4/10/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4NAi.YSiS When the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAC) reviewed the earlier draft of the brochure (on February 28), the location map of acquired conservation areas was a point of discussion. Some members felt the map, which at that time had an insert showing the portion of the county west of I-95, would be difficult for the general public to understand. Others thought the map should only show sites acquired under the program, and should not include "other conserved land" (similar to Frank Coffev's concern). The majority of the LAAC voted, however, to recommend that the map be left as shown (as presented to the Board on March 20, 2001). Alternatives Following are a number of alternatives regarding the map: Show the entire county and other conservation lands in addition to lands acquired under the bond program (as shown in latest draft) 2. Show the entire county with just lands acquired under the bond program. 3. Show half the county, including Fellsmere on the same scale and not as an insert, with other conservation lands in addition to lands acquired under the bond program. 4. Show half the county, including Fellsmere on the same scale and not as an insert, with just the lands acquired under the bond program. At the April 10, 2001 Board meeting, staff will present draft maps to illustrate the alternatives. Another consideration, as discussed by the Task Group, LAAC. and the Board, is whether or not the brochure should be revised to a bigger size of 1 I" x 17" vs. the current layout of 8 '/2 " x 14." The Task Group's position is that the brochure should stay at the 8 '/z" x 14" size. So far, the majonty of the LAAC and the Board have also voted to leave the size as it is currently. Going to an 11" x 17" size would allow for a bigger map, but would upset the overall layout due to changes that would occur in folding of the brochure. An 11" X 17" size would also result in blank space that could be tilled with more information. That, however, would bring the design process "back to square one" and would substantially delay brochure approval, production and mailout. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners review the brochure map alternatives, as will be presented by staff at the April 10 meeting, and finalize the brochure design. 1. Revised Environmental Lands Program Informational Brochure. _'. 3/29/01 letter from Frank Coffey. Environmental Chief Roland DeBlois, staff advisor to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, displayed several revised maps and explained the differences and recommended the following revised map: APRIL 10, 2001 -60- � 3L 85