On a rainy June night, after a long and sometimes acrimonious meeting, the Winter Park Commission voted three to two in favor of a sweeping amendment to Chapter 58 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that would open Winter Park’s floodgates to increased density and intensity along all major four-lane roads.

The same three commissioners – Steven Leary, Sarah Sprinkel and Mayor Kenneth Bradley – also voted to remove parking garages from the calculation of the allowable size of commercial buildings.

A request to make these revisions to the Comprehensive Plan will now be submitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) in Tallahassee. The DEO review process will take approximately three months; if the DEO approves the request, city staff has an additional 45 days to bring the revisions back to the commission for a final vote.

If that time table holds, a final vote on proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan is due sometime in mid-November 2014.

Are Winter Parkers Ready for Bigger Buildings & More Parking Garages?

The increase in density would be enabled by merging two land use categories into one high-density category designated simply “Planned Development (PD).” In the staff presentation, Director of Planning Dori Stone and Planning Manager Jeff Briggs discussed the advantages of Planned Development, explaining that replacing parking lots with parking garages would reduce the appearance of urban sprawl. They cited the strip mall parking currently fronting 17-92. A Planned Development would place a parking garage discreetly behind the building, allowing more green space and improving the appearance from the road. Removing the square footage of the parking garage from calculations of allowable building size, known as the Floor Area Ratio, or FAR, would provide more space for commercial enterprise.

Commissioner Sarah Sprinkel asked Dori Stone, “Why would someone want a PD [ Planned Development ]?”

Stone replied, “They might get a little more density and intensity . . . they might also be able to get that parking garage that would allow them to have that 200% FAR.” (Click image above for video.)

City Proposal Allows Planned Developments to Move Closer to Park Avenue

Both the commissioners and the citizens in attendance expressed mixed feelings about Planned Development. Examples of PDs are Baldwin Park, Celebration and Lake Nona. Some noted that Winter Park is not Baldwin Park and doesn’t want to be, while others acknowledged the advantages of placing Planned Developments west of 17-92 and along Lee Road in areas that need revitalization.

The real bone of contention was ‘more density and more intensity.’ Winter Park residents who attended that June 9, 2014, commission meeting were not ready for it.

Commissioner Carolyn Cooper summed it up when she said, “What we are talking about here is density and intensity of land use . . .”

Cooper explained that she had worked in the past to have PDs in certain carefully selected areas west of 17-92. PDs would give the city more flexibility in negotiating with developers to achieve better projects and to get more green space. She said, at that time the city was willing to accept more density and intensity in those areas in order to get better developments. “But,” she asked, “is it really necessary to subject the community to a change in intensity and density . . . from 45 percent to 200 percent? That’s where the rub happens.”

Cooper: Surveys Show Citizens Want Development “Cautiously Controlled”

“We did surveys in those days,” she continued, “. . .and found we had a population that wanted development that was cautiously controlled.”

Prohibiting high density construction east of 17-92, especially high density for any single retail establishment, ensured among other things that there would be no ‘big box’ stores in the core of Winter Park. If the proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan are approved, this ‘firewall’ protection would be eliminated.

Commissioner Tom McMacken asked city staff for confirmation that the proposed Comp Plan changes would go to Tallahassee for DEO review, would come back in approximately three months with DEO comments and suggestions, and that staff would have 45 days to address any DEO concerns and to make appropriate revisions to the Land Development Codes that accompany the Comp Plan before they presented the final version to the commission for a definitive vote.

Broad Cross-Section of Winter Parkers Step Forward to Oppose Comp Plan Change

As staff concluded their presentation, the floor was opened for public comment. Twenty-five citizens offered comment.

Twenty-four spoke against making such sweeping changes to the Comprehensive Plan, one spoke in favor.

It was clear from the tenor of the comments that the objections were less about Planned Development and more about the elimination from the Comp Plan of protections against commercial encroachment on residential areas.

Commissioner Leary Called Out for Possible Conflict of Interest

The second speaker, Judy Maynard, nearly derailed the meeting by suggesting that Commissioner Steven Leary, whose company recently purchased the former Thomas Lumber Company property on Orange Avenue, recuse himself from the vote. She said that because Orange Avenue is one of the four-lane roads that would be eligible for a PD, Leary would unfairly benefit from approval of the proposed zoning changes.

Although her comment drew a firestorm of procedural protest from Mayor Bradley, Ms. Maynard was, eventually, able to state her position. Click Maynard image below for video of the exchange.

Citizen: “Commissioner Leary . . . I feel that you have a vested . . .” [ Mayor interrupts ] Citizen: “Regarding Commissioner Leary . . .”    [ Mayor interrupts ] Citizen:“I believe that Commissioner Leary . . .” [ Mayor interrupts ] Mayor:“I’m telling you [ your comment ] is inappropriate . . .” Citizen Explains:“I believe that [ Leary ] should recuse himself from this vote . . . He has a vested interest with his property . . . He can use [ this vote ] for his own benefit.”   –Exchange between Mayor Bradley & WP resident Judy Maynard during Public Comment segment of City Hearing.

