Commission postpones decision on Rollins faculty apartments
The liberal arts college offered a concession right out of the gate by reducing the number of units from 48 to 39, but commissioners wanted more
Jan. 25, 2024
By Beth Kassab
The City Commission on Wednesday postponed a decision on a request from Rollins College to build faculty apartments a few blocks north of Fairbanks Avenue from the liberal arts campus despite a significant reduction in units and new project renderings.
Rollins President Grant Cornwell immediately acknowledged nearby residents’ discontent over the proposal and offered to reduce the number of units from 48 to 39.
“We’ve heard the concerns about parking and we’ve heard concerns about density so we come here to you today prepared to build a smaller project than we originally proposed,” he said, explaining that he sees faculty apartments as “strategic” to the college’s mission and “nobody is making any money here … this isn’t a business deal.”
But that did little to quell concerns and several commissioners presented lists of additional demands and questions from the length of time Rollins must maintain the project as faculty and staff housing, to what defines faculty, the materials used to construct the building, potential mandatory solar power to the building’s aesthetics.
The number of stories and whether the roof is sloped or flat emerged as perhaps the biggest sticking point of the night. Typically buildings along that stretch of Welbourne Avenue are restricted to 2.5 stories with a sloped roof and dormer windows. But Rollins is asking for three story vertical construction with a flat roof, which is allowed just blocks away in the city’s Central Business District.
Becky Wilson, an attorney from Lowndes who represents Rollins, explained that the dormer windows would not work because the third level needs to be used for full units and sloped walls would interfere in the design.
“We also worked a little on the renderings,” she said, nodding to concerns expressed by residents at last week’s Planning & Zoning Board meeting about the architecture.
She emphasized that Rollins will continue to own and control the building and would prohibit tenants from draping items over the balconies or making them unsightly in other ways.
Some of the residents’ concerns conjured images of a fraternity house versus up to three-bedroom units for new professors and their families. A number of residents of the Douglas Grand condominium building said they feared their own units will drop in value because of Rollins’ planned framed construction with what they called too few architectural details to emulate the Spanish-Mediterranean style the main campus is known for.
“Please consider whether or not you would purchase a $1 million residence across the street from what would be at best an average maintained, subsidized apartment complex,” read one email to commissioners from a resident.
“It is the appearance of the rental facility that makes it even more distasteful,” read another.
“Not to sound snotty, but this is the type of apartment better suited for cities like Fern Park or Casselberry,” a resident wrote.
Wilson clarified that the apartments would not be restricted by income, but the college plans to charge rents based on affordability for people who earn up to 120%, or perhaps even more, of the area median income.
Cornwell has said he envisions tenure-seeking faculty who are early in their careers to utilize the units so they can afford to live near campus, where many home prices easily exceed $1 million.
As the meeting went on, it became clear there weren’t enough votes for Rollins to win approval, particularly after Mayor Phil Anderson said he wasn’t comfortable with a three-story building and other factors.
“For me, compatibility is less about intensity and more about what the building is going to look like,” he said.
Anderson urged residents to understand that whether the college pays property taxes on the property or not is up to federal and state rules governing tax-exempt organizations and a determination by the county property appraiser. Typically, non-profit groups — even big-monied ones like hospital systems AdventHealth and Orlando Health and major universities — don’t pay property taxes when the land is used to further the group’s mission.
City Attorney Kurt Ardaman said there is case law to support faculty housing as a purpose that would qualify for an exemption.
The City Commission voted unanimously to table a decision until its next meeting on Feb. 14.
WinterParkVoiceEditor@gmail.com
-
By: Beth Kassab
No biography available at this time
-
Remember the debates over the apartments on Denning Dr., The Paseo? “Concrete canyons”. “Monstrosity”. blah , blah, blah. Drive by today and ask yourself, “how many stories were allowed?” Similar scenario. The WP zoning changed between approval and construction of Paseo. It was built under former zoning as allowed by law. Can you really tell the difference in 1 floor? I can’t.
