Skip to content


Super – Super Majority – the 80% Disaster

A majority vote of our City Commission is 3 of 5, or 60%. Charter Amendment #10 would require 4 of 5 to approve changes to our city master plan, or an 80% vote. This would be a Super – Super Majority.

Carolyn Cooper and Tom McMacken want you to give control of our city master plan to a minority of the City Commission through Charter Amendment #10. If Amendment #10 passes two City Commissioners will be able to veto any change to our city master plan. This measure was put on our March 9, 2010 ballot by a 3 to 2 vote of the City Commission. SEVEN Winter Park Mayors have spoken in opposition to Charter Amendment #10 for good reason, (1) it is bad governance and (2) it will lock future Commissions into today’s master plan while circumstances and needs are certain to change.

The Super – Super Majority voting called for by Charter Amendment #10 represents bad governance at the fundamental level of democratic process. We accept the rule of law because we know we can change the laws by a majority vote. As circumstances change and as elected officials take action we can judge whether the current laws make sense and vote people out of office in order to change the laws. Retaining laws by vote of a minority of elected officials in opposition to the wishes of a majority of elected officials (and thus by representation the wishes of a majority of voters) is not democracy, it is rule by minority.

Charter Amendment #10, if approved, would have the effect of obstructing change in Winter Park and would not protect us from anything. It would instead make it nearly impossible to increase city revenues needed to maintain and improve our quality of life.  See: Winter Park Realities – No Need to Fear.

Finally, we cannot put this Super – Super Majority voting requirement on ourselves without understanding and agreeing to the city master plan that would be subject to such restrictions to change. See: The Flawed City Master Plan.

We can ensure sound governance by voting FOR David Lamm and Peter Gottfried, and by voting NO on Super Super Majority Charter Amendment #10.

Other writings on the Winter Park Super – Super Majority Amendment #10:

Winter Park – Maitland Observer Story – February 3, 2010
Winter Park – Maitland Observer Letter – February 3, 2010
Phil Folds
Cooper’s Comprehensive Incompetence
Chamber of Commerce Opposes Charter Amendment #10

Posted in Election 2010, Elections, Policy.


Threats to Commuter Rail

Carolyn Cooper and Beth Dillaha have worked to kill commuter rail for years.

Cooper walked door to door to get signatures to put commuter rail on the ballot in 2007 with the hope of killing Winter Park’s participation. When she lost that vote she claimed the voters were not asked the right questions (questions she helped to write).

Cooper helped Beth Dillaha get elected in 2008. Dillaha faked support for commuter rail with the voters, and then immediately went to work trying to kill it after she was elected.

Dillaha tried to kill the commuter rail agreement with Orange County in 2008 and 2009 and Cooper was right there at the podium making the same unsubstantiated claims in support of killing the agreement. See City Commission meeting minutes of September 8, 2008, November 10, 2008, January 22, 2009, January 26, 2009.

Cooper will sidestep with double talk, but voters need to judge her by her actions. Here is Cooper congratulating State Senator Paula Dockery in May of 2009 for (temporarily) killing commuter rail in the State legislature:

******************************************************

******************************************************

Carolyn Cooper wants to kill commuter rail. Period.

Thirty three people (including Carolyn Cooper) contributed to a political action committee in 2007 to kill Winter Park’s commuter rail stop at our downtown train station. Of those 33 people, 27 have contributed to Carolyn Cooper’s 2010 City Commission campaign and 24 (including spouses) have contributed to Tom McMacken’s City Commission campaign (as of February 17 with more to come). Click here for 2010 campaign reports.We have to expect that if elected Cooper and McMacken (along with Beth Dillaha) will kill our commuter rail stop regardless of what they say now.

The State legislature approved commuter rail in December 2009. The Federal government just committed $1.25 Billion to support the Orlando-Tampa high speed rail line.

We can only secure our commuter rail stop by voting FOR David Lamm and Peter Gottfried.

Other writing on Winter Park Commuter rail:

Commuter Rail Update
Commuter Rail is an opportunity

Posted in Commuter Rail, Election 2010.


Winter Park Realities – No Need to Fear

January 18, 2010

The following details what I believe are important realities we must face in setting reasoned policies and priorities for Winter Park. I encourage comments as we all seek to improve our knowledge and understanding.

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 layed 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.

What the opponents don’t want you to know is that 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, Elections, Policy.


Phil Folds

January 2, 2010

I have worked with City Commissioner Phil Anderson over the past two years to try to rid our local politics of the extreme political dogma now embedded in our policies and priorities. Phil “beat me” to win his seat on the City Commission and I have always respected his thoughtfulness and concern.

Phil seems to be guided by influences other than his own convictions. After considering the wisdom of asking the voters to approve super majority voting requirements by the City Commission to change the current Comprehensive Plan, Phil told me he had decided a super majority voting requirement should be imposed by Ordinance rather than by a vote of the citizens. While an Ordinance can be changed by the City Commission, an approved Charter Referendum can only be changed by a vote of the citizens. At the last minute when given the opportunity to vote on this he conferred with some unknown higher power and decided to support a citizen referendum to require a super majority vote of the City Commission to change the Comprehensive Plan, which vote passed by a simple majority and will appear on our March 9, 2010 ballot.

