520 Church St. | 12-Story Residential [Under Construction]

[gibby]

[TRENCH]

Oct 12

Edited October 21, 2019 by W7edwin

[gibby]

The City just emailed me back and said that the brownstones on Mariposa (the ones on the ARB approval) were removed somehow.  I have no idea how something like this could happen.  The ARB report is excellent and the design included in the ARB report looks really good.  Apparently, none of that matters and they're building whatever they feel like building and there's not anything that anyone can do about it.

[Jvest55]

20 minutes ago, gibby said:

The City just emailed me back and said that the brownstones on Mariposa (the ones on the ARB approval) were removed somehow.  I have no idea how something like this could happen.  The ARB report is excellent and the design included in the ARB report looks really good.  Apparently, none of that matters and they're building whatever they feel like building and there's not anything that anyone can do about it.

Thanks for the update. That's #&@*&#@*# crazy!! Wow, seems like TV news worthy. Such bogus crap

Edited October 21, 2019 by Jvest55

[nite owℓ]

14 minutes ago, gibby said:

The City just emailed me back and said that the brownstones on Mariposa (the ones on the ARB approval) were removed somehow.  I have no idea how something like this could happen.  The ARB report is excellent and the design included in the ARB report looks really good.  Apparently, none of that matters and they're building whatever they feel like building and there's not anything that anyone can do about it.

Good on you for seeking clarification, but wow. "Removed somehow" with no recourse?? Was that verbatim or paraphrasing?

Seems like there aren't any checks and balances anymore these days.

[Jvest55]

Such a bait and switch. Unbelievable. 

[spenser1058]

4 more years for Buddy!

[Jvest55]

Since there has been significant  changes to the actual building compared to the ARB, without any apparent approval, shouldn't the Mayor have legal authority to question the builder at this point? I mean, where is the accountability? I am very confused here. 

[nite owℓ]

6 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

4 more years for Buddy!

This is happening in Patty's district right under her nose... so according to your logic shouldn't she share some of the blame?

[spenser1058]

27 minutes ago, nite owℓ said:

This is happening in Patty's district right under her nose... so according to your logic shouldn't she share some of the blame?

I have said in the past that I would like to see a more active commissioner in District 4 than Patty (Andy and I discussed that in another thread a few weeks back).

Truth be told, however, Orlando’s strong-mayor form of government has meant the city council has been weak for decades so the bulk of the issue lies with the mayor.

But, here on Urban Planet, Buddy has been anointed incapable of doing any wrong and the best mayor in the history of the planet so he will be absolved of any responsibility. Like Mary Poppins, Buddy is Practically Perfect In Every Way! The development community agrees wholeheartedly!

Edited October 21, 2019 by spenser1058

[nite owℓ]

Yeah sometimes the commissioners seem to get steamrolled when it comes to opposition to the mayor's initiatives, but this was a bonafide, approved development. Not one peep from Patty-- no whistles were blown. You mean to say that she's so downtrodden that she can't even speak out when a developer deviates from approved ARB plans? She seems to have no issue standing up for pet projects though. Apparently she is incapable of doing any wrong as well!

What's good for the goose...

Edited October 21, 2019 by nite owℓ

[spenser1058]

8 minutes ago, nite owℓ said:

Yeah sometimes the commissioners seem to get steamrolled when it comes to opposition to the mayor's initiatives, but this was a bonafide, approved development. Not one peep from Patty-- no whistles were blown. You mean to say that she's so downtrodden that she can't even speak out when a developer deviates from approved ARB plans? She seems to have no issue standing up for pet projects though. Apparently she is incapable of doing any wrong as well!

What's good for the goose...

I look at that as a moot issue. Right up until the last minute Patty was unopposed for re-election. An opponent popped up at the last minute but then dropped out shortly thereafter when he realized how much it would cost to unseat her.

Patty has been smart in that her constituent service is probably the best I’ve ever seen which goes a long way in keeping one’s seat safe. Add to that the local gay community would walk over hot coals for her and that Buddy intentionally moved city elections to a date where almost no one will turn out and here we are.

We get the government we deserve and are willing to work for.

[gibby]

59 minutes ago, nite owℓ said:

Good on you for seeking clarification, but wow. "Removed somehow" with no recourse?? Was that verbatim or paraphrasing?

