Shared Use Design Analysis: A Case Study of MyClinic

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: COLLEGE OF DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND PLANNING

Shared Use Design Analysis: A Case Study of MyClinic

Sustainability and the Built Environment Capstone

Bryan Pepper

3 August 2017

University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning

Pepper | 2

Table of Contents: Page(s)

Abstract 3

Key Terms 4

Introduction 5

Case Study: MyClinic 6

Background Research 8

Literature Reviewed 10

Methodology 14

Data 16

Results 34

Discussion 35

Disadvantages of Shared Use 35

Relevance to Sustainability 35

Setbacks 36

Conclusions 37

References and Citations 38


Pepper | 3

Abstract

While the supply of land suitable for development decreases across the globe

and the human population continues to rise, the need to improve the efficiency of

development practices is increasingly more apparent. Shared use design strategies

offer one such solution for the improvement of development efficiency. Shared use

design is defined in this research paper as a design strategy which allows multiple

independent entities to share resources and infrastructure in the development of a

single site. These independent parties are able to share initial costs as well as long term

operations and maintenance costs. These obvious financial savings are typically the

selling points associated with shared use design however for many, the perceived

complications of coordinating equal and efficient sharing of spaces makes the adoption

of shared use strategies uncommon. The benefits of shared use design do not stop at

the financial savings, and it is identifying and quantifying these other benefits to

sustainability that is the goal of this research paper.

One such example of the adoption of shared use design strategies is the case of

MyClinic in Jupiter, Florida. As a collaboration between the public Palm Beach County

Health Department and the private nonprofit MyClinic, this case represents a successful

shared use design example and the basis for this research. Several options were

considered for the permanent housing of MyClinic and ultimately, a shared use solution

was chosen over a more conventional approach. The lessons learned and the options

considered during the development of this project provide the assumptions and guiding

principles necessary to develop a comparative analysis. Three design scenarios were

developed and illustrate three different design approaches including a conventional


Pepper | 4

single use site approach, a shared site but single use building scenario, and a shared

use site and building example. Hypothetical schematic site plans were developed in

order to gather consistent data about various sustainability factors. Differences in

resource requirements and long term cost were compared. It was determined that the

scenario with the smallest impact across the board was the site that was shared and

included a shared building. By systematically demonstrating the difference in

environmental, social, and economic impact of shared use design, this research aims to

further the case for the importance of considering shared use development in future

design projects.

Key Terms

Shared Use Design – A design strategy which combines similar uses in a single building

and allows them to share infrastructure and resources

Single Use Design – A conventional approach to development which keeps uses

separated into selfcontained structures and sites

Co-Location – Placing several similar entities on a single site

Initial Impact – The sum of all resources utilized in the development of a site

Building Lifecycle – Refers to the entire “life” of a building, from construction to

demolition


Pepper | 5

Introduction

Shared use is defined in this research paper as a design strategy in which two or

more separate entities share a single space. This can include sharing a single site, a

single building, or a single office. By utilizing this design strategy, infrastructure and

resources can be shared and efficiency is improved. These cost sharing and efficiency

improving measures lead to financial savings for all parties sharing. The initial economic

incentives associated with shared use design are the factors that are typically

considered when determining a design approach, however the motivations for designing

with a shared use approach extend much further to include a variety of environmental

benefits and social benefits.

While shared use design strategies can be more complicated and harder to

coordinate than conventional methods, shared use design provides great

environmental, social, and economic benefits over conventional single use design

because it allows costs and resources to be shared among several entities, it

encourages greater interaction within the community, and it reduces initial and lifecycle

impacts of development. The research question this paper aims to answer is, what

benefits to sustainability does shared use design provide to construction and operations

(initial impact and building life cycle) compared to conventional single use design

situations?

The purpose of this research is to identify the benefits to the sustainability of the

built environment in which shared use design offers. In addition, this research attempts

to place consistent metric figures on these factors in order to quantify these predicted

savings. It is the hypothesis of this research that shared use design will provide a


Pepper | 6

considerable reduction in the site area and infrastructure required for a given

development project as well as in the long term operations and maintenance cost

associated with the project. In order to test this hypothesis, three design scenarios will

tested and will four unique sites will be developed utilizing assumptions gathered from

the real world case study of MyClinic in Jupiter, Florida. To produce comparable results,

each of the site plans must be designed using a consistent approach and consistent

design parameters.

The results of the data derived from these hypothetical scenarios will offer

reliable figures for comparing the costs and benefits of choosing a shared use design

approach over the more conventional single use design method. These results will also

demonstrate the diversity of lesser known benefits associated with shared use design in

addition to the economic benefits most commonly considered when thinking about

shared use.

Case Study: MyClinic

The rapidly developing small town of Jupiter, Florida offers a very unique social

condition which requires an equally as unique solution to adapt to. A large

socioeconomic disparity exists in the rapidly growing population of Jupiter. This gap in

economic status results in low income and potentially undocumented residents living

alongside more affluent residents in a single community and it is this demographic

condition has many difficulties associated with it.

One specific difficulty comes from providing equal and affordable access to

healthcare to all residents. In response to this growing issue, the local nonprofit hospital,


Pepper | 7

Jupiter Medical Center, developed the initial concept for a volunteer based clinic that

would be able to serve the underrepresented portion of the population. When it

ultimately became a reality, the nonprofit clinic had evolved into its own nonprofit

healthcare entity and began serving the community and growing rapidly. The concept of

a clinic utilizing the quality health services of a developed community on a volunteer

basis in order to serve those citizens who are not eligible for or are simply unable to

afford healthcare was a successful solution to the healthcare disparities of Jupiter.

Since opening its doors three years ago in 2014, the nonprofit clinic has grown

from a temporary modular structure with a handful of exam rooms to a fully equipped

4,000+ square foot permanent building. This upgrade was made possible through the

collaborative planning efforts of MyClinic with the Palm Beach County Health

Department in order to share the cost of purchasing and maintaining the building.

Prior to the joint acquisition of this property, MyClinic and the Palm Beach County

Health Department considered several potential options for the expansion of and the

permanent establishment of the project. The first option was essentially an expansion of

an existing Palm Beach County Health Department building, with the exception that the

two entities would remain completely separate and share only the site which the

buildings occupied. This expansion project was estimated to cost $2.2 million and would

add 3,333 square feet to the existing 3,288 square foot building bringing the total

footprint to 6,621 square feet, it would also require the redesign of the existing site and

the expansion of parking. Since the county already owned the property considered and

the temporary structure for MyClinic was already located on the site, this option seemed

attractive initially. The second option considered involved a property for sale within a


Pepper | 8

close proximity to the current site. This property consisted of a 4,282 square foot

medical office that was recently vacated and all necessary infrastructures, including

parking. After consultation and planning, it was determined that this space would be

sufficient for both entities if it was shared efficiently. The price tag of $1.6 million and the

ability to immediately move in and be ready to see patients without waiting for

construction was more than enough of an incentive for the stakeholders and this option

was ultimately chosen. Amy Pepper, MyClinic Board Secretary and Director states,

“MyClinic represents the best that a community can offer when diverse organizations

and individuals work together towards the common goal of improving the lives of their

neighbors."

Background Research

The concept of two independent healthcare providers sharing a single workspace

and place of operation is something that is not often considered due to a number of

complications and concerns. Issues of patient privacy and safety are among the highest

priority of concerns and make it difficult to get the conversation started regarding shared

healthcare spaces. Because of this fact, finding precedents to study and compare to the

research conducted by this paper is a difficult task. Although shared use is not a new

concept by any means, it is traditionally thought of in the sense of shared residential

developments or residential-commercial agreements where uses are co-located but

completely separated. Although these examples are not exactly the same as a

healthcare based example, the approach and lessons which can be learned from them


Pepper | 9

are still very beneficial and worth utilizing as a resource when conducting this

comparative analysis.

In addition to referencing case studies in the background research of this project,

the existing framework set out by the United States Green Building Council in its

Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) offered valuable guidance

when determining the most comprehensive and suitable methodology. Now in its fourth

version, LEED offers a large number of categories in which to completely assess the

efficiency and sustainability of building projects. These categories provided a great deal

of help when determining which factors to study and which factors to emphasize more

than others. In addition, the LEED system for building and site analysis also offers

guidance in the form of reliable ways to determine metrics and quantify variables and

how to place values on certain measures.

In an attempt to replicate the site conditions of the case being studied, county

and town codes of ordinances were referenced. In addition to other provisions, these

lengthy documents lay out specific guidelines for how the locality is to be developed.

Everything from building setbacks and parking requirements to buffer and landscaping

requirements are laid out in explicit detail in the code of ordinance. Although the

individual pieces of information in these documents seem to be unrelated, a bigger

picture for how a municipality wants to be seen and the image it wants to put out to

visitors and residents can be interpreted from goals and objectives of these codes and

ordinances.


Pepper | 10

Literature Reviewed

Building the Evidence: Creating a Framework for Assessing Costs and Impacts of

Shared Use Agreements –

Shared uses can go much further than the building specific ways that they are

defined by this research paper. Shared use agreements can also be applied towards

facilities and services. The first case in this literature review deals with shared use

agreements as they relate to public and private facilities sharing their sports fields with

other entities, both public and private. The article conducts a legal analysis of 18

separate shared use agreements and evaluates and catalogs the means by which they

deal with certain aspects of this issue. Key areas which are focused on by this study

include sanitation, liability, and security as these are the areas in which many shared

use agreements find critical weaknesses in. Next, the article identifies four cases which

illustrate several different types of shared use relationships and explains how and why

these examples are successful or unsuccessful. The first example is a case of a shared

use agreement between a public school district and a city. This first example

demonstrates an extremely balanced sharing of cost and benefit. The first case includes

the use of public swimming pools in the agreement which adds an issue of high risk and

liability to the agreement, but also adds leverage for negotiation. The second case

studied is also an example of an agreement between a school district and a city. In this

agreement, both entities came together to fund a sports complex that would benefit both

the school district and the community. The agreement addresses all issues of

maintenance and liability in a similar fashion to the first agreement with the exception of

a much more in depth section addressing usage agreements was outlined from the


Pepper | 11

initial stages of the agreement. This has resulted in improved an improved relationship

and far fewer avoidable issues than the first case.

The next two cases both deal with shared use agreements between a school

district and a private entity. The private entity in the first case is a garden club that

wishes to utilize part of an abandoned middle school property to create a community

garden. The garden club’s plan will offer no ongoing cost to the school district and will

provide the community with an opportunity to grow their food locally and will provide an

educational opportunity to the adjacent middle school. With very little funding in the

school district’s budget, negotiation of the shared use agreement with the garden club

have been extremely time consuming. After four years of negation, the agreement was

settled. The cost of the project was insignificant in comparison to the cost of the

extended negotiation with the school district and it is this association that has many

feeling less than confident about the strength of the agreement. The final case studied

in this comparative analysis is a case regarding the use of a school district’s sports

fields by a youth soccer organization. The school district and the soccer organization

had a past agreement to share the sports fields as long as the youth soccer

organization paid for hourly permits. Recently, the school district replaced the sports

fields with high quality synthetic turf. Following this expenditure, the school district

decided to end the temporary permitting agreement due to the increased risk to the

school district’s new investment. The soccer organization reacted to this by recruiting

the voices of the students which participate in the youth soccer league. Ultimately, it

was this connection between the students and the soccer organization that has led to

the success of this shared use agreement. Although initially hesitant, the school district


Pepper | 12

has had no issues with the shared use agreement and has continued to strengthen its

relationship to this and other community organizations (Kuo, 2014).

Urban Land Institute Case Study – Oslo

The municipality of Washington D.C. is an extremely unique urban situation with

many unique and attractive features as well as several factors which make development

and design more challenging. In the case of the shared residential project known as

“Oslo”, the municipality’s strict and old fashioned zoning regulations challenged the

ability of architects and planners when attempting to redevelop an infill site to increase

density while maintaining attractiveness and affordability. With the goal of the project

being to maximize the limited space provided by the site, designers had to figure out a

way to accomplish this given the strict standards of D.C.’s Zoning regulations. When

inspection of the existing foundation revealed a number of structural concerns, the

developer worried that the only solution would be to invest large amounts of money to

improve the existing foundation due to a zoning regulation that required a certain

percentage of the original foundation to be preserved. After considerable pleading and

negotiating with the zoning board of Washington D.C., an amendment was passed to

this regulation and the decision was made to dig deeper. The compromised foundation

was removed and a fourth floor was added to the building below ground. This downward

expansion of the floor plan allowed designers to increase the square footage to 12,800

compared to the 5,400 square feet of the building which used to occupy the site. This

improvement allowed the developer to increase the units for rent to a total of 9 while

staying within the requirements set out by the zoning regulations. Although this case


Pepper | 13

has little in common with the case being studied by this research, the lessons learned

are applicable and valuable. However good and foolproof new and innovative ideas

sound, they will typically be met with resistance until they are proven to be successful.

Gaining the support of the community and utilizing a collaborative approach which

involves the community from the early stages of a project are extremely important steps

to consider when attempting to implement an unconventional project (Matkins, 2016).

Comparative analysis of energy consumption trends in cohousing and alternate

housing arrangements

The primary concern in this final case study is energy consumption and the

behaviors which may affect energy consumption. The author of this thesis feels strongly

that energy consumption trends in the United States specifically (and the world as a

whole) are linked far more deeply to behavioral issues than to technologic or

educational issues. The reasoning behind this idea is the fact that although energy

technology and efficiency continue to rise exponentially, energy consumption trends are

at an all-time high and are continuing to rise. In an effort to prove this hypothesis to be

true, the author relies on two cases of cohousing developments which are focused on

energy conservation. In both cases studied, the average energy consumption of

residents was far lower than the averages exhibited in single family housing situations.

This is caused partially by the sharing of resources and infrastructure associated with

these design methods, but the energy savings are far greater than the sum of the

energy benefits of the design. This result suggests that the act of being aware of energy

issues and the psychologic effect of living in a community that has the common goal of


Pepper | 14

saving energy can result in behavioral changes. The impact of this data is incredibly

insightful for the largescale community and population, but also suggests additional

benefits of shared use design. By altering the typical interactions that people expect

even in something as simple as housing or healthcare, the impacts can be

subconscious and are amplified through further sharing (Brown, 2004).

Methodology

A comparative analysis of 3 design scenarios with 4 hypothetical sites will be

conducted to determine the initial and life cycle savings associated with constructing

one shared building as opposed to two single use structures.

The real world case of MyClinic in Jupiter, FL will be utilized to provide initial

assumptions of building footprint, site development intensity, and program needs. These

findings will be used to develop 4 hypothetical site plans to illustrate three development

scenarios. These schematic plans will be created to consistent design standards and

are meant to provide a controlled means of gathering consistent and comparable data.

When designing the hypothetical sites, the first step taken was to analyze the two

case study sites in question. The sites were analyzed to determine the general site

intensity as well as to determine typical adjacent zoning conditions and landscape

intensity. These factors are the guiding principles used when developing schematic site

plans. The next step in developing the hypothetical site plans and improving the realism

is to reference both the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code and the

Town of Jupiter Code of Ordinances. These resources offer minimum design guidelines

in the form of dimensions and quantities of site program elements such as parking,

landscaping, buffers, and building setbacks. Using the information gathered thus far,


Pepper | 15

one can begin to conceptualize how the hypothetical sites will be organized and

function. An entry drive is the first program element that will be added to dictate the

placement of the building and parking. The minimum building setback for commercial

zoning is 30’ on all sides as per Palm Beach County Code requirements. By placing the

building immediately in the corner of this setback ensures the maximum efficiency of the

site as well as the consistency of the plans. Site dimensions can ultimately be adjusted

once building and parking is located. The South Florida Water Management District

Applicant handbook suggests that 15% of a sites total area should be expected to

handle all related stormwater so this percentage was used to roughly size the remaining

site (Palm Beach County, 2016).

Once the sites are finalized, analysis can be conducted on the three different

design scenarios. Stormwater storage volumes are determined using the modified

rational method and assumptions of preexisting conditions remain consistent across the

calculations of each site. A great deal of additional data is gathered through quantity

takeoffs. Utilizing the schematic site plans and a computer aided drafting software,

quantities such as impervious area, pervious area, roof area, vehicular use area, and

landscaped area are determined and compared across the sites and scenarios.

Additional information regarding consumption and usage of water and energy are

determined using calculators verified by the Landscape Architecture Foundation and the

Environmental Protection Agency. Such calculators are used to determine indoor and

outdoor water use, initial construction CO₂ footprint, and monthly cooling load.


Pepper | 16

Data


Pepper | 17


Pepper | 18


Pepper | 19


Pepper | 20

Stormwater Storage Calculations:

𝑄𝑝 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑖𝐴 𝑡𝑐 = [1.8(1.1 − 𝐶)𝐿ℎ1

2⁄ ] /𝐺1/3

𝑄𝑝 = Peak Runoff Rate 𝑡𝑐 = Time of Concentration

𝐶 = Runoff Coefficient 𝐶 = Runoff Coefficient

𝐶𝑎 = Antecedent Precipitation Factor 𝐿ℎ = Hydraulic Length

𝑖 = Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) 𝐺 = Slope %

A = Site Area (Acres)

Site 1a:

Predevelopment:

𝑄𝑝 = (0.3)(1.1)(6.6 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑟⁄ )1.46𝑎𝑐 𝑡𝑐 = [1.8(1.1 − 0.3)3861

2⁄ ] /21/3

𝑄𝑝 = 3.05cfs 𝑡𝑐 = 22.46 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠

Post Development:

𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 21,086𝑠𝑓(0.8) + 40,595.5𝑠𝑓(0.3)

61,681.5𝑠𝑓

𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 0.47

10min: 𝑄 = (0.47)(1.1)(8.5)1.46𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 6.42𝑐𝑓𝑠

20min: 𝑄 = (0.47)(1.1)(7)1.46𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 5.28𝑐𝑓𝑠

25min: 𝑄 = (0.47)(1.1)(6.4)1.46𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 4.83𝑐𝑓𝑠

30min: 𝑄 = (0.47)(1.1)(5.9)1.46𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 4.45𝑐𝑓𝑠

* = Peak Storage Volume

T

(mins)

I

(in/hr)

Max Flow

In (cfs)

Max Flow

out (cfs)

Volume In

(cf)

Volume Out

(cf)

Storage

Required (cf)

10 8.5 6.42 3.05 3,852 1,830 2,022

20 7 5.28 3.05 6,336 3,660 2,676*

25 6.4 4.83 3.05 7,245 4,575 2,670

30 5.9 4.45 3.05 8,010 5,490 2,520


Pepper | 21

Site 1b:

Predevelopment:

𝑄𝑝 = (0.3)(1.1)(6.4 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑟⁄ )1.25𝑎𝑐 𝑡𝑐 = [1.8(1.1 − 0.3)3951

2⁄ ] /21/3


Post Development:

𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 21,627𝑠𝑓(0.8) + 32,802.1𝑠𝑓(0.3)

54,429.1𝑠𝑓

𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 0.50

10min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(8.5)1.25𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 5.84𝑐𝑓𝑠

20min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(7)1.25𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 4.81𝑐𝑓𝑠

25min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(6.4)1.25𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 4.40𝑐𝑓𝑠

30min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(5.9)1.25𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 4.06𝑐𝑓𝑠


T

(mins)

I

(in/hr)

Max Flow

In (cfs)

Max Flow

out (cfs)

Volume In

(cf)

Volume Out

(cf)

Storage

Required (cf)

10 8.5 5.84 2.64 3,504 1,584 1,924

20 7 4.81 2.64 5,772 3,168 2,604

25 6.4 4.40 2.64 6,600 3,960 2,640*

30 5.9 4.06 2.64 7,308 4,752 2,556


Pepper | 22

Site 2:

Predevelopment:

𝑄𝑝 = (0.3)(1.1)(6.4 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑟⁄ )1.81𝑎𝑐 𝑡𝑐 = [1.8(1.1 − 0.3)4621

2⁄ ] /21/3


Post Development:

𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 31,513𝑠𝑓(0.8) + 47,284𝑠𝑓(0.3)

78,797𝑠𝑓

𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 0.50

10min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(8.5)1.81𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 8.46𝑐𝑓𝑠

20min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(7)1.81𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 6.97𝑐𝑓𝑠

25min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(6.4)1.81𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 6.37𝑐𝑓𝑠

30min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(5.9)1.81𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 5.87𝑐𝑓𝑠


T

(mins)

I

(in/hr)

Max Flow

In (cfs)

Max Flow

out (cfs)

Volume In

(cf)

Volume Out

(cf)

Storage

Required (cf)

10 8.5 8.46 3.82 5,076 2,292 2,784

20 7 6.97 3.82 8,364 4,584 3,780

25 6.4 6.37 3.82 9,555 5,730 3,825*

30 5.9 5.87 3.82 10,566 6,876 3,690


Pepper | 23

Site 3:

Predevelopment:

𝑄𝑝 = (0.3)(1.1)(6.6 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑟⁄ )1.28𝑎𝑐 𝑡𝑐 = [1.8(1.1 − 0.3)3911

2⁄ ] /21/3


Post Development:

𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 24,276𝑠𝑓(0.8) + 31,672.5𝑠𝑓(0.3)

55,948.5𝑠𝑓

𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 0.52

10min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(8.5)1.28𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 6.22𝑐𝑓𝑠

20min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(7)1.28𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 5.13𝑐𝑓𝑠

25min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(6.4)1.28𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 4.51𝑐𝑓𝑠

30min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(5.9)1.28𝑎𝑐

𝑄 = 4.32𝑐𝑓𝑠


T

(mins)

I

(in/hr)

Max Flow

In (cfs)

Max Flow

out (cfs)

Volume In

(cf)

Volume Out

(cf)

Storage

Required (cf)

10 8.5 6.22 2.79 3,732 1,674 2,053

20 7 5.13 2.79 6,156 3,348 2,808*

25 6.4 4.51 2.79 6,765 4,185 2,580

30 5.9 4.32 2.79 7,776 5,022 2,754


Pepper | 24

Building Foot Print and Stormwater Storage Volume

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Building Footprint (ft²) Stormwater Storage Volume (ft³)

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3


Pepper | 25

Initial Construction CO₂:

Site 1a: 128 Metric Tons

Site 1b: 128 Metric Tons

Site 2: 232 Metric Tons

Site 3: 159 Metric Tons

Landscape Installed = Site Area – Impervious Area –

Stormwater Basin Footprint

Indoor Water Use:

Site 1a: 14,998 gal/month

3 Toilets

Site 1b: 14,796 gal/month

3 Toilets

Site 2: 29,794 gal/month

6 Toilets


4 Toilets


Pepper | 26

Outdoor Water Requirement*:

Site 1a: 70,305 gal/month

Site 1b: 48,546 gal/month



Indoor and Outdoor Water Use

*Water requirement values are for the month where watering need is at a maximum and do not

represent actual water use figures for irrigation

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Indoor Water Use (Gal/Month) Outdoor Water Requirement(Gal/Month*)

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3


Pepper | 27

SRI Values:

LEED Reference Guide for standard paving [ssc7.1]:

New Concrete Gray = 35

Weathered Concrete Gray = 19

New Asphalt = 0

Weathered Asphalt = 6

LEED requires SRI value of 78 or higher for low slope roofs [REQ ss7.13]

Site 1a: Site 1b: Site 2: Site 3:

Asphalt = 16,691sf Asphalt = 17,283sf Asphalt = 23,053sf Asphalt = 18,887sf

Concrete = 352sf Concrete = 352sf Concrete = 822sf Concrete = 371sf

Roof = 3,540sf Roof = 3,465sf Roof = 7,005sf Roof = 4,485sf

Asphalt, Concrete, and Roof Surface Areas

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Asphalt (ft²)

Concrete (ft²)2

Roof(ft²)


Pepper | 28

Total Site Area and Impervious Area

Construction CO₂ Footprint

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Total Site Area (ft²) Impervious Area (ft²)

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Initial Construction CO₂ Footprint (Metric Tons)

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3


Pepper | 29

Property Setbacks (Palm Beach County, 2016)


Pepper | 30

Parking Lot Requirements (Palm Beach County, 2016)


Pepper | 31

MyClinic Shared Use Site Plan


Pepper | 32

MyClinic Shared Use Floor Plan


Pepper | 33

MyClinic Initial Expansion Plan


Pepper | 34

Results

Of the data collected, there was an apparent trend towards the reduction of

factors contributing to the initial impact of development as well as a reduction in the long

term costs of maintenance and operation. Stormwater volume was reduced by nearly

half which has a substantial impact given the reduction in building footprint was far

smaller of a ratio. Total site area was also reduced by a considerable margin from the

separate site scenario. This reduction allows for a greater amount of habitat to be

preserved in addition to the financial savings of buying a smaller piece of land. Both

indoor and outdoor water use decreased significantly as a result of a smaller total site

area, smaller building footprint, reduction in code required landscaping, and the ability to

share building facilities. Through this sharing of common facilities, the resulting

decrease in building footprint allows for a reduced code parking requirement. This

allows the area of asphalt to be reduced. This material has a low solar reflective index

(SRI) and increases the ambient temperature of the site greater than materials with a

higher SRI. The scenario with the greatest area of low SRI materials was the first which

requires two separate sites. This doubles the asphalt required for vehicular circulation

and also doubles the impervious area of the sites.


Pepper | 35

Discussion

Disadvantages of Shared Use

Although there are very few, it is important to acknowledge the disadvantages

that are associated with shared use design. Across every case study referenced in the

literature review, as well as in the real world case of MyClinic, participants in shared use

agreements expressed difficulties in the cooperation of all parties. Issues such as

liability, financing, maintenance, and security are all factors which are pointed out as

disadvantages of shared use design in the real world. There is also a lack of identity

and ownership that is experienced in cases of shared use agreements. Without being

able to point a finger to a single entity which is solely responsible, a sort of tragedy of

the commons can be experienced. All parties want to be able to use the shared site, but

they are less willing to provide investment and improvement should something come up.

The last disadvantage that was brought up specifically in the case of MyClinic is the

confusion that can be associated with collocating two similar healthcare providers. To

add to the confusion, many patients who rely on the services provided do not speak

English as their first language. As a result, the shared facility has a waiver that must be

signed to acknowledge that the patient understands which entity is delivering the

service.

Relevance to Sustainability

Shared use design offers improvements to the environmental, social, and

economic sustainability of building projects as well as to the community.

Environmentally, shared use can reduce initial CO₂ footprint, reduction of low SRI

materials (Heat Island Affect), reduce stormwater runoff and storage required, reduce


Pepper | 36

heating and cooling load, preserve land/habitat, and reduce waste and consumption.

Economically, shared use design can reduce initial cost, reduce lifecycle maintenance

cost, reduce heating and cooling cost, enable less full time staff required, and enable

broad cost sharing (waste disposal, landscape maintenance, etc.). In the MyClinic case,

shared use design also offers a number of social benefits. By bringing doctors and the

community together in a volunteer setting has fostered relationships that could never

have happened without the project. The project also reduces commute time and

distance for staff and patients and also provides greater family convenience for those

families who might have split eligibility and need to utilize both facilities.

Setbacks

As stated previously, the situation of two independent healthcare providers

sharing a single space or even a single site is extremely unique. This condition makes it

exceedingly more difficult to find precedents that are comparable than in a non-

healthcare related case. This setback forced the research to become far more

innovative and creative when designing the methodology. Having no similar example to

aid in the development of such research adds to the complexity associated with this

challenge.

In addition, creating hypothetical site plans is a difficult task and involves a great

deal of assumption. Having the real world case study to inform the development of the

hypothetical sites is essential in order to have results which are meaningful.


Pepper | 37

Conclusions

Based on the data gathered using the 4 hypothetical site plans, a change in

resource use and environmental impact can be observed between the 3 design

scenarios. It is clear in every area that was evaluated that a shared site and building

result in the smallest impact when compared to two smaller buildings on two separate

sites and two separate buildings on a shared site. It is also clear from the results that

the least efficient strategy evaluated was the scenario involving two separate sites due

to the nonlinear relationship of size to resources when considering two sites.

These results support the hypothesis that a shared use design approach

improves the long term sustainability of site scale development projects in addition to

reducing the initial cost and impact of the development. This research also supports the

claim that shared use design strategies are important considerations for future

development projects in order to improve the overall sustainability of our built

environment.


Pepper | 38

References and Citations

Works Cited

Brown, Jason R. “Comparative Analysis of Energy Consumption Trends in Cohousing

and Alternate Housing Arrangements.” DSpace@MIT, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, 1 Jan. 1970, dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/30142.

“Build Carbon Neutral.” Construction Carbon Calculator, Mithun

Architects+Designers+Planners and The Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center at

the University of Texas at Austin, 2007, buildcarbonneutral.org/.

“Calculate Your Business' Water Use.” Calculate Water Use | Water Footprint

Calculator, Bonneville Environmental Foundation, 2017, store.b-e-f.org/calculate-

business-footprint/water/.

Coffelt, Donald P., and Chris T. Hendrickson. “Life-Cycle Costs of Commercial Roof

Systems.” Journal of Architectural Engineering, vol. 16, no. 1, 2010, pp. 29–36.,

doi:10.1061/(asce)1076-0431(2010)16:1(29).

Data USA. “Palm Beach County, FL.” Data USA, Census Bureau, 2015,

datausa.io/profile/geo/palm-beach-county-fl/.

EPA. “Water Budget Tool.” EPA Water Sense, Environmental Protection Agency, 23

June 2017, www.epa.gov/watersense/water-budget-tool.


Pepper | 39

Jacob, John S, and Ricardo Lopez. “Is Denser Greener? An Evaluation of Higher

Density Development as an Urban Stormwater-Quality Best Management

Practice.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 45, no. 3,

June 2009, web.mit.edu/cron/Backup/project/urban-

sustainability/Stormwater_Sarah%20Madden/References/Jacob&Lopez2009.pdf.

Kuo, Tony. “Building the Evidence: Creating a Framework for Assessing Costs and

Impacts of Shared Use AgreementsFRAMEWORK FOR SHARED USE

WORKGROUP.” Building the Evidence: Creating a Framework for Assessing

Costs and Impacts of Shared Use AgreementsFRAMEWORK FOR SHARED

USE WORKGROUP, July 2014,

publichealthlawresearch.org/sites/default/files/downloads/product/BuildingEvid_S

haredUseAgreement_LA_Sept2014.pdf.

“Landscape Performance Series.” Landscape Performance Series, Landscape

Architecture Foundation, 31 Oct. 2016, landscapeperformance.org/.

Matkins, Allen. “ULI Case Studies - Oslo.” ULI Case Studies, Urban Land Institute, 2004

Dec. 2016, casestudies.uli.org/oslo-washington-dc/.

O'Connor, Jennifer. “Survey on Actual Service Lives for North American Buildings.”

Woodframe Housing Durability and Disaster Issues Conference, Oct. 2004,

cwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/DurabilityService_Life_E.pdf.


Pepper | 40

Palm Beach County. “Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code.” PZB -

Zoning Division, Palm Beach County, Jan. 2016,

discover.pbcgov.org/pzb/zoning/ULDC/Articles.aspx.

ProMatch. Asphalt Parking Lot Resurfacing Cost Estimates. ProMatcher, 2014, parking-

lots.promatcher.com/answers/how-much-does-parking-lot-resurfacing-cost-2388.

Strom, Steven, et al. Site Engineering for Landscape Architects. 6th ed., John Wiley &

Sons, 2013.

Town of Jupiter. “Town of Jupiter Code of Ordinances.” Municode Library, Town of

Jupiter, Jan. 2017, library.municode.com/fl/jupiter/codes/code_of_ordinances.

U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED Credit Library.” U.S. Green Building Council, 2017,

www.usgbc.org/credits.

Date post:	16-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Shared Use Design Analysis: A Case Study of MyClinic

Documents