Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Stewart Park Advisory Group Information
a ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Completion of this report required ten months of investigation, evaluation and analysis. Throughout this period the consultant contacted many indi- viduals, in the Ithaca community and beyond, who had a special interest in, or concern for, all or parts of the Stewart Park complex. Much information and valuable insights were gathered this way; there is no doubt that the plan is much stronger because of the many people who were involved. The consultant is particularly appreciative of the fine work done by David A. Rash in his thesis for a Masters Degree in Architectural History from Cornell University. His The Works of Clinton L. Vivian, Architect, of Ithaca was invaluable for the detailed information it contains on the build- ings in Stewart Park. We also thank Charles Barber for his historical knowledge and the wonderful photographs and documents he was able to pro- vide. The Stewart Park Advisory Group was set up to provide guidance and give meaningful response and advice during the planning process. This committee did its job well. It's reaction to proposals and ideas helped shape final recommendations and gave the plan a strong sense of realism. The design sub- committee, Mayor Gutenberger, Bob Cutia, Jack Dougherty, John Meigs and Ben Nichols, was a constant source of solid advice and firm decision. In years to come, hundreds of thousands of people who find a source of re- laxation and enjoyment from a visit to Ithaca's remarkable lakeside rec- reation area will owe a debt of gratitude to all those who helped in the preparation of this plan. STEWART PARR ADVISORY GROUP Andrew Aasen Tompkins County Federation of Sportsmgn Damon Boynton Conservation Advisory Council Susan Blumenthal Planning and Development Board Margo Clynes Circle Greenway Charles Dunlop Finger Lakes Park Commission Geoffrey Gyrisco Historic Ithaca Sean Killeen Common Council Ben Nichols. Board of Public Works Landmarks Preservation Committee Sam Weeks Cayuga Bird Club David Woolley Youth Bureau Advisory Board Robert Cutia City Staff Jack Dougherty City Staff John Gutenberger Mayor Jon Meigs City Staff STEWART PARK ADVISORY GROUP NAME ADDRESS PHONE ORGANIZATION Andrew Aasen 74 Jerry Smith Rd. 533-4739 (H) Tomp. Co. Federation of Sportsmen Lansing, NY 14882 Susan Blumenthal 117 Pearsall Place 272-3931 (H) Planning $ Development Board Margo Clynes 306 Elm Street 273-4305 (H) Circle Greenway Charles Dunlop Box 283 387-7041 (B) Finger Lakes Park Commission Trumansburg,NY 14886 Sean Killeen 111 Orchard Place 273-6615 (H) Common Council Barbara Ebert 120 N. Cayuga St. 273-6633 (B) Historic Ithaca John Semmler 305 Fairmont Ave. 253-3755 (B) Conservation Advisory Council Leslie Chatterton City Hall Ext. 246 Landmarks Preservation Commission Ben Nichols 109 Llenroc Court 273-6523 (H) Board of Public Works Sam Weeks 745 Cliff Street Cayuga Bird Club Robert Cutia 609 W. Clinton 273-8364 (B) City Staff Jack Dougherty City Hall Ext. 217 City Staff Jon Meigs City Hall Ext. 222 City Staff John Gutenberger City Hall Ext. 231 Mayor Carol Seligmann 115 Eastwood Terr. 273-8966 Youth Bureau • /j/af -4. fcl• f VA!g♦ 1,n :, 1 . ,0 ,. . . CITY OF ITHACA 100 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 MEMO )TO: Common Council Board of Public Works Stewart Park Advisory Group FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger DATE: May 7, 1986 SUBJECT: Master Plan As I'm sure you recall, upon completion of the Stewart Park Master Plan, there was discussion concerning implemention of the various components of the Master Plan. We are, also, receiving requests and inquiries from outside groups (golfers, train buffs, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) for use of Stewart Park lands for various permanent activities. I have left in existence, the original Stewart Park Advisory Group (SPAG) but there is also a need for a smaller group to be in closer communication as issues and ideas arise to facilitate coordination and communication of Stewart Park related issues, I am appointing the following: STEWART PARK ADVISORY GROUP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Mayor John C. Gutenberger Ben Nichols, Board of Public 1 Robert Cutia, Youth Bureau Jon Meigs, Planning Departmei Jack Dougherty, Department of Public Works This executive committee will do investigation and analysis of the various issues related to Stewart Park and forward such information and recommendations to SPAG and other City boards and commissions. The executive committee is comprised of the same people who constituted the architect selection team for the Master Plan and worked very well together. CC: Mrs. Callista Paolangeli Summated Process for Stewart Park. Suggested Pitt Task Sept. 5, 1986 Preliminary Survey Sept. 8, 1986 Trial Run Sept. 9, 1986 Revise & Finalize Survey Sept. 13, 1986 Conduct Survey (• Commons, Top's Grocery, Stewart Prk. ) Sept. 19, 1986 Tally Results of Survey Sept. 25, 1986 Publish results of Survey in Local Papers with announcement of Public Meeting & Schedule of all future Public Meetings. Oct. 2, 1986 Public Meeting #1 1. Review Overall Planning process for Stewart Park & Proposed Public Meeting Dates. 2. Summarize Survey Results and Implications. 3. Summarize Analysis of Existing Conditions- Feedback on Analysis and Survey. Oct. 23, 1986 Public Meeting *2 1. Review Detail Design. 2. Alternative Character Sketches, Alternative Sketches of Proposed Changes (Based on Survey). Nov. 13, 1986 Public Meeting i3 1. Alternative Preliminary Design Development Plans. 2. Evaluate Pros & Cons per Alternative. Dec. 4, 1986 Public Meeting #4 1. Revised Preferred Alternatives. Dec. 18, '1986 Public Meeting #5 1. Revised Preferred Plan. 2. Preliminary Phasing Plan. Jan. 22, 1987 Public Meeting #6 1. Finalized Plan 2. Finalized Phasing ** end Trowbridge-Trowbridge involvement ** City of Ithaca Task' 1. Common council reviews plan and acts. 2. Once plan is adopted, DPW implements plan as specific projects are approved by Common Council. �AI •M Stewart Park Survey. Date Age Male Female Place of Residence Occupation • 1. How often have you been to Stewart Park in the last 6 months? 0-2 times 3-6 once/week twice/week more than twice a reek. (If respondent answers 0-2 times, advance to Format B. Other respondents continue on. ) 2. What do you like best about Stewart Park? 3. What don't you like about Stewart Park? 4. What activities do you most often participate in at Stewart Park? 5. Please indicate how often you have participated in each of the following activities in the last 6 months. Please comment on the facilities as indicated. Activity F •f Use in Last 6 sos. 'Are there yw Iaoroveremts ` Have you encountered conflicts hat wopld increase your with adjacent user arouos? gniovrent of this Activity? 1. Strolli L take Vi _ Informal .icnicki P cnicking 4 Children's Plat •ro . Carousel Rides or" Feedin. Fishi Soft. == Tenn . Concerts _ Boat Rental Other 6. Describe an other impro ements you would like t, se Ste 'ark. 7. Please rate the visual attractiveness of the following areas (Excellent) (Good) (Poor) - Physical Shoreline of the Lake _ Existing Park Structures - Physical Shoreline of f. 4_ Creek Lagoon Area - Park Entrance • Parking Areas 8. Overall, how would you rate the visual attractiveness of Stewart Park? Format 8t If you rarely or never use Stewart Park 1. If you rarely or never use Stewart Park, why don't you? 2. What changes to the park might attract you there in the future? 3. What is your image of Stewart Park? 4. When vas the last time you used Stewart Park? What activity did you engage in at that time? 40 How well did the park suit your needs for that activity? Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory (if answer is unsatisfactory, please explain. 5. Overall, how would you rate your last experience at Stewart Park? Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory 6. Overall, how would you rate the visual attractiveness of Stewart Park? 11-04 J-041 0 wO ero deA4 0001904 0 lf s age -Ilona A 11111100111001.1 • 241 ti 01 tilitio011••■••10 , lookoo itte iiPP17--.),. looll00000,0000 "f- 100 lowooloos,• 0 \. „, , 00000,60,,woo ,A0,5,, 10001001,000/.,%,„ 1000001,000,00 ,55,,, WOO* 00•000 4,4-00 , 1111011011•111 •••0110 ■ oNloiA ° 1011111111?•2.177100011 .•°1i- 1° r l =W' ovw, 04,“.. ., nN No ou.kNoci ow 04\ vq*Pu (ii4e.- PR-OF/i,e-- ���Pv�Gf G or Mo lie Sys ) l4V a-2. *-1. 7"4/W ., 7t°v��y,.x 4✓ y OP /7HAM , 1 TOWN of /TNf 4 - 1 W LAls✓N4 p 44 yO*.4 pe *'1 T4 g¢yvaN . vm. UWP. a, . Ito -Oa 4\ Z/ 349 31 - 40 4/ - GO 004 Goo V/ UkG ATTM 7/VL NESS AXGOI•tONT F opo P000. PI/m44 ' Swigs y eR . P,4,z 7 4N(. 