The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-13-2008 Agenda PacketCenter of Good Li Mayor ��ie v!tj Commissioners S. Scott Vand6rgrift 8 Gary Hood, District 1 Scott Anderson, District 2 Citv Manalrer Cr'- Rusty Johnson, District 3 Robert Frank ��" "` ••�•• � Joel Heller, District 4 w".._ ---.— cow PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION (LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY) May 13, 2008 AGENDA 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER A. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum C. Annual Elections CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held March 11, 2008 III. OLD BUSINESS IV. NEW BUSINESS A. DEPAIVA PROPERTY PUBLIC HEARING Principal Planner Rumer 1. Annexation 2. Rezoning B. SCHOOL CONCURRENCY PUBLIC HEARING Senior Planner Howell 1. Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment V. MISCELLANEOUS A. Project Status Report B. May Calendar VI. ADJOURNMENT O:\P & Z\Agendas\2008\May 13, 2008 P & Z Agenda.doc NOTE: Regular Planning and Zoning Commission meetings take place on the second Tuesday of every month at 7:00 pm in the Ocoee Commission Chambers in City Hall unless otherwise advertised. Any person who desires to appeal any decision at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for this purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. More than one Commissioner may participate or hear discussions regarding a matter which will come before the Commission for action. Also in accordance with Florida Statue 286.26: Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact the Office of the City Clerk, 150 North Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee, FL 34761 (407) 905-3105, 48 hours in advance of the meeting. City of Ocoee • 150 N Lakeshore Drive • Ocoee, Florida 34761 phone: (407) 905-3100 • fax: (407) 656-8504 • www.ci.ocoee.fl.us ITEM NUMBER II. A. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting held on March 11, 2008 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTING AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Chairman West called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Following a moment of silent meditation and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, a quorum was declared present. PRESENT: Chairman West, Vice Chair Golden, Members Campbell, Conkling; Dillard, McKey, Morris, Rhodus (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), and Sills. Also present were City Attorney Rosenthal, City Attorney Palmer, Community Development Director Wagner, Principal Planner Fabre, Senior Planner Howell, Principal Planner Rumer, Commissioner Johnson and Deputy City Clerk Sibbitt. ABSENT: None CONSENT AGENDA Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, February 12, 2008. Member McKev. seconded by Member Dillard, moved to accept the Minutes of the February 12. 2008. Planninq and Zonina Commission meetina. Motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS LAKE BUTLER PROFESSIONAL CAMPUS — PRELIMINARY/FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN & SITE PLAN Senior Planner Howell stated the Lake Butler Professional Campus is approximately 14.11 acres in size and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Maguire Road and Tomyn Boulevard. The Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan - Preliminary/Final Site Plan proposes the construction of 7 buildings totaling approximately 165,772 square feet in area. Uses proposed range from retail, restaurant, professional and medical offices. Lake Butler Professional Campus will be accessed via two access points that consist of a right-in/right-out from Maguire Road, and a full access point along Tomyn Boulevard. The plan details the dedication of 245-feet of right-of-way along Tomyn Boulevard and 192-feet of right-of-way along Maguire Road. The right-of- Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 way dedicated along Tomyn Boulevard will allow for the construction of a right -turn lane leading onto Maguire Road, while the right-of-way dedicated along Maguire Road will allow for the construction of a right -turn lane leading into the development from points to the south. The subject property is proposed to be divided into two lots; Lot 1 will contain 6 of the 7 proposed buildings, and a majority of the on -site parking and common areas. The uses proposed on Lot 1 will consist of a mix of professional and medical offices. Lot 2 is proposed in the southwest corner of the property and will consist of a mix of retail and restaurant uses. The developer has proposed a central park in the center of the site that will consist of a seating area around which a variety of trees and associated plant materials will be provided. In addition to the seating area, the developer has proposed a fountain in the center of the park. The fountain will serve as a focal point for drivers and pedestrians entering the development from Maguire Road. Additionally, a boulevard style entrance, which will be lined with a variety of palm trees and associated groundcover and shrubs, will be provided as the main point of access leading into the development from Maguire Road. In order to proceed with review of the Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan — Preliminary/Final Site Plan, the applicant has requested seven waivers from the requirements of the Land Development Code. The City Commission has sole discretion to approve waivers from Code requirements based upon four criteria's. The first waiver that is being requested is to Section 6.14.0 (1)(a)(v) of the Land Development Code. This section of the Land Development Code requires buildings to be setback at least 50-feet from primary roads. The applicant has requested a reduction of this requirement to allow the buildings that have frontage along Tomyn Boulevard to maintain a building setback of 25-feet. The applicant has justified this request by placing the buildings along Tomyn Boulevard parallel to the street in order to buffer the parking and service areas that will be provided on site, and by providing upgraded landscaping standards that are acceptable to the City. The second waiver that is being requested is to Section 6.14.C(1)(a)(v) of the Land Development Code. This section of the Land Development Code requires buildings to be setback at least 75-feet from the Florida Turnpike. The applicant has requested a reduction of this setback to allow a 45-foot building setback for a length of 80-feet along the northeast corner of the subject property. The applicant has justified this request by placing the buildings perpendicular to Maguire Road instead of the Turnpike in order to allow flexibility in providing a future City of Ocoee water main extension, and by providing upgraded landscaping standards that are acceptable to the City. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 The third waiver that is being requested is to Section 6.14.C(2)(b)(i) of the Land Development Code. This section of the Land Development Code requires a 25- foot wide landscape buffer along primary and secondary roads. The applicant is requesting a waiver to this requirement to allow a reduction of this buffer from 25- feet to 15-feet for approximately 192-feet along the portion of the property that has frontage along Maguire Road. The applicant has justified this request by providing a right turn lane leading into the site. The fourth waiver that is being requested is to Section 6.14.C(2)(b)(i) of the Land Development Code. This section of the Land Development Code requires a 25- foot wide landscape buffer along primary and secondary roads. The applicant is requesting a reduction of this requirement from 25-feet to 15-feet for approximately 245-feet from the eastern boundary of the Maguire Road / Tomyn Boulevard intersection southward. The applicant has justified this request by providing a right turn lane on Tomyn Boulevard leading onto Maguire Road. The fifth waiver that is being requested is to Table 5-2 from Article V of the Land Development Code. This section of the Land Development Code requires buildings in the C-3 (General Commercial) zoning district to maintain a rear setback of 20-feet. The applicant is requesting a reduction to this requirement from 20-feet to 5-feet for a length of 460-feet along the eastern property line. The inclusion of a retail/restaurant outparcel on site has required the site designer to relocate two of the proposed office buildings along the eastern portion of the property into an area where they will encroach into the required rear setback. The sixth waiver that is being requested is to Table 5-2 from Article V of the Land Development Code. This section of the Land Development Code allows a maximum impervious surface ratio of 70-percent for all development within the C-3 zoning district. The applicant is requesting to increase the maximum allowable impervious surface area to an 80-percent ratio for the overall site area. The seventh waiver that is being requested is to Table 5-2 from Article V of the Land Development Code. This section of the Land Development Code allows a maximum impervious surface ratio of 70-percent for all development within the C-3 (General Commercial) zoning district. The applicant is requesting to increase the maximum allowable impervious surface area to an 80-percent ratio for the retail/restaurant parcel. The applicant has justified the request by including a retail/restaurant parcel within the site, and by dedicating right-of-way to allow for the construction of the turn lanes on Maguire Road and Tomyn Boulevard in addition to providing upgraded landscaping standards that are acceptable to the City and the dedication of a City of Ocoee utility easement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan — Preliminary/Final Site Plan for Lake Butler Professional Campus, and all seven waiver requests, subject to the satisfaction of the outstanding concerns prior to the plans being presented to the City Commission. DISCUSSION Vice Chair Golden inquired if any of the waivers would have a problem as far as variances from the code. Senior Planner Howell stated staff is recommending in favor of all the waivers and feels in order to make the project a viable project the waivers will need to be granted. In addition, the developer is making some off -site transportation improvements. Vice Chair Golden inquired about the traffic study and the architectural enhancements that would be facing Maguire Road. Senior Planner Howell answered that a traffic study was done by their traffic consultant and the front of the retail center will be facing Maguire Road. Vice Chair Golden inquired about the setback and Senior Planner Howell briefly explained the setback being requested. Member McKey inquired on the landscaping as to how many live oaks would be planted. The Public Hearing was opened for Lake Butler Professional Campus — Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan & Site Plan. Mark Rieker, Rieker & Associates, stated he is available for questions. Member Mckey addressed the question regarding the live oaks to Mr. Rieker. Mr. Rieker stated he is not sure of the exact quantity of live oaks that will be on the site. He stated he has been through a number of meetings with staff and will be providing a number of understory and overstory trees. Senior Planner Howell briefly explained the code on tree requirements. Vice Chair Golden stated there are some outstanding items on a memorandum attached to the packet and he wondered if the applicant was going to have any problems meeting the conditions listed. Mr. Rieker stated they will not have any problems meeting the conditions listed in the staff report, but they do have clarifications that they wanted to make and his civil engineer will discuss them. He briefly added that as for the landscaping they are actually increasing the landscaping on the project and mentioned other projects he has done in other cities. Brief discussion ensued regarding the landscaping for the project. The Public Hearing was closed for Lake Butler Professional Campus — Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan & Site Plan. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 Member Campbell, seconded by Member McKev. moved to recommend approval of the Preliminarv/Final Subdivision Plan — Preliminarv/Final Site Plan for Lake Butler Professional Campus, and all seven waiver requests. subject to the satisfaction of the outstanding concerns prior to the plans being presented to the Citv Commission. Motion carried unanimously. ORANGE COUNTY BELMERE PD — ANNEXATION, PARCEL H 8 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO LAND USE PLAN Principal Planner Rumer stated the subject property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Roberson Road and Maguire Road. The parcel is currently under development with a master stormwater pond and two retail commercial buildings under an Orange County development permit. The item before the board is for the annexation of the property within the boundaries of tract "H". Earlier this year the owner and applicant came before the City seeking voluntarily annexation under Florida Statutes. The subject property was originally approved by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners on May 21, 1985, as the Lake Whitney PD. A subsequent non substantial amendment in 1999 carved out Tract H from Tract G. Tract H is the property that is now owned by the Unicorp entities. The 1999 LUP delineates Tract H as (1) Commercial totaling 42,960 s.f. and 5 acres maximum (2) Multi- family totaling 180 units and (3) Adult Care living Facility (ACLF) or Adult Living Facility (ALF) totaling 130 units. On February 21, 2006, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners approved another Substantial Change to the LUP when it approved a conversion of 180 multi -family and 130 ACLF units approved in Tract H to 202 attached single-family dwelling units. The Orange County Board of County Commissioners only struck through the transfer of the unused units from the other tracts within Belmere PD. The 202 units were to be 18 ft. wide with a one car garage which left very limited amount of guest parking spaces. Also located on the tract is a CVS and retail unit. The only improvement that would have been done under the Orange County plan was a left turn lane into the site from Roberson Road and one right turn lane into the site from Maguire Road. Currently under the Orange County plan the stormwater pond, CVS and retail site are being constructed. Principal Planner Rumer stated that if the development is annexed into the City of Ocoee they will keep the Orange County PD zoning on the site since they have many approvals that date back to 1980. The current proposal before them today is to develop 216 multi -family units, 85 ALF units and up to 42,960 s.f. of commercial on Tract H. The benefits of the new proposed site will be the modification of the stormwater pond which will now remain in its current location, 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 the apartment units will be located central to their site with a distance of 180 ft. from the apartment units and the property line, there will be a 25 ft. buffer which includes an existing wall and a landscape buffer which will be above what the LDC requires for planting, and the project will be gated on both entrances. The proposed ALF is located on Maguire Road and will maintain a 100 ft. setback from the new right-of-way line. In addition to the increased building setbacks and buffering, the developer will provide the City with the following benefits: 1. The design of the Roberson Road improvements and engineer cost estimate for the improvements. 2. The developer will construct all of the Roberson Road improvements while it is making the improvements stipulated in the previously approved PD LUP from Orange County for the City of Ocoee. The City will repay the developer for all costs associated with the Roberson Road improvements that are above what is required from the Orange County approved Belmere PD LUP from the impact fees received for the project. 3. The developer has requested and received permission to delay paying the impact fees for the CVS and other commercial building to Orange County and will pay them to the City of Ocoee. 4. The developer has agreed to maintain the existing stormwater pond on the corner of Maguire Road and Via Andiamo Drive. 5. The City will realize $1.5 million ± in impact fees that will directly benefit Roberson Road, Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation Departments. Principal Planner Rumer briefly gave an overview of traffic generation within single family residences, apartment complexes, and townhome communities based out of the 7th Edition ITE Manual. He also briefly stated that he had received feedback through a -mails that many residents were not notified correctly or in a timely manner; however, the City did follow the Planning & Zoning process. The City provided the required legal advertisements in the Orlando Sentinel for the Annexation and the Substantial Change, they sent out notices to those residents within 300 ft. of the project, the property was posted on both Roberson and Maguire Road, a certified letter was sent to the Orange County Planning Department as part of the JPA, and he sent a certified letter out to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners. 0 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 Principal Planner Rumer stated the applicant is specifically requesting a Substantial Change to the LUP regarding the following items: a. Remove the restriction of Tract H to be limited to a maximum of 202 attached or detached single-family residential units and 42,960 s.f. (maximum of 5 acres) of commercial use that would revert back to the previous approved condition that permitted multi -family and ACLF or ALF units and 42,960 s.f. (maximum of 5 acres) of commercial use. b. Revise the condition that prohibits the transfer of unused residential units from Tracts A-F to Tract H. c. Revise the 35 ft. maximum height limitation for the Multi -family and ALF to 45 feet. Please note that the request to increase the maximum height to 45 feet is the only "new" condition requested for the PD LUP. The development will be architecturally cohesive in that the multi -family, ALF and the commercial buildings will have a similar architectural appearance. DISCUSSION Member McKey asked Principal Planner Rumer to restate the buffers, in which he did. Chairman West inquired if this Public Hearing was being handled as two separate votes. City Attorney Rosenthal stated they can take public comments for both issues, but they will need to make two separate votes. The public comments would be carried over. Member McKey inquired if this would be the only time they would see this project before them. Principal Planner Rumer stated if they annex the development into the City they will see this project before them as a Final Site Plan. Vice Chair Golden inquired about the traffic generation that would take place per day for the total development including the retail. Nick Lepp, Renaissance Planning Group, stated an average retail trip rate per day is 42 trips per 1,000 square feet or roughly 1,700 trips per day. Principal Planner Rumer added that because the use is permitted, the trips are vested. City Attorney Rosenthal briefly explained that the developer has a certificate of vesting from Orange County for the project, which means they are entitled as a matter of right in Orange County to proceed with the project. He further stated there will be an annexation agreement that will be presented to the City Commission, which will recognize the Orange County vested rights upon annexation into the City of Ocoee, so they will not lose any of Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 their vested rights by virtue of the annexation. Brief discussion ensued regarding the annexation. The Public Hearing was opened for Orange County Belmere PD - Annexation, Parcel H & Substantial Change to Land Use Plan. Chuck Whittall, President of Unicorp., briefly explained the history of the Belmere purchase and property, the quality he puts into his development, and the many benefits that would be made to the roads should they be annexed into the City. Member Mckey inquired if they are designed far enough to know the size of the units. Mr. Whittall stated the apartment units will have 1-3 bedrooms and the average unit size will be 1,200 square feet. He stated the units will also include some enclosed parking garages. Member Dillard inquired about the costs for the road improvements. Community Development Director Wagner stated the main improvements would be the spending of $1.3 million dollars of impact fees that they would generate plus additional contribution from the developer to improve Roberson Road by extending the left turn lane, putting in right turn lanes, and adding two through lanes in both directions which will match up with their improvements on Moore Road. The City is already underway with putting in a new traffic signal at this location. He stated none of this will be been done if the impact fees go to Orange County. He further stated this project was already approved in Orange County and what they are trying to do is make this a better project. Member Mckey inquired if the designs of the buildings were done and if there was enough space between the buildings in case of a fire. Principal Planner Rumer stated the Fire Department has met with them and there is enough space provided between each building. Vice Chair Golden stated with the height issues he understands why they want to go higher but inquired as to what additional visual screening would be used near the residential areas on the West. Mr. Whittall stated they can put in more trees and shrubbery to create screening. He stated within the 25 ft. buffer they are doubling the required tree count per the City code. The landscape engineer for the project stated they have not designed the landscape at this point and everything is premature. He further stated the intent is to create a screen and they have focused on doubling the tree canopy. Chairman West inquired if they .had stayed within the original plan that was presented to Orange County would they have been able to screen. In the original plan the two- story unit would be 25 ft. from the existing wall, whereas in the proposed plan the unit will be a minimum 140 ft. away. Vice Chair West inquired as to what other security measures were being proposed, other than the gates. Principal Planner Rumer stated the area is a low crime area and briefly had the Ocoee Police Chief give an overview of the crime in that area and answer questions addressing the i3 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 crime issues. Mr. Whittall briefly explained the high end style of the apartments and the many upgrades they will be providing. Richard Montgomery, HOA Board Member for Belmere Village and resident of 1147 Algare Loop, applauded what Unicorp. has presented before them today which is much better than the original plan. He stated the reason they are present tonight is not to argue with what is being proposed by Unicorp. but instead to ask them to delay the process so that their neighborhood may have an opportunity to work more closely with the Unicorp. staff. Mr. Montgomery briefly explained his concerns with the notification letters and statements that were made in the past that high end apartments and adult care would not be built on that property. He stated the plan originally had 150 single family townhomes and he does not know how it went up to 212 units packed in like sardines. He briefly explained his concerns with the traffic issues on Roberson and Windermere which is becoming a nightmare. He stated he feels that the first opportunity the developer has to sell this to another company to manage the apartment that they will. Vice Chair Golden inquired if they had discussed the height addition. Mr. Montgomery stated that is one of their concerns especially for the bordering homes along the wall. Vice Chair Golden stated that it seems they will have a community meeting on Thursday and inquired if that would satisfy the community before it goes to the City Commission. Mr. Montgomery stated he feels that the community meeting is an opportunity for residents to express their concern, but if the action is already taken by this board prior to the community meeting then they will not have the opportunity to try to influence what they are actually proposing. Chairman West informed Mr. Montgomery that the Planning & Zoning Board only makes a recommendation to the City Commission and the residents still have the opportunity to work with Unicorp. to make changes before it goes to the City Commission. Mr. Montgomery stated he feels this board is more focused on planning and zoning where the City Commission is more focused on other aspects of City business. Member McKey inquired when this project would be before the City Commission, Principal Planner Rumer stated the first reading would be on March 18th and the second reading and the public hearing is scheduled for April 1 St Terry DiCastro, 11420 Vicolo Loop, stated that she wanted to add some additional points. They looked at the situation of rental vacancies and Key Isle currently has 282 units that are complete with an additional 155 units that are still under construction; of those 437 apartments, less than half are currently occupied. She further stated her concern is what it is going to take to fill those units as far as the monthly rate they will charge. Ms. DiCastro stated that many of the communities in the surrounding area also have a high number of rental homes that are sitting empty and some of which are going into foreclosure. She stated she 11 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 would much rather see townhomes built with one resident than an apartment complex with many renters. Bobby Corsello, 1122 Algare Loop, stated that luxury apartments mean nothing if they are not rented. He stated that if apartments do not do well the rates are lowered and it does not matter if they are gated the quality will come down. He briefly spoke of experiences he encountered with luxury apartments going down and stated he did not know about the apartments being proposed until a couple of days ago. Roderick Mathis, 11608 Vicolo Loop, stated his comment is to Mr. Whittall who stated he had more invested in this community then anyone else in the room. As far as a monetary basis he does but the residents tonight have families and if crime comes into their neighborhood it would affect irreplaceable things. What is being seen tonight is the manifestation of a lot of the frustration that the good people are exhibiting because they were not informed. Bill Berg, 2165 Blackjack Oaks St., stated that on Maguire Road there is a main entry and he was inquiring if that would have an access from northbound. John Townsend, Civil Engineer, stated they will have a full access. He further briefly explained the proposed improvements on Maguire Road. Further discussion ensued regarding the improvements on Roberson Road, morning traffic congestion due to the school, and signalization on Roberson Road Jason Lawrence, 11304 Rapallo Lane, inquired about the main entrance to the Belmere Subdivision. He further stated the main conduit to go to the Winter Garden Groves is Roberson Road and he does not understand why the road would not be widened. Community Development Director Wagner stated they have thought about it but he believes their last traffic count done by the engineer showed that the road is not over capacity on a daily trip basis. Mr. Lawrence briefly explained his experience with apartments that turned into a crime area. Joe Mrochko, 3113 Kentshire Blvd., stated he represents the Windsor Landing Subdivision and his biggest concern is the height of the building. Paul Manutes, 11258 Rapallo Lane, stated he lived in an apartment complex for 6 years in Orlando and he decided it was time for him and his family to not live in an apartment complex because the quality of life that came around it. He feels many moved into the area they are now to take their lives to the next step and a rental community of that size is a really bad idea and brings a serious concern to their community. IN Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 Bobby Kidd, 977 Lascala Drive, commented on the Arial view of the project that was projected on to the screen. He stated that if he was told in 2002 when he purchased his home that there would be a 3-story building in his backyard he would not have purchased in that location. There will be no sunlight in the back of his yard and he has a pool. Heather Stevenson, 11217 Rapallo Lane, stated she is upset about the height of the building and was wondering about the possibility of adding to the height of their current wall. She also expressed her concern with the widening of the road leading into Windermere and if any traffic study had been done for that road. Chairman West stated he is sure a traffic study has been done since it is required by law. Michael Sofer, 1005 Lascala Drive, stated he would like to see elevated pictures of the project so everyone can see the true picture of what is going on. He further inquired if the road entering the apartment complex had been studied and if there were any stats on how many cars will exit that driveway. Principal Planner Rumer informed the residents present that the original approval was done through Orange County and they are welcome to go to the Orange County Services Building to view the traffic study that was done. City Attorney Rosenthal stated that in response to the date of the Orange County vested right certificate for all the traffic impact is a 1992 approval. He further stated what it means that the County approved the entire PUD and all the traffic impact from the entire PUD and they issued the certificate in 1992, presumably based on the 1985 approval. Once the first house is put in there, it is an entitlement of the developer to build out the last house. Mr. Whittall stated that they are actually building less then what is entitled, which means there will be less trips than what they originally had proposed. He further stated the traffic study is recent and the vested right just means he has the right to build on the property. Mr. Whittall stated he heard a lot of people say they never knew that there would be apartments on that land; however, that land has been zoned for apartments for over 20 years. He stated he does have a work session set up to listen to their concerns on Thursday night and he would be happy to meet with anyone present. He further stated the majority of the crime in Metrowest is not the apartments it is the surrounding community. Mr. Whittall briefly discussed the quality of work he builds, the road improvements that will take place if they are annexed, and landscaping for visual screening. The Public Hearing was closed for Orange County Belmere PD - Annexation, Parcel H & Substantial Change to Land Use Plan. II Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 Vice Chair Golden inquired how the development would be affected if they brought more units into the tract. Principal Planner Rumer stated that under the conversion that is allowed on the existing PD plan one multi -family equals one single-family. So they can convert the 202 townhome units to 202 apartment units. Under the transfer of unused units they are asking for fourteen more units. Vice Chair Golden inquired what the opacity requirement between residential and the use for a building that has a height like they are proposing would be. Principal Planner Rumer stated in the open space criteria in the LDC it simply requires a buffer of 25ft and the planting that is required. Community. Development Director Wagner stated the main aspect of the landscape buffer is the height and density of the planting materials. He stated the 25ft is up against the parking lot or garage and not the unit so there is a lot more flexibility as to how much landscaping they can put in there. Vice Chair Golden stated he would like to see language from staff that there will be some visual buffer before he votes on a 10ft higher building. Community Development Director Wagner stated he does not see any problem adding that in as a condition and they can work with the landscape architect to be sure that it is a buffer the surrounding residents are looking for. Member Dillard again inquired if the plans would be coming back to the board. Community Development Director Wagner stated they would see the final site plan. He informed the board that they will also be available at the meeting Thursday night to answer concerns the residents may have. Member Conkling inquired if there would be something in the covenants dictating that the cars would have to be put in the garage units or would that be used as a second storage. Mr. Whittall stated that they would not have a problem putting a condition in the covenants regarding the garage. Member McKey stated that an HOA was mentioned and he was wondering if that would run with the land if they do sell the property at some point. Mr. Whittall stated it would. A brief discussion ensued regarding the LOS (Level of Service) and what it is projected to be. Member Sills stated that some of the residents asked that the vote be postponed but he has noticed that the developer is still proceeding with the development and does not see any purpose to not take any action tonight. Member McKey inquired as to what the response time is for that area. Police Chief Reffett stated their response time for non -emergency to emergency can be 4-8mins. As for the Sheriffs Department he can not answer for them. Principal Planner Rumer stated that he failed to mention before in his presentation that if the property is annexed they will retain their Windermere address. A brief discussion ensued regarding the mailing address for the development. Vice Chair Golden inquired as to who on the board lives in that area and how they felt about the height waiver that is being requested. Member Conkling 12 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 stated he lives in that area and feels that with the buildings being setback 180ft from the perimeter and the front of the building facing the Belmere backyard as well as most of the existing homes in Belmere having screen enclosures and palms and he is not as concerned with the visibility of seeing into a neighboring yard. He stated this development fits in with what is going on in the area. Member Conkling stated the development is much more of an upgrade then what was presented to Orange County and it will be coming in anyway so the best solution is to work with the developer and find a happy medium. Member Rhodus commented that she has lived in her home for over 30 yrs. and she did not know that being a renter carried such a stigma. She stated everyone wants the American dream and to own a home but 99% of the people she knows who are honest people, are renters. Chairman West stated he understands the residents concerns and he hopes things can be worked out before it goes before the Commission. Vice Chair Golden stated he would like to add a condition for an additional buffer consistent with what the City has done in the past. Community Development Director Wagner stated he understands what is being asked but feels they should have some time to work with the developer and the residents to come up with a plan on what they would like to see. Member Campbell, seconded by Member Morris. moved to recommend approval of the annexation of the 26.64 +/- acres of land known as the Belmere Tract H. subiect to the execution of the annexation agreement and subiect to all outstandina comments beina resolved prior to the Citv Commission meetina. Motion carried unanimouslv. Chairman West opened the Public Hearing for Orange County Belmere PD — Substantial Change to Land Use Plan and announced that any comments from the previous public hearing will carry forward. Chairman West closed the Public Hearing. Vice Chair Golden. seconded by Member McKev. moved to recommend approval of the Substantial Chance to the Orange Countv Belmere PD Land Use Plan to permit 216 multi -family units and an 85 unit ALF, removal of the condition prohibiting the transfer of unused residential units from Tracts A-F to Tract H. and permittinq the multi -family and ALF to have a maximum height of 45 feet, and further subiect to the Annexation of the property and the execution of the Annexation and Development Aareement. In addition, the landscape buffer must provide a significant visual buffer from the development to the residential area and a community meetina must be held prior to the Citv Commission meetina. Motion carried unanimously. 13 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 Recess 9:32pm - 9:39pm SHOPPES OF WEST OAKS — PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN Principal Planner Fabre stated the subject site is approximately 8.46 acres in size and is located on the south side of W. Colonial Drive (SR 50) approximately 580 feet west of Good Homes Road and just east of Vizcaya Lake Road. The Future Land Use designation for the site is Commercial. The property is zoned Community Commercial (C-2), which permits development and construction of the proposed use. The properties to the east, west, and south are in unincorporated Orange County. The Preliminary/Final Site Plan is proposed to be constructed in four phases. Phase I is programmed to be a one-story Grocery Store (Aldi Supermarket) consisting of 16,527 square feet. Phase II is proposed to be a Retail Building consisting of 27,363 square feet that will be attached to the Grocery Store. Both the Grocery Store and Retail Building will be setback from SR 50. All infrastructures needed for Phase I & II will be developed at the same time. Phase III & IV will consist of two commercial establishments that are proposed to front along SR 50. Both developments will be reviewed and approved as small-scale site plans. One establishment is projected to be a 4,052 square feet financial bank with a drive-thru. The other is designed as a Restaurant with a drive-thru consisting of approximately 3,870 square feet. The developer/owner has requested that the main entrance to his site be a full access with an additional access on the eastern boundary of the site that will be a right-in/right-out only. Both access driveways are proposed to connect to SR 50. The full access into the site is inconsistent with the adopted "Access Management and Intersection Operations Study" for SR 50. The Applicant has submitted a copy of a Notice of Intent to issue a connection permit from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the subject driveways. It should be noted that the NOI is a conditional connection permit and subject to City development plan approval. This permit is also in conflict with the future widening/median improvements planned by FDOT. State Road 50 is programmed to be widened to 6 lanes in the future. The FDOT widening Construction Plans for SR50 has planned an uncut divided median along the entire subject site frontage. Therefore, this median will limit the future access to the subject site as right -in right -out only. The closest full access planned will be 14 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 at the Vizcaya Lake Road intersection. The FDOT widening improvements (currently unfunded) are projected in the 5 to 6 years capital improvement plans. The representatives of the development site are aware of the FDOT future widening median plans. Member Rhodus inquired if the Vizcaya Lake Road intersection would have signalization. Nick Lepp, Renaissance Planning Group, stated that the intersection can not be signalized according to the current code even though he believes at one point it may have been proposed to be signalized. He further stated it is too close to the current intersection of Good Homes Road and West Colonial Drive. Mr. Lepp stated the applicant is proposing a full access opening with no signalization at this time. Principal Planner Fabre stated the applicant/developer is requesting one waiver from the Land Development Code which states a commercial large-scale project of this size requires a water feature such as a fountain (LDC, Art. VI, Sec. 6-14, C, (1), (1), ii). There is no off -setting public benefit proposed for this waiver request. The Applicant was made aware that Staff will not support an amendment to the LDC's "Access Management and Intersection Operations Study' for SR 50. However, Staff can recommend approval for the Site Plan with proper median separators and turnlanes for the directional lefts consistent with the Access Management Plan. Ultimately, the plans will need to be revised to show the median separators and turnlanes for the directional lefts. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Development Review Committee (DRC) met on February 28, 2008, and reviewed the Preliminary/Final Site Plan. The City Attorney advised that the City Commission cannot approve a Site Plan that is inconsistent with the SR 50 Access Plan since it is part of the Land Development Code. The Applicant asked about the City Commission changing the LDC Access Management Plan. The Applicant was informed that any changes to the LDC must be initiated by the City Commission and ultimately amended by an Ordinance. The Applicant asked if Good Homes Plaza was built prior to the Access Management Plan. The answer was, yes. At the DRC the Deputy Police Chief spoke about the current vehicular problems (2 fatalities) that have occurred in this segment of SR 50. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the recommendation of the DRC, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary/Final Site Plan for Shoppes at West Oaks, subject to the following conditions: 15 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 a. Approval of the Waiver pertaining to the required Water Feature; b. Completion of Staff's comments, mentioned in this staff report, before City Commission action; c. Incorporating proper raised median separators and turnlanes for the directional lefts consistent with the adopted "Access Management and Intersection Operations Study" for SR 50. DISCUSSION City Attorney Palmer briefly spoke about the Access Management Plan and stated a full access point at that intersection can be accomplished in one of two ways: 1) amend the actual Access Plan, which would require an ordinance and would not be supported by City staff at this time but would have to go before the City Commission for direction, or 2) the City Commission could grant a waiver from the requirements of the Access Plan. Member Conkling inquired if the residents of the apartment complex were able to turn left out onto the intersection. It was stated that they do have full access and residents can turn left. City Attorney Rosenthal advised Member Conkling that the apartments are in unincorporated Orange County and the City did oppose the left turn out of that apartment complex. Vice Chair Golden inquired about the water feature and asked if it was a requirement based on the square footage of the retail. Principal Planner Fabre stated it is a requirement for any large scale development over 50,000 square feet. He further stated that they are open and would work with the developer on a water feature that would meet the code. Brief discussion ensued regarding the FDOT future plans for West Colonial Drive. The Public Hearing was opened for Shoppes of West Oaks — Preliminary/Final Site Plan. Scott Glass, representative for the applicant, stated that before they make a motion he would like to state his side of the story. He stated the fountain is not an issue the applicant has agreed to the fountain so that has been resolved. Mr. Glass briefly touched on the subject of the two ways the developer could go about to get the full access point as mentioned before by City Attorney Palmer. He stated they are proposing to seek a waiver but only on a temporary basis to allow for the full access. He further stated their clients have been in the process of negotiating with Vizcaya Apartments and with the church toward the goal of essentially combining Vizcaya Lakes Road and Cemetery Road into one and get a signal there. Mr. Glass stated their traffic consultant feels that with the three properties that would be served by that access point a signal is going to be V Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 warranted and they are fairly confident that they are going to be able to get a signal there. He further stated they are asking for the board to give them a time frame to get the signal and for now allow the full access. If they can not get the signal in the time frame they were given then shut them down and they will comply with the directional lefts. Chairman West inquired if they did get the light if the main entrance to his project would remain where it is right now. Member Campbell inquired as to who owns Cemetery Road. Mr. Glass stated it is in the County. Member Campbell stated given the government constraints the County is facing that the likelihood of them improving Cemetery Road is unlikely. Mr. Glass stated his client has negotiated a cost sharing arrangement between the three entities for the improvements. A brief discussion ensued regarding the lift station and the improvements of Cemetery Road. The Public Hearing was closed for Shoppes of West Oaks — Preliminary/Final Site Plan. Vice Chairman Golden stated he does not really understand the traffic study since it is not in front of him but inquired if the temporary signalization would meet the goal of achieving the alternative waiver issue. Mr. Lepp stated when the traffic study was done in 1998 there was a lot less traffic on Hwy 50 then there is now. He further stated, due to location, the topography changes and it starts going downhill which is the reason why they wanted the directional left. With the proximity to the other intersection having a full access adds several extra conflict points for people going out and trying to go westbound. He stated having a signalization at Vizcaya Lake Road has been looked at and would be ideal but it would probably have to wait until Hwy 50 improvements go through. Principal Planner Fabre stated what the developer is proposing is a temporary fix because once FDOT takes over there will only be one straight median with an access to Vizcaya Lake. A brief discussion ensued regarding the waiver process. Ashley Rumble, representative for the owner, stated what they are proposing is a temporary situation but what it would allow for them to do is get the signalization much quicker then waiting for FDOT to come in and do their improvements. He further stated with them funding the signalization they are hoping to make it possible in the shortest time frame possible. Chairman West inquired if FDOT has looked at their proposal and if they had given them a letter of intent to give them a full access at that intersection. Mr. Rumble stated that was correct. Vice Chair Golden inquired as to what they meant by, "they were funding the signalization". Mr. ' Rumble stated what they are proposing is to have the improvements be developer/property owner funded. They are looking to have the property owner's that will benefit from the signalization, actually pay to have it installed. Nick Lepp stated that the only thing he would like to add is that before FDOT will approve a 17 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 signal at that location a signal warrant will have to be met and there will have to be enough traffic coming out of that property. A signal will not get approved based on projections. Mr. Glass disagreed and stated his transportation consultant has just advised him that FDOT will approve a signal based on projections and, if desired he could enter his professional credentials into the record. Principal Planner Fabre stated he would like to clarify a statement that was made by Mr. Glass that he had told the applicant that a waiver was not possible; however, in his staff comments it was mentioned that a waiver had to be approved by the City in order to allow for the project to be approved. Vice Chair Golden stated he commends staff for standing their ground on not waiving the Access Management Plan. He further inquired as to how they could shut down a full access if a waiver is put into the development agreement for a future action that may not happen. City Attorney Rosenthal stated what he is hearing is that Mr. Glass is requesting a waiver that would go away at a particular point in time but they would then have the right to come back before the City Commission to ask them to extend that date if the solution has not happened. He further stated you can run into practical problems such as you would when you issue a temporary C.O. City Attorney Rosenthal stated he would point out that the staff recommendation does not preclude them from moving forward with the proposed solution of the signalization. In fact it calls for the future cross access onto the apartment's road, so even if they approve the staffs recommendation there would still be the option to go forward with the plan of signalization, which would require an amendment to the Access Management Plan. Member Dillard inquired what the time frame for the development would be. Mr. Rumble stated that construction is going to be phased and could be roughly 6 months for the Aldi portion. Member Dillard inquired if the signalization would be another 12 months or would it be going in at the same time. Mr. Rumble stated the approvals are going to be sought at the same time but what is difficult for them to do is commit to when the other entities are going to get things done. A brief discussion ensued regarding the signalization and the time frame of it being installed. Vice Chair Golden, seconded by Member McKev. moved to recommend approval of the Preliminarv/Final Site Plan for Shoapes at West Oaks, subiect to the following conditions: 1) approval of the Waiver pertaining to the required Water Feature, 2) completion of Staff's comments, mentioned in this staff report, before Citv Commission action, and 3) incorporatinq proper raised median separators and turn lanes for the directional lefts consistent with the adopted "Access Manaaement and Intersection Operations Studv" for SR 50. Motion failed 3-6 with Members Campbell, Conklinq, Rhodus, Sills, Dillard, and Chairman West opposing. 18 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 Member Sills, seconded by Member McKev, moved to recommend approval of the Preliminarv/Final Site Plan for Shoppes at West Oaks, subject to the following conditions: 1) approval of the Waiver pertainina to the required Water Feature, 2) completion of Staff's comments, mentioned in this staff report. before Citv Commission action, 3) add a waiver table with justification to the plans, 4) add a condition of approval that the full access is temporary and will be removed upon the sianalization of the Vizcava and Cemetery Road intersection or within (Blank) months, 5) developer will post a bond with amount to be determined so that if the deadline for sianalization does not happen then it would convert to the directional left and riaht in/riaht out, and 6) all mentioned conditions above would be put into a developer aareement to be sinned by the developer and approved by the Citv Commission. Motion carried 7-2 with Member Conklinq and Vice Chair Golden Member Sills, seconded by Member McKev, moved to recommend a consideration of chance to the 'Access Management and Intersection Operation Studv" to provide for the full access point. Motion carried unanimouslv. ORANGE COUNTY OCOEE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER — SPECIAL EXCEPTION Principal Planner Fabre stated the subject property is currently the location of the Orange County Services Building and accessory uses. The actual lattice tower will occupy a small portion (75 feet by 75 feet) of the property located on the southwest corner of the site. The Future Land Use classification for this entire property is "Public Facilities/Institutional"; current Zoning classification is General Commercial (C-3). Accordingly, the City adopted Map 5-19 "Telecommunications Service Facilities Location Map," which is used for permitting the location and types of telecommunications service facilities within three areas (Areas One, Two, and Three). Area Three is the least restrictive of the designated telecommunications areas, which allows for lattice type antennas with a maximum heiqht of 200 feet. The Applicant is requesting a Waiver from this height restriction (bv 80 feet) due to the technical feasibility of the proposed radio 911 emergency response systems. Therefore, the Applicant justification for the height waiver is strictly based on public safety for the local citizens of this area. The proposed site plan shows the required landscape buffers, landscaping and setback requirements. The fencing surrounding the facility will be 6 feet high decorative metal painted black to properly screen the telecommunications equipment. m Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 11, 2008 The Public Hearing was opened for Orange County Ocoee Telecommunication Tower — Special Exception. As no one wished to speak the Public Hearing was closed. DISCUSSION Mike Hicks, Representative from Orange County, briefly explained the proposed Public Safety radio tower and the need for the additional 80 feet. He further explained the decorative fencing and screening that was originally proposed and the request for a waiver for both the height and deleting the decorative fence and landscaping around the tower. The Applicant stated that no one will see the area and there is already a chain link fence installed. Discussion ensued about alternate methods of screening. Member Campbell, seconded by Member McKev. moved to recommend approval of the Orange Countv Special Exception for Ocoee Telecommunications Service Facilitv utilizing a lattice tower located in Area Three of the (Map 5-19) Telecommunications Service Facilities Location Mao, subject to approvinq the height waiver reauest, and including a waiver of the landscape reauirement and a waiver of the fencina requirement to allow a regular chain link fence. Motion carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS None ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Attest: APPROVED: Melanie Sibbitt, Deputy City Clerk Milton West, Chairman 20 ITEM NUMBER III. Old Business Election of Officers ITEM NUMBER IV. A. PUBLIC HEARING DePaiva Property 1. Annexation 2. Rezoning Mayor S. Scott Vandergrift Citv Manager Robert Frank STAFF REPORT DATE: May 01, 2008 TO: The Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Michael Rumer, Principal Planner -MIX SUBJECT: Depaiva Property — 1388 Century Oaks Drive Annexation/Rezoning AX-03-08-12 & RZ-08-03-02 ISSUE: Commissioners Gary Hood, District 1 Scott Anderson, District 2 Rusty Johnson, District 3 Joel F. Keller, District 4 Should the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Annexation and Rezoning of the Depaiva Property? BACKGROUND: General Location: The subject property is located on the North side of Century Oak Dr., % mile west of the intersection of Bryce Drive and Clark Road. Parcel Identification Numbers: 16-22-28-0000-00-020 Parcel Size: 0.65 +/-acres Actual land use and unique features of the subiect properties: The parcel currently contains one (1) single-family residence. The subject property's northern property line borders Spring Lake and contains conservation area consisting of wetlands and a 100 year flood zone designation of AE. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE & LOCAL REGULATIONS: Annexation: With respect to State annexation criteria, Chapter 171.044 of the Florida Statutes grants municipalities the authority to annex contiguous, compact, non -circuitous territory so long as it does not create an enclave. The subject property is considered contiguous to the City of Ocoee since it is an enclave. Joint Plannina Area Aareement: The subject property is located within the Ocoee -Orange County Joint Planning Area (JPA) and is being considered for annexation as outlined in the JPA Agreement. The applicant is concurrently requesting rezoning of the property to R-1A (Single -Family Dwelling). Orange County has been notified of this petition in accordance with Subsection 13-A of the City of Ocoee -Orange County Joint Planning Area Agreement. City of Ocoee - 150 N Lakeshore Drive - Ocoee, Florida 34761 phone: (407) 905-3100 - fax: (407) 656-8504 - www.ci.ocoee.fl.us Rezoninq: The applicant has requested a City of Ocoee zoning designation of R-1A (Single -Family Dwelling). According to the Land Development Code, the R-1A zoning designation is intended for areas shown on the Future Land Use Map as "Low Density Residential". The R-1A zoning designation is consistent with the adopted future land use designation of Low Density Residential, shown on both the City of Ocoee and Orange County Joint Planning Area future land use maps. Comprehensive Plan: The annexation is consistent with the Future Land Use Element Policy 2.5 that states in part, "The City shall consider requests for voluntary annexation into the City when those lands are logical extensions of the existing City limits, when services can be properly provided, and when proposed uses are compatible with the Citv's Comprehensive Plan, the JPA Aareement. and the Citv's Annexation Policv...." [Emphasis added]. The rezoning is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 that states in part, "The City may assign an initial zoning, after annexation, which is consistent with both the Future Land Use Map and the JPA Agreement..." DISCUSSION: Annexation Feasibilitv & Public Facilities Analvsis Report: The subject property is located within the Silver Glen Subdivision which is located within the City limits. Because the property is an enclave in the City it already benefits from City Police and Fire Rescue services. The applicant has connected to the City of Ocoee potable water service under a separate agreement. (See attached "Annexation Feasibility Analysis"). Summarv: The proposed annexation is a logical extension of the City limits, urban services can be provided, and the annexation meets state and local regulations. Furthermore, the requested Future Land Use and initial zoning classifications are consistent with the land use classifications on the Future Land Use Map and the JPA Land Use Map. The land use and initial zoning are also consistent and compatible with lot sizes of the surrounding PUD properties. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) RECOMMENDATION: On March 26, 2008, the DRC met to determine if the proposed annexation was consistent with the City's regulations and policies. Based on the above analysis and subsequent discussions, the DRC recommended approval of the annexation and rezoning of the Depaiva property as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis and the subsequent DRC recommendation, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Planning Agency, recommend approval of the annexation of the 0.65 +/- acres of land known as the Depaiva property, and rezoning to "R-1K Single - Family Dwelling District. Attachments Location Map Surrounding Future Land Use Map Surrounding Zoning Map Annexation Feasibility Analysis Report Aerial Pictures of the Rear Yard Containing the Wetland and Flood Prone Area Page 2 of 2 Depaiva - 1388 Century Oak Drive Annexation Location Map 13Z 0 I L0kAY" OT I 1p-�-Ilcl 1 1 I IKIMBEKYI OAKW QDI I iIIIIiIiIIIII'DARO I I PI N\EVVUuQ 1 1 l� 1141R'lob I, I I WANDA = T--UJ -- \k�- L 1 1, _8 ,I BY J-1 --NA-Y--j - LAKE 01-YMPIA SPRING LAKE '.1 LA — LU I inch equals 734.33517 feet , I 230115 0 230 460 690 Feet V- so Sx Printed: month year NI$y !Subject Property Low Density Residential P�" 771 Medium Density Residential TNJ High Density Residential 1-1 Professional Offices and Services -- i ..-i -1 [Lo W1 F Commercial k1MB 8d Light Industrial 0 i f L Heavy Industrial Conservation/Flood plains Recreation and Open Space Public Facilities/institutional tLNTL 1 1 Till Lit, 0 A 0 'Lj, C): [- 1- , -1 21 i U- U.1 1 12 -Z Cr U31 I LUJ HA F', to L Depaiva - 1388 Century Oak Drive Annexation Surrounding Zoning Map 14070 0 140 280 420 Feet K3Subject Property Legend <all other values> General Agricultural (A-1) Suburban (A-2) Single -Family Dwelling (R-1AAA) Single -Family Dwelling (R-1AA) Single -Family Dwelling (R-1A) Single -Family Dwelling (R-1) One- & Two -Family Dwelling (R-2) Multiple -Family Dwelling (R-3) Mobile Home Subdivision (RT-1) Professional Offices & Services (P-S) Neighborhood Shopping (C-1) Community Commercial (C-2) 6 General Commercial (C-3) Restricted Manufacturing & Warehousing (1-1), 8 General Industrial (1-2) K,, Commercial (PUD) Low Density (PUD) Medium Density (PUD) High Density (PUD) Public Use (PUD) Unclassified CITY OF OCOEE ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS CASE NUMBER: AX-03-08-12 / RZ 08-03-02 APPLICANT NAME: DWAYNE DEPAIVA PROJECT NAME: DEPAIVA- 1388 CENTURY OAK DR. ANNEXATION AND REZONING This form is used to evaluate annexation requests to determine the feasibility of providing urban services to individual properties. Each department has filled in the appropriate section and the findings are summarized below. I. PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Applicant/Owner 11. Owner (if different from Applicant) B. Property Location 1 1. General Location: 2. Parcel Identification Numbers: 3. Street Addresses: 4. Size of Parcels: C. Use Characteristics Michael Rumer f Same North side of Century Oak Dr., % west of the intersection of Bryce drive and Clark Road. 16-22-28-0000-00-020 1388 Century Oak Drive 0.65± 1. Existing Use: Single -Family Dwelling 2. Proposed Use: Single -Family Dwelling 3. Density / Intensity: n/A 4. Projected Population: 2.99 D. Zoning and Land Use 1. Orange County Future Land Use: Low Density Residential 2. Orange County Zoning: Citrus Rural 3. Existing Ocoee Future Land Use: Low Density Residential 4. Proposed Ocoee Zoning: R-1A (8,000 sf) E. Consistency 1. Joint Planning Area Yes 2. Comprehensive Plan: Yes II. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Estimated Response Time: 2. Distance to Property: 3. Fire Flow Requirements: Chief Richard Firstner 3 Minutes � Distance from Station 2 (Clarke Rd & A.D. Mims) is 1.5 miles Fire flow is 750 gpm III. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. Police Patrol Zone / Grid / Area: Zone 2 / Grid 71 2. Estimated Response Time: 3 minutes for emergencies. 3. Distance to Property: Approx. 2 Miles Chief Ron Reffett i Page 1 of 3 14. Average Travel Time IV. ECONOMIC VALUE 1. Property Appraiser Taxable Value: 2. Property Appraiser Just Value 3. Estimated City Ad Valorem Taxes: 14. Anticipated Licenses & Permits: 1 5. Potential Impact Fees: 1 6. Total Project Revenues: V. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 11. Within the 100-year Flood Plain: VI. UTILITIES A. Potable Water 1. In Ocoee Service Area: 2. City Capable of Serving Area: 3. Extension Needed: 4. Location and Size of Nearest Water Main: B. Sanitary Sewer 1. In Ocoee Service Area: 2. City Capable of Serving Area: 3. Extension Needed: 4. Location and Size of Nearest Force Main: 5. Annexation Agreement Needed: Applicant Name: Dwayne Depaiva Project Name: Depaiva — 1388 Century Oak Dr. Annexation and Rezoning Case #: Ax-03-08-12 / RZ-08-03-02 19 minutes normal drive time. Michael Rumer f $238,257 $238,257 $100 N/A N/A N/A Michael Rumer No - - -� David Wheeler, P.E. f 1 Yes Yes No 6" on north side of Century Oak Dr. Yes Yes No 8" on Century Oak Drive No, Applicant will use on -site septic. C. Other 1. Utility Easement Needed: No 2. Private Lift Station Needed: No 3. Well Protection Area Needed: No _J Page 2 of 3 Applicant Name: Dwayne Depaiva Project Name: Depaiva — 1388 Century Oak Dr. Annexation and Rezoning Case #: Ax-03-08-12 / RZ-08-03-02 VII. TRANSPORTATION Michael Rumer 11. Paved Access: Yes j 12. ROW Dedication: No 13. Traffic Study: No 1 14. Traffic Analysis Zone: 570 Vill. PRELIMINARY CONCURRENCY EVALUATION Michael Rumer At this time, adequate transportation capacity exists. A. Transportation: At this time, adequate park/recreation capacity exists. B. Parks / Recreation: At this time, adequate water/sewer capacity exists; however, this condition C. Water / Sewer: may change and will be subject to a concurrency evaluation during the site plan approval process. Any extensions will be the responsibility of the applicant. N/A D. Stormwater: At this time, adequate solid waste capacity exists; however, this condition may E. Solid Waste: change and will be subject to a concurrency evaluation during the site plan approval process. Actual impact fees will be calculated during the site plan approval process. F. Impact Fees: IX. SITE SPECIFIC ISSUES All Departments When developed, the property will be developed under the same requirements as other non -city owned properties. X. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE REGULATIONS: Michael Rumer This property is contiguous with the City Limits and reduce the area of an enclave; therefore this annexation is consistent with CH. 171.043 (1) & (2), Florida Statutes. Page 3 of 3 o ,�, ,;.. � � �, >� � °�,;�� w �;� °P"� `' � �� I� � � �;,, �� aM � � ,;� i �° �� ` H '� �; � � w� u � ;, � �� r '^�� , �� i �l � ��,, x � wWr H � i � ;�, A 1' � i � � � � �,� � �," � � d I q" d P�� a � � ��p w.� � i N �� L` I � e � waww d n,� � �iIN 'r�� ,.�„ .�. "wT' "G':: � d' � P w� �q ., 4 � ` � � wy, ", w�, ��a� ., � ��+a.�PKKAM�° �, I � �,,, ",ww '� dun'" k .'�adi'"" ��..w:,"�?"�.�, " tl rld I � 'i� � ^ VI ( „� N nNa � � � 1 1 11,,„ HW I � W i .� � � \ � .......... /\ ...............� \ � � \ Aym , M Zg, ITEM NUMBER IV. B. PUBLIC HEARING School Concurrency 1. Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment Mayor S. Scott Vandergrift Citv Manaver Robert Frank _.....Fr+__ . STAFF REPORT TO: The Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Bobby Howell, MPA - Senior Planner DATE: May 13, 2008 Commissioners Gary Hood, District 1 Scott Anderson, District 2 Rusty Johnson, District 3 Joel F. Keller, District 4 RE: Proposed text to the Comprehensive Plan adding and amending elements for the purpose of implementing School Concurrency PROJECT M CPA-2008-001 04V ISSUE: Should the Planning & Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency (LPA) recommend approval of the: 1) addition of a Public Schools Facilities Element (PSFE) to the Comprehensive Plan, and 2) additions to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element and Capital Improvements Element (CIE), for the purpose of implementing school concurrency in the City of Ocoee? DISCUSSION: The State of Florida's 1985 Growth Management Act introduced the concurrency principle throughout the state by requiring each local government to ensure adequate public services and facilities are in place prior to the approval of new development. The 1985 Growth Management Act identified sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, parks and recreation, and transportation facilities as concurrency-related facilities. In accordance with the 1985 Growth Management Act, a local government can only approve new development if the infrastructure is available or will be available to sufficiently absorb the impacts of new development. A level of service (LOS) is adopted for each of the facilities and is the mechanism by which this capacity is measured. In 2005, the Florida Legislature approved the 2005 Growth Management Act, commonly referred to as Senate Bill 360 (SB 360). This legislation mandates that all non-exempt Florida jurisdictions make public schools a concurrency related facility by April 1, 2008 for nearly all residential developments, in addition to the facilities noted in the 1985 Growth Management Act. In accordance with the requirements of the 2005 Growth Management Act, the approval of Final Subdivision Plans and Site Plans for residential development becomes contingent upon available school capacity measured in part with an adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public schools. Per the legislation, adequate school capacity is considered to be available if the needed school facilities are currently available or scheduled for actual construction within three (3) years of a development's final approval. If capacity is not available, Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes requires each local government to make proportionate share mitigation options available to the applicant or developer in lieu of denying approval of the proposed development. The 2005 Growth Management Act requires Orange County and all local governments within its boundaries to implement school concurrency for nearly all residential development proposals. Residential developments that are exempt from school concurrency requirements include: age restricted communities, one single-family house or one duplex that is being developed on an existing platted residential lot of record, residential developments with approvals prior to the effective date of April 1, 2008, and developments that are amendments to previously approved residential developments which do not increase the number of dwelling units or change the type of dwelling units (i.e., conversion of single-family units to multi -family units). As part of the implementation process, Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes requires each local government to amend their Comprehensive Plan to include a new Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) that is consistent with those adopted by other local governments within the same county. Chapter 163 requires each jurisdiction to amend their respective Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) to address coordination with the School Board in the implementation of school concurrency. Additionally, Chapter 163 requires each jurisdiction to amend their respective Capital Improvements Element (CIE) to set forth a financially feasible public school capital facilities program established in conjunction with the School Board. Per Chapter 163, local governments that do not implement school concurrency will be prohibited from adopting Comprehensive Plan amendments that increase residential density. In addition to amending the Comprehensive Plan, each local government must enter into an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) in accordance with Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. The ILA will ensure that school concurrency is uniformly implemented throughout the County and will address the minimum requirements for school concurrency. In addition, the City's Land Development Code (LDC) will need to be amended for the City to successfully implement school concurrency and to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This agreement is attached in draft form, and is anticipated to be signed by all affected parties by the time the amendments are presented to the City Commission for adoption. The PSFE and the amendments to the Capital Improvement and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements are being presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency for recommendation to the City Commission. Following the first public hearing before the City Commission, the proposed amendments will be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for further review. After addressing any comments that may be received from the Department of Community Affairs, the amendments will be presented to the City Commission for adoption. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) met on May 5, 2008 and considered the addition of a Public Schools Facilities Element, and additions to the Capital Improvement and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements to the Comprehensive Plan. No concerns were addressed, and the DRC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the addition of a Public Schools Facilities Element, and additions to the Capital Improvement and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements to the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of implementing school concurrency. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency recommend approval of the 1) addition of a Public Schools Facilities Element (PSFE) to the Comprehensive Plan, and 2) additions to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element and Capital Improvements Element (CIE) for the purpose of implementing school concurrency. Attachments: Public Schools Facilities Element: Data, Inventory & Analysis Public Schools Facilities Element Additions to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element Additions to the Capital Improvements Element Draft Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning and Implementation of School Concurrency O:\Staff Reports\2008\SR080030_BH_PublicSchoolFacilitiesElement_P&Z.doc Orange County Public Schools �. rublic School Facilities Data, Inventory and Analysis Planning & Governmental Relations Updated May 2, 2oo8 Data, Inventory and Analysis Tableof Contents................................................................................................................. 2 Listof Tables....................................................................................................................... 4 Listof Figures...................................................................................................................... 5 Public School Facilities Element......................................................................................... 6 Data, Inventory and Analysis.............................................................................................. 6 School Planning and Coordination................................................................................. 6 MartinezDoctrine.................................................................................................................................... 6 Public School Facilities Element.............................................................................................................. 7 SchoolSiting Ordinance........................................................................................................................... 7 1. Existing Community Conditions.................................................................................... 9 Population........................................................................................................................ 9 Populationby Jurisdiction....................................................................................................................... 9 Housing..........................................................................................................................10 2. Growth and Development Trends................................................................................ 12 GrowthAreas.................................................................................................................12 Orange County 12 Cityof Apopka.........................................................................................................................................12 Cityof Winter Garden.............................................................................................................................12 Cityof Ocoee............................................................................................................................................12 Cityof Orlando........................................................................................................................................13 Capacity Enhancement Agreements............................................................................. 15 3. School District Profile....................................................................................................17 DistrictwideSummary....................................................................................................17 GradeLevel Summaries..................................................................................................17 ElementarySchool...................................................................................................................................17 MiddleSchool..........................................................................................................................................18 HighSchool.............................................................................................................................................18 2 Final —May 2008 SpecialSchools........................................................................................................................................18 CharterSchools...................................................................................................................................... 26 Student Generation Rates............................................................................................. 27 Educational Facilities Plant Survey............................................................................... 27 AncillaryFacilities.................................................................................................................................. 28 4. Future Conditions.........................................................................................................29 ProjectedEnrollment............................................................................................................................. 29 5. School Concurrency Implementation..........................................................................30 Components...................................................................................................................30 Capacity.................................................................................................................................................. 30 Concurrency Service Areas(CSAs)......................................................................................................... 30 Levelof Service........................................................................................................................................31 6. Needs............................................................................................................................ 35 Ten -Year Capital Outlay Plan................................................................................................................. 35 Additional Needs to Meet LOS...................................................................................... 36 LandNeeds............................................................................................................................................. 40 InfrastructureNeeds.............................................................................................................................. 40 7. Financial Resources...................................................................................................... 