Skip to content

History of Recent Development Approvals

I document the history of several recent Winter Park development approvals below (click links for source material). As a member of the Winter Park Planning and Zoning Board I thought it important that voters have a factual frame of reference so as to not be confused by false narratives and “whisper” campaigns that always seem to show up during election season. If you are frustrated by the 4 story apartment buildings on Denning you can blame the commission in place in 2006, not the current commission.

CNL Office at Denning and Morse.

This three story 88,000 square foot office building on the former State Office Building site at 941 W. Morse Boulevard received final conditional use approval in June 2012 from both the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission. This project received minor height and parking variances, preserved trees, and provided greater green space than required. Otherwise, all zoning rules were complied with.

Casto Apartment Project at Denning and Canton.

An original 2006 request for a 370,000 square foot 140 unit condominium project with parking garage was granted preliminary approval in January 9, 2006 and final approval on June 26, 2006. Plans to build this project were suspended after full construction plans had been submitted and approved by the city, establishing an investment backed expectation that supports the R4 zoning approved for in the 2013 apartment project. In other words, the rights to R4 zoning were effectively grandfathered as a result of the 2006 approvals and denial of the project now nearing completion would have resulted in legal action against the city.

The project approved in 2013 has 346,346 square feet and 206 units. Please see the discussion of this project as approved (Winter Park Town Center Development, beginning on page 175 of this linked agenda packet), referencing details of the 2006 approval. In all material respects, the 2013 project plans complied with all rules associated with its R4 zoning designation grandfathered as a result of the 2006 approvals.

Atlantic Housing Senior Apartments at Denning and Swoope.

This project was originally approved as a 105 unit apartment complex in January 2006. The parking garage shell was completed but then the project was put on hold. The project was sold to Atlantic Housing with vested zoning rights intact and the complex was approved again December 10, 2012 consistent with the original 2006 approval but a four stories instead of three and with significantly larger green space.

Lakeside Winter Park at 17/92 and Morse

This property could have been developed as a four story and almost 80,000 square foot office complex under existing entitlements. The initial request for a single story 35,500 square foot retail center on 3.86 acres was approved February 25, 2013 consistent with zoning rules, including required parking. The developer subsequently requested an additional 2,500 square feet with a parking variance that was denied January 27, 2014 (see page 6 item c) (applicant withdrew the request facing denial). The developer then entered into a contract for nearby property to provide for employee parking to meet city requirements and the additional square footage was approved. The developer failed to close on the nearby property and the certificate of occupancy for the building that was the subject of the parking variance request was withheld by the city. The developer now owns the former Mt. Vernon property across the street and is using that lot to meet city parking code. The developer has agreed to dedicate 40 spaces at the Mr. Vernon property related to parking required at the Lakeside development, 20 more spaces than required by code.


The major developments constructed along Denning and 17/92 have all been within the bounds of legal entitlements from earlier approvals or otherwise built within all material limitations of our building codes and zoning rules. Neither the current Planning and Zoning Board nor City Commission has granted any material variances for any of these projects. In other words, the “density” of these projects (however defined) does not exceed the entitlements and in some cases the actual size of the structures is materially less than the maximum entitlement.

It is constructive for each of us to ask, “What does “no density” mean?” Does it mean that we elect people to the commission who will refuse to approve development that is allowed by our zoning rules and thereby subject all residents to the attendant legal costs and consequences? I don’t think so.

I think “no density” means that we want commercial development in Winter Park to complement the residential character of our city and add to the amenities and quality of life we each seek in choosing the live here.

The way to get there is to carefully assess what we get under our current rules (the developments you see along Denning and 17/92) and revise these in ways that avoid down zoning (taking away property rights at cost to the residents), while encouraging a better “fit” with Winter Park. While a difficult needle to thread, I believe we can end up in a better place by working together on this challenge.

For a more complete explanation of our development realities please click here.

Regards, Pete Weldon

Posted in Development, Election 2015.

2 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Pitt Warner says

    There isn’t a resident of Winter Park who would disagree with your last 2 paragraphs. Maybe a little more trust and a little more listening would bring people together. Commercial re-development is necessary and if built within the rules, everybody will support it.

    The residential component of our city needs to be discussed, too. People should be able to alter or rebuild their own property without having to jump through hoops. Let’s respect other people’s property rights. Just as people send their kids to different types of schools and attend or not attend a church, people should be left alone to decide their housing options. I love old homes, but I love private property rights more. If a property owner chooses to not join a historic district or place their home on the historic roster, the city ordinance should make opting out easy. And if a property owner decides to rebuild, let’s throw them a party. These folks are investing heavily in WP with new designs, architecture, technology. They create jobs and revenue for the city. Let’s welcome them and thank them for choosing Winter Park.

  2. Bill Walker says

    I concur with Pitt Warner (and Pete Weldon). Many of us do not respond positively to the mass of the Paseo project on aesthetic or occupational density grounds, but my research is that that project was approved prior to the current commission and such approval vested development rights in the property owner. Pete Weldon’s last two paragraphs express an intelligent way for us as citizens to deal with this and related issues and I commend we do such. Politically motivated grandstanding, posturing, defensiveness and rants never has nor ever will replace the hard work of citizens patiently working together so that our zoning and codes match our collective desires to the best extent attainable. When we defer to others to undertake the work we elect not to do, we are without full standing to complain about the outcomes. The fact is that elections are as useful as a meat axe for brain surgery when it comes to the complexity of the issues facing us.

Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.