Case Studies

Urban Stormwater Master Planning

From Coastal Sarasota Watersheds Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Title: Urban Stormwater Master Planning

Discussion Group Leaders: Timothy Roane and Kreg Maheu

Main points: stormwater planning and Low-Impact Development (LID)

Other points, mentioned offhand during the presentation:

Important questions raised:

How are bioswales better than putting in, for example, basic swales and using the extra money for a retrofit?

Do pervious pavements keep working over time?

What changes should be made to SRQ policy?

Areas of general agreement:

There was general consensus that policy integration is important; whether or not the actual master plans are separate or combined, there was an agreement that City policy wasn't integrated with County policy, and that is a problem for planners and civil engineers.

Areas of disagreement:

People disagreed about whether LID should be required, and whether Sarasota's master plan should be integrated into the county's or not. Some were hesitant, saying LID should be “experimented with” whereas others felt that it could only produce positive outcomes and should be required for all new development. Further, the current stormwater master plan, integrating the whole county, is proposed to be cut into individual cities. Some said this was positive, because it would make it easier for Sarasota to take the next steps in implementing LID. Others felt that the limits should be environmentally-defined, and the master plan should include the whole Sarasota watershed. Next steps identified:

The Deerborn project is seen as a next step, as well as revising the LID manual to integrate it better with County policy.

An edition of WaterAtlas.org
Home Coastal Sarasota Watersheds Wiki
Water AtlasCoastal Sarasota Watersheds WikiUrban Stormwater Master Planning
An Edition of wateratlas.org