Skip to content


Important News About Winter Park’s SunRail Station.

April 28, 2010

Please contact our city commissioners after reading this.

First the great news!

The Commuter Rail Commission has confirmed that the state will now be picking up nearly half of the previously projected costs of operating Winter Park’s SunRail station
(Note #1). When we voted in 2007 to authorize the city commission to pay for our commuter rail station and its operation, the annual costs were estimated at $587,000 per year (Note #2). Revised projections near the end of 2007 put these estimates at roughly $700,000 per year (Note #3). With the latest changes in funding and pending new estimates being prepared by the state transportation authority, Winter Park’s costs will now be as low as $350,000 per year, a 50% reduction (See Note #1).

The other great news is that we are no longer expected to pay the originally anticipated $375,000 in matching funds to help support the cost of building our SunRail station.

The full cost of our station (about $3,000,000) will be paid in full through federal funding and our ongoing operating costs look like they will be reduced by as much as 50%. (Remember also that the state transportation agency will be paying ALL costs for the first seven years of commercial service.)

Also, the existing agreement with Orange County allows us to opt out of ongoing operating costs after seven years from initial commercial service if such costs are not otherwise subsidized. This existing “opt out” gives the city meaningful rights and together with the prospect of lost fare box revenue affords the city leverage to renegotiate with Orange County (probably around 2020) based on actual experience with our SunRail station. There is no need be fearful.

Now the bad news.

A “work session” of the city commission on this subject has been initiated by Commissioner Dillaha for Noon this Friday, April 30, 2010 ostensibly to parse “legal risks” associated with the commuter rail agreement with Orange County.

Dillaha’s move to terminate the commuter rail agreement with Orange County in January 2009 failed by a 3 to 2 vote (Note #4). With two new commissioners she now hopes to get three votes to kill the agreement under the guise of “renegotiating” with Orange County, not withstanding the campaign pledges of the new commissioners to honor the will of the voters and not to terminate the commuter rail agreement with Orange County.

Orange County may or may not volunteer changes to the agreement but there is no reason for them to negotiate anything. Unilaterally terminating the agreement as Dillaha has tried before will likely terminate our SunRail station, the $3,000,000 set aside for our station will be allocated somewhere else, and the commuter trains will pass through our town each day and never stop.

As the SunRail system progresses to complete funding and initiation of construction there are and will be changes we all need to monitor and approve. Changes to date are materially beneficial to Winter Park and make our participation even more of an opportunity than when we voted for our station in 2007.

Let our city commission know that we expect them to affirm the city’s commitment to our SunRail station and to promote a permanent regional funding source for SunRail, not obstruct our participation. Write to MayorandCommissioners@cityofwinterpark.org.

Regards, Pete Weldon
700 Via Lombardy
Winter Park, FL 32789
Phone: (407) 645-1002

Note #1: March 3, 2010 Minutes of the Central Florida Commuter Rail Commission Technical Advisory Committee Page 2 item b. State funds replace $174 million in bonds and related interest payments that formerly burdened Winter Park with annual financing costs of $340,000 ($486,000 x 70% share), roughly half the total estimated annual costs of $700,000. See 2007 estimated cost schedule.
Note #2: Final January 2007 Winter Park Commuter Rail Task Force Report, Section D Page 6.
Note #3: 2007 estimated cost schedule.
Note #4: City Commission Minutes January 26, 2009 Page 9.

Posted in Commuter Rail, Policy.


Attention Winter Park Commercial Property Owners

April 20, 2010

It is my understanding that Winter Park commercial property owners have until May 14, 2010 to question the impact of the city’s Comprehensive Plan on their property values and uses.

Changes have also been made in the Land Development Code for both commercial and residential properties that warrant your review as a property owner.

As a result of the severe restrictions and controls added to the latest Comprehensive Plan several property owners are requesting a “Tolling” agreement with the city that extends this time period for appeal and review by one year on a property by property basis. You may wish to also take action to request a tolling agreement.

