Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carmel reviewers approve Heron Club senior housing, grant variances for lot coverage and landscaping
Summary
A Carmel planning review approved the Heron Club, a 193‑unit age‑restricted apartment project, and granted variances to reduce buffer yards and allow 83% lot coverage for the parcel after a 1.54‑acre park dedication; staff conditioned approval on resolving remaining technical comments and submitting final landscape details.
A Carmel planning review on Feb. 9 approved the Heron Club age‑restricted multifamily development and granted two variances that the petitioner said are needed because a portion of the parcel was dedicated to a planned veterans park.
The project team, represented by Dan Moriarty of Studio AM Architecture, told the panel the development would include about 193 units, a two‑level parking garage with roughly 320 spaces and numerous resident amenities, and that 1.54 acres immediately east of the building will be dedicated to the new park. Carmel planning staff recommended approval of the development plan and ADLS and supported the requested variances for landscaping and lot coverage, subject to addressing remaining project‑doc comments.
Planning director Henry Mcceskey framed the proposal as an effort to add walkable, age‑restricted housing while coordinating closely with the parks department. “The parks department is designing the park for this project,” he said, noting weekly coordination and that the park design team is working with veterans groups on programming.
Planning and zoning staff member Alexia Lopez told the panel the department had reviewed the materials and found the project suitable with conditions. “We would recommend approval of the DP ADLS with the conditions of the petitioner addressing all remaining review comments and concerns, and subject to the BZA variances,” Lopez said. She told the reviewers the redevelopment commission and engineering department were supportive of the variances.
The team explained why variances were requested: city code caps lot coverage at 80 percent, but with the new park parcel line the building footprint equates to roughly 83 percent lot coverage of the remaining developable area. The petitioner asked that the panel adopt findings and grant (1) a reduction in required perimeter buffer yards and plantings and (2) an allowance to exceed the UDO lot‑coverage maximum.
Committee members pressed the team on landscaping and tree planting along Old Meridian and on other edges of the site. Dan Moriarty said the final planting plan was not at the hearing but that the team would provide the landscape architect’s details after the meeting. The panel added a condition to require submission of those plans in project‑docs before final sign‑off.
Reviewers and the project civil engineer explained drainage work and a culvert relocation that affects planting opportunities: stormwater from across Old Meridian will be routed through the site to a detention pond, which constrains some planting areas. The engineer said coordination with state and federal reviewers would be required for the relocated water feature.
Committee members also questioned bicycle parking location and accessibility after Adam Jorge, who described the bike room as located on the lower garage level, said it had been placed where space allowed. The chair called bike parking “infrastructure” and asked the team to pursue more convenient long‑term parking for residents and to add short‑term racks near the main entrance; the petitioner agreed to explore relocating some resident storage to accommodate additional bike parking and to add short‑term exterior racks where feasible.
The reviewers asked the team to examine sidewalk width along Old Meridian; the plan shows an 8‑foot sidewalk but staff discussed whether 9 or 10 feet could be achieved by adjusting a small right‑of‑way dedication. Civil staff said adding 0.01–0.02 acres of ROW could be possible to provide a wider sidewalk, though the team noted the building had been set close to the street to maximize parkland.
After discussion, the panel voted to approve docket BZ202500273DPADLS (Heron Club) conditioned on resolving outstanding items in project‑docs and on approval of the variances. A panel member stated approval of the two requested variances (dockets PZ‑2025‑00280 and PZ‑2025‑00281) and the adoption of findings of fact; the transcript does not record a roll‑call tally.
The meeting adjourned following the action.