41 PECO........................................................................................................................................................41 HalfCent Sales Tax..................................................................................................................................41 PropertyTax............................................................................................................................................41 Certificates of Participation (COPS).......................................................................................................41 State Capital Outlay and Debt Service(CO&DS)....................................................................................41 SchoolImpact Fees..................................................................................................................................41 ClassSize Reduction............................................................................................................................... 42 Appendix............................................................................................................................ 52 Appendix 1 — Plant Survey Summary............................................................................ 52 Appendix 2 — School and CSA Data with Enrollment Projections ............................... 52 Endnotes............................................................................................................................ 53 3 Data, Inventoiy and Analysis Table 1 — Orange County Population Growth (Countywide), 1970 to 2005................................................... 9 Table 2 — Population by Jurisdiction, 2005.................................................................................................... 9 Table 3 — Population by Age, 2005............................................................................................................... 10 Table 4 — Housing Characteristics of Orange County and its Jurisdictions, 2000-2005 ............................ 10 Table 5 — Building Permits Issued in Orange County, 2005-2007...............................................................11 Table 6 —Home Sales in the Orlando MSA, 2005-2007................................................................................ 11 Table 7 — Student Enrollment by Level, October 15, 2007............................................................................17 Table 8 — Capacity of Existing Facilities, 2007-08........................................................................................17 Table 9 — Existing Utilization, 2007-08.........................................................................................................17 Table io — Charter Schools in Orange County, 2006/07.............................................................................. 26 Table 11— Enrollment in Charter Schools, 2000 - 2007.............................................................................. 27 Table 12 —Student Generation Rate, November 2007.................................................................................. 27 Table 13 — School Capacity Summary Profile ............................................................................................... 28 Table 14 — Ancillary Facilities, 2007............................................................................................................. 28 Table 15 — Five -Year Student Enrollment Projections, 2008/09 — 2012/13............................................... 29 Table 16 — 2020 Population Projections....................................................................................................... 29 Table 17 —10-Year Capital Outlay Plan for Additional Schools, 2007.......................................................... 35 Table 18 - Elementary Schools by CSA that don't meet LOS in 2011-12...................................................... 36 Table ig - Middle Schools by CSA that don't meet LOS in 2011-12.............................................................. 36 Table 20 - High Schools by CSA that don't meet LOS in 2011-12* ............................................................... 36 Table 21— 20o8-2017 Fiscal Years Capital Appropriation Projections, September 11, 2007 ..................... 43 Table 22 — 2oo8-2017 Fiscal Years Capital Revenue Projections, September 11, 2007 .............................. 44 Table 23 — OCPS Capital Projects (New Schools), Fiscal Years 2008-2017................................................. 45 Table 24 — OCPS Comprehensive Needs Projects (Renovations, Existing Schools), Fiscal Years 2008-2017 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 47 4 Final —May 2oo8 � Figuraz— Anticipated Development iuOrange County, August uoo7......................................................... /4 Figure u—Capacity Enhancement Agreements, July 2oo7........................................................................... q5 Figure 3— Capacity Enhancement Agreements iuOrange County, through 2oo7....................................... zb Figure 4—Existing Elementary Schools and Attendance Zones ................................................................... zg Figure 5—Existing Elementary School L08`byElementary School Zone .................................................. eo Figure 6—Existing Elementary C8AD]3hyElementary School C8A.......................................................... uz Figure 7—Existing Middle Schools and Attendance Zones .......................................................................... eu Figure 8—Existing Middle School CSA LO8................................................................................................ u3 Figure g—Existing High Schools and Attendance Zones ............................................................................. 24 Figure »o—Existing High School CSA LOG.................................................................................................. u5 Figure z3—Projected LO8for Elementary Schools, uoz/,zu........................................................................ 32 Figure z4— Projected LO8for Middle Schools, 2uu,zz............................................................................... 33 FigurezG— Projected LOSfor High Schools, uoz1-1u................................................................................... 34 Figure r6—Projected LOSwith Planned Elementary Schools ---...-----.------.----~^''37 Figure z7—Projected D]8with Planned Middle Schools ............................................................................. 3u Data, Inventory and Analysis Data, Inventory and A7ialysiS In 2005, the Florida Legislature passed legislation requiring all Florida school districts and local governments to implement school concurrency. Similar to roads, parks, sewer, water, stormwater and solid waste, concurrency is an adequate public facilities law that, beginning in 2008, will be applied to public schools. The Public School Facilities Element and related comprehensive plan amendments to establish school concurrency are based upon the following Data, Inventory and Analysis, pursuant to the requirements of Rule 9J-5.005(2), FAC and Rule 9J-5.025(2), FAC. The Public School Facilities Element is intended to ensure coordination among the County, Municipalities and the School District to ensure that school capacity at the adopted level of service standard is available at the time of the impacts of development. Residential development A itl in Orange County is well coordinated with OCPS, and much that occurs is mitigated prior to approval. Orange County and its jurisdictions have several methods to ensure coordination with OCPS, including the Capacity Enhancement Process and the School Siting Ordinance. These tools are described below. In March 2000, Orange County's practice of linking certain land use changes to school capacity was termed the Martinez Doctrine, after former Orange County Mayor Mel Martinez. Under this directive, if a rezoning or comprehensive plan amendment had an adverse impact on schools, staff recommends denials of the request as exceeding the capacity of public infrastructure, which is inconsistent with Orange County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. The adoption of this practice has led to more coordination and information sharing with Orange County Public Schools staff, and created a mechanism where developments denied under the Doctrine can enter into Capacity Enhancement Agreements with the School Board to mitigate adverse impacts. This practice has withstood judicial challenge up to the Florida Supreme Court. Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) currently reviews residential development proposals and comments as to the availability of school capacity at the directly impacted elementary, middle and high school for each project seeking a future land use map amendment or rezoning that increases residential density. The Capacity Enhancement Program attempts to mitigate over -capacity schools affected by new, unvested units. The units that are allowed under the existing zoning and land use are considered "vested" units, and are not subject to capacity enhancement. The additional units that would be obtained when a property is successfully rezoned are considered "unvested" and are subject to the capacity enhancement process. To address this lack of capacity, the local government directs the project applicant to seek mitigation through a Capacity Enhancement Agreement (CEA) with OCPS for the unvested units. The capacity 30 Final -May 2008 enhancement process involves extensive evaluation by several OCPS departments (Facilities, Pupil Assignment, Real Estate, Planning) and instructional (Area Superintendents, Principals) personnel for classroom, site and core capacity issues and potential solutions such as relief, renovation to prototype size, permanent expansion, assignment of students, or timing. The process also includes a fiscal review by the Chief Financial Officer of OCPS to ensure the project pays its full share of incremental student station cost. Any funds necessary for unvested units to meet the full share of incremental student station cost as well as school impact fees are due at Final Plat or Final Site Plan. Central to the process is the OCPS commitment that educational quality not be compromised. If it is determined that a physical and fiscal solution is possible that is acceptable to the Superintendent, a resolution is prepared for the School Board requesting authorization to enter into a Capacity Enhancement Agreement between OCPS and the project applicant setting forth terms under which capacity enhancement can be achieved. A copy of the CEA is provided to the affected local government to assist with monitoring and implementation. On November 2, 2004, Orange County voters approved Charter Amendment #6 to require joint county and municipal approval of zoning or comprehensive plan amendments affecting overcrowded public schools, which was later implemented through Orange County Ordinance 2oo6-04 (effective May 9, 2oo6). As a result, local governments in Orange County defined as "significantly affected" all must approve the proposed change in zoning or residential density in a jurisdiction, if OCPS cannot certify that school capacity would be available or provided through a Capacity Enhancement Agreement. An associated interlocal agreement also became effective May 9, 2oo6, to outline the coordination process between local governments in Orange County, OCPS, and applicants proposing residential rezonings and comprehensive plan amendments.i The Public School Facilities Element provides a fundamental part of Orange County's Comprehensive Plan because it recognizes schools as the cornerstones of community planning and design. Policies contained within the Element seek to promote and optimize intergovernmental cooperation for effective operation of the public school system in a multi -jurisdictional environment. This effort involves collaboration with the School Board and other local governments to ensure that adequate capital facilities and technology resources, such as computer facilities and support infrastructure, are available to support system goals. The Element is comprised of five goals implemented by 12 objectives. The goals address providing a supporting community for children; malting schools the cornerstone of communities; providing safe schools in well -designed neighborhoods; supporting the educational mission of the School District; and promoting intergovernmental cooperation. The objectives address families, joint use of facilities, design and siting of facilities, children's safety, juvenile justice services, capital funding, alternative funding, timing of new development, information sharing, land use, school siting, and a process for reserving future school sites. 7 Data, Inventory and Analysis Orange County's Land Development Code contains provisions for school siting. Section 38-1753 of the ordinance specifies the zoning categories where school facilities are permitted. Criteria for school locations, site standards, access to roads and sidewalks, and proximity to municipal services are described to provide a coordinated and comprehensive standard relating to conditions on or impacting a potential school site. Orange County staff and Orange County Public Schools are currently worldng to update the school siting ordinance. The School Siting Ordinance, as well as Orange County's existing Public School Facilities Element addresses the need for schools to serve as focal points and co -location requirements. Through the regulations, the County and OCPS agree to the following: The County and OCPS agree to promote and support community development and design by encouraging joint development of property adjoining proposed school sites for parks, recreation and appropriate related facilities including libraries and children's services. The county planning and parks and recreation staff shall be authorized to participate as ex-officio members of such school board review committees charged with reviewing and recommending school site acquisition to the school board. School board facilities planning staff, local school advisory committees and neighborhood associations shall be joint participants in county programs for developing neighborhood and community based plans. School board facilities planning staff shall be authorized to participate as ex-officio members of the development review committee for the county. Schools should be located to minimize average home -to -school travel distances based on both current and projected student enrollments. Elementary school sites should be located on local streets or on residential collector streets entirely within residential neighborhoods and as close as practical to existing or planned residential neighborhoods. Middle schools and free-standing ninth grade centers should be located on residential collectors or on arterial roads within or as close as is practical to existing or planned residential neighborhoods. Middle schools and free-standing ninth grade centers should be located adjacent to residential neighborhoods where secondary pedestrian access is available on local streets. Free-standing ninth grade centers shall be treated as middle schools. Ninth grade centers operated and constructed in conjunction with high school campuses shall be treated as part of the high school campuses. High schools should be located on roadways with adequate capacity to carry student and parent traffic and suitable for high volume traffic during evening and special events. School sites shall be discouraged adjacent to overhead high voltage transmission lines unless classrooms and programmed play areas for elementary schools can be located not closer than three hundred (3oo) feet from the nearest transmission line. Parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the educational specifications adopted by the county school board consistent with applicable state standards for public schools and may include spaces incorporated into joint use facilities with others. Currently, the siting ordinance only applies to the County and is in the process of being updated. For concurrency, minimum school siting standards will need to be extended to all local governments. Orange County is Florida's fifth most populous county and was ranked the 22nd largest county population nationwide in 2004. An important issue facing Orange County, particularly while growth occurs, is the overcrowding of schools and the need to "catch up" with the growth of past decades. Geographic areas experiencing the most growth are the Avalon Park Boulevard corridor in east Orange County, the Horizon West sector plan area in southwest Orange County, the Stoneybrook West/Foothills of Mount Dora project and the Tangerine Rural Settlement in northwest Orange County. In 2005, the population of Orange County exceeded one million residents, with an estimated count of 1,043,029. This is an increase of 106,505 residents, or 12 percent, since 2000 (Table 1). More than half of this growth occurred in unincorporated Orange County. Table 1- Orange County Population Growth (Countywide),1970 to 1970 344,311 -- 1980 470,865 3.68% -- -- 1990 677,491 4.38% 432,305 64% 2000 896,344 3.23% 596,164 1 67% 2005 1,002,849 3.27% 667,185 J 65% Source: Roughly 65 percent of Orange County's population resides in unincorporated areas, followed by 21 percent residing in the City of Orlando (Table 2). The City of Apopka, located in northwest Orange County, has the most vacant land and therefore the most potential to increase its population. Mid -sized cities such as Winter Park and Maitland are largely built out, and future population increases will mainly result from infill and redevelopment at higher densities. Table 2 — Population by Jurisdiction, 2005 Apopka 34,801 3.34% Bay Lake ( 28 0.003% Belle Isle 5,974 0.57% Eatomrille 2,474 I ! 0.24% Edgewood 2,160 ( 0.21% Lake Buena Vista 19 0,002% Maitland 15,850 1.52% Oakland 1,723 0.17% Ocoee + 30,597 2.93 % Orlando 221,299 21.0% Unincorporated 677,185 j 65.0% Windermere 2,443 i 0.23% Winter Garden ! 24,610 2,36% Winter Park 27,868 2.67% Sources: US Census Bureau, 2005 Data, Inventory and Analysis In 2005, the median age in Orange County was 34.3 years, which is up from a median age of 33.3 in 2000. Of the total population, 74 percent (or 737,852) was over 18 years of age. The remaining 264,997 people include school age children (Table 3). Shaded rows represent school -age children in 2005. Residents between the ages of five and 19 equaled 212,957. Orange County's 2005 enrollment, including non-public school enrollment and home schooling, equaled 208,426. Between 200o and 2005, Orange County population increased by 12 percent and school age population increased by 11 percent. Table 3 - Population by Age, 2005 Total Population by Age 896,344 1,002,849 12% Under 5 years 61,375 78,471 28% 5 to 9 years 65,241 73,871 13% 10 to 14 years 63,672 69,946 10% 15 to 19 years 63,342 69,140 9% 20 to 24 years 70,763 69,847 -1% 25 to 34 years 149,055 151,847 2% 35 to 44 years I 153,621 161,352 5% 45 to 54 years 112,513 141,345 26% 55 to 59 years 37,413 55,832 49% 6o to 64 years 29,390 38,666 32% 65 to 74 years I 49,369 55,154 12% 75 to 84 years I 30,947 29,473 -5% 85 years and over I 9,643 7,905 -18% Source: U.S. Census Bureau There were approximately 493,688 housing units in Orange County in 2005, of which 92 percent were occupied (Table 4). Since 2005, Orange County and its jurisdictions have issued 31,70o residential building permits (Table 5), which, when built out will increase the existing housing inventory by seven percent. Table 4 - Housing Characteristics of Orange County and its Jurisdictions, 2000-2005 Total Housing Units 361,349 423,688 17.3% j Occupied Housing Units 336,286 391,440 16.4% j Owner -occupied 204,195 232,093 13.7% Renter -occupied 132,091 159,347 20.6% Vacant Housing Units 25,063 32,248 28.7% Average HH Size (owner) 2.74 2.63 (4.0%) Average HH Size (renter) 2.41 2.47 2.5% Median Housing Value (owner occupied) $107,500 $201,900 87.8% 1 Median Gross Rent $699 $839 20.0% Source: US Census Bureau, 200o and 2005 ; 10 Final —May 2008 The most notable difference between 200o and 2005 in the housing market is the 88 percent increase in the median housing value. This jump in values has had ramifications on the housing market in 20o6 and 2007. Building and sales have slowed and may continue to do so until the market adjusts. Table 5 — Building Permits Issued in Orange County, 2005-2007 2005 10,863 I 6,357 17,220 20o6 9,538 4,457 13,995 2007 (January -November) 3,884 i 3,766 7,650 Source: US Census Bureau, http:.//censtats.census.gov/bldg, -it.shtml? In addition to a decline in the number of building permits issued, single family home sales in the Orlando Metropolitan Statistical Area have dropped significantly during 2007. The slowdown in building permits and the waning real estate market grill likely continue until the housing market adjusts to the changes seen over the past few years. During this period of adjustment, OCPS enrollment will stabilize. Table 6 —Home Sales in the Orlando MSA, 2005-2007 2005 I 38,732 I 4,981 43,713 2006 29,218 4,776 33,994 2007 (January -November) 15,953 1, 902* 16,855 Source: Flolzda Association of Realtors; Sales occurred between Jan. 2007 through Nov. 2007 11 Orange County and its municipalities are still experiencing high growth, especially in the west, east and downtown areas. Figure 1 illustrates the existing and anticipated development. Horizon West is a large scale development in southwest Orange County. Designed to achieve compact form, Horizons West will include up to seven villages and a town center, and will house 6o,000 residents. To date, two Villages have been established. Lakeside Village will eventually have over 1o,000 dwelling units, including single family, totinhomes, villas and apartments. The Village of Bridgewater will eventually accommodate 7,27o dwelling units. iii Recent activity includes the approval of future Land Use amendments for Village F and Village H. These Villages, along with the Horizon West Town Center, will likely process Planned Development applications in 2007. OCPS has worked closely with the developers of Village F and H. Developer consortiums have been formed to expedite construction of schools in these areas. a.,,. A large factor in the future of this area is Innovation Way, a county initiative that will establish a high tech corridor in southeast Orange County that will promote high tech and mixed uses along a new corridor that will link the University of Central Florida to Orlando International Airport. The total area comprises 97,00o acres and will result in 25,000 single family and 20,000 multi -family dwelling units. Committed projects associated with Innovation Way include International Corporate Park, Moss Park, Eagle Creek and Lake Hart. The Innovation Place DRI is currently under review by Orange County. tjl The City of Apopka is a high -growth area, with over 6,000 residential units in various stages of development or pre -development. According to their 2oo2 Comprehensive Plan, 44 percent of the City's land was vacant, and another 11 percent was agricultural. Projects in the City of Winter Garden are expected to result in 5,312 new residential dwelling units. A major annexation in the southwest corner of the City, which will add 2,000 or more new residential units, is also under review. The development to occur within the annexation will be neo-traditional and will include a mixture of single-family detached homes, townhomes and condominiums. The City projects its population to reach 45,512 by 2025 (49 percent increase). The City of Ocoee currently has a number of projects, resulting in 2,2o1 new residential dwelling units, under review, and growth is expected to continue because of the area's unique transportation system, close proximity to job centers and the natural amenities. Ocoee expects to continue to develop vacant properties within the City limits in addition to annexing JPA lands. The City anticipates a build -out year Of 2025 with a population of 73,771(6o percent increase). Final — May 2008 The City of Orlando contains several key growth areas: The northwest subarea of Orlando is mostly built -out and contains older established neighborhoods. The City of Orlando projects a net increase of 17 single-family homes and 2,437 multifamily units are between 2oo6 and 2030. Similar to the northwest area, northeast Orlando is characterized by older, well -established neighborhoods with a relatively small amount of vacant residentially zoned land. This area of the City also contains the site of the former Orlando Naval Training Center, now known as the Baldwin Park neighborhood. With the development of Baldwin Park factored in, along )A ith other projects such as the OUC/Lake Highland Project, and the redevelopment of the Mills/Nebraska site, the City anticipates that the northeast area will grow by 776 single-family homes and 3,327 multifamily units between 2oo6 and 2030. Downtown Orlando has undergone a resurgence in terms of residential development over the past five years, with over 2,00o new residential units. With the advent of high-rise and mid -rise developments, the City anticipates that Downtown Orlando A ill grow by 317 single-family units and than 9,631 new multifamily units by 2030. The southwest subarea has a number of older, well -established neighborhoods and some infill in these neighborhoods is assumed. The southwest area also contains large greenfield areas where significant residential growth, particularly multifamily growth, is anticipated. The City anticipates that there will be approximately 337 new single-family units and 14,435 new multifamily units built in the southwest between 2oo6 and 2030. Southeast Orlando contains two greenfields where significant residential development is anticipated. The first area, Vista East, which is projected to grow from just over 2,045 single-family units and 827 multifamily units today (April 2oo6 base year) to over 3,507 single-family units and 4,384 multifamily units by 2030. This translates into a population of over 18,600 people for this portion of the southeast alone. The Southeast Orlando Sector Plan area, is a 12,000-acre area south and east of the Orlando International Airport. The Plan area is projected to have 7,390 single-family homes and 9,187 multifamily units, as well as office, retail, hotel, industrial, hospital and civic/government space. At build -out, the Southeast Plan area will have approximately 39,10o residents.' Additional multifamily growth in the southeast will be concentrated along the Semoran Boulevard, Goldenrod Road, and Conway Road corridors. 13 2:3 Figure 1.- Orange County Public Schools fit (= New Development Proposed or Underway through 2007 as Legend CEA Developments Projected Development (Non-CEA) High School Attendance Zones 14A D b- c7- TL- L L rf % EP V. 0z, U7 EV I L AP ry— Final - May 2008 Since the implementation of the Martinez Doctrine, OCPS has received over 20o applications for Capacity Enhancement Agreements (CEAs) and has entered into over 150 CEAs with developers. Figure 2 provides a breakdown of CEA solutions. At present, 39 percent of the CEAs are subject to timing restrictions and must wait for a new school to be constructed before they can proceed. Another 17 percent are part of a school acceleration consortium. Consortiums are groups of developers who work together to finance the advancement of schools. Figure 2 — Capacity Enhancement Agreements, July 2007 Capacity Enhancement Agreements 5 Pre -pay school impact fees. No wait. Subject to school consL1 ICt1011 tll-nilIg. Closed, met conditions. Participant in a school acceleration consorLium. Application active, CFAs are solution -oriented approaches to maximizing school capacity. Solutions CEAs have used include: 1. Wait for OCPS to construct new schools 2. Developer advances construction of new schools 3. Developer adds permanent capacity at existing school 4. Site donation that allows the advancement of school construction 5. Reserve school sites in conjunction with solutions # 1 and #4 School boundary changes (rezonings) and providing temporary capacity (portables) have not been accepted as solutions by the Orange County School Board. 15 Figure 3: Orange County Public Schools Capacity Enhancement Agreements through 2007 Leg en d -` — CEA Developments High School Attendance Zones 17 # F ° �;: t 1 During the 2007/08 school year, 176,293 students were enrolled in the Orange County Public School system (Table 7), a decline of 693 students from October 15, 20o6 Despite the drop in enrollment, Orange County's student population has grown by almost 25,000 students since 2000/01 (see Figure 11 and Figure 12). Table 7 — Student Enrollment by Level, October 15, 2007 Elementary 81,773 Middle I 37,745 High 49,527 Special ( 7,248 Total 176,293 Source: OOPS Pupil Assignment Department, October 15, 2007 As of June 2007, the overall capacity of Orange County's public school system was 245,354 student stations, of which 36 percent are relocatable stations and 64 percent are permanent stations. The district maintains roughly 26 million square feet of space, of which 86 percent is permanent space. I Table 8 — Capacity of Existing Facilities, 2007-08 Elementary & K-8 78,870 Middle 36,802 L High I 42,425 [— Total i 1,58,097 ** Capacity refers to "Adjusted FISH Capacity" Utilization, or Level of Service, is defined as "...an indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility. Level of Service shall indicate the capacity per unit of demand for each public facility" [Rule 9J- 5.003, Florida Administrative Code]. Table 9 — Elementary & K-8 Middle High Districtwide Average Utilization, 2007-08 106% I 100% I 116 I 107% Orange County is home to 120 public elementary schools and three K-8s, including four new elementary schools that opened in August 2007. A school -specific profile is provided in Appendix 2. School locations and attendance zones are illustrated in Figure 4. Data, Inventory and Analysis During the 2007-08 school year, elementary school enrollment was reported as 82,637. On a districtAide basis, the County's elementary schools operated at 106 percent of Adjusted FISH capacity. Between 2oo8 and 2011, OCPS plans to build eight elementary and one K-8 schools. These new schools will provide over 7,000 permanent student stations that will accommodate new development, existing bacldog and replace temporary student stations. Thirty-three public middle schools are provided in Orange County, including one new middle school that opened in August 2007. A school -specific profile is provided in Appendix 2. School locations and attendance zones are illustrated in Figure 7. During the 2007-08 school year, middle school enrollment was reported as 36,881. On a districtwide basis, the County's middle schools operated at too percent of Adjusted FISH capacity. Between 2oo8 and 2011, OCPS plans to build three middle and one K-8 schools. These new schools will provide over 4,000 permanent student stations that will accommodate new development, existing bacldog and replace temporary student stations. Eighteen public high schools and five ninth grade centers are provided in Orange County, including one that opened in August 2007. A school -specific profile is provided in Appendix 2. School locations and attendance zones are illustrated in Figure 9. During the 2006-07 school year, high school enrollment was reported as 49,527. On a district Aide basis, the County's high schools operated at 116 percent of Adjusted FISH capacity. Between 2oo8 and 2011, OCPS plans to build three new high schools. These new schools will provide an additional 8,300 permanent student stations that will accommodate new development, existing bacldog, replace temporary student stations, and eventually phase out ninth grade centers. Special schools, which include charter schools, account for four percent of total enrollment. There are 48 special or charter schools in the District. The East Side Technical School opened in 2007. There are currently no plans for additional special purpose schools. OCPS does not project an increase in special school enrollment. IN ROCKSPRWGS Figure 4: Orange County Publi zELUNooDg ' W LFLAKE Elementary School Attendance I) DREAM LAKE ••. f_"PRING , '-CLAVSGS ,3 Legend Elementary School & K-8 Locations Elementary School Attendance Zones AKEVLLE Schools,11 1 ZonesSchool •• •cations . WIEATLEY 1-=� IDCKH AAT tAKE SYBELW li f PP RNERSMEtAKE MMMEMCH V,E NGEN 60R D. - -- .' _... .... ..... .._ - _ _...-._..-.._ .. ..-NA pL aNEY w MONT i... _ A ARBO�RI�E RpG pPARK I - SPRING T LAKE LAKE',. .- ROLLING NI C(SM� �B40OKSHi RE aw. N EWOOD a.' RNE� U �Nb ILLE _ E _ Fl.._ - j�....f.... I pp ( ., p WENEY - CRP.US, ❑LLARD STREET b : MOLLIE P�A,Y LANE SILVERrS,, vP L -, P p ON ENI CIE. '�-.--�;I M'NcETON P 'y W1DU �N PPPK UNb17 PPRK�.� TLEGR6EK _- d r FERNEEh I TILDE-ILLE ' 6 MAXEY.•'" .. '. -'• _ »- ,•• .. ''FFPNGUS ��tl2�,O,VIGTA�E, ROCKIfi E'JA ytLLCP.EST - AZ!•LFA�PPRK I LE RN U mON CRIES .'. R0,0T I- t� {W\S w- HI KrGTOtf'GFIORES QtANG CENTER 1AKE CAMO EIJGEDNOpOO - I,• - SUNRISE �,IAKEI.RNEY'•THORNEBMOKE �.�="' �! 'ECCLESTONs� CRANO A16N UE BLAN KN6R ®WVER SH(RES CffICKASAW OEE RWOOp o �M1' I( y' P ('STONE LAKES " ;' W1E: PERWGOAK - - _ METRONE ST EPGrPES NEST P � 'ET. ` �, CYPREESS SMINGS I d 16 �NWtY`- PoCHMONON G GGTALW �+ d ..v _ r I'�IW fl"' IAK6 GEOR'E P A,. PINAR :�. p NTda NOYRIOGEC.Yf NELOCH PERSHI lG _ A'9 `T, NALOJI MILLENNIA , .- 4 �S 1dIOOEN OARS ANOOVER _'THREE POWTS ps- WMJERMERE RLLIAL-E .,-'^�' ', - PALMETTO. SHE NANOoOAHI _ - - µ SM NGLE CREEK P'., ` TL t OYI- - - OR PH LL%P pp SADLER i "UNCN ER .. _, NISW IA.. - i t - ANGELO PARKy g 's SUNSET PARK CYP =PMK I' b .. NORT HLNCEPARK _ p WITERBROGE SAND LPKEyoU,G „ !�• r•.:.-.. > . .-...�I'�•=µ .AU2HWO00�, _ / MODS PMK , ME OWWOODS I ' 'IVE BTCRE EKu - NU NTE AG PCREEK ENDEAVOR. > p y,KNOPIA TAKES•-. =��- r S _ —HIRE ODLlN1 EW Figure 5: Orange County Public Schools J� Frtu, 3 - Existing LOS by Elementary School, 2007-08 L -r81R Elementary School Zone, Adjusted FISH �. . Legend Elementary School Attendance Zone l; LOS2007 42% —110% L nw :r;E NE<itEy lr h �l°CNHfRi 3A4E STEEtN tm-<v. �"`j 4:•� 1°'.ev, tos.,or. � 111%-190% '�_----T .w �'...•..—... �� f tG'. tT: �� . W1k HLtrf � E.1 tf:E �. —.� 91 u.tn; r tIIE 50.v6i jf �rt - r 4,�4:"•. •,'. 1 � 10:.57n �� lrA. �°. t ei - �rrW»� ! •[,. lUDV°Al GfFk �UIICil MFI. .« � t�t � ' nLDerrvlaE --y LC„-=.c Irn-ir, �'_--_, u»Er �~ }� ncus �........, yj..�✓ �i:at �'� -, t - -�".,,- - - - - - S LCG -, M. ^ { E� "Ytce .9 e'. vlL �it«.r•+o ti q�.tt=�;:. ,��, ruLEinN L`°"'%� nmmee. - M°t_r'n t'n-E P Wtr1EtAR'. 14.�� rt ' 105-BTU _ Vsri.{xptt.A "n Vrtr "'. ;nrrD tnv E - - - - �il, %7Ns t.itM'rp,Xr r°'.-�•-• IfY,S MFr. - - - - -- L L_ - ,rgyr N4 At A'>"•s n�JJa tW -3 b. 7 ' Irj6.fitt# O'+ SHI Figure 6: Orange County Public Schools, 2007-08 Existing Levels of Service (LOS) for Elementary and K 8 Schools CSAA LDS--137°1 Medium Elementary and K-8 District CSAs, Adj. FISH Capacity CSA DD - LOS--104% Legend Elementary and K-8 CSAs 81 % - 110% 111 % - 152% CSA w ws-115r Island Zones for Desegretation CSA Q A a Elementary and K-8 Locations Prepared byOCPS j Cos--101% CSA R April29, 2008 LOS--102% - W' 1 CSA S CSA ARBORRIDGE CSA U LOS-10W/P Losi4521% i - - LOS id3% a CSA ICSA X CsA M w � LOS=105% LOS-Ja% c - CSA;AA , n LOS=90% m s LOS�5 CSA D LOS 83�/ - ; CSA L CSA B rr CSA K L2t�h. lS 114% " CSA E LOS�4 J CSA BEANKNEii�7 . CSA d = LOS=I04% n I CSA i" LOS--102% Lb§=101% _ - LOS61161% CSAWINDY RIDGE r _ CSA P k LOS--94 % -t CSA F ' ,LOS=99 % - �CSAE _ I LOS�2%� - CSA G LOS'I04% CSA CC ' ., CSA O LOS=108% . LO$5=W % m o LOS-96 m CSA BB 'LOS--115% . LCSA 045% CSA Z LOS=81 % , n J a c CSA M p i CSA V LOS-'[11% LOS=86 CSA Y ILOrt22% Figure 7: Orange County Public Schools, 2007-08 WOLF LAKE d APOPKA Middle School Attendance Zones and School Locations P r V Legend PIEDMONT LAKES Middle School Locations d Middle School Attendance Zones LO CKtRT MA ITLA ND c4 OCOEE RO INS OODMEADOWB OOd_ LEE SGLENRIDGE d c� P UNION PARK g LAKEVIEW CARVER �^+ HOW,�RD S JACKION LEGACY DISCOVER AUALON LOTH BL K R ME6pp� RIAL p LIBFTTY CHAR! OF LAKES cS CONWAY CORNER LAKE b I WESTRIDGE WALKER i } BRIDGEWATER SOUTHWEST' i ODYSSEY i g ; FREEDOM SOUTH CREEK UNTEj6S CREE ADOW WOOD I i Figure 8: Orange County Public Schools, 2007-08 Existing Levels of Service (LOS) for Middle Schools APO PKA V\OLF "- LOS= � Middle School CSAs, Adj. FISH Capacity Legend Middle School CSAs PIEDMONTLAKES 52 % -100 % 101 % - 153% ' LOS= 11700J�p ' a Middle School Locations Prepared by OCPS LOCKHART LOS= 11% MAITLAhD April29, 2 00 6 LOS= 93 � 000 EE - DONS ROOK pp ly0y,5_115% GLENRDGE " LOS=81% chLEE ® LOS=89% J� LOS=95°10 LAB N PARK _PA L ROBIN D LOS= - . LAKEVIEW 12q'10 Fp ARD L0 52% DSCpVERY LOS=108% j CARVER JA.CKSON . LEGACY LOAr88% AlALON • IrTHA :LOS= 85 % LOsv% LCJ�= i53% 'i BLANKNER LOS= 89 % LOS= 122% - - Los= 109 % 'LIBERTY - SO80% CH OF LAKES . LOSr2% S= 114% ODNWAY OORNERLAKE - LOS= 134 % LOS= 135% WES;DGE LOS= 90% IkKE R LOS= 116%. BRIDG EWATERSOUTHVVEST ! LOS= 64 % LOS= 102% ODYSSEY - LOS=133 % , i I i ^ FREEDOM' SOUTH CRE; LO5= 101 LOS= 80 I . IHJNT&SCREEK MEADOWWOODS4 LOS=107% LOS=131% i -08 Figure 9: Orange County Public Schools, 2007 APOPKA High School Attendance Zones and School Locations Legend High School & 9th Grade Center Locations WEKIVA ` - High School Attendance Zones EDGEWATER P WANTER PARK OCOEE ENS da P P UNIVERSITY JONIA j OLYMPIA j BOONE COLONIAL TIMBER CREEK WEST ORANGE DR PHILLIPS OAK RIDGE FREEDOM CYPRESS CREEK da 1 I� j. APO PKA LOS=138% I VdEKNA LOS=64 I Figure 10: Orange County Public Schools, 2007-08 Levels of Service (LOS) for High Schools High School CSAs, Adj. FISH Capacity Legend CSA Boun dad es 64%-1009/o 101%-194% High School & Ninth Grade Center Locations Prepared by OCPS April 29, 2008 EDGEVA,TER 1.OS=120% \MMER PARK LOSSEE --10% jW, "5 II �OS=93% P LOS=82 % I �z LdVIVERSITY ' r LOS=194% JON LOS= OLYMPIA p� COLONIAL LOS=111% 4SBONE �L=1394'0 LOS=114°le Z , Z l VvESTORANGE LOS=1141/. OR PHIWPS LDS=151% I 1 � Ii FREEDOM LOS=114% CYPRESS CREE K LOS=164 % OAK RI DGE LOS=95 % TM BE R CRE EK LOS=160% Data, Inventory and Analysis Table 1o, below, provides an inventory of charter schools in Orange County. In 2oo6, 20 charter schools operated countywide and enrollment was just below 3,000 students. Table 10 — Charter Schools in Orange County, 2oo6/07 Hope Lake Eola Legacy High Nap Ford Community North Star High Oakland Avenue Origins Montessori Passport Princeton House Rio Grande Summit — Main Summit — West Summit — Central UCP — Downtown UCP — West Orange UCP —East Orange UCP — Pine Hills UCP Transitional Learning Academy Westminster Academy Workforce Advantage Academy 1550 E. Crown Point K 8 Road, Ocoee 135 N. Magnolia Ave., K 8 Downtown Orlando 1550 E. Crown Point Rd., Ocoee 9 12 648 W. LiAringston St., PreK-5 Orlando 8287 Curie Ford, Orlando 9-12 456 Oakland Ave., IC-5 Prioritized enrollment Oakland for city residents. 26 Willow Dr., Orlando K-8 Montessori I 5221 Curry Ford Rd. ! K-8 1166 Lee Rd., Orlando 1 Age 3-18 Autistic 2210 S. Rio Grande Ave., I K-5 Orlando I I 125o N. Maitland Ave., J K-S SLD — Students who Maitland I learn differently I( 2332 N. Hiawassee Rd K-8 SLD 720 W. Princeton St. I K-8 SLD 3305 S. Orange Ave., ( Birth-IC-4 Children w/ Orlando developmental delays 628 Dillard St., Winter Birth-K-4 Children w/ en Gard developmental delays 12046 Collegiate Way, Birth-K-4 Children w/ Ij Orlando developmental delays 5800 Golf Club Pkwy., Birth-K-4 Children w/ Orlando developmental delays 3305 S. Orange Ave., I 6 9 ( Children w/ Orlando Ij ( disabilities 830 W. 29th St., ( Age 3-21 � Special medical needs 2113 E. South St., Orlando ! 