A type of ownership where individuals actually own the building or unit they live in, but common areas are owned jointly with the other members of the development or association. Contrast with condominium, where an individual actually owns the airspace of his unit, but the buildings and common areas are owned jointly with the others in the development or association.

Source: Real Estate ABC

Hi neighbors:

On Grid Connection:

Last night was August KMPUD meeting . . . We are nearing an answer, according to General Manager, Tom Henie, on whether interconnection to the PG and E grid is feasible for our off-grid mountain village, as well as good cost numbers. Tom says, the answer may come sooner rather than later, his estimate:  2 – 3 weeks. This news comes from the PUD meeting last night, where there was zero open discussion on news of PUD’s offer to purchase Mountain Utilities, and also zero open discussion on whether the Board thinks Grid connection is still worth spending the money on further research. Simply a comment that it continues to cost a lot of money, by Manager Tom Henie. As has been the case for at least the last three meetings this author has attended, the meeting ended with the Board going into closed session to talk with KMR. Patience is a . . . .. . virtue?

Maybe this is just the process that our community has had to go through to make sure that we looked at all options. And boy, have we looked–grid research PUD dollars exceeds $500K with, I believe another @ $600K budgeted. This author thinks that the costs being proposed for grid connection exceeded the feasibility limit months ago. Not to mention, that we would be spending huge sums to connect to a power supplier that some say uses @50% coal-burning plants.

In Valley . . .

The Grid may be reliable–but it’s hugely expensive. There are much cleaner options which could be provided by an In-Valley power solution, as reported last evening by the Co-Chair of the Advisory committee, Eric Richert. On its initial findings, the committee reported that for an In-Valley solution , the first effort could include a serious conservation program in the valley, followed by various configurations of micro-turbines for firm power (both in a new power house and distributed at lodge and multi-family residences (CHP)). Also, hitting the radar for feasibility are PV solar, wind, and small-scale geo-exchange systems. Continued investigation of other alternative, clean power sources continues. Final report to come in September.

Community Vision and Goal Setting

Eric spoke of the need for a community vision and goal-setting, asking the Board for its opinion on goal setting.

Roundtable II–Saturday, September 5th

Your voice can be heard, too. Write to me–or better yet, come to our next Roundtable II small group discussions on Saturday, September 5th at the Chili-Cook-Off weekend. Let me know if you want to be on my Energy Info email list and I will keep you updated.

Regards, Raejean

Janna from work has officially created the blog I’ve been begging her to create!

Yay!

I made her a header for the top of it, check it out here and leave her some love!

(She loves starbs. And honestly who doesn’t?)

Rendering of Park & Market and the CAPTRUST Tower Source: Kane Realty Corporation

Have you ever wondered how many architects and builders planned and implemented the construction of your house or apartment? How much steel, concrete, wood, glass and drywall went into building your living space?

On Friday, June 26, 2009, five members of the HomeTownRent team were given a sneak peek into the multiple stages of design and development involved in the construction of a retail and residential community when they took a hard hat tour of Park & Market, a PUD (planned unit development) at North Hills in Raleigh, NC. Park & Market is a PUD because the project serves multiple purposes of housing, recreation and commerce. Upon its completion in fall 2009, the $125 million, 900,000-square-foot development built by Kane Realty Corporation will include 93,000 square feet of street-level retail stores below six stories of residential space containing 409 luxury apartments ranging from 640 to 1,370 square feet. Park & Market will also feature the first two-story 48,000-square-foot Harris Teeter in the Triangle area that residents can access directly with just a short trip down the elevator or stairs.

The excitement surrounding the Park & Market development proves that mixed-use communities are becoming increasingly popular as more and more young professionals seek urban-living experiences that combine both fun and functionality. According to Kane Realty Development Director T.J. Barringer, mixed-use communities are important because “people today really value their time and the culture and activity around them. I think communities like Park & Market help with the community-feel because, as everything gets faster and there seems to be less time, people still want to bump into someone they know while walking down the street and running errands.”

In addition to recognizing the growing significance of mixed-use developments, Kane Realty Corporation also understands the importance of building an environmentally-friendly community that does more for the planet than just reduce the number of car trips taken each day. According to Barringer, Park & Market is an “in-field project,” which means that it was built on land that already had existing infrastructure and therefore, very few trees needed to be clear-cut and minimal construction of additional piping and roads was required. Kane Realty also partnered with a non-profit, Builders of Hope, who saved houses that sat on the land before the construction began by lifting them with steel beams and transporting them to southeast Raleigh as opposed to putting them in a landfill.