Paraphrasing.  It's very disappointing.  They had to get construction plan approval after ARB approval and the construction plans are supposed to match the ARB plans but somehow the construction plans were approved without the brownstones.  I'm going to research it some more although I shouldn't because it just gets me mad.  I wish we could do something to fix this.  These units would have livened up that stretch of Mariposa so it would not have looked just like Mariposa near 420.

[Jvest55]

27 minutes ago, gibby said:

Paraphrasing.  It's very disappointing.  They had to get construction plan approval after ARB approval and the construction plans are supposed to match the ARB plans but somehow the construction plans were approved without the brownstones.  I'm going to research it some more although I shouldn't because it just gets me mad.  I wish we could do something to fix this.  These units would have livened up that stretch of Mariposa so it would not have looked just like Mariposa near 420.

Yeah, considering their website homepage still has the old ARB approved design. How long until neighbors "figure out" that it won't look anything like what was pitched. Dirty. I am actually surprised I didn't realize all this time, but then again I didn't expect them to pull this stunt. The public should be notified!

Edited October 21, 2019 by Jvest55

[smileguy]

2 hours ago, gibby said:

Paraphrasing.  It's very disappointing.  They had to get construction plan approval after ARB approval and the construction plans are supposed to match the ARB plans but somehow the construction plans were approved without the brownstones.  I'm going to research it some more although I shouldn't because it just gets me mad.  I wish we could do something to fix this.  These units would have livened up that stretch of Mariposa so it would not have looked just like Mariposa near 420.

Who was the planner on the project?

[gibby]

On 10/21/2019 at 3:51 PM, smileguy said:

Who was the planner on the project?

Doug Metzger

[Jvest55]

Some updated photos of this ARB report scam project via roof

Edited November 12, 2019 by Jvest55

[jrs2]

commonplace in Orlando has been all of these projects with massive footprints like this one.

[IAmFloridaBorn]

We're getting there... 

 

[jack]

Not to stir the pot but ARB is design focused. Swapping out units but keeping the exterior of the facade the same is not an ARB issue. It is more of an issue with planning which has a separate reviewer. Ask that person if it was approved without units on the ground floor. Or if the applicant asked for a modification after the fact. 

 

Also check the construction plans at the city. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by jack

[gibby]

The majority of the Mariposa ground level facade WAS the townhome units.  It's difficult to see how those units could be eliminated and it not have a major design effect on that facade.  It appears that the townhomes were removed on the construction plans but that it wasn't noticed or it somehow slid through without needing to go back to ARB.

[Jvest55]

1 hour ago, gibby said:

The majority of the Mariposa ground level facade WAS the townhome units.  It's difficult to see how those units could be eliminated and it not have a major design effect on that facade.  It appears that the townhomes were removed on the construction plans but that it wasn't noticed or it somehow slid through without needing to go back to ARB.

I've asked several people about if they ever noticed that the townhome units were removed and each person said they wasn't aware. They even told me they were still there, I told them to go look themselves, and then they were shocked. Pretty unbelievable. I wish we could get to the bottom if this. 

[AndyPok1]

Has anyone e-mailed Patty?  It's in her district.  I would, but I just pestered her about street sweeping and lack of notices.

[DreS0803]

Something I found in the upcoming Council Meeting:

Approval of a Temporary Use Permit for up to 125 residential units as whole-unit short-term rentals up to a maximum of two years timed upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Camden Lake Eola project (520 E Church Street).

The property owner and a potential tenant, WhyHotel, are interested in activating the new Camden Lake Eola apartment project in the near-term upon completion through an “apart-hotel” short-term rental model. Most new multi-family buildings have a lag in stocking the building with permanent residents once they are completed – it can take up to a year to attract residential tenants. 

During this lease-up period, WhyHotel proposes to operate whole unit short-term rentals up to a maximum of two years after the completion of construction, occupying up to 125 units on the property (this is approximately a third of the units). The operator also provides 24 hour/7 days-a-week staff on-site to manage their short-term rental operations similar to that of a hotel. The attached recommendation memo details more information and analysis on this proposal; a description is also attached from the applicant.

[popsiclebrandon]

Thats a really good idea