1. LID Case Study: The Madera Subdivision Glenn Acomb, ASLA Glenn Acomb, ASLA Department of Landscape Architecture Department of Landscape Architecture Program for Resource Efficient Communities Program for Resource Efficient Communities University of Florida University of Florida Glenn Acomb, ASLA Glenn Acomb, ASLA Department of Landscape Architecture Department of Landscape Architecture Program for Resource Efficient Communities Program for Resource Efficient Communities University of Florida University of Florida April 5, 2007 M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

2. Overview Overview  Introduction  Land Development Practices  LID Principles  Triple Bottom Line  Case Study: Madera Community  Q & A  Introduction  Land Development Practices  LID Principles  Triple Bottom Line  Case Study: Madera Community  Q & A M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

3. “What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?” Henry David Thoreau M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m The client says: “I’ve got this great piece of land…..it’s incredible, high and dry, rolling land, majestic oaks, and on and on. Then he wants to apply a development program of extensive horizontal development, virtually destroying all that which is seen as precious” The typical development scenario The client says: “I’ve got this great piece of land…..it’s incredible, high and dry, rolling land, majestic oaks, and on and on. Then he wants to apply a development program of extensive horizontal development, virtually destroying all that which is seen as precious” The typical development scenario

4. Impacts typically created in land development ACTIONIMPACTS Land clearing Damages ecosystem and alters hydrology Construction Further damages ecosystem; compacts soils, limiting infiltration and damaging roots InfrastructureAlters hydrologic system (and watershed) Roads/automobile Affects air quality/threatens pedestrian safety and layout alters watershed Building/lot Design affects energy and water quantity and quality; resource efficiency via materials selection ACTIONIMPACTS Land clearing Damages ecosystem and alters hydrology Construction Further damages ecosystem; compacts soils, limiting infiltration and damaging roots InfrastructureAlters hydrologic system (and watershed) Roads/automobile Affects air quality/threatens pedestrian safety and layout alters watershed Building/lot Design affects energy and water quantity and quality; resource efficiency via materials selection M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m Conventional practices have resulted in excessive resource consumption. We must now use approaches that favor resource conservation or renewal

5. LID “Big View” LID “Big View”  Do less harm (esp. clearing & grading)  Respect hydrologic functions  Design a low impact landscape  Do less harm (esp. clearing & grading)  Respect hydrologic functions  Design a low impact landscape M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m When you impact less = multiple benefits

6. LID Design Considerations LID Design Considerations  Limit site disturbances; small footprint  Mimic hydrologic function  Limit impervious surfaces  Utilize bioremediation  Use native plants  Limit use of irrigation and processed water  Limit use of fertilizers and pesticides  Limit site disturbances; small footprint  Mimic hydrologic function  Limit impervious surfaces  Utilize bioremediation  Use native plants  Limit use of irrigation and processed water  Limit use of fertilizers and pesticides M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

7. Triple Bottom Line of savings in low impact development M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m  Impact less spend less to prep site (less clearing, grading & improvements)  Mimic hydrology spend less in drainage, enhancing infiltration and reducing pollutant load  Smart site design use less water and in maintaining the site (less mowing and irrigation)  Impact less spend less to prep site (less clearing, grading & improvements)  Mimic hydrology spend less in drainage, enhancing infiltration and reducing pollutant load  Smart site design use less water and in maintaining the site (less mowing and irrigation)

8. Category Timing Client Speculators (buy and flip) early developer Infrastructure Developers early-middlebuilder Homebuilders lateconsumer Developer-Builders early-late consumer Community Developers early-lateconsumer (Master Developer) The dilemma is that the reward of sustainable choices is to the end user/homebuyer yet many in development are out of the picture by that time. Category Timing Client Speculators (buy and flip) early developer Infrastructure Developers early-middlebuilder Homebuilders lateconsumer Developer-Builders early-late consumer Community Developers early-lateconsumer (Master Developer) The dilemma is that the reward of sustainable choices is to the end user/homebuyer yet many in development are out of the picture by that time. Land Development Players Land Development Players M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

9. Cleared Site Scenario: Landscape Improvements M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m  Landscaping$2.00-$3.00  Turf$0.50/s.f.  Mulch$0.25/s.f.  Landscaping$2.00-$3.00  Turf$0.50/s.f.  Mulch$0.25/s.f. Item Installed Cost Item Installed Cost

10. Cleared Site Scenario: Water Requirements M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m  Turf½”  Ornamental Landscape¼”  Native Landscape (or mix) 1/10” or much less  Turf½”  Ornamental Landscape¼”  Native Landscape (or mix) 1/10” or much less Item Application Item Application

11. Context/Urban Form 1.Site Selection and Context within the region 2.Site Analysis to Determine Use & Conservation Project 3. Community Form/Open Space Design 4.Water Resources 5. Circulation and Connectivity 6.Socioeconomic and Cultural Resources 7.Policies and Management over Time Project Component 8. Site Design Resource Efficiency 9.Building Design Resource Efficiency 10.Construction Practices and Materials Selection Context/Urban Form 1.Site Selection and Context within the region 2.Site Analysis to Determine Use & Conservation Project 3. Community Form/Open Space Design 4.Water Resources 5. Circulation and Connectivity 6.Socioeconomic and Cultural Resources 7.Policies and Management over Time Project Component 8. Site Design Resource Efficiency 9.Building Design Resource Efficiency 10.Construction Practices and Materials Selection Sustainable Design Checklist Sustainable Design Checklist M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

12. Case Study: Madera Case Study: Madera M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m A Model Subdivision of LID Design Techniques A Model Subdivision of LID Design Techniques

13. Case Study: Madera 88 single-family homes on 44 acres (2.0 units/acre) Uses LID practices for resource efficiency Significant community open space and buffers Uncurbed roads and narrow right-of-way (50’) Restrictions to protect hardwood tree canopy and understory vegetation Proximity to UF and trail connections All homes are EnergyStar, WaterStar & resource efficient 88 single-family homes on 44 acres (2.0 units/acre) Uses LID practices for resource efficiency Significant community open space and buffers Uncurbed roads and narrow right-of-way (50’) Restrictions to protect hardwood tree canopy and understory vegetation Proximity to UF and trail connections All homes are EnergyStar, WaterStar & resource efficient M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m Location: Gainesville, Florida Size: 44 acres Developer: GreenTrust, LLC (MD) in partnership with the University of Florida Energy Extension Office Location: Gainesville, Florida Size: 44 acres Developer: GreenTrust, LLC (MD) in partnership with the University of Florida Energy Extension Office

14. Sustainable Design Techniques for the Community  First to be approved via the City’s Green Development Code  Reasonably compact houses (2,200-2,600 s.f.)  Limited clearing of lots; must submit site plan with tree locations  Native plants and very limited turf  Connectivity to University (1.5 mile; trail connection)  Goal of zero discharge of stormwater on lots  Minimally-sized community detention basin  Required use of EnergyStar and WaterStar appliances +  Porches encouraged; front-loaded garages discouraged  First to be approved via the City’s Green Development Code  Reasonably compact houses (2,200-2,600 s.f.)  Limited clearing of lots; must submit site plan with tree locations  Native plants and very limited turf  Connectivity to University (1.5 mile; trail connection)  Goal of zero discharge of stormwater on lots  Minimally-sized community detention basin  Required use of EnergyStar and WaterStar appliances +  Porches encouraged; front-loaded garages discouraged M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

15. Design Techniques for the Community Use of Eco-Block in construction Narrow, uncurbed roads Stormwater detention basin, Phase I Limited clearing & contractor care M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

