AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT Osceola County...

A N A D V I S O R Y S E R V I C E S P A N E L R E P O R T

Osceola CountyFlorida

Urban LandInstitute$

Osceola CountyFloridaVision and Growth Strategy

January 22–27, 2006An Advisory Services Panel Report

ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

An Advisory Services Panel Report2

ULI–the Urban Land Institute is a non-profit research and education organiza-tion that promotes responsible leadership in the use of land in order to enhance

the total environment.

The Institute maintains a membership represent-ing a broad spectrum of interests and sponsors awide variety of educational programs and forumsto encourage an open exchange of ideas and shar-ing of experience. ULI initiates research that an-ticipates emerging land use trends and issues andproposes creative solutions based on that research;provides advisory services; and publishes a widevariety of materials to disseminate information onland use and development.

Established in 1936, the Institute today has morethan 32,000 members and associates from 88 coun-tries, representing the entire spectrum of the landuse and development disciplines. Professionals rep-

resented include developers, builders, propertyowners, investors, architects, public officials,planners, real estate brokers, appraisers, attor-neys, engineers, financiers, academics, students,and librarians. ULI relies heavily on the expe-rience of its members. It is through member in-volvement and information resources that ULIhas been able to set standards of excellence indevelopment practice. The Institute has long beenrecognized as one of America’s most respectedand widely quoted sources of objective informa-tion on urban planning, growth, and development.

This Advisory Services panel report is intendedto further the objectives of the Institute and tomake authoritative information generally avail-able to those seeking knowledge in the field ofurban land use.

Richard M. RosanPresident

About ULI–the Urban Land Institute

©2006 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or anypart of the contents without written permission of the copy-right holder is prohibited.

Osceola County, Florida, January 22–27, 2006 3

The goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Programis to bring the finest expertise in the realestate field to bear on complex land use plan-ning and development projects, programs,

and policies. Since 1947, this program has assem-bled well over 400 ULI-member teams to helpsponsors find creative, practical solutions forissues such as downtown redevelopment, landmanagement strategies, evaluation of develop-ment potential, growth management, communityrevitalization, brownfields redevelopment, militarybase reuse, provision of low-cost and affordablehousing, and asset management strategies, amongother matters. A wide variety of public, private,and nonprofit organizations have contracted forULI’s Advisory Services.

Each panel team is composed of highly qualifiedprofessionals who volunteer their time to ULI.They are chosen for their knowledge of the paneltopic and screened to ensure their objectivity.ULI’s interdisciplinary panel teams provide aholistic look at development problems. A re-spected ULI member sho has previous panelexperience chairs each panel.

The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is in-tensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day com-posed of a tour of the site and meetings with spon-sor representatives; a day of hour-long interviewsof typically 50 to 75 key community representa-tives; and two days of formulating recommenda-tions. Many long nights of discussion precede thepanel’s conclusions. On the final day on site, thepanel makes an oral presentation of its findingsand conclusions to the sponsor. A written reportis prepared and published.

Because the sponsoring entities are responsiblefor significant preparation before the panel’s visit,including sending extensive briefing materials toeach member and arranging for the panel to meetwith key local community members and stake-holders in the project under consideration, partic-ipants in ULI’s five-day panel assignments areable to make accurate assessments of a sponsor’sissues and to provide recommendations in a com-pressed amount of time.

A major strength of the program is ULI’s uniqueability to draw on the knowledge and expertise ofits members, including land developers and own-ers, public officials, academicians, representativesof financial institutions, and others. In fulfillmentof the mission of the Urban Land Institute, thisAdvisory Services panel report is intended to pro-vide objective advice that will promote the re-sponsible use of land to enhance the environment.

ULI Program StaffRachelle L. LevittExecutive Vice President, Policy and Practice

Mary Beth CorriganVice President, Advisory Services and

Policy Programs

Michael PawlukiewiczDirector, Environment and Policy Education

Nicholas GabelAssociate, Advisory Services

Carmen McCormickPanel Coordinator, Advisory Services

Yvonne StantonAdministrative Assistant

Nancy H. StewartDirector, Book Program

Laura Glassman, Publications Professionals LLCManuscript Editor

Betsy Van BuskirkArt Director

Martha LoomisDesktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics

Kim RuschGraphics

Craig ChapmanDirector, Publishing Operations

About ULI Advisory Services


Both personally and on behalf of ULI, thepanel members and staff would like to ex-press their deep appreciation for the sup-port and cooperation provided by Osceola

County Commission Chairman Paul Owen, ViceChairman Ken Shipley, Commissioner Bill Lane,Commissioner Atlee Mercer, and CommissionerKen Smith.

The panel also wishes to thank the members of theOsceola County staff for their professional andskilled assistance, including Ed Hunzeker, formercounty manager; Jo O. Thacker, county attorney;Kate Stangle, deputy county attorney; RebeccaDuffy, office manager, County Attorney’s Office;Mike Kloehn, assistant county manager/growth

management; Linda Hoffman, growth manage-ment administrative assistant; Max Forgey,deputy planning director; Wally Krujaick, chiefcode enforcement officer; Don Madden, chief pub-lic information officer; and Niki Whisler and LarryKrause of the Osceola County Public InformationOffice. The panel also is grateful to Jeff Jones andFred Milch of the East Central Florida RegionalPlanning Council and Bill Graf of the SouthFlorida Water Management District.

Acknowledgments


ULI Panel and Project Staff 6

Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment 7

Market Potential 13

Planning and Design 22

Transportation 24

Community Development Strategies 29

Conclusion 38

About the Panel 39

Contents


Panel ChairRoger L. GalatasPresident/Chief Executive OfficerRoger Galatas Interests, LLCThe Woodlands, Texas

Panel MembersAndrew BorsanyiPrincipalThe Concord GroupSan Francisco, California

David GodschalkProfessorUniversity of North Carolina Department of City and Regional PlanningChapel Hill, North Carolina

Pat HawleyR. A. Smith & AssociatesBrookfield, Michigan

Ann SaegertPartnerHaynes & Boone, LLPDallas, Texas

Gerard P. TullyProject ManagerPsomasSalt Lake City, Utah

Douglas M. WrennPrincipalRodgers Consulting, Inc.Germantown, Maryland

ULI Project DirectorMichael PawlukiewiczDirector of Environment and Policy Education

ULI On-Site CoordinatorCarmen McCormickPanel Coordinator

ULI Panel and Project Staff

Osceola County, Florida, January 22–27, 20067

Osceola County is part of the Metro Orlandoregion, located in central Florida. The Or-lando Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)is the only one of Florida’s major metropol-

itan areas not located along the coast. The popula-tion of the metropolitan area reached 1.8 million in2004. Metro Orlando continues to be one of thefastest-growing areas in Florida and the nation.

Metro Orlando’s HistoryThe city of Orlando was incorporated in 1875, andrail lines were extended to the city in 1880. Therail lines gave Orlando access to northern marketsfor its citrus crops, which resulted in the rapid ex-pansion of the area’s citrus industry. By 1900, Or-lando’s population was approximately 2,500, andby the mid-1920s the city had a population of morethan 10,000. World War II brought military basesand training facilities to the area. Thousands ofmen and women were trained in Orlando duringand after the war.

By 1950, with a population of 52,000, the Orlandoarea was becoming the transportation hub ofFlorida. Orlando’s proximity to Cape Canaveralbecame an important factor in the area’s growthwhen the National Aeronautics and Space Admin-istration (NASA) located there in 1955. The fol-lowing year, the Martin Company (now LockheedMartin) relocated to Orlando, marking the begin-ning of Orlando’s technological economy.

When NASA established its space launch centerat Cape Canaveral, the Bee Line Expressway(State Road 528) was constructed to ensure thatthe space center’s connections were west to Or-lando. The Bee Line gave Orlando access to theAtlantic coast; other connections are through In-terstate 4 to Tampa and north, and throughFlorida’s Turnpike to Miami and the south.

By 1960, Orlando was becoming the center of anexpanding metropolitan area that included Or-

Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment

ange, Seminole, Osceola, and eventually Lakecounties.

In 1964, Walt Disney announced plans to build theworld’s largest theme park. The Walt DisneyWorld property—located approximately 15 milessouthwest of Orlando in Orange and Osceola coun-ties—covers 47 square miles, about twice the sizeof Manhattan. The Magic Kingdom opened in1971, and in its first two years it received 20 mil-lion visitors and employed 13,000 people. Addi-tional attractions were added to the area, includ-ing Sea World and Universal Studios. Hotels andretail establishments grew rapidly to serve thetourist trade.

Orlando welcomed more than 43 million visitors in2000—which makes Orlando the number-one Location map.

75

10

4

95

75

75

95

G U L FO F

M E X I C O

A T L A N T I CO C E A N

G E O R G I A

F L O R I D A

A L A B A M A

TallahasseeJacksonville

Miami

Tampa

Fort Lauderdale

Coral Springs

Saint PetersburgClearwater

OrlandoKissimmee

Saint Cloud


tourist destination in the world. Visitors can stay in one of more than 100,000 hotel rooms andvisit seven major theme parks and numerousother attractions.

Recent Growth of the Metro AreaBetween 1990 and 2004, Metro Orlando’s popula-tion grew from 1.22 million to 1.83 million. It is thethird-largest metropolitan area in Florida. MetroOrlando has experienced substantial growth forthe past four decades and continues to growrapidly. Its growth rate of 11.3 percent between2000 and 2004 was higher than that of any otherU.S. metropolitan area with a population of over 1 million, and in numeric terms Metro Orlandowas the fifth fastest-growing metropolitan area

in the country during that period. This high-growth trend is expected to continue for at leastthe next decade.

Areas in Metro Orlando that are growing particu-larly fast include south Lake, south and southwestOrange, and northwest Osceola counties. Nearly43 percent of the metropolitan area’s growth be-tween 1990 and 2000 took place in those areas.Lake and Osceola, east-central Florida’s smallestcounties, continue to experience rapid growth.This trend is caused in part by their lower devel-opment costs, as well as new roads, such as theGreenway and Western Beltway, that have madeLake and Osceola counties more accessible todowntown Orlando and other employment centers.

Growth in Osceola CountyIn 1960, Osceola’s population was just under20,000; less than 5 percent of the four-county met-ropolitan area. By 2000, over 10 percent of MetroOrlando, about 172,000 people, called Osceolahome.

The Bureau of Economic and Business Researchat the University of Florida has projected popula-tion by county to the year 2030. Figure 1 showsthose projections by county and for Metro Or-lando. Metro Orlando’s population is projected toreach 3.2 million by 2030, and 20 percent of thatgrowth is expected to occur in Osceola County.The county’s population is projected to increasefrom 172,000 in 2000 to more than 475,000 by 2030.

Regional map.

