The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVI(A1) Introduction And Feasibility Study Presentation By Spillis-Candella Agenda 11-07-2000 Item VIA 1 "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER C)�., OCOee ' ( S.SCOTT VANDERGRIFT «� 24 CCP°. CITY OF OCOEE COMMISSIONERS �ra 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE SCOTT ANDERSON ey }D" OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761-2258 RUSTY JOHNSON 43 (407)905-3100 NANCY J.PARKER Of 400'6 CITY MANAGER ELLIS SHAPIRO MEMORANDUM DATE: October 30, 2000 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Russ Wagner, AICP, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Coca - Cola Property Feasibility Study The attached document is the final version of the Ocoee Property Feasibility Study prepared by the Spillis Candela consultant team as part of the due diligence effort for the Coke property acquisition. . As you may note, a surplus of funds would be available at some point in the future to finance various park, transportation and public safety improvements. For the short term, however, the report indicates the key importance of obtaining revenue from the quick sale of the 50-acre residential component of the Plan to support the initial roadway and stormwater improvements necessary to support the high school construction. Based upon the analyses and conclusions contained within this report, it is apparent that the overall development program is economically feasible and that acquisition is recommended. • RBW/csa Attachment Ow O:ICALEXANDERIALL_DATAICAPDFILE1Staff Reports12000CCSR1SR00078.doc PowlT% Pratectpcts zWaterRssaur.`ces;C) SFOLEY & LARDNER MEMORANDUM CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER 020377-0524 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Ocoee FROM: Paul E. Rosenthal, Esq., City Attorney A it, DATE: October 31, 2000 RE: City Attorney Due Diligence Report in Connection with Acquisition of the Coca-Cola Property The City and The Coca-Cola Company have previously entered into a Purchase Contract dated June 15, 2000 whereby the City obtained the right to purchase the property described therein which is referred to herein as the "subject property" or the "Coca-Cola Property". Contemporaneous therewith, the City and the School Board entered into an Interlocal Agreement Regarding Coca-Cola Property dated June 13, 2000 whereby the School Board agreed to participate in the acquisition costs and certain due diligence, closing and master planning expenses in consideration for the obtaining of 115 gross acres of the Coca- Cola Property. Currently, the Inspection Period is scheduled to expire on November 22, 2000 which means that the City may terminate at any time prior to that date. In the event the City does not terminate, closing is scheduled for November 27, 2000. At the time of approval of the Purchase Contract, the City Commission was advised that a due diligence report would be presented prior to the expiration of the Inspection Period so that the City Commission could make a fmal decision on whether or not to proceed with the acquisition of the Coca-Cola Property. Since that time, the City and School Board staffs, along with their respective legal counsel and the outside consultants, have conducted a due diligence review in order to determine whether there are any matters which should lead the City Commission to exercise its right of termination. Attached hereto is a City Attorney Due Diligence Report which summarizes the areas of our involvement and includes copies of various documents referenced therein. We will be available at the City Commission meeting to answer any questions regarding the areas within the scope of our legal review. In the event the City Commission desires to proceed with the acquisition of the Coca-Cola Property following the presentation of the various reports and the required public hearings, it would then be necessary for the City Commission to take the following actions: 006.198993.1 (1) Decline to exercise the City's right of termination under the Purchase Contract with The Coca-Cola Company and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute and deliver all closing documents necessary to consummate the closing; (2) Authorize the City staff to certify to the School Board on behalf of the City that the Coca-Cola Property meets all appraisal, survey, title and environmental • requirements of the City; (3) Reduce the payment due from the School Board to Ocoee at closing from $1,816,206.50 to $1,740,886.70 and increase the gross acreage to be conveyed to the School Board from 115 acres to approximately 118.29 acres; (4) Condition all of the foregoing on the approval by the City of an amendment to the Orange County/Ocoee Joint Planning Area Agreement at an advertised public hearing following this action; and (5) Condition all of the foregoing upon the approval by the City of the SunTrust financing at an advertised public hearing following this action. PER/jh Enclosure(s) cc: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager (w/encl.) Russell B. Wagner, AICP; City Planner (w/encl.) Jon Martin, Orange County Public Schools (w/encl.) Marcos Marchena, Esq., School Board Attorney (w/encl.) 006.198993.1 -2- CITY ATTORNEY DUE DILIGENCE REPORT COCA-COLA PROPERTY October 31, 2000 TITLE MATTERS The City has been provided with First American Title Insurance Company Commitment No. 00.03655 proposing to insure the interest of the City in the purchase price amount of $3,750,000.00. The Title Commitment confirms that the subject property is owned by The Coca-Cola Company. Attached hereto is a memorandum dated September 14, 2000 from Mike McNatt of my office which sets forth our analysis of the Title Commitment. Your specific attention is,directed to the discussion regarding the Tri-Party Easement Agreement between The Coca-Cola Company, Orange County and the City of Winter Garden with respect to the West Orange Trail crossings. The Concept Plan currently anticipates a single road crossing of the Trail and any such crossing would need to comply with the terms of the Tri-Party Easement Agreement. The City is in the process of obtaining a letter from the Winter Garden City Manager confirming that Winter Garden does not have any objection to a roadway crossing which is intended to provide ingress and egress to and from a high school, elementary school, public park and residential development. Based upon our review of the Title Commitment, no title objections were raised pursuant to the Purchase Contract and there are no title issues which would adversely affect the feasibility of the City proceeding with the acquisition. SURVEY MATTERS In conjunction with the Orange County School Board, a boundary survey of the subject property was obtained from Leading Edge Land Services, Incorporated. The survey is certified to the City and the School Board and provides a sufficient basis for the survey exceptions to be removed from the Title Policy when issued. Based on our review of the Boundary Survey, no survey objections were raised pursuant to the Purchase Contract and there does not appear to be any survey matters which would adversely affect the feasibility of the City proceeding with the acquisition. The Survey indicates that the City will be acquiring 358.1391 gross acres. Based on the analysis set forth in the Feasibility Study, it would appear that the subject property contains approximately 249 usable acres and approximately 109 unusable acres. The unusable acres would include wetlands (which are estimated at 86 acres) and lands set aside for internal access roads. Additional detail is set forth in the Feasibility Study. It should be noted that the appraisals previously obtained by the City were based on the, assumption of 232 upland acres and 86 wetland acres for a total of 318 gross acres. Based on the Survey, the City is obtaining title to approximately 40 more acres than estimated in 006.198944.1 conjunction with the appraisals. As discussed below, the increased usable acres has resulted in a recommendation for an adjustment to the purchase price being paid by the School Board pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS As part of it's due diligence review, the Orange County School Board, in conjunction with the City, retained PSI to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The Phase I revealed several areas of potential environmental concerns which required further investigation. A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was then conducted by PSI. A copy of the Phase I ESA and Phase II ESA are available for review in the Planning Department. Tom Lubozynski, Senior Facilities Manager for OCPS Environmental Standards and Compliance, has been taking the lead in dealing with the issues raised by the Phase II ESA and has met with representatives of Coca-Cola and Orange County. Attached hereto is an e-mail from Tom Lubozynski dated October 27, 2000 which sets forth the current status of his investigation which is ongoing. Tom Maurer in my office has been coordinating legal issues related to the environmental matters which have been identified. Attached hereto is a memorandum from Tom Maurer dated October 30, 2000 which addresses the current status of the contamination issues which have been identified regarding the subject property. As indicated in both reports, the environmental review is ongoing and additional information should be available at the time of the November 7 City Commission meeting. We have prepared and submitted to Coca-Cola a proposed Environmental Indemnity Agreement to be executed by Coca-Cola at closing with respect to the identified areas of environmental concern. Coca-Cola is not contractually obligated to provide the indemnity and the only remedy of the City would be to terminate the contract in the event they decline. As of the date of this memorandum, it is unknown whether or not Coca-Cola will agree to sign the Environmental Indemnity Agreement. There is a reasonable likelihood that they will indicate that the source of the remaining contamination is on lands owned by the Expressway Authority (which were acquired from Coca-Cola) and that, therefore, Coca-Cola has no liability with respect to the contamination. It appears that the remaining area of contamination is located in the vicinity of a portion of the lands identified as fire station and bus parking uses on the Concept Plan. If the environmental contamination is not remediated it would be necessary to reassess and, if necessary, address the contamination at the time of development of these sites. If the source of contamination is Expressway Authority property, this could result in a potential claim against the Expressway Authority. Since neither the School Board nor the City are at the design stage, it is premature to estimate the potential cost, if any, from the identified contamination. It is possible that the contamination could increase development costs and affect site planning. It appears unlikely that the contamination would totally preclude the use of the property for the School Board and City's intended purposes. Tom Maurer from my office will be available at the City Commission meeting to address any questions regarding this subject. 2 006.198944.1 DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT MATTERS As part of our due diligence review, we have undertaken an analysis to determine whether the development of the subject property would be subject to DRI review since such review could significantly increase the development costs which would be incurred by the City. Attached hereto is a memorandum dated October 31, 2000 from Martha Formella of my office which provides our analysis with respect to the DRI issues. As indicated in that report, it would appear that the subject property can be developed based upon the currently proposed Concept Plan without being subject to review as a DRI. However, it should be noted that there are significant DRI constraints which would restrict the ability of the City to increase the commercial and/or office acreage:beyond that currently set forth in the Concept Plan. JOINT PLANNING AREA AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING MATTERS The subject property is located within the City of Ocoee Joint Planning Area except for a small portion of approximately 20 acres which is currently located within the Winter Garden Joint Planning Area. The Joint Planning Area Land Use Map currently designates the subject property as low density residential and conservation/wetlands. In order to develop the subject property in accordance with the Concept Plan, it is necessary to amend the Orange County/Ocoee Joint Planning Area Agreement and thereafter annex the property and adopt a comprehensive plan amendment consistent with the amended Joint Planning Area Land Use Map. Issues regarding the JPA Amendment are addressed by the Planning Department under a separate agenda item. The Feasibility Study is based on the assumption that the necessary JPA Amendment, annexation and comprehensive plan amendment will be adopted so as to allow the property to be zoned (most likely as a mixed use PUD) consistent with the Concept Plan. It is anticipated that the JPA Amendment will be adopted prior to closing, subject to the qualification that the amendment will become effective as to an approximate 20 acre parcel only at such time as it is removed from the Winter Garden JPA. The Winter Garden City staff has indicated that they do not have any objection to removing the 20 acre parcel from the Winter Garden JPA and are in the process of requesting that the County initiate such action. The annexation and comprehensive plan amendment will not be accomplished prior to closing. In the event the City is unable to annex the subject property and adopt a comprehensive plan amendment and zoning consistent with the Concept Plan, then there could be a material impact on the analysis set forth in the Feasibility Study. SEWER AND WATER MATTERS The subject property is located within the City of Ocoee sewer and water territory. The City staff is currently in discussions with the Orange County staff regarding an amendment to the territorial agreements which :would remove a substantial portion of the subject property from the City's sewer and water territory. It is likely that discussions regarding sewer and water territorial matters will not be concluded prior to closing. The Feasibility Study and the analysis set forth therein assumes that the sewer and water territorial issues are resolved and 3 006.198944.1 that the County serves the predominant portion of the property. In the event the County declines to serve the property, there could be an impact on the analysis set forth in the Feasibility Study. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SCHOOL BOARD; PRICE ADJUSTMENT The Interlocal Agreement provides the City with the absolute right to terminate the Purchase Contract. The School Board also has the right to elect to terminate its participation in the acquisition. The School Board has not elected to exercise its right of termination and will participate in the acquisition of the subject property in accordance with the Interlocal Agreement. The provisions of Paragraph 12(B) of the Interlocal Agreement contemplated the potential for an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement to adjust the allocation of the land acquisition costs to be paid by the School Board based on a fmal survey of the acreage within the subject property. The decision to approve any such amendment is discretionary on the part of both the City and the School Board. The allocation of acquisition costs between the City and the School Board were based upon the subject property containing 232 upland acres and the School Board acquiring 115. of those acres based upon the upland purchase price of $15,793.10 per acre. The Interlocal Agreement also contemplated that the City would bear the cost of acquiring all of the wetland acres. The Concept Plan suggests that the subject property will contain approximately 249 "usable" acres versus the originally estimated 232 "upland" acres. Attached hereto is an e-mail which addresses a proposed recalculation of the School Board purchase price based on the appraisals, the Interlocal Agreement, the surveyed acreages and the Concept Plan. Our analysis suggests that the price per acre to be contributed by the School Board be reduced from $15,793.10 per gross acre to $14,717.22 per gross acre and that the School Board would acquire approximately 118.29 acres instead of the initially agreed upon 115 acres. The mathematical result of the foregoing is that the contribution by the School Board would be reduced from $1,816,206.50 to $1,740,886.70, representing a reduction of $75,319.80. This would allow the School Board to acquire 118 acres at a per acre price below the lowest appraisal obtained by the City. As of this date, the School Board has not agreed to the proposed adjustment. As contemplated by the Interlocal Agreement, the City staff has had ongoing discussions with the School Board regarding development costs and the allocation of responsibility with respect thereto. Currently, the School Board will not bear any financial responsibility for development costs beyond those set forth in the Interlocal Agreement and their on-site development costs for the School Board's individual parcels. However, the School Board staff has indicated that they would support an advance to the City, on an interest free basis, to construct the access road to the high school site as shown on the Concept Plan and that such advance would be repaid from the proceeds of the future sale of the commercially designated land with the outside date for such repayment being June 30, 2005. Except as aforesaid, School Board would not participate in any off-site development costs. For planning. purposes, the estimated cost of the access road is $1,300,000. It should be noted that these are staff level discussions which would ultimately need to be incorporated into an amendment to 4 006.198944.1 the Interlocal Agreement and approved by both the School Board and the Ocoee City Commission. FEASIBILITY STUDY; RISK FACTORS Pursuant to the direction of the City Commission, the City has obtained a Feasibility Study dated October 25, 2000 with respect to the subject property. The Planning Department has provided the City Commission with a copy of the Feasibility Study and a full presentation will be made by the consultants at the City Commission meeting. In reviewing the Feasibility Study, the City Commission should understand that by necessity the consultants make certain assumptions which are based upon educated judgments. There are no assurances that the assumptions will prove accurate and any risks associated therewith are being borne by the City. The Feasibility Study assumes certain development costs and a timeline for the resale of lands designated as commercial and residential on the Concept Plan. Development of the property will ultimately be subject to the provisions of the Ocoee Land Development Code and development review by the City. Preliminary and final engineering of the site, as well as Land Development Code requirements; could affect the estimated development costs and thereby impact the feasibility analysis. Additionally, the Feasibility Study assumes that the residential and commercial property will be sold in accordance with an anticipated timeline. Market conditions and development issues could affect the timing of any such sales and thereby affect the feasibility analysis. If the sales are delayed it could increase the City's financing costs and potentially require that the City find other sources of funds to repay the loan. 5 006.198944.1 FOLEY &' LARDNER MEMORANDUM CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER 020377-0535 TO: Mr. Russell B. Wagner, AICP, Planning Director FROM: Michael W. McNatt, Assistant City Attorney THROUGH: Paul E. Rosenthal, City Attorney CC: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager (w/o enclosure) Marcos Marchena, Esq. (w/ enclosures) DATE: September 14, 2000 RE: First American Title Insurance Company Commitment No. 00-03655 (the "Commitment") for the real property (the "Property") to be conveyed by The Coca-Cola Company to the City.of Ocoee, Florida Enclosed is First American Title Insurance Company Commitment No. 00-03655 with the related exception documents. We have previously distributed the survey of the Property. • We have reviewed the Commitment and survey and see no basis to raise any title or survey objections as permitted under Paragraph 3A of the Contract of Purchase and Sale for the above- referenced transaction. The following is a summary discussion of the non-standard title exceptions (exceptions #8-15 of the Commitment): 1. Exception#8 addresses oil and gas rights that were reserved by the Grantor in that certain Warranty Deed dated December 29, 1949 from DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation ("DiGiorgio") to Minute Made Groves Corporation ("Minute Made"). According to such deed, DiGiorgio did not have the right to prospect for, exploit or remove any oil or gas without the consent of Minute Made or its successor. First American has agreed to insure that there are no rights of access or exploration for oil or gas with respect to the Property because the Marketable Record and Title Act states that such reservation of rights must be reaffirmed within 30 years after the root of title (the conveyance from Minute Made to The Coca-Cola Company) and such reaffirmation did not occur. 2. Exceptions #9 and 10 are Distribution Easements which are reflected upon the Survey. , They were granted to Florida Power Corporation for the 006.191667 installation, operation and maintenance of facilities to provide electrical and communication services. The easements are standard utility easements and run for perpetuity or until abandoned. One easement is 10 feet wide and the other is 8 feet wide. The Property owner may relocate the easements to another mutually agreeable portion of the Property at the owner's expense. Presumably these would be relocated in connection with the development of the Property.; 3. Exceptions #11, 12 and 13 are City of Ocoee Water and Sewer Territorial Agreements. • 4. Exception #14 is the Tri-Party Easement Agreement (the "Agreement") between The Coca Cola Company, its successors or assigns (collectively, the "Company"), Orange County (the "County") and the City of Winter Garden (the "WG"). It grants to the Company two easement (the "Easements") for utilities, drainage and vehicular and pedestrian traffic across or under the West Orange Trail (the "Trail") for potential entrances into and to benefit residential developments to be located on adjacent real property owned by the Company. The exact location of the Easements shall be agreed upon by the parties but must be at least 1,320 feet apart, may not unreasonably interfere with the use of the. Trail or the WG's use of its underground sewer line and must comply with all of the County's codes and regulations. The Easements may be no smaller than the size required by the County for main and secondary access for a residential subdivision at the time of development. The locations of the Easements become permanent upon their use and activation but should their use change from residential right-of-ways, the Easements automatically revert back to the County and the WG. Since the status of the Easements is not certain for uses other than residential, the non-residential use of the Easements must still be addressed. Construction of improvements upon the Easements must comply with regulations of the County and the WG and must be coordinated with the appropriate departments of both the WG and County. One of the Easement may have a landscaped median. Improvements on the Easements must include, at the Company's sole expense, safety, pedestrian and traffic control improvements and signage as may be reasonable required by the WG or County. Any construction on the Easements must be done in a manner consistent and harmonious with the Trail and must minimize the down time and interference of the public's use of the Trail. The Company must provide a safe and secure alternate route for those using the Trail during such construction. Upon the completion of any construction, the Trail must be restored to its original condition at the Company's expense. The Agreement requires that the Company indemnify the WG and County for any liability arising under the Easements. The County and WG are to be named as additional insured under any insurance programs affecting the • 006.191667 -2- Easements. The Agreement does not give any rights to the WG or County to relocate the Trail or to have any other rights with respect to the Company's property. At closing, Ocoee would assume all of the rights and obligations of the Company under the Agreement. 