Upon its completion, Park & Market will also feature ‘green’ amenities like a salt-water pool that contains fewer harsh chemicals and is heated using solar panels on the roof, which Barringer says will “extend the pool season without using extra electricity.” The courtyard at the Park & Market apartments is also illuminated by LED lights which use less energy than compact florescent bulbs and each Park & Market apartment will be equipped with Energy Star-rated appliances. Residents will also have access to a recycling and trash chute on every floor.

The Park & Market apartments will also feature additional amenities including:

• Three interior courtyards
• An outdoor pool area with grills and a fire pit
• A fitness center and club room
• Controlled building access
• Reserved and covered parking
• Stainless steel appliances
• Granite countertops
• Two-story Harris Teeter
• Park & Market retail stores
• North Hills’ 25+ restaurants, 90+ stores and a 14-screen cinema — all within walking distance!

Rendering of Park & Market and the CAPTRUST Tower Source: Kane Realty Corporation

Imagine a day where you could swim at the pool, work out at the gym, watch a movie at the cinema, dine at a restaurant and buy food at the local grocery store without ever getting into a car! With the new CAPTRUST Tower being constructed just yards away from the Park & Market apartments, residents could even walk into their offices at work – wouldn’t that be a nice commute?

The CAPTRUST Tower beside Park & Market is a 17-story mixed-use building that will include 25,000 square feet of street-level restaurants and retail stores as well as 16 stories of office space totaling 275,000 square feet. The tower, expected to open in fall 2009, features a steel-framed urban architectural design that stands as high as many of the skyscrapers in downtown Raleigh. One of the most amazing moments of the hard hat tour was taking the elevator to the top story of the CAPTRUST tower and looking down at the beautiful view of North Hills and Park & Market. Even though it was a hazy day, the skyline of downtown Raleigh (about five miles away) was still visible and the breeze was amazing!

The hard hat tour of Park & Market and the CAPTRUST Tower was a great opportunity for the HomeTownRent team to learn more about mixed-use communities and their positive impacts on the rental market. HomeTownRent would like to thank Kane Realty Corporation for the invitation to explore the developing project as well as Construction Manager Wayne Felton and Development Director T.J. Barringer for showing HomeTownRent around the construction site.

For more information about Park & Market and the CAPTRUST Tower, visit: http://www.kanerealtycorp.com.

Photos from HomeTownRent’s Hard Hat Tour:

Andrew Pearson, Heather Tate, Michael Wilson, Lauren Haley and Margaret Sala stand on the 17th story of the CAPTRUST Tower during their tour on June 26, 2009.

View of the Park & Market construction site from the 17th story of the CAPTRUST Tower in Raleigh, NC.

The HomeTownRent team speaks with Kane Realty Construction Manager Wayne Felton about the Park & Market and CAPTRUST Tower construction projects.

Spiral staircase in one of the seven two-level, mezzanine units at Park & Market.

TELEPOLIS

Politische Verfolgung nach Putsch in Honduras, Ausgangssperre, Gewerkschaften kündigen Generalstreik an
FDP-nahe Stiftung begrüßt Militätputsch als “Rückkehr zu Rechtsstaat”
Politische Verfolgung nach Putsch in Honduras
Haus von Abgeordnetem gestürmt, Minister der Regierung Zelaya inhaftiert. FDP-nahe Stiftung spricht von “Rückkehr zu Rechtsstaat”.
Im Verlauf des Militärputsches in Honduras geht das Militär mit zunehmender Brutalität gegen Anhänger des gewählten Präsidenten Manuel Zelaya vor. Wie die Polizei des mittelamerikanischen Landes in der Nacht zum Montag bestätigte, haben Soldaten das Haus des Kongressabgeordneten der linksgerichteten Partei der Demokratischen Einheit (PUD), Cesar Ham, angegriffen. Dabei soll es zu einem Schusswechsel gekommen sein.

der ganze Bericht

More lovely dresses you might want to grab. From left to right:

DayLilly dress – dollarbie – PUD

LIMITED TIME !!  Black Rose dress – dollarbie – Badoura Design

Frill dress blue – free – Nils Island Store

And some pretty pants and tops. From left to right:

