4312 Comp Plan AmdmtOrdinance No. 4312
An Ordinance of the City of Sanford, Florida amending
the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan, as previously
amended; providing for amendment of the Future Land
Use Map of the Future Land Use Element of the City of
Sanford Comprehensive Plan relative to certain real
property, approximately 214.54 acres in size, and
located 2401 East Lake Mary Boulevard within the City
Limits (maps relating to the property are attached) (Tax
Parcel Identification Numbers 07 -20 -31 -51-R- 0000 -0010,
07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0020, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0030, 07-20-
31-51-R-0000-0040, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0050, 07-20-31-
51-R-0000-0060, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0070, 07- 20- 31 -5LR-
0000- 0080,07- 20 -31- 5LR -0000 -0090, 07-20-31- 5LR -0000-
0150, 07- 20- 31- 5LR - 0000 - 0160,07- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 -0170,
07- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 - 0180,07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0190, 07-20-
31-51-R-0000-0100, 07- 20- 31- 51-R - 0000 -0110, 07-20-31-
51-R-0000-0120, 07- 20- 31- 5LR - 0000 -0130, 07- 20- 31 -5LR-
0000 -0140, 07- 20- 31- 5LR -0000 -0200, 07-20-31- 5LR -0000-
0210, 07- 20- 31- 5LR -0000 -0220, 07- 20 -31- 5LR -0000 -0230,
07- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 -0240, 07- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 -0250, 07-20-
31-51-R-0000-0260, 07- 20- 31- 5LR - 0000 -0270, 7-20-31-51-R-
0000-0280, 07- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 -0290, 7-20-31-51-R-0000-
0300, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0310, 07- 20- 31- 5LR - 0000.0320,
07- 20- 31- 5LR - 0000 -0330, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0340, 07-20.
31-51-R-0000-0350, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0360, 07-20-31-
51-R-0000-0370, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0380, 07- 20- 31 -5LR-
0000 -0390, 07- 20- 31- 5LR - 0000 -0400, 07-20-31-51-R-0000.
0410, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0420, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0430,
07- 20- 31- 5LR -0000 -0440, 07 -20.31 -5LR- 0000 -0450, 07-20-
31-51-R-0000-0460, 07- 20 -31- 51-R -OA00 -0000, 07-20-31-
51-R-01300-0000, 07- 20- 31- 5LR -0000 -0000, 07- 20- 31 -5LR-
01300 -0000, 07- 20- 31- 5LR -OEOO -0000, 07-20-31- 51-R -OF00-
0000, 07- 20- 31- 5LR -OGOO -0000, 07- 20- 31- 51-R -01-100 -0000,
07- 20 -31- 5LR -OJ00 -0000, and 07- 20 -31- 5LR -OS00 -0000)
said property being more specifically described in this
Ordinance; providing for legislative findings and intent;
providing for assignment of the land use designation for
the property; providing for the adoption of maps by
reference; providing for severability; providing for
ratification of prior acts of the City; providing for
conflicts; providing for codification and directions to the
Code codifier and providing for the implementation of
the statutory expedited State review process and an
effective date.
1
Whereas, Safari Investments, LLC (whose managers are Sadique M. Jaffer and
Mohamedtaki Jaffer), is the owner of certain real property which land totals
approximately 214.54 acres in size, is located at 2401 East Lake Mary Boulevard and is
assigned Tax Parcel Identification Numbers 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0010, 07- 20- 31 -5LR-
0000 -0020, 07- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 -0030, 07 -20 -31 -51-R- 0000 -0040, 07- 20 -31- 5LR -0000-
0050, 07 -20 -31 -51-R- 0000 -0060, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0070, 07- 20 -31- 5LR -0000 -0080,
0720 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0090, 07 -20 -31 -51-R- 0000 -0150, 07-20-31 -5LR- 0000 - 0160,07 -20-
31- 5LR -0000 -0170, 07 -20 -31 -51-R- 0000 - 0180,07- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 -0190, 07-20-31-
51-R-0000-0100, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0110, 07- 20- 31- 5LR -0000- 0120, 07- 20- 31 -5LR-
0000 -0130, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0140, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0200, 07- 20 -31- 5LR -0000
0210, 07- 20- 31- 5LR - 0000 -0220, 07- 2031 -5LR- 0000 -0230, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0240,
07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0250, 07- 20 -31- 5LR -0000 -0260, 07- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 -0270, 7 -20-
31 -51-R- 0000 -0280, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0290, 7- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 -0300, 07- 20- 31 -5LR-
0000 -0310, 07- 20 -31- 5LR -0000 -0320, 07- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 -0330, 0720-31- 5LR -0000-
0340, 07- 20 -31- 51-R -0000 -0350, 07 -2031 -5LR- 0000 -0360, 07- 20 -31- 5LR - 00000370,
07- 20- 31- 51-R -0000 -0380, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0390, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0400, 07-20-
31-51-R-0000-0410, 07- 20- 31- 5LR -0000 -0420, 07 -20 -31 -5LR -0000 -0430, 07-20-31-
51-R-0000-0440, 07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0450, 07 -20 -31 - 5LR - 0000 -0460, 07- 20- 31 -5LR-
OA00 -0000, 07- 20 -31- 51-R -01300 -0000, 07- 20- 31- 5LR -0000 -0000, 07-20-31- 5LR -OD00-
0000, 07- 20- 31- 5LR -OEOO -0000, 07- 20-31- 5LR -OFOO -0000, 07- 20 -31- 5LR- OG000000,
07- 20 -31- 51-R -01-1100 -0000, 07 -2031 - 5LR -OJOO -0000, and 07- 20 -31- 5LR -OSOO -0000 by
the Property Appraiser of Seminole County; and
Whereas, William E. Barfield, Esquire, applied, on behalf of the owner, to the
2
City of Sanford, pursuant to the controlling provisions of State law and the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Sanford, to have the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land
Use Element of the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan, as previously amended,
relative to subject property be changed from the assignment of the I, Industrial land use
designation to the GC, General Commercial land use designation (21.52 acres) and the
LDR -SF, Low Density Residential land use designation (193.02 acres); and
Whereas, the City of Sanford's Planning and Zoning Commission (P &ZC), as the
City's local planning agency, held a public hearing on December 5, 2013 to consider
amending the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element of the City of
Sanford Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval of the proposed Future Land
Use Map amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property as requested
by the property owner; and
Whereas, Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes, relates to the amendment of
adopted local government comprehensive plans and sets forth certain requirements
relating to an expedited process of State review of proposed amendments to local
government comprehensive plans and relates to processes and actions relating thereto;
and
Whereas, the Citizen's Awareness Participation Plan (CAPP) requirements of
the City relative to the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan have been
met by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City and the CAPP procedures of the City
have been adhered to and honored with the applicant and owners being willing to meet
with any concern citizen or stakeholder should they have any questions or concerns
regarding the application and proposed use of the subject property said CAPP meeting
3
occurring on August 27, 2013; and
Whereas, the City's Planning and Development Services Department has
conducted a thorough review and analysis of the demands upon public facilities and
general planning and land development issues should the subject application be
approved and has otherwise reviewed and evaluated the application to determine
whether is comports with sound and generally accepted land use planning practices
and principles as well as whether the application is consistent with the goals, objectives
and policies set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan and determined that the
proposed the amendment of the City's Comprehensive Plan relative to the subject
property as set forth in this Ordinance is internally consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of Sanford and the controlling provisions of State law; and
Whereas, the City's Planning and Development Services Department has
determined that, to some extent, the actions taken herein are curative in that the
provisions of this Ordinance eliminate a conflicting land use that is proximate to
wetlands; and
Whereas, and, indeed, the City's Planning and Development Services
Department thoroughly reviewed numerous reports and studies submitted to the City by
the applicant in support of the subject application; and
Whereas, the City of Sanford has complied with all requirements and procedures
of Florida law in processing this amendment to the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan
including, but not limited to, Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, as well as other
controlling law.
Now, therefore, be in enacted by the People of the City of Sanford, Florida:
Section 1. Legislative findings and intent.
4
(a). The City Commission of the City of Sanford hereby adopts and
incorporates into this Ordinance the City staff report and City Commission agenda
memorandum relating to the application relating to the proposed amendment to the City
of Sanford Comprehensive Plan pertaining to the subject property.
(b). The City of Sanford has complied with all requirements and procedures of
Florida law in processing and advertising this Ordinance.
(c). This Ordinance is internally consistent with the goals, objectives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford.
(d). The exhibits to this Ordinance are incorporated herein as if fully set forth
herein verbatim.
(e). City staff has concluded that the reports and studies submitted by the
applicant to the City are well founded and consistent with sound and generally accepted
practices and principles pertaining to matters and issues which have been evaluated in
the context of the subject application.
Section 2. Amendment to Future Land Use Map.
(a). The Future Land Use Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City
of Sanford and the City's Future Land Use Map are hereby amended by assigning the
GC, General Commercial land use designation to the real property (21.52 acres) which
is the subject of this Ordinance as set forth herein, and the LDR -SF, Low Density
Residential land use designation to the real property (193.02 acres) which is the subject
of this Ordinance as set forth herein.
(b). The properties which are the subject of this Comprehensive Plan
amendment are more specifically defined, described and depicted in the exhibits to this
5
Ordinance.
Section 3. Implementing Administrative Actions.
The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to implement the provisions
of this Ordinance as deemed appropriate and warranted.
Section 4. Incorporation Of Maps.
The maps attached to this Ordinance are hereby ratified and affirmed and
incorporated into this Ordinance as a substantive part of this Ordinance.
Section 5. Ratification Of Prior Actions.
The prior actions of the City Commission and its agencies in enacting and
causing amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford, as well as the
implementation thereof, are hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 6. Severability.
If any section, sentence, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance proves to be
invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, it shall not be held to impair the validitrdinorce or
effect of any other action or part of this Ordinance.
Section 7. Conflicts.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 8. Cod ificationllnstructions to Code Codifier.
It is the intention of the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, and it is
hereby ordained that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part
of the codified version of the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and/or the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Sanford, Florida in terms of amending the Future Land Use
Map of the City.
The Comprehensive Plan amendment set forth herein shall not becorre
effective, in accordance with Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes, until 31 days after
Administration Commission enters a final order determining the adopted amendment to
be in compliance.
M M-
Cynthia Porter, City Clerk
City Commission of he City of
Sanford, Florida i
Jeff Triplett,
P A
Roil -- - WS TZM X
87 Item No.
CITY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM 14+070
MARCIA 10, 2014 AGENDA
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Con 's ion
PREPARED BY: Russ Gibson, Planning and Development Se ces _rector
SUBMITTED BY: Not-ton N. Bonaparte, Jr., City Manager
SUBJECT: Comprehensive flan Amendment for 2 01 E ake Mary Boulevard
SYNOPSIS:
The property owners of approximately 214.54 acres at 2401 . Lake Mary Boulevard are requesting to
change the future land use map of the Sanford Comprehensive Plan for 21.52 acres from I — Industrial to
GC- General Commercial and 193.02 acres from I- Industrial to LDR-SF — Low Density Residential,
FISCAL/STAFFING STATEMENT:
Based on the 2013 property tax roll of Seminole County, the subject property is assessed as grazing land
with a total value of $80,673. The total tax bill in 2013 for the 214.54 acre site was $1,643.
No additional staffing or City resources are required if the subject property's future land use designation
is amended.
BACKGROUND:
The 214.54 acre site is located on the south side of E. Lake Mary Boulevard between two residential
planned developments - Magnolia Park PD to the west and the Brisson West PD to the east. All of the
subject property is in the Silver Lakes Industrial Park Replat (58 parcels) approved by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Commission in January 1993. Since then the property has remained
undeveloped.
The current property owners have submitted a request to amend the future land use designation from I-
Industrial to GC- General Commercial (21.52 acres) and LDR -SF, Low Density Residential (193.02 acres)
for the purpose of developing a commercial and residential project called Silvestri Estates. The owners
have also applied to rezone the property to PD, Planned Development in order to establish specific
development and design standards for their project.
Pursuant to the State of Florida's Growth Policy Act (Chapter 163 F.S.), any plan amendment shall
discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. In order to determine that a plan amendment does not
constitute urban sprawl, the amendment must be analyzed as to whether it incorporates a development
pattern or urban form that achieves four or more of the following eight criteria:
1. Directs growth and development to areas of the community in a manner that does not adversely
impact natural resources;
2. Promotes the efficient and cost effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and
services;
3. Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix
of uses at densities and intensities that support a range of housing choices and a multimodal
transportation system;
4. Promotes conservation of water and energy;
5. Preserves agricultural areas and activities;
6. Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs;
Wage l of 4
7. Creates a balance of land uses based on demands of residential population for the nonresidential
needs of an area; and,
8. Provides uses, densities and intensities of use and urban forte that would remediate an existing or
planned sprawl development pattern or provides for an innovative development pattern such as
transit oriented development or new towns.
Per the requirements for Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the applicant has provided written
justification to address the criteria in Policy 1 -1.1.1 of the Comprehensive Plan. In considering if the
proposed land use amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the l'ollowing land use
objectives and policies should be considered:
• Policy 1- 1.2.2: Designate Low Density Residential — Single Family (LDR -SF) Districts. The
areas delineated for LDR -SF development shall include existing stable single family areas as well
as those areas . for ftiture low density residential .single family development in order to provide
si f teient land arect to meet projected single family housing needs. Areas delineated as LDR -SF
shall allow residential development with a maximum density of up to six dwelling units per acre
comprised of single family detached horses on individual lots. Specific densities will be
determined by such factors as natural features of the land, density and /or intensity of developed
and /or undeveloped land surrounding development-, level of accessibility, housing supply and
demand, and adequacy cif public facilities, consumer preference and other,factors which may be
identified in the land development regulations. Supportive community facilities and accessory
land uses may be located within areas designated LDR -SF
Development within the LDR -SF designation shall be required to meet the following general
criteria together with performance criteria in this Element-.-
• Compatible with the quality and character of existing low density single, family neighborhoods;
• Preserve open space;
• Compatible with existing and anticipated future developments;
• Compatible with natural_features of the land and comply with performance criteria cis well as
other policies within the Comprehensive Plan impacting natural resources; and
- Comply with concurrency management regulations.
• Objective 1 -1.3: Allocate Commercial Land Uses. The Future Land Use Map .shall identify
commercial land for: 1) residential /office /and institutional mixed asses; 2) neighborhood
commercial development; 3) general commercial development,- and 4) central business district
development and redevelopment. The allocation of land for commercial development shall be
compatible with goals and objectives identified in the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with
supportive research and analysis,
• Policy 1- 1.3.2: Concentrate Pattern of Commercial Land Use. In order to promote efficient flow
of traffic along major thoroughfares cited in the Transportation Element, achieve orderly
development, and minimize adverse impact on residential quality, commercial development shall
be concentrated in strategically located areas having location characteristics which best
accommodate specific land site, public ,facilities and market location requirements of' the
respective commercial uses
• Policy 1-2.2.1: Limit Community Retail Commercial Development to General Commercial
Areas. Community - oriented retail commercial goods and services shall be encouraged to locate
within existing development corridors that are already committed to such uses and are
specs ftcally designated as General Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. Conversely,
general retail commercial developments shall be discouraged in other areas of the City.
• Policy 1- 2.4.9: Support Seminole Way Vision. Ilse purpose of the Seminole Way economic
development vision is to provide economic stability and growth for the next 20 years through the
attraction of high value investments and high wage jobs in the following target industry sectors:
• Financial and information services.
Page 2 of 4
o Digital mediet including modeling and simulation, film and broadcasting, thenied entertainment
and animation /game development.
Life sciences including biotech and medical instrumentation.
• Technical and research services including civil and environmental engineering and so- called
green " architectural and engineering services.
The City will continue to support and participate it? the Seminole Way vision for lands designated
for commercial, inix.ed -use and industrial uses.
Policy 1-2.3.2: Maintain General Pattern of Industrial Land Use. Within the City the evolving
centers of major industrial activity are the 1) airport and airport environs; 2) the Silver Lake
Drive industrial area; 3) the warehousing and industrial trades along Airport Boulevard
generally west of the Amtrak/CSX Terminal; and 4) the Westside industrial area along the SR 46
corridor west to Upsala Road. A high priority shall be directed toward full utilization and
development of lands designed for industrial development within the airport property and in the
Silver Lake Drive area. The existing and proposed.future transportation facilities including SR
417 and improvements to Airport Boulevard shall enhance the accessibility of the industrial
centers to regional markets, Furthermore, the airport industrial complex provides a spacious
area for industrial activities which contribute to a drverstfled economic base within the City and
the region.
In 2013, the City completed fi naginne Sanford, a community -based vision supported by a strategic plan
that will shape Sanford's future. Attached to this report is a brochure that includes the Imagine Sanford
vision statement and key action items. The vision emerged through engagement with Sanford,
government officials, community -based organizations and from institutions such as the Sanford 'Loo,
Orlando- Sanford International Airport and Seminole State College. The following is stated under the
Economic Foundation and Opportunities section of the Imagine Sanford brochure:
Sanford is well positioned with twin strengths in transportation accessibility and its unique status
as a destination for the performing and cultural arts. The City has a diverse economic base with
particular strengths in sectors that value transportation accessibility and the availability of
industrially zoned land. With access and visibility to 1 -4 and SR 417, the advent of SunRaiI, the
convenience of the Orlando- Sanford International Airport, and a substantial supply of
developable land for business and industrial parks, Sanford can reinforce its economic
competitiveness through business recruitment, encouraging industrial and high -tech real estate
development, and strategic infrastructure investment.
On January 13, 2014, the City Commission approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 4312.
Pursuant 163.3184(3)(b)l, Florida Statutes, the City transmitted copies of the proposed comprehensive
plan amendment, including Ordinance No. 4312, to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity
(DEO), the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, St, Johns River Water Management District,
Florida Department of Transportation, Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Department of
State, Seminole County, City of Lake Mary and Seminole County Public Schools for an expedited review
to determine whether the proposal, if adopted, would have any potential adverse effects. The state
agencies have responded in writing that the proposed amendment does not appear to have any adverse
impacts on public facilities or resources.
The City Clerk published notice of this public hearing in the Sanford Herald on March 2, 2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
On December- 5, 2013, the City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission serving as the City's Local
PIanning Agency recommended approval to change the future land use map of the Sanford
Comprehensive Plan for approximately 214.54 acres at 2401 E. Lake Mary Boulevard from I — Industrial
to GC- General Commercial and LDR -SF — Low Density Residential.
Page 3 of 4
It is staff's recommendation that the City Commission approve the proposed land use change based on
consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the State's
Growth Policy Act.
Additional comments or recommendations may be presented by staff at the meeting.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4312 to change the future land use map of the Sanford Comprehensive
Plan for approximately 214.54 acres at 2401 E. Lake Mary Boulevard from I — Industrial to GC- General
Commercial and LDR -SF — Low Density Residential."
Attachments: Site Vicinity Maps
Future Land Use Map Amendment
Ordinance No. 4312
Land Use Plan for Safari Investments dated June 20, 2013
PD Master Plan for Silvestri Estates revised November 25, 2013
Project Information Sheet (2 pages)
Citizens Awareness Participation Plan (CAPP) report (16 pages)
Trip Generation report by GMB Engineers (2 pages)
Seminole County Public Schools Impact Analysis (3 pages)
Imagine Sanford brochure (2 pages)
Affidavit of Ownership and Designation of Agent (2 pages)
Applicant's Justification Statement dated August 21, 2013 (S pages)
Letter from Steve Coover dated October 16, 2013 (2 pages)
Charles Wayne Report (36 pages)
Bio -Tech Consulting Letter (3 pages)
Information presented at the December 5, 2013 P &Z Commission meeting
Copy of PowerPoint presentation given by Mr. Coover and Mr. Evans (20 pages)
Public Comment form submitted by Melonie Beadling
Public Comment form submitted by Tracy Sanford
Email received from Silas and Linda Barker
T:%1)cve10pmn1 Lake (Safari Inv LLQ -fka Silver Lakcs Industrial Park %CPA\CC Menw 1- 10 -20MCC Mcmo -CPA 2401 13 Lake Mary Blvd.tloe
Page 4 of 4
City ot Saniford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Site: 2401 East Lake Mary Boulevard 214.54 Acres
IN *j -"#.*jjj2.M M
Parcel, No's:
07-20'31 -5LR-0000-ODI 0
07' -20 -31 -SLR- 0000 -0020
07-20-31 -51-R-0000-0030
07- 20 -31- SLR -0000 -0040
07.20 -31 -SLR -0000 -0050
07-20-31 -51-R-0000-0060
07-20-31 -SLR-0000-0070
07-20-31 -5LR-0000-0080
07-20-31 -6LR-0000-0090
07.20.31- SLR - 0000.0150
07-20-3 1 -SLR-0000-0160
07-20-31-51LIR-000-01 70
07-20-31 -SLR-0000-0180
07.20 -31- SLR -0000 -01'80
07- 20 -31- SLR -0000 -0100
07-20-31-51-R-0000-01 10
07-20-31 -51-R-0000-011 20
07-20-31-51-R-0000-0 130
07.20.31- SLR -0000.0140
Legend
Existing Land: Use
Mobile Home
conservation
Public Facility
Industrial
07-20-31 -51-R-00010-0200,
07-20-31.51-R•0000-021 0
07' -20 -31 -SLR -0000 -0220
07 -20 -31 -SLR -0000 -0230
07- 20- 31- SLR -0000.0240
07- 20 -31- SLR - 0000 -0250
07.20.31- SLR - 0000 -0260
07.20-31-5LR-0000-0270
07-20-31-51-R-0000-0280
07-20-31 -51-R-0000-0290
07'-20-31 -SLR-00010-0300
07-20-31 -51-R-0 000-0310
07-20-31 -SLR-0000-0320
07-20-31-5LR.0000-0330
07-20-311-51LIR-0000-0340
07-20.31-5LR-0000-0360
07-20-31-5LR-0000-0360
07-20-31-SLR-0000-0370
07-20-31 -SLR-0000-0380
Agriculture
Single Family Residential
Vacant
07-20-31 -51LIR-0000-0390
07.20-31-5LR-0000-0400
07-20-31 -SLR-0000-041 0
07.20 -31 -SLR- 0000.0420
07.20 -31- SLR - 0000.0430
07- 20 -31- SLR - 0000 -0440
07-20-31 -51LIR-0000-0450
017-201-31-61LIR-0000-0460
07-20-31-61LIR-OA00-0000
07-20-31-51.R-O BOO-0000
07.20-31-5LR-OCOO-00010
07-20-31 -51-R-0000-0000
07-20-31-5LR-0 EOO-0000
07-20-31 -SLR-OFOO-0000
07-20-31-51-R-OGOO-0000
07-20-31 -SLR-OHOO-0000
07-20.31-5LR-OJOO-0000
017-201-31-5LR-OSOO-0000
Future Land' Use
NJ Airport Industry & Commerce
General Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Resource Protection
Suburban Estates
City of Sanford Department of Planning & Development Services, November 20113
. \ / \ \ /�� \ \� `
®\
% \/ .. \\ m _, kJ j
an _m I " � L71
}\��..�\
� . � �� �
IN4
.i/ : tv n. '� )•'»"» YOMDV 'WDl11a iQ uG
i �9L9l bELf f2EYY M�
3 SOSL6 YOit101i bONM�tlO 011'BAXdkA63AM WHO
i 90N9hY YWtlI ELL
't7NIL333NI11N� Wria aaLerw ad
- - --
S �1 pi A saiYis3 Laxean tle
G
N AS
III i� �O
f kE I
J p t S
N o t
t_'
c' o
EI '
cC
vi
Wryl
i
T
H � Yh
g.
9Y Xe 3
I o>
■
hie E l i
"�:.RS V
Y^
YS �
x Yry �
Lx L
g °z S a
,p•2g
" d s }6 rx a t s
t
111 I�-
.......... ...
E -..
ffll�
-f
1 4.t
1
`r -
it
roarens:- >,a >3 > „nJr�1-�I tov/� �
t � �nxlnv3irr.vrOJlitl rrtnn5
5w0 p
�b h
a
F�
i�
i
I
j
Miry
11
3r•o.`m=
�
I
E
;,
..
II 1
�l .
Lx L
g °z S a
,p•2g
" d s }6 rx a t s
t
111 I�-
.......... ...
E -..
ffll�
-f
1 4.t
1
`r -
it
roarens:- >,a >3 > „nJr�1-�I tov/� �
t � �nxlnv3irr.vrOJlitl rrtnn5
5w0 p
�b h
a
F�
i�
,�, t'GbbaEbhbL bb6b bba hLa
BE ����:ee�
-HBO t a b
J "^
ti���x y
_ i y.
o
ILI
� wS
3 YYY.1 1dY Y IE`J:`1 !'J �`1
3i P t' v Ns�.. o.v000
80�
O
3'
.viz
e
l F
R
i'I• .
1
„ i C
rL' 9t,
squid, }
�EiPF a E- a b' k E$k: 8h Ea�C it i3��x
z$$ {:sE,x.i��:;
•3:,s` fE$e�,ai' �3g-a.�.�s;j;E,� "§�' ?;;,.,�i n$�, -xy�ys apgt
>;{ x (.L {`Y sI beM$kE
ac e : � irr� c F ,'< °F3 E Ei��•t E F S�.�s) �(ask',
y N
11
i
I
j
Miry
11
3r•o.`m=
�
I
E
,�, t'GbbaEbhbL bb6b bba hLa
BE ����:ee�
-HBO t a b
J "^
ti���x y
_ i y.
o
ILI
� wS
3 YYY.1 1dY Y IE`J:`1 !'J �`1
3i P t' v Ns�.. o.v000
80�
O
3'
.viz
e
l F
R
i'I• .
1
„ i C
rL' 9t,
squid, }
�EiPF a E- a b' k E$k: 8h Ea�C it i3��x
z$$ {:sE,x.i��:;
•3:,s` fE$e�,ai' �3g-a.�.�s;j;E,� "§�' ?;;,.,�i n$�, -xy�ys apgt
>;{ x (.L {`Y sI beM$kE
ac e : � irr� c F ,'< °F3 E Ei��•t E F S�.�s) �(ask',
y N
11
Proposed Uses:
Project Address:
Current Zoning:
Current Land Use:
Tax Parcel Numbers:
Site Area:
Property Owner:
Single Family Residential and Commercial
2401 E. Lake Mary Boulevard
MI-2, Medium Industrial
Vacant
07-20-31-5LR-0000-00 10 through 07-20-31-51,R-0000-0460 and Tracts A thru K
214.54 acres
Safari Investments, LIX
Sadique Jaffer, Manager
27 N. Summerlin Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32801
Phone: 407.649.9888
Email: sidjilffiLt(ee
y_q Liqo....coiu.
Applicant/Agent: William E. Barfield, Esq.
225 South Westmonte Drive, Suite 3000
Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714
Phone: 407.478,1866 Fax: 866.473.0427 Email: barftc d 1) E7 tr fieldlawcom
Engineer of Record: David Evans, PE
Evans Engineering, Inc.
719 Irma Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32.803
Phone: 407,872.1515 Fax: 407.246.0963 Email: d wG ris evans e
CAPP: The applicant held a Citizen's Awareness Participation Plan meeting on August 27, 2013,
The CAPP meeting report is attached,
Corm-nissionDistrict: District I - Commissioner Mark M'Caily
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Existing Future Land Use: 1, Industrial
Proposed Future Land Use: GC, General Commercial and LDR-SF, Low Density Residential
CONCUItRENCY
Concurrency is a finding that public facilities and services necessary to support a proposed development are
available, or will be made available, concurrent with the impacts of the development, The concurrency facilities
evaluated by the City of Sanford include the following:
Drainage: The project shall comply to and be engineered to the adopted 25 Year, 24 [lour LOS/Storm
Event. Note, the Land Development Regulations allows the Administrative Official to increase
the design frequency standard if deemed necessary.
Pagel of2
Roadways: The project will require a traffic study at time of development, However, GMB Engineers and
Planners, Inc. conducted a trip generation comparison between the existing land use for industrial
and the proposed development plan and concluded there would be a reduction of 1,633 daily
trips, 1,237 AM peak hour trips and 819 PM peak hour trips for the proposed development flan
condition. A copy of the GMB trip generation assessment is attached.
Water,- Water services will be provided by the City of Sanford.
Sewer:• Sewer services will be provided by the City of Sanford.
LOS Standard Project Demand Facility Capacity
Potable Water: 144 gal /capita /day 131.600 gals /day 10.51 MGD
Sanitary Sewer: 132 gal /capita /day 112,800 gals /day 7.3 MGD
Solid Waste: 2.46 Ibs /capita /day 2,312 Ibs /day 21.5 million tons
School: A School Impact Analysis (SIA) letter was issued on June 4, 2013 by Seminole County Public
Schools. A copy of the findings by SOPS is attached to this report which has the potential school
enrollment impacts summarized as follows:
Type
Concurrency
Service Area
Enrollment
Capacity
Students
Generated
by Project
Programmed 3
Year Additions
Reserved
Capacity
Remaining
Capacity
Elementar
E -10
2135
2629
84
0
201
209
Middle
M -1
5179
6047
44
0
249
575
High
H -1
6527
7445
550
293
570
T:�Development Re%icur•.U' -Lend Dmlopmo'102013`Silver Like (Safari Inv L[.C) -Ika Silver Lakes Indusn iil P, rk10E'A' I' &'7. Aiemo 12- 5- 2O13.Project Info Sheel - CPA ?401 E Lake Nt y I31cd.doc
fla. -e 2 or 2
City of Sanford Citizens Awareness and Participation Plan
Silvestri Estates
A Citizens Awareness Meeting was held for the proposed Silvestri Estates project on East Lake Mary
Blvd. This meeting was held to inform the public of the process and proposed development in the
property formerly called the Silver Lake Industrial Park. Residents within 500' of the property were
noticed and a list and notice form is enclosed in this report. The meeting was held at the City of Sanford
Chamber of Commerce at 400 E. 1't St. at 5:00 on August 27, 2013, Approximately 25 residents
attended the meeting at the Chamber.
Concerns, issues and discussions during the meeting.
A detailed description of the project was proposed at the beginning of the meeting. This description
included the process of converting the industrial property to residential and commercial. This
description included the process at the City of Sanford and the meetings that would be required that the
public could attend. This summary included the comprehensive plan change, planned development and
preliminary subdivision plan public hearing. This process description included methods for the residents
to research the information presented on the city's website and the way each resident would be notified
of the public meetings.
The discussion included the proposed development and how the effect of the proposed residential
development would reduce the impact of traffic, noise and the effect of reduced property values of the
surrounding single family residents from the existing industrial zoning. A detailed description of the
project layout including the large amenity area and access from the multiple lot sizes was discussed.
Access points for the development were also addressed including Mellonville and East Lake Mary Blvd.
A question and answer period followed the project presentation.
Concerns and questions of the meeting attendees.
1. What was the minimum square footage of the proposed lots in the development?
a. The minimum square footage is 1500 sf.
2. What is the minimum price for the houses in the development?
a. The minimum price will fluctuate based on market demand once the project is
developed but the assumption based on projections is $175,000.
3. Mellonville Road is congested in the morning hours and during school pick up and drop off in the
afternoons. Residents stack on Mellonville to pick up kids from drop of at East Lake Mary Blvd.
a. This project has limited the number of cars on Mellonville to the 75' lots on the west
side of the development. As an alternative and during peak hours the residents in the
west 75' lots can also exit onto East Lake Mary Blvd. A traffic study will be conducted to
City of Sanford Citizens Awareness and Participation Plan September 11, 2013
determine the effect of the limited traffic from this development onto Mellonville Road
as required by the city during the approval process.
4. What is the timing of this development?
a. Getting through the multiple processes will take approximately one year. Construction
and acceptance of the infrastructure will take approximately six months. So houses
would be available in two years. Estimated build out would be in five years.
5. A request was made to develop this project like Baker's Crossing.
a. Developer agreed to review Baker's Crossing. Developer is aware of the issues reiated
to Baker's Crossing. Silvestri Estates will be designed and developed to avoid these
issues.
6. Existing industrial property owner on the southwest corner of the property asked about future
impact of his development when change to residential on this property was made.
a. Explained that his property would always remain industrial and he would be able to
develop as industrial consistent with the city's zoning ordinance. Discussed screening
from adjacent residential development would be determined at time of permitting.
7. One resident asked about the effect of the rental rates of properties in this development.
a, Developer explained that these properties would be sold on a fee simple basis and that
rental development was not anticipated.
8. Residents asked that a list of uses permitted on the commercial lots be added to the plans.
a. A list of permitted uses on the commercial lots would be added to the proposed plans.
9. One resident asked that the entranceway for the residential development be nicely designed
a. The developer stated that the entrance will be appealing to the residents and
surrounding communities.
10. A resident asked if the roads would be private or public.
a. The developer stated that the non -gated portions of the roadways would be public and
the gated roads would be private.
11. One resident asked if an aerial plan including the proposed development adjacent to Magnolia.
a. An aerial plan including the surrounding residential and commercial development was
emails to this resident.
12. Two residents along Magnolia Park Trail mentioned that they were not allowed to pull a pool
permit. They asked if this development would impact their ability to pull permits in the future.
a, The developer did not have details at the meeting but followed up with the city
following. It was understood that city code prohibits more than 50% impervious area
on each lot and that the storm water system in Magnolia Park was not designed to
retain more than 50% impervious on each lot. The large houses on the smaller lots and
a pool exceeded the 50% impervious threshold on these lots.
In general most of the attendees were in favor of the change from Industrial to Residential and that the
proposed use was appropriate for this area.
The meeting concluded at approximately 7:00
2
Humf-11SON, MAMELE & CDOVER, R, A,
A TORNEYS ANC) Cq-�s 4f" t_✓'�,A�
vl,f(A "NA l „„ ( i a--C)
'R4-',�-44-RIUL
51 E 9'1(�FN i � CCO /EIR
E t,,,E C C1 -P r ALIgLiSt 13. 20 13
'COIJ- 4BORAT VE P,.,RP, 17, T(C'E
Silvestri 1:-'states CAPP Mecting,
Dear Resioient:
ELj,j_F,)1NG, 23(.7 NOP4 = H P4,PK, AVE[,f JE
CIPPICE 3c"X �
FAX 14n 7I 330
Mv, office represents the oNviter ol'a proposed mixed use project known as Silvestri
Estates, '"I'lle property lies between F', Lake Mary Blvd, and Pineway Ave. between
Mellonville Ave. Marc] Brisson Ave. This project was approved and platted in the 1990's
to allow industrial LISeS OnlV. J'fie owner is no\\, seeking to amend the existing land use
and Zoning approvals to convert the use from industrial to lo\v density residential, with a
general commercial use allowed oil the lots fronting F. Lake Mary Blvd,
The City of San ford staffhas requested that we hold a C` PP ine e-ting with any
interested neighbors, which is why you are receiving this letter, 'File CAPP meeting is
being liQ]d at the Scirif6rd Chamber ol, Commerce. 4001 -t. I” St., Sanford, Florida, which
is at the intersection ol'Santord Ave. and Is' St. in downtown, at 5:00 - 6:30 Imn. can
ALIgUst 27. 2013, ]'he 1)Urp0se ofthe CAPP meeting is to slje,Nw/ yok, what is being
proposed and tea discuss any concerns you IM-ly lacave, We Nvill have a set of plans to slioNv
you and you will be able to ask questions of niyself- the owners representative, and 01,117
engineer.
ShOtild VOU have any (ILICStiollS. please call nie oj° rily assistant, Mindy.
SFIC/1-111jr
Very truly V01,11•S,
Stephen 1-1. Coover
?G
im
CA I P M I N G - A tJ (i UST 2 7. 0 1
. ........ .....
N NJ 1:
A 1) 1 1 1 S S
ITIONT' Ni.. 1i13ER
ALaaAT
Vd/?
_Jz
Wo� I h, el- 1 f3 -q Sct K- i-
FP 2 Uzi � 1G`, G
/0,047m)
LIOIL F-lk va'-f-
--S�2 -eu. 3 2-
"),f u 6,1-, 1/0
c,3 -1
e
N)Ar
V d'7 --�O
-t,
?G
im
Benjamin O. Benham, Trustee
2003 Via Tuscany
Winter Park, FL 32789
Seminole County BCC
1101 E. I" Street
Sanford, FL 32771 -1468
Carolyn J. Hughey, Trustee
P.O. Box 790
Osteen, FL 32764 -0700
Brisson Investments, LLC
27 N. Surnmerlin Avenue
Orlando, FL. 32801 -2929
Serengeti Properties, LLC
27 N. Summerlin Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801
Mary O. Smith
1700 Pineway
Sanford, FL 32773 -7233
Richard E. Johnson, Jr.
Vivian J. Hechinger
206 Clear Lake Circle
Sanford, FL 32773
Marylin R. Wittmer
1805 Pineway
Sanford, FL 32773 -7235
S.R. & Joyce C. McClures
1565 Pineway
Sanford, FL 32773 -7270
David E. Dieska
121 Citrus Tree Lane
Longwood, FL 32750
Marilyn B. Thompson, Trustee
1505 Pineway
Sanford, FL 32773 -7270
Ahmad Nasajpour
Shahla- Foroughi
3502 Palmino Road
Melbourne, FL 32934 -8128
Lana T. Mahoney
809 MCCrainie Road
Lakeland, FL 33809
Mr. & Mrs. Howard E. Sullivan, III
280 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Mary, FL 32746
Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth A. Burke
4250 Bloom Lane
Sanford, FL 32773
Mr. & Mrs. William J. Thomas
1335 Pineway
Sanford, FL 32773 -7234
Ernest G. Fasciana
1315 .Pineway
Sanford, FL 32773 -7234
Tornkat Enterprises, LLC
P.O. Box. 952946
Lake Mary, FL 32795
Dhirani Holdings, LLC
2942 Finch Ave. E Scarborough Ontario
Canada M I W2T0
Munsifali Rashid
Shabanali Salha
290 Magnolia Park TrI
Sanford, FL 32773
Maria M. Ciriaco
286 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Swapnareddy & Reddys Sama
280 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Laszlo Barna
Zsuzsanna Barna
1009 Tudhope Court
Sanford, FL 32773
Donovan & Stacey Virgo
P.O. Box 953212
Lake Mazy, FL 32795 -3212
Susan G. & Jason Jackson
1005 Tudhope Court
Sanford, FL 32773
Scott T. Nguyen
1003 Tudhope Court
Sanford, FL 32773
Thomas F. & Lillian Hamilton
1009 Berry Court
Sanford, FL 32773
Rizwan & Masuma Dhirani
1007 Berry Court
Sanford, FL 32773
Purush Utanl D. Punit
1005 Berry Court
Sanford, FL 32773
Colfin A 1 -FL4, LLC
5575 Rosebriar Ave.
Orlando, FL 32822
Peter & Veronica Cusick
260 Magnolia Trail Park
Sanford, FL 32773
Ahmedali H. & Slrerbanu Fazal
285 Magnolia Park Trail
Sanford, FL 32773
Brittany F. Hughes
Jared W. Crowley
256 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Adnan Haque
Ali Farazana
254 Magnolia Park TrI
Sanford, FL 32773
Judy Ueltschy
Henry J. Cardoza
250 Magnolia Park '1'r1
Sanford, FL 32773
Mohammed T. Hossain
248 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773 -7240
Luthfa Ahmed
244 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
RSO, LLC
1370 Pineway
Sanford, FL 32773 -7224
Tofazzal Hossain
Chand Sultana
240 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Thomas E. & Gulin Cosgrove
238 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Carlos A. Stennett
232 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Magnolia PD Prop Assn, Inc.
2180 W. S.R. 434, Suite 5000
Longwood, FL 32779
Kostadia & Xenofon Karoutsos
224 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Mai Vuhoan
Chadi Badi
222 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Daudalysameer H
Zahra S. All
220 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Nelson & Ruth A. Medina
218 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
John T. & Amy Dovidaitis
216 magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Ruben D. Yanira Feliz
212 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Ed Georgynah
Sarwat Faze
214 Magnolia Park TO
Sanford, FL 32773
Norma L. Ball
Jola A. Cope
210 Magnolia Park TO
Sanford, FL 32773
Ainsley G. & Tvorine D. Lennon
239 N. 6 "' Street
Prospect Park, NJ 07508 -2026
Prudencio L. & Margarita S. Torres
206 Magnolia Park Trl #29
Sanford, FL 32773 -7212
Dawn R. Cruise
204 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Miloje & Violeta Kopanja
202 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Cheryl D. Lee
200 Magnolia Park TO
Sanford, FL 32773
Zulfikar A. Jaffer
113 Beligian Way
Sanford, FL 32773
Beverly L. Staley
196 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
John T. & Robbin A. Meyers
121 Ancona Avenue
DeBary, LL 32713
Ying C. & Chiul Lee
1106 Cypress Loft PL
Lake Mary, FL 32746
Suzanne B. Staccone
James Jew, Jr.
P.O. Box 22544
Oakland, CA 94609
Carl M. & Lisa A. Stokes
188 Magnolia Park TrI
Sanford, FL 32773
Raymond & Marie J. Racine
186 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773 -7212
Sylvester G. Syberina F. Wynn
184 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Sajida S. & Mumtaz Ahmad
182 Magnolia Park TrI
Sanford, FL 32773
Linda J. Simpson
180 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Juan A. & Teresita D. Rivera
178 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Mardhia Jaffer
173 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Jan A. Grover
9 Aztec St.
San Francisco, CA 94110
Gerald D. Fritz, Trustee
719 Fox Valley Dr,
Longwood, FL 32779
Roshanali Jessa
193 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Esan Duncan
187 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Musadig & Zinat Bhalloo
8 Oak Lane
Green Brook, NJ 08812
Florida Prop 3, LLC
1201 Hays St,
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Shahids Khoja
Salima F. Virani
195 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Suzanne E. Kleiman, Trustee
446 Mills Dr.
Benecia, CA 94510
Bradford Taylor
Catherine Doyle
1617 Plymouth Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94127
Matthew M. & Jennifer L. Hahn
201 Magnolia Paris Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Marls A. & Deborah E. Lehner
P.O. Box 624
Tribune, KS 67879 -0624
Christopher & Nicole Woodcock
205 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL, 32773
Craig L. & Nora F. Carson
209 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Loomis J. & Deborah A. D'Amico
215 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773 -7215
Nicholas L. & Felicia Y. Fisher
217 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL, 32773
Joseph & Muriel Unirali
219 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Ronnie & Michele Rogers
648 Caledonia Place
Sanford, FL 32771 -6403
Willie J. & Rhonda T. Fisher
172 Magnolia Parlc Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Jeffrey S. & Lisa C. Reuscher
170 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Linda Czytzer
574 Lehigh Dr.
Deltona, FL 32738 -8621
Kevin & Angela S. Zakrzewski
2849 Egrets Landing Dr.
Lake Mazy, FL 32746 -7416
John M. & Alicia J. Welch
164 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
W. Nathan & Carolyn Wilson, Trustees
15050 Lynn Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Larry E. & P. Jill Goring
160 Magnolia Park TO
Sanford, FL 32773
Eliseo c& Wanda Y. Badillo
158 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Nezamudin Bedar
156 Magnolia. Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Shabbir & Sabira Mohamed
150 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Troy H. Wallrich
148 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Gwendolyn Taliver, Trustee
146 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Maura Brown
151 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Murtaza A. & Zainab J. Rahim
145 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Zahra Alloo
143 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Zulfikar & Fizza Mohamed
141 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Coke E. Bean
139 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Helen M. Macinnis
Cynthia Adcock
137 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, .FL 32773
William. R. Kennedy
104 Willow Drive
Lake Mary, FL 32746 -3688
George & Deborah Paulik
132 Magnolia Park TrI
Sanford, FL 32773
Alfred & Victoria Mathis
134 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Alysa Lenahan
Gloria Lenahan
136 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Fred S. & Diana Dworkin
138 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Ahmed Khaki
142 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Eduardo M. & Mercedes Lopategui
1107 Pine Oak Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Adrienne R. Shearer
8010 Jones Rd.
Jessup, MD 20794
Anwarali M. & Bashir M. Rashid
299 Terracina Drive
Sanford, FL 32771
Brenley C. & Editha Y. Porral
100 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Jose B. Rajendran
Mary J. James
102 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Sidrat Ahmed
Ebrahina Ahmed
104 Magnolia Park Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Marya Jee Saleh
695 Mainderley Run
Lake Mary, FL 32746 -2617
Sayed T. Haider
Baqri Zehra
1110 Pine Oak Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Marlene E. Ford
1112 Pine Oak Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Qanibar R. & Lvovskava Yulia Baqri
1114 Pine Oak Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
Aqua Trust, lne.
7025 CR 46A 41071 -160
Lake Mary, FL 32746
All Baqri
Surnbul Fatma
1109 Pine Oak Trl
Sanford, FL 32773 -7200
Juan A. & Carmen Y. Flores
1200 Pine Oak Trl
Sanford, FL 32773
ELM Ventures, LLC
975 Bennett Dr.
Longwood, FL 32750
Invacare Corp.
1. lnvacarc Way
Elyria, OH 44035
MG Real Est, LLC
c/o Accounting Mgr.
P.O. Box 1509
Sanford, FL 32772
City of Sanford
2399 W. Lake Mary Blvd.
Lake Mary, FL 32746 -3657
Abdulhussein Family LP
1265 Upsala Rd., Suite 1157
Sanford, FL 32771 -5700
Kraig A. Hudson
3585 Ohio Ave.
Sanford, FL 32773 -6641
Pablo Fonseca, Jr.
Elba H. Fonseca
3565 Ohio Ave.
Sanford, FL 32773
GMG ENGINEERS F. PLANNERS, ire G September l 0, 2013
William E. Barfield, Esq�,
William E. Barfield, P.A.
225 S. Westmont Ave. Strite 3000
Altamonte Springs, FL 3271 i1
Re: Sylvestry Estates
Trip Generation Comparison
GM13 Project No. 13- 080.01
Dear Mr. Barfield,
Pursuant to discussions with David Evans of Evans Engineering, Incorporated, GMB
Engineers & Planners has conducted a trip generation comparison regarding the
existing land use as it relates to the proposed development plan. The 214.54 acre
project site is currently zoned as Industrial. 'File trip generation, as denoted in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers OTE Trip Generation Manual. 911 Edition tbr
ITE code 130 (Industrial Park), will produce 13,124 daily trips, 1,760 AM peak hour
Trips, and 1,830 PM peak hour trills. 'ne proposed land use is commercial/single
family residential (IT E codes 820 and 210 respectively). Tile propose(] trip generation
produces 11,491 daily trips, 523 AM peak 11OUr trips,, alld 1,011 PM peak 110LIr trips.
Table I (attached) provides a detailed analysis of time trip generation comparison. In
comparison of time two (['it) generators, there is a reduction of 1,633 daily trips, 1,237
AM peak hour trips, and 819 PM peak 11OUr trips for the proposed development plan
Condition.
Respectfully,
Karl KrichbEIL1111
Project Manager
GM13 Engineers & Planners, tile.
GMB Orlando
2602 E. Livingston St.
Orlando, Ft. 32803
Office: 407.89a5424
Fax: 407 898.5425
Zmmm,=TJIJ3m
a.
lit N,
lit
o
lit
mm
To: William E. Barfield/Safari Investments, LLC
Sanford City Council
From: Michael Rigby, AlCP, Facilities Planner, Seminole County Public Schools
Date: June 4, 2013
RE: Silver Lakes, Future Land Use Amendment/Rezone Project No: 13-1136
Seminole County Public Schools (SOPS), in reviewing the above request, has determined
that if approved, the new FULM designation and/or zoning will have the effect of increasing
residential density, and as a result generate additional school age children.
Description: +/- 214.5 acres located near East Lake Mary Blvd, & Silver Vista Blvd. within
the City limits of Sanford. The applicant is requesting a change to residential zoning that
would allow a maximum of 377 single family detached dwelling to be developed within the
requested zoning and future land use designation.
Parcel 0(s). See attached list
Based on information received from Planning and from the application for the request, SCPS
staff has summarized the potential school enrollment impacts in the following table:
Comments:
The students generated at the three CSA levels would at this point be able to be
accommodated without exceeding the adopted levels of service (LOS) for each CSA by
school type, or there is adjacent capacity to meet LOS as allowed by interlocal agreement.
Any planned expansions/additions in the current five-year capital plan would provide
additional student capacity to rellieve the affected schools.
Review and evaluations performed on proposed future land use changes and rezones,
unplatted parcels, or projects that have not recived final approval do not guarantee that the
developments subject to this declaration, are exempt from, or determined to meet the school
con:currency requirement, which is effective as of January 1, 2008. Changes in enrollment,
any newly platted developments, and any subsequent final development approvals may
affect the provision of concurrent school facilities at the point of final subdivision approval,
including the potential of not meeting statutory concurrency requirements based on future
conditions.
Seminole County Public Schools, Facilities Plannitig Dept. Primcd 614/20 11
Students
Concurrency
Generated
Programmed 3
Reserved
Remaining
Type
Service Area
Enrollment
Capacity
_by Pro' ect
Year Additions
Capacity
PAPa6tY__
E-10
2135
2629
84
0
201
209
Middle
M-1
5179
6047
44
0
249
575
High 7[7777Il-1
1 6527
7445
5-5
0
293
570
Comments:
The students generated at the three CSA levels would at this point be able to be
accommodated without exceeding the adopted levels of service (LOS) for each CSA by
school type, or there is adjacent capacity to meet LOS as allowed by interlocal agreement.
Any planned expansions/additions in the current five-year capital plan would provide
additional student capacity to rellieve the affected schools.
Review and evaluations performed on proposed future land use changes and rezones,
unplatted parcels, or projects that have not recived final approval do not guarantee that the
developments subject to this declaration, are exempt from, or determined to meet the school
con:currency requirement, which is effective as of January 1, 2008. Changes in enrollment,
any newly platted developments, and any subsequent final development approvals may
affect the provision of concurrent school facilities at the point of final subdivision approval,
including the potential of not meeting statutory concurrency requirements based on future
conditions.
Seminole County Public Schools, Facilities Plannitig Dept. Primcd 614/20 11
Terms and Definitions:
Capacity: The amount of satisfactory permanent student stations as calculated on the date
of the second DOE count in October of the current school year. The number of students that
can be satisfactorily accommodated in a room at any given time and which, is typically a
lesser percentage of the total number of student stations. NOTE: Capacity is ONLY a
measure of space, not of enrollment.
Concurrency Service Area (CSA): A geographic unit promulgated by the School Board and
adopted by local governments within which the level of service is measured when an
application for residential development is reviewed for school concurrency purposes.
Enrollment: For the purposes of concurrency review, the enrollment level is established
each year as per Public School Interlocal Agreement Section 12.4 A, which sets the level on
the date of the second FTE survey for DOE, generally taken the in mid - October.
Programmed S Year Additions: New permanent school capacity within the CSA, which will
be in place or under actual construction within the first three years of the current SCPS
Capital Improvement Plan.
Remaining Capacity: The capacity available for future development after the addition of any
programmed capacity and less the reserved capacity.
Reserved Capacity: The total number of student stations reserved in the respective CSA's
that are assigned to projects via a SCALD certificate.
School Size: For planning purposes, each public school district must determine the
maximum size of future elementary, middle and high schools. Existing school size is
determined solely through FISH data. Seminole County Public Schools has established the
sizes of future schools (with the exception of special centers and magnet schools) as follows:
i) Elementary: 780 student stations
ii) Middle: 1500 student stations
iii) High: 2,800 student stations
Students Generated by Project: is determined by applying the current SCPS student
generation rate (calculated by using US Census data analysis) to the number and type of
units proposed. The number of units is determined using information provided by the County
and/or from the applicant's request. If no actual unit count is provided the unit count is then
estimated based on the maximum allowable density under the existing /proposed future land
use designation.
Utilization: A State Board Rule prescribed percentage of student stations that a room (and
proportionately, a school and school district) can satisfactorily accommodate at any given
time. From a school /campus analysis perspective, "utilization" is determined as the
percentage of school enrollment to capacity. Current DOE established K -12 utilization
factors are as follows:
Elementary 100 %, Middle 90 %, High 95%
Seminole County Public Schools, Facilities Planning Debt. Printed 6,14.-2013
Silver Lakes Parcel ID List
Property Owner: Safari Inv LLC
Sanford, FL 32773
07- 20- 31- 5LR- 0000 -0080
07- 20- 31- 5LR -0000 -0340
07 -20 -31 -5LR -0000 -0400
07- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 -0390
07- 20 -31 -5L R- 0000 -0380
07-20-31-.51-R-0000-0420
07- 20 -31- 300 -023C -0000
07 -20 -31 -5LR -0000 -0050
07- 20- 31- 5LR - 0000 -0280
07- 20 -31 -5 LR- 0000 -0020
07-20-31-51-R-01300-0000
07- 20- 31- 5LR -OCOO -0000
07 -20 -31 ••5LR -ODOO -0000
07- 20 -31- 5LR -OEOO -0000
07- 20- 31- 5LR - 0000 -0190
07- 20- 31- 51-R -0000 -0200
07- 20 -31 -5 LR- 0000 -0060
07 -20 -31 -5LR -0000 -0450
07 -20 -31 -5LR -0000 -0370
07- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 -0110
07- 20 -31- 51-R - 0000 -0030
07- 20- 31- 5LR - 0000 -0270
07- 20- 31- 5LR -0000 -0130
07- 20 -31- 5LR -0H00 -0000
07- 20- 31- 5LR -0000 -0160
07-20-31-51-R-0000-01 80
07- 20 -31 -5 L R- 0000 -0220
07- 20 -31- 51-R -OG00 -0000
07- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 -0410
07- 20- 31- 5LR -0000 -0090
07- 20 -31- 5LR -0FOO -0000
07- 20- 31- 5LR -0000 -0240
07- 20 -31 -5L R- 0000 -0310
07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0140
07- 20 -31- 5LR -0000 -0360
07- 20 -31- 5LR -0000 -0070
07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0040
07- 20 -31 -SLR-0000-001 0
07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0250
07- 20 -31- 51-R -OA00 -0000
07- 20- 31- 5LR -0000 -0120
07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0440
07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0230
07- -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0460
07 -20 -31 -5LR -0000 -0430
07- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 -0290
07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0210
07 -20 -31 -5LR -0000 -0330
07- 20 -31 -5 L R- 0000 -0150
07- 20 -31- 5LR -0000 -0170
07- 20 -31- 5LR - 0000 -0100
07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0350
07- 20 -31- 5LR -0000 -0260
07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0300
07 -20 -31 -5LR- 0000 -0320
c -8
R S ta
v 7EA
Z5
j2
75
7 34
2
j A
F- ,1 6 A f C
10
1-2
Applicant's Affidavit of Owne rship and
Des,ignation of Agent
-1877-4
VA'AY.9,11190MILgOV
-- - ----------- ------
1. Ownership
hereby attest to ownership of the property described below:
Tax Parcel No(s): See attached legal description
Address of property:
for which this Comprehensive Plat) Aniendinent application is submitted to the City of Sanford.
The ownership, as shown on the deed of record, is in the name of.
[] Individual
Please cornploto the appropriate section bolow (type or print legibly)
Name: JIOIWY".:2F�hlrl�Arlf I
Provide Names of Officers
Dept, of State Corporate Registration
Number:
Lellc'O�V,,�23 6(1ed
Name /Address of Registered Aqent°
It. Designation of Applicant's Agent (Leave blank If not applicable):
0 Partnership
Name:
Provide Names of Generat Partners
As the owner/applicant of the above designated property for vAilch this affidavit Is submitted, I designate [Ito below named individual as my
agent in WI mailers pertaining to the appUcation process. In authorizing the agent named below to represent me, or my company, I attest that
the application is made in good falfli and that alt information contained in the application Is accurate and complete to the best of my personal
knowledge.
Applicant's Agent:
Applicant's Address: ,:d1_2_..Y_Ej 1 2
Contact Person: .54,1,r" _('� ev-
Email,-
Phone:
Fax:
I
LA11MUT /Mi Affidavit of OwnorWp pdf
111, Notice, to Owner
A. Ali changes in Ownership and/or Aplicant's Agent prior to final action of tile City shalf require a new affidavit. If ownership changes, the
new owner assumes all obligations related to the Wing application process.
B. If the Owner intends for the authority of the Applicant's Agent to be limited in arty manner, fAease indicate the limitation(s) below. (i.e.,
Limited to obtaining a certificate of concturrency; limited to obtaining a land rise compliance certificate; etc.)
IV. Acknowledgenriont
El Individual Corporation
D Partnersmp
Pl0aS9 Use appropriate notary block
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
Individual M"'Corporation EJ Partnership
Before me this day of Before e lls- day of Before me ti lis day of
20 201,13 persol 11
personally 1)ersonally
appeared _ _.� ... �__ appeared appeared
who executed the foregoing instru- as p,
__I,
Illiner/agent on behalf of
ment, and acknowledged before me
file[ settle was executed for the
AW9 a partnersio, who executed the
purposes therein expressed. (Le.:corporrdion, sorrrpah etc.) foregoing instrument and acknowl-
and acknowledged before me that edged before me that same was
same was executed for the purposes executed for the purposes therein
therein expressed. expressed.
d4hdAll
LAYLA TSUSfjFl.IS
4'e'. tiolaly Public - stIte Of I'lorlda
MY G011101. Expires Aug 14, 2015
Personally known or
CO"1110stn011 # F1 117581
80nfled R"ougil fI,11101111 Wrify Asso
Produce(] iderifification . FW , , 11 r -11 � - - -, 1 11
0
Type of identification produced:
(NOTARY STAMP)
Nellie:
My commission expires: Norary ublic
P. r
P&I Cofparpll6n Nanpe,
Print ParinersNp Name
$lgnature
By
5' arum G
By:
Signature
Print
Pri
Print
Name:
Name: -5-6Y4,' ta
Name:
Address:
Address:
Address:
Phono.,
Phone:
Phone:
Pl0aS9 Use appropriate notary block
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
Individual M"'Corporation EJ Partnership
Before me this day of Before e lls- day of Before me ti lis day of
20 201,13 persol 11
personally 1)ersonally
appeared _ _.� ... �__ appeared appeared
who executed the foregoing instru- as p,
__I,
Illiner/agent on behalf of
ment, and acknowledged before me
file[ settle was executed for the
AW9 a partnersio, who executed the
purposes therein expressed. (Le.:corporrdion, sorrrpah etc.) foregoing instrument and acknowl-
and acknowledged before me that edged before me that same was
same was executed for the purposes executed for the purposes therein
therein expressed. expressed.
d4hdAll
LAYLA TSUSfjFl.IS
4'e'. tiolaly Public - stIte Of I'lorlda
MY G011101. Expires Aug 14, 2015
Personally known or
CO"1110stn011 # F1 117581
80nfled R"ougil fI,11101111 Wrify Asso
Produce(] iderifification . FW , , 11 r -11 � - - -, 1 11
0
Type of identification produced:
(NOTARY STAMP)
Nellie:
My commission expires: Norary ublic
P. r
Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment Justification Statement
S lvestri Estates
August 21, 2013
The property owner, Safari Investments, LLC, has applied for approval of the Sylvestri
Estates Planned Development (PD) in the City of Sanford, Florida. The application for
the PD includes a request for a comprehensive plan amendment based on the existing
comprehensive plan designation of the property as Industrial. The proposed mixed use
zoning of the property is low density residential (LDRSF) and general commercial (GC),
therefore, a residential and commercial land use designation will be required.
Policy 1 -1.1.1 of the Comprehensive Lane Use Element states the following numerical
criteria for any land use amendment:
1. The amendment shall be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter
187 F.S.) and Growth Policy Act (Chapter 163 F.S.). Applicant notes that the only
part of the Growth Policy Act remaining relates to "urban infill and redevelopment
areas ", which are not applicable here (see Sections 163.2511- .2520, F.&).
Therefore, the following comments relate only to the state Com prehensive Plan:
a. As a low density residential community with multiple housing product
options, the needs of "middle income" families are met with this proposed
development (see Section 187.201 (4) (a), F.S.). Multiple lot sizes and
housing product will be offered within this residential community. The
smaller lot sizes will promote an availability of lower cost housing while
maintaining a consistency with the surrounding lots. The larger homes
will afford a larger family lifestyle. This community is partially surrounded
by "wetlands and environmentally sensitive lands which are being
protected" and not developed as shown in the PD (see Sections 187.201
(9) (a), and (24) (a), F.S.).
b. The lands fronting Lake Mary Blvd. shall provide for general commercial
uses which will serve this and other residential communities of Sanford
and Seminole County, travelers along Lake Mary Blvd., and the Orlando
Sanford International Airport and its' passengers, in addition to "providing
jobs" to support these new businesses. (see Section 187.201 (15) (b) 3;
Sections 187.201 (21) (a) and (b) 9; and Section 187.201 (24) (a), F.S.)
c. Being centrally located in the community allows this project to be served
by "existing local transportation facilities" including the Orlando Sanford
International Airport, SR 417, and 1 -4 (see Section 187.201 (15) (b) 1; and
Section 187.201 (19) (b) 9, F.S.). It is also noted that the Sanford Airport
Authority has requested that Sun Rail connect to the Orlando Sanford
International Airport in the future.
d. The project will be served by locally available utility services and other
"existing public infrastructure ", which will not require on -site potable wells
or septic tanks or "the expenditure of public monies ". The only utility not
located at the site is gray water, which the applicant will bring to the site.
Sylvestri Estates
August 21, 2013
(see Sections 187.201 (15) (a) and (b) 1; and Section 187.201 (17) (a)
and (b) 1 and (b) 10, F.S.).
e. With the surrounding environmental land this project promotes functional
uses of the natural systems including walkways and amenity areas and
"its' design protects surrounding wetlands ". The proposed use of
residential offers much more in the way of protection to the
environmentally sensitive areas than any Industrial type use. (see
Sections 187.201 (9) (a) and (b) 1, F.S.).
2. The amendment shall be consistent with the all elements of the City of Sanford
Comprehensive Plan.
a. The existing land use is Industrial with an Industrial zoning classification.
The proposed use is residential with a commercial element along E. Lake
Mary Blvd. East and west of this property is Low Density Residential land
use designations. Lot sizes and setbacks are consistent with the
surrounding area, The commercial frontage along E. Lake Mary Blvd also
provides a transition to the public road while maintaining a second use
within this proposed PD. This approach is similar to the land use plan
used on Lake Mary Blvd. between Country Club Rd, and Rinehart Rd. in
the City of Lake Mary, with commercial uses to the north, then low density
residential, then suburban estates to the south bordering Soldier's Creek.
b. The surrounding environmentally sensitive land creates a natural buffer
within the project as well as a separation to the adjacent properties. This
community will propose a park like use of the existing environmental
areas along with open space and walking paths. The environmentally
sensitive areas will also be protected by natural and artificial buffers.
c. The urban design element of the project includes a mix of lot sizes which
allow the residents to choose from multiple product types. Walking trails
and open space complement the uses of the property and access to
commercial areas on E. Lake Mary Blvd. In addition, a shared amenity
area allows the residents to enjoy time using the covered pavilions or a
community pool.
d. The proposed project meets requirements for Policy 1 -1.2.2 for a Low
Density Residential district. This density is compatible with the adjacent
residential districts and allows the community to use the same public
facilities. The applicant will provide documentation required by the
planning director supporting the need for additional residential lots in the
City of Sanford. The project also meets Objective 1 -1.3 which relates to
the allocation of commercial land uses as set forth below.
e. To show consistency with Objective 1 -1.3, the proposed project applicant
will address the following Comp Plan Policy considerations:
1. Trip generation characteristics, impact on existing and planned
transportation facilities and ability to achieve a functional internal
circulation and off - street parking system, with landscaping amenities; The
2
Sylvestri Estates
August 21, 2013
applicant will demonstrate internal circulation on the PD Master Plan, later
to be supported by a traffic study. Schedule Q, Section 2.0, Part A
requires a traffic analysis to show existing circumstances and the impacts
of the project on the system. At this point concerning traffic impacts, the
applicant would state that the residential element normally will produce
less trips than the existing Industrial land use and that E. Lake Mary Blvd.
is performing at an exceptional level of service. Therefore, the request is
that the applicant would provide a traffic study which will provide the
actual traffic numbers prior to permitting. Landscaping amenities are
shown on the PD Master Plan.
2. Location and site requirements based on specific needs of
respective commercial activities, their market area, and anticipated
employment generation and floor area requirements; At this point there
are no actual users for the proposed commercial property, so any
information provided would be highly speculative. The commercial lots
are large and deep, providing for large building sites capable of
accommodating most general commercial uses, while providing sufficient
separation from the adjoining residential community to the south.
3. Compatibility with and impact on other surrounding commercial
activities; The proposed general commercial uses will be compatible with
and have nominal impact on surrounding commercial activities based
upon the intensity and type of existing uses.
4. Relationship to surrounding land uses and natural systems; As
previously stated, the commercial property is surrounded by low density
residential to the south and east, and the residential portion of the project
is buffered by natural wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas
from adjoining properties. The commercial property adjoins a restaurant
supplier industrial type use on the west.
5. Impact on existing and planned community services and utilities,
This project meets Policy 1- 1.1.10 and Policy 1- 1.1.11 because the City
has existing facilities and capacities in place sufficient for both land use
elements of this project, and the applicant will agree to provide gray water
to the site, The reclaim main is of sufficient size for the project. The
following information is provided for purposes of Schedule Q, Section 2.0,
Part B:
LOS standard
Project Demand Facility Capacity
Potable Water: 144 gal/capita/day 131.600 gals/day 10.51 MGD
Sanitary Sewer: 132 gal/capita/day 112,800 gals/day 7.3 MGD
Solid Waste: 2.46 Ibslcapitalday 2,312 Ibslday 21.5 million tons
Policy 1 -1.3.2 requires that commercial development shall be
"concentrated in strategically located areas having location characteristics
which best accommodate specific land, site, public facilities and market
location requirements of the respective commercial uses," As stated
above, the property as proposed is laid out similarly to the area south of
Lake Mary Blvd. in the City of Lake Mary, which is recognized for good
planning practices. All public facilities are available and with capacity
(with the exception of gray water). If approved, the commercial
development would serve this project, Brisson East and Brisson West,
Sylvestri Estates
August 21, 2013
residential land uses previously approved by Seminole County, and
existing residential in the area. The Seminole Way study calls for
residential up to 50 DU in the vicinity of the Orlando Sanford International
Airport to provide employee housing, therefore, at such time as that need
arises and other land is entitled, this project would provide services to
those residents also.
3. Public facilities and services shall be available concurrent with development of
the site.
a, This project will utilize many public services, all of which are available at
the site except gray water. The reclaim main is sufficient to serve this
project. Potable water and sanitary sewer will be provided by the City of
Sanford. (see prior Comp Plan Policy references)
b. Police, fire and emergency services will be serviced by the local providers
and will have adequate access to the property including multiple points of
entry, both gated and ungated access, and compliant roadway widths.
c. Schools are also provided for and a concurrency application has been
filed and a SCALD letter has been issued to the applicant. Schools for
this development will include Pine Crest Elementary, Sanford Middle and
Seminole High School.
4. There have been sufficient changes in the character of the area or adjacent lands
to warrant a different land use designation.
a. The area lying south of the Orlando Sanford International Airport between
Sanford Ave. and Cameron Ave. has been a largely rural area with
industrial land use existing in the former Silver Lake area for over 20
years. Tourism in Central Florida created SR 417, which connected
Sanford with the tourist attractions and Disney. When the airport
expanded into a commercial service airport in 1996 due to proximity to
SR 417, the area began a major transformation with local transportation
and utility improvements, noise related and future development
acquisitions by the airport, and over 2,000 acres placed into a new AIC
land use which allows high density residential, commercial and industrial
uses. Even with this new infrastructure, the industrial land use in the
Silver Lake area has not taken hold. A recent economic analysis by
Seminole County filed with the 3430 Cameron application for a new
county park suggested the county could not determine when the existing
A1C land use would develop around the airport. Industrial development in
the Silver Lake area has not materialized and is in competition with the
AIC land use.
b. Policy 1- 2.11.1 creates a continuing obligation to analyze changes in
population and land use as indicators of the need for land use changes.
With Florida nearing the end of the recession, new residents are once
again moving into Florida (1% population increase in 2012 per the
University of Florida). The applicant will provide evidence of the need for
residential lots for builders in the City of Sanford.
c. Except at the northwest frontage along E. Lake Mary Blvd., the adjacent
properties to the east and west are designated as Low Density
4
Sylvestri Estates
August 21, 2013
Residential. The property to the south lying in Seminole County is
suburban estates (1 DU). The subject property is adjacent and upland to
wetlands, and also proximate to environmentally sensitive areas
throughout the area north of Lake Jesup. The City and Seminole County
have entered into an interlocal agreement which, among other things,
seeks to protect the wetlands and environmentally sensitive areas south
of Pine Way Ave. by limiting intensity to 1 DU, which is the southern
boundary of this property.
Policy 1- 1.1.14 states the `open space" minimum requirements as 20%
for industrial and 50% for residential. The residential land use would
provide more open space and reduce the chances of ecological damage
to the wetlands and environmentally sensitive areas adjacent to and
south of the site. It is common knowledge that the properties north of
Lake Jesup all drain generally to the south to the lake.
e. Policy 5 -1.4.1 seeks to protect "wetland transition areas ". The applicant is
analyzing the wetlands adjacent to the site to determine if all or any part
of the project would or should be considered "wetland transitional areas"
under this Comp Plan Policy. If so, Policy 5 -1.4.1 would prohibit such
areas from being used for industrial purposes.
f. Access to the property through E. Lake Mary Blvd has been improved for
public use. Sidewalks and connecting roads have been provided for use
by the communities that border E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Policy 1 -2.3.2 creates a priority for utilizing and developing several
industrial areas of the City, and specifically relevant to this request, the
Silver Lake and Orlando Sanford International Airport areas. These areas
are adjacent to each other and generally form a large area to the east,
south and southwest of the airport. The City currently has over 2,000
acres of undeveloped AIC property around the airport representing over
20% of the City. The City also has over 3,000 acres of AIC and Industrial
property which represents almost 25% of the undeveloped property in the
City.
h. The applicant would argue that: 1) there is no current demand and
Industrial vacancy rates are high, and there has not been a demand for
Industrial land in the Silver Lake area for almost 20 years, 2) the areas
between Sanford Ave. and Cameron Ave. south of the airport are rural in
nature and environmentally sensitive, and a Low Density Residential use
would have much less impacts than an Industrial use, especially on this
site, 3) the City already has a substantial amount of land area set aside
for the AIC land use (which allows industrial uses) north of Lake Mary
Blvd. and east of the airport, and 4) the AIC areas provide more
appropriate areas for industrial type uses because the Low Density
Residential land use south of the airport is a buffer to the environmentally
sensitive areas north of Lake Jesup..
The future land uses for the properties to the south, east and west of the
site have not changed since this policy was adopted.
Sylvestri Estates
August 21, 2013
The proposed future land use designation and its allowable uses are compatible
with surrounding land use designations and with the preferred growth and
development pattern of the City as evidenced by land use policies in the Camp
Plan. This amendment will not significantly alter acceptable existing land use
patterns or adversely affect the livability of the area or the health and safety of
the residents.
a. This application proposes single family homes and commercial uses. The
commercial uses front E. Lake Mary Blvd. This frontage will promote
commercial applications that will serve the local communities and airport
property. Behind the commercial uses will be the narrower of the two
single family lot types. South and east of the narrower lots will the larger
lots.
The residential lot types and commercial uses are consistent with the
properties east, south and west of the proposed development.
c. With regard to transitional land use versus buffering, both of which are
allowed under Policy 1- 1.1.4, the applicant would suggest that it is not
feasible to place an ROI land use to buffer between the commercial and
residential areas. This land use would allow between 0 -40% of the site to
be in high density residential (20 DU) and between 60 -100% in
commercial /office. There is no market demand for either at this time,
which makes it economically not feasible to apply Policy 1 -1.3.3 to this
project to create more ROL Adequate provision for the ROI land use was
required to be included in the Camp Plan initially. The applicant is
unaware of any need for additional ROI land use in the City at this time.
The commercial tracts proposed are large and deep (375 feet) and will
have adequate room to buffer the residential in the ways allowed under
the Camp Plan.
d. Even though E. Lake Mary Blvd. is a major thoroughfare, applying Policy
1 -2.1.1 in a rural area to require high density residential to be located at
this site would be incompatible with adjacent low density residential to the
east and west, and even more so as to the suburban estates (1 DU) on
the south property line, even though there would be separation.
e. E. Lake Mary Blvd. is not listed as one of the three roads upon which new
retail commercial development is discouraged by Policy 1- 2.2.2. With the
widening of SR 415 to four lanes to accommodate commuters, beach
traffic and tourists, the need for commercial services along E. Lake Mary
Blvd. seems to be warranted, as more and more travelers take advantage
of this road system. Seminole County is adding a county park less than 2
miles from the project, which again will provide demand for commercial
services.
f. The applicant supports the Seminole Way vision for the commercial
portion of the development.
g. This project meets the requirements of Policy 1 -2,6.4 by providing internal
connectivity and access to an existing bike and sidewalk system on E.
9
Sylvestri Estates
August 21, 2013
Lake Mary Blvd., which will connect to a proposed new county park less
than 2 miles away.
6. The capability of the land to support development allowed under the proposed
future land use designation as evidenced by the presence or absence on the site
of soil types suitable for development, vegetative habitats, wetlands, wetland
protection zones or flood -prone areas, well field protection zones, wildlife
habitats, archeological, historical or cultural resources.
a. The existing land use classification is Industrial. Industrial land use
supports a number of uses including commercial, light manufacturing,
heavy manufacturing and storage. These uses tend to be more adverse
to the environment than the proposed use.
b. The site is surrounded by wetlands and conservation areas. These areas
will be protected by setback distances and natural buffers. These
wetlands will also be used by the residents of the community as
amenities.
c. Flood zones are also relative to this development. Adequate protection
from flooding will be provided as required by the local jurisdictions.
d. A Threatened and Endangered Species report, archeological and
historical survey will be considered during construction plan review and
permitting with the local and state agencies.
7. The proposed amendment will create a demonstrated benefit to the City and
enhance the character of the community.
a. The proposed development includes a mix of residential and commercial
uses. The residential uses will also provide a mix of housing types. With
the mix of uses and housing types a diverse community will be developed
and will utilize multiple city services within the area. The easy access to
SR 417 will provide housing opportunities for those hoping to avoid 1 -4 to
commute.
Since the surrounding areas are either developed as residential or
permitted for construction this community will add another compatible
residential element.
c. Leaving the property as Industrial would put residential immediately
adjacent to Industrial development in violation of the Comp Plan (see
Policy 1- 1.4.1).
d. The proposed use offers more open space, is less intense than Industrial,
will result in less traffic and less impacts to the environment.
e. The services and infrastructure are in place to support this land use (see
Policy 1- 1.1.10 and 1- 1.1.11).
f. Keeping the existing land use as Industrial could violate the Policy 5 -1.4.1
by allowing industrial in a "wetland transition area ".
7
Sylvestri Estates
August 21, 2013
8. If the amendment increases the density or intensity of use, the applicant shall
demonstrate that there is a need for the increase in the near planning future (10
years).
a. This project proposes an increase in the number of residential units and a
decrease in industrial development and in impacts on transportation,
water, sanitary sewer and irrigation in the City. With the changes to the
surrounding area including an expanded airport, improved road network
and demand for residential housing this project offers a mixed product
type that will attract buyers.
The last 6 years has been a downturn which afforded many homeowners
to either sell or vacate their existing homes. Most of these foreclosed
homes have been repurchased from the banks through sales and
auctions. Per the City of Sanford Housing Element 12,103 new housing
units would be required prior to 2025. Low density potential units show a
need in this type of housing which this project can provide. Adding
approximately 377 units to the housing element will meet the city's need
for additional housing demands.
N
HUTCH SON, MAMELE & COOVER, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
WILLIAM C. HUTCHISON. JR. (1928.1991)
RICHARD L. MAMELE
STEPHEN H, COOVER
*E30AROCEA-nF03
MARITAL & FAMILY LAW
* SUPREME COURT CERTIFIED MEDIATOR
* COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE
Russell L, Gibson, AICP
Director of Planning
City of Sanford
300 N. Park Avenue
Sanford, FL, 32771
Dear Russ:
BARK-FULTON EIU1LOING, 230 NORTH PARK AVENUE
POST OFFICE E30X 1149
SANFORD. FLORIDA 32772 -1 149
(407) 322-4051
October 16, 2013 FAX (407) 330-0088
RE: Silvestri Estates
VIA M ND DELIVERY
At this time I am hand delivering some additional documentation to support our request in the
above matter. After you review these items, please let me know if you have any questions or
concerns. We are very anxious to get the process underway, so please let me know when we will be
going before the City Planning & Zoning Commission. The items we had prepared for your review
and consideration are as follows:
1) Memorandum Report on Single Family Demand/Supply Trends by Charles Wayne
Consulting, Inc. (the "Report"); and
2) Letter Concerning Application of Comp Plan Policy 5 -1.4.1 (Protect Wetland Transition
Areas) to Silvestri by Bio-Tech Consulting Inc. (the "Letter").
The Report was prepared at your request to address the most current state of the single family
housing market in our area. We feet that the Report clearly sets forth that there is no inventory of
middle income housing in the Sanford submarket at this time. This finding in the Report supports our
contention in our Justification Statement that this project meets a state law mandate for the City to
provide middle income housing.
The Letter was prepared to address an issue which we raised in our Justification Statement
concerning Policy 5-1.4.1 of the Comp Plan when applied to this site. The Letter raises significant
issues about the propriety of the City allowing industrial development in wetland transition areas on
this site.
We believe that the Report and the Letter provide strong evidence for the City staff to support a
land use change on this site, Thatik yarn for your time and consideration of our request.
Very truly Yours, -
St lien H. Coover
SlIC/111ji.
Enclosures
Page 7 of 2
MEMORANDUM REPORT.
EXAMINATION OF SINGLE-FAMILY
DEMAND/SUPPLYTRENDS FOR
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF
SILVESTRI ESTATES
LOCATION:
SANFORD, FLORIDA
PREPARED FOR:
SAFARI INVESTMENTS LLC
DATE:
OCTOBER 14,2013
2300 MAITLAND CROIR PARKWAY
SUP E 212
MAITLAND, FL 32751
OFFICE 407-660 0186
MX 40/ 660 �053
TO: MR. WILLIAM BARFIELD
SAFARI INVESTMENTS, LLC
FROM: JAMES LEWIS
SUBJECT: EXAMINATION OF SINGLE- FAMILY DEMAND /SUPPLY TRENDS FOR
PROPOSED SILVESTRI ESTATES, SAN.FORD, FLORIDA
INTRODUCTION
Charles Wayne Consulting, Inc. (CWC) is submitting this memorandum report summarizing
findings and conclusions relative to examination of single - family demand and supply trends
relative to proposed development of Silvestri Estates, located in Sanford, Florida. This effort has
been initiated in order to determine the need for additional single- family product within the
Sanford /Lake Mary submarket. This effort and memorandum report does not constitute a fiill
market analysis, product and pricing recommendations, nor projected sales pace of units on -site,
but rather has been designed to evaluate the adequacy of existing and planned single - fancily
inventory within the Sanford/Lake Mary submarket over the next 3 -5 year period.
In order to accomplish this objective, CWC has undertaken the following research tasks:
® Examination of the subject site and proposed site playa relative to locational features and
surrounding environment.
Examination of projected population and household growth as a backgrorurd for near -
term housing demand within Seminole County.
Examination of historical single - family demand patterns specifically within the
Sanford/Lake Mary submarket as revealed by new home closings activity,
® Examination of historical trends in developed lot inventory within the Sanford/Lake
Mary submarket and characteristics of that inventory,
® Examination of the current competitive envirorunent,
e Identification of proposed development within the submarket.
This examination utilizes third -party data for population/household projections, but relies
extensively on housing research provided by RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORTS for Orlando
(RMR). This research has been updated and compiled quarterly by CWC since 1982, and
currently encompasses monitoring of over 600 production single- family projects located within
the Greater Orlando market area .(CWC also tracks 170 multi- fannily for -sale comnnunities and
660 rental apartment communities). This research provides detailed product and performance
characteristics of each new home project focusing on product, pricing, construction starts,
development status, lot inventory and closings (see Exhibit 15 for project profiles). In addition,
RMR summarizes project data into regional and submarket trends for each of the 19 submarkets
within Greater Orlando. One of these subrnarkets is comprised of the Sanford/LaIce Mary area as
depicted in Exhibit 1 (Submarket A).
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD TRENDS
The market potential for any residential development is largely determined by the overall
economic environment of the region and subregional areas in combination with attributes of the
specific location. Key among these regional trends is the change in population and household
formation and its composition; new households equate to demand for new housing. In addition,
the normal aging and movement of the existing population base through normal life cycles create
changes in housing needs overtime and therefore demand for new and different housing options
as well.
Exhibits 2 through 7 sun- imarize population and household trends for Seminole County. These
figures are compiled hom data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau and the University of
Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. As shown, Seminole County's population
stood at a total of 428,100 as of rnnid 2012, having flattened out during the recession years
between 2007 and 2011. Between 2011 and 2012, the County resumed its growth path, adding
3,500 new residents during the year. In the years leading up to the start of tine recession, 2000 to
2007, the County experienced average annual population growth of 7,700 persons.
Population projections for Seminole County over the next five years are provided in Exhibits 4 &
5. Resumption of growth trends within the region and within the County is projected, with
annual population growth estimated at 5,100 persons by the year 2017.
Population growth translates into household growth, which is the entity that drives housing
demand. As shown in Exhibits 6 & 7, the total number of households living within Seminole
County is projected to reach just under 175,000 by 2017, an increase of 8,600 new households
over the next five years. These households will find their way into a variety of housing types.
Based on historical patterns, that new housing demand is projected to consist of the following:
Single - Family Housing 47% 4,050
Multi - Family For -Sale Housing 22% 1,850
Multi - Fancily Rental Apartments 31% 2.700
Total 100% 8,600
When adjusted for normal vacancy patterns (5 %), second home occupancy (4 %) and
replacement of existing dilapidated housing (2% of housing stock), total new housing demand
over the next five years is projected at a total of 12,900 units, with an estimated 6,100 of those
being single - family product.
SUBMAR)iCET SINGLE-FAMILY TRENDS
Single- family demand patterns within the Sanford /Lake Mary submarket are best measured by
actual closings activity within active new home communities over tinge. Exhibit 8 srirrrmarizes
historical closings activity for Metro Orlando, Seminole County and the Sanford /Lake Mary
submarkets; Exhibit 9 graphically displays that trend specifically for the Sanford/Lake Mary
submarket. These data encompass only those recorded closings for new production single - family
homes Iocated within communities monitored by RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORTS for
Orlando. As a result, these data do not include closings for custom single - fancily homes, multi-
family fox -sale product (townhomes) nor closings within communities of 14 or fewer lots. Key
findings and conclusions from these historical data include;
® Production single - fancily activity for Metro Orlando peaked in 2005, with just under
20,000 new homes closed during the year.
® Seminole County historically has captured 9% - 14% of the total production single - family
market.
Recent years have seen market shave for Seminole County decline to a level of 2.9% in
2013.
The Sanford /Lake Mary submarket has historically captured 5% - 7% of the total Metro
Orlando market, and 50% to 60% of the Seminole County market.
Recent years have seen market share for the Sanford/Lake Mary submarket also
phinumet, falling to 0.6% of the Metro Orlando total and to 20% of the Seminole County
market.
The decline in market capture by both Seminole County as a whole and specifically the
Sanford/Lake Mary submarket does not reflect diminished demand for new housing within these
areas, but rather the lack of availability of new mousing there. This is clearly revealed in Exhibit
10, which identifies the number of new production single - family home communities in which
new homes are available for purchase. Historically, new home consumers have had an abundant
selection of new home choices. That is still the case within Metro Orlando overall, with 405
choices at mid -year 2013; however, choice and availability of new home options have been
greatly diminished within both Seminole County as a whole and within the Sanford /Lake Mary
submarket. Whereas in past years homebuyers grave been offered 20+ new single- family
alternatives in a variety of locations and price - ranges within the submarket, that choice today has
been greatly diminished. As shown in Exhibit 11, all active and recently closed production
single- family communities within the Sanford/Lake Mary submarket are identified. Of the 9
communities identified as still active (have new hornes for sale), all but two are priced at
$400,000 or above, with some homes reaching in excess of $1 million. This reveals the near
absence of any moderately- priced single- family options available within the Sanford /Lake Mary
submarket today.
SINGLE - FAMILY LOT INVENTORY
The availability today of vacant developed lots (VDL) within Seminole County and the
Saaford/Lake Mary submarket generally tracks patterns seen previously relative to closings and
new home community options. As shown in Exhibits 12 & 13, the number of finished single -
family lots available to the area's production home builders has declined markedly over the last
several years, falling from a consistent inventory of 1,000 -1,100 developed lots to a low of 83 at
the end of 2012. Recent new development of four communities have increased that inventory to
near 300; however, as noted previously, that inventory is available primarily in communities
offering up -scale pricing, and in most cases that inventory is located west of Interstate 4 (see
Exhibit 15 project profiles). An inventory of developed lots suitable for moderately priced
single - family homes is currently non- existent within the Sanford /Lake Mary submarket.
COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT
As noted previously and revealed in Exhibits 11 & 14, there is currently an extremely limited
number of new single-family home communities actively marketing within the Sanford /Lake
Mary submarket. As of mid 2013, only 9 single - family new home communities offered homes
for -sale. These include:
As shown, most of these communities are priced starting; at $400,000, increasing to $800,000-x-.
All but one of these communities are located west of Interstate 4. There is currently virtually no
available single - family choices east of Interstate 4 with a moderate price range of $200,000 -
$325,000. New home buyers seeking moderately priced homes within the Sanford /Lake Mary
subanarket rniust look elsewhere. Currently the nearest that those options can be found is in
Southwest Volusia County, Northeast Orange County (Apopka area) and Southeast Seminole
County (where availability is also quite limited),
4
Lot
Vacant
Home
Community..
Builder
Width
Lots
Price
Coventry at Heathrow
Taylor Morrison
60
75
$400,000+
Reserves at Alaqua
Standard Pacific
50
44
$500,000+
Southwoods
Taylor Morrison
90
0
$450,000+
Wekiva Park
M11 Homes
110
0
$446,000+
-Bella Foresta
Taylor Morrison
140
8
$600,000+
Enclave at Tuscany
City Homes
70
10
$320,000+
Acuera
Surrey Homes
120
30
$585,000+
Estates at Pearl Lake
Taylor Morrison
75
76
$410,000+
Versailles
M/I Homes
70
48
$344,000+
As shown, most of these communities are priced starting; at $400,000, increasing to $800,000-x-.
All but one of these communities are located west of Interstate 4. There is currently virtually no
available single - family choices east of Interstate 4 with a moderate price range of $200,000 -
$325,000. New home buyers seeking moderately priced homes within the Sanford /Lake Mary
subanarket rniust look elsewhere. Currently the nearest that those options can be found is in
Southwest Volusia County, Northeast Orange County (Apopka area) and Southeast Seminole
County (where availability is also quite limited),
4
The absence of new moderately priced single- family homes within the SanfordlLalce Mazy
submarket is a recent phenomenon, occurring only recently. historically, this submarket has
been characterized by numerous new home choices, multiple builders 'and various locations.
Within the past three years, this has included:
CoMM ruts Name
Builder
Total Lots
Hidden Creek Reserve
D.R. Horton
23
Lake Jessup Woods
Meritage
116
Sterling Meadows
Centex
209
Celery Estates
Lennar
127
Banyan Pointe
Ashton Woods
33
Tusca Place
Horton/Mercedes
98
Total
Brisson West
606
All of the above coninrunities have since sold -out and built -out, No replacement communities or
lot inventory have come on- line'to replace those that have built -out.
214.5
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
The Sanford/Lake Mary submarket has had a limited dumber of single- family developments
proposed, with most of them having been in planning for 5 — 7 years. These include the
following:
In total, these 6 communities will encompass a total of 1,361 single- family lots at build -out. Of
these, only Silverleaf Park is currently under development, with sales and home construction
scheduled for Q4 -2013. The remaining five corrununities are in various stages of planning and
permitting. Key observations relative to these five communities include the following:
Brisson East, Brisson West and Silvestri Estates share proximate locations with similar
positive features relative to access, visibility and proximity to area employment centers
and resident services.
5
Number of
Single-Family
Develo -nment Name
Acreage
Lots
Silverleaf Park
28.3
114
Cameron Heights Phase 1
73.9
228
Lake Jessup Estates
36.6
24
Brisson East
60.4
243
Brisson West
128.6
375
Silvestri Estates
214.5
377
Total
1,361
In total, these 6 communities will encompass a total of 1,361 single- family lots at build -out. Of
these, only Silverleaf Park is currently under development, with sales and home construction
scheduled for Q4 -2013. The remaining five corrununities are in various stages of planning and
permitting. Key observations relative to these five communities include the following:
Brisson East, Brisson West and Silvestri Estates share proximate locations with similar
positive features relative to access, visibility and proximity to area employment centers
and resident services.