The Mayor said he favored 3 stories here over 2.5 in the end due to Douglas Grand being on the other side of Welbourne. He was comparing oranges to apples. Rollins has zero interest in providing income restricted housing and refused to place an upper income limit as a qualification for its tenants when asked. The attainable housing mantra was a red herring employed to deter opposition to the project. This will be a tax exempt Rollins apartment building. A large community gift to Rollins from the commission on behalf of residents. The votes haven’t happened yet. They may also try to kick the final vote past the March 19 mayoral election if they need to depending on amount of resident push back.
I’m not a fan of turning cities into parking lots. It takes the life out of them.
I made a similar comment elsewhere suggesting to gain more community support Rollins College reserves some of the units for Winter Park first responders and/or staff. I support the idea for faculty housing as it would benefit the community especially if some of the residents got involved with the city. College professors tend to be problem-solvers with vast knowledge of speciality areas. I hope everyone can come to a suitable agreement regarding the structure. Remember, Rollins and Advent Health are the backbone of Winter Park.
Oh man that’s funny.
“Rollins and Advent Health are the backbone of Winter Park!”
Thanks for the laugh.
I needed it.
You really have talent.
“College professors are problem solvers”
That’s a rib tickler too!
Ivory tower academics with PhD’s in subjects like Egyptian Basket Weaving are problem solvers!
Ha.
Good one.
Winter Park’s residents are the backbone of Winter Park. Rollins and Advent tend to be highly opportunistic, capable of vast overreach. The symbiosis betweens Rollins and residents has lessened over time as Rollins expands and grows.
Snotty Douglas Grand Residents.
Had to laugh at the “not to sound snotty, but…” comment from Douglas Grand condominium resident. That’s exactly how you sound. “Not in my neighborhood!”
Tables are turned when you want only Spanish Mediterranean style because “that’s how Rollins has always been”. How do you think longtime residents in Florida ranch style homes feel when multimillionaires build ultra modern box style homes in the middle of neighborhoods “that have always had ranch style homes”? It ruins what makes the neighborhood unique. But “its okay” because it increases the value and that’s the only way value is measured…..in dollars.
I hope Rollins wins this endeavor. It is a win for the school, it’s staff and for the community. Winter Park will recoup those potential tax dollars from the development of ultramodern box homes in former ranch style homes on the west side of Winter Park, which are also within view of the Douglas Grand condominiums. Did those homes, that were there first, reduce the value of your property?
Snotty indeed.
This is an insightful observation. Those living in ranch homes are finding themselves surrounded by two to three story mansions and there goes their long-time view, privacy, and sunshine. And the non-stop construction is a nusiance. So with that said, what Rollins is asking is not really much for this city. And since they made changes to comply with parking code, let them build their apartment complex.
Rollins doesn’t particularly need or even care about community support. They don’t need it because residents don’t get a say. Rollins just needs the vote of 3 commissioners.
I am not in the camp of those who continue to bash Advent Health or Rollins College. I think we are a better community because they are here. So if you don’t like decisions made by 3 or more of the City Commissioners then show up and cast your vote in the coming elections. I think some of the decisions and spending by the current commission are far worse for our community than these two institutions.
I agree that this commission has not given residents’ interests the highest priority in weighing this proposal. In addition to the detrimental financial impacts of seeing this acreage leave the tax rolls, it’s very clear that resident sentiment…including the closest neighbors…is not running in favor of this project. Why is it that no commission can say no to Rollins? Even the most beloved community institution is capable of overstepping.
Sitting through all the meetings regarding this Project- Planning & Zoning /Commission you learn how little input residents have. Although many residents attended the Planning & Zoning Meeting asking not to move this forward the board voted 4-2. This project calls for WP residents to subsidize Rollins. PLEASE VOTE MARCH 19th FOR A NEW COMMISSIONER THAT WILL SUPPORT RESIDENTS OVER WEALTHY NONPROFITS
This was my letter to the commission and to Rollins:
Mayor and Commissioners,
As you consider the Rollins faculty and staff housing request, please consider the following question:
If the applicant was a for-profit developer and the project would be included on the tax rolls, would you approve R4 density (actually 26.7 units/acre vs. 25), allow the project to be under parked by over 25%, and agree to a low-end building with small apartments on one of the most valuable and strategic properties in downtown Winter Park?