11-12 At -risk high schoolers Source: OCPS School Choice Site, wwiv.schoolchoice.ocps.net 218 72 137 140 56o n/a 176 247 176 243 87 87 158 n/a n/a 41 9 38 1'72 M Final —May 2008 Charter school enrollment has increased steadily in recent years, particularly since the 2003/04 school year (Table ii). The number of actual schools has increased as well, from six in 2000 to 20 in 2006. Charter schools currently represent roughly 1.4 percent of total student enrollment in Orange County. Total student enrollment includes public, private, special, home and charter schooled children. Table ii — Enrollment in Charter Schools, 2000 - 2007 #Charter Schools 6 to I 13 16 17 17 20 Pre-K-5 645 96o I 1,193 2,116 2,168 2,056 2,023 j 6-8 160 213 I 305 442 493 461 j 490 9 - 12 ( 6 1 69 ' 127 146 ( 220 289 370 I F_ Subtotal 811 —1 1,242 1,599 2,704 ! 2,881 2,806 2,883 of Total Student Population o 5% 0 7% 0 8% 14% 14% i 3% 14% — Total Student Population' —� `--I_, 176,488 ( — 186,192 — 190,183 197,342 204,402 208,426 210,295 Source: OCPS Student Database 'Total student population includes public, private, charter, special and home school enrollment Charter schools are not built to SREF standards and are not included in the FISH database, therefore no capacity information is available. _ The Student Generation Rate (SGR) refers to the number of students produced by an individual housing unit. In Orange County, the rate varies by single family, multi -family and mobile home. The most recent SGRs was derived as part of the Orange County Public School Impact Fee Update Study, July 2007, and used Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) and Census 2000 data, as well as OCPS student enrollment figures for the year 2000. The rate is developed by dividing the number of students within a particular residential use type by the total number of units of that land use in Orange County. The rate was then adjusted downward by 3.5 percent to reflect the slight decrease in the overall trend in students per unit since 2000. Table 12 —Student Generation Rate, November 2007 Mobile Home 1 .131 o66 ( .054 .251 1 Source: Orange County Public Schools School Impact Fee Study The Educational Facilities Plant Survey, a school district's official list of approved projects, is required by the State at least every five years. Orange County Public School's latest survey was completed in early 2007. A summary report, which contains the overall recommendations for new construction and 27 Data, Inventory and Analysis capacity, is contained in Appendix i. Orange County submitted the full Plant Survey to DCA in April 2008. The Survey provides for the creation of 71,53o student stations through new school construction and expansions. Of these, 31,997 should occur at the elementary level, 1,033 at the K-8 level, 19,621 at the middle school level and 18,879 at the high school level. Table 13 — School Capacity Summary Profile Permanent Buildings 1,717 Relocatable Buildings 4005 Permanent Stations 168,058 Relocatable Stations 77,296 Total Stations 245,354 CAPACITY 235,082 Permanent Classrooms 7,733 Relocatable Classrooms 3,847 Total Classrooms 11,580 TOTAL NET SQ FT 25,773,964 Permanent Net Sq Ft + 22,o6i,253 Relocatable Net Sq Ft 3,712,711 Instructional Net Sq Ft n/a Source: Reports from DOE as of August 16, 2007. Data includes technical centers and all OCPS owned facilities Ancillary facilities provide general support for the operation of the District not related to individual schools. An inventory of OCPS's ancillary facilities is provided in Table 14. The district recently purchased land to build a new bus storage/fueling facility to serve the west side of the County. Beyond that, the District does not have any additional ancillary needs at this time. Table 14 — Ancillary Facilities, 2007 Educational Leadership Center and Parking Garage, 445 W. Amelia Avenue Eric Olson Bus Compound, 29oo Bear Bryant Drive Facilities Service Center, 6501 Magic Way Ft. Gatlin Administrative Center, 3909 S. Summerlin Ave Hanging Moss Service Center, 6721 Hanging Moss Road Lake Nona Bus Compound, 8105 McCoy Road Northwest Service Center, 5146 N. Pine Hills Road Tampa Avenue Annex, 434 N. Tampa Avenue 1978 I 1990 4 1991 I 1994 14 1962/iggo I 1984-92 I 78 2001 I 2002 I 3.1 I 1964 I 1967 I 40 2001, 2002 I 2001, 2002 I 40.27 1978, 2000 I 1983 I 89 1955 ( 1956 I 8.61 28 NTE SP9 I L 'tq� L:�� f", 1 -0 r-' L ID D U 61AL PI C 1vjF&kTTt tj L J1. t mall M Ancillary Facilities 4 t Frepared b y OCPS Ap tit 29, 2008 ORTIbWCENTER,, R1' �A 66YE C H )VtRATI ON CENTER* ZTATIO N CTR x --A0.NA-TRANS�00-RTAT-1614--C.EN-'r-ER----,---- . ---- - -- OCPS annual enrollment projections are contained in Table 15. Detailed, school -specific projections by year are located in Appendix 2. The five-year planning horizon is 2011-12 and the ten-year planning horizon is 2o16-17. Table 15 - Five -Year Student Enrollment Projections, 2oo8/o9 - 2012/13 Elementary I 79,642 i 79,899 f 80,332 f 82,093 f 88,264 f K-8 ! 2,906 2,866 f 2,823 4,049 f 3,886 Middle I 37,169 35,86o I f 36,387 f 34,917 f 35,386 High 48,5i6 47,820 I 47,468 I 47,737 48,790 Special f 7,337 f 7,337 I 7,337 I_ 7,337 ( 7,337 Total �- 174,607 f 172>$19 f 173,38� 175,170 -- 176,960 Source: Planning & Governmental Relations, April 2008 "Denotes five-year planning horizon Since 2000, the student population in Orange County has grown at a higher rate than the county's overall population. Between 2000 and 20o6, the number of students enrolled has increased by 16 percent, or 24,871 students. Enrollment has declined slightly for the last two school years, but beginning in 2011/12, projections indicate that the student population will begin rising to levels seen before the decline, but at much lower percentages than in the past. Population projections for 2020 were collected from two sources, Orange County Planning Department and the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BEBR). Both sources use a moderate projection of 1.4 million residents (Table 16). This level of population would represent a 43 percent overall increase, or a three percent annual increase, which is consistent with historical trends. Orange County estimates that the 2o2o population projection includes 307,767 children, age five to 19. Table 16 - 2020 Population Orange County Moderate 1,437,418 BEBR" Moderate ( 1,473,700 Source: Future Land Use Element, Orange County 2000-202o Comprehensive Policy Plan; University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research; Orange County Population Projections, Planning DiNision, 2003. "Bureau of Economic and Business Research Capacity, Concurrency Service Areas and Level of Service make up the three components of concurrency. The section below describes OCPS's approach to each component: Permanent Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) Capacity refers to the number of students that can be housed in the permanent portion of a school as determined by a formula developed by the state. This formula is based on the square footage of classroom space divided by the allocated square footage per student station and takes into account the 18/22/25 students per classroom requirement of the class size amendment. "Adjusted FISH" uses Permanent FISH as a base, but includes the capacity from the District's 16 modular campuses that "in -slot" classrooms connected by covered walkways. The modular campuses affected by this adjustment are: Arbor Ridge K-8 Clay Springs ES Cypress Springs ES Frangus ES Hidden Oaks ES Hunter's Creek ES John Young ES Little River ES Meadow Woods ES MetroWest ES Palm Lake ES Rock Springs ES Shingle Creek ES Ventura ES Waterbridge ES Waterford ES Adjusted FISH is further refined by capping the total at Core Capacity, which only applies when the facility's FISH capacity is greater than the facility's core capacity. Core capacity indicates the total enrollment that can be served by the lunch facilities in three shifts. Core capacity is calculated by dividing the square footage of the school's dining room by a state -determined factor. If the core space is too small for the number of classrooms, a school is required to add lunch periods. This often results in students eating lunch too early or too late in the day. In summary, the formula for Adjusted FISH is as follows: (Not to Exceed Core) Permanent FISH + In -Slots = Adjusted FISH An essential requirement for school concurrency is a designation of the area within which the level of service will be measured when an application for a residential development permit is reviewed for school concurrency purposes. This delineation is also important for purposes of determining whether the local Final - May 2008 government has a financially feasible public school capital facilities program that will provide schools which will achieve and maintain the adopted level-of-seiiice standards. Section 163.3180 of the Florida Statues allows communities to adopt a districtwide or less than districtwide CSA. In Orange County, less than districtwide CSAs will be employed, due to the size of the County and the desire to recognize the link between an individual development and the affected school. According to the Statutes, for local governments applying school concurrency on a less than distrzetwide basis, local governments and school boards must demonstrate that the utilization of school capacity is maximized to the greatest extent possible in the comprehensive plan and amendment, taldng into account transportation costs and court -approved desegregation plans, as well as other factors. In addition, in order to achieve concurrency Aithin the service area boundaries selected by local governments and school boards, the service area boundaries, together with the standards for establishing those boundaries, shall be identified and included as supporting data and analysis for the comprehensive plan. For elementary schools, CSA boundaries were created by grouping elementary school attendance boundaries together in a way to balance out the over -capacity and under -capacity schools. For middle and high schools, CSAs will follow attendance boundaries. Capacity is central to the concept of concurrency because it forms the basis for level of service (LOS). Public facilities and services have limits beyond which they become overburdened. State law provides specific measures for determining the capacity of a particular public facility or service. LOS is defined as "...an indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility. Level of Service shall indicate the capacity per unit of demand for each public facility" [Rule 9J-5.003, Florida Administrative Code]. In light of the Code's definition, the LOS standard for public schools must be based upon the "capacity of the facility," which is the number of pupils to be ser,% iced by the facility, rather than on the basis of the school performance as determined by the level of pupil achievement or some other qualitative measurement. For public school facilities, the LOS may be expressed as the percentage or ratio of student enrollment to the student capacity of the school. The following LOS has been selected: Elementary -110% of Adjusted FISH Capacity K through 8 -110% of Adjusted FISH Capacity Middle — t00% of Adjusted FISH Capacity High — l00% of Adjusted FISH Capacity Members of the community spent several months working to identify a LOS and deciding how it would be achieved and maintained. 31 Figure 13: Orange County Public Schools, 2011-12 Projected Levels of Service (LOS) for Elementary and K-8 Schools r CSA 7/ Medium Elementary and K-8 District CSAs, Adj. FISH Capacity CSA DD LOS-120 . Legend Elementary and K-8 CSAs 71 %- 100% 111 % - 132% Denotes Backlogged Facility for Inclusion in the Ten -Year Plan CSA w Island Zones for Desegretation Relief School Planned, Location not Specified Los=109% _ ® Elementary and K-8 Locations n -CSA Q n New Elementary and K 8 Locations Prepared byOCPS 10S=10T1 CSA R April29, 2008 ° LOS=79 % - n� CSA ARBORE . . 1 CSA U CSA S P - LOS-"8% m IASE115% LOS=38% CSA 1 ' ' I . CSA X CSA N LOS=93% LC9S=1M% CSA M , ,._ LOS-'104% " = f CSA:AA . - LOS--101%, m LOS=77% a GSA DCSA L d LOS=75% LOS=90% R csA B - - - ,CSA K LQS--'102-/ a LOS=82 % CSA E, CSA f CSA BANK f c CSA J LOS=110% - LOS=110 Lb§--100% LOS=96% CSA V&DYRIDGE G CSA P LOS=97% a CSA I- LOS=:97% CSA E LOS=81% a CSA G LAs--110% CSA CC - CSA O LOS=102% LbS=91%9 R p LOS=f02°/, a .CSA BB CSA C _ sLOS=98 'LOS-JS % - (SA Z LOS=79 % n e � m CSA H CSA V j�[ LOs�9% LOS=71 1/6! � CSA Y n 1_0S=1071/6 Figure 14: Orange County Public Schools, 2011-12 WOLF AKE z SAS ; 0% Projected Levels of Service (LOS) for Middle Schools °S=�%L Middle School CSAs, Adj. FISH Capacity legend Middle School CSAS �,- Denotes Backlogged Facility for Inclusion in theTen-Year Plan 521% -100 % 101 %- 153% Relief School Planned, Location Not Specified PIEDMONT LAKES LOS=73%p Middle School Locations Prepared by OCPS i April 29, 2008 LOCKW RT LOS= / P d New Middle School Locations FELIEF MIDDLE (3J-M-IN�7j �� MA1TLAhD LOS= 79 r D00EE LOS= 7B% IVEADWSROOKLE GLENPoDGE IOS= 74 % LOS= 81% LOS= 89 % UPI PARK yp ROBIN5ND L79% LOS= LAKEMEW RELIEF M566-M-W h1DVyARD i1WLEF ES 3l-E-W-4 L011 r DIS�VERY 9� 1 CA JACKSON LEGACY L0 74% THA L 5RVE% LOS--iB % LOS= ffi A/ALON L 117% t BLANIWER LOS= 72 LOS= 100% tM ORIAL UBERTY 5= 69% S LOSr7% ' CHrOF LAKES cat S= 105% CONWAY OORNE R LAKE - LOS=87% LOS=83% VIES;IDGE LOS= 80 % KER LOS= 114% BRIDGEVVATER SOUTHWEST LOS=78% LOS=95% ODYSSEY LOS= 64 FREEDOM " SOUTH CRE� LOS= 90 % LOS= 92 rr � MJNTF S CREEK NIEAADOWVQCLt; LOS= 90% LOS= 129% Figure 15: Orange County Public Schools, 2011-12 APO PKA Projected Levels of Service (LOS) for High Schools High School CSAs, Adj. FISH Capacity z Legend CSABDundaries Denotes Backlogged CSAfor 10-Year Plan 61%-100% 101%-136% VEKIVA High School & Ninth Grade Center Locations LOS=e2% g New High Schools Prepared by OCPS VA t EDGEWATER LOS=81. WNTER PARK I OS=93 COO EE P & LOS=63 ® UNIVERSITY LOS=136% OLYMPIA LOPS=95 i V�ESTO RANGE LOS=61 % DR PHILLIPS LOS=99 JON LOS= , 1. rr BOONE SAS=100 % 1-4 FREEDOM LOS=106% CYPRESSCREEK LOS=%% Z COLONIAL LOS=100% 11 OAK RIDGE LOS=62 April 29, 2008 TVv1BERCREEK LOS=100% The 2007 io-Year Capital Outlay Plan (Table 17) anticipates construction of 18 elementary, four middle, one K-8 and three high schools. The Plan is subject to change from year to year, based on needs and available funding. The current plan includes an additional 26 new schools funded through Certificates of Participation (COPs), Impact Fee revenue and state -allocated Class Size revenue. In addition, the plan includes agreements with local developers to advance the construction of two high schools, two middle schools and one elementary school. This capital outlay budget appropriations and reserves for FY 20o8 total $858,008,682. OCPS's budget also proposes to spend $136.3 million for comprehensive needs (renovations and retrofits). Schools contained in the Table 17 are illustrated in Figure 16 through Figure 18. Table 17 —10-Year Capital Outlay Plan for Additional Schools, 2007 Years 2-5 Avalon ES Relief II Elementary 2oo8 Lake Whitney Thornebrooke ES Relief Elementary 2oo8 Cypress Creek/Oak Ridge HS Relief High I 2009 Horizon West ES/Whispering Oak ES Relief II f Elementary !I 2009 Ocoee MS Relief I !j Middle 2009 Timber Creek/University HS Relief High 2009 Azalea Park/Little River ES Relief Elementary I 2010 Clarcona/Citrus Lakeville ES Relief Elementary 2010 Endeavor/Southwood/Meadow Woods ES Relief Elementary 2010 Lakeview MS Relief II Middle 2010 North Lake Park ES Relief III (Eagle Creek) I Elementary 2010 Odyssey MS Relief I Middle 2010 Corner Lake MS Relief/Columbia ES Relief (K-8) K-8 2011 Horizon West ES (Village H) Elementary 2011 West Orange HS Relief I ( High 2011 Years 6-io Tangelo Park/Waterbridge ES Relief ( Elementary 2012 North Lake Park ES Relief IV (Randal Johnson/Moss Park/Lake Nona) Ij Elementary ( 2013 Wolf Lake MS Relief (Stoneybrook Hills) Middle 2014 Wyndham Lakes ES Relief (Boggy Creek) Elementary 2014 South ES Relief/Tangelo/Waterbridge ES Relief II Elementary ( 2015 Wolf Lake/Zellwood ES Relief Elementary ( 2015 Horizons West ES II/Whispering Oak ES Relief III Elementary I 2016 North Lake Park ES Relief V (Randal Johnson/Moss Park) Elementary 2o16 Horizon West ES Relief III/Whispering Oak ES Relief V Elementary 2017 Horizon West ES Relief/Whispering Oak ES VI ( Elementary 2017 Source: OCPS Adopted Summary Budget, 2oo8-o8 Data, Inventory and Analysis With the 10-Year Capital Outlay Play full executed, a few shortfalls have been identified. Therefore, the Capital Improvement Element and the 2008 update of the Capital Outlay Plan shall include additional relief schools in year io. The schools will utilize COP dollars. Table 18, Table 19, and Table 20, below, indicate the CSAs that will not meet the adopted LOS in 2011-12, and must be backlogged and added to the ten-year concurrency management plan. Table 18 - Elementary Schools by CSA that don't meet LOS in 2011-12 A/Dream Lake, Rock Springs ' 158% ( 500 Add new school to 10 Year Plan to relieve CSA U/Citrus, Clarcona, Ocoee, Spring Lake 136% I 625 I, Add new school to 10 Year Plan to relieve CSA J DD/Apopka, Wolf Lake, Zellwood I 136% I 525 Current 10 Year Plan contains a relief school for Wolf Lake/Zellwood 1 Table 19 - Middle Schools by CSA that don't meet LOS in 2011-12 • Apopka 118% 175 Current to Year Plan contains a relief school Wolf Lake, that will also relieve Apopka Chain of La7jkesfor Chain of Lalces 105% 59 Enrollment projected to decline by 2016 Gotha 117% 141 Enrollment projected to decline by 2016 Meadow Woods ( 129% 298 ( Comprehensive renovation scheduled for 2015, core space to be added. Walker ( 114% 129 Enrollment projected to decline by 2016 Table 20 - High Schools by CSA that don't meet LOS in 2011-12* University I j 136% 670 I Capacity Improvements to be made in 2010 during comprehensive renovation *Three nei%, high schools iirill open in 2011. It is expected that rezoning and programmatic changes, combined iNritll improvements to Evans High School, iNrill impact the entire district and enrollment patterns iNrill change. Due to the size and locations of individual school deficiencies, no additional schools are warranted. To maximize capacity and reduce reliance on future revenue, OCPS may employ a variety of options to meet the LOS, including rezoning, adding or moving special programs, or adding additional capacity to schools being renovated under the comprehensive renovation program funded by local sales tax. With the recent reduction in construction costs, budgets for school renovations shall, on a case -by -case basis, be reviewed and, where feasible, modified, to build additional capacity. In summary, the following brill be added to Year 10 of the Capital Improvement Plan: • CSA A - Relief School (830 student stations) ® CSA U - Relief School (830 student stations) 36 Figure 16: Orange County Public Schools, 2016-17 Projected Levels of Service (LOS) for Elementary and K-8 Schools CSA A LOS=103 Medium Elementary and K-8 District CSAs, Adj. FISH Capacity CSA DO = LOS--103% Legend a m Elementary and K-8 CSAs ® 55%- 100% CSA W Island Zones for Desegretation LOS=y3 % d Elementary and K 8 Locations •CSA Q a New Elementary and K-8 Locations Prepared byOCPS DDS=108% CSA R April29, 2008 w CSA S Q CSA ARBOR RIDGE CSA U LOS--105 f = LOS=109% " LOS-103% CSA I CSA X QSA N LOS=95% ' CSQ' M LOS4'108% " LOS--16D%� s CWAA ' LOS�107% g a LOS=76 % _ A CSA D a ' CSA L n a LOS=82D/ LOS=97% CSA B - .._. --- ,CSA K LQS--104% - a - CSA E LOS�5l° CSA , a CSA J LOS--104% CSA 7 BLANKNF�i" LOs--iio Lb-S=96 % Q - LOS=1104% CSA WiNDYRIDGE I CSA P a .. LOS--93% n CSA r LOS=107% CSA E LO§=85 . m CSA G -LOS=104°/ CSA CC ` ., CSA O LOS=109% L5S=100%' LOS--1061/. _ ,CSA BB CSA C °' tOS--107% . LOS=91 CSA Z LOS=80 CSA H - LOS=66 CSA Y ® 'LOS--106% CSA V I\ 1 LOS�5 % i � Figure 17: Orange County Public Schools, 2016-17 APO PKA Projected Levels of Service (LOS) for Middle Schools WOLF LAKE t LOS= 100 L0s=74% = Middle School CSAs, Adj. FISH Capacity 4 PIEDMONT LAKES LOS= 6,%j LOCKH4RT fC-UEF hjIDDLE(3l-M-W-7) LOS=2% MATLAND LOS= 67% Legend Middle School CSAs 52% -100 Middle School Locations gNew Middle School Locations Relief School Planned, Location Not Specified Prepared by OCPS April 29, 2006 COO EE M�DOWBROOK LOS= 62°/ LOS= 65 �E GLENPoDGE LOS= 83 % t LOS= 99 UNI PARK L =74% f�BINS D LAKEMEW fELIEF MS 66-M-W-1FELEF lOS HJV1(ARD E ES 3I-E-W4 L0141 % t CL VERY LOS= 94 LEGACY am % THA LOS= 55 LOS=�6N% LOS= 88% aALON L 1o0' ®ty BLANKNER ®® LOS= 97% LOS= 96 RR ty,M5ORIAL UBERTY [ =94% CH OF LAKES Loss% S= 99 % CONWAY CORNER LAKE LOS= 78 % LOS= � P P Ea WESi�OGE LOS= 74 KER LOS= 100 BRIDGEWATER SOUTHWEST LOS= 91 % LOS= 95 ODYSSEY r LOS= 88 % N FREEDOM SOUTH CRE; LOS= 87 % LOS= 100% HUNTF S CREEK vFADOwv=cr. LOS=90% LOS=97% 1 Figure 18: Orange County Public Schools, 2016-17 Projected Levels of Service (LOS) for High Schools KA LOS9 High School CS��s, Adj. FISH Capacity Legend CSA Boundaries 69%-100% High School & Ninth Grade Center Locations VM=XVA P New High Schools Prepared by OCPS April 29, 2008 EDGEVVATER LOS=E6 % VNNTER PARK - 5=100% LOOSEEE =95% t S �P LOS=69 1F71VERSITY LOS=91 % JON LOS= /o J� OLYM PIA �tOS00% COLONIAL LOS=95 % LOS=76 - TMIBERCREEK - LOS=100'S � I V�ESTORANGE LOS=BB CR PHILOPS LOS=95 OAK RIDGE ` LOS=100% FREEDOM {� I LOS=85% CYPRESSCREEK I V LOS=SB Data, Inventory and Analysis OOPS builds "prototype" schools, i.e., schools have been pre -designed and only slight modifications are needed when siting the school. Prototype schools possess the following land area requirements: Elementary — 15 acres (x 18=27o acres) Middle — 3o acres (x 5=15o acres) High — 6o acres (x 3=18o acres) School sites for the projects in the ten-year capital outlay plan have already been acquired and are depicted on Figure 16, Figure 17 and Figure 18. Two 15-acre sites will be needed for the two additional relief schools that will be added to the Capital Improvement Element and Capital Outlay Plan. CSAA - Relief School (830 student stations) CSA U - Relief School (830 student stations) All schools in the ten year work program will require the following infrastructure enhancements: Water and sewer line extension Drainage Traffic signal Deceleration lane Sidewalks The following section briefly describes OCPS's main sources of revenue: The Public Education Capital Outlay Funds (PECO) are derived from proceeds of the Gross Receipts Tax on utilities, which is constitutionally allocated for education capital improvement. These funds are provided to the district for construction, remodeling or renovations. Restrictions for use of these funds include new athletic facilities and performing arts centers. Any project using these funds must have been recommended in the educational plant survey. On September 10, 2002, Orange County voters passed a half -cent sales tax increase for public schools. The sales tax will be in effect for 13 years and includes a half mill property tax rollback for the term of the tax (a mill is equal to one dollar of property tax for every $1000 of the assessed value of that property). The sales tax is expected to fund the repair/replacement of at least 136 schools and the construction of at least 25 new schools, including site acquisition and a capital renewal allowance. A reduction in the number of portables in the district brill be a byproduct of both new school construction and renovation/replacement projects. Initial revenues from the sales tax will be received by the district in early April 2003. The district is expected to receive revenues of approximately $109,300,000 for calendar year 2003. Funds derived from a 1.5 millage levy on local property. The legal limit for capital improvement tax is 2.0 mills. This millage represents a rollback of .5 mills as a result of the voter -approved sales tax referendum. Revenues may be used for payment of principal and interest on COPS; for purchase of new and replacement equipment; for maintenance of existing facilities; rental and leasing of educational facilities and sites; purchase of new and replacement school buses; project management; and construction and remodeling of new or existing facilities. COPS funds are not a source of revenue but the proceeds of a twenty five year loan against future properly tax revenues. Funds may be used to remodel, renovate or replace existing schools and acquire land and construct additional schools. The current budget does not include COPS for Year io. In order to meet financial feasibility in ten years, OCPS will need to utilize that resource. Derived from the first proceeds of the State auto license fees and are constitutionally earmarked for educational capital improvement needs. Allocations are made on the basis of the calculated number of "teacher units," and at a rate prescribed by the Constitution. CO&DS funds may be used in the acquisition, building, construction, renovation or replacement of capital outlay projects. The requirement is that these projects be listed on a project priority list that is developed from the plant surrey. School impact fees have been levied countywide in Orange County since 1993• As required by law, impact fees can only be levied on new development and cannot be used to correct existing infrastructure deficiencies. Data, Inventory and Analysis The school impact fee was updated in 2007 and went into effect on January 28, 2oo8. The new impact fee amounts are: Single Family: $11,829 Multi -Family: $6,647 Mobile Home: $6,344 The voter approved constitutional amendment placed the responsibility for providing the necessary operating and capital funds required on the Legislature. The estimated capital impact over the next 10 years to OCPS is $1.5 billion. To date, the District has received $127 million, including $66.1 million for FY 2007. 42 Table 21— 2008-2017 Fiscal Years Capital Appropriation Projections, September ILI, 2007 rr s J777�' Impact Fees $64,964,643 $67,8i8,1o9 $69,107,732 $63,800,577 $63,800,577 $63,800,577 $63,800,577 $63,800,577 $63,800,577 Property Tax 153,512,782 161,188,421 169,247,842 177,710,234 186,595,746 195,925,533 205,721,8io 216,007,901 302,411,o6i Sales Tax 183,479,772 192,653,761 202,286,449 212,400,772 223,020,810 234,171,851 245,880,443 258,174,465 182,365,613 Sales of Fixed Assets 2,878,713 2,300,000 - - - - Total Local Sources $404,835,911 $423,96o,29i $440,642,024 $453,911,583 $473,417,133 $493,897,961- $515,402,830 O $537,982,943 $548,577,251 4 CO&DS $1,765,629 $1,775,229 $1,826,811 $1,913,976 $2,022,636 $2,131,296 PECO-Construction 12,616,146 - - - - I - PECO-Maintenance 12,543,214 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000 General Revenue 15,834,213 - - - - - Class Size Prior Year 1,702,700 $63,800,577 317,531,614 $381,332,191 $2,239,956-d $2,348,616 $2,457,276 $2,565,936 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000 Total State Sources $44,461,9o2 $6,675,229 $6,726,811 $6,813,976 $6,922,636 $7,031,296 $7,139,956 $7,248,616 $7,357,276 $7,465,936 CQ'P 2L&kLOther SourceL Revenue Anticipated $5,879,399 Notes Certificates of $130,905,000 $89,76o,000 $89,855,000 $90,170,000 $go,650,000 $91,290,000 $90,105,000 $93,075,000 $95,665,000 $ 55,511,312 Participation Loan-Other 86,386,500 184,647,845 - - - - District Equipment Lease Proceeds I 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 Beginning Fund Balances 977,192,589 320,486,412 310,200,948 264,677,719 288,541,220 284,444,502 314,471,659 377,932,655 357,624,548 426,974,228 Total COP Proceeds & $1,213,863,488 $608,394,257 $413,555,948 I11$368,347,719 I11$392,691,220 $389,234,502 6,659 $484,507,655 III$466,789,548 540 Other Sources I$418,0 I$495,985, Total Revenue & Other $1,663,161,301 $1,039,029,777 $860,924,783 $829,073,278 $873,030,989 $890,163,759 $940,619,445 $1,029,739,214 $1,022,724,075 $884,783,667 Sources I I I I I I I I I I Source: OCPS Adopted Summary Budget, 2007-2008 Data, Inventory and Analysis Table 22 — 2008-2017 Fiscal Years Capital Revenue Projections, September 11, 2007 Immediate Needs - Various $4,230,827 Total Comprehensive Needs $309,311,031 $236,900,884 $162,841,636 $211,980,127 $227,431,849 $244,434,358 $222,895,873 $299,337,862 $171,73i,8o6 - Total Replacement Schools $253,574,791 Total Additional Schools $318,243,020 $247,654,095 $62,745,144 $21,271,359 $23,334,927 $69,635,988 $49,248,515 $51,710,941 $55,046,488 $83,266,968 0 Site Acquisition $98,277,529 $8,000,000 $11,000,000 $5,000,000 - $15,000,000 $10,000,000 Safety, Security & $26959,775 $2,775,229 $2,826,811 $2,913>976 $3,022,636 $3,131,296 $12,239,956 $12,348,616 $20,457,'-76 $20,565,936 Environmental Total Portables $58,650,214 $31,300,000 $19,000,000 $19,000,000 $19,000,000 $19,000,000 $32,000,000 $32,000,000 $65,000,000 $65,000:000 Educational Technology $8,259,638 $5,300,000 $6,000,000 $6,250,000 $6,250,000 $6,750,000 $8,500,000 $127000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000000 Buses & Equipment $26,866,515 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 Ancillary Facilities $13,370,787 $5,000,000 - - - - - I Debt Service & Operations $146,189,546 $118,139,910 $252,877,054 $189,787,140 $219,455,991 $135,509,615 $134,066,933 $137,760,852 $141,349,971 $142,898,372 Total Reserves $399,227,627 $370,459,659 $330,134,138 $359,370,677 $361,035,587 $398,202,503 $468,168,i69 $456,080,945 $531,638,535 $545,552,391 Total Appropriations& 1,663,161,300 1,039,029,777 860,924,783 829,073,279 873,030,990 8go,163,76o 940,619,446 1,029,739,216 1,022,724,076 884,783,667 Reserves Total Revenue (from Table $1,663,161,301 $1,039,029,777 $860>924,783 $829,073,278 $873,030,989 $890,163,759 $940,619,445 $1,029,739,214 $1,022,724,075 $884,783,667 21) Source: OCPS Adopted Summary Budget, 2007-2008 44 Table 23 — OCPS Capital Projects (New Sebools), Fiscal Years 2008-2017 Year CIP Funding Open Year Project Name Status Source i Under construction; will 2008 1 Avalon ES Relief 11 open 08/08 Impact Fees Under construction; will 2008 1 Lake Whitney/Thornebrooke ES Relief open 08/08 Class Size Under construction; will 2009 2 Cypress Creek/Oak Ridge HS Relief open 08/09 Loan 2009 2 Horizon West ES/Whisperinq Oak ES Relief 11 Impact Fees 1 2009 2 Ocoee MS Relief 1 2008 COPS construction; will IUnder 2009 2 Timber Creek/University HS Relief open 06/09 2007 COPS 2010 3 Azalea Park/Little River ES Relief Impact Fees 2010 3 Clamona/Citrus Lakeville ES Relief Impact Fees 2010 3 Endeavor/Southwood/Meadow Woods ES Relief Loan 2010 3 Lakeview MS Relief 11 Loan 2010 3 North Lake Park ES Relief III (Eagle Creek) Class Size 2010 3 Odyssey MS Relief I Loan 2011 4 Corner Lake MS Relief/Columbia ES Relief (K-B) Impact Fees 2011 4 Horizon West ES (Village H) Impact Fees 2011 4 West Orange HS Relief I Loan 2012 5 Tangelo Park/Waterbridge ES Relief Impact Fees 2013 6 North Lake Park ES Relief IV Impact Fees 2014 7 Wolf Lake MS Relief 2014 7 gg IWyndam Lakes ES Relief 2015 8 South ES Relief - Tangelo Waterbridge ES Relief II 2015 8 Wolf Lake/Zellwood ES Relief 2016 9 Horizons West 11- Whispering Oak ES Relief III 2016 9 North Lake Park ES Relief V 2017 10 Horizon West ES Relief III/Whispering Oak ES Relief V l� f 2017 10 Horizon West ES Relief/Whispering Oak ES VI 2017 10 CSA DO Relief 2017 10 CSA U Relief Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 $17,833,887.00 $18,000,001.00 $79,342,926.00 $19,500,000.00 $36,682.500.00 $79,501,089.00 $750,000.00 $20,668,750.00 $750,000.00 $19,668,750.00 $750,000,00 $19,668,750.00 $1,000,000.00 $36,951,625.00 $991,310.00 $20,918,750.00 $1,000,000.00 $40,451,625.00 II $1,000,000.00 $41.361,706.00 $750,000.00 $20,633,438.00 (I $2,944.095.00 $87.575,845.00 $750,000M $20.521,359.00 $750,000.00 $21,584,927.00 $1,000,000.00 $750,000.00 Final —May 2008 45 Data, Inventory and Analysis Table 23 — OCPS Capital Projects (New Schools), Fiscal Years 2008-2017 (Continued) CIP Funding Cost Cost Cost Year Open I Year Project Name Status Source FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Under construction; will 2008 1 Avalon ES Relief II open 08108 Under construction; will 2008 1 Lake Whitney/Thornebrooke ES Relief open 08108 Under construction; will 2009 2 Cypress Creek/Oak Ridge HS Relief open 08/09 2009 2 Horizon West ES/Whispering Oak ES Relief 11 2009 2 Ocoee MS Relief I Under construction; will 2009 2 Timber Creek/University HS Relief open 08109 2010 3 Azalea Park/Little River ES Relief 2010 3 Clarcona/Citrus Lakeville ES Relief 2010 3 Endeavor/Southwood/Meadow Woods ES Relief 2010 3 Lakeview MS Relief 11 2010 3 North Lake Park ES Relief III (Eagle Creek) 2010 3 Odyssey MS Relief I 2011 4 Comer Lake MS Relief/Columbia ES Relief (K-8) 2011 4 Horizon West ES (Village H) 2011 4 West Orange HS Relief I 2012 5 Tangelo Park/Waterbridpe ES Relief 2013 6 North Lake Park ES Relief IV 2014 7 Wolf Lake MS Relief Impact Fees $45,434,314.00 2014 7 Wyndam Lakes ES Relief Impact Fees $22,701,674,00 2015 8 South ES Relief - Tangelo Waterbridge ES Relief 11 Impact Fees $750,000.00 $23,874.257.00 2015 8 Wolf Lake/Zellwood ES Relief Impact Fees $750,000.00 $23,874,257.00 2016 9 Horizons West II - Whispering Oak ES Relief III Impact Fees $750,000.00 $25,105,470,00 2016 9 North Lake Park ES Relief V Impact Fees +(+ I $750,000.00 $25,105,470,00 2017 10 Horizon West ES Relief ]]]/Whispering Oak ES Relief V Impact Fees $750,000.00 2017 10 Horizon West ES Relief/Whispering Oak ES VI Ij Impact Fees $750,000,00 1 2017 10 CSA DO Elementary Relief f 2017 COPS 2017 10 CSA U Elementary Relief 12017 COPS I TOTAL PROPOSED Cost Cost PROJECT FY 2016 FY 2017 COST $17,833,887.00 $18,000,001.00 $79,342,926.00 $19,500.000.00 $36,682,500.00 $79,501,089.00 $21.418,750.00 $20,418,750.00 $20.418,750.00 $37,951,625.00 $21,910,060.00 $41,451,625.00 $42,361,706.00 $21,383,438.00 $90,519,940.00 $21,271,359.00 $22,334,927.00 $46,434,314.00 $23,451,674.00 $24,624,257.00 $24,624,257.00 $25.855,470.00 $25,855,470.00 $26,398,244.00 $27,148,244.00 $26,398,244.00 $27,148,244.00 _$750,000.00 $19,668,750.00 $20,418,750.00 $750,000.00 ( $19,668,750.00 $20.418,750.00 46 Table 24 — OCPS Comprehensive Needs Projects (Renovations, Fisting Schools), Fiscal Years 2008-2017 CIP Year I Project Name I ' I I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 ( 1 1 1 I 2 Apopka MS 2 Edgewater HS 2 Discovery MS 2 Winter Park Ninth 3 University HS 3 Walker MS 3 Lake Sybelia ES 3 Piedmont Lake MS 4 Rosemont ES 4 Azalea Park ES _ 5 Hunters Creek ES 4 1 Hunters Creek MS 5 I Waterbadge ES 4 Chickasaw ES 4 Orange Center ES 4 Riverdale ES 4 Gotha MS 5 I Westddge MS 4 1 Southwood ES 4 ( Lakeville ES 4 Pinewood ES 5 Zellwood ES 1 Memorial MS 4 I Cypress Springs ES 4 Princeton ES 5 Dr. Phillips HS 4 Rock Springs ES 4 Aloma ES 4 Spring Lake ES 4 Arbor Ridge ES 4 Little River ES 5 Eccleston ES 3 Evans Ninth 2 Shingle Creek ES 1 Oak Ridge HS 5 Dommerich ES 5 Lancaster ES 5 Brookshire ES 5 Lake Silver ES 5 Dr. Phillips ES 5 Ocoee ES 5 Grand Avenue ES 5 West Orange Ninth 5 I Waterford ES 6 Cypress Creek HS lnding Cost Cost Suource FY 2008 FY 200Cost9 FY 2010 I FY 2011 Sales Tax $2,450,000.00 S29,619,440.00 Sales Tax S5,563,508.00 $101.264,420.00 Sales Tax I $220,000.00 $2,677,664.00 Sales Tax $2,770,000.00 $31,714,224.00 Sales Tax 1 $1,940,000.00 $24,889,734.00 Sales Tax $2.500,000.00I $32,074,400.00 Sales Tax S740,000.00 ( S9,494,022.00 Sales Tax S480,000.00 S6,158,285.00 Sales Tax $300;000.00 $3,848,928.00I Sales Tax I I $1,080,000.00 $13,856,141.00 Sales Tax $1,860,000.001 S19,671,825.00 Sales Tax S380,000.00 S4,875,309.00 I Sales Tax 1 S1,950,000.001 $20,623,688.00 Sales Tax S920,000.00I $11,803,379.00 Sales Tax $1,090,000.00 $13,984.438.00 Sales Tax 1 S70,000.00 $898.083.00 Sales Tax + $210,000.00 $2,694,250.00 COPS 2011 I S2,310,000.00 1 $31.234,083.00 Sales Tax S80,000.00 S1,026,381.00 1 1 Sales Tax $40,000.00 1 $513,190.00 Sales Tax S20,000.00 S256.595.00 COPS 2011 $700,000.0, S9,464,874.00 COPS 2007 S35,516,613.00 f Sales Tax $1,940,000,00 S20.517.925.00 COPS 2011 $1.363,731.00 S850,000.00 S11.493,061.00 COPS 2012 I $3,840,000.00 Sales Tax S1.970,000.00 1 $20.835.213.00 Sales Tax S640,000.00 S9,379.661.00 Sales Tax $840,000.00 S11,357,848.00 Sales Tax S1,970,000.00 S20.835.213.00 Sales Tax S1,990,000.00 S21.046,738,00 COPS 2012 $960,000.00 Sales Tax S1,940,000.00 $19,448,500.00 Sales Tax S6.280,000.00 $59,635.136.00 COPS 2009 I $13,890,499,00 Sales Tax Sales Tax I 1 Sales Tax Sales Tax Sales Tax Sales Tax Sales Tax Sales Tax COPS 2012 1 Sales Tax 1 Cost FY 2012 S54,709,672.00 1 I 1 S13,677,418.00 $860,000.00 $12,252.687,00 5940.000.001 S13.392,472.00 $1.240.OD0.00 $17,666,665.00 $66D,000.00 $9,403,225.00 $680.00D.00 S9.688,171.00 $910,000.00 $12,965.052.00 $880.000.00 $12,537,633.00 S1.370,000.00 $16.115,057.00 $3,940,000.00 1 5940,OD0.00 S13,392,472M Fina( —May 2oo8 47 Data, Inventory and Analysis 5 Pineloch ES Sales Tax I 5260,000.00 $3,704,301.00 5 Lake Whitney ES Sales Tax I 80. 51,9000.00 522,087,024.00 5 John Young ES Sales Tax ( 51,940,000.00 6 Clay Springs ES Sales Tax 5 Evans HS COPS 2008 I $980.000.00 6 Lovell ES Sales Tax $750,000.00 6 Apopka ES Sales Tax ( 51,820,000.00 ( 6 Wheatley ES Sales Tax ( 51,200,000.00 j 6 Lockhart ES Sales Tax ( I I S710MO.00 6 Riverside ES COPS 2013 $1,210,000.00 ( 6 Dream Lake ES COPS 2013 I _� $2,420,000.00 ( 6 Carver MS COPS 2013 ( $670.000.00 6 Tangelo Park ES COPS 2013 7 Dover Shores ES Sales Tax 7 Cvoress Park ES Sales Tax 7 Englewood ES Sales Tax 7 Audubon Park ES Sales Tax 7 Oak Hill ES Sales Tax 7 Washington Shores ES Sales Tax 7 Lake Como ES Sales Tax 7 Hillcrest ES Sales Tax (, ( 7 Comer Lake MS Sales Tax 7 Fern Creek ES COPS 2014 7 Rock Lake ES COPS 2014 ( 7 Durrance ES COPS 2014 7 Kaley ES COPS 2014 7 Union Park ES Sales Tax 8 Pine Hills ES Sales Tax 8 Hungerford Prep HS Sales Tax 580,000.00 8 Southwest MS Sales Tax 8 Pine Castle ES Sales Tax 8 Richmond Heights ES Sales Tax 8 Lake George ES Sales Tax 8 Mollie Ray ES Prop Tax 8 Sunrise ES Prop Tax 8 Ivey lane ES Sales Tax 8 Lake Gem ES COPS 2015 8 Deerwood ES COPS 2015 ( J 8 Pershing ES COPS 2015 8 Rolling Hills ES COPS 2015 8 Meadow Woods ES ( COPS 2015 ( 9 Ventura ES Sales Tax 9 Franpus ES Sales Tax 9 WnegardES Sales Tax 9 ClarconaES Sales Tax ( 9 Maxey ES i COPS 2016 9 Pinar ES COPS 2016 9 Hungerford ES COPS 2016 9 Hidden Oaks ES COPS 2016 9 Meadow Woods MS COPS 2016 48 Table 24 — OCPS Comprehensive Needs Projects (Renovations, Emsting Schools), Fiscal Years 2008-2017 (Continued) TOTAL PROPOSED CIP Funding Cost Cost Cost Cost PROJECT COST Year Project Name Source FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 t2012-2017)_ 2 Apopka MS Sales Tax I ( $32,269,440,00 2 Edgewater HS Sales Tax S106,827,928.00 I 2 Discovery MS Sales Tax $2,897,664.00 I 2 Winter Park Ninth Sales Tax I S34,484,224.00 3 University HS Sales Tax S26.829,734.00 1 3 Walker MS Sales Tax S34.574.400.00 3 Lake Sybelia ES Sales Tax I S10,234,022.00 3 Piedmont Lake MS Sales Tax S6,638.285.00 4 Rosemont ES Sales Tax ( S4,148,928.00 4 Azalea Park ES Sales Tax ( S14,936,141.00 5 Hunters Creek ES Sales Tax $21,531,825.00 . 