HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Environmentally Sensitive Lands Task Force - 11/12/2009 i t K7
#10
ii;::Ti.QJifL t•i't;i,ii::'
Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL)
Public Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting #9
Thursday, November 12, 2009
4 p.m.
Hopi Conference Room
Development Services Building
11000 N. La Canada Dr.
Objectives:
First review of Applicability section; additional review of Overview and
Purpose section.
1. Call to Order
2. Review of Oct. 29, 2009 Meeting Minutes
3. Guest speaker: Dr. Gary Pivo from the University of Arizona will discuss the
economics of open space preservation and incentives. This item will be open
for discussion with PAC members and staff
4. Review of ESL draft sections:
• Discussion of Overview and Purpose section of the draft ESL Code
--Review changes made from Oct. 29 meeting
• Discussion of Applicability section of the draft ESL Code
5. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
• Discussion regarding upcoming meetings on Dec. 3 & 17
• Discussion regarding updates on ESL draft review schedule
6. Adjourn
Posted:
The Town of Oro Valley complies with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the
Clerk's office at 229-4700.
"Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Town Council: In accordance
with Arizona Open Meeting Law A.R.S. X38-431 et seq, a majority of the Town
Council may attend the above referenced meeting as a member of the audience
only."
P,L q,?`� MINUTES
oq-
F ° ORO VALLEYENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS (ESL)
PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #9
�UNDEOAQ1' NOVEMBER 12, 2009 ,5ViWONMfirM£t:
HOPI CONFERENCE ROOM
11000 N. LA CANADA DR.
PAC Members Present:
Bill Adler
Don Chatfield (present for the first part of the meeting, then left)
Philip Kline
Doug McKee
Steve Solomon
Steve Taillie
PAC Members Absent:
Chet Oldakowski
Oro Valley ESL Team Members Present:
David Williams
Joseph Andrews
Bayer Vella
Mary Davis
Karen Berchtold
Arinda Asper
Guest Speaker: Dr. Gary Pivo, University of Arizona
Guest: Joe Hornat
1. Meeting called to order at 4:10 p.m.
2. Review of October 29, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Minutes approved with one change: Page 1, Second Item, Line 2, should read "...for review
and discussion at thismeeting."
3. Presentation by Dr. Gary Pivo on the economics of open space preservation and
incentives.
Dr. Gary Pivo works in the areas of responsible property investing, land use planning, growth
management, and sustainable cities. At the University of Arizona, he holds professorships in
the Planning Degree Program and the School of Natural Resources and is a Senior Fellow
with the Office of Economic Development. Dr. Pivo teaches courses on the land development
process and environmental land use planning.
Dr. Pivo explained there are three big perspectives about open space and environmental
features.
1. It's been settled that development and population growth are attracted to areas
that preserve their natural resources.
2. There is a tie-in to the land. Open space planning can shape the urban form to
have an efficient pattern. It's been shown that communities can deal with the
issue of not having enough buildable yield by being careful how the allowable
density is configured.
1
3. It's also been shown that environmental amenities are capitalized into land value.
People have been looking at how open space affects property values, and serious
studies have been conducted in this area. Being near a park or a natural open
space increases property values up to 30%. The increased property value benefit
declines as one gets away from the desirable environmental features.
Among the materials that Dr. Pivo distributed was a study of the Tucson area that correlates
the sales of 7,658 homes over four years (1996-99)within 2.5 miles of the Tanque Verde
Wash and nearby riparian corridors. The study found that the proximity to the wash
benefited property values, and that if a home was within .1 miles of the wash, the home was
worth more.
Mr. Solomon said that in his experience, proximity to riparian areas affects only the very
proximate homes, but those not close aren't affected. Dr. Pivo said that the study shows
otherwise and that the study was found to be very sound, comparing like homes. Mr.
Chatfield said that he purchased a home that was close, though not adjacent to natural open
space, and he selected that home because of its proximity to walking trails. Mr. Solomon
said he still disagrees with the information from this study. Dr. Pivo suggested that a study of
the Oro Valley area could be done.
Another Tucson-area study, done ten years earlier, found that there was a 3-5% premium for
single-family homes located within .5 mile of large, open space preserves, riparian areas, and
other wildlife habitat.
Also discussed was a study on "conservation subdivisions", which is the same as"cluster
subdivisions." This study found that in comparing like homes, the price of a home in a
conservation subdivision was appreciably more than in a conventional subdivision. Dr. Pivo
said that if preserving features increases the value of homes by 10% and reduces the
allowable density by 10%, then the community breaks even. There is, of course, also the
possibility that in the process of a land transfer, the developer may lose money.
Mr. McKee asked about the percentage of developers who recognize and accept these
studies' findings. Dr. Pivo said that of the smaller, higher quality project developers, probably
half of them accept the findings. These findings do not fit into the model of larger scale
developers who don't like to develop around things.
Mr. Adler asked Dr. Pivo if having a home near a significant feature, rather than a wash,
increased the home's property value. Dr. Pivo's opinion was that a home's proximity to
"landscape patches" does increase its property value. With regard to conservation
subdivisions, the textbook recommendation would be to first identify the amenities, then place
the homes in compatible places, and then draw the lot lines. Mr. Andrews commented that
some of this discussion contains arguments that municipal attorneys are waiting to have
decided by someone else. Dr. Pivo said that ideally, this type of argument would be best
settled by conducting a study in Oro Valley. He added that this would involve serious
economics studies, and to be credible it would need to be conducted by a respected
economist rather than by interns or graduate students.
