HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental & Misc InfoMemo to: Planning Board and Dept.
DominicKCafferillo
Cc: Building Dept.
BPW, DPW
Common Council and Mayor
CAC
Re: EAF for subdivision (lot line change) on Sunrise (2o4)
Date: Jan. 5, 1990
From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory
Council Chair
The EAF subcommittee (Waldron, Hotchkiss, Darlington) Met Jan. 3 to
consider the above EAF.
Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact).
Memo to: Planning Board and Dept.
Theron Johnson
Cc: Building Dept.
BPW, DPW
Common Council and Mayor
CAC
Re: EAF for subdivision at 204 -206 -210 W. Spencer St. (Jot line
change with neighbor)
Date: Jan. 7, 1990
From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair 3s�
The EAF subcommittee (Hotchkiss, Waldron, Darlington) met to consider
the above EAF.
Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact)
Comments:
1. We recommend putting a construction fence around the site to keep
construction materials from escaping, and cleanup outside the fence
as needed.
2. We recommend that the addition be as energy- efficient as possible.
3. We suggest use of natural gas instead of electricity for the heating
since it is less polluting. (Also less expensive.)
4. We learned from Jon Meigs at P &D Dept. that the purpose of the lot
line change would be so construction could be clapboard instead of masonry;
clapboard construction requires more space to comply with fire codes.
Perhaps this could have been noted in the application.
5. We agree that clapboard would be more attractive. The current building
at 204 -206 is one of the nicer ones on the street, and it would be desirable
for the addition to look the same.
�. we-
sk55�sk ,
�� tass��.t� ��t�rgN����y
0. r _C" cC:t
Memo to: Planning Board and Dept.
Peter Novelli, PO Box 1006, Ithaca 14850
Cc: Building Dept.
BPW, DPW
Common Council and Mayor
CAC
Re: EAF for 116 N. Meadow St. (new building for office /retail)
Date: Jan. 15, 1990
From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory
Council Chair
The EAF subcommittee (Emilian, Jones, Darlington) has considered the
above EAF.
Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact)
Comments:
1. We concur with Peter Weed's excellent comments. One question we
have on Part 3: "Pg. 8, No. 16 ": How might "timely construction manage-
ment ... reduce construction odors "? Perhaps by not having machines just
sitting with engines idling?
2. Is there any way to save the large Norway maple? If just a little
more space were provided, perhaps this would be possible, and in addition,
the building would have a little more separation from the adjacent house.
3. The landscaping plans look good. However, will they be tolerant
of the tough conditions of the site, esp. along Meadow St.? Also, could
some trees or shrubs be put along the western border of the parking
lot as a buffer between the lot and the house?
4. We hope the building will be just as attractive as possible, thus
enhancing the site rather than detracting from it.
Suggestions:
1. Construction fence around the site;
2. Regular cleanup outside the fence (daily, or as needed);
3. Tree guards around the existing trees (including the street trees),
placed under the drip line of the branches;
4. Incorporation of a recycling area into the design (Co. Recycling
Coordinator can provide tips);
5. Use of energy- efficient building materials and design;
6. Use of natural gas rather than electricity, for heat (less polluting).
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272 -1713
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CODE 607
Memo to: Dan Hoffman
From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair
Date: Jan. 9, 1990
Ike: Conservation Overlay Zones (COZ's)
The CAC wonders if you could put COZ's on your list of "things
to do" in P &D. The CAC sent this on to Council over a year
ago, and some work was done on it last spring. This may be an
opportune time to resurrect it.
I think there was talk some months ago about perhaps enacting
it in stages, starting with the hill areas (esp. the gorges). Once
that's done, the more difficult Flats area might be tackled.
Anyway, I wonder if you could let me know how soon work can
resume on this.
Thanks!
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
CITY O ITHACA
108 EAST G EEN STREET
ITHACA, NE YORK 14850
OFFICE OF
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
TELEPHONE: 272 -1713
CODE 607
January 9,
Alderperson Joe Daley
City Hall
Ithaca
Dear Joe:
All of us on the CAC would like to 1
you did as our liaison from P &D and
your thorough reports, and all the tirr
We'll miss having you at our meetingE
Good luck on Common Council!
Best
to
.nk you for the fine job
'W. We really appreciated
you put in on this.
from all of us,
CAC Chair
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
DRAFT
June 11, 1990
CAC and IPC members: With luck, this is as we all agreed it should
be at tonight's meeting. Please read it carefully and call Vicky Romanoff
or Betsy Darlington if you have any comments or concerns. The last
"whereas" perhaps should be worked in somewhere else. It seems out
of place as I now have it. Any suggestions?
We will send it on to Common Council on Monday July 2. Thanks!
-- -Betsy
40 (AMwU fti, CAU ,,.Cj
" Resolutionnfrom Interim Parks Commission
and
Conservation Advisory Council
Regarding alienation of parkland on Inlet Island
The following was approved unanimously by both commissions:
WHEREAS, green pockets and other open spaces are critically important
to a rapidly growing urban area, and alienation of parkland should not
be taken lightly; and
WHEREAS, wide discussion with the west end business community, residential
neighborhood, and other citizens regarding potential uses for the lands
to be alienated should occur before plans are developed and alienation
takes place; and
WHEREAS, we are not taking a position at this time as to whether or
not parcels 2 and 4 should be alienated eventually, since this will
depend on what plans are developed, what substitute lands will be designated,
and on the outcome of environmental review; and
WHEREAS, these lands are prime, valuable City
properties
for which the
Cityr�ssho 1,d receive true
market value, should they be
alienated and
sold no i erefore be it
RESOLVED, that we are
not taking a position
on alienation of parcels
1 and 3 since these are
in the State's hands
and since
due process is
being followed (identification of substitute
lands, determination of
fair market value, plans
for use of alienated
lands, and
environmental
review); and be it further
RESOLVED, that we are opposed to alienation of parcels 2 and 4 until
a plan for their use has been .developed, replacement lands have been
designated, and appropriate environmental review has been completed.
NOTES:
Dimensions of Parcel 2 need to be clarified.
Status of Parcel 4 is unclear. Was it bought with federal funds?
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL - -WHAT IT DOES
.. n�
Reviewing Environmental Assessment Forms is the main task the Conservation
Advisory Council is charged with by Common Council. In addition, we can- -and
do- - advise Common Council (or anyone else) on any matter which we feel
needs to be addressed. Problems involving air quality, parklands, trans-
portation, natural areas, solid waste, pesticides and other hazardous
materials, soil erosion and sedimentation of streams, and protection of
neighborhoods are some examples of issues about which we have made recom-
mendations.
Proposals for projects in the City of Ithaca are subject to the City's
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. This is similar to (but somewhat
stricter than) the State's (SEQRA). If a particular project meets certain
criteria, a Short or Long Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF or LEAF)
must be completed as part of the approval process.
The Board or Department that will decide whether or not to approve the
project sends the completed form to the Conservation Advisory Council
(CAC). We review the form and send our comments and recommendations back
to the appropriate Board or Department. Our comments are purely advisory.
In the past year we have reviewed about 50 EAF's - -for commercial, insti-
tutional, residential, industrial, and public works projects.
Sometimes the Board or Department determines that a project could have
a significant impact on the environment and a more thorough examination
of the issues is needed. In this event, they issue a "positive declaration,"
and require that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) be done.
The CAC is involved with this process, first in helping to identify the
issues that need further study and finally in making comments on the DEIS,
once it is completed.
The CAC is made up of 9 members (unpaid) who are appointed by the Mayor
and Common Council. In addition, Common Council has two non - voting liaisons
to the CAC. Various other committees and boards in the City and County
also have liaisons, either to or from the CAC.
4/12/90 a ✓*ay
r e 1`
,v
--- DRA T - --
,,�1 _l CAC -- please call me with your suEgestions for this memo as soon
as possible. I will send it on to BP on April 30th.
Memo to: BPW
Cc: Common Council and Mayor
CAC
Date: April 12, 1990
From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair
Re: Sidewalla on Rt. 13—MeaJow St. Elmira Rd.
The CAC asked me to write to you to convey our unanimous support
for sidewalks along Rt.13 - -Mead St.-- Elmira Rd. A number
of us have experienced the unpleasantness of walking in the
area. The well -worn path indicates to us that sidewalks are
needed, despite merchants' claims to the contrary.
Sidewalks would improve the appe ranee of the area as well as S�1�
encourage people to walk rather th drive.
We,,
Memo to: Building Commissioner
Martin King (applicant) and Tom Kline (architect)
Cc: Common Council and Mayor 4- C4y "rh eY
Planning Board and Dept.
BPW, DPW
CAC
Re: EAF for single family house and separate meditation room (15 -16'
high) at 403 Lake St. (north side of Fall Creek, east side of Lake St. bridge)
Date: June 11, 1990
From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory "3 y
Council Chair
The EAF subcommittee (Broberg, Tripp, Darlington), and then the entire
CAC, considered the above EAF.
Recommendation: In light of Common Council's request for recreational
river designation, and the stand the CAC has consistently taken regarding
gorge protection, and the inaccuracies and omissions in the EAF, we recommend
a positive declaration and completion of a draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
The CAC has consistently advocated greater protection for the areas
around the various gorges. We voted unanimously for the designation of
Fall Creek as a recreational river and for conservation overlay zoning
to protect that area. Many in the community feel that the gorge area
near the Lake St. bridge is already overbuilt.
If a permit is issued, we recommend that it only be with a conservation
easement (CE) in hand or with a binding document agreeing to such a gift
to the City, with the prohibitions (such as on removal of vegetation,
changes to the topography, or any construction within a certain distance
of the gorge rim) spelled out in this document. Otherwise, some future
owner could turn this very beautiful and public sight into an eyesore.
The applicant has said he'd be willing to give the City a CE to protect
the site.
The new house would be northeast of the white house that sits at the
gorge rim just north of the Lake St. Bridge. It would be set back about
90 feet from the gorge rim. The house would be about 35 feet tall, and
its foundation would be about 10 feet above the level area at the base
of the hill. It would be set up and back into the hillside where this
makes a right -angle turn in a kind of swale. The top of the roof would
extend a few feet above the top of the slope to the east and north of
the house. Provided no trees would be cut south of the house (other than
what would be needed for construction), we feel that for six months of
the year it would be invisible, or nearly so, to users of the park on
the other side of the creek. When leaves are off the trees, it would be
very visible, but the 90 -foot setback from the gorge rim plus the use
of greys and browns (as is intended) would make it less of an intrusion.
