HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 03 04 Draft Public Schools and Facilities Element
City of Winter Springs
Comprehensive Plan
PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT
Draft EAR-Based Amendments, March 2009
•
Prepared By:
City of Winter Springs
Community Development Department
1 126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708-2799
~V11-1
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
•
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CHAPTER V111~
PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT
A. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
GOAL NE- 1: PROVIDE QUALITY EDUCATION. As a basic tenet of community life, it is the goal
of the City to contribute to and maintain a high quality public school
environment.
Objective 1.NC--1: Level of Service Standards and Service Boundaries. The City ef~+r~ers
shall cooperate with the Seminole County School Board (School Board) in their efforts to correct
existing deficiencies and address future needs through implementation of adopted level of service
standards and appropriate public school facility service area boundaries.
The (level of service standard is a countywide standard, specified in the 2007 Interlocal
Agreement for Public School Facility Planning and School Concurrency As Amended January 2008
(2007 ILA,Z, wherein the following terms are used:
Permanent Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH)Y meaning the permanent facilities within the
inventory of land, buildings and rooms in public educational facilities used by the Florida
Department of Education, Office of Educational Facilities; and
Concurrency Service Area (CSA): A geographic unit promulgated by the School Board and
adopted by local governments within which the level of service is measured when an application
for residential development is reviewed for school Concurrency purposes. The CSA coincides with
groupings of school attendance zones within each school type based on adjacency.
Level of Service (LOS) sStandard_- meaning a standard established to measure utilization of
capacity within a CSA). [Current LOS within a CSA is determined by
dividing the full-time equivalent student count (FTE) for the Fall Semester at the same type of
schools by the permanent FISH capacity of the same type of schools. Projected or future LOS is
determined by the dividing the projected enrolled students at the same type of schools within a
CSA by the planned permanent FISH capacity of the same type of schools.
Policy 1.~--1.1:
Adoption of Level of Service L( OS) Standards-{SAS}. Adopt the
following desired LOS standard for school capacity along with the
other cities within Seminole County, the County, and the School Board to
eTe-ensure that the capacity of schools is sufficient to support student
g rowth~ ,
sfieN-k3e
,100% of the aggregate permanent FISH capacity for each school type
within each SA:~.
Establish the following tiered LOS standard, two financially achieve the
desired LOS standard,
2008 - 2012 Beginning 2013
Elementary 8~
Middle CSA 100% of Permanent
FISH Capacity 100% of Permanent FISH
Capacity
~~'II-2
High School 1 10% of Permanent 100% of Permanent FISH
CSA FISH Capacity Capacity
Policy 1.N~--1.2: Use of Level of Service (LOS) Standards. Coordinate through the
City's Concurrency Management System with the School Board ~e-E+#y
SE-k-eef--Be~# and other local jurisdictions to ensure that the LOS
standards established for each school type are+s maintained.
Policy 1.NE--1.3: Use of Concurrency Service Area (CSA) Boundaries. T~~-s;~
Apply school concurrency using CSA boundaries adopted by the
School Board.
Policy 1.NE-1.4: -CSAs for Each Type of School. Recognize tThe CSA boundaries
established by the School Board and as re-evaluated from time to time
w+N-die-based on clustered attendance zones for each school type
(elementary, middle and high school) based on adjacency-e~-w+µ-~e
Policy l.i~--1.5: -CSA Boundary Changes. Consider the modification from time to
time, of CSA maps made ay4t the determination of the School Board;
to maximize utilization
of school capacity. Receive the
proposed change request from the School Board as transmitted to the
City and other local jurisdictions, with supporting data and analysis_-te
rReview and submit comments on the proposed modification to the
School Board within forty-five (45) days.
Policy 1.NE--1.6: Coordination of School Board Capital Improvements Schedule and
Potential CSA Boundary Changes. Receive aAs identified in the 2007
ILA
the School Board's annual
update of its Capital Improvements Schedule f
attendance zone changes and wheni€ necessary, modifications to the
CSA maps te--..",~gree;e~# e~c-ter~#--Penible to provide maximum
utilization of facilities, to the greatest extent possible.
Objective 1.N~-2: Development Review Coordination to Achieve Concurrency. The City ef-~A~;eter
s-will coordinate its development review efforts with the Se+~+nele-C-ever--School Board to
achieve concurrency in all public school facilities.
•
[~~' 1 I-3
•
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT
Policy 1.NE-2.1: Development Review Process. the--E-i-ter--sk-~-w~Withhold or condition
the approval of any site plan, final subdivision, or functional equivalent
for new residential units not exempted, until a School Capacity
Availability Letter Determination (SCALD) has been issued by the
School Board to the City indicating that adequate school facilities exist
or until a mitigation agreement has been reached, pursuant to the
availability standard specified in Subsection 163.3180(13)(e), Florida
Statutes. (Cross Reference: See Capital Improvements Element, Policy 1.8.4)
Policy 1.NE--2.2: Adoption of School Concurrency Provisions into the City's Land
Development Regulations. ~e--~-ity--ski-Adopt school Concurrency
provisions into the City'si#s land development regulations for the review
of development approvals, consistent with the requirements of the
2007 ILA
Objective 1.N~3: Coordination of Existing and Future School Facility Planning with the
Future Land Use Element and Development Approval Process. The City e€
shall coordinate with the Ser~i+~ele-C-etr-t-y-School Board
during development approvals and changes to the City's Future Land
Use Plan Map (PLUM) to help ensure the timely provision of public
school facilities.