Linda outfit – group gift, get it in store – Avantmelon

Blythe pants & tank charcoral // Blythe yellow pants & Linda top // Terry olive vibrant top

subscribe-o-matic group gift – A Piece of Candy

Flower jeans moss (left) – low/regular waist, both free – RBZ Design

]]> http://freehazel.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/a-whole-lotta-dresses/ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:31:34 +0000 Hazel Homewood http://freehazel.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/a-whole-lotta-dresses/

Marella dress black – 11 min item camp – Shameless

Maja dress (middle) – free – Cool ^ Nice

Valentina dress – part of free gift bag on Costa Rica Freebie Table – Damiani Fashion Design

Night Mist dress (left) – Icing //  Karen dress (right) – PUD

both free on Costa Rica Freebie Table, Welcome Center

middle:

Shirt khaki – dollarbie, Skirt black – Lucky Board  - *Towa*

worn as dress using the NOT FREE Helena waist sash from Persona

Demy dress – dollarbie - Cute Fashion

Alma dress (middle) – dollarbie - Donna Flora

Shiny dress pink – free – SUS

The next meeting of the Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition will be held Thursday, June 25, 2009, starting at 7 p.m. in the Governing Board Room at Phoenix Elementary School District #1 (turn south off Palm Lane, just east of 7th St.; meeting room at northeast corner of the campus).  The major agenda items:

• Update on 1302 W. McDowell issue (G.G. George)
• 7th St. & 7th Ave and new City Council subcommittee
• Central Phoenix Vitality Initiatives mapping (Jim McPherson)
• Report on the status of Phoenix Planned Urban Development (PUD) review (Paul Barnes)
• Holding home prices in historic neighborhoods
• Open agenda

-> Sales price

-> Appraised value

-> Loan amount

-> Borrower’s employment status and history

-> Credit scores and payment history

-> Amount and source of down-payment

-> Date of closing

-> Immigration or citizenship status of the borrower

-> The housing type and location (Single family dwelling, Duplex, Condo, Townhouse, PUD, suburban, rural, urban, etc.)

-> The county where the home is located

-> Mortgage Interest Rate

-> The Term (length) of the Loan

-> The Title Company being used to close the loan

I have worked for several mortgage companies during my mortgage career and even owned my own company for 5 years. I know that some “loan guys” will “low-ball” the initial estimate, only to pull out the “surprise” at the closing table when your options for making any changes are very limited.  Of the 21 separate line-item fees on the “Good Faith Estimate” I give to my borrowers when they sign their loan application forms and disclosures, only one of those fees is the same for every loan and is not dependent on any of the variables listed above.

Mortgage interest rates change daily (sometime, even more often!). I could simply print off a “Good Faith Estimate” with made up numbers as some customers request (as other ”loan guys” may do) but it will not be accurate because of all of these variables I have mentioned.  That process of collecting “Good Faith Estimates” prior to having all of the above variables identified will very time-consuming and wasted effort by the borrower and “loan guys” passing out worthless forms with inaccurate numbers.

My goal is to take the worry and uncertainty out of the process of originating, processing, underwriting and closing the loan.  I help guide my borrowers through their negotiations with their seller by providing honest numbers as they become available rather than simply making up numbers to get “my hook set”.

I have been in the business for over 11 years and nearly 100% of my business comes from referral and repeat business. A businessman can not build that kind of business by being a con-man, cheating others or participating in the bait-and-switch tactics that have riddled this industry for years.

This helps my my borrowers understand how I have built my business and how I provide a level of confidence and professionalism which will make my borrower’s Real Estate purchase a very smooth and cost effective transaction over the next.

So, you ask, how should I select the Mortgage Professional to close my loan for me?  I’m glad you asked.  Allow me to give you a few guidelines for starters:

1. Choose a Mortgage Professional who is EXPERIENCED.  Was he selling shoes or washing cars last week and then some buddy of his talked him into “trying out the mortgage business”?  Does he really know what he’s doing?  Has he been originating mortgage for 5-10 years?  Does he do this full-time or this just a hobby or part-time gig? 

2. Choose a Mortgage Professional who is CERTIFIED.  Has proven to anyone that he knows the laws, the process, the programs and theory and mechanics behind the mortgage industry.  Has he taken courses and exams to measure his competency?  Is his certification a national designation? Is his certification from a professional association who can objectively measure and monitor his expertise or from some mail-order outfit looking to make few bucks?

