Council closer to village center redevelopment plan
By Derek Simmonsen
dsimmonsen@patuxent.com
Posted 7/08/09
County Council members moved closer this week to adopting a bill that would change how Columbia’s village centers are redeveloped, but a number of issues remain unresolved.
The bill was tabled Monday, giving council members additional time to work out the details.
Council Bill 29, also known as Zoning Regulation Amendment 102, would allow the owner of any property within Columbia’s village centers to directly petition the county for development changes instead of going through General Growth for permission, as they must now.
Under a provision created when Columbia was founded, the property owner has to first gain the permission of The Rouse Co. for changes. After General Growth Properties bought out Rouse, it became the “gatekeeper” that must present development proposals to the county.
Kimco, which owns the bulk of commercial property in six of the village centers and has proposed the bill, said it has never been turned away by General Growth, but views the company as a competitor.
In addition to removing General Growth as the gatekeeper, the bill lays out a procedure for approval of both major and minor development changes. In the case of major changes, a developer must hold at least two public meetings before submitting plans, and county planners will seek village board input in making their recommendations on any projects.
Council members did not take any formal votes during a work session Monday, but reached an informal consensus on several issues.
Among those were requiring developers to post notice of meetings at the entrance to village centers, requiring the Zoning Board to set out the minimum and maximum size of buildings and other elements in a plan, having developers list any private covenants on the property they wish to develop, and alerting affected residents when a Zoning Board decision is reached.
Several board members said they also liked the idea of asking village boards to respond to specific questions about a plan, such as about the size and height of buildings, the amount of parking and the village center boundaries.
“I think this offers some structure,” said Council member Calvin Ball, who represents parts of Columbia. “This allows (the village boards) to see some of the things we’d like to see.”
Council members still want to discuss whether villages should have master plans and how those would be incorporated into the process, what the requirements are for pre-submission community meetings, if there should be affordable housing requirements and if the bill should have a sunset provision.
Another of the remaining issues was whether the bill, as written, would still allow developers to go through the old process with General Growth as the gatekeeper in order to avoid the more detailed county requirements established by the bill. The county’s legal staff said the bill technically created an alternative system, rather than replacing the old one, something members said they wanted to change.
“Why would we have two processes?” asked Council member Courtney Watson. “Talk about confusing the citizens.”
Council members will hold a work session July 13 and give members of the public a chance to comment on their changes to the bill July 20. The bill is planned for a vote July 30.
All of the meetings will be held in the county Board of Education board room, 10910 Route 108, in Ellicott City.
The bill was tabled Monday, giving council members additional time to work out the details.
Council Bill 29, also known as Zoning Regulation Amendment 102, would allow the owner of any property within Columbia’s village centers to directly petition the county for development changes instead of going through General Growth for permission, as they must now.
Under a provision created when Columbia was founded, the property owner has to first gain the permission of The Rouse Co. for changes. After General Growth Properties bought out Rouse, it became the “gatekeeper” that must present development proposals to the county.
Kimco, which owns the bulk of commercial property in six of the village centers and has proposed the bill, said it has never been turned away by General Growth, but views the company as a competitor.
In addition to removing General Growth as the gatekeeper, the bill lays out a procedure for approval of both major and minor development changes. In the case of major changes, a developer must hold at least two public meetings before submitting plans, and county planners will seek village board input in making their recommendations on any projects.
Council members did not take any formal votes during a work session Monday, but reached an informal consensus on several issues.
Among those were requiring developers to post notice of meetings at the entrance to village centers, requiring the Zoning Board to set out the minimum and maximum size of buildings and other elements in a plan, having developers list any private covenants on the property they wish to develop, and alerting affected residents when a Zoning Board decision is reached.
Several board members said they also liked the idea of asking village boards to respond to specific questions about a plan, such as about the size and height of buildings, the amount of parking and the village center boundaries.
“I think this offers some structure,” said Council member Calvin Ball, who represents parts of Columbia. “This allows (the village boards) to see some of the things we’d like to see.”
Council members still want to discuss whether villages should have master plans and how those would be incorporated into the process, what the requirements are for pre-submission community meetings, if there should be affordable housing requirements and if the bill should have a sunset provision.
Another of the remaining issues was whether the bill, as written, would still allow developers to go through the old process with General Growth as the gatekeeper in order to avoid the more detailed county requirements established by the bill. The county’s legal staff said the bill technically created an alternative system, rather than replacing the old one, something members said they wanted to change.
“Why would we have two processes?” asked Council member Courtney Watson. “Talk about confusing the citizens.”
Council members will hold a work session July 13 and give members of the public a chance to comment on their changes to the bill July 20. The bill is planned for a vote July 30.
All of the meetings will be held in the county Board of Education board room, 10910 Route 108, in Ellicott City.
user comments (1)
user tom3 says...
How could you write this article and the article on the Columbia Board talking about state legislation. Don't you read the whole paper. Oh, you wrote both articles . . . Does someone have a hidden agenda at the Flier?
Posted 11:10 PM, 07.13.09
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement