Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Central Winds Park Appraisal -2002 05 29
r CRM NO: 00-275U CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS CERTIFICATE OF VALUE CENTRAL WINDS PARK LAND IN WINTER SPRINGS I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusion are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial, unbiased, professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 4. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 5. My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. 6. My analyses, opinions, or conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and the provisions of Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes and the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. 7. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report and I have afforded the property owner the opportunity to accompany me at the time of the inspection. I have also made a personal field inspection of the comparable sales relied upon in making this appraisal. The subject and the comparable sales relied upon in making this appraisal were as represented by the photographs contained in this appraisal. 8. No persons other than those named herein provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report. 9. I understand that the City of Winter Springs may use this appraisal in purchase negotiations with Arbor Lake Development Corporation. 10. This appraisal has been made in conformity with the appropriate State laws, regulations, policies, and procedures, and, to the best of my knowledge, no portion of the property value entered on this certificate consists of items which are noncompensable under the established law of the State of Florida. 11. I have not revealed the findings or results of this appraisal to anyone other than the proper officials of the City of Winter Springs or their representatives, and I will not do so until so authorized by City officials, or until I am required by due process of law, or until I am released from this obligation by having publicly testified as to such findings. 12. Regardless of any stated limiting condition or assumption, I acknowledge that this appraisal report and all maps, data, summaries, charts, and other exhibits collected or prepared under this agreement shall become the property of the City of Winter Springs without restriction or limitation on their use. 13. Statements supplemental to this certification, as required by membership or candidacy in a professional appraisal organization, are described on an addendum to this certificate and, by reference, are made a part hereof. Based upon my independent appraisal and the exercise of my professional judgment, my opinion of the market value for the appraised property as of May 17, 2002, is: $3.500.000. Market value should be allocated as follows: LAND $3,500,000 LAND AREA 27.651 acres, more or less IMPROVEMENTS 0 PROPERTY TYPE CODE "(1234) UVSW TOTAL $3,500,000 PROPERTY TYPE CODES: 1. R-Rural 3. H-(HOme)Residence 4. W-W hole Acquisition U-Urban B-(Business) Commercial P-Partial Acquisition 2. I-Improved F-(Factory) Industrial V-Vacant A-Agricultural S-Special Pumose DATE: May 29, 2002 PAUL M. ROPER, MAI, SRA STATE-CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER LICENSE NUMBER: RZ 0000141 • • ADDENDUM TO CERTIFICATE OF VALUE SUMMARY COMPLETE APPRAISAL APPRAISER: Paul M. Roper, MAI, SRA State-Certified General Appraiser License Number: RZ 0000141 COUNTY: Seminole PARCEL: Central Winds Park Land In Winter Springs Mr. Don Watson, State-Certified General Appraiser, License Number RZ 0001976 provided professional assistance in the functions of data research, analysis, report writing, preparation of exhibits, special expertise and preparation of the Summary Complete Appraisal Report, but the conclusions pertaining to the values reported herein are strictly my own. The Appraisal Institute maintains a voluntary continuing education program for its members. As of the date of this report, the undersigned MAI, SRA has completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. We do not authorize the out of context quoting from or partial reprinting of this appraisal report. Further, neither all nor any part of this appraisal shall be disseminated to the general public by the use of media for public communication without the prior written consent of the appraisers si Wing this appraisal report. SIGNED: G'"~` L May 29, 2002 PAUL M. ROPER, MAI, SRA STATE-CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER LICENSE NUMBER: RZ 0000141 • TABLE OF CONTENTS • Page CERTIFICATE OF VALUE ...................................................................................................................... i ADDENDUM TO CERTIFICATE OF VALUE .......................................................................................... ii LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ..................................................................................................................1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................2 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS ........:..........................................................................................................5 GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................6 PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL ...........................................................................................................7 FUNCTION OF THE APPRAISAL ..........................................................................................................7 SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL ................................................................................................................7 COMPETENCY OF APPRAISERS .........................................................................................................7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY .......................................................................8 AREA MAP .............................................................................................................................................9 NEIGHBORHOOD AREA MAP ............................................................................................................10 AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................11 TRANSPORTATION ........................:...............................................................................................11 GOVERNMENT ...............................................................................................................................12 POPULATION ..................................................................................................................................13 SURROUNDING LAND USES .........................................................................................................14 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................14 SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................................15 DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY .........................................................................................18 LOCATION ......................................................................................................................................18 CONFIGURATION AND SIZE .........................................................................................................18 TOPOGRAPHY AND SOIL ..............................................................................................................18 DRAINAGE ......................................................................................................................................18 VEGETATION .................................................................................................................................18 ACCESS AND VISIBILITY ...............................................................................................................19 EASEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS, OR RESTRICTIONS AND THEIR EFFECT ON UTILIZATION19 ADJACENT LAND USES .................................................................................................................19 ZONE ..............................................................................................................................................20 PROPERTY SKETCH ..........................................................................................................................21 HIGHEST AND BEST USE ..................................................................................................................22 PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE ................................................................................................................22 LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE ................................................................................................................22 FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE ................................................................................................................23 MAXIMALLY PRODUCTIVE ............................................................................................................23 EXPOSURE TIME ...........................................................................................................................25 APPROACHES TO VALUE ..................................................................................................................26 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ...............................................................................................28 ADJUSTMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 29 CONDITIONS OF SALE ADJUSTMENT .....................................................................................30 CORRELATION OF COMPARABLE LAND SALES ....................................................................31 LAND SALES LOCATION MAP ...........................................................................................................33 i ntin cni ~c rnnnpnRicnti ntini vctc ~d ADDENDUM CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL Florida: Clayton, Roper & Marshal Inc., a Florida Corporation CLAYTON ROPER\ MARSHALL www.crmre.com May 29, 2002 Mr. Chuck Pula Winter Springs Parks and Recreation Director City of Winter Springs 1126 E. SR 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 CRAIG H. CLAYTON, MAI State-Certi{ied General Appraiser RZ 0000118 PAUL M. ROPER, MAI, SRA State-Certi~ied General Appraiser RZ 0000141 STEVEN L. MARSHALL, MAI, 5RA State-Certified General Appraiser RZ 0000155 Georgia: Clayton, Roper & Marshal L.P., a Georgia Limited Partnership PHILIP E. PAULK, MAI, SRA State-Certified General Real Property Appraiser 1521 RE: 27.651-acre Central Winds Park Land In Winter Springs, Seminole County, Florida Dear Mr. Pula: As requested, we have conducted the necessary analyses and incidental inspections of the above referenced property. The subject property is more specifically described within the text of the accompanying appraisal report. The effective date of this appraisal is May 17, 2002. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives and to the requirements of the State of Florida relating to review by its Real Estate Appraisal Board. This is a certified appraisal as defined in the provisions of Part II, Chapter 475.501, Florida Statutes. To the best of the appraiser's ability, the analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and the report was prepared in accordance with the standards and reporting requirements of the Department of Environmental Protection. Respectfully submitted, CLA ON, ROPE ARSHALL G!.~5~ aul M. Roper, MAI, RA State-Certified General Appraiser License Number: RZ 0000141 PMR:DPW:tn ORLANDO • ATLANTA 246 Nort}i Westmonte Drive, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Ph: (407) 772-2200 /Fax: (407) 772-1340 1225 Johnson Ferry Road, Building 200, Suite 250, Marietta, Georgia 30068 PL: (770) 579-1995 /Fax: (770) 579-1977 Real Estate Appraisers Consultants • • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Winter Springs Town Center Recreational Park Land PARCEL IDENTIFICATION 2030-26-5AR-OD00-0010 LOCATION North of S.R. 434, 7/10th mile west of Tuskawilla Road, Winter Springs, FL APPRAISER Paul M. Roper, MAI, SRA PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE Don Watson State-Certified General Appraiser License Number: RZ 0001976 DATES Date of Value: May 17, 2002 Date of Report: May 29, 2002 INTEREST APPRAISED Fee Simple PARCEL SIZE/ACREAGE 27.651 acres, more or less PROPERTY OWNERS NAMES & ADDRESSES City of Winter Springs OWNERSHIP HISTORY February 2002 sale for the recorded price of $3,815,000 as recorded in Seminole County Official Records Book # 4353, Page #1328. There have been no other arm's length transfers of this property within the previous five years. INSPECTION DATES May 17, 2002, among others OWNER(S) PRESENT AT INSPECTION AND EXTENT OF INSPECTION None. We walked over portions of the property. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE APPRAISAL May 17, 2002 PARCEL ACCESS At the southeast corner of the property. ZONING/LAND USE Town Center District, City of Winter Springs FUTURE LAND USE Multifamily Residential ASSESSED VALUE: $603,306 (land only, no improvements) CLAYTON ROPER & MARSHALL 2 CRM File No. 00-275U • UTILITIES: FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION MINERAL RIGHTS: Water: City of Winter Springs Sewer: City of Winter Springs (within 700' to the east) Electricity: Florida Power & Light Co. Telephone: Sprint Gas Florida Public Utilities Cable Time Warner Communications According to the FEMA Map, Community Panel No. 12117C-0135-E, having an effective date of April 17 1995, the appraised property is not in a flood hazard zone. Not Applicable EASEMENTS: No easements, encroachments, or restrictions that have any negative effect on the market value of the subject property are known to exist. TYPE OF PROPERTY Vacant land HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Multifamily residential development (private development) Park expansion (public development) INTEREST APPRAISED Fee Simple TYPE OF APPRAISAL Summary Complete Appraisal Report OPINION OF VALUE: $3,500,000 UNITS OF VALUE: $8,000 per unit based on a density of 16 dwelling units per acre yielding an overall value indication of $3.54M as rounded and $125,000 per acre yielding an overall value indication of $3.46M as rounded. CLAYTON ROPER & MARSIiALL 3 CRM File No. 00-275U • • ~ w Z' O C 7 O N N M o ~ ~ 01 m f0 f0 O ~ 3 U U "' m ~ c d o o !~ o' n v ° o 0 0 o c ]+ N m .E ~ ~ 'o, O o ~ f6 > ~'c O ~ N i o ~ a ~ 1~ *o C m ~ ~ ~' O J~ N. C SCE M ~ w N ~ ~ r ~ N ~ ~ ~ N Z N - .~. O _ N ~ fA .0 O O N D1 ~ 3 ' N > C m ~ ~, ~' O `° ~ ~ ~ ~ N Q) '. to ,M ~ ° ~ E m Z' to c !A c p ~ N _ 3 ' 0° ~ a~ of o 0 0 0 0 c ~ ~ O ~ ~ O y o U N ~ T ~ C O ~ . O ,r 4 ~ c o Y '~ l6 ~ J ~ ~ N l 1 i i . . 7 O .T. m C ~ ~ m ~ ......... .........~...._.._ .. -... .. ...... i e . p C N f0 p O Z, N ~' N , C C ~ V~ U ~ ~ ~ O O O d' O 3 O IV O~ O O O O O J J m fA ~ f0 ~ C E ~ J N C7 f~ Z O N _ ~ ~ c T 3 N ~ ~~ Q ' O N ~ ~ O O O O _ O 7 0 0 N f ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 (/~ C N p ~ C N w ~ O ~ N 'd ~' N O r ~.~~-- l~ fA ~ C f6 ~~ V N o •- c . ~ 3 5 c j d Q 3 N r ~ 3 N C L"~ f 0 O W N fA O = N N ~ 5 ~ U w V' C y U ~' '~ ~ ° i rn 3 c .omy~` n Q ` c m co m ~ OU c a ~U d o ~ • c ~ .. ~ ~ N~ N~ (~ ~ N N t V O ~ o 'p0 N i ' o c ~_ 3 •c a c c Q ~ .. I o ~ N ~ o F- ~Q ~ y lt1 W o ~ <~ .U 3 ~a as ~ J W J L1J 1.1 Q Q ~ J <n (n fA Q t6 ~f/) ~~ ~~ p Z i "' X00 ~ O~ Qb ~iNUU Z Z l1 ~ c Z a2S Qtf O O } L7 ~ O -i =-i ~ Z H ~ U~ Q Q - ` ' U Z Z 1L J.1 L i '.'~ W J • • GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS 1. The legal description used in this report(s) is assumed to be correct. 2. No survey of the property has been made by the appraiser and no responsibility is assumed in connection with such matters. Any sketches in this report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. 3. No responsibility is assumed for matters of legal nature affecting title to the property/properties nor is an opinion of title rendered. The title is assumed to be good and merchantable. 4. Information and data furnished by others is usually assumed to be true, correct and reliable. When such information and data appears to be dubious and when it is critical to the appraisal, a reasonable effort has been made to verify all such information; however, the appraiser assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. 5. All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases and servitudes have been disregarded unless so specified within the report(s). The property is appraised as though under responsible ownership and competent management. 6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property/properties, subsoil or structures that would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for engineering that may be required to discover them. 7. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is stated, defined and considered in the appraisal report(s). 8. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless nonconformity has been stated, defined and considered in the appraisal report(s). 9. It is assumed that all required licenses, consents or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state or national governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report(s) is based. 10. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted within the report. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 5 CRM File No. 00-275U i • • T E CQ G NW L.L Q " O dl C ~ 90 W 10 ~ O v C U U ~ fi1 7 E N N ~ O " c ~' $ r 7 Q ~ ~ i U a ~ n ~ L~l T Lys 4 m ~ ~s ~ Y~qq ~~.JO c m pr' ~~ ~~ _„ Y ~ N m J V ~+'i C ~ s e ~ O `~ 6i U U 41 3 E L r0 2 a ~~ `f+ IV 7~ ~ J 2 ~' 3 7 C y L o m U® m Y a ~' i h ~ M1 C+]# a O SD, t o U a pm O ~~1' ~ vs _, I .. ~y@ ~ W ' ~ C1 w ' 7 ~. C N c ~ ~ 74 Y ~ ~ O .a ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ Y~ ~ p Y ~ ~~ vv s N m - v y S p o E o. o ® ~o ~ a fr,l m ~ m E ~~. z O _ - + L ///ggg U ~ ~ C U a a 3 Jr 0 m ' o s~ ~6 ~ _ is a ~ a mY~pp O J v ~ ~ ~ 41 ~ o ~ ~!'~ ^ Q S 1i ~ O E ~ a P m a ~© a '(~ 4 .Fi# 2 Y o ~ 1~ c ~ F i 'Yy GL P, ~ ~ ~ = c ~ in ~'Q c W ' ~a n. ~' ~ = ~ ? ~ c ~ v ` O ~ 4. O N o C ~ O_ m ~ C ~p ,~, a..~ ~ sr ~ `-` ®h~ O rV - ~ Yn 2r, m y ~'i O U ~ N C d VN R C 4 N C L 0 ~ ~ y y CO 4 U Gf a y '~ ~____.,.,...o_....,J a iy ....~ ~,.. C O t, :m ~ t w ~ ® ao ~' ~ `~' 419 O m - '_" o - `r IliS•l N O O Z W J_ LL U • • 0 O N O O Z W J_ LL U • • GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Possession of the report(s), or copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and in any event only with proper written qualifications and only in its entirety. 2. The distribution of the total valuation in this report(s) between land and improvements applies only under the reported highest and best use of the property. The allocations of value for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 3. No environmental impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction with this appraisal(s), and the appraiser hereby reserves the right to alter, amend, revise, or rescind any of the value opinions based upon any subsequent environmental impact studies, research or investigation. 4. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, or copy thereof, shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or any other media without written consent and approval of the appraiser. Nor shall the appraiser, firm or professional organization of which the appraiser is a member be identified without written consent of the appraiser. 5. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. 6. Acceptance of and/or use of this appraisal report constitutes acceptance of the foregoing General Assumptions and General Limiting Conditions. CLAYTON ROPER & MARSHALL 6 CRM File No. 00-275U PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal was to estimate the market value of the fee simple interest of the appraised property. The estimate of market value is made under market conditions prevailing as of the valuation date, May 17, 2002. FUNCTION OF THE APPRAISAL The function of this appraisal report is to support the City of Winter Springs' request to the State of Florida for a grant through the Land and Water conservation Fund. SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL In preparing this report, the appraisers have searched the greater Orlando area, with particular emphasis on the subject's neighborhood area, for sales of similar properties (and associated market information) that, in the appraisers' opinion would be most indicative of the current market value of the subject property. The Sales Comparison Approach was employed in our analysis of the subject property as it is considered to be the applicable valuation method. The methodology and steps taken have been discussed in more detail within the body of this appraisal report. COMPETENCY OF APPRAISERS The appraisers' specific qualifications are included in the Addendum of this report. These qualifications serve as evidence of their competence for the completion of this appraisal assignment in compliance with the Competency Provision contained within the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice as promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. The appraisers' knowledge and experience, combined with their professional qualifications, are commensurate with the complexity of this assignment. The appraisers have previously provided consultation and value estimates for similar properties throughout the State of Florida. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 7 CRM Fite No. 00-275U • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY Lots 1 and 2 of Block D, of D.R. Mitchell's Survey of the levy Grant on Lake Jessup, as recorded in Plat Book 1, page 5 of the public records of Seminole County, Florida. Furthermore, the property now includes the west'h of vacated Clifton Avenue on the east side of the subject property as recorded in Official Records Book #2290, Page #216. FIVE-YEAR HISTORY OF TITLE The City of Winter Springs purchased this property (for expansion of the adjacent Central Winds Park complex) from Edward H. and Sue S. Parker, co-trustees and Richard H. Parker in February 2002 for the recorded sale price of $3,815,000 as recorded in Seminole County Official Records Book # 4353, Page #1328. This sale was used in the sales comparison approach later in this report, however our conclusion of land value is less than this purchase price because a significant portion of the price is a non-cash charitable contribution. The land valuation section of this report addresses the value impact of this charitable contribution in greater detail. Prior to this sale, a (non-executed) purchase contract between the previous owners (Parkers) and Arbor Lakes Development Corporation specified a unit price of $7,000 per dwelling unit and a minimum density of 18 dwelling units per acre extended by the gross acreage less any areas excluded from density allowance calculations. There have been no other arm's length transfers of this property within the previous five years. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 8 CRM File No. 00-2750 • c: AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION Winter Springs is located roughly 13 miles to the northeast of Orlando on the southwest shore of Lake Jessup. Winter Springs (formerly known as North Orlando) has historically been asemi-rural community with a significant agricultural influence. Residential development initially concentrated on the western side adjacent to Casselberry with agricultural uses predominately further to the east. An unincorporated area of Seminole County lays to the south and the City of Oviedo borders it on the east. As the Orlando metropolitan area population increased, residential development in Winter Springs began to concentrate further to the east and on the south side of the city. Transportation linkages were the reason for this pattern of development and as the road infrastructure has changed over time, so have development trends in the area. Development east of Orlando extended south and north. The focus of development to the south is the Orlando International Airport. Development to the north was a consequence of a high tech corridor centered around the University of Central Florida and an adjacent research park with a multitude of nationally based technology companies. Winter Springs has had no defined city center due to its polarized development and the absence (until recently) of an adequate road network connecting the residential areas to each other. TRANSPORTATION The major highways defining Winter Springs form a grid structure around and through the corporation limits. Up to the last decade, the road infrastructure within the Winter Springs area had been secondary two lane highways ill suited for transporting large volumes of residential commuters to the employment center of the Greater Orlando Metropolitan Area. Consequently, residential and commercial development clustered around the existing traffic arteries. The original residential areas in western Winter Springs had convenient access to north-south running U.S. Highway 17-92. Red Bug Lake Road one mile south of Winter Springs affords convenient east and west commuter access to the employment centers of the Greater Orlando Metropolitan Area. Consequently, residential and commercial also began to cluster close to this newer urban arterial. The net result was a bifurcation of Winter Springs into distinct east and west districts. A brief description of the major roads follows. S.R. 434 (also S.R. 419 through Winter Springs) is a 4-lane divided east to west highway in the northern section of Winter Springs. Until the mid 1990's this road was atwo-lane country road. It was recently expanded to four lanes and several of its more severe curves have been modified. This road is a becoming a major conduit for traffic through Winter Springs since it connects to I-4 and U.S. Highway 17-92 to the west and the Central Florida Greeneway to the east. Traffic counts have increased on this road by more than 15% annually for the past three years (33,121 ADT for the section between Tuskawilla Road and S.R. 419 in 1999). CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 11 CRM File No. 00-275U • • SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS CLAY'I'ON~ ROPER & MARSHALL 15 CRM File No. 00-275U • • Red Bug Lake Road is a major 4-lane, east to west divided arterial one mile south of Winter Springs. This highway is a focus of commercial development along most of its length and is the major east-to west arterial for the. southern Winter Springs and Oviedo residential and commercial areas. Traffic counts have increased on this road by nearly 6% annually for the past three years (42,567 ADT for 1999). Tuskawilla Road is a two-lane north to south highway commencing at its intersection with S.R. 434 near the center of Winter Springs and continuing south to Red Bug Lake Road and then on to Aloma Avenue further to the south. This road is used primarily as a residential thoroughfare connecting the residential areas of the eastern part of Winter Springs to the employment and business districts to the south. This road is currently being widened to four lanes. Traffic counts have increased on this road by more than 10% annually for the past three years (13,822 ADT for 1999). The Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) has had a major impact on development in Winter Springs. This four-lane, controlled access, divided toll highway provides a high speed, high volume connection to the major employment centers of the Greater Orlando Metropolitan Area. Construction work currently underway in Sanford will extend this highway all the way to I-4 and will provide a convenient easterly bypass around the traffic congestion associated with I-4 between Sanford and Orlando. Annual traffic volume on this highway increased 13% for the fiscal year ending June 1999. GOVERNMENT Winter Springs' municipal government is modeled on a traditional city government with a mayor, city commissioners, planning and zoning board, and various other city departments. City operations are funded from real estate taxes that in turn are administered by Seminole County. The City of Winter Springs provides sewer and water services to most areas within its corporation boundaries. The City takes an active role in development within the community by ensuring that the City's comprehensive land use plan is adhered to. One significant feature of the comprehensive plan is a detailed plan for development of a city center. As addressed previously, Winter Springs differs from most municipalities in that it has no defined city center. Its comprehensive land use plan addresses this issue in great detail and presents awell-thought out development concept that will eventually result in a defined city center near the intersection of S.R. 434 and Tuskawilla Road. A feature of this development plan is a realignment of the Cross Seminole Trail within the vicinity of the proposed Town Center. Significant development has already taken place in conformity with this city center concept. Winter Springs City Hall, the Winter Springs High School and the U.S. Post ofi•ice have been CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 12 CRM File No. 00-275U • • VIEW TO THE NORTHWEST TOWARDS THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. VIEW EAST ALONG ABANDONED S.R. 434 ALONG SOUTH SIDE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. Photos by Don Watson October 2000 CLAYTON ROPER & MARSHALL 16 CRM File No. 00-275U • • VIEW TO NORTHEAST TOWARDS SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM S.R. 434. CLAYTON ROPER & MARSHALL 17 CRM File No. 00-2750 • • constructed within this area and the city has had no little influence on the proposed commercial development on the property in the northwest corner of the intersection of S.R. 434 and Tuskawilla Road. POPULATION Winter Springs has grown in area by annexation over the years to the point where it is the largest municipality in Seminole County. Largely due to Orlando's rapidly expanding economic base, Winter Springs' 1970 population of 1,160 has increased 25-fold to an estimated 29,220 in 1999. Population growth. continues as illustrated by the following chart. These population increases are equivalent to an annual growth rate of 3% over the past decade. Winter Springs Population Growth 1990-1999 35 000 . . .,. . : . 30 000 ~ F,~ °~~ r r - .'_ . . . _.__~ 1 / if ~t j ', ! ~ x' 25.000. r rya ~ _ r . r.~ ~r.~_ A . . . ~c ~ ~'?I. 20.000. .s~ ~ E 15.000. > ~ - rt 10,000 . - ~4' yes w ~ s ~ > 5000. j ~ ~ '~ ~ . b - ~` ~. 0 rv . ~~ ~ w.`, r ~~ ~~ ~ t»~ a w _ 1990 1991 1992 1993 199f 1995 19% 1997 1996 1999 Population growth is mirrored by school enrollments. Elementary school enrollments in the Winter Springs area of Seminole county have increased 21 % since 1995. Numerous new schools (elementary, middle, high, both public and private) have either been constructed or are in various stages of construction in this area. The following chart illustrating the trend in residential building permits over the past few years in Winter Springs is further evidence of population growth in this area. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 13 CRM File No. 00-2750 • • Winter Springs Single-Family Residential Building Permits _~ ~. E 400 - a 300 O 200 100 - ~ 0 Z ~~o ~,~ p~~b ~~ Year SURROUNDING LAND USES The subject neighborhood is clearly an area in transition. Vacant and agricultural land uses are being displaced by residential and commercial construction. Immediately east of the subject property is the recently constructed Winter Springs High School with its elaborate sports complex. On the north side of the subject property is the Central Winds Park. West of the subject property are several single- family residences on large lots and beyond that is a large single-family residential development by Centex. Vacant commercial land is on the south side of the subject property sandwiched between the realigned S.R. 434 and the abandoned S.R. 434. The U.S. Post Office is located southeast of the subject property on the south, side of S.R. 434. Numerous residential (single and multi family) and commercial developments are in various stages of completion along area highways as the available vacant lands are steadily being absorbed (the new Publix-anchored shopping center in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tuskawilla Road and SR 434 being the most recent example. Most vacant land parcels have for sale signs posted. CONCLUSION The expanding Greater Orlando Metropolitan Area economy has been fuel for residential development in Winter Springs. The recently upgraded road infrastructure in the Winter Springs area is the key to tying this area to Orlando's employment centers and will greatly influence future development patterns. S.R. 434 in particular will be the focus for commercial development and its intersection with Tuskawilla Road will inevitably become the city's de facto business center as a consequence of natural development pressures focused by the city's comprehensive land use plan. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 14 CRM File No. 00-2750 • DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION The subject property is located North of S.R. 434, 7/10th mile west of Tuskawilla Road, Winter Springs. This property borders the north side of the right of way of the abandoned portion of S.R. 434. This section of S.R. 434 was abandoned when the road was realigned to the south in the mid 1990's. CONFIGURATION AND SIZE The subject property is a nearly rectangular parcel of land encompassing 27.651 acres, more or less based on a property survey given to us by the City of Winter Springs. This area includes the area of abandoned Clifton Avenue on the east side of the property. _ TOPOGRAPHY AND SOIL This property has a slight slope down to the west with higher ground on the east side. The eastern third of the property drops in elevation by 12 feet and the remainder drops by roughly 8 feet for a total elevation drop of approximately 20 feet equating to slightly less than a 2% slope on average. In conjunction with the previous purchase agreement on the property, Universal Environmental Services of Orlando performed a soil survey. We examined that survey report and saw nothing to indicate any soil development limitations. Surrounding land uses on (presumably) similar soil types suggest few, if any, soils limitations to development of the uplands on either property. DRAINAGE Due to topography, the site is less well drained on the west side than it is on the east side. The former property owner dug four east to west drainage ditches to that connect to another ditch on the west side and leads toward Lake Jessup to the north. VEGETATION The subject property is mostly covered with thick stands of pine trees that were planted to preserve the land's (former) agricultural exemption after a freeze destroyed the orange grove that had been on the property. CLAYTON, ROPER & M1IRSHAI~L 18 CRM File No. 00-275U ~ • ACCESS AND VISIBILITY This property has somewhat limited visibility from S.R. 434, as there is an intervening parcel of land between the re-aligned S.R. 434 and the subject property. The south side of the subject property is bounded by a strip of land referred to as the Rails to Trails land. This was a former railroad right of way that is now used for the Cross Seminole Trail program. In response to a lawsuit filed by an adjacent property owner, access across the Rails to Trails land was granted to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. This included the former owners of the appraised property (and by extension, the current owner). According to an agreement signed by the owners of the appraised property in October of 1998, two access easements across the Rails To Trails land were granted to the appraised property at two hundred feet from the east and west boundaries of the appraised property. These access easements do not however constitute full access to the appraised property because they only lead from the appraised property across the Rails To Trails land to the abandoned S.R. 434. The abandoned S.R. 434 was deeded to the City of Winter Springs once S.R. 434 was realigned. So, although this section of S.R. 434 is paved, it is not currently a public right of way. We consider it a reasonable assumption that the City of Winter Springs would grant negotiated access rights over this abandoned road section (if the subject property were to be privately developed) because this would maximize its value. EASEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS, OR RESTRICTIONS AND THEIR EFFECT ON UTILIZATION Other than the access easement previously referenced, no easements, encroachments, or restrictions that have any negative effect on the market value of the subject property are known to exist. ADJACENT LAND USES The adjacent land uses around the subject property are reflective of the transitional stage of this area. New commercial, residential and municipal developments exist alongside vacant, fow-density residential or agricultural land uses that characterized this area for much of its history. Most of these vacant or agricultural parcels are listed for sale. A former railroad right of way along the south border of the property is now part of the Rails To Trails recreational park. This section of the trail will eventually tie into the Cross Seminole Trail. CLAYTON ROPER & MARSHALL 19 CRM File No. 00-275U • ZONING • The Town Center zoning designation permits a wide variety of commercial and multifamily residential activities. This zoning code focuses on promoting development that will result in a variety of commercial and high-density residential land uses that will replicate a traditional town center. To the extent that infrastructure such as roads, parks, and utilities availability influences development, Winter Springs intends to foster and encourage development in this area to create a viable town center. Governmental land uses at the city, county and federal levels in the area have already established the basis for such a town center. A wide variety of commercial and residential uses are permitted in this district, paralleling what is commonly found in existing town centers elsewhere. This district permits residential densities up to 36 dwelling units per acre. The reader is directed to the Addendum for the complete zoning description of the Town Center District. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 20 CRM File No. 00-275U • ..iY~~c• :,. e.* Y , _ r y 4'7prE1LS 31MriT d >rR ' _ _ L~VT GPANT PV UK[ XSfiM _ - _ Y ORAAC T sOaK R PAq 1 r u - w• nn*rrn r/r nrara)1r+.rro.m) MA, - - '- - OJLINC6 AVdNUd ~ t"°. 6"'°°"bylw,y"m.~"'rrarrri 1 "• ~ ~ •r..r.ur •ourrr s ma.a' w•r ew I ~ d \ . r+' I 1 I \~~ .~:>~ ~ ~ s..wyr .er vepewrt we rir•~ ~ \ ~ \I Iwo. - ~ ~~i~a ewar ague r swe¢K ~ ; ~sbp ~`O aaa ~ ~,~me ~ \~ TsG ,h1 rmw~o N r'°a •n I ~ ~~.~ ., I @ fv 0 / r-IO=-i,P.yyr-W00-OOr, •~ $ . CQ4TAM15 17.651 AC3 - ~, ~'~ .~~~ 0 I ~~ E.OY 3 I 1 ~ ~~ °~, 1 ~ ,•w~~r •OC•rrl of iPlOtlf r'r s'Irr - - ~ \ \ y ~ ' _ _ ~ _ .~-- - I - BLOCK 'D' Q~? a ~'~ AI/TCNELLS SURVEY OF 7HE R ~ • .'~ ~ LEVY GRANT ON LAKE JESSUP g 1 ~' ~~ ORLe~Y I PLAT. 800K 7, PACE 5 z ~ SEC 3~~-~r7-~O .~ ~, , ~ I -- -~ ar 1 ~M r ~ ipra~rr rK~w.°a ~ r. S iar b wn yyy rrrs+ Owta ~ryf' ~M ~ »L+}[ 3 •w.e.+•r •ou.m s m.awr[ rTr wer ~ R ~D7lS.f•' cam: i~ '1i~ w '~ ~ ~-61CJ9 t-lMR jp1 °C~ •. nei MOi r CSZ TJtAAQJ4IQ~IDM L1C wsr who ~o+ r~ `~r'~~ra rr ms o+aaa w aw ' rmo m sew r sussm s K~w rarw ••rr a u~ r ov srsrs 1~ ~+~ (ov hrirs eauo !~1 ~ r>d. 1 .oopA..rreor..ni..+.v>r..»ws •.u pns •roe.rrmrar iaw.emr rwwewi•r rrr+'v suorr~u'r wear _-. '~ roa m.a• r wr S Oi'3.7,b• W - r e usT.r' • ~f110.~- - . ~ yw ~ -~ ..a. tl ~ _ -_- - - CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 21 CRM File No. 00-275U • • HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and best use is that use that is physically possible, legally permissible, and in conformity with existing land use patterns and change trends in an area. Highest and best use is that use representing the greatest economic return to the land. The subject is public property with a highest and best use as expansion land for the Central Winds Park of Winter Springs. Its market value, however, can best be estimated by considering its highest and best use if developed privately and then comparing it to similar parcels of land. The highest and best use of the subject property (under private development) would be for multifamily residential development at a development density in the range of 16 dwelling units per acre. The factors that were considered in arriving at this conclusion included: PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE From a physical perspective, the subject site is considered suitable for most types of development that could be constructed within its confines. The subject site is of adequate size (27.651 acres) for a mixed-use development and its shape presents no significant obstacle to development. The site has good access to the greater Seminole County area however it has no frontage on and has only limited visibility from S.R. 434. These frontage and visibility issues militate against commercial use of the property, however they have much less of a negative impact on multifamily residential use of the site. All necessary public utilities and services are available or in close proximity to the site. There are no unusual fill requirements or other known unusual physical barriers to development. LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE The subject site is zoned Town Center District by the City of Winter Springs. This district permits a variety of commercial uses and would allow effective utilization of the subject site. The future land use designation of the site is consistent with the current zoning. Mixed-use commercial development is clearly the focus of the current and future zoning in this area. The subject is located in an area the where the City of Winter Springs intends to provide development approval for those developments which fall within their Town Center concept. From a legal standpoint, development of the appraised property with ahigh-density multifamily residential development at a density no greater than 36 units per acre is permissible. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 22 CRM File No. 00-275U FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE • The subject site is located in the center east portion of Seminole County. As detailed in the Area Description section of this report, this area has experienced rapid growth over the past five years. Commercial and apartment rents, occupancy levels, and sales prices have been steadily increasing over the past 3 to 4 years and are expected to continue to increase as population pressures push development out from the Orlando metropolitan area. Parcels of land with similar locational characteristics typically are developed with multifamily residential uses. Accordingly, a multifamily residential development of this property conforming to the City of Winter Springs's Town Center concept is the most feasible use of the property. MAXIMALLY PRODUCTIVE This is a use that represents the greatest financial return on the land investment. Given the constraints imposed by the other factors, the most productive use of the site as vacant would be for multifamily residential development that fits within the City of Winter Springs's Town Center concept. The development density most strongly supported by market evidence is in the range of 16 dwelling units per acre. The basis for this conclusion is an analysis of the multifamily market in the subject neighborhood, defined as Study Area C (Casselberry, Winter Springs, and Oviedo) in the Residential Market Reports published by Charles Wayne Consulting, Inc. The 38 multifamily residential developments within this study area were analyzed using two comparisons as detailed in the following paragraphs. Density and Property Size in Acres: This comparison was performed to see if there is any correlation between the area of a multifamily residential uses and its density of development. The following table suggests a weak inverse correlation between overall parcel size and density of development. In other words, as parcel size increases, density of development as measured by dwelling units per acre decreases. The sketched in line is an approximation of this relationship. CLAYTON ROPER & MARSHALL 23 CRM File No. 00-275U • 25.0 20.0 15.0 U Q ~ 10.0 5.0 0.0 • Parcel Size: DU/AC >.~.. , ~ ' ~ ! ~ ~, r ~ ~ 2 ~ y sr M~ , vss. F CH ~ w... "{ y. .~ ~..... -___- ~t ~F?~X( F 1 __~ « ~'- R Y ~ f ~~J 7Y'. ~ u E t . ~ $ ~ ' 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Development S¢e in Acres • ~ • ~ . ;. subject at 27.3 acres ~ Age of Development and Density of Development: This comparison was performed to see if there is any trend in multifamily residential density over time. The following chart suggests a weak trend towards reduced density of development for multifamily residential projects over time. The sketched in line illustrates an approximation of this trend line. Ag e: D U/AC 25.0 ~' . ~ i ~ 200 ~-~ -- -- -- ~ ' • -~'~ _ 'Jut , n ~ ~ a r.~ x ~ ,~, _ , _...T . • ~ ` 100 f ~~.~.» .---_..._~ _ ~ _ -_ _- «:_„.1._ r-a r`~ 4 *~~ ~ . - ~ _ _ .v_ _ . -. :.,4.'" - ~.~ - ,.; 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Apartment Project Age in Years Summary: We also looked closely examined the land sales used in the sales comparison approach of this report. Accounting for non-developable areas on these comparable sales, three of the four comparables indicated densities in the 16 to 17 dwelling units per acre range. Based on the indications from the two comparative techniques and the particular densities of the comparable sales, it appears that the market would warrant a multifamily residential development density on the subject property 27.651-acre site in the range of 16 dwelling units per acre. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 24 CRM File No. 00-275U • EXPOSURE TIME The value conclusion above has considered a typical exposure time of one to two years prior to the effective date of valuation. This is based upon general knowledge gained through our sales verification and interviews with market participants. Exposure time is defined as the estimated length of time the property being appraised would have been offered on the market, prior to the hypothetical consumption of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal; a retrospective estimate based upon an analysis of past events assuming a competitive and open market. Exposure time is always presumed to occur prior to the effective date of appraisal. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 25 CRM File No. 00-275U • • APPROACHES TO VALUE Traditionally, there are three approaches utilized in the valuation of real property: the Cost Approach, the Sales Comparison Approach, and the Income Capitalization Approach. The Cost Approach is based on the "Principle of Substitution" which states that no rational person would pay more for a property than the amount for which he can obtain, by purchase of a site and construction of improvements, without undue delay, a property of equal desirability and utility. The basic steps of the Cost Approach are to: • Estimate site value as if vacant, • Estimate the reproduction cost new of the basic improvements and minor structures (excluding any that were included as part of the land value) • And then estimate, in dollar amounts, the accrued depreciation caused by the physical deterioration, functional deficiencies or super adequacies, or any adverse external influences. • The next step is to deduct the accrued depreciation from the improvement's estimated reproduction cost new to arrive at a present depreciated cost estimate. • Then, by adding the site value estimate, the result is to arrive at an indicated value for the property by the Cost Approach. The Sales Comparison Approach is based on the "Principle of Substitution" which indicates that an informed purchaser would pay no more for a property than the cost of acquiring an equally desirable substitute property with the same or similar utility. This approach is applicable when an active market provides sufficient quantities of reliable data, which can be verified from authoritative sources. The Sales Comparison Approach is reliable in an active market or if an estimate of value is related to properties for which there are comparable sales available. This approach to value is also pertinent when sales data can be verified with the principals to the transaction. Heavy emphasis is usually placed on this approach to value in an active market. In the Income Approach, we are concerned with the present value of any future benefits of property ownership. Future benefits are generally indicated by the amount of net income the property will produce during its remaining useful life. After comparison of interest yields and characteristics of risk for investments of similar type and class of properties, this net income is then capitalized into an estimate of value. The value indicated by the Income Approach is generally the most indicative value indication for properties, which are held for income production or investment type properties in general. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 26 CRM File No. 00-275U • • After obtaining value estimates by the three approaches, the results are reconciled into a final value conclusion. This reconciliation process is a weighing of the strengths and weaknesses of each approach in order to reconcile the three independent valuation estimates into a single, comprehensive estimate of market value. The final step in the appraisal process is the consideration of the indicated value resulting from each of the approaches utilized. Consideration is given to the relative applicability of each of the. approaches utilized prior to concluding with the final value estimate. Since the appraised property is vacant land without a specific development plan, the Income Approach is not applicable. The Cost Approach is likewise not applicable for vacant land. So, only the Sales Comparison Approach to value is used in this analysis. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 27 CRM File No. 00-275U ~ ~ SALES COMPARISON APPROACH To value the subject land, we have used completed land sale transactions. These sales were considered the best indicators of value for the subject. The similarities and dissimilarities between the subject and the sales in such areas as market conditions, location or physical characteristics have been analyzed and are further discussed in the comparison of the individual sales to the subject. In the highest and best use section of this report, we have determined that the highest and best use of the subject property under private ownership is multifamily residential development. Therefore, in our land valuation, we have compared the subject property to land sale comparables with a similar highest and best. Units of Comparison: The unit of comparison in this analysis is price per dwelling unit derived by dividing the sales prices of the comparable sales by the number of units constructed. An apartment developer's land valuation calculus typically will be based on a backdoor approach starting with a maximum cost per unit based on market factors relating to rent and profitability, then proceeds by deducting all construction and infrastructure costs to arrive at a feasibility land value per unit. Although such an approach may suggest that higher density development will result in a higher land value,. higher construction costs for higher density construction effectively constrain project density. We will also analyze the comparables on a price per acre basis because sellers typically price their properties (initially, at least) on this basis. The comparable sales utilized in this analysis have been summarized in the following Land Sales Comparison Analysis chart. Complete descriptions of comparable sales used in the valuation of this parcel are contained within the Addendum of this report. A narrative description of each sale property follows: Land Sale #1 (77-4353-1328) is most recent sale of the subject property. The City of Winter Springs purchased this property from Edward H. and Sue S. Parker, co-trustees and Richard H. Parker in February 2002 for the recorded sale price of $3,815,000 for expansion of the adjacent Central Winds Park complex. The site is nearly rectangular in shape and encompasses 27.651 acres, all of which is developable. All utilities were available (sewer lines are 700' to the east) to this property. The unadjusted unit price for this land was $137,970/ acre. Based on a like density of 16 dwelling units per acre if used for multi-family residential (corresponding to 442 units) the indicated unit price is $8,623 per apartment unit. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 28 CRM File No. 00-275U • • Land Sale #2 (77-4074-1757) is located on the north side of Lake Mary Boulevard 1/3`d mile west of its intersection with S.R. 417 (The Central Florida Greeneway) in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. Osceola Investment Co., Inc. sold the property to Charleston Club Partners, Ltd. May 2001 for the sale price of $2,250,000 for the eventual development of a 288-unit apartment complex. The site is irregular in shape with 690 feet of frontage on the north side of Lake Mary Boulevard. The site contains a total of 18.58 acres, all of which is developable. All utilities were available to this property, but lines had to be re-routed. The unadjusted unit price for this land was $121,098/ acre and $7,813 per planned apartment unit. Land Sale #3 (77-3983-1635) is located on the east side of US 17-92, 2/10ths of a mile south of its intersection with Lake Mary Boulevard in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. Michael E. Nortman sold the property to TWC Seventy-Six, Ltd. in December 2000 for the sale price of $2,000,000 for the eventual development of a 240-unit apartment complex. The site is nearly rectangular in shape with 576 feet of frontage on the east side of US 17-92. The site contains a total of 14 acres, all of which is developable. All utilities were available to this property. The unadjusted unit price for this land was $138,313/ acre and $8,333 per planned apartment unit. Land Sale #4 (77-3731-1091) is located on the north side of Lake Mary Boulevard 1/3`d mile west of its intersection with S.R. 417 (The Central Florida Greeneway) in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. Huntington Properties & Investments, Inc. and Osceola Investment Co., Inc. sold the property to Vestcor Fund XI, Ltd. on August 30, 1999 for the sale price of $2,230,000 for the eventual development of a 360-unit apartment complex. The site is irregular in shape with 1,341 feet of frontage on Logan Heights Drive. The site contains a total of 22.2 acres, all of which is developable. All utilities were available to this property, but lines had to be re-routed. The unadjusted unit price for this land was $100,450/ acre and $6,194 per planned apartment unit. ADJUSTMENTS Cash Equivalency None of the comparable sales warranted an adjustment for this factor. Time Adjustment (Changed market Conditions) Adjustment for changed market conditions from the date of sale of the comparable sales is based on an annual appreciation rate of 10%. An indicator of changed market values over the relevant time period is provided by Comparable Sales # 2 (77-3684-0082) and #4 (77-3731-1091). These two CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 29 CRM File No. 00-275U • • comparable sales were sold by the same grantor, are adjacent to each other, and sold 2years apart with the most recent sale at a per acre price 21 % greater than that of the earlier sale. Commercial and industrial land values in adjacent areas of Orange and Seminole Counties indicate annual appreciation rates in the 10% range over the past few years. Residential lot prices in this area have likewise shown annual appreciation rates generally in the 5% to 15% range. Based on these observations, adjustments for changed market conditions are made on a 10% annual appreciation rate over the relevant time period. We have rounded the indicated appreciation adjustments to the nearest 5%. CONDITIONS OF SALE ADJUSTMENT Only the most recent sale of the subject property warrants an adjustment for conditions of sale. The recorded sale price is $3.815M whereas the actual cash amount paid by the grantee was $2.9M. The difference was considered to be a charitable contribution on the part of the grantor. The cash value of the charitable contribution can be approximated by its tax value. At a 25% tax rate effective at the time of sale, this charitable contribution of $915K is equivalent to $228,750 as a tax offset. Therefore the sum of the cash paid and the tax offset is $3,128,750, and can be regarded as the cash equivalent value that the grantor received for the property. Since the grantee paid less than this amount by agreeing to consider $915K of the purchase price as a charitable contribution at no cost to the grantee, the following question arises: What would the grantee have paid if no charitable contribution was factored into the purchase price? An indicator of the subject property's land value can be extracted from the purchase contract between the grantors and Arbor Lakes Development Corporation. This contract was in effect at the time when Winter Springs was initially considering purchasing the property and specified a unit price of $7,000 per dwelling unit and a minimum density of 18 dwelling units per acre times the gross acreage less any areas excluded from density allowance calculations. The equivalent per acre price is $126,000 per acre ($7K/dwelling unit X 18 units per acre). The City of Winter Springs considers gross acreage as the basis for density calculations, so the indicated contract price was $3,439,800. Of course, this overall price is subject to the two factors of density and net developable land area. We regard the probability of a density increase as unlikely because of the density analysis presented in the highest and best use section. Indeed, we have concluded amarket-supported density of 16 dwelling units per acre for this property (if privately developed). Therefore, the only other variable that can affect the overall contract price is the net developable land area that the contract density of 18 dwelling units per acre will be multiplied by. The net developable area will likely be less than the gross land area, so the CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 30 CRM File No. 00-275U • • M M J W J Q (/~ z Q J n N O O O Z _~ LL U • • Based on these considerations, we have added the full value of the tax offset ($228,750) of the charitable contribution to the cash amount paid by the grantees ($2.9M) to yield an equivalent sale price of $3,128,750. Accordingly, we have made a (rounded) downward adjustment of 15% for this factor. I nr_atinn All of the comparable sales are within 4 miles of the subject property and have location characteristics similar enough to the subject property to not warrant any adjustment for this factor. Zoning & Land Use All of the comparable sales. have zoning and land characteristics similar enough to the subject property to not warrant any adjustment for this factor. Even though the subject property zoning density allows the highest density at 36 dwelling units per acre, the market does not warrant such a density, so the higher density allowance provides no increment in value to the property at this point in time. Frontage and Access All of the comparable sales have frontage and access characteristics similar enough to the subject property to not warrant any adjustment for this factor. Utilities Availabilitlr All of the comparable sales had off site utilities available. Although the subject is slightly inferior in this regard because the closest sewer connection is 700 feet east of the property, the impact on overall property value is negligible. Since our adjustment protocol is in 5% increments, no adjustment was warranted. CORRELATION OF COMPARABLE LAND SALES The sales provided an unadjusted price range of $6,194 to $8,623 per dwelling unit and from $100,450 to $138,313 per acre. After adjusting the comparables for various elements of comparison, we have arrived at adjusted unit value indications of $7,330, $8,594, $9,583, and $7,743 per dwelling unit and $117,274, $133,208, $159,059 and $125,563 per acre for Comparable Sales 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The recent sale of the subject property provides the best indication of its market value on a per acre basis. Accordingly we have estimated its unit value at $125K per acre, indicating a market value of $3.46M as rounded. CLAYTON ROPER & MARSHALL 31 CRM File No. 00-2750 C: Under the subject property's highest and best use (for private development) as multi-family residential, we have estimated its unit value at $8,000 per dwelling unit per acre by again giving most weight to the adjusted price indication of its recent sale. Based on a probable density of 16 dwelling units per acre as developed in the highest and best use analysis section, the following table presents the calculation of the overall property value by this measure of value. Land Value Per Dwelling Unit $ 8,000 we mg nits er cre o cres ota a ue , or, as rounded $ 3,540,000 We consider both measures of value to have equal merit and have therefore concluded that the market value of the subject property as of the date of valuation is $3,500,000. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 32 CRM File No. 00-275U • • LAND SALES COMPARISON ANALYSIS _, A~A1~TfuiEFi'i'RA ~' n!a -`~"" ~~~a '~' a estop CIu6- n idf-am PTace - - ogan eigFi~ts OCATION ort sh ide $-lF~d~4; -~ 7/10 mi. west of Tuskawilla Road, Winter Springs, Seminole County '~-Florif-i~sTde OFF-4~d- 7/10 mi. west of Tuskawilla Road, Winter Springs, Seminole County '~~' N. side Lake Mary Blvd., 1/3rd mi. w. of Greenaway, Sanford, Seminole County i7= as si a of US 2/10ths of a mile S of Lake Mary Blvd., Sanford, Seminole County, N. side Lake Mary Blvd., 1/3rd mi. w. of Greenaway, Sanford, Seminole County ZONING own enter istnct- Winter Springs own enter istnct- Winter Springs RM-3, Sanford GG2, Sanford RM-3, Sanford - ~ cun-en ~-~7 1 1 ?1S ,8 ,00 2,2 0,0 2,000,00 2, 30,000 CONDITIONS OF SALE c ante a contn utton portion typical typical typical goo goo goo goo goo PRIMARY FRONTAGE Adequate Adequate 690' Lake Mary Bdv. 576' on US 17-92 1, 4 ogan eig is Drive sewer 0 away sewer away avai a e o si a avai a e o si a avai a e o site ~~ ~ _ ....... .. .... . CASH...E(]UIVALE.NC.Y..__..........._........_. 0~..._..__... _..._._.. .__...._............._........ u a a ..................... . ~ 0.~ ._..__. _._.. _~.._.........._.. 0 T11ulE~Chang~"'"ed'~7larlie1 on lions ~ b°A-" CO(JDITiONS`OF`Sf1C~---. i 151° 7fME-Ab7:'8~011fS8AL~PRICE]AC_*_-..~.._.__. _ __ .._... ; - - -$117.27d ~_T .bM 1'~`-'--'-__~ .~.____~,,3.~ ' i~~ ? ~`SsTO ~°-~~_ : 2~/~~-~ ~'~~~~- ~~_ 0"To_-.~~'d.~~._~~__ On~O ._.__.._. j $133,~8A -~' j~'~° $~5~;b5~ ,_ .____$125;5G3~___. _ $7;743 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL 34 CRM File No. 00-275U • ADDENDUM CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-2750 • DEFINITIONS MARKET VALUE • The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently and knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: • Buyer and seller are typically motivated; • Both parties are well informed or well advised and each acting in what they consider their own best interest; + A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; + Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and + The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. FEE SIMPLE ESTATE Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. HIGHEST AND BEST USE The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible and that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility and maximum probability. CLAYTON ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • • SEVERABLE APPURTENANCES We are not experts in the valuation of such items, but it is our opinion that the salvage value of severable appurtenances, if any, are offset by the cost of labor, materials, and equipment to remove such items from the right-of-way; unless, otherwise noted. CLAYTON, ROPER Sz MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U ~ ~ FLORIDA CONCURRENCY LAW COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT: CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES The County and Municipal Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, commonly referred to as the "Growth Management Act", limits and controls Florida's future growth to levels acceptable to natural, environmental, political, social, and human tolerances. Simply stated, no city or county may issue building permits to developers or allow general real estate growth and development: 1) ahead of existing public infrastructure (i.e., transportation, streets, water supplies, sewage treatment and disposal, schools, social services, health services, etc); or 2) in advance of approved planned and funding of such public facilities. The statute requires all city and county comprehensive plans to provide "basic service levels" for the: future land use; traffic circulation, roads, and mass transportation, if applicable; - natural ground water recharge, potable water, drainage, sanitary sewer treatment, and solid waste management and disposal; conservation and natural environmental impact; open spaces and recreation facilities; housing intergovernmental coordination; and capital improvement All cities and counties are required to submit updated comprehensive plans to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the state agency responsible for the evaluation and approval of the revised plans. The plans must provide for "concurrency rules" that growth, zoning, and building permits must be kept in line with existing infrastructure facilities, existing and approved plans for future facilities, and developer commitment or local budget existing for development of future facilities in compliance with present and future "levels of service" and environmental tolerances. Once a plan is reviewed and accepted by the state, local governments must adopt a Land Development Regulation (LDR) to implement the plan. When the LDR is in place, no development order or permit may be issued by a local government unless the project is consistent with the plan and the LDR. concurrency requires that within one year after a local. plan is required to be submitted to DCA, public facilities and services, meeting or exceeding the levels of service established in the capital improvement element of the plan, must be available concurrent with the actual impact of any development. Central Florida developable properties are presently in a transitional stage. A determination of which properties enjoy "vested" development rights has not been determined. It is likely that property constructed prior to the date of adoption of the comprehensive plan and those with DRI are vested. Other properties are not guaranteed. if adequate services and public facilities are available, then it is likely a building permit is obtainable. Our estimate of market value within this report is predicated upon the assumption that the subject property is in conformance with concurrency laws thus enabling the subject property to be utilized to its highest and best use. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • City of Winter Springs y ~ ~,.~ ,:.e. -~, • TOWN CENTER DISTRICT CODE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTENT I. Intent ............................................................... p. l II. Administration ................................................. p.2 A. Town Center District Boundary Map ... p,2 B. Review Process .................................... p,2 C. Special Exceptions ............................... p.3 D. Site Development Agreement Option .. p,3 E. Comprehensive Plan Compliance Required ............................................... p.3 III. Definitions ....................................................... p.4 The City of Winter Springs seeks to create a town center based upon traditional standards for city building. In February, 1998 the City of Winter Springs created a plan for the town center through a design session involving the community and a team of design professionals. This Code is based on that plan. Traditional urban design conventions have been applied to create a pallette of squares, parks, and street types that form the framework for the town center. These conventions are derived from a number of sources in planning literature. Where approvals, interpretations and judgements are left to the discretion of City officials, these officials shall use the following texts for guidance as to best practices: IV. Permitted Uses .................................................. p, 5 Civic Art, by Hegemann and Peets; Great Streets, by Allan B. Jacobs; The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community, by ............................................ V. General Provisions p.7 Peter Katz; A. Comer Radii & Clear Zones ................ p.7 AIA Graphic Standards, 9th Edition; B. Alleys ................................................... p,7 The Lexicon of the New Urbanism, by Duany et al, Congress for C. Exceptions from Build-to-lines ............ p.7 the New Urbanism; D. Side and Rear Setbacks ........................ p,7 Shared Parkins, by Barton-Aschman Associates, The Urban E. First Floor Height for Residential ......... p.7 LandInstitute F. Diversity of Building Widths ................ p,7 G. Accessory Structures ............................ p, 7 This document repeals the Town Center Overlay Zoning District H. Drive-throughs ..................................... p,7 Regulations ofJune 9, 1997 (Ordinance #661) and September 8, I. Civic Sites .............................................. p,7 1997 (Ordinance #676). Should any conflict arise between the J. Parking ................................................... p. $ provisions of this Code and other local land development K. Single vs. Double Loaded Roads ......... p.9 regulations for the City of Winter Springs, the provisions of this L. Large Footprint Buildings .................... p.9 Code shall apply. To the extent that this code is silent where M. Additional Prohibitions ....................... p.9 other codes govern, they shall apply. VI. Squares, Parks, and Street Types .................... p.10 A. How To Use This Code: A. Hierarchy of Squares, Parks, 1. Determine whether your use is permitted in the Town and Streets ...................... ... p.10 Center. B. "In Our Generation" Drawing .............. p, lp 2. Review the General Provisions which apply throughout C. Squares, Parks, and Streets Map .......... p,11 the district. Squares and Parks ........................ p,12 3. Determine which Street Type your lot fronts. (If you Street Types .................................. p.1 g have a corner lot, you must determine the primary space or street based on the hierarchy on page 10.) VII. Buildin Elements 26 4. Next, review section VI. for provisions about the Street g ....................................... p. Type, Square, orPark that corresponds to the lot. VIII. Architectural Guidelines ............................. p.29 5. Finally, review the Building Elements and Architectural Guidelines which contain specific rules for buildings. )unC 17, 2W0 Town Center District Code Page 1 iI. Administrat~n • A. Town Center District Boundary Map / TOWN CENTER ~ / ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~~ District Boundary i i ___ __~,. ; ; n c ty) ~~ County Enclaves (not V ~ ~ 1 !: i T ~' J, /OUT qtl ` .. ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ! .. i Jam` \ ~~ X ~:R l ' , ` ` ~ - • ~ '; TOWN CENTER ~ ; ~ ' . ~, ~ ~ a. , '~ J ...wrc x ~ ~~ ~ • l ' 1 / \\ 1r ~ ~~ TOWN CENTER ~ ~~ _ ~ ,, t . ~ ~ ~i - OUT '' `f ~ \ 1 ~~ 1 --- _. _ _ _ --_ ~ \ ~ ,: ~ r- ~~` t Interpretation of the standards in this code shall be the responsibility of the City's Development Review Committee (DRC). The "In Our Generation" Illustrative Buildout Drawing on p.10 in this Code and on p.6 in the adopted masterplan shall serve as guidance to the Development Review Committee with regard to the City's intent for land development in the town center. The images contained in this code are meant to demonstrate the character intended for the Town Center, but are for illustrative purposes only. The accompanying text and numbers are rules that govern permitted development. B. Review Process Applications are subject to review by the Development Review Committee. The Committee shall have authority within reason for approving all aspects of site planning and exterior architecture, including aesthetic appropriateness, environmental implications, traffic impacts, and any other site-specific matters not delineated herein. Optional Preliminary Review: Applicants may, at their Applicants shall submit the following items to the Land Development Division of the Department of Community Development for review: 1. A current Site Survey, no more than 1 year old. 2. A current Tree Survey, no more than 1 year old. 3. A Site Plan, drawn to scale, which shall indicate: a. Building locations and orientations, and landscape areas; b. Parking locations and number of spaces; c. Paved surfaces, materials and location(s); d. Site location diagram & legal description; and e. Signage. 4. Building Elevations illustrating all sides of structures facing public streets or spaces. 5. A parking analysis justifying the proposed parking solution (such as Shared Parkin, by Barton Aschman Associates, The Urban Land Institute). option, submit designs in schematic or sketch form to 6. Other reasonable supporting documents to indicate the Development Review Committee for preliminary intentions and/or any other items reasonably required by approval, subject to further review. the Development Review Committee. ,,~c1z~„~ Town Center District Code Page 2 C. Special Exceptions: LJ The City Commission may by special exception waive strict compliance with provisions of this code. In granting a special exception, the City Commission must find by substantial competent evidence that: 1. The proposed development contributes to, promotes and encourages the improvement of the Winter Springs Town Center and catalyzes other development as envisioned in the Winter Springs Town Center regulations. 2. The proposed development will not have an unfavorable effect on the economy of the Winter Springs Town Center. 3. The proposed development abides by all rules in this code other than those specially excepted. Special limitations apply to Large Footprint Buildings (greater than 20,000 square feet); see section V (L) for these limitations (page 9). 4. The proposed development meets any reasonable additional conditions, restrictions or limitations deemed necessary by the City Commission in order to preserve and promote the intent of the Winter Springs Town Center Master Plan. Procedure for Special Exceptions: 1. Approval may be granted only after a minimum of two discretionary reviews. The first review shall be before the Development Review Committee, at which time the Development Review Committee shall review the project and provide to the City Commission an advisory recommendation regarding approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval. The second review shall be a public hearing held before the City Commission and shall be held no sooner than seven calendar days following the Development Review Committee hearing. 2. Requests for special exceptions under this ordinance shall include each exhibit required in the Administration Review Process per section II, part B of this code. In addition, the City Commission may within reason require additional exhibits and may defer approval of the special exception application or schedule an additional public hearing or hearings to review those exhibits. 3. Special exceptions shall not be unreasonably withheld, but the City Commission shall have authority to require that the applicant satisfy any additional conditions it deems necessary to fulfill goals of the master plan, including reasonable offsite improvements directly related and proportionate to the specific impact of the request, or further review(s) and approval by the Development Review Committee. ~4. The City Commission may grant the approval of an ~~ application for special exceptions from the code in whole or in part upon a majority vote of its members. D. Site Development Agreement Option: The City may enter into a Site Development Agreement with the user or developer of a property, relating to development of a particular parcel or tract of land, and such an agreement may address such issues as impact fee credits; a specialized or negotiated concept of design or site plan development authorized or sanctioned by this ordinance; infrastructure service credits orpublic-private participation in funding, design or construction; or other incentives based upon strict compliance with requirements of this ordinance. The Agreement will be mutually acceptable to all parties. Considerations for the City in deciding whether to participate in such an agreement will include compliance with the objectives and design criteria specified in this ordinance; demonstration of a cost benefit to City and developer; consideration of development amenities provided by the developer. Such a Site Development Agreement shall be adopted and be in conformance with the requirements of the Florida Municipal Home Rule Powers Act or Sections 163.3220 through 163.4243, Florida Statutes, as to effect, duration, public hearing requirements and other issues. E. Comprehensive Plan Compliance Required: All development of property subject to the Town Center zoning designation and these regulations shall be subject to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, and all approvals and land development permits shall be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. An amendment to the comprehensive plan has been proposed and is currently being processed by the City. This amendment is proposed to increase densities for the area affected by these Town Center regulations; however, until this amendment to the comprehensive plan is approved and adopted in accordance with state law, the City cannot lawfully assure any owner or user of any affected property densities and land uses not currently allowed or permitted by the City's Comprehensive Plan. Town Center District Code June 12, 2(NIO Page 3 III. Definition Accessory Structure: a building or structure subordinate to the principal building and used for purposes customarily incidental to the main or principal building and located on the same lot or set of attached lots therewith. A11ey: a publicly or privately owned secondary way which affords access to the side or rear of abutting property. Anyurtenances: architectural features not used for human occupancy consisting of: spires, belfries, cupolas or dormers; silos; parapet walls, and cornices without windows; chimneys, ventilators, skylights, and antennas. Awning: an architectural projection roofed with flexible material supported entirely from the exterior wall of a building. Balcony: a porch connected to a building on upper stories supported by either a cantilever or brackets. Block: an increment of land composed of an aggregate of lots, tracts and alleys circumscribed by thoroughfares. Build-To-Line: a line parallel to the property line, along which a building shall be built. Exact location of Build-To-Lines shall be established by the DRC at the time of application. Building Frontage: the vertical side of a building which faces the primary space or street and is built to the Build-To-Line. Building Volume: the space displaced by the exterior walls and roof of a building; a product of building width, depth, and height. It is the intent of this Code to regulate building volume in order to shape public spaces that are human-scaled, well- ordered, and which maximize the shared real estate amenity. Buildin,~ Width: the distance from one side of a building frontage to the other. In conditions where buildings are attached, building width is the distinction between buildings which shall be expressed via a change in architectural expression, such as a vertical element running from ground to roof, a change in fenestration or style, color or texture, or a break in facade plane or roof line. 'These changes may be subtle or significant, but it is the intent to avoid homogenous blocks of excessively long buildings. Colonnade or e: a covered, open-air walkway at standard sidewa level attached to or integral with the building frontage; structure overhead is supported architecturally by columns or arches along the sidewalk. Dwelling Area: the total internal useable space on all floors of a structure, not including porches, balconies, terraces, stoops, patios, or garages. Front Porch: a roofed area, attached at the ground floor level or first floor level, and to the front of a building, open except for railings, and support columns. Garden Wall: a freestanding wall along the property line dividing private areas from streets, alleys, and or adjacent lots. He ~ht: the vertical distance from the lowest point on the tallest side of the structure to the top of the parapet, cornice or eave. Liner Building: a building built in front of a parking garage, cinema, supermarket etc., to conceal large expanses of blank wall area and to face the street space with a facade that has doors and windows opening onto the sidewalk (see diagrams pp.8 and 9). Parking garages and their Liners may be built at different times. Lot: a single building plot; the smallest legal increment of land which may be bought and sold. Lot Frontage: the property line adjacent to the frontage street. Marquee: a permanently roofed architectural projection the sides of which are vertical and are intended for the display of signs; which provides protection against the weather for the pedestrian; and which is supported entirely from an exterior wall of a building. Primary Space or Street: the space or street that a building fronts. At squares and street intersections the space or street highest in the hierarchy is the primary street. StOOp: a small platform and / or entrance stairway at a house door, commonly covered by a secondary roof or awning. Storefront: building frontage for the ground floor usually associated with retail uses. Structured Parking: layers of parking stacked vertically. ,~ ~z ~~ Town Center District Code Page 4 IV. Permitted •ses Administrative public buildings Adult congregate living facility Advertising agencies Alcoholic beverage sales (package) Alcoholic beverage on-premesis consumption Alterations and tailoring Amusement enterprises, private commercial Antique and gift shop Appliances, sales and service Artists' studios Automotive accessories sales Bakery, wholesale and retail Bathroom accessories Bed and breakfast inn Bicycles, sales and service Bookstores, stationery, newsstands Bookkeepers Butcher shop, retail only Carpets, rugs and linoleum Churches (with or without educational and recreational buildings and facilities) Cleaners Coin dealers Computers, hardware, and software sales and service Confectionery and ice cream stores Convention center Corner store or neighborhood convenience store without gas pumps Dance and music studios Day nurseries, kindergartens and day care Drug and sundry stores Employment agencies Financial institutions, banks, savings and loan Florist and gift shops Furniture, retail, new and used Government service facilities Grocers, retail and wholesale Gun shop Hardware stores Health food Hobby and craft shops Home occupations Hospitals and nursing homes Hotel Hypnotists Inn Insurance Interior decorating and draperies Jewelry stores Libraries Loan compani~ Locksmiths Luggage shops Manufacturing and assembly of scientific and optical precision instruments Markets and stores, small (Not exceeding 20,000 square feet) Medical clinics and laboratories Municipal Buildings Nurseries, plants, trees, etc., Retail and wholesale Nursing Homes Offices Outdoor signs sales offices Paint store Parking garages Parks and public recreation areas and facilities Pet shops and grooming Photographic studios Physical fitness and health clubs Post office Private clubs and lodges Public restrooms Public utilities and service structures Quick printers Radio and TV broadcasting studios, excluding towers Radio and TV sales and service Rental stores Retirement homes, including independent living through assisted living Residential, single family (attached and detached) Residential, multifamily Restaurants Schools, service and vocational schools (such as cosmetology, medical and dental assistant's training) Shoe repair shops Sidewalk cafes Snack shops Sporting goods, retail Tailoring shops Taxidermists Telephone business office and exchanges Theaters, not drive-ins Title companies Tobacco shops Town Center marketing and sales center Toy stores Trail heads Travel agencies Wearing apparel stores lone 12, 21100 Town Center District Code Page 5 • Permitted Uses, Continued: Any other similar retail store or business enterprise not listed, that in the judgement of the Development Review Committee is not specifically limited to other zoning districts within the City and is consistent with those included above, and further, that will be in harmony with the spirit of the Winter Springs Town Center Master Plan. Uses Permitted by Special Exception Only Automobile repair shops (routine service) Bowling alleys Bus terminal Car wash Corner store or neighborhood convenience store with gas pumps Equestrian facilities Gas stations Launderettes and laundromats Printers, commercial Schools, private and parochial Skating rinks Stadiums and arenas Swimming pools; sales service and supplies Veterinary clinics (no overnight boarding) • ,w~ ~~. z~ Town Center District Code Page 6 • • V. General Provisions The following general provisions apply to all Street Types. E. First Floor Height for Residential: Residential uses on the first story shall have finished floor height raised a minimum of 2 feet above sidewalk grade. A. Corner Radii & Clear Zones: Corner curb radii shall be between 9 feet and 15 feet. Fairly tight turning radii shorten pedestrian crossings and inhibit reckless drivers from turning corners at high speeds. To allow for emergency vehicles (e.g. fire trucks) to turn corners, a 25 foot radius Clear Zone shall be established free of all vertical obstructions including but not limited to telephone poles, sign poles, fire hydrants, electrical boxes, or newspaperboxes. • _.~ Property / RighUOf-Way Line 25' Radius Ckar Zone Lina ~~. ~. Clear Zone urb Lurb Radius ~~ (9 157 B. Alleys: Alleys are required in the town center to minimize curb cuts and to provide access to parking and service areas behind buildings. Alley requirements may be waived by the DRC for access to detached single family residential lots greater than 55' in width in situations in which proper streetfront orientation, pedestrian circulation, and parking can still be accomplished. Alley locations and dimensions are not fixed but shall be designed to accommodate the alley's purpose. Additional curb cuts shall be added only with the permission of the Development Review Committee. Alleys may be incorporated into parking lots as drive aisles and fire lanes. C. Exceptions from Build-to Lines: Exceptions from Build-to Lines may be granted by the Development Review Committee for avoiding trees with calipers greater than 8 inches. On corner sites (within 50 feet of the corner) with Build-to Lines set back from the property line, building frontage may be positioned forward of the Build-to Line up to the Property Line, provided it does not encroach upon the Clear Zone. D. Side and Rear Setbacks: No side or rear setbacks are required in the town center. F. Diversity of Building Widths: No more than three residential buildings 20 feet or less in width are permitted within any two hundred feet of frontage. G. Accessory Structures: Accessory Structures are permitted and may contain parking, accessory dwelling units, home occupation uses, storage space, and trash receptacles. Home occupation uses are restricted to owner plus one employee, shall not include noxious or disruptive functions, and may not disrupt parking for neighboring residents. Accessory structures shall not be greater than 625 square feet in footprint and shall not exceed 2 stories in height. H. Drive-throughs: Drive-through service windows are permitted in the rear in mid-block and alley accessed locations provided they do not substantially disrupt pedestrian activity or surrounding uses. Ile Example ~ ~ Drive-through a _ Service area ~ Buildin ~ Bulklfn ,Front Side of Buildings I. Civic Sites: Civic buildings contain uses of special public importance. Civic buildings include, but are not limited to, municipal buildings, churches, libraries, schools, daycare centers, recreation facilities, and places of assembly. Civic buildings do not include retail buildings, residential buildings, or privately owned office buildings. In order to provide greater flexibility to create a special architectural statement, civicbuildings are not subject to Build-to Line requirements or Building Frontage requirements. The design of civic buildings shall be subject to review and approval by the Development Review Committee. Town Center District Code ,ana ix, zaa _ Page 7 • J. Parking: 1. Parking Requirements The intent of these parking regulations is to encourage a balance between compact pedestrian oriented development and necessary car storage. The goal is to construct neither more nor less parking than is needed. There shall be no minimum parking requirement in the Town Center. The applicant shall provide a parking analysis justifying the proposed parking solution. Minimum parking space dimensions for head-in or diagonal parking shall be 9'x18' with 11 foot drive lanes (22' for 2 way traffic) and parallel parking spaces shall be 8'x20' minimum with 10 foot drive lanes (20' for 2 way traffic). Parking shall be provided as necessary to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Florida Accessibility Code. 2.On-StreetParking The selection of diagonal or parallel parking along any section of road shall be determined in consultation with DRC. In the event that DRC approves diagonal instead of parallel parking, dimensions should be adjusted on pages. l 2-24. 3.Off-StreetSurface ParkingLot Placement Off-street surface parking lots shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the property line along the Main Street. DRC shall have discretion to make this requirement applicable elsewhere on prominent frontages, such as along key pedestrian connections, within significant vistas and within important public spaces. Outbuildings serving as garages facing alleys shall be permitted within this setback. Surface parking lots may be built up to the property line on all other street frontages. ;Structure Buildings y Frontage • streets to reserve room for Liner Buildings between parking structures and the lot frontage. The Liner Building shall be no less than two stories in height. Liner Buildings may be detached from or attached to parking structures. S. Access to Off-Street Parking Alleys shall be the primary source ofaccess tooff- street parking. Parking along alleys may behead- in,diagonal orparallel. Alleys may be incorporated into parking lots as standard drive aisles. Access to all properties adjacent to the alley shall be maintained. Access between parking lots across property lines is also encouraged. ~- Alley -~ u ~ Mid Block ~ ' 4 in ; Corner, Buildin ~ ,~, g Building Property-~.. _ . _ .. _ . _ . Line Front Side of Buildings Curb ~ ~---- Frontage Street -~ Corner lots that have both rear and side access shall access parking through the rear (see diagram below). ~-- Alley ~~ _.._.._..i._.._.._ .~ .~ _.._.-- ~ q N Mid-bloc ! Building ! Corner ! ~ Building Property-~..._.._.._.._.: _.. Line Front Side of Buildings Curb ~ ~~ Frontage Street --~ Circular drives are prohibited except for civic buildings. Garage door(s) shall be positioned no closer to streets, squares or parks than 20 feet behind the principal plane of the building frontage. Garage doors facing streets, squares or parks shall not exceed 10 feet in width. Where space permits, garage doors shall face the side or the rear, not the front. Parking structures shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the property lines of all adjacent Town Center District Code ~~~ iz, zooo Page 8 4. Structured ParkingLotPlacement 6. ParkingLotLandscapingRequc• eiits: Landscape strips of at least six feet in width shall be provided between parking isles of either head- in or diagonal parking. Tree spacing in parking lots shall be determined by the City Arborist based upon tree species and location. The objective is to create as continuous a shade canopy as possible. A diversity of tree species across the Town Center is encouraged. To minimize water consumption, the use of low- water vegetative ground cover other than turf is encouraged. 6 ft. min. „,c, ;.,~;~~~~ ? , ;, au::4 ,, In lieu of landscape strips, landscape islands can be provided. No more than 6 consecutive parking stalls are permitted without a landscape island of at least 6 feet in width and extending the entire length of the parking stall. A minimum of one tree shall be planted in each landscape island. s all m x 6ft~, mm K. Single vs. Double Loaded Roads: Segments of single loaded Edge Drive are designated for portions of the masterplan in order to provide public access to significant natural areas and to enhance these significant natural areas by facing them with the fronts of buildings. Single loaded Edge Drive may, by special exception, be replaced with a double loaded alternative. Double loaded roads may be appropriate in locations such as: where there is no significant natural view, in circumstances where no significant negative visual impact will be created by having the developed properties back up to the natural area or park space, or in other locations where it is deemed to be in the balanced public- private interest to incorporate double loaded roads for the economical use of the property . L. Large Footprint Buildings: Buildings with a footprint greater than 20,000 square feet may be built within the Town Center District by special exception only. Such buildings must abide by all rules in this code with the following special limitations: a. Buildings may be one story in height on any frontage except Main Street and Market Square, but shall be at least 24 feet in height. This may be accomplished with Liner Buildings or higher ceiling heights and/ or parapets. b. To encourage use by pedestrians and decrease the need for solely auto-oriented patronage, Large-Footprint Buildings must reinforce the urban character of the Town Center and shall therefore continue a connected system of walkable street frontages. c. Buildings are exempt from maximum lot size restrictions, however building footprints may not be larger than a single block. d. Loading docks, service areas and trash disposal facilities shall not face streets, parks, _ squares or significant pedestrian spaces. r=r r ..Desirable," %' '' ~...,,x Large Footprint Buildings are wrapped in a liner of smaller buildings with doors and windows facing the street. M. Additional Prohibitions: The following are prohibited where visible from parks, squares and primary streets: * Coin operated newspaper vending boxes * Utility boxes and machinery including but not limited to: backflow devices, electric meters and air conditioning units. ,~,~,~,:«b Town Center District Code Page 9 Large Footprint Building has blank facades and sits behind a field of parking. • 17895 LAND SALE #1 • TYPE OF PROPERTY Vacant Multifamily Residential Land RECORDED O.R. Book 4353, Page 1328, Seminole County, Florida GRANTOR Edward H. and Sue S. Parker, co-trustees and Richard H. Parker GRANTEE City of Winter Springs SALE DATE February 2002 INSPECTION DATE May 17, 2002 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is nearly rectangular in shape and contains 27.651± acres. Offsite utilities were available to the site, however sewer lines are 700' to the east. SALE PRICE $3,815,000 UNIT PRICE $137,970 per acre TYPE OF INSTRUMENT Warranty Deed LOCATION This property is located south of the Central Winds Park and north of the abandoned portion of S.R. 434 in Winter Springs, Seminole County, Florida. ZONING Town Center District by the City of Winter Springs PRESENT USE Vacant HIGHEST & BEST USE CONDITIONS OF SALE FINANCING ENCUMBRANCES Multifamily residential development (private development) or assemblage with adjacent Central Winds Park (public development) Arm's Length transaction none None noted IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION Vacant UTILITIES All utilities available (sewer lines are located 700' to the east) CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • • 17895 Page 3 LAND SALE #1 (Cont'd) CLAYTON ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • 17895 Page 2 VERIFICATION With/Relationship: Telephone Number: Date: Verified by: MOTIVATIONS OF PARTIES CASH EQUIVALENCY COMMENTS SALE HISTORY LEGAL DESCRIPTION • LAND SALE #1 (Cont'd) Mr. Chuck Pula, Winter Springs Parks and Recreation Director 407-327-4761 5/17/02 Don Watson Typical market motivations. See comments The recorded purchase price for this property is $3.815M, however the City of Winter Springs paid a cash amount of $2.9M. The difference between the recorded sale price and the cash payment ($915K) was considered as a charitable contribution on the part of the grantees. There have been no arm's length transfers of this property within the three years prior to this sale. 26-20-30-5AR-0 D00-0010 Lots 1 and 2 of Block D, of D.R. Mitchell's Survey of the Levy Grant on Lake Jessup, as recorded in Plat Book 1, page 5 of the public records of Seminole County, Florida. Furthermore, the property now includes the west'h of vacated Clifton Avenue on the east side of the subject property as recorded in Official Records Book #2290, Page #216. CLAYTON ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • • 17896 LAND SALE #2 TYPE OF PROPERTY Vacant Multifamily Residential Land RECORDED O.R. Book 4074, Page 1757, Seminole County, Florida GRANTOR Osceola Investment Co., Inc. GRANTEE Charleston Club Partners, Ltd. SALE DATE May 2001 INSPECTION DATE May 17, 2002 SITE DESCRIPTION The site irregular in shape and contains 18.58± acres. Offsite utilities were available to the site. SALE PRICE $2,250,000 UNIT PRICE $121,098 per acre $6,194 per proposed dwelling unit TYPE OF INSTRUMENT Warranty Deed LOCATION This property is located on the north side of Lake Mary Boulevard 1/3~d mile west of its intersection with S.R. 417 (The Central Florida Greeneway) in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. ZONING RM-3, Sanford PRESENT USE Vacant at time of sale, now improved with 288 multi- family residential development known as Charleston Club. HIGHEST & BEST USE Multifamily residential development CONDITIONS OF SALE Arm's Length transaction FINANCING Conventional construction financing through Key Bank as recorded in Seminole County Official Records Book # 4074, Page #1761. ENCUMBRANCES Subject to a drainage easement along the eastern side as recorded in Seminole County Official Records Book # 370, Page #570. IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION Vacant at time of sale. CLAYTON, ROPER FiL MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • • 17896 Page 2 UTILITIES VERIFICATION With/Relationship: Telephone Number: Date: Verified by: MOTIVATIONS OF PARTIES CASH EQUIVALENCY COMMENTS SALE HISTORY TAX I D # LAND SALE #2 (Cont'd) All utilities available Barney Veal, grantor 407-846-3767 5/17/02 Don Watson Typical market motivations. See comments There have been no arm's length transfers of this property within the three years prior to this sale. 12-20-30-300-012X-0000 CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-2750 • ~ 17896 Page 3 LAND SALE #2 (Cont'd) LEGAL DESCRIPTION __ _ .._ _ _ _ _ _ __. _ _ _ . _ SEC 12 TWP 20S RGE 30E BEG 287.24 FT S OF NE COR OF SW 1/4 RUNS 984.85 FT W ALONG R/W75FTN 280.60 FT W 280 FT S 282.95 FT WLY ALONG R/W 243.67 FT WLY r;< SWLY ALONG CURVE 399.05 FT N 31 DEG 09 MIN 27 SEC W 378.70 FT NWLY ALONG CURVE 210.63FTS84DEG57MIN54SECE6.42FTN 80 DEG 18 MIN 30 SECE52.03FTN82DEG14MIN13SECE 84.60FTN68DEG49MIN17SECE41.43FTN 81 DEG 02 MIN 07 SECE57.67FTN70DEG01 MIN 05SECE 71.43FTN80DEG40MIN38SECE41.78FTN 66 DEG 42 MIN 49 _ SECE57.46FTE39.34FTN69DEG46MIN42 SECE102.66FTN87DEGOSMIN54SECE 74.29 FT N 66 DEG 58 MIN 27 SECE68.18FTN48DEG17MIN07 SECE83.03FTN31 DEG 49 MIN 58SECE 47.88FTN31 DEG 36 MIN 55 SECE68.85FTN38DEG52MIN13 SECE59.32FTN77DEG25MIN49SECE 50.45 FT N 88 DEG 17 MIN 12 SECE49.60FTN25DEG16MIN13 SECE41.14FTN45DEG58MIN26SECE 88.46 FT N 47 DEG 11 MIN 58 SECE4g.98FTE49.12FTN82DEG 12 MIN 05 SEC 48.09FTN85DEG10MIN15 SECE67.13FTN 09 DEG 22 MIN 59SECE17.83FTE57.78FTT0 BEG (LESS RD) CLAYTON ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • • 17896 Page 4 LAND SALE #2 (Cont'd) i .-_ - ;; J ~ 016 li ~~ __ .-=- ~ ~- __ - U `~.. 012X i.___. _._ 0120 `,. CLAYTON ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • • 17516 LAND SALE #3 TYPE OF PROPERTY Vacant Multifamily Residential Land RECORDED O.R. Book 3983, Page 1635, Seminole County, Florida GRANTOR Michael E. Nortman GRANTEE TWC Seventy-Six, Ltd. SALE DATE December 2000 INSPECTION DATE May 17, 2002 SITE DESCRIPTION The site nearly rectangular in shape and contains 14.46± acres. Offsite utilities were available to the site. SALE PRICE $2,000,000 UNIT PRICE $138,313 per acre $8,333 per proposed dwelling unit TYPE OF INSTRUMENT Warranty Deed LOCATION This property is located on the east side of US 17-92, 2/10ths of a mile south of its intersection with Lake Mary Boulevard in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida ZONING GC-2, Sanford PRESENT USE Vacant at time of sale, now improved with 240 multi- family residential development known as Wyndham Place. HIGHEST & BEST USE Multifamily residential development CONDITIONS OF SALE Arm's Length transaction FINANCING Conventional construction financing through 1St Florida Housing Finance Corporation for $1M. ENCUMBRANCES none noted IMFIROVEMENT DESCRIPTION Vacant at time of sale. UTILITIES All utilities available CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • 17516 Page 2 VERIFICATION With/Relationship: Telephone Number: Date: Verified by: MOTIVATIONS OF PARTIES CASH EQUIVALENCY COMMENTS SALE HISTORY TAX ID # LEGAL DESCRIPTION • LAND SALE #3 (Cont'd) Bob Doher, selling broker 407-647-4333 5/20/02 Don Watson Typical market motivations. same as sale price The grantor had assembled the 14 parcels comprising this property over the past 2.5 years. 14-20-30-501-OA00-0010 t3ealn at the Southeast corner of the Northwest 1/4 of thQ Northeast li4 of Section 14. Township 20 South. iionpe 30 East. Seminoie County. florldas thence N 00.35'03" E. olonp the East bovndGry tine of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeost ~/~ o! sold Section 14 Qna the West Ilne of Block 8. SUNLAND ESTATES. os recorded In P1af book 11. Pages 16 through 22. of the Pubtia Records of Seminole County. Flortdo. o distonoe of 584.55 feet to th4 Northeast corner of Lot I. 81ook A of sold SUNt.ANb E5TATE5~ thence N 49.16'30" W olonq the North Ilne Of lot 1. Block A. of sold SUNLANQ 6STIlTES. o dlstonoe of 96.20 feat to the East right of way line of U. S. Hlghwoy IT•92~ thence S 25.3t'2~" W a distance of 39.66 feats thenoe deporting avid right of woy tine. run SIB9•t1b'3b"l:. olonq the center) tr>fe of voooted w~adscn avenue a distonoe of 186.15 feet: thence 500«44'30"IK. a diatonce of 164.12 feet to the South Itne of Lot 2. 