Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Infill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sanford planning staff highlights urban‑infill redevelopment tools and before‑and‑after successes
Summary
Director Eileen Henson summarized Sanford—s urban infill redevelopment flexibility program and presented multiple before‑and‑after project examples to illustrate how the city negotiates standards to redevelop challenging parcels.
Director Eileen Henson presented an overview of Sanford—s Urban Infill Redevelopment flexibility program at the Oct. 27 work session, showing several before‑and‑after photos and describing when the planning department uses negotiated development orders and adjusted standards to facilitate redevelopment on small or difficult lots.
Henson said urban infill tools "encourage developments on vacant lots as well as challenging lots," allow flexibility on items such as setbacks, height and lot‑size standards and require projects to provide overall public benefit and sound planning. She reviewed successful local examples: Monroe Landing and Somerset Landing (redeveloped housing formerly underused), Culver's at 3418 Orlando Drive (redevelopment of a long‑underused site), Caliber Collision and other commercial turnovers along the 1792 corridor, the Home for Good affordable housing conversion, the Culinary Institute extension and dormitories at 500 Holly Avenue (a former rehabilitation facility) and smaller commercial projects such as Sal's Ice Cream near Walgreens.
Henson noted urban infill has also been used for maintenance and to reestablish approved site plans under nonconforming use provisions without requiring a full conditional‑use hearing if the changes do not increase nonconformities. Commissioners asked about tree preservation and whether flexibility can preserve tree canopy. Henson said the city uses tree mitigation and arborist reports but that many infill sites require grading and fill that can limit on‑site tree preservation; she encouraged use of mitigation where feasible.
Henson also described a small cottage‑home program that had been allowed to expire after limited uptake and said planning staff negotiates many details directly with applicants to achieve redevelopment that benefits neighborhoods. She closed by noting several pending projects (for example, Charlie's Cheesesteak and Tranquillie Village/Terrace Court redevelopment) and said staff will continue to use the infill tools to promote compact redevelopment.