The letter I sent to Phil before he voted is copied below. He has yet to explain why he believes the realities in Winter Park warrant this draconian and self dealing super voting requirement. I note that all three of the people on the current City Commission who imposed the current flawed Comprehensive Plan voted for this referendum. Seems like they think their policies and priorities are so special they should be made permanent.

November 10, 2009

Phil,

I was interested in your position regarding super majority voting requirements for “text” changes to the Comprehensive Plan as you discussed at yesterday’s City Commission meeting.

You said you have been “on the fence” with this issue.

I hope that when you choose which side of the fence to get off, you are standing on solid ground.

I empathize with those who have been seeking ways to stop development for the sake of development in the State of Florida. There are certainly concrete examples (pun intended) of high rises in downtown Orlando and residential developments surrounding Orlando that are now the stuff of mortgage default and bankruptcy, some of which may end up a blight that need to be simply torn down. That political influence is involved in the past approval of some of this development is obvious.

I also am sensitive to the resource consumption of this growth in development, where impact fees may not cover the cost of required infrastructure.

But please Phil, someone explain to me what this has to do with Winter Park?

The obstruction and torment proffered by Beth Dillaha and the ever smaller legion of “no” people is based on exactly what?

The four downtown development projects approved by prior City Commissions are all anyone can point to and none of these projects exploit our city for the benefit of developers, nor did they compromise concurrency requirements. The only legitimate problem I see is one of architectural nuance and quality, not scale and density. Please show me where Park Place, the Douglas Grand, the four story condos on Morse Blvd, and yes, the Carlisle project harm our city? I might agree that the Carlisle was too big, but I do not believe it would have harmed Winter Park.

So where is the Winter Park crime that warrants asking the voters to agree to deny themselves democratic process and put the future of our city in the hands of a minority of City Commissioners?

You might consider that the same people who pushed through the Comprehensive Plan filled with limitations and requirements not required by DCA are the same people trying desperately to expand super majority control before the next election, for fear the voters may not buy their agenda in March 2010. So, if they lose a third vote on the City Commission they are assured of making it painful to change their agenda (in the form of the current flawed Comprehensive Plan). The rush job with the Charter Review Committee was nothing more than a manipulation to allow Beth Dillaha to make her push for this super majority power grab. How, exactly, does any of this qualify as good governance?

As you deliberate over the next two weeks I ask that you carefully consider the facts, the dangers of minority control, and the long term best interests of the City of Winter Park and its citizens.

Regards, Pete Weldon

Phil,

I was interested in your position regarding super majority voting requirements for “text” changes to the Comprehensive Plan as you discussed at yesterday’s City Commission meeting.

You said you have been “on the fence” with this issue.

I hope that when you choose which side of the fence to get off, you are standing on solid ground.

I empathize with those who have been seeking ways to stop development for the sake of development in the State of Florida. There are certainly concrete examples (pun intended) of high rises in downtown Orlando and residential developments surrounding Orlando that are now the stuff of mortgage default and bankruptcy, some of which may end up a blight that need to be simply torn down. That political influence is involved in the past approval of some of this development is obvious.

I also am sensitive to the resource consumption of this growth in development, where impact fees may not cover the cost of required infrastructure.

But please Phil, someone explain to me what this has to do with Winter Park?

The obstruction and torment proffered by Beth Dillaha and the ever smaller legion of “no” people is based on exactly what?

The four downtown development projects approved by prior City Commissions are all anyone can point to and none of these projects exploit our city for the benefit of developers, nor did they compromise concurrency requirements. The only legitimate problem I see is one of architectural nuance and quality, not scale and density. Please show me where Park Place, the Douglas Grand, the four story condos on Morse Blvd, and yes, the Carlisle project harm our city? I might agree that the Carlisle was too big, but I do not believe it would have harmed Winter Park.

So where is the Winter Park crime that warrants asking the voters to agree to deny themselves democratic process and put the future of our city in the hands of a minority of City Commissioners?

You might consider that the same people who pushed through the Comprehensive Plan filled with limitations and requirements not required by DCA are the same people trying desperately to expand super majority control before the next election, for fear the voters may not buy their agenda in March 2010. So, if they lose a third vote on the City Commission they are assured of making it painful to change their agenda (in the form of the current flawed Comprehensive Plan). The rush job with the Charter Review Committee was nothing more than a manipulation to allow Beth Dillaha to make her push for this super majority power grab. How, exactly, does any of this qualify as good governance?

As you deliberate over the next two weeks I ask that you carefully consider the facts, the dangers of minority control, and the long term best interests of the City of Winter Park and its citizens.

Regards, Pete Weldon

700 Via Lombardy

Winter Park, FL 32789

Posted in Elections, Policy.


What to do? What to do?

The fighting in Winter Park over commercial redevelopment, “McMansions,” the commuter rail stop, and all things obstructionist and isolationist continues to take its toll on our willingness to face reality. While our tax base withers and our revenues fall Beth Dillaha, Margie Bridges, and Phil Anderson sit on our City Commission and spend all their time discussing conservation districts, historical districts, killing the commuter rail agreement with Orange County, the “Hometown Democracy” referendum, imposing super majority voting requirements, and applauding themselves for stopping everything in their path.

A few months ago Bill Donegan, Orange County Property Appraiser, made a presentation to the City Commission that caused an uproar by those who can’t stand the idea of doing anything constructive in Winter Park. Note that “constructive” doesn’t have to be gigantic, resource gobbling, intensive redevelopment. “Constructive” just has to offer some tangible benefits to our tax base and quality of life.

Let’s hope that the voters of Winter Park see the light in March 2010 and decide to face the future with a positive outlook.

Mr. Donegan offered his rebuttal to one critic, a former Winter Park City Commissioner, as follows:

Recently, Barbara DeVane submitted a Letter to the Editor which was printed in the Winter Park/Maitland Observer on 9/17/2009.  After reading her letter, I felt it necessary to correct several inaccurate and misleading statements that were attributed to my presentation on the state of the City of Winter Park’s property taxes at their Council meeting.

First, there are some factual items to note. From 2006 to 2009 the number of homestead properties in Winter Park decreased by 10 properties – indicating a very flat residential base. Furthermore, for the 2009 tax roll residential properties decreased in value overall 8.0% while commercial properties decreased overall 5.4% in value. For the city, this means had it not been for new commercial projects added in 2009 the city would have most likely been forced to cut more funds for parks, fire, police, library and other services which make the City of Winter Park so unique and special.  New commercial and re-developed commercial property can be beneficial to a city’s tax base if done properly.  Of course, any new development would have to conform to the City of Winter Park’s Comprehensive Master Plan.  I was not suggesting the city build a new mall or a Holiday Inn in the middle of Central Park. Additionally, I know of no study which concludes commercial property uses more city services than residential property. While I was a Councilman for the City of Maitland, the office complexes west of I-4 generated 65.0% of the city’s property taxes and used 35.0% of the city’s services.  That has gone down in the past few years because of the lack of new development in the City of Maitland’s Master Plan.

In my presentation to the city council, I listed three areas that could be regarded as economically blighted areas with the potential for redevelopment opportunities:

1.        N. Orange Ave.- from the current CRA to Hwy 17/92

2.        Fairbanks Ave. – from the current CRA to Interstate 4

3.        Lee Road – from the current CRA to Interstate 4

These corridors would only be an extension of the current CRA boundaries.

In regards to Mrs. DaVane’s premise of ‘if improvements were made and business and profits increase, the business owner would pay higher rents’; from my experience, nothing could be further from the truth.  I was a business owner on Park Avenue for ten years.  Paying some additional rent was never a problem so long as the traffic brought in the business.  Of course, one would have to be a business owner to understand that volume cures most ills.  A lack of foot traffic volume is a primary issue facing Park Avenue.

Mrs. DaVane also makes an assumption that all commercial properties are assessed and pay taxes based on their income.  The fact is, of the 1,600 commercial properties in Winter Park only 344 are assessed using the income methodology for tax purposes.  Further, it appears Mrs. DaVane has failed to recognize the impact of Amendment 1 and its assessment limitation on all non-homestead properties. This assessment limitation “caps” future assessment increases of non-homestead properties at a maximum of 10%.  This means as commercial values continue to decline, the assessment will be capped at that lower value. During a slow recovery, it could take a municipality many years before their commercial strata valuation (and tax revenue) returns to previous levels. Therefore, the only way by which the City of Winter Park can benefit from a commercial base in the areas described is if there is a change of ownership, use, or re-development of the property. These three events “reset” the assessment cap.  One more thing to remember, should the Save Our Homes recapture rate be repealed, the city’s revenue will be further reduced and the residential strata will be flat as a pancake.

Finally, Mrs. DeVane states, “Let’s create a Fire and Emergency Medical fee.”  Notice this is a fee, not tax.  With declining property values comes decreased revenue. So how can local government increase their revenue? The answer is by either increasing their millage rate, increasing existing fees, or by implementing new fees.  From 2001 to 2006 the City of Winter Park raised the tax rate on property from 3.1720 mills to 4.7580 mills (not inclusive of debt service). That’s a 50% increase while at the same time their total taxable property values increased from $2.139 billion to $3.993 billion or 86.6% in 6 years.

Any newly imposed fee would require a study to determine the methodology for the assessment of the cost of the service.  How would the fee be determined?  Would it be one flat fee for all?  Would residential be different than non-residential?  Would larger homes pay more that smaller homes?  Would it be a user fee that you only pay if you need the service?  Would that mean if your home catches fire, the fire department would first inquire if you’ll be paying cash, check, or credit card before responding?  I would hope not!

Currently, one thing for certain is that 72.6% of the total tax burden is paid by the city’s homeowners. If the city can not expand its tax base, the burden of any additional revenue, to continue the quality of life the city is known for, will fall squarely on the shoulders of those same homeowners.  Then, I would assume that Mrs. DaVane’s answer is to again increase the city’s tax rate – as was done (by 50%) from 2001 to 2006.

It’s important to remember that newspapers by their nature are limited to reporting only about a portion of my presentation regarding the City of Winter Park’s property tax base. I wish Mrs. DaVane could have been in attendance at the council meeting to listen to the entire presentation and gain a more complete understanding prior to using an editorial to present an incomplete picture to others who were not in attendance.

Posted in Development, Elections, Money, Policy.


Super Duper Too

November 22, 2009

See also: Super Duper, We Get What We Deserve, Recommendations…, Chamber of Commerce Opposes Charter Amendment #10

Tomorrow, November 23, 2009, our City Commission will vote on including a Charter Amendment in a voter referendum requiring a super majority vote of the City Commission to make changes to the Comprehensive Plan.