Here is a list of some of the properties whose owners are requesting the “Tolling” agreement:

1150 Solana Avenue
501-549 N. Virginia Avenue
310 – 326 S. Park Avenue
600 N. Knowles Avenue
348-356 S. Park Avenue
111-119 E, Lyman Avenue
540 W. Fairbanks Avenue
860 W. Fairbanks Avenue
1221 Minnesota Avenue
669 Orange Avenue
671 Holt Avenue
650 Capen Avenue
745 Holt Avenue
711 W. Fairbanks Avenue
555 S. Capen Avenue
720 Orange Avenue
745 Orange Avenue
750 Orange Avenue
761 Orange Avenue
358 N. Park Avenue
1227 N. Orlando Avenue
250 S. Park Avenue
135 E. New England Avenue
150 E. Welbourne Avenue
1150 N. Orlando Avenue
710 W. Fairbanks Avenue
202-206 S. Park Avenue
330-336 S. Park Avenue
500 S. Park Avenue
102 N. Park Avenue
110-112 N. Park Avenue
127 W. Fairbanks Avenue
967 Cherokee Avenue
425 W. Canton Avenue
800 W. Comstock Avenue
809 W. Comstock Avenue
736 W. Comstock Avenue
906 W. Fairbanks Avenue
643 N. Orange Avenue
135 N. Knowles Avenue
162 N. Knowles Avenue
805 W. Fairbanks Avenue
872 W. Comstock Avenue
882 West Comstock Avenue
850 Via Lugano
860 Via Lugano
158 E. New England Avenue
400 W. Morse Blvd.

You can review the “Tolling” agreement under consideration related to these properties in the Agenda Packet for the upcoming City Commission meeting on April 26, 2010.

I offer this information as a citizen who has expressed concerns about the recently changed Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.

If you own commercial property in the City of Winter Park it is in your interest to understand the impact of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code on your property.

Regards, Pete Weldon

Posted in Development, Policy.


For those interested in the facts….

The most important issue in the recent election (both for new city commission members and charter amendments) was the future of our Comprehensive Plan and thus, our city.

I repeatedly pointed out the flaws in Comprehensive Plan.

Interestingly, the first City Commission meeting following the election included proposed Comprehensive Plan changes from city planning staff (recommended by the city attorneys) to many of the prohibitions and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan I previously expressed concerns about. This list is by no means complete but it is a beginning toward restating our Comprehensive Plan in ways that may encourage compatible and appropriate redevelopment. There is much more work to be done.

I copy the details below and you can read a PDF version here. It will be interesting to see which commissioners embrace these changes and promote additional changes.

Posted in Development, Election 2010, Policy.


Time for Leadership in Winter Park

March 8, 2010

Commissioner Anderson’s letter in support of Carolyn Cooper demonstrates the need for real leadership at City Hall.

Mr. Anderson’s letter simply accepts that the city will be forced to reduce spending, and thus service levels in order to balance future budgets without raising taxes. It is precisely this forced reduction in service levels that puts our quality of life and residential property values at risk.

Mr. Anderson’s “plan” by default is to reduce spending until some undefined events magically occur that increase property values and economic activity, in the hope this will increase revenues needed to maintain our parks, our trees, our streets, sidewalks, and public safety…. our quality of life.

Mr. Anderson presumes a magical recovery. He also approved the most restrictive, controlling and inflexible Comprehensive Plan in the State of Florida, a Comprehensive Plan written by Carolyn Cooper that already generates legal challenges and destroys incentive for private interests to invest in Winter Park, thereby compounding the projected revenue shortfalls.

Finally, Mr. Anderson, while accurately describing the current circumstances involving Winter Park’s participation in the SunRail commuter rail system, fails to demonstrate the needed political commitment to make it happen.

All the realities we face as a city refute Mr. Anderson’s presentation. Winter Park needs leadership that has the political courage to plan and execute a future in which we can finance the quality of life that will sustain our property values, not sit by passively as the costs required to maintain our quality of life outstrip our ability to support it.

Accordingly, I endorse the election of David Lamm and Peter Gottfried for City Commission in the March 9th election, over the “One Winter Park” candidates, Carolyn Cooper and Tom McMacken.

The following details what I believe are important realities we must face in setting reasoned policies and priorities for Winter Park.

No Growth: We have essentially been a “no growth” community and will continue to be a “no growth” community. The number of single family homes on the Winter Park tax rolls increased from 7,430 to 8,990 between 2000 and 2009, a 2.1 compound growth rate. The increase of 1,560 properties consists of Wind Song (310 lots, currently 235 homes) and
several small annexations since 2001. With Wind Song developed there is no place for organic growth. Further annexations will only make sense if there is clear benefit for the existing residential base (e.g., includes park land, significant revenue net of marginal cost, compatible housing and demographics, etc.). See schedule one and schedule two for details.

The number of residential condominium units increased from 1773 to 2290 between 2000 and 2009, a 2.9% compound growth rate. The increase of 517 units can be seen in downtown and a few other areas.

All other properties in Winter Park (which includes: commercial, not-for-profit, apartments, and government) increased from 1,106 to 1,273 between 2000 and 2009, a 1.6% growth rate.

Residential properties constituted 72% of Winter Park taxable value in 2000 and 78% in 2009.

While we are and will continue to be a “no growth” community we cannot afford to be a “no change” community: Our quality of life depends on the revenues we collect and the efficiency of our local government to spend those revenues on maintaining and improving the character and quality of Winter Park. Our revenue base is directly related to our property values and uses. Our property values in turn are directly related to our quality of life in a competitive market. That is, we must offer tangible benefits that create demand for Winter Park real estate at higher prices relative to surrounding communities if we are to maintain our tax base. Both our property values and quality of life are threatened if revenues cannot sustain our public safety, roads, parks, trees, lakes, sidewalks and other factors that distinguish and maintain our character and appeal at the highest levels. (See:
Letter from the Orange County Appraiser.)

Growth Around Us: We have no control over growth occurring around us. Winter Park cannot stop developments that will impact our city. A million square feet of development could take place East of 436 and Aloma, and West of Fairbanks and I4 and we could scream all we want, but we could never control the outcome or the impact. This means that any redevelopment we agree to for Winter Park will end up having an inconsequential impact on total traffic, given the existing and expected impact we cannot control from outside our city limits. If you are a no growth advocate, spend your time at the Orange County Commission meetings, not Winter Parks’.

Traffic: Given that Winter Park is near the geographic center of one of the fastest growing metropolitan planning areas in the country, you will not be satisfied with whoever sits on our City Commission if your priority is to reduce traffic.

We cannot control cut through traffic in any meaningful way. The State controls 426 (Fairbanks/Aloma) and 17/92 (Orlando Avenue) and we cannot deter or restrict traffic flow on these major corridors. The city has asked for jurisdiction over 426 and 17/92 in the past and has been denied. According to recent Orange County traffic counts 40,000 cars per day enter and leave Winter Park on Aloma at Lakemont every day, 37,000 cars cross Fairbanks at Park Avenue every day, 27,000 travel Fairbanks just East of 17/92, and about 37,000 cars travel 17/92 between Fairbanks and Lee Rd each day. Winter Park has no control over this traffic or its growth.

We had modest influence over the development of Baldwin Park to help reduce its traffic impact through control of Lakemont Avenue, but now that door is open permanently with connections into Baldwin Park.

Housing: The bubble has burst. Winter Park permits for new single family homes fell from 118 in 2004 to 19 in 2009. Winter Park real estate brokers will tell you that residential prices in Winter Park are off between 20 to 30% from their 2006-2007 highs. That is, if you can find a buyer. Single family sales in 2009 were approximately 225, off 57% from the 2005 peak of 525 sales, and condominium sales were approximately 40, off 80% from their 2006 peak of 207. (See this schedule.)

Revenues: The General Fund includes police, fire, roads, tree, parks and almost everything other than our water and electric utilities. (See this schedule.) General Fund revenues are down 6% since a 2007 peak and we have limited flexibility to increase revenues without the benefit of increasing property values (which are in fact declining). Real estate sales transactions reset a property’s taxable value based on the current price paid. If prices stay flat or continue to decline, our tax revenue can only go up if we increase the tax rate. I would hope none of us will accept an increase in taxes while the value of our property declines.<

Fee revenues for parks and affordable housing have dropped dramatically along with new home starts, additions, and alterations as would be expected. Parks impact fees have gone from $110,000 in 2006 to $4,000 in 2009, greatly reducing the discretionary dollars available to improve our parks on an annual basis. Further, direct annual park spending has been reduced by over 10% or $700,000 since it peaked in 2007. Affordable housing fees have dropped from $517,000 in 2006 to $103,000 in 2009. The city made a 10 year $100,000 per year commitment to an affordable senior housing project when this money was flowing in that now cannot be sustained through the fee payments.

Taxable values used to calculate your property taxes are virtually unchanged while sales prices have declined as much as 30%. Save Our Homes rules allow a maximum INCREASE in taxable valuation of no more than 3% per year, while they do not provide for any DECREASE. Save Our Homes protects home owners during periods of rising prices but protects local governments during periods of declining prices.

Expenses: The city
laid off people and reduced spending as a result of the revenue reductions, but overall General Fund spending remains flat at about $45 million for the past five years. (See this schedule.) In real terms this is a reduction in spending given the increasing costs of doing business (we are spending the same and getting less). Rising costs are to be expected given State mandates, competition for talent, rising personnel/health costs, and now, both our firemen and policemen are unionized.

Central Park is not threatened: Central Park is defined by the borders of the 1911 Morse deed, through which runs a right of way for the railroad tracks. If the city uses the property for any use other than park the entire property reverts to the heirs of Mr. Morse, thereby assuring that Central Park remains intact in perpetuity. Not only is Central Park not threatened, it has been continuously improved with the aid of revenues to the city generated by the commercial buildings that border it.

The volatile politics of the last few years have been driven by a group of people who live in fear of changing what surrounds Central Park, not changing Central Park itself.

Central Park is the commercial core of Winter Park:
Our unique downtown area was created as, and has always been a commercial center. (To confirm this look up a map of 32789 and ask why the train track curves into and then out of Winter Park.) Preserving both the uniqueness and commercial viability of our downtown requires a cooperative effort between property owners, store owners/tenants, preservationists, and the city. The need for and benefits of such cooperation has been lost in the fights over the former post office redevelopment and two four story buildings constructed in our downtown area over the past several years. Advocates of a broader commercial tax base downtown approved 4 story buildings along New York Avenue and were slandered for doing so. Now preservation interests have imposed sweeping controls that effectively prohibit anything over two stories from being built downtown while also unilaterally seeking to impose National Historic designation for much of the downtown area without support or input from commercial interests. Everyone is losing in this fight. Constructive resolution can only come if we all accept that commercial priorities must have a seat at the table. We simply cannot turn downtown Winter Park into Williamsburg as there will be no paying customers at the gate. If you want a viable downtown you must allow commercial interests to significantly influence the outcome as, by definition, they have interest in and thus understanding of what works and what doesn’t work.

Commuter Rail is an opportunity, not a threat: Now that Sun Rail has been approved by the State, those who have always opposed a stop at our downtown Amtrak station are claiming the commuter rail agreement between Orange County and the city is no good, too expensive, full of holes. Those calling for “renegotiation” are intentionally fabricating an excuse to terminate the agreement with Orange County in order to kill our participation in SunRail (there is nothing to “renegotiate”). No matter what they tell you, this is political posturing in a continuing effort to kill Winter Park’s commuter rail stop. If these people are elected to the City Commission the trains will be coming through Winter Park and never stop. We should carefully consider the impact such a reality will have on the relevance of our community, the impact on the competitiveness of our local real estate market, the resulting impact on property values and taxes, and ultimately the impact on our quality of life.

The city has the clear and affirmed right to back out of the agreement after seven years of operation. This right makes all concerns over projected costs and revenues irrelevant. At the end of seven years the city will have operating realities and leverage to renegotiate a new agreement, or back out. During the seven year period the city gets a complete full ride (paid for from State and Federal dollars).

If Sun Rail is a success, backing out now will diminish the relevance of Winter Park as the premiere residential community in central Florida. If Sun Rail is a failure we can walk away after seven years of operation with costs likely limited to repaying the $2 to $3 million cost of our station (which is being subsidized by State and Federal dollars). Finally, there are many working to secure a general funding source (county wide and regional taxation) to support mass transit initiatives that would remove local cost concerns for Winter Park.

Posted in Election 2010, Policy.


Vote “no” on super-majority (Amendment #10)

February 4, 2010

Why do those supporting a super-majority vote in Winter Park insist on referring to those who disagree with them as “development-related special interests” (My Word: “Vote ‘yes’ for a super-majority,” Orlando Sentinel, Tuesday)?

A broad spectrum of citizens with varied interests and experiences are rightfully questioning Amendment 10.

On Tuesday, Winter Park voters will decide whether to require a super-majority vote (4-1) of city commissioners when changing land-use policies within our comprehensive plan. A “no” vote in opposition to Amendment 10 will assure that a minority will not control future land use in Winter Park.

Winter Park’s charter review committee considered Amendment 10 but could not get enough support to recommend it.

The city commission put it on the ballot anyway, with a move proposed and seconded by commissioners Beth Dillaha and Margie Bridges.

This passed 3-2, ironically failing to meet a super-majority threshold.

I contributed to “Vote NO on Amendment #10,” a group Bridges characterizes as merely developers “throwing a lot of money into an aggressive negative campaign.” I and many other contributors are not developers. The only property I own in Winter Park is my home.

Seven Winter Park mayors from many walks of life recommend a “no” vote on Amendment 10.

The Winter Park Chamber of Commerce, primarily small business owners, recommends a “no” vote on Amendment 10. Winter Park residents who already understand the consequences have placed “Vote NO” signs in their yards.