Florida'sTurnpike

10

10

10

4

75

75

75

95

95

95

95

75

95

65

Florida Bay

Apalachee Bay

Waccasassa Bay

G U L F

O F

M E X I C O

A T L A N T I C

O C E A N

TampaBay

Charlotte Harbor

WhitewaterBay

St Joseph Bay

Choctawhatchee BayPensacola Bay

G E O R G I A

F L O R I D A

A L A B A M A

Monroe

M o n r o e

Miami-Dade

Broward

Collier

Lee HENDRY

Palm Beach

Charlotte

GLADES

MARTINDESOTO

Sarasota

SAINT LUCIE

OKEECHOBEEMANATEE

HARDEE

HIGHLANDS

INDIAN RIVER

PINELLASHILLSBOROUGH

OSCEOLA

POLK

PASCO

HERNANDO

ORANGE

BREVARD

SEMINOLESUMTER

Citrus

LAKE

Volusia

Marion

Levy

Flagler

DixiePutnam

Gilchrist

Alachua

Franklin

Union

Bradford Clay

Gulf

SaintJohns

Lafayette

Wakulla

Taylor

Suwannee

Bay Baker

DuvalColumbia

LibertyCalhoun

Hamilton

Madison

Jefferson

Leon

Gadsden

NassauWashington

Echols

Walton

Holmes

Okaloosa

Santa Rosa

Escambia

Jackson

Lowndes

CharltonSeminole Thomas BrooksGrady

Decatur

Camden

Lanier ClinchGeneva

Miller

Escambia

HoustonBaldwin

Colquitt

Cook

Brantley

Atkinson

Mitchell

Baker

Glynn

Ware

Berrien

EarlyCovington

Pierce

Tift

CoffeeDale

Calhoun Dougherty

Liberty

McIntosh

Bacon

Conecuh

Irwin

Henry

Clay CoffeeWayne

Monroe

Worth

Ben Hill

Turner

Lee

Randolph

Butler

Appling

TerrellJeff Davis

ClarkeQuitman

Long

CrispCrenshaw

Pike

Liberty

WilcoxBarbour

TelfairWilcox

TallahasseeJacksonville

Miami

Tampa

HollywoodFort Lauderdale

Coral Springs

Saint Petersburg

Clearwater

Orlando

KissimmeeSaint Cloud

Northwest Osceola

Study Area

Y

Figure 1Population Projections, Orlando Metro Area and Counties, 2000–2030

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Lake 210,528 260,400 303,600 343,400 383,300 422,100 458,400

Orange 896,344 1,042,000 1,183,400 1,312,600 1,441,800 1,566,600 1,682,900

Osceola 172,493 236,000 287,900 335,900 384,300 431,500 475,900

Seminole 365,196 412,200 456,300 496,200 536,200 574,600 610,500

Metro Orlando 1,644,561 1,950,600 2,231,200 2,488,100 2,745,600 2,994,800 3,227,700

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida.


Northwest Osceola County Northwest Osceola is where most of the OsceolaCounty’s development activity has taken place; 97 percent of the population of the county resides inthis northwest area. Northwest Osceola includesthe cities of Kissimmee and St. Cloud and the un-incorporated communities of Campbell, Celebra-tion, Poinciana, and Buenaventura Lakes. LakeTohopekaliga lies between the cities of Kissimmeeand St. Cloud. Known as Lake Toho, it was Osce-ola’s recreational centerpiece before the themeparks and resorts came. Nevertheless, it contin-ues to be a significant open-space amenity for theOrlando metropolitan area as well as the county.

With a current population of approximately235,000, Osceola faces rapid growth pressures,which are intensified by the region’s strongtourism industry.

Southeast Osceola CountySoutheast Osceola is dominated by ranch landsand undeveloped prairie, woods, and marsh, al-though the area does include a few rural settle-ments, such as Holopaw, Kenansville, and YeehawJunction. Southeast Osceola County also includesthe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–owned Deseret Ranches and a number of other

large privately operated ranch and agriculturallands. The county has a proud ranching traditionthat extends over generations. Ranching wasnever easy in Osceola County, and it was all themore challenging given the county’s landscape,which is characterized by numerous lakes, wet-lands, and wet prairies. Protecting the ranchingtradition beyond the growth boundary is an im-portant objective, but good planning should allowthe development of comprehensive large-scalemaster-planned communities as an efficient use ofland and an alternative to sprawl.

The ChallengeThe proposed study area covers 42.8 square miles(27,389 acres) on Lake Toho’s southern and east-ern shores. Approximately 20 percent of thecounty’s projected 2025 population of 525,000 isexpected to reside within the study area. In thepast, development in and around Lake Toho hastaken place a few dozen or a few hundred units ata time, resulting in a patchwork pattern not un-usual in suburban Florida. Those small develop-ments have not offered opportunities for a com-prehensive review of development in the county.

Reflecting the principlesof the new urbanism, theinnovatively designedcommunity of Celebrationis located in OsceolaCounty.


pleted, should set a high standard for future de-velopment countywide.

The Panel’s AssignmentIn 2025, the shores of Lake Toho could be the siteof a great community, comprising several develop-ments that offer all of the things that a successfulcommunity offers:

• An attractive place to live;

• A choice of quality housing at a competitiveprice;

• A safe environment for families and individuals;

• Work and shopping opportunities;

• Open space and recreational amenities;

• Efficient infrastructure and services;

• Good quality water; and

• Well-protected natural resources.

Developments of Regional Impact Five new developments of regional impact, orDRIs, have been proposed along the east andsouth shore of Lake Toho. DRI review is a state-mandated process that allows neighboring juris-dictions and appropriate state agencies—in thiscase including Orange County, the cities ofKissimmee and St. Cloud, the Florida Depart-ments of Transportation and Environmental Pro-tection, and the South Florida Water ManagementDistrict—to participate in a shared review oflarge-scale projects that are expected to have re-gional effects. The full impact of these five specificdevelopments cannot be determined because theapplications are in the initial stages, but the devel-opments likely will add at least 35,000 newdwelling units and 5 million square feet of com-mercial and office space. The timing of these pro-posed developments gives Osceola County achance to consider how development will takeplace along the shores of Lake Toho and through-out the county. The developments, when com-

Osceola County, showingthe designated growtharea (yellow) and thestudy area (orange).

Map C

St. Cloud

KissimmeeEast Lake

Tohopekaliga

LakeTohopekaliga

UrbanGrowthBoundary

N

StudyArea


Osceola County and central Florida offer severaloutstanding examples that can be models for fu-ture development, including great traditional com-munities, such as Mount Dora and Winter Park.Examples also exist of innovative developmentsthat exhibit characteristics of new urbanism(Baldwin Park), traditional neighborhood develop-ment (Celebration), and rural-by-design move-ments (Harmony). Those developments stand indirect contrast to the subdivisions composed ofcookie-cutter rooftops surrounded by high walls,with little interconnectivity or sense of place.

The panel has been asked to look at the Lake Toho area from the perspective of the natural and built environments—to envision a communitycomposed of self-reliant individuals, healthy families, competitive enterprises, and strong institutions, coexisting in a safe and sustainablenatural environment. Furthermore, the countyasked that the panel propose a strategy to achievethat community.

Summary of FindingsThe panel was asked to assess the developmentpotential of a 28,000-acre study area located on the

eastern and southern shores of Lake Toho and thelikely effect of growth in this location. This areacontains five proposed developments that wouldproduce approximately 35,000 new homes, 3.5 mil-lion square feet of retail, 500,000 square feet of of-fice, and 84,000 square feet of industrial space,with a resident population of 100,000. Clearly, de-cisions about how these projects will be designedand developed will affect the quality of life inOsceola County for the next half century or more.

After spending a week in Osceola County touring,interviewing stakeholders, and debating, thepanel has arrived at the following conclusions.

Osceola Is in the Path of GrowthLittle doubt exists that significant residentialgrowth will occur in Osceola during the next sev-eral decades. The real challenge will be to ensurethat this growth benefits the county environmen-tally, economically, and as a community.

Osceola Should Form a Vision for the Futureand Pursue It with PassionDecisions made for the sake of short-term expedi-ency can close future options and preclude suc-cessful achievement of long-term goals. Public pol-

The study area, showingproposed developmentsof regional impact (DRIs).

Key

Roads

Study Area

Water

DRIs

Edgewater

Green Island

Westlake Cove

Mariners Cove

Bella Tara

Kissimmee

St. Cloud


icy implementation should be patient and disci-plined; however, active participation is a require-ment for success.

Regional Relationships Are ImportantOsceola must be an active participant in and support organizations and institutions that workto shape the region’s future. The county’s inter-ests must be factored into the regional decision-making process. Corporate job creation is morelikely if the county is seen as a vital part of the region within the global network.

Focus on Building Community Rather Than onLand DevelopmentSometimes in the process of land development,the big picture’s desired outcome gets lost in thedetails. We do not minimize the importance of

sound engineering and quality construction, butnever forget that land development is the processby which we build the communities of the future.

Address Quality-of-Life IssuesAddress quality-of-life issues with as much energyas is devoted to regulatory review. Focus on de-velopment outcomes and not on the regulatoryprocesses.

Keep in Mind Important Community BuildingBlocksThe following are the important building blocksfor a successful and sustainable community:

• An efficient transportation network—in OsceolaCounty, for example, this network might includethe completion of the loop road around Lake Toho,a connector road to the east coast, and commuterrail and light rail to serve the community.

• A good educational system from pre-kinder-garten to the university level.

• A high-quality natural environment with plentiful open space.

• Security and public safety.

Other building blocks exist, but these are vital.

ULI advisory servicespanel members from leftto right: David Godschalk,Ann Saegert, Gerard P.Tully, Panel Chair RogerL. Galatas, Douglas M.Wrenn, Pat Hawley, andAndrew Borsanyi.


The Orlando metropolitan area is one of thenation’s fastest-growing regions. It has anincreasingly diversified economy, a strongbusiness climate, relative affordability, su-

perb transportation links, unique tourism assets,and significant land availability. Economic fore-casts project continued rapid expansion of the region and a doubling of the current population of 2 million in the next 30 years. This economicgrowth will drive increasing employment opportu-nities and household incomes for current and fu-ture central Florida residents. Osceola Countyand the East Lake Toho study area are superblypositioned to capture a significant portion of thisregional growth. This section covers the overallOrlando MSA and Osceola County real estatemarkets and highlights issues for the East LakeToho study area within that framework.

Growth ProjectionsIn the 2000 U.S. census, Orlando was the 28th-largest MSA in the United States. The OrlandoMSA is defined as Orange, Osceola, Lake, andSeminole counties. Between 1990 and 2000, how-ever, Orlando was the nation’s third-fastest-grow-ing large MSA; its population increased overall by34 percent, or 400,000 residents. The current pop-ulation is over 1.8 million and the area has nearly 1 million jobs. This rapid growth is projected tocontinue. Most growth estimates forecast morethan 2.5 percent annual household and employ-ment growth in the Orlando MSA, compared witha national trend of 1 percent overall. When Polk,Brevard, and Volusia counties are included, thetotal projection for central Florida population ismore than 7 million.

Orlando developed at the crossroads of Interstate4 and Florida’s Turnpike. A number of factorshave shaped the Orlando region, including the lo-cation of historical town centers, the location ofDisney World, transportation connections to

Tampa Bay, and the fact that Florida’s Turnpike isa toll road. Thus, the main growth corridor hasbeen from southwest to northeast through centralOrlando along Interstate 4. This corridor, how-ever, is becoming built out. More Orlando growthis now occurring along the Bee Line Expresswayeast toward the Atlantic Coast and to communi-ties along Florida’s Turnpike. Although the spe-cific demand depends on the development type,Osceola County in the southwest portion of themetropolitan region and Lake County in thenortheast must effectively manage an increasingshare of the region’s growth in order to benefitfrom it.