5. Exception #15 deals with the water rights with respect to Lake Apopka and Staten Branch. Should you have any comments or questions regarding any of the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. { { 006.191667 -3- Rosenthal, Paul E. From: Maurer,Thomas K. Sent: Friday, October 27,2000 1:58 PM To: 'Lubozynski,Thomas' Cc: Rosenthal, Paul E. Subject: RE: Fullers Crossing Property Update I would definitely like to meet.The City Comission is meeting on the 7th so I would like to meet as soon as we can after the 2"d so that we can brief the City.Thanks. Original Message From: Lubozynski,Thomas [SMTP:LubozyT@ocps.k12.fl.us] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 10:29 AM To: 'tmaurer@foleylaw.com' Cc: Martin, Jon Subject: Fullers Crossing Property Update TO: Tom Maurer Bryan Jacob from Coca-Cola has invited me to his meeting with Orange County Environmental Protection Division on Thurs, Nov 2. Bryan is working toward having all the issues resolved with the regulators by Thanksgiving so closing can go forward. The regulators have teh fianl word whether cleanup is mandatory. We of course could negotiate whatever we think is appropriate. After that meeting I will know more specifically what Law found during their assessment of conditions. Bryan gave me a summary. At the irrigation well UST area, Law could not find any petroleum hydrocarbon levels that were above the residential cleanup level. they will ask OCEPD for a way to declare the site acceptable. (I agree with this approach. The previously measured contamination is not an important issue.) For the site found by PSI, Law did not find contaminated soil, but did measure contamination in the groundwater. Their work indicates the contamination is coming from the Expressway Authority's land. (The land used to be Coca-Cola's but DOT used eminent domain to buy the land. So, Coke did not give any guarantees or warranties. DOT did not do due diligence.) So, from one perspective the data indicates OCPS would not have a future liability to clean the water contamination someone else would (Coke? Expressway Authority?). But, if Law's data is incorrect about groundwater flow, do we"buy"a problem? Or is this really a none issue because we will never use the groundwater in that area of the property? Should you,Jon, and I meet after the Nov 2 meeting? I have a fairly clean schedule on Nov 7 and 8. Tom F.Thomas Lubozynski, Senior Facilities Manager OCPS Environmental Standards and Compliance 407-317-3705 1 FOLEY & LARDNER MEMORANDUM CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER 020377-0524 TO: Paul Rosenthal FROM: Thomas K. Maurer T pA DATE: October 30, 2000 RE: Coca Cola/Fullers Crossing Property - Environmental Status Three contamination issues have been identified regarding the Coca Cola / Fullers Crossing Property. Coca Cola is currently investigating these problems under the supervision of the Orange County Environmental Protection Department (OCEPD). The three areas are a former underground storage tank (UST) located at an irrigation well, a former UST located at the Old Barn, and a former UST discovered for the first time in the PSI Phase II which is located in the area near the Western Beltway. On September 29, Coca Cola submitted a work plan to Orange County Environmental Protection Department for additional soil and groundwater_testing with regard to the irrigation well UST and Old Barn UST. This report also indicated that additional soil removal would be undertaken if warranted by results of the additional sampling. A meeting has been scheduled for November 2 with OCEPD to discuss the results of this work. Based on phone conversations between Orange County Public School (OCPS) staff and Coca Cola's environmental personnel, it is believed that Coca Cola will ask OCEPD to agree that no further issues remain at either the irrigation well UST or the Old Barn UST. At this time, we have not received reports or documentation confirming that contamination at these two areas has been satisfactorily addressed. A third area was not identified until PSI conducted the Phase II Assessment and presented its report on September 8. Therefore, this area was not included in Coca Cola's additional work for the other two UST sites. This third area involves a former UST located near the western beltway. It is unclear from documents and discussions with Coca Cola's personnel whether or not this former UST is located on the current Coca Cola property or was located in the area acquired by the Orange County Expressway Authority for the western beltway. It is our understanding that no environmental assessment was preformed on this area by the Expressway Authority and that the property was acquired "As Is". (This understanding is based solely on verbal information provided by Coca Cola's environmental staff to OCPS staff.) It is our understanding that Coca Cola believes that further investigations have 006.198748.1 indicated that the source of this contamination is in fact located on Expressway Authority property. In the September 21, 2000 Ocoee Property Feasibility Study Planning Report, the areas where the third UST contamination is an issue appears to be identified as fire station and bus parking uses. An analysis should be made to determine to whether or not the contamination will interfere with any construction activities or future uses. Further, we should decide whether or not we want Coca Cola to address this problem either directly or through any claims that they may have against the Expressway Authority or whether this issue can be addressed directly with the Expressway Authority after closing. Prior to closing, Coca Cola should provide documentation that all three contamination issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of OCEPD and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. If Coca Cola does establish that the source of contamination in the third area is from Expressway Authority property, then the City should either require that Coca Cola obtain assurance from the Authority that clean-up will be undertaken or be prepared to approach the Authority directly. 006.198748.1 -2- FOLEY & LARDNER MEMORANDUM CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER 020377/0524 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Ocoee FROM: Martha H. Formella, Esq., Assistant City Attorney THROUGH: Paul E. Rosenthal, Esq.,City Attorney pgu., DATE: October 31, 2000 RE: Coke Property DRI Thresholds This memorandum presents our analysis of the current Concept Plan for the "Coke Property" with respect to the Development of Regional Impact statutes and rules. For purposes of this memorandum, we have assumed that the Concept Plan includes the following uses: 243 acres (ac.) to City 50 ac. Residential (for resale) 24 ac. Commercial (for resale) 15 ac. Police Range/Fire Station 40 ac. Public Park 100 ac. Wetlands/Conservation Areas 1 14 ac. Miscellaneous (not for resale) 115 acres (ac.) to Orange County School Board 2 60 ac. High School 15 ac. Elementary School (right to sell for Residential) This analysis assumes none of wetlands/conservation areas are utilized for mitigation to support development of the Coke Property. 2 The assumed School Board acreages are based on Interlocal Agreement. The current Concept Plan provides 31 acres for bus parking/maintenance and 12.29 acres for work force education. 006.197414.2 • 15 ac. Workforce Education (right to sell for Office) 25 ac. Bus Parking/Maintenance 358 acres Total "Development of Regional Impact" ("DRI") means any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of, more than one county. Fla. Stat. §380.06(1). The DRI statutes and rules identify thresholds and establish presumptions in connection with banded percentages of those thresholds to determine whether or not DRI review is required. The DRI statutes and rules are silent regarding the following uses: police range/fire station, public park, conservation area, high school, elementary school, and bus parking/maintenance. The applicable DRI thresholds for the other proposed uses are as follows: • 80% 100% 120% Residential • dwelling units 2,400 3,000 3,600 Retail and Service Development • gross square footage 320,000 400,000 480,000 • acreage - 32 40 48 • parking spaces 2,000 2,500 3,000 School - Postsecondary Educational Campus • full time equivalent students 4,000 5,000 6,000 Office • gross square footage. 240,000 300,000 360,000 • acreage 24 30 36 Mixed Use • Two or more uses - sum of % 116 145 174 • Three or more uses, one of which is residential and contains at least 450 units - sum of % 128 160 192 See Fla. Stat. §380.0651; FAC Ch. 28-24. Our understanding is that the residential development will be a mix of multi-family and single family. Assuming a density of ten dwelling units per acre, the total of 500 dwelling units is 16.7% of the residential DRI threshold. Under the current proposal, the School Board would have the right to sell the elementary school site for residential use. In that event, again 006.197414.2 -2- assuming a density of ten dwelling units per acre, 150 additional units would be added, resulting in a total of 650 units or 21.7% of the residential DRI threshold. The proposed commercial site. of 24 acres is 60% of the commercial acreage DRI threshold. This analysis assumes that the gross square footage and number of parking spaces also will be 60% or less of the respective DRI thresholds (i.e. 240,000 square feet or less and 1,500 parking spaces or less, respectively). The provisions related to schools refer to "construction of any public, private, or I proprietary postsecondary educational campus which provides for a design population of more than 5,000 full time equivalent ,students". Fla. Stat. §380.0651(3)(k). The reference to "postsecondary" excludes the high school and elementary school. The workforce education facility appears to be included. "Full time equivalent students" means enrollment for 15 or more quarter hours during a single academic semester. Fla. Stat. §380.0651(3)(k)2. In area vocational schools or other institutions which do not utilize semester or quarter hours, enrollment for 18 contact hours shall be considered equivalent to one quarter hour and enrollment for 27 contact hours shall be considered equivalent to one semester hour. Id. This analysis assumes a design population of 1,500 full time equivalent students. Under the current proposal, the School Board would have the right to sell the work force education site for office use. This site would constitute 50% of the office acreage threshold. This analysis assumes that the gross square footage of'any such office use also will be 50% or less of that DRI threshold (i.e. 150,000 square feet or less). The banded percentages are applied to the thresholds to determine whether or not DRI review is required as follows: Conclusive Presumption- no DRI: less than or = 80% Rebuttable Presumption - no DRI: between 80% and 100% Rebuttable Presumption - DRI: = 100% or between 100% and 120% Conclusive Presumption- DRI: = or more than 120% See Fla. Stat.. §380.06(2)d. In order to enjoy the conclusive presumption that DRI review is not required, all uses must be less than 80% of all individual thresholds as well as the..applicable mixed use threshold. The following individual potential uses of the Coke Property are clearly less than 80% of the potential individual thresholds: • Residential 500 dwelling units =16.7% 650 dwelling units = 21.7% (applicable only if School Board sells the elementary school site) Commercial 24 acres = 60% Workforce Education 1,500 full time equivalent students = 30% 006.197414.2 -3- Office 15 acres = 50% (applicable only if School Board sells workforce education site) In order to avoid DRI review, the sum of the individual threshold percentages must be less than 80% of the applicable mixed use threshold. For two or more uses, the sum of the individual threshold percentages must be less than 116% (i.e. 80% of the mixed use threshold, of 145%). If, however, there are three or more uses, one of which is residential and contains at least 100 dwelling units or 15% of the applicable residential threshold, whichever is greater, the sum of the individual threshold percentages must be less than 128% in order to enjoy the conclusive presumption that DRI review is not required (i.e. 80% of the mixed use threshold of 160%). See Fla. Stat. §380.'0651(3)(i). In this case, 15% of the applicable residential threshold (15% of 3,000 dwelling units = 450 dwelling units) is greater than 100 dwelling units. Therefore, in order to apply the 128%, there must three or more uses, one of which is residential with at least 450 dwelling units. The following table illustrates the mixed use thresholds for the four scenarios discussed in this memorandum: Scenario (a) 80% of the Mixed Use (b) 80% of the Mixed Use Threshold of 145% = 116% Threshold of 160% = 128% (Applicable if less than 450 (Applicable if 450 or more dwelling units) dwellings units) 1. Current Concept Commercial (24 Ac.) 60% Commercial (24 Ac.) 60% Plan Residential (449 DU) 14.97% Residential (500 DU) 16.7% Workforce Education 30% Workforce Education 30% (1,500 FTES) 104.97% (1,500 FTES) 106.7% 2. Conversion of Commercial (24 Ac.) 60% Commercial (24 Ac.) 60% Elementary School Site Residential (449 DU) 14.97% Residential (650 DU) 21.7% to Residential Workforce Education 30% Workforce Education 30% (1,500 FTES) 104.97% (1,500 FTES) 111.7% 3. Conversion of Commercial (24 Ac.) 60% Commercial (24 Ac.) 60% Workforce Education Residential (449 DU) 14.97% Residential (500 DU) 16.7% Site to Office Office (15 Ac.) 50% Office (15 Ac.) 50% 124.97% 126.7% 4. Conversion of Commercial (24 Ac.) 60% Commercial (24 Ac.) 60% Elementary School Site Residential (449 DU) 14.97% Residential (650 DU) 21.7% to Residential and Office (15 Ac.) 50% Office (15 Ac.) 50% • Workforce Education ! 124.97% 131.7% Site to Office 006.197414.2 -4- Legend DU = Dwelling Units FTES = Full Time Equivalent Students Ac. = Acres As the table shows, the DRI issue is raised only if the workforce education site is converted to office and only if the workforce education site is 15 acres as provided in the Interlocal .Agreement. If the workforce education site is 12.29 acres as proposed in the current Concept Plan and this acreage is converted to office, then such office use would be 40.97% of the applicable DRI threshold and the proposed development would not be subject to DRI review under any of the above scenarios. If the workforce education site is 15 acres as provided in the Interlocal Agreement, then the following analysis would apply: In scenarios 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), 2(b), and 3(b), DRI review is not required. The amount of residential development can be altered in scenarios 3(a), 4(a), and 4(b) in order to avoid DRI review. In scenarios 3(a) and 4(a), there would be a conclusive presumption that no DRI review is required only if the residential development included either less than 180 dwelling units (i.e. less than 6% of the residential DRI threshold of 3,000 dwelling units). In scenario 4(b), there would be a conclusive presumption that no DRI review is required only if the residential development included at least 450 dwelling units but less than 540 dwelling units (i.e. at least 15% but less than 18% of the residential DRI threshold of 3,000 dwelling units)q. Since it appears that the proposed project is below applicable DRI thresholds, we have not addressed other creative ways which might be found to avoid DRI review (e.g., asserting that certain uses such as the workforce education facility should not be aggregated; asserting that certain activities do not constitute "development"; and/or segregating ownerships immediately). In summary, the proposed development would be below the DRI threshold under all scenarios if the workforce education facility is located as proposed in the current Concept Plan and contains 12.29 acres. If the workforce education facility is enlarged to 15 acres and converted to office use, then DRI issues would arise under limited circumstances. It is reasonable to assume that the City and School Board can avoid being subject to DRI review by controlling the proposed development as addressed in this memorandum. c: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager Russell B. Wagner, AICP, City Planning Director Jon Martin, OCPS Marcos Marchena, Esq. 006.197414.2 -5- Rosenthal, Paul E. From: Rosenthal, Paul E. Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 11:54 PM To: 'mmarchena@marchenaandgraham.com; 'Shapiro, Ellis (City Manager)'; 'Martin, Jon (School Board)'; 'Wagner, Russ (Planning)'; 'Horton,Wanda (Finance Director)' Cc: Doty, Mary A. Subject: Coke Property: Proposed Recalculation of School Board Purchase Price Importance: High Pursuant to our meeting of October 18, I have attempted to recalculate the School Board Purchase Price based on the appraisals and the original agreement,the surveyed acreages and the agreed upon Concept Plan. While there may be alternate approaches to the recalculation, I would suggest the approach set forth in this e-mail for consideration by the City and the School Board. The Purchase Price negotiated with Coca-Cola is a based on the average of 2 appraisals obtained by the City and School Board. Both appraisers assumed a 318 acre parcel consisting of 232 upland acres and 86 wetland acres. The calculations used to set the price in the Interlocal Agreement are based on the average of the two appraisals as follows: Uplands: 232 acres @$15, 793.10/acre: $3,664,000 Wetlands: 86 acres @ $1,000/acre: 86.000 Purchase Price/Average of Appraisals: $3,750,000 The total surveyed acreage is 358.1391 acres. The Concept Plan indicates a total of 248.96"useable acres", of which 118.29 are proposed for conveyance to the School Board (the increase of 3.29 acres resulting from the enlargement of the bus parking area and the shrinkage of the workforce education facility). By subtraction,this results in 109.1791 acres being unusable or undevelopable--though not all of this would appear to be wetland.The 40 acre park is included in the usable acres. While the surveyed numbers will remain constant, the useable and unusable acres may vary up or down based on topo's and final master planning. There are 40.1391 more surveyed acres than assumed by the appraisers. However,there appears to be 16.96 additional "useable acres"based on the Concept Plan. The additional 23.1791 acres appears to be absorbed in the Concept Plan by factors such as the right-of-way for a 4-lane road for which there are not specific acreage allocations. Set forth below is a recalculation that keeps the cost of the Useable and Unusable Acres constant with the cost of the Upland and Wetland Acres which was the basis for the negotiated Purchase Price from Coca-Cola and the Price Per Acre in the Interlocal Agreement: 248.96 useable acres @ $14,717.22: $3,663,999.09 ROUNDED $3,664,000. 109.1791 unusable acres @$787.70: $ 86,000.37 ROUNDED$ 86,000. The above recalculation provides the benefit of a reduced per acre price for both the useable and unusable land and does not attempt to reallocate the percentages of the useable and unusable land. This calculation reduces the School Board's price per acre from $15,793.10/acre to$14,717.22/acre or a reduction of$1,075.88/acre. If the School Board acreage remains constant at 115 acres (which is different from the Concept Plan), then the new Purchase Price to the School Board would be$1,692,480.30, or a reduction of$123,726.20. If the total acreage to be acquired by the School Board is 118.29 as set forth in the Concept Plan,then the new Purchase Price to the School Board would be $1,740,886.70,or a reduction of$75,319.80. This price per acre is below the Clayton, Ropern &Marshall appraised value of$15,577.50/upland acre,which was the lower of the 2 appraisals. This calculation also reduces the price per • useable acre to the City by the same amount and reduces the price to the City per Unusable Acre from $1,000/acre to $787.10 (or by$212.90/acre). In light of the total circumstances,the surveyed configurations of the various parcels, the need for the City to acquire the right-of-way for access to the High School and a price per acre which is below the lowest of the 2 appraisals, I would propose(without consultation with the City), that the acreage to be acquired by the School Board be at an adjusted price of$14,717.22/acre for 118.2891 acres a's follows: High School: 60 ac Elementary School: , 15 ac Bus Parking/Maintenance: 31 ac Workforce Education: 12.2891 ac This would yield an adjusted School Board Purchase Price of$1,740,886.70. Clearly, there are alternative calculations which could reduce the price per developable acre further; but any such reductions would only increase the out-of pocket financed cost to be incurred by the City(and the risk to the City)since the Purchase Price from Coca-Cola remains constant without regard to acreages. If this approach is acceptable to the City Staff and the School Board, I propose to include this e-mail in my memorandum to the City Commission and ask that they approve a reduction of the sales price to the School Board set forth in the Interlocal Agreement. Please let me know if this recalculation is acceptable. i r e N Ocoee ,.-::5--,-.., .--7,------ t ; 1 , A. , , i . •/I ,„,, --=K,,,s , , / 4 i 1 ip 4 ipirr i \-• 1/4 \-ss,,,.,..:-, , --.,,, I 1 .110 IIF I I la _-___ • °I.0\<•, ,/' 4, ..,_. '.. • , v '-- DF G WV _ II • i OCOEE PROPERTY FEASIBILITY STUDY Planning Report October 25, 2000 Spillis Candela DMIM %,.ry170:,,F.Lt.o.N:PIAVViC OJEWN, VIM k.„-------' (...* REAL ESTATE ESEARCH . COMMIS Ocoee Property Feasibility Study Planning Report 1 City of Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 1 Executive Summary ' This Ocoee Feasibility Study Planning Report outlines and evaluates the market and development potential for approximately 243 acres of usable property located on Lake Apopka, near Ocoee-Apopka Road and Fullers Cross Road for the City of Ocoee. The project analyzes the site and development program as outlined by the City; evaluates .site opportunities and constraints; conducts a market analysis for probable uses on the site; proposes development scenarios based on the market analysis, development program and site conditions; and evaluates infrastructure requirements for the proposed development. A major player in the development program is the Orange County School Board which seeks 115 acres for a variety of uses including a high school, elementary school, work force education, bus parking area and supporting infrastructure for these uses. The objective of this report is to describe the components of the feasibility study in a concise manner. The analyses and concepts for the development scenarios are presented in a self-explanatory'and easy-to-understand graphical format to avoid ambiguity. The development casts are evaluated and a financial analysis completed to analyze the development feasibility from both an economic and planning standpoint. The results of the study indicate that the City of Ocoee should pursue the acquisition of the property and take necessary steps to maximize the potential of this site as outlined in this report. The following map shows the preferred development scenario, which came about through a comprehensive process of discussion between the project team, authorities and consultants. ' Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 2 City of Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report • Contents 1 Executive Summary 1 2 Introduction and Background 3 3 The Site and Development Program 6 4 Site Opportunities and Constraints 8 5 Market Analysis 10 6 Development Scenarios 32 7 Ecological Assessment and Infrastructure Analysis 38 8 Preliminary Financial Analysis 58 9 Next Steps 63 10 Appendix 64 Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 3 2 Introduction and Background INTRODUCTION The City of Ocoee wishes to evaluate the market and development potential associated with 243.3 acres of usable property located on Lake Apopka, near Ocoee-Apopka Road and Fullers Cross Road. The western beltway and the West Orange Trail cross the property in question. The Orange County Public Schools (OOPS) seeks 115 acres for a variety of uses including a high school, elementary school, work force education, bus parking/maintenance area and supporting infrastructure for these uses. The Consultant team including Spillis Candela DMJM (Spillis), Herbert Halback Inc. (HHI), Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. (VHB), and Real Estate Research Consultants (RERC) were assigned with the task of performing an evaluation of the property, estimate the financial and economic benefits the City might derive from the property(s), derive development scenarios for the most appropriate uses in addition to preparing graphic representations of a site analysis, market analysis, and potential development scenarios. The primary objectives of the study is to: • Analyze the site and development program • Evaluate site opportunities and constraints • Perform a market analysis and feasibility study to suggest the most appropriate uses and yields • Develop two alternate development scenarios based on the development program, market analysis, and site study • Assess ecological constraints and estimate the infrastructure requirements for the development scenarios based on the present level of service The purpose of this report is to explain concisely the various plan elements mentioned above. The analyses and concepts in this report are presented in a self-explanatory, easy to understand graphical format to avoid ambiguity. Though the entire project was done as a team Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 4 - •effort by all the consultants working together, primary tasks were assigned to each consultant based on their area of expertise. Spillis Candela DMJM .