Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 08 30 Workshop ',. .. . . MEMORANDUM August 27, 1993 TO: City Manager FROM: 141'/ City Planner .k/" RE: August 30 School Board Meeting Attached is an agenda from Diane Kramer, facilities planner for the School Board, for Monday night's joint work session. In discussing the agenda with her this afternoon, she noted that besides the School Board, Superintendent Haggerty will be in attendance, along with a representative from Schenkel & Schultz, as well as Ms. Kramer. . Attachment cc: Mayor/Commission Staff . ,- ~ . . . . rv.. ISSUES AND TOPICS OF DISCUSSION Joint Work Sessioa between the City orWinter Springs and tbe School Board orSemioole County August 30, 1993 L Review of prelimiDary lite plan for High School AAA a. access! proposed transportation improvements - S. R. 434 - Brantley Road b. utilities! proposed extensions . water - sewer - water reuse . connection fees c. proposed schedule n. Review process - FS 235.193(9) provides for the governing body and district school board to establish an alternative process for reviewing a proposed educational fi.cility and lite plan and off-site impacts. m. Shared use potentia! a. parking b. gymnasium c. auditorium d. cafeteria e. media center f. classrooms g. athletic fields! courts h. swimming pool '1'. / ~ l' i . ~ ,~ . , ~. l . .. J , .~ . J3 ;}: ~ .j: .~ i ,. .- j; .~ ~.~ ,~ :~ :. :~ )' :;l' (; ;'~ ~~ d: .~ \.t! ;~ f :G. ;4-, i;" jf ~i .';..~...' . , ; . ~ . J. ;; . ; .-. Ch.235 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES F.S. 1991 F.S. 1991 ;,. in the formal; anticipated II justification. I facilities to m, plans should growth facilil; quent new p existence of t (c) Adopt resolution of commitment and designal' joint resolulio tion by the p including the were cons ide struction of t' shall contain; posed facility programs off facilities offer: resolution als( pating board progression. , the commissil ing by the su (d) Subffil projects invol leges for appr Board of Co' respective be ing these pro capital outlay eligible for fu Outlay and C sions of this s' sities and corr of Regents ar 3-year capi 235.435(4). Pr nity college, a share of the r: university or t' Board of Reg leges 3-year (e) Includ, facilities, corr management tional respon~ tified, includir as sole own arrangements (f) Reque Iional plant su the need. (2) The c( educational pi after receivin, data and sha terms of the b offered, and t Upon comple participating .' permanently corrected. However, if the governmental entity which has jurisdiction determines upon investiga- tion that it is impracticable to correct the hazard, or if the entity determines that the reported condition does not endanger the life or threaten the health or safety of stu- dents, the enlily shall, within 5 days after notification by the school board. excluding Saturdays, Sundays. and legal holidays. inform the board in writing of its reasons for not correcting the condition. After the 5-day period has elapsed. the governmental entity shall indemnify the school board from any liability with respect to injuries, if any, arising out of the hazardous condition. HI.lOty.-s. 919. ch. 19355. 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 892(301); s 68. ch 29764. 1955; 55. 15.35. ch. 69-106; s. I. ch. 69-300; s. 4. ch. 73-338; s. 10. ch 77-458; s. 102. ch. 79-400; s. 2. ch.80-279; 5 9. ch 80-414; S5. 19.50.52. ch. 61-223; s 1. ch 84-349: ss. 26. 27. ch. 85-116; 55. 1.4. ch. 86-1. 'NOIe.-Repealed efleetive July ,. 1995. by s. 27, ch. 85-116. and scheduled lor review by the Legislature pursuant thereto. Repealed efleetive July 1. 1995. by 5. 4. ch. 86-1. and scheduled lor review by the Legislature before that date. may, solely at its option, waive all or part of the 9O-day notice period. (6) Each local governing body which regulates the use of land shall determine. in writing within 90 days after receiving the necessary documents, whether the proposed educational facility and site plan, and the 011. site impacts, are consistent with the local comprehen- sive plan and local land development regulations. If the determination is affirmative, school construction may proceed and no further local government approvals shall be required. Failure of the local governing body to make a determination within 90 days on consistency shall be considered an approval of the school board's applica. tion. (7) A local governing body may not deny the site applicant based on adequacy of the site plan as it relates solely to the needs of the school. The local gov- ernment may consider the site plan and its adequacy as it relates to environmental concerns, health, safety and welfare, oUsite impact, and effects on adjacent prop- erty. (8) If the determination is negative, the local govern. ing body will advise the school board of the deficiencies and make recommendations to address its concerns. The local school board may, within 90 days, resubmit revised documents, The local governing body will have 90 days after receiving the revised documents from the school board to make a determination as to whether the proposed educational facility and site plan, and the off. site impacts. are consistent with the local comprehen. sive plan and local land development regulations, (9) Nothing herein shall prohibit a local governing body and district school board from agreeing and estab- lishing an alternative process for reviewing a proposed educational facility and site plan. and oUsite impacts. Hlstory.-s. II, ch. 77-458; 5. 9. ch 80-414; 55. 20. 50, 52. ch. 61-223; s. 1. ell 84-349; 5. 25. ch. 85-55. 55. 10.26.27. ch. 85-1 16; 55. 1,4, ch. 86-1; s. 7. ch. 90-365. 'Note.-Repealed elleelive July I, 1995. by 5. 27. ch. 85-116. and scheduled ,.. review by the Legislature pursuant thereto. Repealed effeetive July I, 1995. by I. 4. ch. 86-1, and scheduled for review by the Legislature belore that date. '235.193 Coordination of planning with local gov- erning bodies.