•
•
~V l I-4
Policy 1.~--3.1: Coordination of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Facility
Planning. ~-~~;i~r-w+li-Consider the availability and future provision
of school facility capacity, the provision of school sites and facilities
within neighborhoods, the compatibility of land uses adjacent to
existing schools and reserved school sites, the co-location of parks,
recreation and neighborhood facilities with school sites and the linkage
of schools, parks, libraries and other public facilities with bikeways,
trails, and sidewalks for safe access during the review of proposed
comprehensive plan land use map amendments.
Policy 1.13.2: Site Sizes and Co-location in the City. THe-C-icy-Gila--w~Work with the
School District to identify sites for future educational facilities that meet
the minimum standards of the School Board where possible and which
are consistent with the provisions of the City'sz;,;t~-S~
Comprehensive Plan. Support the School Board in efforts to use
standards more appropriate to a built urban environment, wWhen the
size of available sites does not meet the minimum School Board
standards„
Work with
the School Board to achieve co-location of schools with City facilities,
tTo the extent feasible, as a solution to the problem of lack of
sufficiently sized sites,
Policy 1.N~--3.3 Participation in Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC).
Actively participate in the ~1-~1,+~+~1
PTAC}, as provided in the 2007 ILAflie~le~rl
for the purpose of discussing issues and
formulating recommendations to the Public Schools Facilities Planning
Committee (PSFPC) regarding coordination of land use and school
facilities planning, including such issues as population and student
projections, development trends, school needs, co-location and joint use
opportunities, ancillary infrastructure improvements needed to support
the schools, School Board Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and the
Public School Concurrency Program. (Cross Reference: See Intergovernmental
Coordination Element, Policy 1.2.7)
Policy 1.NE--3.4 Determining Impacts. The--efDetermination of adequate school
capacity will be the responsibility of the School Board.
Policy 1.N~--3.5 Notification of Submittal of Residential Applications. Th-~ ~~~R
eNotify the School Board within 10 working days of receipt of any
land use or development application having a residential component
and will--transmit submitted subdivision plans and site plans to the
School Board for their review.
•
I4~'I I -5
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC SCHOOL FAC1LlTIES ELEMENT
Policy 1.N~--3.6 Notification of Meetings. ~e-E~--sk~e~--Provide the School Board
with agendas of staff review, the Planning & Zoning Board/Local
Planning Agency and the City Commission meetings.
Objective 1.NF-~: Concurrency. The City hall require that public school
facility capacity is available concurrent with the impacts of new residential development, as
required by Subsection 163.3180(13)(e), Florida Statutes (F.S.)
Policy 1.~--~.1: Timing of Concurrency Review. ~e--Ei#-y-s#~-rRequire that all new
residential development be reviewed for school concurrency prior to
development approval as defined in the 2007 ILA
~.
Policy 1.14.2: Results of Concurrency Review. 1~-FComply+a+~c-e with the availability
standards of Subsection 163.3180(13)(e), F.S., and dome-C~ not
deny development approval due to failure to achieve the adopted
LOS for public school facilities when the following occurs:
• Adequate school facilities are planned and will be in place or
under construction within three (3) years of the development approval.
• The developer executes a legally binding commitment to provide
mitigation proportionate to the demand for public school facilities
consistent with the methodology in the 2007 ILA
e~y--2AA~.
Policy 1.N~-~.3: Residential Uses Exempt from the Requirements of School
Concurrency. Exempt Tthe following residential uses s''~" ~~ ...,.,...fit
from the requirements of school concurrency:
• All single family lots of record at the time the school concurrency
implementing ordinance became effective.
• Any new residential development that has a preliminary plat (final
subdivision) or site plan approval or the functional equivalent for a site
specific development order prior to the commencement date of the
School Concurrency Program.
• Any amendment to a previously approved residential development
which does not increase the number of dwelling units or change the
type of dwelling units.
• Any age restricted community with no permanent residents under
the age of 18 (a restrictive covenant limiting the age of residents to 18
and older shall be required.)
Policy 1.1~-4.4: Use of Revenues Received Through Proportionate Share Mitigation.
Direct aAny revenues reee++~e~-for proportionate share mitigation ~e
toward a school capacity
. improvement identified in the School Board's Five-Year Capital
Improvement Plan.
~~' I I-6
Policy LINE--4.5 Proportionate Share Mitigation. Consider tin the event, that there is
not available school capacity to support a development, that the
School Board may entertain proportionate share mitigation options
and, if accepted, st-e•4t-enter into an enforceable and binding
agreement with the developer to mitigate the impact from the
development through the creation of additional school capacity.
•
•
A. Recognize when the anticipated student impacts from a proposed
development cause the adopted LOS to be exceeded, the developer's
proportionate share will be based on the number of additional student
stations necessary to achieve the established LOS. Calculate the
amount to be paid by the cost per student station for
elementary, middle and high school as determined and published by
the State of Florida.
g, _alculate a developer's proportionate
share mitigation through the following methodology .