Mr. Williams asked how the appraisal values are set. Dr. Pivo said that this is done through
the real estate market, and that it isn't even a conscious effort.
Mr. Williams asked how small could lots go in a conservation design, and how can we tolerate
substantial reductions in size, especially with the 66% sensitive land ratio. Dr. Pivo said that
he didn't have an answer, as this was a rather unique situation, but lots could probably be
reduced from 1 acre to 2/3 acre and probably still sell for as much. Dr. Pivo added that
2
•
while he hasn't found an answer to who owns sensitive areas (HOA, land owners,
municipality, etc.), but it is agreed that the areas must be managed somehow.
Dr. Pivo did not have any information on studies of incentives, but said that in order to
properly enforce it, alternatives or compensation must be offered. He added that he has
found that with incentives, it can be expected that maybe a third of the people will buy into the
incentives. One option would be to go from 6 to 10 lots per acre. Another would be to
reduce the lot sizes. He suggested learning as much about the market in our community, and
develop spreadsheets with lot sizes, home prices. There might not be a great correlation
between lot sizes and values. Knowing our own community's market is very important and
will help guide through development decisions. Finally, he said that doing sensitive land
inventories, as is being done, is important.
4. Review of ESL Draft Sections
Mr. Williams presented the revised overview and purpose statement.
Mr. Solomon asked for clarification about the ESL restrictions that would or would not be
placed on the 32% developable portion of Arroyo Grande. Since 68% of the land has already
been designated as sensitive, wouldn't that free up the remaining 32% of ESL restrictions?
Mr. Williams and Ms. Berchtold replied that they do not know how it will be applied in Arroyo
Grande. The rezoning process will define this. Stand Land requires agreement on how land
will be zoned. The Town would say we will start from the ESL framework. State Land would
then agree, or disagree, or work with the Town. The ESL work that has been done by the
Town put the Town in a position of strength, because we know what we have. The Town
would make this ESL ordinance an incentive to develop.
In response to Mr. Adler's reference to overlays, Mr. Andrews said that"overlay" is not a good
word to use, as they are a form of"spot zoning" that might best be referred to as ESL. The
overlays we have were created prior to Proposition 207, and it is simpler not to refer to them
as overlays. Overlays have to apply to everything. We have regulations that apply based on
rezonings and which apply to all rezonings equally. Mr. Adler said he wants these new
regulations to apply to all plans. Mr. Solomon said this systems approach applies to Arroyo
Grande only, but applying to existing properties is irrelevant, as it doesn't really apply to small
parcels. Mr. Wiliams said we can present a minority report.
The group reviewed the Regulations for Development, beginning on page 4 of the ESL draft,
and Mr. Williams made note of the comments and requested changes.
• Under(A) Intent, the purpose is to clarify what path we are on.
• It was suggested that under III(A)(4), additional clarification is needed.
• In response to a question about whether ESL would apply at the General Plan
Amendment phase, Mr. Andrews explained that we put in the regulations at the
General Plan Amendment but they won't apply until rezoning is done.
• It was suggested that under III(B)(1), Applicability, that needs to be consistent with
changes to III(A)(4).
• Joe suggested implementing an expedited rezoning process.
• It was suggested that"ESL Regulations" be used in place of"ESL District."
• Referring to III(B)(2)(C) on page 5, there was a discussion about how mapping isn't
perfect and shout not require remapping, and should be modified so if more valuable
resources are found we can mitigate the effort. It is understood that mapping will be
done from time to time, but a specific time frame may not be needed.
• It was suggested that under III(B)(2)(D)(1), it be clarified that the ESL map
amendment be filed by the property owner or by the Town.
• Referring to III(B)(2)(D)(2) on page 6, there was a discussion on the wording regarding
the certification level of the professional. Also, it was suggested that the
3
5. Meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
Prepared by:
Arinda Asper
Senior Office Specialist
4
Roadmap for review of ESL
October 29: I. Overview and II. Purpose
November 12: Open Space Value Presentation
III. Applicability and Revisit I. Overview and II. Purpose
Dec. 3 III.C. ESL Conservation System:
Begin Sections 1 and 2: Need category maps and Table III-
1 to support
Dec. 17 Speaker: Matt Goode (confirm availability)
III.C. Sections 1 and 2 continued
Jan. 7 III.C.3. Open Space Req's
Jan. 21 III.D.I. & 2. Use and Development Standards
Introduce Design Standards
Feb. 4 III.D.3.D Design Standards and Guidelines
Speaker: to be confirmed
Feb. 18 Complete Design Standards and Guidelines
III.E. & F. Approvals, Maintenance, Violations
March 4 Begin Section IV: Existing Zoning Standards
IV.A. & B. Purpose and Applicability
March 18 Section IV. C. & D. Riparian and Native Plant
April 1 Section IV. E. & F. Oracle Road and Tangerine Road Scenic
Corridors
April 15 IV.G& H. Cultural Resources (We will need to be ready to move
this one around to coordinate with HPC timing) and Hillsides
April 29 Wrap up
I. Environmentally Sensitive Lands Overview
The Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) regulations provide a
comprehensive, systems approach to the conservation and protection of
sensitive resources.
The Town of Oro Valley's General Plan establishes goals and policies for
conservation and protection of the Sonoran Desert, natural, cultural and
visual resources. These environmentally sensitive resources include wildlife
habitat, riparian areas, interconnected open space, significant vegetation,
rock and boulder outcrops, peaks, ridges, steep slopes, cultural resources
and scenic corridors. The ESL regulations are designed to bring together
multiple, existing Town codes, local and regional policy and provide a
comprehensive structure for the Town's agreed-upon conservation priorities.
