Loading...
08-08-07 Min LPA ~ CITY OF LONGWOOD Land Planning Agency August 8, 2007 Minutes ATTENDANCE: BOARD: STAFF: Bruce Noyes, Chair Paul Sizemore, Community Service Director Johnnie Richardson, Vice Chair Marveen Kelly, Recording Secretary John Prince, Member Chris Kintner, Community Development Coordinator John Cardinal, Member ABSENT: JoAnne Rebello, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Noyes called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. 2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Regular Meeting April 11, 2007 Vice Chair Richardson made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Member Cardinal. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote with Member Rebello absent 3. PUBLIC COMMENT--NONE 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. LDCA 04-07 Longwood Development. Code Amendment Article IV, Section 4.5.0 Floodplains and Flood Zanes Ordinance # 07-1836 MOTiON/RECOMMENDATION: ~ Mr. Sizemore stated the Community Development. Division for the Community Services Department recommends the Land Planning Agency (LPA) recommend to the City Commission approval on an amendment to the Longwood Development Code LPA 08/08/07- 1 - - ~ (LDCA 04-07) by Ordinance # 07-1836. Mr. Sizemore introduced Mr. Kitner who is a Community Development Coordinator with the Community Services Department of the City of Longwood. Mr. Kintner stated that local governments were required to complete the review process prior to the release of the new Flood Insurance Rate Maps: That is scheduled for September 28, 2007. As part of that process Local Governments are to submit their existing Flood Plain Management Ordinances to FEMA for review. In the Cities review of the Ordinance there are some minor housekeeping issues that are addressed. The issues were primarily a list of definitions like new construction; existing construction. The duties of the Flood Plain . Administer are specifically detailed. Largely this Ordinance was provided to the City by FEMA as a model Ordinance for Florida communities. Added to that model are provisions specific to the existing regulations that would be added into the ordinance to add continuity between the existing regulations and the proposed model ordinances: In this Ordinance is what we have already, just worded differently with a few new sections,, including definitions and specific duties of the Flood Plain Administer. In addition this will repeal. the section of the Flood Plain Variance regulations found in Section 9.2 to decrease any redundancy between. what. is contained in this ordinance and what is contained in that section on variance regulations. Mr. Kitner mentioned that he had Rose Austin with FEMA review the ordinance and she made several recommendations that staff included in their recommended changes to the ordinance. Vice Chair Richardson asked Mr. Kitner if he concurred with Rose Austin's recommendations. Mr. Kitner agreed that he did concur with the recommendations and that there was a date that was included. The City had more generic language and the specific date. is something that City staff was fine with. Chair Noyes asked if anyone was there to address the item. None. Chair Noyes moved to close the public hearing seconded by Member Prince. Approved by voice vote with Member Rebello absent. Chair Noyes asked about the 100 year flood plain and retention ponds and the flood stage. Mr. Kitner stated that it relates to anything in the 'special flood hazard area. Discussion ensued. Chair Noyes motioned to approve, seconded by Member Prince with a roll call vote Approved with Member Rebello absent. ~ Mr.. Sizemore, Mr: Kitner and the board discussed the ability to access the map on the web site. LPA 08/08/07- 2 - ~ B. CPA 02-07 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Public Schools Facilities Element, Intergovernmental . Coordination Element, Capital Improvements Element Ordinance # 07-1.835 Mr. Sizemore stated the Community Development Division for the Community Services Department recommends the Land Planning Agency (LPA) recommend to the City Commission approval on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 02-07) Ordinance #07-1835. Mr. Sizemore stated that they would attempt to give the best overview of the information included in the agenda packets. In 2005 passage of Florida State Senate Bi11360 was signed into law. It enacted the most significant growth management reforms since the initial Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1985. School Concurrency was mandated for all the counties in the State of Florida. A pilot program was set up so certain counties bega~i to establish their concurrency management programs for school concurrency in advance. It served as model for the City to build off of. There are 2 phases to the bill. 1VIr. Sizemore commented the first is adoption of the new element into local governments' Comprehensive Plans. That is the Public Schools Facilities Element. This element: establishes the frame work for intergovernmental coordination for the School Facilities Planning also for School Concurrency Management System itself. The second part is ~ ~ adoption of an interlocal agreement the specifics of the School Concurrency Program, details of how they coordinate and how the programs are initiated. Mr. Sizemore stated the item that is before you is the first part of that. This is the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to include proposed School Facilities Element. There is also an amendment to the Capital Improvements Element to adopt the Seminole County School Boards 5 year capital improvement plan .amendment to the intergovernmental coordination element to make sure the terms of the agreement will be implemented to various parties. The inter-local agreement is not an agenda item this evening because that is something just the city commission is going to review. Mr. Sizemore explained the way the School Concurrency Management System is going to work. Upon implementation a new residential development is proposed. The city will not issue a development order unless there is existing school capacity or plans for it to be constructed. The City's part is much simpler than the school boards. Our main responsibility is to make sure that there is a school capacity letter of determination prior to issuing these development orders. So when the Developer comes and proposes a project, the city will do its other concurrency tests: transportation concurrency, sewer, water. At the same tune the City would advise the developer to begin his process with the School Board to have a capacity determination. We could issue a development order, and then the developer could continue his project. If there is not adequate capacity then there is a process built into program that would allow for mitigation. Some of that is touched on in the element lout the ~ • majority of the details are in the inter-local agreement. They are based on concurrency service areas. The map shown is an example of concurrency service area boundaries for elementary schools; a group of attendance zones for 3 to 5 different elementary schools. LPA 08/08/07- 3 - - These concurrency service areas are coterminous with the boundaries of the attendance zones themselves. It is the school board's task to balance capacity within these concurrency service areas, making. sure that there isn't. going to be a huge amount of capacity in one area and not enough in another. Mr. Sizemore introduced Scott Stegall with Seminole County Public Schools. (SCPS) Mr. Stegall stated that he is the Director of Capital Outlay. School District is very involved in the inter-local part. They will be signatory to the inter-local agreement as well as the cities and the county. That lays out the guidelines of how SCPS is going to implement Public School Concurrency. With the service area boundaries there are going to be clusters of schools, the statute allows districts and municipalities to go to a county wide concurrency service area. You could have capacity in the Geneva area and be at capacity here. The applicant can look at the adjacent service area if there is not availability in their area. Mr. Stegall stated that the enrollment projections are from the Office of Demographic and Economic Research. They still do enrollment projections and will continue in the future. Those. are sent to the Department of Education in late July or early August, so the County can project what future enrollment will be for the next 10 years. The problem with that is those projects are typically county wide they are not broken down by school they are not modeled to the schools. What districts did previously was to develop a rating system or mathematically try to distribute those numbers or growth patterns of students accordingly. - That has created a hurtle trying to deal with concurrency and be able to get those projections. Mr. Stegall commented that historically most districts state wide have adequate capacity. The problem is it is not where they need it. The legislature looked at Seminole County which had 67,500 student stations available with an enrollment of 67,000 and they state you can't build: they expect you to rezone. That causes political ramifications on School Boards rezoning process. That is why some schools are bursting at the seams and some aren't. The funding for the School District is primarily the Two Mill money which about 70% of our capital revenue is tied to a school plant survey recommendation which goes back to the legislature saying if you don't have a gross number of students in seats for the county you can't build. Mr. Stegall commented that the cities, county and the school district have worked for the last year and a half to put together this inter-local agreement. The councils for all the municipalities have made comments. The levels of service are 100% at the Elementary School for the FISH. capacity. The state has a data base of the inventory of every class room in the district. Mr. Stegall reviewed statistics for schools in the Longwood area and described how population projections were applied. He stated there will be a.lot of shake out as we implement concurrency for school districts state wide. Vice Chair Richardson asked what FISH stands for. LPA 08108/07- 4 - Mr. Segal stated that FISH stands for Florida Inventory of School Houses, a database in ~ Tallahassee that records everything. about school classroom space, down to a custodial closet. It is a massive inventory of school student stations and space. Vice Chair Richardson asked under Policy C regarding PTAC who is going to be representing from the City and is that from volunteers or a committee. Mr. Sizemore and Mr. Stegall discussed that PTAC has been in existence from about. 