Proportionate Share = ('Development students - Available
Capacity) x 2Total Cost per student station
Where:
~ Development students =those students from the development that
are assigned to a CSA and have triggered a deficiency of the
available capacity.
2Total Cost =the cost per student station as determined and
published by the State of Florida.
C. Allow the applicant to enter a 90-day
negotiation period with the School Board in an effort to mitigate the
impact from the development through the creation of additional
capacity. Upon identification and acceptance of a mitigation option
deemed financially feasible by the School Board, the developer shall
enter into a binding and enforceable development agreement with the
School Board.
1. A mitigation contribution provided by a developer to offset the
impact of a residential development must be directed by the School
Board toward a school capacity project identified in the School
Board's Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Capacity enhancing
projects identified within the first three (3) years of the Five-Year
Capital Improvement Plan shall be considered as committed in
accordance with Section 9.5 of the 2007 ILA
~.
2. If capacity projects are planned in years four (4) or five (5) of
the School Board's Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan within
the same CSA as the proposed residential development, the
developer may pay his proportionate share to mitigate
the proposed development in accordance with the formula
provided in Section 12.7 (B) of the 2007 ILA
~~' [ I-7
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
~~
PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT
3. If a capacity project does not exist in the Capital Improvement
Plan, the School Board will add a capacity project to satisfy
the impacts from a proposed residential development, if it
is funded through the developer's proportionate share mitigation
contributions. Mitigation options may include, but are not
limited to:
a. Contribution of land or payment for land acquisition
suitable for and in conjunction with, the provision of additional
school capacity; or
b. Mitigation banking based on the construction of a
educational facility in exchange for the right to sell capacity
credits; or
c. Provide modular or permanent student stations acceptable
for use as an educational facilities; or
d. Provide additional student stations through the remodeling
of existing buildings acceptable for use as an educational
facility; or
e. Construction or expansion of permanent student stations at
the impacted school within the CSA; or
f. Construction of a educational facility in advance of the time
set forth in the School Board's Five-Year Capital Improvement
Plan.
D. Recognize fFor mitigation measures (a) thru (f) above, that the
estimated cost to construct the mitigating capacity will reflect the
estimated future construction costs at the time of the anticipated
construction. Improvements contributed by the developer shall receive
school impact fee credit.
E. App~Y n impact fee credit against #~-the
proportionate share mitigation total. Credits will be given for that
portion of the impact fees that would have been used to fund the
improvements on which the proportionate fair share contribution was
calculated. The portion of impact fees available for the credit will be
based on the historic distribution of impact fee funds to the school type
(elementary, middle, high) in the appropriate CSA. Impact fee credits
shall be calculated at the same time as the applicant's proportionate
share obligation is calculated. Any school impact fee credit based on
proportionate fair share contributions fora proposed development
cannot be transferred to any other parcel or parcels of real property
within the CSA.
F. Do not amend or refund aA proportionate share mitigation
contribution fter final
site plan or plat approval to reflect a reduction in planned or
constructed residential density.
~4V I I-8
+~i#+gert+ap-#etef:
Gi•F. Recognize that Aany proportionate share mitigation must be
directed by the School Board toward a school capacity improvement
identified in the School Board's Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan.
Hf. Require k~upon conclusion of the negotiation period, that a second
Determination Letter sal--be issued. If mitigation is agreed to, the
School Board shall issue a new Determination Letter approving the
development subject to those mitigation measures agreed to by the
local government, developer and the School Board. Prior to, site plan
approval, final subdivision approval or the functional equivalent, the
mitigation measures shall be memorialized in an enforceable and
binding agreement with the local government, the School Board and
the Developer that specifically details mitigation provisions to be paid
for by the developer and the relevant terms and conditions. If
mitigation is not agreed to, the Determination Letter shall detail why
any mitigation proposals were rejected and why the development is
not in compliance with school concurrency requirements. A SCALD
indicating either that adequate capacity is available, or that there is
not a negotiated proportionate share mitigation settlement following
the ninety (90) day negotiation period as described in Section 12.7(8)
of the 2007 ILA
constitutes final
agency action by the School Board for purposes of Chapter 120, F.S.
Policy 1.~--4.6 Appeal Process. Recognize that a person substantially affected by the
School Board's adequate cagacit~ determination made A-pe~er3
as a part of the School concurrency Process.-ma.Z
appeal such determination through the process~ee~k~
_provided in Chapter 120, F.S.
Policy 1.1~--4.7 Consideration of Adjacent concurrency Service Areas. Consider i#
the projected student growth from a residential development causes the
adopted LOS to be exceeded in the CSA, that an adjacent CSA which
is contiguous with and touches the boundary of; the concurrency service
areas within which the proposed developmenret is located, s#~41-be
evaluated for available capacity. Conduct aAn adjacency evaluation
review s follows:
In conducting the adjacency review, the School Board shall first use
the adjacent CSA with the most available capacity to evaluate
projected enrollment impact and, if necessary, shall continue to the
next adjacent CSA with the next most available capacity in order
to ensure maximum utilization of school capacity to the greatest
extent possible.
2. Consistent with Rule 6A-3.0171, F.A.C., at no time shall the shift of
impact to an adjacent CSA result in a total morning or afternoon
transportation time of either elementary or secondary students to
f~~' I I-9
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT
exceed fifty (50) minutes or one (1) hour, respectively. The
transportation time shall be determined by the School Board
transportation routing system and measured from the school to the
center of the subject parcel plat in the amendment application,
along the most direct improved public roadway free from major
hazards.