40)fi77N41 ms 5TiMfl/* LAVDIV hzeft PAK Nei .40 0.4 01/E,44L1- "gag. • . XIX UNFINISHED AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS - AGENDA ITEM A WHEREAS, Common Council on January 2, 1985 adopted the Stewart Park Master Plan as the "official concept plan for that area" , and WHEREAS, Common Council on April 2, 1986 approved the expenditure of $21,500 for preparation of "design development drawings for Stewart Park" , and the city subsequently hired Trowbridge and Trowbridge for this task, and WHEREAS, Trowbridge and Trowbridge expect to continue to work until February 1987 on this project and have scheduled a series of public meetings to present findings and to gather public opinion about the park, and WHEREAS, public involvement in the consideration of the Master Plan has dramatically increased and broadened in scope over the past five months, and many members of the public have expressed great dis- satisfaction with numerous elements of the Master Plan, J' A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in order to take full advantage of the I present availability of the city's consultant, and in recognition SOS kyl:/ of the desire of the public to take an active and ongoing role in the future design of Stewart Park,' that fie Stewart Parr Master Plan be _set aside to allow continued public discussion /1.a. and the formulation of alternative design development guidelines v' by Trowbridge and Trowbridge, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the role of Trowbridge and Trowbridge be clarified as follows: 1) The Master Plan may serve as a resource but is not necessarily a guide to or a constraint upon further park planning; 2) The following elements of the Master Plan shall be specifically excluded from further consideration: r '! a. the spine road system and its large bermed, aggregated /4 parking lots b. the off-shore island c. the lighted promenade d. the removal of the duck pond e. the removal of the willow row 3) Any proposed design development should reflect as accurately as possible the expressed concern of the community to restore, preserve, and maintain the character of Stewart Park. �.1aa�tia -6- November 5 , 1986 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Stewart Park By Alderperson Cummings : Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman WHEREAS, Common Council on January 2 , 1985 adopted the Stewart Park Master Plan as the "official concept plan for that area," and WHEREAS, Common Council on April 2 , 1986 approved the expend- iture of $21 , 500 for preparation of "design development drawings for Stewart Park" , and the city subsequently hired Trowbridge and Trowbridge for this task, and WHEREAS, Trowbridge and Trowbridge expect to continue to work until February 1987 on this project and have scheduled a series of public meetings to present findings and to gather public opinion about the park, and WHEREAS, public involvement in the consideration of the Master Plan has dramatically increased and broadened in scope over the past five months , and many members of the public have expressed great dissatisfaction with numerous elements of the Master Plan; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That in order to take full advantage of the present availability of the city' s consultant , and in recognition of the desire of the public to take an active and ongoing role in determining any future design of Stewart Park, that the Stewart Park Master Plan be set aside to allow continued public discussion and the formulation of alternative design development guidelines by Trowbridge and Trowbridge , and be it further RESOLVED, That the role of Trowbridge and Trowbridge be clarified as follows : 1) The Master Plan may serve as a resource but is not necessarily a guide to or a constraint upon further park planning; 2) The following elements of the Master Plan shall be specifically excluded from further consideration: a. the spine road system and its large bermed, aggregated parking lots b . the off-shore island c. the lighted promenade d. the removal of the duck pond e . the removal of the willow row 3 . Any proposed design development should reflect as accurately as possible the expressed concern of the community to restore , preserve , and maintain the character of Stewart Park. • - 7- November 5 , 1986 Mayor Gutenberger stated that the resolution that the Council passed on October 1 referred this matter to the Stewart Park Advisory Group and the Planning and Development Committee. Because of vacancies on the Stewart Park Advisory Group they have not had a chance to meet . Therefore , the Council ' s directive of their own resolution hasn ' t been carried out . He suggested that this resolution be tabled so that the Council will follow its own resolution and allow the Stewart Park Advisory Group to meet as was requested and come back with their information. Alderperson Booth stated that he does not think that is necessary. This is an issue that has received a great deal of airing and while he appreciates what that group could add he thinks this is an issue that is ripe for a decision. Mayor Gutenberger stated that the Stewart Park Advisory Group has been working since 1983 with new people on and off. It ' s a community group and he thinks that to ignore them would be a very poor display of asking for public participation. There has been a public group in place since 1983 and to make a decision tonight and ignore their input would be doing a disservice to that group. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows : Carried Unanimously Mayor Gutenberger stated that he will be giving this issue a lot of thought because he feels very strongly about the I; Common Council ignoring a group that had been established and been working for two and a half years . He reminded Council that the City Charter states that any resolution passed by Common Council does not go into effect for five days . The Mayor has five days to review and consider any resolution and he will be taking that five days to consider this very seriously. Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Service Funding Request Alderperson Cummings reported that Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services has lost Community Development funding. They have been able to receive State money to replace much of the Federal project money. They have been able to replace the projects they had on-line with State money. However, they have not been able to secure administrative money and they are $65 , 000 short of administrative funding. They came to the Planning and Development Committee for assistance . In light of the city ' s commitment this year to housing and neighborhoods we are going to have to address their concerns . She asked Council members to contact INHS and talk to the people there about their problem. FIEROPLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS 310 W. STATE STREET ITHACA NEW YORK 607•272 • 2201 14850 RECEIVED MEMORANDUM NOV 1 `j 1980 To: Stewart Park Advisory Group From: Tom Niederkorn Date: November 9, 1986 In the event a meeting of the Stewart Park Advisory Group is called in the near future, I would like to suggest that you review two of the most important components of the Master Plan, so far completely neg- lected: Development Policy and Design Objectives. I have enclosed a copy of an abrieviated version of these two elements, taken from the Master Plan summary. In the full report, Chapter 3 is devoted to policy; design objectives are included in each of the sub- sections of Chapters 4,5 and 6. It should be remembered that the Master Plan includes policy, objectives and proposals for areas other than Stewart Park. This has also been left out of the public discussion to date but these interrelated areas are all extremely important to the overall plan, in my opinion. PEROPLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS 310 W. STATE STREET ITHACA NEW YORK 607•272 • 2201 14850 RFCERTO MEMORANDUM NOV 1 :5 1986 FL."' To: Stewart Park Advisory Group From: Tom Niederkorn Date: November 9, 1986 In the event a meeting of the Stewart Park Advisory Group is called in the near future, I would like to suggest that you review two of the most important components of the Master Plan, so far completely neg- lected: Development Policy and Design Objectives. I have enclosed a copy of an abrieviated version of these two elements, taken from the Master Plan summary. In the full report, Chapter 3 is devoted to policy; design objectives are included in each of the sub- sections of Chapters 4,5 and 6. It should be remembered that the Master Plan includes policy, objectives and proposals for areas other than Stewart Park. This has also been left out of the public discussion to date but these interrelated areas are all extremely important to the overall plan, in my opinion. )EVELOPMENT t Policy statements provide the rationale,justification and direction for a wide 'OLICY i' variety of possible public and private actions for capital investment; and'for '..other management questions,and development opportunities that continued evolution of the park wilt inevitably create. The Master Plan is based on the c following policies: ' �3 � Y REGIONAL USEOF . ;:-, The City will support future public and private development which will enhance the op- - '‘THE PARK COMPLEX.;, .. portunity for regional use of the park when such development is compatible with the x�5 , overall objectives of the Master Plan. `,,tiX ENHANCEMENT OF = 'r -a• '' The City wishes to increase the informal picnic use and passive character of the park. PASSIVE.CHARACTEIi4*• ; Future development will aim at enhancing casual use by families and people of all ages for picnicking, fishing, strolling, viewing and similar unstructured activities. `'EXPANSIONOF The park faces serious problems of overuse. To overcome this, and increase future ".. usABLEPARK:AREA. : ':< holding capacity, the City intends to work toward extending parkland by selectively . x ,5� � , _.. - extending the shoreline to the north. mow/ kt�e '". 