3. Choose a Mortgage Professional with a GOOD REPUTATION.  Is your selection a true professional who is respected and well-known in his industry.  Who knows him and what kind of work he does?  Who has ever closed a loan with him?  Who can speak for his level of trustworthiness, honesty and attention to detail?  What do you know of his character and personality?

4. Choose a Mortgage Professional who is a PROFESSIONAL.  Does your choice know the market, the industry, the community, the history, the trends and your desires?  Is he a member of his professional association?  Has he been awarded and recognized by his peers and fellow business associates for his contribution to the industry and community?

During the month that your loan is supposed to close it is the most important transaction in your Mortgage Professional’s office.  “Getting it cheap” doesn’t mean much when your “loan guy” drops the ball and makes a mess of the whole deal simply because  he has “never seen anything like this before.”  That stack of bogus ”Good Faith Estimates” collected 30-60 days prior to your closing will mean very little when you find out that returning phone calls, diligently following up on underwriting conditions, and working long hours to insure that all of the bases are covered on your deal are not his priority or part of his work ethic.

Paper is cheap, and ink toner to print fictitious loan estimates is even cheaper.  Experience, Certification, a Good Reputation and Professionalism are priceless life-long attributes and qualities you want in your Mortgage Professional.  Leave the spreading of such worthless papers to those lying, low-balling, bait-n-switching, short-termers who do not deserve to work with someone like you who, understandably, expect it to get done right the first time.

[Source: Arizona Republic editorial board] — Incongruous as it may seem in the current real-estate market, the Jackson Street entertainment district in downtown Phoenix is forging ahead once more.   It has been a tough haul for this plan to dramatically make over the southern side of downtown.  But some ideas are just too good to grind to a halt.

In terms of the planning process, the entertainment district at last seems to be on a fast track.  The ambitious plan for a mix of nightclubs, restaurants, commercial and residential space, and, perhaps, a boutique hotel on the blocks south of US Airways Center has been slowed by the economy, but is gaining traction again.  We’re gratified to see it.  Few projects planned for the central city have the possibilities for transforming downtown like Jackson Street does.

The proposal went through a Phoenix Village Planning Committee review earlier this week. Tonight it is scheduled for review by the municipal Planning and Zoning Committee.  Unanticipated delays notwithstanding, the entertainment-district plan could go before the full Phoenix council by the first of next month.  In one form or another, the rare combination of gritty, old industrial buildings and sleek, new development has been under consideration for many years.  At one time, the proposal included elements on both sides of Jackson Street, north and south. [Note: To read the full editorial and online comments, click here.]

We return from a month’s haitus to a decision in the Monticello broadband-bond case, one of the cases we previewed for argument in February.  The Court affirmed the district court’s decision to throw out a competitor’s challenge to Monticello’s public fiber-optice network initiative.  The decision to give a broad reading to “public utility or convenience” is unanimous; the holdings to allow bonding for start-up costs and the lower court’s refusal to allow an amended complaint drew a dissent.  Barring Supreme Court intervention, it’s all systems go for municipal projects of this sort – the question is, will any other city want to carry the costs of such a project?  North Saint Paul voters overwhelmingly said no earlier this year.  Proposers would do well not just to consider the up-front costs, especially if those are somehow provided by stimulus money or other grants, but the long-term upkeep as well.

Also in the published cases today: a not-nearly-so-harmonious decision on Intoxylizer source code  that appears to be a big deal but probably isn’t.  The Court declared a district court in error for a factual finding that the State “doesn’t possess” the DWI-machine source code.  This contradicts the Supreme Court’s latest decision on the matter, which holds that the State by contract ”possesses” the code, even though it is locked in a court battle with the manufacturer to get what the rest of us would consider “possession”: an actual copy.  The main issue, though, remains whether the machine breath test has much of an impact upon the outcome of the case: here, the Court made its finding of error but affirmed anyway based on other evidence of drunk driving (such as being found by onlookers and police passed out at the wheel of a running car, say).  The status quo remains that source code is a key issue in .20 prosecutions or the (rare) DWI where all you’ve got is the BAC level, but otherwise it’s not a silver bullet for the defense.

On the unpublished side, the Court answers a tough question in St. Paul v. MGM Properties: what happens when a city brings a zoning-enforcement action in court, begins to lose, and then raises the doctrine of exhausting administrative remedies as a defense to the landowner’s (successful) summary judgment motion?  The whole thing is thrown out and everyone is re-directed to the administrative process.  The takeaway: it’s improper to infer from the City’s decision to sue in district court that pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile.  The Court identified some other issues with the lower court’s decision, but the ultimate decision to only adjust the dismissal from “with prejudice” to “without prejudice” and suggest that the parties come back if an administrative process doesn’t resolve the issue is the surprising thing here.  (Full disclosure: Chad Lemmons of Kelly & Lemmons reprents MGM in this case).

There is also a decision in Three Putt LLC v Minnetonka, also previewed here (along with the Monticello case) prior to argument.  In the preview, I’d suggested that a key issue would be PUD as a zoning district v. PUDs as contracts.   It was the first merits issue discussed, but the Court didn’t take long to come down firmly on the “contract” side.  It does so in a way that doesn’t advance the law on PUDs, either, as the Court took the issue to be whether the two properties had a single contract (clearly not true) instead of whether there was an overarching district that provided a single set of regulations favorable to Three Putt’s interests.   The rest of the opinion primarily applies contract principles to all facets of the land dispute, in all instances to the detriment of the appellant.  The Court does reiterate that the burden of persuasion rests with the person challenging a city zoning action, not the city or recipient of the approval.

Today is Mother’s Day and since I have about an hour left of this day, I thought I had better commit some thoughts to the Internet. 

I have been thinking about my status as a mother for the past few days. You see, my daughter’s birthday is always a few days or so before Mother’s Day. In fact, she was 6 days old during my first official Mother’s Day. So, thoughts are always fresh in my mind on this day as to how I am doing as a mother after each year passes that my daughter turns another year older. This year,  I am feeling that I have been a pretty sucky mom.  The past year has been awful. Honestly, I have been sick for most of it. It all started with complications from a stupid gallbladder removal last July and it hasn’t been much better. On top of being sick all the f’n time, I work like a dog.  And, I work like a dog without even trying. I just do it out of habit. I think I am a workaholic. My husband would say I definitely am a workaholic. I am always thinking about working and my staff. The economy is not helping either. The little angel hanging out on my right shoulder is always nagging me about the what-if scenarios of losing a job and to keep doing my best. The little devil is always saying ’screw it!” Sometimes, I wish I would listen to the little devil more often but he REALLY frightens me. Anyway, in another breath I say to myself that working as hard as I feel I do, I am showing my daughter a good example of a working mom. On the other hand, at what price? This is one of the on-going internal struggles we, as working mothers, face each day. It sucks but then again, it doesn’t.  I like what I do for a career. My career has taken a crazy path but I have always been up for the ride. There are days that I doubt my choice not to be home with my children but in my heart I know I would not be happy just staying at home and running a household. I want more. I want to show my daughter the options she has when she is an adult. I hope my choice will make her a stronger, self sustaining woman. So, as I am writing this I have come to a new conclusion. Even though this year has been tough and I have not been HERE physically with my children as much as I probably should have, I am still setting a good example being of a hard working, loving, dedicated individual and I should be proud of my accomplishments. If the world thinks otherwise, I really don’t care.I wouldn’t change a thing.

Mommy loves you Boo and P. G-night!

Animal prints are ever more popular – in both lives – and this lovely cocktail dress from PinUp Dolls is an expert and elegant use of leopard print in a dress. Just enough to add pop and zest, but not enough to add even a scintilla of skankiness.

It’s much better to go all out on the leopard with the lingerie, like this from Reasonable Desires, where you really want to show your wild side.

I had fun matching the new Hoorenbeck Stilettos Gidge gave me for my birthday to the dress. You can change the shoe, the bows and the heels independentaly and decide whether the strap and the bow show at all. You can choose from silk, leather, patent, crocodile and other textures in addition to choosing the colors.

I pulled out a handbag from Pixel Mode as well that was a lovely leopard skin.

I really mixed up the jewelry, adding a necklace, ring and bracelet from the ~flirt~ Bloom Onxy set, earrings and another bracelet from Dark Mouse Wild Animal Set and a second necklace from Armidi.

The hair is an old favorite from Truth – called Ruby and it comes with a host of options in the texture-change head scarf. There’s also a  Ruby2 which has straight bangs. Here you can get a closer look at the necklace as well.