Objective 1.~--5: Procedure for Annual Update of Capital Improvements Element. The City
hall amend its Capital Improvement Element (CIE) to include that portion of the
adopted School Board's Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan which deals with capacity
improvements.
Policy 1.15.1 Annual Update of Capital Improvements Element. Update o9n an
annual basis, no later than December 1 n of each year, t~-e--~=-i~7'-sib
a#e the City's Capital Improvements Element to include that portion
of the School Board's annual update of their financially feasible Five-
Year Capital Improvement Plan related to capacity improvements.
However, the City shall not have the obligation, nor the responsibility
for funding or accomplishing the School Board Five-Year Capital
Improvement Plan.
Policy 1.15.2 Addition of New Financially Feasible Fifth Year Projects During Each
Update. Include with each annual update to the Capital Improvements
Element si~l1-i+~lt~c-4e a new fifth year with its financially feasible school
capacity projects that have been adopted by the School District in its
update of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Schedule.
Policy 1.J~-5.3 Compliance with Florida Statute in Timing of Capital Improvements
Element Update. ~e C-i#~-sly-ll---Amend the City'si~ts Capital
Improvements Element to reflect changes to the School District's Five-
Year Capital Facilities Plan in compliance with timing requirements of
Florida Statutes.
Objective 1.16: Ensuring Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses, Encouraging Co-
loration with Appropriate City Facilities, Location in Proximity to Residential Areas to be
Served and Function as a Community Focal Point. The City hall ensure
compatibility of school facilities with surrounding land use through the development review
process and shall encourage, to the extent feasible, co-location of new schools with compatible
City facilities, and the location of school facilities to serve as Ecommunity focal ~~oints.
Policy 1.NE--6.1 Allowable Locations of School Sites and Compatibility Standards.
Allow sSchool sites within any land use designation in the
City except Conservation~Conservation Overlay and possibly industrial
areas (Cross Reference FLUE Policy 1.1 1.1 ). Ensure cC-ompatibility with
adjacent land uses will be ensured through the following measures:
• New school sites within the City must not be adjacent to any noxious
industrial uses or other property from which noise, vibration, odors,
1~VI1-10
dust, toxic materials, traffic conditions or other disturbances would
have a negative impact on the health and safety of students.
• Public school sites shall be compatible with environmental
protection, based on soils, topography, protected species and other
natural resources on the site.
• An assessment of critical transportation issues, including provision of
adequate roadway capacity, transit capacity and bikeways, shall
be performed for proposed school sites prior to any development
to ensure safe and efficient transport of students.
• New school sites must comply with the City's land development
regulations and must minimize potential detrimental impacts on
adjacent uses by providing sufficient on_-site parking, sufficient
internal vehicular circulation to ensure that unsafe stacking of
vehicles on access roads does not occur, containment of off=-site
light spillage and glare, and reduction of off- site noise through
compliance with the City's buffer requirements.
• New school sites for elementary and middle schools shall be
located in close proximity to existing or anticipated concentrations
of residential development. New school sites for high schools and
specialized schools are suitable for other locations, due to their
special characteristics.
• The development review process shall ensure that facilities such as
sanitary sewer and potable water will be available at the time
demanded by the new school site, and services such as public
safety can also be provided.
• New school sites in shall have safe ingress and egress for
pedestrians, bicycles, cars, buses, service vehicles and emergency
vehicles. High schools should be located with access to collector or
arterial roads, rather than relying solely on local roads.
Policy l.f~-6.2 Co-Location and Community Focal Point.
r.y u ~~...,,...,, ..........,,....,, ...
+~ .• • ~----~~'-~~ ~'-~ ~'~~• °~~" °Encourage to the extent feasible, the
co-location of new school sites with appropriate City facilities,
recognizing that new schools are an essential component in creating a
sense of community.N-~eEncourage, through the development
review process, the location of new school sites so they may serve as
community focal points. ,
eEnter into an finterlocal agreement with the School Board where co-
location takes placeLto address shared uses of facilities, maintenance
costs, vehicular and bicycle parking, supervision and liability issues,
among other concerns.
Objective 1.NE-7: Ensuring Provision of Necessary Infrastructure. There shall be coordination
between the City nd the Sem+r~ele-E-e~~y-School Board in the timely provision
of infrastructure to support public school facilities.
•
~~'II-11
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT
Policy 1.NE-7.1 Maximizing Efficiency of Infrastructure.
Seek to maximize efficient use
of existing infrastructure and avoid sprawl development by identifying
future school sites that take advantage of existing and planned roads,
potable water, sanitary sewer, parks and drainage systems, during
participation in the future school site identification process detailed in
the 2007 ILA.
Policy 1.NE-7.2 Safe Student Access. Provide safe student access
to school sites by coordinating the construction of new neighborhoods
and residential developments, expansion of existing neighborhoods
and developments and redevelopment or revitalization of existing
neighborhoods and developments with Se-~i~-eie-County's safe road
and sidewalk connection programs to school sites.