Interested citizens should understand the implications of this proposed Charter Amendment. I encourage citizens to speak to the City Commission tomorrow at 3:30 PM to object to putting this amendment to a voter referendum.

We already have super majority voting in the Charter that requires a super majority vote of the City Commission to overturn a zoning change or Comprehensive Plan change that is denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission (they must hear and vote on such changes). These current requirements provide meaningful and sufficient checks and balances. Further restrictions constitute obstruction.

My arguments against this political effort are included in my letter below.

*********************************************************************

Dear Mayor and City Commissioners,

Proponents of a City Commission super voting requirement for changes to the Comprehensive Plan (or limited just to “text” changes) base their position on an expectation that the citizens want to be “protected” from changes some may not like.

My concern for Winter Park is that “protection” is not a strategy. Further, “protection” in the form being offered is actually obstruction.

Let me give you the recent history of how you change the Comprehensive Plan in Winter Park. First, you sue the City to stop the processing of a Comprehensive Plan you don’t like. (You don’t understand it but you are sure you don’t like it because you believe the “evil developers” are behind it. How could you be motivated without an enemy to blame?) Then, as the approval process is stalled by your law suit, you run for office to get your majority on the City Commission to impose your view of what the Comprehensive Plan should be. In running for office you compromise your principles and lie to the voters about your priorities in order “to get elected,” never explaining what you really stand for and are trying to accomplish.

When you are elected you cancel the Comprehensive Plan you don’t like and appoint your friends to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Your friends on the Planning and Zoning Commission then propose what you want, making sure the new Comprehensive Plan includes lots of restrictions and limitations that are not required by the Florida Department of Community Affairs because you are afraid that someone might actually want to take a risk redeveloping something in Winter Park. And you certainly don’t ask for or consider input from those who own the effected property because they don’t know anything about how wonderful your restrictions and limitations really are for the people of Winter Park (even though you have never justified them beyond your personal preference).

Finally, you rush through a Charter Review process just in time to get a referendum on the next ballot to ask the voters to approve a super majority voting requirement for the City Commission to change the Comprehensive Plan. When the Charter Review Committee decides this is a bad idea, you propose it anyway because it is what you intended the entire time. What you want prevents changes to the Comprehensive Plan you authored and you think that is a good thing. Oh, and you support your position in part by claiming you don’t like all the “politics” in the process.

This is not “protection” and it is certainly not leadership. It is manipulation and obstruction.

Let’s be clear. If the City Commission approves this referendum it is asking the voters to agree to deny themselves democratic process and put the future of our city in the hands of a minority of City Commissioners. What is claimed to be “protection” is actually obstruction. No one will consider Winter Park for redevelopment projects that may be good for the city, but which will never be proposed because they will be held hostage by a minority of the City Commission. Further, all potential projects will be limited by an existing unchangeable Comprehensive Plan that contains arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions and limitations.

The City of Winter Park needs a commercial redevelopment strategy. “Protection” is not a strategy. Obstruction is not a strategy.

The four story buildings that were approved by former City Commissions (and that are the source of emotional complaints that have brought unnecessary and non-applicable anti-growth policy priorities to Winter Park) were undertaken after years of formal planning by the city. These projects were intentionally focused on bringing higher end residential condominiums and class A office space to downtown exactly because these uses have proven to sustain the retail and restaurant environments that keep our downtown a noted, valued, and valuable destination; a unique place where people are attracted to gather and socialize. The downtown of the place I grew up in New Jersey has become mostly real estate, insurance, and brokerage offices exactly because such foresighted planning was NOT undertaken. These Winter Park approvals were part of a well planned STRATEGY. A STRATEGY, I add, that is working even in the worst real estate market in a generation.

I ask each member of our City Commission, “Where is the commercial redevelopment strategy in the current Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development code?” If you say it is in the four areas where redevelopment with parking garages will be considered you are incorrect. Any well planned STRATEGY for commercial redevelopment will require changes to the Comprehensive Plan and this super majority referendum is offered in a conscious effort to make such changes politically impossible.

Everything about this super majority voting requirement referendum, from the history of its evolution, the motivations of those promoting it, and its implications, is inappropriate and negative for Winter Park and its citizens. Please do not approve it.

Posted in Development, Policy.


Possible Winter Park Green Space Foundation

Local entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Goldman has stood up to help our city plan and execute the expansion of green space in Winter Park. I wrote Steve the following letter to encourage his leadership and to make sure the circumstances involving the USPS property on New York Avenue are fully and accurately considered.

******************************************************

November 11, 2009

Steve,

I am sorry you did not accept my invitation to talk.

I fully support the creation of the Winter Park Green Space Foundation. I elaborate on this below.

All the people of Winter Park will be indebted to you if your group is able to fully fund the acquisition of the USPS property on New York Avenue without using City assets and without exposing the City to unusual risks.

Your fund raising efforts will of course need to accurately represent the circumstances and this is where I want to make sure you have all the facts. It is my hope that you and the City proceed based on the facts, independent of the obvious emotional and political influences.

You made statements in your comments before the City Commission on October 26, 2009 that you may wish to investigate further.