ResidentialThe Orlando residential housing markets havebeen among the nation’s strongest, with over 15 percent annual price appreciation, 10 percentannual volume growth, and nearly 30,000 newhome sales last year. A portion of this rapidgrowth reflects national trends, such as the moveof the baby boom generation into the age cate-gories with top home ownership and the increasein home purchasing by minority and younger buy-ers. The lower interest rate environment and theshift in equities from the stock market to housingaccentuate those trends.

The Orlando market is fortunate that it is under-pinned by strong fundamental demand drivers.Those forces include new household formation,700,000 households wishing to move up in housing,a small portion of the more than 48 million annualvisitors who are purchasing second or investmenthomes, and continued capture of retirees. Al-though rentals and resale homes will capture alarge portion of that demand, reasonable housingmarket estimates forecast more than 35,000 newfor-sale and rental units annually in the near tomiddle term. This forecast does not necessarilytranslate into continued double-digit price and

Market Potential


volume increases, but the underlying Orlandohousing demand is strong.

Forecasts indicate that the supply of new housingmay not be able to keep up with the pace of de-mand. Approved housing in all Developments of Regional Impact in the Orlando MSA totals103,000 units. Although approved DRIs representonly one-third of reasonably projected housing deliveries in the middle term, units approved inother large developments represent in the bestcircumstances just three years of projected hous-ing need. Eventually, additional DRIs will be ap-proved and small subdivision development may filldemand; nevertheless, the push for additional de-velopment will be intense.

Osceola County will capture a significant portionof this growth. The county’s 80,000 current house-holds represent approximately 11 percent of thetotal MSA. Recent home sales in Osceola County(7,000), however, are more than 23 percent of theMSA total. The county has thus been growing atmore than twice its share of the total MSA. Thisrate contrasts with that of Lake County, whichwith similar current population numbers as Osce-ola, had new home sales of just 17 percent of theMSA total. The 2005 average new home price inOsceola County was $240,000—10 percent belowthe MSA average, reflecting its lower employ-ment base and earlier stage in the process of landdevelopment. Osceola County, however, has hadrecent price increases near 20 percent annuallycompared with the 15 percent MSA average. Thisnarrowing of the traditional gap between homeprices in Osceola and the rest of the MSA reflectsthe county’s increasing attractiveness as a place to live.

Osceola County’s share of the MSA housing mar-ket will continue to expand. Of the 103,000 units inapproved DRIs, more than 30 percent, or 32,000units, are in the county. The proportion of otherplanned development is similar. This growth re-flects the fact that Osceola County is largely unde-veloped compared to the more heavily developedremainder of the MSA. In summary, OsceolaCounty has 11 percent of the current population of the region, 23 percent of current new homesales, and projects in the review process thatwould supply 30 percent of future home sales.

The Orlando economic engine is creating house-holds, and Osceola will both benefit from and needto manage that growth.

Office and IndustrialThis growth is also driving a strong Orlando officemarket. With vacancies under 10 percent, theMSA is among the nation’s leading office markets.Total office space in the Orlando MSA is approxi-mately 50 million square feet, with net annual ab-sorption of nearly 2 million square feet. The fore-cast, however, is not as strong in the office marketas it is in the housing market. Total approved of-fice space in DRIs in the MSA is more than 60 mil-lion square feet. Thus, readily available new officesupply exceeds the total of all current space andrepresents 30 years of absorption at current runrates. Significant office opportunities exist, butthe environment will be more competitive than inthe housing market.

The industrial market is similar to the office market. Total MSA industrial space is more than110 million square feet with a 6 percent overall vacancy rate. The absorption rate is more than 2.5 million square feet annually. Total projected industrial space in approved DRIs is more than 60 million square feet, which represents 20 yearsof supply. Industrial opportunities and major relo-cations exist, but the overall market does not offerthe significant potential untapped demand of thehousing market.

Osceola County, with its location, affordability, in-centives, and superb economic development teamwill capture some new office and industrial de-mand. With significant regional investment incompeting locations like Innovation Way, however,and with the overall new projected supply, thecounty’s capture of new commercial space willlikely expand slowly. Moreover, until additionalresidential fills in and new transportation solu-tions are developed, this commercial demand willlikely migrate to more-established Osceola Countylocations like Poinciana and Stephens Plantationthan to new space at East Lake Toho. The decisionto focus East Lake Toho on residential uses is sup-ported by the market. Nevertheless, some portionof the study area should be reserved for future


business and research growth. That area shouldbe small and located with easy access to the trans-portation network.

RetailOrlando residents benefit from a world-class retailenvironment. An additional 30,000 square feet ofretail space is planned in approved DRIs. Withthe significant current and projected competition,retail in the near term at East Lake Toho will bebest aimed at the local markets. The 100,000 newresidents along East Lake Toho will need to besupported by six or more 120,000-square-foot com-munity shopping centers integrated into towncenters. The plan for a major regional mall atGreen Island is potentially supportable in tenyears or more, as the county fills in within its pro-posed Urban Growth Boundaries, and transporta-tion links to other population centers are improved.

Overall, from a market potential point of view, thebest use for the East Lake Toho area is qualityhousing with integrated town center retail. Withconstruction of major transportation improve-

ments, including the Southport connector and itsconnection to Florida’s East Coast, this area holdsadditional potential for expanded economic de-velopment, including office and industrial facilities.

New Corridors and CentersOsceola County faces an important choice: will itremain a suburb of Orlando, or will it become anew economic center with abundant high-payingjobs? Osceola can become a new economic centerbecause central Florida has developed as a multi-nodal region. Osceola County is situated amid nu-merous economic centers, including Tampa, Dis-ney, Orlando, Orlando International Airport,Space Coast, Melbourne, and the new center ofViera. Growth is simultaneously coming towardOsceola from the west (from Tampa and Disney),from the north (from Orlando and the airport), andfrom the east (from Brevard County). As south-central Florida develops into an emerging “superregion,” Osceola sits in the middle of that region.

Central Florida’s multiple economic centers needto be connected with new multimodal transporta-

Residential developmentat the north end of LakeTohopekaliga.


tion corridors. Such connections will strengthenand enhance the region. In addition, new connec-tions could make Osceola County a new economiccrossroads and spur economic development in thecounty. Indeed, long-term economic development in both the region and Osceola County will dependlargely on the creation of new transportation corri-dors. In central Florida, jobs have historicallytended to cluster around major high-access trans-portation facilities, including freeways and airports.The existing primary transportation corridors,however, are becoming more and more congested.Moreover, freeway interchange areas are rapidlybeing built out. New corridors in Osceola Countywill provide needed transportation-served job sitesto the county and the region. Providing multipletravel modes within those corridors will further in-crease their economic development potential.

The new corridors should tie Osceola County toimportant economic centers in the region. A corri-dor directly connecting Tampa to Brevard Countythrough Osceola County will enhance the regionby connecting economic centers and will providepotential new employers in Osceola County withexcellent connectivity to major economic centersand industry clusters. This new corridor shouldprovide a direct connection, rather than the cur-rent circuitous route along U.S. Highway 192.Connecting Osceola County directly to OrlandoInternational Airport, which is gradually becom-ing the center of the east-central Florida region, isalso important. Sites along a corridor providing di-rect access to this major airport and economic cen-ter would have excellent economic developmentpotential. The Orlando Expressway Authority hasalready proposed new expressways connectingOsceola County to the emerging new center ofViera and to the airport. Osceola County shouldseek to make these new expressways a reality andexpand them to create a cross-Florida connectionbetween Tampa and Brevard County.

Attaining these new corridors will require a multi-faceted strategy that includes development of ap-propriate land uses along the proposed new align-ments. Transportation facilities—particularly tollroads and mass transit, which rely on user fees forfunding—tend to follow actual and planned popu-lation projections. Using land use policy to create

demand for the new corridors will greatly aid inmaking them a reality. Comprehensive plans andzoning maps should place appropriate urban den-sities along the corridors, and development shouldbe encouraged in the area. If Osceola County doesnot allow urban growth along the new corridors,applicable agencies may not be convinced that thecorridors are needed.

Allowing new growth centers along transporta-tion corridors is preferable to an accretion modelof expansion in which new land accretes to the ex-isting urban centers, primarily in the form of bed-room communities. The accretion model leads tourban sprawl, lack of open-space preservation,and traffic congestion. As recognized by “CentralPlace Theory,” new urban centers along trans-portation corridors form a natural and preferredmodel for urban growth in which multimodaltransportation drives market demand for highurban densities, open-space areas are preserved,land use is adequately served by transportation,and trip lengths are reduced as commercial andjob destinations are placed closer to housing. Situ-ating the new centers along corridors that providedirect access to existing economic centers willdrive the new centers to become forces for eco-nomic development and job creation.

Osceola County should actively participate in themyregion.org seven-county regional visioningprocess. The county should ensure that the re-gional vision both benefits the region and reflectsOsceola County’s concerns and viewpoints. Theprobability that new corridors and economic cen-ters will be created in Osceola County, as well asthe likely locations for such new corridors and cen-ters, will be greatly affected by the outcome ofmyregion.org’s regional visioning process, whichwill strongly influence regional and state alloca-tion of infrastructure, particularly for transporta-tion, as well as regional growth patterns.

The Reality of Growth and the Need forPlanningThe choice to grow is not something that a com-munity necessarily makes. Market forces combinewith available opportunities to produce dynamicgrowth situations. The mistake that communities


often make is to ignore the reality of the market-place. Many communities have taken the positionthat they will remain rural without accommodat-ing growth. That error leads to sprawl and some-times a complete loss of community character.

Failure to plan for growth effectively leads to ran-dom, sprawling patterns of development. Commu-nity character is sacrificed, and opportunities toshape a more vibrant future are forever lost.

Conscious choice is the best way to preserve thehistorical land use patterns that define the com-munity while maximizing the benefits that themarketplace brings for the future. The currentcomprehensive plan is an excellent step towardplanning for the future growth of Osceola County.

Infrastructure as a Determinant of Economic GrowthThe single greatest frustration that a rapidlygrowing community faces is watching growthoverwhelm infrastructure. Schools becomecrowded, roads become congested, and basic mu-nicipal services begin to suffer. Simply throwingmoney at the problem is not the solution. Where

to start addressing the problems and who shouldpay are always the issues of concern. A balancedapproach of imposing taxes, collecting impact fees,and growing the economic base of the communitycan address the financial side of the equation, butthe issue of where to start is often the more com-plicated question.

Planning for growth is essential. The planningprocess identifies where the growth will occur,how much is appropriate, and how much public in-vestment will be necessary to complement it. Inlooking at Osceola County’s future, plans alreadyare being made for the areas to the east and southof Lake Toho. Those plans will raise concerns andhighlight the issues that must be faced.

The single-greatest problem foreseeable in thearea is related to transportation. The network ofroads in the area is inadequate to handle the cur-rent pace of development, and new developmentprojects will only add to the problem. Althoughnew projects will no doubt address the road issueswithin their boundaries, a need exists for signifi-cant upgrades to the countywide road networkthat will connect the projects to each other and tothe larger community.

Making a conscious decision about how andwhere to urbanize leadsto a corollary consciouschoice of which areas will remain rural.

If economic growth and diversification of the jobbase is the goal, then the transportation networkmust be in place when commercial growth occurs.Commerce depends on access at many levels.Goods and services need to freely flow into andout of both the site and the region. Employeesneed easy access to places of employment. In-vestors need to know that the transportation sys-tem will keep pace as their businesses grow.

Attracting the desired economic growth in thestudy area faces other obstacles. The county needsto plan for housing affordability, utilities, schools,and municipal and commercial services in order tobe competitive in the regional marketplace.

In the competition to attract jobs, the need forprograms and incentives to help businesses relo-cate or grow is equal to the importance of physicalinfrastructure. Impact-fee credits, streamlinedpermit processing, land buydowns, and other pro-grams at the county level can provide incentivesto job creation.

Still, the attractiveness of Osceola County to busi-ness and industry may increasingly depend onhuman infrastructure. The availability of an edu-cated workforce and the ability to house that work-force in an attractive and affordable community arecritical to attracting a higher-paying job base. Thestudy area provides an opportunity to meet thischallenge through comprehensive planning and thearticulation of a proper community vision.

Regional projections estimate that an additional250,000 residents can be expected in the next twodecades. Osceola County is anticipated to absorb adisproportionate share of that population whencompared with past trends. The major force thatwill drive this share will be available land andcompetitive land prices. The growth curve is notspeculative. All of the growth estimates are basedon solid data analysis and market trends.

Although the actual numbers may be estimates,the effects are not. New schools need to beplanned and built, existing roads will need to bewidened, and new roads need to be designed andbuilt. Social services, parks and recreation, andmunicipal services will all need to be upgradedand expanded. County government must lead the


way on these issues as well as many more. All ofthese improvements must be funded in a timelymanner and at sustainable levels.

Housing and Economic SustainabilityThe county has developed under a mostly ruraldensity model. Historically, development hasgrown from ranching and agriculture on largerland parcels to the development of five-acre home-steads. Development that has been approved inthe recent past has averaged slightly more thanone home per acre, with some housing variety rep-resented in the planning and construction.

Future development will need to be much moreaggressive with respect to density if growth is tobe accommodated while preserving the lifestylecurrently valued in the community. New areas forurban centers similar in scale to Kissimmee andSt. Cloud need to be established. Those centersneed to be based on a neighborhood model that al-lows for a greater variety of housing choices. Themultiple neighborhoods need to link together in acommunity-building framework.

Housing choices need to include single-familyhomes of varying sizes and prices, townhomes,condominiums, and rental apartments. The formof this housing must follow more of an urban thana rural model. The density requirements in thenew areas within the Urban Growth Boundaryneed to be greater than the three units per acre inthe current comprehensive plan. Densities in theplan need to be calculated on a gross acreage basisthat represents total land ownership.

The density model needs to allow for areas ofhigher density to accommodate the transfer of de-velopment into the study area from the surround-ing areas in an effort to preserve open space. Se-lected sites within the study area will requiresignificantly higher densities in an effort to bal-ance new development with the preservation ofOsceola’s unique lifestyle. Higher densities canalso be used to maintain housing affordability.Bonuses and incentives should be granted, whereappropriate, to encourage the construction ofworkforce housing in the community in a balancedand cohesive fashion. These bonuses should alsobe used to encourage the inclusion of mixed-use


projects, commercial services, employment cen-ters, and transit facilities within the proposedprojects. The inclusion of those elements withinthe new communities will, using good design prin-ciples, provide for a more walkable community inthe future.

The county must think and manage in a way thatmirrors the private sector. The county staff mem-bers and elected officials need to be aware of theever-changing opportunities and restrictionswithin the regional marketplace. The influence of regulatory practices on the housing and com-mercial marketplace must be evaluated and ad-justed constantly.

The need for diverse products within the market-place is healthy for a community, and the countyneeds to evaluate and understand housing options.ULI has documented emerging trends—such astransit-oriented development, active adult com-munities, and condominium hotels—that are ex-amples of products that have been developed overthe past decade. Each of those trends, as well asnew trends that have yet to emerge, can add tothe housing diversity in the community.

Approvals for proposed master-planned communi-ties need to have specific details about the type ofdevelopment yet allow for the flexibility to re-spond to the marketplace. Detail is essential ingood planning with respect to public infrastruc-ture, while flexibility is essential in meeting mar-ket demand. Balancing flexibility with specificscan result in the successful implementation of thecommunity vision.

Another area that may require the county to takea more private sector–like approach is in under-standing of housing cycles. The future of the studyarea represents a long-term planning and develop-ment commitment. Several cycles of growth andcontraction in the economy may occur before theplans are completed. County leadership needs tobe stable and consistent while understanding theunique circumstances of each cycle. Being a part-ner with the development community in complet-ing the community vision may mean being at thetable and in full partnership in both the goodtimes and bad.

The Region, the World, and a Crystal BallThe Orlando region is a major destination forworldwide tourism. This fact has driven the Orlando regional economy and the real estatemarket for decades. The Orlando InternationalAirport is the dominant portal for visitors to theregion. Nevertheless, the Osceola Jetport is fastbecoming an important player in this market. Inthe future it can become a primary access pointfor corporate executives and financial investors in the region.

The majority of visitors to the region come for the theme parks and the resort and golf experi-ence. The quality of this experience is vital to itscontinued success. Although neither the weathernor the international economy can be controlled,the county can still have a significant effect onmaintaining the quality of the experience. Tour-ism depends on a large workforce, and that work-force depends on a solid community support net-work. Housing choice and cost as well as trans-portation choices will play a significant role in thissupport network.

Tourism is the key to future investment in thecommunity. Many company executives may gettheir first glimpse of the region while on vacation,and first impressions are important and lasting.Future decisions to invest in the region may bebased on those first impressions.

Osceola County has shown that it is ready to ac-commodate growth. Projects in the county—suchas Celebration—have already achieved worldwiderecognition. Future developments must build onthis distinction. Osceola has the opportunity tocombine great location and climate with great in-frastructure and services. This opportunity mustnot be wasted through mistakes and short-sightedplans. Though the required investment may beconsidered large, the long-term return on the in-vestment will be substantial if the plans arewisely implemented.

Housing development is the key to the county’sparticipation in the regional economy. The studyarea should be seen as an area for community-based housing. It is well positioned for this devel-


opment activity, and the creation of diverse, qual-ity neighborhoods will support not only the regionat large but also the local need for additional localeconomic growth.

Although many of the decisions that are madetoday will establish the direction for the future,today’s planners must leave room for responsive-ness to emerging opportunities. The balance be-tween flexibility and direction is important. Areasthat are important to the realization of the visionmust remain consistent while allowing for changesthat respond to the marketplace.

The Role of Planning and Discipline inAttracting the BestMany great success stories exist throughout thecountry: for example, the Ballston Corridor in Ar-lington, Virginia, and Stapleton, the airport rede-velopment in Denver, Colorado; those communi-ties appear to have it all. In truth, none areovernight success stories. A great deal of plan-ning, preparation, patience, and discipline is at theroot of each successful community.

Community leaders in Osceola County need totake an active role in the process. After the visionand the plan have been determined, the follow-through must be disciplined. The community mustbelieve in the vision it has chosen. Communitymembers must possess the conviction of theirchoices even when nothing appears to be happen-ing. Political leaders need to stay the course, eventhrough election cycles, while recognizing thatsome reasonable midcourse correction may benecessary from time to time.

The long-term vision must be based on a solid, re-alistic understanding of Osceola County’s positionin that marketplace. The best vision of the futureis one that is chosen and embraced by the commu-nity at large. If the process is open, widely shared,and based on consensus, it will be easier to bringto realization.

Osceola County needs to create an environmentthat encourages both first-rate jobs and high-qual-ity housing. Good planning and cooperative lead-ership may be all that are required to create high-quality communities, given the nature of the

regional marketplace. The creation of good jobswill be the more difficult and more restrictive en-terprise for the county.

The creation of good jobs is somewhat beyondlocal control. Still, skilled preparation is a keycomponent. Having plans in place that allocateland to commerce is important. Upgrading theroads and infrastructure ahead of development iscritical. The best chance to attract jobs will comethrough careful investment in community infra-structure. High-paying jobs are currently beingcreated where lifestyle components are desirable,the business climate is friendly, and return on in-vestment is good.

Osceola County must position itself well for corpo-rate recruitment and have a ready-and-willing atti-tude. The availability of good-quality, diverse hous-ing and a growing population base will certainlyhelp; however, most corporations are not willing towait for roads and infrastructure to be completed.Too many areas of the country are competing forthe jobs. Companies also look at the aspect of just-in-time delivery—which is key to many sectors ofthe economy—in site selection. Locations need tobe available when the market is ready to grow. Ittakes a willingness to move quickly with approvalsand a well-planned and financed commitment tomeet this market expectation.

Osceola County has a distinct market position in a region that is growing dynamically. That posi-tion is based on the abundance of available land ina location that can accommodate growth and de-velopment. How that land is used will determinethe future of the community. Decisions must bebased on realistic expectations and the proper re-gional perspective. Policies must be establishedthat clearly reinforce the community vision. Incen-tives need to reinforce the positive goals whileregulations should serve to discourage, if not pro-hibit, development that falls short of meeting com-munity expectations.

The community must be willing to say no to pro-posals that miss the mark, even during downturnsin the economy. At the same time, innovative pro-posals that further community goals need to be-come the by-right development model. OsceolaCounty should strive to make good development


the easy path to followfor the landowners andthe development com-munity. For this ap-proach to work, the vi-sion needs to clearlyarticulated and sup-ported throughout thesystem. This supportincludes cooperationfrom regulators andservice providers thatare outside the county system of review and ap-proval, such as the South Florida Water Manage-ment District or MetroPlan Orlando. Communica-tion and coordination are essential.

The market opportu-nity presented to Osce-ola County today issolidly based on resi-dential development.The region needs qual-ity housing to continueto grow and prosper.Osceola can providethat housing base.Commercial growthwill be best if it is

scaled proportionately to the housing demand and ifit provides the necessary services to the community.

Even if you’re on theright track you’ll getrun over if you justsit there.

—Will Rogers


Osceola County has the potential to build avibrant and sustainable community by pro-viding diverse opportunities for economicdevelopment, public enjoyment, and civic

identity. The provision of these opportunities mustbe specified within the policies and plans thatguide decision making in the county. In otherwords, building a community is not the same asregulating the planning and design of multiple De-velopments of Regional Impact.

Community building starts with an overall visionfor the future of Osceola County and, in particular,the Lake Toho area. This vision should reflect thenatural, cultural, and economic assets of the area aswell as the hopes and aspirations of the people wholive or work in the county. The vision should articu-late a clear statement of the county’s priorities andobjectives related to growth and what the countywants to be like 10, 20, or 50 years from now.

The process of articulating a vision begins withthe adoption of a set of guiding principles. Theseguiding principles serve as the framework fordefining a vision. The panel recommends thatOsceola County consider the following principles.

• Celebrate the environment: Go beyond just pro-tection and mitigation and create a place thathonors the natural, cultural, and historical fea-tures that shape the character of the county.

• Encourage economic development: Provide thepublic leadership and resources needed to stim-ulate the private investment that will lead togreater prosperity for the residents of thecounty.

• Promote opportunities for public interaction:Strengthen the connections that hold communi-ties together by creating inviting and attractivepublic spaces.

• Allow flexibility for the long term: Agree to ap-propriate responses to unforeseen conditionsand opportunities.

• Risk greatness: Accept the risks that will needto taken to achieve a truly exceptional vision forthe county.

The panel recommends that a unified vision becreated for Lake Toho and its surroundings. Thisarea would include the five proposed DRIs, theBella Lago DRI, the Kissimmee lakefront, St.Cloud, and the remainder of the lakefront prop-erty that has not been included in the study area.The county should retain an outside planning con-sultant with national experience to facilitate thevisioning process.

One approach to the vision would be to form a hi-erarchy of activity centers that would complementand support Kissimmee and St. Cloud. One towncenter would be built; it would be a mixed-use,high-density employment area. Each of the pro-posed DRIs would become villages with smallervillage centers as the focus of their identity. Thevillages in turn would consist of two or threeneighborhoods, depending on their size.

Each village could comprise a mix of housingtypes and densities, schools, parks, institutionaluses (churches, post office, and the like), and localcommercial service uses. The important thing is toconnect the neighborhoods within the villages andthe villages to each other and the town center. Theconnections should be made with streets, trailsand sidewalks, green space, view corridors, andboat docks.

The panel also recommends that the county adopta set of performance standards for developmentplans. These standards would establish expecta-tions concerning the following:

• Public access to the lakefront;

Planning and Design


• Clustering of development;

• Vehicular and pedestrian connectivity;

• Environmental protection and enhancement;

• Density and scale of neighborhood and villagecenters;

• Mix of uses;

• Landscaping, lighting, and signage;

• Design consistency for public improvements(streets, trails, green space, and so on); and

• Quality of public buildings and facilities.

The important point is to establish and specify thestandards of the community’s design. A documentshould be created to help architects, landscape

architects, developers, builders, and property owners understand the design principles used tocreate the character and image of their community.

Finally, the panel recommends that the countyprepare a Lake Toho Management Plan. The planshould address recreational and environmental is-sues related to the anticipated new development.The plan should focus on the number and locationof marinas and boat launches; on habitat protec-tion, fishing events, ecotourism, and wildlife sanc-tuaries; and on security and other topics. The com-munity design standards and the lake manage-ment plan should be companion documents thatwork in concert to produce the quality of develop-ment that Osceola County deserves.

Celebrate the environ-ment: Go beyond justprotection and mitigationand create a place thathonors the natural, cul-tural, and historical fea-tures that shape the char-acter of the county.


The panel’s interviews uncovered a broadconsensus among the general public, electedofficials, technical staff members, and othersthat the transportation system serving the

study area is severely deficient. The situation hasbeen well documented in the Osceola County 2006Network Capacity report, the Westlake Cove andEdgewater DRI submittals, and the draft EastOsceola County Transportation Study (so namedbecause it lies on the east end of the existing ur-banized area; the study area is, in fact, well withinthe county’s northwest quadrant). Several of theadjacent roadways are currently at or near capac-ity, even without the additional traffic expectedfrom the proposed new developments. Concernhas understandably been considerable about thetransportation impact of the DRI proposals in thestudy area. In addition, because of the current lowpopulation density, the study area has poor transitservice and poor pedestrian and bicycle accommo-dations to help ease the transportation problem.

Existing Regional NetworkThe existing regional roadway network is high-lighted in the illustration on page 25. The follow-ing major roadways are in the immediate vicinityof the proposed DRIs:

• Florida’s Turnpike;

• U.S. Highway 192;

• Neptune Road;

• Kissimmee Park Road;

• Kings Highway;

• Old Canoe Creek Road; and

• Canoe Creek Road.

In the broader context of the study area, the fol-lowing roadways also play an important role:

• U.S. Highway 17/92;

• Poinciana Boulevard;

• State Road 15/Narcoossee Road;

• Pleasant Hill Road;

• Interstate 4; and

• State Road 417.

As shown in the illustration, regional access to the DRIs is constrained by the isthmus formedbetween Lake Tohopekaliga and East Lake To-hopekaliga where Florida’s Turnpike, U.S. High-way 192, and Neptune Road all convene. U.S.Highway 192 and Neptune Road each currentlyoperate with select segments at level of service(LOS) E during the peak hours. Level of service isa quantitative measure of traffic operations basedon average delay per vehicle, with LOS A repre-senting free-flow conditions and LOS F represent-ing gridlock conditions. Whereas the northernportion of the study area suffers from lack of ca-pacity, the southern portion of the study arealacks roadways altogether.

Transit service is currently provided by LYNX tothe cities of St. Cloud and Kissimmee. The north-south route operating between Kissimmee anddowntown Orlando (Route 4, Orange BlossomTrail) carries approximately 143,000 passengersmonthly, and it is one of LYNX’s most heavilytraveled routes.

Pedestrian and bicycle amenities in the vicinity ofthe study area are limited, except for the BillJohnson Memorial Pathway located along Nep-tune Road and on-street routes.

Future Transportation SystemOne can quite easily surmise that if the existingtransportation system is inadequate with today’s

Transportation


traffic volumes, motorist delays and crashes arelikely to increase in the future. Even without theproposed DRIs or other developments in the im-mediate vicinity of the study area, the traffic vol-ume increases would continue because of growthin neighboring areas, and the operation of thestudy area roadways would continue to degrade.

Several of the roadways affecting the entire region are planned to be expanded within the next five years. Those roadways are shown in theillustration. This expansive and aggressive road-building campaign will add significant capacity tothe system.

In addition, to address regional transportationneeds, the five DRIs jointly sponsored the EastOsceola County Transportation Study. The re-gional study was not final and available at thetime the panel met, but a brief review of the pre-liminary data showed recommendations to ad-dress transportation on a regional basis. Of partic-ular significance was the recommendation for the

Southport Connector road from U.S. Highway 192in the vicinity of east Lake Toho to Cypress Park-way. The panel agrees that these improvementsare important and necessary.

The city of Kissimmee is evaluating an intermodaltransportation station to promote existing connec-tions between Amtrak, Greyhound, and LYNXand future connections with a potential commuterrail line. The station would facilitate LYNX’s de-sired shift toward a timed transfer network, be-cause the intermodal facility could be a transfer lo-cation for the additional southern routes expectedwith the projected population growth in OsceolaCounty. The intermodal station is seen as an inte-gral component of the city’s Community Redevel-opment Area.

Regional Impact of DRIsBased on the proposed land uses as shown in fig-ure 2, the five study area DRIs are expected togenerate roughly 250,000 to 400,000 daily trips,

Existing regional roadwaynetwork, showing pro-posed expansions.

Southport Connector

St. Cloud

East LakeTohopekaliga

LakeTohopekaliga

Kissimmee

Map A

Legend:

Florida’s Turnpike

192

441

423

92

4

To I-95

Proposed road improvements

Proposed new interchanges


depending on the level of internal capture or multiple-stop trips in the development.

The simultaneous advancement of these develop-ments provides a tremendous opportunity to de-sign the internal street and connectivity networkso that the cumulative impact of all five develop-ments is less severe to the transportation infra-structure than that of the five developments indi-vidually. The preliminary site plans show con-nections between the adjacent DRIs, but the de-signs do not do an adequate job of providing ameaningful transportation link between the northand south ends of the study area.

Transportation Recommendations The aggressive reconstruction schedule plannedfor northwest Osceola County primarily focuseson improving the existing roadway network. Thepanel recommends implementing a comprehensivemultimodal transportation system as shown in theillustration on page 27.

Roadway NetworkSpecifically, the panel concurs with the East Osce-ola County Transportation Study recommenda-tion for a Southport Connector. The SouthportConnector provides regional transportation alter-natives not only for the planned DRIs, but also forthe existing population and future developments.

The Southport Connector should operate as a limited-access facility. The panel recommends acomprehensive long-term solution for the South-port Connector that extends beyond CypressParkway and provides a direct link to Interstate4. This solution will create a regional east-westlink between the coasts, and it will place OsceolaCounty directly in line with the corridor and itsaccompanying growth.

The linkages between the study area and the ex-ternal roadway network are vitally important. Forthe purposes of this analysis, a major access is de-fined as providing direct connectivity to the entirestudy area through a signalized intersection, whilea secondary access will serve a subarea of thestudy area, probably with a limited-access inter-section. The following linkages are recommended:

• Consider a major access to Westlake Cove on Neptune Road. This new access should provide a relatively direct link to U.S. High-way 192 and Florida’s Turnpike interchangewith Shady Lane.

• Provide secondary access to Mariners Covealong Neptune Road.

• Provide access to the Edgewater DRI alongKissimmee Park Road, which will have a full in-

Figure 2Development Proposals for Lake Toho Projects

Single-Family Multifamily Village RetailResidential Residential Center Services Office Park Industrial

(units) (units) (acres) (square feet) (square feet) (square feet)

Bella Tara 950 450

Green Island 10,700 5,500 2,750,000 410,000 840,000

Mariner’s Cove 2,151 1,012 50,000

Edgewater 3,755 3,245 507,000

Westlake Cove 2,325 1,675 165.1 350,000 100,000

Total 19,881 11,882 165.1 3,657,000 510,000 840,000

Note: Green Island retail uses include a 1.55 million-square-foot mall.Source: Bella Tara, Green Island, and Mariner’s Cove preapplication documents; Edgewater and Westlake Cove Applications for Development Approval.


terchange with Florida’s Turnpike and intersectwith U.S. Highway 192.

• Provide the Bella Tara DRI access to Kissim-mee Park Road.

• Use an interchange along the proposed South-port Connector (adequately spaced from thesystem interchange with Florida’s Turnpike) toprovide a major access to Green Island.

• Provide Green Island with a major access alongCanoe Creek Road.

• Connect the major access along Neptune(within Westlake Cove) and the proposed inter-change along the Southport Connector with afour-lane divided internal road (convertible tosix lanes). The exact location should be deter-mined through site engineering and planning toidentify wetlands, eagle’s nests, and other envi-ronmental constraints. Nevertheless, the road-way should be designed as a continuous routethrough the study area. The road can meander

through each site, but the design should notforce motorists to turn onto other roads to con-tinue through the site.

• Design the remainder of the internal street net-work to promote connectivity within and be-tween the individual DRIs and the currentlyundeveloped parcels.

• Design all internal roadways to allow emer-gency vehicles to access all roadways; buses tooperate on the collector streets; and trucks tooperate in the retail, office, and industrial areas.The county should be responsible for the designreview to ensure trucks, buses, and emergencyvehicles can access appropriate destinations.

Transit NetworkThe panel recommends providing a transit connec-tor route between the study area and the futurecity of Kissimmee intermodal center. A routeshould be able to travel the new north-south road-way in the study area. The eventual density, landuse mix, and street network will determine the

Multimodal transportationsystem recommended bythe ULI panel.

Map B

St. Cloud

Kissimmee

441

92

4

Legend:

Proposed town center

Proposed new interchanges with Florida’s Turnpike

Proposed new lake front drive with bike and pedestrian paths

Proposed connector road south of Lake Tohopekaliga

Urban growth boundary

Florida’s Turnpike

East LakeTohopekaliga

LakeTohopekaliga

UrbanGrowthBoundary

N


extent of transit service that can be provided. Thecounty can encourage transit-oriented develop-ment along the corridor through its comprehen-sive plan and zoning. The panel also recommendsthat all future corridors in Osceola County accom-modate and promote multimodal transportationalternatives.

Pedestrian and Bicycle NetworkOsceola County developed a Parks and RecreationPlan in November 2005 that encouraged connec-tivity for pedestrians and bicycles through a net-work of trails, paths, and greenways. The panelrecommends implementing the principles identi-fied in the plan throughout the study area. Specifi-cally, a greenway should be provided along asmuch of the lakefront as is possible. From a trans-portation perspective, the greenway should in-clude a continuous multiuse trail for pedestriansand bicyclists. A vehicular parkway should jointhe greenway for segments, and unpaved hikingtrails should be provided at select locations.

Internal to the site, the panel recommends a se-ries of interconnected multiuse paths to joinneighborhoods, parks, and village centers. Thepaths should provide direct connections betweenareas that are not directly connected for motor ve-hicles. Bicycle accommodations should be pro-vided along the main north-south roadway to pro-vide a commuter connection to the proposedintermodal facility.

ImplementationThe recommended improvements identified in thissection provide a solid foundation for addressingthe significant growth expected in OsceolaCounty. The improvements are expected to ac-commodate the buildout of the study area. Never-theless, if the county population projections arerealized, the regional transportation system willneed significantly more improvements than havebeen suggested here.

The county must identify and implement proce-dures that allow quick expansion of existing road-ways and construction of new roadways. Thecounty’s interest lies in reconstructing its cur-rently planned roadways quickly.

Development is occurring fast, and the roadwayinfrastructure is already deficient. Small-scaletransportation improvements (beyond thecounty’s planned roadway improvements) to ad-dress developer-related impacts should not be im-plemented one development at a time. Such astrategy will result in a transportation systemthat is constantly under construction and unableto accommodate current traffic load. The countymust proactively construct the cumulative im-provements required to accommodate develop-ments within select subareas. The county shouldconsider creating a transportation authority, com-munity development districts, or both to managethe fast-tracked and comprehensive roadway con-struction needed for the future developments. Thecounty must evaluate the sequencing of the pro-posed developments as it relates to planned road-way improvements and available access.

Transportation ConclusionsOsceola County faces significant obstacles in cre-ating a transportation system that can sustain andattract the type of growth desired, including tim-ing and environmental constraints. At the sametime, if the county proactively addresses trans-portation issues before significant development,several implementation mechanisms (for example,transportation authority and community develop-ment districts) could assist with construction be-cause the largely undeveloped nature of the studyarea makes implementing an effective transporta-tion system easier.


Osceola County is entering a new phase ofdevelopment as its growth patterns in thenorthwest quadrant around Lake Tohoshift from predominantly rural to predomi-

nantly suburban and urban. In order to managethis transition effectively, the county governmentand residents will need to create and apply more-formal growth management procedures. Up tonow, gradual changes in rural land use could be accommodated largely through informal under-standings and interpersonal relationships thatwere based on face-to-face exchanges and trust,along with mutual understanding of small-townand ranching needs. That informal system, supple-mented with basic zoning and land use plans, hasworked well in the past.

As the county undergoes extensive growth in pop-ulation, changes in land use will occur at a largerscale, at a faster pace, and more as the result ofcorporate, rather than individual, decisions. Thecounty growth management system will need toinstitute more-formal plans and written rules toensure that citizens and decision makers have acommon understanding of and commitment to thepublic goals and objectives. To prepare and applythese plans and rules, the county will need profes-sional staff members who not only can carry outthe necessary technical analyses but who also canwork with residents and businesses to build con-sensus about the desired vision of the future.

Unless the county citizens and government agen-cies develop a clear and compelling vision to guidethe coming growth, valuable environmental re-sources can be degraded, land use patterns will beuncoordinated, and economic opportunities maybe missed. The comprehensive plan sets forth agoal of sustainable development to be achievedthrough smart growth. However, in order to beeffective and widely accepted, these general goals must be translated into a more specific andgrounded vision of Osceola County 20 years from

now. They must explain what it will be like to liveand work in tomorrow’s communities and neigh-borhoods. The future is not fixed; it can be shaped.But first the county must understand its optionsand agree on its vision.

Three critical factors stand out. First, Osceola’s vi-sion must recognize and sustain its wealth of envi-ronmental resources, which are the source of itsuniqueness and value in the region. Second, Osce-ola’s vision must strive to maintain social equity,particularly through providing affordable housingfor its workforce. And third, the county’s visionmust be integrated with that of the metropolitanregion through active partnering in regionaltransportation and economic development pro-grams in order to enlarge the local options for a diverse economy.

Strategies for Maintaining theBoundary between Urban and RuralDevelopmentWhen urban development encroaches on areas setaside for rural activities, such as ranching, con-flicts occur between uses, urban services can befragmented, and infrastructure extensions aremore expensive. Under orderly growth manage-ment, the line between urban and rural develop-ment is maintained in order to prevent the unde-sirable side effects of encroachment. A regulatorystrategy for separating urban and rural land usesis the delineation of an urban growth boundary(UGB). An incentive-based strategy is the use of a transfer of development rights (TDR) program.Both of these strategies are proposed in thecounty’s most recent comprehensive plan. Both,however, are complex undertakings that requireconsiderable expertise to implement and are notautomatically successful. For example, nationallyonly a few of the proposed TDR programs haveactually succeeded in selling rights and preservinglarge amounts of conservation acreage.

Community Development Strategies

Urban Growth Boundary The concept of the urban growth boundary is sim-ple and appealing in theory. A line is drawn on amap, enclosing the land area required to accom-modate the population growth projected to takeplace over a 20-year planning period. Then, devel-opment rules, standards, and goals are set for theareas both inside and outside the boundary line inorder to facilitate dense urban development insideand to maintain lower-density rural uses outside.The line is reviewed periodically and may be ex-tended to ensure that enough land remains forgrowth for the next 20 years. To make an urbangrowth boundary work, however, planners and de-cision makers must take a number of other coordi-nating actions.

Inside the UGB, the location, timing, and capacityof major roads, schools, utilities, transit, rail, andother public facilities must be planned to providean orderly framework for the decisions of individ-ual private developers. Without such a frame-work, no predictability exists for public actions tosupport development, and these decisions are

made incrementally by the private sector. Zoningand other development regulations and incentivesmust be enacted to guide the density, intensity,type, and location of future development intosmart growth patterns—higher-density, mixed-use communities and neighborhoods. Finally, indi-vidual development projects must help fund thepublic facilities through impact fees, easementdedications, and provision of infrastructure im-provements aligned and timed to support the bur-dens of development, so that all can reap the bene-fits of planned and orderly growth.

Outside the UGB, zoning and development regula-tions must be adopted that discourage sprawl andmaintain rural character. These zoning categoriesshould recognize the underlying nature of therural land uses. They should encourage the contin-uation of rural activities, such as ranching, andprevent the conflicts that can arise when adjacentlands are subdivided for residential development.By requiring minimum lot sizes and withholdingpublic water and sewer services, these regulationsshould discourage sprawl and help maintain envi-ronmental systems. And they should consider the


Ranching is still animportant characteristicof life in Osceola County.


need to maintain rural character through zoningoverlays, view shed designations, and the like.

Transfer of Development Rights The TDR concept also is simple and appealing intheory. Rather than depending on regulations toaccomplish community development goals, TDRsubstitutes a market-based program that allowsrural and agricultural landowners to sell the de-velopment rights on their property while continu-ing to use it for ranching or other rural uses. Loca-tions designated as eligible for selling develop-ment rights are termed sending areas. Once sold,the development rights can be transferred to locations where denser urban growth is desired,which are called receiving areas. In receivingareas, a certain base level of density (for ex-ample, five dwelling units per acre) is allowed byright, with the potential for doubling the densitythrough transferred development rights. TDR is a way of clustering development by using a mar-ket mechanism. Transactions are recorded on thetitles of properties that have sold their rights. Fora TDR to work, however, it must be designed onthe basis of a careful market analysis, indicatingthat a market for the rights will actually develop,and receiving areas must be willing to accept theadditional density.

In many areas, finding a willing receiving area isdifficult because existing residents object to theimposition of higher density (the NIMBY syn-drome). One possible solution to this problem inOsceola County is to propose that one or more ofthe new villages be designated as receiving areas,and to set their base densities to be able to accom-modate the higher transferred densities. Ideally,the receiving areas would be inside the UGB andadjacent to high-access points, such as inter-changes, on the future transportation system. If areceiving area were to be considered outside theUGB, it would have to be completely self-sustain-ing with respect to city and county services.

TDR programs, while attractive in theory, havenot always proved to be effective tools for pre-serving open space for several reasons. First, veryfew TDR programs actually result in a significantnumber of development rights transfers, primar-ily because a market for development rights is dif-ficult to establish, and, therefore, a fair market

value for TDRs is difficult to ascertain. Recentyears have seen a remarkable proliferation ofTDR programs, but it is too soon to judge theoverall success rate of the newer programs.

Second, even if TDR programs create a successfulmarket for transfers of development rights, theygenerally will not result in a desirable pattern ofopen-space preservation. Because the programsrely on landowners’ willingness to sell develop-ment rights, no guarantee exists that the most im-portant environmental or open-space areas will bepreserved. Instead, those landowners whose landis farthest from existing urban areas, and there-fore in the least danger of being urbanized, aremost likely to sell development rights.

Third, by making density more expensive, TDRschemes can actually decrease densities andthereby result in more-rapid land consumption.The more compact the development patterns inwhich new growth occurs, the less open space newgrowth will consume through urbanization. Byforcing developers to purchase TDRs to developat densities above certain levels, TDR schemes in-crease the cost of, and therefore provide a disin-centive for, high density. Thus, TDR programs canoften result in less, not more, open space, particu-larly where the programs do not result in manyTDR transfers, in which case the program be-comes simply a cap on density.

Finally, TDR programs, by forcing new develop-ment to bear an inequitable burden of preservingopen space, are unfair and likely illegal. Requiringthose who develop at higher densities to purchaseTDRs is akin to assessing an impact fee or requir-ing a dedication of property. In either case,Supreme Court case law suggests that the fee ordedication must have a “roughly proportional” re-lationship to the impact of the new development.Showing that the TDR purchase requirement isproportional to the impact of new developmentwould be very difficult. Rather than spread thecost of open-space preservation equitably amongall residents, the TDR scheme places the bulk ofthe burden on new development, imposing a coston new residents that is usually in excess of theamount contributed by existing residents to open-space preservation.


Green infrastructure includes the lakes, wetlands,vegetation (e.g., live oaks), wildlife habitats,aquifer recharge areas, and other natural ele-ments. Those features work together as ecologicalsystems in which they interact and influence eachother and provide important environmental ser-vices, such as cooling shade, flood control, and im-proved water quality. Ensuring that the green in-frastructure remains healthy requires monitoringits status and taking timely action to deal withproblems. A number of state and regional agen-cies have environmental responsibilities. If theirdata collection could be coordinated to prepare anannual green infrastructure report, then citizensand elected officials would remain aware of prob-lems with the county’s environment.

Preparing a Greenprint Plan that designates envi-ronmental areas to be conserved will help to iden-tify and maintain important connections betweenecological patches and corridors and to set forthaction to achieve conservation goals and objec-tives. Making the plan will also provide an oppor-tunity for involving citizens and environmental or-ganizations and for formulating strategies, such as

None of the foregoing discussion is intended tosuggest that TDR programs should not be consid-ered by Osceola County, but rather it is intendedto underscore the need to analyze and manage theprogram carefully.

Land Conservation StrategiesOsceola County’s environmental resources are thekeys to its sustainable future. In the past theycould be taken for granted to some extent. Underthe pressures of projected future growth, theymust be actively managed. Three managementstrategies are recommended: (1) issue an annualreport on the health of the green infrastructure,(2) prepare and implement a Greenprint Plan tomanage the ecological systems for both active andpassive recreation, and (3) put in place low-impactdevelopment practices that make use of naturalprocesses to manage stormwater runoff. The com-prehensive plan recognizes the value of these re-sources and proposes a number of actions to con-serve them. Some additional steps, however, willbe helpful.