City Attorney Asks State Ethics Commission for Opinion on Possible Leary “Voting Conflict” 

In May 2014, City Attorney Larry Brown filed a “Request for advisory opinion on behalf of a member of the City Commission of the City of Winter Park.” The May 6 filing, made on behalf of Commissioner Leary, included this summary:

“A member of the Commission of the City of Winter Park is 1 of 14 partners in a limited liability company that owns property located across the street from one of several sites the City is currently considering as a site for a minor league baseball stadium.² The Commissioner requests an opinion whether his vote on the selection of a site for a minor league baseball stadium is prohibited as a voting conflict under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes, because the vote would inure to his special private gain or the private gain of his business associates with whom he is involved in the ownership of the property.”

The City’s advisory request is still being considered by the State Ethics Commission. A decision is expected within the next 30 days.

Request for Ethics Opinion

State Ethics Commission Denies Leary Request to Remain Anonymous

Mr. Brown closes his letter to the State Ethics Board with this request: “We will greatly appreciate your opinion on behalf of the City of Winter Park and this individual Commissioner whose name should be withheld at his request from the opinion.”

Brown’s request was ultimately denied by the Florida Commission on Ethics attorney:

“Although no opinion will be published (placed on our website upon issuance) with the City Commissioner’s name in it unless he grants permission, we need his name for our records and in order to move forward with your inquiry; and there is no anonymity for him (for example, his name may appear in meeting materials posted on our website prior to the meeting in which the opinion request will be considered by the Commission, or a person could make a public records request and learn his name).”

Denial of Anonymity

Tensions Run High as Citizens Challenge Commissioners: “Who Supports This Plan?”

Tension continued to build as citizen after citizen rose to speak. They entreated the commissioners to listen to homeowners and leave the current Comp Plan in place until the city can ascertain what effect current unfinished construction, plus the imminent I-4 construction, will have on roads and infrastructure. They worried about increased pressure on public safety services that would result in longer emergency response time.

A recurrent theme was the lack of planning and opportunity for public input and the speed with which the commission was putting forward the proposed changes. Michael Spencer of Orange Avenue noted that the proposed changes are not in keeping with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan.

The city has the luxury of being in good financial shape, he noted. He urged the commission to “take a step back” and seek input from all the stakeholders before deciding to change the Comp Plan.

One after another, residents urged the commission to “step back,” “slow down,” seek public input.

Carol Lotspeich wondered, “Where are the supporters?” noting that all public comment to that point had been opposed to the proposed changes.

“You’ve been elected by the tax-paying residents of Winter Park to represent the interests of those residents.” she said.

Betsy Owens, Executive Director, Friends of Casa Feliz, rose to speak reminding Commissioners that none of the “different people representing different professions, neighborhoods, socioeconomic and racial groups throughout the city” had spoken in favor of the Comp Plan change.

Winter Park resident Pat MacDonald noted that the report from Wallace, Roberts and Todd LLC, consultants hired by the city, strongly recommended receiving input from the community. “That just doesn’t seem to have happened. What happened there?” she asked.

Video of All Public Comments

In his remarks stating that he would not vote to approve the proposed Comp Plan changes at this time, Commissioner McMacken appeared to endorse the residents’ requests for a visioning process.

“A visioning process goes way beyond where we are this evening,” he said. “I voted for the Lee Road extension because I believed that was necessary. This change is not necessary. At least, not at this time.”

Video of McMacken Remarks

Comp Plan Change Passes on 3 to 2 Vote

The motion to send the request to change the Comprehensive Plan to Tallahassee for their review passed on a 3 to 2 vote: Bradley, Sprinkel and Leary in favor, Cooper and McMacken opposed.

Late Night Meeting Ends With Commissioners Trading Accusations

After the chambers had cleared and only the commissioners and a few staff remained, the commissioners paused to reflect on how they thought the meeting had gone. The type of tense exchange that ensued has become commonplace on this commission.

Commissioner Sprinkel accused Commissioner Cooper of “inciting” the public with her emails.

Sprinkel, Mayor Bradley and others have complained for years about Cooper’s newsletters and the discomfort it occasionally causes for Commissioners.

Commissioner Cooper countered with a suggestion that the City offer its citizens more opportunities to learn about City initiatives.

“The problem is, the public never sees us discussing how we might be able to come to some sort of agreement . . . That’s what workshops and visioning could do.”

Cooper assured Sprinkel and others on the Commission that she will continue to send information to citizens: “I will continue to communicate with people . . . I will continue to say when I think it’s important that they participate.”

Bradley: I Don’t Want Visioning Sessions if These Citizens Will Be There

After further exchanges about how public input might best be handled, Mayor Bradley offered his opinion of the visioning process.

“I can’t let this evening go without a few comments . . . twenty-four angry people spoke tonight.

“They were vetted and baited into that . . .

“There were comments tonight made that developers are bad.

‘This is about greed’ somebody said. Greed! Where is greed coming from in this?”