I suggest that you ask your attorney to review the actual contract documents that establish certain rights for the City to acquire title to the USPS land in exchange for constructing specific new facilities for the USPS. You can find what I believe are all relevant documents here beginning on page 187: http://www.winterparkperspective.org/downloads/agd_01_16_07.pdf, but suggest you request copies of the original executed documents to be reviewed by your attorney. (Edit November 19, 2009: the final settlement agreement with the former developers of the USPS property that references the agreement including the city’s “option” rights can be found here: PowerPoint Presentation http://www.cityofwinterpark.org/2005/govt/agd_06_11_07.pdf.)

You stated that we had until February 2010 to “raise a lot of money.” That is the time frame when the City’s rights under the contract with the USPS would effectively terminate. However, I believe you will find that the specific rights under the contract are now moot, regardless of an extension of the existing agreement. I believe you will find that the City’s option under the contract applies only to a single new 23,000 square foot facility located at the “Municipal Complex” at the corner of Morse Blvd and Denning Avenue. Any other location or configuration would require the approval of the USPS. I believe you will find that as a practical matter, the existing contract serves only as a basis for further discussion with the USPS and that the City has no remaining rights unless it commits to constructing a single new facility at the corner of Morse Blvd and Denning Avenue. I believe you will also find that the USPS is free to extend the existing contract and at the same time negotiate with any third party given the control the USPS has over subsequent approvals of plans, the general contractor to be used, and satisfaction with the delivered structure.

With the above said, I believe the scenarios are totally open. It is possible for your group to negotiate directly with the USPS to construct new facilities in exchange for their land, with the charitable group contributing the land when the deed is transferred. It is possible for a developer to negotiate any kind of arrangement with the USPS and the City and your group, perhaps with the aim of developing the North acre of the current USPS property and turning the balance over to the City for use as park. I believe you will find that no meaningful time constraint currently exists and that all options are open.

You stated that the taxpayers of Winter Park have already paid $3.7 million to acquire this option. I believe you will find that consideration for the option is limited to constructing a new 23,000 square foot facility for the USPS located at the “Municipal Complex” at the corner of Morse Blvd and Denning Avenue. I believe you will find that the $3.7 million was paid to Central Park Station Partners in exchange for dropping their claims against the City and has nothing to do with the option. I believe this distinction will be important to the credibility of any fund raising effort.

You stated that we have already raised $1.6 million. If you have not already done so you may wish to request the list of donors to the original “HOPE” campaign and validate terms under which each pledge and existing cash contribution will endure. Different donations may constitute reliable commitments under varying circumstances (for example, turning the entire property into park or not). The last information I had from the City showed the $1.6 million included $1.3 million in non-binding pledges and the City would be obligated to return any cash on request.

My final thoughts concern the general topic of park space. I totally agree with your description of the value of park space at the October 26 commission meeting. I have reason to believe that a great majority of Winter Park residents and taxpayers agree with us, and are prepared to pay “extra” for wise acquisition of new park land.

I refer you to the 2008 resident survey: http://www.cityofwinterpark.org/Pages/Government/City_Info/City_News.aspx. Under “willingness to pay for projects:” 66% support renovating and improving existing park facilities, 50% support acquiring new park land, and 28% support building a new post office. Also keep in mind that the City Commission has the power to put the construction of a new post office and acquisition of existing USPS land to the voters but has chosen not to do so.

Perhaps members of the City Commission have concluded that citizens understand that paying something like $5 million for an acre of park may be excessive in light of alternative uses of such funds. For example, public records show that the 5.5 acres of parcels known as “Progress Point” on Orange Avenue were acquired in June 2008 for commercial purposes for $6.1 million, or $1.1 million per acre. In today’s environment it may be more productive and provide more meaningful long term benefits to seek out large parcels for new park space than to focus on one acre of the USPS property.

This is where I get to my support for the Winter Park Green Space Foundation.

The City of Winter Park should acquire new park land to solidify its standing as the most desirable city in central Florida. I believe the voters of Winter Park will approve borrowing money for wise park land acquisitions. In this case “wise” means; purchase at or less than market values, cost effective in directly benefiting the largest number of people, proximal to existing residential areas, and providing buffer between existing residential areas and non-residential areas.

The Winter Park Green Space Foundation can be a leader in pursuing these objectives, providing supplemental funding that will help secure the votes of the citizens needed to fully fund wise park acquisitions.

I hope we can talk sometime.

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

PS – As a former singer-song writer, music lover, and long term supporter of our symphony I want to thank you for all you have done to further the arts in central Florida.

Steve,

I am sorry you did not accept my invitation to talk.

I fully support the creation of the Winter Park Green Space Foundation. I elaborate on this below.

All the people of Winter Park will be indebted to you if your group is able to fully fund the acquisition of the USPS property on New York Avenue without using City assets and without exposing the City to unusual risks.

Your fund raising efforts will of course need to accurately represent the circumstances and this is where I want to make sure you have all the facts. It is my hope that you and the City proceed based on the facts, independent of the obvious emotional and political influences.

You made statements in your comments before the City Commission on October 26, 2009 that you may wish to investigate further.

I suggest that you ask your attorney to review the actual contract documents that establish certain rights for the City to acquire title to the USPS land in exchange for constructing specific new facilities for the USPS. You can find what I believe are all relevant documents here beginning on page 187: http://www.winterparkperspective.org/downloads/agd_01_16_07.pdf, but suggest you request copies of the original executed documents to be reviewed by your attorney.

You stated that we had until February 2010 to “raise a lot of money.” That is the time frame when the City’s rights under the contract with the USPS would effectively terminate. However, I believe you will find that the specific rights under the contract are now moot, regardless of an extension of the existing agreement. I believe you will find that the City’s option under the contract applies only to a single new 23,000 square foot facility located at the “Municipal Complex” at the corner of Morse Blvd and Denning Avenue. Any other location or configuration would require the approval of the USPS. I believe you will find that as a practical matter, the existing contract serves only as a basis for further discussion with the USPS and that the City has no remaining rights unless it commits to constructing a single new facility at the corner of Morse Blvd and Denning Avenue. I believe you will also find that the USPS is free to extend the existing contract and at the same time negotiate with any third party given the control the USPS has over subsequent approvals of plans, the general contractor to be used, and satisfaction with the delivered structure.

With the above said, I believe the scenarios are totally open. It is possible for your group to negotiate directly with the USPS to construct new facilities in exchange for their land, with the charitable group contributing the land when the deed is transferred. It is possible for a developer to negotiate any kind of arrangement with the USPS and the City and your group, perhaps with the aim of developing the North acre of the current USPS property and turning the balance over to the City for use as park. I believe you will find that no meaningful time constraint currently exists and that all options are open.

You stated that the taxpayers of Winter Park have already paid $3.7 million to acquire this option. I believe you will find that consideration for the option is limited to constructing a new 23,000 square foot facility for the USPS located at the “Municipal Complex” at the corner of Morse Blvd and Denning Avenue. I believe you will find that the $3.7 million was paid to Central Park Station Partners in exchange for dropping their claims against the City and has nothing to do with the option. I believe this distinction will be important to the credibility of any fund raising effort.

You stated that we have already raised $1.6 million. If you have not already done so you may wish to request the list of donors to the original “HOPE” campaign and validate terms under which each pledge and existing cash contribution will endure. Different donations may constitute reliable commitments under varying circumstances (for example, turning the entire property into park or not). The last information I had from the City showed the $1.6 million included $1.3 million in non-binding pledges and the City would be obligated to return any cash on request.

My final thoughts concern the general topic of park space. I totally agree with your description of the value of park space at the October 26 commission meeting. I have reason to believe that a great majority of Winter Park residents and taxpayers agree with us, and are prepared to pay “extra” for wise acquisition of new park land.

I refer you to the 2008 resident survey: http://www.cityofwinterpark.org/Pages/Government/City_Info/City_News.aspx. Under “willingness to pay for projects:” 66% support renovating and improving existing park facilities, 50% support acquiring new park land, and 28% support building a new post office. Also keep in mind that the City Commission has the power to put the construction of a new post office and acquisition of existing USPS land to the voters but has chosen not to do so.

Perhaps members of the City Commission have concluded that citizens understand that paying something like $5 million for an acre of park may be excessive in light of alternative uses of such funds. For example, public records show that the 5.5 acres of parcels known as “Progress Point” on Orange Avenue were acquired in June 2008 for commercial purposes for $6.1 million, or $1.1 million per acre. In today’s environment it may be more productive and provide more meaningful long term benefits to seek out large parcels for new park space than to focus on one acre of the USPS property.

This is where I get to my support for the Winter Park Green Space Foundation.

The City of Winter Park should acquire new park land to solidify its standing as the most desirable city in central Florida. I believe the voters of Winter Park will approve borrowing money for wise park land acquisitions. In this case “wise” means; purchase at or less than market values, cost effective in directly benefiting the largest number of people, proximal to existing residential areas, and providing buffer between existing residential areas and non-residential areas.

The Winter Park Green Space Foundation can be a leader in pursuing these objectives, providing supplemental funding that will help secure the votes of the citizens needed to fully fund wise park acquisitions.

I hope we can talk sometime.

Regards, Pete Weldon

700 Via Lombardy

Winter Park, FL 32789

(407) 645-1002

PS – As a former singer-song writer, music lover, and long term supporter of our symphony I want to thank you for all you have done to further the arts in central Florida.

Posted in Money, Parks, Policy.


Do We Live In Carmel, California?

I have spent time in Carmel by the Sea, California and it is a wonderful town. I would want Jack Rogers running their Planning and Zoning Commission if I lived in Carmel.

Carmel by the Sea is bordered by the sea on the coast of California, 330 miles North of Los Angeles and 120 South of San Francisco. Carmel has a population of slightly more than 4,000 in a total area of 1.1 square miles. Carmel is located in Monterey County. The county has a population of slightly more than 400,000 people in a total area of 3,700 square miles. Click here for more information about Carmel.

Winter Park is located in central Florida, 5 miles from downtown Orlando. Winter Park has a population of slightly more than 28,000 in a total area of 9 square miles. Winter Park is located near the center of Orange County. The county has a population of slightly more than 1,000,000 in a total area of 900 square miles. The county is located near the center of the Metro Orlando area which has a population of 2,000,000 in a total area of 4,000 square miles. Click here for more information about Winter Park.

Other unique characteristics that distinguish Winter Park from Carmel include:

  • Train tracks running through the center of town. (Ever wonder why the rail line curves into the center of Winter Park, then out again?)
  • A train station at the center of town.
  • US and State roads bordering and intersecting the town.
  • An Interstate highway at the edge of town.
  • Five primary lakes.

