NewsPress.com
July 31, 2007
Judge set to hear suit over The Vue
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070731/NEWS0110/70730078/1075
by Joel Moroney
A gaggle of attorneys will gather Thursday
to argue the merits of constructing a controversial downtown high-rise on the
The fight over The Vue, a 27-story tower slated for
construction at the western edge of
Twice approved by council — once with and once without a piece of park land —
the 27-story tower includes 24 floors of condominiums, several floors of
parking, ground-floor commercial space and a 32-slip marina just west of the
U.S. 41 bridge.
Its proximity to the park and its height — nine stories over the 18-story
maximum recommended in the city’s plan — have prompted outcry from the
beginning.
Long History
Council’s final approval in January was quickly followed by the lawsuit by
Splitt’s late husband Robert Splitt
was a longtime county hearing examiner — the memorial tree planted in his honor
could be harmed by plans to move it, according to the suit.
“She feels it’s going to bring possible harm to her husband’s memorial tree and
has been against it since the beginning,” Dickman
said. “(The developer) has rights to his property, but he doesn’t have rights
to the park property.”
Splitt referred all comment to Dickman.
The remaining parties have sued to stop potential environmental harm along the
riverfront.
“The (river association) actively promotes the protection of endangered
manatees and objects to The Vue’s private 32-slip
marina as attracting more motorized vessels which injure or kill manatees in
the river,” Dickman wrote in his argument.
Complaint
Dickman alleges the council’s 4-2 vote to issue the
development permit was improper because:
¸ It should not have approved both plans without park service permission.
• It should not have allowed a 50 percent density increase — from 18 stories to
27 stories — and did not get enough in return. The developer agreed to pay
about $500,000 to various city funds, including affordable housing.
¸ Opposition was not given a chance to review the alternative plan before
council approved it.
• The permit should not have been granted because of a lien on the property
held by an architect in contractual dispute with the developer.
• That substantial changes were negotiated at the final hearing — including a
commitment from the developer to maximize ground-floor commercial space and
help with the demolition and construction of new park restrooms — without
proper public notices.
Response
Developer Ron Throgmartin revised the plan to keep
the tower off the park after the National Park Service ignored requests to
approve the initial proposal.
In January, the city voted to allow him to construct either version if park
approval comes by year’s end, which is not expected. Throgmartin,
who said he has $20 million invested in the project and wanted to start
construction early this summer, has committed to the plan that stays off park
land.
Throgmartin attorney Russell Schroupp
and City Attorney Nancy Stroud have requested the suit be dismissed, arguing
none of the parties can prove they will be personally harmed and that the
remaining legal arguments are without merit.
“In short, council reviewed the project as presented by the (developer),
considered the staff recommendation of approval and heard public testimony from
those in favor of the project and those opposed to it,” they wrote. “Such a
process is the essence of a full and impartial quasi-judicial hearing.”
Dickman said the case is ready for a judge.
“I feel extremely confident — I think they have a strong case,” Dickman said. “I think the city has done things that are
completely illegal.”
A ruling is unlikely to come for several weeks. Then the losing side can appeal
the case.