Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009

Home

August 25, 2009\ Vo.lume 3\ No. 16 Zoning Bulletin In other words, the Board's denial on traffic and density grounds was ar-. bitrary because it was based on the duCharmes' initial proposal, and not the amended proposal. The duCharmes had specifically responded to the Commission's traffic and density concerns by: "(1) reducing the number of RVs permitted on the site; (2) eliminating all boat slips; [and] (3) elim- inating. . . lake access [from the RV park]." However, the Board had not "address[ed] the effect of those efforts or impose[d] any other traffic and density mitigation requirements as conditions of granting the CUP." The court reversed the Board's denial. It remanded the application back to the Board to address the duCharmes' amended application. See also: Trisko v. City of Waite Park, 566 N. W.2d 349 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). (j .-'. Case Note: The court also found that the other reasons for the Board's denial of the duCharmes' CUP application were "unreasonable." Preemption...,.-City conditions project approval on inclusion of affordable housing units, per city regulations 0 Developer cop.tends application of affordable housing requirements to its project violates state law Citatiqn: Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, 2009 WL 2170637 (Cal. App. 2d pist. 2009). CALIFORNIA (07/22/09)-In 2006, PaInier/Sixth Street Properties, . L.P. ("Palmer") applied to the city for approval of a mixed use develop- ment project (the "Project"). The Project was to include: "350 residential units and 9,750 square feet of commercial space on 2.84 acres, consisting of 11 separate, contiguous lots." At the time of the proposal, the Project site was a parking lot. Previously, the site had contained a GO-unit low in- come apartment. hotel that had been demolished. Because of this fact, the city concluded that the Project fell within the scope of S l1.C of its Spe- cific Plan (the "Plan") for development projects in that area of the city. Section11.C required applicants for multiple-family residential or mixed use projects to either: construct affordable housing units that were subject to (under Section l1.E of the Plan) rent restrictions for the life ofthe units or for 30 years, whichever was greater; or pay an in lieu fee that the city would use to build affordable. housing units elsewhere. The city's planning commission (the "Commission") conditionally ap- proved Palmer's Project subject to S .11.C's affordable housing requirements. ( )) .........~.~. 6 @ 2009 Thomson. Reuters 52.