61ook A. of said SUNLAND ESTATES: thence N 89•t6.30" W. o dlig#anoe of 261.93 feet to the Eost right ai way line of U. S. Highway iZ^92t thence S 25.31.24" w ciong sold Eost right of woy Itne o distance of 426.85 feet to the North ilne of Block B. of sole SUNLAND ESTATES thenco S 89.25'00" E. 01 ortq sold North !the of 8i ook 8. a q1 stance of 1240.14 feet to the Point of Beginning. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL CRM Fite No. 00-275U • 16367 Page 4 LAND SALE #4 (Cont'd) • ~~~ a~ ~ ~~~ ~~ s~,iei~~~n=~sa ear rae: ia~~man ~~e.des ns~ k i ~~i ~._~,.i,., ,. ~u~._i.~,,. iw ~_._ CLAYTON ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • • 17516 Page 3 LAND SALE #3 (Cont'd) WOODSG AVENUE i CLAY'TON~ ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • • 16367 TYPE OF PROPERTY GRANTEE SALE DATE INSPECTION DATE SITE DESCRIPTION SALE PRICE UNIT PRICE TYPE OF INSTRUMENT ZONING PRESENT USE HIGHEST & BEST USE CONDITIONS OF SALE FINANCING LAND SALE #4 Vacant Multifamily Residential Land O.R. Book 3731, Page 1091, Seminole County, Florida Huntington Properties & Investments, Inc. and Osceola Investment Co., Inc. Vestcor Fund XI, Ltd. 8/30/99 October 5, 2000 The site is irregular in shape and contains 22.2± acres. This parcel has 1,341 feet of frontage on the west side of Logan Heights Drive. Offsite utilities were available to the site, however they had to be re-routed. $2,230,000 $100,450 per acre $6,194 per proposed dwelling unit Warranty Deed This property is located on the north side of Lake Mary Boulevard, 1/3rd mile west of the intersection with the Greeneway in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. RM-3, Sanford Vacant Multifamily residential development Arm's Length transaction Tax-exempt bond through Florida Housing Finance Corporation (3731/1091) $14.8M construction loan. ENCUMBRANCES None Noted IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION Vacant UTILITIES All utilities available CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • 16367 Page 2 VERIFICATION With/Relationship: Telephone Number: Date: Verified by: MOTIVATIONS OF PARTIES CASH EQUIVALENCY COMMENTS SALE HISTORY TAX I D # • LAND SALE #4 (Cont'd) Barney Veal, grantor 407-846-3767 10/6/2000 Don Watson Typical market motivations. Same as sale price. 360 dwelling units are planned for this site, resulting in a density of 16.2 units per acre. Due to the particular financing, this project will have income restrictions. Sewer and water lines were available to the site, however they had to be rerouted at the buyers expense. Additional off site costs included installation of a turn lane on Lake Mary Boulevard and construction of a sewer lift station. The offsite improvements cost and additional $400,000. This property was part of an assemblage of several adjacent parcels in early 1999. 12-20-30-300-012 E-0000 CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • 16367 Page 3 LAND SALE #4 (Cont'd) LEGAL DESCRIPTION • A portion of the SANFORD ORAtrf AND PORTi0N4 OP GOVERNNEN[ IATS 1, 2 AND 7, all 2n SeeiSon 12, Township 20 South, Range 70 ease, Seminole County, Florida, being more parcleula y described as follows: ~ O Coenenciag at the Nocchvesc corner of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 12, proceed sour 01.76'04• Meat, along the westerly line of said Section 12, a distance of 801.57 feet to ehs Point of Beginning of subject parcel; theoce continuing along the acid Neacarly Line of Seeeio¢ 12 South 01.36.04• Meet, a distu:ca o[ 18.90 feet: thence South 36.17.52' 6aat. departing said weacacly line of Section 12, a diata¢ce o[ 201.15 face; thence North 47.54.35• East, a diataace of 57.62 feet; thence North 64.48'38• East. a diatana o[ 110.90 feet: thence North 64.40.54• Ease, a distance o! 75.11 feet: thence North 74.00'5{• bast, a distance of 114.94 feet; theoce Morth 6]•31.27• Bast, a dieta¢ce of 39.71 Eeec: thence South 75.51'49• Eaac, a distance of 59.7a Leer; therm North 74.25'20• East, a distames o[ 55.]1 feet; thence South 68.16.58• East, a diatannca of 64.44 lasts thence South 79.51.51' Bast, a distance of 87.51 tact: cbeaa South 62.49.51• Bast, a distance of 76.65 [sect thence South 61.06'38" East, a distance of 72.46 Ceett therm South 72.55'07• But, a distance oC 49.11 feet: theoce South 59.20'31• East, a distance o[ 49.20 [eetr chena North 86.75•40•Ea6t, a distmce o[ 65.20 [see; thence South 35.14.43• East, a distance of 33.87 Eeec; thence South 16.34.22• Euc, a distance of 59.89 Eeec: thence Soutlf 33'38'11• East, a distance of 73.56 feet; thence South 17.53'26• East, a distance o[ 99.17 [eat; thence South 19.30.24• Easc, ^ diseanee of 107.15 feetr Che¢ea South 01.29.49• Vert, a distance of 6.42 Eeec; thence North 57.41.15• East, a distance o! 287.07 feet; thorn Notch 32.37.45• Meac, a distance of 160.00 Eeet co a point of curvaeura of a curve concave Northeasterly and having a radius oC 9/4.54 feet; thanes along the arc oC said curve an arc length of 643.9a feet, said are being subtended by a chord bearing and dittsncs Ot North 11.16.11• Nest, 678.51 feet; Cheats North 09•{4.27• East, a distance O[ 487.52 [sat to a point of curvature of a curve concave souehvesearly and having a radius of 60.00 [nett theca along the arc of aaid curve a¢ arc length o! 98.17 leett said curve being subtended by a chord beuing and distance of !torch 37.05'58• Nesc, 87.56 Eeec; thence North 83.5'1.18" Xea[, a distance o[ 137.57 Eeec, eo a point of curvature of cure eoauve soueheastarly and having a radius of 245.02 feats thean along the arc of sacd curve and ue length of 257.22 Eeec: said arc being subtended by a chord bearing and distaxe OE South 66.26'18• Nest 141.10 [net t¢ a polnc of reverie curvatute of a curve, caicave Northeasterly and having a ndius of ]68.87 Eeeet thence along the uc of said curve an arc Length o[ 167.48 feed said are, being subtended by a chord bearing and distance o1 South 58.50'51• Nese 176.55 Eeec, to a point of reverse curvature of a corn being concave Southeasterly and having a radius o[ {30.78 Ceet; thence along the arc o[ aaid curve as arc length of 449.52 Leee, said arc befog subtended by a chord bearing and distance of South 41.02'06• Mese 428.54 teat; thence South 21.11.25' Meat. a distance of 153.56 feat to a point of eusvaturs of s curve concave norchreeterly and having a radius of 190.91 fast; thence along the are of said turn and arc langeh of 136.60 foot, aasd are being suheetded by a clard bearing and diacanea of 9oueh 56.27.02• Nesc• 220.74 feet, to the Poime of Bagimiag of said Parcel. CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U r: • QUALIFICATIONS OF PAUL M. ROPER Business Address Clayton, Roper & Marshall, Inc. 246 North Westmonte Drive Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Telephone: (407) 772-2200, Ext. 310 Fax: (407) 772-1340 E-mail: proper@crmre.com Education BSBA Degree (Finance), University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida .......................................1979 AS Degree, Daytona Beach Community College, Daytona Beach, Florida ....................................1974 Successfully Completed Real Estate Appraisal Courses_& Se__minars_Under Direction of the Appraisal Institute: When Good Houses Go Bad (FREAB Course 01-03) ..................................................................................... 2001 Litigation Skills for the Appraiser ...................................................................................................................... 2001 Capital Gains in Like-Kind Exchanges ............................................................................................................. 2001 Appraising from Blueprints ................................................................................................................................ 2000 Partial Interest Valuation ................................................................................................................................... 2000 USPAP/Law ...................................................................................................................................................... 2000 St. Johns River Water Management Appraisal Seminar ................................................................................. 2000 Business Enterprise Valuation -Course No. 701 ............................................................................................. 1999 Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) -Course No. 706 .................................................................................. 1999 Improving Your Business, Management and Bottom Line Profit ..........................................:........................... 1999 Valuing Your Business ...................................................................................................................................... 1999 Appraisal Considerations for Rural Properties ................................................................................................. 1998 USPAP - Part C ................................................................................................................................................ 1997 Fannie Mae Guidelines Update ........................................................................................................................ 1996 USPAP (Update/Core Law) .............................................................................................................................. 1996 Agriculture and the Internet Computer Workshop ....................................................................:....................... 1995 How to Appraise FHA-Insured Property ........................................................................................................... 1995 Appraisal Institute Faculty Workshop ............................................................................................................... 1995 Technology Video Conference ......................................................................................................................... 1995 Understanding Limited Appraisals & Reporting Options -General .................................................................. 1994 Powerline Easements 8~ Electro Magnetic Fields' Effect on People & Value ................................................... 1994 USPAP Core Law for Appraisers ...................................................................................................................... 1994 Standards of Professional Practice, Parts A & B .............................................................................................. 1992 Interim Use Properties ...................................................................................................................................... 1992 SREA 201 Instructor's Clinic ............................................................................................................................. 1988 Course IV -Condemnation Appraisal Practice ................................................................................................. 1988 Uniform Residential Appraisal Report ............................................................................................................... 1987 Valuation and Evaluation of Proposed Projects ............................................................................................... 1987 R-41c Overview and Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 1987 R-41 b -Overview and Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 1986 Capitalization Theory and Techniques ............................................................................................................. 1986 Federal Income Taxes Affecting Real Estate ................................................................................................... 1985 R-41b -Federal Home Loan Bank Board Regulations ..................................................................................... 1985 Condemnation and the Appraiser ..................................................................................................................... 1984 Development of Business Centers and Office Showrooms ...:.......................................................................... 1984 Overview -Apartment Development Process ................................................................................................... 1984 Adjusting for Financing Differences in Residential Properties .......................................................................... 1983 SREA 201 Instructor's Clinic ............................................................................................................................. 1982 Report Writing Seminar ..................................................................................................................................... 1981 Construction Facts/Inspections ......................................................................................................................... 1981 Course VII, Industrial Valuation ........................................................................................................................ 1981 Hotel/Motel Valuation and Analysis Seminar .................................................................................................... 1981 Golf Course Valuation and Analysis Seminar ................................................................................................... 1981 R-2 Single-Family Residential Examination ...................................................................................................... 1978 Course II, Urban Case Studies ......................................................................................................................... 1977 Narrative Report Writing Workshop .................................................................................................................. 1976 Course 201 -University of Central Florida ....................................................................................................... 1976 Applied Capitalization Techniques Workshop .................................................................................................. 1975 Course 101 -Stetson University ....................................................................................................................... 1975 CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U QUALIFICATIONS OF PAUL M. ROPER (Cont'd.) Independent Seminars (Other Than Appraisal Institute): ....SFWMD-Current Appraisal Issues in Florida ............................................................................. 2002 ....SFWMD-Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions ....................................... 2001 SFWMD Current Appraisal Issues in Florida ..................................................................................... 2000 Less Than Fee Interest Workshop ............................................................................................ 1999 Real Estate Continuing Ed Course ........................................................................................... 1998 The Internet and Appraising ..................................................................................................... 1997 Risk Reduction for Brokers ....................................................................................................... 1996 Contracts, Collectibles, Crimes, Copy & More .......................................................................... 1996 Agriculture and the Internet II Workshop ................................................................................... 1996 Marshall & Swift Square Foot Method Use &Application .......................................................... 1996 Real Estate Law Symposium .................................................................................................... 1995 Concurrency Management Seminar -City of Orlando ............................................................... 1992 Citrus Groves -Evaluation and Analysis ................................................................................... 1991 Appraisal Review of Commercial Real Estate and Federal Home Loan Bank Board Memorandum R-41c ............................................................................................................... 1986 The Appraisal Institute conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. Paul M. Roper is currently certified under this program. Mr. Roper has also attended various seminars under the direction of the Orlando Area Associat ion of Realtors and the American Society of Appraisers. Professional Designations: MAI Designation -Appraisal Institute, Certificate #6442 SRPA and SRA Designations =Appraisal Institute (Past President of Chapter No. 100; Past Education Committee Chairman) Licensed Real Estate Broker, State of Florida State-Certified General Appraiser, State of Florida, Expires November 30, 2002, License Number RZ 0000141 FNMA Approved - #1108588 Experience: Special Master for Exemption Hearings -Orange County, Florida 1992, 1991, 1990 Instructor:Less Than Fee Interest Workshop for Northwest Florida Water Management District ...1999 Appraisal Institute (Appraising Interim Use Properties) ........................................1992, 1991 Society of Real Estate Appraisers (SREA Course 201) ....................................... 