RFP_GRM220445_Development_Opportunity_-_1749_W._Silver_Springs_Boulevard_and_105_SW_19th_Avenue_-_Addendum__1.pdf
PDF 505 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFP# GRM/220445
- Issued by
- Marion County, Orlando City, Florida
About this file
This Addendum #1, dated March 4, 2026, issued by the City of Ocala, Florida, through Buyer David Williams, addresses questions submitted by bidders regarding ITN# GRM/220445 for a development opportunity at 1749 W. Silver Springs Boulevard and 105 SW 19th Avenue. The addendum clarifies that the subject parcels are currently vacant with existing curb cuts along W. Silver Springs Boulevard that may require relocation or closure pending FDOT and Transportation Engineering review during site plan review. The City confirmed it would potentially consider concurrent rezoning and development agreement processes depending on the proposed zoning district, though Planned Development (PD) rezoning is not viable as the parcels do not meet the one-acre minimum requirement. Construction must adhere to an 18-month schedule, with any phased development occurring within that timeframe. The City indicated no preference regarding owner-occupied commercial space, leased commercial space, or mixed residential and office configurations.
The addendum clarifies that impact fee credits cannot be determined until building permit submittal based on the proposed use and project scope. The City will consider incentives through the West Ocala Community Reinvestment Area (CRA), including contributions toward City permits and fees, grants, Tax Increment Financing (TIF), and infrastructure improvements, subject to fund availability and CRA approval. The City emphasized that projects should be capable of standing independently if incentives are unavailable. Stormwater management requirements will be determined during the pre-application phase based on development type and size, as the corridor contains both City and Florida Department of Transportation-managed drainage retention areas. The evaluation process prioritizes achieving the highest and best use of the property against established scoring criteria, with the selection committee's weighting indicating evaluation priorities.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Addendum # 1
Date: March 4, 2026
To: All bidders
From: David Williams, Buyer
Solicitation Number: ITN# GRM/220445
Solicitation Title: Development Opportunity at 1749 W. Silver Springs Blvd
SECTION 1. SOLICITATION – QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1. Is any portion of the site considered legally nonconforming or grandfathered with respect to impervious surface, parking configuration, setbacks, or prior development rights?
ANSWER: The subject parcels are currently vacant. There are existing curb cuts along W Silver Springs Boulevard; however, whether these would have to be relocated or closed would be determined by FDOT and Transportation Engineering, and addressed at the time of site plan review.
2. Given the L-shaped configuration and corner condition (Boundary Survey – Exhibit D), are there any existing easements, ROW reservations, or access constraints?
ANSWER: Please refer to Note #10 for easements. Some of this information will also come up during the preapp.
Also, the survey shows ROW dimensions up to the property line:
3. If rezoning is required, would the City consider:
• A concurrent rezoning and development agreement process?
ANSWER: Potentially, though it would largely depend on the proposed zoning district and development. For example, a rezoning to R-3 and development of single-family attached townhomes would require a Developers Agreement (non-Chapter 163). In general, we try to run agreements concurrently.
• A PD approach?
ANSWER: PD rezoning requires a minimum of 1 acre; these parcels are not large enough for a PD rezoning.
4. What specific CRA incentives are available for this parcel?
ANSWER: The City is willing to consider incentives through the West Ocala CRA, including contributions toward City permits and fees, grants, and tax-based incentives (TIF), as well as infrastructure improvement contributions that may be unique to the project. These incentives are subject to the availability of funds and approval by the Ocala CRA. While City incentives are intended to further support redevelopment, the project should be capable of standing on its own even if incentives are not available.
5. Are there any existing impact fee credits?
ANSWER: Unable to say at this time. This will be determined at the time of building permit submittal as the proposed use and project will impact available credits.
6. Would the City consider a performance-based TIF participation for job creation and office build-out?
ANSWER: City will consider incentives made available through the CRA.
7. Is there an existing stormwater master plan (or existing stormwater capacity) for the corridor and/or parcel that could reduce on-site retention requirements? What level of impervious area can be handled off-site through city infrastructure?
ANSWER: That information will be provided based on the type and size of the development. There are a mix of City and FDOT managed DRAs in that area, so determination will be handled during pre-app.
8. Is the City prioritizing highest purchase price or highest long-term tax base return or highest level of community impact?
ANSWER: Proposals will be reviewed against the scoring criteria; the weighting gives an indication of what the selection committee will be evaluating. Overall, the City is looking to achieve the highest and best use of property.
9. Would phased development be acceptable?
ANSWER: Projects must adhere to the 18-month construction schedule, any phasing must occur within that time period.
10. Is there preference for:
• Owner-occupied commercial space?
ANSWER: No preference.
• Leased commercial space?
ANSWER: No preference.
• Mixed residential + office?
ANSWER: No preference.
SECTION 1. SOLICITATION – QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .