Days before the Howard County Council is expected to make a decision on building height limits in Columbia, the council members hope a compromise can be reached on a contentious 275-foot high-rise.
Representatives for WCI Communities Inc., General Growth Properties, the county?s Department of Planning and Zoning and the council have said they were available to meet this morning, according to a memo to council members from Howard County Executive Ken Ulman.
The attorney for the appellants challenging the tower in court has said he objects to a meeting, but one appellant plans to attend, the memo states.
Talks of working out a deal re-emerged over the last couple weeks as the council has been considering two measures that would limit buildings to 150 feet.
Council Chairman Calvin Ball, D-District 2, said he was looking forward to the outcome of the meeting, particularly considering the proximity of a decision on the related measures.
“That meeting will probably help us understand their willingness to compromise,” he said.
The council is scheduled to vote at a legislative session beginning at 7:30 p.m. Monday in the Banneker room of the George Howard building.
The two bills, introduced by Councilwoman Mary Kay Sigaty, D-District 4, would:
» Limit building heights in Columbia until a downtown master plan is developed;
» Modify pending projects to encompass those being challenged in court, which would include the planned 275-foot Plaza Residences in the limits.
District 1
Courtney Watson
E-mail address:
Response: “In some respects, it would be good to resolve the issue one way or another,” she said of Monday?s vote, adding she hasn?t decided.
Watson said she is skeptical a compromise can be reached.
She raised questions about the project?s history and the pending legal case at the recent work session, but county representatives weren?t at the meeting to answer her questions.
The planning and zoning department is expected to respond to her questions.
District 2
Calvin Ball
E-mail address:
Response: “I am hopeful all of the involved parties enter into some conversation, and if that doesn?t occur, I would look pretty unfavorably on whichever party does not engage in that dialogue,” Ball said, adding he would prefer a compromise.
“In any of the various scenarios, there are going to be people that aren?t going to be happy.”
Ball said he was considering amendments to the bills, depending on the meeting outcome, but declined to elaborate.
District 3
Jen Terrasa
E-mail address:
Response: “Having the parties come together and come to an agreement is in the best interest of the community,” Terrasa said.
She said she?s prepared to make a decision Monday, but hopes for adeal. She said this week she was unsure how she would vote.
Although she has said she doesn?t think a 23-story building fits, she doesn?t favor upsetting development in downtown Columbia.
“I don?t think either one serves the best interest of the community.”
District 4
Mary Kay Sigaty
E-mail address:
Response: “I want to ensure for my neighborhood that [there are] no errant buildings that can?t be challenged,” Sigaty said.
She pushed the two measures to “ensure there is no piecemeal development around downtown,” Sigaty said at a recent work session.
She has said she wants the community to have a say in the downtown development through the master plan process. The bills could be an opportunity to try again for a compromise.
District 5
Greg Fox
E-mail address:
Response: “You can always hope that both sides see what is in the best interest of the community,” Fox said.
He said he was “an optimist, but also a realist,” when it comes to a deal. He said he was working on possible changes to the bills, but still hoping for a compromise.
Fox, who has said the courts should decide the matter rather than the council, said he is expected to vote against both measures.