4•'•' „ yw;" .-•9PRESERVATIOI -OE< .,,,', �''r, The City feels that the best remaining old-growth lakeshore forest should be protected 4'4 PUBLIC NA and preserved in its natural state. in recognition of the natural functions of these '-''� ,° �"ry. ` � , wetlands, their use will be controlled to prevent undesirable impact on human activity. .rffi^GrI }e,. REESTABLISHMENT OF',. `'-_ ' The City has every intention of again providing natural swimming opportunities in this ''LAIXE SWIMMING - . • area if it can be demonstrated that this can be done safely and in a way that is econom- - ically acceptable to the community, responsive to environmental concerns. and corn pati- - 4- --,04 ble with the broad role of this park in the City's recreation system. t- - --MOVEMENGAND`; It is the City's policy to assure the safety of park users by separating pedestrian and ' PARKING OFVEHICLES vehicular movement whenever this can be done. Emphasis will be placed on the human . aspects of park use and pedestrian-vehicular conflicts will be minimized. _ , Of A , ,,, - The City affirms the park's unique historic nature. It intends to rehabilitate park structures '�T USE 01F , ii when feasible and reestablish some of the earlier social, cultural and recreational activity HISIORLCSTRUGrURES 4_. , and character of the area. . � �',, , .4 te r % • a °,'s • 'IMPLEMENTATION: '. The City intends to implement the Master Plan by the end of this century. It will use public FUNDING OFPLANEi,;) ",, .�5 money to the extent that this can be incorported into overall budgets and supplement this ° PROPOSALS �"� � � ,,A;,,,*�,;'" � with funds from other public and private sources. • 1,-,..` IN .. :n�4 .i =::,;. 7-1-:,-,,.e..;17' ` r " • ''k. .~. . .. ' i� r-..` - .:- .-7 ? ..6%,--- :.-- ser 14.A" a • - .t - .,: ; < LL ar ." R R 7 1. .z tt '.....V;;•;••a x :'tt `# : �z MAlot =: a y Y,4 r;t-2 •9m� �, -_fir 1 .t� 1-,-..a. 3; •,,,,�� , • ,.;.�.� " �•. . .t .t t d�:�. �' Wrricidify�'Newman'"Go1�Eourse�so that limtted':lanc�is▪`y� CJ • ,''�"'•'' �� .:'• e t •. � .::.14';'1,:i4.,••••!'" � � ���.,��s '� �-used to best'potentta�anc�player challenge is increased: 'i . "--., --..ft- a ' t'� . - ttit et - u1 tt -1.,I.. `i41*�w _' �ta{Se.'ft ltfadvanta eof.the_social, cultural and• ?'.- .:•,;,...,,.....,,,,„„.,,,,„5' - , ° t•• =X•_. ,',f [' .! SC 3+ � 4+ omict-Ov ortuilitS which-Could come frocr�;- . s a •-• a '' t r. t' • • (,on('pntYdttk• • t t • -;.. L tabilitdtiort'shit nereasedr ust75 oft park structure`and•• . i ...k{ , `W � sue+4 tht1* �,.Q _R •r ,:24.3-i4 ••'''''''- uca" ' �+ 1 Y" +� '' t �` o Y +.�}�` v i. . :4 !i ' ' = ` sV h.. ef� •` .r t; ' ;. r • .,. ._^`''' :"' i' ' Mn" : ordesigp<anctic edute caes. that use-cax• p t 'f i �ii , 3 a* A iJ4 4'�,4� . � .*-�. ! �naintatnecfduiiiii onstrtscO • �. s..y `t� - +SG. Y ; �� a ~ , �� "k�'4' ,,MisV +.4 '�! L� / Y Y T•' '1 c''---..,V;4( �".s r �� 24'/ !.1 'ell" 51.] }N 1 dis�i wjV.yir a ��Aa1• .laidl�s Ilk • . - �sa y f' 3'mi ,1 � ,' T" !!' C p•, `K 9� ' { '=s -. -!4-- . ...z.-.4:-ii PYA:i sr i *." a 4.71: 2in ,_,`-... a 'i':, (r^ r� i e 4 . , •. <T'gO _ r yC� 'l a. r a r , z �t- > z y y .S : ro t rr'? „ . Z y i�c .i ai.{ j r 6 � . 4�.} ,yy:• ',„- r �� &€9':-': +.. . � �i"'; Y-�sJY<� .,c4� pkF t _ T7 4. 4 � ;:rt Cr T^eS. r . ; s _ r r =,"4 y•.., ---) :or P-1,,,'',` 'R..' .s1 v :•.-x-,77,,,' -4. I ;i 1V1:() .' I i' 1986 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, NY 14850 November 1 ;, 1986 The Honorable John C. GGtenberger Mayor of The City of Ithaca City Hall Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much indeed for your invitation to us concerning SPAG. Certainly there is no question in our minds that we want to put ourselves at SPAG's service in seeing that the best is done by Stewart Park. However, in discussing this matter at our last meeting, a number of questions arose and the consensus was that we should have a clearer idea of the responsi- bilities involved. Firstly, what is the charge to SPAG -- what are its functions and its powers? By whom are its meetings convened and hcw often does it meet and under what circumstances? What is the relationship of SPAG's executive committee to its larger body? What are the responsibilities involved with SPAG membership? And, finally, what role do you see a representative from CSSP serving on SPAG, particularly in view of the fact that SPAG approved the Niederkorn plan to redesign Stewart Park to which we are opposed. We are also con- cerned that SPAG is not representative of the community and wonder on what basis appointments to it are made. We are all looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Citizens to Save Stewart Park as agreed at the November 17, 1986 meeting (Alf By: Doria Higins 1ITHq 11 � 1 s coq`s.......... 4P. CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 MEMORANDUM To: Stewart Park Advisory Group From: John C. Gutenberger, Mayor 0 Sub: Stewart Park Design Date: November 26, 1986 At its October 1st meeting, Common Council referred to you a resolution proposing that the Master Plan for Improvements to Stewart Park be " set aside, pending continued public discussion and the formulation of alternative design development plans . . . "" and that in this regard "The Master Plan may serve as a resource but not necessarily a guide to or a constraint upon future park planning . ." This referral was made in recognition of SPAG's role in developing that plan, and my desire that the knowledge and interest represented by the group not be over- looked in the current debate regarding implementation of the plans ' recommendations. In its referral , Council requested a report by SPAG at the November meeting of Council ; however, the need to bring SPAG membership up to date, and then to convene it, made this impossible. Council , at its November meeting, approved the resolution in the absence of SPAG input. Nonetheless , the issue will be further discussed at the December meeting, and it is desirable to have input to that discussion from SPAG. I had expected that the first opportunity for SPAG to be brought up-to- date on the status of the design work, as background for action on the referral , would be presented at the public information meeting scheduled for last week. This would have given some time for members to weigh the issues and develop a response, but Ithaca weather struck, resulting in that session being postponed to December 2nd. I urge you to attend that meeting. Despite the impossibility of SPAG becoming intimately informed on the details of the current design process , it is my hope that in addition to the involvement several of you had in the Master Plan, you will be generally familiar with it as a result of the news coverage of the past several months ; and that SPAG will thus be able to develop a substantive response to the referral , that can be delivered to Council December 3rd. Air ,a1 yer with in Alf rniat;ve Actin Pr.grarn Memo to: SPAG Date: 11/26/86 Re: Stewart Park Design Page: -2- I regret that I will be unable to attend the December 2nd information meeting in order to discuss this important matter. However, I am very concerned about the possibility that the effort that went into prepar- ation of the Master Plan, incorporating many of the suggestions made by user groups represented on SPAG, will be negated if the point of view that presently dominates debate prevails. While I recognize that, in fairness, that point of view must be taken into consideration in the resolution of the issues with which it is concerned, I feel strongly and deeply that it represents only a limited perspective which, if allowed to control the direction of city stewardship of this major public facility, will result in a serious loss of opportunity for en- hancement of the park's potential to serve future recreational needs of the community as a whole. It is for this reason that I call on the Stewart Park Advisory Group to become actively and positively involved on behalf of the community in attempting to establish a balanced basis for decision-making. I would like SPAG to accept the challenge of acting as coordinator for the remainder of the design process, beginning with the December 2nd information meeting and providing, to the best of its ability, input for consideration by Council the following evening. For your information, I enclose a copy of the resolution adopted by Council , which is to be given final discussion at its December 3rd meeting. Also included is a memo from Tom Niederkorn regarding important aspects of the overall topic which have not been addressed in recent debate. I will do all I can to share my thoughts on this subject with you in the near future. Please give this important matter immediate consideration. On behalf of the citizens of Ithaca, I thank you in advance for taking on such responsibilities. JCG/mc Enclosures 0)??te y7b o--, • TO: Stewart Park Advisory Group S= FROM: Mayor John C . Gutenberger , DATE: December 2, 1986 RE: Common Council Resolution I hope to be able to join you tonight after the Boy Scout Recognition dinner but in case I miss your discussion, I would like to share a few of my thoughts regarding the Common Council resolution up for reconsideration at its Wednesday meeting. The resolution states "that the Stewart Park Master Plan be set aside. . ." . The resolution further states "the Master Plan may serve as a resou,4ce. . .". The Library of Universal Knowledge defines "set aside " as . . .to omit, to lay out of the question; to disregard; to abrogate" . How the Master Plan can serve as a resouce after it has been disregarded, omitted, etc. makes no sense to me. I would suggest removing the words "that the Stewart Park Master Plan be set aside" and insert a positive statement such as: *Insert A Common Council reaffirmsthe Design Objectives of the Master Plan: 1 . To accommodate the growing local and regional demand for usable waterfront parkland. 2. To maintain an effective separation of user activities in different parts of the complex. 3. To minimize vehicular intrusion and concentrate parking in specific locations. Stewart Park Advisory Group December 2, 1986 4. To increase opportunity for access to, and use of, lake, creek and inlet shoreline. 5. To preserve the habitat and buffer functions of the Fuertes Sanctuary. 6. To modify Newman Golf Course so that limited land is used to best potential and player challenge is increased. 7. To take full advantage of the social, cultural and economic opportunity which could come from rehabilitation and increased use of park structures and facilities. 8. To design and schedule changes so that use can be maintained during construction. 9. To create distinct but related activity areas by land use design and landscaping. * Item #2, listed under "Be It Further Resolved" be reworded, such as: a. Trowbridge & Trowbridge are to investigate alternatives to the spine road system, and its large bermed, aggregated parking lots. (This could include recommending that no chage be made to the current system.) b. Trowbridge & Trowbridge will not consider the off shore island, the lighted promenade, or removal of the willow row in their scope of work. c. Trowbridge & Trowbridge will recommend corrective actions to address the health problems, stagnant water, and other unsanitary conditions of the duck pond so as to preserve this activity. In item #3, I would suggest adding the words "and enhance" after the word maintain. Thank you for your consideration of my suggestions. ice,, 44j I m1 i 1 'I' t` !si o—i^I114],`mss CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 May 19, 1987 Leslie Chatterton City of Ithaca Planning Department 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Leslie: I am writing to urge each and every member of the Stewart Park Advisory Group to attend the meeting scheduled for June 11th at 7: 30 p.m. in the 2nd Floor Conference Room where Peter Trowbridge will present the final results of his design work for Stewart Park. SPAG will be the first group to review this, and it is important that a voting majority be present in order to take any formal action. While the immediate importance of your participation is considerable, given that the design at this point is a refinement of the concept presented by the "Niederkorn Plan" which SPAG worked so hard on, I want to remind you that your continuing involvment will be at least equally important. This design stage is a part of a part (the Master Plan itself) of ongoing city efforts to insure that this resource serves the community well into the future; SPAG succeeds the Stewart Park Commission which oversaw the park's previous endowment. To that end, SPAG was established with representation to maintain a continuity of public interest and review of proposed projects as the park heads toward its centennial. As I have stated several times, SPAG is intended to remain in operation for the duration of the period needed to discuss and review projects flowing from the Master Plan, as it may be changed over that time span. This assurance of continued public participation in guiding a long-range program accepted by the community is crucial, to avoid short-term decisions or actions that have unforeseen long-range results. Following the SPAG meeting, the design will be reviewed by the Planning and Development Committee of Common Council, taking into account SPAG's comments and recommendations. The Planning and Development Committee recommendations are to be presented to Council at the July 1st meeting, after which the direction and extent of actions to upgrade and enhance the park will be set for many years to come. An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" May 19, 1987 Page 2 Final drafts of Trowbridge's design report will soon be furnished to you, supplementing what you have already gotten, to help you evaluate the final plan. Although SPAG member attendance at other meetings has been disappointing to me, the comments made have, even if probing, been generally constructive. Mr. Trowbridge has worked long and hard to take what was generally presented by the Master Plan, subsequent comment and input, and his firm's knowledge and skills, and produced a design which I feel can be accepted on its own merits. I sincerely hope that SPAG will support this design actively as it is brought to Council. This June 11th meeting of the Stewart Park Advisory Group will be crucial . I look forward to seeing you there! Sincerely, John C. Gutenberger Mayor 23 June 1987 _6 Ii:!111 . ' To: Peter Trowbridge, Designer Stwart Park Design Planner „ ENT OF 1345 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca, NY 14850 a . .1 EVE!OP�1TT From: Roger H. Farrell ( f 2a sttikr Cayix 5, /? r, # , Le Moyne A. Farrell 4 "14,,,„,.. a, Azvvd.L 120 Eastwood Terrace Ithaca, NY 14850 Subject : Survey of Park Use:Sunday, 21 June 1987 C k,w6- 5 i�-wwJ 7'c h�'c may) Conversation with Users about Park Improvement Plans Suggestion for Waterfowl Pond Reaction: -Mending of Park Footbridge is needed now because boards flex dangerously. -Park is being used to capacity now that permits various groups access to facilities without impinging. These are: family groups, fisherfolk, drinkers/partiers/barbecuers, party-residents of upper porch of Boathouse(we were told the "mayor' s cousin" lives there) , Cascadilla Scull Rowers, wild life observers of Sanctuary or swan pond, and child- ren in play area. -"No Wake" speed zone signage is needed at entrance to Fall Creek in both directions. Trees around golf course and in Sanctuary shield Fall Creek from prevailing winds which makes sculling in rough weather permissable on Fall Creek. Scullers say no improvement is needed_to ..the landing, that willows there provide protection from erosion and wind. They like gabions because plants on Fall creek would entangle oars. They object to resident partiers in Boat House to which they'd like minimal renovations like gym upstairs for indoor training of adult and young rowers in bad weather. -Signage OK as is. None to Sanctuary, especially, though trail bike stiles are needed to prevent path erosion and undergrowth destruction. - Concern: Ithaca park users can have a rough edge, and pretti- tyyirng this area with old lamposts and pergolas might bring out the graffitti spray cans with a vengeance. There' s a live-and-let-live attitude there now that may be quite fragile which is important to maintain for acceptance of the free- dom that the park provides. Those questioned mentioned that they had signed the petition last year to prevent revision to the park and had thought that that was the end of it. They seemed surprised that it was still an issue . -Rubbish behind Boathouse (old fencing, a refrigerator door) needs removal . -DPW' s effort to keep park clear appeared heroic on Sunday, for the litter at Creek, Lagoon, and Lake edges was minimal , sur- prising because the week had been clear and the Park must have alxea ■ been used on Saturday as well. Kudos goes the the DPW staff as well as to Park users which may imply how the Park is valued as it remains now. Wotueu 5 jons appeared clean and functioning. -2- Trowbridge Plan Suggestion: -Waterfowl/Swan Pond: This needs regular skimming of algae. THe temale swan was sitting on an egg and was unfortunately disturbed by our intrusion. A family of mallards was on the penisula, and the male swan appeared not to be harrassing them at the time. -Signage is needed: not to feed the birds with the reason provided, i.e, polluting the waters with botulism. The sign there--"Beware the Swan" not only is clear; it works - and is needed! He' s fierce! The present sign on not feeding is too tall and is hidden by shrubbery. -Fencing: To protect both people and the swans, the Fence needs to be higher and mended as is, if users of the park are not to harass the swans . -Water clarity: Perhaps a circulation system could be devised by a graduate student in Biology or Natural Resources to improve the circulation of water which appears unhealthy and stagnant. It needs to circulate fresh water more regularly and to be stocked with frogs, oxygen-promoting plants , and small fish. Remedying this area might be the project of a graduate student in Natural . Resources or Biology. Conclusion: Stewart Park is quite functional as it is, aside from mending the footbridge over Fall Creek and clarifying water by skimming algae regularly from Swan Pond and increasing flow of fresh water and aquatic life. Diverse human elements enjoy the rough edges and wilderness- feeling provided by the huge trees and Sanctuary, Freedom for all users seems the atmosphere without groups' interfer ing. Minor renovation to the Boathouse can aid in Sculling Club' s development and render it fit for club activities now being extending to adult and young rowers. No improvement to the Boathouse Dock is needed or wanted by the Club at this time. More furnishings to the park, like chair or boat rental , would necessitate concessions and complicate clean-up. As it is now, fisherfolk, barbecuers , picknickers pick up and leave. The lawns are then free to mow, clean, etc. Maintainance at this time seems to work well and the Park does not seem to need improvement. Prettifying or rebuilding the park and its grounds seems to spend money that the users do not ask for and which, in fact, may cause some to feel hostile about spoiling the present rustic, and a bit rough, scene that many appreciate deeply. - 4,22 TYP7 90444 °°�~ v a^ .c } Page 1 I. POSITIVE ELEMENTS 1 . Acknowledgement of citizen attack and citizen group participation in the review of the plans. 