Policy 1.NE--7.3 Bicycle Access and Pedestrian Connection. T~-e-~it~r-w+l}-(Coordinate
bicycle access to public schools consistent with the Seminole County
ee~e-bicycle plan adopted by the Ahmetropolitan R~lanning
9organization, METROPLAN ORLANDO. ,
Revise the City's+t~s land development regulations as needed to specify
that performance standards for new residential developments adjacent
to existing and proposed school sites other than age restricted
developments, shall include pedestrian connections between the
sidewalk network within the development and the adjacent school site.
Policy 1.NC--7.4 Coordination to Ensure Necessary Off-Site Improvements. 9He
E+t~y--w+l~+~Work with the School Board during the development review
process for a proposed new school facility, to determine the party or
parties responsibility for the financing, construction, operating, and
maintaining of any needed off-site improvements, including but not
limited to: signalization, installation of deceleration lanes, roadway
striping for crosswalks, safe directional warning signage and
installation of sidewalks.:
Consider a~ new development adjacent to or sharing an access road
with an existing school or future school site, as s1~4-mitigation of a-the
traffic impacts of the development, for safe access to the school. ~
r~+en-eEfforts may include, but are not limited to: developer
striping of crosswalks, developer installation of sidewalks, payment for
safe directional warning signage, and payment for signalization.
Policy 1.~--7.5 Inclusion of Provisions for School Buses. T''~ ~'~+~• °~~" rRevise the
CitX's its-land development regulations to require the inclusion of school
bus stops and turnarounds in new residential developments that are not
age restricted.
VII-12
Objective 1.NF-8 Coordination with School Board and Cities. The City hall
coordinate with the School Board and other local jurisdictions as specified by the procedures in
the 2007 ILA ~ ~ •
and provide information for emergency preparedness.
Policy 1.NE--8.1 Providing Data to the School Board. T",,,~-~~y~.he~Maintain data on
the approved number of residential dwelling units by unit type and
location and the corresponding number of units within each
development that have received a certificate of occupancy (CO).
Provide the data s1~a~N-be--p~ev+eted-to the School Board annually by
October 15th.
Policy 1.N~-8.2 Providing Representation. ~e--~~E+t~-sk~rN-Assign representatives to
take part in committees and meetings as specified by the 2007
ILA
. Assicjn aA staff representative
shell--be-e~ig~-to the PTAC}~
which shall meet as specified in the 2007 ILA
Appoint aAn elected official or designee to the
PSFPC}~ which shall meet
as specified in the 2007 ILA
Policy 1.18.3 Advising of Proposed Changes. ;; - '''•~~ ~"x'L-Provide
notification in accordance with the 2007 ILA
errs-~9$~ to the School Board of proposed amendments to the
Future Land Use Map (PLUM), rezonings, developments of regional
impact, and/or major residential or mixed use development projects
that may increase residential densities, effect student enrollment,
enrollment projections, or school facilities. Provide sSuch notice w+ll
~e-~ev~e~l-within 10 working days of receipt of the application.
Policy 1.NE-8.4 Emergency Preparedness. T"~ ~~`~• °"~l~Continue to provide
information needed by the School Board and local jurisdictions for
emergency preparedness purposes.
~~
f~`' 1 I-13
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT
B. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to support the timely provision of the Seminole County School
Board~School Board)'s constitutional and statutory obligation and sovereignty to provide a
uniform system of free public schools on a countywide basis. It is not the intent to require the
School Board to confer with, or obtain the consent of, the City, as to whether that obligation has
been satisfied. Additionally, this Element is not intended to be construed to impose any duty or
obligation on the City for the School Board's constitutional or statutory obligations. The City e€
does not have the authority to directly provide school facilities, but is required by
State Law to work with the Se+~ir~eley-School Board to address the coordination of public
school facility planning with land use planning and development approvals. The City e~f~A~-ip#er
~-continues to be responsible for approving or denying comprehensive plan amendments
and development approvals within its own jurisdiction, and nothing herein represents or authorizes
a transfer of any of this authority to the School Board.
Legislation enacted by the 2005 Florida Legislature mandated a comprehensive approach to
school planning by revising laws that govern both school districts and local government planning.
A coordinated effort was undertaken by the local jurisdictions of Seminole County and the
School Board. Preparation of a new Interlocal Agreement for Public School
Facility Planning and School Concurrency including procedures for coordinating land use planning,
development approvals and school planning was the first step in this process and was adopted
by the Board of County Commissioners, City Commissions, and the Set~ina}y-School Board
in 2007 and Aamended in January 2008.
The 2005 Legislation also included adoption of a Public School Facilities Element, consistent with
those adopted by the other local governments within the County and consistent with the 2007
Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning and School Concurrency As Amended
January 2008 (2007 ILA?. Ssections 163.3177(12) and 163.3180 F.S. and Rule 9J-5.025, F.A.C.
and which describes aproportionate-share mitigation methodology. Additional amendments to
the City's Comprehensive Plan required by the 2005 legislation include:
• Adoption of the Level of Service L( Usl standards applicable countywide that establish
maximum permitted school utilization rates relative to capacity into the Capital
Improvements Element;
• Adoption of the financially feasible Public School Capital Facilities Program addressing
school capacity improvements into the Capital Improvements Element that is adopted as
part of the Se+~if-e4e-Eea+~y-School Board's overall Capital Improvements Program;
• Amendments to revise objectives and policies that address the City's process of
coordination with the School Board in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element.
C. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following Tables indicate permanent school building capacity for every school under the
jurisdiction of the Se~ele-Eett~y-School Board:
•
~~~'II-14
TABLE IX-1.1: Inventory of Elementary Schools
•
~.~
•
Site P dent
erm. Bldy St SY 04-10
Elementary School Bldg Sc{ Ft *
it
C Pr
jection
Acreage apac
y o
Altamonte Elementary 1 S 1 1.6 223 9..91_ __ :807....
Bear Lake Elementary 20 l Ob"368 1,026 10 4
Bentley Elementary 1.7 127.200 __..~~ ~?Z
Carillon Elementary 34 125,997
_.. 942 692
Casselberry Elementary >Q 1 14._ .... ............ ....................._.__.........---~---___._.~.... ....... ..__..........._..........................__
Elementary
Lake
Crxstal -_ ~-~._ ......... ....._....._1.10.--73 827
_
-
.
Eastbrook Elementary 15 1 7 2 932 722
English Estates Elementary 21 1 17,412 $~ 74~(
Evans Elementary ~ 1 4 ~ _._......__......_8-2-~`_..
Forest Cit~Elementary 15 133.598
Geneva Elementary 15 10203 ~_ _ .... ................_. ~$
Goldsboro Elementary ~ 1 Qom? ~ ---. ----....._ ..........................._~
Hamilton Elementary 19 89,98 7~ _____694
Heathrow Elementary 15 89,172 $2 9.~~.
Highlands Elementary ~ 106.395
Hopper Elementary and Middle (al _ - ........... ...._...................._............_................_..___g4_-~_7.:.._ ._. _. ~ ~b~
Idyllwilde Elementary 1~ 1 4 $.$$ $.~2
Keeth Elementary 15 76,.21 (~4_ ____--~9__....
Elementarv
Lake Mary .
.......... ..._................................_~-~...... - --..-..............~2..-`~2-.- 2$$ ~Z...
-
_
Lake Orienta Elementary _ .
.. 10 80,Q67 $~ _ _~-
Lawton Elementary 21 1 19 44 ~ 7~
Elementary School
Layer ..
......................_~-5- - -......_1.17,.306 7~ ~7Q
-
.........._......_............_..__...
.
Longwood Elementary .._ ................... ...........
..
1 1 83 7 4 71 ~ X04
-
.
Midway Elementary 1 1 77,664 7 4~3
Partin Elementary 15 92,989 $~ 769
Pine Crest Elementary ~ . ...... .............._~_._4 ~__9.... ._.._.... ...........-. _. __. _. $~ 717
Rainbow Elementary 15 1 341 829 822
Red Bug_Elementary 1-~`_... __... __-_...-7~3 _ -~ ~ >~
._.
Sabal Point Elementary ~
~
.
.__
..... 7 04
._................._....._.._.._...----
......_ _._.-_.._ ....
..........._...._.._.._..........--- .... ......_.__.__......................._:...
------_......---~-------._..._ ..................._................................
Spring Lake Elementary ------........ ._
.
_.-...........-----......
~
$~,~~$ 7?~ Zs_~
_......._.__...__._...._.._......_.
Stenstrom Elementary ~ 92,372 __.........._..........-- ---~- - ..............................................7-Q$....
Elementar~
Sterlinq
Park .._ ........................~_¢-
- --. ._................_7$,502
_....
_
_
_..__.........._.._.._.........
-------
Walker Elementary School _
...------
.. .
_....._......_.._________1~_`_....
_
___.... 1 15,802
9~Z
~9
..
.__..._..._..._
Wekiva Elementary -__. ~ 64,338 7~ _ ...............__Z7~_i ._.
Wicklow Elementary l~f 1 1 4
Wilson Elementary ~ 1 1 1 $_7_Z .... .__ ..............._....----............__..__~__2-...
Winter Springs Elementary 1 S 10 487 _8_~_0- - .. ............................._.._._._._._
Woodlands Elementary 2~ 95,295 840 697
* 100% of Student Stations
(al Combination Elementary and Middle School
(b) Elementary School Only
Source• Florida Inventory_of School Houses (FISHY and Seminole County School District. February 2009
~-?~~' 1 I-15
•
•
•
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT
g~e~ sYOe
?~LT.~\IO:~7E ELE\IE\T.3RY 15 116.23 991 56-1
BE.~R LAhE ELE\ZE\TAR~" ~0 106.3(iS 1,0?6 1.0''9
BE\TLEl" ELE\iE1~-T.~R~" 1' 1:''.:00 933 9'S
CARILLON: ELEAfE\TTARI 34 1_5.99' 942 501
CASSELBERRI' ELE~1E\TARY 10 105,14' 906 '9ti
CRISTAL LSE ELE\IE\T.4R~ 10 110.5'3 52? 661
EASIBROOh ELE~iE1~T.~R1' 15 10'.35 932 S16
E~C;LItiH ESTATES ELE~IE\TTAR~" 21 11'.41? S43 "t?:
EZ:~\S ELE\IE\T.~Rl" =5 103,'45 9'-1 S5
FOREST CITI' ELE~4E1-I'ARI" 15 133.595 956 S"1
GE\'E\ :~. ELE\IEtiT.aR1' 15 102.503 601 Sl>?
