Sustainable

Development:
Design Guidelines for the
Town of Scott City of
Green Bay
Joint Planning Area
Environmental Science and Policy 763
University of Wisconsin Green Bay
14 December 2004

Presentation Outline
Project Background
Environmental Design
Sustainable Building Methods
University Connections
Question and Answer Session

Project Background

Joint Planning Area

Land exchange between the City of Green
Bay and the Town of Scott in 2003
Formation of the City of Green Bay/Town of
Scott Joint Planning Commission

Current Land Use

What is currently
located in the Joint
Planning Area?
Agricultural and natural
areas
Sparse residential use

How is the Joint

Planning Area
currently zoned?

J Fink

Project Background
Dan Madigan-President of FEECO
Requested that the students enrolled in
Capstone provide recommendations for
sustainable development
The following are our recommendations
for Mr. Madigan to present to the Joint
Planning Commission

Overall Project Objective

Guidelines on developing the Joint
Planning Area in an ecologically
sustainable manner
Application of guidelines to other
developments beyond the Joint
Planning Area

Guiding Principles
1. Advocate comprehensive, low-impact development.
2. Promote energy efficient building design and
environmentally sensitive site planning and housing
construction.
3. Protect biodiversity through restoration and conservation
of habitat areas.
4. Encourage innovative transportation development at a
pedestrian-friendly, walkable scale.
5. Enhance connections between the development and
UWGB to benefit both the university community and
future businesses.
6. Increase public awareness and education concerning
sustainable development.

Environmental Design
Conservation of
Natural Areas
Wetlands
Riparian Areas
Uplands

Urban Landscaping

Development Layout
Transportation
Network
Storm Water
Management

Wetland Habitats

EPA

Wetland Services
Services Provided

Maryland Dept. of the Env.

natural purification of
water
protection against
erosion
providing habitat for
unique flora and
fauna
recreational
opportunities
aesthetic value

Wetland Destruction
Destruction and
Degradation
Agriculture
Development
Roads
Buildings

Minn. Board of Soil and Water Res.

Recommendations
Wetlands and Planned Landscapes
Closely match predevelopment hydrology
Preserve or enhance native vegetation
Provide upland buffers of adequate size
Connect core wetland habitats with
corridors
Allow for public use of habitat patches

Multiple Use Model (MUM)

Zone 1: Central Core
Wetlands
Diverse habitats

Zone 2: Buffer
100 ft in width
Walking trails

Zone 3: Light Development

Parks, Playgrounds

Zone 4: Urban Landscape

Barnes and Adams 1999

Riparian Habitats

EPA

Stream/Riparian Habitats
Water transport
Aquatic & Terrestrial
Habitat
Recreational
Potential
Filter Runoff

USDA

Road Crossings
Minimize Road Crossings
3-Sided Culverts at Crossings

Di Misa 2004

Upland Habitats

W. Gilgert

Upland Habitats
Terrestrial and avian
wildlife habitat
Excess nutrient
uptake
Recreation potential
Aesthetically
pleasing
Wind barrier
US Forest Service

Habitats

Reforest areas to create wooded corridors

Connect and buffer ESAs

Reduce wind erosion
Habitat enhancement

Minimize fragmentation

Reduce edge effect

Management
Properly time and execute maintenance/
disturbance activities
Avoid disrupting wildlife breeding
Mowing, burning, spraying
Spot treat weeds when possible
Seed or re-plant disturbed ground as soon as
possible

Urban Landscaping

EPA

Low Impact Landscaping

Conserve water
Only water when necessary
Plant trees, shrubs, and
ground covers
Water in the early evening and
morning

Minimize fertilizer use

Get soil checked
Avoid phosphorus

Minimize pesticide use

EJ Heath

Utilize Native Plants

Utilize native plants
Adapted to weather
conditions
Adapted to soil
conditions
Adapted to native
pests
Benefit native
organisms

EJ Heath

Avoid Invasive Species

Avoid non-native,
invasive species
Can escape and
destroy habitat
Form monocultures
of non-beneficial
plants

Development and
Infrastructure Layout

www.cnu.org.

