signals, private roads and detention basins unless the city pursues a coordinated corridor strategy, possible state relinquishment negotiations and more detailed master planning.

Most important facts: Committee members described the zoning for the site as I‑1 (industrial/light industrial) rather than I‑4, which one member said changes expectations about long‑term uses. Staff and councilors discussed two prior cost estimates for a more detailed corridor/master plan: a quote of about $95,000 (from last year’s budget discussions) for an initial master plan and a staff estimate of roughly $200,000–$250,000 to complete a fuller plan including engineering. One committee member suggested exploring a state relinquishment of Michigan Road to the city — an option that was described as unlikely but potentially valuable if the city could secure roughly an $80 million–$90 million package to redesign the corridor in Carmel’s image.

Committee members repeatedly raised stormwater and site design concerns. Speakers counted as many as 31 existing detention ponds on and around the site and said many are degraded; they urged improved stormwater infrastructure rather than reproducing “useless detention ponds.” Private roads within parts of the development were said to be the responsibility of owners’ associations; one speaker mentioned a Mayflower Owners Association commitment to improve private roads to Carmel standards.

Housing strategy and design: Members referenced the Housing Task Force’s recommendation to favor mixed‑use development and to avoid overconcentrating single‑use apartment projects. Several members said the proposed buildings are four‑story walk‑up apartments rather than “garden‑style” two‑ to three‑story buildings and that stand‑alone apartment projects should be weighed against the task force guidance to prioritize mixed‑use development where possible.

Zoning and community context: Committee discussion noted that the site has been largely undeveloped for decades and sits at the meeting point of multiple municipalities and townships, which complicates infrastructure planning and service provision. Councilors urged a “global conversation” with neighboring jurisdictions, including Zionsville, about future uses, annexation boundaries and service responsibilities.

Process and next steps: Land Use voted to forward a positive recommendation to the full City Council; committee members said they expect further deliberation at the dais. The committee did not record a detailed vote tally in the transcript and no formal mover/second was recorded in the meeting excerpts provided.

Details and clarifications from the meeting: the project as discussed would produce about 366 maximum total living units (one speaker used “about 371” in a separate remark), include roughly $2.1 million in parks impact fees, and require additional corridor planning and stormwater upgrades if it proceeds. Staff recalled an earlier $95,000 budget quote for a more detailed master plan and estimated $200,000–$250,000 for a full corridor/engineering plan. Potential state relinquishment of Michigan Road was mentioned as a possible, but uncertain, path to giving the city greater control over the corridor’s design and signals.

The Land Use Committee’s positive recommendation sends the proposal to the City Council for further consideration; committee members signaled they expect additional debate there on infrastructure, mixed‑use strategy and coordination with neighboring jurisdictions.