GOLDSBORO ELE`IE\T.=SRI" '0 106.4.1 ?13 6S4
H.~.\IILTO\ ELE~iEI~T.~.RI" l9 59,595 ?25 S16
HEATHRO~'4' ELE~IE\"T'.~RI" 15 59,1?2 562 1.119
HIC;HL:~\'DS ELE\IE~T.~RZ' _5 106.;95 6?5 516
IDYLL\\'ILDE ELE~IE~T.aR1' 15 10-I.399 8_5 SS'
hEETH ELE\IE\TAR~' i t '~ ~~' ~ c-ti "~
L.II~E ~L3RI' ELE\I
L.~ILE ORIE\~'?, EL:
LARTU\ ELE~IE\'
LAVER ELE:~fE~IA
LO\G\t'OOD ELEti1
:~ IID~~%AI" ELEI fE\
P.-~RTI~ ELE~IE\T
PII~'E CREST ELE~ff
R.4I\~O\V ELE\IE\
RED Bt"G ELE\1E\ ;
SABr~L. PtII\T ELE\
SPRI\C; L.aIiE ELEA
STE\STRO~I ELE~I
STERLL\G P.aF.I: EI
~\=~~LhER ELE~fE\7
~['EIiI\ _~ ELE11E~'T
~['IC'IiLOti\' ELE\IEI~
~\'ILSO\ ELE\1E1~'I,
~Z'I\ZER SPRI\GS F
ti\'OODL_~\'DS ELE\
*Florida Inventory of 1
**Seminole County Sc
•
•
TABLE IX-2: Inventory of Middle Schools
Site Perm. Bldg Student SY 09-10
Middle School,
Acreaae Blddc~Sg_Ft
Capacity*
Projection.
vreenwood Lakes Midciie_ 25. i,~S~QE~4 11240 1,~Sc~
Hopper Elementary and Middle (d) 4444 fd1 21 (b)
_...__..._..__........__..~~ ------...._._._._._
Indian Trails Middle .._..._____....._........._~._.
20 ...__~____.._.....,...._.~ ............
1 24 .._.._.._._._..----_......_..__._....._.,---__ ~_......._....
1 386 ......_......_.._ __....----...I_._................
1 257
Jackson Heights Middle 62 146,427 1 4 1.328
Lawton Chiles Middle
_ ............._....---.....----..__......._....._..___......~_..............................................._.............. 25
....
......--- --.._......_..__........ 1 12
......................
_
_. 1,355
..._......................_..................~._.._......_.......~ .
_
.... 1.356
......................._..._..__..._~..~._.
_...................
Markham Woods Middle ~
22 ~~
~
1 9 20 -
3
1 22 f
1 055
Millennium Middle 28 2120 1 1,564 1 343
Milwee Middle ~ 147,596 1261 968
Rodc Lake Middle
_.......~..~.,._....--- --~..r----~...~ -..---._._. 1
......__...---------- 1 1 44
...........---- 1 1 1,054
Rosenwald Middle and Hiah (a1 9 1
Sanford Middle 2~ 1 741 1,414 __
1,343
South Seminole Middle 21 14 7 1,179 1 122
Tengue Middle 2Q 14 2 1,476 1 ~~Q
Tuskc~willc; 20 1 1. 1.,2SO 1~1.3~
* 95% of Student Stations
(a) Combination Middle and High School
jb) Middle School OnIX
(d) Combination Elementary and Middle School
~V] 1-17
**Seminole County School District Staff
•
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT
TABLE IX-3: Inventory of High Schools
High School
Site
BldgSc~Ft Perm. Bldp
Student
SY 09-10
i
j
P
Acreage Capacity* on
ro
ect
Crooms Academ of Information
y 20 :....
...............:...
.
. ....................._f 0 ~_YS_6...... ..................................................._...._75:rr-.::.-...... ......-----....._.`~$.._...._..._......
............_............_.......................................................................................
--..._._._ ............._..........._..........._.............
Excel Senior Hiah
----..............................._............... ..............
.
.
.........................._...._..._........
.........._.._...---~-----...-- ----..... ~
............._...._..................-----......._......_...-- ---.._.... 12S
.-- ----..-_r----.._......
_......_._._._._......__ ............._..........._.._....__._........_.....................
Hagerty Senior Hiah ~ 3 2 73 2,678 2.195
Lake Brantley Senior High._._..._._......----~-------._ ......... ..........................522_. _._._......._364,488._.. ........._..._....._......._........_..----_~-.~-. .....__ 2.912
...
Lake Howell Senior Hiah .43 3 744 2.277 2,277_ _
Lake Mary Senior Hiah ~Q 57 29 _.._ ......................__~ 2,376
_Lxman_Senior.Hiah.--.._.....__....._ .............................._.......-.._.._...................._.__..._ _... 47..... ........---._~..... ............_........................................-__2,44_..._.. .---...----..._._._2,368 ---.._......
Oviedo Senior Hiah ~2 359,371 2~7b7 __ 1,964_
Rosenwald Middle and Hiah (a) _ _ _ ............................_...__7Q_Ip~_.. .........__.___...__-__b~....
