Developer seeks zoning amendment to add two skilled‑nursing cottages at Restoracy of Carmel

Dentons attorney Kyle Russetaritz told the Carmel Land Use Committee on Feb. 18 that the Restoracy of Carmel is pursuing an amendment to the existing Greenhouse cottages PUD and a new Restoracy PUD to expand its site at 240 E. City Center Drive.

The petition would allow construction of two new cottage buildings of approximately 8,000 square feet each, adding roughly 12 skilled‑nursing beds per building (about 24 beds total) and extra parking to serve residents and staff. Russetaritz said the buildings would match the existing cottages’ architectural character, with modifications including three‑car garages moved to a side elevation for site access considerations.

The developer presented a series of six exhibits showing iterative designs. Early plans placed three new cottages and used the existing driveway; subsequent redesigns reflected a possible future extension of Richland Avenue and reoriented buildings to create an interior drive. To address local drainage concerns, developers removed an 8,000‑sq‑ft cottage in later designs to accommodate a larger rain garden and proposed underground detention. Russetaritz said: “we would have a recorded commitment dedicating that right of way as a condition of the issuance of the building permit.”

Committee members pressed the petitioner on three recurring issues: whether Carmel residents would receive placement priority (the developer said there is no mechanism to prioritize Carmel residents), the project’s ability to address wider neighborhood drainage problems (the developer said the project could “help be a part of the solution” but would not by itself fix Concord Village flooding), and the materials and location of perimeter fencing and buffers.

On fencing, Russetaritz said the revised ordinance language would require fencing that “match[es] or be complimentary to the fence materials used on the westerly adjoining parcel,” and that the existing site uses an opaque white vinyl fence. He also highlighted site changes that doubled the eastern setback from about 12 feet to about 25 feet and preserved a 30‑foot tree preservation area on the north property line.

City staff and developers discussed further stormwater mitigation options (subterranean detention, porous pavers in parking, and plantings), but staff said more detailed engineering would be reviewed at the development plan (DP) stage before planning commission. Multiple councilors and staff clarified that while the development includes a dedication of right‑of‑way to preserve the possibility of a future Richland Avenue extension, the city currently does not have funds or a priority to build that road.

The committee did not vote on the zoning amendment. The Restoracy item was held for additional materials, including renderings and further engineering details, and will return to the committee at a future meeting (target: March 4).