Fran and I have lived in Winter Park for 20 years and have raised our family here. Winter Park is a wonderful town. I greatly value the unique character of Winter Park and side with all those who wish to maintain that character as we make necessary and inevitable changes to adapt to the circumstances of Winter Park’s unique location.

Winter Park, however, is not Carmel. Winter Park is a unique residential oasis within a high growth, sprawling metropolitan area. Winter Park is not and will never be a small, artsy, enclave isolated on the coast. Winter Park’s unique character and value will be sustained by governance that prioritizes our lakes, our street trees, our parks, and the viability of our residential and commercial assets in a competitive environment.

Policies and priorities set in the pursuit of sentiment to the exclusion of reality will not serve our long term interests.

Posted in Development, Policy.


Guess what I am?

October 26, 2009

You have to give Beth Dillaha credit. She certainly knows how to avoid the substance of issues and use her position on the podium to get the last word in to discredit those who would challenge the rightness of her limited policy and priority perspective.

At today’s City Commission meeting she made note of one “professional blogger” as an example of the limited input the City has received after sending out 14,000 mailers announcing  proposed Land Development Codes. She even managed to lop the “professional blogger” in with those who would comment about how dangerous the code changes are without offering specifics.

Guess who the “professional blogger” is? Why, I am so proud, its me!

In a curious twist, a citizen copied me on an email from Beth Dillaha that referenced my October 23, 2009 letter where Ms. Dillaha noted, “I have asked Mr. Weldon for specific zoning code changes he feels are problematic.  I don’t feel generalities about the code revisions are substantiation for deriding our Planning and Zoning Commission.” The fact is that I never received any correspondence from Beth Dillaha on this subject and I very definitely have provided very specific questions to her and the other members of the City Commission that warrant constructive response (here and here and here). (Could someone be lying to our citizenry to achieve political ends? Have we seen this behavior before?)

It is now certain that Ms. Dillaha and other supporters of setting code based on their personal preferences seek to impose these arbitrary land development rules on our city without justification.

Now to the issue of the response to the 14,000 mailers announcing proposed Land Development Codes.

It is indeed a reality that so few people potentially on both sides of any issue take time to understand the choices before us and weigh in with thoughtful input. (It would appear you need to slander those you disagree with to motivate as many as 25 people to get involved.) The Land Development Code is a very dense subject that most people, property owners included, will not comprehend until some element of it hits them in the face.

It is exactly because so few people get involved in subjects important to the future of this (and every other) city that the City Commission and Board members have a responsibility to carefully and publicly vet, understand, and justify votes on the important decisions that come before them. That is their job.

It is exactly because so few people get involved in subjects important to the future of this (and every other) city that City Commission members and Board members have a responsibility to reach out to constituencies affected by their votes to understand all implications and to publicly justify their actions. That is their job.

It is clear that Beth Dillaha wishes to avoid this responsibility. Why could that be?

Now you know why I continue to pursue rational, experienced, and professional leadership for Winter Park.

Posted in Development, Policy.


Recommendations Regarding P&Z, Comprehensive Plan, and Land Development Code

October 26, 2009

TO: Mayor and City Commissioners – City of Winter Park

RE: Recommendations Regarding P&Z, Comprehensive Plan, and Land Development Code

The Planning and Zoning Commission has continued to impose significant increased restrictions for commercial and multi-unit residential properties within Winter Park in both the current approved Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development codes. Important elements of both the Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development codes are effectively designed to preclude, not incent redevelopment in our commercial and multi-unit residential zoned areas. As a result of many shortcomings, I have recommended that the City Commission constitute a new group of citizens to serve on the Planning and Zoning Commission.

While many property owners are harmed by both the Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development code, my concern is not to secure rights for these owners. My concern is that both the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed land development code are so restrictive as to deny the City of Winter Park opportunities for redevelopment that can improve our quality of life, add to the diversity of our character and community, and control the financial burden on residential property owners. It should be clear to all observers that the Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development code make Winter Park non-competitive and sends a clear signal to those who would consider investing to look elsewhere. This current strategy is dangerously short sighted. [UPDATE February 15, 2010: Some of these dangers were realized when the Winter Park City Attorney on February 8, 2010 confirmed that the 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. (See: Cooper’s Comprehensive Incompetence.)]

It is not sufficient to simply create rules for what some people don’t want. We need a complete sense of Winter Park’s role as a unique and special residential community at the literal center of the 30th largest Metropolitan Area in the country. The current Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development code include some poignant language to this effect but the substance ignores the implications of this essential context. The only future to be inferred from the substantive rules in the Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development code is one of declining property values, a lesser regional competitive position for Winter Park residential and commercial property uses, higher relative taxes and fees to be borne by our residential community, and increasing challenges to our ability to finance the quality of life that marks Winter Park’s attractiveness and value.

With this said, I provide some examples of specific concerns below. Following these examples, I offer recommendations that a new Planning and Zoning Commission may consider.

I provided specific concerns regarding the Comprehensive Plan and related issues in November 2008 that is available here: http://www.winterparkperspective.org/2008/11/11/we-get-what-we-deserve/.

After reviewing the proposed land development code I have many questions I believe need to be addressed, a few of which are detailed below.

