- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rouzan TND zoning pulled
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:45 am to BottomlandBrew
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:45 am to BottomlandBrew
quote:
PUDs are more flexible. We always encourage clients to go for PUDs because you can incorporate TNDs within PUDs and it allows you to change things a few years down the road if the market starts trending in a different direction.
Same thing I was thinking. You can still have all the mixed-use and accomplish the same goals. Each phase would go before the Planning Commission just like it would with a TND.
0
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:47 am to BottomlandBrew
If this is going to turn into a Baton Rouge traffic thread, would someone please tell me why they won't just build a damn loop around Baton Rouge and free up the interstate traffic in town.
Yes, a new bridge would be costly but damn.
Yes, a new bridge would be costly but damn.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:49 am to jbgleason
if they built a loop, you would be dead before it was finished. 
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:50 am to jbgleason
quote:
If this is going to turn into a Baton Rouge traffic thread, would someone please tell me why they won't just build a damn loop around Baton Rouge and free up the interstate traffic in town.
Let's not go down that rabbit hole right now.
I definitely think going PUD or SPUD will probably happen given the obvious lawsuits that will happen. The problem is maintaining the continuity of it all. In theory Spinosa could sell off pieces of the property and scrap the ideas of Rouzan. Then a bunch of developers buy the parcels, make their own projects, and you have a giant mis matched piece of shite.
Enjoy that Nimby folks
Posted on 3/12/14 at 9:33 am to Geauxld Finger
quote:
and you have a giant mis matched piece of shite.
I think we can all agree that top priority should be having this development look the same. Shittiness, traffic, etc are of secondary concern.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:21 pm to Martini
quote:
but since all of you complaining about traffic fight this tooth and nail
Woooooooah there, Nelly. Don't point this at me. I'm all for 4-laning Lee. Hell, I would love to see Highland 4-laned from campus to Lee (and I live in a neighborhood along that corridor) as well but that will never happen due to the same reason Lee will probably never be 4-laned.
As I said in that post, unless Rouzan includes a rather nice connection between Perkins & Highland, I don't see how Rouzan (with a hundred or so extra families) helps traffic on College as the majority of that either disperses on Perkins, flows south on Lee or north toward the Interstate, Corporate and beyond (thus my mention of a Highland/Perkins/Corporate connector). Without at least a Perkins/Highland connector, just tossing Rouzan in there is going to only add to traffic problems.
Posted on 3/13/14 at 11:46 am to Bard
as expected
As expected, attorneys for developer Tommy Spinosa filed Wednesday with the First Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing in his case over the validity of Rouzan's zoning as a traditional neighborhood development. Last month, a three-judge panel nullified Rouzan's zoning as a TND on the grounds that the developer did not have full ownership and control over all the property within the boundaries of the TND when the Metro Council rezoned it in 2008. In his application for a rehearing, Spinosa argues that the First Circuit failed to give proper deference to the trial court's factual findings and failed to apply the presumption of validity to the zoning ordinance. More significantly, he argues that the existence of a non-exclusive servitude of passage—in this case, a road—does not deprive the owner of control of his property. In its ruling, the First Circuit said Spinosa did not have control of the road that runs through Rouzan from Glasgow Avenue to a five-acre parcel in the middle of the TND that is owned by others and is not part of the development. "We hope the First Circuit will take the opportunity to reconsider the ruling in light of these points," says Rouzan marketing director Kelly Vastine. "From a practical standpoint, there is virtually no developable property that doesn't have some form of servitude, so if a servitude deprives the owner of control to rezone then theoretically one couldn't rezone any property." —Stephanie Riegel
As expected, attorneys for developer Tommy Spinosa filed Wednesday with the First Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing in his case over the validity of Rouzan's zoning as a traditional neighborhood development. Last month, a three-judge panel nullified Rouzan's zoning as a TND on the grounds that the developer did not have full ownership and control over all the property within the boundaries of the TND when the Metro Council rezoned it in 2008. In his application for a rehearing, Spinosa argues that the First Circuit failed to give proper deference to the trial court's factual findings and failed to apply the presumption of validity to the zoning ordinance. More significantly, he argues that the existence of a non-exclusive servitude of passage—in this case, a road—does not deprive the owner of control of his property. In its ruling, the First Circuit said Spinosa did not have control of the road that runs through Rouzan from Glasgow Avenue to a five-acre parcel in the middle of the TND that is owned by others and is not part of the development. "We hope the First Circuit will take the opportunity to reconsider the ruling in light of these points," says Rouzan marketing director Kelly Vastine. "From a practical standpoint, there is virtually no developable property that doesn't have some form of servitude, so if a servitude deprives the owner of control to rezone then theoretically one couldn't rezone any property." —Stephanie Riegel
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News