16. Sustainable Design Techniques for the Lot: Design Techniques of the Model  Limited clearing of site  Limited turf (35% of conventional)  Limited irrigation (50%); low-volume design  Limited impervious cover (encouraged) - Pervious pavers for driveway & sidewalk and shared driveway for some lots  Zero discharge of stormwater – Capture of 1/3 roof stormwater to an infiltration tank; water garden in front yard natural area  Use of natives and “Florida Friendly” plants; SJRWMD & Florida Yards & Neighborhood support  Retained snags in rear yard buffer  Model home displays an array of green products  Limited clearing of site  Limited turf (35% of conventional)  Limited irrigation (50%); low-volume design  Limited impervious cover (encouraged) - Pervious pavers for driveway & sidewalk and shared driveway for some lots  Zero discharge of stormwater – Capture of 1/3 roof stormwater to an infiltration tank; water garden in front yard natural area  Use of natives and “Florida Friendly” plants; SJRWMD & Florida Yards & Neighborhood support  Retained snags in rear yard buffer  Model home displays an array of green products M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

17. Madera Model Center Landscape Design M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m Model Center Shared Driveway (pervious pavement) Existing Vegetation Existing Vegetation Guest Parking Rain Garden Garage Entry Tank Road

18. Madera Model Center Shared driveway and pavers Permeable pavers Native plant information Model front yard M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

19. Madera Site Details Madera Site Details Roof stormwater infiltration tank under spare parking Eco-Stone pervious pavers in driveway Turf reinforcing in spare parking areas M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

20. Madera Model Center Front yard and Shumard Oak Rain Garden Water conservation information Model side yard M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

21. Madera Home 2003 No turf, front-loading garage; edge ornamental plantings M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

22. Madera Home 2004 First 2-story; side-loading garage; no turf M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

23. Madera Home 2005 Front-loading garage; very limited turf; extensive mulch; rain garden M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

24. Madera Phase I Stormwater Facility Smaller in area and volume due to zero discharge at the lot M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

25. Comparison with Conventional: Site Design Techniques for the Lot M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m Capital Costs: (2003/2004 dollars) TaskSustainableConventionalSustainable Savings Clearing/Grading$1,612.00$2,016.00$400.00 Utility Connectionsamesame--0-- Natural Area Mulch$245.00$90.00($155.00) Landscape Area Mulch $665.00$406.00($259.00) Landscaping$6,485.00$6,485.00--0-- Turf$720.00$2,331.00$1,611.00 Irrigation$1,275.00$1,500.00$225.00 Driveway*$6,084.00$7,584.00varies with material Infiltration Tank$1,032.00--0--($1,032.00) Turf Reinforcing for Parking $845.00--0--($845.00) SUB TOTAL$18,963.00$20,412.00 * * Note: The driveway, if not shared, would cause an advantage of $5,294 in favor of the Conventional. If so, only in the maintenance per annum can the costs be recovered (in less than 3 years). Also, there should also be an adjustment of capital cost of the project-wide stormwater savings of reduced pond size due to the zero discharge at the lot (approx. $1,000 saved per lot). Capital Costs: (2003/2004 dollars) TaskSustainableConventionalSustainable Savings Clearing/Grading$1,612.00$2,016.00$400.00 Utility Connectionsamesame--0-- Natural Area Mulch$245.00$90.00($155.00) Landscape Area Mulch $665.00$406.00($259.00) Landscaping$6,485.00$6,485.00--0-- Turf$720.00$2,331.00$1,611.00 Irrigation$1,275.00$1,500.00$225.00 Driveway*$6,084.00$7,584.00varies with material Infiltration Tank$1,032.00--0--($1,032.00) Turf Reinforcing for Parking $845.00--0--($845.00) SUB TOTAL$18,963.00$20,412.00 * * Note: The driveway, if not shared, would cause an advantage of $5,294 in favor of the Conventional. If so, only in the maintenance per annum can the costs be recovered (in less than 3 years). Also, there should also be an adjustment of capital cost of the project-wide stormwater savings of reduced pond size due to the zero discharge at the lot (approx. $1,000 saved per lot).

