LID Design Competitions

Transcription

1 LID Design Competitions Presented by Don Thieman, CPESC, LEED GA ASP Enterprises The Midwest s Most Trusted Site Solutions Provider

2 Purpose of LID Design Competition: To accelerate adoption, adaptation and implementation of LID. The Midwest s Most Trusted Site Solutions Provider

3 Purpose of LID Design Competition: Goals of Competition Show cost effectiveness of LID with hands on Real World examples Show that LID is fundamentally Viable Locally!! Foster Collaboration between design disciplines Architecture/Engineering Push Design firms to Engage/Learn/Innovate DRIVE LID MAINSTREAM!! The Midwest s Most Trusted Site Solutions Provider

4 LID Competitions Around the US Houston Land/Water Sustainability Forum Harris County, City of Houston State of Virginia Potomac Conservancy, James River Association, Friends of the Rappahnnock Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority TXDOT North Texas Land/Water Sustainability Forum City of Dallas, City of Fort Worth, City of Arlington, City of Denton City of Philadelphia Water Department Community Design Collaborative, EPA San Antonio Land/Water Sustainability Forum San Antonio River Authority, City of San Antonio, San Antonio Water System, Bexar County DC Water District of Columbia The Midwest s Most Trusted Site Solutions Provider

5 LID Competition Concept Come up with around 3 projects Real World local potential developments Design Teams then will design the project with traditional infrastructure and then with green infrastructure Design Teams will evaluate the effectiveness of each and compare costs One winner will be selected from each category and awarded a cash prize The Midwest s Most Trusted Site Solutions Provider

6 Possible Project Design Challenge Categories Green Roadway Multi family Mixed Use Urban Redevelopment Public Facility The Midwest s Most Trusted Site Solutions Provider

7 Balancing Nature & Neighborhood 7 7

8 Design Process 8 Site Visit Base map Review Requirements Brainstorm Establish priorities Goals Design details Final Concept Design Balance of professionals Landscape Architects Civil Engineers

9 Existing Residential Neighborhood 9 17 residences and only14 driveways Unrestricted on-street parking for a total of 39 +/- spaces The road is crowned with a single low point Existing trees do not form a consistent tree canopy

10 Existing Parking 1 0 Zoning Requirements Single family dwellings: 1 space/ residence Existing Parking: 14 Driveway Spaces: 14 spaces On Street Spaces: 39 spaces Total Spaces: 53 spaces Existing Parking Ratio: 3.1 spaces/ residence

11 LID Strategies 1 1 Our team explored a variety of LID techniques before determining the best LID measures that seemed fitting for the existing conditions of this neighborhood. These included: Decrease impervious area Converting pavement into bio-retention areas Use pervious pavement Reduce traditional storm water infrastructure Encourage parking in existing paved areas Use of native/ adapted plants Use decentralized LID s

12 LID Strategies 1 2

13 LID Strategies Site Plan Zoning Rqmt : 1 space/residence Existing Parking: 14 Driveway Spaces: 14 spaces On Street Spaces: 39 spaces Total Spaces: 53 spaces 1 3 Existing Parking Ratio: 3.1 spaces/ residence Proposed Parking: 14 Driveway Spaces: 14 spaces On Street Spaces: 30 spaces Total Spaces: 44 spaces Proposed Parking Ratio: 2.6 spaces/ residence Loss of 9 on-street parking spaces

14 LID Strategies Landscape Plan Overhead power lines on North side of street Use of small to medium street trees Uniform street tree canopy to compliment existing trees 1 4

15 Balancing Nature & Neighborhood 15 Using Stormwater to provide Neighborhood character Attractive and native landscaping Interconnected LID practices

16 LID Strategies Bioretention Planting 16

17 LID Strategies Bioretention 17

18 LID Strategies Pervious Pavement 18 he Green Roadway onverts asphalt into ervious pavement. ioretention planters are sed in series and nterconnected through

19 LID Strategies SWM (Quantity Control) 19 hlights o reliance on infiltration, applicable to any oil condition o Adjusted/ reduced Curve Numbers due o pervious pavement or runoff reduction Design Event 5 -yr Scenario Peak Discharge (cfs) Forested Condition 2.23 Existing Condition 5.13 Green Roadway 2.13 Peak Discharge Reduction Percentage (Green VS. Existing) 58.48% o Flooding: 100-YR Runoff is contained ithin LID practices Design Event Scenario Peak Discharge (cfs) Forested Condition 3.15 Peak Discharge Reduction Percentage (Green VS. Existing) 10-yr Existing Condition % Green Roadway YR Storm Hydrographs Design Event Scenario Peak Discharge (cfs) Peak Discharge Reduction Percentage (Green VS. Existing) Existing Condition 100-yr Forested Condition 7.67 Existing Condition % Green Roadway Green Roadway 2.82

20 LID Strategies SWM (Quality Control) 20 ary horus Removal (based on Virginia Runoff Reduction Worksheet) o Phosphorus Load Phosphorus Removed by Pervious Pavement Phosphorus Removed by Bioretention (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) Phosphorus Leaving the Site Phosphorus Removal Percentage dition % way % en Removal (based on Virginia Runoff Reduction Worksheet) o Nitrogen Load Nitrogen Removed by Pervious Pavement Nitrogen Removed by Bioretention (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) Nitrogen Leaving the Site Nitrogen Removal Percentage dition % o way % Reduction (based on Virginia Runoff Reduction Worksheet) Treatment Volume (Runoff from 1" Rainfall) Runoff Reduced by Pervious Pavement Runoff Reduced by Bioretention Runoff Leaving the Site (cf) (cf) (cf) (cf) Runoff Reduction Percentage dition 2, ,841 0% way 2, , % Phosphorus Leaving the Site Reduction Percentage (Green Roadway VS. Existing Condition) 90% Nitrogen Leaving the Site Reduction Percentage (Green Roadway VS. Existing Condition) 91% Runoff Leaving the Site Reduction Percentage (Green Roadway VS. Existing Condition) 83% Highlights 90% Phosphorus removal Approach utilized Runoff Reduction Methodology Phosphorus and Nitrogen reductions helps meet Bay TMDLs

21 Cost Analysis 21 LID Conventional Highlights Conventional Cost assumed use of a conventional sand filter for Quality Control and an underground concrete vault for Quantity Control. Site Preparation Pavement Curb, Edging and Sidewalks Storm Drainage Systems Landscaping Total The LID Design resulted in savings of $125K for 715LF of roadway construction. Conventional Cost resulted in additional cost for pavement and storm drainage systems LID Design resulted in increased costs for curbing and

22 Conclusion 22 innovative design, real world solution through interconnected decentralized facilities Enhanced quality of life through landscaping mimics natural hydrologic function of the site and will help meet Bay TMDL s lower construction costs compared to conventional design

23

24 Eligibility Integrated design teams must include at least one Engineer practicing in field of civil engineering one Architect one Landscape Architect Inclusion of additional team members encouraged: land planning development and construction disciplines students artists others!

25 Competition Process Prelaunch Define the Objectives Form Steering Committee Set up Program Management Select Properties Create Competition Rules Secure Funding

26 Competition Process The Launch Marketing Website s Encouraging Participation Municipal Pressure Expressing Value towards the involvement

27 Competition Process ing and the Finals Event Collecting the Materials Expert Panel The Finals Event!!

28 ouston Outcomes is County responded by developing the state s first LID ed design guidance, a 26 page document that focuses on: erformance and desired outcome rather than prescription collaborative permitting process designed to expedite LID based rojects is County and City of Houston projects routinely explore LID on first e 2011, hundreds of LID based projects of all types and sizes n the ground, under construction and in planning across the ston area cent counties are adopting Harris County s guidance and oach petition winners and finalists are driving the new ketplace

29 he Green Country Sustainability CS) Forum Presents: he Green Country ID Design ompetition The GCS Forum mission is to promote Low Impact Development (LID) in reen Country and to help establish LID principles as mainstream evelopment design by proving the cost effectiveness of practices that mprove the overall quality of life in our region

30 reen Country LID Design ompetition Executive Director: Jason Vogel Committees have been formed Timeline created Bi weekly meetings of committees Participation from Multiple Agencies and Associations Tentative Competition start date of Mid November

31 reen Country LID Design ompetition

32 Years of Experience 23 6 THE Experience Meter Green Country The GCS Forum mission is to promote Low Impact Development (LID) in Green Country and to help establish LID principles as mainstream development design by proving the cost effectiveness of practices that improve the overall quality of life in our region 360 Total Years of Experience Average Years of Experience

33 Keep and Eye Out for Updated Information Consider Entering Consider a Competition Here! uestions?