Lake Eola Neighbourhood.

[popsiclebrandon]

3 hours ago, dcluley98 said:

Here's an idea. How about they do a land swap with the city to donate their own damn building instead of pulling these games for clearly their own benefit, not any sort of altruistic goodness of their heart or benefit of the citizens. 

Yes, yes, more of this!

 

Is there going to be some hearing I can speak against any city money going to this garbage plan?

[dcluley98]

Hey, you start it, I'll attend. 

And I have been involved in the AEC and Development business and marketing arena for nearly 20 years.  I can smell   BS before I see the rendering, and can call it out when it appears. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by dcluley98

[dcluley98]

Non-sequitur, how about the Bags, Inc. land deal that somebody asked "why are all these lots in Parramore vacant" about recently or the Magic Enertainment Complex debacle that was complete bullcrap smoke and mirrors from the start and is now a parking lot. . . or the DPAC additional development. . . 

So many inept/and/or/corrupt uses of money from our governmental authorities to pursue causes that do not benefit the majority of citizens.  

It will continue, of course. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by dcluley98

[nite owℓ]

11 minutes ago, popsiclebrandon said:

Yes, yes, more of this!

 

Is there going to be some hearing I can speak against any city money going to this garbage plan?

Or a petition to submit public comments in opposition.

Edited June 23, 2020 by nite owℓ

[jack]

16 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

I would be happy to take that deal. I think when this all got started it looked like the Rosalind tower was the bigger threat. Because they’re working with national organizations and foundations, they may have gotten too far along to abort the mission as planned.

If I’m right, the developer who wanted to build the tower also has City Centre. If that’s correct (or he has an option on it), they may be worried he’ll come back.

Once a tower goes up there, it likely ain’t going away for 50 years or more. No doubt some of the Rosalind Club ladies remember losing the Realtors’ HQ to Craig Ustler and TPC. Now, TPC is fine and dandy (if architecturally barren, but this is Orlando), but the empty Realtors’ lot (and some incredible trees) should have been added to the park. TPC could easily have gone on any of the other three corners of the intersection. especially the NE corner (The Closing Agent) which Craig and/or Phil had ties to.

The bottom line is thinking strategically and not missing further opportunities to expand the park from Rosalind to Summerlin. Any tactical moves that make us more likely to achieve the goal are fine with me. Again, however, this is being orchestrated by FFO’s who have no interest in hearing from everyday worker bees like me, no matter how long we’ve toiled in the downtown vineyard (or groves, as it were).

The owner of City Centre was the guy who proposed the tower on that corner. As I recall, he was more of an investor not a developer. At least based on his background. But he has been holding on too some nice sites for a while and has not done anything. 

9 hours ago, dcluley98 said:

Non-sequitur, how about the Bags, Inc. land deal that somebody asked "why are all these lots in Parramore vacant" about recently or the Magic Enertainment Complex debacle that was complete bullcrap smoke and mirrors from the start and is now a parking lot. . . or the DPAC additional development. . . 

So many inept/and/or/corrupt uses of money from our governmental authorities to pursue causes that do not benefit the majority of citizens.  

It will continue, of course. 

You are on fire! I think the Magic really did/want to do the development. But they run a basketball team, they are not developers. They have done some nice things in Grand Rapids, but it was a one off. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by jack

[Jerry95]

10 hours ago, dcluley98 said:

or the DPAC additional development. . . 

What's the story on this?

[orlandoguy]

I think s/he means the proposed development of the parcels immediately to the west of Dr Phillips Center, which never went anywhere and likely never will.

[AndyPok1]

19 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

Agreed, if 7-eleven needs to go then so should the Rosalind Club.

Getting rid of the 7-eleven destroys the street wall and this rendering of the "pocket park" does not look or feel inviting at all, abutting the big windowless wall of City Centre.

I don't think anything should be demolished until all parcels have been assembled.

 

Wait is this a real thing?

[spenser1058]

17 minutes ago, AndyPok1 said:

Wait is this a real thing?

Yes, the Orlando Land Trust is working on it and now has the imprimatur of Commissioner Patty and City support plus a cast of thousands among the FFOs.

There’s still a bit of money to raise though.

