Sanford commission weighs RFQ/RFP, sale options and design for downtown parcels and Passat Park
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners discussed narrowing an RFQ to Parcels 2 and 3, the nearly finished Passat Park design, whether to premarket or solicit specific proposals (RFP), zoning and soil constraints that limit residential density, and staff’s recommendation to obtain a broker’s opinion of value before deciding on sale or solicitation approach.
The Sanford City Commission spent its March 23 work session debating how best to advance redevelopment of downtown Parcels 2 and 3 — including a proposed passive park — and whether to use an RFQ, an RFP or sell the land outright.
Staff presented a revised request for qualifications that concentrates on Parcels 2 and 3 and envisions a mixed‑use project with about 25,000–30,000 square feet of ground‑floor retail and restaurants, a multi‑story structure up to four stories, roughly 25–50 upper‑floor residential units and a parking component to accommodate roughly 200 spaces. Chip Smith, project manager with CPH, and Danita Bridal, CPH landscape architect, showed a 90%‑complete design for the passive park featuring three connected plazas, pergolas, bench walls, paved gathering areas, a drinking fountain and pollinator plantings.
Why it matters: commissioners must balance design goals, market realities and control over future uses. Several members said an open RFQ returns mostly resumes and noncommittal concepts, while an RFP or fee‑simple sale could prompt developers to invest money in detailed proposals. One commissioner warned that “retail might be a little bit of a pipe dream” and that residential units typically provide the return that makes parking and ancillary retail financeable. Another commissioner recommended premarketing to attract larger, committed responses rather than only qualification packets.
Constraints highlighted in the discussion include downtown SC3 zoning (which mandates active first‑floor uses on certain streets), a comprehensive‑plan limit of 50 dwelling units per acre on the waterfront downtown, and geotechnical limits on the northern portion of the parcels. Staff noted that Parcel 2 totals about 2.22 acres and that removing park and other non‑buildable areas reduces buildable acreage substantially; on a half‑lot the commission discussed, the buildable portion was described as roughly one acre.
Options discussed included: (1) refining the RFQ to specify more design constraints and desired unit counts; (2) issuing an RFP that asks bidders to propose a complete, financed concept; (3) offering the property for sale in fee simple with a restrictive planned development (PD) zoning to preserve certain downtown requirements; or (4) premarketing to target investor capital directly. Staff cautioned that selling without PD restrictions would transfer control of future uses to the buyer and that rezoning or PD conditions can be applied before sale to retain some control.
What staff will do next: commissioners broadly supported getting a broker’s opinion of value (BOV) or appraisal as a low‑cost next step so the commission can see what the market might bear. Staff also offered to research the Kissimmee hotel procurement (an RFP and fee‑simple sale in that case) and report back on outcomes and lessons learned.
Direct quotes and attributions come from presenters and commission members during the work session. No formal motions or votes were taken at the work session; commissioners directed staff to return with valuation information and refined options at a subsequent meeting.
Sources: staff presentation of the RFQ and parcel plan; CPH design overview of Passat Park; commissioners’ discussion of RFQ/RFP/sale alternatives and zoning/density constraints.