Development and
Infrastructure Layout
Residential/ commercial development
Open space network
Community gardens
Transportation network
Stormwater management

Conventional Subdivision Layout

Alex MacLean, www.cnu.org

Proposed Development Layout

Overview

Jarvis, 1993

New urbanist, low-impact, cluster development

Variety of housing choices -mixed-use, village center area
Pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods
Density bonuses for developers
Open space network

Single Family Lot Design

Natural Lands Trust, 2001

Promote 2-story homes

Encourage shared driveways

Reduce front yard setbacks

to 20 feet

Provide options that increase

density (7 dwelling units per
acre)
townhouses and
condominiums

Multi-Family Lot Design

Cluster multifamily
housing near transit and
commercial areas
Use structured parking
underneath multifamily
units to reduce exterior
parking lots
Ensure all units have easy
access to open space

Calthorpe Associates, www.env.org

Commercial Lot Design

Multi-level structures
Encourage shared
parking
Limit construction of
parking spaces

JJR, 2002

Open Space Network Design

30-40% in permanent
open space
70% a continuous
network

Protect hydrologically
sensitive areas
Groundwater
recharge areas

Establish a homeowner
association
Open space
maintenance

Minimize disturbance
from construction
activities

Community Gardens
Economic and
qualitative benefits
Character to
neighborhoods
Sense of place
and loyalty
Educational
environment

Portland Parks and Recreation, 2004

Community Gardens
Case studies
New York
600 community gardens

Portland
1975
28 gardens located
throughout city

Madison
Early 1900s
Portland Community Garden Locations
Portland Parks and Recreation, 2004

Recommendations
Locate gardens along
eastern edge of
development

Plots to local residents,

then to Green Bay
community

UW-Extension, Green
Protect gardens with
Bay Botanical Garden,
permanent conservation
and/or the Green Bay
easements
Parks and Recreation

Transportation Network
Street Design
Residential street
widths 24-30 feet
Reduce the overall
length of streets
Avoid cul-de-sacs
If used, create a
pervious island in
center
Replace with loop
roads

Urban Design Associates, www.cnv.org

Transportation Network
Pedestrian and Transit
Facilities
Sidewalks on all streets
On-street bike lanes
Provide bump-outs,
textured paving, and
bike racks in
commercial districts
SmithGroup JJR, 2003

Transportation Network
Pedestrian over/underpasses for both
Hwy 54 and 57
Green Bay Metro bus service to the
area
Minimize crossings of open space
network and trail system

Transportation Network
Trails
Multi-use trail system
loop

Walking,
Hiking
Nature observation
Rollerblading/ bicycling
Cross-country skiing

Connections to other
regional trail systems
UWGB Arboretum
Wildlife Sanctuary
Baird Creek

Arvidson, 2004

Stormwater Management
Goals

Limit stormwater runoff

quantity
Reduce stormwater
pollutant loads
Protect critical habitats
(natural drainage
channels)
Maintain groundwater
recharge and quality

Stormwater Management
Pollutants of concern
Total suspended solids

Sediment from construction and erosion

Nutrients

Residential fertilizers

Heavy metals

Rooftop and parking lot runoff

Pesticides

Stormwater Management
Rain Gardens
Residential areas
Industrial and commercial parking lots
Use native plants

DNR

Stormwater Management
Green Roofs
Commercial and
industrial areas
Encourage the use
of intensive green
roof systems

Miller, 2002

Stormwater Management
Wet Detention Ponds
Continuous vegetation
around pond edges
Treatment trains

Blankinship, 2004

Poster Session

Sustainable Development & Transportation

Economic Feasibility of Sustainable

Development

Sustainable Landscaping Practices

Landscape Conservation Principles

Sustainable
Building Methods

Whole Building Design

US Green Building Council

Importance of Sustainable
Building
Economics
Security, prosperity, and jobs

Social
Comfort and productivity

Environment
Health and resources

Incentive Sources

Department of Energy
Wisconsin Focus on Energy
EPA Energy Star
Green Financing
Leadership in Energy & Environmental
Design
Green Built Home Program

Energy 10 Model
Residential Two-Story

ANNUAL COST BREAKDOWN

Conventional Two-Story

Energy-Efficient Two-Story

0.8
0.691

$ / ft

0.6

0.4

0.217 0.211

0.2

0.142
0.072
0.031

Int lights

0.149
0.079

0.059 0.059

0.020

0.008 0.006

Ext lights

0.094

Hot water

Other

Heating

Cooling

Fan

RESIDENTIAL CASE STUDIES

Methods
Daylighting
Solar Hot Water Heater
Photovoltaic Stems
(Bircher Home)

Cost
$9,900

Annual
Savings
$800 Utilities

Payback
~ 6 years

Minus 30-50%
Rebates

Passive Solar
$1,250
$300 on Utilities < 1 year
Specialized geothermal Minus $1,000
HVAC system
saved from
(Esperanza del Sol)
special HVAC
Following LEED
Standards
(Traugott Terrace)

Homes are
similar to
conventional
home.

$2,000 on
Utilities
$9,000 on Water
Usage

Up to 10
years

COMMERCIAL CASE STUDIES

Methods
Improved lighting

Cost
$16,240

Annual Savings
$500 maintenance

Payback
~4 years

$4,000 energy
costs

(Bare Bones Furniture)

Gas-electric cooling
system
(Watertown U.S.D.)

