Developers pitch 70 Third/I‑65 residential plan; commissioners press on density, traffic and soils

Developers and landowners presented a conceptual plan to the Town of Merrillville planning commission for a large mixed residential project on about 88 acres near 70 Third Avenue and the I‑65 interchange. Lawrence Benjamin (property owner) and representatives from Highgates Development — Joseph Waldman (principal) and Brent Hackworth (vice president of construction and development) — described a plan that, as drawn, would include approximately 85 single‑family lots, 176 townhomes and about 312 apartments.

Why it matters: The project as presented would add several hundred housing units in an area directly adjacent to I‑65 and existing single‑family neighborhoods. Commissioners flagged traffic, infrastructure funding and compatibility with nearby residences as key issues requiring early resolution.

Developers said the project would preserve a wetland area and include trails, park space, playgrounds and recreational courts. Waldman said Highgates typically retains and manages its apartment properties and intends class‑A finishes; he noted the firm has held the site since 2011 and previously explored industrial uses.

Commissioners pushed back on density and lot sizes. Staff and commissioners contrasted the proposed apartment and townhome densities (roughly 12.6–16 dwelling units per acre in parts of the plan) with the town’s R‑4 and R‑5 standards (7 and 10 units per acre, respectively). The chair emphasized the PUD preamble that PUD approval must show a demonstrable benefit to the town, not solely the developer. Several commissioners signaled the proposed mix would be a difficult sell to adjacent neighborhood residents without adjustments and community outreach.

Traffic and infrastructure were a central concern. Commissioners and redevelopment commission members said the town will likely need to widen 70 Third Avenue between Virginia and the bridge over I‑65 and noted bridge replacement or widening would require state approval and carry significant cost. The board asked whether developers would participate financially; developers said they are willing to participate but asked to see traffic study results before committing to a specific contribution. Staff said the town’s financial adviser and past project precedents suggest a mix of funding approaches may be needed.

Site geotechnical concerns were raised: commissioners recalled peat, standing water and buried farm drainage tiles in that area and urged thorough geotechnical testing. Developers agreed geotechnical work is part of due diligence. Developers also said apartments would be limited to three stories (no elevators) under the current plan and that final rental pricing had not yet been set.

Next steps and direction: Commissioners proposed a working compromise for developers to consider before returning to another workshop — increase single‑family lot widths to 60 feet (instead of proposed 50) and reduce apartment count (a suggested target around 250), then conduct a coordinated traffic study that includes nearby industrial/warehouse developments. Developers agreed to return with a traffic study, market analysis and revised lot/unit counts and to meet with staff about technical requirements.

No formal action was taken; the commission asked the applicants to coordinate with staff (Sheila) and to return to a future workshop with a traffic study and revised plans.