Marion County LID Program
LID Case Study:
The Madera Subdivision
Glenn Acomb, ASLA
Department of Landscape Architecture
Program for Resource Efficient Communities
University of Florida
April 5, 2007
Marion County LID Program
Overview






Introduction
Land Development Practices
LID Principles
Triple Bottom Line
Case Study: Madera Community
Q&A
Marion County LID Program
“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
Marion County LID Program
Impacts typically created
in land development
ACTION
IMPACTS
Land clearing
Damages ecosystem and alters hydrology
Construction
Further damages ecosystem; compacts
soils, limiting infiltration and damaging roots
Infrastructure
Alters 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
Conventional practices have resulted in excessive resource consumption. We
must now use approaches that favor resource conservation or renewal
Marion County LID Program
LID “Big View”
When you impact less = multiple benefits
 Do less harm (esp. clearing & grading)
 Respect hydrologic functions
 Design a low impact landscape
Marion County LID Program
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
Marion County LID Program
Triple Bottom Line
of savings in low impact development
 Impact less
 Mimic hydrology
 Smart site design
spend less to prep site (less
clearing, grading & improvements)
spend less in drainage, enhancing
infiltration and reducing pollutant
load
use less water and in maintaining
the site (less mowing and
irrigation)
Marion County LID Program
Land Development Players
Category
Timing
Client
Speculators (buy and flip)
early
developer
Infrastructure Developers
early-middle
builder
Homebuilders
late
consumer
Developer-Builders
early-late
consumer
Community Developers
early-late
consumer
(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.
Marion County LID Program
Cleared Site Scenario:
Landscape Improvements
Item
 Landscaping
 Turf
 Mulch
Installed Cost
$2.00-$3.00
$0.50/s.f.
$0.25/s.f.
Marion County LID Program
Cleared Site Scenario:
Water Requirements
Item
 Turf
 Ornamental Landscape
 Native Landscape (or mix)
Application
½”
¼”
1/10” or much less
Marion County LID Program
Case Study: Madera
A Model Subdivision of LID Design Techniques
Marion County LID Program
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
Marion County LID Program
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
Marion County LID Program
Design Techniques for the Community
Narrow, uncurbed roads
Stormwater detention basin, Phase I
Use of Eco-Block in construction
Limited clearing & contractor care
Marion County LID Program
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
Marion County LID Program
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)
Marion County LID Program
Madera Model Center
Shared driveway and pavers
Model front yard
Permeable pavers
Native plant information
Marion County LID Program
Madera Site Details
Turf reinforcing in
spare parking areas
Eco-Stone pervious
pavers in driveway
Roof stormwater infiltration
tank under spare parking
Marion County LID Program
Madera Model Center
Front yard and Shumard Oak
Model side yard
Rain Garden
Water conservation information
Marion County LID Program
Madera Home 2003
No turf, front-loading garage; edge ornamental plantings
Marion County LID Program
Madera Home 2004
First 2-story; side-loading garage; no turf
Marion County LID Program
Madera Home 2005
Front-loading garage; very limited turf; extensive mulch; rain garden
Marion County LID Program
Comparison with
Conventional:
Site Design Techniques for the Lot
Capital Costs:
(2003/2004 dollars)
Task
Sustainable
Conventional
Sustainable Savings
Clearing/Grading
Utility Connection
$1,612.00
same
$2,016.00
same
$400.00
--0--
Natural Area Mulch
Landscape Area Mulch
Landscaping
Turf
Irrigation
$245.00
$665.00
$6,485.00
$720.00
$1,275.00
$90.00
$406.00
$6,485.00
$2,331.00
$1,500.00
($155.00)
($259.00)
--0-$1,611.00
$225.00
Driveway*
Infiltration Tank
Turf Reinforcing for Parking
SUB TOTAL
$6,084.00
$1,032.00
$845.00
$18,963.00
$7,584.00
--0---0-$20,412.00
varies with material
($1,032.00)
($845.00)
*
* 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).
Marion County LID Program
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)
Pesticide applications by service
Irrigation
$1,470.00
$200.00 (IPM)
$71.84
[31,602 gal.]
$3,150.00
$300.00
$167.51
[74,120 gal.]
$1,680.00
$100.00
$115.67
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.
Marion County LID Program
Comparable used in figures
Comparable price point; subdivision across from project; comparable site characteristics
Marion County LID Program
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.
Marion County LID Program
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
Marion County LID Program
Email Contact
acomb@ufl.edu
Web Sites
Program for Resource Efficient Communities:
www.energy.ufl.edu
UF Department of Landscape Architecture:
www.dcp.ufl.edu/landscape
Marion County LID Program
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.