4 Hunters Creek MS Sales Tax $5,255,309.00 5 Waterbridge ES Sales Tax $22,573,688.00 4 Chickasaw ES Sales Tax S12,723,379.00 4 Orange Center ES Sales Tax $15,074A38.00 4 Riverdale ES Sales Tax I S968.083.00 4 Gotha MS Sales Tax ( S2,904,250.00 5 Westridge MS COPS 2011 I S33,544,083.00 4 Southwood ES Sales Tax I $1,106,381.00 I 4 Lakeville ES Sales Tax $553.190.00 4 Pinewood ES Sales Tax I I S276,595.00 5 Zellwood ES COPS 2011 ( S10,164,874.00 1 Memorial MS COPS 2007 ( ( S35.516.613.00 4 Cypress Springs ES Sales Tax ( 622,457,925.00 4 Princeton ES COPS 2011 $13,706,792.00 5 Dr. Phillips HS COPS 2012 I ( S58,549.672.00 4 Rock Springs ES Sales Tax $22,805,213.00 4 Aloma ES Sales Tax I $10,019,661,00 I 4 Spring Lake ES Sales Tax S12.197,848.00 I 4 Arbor Ridge ES Sales Tax S22,805.213.00 I 4 Little River ES ( Sales Tax I S23.036.738.00 5 Eccleston ES COPS 2012 S14,637,418.00 I 3 Evans Ninth Sales Tax S21,388.500.00 I 2 Shingle Creek ES Sales Tax S65,915,136.00 1 Oak Ridge HS COPS 2009 $13,890,499.00 5 Dommerich ES Sales Tax S13.112.687.00 5 Lancaster ES Sales Tax $14,332,472.00 5 Brookshire ES Sales Tax I S18,906,665.00 5 Lake Silver ES Sales Tax $10.063.225.00 5 Dr. Phillips ES Sales Tax S10,368.171.00 5 Ocoee ES Sales Tax S13,875,052.00 I 5 Grand Avenue ES Sales Tax S13.417,633.00 5 West Orange Ninth Sales Tax S17,485.057.00 5 Waterford ES COPS 2012 I I ( $3,940,000.00 6 Cypress Creek HS Sales Tax $59.138,123.00 ( 573,470,595.00 Final —May 2008 49' Data, Inventory and Analysis 5 Pineloch ES Sales Tax I ( I 53,964,301,00 5 Lake Whitney ES Sales Tax I $24,067,024.00 5 John Younq ES Sales Tax I I 6 Clay Springs ES Sales Tax $22,819,862.00 $22 40, 862.00 5 Evans HS COPS 2008 I 5980,000.00 6 Lovell ES Sales Tax $14.709,482.00 $15,459,482.00 6 Apopka ES Sales Tax 511,257,257.00 I $13,077,257.00 6 Wheatley ES Sales Tax $27.317,610.00 i 528,517,610.00 6 Lockhart ES Sales Tax $18.011,611.00 ( 518.721.611.00 6 Riverside ES COPS 2013 510,656,870.00 $11,866,870.00 6 Dream Lake ES COPS 2013 518,161,708.00 $20.581.708.00 6 Carver MS COPS 2013 $36,323,416.00 $37.193.416.00 6 Tangelo Park ES COPS 2013 $13,058,418.00 513,058A18.00 7 Dover Shores ES Sales Tax 51,040,000.00 $16.442.566,00 I I 7 Cypress Park ES Sales Tax $620,000,00 $9,802,299.00 $10,422.299.00 7 ( Enqlewood ES Sales Tax $920.000.00 ( $14.545,347.00 515,465,347.00 7 Audubon Park ES Sales Tax S1.250,000.00 $19.762,700.00 ( 521,012,700.00 7 Oak Hill ES Sales Tax 5760,000.00 512,015,721.00 512.775.721.00 7 Washington Shores ES Sales Tax $1.050,000.00 S16,600,668.00 i $17,650,668.00 7 Lake Como ES Sales Tax '980,000.00 515,493,957.00 I S16,473,957.00 7 Hillcrest ES Sales Tax $810,000.00 512,606,229.00 513,616,229.00 7 Corner Lake MS I Sales Tax $100,000.00 $11581,016,00 I S1.681,016.00 7 FernCreek ES COPS 2014 51,090,000.00 $17,233,074'00 518,323,074.00 7 Rock Lake ES COPS 2014 $1,080,000.00 $17,074,972.00 _� 518,154,972.00 7 Durrance ES ( COPS 2014 51170.000.00 $18,497.887.00 I $19,667,887.00 7 Kaley ES COPS 2014 5760.000.00 512,331,925.00 513,111,925.00 7 Union Park ES Sales Tax 51,330,000.00 521,027,512.00 I I 522,357,512.00 8 Pine Hills ES Sales Tax 51,380,000.00 S22.977.921.00 $24.357.921,00 8 I Hunqerford Prep HS Sales Tax $3.570,000.00 I $59,442,884,00 ( 563,092,884.00 8 Southwest MS Sales Tax S610,000.00 S10,156.907.00 S10766,907.00 8 Pine Castle ES Sales Tax 5810.000.00 $13A87.041.00 514.297.041.00 6 Richmond Heiphts ES Sales Tax $1,050,000,00 $17.483.201.00 ( 518,533,201.00 8 Lake Georqe ES Sales Tax 540,000.00 ( 5666,027.00 5706,027.00 8 Mollie Ray ES Prop Tax 5980,000.00 516,317,654.00 I 517,297,654.00 8 Sunrise ES Prop Tax S510,000.00 58,491,841.00 S9,001,841.00 8 Ivey lane ES Sales Tax 5900,000.00 514,985,601.00 515,885,601.00 8 Lake Gem ES COPS 2015 530,000.00 5499,520.00 ( I 5529,520.00 8 Deerwood ES ( COPS 2015 $870.000.00 S14A66.081.00 Si5.356.081.00 8 Pershinq ES COPS 2015 $960.000.00 515,984,641.00 $16,944,641.00 8 Rollinq Hills ES COPS 2015 ( 51,240,000.00 ( 520,646,828.00 521,886,828.00 8 Meadow Woods ES COPS 2015 51,970,000.00 ( S27,135,872.00 529,105,872.00 9 Ventura ES ( Sales Tax I ( 51,690,000.00 526,033,908.00 527,923,908.00 9 Franqus ES Sales Tax 51,960,OOO.00 526,998,127.00 528,958,127.00 9 Winegard ES Sales Tax 5750,000.00 S13,149.901.00 513,899,901.00 9 Clarcona ES Sales Tax S850.000.00 S14,903,221.00 515,753,221.00 9 Maxey ES COPS 2016 i $550.000.00 59,643,261.00 $10,193,261= 9 ( Pinar ES COPS 2016 ( 5990,000.00 517,357,869.00 518,347,869.00 9 Hungerford ES COPS 2016 5810,000.00 514,201,893.00 $15,011,893.00 9 Hidden Oaks ES ( COPS 2016 ( I 51,970,000.00 I 534,540,406.00 536,510,406.00 9 Meadow Woods MS COPS 2016 $40.000.00 $701.328.00 5741.328.00 50 Final — May 2008 Orange County. www.orangecountyfl.net/ems/dept/growth/planning/researcheco/school.htm Orange County Evaluation and Appraisal Report. July xi, 2oo6. Orange County Government. Horizon West, Orange County, Florida. Orange County Government. iv Growth Management Plan, 2oo6-203o Growth Projections Report. April 2, 2007. City of Orlando Economic Development Department, Growth Management Plan, 2oo6-203o Growth Projections Report. April 2, 2007. City of Orlando Economic Development Department. 53 District: 00048 - ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Run 6/1 /07 RECOMMENDED FTE STUDENT TABLE 11 MEMBERSHIP TO BE HOUSED SCHOOL CENTER ELEMENTARY ALOMA ELEMENTARY ANDOVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IAPOPKA ELEMENTARY (AUDUBON PARK ELEMENTARY �AVALON ELEMENTARY (AZALEA PARK ELEMENTARY BAYMEADOWS ELEMENTARY BONNEVILLE ELEMENTARY BROOKSHIRE ELEMENTARY CAMELOT ELEMENTARY (CASTLE CREEK ELEMENTARY CATALINA ELEMENTARY ICHENEY ELEMENTARY CHICKASAW ELEMENTARY CITRUS ELEMENTARY CLARCONA ELEMENTARY CLAY SPRINGS ELEMENTARY CONWAY ELEMENTARY CYPRESS PARK ELEMENTARY CYPRESS SPRINGS ELEMENTARY DEERWOOD ELEMENTARY DILLARD STREET ELEMENTARY DOMMERICH ELEMENTARY DOVER SHORES ELEMENTARY DR PHILLIPS ELEMENTARY DREAM LAKE ELEMENTARY IDURRANCE ELEMENTARY ' EAGLE'S NEST ELEMENTARY EAST LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHO( ECCLESTON ELEMENTARY ENDEAVOR ELEMENTARY ENGELWOOD ELEMENTARY FERN CREEK ELEMENTARY K-5 + REGflMME UTILIZATIO° EXISTING NET CHANGE IN NEW NDED.. N SATI'SF'ACT ; CONSTI2UC-; I STUDENT TOTAL FACTOR ORY, TION = STUDENT STATION STUDENT STUDENT „ STATIONS REMODELING STATIONS STATIONS 8-Jun I 12-Sep I Total-- - PLUS I MINUS 1.' 460 0 0 460 7701 -342 54 482 1.00 776 0 0 776 7981 0 0 798 1.00 886 0 0 886 1,214 -306 0 908 1.00 460 0 0 460 752 -376 106 482 1.00 732 0 0 732 1,258 -504 0 754 1.00 808 0 0l 808 1,326 -612 116 830 1.00 868 0 0 868 890 0 0 890 1.00 960 0 0 960 982 0 0 982 1.00 420 0 0 420 910 -468 0 442 1.00 736 0 0 736 938_ -180 0 758 1.00 806 0 0 806 888 -60 0 828 1.00 808 0 0 808 1,073 -1,073 830 830 1.00 732 0 0 732 754 0 0 754 1.00 808 0 0 808 1,447 -630 0 817 1.00 736 0 0 736 1,028 -270 0 758 1.00 808 0 0 808 1,144 -586 272 830 1.00 600 0 0 600 922 -922 622 622 1.00 600 0 01 600 758 -370 234 622 1.00 352 0 0 352 730 -356 0 374 1,00 808 0 0 808 1,186 -1,186 830 830 1.00 677 0 0 677 940 -433 192 699 1.00 728 0 0 728 1,038 -288 0 750 1.00 808 0 0l 808 796 -342 376 830 1.00 808 0 01 808 914 -306 222 830 1.00 764 0 0l 764 824 -450 412 786 1.00 576 0 0) 576 1,170 -572 0 598 1.00 543 0 01 543 810 -441 196 565 1.00 736 0 0 736 938 -180 0 758 1.00 734 0 0 734 954 -198 0 756 1.00 510 0 0 510 802 -270 0 532 1.00 736 0 0 736 1,137 -379 0 758 1.00 482 0 0 482 1,054 -550 0 504 1.00 489 0 0 489 612 -101 0 511 1.00 RECOMMEiRECOMME NDED NDED STUDENT CAPACITY CAPACITY YEAR ROUND 482 798 908 482 754 830 890 982 442 758 828 830 754 817 758 830 622 622 374 830 699 750 830 830 786 598 565 758 756 532 758 504 511 578 958 1,0901 5781 905 996 1,068 1,178 530 910 9941 996 905 980 910 996 746 746( 449 996 839 900 996 996 943 718 678 910 907 638 910 605 613 TABLE 11 SCHOOL CENTER GRAND AVENUE PRIMARY LEARN HIAWASSEE ELEMENTARY HIDDEN OAKS ELEMENTARY HILLCREST ELEMENTARY HUNGERFORD ELEMENTARY HUNTERS CREEK ELEMENTARY �IVEY LANE ELEMENTARY �JOHN YOUNG ELEMENTARY IKALEY ELEMENTARY KILLARNEY ELEMENTARY LAKE COMO ELEMENTARY LAKE GEM ELEMENTARY LAKE GEORGE ELEMENTARY LAKE SILVER ELEMENTARY LAKE SYBELIA ELEMENTARY LAKE WESTON ELEMENTARY LAKE WHITNEY ELEMENTARY LAKEMONT ELEMENTARY LAKEVILLE ELEMENTARY ILANCASTER ELEMENTARY LAWTON CHILES ELEMENTARY LITTLE RIVER ELEMENTARY �LOCKHART ELEMENTARY ILOVELL ELEMENTARY MAXEY ELEMENTARY MCCOY ELEMENTARY MEADOW WOODS ELEMENTARY METRO WEST ELEMENTARY MOLLIE RAY ELEMENTARY NEW FACILITY Al (ELEMENTARY NEW FACILITY B1 (ELEMENTARY NEW FACILITY C1 (ELEMENTARY NEW FACILITY D1 (ELEMENTARY] NEW FACILITY El (ELEMENTARY)) NEW FACILITY F1 (ELEMENTARY) RECOMMENDED FTE STUDENT ' EXISTING MEMBERSHIP TO BE HOUSED K-6 I 8-Jan 485 736 808 402 230 8081 474 808 362 600 452 800 657 740 600 5141 808 713) 808 808 736 808 614 464 479 838 808 1,179 676 808 808 808 808 808 808 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12-Sep .� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NET CHANGE IN 1 NEW I, R NDEDME, t1TILlNZAT10 R�NDED""E R NDEDME SATISFACT,, STUDENT CONSTRUC TOTAL .FACTOR STUDENT CAPACITY DRY TION STUDENT STATION STUDENT STUDENT CAPACITY YEAR STATIONS REMODELING STATIONS STATIONS ROUND Total PLUS MINUS 485 488 -198 736 920 -162 808 976 -976 402 424 0 230 594 -90 808 972 -972 474 730 -234 808 1,268 -1,268 362 578 -292 600 958 -958 452 528 -134 800 874 -252 657 751 -72 740 960 -198 600 900 -378 514 1,046 -676 808 1,130 -496 713 866 -866 808 974 -366 808 1,310 -846 736 1,027 -269 808 1,358 -1,142 614 636 0 464 968 -570 479 560 -451 838 1,004 -144 808 1,116 -1,116 1,179 1,630 -1,081 676 1,152 -454 808 0 0 808 0 0 808 0 0 808 0 0 808 0 0 808 0 0 217 0 830 0 0 830 0 830 98 622 80 200 0 0 100 166 196 735 222 366 0 614 0 88 392 0 830 652 0 830 830 830 830 830 830 507 758 830 424 504 830 496 830 384 622 474 822 679 762 622 536 830 735 830 830 758 830 636 486 501 860 830 1,201 698 830 830 830 830 830 830 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 507 758 830 424 504 830 496 830 384 622 474 822 679 762 622 536 830 735 830 830 758 830 636 486 501 860 830 1,201 698 830 830 830 830 830 830 608 910 996 509 605 996 595 996 461 746 5691 9861 815 914 746 643 996 8821 9961 9961 910 996 763 583 601 1,032 9961 1,441 838 996 996 996 996 996 996 RECOMMENDED FTE STUDENT � EXISTING TABLE 11 MEMBERSHIP SATISFACT DRY TO BE HOUSED STUDENT STATIONS SCHOOL CENTER K-5 8-Jun 12-Se13 ' Total _ _ NEW FACILITY G1 (ELEMENTARY) 808 0 0 808 0 NEW FACILITY H1 (ELEMENTARY) 808 0 0 808 0 NEW FACILITY 11 (ELEMENTARY) 808 0 0 808 0 NEW FACILITY J (ELEMENTARY) 808 0 0 808 0 NEW FACILITY J1 (ELEMENTARY) 808 0 0 808 0 NEW FACILITY K1 (ELEMENTARY) 808 0 0 808 0 NEW FACILITY L1 (ELEMENTARY) 808 0 0 808 0 NORTHLAKE PARK ELEMENTARY 897 0 0 897 919 OAK HILL ELEMENTARY 756 0 0 756 735 OAKSHIRE ELEMENTARY 730 0 0 730 1,314 OCOEE ELEMENTARY 684 0 0 684 953 ORANGE CENTER ELEMENTARY 460 0 0 460 914 ORLO VISTA ELEMENTARY 713 0 0 713 771 PALM LAKE ELEMENTARY 808 0 0 808 980 PALMETTO ELEMENTARY 1,157 0 0 1,157 1,467 PERSHING ELEMENTARY 507 0 0 507 763 PINAR ELEMENTARY 651 0 0 651 673 PINE CASTLE ELEMENTARY 435 0 0 435 637 PINE HILLS ELEMENTARY 952 0 0 952 1,270 PINELOCH ELEMENTARY 600 0 0 600 990 PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY 622 0 0 622 842 PRINCETON ELEMENTARY 459 0 0 459 796 RICHMOND HEIGHTS ELEMENTAF 491 0 0 491 669 RIDGEWOOD PARK ELEMENTAR) 856 0 0 856 878 RIVERDALE ELEMENTARY 808 0 0 808 755 RIVERSIDE ELEMENTARY 600 0 0 600 1,242 ROCK LAKE ELEMENTARY 355 0 0 355 529 ROCK SPRINGS ELEMENTARY 808 0 0 808 998 ROLLING HILLS ELEMENTARY 794 0 0 794 996 ROSEMONT ELEMENTARY 808 0 0 808 1,036 SADLER ELEMENTARY 808 0 0 808 452 SADLERISHINGLE CREEK RELIEF 806 0 0 806 1,104 SAND LAKE ELEMENTARY 806 0 0 806 888 SHENANDOAH ELEMENTARY 808 0 0 808 880 SHINGLE CREEK ELEMENTARY 808 0 0 808 1,332 NET CHANGE IN STUDENT PLUS i MINUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -365 -562 -558 -432 -36 -980 -288 -234 0 -216 -306 -990 -198 -623 4 0 -148 -630 -228 -998 -180 -424 0 -276 -60 -284 -1,332 NEW CONSTRUC TION STUDENT STATIONS RECOMME I UTILIZATIO RECOMME RECOMME NDED N NDED NDED TOTAL FACTOR STUDENT CAPACITY STUDENT CAPACITY YEAR STATIONS ROUND 830 830 1.00 830 996 830 830 1.00 830 996 830 830 1.00 830 996 830 830 1.00 830 996 830 830 1.00 830 996 830 830 1.00 830 996 830 830 1,00 830 996 0 919 1.00 919 1,103 408 778 1.00 778 934 0 752 1.00 752 902 307 702 1.00 702 842 0 482 1.00 482 578 0 735 1.00 735 882 830 830 1.00 830 996 0 1,179 1.00 1,179 1,415 0 529 1.00 529 635 0 673 1.00 673 808 36 457 1.00 457 548 10 974 1.00 974 1,169 622 622 1.00 622 746 0 644 1.00 644 773 306 479 1.00 479 575 0 673 1.00 673 808 0 878 1.00 878 1,054 223 830 1.00 830 996 0 612 1.00 612 734 72 373 1.00 373 448 830 830 1.00 830 996 0 816 1.00 816 979 218 830 1.00 830 996 374 826 1.00 826 991 0 828 1.00 828 994 0 828 1.00 828 994 234 830 1.00 830 996 830 830 1.00 830 996 SCHOOL CENTER SOUTHWOOD ELEMENTARY SPRING LAKE ELEMENTARY STONE LAKES ELEMENTARY SUNRISE ELEMENTARY TANGELO PARK ELEMENTARY THORNEBROOKE ELEMENTARY THREE POINTS ELEMENTARY TILDENVILLE ELEMENTARY �UNION PARK ELEMENTARY VENTURA ELEMENTARY VISTA LAKES ELEMENTARY WASHINGTON SHORES ELEMEN WATERBRIDGE ELEMENTARY WATERFORD ELEMENTARY WEST CREEK ELEMENTARY WEST OAKS ELEMENTARY WHEATLEY ELEMENTARY WHISPERING OAK ELEMENTARY WILLIAM FRANGUS ELEMENTAR WINDERMERE ELEMENTARY WINEGARD ELEMENTARY WOLF LAKE ELEMENTARY WYNDHAM LAKES ELEMENTARY IZELLWOOD ELEMENTARY 'SUB TOTAL MIDDLE �APOPKA MIDDLE AVALON MIDDLE SCHOOL CARVER MIDDLE CHAIN OF LAKES MIDDLE CONWAY MIDDLE CORNER LAKE MIDDLE DISCOVERY MIDDLE FREEDOM MIDDLE SCHOOL GLENRIDGE MIDDLE 1 l RECOMME I UTILIZATIO RECOMME RECOMME 1 RECOMMENDED FTE STUDENT EXISTING NET CHANGE IN NEW NDED N NDED NDED MEMBERSHIP SATISFAGT STUDENT COTTON UC TOTAL FACTOR STUDENT CAPACITY ORY TION TO BE HOUSED _ - STUDENT STATION- -- - STUDENT STUDENT-- CAPACITY- YEAR - j STATIONS REMODELING STATIONS STATIONS ROUND K-5 j 8-Jun " 'I 2-Sep _ Total PLUS MINUS 808 0 0 808 1,036 -424 218 830 1.00 830 9961 402 0 0 402 774 -350 0 424 1.00 424 5091 806 0 0 806 1,122 -294 0 828 1.00 828 9941 631 0 0 631 761 -108 0 653 1.00 653 7841 463 0 0 463 633 -310 162 485 1.00 485 582 722 0 0 722 1,114 -370 0 744 1.00 744 893 736 0 0 736 938 -180 0 758 1.00 758 910 769 0 0 769 791 0 0 791 1.00 791 949 808 0 0 808 890 -90 30 830� 1.00 830 996 808 0 0 808 1,186 -1,042 686 830 1.00 830 996 806 0 0 806 1,186 -358 0 828 1.00 828 994 500 0 0 500 781 -324 72 529 1.00 529 635I 808 0 0 808 1,344 -1,344 830 830 1.00 830 996I1 732 0 0 732 1,132 -378 0 754 1.00 754 9051 736 0 0 736 938 -180 0 7581 1.00 758 910 732 0 0 732 916 -162 0 754 1.00 754 9051 808 0 0 808 833 -69 66 830 1.00 830 996 727 0 0 727 1,613 -864 0 749 1.00 749 899 808 0 0 808 918 -918 830 830 1.00 830 996 824 0 0 824 1,577 -738 0 839 1.00 839 1,007 579 0 0 579 1,138 -760 223 601 1.00 601 721 806 0 0 806 960 -132 0 828 1.00 828 994 806 0 0 806 1,032 -204 0 828 1.00 828 994 604 0 0 604 806 -440 260 626 1,00 626 751 89,690 0 0 89,690 108,657 -47,795 31,997 92,859 92,859 111,435 0 1,172 0 1,172 1,342 -221 206 1,327 .90 1,194 1,433 0 1,047 0 1,047 1,188 0 0 1,188 .90 1,069 1,2831 0 1,103 0 1,103 1,691 -962 519 1,248 .90 1,123 1,3481 0 1,093 0 1,093 1,616 -377 0 1,239 .90 1,115 1,3381 0 1,214 0 1,214 1,970 -1,850 1,253 1,373 .90 1,236 1,483 0 1,136 0 1,136 1,923 -639 0 1,284 .90 1,156 1,387 0 1,072 0 1,072 2,008 -795 0 1,213 .90 1,092 1,310 0 1,092 0 1,092 1,458 -220 0 1,238 .90 1,114 1,337 0 1,201 0 1,201 1,467 -110 0 1,357 .90 1,221 1,466 RECOMMENDED FTE STUDENT TABLE 11 MEMBERSHIP' TO BE HOUSED SCHOOL CENTER K-5 8-Jun 12-5ep GOTHA MIDDLE _ 0 1,042 0 HOWARD MIDDLE 0 1,153 0 HUNTERS CREEK MIDDLE 0 988 0 JACKSON MIDDLE 0 1,324 0 LAKEVIEW MIDDLE 0 1,184 0 LEE MIDDLE 0 1,054 0 LEGACY MIDDLE 0 1,128 0 LIBERTY MIDDLE 0 1,307 0 LOCKHART MIDDLE 0 1,127 0 MAITLAND MIDDLE 0 1,206 0 MEADOW WOODS MIDDLE 0 1,159 0 MEADOWBROOK MIDDLE SCHOO 0 1,392 0 MEMORIAL MIDDLE 0 868 0 NEW FACILITY GG (MIDDLE) 0 1,194 0 NEW FACILITY 11 (MIDDLE) 0 1,194 0 NEW FACILITY JJ (MIDDLE) 0 1,194 0 NEW FACILITY KK (MIDDLE) 0 1,194 0 NEW FACILITY LL (MIDDLE) 0 1,194 0 NEW FACILITY MM (MIDDLE) 0 1,194 0 NEW FACILITY NN (MIDDLE) 0 1,194 0 NEW FACILITY 00 (MIDDLE) 0 1,194 0 OCOEE MIDDLE 0 1,434 0 ODYSSEY MIDDLE 0 1,165 0 PIEDMONT LAKES MIDDLE 0 1,035 0 ROBINSWOOD MIDDLE 0 1,194 0 SOUTH CREEK MIDDLE 0 1,115 0 SOUTHWEST MIDDLE 0 1,200 0 UNION PARK MIDDLE 0 1,216 0 WALKER MIDDLE 0 1,026 0 WESTRIDGE MIDDLE 0 1,194 0 WOLF LAKE MIDDLE 0 1,088 0 ISUB TOTAL 0 46,281 0 SENIOR HIGH APOPKA SENIOR HIGH 0 0 2,898 BOONE SENIOR HIGH 0 0 3,045) EXISTING NET CHANGE IN SATISFACT STUDENT ORY STUDENT STATION STATIONS REMODELING Total _ PLUS MINUS 1,042 2,424 -1,255 1,153 988 1,324 1,184 1,054 1,128 1,307 1,127 1,206 1,159 1,392 868 1,194 1,194 1,194 1,194 1,194 1,194 1,194 1,194 1,434 1,165 1,035 1,194 1,115 1,200 1,216 1,026 1,194 1,088 46,281 2,898 3,045 1,303 1,461 1,648 2,009 1,558 1,374 2,390 1,312 1,639 2,381 1,558 1,315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,978 1,878 2,042 1,709 1,250 1,609 2,034 1,644 1,500 1,387 54,066 3,144 3,682 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -352 -155 -682 -1,328 -110 -913 -1,170 -1,519 -1,082 -37 -572 -881 -1,665 -26 -1,72 -70 -24 -15 -21,51 NEW 4 5 9 2 6 4 9 RECOMME UTILIZATIO RECOMME RECOMME LADED N NDED NDED CONSTRUC TOTAL, FACTOR STUDENT CAPACITY TION, STUDENT STUDENT CAPACITY YEAR STATIONS STATIONS ROUND 0 1,169 .90 1,052 1,2631 0 1,303 .90 1,173 1,407I 0 1,109 .90 998 1,1981 0 1,493 .90 1,344 1,612 0 1,327 .90 1,194 1,433 952 1,182 .90 1,064 1,277 0 1,264 .90 1,138 1,365 0 1,477 .90 1,329 1,595 1,121 1,263 .90 1,137 1,364 1,231 1,351 .90 1,216 1,459 0 1,299 .90 1,169 1,403 0 1,558 .90 1,402 1,683 852 976 .90 878 1,054 1,351 1,351 .90 1,216 1,459 1,351 1,351 .90 1.216 1,4591 1,351 1,351 .90 1,216 1,459 1,351 1,351 .90 1,216 1,459 1,351 1,351 .90 1,216 1,459 1,351 1,351 .90 1,216 1,459 1,351 1,351 .90 1,216 1,459 1,351 1,351 .90 1,216 1,459 0 1,604 .90 1,444 1,732 0 1,306 .90 1,175 1,410 0 1,161 .90 1,045 1,2541 1,307 1,351 .90 1,216 1,4591 0 1,250 .90 1,125 1,3501 0 1,344 .90 1,210 1,4521 1,058 1,363 .90 1,227 1,4721 222 1,164 .90 1,048 1,2571 92 1,346 .90 1,211 1,4541 0 1,233 .90 1,110 1,3321 19,621 52,168 46,951 56,3421 -3,1241 3,057I 3,0771 -450 0 3,232 1 .95 2,9231 3,5081 .95 3,070 3,6841 TABLE II SCHOOL CENTER COLONIAL 9TH GRADE CENTER COLONIAL SENIOR HIGH COLUMBIA ELEMENTARY CYPRESS CREEK SENIOR HIGH DR PHILLIPS SENIOR HIGH EDGEWATER SENIOR HIGH EVANS 9TH GRADE CENTER FREEDOM SENIOR HIGH JONES SENIOR HIGH NEW FACILITY FFF (HIGH) NEW FACILITY GGG (HIGH) NEW FACILITY HHH (HIGH) OAK RIDGE SENIOR HIGH OCOEE HIGH SCHOOL OLYMPIA SENIOR HIGH ROBERT F HUNGERFORD PREPA TIMBER CREEK SENIOR HIGH UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH WEST ORANGE SENIOR HIGH WINTER PARK 9TH GRADE CENTI WINTER PARK SENIOR HIGH SUB TOTAL EXCEPTIONAL STUDENT CHEROKEE SCHOOL GATEWAY SCHOOL MAGNOLIA EXCEPTIONAL STUDE SILVER STAR CENTER SUB TOTAL COMBINATION ARBOR RIDGE SCHOOL BLANKNER K-8 SCHOOL WINDY RIDGE SCHOOL SUB TOTAL ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION COMMUNITY EDUCATION PARTNI RECOMMENDED FTE STUDENT EXISTING NET CHANGE IN NEW RECOMME UTILIZATIO RECOMME RECOMME NDED N NDED NDED MEMBERSHIP SATISFACT- STUDENT CONSTRUC TOTAL FACTOR STUDENT CAPACITY DRY TION TO BE HOUSED STUDENT STATION STUDENT STUDENT CAPACITY YEAR STATIONS REMODELING STATIONS STATIONS ROUND K-5 Wun 12-Sep Total PLUS F MINUS -'- 0 0 1,114 1,114 1,265 0 04 1,265 .90 1,139 1,366 0 0 2,697 2,697 3,356 -491 0 2,865 .95 2,722 3,2661 0 0 2,941 2,941 926 -726 2,922 3,122 .95 2,966 3,5591 0 0 2,152 2,152 3,692 -1,400 0 2,292 .95 2,177 2,613 0 0 2,418 2,418 4,747 -2,175 0 2,572 .95 2,443 2,932 0 0 2,729 2,729 3,564 -1,050 385 2,899 .95 2,754 3,305 0 0 2,756 2,756 1,448 -1,300 2,779 2,927 .95 2,781 3,337 0 0 2,790 2,790 3,913 -950 0 2,963 .95 2,815 3,378 0 0 691 691 1,783 0 0 1,783 .95 1,694 2,0331 0 0 2,751 2,751 0 0 2,922 2,922 .95 2,776 3,331 0 0 579 579 0 0 755 755 .80 604 725 0 0 2,751 2,751 0 0 2,922 2,922 .95 2,776 3,331 0 0 1,900 1,900 3,239 -1,269 50 2,020 .95 1,919 2,303 0 0 2,740 2,740 3,486 -575 0 2,911 .95 2,765 3,319 0 0 3,356 3,356 3,632 -73 0 3,559 .95 3,381 4,057 0 0 525 525 937 -250 0 687 .80 550 660 0 0 2,787 2,787 4,660 -1,700 0 2,960 .95 2,812 3,374 0 0 1,921 1,921 4,548 -2,500 0 2,048 .95 1,946 2,335 0 0 3,048 3,048 3,399 -3,086 2,922 3,235 .95 3,073 3,688 0 0 840 840 1,221 -368 165 1,018 .85 865 1,038 0 0 2,747 2,747 3,568 -650 0 2,918 .95 2,772 3,327 0 0 52,176 52,176 60,210-22,137 18,879 56,952 53,723 64,469 90 0 0 90 359 0 0 359 1.00 359 4311 0 75 75 150 423 -232 0 191 1.00 191 229 0 100 105 205 569 -110 0 459 1.00 459 551 0 0 0 0 227 -120 0 107 1.00 107 128 90 175 180 445 1,578 -462 0 1,116 1,116 1,339 607 302 0 909 1,281 -1,281 1,033 1,033 .90 930 1,116 613 306 0 919 1,154 -108 0 1,046 .90 941 1,130 804 403 0 1,207 1,585 -220 0 1,365 .90 1,229 1,474 2,024 1,011 0 3,035 4,020 -1,609 1,033 3,444 3,100 3,720 01 01 01 01 6181 01 1 01 6181 1.001 6181 742 RECOMMENDED FTE STUDENT l EXISTING | NET CHANGE |m mAT�FAc�'/ $TuoG0T '~~~^~ opw TO BE 14OUSED STUDENT ! aT/T|ow STATIONS KEMo�suma ' CENTER K-5 --P�uS MINUSCOMMUNITY EDUCATION PARTNI n| n o 618 o SUB TOTAL oSCHOOL | 01 o| o| 1,236 o ADULT EDUCATION [MCCOY ADULT EDUCATION CENJ 0 n o n 10 o |�m�mp�nx�� sn � |ouoToTxL | n| u| 29| uV 981| | 4 COUNTY ADMINISTRATION )xpopKuuTxGRADE CENTER n o n n 1,408 -J,i LEADERSHIP CENTER u o u o n n |rAmpxAVENUE CENTER o o n o u o SUB TOTAL n n o u 1,408 WAREHOUSE �HE_RNDON WAREHOUSe n o n| n 01 0 \uoeror�� . , n| . o| . o/ . o| . o| . n| . MAINTENANCE |pxcuIT/EnoEmwos o o u o n n |PINE mLLuTRANSPORTATION n 0 n o o o SUB TOTAL n| o| o| o| o| nTRANSPORTATION |HANGING MOSS rnAmopo n o o n o o LAKE momvBUS COMPOUND n o o o n o SUB TOTAL | o| o| o| o| «| »| MVcOPLEVuE SUPPORT EVANS SENIOR Hmx u o n n 2.916 | -2./ WEST ORANGE yT*GRADE oswI n o o n 1.53e '1./ SUB TOTAL n| o| o| n| 4'455| _ voo/�|omA�T�unwirAL _ MID-FLORIDA TECHNICAL |mur|rI n n ry rn 2,069 � onLAwoovocxTmmAL-rEo*m|C n u o o 446 u |w/euro|osvocxrmmAL-rEo*wx n o 213 213 1.101 -/ o o ueo cuo 3.e16 OTHER rFonToATumADMINISTRATIVE o n o 0 n 01 |RemoMME 'unu�a�o|mFooMmE|mEcuMME m�� / Noso m / mmEo | NoEo ----'-- TOTAL - FACTOR Sruosmv cAp/uITr .""~ STUDENT STUDENT ' CAPACITY YEAR STATIONS' STATIONS ROUND n a 1zm mo �u n 12oo| 1.236 1,484 o n 1a 15 m n �6 1.5 339 407 n u 1.00 o n n o 1.00 o n| o o 1.00 n n| o o o o o n 1�m o o o| o| | o| » o o 1z0 o n o o 1z0 o o «| o| | »| » n o 1.00 o n n o 1z0 n n «| »| | «| » n 01 1.001 u o 1zm n n| n| n| | o| n| n 1.829 1.20 2.195 2,63* o 446 1z0 535 642 o oe 1.20 635 762 o c.an* 3,365 +uou 0 1-00 u u 01 A. Level of Service Report B. Projected Enrollment by CSA C. Ten Year Enrollment Projections by School Appendix 2 Elementary School (by Attendance Boundary) Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OCPS April29, 2008 Elementary School (Not CSAs) Aloma Andover (Apopka Apopka CSA Relief (2016) IAudubon Park (New) IAvalon Avalon Relief (2008) Avalon Relief (2008) Azalea Park IBoy Meadows Bonneville IBrookshire Camelot Castle Creek Catalina (Cheney (Chickasaw Citrus Citrus Relief (2010) I Clarcona Clay Springs Columbia Conway Cypress Park Cypress Springs Deerwood Dillard St Dommerich IDover Shores I Dr Phillips 2007/08 Capacity 482 7741 7801 9161 7541 714 810 850 442 7581 828( 724 754 840 758 558 656 568 657 3741 7201 4701 I 4541 608 4101 Year One Year Five 07/08 I 07/08 2011/12 11/12 11/12 Enrollment Utilization Capacity Enrollment LOS 498 103% 482 4621 96% 584 75% 774 521 67% 524 67% 780 666 BS% 705i 77% 916 905 99% 8581 114% 7541 956 127% 830 6121 74% I 830 6121 74% 1,019 143% 714 6381 89% S08 63% 810 5111 63% 558 66% 850 S93 70% S161 117910 4421 457 103% 761 100% 7581 836 110116 7051 85 % 828 753 91% 734 101 % 7241 9201 127% 646 86% 754 i 579 77% 783 93% 840 805I 96% 913I 120% 7S81 8371 110% 830 830,I 100% 1,0171 182% 558 4021 72% 8631 132% 656 859 131% 1,0271 181 % 900 1,068 119% 568 86% 7841 472 60% 440I 118% 3741 622 166% 776( 108% 720 792 110% 630 134% 470 571 121% 720 96% 750 826 110% 693 153% 454 638 141% 644 106% 608 588 97% 641 156% 410 605 148% 2016/17 Capacity 482 774 780 830 916 754 830 830 714 810 850 442 758 828 724 754 840 758 830 558 656 900 784 374 720 470 750 454 608 410 Year Ten 16/17 Enrollment 462 599 974 890 1,041 1,003 637 637 713 582 583 428 1,002 767 923 545 776 749 830 755 631 1,194 516 759 S81 560 928 611 S92 531 16/17 LOS 96% 1 77% 125% 107% 114% 1 133 % 1 77% l 77% I 100% 72 % 69% 97% 132 °%a 93 % 127% 72 % 92 % 99% 100% 135% 96%] 133 % 66% 203% 81%{I 119% j 124 % j 135% 1 97% 1I 130% 1 Appendix 2 Elementary School (by Attendance Boundary) Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OCPS April29, 2008 Year One Year Five Year Ten Elementary School 2007/08 07/08 07/08 2011/12 11/12 � 11/12 2016/17 16/17 16/17 (NotCSAs) Capacity Enrollment Utilization Capacity Enrollment LOS Capacity Enrollment LOS Dream Lake 612 829 135% 612 821 134% 612 461 75% Durrance 54011 485 90% 6501 532 82110 650 633 97% 1Eagles Nest 7581 725 96116 758 766 101% 758 796 105% IEastLake 756 745 99% 7561 799 106% 756 861 114% I Eccleston 532 507 95% 532 445 84% 532 451 85% (Endeavor 758 844 111% 758 6S3 86% 758 S99 79% 1 I Endeavor/Southwood Relief (2010) 830 830 100% 330 830 100% I Engelwood 504 S56 110% 504 539 ( 107% 504 626 124% Creek 504, 416 83% 504 4361 87% 504 433 86% lFern Frangus 63211 617 98% 632 5991 95% 632 620 98% 1 I Grand Ave ( 2901 240 83% 290 2351 81 % 210 212 73% I Hiawassee 758 744 98% ( 758 854 113% 758 893 118% (Hidden Oaks 660 [ 6S3 99%] 660 7791 118% 660 850 129% [Hillcrest 4241 380 90% 1 424 464 109% 424 478 113% Hungerford 504 212 42% 1 504 163 32% 504 170 34% Hunter's Creek 756 640 85% 756 632 84% 756 575 76% Ivey Lane I 496 313 63% 496 245 49% 496 257 52% [John Young 604 988 164% 604 8S1 141% 604 401 66% Kaley 380 280 74% 380 2471 65% 380 275 72% Killarney 304 457 150% 304 537 177% 304 523 172% Lake Como 474 287 61 % 474 2S3 53% 474 264 56% Lake Gem 622 824 132% ] 622 823 132% 622 921 148% Lake George 679 572 84% 679 618 91% 679 673 99% Lake Silver 762 475 62% I 762 S19 68% 762 540 71 % Lake Sybelia 522 537 103% 522 509 98% 522 526 101 % iLake Weston 540 563 104% 540 4S1 84% 540 441 82% Lake Whitney 6221 1,011 163% 622 63S I 102% 622 670 108% Lake Whitney/Thornebrooke Relief (2008) 830 602 73% 830 600 72% Lakemont 540 619 115% 540 384'1 71% 540 345 64% I Lakeville I S96 909 153% 596 89S I 150% 596 904 152% Appendix 2 Elementary School (by Attendance Boundary) Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OOPS April29, 2008 Elementary School (Not CSAs) Lancaster Lawton Chiles (Little River Lockhart jI Lovell Maxey McCoy IMeadow Woods MetroWest Millenia Mollie Ray (Moss Park NorthLoke Park Northlake Park Relief 2010 Northlake Park Relief 2013 i Northlake Park Relief 2016 (Oak Hill I Oakshire (Ocoee (Ocoee CSA Relief (2016) Orange Center Orlo Vista Palm Lake I Palmetto (Pershing IPinar Pine Castle Pine Hills Pineloch 2007/08 Capacity 464 758 770 636 482 308 860 550 1,017 828 698 935 901 370 752 371 482 7351 658 1,179 529 6731 457 8401 4821 Year One 07/08 Enrollment 780 752 1,034 507 768 3081 833 871 1,208 621 587 845 735 1 478 690 728 4091 626 600 1,118 3571 5381 4181 943 709 I 07/08 Utilization 168% 99% 134% I 80% I 1599161 100% I 971161 158% 119% 75% 84% 90% 82 / .I 129% 92 % 196% 2011/12 Capacity 830 758 770 636 482 308 860 784 1,017 828 698 935 901 830 370 752 371 Year Five 11/12 Enrollment 796 722 579 591 702 321 916 726 1,350 787 558 560 793 530 5031 7051 765 11/12 LOS 96% 95% 75% 93% 146% 104% 107% 93% 133% 9s% 80% 60% 88% 64% 136% 94% 206% 85% 1 482 409 85% 85% 735 600 82% 91% 658 568 86% 95% 1,179 1,023 87% 67% 529 273 52% 80% 673 503 75% 91% 457 366 80% 112% 840 809( 96% 147% 482 7991 166% 2016/17 Capacity 830 758 770 636 482 308 860 784 1,017 828 698 935 901 830 830 830 370 752 371 830 482 735 658 1,179 529 673 457 840 482 Year Ten 16/17 Enrollment 863 790 720 677 477 295 1,004 885 1,214 828 624 451 484 530 500 430 514 958 439 730 429 682 509 1,032 266 598 346 837 843 16/17 LOS 104% 104% 94% 106% 99% 96% 117% 113% 119% 100% 89% 48% { 54% I 64% 60% 52% 1 139% 1 127% I 118% 88% 1 89% 93% 77% 88% 50 % 89% 76 % 100% 1 175% Appendix 2 Elementary School (by Attendance Boundary) Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OCPS April29, 2008 Year One Year Five ( Year Ten S y Elementarchool 2007/08 07/08 07/08 2011/12 11/12 11/12 2016/17 16/17 16/17 (Not Capacity Enrollment Utilization Capacity Enrollment LOS Capacity Enrollment LOS Pinewood 644 712 111% 644 688 107% 644 788 122% Princeton 238 452 190% 238 413 174% 238 380 160% 1 Relief Schools (2009) 830 630 76% 830 630 76% 1 Relief Schools (2011) ( 830 630 76% 830 630 76% Relief Schools (2015) I 830 830 100% Richmond Heights 600 341 57% 1 600 319 53% 600 311 52% (Ridgewood Park 878 7701 88% 878 725 83% 878 769 88% Riverdale 607 672 111 % 607 7021 116% 607 748 123% Riverside 828 629 76% 828 6671 81 % 828 675 82 Rock lake 377 263 70% 1 377 3041 81% 377 317 84% Rock Springs 550 764 139%' SSO 713 130% 550 692 126% 1 Rolling Hills 8101 715 88%1 810 716 88°% I 810 731 90% Rosemont 6221 942 151 % 622 989 159% 622 1,078 173% (Sadler 868 758 87% 868 _ 676 78% I 868 760 88% Sand lake 828 I 511 62% 828 501 61 % 828 525 63% Shenandoah 490 640 131% 670 565I 84% 670 525 78% Shingle Creek 770 782 102% 770 8491 110% 770 1,014 132% South ES Relief (2015) 1 830 650 78% (Southwood 622 857 138% 622 523 84% 622 575 92% 1 Spring Lake 424 I 554 131 % ( 424 547 129% 424 379 89%1 Stone Lakes 828.1 1,222 148% 828 769 931,66 828 849 103% 1 Sunrise 6.531 629 96% I 653 619 95% 830 732 88 ISunset Park 780 i 045 134% 780 400 51 % 780 760 97% +Tangelo Park 485 3971 82% 485 333 69% 485 312 64% 1 Relief (2012) i 830 250 30% �Tangelo/Waterbridge Thornebrooke 744 881 118°% 744 688 92% 744 732 98% (Three Points 758 723 95% 758 638 84% 758 736 97% Tildenville 765 609 80% 1 765 703 92% 765 735 96% Union Park 820 701 85% 820 629 77% 820 623 76% Ventura 1� 580 1 711 123°/u 58O 623 107% 580 629 108% Appendix 2 Elementary School (Not CSAs) Vista Lakes Washington Shores Waterbridge _Waterford West Creek West Oaks Wheatley Whispering Oak Windermere Winegard Wolf Lake Wolf Lake/Zellwood Relief (2015) Wyndam Lakes Wyndam Lakes Relief (2014) Zellwood Districtwide Totals *LOS Report, 4-17-08, FDOE Elementary School (by Attendance Boundary) Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OOPS April29, 2008 Year One Year Five Year Ten 2007/08 07/08 07/08 2011/12 11/12 11/12 2016/17 16/17 16/17 Capacity Enrollment Utilization Capacity Enrollment LOS Capacity Enrollment LOS 828 849 103% 828 1,108 13016 828 1,309 158% 547 499 91% 5471 493 90% 547 469 86% 7701 943 122% 770 856 111% 770 497 65% 570 817 143% 570 775 136% 830 906 109% 758 768 101 % 758 662 87% 758 636 84% 754 753 1009/0 754 753 100% 754 728 97% 815 398 49910 815 3271 40% 815 355 44% 749 1,173 157% 749 1,376 184% 749 808 108% 8421 723 86% 842 863 102% 842 1,066 127% 6121 707 116% 612 813 133% 612 883 1444% 8281 930 112% 828 1,098 133% 828 730 88% 830 830 100% 828 1,040 126% 828 1,252 151% 828 688 83% 830 830 100% 388 623 161% 388 634 163% 388 389 100% 76,1311 79,725 105% 84,1201 81,8751 97% 1 92,027 1 88,0711 96% Indicates Capacity Differs from LOS Report Indicates Capacity May Differ from LOS Report due to Modular/In-Slot School Status Appendix 2 Elementary School CSA Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OCPS April29, 2008 CSA ID (w/included 2007/08 07/08 07/08 2011/12 11/12 11/12 2016/17 16/17 16/17 Elementary Schools) Capacity Enrollment Utilization Capacity Enrollment LOS Capacity Enrollment LOS A 1,162 , 1,593 137% 1,162 1,534 132% 1,992 2,043 103% j Dream Lake 612 829 __ 135% 612 8211 134% 612 461 75% Rock Springs S50I 764 139% 550 713 130% SSO 692 126% Apopka CSA Relief (2016) 830 890 107% B 4,391 4,992 ( 114°/ii 5,221 5,320 102% 5,658 5,896 104% Avalon 754 858 114% 7541 956 127% 7S4 1,003 1339161 Camelot 758 7611 100% 758 836 110% 758, 1,002 132% Castle Creek 828 705 85% 828'1 753 91 % 8281 767 93% Stone Lakes 828 1,222 148% 828 769 93% 828 849 103% !Sunrise 653 1 629 96% 653 619 95% 830 732 88% Waterford 5701 817 143% 570 775 136% 830 906 109% Avalon Relief (2008) 1 1 830 612 74% 830 637 77% Waterford Comprehensive Renovation with Capacity Additions (2012) (Sunrise Comprehensive Renovation with Capacity Additions (2015) 1 C 1,529 2,218 145% 3,189 3,036 95% 4,019 3,658 91% Sunset Park 780 1,045 134% 780 400 51 % 780 760 97% Whispering Oak 749 1,173 157% 749 1,376 184% 749 808 108% Relief Schools (2009) 830 630 76% 830 630 76% Relief Schools (2011) 830 630 76% 830 630 76% Relief Schools (2016) 830 830 100% D 2,461 ( 2,033 83% 2,461 I 1,848 I 75% ( 2,461 ( 2,014 I 82% +Eccleston 532 507 95% 5321 4451 84% 532 I 4S1 8S% Ivey Lane 496 313 63% 4961 245 49% 496 257 52% Mollie Ray 698 587 84% 698 558 80% 698 I 624 89% IOrlo Vista 735 626 85% 735I 600 82% 735 6821 93% E 2,433 ( 2,533 104% ( 2,433 2,684 I 110% 2,433 2,519 1 104% Appendix 2 Elementary School CSA Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OOPS April29, 2008 CSA ID (w/included 2007/08 07/08 07/08 2011/12 11/12 11/12 2016/17 16/17 16/17 Elementary Schools) Capacity Enrollment Utilization Capacity Enrollment LOS Capacity Enrollment LOS Eagles Nest 758 725 96 % 758 766 101 % 758 796 105% MetroWest 1,017 1,208 119% 1,017 1,350 133% 1,017 1,214 119% Palm Lake 658 600 91% 658 568 86% 658 509 77% F I 3,215 ( 2,970 92% 3,522 2,844 81% 3,522 I 2,984 85% Conway 657 568 86% 1 784 472 60110 78,11 516 66% Lake George 679 572 84% 679 618 91 % 679 673 99% McCoy 860 833 97% 860 916 107% 8601 1,004 117% Pershing 529 357 67% 529 273 52916 5291 266 50% (Shenandoah 490 640 131% 670 565 84% 6701 525 78% Conway Comprehensive Renovation with Capacity Additions (2008) Shenandoah Comprehensive Renovation with Capacity Additions (2008) G 2,781 ( 3,002 108% 3,113 3,162 102% 3,113 ( 3,386 109% I Bonneville 850 558 66% 850 593 70% 850 I 583 1 69% I Columbia 568 1,027 181 % 900 1,068 119% 900 1,194 133% lEastLake 756 745 99 % 756 799 106% 756 861 114% Riverdale 607 672 111 % 607 702 116% I 607 748 123% Columbia Comprehensive Renovation (Replacement) with Capacity Additions (2008) i Columbia/Corner Lake K-8 (2011) 1 I I H 3,373 1 3,736 J 211% 3,373 3,334 99% 5,033 3,321 66% Hunter's Creek 756 640 85% 756 632 84% 756 575 76% John Young 604� 988 164% 604 851 141% 604 401 66% Tangelo Park 48,1 397 82116 485 333 69% 485 312 64°%a I Waterbridge 770 943 122% 7701 856 111 % 770 497 65% West Creek 7581 768 101 °%a 758 662 ( 87% 758 636 84% Tangelo/Waterbridge Relief (2012) 830 250 30% South ES Relief (2015) 1 I I I 830 650 78% Appendix 2 Elementary School CSA Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OCPS April29, 2008 CSA ID (w/included 2007/08 07/08 07/08 2011/12 11/12 11/12 2016/17 16/17 16/17 Elementary Schools) Capacity Enrollment Utilization Capacity Enrollment LOS Capacity Enrollment LOS 1 2,594 2,365 91% 2,594 2,403 93% 2,594 2,476 95% IAloma 482 4981 103% 482 4621 96% 482 462 I 96% Audubon Park 916 705 77% 916 9051 99% 916 1,041 114% !Brookshire 442 516 117% 442 457 103% 442 428 , 97% Cheney 754 646 86% 754 579 77% 754 545 72% 1 3,210 ( 3,710 116b/. 4,040 ( 3,890 96% 4,040 ( 4,202 104% Frangus 632 617 98% 632 5991 95% 632 620 98% Lake Whitney 622 1,011 163% 6221 635 102% 622 670 108% 1 Oak Hill 370 478 129% _ 370 503 136% 370 514 139% �Thornebrooke 744 881 118% 744, 688 92% 744 732 98% Windermere 842 723 86% 8421 863 I 102% 842 1,066 I 127% Lake Whitney/Thornebrooke Relief (2008) ( 830 602 73% 830 600 72% 1 K 1,886 1,591 ( 84% 1,886 i 1,552 82% + 1,886 1,609 I 85% (Dover Shores 6081 6441 190%I 608 588 I 97% 608 5921 97% 424 3801 90% 424 464 109% 424 478 113% �Hillcrest Kaley 380+ 280 74% 380 2471 65% 380 275 72% Cake Como 4741 287 61 % . 474 2531 53916 474 264 56916 L I 3,408 ( 4,103 Zt}}°l 4,238 3,796 90% 4,238 4,101 97% (Azalea Park 714 1,019 143% 714 6381 89916 714 713 100% Chickasaw 840 783 93% 840 805 96% 840 776 92% (Engelwood 504 556 110910 504 539 107% 504 626 124% +Little River 770 1,034 134% 770 579 75% 770 720 94% Ventura 580 711 123% 580 6231 107% 581 629 108% Avalon Relief (2008) ( 830 612 74% 1 830 637 77°%u M 1,823 1,637 90% 1,823 1,850 101% 1,823 1,958 i 107% Dillard St I 750 7201 96% ( 7501 8261 110% 1 750 I 9281 124% Appendix 2 Elementary School CSA Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OCPS April29, 2008 CSA ID (w/included 2007/08 07/08 07/08 2011/12 11/12 11/12 2016/17 16/17 16/17 Elementary Schools) Capacity Enrollment Utilization Capacity Enrollment LOS Capacity Enrollment LOS Maxey 308 308 100% 308 321 104% 308 295 96% Tildenville I 765 609 80% 765I 703 92% 765 73S 96% N 2,185 2,063 ( 94% 2,185 2,209 101% ( 2,185 2,193 100% Fern Creek 5041 416 83% 5041 436 87% 504 433 86% { Killarney 3041 4571 150910 304 537 177% 304 523 172% ! Lake Silver 762 4751 62% 762 519 68% 762 540 71 % Princeton 238 452 190% 238 413 174% 238 380 160% 1 (Rock Lake I 377 263) 70% 377 304 81 % 377) 317 84% 1 0 3,080 2,961 96% 3,080 3,143 102% 3,080 ( 3,279 106% Andover 774� 584 75% 7741 521 67% 774 599 77% Cypress Springs I 720 776 108% 7201 792 110% 720 581 81% Lawton Chiles I 7S8 752 99% 7581 722 95% 758 790 104% 1 Vista Lakes ( 828 1 849 103% 8281 1,108 134% 828 1,309 158% 1 P I 2,561 I 2,544 ( 99% 2,561 I 2,491 I 97% I 2,561 ( 2,744 ( 107% I Deerwood 4701 6301 134% 470 571 121 % 470 S60 119% I Hidden Oaks 660 653 99% 660 779 118% 660 850 129% 1 IPinar 673 538 80% 673 503 75% 673 598 89% Three Points I 758 723 9s% 758 638 84% 7S8 7361 97% Q I 3,148 I 3,178 I 101% I 3,148 I 3,207 I 102% I 3,148 I 3,397 I 108% Lake Sybelia 522 5371 103% 522 509 98% f 522 526 101% Lake Weston 540 563 104% 540 451 84% 540 441 82% (Lockhart 636 507 80% 636 591 93% 636 677 106% I Riverside 828 629 76% 828 667 81 % 828 675 82% I Rosemont 622 942 151% 622 989 159% 622 1,078 173% 1 1 R I 1,498 ( 1,524 ( 102% I 1,498 1,185 i 79% I 1,498 I 1,126 ( 75% Appendix 2 Elementary School CSA Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OCPS April29, 2008 CSA ID (w/included Elementary Schools) Dommerich IHungerford I Lakemont S Lake Gem Ridgewood Park !Rolling Hills T Catalina IGrand Ave (Orange Center I Pineloch Richmond Heights Washington Shores Citrus 2007/08 07/08 07/08 2011/12 11/12 11/12 2016/17 16/17 16/17 Capacity Enrollment Utilization Capacity Enrollment LOS Capacity Enrollment LOS 454 693 153 % 454 638 141 % 454 611 135% 504 212 42% 504 163 32% 504 170 34% S40 619 115% 540 384 71% 540 345 64% 2,310 I 6221 8781 8101 2,880 I 479 I 2901 4821 4821 547( I 2,111 1 758 I Clarcon a 558 Ocoee 371 Spring Lake 424 Citrus Relief (2010) (Ocoee CSA Relief (2016) V Moss Park NorthLake Park I Northlake Park Relief 201 1 Northlake Park Relief 2013 U I 1,836 935) 9011 0 1 2,309 100% 2,310 8241 132% 622 7701 88% 878 7151 88% 810 2,932 I 102% 2,880 7341 153 % 479 2401 83% 290 4091 85% 482 7091 147% 482 341 S7% 600 499 91% 547 3,212 15:2% - 2,941 913 120% 1 7581 1,017 182% 1 558 728 196% 371 554 131% 424 830 1,580 I 86% 2,666 84SI 90% 935 7351 82% 901 1 830 2,264 98% 1 2,310 ( 2,421 ( 105 % 823 132% 1 622 921 148% 725 83 % 878 769 811% 716 88% 810 731 90% J 3,175 110% 2,880 3,156 110% 920 192% 479 923 193% 235 81% 290 212 73% 409 85% 482 429 89% 799 166% 482 812 168% 319 53% 600 3111 52% 493 90% I 547 4691 86% 3,381 ( 115% 3,771 3,882 103% 837 110% 758 749 99% 402 72% 558 755 135% 765 206% 371 439 118% 547 129% 424 379 89910 830 100% 8301 830 100% 830 730 88% 1,883 I 71% I 4,326 ( 2,395 I 55% 560 60% 935 451 48% 793 88% 901 484 54% 530 64% 830 S30 64% 830 500 60% Appendix 2 Elementary School CSA Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OCPS April29, 2008 CSA ID (w/included 2007/08 07/08 07/08 2011/12 11/12 11/12 2016/17 16/17 16/17 Elementary Schools) Capacity Enrollment Utilization Capacity Enrollment LOS Capacity Enrollment LOS Northlake Park Relief 2015 830 430 52% W 2,549 ( 2,938 119Y. 2,549 ( 2,783 I 109% ( 2,549 2,367 93% Clay Springs 656 863 132% 1 656 859 131 % 656 631 96% 596 9091 153% 596 895 150% 596 9041 152% 'Lakeville Lovell 482 768 159% 4821 702 146% 482 477I 99% Wheatley 815 398I 49% 8151 327 40% 815 355I 44% I X I 2,996 ( 3,152 I 105% I 2,996 I 3,104 I 104% I 2,996 I 3,246 I 108% IHiowassee 7S8 744 98% 7S8 ( 854 113% 758 893 118% Pine Hills 840 9431 112% 84011 809 � 96% 840 837 100% Pinewood 644 7121 111 % 6441 6881 107% 6441 788 122% West Oaks 754 753 100% 7S4 753 100%1 754 728 97% Y I 3,884 I 4,742 122°la 4,948 I 5,311 1 107% I 5,778 6,124 I 106% I Cypress Park 374 440 118% 374 622 166% 374 759 203% (Endeavor 758 844 111% 7S8 653 86% 758 599 79% Woods 5S0 871 1S8% _ 784 726 93% 784 885I 113% �Meadow Oakshire 752 690 92% 752 705 94% 752 958 127% I Southwood 622 857 138% 1 6221 523 84% 622 575 92% Wyndam Lakes 828 1,040 1269,65 828.1 1,252 151 % 828 688 83% Endeavor/Southwood Relief (2010) I 830 ( 830 100% 830 830 100% Wyndam Lakes Relief (2014) + 830 830 100% Meadow Woods Comprehensive Renovation Capacity Additions (2015) z I 2,048 I 1,660 ( 81% I 2,048 I 1,617 I 79% i 2,048 I 1,638 i 80% I eay Meadows 8101 508 63% 810 511 63% 810 582 72% IDrPhillips 410 641 1S6% 410 605 148% 410 531 130% I Sand Lake 828 S11 62% 828 501 61 % 828 525 63% Appendix Elementary School CSA Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 CSA ID (w/included 2007/08 07/08 07/08 2011/12 11/12 Elementary Schools) Capacity Enrollment Utilization Capacity Enrollment AA 820 701 85% 820 629 union Park 8201 7011 85% l 8201 6291 BB 2,073 1 2,390 115O✓n. , 2,549 2,507 Durronce 540 485 90% 650 5321 Lancaster 464 780 168% 830 7961 Pine Castle 457 418 91 % 457 366 l Winegard 6121 707 116% 612 8131 jlDurronce Comprehensive Renovation Capacity Additions (2014) Lancaster Comprehensive Renovation Capacity Additions (2012) CC 3,645 Millenia 828 Palmetto 1,179 Sadler 868 Shingle Creek I 770 DD ( 1,996 +Apopka 780� Wolf Lake 828 Zellwood 388 Wolf Lake/Zellwood Relief (2015) * LOS Report 4-17-08, FDOE 3,279 90% 3,645 621 75% ( 828 1,118 95% 1,179 758 87% , 868 782 102 % ( 770 2,077 1 104% 1,996 524 67% 7801 930 112% 828 623 161 % 388 11/12 2016/17 LOS Capacity 77% 820 779161 8201 98% 1 2,549 1 82% I 650 96% i 830 80% 457 133% 612 3,335 1 91% 3,645 7871 95% 828 1,023 87% 1,179 676 78% 868 849 110% 770 2,398 120% 2,826 6661 85Y6 780 1,0981 133916 828 634I 163% 388 i 830 Denotes Backlogged CSA for Inclusion in the Ten -Year Plan Denotes CSA Currently in Excess of the 110% LOS Prepared by OCPS April29, 2008 16/17 16/17 Enrollment LOS 623 76% 6231 769161 2,725 ( 107% 633 97% 863 104 O 346 76% 883 144% 1 3,634 100% 828 100% 1 1,032 88% 1 760 88% 1,0141 132% 2,923 103% 974 125% 730 88% 389 100% 830 100% Appendix K- 8 Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OCPS April 29, 2008 2007/08 07/08 07/08 K-8 Capacity Enrollment Utilization Arbor Ridge 570 814 143% Blankner 941 949 1019/0 Windy Ridge 1,228 1,149 94% Columbia/Corner Lake K-8 (2011) 0% Districtwide Total I 2,739' Z912 1 106916 * LOS Report 4-17-08, FDOE 2011/12 11/12 11/12 2016/17 16/17 16/17 Capacity Enrollment LOS Capacity Enrollment LOS 570 674 118% 570 619 109% 941 951 1019/0 941 903 96% 1,228 1,196 97% 1,228 1,136 93% 1,228 1,228 100910 1,228 1,228 100% 3,9671 4,0491 102 % I 3,9671 3,8861 98% Denotes Backlogged CSA for Inclusion in the Ten -Year Plan Appendix 2 Middle School Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OCPSApril29, 2008 2007/08 07/08 07/08 2011/12 11/12 I 11/12 I 2016/17 I 16/17 16/17 Middle School CSA Capacity Enrollment Utilization Capacity Enrollment LOS Capacity Enrollment LOS I Apopka 1,0201 976 96% 1,020 1,024 100% 1,0201 1,016 100% (Avalon 1,109 1,352 122% 1,109 803 72% 1,109 1,080 97% Bridgewater 1,154I 971 84% 1,154 899 78% 1,1541 1,046 91% 950 806 85% 1,026 7091 69% 1,026 S68 ss% Carver Chain of Lakes 1,155I 1,314 1,155 1,214 10S% 1,155 1,138 99% 970 1,301 134% 1,346 1,166 87% 1,346 1,049 78% 1Conway Comer Lake 1,040 1,405 135% 1,040 860 83% 1,040 1,032 99% Discovery 1,114 985 88% 1,114 820 74% 1,114 968 968 87% 87% Freedom 1,114I 1,122 10,1% 1,114 1,004 90% 1,114 Glenridge 1,261 1,202'' 95% 1,261 1,126 89% 1,261 1,252 99% Gotha 820 1,256 t.. 153% 820 961 117% 820 820 100% Howard 1,172 606 52% 1,172 485 41 % 1,172 483 41 Creek 998 _ 1,068 L-; 107% 998 89S 90% 998 894 90% !Hunter's 1,384I 1,142 83%.1 1,384 1,077 78% 1,384 893 6S% I Jackson Lakeview 1,1941 1,287 - 1,P8ao 1,194 943 79% 1,194 1,128 94% Lakeview MS Relief (2010) 1,215 1,215 100% 1,215 1,215 100% 985 879 89% I 985 7991 81 % 985 821 83% Lee 1,137 1,0071 89% 1 1,137 9281 82% 1,137 995 88% Legacy Liberty 1,497 j 1,0811 72% ( 1,497 1,1581 77% 1,497 1,274 85% 8241 944 '115%% 824 757 92% 824 744 90% Lockhart Maitland 1,007 932 0 � 93/ 1,007 798 79% 1,007 675 67% i Meadow Woods 1,040 1,364 Z,%,, 1,040 1,338 129916 1,209 1,172 97% 1{ I Meadowbrook 1,422 1,158 i 81 % 1,422 1,048 74% 1,422 943 66% Memorial 886 7061 80% I 886 6071 69% 886 836 94% (Ocoee 1,443 1,654 ill j 1,443 1,103. 