5
® Brisson East and Brisson West, with a combined 618 lots, encompass 210 40' wide
single - family lots, 390 60' lots and only a handful of the larger 75' wide lots.
+ Silvestri Estates is planned to encompass a mix of larger Iots, including 174 75' wide lots
together with 203 50' wide lots.
Cameron Heights phase I is proposed for 228 lots. Its location north of SR 46 is judged
inferior relative to locational attributes, including being less accessible to employment
centers of Lake Mary, Altamonte Springs and Maitland.
® Development of these five conrnnunities together with their mix of lot sizes, product
offering, pricing, and multiple builders, will help to reintroduce new housing choices that
are now absent from this Sarrford/Lake Mary submarket.
CONCLUSIONS
The Sanford /Lake Mary submarket has demonstrated historically its ability to capture a 5% - 7%
share of single- family housing demand within Metro Orlando, and 50% - 60% of the overall
Seminole County market. That capture rate has declined substantially over the last few years, not
due to diminished desirability to be there, but due instead to the diminished and now non. - existent
availability of new single - family home options within the area, particularly in the more moderate
price- ranges. The current absence of new home conununities within this submarket compels
homebuyers to look elsewhere and in locations that offer less convenience and proximity to
employment destinations and services.
The diminished availability of new housing options is characteristic of most areas of Seminole
County and its municipalities. This is due primarily to the historical success in new home
development which has left few remaining areas for new home construction. As a result, new
home construction has shifted into Osceola County, southeast and southwest Orange County and
into southeast Lake County. Those housing choices are not responsive to housing demand
projected to occur within Seminole County nor the Sanford/Lake Mary submarket.
Seminole County is projected to witness demand for an additional 6,100 new single - family
housing units over the next five years. The Sanford/Lake Mary submarket is positioned to
continue to capture 50% - 60% of that demand, assuming adequate new housing inventory and
choice is made available. The East Lake Mary Boulevard corridor, being one of the last
remaining areas suitable for residential community development within the County, is poised to
respond to that demand, particularly the large moderately priced segment of that market.
The three planned developments along the East Lake Mary Boulevard corridor (Brisson East,
Brisson West and Silvestri Estates) together with Cameron. Heights contain a combined 1,223
lots. While this appears to be a substantial number, it represents an inventory that will be
responsive only to short -term demand and will prove to be inadequate in the mid and long - term.
The East Lake Mary corridor has the potential to replicate community development patterns seen
along such corridors as South AIafaya Trail, Avalon Park Blvd, Red Bug Lake Rd, or Lockwood
6
Blvd. and therefore the potential to capture 2,000 -- 2,500 single - family households over the next
five years.
The four planned communities identified above contain a mix of lot sizes, will offer a selection
of builders and variety of product and pricing which will be capable of responding to the
diversity of housing demand that may be expected. Brisson East and Brisson West are planned to
encompass just over 600 single - family lots; these are heavily oriented toward small 40' wide lots
(34 %) and 60' wide lots (63 %) with only a limited number of the larger 75' wide lots (3 %). In
contrast, Silvestri Estates is planned for, a mix of 174 75'wide lots and 203 50' wide lots. The 50'
wide lot is the most common lot size within the Metro Orlando market, constituting 45% of all
new production single- family homes sold; the second most common lots size is 70' wide. As a
result, Silvestri Estates will bring to this submarket a mix of the most popular lot sizes, and a mix
that will not be available within any of the other area planned communities.
Taken together, these communities will be complimentary, providing new home consumers with
a variety of choices currently unavailable. Importantly, the three East Lake Mary Boulevard
communities will redefine the area, establish an image and create a destination that currently
does not exist. These communities will create a gateway to the area, likely spawning additional
new communities within this corridor in the future.
Yi
4mn
SOURCE: ChofI05 Wayne
CongAGre, 41C,
Yi
450.00
425,00
400.00
375.00
350.00
325M
300.00
275.0:0
250.00
B{' .' N
CD 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 rH 1H r-q
CCU
0 C CD C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD C)
N CN
M Annual Population
SOURCE: V.S, cmvs eweju: UF, 8veau 01 Ecowonic & 6u nose R - warch„ Chjde Wayne ConsultinE, inc
mom
ormloro-
0 0
c-1 ci
20-zooz
zo-ll'ooz
450,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2.017
SOURCL U,S, Census Bureau; UF, Bureau Of ECOnDMIC & Business Research; r1orida Office of Economic & Demoaraphic Research
om
am
mm
mm
om
om
2010-11 201142 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau; UK, Bureau of EaanOnliC & Dusinm Research; Charles Wayne Constjlfrne, Irc,
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20'15 2016 2017
$OURCC; Q.S. UnSUS Pweml; FlorWa OffiCe of Economic & Demographic Research; Charles Wayne ConsultniF, Inc.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0
CIA cq
IN,
cc -1
0
(NJ
w
Lea i
I
0
04
I
0
1/ Encompasses Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Lake, NE Polk and SW V0lUSla COU11008,
21 Annual `l (1hrough June 30 for 2013)
S0UfGe: ChadGIS WayfiO C011SUlling, MG.; RESIDENTIAL MARKEI REPORI-S of 00ando.
ORLANDOi
SEMINOLE COUNTY
SANFORD I LAKE MARY
YEAR2
METRO TOTAL
TOTAL
% CAPTURE,
TOTAL
% CAPTURE
2001
11,228
1,557
119%
805
7.2%
2002
12,987
1,211
9.3 %
600
4,6%
2003
14,673
1,572
10.7%
739
5.0%
2004
17,197
1,847
10,7%
1,034
6.0%
2005
19,958
1,764
8,8%
1,037
5.2%
2006
16,632
987
.5.9%
686
3.5%
2007
10,096
645
6.4 %®
317
3.1%
2008
4,888
333
6.8%
130
23%
2009
3,250
167
5.1%
78
2.4%
2010
3,152
23,4
7.4%
62
2.0%
2011
3,140
262
5.3%
112
3.6'%
2012
4,458
289,
6.5%
99
2.2%
20132
6,530
160
2.9%
31
0.6%
1/ Encompasses Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Lake, NE Polk and SW V0lUSla COU11008,
21 Annual `l (1hrough June 30 for 2013)
S0UfGe: ChadGIS WayfiO C011SUlling, MG.; RESIDENTIAL MARKEI REPORI-S of 00ando.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C"D
C%j r-i 0 C. 00 11" w 1.0 qzi- (Y) CIN] V-1
(Y)
V-4
C)
0
N
V-1
r-I
0
rq
0
r-i
0
0
0
rq
00
0 0
QD IF
0
41
r
0
0
0
z
0
0
N
(Y)
0
l/ Encompasses Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Lake, NE Polk and SW VOIUSfa Counties,
2/ AMILWITOW1 (through June 30 for 2013)
31 As of end of year (Q2 for 2013)
Source: U)Mas Wayne Consuffing, Inc.' „' RUSIOLNTIAL MARKE"T REPORTS of Orlando.
ORLANDOi
SEMINOLE COUNTY
SANFORD LAKE MARY
YEAR3
mr=TRO TOTAL
0 T -AL
% METRO
ToTAL
% METRO
2001
463
45
9.7%
23
6.0%
2002
456
50
ito%
26
6J%
2.003
368
38
10-31%
22
6.0%
2.004
219
22
10.1%
14
6.4%
2005
287
18
6'.3%
13
4.5%
2006
391
22
5.6%
10
2,6%
2007
402
27
6.7%
11
2.7%
2008
339
19
5.6%
6
2009
280
16
5.7%
5
1.8%
2010
314
19
6.1' %
7
22%
2011
324
25
7J%
11
3,4%
2012
368
20
5k%
7
2.0%
20132
405
21
5.2%
9
2.2%
l/ Encompasses Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Lake, NE Polk and SW VOIUSfa Counties,
2/ AMILWITOW1 (through June 30 for 2013)
31 As of end of year (Q2 for 2013)
Source: U)Mas Wayne Consuffing, Inc.' „' RUSIOLNTIAL MARKE"T REPORTS of Orlando.
SLENTOff Of FlrojecPle6wrinance
map Stalus,, ProjectName Builder
Key
,6,011 X
A(,',-f
Covam'Lry rc Hcalhrolv
7bylor 04orrison
A-02573
ACT
rlemve atAlaqua
st.nndardl Padfic
P,-03✓ G
ACT
Soutnv,,00ds
'Paylor iviorrison
/�,105C
ACT
Wal(va Parldi'vill
lvfl Honl �s
A-1
G LS
r-Ndclen Creek Reserve
D R XoAon
A 1433
CLS
Tuscai P�aca/Horton
D R Horion
A -151
CLS
Islard Club
1bylor MiorrVsor)
A -153
AM
Bella. t-oreVarr,,,)aIor
Taylor lvionison
A-.1 55
ACT
E incigive a L -Cusceav
Uty Homes
A -155
ACT
Acuara
Surrey Homes
are -15 "7
CLS
Be112 TUSCally
-CaylorMordswi
A-1 6 1,
ACT
Estates as Pearl Lake
TbybrMorrison
,11,162
ACT
Versailles
IQ Homas
Lot
Lot
Starts
Starts
Closings
ClosIngs
Price (000)
Price (000)
Width'
Depth
2ndf,'.
2012-
2nd
2013
2nd t
2013
QTR
YTD
QTKI
YT D
QTR
Y
60
120
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
55
125
0
0
0
0
0.0
0 0
90
100
0
1
0
1
C.0
565.0
220
2
6
3
524.6
� 6,2
100
150
0
0
1
285.0
285.0
60
1110
0
0
0
2
0.0
171.1
60
110
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.01
140
310
7
'14
el
10
792.5
762,3
70
120
5
111
4
7
3511.5
34, 7.8
120
200
3
3
1
3
80
130
0
0
2
3
4,28.00
4,21.9
75
130,
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
70
120
'12
1 b
0
fj
U
0.0
I/ Encompasses Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Lake, NE Palk Ind SW VOILIsia Counties.
21 AnnUal total (through June 30 for 20,13)
3/ As of end of year (Q2 for 2013)
Source: Chafles Wayne Consulting, Inc.; RESIDENTIAL MARK ET R E-PORTS of Oflando.
ORLAND01
SEMINOLE COUNTY
SANFORD LAKE MARY
YEAR3
ME-YRO TOTAL
f+ L
m -r-. T R o
TOTAL
% METRO
2.001
19,338
1,,975
10.2%
1,049
6.4%
2002
19,495
1,821
93%
1,106
63%
2003
201,283
1,699
8,4%
1,119
5,6%
2004
18,507
1,671
9,0%
1,020
5.5%
2005
20,068
817
4,1%
694
3.5,%
2006
26,411
1,146
4.3%
424
1.6 %a
2007
28,619
1,006
3.5%
313
1.1%
2008
27,094
706
2..6%
217
0,8%
2009
27,134
555
2,1%
159
0.6%
2010
29,593
439
1.5%
166
0.6%
2011
28,565
531
1.9 %
165
0,6%
2012
27,500
411
1.5%
83
0.3%
20132
26,989
571
2A%
291
1A%
I/ Encompasses Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Lake, NE Palk Ind SW VOILIsia Counties.
21 AnnUal total (through June 30 for 20,13)
3/ As of end of year (Q2 for 2013)
Source: Chafles Wayne Consulting, Inc.; RESIDENTIAL MARK ET R E-PORTS of Oflando.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Oo
Gws
.0
C)
C)
C)
C")
C)
C)
cp
C.; )
-ONI
>
c
C)
C)
C)
co
CD
CD
(0
Cf.)
o
o
c)
o
to
o
(D
0
(Y)
C)
C)
D
'D
CD,
c)
D m
— 0
B, >
LO
04
C")
W
CO
CO
10
(0
CC)
fj) 0
(0
c"I
co
11)
2
(0
0
raj
co
c
C
N
C
r
-
0 0
U)
2
n
ro
C)
c1r)
Qj
a
tO
S)
0
0
Cl)
123
a
(N
(14
CC,,
CCR)
Coo
C%l
0
C14
ce)
(14
LO
(D
G7
0
C)
(D
CD
C-)
0
co
I
CD
CJ
0
0
a
S
C)
0
0
Q)
W
V)
ul
0
0
0
Q
J
cr
CK
0)
"ll.,
Q1
W
kv
-Z)
MI
12
jj�
5,
(D
(1)
(1)
f!)
Chi
CIll
10
Luc!
J_
tO
co
V)
of
(9
cy,
rl
IT
"IT
1;
1",
Ic
ol:
<
COMPETITIVE PROJECT PROFILES
RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORTS
SFP PROFILE
PROJECT NAME: Coventry at Heathrow MXD NAME: Heathrow
14AP KEY: A --011H
OWNER: Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc. BUILDER= Taylor Morrison Homes STATUS: AC4'ive
CITY: None COUNTY: Seminole
S -T -R: 01 -20 -29
DIRECTIONS: I -4 North to SR 46A, West 0.5 miles to Heathrow entrance.
LASEFRONT: Yes TENNIS: Yea* PXCNIC /BBQ: 1+10
CLUBHOUSE: Yes*
GOLF COURSE: Yes* SWUOUNG POOL: Yes* PLAY FIELD: No
TRAIL: N10
CONSERVATION: Yes PLAYGP= /TOT:- NO BASKETBALL; No
SECURITY: SG /GHM
COY.MENTS: *Heathrow Country Club
FLOOR PLANS OFFERED
FLOOR PLAN:
BEDROOMS;
DEN /OTHER:
BATHS:
AC SQ FT:
FLOORS:
GARAGE:
BASE PRICE:
JUL 1, 2012
OCT 1, 2012
JAN 1, 2013
APR 1, 2013
JUL 1, 2013
PRICE /SQ FT:
SHRT -TERM RENTAL: POOL INCLUDEDt FURN PKG I14CLD:
-
_
LONST /STRUCTURE; CB,FR ELEVATION: S ROOF: T
CO1*1ENTS: Floor plans and pricing not yet established (7/5/13).
}DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
' TYPICAL
CONSTRUCTION STATUS: 045/30/13
GROSS DENSITY LOT SIZE CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL UNITS UNITS VACANT
_. _, PHASE _ ACRES DU ACRE W X D 6Q FT START DATE
LOTS BUIL'C' U.C. LOTS
1. All 32.4 2.3 SO 120 7200 NS
75 0 0 75
_ FUTURE (UNDEVELOPED) 0.0 010
0 '0 0 0
PROJECT T(]TAI. - 32.4 2.3
75 0 0 7,$
COI v4ENTS
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
DATE; 03/31/12 06/30/12 09/30/12 12131/12 03/31/13 06/30/13 09/30/13 ", 12/31/13
UNITS BUILT: 0 0 0 0 0
0
UNITS U.C.: 0 0 0 0 0
0
TOT UNITS BLT OR U,C.: 0 0 0 0 0
0
QUARTERLY S'T'ARTS: 0 0 0 0 0
0
YEAR -TO -DATE; 0 0 0 0 0
0
COMMENTS=
MONTHLY CLOSINGS
N,ONTH: JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUt, AUG
SEP OCT NOV DEC
2012 MONTHLY CLOSINGS: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
YEAR- TO-DATE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
2013 14ONTHLY CLOSINGS: 0 0 0 0 0 0
YEAR -TA -DATE: 0 0 0 0 0 0
AVE PRICE ($OVO): 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
VOLUME ($000) - 010 0.0 010 0.0 010 0.0
CORMrN`I'S
^ -- -�_� SALES MANAGEMENT
COMMENTS
SALES BY: Taylor Morrison Homes
SALES LOCATION; Off -Site
TELEPHONE,, (577) 249 -5168
TIEBSITE- MV.tayloamorrison.com
Charles Wayne Consulting, Inc., 2013, All Rights Reserved
RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORTS SFP PROFILE
.PROJECT NAME; Resexve at Alaqua 14XID NAME: Alaqua MAP KEY: - A -025B
OSti''NER: Standard Pacific of Florida BUILDER: Standard Paclfic Homes STATUS: Active
CITY: None COULJTY: Seminole S -T -R; 15 -20 ^29
DIRECTIONS: I -4 North to Lake Mary Blvd, W 1,2 miles to Markham hoods Rd, S 0.7 mile to Alagua entrance.
LAKEFRONT: No TLNNIS: No PICNIC /BBQ: No CLUBHOUSE: No
GOLF COURSE: NO SNIMING FOOL: No PLAY FIELD; No TRAIL: NO
CONSERVATION: Yea PLAYGRND /TOT: NO BASKETBALL; No SECURITY: SG,GHM
CO%249NTS
FLOOR PLANS OFFEREl?
FLOOR PLAN:
UDROOMS :
DEN /OTHER:
BATHS:
AC SQ FT:
FLOORS:
GARAGE.`:
BASE PRICE:
01UL 1, 2012
OCT 1, 2012
JAN 1, 2013
APR 1, 2013
JUL 1, 2013
PRICE /SQ FT: '
SHRT -TER14 RENTAL: POOL INCLUDED; CURN PHG INCLD:
CONST /STRUCTURE: CB,FR ELEVATION: S ROOF: SH
COMMRNTS: Floor plans and pricing not yet established (7/10/13),
DEVELOPMENT SLMMA.RY
. TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION STATUS: 06/30/13
GROSS DENSITY mt SIZE CONSTRUCTION TOTAL UNITS UNITS VACANT
-. PHASE ACRES DU ACRE T4 X D .SR VT START DATE _LOTS BUILT U.C. LOTS
1. All 50.1 019 55 125 6875 NS 44 0 0 44
FUTURE (UNDEVELOPED) _ 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0•
PROJECT TOTAL $0.1 0.9 44 9 0 99
CO *4CNTS: Acreage includes extensive - conservation area.
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
DATE: 03/31/12 06/30/12 09/30112 12/31/12 03/31113 06/30/13 D9/30/13 12/31113
UNITS BUILT: 0 0 0 0 0 0
U41TS U. C. 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOT UNITS SLT OR U.C.:- 0 0 0 0 0 0
QUARTERLY STARTS: 0 0 0 0 D 0
YEAR -TO -DATE: 0 0 0 0 0 0
COMIENTS;
-� �___. ------- - - - - -- ---_ MONTHLY CLOSINGS
VONTH: CAN FM 14AR APR MAY JUN "I, AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2012 MONTHLY CLOSINGS: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
YEAR -TO -DATE; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 MONTHLY CLOSINGS: 0 0 0 0 0 0
YEAH -TO -DATE: 0 0 0 0 0 0
AVE PRICE ($000): 0.0 0.0 010 0.0 0.0 0.0
VOLUME ($000)1 0.0 010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CONSENTS:
=- =_ ---= SALES MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
SALES BY; Standard Pacific Homes
SALES LOCATION: Off -Site
TELEPHONE: (888) 406 -5232
WEBSITE: vrvra. stand ardpacifichomes.com
Charles Wayne Consulting, inc., 2013, All Rights Reserved
RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORTS SFP PROFILE
PROJECT NIOIE: Southwoods MXD NAMRS bake Forest MAP KEY: A -038G
MIXER: Taylor Morrison, Inc. BUILDER: Taylor Morrison STATUS: Active
CITY: None COUNTY: Seminole S -T -R: 19 -19 -30
DIRECTIONS: X -4 to SR 46, 41 .75 mile to Lake Forest entrance,
LAXEFRONT: No TENNXS: Yes' PICNIC /BBQ: Yes* CLUBHOUSES Yes*
GOLF COURSE; 1110 SWIt+;h4ING POOLS Yes* PLAY FIELD: Yee* TRAIL: Yes*
CONSERVATION: Yes* PLAYGRND /TOT: No BASKETBALL: Yes* SECURITY: SG /GHFS*
CO14MENTS: *Lake Forest.
FLOOR PLANS OFFERED
Courtland
FLOOR PLAN; Crestwood II 14onaco Charleston Savannah
BEDROOMS 4 4 4 4 S
DEN /OTHERr Den /Loft Den /Loft Game
BATHS: 4 3 3.5 3.5 3.5
AC 80 FT: 3347 3350 3588 4419 3945
FLOORS: 2 1 2 2 2
GARAGE: 3GA MA DGA 3 G DGA
13ASE PRICE:
JM 1, 2012 446995 451995 461995 525995 491995
OCT 1, 2012 N/0 N/0 418995 546995 508995 '
JAN 1, 2013 N/0 N/O 483995 551995 513995
APR 1, 2013 N/O N/0 506495 574495 526495
JUL 1, 2013 N/O N/0 506495 574495 N10
PRICE /SQ FT: 11/0 N/0 141.16 330.01 N/p
617RT -TERM RENTAL: POOL INCLUDED: FURN PKG INCLD:
CONST /STRUCTURE: CB, FR ELEVA`FION; S ROOFS T
CONSENTS: Only inventory homes available (7/13).
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY -_--
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION STATUS; 06130/13
GROSS brNsITY —10T SIZE CONSTRUCTION TOTAL UNITS UNITS -VACANT
PHASE ACRES DU ACRE T1 X 1] sQ n START DATE LOTS BUILT U.C. TATS
1. Section 9A (Part) * * 90 140 12600 6/10 12 12 0 0
2. Section 9B (Pazt) * * 90 150 13500 5/10 6 6 _ 0 0
3. Section 5A (Part) UK UK 90 150 13500 3112 1 1 0 0
4. Section 13 (Part) UK UK 90 150' 1300 5/12 1 1 0 0
5, Section I$ (Part) UK UK 90 150 13500 7/12 4 4 0 0
FUTURE (UNDEVELOPED) 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0
PROJECT TOTAL * * • 24 24 0 0
COM-IENTSr *Section 9A contains 23 lots on 13.2 a0ree (1.7 du /ac). Section 9B Contains 20 lots on 10.3 acres
(1.9 du /ac).