2. Establishment of a City Parks Commission with professional ecologist , aquatic biologist •, ornithologist, architectural and landscape p7.eservationist as well as citizen and BPW representatives. 3. Any revision of the shoreline or landscape needs research by aquatic biologists particularly on the effects of the rip-rap on erosion. 4. Any repair of pavilions must have preservationists review. Approved: a) Stallman Rose Garden to Stewart Memorial Flag pole area. b) Moving play area away from traffic and parking areas. c) New permanent historic-style fence around carrousel . 5. Renovation of buildings should consider: a) BPW' s need for storage; b) new renovation of the Dance pavilion for year- around service; c) removal of chained picnic benches in Picnic Pavilion and to make available to local dance groups in season or renovated for year-round dancers use; d) that barbecue have chimney with flue in roof . 6. Roads: That the road to the Dance Pavilion be maintained as is for emergency vehicles; 7. Shorelines and Duck (nature) Pond: All efforts in these areas must be preceded by research study by aquatic biologiStand ornithologist on: a) rip-rap effects on erosion or retention of shoreline; b) effects of planting shorelines on filling in beds of Creek, Lagoon waterflow; / - c) wetland conversion of Duck Pond; -/'/' ' (J) displacement of present swans and ducks now accustomed to this habitat as well as those used to sunning on west shore, where sun-bathing and shoreline extension is planned; e) shoreline is accessible to fisherfolk as is; f ) floating dock for Cascadilla Boat House - submitted by J. Rogowicz in Jan. 1987 to BPW be placed at Cascadilla Boat House. 8. Lighting - submerging cable in this high water table is questionable. - ~ Page 2 II. CONCERNS 1. Finding a new storage area for present BPW equipment will be essential to all Park renovation. Has this been done? 2. In general , renovations to Stewart Park buildings need advice from architects and preservationists but no similar advice from aquatic biologists and ornithologists precedes planting of shorelines and waterfowl habitat. 3. Additional parking in "double nose-in" design increases risk to pedestrians and to other drivers. If Stewart Park has become an "automobile park" (p37) , then it succeeds as is, since remarkably few drivers abuse the park or other users. The present white curb markers aid night driving on July 4th. 4. The large barbecue area needs a chimney with a flu; the present number of barbecues seem adequate now. 5. Park furnishings now seen adequate and not the kind that can be stolen. Lighting that has underground cables may be unwise given the need to dig up entire area to lay them and high water table. 6. The Cascadilla Boat Club will have to move to a new spot during renovation. Is this a real possibility for the Club? 7. The cost of renovating the historic buildings will be high. Perhaps renovating the stucco Picnic Pavilion with a catering concession and rest room first would sweeten public attitudes toward Park preservation goals. 8. Tennis courts are costly to maintain. Perhaps a user study of the present courts would realistically assess the need for courts and a location less vulnerable than the present sight to stiff winds. 9. At present no motorized boats should be permitted in the Lagoon because of its turgid water and sound affecting the Sanctuary shores. "No Wake" signs should be posted in Fall Creek. At the Sanctuary entrance, a gravel "driveway" exists where drivers park and work on their cars, throwing beer bottles and oil cans into the Sanctuary. This driveway should be filled and planted with grass. 10. Preservation Goals suggest removal of the swans. To where? At present the path encircling the pond permits pedestrians to disturb the swans which prevents their having cygnets. We know that because we disturbed the female sitting on her egg. The swans should be removed and live a normal life in a less intrusive environment, or the fence should cut off the path encircling the pond. If the Cascadilla Boat House is restored, this pond will be opened up and the swans moved. Page 3 11 . Backless benches are a proposed design for park furniture. This design is uncomfortable for the elderly and handicapped and may encourage vagrant sleepers. 12. The large barbecue pit peeds a chimney with a flu to let out the smoke during cookouts. Page 4 III. NEGATIVE ELEMENTS South Glade: No gazebo, additional benches, or barbecues are needed on South Glade. Most of these additions increase traffic in sensitive areas or are simply redundant to present use. Sanctuary: No path improvement of any kind is needed. This territory was designated "forever wild" in 1913. No Feurtes gate or stiles - just signs like those at the entry to Six Mile Creek: no dogs, wheeled vehicles, littering etc, explaining sanctuary as protected for bird life. (Reason: users simply go around stiles and break down undergrowth. ) paths: No historic foot paths, network crossing lawns or along Fall Creek shoreline or from the Stallman Rose Garden to Dance or Picnic Pavilion complex . (Reason: paths interrupts playing fields, lawns, shoreline, which now permit versatile uses. Increase human access to bird nesting habitat.) Shorelines: No adjustment/replacing/dredging to any shoreline w/o research. Aquatic biologists and ornithologists on Parks Commission must research and oversee: 1 ) use of rip-rap which may increase erosions 2) displacement of waterfowl in present Duck Pond 3) shorelines that are already used by waterfowl for renovation for use of humans. 4) Covering of gabion� with greenery would improve apprearance. Removal will kill the 25-year-old trees now holding the shoreline. 5) Jetty can cut the flow of water and is near to railroad right of way regularly sprayed with herbicide where lake is close to tracks. 6) The pier might lead users to jump or dive into these shallow areas and cause serious harm, rendering the City vulnerable to costly litigation. Lagoon: Professional aquatic biologist and ornithologist must research and oversee care of the Lagoon. Drainage stream is extremely sensitive) turgid area. No impoundment of water in Lagoon which is already turgid. No picnic tables or benches are needed. Ice-skating in winter increases human use in winter when hibernating species use the area. No restructuring of Lagoon traffic circle is needed nor is "art in park" or a gazebo. Parking and Traffic: Double "nose in" parking - the spaces facing playing fields prevent lake view but also prevent parallel parking parties. A NY State Research group suggested that this type of parking is more dangerous to pedestrains and other cars than parallel parking. Narrowing road and inserting a bikeway will jeopardize bikers, given park users customary use of park road. r crerAud I. ex is rt.' 2. cJih1 i9re)19 (12 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS on the DRAFT VERSION of the STEWART PARK DESIGN PLAN MANUAL I. General Issues Concerning the Design Plan 1. Process for the Implementation of Design Plan Manual Citizen Concerns Concern was consistently expressed to clarify the distinction between a design guideline or suggestion and a specific design detail or planning recommendation. This led to concern regarding whether the approval of the Design Plan "in concept only" also meant details would be approved "in concept". In aidition„ long.range planning,implementation and overseeing of the Design Plan was expressed as a major concern. Response to Citizen Concerns -The manual will clearly distinguish what this design development plan intends to provide in Chapter One:How to Use the Manual to Guide Maintenance: Preservation and Restoration in Stewart Park. -The manual will propose a model for park decision-making. in Chapter One including the creation of a Park Commission to undertake and review specific design proposals for the park concerning buildings. structures,and elements,of the built environment. This COrafaiSSiOn would ensure that alterations and new construction proceed in a manner harmonious with the buildinF,structure or object as well as the overall park surroundings. - The manual will be restructured to remove illustrations and VisUei ima.ges of details to the Appendix of the report. In so doing the manual will clearly separate planning guidelines which would be adopted in this report from illustrative details. which would be undertaken by experts in the future and are not intended In be a.clopted. 