Video of All Commissioner Remarks

Meeting Discord and Comp Plan Vote Spark Strong Citizen Response

Word of this meeting spread quickly. On June 14, Lisa Everett circulated an email in which she responded to an email from Commissioner Sarah Sprinkel in which she defended her vote for the changes. In the text of this email, Everett wrote, “We deserve to understand why the City is acting on discrete recommendations while completely ignoring the fundamental WRT recommendation that the City first ‘[ d ]evelop a methodology for conducting a 9-12 month long city-wide visioning process with ample opportunities for meaningful public input.”

Retired Judge Cynthia MacKinnon: WP Commissioners Arrogant, Dismissive, Demeaning

On June 17, retired 9th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Cynthia MacKinnon wrote in a ‘My Word’ column in the Orlando Sentinel, “City staffers and commissioners display a stunning disinterest in citizen questions and concerns about the future of our community. For a real lesson in arrogant governance, watch videos of commission meetings as commissioners dismiss and demean citizens who question commissioners’ recent vote to amend the Comprehensive Plan. . . .”

Former County Commissioner Segal: WP Officials Should Learn to “Disagree Without Being Disagreeable”

Remarking on MacKinnon’s column, former Orange County Commissioner Bill Segal wrote on his Facebook page, “. . . . I am hearing and feeling great deal of concern from people I have come to know as reasonable. I have also heard from people who have been to the meetings that disagreement is not welcome. Sure hope this board doesn’t turn the Council back over to the No growth folks because of actions and/or demeanor.”

To a friend who responded to his post, Segal wrote further about MacKinnon’s column, “On its best day, you get 2 Winter Parkers together and you get 3 opinions. . . .It also touched on the fact that we are in a time of great change in what has been a bit of a “Village”. Much of it I may agree with, but Our City Council needs to be mindful that much is happening all at once, people need to be educated, have the issues explained, and part of the job when serving on these Councils includes the tough job sometimes of having to take a punch, without punching back, and the willingness to “suffer fools”, to listen and perhaps disagree without being disagreeable. Many “Centrist” Winter Park Residents, need to feel that they are informed, and that our “Electeds” don’t take a “just trust us” attitude.”

Local Academic Explains How Increasing Density Can “Cannibalize Neighborhoods”

On June 13, Richard Reep, an architect with VOA Associates, Inc., and an adjunct professor for the Environmental and Growth Studies Department at Rollins College, wrote in New Geography “When, in the process of allowing density, a city destroys the very values that it is supposed to promote, then the city ends of cannibalizing its neighborhoods for little benefit other than the one-time gain that the developers will realize from the sale of these newly built products. Income streams are put into mortgage-holders’ pockets, and . . . one more highly localized economy disintegrates.”

Link to Reep Article

At June 23 Commission Meeting City Officials Attempt More Civil Approach to Bridging Deep Divide in WP

Two weeks later, the June 23 commission meeting promised to end on a somewhat more harmonious note than its predecessor on June 9. The mayor and commissioners agreed that the city needs to provide more information to its citizens in advance of taking action on issues that will have long-term effect.

Ms. Sprinkel described a workshop she attended called “Shared Values & Shared Future,” conducted by Central Florida Regional Leadership. “If you go out to our community,” she said, “our community will tell you it’s all about how we feel. . . . We have to pay attention that whatever people feel, is reality.”

Commissioners Sprinkel and Cooper made several suggestions about information that could be posted on the city’s website. Commissioner Cooper expanded on Sprinkel’s remarks by suggesting that proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan also be posted on the city website before they come before the commission.

Until this point, the commissioners seemed to be in general agreement that there was a need for more education and transparency. Mayor Bradley, however, expressed disagreement, saying he believed the citizens are disagreeing with the vision currently in place and that the real problem lies with the Comprehensive Plan itself — that citizens are “mad” at the current Comprehensive Plan. “They’re mad at what’s being built at the DMV site” he said. “They’re mad at other kinds of developments that are being done under our current Comprehensive Plan. So I think it’s time to do a ‘touchpoint . . .”   Bradley asserted that it’s time for the City to take a look at updating and revising the current Comprehensive Plan.

Bradley asked that at least two of his fellow commissioners commit to creating an agenda item calling for a “community-wide scientific process” to ascertain the true feelings of all the citizenry and to guard against the distribution of “misinformation.”

The final exchange between the mayor and Commissioner Cooper demonstrated just how thin is the veil of civility. After several interruptions, Ms. Cooper was able to point out that the only reason some of the developments citizens dislike were approved is “because we as a commission voted [ in prior years ] to make three major changes to the Comprehensive Plan.

–We voted to increase allowable building height from three to four stories.

–We changed the zoning from office or commercial (45% to 60% FAR) to R4 (200% FAR).

–And we passed a special change to allow us to increase the density by utilizing the density on the adjacent lot.”

“So it’s not quite fair to say that all this has happened under the current Comprehensive Plan as it is,” she said, “because the only way it was able to happen is because we, as a legislative body, made those changes.”

One evening in early April, residents of Winter Park’s Westside showed up in force at City Hall. In a strong showing of neighborhood solidarity, Westsiders attended the April 8 Planning and Zoning (P & Z) meeting to oppose another attempt by developer Dan Bellows to change the character of their neighborhood.

