Mayor Phil Anderson
Commissioner Marty Sullivan (Virtual) Commissioner Sheila DeCiccio
Commissioner Carolyn Cooper
Commissioner Todd Weaver (via telephone)
City Manager Randy Knight
City Attorney Dan Langley
City Clerk Rene Cranis
Also Present: Planning and Zoning Board Richard James
Jim Fitch Michael Spencer (Arrived at 4:40 p.m.)
1) Call to Order Mayor Anderson called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m.
2) Discussion Item(s) a. OAO Comp Plan Mayor Anderson explained the purpose of the meeting was to clarify the intent of the red line changes to the comp plan made by the Planning and Zoning Board prior to the first reading of the OAO ordinance.
City Attorney Dan Langley stated that he received a letter from the attorneys representing Demetree Global and Holler requesting a meeting to discuss and present changes to the proposed OAO. He advised that the Commission could hold a public work session with the commission, staff and representatives for Holler and Demetree Global to discuss the proposed OAO, but not the prior OAO documents or litigation matters or in lieu of a work session, representatives could simply give their input during public hearing for this item on September 22nd. He added that the Commission is not obligated to meet with the representatives but could meet with representatives after the first reading.
Commissioner Cooper stated she was interested, initially, but now has concerns about negotiating and having any dialogue that may affect litigation. She stated she is more comfortable with a listening session, but without response. She expressed concern that the press will publish the attorneys’ narrative.
Commissioner Sullivan stated he is firmly against meeting with legal representatives as the city did not receive specifics on what the attorneys’ want to discuss and the attorneys are not qualified to discuss as they are not developers.
Commissioner DeCicciostated that she is confused as to the purpose of their request and feels there is no purpose to meeting with them and they can speak at the public hearing.
Mayor Anderson said he is content to hold a meeting after first reading.
Mr. Langley summarized the consensus that representatives could speak at first reading during public comment and schedule a work session with representatives if desired.
The following points were discussed in the review of the changes recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board:
• Change from 100% to 125% FAR:
Dr. James stated that with the significant setbacks, it will be a struggle to reach 125% FAR in the corridor. Mr. Stringfellow added that the board considered the impact of the parking garage counting toward the FAR and how it might impact the FAR and massing. He explained that the board did not see a significant impact on the neighborhood.
Dr. James referenced the FLH wellness center and stated that the preliminary calculation was 98% FAR but he found, after viewing property and building size on the Orange County property appraiser website, the FAR with the parking garage is 120%. Commissioner Cooper stated that staff needs to go back and look at calculations to determine FAR. Mrs. Sarkisian remarked that the 25% open space criteria should be considered as well. "(Staff later confirmed that the 98% included in the staff report was accurate.)
Mayor Anderson expressed his concern that incorrect parking ratios used in the illustrations for the corridor. Discussion followed regarding the need for a policy decisionon 60% base FAR and an increase necessary to create a sufficient incentive to develop property and parking garage criteria. Commissioner Cooper added that there are two policy issues that state that reaching a certain FAR triggers a discussion on apartments or parking structures. She raised the question of whether the city’s intention is to encourage apartments and parking structures in Winter Park.
Further discussion was held on scenarios of FAR at different levels and achieving higher FAR. Mr. Stephenson showed renderings at different FARs in subarea D, which prompted additional discussion.
• Transportation/Mobility Fee
Commissioner Cooper stated that it was important to make clear that the transportation fee would apply to developments within the OAO and that the language is clear that there will be cost sharing in the transportation impact fee. She asked if they evaluated whether there should be a transportation or multi-modal fee. Discussion followed on the difference between mobility and transportation impact fees. Mr. Langley added that the multi-modal fee would be language would be defined in a way that is more consistent with a transportation impact fee.
• Architectural Review
Dr. James explained that the language was removed because it is covered in land use code.
• Public Hearings
Commissioner Cooper asked if more detail or the code title could be added when referencing the city code regarding public notice requirements. Discussion followed on the policy language for public notices.
• Block Structures
Dr. James explained that the consensus of P&Z is that the language for block structure is covered adequately in the forthcoming zoning code.
• Vesting Rights
Mayor Anderson stated that there would be discussion at the public hearing on how the language would eliminate litigation without removing parcels from the OAO.
The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
View the original PDF at the City of Winter Park. (https://winterpark.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=winterpark_b0a56a24-3404-4fa6-b274-e06854e4ce9e.pdf)
Posted to WinterParkSunshine.org on December 28, 2021.