(Spillis) the primary consultant functioned as the project manager, Herbert•Halback (HHI) functioned as the land use and recreational planner, besides being primarily responsible for the graphic presentation, maps, and compilation of the planning report. Real Estate Research (RERC) provided the market analysis and feasibility study for the project, and Vanasse Hagen Brustlin (VHB) provided an engineering overview of environmental and transportation impacts. VHB has also evaluated access and utilities for the potential development scenarios. THE STUDY PROCESS, SITE VISIT AND MEETINGS The entire project was scheduled to be completed in 63 days beginning June 28th, 2000. One of the first exercises completed was a field visit to the site by all parties concerned including the consultants, staff and authorities (project team). The project team responsible for reviewing and directing the progress of the project consisted .of the Mayor, City Manager, City Attorney, Community Relations Director, Director of Planning, City of Ocoee Engineering, Utilities and Transportation staff, and staff representing OCPS, besides the consultants. Periodic meetings, presentations and discussions were held on July 20th, August 3ro, August 17th 2000, September 7th 2000, and October 18th with the project team to generate the best results. Besides regular meetings with the project team (minutes of which are in the appendix), the consultant team met together on different occasions, at important stages of the project, namely, opportunities and constraints, market analysis and preliminary planning scenarios, and development scenarios in a workshop arrangement to discuss and formulate the most appropriate concepts for the development of the property. The preferred development scenario was derived based on the comments from the project team and the financial analysis was worked out following this process. As part of the process, the consultants also attended City Commission meetings to get a thorough understanding of the issues and background to this project and other activities within the City. The flow chart on the next page illustrates the process adopted to execute this study project. The next section describes the site characteristics and development program. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study Planning Report 5 City/OCPS Program >1 Preliminary Discussions with Staff/Authorities Suggested Uses and Yields Field Study Site and Infrastructure Market Analysis Site Analysis Infrastructure Analysis Site Opportunities and Constraints Presentation to Project Team Staff Review Consultant Team Workshop/Meeting V Preliminary Market Analysis/Planning Scenarios Presentation to Project Team Staff Review Consultant Team Workshop/Meeting V Development Scenarios 1 &2 Presentation to Project Team Staff Review Consultant Team Workshop/Meeting V Development Costs and Implementation Strategy Staff Review Consultant Team Workshop/Meeting V Preferred Development Scenario Staff Review Consultant Team Workshop/Meeting V Financial Analysis >I Project Completion Study Process Flow Chart Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 6 3. The Site and Development Program SITE CHARACTERISTICS The property popularly-known as the Coca-Cola property is located adjacent to Lake Apopka. The total site area under consideration is 368.9 acres, of which 243.3 acres is usable. Various vegetation associations and landscape descriptions are observed within and adjacent to the property. A coniferous plantation encompasses the majority of the property. Wetland areas also occur within the site boundary. Inactive gopher tortoise burrows and scats are observed in the northwestern boundary. The West Orange Trail, a major recreational resource, crosses the site diagonally. The site is ideally located for development and is accessed by three major roads, namely, the Western Beltway, Ocoee Apopka Road and Fullers Cross Road. New development such as the proposed Avanti residential and nonresidential development is likely to spur substantial growth in the area. As is typical with most development there will be unavoidable impacts to wetlands by roads and other development. Opportunities for mitigation and on-site wetland creation are to be pursued as a priority. The following graphic shows an aerial photograph with the properties and major site features marked on it. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 7 CITY OF OCOEE'S DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The total acreage of usable land under consideration totals to 243.3 acres. The City of Ocoee in association with OCPS has proposed a development program for 170 acres. This leaves a net of 73.3 acres for other development. The following is the break up of uses proposed by the City and OCPS. High School 60 acres Elementary School 15 acres Bus Parking Area 25 acres Flex Site (Work Force Education) 15 acres Police Range/Fire Station 15 acres Park (Dry Area Only) 40 acres Total 170 Acres The net area remaining land area available for other uses to be determined by the market analysis totals to 73.3 acres. The next section describes the site opportunities and constraints taking into consideration key parameters developed to evaluate the site. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 8 4. Site Opportunities and Constraints OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The site opportunities and constraints are analyzed based on appropriate criteria used to assess the site's overall suitability for development. The five planning and feasibility criteria deemed most important for this property are, property location; relative position; perceived market opportunities; regulatory conditions; and development suitability. The following tables present the opportunities and constraints for each of the criteria mentioned above. Property Location Opportunity Constraint • Large growth area • Local access to the road system • Good access and visibility to the western beltway • Access to West Orange Trail • Restoration of lakefront properties • Wetlands perceived as a permanent nature amenity Relative Position Opportunity Constraint • Proposed residential and nonresidential • Acquisition of properties to facilitate easy developments by Avanti at the north side of access the site • Mitigation to provide access and • Other proposed development projects in infrastructure the vicinity Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 9 Perceived Market Opportunities Opportunity Constraint • Average population growth of • Regulatory and mitigation limitations approximately 3.1% in the area • Continued growth of annual household incomes in the area • Increased traffic and potential for commercial along the western beltway • Present demand for single-family residential, multi-family residential and low intensity commercial Regulatory Conditions Opportunity Constraint • Once annexed, the city of Ocoee can • Not within the city of Ocoee facilitate zoning and regulations to promote • Agreement for bringing utilities within the development site • Level of commitment to intergovernmental • Swapping utilities between Orange County and local agreement and City of Ocoee • Wetlands mitigation and dealing with • Wetlands mitigation and dealing with agencies as the'Friends of Apopka' agencies as the'Friends of Apopka' • West Orange Trail location issues Development Suitability Opportunity Constraint • Excellent site, soil and topographic • Location of West Orange Trail and Winter conditions Garden Utilities • Situated among existing or proposed • Wetland crossings projects • Relocation of endangered species • Fairly flat and easily clearable site • Possible EPA issues • Direct access to and from existing roadways The following graphic representation explains the site opportunities and constraints. The next section describes the market analysis and feasibility study taking into consideration the site, its location, and general economic conditions in the region. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 10 5. Market Analysis Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. (RERC), Spillis Candela, Herbert .Halback, and Vanasse Hangen Brustin were retained by the City of Ocoee to provide general real estate development opportunities in or near the Coca-Cola property. The Coca-Cola property is generally located northwest of the intersection of Fullers Cross Road and Ocoee-Apopka Road, in Ocoee, Florida. The property totals 243 usable acres and is divided into the following parcels: Parcel 62-146*: Useable Acres NW Remainder 1 180.1 NW Remainder 2A 20.8 200.9 NW Remainder 2B 7 NE Remainder 1 9 NE Remainder 2 17.1 Total 62-146 " .234 Parcel 62-135 9.3 Grand Total 243.3 *Refer to site characteristics map in section 3. Most of this land is located in a 200-acre parcel west of the Western Expressway that is bisected by the West Orange Trail. SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY AREA RERC obtained pertinent socio-economic data for the Coca-Cola property study area. The study area can be generally described as the area within a two-mile radius of the intersection of Fullers Cross Road and Ocoee-Apopka Road. Demographic data was obtained from Claritas. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 11 The demographic data from Claritas was used for the retail and service demand model, to arrive at some conclusions regarding additional demand for retail and services for the subject property. The City of Ocoee Planning Department also provided demographic information. MARKET AREA RERC obtained pertinent market data for the Northwest Orange County Area. This area can be generally described as the area bounded by McCormick Road to the north, Good Homes Road and Apopka Vineland Road to the east, 9th Street to the west, and West Colonial Drive to the south. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE WITHIN STUDY AREA Although demographic information is important in ascertaining an area's development potential, it must be screened carefully, particularly within a very small area where the margin of error can be high. In census years, such data is assumed extremely accurate. As the census ages, however, its reliability declines and interim estimates must be judged in the context of observed activity or other indicators. In high growth areas, for example, a conservative bias tends to undercount population. As mentioned earlier, we use Claritas as our source of current and projected demographic data. The information is based on census data and is generally accepted by the development industry as an analytical benchmark. While recognizing the problems attendant to this and similar data sources, it provides perspective on underlying social influences. Applied with understanding, the data is useful to establish the parameters likely to govern development outcomes. Outlined below is the general demographic profile within the study area: • Expected continued growth in population, about 3.1% annually from 2000 to 2005. 2000 5-Yr Projected 19,837 23,065 Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 12 • Expected continued growth in number of households, about 3.2% annually from 2000 to 2005. 2000 5-Yr Projected 6,409 7,505 • Average household income is also projected to increase, about 4.1% annually from 2000 to 2005. 2000 5-Yr Projected $51,693 $63,109 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE ORLANDO MARKET AREA Retail Development The greater Orlando region entered the year 2000 with a robust retail market rapidly expanding in all directions. Almost 3 million square feet opened for the first time in 1999, and it was concentrated in the southwest and southeast sectors of the region. However, over the past three years, major new mall development or expansion has caused significant growth of anchored retail projects in the northwest, northeast, southeast, and southwest quadrants. The retail construction boom since 1996 has propelled Orlando to new heights of construction and absorption. The construction and success of the West Oaks Mall in the Ocoee area illustrates this boom. Surprisingly, this development boom has seen overall occupancy rates rise, as new stores and new players have entered the local market to help fill the new space. New stores such as Staples, Lowe's, Parisian, Saks, Pottery Barn, FAO Schwarz, and Restoration Hardware have added new interest in established centers, and more new merchandising powerhouses are on the way with Bloomingdale's, Macy's, and Nordstrom's. 1999 was the strongest year of construction ever seen in the Orlando marketplace, following a strong year in 1998, as well. In fact, the average annual construction of the 1998-1999 time Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 13 period has been almost 90 percent above the average annual construction of the 1991-1997 period. At the same time, net absorption has been exceeding additions to inventory, resulting in rising occupancy rates in most sectors of the market. Since 1996, demand has averaged.2.6 million square feet per year, compared to 1.5 million during the 1991-1995 time period. This explosion of demand has been largely the product of new mall construction in Ocoee, Oviedo, Sanford, and the southwest sector. With the overall occupancy rate hovering around 90 percent for the past three years, it is obvious that the market is absorbing the rapid build up of retail space. Despite the volume of new construction, the southwest quadrant of the region enjoys the highest occupancy rates, ranging from 94 to 98 percent. The International Drive, Sand Lake Road, South US 441, John Young Parkway, Kissimmee, South Orange, and Southwest Orange County sub-markets are the most occupied areas in the region. The Ocoee area has enjoyed an 87 percent occupancy rate. Conversely, the Winter Park, West Colonial, and Apopka areas are experiencing the lowest occupancies, currently below 80 percent. In the Union Park area, occupancy rates are lower due to recent construction activity. The Orlando market area has absorbed about 2,100,000 square feet of retail space, with the Sand Lake sub-market absorbing the most with about 1,100,000 square feet. The Ocoee sub- market has absorbed about 77,000 square feet. Office Development The Orlando market area continues to enjoy the influx of office development. Since 1995, the Orlando market area has continued to grow — from about 23,000,000 square feet in 1995 to about 29,000,000 square feet in 1999. 1999 was the strongest year in construction, with an additional 2,800,000 square feet of office development. Occupancy rates have been hovering around 90 percent for the past five years. The Apopka and Disney sub-markets have enjoyed about 100 percent occupancy in the past three years. Conversely, the Sanford sub-market has suffered the lowest occupancy rate in 1999—with about 79 percent. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 14 Absorption within the Orlando market area totaled just over 2,000,000 square feet in 1999. The Apopka and Disney sub-markets absorbed 0 square feet and about 249,000 square feet in 1999, respectively. Residential Development In regards to the residential market, the Orlando area has generally enjoyed an increasing number of household construction starts. Single-family (production homes) construction starts have increased from about 6,400 units in 1995 to about 9,700 in 1999. However, the Northwest Orange County sub-market area (which Ocoee is a part of) has not enjoyed the same level of increase. In fact, the numbers have decreased since 1995, from 980 to 540 in 1999. However, this sub-market is showing signs of resurgence with the number of planned construction starts in the area. These planned projects have average lot sizes with about a 70-75 foot width, and with densities falling between the two to four units per acre. With the recent opening of the Western Beltway — Part A, more single-family 'residential (production homes) construction is envisioned to come in this area. Single-family (custom homes) construction starts have remained about the same in the Orlando area, at about 1,000 units annually. The Northwest Orange County sub-market area has accounted for about ten percent of the Orlando area's single-family (custom homes) construction starts since 1995. Multi-family for sale construction starts in the Orlando area has also increased since 1995, from about 260 units to 500 in 1999. The Northwest Orange County sub-market area have accounted for about four to six percent of the Orlando area's multi-family for sale construction starts. CHARACTER OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN MARKET AREA We profiled the character of the existing development within the Northwest Orange County Market Area. This area can generally be described as the area bounded by McCormick Road to the north, Good Homes Road and Apopka Vineland Road to the east, 9th Street to the west, and Ocoee Property Feasibility Study Planning Report 15 West Colonial Drive to the south. We reviewed Residential Market Reports by Charles Wayne Consulting, interviewed City of Ocoee, City of Winter Garden, and Orange County Planning Staff, as well as performed field verifications within the specified market area. Specifically, we reviewed existing single-family development (production and custom-built) and multi-family residential, retail development, industrial development, and office development. • Residential development: 1. Single Family Production - typical lot size=74 x 120 - avg. size of project = 30 acres - avg. number of units= 68 - density range=2-4 units per acre - avg. range of prices = low$100,000's to $130,000's - avg. #of closings (1995-1999) =200 units/year - low#of closings (1995-1999) = 141 units/year - high#of closings (1995-1999) =216 units/year 2. Single Family Custom - typical lot size =94 x 138 - avg. size of project = 36 acres - avg. number of units = 76 - density range= 1-3 units per acre - avg. range of prices = $125,000's to $170,000's - avg. #of closings (1995-1998) = 35 units/year - low#of closings (1995-1998) = 20 units/year - high#of closings (1995-1998) =49 units/year 3. Multi-Family (1995-2000) - •avg. size of project= 19 acres - avg. number of units =261 - monthly rental range = $560- $680 - occupancy rate = 96% - 1999-2000 absorption = 113 units Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 16 • Retail development: -More than 60% of the total retail space in the area was constructed after 1995. -The recent boom was fueled almost exclusively by the construction of the West Oaks Mall (which is supported by a population drawn from a much larger market area). -As the mall has stabilized, many new retailers have been attracted to the West Colonial and Clarke Road area. • Industrial development: -Almost 70% of the total industrial space in the areas was constructed pre-1980. -There has been very little industrial space of significance constructed in the last five years. • Office development: -There has not been significant office space construction in the area in the last twenty years. -A portion of the office space within the area is medical space, related to the support of Health Central. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 17 PROFILE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT • Residential development: There are a number of residential projects that have been proposed in the market area in the last two years, some of these projects include but are not limited to the following: ➢ Cambridge Village PUD (33 SF lots) > Forest Ridge (57 SF lots) > Glenfinnan Subdivision (76 SF lots) > The Vintage at Lake Lotta (199 apartment units) > Willows on the Lake (87 SF lots) > Fullers Crossing (100 SF lots) ➢ The Avanti Development (550 SF lots, plus some supporting commercial development) > Prairie Lakes"Tract E" (66 SF lots, 124 townhouse lots) There are also numerous residential development projects immediately outside the market area. More specifically, the area south of West Colonial Drive is enjoying the influx of new projects (under construction and proposed) such as, but not limited to the following: ➢ Stoneybrook West (1,500 residential units) > Lake Reams (2,000 residential units) > Lake Sawyer(1,200 residential units) ➢ Village of Bridgewater(2,300 residential units) • Retail development: There are existing proposals for new commercial development, some of these include but are not limited to the following: > Silver Crossing (51,000 SF Publix, 17,000 SF retail) > Wal-Mart Supercenter(209,000 SF building, with outparcels) > West Oaks Town Center(114,000 SF) Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 18 ➢ Walgreen's, as part of the Olympia PUD • Other Non-residential development: ➢ Red Roof Inn (38,000 SF, 83 rooms) ➢ Saturn of Ocoee (18,000 SF) ➢ First Union Park at Olympia PUD ➢ Waffle House ➢ Pizza Hut ➢ Hess Gas Station (Plantation Grove on Maguire Road) > Winter Garden Amphitheater(10,000 person capacity, SW Corner of Plant Street interchange with the Western Beltway) RETAIL DEMAND • Based on the data from Claritas, RERC used an expenditure-driven retail demand model to estimate the demand for additional retail within the study area. It is important to understand that even if the retail demand model indicates that certain segments of demand for the retail study area not being met, this does not necessarily mean that additional retail square footage should be added into the study area. This is because demand for some of these retail segments is met outside of the study area in places such as regional shopping malls and/or power centers. In comparing the current retail business inventory in the study area and the outputs from the retail demand model, some opportunities and constraints are presented. These are discussed below. Opportunities: Food Stores—Currently, there are seven grocery stores that are within about five miles of the subject property. There are two Publix Stores located along West Colonial, and one on Maguire Road. Additionally, there is a Winn-Dixie Store (Lake Olympia Square), an Albertson's Store on Silver Star Road, and two Food Lion stores (Ocoee Plaza and Winter Garden Plaza). However, these grocery stores seem to be serving existing households located east, northeast, south, and southwest of the study area. The current number of households within the study area could Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 19 potentially support 98,000 square feet of grocery store demand. Therefore there might be an opportunity to expand this segment of the retail trade. Eating and Drinking Places — No substantial amount of eating and drinking places exist within the study area. According to the retail demand model, the number of households within the study area could support about 156,500 square feet of eating and drinking places. However, it is important to note that there is a substantial amount of supply of eating and drinking places south of the subject property, along West Colonial Drive, that could capture most of the demand. Drug and Proprietary Stores — According to the retail model, the current number of households within the two-mile radius of the subject property could support about 25,000 square feet of drug and proprietary stores. Similar to the situation with Food Stores, there are also numerous drug and proprietary stores that are somewhat near the study area. Also similar to the Food Store situation, these drug and proprietary stores seem to be serving existing households located east, south, and southwest of the subject property and thus there may be an opportunity to expand this segment of the retail trade. Miscellaneous Retail Stores —This group includes retail establishments such as drug stores, liquor stores, used merchandise stores, miscellaneous shopping goods stores (sporting goods, jewelry, hobbies and games, etc.), non-store retailers, fuel dealers, and miscellaneous retail stores, not elsewhere classified. According to the retail demand model, the number of households within the study area could support about 116,000 square feet of miscellaneous retail stores. Considering the existing facilities within West Oaks Mall and freestanding stores along West Colonial Drive, we foresee some opportunities for some miscellaneous retail stores of neighborhood scale. Constraints: General Merchandise Group Stores - This segment in the retail trade includes department stores, variety stores, and general stores. However, the West Oaks Mall and additional general merchandise stores nearby capture most of the demand for this particular retail segment. Therefore, we do not foresee the need for this type of store within the study area. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 20 Furniture, Home Furnishings, and Equipment Stores — There are no furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores within the study area. Again the demand for this segment of the retail trade is most likely captured immediately outside of the study area along West Colonial Drive from freestanding furniture stores and from stores that are within the West Oaks Mall. Therefore, we do not foresee the need for this type of store within the study area. Building Materials, Hardware & Garden Supply Dealers — Most of the demand for this segment of the retail trade is most likely captured immediately outside of the study area along West Colonial Drive with stores such as Lowe's and Home Depot, thus we do not foresee the need for this type of store within the study area. Apparel and Accessory Stores — The West Oaks Mall and other freestanding apparel and accessory stores found in retail centers along West Colonial Drive capture most of the demand. We do not foresee expanding this segment of the retail trade within the study area. RETAIL DEMAND ADJUSTMENT • There are no significant retail centers within the study area. However, there are eight retail centers with greater than 15,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA) within approximately a three-mile radius from the intersection of Fullers Cross Road and Ocoee- Apopka Road. Table 3 in the Market Analysis Appendix at the end of this section profiles these centers, which have the following characteristics: ➢ There is a total of approximately 577,000 square feet.of GLA. ➢ One center was built in 1973, four were built between 1980-1989, and three were built between 1990-1995. . ➢ There are four major grocery stores totaling approximately 160,000 square feet. Two are Food Lions, one is a Winn Dixie, and one is an Albertson's. In order to estimate the impact that these existing centers have on the overall retail demand in the study area, we assigned a subjective weighting to each center based upon their distance Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 21 from the site, the tenant mix, and the ease of access into the center. Generally, the percentage impact on the study area for each center ranged from 10-20 percent. With these assumptions in place, we adjusted the retail demand model as follows: 2000 Retail Demand Impact From Net (2 Mile Radius) Existing Centers Demand Convenience Goods Food Stores 98,000 38,200 59,800 Eating and Drinking Places 156,500 5,200 151,300 Drug and Proprietary Stores 25,000 6,800 18,200 Total Convenience Goods 279,000 50,200 229,300 This table illustrates that there is still ample demand in most categories for additional retail development. Demand for additional retail within the study area will most likely increase, as the population and the number of households increases within the next five years. Assuming that other major retail development does not occur within the study area, the net demand figures will be as illustrated below: 2005 Retail Demand Impact From Net (2 Mile Radius) Existing Centers Demand Convenience Goods Food Stores 140,000 38,200 101,800 Eating and Drinking Places 224,000 5,200 218,800 Drug and Proprietary Stores 36,000 6,800 29,200 Total Convenience Goods 400,000 50,200 349,800 Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 22 There are seven additional retail centers in the West Colonial Drive area, which could also impact demand. These centers are also profiled in Table 3 and have the following characteristics: > There is a total of approximately 1,717,000 square feet of GLA. This includes over 1,000,000 square feet from the West Oaks Mall. > One center was built in 1987, two between 1990-1995, and four within 1996-1999. ➢ There are three major grocer stores — all of which are Publix stores — totaling approximately 146,000 square feet. • The impact of these retail centers on the demand in our study area is minimal, and should not drastically affect the projected demand numbers as illustrated in the table above. This is due to these centers' distance from the study area, the tenant mix, and the ease of access into these centers. • This analysis indicates that at this time there is ample retail demand remaining for new projects within the study area. The Coke study property should be able to capture at least a portion of this demand. SERVICE DEMAND Based on the population data from Claritas, RERC used a service demand model to estimate the demand for additional service-oriented businesses within the study area. In comparing the current inventory in the study area and the data from the service demand model, some opportunities and constraints are presented. These are discussed below. Opportunities: Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate — This segment of the service trade represents banks, commodity brokers and services, insurance carriers, and real estate services. The service demand model suggests that about 220,000 square feet of finance, insurance, and real estate Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 23 services could be supported within the study area. Although there are numerous finance, insurance, and real estate facilities immediately south and east of the study area along West Colonial Drive and Silver Star Road, we foresee an opportunity for additional facilities, which could serve the immediate neighborhoods near the study area. Personal Services - The service demand model suggests that about 40,000 square feet of personal services could be supported within the study area. There are some personal service facilities nearby in the downtown Ocoee area, along West Colonial Drive, Clarke Road and Silver Star Road. However, we believe that there are some opportunities to expand this segment of the services trade within the study area. Medical Services—This segment of the service trade represents offices of physicians, dentists, osteopathic physicians, health practitioners, home healthcare, and health and allied services. Most of these services within the Ocoee-Winter Garden area can be found both within the Health Central facility and along West Colonial Drive. Although these facilities capture a significant amount of the demand from the study area (about 120,000 square feet), we foresee an opportunity to provide some medical services within the study area, which could serve the immediate neighborhoods. Social Services — This segment of the service trade includes Individual and Family Services, Job Training and Related Services, Residential Care, and Child Day Care Services. The service model estimates that there should be about 34,000 square feet of demand for social services within the study area. The presence of the Health Central facility and other facilities along West Colonial Drive indicate that these facilities are capturing most of the demand for social services in this general area. However, we foresee an opportunity to provide some social services within the study area, which could serve the immediate neighborhoods. Constraints: Legal Services —The services model suggests that about 42,000 square feet of legal services could be supported within the study area. There are no significant legal services facilities within the study area. This could be because of certain location criteria that legal professionals might Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 24 have—to be close to the central business district such as Downtown Orlando. Thus, we foresee limited opportunities for this type of service. Professional Services - This segment of the service trade, includes (but are not limited to) establishments providing engineering, architectural, surveying, and accounting and bookkeeping services. Currently, there is no significant square footage associated with professional services within the study area to capture the estimated demand of about 54,000 square feet. However, there appears to be adequate professional service facilities nearby the subject property, both within the City of Ocoee and Winter Garden, as well as numerous establishments in Orlando to capture the demand. ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNTIES AND CONSTRAINTS Residential — Our population estimates indicates an additional 3,200 people and about 1,100 households will be added within the study area by 2005. The proposed Avanti development, immediately north of the subject property, will include about 550 single-family lots and about 250 multi-family units. There are additional residential projects that are planned nearby the subject property including but is not limited to: - Fullers Crossing (100 SF lots) - Glenfinnan Subdivision (76 SF lots) Given the population projections, coupled with the recent opening of the Western Beltway, we foresee ample demand for some residential development within the subject property. The amount of residential development will be constrained by the available land after the public uses have been accommodated. In particular, single-family development will most likely need a minimum of approximately 35 to 40 acres (with infrastructure and retention areas). Multi-family development could be accommodated in 20 to 25 acre parcels (including infrastructure and retention areas). Lodging — Since the subject property does not have immediate access and visibility to an interchange off the Western Beltway, coupled with the availability of existing hotel products Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 25 along West Colonial Drive, we do not foresee adequate demand for additional lodging products within the study area in the near term. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE STUDY AREA Proposed uses for the site at this time are as follows: High School 60 Elementary School 15 Bus Parking Area 25 Flex Site (Work force education) 15 Police range/Fire station 15 Park (dry area only) 40 170 If the land requirements for these uses remain as noted above, there will be about 70 to 75 acres remaining for other development options. In our opinion, the 17-acre parcel to the south of the Western Beltway and east of Ocoee- Apopka Road could be a prime commercial development site. Immediately to the west of this parcel, across Ocoee-Apopka Road, is a seven-acre parcel that could potentially be marketed as commercial property. There are two other "outparcels" that are not a part of the main 200- acre piece noted earlier. There is a nine-acre parcel north of the Expressway and east of Ocoee-Apopka Road and another nine-acre parcel located south of Fullers Cross Road and east of the Expressway. Both of these parcels could potentially have access problems from the main roadway. However, if these parcels were available for development, only about 30 acres would remain for other users within the main 200-acre property. To summarize, potential development parcels could include: Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 26 Coke Land Parcels Useable Acres NE Remainder 1 9.0 NE Remainder 2 17.1 NW Remainder 2B 7.0 Parcel 62-135 9.3 NW Remainder 1 & NW Remainder 2A 30.9 73.3 For sale residential development has shown strong historic growth, averaging 200 to 250 new units absorbed into the market in recent years. Our demographic analysis indicates that the study area can expect to average about 220 units per year over the next five years. This indicates there is a near term need for residential land in this area. However, because the parcels within the Coke property that are available for development are relatively small in size, it may not be possible to market land for significant single family residential development. On the other hand, multi-family residential development could still be accommodated on-site. _- Retail land uses account for about 60% of total commercial development in the area. As noted earlier, most of this was added after 1995 as a result of the West Oaks Mall. Most of this activity is along West Colonial Drive and Clarke Road. We would expect neighborhood retail development to begin to extend north within the study area as more residential units are added. Only about 1% of total commercial development in the study area is related to office users. The opening of the Western Expressway may make this area more conducive to office development, but that would most likely be a long-term development option. Industrial development accounts for about 38% of overall commercial activity in the area. However, almost all of that space was added prior to 1990. Light industrial users may find the area to be more attractive in the future, particularly after the Western Expressway is connected to the Florida Turnpike. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study Planning Report 27 GENERAL LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS Outlined below are potential_land use opportunities and recommendations for general location and timing: Food Stores—There is a five-year projected growth in demand of about 42,000 square feet for food stores from 2000 (98,000 square feet) to 2005 (140,000 square feet) within the study area. As mentioned earlier, we feel that the existing food stores within five miles of the subject property are serving existing households located east, northeast, south, and southwest of the subject property. The existing and projected demand for food stores could be accommodated within the subject property with a typical grocery store of about 50,000 to 60,000 square feet. We foresee this absorption to take place within the next six years, assuming residential development occurs as proposed in nearby land parcels. This could be located within the NE Remainder 2 and NE Remainder 2B parcels. Eating and Drinking Places — We believe there is ample demand for additional eating and drinking places. Between.2000 and 2005, the demand for eating and drinking places within the study area is projected to grow from 156,000 square feet to 224,000 square feet. However, the increasing demand should be balanced with the availability of land and/or space for such facilities, as well as existing facilities along West Colonial Drive that captures a portion of the demand. Given the current mix of land uses and total land and building area, we recommend an additional 15,000 to 20,000 square feet of eating and drinking places. These could be located within the NE Remainder 2 and NE Remainder 2B parcels. The eating and drinking places should take advantage of the projected amount of vehicular traffic, the ease of access from major thoroughfares, and the potential for ample parking that can be found in these parcels. In regards to the timing, we recommend a gradual-phasing program of about 3,000-5,000 square feet a year to accommodate the demand growth potential within the next six years. Drug and Proprietary Stores—Our projections estimates the current demand of about 25,000 square feet will grow to about 36,000 by 2005 within the study area. This demand could be accommodated by a typical sized drugstore of about 10,000-15,000 square feet. This drugstore could be absorbed within the next six years and could be located within the NE Remainder 2, NE Remainder 2B parcels, or NE Remainder 1. . Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 28 Miscellaneous Retail Stores —We foresee some opportunities for some miscellaneous retail stores of neighborhood scale — about 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. These stores could be absorbed within the next six years and could be located within the NE Remainder 2, NE Remainder 2B parcels, or NE Remainder 1. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Services — Since there is an abundant supply of this segment of the service trade along West Colonial Drive, we recommend neighborhood scale ' facilities that could, serve the immediate neighborhoods. We recommend 5,000-10,000 square feet of finance, insurance, and real estate services. These facilities could be located in NE Remainder 2, NE Remainder 2B parcels, or NE Remainder 1. Personal Services — The service demand model suggests that there should be about 40,000 square feet of demand for personal services within a two-mile radius of the subject property. This estimated demand is also projected to increase to about 46,000 square feet by 2005. There are some personal services facilities nearby along West Colonial Drive, Clarke Road and Silver Star Road. However, we believe that there are some opportunities to expand this segment of the services trade within the study area. We recommend about 5,000 to 10,000 square feet of personal services facilities that could be absorbed between 2004-2010. Again, these facilities could be located in NE Remainder 2, NE Remainder 2B parcels, or NE Remainder 1. Medical Services — There is a five-year projected growth of about 19,000 square feet for medical service-oriented offices, within the study area. As mentioned earlier, most of the current and projected demand would be captured by the Health Central facility and other medical facilities along West Colonial Drive. However, we foresee adequate demand for a neighborhood scale medical service facility within the subject property. We recommend around 5,000 square feet of neighborhood based medical service facilities (family doctor, dentist) that could be absorbed between 2004-2010. These facilities could be absorbed after the planned households are built and could be located in NE Remainder 2, NE Remainder 2B parcels, or NE Remainder 1. They could also be located in Parcel 62-135 if the access issues can be resolved. Social Services—With the projected increase of households within the study area, we foresee demand for some social service facilities such as a child day care center. We recommend a Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 29 neighborhood scale social service facility of about 5,000 square feet, which could be absorbed after the planned households are constructed. These facilities could be located NE Remainder 2, NE Remainder 2B parcels, NE Remainder 1, or Parcel 62-135. These service facilities could be absorbed when the residential units are in place. Residential — Based on the current level and projected population growth, we foresee some residential product located within the main tract, which is located west of the Western Beltway. If the current development program remains, with the schools and other public uses on the main tract, there will be at least 30 acres remaining for any residential projects on site. Our review of historic single-family residential construction and sales in the Northwest Orange County area revealed that about 90-95 percent of homes were constructed on at least 70-foot lots, with the remaining on smaller lots (50-65 foot lots). Single-family residential development can take place within the next three years. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study Planning Report 30 GENERAL LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY TABLE Scale Description General Location (square feet) Timing Retail NE Remainder 1, NE Remainder 2 or 2B 80,000-100,000 MT Food Stores Eating and Drinking Places Drug Stores Miscellaneous Retail Services/Office NE Remainder 1,NE Remainder 2 or 2B,Parcel 62-135 20,000-30,000 MT-LT Finance,Insurance,Real Estate Personal Services Medical Social Services Residential NW Remainder 1 NW Remainder 2A Single Family 60-120 units NT Multi-Family - 250-400 units MT (NT) Near term =within next three years (2000-2003) (MT) Midterm =after the first three years (2004-2006) (LT) Long Term = after the mid-term period (2007-2010) We estimated the range of acres needed to accommodate the above development program based on assumed floor area ratios (FAR) and residential units per acre. These are illustrated below: Square Feet or . Density Per Acre or Acres Units FAR Commercial Retail/Service/Office 100,000-130,000 .15- .18 13-18 Residential: • Single Family 60-120 4.0 15-30 • Multi Family 250-400 17.0 15-24 Total 43-72 • This table illustrates that, assuming the higher end of the development program, private sector land uses could total just over 70.acres. This should in effect utilize virtually all of the property's excess capacity after netting out the proposed public sector users. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study Planning Report 31 A more specific estimate of land sale timing will be included in our financial analysis. However, we believe near term demand exists for single-family residential development, with commercial development,following after additional households are added in the study area. Although the area could ultimately experience demand for higher density single-family homes, we do not see that happening within the foreseeable future. The multi-family development noted above would. most likely be for rent product. Again, we do not believe the Ocoee market will accept for sale multi-family product within our development horizon. The market analysis appendix shows supporting information in a series of tables used to derive these results. The following graphic representation explains the preliminary market analysis and planning scenarios. The next section describes two development scenarios based on the market analysis and other site considerations. Market Analysis Appendix Table 1 Orlando Metro Area Retail Market Overview-1999 Total Occupied Submarket Inventory Inventory Construction Occupancy Absorption Apopka 1,915,253 1,477,932 0 77.17% -156,367 Casselberry 2,159,737 1,852,265 11,000 85.76% -134,831 Conway 1,801,353 1,652,551 0 91.74% 36,335 East Altamonte Spgs 2,500,516 2,285,372 0 92.02% 34,274 East Colonial 3,186,460 3,028,572 0 95.05% -39,633 International Drive 3,282,297 3,169,621 141,134 96.57% 80,530 John Young 1,249,929 1,186,317 373,473 94.91% 364,113 Kissimmee 3,365,009 3,200,616 143,026 95.11% 81,942 Lake Mary 1,162,297 1,126,417 0 96.91% 10,295 Longwood 991,307 835,354 62,909 84.27% -16,712 Ocoee 2,682,221 2,331,769 85,000 86.93% 76,595 Oviedo 2,139,194 2,054,390 0 96.04% 68,945 Pine Hills 1,673,681 1,422,075 86,400 84.97% 61,202 Sand Lake 4,526,838 4,274,292 1,099,554 94.42% 1,095,030 Sanford 2,361,930 2,129,676 31,000 90.17% 166,397 SOBT 813,532 733,674 0 90.18% 24,342 South Orange 654,805 625,485 0 95.52% 28,067 Southwest 830,555 816,429 0 98.30% 30,000 Union Park 1,906,373 1,345,933 884,209 70.60% 375,898 University 747,439 709,683 0 94.95% -4,336 West Altamonte Spgs 2,160,630 1,992,871 0 92.24% -34,283 West Colonial 2,708,284 '2,060,347. 0 76.08% -213,706 Winter Park 2,520,956 1,933,356 10,000 76.69% 130,565 Square Feet 47,340,596 42,244,997 2,927,705 89.24% 2,106,014 Orlando Metro Area: Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. Real Estate Research Consultants,Inc. Final MA Aug 16 Table 2 Orlando Metro Area Office Market Overview- 1999 Total Occupied Submarket Inventory Inventory Construction Occupancy Absorption 436-50 428,187 406,246 20,200 94.88% 33,328 Airport 911,506 846,121 101,000 92.83% 75,012 Altamonte Springs 2,420,605 2,172,473 234,124 89.75% 192,938 Apopka 45,000 45,000 0 100.00% 0 Disney 971,323 971,323 0 100.00% 0 Downtown 5,809,399 5,395,630 337,000 92.88% 249,321 International Drive 1,565,312 1,504,799 81,414 96.13% 44,840 Kissimmee 574,400 560,000 38,000 97.49% 38,900 Koger 617,100 579,222 0 93.86% -18,775 Lake Mary 2,914,931 2,645,130 631,548 90.74% 533,633 Longwood 180,400 176,182 0 97.66% -4,218 Maitland Avenue 538,889 487,435 79,000 90.45% 50,036 Maitland Center 4,535,186 4,081,801 239,000 90.00% 89,309 Orlando Central Pk 1,824,093 1,530,926 144,852 83.93% 62,005 Sanford 126,500 99,500 0 78.66% -21,000 South Downtown 208,941 199,789 0 95.62% 20,848 University 2,609,733 2,449,333 791,983 93.85% 697,983 West Downtown 251,875 230,098 0 91.35% -16,452 Winter Park 2,340,463 2,167,827 92,000 92.62% 47,411 Square Feet 28,873,843 26,548,835 2,790,121 91.95% 2,075,119 Orlando Metro Area; Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. Real Estate Research Consultants,Inc. Final MA Aug 16 I. PROFILE OF SHOPPING CENTERS WITHIN 3 AND 5-MILE RADIUS Table 3 OF FULLERS CROSS ROAD AND OCOEE-APOPKA ROAD Within 3 Miles General Home Furn. Building Total Food Eating/ Drug Merchandise &Equipment Materials Apparel & Name Sq Ft Stores Drinking Stores Stores Stores Hardware Access. Albertson's Center 67,900 52,390 1,000 9,504 0 0 0 0 Lake Olympia Square 83,916 44,000 10,826 0 0 0 0 0 Ocoee Plaza 54,200 35,000 600 0 10,000 0 0 0 Scotty's 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 35,000 0 Towne Square 106,792 0 2,000 0 80,000 0 0 12,992 Tri City SC 53,480 9,100 2,000 0 34,880 0 0 2,000 -Village Marketplace 49,000 1,500 1,000 0 2,000 35,000 1,000 0 Winter Garden Plaza 127,191 30,000 0 13,191 70,000 2,000 6,000 0 Total 577,479 171,990 17,426 22,695 196,880 37,000 42,000 14,992 3-5 Miles General Home Furn. Building Total Food _ Eating/ Drug Merchandise &Equipment , Materials Apparel & Name Sq Ft Stores Drinking Stores Stores Stores Hardware Access. Circuit City Plaza 85,000 0 0 0 0 85,000 0 0 Good Homes Plaza 115,180 42,000 27,500 1,050 3,000 0 0 1,530 Lowe's Home Center 179,364 0 0 0 0 179,364 0 0 Plantation Groves 72,155 47,955 3,000 0 0 2,000 0 2,000 Sam's Club 123,430 0 0 0 123,430 0 0 0 West Oaks Mall 1,018,500 3,000 ' 29,000 3,000 701,000 3,000 0 80,000 Winter Garden Reg. SC 123,500 56,000 4,500 13,000 2,000 0 0 27,000 Total 1,717,129 148,955 64,000 17,050 829,430 269,364 0 . 110,530 Note: 1) F.I.R.E. Services = Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate Services Source: Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. 00-059/Retail Centers in Ocoee/Summary 1 PROFILE OF SHOPPING CENTERS WITHIN 3 AND 5-MILE RADIUS Table 3 OF FULLERS CROSS ROAD AND OCOEE-APOPKA ROAD Within 3 Miles (1) - - Misc. Retail F.I.R.E. Personal Medical Legal Social Prof. Name Stores Services . Services Services Services Services Services Albertson's Center 1,003 1,000 3,003 - 0 0 0 0 Lake Olympia Square 1,200 3,890 9,800 3,000 0 11,200 0 Ocoee Plaza 0 0 6,600 2,000 0 0 0 Scotty's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Towne Square 2,800 2,000 4,000 2,000 0 1,000 0 Tri City SC 2,300 0 3,200 0 0 0 0 Village Marketplace . 0 0 5,000 3,500 0 0 0 Winter Garden Plaza 0 0 3,000 3,000 0 0 0 Total 7,303 6,890 34,603 13,500 0 12,200 0 3-5 Miles (1) Misc. Retail F.I.R.E. Personal Medical Legal Social Prof. Name Stores Services Services Services Services Services Services Circuit City Plaza 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Good Homes Plaza 7,500 1,720 9,280 16,000 0 5,600 0 Lowe's Home Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plantation Groves. 3,000 1,000 11,200 2,000_ 0 0 0 Sam's Club - 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 West Oaks Mall 113,000 1,500 11,500 0 0 0 0 Winter Garden Reg. SC 6,000 2,000 12,000 0 0 1,000 0 Total 129,500 6,220 43,980 18,000 0 6,600 0 Source: Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. 00-059/Retail Centers in Ocoee/Summary ..SUMMARY OF RETAIL DEMAND GROWTH,2000 TO 2005 Table 4 __grade area bounded by 2-mile radius from Fullers Cross Rd. &Ocoee-Apopka Rd. 5-YEAR 2000 2005 GROWTH VARIABLES: Trade Area Households 6,409 7,505 1,096 Average Household E.B.I. $43,939 $53,643 $9,704 Total Household E.B.I.(000) $281,605 $402,588 $120,983 RETAIL DEMANDS (SF): CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores 97,962 140,048 42,086 Eating and Drinking Places 156,494 223,727 67,233 Drug and Proprietary Stores 25,390 36,298 10,908 Total CONVENIENCE GOODS 279,846 400,073 120,227 SHOPPER GOODS General Merchandise Group Stores 229,419 327,982 98,563 Furniture,Home Fum.,and Equip.Stores 51,680 73,882 22,203 Bldg.Mtls.,Hardware&Garden Supply Dirs. 75,157 107,446 32,289 Apparel and Accessory Stores 61,550 87,994 26,443 Miscellaneous Retail Stores 116,338 166,318 49,981 Total SHOPPER GOODS 534,144 763,622 229,478 TOTAL RETAIL DEMAND 813,990 1,163,695 349,705 Source:Real Estate Research Consultants,Inc.