The neighborhood’s forceful response was triggered by a request from Bellows to modify City regulations to transform a group of single family residential lots into a high-density, high-priced residential development.

Denning Area Neighborhoods On Edge as Fear of Encroachment Spreads

Winter Park residents in other neighborhoods near Denning Drive are also becoming concerned about the impact of area development on their neighborhoods. Mary Randall, who lives on Kentucky Avenue near the proposed baseball stadium — just off Denning Drive — urged the city to reconsider its stance on area development:

Mayor Bradley has characterized Denning Drive as a “Hot” development corridor. Bradley has been generally supportive of developer initiatives that have put city residents on edge. Bradley’s employer, Florida Hospital, has made large investments in hospital-related development throughout Central Florida.

City Too Cozy with Developers?

Westside residents have long decried what they see as a too-cozy alliance between the City and developers — an alliance that is transforming their historic family neighborhood into a target-rich development zone for profit-seekers. Two of the highest-profile proposals recently considered by the City are the Lee Road Cut-Through on one end of Denning and the Rollins/Manatees Baseball Stadium on the other. Wealthy backers of the Stadium project are working with the City to tap taxpayer dollars that are earmarked for redevelopment of the Westside.  There is strong support inside City Hall for the Stadium and the Cut-Through.

Residents: Enough!

Westside residents and those from nearby neighborhoods have recently begun to organize resistance to projects like the Cut-Through and the Baseball Stadium. Recent hearings and community meetings have been roiled by strong protests by citizen groups.

Westsiders, who have, for years, lived with the threat – and the consequences – of City-enabled development, are leading the way for other neighborhoods who feel that new and proposed development may gridlock their city streets, crowd the skyline with towering buildings and permanently degrade their quality of life.

Has City Abandoned Its Community Plan for Affordable Neighborhoods?

In 1999, A Westside Community Plan entitled “A Report by the Westside Neighborhood Housing Task Force, 1998-1999” outlined what the community wanted to see in the 21st century. One of the goals stated in the report is “To increase the desirability and variety of residential housing opportunities for Westside residents by rehabilitating existing, viable dwellings, refining the city’s Affordable Housing Program and by attracting market-rate residential development that would be appealing to moderate-income families. The needs of current residents, including elders, shall be a priority.” (page 8 “Moving into 2000: Westside Community Plan).

Fourteen years into this century, some of the goals have been achieved, but the vision to preserve affordable single family homes may be fading. With the nation’s economy now emerging from a period of stagnation, developers’ requests to transform this neighborhood are now high on the agendas of the Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission.

Low-Density, Low-Traffic Community Plan Undermined by Developer Interest in More Profitable Higher-Density “Products”

Rather than regarding this section of Winter Park as preserved for affordable housing, some developers see the neighborhood and adjacent areas as a prime location for upscale development “products” that would appeal to a new wealthier clientele who want to live close to downtown Winter Park.

Unicorp, the developer of the new “Lakeside” retail center at Morse and 17-92, also has indicated interest in building a mixed-use (commercial/residential) project between Denning and 17-92 on the site of the Mt. Vernon Motel.

Casto Properties, developer of Winter Park Village, is completing construction of a multi-story (200+) luxury apartment complex (including parking garage) on Denning next to the Village — and is reportedly eyeing the VoTech property on Denning next to the proposed Lee Rd. Cut-Through.

Bellows Moves to Revise the Comp Plan

Developer Dan Bellows’ April 8 request to change the Comprehensive Plan to allow rezoning and consolidation of 8 lots from single family residence (R-1) to high density multi-family homes (R-3 and R-4) would affect land on the Westside bordered by Canton, Capen, Swoope and Denning.

If Bellows’ request is granted, the allowed density would increase from 8 free-standing single family homes to something between 20 and 32 attached units. Although the exact number of units has gone back and forth during discussion, if the project is approved, the end result would significantly change the character of that part of the Westside.

(Click video image above for Part 1 of P&Z hearing. Click video images below for Parts 2 & 3) 

The proposed changes would require the City to make three revisions to the Future Land Use Policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1-3.8.4 states, “The City shall encourage single family detached homes as opposed to apartments and condominiums by strongly discouraging Future Land Use Map amendments.”

Bellows’ Sydgan Corp. has requested this provision be amended to read, “unless such development is abutting (“abutting” shall include property separated by a right-of-way or alley) or within 100 feet of a parking garage or commercial building.” Bellows built a parking garage on the adjacent property in 2007. The Atlantic Housing Senior Living Facility — a commercial rental property — also sits on the bordering property.

Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-4.1.H-3 reads: “This policy is a part of Planning Area H: Hannibal Square Neighborhood. Restrictions on Multi-family Development. The City shall strongly discourage Comprehensive Plan Amendments from Low-Density to Medium-Density or High-Density Residential Future Land Use Map designations.”

