Jump to content

City Centre (Formerly 215 E. Central Blvd) | 28-Story Residential [Approved]


Ocityst

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/MainSite/Listing/Profile/Profile.aspx?LID=19381032&SRID=6232732305&StepID=101

 

They are calling it Parc Central (personally hate it but whatever). They list groundbreaking as Q1 '16 and delivery to tenants as Q4 '17. That is really long timeline for construction so wouldn't open til 2018. I do like the big ground space being marketed as good for a drug store. A Walgreens or something like it would do very well there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Got the following email from Save Lake Eola Park today:

Today the City holds a hearing with the three “Affected Persons” who have appealed the Municipal Planning Board decision to approve the 28-story tower on the shores of Lake Eola.

The parties are St. Luke’s Cathedral, Kimisul Holdings and David Martens, President of the Lake Eola Heights District. The City hopes to settle with St. Luke’s Cathedral and to have David Martens and Kimisul Holdings thrown out for lack of standing.

If the appeals are thrown out, this would relieve the City from having to answer our fellow citizens’ legitimate and responsible concerns. Also, this would likely erode confidence in City leadership and the system set in place for community input on significant decisions such as this.

You are the advocates for Lake Eola Park and the future of our City. VisitSaveLakeEolaPark.com(http://savelakeeolapark.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?u=006422a52955d55ec6f345af1&id=8f76c404fe&e=b4d51ef796 for updated information posted this morning (including a summary of the appeals) and share your voice on facebook.com/SaveLakeEolaPark.
 

Save Lake Eola ParkPark

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would really suck is if they pull a William Dupont and raze the buildings on that parcel, then have their financing fall through and back out, as happened with the N. Orange Ave parcel that Central Station eventually wound up being built on, after sitting for 3 decades as an empty eyesore.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

http://hpaurban.com/portfolio-item/215-east-central-blvd/

This architect has another project in Minneapolis with more of an art deco tower vibe.  I really wish Orlando's development had gone this route to fit in better with some of it's neighbors along Lake Eola.

They also have another Orlando project on their portfolio.  Is there a thread for this one?

http://hpaurban.com/wp-content/uploads/bfi_thumb/Humphreys-Partners-Urban-Architecture-401-Rosalind-Rendering-Main-mf4dt4ubazfmyq4ggoojm7ikyogmfam80jhpipzyjw.jpg

http://hpaurban.com/portfolio-item/401-rosalind/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I went to the fall festival today and couldn't help but notice a crazy lady with and umbrella with "Save Lake Eola" signs hanging off of it. She was screaming and trying to hand out flyers, so, I decided to give her a listen. She declared the building would be as tall as the Vue and would cast a horrible shadow onto the park. I seriously wanted point out that she was not only standing in the shade but also holding an umbrella. With her "shadow" logic I wanted to ask her if we should cut down all the trees, because they cast shadows too. And if you spent five seconds to think about when and where a shadow would be cast there really is no argument here. 

She spewed off some more conflated, or even made up, factoids and I had to walk away. 

NIMBY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, so lets remove any public amenity that this building will provide. I mean the current buildings offer..well.. they offer... Oh, right. Nothing. 

I wouldn't necessarily consider the cafe seating area a public amenity when the area will be permanently gated off and restricted to paying customers only. We will lose usable park space. If anything, I don't see why the developer can't incorporate a seating area similar to Spice Modern Steakhouse - they have the best of both worlds while providing a ped friendly transition to park space. St Luke's deed explicitly states the land is for public use only, so there shouldn't be any question regarding the use of donated land. OTOH, St Luke's has no right to dictate the highest and best use on private property, including the setback of the apartment building.

Allowing private usage to encroach on to public land sets a precedent to allow for other questionable "compromises" in the future because it erodes a clear separation of private vs public usage. For example, Project DTO eventually wants to fill in a larger portion of Lake Eola for a new bandshell with seating, install permanent vendor kiosks, etc - all of which are not okay IMO. I'm sure the city will count Relax Grill and World of Beer as examples to justify further encroachments onto public space. Where does it all end? I think it will be wise to keep a clear separation of public vs private space so there won't be any gray areas going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to stall this conversation, but does anyone have a reason to believe this is even going to happen?  The year is almost over and they aren't in a position to get financed 

Neither this nor Modera Central have been approved yet or will likely be approved until 2016, which means neither are realistically going to be in a position to get off the ground until 2017 at the earliest.  Those appeals are hurting them both big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't necessarily consider the cafe seating area a public amenity when the area will be permanently gated off and restricted to paying customers only. We will lose usable park space. If anything, I don't see why the developer can't incorporate a seating area similar to Spice Modern Steakhouse - they have the best of both worlds while providing a ped friendly transition to park space. St Luke's deed explicitly states the land is for public use only, so there shouldn't be any question regarding the use of donated land. OTOH, St Luke's has no right to dictate the highest and best use on private property, including the setback of the apartment building.