The southwestern shoreof Lake Tohopekaligawithin the study area.


purchase or donation of conservation easements incollaboration with the Nature Conservancy or theTrust for Public Land. The Greenprint Plan canbecome a part of the Parks and Recreation De-partment’s active and passive recreation programfor parks, marinas, fishing areas, nature studyareas, trails, greenways, and the like.

Stormwater management has traditionally reliedon drainage pipes and detention ponds. The recentconcern with managing water quality as well aswater quantity has generated interest in a newapproach called low-impact development, whichrelies on natural processes, such as bioretention(control practices that use the chemical, biological,and physical properties of plants, microbes, andsoils for removal of pollutants from stormwaterrunoff), infiltration, percolation, and evaporation.Low-impact development replaces undergroundstormwater drainage pipes with surface grassedswales, rain gardens, and other permeable infiltra-tion areas. A local example is the placement ofrapid infiltration basins in sand traps at Champi-ons Gate. Putting low-impact development mate-rials into design standards and other developmentrules will make the development communityaware of the benefits of this approach. Both theU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-ment and Environmental Protection Agency rec-ommend the approach in their stormwater bestpractice and smart growth publications.

Water Quality and QuantityManagement for Lake TohopekaligaLake Toho and other surface waters within theUGB are vital to water quality and quantity,stormwater runoff, and flood protection for thecounty. They are at risk, however, from the lack ofa coordinated approach to water quality, waterquantity, and solid and hazardous waste manage-ment practices in the region. Numerous local, re-gional, state, and federal authorities are responsi-ble for providing and regulating potable water,sewer service, stormwater management, floodcontrol, and hazardous and solid waste manage-ment. Because all of these functions will be af-fected by the significant increase in developmentanticipated in the county, it is imperative that thecounty coordinate with all of these groups to man-

age the aquifer, the supplies of potable water and its delivery systems, waste systems, stormwaterrunoff systems, and flood protection. This coordi-nation must ensure that the comprehensive plans and zoning and development ordinances for Kis-simmee, St. Cloud, and Osceola County include the necessary elements that will mitigate the ef-fects of development and even use the opportunity of development to improve these systems. Thecounty or the cities of Kissimmee or St. Cloud should consider purchasing shoreline tracts to ensure public access and use.

To the extent it is agreed that they are necessary to preserve water quality and quantity or enhancestormwater runoff and flood control in the county and region, the comprehensive plans and zoning and development codes for Kissimmee, St. Cloud, and Osceola County should include the followingstrategies:

• Specific locations and technical standards for re-quired buffer areas (for filtration, water level, and flood protection);

• Detention ponds;

• Channels as necessary for interconnectivity to improve filtration;

• Swales and natural infiltration;

• Flexibility for water-level control;

• Hydrilla and aquatic vegetation management; and

• Preservation of live oaks and other vegetation.

If such water quality and water quantity require-ments are included with specificity and enforced consistently, they will provide a dependable and equitable strategy for managing growth in thecounty; provide certainty for the development community; ensure compliance by all develop-ments, small and large; and allocate the cost of providing those services among all developers andusers. The panel also suggests that the compre-hensive plans and zoning and development codes include specific requirements with respect to the location of any new physical improvements that will be required (treatment facilities, detentionponds, interconnectivity requirements, water lines, wells, pumping stations, and so on) as well as


a timeline for providing each of these facilities.Developers of projects of all sizes should be re-quired to contribute proportionately to the cost of providing these facilities, by impact fees, dedi-cation of land and facilities, and maintenance re-sponsibilities, as appropriate for the develop-ment. Individual project development permits,entitle- ments, and approvals should be condi-tioned upon these contributions at a stage of de-velopment that will allow water, sewer, stormwa-ter, flood control, and waste management servicesto be in place with sufficient capacity to servehomes upon completion of development. Phasingof developer contributions should be commensu-rate with the water, stormwater, flood control,and waste management burdens imposed by eachstage of development.

Inasmuch as Lake Toho and other surface watersof the county serve as recreational amenities forthe county, comprehensive plans and developmentand zoning codes should include specific rules andrequirements for Lake Toho and other surface wa-ters consistent with conservation and recreationalgoals adopted by the county and other city and re-gional authorities. One goal that the panel heard isto permit greater water-level fluctuation in LakeToho and other detention ponds. Therefore, in theinterest of improving water management, theplans and codes should give the depth that will be required for new detention ponds, and the set-back or buffer areas required for each type of sur-face waterway. The county may choose to preventall permanent improvements within a portion ofthe perimeter of some waterways or to permit orrequire landscaping, nonpermanent recreationalimprovements, or both within other setbackareas. Dedications for public roadways or accessto the waterways for transportation, mainte-nance, and recreational or emergency purposesmay also be required.

The panel recommends that Osceola County carryout a recreation carrying-capacity study for LakeToho. This study will provide a firm understand-ing of the number of marinas and individual docksthat should be permitted along the lakefront. Itmay also result in limits on the number of boatspermitted on the lake at any given time and per-haps restrict the number of public boat ramps on

the lake as well. Implementation of the carrying-capacity study may be inconsistent with expecta-tions of shoreline landowners and users from adjacent canals and locks. This study should beinitiated promptly and the results implemented as quickly as possible, especially for shoreline andcanal/lock developments. Further study will beneeded to determine how these limitations are bestimposed, and the priority, if any, given to owners ofshoreline properties or in new developments.

Equitable Financing of Recreationaland Conservation AreasThe county’s 2005 Comprehensive Plan dividesthe county’s parks and recreational areas into thefollowing categories:

• Regional parks: Resource-based parks a mini-mum of 75 acres in size, serving more than twocommunities and often including an outdoorrecreation area;

• Community parks: Parks ranging in size from15 to 75 acres that serve the needs of two ormore neighborhoods and residents within a ra-dius of three miles, including passive and activerecreation lands;

• Neighborhood parks: Parks two to ten acres insize that you can walk to, including play-grounds, open play areas, and attractive land-scaping;

• Miniparks and tot lots, providing primarily pas-sive recreation but including playground areas,from 2,500 square feet to one acre in size;

• Special use facilities: For example, sports facilities;

• Natural resource areas: Lands set aside forpreservation of significant natural resources,remnant landscapes, open space, and visual aes-thetics or buffering that may include passiverecreation opportunities;

• Greenways and recreational pathways: Linearopen spaces protected and managed as part of alinked system of conservation lands or recre-ational lands; and


• Facilities owned and operated by other agen-cies: For example, nature preserves and man-aged wildlife areas.

Growth in Osceola County will increase the needfor additional recreational facilities as well as thelevel of use of existing facilities, particularly theregional and community parks and special use fa-cilities. Creative funding strategies will be re-quired for land acquisition, construction, andmaintenance of each of these types of facilities. Aswith other strategies for managing growth in thecounty, the panel recommends that the countyleverage its unique ecological and conservationstrengths to attract funding from other local gov-ernmental and quasi-governmental agencies andcommunity groups, including organizations withgoals consistent with the parks’ uses or pur-poses—whether wildlife conservation; environ-mental protection; or one of the active uses, suchas fishing, swimming, boating, or soccer. As thecounty recognized in its 2005 amended compre-hensive plan, combining parks and recreationalareas with schools and other community facilitiescan be an efficient way of leveraging or sharing

the infrastructure required for each and decreas-ing the initial development and ongoing mainte-nance costs for the combined facilities.

In anticipation of the coming growth, a detailedparks plan should be prepared as soon as possible.It should include locations of specific parks andrecreation areas, the general improvements andactivities for each recreation area, and timing forland acquisition and development of each facility.The plan should be based on an analysis of futurepopulation and the park facilities required perhousehold. Consistency between the comprehen-sive plans and development and zoning codes forKissimmee, St. Cloud, and Osceola County withrespect to these amenities would be helpful, atleast regarding regional and community parks andspecial use facilities, and as necessary to havemeaningful natural boundaries for natural re-source areas, and greenways and recreationalpathways.

Osceola County has a special tax that funds landacquisition for conservation areas and can be usedfor natural resource areas, and greenways and

A detailed parks planshould include locationsof specific parks andrecreation areas, the general improvementsand activities for eachrecreation area, and tim-ing for land acquisitionand development of each facility.

mitment of resources from the county if no suchprograms currently exist.

The county should avoid any exemptions fromrecreational impact fees for resort, timeshare, andother limited-occupancy residential products. Fi-nally, the panel recommends that the county re-quire payment of impact fees and dedications ofland earlier in the process, so that the parks andother facilities can be completed closer to the timenew residents occupy their homes and overuse ofexisting park facilities can be avoided.

Financing Schools to Keep Pace withGrowthOsceola County must work closely with the countyschool district to develop a methodology for identi-fying the number, size, and location of schools re-quired to accommodate the growth anticipated in the community. The comprehensive plans andzoning and development codes of Kissimmee, St.Cloud, and Osceola County should include theseschool requirements. Dedication of land for elemen-tary, middle, junior high, and high schools shouldbe required as part of the entitlement process forlarge developments, and impact fees should be re-quired of both large and small developers.

The Osceola County School District will be chal-lenged to provide funding for construction and op-eration of new schools. State funding and taxingauthority are controlled and limited by Floridalaw, and very little of the school funding system,other than new construction impact fees, is withinthe control of Osceola County. Current law per-mits developers to defer payment of school impactfees until the certificate of occupancy for each unitis issued. Developing a new school from land ac-quisition through construction takes one to threeyears, but if the impact fees are not paid until oc-cupancy permits are issued, the supply of schoolfacilities is unlikely to catch up with demand aslong as growth continues. The county is in theprocess of amending this requirement so that theeducation impact fees must be paid earlier in theprocess. Obviously, the earlier in the approval andpermitting process that those fees can be fairlycollected, the more likely the schools will be fin-


recreational pathways. Land acquisition and con-struction costs for new recreational facilities mayalso be funded from recreational impact fees im-posed on new developments, recreational fees im-posed on county residents, and land dedicationand facilities construction by developers. To theextent the comprehensive plans and developmentand zoning codes of Kissimmee, St. Cloud, andOsceola County consistently locate these ameni-ties and include a timetable for development, im-posing the proportionate cost on both small andlarge developers will be easier and more equi-table. In the amended 2005 comprehensive plan,the county has made an explicit effort to excludemini- and neighborhood parks from the county’srequired level of service and maintenance. There-fore, if communities generally believe that theseneighborhood parks and miniparks are beneficial,the comprehensive plan and development and zon-ing codes must impose responsibility for the dedi-cation, construction, and maintenance of theseparks on local developers, homeowners associa-tions, or other community or neighborhood organi-zations. The county should determine what en-forcement strategies are available to ensure thatthese neighborhood parks and miniparks continueto be available and are properly maintained.

Operational costs for parks can be supported byservice charges and user fees. User fees would in-clude general admittance fees and may be morecontroversial in the community for the general use parks and facilities. The community may bemore accepting of fees charged for commercial ac-tivities in the parks, such as paid fishing guides,than for purely private activities. Service chargesare generally less controversial and could be man-aged by increasing the special programs offered atthe parks and facilities. For example, communitygroups or local experts might agree to lead wild-life or wildflower hikes on a regular basis, and thecounty could charge a fee for participating in theactivity. An opportunity may exist to charge a feeto permit community or nonprofit groups to con-duct some of their educational or social activitiesat county recreational facilities. Examples mightinclude Red Cross swimming lessons, a local bassfishing group’s tournament, and similar activities.Note that marketing this last type of program tolocal and regional groups will require some com-


ished and available for the students when theymove in.