The skin is PXL Creations newly released Grace in Fair. I know, I know, I know I have said for ages that it was soon-to-be-released and you all probably got sick of waiting, but it is out now. And isn’t it amazingly elegant?

****STYLE NOTES******
Promotional Copies are denoted by a Bold R

• Poses: Long Awkward Pose
• Skin: PXL Grace Fair DarkEyes Coffee Lips R
• Eyes: Poetic Color Night Forest
• Lashes: Lelutka Diva Prim Lashes
• PXL Creations Mani
• Hair: Truth Ruby
• Lingerie: reasonable Desires Avery Rawr! picks gift R
• Dress: PinUp Dolls Classic Cocktail Dress Leopard
• Shoes: Hoorenbeck STilettos T
• Jewelry: Armidi Triple Pearl Necklace,
• Dark Mouse Wild Animal Earrings and Bracelet, R
• ~flirt~ Bloom Bracelet, Necklace and Ring Black Onyx R
• Handbag: Pixel Mode Leeza Leopard

Got a three-unit building you want to sell, but don’t want to tread the choppy waters of the multi-unit TIC ocean? Take a tip from the sellers over at 215-217 Cole in the North Panhandle: Create an “airspace” subdivision of a three-unit building. Turn the top unit into Parcel A, and designate it a planned unit development, or PUD. Turn the middle and lower flats into Parcel B, and market them as two TIC interests. Then you can end up selling a two-unit building—much more marketable than three units due to the condo conversion requirements—and a PUD, which can be sold in a very similar manner to that of a condo.

Both parcels can, according to the disclosure documentation, “share the use and enjoyment of the land and certain elements of the building.” There’s one association that is then subject to a declaration which governs the building. Everybody pays monthly association dues as specified in the disclosures.

In the case of 215-217 Cole, the top unit was sold as a PUD in December for $775,000 after being on the market for 208 days. What remain are the two units, priced at $809,000 and $805,000 and first listed in November 2008. The units were in contract recently, but the deal fell through.

A word out there to prospective buyers: Consult with an attorney before you consider an ownership arrangement such as this one. It’s worth paying for a consultation so you know what you’re getting into.

Two cases involving cities will be argued at the Court of Appeals tomorrow:

Brigewater Telephone v. Monticello, A08-1928.  Discussed previously, Bridgewater seeks to block Monticello from issuing (now, from receiving the proceeds of) revenue bonds to support the creation of a city/private fiber-optic network.  Bridgewater argues that the City acted outside the scope of Minn. Stat. 475.52, which it argues limits revenue bond issues to “traditional utilities.”  In particular, Bridgewater argues that “internet service” is not one of these traditional utilities (though how is it separate from phone and/or cable?  Never really answered.)  The argument essentially seeks specific legislative authorization before a government body can enter a competitive marketplace.  Bridgewater also seeks remand to the district court on evidentiary issues.  The City replies that the language of 475.52 is very broad and allows bonds for “other public conveniences,” noting that there is little authority for what Bridgewater wants to define as “traditonal utilities.”  The City also points to a broad expansion of the meaning of “public purpose” in court opinions in the past 30 years.  The case drew an amicus brief from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors supporting the City’s “right” to expand broadband services, and noting the historical role of government intervention to promote the expansion on novel technologies, such as the telephone.

Three Putt, LLC v. Minnetonka, A08-1436.  This case raises the question: what is a PUD, exactly?  Three Putt owns one parcel in a two-lot PUD “district.”  When the PUD was created, the same developer owned both lots, but entered into two separate PUD Agreements (one for each lot).  Unfortunately, the two agreements do not exactly match up in terms of reserved rights for cross-parking, lot access, or visibility.  Inevitably, these differences came to light when the parcels were sold off, and one developer (also a defendant/respondent in the action) built their property up in a way that steps all over the rights that the other owner thought they had.  Three Putt sued both the City and their neighboring developer on contract, zoning, and trespass theories, but lost on all claims (except a temporary trespass by the neighbor) on summary judgment.  At appeal, Three Putt frames the issue as involving a unitary PUD district (which does exist on the City’s map), thus making their claims of spot zoning and/or interference with a legal nonconforming use at least substantial enough to get to trial, if not prevail overall.  The City and the other developer take the stance that the contracts (PUD Agreements) dominate the issue, creating complete separation between the two properties – thus, the City’s acts to amend or administer one contract have no impact upon the other, or at least do not grant the other contract holder any special say in the matter.  The case also touches on who has the burden when challenging a grant of variance – the challenger (to show the request is unreasonable or lacks uniqueness) or the City/proponent (to establish that it made findings to support the grant of a variance)?