Rather Than Deny Bellows’ Request, City Staff Recommends High-Density Compromise

When Director of Planning Administration Dori Stone explained these requests to the P&Z Board, she reported that the staff had recommended a compromise. City staff thought building a single family home next to a parking garage would be “a hard sell,” so they recommended the property adjacent to the garage be rezoned to R-3 rather than R-4, and that a “step-down” approach in height requirements be allowed — three-story buildings “in the shadow of the garage,” but stepping down to two-story R-2 zoning along Canton and maintaining the R-1 zoning along Capen. In this scenario, density would change from 8 single family homes to 20 townhomes (P&Z video part 1 – 6:00).

Bellows Claims Garage Justifies Comp Plan Revisions — Westside Residents Disagree

During the April 8 hearing, Westside residents argued that the presence of the parking garage in no way justified the proposed changes. Canton Avenue resident Mary Daniels explained that the parking garage replaced single family homes (P&Z video part 2 – 21:05) asking, why, when there were single family homes on the properties, did the current R-1 zoning not prevent the approval of the garage?

Linda Walker Chapell strongly criticized the City for considering Bellows’ request saying “The staff recommended that this property . . . be allowed to have a zoning change because of the garage . . . We didn’t want that garage . . . We told [ the City ] that we didn’t want it.”

Bob Cambric, a former Westside resident who earned a Master’s Degree in Urban & Regional Planning and has 25 years’ experience in the field, spoke on behalf of his hometown neighbors. He argued the City should not alter its Comprehensive Plan in this piecemeal fashion. He said, “Winter Park is one of the best planned communities of the 472 cities in the state of Florida. You have a plan that has gotten you there.”

Cambric explained that the policies in place are there to protect the Hannibal Square Community, but if the proposed changes are approved, the City must abandon those policies. (P&Z video part 2 – 00:00)

A source close to the development community told the Voice that developers have interest in building multi-story town houses on Canton all the way from Denning to Park Ave.

Developer’s Westside Story: We Want to Build $500,000 Townhomes
— Single Family “Doesn’t Work” For Us

In an attempt to gain P&Z board support for his proposed development, Mr. Bellows’ called on Kevin Kramer, a representative of David Weekley Homes, to describe the “product,” that is, the type of home they intend to build.

Although Kramer did not show any elevations or images of the proposed “product”, he explained that feedback they have received from realtors is that high-density attached townhomes would appeal to empty nesters who would like to live near the Winter Park Village and the downtown area. They have planned accordingly for a series of 2,000- to 2,500- square-foot town homes, each with a two-car garage, in the price range of $400,000 to $600,000 (and up). (P&Z video part 1 – 41:11).

P&Z Tells Bellows & Westsiders to Resolve Differences

In response to community opposition, the P&Z Board concluded the meeting by tabling the proposal and directing the interested parties to meet to discuss their issues. P&Z board member Tom Sacha asked the residents to develop an alternative to Bellows’ plan so that the property in question does not remain vacant for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Bellows promised to attend and to bring illustrations/elevations showing the townhomes he wants to build.

Westside Holds Meeting to Discuss Differences: Bellows a No-Show

A special meeting between Dan Bellows’ Sydgan Corp. and Westside residents was held on April 24 at the Winter Park Community Center.

Westside residents attended — along with Dori Stone and Jeff Briggs from the City. Mr. Bellows, however, did not attend. Instead, he sent his lawyer and the representative from David Weekley Homes to represent him. His representatives did not have the drawings of the proposed townhomes Bellows promised. Bellows’ failure to appear and his failure to produce the promised drawings angered Westside attendees.

Bellows Submits a New Plan

At a subsequent April 29 P&Z Board work session, Ms. Stone reported that Bellows had submitted a new set of plans. She made it clear, however, that in light of the community’s strong opposition to any departure from R-1 zoning, she doubted that Mr. Bellows’ new plan would mitigate Westsiders’ fear of the impact it will have on their neighborhood.

Requested Comp Plan Revision Could Spell Trouble for Rest of Winter Park

If Bellows’ request is granted, revisions to the Comprehensive Plan would be permissible wherever a parking garage is built. For instance, if a parking garage were added to the YMCA facility on Lakemont, the Comp Plan changes requested by Bellows could be used to justify the building of high-density townhomes on the properties adjoining the YMCA along Palmer and Lakemont.

If a minor league baseball stadium is approved for Harper-Shepherd Field on Denning, City officials are planning to fund a parking garage as part of the stadium project. Mr. Bellows’ requested Comp Plan changes could open the door to developer interest in building similar high-profit, high-density housing “products” near a new stadium garage – a scenario envisioned by Urban Planner, Bob Cambric. During his testimony at the April 8 P&Z hearing, Mr. Cambric asked: “Who else’s neighborhoods are going to be in jeopardy because they happen to have a parking garage nearby?”

“Which side are you going to be on?”

Another Westside resident asked P&Z board members: “When is it going to stop?” As she named streets in Winter Park’s wealthier neighborhoods, she asked board members to consider how they’d feel if multi-family projects were built in their neighborhoods. She then appealed to the board to communicate citizen concerns to the City Commission, concluding: “We all live in Winter Park . . . It’s not a matter of the Haves or the Have-Nots. I ask which side are you going to be on?”