_Seminole Senior Hic~h..._.._..__....__ ..............._........_................................................ ..............................._S~__.. .._................_:~54,7~k _2 _.._~. -- 3.083
Winter Sgrings Senior High 59 ~Q~~ 3~ 2-,~¢Q 2,218
* 90% of Student Stations
** 85% of student stations
(a~ Combination Middle and High School
(b~ High School Onlx
ity J~
•
!CIS ~C.~DEti1I, OF Iti'FOR.~LATIO\ 20 10+.956 901
EtT1' HIGH SCHOOL ~i0 362.x??3 .'46
BR~'~TLEY SE\IOR HIGH 52 3Ci-t.4SS x.94-t
HOR'ELL SE\IOR HIGH 43 305.'44 2.363
\L~RI" SE\~OR HIGH 50 35'.293 _.531
I.05~
~.20C
2.241
OZ"IEDO 5E1TOR HIGH 52 359.3' 1 2.?40 _."SC
QUEST AC':~,DEAI~" 2 15.6b5 125 10-1
fiE\II~OLE SENIOR HIGH 53 350."06 3.C~4U 3.18"
Z~'I\TER SPRIGS SE~'IOR HIGH 59 305.G3t 2.45 _.489
Total 438 2,896,1.10 22,66? 20,4??
~~-erage 44 289,614 2,26? 2.648
Staurl:u d Pec FTE 4.0193 128
* Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH)
**Seminole County School District Staff
The following exhibits illustrate locations of existing ancillary plant facilities, existing schools, and
locations of proposed capital improvements to existing school facilities. No new ancillary plant
facilities are planned. The SA} boundary maps are included in the
Support Documents.
~'~`II-18
•
Exhibit VINE-1: School Ancillary Plant Facilities in Seminole County
~" ants
• Plant Facilities
Dads
3oundary
•
s ,~
a
~~'11-1 9
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT
•
•
•
Exhibit VINE-3: Seminole County Middle School Locations, June 2007
w ~~
~-i:
~ ,o . ~
~ `~~,
_~
:..° •
~~w
t ~
~sat~i
w
v~r.nC~INwcw
f
».~~
s. _ r-~1 r~f.
`l ~
~~ ~~.
Exhibit VINO: Seminole County High School Locations, June 2007
1
--v'
^
.~
^
_. _ , ~ '"
^
~~~~
y`
~ `~
~V I I-20
Exhibit VIII-5: Seminole County Elementary School Capital Improvements, July 2007
•
•
~~' 1 I -21
Exhibit VINE-6: Seminole County Middle School Capital Improvements, July 2007
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT
•
•
•
Exhibit VIF~-7: Seminole County High School Capital Improvements, July 2007
~V I T-22
D. ISSUES AND CONCERNS
1. Identifying Sites for Future School Facilities. The 2007 ILA '
_provides a process for
identifying future school sites. The process includes, at a minimum, semi-annual meetings of the
Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) that can be used to coordinate land use and school
facility planning. The next step in that process is a committee created by the 2007 ILAKief~{ec~al
the Public Schools Facilities Planning Committee (PSFPC). The PSFPC has several responsibilities,
including review of PTAC findings and submittal of recommendations to the School Board. In
order to ensure that the redevelopment and revitalization of older portions of unincorporated
Seminole County can continue, the issue of sites will continually need to be addressed as part of
the ongoing cooperative planning effort specified by the 2007 ILA
2. Population and Student Projections. In accordance with the 2007 ILA
the it aA~i+~#ef
-and the School Board will share population projections and projections of student
enrollment for use in their planning efforts. The 2007 ILA
specifies that the parties will
use student enrollment projections provided by the School Board. However, the source of student
enrollment projections is based on the Capital Outlay Full Time Equivalent (COFTE) cohort
projections issued by the Department of Education in July of each year. These COFTE projections
are related to past enrollment trends and do not consider such factors as reduced land
availability for future growth and development. As the City rows closer to
reaching build-out, these projections will become less reliable.
3. Proportionate Share Mitigation Efforts and Alternative Mechanisms for Ensuring School
Capacity. The 2007 ILA
outlined the process by which the School Board may
entertain proportionate share mitigation options. Proportionate share mitigation allows a
developer to pay that portion of the cost of providing capacity in a school facility that is
necessary to serve that particular development or redevelopment project. The methodology for
calculating a developer's proportionate share as specified in the 2007 ILA
is included in this
Element and will be added to the City's Land Development Regulations as part of the
Concurrency Management System. Mitigation options offer a variety of alternatives, including
construction of a charter school by the developer. If a mitigation proposal fails, the 2007
ILA
J~-~aryF-~-89~ offers an appeal process specified by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (F.S.) as an
alternative. Another allowable alternative mechanism for mitigation impacts on schools is the
establishment of an Educational Facilities Benefit District as allowed by Section 1013.355, F.S.
This option permits school districts and local governments to enter into separate ~interlocal
Aagreements to arrange for financing a school to allow redevelopment, revitalization or other
development efforts, when property owners involved agree to this special assessment. Osceola
County adopted an ordinance creating such a District in 2003. Should redevelopment and
revitalization efforts in the City be unable to proceed, even with proportionate share mitigation,
further examination of the use of an Educational Facilities Benefit District may be needed.
•
~V l t-23