And to make matters worse, this isn’t the comprehensive plan you want to carve in stone through a super-majority requirement.

Amendment 10 seeks to protect a comprehensive plan our Winter Park city attorneys found to be flawed in ways that expose our city to lawsuits.

The city attorneys are continuing their review, anticipating additional flaws that put Winter Park at risk.

The bottom line: The comprehensive plan recently approved by Bridges et al. needs to be changed to avoid lawsuits.

Will this fiasco result in more tax dollars paid to property owners not to redevelop in Winter Park?

Every Winter Park resident has reason to be concerned.

This is not about special interests. Our laws should provide reasoned flexibility and not enable a minority view to hold Winter Park’s future hostage.

Vote “no” on Amendment 10.

Peter J. Weldon lives in Winter Park.

Copyright © 2010, Orlando Sentinel

Click here for commentary on the Orlando Sentinel discussion pages.

Posted in Election 2010, Policy.


Time to Stop the Nonsense

February 25, 2010

You received a flyer in the mail today promoting a yes vote on Amendment #10 on March 9th.

Florida law requires a filing with the City Clerk identifying the people responsible and the sources of financing for political  communications. Also, an individual can send political communications provided they identify themselves. The flyer you received was attributed to “Ten for Winter Park.” Per my phone calls today, neither the City of Winter Park nor the Orange County Elections office has any information on this organization. [Update: “Ten for Winter Park” registered with the City on March 3, 2010 under the name of Debera Sharpe, at least seven days after they were required to do so under Florida election law, making the February 25 mailer illegal. Members of the City Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission supporting Amendment #10 have associated their names with this person in a March 4, 2010 political advertisement in the Winter Park/Maitland Observer. Will the nonsense never end?]

Whoops!

Candidate Carolyn Cooper supports Amendment #10. In today’s mail Cooper promises to “respect our laws and apply them consistently.” Evidently there are people who support her who don’t have the same respect for the law. I don’t know if Cooper approves of this anonymous mail piece, but the message is eerily similar to hers: Anyone who disagrees with her, on this or any other issue, is a “special interest developer” who can’t be trusted to be “independent.”

If support for Amendment #10 is supposed to be in our best interest why did the people promoting it in this mail piece want to be anonymous? (UPDATE: …and why did they suddenly register with the City on March 3rd after city wide concern was expresses over the February 25th anonymous mailer?)

SEVEN Winter Park Mayors recommend a NO vote on Amendment #10. Are they “special interest developers” who can’t be trusted to be “independent?” Of course not.

The Winter Park Chamber of Commerce recommends a NO vote on Amendment#10. Are they “special interest developers” who can’t be trusted to be “independent?” Of course not.

Hundreds of residents around town who understand the consequences put signs in their yard opposing Amendment #10. Are these people “special interest developers” who can’t be trusted to be “independent?” Of course not.

Could it be that the anonymous people financing this mailer have a “special interest” or two? Could it be killing our commuter rail agreement with Orange County? Could it be imposing an overreaching city master plan that has already exposed our city to lawsuits? Could it be manipulating public process to restrict changes to the city master plan they wrote?

Carolyn Cooper and the anonymous people who mailed the flyer today are trying to get your support by labeling anyone who opposes their views as “special interest developers” instead of factually addressing the consequences of our policy and priority choices. Matters affecting the character and quality of our city demand more than this.

  • The fear mongering nonsense needs to stop with this election.
  • The “special interest developer” nonsense needs to stop with this election.
  • The righteous nonsense needs to stop with this election.
  • The anonymous nonsense needs to stop with this election.

Talk to your friends. Talk to your neighbors. Get informed. Be sure to vote on March 9th.

I am voting FOR David Lamm, FOR Peter Gottfried, and NO on Referendum #10.

Pete Weldon

Posted in Election 2010, Ethics, Policy.


What Kind of City Do YOU Want?

If you can get past the law suits we are exposed to by Cooper’s master plan (the Comprehensive Plan) you may wish to consider the tone and substance of the plan and how it will impact our relationship with those who may consider investing in our city. Remember that Cooper is running for a seat on our City Commission based on her authorship and support for this plan, and that Tom McMacken has pledged his allegiance to this plan.

The Cooper and McMacken plan, also embraced by Commissioner Beth Dillaha, prohibits almost everything and encourages almost nothing. It is this obsession with control (and with blocking changes to this plan, see Amendment #10) that opens our city to law suits, deters reinvestment, and obstructs our ability to adapt to inevitable changes.