26. Comparison with Conventional: Site Design Techniques for the Lot M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m Maintenance Costs: (annual costs, 2003/2004 dollars) TaskSustainableConventionalSustainable Savings Landscape service (incl. mowing)$1,470.00$3,150.00$1,680.00 Pesticide applications by service$200.00 (IPM)$300.00$100.00 Irrigation $71.84$167.51$115.67 [31,602 gal.][74,120 gal.] SUB TOTAL$1,721.84$3,617.51$1,895.67 Result: The approach to the maintenance considers 42 landscape maintenance visits to the residential site and 5 visits for application of pesticide. Also there would be increased maintenance of the project-wide stormwater pond due to the greater depth of pond and greater accumulation of silt, debris and noxious plants in the bottom. Maintenance Costs: (annual costs, 2003/2004 dollars) TaskSustainableConventionalSustainable Savings Landscape service (incl. mowing)$1,470.00$3,150.00$1,680.00 Pesticide applications by service$200.00 (IPM)$300.00$100.00 Irrigation $71.84$167.51$115.67 [31,602 gal.][74,120 gal.] SUB TOTAL$1,721.84$3,617.51$1,895.67 Result: The approach to the maintenance considers 42 landscape maintenance visits to the residential site and 5 visits for application of pesticide. Also there would be increased maintenance of the project-wide stormwater pond due to the greater depth of pond and greater accumulation of silt, debris and noxious plants in the bottom.

27. Comparable used in figures Comparable used in figures M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m Comparable price point; subdivision across from project; comparable site characteristics

28. Issues to address Cleared sites – higher landscape costs for visual affect; natives growing in acceptance but are not as well known; return takes a bit longer Problem soils – Low infiltration rates limit easy bioremediation; water harvesting is easier; water as an amenity Smaller lots – Result in less space to remediate but surface runoff becomes critical Turf – Limit amount due to high water consumption, pollutant runoff, cultural preferences; and human intervention, etc. Cleared sites – higher landscape costs for visual affect; natives growing in acceptance but are not as well known; return takes a bit longer Problem soils – Low infiltration rates limit easy bioremediation; water harvesting is easier; water as an amenity Smaller lots – Result in less space to remediate but surface runoff becomes critical Turf – Limit amount due to high water consumption, pollutant runoff, cultural preferences; and human intervention, etc. M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

29. Trends offering promise Native plants – attractive natives are more known; designs that are attractive are more common Water harvesting –roof capture/wet detention is possible; we can capture some of landscape need through harvesting; reuse is more available Shared open space – Open space to convey surface water is possible if integrated into the community plan (e.g. Village Homes) Turf – Alternatives are becoming available Irrigation - Soil moisture sensing controllers are becoming affordable Native plants – attractive natives are more known; designs that are attractive are more common Water harvesting –roof capture/wet detention is possible; we can capture some of landscape need through harvesting; reuse is more available Shared open space – Open space to convey surface water is possible if integrated into the community plan (e.g. Village Homes) Turf – Alternatives are becoming available Irrigation - Soil moisture sensing controllers are becoming affordable M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m

30. Email Contact acomb@ufl.edu M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m Web Sites Program for Resource Efficient Communities: www.energy.ufl.edu UF Department of Landscape Architecture: www.dcp.ufl.edu/landscape Program for Resource Efficient Communities: www.energy.ufl.edu UF Department of Landscape Architecture: www.dcp.ufl.edu/landscape

31. Bibliography Bibliography M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m Arendt, Randall. Conservation Design for Subdivisions. Island Press, 1996. EPA. Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions between Land Use, Transportation and Environmental Quality. 2001. Florida Green Building Coalition. “Green Development Design Standards.” FGBC, 2003. NAHB Research Center. The Practice of Low Impact Development. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, 2003 Rocky Mountain Institute. Green Development. John Wiley & Sons, 1998. Sustainable Industries Building Council. “Green Design Guidelines,” SIBC, 2004. Thompson, William and Sorvig, Kim. Sustainable Landscape Construction. Island Press, 2000. Arendt, Randall. Conservation Design for Subdivisions. Island Press, 1996. EPA. Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions between Land Use, Transportation and Environmental Quality. 2001. Florida Green Building Coalition. “Green Development Design Standards.” FGBC, 2003. NAHB Research Center. The Practice of Low Impact Development. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, 2003 Rocky Mountain Institute. Green Development. John Wiley & Sons, 1998. Sustainable Industries Building Council. “Green Design Guidelines,” SIBC, 2004. Thompson, William and Sorvig, Kim. Sustainable Landscape Construction. Island Press, 2000.