Ever since Prince George’s County first laid out a set of standards for Route 1 redevelopment in 2002, College Park City Council members have quibbled for minor fixes.

The so-called Route 1 Sector Plan did not do enough to confront the roadway’s grinding traffic, they said. Nor did the plan address the city’s desire to route unsightly utility lines underground.

Eight years later, the city is getting its wish for an updated sector plan. But as the county revises its roadmap for the city’s most blighted road, some of the proposed changes are proving to be more than council members bargained for.

“I’m not terribly happy with the revisions,” District 2 City Councilman Bob Catlin said. “In many ways, they make redevelopment more difficult.”

In many cases, the proposed impediments to development seem like small snags. For instance, a zoning change in North College Park could add a cumbersome process for adding retail, and another change downtown could restrict future Route 1 development between Calvert Road and Guilford Road to single family homes.

Catlin also raised concerns about a proposed revision that would restrict redevelopment on parcels of less than half an acre.

Though the proposals may seem trifling in isolation, cumulatively, Catlin said they will make it harder for developers to bring smart growth to College Park.

The county council will not vote on the sector plan changes for another month, leaving plenty of time for more amendments to come and for city council members to convince their county-level colleagues to make changes.

But not every member of the city council agrees with Catlin’s vision for development.

One particular point of contention has emerged over county council Chairman Tom Dernoga’s proposal to block the implementation “form-based codes” north of University Boulevard.

Typically used to speed up the development process, “form-based codes” give developers highly specific guidelines for future building projects. They often specify features such as height, density and building facades. If developers meet the standards of a form-based code, they can skip ahead steps toward approval.

Successful implementation of form-based codes transformed downtown Arlington in less than a decade. Without a form-based code, it took nearly that long for a single apartment building, the Mazza Grandmarc, to earn the county’s approval, Catlin pointed out.

But District 1 City Councilwoman Christine Nagel said she remained wary about the idea. She opposed how form-based codes restrict public input to only the early stages in the development process. She added that she was not in favor of form-based codes’ emphasis on uniformity.

“When I see a fast-food store, I want to know that it’s going to look like a fast-food store,” Nagel said. “When I see a car store, I want to know that it’s going to look like a car store. I know we’re trying to get rid of some of these things, but something has to be said for not allowing everything to look the same.”

David Daddio, founder of the development blog Rethink College Park, said form-based codes were merely an outlet to speed up development and remove the politics that sometimes draw out the process.

“What we have now is a highly politicized process with all this grandstanding at the end, and it creates a situation where developers don’t want to build because they don’t know what they’re getting into,” Daddio said. “Developers don’t have faith that they can get anything through in College Park.”

Ultimately, the decision on form-based codes — and all the sector plan revisions — rests in the hands of the county council.

Dernoga, who represents North College Park and whose son Matt Dernoga is a columnist for The Diamondback, did not return repeated calls for comment. County Councilman Eric Olson represents the rest of the city, and while he offered few amendments to the sector plan, he said he would support his colleague’s proposals.

“I respect what his views are for his district,” Olson said.

slivnick@umdbk.com