(RERC); 1992 Census of Retail Trade; 1997 Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers;Claritas Source:Real Estate Research Consultants,Inc. 00-059/DEM-RET summary/2 mi sum SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND F.I.R.E. Table 5 Trade Area Bounded by 2-mile radius from Fullers Cross Rd. &Ocoee-Apopka Rd. 5-YEAR 2000 2005 GROWTH VARIABLES: Trade Area Population 6,409 7,505 1,096 Orange County Population (1997 Only)= 712,637 F.I.R.E. 221,031 256,998 35,968 PERSONAL SERVICES 39,847 46,332 6,484 MEDICAL SERVICES 119,133 138,519 19,386 LEGAL SERVICES 42,582 49,511 6,929 SOCIAL SERVICES 34,280 39,858 5,578 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 54,037 62,830 8,793 'OTAL SERVICES AND F.I.R.E. DEMAND 510,910 594,048 83,138 Source:Real Estate Research Consultants,Inc.,County Business Patterns(1992);Florida Statistical Abstract; Claritas 00-059/Services Demand Model/Summary-2mi Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 32 6. Development Scenarios Two alternate development scenarios are shown here as a result of this study. The scenarios take into consideration the economic analysis, site characteristics, and infrastructure and transportation constraints. The facility programs for both the alternates are the same. They reflect OCPS's program, the City of Ocoee's program, and the uses and yields suggested by the market analysis. There are many common characteristics in both the development scenarios as a result of the constraints in the site and program. The primary factor for both the development scenarios is the facilitation of accesses to the site. The two major access points marked are; the first, along the Ocoee Apopka road on the North side, through the Avanti property, following the City's discussion with Avanti; and the second, along Fullers Cross Road on the South side. The general consensus was to retain the position and function of the West Orange Trail and integrate new trail offshoots connecting the trail to the conservation area meandering randomly through the proposed new development. The areas along the lake are reserved for conservation purposes. The proposed mitigation area South of the Coke property, which the city is proposing to annex, is also reserved as a conservation area. The general development pattern for both the scenarios is to locate commercial and public uses such as the fire station and public safety training facility adjacent to the major connectors namely the Western Beltway, Ocoee Apopka Road and the Fullers Cross Road. The yield for commercial suggested by the market analysis is approximately 15 to 18 acres, which can be distributed between the two properties on either side of Fullers Cross road, South of the Western Beltway. 15 acres along either side of Fullers Cross Road, North of the Western Beltway have been assigned to accommodate the public uses as outlined in the City's program. The proposed bus parking area consisting of 25 acres is appropriately located between the West Orange Trail and the Western Beltway., This facility' however needs to be adequately buffered to separate nonconforming uses, namely residential and schools. The major portion of the site is flat and is used to accommodate the City and School Board program. The market analysis estimates a yield of 50 acres for mixed residential. Adding a factor of 30% to accommodate infrastructure and roads, the total acreage marked for residential is'65 acres. The high school, elementary school and work force have been assigned for 60, 15 and 15 acres respectively, based on the program outlined by the City of Ocoee and OCPS. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 33. DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 1 Development Scenario 1 presents a major access running North-South dividing the site and continuing eastward at both ends to connect to the Ocoee Apopka Road to the north and Fullers Cross Road to the south. Apart from the similarities between the two development scenarios mentioned in the previous section, the primary concept here is to create separate areas for the different uses and locate them based on functional and economic reasons. The high school is located on the southeast corner, near the conservation area, and in proximity to the work force facility near the southern part of the trail. The residential area is located on the northern end, on both sides of the major access, in close relationship to the proposed Avanti residential area. The elementary school is located within the residential on the northern part of the site to facilitate easy access from both sides as well as the Avanti property. The majority of the parks facility is passive and located within the conservation area. However, a portion on the northwestern tip of the property is proposed for lake access and more active park uses. The common characteristics in both the development scenarios namely location of the access points into the site, trails, commercial areas, public uses, and bus parking are described in the previous section. The following map shows a graphical representation of Development Scenario 1. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 34 REVISED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 1 The following revisions to development scenario 1 were suggested at the August 17th project team meeting. • Consolidate the residential to one side of the site and change the program area from 65 to 50 acres. • Facilitate 40 acres for parks and recreation within the site. • Shift the work force education program to the site south of the proposed commercial sites. • Shift the main access route to match with the Avanti master plan. • Graphically show retention/buffer areas within program areas. These areas were allocated 15% of individual program areas. These changes were made to the development scenario and presented to the project team as the revised development scenario 1 at the September 7t' meeting. The following map shows a graphical representation of Revised Development Scenario 1. L Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 35 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 2 Development Scenario 2 presents a major access North-South forming a full loop in the middle of the site and continuing in an eastward at both ends to connect to the Ocoee Apopka Road to the north and Fullers Cross Road to the South. Apart from the similarities between the two development scenarios mentioned in the previous section, the primary concept here is to integrate the different uses and locate them so as to create a typical new-urban character. The high school facility becomes the primary focus of the site and is located within the 40 acre loop. The residential area is located on the northern end, on one side of the loop, in close relationship to the proposed Avanti residential area. The elementary school is located near the residential and park areas on the northern part of the site to facilitate easy access from both this and the Avanti properties. The majority of the parks facility is passive and located within the conservation area. However, a portion on the northwestern tip of the property is proposed for a lake access and more active park uses. The work force facility is located south of the bus parking area. The common characteristics in both the development scenarios namely location of the access points into the site, trails, commercial areas, public uses, and bus parking are described in the first section. The following map shows a graphical representation of Development Scenario 2. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 36 REVISED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 2 The following revisions to development scenario 2 were suggested at the August 17th project team meeting. • Consolidate the residential to one side of the site and change the program area from 65 to 50 acres. • Facilitate 40 acres of parks and recreation within the site. • Shift the work force education program to the site south of the proposed commercial sites. • Shift the main access route to match with the Avanti master plan. • Combine the high school program areas • Graphically show retention/buffer areas within program areas. These areas were allocated 15% of individual program areas. These changes were made to the development scenario and presented to the project team as the revised development scenario 1 at the September 7th meeting. The following map shows a graphical representation of Revised Development Scenario 2. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 37 PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO At the September 7th meeting of the project team, revised development scenario 1 with minor modifications was chosen as the preferred development scenario (shown in section 1 of this document). The development costs and financial analysis are prepared based on this scheme. The City also provided the consultants with revised survey information at the September 7th meeting. In the new survey, parcel areas for Workforce Education (3-as seen on the map) and Public Safety Training (20-as seen on the map) were less by 0.71 and 2.33 acres respectively from the original survey information, which showed 13 and 9 acres for these parcels. Upon review of the new parcel areas, it is appropriate that the location of the Fire Station (19-as seen on the map) and Public Safety Training (20-as seen on the map) be interchanged for the program areas to fit better with actual site areas. The Workforce Education (3-as seen on the map) program area can be accommodated in an area of 12.29 acres based on the new survey information. All other program areas shown in the preferred development scenario map fit the site and parcel areas. The next section provides a general overview of the ecological assessment and infrastructure analysis for the property. The section also outlines the preliminary infrastructure requirements needed to compliment the development scenarios. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 38 7. Ecological Assessment and Infrastructure Analysis ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT-INTRODUCTION The Coca-Cola Property is located in Sections 1 and 6, Township 22 South, Range 27 East, Orange County, Florida. The 368.9± acre site is physically located east of Lake Apopka in the City of Ocoee. Portions of the subject property are located east and west of County Road 437 and north and south of Fullers Cross Road (Figure 1 at the end of this section). The property is bisected by the Western Beltway and West Orange Trail and adjacent to lands used for agricultural activities including citrus farming. VHB Environmental Services Division, SE (VHB) performed a preliminary ecological constraints assessment of the above-referenced property. The purpose of the assessment is to provide: 1) a characterization of the type and extent of upland habitat types and approximate extent and configuration of areas expected to fall within the wetland regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the Orange County Environmental Protection Department (EPD); 2) a preliminary review for listed wildlife and plant species occurrence based on direct observation during the field survey; and 3) an overview of probable regulatory agency permitting requirements applicable to this project based on the information available. The field surveys were conducted on July 3 and 8, 2000. SITE DESCRIPTION Vegetation associations and habitat descriptions were identified from vertical aerial photography (Scale: 1" = 300'), the Soil Survey of.Orange County, Florida (USDA, 1981) and pedestrian and vehicular ground-truthing. Eight (8) habitat or land use classifications occur within the subject property boundaries. The habitats and land uses are classified in accordance with The Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), (FDOT 1985) and are delineated on Figure 2 (in section 3 of this document). Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 39 The following descriptive titles and FLUCFCS numerical designations characterize the subject property's habitats and land use. Recreational,West Orange Trail, FLUCFCS No. 180 (4.9 acres) Recreational areas are those areas whose physical structure indicates that active user-oriented recreation is or could be occurring within the given physical area. This classification describes the West Orange Trail. The West Orange Trail is a paved facility used by the public for walking, running, biking and skating. Open Land, FLUCFCS No. 190 (3.4 acres) This category includes undeveloped land within urban areas. Open Land normally does not exhibit any structures or any indication of intended use. Often, urban inactive land may be in a transitional state and ultimately will be developed into a typical urban land use. Although at the time of the inventory, the intended use may be impossible to determine. The areas classified as Open Land are fenced off and appear to have been used as a materials storage area during the construction of the Western Beltway. Coniferous Plantation, FLUCFCS No. 441 (249.6 acres) These are almost exclusively pine forests artificially generated by planting seedling stock or seeds. These stands are characterized by high numbers of trees per acre and their uniform appearance. Predominant species observed include slash pine (Pinus elliottii), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), lantana (Lantana sp.), American beauty berry (Callicarpa americana) and various grass and weed species. Ditch, FLUCFCS No. 510 (3.3 acres) This classification describes linear water bodies, ditches, used to convey water through the property. The ditches are vegetated with laurel oak, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), wild Taro (Colocasia esculenta) and various herbs and brush. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 40 Wetland Hardwood Forest, FLUCFCS No. 610 (3.8 acres) Wetland Hardwood Forests are those wetland areas, which meet the crown closure requirements for forestland and must be 66 percent or more dominated by wetland hardwood species. Elderberry (Sarnbucus canadensis), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), wax myrtle, Ceasar weed (Urena lobata), China berry (Melia azedarach), blackberry (Rubus sp.), laurel oak, chain fern (Woodwardia sp.) were also observed. These areas are heavily disturbed by historical land uses and are vegetated with exotic/nuisance species. Stream & Lake Swamps (Bottomland), FLUCFCS No. 615 (79.5 acres) This vegetative community, often referred to as bottomland or stream hardwoods, is usually found on but not restricted to river, creek and lake floodplain or overflow areas. It is a conglomeration of a wide variety of predominantly hardwood species of which some of the more common components include red.maple, water oak (Quercus niger), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), willow (Salix sp.), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. 'biflora), loblolly bay and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). Associated species include cypress (Taxodium sp.) and slash pine. Other species observed include.wax myrtle, gallberry (Ilex glabra), chain fern, cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), laurel oak, wild grape(Vitis sp.) and various herbs and grasses. Stream & Lake Swamps (Heavily disturbed), FLUCFCS No. 6151 (9.0 acres) This community is referred to as bottomland or stream hardwood wetland areas that are heavily disturbed. Adjacent historical land uses have disturbed this area. This vegetative community is best described as an ecotone area and is located east of a relatively undisturbed forested wetland adjacent to Lake Apopka and west of uplands converted into a coniferous plantation. Dominant species include bahia grass (Pasplum notatum), red maple, ceasar-weed, bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), wild grape vine, green brier(Smilax sp.), China berry, Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum), laurel oak, slash pine and various vines and weeds. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 41 Roads & Highways, FLUCFCS No. 814(15.4 acres) Transportation facilities are used for the movement of people and goods; therefore, they are major influences on the land. The Western Beltway bisects the southeast portion of the subject property. In addition, County Road 437 bisects the property in a north and south orientation along the eastern property boundary and Fullers Crossing Road bisects the property to the south creating a small isolated southern parcel. SOILS The Soil Survey of Orange County, Florida identifies eight (8) soil types as occurring on the subject property. Figure 3 (at the end of this section) illustrates the location and extent of each soil type. A summary of the characteristics of each soil type as described by the SCS are as follows: Basinger fine sand, depressional The Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, Second Edition (Carlisle, 1995) lists this soil as a hydric soil. This very poorly drained soil is in shallow depressions and sloughs and along the edges of freshwater marshes and swamps. This Basinger soil has.a seasonal high water table that is at or above the surface except during extended dry periods. Areas on floodplains are subject to frequent flooding as well as ponding. Candler—Apopka fine sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes This excessively drained soil is on uplands, on summits and lower side slopes. Slopes are smooth to concave. This Candler soil does not have a high water table within a depth of 80 inches. Immokalee fine sand The Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, Second Edition (Carlisle, 1995) lists this soil as a hydric soil. This soil is nearly level and poorly drained on flatwoods. Slopes are smooth. Immokalee Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 42 has a seasonal high water table within 10 inches of the surface for 1 to 3 months and recedes to a depth of 10 to 40 inches for more than 6 months. Samsula-Hontoon-Basinger Association, Depressional The Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, Second Edition (Carlisle, 1995) lists this soil as a hydric soil. These soils are nearly level and very poorly drained in freshwater swamps, depressions, sloughs, broad, poorly defined drainage ways. The slopes are smooth to concave. In most years, undrained areas of these soils are ponded for 6 to 9 months or more except during extended dry periods. Smyrna fine sand The Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, Second Edition (Carlisle, 1995) lists this soil as a hydric soil. This poorly drained soil is nearly level on broad flatwoods. The slopes are smooth and this soil has a seasonal high water table within 10 inches of the surface for 1 to 4 months. Tavares fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes This moderately well drained soil is on low ridges and knolls on the uplands. Slopes are smooth to concave. This Tavares soil has a seasonal high water table at a depth of 40 to 80 inches for several months in most years. ' Tavares-Millhopper fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes These moderately well drained soils are nearly level,to gently sloping on low ridges and knolls on the uplands and on flatwoods. The slopes are nearly smooth to slightly convex. Tavares has a seasonal high water table at 40 to 72 inches for more than 6 months. Millhopper soil has a seasonal high water table at 40 to 60 inches for 1 to 4 months. . Zolfo fine sand This nearly level and somewhat poorly drained soil is in broad, slightly higher positions adjacent to the flatwoods. The slopes are smooth to convex. Zolfo fine sand has a seasonal high water . table at 24 to 40 inches for 2 to 6 months during most years. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 43 WETLANDS AND REGULATORY OVERVIEW Individual areas depicted as wetland (FLUCFCS Nos. 510, 610, 615 and 6151) on Figure 2 (in section 3 of this document) are based on field estimates of dominant "wetland indicative" vegetation and correlation with a hydric soil type as confirmed by the Orange County Soil Survey. Field observations indicate substantial invasion of upland, exotic and nuisance plants in several wetland areas and moderate alteration of hydrology. The following areas are identified as wetlands in accordance with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) and the State of Florida Unified Wetland Delineation Methodology (Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code). These areas are expected to fall within the regulatory authority of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineer, the St. Johns River Water Management District and Orange County EPD. FLUCFCS No. 510 (3.3 acres) This classification describes linear water bodies, ditches, used to convey water through the property. The ditches are vegetated with laurel oak, wax myrtle, primrose willow, wild Taro and various herbs and brush. FLUCFCS No. 610 (3.8 acres) Wetland Hardwood Forests are those wetland areas which meet the crown closure requirements for forestland and must be 66 percent or more dominated by wetland hardwood species. Elderberry, red maple, loblolly bay, wax myrtle, ceasar weed, China berry, blackberry, laurel oak, chain fern were also observed. These areas are heavily disturbed by historical land uses and are vegetated with exotic/nuisance species. FLUCFCS No. 615 (79.5 acres) This vegetative community, often referred to as bottomland or stream hardwoods, is usually found on but not restricted to river, creek and lake flood plain or overflow areas. It is a conglomeration of a wide variety of predominantly hardwood species of which some of the more Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 44 common components include red maple, water oak, sweetgum, willows, black gum blackgum, loblolly bay and buttonbush. Associated species include cypress and slash pine. Other species observed include wax myrtle, gallberry, chain fern, cinnamon fern, dahoon holly, laurel oak, wild grape and various herbs and grasses. FLUCFCS No. 6151 (9.0 acres) This community is referred to as bottomland or stream hardwood wetland areas that are heavily disturbed. Adjacent historical land uses have disturbed this area. This vegetative community is best described as an ecotone area and is located east of a relatively undisturbed forested wetland adjacent to Lake Apopka and west of uplands converted into a coniferous plantation. Dominant species include bahia grass, red maple, Ceasar-weed, bracken fern, wild grape vine, green brier, China bent', Chinese tallow, laurel oak, slash pine and various vines and weeds. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers The ACOE regulates wetlands connected to"Waters of the United States" and isolated wetlands - pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Dredge and fill activities within "Waters of the United States" will require either a Section 404 Individual Permit or verification to use permits issued through the General or Nationwide Permit Program. The ACOE guidelines request. that all impacts associated with a particular landowner's project be submitted for consideration under one permit application. Typical protocol for a project would include of an ACOE representative reviewing and approving the delineation of the landward extent of wetlands in association with the submittal of a permit application. St. Johns River Water Management District The SJRWMD regulates wetlands that are isolated and those considered within or connected to "Waters of the State" pursuant to Chapter 403'of the Florida Statutes, Rules 62-301 and 62-312 of the Florida Administrative Code. Development activities altering wetlands and/or drainage will require an Environmental Resource Permit from the SJRWMD. Different ERP permits can be found in Chapters 40E-4.0415 Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), 40E-40.041 F.A.C., and Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 45 40E-400.215 F.A.C. in the SJRWMD governing regulations. Typical protocol for a project includes a SJRWMD representative reviewing and approving the delineation of the landward extent of wetlands prior to the submittal of a permit application for development construction. Orange County Orange County regulates wetland and activities within wetlands under Conservation Ordinance No. 89-8. This ordinance classifies wetlands as Class I, Class II, or Class Ill. Class I wetlands contain a natural connection to "Waters of the State" or are isolated wetlands greater than 40 acres in size. Class II wetlands are defined as isolated between 5 and 40 acres in size, or a wetland that is connected to "Waters of the State" by an artificial conveyance such as a drainage ditch. Class Ill wetlands are defined as isolated systems less than 5 acres in size or one that is connected to "Waters of the State" by artificial conveyance and is less than 5 acres in size. Orange County will only allow impacts to Class I wetlands for access to upland parcels or in the case of overriding public interest. Impacts to Class Ill wetlands are allowed in all cases so long as adequate compensatory mitigation is provided. Each landowner would be required to conduct a Conservation Area Determination for any wetlands occurring on their defined property holdings. This determination is typically required if any type of land use or zoning change is requested by a landowner. PROTECTED FAUNA AND FLORA Regulatory oversight for protected fauna and flora is the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS). The USFWS is the federal agency responsible for protecting the nation's fish and wildlife resources through implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended ("ESA," 16 U.S.G. 1513- 1543). No Federally protected species were observed during the July 2000 field investigations and none are expected to occur based on the character of the habitats present. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 46 The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) regulates the taking of species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern and their nests. The FFWCC also provides technical assistance to other agencies that have regulatory authority over activities, which may affect fish and wildlife and their habitat. Active and inactive gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows and scat were observed on the subject property during this field investigation. The active and inactive burrows are located in the coniferous plantation (FLUCFCS No. 441) in the subject property's' northwestern periphery. The approximate location of the burrow is shown on Figure 2 (in section 3 of this document). The gopher tortoise is classified as a Species of Special Concern by the FFWCC and is, therefore, protected under Florida Chapter 39-27.005, Florida Administrative Code. Options available to individuals who wish to conduct activities which may result in the incidental "taking" of gopher tortoises include: 1. Develop so as to avoid tortoise burrows, by avoiding concentrations of burrows all together, and/or staying at least 50 feet from the entrance of individual burrows. A permit is not required for project development if this option is exercised. 2. Relocate tortoises that would otherwise be "taken" to an area on site removed from development activities. A permit is required from the FFWCC for this approach. 3. Mitigate for activities that will probably entomb or kill tortoises by providing a degree of on-site habitat protection similar to that provided by DRI developers. A permit is required for FFWCC for this approach. 4. Relocate tortoises that would otherwise be "taken" to an off-site recipient site. A permit is required from the FFWCC for this approach. Option 1 has no permitting requirements. Option 2 involves obtaining an "Incidental Take" Permit from the FFWCC. Typically, to mitigate the taking, one of three methods of habitat protection/preservation is proposed by the landowner: A. Protection of an occupied area of the proper size in perpetuity (on-site Ocoee Property Feasibility Study Planning Report 47 mitigation). This will usually require a legal conveyance such as a conservation easement and is generally acceptable to the FFWCC only in cases where the on- site preservation area will be 25 acres or greater. Typically, if the density in a given area is 0.4 tortoises per acre, the developer must preserve a parcel of suitable habitat equal to 15% of the area of occupied tortoise habitat to be developed, this percentage figure is prorated downward if the specific population density occurring on a given site is below 0.4 tortoises per acre. For areas having population densities between 0.4 and 0.8, the preservation requirement is based on 15% of the occupied area to be impacted, plus 25% of the total acreage of any area having population densities greater than 0.8 tortoises per acre. In areas where the population densities exceed 0.8 tortoises per acre, the preservation acreage is calculated at 25% of the occupied habitat to be impacted by development activities. B. Purchase a parcel of tortoise habitat of the proper size adjacent to public lands that are managed in a manner compatible with tortoise protection and donate the parcel to the public landowner in accordance with the conditions of that landowner. To determine habitat of the proper size for purchase, the above- mentioned calculation for tortoise density is utilized. The Permittee may be required to protect an area of gopher tortoise habitat off-site equal to 1.25 times the area calculated to be protected on-site. C. This option involves the purchase of the appropriate number of acres, in an existing or proposed mitigation park within the Regional Planning Council boundaries. This requires obtaining an Incidental Take Permit from the FFWCC. As mitigation, associated with the issuance of the permit, a cash contribution to a regional mitigation park is required. The amount of cash contribution is determined by either utilizing 30% of the uplands on the project site for a per acre cost or providing two times the maximum required on-site preservation to determine the per acre cost. The per acre cost is determined by region for an average cost of an upland acre within a Regional Planning Council's boundary. Option 3 involves the relocation of those tortoises that would be "Taken." According to the referenced OES document, the FFWCC considers this approach to be the least desirable. Relocation operations require that suitable habitation be subjected to a 100% survey in order to Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 48 locate all active and inactive burrows, no more than four weeks prior to the relocation. All burrows located must be clearly marked to facilitate relocation efforts. Capture methodologies may include excavation of tortoises from burrows via backhoe, or trapping by non-harmful means, such as pitfall traps which must be monitored daily for a period of 28 days. Captured tortoises are to be transported without delay to the recipient site (which must have prior approval of the FFWCC) and prior to release, each adult tortoise must be identified by sex, measured and permanently marked by scute notches. One year subsequent to the release date (within 10 days of the release date), the recipient site must be resurveyed and all encountered burrows mapped and categorized as active, inactive, or abandoned. Subsequent to the survey, a report must be submitted to the FFWCC. Section 581.185, Florida Status, delegates to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) authority to designate and regulate plants listed as "endangered," "commercially exploited" and "threatened." It is unlawful for an individual to harvest endangered or commercially exploited plants from the private land of another or any public land without first obtaining written permission of the landowner and a permit from DACS. It is unlawful for an individual to harvest a threatened plant from private land or public land without first obtaining written permission of the landowner. No protected plant species were observed on the subject property during the July 2000 field investigations. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES In a document entitled "Rare Upland Communities of Orange County, Florida"(Orange County Planning Department, November 1992), rare habitats are described as lands suited for development which are not under regulatory jurisdiction and as land which provides suitable habitat for species which are endemic to Florida. The rare upland communities in Orange County included scrub, sand pine scrub, xeric oak, longleaf pine/turkey oak and live oak hammock. The rare upland communities as designated by Orange County have the potential to contain approximately forty-nine (49) plant species endemic to the State of Florida. Plant species whose present distributions occur entirely within the political boundaries of Florida are considered endemic to the state. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study Planning Report 49 Animal species including Florida scrub jay, gopher tortoise, eastern indigo snake, sand skink, gopher frog and Florida mouse have the potential to occur in the rare upland communities of Orange County. The rare upland communities as defined by Orange County do not occur on the subject property. The on-site habitats have been degraded by agricultural land uses such as silviculture. Orange County does not have a specific ordinance dealing with rare upland habitats although there are two existing regulations that provide some degree of regulation. First, the Protected Species Regulations in the Land Development Code (adopted December 1991) provide for protection of Endangered, Threatened and Species of Special Concern. If protected species are found on the proposed development site, the property owner(s) has to provide protection or obtain a permit from FFWCC and/or USFWS for removal and mitigation of the protected species. Second, Orange County's Landscape Regulations encourage the retention of native flora. The County prefers and encourages protection of rare habitats along wildlife corridors or other protected habitats such as wetlands. Planning solutions to the conservation and preservation of rare upland vegetative communities are required by policies in Orange County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. The described actions for protection of rare uplands as required by the Comprehensive Policy Plan are: I. Incorporation of rare uplands, where possible, in wildlife corridors (Conservation Objective 1.8.1). II. Regulations of land uses adjacent to rare uplands through buffers, setbacks, restrictions on land use intensities and densities (Conservation Objective 1.8.2). III. Adoption of a new Conservation Ordinance which includes protection for rare upland, mitigation for unavoidable loss and restoration (Conservation Objective 1.8.3). IV. Adoption of land development regulations that provide protection for rare uplands (Conservation Objective 1.8.7). V. Use of the Conservation Trust Fund and other available sources to acquire rare uplands (Conservation Objective 1.8.8). Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 50 LAKE APOPKA DESIGNATION Pursuant to Section 373.461(3)(a), F.A.C., the phosphorus criterion for Lake Apopka is 55 parts per billion. This phosphorus criterion shall be used to establish phosphorus discharge limitations for all permits within the Lake Apopka Drainage Basin authorizing discharges, directly or indirectly, into Lake Apopka. MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES As with most any development, there will be unavoidable impacts to wetlands by road crossings and other necessary development activities, e.g., stormwater ponds. Thus, some wetland losses can be expected after all reasonable efforts have been made to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. Opportunities for mitigation have been evaluated on the subject property and are summarized below: Creation and Restoration Creation and restoration have the potential to result in similar benefits. The ratio ranges for these two types of mitigation are the same. Mitigating for impacts to cypress or hardwood swamp would require a ratio in the range of 2:1 to 5:1 (acres created or restored: acres impacted) in order to provide adequate compensation according to the guidelines set forth in the "The Applicant's Handbook" (SJRWMD). Compensatory mitigation ratios for impacts to freshwater marsh areas would range from 1.5:1 to 4:1. Locations within the area that may have the potential to provide compensatory mitigation in the form of creation or restoration are primarily found along the Lake Apopka forested wetlands and adjacent to larger off-site forested wetlands. Herbaceous and canopy tree vegetation should be planted on the newly created or restored areas to prevent erosion, to preclude encroachment of undesirable species and provide desirable habitat for wetland dependent wildlife. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 51 Enhancement Enhancement may be defined as improving the ecological value of wetlands, other surface waters or uplands that have been degraded in comparison to their historic condition. Ratio guidelines for use in the estimation of acreage of wetland enhancement will range from 4:1 to 20:1. Candidate enhancement areas are the various areas of the forested wetlands located throughout the subject property boundaries. Primary enhancement activities would consist of removing exotic and nuisance plant species such as cattail (Typha sp.), primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), water hyacinth (Eichhomia crassipes), Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum) and other undesirable or non-native vegetation. Additional enhancement may be available in areas where undesirable vegetation was removed by planting desirable vegetation. Preservation Preservation of important ecosystems can provide an improved level of protection over current regulatory programs. Preservation will most frequently be approved in combination with other mitigation measures. Since wetland and other surface waters are to a large extent protected by existing regulations, the ratio guideline for preservation of wetlands and other surface waters is substantially higher than for restoration and creation. The ratio guideline for wetland and other surface water preservation will be 10:1 to 60:1. These ratios are provided as guidelines for preliminary planning purposes only. The actual ratio needed to offset any adverse unavoidable impacts may be higher or lower based on a consideration of factors listed in subsection 12.3 of the 'The Applicant's Handbook." Ratios will be determined based upon the reduction in quality and relative value of functions of the areas adversely impacted as compared to the expected improvement in quality and value of the functions of the mitigation areas. Potential wetland preservation opportunities are those areas considered as bottomland forested wetlands associated with Lake Apopka. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 52 Other Mitigation Opportunities Other opportunities for providing compensatory mitigation include participation in a permitted mitigation bank. The subject property is located within the Mitigation Service Area (MSA) for ECOBANK's Lake Louisa Regional Mitigation Bank. The City of Ocoee also has the opportunity to provide mitigation to other City projects and private or public development projects located in the Lake Apopka Drainage Basin. CONCLUSION In summary, eight (8) vegetation associations and landscape descriptions were observed on the subject property (FLUCFCS Nos. 180, 190, 441, 510, 610, 615, 6151 and 814). The coniferous plantation (FLUCFCS No. 441) encompasses the majority (249.6 acres) of the property. Active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows and scat were observed on the periphery of the property's northwestern boundary adjacent to Lake Apopka. The gopher tortoise is a Species of Special Concern as designated by the FFWCC. If development is proposed which impacts the tortoise or is located within 50 feet of the burrow, a permit is required by the FFWCC to authorize the "taking" of this species. No federally protected plant or animal was observed on the property during the July 2000 field investigations. Further, no state protected plants were observed during the field investigation. Areas identified as wetlands occur within the property boundaries. The wetland areas are characterized as FLUCFCS Nos. 510, 610, 615 and 6151. If development activities are proposed to adversely impact jurisdictional wetland areas, the appropriate permits with the ACOE, the SJRWMD and Orange County EPD are required to authorize impacts to these areas. The subject property is located adjacent to Lake Apopka. Pursuant to 373.461(3)(a), F.A.C., the phosphorus criterion of 55 parts per billion shall be used to establish phosphorus discharge Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 53 limitations for all permits within the Lake Apopka Drainage Basin. Development is permittable within the subject property, but may be restricted due to the designations given to Lake Apopka. As with most any development, there will be unavoidable impacts to wetlands by road crossings and other necessary development activities, e.g., stormwater ponds. Thus, some wetland losses can be expected after all reasonable efforts have been made to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. Opportunities for mitigation on-site wetland creation and restoration, enhancement and preservation. Additional mitigation opportunities include participation in a permitted mitigation bank. The City of Ocoee also has the opportunity to provide mitigation to other City projects and private and public development projects in the Lake Apopka Drainage Basin. l� - fA`,' : E` r • - tr: '- E : .{:?`r'�: ?• ,;frg;-,,4y4,- ti .-.-a rrfi `4' r� �ti.'` ` . ,„.37,' - ; ,. ",.- :. � ' 1.rv, ` l . G fay ^ ,: t. L 'P... , :.•4: " .-: _ r ', . 1 JarN _,a •:,•" 'r' •. '�I�:L} •.ti r ' 'i'' � ti^.C• 'rl� - 1laf=:{.ia�h :` _ i ,' r. :"% tj ,etk:51, 'i , _ ,1,..r _1 .r. L...: l t r _ Fa ^S �, ; :, '`3- <r ` f it, +: b •r r• 'r 7. r • � c x.. _• ti=�'='' ";'>' Ii'_ �._.�;,- •�il ,! 7{ -t•-$; • y ="1 � ^ S _ • . � '�:):'<t�'%. = .3, <r ~'t�^ ' _Yi; r:{ . 1 yl7, p .: d7 9 . '.. t.^f�. •*•• �' O 'T • •-'t 1•" �;.h J`.Yi '�a•° . • , t , ' • y 5� , ��' ` -.{'i' �/•/ + -d f '�. a4.r..�sA •{ti 1. ':•7£; . { I --�, . �`/ ,' ;`:•i7 = `�=. •~ 3 , ;:=lr %rC � • r •:rf rr ,:o- •,, - Of :o� . .i 'Sandpii_. • 4 ; �• k 7 � } 'i /.4 F.• r ` :. % h r•r •Z,. a; may,:-'_µ r ; .r, � ?r:+�� ": 't='3 Z7 22S '�.ems-;' � _ - ;z_�°� '�f' :l�•�y,�;, '�._�`�� ?•4 • -t••' _ ;•; t•1`-'�::t r F.. ,ii yam ` i, 'f Irk 1 = ' '� P ' t� ocat on 1= - , a.. ,. -':.; • rtr.M1 7 •:. 7 f'7r Nr' 7.. ,'� _1 I.-y[_.1,'•-.,v.e_''S1�•'1.5;, '' _,.•! _4_ a ,Z/ •" tr` - ri1 t. y 5 >}'•'.,•,.ti..:l c (z..' ., fr .�,`e.:wZti trn2;;Y`�J ti,•JC..?�k9i: � -' J:• ✓-•=r=Y. ..A7V; G:r;,,:,:�,..L.;' �fi ;;•"' 'rt+t. • :{? • ~•h `„``fi• ` r;.�:Pr/ -1'4" 'r`P»:ir - _' c'�:.,;,;�,• ,_, • • -`_ .. ...., 'S▪'gsknl', <: °$„2 ,.- 71 7 I h. 'IF'''.7. G. r'Jr O . ' ' 1r r:(1ji'%Y ,} ,�I , =_ Sa fir.. `• = - - -- •• t:::•5: c��c=; ?.r ,,r l �.'•• = • -- - r.,gam f 1::ci_▪ '�^.:t 4se ::/.:•7£JrB` - •. _w: .N. -_ 1 - �t `,(�,r.;;.�.c•,•f,,,� r= to )jtsar??•' • t• '4%.,. '�t=i° '•"�1'. --a_.: _ ,-- =-• -`r eta Fs �a,... t:'j:+ r{••lL.r'Ale'', •��T^'•7`� �_:•.�tfJ" •' - -"r... Y ,` i ,r i © 'Ra- K't' 11,•:if,, i $3'• ' • jam. eicrili/10.*- 1,,-,L• :5:::,-4.41:;:j_ii;11,,',:>:P.'..' i !,,-.--; . -..• ....--•• ...XL,-- .-7,..--:::,-.,'-z-1-., ) ,.,----'"-- .•i . ' ' "--!-',-9;-17..:(:; ;;1?-- i= k a"d' -C�, ' 'O ./ /f ', _. A,•" :. ;gyp f:i,,^.-;, t$.•-,r: `E - - :;�.• .a...-. wig , ' ';• 3'r - 3,7- � • • • ▪• 5 ', i+•• 5a �;� ,;5�� ter. -;=.7.k,_ : �..,7, *_ ?':1.i=. ••-:,,e.*•C'el - • _ - '� G,}.` =" -;*�_ 7wn. .Y�,t:� .,�,;3 - a.; r0 176 ;,,,,,. • 3r4.,-r ' 3: �i`c,..4,,, ;p; ti• /, :1ti-:s i'�'J / _•i:�`, '`%;• =1 •.. : c•,7 nt? a5'„t.�T==,i ' .,. ,y Z?;,- -._- , ^.`fi ` ' I Y ,✓e • l'x r1St -- ,r,'• -.'°5g , Y:y _ =ji,,. - =4d /j . %= • - - i :•', � ' ;"' e..s•,.;:' J:y; . : : -:.5`; ti c • T • ram, - ff _ _/D6 ^/II :l 6. . Iv{ , _ - 4 '—j • g`\a fTh _ - . _ -., i J-= L_� •! JEjLw : 1•• .. c ,QifP} ...ere . I •-.. -r;: li: r',"- :% „{�5• B - +4 o-: I :l.t=-- . — g _1. • i • Source USGS Quadrangle Map Winter Garden, Florida sA Sections 1, 6, Township 22 South, Ranges 27,28 East N Scale: 1:24000 1980 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Location Map Figure 1 Coca-Cola Parcel City of Ocoee, FL \\projects\60779.01\drainage\figures.p65 ifs . • .lu?t;114 - .. }c ` c :ir of Ii , - " ' * -' : • " "„ - •— ,.4j 7 0 ''...) / . ' ' --%:/r4 a .•/ s' ,r ' 11 lif lr ; if -i16`I4Y1 I : - ' f . • : r- -- .'s ' - :! CL BM -. - --4--rno6 ,. -- - - - ._---- ... ....„,___, „,___ _ _ --.... „ _ ,• t :1,.. ,,. • i - . :,2.'. •.... r. ;� �I Li ZONE C ;_" = Project ocati . r•-r :x , '1- RM35 FULLERS__ CROSS-- - ROAD'�� `;t Y;� • , ^ "r `\ Crown.Point? 1 ;_� J A "� 0 ii •I; {I ,. 1. d.�.a_f+ i.I4, —= ' 1' i •� " 'j: Source • Orange County,FL FIRM Panel#120179 0175C dated 6/15/84 AScale: 1:24,000 N Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Location Map Figure 3 Coca-Cola Parcel City of Ocoee, FL \\nrni—te\h(1770!11\rirnin.,no\Fin.,roc -u �; 47 LAKE +»46 > a2 ,y 44 APOPKA / 41 47 42 34 . 64.3 1 1 1 4.1,11\h, 4 34 \_________, :. 4., i r Oil 44 :Tilior 3 I - :� Crown r` / t� ,j' Atr ; Point 2 41 iv v. �0 46 au .7.0 ( ' A ig 41 . . �, � p20 15 4 \` T 46 �4' 3 \ LSO . tl Il 26 411014r.:5111 20 p 7-4,...„ �los,. s2054 ` 54 20441 op 46 /n144 ( ' 4GI!11 � �ls 54 �5441 �342C 44 / \ 4: I: l 34 20 51 44 +. s 94 t '. 6 L1 51 53 ® 51 --,,_,..-'7 t ";c1._ ., r____) ---....s .).....,\L 4t5 44 Source Soil Survey of AOrange County, Florida Section 1, 6, Township 22 South, Range 27, 28 East N Scale: 1:20000 Au!ust 1989 Vanasse Hansen Brustlin,Inc. Location Map Figure 3 Coca-Cola Parcel City of Ocoee, FL \\projects\60779.01\drainage\figures Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 54 INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS-INTRODUCTION The Coca-Cola Property can be physically accessed from the east off Ocoee-Apopka Road (County Road 437) and from the south off Fullers Cross Road (Figure 1 at the end of this section). Based on the initial traffic study, three (3) potential access points were identified to serve the site. 1. Access from Ocoee-Apopka Rd. @ West Orange Trail crossing 2. Access from Ocoee-Apopka Rd. @ realigned Claracona-Ocoee Rd. 3. Access off Fullers Cross Rd. The site will be ultimately developed with a 60-acre high school with an estimated population of 2,500 students, 15-acre elementary school designed for 934 students, a 25-acre bus hub capable of accommodating 350 school buses and a 50-acre tract of 200 mixed residential uses. In addition, a 40-acre recreational park and 15 acre work force facility will be contained within the site. ASSUMPTIONS Access Point#1 from Ocoee-Apopka Rd. @ West Orange Trail This access point was assumed to be the main entrance to the high school based on the higher traffic volumes that will be generated by the high school versus the elementary school. It was also assumed that the majority of traffic would be approaching from the south. During, peak morning hours, 1150 trips (Table 1) would be generated. Access Point#2 from Ocoee-Apopka Rd. @ Claracona-Ocoee Rd. This access point was assumed the main entrance to the Avanti property and a secondary entrance for the high school. It was also assumed that the majority of traffic approaching from the north would use this access. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 55 Access Point#3 from Fullers Cross Rd. This access point was assumed the main entrance to the elementary school site estimated 934 students. During, peak morning hours, 270 trips (Table 1) may be expected. RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the narrow, segmented frontage along Ocoee-Apopka Rd., from a developability standpoint of the site, it would be reasonable to eliminate Access Point No. 1, which was originally assumed to be the main entrance to the high school. Under this scenario, Access Point No. 2 would be the only direct access point from Ocoee- Apopka Road. This will be a shared entrance between the Avanti property and the Coca-Cola property. Avanti would need to provide a secondary access to Ocoee-Apopka Road north of this intersection. The posted speed limit along Ocoee-Apopka Road is currently 45 mph; should be reduced to 35 mph. 385' of dual left-turn lanes (200' storage) should be provide northbound and 285'single right-turn lane (100' storage) southbound on Ocoee-Apopka Road. Based on right-of-way maps obtained from Orange County, the R-O-W width along Ocoee- Apopka Road varies from fifty (50')feet to one hundred twenty (120')feet between Fullers Cross Road and West Road. Acquiring additional R-O-W in order to increase the R-O-W width to 120' for the entire section of roadway between Fullers Cross Road and West Road is recommended. Access Point #3 from Fullers Cross Road would become a main entrance to the site. Provide 385' single left-turn lane (200' storage) eastbound and 385'single-right turn lane (200' storage) westbound on Fullers Cross Rd. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 56 No right-of-way information could be obtained for Fullers Cross Road. However, it is assumed that the right-of-way is approximately fifty (50') feet wide. Acquiring additional R-O-W to increase the width to 84' in order to accommodate the additional turn lanes is recommended. Buses would be best located on the tract of land between the West Orange Trail and the Western Beltway. Bus traffic would enter the site from Fullers Cross Road and would share an emergency traffic signal with the proposed fire station, located across Ocoee-Apopka Road, for direct access to exit along Ocoee-Apopka Road. Internal to the site, the main collector roadway would be a four-lane divided parkway located within a 120'-wide right-of way from Ocoee-Apopka Road to the southernmost boundary where the roadway should transition to a two-lane roadway within a 84'-wide right-of way to Fullers Cross Road. It is anticipated that there will be two (2) intersections along the proposed parkway internal to the site. The northern most intersection would access the recreational park to the west and the elementary school and residential neighborhood to the east. The southerly intersection would provide access to the high school to the west and the trade school to the east. Improvements recommended for the intersection of Ocoee-Apopka Road and Fullers Cross Road include widening Ocoee-Apopka Road to four lanes with one additional left-turn lane in each direction. Based on the information obtained from Orange County Utilities, there are two (2) feasible options for providing potable water supply to the Coca-Cola Property. The following is a summary of the two options and recommendations. Orange County has a water treatment plant located approximately one and a half (1.5) miles southwest of the subject property on Markel Drive slightly north of the intersection with Coluso Drive. This treatment plant provides potable water service to Magnolia Wood, a residential subdivision, in the direct vicinity. The potable water distribution system extends to Fullers Cross Road where, a 6" PVC watermain terminates at a blowoff valve. This treatment plant may not have adequate capacity to serve the subject site. Further investigation will be required to make that determination. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 57 A second potable water distribution system exists northeast of 'the property. This distribution system extends along West McCormick Road to within two and a half (2.5) miles of the subject project, where a 8" PVC watermain terminates at the Northwest Service Area Water Reclamation Facility. Again, further investigation will be required to determine the capacity of this system. Table 1 Trip Generation,Coca-Cola Property,City of Ocoee. High School ITE Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Tnps Land Use Code Capacity Trips Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Institutional 530 2,500 students 4,475 ' 1,150 805 345 375 150 225 Totals 4,475 1,150 805 345 375 150 225 Elementary School ITE Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Code Capacity Trips Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Institutional 520 934 students ' 952 270 159 111 243 112 131 Totals 952 270 159 111 243 112 131 Bus Hub ITE Daily AM Peak Hour Tnps PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Code Capacity ,Trips Total Enter . Exit - Total Enter Exit Commercial 350 buses 700 700 350 350 700 350 350 Totals 700 700 350 - 350 700 350 350 Avanti Property ITE Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Code Capacity Trips . Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Residential 550 S-F homes 5,264 412 103 309 556 356 200 i otals 5,264 412 103 309 556 356 200 Additional Residential I I E Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Tnps Land Use Code Capacity Trips Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Residential 200 S-F homes 1,914 ' 150 38 112 202 129 73 i otals 1,914 150 38 112 202 129 73 Total Site Trips: 13,305 2,682 . 1,455 1,227 2,076 1,097 979 The next section describes the preliminary financial analysis done for the preferred development scenario. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 58 8. Preliminary Financial Analysis INTRODUCTION Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. (RERC), HHI, Spillis Candela, and VHB were retained by the City of Ocoee to provide general real estate development opportunities in or near the Coca Cola property. In August 2000, RERC completed a market analysis, which addressed the residential, commercial, and office markets. The results of that analysis were incorporated into alternative financial scenarios reflecting different combinations of absorption schedules and land uses. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS In order to test potential development options that are consistent with our market analysis, we prepared a financial analysis for two different development options. These options were created by HHI, with input from Spillis Candela, VHB, and.RERC. However, in the September 7th Project Team Meeting with the City Officials and School Board representatives, Development Option One was chosen to be the Approved Development Plan. Below is the development program: Land Use Acres Public Uses: Elementary School 15 High School 60 Workforce Education 12.29 Bus Parking Area 31 Fire Station 4 Police Range 6.67 Park(dry area only) 4.4 Sub total 168.96 Private Uses: Single-Family Residential 50 Commercial-Parcel 1 17.96 Commercial-Parcel 2 6.96 Sub-total 74.92 Grand Total 243.88 Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 59 • The Public Use section of the development program was based on input from the City of Ocoee and the Orange County School Board. • The Public Use section of the development program was based on input from the City of Ocoee and the Orange County School Board. • Option One is essentially designed to be a relatively traditional development. The main access road, from Ocoee-Apopka Road, to the property is generally linear and subdivides the main tract of the property in half. • We assumed that the land required_for the access road to Fullers Cross Road would be purchased by the City of Ocoee. If the land cannot be secured for the access road, it will severely limit the developability of the whole project. We also assumed access to the property would ultimately be available from Ocoee-Apopka Road through the Avanti development, as well. • Both development options depict shared stormwater retention facilities, and adequate buffering between land uses; these facilities would be phased in as development progresses. • Other major assumptions for these development scenarios are outlined below. Price Points (ready to develop parcels): - Residential $30,000/acre - Commercial $3.75/square foot Or$163,350/acre • Price points are based on recent comparable land sales in the Ocoee and West Orange County area. General and Administrative Sales Expenditure 5% of Sales Price (on private sales only) Development Costs include the following: o Project Roads o Project Access o Project Utilities • . . o Project Stormwater o Due Diligence Fees o Other Professional Fees Development Costs were provided by HHI, Spillis Candela, and VHB Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 60 To arrive at a reasonable range of net cash flow for the revenue generating parcels (all the parcels except the Park, Police Range, and Fire Station), we prepared alternative financial scenarios. The main differences in these scenarios have been the absorption schedule assumed and potential allocations of project development costs. In all of the financial scenarios, we anticipate that the residential component of the project could be absorbed immediately following the construction of the high school, which is proposed to occur by 2002. This also considers the time needed by the City to close the sale on the main property and market the development parcels. The absorption of the commercial parcels follows the initiation of housing development on site and assumes that no other major commercial projects are developed within the study area other than what has been already identified. The scenario presented in this memorandum was deemed most applicable and was approved by the Project Team (City, OCPS, and consultants). It represents a somewhat conservative absorption schedule for the commercial parcels. Under this scenario, the 17-acre commercial parcel, east of Ocoee-Apopka Road (Parcel 1 from the land use plan) would be absorbed during 2004. The remaining 7-acre commercial parcel, located west of Ocoee-Apopka Road (Parcel 2 on the land use plan) would be absorbed during 2005. The absorption schedule is driven by the proposed opening of the high school—planned to open in 2002. The responsibility for the estimated development costs are allocated between the City, OCPS, and potential on-site or contiguous developers. The detail of the allocation schedule is as follows: Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 61 DEVELOPMENT COST ALLOCATION Development Total city OCPS Others Costs Amount Amount 14 Amount 14 Amount '/s Project Roads $875,000 $775,000 89% $0 0% $100,000 11% Project Access $230,000 $230,000 100% $0 0% $0 0% Project Utilities $1,000,000 $0 0% $0 0% $1,000,000 100% Project Stormwater $75,000 $75,000 100% $0 0% $0 0% Contigencies $327,000 $162,000 50% $0 0.0% $165,000 50% Due Diligence Fees $100,000 $50,000 50% $50,000 50% $0 0% Other Prof. Fees $100,000 $100,000 100% $Q 0% $Q 0% Total Dev. Costs $2,707,000 $1,392,000 $50,000 $1,265,000 The Appendix contains detailed tables that profile the results of our financial analysis. A cash flow analysis was prepared which assumes sell out of marketable parcels by 2005. The results of this analysis are outlined below. FINANCIAL SCENARIO SUMMARY 2000-2008 Gross Revenue $8,356,838 Less Gen. &Admin. Sales Cost ($324.426) Net Revenue $8,032,412 Acquisition Cost ($3,750,000) Development Costs ($1,392,000) (1) Other Costs ($389.020) Net Cash Flow $2,501,392 Note: (1) Other costs include Closing costs, interest costs, and legal costs. It is important to note that the Net Cash Flow shown above of about $2.5 million does not include any fiscal benefits that the City could receive from ad valorem taxes, fees and permits associated with the construction of this proposed project. The City would also retain approximately 50 acres for public facilities and a park in addition to the conservation lands. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 62 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Year Activity 2000 Closing of acquisition; resale of 118 acres to OCPS 2001 Construction of access road to school and residential parcels; Remaining access improvements 2002 Sale of residential parcel; completion of access improvements 2003 Marketing of commercial parcels 2004 Sale of 17 acre commercial parcel; associated road improvements 2005 Sale of 7 acre commercial parcel • .. .. ,.:•:.., ..Sris10.•avvtbA�EC'A!C�1Mtii'rYfrYMnY.rbY�•iinniamiv.•�ii:,,, •br••y•;raat�t4Y3�<10n t Nh t • CITY OF OCOEE/COCA COLA PROPERTY ACREAGE ABSORPTION ESTIMATES -1 SO Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 - 2006 2007 2008 Total Single family Housing _ Annual Absorption 50.00 50.00. Beginning Acres 50.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ending Acres 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi-family Housing . Annual Absorption 0.00 N Beginning Acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ending Acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Commercial Land Annual Absorption 7.00 0.00 24.00 Beginning Acres 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 K Ending Acres 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. Secondary Commercial Annual Absorption 0.00 0.00 Beginning Acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ending Acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 School Board Properties Takedown 118.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 118.30 Beginning Acres 118.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ending Acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Projects Total; Annual Absorption 118.30 0.00 50.00 0.00 17.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 192.30 Beginning Acres 243.88 125.58 125.58 75.58 75.58 58.58 51.58 51.58 51.58 Ending Acres 125.58 125.58 75.58 75.58 58.58 51.58 51.58 51.58 51.58 School Board Properties: High School 60 acres Elementary School 15 • acres Bus Parking 31 acres Work Force Education 12.29 acres Total 118.3 acres 00-059/Ocoee Finacial Analysis-rerc.xls Absorption .. n •aytiv�nc•.ettata76ex+rna'.:a.�±a..,.. ..�A .... ' ... .. CITY OF OCOEE/COCA COLA PROPERTY PROPERTY PRICING ESTIMATES Per SF 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Single family Housing $0.69 $30,000 $31,500 $33,075 $34,729 $36,465 $38,288 $40,203 $42,213 $44,324 School Properties $0.36 $15,793 $16,583 $17,412 $18,282 $19,197 $20,156 $21,164 $22,222 $23,334 Commercial Land $3.75 , $163,350 $171,518 $180,093 $189,098 $198,553 $208,481 $218,905 $229,850 $241,342 Secondary Commercial $2.00 $87,120 $91,476 $96,050 $100,852 $105,895 $111,190 $116,749 $122,587 ; $128,716 Notes: Land values escalate at a per year Value Calculations: • price price School Price Calculation: !dae density per unit per acre School Properties $15,793 single family: acres 115 density per net acre 4 price $1,816,207 Single Family 2.80 $10,714 • , °�o a� net acres 35 $/acre $15,793 gross acres 50 Commercial/sc 43,560 $3.75 $163,350 density per gross acre • 2.80 Secondary Commercial 43,560 $2.00 $87,120 00-059/Ocoee Finacial Analysis-rerc.xls Price per Acre Source:Real Estate Research Consultants,Inc. .• •.••. 1'll'!.'IlV)ti{YJ+JMS.VLLLPJII.IN•It\t...............rvJ/A1YI.f:!i.•A:)./. ".h/..:'.n i... CITY OF OCOEE/COCA COLA PROPERTY SALES REVENUE ESTIMATES BY LAND USE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Single family Housing $0 $0 $1,653,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,653,750 School Properties $1,868,324 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,868,324 Commercial Land $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,375,400 $1,459,364 $0 $0 $0 $4,834,764 Secondary Commercial $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Sales Revenue $1,868,324 $0 $1,653,750 $0 $3,375,400 $1,459,364 $0 $0 $0 $8,356,838 00-059/Ocoee Finacial Analysis-rerc.xls Revenue by Land Use nIirra•Rani Petafa Racaarrh f^.nnciiltante In, • • CITY OF OCOEE/COCA COLA PROPERTY PROJECT CASH FLOW ESTIMATES 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Gross pales Proceeds $1,868,324 $0 $1,653,750 $0 $3,375,400 $1,459,364 $0 $0 $0 $8,356,838 Selling,General,&Administrative 5% $0 $0 ($82,688) $0 ($168,770)_ ($72,968) $0 $0 $0 ($324,426) Net Sales Proceeds $1,868,324 $0 $1,571,063 $0 $3,206,630 $1,386,396J $0 $0 $0 $8,032,412 Land Acquisition ($3,750,000) ($3,750,000) Closing costs ($7,500) ($7,500) Interest costs ($97,225) ($152,336) ($86,959) ($336,520) Legal costs ($45,000) ($45,000) Development Costs: 1. Project Roads: $0 $575,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $775,000 2. Project Access: $0 $200,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $230,000 3. Project Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4. Project Stormwater: $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 5.Wetland Mitigation: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6."Park"Improvements: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7. Project Entries/Monuments $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8.Contingencies(15%) $0 $127,500 $4,500 . $0 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $162,000 9. Due Diligence Fees: $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 10.Other Professional Fees: $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Master Development Costs $50,000 $1,027,500 $84,500 $0 $230,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,392,000 Other Optional Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1' 176 w., $2,501,392 ativeCashiFlow .,:...:�:::..:... :.: .... ... ._.:..,. __..�_.-._.............__. .... $..1 , , I ... .$31 90.1 , .. 1 774 6751,: 8 ::��_,.,, L . $ $1 61 634 ' 1-114 996 '_ 2 50'::.... ..:.:.:......:.: _......_..........i_....t,..._ '__:._._....... .....................),r..,._{ . / ,.,.�...{,._,..,..,..,,..,n:_Y./:.{._:L .e.l—•....),�':. 1 .1... .$. , T;392 �$2`501 392'';-'$2"50:1'392! �2`50 92 I I I Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. 135 W.Central Blvd. Orlando,FL 32801 (407)839-4006 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR COCA-COLA PROPERTY,CITY OF OCOEE 10/23/00 ITEM INITIAL COST FUTURE PHASE TOTAL HIGH SCHOOL SITE COST OFF-SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS $375,000.00 ENTRANCE @ OCOEE-APOPKA ROAD $100,000.00 $100,000.00 (BASED ON 650 LF @$150/LF) ENTRANCE @ FULLERS CROSS ROAD $75,000.00 $75,000.00 (BASED ON 500 LF @$150/LF) INTERSECTION @ OCOEE-APOPKA ROAD $200,000.00 $200,000.00 &FULLERS CROSS ROAD (COMMERCIAL SITES) (BASED ON 1300 LF @$150/LF) PROPOSED 4-LANE PARKWAY $500,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,500,000.00 (BASED ON 7500 LF @$200/LF) (2-LANE ACCESS ROAD FROM (FROM OCOEE-APOPKA) FULLERS CROSS ROAD) STORMWATER SYSTEM $75,000.00 $0.00 $75,000.00 (BASED ON$50,000/ACRE) (BASED ON 1.5 ACRES) OFF-SITE UTILITY EXTENSIONS $0.00 $0.00 $1,000,000.00 SUBTOTALS $650,000.00 $1,300,000.00 $2,950,000.00 ROADWAY R-O-W ACQUISITION $200,000.00 $30,000.00 $230,000.00 CONTINGENCY 15.00% $97,500.00 $195,000.00 $442,500.00 TOTAL $947,500.00 $1,525,000.00 $3,622,500.00 Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 63 9. Next Steps The results of the study indicate that the City of Ocoee should pursue the acquisition of the property and take necessary steps to maximize the potential of this site as outlined in this report. The preferred development scenario map graphically shows the program facilities located on the site, which came about through a comprehensive process of discussion between the project team, authorities and consultants. The City should consider preparing a fiscal benefit analysis. Some examples of fiscal benefits, as a result of the development of the entire property, are revenue from ad valorem taxes, permits, and fees. The City should perform a sensitivity test to the cash flow model, which is part of the Preliminary Financial Analysis section of this report. This would involve some "tweaking" of the inputs present in the cash flow model. The City should also consider a strategic marketing plan, which could include requests for qualifications (RFQ) and requests for proposals (RFP) for the development of the sellable parcels. Following this action, steps to provide infrastructure and facilities to bring about the development of this site need to be taken. These actions may be implemented at this time. Subsequently a master plan for the development of this site and program facilities in line with the vision for the City of Ocoee and Orange County Public Schools (OCPS)should be prepared. Ocoee Property Feasibility Study-Planning Report 64 10. Appendix The following are the drafts of the meeting minutes done during the different phases of the project. • Date: July 6, 2000 Project Name: 032112048.0010: Property Feasibility Study, City of Ocoee Submitted By: Richard Foley, Spillis Candela DMJM . Date/Location: Administrative Kick Off Meeting June 28, 2000 City Manager's,Conference Room, City of Ocoee Attendees: Project Team Mayor Scott Vandergrift, City of Ocoee Ellis Shapiro, City Manager, City of Ocoee Paul Rosenthal, Attorney, City of Ocoee Janet Shira, Community Relations Director, City of Ocoee Brad Friel, Transportation, City of Ocoee David Wheeler, Engineering and Utilities, City of Ocoee Russ Wagner, Director of Planning, City of Ocoee Jon Martin, Real Property, Orange County Public Schools Marcus Marchena, Marchena&Graham, Orange County Public Schools Consultant Team Richard Foley, Spillis Candela DMJM Skip Downs, Spillis Candela DMJM Ginger Corless, HHI Xabier Guerrucagoitia, VHB Owen Beitsch, RERC Bill Owen, RERC David Darsey, RERC Purpose: Above referenced meeting was held to kick off the City of Ocoee Coke. Property Feasibility Study. This is a summary of the writer's interpretation of the meeting. Unless advised in writing to the contrary, it is assumed those in attendance are in agreement with the statements as set forth and work will proceed on this basis. 1.0 Introductions and Meeting Purpose 1.1 Richard Foley led introductions. People stated their name and interest in the project. 1.2 Richard stated that this meeting should serve as the kick off to project. He emphasized the need to discuss data collection and other information that may have a bearing on the project. 2.0 Data Collection 2.1 Russ Wagner reviewed the data request for the property feasibility study. The following are highlights from that discussion. Information to be Provided by the City of Ocoee • Russ stated the comprehensive plan and land development code would not be very helpful in completing this assignment. • Future land use and zoning code will be provided. • Park inventory will be provided. • The city's 5-year capital improvement program will be provided, but the consultant team was cautioned that the projects outlined are conceptual in nature. • A Phase 1 Environmental Assessment has been completed and will be provided to the consultant team. Russ stated that there appears to an isolated contamination area on site and a Phase II Environmental Assessment was in progress. The results will be provided to the consultant team. • The city has development standards for activity centers. The standards will be provided to the consultant team. • A copy of the Avanti Development Project will be provided to the consultant team. • The City of Ocoee's Master Transportation Plan will be provided to the consultant team. • The city will provide the consultant team with the location and information on the large wastewater line that runs through the property near the location of the West Orange Trail. • The city will provide the St. Johns River Water Management District's Lake Apopka study materials as well as the brochure that was produced through the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and "Friends of Apopka." • The city to provide a set of plans that show the realignment of Claracona/Ocoee Road. Information that has been Provided by the City of Ocoee • Paul Rosenthal provided a copy of the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Ocoee and Orange County Public Schools (OCPS). • RERC stated that they have already received copies of two appraisals. • Paul Rosenthal stated that the appraisals did not include the odd parcels and RERC should take this into consideration. Paul provided the consultant team with maps and land area calculations dated June 15, 1999. • Ellis Shapiro provided an update regarding the boundary survey that was in progress. The surveyors have 25 working days from June 28th to complete the survey. Paul Rosenthal stated that Scott Clemens in his office had the title information. Russ Wagner will coordinate a meeting between the surveyor, OCPS and City of Ocoee Engineering and Utilities Department. It was discussed that the survey will probably not be completed in time to reference in the study. Information the Consultant Team will Gather from Other Sources • Paul Rosenthal stated Orange County Tax Appraiser Property Information has been updated. The consultant team will acquire tax maps and aerials from Orange County. • It was determined that the consultant team will need to acquire a recently flown aerial in a digital format for the purpose of conducting the study. • The consultant team will use information collected from the St. Johns River Water Management District to evaluate soil and wetland conditions,. There is no other available geotechnical information on the site. • RERC will obtain comparison appraisal information from the Orange County Expressway Authority. • Spillis Candela DMJM will acquire, as available, prototypical development footprints for OCPS's high schools, elementary schools and bus yards. 2.2 Other Data Discussions 2.2.1 Avanti Property — this is a planned development to be located just north of the project site. The proposed used include 600-700 single-family residential units, 15 acres of multi-family residential and 15-16 acres of commercial. The developer has also stated they will reserve an area for an elementary school. The development is proposed as a gated community. Discussions regarding this development include the extension of a public road into the Coke property, as well the placement of the elementary school. 2.2.2 Other Adjacent Properties - a discussion was held regarding the property that is considered the project site. It was also noted that the City of Winter Garden owns land south of the project site along with lands directly south of the project site which may be acquired through mitigation monies from the Expressway Authority. Orange County property was also discussed. 2.2.3 Dual Water and Filtration Site — a discussion was held regarding the site being a dual water site as well as a potential site where a stormwater filtration system may be integrated into the overall design of the property. 2.3.4 City of Winter Garden Amphitheater— plans for a 10,000-seat amphitheater in the City of Winter Garden at Franklin Street were discussed. 3.0 Development Program The following highlights program elements that were discussed and should be incorporated into the planning and conceptual bubble diagrams that will be produced by the consultant team. OCPS (a total of 115 acres) • High School — 60 acres will be required unless there is a master site stormwater system where the majority of retention was within the high school campus, and then only 40-45 acres will be required for the high school. A typical high school has 800 parking spaces. OCPS is open to joint use of parking and athletic facilities for community purposes. • Elementary School — 15 acres is typically required. A site can be as small as 12 acres if stormwater is off-site. OCPS is open to joint use of parking and athletic facilities for community purposes. It is noted that an elementary school site serves 2,800 homes. The elementary school should be located so the majority of students can walk to school. • Bus Parking/Maintenance Yard —20 acres will be required to accommodate 300- 350 buses plus staff parking. This site should be located away from residential units and its traffic flow should be.separated from public or other school traffic. This was later amended, by telephone message,to be=25:acres. • Work Force Education Facility — 20 acres should be reserved for this facility. This facility can be located adjacent to commercial or other uses of properly designed. This was later amended, by telephone message, to be 15 acres. City of Ocoee • Public Park — a least a 40 acre park site with access to Lake Apopka, West Orange Trail and recreation field of the schools. The park shall be resource- based in design. Ideas for a marina and restaurant facility were discussed. • Public Safety Training Facility • Police ( Indoor) Firing Range . 4.0 Consultant Work Products and Other Discussion Points 4.1 Site Inspection — Mayor Vandergrift volunteered to lead an inspection of the site. The consultant team felt that the venture would be desirable and would coordinate with Russ and the mayor. 4.2 Bubble Diagram — if the consultant proceeds to Task 2.0, the bubble diagram shall present the program identified in 3.0 along with identifying properties that are best sold for private development purposes based on market data. 4.3 Orange County—a brief discussion was held regarding the role of Orange County. The project site is not currently located within, the Ocoee city limits and will be annexed. The city and OCPS will be meeting with the county to begin discussions regarding the project site. 4.4 Identification of Costs — the importance of identifying development costs was stressed. 5.0 Schedule 5.1 Due Diligence — Paul Rosenthal stated that October 13th was the date the due diligence period,expires. 