Orange County Public Schools Wedgefield Area K-8 School Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing February 24, 2015 WINNER

Orange County Public Schools

Wedgefield Area K-8 SchoolBoard of County Commissioners Public Hearing

February 24, 2015

WINNER


2


Land Use and

Proposed Development

3


Wedgefield Property History• OCPS completed acquisition & aggregation of the

properties in 2009

• Applied for Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment in 2009 from Orange County

• One community meeting and four public hearings were held during FLUM application process during 2009-2010

• Received approval for the FLUM amendment in 2010 from Orange County

4


Wedgefield Land Use & Rezoning Process

• Land use change from Rural (R) to Educational (EDU)

• Develop site plan & design

• Rezone A-2 (Agricultural) to P-D (Planned Development)

5


Future Land UseEducational (EDU)

6


Current ZoningA-2 (Agricultural)

7


Proposed ZoningP-D

(Planned Development)

8


Proposed Development• Total Acres: 52.3 ac

• Proposed Building Square Footage: 155,000 sq.ft

• Parking: 193 spaces / Queuing: 228 cars

• Building Height: 35 ft. Max. (2 stories)

• Permanent Student Capacity: 1,030

• No waivers requested from the Orange County School Siting Ordinance

• Sidewalks to be built along Paddock and Ortega Street to Bancroft

Boulevard

9


School Site Standards ComparisonK-8

Acreage: 25 acres

Square Footage: 155,000 sq.ft

Student Stations: 1,144

Capacity: 1,030

Parking Spaces: 112 spaces

Building Height: 35 ft. (2 stories)

Operation: 8:45am - 3:00pm*

Middle School

Acreage: 25 acres

Square Footage: 175,000 sq.ft

Student Stations: 1,350

Capacity: 1,215

Parking Spaces: 225 spaces

Building Height: 55 ft. (3 stories)

Operation:9:30am – 4:30pm*

*Times are approximate; based on bus routing and school specific bell times.

10


Outstanding Issues

• Development Review Committee (DRC) recommended APPROVAL of

the Planned Development / Land Use Plan (PD/LUP) subject to 10

Conditions of Approval (COA). OCPS objects to COA #9.

• Planning & Zoning Commission (P&ZC) recommended DENIAL of the

PD/LUP

11


Concerns with P&ZC Recommendation

12

P&Z Recommendation seeks to undo

Board of County Commissioners 2010

Future Land Use Designation for the

property


Concerns with COA #9

• Current access on Paddock Street meets criteria set

forth in school siting ordinance and the existing

development trend in the area

• No staff analysis or justification provided for access on

Bancroft Boulevard

13


Overview of Concerns with COA #9

• Traffic Safety and Pedestrian Issues

• Environmental Impacts and Concerns

• Fiscal Impacts to Taxpayers

• Legal Aspects

14


Traffic Safetyand

Pedestrian Issues

15


50 MPH Bancroft Access

• A connection point along Bancroft Boulevard for school access cannot be provided while meeting roadway design standards, and reduces safety and operational efficiency of Bancroft Boulevard.

• The addition of a mid-block intersection on Bancroft Boulevard does not meet State access management standards and access from Paddock Street does.

• An entrance to the property on Bancroft Boulevard creates additional pedestrian safety and operational issues.

16


50 MPH Paddock Access

• Safe and efficient access is available on Paddock Street. Paddock Street meets County roadway design standards and has capacity to accommodate the proposed school traffic

17


Access Management Comparison

18

UNSAFECONDITION

SAFECONDITION


Pedestrian Access & Safety

• Pedestrian access based on proposed entrance from Paddock Street and Ortega Street.

19


Pedestrian Access & Safety• Pedestrians access from Paddock

Street eliminated.

• Additional 3200 feet (approximately 2/3 mile) to entrance of school campus.

• Pedestrian access from Paddock Street provides “drop off” of students along Paddock Street in order to avoid getting into the queue on the site.

• Parents would also “stack” in the afternoon along the north side of Paddock Street to pick up their students in a similar way.

20


Environmental Impacts and

Concerns

21


Environmental Considerations

22

• Project Site Contains wetlands and surface waters jurisdictional to St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) & U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)

• Boundaries of onsite wetlands and surface waters have been field-reviewed & approved by SJRWMD

• State-listed, threatened gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) occupies onsite uplands

• A 100% survey will be completed prior to construction, and permits to relocate any tortoises occurring within the project footprint will be obtained.


• Least damaging/invasive project footprint preferred to minimize impacts to wetlands and gopher tortoise habitat.

• Reduced impacts to wetlands/listed-species habitat will also reduce mitigation costs associated with unavoidable adverse impacts.

23

Environmental Considerations


Avoidance and Minimization• FDEP: Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook (Vol. I), Part III, Sec.

10.2.1:– Protection of wetlands and other surface waters is preferred to destruction and

mitigation… The following factors are considered in determining whether an application will be approved by the Agency: the degree of impact to wetland and other surface water functions caused by a proposed activity; whether the impact to those functions can be mitigated; and the practicability of design modifications for the site that could eliminate or reduce impacts to these functions, including alignment alternatives for a proposed linear system.

• USACOE: no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge.

– Where the activity associated with a discharge which is proposed for a special aquatic site does not require access or proximity to or siting within the special aquatic site in question to fulfill its basic purpose, practicable alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites are presumed to be available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise.