$170,000

Daylighting
Passive solar heating
Geothermal HVAC
Improved building
envelope
(Clearview Elementary)

$150,000
more than
standard
school
with same
capacity

Minus
$128,000
incentives

$14,000 energy
costs

~5 years

$18,000 energy
costs

~9 years

Passive Design Methods

Passive solar heating and cooling
Building orientation
Windows and shading
Thermal mass

Green roofs
Insulation
Protection of building

Active Design Methods

Geothermal heat pump
Solar hot water
Photovoltaic panels
Building-integrated photovoltaics
Other technologies

All Things Considered

Environment is important
Use the suns energy
Careful building design decreases longterm costs and increases comfort
Financial and technical resources are
available
Education is the key

University
Connections

Biodiversity Center

Introduction
Location of development in relation to
campus
Mutually benefit each other
Connecting learning to life

Assessing Opinions
Face to face
Chancellor Bruce Shepard
Assistant Chancellor for Planning and
Budget Dean Rodeheaver
Dr. Robert Howe, Professor Natural
Applied Director of the Biodiversity Center

Student poll

Administration

Student Housing
Projected enrollment
7,500
75% residential
Non-traditional
campus housing
Residence Life

Flexibility
Options to fit student interests
Provide housing for senior citizens to
utilize campus amenities
Quality not quantity
Coordinated effort
Resource for faculty

University Perception of Isolation

Development can offer an area for
socialization of students and faculty
Potential employment
Expansion of passpoints

UWGB

Potential Businesses
Consistent Architecture makes better
character
Move away from Big Box businesses
Hotel for the campus to use for visiting
families, faculty visits, and sports
teams

Biodiversity Center

Linking Trails
Cofrin Arboretum
Alternative for transportation
Volume capacity on current trail
Local connections
Invasive species

Center for Biodiversity

Walkable Community
Break out of the mold
Alternative transportation routes
Recreational circle
Design for community character
Connections outside community

Trail Maintenance
Getting people to pull
their own weight
Individual ownership
Neighborhood
association
Center for Biodiversity

Public ownership

Preservation of Green Space

Preserve existing areas
Larger buffer areas
Native landscaping

Center for Biodiversity

Student Insights

Methods
3 day student poll
10 questions
yes/no format

Area for additional

comments
138 responses

UWGB

Is There Support for

Development?
89% support a development in the
proposed area
84% feel that housing options nearby
campus are appealing
59% would consider living in the
development

Connectivity to Campus
82% would like to see a connection
between campus and the development
82% would utilize and link to the
campus trail system

UWGB

Transit Extension
75% thought extending the bus system to the
area would be positive
69% said that they would not ride the bus
There was indication that a shuttle would be
more appropriate
25 commented on fare prices
Average $1.10
Range $0.25-2.00

Features in the Area

59% would like a trail system
connection
59% would like more off campus
housing
60% supported a University Center area
Only 30% indicated a preference that
the University remain isolated

Student Comments
I do not like the fact that campus is so isolated
from the outside world, so any connections and
development would be appreciated!
I chose UWGB because it was isolated. I grew
up in an isolated community and I like it that way.
Cities are not my style, but I had to move to one
for college. UWGB was the best choice for me
because it has a small town feel with plenty of
peace and quiet away from the main city.

Conclusions
The campus has a positive outlook
about the development
Careful planning can benefit both the
community and campus
Project is connecting learning to life

Acknowledgements

Professor Laurel Phoenix, UWGB

Professor Patricia Terry, UWGB
Dan Madigan, Landowner
Bruce Shepard, UWGB Chancellor
Dean Rodeheaver, UWGB Assistant
Chancellor for Planning and Budget
Joel Trick, US Fish and Wildlife
Service
Jeff Dumez, Brown County Land
Information Office
Bill Hafs, Brown County Land
Conservation Department
Pat Robinson, WDNR
Bay-Lake Regional Planning
Commission
Professor Gary Fewless, UWGB
Herbarium Curator

Professor Bob Howe, UWGB

Professor John Katers, UWGB
Bill Lockery, Green Bay
Planning
Dave Cerny, Town of Scott
Bill Hafs, Brown County Land
Conservation Department
Ray Kopish and Paul Jadin,
Chamber of Commerce
Paul Wozniak, Wisconsin Public
Service
Paul Hartman, University of
Wisconsin Extension
Students at the UWGB
Community Members in
Attendance of Brainstorming
Session

Thank You
The complete Capstone Seminar Project
including:
Report document
Poster presentations
Oral presentation
Internet URL:
http://www.uwgb.edu/gradstu/ESP/CourseProjects.htm

Questions

Capstone Seminar Project:

http://www.uwgb.edu/gradstu/ESP/CourseProjects.htm