Peter Gottfried (candidate for City Commission Seat 4 versus Tom McMacken) did a little research to see how other cities view the role of prohibitions and encouragement in their planning documents. Here is what he found:

USE OF THE WORDS PROHIBIT AND ENCOURAGE IN CITY MASTER PLANS*

CITY PLAN    PROHIBIT       ENCOURAGE   
Winter Park 59 5
Orlando 14 30
Sanford 9 3
DeLand 6 22
Altamonte Springs 25 9
Maitland 1 12
Coral Gables 0 8
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 23 30
Santa Fe, NM 3 35
Monterey, CA 4 41
San Diego (L.A. Jolla), CA 0 6
Aspen, CO 0 44

* Numbers taken from the Future Land Use section of the Florida Comprehensive Plans for Winter Park, Orlando, Sanford, DeLand, Maitland, Coral Gables. Numbers for Altamonte Springs are for their entire Comprehensive Plan. Numbers for other cities taken from what they refer to in their states as the “General Plan” or “Community Plan.”

Are we going to encourage compatible redevelopment or prohibit it?

Are we going to consider possibilities or fear consequences?

Are we going to pursue opportunities or obstruct change?

What kind of city do YOU want?

Click here for more information on the Cooper and McMacken master plan.

I am voting FOR David Lamm, FOR Peter Gottfried, and NO on Charter Amendment #10.

Posted in Development, Election 2010, Policy.


Cooper’s Comprehensive Incompetence

My concern with Carolyn Cooper used to be about bad policy. It now includes incompetence. She tells us she understands land use issues and then writes rules that expose the City to law suits. The people of Winter Park need to understand the magnitude and consequences of problems generated by Cooper’s influence as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission before they vote.

Click Here: The Winter Park City Attorney on February 8, 2010 confirmed that Cooper’s Comprehensive Plan has down zoned a substantial number of properties and that at least one property owner has a valid and substantial claim against the city for a regulatory taking under Florida law. In short, the City will get sued for big bucks if it doesn’t find a way to change Cooper’s Comprehensive Plan very soon.

Carolyn Cooper is responsible for the rules and regulations in the Comprehensive Plan that subject our City to law suits and Tom McMacken has endorsed this severely flawed plan.

Carolyn Cooper is responsible for the rules that severely restrict opportunities to change the Comprehensive Plan, limiting the City’s ability to promptly correct the rules Carolyn Cooper wrote that subject our City to law suits.

Carolyn Cooper is responsible for promoting the 4 to 1 voting requirement to approve changes to the Comprehensive Plan that the City Commission has imposed on itself, which further restricts the ability to make changes in the Comprehensive Plan to avoid law suits. Note that this rule can be changed by a 3 to 2 vote of the City Commission.

Carolyn Cooper is then responsible for promoting the Super Majority Charter Amendment #10 that if approved would impose a 4 to 1 voting requirement to approve changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Note that this rule could only be changed by another Charter Referendum approved by the voters, not by the City Commission.

If this all seems overly complex and dangerous, it is.

Carolyn Cooper IS the problem.

I excerpt below a letter I wrote to the City Commission on the subject for those who wish to understand the magnitude and consequences of the problems generated by Cooper’s influence as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. We cannot give this woman the power to make law as a City Commissioner.

For more on this subject see:

The Flawed City Master Plan
Recommendations Regarding P&Z, Comprehensive Plan, and Land Development Code
Super Duper 2
Chamber of Commerce Opposes Charter Amendment #10


Dear Mayor and Commissioners,

Discussions at the February 8th City Commission meeting confirm our city master plan, the approved Comprehensive Plan, has down zoned a substantial number of properties and that at least one property owner has a valid and substantial claim against the city for a regulatory taking under Florida law. In short, the City will get sued for big bucks if it doesn’t find a way to change the Comprehensive Plan very soon.

I have tried to tell you again and again that what P&Z has done, and what the City Commission has made law, is wrong on many levels.

Please re-read my letter to you of October 2009: http://www.winterparkperspective.org/2009/10/26/recommendations20091026/

The surprised and frustrated tone in the voices of Phil Anderson and Beth Dillaha when advised that “flaws” existed in the Comprehensive Plan that exposed the City to liability indicate either ignorance or duplicity. Both P&Z and the City Commission have been cautioned many times about the extent of potential liability and unintended consequences inherent is such a controlling and extreme document, a document that at its core seeks retribution, not forward looking policy for our city. I sat in a P&Z Comprehensive Plan meeting where a property owner cautioned that he was being harmed and he was ignored. I and others warned you that the Comprehensive Plan was flawed. If you review minutes and audio of P&Z and City Commission meetings where the Comprehensive Plan and LDC were considered you will hear similar voices.

