accatt2204

Other Metro Area Projects

Recommended Posts

More NIMBYism at its finest.... Itsourmaitland.com

Residents are entitled to their concerns, but these people are nuts. I work in Maitland, so unfortunately hear a lot of their nonsense on a daily basis. Their "Down with Density" t-shirts are particularly annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


More Winter Park NIMBYism:

Some dislike plans for more Winter Park Village condos

By Christopher Sherman | Sentinel Staff Writer

Posted May 19, 2005

WINTER PARK -- Winter Park Village -- the successful experiment in retail and entertainment -- may soon get more than 200 condominiums to complete the village concept.

Developer Casto Lifestyle Properties unveiled plans for the next phase Wednesday to about 150 residents at the Rachel D. Murrah Civic Center.

The reception was cool, with concerns focused on the four-story height, the density of multifamily buildings, and the impact on traffic and city services.

"Winter Park is going to turn into a four-story condo community," said Mary Randall, who lives about four blocks south of Winter Park Village.

Hi, Everyone!!!

Are these the condos for the getreadytobrag.com site? Has anyone heard anything from the company? These are really interesting. Very curious  :whistling:

Lurline Fletcher, whose mother lives in the neighborhood of single-family residences across Denning Drive from where the proposed condos would be built, worried that the proposal would not mesh with the existing neighborhood.

Read More

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Everyone!!!

Are these the condos for the getreadytobrag.com site? Has anyone heard anything from the company? These are really interesting. Very curious... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I doubt it.  The prices at getready to brag are way to low for new construction.  GetReadyToBrag is probably a conversion of an apartment complex.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's very true!!! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HNTB lands $1.9M design contract at OIA

The Florida Department of Transportation District 5 has awarded HNTB Corp.'s Orlando office the $1.9 million design of the new multimodal facility at Orlando International Airport.

According to Tawny Olore, a project manager with FDOT, the new facility will house light-rail and high-speed rail platforms, as well as provide connections to OIA's airside terminals. Although currently there are no rail projects in the pipeline, says Olore, the design contract is part of the planning process for an intermodal center at the airport.

The statewide high-speed rail project was nixed by voters last fall thanks to a campaign to derail the concept led by Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher. The only light-rail project under consideration is part of an FDOT alternatives study. The system would follow along Sand Lake Road from the Orange County Convention Center to OIA.

Read More

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Staff Reports for TT and Washington Street are now linked in the June MPB Agenda. 

WSD is 410' at 40 stories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interestingly enough, both Tradtion Towers and Washington Street Residential are all proposed to be 410-feet tall. Coincidence?

This is despite the TT plan stating that there is no height restriction imposed by the city on the site but that the developer would have to be granted permission by the FAA/GOAA before a building permit would be issued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, both Tradtion Towers and Washington Street Residential are all proposed to be 410-feet tall. Coincidence?

This is despite the TT plan stating that there is no height restriction imposed by the city on the site but that the developer would have to be granted permission by the FAA/GOAA before a building permit would be issued.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm beginning to think we're not going to get a ne tallest out of this cycle, unless the rumors (and they're only rumors) about 55W pan out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a new convention center, how will we drive more tax dollars into the county?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A wry comment, no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, both Tradtion Towers and Washington Street Residential are all proposed to be 410-feet tall. Coincidence?

This is despite the TT plan stating that there is no height restriction imposed by the city on the site but that the developer would have to be granted permission by the FAA/GOAA before a building permit would be issued.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not to try and pick too many nits here but the developer does not have to get a "height permit" from the FAA, GOAA, or any other body save [if they choose to regulate such things] the Orlando City Council/Planning Board, regardless of the report quoted.

What the developer does need to get from the FAA, as I mentioned earlier, is a 'Determination of no Hazard' certificate and there is much more than a subtle difference between the two.

Statutorily speaking the developer just needs to satisfy the FAA that his/her project does not create any safety hazards for ops at KORL. The primary reason for having to obtain this certificate is not to "limit height" specifically but rather to control things like ham radio towers, antennae on tops of buildings, proper lighting for building tops, signage, etc.

Now, the FAA might try to argue that a building over 'x' feet high "creates" a safety concern but this is not true. Taller buildings within the Orlando CBD just make the FAA's job at KORL more difficult in that they would have to draw up new approach and departure patterns. The FAA resists taller buildings in the Orlando CBD because of cost and effort, not because of safety.

So, say that the FAA does claim a specific height/safety issue for a given project [which to my knowledge they have never officially done before in Orlando]. It would then be incumbent upon the developer to make his or her case that it is in fact not a safety issue that concerns the FAA but rather an economic one. They could/would argue that taller buildings in the CBD are simply a natural progression of development in this area and that the greater public good is served by forcing the FAA to redesign the approach/departures patterns at KORL.