5cpet4Alt. app€4d . 2. Level of Detail in the Park Plan Citizen Concerns Concern regarding The the level of detail of this design development plan and that it appears overdeveloped and overdesiFnRd vas expressed. Response to Citizen Concerns -The Design Plan will ensure that the multiple use of spaces is preserved in the park. It should be simplified in response to citizens concerns about its overdeveloped or overdesigned appearance. Specific recommendations are listed in the discussion of areas which follow in Part II. -The Manual will t emphasis to guidelines for preservation,deign and development as opposed to illustrating detail images 3. Preservation Terminology Citizen Concerns Concern regarding clarity of preservation terminology as it pertains to structures, objects and sites was expressed. The need to define the different approaches or combinations of approaches as they apply to the plan and be more specific about what is meant by conservation,stabilization, restoration and rehabilitation 7W expressed. The attitude that too many 'preconceived notions'about preservation and restoration were provided in the details vas consistently pointed out Concern regarding the absence of cost accounting for rehabilitation/preservation projects a •sociated with park structures was expressed. 'Response to Citizen Concerns -The Design Plan Manual will advise the client of what options are available for preservation in Chapter Four and of details which facilitate proper rehabilitation of the park's historic structures and surrounding landscapes -Consultation from ILPC and Historic Ithaca will guide the development of guidelines for the preservation of perk structures. v)Gir i -Design details will appear as illustrative views in the Appendix or the manual and Chapter Four will focus in-depth on Proposed Guidelines for Preservation and New Construction in the park. -The concept of stabilization will be addressed in Chapter Four. -The manual will include specifications and cost accounting.for the • rehabilitationlpreseration projects associated with park structures if they are provided by an appropriate expert in the field. 4_ Compatibility of Design Details as related to: 1_ nay construction; 2_ alteration of existing buildings; 3. the introduction of ney elements Citizen Concerns Addressing rl of Ft1 t i!i y design details was a concern expressed particularly lyarly in relation to the following items: 1.Size and scale of decking on boathouse; 2.Function and visual compatibility_of overlook structure_ i(1 lagoon pavilion;ilion; J.Size:scale, and materials of paved stepped courtyard between dance and picnic pavilion; •igkeshei, hot- 4.Design considerations for the construction of the pergola; ,j act 41 5. Vidth of municipal pier; 6. Introduction of seawalls; daad, 7.Type and style of park furniture,light standards,fencing and signage: b.ad-Afitl S.Size,scale and form of the park entry gates and the bird sanctuary gate; 0144a4/ze, 9. Style of new play equipment. Mose ek$4014.7 a,t Response to Citizen Concerns -The manual will provide more in-depth guideline: for the selection of bark details. signs, lighting:park benches and discuss them in light of historic compatibility and maintenance recommendations. (Chapter Four) -The need for a coordinated design detail program which would consider and recommend a.uniform.:appropriate signage:lighting, park benches: and gates will be a Stage One activity recommended in the manual. 5. Park Maintenance oviryudiet e01411Aik■-• Citizens Concerns Continual concern regarding the issue,of maintenance and the definition of maintenance as it pertains to this manual 77;32.expressed. The focus on avpropria.te maintenance procedures as a Stage One activity was expressed. 'Response to Citizens Concerns -The Manual will bropose a.model for park decision-making in Chapter One which will address the development of maintenance schedules as a Stage One activity to be carried out by a Park Manager. - The Manual will emphasize maintenance and phasing recommendations in Chapter Four.Stage One proposals: while not constituting maintenance schedules.. t:e used to generate maintenance schedules and minor short-term park improvements. -The Manual Will emphasize guidelines in Chapter Four which will facilitate maintenance decisions. 6_ Roadvay and Parking Facilities &az Afr cteeidc • 4,iddres pe)beei-nS (fey- filletzt.._.) Citizen's Concerns There is a consensus among the comments received that the roadway as proposed in the plan is too narrow and that the perpendicular parking areas are less cnnyenient and perhaps more dangerous than the current parallel parking configura.tion. Concern has also been expressed for the safety of-pedestrians and cyclists if the road is narrowed considerably. Response to Citizen Concerns • 741-a4,416,4 PPS -The road must.,at some time,be repaired. At that time the road vidt.ly•and alignment viii be regularized at a total vidth of 26 on the tvo-va.1,7 portion.A 22' driving area with a 4' designated bike route linking the park entrance and the South Glade link to the City Bikevay is recommended. -The one-vay loop road viii be designated as an 18'vide road vithout a designated bike route because of safety considerations. -It is the opinion of Trovbridge-Trovibridge that the existing roadvay configuration iz not optimal. The telephone survey conducted by the firm revealed that the roadvay, in its current condition,is problematic due to a number of issues. 7. Planting Citizen's Concerns 1401 1'7 fro 144u4k. — -Some concern regarding the quantity of plantings vas expressed. Desire for planting schedule,detailed planting plan and detailed maintenance schedule yes expressed. Response to Citizen Concerns - The manual vill emphasize the need to develop and implement a planting and plant maintenance schedule in Stage One and outline how the schedule can follow the design development plan by using its designated species selections and plant massings. -The manual vfill recommend the appointment of a city forester/park manager to oversee planting and plant maintenance in the park. 8_ Public restrooms Citizen Concern Upgraded restroom facilities should be a priority. Response to Citizen Concerns. -The manual vill emphasize restroom development in the rehabilitation of the boa.thouse and picnic pavilion. - The manual will emphasize restroom rehabilitation and design as a Stage One actiI.Tity. IL Specific Design Issues by Area Section 1: Cascadilla Boathouse and Pond • Citizen's Concerns -A concern that the proposed decking is too large and out of scale with the historic character of building was expressed -Concern that increased intensity of use of the boathouse may be in conflict with the enhancement of the wildlife habitat in the pond was expressed. -Proposals to recontour and replant the Wildlife Pond: selectively remove and replant vegetation between lake edge and pond. and restore ath�.Ia' around pond are being met.with caution by Certain citizens who suggest that an ecologist be involved ed in the design process. -Proposed l floating bridge to the wildlife island and overlook pavilion are of concern. Response to Citizen Concerns - Interior and exterior boathouse restoration will be conducted under the supervision of a qualified preservation consultant. -Restoring the boathouse and the wildlife pond to their optimum and historic uses and conditions should not be a conflict of uses. - When the wildlife pond is improved it will be done so with the advice of an ecologist/naturalist or a trained park manager/urban forester. -Overlook pavilion and bridge to island are Phase Three developments which will be decided upon by the Council under the recommendation of the Part Commission and proposed park manager. Section 2 - Fall Creek Shoreline Citizen Concerns A concern that only a.section of the exist=gav'ions are recommended to be removed from Fall Creeks expressed. Concern that plantings along the regraded shoreline would obstruct views were expressed. Response to Citizen Concerns -The manual will propose that when the road is reconstructed the amount of gabions to be removed will be determined by the Park Commission. -The manual will clearly express that planting along the water':"''• edge is not intended to occur a?ong the entire length and that proper pruning and management is critical to ensuring that views and water accessibility is not obstructed. Section 3 - Fishing Lagoon Citizen Concerns Concern that the lagoon is overdeveloped was expressed. It was felt that overdevelopment was inconsistent with preservation of lagoon fOr fish and wildlife habitat. Concern that the lagoon'structure was too large and overwhelming way. expressed and that design 7I.73s not compatible with other park structures .ns expressed. Fishing piers are seen as an unnecessary feature and additional maintenance burden. Response to Citizen Concerns 1.Remove fishing decks from the lagoon. 