So let’s see.

The law requires the City to have a Land Development Code (LDC) that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but the Comprehensive Plan contains regulations mirrored in the LDC that create down zonings and regulatory takings that expose the City to law suits. So you need to change the Comprehensive Plan to avoid law suits. (Or, as the City Attorney pointed out, agree to pay damages for the takings.)

But you can’t change the Comprehensive Plan for many, many months because P&Z proposed and you approved a limit of twice per year to request such changes, and the process takes at least six months after it is initiated. But then, if you don’t approve the “flawed” LDC that must be consistent with the “flawed” Comprehensive Plan, we expose the City to law suits because there will be no rules by which anyone can ask to build anything.

So, it would seem that you have stuck yourselves with the choice of approving the “flawed” LDC while you plod through changes to the Comprehensive Plan which leaves the City exposed to law suits, or not approving the LDC until the Comprehensive Plan changes are completed (if they ever are) which also leaves the City exposed to law suits. But wait, there’s more!

Now that you have imposed on yourselves (by a 3-2 vote) the requirement of a 4-1 vote to change the Comprehensive Plan, there is no assurance 4 then sitting City Commissioners (as much as a year from now or more) will concur when changes come to a final vote. Given the views that drove the City to assume a $25,000,000 liability and agree to a settlement with the “Carlisle” developers that cost $4,000,000 in cash and wiped out our reserves, it is not out of the question that TWO City Commissioners would block changes to the Comprehensive Plan at the final vote to keep the rules the way they want them, resulting in more law suits where the City is forced to pay owners for NOT building what they are legally entitled to build.

Let me know if I can help. You know I am always good for a suggestion or two.

Regards, Pete Weldon
700 Via Lombardy
Winter Park, FL 32789

Posted in Election 2010, Policy.


Winter Park Election – 2010

It is my hope the voters of Winter Park will fully understand what they are voting for when they mark their ballots in the March 9th election.

This election is about:

Click the links above to learn more about these issues.

Given the realities we face (see: Winter Park Realities – No Need to Fear) and the candidates, I see the consequences of this election as follows:

A vote for Carolyn Cooper, Tom McMacken, and Charter Amendment #10 will:

  • Kill our commuter rail stop.
  • Chase redevelopment opportunities out of town (some of which we will want).
  • Deter new businesses from choosing Winter Park.
  • Transfer tax burden to homeowners.
  • Increase taxes.
  • Decrease city services.
  • Allow a minority to veto changes to a flawed city master plan.

A vote for David Lamm, for Peter Gottfried, and NO on Charter Amendment #10 will:

  • Secure our commuter rail stop.
  • Allow us to consider redevelopment that will contribute to our city and quality of life.
  • Encourage new businesses to choose Winter Park.
  • Transfer tax burden to commercial properties.
  • Hold the line on tax increases.
  • Increase city services.
  • Allow democratic process for changes to our city master plan.

People in our city who are afraid of change have used their majority on the City Commission for the past two years to impose and now propose, ironically, the most sweeping changes in governance in our history. Despite what this group of people insists, no one is threatening our parks, our lakes, our trees, our bike paths, our neighborhoods or our charming downtown. The efforts of this group actually, rather than protect our city’s assets, put those very assets at risk along with our ability to maintain and improve the high standards and quality of life we strive for and enjoy.

Long time collaborators Carolyn Cooper and Beth Dillaha have worked for years to impose this extreme agenda on Winter Park, an agenda that will isolate us from commuter rail and transfer significant tax burdens to the residents through their overreaching city master plan that severely deters opportunities for redevelopment in the commercial areas of our city. Cooper and Dillaha are also the primary authors and supporters of the super majority referendum (Charter Amendment #10) that if approved would give a minority veto power over changes to the flawed master plan. Tom McMacken also supports both the flawed master plan and the super majority referendum.

David Lamm and Peter Gottfried are reasoned professionals with extensive prior executive experience and decades long commitment to Winter Park. David Lamm has served on the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as both the Comprehensive Plan and Architectural Review Task Forces. Peter Gottfried served as our City Commissioner for 10 years and on City boards since then. These leaders have the proven experience and careful judgment required for the job of City Commissioner. I trust them to support responsible Winter Park participation in commuter rail, a reasoned city master plan, and to provide sound governance.

More than ever, we need to elect reasoned professionals to ensure a vital, viable future for Winter Park.