I understand I’m a minority opinion here but, strictly in terms of the building, I find the Rosalind Club’s space to be a delightful bit of relief from all the concrete (it’s also a great shady spot from the park side also) Unlike the old University Club, whose building I found closed off, foreboding and oppressive, I like the little oasis the ladies have made over the years.

I must confess that some days in UP Orlando it feels like CEMEX is the state religion and I’m the lone apostate.

[AndyPok1]

I understand the goal is there.  But it's to incorporate it into the park, not to make a useless isolated enclave as depicted, right?

[spenser1058]

18 minutes ago, AndyPok1 said:

I understand the goal is there.  But it's to incorporate it into the park, not to make a useless isolated enclave as depicted, right?

Looked at strictly from that perspective, you’re correct. The problem is, if they don’t but what they can afford today, what happens when someone comes along and buys it first and builds the proposed tower and another chunk of what should be the park is lost to concrete for 50 years? 

It’s funny- land bankers buy up land in central cities all over America and let lots sit empty for decades with a chain link fence around them (see duPont Centre II, Parramore and the lovely Magic Entertainment Complex) and that’s ok, but making a pocket park while you wait to rejoin the park as it’s affordable over time is heinous. Fascinating.

Edited June 23, 2020 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

10 minutes ago, AndyPok1 said:

I understand the goal is there.  But it's to incorporate it into the park, not to make a useless isolated enclave as depicted, right?

I thought/think maybe the real goal is to tie up that crucial piece of property so that it would be unprofitable to build an ugly high rise there, which would necessitate the demolition of the old whatchacallit house.

 

[nite owℓ]

2 hours ago, AndyPok1 said:

I understand the goal is there.  But it's to incorporate it into the park, not to make a useless isolated enclave as depicted, right?

Just curious, what did you think was going to happen?

Their mission has always been to purchase and demolish the commercial building that houses 7-eleven, barber shop, etc. for $3.5 million. City Centre & Lubbe house are NOT a part of the purchase agreement (maybe @spenser1058 can clarify the specifics if I'm wrong). Purchase of the City Centre building & Lubbe House are wistful future plans which is what the alternate rendering is based on. Considering Orlando's track record, we will wind up with a "useless desolate enclave" indefinitely after they demo 7-eleven. I doubt the CRA has the ability to cough up more money to purchase City Centre & Lubbe house any time soon  - even so, I doubt they will be demolished without protest considering the vociferous opposition to City Center apartments. I'm sure it will take another above-market offer to convince the owner to part ways with their property. I'm okay with the city buying 7-eleven but it should not be torn down until all the necessary parcels have been assembled. But if I had to choose, I'd rather see a City Center-like, mixed-use development built on that corner though lol.

OLT mission statement: "For its inaugural project, Orlando Land Trust has committed to preserve, protect and expand Lake Eola Park. To realize this goal the Trust is collaborating with The Trust for Public Land to acquire the Murrell property (AKA the 7-eleven building) on the southwest corner of Lake Eola Park and convert it into public green space...The commercial building will be replaced with an open green space that will become a new and beautiful gateway to Lake Eola Park and will be held in perpetuity for the enjoyment of all Orlando’s citizens and future generations." https://orlandolandtrust.org/mission/

OBJ 2019: https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2019/10/24/group-seeks-3-5m-to-buy-downtown-land-to-halt.html

 

 

Edited June 23, 2020 by nite owℓ

[AndyPok1]

42 minutes ago, nite owℓ said:

Just curious, what did you think was going to happen?

43 minutes ago, nite owℓ said:

I'm okay with the city buying 7-eleven but it should not be torn down until all the necessary parcels have been assembled.

 

 

[jgardnerucf]

UC yuppie: "Waiter, I can't see the damn lake from my supper table!"