1990's an inter-local agreement was signed that established this Planning Technical Advisory Committee made up of one staff member representative from each of the cities and a . representative from Seminole County Government and School Board. They meet when ever there is inter-governmental coordination needed on planning issues. This was the main purpose for the PTAC meeting for the last couple of years, prior to that revisions were made to this document in 2001 and 2003, so it already exists it was also incorporated into the inter- . local agreement for school facilities planning to help with planning issues. Mr. Sizemore and Mr. Stegall stated that there is another committee which is made up of elected officials which is the Public Schools Facilities Planning Committee. Some of the pilot programs had different committees which have different responsibilities in the process which has been streamline down to 2. Any changes that come out of that PTAC would then be reviewed by the 2"d committee which is the elected officials. Vice Chair Richardson questioned Policy B and commented on the amount of paperwork ~ ~ involved. Mr. Sizemore stated that the new element is 11 pages long. Most of which covers coordination of all the locations, infrastructure, student generation rates, impact fees, the concurrency boundary and your service area boundaries. Vice Chair Richardson commented that tonight basically sets the frame work for additional work. Mr. Stegall stated that public school concurrency is a new animal for everyone who is grappling with it. The only district that really had a program was Palm Beach County. Even their program will be modified. Chair Noyes stated that impact fees were mentioned and the developer's responsibilities. All developments pay impact fees. . Mr. Stegall confirmed that all new developments pay impact fees. Chair Noyes asked if a development has a situation that there is not capacity within the concurrency boundary that a development lies in, the developer has to either provide land if the school board feels that is a good. place for a school or pay. Then they get a credit on the impact fees for fees paid. Mr. Stegall stated that the boundaries of these service areas follow the attendance boundaries of that kind of school. LPA 08/08/07- 5 - Chair Noyes questioned if that was the outer limits of the zones for those schools. Mr. Stegall stated that was correct. If rezoning can occur with in the service area it will encourage that balanced enrollment between schools. Member Prince spoke regarding the Oviedo school taking portions away from LymaJi this fall . Mr. Stegall stated that ideally when a new school comes online you have the dominc? effect you move the students which. creates openings. From the legislative perspective this will try to force that. with more and more counties. Chair Noyes commented that we talk about flood plain protection and flood prevention for our neighborhoods. It's disappointing when proposed development impacts existing residents. It is a shame how proposed development can impact existing families in causing rezoning. He asked if we see a time when we can look at existing land use maps to know where to draw a defining line. Mr. Stegall stated the one thing he does see coming out of this is. It will really force cooperation between local governments to work together to really start planning a lift:le bit • and looking forward to future land use. Seminole County has a few areas that. allow :for that in more urban areas. The infill issues that Mr. Stegall has seen in talking to other areas like ~ Hillsborough and other counties that have gone through that same growth that Pinellas had. • They will be looking at infill space. They will be looking at service area individually as there own planning elements as opposed to the counties more globally. A good example would be Longwood Elementary, Lake Mary Elementary, Highlands and Heathrow. The day may come if there is more density in that area perhaps changing from single family to multi- family development the district is going to have to look at some kind of infill program. You can only build so much on the range schools currently have. At that point the urban areas are either going to have to require some packaging of parcels or condemnations. He feels there • will be a lot of fall-out regarding school concurrency. He doesn't think people really see it especially in a more urban area. We are really talking to a lot of firms about looking at 600 student station elementary .schools and what size partials can we build those on. It is the natural progression of growth that you go from rural to more urban type development. Mr. Stegall explained the difference between impact fees and proportionate share mitigation. Mr. Noyes stated it is not that cut and dry like calculating parking spaces Mr. Stegall replied that if you look at it mathematically and follow the logic it makes sense. Student generation rates really don't change from year to year. The ones that are currently developed for this ordinance aren't to far off of what was being developed in 1992. Nationally they are not that different. The number of single family homes that produce elementary school student's ratio is fairly constant. The student rates will probably decrease ~ in the next. census. For the last 20 years they have increased. Chair Noyes stated that there was no public comment. L;PA 08/08/07- 6 - ~ Chair Noyes moved to close the public hearing, Mr. Cardinal seconded. The motion passed by a voice vote, Member Rebello absent. Vice Chair Richardson moved to approve item 4B. Mr. Noyes seconded the motion. Motion passed by a roll call vote, Member Rebello absent 5. DISCUSSION AND SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Sizemore stated that there should be a meeting in September. The evaluation and appraisal report is ready in a near completed draft form. The city has elected to transmit the draft to the state for review ahead of the final transmittal. That final transmission will be appearing before the LPA in .September it will then go to the City Commission. Then it will be transmitted to the State. The City has until February of 2008 to complete any final changes to that evaluation. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Vice Chair Richardson made the motion to adjourn. Seconded by Member Prince and carried by a unanimous voice vote with Member Rebello absent. Chair Noyes adjourned the meeting at 8:43p.m. Bruce Noyes, Chair ATTEST: ~ Marveen Kelly, Re ring Secretary LPA 08/OA/07- 7 -