OSCEOLA COUNTY PLANNING SERVICES SOUTH LAKE TOHO MASTER PLAN

Transcription

1 OSCEOLA COUNTY PLANNING SERVICES SOUTH LAKE TOHO MASTER PLAN STAKEHOLDER GROUP MEETING III Thursday, September 18, :30pm 3:30pm Osceola Heritage Park ATTENDEES: OSCEOLA COUNTY Jeff Jones, Smart Growth Director Michelle Beamon, Planner EDAW CONSULTANT TEAM Bruce Meighen, Principal Melissa Sherburne, Project Manager Megan Moore, Project Coordinator Clif Tate, Kimley-Horn Paul Cherry, Kimley-Horn SOUTH LAKE TOHO STAKEHOLDER GROUP John Adams, RJ Whidden & Associates Inc., Green Island DRI A. Kurt Ardaman, Fishback Lance Decuir, FDOT Marjorie Fitton, Canoe Creek Resident Imran Ghani, Florida s Turnpike Alice Gilmartin, Florida s Turnpike Karol Graham, Audubon SOUTH LAKE TOHO STAKEHOLDER GROUP (CONT.) David Herbster, Florida DEP Brian Hutt, Florida s Turnpike Charles Lee, Florida Audubon Society Gary Lee, Southport Ranches Scot Leftwich, LCF Tara McCur, ECFRPC David Nelson, Renaissance Planning Group Henry Pinton, Florida s Turnpike Keith Ray, D.R. Horton Mike Roberts, Miller Legg Larry Rosen, Kissimmee Valley Audubon Society Jennifer Simpkins, Kimley-Horn Lew Snyder, Greenberg Traurig James Stansbury, DCA Reggie Tisdale, VHB Stan Touchstone, Canoe Creek/ Mildred Bass Community Jon Weiss, FDOT AGENDA I. Welcome Jeff Jones opened the meeting with introductions. Bruce Meighen briefly reviewed the last Stakeholder meeting that focused on regulatory requirements and opportunities. He explained that the regulatory requirements represent constraints that must be taken into account when developing the study area. The opportunities are illustrations that present the ideas that had been discussed at previous Stakeholder Group Meetings. Both will continue to inform the discussions as we move forward through the planning process. II. Process & Future Meetings The process and the day s agenda was presented by Bruce. The first meeting of the Stakeholder Group reviewed issues, the second focused on development opportunities, and the current meeting will be a discussion on transportation opportunities and alignments related to the Southport Connector. An additional meeting will be held in November in order to present refined, transit and interior road alignments. Future meetings are scheduled as follows:

2 a. Future Meetings: Meeting dates and location may change and if so, participants will be notified. IV: Thursday, October 23 rd ; Transportation System V: Wednesday, November 12 th ; Scenarios Development VI: Friday, December 12 th ; Presentation of Preferred Scenarios III. Review of Opportunities Bruce highlighted changes made to the Opportunities illustrations based on comments and suggestions from the last Stakeholder Group and Smart Growth Committee Meetings. A summary of changes and comments are as follows: a. Development Opportunities Enhancement of Great Systems: Inclusion of an extended area representing the protection of a larger area around Lake Toho, and south to Lake Hatchineha and Lake Kissimmee showing a broader perspective Integration of Transportation & Environment: Concerns related to the cost and feasibility of restoring the Kissimmee Canal to a naturalized waterway, possibility to restore up to the edges of the canal, while keeping the functionality of the canal intact Waterfront Urban Center: Inclusion of a created lagoon at the Lake edge, providing an increased natural buffer and separation of water systems between the development and Lake Toho Lake Side Hamlet & Regional Park: Emphasizes the eco-tourism experience with additional restoration of the Lake Toho edge Great Neighborhoods: Highlights amenities included in traditional Neighborhoods and New Urbanist Design Canal Communities: Addition of high-quality multi-family opportunities along the canal edge Addressing water quality concerns with a separate water system not draining to Lake Toho Conservation-Oriented Development: Consolidated in areas closer to Lake Russell Incorporating a higher level of density, but integrated within the natural environment b. Transportation Opportunities Bruce reviewed comments and suggestions made by the Stakeholder Group and the Smart Growth Committee related to transportation and multi-modal systems. Lake Shore Drive: Increased the area between the Lake edge and the road in order to serve as more of a buffer, and to serve as stormwater detention

3 TOD/ Multi-Modal Design: Density needs to be able to support the multi-modal system, and could incorporate both a north-south transit system, and east-west connections South Edge Alignment: Based on numerous comments to move the Southport Connector south to serve as a buffer between new development and the Disney Wilderness Preserve and Lake Russell Allows for the expansion of the DWP, and limits development to the north side of the Southport Connector Fine-Grain Road System: Fine grain, gridded system depicting walkable communities integrated within the urban development and transit options and balancing mobility with connectivity Urban Center: Depicts the level of density necessary in order to support transit; a local interchange connection to the turnpike and transit corridor connecting to the east Local interchange at the Southport Connector as well IV. Transportation Goals & Prior Concepts Clif Tate discussed the background for the conceptual alignments, starting with the Comprehensive Plan alignment, the OOCEA feasibility study, and Stan Touchstone s Canoe Creek alignment to the south of Lake Gentry. The consultant team has also reviewed and included a fourth option that follows that Comprehensive Plan alignment, but turns north of Lake Gentry, further east of the OOCEA alignments, in order to avoid many of the existing residential areas. V. Potential Alignments Clif prefaced the alignments stating that these were designed in order to provoke ideas, comments and responses from the Stakeholder Group. a. North, Center & South Alignments The North Alignment runs just south of Lake Toho with a system to system interchange at the Turnpike, a Trumpet Interchange at Canoe Creek, and 2 local diamond interchanges within the study area, at 3 and 6 miles from the Turnpike. It is probably not feasible to route the expressway south of Lake Gentry with this option. The Center Alignment runs through the center of the study area with a system to system interchange at the Turnpike, a Trumpet Interchange at Canoe Creek, and 2 local diamond interchanges within the study area, at 3 and 6 miles from the Turnpike. The South Alignment runs just north of Lake Russell with a system to system interchange at the Turnpike, a Trumpet Interchange at Canoe Creek, and 2 local diamond interchanges within the study area, at 3 and 6 miles from the Turnpike. The following comments and questions were made regarding the alignments:

4 In response to the arrow extending further south from the east local interchange, the County would have to commit to extending the Urban Growth Boundary. An option would exist to include an interchange that would only allow access to the north side, and in effect would create a wall to development south of the expressway. Are there numbers to support the interchange ramps that are shown? Numbers have not been determined at this stage. b. Other Considerations and Variations The South Alignment could also include an option to route the expressway south of Lake Gentry. If a system to system interchange is not included, a local diamond interchange could be included further north, and allow for a system to system interchange further in the future. The following comments were made regarding the variations: Without a system to system connection, traffic would increase through the study area, as well as Poinciana Turnpike traffic that ultimately destined for I-4 would route through the development area VI. Small Group Exercise Stakeholders were asked to form small groups and choose a reporter and recorder for the exercise. They were then asked to discuss their ideas and comments on each alignment; What do you like?, What do you not like?, How do the alignments affect development and conservation in the area?, How can each alignment be improved? If additional alignments are considered they were asked to draw them on a map, and locate interchanges. Bruce also asked attendees to relate ideas and comments to the transportation opportunities. VII. Report Back The following comments were made by each group: In addition to the east alignment options related to the Canoe Creek area and whether routing the expressway north or south of Lake Gentry is an option, there also exists additional routes west of the study area into Poinciana that would need to be addressed, if not with this study, in additional studies. a. Group 1: Resolution on turnpike spacing must be resolved Important to include a system to system interchange Map should be expanded to show connections to Poinciana Designated densities must be assigned throughout the area in order to support the cost of the roadway and interchanges Preferred the North Alignment due to the avoidance of environmental lands at the south Preferred the center system-to-system interchange alignment

5 b. Group 2 Preferred the center system-to-system interchange alignment, in order to allow access to Green Island Prefer south alignment east of the Turnpike to avoid social impacts north of Lake Gentry c. Group 3: An employment center must be supported in Green Island Preferred North Alignment as a buffer to Lake Toho Include a transition of land use from urban density to lower residential densities at west and south edges Prefer diamond interchange at the north to serve Green Island, allowing the system-to-system at the south Did not favor the South Alignment because of the possibility to promote additional growth south of the UGB Turnpike prefers three mile spacing from the existing service plaza, but spacing from the toll plaza can be negated since the toll plaza will eventually be changed to an electronic facility in approximately years d. Group 4: System-to-system interchange is necessary at construction of Southport Connector, not phased in at a later date Also prefer a local interchange at the proper spacing requirements Prefer either North or South Alignment, but South Alignment should require conservation easements to the south to restrict additional development and ensure that the UGB remains as is South Alignment would also need to address smoke management issues, such as an elevated road and electronic gates Include an additional 4-lane arterial through the study area, and possibly a 2- lane road with transit If South Alignment is used to the east, include an option to push the alignment further north west of the canal and north of the Disney Wilderness Preserve North Alignment would impede access to a linear park system, and bisect the largest contiguous development area Possibility to use density trading to keep development away from the Disney Preserve VIII. Next Steps a. Next Meeting; October 23 rd, 2008, Transportation System