5.2 City Commission — Paul stated that the last ,day a request for action could go before the City Commission is October 3`d. 5.3 Project Team Meetings — It was determined that Thursdays at 2:00 PM will be the preferred date for project team meetings. ' Available Thursdays are July 20th, August 3`d, August 17th, September 7th and September 21 st. 5.4 Project Schedules— Based on the above dates and the time period identified in the contract. Richard Foley will prepare a project schedule for review and approval by. , the project team. cc: Attendees Project File • . i Date: August 2, 2000 Project Name: 032112048.0010: Property Feasibility Study, City of Ocoee Submitted By: Richard Foley, Spillis Candela DMJM Date/Location: Project Team Meeting #2, July 20, 2000 City Manager's Conference.Room, City of Ocoee Attendees: Project Team Mayor Scott Vandergrift, City of Ocoee Ellis Shapiro, City Manager, City of Ocoee Paul Rosenthal, Attorney, City of Ocoee Jim Shira, City Engineer, City of Ocoee Janet Shira, Community Relations Director, City of Ocoee Brad Friel, Transportation, City of Ocoee Russ Wagner, Director of Planning, City of Ocoee Jon Martin, Real Property, Orange County Public Schools Terry Adsit, Orange County Public Schools Yvonnie Rodregrien, Marchena& Graham, Orange County Public Schools Consultant Team Richard Foley, Spillis Candela DMJM Ginger Corless, HHI Xabier Guerrucagoitia, VHB Bill Owen, RERC Karl Nieva, RERC Purpose: Above referenced meeting was held to discuss Task 1.0 of the City of Ocoee Coke Property Feasibility Study. This is a summary of the writer's interpretation of the meeting. Unless advised in writing to the contrary, it is assumed those in attendance are in agreement with the statements as set . • forth and work will proceed on this basis. 1.0 Introductions and Meeting Purpose 1.1 . Richard Foley led introductions. People stated their name and interest in the project. 1.2 Richard turned the meeting over to Ginger Corless who stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Task1.0—Initial Due Diligence Phase. 1.3 Ginger distributed 11"X 17" handouts of the opportunities and constraints map. 1.4 She introduced Bill Owen with RERC to lead the financial discussions. - 2.0 Due Diligence- Preliminary Market Assessment 2.1 Bill stated that the primary focus of Task 1.0 was to determine if the City of Ocoee and the Orange County School Board should pursue the acquisition of the Coke Property. 2.2 Based on the preliminary market evaluation, Bill stated RERC did not see any reason that the City or School Board should not continue with the acquisition process. 2.3 Bill reviewed issues relating to, property location, relative position, perceived market opportunities and regulatory conditions. 2.4 Ellis inquired if RERC felt confident that the City could see a return on their investment (enough to pay back the loan needed to acquire the property) by selling off parcels that were not to be used for the proposed public program. Bill Owen stated that he felt that the City could see an immediate return (if regulatory issues were addressed) to pay back the loan and possible see a return of between 5 to 6 million dollars if the optimum regulatory and infrastructure elements were in place prior to selling the property. 3.0 Due Diligence— Development Suitability 3.1 Richard Foley and other team members discussed the development suitability of the Coke Property. 3.2 Based on initial inspection of the site and the review of related data the Consultant Team stated that there were no development issues on the site that would inhibit development. 3.3 The Consultant Team did discuss access at the south end of the site as critical to accommodate the proposed development potential. 4.0 Program Discussion 4.1 Bill Owen inquired how many households were required to support the elementary school. Jon Martin stated 2,800 is the number used for planning purposes. 4.2 Janet Shira encouraged OCPS to review growth in the surrounding area. 5.0 Other Issues 5.1 Russ Wagner stated he would provide the Consultant Team with the Socio- economic data from the City's Master Transportation Plan. 5.2 The group discussed the need to rename the project prior to presentation to the community. This will be a topic for the August 3rd project team meeting 6.0 Schedule 5.1 Richard Foley distributed and reviewed the project schedule. TASK 1.0—INITIAL DUE DILIGENCE 21 Days 1.1 Administrative Meeting and Data Collection June 28, 2000 1.2 Data Review July 20, 2000 1.3 Initial Opportunities and Constraints July 20, 2000 1.4 Project Team Workshop July 20, 2000 TASK 2.0—MARKET ANALYSIS AND PLANNING SCENARIOS 21 Days 2.1 Market Analysis August 1, 2000 2.2 Site Issues August1, 2000 2.3 Threshold Levels August 2, 2000 2.4 Project Team Workshop August 3, 2000 2.5 Development Scenarios Bubble Diagrams August 15, 2000 2.6 Infrastructure Analysis August 10, 2000 2.7 Planning Report August 14, 2000 2.8 Project Team Meeting August 17, 2000 TASK 3.0—DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS 21 Days 3.1 Preliminary Financial Analysis August 24, 2000 3.2 Probable Development Costs September 5, 2000 3.3 Financial Assessment September 14, 2000 3.4 Project Team Meeting September 7, 2000 3.5 Task 3.0 Report September 14, 2000 3.6 City Commission Presentation September 19, 2000 6.2 Paul informed the group that there will be a need to have a public meeting in August to meet the conditions of Orange County. The City will be responsible for conducting this meeting; however, the planning team will provide the City with presentation graphics to be used during the presentation. 6.3 Next Project Team Meeting—August 3, 2000 at 2:00 PM. cc: Attendees Project File Date: August 14, 2000 Project Name: 032112048.0010: Property Feasibility Study, City of Ocoee Submitted By: Richard Foley, Spillis Candela DMJM Date/Location: Project Team Meeting #3, August 3, 2000 City Manager's Conference Room, City.of Ocoee Attendees: Project Team Commissioner Nancy Parker, City of Ocoee Ellis Shapiro, City Manager, City of Ocoee Paul Rosenthal, Attorney, City of Ocoee Jim Shira, City Engineer, City of.Ocoee Janet Shira, Community Relations Director, City of Ocoee Brad Friel, Transportation, City of Ocoee Russ Wagner, Director of Planning, City of Ocoee Donald Carter, Finance Department, City of Ocoee Wanda Horton, City of Ocoee • Mark Galvin, Ocoee Financial Advisor Jon Martin, Real Property, Orange County Public Schools Yovannie Rodriquez-Smith, Marchena &Graham, Orange County Public Schools Carol Stricklin, Orange County Planning Department Consultant Team Richard Foley, Spillis Candela DMJM Ginger Corless, HHI Xabier Guerricagoitia, VHB Dave Darsey, RERC Karl Nieva, RERC Purpose: Above referenced meeting was held to discuss Task 1.0 of the City of Ocoee Coke Property Feasibility Study. This is a summary of the writer's interpretation of the meeting. Unless advised in writing to the contrary, it is assumed those in attendance are in agreement with the statements as set forth and work will proceed on this basis. 1.0 Introductions and Meeting Purpose 1.1 Richard Foley led introductions. People stated their name and interest in the project. 1.2 _ Richard stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss tasks 2.1 Market Analysis, Task 2.2 Site Issues and Task 2.3 Threshold Levels. 1.3 Richard distributed 11" X 17" handouts of the preliminary market analysis and planning scenarios plan for discussion. . • 2.0 Market Analysis and Threshold Levels 2.1 Dave Darsey reviewed the market analysis and discussed market demand and thresholds for the project site. 2.2 A discussion was held regarding the commercial/retail opportunities and the ability to sell them in a relatively short time frame. 2.3 Dave stressed the importance of buffering the bus parking area. Dave stated that the value of the site would be higher if the bus parking area was not located on the site. 3.0 Site Issues 3.1 Xabier stated that Gopher Tortoises had been found on site; however, he did not feel this was a deterrent for development. The Gopher Tortoises were found primarily in the area were the park is proposed. 3.2 Xabier led a discussion regarding the transportation improvements that would be required. The City stressed the importance in providing improvement costs for the transportation elements during Task 3.0 of the contract. 3.3 The City and OCPS discussed the survey delays as well as the need to complete a Phase II Environmental. 4.0 Program Discussion 4.1 Jon Martin expressed the desire of OCPS to create an urban village feel to the proposed development where the school is truly part of the community as well as assisting in setting an aesthetic for the development. 4.2 Jon also emphasized the problems with locating a traditional multi-family (apartment complex) directly adjacent to a high school. 4.3 The West Orange Trail as well as possible trail spurs were discussed. 5.0 Other Issues 5.1 Russ Wagner stated he would provide the Consultant Team with the Socio- economic data from the City's Master Transportation Plan. 5.2 The group discussed the need to rename the project prior to presentation to the community. This will be a topic for the August 17th project team meeting. 6.0 Schedule 6.1 Ellis Shapiro inquired if the survey delay and the Phase II Environmental Survey would cause a delay with the work proposed by the Consultant Team. Richard Foley stated that he thought it would not. 6.2 Richard Foley reviewed the project schedule. TASK 1.0—INITIAL DUE DILIGENCE 21 Days Status 1.1 Administrative Meeting and Data Collection June 28, 2000 Complete 1.2 Data Review July 20, 2000 Complete 1.3 Initial Opportunities and Constraints July 20, 2000 Complete 1.4 Project Team Workshop July 20, 2000 Complete TASK 2.0—MARKET ANALYSIS & PLANNING SCENARIOS 21 Days 2.1 Market Analysis August 1, 2000 Complete 2.2 Site Issues August1, 2000 Complete 2.3 Threshold Levels August 2, 2000 Complete 2.4 Project Team Workshop August 3, 2000 Complete 2.5 Development Scenarios Bubble Diagrams August 15, 2000 2.6 Infrastructure Analysis August 10, 2000 2.7 Planning Report August 14, 2000 2.8 Project Team Meeting August 17, 2000 TASK 3.0—DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS 21 Days 3.1 Preliminary Financial Analysis August 24, 2000 3.2 Probable Development Costs September 5, 2000 3.3 Financial Assessment September 14, 2000 3.4 Project Team Meeting September 7, 2000 3.5 Task 3.0 Report September 14, 2000 3.6 City Commission Presentation September 19, 2000 6.3 Next Project Team Meeting—August 17, 2000 at 2:00 PM. cc: Attendees Project File Date: August 18, 2000 ( Revised August 22, 2000 ) Project Name: 032112048.0010: Property Feasibility Study, City of Ocoee Submitted By: Richard Foley, Spillis Candela DMJM Date/Location: Project Team Meeting #4, August 17, 2000 City Manager's Conference Room, City of Ocoee Attendees: Project Team Mayor Scott Vandergrift, City of Ocoee Ellis Shapiro, City Manager, City of Ocoee Paul Rosenthal, Attorney, City of Ocoee Russ Wagner, Director of Planning, City of Ocoee Jim Shira, City Engineer, City of Ocoee Janet Shira, Community Relations Director, City of Ocoee Brad Friel, Transportation, City of Ocoee Donald Carter, Finance Department, City of Ocoee Wanda Horton, Finance Director, City of Ocoee Mark Galvin, Ocoee Financial Advisor Bob Smith, Public Works Director, City of Ocoee Jon Martin, Real Property, Orange County Public Schools Jed Baumwell, Orange County Public Schools Marcus Marchena, Marchena & Graham, Orange County Public Schools Consultant Team Richard Foley, Spillis Candela DMJM Ginger Corless, HHI Xabier Guerricagoitia, VHB Dave Darsey, RERC Karl Nieva, RERC Purpose: Above referenced meeting was held to discuss the development scenarios (task 2.5), infrastructure analysis (task 2.6) and the draft planning report (task 2.7) of the City of Ocoee Coke Property Feasibility Study. This is a summary of the writer's interpretation of the meeting. Unless advised in writing to the contrary, it is assumed those in attendance are in agreement with the statements as set forth and work will proceed on this basis. 1.0 Introductions and Meeting Purpose 1.1 Richard Foley led introductions. People stated their name and interest in the project. 1.2 Richard stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the development scenarios and infrastructure analysis. 1.3 Richard distributed 11" X 17" handouts of the development scenarios and distributed a draft planning report to Russ Wagner, Ellis Shapiro, Paul Rosenthal and the Orange County Public Schools. 2.0 Survey Update 2.1 The City announced they had received a preliminary survey of the project site. The following are the acreages presented on the survey. - Parcel 1 . 270.0776 acres - Parcel 2 41.7749 acres - Parcel 3 6.6741 acres - Parcel 4 17.9560 acres - Parcel 5 6.9564 acres - Parcel 6 12.2891 acres - Parcel 7 2.4110 acres Total Acreage 358.1391 acres 2.2 The City and OCPS are in the process of reviewing the survey. A final survey will be provided to the Consultant Team. 3.0 Development Scenarios 3.1 Richard stated that the Consultant Team had met several times since the August 3rd meeting to discuss the development scenarios. He mentioned that Russ Wagner had attended one of these meetings. 3.2 Richard requested that Ginger lead the discussion on the development scenarios. Ginger opened by stating the purpose of the development scenarios were to determine if the development program could fit on the site in a manner that demonstrated highest and best use for the City,to recover their investment. 3.2 Development Scenario 1 was discussed. The following are highlights from that discussion. • The main entrance to the project site, as well as Avanti's project, would be the extension of Clarcona-Ocoee Road. Xabier reviewed the improvements that would be necessary at the entrance to facilitate movement. The recommended improvements did take into account the trips generated from both the project site and Avanti's. Xabier stated that the improvements were based on Avanti having a secondary entrance further north. (This comment is true for Development Scenario 2 as well) • Xabier reviewed the right-of-way requirements and stated land would have to be acquired. Jim Shira inquired if right-of-way could be obtained from their property. Xabier stated that it could but that is not how VHB had performed the analysis; however they would look at it at the next phase. (This comment is true for Development Scenario 2 as well) • Ginger and Dave Darsey with RERC stressed the importance of identifying the project site at the intersection of the main entrance with Ocoee-Apopka Road. Several ways to accomplish this was discussed, including regional designation similar to "Metro West". (This comment is true for Development Scenario 2 as well) • Ellis stated that he felt the fire station would only required 3-4 acres and the public safety training center about 11 acres. Members of the Consultant Team stated that the public safety training center was located to be away from adjacent residential. (This comment is true for Development Scenario 2 as well) • It was determined that the Omnicom/signal technology would have to be further researched to ensure a controlled access in the area between the proposed public safety training center, fire station and bus parking area. (This comment is true for Development Scenario 2 as well) • It was determined the parcels identified as 3 and 4 will be shown as the same land use color as 1 and 2 as well as noted on the legend as "Property to be sold 12 acres (commercial land use)". (This comment is true for Development Scenario 2 as well) • Number 7 (project site) should be listed as Conservation/Parks. The mitigation area to the south should receive a different number but designated the same as 7. (This comment is true for.Development Scenario 2 as well) • There was a group consensus that there should be a clear, statement regarding the intent to share infrastructure (master stormwater basins, roadways, parking, open space and recreation facilities) to reduce overall acreage requirements for each program. OCPS and the City of Ocoee are both strongly in favor of this approach. (This comment is true for Development Scenario 2 as well) • The City was concerned that scenario 1 did not provide enough public park upland area. The City stated that if they could regain their investment through the sale of the commercial property then perhaps the amount of residential shown was not needed. RERC representatives stated that single- family developments smaller than 30 acres were difficult to market. 3.3 Development Scenario 2 was discussed. The following are highlights from that discussion • OCPS Work Force Education Center (16) cannot be shown on the mitigation site and must fit within the "Coke" project site. To accomplish this the placement of the workforce will be similar to development scenario 1. This will reduce the amount of residential in scenario 2. • The OCPS was concerned with a road between the athletic fields and the main campus of the high school. Following discussion, it was 'decided to connect the high school parcels (10 & 14). - • The road on the west side of the circle would be to gain access to the residential development and not continue into the high school campus. The trail spur would be relocated to go between the residential area and the high school, not through the high school. • The general consensus was that development scenario 2 was the more creative of the two concepts. However, the success of this development scenario would depend on the quality of the high school design. There was a concern by the City that this might be a problem and wanted OCPS to consider a design that would be compatible with surrounding development. 4.0 Other Issues 4.1 The City and OCPS will be meeting with Orange County the week of August 21 s`to discuss the project. Ginger provided the large format development scenarios for use in this meeting. Ginger stated if the City or OCPS wanted additional copies, she would need to have a one-day notice for reproduction purposes. 5.0 Schedule 5.1 Ellis Shapiro informed the team that they had received an additional thirty days to close on the property. Richard Foley stated the Consultant Team would maintain the following schedule. TASK 1.0—INITIAL DUE DILIGENCE 21 Days Status 1.1 Administrative Meeting and Data Collection June 28, 2000 Complete 1.2 Data Review July 20, 2000 Complete 1.3 Initial Opportunities and Constraints July 20, 2000 Complete 1.4 Project Team Workshop July 20, 2000 Complete TASK 2.0—MARKET ANALYSIS & PLANNING SCENARIOS 21 Days 2.1 Market Analysis August 1, 2000 Complete 2.2 Site Issues Augustl, 2000 Complete 2.3 Threshold Levels August 2, 2000 Complete 2.4 Project Team Workshop August 3, 2000 Complete 2.5 Development Scenarios Bubble Diagrams August 15, 2000 Complete 2.6 Infrastructure Analysis August 10, 2000 Complete 2.7 Planning Report August 14,2000 Complete 2.8 Project Team Meeting August 17, 2000 Complete TASK 3.0—DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS 21 Days 3.1 Preliminary Financial Analysis August 24, 2000 3.2 Probable Development Costs September 5, 2000 3.3 Financial Assessment September 14, 2000 3.4 Project Team Meeting September 7, 2000 3.5 Task 3.0 Report September 14, 2000 3.6 City Commission Presentation September 19, 2000 5.2 Next Project Team Meeting-September 7, 2000 at 2:00 PM. cc: Attendees Project File Date: September.14, 2000 Project Name: 032112048.0010: Property Feasibility Study, City of Ocoee Submitted By: Ginger Corless, HHI Richard Foley, Spillis Candela DMJM Date/Location: Project Team Meeting #5, September 7, 2000 City Manager's Conference Room, City of Ocoee Attendees: Project Team - Mayor Scott Vandergrift, City of Ocoee Ellis Shapiro, City Manager, City of Ocoee Paul Rosenthal, Attorney, City of Ocoee Russ Wagner, City of Ocoee Jim Shira, City of Ocoee Janet Shira, City of Ocoee Brad Friel, City of Ocoee Kirsten McGinnis, City of Ocoee Joanna Dyson, City of Ocoee Jed Baumwell, Orange County Public Schools Marcus Marchena, Marchena & Graham, Orange County Public Schools Consultant Team Skip Downs, Spillis Candela DMJM Ginger Corless, HHI Xabier Guerricagoitia, VHB Bill Owen, RERC Karl Nieva, RERC Purpose: Above referenced meeting was held to discuss the revised development scenarios and task 3.0 development scenarios of the City of Ocoee Coke Property Feasibility Study. This was the last scheduled project team meeting for the project. This is a summary of the writer's interpretation of the meeting. Unless advised in writing to the contrary, it is assumed those in attendance are in agreement with the statements as set forth and work will proceed on this basis. 1.0 Introductions and Meeting Purpose 1.1 In Richard Foley's absence, Ginger Corless led discussions and stated that the purpose of the final project team meeting was to review the revised development scenarios, select a preferred development scenario and review products of Task 3.0 development parameters. City of Ocoee Property Feasibility Study Project Team Meeting #5 Minutes September 14, 2000 Page Two 1.2 Ginger distributed 11" X 17" handouts of the revised development scenarios and distributed a preliminary estimate of development costs. 2.0 Survey Update 2.1 The City provided the consultant team with a survey. VHB will get with HHI and verify acreage for final report and graphics. 3.0 Development Scenarios 3.1 Ginger reminded the project team that one of the primary goals of this meeting was to select a preferred development scenario. 3.2 Ginger presented both development scenarios to the project team. Based on discussion it was the consensus of the City of Ocoee and the Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) representatives present that Development Scenario 1 was the preferred scenario. 3.2 The following are highlights from that discussion pertaining to the preferred scenario (Development Scenario 1). • • The OCPS stated they needed to review if the 13-acre proposed site for the workforce education facility could accommodate the program. • The OCPS would have their planners review development scenario 1 to determine if the site proposed for the high school and the elementary school would work in the proposed configuration shown on the Development Scenario 1 graphic. • HHI will graphically present the development program elements at their full- proposed size, demonstrating whose property the proposed buffer was part of. This is important. for the agreement between OCPS and the City of Ocoee. • The City of Ocoee set a meeting for September 14th to discuss the program for the proposed park shown on scenario 1. The graphic for Development Scenario 1 represented an approximate 40-acre upland park associated with lake access and the conservation area. • It was determined that final comments regarding the preferred development scenario as well as the draft report were due to Ginger Corless with HHI no later than the end of the day on Thursday, September 14th City of Ocoee Property Feasibility Study Project Team Meeting #5 Minutes September 14, 2000 Page Three 4.0 Development Costs 4.1 The development cost worksheet prepared by VHB was briefly presented. Ginger emphasized that costs were estimated for infrastructure costs to and through the sites and not for each program element. Infrastructure costs were estimated to be $5,716,250.00. 4.2 The City inquired how the utility extensions were calculated. Xabier stated it was based on Orange County servicing the project site with water from the south and sewer from the north. 4.3 The City requested VHB to re-evaluate where the water would be coming from. It was the City's understanding that the water capacity was not available from the south or west side of the project site. 4.4 The utility costs should be broken down to demonstrate costs to the Avanti Site, to the project site and to the high school. 5.0 Financial Assessment 5.1 Bill Owen stated that residential development was an immediate opportunity once infrastructure was in place to support it. Commercial development was thought to be possible in a five-year time frame, once house tops were in that could support it. 5.2 Ellis asked if the acquisition of the project site in partnership with the school board was a viable project following RERC's financial assessment. Bill Owen with RERC stated that he felt it was. 5.3 Bill stated RERC would run another analysis incorporating infrastructure and development costs into the equation with potential land values. This analysis will be part of the final report. 6.0 Schedule 6.1 Since the City and the OCPS requested a week to review the information presented and to submit final comments, the schedule was changed to reflect this. Another change to the schedule was the actual presentation to. the City Commission. This date was pushed back to allow for the final environmental assessment as well as for meetings to occur between the OCPS, City of Ocoee and Orange County. City of Ocoee Property Feasibility Study Project Team Meeting #5 Minutes September 14, 2000 Page Four 6.2 The following reflects the current status of the project schedule. TASK 1.0—INITIAL DUE DILIGENCE 21 Days Status 1.1 Administrative Meeting and Data Collection June 28, 2000 Complete 1.2 Data Review July 20, 2000 Complete 1.3 Initial Opportunities and Constraints July 20, 2000 Complete 1.4 Project Team Workshop July 20, 2000 Complete TASK 2.0—MARKET ANALYSIS & PLANNING SCENARIOS 21 Days Status 2.1 Market Analysis August 1, 2000 Complete 2.2 Site Issues Augustl, 2000 Complete 2.3 Threshold Levels August 2, 2000 Complete 2.4 Project Team Workshop August 3, 2000 Complete 2.5 Development Scenarios Bubble Diagrams August 15, 2000 Complete 2.6 Infrastructure Analysis August 10, 2000 Complete 2.7 Planning Report August 14, 2000 Complete 2.8 Project Team Meeting August 17, 2000 Complete TASK 3.0—DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS 21 Days Status - 3.1 Preliminary Financial Analysis August 24, 2000 Complete 3.2 Probable Development Costs September 5, 2000 Complete 3.3 Financial Assessment September 14, 2000 Complete 3.4 Project Team Meeting September 7, 2000 Complete 3.5 Task 3.0 Report September 21, 2000 Revised 3.6 City Commission Presentation October 17, 2000 Revised 6.3 Ginger will distribute final report directly to the OCPS and the City of Ocoee. cc: Project Team Consultant Team Project File