- (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state to require the coordination of planning between the school boards and local governing bodies to ensure that plans for the construction and opening 01 public educa- tional facilities are coordinated in time and place with plans for residential development. concurrently with other necessary services. Such planning shall include the consideration of allowing students to allend the school located nearest their homes when a new housing development is constructed near a county boundary and it is more feasible to transport the students a short distance to an existing facility in an adjacent county than to construct a new facility or transport students longer distances in their county of residence. Such planning shall also consider the effects of the location of public education facilities, including the feasibility of keeping central city facilities viable, in order to encourage central city redevelopment and the efficient use of infrastruc- ture and to discourage uncontrolled urban sprawl. (2) A school board, upon the request of a local gov- erning body within its district, shall submit in writing to '235.195 Cooperative development and use of fecil. the local governing body an official statement clearly Ities by two or more boards.- showing the capability. or lack thereof, of the existing (1) Two or more boards, including district school public school facilities in an area being considered for boards, community college boards of trustees, the development, redevelopment, or additional develop- Board of Trustees for the Florida School for the Deaf and mentto absorb additional students without overcrowd- the Blind, and the Board of Regents, desiring to cooper. ing such facilities. atively establish a common educational facility to (3) If there are no public school facilities in existence accommodate students shall: in the area of proposed development. the school board (a) Jointly request a formal assflssment by the com. is required to provide the local governing body with the missioner. State Board of Community Colleges. or Board projected delivery date of such facilities in that area. of Regents, as appropriate. of the academic program (4) The general location of public educational facili- need and the need to build new joint-use facilities to ties shall also be consistent with the capital improve- house approved programs. Completion of the assess. ments plan found in the comprehensive plan of the ment and approval of the project by the Board 01 appropriate local governing body developed pursuant to Regents, the State Board of Community Colleges, or the s. 163.3177(3) and in accordance with s. 163.3194(1). Commissioner of Education, as appropriate, should be (5) The School Board shall file with the local govern. done prior to conducting an educational facilities survey. ing body which regulates land use. a notice of intent 90 (b) Demonstrate the need for construction of new days prior to bidding the award of an educational facility. joint-use facilities involving postsecondary inslilutions The notice of intent must include a description of the by those institutions presenting evidence of the pres. proposed educational facility, proposed location or loca- ence of sufficient actual full-time equivalent enrollments tions. capacity of the facility, and anticipated completion in the locale in leased. rented, or borrowed spaces to date. Any local governing body that regulates land use justify the requested facility for the programs identified 1764 r . . . ~ ], ~ . tIII- -~-~ SEMINOLE HIGH SCHOOL "AM" AUGUST 30, 1993 JOINT WORK SESSION BETWEEN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS AND THE SCHOOL BOARD OF SEMINOLE COUNTY . MEETING NOTES THOSE PRESENT: John Langelloti, John V. Torcaso Terri Donnelly Cindy Kaehler Don Jonas Mary T. Norton Don LeBlanc Greg Kern Dr. Paul Hagerty Sandy Robinson Larry Strickler Barbara Kuhn Dianne Kramer Tom Marcy ~Chris Birkebak Tom Chandler Dan Tarczynski Greg Bachnik George Barcus Winter Springs Winter Springs Winter Springs Winter Springs Winter Springs Winter springs Winter Springs Winter Springs Superintendent, SCPS School Board Member School Board Member School Board Member Seminole County Public Schools Seminole County Public Schools Seminole County Public Schools Schenkel Shultz Schenkel Shultz Individual Individual The joint work session was held August 30, 1993 at Winter Springs City Hall for the above project. The purpose of the meeting was to review the preliminary site plan, discuss expediting City reviews and the potential for sharing facilities. __'c,,'"'''''''' . JOINT WORK SESSION BETWEEN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS AND THE SCHOOL BOARD OF SEMINOLE COUNTY page two The meeting began with a discussion as to the naming of the school. The Commissioners strongly urged the School Board to reconsider the ranking of proposed names and asked that "Winter Springs High School" be placed first. The School Board members were not averse to this sugges~ion. Dr. Hagerty proposed that a caveat be added to their recommendation that states the City of Winter Springs understands that school district lines do not always follow City jurisdictional lines-- that a student living in Winter Springs will not necessarily attend this High School. The Commissioners were agreeable. B. Review of Prelimdnary Site Plan . The Architects presented a site plan and reviewed the design process which led to this scheme. Site access was discussed and local residents expressed concern over traffic generated by the school. Dianne Kramer informed the group that a traffic study is underway. Larry Strickler asked that the Department of Facilities Planning keep local residents abreast of studies and issues that might impact their neighborhood. c. Review Process Dianne Kramer asked the City if they would consider establishing an alternative process for reviewing the school plans, the site plan and off-site impacts. The City was agreeable and asked Don LeBlanc to assist the School Board in that endeavor. . . JOINT WORK SESSION BETWEEN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS AND THE SCHOOL BOARD OF SEMINOLE COUNTY page three D. Shared Use Potential . Dianne Kramer described "shared use" as a mutual overflow of facilities and amenities. Some of the proposed school facilities include: parking for after- hours functions, the auditorium/gym/cafeteria for meetings and the courtyard for arts events. The School Board is interested in occasional use of the City's park and the possibility of environmental science class visits along the lakeside. The City and the School Board concurred that they have amenities to offer each other, and if shared they can enrich the Community. The possibility of sharing landscape maintenance, and security was also put forth, and will be considered further. sp copy: Those present School Board Members Tim Eckmair .