My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2008
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2008
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:45:19 AM
Creation date
6/27/2008 1:27:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
07/10/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
122
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Benedict and Ed McMahon (Green Infra- <br />structure) as "an interconnected network of <br />natural areas and other open spaces that con- <br />servesnatural ecosystem values and func- <br />tions, sustains clean air and water, and pro- <br />vides a wide array of benefits to people and <br />wildlife." The result is usually a growing but <br />synergistic array of incentives, programs, <br />regulations, and outreach efforts to achieve a <br />variety of environmental goals through urban <br />forestry. <br />One overarching goal taking hold in <br />some of these communities involves estab- <br />lishing a target percentage in some future year <br />for tree canopy coverage, which is the percent- <br />age ofthe city's ground cover that lies beneath <br />the canopy of the urban forest. A Maryland <br />Department of Natural Resources study com- <br />missioned by the city of Baltimore, for <br />instance, recommended a goal of 46.3 percent <br />canopy coverage by 2030-2036, up from a <br />level of 20 percent in 2006. Such communities <br />1ypically seek to implement their goals <br />through a series of code requirements and <br />incentives for landowners, in addition to plant- <br />ing and maintaining trees on public property <br />and rights-of-way. As Gary Letteron, a planner <br />forthe city's environmental department, noted <br />at the time to the Baltimore Sun: "We cannot <br />add 20 percent tree coverage without some of <br />it going on private property." <br /> <br />BEST PRACTICES EXAMPLES <br />The remainder of this article will explore spe- <br />cific regulatory approaches used by communi- <br />ties that served as case studies in the PAS <br />Report. As noted, these are often used in con- <br />cert with other programs and initiatives to <br />achieve urban forestry goals. The report also <br />notes the importance of adequate funding for <br />urban forestry, including both capital improve- <br /> <br />ments and budgeting for enough enforcement <br />personnel to ensure compliance with tree pro- <br />tection and planting requirements and long- <br />term maintenance for new developments, <br />parking lotsi and subdivisions. It is never <br />enough simply to place such requirements in <br />the code becausemaintaining a healthy urban <br />forest is an ongoing proposition that must be <br /> <br />sustained long after new developments are <br />completed_ Good forest planning calls for ade- <br />quate resources for enforcement. <br /> <br />CHApEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA <br />This college town's urban forestry program <br />started in 1989 when the.Town of Chapel Hill <br />amended its charter.Oto authorize tree protec' <br /> <br /> <br />ZOf\JINGPRACTICE 6.08 <br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3 <br />75 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.