Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

21. CuriousResident
    Member

    Looking at the code, it appears that board power over specific trees has been added by an ordinance in 1982 and updated by addendum in 2000...and is not in sync with either of the LAC documents Home landscaping in a landmark village(1996) and Landscaping in a Landmark Village (2006?)

    That being said, it is odd that in the Riverside municipal code 8-5-9 Appendix the trees and shrubs are so simply defined (compared to the nicely done LAC docs). Meaning, there are no scientific names.

    8-5-9: APPENDIX:

    The following trees having a trunk diameter of less than two inches (2") may be planted in that portion of the public parkway area lying between the public sidewalk and the private property line:

    American burning bush
    American hornbeam
    Arborvitae
    Black cherry
    Chicksaw plum
    Chokecherry
    Cockspur hawthorn
    Dotted hawthorn
    Downy hawthorn
    Flowering dogwood
    Leatherwood
    Pagoda dogwood
    Pawpaw
    Pin cherry
    Plum leafed hawthorn
    Prairie crab apple
    Redbud
    Sassafras
    Serviceberry
    Sourwood
    Sweet wild crab apple
    Thicket hawthorn
    White pine
    Wild plum
    Witch hazel
    Yellowwood

    (Ord. 1503, 6-21-1982; amd. Ord. O2323, 3-20-2000)

    There are many easily misinterpreted terms.
    What most people refer to:
    ...as burning bush is non-native and invasive.
    ...as cherry trees is on most villages do not plant list.
    Google leatherwood and the first plant reference you find is from tasmania.
    And ironically the Landscaping in a Landmark Village states

    4.7.3. Plants to AVOID
    * trees not allowed in Riverside.....Fruit Trees*

    yet the municipal code has apple, plum, pawpaw, & serviceberries listed. Not that I have anything against them...just that it seems the board(s) only get involved to a level that suits them.

    For example: TREE AND SHRUB PARKWAY PLANTING APPROVAL 8-5-3 goes onto to add loop holes for the board to plant what ever they want...if it is part of a comprehensive business district plan.

    8. The regulations set forth in subsections (C)3, (C)4, (C)6 and (C)7 of this Section shall not apply to plantings which are undertaken pursuant to a comprehensive business district improvement plan approved by the President and Board of Trustees.

    All in all, the municipal code is the one that feels the most out of touch. I like nearly all the tress on the appendix, but it doesn't have Gymnocladus dioicus...er...Kentucky Coffee tree, maples, lindens or oaks...all of which are the most commonly planted trees over the past x years.

    As much as this all needs to be "cleaned up", I'd recommend the board leave it to the LAC & the Forrester...as they have plenty of business items to be focused on.

    Posted Friday Sep 18, 2009 19:16 #

22. JillM
    Member

    Man, I love data. Think about all the research that has been disseminated here, with attribution, concerning the cultivar/tree list issue. This is perfectly in line with Trustee Sells' vision for more volunteerism in Riverside. It comes in many forms.

    Here, folks have been providing various forms of data for the LAC. Some members may have known of these issues and data sources, some may have not. Hey, we all work. But so many discrepancies, loopholes and misnomers have been identified since last month's Board meeting that the LAC clearly has an agenda to work on, and I wish them speed. As CurRes points out, this appears to be, first, their line of inquiry (and as I understand the Commission's duties, it is), and the Board has the budget to attend to now. I find the tree threads, despite the disparate opinions, rather generative, working together for a common good.

    Posted Friday Sep 18, 2009 19:31 #

23. PAR4
    Member

    All the research is wonderful - but my concern is the final vote of what makes the 'official list'. What if the LAC votes to add some of these trees to the list (like many here have suggested)? Can the Board just shoot them down like they have with every other initiative they don't like? We all know what the answer would be.

    If we find that other Olmsted protected sites like the Biltmore and Buffalo and Central Park are utilizing cultivars to maintain his vision, will that make a difference? I doubt it.

    Will they listen to a majority of constituents? Do we need to make this a referendum in the next election (won't that be newsworthy!)?

    Posted Friday Sep 18, 2009 20:07 #

24. JillM
    Member

    Well, this is a teachable moment for the new Board members, then, isn't it? Data, science, track records, reason, versus, .....opinion?

    And, the ever popping up question of what happens if the LAC votes to amend the recommended list. Can the Board overturn? At the last Board meeting, Trustee Shevitz ended the discussion with charging the LAC to determine how to amend the list, as I recall. But that agenda item was ignored at the most recent LAC meeting, which was attended by some Board members. So, what gives? Talk, no action?

    One could ask the Village Manager about points of action here, as I might re: Board agenda items and resolutions. One can also write directly to the President of the Board to ask how this proceeds. Open, transparent, and amicable governance.

    Posted Friday Sep 18, 2009 20:24 #

25. PAR4
    Member

    Yes, the Board at the committe meeting....whispering and plotting (I hear) - against the open meetings act? I guess they'll feel inclined to keep a close eye on this renegade group until they can turn the three non-believers over next year.

    Posted Friday Sep 18, 2009 21:48 #

26. JohnM
    Member

    This is an incredibly instructive thread. As CuriousResident points out, there is a list of trees and shrubs at Sec. 8-5-9, and that list seems inconsistent with the LAC list.

    But there's also a list at 10-12-5 which also differs from the LAC list and the list above (even taking into account that the list at 8-5-9 does not seem to include any large trees).

    It's shocking to me that a Village that prides itself on its landscape heritage has allowed these discrepancies to not only exist, but apparently passed into law. This is not, I hasten to point out, the fault of the new Board. It does present, however--as JillM notes--a golden opportunity for this Board and its Commissions to do something that can serve the Village, the residents and our heritage. Clean this up--clarify the rules--hopefully add some new trees and plants and perhaps take a few off. And the best part is that it won't cost a cent--we have the LAC to review the list. We have the forester to provide advice. We have the Board that has indicated an interest in landscape issues by their attendance at LAC meetings and their close attention to tree planting issues. I can't see any reason not to go ahead with a review of this policy now.

    Posted Friday Sep 18, 2009 22:18 #

27. CuriousResident
    Member

    Interesting post in response to the Landmark article Residents want elms, and they get them

    Posted: Wednesday, September 23, 2009
    Article comment by: RC

    I sent that last post without explanation. That is the response I received from the National Park Serrvice when I requested info on how they are handling the loss of elms in FLO sensitive parks. Although I believe it's pretty clear that the FLO vision included elms - he talked about them often and included them in all his works - usualiy in very prominent places. To dismiss their place in our landscape is criminal.

    Posted: Wednesday, September 23, 2009
    Article comment by: RC

    There really is no acceptablesubstitute for the characteristic form of the American Elm. Realizingthat the average lifespan of an urban tree is something less than tenyears, we understand that Dutch Elm typically kills trees that are alreadyweakened due to age or mechanical damage. Changing the expectation thatnewly planted elms, "Princeton" cultivars or otherwise, may not live to aripe old age, we think that it is nevertheless important to continue toreplant the American Elm anyway, and be satisfied with a 25-50 yearlifespan. The elm growing in FLO's former lawn at "Fairsted" inBrookline is in decline, and this is what I have heard proposed for itsreplacement. I recall that "Olmsted" can be translated from the OldEnglish as "the place of elms." What else could you possibly put in itsplace?

    H. Eliot FouldsHistorical Landscape ArchitectNPS - Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation15 State Street - 6th FloorBoston, MA 02109(617) 223-5111

    Posted Thursday Sep 24, 2009 21:24 #

28. JillM
    Member

    What a concept. Oak Park's Village Board actually listens to their Forester.

    Tribune article on Oak Park's trees

    And get this, they used to have $100,000 in their budget for planting trees.

    Posted Sunday Oct 4, 2009 22:54 #

29. CuriousResident
    Member

    For those that are interested and can attend, the Landscape Advisory Commission has "Preferred Plant List Review" on the agenda for Tuesday, October 13th's meeting.

    Posted Wednesday Oct 7, 2009 11:08 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.