76% 1,443 1,184 82% Ocoee MS Relief (2009) I 1,215 1,215 100% 1,21S 1,215 100% Odyssey I 1,175 1,559 133% 1 1,175 752 64% 1,17S 1,037 88%1 Odyssey MS Relief (2010) 1,215 1,215 100% 1,215 1,21S 100% Piedmont Lakes 1,085 1,266 117% 1 ...12`4il 1,085 793 73% 1,085 664 61 Robinswood ( 880 1,090 1,215 840 69% 1,2151 918 76% Appendix 2 Middle School Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OCPS April 29, 2008 2007/08 Middle School CSA Capacity (South Creek 1,125 Southwest 1,250 Union Park 1,440 Walker 930 Westridge 1,112 Wolf Lake 1,109 Wolf Lake MS Relief (2015) Districtwide Total 1 36,802 * LOS Report, 4-17-08, FDOE 07/08 07/08 2011/12 11/12 11/12 2016/17 16/17 16/17 Enrollment Utilization Capacity Enrollment LOS Capacity Enrollment LOS 897 80% 1,125 1,032 92% 1,125 1,124 100% 1 1,274 102% ; 1,250 1,182 95% I 1,250 1,187 959/0 1,209 84% 1,4401 1,132 79% 1,440 1,059 74% 1,078 116% 9301 1,059 114% 930 927 100% 1,006 90% 1,112 895 80% 1,112 823 74% 984 89% 1,109 1,061 96% + 1,109 818 74% 1 1,215 S00 419161 36,881 100% 41,2341 34,913 85% 1 42,618 35,443 83%' Bockloaaed Facility Summary Year # Schools Over LOS 2007-08 16 2011-12 4 2016-17 0 Denotes Backlogged CSA for Inclusion in Ten -Year Plan Denotes CSA Currently in Excess of the 100% LOS appendix 2 High School Projected Enrollment and LOS, 2007/08 - 2016/17 Prepared by OCPS April29, 2008 Elementary School ( 2007/08 07/08 07/08 I 2011/12 11/12 I 11/12 2016/17 16/17 16/17 CSA ID Capacity" Enrollment Utilization Capacity Enrollment LOS Capacity Enrollment LOS Notes/Assumptions Apopka I 2,132 Z,941 138%] 3,052 ( 2,8691 94% 3,052 Z776 91 % Apopka HS Rep larementSchool, with additional capacity, will open in 2010 Boone 2,260 3,137 T39%{ 2,2601 Z2681 100% 2,260 2,270 100% Colonial 3,418 3,883 „ _ 1I49d 3,418.I_ 3,427 100% 3,4I8 2,587 764'0 Cypress Creek 2,091 3,430 164.% Z091 1,797 86% Z,091 2,014 96% Cypress Creek/Oak Ridge Relief School to open in 2009 �CypressCreek/Oak Ridge Relief (2009) 2,776' 2,700 97% Z776 2,786 100% I Dr. Phillips Z3571 3,570 : 151% 2,357I 2,342 99% 2,3S7 2,237 95% Edgewater 1,920 2,306 120%� 2,550 2,047 I 8006 2,5S0 2,183 86% Capacity Improvements to be made in 2009 during comprehensive renovation Evans 2,436I Z008I 82%� Z4361 1,660 68% 2,436 1,692 69% Plans to move/renovate Evans are under discussion (Freedom Z,669I 3,032 11'4% Z664 Z841 106% 2,669 2,277 8596 5171 300I 58% +Hungerford Jones I 1,6081 1,079I 67%J 1,6081 1,074 67% 1,608 1,1051 69% I Oak Ridge rI Z279 2,170 9S%! Z,279 1,867 82% 2,2791 2,275 100% Cypress Creek/Oak Ridge Relief School to open in 2009 Ocoee 2,7751 2,825 102951 Z7751 2,315 83% 1 1,77.51 Z,650 95% 01 m is Y P Z950 3,260 111'%G 2,950 Z821 96% Z950 Z791 0° ITimber Creek ( 2,726 4,352, 160�(r� 2,726I 2,739 a T00% Z,726 2,722 100%ITimber Creek/University Relief School to open in 2009 University I 1,8601 3,6111 1906.0 1,860 2,530 136% 2, 776 Z520I 91% ICapacity Improvements to be made in 2010 during comprehensive renovation ITimber Creek/UniversityRelief (2009J I 2,7761 Z700 97o/uI 2,776 Z760I 99% IWekivo ( 2,i46 1,746 64%I 2,746i 2,255I 82%I 2,746 2,698j 98%� West Orange ( 2,285 2,616 114%6 jt 3,052 1,868 61 % 3,052 Z,685 88% West Orange HS Replacement School, with additional capacity, will open in 2009 West Orange HS Relief (2011) ,� , $776 2,500� 90% I 2, 776 2,SOOI 90% IWinter Park I 3,4961 3,261I 93% 3,329 3,103 93%I 3,3291 3,3171 100%I I Districtwide Total I 42,525 I 49,5271 116% I 52,4861 47,7231 91 % I 53,4021 _ 48,8451 91 % I *LOS Report, 4-17-08, FOOE Note: High School enrollment projections include ninth grade centerstudents. Backlogged Facilitv Summary Year # Schools OverLOS 2007-08 12 2011-12 2 2016-17 0 Denotes Backlogged CSA for Inclusion in Ten -Year Plan Denotes CSA Currently in Excess of the 100% LOS Appendix 2 Elementary School Enrollment Projections, 2008/09 - 2018119 ob cn O H N N M V u1 lD C n .0 ti School 0 0 0 0 0 .-� > 0 M ti o 0 .-i 0 ti 0 ti v o v ti o 0 IAlama I 'Andover I 582 552 5351 5211 512 508 528 557 599 638 681 Apopka 558 581 617 666 729 791 855 930 974 986 1,002 (Audubon Park 746 787 855 905 959 998 1,020 1,042 1, 041 1,037 1,034 Avalon 832 885 914 956 976 981 981 992 1,003 1,013 1,028 (Azalea Park 1,034 1,005 611 638 656 687 702 718 713 708 706 Bay Meadows 500 479 492 511 S08 513 532 561 582 625 I 671 Bonneville 563 561 I 559 593 577 5117 588 590 583 581 580 Brookshire 497 469 453 457 454 444 439 435 428 425 I 424 Camelot 758 773 1 796 835 886 926 958 990 1,002 998 1,001 ICastle Creek 727 739 749 753 765 770 769 I 768 767 764 764 Catalina 780 834 889 920 928 928 925 925 923 926 932 Cheney 612 588 5931 579 552 554 555 559 545 544 545 Chickasaw I I I 770 Citrus 913 893 827) 837 788 I 823 829 833 749 746 744 Iclarcono 1,015 1,078 293 402 502 505 564 725 751 747 745 95 I 85 771 l 628 627 (Columbia ( 1,053 1,087 1,142 11058 ( 1, 079 1,123 + 1,159 + 1,196 1,194 1,189 1 1,188 Conway 521 501 460 472 493 501 I 5071 509 516 512 513 (Cypress Park 495 I 541 569 622 I 681 730 737 752 759 I 780 807 Icyress Dillard I I I I I 891 I StdSprings 759 1 784 809 826 J 864 870 J 909 928 925 924 �Dommerich 689 658 652 638 ( 619 616I 611 605 611 608I 607 I I I I D�ei�sres Phlp 624 615 614 605I 589 584 567 550 531 528 5271 (Dream Lake 830 827 818 821 822 11341 846 857 461 459 458 IDurrance 475 479 499 532 564 588 608 527 633 632 632 JEogles Nest 717 735 751 766 784 792 796 799 796 793 793 East Lake I I Eccleston I 4 8 476 453 445 438 442 ! 447 455 451 447 448 Endeavor 853 870 635 653 684 684 648 I 616 599 596 595 Engelwood 544 531 5271 539� 546 567 591 610 625 623 623 (Fern Creek 405 417 4301 436 441 445 441 438 433 430 428 lFrangusdA 591 Grand Ave 232 I 212 I 210I 235 I 255 251 231 214 212 212 213 23 Oaks 707 i 49 425 52 453 +Hills es 403 I + + 464 + 468 470 473 478 478 478 478 Prepared by Orange County Public Schools Planning Governmental Relations Apri12008 Appendix2 Elementary School Enrollment Projections, 2008/09 - 2018/19 cb O m O O .—I .1 N �-1 >ei N n't V ut tD C N ti W N School o 0 0 o v o 0 0 0 0 o 0 oCreek I I 57 JHunte s I 635 6442 641 632I 634 622 602 1 585 585 77 575 574 4 574 1Ivey Lane 269 251 242 245 236 248 252 257 257 255 255 John Young 951 933 902 851 598 I 595 581 418 401 398 398 11(oley 275 261 241 247 257 262 267 271 275 275 2751 Killarney 483 513 530 537 549 550 539 527 523 519 517 Lake Como 263 259 I 244 253 261 262 255 255 264 264 264 Lake Gem 830 834 8151 823 I 835 857 11761 894 921 I 918 917 George 570 I 583 I 601 618 i 645 660 670 679 573 I 672 571 (Lake Lake Silver 493 I 489 499 519 ! 539 541 541 542 540 539 538 �LakeSybelia 516 509 500 509 523 ( 517 520 522 526 524 1 524 Lake Weston I 520) 477 468 451 446 447 446 446 441 4401 440 Lake Whitney i 655 644 523 635 6361 653 660 6691 670 669 672 ILakemont 517 469 417 384 358 347 345 343 345 343 342 Lakeville I 901 901 896I 895 899 929 921 916 904 896 896 Lancaster 789 790 783 ( 796 803 826 840 855 863 859 858 Lawton Chiles 728 711 I 710 722 728 746 7671 790 790 784 784 Little River 11017 1,012 i 571 579 607 634 668 694 720 714 713 Lockhart 528 539 562 I 591 617 635 650 668 677 C74 673 Lovell 741 716 699 702 710 718 726 732 477 475 474 Maxey 325 326 311 321 323 329 333 341 295 293 295 9701 994 1,885I 1,892 99 905 'Meadow Woods I 89� 937 680I 726 768 818 841 865 885 892 905 est 1,231 1699 1743 1787I 1819 1850I 1841I 1831 ( 1828 1112 1 ,205 Millenia649 5 825 I Mollie Ray 570 541 542 558 568 588 604 , 619 I 624 621 621 Moss Park 869 907 508 560 635 594 565 628 451 505 548 INorthLake Park 790 834 749 793 828 652 682 707 484 477 474 Oak Hill 493 488 499 503 5161 527 524 520 514 510 1 511 10akshire 666 656 650 705 741 I 810 811 915 951 968 I 980 10coee 750 758 756 765 777 789 784 779 439 453 495 Orange Center 386 392 402 409 428 I 432 432 431 429 428 427 I Ono Vista 620 l 595 599 600 i 616 641 662 683 682 680 678 (Palm Lake 5861 588 577 568 555 551 533 517 509 506 5051 Palmetto 1,091 I 1,065 1,036 1,023 1,025 _ 1,044 1,041 1,039 1,032 1,029 1,029 Pershing 324 11 300 283 273 271 I 268 267 265 266 266 266 Pinar 533 504 494 503 532 544 565 584 598 595 595 CastleJPine , I I (Pine Hills 86 7 838 I 815' 809 818 830 835 838 837 833 834 Prepared by Orange County Public Schools Planning Govemmen tal Relations Apri12008 Appendix2 Elementary School Enrollment Projections, 2008/09 - 2018/19 O Da m N O ei y N rl N 71 vt ?' School O O o ti 0 N N> o v N O m N o C N 0 N C ti N^y 0 o 00 O O O- N 0 z (Pineloch 729 I 762 7731 799' 801 8161 8281 835 1 8431 8401 I Pinewood 697 669 680 6881 693 716 753 f 782 7881 786 7851 85 Princeton 462 452 4151 413 410 401 392 3861 380 365 352 'Richmond Heights 332 3Z5 3Z8 1 319 306 306 1 309 ( 3151 311 309 307 Ridgewood Park 741 746 725 725 723 741 753 7601 769 767 768 Riverdale 626 664 675 702 728 744 7471 746 748 746 745 Riverside 624 626 653 667 691 j 699 694 1 690 675 671 670 Rock Lake 268 283 293 304 323 323 322 I 321 317 315 1 315 Rock Springs 1 757 747 715 713 711 715 7211 726 692 690I 689 Rolling Hills + 716 701 693 716 703 720 727 735 731 7281 728 Rosemont I 915 937 950 989 1,008 1,045 1,061 1,078 1,078 1,07S 1,072 Sadler It 702 680 655 676 691 713 731 748 760 759 759 Sand take 504 4771 469 501 510 504 522 535 525 525 525 Shenandoah Shingle 4eek I 620 770 602 573 565 539 546� 541 534 525 123 522 +Southwood 8481 788 799 849 895 956 984 1,004 1,014 1,010 1,010 833 518 5231 5351 546 5471 548 575 571 569 ISpring Lake 537 539 537 547 552 571 584 596 379 377 377 +stone Lakes 677 717 742 769 , 783 I 807 824 ! 839 1 849 844 842 Sunrise Sunset Park 590 1,157 5771 5891 6191 653 1 682 703 j 724 7321 729 728 626 70,1I 400 510 531 718 8011 761 I 514 585 Tangelo Park +Thornebrooke 384 366 333 333 312 318 331 299 312 I! 331 362 17-hree Points 696 671 690 688 704 725 733 751 1 7321 737 742 673 637 630 638 659) 6971 716 736 1 736 733 732 TilUn� I n PI ark Iventura 670 6440 635 + 6291 628' 630 632 I 634 623 I 6201 619 703 692 659 j 623 1 617 520 624 627 529 625 625 Vista Lakes 877 947 1,029 1,1081 1,186 I 1,264 1,288 I 1,314 1,3091 1,304 1,303 Washington Shares 489 485 487 493 502 498 490 it 48Z 1 469 4561 448 �Waterbridge 89I 878 848 856 479 502 � 519 483 497 493 492 Waterford j West Greek I 760 I I i West Oaks 755 721 692 662 659 661 + 649 638 636 6331 633 f 1 Wheatley 736 756 753 ( 7671 765 756 f! 748 728 724 724 363 347 331 327 329 1 339 347 1 354 355 354 3S4 Whispering Oak lWindermere 1,319 1,403 1,308 1,3761 1,4031 11418 1,433 1,456 808 543 586 I ( 1 1 1883 056 1 ,058 1,0541 J Winegard 1110k 74S 764 768 813 838 857 1 867 871 1 8801 Sal 1,1771 11,099 I 1 1 1'672 1 1 IZ llwo deLakes 629, 630' 634 63� 649 + 561 372 1 389 406 438 Prepared by Orange County Public Schools Planning Governmental Relations Apri12008 I Appendix2 Elementary School Enrollment Projections, 2008/09 - 2018/19 Prepared by Orange County Public Schools Planning Governmental Relations ApH12008 o } i } co m v o School W 0 o O 0 .-� 0 0 ri N .-i > 0 N ti o M .-� 0 d' ti 0 u1 .-� 0 to C a w 0 n N 0 W tl o •v 0 0 I 115-E-W-4 I 6001 593 I 5801 6021 5821 591 I 595 598 600 I 597' 597 136-E-E-2 609 622 628 612 612 624 632 639 637 634 I 634 I28-E-W-4 - I 530 630 630 630 I 630 530 630 530 630 630 Sunset Park 600, Whispering Oak 30 I86-E-E-2 - 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 Azalea Park 400, Little River 430 I I19-E-N-7 830 830 II 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 Carcona 830,Citrus 0 I I33-E-SE-3 - - 830 830( 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 Endeavor250, Southwood 290, Meadow Woods 290 I41-E-SE-2 - - 530 530 I 530 530 530 530 530 I 530 530 N Lake Park 110, Moss Pork 420 I47-E-W-4 I - - I - 630 ( 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 Sunset Park 430, Whispering Oak 200 1 I20-E-SE-5 - - - - 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 Tangelo 0, Waterbridge 400, John Young 250 I3-E-SE-2 - 310 410 430 430 430 430 N Lake Park 215, Moss Park 215 I30-E-SE-3 - - - - - - 830 830 830 830 830 Wyndam Lakes 830 I105-E-SW-4 - - - - - - - 250 250 250 250 Tangelo 50, Waterbridge 50, John Young 150 I24-E-N-7 - - - - - - - 830 830 830 830 Zellwood 300, Wolf Lake 530 1 I31-E_W-4 - _ _ _ _ - - I - 830 830 830 Sunset Park 150, Whispering Oak 680 I68-E-SE-2 - - - I - - I - I - - 500 500 500 N Lake Park 250, Moss Park 250 I29-E-W-4 - - - I - - - I - - - 3001 300 Sunset Park 150, Whispering Oak 150 I63-E-W-4 - - - - - - - - - 300 ! 300 Sunset Park 150, Whispering Oak 150 IES-Ocoee - - - - - - I - - 730 730 iI 730 Ocoee 350, Citrus 100, Maxey 50, Spr Lake 230 I I ES -Apopka I - - I -' - ( - - - I - 8901 8901 890 I Rock Springs 30, Clay Springs 210, Dream Lake 400, Lovell 250 ITotal I 79,642I 79,899I 80,3321 82,0931 83,5821 85,6271 86,6731 87,796 88,2641 88,3171 88,7221 Appendix 2 K-8 Enrollment Projections, 2008/09 - 2018/19 Prepared by Orange County Public Schools April 2008 M O O r-i -1 ri N @ c-I N M c-1 d' c-I U') <-1 lfl ci 1'- M c-1 N 00 c-I Q) c-I 00 O CD 0) CDc--i O O ci ri a) O> rt CD O c i CD l.f) i O N -i O � ri O School N fV N N M N N N N N I� N N Assumptions Arbor Ridge 760 729 706 674 666 651 640 627 619 617 617 Ielankner 941 937 909 951 943 922 907 911 903 903 903 !Windy Ridge 1,205 1,200 1,208 1,196 1,193 1,193 1,176 1,163 1,136 1,134 1,133 iColumbia ES/Corner Lake MS Relief (2011) 1,228 1,228 1,228 1,228 1,228 1,228 1,228 1,228 Columbia ES 80, Corner Lake MS 535, Avalon MS 600 Totals I Z906I 2,866I Z8231 4,0491 4,0301 3,9941 3,9511 3,9291 3,8861 3,8821 3,881 Appendix 2 Middle School Enrollment Projections, 2008/09 - 2018/19 Prepared by Orange County Public 5chools April 2008 Middle School 0 0 0 o 0 N 0 N 0? iz N u 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N o v C' N� o N 0 N Assumptions (Apopka 1,028 1,0441 1,052 1 1,028 1,042 998 1,017 I 1,0101 1, 016 1,016 1,016 Avalon ( 1,445 1,396 1,413 803 ( 893 ( 937 1,038 1,066 1,080 1,080 1,080 I Bridgewater 1,183 7021 815 899 921 I 964 1,0161 1,030 1,046 1,046 1,098 Carver B22 763 + 727 709 I 692 + 641 587 + 564 568 568 568 Chain of Lakes 1,320 1,258 1,213 1,214 I 1,192 1,164 1,135 1,127 1,138 1,138 1,138 IConway 1,2551 1,222 1,190 1,166 i 1,123 1,056 1,030 1,033 1,049 1,055 1,060 ICorner Lake 1,412 2,402 1,388 860 909 937 991 1,019 1,032 1,035 1,041 IDiscovery 981 911 876 820 772 732 713 722 730 731 732 (Freedom 1,086 1,022 1,002 1,004 978 945 936 956 968 980 997 Glenridge 1,157 1,143 1,149 1,126 1,134 1,164 1,214 1,238 1,252 1,253 ( 1 ,254 Gotha 1,221 1,106 1,013 I 961 934 859 837 812 820 820 820 (Howard 57.5 525 514 485 487 475 478 479 483 483 483 I Hunter's Creek 996 ! 952 1 910 895 819 I 763 728 738 894 894 894 Ilackson 1,191 1,202 1 1,129 1,077) 1,039 959 1 921 886 893 893 893 (Lakeview 1,328 I 1,397 878 943 963 990 1,028 1,101 1,128 1,144 1, 168 ILee 885 I 829 807. 799 790 801 804 817 821 1121 1121 I Legacy 980 I 985 944 928 892 9051 948 I 985 995 998 1,001 I Liberty 1,062 I 1,104 1,123 I 1,158 1,130 I 1,094 1,068 1,063 1,274 1,279 1 1,2861 (Lockhart 972I 887 818I 757I 713 II 708 715I 736 744 746 747 677 Meadow Woods 1,386 1,348 1,375 I 1,338 1,372 1,358 1,364 ( 1,339 1,172 1, 161) 1,149 IMeadowbrook 1,118 1,056 1,079I 1,048 I 1,047 976 965 935 943 947 9,131 I Memoriol 711 666 6461 607 641 672 701 I 712 836 839 844 (0coee 1,628 1,087 1,094 1 1,103 1,175 1,135 1,148 1,127 1,184 1,218 1,268 (Odyssey 1,629 1,720 ( 686 752 817• 777 911 1,045 980 1,037 1,047 (Piedmont Lakes 1,237 760 788 793 765 683 648 650 664 669 678 pI IRobinswood 1,126 849 839 I 840 821 B49 872 907 918 ( 919 ( 922 I 15outh Creek 978 989 1,031 1 1, 032 1, 035 1,055 I 1,084 1,115 1,124 1,124 1,124 (Southwest 1,233 1,221 1,239 ( 1,182 1,174 I 1,130 l 1,179 I 1,165 I 1,187 1,201 1,223 I Union Park 1,246 1,224 1,163 1,132 1,0971 1,071 1,048 ! 1,048 1,059 1,012 1,064 Walker 1,085 1068 1098 1059 10481 1,0161 1,0571 1,059 927 908 9081 I Wdge I 837 813 803 823 824 825 (Wolf Lake 1,004 973 980 I! 1,061 1 1,156 ! 1,217 ( 753 773 818 1140 1 864 (Ocoee MS Relief (2009) I +� ( 1,215 1,215 1,2151 1,215 1,215 1,215 1,215 11215 1,215 1,215 Ocoee 500, Pied. Lakes 450, Robinswood 265 I Lakeview MS Relief (2010) I 1,2151 1,215 1,215 1,215 1,215 1,215 1,215 1,215 ( 1,215 Lakeview 510, Bridgewater 750 I (Odyssey MS Relief (2010) I 1,2151 1,2151 1,215 ( 1,215 1,215 1,215 1,2151 1,2151 1,215 (Odyssey 1215 I (Wolf Lake MS Relief (2014) I I I I 500 5001 5001 500 I 500 I Wolf Lake 500 ITotals 1 37,1691 35,8601 36,3871 34,9171 34,8641 34,226 1 34,566 1 34,8711 35,3851 35,550 1 35,7881 Appendix 2 High School Enrollment Projections, 2008/09 - 2018/19 Prepared by Orange County Public Schools April 2008 M O r-f L N M M � U) lD L r-- M 00 M 00 o Ol O O r-4 c-1 r ri N N c-1 crf c-i c--I c-i tD } ci C r` rl W -4 School O N O N O N O N E O N O N O N O N O N N Iv O N O N Assumptions Apopka 2,721 2,800 2,891 2,869 2,887 2,940 2,957 3,010 2,721 2,776 2820 Boone 2,971 2,894 2,831 2,781 2,748 2,783 2,758 2,698 2,636 Z557 2526 Colonial 3,831 3,758 3,702 3,687 3,777 3,793 3,781 3,761 3,683 3,650 3627 Cypress Creek 3,557 1,561 1,609 1,797 1,927 1,969 1,965 1,956 2,014 2,083 2211 Dr. Phillips 3,425 3,316 3,191 2,342 2,396 2,367 2,297 2,277 2,237 Z246 2279 Edgewater Z058 2,020 1,959 2,047 2,059 2,039 Z071 Z123 2,183 Z247 2271 Evans 1,800 1,743 1,669 1,660 1,628 1,687 1,721 1,730 1,692 1,662 1634 Freedom Z,974 2,929 Z890 2,841 Z,748 2,644 2,537 Z402 2,277 Z186 2141 Hungerford 197 102 - - - - - - - - - Jones 967 928 863 861 786 806 833 860 916 950 972 Oak Ridge Z063 1,420 1,482 1,567 1,650 1,849 1,929 2,056 2,098 Z133 Z169 Ocoee Z496 2,329 Z277 2,315 2,381 Z516 2,585 2,635 2,650 2,642 2,656 Olympia 3,108 3,042 Z911 Z821 2,750 2,749 2,772 2,808 2,791 2,750 2,722 Timber Creek 4,485 2,693 2,712 2,753 2,719 2,701 2,692 2,744 2,782 2,766 2,751 University 3,498 2,460 Z507 Z530 Z596 2,634 2,547 2,529 2,520 2,531 2,582 IWekiva Z337 2,313 2,326 2,255 Z246 Z275 2,275 Z308 2,698 2,719 2,755 Apopka toWekiva352 WestOrangeZ850 3,079 3,366 1,868 Z,035 2,243 2,342 Z448 2,685 2,854 3,018 WinterPark3,177 3,033 2,882 2,843 Z687 Z594 2,504 2,381 2,307 2,275 Z255 Cypress Creek/Oak Ridge HS Relief (2009) 2,700 Z700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 Z,700 Oak Ridge HS 600, Cypress Creek2,100 Timber Creek/University HS Relief (2009) 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 Timber Creek1800, University900 West Orange HS Relief (2011) 1 Z500 2,500 Z500 2,500 2,500 Z500 Z500 Z500 West Orange 1700, Dr Phillips 800 Totals 1 48,516 47,8201 47,468 47,737 47,920 48,489 48,466 ( 48,626 1 48,790 48,927 49,299 Note: High School enrollment projections include ninth grade center students. PUBLIC SCHOOLS OBJECTIVE 1; POLICIES The City of Ocoee shall establish plans, regulations and programs, in conjunction with Orange County Public Schools (OOPS) to facilitate the future availability of public school facilities to serve residents, consistent with the adopted level of service for public schools and with state of Florida concurrency statutes and regulations. Objective 1.1: Level of Service Standards The City shall coordinate with OCPS to implement a Concurrency Management System that ensures adequate classroom capacity to accommodate the impacts of new residential development throughout the plarming period. Policy 1.1.1 The Concurrency Management System shall include standards and procedures to ensure that new residential development complies with the Level of Service (LOS) Standards provided in the interlocal agreement between OCPS and the City and the adopted Capital Improvements Element. The adopted LOS shall be used to determine the available capacity of Elementary, Middle and High Schools within the designated Concurrency Service Area (CSA) where the development is proposed. The adopted LOS by school type for all cities and the unincorporated areas of Orange County shall be as follows: Elementary School LOS - 110% of Adjusted FISH Capacity K through 8 LOS — 110% of Adjusted FISH Capacity Middle School LOS —100% of Adjusted FISH Capacity High School LOS —100% of Adjusted FISH Capacity Policy 1.1.2 The adopted LOS must be achieved in all CSAs by April 1, 2012, except for deficient CSAs, except where improvements needed to achieve adequate classroom capacity are specifically identified in the OCPS ten (IO)year District Capital Outlay Plan (DCOP) for funding by April 1, 2017. Policy 1.1.3 The City shall support OCPS efforts to initiate any of the following strategies to ensure compliance with adopted LOS standard. a) Building new schools to relieve over -capacity schools in CSAs that exceed the adopted LOS, b) Renovating over -capacity schools to add permanent capacity and replace on -campus portables, c) Rezoning students from over -capacity schools to under -capacity schools, Public Schools Facilities Element Page 1 of 6 d) Moving special programs from over -capacity schools to under - capacity schools to utilize excess permanent capacity where it exists. Policy 1.1.4 The City shall utilize the OCPS calculation of school capacity, which is determined amlually by OCPS using the Adjusted FISH Capacity for each school and CSA within the school district. Adjusted FISH Capacity shall be defined as the Permanent FISH (Florida Inventory of School Houses) Capacity, adjusted to include the design capacity of modular ("in -slot") elementary schools, not to exceed the adopted Core Capacity for that school. Policy 1.1.5 The student generation rate shall be defined as the estimated number of elementary, middle and high school students generated by a single unit of residential development, as calculated by OCPS using a GIS analysis to deterinine the ratio of current students to existing residential unit by residential development type. Policy 1.1.6 The City shall support OCPS efforts to meet adopted LOS standards through the adoption of a five (5) year, financially feasible District Capital Outlay Plan (DCOP). Where the LOS cannot be achieved through the construction of new school capacity as provided in the five (5) year DCOP, the City shall cooperate with OCPS efforts to adopt a long range ten (10) year DCOP as part of the School District's annual capital planning process. Policy 1.1.7 Where adequate school facilities will be in place or under actual construction within three (3) years after the issuance of final subdivision or site plan approval, or the functional equivalent, the City shall not deny an application for site plan approval, final subdivision approval, or the functional equivalent thereof, for any development, or phase of a development, that includes residential uses, based solely on failure to achieve and maintain the adopted LOS in a CSA. Policy 1.1.8 The City in conjunction with OCPS, shall review LOS standards for public school facilities annually. Changes to those standards shall be processed as amendments to the City's Capital Improvements Element. Objective 1.2: OCPS, in conjunction with the City shall adopt and arnivahly update school Concurrency Service Areas (CSAs), which will be used to evaluate capacity of schools available to acconnnnodate students generated by proposed development. Policy 1.2.1 CSAs are depicted in Exhibit 1 of the Capital Improvements Element. Policy 1.2.2 CSAs shall be reviewed annually in conjunction with the OCPS adoption of an updated five (5) year and ten (10) year District Capital Outlay Plan (DCOP). CSA boundaries may be adjusted to ensure that the utilization of school capacity is maximized to the greatest extent possible, taking into account transportation costs, court approved desegregation plans, and other factors. Public Schools Facilities Element Page 2 of 6 Objective 1.3: The City and OCPS shall develop and maintain throughout the plaiming period a joint process for the implementation of School Concurrency as provided for in the adopted interlocal agreement. Policy 1.3.1 The City shall not approve a developer -initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment or rezoning that would increase residential density on property that is not otherwise vested until such time as OCPS has determined whether sufficient capacity will exist concurrent with the development or a capacity enhancement agreement is executed that provides for the needed capacity to acconunodate the proposed development. Policy 1.3.2 The City will determine if a development is vested or exempt from school concurrency. Unless the development is determined to be vested or exempt from concurrency, the City shall not approve a residential site plan, plat, or its functional equivalent, until a concurrency determination has been conducted by OCPS and a Concurrency Certificate has been issued for the development consistent with the provisions of the adopted interlocal agreement. Policy 1.3.3 School concurrency shall not apply to property within a development of regional impact (DRI) for which a Development Order was issued prior to July 1, 2005, or for which a DRI application was submitted prior to May 1, 2005, unless the developer elects otherwise or unless the developer files a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) and/or Substantial Deviation to increase the total number of residential dwelling units. Policy 1.3.4 For DRIB that include residential development and are submitted after July 1, 2005, the City shall include OCPS plamming staff on the review team for the DRI, and shall ensure that DRI Development Orders, and DRI Development Order amendments that increase the total number of residential dwelling units, address the issue of school capacity. Where existing school capacity is exceeded, mitigation for school impacts shall be included in any mitigation agreements, Development Orders and agreements. Policy 1.3.5 Proposed developments of less than ten (10) single-family dwelling units or less than fifteen (15) multi -family dwelling units shall be considered de minimis and therefore exempt from capacity review. For the purposes of school concurrency, a single-family dwelling unit shall be defined as one dwelling unit designed for occupancy by one family and not attached to any surrounding dwelling unit. A multi- family dwelling unit shall be defined as more than one dwelling unit located in the same building, a dwelling unit attached to one or more other dwelling unts, or a mobile home. Objective 1.4: Upon completion of an OCPS Concurrency Review, a development that fails to meet LOS requirements as set forth in Policies 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, and 1.4.4 may be postponed until adequate public school capacity is created. Public Schools Facilities Element Page 3 of 6 Policy 1.4.1 A development shall be deemed to meet concurrency if there is sufficient capacity in the CSA where the development is located or where sufficient capacity exists in one or more contiguous CSAs, so long as the LOS in the adjacent zone does not exceed 95% of the Adjusted FISH Capacity, or when the LOS for the specific school type when considered district -wide does not exceed 100% of the Adjusted Fish capacity, and approval of the development does not result in a violation of a court ordered desegregation order. Policy 1.4.2 Proportionate share, when used for mitigation, shall be calculated based on the number of elementary, middle and high school students generated by the development at build out. As provided for in the adopted interlocal agreement, proportionate share shall be calculated based on reasonable methods of estimating cost of school construction, including the cost of land, equipment, school buses, and where appropriate, temporary classroom space needed to house students generated by the development while permanent space is being constructed. A Proportionate Share contribution toward the construction of schools must be identified in the adopted five (5) year DCOP or the ten (10) year DCOP. Policy 1.4.3 Proportionate Share Mitigation may include payments of money, construction of schools, donations of land, expansion of permanent capacity of existing school campuses, payment of funds necessary to advance schools contained in the five (5) year DCOP or ten (10) year DCOP , establislunent of charter schools that meet State Requirements for Educational Facilities (SREF) standards, payments into mitigation banks, establislunent of an Educational Facilities Benefit District, Conuuunity Development District, or other methods as may be negotiated between the developer and OCPS and, as appropriate, the City. Policy 1.4.4 Any of the Proportionate Share options set forth in Policy 1.4.3 that are utilized by developers as mitigation are eligible for school impact fee credits as provided for in Florida law. �. 1 ILWTV 9 �, Diu�. Objective 2.1: The City shall coordinate and cooperate with OCPS throughout the planning period to review and maintain procedures established in the adopted interlocal agreement. Policy 2.1.1 Pursuant to the adopted interlocal agreement, a Technical Plarming Committee comprised of representatives from the City, other Orange County Municipalities, OOPS and the Regional Planning Council shall be established to discuss issues of mutual concern. Public Schools Facilities Element Page 4 of 6 OCPS shall be responsible for making meeting arrangements, providing notification and maintaining a written summary of meeting actions. Policy 2.1.2 The OCPS Teelnlnical Planning Committee shall meet quarterly, or as needed, to discuss issues and formulate recommendations regarding coordination of land use and school facilities. Specific areas addressed by the conunittee shall include: a) Short and long-range planning, population and student projections, and future development trends; b) Co -location and joint -use opportunities, and ancillary infrastructure improvements needed to support the school facilities and ensure safe student access to schools; c) Planning for needed supporting infrastructure for schools such as utilities, roads, sidewalks, etc.; d) The need for new schools to meet the adopted LOS within the adopted CSAs and the coordination of anmlal revisions to the five (5) year and ten (10) year District Capital Outlay Plan and e) Update of the City Capital Improvements Element for inclusion in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.1.3 The City shall provide an update of approved developments, phases of development and estimated build out by phase to the OCPS Planning Department twice per year. Policy 2.1.4 The City shall review OCPS generated future enrollment and growth projections on an animal basis and provide input to the OCPS Planning Department. Objective 2.2 The City and OCPS shall, throughout the planning period, coordinate the siting of new public schools to ensure public school facilities are located to address the needs of future residential development, are coordinated with necessary services and infrastructure development, provide for safe learning environments, and are consistent with the City's adopted Future Land Use Map and with the other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.2.1 Applications for Future Land Use Map amendments, rezonings, conditional use/special exceptions and site plans for schools shall be given priority status. OCPS shall not be required to pay application fees or impact fees for the development of public school facilities, provided, however, OOPS shall not be exempt from payment of capital connection fees for water and wastewater. Policy 2.2.2 The City shall protect existing schools from the intrusion of incompatible land uses through the development review process. Conversely, the City shall provide protection to existing residential neighborhoods through the development review process as new schools or school renovations and/or expansions are proposed. Public Schools Facilities Element Page 5 of 6 Policy 2.2.3 In an effort to enhance local communities and neighborhoods, the City will participate with OCPS in the school siting, design and development process so that the school serves as a focal point for the community and is compatible with the Future Land Use Map and with land uses surrounding proposed school sites. Policy 2.2.4 Where feasible, OCPS and the City shall work jointly to co -locate public facilities such as parks, libraries, and community centers with public schools. Where such co -location occurs, both entities shall establish an ongoing management relationship via written agreement that permits the school's use of the public facilities and the public's use of school facilities for community meetings and sports activities. Policy 2.2.5 In accordance with Section 1006.23, Florida Statutes, and as funding permits, the City shall provide construction of sidewalks along roadways and trails connecting neighborhoods that are within two miles of schools to the school facility. OCPS shall be responsible for the construction of sidewalks and trails on school property and shall provide connections to existing and future sidewalks and trails identified by the City. Policy 2.2.6 Turn lanes and signalization shall be provided at school entrances and at other locations near schools, where warranted, to provide safe access to students and the public. Responsibility for construction of school -related signalization and road construction at school entrances shall be the responsibility of OCPS. Policy 2.2.7 OCPS shall coordinate with the City in the construction of new public school facilities and in rehabilitation of existing public school facilities to serve as emergency shelters as required by Section 1013.372, Florida Statutes. Public Schools Facilities Element Page 6 of 6 i, I 4 MCKSPRNGStl Figure 4: Orange County Public Schools, 2007-08 ZELM000f, Vl�'L F LAKE Elementary School Attendance Zones and School Locations —�SPRINGS AIYIPKA Legend Elementary School & K-8 Locations . . . ....... Elementary School Attendance Zones WHEAILEY ART ll(E SYBELL4 WERSDJ-` 7 COMMERIBH �ARCONA 4�ME GaPAE ROSE MOM, I,�L. MEY 7- ARBOR 'AR , A f ROL"NOHl LLB BK- EWERG�� INV� EAST LAlZ 6 KNIUE—, Z CHENEY TUG t.AKE SILVERL '❑LLARDSTREET MOMIMAY 'EB'ANCHR�B PRINCETON .0 U`BO N PAR O�TIECRW NEST UN 10 FERN CREE1,� WONCHLES Tll.QEl1l1LE O�EY 7- L- 7 11AXEY AZAL BAZAR K E FMAN�US "LLCF1EST11., LAKE FIAO- ITT l SUNRJSe IRE l,.TTN BY THORNE BROOKE Al�l DEE M �ICRANDAVENUE U ANKNja jKALEY L.ES 1, ETMOMGT ME 1 7 4B ` 0 IIESC :.12� -'HE NEST �CATAt.WAX' WNDYRIDGE RiCHMONOM90 S MA4� ,AA .1 MIELOCH MIL LENIA- ,,---liDDEN OAK� AN —ER WNDERMERE ,THREE MINT. Li COLU.- K P�IE CAS TIE OR P LLP� GABLER IA _. ER li'EC NEGARD F DAY BUNSETPARK CYPRESS PARK ch MORT HLAKEPAW MTER5RDGE CAN D LAKE .0. PARK EADOWWCODS IMSTCREEK, ENDEAVOR - S MNDIA iAKES L Figure 7: Orange County Public Schools, 2007-08 WOLF LAKE APOPKA FeMiddle School Attendance Zones and School Locations Legend PIEDMONT LAKES Middle School Locations Middle School Attendance Zones LOCKH �RT ITLAND OCOEE RO INS OODMEADOWS Oof�l-EE SGLENRIDGE S S UNION PARK LAKE VIEW HOWIRD CARVER S S JACKION I LEGACY DISCOVER AVALON GOTH 1 BL K R MMOR(AL LIB CHAI OF LAKES � CONWAY CORNER LAKE WALKER WESTRIDGE BRIDGEWATER 'SOUTHWEST ODYSSEY FREEDOM! SOUTH CREEK F i *UNTE&S CRE EADOW WOOD J I Figure 9: Orange County Public Schools, 2007-08 APOPKA High School Attendance Zones and School Locations Legend High School & 9th Grade Center Locations High School Attendance Zones EDGEWATER i S WNTER PARK OCOEE I P, UNIVERSITY WEST ORANGE DR PHILLIPS 7-1 FREEDOM CYPRESS CREEK TIMBER CREEK Figure 16: Orange County Public Schools, 2016-17 Projected Levels of Service (LOS) for Elementary and K-8 Schools CSAA I LOS=103% " Medium Elementary and K-8 District CSAs, Adj. FISH Capacity CSA DD LOS=103% y " Legend i Elementary and K-8 CSAs - 55%- 100% CSA w Island Zones for Desegretation LOS-$3 Elementary and K 8 Locations v Q m _ New Elementary and 8 Locations Prepared by0CPS KSA �+�C, WS=108% > CSA R Apnl29, 2008 LOS=75% y CSA S v CSA ARBORRIDGE. CSA U LOS=j05[ - LOS=109% - LOS=103% v CSA I CSA X C;SA N LOS=95 %- CSA M , LOS=.108% LOS=100% v CSA'AA ' LOS=107% G LOS=76% CSA D CSA L µ r LOS=82.4/, '1OS--97 % G CSA B - - H CSA K LQS-104% - t05-85 OZPR°° " CSA E CSA f CSA BLA CSA J LOS--1044 LOS=110% LC)s=S6 % .