Residents move commission to alter westside townhome project
Townhome developer willing to consider changes in light of residents’ concerns
Nov. 9, 2023
By Beth Kassab
In what appeared to be the brink of a victory for residents of the historically Black neighborhood in west Winter Park, a developer seeking to build 53 rental units of mostly townhomes will possibly reduce the number of units in favor of adding more single-family homes along the perimeter of the complex.
The change, requested by residents and members of the City Commission, is intended to make the development more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The possible concessions from Winter Park Commons came after more than a dozen residents spoke at the City Commission meeting, complaining that the scope of the two-story units would dwarf adjacent small single-story houses and would continue to erode the character of the neighborhood.
“We’ve lost a lot through changes already done in Winter Park and we’ve done the most changing,” resident Sheila Reed told commissioners.
Brenda Martin Smith, whose family has owned homes on Webster Avenue and Comstock Avenue for more than half a century, said the west side neighborhood would be hurt by additional traffic and the imposing façade of the multi-story project.
“Every day is playing Russian Roulette trying to back out of our driveway on Webster,” she said. “And because of the construction on Comstock of mega-million-dollar homes you can’t even drive down that street. We have borne the burden of Winter Park with these multiplexes.”
At the core of the debate before the Commission, though, are the zoning entitlements on the property the Miami-based developer bought from a Seventh-Day Adventist Church in 2019. The land is zoned R-3, which allows multi-story, multi-unit developments. Other nearby properties, including some that are currently single-family homes, have the same R-3 zoning, which means they too could be developed in the future.
“We met every single code requirement you have,” said Rebecca Wilson, a Lowndes attorney who is representing the developer. “And we’re being told only single-family is compatible with R-3 around us … It just seems unfair. It doesn’t mean we may not be able to make it work, but it does seem unfair that we have to do the single-family when across the street [there are apartments].”
There are two apartment complexes near the proposed development.
The developer had already agreed to replace some townhomes with single-family homes along Capen Avenue, as well as a list of other conditions when the commission granted partial approval to the project last month.
Wilson said it’s possible the project would reduce its size by two units and build detached single-family style homes along the perimeter, but would likely need variances on setbacks and the number of parking spaces to make that work financially.
Commissioners voted to table the matter to give the developer time to consider their options. They plan to bring it back for discussion at the next meeting in December.
WinterParkVoiceEditor@gmail.com
-
By: Beth Kassab
No biography available at this time
-
Great showing by westside residents. This is why Winter Park is a special place.
“it’s possible the project would reduce its size by two units and build detached single-family style homes along the perimeter, but would likely need variances on setbacks and the number of parking spaces”
So, reduce greenspace, increase density and remove some parking (all clarion calls for this commission) to accomplish 2 fewer units. Seems counter-productive to me.
Pitt – that’s not really correct. On Swoope, more greenspace will be added between the 5 (smaller) single-family units vs the old design with two triplexes with less greenspace. On Webster, more greenspace will be added by converting a 5-plex into a triplex and having a detached single-family home facing Webster. The parking variance is for allowing these to be smaller (cheaper) single-family houses with only one parking space (vs the two required by code), which was a request from long-time westside residents who want more efficiency single-family housing options in the area.
Million dollar homes (the replacements) are rarely 1 car owners. I thought on street parking was a problem. Silly me.
IMO, 33, 43, 53, 63 units would be a blip on the traffic counts. Especially in a block with The Center for Independence Living and a senior housing complex between WP Village and SFR on the Westside. Ironic that a buffer block between WP Village and SFR housing is being gently pushed towards more SFR. Whatever. Gentrification and local politics are all about compromise. Just between you and me, a developer is going to love SFR rentals vs. townhomes. I know it will all be great when completed.
How do rental properties benefit Winter Park? Will this bring in tax revenue? What does winter park gain from rental units ? Please explain the benifits?
Where are the young West Side residents? The only people objecting are a few older residents who have always complained about all development. The facts are clear that West Side development has increased all property values, increased tax revenue, and increased amenities on the West Side for all residents.
This commission makes policy based on who is complaining, not on what is best for Winter Park. They need to stop reacting to old people whining and start looking to our city’s future.
Pete, did you go to the meeting? I heard and saw quite a few YOUNG
residents from the West Side get up and talk and the “old” people deserve a lot of respect.
Janethommel@gmail.com
You sound a lot like an old person whining, Pete.
This looks like a leftover comment from Ken Bradley’s infamous “same 12 angry people” rant.
Kind of stale rhetoric by now don’t you think?
After all these years to pull this line out again and repackaged for 2023?
It didn’t work then and it obviously hasn’t worked now.
That’s because “a few residents” are the only ones who want the West Side bulldozed and rebuilt.
Everyone else in town likes Olde Winter Park just the way it was.
The development as originally presented was consistent with code. The developers have nonetheless agreed to material changes requested by the commission. But now, that is not enough. This is beyond unreasonable.
If my single family home had two giant dumpsters planned for a 50+ unit complex going in right behind me I’d be pretty upset. Imagine the smell in your backyard. Is that unreasonable?