Commission’s 4 to 1 Vote in Favor Draws “Boos” from Citizens at Hearing

At last Monday’s Commission hearing on the extension of Lee Road to Webster Avenue, Winter Park’s Commissioners voted 4 to 1 in favor of the resolution supporting the Lee Road cut-through – a result that drew “boos” from the packed Commission chamber. Commissioner Carolyn Cooper cast the only “No” vote.

Prior to the vote, the Commissioners debated the relative merits of the not-so-comprehensive batch of traffic studies being used to justify pushing a major traffic artery closer to the heart of Winter Park. Commissioner Cooper urged her fellow Commissioners to delay the vote in favor of more study and citizen input. She also expressed concern about the impact of increased cut-through traffic on the city’s neighborhoods.

City/Commissioners Don’t “Believe” Cut-Thru Will Increase Neighborhood Traffic

In his explanation of the rationale for the cut-through, Public Works Director Troy Attaway asserted his belief that the cut-through will not significantly increase traffic, citing studies that traffic on the new extension will be comprised mainly of drivers who are currently accessing Webster from the eastbound turn lane on 17-92. However, Attaway acknowledged that traffic studies submitted to the City have not included projections and modeling of significant traffic that will be generated by large developments being built/planned within a few blocks of the proposed cut-through.

Commission Chamber Filled with Citizens Opposing Cut-Thru

The 15+ city residents who spoke during the Public Comments period were, with two exceptions, opposed to the cut-through.

Some speakers proposed alternatives of the sort Commissioner Cooper wanted to study, including a proposal by P&Z’s Randall Slocum (speaking as a private citizen) to simply close the problematic eastbound turn lane from 17-92 onto Webster.

This lane causes the back-up on 17-92 that is cited by City officials as being a key problem the cut-through is seeking to solve.

Commission Rejects Citizen Proposals for Simpler, Cheaper Alternatives

It appears that the Commission’s 4-1 vote to support the cut-through halts the City’s due-diligence process that would have included a study of simple, low-cost suggestions like Slocum’s – as well as other alternatives offered by citizens including extending the duration of the turn lane’s signal light arrow.

City Has Another Reason Cut-Thru Necessary: Merchants Want It.

Comments by City officials offered a possible glimpse into another reason why, despite strong citizen opposition, the City so adamantly supports the cut-through to Webster: the City’s concern about upsetting area merchants by reducing traffic on Webster.

Public Works’ Attaway put it this way: “. . . If you didn’t give [ traffic ] another opportunity to get to Webster and you eliminated that left turn there would be people that would be upset.”

Randy Knight clarified the statement, adding: “The businesses there came out in force against removing the left turn on Webster before.”

Read & Input Comments  

Anne Mooney & Tom Childers / May 12, 2014

Civic Center Meeting on Lee Rd. Extension – A One-Way Street?

Concerned citizens gathered at the Rachel Murrah Civic Center April 29 for what they thought was going to be a Q & A session about the UP Development at Lee Road and 17-92 and the accompanying extension of Lee Road east of 17-92. The Lee Road extension they were shown differed from earlier versions.

Now Lee Road would travel east of 17-92 and turn south to Webster.

Citizens Protest Attempt by City & Developer to Restrict Public Discussion

City residents attending the workshop were told there would be no opportunity for them to publicly air their views in this meeting but that they could submit their comments in writing to the city.

Citizens in the audience objected to the limitation – complaining to City & developer staffers that by limiting the forum, other citizens were deprived of the benefit of hearing an open public exchange. The City ultimately relented and allowed questions from the audience.

City Faces Tough Questions After Agreeing to Allow Public Q&A

One audience member pointedly asked Public Works Director Troy Attaway if the traffic studies the City is using to justify the cut-thru have taken future Ravaudage traffic into consideration – or whether this large development’s future traffic impact has been “ignored again.”

Director Attaway answered “We did not do a traffic study that looked at the numbers . . . You can talk to the developer about the numbers for his project and his surrounding projects.”

After a handful of citizen questions were answered, the City asked city residents to speak directly with Scott Fish of UP Development whose proposed shopping center at Lee Road and 17-92 will house, among other enterprises, the new Whole Foods Market. Citizens spoke at length with Fish and some of his key planners and engineers.

Workshop Attendees Unaware That Workshop Was Their Last Chance for Meaningful Debate & Discovery

A week after the Civic Center workshop, the Mayor and Commissioners scheduled a Monday, May 12 Commission vote on a resolution in support of extending Lee Road to Webster Avenue. Citizen groups have told the Voice that they are rushing to inform city residents about what’s at stake Monday – and are hoping the City will answer unresolved questions and adequately consider citizen input prior to voting on Monday afternoon.

Is City “Speeding” Cut-Thru Approval to Meet Developer Time-Table? Developer Says He Wants Cut-Thru, but Could Move Forward Without It.

In a May 9 interview with the Voice, Commissioner Carolyn Cooper stated her opposition to rushing into a decision so quickly, when it is not necessary to do so.

She pointed out that Scott Fish of UP Development, who is bringing Whole Foods Market to the Lee Road Intersection, has made clear that he wants access to the light at Lee Road, but could live without the extension.