School facilities may also be financed through:

• Education Facility Districts, essentially charterschools funded by a developer and operated as acharter school through cooperation with the de-veloper, the residents, the school district andthe county; and

• Community Development Districts.

Both of these options appear to provide viable al-ternatives to the traditional school district con-struction plan, funded in whole or in part by edu-cation impact fees and local taxes.

Other strategies available to Osceola County toassist the school district in funding new schoolsand improve the quality of life for its residentsmight include the following:

• End education impact fees exemptions for re-sort, timeshare, and other limited-occupancyresidential products.

• Share growth projections with the school dis-trict and work with the school district to pro-vide the best available head-count projectionsto the state of Florida to maximize state fund-ing levels.

• Encourage the school district to build neighbor-hood schools near where people live.

• Create a forum for the school district to workwith local and regional agencies and communitygroups to encourage partnerships for comple-mentary uses for facilities and, where appropri-ate, sharing the costs. Examples might includecolocation of parks, libraries, social serviceagencies, and early childhood education.

• Create a forum for the school district to workwith local service agencies and community vol-unteers to make the school facilities availablebefore and after core school hours to providecommunity services. Examples include earlymorning and after school care for younger chil-dren, teen and community centers, adult liter-acy and parenting programs, and English as asecond language programs.

• Invest in infrastructure for new schools (water,sewer, stormwater management) to the extentthose costs are not funded from other sources.


participant on the regional scene and a growingpart of Metro Orlando’s global competitiveness. It is time to focus on quality of life and build thecommunity of the future. The county can nowbegin to create the place that people will wish tolive in.

As it grows, Osceola County must know that itsfuture can be desirable and prosperous. Having awell-articulated vision and the public policy disci-pline to implement it over the long term can makethat happen. Minor setbacks and economic down-turns must not derail the plan. Be disciplined, andstick to the vision.

Unprecedented growth will bring majorchanges to Osceola County over the nextten to 20 years. Preparing for that growthand having the will to manage it effectively

will be the difference between a county that isgracious and livable, with open space that reflectsgenerations of tradition and environmental sys-tems that are healthy and sustainable, and onethat is overrun with sprawl and identical to athousand other suburbs that have deterioratingenvironments and are choked with congestion.

Being prepared for this coming surge of growthmeans Osceola County must be an active partici-pant in organizations and institutions that work toshape the future of the Orlando metropolitan re-gion. The county must assert its interests as it be-comes a more and more important contributor and

Conclusion


It was published by the Urban Land Institute andis available through major booksellers.

Andrew BorsanyiSan Francisco, California

Andrew Borsanyi is a principal and director ofthe San Francisco office of The Concord Group.Borsanyi is responsible for building client rela-tionships, directing projects, participating in firmleadership, and managing the San Francisco of-fice. Specifically, he focuses on the firm’s North-ern California and Pacific Northwest business, onexpanding the firm’s application for finance-dri-ven analytical tools, and on developing and imple-menting The Concord Group’s next-generationbusiness model.

Previously, Borsanyi was president and founder ofthe Trestle Corporation, a publicly traded imagingcompany. He led Trestle from startup to industryleadership and more than $7 million in annual rev-enues from more than 100 clients in seven coun-tries. Borsanyi also oversaw the sale of Trestle toa strategic buyer and raised more than $5 millionin equity capital. Prior to joining Trestle, heworked in investment banking with Morgan Stan-ley and Robertson Stephens and in managementconsulting at McKinsey and Company.

Borsanyi has been involved in the real estate in-dustry since 1987. He has completed successfulmarketing and financial studies for residential, of-fice, and industrial clients for both The ConcordGroup and other leading firms. In addition, Bor-sanyi assisted in the founding of The ConcordGroup in 1995, helping create the firm’s initialbusiness plan, marketing strategy, and financialinfrastructure.

He holds an MBA from Harvard University and a BA from Wesleyan University, Middletown,Connecticut.

Roger L. GalatasPanel ChairThe Woodlands, Texas

Roger L. Galatas is president and chief executiveofficer (CEO) of Roger Galatas Interests, LLC,and provides advisory and development servicesto owners, investors, and executive managementof real estate ventures, with a focus on master-planned communities.

Previously, Galatas served as president and CEOof The Woodlands Operating Company, L.P., anddirected all the company’s real estate activitiesrelated to the internationally recognized 27,000-acre new community of The Woodlands, locatedjust north of Houston, Texas. For the past 25years, Galatas has been actively involved in thedevelopment of major communities in the Hous-ton region and in resort development on Galve-ston Island and at Aspen and Steamboat Springs,Colorado. His experience involves the develop-ment, marketing, and sale of projects valued atmore than $2.5 billion.

In addition to his real estate involvement, Galatasis actively engaged in a number of professional,community, and civic activities. He was a foundingdirector of The Woodlands Hospital; a board mem-ber of the Memorial Hermann Hospital System; afounding director of the John Cooper School; andpresident of the Conroe Independent School Dis-trict, where an elementary school was named inhis honor. Galatas served as a trustee and officerof the Urban Land Institute. He is on the Real Es-tate Advisory Committee of the Trust for PublicLand and board member of the Center for Hous-ton’s Future.

Recently, Galatas, joined by Jim Barlow, the long-time journalist and business columnist with TheChronicle, wrote a book titled The Woodlands,The Inside Story of Creating a Better Hometown.

About the Panel


David GodschalkChapel Hill, North Carolina

David Godschalk is a city and regional planner anda Fellow of the American Institute of CertifiedPlanners. His research and publications spanthree planning fields: (1) growth management andland use planning, (2) hazard mitigation andcoastal management, and (3) dispute resolutionand public participation. He is a consultant tostate and local governments on growth manage-ment, coastal management, and hazard mitigation.

Godschalk is Stephen Baxter Professor Emeritusin the Department of City and Regional Planningat the University of North Carolina (UNC) atChapel Hill. He also is adjunct professor in thereal estate curriculum at the Kenan-Flagler Busi-ness School at UNC, where he teaches an MBAcourse on site planning and design. He holds de-grees from Dartmouth College, University ofFlorida, and University of North Carolina.

His coauthored books include: Urban Land UsePlanning (University of Illinois Press, 2006); Nat-ural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Pol-icy and Planning (Island Press, 1999); Pulling To-gether: A Planning and Development ConsensusBuilding Manual (Urban Land Institute, 1994);Catastrophic Coastal Storms: Hazard Mitigationand Development Management (Duke UniversityPress, 1989); Understanding Growth Manage-ment: Critical Issues and a Research Agenda(Urban Land Institute, 1989); Land Supply Moni-toring: A Guide for Improving Public and PrivateUrban Development Decisions (Oelgeschlager,Gunn, and Hain, 1986); and Constitutional Issuesof Growth Management (APA Press, 1979).

Godschalk has been vice president of a Tampa con-sulting firm; planning director of Gainesville,Florida; and a planning faculty member at FloridaState University. He has served as an expert wit-ness in planning and growth management casesand as an elected member of the Chapel Hill TownCouncil. He is a registered architect (inactive) inthe state of Florida.

Pat HawleyBrookfield, Wisconsin

Pat Hawley has 14 years of project managementexperience, specializing in traffic analysis, park-ing, roundabouts, and transportation planning. Hehas managed large, multidisciplinary projectteams on complex projects. Hawley’s public rela-tions skills have enabled him to successfully or-chestrate consensus among elected officials, publicgroups, and key stakeholders on dozens of highlycontroversial projects. He presents annually atboth local and national events, and he has taughtmany classes at Marquette University andthrough the University of Wisconsin system.

Ann SaegertDallas, Texas

During Ann Saegert’s 27 years with the firm ofHaynes & Boone, LLP, she has represented in-vestors, publicly traded real estate companies,lenders, funds, and corporate users in real estatetransactions and other transactions involving real estate.

In addition, Saegert has made numerous presenta-tions to industry and professional associations, in-ternational conferences, client groups, and thelegal community, covering complex acquisition anddisposition transactions, innovative financing con-cepts, and environmental matters.

In the course of her practice, she has been in-volved with structuring, documenting, and negoti-ating the following transactions: acquiring andleasing real estate assets totaling more than$300,000,000 for a publicly traded real estate com-pany; representing lenders and corporate users inmore than 25 synthetic lease transactions acrossthe United States; financing of hotels in 42 statesand Mexico; and sealed bid marketing and disposi-tion of a major city center office development.


Gerard P. TullySalt Lake City, Utah

Gerard P. Tully is a registered landscape architectin the state of Utah and has been a professionalland planning and development consultant formore than 25 years. Tully is currently a seniorproject manager for Psomas, a multidisciplinaryconsulting firm with offices throughout the west-ern United States. Prior to joining Psomas, hewas the executive vice president of the ProterraCompanies, an award-winning Salt Lake City realestate consulting and development company, spe-cializing in community development, urban infill,and redevelopment projects. Tully has also beenthe principal of his own design and planning firm,Tully Design Group, Inc.

He serves as the chair of the Utah District Coun-cil of the Urban Land Institute and is a member ofthe National Leadership Council of the UrbanLand Institute in Washington, D.C. As programchair for the Utah District Council, he was respon-sible for organizing community outreach and Tech-nical Assistance Panels for Ogden City, West Val-ley City, and Clearfield City. He has served onseveral Urban Land Institute Advisory ServicePanels, including the preparation of a transit-oriented town center plan for the city of Green-wood Village, Colorado, and has worked with ULIand the Federal Transit Administration in theirrewrite of the New Starts funding guidelines.

Tully has been a guest lecturer for ULI, theAmerican Planning Association, Envision Utah,and the U.S. Agency for International Develop-ment and is an adjunct professor at the Universityof Utah College of Architecture and Planning. Hehas been actively involved in the Envision Utahprocess since its inception and has served on sev-eral steering committees involved in charting thefuture course of development in Utah. He is the

past president of the Sugarhouse Park Authority,where he served an eight-year term.

Tully’s development projects have received sev-eral “Governor’s Quality Growth Awards” in re-cent years from Envision Utah as well as an urbandesign award from the Utah Chapter of the Amer-ican Planning Association.

Douglas M. WrennGermantown, Maryland

Douglas M. Wrenn is a principal with RodgersConsulting, Inc., where he directs the firm’s workon a broad range of urban planning and site devel-opment projects. Prior to joining Rodgers Con-sulting, Wrenn was the director of redevelopmentprograms for Montgomery County, Maryland. He was responsible for the management of all as-pects of the county government’s participation in a $400 million public/private partnership to revi-talize downtown Silver Spring and the county’sRedevelopment Office in Wheaton, Maryland.

Wrenn has many years of consulting experience asa land planner and urban development specialist.He has directed multidisciplinary teams on large-scale community planning and urban redevelop-ment projects, for both public and private real es-tate interests. He established a national reputa-tion for his work in urban waterfronts, initially asauthor of the Urban Land Institute’s first book onthe subject, and later as a planning consultant onnumerous projects.

Wrenn holds a BS in environmental managementand a master’s degree in landscape architecture,both from North Carolina State University.

AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT Osceola County...

Documents

Transcript of AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT Osceola County...