� .. LOS-104% CSA VJNDYRIDGE 1 CSA P u ' LOS-93% d CSA E. '" LOS--107°/ CSA E WSI=85%` _ CSA G LOS--104% CSA CC .. CSA O LOS=109% LOS-106% W ,6SA BB - CSA C .. `LOS=107% LOS=91 % CSA Z LOS=80% W " - CSA H G CSA V (� { - LOS�6% LOS�5 % � V CSA Y 'LOS=106% Figure 17: Orange County Public Schools, 2016-17 Projected Levels of Service (LOS) for Middle Schools WOLF LAKE Z LDPOPKA LOS=74%' Middle School CSAs, Adj. FISH Capacity j Legend Middle School CSAs Relief School Planned, Location Not Specified 52% -100% PIEDMONTLAKES LOS= 61%r Middle School Locations Prepared by OCPS ® LOCKHART t April29, 2008 New Middle School Locations RELIEF MIDDLE (3?-M-Lu7) IAS=l% MNTLA rD LOS= 67% COO EE LOS= 8245 MFADOV\SROOK r� GLENRIDGE LOS= 65 % E LOS= 99 LOS= 83°° p' U•Il�v PARK F2J8INSVlCi'J D L 74°/ AKEV EW LOS= 10V'ARD LOS=94� RELIEF MS 66-MVW/FELEFES3I-E-W-0 L0 41% CARVER JACKSON CISQQVERY I.Q& 66% THA L100 % LOS=55% LOS=�5% BLANIWER ®® LEGAL LOS=88% A/ALON LOS=97% LOS=95 """",,,,,,@@@@@@�� ty,�MORIAL UBERTY CH/�l OF LAKES [ S= 94 % S LOS PS= 99% OONWAY CORNER LAKE LOS= 78 % LOS= 99 P u V�ES;DGE LOS= 74% KER LOS= 100% BRIDGEWATER SOUTHVaEST - LOS= 91 % LOS= 95 ODYSSEY e� FREEDOM SOUTH CRE; ° LOS= E7 % LOS= 100% F-UNTFIS CREEK M64DOWVVOODSZ LOS= 90% LOS= 97 Figure 18: Orange County Public Schools, 2016-17 PKA Projected Levels of Service (LOS) for High Schools L°9 High School CSAs, Adj. FISH Capacity Legend CSA Boun dales 69%-100% "EKMA j High School & Ninth Grade Center Locations Los=% % j New High Schools Prepared by OCPS EDGENATER Ve{MER PARK LOS=� OEE at �S=100% r LOS/o r OLYMPIA LOS=95 1AESTORANGE LOS=88`/o OR PHILLIPS LOS=95% JON�g LOS= BOONE 5=700% 11 FREEDOM LOS=85% CYPRESSCREEK LOS=% r COLONIAL LOS=Ai LNIVERSITY LOS=91 Z x OAK RIDGE LOS=100 April 29, 2008 TIMBER CREEK LOS=100% Objective 5 The City shall, throughout the planning period, coordinate with Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) to ensure that sufficient school capacity is available to support proposed development and that necessary infrastructure is available to acconnnodate new schools. Policy 5.1.1 The City shall designate a representative to serve on the OCPS Techniical Planning Committee to discuss issues and formulate reconnnendations regarding the coordination of land use and schools. Policy 5.1.2 The City shall provide projected development data to OCPS on a regular basis to assist in development of a long-range plaiuiing model to project student enrollment. Policy 5.1.3. As a member of the OCPS Technical Plaiming Connnittee, the City shall review OCPS model projections for consistency with the City's projections and, if necessary, shall recormnend additions or modifications to the model results. Additions to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element Page 1 of 1 iDoi 10M."Ille. ; Objective 2.1 Prior to June 1st of each year, OCPS shall coordinate with the City to develop a financially feasible ten (10) year District Capital Outlay Plan (DCOP) for review and approval by the OCPS Board and adoption into the Capital Improvements Element for the City. Policy 2.1.1 The City shall review the updated annual ten (10) year DCOP to determine if the projected capacity, projected enrollment, and LOS for each school and CSA within the City's jurisdiction is consistent with its growth projections. Policy 2.1.2 The City shall review and update the OCPS adopted Concurrency Service Areas (CSAs), adopted Level of Service and enrollment projections in the annual update of the CIE to ensure that the CIE continues to be financially feasible and that the LOS will be achieved. Policy 2.1.3 The 10 year DCOP shall include all planned capital projects which increase the capacity of public schools within the City. Policy 2.1.4 The City shall include the 10-year DCOP in the annual update of the CIE. Policy 2.1.5 OCPS will review the need with the City to adopt the OCPS ten (10) year financially feasible DCOP in order to achieve the adopted LOS in all CSAs within the County. When necessary, the City shall include the ten (10) year DCOP in the annual update of the CIE. Policy 2.1.6 The City hereby incorporates by reference the Orange County Public Schools 10-Year Capital Outlay Plan for 2007-08 that includes school capacity sufficient to meet anticipated student demands projected by OCPS. Policy 2.1.7 The City adopts Tables 1, 2 and 3 as the 10-year long term schedule of capital improvements for the purposes of correcting existing deficiencies and setting priorities for addressing backlogged facilities within the designated CSAs. Objective 2.2 The City shall ensure that future needs are addressed consistent with the adopted level of service standards for public schools. Policy 2.2.1 Consistent with section XX of the Interlocal Agreement, the LOS standards shall be applied consistently by all the local govern rents within Orange County and by the School Board to all schools of the same type. However, within backlogged concurrency service areas, the utilization may not increase beyond its level of April 1, 2008. Additions to the Capital Improvements Element Page 1 of 2 During the period covered by the 10-year schedule of capital improvements, the backlogged CSA will be improved to the districtwide LOS standard. The LOS standards are initially set as follows: School Type Adopted LOS Elementary 110% of Adjusted FISH Capacity by 2011 The following elementary school CSAs are designated as backlogged facilities: A, DD, U. The utilization of these CSAs may not increase beyond its level of April 1, 2008, as designated in Figure 6 of the Data, Inventory and Analysis, and must achieve a LOS of 110% by 2017. Middle 100% of Adjusted FISH Capacity by 2011 The following middle school CSAs are designated as backlogged facilities:, Apopka MS, Chain of Lakes MS, Gotha MS, Meadow Woods MS and Walker MS The utilization of these CSAs may not increase beyond its level of April 1, 2008, as designated in Figure 8 of the Data, Inventory and Analysis, and must achieve a LOS of 100% by 2017. High 100% of Adjusted FISH Capacity by 2011 The following high school CSAs are designated as backlogged facilities: Freedom HS and University HS. The utilization of these CSAs may not increase beyond their level of April 1, 2008 as designated in Figure 10 of the Data, Inventory and Analysis, and must achieve a LOS of 100% by 2017. Additions to the Capital Improvements Element Page 2 of 2 �i ;•WON.. _�, Table 17 -10-Year Capital Outlay Plan for Additional Schools, 2007 Years 2-5 AN, al n ES Relief II Eleme taffy � 2008 Lake Whitney Thornebrooke ES Relief Elementary 2008 Cypress Creek/Oak Ridge ITS Relief High 2009 Horizon West ES/Whispering Oak ES Relief 11 Elementary 2009 Ocoee MS Relief I Middle Zoo Timber Creek/University HS Relief - _....__ „ ` __....... _..._ High 2009 .. Azalea Park/Little River ES Relief _ .. .Elementary - 2010 Clarcona/Citrus Lakeville ES Relief Elementary 2010 Endeavor/Southwood/Meadow Woods ES Relief Elementary 2010 Lakeview MS Relief II Middle 2010 North Lake Park ES Relief III (Eagle Creek) Elementary 2010 0dysse S Relief I Middle 2010 _....._ ...... ..._ __....._. Corner Lake MS Relief Columbia ES Relief K-8) ( K 8 2011 Horizon West ES (Village H) Elementary 2011 West Orange HS Relief I High 2011 Years 6-:to Tangelo Park/Waterbridge ES Relief Elementary 2012 North Lake Park ES Relief IV (Randal Johnson/Moss Park/Lake Nona) Elementary 2013 Wolf Lake MS Relief (Stoneybrook Hills) Middle 2014 Wyndham Lakes ES Relief (Boggy Creek) - .._... Elementary 2014 South ES Relief/Tangelo/Waterbridge ES Relief II Elementary 2015 Wolf Lake/Zellwood ES Relief Elementary 2015 Horizons West ES II/Whispering Oak ES Relief III Elementary 2o16 North Lake Park ES Relief V (Randal Johnson/Moss Park) El ementary 2016 Horizon West ES Relief III/Whispering Oak ES Relief V Elementary 2017 Horizon West ES Relief/Whispering Oak ES VI Elementary 201 CSA A Relief School . Elementary _0 20172 017 CSA U Relief School Elementary 2017 Source: OCPS, 2007 �y� y Table 2s — OCPWS Financial y�yResources, Projected Revenue FY zooS through FY 2017 1 1 - h a s' ® 'Y1 ii �[:t� 4 m- m eMM ww �1�X�IeY: "M9019AIIIIIIIIII :lµX:}Y I,69MMOA Maw" i, e 111Pm Local Sources r Impact Fees $64,964,643 $67,818,109 $69,107,732 $63,800,577 $63,800,577 $63,800,577 Property Tax 153,512,782 161,188,421 169,247,842 177,710,234 186,595,746 195,925,533 Sales Tax 183,479,772 192,653,761 202,286,449 212,400,772 223,020,810 234,171,851 j Sales of Fixed Assets 2,878,713 2,300,000 - - - - Total Local Sources IStateSources $404,835,911 $423,96o,291 $440,642,024 $453,911,583 $473,417,133 $493,897,961 CO&DS $1,765,629 $1,775,229 $1,826,811 $1,913,976 $2,022,636 $2,131,296 PECO-Construction 12,616,146 - - - - - PECO-Maintenance 12,543,214 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000 General Revenue 15,834,213 - - - - - Class Size Prior Year 1,702,700 Total State Sources $44,461,902 $6,675,229 $6,726,811 $6,813,976 $6,922,636 $7,031,296 COP Proceeds & Other Sources Revenue Anticipated $5,879,399 Notes Certificates of $130,905,000 $89,76o,000 $89,855,000 $90,170,000 $9o,650,000 $91,290,000 Participation Loan -Other 86,386,500 184,647,845 - - - - District Equipment Lease Proceeds 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 Beginning Fund Balances 977,192,589 320,486,412 310,200,948 264,677,719 288,541,220 284,444,502 Total COP Proceeds & $1,213,363,485 $608,394,257 $413,555,948 $368,347,719 $392,691,220 $389,234,502 Other Sources I Total Revenue & Other $1,66301,301 $1,039,029,777 $860,924,783 $829,073,278 $873,030,989 $890,163,759 Sources Source: OCPS Tentative Summary- Budget, 2007-2008 $63,800,577 $63,800,577 $63,800,577 $63,800,577 205,721,810 216,oO7,901 302,4ii,o6i 317,531,614 245,880,443 258,174,465 182,365,613 $515,402,830 $537,982,943 $548,577,251 $381,332,191 $2,239,956 $2,348,616 $2,457,276 $2,565,936 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000 $7,139,956 $7,248,616 $7,357,276 $7,465,936 $90,105,000 $93,075,000 $95,665,000 55,511,312 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500, 000 13,500,000 314,471,659 377,932,655 357,624,548 426,974,228 $418,076,659 $484,507,655 $466,789,548 $495,985,540 $940,619,445 $1,029,739,214 $1,022,724,075 $884,783,667 Table 22 — OCPS Financial Resources, Projected Expenditures FY 2008 through FY 2017 �I�y�°i l.l• 'mdn 71`�'�e % r�• B041�r 6 . r � im,mr �4•�rr (+. - e r - e . e JF.lr - e �'�:-ir�if �i�: �fiY'%ii�. ��.ii�i• 0 p' Expenditures Immediate Needs - Various $4,230,827 - - - - - - - - - Total Comprehensive Needs $309,311,031 $236,900,884 $162,841,636 $211,980,127 $227,431,849 $244,434,358 $222,895,873 $299,337,862 $171,731,806 - Total Replacement Schools $253,574,791 - - - - - - - - Total Additional Schools $318,243,020 $247,654,095 $62,745,144 $21,271,359 $23,334,927 $69,635,988 $49,248,515 $51,710,941 $55,046,488 $83,266,968 Site Acquisition $98,277,529 $8,000,000 $11,000,000 $5,000,000 - - $15,000,000 $10,000,000 - Safety, Security $26,959,775 $2,775,229 $2,826,811 $2,913,976 $3,022,636 $3,131,296 $12,239,956 $12,348,616 $20,457,'-76 $20,565,936 Environmental Total Portables $58,650,214 $31,300,000 $19,000,000 $19,000,000 $19,000,000 $19,000,000 $32,000,000 $32,000,000 $65,000,000 $65,000,000 Educational Technology $8,259,638 $5,300,000 $6,000,000 $6,250,000 $6,250,000 $6,750,000 $8,500,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 Buses & Equipment $26,866,515 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 Ancillary Facilities $13,370,787 $5,000,000 - - - - - - - - Debt Service & Operations $146,189,546 $118,139,910 $252,877,054 $189,787,140 $219,455,991 $135,509,615 $134,066,933 $137,760,852 $141,349,971 $142,898,372 Total Reserves $399,227,627 $370,459,659 $330,134,138 $359,370,677 $361,035,587 $398,202,503 $468,168,169 $456,080,945 $531,638,535 $545,552,391 Total Appropriations& 1,66 3,i61, 300 1,0 39,029,777 860,924,783 829,073,279 873,030,990 890,163,760 940,619,446 1,029,739,216 1,022,724,076 884,783,667 Reserves I Total Revenue (from Table 21) $1,663,161,301 $1,039,029>777 $860,924,783 $829>073,278 $873,030,989 $890,163,759 $940,619,445 $1,029,739>214 $1,022,724,075 $884>783,667 I Source: OCPS Tentatve Summary Budget, 2007-2008 Figure 6: Orange County Public Schools, 2007-08 CSA A Existing Levels of Service (LOS) for Elementary and K-8 Schools LOS=13r/. Medium Elementary and K-8 District CSAs, Adj. FISH Capacity CSA Do LOS--1041/. Legend Elementary and K-8 CSAs 81%-110% 111%-152% GSA W Island Zones for Desegretation CSA Q Elementary and K-8 Locations Lbs-ioi% CSA R LOS=102o/l CSA S GSA ARBORRIDGE GSA U LdS=143% LOS Sr/. CSA I CSA X CSA tq Los--91 -/P CSA M Los=1051 LOS-94% n CsA;AA LOS--"90% a. 1 LOS=a5% CSA D CSA L vos=dk Los--1201A CSA 8 CSA K LOS-1141A 4-0S=846 GSA E CSA r CSA BLANKNERf 104% = CSA J LOSLos Lot-101% Los�116% CSA P CSA VVIN DY F7J DGE LOS--94% rs CSA F, Los--199% CSA, E LOS=92%c LOSeT04% CSA CC CSA 0Los--96% Los7-90% CSA BB CSA C LOS=146% CSA Z Los=81 % CSA H CSA V LOS=111% L0s=86% CSA Y ILOS--122% Prepared by 0 CPS Apfil 29, 2006 CSA G Los--108% N WOLF LAKE LOS= 89% Figure. Orange • •Schools, 11 is .KA Existing Levels of Service (LOS) for Middle Schools ... Middle School CSAs, Adj. FISH Capacity PIEDMONTLAKES LOS= 11711 � s� � LH4RT I�K , IDS= Fl- TLAND LOS=93% OCOEE MEADOV�SROOK P DOS= 115% LOS= 81 % E L05= 89 ® ROBINSVD- LOS- 12 LAKEVIEW HOVllARD L05= 108°/0 LO, 52 CARV ER .. THA LOS= BpS% - 153% i BLANKNER LOS= 101 % tRIAL V80% Z CH OF LAKES S=114'% CONWA - LOS= 13 BRIDGEWATER DOS= 84 WES;DGE LOS= 90 % 1> kKER ' LOS= 116% SOUTHWEST LOS= 102% Z FFEEDOMi ' SOUTH CREF; LOS= 101% LOS= 80 HUNT S,CREEK� MEADOWWOODS� LOS= 107 % LOS= 131 % GLENRDGE LOS= 95% Legend Middle School CSAs 52%-100% 101%-153% Middle School Locations UNI PARK _4 �yP DVERY JACKSON LEGACY LSQO�% MALON LOS;D3% LOS= 89 % LOS= 122°Jo, USERTY LOS l Y 4% ODYSSEY LOS= 133 % Prepared by OCPS April29, 2008 CORNER LAKE LOS= 135% 1 Figure 10: Orange County Public Schools, 2007-08 - Levels of Service (LOS) for High Schools APOPKA LOS=138% High School CSAs, Adj. FISH Capacity Legend CSA Boundaries 64%-1000/o 101%-194% High School & Ninth Grade Center Locations V EKNA LOS=64 % r Prepared by OCPS April 29, 2008 pp i i EDGEWATER LOS-120% VNM S=93%EE � O93°l0 - OG LOS=102% _ ms P - LOS=ffi% i i - P i UNIVERSITY' LOS=194% JO LOS= t N I OLYMPIA (('' �uK.OS=1��_NE COLONIAL 394o LOS-111 % LOS=114% TM6ERCREEK i LOS=160% I t i VJESTORANGE LDS=114% DR PHILLIPS LOS=151% OAK RIDGE LOS=95 FREEDOM i • LOS=114'lo CYPRESS CREEK LOS=164% i May 6, 2008 • , N,1 L. 0 i # ► ► • • 01„ of This interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning (the Agreement) is entered into among the School Board of Orange County (hereinafter referred to as "School Board"), Orange County (hereinafter referred to as "County"), and the following cities and towns: City of Apopka, City of Belle Isle, Town of Eatonville, City of Edgewood, City of Maitland, Town of Oakland, City of Ocoee, City of Orlando, Town of Windermere, City of Winter Garden and City of Winter Park ("Municipalities") (together with the County, hereinafter sometimes referred to jointly as "Local Governments"). WHEREAS, the School Board, County, and Municipalities recognize their respective obligations and responsibilities for the education, nurture and general well-being of the children within their communities; and WHEREAS, the School Board, County, and Municipalities recognize the benefits that will flow to the citizens and students of their communities by more closely coordinating their land development programs with the School Board's facilities planning process: namely (1) better coordination of the establishment of new schools in time and place with Residential Development, (2) greater efficiency for the School Board and Local Governments by locating schools to take advantage of existing and planned roads, water, sewer, and parks, (3) improved student access and safety by coordinating the construction of new and expanded schools with the road and sidewalk construction programs of the Local Governments, (4) better defined urban form by locating and designing schools to serve as community focal points, (5) greater efficiency and convenience by co -locating schools with parks, ballfields, libraries, and other community facilities to take advantage of joint use opportunities, and (6) reduction of pressures on schools that result from urban sprawl and support of existing neighborhoods by appropriately locating new schools and expanding and renovating existing schools; and WHEREAS, sections 1013.33 and 163.31777, Florida Statutes, require the coordination of planning between School Board and the Local Governments to ensure that plans for construction and opening of schools are facilitated and coordinated in time and place with plans for Residential Development, concurrently with other necessary services. Such planning requires, in part and without limitation, that the location of Schools must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and implementing Land Development Regulations of the Applicable Local Government; and WHEREAS, sections 163.31777(1)(a) and 1013.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes, further require each county and the non-exempt municipalities within that county to enter into an interlocal agreement with the School Board to jointly establish the specific ways in which the plans and processes of the School Board and the local governments are to be coordinated; and 11 May 6, 2008 WHEREAS, Interlocal Agreements previously entered into by and among the Municipalities, County, and School Board must be updated or in some instances superseded. NOW THEREFORE, be it mutually agreed by and among the School Board, Orange County, and the City of Apopka, City of Belle Isle, Town of Eatonville, City of Edgewood, City of Maitland, Town of Oakland, City of Ocoee, City of Orlando, Town of Windermere, City of Winter Garden and City of Winter Park that the procedures set forth below will be followed in coordinating land use and public school facilities planning: Except as otherwise specified in Section 8 of this Agreement, the following words and terms shall have the following meanings in the interpretation of this Agreement: Adiusted FISH Capacity: the number of students who can be served in a permanent public school facility as provided in the Florida Inventory of School Houses adjusted to account for the design capacity of Modular or In -Slot Classrooms on the campuses designed as Modular or In -Slot schools, but not to exceed Core Capacity. Adiacencv Review: the review as provided in Section 16.6 of this Agreement of School Concurrency Service Areas adjacent to the School Concurrency Service Area in which the Residential Unit is located. Applicant: the person or entity submitting a Development Application (as defined in Section 8.1 hereof) or School Concurrency Determination Application, including its principals, agents, successors, and assigns. Applicable Local Government: either the Local Government with land use jurisdiction over a proposed Residential Development, or the Local Government with land use jurisdiction over a proposed school site. Available School Capacity: the ability of a School Concurrency Service Area to accommodate the students generated by a proposed development at the adopted Level of Service standards. Available School Capacity shall be derived using the following formula for each School Type: Available School Capacity = (School Capacity x Adopted Level of Service') — (Enrollment 2+ Reserved Capacity) Where: 'Adopted Level of Service = the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of Enrollment to School Capacity as jointly adopted by the School Board and Local Governments. 2Enrollment = Student enrollment as counted in the most recent official October count and as projected for the first three (3) years of the School Board's District 0 May 6, 2008 Development Impact: projected students from a Residential Development as a result of approval of a Development Application or School Concurrency Determination Application, calculated by multiplying the proposed number of dwelling units by the student generation rates by School Type as set forth in Table 12 of the Data, Inventory, and Analysis to the County's adopted Public Schools Facilities Element. Development of Reqional Impact: a development within the definition of section 380.06, Florida Statutes. District Facilities Work Program: the financially feasible District Facilities Work Program adopted by the School Board pursuant to section 1013.35(2)(a)2. and 1013.35(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Educational Facilities Plan: the planning document adopted by the School Board pursuant to and consistent with sections 1013.35(2) and 1013.35(4), Florida Statutes that includes the District Facilities Work Program, Educational Plant Survev: the survey of public school facilities, along with ancillary and supporting facilities, conducted by the School Board pursuant to and consistent with section 1013.31, Florida Statutes, Encumbered Capacity: the School Capacity temporarily allocated to a particular property for one hundred eighty (180) days after the issuance of a Capacity Encumbrance Letter. Final School Concurrencv Recommendation: a written communication from the School Board informing the Applicable Local Government and Applicant that the School Board has: (i) calculated that there is sufficient Available School Capacity to accommodate the impacts of the Applicant's proposed Residential Development, or (ii) has calculated that there is insufficient Available School Capacity to accommodate the impacts of the Applicant's proposed Residential Development, but the School Board and the Applicant have negotiated and agreed upon a Proportionate Share Mitigation Agreement to address the impacts of the Applicant's proposed Residential Development, or (iii) has calculated that there is insufficient Available School Capacity to accommodate the impacts of the Applicant's proposed Residential Development and that the School Board and the Applicant were unable to agree upon a Proportionate Share Mitigation Agreement. In -Slot Classrooms: relocatable classrooms that conceptually 'slide' into the spaces along a common walkway, as part of a modular campus which is characterized by a campus with brick and mortar core facilities and covered concrete walkways leading to the relocatable classrooms, and which are located at the following elementary schools: Clay Springs, Cypress Springs, Frangus, Hidden Oaks, Hunter's Creek, John Young, Little River, Meadow Woods, MetroWest, Palm Lake, Rock Springs, Shingle Creek, Ventura, Waterbridge, and Waterford, and also including the Arbor Ridge K-8 center. 61 May 6, 2008 facilities for heating, cooking, sleeping, and the sanitary elimination of wastes. Hotels, motels, and temporary lodging facilities are specifically excluded. Reserved Capacitv: School Capacity allocated to a particular property through the issuance of a Capacity Reservation Certificate reserving School Capacity for a period of time specified in such Capacity Reservation Certificate. Rezoninq.: a change in zoning classification that will result in a net increase of Residential Units on the property that is the subject of the Rezoning. For purposes of Section 8 of this Agreement, the term "Rezoning" shall also mean any land use change not necessarily denoted or characterized as a Rezoning (such as a change to a land use plan, master plan or development plan in a mixed use development, Development of Regional Impact, planned unit development, etc.) that will result in a net increase of ten (10) or more Residential Units on the property. School Attendance Zone: a geographic area where students who reside within such area must attend a single designated school. School Capacitv: Adjusted FISH Capacity for the applicable School Concurrency Service Area as programmed in the first three (3) years of the District Facilities Work Program. School Concurrencv Determination Application: the written submittals for the determination of Available School Capacity for a Residential Development or a phase of a Residential Development, which is included as part of an application for Site Plan approval. School Concurrencv Recommendation: a written communication from the School Board informing the Applicable Local Government and Applicant that the School Board has (i) calculated that there is sufficient Available School Capacity to accommodate the impacts of the Applicant's proposed development, (ii) has calculated that there is no Available School Capacity, or an insufficient amount of Available School Capacity to accommodate the impacts of the Applicant's proposed development and recommends a Proportionate Share Mitigation agreement to address the impacts of an Applicant's proposed Residential Development, or (iii) has calculated that an Applicant's proposed residential development does not meet the requirements necessary to satisfy school concurrency and that the School Board and the Applicant were unable to agree on a proportionate share mitigation. School Concurrencv Service Area: a geographic area in which the Level of Service standards are measured by the School Board as designated in Section 14 of this Agreement. 7 May 6, 2008 enrollment. Countywide five (5) and ten (10) year population and student enrollment projections shall be revised annually by the School Board and provided at the first opportunity to the Technical Advisory Committee. In addition, the School Board shall work with the County or the County's designated consultant to report a Student Generation Rate by School Type. In preparing said population and student enrollment projections, the School Board shall coordinate with the Municipalities and the County to ensure, inter alia, that new Residential Development and redevelopment information as provided by the Municipalities and County is reflected in updated projections. 4.1 Tentative District Educational Facilities Plan. Annually, the School Board shall submit to the County and each Municipality the tentative district Educational Facilities Plan at least ninety (90) days prior to its adoption by the School Board. The tentative plan must be consistent with the requirements of section 1013.35, Florida Statutes, prior to its submittal to the County and Municipalities. The Municipalities and County shall review the tentative plan and comment to the School Board within sixty (60) days of receiving the tentative plan regarding the consistency of the plan with the Comprehensive Plan of the Local Government. 4.2 Mutual Reports. (a) By March 1 of each year, the County and the Municipalities will provide the School Board with a report on growth and development trends within their jurisdiction for the prior year. Each report to the School Board must include the following information: 1. Type, number (estimated for land use and zoning approvals) and location of Residential Units that have received land use, zoning, subdivision plats or Site Plan approvals. 2. Building permits and certificates of occupancy data for Residential Units issued for the preceding year and their location. 3. Summary of vested rights determinations or other actions that affect demands for public school facilities. 4. Information regarding conversion or redevelopment of housing or other structures into Residential Units which are likely to generate new students. 5. The identification of any development orders issued which contain a requirement for the provision of school sites as a condition of development approvals. 6. School Capacity encumbered during the previous calendar year. 9 May 6, 2008 qection 5. School Site Selection, Siqnificant Renovations, and Potential School Closures 5.1 Joint Participation. As provided in this Section, the Local Governments shall jointly participate with the School Board in the process of evaluating potential school closures, significant renovations to existing schools, and new school site selection. 5.2 Pre -Acquisition Procedures. Pursuant to section 1013.33(11), Florida Statutes, at least sixty (60) days prior to acquiring or leasing property that may be used for a new school, the School Board shall provide written notice to the Applicable Local Government requesting a determination of consistency with the Applicable Local Government's Comprehensive Plan. The Applicable Local Government shall notify the School Board within forty-five (45) days after receiving the necessary information and the School Board's request for determination, if the proposed new school site is consistent with the land use categories and policies of the Applicable Local Government's Comprehensive Plan. This preliminary notice does not constitute the local government's determination of consistency pursuant to section 1013.33(12), Florida Statutes. 5.3 Pre -Construction Procedures. As provided in section 1013.33(12), Florida Statutes, at least ninety (90) days prior to initiating construction, the School Board shall submit a site design/development plan to the County Administrator or the designated representative of an individual Municipality, and within forty-five (45) days after receiving the submittal, the County or Municipality shall certify, in writing, whether the proposed Educational Facility is in compliance with the determination of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the County or the affected Municipality, the conditions imposed in Site Plan approval, and applicable Comprehensive Plan provisions on which such conditions are based. Failure of the local governing body to make a determination in writing within ninety (90) days after the School Board's request for a determination of consistency shall be considered an approval of the School Board's application. 5.4 Significant Renovations and Closures. When considering a significant renovation or a closure of a school facility, the School Board shall notify the appropriate Municipality in which the school is located or the County's Growth Management Department if the subject school is in the unincorporated part of the County prior to any significant renovation or closure activities. Significant renovations encompass projects that increase or decrease a school's student population by five percent (5%) or more, or increase a school's total building square footage by five percent (5%) or more. 5.5 Municipal Charter Schools. Any municipality that wishes to operate a Charter School in the manner provided by law may do so to the extent authorized by law, provided that if such Charter School is to be used to satisfy requirements of school concurrency, the Municipality must also enter into an interlocal agreement with the School Board. 11 May 6, 2008 (d) Capital Contribution: a payment to the School Board in an amount determined by the School Board to mitigate the impacts of a proposed Development Application where the impacts of such Development Application will exceed Net School Capacity beyond that planned for by the School Board in its District Facilities Work Program in effect at the time the Capacity Enhancement Agreement was executed. (e) Comprehensive Plan Amendment: an amendment to the County's or a Municipality's Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, including an amendment to the future land use map, which will result in a net increase of Residential Units in the proposed Residential Development. (f) Development Application: a formal request by an Applicant to obtain a Rezoning or Comprehensive Plan Amendment. (g) Net School Capacity: the ability of an individual school to accommodate the increase in students generated by a proposed development at the adopted Level of Service standards. Net School Capacity shall be derived using the following formula by School Type: Net School Capacity = (School Capacity' x Adopted Level of Service2) — (Enrollment3) Where: 'School Capacity = Adjusted FISH Capacity at the individual school as programmed in the first five (5) years of the District Facilities Work Program. 2Adopted Level of Service Standard = ratio expressed as the percentage of Enrollment to School Capacity as jointly adopted by the School Board and Applicable Local Governments. 3Enrollment = Student enrollment as counted in the official October count and projected during the first five (5) years of the District Facilities Work Program, including Reserved Capacity . (h) Rezonincr A change in zoning classification that will result in a net increase of Residential Units in the proposed Residential Development that is the subject of the Rezoning. The term "Rezoning" shall also mean any land use change not necessarily denoted or characterized as a Rezoning (such as a change to a land use plan, master plan or development plan in a mixed use development, development of regional impact, planned unit development, etc.) that will result in a net increase of Residential Units in the proposed Residential Development. (i) School Capacity Determination: a written determination by the School Board stating whether the Net School Capacity at the individual school or schools serving the School Attendance Zones affected by a proposed 13 May 6, 2008 increase in residential density affects a school, the attendance zone for which straddles Local Government jurisdictional boundaries, if the School Board cannot certify that the school within the attendance zone or zones affected by such Rezoning or Comprehensive Plan amendment can accommodate the additional students that result from the increase in residential density. (b) The Orange County Commission enacted Ordinance Number 2006-04 to implement the charter provision described in paragraph (a) above. (c) It is the intent of the County and each Municipality to ensure that the staff and the governing body of each local government receive informed comment from the School Board as to whether Net School Capacity will be exceeded at individual schools as a result of a proposed Rezoning or Comprehensive Plan Amendment within or including their attendance boundaries and, if so, the extent the proposed Development Impact will create overcrowding at individual schools where none exists or aggravate existing overcrowded conditions. (d) A formal process for the prompt review and comment by the School Board on the effect of proposed Development Applications on Net School Capacity is an integral factor of intergovernmental coordination and of effective comprehensive planning, notwithstanding any subsequently imposed school concurrency requirements mandated as a condition of the Applicable Local Government's approval of a Site Plan. (e) A decision to increase the density or inventory of available residential land use by the approval of a Development Application by the County or a Municipality without an informed consideration of the impact on Net School Capacity at the individual schools affected by the Development Application may result in increased school overcrowding. (f) Agreement on a process and procedure to determine whether Net School Capacity will be exceeded at individual schools serving proposed Residential Development resulting from Development Application approval is an integral part of the review process and comment opportunity mandated in Sections 163.3177(6)(a), 163.31777(2)(e) and 163.3180(13)(g)6.b., Florida Statutes. 8.5 Process for School Board Review and Comment on Development Application., Whenever the County or any Municipality receives a Development Application that proposes more than ten single family or fifteen multi -family Residential Units, the Applicable Local Government shall forward, within five (5) business days of receipt, such Application to the School Board for a School Capacity Determination. Such Development Application shall include a Development Analysis as described in Section 16.5 of this Agreement. Within fifteen (15) business days of receipt, the School Board shall render in writing a School Capacity Determination. 15 May 6, 2008 mitigation of the Development Impacts and the negotiation of a Capacity Enhancement Agreement from the time of the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment for a property until such time as the Applicable Local Government considers a Rezoning for the property. In such a case, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment may become effective without the approval of other significantly affected local jurisdictions. 8.7 Determination of Overcrowdinq Conditions. (a) If there is no Net School Capacity as calculated in the definition in Section 8.1(f) above, the impacted individual school or schools are presumed to be overcrowded. (b) If Net School Capacity at the impacted individual school or schools is insufficient to meet the entire Development Impact of the Residential Development then the individual school or schools are presumed to be overcrowded. In such event, the impacts to be mitigated shall be documented in a Capacity Enhancement Agreement and shall be calculated by subtracting the Net School Capacity at the individual school or schools from the Development Impact of the proposed Residential Development. In such an event, the methodology used to calculate the Capacity Enhancement Mitigation shall be as follows: Capacity Enhancement Mitigation = (Development Impact -Vested Students) - Net School Capacity x Total Cost2 When: 1 Vested Students= the number of students available under the existing zoning or land use category for the specific parcel which is the subject of the Development Application. 2Total Cost = the cost per student station plus a share of the land acquisition costs, additional core and ancillary facility costs and other anticipated infrastructure expenditures or the anticipated cost of school infrastructure needed to provide sufficient permanent capacity to the impacted individual school or schools, and includes any cost needed to pay the interest to advance a school scheduled in the District Facilities Workplan to an earlier year.. (c) If the individual school impacted by the proposed Residential Development fails to meet the adopted Level of Service as of the date of the School Capacity Determination, the mitigation required pursuant to the Capacity Enhancement Agreement shall be used to ensure that the overcrowding existing at the time of the submittal of a complete Development Application shall not be aggravated. 