Mr. Fish stated unequivocally in an April 29 interview with the Voice that his development could succeed without the extension of Lee Road beyond 17-92. According to Cooper, the city has not given itself adequate time to fully study and comprehend the impact of all the development taking place along the north-south 17-92 corridor.

Cooper and Sprinkel Going Against the Traffic

Both Commissioners Sarah Sprinkel and Carolyn Cooper have come out solidly against the extension of Lee Road east of 17-92.

In an interview with the Voice published March 9, 2014, Sprinkel stated, “I don’t support a punch-through. . . I don’t want to make it easy to have a big flow-through there. So, personally, I don’t support that.”

McMacken says: “Look Both Ways Before Crossing the Road”

At the March 24, 2014, Commission Meeting, Commissioner Tom McMacken called for the city, the city’s traffic consultant and FDOT to hold a public workshop to inform citizens about the Lee Road extension and to provide a forum for their comments.

To date, there has been no forum. The way things stand now, the last opportunity for citizens to speak out will be Monday at the May 12 Commission Meeting.

Cooper: We’re Moving Too Fast. Let’s Proceed With Caution.

According to Commissioner Cooper:

– The city was not adequately informed or prepared to make this decision at this time.

– There has been too little input from citizens and the city has not had enough time to thoroughly review citizen input.

– The City’s favored extension alternative (Lee Rd. cut-thru to Webster) is a new approach and has not been fully vetted by the DOT.

– The timing of the extension construction could very well coincide with major I-4 construction scheduled to begin in 2015.

Cooper has called for a core study to look at all the development along 17-92 and proceeding at a schedule that would place construction at Lee Road (if necessary) where the DOT originally had it – in 2018.

Winter Park Voice contacted the Mayor and all Commissioners on Thursday evening requesting an interview. As of press time, only Commissioner Cooper agreed to be interviewed.

A little more than a year ago Rollins College and (presumably) other baseball principals invoked a Florida statute that kept Winter Parkers in the dark about stadium negotiations with the city. In February 2014, the news blackout expired.

Winter Park Voice has filed numerous Freedom of Information document requests with the city asking to see baseball-related email and other documents. Last week, the city released documents and email to the Voice showing what appears to be a serious negotiation by baseball principals to secure funding for a stadium at Rollins’ Harper–Shepherd field located near Orange Avenue and Denning.

Rollins Document Blackout Request

If Harper-Shepherd Negotiations Fail, MLK Park is a Favored Alternative. Citizen Petitioners Claim that Stadium in MLK Will Increase Traffic/Noise & Affect Quality of Life

Recent public hearings and the city’s interest in Martin Luther King, Jr. Park as an alternative stadium location have motivated a group of citizens to mount a petition drive to keep the stadium out of the park. This citizen-led effort appears to have grown out of concerns voiced by citizens and neighborhood groups that new and proposed Denning-area development – including the prospect of an extension of Lee Road through to Denning Ave. – will choke northwest Winter Park with large buildings and traffic gridlock. As reported by the website HeartofWinterPark.com

City Manager Knight Responds to Voice Request for Clarification/Explanation of Stadium Negotiations

The Voice contacted City Manager Randy Knight last week asking for updated information, clarification of numerous points made in city emails and corrections (if any). Mr. Knight did not respond directly to any of our questions or provide any updates. He did, however, respond with a statement indicating that the ongoing negotiations are a “very complicated and fluid process” adding that he does not have “the authority to bind the city to any deal . . .” and that Jeff Eisenbarth of Rollins College “does not have the authority to bind Rollins to any deal.”

Mr. Knight also said that some of the information we gathered from city email (and questioned him about) was “outdated”, but did not offer any correction or update of the information. The full text of Mr. Knight’s response to Voice questions is shown at the end of this story. A key memo referenced by Mr. Knight is shown below.

Will Rollins’ Harper-Shepherd Field Get the Nod?

Documents provided by the city include a “Term Sheet” memo, submitted by the Manatees’ David Freeman on March 28 that spells out terms of a proposed deal “. . . under which City, Rollins, and Manatees will agree to jointly fund construction of a new baseball stadium to be owned by Rollins and a new parking garage to be owned by City, and under which Manatees will agree to relocate Florida State League professional baseball club to Winter Park in Spring 2016.”

On April 1, City Manager Randy Knight added his comments to the “Term Sheet” memo modifying and correcting various aspects of the terms proposed by the principals. Among the original terms put forward by the principals was a request that the city build a parking garage on land next to Harper-Shepherd field owned by Rollins College.

Proposed Deal Term Sheet

The projected cost to build the stadium garage (to be paid mostly by the city) is $6 million, $2 million of which will be paid by the Manatees baseball organization.

The principals indicate that Rollins will contribute Harper-Shepherd Field and adjoining land plus an additional $4.25 million for the stadium project.

The city’s total contribution could go as high as $6.3 million, most of which would be taken from city CRA funds – if Orange County officials agree to extend the life span of the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency).

Baseball Principals Lean Heavily on Gov’t Programs Designed to Help Low-Income Communities

The proposed agreement counts on city CRA money and a $7.5 million federal tax break for the principals. The tax break comes from a program – the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) – set up by the federal government to encourage development in disadvantaged communities.