If the answer is NO to the above question, then it should be NO to the Rollins proposal. It is in material conflict with our Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, and most or all of the project will be excluded from the tax rolls. Approval of this project is a gift to Rollins that devalues our city and precludes more strategic and valuable uses of the land.
The only thing offered by the Rollins proposal that is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan is affordable and workforce housing, which was never contemplated as being removed from the tax rolls nor to consume such strategic downtown property.
Please deny this proposal and work on a win-win scenario. The city can help Rollins realize the full value of this land and realize their goal of providing faculty and staff housing in locations that do not have such negative consequences for our city.
I thoroughly and ethusiastically agree with Mr Weldon’s comments. There are a many sites in Winter Park that would be appropriate for this volume and density of affordable housing. Why will Rollins not consider other sites? Or if we are to believe Rollins that they are not doing this to make money, then why do they not reduce the density (remove third floor), and increase building quality? As Rollins has expanded, they have pled necessity and hardships to get variances and approvals all along. Winter Park has building codes residents and other developers must follow (whose constructions remain on tax rolls.) Why ever do we continue conceding to Rollins’ requests. Why don’t they start from a position of complying to Winter Park’s building codes? I am proud of Rollins. It is a part of Winter Park life. I wish its development actions would be considerate of Winter Park’s culture, just like other residents are made to follow building code. Please commissioners, may your decisions truly represent the will of the hard working, tax paying residents of Winter Park.
You need look no further than 400 S Park Ave at the Sun Trust Plaza (Starbucks across from City Hall) to appreciate that Rollins knows how to develop a vibrant engaging street interface with quality construction including setbacks of upper stories. We should expect no less for the Hannibal Square Neighborhood Commercial Business District (HSNCBD). Winter Park has spent millions of both tax and private dollars, city manpower and hundreds of hours of citizen participation in charettes, urban design studies, streetscapes, and other pedestrian realm improvements. Our vision has been informed by urban design experts including Andres Duany and Victor Dover. Westside families have sacrificed, developers and small businesses have taken financial risk. All investments and sacrifices were designed to create social improvements and economic development within our CRA.
The belief held by many was that once complete, the built environment in the CRA would attract high quality taxable commercial development that would allow for further investment into the infrastructure of Winter Park reducing the tax burden on all residents.
Now is not the time for our Commission to abandon our goals or violate our policies for W New England Avenue. This entire block is ready for redevelopment. Our downtown (Park Avenue and Hannibal Square) is some of the most valuable property in central Florida. Staff has advised of the obvious, “It is important because what is done in this project will be the precedent when the six adjacent vacant lots fronting W New England Avenue immediately to the west, are proposed for development. Since Truist Bank has discontinued the drive-thru tellers and only operates an ATM, that site may also be a future candidate for redevelopment.”
This is the wrong project for this prime property. I hope others will also encourage our representatives (mayorandcommissioners@cityofwinterpark.org ) to vote NO to any Comprehensive Plan changes to our adopted Policies or Future Land Use Map needed to allow this project to move forward.
Let’s slow down. The City can help Rollins find a more appropriate location for housing without abandoning city plans for completion of the New England Avenue pedestrian connection of Hannibal Square Neighborhood Business District to Park Avenue, negatively impacting property values or denying tax benefits to maintain excellence within the CRA.
Rollins could waive the tax exemption on this and be a Good Neighbor. Rollins can afford it…
Why doesn’t Rollins find a location on campus for this housing? Or somewhere outside of prime real estate? Ones UCF provide lower income housing for its professors? Other people commute to work, why do these professors need to live so near the campus? Seems a huge mistake to make for the city after just escaping the OAO debacle.