Allowing private usage to encroach on to public land sets a precedent to allow for other questionable "compromises" in the future because it erodes a clear separation of private vs public usage. For example, Project DTO eventually wants to fill in a larger portion of Lake Eola for a new bandshell with seating, install permanent vendor kiosks, etc - all of which are not okay IMO. I'm sure the city will count Relax Grill and World of Beer as examples to justify further encroachments onto public space. Where does it all end? I think it will be wise to keep a clear separation of public vs private space so there won't be any gray areas going forward.

I've gotta think that the city with an entire floor of real estate attorneys knew what they were doing when they approved this.  They are not that sloppy. Besides, they can sell of or lease any land that they choose.

I believe Modera is past the legal issue.  The lawsuit was thrown out .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Modera is past the legal issue.  The lawsuit was thrown out .

Wrong. There was a stipulated order agreed to by the parties. Required a more comprehensive traffic study and a neighborhood impact analysis to be conducted and certain results to be found, including evidence supporting the City's basis for granting the variance, all of which are still pending. If they don't reach the required conclusions, it isn't approved. Of course the people working at the OBJ couldn't decipher any of that correctly when they reported on it.

Also real estate attorneys working for the City probably aren't the brightest of the bunch or else they wouldn't be real eatate attorneys working for the City. I could believe some of them could easily misunderstand or misapply public land use law or fail to think of any consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. There was a stipulated order agreed to by the parties. Required a more comprehensive traffic study and a neighborhood impact analysis to be conducted and certain results to be found, including evidence supporting the City's basis for granting the variance, all of which are still pending. If they don't reach the required conclusions, it isn't approved. Of course the people working at the OBJ couldn't decipher any of that correctly when they reported on it.

Also real estate attorneys working for the City probably aren't the brightest of the bunch or else they wouldn't be real eatate attorneys working for the City. I could believe some of them could easily misunderstand or misapply public land use law or fail to think of any consequences.

Please speak more about the variance. A traffic study and neighborhood impact analysis is not worth much to me. The roads cannot be expanded and lymmo has already been added for the east west route. If that is what kills the deal all development in downtown would fall under that analysis. 

The head city attorney is one of the brightest legal minds in Central Florida. Many of the employees work there so they do not have to deal with billable hours and want a healthy work life balance. I would not assume that they work for the government and must be dimwitted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please speak more about the variance. A traffic study and neighborhood impact analysis is not worth much to me. The roads cannot be expanded and lymmo has already been added for the east west route. If that is what kills the deal all development in downtown would fall under that analysis. 

The head city attorney is one of the brightest legal minds in Central Florida. Many of the employees work there so they do not have to deal with billable hours and want a healthy work life balance. I would not assume that they work for the government and must be dimwitted. 

I can only speak of what I saw in the Stipulated Order which has been posted somewhere on here. It mentioned meeting a clear and convincing evidence standard that the variance produces more desirable impacts to the surroundings, which is the standard for granting the variance in the first place and not just the rubber stamp the City often uses. Don't know how that will hold up because it is incredibly vague and arbitrary. Normally retail pushes this through, but a private club could make a difference. The traffic study may have some teeth to it because the entrance and exit for residents is on Pine Street, which is one way and heavily saturated at peak times. The City even acknowledged traffic concerns with both projects. It may all go through, but it isn't a done deal yet. With how shaky financing is right now, even if the City approves it the process of dragging it out could cause the whole thing to tank. 

As far as attorneys and work-life balance go, the only attorneys I have ever heard cite work-life balance as a reason for taking governmental jobs were ones that never had an opportunity at any decent private law job and were using it as an excuse. Just personal experience. I imagine there are exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.