I am voting

  • FOR DAVID LAMM
  • FOR PETER GOTTFRIED
  • NO on Amendment #10 (Super Majority referendum).

Please vote by mail (call 407 836-2070) or at the polls on March 9th.

Sincerely, Pete Weldon
700 Via Lombardy
Winter Park, FL 32789
Phone: (407) 645-1002

Posted in Election 2010, Policy.


The Flawed Incompetent City Master Plan

Winter Park needs a master plan that DEFINES and ENCOURAGES redevelopment consistent with Winter Park’s character. Instead, Cooper has written and McMacken has pledged allegiance to a flawed city master plan that chases redevelopment away, and now they want you to agree this plan should not be changed.

UPDATE: The Winter Park City Attorney on February 8, 2010 confirmed that Cooper’s Comprehensive Plan has down zoned a substantial number of properties and that at least one property owner has a valid and substantial claim against the city for a regulatory taking under Florida law. Click here to listen. In short, the City will get sued for big bucks if it doesn’t find a way to change Cooper’s Comprehensive Plan very soon. (See: Cooper’s Comprehensive Incompetence.)

The Comprehensive Plan is our city’s master plan. It requires State approval and changes to the plan require a lengthy process to assure compliance and extensive notice. Further, the public is granted “enhanced standing” by State Law to challenge a variety of decisions in the comprehensive planning process, including changes.

Carolyn Cooper was appointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission in 2008 by David Strong and immediately began detailing new regulations according to her perception of what was required. The result is a plan that was written by someone with experience administrating contracts but no judgment acquired through city planning experience or redevelopment experience.

While there are many defects in this plan you don’t have to be an expert to understand why this plan is flawed. You just need to compare the elements of the plan required by the State with the myriad specific restrictions, limitations, requirements, prohibitions, and super majority votes embedded in the actual plan that are not required.

The key element of the plan that impacts redevelopment is the “Future Land Use Element.” All that is required here by the State is a clear description of the intensity (e.g., square footage per land area) and density (e.g., units per land area) for each zoning type (single family, apartment, office, commercial, etc.).

Cooper’s Comprehensive Plan intentionally and dangerously includes arbitrary specific height limitations, setback limitations, impervious coverage limitations, and numerous prohibitions against zoning changes, along with several new requirements for super majority approval. (For perspective, Cooper’s Land Use plan includes derivatives of the word “prohibit” 59 times in 65 pages of text. The City of Maitland’s land use plan uses such words once in their 14 page land use text, and does not include building codes as does Coopers’. The City of Coral Gables does not use such words at all in 9 pages of land use text.) Detailed controlling rules may be appropriate within building codes that can be considered and changed by a majority of the City Commission in a negotiation with those seeking to redevelop, but they don’t belong in the master plan UNLESS YOU ARE TRYING TO PREVENT REDEVELOPMENT.

Cooper’s Comprehensive Plan, endorsed by Tom McMacken, is the most extreme and limiting legislation in the history of Winter Park governance, and it will deter responsible and desirable redevelopment in the commercial areas of our city. UPDATE: The Winter Park city attorney recently confirmed this flawed plan includes down zonings and regulatory takings in violation of State law that expose the city to law suits. (See: Cooper’s Comprehensive Incompetence.)

The dangers of putting building codes inside the Comprehensive Plan can be seen in the history of Grenada Court on Park Avenue. This unique and much appreciated building would not have been built in the mid-1940’s if building codes such as setbacks had been included within the city master plan and if changes to that plan required a 4 of 5 (80%) vote of the City Commission to change (as both Cooper and McMacken support). Read the history of the approvals of Grenada Court.

This flawed master plan is a disaster for Winter Park, increasing pressure to raise taxes and decrease city service levels, putting downward pressure on our property values while putting our quality of life at risk. (See: Letter from the Orange County Appraiser.)

If the voters approve the Super – Super Majority referendum (Charter Amendment #10) the hurdles required to change this flawed plan will further dramatically diminish opportunities for  redevelopment, denying opportunities for incremental city revenues, and transferring tax burden from commercially zoned property to residential property (your property).

We can only move our city master plan in a reasoned and positive direction, AND preserve the unique qualities of Winter Park by voting FOR David Lamm and Peter Gottfried, and by voting NO on Super – Super Majority Charter Amendment #10.

For more on this subject see:

Cooper’s Comprehensive Incompetence
Chamber of Commerce Opposes Charter Amendment #10
Recommendations Regarding P&Z, Comprehensive Plan, and Land Development Code
Super Duper 2

Posted in Development, Election 2010, Policy.