IRS guidelines describe the reason Congress set up the NMTC program as follows:

“This Code section permits individual and corporate taxpayers to receive a credit against federal income taxes for making Qualified Equity Investments (QEIs) in qualified community development entities (CDEs).

These investments are expected to result in the creation of jobs and material improvement in the lives of residents of low-income communities. Examples of expected projects include financing small businesses, improving community facilities such as daycare centers, and increasing home ownership opportunities . . .”

IRS NMTC Guidelines        Winter Park CRA Info        CRA Basics

Is Stadium Use of Funds Intended for Westside Development an Appropriate Use of CRA Money?

Commissioners who oppose use of city money to build the baseball stadium may find themselves in bind when a final stadium deal goes up for a vote. Those who espouse a “no city money” position may be forced to defend a deeply finessed definition of “city money.”

We asked Randy Knight to explain the justification for possible use of CRA funds for the stadium project. We also requested a clarification as to whether CRA funds are fundamentally the same as any other city tax revenues – except that they are earmarked for community redevelopment. Mr. Knight did not respond to these questions.

History of the Deal: City Didn’t Like Manatees’ Original Offer – Wanted to Avoid Perception that
“. . . the City is giving and everyone else is taking.”

The initial terms proposed by David Freeman in a March phone conversation with Randy Knight apparently did not include any upfront cash contribution by the Manatees. In a follow-up email to Freeman and others on March 17, Knight rejects Freeman’s offer saying “. . . I have given a lot of thought to the proposed deal David described to me on the phone last week and I do not believe I would be able to get the Commission’s vote to support it.”

Initial Terms Negotiation

Knight Outlines Objections to Team Owners’ Initial Offer:

Knight then offered a counter-proposal warning “I don’t want to drag this out until August if this [ Freeman’s ] proposed deal is the best we can do. I offer the below proposal that I believe I can in good conscience recommend to the City Commission.”

Knight’s Counter-Proposal Paves Way for Current Deal

Knight Adds Deal-Sweetener. Freeman Responds.

Knight sweetened his proposed terms with an offer to share a projected $3.5 – 4 million funding shortfall, saying he “could support recommending that the City put in 1/3rd of the shortfall (with conditions that the parking garage is available during non-game times for other use) if Rollins and the Team find the other 2/3rds either up front or through shared revenues. Otherwise, I think this site is off the table and we need to focus on one of the two sites with developer participation to make up the shortfall.” The next day, Freeman responded:

“If you recognize the $5 million purchase price of the team, your NMTC increases by $1.25 million……and the guy writing that check doesn’t feel as slighted by the skin-in-the-game analysis.

It appears that the bottom-line is the addition of a $6M city-owned parking garage and the request for the team to contribute $2M of that $6M. Not an unreasonable request if the team can find additional sponsorship revenue to recover that outlay.

Below [ city counter-offer ] does not address a solution for the annual lost revenue that the club suffers as a result of smaller, cheaper stadium. Again, maximizing sponsorship revenue appears to be the most realistic path to recovering this foregone revenue.”

The Voice asked Randy Knight whether the city’s contribution of $1+ million “shortfall” money (additional to the $5 million CRA money) would come from the general fund – and, if not, where the city would find the money? Mr. Knight did not respond to the questions.

Path to Gov’t $$$ for Stadium Leads Principals to Tallahassee and Washington D.C.

Email exchanges among the principals over the past month indicate strong interest in tapping multiple government subsidies to secure the stadium deal. On April 2, team owner Tom Winters forwarded this news item to Mayor Bradley, Randy Knight and others:

Stadium Tax Subsidy News Story

Rollins Hopes Congressman John Mica Can Help Rollins Seal Stadium Deal

In a 3/25 email to the principals, Rollins’ VP for Business and Finance Jeffrey Eisenbarth notes that Rollins may be able to tap its Washington connections:

“President Duncan mentioned again yesterday that John Mica would still like to do something for the College but it needs to be “transportation” related. A parking garage is transportation related so we should approach John from a combined City and College perspective and see if he can get us the $6M for the parking garage . . .”

The Voice asked Randy Knight whether principals are still pursuing the Mica “Transportation” funding option. Mr. Knight did not respond to the question.

3/25 Email: Rollins et al Explore Options

Without Mica, Who Will Cover Stadium $$$ Shortfall? Rollins’ VP: “We can do that.”

In the same 3/25 email, Eisenbarth concludes that Rollins can find the funds necessary to close the deal:

If Rollins’ Harper-Shepherd Deal Falls Apart, Other Developers Ready to Move Forward

The Harper-Shepherd agreement, if ultimately approved, leaves developer Dan Bellows empty-handed – despite his two-year campaign to have the stadium built in Ravaudage. In Part 2 of this story, we will examine the long, colorful history of stadium negotiations between the city and other developers.

Full Text of Knight Response to Winter Park Voice

Shown below is the full text of City Manager Randy Knight responding to our questions asking for clarification, correction and updating of the information we found in city emails submitted to the Voice last week: