Carmel committee reviews broad UDO amendments to development-plan and ADLS rules

CARMEL, Ind. — The Land Use and Special Studies Committee on Feb. 19 reviewed proposed amendments to Section 903 of the city’s Unified Development Ordinance to consolidate development-plan requirements and clarify what belongs in administrative design and landscape (ADLS) review.

Planning Director Mike Albaugh, who presented the draft redlines to the committee, said the changes are “a fairly comprehensive amendment” and noted “there’s quite a bit of red” in the draft. Albaugh said the rewrite would incorporate development-plan requirements for B-1 and B-2 districts that previously required only ADLS review, reduce procedural confusion and add material that should have been in the ordinance already.

The changes are aimed at making a single, clearer checklist for Plan Commission reviewers and applicants. Key additions flagged in Albaugh’s overview include environmental-impact considerations (stormwater management, tree preservation, air and noise pollution and the committee’s suggestion to add light pollution), erosion and sediment controls including during construction, protection of wetlands and streams, and more explicit preservation-easement and best-management-practice references.

Albaugh told commissioners the revised section also adds traffic provisions: reorganization of traffic language, explicit traffic-calming and mitigation considerations, a construction-phase traffic-management plan requirement, and a catch-all provision for analysis of traffic-control devices such as signals. He said sidewalk dedication language was moved into the streets/dedication subsection and obsolete references to paper application submissions were removed because filings are now electronic.

Committee members pressed for clarity on a few points. One commissioner asked how items such as stormwater or tree preservation are judged; Albaugh said they are evaluated against best-practice standards developed by the city’s engineering department and applicable state requirements, and that many specifics remain regulated by state statutes or engineering standards already in use. Another member recommended adding explicit cross-references so applicants know which standards (for example, the city’s stormwater handbook or MS4 requirements) will apply.

The draft also reorganizes the split between development plan and ADLS review. Albaugh said ADLS will be shortened to focus on site landscaping, screening, architectural design, signage and lighting while parking, utilities and broader intensity-of-use analyses remain in development-plan review. He said the goal is to avoid duplication and make the rules easier for new Plan Commission members to follow.

Procedural edits include removing a strict 30-day delivery requirement for Plan Commission materials (to avoid procedural challenge on larger projects), clarifying that certain waiver reviews are done by staff, and retaining a director-level catch-all that allows staff to request missing documents. Albaugh and committee members discussed defining “completeness” consistently so the clock for review starts the same way for all applicants.

Why it matters: committee members said the revisions will affect roughly 80% of Plan Commission work and will change what supporting documents applicants must provide. Several members requested clearer cross-references to city engineering standards and a short, public-facing checklist for applicants. Albaugh said staff will return with refined language on a few outstanding items — including the definition of “intensity of use,” the distinction between construction-phase traffic plans and post-construction traffic studies, and whether certain maintenance agreements should be captured in development-plan documents or separate recorded instruments.

Albaugh closed by offering to circulate his email with the draft redlines and to walk through the ordinance section-by-section at a future meeting if commissioners want more time to review the detailed edits.