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
DATE: 03/31/12 06/30/12 09/30/12 12/31/12 03/31113 06/30/13 09130/13 32/31/13
UNITS BUMS 1B 1B 19 22 23 24
UNITS U.C.: 1 2 3 1 1 0
TOT UNITS 13LT OR U, C, s 19 20 22 23 24 24
OUARTSRLY STARTS: 2 1 2 1 1 0
YEAR -TO -DATE; 2 3 5 6 1 1
COMENTS r
MONTHLY CLOSINGS
MONTH: JAN FES MAR APR 14AY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2012 XONTHLY CLOSINGS. 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
YEAR -TO -DOT£: 1 1 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6
2013 EONTHLY CLOSINGS: 0 0 1 0 0 0
YEAR -TO -DATE: 0 0 1 1 1 1
AVE PRICE ($000): 0,0 0.0 56510 0.0 010 0.0
VOLUME ($000): 0.0 0.0 $65.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
COS w4ENTS :
-- -== SALES MANAGEMENT
SALES BY: Taylor Morrison
SALES LOCATION: Terracina Sales Office
TELEPHONES (407) 330 -2267
i4EBSITE: ;r^1. taylormorsisoa.c0:n
Charles Wayne Consulting, Inc., 2013, All Rights Reserved
COMMENTS
,RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORT'S SFP PROFILE
PROJECT NAt46: Wekiva Park /NI 14XD NAMES Wekiva Park MAP KEY: A -105C
OWNRR: 14 /I Homes of Orlando, LLC BUILDER: N/1 Homes of Orlando, LLC STATUS: Active
CITY: None COUNTYs Seminole S -T -R: 27 -19 -29
DIRECTIONS: I -4 NF. to SR 46, 1•1 4.5 miles to Wekiva Park entrance.
LAKEFRONT: No TENNISt Yes PICNIC /BBQ: No CLUBHOUSE: No
GOLF COUR92 No SWIPNING POOL; No PLAY FIELns No TRAIL: Yes
CONSERVATION: 1110 PLAYGRND /TOT: Yeti BASICETBALLs NO SECURITYt SA /GHU
COt4I.1£NTS:
FLOOR PLANS OFFERED
Gran Vista
FLOOR PLAN: Calabria Salerno San Reno Grandview Calabria Brookshire II
BEDROOMS: .4 4 4 4 5 5 5
DEN /OTHER: Den Den Den Bonus /Den X]en
HATHS: 3 3.5 3 3.5 4 4 4.5
AC SQ FTi 3005 4026 4269 4770 3799 3895 5213
FLOORS: 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
GARAGE: 3GA 40A 3GA 3GA 3GA 3GA 30A
BASE PRICES
JUL 1, 2012 423990 512990 536990 N/0 476990 478990 N/0
OCT 1, 2012 429990 515990 538990 NIO 480990 483990 NIO
JAN 1, 2013 434990 520990 542990 542990 485990 N/O 561990
APR 1, 2013 439990 525990 546990 546990 490990 493990 565990
JUL 1, 2013 445990 531990 552990 S53990 496990 499990 572990
PRICE /SQ FT: 148.42 132.14 129.54 116.14 130.82 128.37 109.92
SHRT -TERM RENTAL; POOL INCLUDED: FM PKG INCLDt
CONST /STRUCTURE: CB,FR ELEVATION: S ROOF1 T
C07414ENTS :
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION STATUS: 06/30/13
GROSS DENSITY LOT SIZE CONSTRUCTION TOTAL UNITS UNITS VACANT
PHASE ACRES AU [ACRE W X D $AFT START DATE TATS BUILT U.C. LOTS
1. Wekiva Park (Part) '' + 110 220 24200 8/06 29 21 8 0
FUTURE (UNDEVELQPED) 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0
PROJECT TOTAL - + '" 29 21 8 0
CO101ENTS: *I4ekiva Park contains a total of 107 lots on 104.7 aQ (1.0 du /ac). 78 Tats previously built by U.S.
Homes, Waterford Homes, Arlington Homes and custom builders.
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
DATE: 03/31/12 06130/12 09/30/12 12/31/12 03/31/13 06/30/13 09/30/13 12/31/13
UNITS BUILT: 12 13 13 14 1S 21
UNITS U.C.: 1 2 3 9 12 8
TOT UNITS BUT OR U,C.s 13 15 16 23 27 29
QUARTERLY STARTS: 1 2 1 7 4 2
YEAR -TO -DATE: 1 3 4 11 4 6
COZVENTS 1
MONTHLY CLOSINGS
MOUTH:
.TAN
FES
14AR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2012 MONTHLY CLOSINGS:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
YEAR-TO -DATE:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2011 MONTHLY CLOSINGS:
1
0
0
0
0
3
YEAR -TO -DATE:
1
.1
1
1
1
4
AVE PRICE ($000) 1
611.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
52415
VOLU14E ($000):
611.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1573.6
'
CO .'•183,1'1.3:
_____ =: SALES MANAGEMENT
SALES BY: M/I Homes
SALES LOCATION: Model On -Site
TELEPHONE: (407) 531 -5100
WESSITE: w w.mihomes.com
Charles Wayne Consulting, Inc., 2013, All Rights Reserved
COMMENTS
Sales and construction suspended in
2008; reactivated 10/2011 wit):
acquistion of additional lots.
__.......,.....__...._... .,......�_.•.. 1111.. �.... ,-« - ��__...^�:a��...
RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORTS
SVP PROFILE
PROJECT NA14E: Hidden Creek Reserve MXD NAME: None
MAP KEY: A -131
OWNER: D.R. Horton, Inc. BUILDER: D.R. Horton, Inc.
STATUS: Closed
CITY: Ilona
COUNTY: Seminole
S -T -R: 23 -20 -30
DIRECTIONS: I -4 NE to SR 434, E 2.7 miles to CR 427, HE 5.1 miles to Hester Rd, S .3 mile to entrance.
LAKEFRONT: No
Trt,101St No PICNIC /BHQ: No
CLUBHOUSE: NO
GOLF COURSE: No
SWA MG POOL,: No PLAY FIELD: NO
TRAIL: NO
CONSERVATION: Yes
PLAYGRND /TOT: 1110 BASKETBALL: No
SECURITY- No
001,24EUTS:
FLOOR PLANS OF'F'ERED
FLOOR PLAN: Bristol
Manchester Oxford Shearwater Surrey Warwick
Winchester
BEDROOMS, 4
4 4 5 5 5 -
5
DEN /OTHER:
'
BATHS^: 2
2 3 3 4 4
4
AC SQ FT: 2192
2485 3058 2794 3854 3909
4327
FLOORS: 1
1 1 2 2 2
2
GARAGE: DGA
30A 3GA DGA 3GA 30A
3GA
BASE PRICE:
JUL 1, 2012 231990
24199D 271990 259990 291990 298990
303990
OCT 1, 2012 231990
241990 271990 262990 291990 296990
303990
JAN 1, 2013 N/O
11/0 N/O N/D N/O N/O
31/0
APR 1, 2013 N/0
N/0 N/0 N/0 N10 11/0
N10
JUL 1. 2013 N/0
N/O N/0 N/O N10 11/0
N10
PRICE /SQ FT: N/0
N/0 N10 N/O N/O N/0
N10
SHRT -TERM RENTALS
POOL INCLUDED: FURN PKG INCLD:
CONST /STRUCI'URF, CB, FR
ELEVATION: S ROOF: SH
COMMENTS:
DE'V'ELOPMENT SUMMARY
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION STATUS: D6 30 13
-
GROSS DENSITY LOT SIZE CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
UNITS UNITS VACANT
PHASE
_ ACRES DU ACAS W x D _B2 FT S'lA DATE LOTS
BUILT U -C, LOTS
1. All
10.5 1.2 100 150 15000 9/10 23
23 D 0
FUTURE (UNDEVELOPED)
0.0 - 0.0 0
0
PRO.IECT TOTAL
18.5 1.2 23
0 0
23 0 0
COMMENTS:
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
DATE:
03/31/12 06/30/12 09/30/12 12/31/12 03131/13 06/30113
09/30/13 12/31/13
UNITS BUILT:
13 18 21 23 23 23
UNITS U.0 - :
7 3 1 0 0 0
TOT UNITS BLT OR U.C.:
20 21 22 23 23 23
QUARTERLY STARTS;
7 1 1 1 0 0
YEAR -TO -DATES
7 S 9 10 D D
COMASENTS: Project is
built -out.
MONTHLY CLOSINGS
MONTH.-
JAN FEB LIAR APR MAY JUN allL AUG SLsP
OCT NOV DEC
2012 IIONTHLY CLOSINGS:
1 0 0 0 2 3 1 5 0
0 1
YEAR -TO -DATE:
1 1 1 1 3 6 7 12 12
1
12 13 14
2013 MONTHLY CLOSINGS:
0 0 0 0 1 0
YEAR -TO -DATE:
0 0 0 0 1 1
AVE PRICE ($00D):
0.0 010 0.0 0.0 26510 0.0
VOLUME {$000):
0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 265.0 0.0
CO',la- NTS:
SALES MANAGEMENT
SALES BY: D.R. Horton, Inc.
SALES LOCATION: Rodel On -Site
TELEPHONE: (407) 257 -1601
WEBSITE: s-&w.drhorton. com
Charley Oayne Consulting, Inc., 2013, All Rights Reserved
COMMENTS
RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORTS 5FP PROFILE
PROJECT NAME Tusca Place /D,R, Norton MX0 NA14i: Tusca Place ASAP KEY; A -1466
OWNER: A.R. Horton, Inc. BUILDER: D.R. Woxton, Inc. STATUS: Closed
CITY: None COUNTY: Seminole S -T -R: 32 -19 -31
DIRECTIONS: I -4 N2 to SR 46, E 4.0 miles to US 17 -92, S 1.0 mile to 13th St, 1: .5 mile to Sanford Ave, N 150 ft
to Celery Ave, E 1.0 mile to entrance.
LAKlFRONT: No TENNIS: No PICNIC /SBQ: No CLUBHOUSE: No
GOLF COURSE: No Sill?.Z11N0 POOL: . No PLAY FIELD: NO TRAIL: No
CONSERVATION: No PLAYGRND /TOT: Yea BASKETBALL: No SECURITY: PW
COM14ENTS :
FLOOR PLANS OFFERED
FLOOR PLAN: Laredo Las Colinas Odessa Santa Rasa Sonora Hudson Summit
BEDROOMS: 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
nw /OTHER: Loft Media
BATHS: 2 2 2 2 2 2.5 2,5
AC SO FT: 1661 1753 1890 1970 2199 2498 2720
FLOORS: 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
GARAGE: DOA DGA DGA DGA DGA 1DOA DGA
BASE PRICE:
JUL 1, 2012 143990 147990 152990 157990 151990 170990 185990
OCT 1, 2012 145990 149990 1$4990 159990 163990 172990 197990
JAN 1, 2013 148990 152990 157990 162990 166990 175990 190990
APR 1, 2013 N/0 1410 N/0 N/0 N/O 9/0 N/0
JUL 1, 2013 N/O N/O N/O N/O N/0 N10 N/O
PRICE /SQ FT: W/o N10 N/O N/O N/0 N/O N/0
'SHRT- TF.RD1 RENTAL: POOL INCLUDED: FURN PKG INCLD:
CONST /STRUCTURE: CB,FR ELFVATTON: 8 ROOF: - SH
CObf! -0ENTS r
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
TYPICAL • CONSTRUCTION STATUS: OG 30 13
CROSS DENSITY LOT SIZE CONSTRUCTION TOTAL UNITS UNITS VACANT
PHASF. ACRES DU ACRE W X D N. START DATE LOTS BUILT U.C. LOTS_
1, North (Part) UK UK 60 110 45600 11109 25 25 0 0
2. South (Part) * • 60 120 7200 8109 41 41 0 0
FUTURE (UNDEVELOPED) 0.0 010 0 0 0 0
PROJECT TOTAL * * 66 66 0 0
COtNENTSr *North contains 45 lots on 14,3 acres (3.1 du /acre). South contains 53 lots on 14.1 acres
(3.8 du /acre) . 32 lots built by Mercedes Homes.
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
DATE: 03/31/12 06/30112 09/30/12 12/31/12 03131/13 06/30/13 09/30/13 12/31/13
UNITS BUILT: 48 52 64 65 66 66
UNITS U.C.= 5 12 1 1 0 0
TOT UNITS 13LT OR U.C.: 53 64 65 66 66 456
QUATZTrRLY STARTS: 5 11 1 1 0 0
YEAR -TO -DATE: 5 16 17 18 0 0
.COM24ENTS1 Project is built -out.
MONTHLY CLOSINGS
MONTH: JAN PER MAR APR ASAY am 1UL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2012 MONTHLY CLOSINGS: 2 3 5 3 2 1 0 3 3 3 3 2
YEAR- TO- •DATP: 2 5 10 13 15 16 1G 19 22 25 28 30
2013 MONTHLY CLOSINGS: 0 1 1 0 0 0
YEAR- TO -DATEr 0 1 2 2 2 2
AVE PRICE ($000): 0.0 158,1 184.0 010 0.0 0.0
VOLUME ($000)1 0.0 158.1 184,0 040 010 0.0
C0101ENTS :
SALES MANAGEMENT
SALES BY: D.R. Norton, 1no.
SALES LOCATTON: Model On -Site
TELEPHONE- (321) 393 -4980
WEBSITE: t•A-iw. drhorton. corn
Charles Wayne Consulting, Inc., 2D13, All Rights Reserved
COMMENTS
Project reported to be sold -out
RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORTS SFP PROFILE
PROJECT NAME:
Island Club
i.4CD NAME; None
MAP KEY: A -151
011NER:
Taylor Morrison, Inc.
BUILDER: Taylor N.orrison
STATUS: Closed
CITY:
None
COUNTY: Seminole
S -T -R: 01 -20 -29
DIRECTIONS:
I -4 NH to SR
46A, W .5 mile to International
Pkwy, S 1.1 mile to AAA Drive,
M1 .25 mile to entrance.
LAKEVRONT;
Yes*
TENNIS: 140
PICNIC /BBQ: No
CLUBHOUSE: No
GOLF COURSE;
No
SWI3,34ING POOL: Na
PLAY FIELD: No
TRAIL, NO
CONSERVATION:
Yea
PLAYGRND /TOT: No
BASKETBALL: 110
SECURITY: SG
C01.94ENTS:
*Island Lake
and Banana Lake.
FLOOR
PLANS OFFERED
FLOOR PLAN:
Lafayette
Rockford Cumberland
Waverly Fremont
AEDR00.'4S:
4
4 4
5 5
DEN /OTHER:
Den
Game Game
Game Den /Game
PATRS;
3
2.5 3.5
3.5 3.5
AC 80 FT:
2463
2499 2823
2871 3284
FLOORS:
1
2 2
2 2
GARAGE:
30A
VGA DGA
DGA DOA
BASE PRICE:
JUL 1, 2012
398900
334995 431995
369995 391995
OCT 1, 2012
N/0
N/O N10
010 N/O
JAN 1, 2013
N/0
1410 13/0
N10 N/0
APR 1, 2013
N10
N/0 N10
N10 N/0
JUL 1, 2013
N10
N/0 N10
N/0 N10
PRICK /SQ FT
1410
11/0 N/0
N/0 N10
ST1RT -TER14 RENTAL:
POOL INCLUDED:
FURN PKG INCLM
CONST /STRUCTURE:
C6, FR
ELEVATION: S
ROOF: T
COY24EN-TS :
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION STATUS; 06/30/13
GROSS DENSITY LOT SIZE CONSTRUCTION TOTAL UNITS UNITS VACANT
PHASE ACRES DU ACRE w K D SQ FT START DATE_ LOTS BUILT U.C. LOTS
1. Island Club (Part) * * 60 110 6600 6110 21 21 0 0
FUTURE (UNWBVRLOPM) 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0
PROJECT TOTAL * * 21 21 0 0
COM- 1214TS: *Island Club contains a total of 37 lots on 26.6 acres (1,4 du /ac).-
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
DATE; 03/31/12
uNrTS BUILT: 17
UNITS U.C.: 2
TOT UNITS BLT OR U. C. 19
QUARTERLY STARTS: 2
YEAR -TO -DATE: 2
CO'—.2 Project is built -out.
MONTHS JAN FEB
2012 11.ONTF3LY CLOSINGS: 2 0
YEAR -TO -DATE: 2 2
2413 MMTHLY CLOSINGS: 0 0
YEAR -TO -BATE: 0 0
AVE PRICE ($000); 0.0 010
VOLUME ($000): 010 010
COSA4BNTS:
96/30/12 09/30/12 12/31/12 03/31/13 06/30/13 09/30/13 12/31/13
18 19 21 21 21
3 2 0 0 0
21 21 21 21 21
2 0 0 0 0
4 4 4 0 0
MONTHLY CLOSINGS
14AR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 1 0
3 3 3 6 7 8 II 9 10 10
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0.0 0.0 010 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SALES MANAGEMENT
SALES BY: Taylor Vo rison
SALES LOCATION: Cell /Terracing Kodel Center
TELEPHON4-: (407) 312- 41021'
SIEBSIT2: ulgw, taylormorrison. corn
Charles Wayne Consulting, Inc., 2013, All RightS Reserved
_,,..•_..,._r...- ...... COMMENTS -�.-
*(4071 242 -7200
Project reported to be sold -out (10/12).
RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORT'S
TYPICAL
CONSTRUCTION STATUS; 06 30 13
SFP PROFILE
DENSITY TAT SIZE
CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL UNITS UNITS VACANT
PHASE _ _ ACRES
DO ACRE N X A S4 FT
START DATE
LOTS BUILT U.C.
PROJECT NAMP.:
Bella Foresta /Taylor Morrison
IdXD
NA1,10: None
FUTURE (UNDEV8LOPED) 0.0
1•1AP KEY: A -153
OW14ER;
Taylor: Morrison of Florida, Inc.
BUILDER: Taylor Morrison. !Tomes
STATUS: Active
CITY:
None
COM214TS; *Bella 1Oresta contains
COUNTY; Seminole
(1.6 du /acre)
S -T -R: 27 -19 -29
DIRECTION'S:
1-4 N11 to
SR 46, 11 3.0 miles LO entrance.
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
LAKEFRONT:
No
TENNIS: No
UNITS BUILT: 1
PICNIC /BEQ.
No
CLUBHOUSE: No
GOLF COURSE:
No
SWIN141110 FOOL; NO
14
PLAY FIELD:
No
TRATL; No
CONSERVATION:
170
PLAYGRND /TOT: No
7
BASKETBALL:
NO
SECURITY: SG
COMMENTS:
14
CO; 24 R1 T8:
MONTHLY CLOSINGS
MONTH- JAN PER
14AR APR KAY JUN
FLOOR,
PLANS OFFERED
2012 MONTHLY CLOSINGSt 0 0
0 0 0 0
FLOOR PLAN;
Camilla
Palermo Milan
Pasero
Charleston
Verona
2013 14ONTHLY CLOSINGS: 2 2
BEDROOMS:
4
' 4 4
4
4
5
- MN /OTHER:
671.4 734.0 0.0 967.9
VOLUME ($000): 1568.4 1541.6 1342.7
2202.0 0.0 967.9
BATHS;
3.5
3.5 4
4
3.5
5.5
AC SO FT:
3516
3107 3765
4339
7419
4953
FLOORS:
1
2 2
1
2
2
GARAGEI
3GA
3GA 3GA
3GA
3GA
UK
BASE PRICE=
LM 1, 2012
N/O
531995 536995
582995
586995
681995
OCT 1, 2012
N10
544995 549995
595995
599995
694995
JAN 1, 2013
534995
548995 553995
609995
663995
698995
APR 1, 2013
589495
603495 608495
672495
SS0495
753495
JUL 1, 2013
599495
613445 618495
682495
668495
763495
PRICE /SQ FTt
170.41
165.50 164.27
157.29
151.28
154.15
SERT -TERM RENTAL:
POOL INCLUMI)t
FURN PKG INCLO:
CONST /STRUCTURE:
CB,FR
ELEVATION: S
ROOF:
SH
COM4ENTS;
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
-=- - - -- SALES MANAGEMENT
SALES BY: Taylor Rorrison
SALES LOCATION: Model On -Site
TELEPHONE: (407) 330 -2269+
WEBSITE: crla.taylormorrison.com
Charles Wayne Consulting,r Inc., 2013, All Rights Reserved
*(407) 429.6168
COMMENTS
TYPICAL
CONSTRUCTION STATUS; 06 30 13
GROSS
DENSITY TAT SIZE
CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL UNITS UNITS VACANT
PHASE _ _ ACRES
DO ACRE N X A S4 FT
START DATE
LOTS BUILT U.C.
1. Bella Foresta (Part) *
+" 140 310 93400
11 /11
_LOTS
36 14 14 8
FUTURE (UNDEV8LOPED) 0.0
0.0
0 0
PROJECT TOTAL *
*
0 0
36 14 34 a
COM214TS; *Bella 1Oresta contains
a total of 54 lots on 86.0 acres
(1.6 du /acre)
. 18 lots built or to be built
by custom builders.
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
DATE- 03/31112 06/30/12 09/30/12 12/31/12
03/31/I3 06/30/13 09/30/13 12131/13
UNITS BUILT: 1
2 2 5
11
14
UNITS U.C.: 1
1 7 9
10
14
TOT UNITS ALT OR U.C. - 2
3 9 14
21
28
QUARTERLY STARTS: 1
1 6 5
7
7
YEAR -TO- DA'Z`E t 1
2 8 13
7
14
CO; 24 R1 T8:
MONTHLY CLOSINGS
MONTH- JAN PER
14AR APR KAY JUN
JUL AUG
SEP OCT NOV DEC
2012 MONTHLY CLOSINGSt 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 1
YEAR -TO -DATE; 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
1 0
0 1 2
2013 14ONTHLY CLOSINGS: 2 2
2 3 0 1
2
YEAR -TO -BATS: 2 4
6 9 9 10
AVE PRICE ($000)1 784.2 770,8
671.4 734.0 0.0 967.9
VOLUME ($000): 1568.4 1541.6 1342.7
2202.0 0.0 967.9
COMMEITTS .
-=- - - -- SALES MANAGEMENT
SALES BY: Taylor Rorrison
SALES LOCATION: Model On -Site
TELEPHONE: (407) 330 -2269+
WEBSITE: crla.taylormorrison.com
Charles Wayne Consulting,r Inc., 2013, All Rights Reserved
*(407) 429.6168
COMMENTS
RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORTS SFP PROFILE
PROJECT NAME:
Enclave at Tuscany
06/30112
14XD NAME: None
06/30/13
14A €t KEY, A -155
OWNER:
Encore Enclave Investment, LLC
BUILDER: City Hones
1
STATUS:
Active
CITY:
Lake Mary
COUNTYt Seminole
S -T °R:
04- 20 -30'
DIRECTIONS:
1 -4 NE to SR
46A, E 2.1
miles to site
entrance.