We are opposed to granting a permit for the meditation house or any
other structure in that location. It would be placed on a high knoll
SE of the house and would be clearly visible from many places along the
path to Ithaca Falls, even in the summer. In winter, it would be highly
obtrusive. The gorge rim is only about 30 feet from the top of the small
knoll.
Several neighbors have expressed concern about building either the house
or the meditation room, but the latter seems to be of greater concern
than the house because of its high visibility.
The applicant has indicated a willingness to take out the meditation
room and replace it with a deck. Although we appreciate this concession;
we feel that there should be no
at some time in the future could
med. room in order to improve th(
he has no such intention and the (
to give to the City should prohib
should also prohibit any construction i
An additional reason for a cor
of vegetation along the banks or e
effect on the gorge. The vegel
functions in addition to the ae:
through shade and transpiration,
this case -- protection of the banks
from sedimentation). Nancy Ostma
the opposite side of the creek)
to the banks from removal of ves
2
ructures in that area. The temptation
be to cut trees in front of a deck or
view of the falls. The applicant says
mservation easement he would be willing
: such cutting. We feel that the CE
that area.
nervation easement is that any removal
ge of the gorge could have a damaging
Ltion is serving a number of important
thetics (e.g. home for wildlife, cooling
relief from air pollution, and - -esp. in
from erosion, and protection of stream
from Cornell Plantations (Cornell owns
tas particularly concerned about damage
station. (She visited the site with the
CAC.)
It should be noted that the applicant is willing to sell the entire
site to the City, and perhaps the City should give some thought to this.
The best protection for it would be to leave it alone. Anytime you introduce
buildings into a site such as t is, changes for the worse -- despite the
best of intentions - -are inevitable E.g. there will be fewer birds (fewer
trees for them, plus human distur ance), and the site will simply be less
attractive to users of nearby ptblic spaces. If the City does not own
the site, someone may build on it eventually - -if not this applicant then
another.
NOTE: Fall Creek is a Class A
this proposal?
If a permit is issued, we recon
during construction:
1. Construction fence around
Special care must be given to
creek.
2. Sedimentation and erosion co
advise). Vehicle tires should
the site.
3. Tree guards around trees to ren
4. Replacement of trees remo
well as local and global environmer
5. Use of energy- efficient building
6. Use of natural gas for heat and
. Has the DEC been consulted regarding
that the following measures be taken
site and regular cleanups outside it.
ting materials from getting into the
measures (Gary Lamont at SCS can
cleaned so they won't track mud off
placed under drip line of branches.
for the construction. (For aesthetic as
reasons.)
terials and design.
Comments on EAF on next page:
Specific comments on the EAF:
Part I: Page 1, A -3: (Descr. of site) Considerably more than half the
site is wooded. Perhaps 90% is wooded and 10% open. Almost none is un-
vegetated (not half).
Page 2, #5-a: (Bedrock outcroppings ?) Yes
-b,c: depth to bedrock and water table not given. (Architect
will be getting these answers.)
# 10: (Is area in a unique natural area ?) This is on the
FMC's list of unique natural areas. It also is within the boundary proposed
by Common Council for recreational river designation.
#11: (Used by neighborhood for recreation) Yes.
#12: (Scenic views important to community) Yes!
#16: (Dominant land use within 1/4 mi.) School, residential,
public recreation (R -3b, R -2, P -0
Page 3, B -1 -b: (Acreage developed initially and ultimately) Needs
answering.
-c: (Acreage to remain undeveloped) .6 is total area
of site. Correct answer needed.
-g: (Vehicle trips per day) 2 is way under normal use.
(However, this would certainly not be a big traffic generator!)
-i: (Height of tallest structure) (Not given, but we
think it's 351, and the medit. room, 15 -161)
#2: (Type and amount of vegetation to be removed) "None"
is incorrect. A number of young trees and shrubs and a few mature trees
would be removed.
#4: (Mature trees or locally important vegetation to be
removed) Yes
#5: (Any plans for revegetation ?) Should be answered
Page 4, #12: (Liquid waste) Yes; sewage.
#15: (Solid waste) Yes; County landfill, we assume.
#16: (Pesticides) Although applicant may intend not to
use them, we cannot assume the same for a future owner.
#17: (Energy use increase) Yes (but not significant). Would
house have gas or electric heat? (Former is far less polluting.)
#21: (Water usage) Figure on 70 -100 gal. per day per person.
#22: (Zoning) R -3b
Part II:
Page 2, #1: (Physical change to site) Yes (as indicated by first
threshold re slopes)
#2: (Effect on unique land forms) Yes - -gorge area
#3: (Unique natural area) On EMC's list
#4: (Effect on a designated water body) Fall Creek is a
DEC Class A stream. Effect would depend on whether vegetation is removed
near the banks. DEC should be consulted on the proposal.
Page 4, #7: (Alter surface runoff or drainage patterns ?) 2nd threshold
(potential for substantial erosion) Yes, col 2. (Mitigate with prohibitions
on removal of veg. near gorge.)
#10: (Effect on plants or animals) Yes; intrusion of humans,
new structures, and loss of trees will have some impact, esp. on bird
life. Col 1.
Page 6, #11: (Effect on views, etc.) Yes. First two thresholds,
esp. for medit. room, col. 2. (Mitigate with conservation easement prohibiting
removal of veg., and by eliminating plans for any structure on the small
knoll.)
Page 7, #13: (Effect on quality of existing or future open spaces
or rec. opportunities) Yes. 1st threshold -- permanent foreclosure of a
present and future rec. opportunity (col. 1). "Other ": aesthetic impact
on users of rec. space on opposii
or deck) (col. 2).
Page 9, # 18: (Effect on ch;
dent): Yes, col 2. (Col. 3 - -r
impact somewhat.)
Page 10, #19: (Controversy
We know of several strenuous obj
even know about the proposal,
side of creek (esp. of the medit. room
:er of community) 5th threshold (Prece-
val of plans for knoll would reduce
Yes. Objections from within community.
lions, but don't know how many people
would object if they did know of it.
Resolution to Common Council from Ithaca Interim Parks Commission
and
Conservation Advisory Council
Regarding alienation of parkland on Inlet Island
June 20, 1990
The following resolution was approved unanimously by both commissions
on June 11, 1990:
WHEREAS, green pockets and other open spaces are critically important
to a rapidly growing urban area, and alienation of parkland should not
be taken lightly; and inasmuch as these lands are prime, valuable City
properties, the boundaries of which should be properly surveyed and
for which the City should receive true market value should they be alienated
and sold or leased; and
WHEREAS, wide discussion with the West End businesses, neighborhood
representatives, and other concerned citizens regarding potential uses
for the lands to be alienated should occur before plans are developed
and alienation takes place; and
WHEREAS, alienation of parkland is an action requiring environmental
review; and
WHEREAS, New York State OPRHP's Guide to Alienation or Conversion of
Municipal Parkland specifies "factors that should be evaluated and documented
before pursuing legislative action authorizing alienation of parkland"
w i—F icF include the reasons for alienation, how alienated parkland will
be replaced, locations, appraised values, .and existing and proposed
uses of both the parkland to be alienated and the land to be substituted;
and this evaluation is not yet available; and
WHEREAS, it is inappropriate for us to take a position on alienation
of parcels 1 and 3 since due process is being followed by the State
(identification of substitute lands, determination of fair market value,
plans for use of alienated lands, and environmental review), and since
neither the State nor Common Council is likely to consider an alignment
of Rt 89 that is less disruptive to the parkland on Inlet Island;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that IIPC and CAC are opposed to alienation of parcels 2 and
4 until a plan is produced which establishes the uses to which these
parcels shall be put in the context of the overall development of the
whole Inlet Island (in view of the fact that the final location of Rt
89 realignment has only recently been determined) and an appropriate
environmental review has been completed.
Memo to: Planning Board and Dept.
Cc: CAC
Re: Part I of long EAF's
Date: dune 21, 1990
From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory,
Council Chair
Part I of the long EAF is a required part of the S EQR process. It
should be completely and accurately filled out by the applicant. When
the applicants are given the form, could they be told that if they have
questions about how to fill it out, they can call the dept. for guidance?
All too often, when the CAC receives an LEAF, Part I would get an
F if it were being graded by a school teacher (and we often feel like
just that!). (It is my impression that this is especially true with
applicants for subdivisions.) When the Dept. receives Part I, could
someone in the Dept. quickly look it over and return it to the applicant
if it is incomplete or inaccurate? The application should not be considered
complete- -and the CAC and Board should not even receive it- -until Part
I is adequately filled out.
I have no idea if the comments we make on Part I are ever followed
up on and corrected or completed before final approval is given to the
applicant. If they aren't, then we are not following SEQR procedures
the way we should be. There is hardly any point in the CAC taking the
tirne to go over Part I if corrections are never made as a result. What's
the story?
We frequently must put in an inordinate amount of time reviewing Part
I because it is so sloppily completed. The burden should be on the
applicant, not the Dept. or CAC, to supply a properly completed Part
I. In our attempt to be accommodating and not delay things for the
applicant, I am concerned that this step may be being bypassed.
Thanks! _
wj
a v ��l cam
cve
�
�1.n g`s
a 1Y -e-`� j'�C`�' 1n Ij�� -R�ec l 144—
4
Memo to:
Cc:
Re:
Date:
From:
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Mark Haag, PO Box 866, Itha
Planning Dept. (Weed)
Building Dept.
BPW, DPW
Common Council and Mayor
CAC
Commission
ca 14851
EAF for parking lot for 12 cars at 440 E. Buffalo
June 26, 1990
Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory
Council Chair
The EAF subcommittee (Farrell, Wertis, Darlington) has considered the
above EAF.
Recommendation: Negative declaration provided rapid planting of ground
cover on the new slope at back of property is required, as well as consulta-
tion with soils and planning / landscaping experts for help in designing
this part of the project. (Some possibilities are suggested below.)
Before approval is given, details of how this part of the work will
be done should be reviewed by someone with more expertise than us.
We also feel that, for every mature tree that is destroyed by the
project, a new tree should be planted on the site (several along east
side of parking lot would be desirable)- -for both local and global environ-
mental reasons.
Our biggest concern with this proposal is the large amount of soil
that is to be removed for the lot and then dumped down the slope leading
to the old tennis court. The mathmatician among us calculated that
about 10,000 cubic feet . of soil will be disposed of there and he estimates
that the slope will be roughly 60 %. The back part of the site is in
considerably worse condition than it was two years ago-- debris from
house renovations have been deposited there, for example. We are concerned
that the site will not really be left looking much better, and could
be significantly scarred, although the applicant wants to improve it.
What the applicant proposes may not be as simple as he anticipates.
Aside from possible effects on the gorge, it should be noted that, during
at least six months of the year, this part of the site is highly visible
from across the gorge, along Cascadilla Park. Will someone from the
Planning Dept. or ILPC follow up and see how it looks upon completion?
We recommend that the applicant be required to post a bond which could
then be used by the City to correct any damage that might be done inadver-
tently by the topographical changes - -and in particular, in case runoff
from the new dirt bank does in fact make its way to the creek. (We
do not think it will, but we are not soils experts.)
Some suggestions for consultants for Mr. Haag to get advice from on
his plans for the back area: Gary Lamont at Soil Conservation Service,
Peter Weed in P &D, perhaps a landscape architect, NRI (Natural Resources
Inventories - =Terry Forbes, 168 Pleasant Grove Rd.; 257 -6393, 387 - 5420).
An hour of someone's time beforehand could save considerable expense
for remediation later.
We recommend that Mr. Haag have the topsoil set aside and put on top
of the newly graded bank, and that large tree species be planted along
the east side of the new lot.
This proposal is much better than that of 2+ years ago. It might be
noted, however, that only 7
12 are proposed.
are required by the zoning, although
Specific comments on EAF: Part I
had a number of omissions and errors.
We don't think that the answers
would change our views, but do feel
that they should be provided.
Part 4 page 2, #5 -b and c: depth cf
water table and bedrock?
#b: (slopes) -Soine
places � are ;considerably steeper
than 15%
#9: (Unusual lad
forms) Project may be closer than
75' to rim of gorge. In any event, very
nearby.
#14: (Streams) We
would consider site to be contiguous
to Cascadilla Gorge.
# 17: (Has site
n used for disposal of solid wastes ?)
Yes -- considerable debris from
housing renovations (rr ties, bricks,
plaster, etc).
page 3, #2: (How much
soil to be relocated ?) Cubic feet
needs to be given (our rough estimatE
is 10,000 cu.ft.)
#4: (Mature tees,
other locally imp. veg. to be
removed) Yes (trees will either
be removed) or destroyed by soil piled
around their base)
page 4, # 12: (Liquid
waste) Parking lot effluents. (Gravel
base, as is proposed, rather than pav'
g will help mitigate this.)
Part H, page 2, # 1 : (Physical changes) 1st and maybe 2nd and 4th
thresholds should be checked. 1st (any construction on slopes of 15%
or more) - -col. 2. 2nd and 3rd (bedrock or watertable less than 3' down?)- -
unknown since figures not supplied in Part I.
page 3, #5: (Effect on body of water) Possible impact on Cascadilla
Creek from changes in topo near gorge rim. Depends on how project is
executed.
page 3, #3 -4, #6: (Eff
threshold (siltation): Could be, depenc
page 4, #7: (Other impact
page 6, # 1 1 : (Visual
at least 6 months of year, from Cw
page 6, #12: (Typo -- should
page 8, #16: (Noise, etc.
(noise from heavy equipment d,
barriers to noise, loss of mature tree
_ page 9, # 18: (Effect on
(probably col. 1). (Conversions
adverse effects on neighborhood, esp
We
4.,A—.
ct on surface or groundwater) - -last
ng on how done.
(Same comment as for 5 and 6)
ffects) 2nd threshold -- easily visible
adilla Park
-iave been checked in "yes" circle)
Last 2 thresholds and "other " - -col. 1
ring construction, removal of natural
;, under "other ")
:ommunity) (Other) Column not checked
o parking lots generally have some
aesthetically.)
a's -" .1 _- k " --L. 4,t-w c ,
4- �, 61 a. ss -AV s-"—S -
DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR AN ITHACA
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
(why) I. Intent
a. To preserve and enhance all areas under its jurisdiction for the greater enjoyment
and welfare of the public.
b. To act as an advocate for park, recreational and open space lands as or before
development occurs.
(where) 11. Areas ',. lnder Jurisdiction
Parks
Public open spaces
Street ROW's
Cemeteries
Landscape around public buildings
Areas along city waterways
Recreational Areas and facilities
(what) III. Goals
a. To list, describe and /or inventory all areas under its jurisdiction.
b. To provide management plans for these areas including long term goals for
maintenance, improvements and renovations.
C. To determine whether the recreational needs of the community are being met
including active, passive and natural areas.
d. To determine whether new park space is needed.
e. To insure a mechanism for public input into all proposed changes to parks and
recreational areas.
f. To review, advise, and liaise with appropriate public or private agencies on their
plans which may impact parks and recreational areas of jurisdiction.
(how) IV. Organization
a. The Commission will serve as a policy making link between the DPW and the Board
of Public Works as regards parks and recreation issues. All parks and recreation
issues that go before the Board must come through the Parks Commission.
b. The Parks and Recreation Commission would be organized into three standing
committees with other ad hoc committees as necessary.
C. The primary plans of work shall be generated at the Committee level.
Parks and Recreation Commission
Shade Tree Building & Facilities Recreation Committee Ad Hoc Committees
Advisory Committee Committee Youth Bureau Parldand alienation
- all vegetation Including parking, Festivals and events Shoreline stabilization etc.
roads, furnishings, etc. bike paths, birding, etc.
d. If Common Council, Committees of Council or the Planning Department are
addressing parks and recreation related issues, they must also have input from the
Commission before decisions can be reached.
e. Committees may initiate projects on their own or be asked to initiate projects by
the full Commission. When the Commission is asked for Input into a particular
question, the appropriate Committee shall be asked to address it, or a new Ad Hoc
Committee formed if appropriate.
7 f. All Committee plans and initiatives shall be discussed and acted on by the full
Commission; however, the detailed procedures of implementation shall be left to
the Committees themselves. v-
g. Where the Board of Public Works input is not necessary, Committees of the Parks
and Recreation Commission may interact directly with DPW staff and the Board of
Public Works after discussing plans at full Commission meetings.
h. Committee meetings shall be held monthly, while full Commission meetings shall
be held every three months or as necessary.
On a yearly basis, the Park and Recreation Commission shall submit proposed plans
along with budgets to the Board of Public Works.
(who) V. Membership on the Commission
a. The Parks and Recreation Commission shall be comprised of members with
expertise in the following areas:
Architectural Preservation
Botany /Plant Ecology
Civil Engineering
Horticulture /Landscape Management
Landscape Architecture
Landscape Preservation
Open Space Planning
Recreational Programming
Urban Forestry
User group constituencies (birders, cyclists, youth, handicapped, etc.)
b. The existing members of STAC shall become part of the Commission. These
members include those with experience in horticulture, botany, landscape
management, landscape architecture and preservation, and urban forestry.
C. Representatives from the Conservation Advisory Council, Circle Greenway,
Landmarks Preservation and Six Mile Creek Overseers Committee shall also be
appointed as liaisons to the Commission.
d. Ex- Officio members shall include:
Parks and Recreation Manager
City Forester (already on STAC)
A member of Common Council (already on STAC)
A member from Planning (already on STAC)
A member from the Board of
Public Works
e. Members shall be appointed by the Common Council for a three year renewable
term based on application and area of interest or expertise.
PARKS COMMISSION - Recommendations submitted by
Sally Grubb
GOALS
The Commission should serve as protector, preserver, and
advocate of our public parks, open spaces, recreation
areas, waterways and grounds of public buildings.
POWERS
Should have authority to recommend acquisition
development and operation of public parks and open
spaces.
All proposed changes to the design and layout of public
parks, all proposals to alienate public parks and
accompanying proposals for substitute lands, all
proposals to install public sculpture, monuments,
structures or works of art in the parks, all plans to
renovate or restore public buildings in the parks or the
grounds of parks, all long -term goals and planning for
our parks and greenspaces be presented to the Commission
for review and approval or disapproval and then such
approval or disapproval be presented to Common Council
for appropriate action.
Should have binding review powers over all maintenance,
improvements, alterations, changes, renovation etc.
proposed in any City Park or Open Space, for which the
overall design, nature and long term goals have been
legally established and designated:
Should have authority to review all parks and open
spaces, and to make recommendations on their design,
nature and long term goals, so that ALL parks and open
spaces are eventually designated:
:should have the authority to review all
plans /recommendations for new parks and open spaces
before they are presented to Council for final approval.
Once approved by Council all new parks should be
designated:
Should produce long term plans /goals for City Parks and
Open Spaces; set priorities and timetable for achieving
these goals; and produce an annual report.
OPERATION /MEMBERSHIP
Should be independent of all City Agencies
Members should represent specific fields of expertise
User groups and lay members should balance experts
Subcommittees should be formed to cover all areas and to
pull in additional expertise (eg neighbourhood groups)
At least one commission member should serve on these
subcommittees
Commission members should be appointed as liaisons to
DPW, Planning Dept, Cornell, Town of Ithaca and State.
SUBCOMMITTEES SHOULD INCLUDE
Shade Tree Advisory Committee
Circle Greenway
Six Mile Gorge
City Recreation
Waterways
Neighbourhood parks (neighbourhood representation would
alter depending on park, openspace, under review)
Stewart Park
Festival Lands
Inlet Island
GIAC Pool
Some subcommittees will be permanent committees for
example STAG, Stewart Park, Neighbourhood Parks, Six Mile
Gorge, Circle Greenway. Others would be set up as needed
eg Festival Lands, Inlet Island. (It would have been
appropriate for a Commission subcommittee to have been
formed to make recommendations on development of new Ice
Rink at Cass Park)
Commission should meet once a month. Subcommittees
should meet as necessary and report to Commission. Most
community input will be through subcommittees which will
be required to seek views of all interested parties -
user groups - neighbourhood associations etc before
making recommendations to the full Commission.
1
ITHACA PARKS COMMISSION— Charter Draft
PURPOSE
To preserve, protect, and act as advocate for all parks and open spaces; to ensure their
sympathetic maintenance; and to promote the acquisition of new public open spaces
whenever appropriate.
JURISDICTION
Parks
City -owned open spaces
Street rights -of -way
Recreation areas
Areas along City waterways
Cemeteries
7_
Land surrounding public buildings
Any other designated locations (e.g. Forever Wild areas)
FUNCTIONS
1. To review all plans for . alterations and additions to and all new activities in
areas under the Ithaca Parks Commission's (hereinafter referred to as IPQ
jurisdiction by all private and public bodies, and to make recommendations to
Common Council.
2. To work with the Department of Public Works to provide management
plans for areas under IPC's jurisdiction, including day -to -day maintenance
and long -term goals for maintenance, renovation, and improvement.
3. To work with the Department of Public Works and the City Planning
Department to build up and maintain a full set of photographic plans,
drawings, and maps of all City -owned land.
4
4. To provide a mechanism for public input into all proposed changes to
parks and recreational areas.
5. By providing a forum for public comment, to determine whether the
recreational needs of all segments of the community are being met and to
actively work towards meeting these needs.
6. To work towards the provision of new park space wherever and whenever
possible.
7. To watch over designated areas to ensure they are being maintained and
left as so designated.
MEMBERSHIP
1. The Ithaca Parks Commission shall be composed of ten members. Seven
shall represent, through specific training or an equivalent background and
active interest, such fields as landscape architecture, historic preservation, the
fine arts, local history, gardening, general ecology, and recreation. Three shall
represent the lay population.
2. At least two Commission members shall serve on each of the Standing
Committees of the Commission.
3. Commission members shall also serve as liaison to the Planning Board, the
Conservation Advisory Council, and the Board of Public Works, and to any
other commission, council, or task force charged with duties or missions that
have relevance to the interests or jurisdiction of the IPC.
4. Ex officio members of the IPC shall include a member of Common Council, a
member of the Board of Public Works, a member of the Planning Board, the
City Forester, and a representative of the Youth Bureau.
3
5. Members of the IPC shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to the
approval of Common Council, for a three -year, renewable term not to exceed
six years.
OPERATION
1. The full Commission shall meet monthly to vote and act on all matters
brought to its attention.
2. City agencies shall bring matters to the Commission's attention through
their IPC liaison. Anyone may submit a written request for items to be added
to the Commission's monthly agenda. Requests shall be sent to the secretary
or chairperson of the IPC.
3. The IPC shall have four standing committees: the Shade Tree Advisory
Committee; the Recreation Committee; the Established Parks Committee, and
the Action Committee. These shall meet regularly as needed.
4. All matters requiring IPC review shall initially be brought before the full
Commission. The Commission may approve or turn down proposals
immediately 'or send them to the relevant Standing Committee for further
review.
5. Each Standing Committee shall be made up of at least seven but not more
than ten members. Two shall represent the full Commission; five shall be
drawn from specific fields of expertise, such as ornithology, botany, civil
engineering, et cetera; and two members shall represent user or special
interest groups, such as the handicapped, cyclists, boaters, et cetera. Each
Standing Committee member shall have the power to vote at the Standing
Committee level. Decisions shall be brought to the full Commission for further
action.
9
6. The Standing Committees shall review matters under consideration in
depth, inviting the public and all interested parties to make presentations and
take part in discussions.
7. The Standing Committees shall bring their decisions to the full Commission
for final review and vote. The full Commission shall then make
recommendations to Common Council or to the relevant City agency and
ensure that all environmental and regulatory studies are done.
8. The Standing Committees shall appoint subcommittees to deal with specific
items as deemed necessary. (For example, the creation of a new park would
be referred to the Action Committee which might choose to set up a specific
subcommittee to help the neighborhood evaluate its needs. The
subcommittee would be charged with making recommendations for the park.
These recommendations would then be subject to Action Committee review,
with full public input, and the Action Committee would direct any final
recommendation to the full Commission.)
0
0
U)
CD
CL
O
n
(D
v
m
m
0
CL
m
n
3
O
O
n
cc
O
n
c�
�
co
-�
O
�
m
CO
-�
m
°.
�.
_ y
CD
c
N
CD
—
)
"
c
CDa
o
0
N
/`
3
'G
N
O
�
g com
-z
N
a -V
�� C �C C� a
�7O
= m
m
3 3 6 A ..
m
o
CD
Q
= m
Q
m
='-
0
m
0
CL
m
n
3
O
O
n
cc
O
n
$PW
-b6 Aly
A
W
a
uQi J
4 �
¢ 14C
CoMnnoN CC) VtICI(,
NO AGTfohJ
or. Ny
�_ -• CoMM &NT •To f
APP"VF
h
0
NOTiP /Gh -T /ON AZACICST
To Acrio.v To
i 1 i i PARKS STAFF
j--- etV65`T-fpR_�Rc'rMAID
f
_T- i I i
�-
i
,
I I
` .f
. ra/ iP-icirl/OAF "dt(1637" fo r-
T --
AGT/ ON Tb t
W-1 l i i PARKS STAFF
-low 14
i
i II XE&v EST
44-1-
i
Power*
of CO ft,
OK fS51M
Tkt C4twmivs-im dAl
s A' aAA&, "_ c,�,
Av.
-LAO"
A. -- �-�'id • to _'Uri c, - cd� - qeMC4"_ f , - --
tdr�t� .urry i.ei +
ot
RESOLUTION TO COMMON COUNCIL FROM
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
October 1, 1990
- - -- DRAFT - --
WHEREAS, Conrail routinely sprays pesticides along the railroad right -of-
way within the City of Ithaca; and
WHEREAS, much of this spraying occurs adjacent to waterways; and
WHEREAS, said spraying could pose a hazard to public health as well as to
wildlife; and
WHEREAS, mechanical means of vegetation removal are available; now
therefore be it
RESOLVED that Common Council direct Conrail to substitute mechanical
means for pesticides for the control of vegetation along the right -of -way.
The CAC approved the above resolution
RESOLUTION TO COMMON COUNCIL FROM
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
October 1, 1990
- - -- DRAFT - - --
WHEREAS, construction on steep slopes frequently causes significant
environment damage, including erosion of the hillside and sedimentation of
waterways; now therefore be it
RESOLVED that any construction in the City of Ithaca that is proposed for
slopes over % be subject to environmental review; and furthermore, be
it
RESOLVED that a permit for such construction may be denied if the
environmental review determines that adverse environmental impacts cannot be
sufficiently mitigated.
The CAC approved the above resolution
Memo to: Vicky Romanoff, Chair, IPC
Frorn: Betsy Darlington, Chair, CAC
Re: Permanent Parks Commission plans
Date: Oct. 7, 1990
Cc: CAC members
Common Council and Mayor
BPW
P &D Bd.
I'm sorry to have taken so long in getting back to you. At the
CAC meeting on Oct. 1, we discussed the various proposals Dan
Schmohe sent us. Rather than spend a lot of time on these, we
felt it would make more sense to wait until we have a version
that's closer to being the final one, and comment on that.
However, people did ask me to write to you about the last four
items on page 1, under II. Is the intent that the Parks Commission
would oversee nonpublic open spaces (e.g. private parks, cemeteries,
etc.)?
Re how the CAC might relate to the ,Parks Commission, we felt
that the relationship should be the same as it is with other city
boards, commissions, departments, etc. We exist simply to give
our advice about problems that we feel need to be addressed or
about proposals for various projects (including commenting on
EAF's). Our thought is that we would serve the same function
with the PC. If some large plan were being proposed for one of
the parks, we'd offer our comments on it. If we became aware of
a problem in a particular park, or saw a need for a new park
somewhere, we would let the PC know. Our position in the City I
think is unique in that we are neither over nor under any other
body (except Common Council, of course). (Or maybe I mean we are
both over and under every other body!) We have no power to do
anything other than advise.
Please give me a call if you have any questions. Good luck! (What
a big task you all have!)
CAC Members: please call Betsy by Monday, November 12 with your comments
on this draft. P &D Committee wants our comments by Nov. 17.
Memo to: Common Council and Mayor
Cc: Planning Dept. and Board
CAC members
From: Conservation Advisory Council (Betsy Darlington, Chair)
Re: DOT proposals for changes to rt. 13 between City line and rt.
13A
Date: November 5, 1990
At this evening's CAC meeting we discussed the above topic. Although we did
not feel prepared to come up with a resolution, there was a concensus to give
you the following list of general concerns:
Potentially large impact on Type I wetland. (DEC and Army Corps of
Engineers should be consulted, of course.)
Safety:
a) Increased traffic speed, especially of cars entering the City.
b) Safety for people leaving child care facility and doctor's office
(latter on Buttermilk Falls Rd.). (E.g. could rr abutment on that side be
shaved smaller so it would not obstruct the view of the road? If so,
removal would not be necessary, at least in regard to this particular
problem.)
Aesthetic concerns, e.g.:
a) Spectacular wildflowers along the road in May and June;
b) Preservation (and improvement) of an attractive entrance to the
City;
c) Change in character of the road to being urban instead of rural;
d) Aesthetic impact on Buttermilk State Park and the wetland.
Construction practices along the creeks and wetland. (Great care
and good supervision of crews will be needed.)
Location of bikeway.
a) Is OPRHP now preferring a different location for a bridge over rt.
13, and would removal of the rr abutments therefore not be a problem
at least in this regard?
b) Where would path go en route to Treman S.P. from Buttermilk, if
road is relocated and widened?
Rather than having the road go from 4 lanes to 2 as is now the case,
would it work to have it go from 4 to 3 to 2, with the section as far as
Buttermilk SP being 3 lanes, then 2 lanes to rt. 13A? The middle lane could
function as a left turn lane for people going from the City into Buttermilk SP --
much as cars now make a left turn from rt 366 onto Judd Falls Road. Adequate
striping would be needed to assure the safety of such an arrangement.
l l -Is -L( `,
(�rvM •. �ait� � /�r�,,�� ; �,;,,,�i"�czk-t�/ C:.�� ✓� Cpn�n�r ssc��;1
V �J
`'t,/�f(" � �`M�1C1 C�,�,r,i L t �� ��j' fL•�t�l� �,�'��`�%��Z � i�/C.t� r"( �'� `1 �U
,a
A, f/j. p✓l C'c-1 t �1 � </� �S'�"t(J,,(S � ' r - ��'t.;,•
ac
cMi'�iiii��a fi`1 �'(;� C,ty(SC /tJ�it��'1 �•1 Lt � ('�- {�IG<<��.5
('40 �� iC� e6S
'
C�
� /' >-t ei ; ( [ lSWl L'v o," k, "2 O'l ✓�Ci+ i 'wi L� e e4 e l i �
ILI
�e'tE
SCE<l1: �5�G ►I �iv( 1VlC?
C,5, l /l� /1 p� (%��.
\� �` �, - V[��V� {rL L..iLi.V( L7� "'C-r J 1(-
GV
_ -
i ' ��' �j � 5 CtI SS - ��- �1.•Q- v� �� S t. � S SC.r"� S W �� •�j` -i , —�- 1
eA
��'�,cl