Lying in bed with me waiting for mummy

The Supreme Court released one opinion on land use decisons this morning, The Big Lake Association v. Saint Louis County Planning Commission.  The zoning decision under contest is a PUD approval for a resort property near the BWCA.  Saint Louis County has two categories of PUD for “resorts” which could have applied here – a commercial (the one used) which in theory applies to transient-stay and service-intensive properties; and a residential PUD which applies to properties with longer-stay housing such as cabins or timeshares, and fewer services.  The legal issue at stake before the Court was whether opponents of the plan, who now argue that the proposal should have been reviewed as a residential PUD (where it would fail as presented), sufficiently raised the issue when the County Planning Commission considered the PUD approval.  The Court of Appeals decided that they did not, and held that the issue was waived.  The Supreme Court agreed, finding that separation-of-powers principles prevent the Court from interfering in a quasi-judicial zoning decision if the matters were not raised to the deciding body.  In the recounting of the record within the opinion, it appears that no opponent took the commercial v. residential issue head-on, or even directly referenced the density standards that form the main difference between the two standards.  The Court also went on, in dicta, to decide the underlying reasonableness of the approval, though that issue was not before the court in the first place, and certainly not  after finding the issue waived.

The takeaway from this decision is that there are few “jurisdictional” mistakes a city or zoning board can make.  Opponents of a plan, if they believe the wrong standard is being applied, should be specific at every level about the “right” standard or zoning process a plan should be taking.

Asociatia Salvati Bucurestiul (ASB) solicita Consiliului General al Municipiului Bucuresti sa nu aprobe Planul Urbanistic Zonal (PUZ) cu detalii de Plan Urbanistic de Detaliu (PUD) cuprins intre strazile Constantin Noica, Calea Plevnei si Stirbei Voda, din sectorul 1, unde ar urma sa fie construit Complexul Multifunctional Urban Dambovita Center. ASB prezinta in cadrul a doua argumente, 12 motive pentru care acest proiect este unul ilegal.

I. Argumente de legalitate invocate:

• 1. PUZ-ul propus contravine Ordonantei de Urgenta a Guvernului 195/2005 privind protectia mediului (completata cu Ordonanta de Urgenta a Guvernului nr 114/2007). Art. 71 alin. (1) din ordonanta interzice schimbarea destinatiei spatiilor verzi prevazute ca atare in documentatiile de urbanism. Comparind plansa PUZ propus cu plansa Planului Urbanistic General, se vede ca PUZ propus nu respecta zona V1a (vecina cu Splaiul Independentei) prevazuta de Planul Urbanistic General.

• 2. PUZ-ul propus contravine Legii 122/2007 pentru aprobarea OUG nr. 95/2006 privind aprobarea Actului aditional la Contractul de parteneriat public-privat pentru reconversia functionala a amplasamentului “Centrul Dambovita” si de finalizare a constructiilor existente si mandatarea Ministerului, Transporturilor, Constructiilor si Turismului pentru semnarea acestuia. Articolul 8.2. alin. (1) din forma finala a contractului de parteneriat public-privat prevede ca PUZ-ul pe care Compania de Proiect il va depune va fi conform cu Centrul Dambovita – Planul General, continut de anexa 1 la contract. Se poate vedea ca plansa PUZ propus difera fundamental de plansa prevazuta de anexa 1 la contractul de parteneriat public-privat.

• 3. PUZ-ul propus contravine Hotaririi Consiliului General al Municipiului Bucuresti nr. 66/2006 privind aprobarea normelor privind asigurarea numarului minim de locuri de parcare pentru noile constructii si amenajari aprobate pe teritoriul Municipiului Bucuresti. Hotarirea 66/2006 prevede cel putin un loc de parcare pentru fiecare 20mp de spatii comerciale si cel putin un loc de parcare pentru fiecare 60mp de alte functiuni (birouri, hoteluri, institutii financiare). Conform anexei 1 la contractul de parteneriat public-privat, Complexul Dimbovita Center va avea 160.000mp de spatii comerciale, deci pentru acestea sint necesare, conform hotaririi 66/2006, 8000 locuri de parcare. Pentru restul de 247.775mp cu alte destinatii (birouri, hoteluri, institutii financiare), sint necesare, conform hotaririi 66/2006, 4130 locuri de parcare. In total, pentru a respecta hotarirea 66/2006, Complexul Dimbovita ar trebui sa aiba 12.130 locuri de parcare, in timp ce PUZ propus prevede doar 4500.