[AmIReal]

The ARB has put a decision on Mariposa Groves on hold. Within the article is mention of "violating an ordinance that claims a portion of the property is required to stay open space" which is, I assume< what @Jvest55 was speaking of.

https://www.growthspotter.com/news/gs-news-defers-vote-mariposa-groves-20200623-sos6roznzvbyjguxku2k6fppgy-story.html

[popsiclebrandon]

2 hours ago, AmIReal said:

The ARB has put a decision on Mariposa Groves on hold. Within the article is mention of "violating an ordinance that claims a portion of the property is required to stay open space" which is, I assume< what @Jvest55 was speaking of.

https://www.growthspotter.com/news/gs-news-defers-vote-mariposa-groves-20200623-sos6roznzvbyjguxku2k6fppgy-story.html

I've spent hours researching every public doc I can find on this property and can't find any zoning law or ordinance that they are citing here. The article doesn't help either because its just saying the lawyer is saying it exists without evidence. Be nice if Orlando had reporters who did good work in this field.

Would be interesting if they just decide to make it even taller and skinnier now to leave open space.

[nite owℓ]

1 hour ago, popsiclebrandon said:

I've spent hours researching every public doc I can find on this property and can't find any zoning law or ordinance that they are citing here. The article doesn't help either because its just saying the lawyer is saying it exists without evidence. Be nice if Orlando had reporters who did good work in this field.

Would be interesting if they just decide to make it even taller and skinnier now to leave open space.

Property mentioned in the article "0.7-acre site at 417 E. Jackson St" is zoned as MXD-2/T, is there anything in zoning docs that would explain the open space they are referring to? If I understand the article correctly, it seems like the Lutheran site is zoned for PD similar to Mariposa Groves, but 417 E Jackson is not (at least not without changing zoning)?

Edited June 24, 2020 by nite owℓ

[popsiclebrandon]

1 hour ago, nite owℓ said:

Property mentioned in the article "0.7-acre site at 417 E. Jackson St" is zoned as MXD-2/T, is there anything in zoning docs that would explain the open space they are referring to? If I understand the article correctly, it seems like the Lutheran site is zoned for PD similar to Mariposa Groves, but 417 E Jackson is not (at least not without changing zoning)?

Yeah its zoned high intensity mixed use office/residential. Not sure the # of units that gives you exactly but I imagine that the developer does. It does seem the issue is whether the PD for Lutheran has hit the max allowable in that area or what. I don't understand some of the zoning and PD stuff but there is nothing in any public facing site about green space requirement for that lot.

[jack]

15 minutes ago, popsiclebrandon said:

Yeah its zoned high intensity mixed use office/residential. Not sure the # of units that gives you exactly but I imagine that the developer does. It does seem the issue is whether the PD for Lutheran has hit the max allowable in that area or what. I don't understand some of the zoning and PD stuff but there is nothing in any public facing site about green space requirement for that lot.

Read the staff report for more context. I agree the article could have provided more context. 

 

 

[popsiclebrandon]

19 hours ago, jack said:

Read the staff report for more context. I agree the article could have provided more context. 

 

 

Thank you! Very helpful.

So seems like the issue is this:

 

Currently, the Orlando Lutheran Towers PD has a maximum allowed impervious surface ratio (ISR) of 0.89 or 89%. The ISR across the entire PD is 86% based on the approved building permits and information provided for the previ-ous PD amendments. There is approximately 143,645 sq. ft. of private property in the current PD development which would get reduced to 133,917 sq. ft. if the PD amendment is approved and the C-2 site is removed from the PD. This would result in a higher ISR of 92% on what would be the remainder of the Orlando Lutheran Towers PD. The pro-posed increased ISR of 94% would allow for minor improvements to the remainder of the PD and is consistent with what staff would normally allow through a Master Plan with Modifications where the ISR can be increased by 20% of whatever the applicable zoning district is (Sec. 65.334-1)

[spenser1058]

Over at The Sanctuary, the entire second floor is for sale. It includes both office space and The Mezz, a special events area.

https://bungalower.com/2020/06/28/second-floor-of-the-sanctuary-hits-the-market/
 

From Bungalower 

[AmIReal]

This is what you want...

 

This is what you get

 

 

No ex[planation for the discrepancy. No discussion of future plans for the additional site.

https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/orlando-land-trust-reveals-vision-for-future-lake-eola-expansion

https://orlandolandtrust.org/2019/10/the-orlando-land-trust/

Edited July 8, 2020 by AmIReal

[AmIReal]

 

[popsiclebrandon]

“We’re in favor of development, but park space adds value to the other developers who are building here,” Sefcik said.

 

So who is donating that owns land in the area other than Rosalind Club?