Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PRNR-2019-09-09PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES PRESENT: Commissioners – (6) Freyburger, George, Leventry, Moeller, Sanders-Jauquet, Shelley (Acting Chair) OTHERS PRESENT: Common Council Liaisons – Brock, Kerslick Financial Management Assistant – Swartz City Forester – Grace Deputy Youth Bureau Director – D’Alterio EXCUSED: Roth, Hoffman 1. Call to order: 1.1. Statement from the Public: (a) Rick Manning from Friends of Stewart Park. Annual fundraiser is on 9/14/19, 6:00 PM until sundown. Live music, hors d’oeuvres, dinner and bar by Luna Inspired Street Food. All proceeds will benefit the revitalization of Stewart Park. Also on 9/14/19 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM there is a Paddle Pedal and Play Festival at Stewart Park. Recently there was a ground breaking ceremony celebrating the start of construction for Phase II of the playground. Hoping to build year round bathrooms in the future. Visit www.friendsofstewartpark.org for more information. (b) Paul Paradine applied to be a member of this commission and wanted to introduce himself and also get an update on the selection process. 1.2. Commission Response: (a) Response to Rick Manning - Bathroom rehabilitation for Stewart Park was not approved in the budget. There will be public hearings on the budget process that you can attend and you can also ask this commission to write a letter of support. (b) Response to Paul Paradine - Tom Shelley told him to contact Monika Roth to see where the process is. 1.3. Agenda Review: Add a discussion on a letter that was received to this commission from Nadia Rubaii concerning the slippery conditions on the bridges in Stewart Park that are part of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail. Rick Manning and Jeanne Grace have discussed the issue previously and are currently working on a solution. 2. Presentation – Waterfront development – Lincoln Morse, David Herrick and Kate Chesebrough. Presented the City Harbor development plans for the Guthrie Medical Center and Apartment complex (phase I), and the City Golf Course/Newman Community Center (phase II plans) which will include golf, marina, food services, showers and bathrooms. They are proposing shared parking which will be used at various times throughout the day by users of the various facilities. The funding will be developer driven. There will be two entrances to this area, one off Willow Avenue and one off Pier Road. Phase I is the development of the road from Pier Road and adding a circle turnaround at the end, past Newman Golf Course. They are proposing using the effluent water from the Waste Water Facility to meet their energy needs. The area is .9 acres and the public will benefit with the new sidewalks along the waterfront. This commission will be taking a close look at using park land for public development as well as park land alienation. Building elevations have been set to be above the 100 year flood levels, which is 3 feet higher than existing grade. The promenade area will be seasonally maintained and most maintenance will be completed by City Harbor. They are still working through the development process details with the city. There is an open house on Thursday 9/19/19 between 4-6 PM at 101 Pier Rd, which will be a broader discussion and will include the traffic issues (city trucks, city buses, increased traffic) where the Department of Transportation is involved . Everyone is welcome to attend. Please RSVP to info@cityharborithaca.com 3. Staff Reports: Nothing significant to report from Jim D’Alterio or Jeanne Grace at this time. Date: September 9, 2019 Time: 6:00 PM Location: Common Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, City Hall Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission September 9, 2019 2 4. Old Business: 4.1. Memorial Policy update. Hannah George and Tyler Moeller went to the Department of Public W orks meeting. The Memorial Policy will be on an upcoming agenda for more discussion. Cynthia Brock requested that the policy be shared on the google drive, Hannah George will add it. 4.2. Green Space research update – Nothing new to add at this time. 4.3. Tree “retention” ordinance research pertaining to significant trees on private property – Nina Bassuk and Paul Paradine presented for the STAC. See attached for summary research into ordinances in other cities. This ordinance would specify a permitting process, it is not a prohibition to tree removal, it is meant to protect significant trees that shouldn’t be cut. The details of enforcement still need to be worked out, but Jeanne Grace suggests a fee of $100 per diameter inch, measured as DBH (diam eter breast height) the trunk diameter measured at breast height, 4.5’ from the ground for violators. Jeanne Grace will make edits to the ordinance based on this discussion. Ellen Leventry made a resolution to move this forward, with the edits, and Mickie Sanders-Jauquet second. All were in favor. 4.4. Other – Signs update. Jeanne Grace and Ellen Leventry have been working on international symbols for the signs, so it is easy for everyone to understand what can and can’t be done at the park s. Ellen Leventry suggested the park hours be changed to dawn to dusk. Jim D’Alterio mentioned that a lot of their activities are done well after dark. Cynthia Brock stated when discussing operating hours, a recommendation should be made to council for a change. Signs will welcome people to the parks, will have official park names and will also clarify city parks from state parks. Jeanne and Ellen will rework this and represent it at future meetings. 5. New business / member announcements - Ellen Leventry had a cemetery clean up that went very well. Started last week on repairing the vaults. 6. Environmental review subcommittee report: No new projects that require development review. Cynthia Brock asked if there are any updates on the DEC oversite of clean-up projects and outreach to the community pertaining to Nates Floral Estates, Ithaca gun, Chain Works and the Dry Cleaners. Tom Shelley will forward this information to Monika Roth, to see if she has an y updates on this topic. 7. August Minutes – review / approve – Ellen Leventry made a motion to approve the 8/12/19 minutes, Tom Shelley second and all were in favor. 8. Next meeting is October 17, 2019, 2nd floor conference room of City Hall. Note: Our standing meeting is shifting to Thursday October 17, because Monday October 14 is Columbus Day Holiday. 9. Adjournment: On a motion the meeting was adjourned at 8:01 PM. Debbie Swartz Financial Management Assistant Thomas Shelley Acting Chair - Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Monika Roth Chair - Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission To: Parks Recreation and Natural Areas Commission From: Shade Tree Advisory Group Date: 9/9/2019 Subject: Summary of residential tree removal ordinances Background: Urban Trees are very important to city life. The trees in the City of Ithaca provide millions of dollars of benefits per year and provide countless ecological services for urban communities; reducing erosion, reducing heating and cooling costs, aiding in storm water mitigation, cleaning the air of harmful particulate pollution, producing oxygen, acting as a carbon sink and providing habitat for wildlife. Trees increase property values, enhance economic vitality of business areas and beautify our communities. A community devoid of trees would barely be livable as connection with the natural environment is key for human health and wellbeing. For these reasons, residents of the City of Ithaca have raised concerns about removal of mature trees from private property for reasons of infill development or in preparation for largescale development of a site prior to submittal of site plan review application. While the City of Ithaca does have ordinances that protect the removal of trees on public property (street trees, park trees and trees in City natural areas), there is currently no ordinance restricting the removal of trees from private property outside of the Site Plan Review process. The Planning and Economic Development Committee has requested information from the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Committee on potential adoption of a new City ordinance regulating the removal of trees from private property. That request was then passed on to the Shade Tree Advisory Group (STAG), the former Shade Tree Advisory Committee. Summary: Municipalities around the country try to protect all trees in their City, not just the street and park trees. The STAG researched the tree preservation ordinances for 13 communities in the US and Canada with community populations ranging from 56,000 to 994,000. The attached spreadsheet contains our findings. A summary of common themes is as follows:  2 classes of trees, “Significant” and “Historic”. Significant trees begin ~6-8” in DBH and Historic trees are very large trees at least 24” in DBH  Trees growing near slopes, riparian, flood zones are taken into special consideration and cannot be removed if they provide a benefit to protecting critical zones.  Certain species are valued more than others. Large, unique, or certain species are taken into consideration more than small weed trees or undesirable species (ie invasive trees).  Dead, dying, or diseased trees do not need a permit to remove if there is an imminent hazard or if the problem cannot be mitigated by pruning.  Most municipalities require an arborist report, or a tree protection/removal plan to be submitted before any work is done on the property, provided by the owner or developer to be reviewed by City Forester. Location, size, health, species should all be included.  Site is then reviewed by City Forester 2-4 weeks from receiving the tree plan  Appeals can be made to remove additional trees after Forester’s final decision  Significant or Historic trees that are approved for removal are required to be replaced either with multiple trees that will take up the same crown area as a large tree at time of planting, or with similar species that will take up the same space once they get old enough.  Payment in lieu of planting is possible and should take into account the cost of the trees, and cost of maintenance for ~2 years  If a property owner significantly clears trees from a property prior to submittal of a site plan review or prior to submittal of tree removal application, the developer will be forbidden from submitting a site plan review for a number of years. Goals: STAG sees the goals of this ordinance as being: 1) To preserve tree canopy for the benefit of the Ithaca community 2) To address resident concerns with tree removal related to in-fill development 3) To close a loophole by which developers can currently clear-cut a property prior to submittal of a site plan review application and as a result not have to deal with tree preservation for their development plans 4) To create an ordinance that is not overly burdensome to city staff or property owners Proposal: To achieve these goals the following points are recommended to be included in a residential tree preservation ordinance:  Regulation of tree removal will apply to “significant trees”, being trees greater than 12” in DBH (truck diameter) or greater than 6” DBH for trees located in an environmentally critical area (ie on slopes, in riparian zones or flood zones)  Some undesirable species would not be regulated, possibly including Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus), boxelder (Acer negundo), and ash (Fraxinus).  Tree removal permit approval would take into consideration; health of tree, structural condition of tree, future utility conflicts, current utility easements, public safety concerns, potential significant burden to economic development of the site.  An approved certified Arborist could submit a short report to confirm tree species, tree health, and structural condition which would exclude a tree from the “significant tree” status. Alternatively the City Forester or Forestry Technician could confirm with a brief site visit that the tree is excluded from the “significant tree” category.  There would be a small fee for permit applications to prevent frivolous requests and offset the cost of staff time. Forester would respond to permit applications within 2 weeks.  Appeal of the Forester’s decision would be to the Board of Public Works.  Tree retention would be ideal in the majority of situation but if that was not deemed to be possible replacement of “significant trees” by planting or payment in lieu of planting would be expected; details to be determined.  Ordinance could be restricted to specific neighborhoods or zones of concern as a test before being expanded to cover residential trees city-wide.  It should not apply to the easements or rights-of-way of utility companies, to federal, state, or local governments. If this is a direction that the committee feels is appropriate more time would be invested to develop additional details and draft application forms and devise public communication strategies.