• 4. PUZ-ul propus este incomplet. Nu este prezentat Consiliului General al Municipiului Bucuresti si cetatenilor in cursul dezbaterii publice regulamentul de urbanism aferent PUZ propus. Nu ni se precizeaza spre exemplu un aspect deosebit de important: care este functiunea fiecareia dintre imobilele care apar in plansa PUZ.

• 5. Nu exista avizul Agentiei Regionale pentru Protectia Mediului Bucuresti. Desi avizul de urbanism nr. 2/3/12.11.2008 al Directiei de Urbanism si Amenajarea Teritoriului conditiona aprobarea PUZ de un aviz de mediu din partea Agentiei Regionale pentru Protectia Mediului Bucuresti – ARPMB, ARPMB nu a dat un aviz propriu-zis, ci doar un document in care precizeaza ca PUZ-ul se va acorda fara aviz de mediu.

Continuarea articolului o gasiti pe 9am.ro, adica dand clic aici!

Uite ce am ajuns sa fac in loc sa invat pentru sesiune, si mai ales, pe timp de noapte… Scriu articole despre PUZ-urile si PUD-urile din Bucuresti. Am si de ce! Idiotii de la Primarie (si de obicei tin sa spun ca nu jignesc… dar acum si-o merita) vor sa construiasca un bloc turn de 116 m inaltime in Militari, cartierul in care locuiesc:

De ce nu sunt de acord:

1. Zona Lujerului, unde urmeaza a fi amplasat gigantul este deja prea aglomerata si poluata. Ca si exercitiu incercati sa treceti de semaforul de la Lujerului mergand catre centru pe la 7-8 dimineata. Spune-ti-mi si mie va rog cat timp ‘irositi’ acolo.

2. Zona este deja plina de cladiri si de beton. Cora Militari, Plaza Romania si ce s-a mai contruit intre ele (cladirea aia luminata cu albastru seara, cred ca sutn birouri) sunt deja arhisuficiente. N-o sa ne fie frig iarna pe acolo (betonul pastreaza caldura bine), iar vara o sa murim de-a binelea, asa ca sincer as prefera un parc in locul gigantului. Chiar si daca un parc nu aduce bani (insa produce externalitati pozitive pe termen extrem de lung)

3. Solul Bucurestiului nu este tocmai cel mai bun pentru construirea de cladiri inalte (panza de apa freatica este prea aproape, iar solul este nisipos), iar zona Lujerului nu se afla printre ele (gasiti in articol care sunt zonele propice gigantilor). Ba mai mult, am vorbit cu mama in seara asta si mi-a povestit cum la cutremurul din ‘77 jumatate din blocul de pe colt de la Lujerului ( nu ala de pe partea cu gurile de metrou) a picat… Blocul de pe colt de la Lujerului nu e inalt, asa ca ma intreb… oare cum o sa reactioneze gigantul la un cutremur? Mai scapam?

4. Poluarea aerului si poluare fonica. Masini multe, claxoane multe, centru comercial (giganul se vrea a fi hotel, spatii comerciale si birouri) = si mai mult trafic, si mai mult zgomot si mai multe noxe => STRES! STRES!! STRES!!!. Ca si nota informativa in sectorul 6 avem doar 0.6 mp de spatiu verde/cap de locuitor, media pe Bucuresti este de 2.5 mp, iar UE cere minim 26 mp de spatiu verde/cap de locuitor… Faceti si voi un calcul cat de santosi suntem… PS: noxele de la masini contin plumb (benzina cu pb este mai ieftina), iar plumbul este cancerigen ok, nu mai contin plub, dar tot noxe sunt si tot nesanatoase (doua persoane care sofeaza deja mi-au atras atentia asupra acestui fapt)…

Cat de curand va aparea si o petitie contra acestor constructii ilegale dar cu acte in regula (ca deh! la primarie s-au primit bani ca sa aprobe proiectul asta)…

O sa va tin la curent, pana atunci iata micul meu copil -> Cel mai inalt bloc turn din Capitala, un dezastru ecologic?