Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Home RSS
 
 
 

Why I oppose Bay Harbour Marina Village

Letter to the Editor

March 21, 2018
Fort Myers Beach Bulletin, Fort Myers Beach Observer

Why I oppose Bay Harbour Marina Village

To the Editor:

I am voicing my strong opposition to the Proposed Bay Harbour Marina Village Land Use Change CPA2017-00005 DRMUVD. As a local resident who has lived on San Carlos Island for over 50 years, and business owner who has multiple businesses which operate on this island, I request that the county DENY the Proposed Bay Harbour Marina Village Land Use Change Request.

My reasoning comes from the recommendation to deny the project as stated by the Lee County Hearing Examiner, Laura Belflower, during her examination of the project's rezoning application from 2016. My reasoning agrees with her points of opposition, which are as follows:

1. The Request's density is not consistent with the Lee Plan.

2. The Request is incompatible with and negatively affects the character of the surrounding area;

3. Put simply, the Request seeks too much too much density, too much intensity. It seeks the maximum allowances while not sufficiently the minimum requirements.

4. The Request's residential density is not consistent with the Lee Plan.

5. The Requests property is in the Coast High Hazard Area, where the Lee Plan does not support higher densities except with significant justification.

6. The Request sees to use the size of the whole property to calculate density but does not provide the type of mixed-use development that allows that calculation. Therefore, the requested density exceeds the Lee Plan allowance.

7. The Request as proposed is not eligible for the requested bonus density because it does not meet all of the requested minimum criteria. Therefore, the requested density exceeds the Lee Plan allowance.

8. The Request is incompatible with and negatively affects the character of the surrounding area.

9. The Request does not demonstrate the necessary urban services are available and adequate to accommodate the proposed density and intensity.

10. Matanzas Harbor is the only remaining major seaport designated by the Lee Plan. Matanzas is a designated federal channel; the only one between Key West and Tampa. The southern waterfront area is a designated Florida Working Waterfront with the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity's Waterfronts Florida Partnership Program.

11. The Request's density is inconsistent with the Lee Plan.

12. The requested density is inconsistent with the Lee Plan's directives for density in the Coast High Hazard Area.

13. The Request has not demonstrated the necessary significant justification.

14. The proposed density is not compatible with the surrounding area. The mix of uses and design of the site do not reflect the desired missed-use development form. The transportation facilities are constrained, and transit is not reasonably available. Therefore, the proposed Request des not sufficiently override the Lee Plan directive for lower density in the CHHA. Accordingly, its density is inconsistent with the Lee Plan.

15. The Request exceeds the Lee Plan density limits because the Request does not meet the requirements to calculate density using the size of the whole property.

16. The Request seeks to include the property's entire 7.58 acres in calculating density including the non-residential areas.

17. Applicant has not demonstrated the mix of uses meets even the minimum requirements to calculate density using the entire property.

18. The Applicant did not adequately demonstrate the mix of uses, at the proposed intensity, is compatible, and viable.

19. The Request does not support a transit-orientation. Parts of the Request are dependent on transit to function, yet the Request does not sufficiently address transit.

20. The Request does not provide sufficient open spaces.

21. The Applicant did not demonstrate the prosed design will provide a truly functional pedestrian friendly environment.

22. The Applicant has not demonstrated the Request's design created a pedestrian friend human scale environment.

23. The Request does not provide sufficient civic spaces.

24. The Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated the whole Request property qualifies as a mixed-use development.

25. The weight of the evidence indicates major portions, if not all, of the Request does not qualify for inclusion in the density calculations. Accordingly, the Request as proposed exceeds the Lee Plan allowed density.

26. Bonus density is not preferred on San Carlos Island.

27. The prosed type of affordable housing is not a type of affordable housing prioritized byt the Lee Plan.

28. The Request is incompatible with and negatively affects the character of the surrounding area.

29. The Request is not justified by the Ebbtide approval.

30. The Request's density is incompatible and inconsistent with the surrounding area.

31. The Request's gross residential densities are inconsistent and incompatible with the area.

32. The Request's heights are incompatible.

33. The Request's heights ae inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

34. The Request's heights are inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding non-residential areas.

35. The Request is not consistent with the character of the working waterfront/port.

36. Incompatibility with the character of the area conclusion.

37. One of the objectives of the San Carlos Island Lee Plan provisions is to manage development to maintain and enhance the area's quality of life. Similarly, commercial development should blend with the character of the surrounding area and redevelopment activities must be consistent with the desired community character. The weight of the evidence indicates the Applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate the Request meets these requirements.

38. The Request's densities are inconsistent and incompatible with the residential development in the surrounding area. They not only do not improve the area's existing character, they are potentially destructive to the character of the surrounding area.

39. Further, the heights and building sizes are too intense for and inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area. The Request's design exacerbates rather than mitigates these impacts. Consequently, the Request is not compatible with, nor does it protect the character of, the surrounding area.

40. The Request is inconsistent with several provisions of the LDC.

41. The Request creates unresolved transportation issues.

42. Not all of the requisite urban services are available.

Bill Semmer

San Carlos Island

 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web