Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2000

Home

Page 2 December 10, 1999 Z.B. :, Zoning Change-- Without a hearing, city passes an ordinance that makes changes in urban renewal area MARYLAND (10/8/99) In 1971, the city of Baltimore designated Inner Harbor East as an urban renewal area, for which it approved an urban renewal pIan. Among the plan's goals were the elimination of unhealthy conditions and uses incompatible with mixed land use, removal of substandard buildings, pro- vision of land for public improvements and expansion, i~hprovement of traffic movement, stimulation of economic activity, and development of an urban resi- dential community... The plan required redevelopment, acquisition of substandard structures, improvements to utilities, open space development, and improvements to street fixtures. Limits were also placed on development. In 1997, the city passed a zoning ordinance that approved Harbor East Limited Partnership's application to build a hotel in the area. The hotel differed from the urban renewal plan by reducing the number of potential development areas, closing two streets, exceecling the building height in the area by almost 400 percent, and failing to resemble a traditional Baltimore building. The next day, the mayor approved the ordinance. It amended the urban renewal plan to conform to the new zoning classifications adopted for the hotel. ' .... Sometime after the'ordinance's adoption, Changes were made to the pro- posed development without a hearing. They included a change in the land's ownership, reduction of the building height by 80 feet, a ch'ange in the layout of the hotel to remove a garage, and the retention of one of the streets. Several taxpayers sued, seeking to invalidate the new ordinance because it caused changes to the urban renewal plan. The court declared the ordinance valid~ The taxpayers appealed. They argued the ordinance was invalidated by the new changes. They claimed the city 'couldn't make any changes to an"urban renewal development proj~t after an urban renewal plan was adopted Without a public hearing. DECISION: Affirmed. The changes to the project were not so substantial as to require an ordi- nance and public hearing. Changes to a project that did not conflict with the urban renewal plan did not have to underg° that process. The changes made after the first ordinance was passed were an agreement allowing the property's title to be conveyed to the city and leased back to the developers, a reduction of the height of the hotel by 80 feet, retention of the present routing of a street, and a change in the layout of the hotel and garage structure. Only changes to an ordinance that were so substantial they changed its basic character were enough to require the public hearing process to be re- peated. For example, if the change involved a second landfill in another location,