Annapolis council advances revised comp‑plan implementation after marathon debate over height, density and transit requirements

Mayor Gavin Buckley convened the Oct. 13 meeting where councilmembers and dozens of residents focused much of the evening on O14‑25, the city’s proposed ordinance to implement the Annapolis Ahead 2040 comprehensive plan. The ordinance as introduced included a variety of zoning changes across the city and a provision that would have allowed limited additional rooftop and height allowances on a small set of parcels at City Dock.

Historic‑district advocates and Ward 1 residents said they fear the proposed height language would erode the scale and character that the city’s 1978 height‑and‑bulk ordinance has protected for decades. “Why would this council want its legacy to be the potential destruction of what makes Annapolis Annapolis?” Craig Harrison, a Ward 1 resident, told the council during public comment, urging removal of the City Dock height flex. Historic Annapolis, the city’s preservation nonprofit, also asked that the change be removed and that the Historic Preservation Commission be given time to review any proposal that affects the district.

Council members then spent more than two hours amending the draft. Alderman Ottoman Savage introduced a complex package (Amendment 6) that would have tied any density bonuses for planned developments to binding “community benefit” agreements — for example, higher percentages of moderately priced dwelling units, local hiring commitments, and developer contributions for transit or grocery access — and would have required transportation‑demand‑management plans, reporting and a possible tax‑increment financing mechanism to pay for “high‑value” transit improvements. Staff warned that several features in the full amendment would create new, ongoing administrative duties and could be difficult for smaller projects to implement.

Opponents and some members said the proposed transit conditions were laudable but vague or infeasible at the scale of many projects, and that making certain density bonuses conditional on existing “high‑value” transit could deter investment. Planning staff proposed scaling requirements so that the most demanding performance standards would apply only to larger planned developments; they also advised striking or narrowing items that required an unestablished TIF program or that depended on capital funding the city has not adopted.

Following roll calls and a motion to reconsider an earlier defeat, the council substantially reworked Amendment 6 and struck the City Dock height flex that had prompted the heaviest public opposition. The final, adopted second‑reader version preserves the ordinance’s comprehensive‑plan implementation goals and retains developer incentives for increased density in targeted areas while narrowing or clarifying several transportation and rooftop provisions and committing staff to develop implementing procedures. Councilmembers said the final package is intended to be a framework to guide future projects rather than a blank check for taller development in the historic district.

Alderman Savage described the package as “a foundation” for tying growth to specific community benefits; critics warned the changes still raise legal and implementation questions that should be resolved before final adoption. City planning staff and the city attorney said they will prepare the code language and implementation rules, and that future council sessions and committee review will be used to clarify definitions (for example, the precise meaning of “affordable” or “below‑market” units) and thresholds that trigger monitoring or reporting.

Next steps: O14‑25 passed the council on second reader as amended; it will return for a third‑reader vote with the final, edited code language and the staff‑promulgated procedures that the council asked be brought forward.

Quote from the meeting: “This legislation risks setting a precedent we won’t be able to undo,” said Karen Brown of Historic Annapolis. “A change of this magnitude should be considered thoughtfully and holistically by the next administration.”

What to watch next: staff drafting of implementing procedures for the ordinance, whether the council will adopt specific thresholds (for example, applying monitoring only to projects above a set unit count), and whether the Historic Preservation Commission requests formal referral or additional review before third reader.