Reference – Virtually all sections: What is the justification for and expected consequences of proposed changes in restrictions on: minimum lot sizes and dimensions, floor area ratios, setbacks, impervious coverage, minimum ground area per dwelling unit, maximum dwelling units per acres, heights, and parking requirements as applied in each land use Section and Planning Area of the Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development code?

Reference – Development Standards – Virtually all sections: What is the justification for and expected consequences of granting the City Commission arbitrary and unilateral authority to limit achievable floor area in virtually all cases?

Referencehttp://www.cityofwinterpark.org/Docs/Departments/Planning/Sec58-64Nonconforminglots&structures.pdf

What is the justification for each nonconforming use as defined? What is the justification for and expected consequences of forcing nonconforming uses out of business?

(6) When a nonconforming use of land or structure or land and structure or structure and premises in combination is discontinued or abandoned for two (2) six consecutive months or for 18 months during any three year period (except when governmental action impedes access to the premises), the land or structure or land and structure or structure and premises in combination shall not thereafter be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located. If a nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned on a portion of the land or structure for two (2) consecutive months, that portion of the land or structure shall not thereafter be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located. Land or structures shall not be deemed to be active and in continued nonconforming usage solely from the existence of a city or state license or business certificate permitting such a use or business, but such use or business must be actively undertaken, staffed and in operation for such use or business to be deemed in active continued nonconforming usage.

Referencehttp://www.cityofwinterpark.org/Docs/Departments/Planning/Sec58-86%20Off-street%20Parking.pdf.

What is the justification for and expected consequences of the following proposed changes in parking requirements and has input been sought or received from any such existing institutions?

(b) 7. Convalescent, nursing, assisted living and other institutions: One parking space for each five three patient beds, plus one parking space for each staff or visiting doctor (average) on the day shift.

Hospitals: One parking space for each three patient beds (excluding bassinets), plus one parking space for each two employees, contract personnel, volunteers, etc. including part-time employees, expected on the most active work shift.

Library: One parking space for each 375 square feet of gross floor space in the building.

Restaurants, nightclubs, taverns or lounges: One parking space for each 50 square feet of floor space for patron use on the premises or one space for every four three seats, whichever is greater.

Schools (senior high, colleges, universities): One parking space for each teacher, administrator, and employee, plus one parking space for every four (two) students, plus sufficient off-street space for safe and convenient loading and unloading of students, plus one parking space for each ten seats in the school or college auditorium, provided, however, if the school or college has a gymnasium and has provided off-street parking for that gymnasium, such spaces may be credited toward meeting the requirements for off-street parking for the auditorium located on the same campus.

Theaters, auditoriums, funeral homes, and places of assembly with fixed seats: One parking space for each six four seats, plus additional parking spaces equal in number to the number of employees.

Recommendations for a newly constituted Planning and Zoning Commission.

  • For each land use type we need a tabular comparison of density and intensity regulations comparing prior regulations with those included in the current approved Comprehensive Plan and current proposed land development code. Such comparison should at a minimum include; minimum lot sizes and dimensions, floor area ratios, setbacks, impervious coverage, minimum ground area per dwelling unit, maximum dwelling units per acres, heights, and parking requirements. Where the current approved Comprehensive Plan and current proposed land development code vary from prior regulations a narrative justifying each change should be included. (While most pre-existing codes have been effectively tested and modified accordingly over years of experience, mitigating the need for a “zero based” approach, it may be appropriate to provide a zero based rational for pre-existing code in some cases.)
  • Prepare a detailed list of each proposed nonconforming use by specific property by land use Section.
  • Mail the tabular comparison of proposed changes with narrative, and detailed list of nonconforming uses, to each affected property owner with an invitation to participate in public meetings. The meetings would be established for the purpose of communicating the implications of proposed changes and to seek and document input from property owners on steps the city can take to enhance the value of their property.
  • Hire a professional planner and a land use attorney to consult on all Comprehensive Plan and land development code considerations.
  • Remove all specific intensity and density criteria included in the Land Use Element of the current Comprehensive Plan not specifically required by DCA. Such criteria to be removed are to include but not be limited to: minimum lot sizes and dimensions, floor area ratios, setbacks, impervious coverage, minimum ground area per dwelling unit, maximum dwelling units per acres, heights, and parking requirements. Where DCA requires such intensity and density criteria use those limits in place prior to the approval of the current Comprehensive Plan.
  • Remove all super majority voting requirements from the Comprehensive Plan and submit the duly revised Land Use Element to the City Commission for approval at the earliest possible date.
  • Lead the completion of the form based code project for non-residential properties with the objective of defining model uses and forms for each non-single family zoning Section and Planning Area based on input from all constituencies; to be guided by a professional planner and a land use attorney.
  • Lead a public process to define specific objectives for each zoning Section within each Planning Area that justifies each of the following: desired uses, intensity and density, intended impact on character, diversity, and community, infrastructure, and financial costs and benefits; to be guided by a professional planner and a land use attorney.
  • Lead a public process that puts the current reality in each zoning Section and Planning Area in context with the objectives defined above for the purpose of documenting the process that gets us from point A to point B.
  • Based on the above work, modify the Comprehensive Plan accordingly, and recommend land development code specifically designed to achieve the defined objectives.

Posted in Development, Policy.