|
critically linked to the ability to plant and
<br />maintain healthy street trees by ensuring
<br />adequate planting widths and depths,
<br />providing the structure to avoid sidewalk
<br />obstructions (e.g., grates), preventing in-
<br />terference with underground and overhead
<br />utilities, and considering the types and
<br />sizes of trees that can thrive in such an envi-
<br />ronment. For example, the subdivision regu-
<br />lations for Bentonville, Arkansas, require
<br />that trees not be placed where they will
<br />require frequent pruning in order to avoid
<br />interference with overhead power lines. The
<br />ordinance provides a list of understory trees
<br />that are suitable to be placed under over-
<br />head utility lines.
<br />THE CASE FOR AN INTEGRATED GREEN
<br />INFRASTRUCTURE CODE
<br />The tree preservation ordinance has proven
<br />to be a valuable community tool for pro-
<br />tecting and enhancing the urban forest.
<br />However, municipalities often develop
<br />these ordinances in isolation and don't
<br />always consider the relationship with other
<br />codes and regulations that promote the
<br />triple bottom line benefits of urban forestry.
<br />Protecting the community's investment in
<br />the urban forest is best accomplished by
<br />going beyond traditional "silos" to address
<br />the synergies between tree preservation
<br />and other codes that promote green infra-
<br />structure. Many communities have incor-
<br />porated some elements of urban forestry
<br />and green infrastructure into regulations
<br />addressing issues such as stormwater
<br />management, riparian buffers, land devel-
<br />opment, and landscaping requirements.
<br />While the collective regulatory approaches
<br />of these communities demonstrate the
<br />motivation to promote green infrastructure
<br />solutions, none has yet achieved a fully
<br />integrated development code that consid-
<br />ers the interactions of all the elements that
<br />form the green infrastructure network. As
<br />the largest natural resource component of
<br />the network, the urban forest should ideally
<br />be addressed through an integrated green
<br />infrastructure code and management struc-
<br />ture that optimizes the ecological, social,
<br />and financial benefits it yields as part of a
<br />larger system. Athree-step process is pro-
<br />posed to achieve this ambitious goal. This
<br />process starts with an inventory of all the
<br />community's regulations that address green
<br />infrastructure, including stormwater man-
<br />agement, erosion control, tree preservation,
<br />open space preservation, land develop -
<br />REFERENCES
<br />Alig, R., M. Carr, S. Comas, E. Greenfield, D. Nowak, P. Randier, and S. Stein, 2o1o. Sustaining
<br />America's Urban Trees and Forests. General Technical Report NRS-62. United States
<br />Department of Agriculture.
<br />Augustin, S. and J. M.Cackowski-Campbell. 2o11. "The View from School Windows."
<br />Landscape Architecture, March.
<br />Dwyer, J., G. McPherson, H. Schroeder, and R. Rowntree. 199z. "Assessing the Benefits and
<br />Costs oftheUrban Forest." Journal ofAboriculture, September.
<br />Kuo, F.E. and W.C. Sullivan. 2oo1. "Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation
<br />Reduce Crime?" Environment and Behavior, 33(3): 343-67.
<br />Schwab, J., ed. 20o9. Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community
<br />Development. PAS Report no. 555. Chicago: American Planning Association.
<br />Troy, A., J.M. Grove, and J. O'Neil -Dunne. 2o12. "The Relationship Between Tree Canopy and
<br />Crime Rates Across an Urban -Rural Gradient in the Greater Baltimore Region." Landscape
<br />and Urban Planning, 106(3): 262-270.
<br />Vibrant Cities & Urban Forests Task Force. 2o11. Vibrant Cities & Urban Forests: A National
<br />Call to Action. New York: New York Restoration Project. http://vibrantcities.org.
<br />ment, street and sidewalk design, riparian
<br />standards, etc. The inventory should also
<br />include the various departments and per-
<br />sonnel responsible for administering the dif-
<br />ferent regulations and their individual per-
<br />mitting and enforcement procedures. Next,
<br />the existing regulations should be evaluated
<br />together to identify areas of inconsistency
<br />or conflicting standards, overlapping provi-
<br />sions, and opportunities for regulations to
<br />work together and provide incentives for
<br />achieving maximum benefits. For example,
<br />allowing developers to factor the presence
<br />of trees in postdevelopment calculations for
<br />stormwater flow would reduce engineering
<br />costs while mitigating stormwater runoff
<br />and preserving trees. The evaluation should
<br />include an assessment of the various review
<br />and permitting procedures and consider-
<br />ation for how they might be integrated into
<br />one coordinated process. The regulatory
<br />evaluation will also help to identify any gaps
<br />and missed opportunities to apply green
<br />infrastructure best management practices.
<br />The final step in the process is to develop
<br />a recommended structure forbringingto-
<br />gether existing regulations and review pro-
<br />cesses, along with new approaches, into an
<br />integrated ordinance that can maximize the
<br />triple bottom line of social, environmental,
<br />and economic benefits green infrastructure
<br />provides to communities.
<br />VOL. 29, NO. 9
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are
<br />available for $95 (U.S.) and $12o (foreign). W. Paul Farmer, FAICP, Chief Executive Officer; William R.
<br />Klein, AICP, Director of Research
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN i548—o135) is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and David Morley, AICP, Editors;
<br />Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production.
<br />Missing and damaged print issues: Contact Customer Service, American Planning Association, 2o5 N.
<br />Michigan Ave., Suite 1zoo, Chicago, IL 6o6oi (312-431-9100 or customerservice@ptanning.org) within
<br />90 days of the publication date. Include the name of the publication, year, volume and issue number or
<br />month, and your name, mailing address, and membership number if applicable.
<br />Copyright ©2012 by American Planning Association, 2o5 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 12oo, Chicago, IL
<br />606o1-5927. The American Planning Association also has offices at 103015th St., NW, Suite 75o West,
<br />Washington, DC 20005-1503; www.planning.org.
<br />All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
<br />means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and
<br />retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-7o% recycled fiber and io% postconsumer waste.
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 9.12
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 7
<br />
|