LID Case Study: The Madera Subdivision

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

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

3. M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m “What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?”Henry David Thoreau 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. M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m 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

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

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

7. M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m Cleared Site Scenario:Water Requirements Item Application • Turf ½” • Ornamental Landscape ¼” • Native Landscape (or mix) 1/10” or much less

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

9. M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m Case Study: Madera Location: Gainesville, Florida Size: 44 acres Developer: GreenTrust, LLC (MD) in partnership with the University of Florida Energy Extension Office 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

10. M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m 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

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

12. M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m Comparison with Conventional:Site Design Techniques for the Lot Capital Costs: (2003/2004 dollars) Task Sustainable Conventional Sustainable Savings Clearing/Grading $1,612.00 $2,016.00 $400.00 Utility Connection same same --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 $7,584.00 varies 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).

21. M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m Comparison with Conventional:Site Design Techniques for the Lot Maintenance Costs: (annual costs, 2003/2004 dollars) Task Sustainable Conventional Sustainable 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.

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

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

24. M a r i o n C o u n t y L I D P r o g r a m Bibliography 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.