24


Wetland Impacts

• Isolated and less than 1/2-acre: no mitigation required

• More than 1/2-acre: mitigation required for any unavoidable impacts

• Any impacts to southern wetland (0.8 acre) will likely require mitigation for full 0.8-acre impact

25


Fiscal Impact to

Taxpayers

26


Cost of Bancroft Boulevard Access

• To exceed $876,952 due to:

Addition of approximately 1,400 linear feet of roadway

section

Required fill to raise the road

Additional environmental impacts and permitting

Additional tree and land clearing

27


28

Legal Aspects


The P&Z Recommendation Seeks to Undo This Board’s 2010 Future Land Use Designation For the Subject

Property Without Any Authority Whatsoever

• The applicant seeks to rezone the property to the only zoning category that is consistent with the EDU future land use classification you placed on the property in 2010.

• Staff recommended approval, subject to certain conditions.

• The P&Z Commission, however, suggests you find the requested zoning inconsistent with the Comp Plan and deny the application.

• The P&Z does not believe a school in this location is appropriate and offered no conditions under which it would be.

• The P&Z simply ignored this Board’s 2010 decision and recommends you do likewise.

29


The Controlling Law (a/k/a “the fine print”)

• 1013.33 Coordination of planning with local governing bodies.— (1) It is the policy of this state to require the coordination of planning between boards and local governing bodies … . Such planning shall include the integration of the educational facilities plan and applicable policies and procedures of a board with the local comprehensive plan and land development regulations of local governments.

• 1013.33 Coordination of planning with local governing bodies.— (4) The location of educational facilities shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan of the appropriate local governing body developed under part II of chapter 163 and consistent with the plan’s implementing land development regulations.

• Pursuant to these provisions, SBOC and BCC negotiated, and BCC adopted, Public School Siting Regulations, as implementing land development regulations.

• 163.3194 Legal status of comprehensive plan.— (1)(b) All land development regulations enacted or amended shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan … . … [W]hen the provisions of the most recently adopted comprehensive plan … are inconsistent, the provisions of the most recently adopted comprehensive plan … shall govern any action taken in regard to an application for a development order.

30


The Logic (and some more fine print)

• Orange County Comp Plan Future Land Use Element 8.2.1 mandates that the BCC determine that a proposed land use change is compatible with existing development and development trends in the area before approving it.

• The BCC approved the EDU future land use designation in 2010.

• Ergo, BCC either determined that the use of the subject property for a school is compatible with existing development or the BCC violated its own Comp Plan.

• 163.3184 Process for adoption of comprehensive plan or plan amendment.—(5) ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGES TO PLANS AND PLAN AMENDMENTS.— (a) Any affected person … may file a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings … to challenge whether the plan or plan amendments are (valid). This petition must be filed with the division within 30 days after the local government adopts the amendment.

• No challenge was filed.

• Thus, it has already been legally determined that a school at this location is consistent with the Comp Plan and compatible with existing development.

31


COA #9 Prohibiting Access from Paddock Street is an Impermissible Condition Under both Code and Statute

• All new school locations shall be subject to the terms and limitations established in the Public School Siting Regulations (PSSR). Public School Facilities Element & Future Land Use Element.

• PSSR provides construction of a school is a permitted “by right” use in the mandated PD zoning, provided such construction meets the standards and criteria set forth in Section 38-1754 and 38-1755 of the PSSRs.

• The pending application meets all of the prescribed standards and criteria and no waivers or modifications have been requested.

• §38-1758 provides that the BCC, “shall have the right to impose reasonable additional conditions of approval to mitigate the off site impacts and effects on adjacent property owners directly and proportionately arising from the proposed modification to the adopted criteria and standards.”

• No waivers or modifications have been requested.

• No comparable authorization for imposing additional conditions when modifications not requested.

32


COA #9 is an Impermissible Condition (cont’d)

• Additionally, §38-1755(a) only allows County to mandate on-site improvements if access cannot be provided by, “… at least one (1) paved local road at least twenty-four (24) feet in width.”

• Only, “[i]f no other practical option exists for access, (may) the county engineer … require on-site improvements necessary to ensure public safety consistent with F.S. ch. 235.”

• Paddock Street meets the agreed standard and is a practical option.

• Access from Paddock Street can only be denied if the county engineer, consistent

with professional standards and ethics, determines that Paddock Street, with the proposed improvements, will be unreasonably hazardous for pedestrian access. §38-1754(5)

• So long as the LUP complies with the PSSRs, the BCC cannot deny the rezoning nor mandate access from Bancroft Boulevard.

33


The P&Z Recommendation is Not Only Unauthorized, it Would Result in an Unconstitutional Taking Without Just Compensation.

• Property having a future land use designation of EDU can only be used for a school.

• The existing A-2 zoning prohibits public school uses.

• Property cannot be used for those uses actually permitted in A-2 because those uses are inconsistent with the EDU future land use designation.

• Ergo, denying a rezone to the only zoning category consistent with the EDU designation, i.e., PD Zoning, would leave the owner with no reasonable use of the property.

• The only remedies are to allow the rezoning or to use eminent domain to take the property and pay the owner fair and just compensation.

34


In Conclusion…….

35


OCPS Request of BCC

Make a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and APPROVE the Wedgefield K-8 School Planned Development / Land Use Plan (PD/LUP), subject to the conditions listed in the staff report excluding condition #9.

Thank you

36

Documents

Orange County Public Schools Wedgefield Area K-8 School Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing February 24, 2015 WINNER