Riverwatch Comments

Riverwatch believes that Caloosahatchee urban waterfront development should adhere to the set of professional design principles proven to best serve the long term needs of a community such as Ft. Myers. Some of these principles are articulated in a University of California video lecture [watch video].

All questions about the legal action are being referred to attorney Andrew Dickman, of Naples.

ANDREW DICKMAN, AICP, ESQ.
Law Offices of Andrew Dickman, P.A.
P.O. Box 771390
Naples, FL 34107-1390
(239) 597-7017
(239) 597-2399 (fax)
AndrewDickman@BellSouth.net

We are petitioning the court to reverse the city's decision granting the Vue planned unit development because it is based on an illegal land swap between the developer and the City, and because it privatizes scarce public riverfront land and turns the Park into nothing more than a publicly-maintained backyard for those living at the Vue. The City’s long range comprehensive plan instructs officials at the city to protect the Park not develop it, and not allow future development, especially residential development, in locations vulnerable to hurricanes and flooding. Finally, even if the developer is permitted to construct on that part of the property he owns privately, the Vue should not be larger than the existing zoning allows: 18 stories. The City illegally used density bonuses ($ paid to the City) and zoning variances to “super size” the Vue to 27-stories.

We want the City and / or County to buy the Throgmartin land as the logical western terminus of the Park; and then we will work together with the City and County to find a more appropriate upland location for the Vue and to secure funding for maintenance of the entire Park as a regional destination for everyone to enjoy the River and downtown. We are confident this is possible if everyone cooperates.

PETITION ARGUMENTS:

1. The P.U.D. is based upon an illegal conversion of park land without NPS approval.

2. The P.U.D. was erroneously reviewed under the city's previous zoning code.

3. The P.U.D. was improperly enlarged with warrants, bonuses, and miscalculations of density.

4. Petitioners were not afforded an impartial decision maker and were precluded from examining all the evidence at the hearing below.

5. The city failed to require the removal of a notice of lis pendens on the subject property before granting the P.U.D.

6. The city improperly granted substantial changes to the P.U.D. at the hearing below without adequate notice to the public.

7. The P.U.D. is inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.

“Throgmartin won the right to build this high-rise on his land..." is wrong. According to the facts as I know them, the developer "won" the right to purchase city property - the parcel where the sailing center is located - largely because he already owned the adjacent land - the Abbott parcel.

The Vue PUD (now referred to as "Option A") is predicated on the use of Centennial Park land, bonuses, and variances. The National Park Service has the final say whether the park land can be used or given to the developer. Two 1/2 years later, NPS has not granted approval. The bonuses and variances are not entitlements to increase profits but planning tools used to achieve a valid public purpose.

Throgmartin has the right to request a PUD on lands he legally owns up to the maximum allowable intensity and density under the zoning code (18 stories on the Abbott parcel). Even so, however, he is not "entitled" that maximum because he also has to comply with other standards to ensure compatibility, scale, and consistency with the city's long range comprehensive plan.

The Vue Option A is a nullity because it is predicated on the illegal "swap" of park lands. If Throgmartin now wants approval of The Vue Option B, that PUD should be considered a completely new proposal, on only the land he legally owns, and under the current zoning standards. Saying he is "amending" the Option A PUD with Option B in order to be vested under the old zoning code is cheating not winning, and confuses what is supposed to be a transparent democratic public process.

The Vue belongs "upland" out of the coastal high hazard zone. The city and county should work together to add the Abbott parcel to Centennial Park because it is a regional asset for everyone, especially those who don't have direct access to the riverfront.