Plan Commission sends Restoracy of Carmel expansion to committee after neighbors raise road‑extension concerns

The Carmel Plan Commission on Dec. 16 voted to refer a petition from MBR Carmel Health, known as the Restoracy of Carmel, to a Jan. 6 committee meeting for further review after a night of questions about setbacks, buffers and a possible future extension of Richland Avenue.

The petition requests (1) an amendment to the Greenhouse Cottages planned unit development (PUD) to allow a drive extension and parking changes and (2) a new PUD for an adjacent 1.8‑acre parcel to add two 8,000‑square‑foot ‘‘small‑home’’ skilled‑nursing cottages, a state‑recognized exception to Indiana’s moratorium on new skilled‑nursing beds. Petitioner attorney Kyle Resiteritz said the two cottages would add 24 licensed skilled‑nursing beds and replicate the facility’s existing six‑cottage model.

Why it matters: Commissioners and a nearby resident said the site plan as presented could constrain a long‑planned Richland Avenue connection, reduce required setbacks from east‑side single‑family homes, and leave unclear how open‑space, drainage and future right‑of‑way dedication would be handled. The commission directed the item to the commercial committee of the whole so staff, engineers and the petitioner can return with clarified dimensions, potential building orientations, buffer and landscaping commitments, and comment on right‑of‑way dedication language.

Neighbor concerns and developer response

Ally Missler, a 28‑year neighbor immediately east of the site, praised the cottage model but urged better transparency and clearer notice when hearings are rescheduled. Missler told the commission she is worried the proposal would ‘‘effectively block the proposed extension of Richland Avenue’’ and that prior communications left residents uncertain about whether their homes could be acquired for a future road. ‘‘These are people’s homes, their largest financial assets, and they deserve better,’’ Missler said.

Attorney Kyle Resiteritz, speaking for MBR Carmel Health, said the property has been under contract for several years and that the petitioner held a developer‑hosted neighbor meeting at staff’s advice. Resiteritz said the petitioner was informed at the time that a roundabout and other connectivity options were under consideration but that the ultimate alignment and timing are outside the petitioner’s control. ‘‘We do not make the decision’’ about the road, he said, while emphasizing the expansion is meant to serve a local need for additional skilled‑nursing capacity.

Staff analysis and commissioners’ questions

Rachel Kiesling, planner with the Department of Community Services, told the commission the proposed use fits the city’s downtown development pattern but that the Greenhouse Cottages PUD must be amended to show a new connection between parcels, adjusted parking counts, and revised setbacks. Kiesling said the east buffer yard is currently proposed at 10 feet, down from the 15‑foot buffer in the existing PUD, and that staff needs confirmed open‑space percentages, road widths and reserved space for detention and a future road connection before a final vote.

Several commissioners pressed the petitioner for commitments on right‑of‑way dedication, clearer site graphics and whether building orientation could be changed to improve setbacks if Richland Avenue is built in the future. Councillor Munnar said she wants explicit PUD language dedicating right‑of‑way and stronger buffering measures to protect long‑standing neighborhood homes. Petitioners and staff said engineering is working on Richland Avenue design and acquisition, but timing and funding remain uncertain.

Outcome and next steps

A motion was made and seconded to send the petition to the Jan. 6 committee of the whole for further discussion; the commission approved the referral by voice vote. Staff and the petitioner were asked to return on Jan. 6 with: clearer, non‑blurry site graphics and dimensions; confirmation of road and private‑street widths; open‑space calculations; proposed buffering/landscaping commitments; and the petitioner’s willingness (or not) to include right‑of‑way dedication language in the PUD.

The Jan. 6 committee meeting will be combined with the commercial committee of the whole; the petition will return to the full planning commission thereafter for a final vote.