Sustainable Rochester

Transcription

1 Sustainable Rochester Joint Planning Commission / Council Meeting February 28, 2018

2 2 Welcome! Agenda: Public Comment Sustainable Rochester Presentation Council / PC / DDA Discussion Public Comment

3 Introductions McKenna Team 3 John Jackson, AICP, President Paul Lippens, AICP, Project Manager Vidya Krishnan, Planner Laura Haw, AICP, Planner Deanna Dupuy, Planner Carrie Leitner, Graphic Designer

4 Project Purpose and Needs

5 5 Purpose To provide for continued quality of life for residents and business in Rochester through sustainable development decisions that minimize unplanned impacts to the built and natural environment.

6 Examples of City Service Needs 6 $100 Million in Infrastructure Asset management plans Roads, bridges, and sanitary Water Sewer Public Safety $600 thousand in operations for fire department

7 Paths to Fiscal Sustainability 7 New Tax Payers Additional homes and businesses New Taxes Special Service Districts Millages

8 8 Sustainable Rochester The good news: The City is in a great position to guide development and protect its residents from impacts. The hard truth: There are trade-offs.

9 9 Sustainable Rochester Sustainable Rochester will help decision makers assess: Regional trends that will influence development; Local decisions that the City can make; and How to evaluate projects based on established policies.

10 The Story So Far 10

11 The Story So Far 11

12 The Story So Far 12

13 The Story So Far 13

14 The Story So Far 14

15 The Story So Far 15

16 The Story So Far 16

17 17 What is an Indicator? An observable and measurable entity that serves to define a concept. Can measure and compare scores overtime to monitor trends or track progress. Simplifies information to improve communication, policy making, and decision making.

18 18 Sustainable Rochester Process Research Model Studies Tri-City Sustainability Partnership Framework Plan, 2012 Quality of Life Progress Report, Northwest Florida, 2015 Social Progress Index, 2017 Framework for Creating Smart Growth, EPA, 2016 Downtown Success Indicators, University of Illinois, 2014 Sustainable Rochester Steering Committee Collaboration In person steering committee working sessions One-on-one meetings with staff and department heads Online surveys and feedback loops Draft Report Review and Comments Incorporated

19 19 Sustainable Rochester Products Sustainable Rochester Development Framework Methodology Report Project Evaluation Worksheet Sustainable Rochester Map Book - 26 maps of local and regional data

20 20 Indicator Framework Sustainability Value Development Components Local Indicator Regional Indicator Master Plan ideas/goals tell us what is important to measure. Indicators measure progress towards goals/ideas.

21 21 Indicator Framework Regional Indicator Local Indicator Purpose Provides comparison to surrounding region. Tracks City s progress towards reaching Master Plan ideas/goals. Provides comparison between developments and geographies within the City. Tracks City s progress for reaching indicator targets and Master Plan ideas/goals. Data Set Regional City collected Review Annually Project by project

22 22

23 23 Indicators Report on How Development Achieves Goals v v v v v v v

24 Project Evaluation Worksheet 24

25 25 Score Out of 20 Local Indicators Only A Project Evaluation Report Will Assess Project Strengths and Weaknesses The Result = Consistent Evaluation

26 Environmental Health Sustainability Value 1 26

27 27

28 Development Balance 1.1 Percent of Land Use: Impervious Surface 28 Regional Indicator Baseline: 36.6% of land use covered by impervious surface Future Trend: Reduce

29 Development Balance 1.2 Parks and Open Space Per 1,000 Residents 29 Local Indicator Baseline: 24.8 acres per 1,000 residents National Average: 9.6 acres / 1,000 residents (National Recreation and Park Association, 2017) Target: 10% increase Evaluation Criteria Number of units Acres of open space

30 Natural Features Protection 2.1 Percent of Land Use: Tree Canopy 30 Regional Indicator Baseline: 31% of land use covered by tree canopy Standard: 40% (SEMCOG recommendation) Future Trend: Grow

31 Natural Features Protection 2.2 Net Tree Change 31 Local Indicator Baseline: Site Specific Target: 15% increase in total number of trees Evaluation Criteria: Existing number of trees Number of trees to be removed Number of trees proposed to be planted or payment in lieu (if applicable)

32 Watershed Health 3.1 Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI) within Clinton River Watershed Area of Concerns 32 Regional Indicator Baseline: 8 Existing BUIs (out of 14 possible) identified for Clinton River Watershed Future Trend: Reduce

33 Watershed Health 3.2 Development within the Flood Hazard Zones 33 Local Indicator Baseline: Existing Development within Flood Hazard Zone Target: 0% increase Evaluation Criteria: Existing site location Mitigation strategies (if proposed location is within the Flood Hazard Zone)

34 Mobility Sustainability Value 2 34

35 35

36 Nonmotorized Infrastructure 7.2 Nonmotorized Transportation Infrastructure 43 Local Indicator Baseline: 61 miles Target: 15% increase Evaluation Criteria: Linear feet of proposed nonmotorized infrastructure

37 Fiscal Strength Sustainability Value 3 44

38 45

39 Tax Base Growth 8.2 Increase in Taxable Value Per Acre 47 Local Indicator Baseline: Average SEV/acre of four surrounding properties Target: 15% above the average adjacent parcels SEV/per acre Evaluation Criteria: Existing SEV/acre of adjacent parcels and development property Proposed SEV/acre of development property

40 Public Services Sustainability Value 4

41 51

42 Pipe Condition 11.2 Percent of Deficient / Critical Pipes 55 Local Indicator Baseline: High Risk Sanitary Pipe 9,985 linear ft. Water Pipes less than 8 inches (diameter) 88,207 linear ft. Target: Sanitary Reduce 15% Water Reduce 5% Sanitary Sewer Criticality Rating Water Pipe Diameter (inches) Evaluation Criteria Proposed linear feet of sanitary and water pipe replacement

43 Strong Neighborhoods Sustainability Value 5

44 63

45 Housing Mix 15.2 Number of Multiple Family Units 65 Local Indicator Baseline: 2,144 multiple family units within the City (does not include assisted living units) Target: 20% increase of total multiple family units Evaluation Criteria Number of multiple family units

46 Downtown Viability Sustainability Value 6 68

47 69

48 Historic Preservation 18.2 Compliance with Sight Lines 73 Local Indicator Baseline: Existing skyline Target: 0% change Evaluation Criteria: Sight diagrams The Skyline Test is a measurement of height of a building based on its visibility from the Downtown Core. Buildings of height greater than the height permitted may be permitted, subject to demonstration through line of sight diagrams that the building will not detract from the appearance of Main Street s skyline.

49 Strategic Action Plan

50 Strategic Action Plan - Implementation 79

51 Strategic Action Plan 80

52 Strategic Action Plan 81

53 82

54 83

55 Discussion