TOT UNITS BLT OR U.C.:
2
LAKEFRONT:
No
TENNISt
No
PICNIC /BBQ; No
CLUBHOUP9;
No
GOLF' COURSE;
No
SWIMMING
POOL: NO
PLAY FIELD; No
TRAIL:
No
Ylr'AR- -TO- -DATE r
CONSERVATION;
No
PLAYGRND /TOT: No
BASKETBALL: NO
SECURITY:
P¢1
COW iNENTS :
COh1A9ENTS :
FLOOR PANS OFFERER
MONTHLY CLOSINGS
FLOOR PLAN:
Huntington
Livingston
Rialto
Monterey Concordo
JAN
FEB
MAR
BEDROOMS:
4
4
4
5 6
2012 MONTHLY CLOSINGS:
0
0
DEN /OTHER:
0 1 0 0
1 0
0
1 2
YEAR-TO-DATE:
0
BATHS:
3
3
4
3.5 3.5
2
3 5
2013 MONTHLY CLOSINGS;
AC SQ FTi:
2755
2796
3181
3406 4166
FLOORS:
1
2
2
2 2
GARAGE;
3GA
30A
30A
30A 3GA
350.0 34:9.9 356,0
13ASE PRICE:
VOLUME ($000]:
0.0
1028,9
0.0
35010 699.9 35610
JUT, 1, 2012
299900
N10
14/0
349900 399900
OCT 1, 2012
299900
N/O
N10
349900 399900
JAN 1, 2013
N/O
309900
N10
349900 399900
APR 1, 2013
N10
314990
349900
349900 399900
JUL 1, 2013
N/0
319900
354900
354900 404900
PRTCR /SQ M
N/0
114.41
111.57
104.20 97.19
SHRT-T£RM RENTAL:
POOL INCLUDED:
FURN PKG INCLD:
CONST /STRUCTURE;
CB,FR
ELEVATIONt
S
ROOF: SI{
COMENTS
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY
TYPICAL
CONSTRUCTION STATUS: 06130113
GROSS
DENSITY
LOT SIZE CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL UNITS
UNITS VACANT
PHASE
ACRES
DU /AC"
W X €7 SQ FT START DATE
LOTS BUMT
U,C,
LOTS
1. All
1010
3.3
70 120 8400 11/11
33 I8
5
10
FUTURE (UNDEVELOPED)
0.0
0.0
0 0
0
0
PROJECT TOTAL
10.0
313
33 18
5
10
COMENTS:
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
DATE:
03131/12
06/30112
09130/12 12/31/12 03/31/13
06/30/13
09/30/13
12/31/13
UNITS BUILT:
1
2
3 6
11
16
UNITS U.C.:
1
2
6 6
7
5
TOT UNITS BLT OR U.C.:
2
4
9 12
18
23
QUARTERLY STARTS:
1
2
5 3
6
5
Ylr'AR- -TO- -DATE r
1
3
8 11
6
11
COh1A9ENTS :
MONTHLY CLOSINGS
MONTH:
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR MAY JUN JUL
AUG SEP
OCT
Nov DEC
2012 MONTHLY CLOSINGS:
0
0
0
0 1 0 0
1 0
0
1 2
YEAR-TO-DATE:
0
0
0
0 1 1 1
V. 2
2
3 5
2013 MONTHLY CLOSINGS;
0
3
0
1 2 1
YEAR -TO -DATE:
0
3
3
4 6 7
AVB PRICE ($000):
0.0
343.0
0.0
350.0 34:9.9 356,0
VOLUME ($000]:
0.0
1028,9
0.0
35010 699.9 35610
COMMENTS
SALES MANAGEMENT
SALES BYt City Homes
SALES LOCATION: Vadel On -Site
TELEPHONE: (407) 758 -1020*
NEBSITE:
Charles Wayne Consulting, Inc., 2013, All Rights Reserved
COMMENTS
*(407) 566 -7170
RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORTS
03/31/12 06130112
SFP PROFILE
12/31/12
03/31/13
PROJECT NAME -.
Acuera
12/31/13
hSXD NAI•FB: None
14AP KEY: A -156
OWNER:
Surrey Homes LLC
BUILDER: Surrey Homes LLC
STATUS: Active
CITY:
Nona
UNITS U.C.:
COUNTY: Seminole
S -T -R: 33 -19 -29
DIRECTIONS:
1 -4 NE to 5R 46, W 7 miles to Longwood Markham Rd, S 1.3 miles t0 entrance,
3
LAKEFRONT:
No
TENNIS: No
PICNIC /nBQe No
CLU6HOUSE: No
GOLF COURSE:
NTO
SWIPNING POOL: No
PLAY FIELD:' No
TRAIL; No
CONSERVATION:
Yes
PLAYGRND /TOT: No
BASKETBALL: No
SECURITY: PW /SG /0HM
COMMENT8;
YEAR -TO -DATE:
1 1
5
5
FLOOR PLANS 'OFFERED
3
COhinF£N'iS
st.
FLOOR PLAN:
Bradenton
Captiva Miramar
Augustine Monticello
BEDROOMS;
3
4 4
4 5
MONTH:
DEN /OTHER:
APR
MAY JUN
JUL
,
BATHS:
3.5
315 3.5
3.5 9.5
0
AC SQ FT
3121
3574 4125
4961 4398
0 0
FLOORS:
1
1 1
2 2
3
GARAGJ1S
3GA
3GA 30A
3GA 30A
0 0 2
BASE PRICE:
0 0
JUL 1, 2012
559990
589990 645990
729990 661990
3 3
OCT 1, 2012
559990
589990 645,990
729990 661990
AV13 PRICE {$000):
JAN 1, 2013
559990
589990 645990
729990 661990
APR 1, 2013
559990
589990 645990
729990 661990
JUL 1, 2013
585000
615000 670000
755000 687000
PRICH /SQ FT:
187.44
172,08 162.42
152.19 156.21
SHRT -TERM RE14TAL:
POOL INCLUDED:
FORN 71KO INCLD.
CONST /STRUCTURE:
CB,FR
ELEVATION: 8
ROOF: T
COMMENTS:
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION STATUS: 06/30/13
'
GROSS DENSITY
LOT SIZE CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
UNITS UNITS VACANT "
PHASE
ACRES DU ACRE
W K D_ SQ FT START DATE TATS
BUILT U. C.
.1. All
UK UK
120 200 24000 2/12 38
_LOTS
5 3 30
FUTURE (UNDEVELOPED)
4.0 0.0
0
0 0 0'
PROXIICT TOTAL
UK UK
38
5 3 30
COWdENTS:
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
DATE:
03/31/12 06130112
09/30/12
12/31/12
03/31/13
06/30/13
09/30/13
12/31/13
KNITS BUILT:
0 0
1
5
5
5
UNITS U.C.:
1 1
4
0
0
3
TOT UNITS DLT OR U.C,:
1 1
5
5
5
8
QUARTERLY STARTS:
1 0
4
0
0
3
YEAR -TO -DATE:
1 1
5
5
0
3
COhinF£N'iS
MONTHLY
CLOSINGS
MONTH:
JAN FEB RAR
APR
MAY JUN
JUL
AUO SEP
OCT
NOV DEC
2012 NOUTHLY CLOSINGS:
0 0 0
0
1 1
1
0 1
0
0 0
YEAR -TO -DATE:
0 0 0
0
1 2
3
3 4
4
4 4
2013 HONTHLY CLOSINGS:
0 0 2
1
0 0
YEAH -TO -DATE:
0 0 2
3
3 3
AV13 PRICE {$000):
010 010 k
A
010 0.0
VOLYA-W ($000):
0.0 0.0
010 010
COMMENTS: -0oo Stamps
recorded for lot sales only.
======= SALES MANAGEMENT'
SALES BY, Surrey Home$ LLC
SALES LOCATION: On -Site
TELEPHONE: (407) 878 -7707
WEBS1TE: vrww.surseyhomee.com
Charles Wayne Consulting, InC., 2013, All Rights Reserved
COMMENTS
_== W=- .— ,........,.... -.- ...mss== .- .__....,..�._ --= == ate....._
RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORTS
SFP PROFILE
CONSTRUCTION STATUS: 06130113
-
PROJECT NAME:
Bella Tuscany
14XD NAME: 'None MAP REY; A -157
04)N'aRa
Taylor Morrison ot- Florida, Inc.
BUILDER: - Taylor I-forrison -. STATUS: Closed
CITY;
None
COUNTY: Seminole S -T -R: 25 -20 -29
DIRECTIONS:
I -4 NE to SR 434, 4J .25 mile to Markham Woode Rd, N 2 miles to R.E. Oi.11iamson Rd, E 1.0 Inile to
�RoJECT TOTAL
entrance,
7 7 0 0
LAKEFRONT:
No TENNIS: 110
PICNIC /BBQ: No CLUBHOUSE: No
GOLP COURSE:
No SPJII4MING POOL: No
PLAY FIELD: NO TRAIL: No
CONSERVATION:
110 PLAYGRt7A/TOT; 1110
BASKETBALL: No SECURITY; SG
COMMENTS:
7
UNITS U.C.:
FLOOR
PLANS OFFERED
FLOOR PLAN:
Travis Fremont Beaumont
Brantley Chandler
BEDROOMS;
4 5 6
6 7
DEN /OTHER:
1 2 4 7 0
0
BATHS:
3.5 3.5 3.5
S 4
AC SO FT:
3221 3284 4180
5073 4852
FLOORS:
1 2 2
2 2
GARAGE:
3GA PGA 3GA
3GA 3GA
BASE PRICE:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 1 3 4
JUL 1, 2012
353995 354995 376995
413995 403995
OCT 1, 2012
N/O 362995 386995
N10 N/O
JAN 1, 2013
N/0 362995 366995
N/0 N/O
APR 1, 2013
ON N10 306995
N/O N/0
JUL 1, 2013
N/O N/0 N10
N/0 N/O -
PRICE/SO FT:
N/O N/0 N10
N/O N/O
SHRT - 'PERM RENTAL; POOL INCLUDED:
FURN PKG INCLD: -
CONST /STRUCTURE:
CB,FR ELEVATION= S
ROOF: SH
COMMENTS:
(877) 249 -6160
TYPICAL
CONSTRUCTION STATUS: 06130113
-
GROSS DENSITY LOT SIZE CONSTRUCI`10N
TOTAL UNITS UNITS VACANT
PRASE
ACRES UU ACRE W X D S FT START DATE
TATS BUILT U.C. LOTS
1. All
4.8 1.5 80 130 10400 2/12 -
7- 7 0 0
FUTURE (UNDEVELOPED)
0.,0 . ;'.0,.0
0 0 0 0
�RoJECT TOTAL
? 4.8 .1.5_
7 7 0 0
CoivicNTS:
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
DATE:
03/31/12 06/30/12 09/30/12 12/31/12 03/31/13 06/30/13
09/30/13 12/31/13
UNITS BUILT:
0 1 1 4 7
7
UNITS U.C.:
1 1 3 3 0
0
TOT UNITS BLT OR U.C.:
1 2 4 7 7
7
QUARTERLY STARTS:
1 1 2 3 0
0
YEAR -TO -DATE:
1 2 4 7 0
0
COMMENTS: Project
is built -out.
MONTHLY CLOSINGS- - - -
- -�
MONTH:
JAN FE8 R R APR 1w JUN DUI, AUG
SEP OCT NOV DEC
2012 114NTHLY CLOSINGS:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 2 1
YEAR -TO -DATE:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 1 3 4
2013 MONT141,Y CWSINGS:
0 0 1 0 2 0
YEAR -TO -DATE:
0 0 1 1 3 3
AVE PRICE ($000)s
0.0 0.0 407.9 010 428.9 0.0
VOLUME ($000);
0.0 0.0 407.9 0.0 857.9 0.0
CO; -I ,CNTS:
_ =__ =__ SALES
MMAGEMENT
COMMENTS -ww
SALES BY: BY:
Taylor Morrison Project reported to be Sold -out (7/13).
SALES LOCATION:
Main Office
TELEPHONE;
(877) 249 -6160
WEBSITE:
Charles Wayne Consulting,
Inc., 2013, All Rights Res6rved
RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORTS
SFP PROFILE
PROJECT VANE: Estates at Pearl LaXe I•SXD NAME: None
11AP HEY: A -150
MINER: Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc. BUILDER: Taylor morrison Homes
STATUS: Active
CITY: None COUNTY: Seminole
S -T -R: 35 -19 -29
DXRBCI'30NS: I -4 N to SR 46A, 11 0.7 mile to Orange Blvd, 11 O.S mile to entrance.
COf mws :
LAKEFRONT: No TENNIS: No PICNIC /BBQ: No
CLUBHOUSE: No
GOLF COURSE: No S11114MING POOL: No PLAY FIELD: No
TRAIL: No
CONSERVATION: 110 PLAYGRND /TOT: No BASHET8W b; NO
SECURITY: PSV /SG
COMMENTS:
DATE:
FLOOR PLANS OFFERED
FLOOR PLAN:
03/31/13 06/30/13 09/30/13
BEDROOMS:
UNITS BUILT:
DEN /OTHER:
0
BATHS;
AC SQ FT:
0 0 0
FLOORS:
0 0
GARA{3G:
TOT UNITS BLT OR U.C,:
BASE PRICE;
0
JUL 1, 2012
OCT 1, 2012
0 0 0
JAN 1, 2013
0 0
APR 1, 2013
YEAR -TO -DATE:
JUL 1, 2013
0
PRICE /SQ FT:
SHRT -TERM RENTAL: POOL INCLUDED: FURN PXG INCLO:
CONST /STRUCTURE: CB,FR ELEVATION: 8 ROOF: SH
COMMENTS; Floor plans and pricing not yet established (7/5/13).
MONTHLY CLOSINGS
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
TYPICAL CONSTRUC'T'ION STATUS-..._.06Z30/l3
GROSS DENSITY LOT SIZE CONSTRUCTION TOTAL UNITS UNITS VACANT
_. PHASE ACRES XlU ACRE N X A �jS FT START DATE LOTS BUILT U.C. LOTS
'I, All
FUTURE (UNDEVELOPED)
0.0 0.0
0 0
0 0
PROJECT TOTAL
33.4 213
76 0
0 76
COf mws :
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
DATE:
03/31/12 06/30/12 09130/12
12/31/12
03/31/13 06/30/13 09/30/13
12/31/13
UNITS BUILT:
0 0 0
0
0 0
UNITS U.C.:
0 0 0
0
0 0
TOT UNITS BLT OR U.C,:
0 0 0
0
0 0
QUARTERLY STARTS;
0 0 0
0
0 0
YEAR -TO -DATE:
0 0 0
0
0 0
COI•it -0ENTS
MONTHLY CLOSINGS
MONTH:
JAN FEB MAR APR
MAY JUN
JUL AUG SBP OCT
NOV DEC
2012 MONTHLY CLOSINGS:
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
YEAR -TO -DATE:
0 O 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
2013 MONTHLY CLOSINGS:
0 0 D 0
0 0
YEAR -TO -DATE:
0 0 0 0
0 0
AVE PRICE ($000):
0.0 0.0 0.0 010
0.0 010
VOLUME ($006)1
0.0 0.0 0.0 O.D
D.0 010
001.14ENTS :
_=____= SALES
MANAGEMENT'
COMMENTS
SALES BY;
Taylor Morrison !Tomes
SALES LOCATION:
Off -Site
TELEPHONE:
(877) 249 -6168
WEBSITE.
.W,,d.taylormorrison.corn
Charles Mayne Consulting, Inc., 2013, All Rights ReseYved
RESIDENTIAL MARKET REPORTS
SFP PROFILE
PROJECT NA1,124 Versailles 14XD NAME: None
MAP KEY; A -162
OWNER. MI Homes of Orlando LLC BUILDER: 13I Homes of
STATUS: Active
.Orlando
CITY: Sanford COUNTY: Seminole
S -T -R: 19 -19 -30
DIRECTIONS; I -4 NOrth to SR 46, W 1.6 miles t0 Orange Blvd, N 0.3 mile to entrance.
LAKEFRONT: No TENNIS: No PICNIC /BBQ: No
CLUBHOUSE; NO
GOLF COURSE: NO SWIMMING POOL: No PLAY FIELD: No
TRAIL: Yes
CONSERVATION: No PLAYGRND /TOT; No SASK£TBALL: No
SECURITY: PN /SG
COIRNPHTS
FLOOR PLANS OFFERED
Brookshire
Gran Vista
FLOOR PLAN: II Corina Savannah Corine Grandview Sonome
Sierra II
BEDROOMS: 3 4 4 4 q g
S
DEN /OTHER: Bonus
BATHS: 3 2 3 2.5 3.5 3
3.5 4.5
AC SQ FT: 2819 2311 2719 2971 4699 3642
4043 5213
FLOORS; 1 1 1 2 2 2
2 2
GARAGE; 3GA 30A DGA 30A 40A 313A
DGA 30A
BASE PRICE:
OM 1, 2012 w/o N/O N/0 N10 N/0 N/O
N/0 N/O
OCT 1, 2012 N/0 N/O N/O N/0 N/0 N10
N/O N/0
JAN 1, 2013 N/0 N/O N/0 N/O N/O N/O
N/O N/O
APR 1, 2013 361990 304990 337990 331990 410990 363990
382990 435990
JUL 1, 2013 366990 309990 343930 336990 415990 368990
387990 440990
PRICE /SQ FT: 130.18 134.14 226.51 113.43 88.53 101.32
95.97 84.59
SHRT -TER14 RENTAL: POOL INCLUDED. RUM PKG INCLD:
- CONST /STRUCTURE: CB,FR ELEVATION: S ROOF: SH
COMENTS, One additional floor plan availabla witin size and price range shown.
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY'
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION STATUS2..06 30 13
GROSS DENSITY _ LOT SIZE CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
UNITS UNITS VACANT
PHASE ACR28 DU ACRE W X D ._,SQ_FT START DATE LOTS
BUILT U.C. LOTS
1. All 26.1 2.4 70 120 8400 3/13 63
0 15 48
FUTURE (UNDEVELOPED) 0.0 0.0 0
0 0 0
. PROJECT TOTAL 26.1 2.4 63
0 15 48
C0101ENT$;
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
DATE: 03131/12 06/30/12 09/30/12 12/31/12 03/31/13 06/30/13
09/30/13, 12/31/13
UNITS BUILT: 0 0 0 0 0 0
UNITS U.C. : 0 0 0 0 3 15
TOT UNITS BLT OR U.C.: 0 0 0 0 3 15
QUARTERLY STARTS. 0 0 0 0 3 12
- YEAR- TO -DATM 0 0 0 0 3 15
COMMENTS:
MON'T'HLY CLOSINGS
MONTH: JAN FEB 14AR APR 14AY JUN JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC
2012 MONTHLY CLOSINGS: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
YEAR -TO -DATE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
2013 MONTHLY CLOSINGS: 0 0 0 0 0 0
YEAR -TO -DATE; 0 0 0 0 0 0
AVE PRICE {$000): 010 0.0 019 0.0 010 010
VOLUME ($000): 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C0: ,21ENPS :
__ - =- =_ SALES MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
SALES BY: 1.51 Homes of Orlando LLC
SALES LOCATION: Wekiva Park
TELEPHONE: (407) 688-1090
WESSITE:
Charles Wayne Consulting, Inc., 2013, All Rights Reserved
11,00 Moe"
IM"a-1,11I)o # "figh conslift i n I foO I) i:o- Led I cm Is OU I gxom
1.1,11 Vironmental and Perinitting Services mv kv, b io -wc tl I co 11stj I H I �gxoln
August 22, 2013
City of Sanford
300 North Park Avenue
Sanford, Fl, 32771
Pi-oj.: Silver Lake Residential Site — Seminole County, Florida
(13TC File #372-20.03)
Re: Conip Plan Policy 5-1.4.1 Review
To Whom It May Concern:
Bio-Tech Consulting, Inc. (BTC) has been retained as the environmental
consultant for the Silver Lakes Residential site. The Silver Lakes,
.Residential Site is approximately :E214.11 acres. The su jlect site is
located directly south of the intersection of Ohio Avenue and the new
extension of East Lake Mary Boulevard within Sections 7, 8, 17 and 18;
Township 20 South; and Range 31 East; Seminole County, Florida
(Figure 1).
BBC conducted a review of the Silver Lakes, Industrial Site to determine
compliance with the City of Sanford's Comp Plan Policy 5- 1.4.1: Protect
Wetland Transition Areas. The wetlands and transitional areas within
(lie Silver Lake Industrial Site were surveyed' to determine the extent of
continuing function that provides a buffer to the wetland areas. Tile
existing transitional areas that provide 'direct groundwater or surface
water influence' were limited to the immediate adjacent upland areas.
These areas will be within the State's E�nvironmental Resource Permit
(ERP) rules that govern secondary wetiand impact protection. The
typical upland buffer averages 25 feet and is accepted by the State
regulatory agencies as protection of wetlands, frorn developillent, if the
upland buffer is protected in perpetuity. The secondary impact
protections permitted by the St. Johns River Water Management District
(SJRWMD) for the silver Lakes Residential Site should be sufficient to
protect the transitional areas and comply with the City's Comp Plan
Policy.
Orlando Vero 130 ach Leesburg jac)(SOJIVIlle Tampa Hey West
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the Silver Lake Residential Site,
please contact our office at (407) 894-5969. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Miklos
President
Cl
9
'U 00
o
4-4
uj
va
z
0
P� o
U
rn
c:>
cfi 4
ou
C'j
CII r4
N
N
0
�o
c
4-J
ro
'-,
V)
W
W
4-J
V)
W
o
V)
CL
E
0
u
i
a�
E
Q
May; v
wl
W, Lu CL8
RUN a
40
fro
wr
All X
lig
IN
18
I ci
IN v P� V p
Ell
410
IV-
�l V,
27
A19
a
10) 04 tin 01
*6 rwr
4�
g 49
11 PE
A 1 E pt
5 rdl SO I;
1 go e so" I.
CL
13
-, "6PA
c
a z, , ' Q!
un
75
tj
in
w0%
Mal
MIN
wo Iwo
is Of
Re RiA
Ana
EL
Mal
u 'A
CO.
IRS
firm to
13
Nil
6,
i 'n
1 tt
17 6 9
<
YIN,
in a in c
'uau Vii" IMP
a— pier v � 19
SIR 5 2
IM 1(0
r Eg
51%
Elm Iris IN "
cn in
aim g I, ell E
Ali I a,
N 11
d,
41
E a its
log I
IS day
CL 31 E I
p
11 F
At 2 oil
tg
M'E
IN I i
v W tw) to
0- Tj
In,
41
Moil
H
IV to 19
cm �
I.
