Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Mixed Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bel Air commissioners debate raising mixed‑use commercial threshold, tighten 'design excellence' language in ordinance 839‑25
Summary
Commissioners discussed amending ordinance 839‑25 to allow up to 40% non‑commercial floor area for mixed‑use centers if applicants demonstrate design excellence; staff proposed clarifying the standard and giving the Planning Commission authority to require public improvements be completed before occupancy.
Bel Air commissioners discussed proposed amendments to ordinance 839‑25 at a February work session, focusing on whether to let mixed‑use projects fall to 40% commercial area (up from 35%) when applicants demonstrate “excellence of design.” The board also debated clarifying what “excellence of design” means and whether the Planning Commission may require public improvements before issuance of building or use and occupancy permits.
Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Chismar both expressed support for leaving the optional threshold at 40% as a useful allowance for developers who demonstrate high‑quality design. Director Small told the board the extra 10 percentage points is intended as “wiggle room” and that projects larger than 10,000 square feet are captured by the mixed‑use process. Small recommended clarifying the guideline so that any additional percentage “may be approved by the Planning Commission provided the applicant demonstrates excellence of design, harmony, and of the proposed use with the neighborhood.”
Commissioners pressed staff for specifics about how the change would affect building form. Commissioner Rutledge asked whether a three‑story building with retail on the first floor and residential above could be “pigeonholed” by a 40% standard; Small said such projects would likely have to convert portions of upper floors to commercial or office space to meet the requirement. Commissioners said anything below 50% commercial would be reviewed “with a fine tooth comb” and that the amendment should not be a shortcut to avoid providing meaningful commercial space.
On public improvements, staff proposed adding a sentence to paragraph 2(B) allowing the Planning Commission to require that public improvements be completed prior to issuance of a building or use and occupancy permit. Commissioners said this would give the town a mechanism to hold developers to commitments made in applications.
The board agreed to draft two amendments for the March town meeting: (1) the wording clarifying the conditions for approving more than the baseline percent of non‑commercial area and (2) the sentence permitting the Planning Commission to require completion of public improvements before occupancy. Commissioners deferred a final decision on whether to set the maximum at 35% or 40% until after the public hearing so they could weigh public input.