To date no developer has done this, as it could possibly require a trial where the developer has to "prove" that no real safety hazard exists.

The reason that the height of the SunTrust tower is always cited is not because there is an "official" 441' height limit imposed on the Orlando CBD but simply because that is the tallest building yet given a 'Determination of no Hazard' certificate by the FAA. To my knowledge the original SunTrust developers didn

Edited by Camillo Sitte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for the clarification, Camillo. Maybe the developers of City Place are those developers with the requisate cajones that you speak of. And maybe EA is another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for the clarification, Camillo. Maybe the developers of City Place are those developers with the requisate cajones that you speak of. And maybe EA is another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lets hope.

It almost seems that there really is the beginning of an effort to push the boundaries so-to-speak. It seems that 55W really wants to have the new "tallest" building, perhaps the same for EA. Hey, it really is simple economics; if you want to make a greater profit off of a fixed piece of land you go up, simple as that.

I see it all as eventually being down to the economics of supply and demand. If the demand for a 'presence' in the CBD continues, and as plots of actual land become scarcer, it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[moderator edit]There is no city or developer that will get financing or project approval for a project that does not get a "Determination of No Hazard" from the FAA, colloquially known as the FAA "Height Limit"; this is written into City Code. There is no trial involved, only an application that goes to the FAA's regional offices in Atlanta - where the project goes through a 100-station to determine if there is a hazard. Additionally, GOAA has a development review board that also obligates the City to review all heights with them.

There is also an imaginary surface the FAA utilizes for this review. which includes a "bowl" around the airport in case a plane misses its landing at the runway, as well as a slope for the approach into the runway. The City and GOAA all have a copy of this imaginary surface. It is possible to get a variance from the FAA to penetrate this imaginary surface, but my experience in working with the FAA in another City will yeild approximately 20 additional feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  There is no city or developer that will get financing or project approval for a projec that does not get a "Determination of No Hazard" from the FAA, colloquially known as the FAA "Height Limit"; this is written into City Code.  There is no trial involved, only an application that goes to the FAA's regional offices in Atlanta - where the project goes through a  100-station to determine if there is a hazard.  Additionally, GOAA has a development review board that also obligates the City to review all heights with them.

There is also an imaginary surface the FAA utilizes for this review. which includes a "bowl" around the airport in case a plane misses its landing at the runway, as well as a slope for the approach into the runway.  The City and GOAA all have a copy of this imaginary surface.  It is possible to get a variance from the FAA to penetrate this imaginary surface, but my experience in working with the FAA in another City will yeild approximately 20 additional feet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tone down the language, pal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets hope.

It almost seems that there really is the beginning of an effort to push the boundaries so-to-speak. It seems that 55W really wants to have the new "tallest" building, perhaps the same for EA. Hey, it really is simple economics; if you want to make a greater profit off of a fixed piece of land you go up, simple as that.

I see it all as eventually being down to the economics of supply and demand. If the demand for a 'presence' in the CBD continues, and as plots of actual land become scarcer, it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You people are idiots.  There is no city or developer that will get financing or project approval for a projec that does not get a "Determination of No Hazard" from the FAA, colloquially known as the FAA "Height Limit"; this is written into City Code.  There is no trial involved, only an application that goes to the FAA's regional offices in Atlanta - where the project goes through a  100-station to determine if there is a hazard.  Additionally, GOAA has a development review board that also obligates the City to review all heights with them.

There is also an imaginary surface the FAA utilizes for this review. which includes a "bowl" around the airport in case a plane misses its landing at the runway, as well as a slope for the approach into the runway.  The City and GOAA all have a copy of this imaginary surface.  It is possible to get a variance from the FAA to penetrate this imaginary surface, but my experience in working with the FAA in another City will yeild approximately 20 additional feet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lovely personality, and it appears as well that you cannot read...

First, where did anyone say that a project would or could go forward without a 'Determination of no Hazard' certificate? Nowhere, that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Ivy League grad heard from?

I am an "idiot" who "things" huh? OK.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could be wrong, but I believe orlfun was affectionately calling himself an "idiot" to agree with your earlier statement while acerbically responding to Jaybee's comments, not to insult you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I believe orlfun was affectionately calling himself an "idiot" to agree with your earlier statement while acerbically responding to Jaybee's comments, not to insult you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did not read it that way but I see now that it could in fact be so.

My sincere apology if this is the case.

Goes to show that one should not post when they are, perhaps, a bit hot under the collar [i am speaking of myself here :thumbsup: ].

I will edit my posts accordingly.

Cheers.

Edited by Camillo Sitte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.