CL to
AT
Fj 0
w" 1-4 Al
" All 1P
in
ON M C4 IV t a w rM
q
SAVVEHIMPM b mot
g t !'� g-
1f,10NE
NO
INCA w2laman"
m 0 k-AT
NOW
3
BPI
IN
zo
'In M4�c
E
IS
30,
Pi
It
s
ism
BPI
R
Eli
024
va
FBI
Ilk 11,
Ism
RE Ir
mo
BPI (0
16 ms
MI
111's
0
pal DA all
N S pilot"
S 44
: "CL
3 U
io'?�
Now
cis
EP,
P- v
7, P_
g
4).
v P
RON .1
vi
9 35
Gtr
w
Imp,
0
0
Eel
74 M
we
Ila
oil "IN, 1
I I w %
SIM 212
'112,
a 91
fm, IV 4A
r
ZI
E UWE'
v L"
v
�Q
FRI
4 Q
Vol*
FA
15 2Y
R p
r ` Y 6
v 21,
zl� a FE, F
Pi
do
014 IV
to
E
9 �2
fa, 15 t
E �7�
(m, JAj
6
RE 2
El NO
di
ri N
00
lb
;
m a
4; 55
WIN,
as a Z`5
a�sa In 0; na ct
iL
Ty
ej
tz
I,
a
P
SIL
A; 13
0,
LZ a
ot
re;
aw�N
J� C
10
tj
rn' f
IAN
ILL C.,
101"
r E
AN IS
v W,
OL
raw
T�
wrf
C, ri
IS
E IV
S)j
POP
way
FOS tc
I" tz ,
Do
wins
tit
t 1AW:
S-3
9.1 EF
Is Bpi,
pp
wow
42
Jim
rM
No
ICU IRS
Ism—
9p w
"1 14
12
Vag
Eq"j rl
OL
t
64
al
*A it
n
'Ell Allp';
w
wi
E
>
co
w
lu E
r
0
40,
0
a
2 m 0 v
> E
0
80
ol
>
cl
0
0 0
CC,
E
10 =11
0
E
(71
E
tt)
> 01)
r
C
E
-0,3
0
_4
a
Ma
"'Oz
CL
cl.
e
CS 101)
'a
p
>
cl,
0
;>
yG
a
r4
E
>
E
0
4) (A
2
0
'5 0 C.
ru
' 04
r=
0 u
>
45 'A o
—
E 6
>
>
Eq " 0 .9
0 = .2 W> 6
—
*�
- �o
-0
, g M
'u.2
m 0
.E� a
pCp
o -a
L". -
U
r
0 8,
0
p1
bS
0 >
'o
E2
E
0
tb
Ul-
0" 2
u an
t
> CL °cs
2 g 4 E
"Ou
r
>
1> 0
"tom
El
Nt
u
w cc
z
0
'o
g 0
0
42
0 >
c8
N
9,
p Cs C5 tz
s�
IZ
ti
tm
C3 Z t: z
v 0. cs ti
Sz
w 'u
as a
zi
-mz Q Do !Z rz
z-.
tN ?.I
ou .';2
I'j
.2z 4Z
rz� Iz a a rz.
21,
tu
t:1 w
ta
tz az
iz
to , 4�
to
ZZ,
-tz
sz
tj t3 t4D
'ZI
IZ '" r .-
q) Q w
4, s
Q 44
st:
"Q 14"
cl
co
14 —Z
C�tz .
ti
tl
'ZI
Z.
Z6
Zj L'
1 ca U
Zl
p
C40
%Avon VNI 1%
HUMAN41 as - I M u
-4 V SW
lit] 10
a a Q A x
lot
ra
a Uribut",
4 0 10 1 —.1. 1
Alwashlb
t
6
I a Ila
ACHMA01 a
. WnV w R 4
A
:14 01 N,a 4h
SAM.
I W.,
.4 All pup
tv VIV 'Was SO
521 1 .1 p 1, a WO A
1 H All
A
u
I won 0
10
1 Av" I all
A A 011 R MA
J;g 1011 @A 11 11
V MA- eVA I
'.0 0 it Ulm 0
a
t ITS
all
4
11 Ell
A A -A, 9
11 1 PQ V
al OW u a
slap Fes' � d �P*
tmm
wd
rw
tL
tmm
wd
rw
0 4-
0 0
as as
44
4.
t)f) bp
0 Z
Cd 0
td
0
03
,z5 _0 0 rL
"V cn
CIS cn
w iz
00
v LA 0
0 .�o
if lt� 0 , riz — .
Cj
t. HE > z 0 >
0 —
o
a
CL u
CC 0 m
0 cr. rL CA 0 Q
u > cn -14 r. tn o co
cli >
o CA co CL m .- �E >�
0 to j>4� cd
tn ca o v r-L
0
2 'm
cn z v trz Cd -
Cc
CIS
0 7;
20pa$o
cd o o
u 0 tn cn 0 b o Ku-
E
> -E 0 Z
00 0 A
= %= U zi
L) 0
> 03 0 X E tn
co -Tz
>1 00 :z
tr. cz -8 a 01) cd U
-R� Cd 4-) c�3 r. E E
..0 V , P_ i = 0 (L) 0 bl)
in, u
0 0
0 > 0
SS E C9 'd
W >
0 2 ✓ 0 =$ 0 bO
W r. 0 0 •= <n .0 1� .0 z
0 0, cd w c) � — 0 -6
m — CL,,- u 'A 213 Q
2 Co r, -6 .7, E E E Z
CI. 0 2 > U E ar
0 Chi 0 0 0 0 0
>
0
lu
xi
0 >
01)
ca
cn
16
in, 0
zi S
0
C,Z4
lu
0 bl) U
>
ol
>
Q)
0 0
cl,
CIS
r� 0 to Cd
CIJ 0
rr
47,
C4.
cli w w o
cli Lp,
0 Lei
C�l Er 0)
-0 —Cj cn (n
0 vs —CJ co
(U Ln En
4
u
> CA td
CA U5 cn P4 0
3
.wMy VUAMMaliWAK
Lq Gry
f 4S
47
13
A
tlr
III
1 1 , 1% A
Air
fj
f
t lif t'li il if I
I V
14
11 011 fj I M
I' 1 21
p
all 11 Iff .11 .1:1 .11 N 91 11 11 v a I I
M��
Ax A I
* 41m,"
t twc
U-1 -11
"", at,
, 41
tit.,
RI It
m '1 41
o'o %A.
(4 q e, Zara It j Y7d)
i I I
sh
II
H
J; Ili
ICI
t �j
Iowa
am
Ll
sh
II
H
J; Ili
ICI
t �j
Iowa
am
0i
1 PS 1r
wn m 1vVA#
i C*4
Aa
nuraw. "LOK110
oil ON 14214 i
l
oi
L oil SAM
1 046 F oil
01 aq
SW 1 1 H
1— --ml,
2 111 r
r 41.111 cf, 15 W1157.7 11 11K7 y B *12211
1 a?
!NMI
0i
1 PS 1r
wn m 1vVA#
i C*4
Aa
nuraw. "LOK110
oil ON 14214 i
l
oi
L oil SAM
1 046 F oil
01 aq
SW 1 1 H
1— --ml,
2 111 r
r 41.111 cf, 15 W1157.7 11 11K7 y B *12211
1 a?
II� �! w a
P"blic Meeting
Thne: / A.'M M.
Date: YS 2!0
p
PLEASE PRINTILEARLY
Fksftask Name;
City::
Addmgs;
State:
'P� phom
Comment regarding ftern 1 support the action on thi's (tern
I oppose the action on this item
(ONE ITEM P&R FORM P�E�AS
. . . . .......... . ...... ...
10Mld 11 I I VY
f
J
A Al
..... . ... ...
J/ L . . ......
..... .....
. .. . ... . .......
--- ---- ----
... .......... . . ......
I will speak for myself
I will represent And will speak for qe -a- ...........
City of Sanford
Please check ONE
Written Coninient
(Please read my comments into
the Hearing Record.)
rr
Speaker Request
(I wish to speak regarding this item.)
P'ublic Meeting
Date: ?o Time: J—d'
M.
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Address:
$%to:
Comment regardhig Item T
PU-
(ONE ITEM PER FORM PLEASE)
COMMENT AREA
EJI support the action on this Item
I Oppose the action On this stern
Ll� 9
I will speak for niyself
I will ropresent
A Air() will speak for
Hinson, Eileen
Rom: Silas & Linda Barker <silaslinda @houmil.con)>
Split: Thursday, December 05, 2013 7.7.;03 AM
To: Hinson, Eileen
subject: FW: Russ I have not done a final review on this email- thOLIght there was a meeting
ton ight..00ps... Linda
From: silaslinda @hotmail.com
To: russell.gibson@sanfordfl,gov
Subject: Russ I have not done a final review an this email-thought there was a meeting tonight..00ps...Llnda
(date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:57:07 -0500
Question.
1. Why is the P & Z considering a PUD with 5 to 7.5 ' setbacks, which clearly shouts out affordable "starter homes ",
when currently there are:
17 foreclosures, In the nearby, recently bullt "Magnolia Barre" subdivision and 13 forecloses in nearby
"affordable "Sonora ".
We do NOT need anymore "affordable stater hornes ", that bring in low taxes, increase a population in an area with
limited entry level employment,
It is paramount that as citizens of 32773 , we highlight the conflict that the newly proposed P & Z PD Master Plan
for "Silvestri Estates" will have on our zip code and loss of potential tax revenue for Sanford.
We all agree, do we not, that we need to increase our Tax Revenue?
As stated in public record on the Sept 9 Budget meeting the average dome in Sanford is $120,000.
anford has the highest Millage (20.3894) of any city in the central Florida area.
BUT we Have the lowest tax revenue
1.. This disparity is due to the fact that our AVERAGE home value is $120K.
Average ... so whorl you take out the few homes that are are $350K -+-.,.the home Values are really much lower.
2. In fact according to the "Orlando Regional Realtor Association" statistics attaclied which demonstrate general
sales for tllc first ,3 (JUarters :
Sanforc1 /1,alce Forrest 32771 average Home sales of $ Yf3G,7jL3 West of 1 -4 Corridor.
S-111for(I 32773 average Home sales of $104, 536
.....The difference - $82277 ...way l)elow the $t2o,000 average.
Question.
We often ask what does Lake Mary/ Heathrow have that Sanford does not? ( NIN s Nlonov 2000 study "that
declared it the hest plwo to live in the Southern United Statosl In the national ranking conducted Lake Mary made it to number
4th Illost desirable place to live. "
Answer. Upscale PUDI
7. t''1'olll .1:111tull'y 2000 fo June 2009, there were 33 siagle? Illnlily holnes sold 111 1140 Ileallirow h1. reni Ctitate 111orkel. Tho
hi ;hest priced holn�r sold 1�1r .ti 1,460,000 and the lmvest priced home lisr 5235,000.
What did Lake Mary/Heathrow have when it was developed in 1985? Vacant land and vision.
Our concerns are that there is a monumental disparity between the quality of development under review by P & Z
and the vision of the "Comprehensive plan."
The emphasis in the past is to or give tax incentives to corporations to move to Sanford.
13ut what good does it do when those who are employed move to Lake Mary and I leathrow as there is no suitable
new Florlle Construction here in zip 32773?
Our newly appointed Police Chief, Cecil Smith chose not to live in the city limits of Saliford. Sadly, he clot the
blessing from om the city of Sanford to live outside the city limits. ill the gated community of Lake Forrest, since no
suitable upscale single family 1lolnes meeting their lifestNrle Nvere,i\,ailable ile 22oi _
QLleStlon.
What are the incentives to live in Sanford?
We desperately need to change Sanford's image. if Lake Mary call transform itself, we have the opportunity to
Cl'eatC OUr OW11 airpO1't' CO111111LInity of "Lake Nona" of Heathrow. We have the raw land to use as the cit3, directs,
Here is what !needs to be addressed that more "affordable starter homes" will not rectify.
Our ,neighbor 11,18 vacated his honie and moved to Heathrow. His house is listed for sale and currently is a rental.
The owner's complaint is that although there has been interest in the property, the buyers lose interest when they
discover the Sanford crime statistics.
1'Lil'tlleriiiol'e the p1'osllective llti3,e,i's ai'e not impressed Ivitll the overi3ll iildtlstr'ializ,ltioll of the area, However there
have been
Wliat are the factors negatively inipactiiig Sanford 3P-773?
Tu addition to all these Nvoes Sanford's reputation for ,Section 8 liousiiig, transient lioiueless
persons, and crime seal the deal.
Crime
a FBI crime statistics show that Sanford has a violent crime rate of 6.65 incidents per 1,000 residents
higher than Florida's crime rate of 5.42. The city's burglary crime rate, 16,26 per 1,000 residents, is more
than double the national average of 7.0.
o gailford is ills entidepiC it city} Quote from the City of Sanford's website;
o "City of Sanford's CDBG five -Year Consolidated flan that completed the City's requiremeni for Entitlement
Community Status for the Department of Housing and Urban Development"
The C1LlotCS )('. Cl1V are tTplil tile article f;rrn: s l inN �:;:n ;}i:u ln.[i3 c nS hrl35iE;" i,i:,jrr #, ,:'ul_cri E,.fr•.av:r:, irr .`;;tut; >1 d" € -, Jta1:::
;1n,ls „[fetes i lairii „t._ZE1,1� ^
"Sanford is considered the ghetto of Seminole County,” because of them, one black resident said
because they were so close to private homes in the small city, where everything seerns to be ten minutes
away from everything else. Even the nicer parts of town, where older, larger homes sit on manicured lawns;
or the newer, town homes and single family house developments surrounded by high walled gates, are no
more than a ten minute drive froin the acres of boarded up public housing.
"Seminole is one of Florida's most affluent counties, but of its eleven "pockets of poverty," nine are
located in Sanford, accordinrd to tho (,( "!oI,,i" l I_i�,,n(,Ju Digit r1m C�'..eii.(ei, And Goldsboro and Georgelown,
home to less thatt 10 percent of the city's 53,500
D "An unwelcome exodus"
6 The six vacant housing projects are slated to be torn down, and the area redeveloped, ']'here are plans for
mixed income, single family homes, Many of the families who left the projects sifted out into greater Sanford,
often receiving a less than warm welcome from the residents of the gated communities and other residential
pockets in the city, like the Retreat at Twin Lakes, where Trayvon Martin was killed. After the recession
devastated home prices across Florida, some homeowners began renting out their places, and HUD pays
nearly all of the rent, making Section 8 an attractive offer for some desperate homeowners. k
o Social and Racial Unrest
G "Oliver said some homeowners associations actively fought the new residents, who received rent assistance
from HUD, in some cases prompting the local chapter of the NAACP to get involved."
6 We who have invested in Sanford, who live in Sanford, work in Sanford, and love Sanford need to get
aggressive in what we bring our community up to match the natural resources that should be the envy of
every other city in Central Florida.
Let irs not squander our land, and future with lack of vision,
Sincerely,
l_,h1da barter
3405 S Mellonvi Ile Ave
Sanford Fl 3 2773
4073028469
I?rom: Silas & Linda Barker [m.�ruIio silk s[,i»c €a {cr1l�c�tmail_.conl]
Sent: Sun 12/29/2013 11:33 PM
Subject: Concerns here in the Silver Lake District 32773
As Seminole County, City Of Sanford, and City of Lake Mary are committed to working together to '
provide the best and highest quality of life for it's citizens, this letter is going out to all who are in a
position to act accordingly.
We who have invested in Sanford, who live in Sanford, work in Sanford, and love Sanford need to get
aggressive in what we bring to a community.
It is my sincere desire that a dialogue can evolve that will provide significant solutions to a proposed
PUD adjacent to the "Silver Lake District" that will cause more harm than good.
It is paramount that as residents of zip code 32773, we highlight the trouble and conflicting issues that
will descend upon City and County citizens as a result of the newly - proposed P & L P1_)D Master Plan
for "Silvestri Estates."
The P & ! considering an approval of this PUD with 5 to 7.5 ` setbacks - -- which clearly shouts out
affordable "starter homes " - -- when currently there are sevcnfeerr foreclosures in the nearby recently -
built "Magnolia Park" tract home subdivision and tlrh een forecloses in nearby "affordable
"Sonora "?
We do NOT need anymore "affordable starter homes" that bring in low taxes, increase a population in an
area with limited entry -level employment.
It should be apparent, that the potential for high end development, either residential or commercial to be
replaced by this uninspiring tract housing is a huge financial loss in terms of a future tax base to us
residents, and to the city of Sanford.
We all agree, do we not, that we need to increase our Tax Revenue?
In spite of the low price of houses, Sanford has the highest Millage (20.3894) of any city in the
central Florida area. Such information highlights the lowest tax revenue in spite of high tax rates.
1. We heard at the September- 9th 2013 Budget meeting the statistics for the AVERAGE hone price in
Sanford is $120,000. Since a limited few honks are valued at $350,000 or more the evidence below
demonstrates a valuation lower than $120,000.
2. SigniCcant to the community is the statistic attached to the general sales of homes in the first three
quarters of the year based upon area. The "Orlando JZegional Realtor Association" reveals prices based
upon zip codes. The following reveals a divergence in prices:
Zip code 32771, a Sanford /Lake Forrest region, average home sales of $186,713 West of I -4
corridor.
Zip code 32773, a different Sanford neighborhood, average home sales of $104, 536
The difference of $82,177 is a pointed decline and a figure way below the $120,000 average.
Question.
We often ask what does Lake Mary/ Heathrow have that Sanford does not? C °NN's_Moicy._1��,ag)a, i»e'_s
2009 study declared Lake Mary to be the best place to live in the Southern United States. In the national
ranking conducted, Lake Mary placed fourth in favorite places to live.
Answer. The answer is simple: an upscale Planned Urban Development is needed here in Sanford as
well!
2. From January 2009 to June 2009, there were 33 single family homes sold in the Heathrow Ff., real
estate market. The highest priced ],ionic sold for $1,460,000, and the lowest-priced home sold for
$235,000.
What did Lake Mary/Heathrow have when it was developed in 1985? That answer is simple too, They
had vacant land and civic leaders with a vision.
Our concerns center from a monumental disparity between the quality of development under review by P
& Z and the vision of the "Comprehensive plan,"
The emphasis in the past was to give tax incentives to corporations to move to Sanford. As solid as that
goal Sounds, irony surfaces. What good does it do when those Corporate executives move to Lake Mary
and fle, tl�
athrow as there is no suitable, high end, new home construction in zip 32773?
Point in case:
Our newlv anoointed Police Chief, Cecil Smith, chose not to live in the city limits of Sanford. Sadly he
got the blessingv om the city of Sanford to live outside the city limits in the 2ated community of Lake
Forrest. ATmarently, no _suitable, upscale, single-family homes existed in 2013 to match the Chiefs
desired lifestyle.
Question:
What are the incentives to live in Sanford?
We desperately need to change Sanford's image. If Lake Mary can transform itself, so can we. We have
the opportunity to create our own airport community of "Lake Nona" or Heathrow. We have the raw land
to use as the City and County directs.
Sanford's image: needs revival. Seven hundred "affordable starter homes" will not rectify nor even move
us slightly towards a transformation. It will be just more of the sarne.
What are the factors negatively impacting Sanford 32773?
Specifically, Our neighbor has vacated his home and moved to Heathrow. His home is listed for sale and
currently is a rental.
The owner's complaint is that although there has been interest in the property, the buyers lose interest
when they discover the Sanford crime statistics, Furthermore the prospective buyers are not impressed
with the overall industrialization of the area.
In addition to all these woes centering around Sanford's reputation for Section 8 housing, transient
homeless persons and crime are salient variables. These two factors "seal the deal."
• Crime
• TB—I crime statistics show that Sanford has a violent crime rate of 6.65 incidents per 1,000
residents — higher than Florida's crime rate of 5.42. The city's burglary crime rate, 16,,26 per
1,000 residents, is more than double the national average of 7.0.
• Sanford is an entitlement city. Quote from the City of Sanford's website;
• "City of Sanford's CDBG Five-Year Consolidated Plan that completed the City's requirement for
Entitlement Community Status for the Department of Housing and Urban Development"
The quotes below are from the article "Before Trayvon ]Vlartin, Closure of housing
. projects stoked
tensions in Sanford" ),,N Flo nix Reid a April AL2M
• "Sanford is considered the ghetto of Seminole County," because of them, one black resident said
-- because they were so close to private homes in the small city, where everything seems to be
ten minutes away from everything else. Even the nicer parts of town, where older, larger homes
sit on manicured lawns; or the newer town homes and single family house developments
surrounded by High walled gates, are no more than a ten minute drive from the acres of boarded
up public housing,"
• "Seminole is one of Florida's inost affluent counties, but of its eleven "pockets of poverty," nine
are located in Sanford, according to the Cen(ral_Florida Dream. Center. and Goldsboro and
Georgetown, horse to less than 10 percent of the city's 53,500
• "An unwelcome exodus"
• The six vacant housing projects are slated to be torn down, and the area redeveloped. There are
plans for mixed income, single family homes. Many of the families who left the projects sifted
out into greater Sanford, often receiving a less than warm welcome from the residents of the
gated communities and other residential pockets in the city, like the Retreat at Twin Lakes, where
Trayvon Martin was killed. After the recession devastated home prices across Florida, some
homeowners began renting out their places, and HUD pays nearly all of the rent, making Section
8 an attractive offer for some desperate homeowners.
In conclusion,
We who have invested in Sanford, who live in Sanford, work in Sanford, and love Sanford need to get
aggressive in what we bring to a community. The natural resources should be the envy of every other city
in Central Florida. The pristine lake is unmatched. The majestic trees are signs of beauty unique to few
locations. Void of asphalt jungles, tacky zero- property lines, and cookie - cutter homes, we are proud of
our distinct region. All of these assets are here in the Lake District. The citizens know of their secret
"jewel." Silver- Lake should be embraced, promoted, and rejuvenated at each opportunity possible by
people in government. This includes Planning and Zoning employees who should be promoting and
underscoring the existence of a natural setting found uniquely in the Lake District (Silver Lake), if you
do not endorse us, who will do this job? Apparently, this promotion and support should be an inherent
and understood role for city employees. Failure to speak up for us is failing everyone us who live in this
city.
Let us not squander our laird, and future because someone is afraid to speak as our advocate, or even
worse, lacks a vision for the right kind of development.
1 hope to hear a response from all concerned.
Thank You,
Sincerely,
Linda Kellam Barker
3405 S Mellonville Ave
Sanford Fl 32773
407 302 8469