The Town has mapped environmentally sensitive resources and established
a conservation system based on scientific analysis, regionally adopted
conservation policy and relative resource values. In order to accurately and
consistently apply the ESLS, clear standards for defining, identifying and
mapping these key resources in the Town are included in the ESLS.
The safeguards for sensitive resources identified by the ESLS are based on
five basic tenets of current conservation biology:
• Perpetuating the comprehensive conservation of vulnerable
species
• Retaining those areas that contain large populations of
vulnerable species
• Providing for adjacency and proximity of habitat blocks
• Preserving the contiguity of habitat at the landscape level;
and
• Retaining connectivity of reserves with functional corridors.
the ESLS is designed to balance the public health, safety and welfare goals
o the community with agreed-upon biological and cultural priorities to create
a holistic system of conservation and management for identified resources.
Implementation of the ESL System carries broad regional and local
significance with regard to environmental sustainability and the conservation
of the sensitive resources that endow the Oro Valley area, giving it a distinct
and valued character.
11.6.9 Draft
II. Purpose
The goal of Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) regulations is to identify
and address the Town's natural and cultural resources in a comprehensive
manner. The preservation, restoration, and maintenance of environmental
resources require an integrated approach. The Town's open space,
biologically significant areas, and scenic and cultural resources must be
defined, prioritized and addressed holistically, using clear, science-based
criteria and innovative methods while respecting property rights.
The Environmentally Sensitive Lands regulations are designed to achieve
agreed-upon preservation and conservation goals, in conjunction with
protecting the public health, safety and general welfare by:
1. Conserving the Sonoran Desert
a. Provide a holistic and systematic approach to resource
conservation based on the current science of conservation
biology.
b. Understand biological systems function with a comprehensive
focus on interrelated resources and the need for landscape
preservation connections to ensure the continued viability of
animal and plant communities.
c. Implement the vision of Pima County's Sonoran Desert
Conservation Plan for conservation of biological corridors, critical
habitat and riparian areas.
d. Conserve Significant Resource Areas (SRAs) identified by the
General Plan.
e. Conserve key and essential habitats.
f. Manage public access to natural open spaces to maintain wildlife
conservation value.
g. Balance public use and conservation goals in managing
environmentally sensitive open space areas.
h. Encourage the long-term survival of the native plants and animals
by maintaining ecosystem functions necessary for their survival.
i. Preserve, salvage and replace native vegetation, to stabilize
desert soils and providing food and protection for desert wildlife.
j Encouraging the preservation of wildlife habitat and wildlife
friendly design through improved site design.
k. Preserving the Sonoran Desert landscape, including riparian
areas and rock outcroppings.
2. Preserving Land Values
a. Preserve the Sonoran Desert landscape and scenic views that are
critical to attracting residents and visitors.
b. Encourage riparian habitat conservation and in-place preservation
of native vegetation, an integral part of the Sonoran Desert that
enhances property values, quality of life and community lifestyles.
11.6.9 Draft 2 .,r:N S! . ;.:.
3. Conserving Cultural Resources
a. Provide for the preservation, management, and public access,
when determined appropriate, of archaeological and cultural
resources in conjunction with the conservation of other significant
resources.
b. Consider the potential effect of development on historical and
prehistoric resources.
c. Preserve exceptional resources in place, if possible, and develop
mitigation strategies when needed that preserve the Town's rich
cultural heritage.
4. Conserving Visual Resources
a. Identify and preserve scenic corridors within the Town.
b. Preserve visually important areas ncluding peaks, ridges and
highly visible slopes.
c. Preserve dark skies and night sky visibility.
d. Preserve public park viewsheds.
5. Guiding and Enhancing Urban Design
a. Ensure interconnected open spaces.
..................
.................
................
b. Provide direction for site and building design to protect sensitive
resources.
c. Use context sensitive design.
6. Promoting Living Quality
a. Preserve the visual resources identified by the General Plan.
b. Conserve natural open space areas and vegetation that provide
direct and important physical and psychological benefits to Town
residents'and visitors through reduced heat gain and glare, and to
soften the harsher aspects of urban development, while
addressing community-wide natural resource conservation goals.
7. Protecting lives and property
Protect human life and property from recognized hazards including
steep and unstable slopes and soils, flood and erosion hazards.
8. Supporting Sustainable Growth
a Effectively apply comprehensive and systematic management and
conservation of sensitive resources. Application of ESL principles
of interconnected open space and resource protection and
conservation provide the best opportunity for holistically sustaining
the resources that create the balanced living quality and economic
opportunities attributable to the Town of Oro Valley. Applying the
ESL regulations to properties that are being rezoned and to
properties desiring to develop under existing zoning regulations
serves to implement agreed-upon community conservation goals.
b. Provide incentives to encourage property owners to utilize the
ESL Conservation System when determining preferred uses and
specific development designs for private property where
11.6.9 Draft 3
environmentally sensitive resources exist, thereby furthering
conservation efforts.
c. Recognize and respect existing zoning standards and promote
compatible development utilizing best environmental management
practices.
III. Regulations for Development Under the
Environmentally Sensitive Lands Conservation
System
A. Intent
1. The Environmentally Sensitive Lands Conservation System (FSCs)
encourages sustainable development practices that harmonize human
habitation with the conservation of valued natural resources. The
ESLS implements adopted land use and conservation pians including
the Town's General Plan and Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.
2. This Section of the ESLS outlines the comprehensive system of
standards and procedures for the protection and conservation of
environmentally sensitive resources in Oro Valley. It is distinct from
Section IV, Regulations for Development on Environmentally
Sensitive Lands with Zoning Prior to ESLS Adoption which
contains the standards and requirements in effect for environmentally
sensitive lands prior to the adoption of the ESLS.
3. While development may proceed in accordance with Section IV under
,pre-existing standards, Section III provides updated and
comprehensive standards and procedures in contrast with Section IV.
4. For development proposed under rezoning, PAD's, PAD or General
Plan amendments approved after the adoption of ESLS, applications
shall follow the requirements and procedures of Section III.
B. Applicability
The provisions of ESLS contain in this Section III apply to rezoning and
Planned Area Development (PAD) applications, General Plan
amendments, and Planned Area Development (PAD) amendments.
1. The ESL District established in Section Il I.B.2, below, apply to any
property that has received a zoning change or planned area
development approval or amendment after date. Exceptions are
listed in Section III.B.3, below. All development activity on applicable
properties shall comply with the provisions of the ESL regulations as
contained herein.
#44
11.6.9 Draft 4
2. Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) District and Maps
A. District Established
An Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) zoning district is
hereby established, as adopted by the Town Council in
accordance with the General Plan, where specified
environmental conditions exist. Property shall be identified
with the suffix 'E' to indicate ESLS standards apply on the
official town zoning map. Development within the ESL District
shall be regulated by the provisions of this Section and the
requirements of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised,
including base zoning districts and PAD requirements. In the
event of a conflict between codes, the more restrictive shall
apply.
B. Adopted ESL Maps
1. Concurrent with the adoption of the Environmentally
Sensitive Lands District, a set'of maps entitled
`Environmentally Sensitive:Lands Maps' are also adopted.
The ESL Maps are available in the Oro Valley Planning
and Zoning Department and identify the location of
environmentally sensitive lands and conservation
categories within the'Town of Oro Valley that meet the
definitions and standards specified in the ESL regulations.
Environmentally sensitive lands identified are preserved
and managed in accordance with the requirements
contained in this Section III, Regulations for
Development under the Environmentally Sensitive
Lands Conservation System, and the General Plan and
otherlansand olic documents adopted
do ted by
the Town of
Plans p Y p Y
Oro Valley.
C. Unmapped Resources
maps 1. The adopted ESL identifythe location of known
p p
environmentally sensitive resources within the Town. The
adopted maps may not include all environmentally
sensitive resources on a given site at a particular point in
time. The ESL District also applies to environmentally
sensitive lands, as defined herein, which have not been
mapped.
2. Property owners are responsible for ensuring all defined
resources are identified and mapped in accordance the
standards contained herein prior to any ground disturbing
activities such as clearing, grubbing, grading or
construction.
11.6.9 Draft 5 � � � -
M ' �
3. The Planning and Zoning Department shall regularly
update the ESL maps, in accordance with Section
III.B.2.D, to add newly identified resources.
D. ESL Map Amendments
1. The location and quality of environmentally sensitive
resources can change over time. If it is conclusively proven
that conditions have changed, or resources have been
mapped incorrectly, a request for ESL map amendment
may be filed by the property owner with the Town.
2. Resource mapping must be conducted by a trained,
professional biologist or botanist in;accordance with the
standards and definitions contained in;Section 1111.•p as well
as comply with the Planning and Zoning Department's
"Guide to Identifying Environmentally Sensitive Lands."
The biologist or botanist shall certify in writing that the
identification of resources was completed in accordance
with this Section.
3. The maps may be amended from time to time through the
rezoning process (Section ) with approval by the Town
Council.
4. Approved rezonings, PAD adoptions, and PAD
amendments that include updated environmentally
sensitive lands mapping are an integral part of the adopted
ESL maps via an.ESL map amendment initiated in
conjunction with the-vtezoning, PAD, or PAD amendment
•
...:....:...
app ication.
}
3. Exceptions
A. This Section''applies only to development approved after
::::::::::::::.::
adoption of the ESLS on date. Applications for grading,
building,' use, other permits for properties with zoning
established prior to (effective date of the ESLS), may utilize
the standards contained in Section IV, Regulations for
n with
L
a
Sensitive ds
n o
nEnvironmentally
e
v to
me t
Zoning Prior to ESLS Adoption.
B. This Section does not apply to PAD's and PAD amendments
approved by the Town Council prior to (the effective date of
the ESL).
C. Other Exceptions (reserved)
..................................
11.6.9 Draft 6 F.NVIRONMENTA.LY
i •
4. Incentive to Apply ESL Without Rezoning
A. Property development in accordance with the standards of
Section III.0 is encouraged in order to implement the Town's
adopted General Plan and associated resource conservation
policies. The development standards in any zoning district
may be modified, as outlined in Section III.D, if the property
owner agrees to develop in accordance with Section III.C,
where compliance would not otherwise be required.
B. Modifications to development standards including setback,
minimum lot size, and off-street parking may be approved.
Request for modifications of development standards not listed
above may be granted by the Town Council, if the
modifications promote the preservation of sensitive resources
and do not violate statutes, development agreements, appeal
processes, or other provisions of this code.
C. Such modifications to development standards may be granted
in conjunction with a conditional use permit, upon Planning
and Zoning:Commission recommendation and Town Council
approval or for plat or development plan, Town Council
approval following:Development Review Board
recommendation.
5. Incentive to Apply ESL for Rezoning
A. Property development in accordance with the standards of
Section III.0 is encouraged in order to implement the Town's
adopted General Plan and associated resource conservation
policies.
B. Property owners with zoning that existed prior to (effective
date of the:ESL) may elect to have their property included in
the ESL District through a rezoning process in accordance
with Section
C. A density incentive increase of 20 percent of the base density
(add table) may be granted to applicants whose property is
rezoned to the ESL District while retaining the existing base
zoning. In order to be eligible for the density increase, the
rezoning shall not include a change in zoning to a more
intense zoning district and shall conspicuously request the
density increase as part of the rezoning application.
D. The property can be developed employing the additional
density in accordance with the requirements and standards of
the ESLS, relevant zoning districts and the OVZCR.
> s
11.6.9 Draft 7 M,,a 1L;�
0
Colby and Wishart, Quantifying the Influence of Desert Riparian Areas on Residential Property Values,
2002,The Appraisal Journal.
Studied sales of 7,658 homes over 4 years(1996-99)withint 2.5 miles of a 15-mile stretch of Tanque
Verde Wash and nearby riparian corridors.
lâhI Variables Wei to'Examine Property ValuImpacts*
Variable Name Description
Dependent variable
sale price Sale price of home
independent variables
1996 Variable representing a 1996 home sale(1,594 sales)
1997 Variable representing a 1997 home sale(1,832 sales)
1998 Variable representing a 1998 home sale(2,339 sales)
1999 Variable representing a 1999 home sale(1,893 sales)
Parcel size Size of land parcel,measured in square feet
Living space Total living space of home,measured in square feet
Age Age of home in years at time of sale
Garage Number of garaged ping spaces
Distance Distance in miles to center line of riparian corridor
Srlainary Statistics
Variable Naive Average illissiman illisudialre
Sale price($) 182,295.10 29,900 1,855,584
Parcel size(sq.ft.) 23,782.23 2,023.70 3,606,709
living space(sq.ft.) 2,052.16 800 7,765
Age(years) 15.37 0 98
Garage(9 of spaces) 1.54 0 6
Distance(miles) 0.84 0.10 2.50
• The dies vwu ducked for inecanrstcim by iw ming each violable In turn and inspecting for mamma ralrses.Far rrarrtplt,we dropped lite obeer etioru kom the
data sat dot bad the anm oftha land pent I to be under Zoo squire fset,10 whkh Ibted aero bathroom tIxbns„and one obsenetlon whkh Indicated Vet the
home hod 200 garaged parting Imes.
WIZ Stedstical#moi:Single Farally aMIdMC41i*
Variable Robust CooMldent Standard Error t P>14 ,_
1996 48537.37 5663.41 -10.34 0.00
1997 -55185.27 5750.45 -9.60 0.00
1998 -49514.99 5703.83 -8.68 0.00
1999 -31320.59 6034.53 -5.19 0.00
Parcel SIZE 0.43 0.07 6.32 0.00
Living space 105.88 3.22 32.93 0.00
Age -560.38 81.94 -6.84 0.00
Garage 6290.79 1128.88 5.57 0.00
LnDIstance -3929.19 890.43 -4.41 0.00
• *dray Load squares regression was used to estimate the hedonk price model,using SSSS and Stela statistical software.The remits wee then checked for
heterosiedestidty using the Cook-Mabel g n)teat The tab hdcaosd h tero.'arastkIty and 1Mrltn(Hubert)method was used In a second
regression to recover consistent estimates for sive standard encs of the oaallldants.Number of abs.765 F(9,7649)in 11186.99;Prob>E 0.0000.
Model R-squared = .91
' 10 'pUepod
ui pueRann i.saaeau aq4 of aasoID laaj 000`I gpea.lob.wn!waJd 9E1j$ :swepd pue Alselod `uegew
lel!geq apiplinn aagco pue'seam uepedp 'sanjasaad aDeds uado`aaiel Jo aliw
z/ulg1inn palepol sawoq Al!WeJ-ai2u!s JoJ wn!waid%S-£ 'ewe oJlaW uosDnl :MegS pue ` ui)l
:saidwex3 ipieasaj aa1110
Ca 6au)ague Jed 0S9p$ aximsia
ands 6upped pa6.a6 ad O6 NN a6weD
(agp.6au)Amg ad 09Ss arm►
•bs gad COLS ands 6u
'bs ad EPOS ales la3m1d
Omen.1 a*y mia 10A)MeInA Isla•!••••=4 aluf1-m0•Jos sum mum Nl:mins emersi A
num Andaid sonelseA SIR suslarmineol pj
.141041V104141ailufl«u i011110110t9=MOM PUN P3113 TOOkm larva mai 11031111.impasu won pm. .
iopwo uelivdN'au11 mug* •--- .`
all •
w o L'0 '� ,,,,,�,. •
C966'S+) LO 1.76 LS
allw oE'0 � L 9'0 LS+
alive oS'o LZ£'9S+
(961'7+)
Ll£'$S+
NUJ 0'L
(966'0+)
£6S'LS+
sallw OS'
991►'L8 LS
auk js u. ueiadpi tuo4 Asia 66114110111341 MUM anpA=mH
ACM igAitib-+UO
mum pl -sL
'+ �,ter O' ,�-�•" s-poot•10 s :mss 1111111
bat
0:2 uo �
, ,...
I—4.----
i
. •
—
1
4,
4:4
. 'I - 4 ,,,,,,,-• , 4i.4. +. * '.41'=•-1 * I
—
-...,-
Ai)
. . 6 •
.3.--. - • . ,,,,. ... •. '
1 a • : ,
. 1 t '4' ''-'1' . ' *
a ,,,.' . • , I.. .,,-----
, • - a ..,
- 1
1
• , % * .,
,: " • , ,,0 1 ,
JR,4..7 14 Vd
,
( imser‘at ion
Convent.ion4.1i
• . .
stihdi st ision
stAil(ii‘ 'sun)
------____
-.......
i —.....,......
Je ....................
,......... ,
----- .-.6 :
, ......., ,
a
Is
A A
k A
I ...) A. •
.....,„1.--.,` ‘. 1 •
'S .‘
0 A
a
a i
-.,
rIlk. ,
,., ,44 IN A • )
s pi
,e a ,.
a A,
s .
47,---
.4............_...........
a
8 "A
.1 A
CI
..-Ni ..,..4
/
::.:1.1 i.....ii VI .Vn1 TV p rf
A
a
a :,51,.' il rs.i.or 1,-,P,rva Li on
.4%-----
,..rcr9 ...-- 0 t ' ifiti I i.,'11
,----
N
Pfr..1a-icir
Al. 0
S
I f': • l.„ehi 1'.
.,,
L..._:_.,.. .. _.. _....,.. .. . --
Mohammed, Conservation Subdivisions, Urban Affairs Review,2006
• . ',,',44:•••••
-,• •-„ e., , •
0 •
. : •,,A .•.. '• • : .,'.-(.:::4'.:';'''''''''' ;'::;;:''''''4';`itj
-:_,•„:1';.',-,:";'7,:',.,,,,... '':.:,-it#,..4'.1.,-;':::-,•1•••::'''''...':•••':',.:c..,,•''..,,:..„,••:;::.-,,:',::„$•,1::'-',.:4,-;.,--•_.-.,;,,,,,i,••;;.,...•',,,,,*,:•-,..--,,,.:,,,,,--,. •
„„ ,.::„ -,-'''' ..,-Th.f;'•';'„;-;;;?.:: .:••::•::::::::::'-'S'''''',, ''.',.,.....-......-...2!-::::,,,,,!,:-. ,,,,,,,„.'...w,Pi !
,2.. •'.',';'.'47'"•'.7,,,:-..;i::::'.-•:,-.. '•1.'!-,,;:tqt-i'lt,':
40..•.,:,..:-. :.,,,.,..,..„,..,..,..,-.:,-.::":;:,.:.',!7_.:-:,..,...i...,•::,-,:i:,.:* ,.:...,!,",--.-.‘ •., ..,,,
41/4
„ ..,...a44,—. . '4;:':.-..,4*,,..It;,...,:',-;,;,...;,..,::*.4;:::.:..,.:,,;,.,,,,t,c:7., ''''i:.,',--,;,4,;,,.,- .. .-.i,!*.., ''......,v.::...--.„'N•j'hikii,
# ,
/• . ,
'4:::•,,•••',7,,,,,*•,.,- ., -,'•f',,,,,,-•,'-il'!",-''''•:''''.4...41;044...,;'.',1••.''.:•.:::.;...i•:•!4•. •,•:-;•,•.-'3.411kti.1;Ofitit,,147i':•'::,:,,,i,..1. ,7,-; --:.';a: :••;„.,,,,,,..,
:'';'''.:'''' :•:'::':::2,.:'-',2.:::,:'.,,,t1i4r.!`..li.,1;•'',..t....,,il'.-H.......,:;;..: -..'''::';':',,it:44.i,l'f-';/;,..•,"101,7. ":::,:'..•,,:., ___,,,,.';,•,„W''',"'.'7::'-:',:;:'•1:;'.:'.4':E ,. .•'''''''''';::::.:;';''.-.
1•VI:'-'.'4"t'' ''':::' \...„'''''
., .-; . ..-"'...;;;,,,:.„",;':',',.*I.:...•„..:.'•',•'''.'.'•:,••••'.''•'''''''' :i."••'•'....*:,..•,:,•''ii!...;:l'-',:,'‘.001i.":.,.-..,,,•, ,,'..''';''''.'''''. ,,,i'',1';-'':-...4,01.-' ':''.'''..-..*' • •;:.'S',;;;:-..
, . ,.,..;;:,:,..:,..7 :! ::',..:, :':::::4•.:::' 'r.;;;,,'.,,,,,;7,:
,,,;,,,,,,,..., ,:ii,,',4,o.fitigri.,,,, ''''','''. ..,,:,:.: -•,;,.,,4:,,,,::,',..,,.-.-•••,,,,,,,::..t.,:•.,:.-,,:* ':''''ii.''''''''
I. ''''',',..,':4•''-t'll''...,.,:',.:,,,,:;':„.•',..,0;•'1: '...14'4".4.,:::: :.:7.'',1-:'''',.,.:1,-,11,'''Ilf,'-',..•-.1:: ::•1*.'''.4:'....''''..'''..i...•':,''''.:•••,:'''' ''''''''''''':'.j''.:- '''-•';•--. . ' 4.'iti';',!!!,‘,'4,
,.'D.
F..' -'''''- ;-.....7.-•---.-.'-'..'-. , ..----'.-..:::'.
. 1 ';''''-'".....";!;;;I:‘•Itolehk,i .;,,,,,..':-..,:tf.F.,'.',::4:;,i,'S‘,',/,',,,::::,',(g.....:2:`,.::.,''''T...: , ..'4, , .,,,,,....,.,:::,2,,::,, ,,:; ':..1.'-;,:=-.7..,
..„,..,..- ...:7g4,'1#4,-:'
. • .,_,,,,, . ,,.. 1,i,,,..!,..,,,.../„.„.5.,-.„,:•,,,*„.i,. .0, ,,,,,...„,.. . ,,,...,,...._.„,,,,,-,.„..,,:,:,,,,,,,,,, ,r •--::,:i----••:.,h:•.;'-.,„.••••:,.i•••:•••.., '
. .,:,. ........ .- .•...,- ...,„
• ..,...,-:;:: ; '''t•':.:. ' .•.,.L:•,_,.-•,.;•!:•••-•r•'''...-,';A„:,.,f,,,•;',•;,,o,e-,',., ),'".7,..,;•,..„•:...,..,,,,..;,-,:„.„•:,,,,v,:,•:'. . .....,,,..,,,i,,, ,fi-,: i ;-••
,
-. ';:;-,- "::,:-...• ..--'....
....;„:„.......,,,,...::„,•,,....,,,.„,„,,,,,,,,,",,,,,,,,,,,,„i„,•;,,,,„i,-,,,,,A,-,,,,,,....•.•:..,•::• •
1 ,-,,......, •• .....; ...r
.1,,,:",,,•'I',Y,'‘:',4.1,':''... '',''''•"
-...„., .., ....„
,-,,..,.. , - ..,.,...,...-.,,4,...,. .,......,.!:,,,....,,,,,,r.,'• - ,,,._ 1
1 i'''';':"--. •-::..*.s,.::7
: ,.....„, "..,,,,, ,.-L'.•• ,i , .: ',.,f-',..4:s.',,,;-.,'''7'.''''':•;;*'..t's.'",' • ;:!T,Iii` . - _. ....
— .
: . •-, ...,.
• 5, ..4....
.,..,...„......,.,,• . • -•-
' '''. ' ' ' ',,,,e1:174''...-•---,,;,'''''',:::'. • iiiir 4---,''','**'.*
1 :".,".' ' ..;'..• ';''7
,„,,or'' '
, ,.-i'.":'' ' ' ' '.''''''''
, ...'i_., _ •, .!
, 5_ :.,.i.....::II .1
i
' ..-.,7•
,..,'...1'..;
''..!''''':'•-• '''..''; .°s' '-....:-'...,T1
..- Z,;;;;;':--:'•''';:"::' '... ..) .!,:,'.7...-1.j.
S k Y ra .
n c h
;,:,; „,,,, , :, ..,_•_., • ,
,.. ,
.–t
''''"';'''
yrr.,..w.:,,,..:,,....‘,:,,..,;.,:....-:,.,„,'•,,...:::.;„,,,,.,op...,,.,..,,,„,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,.i,.;,',,,,:''''.:'''':;,,,ikei4',',-1.4.•''''::'''''''':":''''';"T'ilii;''..'' 4 li
,,,,,
''••s•''.'*'H'''.'.'o''''Iit.'•''1"'.:N1'' ',' -;•.,'','s.-'t'
,.:.,
“;:i:;:',.:.,.4t '':':'''I
',''''':i'''''''''4.,''"-.,,,.,1-.''''..+i,,.,,,,'.,4,,,*!,.'','*''-,'..,.,.,',,;,','',:''-.',''4'.'.4.,,•4',"','•.-:',.:,,'..,'.",1'.,,.',.','1,',4','!i'.'f',4'',.,'':'•'..-..1_--,_..', -V.-.'!..:':'?-;';h•._,'..-.';:i,,".';,''„'.,,:!,.-,..'..''..:'..1:::,,-.`!'i;.:,N.,,'.::'.1,.','..4,,t,'!:i','.•:.4,..,,e•.;':.,•.-;:..''," ,
'''
I ::ir:: ) : , .:t
,s•-,'
_
''•
1 ,
1
*- 4:';':...,'''''-,,,,:;•:,:-;:"°'4,;ifAl .,;7:',44,;.'.' ''1".E.f..:;:
-,.:-...:,,,:iii40-ii400.0,L,,,,...„..,••?:.,,,,,,,,:ri,,,,,:,,i,,F,....:5-,,,-:
',,-,,,k,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,i,,,,,1-,,,::,,,:,:•,: ::?,J;',,,,,,;:::4.,,.:.,-,..:-,._..,,,..,,:.,-;,,,..:I-,:. 4,,,:f.fi:,:-„,till,,•,:
.,„.F.'f.,4,7ij,:,': .:•!'•;',7:-.:,-;:,:•-Aii:!:':',.1'1?_,';',;',Aiiiigito,:,.:'.:.:::/i„:0:4,
f.',4*,s,14,4•it'.:..,:,:,;::: ';',,,.;.,,;.,,i,,,,,,,,.,,,;,.;,:4:;.....,..:iik.4.4.0,45:;,:i.k1
,.ti-:1.,:',.,...•:.7.....',.:,.-.;..:•,.....,:::;..‘....,:;.,i,,,:,,,„:;...6',!,..,..,,..,.:,p,:ii,.::.;,',F,:-,,,,,,,:li,:,,,,,,i,,14;
f.,.,,,,..4:•.,.:''..,,,'.:::,:;,...;...::::`Vtt.,,CI,::6,t,,,,Offt
, is..;.5;;;..:
t.,,' -1''''''''''''' ';:i'r-5:-':':z;'1,;;;;.:4.•:'?...-',.5$:‘''.P.t:(::'1.''',;.'-..',-'7/'..i''''.[AOr*ISIti,'...
:..i.!FtSjrif;',I,rii:„.,,'.'iii:;:0:•:i' L.,,H:,'*i::f.-':',I''I'!!;::74!::4,.:'•::
.',;;;; -,,',,,.:',:,.1:::.,:',1:tk..i5:3...:f:i!likt''''','-'7:::'717':,`''':'•,,;..111,:',,I,,.:4,:,',,,,,'Sf,
, ,.i:',i•,.'t 1,'c t't'''f' '"'
.:',.144.:'::::7,',''''r:'.::''',''''7,';'•...::'',..:.::,:,:ii,17t,:,,,,,"7,:ii;:e!'',41$4:21.
9.:1: 1,.,''el':::•''''''','''''''''',A'''',I!:;Pi,: '•,:'',. .',.','''.7.,,.';',;•'....,43,,,,i'l?.ii.
• .1 1 ,
;' ';••'1'' '' '''''
11*",':';:i';':',410°:..-,.'4';,:::..-l41'...::::.4,,,,,::-.•:.,.,4:.;,.:.11,...
,•;:::,,it,fA.,,T.0,:if:,',.;.-.-i.!;::',„',7.,..::::::;,,,...,.:,,,i,c,tit
ai.i ;41011,0tS,:ftip.,,:
, 091r !,,,,,:,iiiiiikigttfcikii
:'4!..71.j,'7V',..A',:''.i,714!;,Y,t;!:',
,Ii7,7--.14ii,,,i*.,4,:,-*:4;f:.:','.'-'fr.:7-.{:0:
*,71;ts:,,,',goft:zr.l.- ''::;;,':',!,;..;,.:.,?.:.::-it*::
;4* ',:,,,:/;,..,,•,:i4,444tiiie,P*Ft,rif-.::t.T'ifit
,,,,,,10,1164fito,N'..
-1..0.!:::',;:S1...',.:',:!;p1,
5,eAilc4-::!,-;41:it..!,.ttii.ii",,,,,,;tc;•
• -,-,-,-.-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...;;;.,,:,:,,,,,.::,..:;,,,:',,,,,...':,,.•.;,:[,',',Pyy,,..",6,,,,,,,..-,',,/,:,:=„=,,,....,:::,:,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
.....,..
Conservation Subdivisions in So .
Kingston , RI
TABLE 5: Results of ANCOVAs for Price per Acre of Developed Lots in Differ-
ent Subdivision Types
, ;..,
1I qt
.\I\V: 1\1'1 k..L.21 Ii" iii
fir% IS jI25 . 12. 122 I
111
IIIIji1 & Ji1i \ij:tI ' l 7 1 11114
1.1% ti•
I\iI1: i ;„: 1 7
TABLE 7: ANOVA of Mean Improvement Costs per Lot and Mean Selling Time
for Lots for Different Subdivision Types
r
- • • IL .0
•
( 1' I C. . ;
Mohamed, Urban N7 IN 7
Affairs Review, 2006 .k.; ) 16 1 17
5 5 _
) 00 °
Desert Riparian Areas along Tucson's Tanque Verde
Wash, 96-99
flure II Statistical Results of a 2,000.:iquare-FoaPR, O Garage, 7 s-Y ui+-Ofd Home on
One-Quarter Acre*
Home Value Increase Percentage Increase Distance from Riparian Centerline
$181,466
1.50 mites
+ x1, 93
(+0.996)
1.4 mile
• 317
f,J-----_..�" (+2.496)
+ 56.321 030 mile
(4-3.546)
+ 510.641 �-- 0=30 mile
:L::: fipithar1 corridor
am. —
Colby and Wishart, The Appraisal Journal, 2002
Table 4-1 : Comparison of Runoff Controlled and Cost Savings for
Conventional and LID Design.
Site Example Runoff Storage (acre-feet) LID Net Cost or
Savings
Conventional LID
----------------_______,_______.
Medium Density Residential 1 ,3 2.5 S476,406
Elementary School 0,6 1 .6 $(48.478)
H01-I Density Residential 0.25 0.45 .S25,094
Corn rnercial 0.98 2...--) $(9.772)
scity.:::e: zlre),A.fEr. an i -i:-73.-Ier 2ooz.
:Table 4-2: Value of the Difference in Runoff Storage Provided by LID
Designs.
Site Example Runoff Storage (acre-feet) Runoff Value of
In North Carolina Storage Difference in
Conventional LID Difference
Difference Runoff ,
LID is less expensive
(cubic-feeDa Storage (S2/cf)
for residential Medium 1.3 2.5 1.2 52.272 :-:.;104.544
developers but Density
Residential
always produces Elementary 0.6 1 .6 1 43.560 687.120
positive B/C. school
High Density 0.25 0.4 0.2 8.712 617,424
Residential 5
Commercial 0.98 2.9 1 .92 83.635 Si 67.270
:E.):::.ur::: Ecor-.01-feNest
Note.i:"Tc. :::onvert'1.,::1- ...cre f:).-A t..-._ 131_,No feet trulti:-.11.:,., by 4:3..560 :the rurib,er o':::1.1::::::feet in al