Carmel housing panel flags zoning limits, maps show heavy single‑family, recommends study of 'missing middle' options

The Mayor’s Advisory Commission on Housing heard data on Sept. 25 showing that Carmel’s zoning and housing inventory leave limited room for smaller, ‘missing middle’ housing types and urged staff to return with examples and recommendations.

Adrienne Keeling, a planner with the Department of Community Services, told commissioners the interactive maps and slide packet posted to the commission website show that only single‑family detached housing is permitted on 76.8% of zoned land and that planned unit developments (PUDs) cover about 9.9% of the city’s land. "Only single family detached is permitted in 76.8% of our zoned land," Keeling said as she reviewed the zoning breakdown and how PUDs factor into the totals.

The maps also show housing‑stock characteristics that shape demand: more than half (51.2%) of occupied housing units have four or more bedrooms across all housing types, and roughly 69.6% of the housing inventory is detached single‑family, Keeling said. She added that 3.3% of Carmel’s land allows accessory dwelling units and that about 81.5% of PUDs allow residential uses.

Those numbers framed a broad discussion. Commissioner Chris (Speaker 4) said the high share of single‑family zoning — and standards such as lot width, setbacks, maximum density and parking — “may be limiting our ability to approve smaller missing middle housing.” Director Mike Hollabaugh (Department of Community Services) said the city has relied on the PUD process to introduce flexibility but that PUDs can be costly and public pushback during hearings has steered some proposals toward higher‑end single‑family outcomes. "Arguably, the market has driven the current housing situation," Hollabaugh said, urging a housing vision or strategy to guide future rezonings and redevelopment.

Several commissioners raised the idea of specifying where missing middle housing should be allowed in advance — by using a new district or overlay — to provide clarity for both neighbors and developers. Commissioners also stressed careful, incremental changes and better public messaging so residents understand where and why different housing forms could be appropriate.

Keeling also presented maps of developable land and constraints: much unplatted or ‘vacant’ county parcel data do not equate to buildable sites, and large parcels in the south include active mining operations (Martin Marietta), which limits near‑term development options. She reviewed age‑of‑housing layers and story counts and said one‑story homes represent about 26% of the stock.

On affordability indicators, Keeling defined cost‑burdened households as those spending 30% or more of income on housing. Based on 2024 American Community Survey data, Carmel’s owner households with a mortgage average 15.5% cost‑burdened — lower than neighboring communities — while renter households are 42.6% cost‑burdened, she said. Keeling told commissioners she can add aggregate unit counts and deeper breakdowns on request.

The panel also received a procedural update on a proposed rental ordinance. Chair (Speaker 1) said the ordinance was returned to the City Council on Sept. 15 for language amendments and that Land Use passed the amended version 4–0; the council will see it on Oct. 6. The Chair summarized key provisions staff flagged to the commission: registration of legacy dwellings must be completed by Dec. 31 or legacy status is lost; new owners must apply for new residential permits and may be subject to rental caps at application; the Department of Community Services may impose a $5 annual registration fee per dwelling under authority referenced to the Indiana Code and may charge a late fee up to $200 for late renewals. The Chair also described notice and revocation procedures for permits.

Next steps: commissioners asked staff to return in November with brief staff recommendations, examples from other communities, and possible preapproved plan templates that could make missing middle options easier to adopt while protecting neighborhood character. The commission closed the meeting inviting additional public input by email and then adjourned early.

The commission did record two routine procedural votes by voice: approval of the prior meeting’s minutes and the nomination/election of Barb as secretary; both motions were carried by voice vote.