17 May 6, 2008 proposed Residential Development and toward any Proportionate Share Mitigation as provided in Section 17 of this Agreement. (c) An Applicant may, at the time of submitting a Development Application, request a School Concurrency Recommendation under Section 16 of this Agreement. (d) Any mitigation required under any Capacity Enhancement Agreement shall be deemed satisfied and fulfilled if a Proportionate Share Mitigation is greater than or equal to the value of the mitigation required by such Capacity Enhancement Agreement, 8.10 Applicability. (a) The review and comment process contemplated in the terms of this Agreement shall apply to all Development Applications that have not received final approval by the County or affected Municipality prior to the effective date of this Agreement and to all designated phases within a development that have not received final approval prior to the effective date of this Agreement. (b) The review and comment process contemplated by the terms of this Agreement shall not apply to any Capacity Enhancement Agreement executed prior to the effective date of this Agreement. Prior to completion of the Educational Plant Survey update, the Technical Advisory Committee shall assist the School Board in an advisory capacity in the preparation of the Educational Plant Survey and five (5) year District Facilities Work Program update by, inter alia, reviewing preliminary drafts, evaluating and making recommendations regarding the location and need for new (or improvements to existing) educational facilities in terms of consistency with the local government Comprehensive Plan and other relevant issues provided for in this Agreement, pursuant to sections 1013.31 and 1013.35, Florida Statutes. Co -location and shared use of facilities are important to the School Board, the County and the Municipalities. The School Board, County and each Municipality will meet regularly to identify opportunities to co -locate and share use of school facilities and civic facilities when preparing the School Board's Educational Facilities Plan. Likewise, co - location and shared use opportunities will be considered by the local governments when preparing the annual update to the Comprehensive Plan's schedule of capital improvements and when planning and designing new, or renovating existing, community facilities. A separate agreement will be developed for each instance of co - location and shared use which, inter alia, addresses legal liability, operating and 19 May 6, 2008 (b) Withhold the approval of any Site Plan under the Land Development Regulations of the County or the affected Municipalities for new Residential Units not exempted under this Agreement until the School Board has reported that there is Available School Capacity sufficient to serve the Residential Development under review as provided in section 16 herein. (c) Share information regarding population projections, school siting, projections of development and redevelopment, infrastructure required to support public school facilities, and amendments to future land use plan elements as provided in this Agreement. 11.5 School Board Covenants. By entering into this Agreement, the School Board agrees to perform the following activities: (a) Annually prepare and update a financially feasible District Facilities Work Program containing a five (5) year (or ten (10) year for backlogged facilities) capital improvement schedule consistent with this Agreement to demonstrate that the adopted Level of Service standards can be achieved and maintained at the end of the planning period adopted for each School Concurrency Service Area. (b) Institute program and/or School Attendance Zone adjustments, as necessary, to maximize the utilization of capacity in order to ensure that each School Concurrency Service Area achieves and maintains the adopted Level of Service standards. (c) Plan for, construct, and/or renovate school improvements necessary to maintain the adopted Level of Service standards. (d) Provide the County and Municipalities with any School Board data, inventory and analysis relating to school concurrency necessary to amend or annually update each Local Government's Comprehensive Plan. (e) Adopt a ten (10) and twenty (20) year work program to the extent required by section 1013.35(2)(a), Florida Statutes. (f) Review School Concurrency Determination Applications for compliance with concurrency requirements of this Agreement. (g) Adopt Proportionate Share Mitigation options for new Residential Development contained in a School Concurrency Determination Application as provided in section 16 herein.. (h) Prepare annual reports on enrollment and capacity. (i) Provide necessary staff and material support for meetings of the Technical Advisory Committee as required by this Agreement. 21 May 6, 2008 b. Any local public school facilities issues not specifically required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, may be included or modified in the Public School Facilities Element by following the normal Comprehensive Plan amendment process. (b) Capital Improvements Element. 1. Once adopted by the School Board, as provided in section 1013.35, Florida Statutes, the annual update of the School District's Facilities Work Program shall be transmitted to the County and the Municipalities. The County and the Municipalities, upon approval by their governing bodies, shall adopt the School District's five (5) year (or ten (10) year for backlogged facilities) capital improvement schedule from the District Facilities Work Program into the Capital Improvements Element of their Comprehensive Plans no later than required by statute. 2. Once adopted by the School Board, any amendment, correction or modification to the School District's five (5) or ten (10) year capital improvements schedule or the District Facilities Work Program concerning costs, revenue sources, or acceptance of facilities pursuant to dedications shall be transmitted to the County and Municipalities. The County and Municipalities, upon approval by their governing bodies, shall amend their Capital improvements Elements to reflect the changes at the next annual update to the Capital Improvements Element. 3. The County and the Municipalities, by adopting the School District's five (5) year (or ten (10) year for backlogged facilities) capital improvement schedule into their Capital Improvements Element shall have no obligation or responsibility for funding the District Facilities Work Program. (c) Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The process for the development, adoption, and amendment of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element shall be as set forth in section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. 13.1 Establishment of Level of Service. To ensure that the capacity of schools is sufficient to support student growth and prevent the overcrowding of schools, the School Board, the County, and the Municipalities establish the following uniform Level of Service standards for elementary, middle and high schools within each School Concurrency Service Area as described in Section 14 of this Agreement. The Level of Service standards for each School Concurrency Service Area shall be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan of the County and each Municipality. However, pursuant to section 163.3180(9), Florida Statutes, the School Board, the County and the Municipalities may adopt interim Level of Service standards for backlogged facilities 23 May 6, 2008 included in the District Facilities Work Program adopted pursuant to Section 15 of this Agreement. 13.4 Amendinq Level of Service Standards., The School Board, the County, and the Municipalities shall observe the following process for modifying the adopted or interim Level of Service standards for schools: (a) At such times the School Board determines that a change to the Level of Service standards is appropriate, it shall submit the proposed Level of Service standards and the data, inventory and analysis to support the changes to the County and the Municipalities, allowing the County and Municipalities at least ninety days to comment on such proposal. (b) Upon final approval by the School Board, and the governing bodies of the County and Municipalities the modifications to the Level of Service standards shall be incorporated into the County's and each Municipality's Comprehensive Plan no later than the next available Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle for the County and each Municipality, and this Interlocal Agreement. Section 14. , School Concurrency Service Areas 14.1 School Concurrencv Areas Established. The School Board, County, and Municipalities agree that school concurrency shall be applied on a less than county- wide basis. The initial School Concurrency Service Areas shall be as follows: (a) Elementary schools. The School Concurrency Service Areas for elementary schools shall correspond to the areas as determined and depicted in Appendix A, as attached to this Agreement. (b) Middle schools. The School Concurrency Service Areas for middle schools shall correspond to the areas as determined and depicted in Appendix B, as attached to this Agreement. (c) High schools. The School Concurrency Service Areas for high schools shall correspond to the areas as determined and depicted in Appendix C, as attached to this Agreement. 14.2 Incorporation of School Concurrencv Service Areas into Comprehensive Plans, The County and each Municipality shall adopt in their Public School Facilities Element of their Comprehensive Plans the School Concurrency Service Areas described above and the process for the modification of School Concurrency Service Areas provided in Section 14.3 below. 14.3 Modification of School Concurrencv Service Areas. m May 6, 2008 (b) The School Board shall transmit copies of the tentative District Facilities Work Program to the County and Municipalities for review and comment on or before July 1 of each year commencing after the effective date of this Agreement. (c) The School Board shall adopt the District Facilities Work Program no later than September 30, and the plan shall become effective October 1 of each year. 15.2 Contents; Level of Service. The District Facilities Work Program shall contain a five (5) and a ten (10) year capital improvement schedule demonstrating that the Level of Service standards adopted in Section 13 of this Agreement can be achieved and maintained at the end of the planning period adopted for each School Concurrency Service Area. Such five (5) or ten (10) year capital improvement schedule in the District Facilities Work Program shall identify all construction, remodeling or renovation projects and committed and planned revenue sources needed to meet the financial feasibility requirement for each School. Concurrency Service Area. 15.3 Contents; Future Planninq. As a part of the District Facilities Work Program, and as specified in section 1013.35(2)(a), Florida Statutes, the School Board shall annually adopt a ten (10) and twenty (20) year tentative work plan based upon revenue projections, enrollment projections and facility needs for the ten (10) and twenty (20) year periods. The parties recognize that the projections in the ten (10) and twenty (20) year time frames are tentative and shall be used only for general planning purposes with the exception of the ten (10) year planning period for the Long Term Concurrency Areas designated in Section 13 of this Agreement. Upon completion, the District Facilities Work Program and its tentative work plan will be transmitted to the County and Municipalities. 15.4 Amendment of Plan. (a) The School Board shall not amend the District Facilities Work Program so as to modify, delay or delete any project in the first three (3) years of the program unless the School Board, by a majority vote of its members, provides written confirmation that: 1. The modification, delay or deletion of the project is required in order to meet the School Board's constitutional obligation to provide a County- wide uniform system of free public schools or other legal obligations imposed by state or federal law or constitutional directive; or 2. The modification, delay or deletion of the project is occasioned by unanticipated changes in population projections or growth patterns; or 3. The project schedule or scope has been modified to address concerns of the County or Municipalities, and the modification does not cause the adopted Level of Service standards to be exceeded in the 27 May 6, 2008 16.2 Exemptions. The following residential uses shall be exempt from the requirements of school concurrency: (a) Proposed Residential Development including less than or equal to that number of Residential Units considered de minimis by an adopted Comprehensive Plan. (b) One single-family house, one (1) duplex, and/or one accessory multi- family unit being developed on an existing platted residential lot of record. (c) Any building or structure that has received a Building Permit as of the effective date of this Agreement, or is described in section 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes. (d) Any new Residential Development that has Site Plan approval for a site pursuant to a specific development order approved prior to the effective date of April 1, 2008, including the portion of any project that has received final subdivision plat approval as a residential subdivision into one (1) dwelling unit per lot. (e) Any amendment to any previously approved Residential Development, which does not increase the number of dwelling units or change the type of dwelling units (e.g., converts single-family to multi -family, etc.). (f) Any age -restricted community that qualifies as one of the three types of communities designed for older persons as "housing for older persons" in the Housing for Older Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b). This exemption shall be applied in conformity with the principles set forth in Volusia Countv v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d, 126 (Fla. 2000). Provided, however, that any senior housing community or dwelling unit that loses its qualification as housing for older persons shall be required to meet applicable school concurrency requirements in effect at the time the qualification as housing for older persons is lost. (g) Alterations or expansion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional dwelling units are created. (h) The construction of accessory buildings or structures which will not create additional dwelling units. (i) The replacement of a dwelling unit where no additional dwelling units are created and where the replacement dwelling unit is located on the same lot, provided the original dwelling unit was located on the site as of January 1, 1993 or thereafter. If the type of dwelling unit is different from the original dwelling unit 0 May 6, 2008 16.3 Determination of Applicability of Exemption. An Applicant filing an application for a determination that a Residential Development is exempt from the school concurrency requirements pursuant to Section 16.2 of this Agreement shall submit to the Applicable Local Government and the School Board, along with any other application requirements, sufficient documentation supporting the exemption that the Applicant claims exempts the Residential Development from the school concurrency requirements implemented by this Agreement. The Applicable Local Government shall determine, within thirty (30) business days from receipt of a completed application for an exemption, whether the Applicant has satisfied the criteria for the claimed exemption and shall notify the Applicant and the School Board in writing of its determination. 16.4 Application Reauirements. Any Applicant submitting a School Concurrency Determination Application with a Residential Development component that is not exempt under Section 16.2 of this Agreement shall prepare and submit a Development Analysis to the Applicable Local Government, The Applicable Local Government shall review the School Concurrency Determination Application for completeness, and forward complete applications to the School Board for its review. 16.5 Development Analvsis Content. The Development Analysis shall include: (a) The location of the Residential Development, including applicable tax parcel identification numbers; (b) The number of Residential Units and unit types (e.g., single-family, multifamily, apartments); (c) A phasing schedule (if applicable); (d) A vicinity map showing, as applicable, existing and proposed zoning classifications and existing and proposed future land use categories for areas subject to and adjacent to the parcel for which the concurrency approval is sought; (e) Any existing request by the School Board or Applicable Local Government for a school site within the parcel; (f) Whether the Applicant proposes a school site and the estimated date of availability and the provider for on- and off -site infrastructure; (g) Whether and how the Applicant's proposed school site satisfies the school site selection criteria set forth in this Agreement, or for a site in unincorporated Orange County as required in Art. XVIII, Chapter 38, Orange County Code; and (h) If an Applicant has previously executed a Capacity Enhancement Agreement, the Applicant must attach a copy of the agreement to the Development Analysis and indicate whether the Residential Development in the 31 May 6, 2008 1. In conducting the Adjacency Review, the School Board shall consider the Available School Capacity in adjacent School Concurrency Service Areas to evaluate projected enrollments. If Available School Capacity in one (1) or more adjacent School Concurrency Service Areas does not exceed 95 percent of the adopted level of service and the School District does not exceed 100% of Capacity on a district -wide basis for the School Type measured, the School Board shall issue a School Concurrency Recommendation that School Capacity is available and such capacity shall be available for use by the Residential Development 2. In the event that the School Concurrency Recommendation is issued based upon Available School Capacity in an adjacent School Concurrency Service Area, the shift of the Development Impact into the adjacent School Concurrency Service Area shall be documented by describing the method used to shift the Development Impact in the School Board's Preliminary School Concurrency Recommendation Letter. (f) In the event that there is insufficient Available School Capacity within the first three (3) years of a District Facilities Work Program for the School Concurrency Service Area in which the proposed Residential Development is located or in an adjacent School Concurrency Service Area to accommodate the Residential Development, the School Board shall so state in its Preliminary School Concurrency Recommendation detailing why the Residential Development is not in compliance, and offer the Applicant the opportunity to enter into a sixty (60) day negotiation period to allow time for the mitigation process described in Section 17 of this Agreement. If a proposed mitigation is agreed upon, the School Board shall enter into an enforceable and binding agreement with the Applicable Local Government and the Applicant pursuant to this Agreement. (g) The School Board may render a Preliminary School Concurrency Recommendation to the Applicable Local Government advising the Applicable Local Government that the School Board and the Applicant have tentatively agreed on a Proportionate Share Mitigation Agreement for the proposed development. The Applicable Local Government may treat such a Preliminary, School Concurrency Recommendation as a Final School Concurrency Recommendation finding Available School Capacity exists and may rely on such Final School Concurrency Recommendation to issue a Capacity Encumbrance Letter in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. (h) If the School Board finds that there is sufficient Available School Capacity within the subject School Concurrency Service Area, the School Board shall issue a Preliminary School Concurrency Recommendation to the Applicable Local Government and the Applicant so stating. In such event, the Preliminary School Concurrency Recommendation shall also be the Final School Concurrency Recommendation. The Applicable Local Government may then 33 May 6, 2008 (e) Upon a showing that an Applicant is proceeding in good faith and has paid all Capacity Reservation Fees the Applicable Local Government and the School Board may agree to extend the term of a Certificate of School Concurrency for up to three (3) additional years. (f) An Applicant may only obtain building permits in direct proportion to the amount of Capacity Reservation Fees paid. (g) If, upon the conclusion of the term of the Certificate of School Concurrency and any extensions approved under Section 16.7(d), an Applicant has not (i) incurred extensive obligations or expenses (other than land purchase costs and payment of taxes) including, but not limited to, legal and professional expenses related directly to the Residential Development or (ii) otherwise substantially changed position in reliance upon the Certificate of School Concurrency, then all reserved or encumbered School Capacity not allocable to units for which building permits have been issued shall become unencumbered and unreserved and a minimum of ninety percent (90 %) of any Capacity Reservation Fees paid shall be refunded to the extent of the capacity becoming unreserved. (h) The School Board and any Applicable Local Government may, by separate agreement, modify the procedures for capacity encumbrance and reservation. 16.8 Evaluation of Mitiqation. (a) Upon conclusion of the negotiation period specified in Section 17 of this Agreement, the School Board shall determine whether or not mitigation sufficient to provide capacity to serve the Residential Development has been proposed. If such mitigation has been proposed and agreed to, the School Board shall render a School Concurrency Recommendation documenting that Available School Capacity is or will be available for the Residential Development, once the mitigation measures have been memorialized in an enforceable and binding agreement with the Applicable Local Government, the School Board and the Applicant in a manner consistent with the applicable Land Development Regulations governing development agreements. Such agreement shall specifically detail mitigation provisions, identify the proposed Residential Development, indicate the financial contribution to be paid by the Applicant, and include any other relevant terms and conditions, including providing for a method of surety in form of a bond or letter of credit in the amount of the contribution, if required. (b) If mitigation is not agreed to, the School Board shall issue a Final School Concurrency Recommendation to the Applicant and the Applicable Local Government stating how the proposed Residential Development negatively 35 May 6, 2008 Proportionate Share Mitigation = (Development Impact - Available Capacity) x Total Cost.' Where: 'Total Cost = the cost per student station plus a share of the land acquisition costs, additional core and ancillary facility costs and other anticipated infrastructure expenditures or the estimated cost of school infrastructure needed to provide sufficient Permanent Capacity to the impacted School Concurrency Service Areas, and includes any cost needed to pay the interest to advance a school scheduled in the District Facilities Workplan to an earlier year.. 17.3 School Impact Fee Credit. Proportionate Share Mitigation shall be credited against the School Impact Fee otherwise due for the Residential Units' within a Residential Development as provided for by statute. 17.4 Relationship of Capacity Enhancement Aqreements to Proportionate Share Mitigation. To the extent the Residential Development is subject to a Capacity Enhancement Agreement entered into, pursuant to Section 8 of this Agreement, the Capital Contribution paid pursuant to such agreement shall be a credit applied to the Proportionate Share Mitigation, as calculated in this Section. Proportionate Share Mitigation calculated pursuant to this Section 17 shall satisfy all mitigation requirements imposed under a Capacity Enhancement Agreement where the Proportionate Share Mitigation equals or exceeds the amount of mitigation required under a Capacity Enhancement Agreement. 17.5 Neqotiation Period. Upon issuance of a Preliminary School Concurrency Recommendation reporting that the Applicant's proposed Residential Development will exceed adopted Level of Service standards, the Applicant may request a meeting with the School Board to discuss how to mitigate the impact from the Residential Development through the creation of additional Available School Capacity. If the parties agree on a mitigation option deemed to satisfy financial feasibility by the School Board, the Applicant shall enter into a binding and enforceable agreement with the School Board and the Applicable Local Government with jurisdiction over the approval of the Site Plan. The negotiation period includes the fifteen (15) day period specified in Section 16.6 of this Agreement. 17.6 Proportionate Share Mitigation Proiects. (a) Any Proportionate Share Mitigation must be directed by the School Board to a School Capacity improvement identified in or accelerated into the first three (3) years of the capital improvement schedule in the financially feasible five (5) year district work plan of the District Facilities Work Program and in the Capital Improvements Element in the Comprehensive Plan of the County and the Municipalities to maintain financial feasibility based upon the adopted Level of 37 May 6, 2008 appraisers provided by the School Board. The valuation standard utilized by the M.A.I. appraiser shall be the fair market value of the donated land as unimproved property without the entitlements (e.g., land use, zoning) in place prior to the submission of the Residential Development approval that triggered the proportionate share process. The subject land's highest and best use shall be determined without any consideration of any enhanced value of the donated land resulting from approval by the County or the Applicable Local Government of the School Concurrency Determination Application with respect to which the land donation constituted a Proportionate Share Mitigation option. If the parties to this Agreement are unable to resolve any issue in which they may be in disagreement covered in this Agreement, such dispute will be resolved in accordance with governmental conflict resolution procedures specified in Chapters 164 or 186, Florida Statutes, or the Regional Dispute Resolution Process of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. • Oversight and evaluation of the school concurrency process is required pursuant to section 163.3180(13)(g)6.c., Florida Statutes. One or more representatives each of the County Commission, the governing body of each Municipality and the School Board will meet at least once annually in a joint workshop session at which the public has the opportunity to be heard. A representative of the Regional Planning Council will also be invited to attend. The joint workshop sessions will be opportunities for the School Board, the County Commission, and the Municipalities' Commissions or Councils to hear reports regarding the implementation of this Agreement, discuss policy, set direction and reach understandings concerning issues of mutual concern regarding coordination of land use and school facilities planning, including population and student growth, development trends, school needs, off -site improvements, and joint use opportunities. The Superintendent of Orange County Public Schools shall be responsible for making meeting arrangements and providing notification. Public notice of these meetings shall be given in order that citizen oversight of the implementation of this Agreement shall be afforded. 20.1 Headings. The headings or captions used in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and are not intended to define or limit their contents, nor are they to affect the construction of or be taken into consideration in interpreting this Agreement. 20.2 Severabilitv. The provisions of this Agreement are declared by the parties to be severable only to the extent the purposes and intent of this Agreement may be achieved. 39 ITEM NUMBER V. MISCELLANEOUS A. Project Status Update B. May Calendar OAP & Z\Divider Sheets.doc AbU nine wine & Spirits Aldi Food Store / Shoppes of West Oaks Aldi Food Store / Shoppes of West Oaks Arden Park North Bank Atlantic Bank Atlantic Belmere Shoppes Bhatta Lot Split 3420 Big Eagle Drive Big League Hair Cuts / Good Homes Plaza Booster Juice / Meadow Ridge Commercial BP Connect - 1650 E. Silver Star BP Connect - 1650 E. Silver Star BP Connect - 1650 E. Silver Star BP Connect - 1650 E. Silver Star BP Connect - 1650 E. Silver Star BP Connect - 1650 E. Silver Star BP Connect - 1650 E. Silver Star on Bluford Ave 03/05/08 BH 1st ;Monument Sign on Bluford Avenue APPROVED3/7/08 New Construction Bldg 03/05/08 AF 1st New Construction - BuildingDENIEDon 4-01-08 :Wall Signs (4) 04/23/08 i AF 1st Wall Signs (4) APPROVED on 4-28-08 Large Scale Preliminary LS-2007-0161 Subdivision Plan 03/06/08 BH 2nd Staff comments sent on 4-16-08 Small Scale Site SS-2007-004i,Plan 02/21/08 BH 4th APPROVEDby City Commission on 3-18-08 Plat 04/09/08 BH j 1st Plat APPROVED on 4-18-08 ;Annexation & AX-06-07-09 'Substantial AF & 'RZ-07-06-10 (Change 02/19/08 MR 3rd APPROVEDby City Commission on 4-1-08 Plat 11/19/07 AF 3rd 'Plat DENIED 12-10-07 Wall Sign 04/17/08 AF 1st 'Wall Sign APPROVEDon 4-24-08 Interior Build Out 04/29/08 ' BH 1 st Interior Build Out Wall Sign 02/29/08 AF 1st 'Wall Sign DENIED on 3-17-08 (Wall Sign 03/21/08 ' AF 2nd Wall Sign APPROVED on 3-24-08 3 Frame Wall Signs 02/29/08 AF 1 st 3 Frame Wall Signs DENIED on 3-17-08 3 Frame Wall 'Signs 03/21/08 1 AF 2nd 3 Frame Wall Signs APPROVED on 3-24-08 Face Change on l Monument Sign 02/29/08 AF 1 st Face Change on Monument SignAPPROVEDon 3-19-08 Remove & 'Replace Plastic Lens Insert 03/27/08 AF 1 1st 4DENIED on 4-2-08 Remove & Replace Plastic Remove & Replace Plastic Lens InsertAPPROVEDon 4- Lens Insert 04/23/08 AF 2nd 124-08 Current Project Status2.xls/Review 5/8/2008 1 of 7 BP Connect — 10960 W. Colonial BP Connect — 10960 W. Colonial BP Connect — 10960 W. Colonial BP Connect - 10960 W. Colonial BP Connect — 10960 W. Colonial BP Connect — 10960 W. Colonial Chateau Reserve Citrus Medical and Executive Office Park Citrus Oaks Center Rezoning and SSCPA Connector Road from East of Adair Street to East of Ingram Road DePaiva Annexation & Rezoning Diplomat Tower Overlay New Decal Over Existing Decal (Monument Sign), 03/27/08 (Overlay New Decal Over Existing Decal (Monument Sign) 04/23/08 Wall Signs/Monument Face Change/Frames Signs 02/29/08 Wall Signs/Monument Face Change/Frames Signs 03/21/08 Wall Sign 02/29/08 Wall Sign 03/21/08 Annexation, Initial Zoning & Preliminary !LS-2005-017 Subdivision Plan 01/22/08 LS-99-014 Plat 11/16/06 Rezoning & RZ-08-04-04 Small Scale CPA-2008- Comp. Plan �002 Amendment 04/16/08 with LS-2007-015 i'review 03/27/08 AX-03-08-12 jAnnexation & RZ-08-03-02 Rezoning 03/03/08 LS-2007-024 i LSP/FSP 03/05/08 Overlay New Decal Over Existing Decal (Monument Sign) AF + 1st PENIED4-02-08 Overlay New Decal Over Existing Decal (Monument Sign) AF 2nd APPROVEDon 4-24-08 i Wall Signs/Monument Face Change/Frames SignsDENIED on AF 1 st 3-17-08 Wall Signs/Monument Face Change/Frames SignsAPPROVED AF 2nd on 3-24-08 AF 1st Wall Sign DENIED on 3-17-08 AF 2nd ,Wall Sign APPROVED on 3-24-08 AF 5th iAPPROVEDby City Commission on 3-18-08 BH 8th Plat DENIED on 03/28/07. BH 1st Staff Comments due 5/14/08 AF 1st Staff Comments due 4/23/08 MR 1 st Scheduled for P & Z on 5-13-08 AF 2nd i Staff comments sent on 4-8-08 Current Project Status2.xls/Review 5/8/2008 2 of 7 11204 W. Colonial Drive Dunkin Donuts 11204 W. Colonial Drive Eagle Creek of Ocoee Rezoning Eagles Landing Phase II Eagles Landing Phase III Fifth Third Bank (at Fountains West) Sign & Fagade 11/20/07 Interior & Exterior Alteration 04/23/08I RZ-06-08-05 Rezoning 03/24/08 f Plat 08/31/07 Plat 08/31/07 Small Scale Site SS-2007-007 Plan 04/17/08 Fifth Third Bank (at Meadow Ridge Commercial Fifth Third Bank (at Meadow Ridge Commercial) Foote Property Foundation of Lights — Town of Ocoee Fountains at Highland Park Fountains West 301 West Road Fountains West Freeman Commerce Center F/X Warehouse Complex Glad Tidings Church Hampton Inn Hampton Inn Health Central Medical Office Building Health Central Medical Office Buildinq Wall Sign (A) 03/18/08 Wall Sign (B) 03/18/08 Amendment to Preliminary/Final SS-2005-0031,Subdivision Plan 10/18/07 Re -Roof Metal Roof 04/16/08 LS-2007-023 RX/LUP/PSP 04/07/08 , Revisions to LS-2006-009 P/FSP 01 /29/08 Plat 04/18/08 i LS-2008-001 Final Site Plan 01 /23/08 Preliminary/Final' LS-2007-022 Site Plan 11/27/07 LS-2007-018 Expansion 02/20/08 Large Scale Site LS-2007-017 Plan 02/11/08I Construction Bldg 02/26/08 LS-2008-002 ' LSP/FSP 01/29/08 ' LS-2008-002', LSP/FSP 04/30/08 BH I 2nd Sign & ragaaeutNituon -iz- iz-ut BH 1st Interior & Exterior Alteration APPROVED on 4-24-08 BH i 3rd Staff Comments due 4/24/08 AF 1 st Plat DENIED on 10/10/07 AF 1st Plat DENIED on 10/10/07 AF 3rd Staff comments due 5/15/08 BH 1st (Wall Sign (A) APPROVEDon 3-24-08 BH 1st !Wall Sign (B) APPROVEDon 3-24-08 BH 1st Scheduled for City Commission on 5-6-08 BH 1st Re -Roof Metal RoofAPPROVEDon 4-18-08 AF 2nd Staff comments due 5/05/08 AF 2nd APPROVEDon 3-11-08 AF 2nd Plat DENIED on 4-30-08 AF 1 st Staff comments sent out on 2/21 /08 BH 1st Staff comments sent out on 1/22/08 AF 2nd (Staff comments sent out on 4-1-08 BH 2nd (Staff comments sent out on 3-24-08 BH 1st New Construction - BuildingDENIED on 3-19-08 AF 1 st Staff comments sent out on 3-6-08 AF j 2nd Staff comments due 5/28/08 Current Project Status2.xls/Review 5/8/2008 3 of 7 Sign & Face Highpoint Church / Ocoee Commerce Ctr 'Change on Pylon Sign 04/02/08 BH 1st Cabinet Wall Sign & Face Change on Pylon SignDENIED �4/4/08 Temp Construction Highpoint Church / Ocoee Commerce Ctr 'Sign 04/17/08 BH 1st Temp Construction SignAPPROVEDon 4-18-08 Revisions to Ingram Estates LS-2005-001 j FSP 04/22/08 ' AF 1 st � FFE Revisions Just For Brakes Building Plans 08/28/07 BH 1st Wall Sign DENIED 8128/07 Just For Brakes Building Plans 10/03/07 MR 1 st Canopy DENIED on 1-02-08 Prelim/Final Subdivision Plan Lake Butler Professional Campus LS-07-019 & Prelim/Final 01/25/08 BH 1st 'APPROVEDby City Commission on 4-1-08 Lakewood Estates Plat Review I 03/28/081, BH 1 st Plat Review DENIED on 4-07-08 Lauren Beth Avenue Plat 03/12/08 MR 1st Conceptual Plat DENIED on 3-27-08 Maguire Crossing Wall Sign Vertical Fitness Building Plans 05/07/08 RW 1st Sign APPROVED 5/07/08 Maquire Shoppes at Meadow Ridge' Commercial Plat 03/21/08 ' BH 3rd Plat APPROVED on 3-24-08 Concrete Slab Handicap Marion Park Parking 03/17/08 BH 2nd Concrete Slab Handicap ParkingAPPROVED3-17-08 Large Scale Site Marshall Farms Business Center LS-2008-004 Plan 03/24/08 AF 1 st Staff Comments due 4/24/08 Revisions to Final Subdivision McCormick Woods Phase 1 & 2 LS-2001-002 Plan 08/23/90 BH 1st APPROVED on 4-2-08 McCormick Woods Phase II Plat 03/04/08 AF 1st Plat DENIED on 3-10-08 Meadow Ridge Commercial Plat 09/25/07 BH 1 st Plat DENIED on 10-22-07 Meadow Ridge Commercial Maguire Road, Bldg. D Building Plans 06/27/07 BH 3rd New Shell Building DENIED on 5/30/07. Current Project Status2.xls/Review 5/8/2008 4 of 7 Modern Nail Spa Fountains West Interior Alteration, 03/04/08 RW 1st Interior Alteration APPROVED on 3-05-08 Large Scale Oak Trail Reserve PUD Final Subdivision LS-2007-01 0 Plan 04/14/081 AF 3rd Staff comments due 5/12/08 Oaks Commerce Center Small Scale Site ;SS-2007-005 Plan 1 04/07/08 BH 3rd Staff comments due 5/05/08 :Small Scale Site Ocoee Pines Final Subdivision Plans LS-2007-015 FSP 03/27/08 AF 2nd ;Staff comments due 4/25/08 TelecomnI 1;ons Tower & Telecommunications Tower & FacilityAPPROVED on 4- Ocoee Radio Tower Facility Facility 04/17/08 AF 1 st 28-08 Special Ocoee Relief Middle School 11-08-SE-013 Exception 01/23/08 MR 1st APPROVEDon 3-4-08 [Courtesy Site Ocoee Relief Middle School Review 04/10/08 BH 3rd Staff comments sent out on 4-24-08 Pediatric Associates / Meadow Ridge Commercial Interior Build Ouf 04/25/08 BH 1st Interior Build OutAPPROVEDon 4-28-08 Interior Plantation Groves Renovation 04/07/08 RW Ist Interior Renovation APPROVED on 4-08-08 1 Revisions to � Final Subdivision, Prairie Lake Reserve PUD LS-2004-026! Plan 02/12/08 AF 1 st APPROVEDon 3-12-08 Prestige Academy 015 Exception 1 04/21/08 BH 1 st Staff comments due 5/19/08 Prestige Gunite - Ocoee LS-2007-012 Final Site Plan 09/20/071 BH 2nd Staff com ments sent out on 11 /05/07 Rezoning to Professional Parkway Town Center RZ-08-03-03 PUD 03/11/08 AF 1st Staff comments due after Traffic Study has been completed "Publix" Wall Publix — 301 West Road Sign 04/01/08 AF 1 st �"Publix" Wall Sign APPROVED on 4-03-08 "Presto" Wall Publix — 301 West Road ISiqn 04101108 AF Ist Presto" Wall Sign APPROVED on 4-03-08 Current Project 5@/2008 5of7 Publix — 301 West Road Publix — 301 West Road Publix — 301 West Road Reserve at Meadow Lake (fka Prairie Lake - Tract A) Reserve at Meadow Lake (fka Prairie Lake - Tract A) Shoppes at West Oaks Smith ROW Vacation Starke Lake Baptist Church State Farm / Albertson's Shopping Center "Entry" Wall Sign 04/01/08 I AF "Exit" Wall Sign 04/01/08 AF "Food & Pharmacy" Wall Sign 04/01/08 AF CRevisions to LS-2006-001 FSP 104/08/08 BH 'Community Pool 04/17/08'1 BH Large Scale Site LS-2007-013 Plan 02/19/08 AF ,VAC-08-013 Vacation 04/02/08 MR Adding HC 1st "Entry" Wall Sign APPROVED on 4-03-08 1st I"Exit" Wall Sign APPROVED on 4-03-08 1st I"Food & Pharmacy" Wall SignAPPROVEDon 4-03-08 1st �APPROVEDbut waiting on SJRWM approval letter 1st APPROVED on 4-18-08 4th APPROVEDby City Commission on 4-15-08 1 st Vacation of Easement Parking Spaces 04/24/08 BH 1st Adding HC Parking SpacesDENIED on 4-24-08 Wall Sign 04/01/08 BH 2nd Wall Sign APPROVED4/4/08 Subway / Fountains West Interior Build Out, 04/29/08 Suntrust Bank Small Scale Site Fountains West PUD, Lot 1 SS-2007-003IPlan 11/05/07 New Suntrust Bank Construction Fountains West 2605 Ocoee Apopka Road Bldg 04/07/08 i Landscaping Texas Roadhouse -- Landscaping Reveisions SS-2007-001 Revision 03/19/08 Large Scale Site Value Place Hotel LS-2007-020'Plan 10/12/07 Villa Roma Final Subdivision Plan LS-2008-003 LSSP 03/24/08 Village Marketplace / DK Nail Salon Villages of Wesmere "Townhomes" AF 1st ,Interior Build OutAPPROVEDon 4-30-08 AF 2nd Staff comments sent out on 12/06/07 AF BH AF AF 03/20/08 RW Revisions to Final Subdivision' LS-2005-006I,Plan 03/11/08 Wall Sign 1st ,New Construction Bldg APPROVED on 4-14-08 1st APPROVED on 3-24-08 1 st li Staff comments sent on 12/4/07 1 st Staff comments due 4/24/08 1st Wall Sign APPROVEDon 3-24-08 BH I 2nd IAPPROVEDon 4-2-08 Current Project Status2.xls/Review 5/8/2008 6 of 7 Final SubdivisionlI Villages of Wesmere "Townhomes" LS-2005-006 Plan 04/21/08 BH 2nd 'Staff Comments due 5-5-08 Villages of Wesmere Phase II Plat 01/29/08 BH list Plat DENIED on 2-14-08 Wayne Automatic — West Orange Industrial Re -Roof Metal 04/14/08 BH 1 st Re -Roof Metal Roof APPROVED on 4-15-08 West 50 Commercial Subdivision Plat J AX-05-08-25 1 08/15/07 BH 2nd Plat DENIED on 09/10/07. West Colonial Parcel (Walia) LS-07-021 IIAX & PSP 02/01/08 BH 4th Staff comments sent out on 3-10-08 Revision Name West Orange Autos fka Crosslander Change 04/01/08 AF 1st APPROVED on 4-1-08 Illuminated Wall West Orange Industrial Park / UPS I Sign 03/27/08 BH 1 st Illuminated Wall Sign APPROVED ON 3-28-08 Free Standing West Orange Industrial Park /UPS Directional Sign 03/27/08 BH 1st 'Free Standing Directional SignAPPROVEDon 3-28-08 West Orange Industrial Park / UPS ,Wall Sign 03/27/08 BH 1st ,Wall Sign APPROVEDon 3-28-08 Small Scale Site West Orange Orthopedics Medical Office SS-2005-013 Plan 05/07/08 BH 4th Staff Commentd due 6/03/08 Current Project Status2.xls/Review 5/8/2008 7 of 7 Sun Mon 4 5 6 School Advisory City Commission Board 7:15 p.m. 7:00 p.m. @ Camm. Chambers @ Comm. Chambers 11 12 13 Planning& Zoning Meeting 7:00 p.m. @ Comm. Chambers 5/20 Agenda Items 5/20 Staff Reports Due to City Clerk Due to CM 18 19 20 Parks & City Commission Recreation Advisory 7:15 p.m. 7:30 p.m. @ Comm. Chambers @ Tom Iron Center Wed Thu Fri 1 2 HRDB meeting rescheduled to 5/9 7 8 Human Relations 9 Diversity Board 7:00 pm. @Comm. Chambers ' 14 Charter Review 15 Commission 6:30 P.M. a Comm Chamhcn General Emp. Pension t0a.m. a Chamhcrs Police/Fire Pension I p.m. a ('hamhcr. Sall Agenda 1'oblished 21 22 CACOPD 7:00 pm. ri, Comm. Chamber 26 27 28 West Orange 29 * Code Enforcement Airport Authority 7:00 p.m. 111:00 a.m. @ Comm. Chambers @ Comm. Chambers Charter Review Commissioner Memorial Day City Hall Closed 6/3 Staff Reports 6:30 p.m. @ Comm. Chmnbcr Due to CM W Agenda Published 10 16e� 0 23 24 Memorial Day Certmoay 11 a.m. @ Bill Breen Park 6/3 Agenda Items Due to City Clerk 30 131