1991, 1985 Society of Real Estate Appraisers (Uniform Residential Appraisal Reports) ..................1987 Valencia Community College, Orlando, Florida .............................................................1984 American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (AIREA Course 8-2) ................................1984 Author: Coursework for Teaching "Less Than Fee Interest" ........................................................1999 CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • • QUALIFICATIONS OF PAUL M. ROPER (Cont'd.) Author: Coursework and Appraisal Articles for Teaching and Publication, such as: „Appraising Interim Use Properties" ...........................:....................................................1992, 1991 Property Appraisal Adjustment Board Member for Orange County, Florida ..................................... 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1984 Property Appraisal Adjustment Board (sole member) for Osceola County, Florida ..........................................1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986 Vice-President of Clayton, Roper & Marshall, Inc. (formerly Clayton & Roper Appraisal Services) ................................................................. Since 1982 Associate with Pardue, Heid, Church, Smith &Waller ......................................................1975 to 1982 Associations: Member: The Appraisal Institute Home Builders Association of Mid-Florida Orlando Area Chamber of Commerce Better Business Bureau Downtown Development Board of Orlando Mortgage Brokers Association of Mid-Florida Orlando Economic Development Commission International Right-of--Way Association Paul M. Roper has completed appraisal reports and lease negotiations throughout the United States for individuals, attorneys, mortgage brokers, mortgage bankers, credit unions, banks, savings and loan associations and various Federal, State, and local governmental agencies for valuation, evaluation and analysis assignments that include: Agricultural Properties, Including Citrus Groves Appraisal Reviews Business Valuations Commercial Properties Condemnation (Eminent Domain) Hotel/Motel Valuation Industrial Properties Office Buildings Litigation/Consultation Assignments Market/Feasibility Studies Mobile Home Sales and Rental Parks Personal Property Appraisals Roadside Advertising Signs Single-Family and Multifamily Residential Properties Special Purpose Properties such as Major Citrus Packing Plants and Restaurants, Among CLAYTON ROPER & MARSIiALL CRM File No. 00-275U • QUALIFICATIONS OF PAUL M. ROPER (Cont'd.) Others Paul Roper presently manages and/or owns full and/or partial interest in office buildings, detached residential and condominium housing, apartments, vacant land, and citrus groves. He has testified as an expert witness for various litigation involving real estate in Federal courts and the Circuit Courts of Brevard, Escambia, Lake, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Polk, Seminole, and Volusia Counties in the State of Florida. Other Member: U.S. Marine Corps. (Vietnam Veteran) Honorable Discharge - 1969-1972 Disabled American Veterans (DAV) Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) American Legion South Orlando Elks Lodge (BPOE) CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U i t STATE CERTIFICATION I~ ~Y-~ G: V y ,,.. "..,, ~ 1: ~ s ~#~~tiJ.~j! ... ~ iM1 ~-~uk~N' ~ - ~~~~ ~ ~ ~{ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~~ iJ ,1 a~~~a'~i - e ' + _ t *,+C.~ t'k ~ <J' ~a},~).aJt -+-s t~ti i~~ ~( r~ti~( •, ~~~r }~ i f _ jp1w '~~~~~Y~~~~Ptl ~EPAi~TNrn N~~i r^~tsn/5g1~JgY~~% d 1~~~1[~VtI R+A,HIV~~; f~ ~ 1 1~> 'i,~ ~~lsilt~.~;y,~n kii~~F 7.:' F. ~ it 7r.+7~~.:. ~ ;~i ~-{~i~ui tk+~ yK i~~4.,~, ~' ,.+i ,s jS~z ~~ ~ ~r:~... r {} ~}~~i ~~~" ~,Y '_'V~~~t'~~. ~ 6.~ix .tia~n. r Ys T ~r* -~ =.t J _ _._ 4 ~' ~. ~~~+ ~1 A F f t,fY •< f ~ r~~ ~~t J ,~ ~~ 1 r r ~i ~ t E r L r 5 1 ~"j. i .~ t t f 1 8y .i.~r ~~i4~~•~+ z $y~q~V[r~~ m P11UL iK ~ ; ~ S;~f t~t _ ,, ~:1t713"~ 06E~GRE~T kDAi3 '~ ! y - ,,., ti ,, r ~~ r n E;°UR~AND~ FL 3280b -- ~s. ~bilVlritl@~R UtSPLAY AS REQUIRED BY LAW .. ' S~~it.E~'~1RY = ? ~ ,, CLAYTON, ROPER & MARSHALL CRM File No. 00-275U • BUREAU OF APPRAISAL -APPRAISAL CHECKLIST, PART ONE GENERAL-VACANT LAND Yes Page No 1 Does the appraisal include a completed copy of the Bureau of Appraisal's Checklist? [The appraiser is required to indicate compliance with specific requirements by noting which page. ~ attached number(s) of the appraisal contain required minimum information] [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions Page 15] 2 Is a completed Executive Summary included for ~ 1 each parcel and/or opinion of value? 3 Does the appraisal follow the recommended general format for narrative appraisal reports? (This format should be used by the fee appraiser as a general guide.) (Bureau of p Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions: Page 9] PREMISES OF THE APPRAISAL 4 Is there a description of the extent of the process (scope) of collecting, confirming and ~ 4 reporting data? 5 Is the Bureau of Appraisal's definition of market value or the current USPAP definition used? Addendum [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal p Standards for Board of Trustees Land p'1 acquisitions, Page 2] 6 Is the intended use (function) of the appraisal ~ 4 identified? 7 Are the property interests (rights) appraised 0 4 identified? 8 Does the appraisal express the estate which existed as of the date of appraisal? 9 Does the appraisal report consider whether a fractional interest, physical segments or partial holding contribute pro rata to the value of the whole? No N/A x x • • 10 Are the effective date of the appraisal and the ~ Letter of date of the appraisal report stated? transmittal PRESENTATION OF DATA 11 Is a legal description of the property appraised included in the report? [Bureau of Appraisal, 0 4 Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Pages 9 and 16] 12 Is a five-year subject sales history included? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal 0 5 Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 3 ] 13 Does the appraiser explain why the previous sale of the subject was not used in the valuation of the subject property? 14 Is any current agreement of sale, option or listing of the property under appraisal analyzed? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 4] 15 Was a neighborhood analysis provided including a discussion of market trends, either positive or negative, which affect the subject ~ 8 property? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Pages 9 and 15] 16 Is a zoning analysis provided which discusses existing zoning and land use designations, impending use restrictions or other existing or ^x 16 proposed concurrency or land use planning restrictions? 17 Does the appraisal report provide the current assessed value of the subject property? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal p Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 4] x x • • DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT SITE/LAND 18 Is a site sketch included? ~x 18 19 Does the appraisal report describe the size, shape and other physical characteristics of the site/land? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental ~ 15 Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 4j 20 Does the appraisal report describe the current state of access to the property? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards ~ 16 for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 4j 21 If the access if poor, inadequate or substandard, does the appraisal address its affect, with supporting market evidence, on market value? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 4] 22 Does the appraisal describe the topography of the property? [Bureau of Appraisal, ~ 15 Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 4j 23 Does the appraisal report describe the location of the property? [Bureau of Appraisal, ~ 15 Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 4] 24 Does the appraisal report describe the property's road frontage? [Bureau of Appraisal, 0 15 Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 4] 25 Does the appraisal report describe the property0s water frontage? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 4j 26 Does the appraisal report describe utilities available and their proximity to the property? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal ~ 2 Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 4j x X • • 27 Does the appraisal report describe nuisances and hazards, if any, affecting the market value of the property? 28 Does the appraisal report describe any existing and/or potential environmental hazards affecting the market value of the property? 29 Does the appraisal report describe the drainage and the existence of flood plain conditions affecting the market value of the property? ~ 2, 15 [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 4] 30 Does the appraisal report discuss any easements, encroachments and rights-of--way p 16 affecting the market value of the property? 31 Does the appraisal report address their affect(s), if any, on the market value of the ~x 16 subject property? 32 Does the appraisal report discuss the affect on the market value of the property as a result of outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 4] ANALYSIS OF DATA AND CONCLUSIONS Highest and Best Use 33 Is the highest and best of the property as vacant and as improved, if applicable, analyzed? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental ^x 19 Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 4] 34 Is the highest and best use based on an economic use of the property. [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards p 19-22 for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 5] X X X • Land Valuation 35 Are the comparable sales verified, documented and presented? [Bureau of Appraisal, ~ Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 5, 6 and 14] 36 Are photographs of the comparables sales included? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental 0 Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 6] 37 Does the appraisal report include sketches of the comparable sales? [Bureau of Appraisal, ~ Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 6] 38 Did the appraiser include a general sales location map that also shows the subject's ^x proximity? 39 Is the unit of comparison appropriate for the 0 subject's market? 40 Is the unit of comparison reliable for the 0 subject's market? X 41 Is the unit of comparison valid for the subject's ~ market? 42 Are the comparable sales similar to the subject 0 in highest and best use? 43 If the comparable sales are not similar in highest and best use, is an adequate discussion included as to why the sales are used? 44 Are the comparable sales adjusted for cash 0 equivalency or otherwise clearly explained? 45 If you included comparable sales to governmental units and/or non-profit groups, were they analyzed separately with appropriate comments explaining differences, if any, compared to private transactions? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 6] r~ addendum addendum addendum 30 X x L_J 46 If the appraisal report includes extraordinary assumptions, are their impacts on value adequately supported and reported in the reconciliation and final value estimate? 47 If you provide a discounted cash flow model in valuing the subject property, did you also provide a sales comparison, or other, approach to arrive at the present value of the subject property? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 7] 48 Are demolition costs, if any, considered appropriately for the comparable sales and the subject property? 49 Did you consider and reconcile the quality and quantity of data available and analyzed within 0 the approaches used and the applicability or suitability of the approaches used? 50 Is the final value estimate consistent with the ~ data and analyses presented in the report? 51 Does the appraisal report consider and analyze the effect on value, if any, of the assemblage of the various estates or component parts of a property, refraining from estimating the value of ^x the whole property simply by adding together the individual values of the various estates or component parts without explanation? 52 In arriving at a final value estimate, does the appraisal consider the value impact (cost to cure/stigma) of environmental hazards and/or other contamination (underground storage tanks, toxic waste disposal, etc.) Before concluding the `as is value? 53 Is the highest and best use conclusion(s) ~ consistent with the value reported? Miscellaneous 54 Does the report provide an estimate of the property's anticipated marketing (exposure) px 22 time? 55 Does the report contain a clear and adequate disclosure of all ordinary and extraordinary ^x 2-3 assumptions (see question 45) or limiting conditions that directly affect the appraisal? x x x x • 56 Does the appraisal explain and support the exclusion of any of the usual valuation ~ approaches? BUREAU OF APPRAISAL -APPRAISAL CHECKLIST, PART TWO Cost Approach Yes 57 Are there are least two photographs or color copies of each major improvement? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 7] 58 Is a sketch of the building or a copy of the building plans included? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 6] 59 Does the appraisal report identify and describe any potential environmental hazards (e.g., asbestos; see questions 27 and 28)? 60 Is the source of the reproduction or replacement cost new of the improvements identified and explained? 61 Was entrepreneurial profit, whether included or excluded, identified and supported? 62 Is curable physical deterioration (deferred maintenance) considered? 63 Is curable physical deterioration (deferred maintenance) adequately supported? 64 Is incurable physical deterioration considered? 65 Is incurable physical deterioration supported? 66 Is functional obsolescence considered? 67 Is functional obsolescence supported? 68 Is external obsolescence considered? 69 Is external obsolescence supported? 70 Is the contributory value of the site improvements supported? 24 Page No. No N/A X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ~ • Income Approach 71 Are the comparable rentals adequately X documented? 72 Are the comparable rentals adequately X presented? 73 Did you include a general comparable rental X location map also showing the location of the subject property? 74 Are adjustments to the comparable rentals X supported? 75 Is a current rent roll and recent income industry X for the property provided in the report or lack thereof explained? 76 Were all existing leases reviewed? X 77 Were all existing leases described? X 78 Were all existing leases analyzed? X 79 Does the report indicate whether the contract X rental income is at or near market rental rates? 80 Is the projected potential income adequately X supported 81 Is your estimate of vacancy and collection loss X adequately supported? 82 Is a recent expense history for the subject X property provided in the report? 83 Are the projected expenses explained and X supported? 84 Are differences between the projected X expenses and the property's historical expense trend supported and described? 85 Is each component of the selected X capitalization method and technique supported by appropriate market data? 86 Are the income and expense projections utilized X in the discounted cash flow analysis supported? ~~ 87 Are the project vacancy and collection loss estimates and the projected absorption period, if applicable, supported? 88 Are deductions for rent loss, leasing commissions, tenant improvements, deferred maintenance, etc., accounted for in the discounted cash flow analysis? r1 X X 89 Is the discount rate supported by appropriate X market data? 90 Is the terminal capitalization rate supported considering the future risk and increased age of the improvements? X 91 Are reasonable sales costs deducted from the X estimated reversion to arrive at the net property _ reversion? Sales Comparison Approach 92 Is the unit of comparison appropriate for the px subject's market? 93 Is the unit of comparison reliable for the x^ subject's market? 94 Is the unit of comparison valid for the subject's p market? 95 Are the comparable sales adequately xp documented and presented? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 5, 6 and 14] 96 Are photographs of the comparable sales x^ included? [Bureau of Appraisal, Supplemental Appraisal Standards for Board of Trustees Land Acquisitions, Page 6] 97 Does the report include a general sales location px map showing the proximity to the subject property/ 98 Are the comparable sales similar to the subject Ox in highest and best use? 99 If the comparable sales are not similar in highest and best use, is a discussion included as to why the sales are used? 100 Are the comparable sales adjusted for cash xD equivalency or otherwise clearly explained? 101 Are the adjustments that were applied to the x^ comparable sales adequately supported? %~ i SIGNED: fi~ ~~~~ /../ DATE: 5/29/02 U J , x