2.Remove "image"of lagoon pavilion to Appendix and provide guidelines for New Park Structures in Chapter Four. 3, Recommend design of pavilion by architect overseen by Park Commission. Provide more in-depth information on the impoundment structure proposed for the lagoon. Section 4 - Vest Field Citizen_ Concerns Concern that the Vest Field is programmed with too many bbq and picnic areas was expressed. Furthermore concern that recreation was being displaced from this area was expressed. Response to citizen Concerns - The number of picnic tables and bbq's in the Vest Field will be reduced and the recommendation that determinations of numbers of picnic tables and bbq's be carried out by the park managerin future planning will be made. -The plan, which proposes an open space in both the East and Vest field is intended to provide flexible space for sports activities by any group who so chooses to use them for that purpose. Section 5 - Playground and Tea Pavilion Citizen Concerns -Concern is expressed about the scale and form of fence around carousel 7,1Z12 ex ,ressed. -Concern regarding "imaginative"play equipment as being too extravagant and a low priority item was expressed. -Concern was expressed about the paving around the tea pavilion. Response to Citizen. Concerns -The manual will remove the image of the carousel fence and will errithazize guidelines for fence details and play equipment in Chapter Four.. Proposed Preservation and New Furnishing Guidelines. -Restoration of the Tea Pavilion involves rehabilitation of the landsca.pe in 7-1-ii,oh tt I;uideliriPs for building and site restora.tion will be provided in Chap 4.er tour and will be overseen by the Park Commission. Section 6 - Park Pavilion Complex and Pier 6 , • • Citizen concerns -Concern regarding the 'stepped courtyard as an obstacle and overly complex were expressed. -Concern regarding the compatibility and appropriateness of design details i.e.. the pergola,lightly paying in the courtyard was expressed. - The need to prioritize bathroom concessions and discuss concession relocation we expressed. - Defining 'preservation'in this area was consistently commented on. -A range or positive, negative and ambivalent feelings about the perp-ole.17;32 expressed. -Concern regarding the safety of the pier was expressed,its width,form and design details. Response to Citizen Concerns -The manual will relocate detail images to the Appendix and emphasize guidelines for Preservation in Chapter Four. - Bollards will be removed from images and recommendations. - Stabilixation,preservation,rehabilition,and reconstruction of the pavilion:and their site will be discussed in-depth in Chapter Four. -The manual will emphasize Design Guidelines for details as related to both site and building.improvements in this area. (Chapter Four) - The manual will emphasize the role of a preservation expert, Park COMilliSZiOn in reviewing detailed design of this area. - Vith regards to the pier: 1.the manual will remove images of pier to the Appendix: 2.bollards will be removed from pier; 3. the manual will recommend railings on pier; 4. the manual will emphasize design guidelines for the pier in Chapter Four. Section 7 - Mayor Stevart Memorial Horticultural Area Citizen Concerns Concern regarding the scale and maintenance of the Memorial Garden was expressed. Response to Citizen. Concerns -The manual will emphasize community sponsorship and maintenance of this area.as veil as phasing over time to safeguard increased maintenance. Section 8 - East Field and Stevan Park Entrance Ciatevay(Areas S,. T. U) 7 Citizen's Concerns Concern vas expressed about size.scale and thrm of the proposed entrance gatevay. Response to Citizen Concerns - The manual viii remove image of gatewa'to the Appendix. Chapter The manual':4iil emphasize Design Guidelines for park entry gale in Chapter Four. aa. Section 9 - Northeast Lakeshore, Jetty, and Tennis Courts(Areas V. V) Citizens expressed a question about the relocation of the tennis courts into this area. Ressonse to Citizens Concerns Reconstruction of the tennis court will be dependant on the approval of the Park Commission and Common Council in Stage Three. 3 • /" LA_ TROWBRIDGE • TROWBRIDGE ASLA e r I (�J (� Environmental Designers,Landscape Planners ! L5 _ and Landscape Architects JUN 1 61967 3 ENT OF June 15. 1987 ',..iL,� 4 LOPMENT MEMO: To: Members of S.P.A.G. Citizens to Save Stewart Park and others who are reviewing the Stewart Park Design Plan Manual Attached please find the draft copy of the Appendix for the Stewart Park Design Plan Manual which includes Phasing Recommendations and the Cost Estimate. In order to prepare the manual for the scheduled July 9th S.P.A.G. meeting we request that all comments concerning the Stewart Park plan and - manual be submitted to our office by Friday June 26, at 5:00 p.m.. If you have any questions concerning the manual and plan please do not hesitate to call our office • 277-1400. Sincerely, pwk, . Peter Trowbridge Principal • 1345 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca,New York 14850 607 277.1400 - • Aunendix Stewart Park Design Plan Manual Phasing Recommendations Phasing Recommendations Phasing of Park Improvements As outlined in the Park Design Plan, the proposed Stewart Park improvements fall into 3 phasing categories: 1. Stage One: 0-2 year period 2. Stage Two: 2-5 year period 3_ Stage Three: long range over next 5-8 year period There are both high and low priority concerns in each of the above stages. In addition, certain specific improvements are directly tied to other improvements to ensure the success and efficient functioning of such improvements. This situation makes it difficult to definitively separate them or suggest that they occur in a linear fashion. For the purposes of this report phasing recommendations have been divided into sections A-W, corresponding with the sections throughout the manual. Many of the improvements in Stage One fit into the annual operating budget allocated for the the park's maintenance. Capital projects such as architectural restoration fall into Stage Two. These will inevitably require combined park and outside funding to fulfill the design intentions. Stage Three involves low priority park amenities. Park-Wide Infrastructure Improvements Large scale improvements are directly tied to the park infrastructure, underground utilities, lighting and road system. It is important that all park improvements be done in a logical construction sequence, so as not to disrupt improvements undertaken later. For example, new underground utilities should be installed prior to installing new lawns and plantings. Therefore it is paramount that the road reconstruction and park utilities be considered at the front end of park improvements. In the attached Phasing Matrix, infrastructure improvements which occur throughout the park, are separated into a single category. Summary of Park Improvements Outlined in Phasing Matrix In summary, the following improvements fall into the three stages of recommended development. 1_ Stage One Improvements To begin immediately and take place in the next two years Rehabilitation of Utilities Storm drainage should be coordinated with road construction and sewer and electrical services with planned architectural renovation and construction. Roadway improvements- Road realignment., drainage and the redistributing of parking spaces should be directly tied to improvements as they are carried on in the park. Demolition and Removal of existing asphalt and incompatible building structures. Vegetation Restructuring Wildlife Pond, Memorial Garden, South Glade and Lagoon Shoreline Improvements Includes regrading Fall Creek, Lagoon and lake shores; restoration of existing Cayuga shoreline riprap; installation of new riprap; establishing vegetation on existing gabions; removal of concrete ramp north of Main Pavilion Complex; regrading of lake shoreline north of Main Pavilion Complex; recontouring of Lagoon and Wildlife Pond Lagoon dredging. Path improvements South Glade, Wildlife Pond, Fall Creek and Memorial Garden Improved Waterfront accessibility rowing dock on Fall Creek, small craft dock on lagoon Redistribution and addition of picnic tables, benches and barbeques Park Entrance Gateway Relocate Active Recreation Factilities Move softball to the eastern end of the park, and relocate tennis courts and active recreation from western end of park Relocation of Play equipment Development of Building Restoration Plans Boathouse, Main Pavilion Complex, Tea Pavilion Fund Raising for Park Building Restoration 2_ Stage Two Improvements To be undertaken in the next 2-5 year period The restoration, rehabilitation and programming of the main park structures is a priority concern in Stage Two Improvements. Cascadilla Boathouse - structural and foundation rehabilitation - exterior decking and facade renovations - interior restoration and redevelopment Main Pavilion Complex - restoration of dance pavilion - restoration of picnic pavilion Relocate Playground Spray Pool Contract with architect to design Lagoon Pavilion Install Mayor Stewart Memorial Garden and Paths 3_ Stage Three Improvements To take place in the next 5-8 year period The addition of new park structures and spaces are among long term improvements including the following: Restoration of Tea Pavilion Lagoon Pavilion Relocated tennis courts Animated Play Structures Central Courtyard Space of Main Pavilion Complex Overlook Pavilion Municipal Pier Phasing Matrix PHASING MATRIX Stage One: 0-2 years Stage Tvo: 2-5 years Stage Three: 5-8 years OVERALL PARK IMPROVEMENTS Stage One ROADWAY AND UTILITIES THE ROADWAY REDEVELOPMENT COULD TAKE PLACE IN TWO STAGES. USING THE FLAGPOLE AS A MID-POINT, REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WE STERN ROAD AND LOOP ARE A HIGH PRIORITY AND SHOULD TAKE PLACE IMMEDIATELY. THIS WILL ALLOW FOR THE STABILIZATION OF THE FALL CREEK SHORELINE. THE ROAD LENGTH EAST OF THE FLAGPOLE COULD BE UNDERTAKEN IN A SECOND PHASE. A. REMOVE EXISTING ROADWAY AND AND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM AS REQUIRED B. BURY ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES C. INSTALL NEW STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM D. INSTALL UNDERGROUND CONDUIT FOR NEW STREET LIGHTING E. CONSTRUCT ROADWAY AND PARKING AREAS F. IN STALL NEW LIGHTING STANDARD S ALONG PARK ROADWAY. G. INSTALL NEW PARK SIGNAGE ASSOCIATED WITH ROADWAY. AREA A Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three A. REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT ON A. INSTALL PREFABRICATED A. ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF EAST AND SOUTH SIDE OF CASCADILLA 120' WIDE ROWING DOCK BOATHOUSE BOATHOT_T SE ON FALL CREEK B. REMOVE PARK STORAGE NEEDS B, RESTORE EXTERIOR FROM BOATHOUSE AND RELOCATE OF BOATHOUSE AND CONSTRUCT TO LAKE STREET D.P.W.. NEW DECKING ON NORTH SIDE. C. RESEED AND VEGETATE THE AREAS WHERE ASPHALT HAS BEEN REMOVED. C. REHABILITATE INTERIOR REMOVE VEGETATION AS REQUIRED OF BOATHOUSE ON FALL CREEK TO ENABLE NEW RIPRAP AND ROWING DOCK D. CONSTRUCT EXTERIOR WALKS AND ENTRY TO BOATHOUSE. D. INSTALL RIPRAP AND BULKHEAD ON FALL CREEK SHORELINE E. CONTRACT WITH A PRESERVATION ARCHITECT TO REVIEW BOATHOUSE RENOVATION F. UNDERTAKE FUNDRAISING FOR BOATHOUSE EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR RESTORATION AND RENOVATION AREA B Stage Oie Stage Tvo Stage Three A. REMOVE FENCE FROM AROUND A. BUILD OVERLOOK PAVILION A. CONTINUE TO ESTABLISH VEGETATION DUCK POND B. DEVELOP INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE ON B. REMOVE SWANS FROM PARK B. CONTINUE TO ESTABLISH AND WALKWAY MANAGE VEGETATION C. REGRADE POND SHORELINE AND CREATE ISLAND WITH SUBMERGED C. CONSTRUCT NEW FOOTBRIDGE EARTHEN DAM TO ISLAND D. SELECTIVELY CLEAR DETERIORATED D. INSTALL NEW BENCHES VEGETATION FROM SHORELINE E. DEVELOP WALKWAY AROUND POND E. ESTABLISH VEGETATION ON INSIDE EDGE OF POND F. BEGIRT TO REPAIR AND INSTALL RIPRAP ON LAKE SHORELINE AREA C Stage Oae Stage Tvo Stage Three A. REMOVE GABIONS ALONG A. CONSTRUCT NEW PATH ALONG UPPER SHORELINE TO ACCOMODATE SLOPE AND INSTALL BENCHES NEW GRADING B. RELOCATE ROAD BACK FROM WATER'S EDGE TO ACCOMODATE B. MAINTAIN SLOPE WITH MOWING NEW GRADING PROGRAM C. REGRADE SHORELINE AND INSTALL C. MAINTAIN PURPLE OSIER WILLOW RIPRAP AT TOE WITH PERIODIC PRUNING D.REVEGETATE WATER'S EDGE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLANTING AREA D Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three A. CONTRACT WITH ARCHITECT TO A.UNDERTAKE DEVELOPMENT OF LAGOON TO DESIGN LAGOON PAVILION TO PAVILION AND BOAT DOCKS ACCOMODATE RE STROOM S AND B OAT RENTAL AREA E Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three A. REGRADE SHORELINE ALONG FALL CREEK B. ESTABLISH VEGETATION ALONG FALL CREEK: INSTALL TOPSOIL ON EXISTING GAB IONS AND PLANTWITH SHRUB AND GRASS SPECIES C.DEVELOP FOOTPATH AROUND SOUTH GLADE D. INSTALL ADDITIONAL BENCH/S E. ESTABLISH VEGETATION IN SOUTH GLADE AREA F Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three A. CONSULT WITH NYSDEC REGI.RDING INSTALL IMPOUNDMENT STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT OF FISH HABITAT IN TO MAINTAIN WATER LEVEL IN LAGOON POND FOR ICE-SKATING, AND TO ENCOURAGE FISH HABITAT B. DREDGE LAGOON AREA G Stage Stage Tvo Stage Three A. REGRADE SHORELINE USING A.IN STALL NEW BENCHES FILL FROM DREDGING AND PICNIC TABLES B. ESTABLISH VEGETATION ALONG LAGOON EDGE C. DEVELOP BEACH AREA ALONG LAGOON EDGE AREA H Stage Owe Stage Two Stage Three A. RECONSTRUCT ROADWAY AND A. CONSTRUCT FISHING DECKS C. INSTALL INTERPRETIVE DIAGONAL PARKING SIGNS B. PLANT NEW VEGETATION B. IMPLEMENT "ART IN D. CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL ALONG LAGOON IN THE PARK" PROGRAM FISHING DECKS BASED ON COMMUNITY DESIRE C. INSTALL BENCHES D. ORGANIZE COMMUNITY ART IN THE PARK PROJECT AREA I Stage Owe Stage Tvo Stage Three A. REMOVE RIP RAP SHORE AND A. ON-GOING MAINTENANCE OF REUSE IN OTHER AREAS OF THE SHORELINE PARK B. REGRADE THE SLOPE TO THE WATER TO CREATE A PEBBLE BEACHFRONT C. INSTALL NEW PICNIC TABLES, BENCHES, SWINGS AND BBQ'S AREA J Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three A. REMOVE TENNIS COURTS FROM A. INSTALL BBQ'S AND AREA J AND RESEED WITH GRASS PICNIC TABLES IN AREA B. REMOVE BASEBALL BACKSTOP FROM AREA J 1:2,1. REMOVE PARKING FROM THE "BEND IN THE ROAD' D. UNDERTAKE PLANTING OF NEW SPECIMEN TREES AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE WEST FIELD E. BEGIN INSTALLING PICNIC TABLES AND BBQ'S AREA K Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three A. FILL SHORELINE TO REPLACE A. ADD NEW PICNIC TABLES, BBQ'S FILL WHICH HAS BEEN ERODED, REBUILD RIPRAP B. CONSTRUCT OVERLOOK INCLLTDING NEW BATTERED WALL WITH BENCHES AND BOLLARDS AREAL Stage Ore Stage Tvo Stage Three A. CONTRACT WITH A PRESERVATION A. CREATE WALKWAY BETWEEN A. RE STORCE HISTORIC ARCHITECT TO DEVELOP RESTORATION TEA PAVILION AND PLAIN DETAILS TO TEA PAVILION PLANS FOR THE PAVILION COMPLEX TEA PAVILION B. INSTALL BENCHES AND LIGHTING ALONG WALKWAY CONNECTING TEA PAVILION TO MAIN PAVILPON COMPLEX AREA II Stage Ole Stage Tvo Stage Three A. RELOCATE PLAY EQUIPMENT A. RECONSTRUCT AND RELOCATE A. AUGMENT PLAY EQUIPMENT WITH TO OPEN LIP EAST-WEST SPRAY POOL LARGE SCALE PLAY STRUCTURE ON CONNECTION IN PARK SOUTH END OF PLAY AREA B. IN STALL AND MAINTAIN WOODCHIP S B. ADD NEW B B Q'S AND BENCHES B. IN STALL NEW DECORATIVE FENCE AROUND EQUIPMENT AROUND PERIMETER OF PLAY AREA AROUND CAROUSEL C. REMOVE SHEDS D. ELIMINATE ALL EQUIPMENT NOT CONSISTENT WITH ESTABLISHED TYPOLOGY • AREA N Stage One I Stage Two Stage Three A. REMOVE ASPHALT FROM A. RENOVATE A. CONSTRUCT CENTRAL BETWEEN PAVILIONS DANCE PAVILION AND PICNIC COURTYARD AND PERGOLA PAVILION TO MAKE B. RESEED AND VEGETATE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE AREA BETWEEN PAVILIONS C. REMOVE MAINTENANCE FUNCTIONS FROM DANCE PAVILION B DEVELOP CON STRUCTION AND RELOCATE TO LAKE STREET DOCUMENTS FOR CENTRAL DPW. MAINTAIN A SMALL STORAGE COURTYARD AREA ASSOCIATED WITH THE PAVILION COMPLEX D. CONTRACT WITH A PRESERVATION ARCHITECT TO REVIEW DANCE PAVILION AND PICNIC PAVILION RESTORATION E. UNDERTAKE FUNDRAISING EFFORT FOR PAVILION COMPLEX RESTORATION AREA 0 Stage One Stage Tyro Stage Three A. REMOVE CONCRETE RAMP FROM SHORELINE B. REGRADE SHORELINE TO CREATE GRASS SLOPE WITH RIPRAP INSTALLED AT TOE C. INSTALL WATERFRONT RETAINING AND SEAT WALL AREA P Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three A. DEVELOP CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL PIER. B. CONSTRUCT MUNICIPAL PIER AREA Q Stage Ole Stage Tvo Stage Three A. REMOVE DIAGONAL ROADWAY A. INSTALL PEDESTRIAN PATH A. COMPLETE MEMORIAL GARDEN LEADING TO MAIN PAVILION SYSTEM AND DEDICATE RESTORATION CONPLEX A. INSTALL FORMAL GARDEN AND B. REMOVE MANICURED HEDGES ASSOCIATED PATHS WITH COMMUNITY TO OPEN UP SPACE SPONSORSHIP- RELOCATE AND INCORPORATE ROSE GARDEN TO THIS C. BEGIN TO ESTABLISH NEW AREA VEGETATION B. INSTALL ADDITIONAL BENCHES, D. INSTALL BENCHES SIGNAGE AREA R Stage Oie Stage Tvo Stage Three A. RELOCATE PATH AND ENTRY A. CONSTRUCT SANCTUARY GATE TO FUERTES BIRD SANCTUARY B. REVEGETATE SHORELINE ALONG DRAINAGE WAY AREA S Stage Ole Stage Tvo Stage Three A. RELOCATE BACKSTOP TO A. INSTALL NEW PICNIC TABLES AREAS AND BENCHES B. ADD PICNIC TABLES ALONG NORTH SIDE OF SPACE AND INSTALL BBQ'S C. BEGIN TREE PLANTING ALONG EDGE OF SPACE AREA T Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three A. INSTALL FENCE ALONG A. REMOVE POSE GARDEN RAILWAY P.O.W. FOR SAFETY AND RELOCATE TO AREA Q AND TO INSURE A SINGLE PEDESTRIAN RAIL CROSSING B. CONTINUE MOWING MAINTENANCE PROGRAM INSIDE OF FENCE AREA U Stage One Stage Two Stage "Three A. RECONSTRUCT ROADWAY TO CREATE NEW GREEN ROAD MEDIAN AT PARK EtnITRANCE B. CONSTRUCT NEW GATEWAY ENTRANCE TO S'TEWART PARK WITH DROP OFF C. INSTALL NEW TREE PLANTING AT ENTRANCE AND ALONG ROUTE 13 ENTRY RAMP AREA V Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three A. RESTORE RIPRAP TO UPGRADE A. INSTALL NEW TENNIS COURTS CURRENT ERODED CONDITION B. INSTALL NEW FILL ALONG SHORELINE IN COMBINATION WITH RIPRAP C. DEVELOP SHORELINE JETTY IN COMBINATION WITH SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS- RIPPAP EDGE D. ADD PICNIC TABLES AND BARBEQUES 'ID THIS AREA E. INSTALL NEW TREES AREA W stage Oie Stage Tye stage Three Cost Estimate • COST ESTIMATE STEWART PARK DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1987 Preliminary Draft The Cost Estimate outlined baby is divided into sections that correspond to the sections of the Park as they are described in the Manual. All site-york improvements are included. Renovation and restoration of existing park buildings is not included in the cost estimate. Architectural restoration costs will need to be generated based on final restoration plans. All costs are 1987 costs and gill need to be adjusted for inflation on an annual basis. Cost Estimate Summary Area A:Cescadilla Boathouse and Roving Docks 378,281.00 Area B:Wildlife Pond and Overlook Pavilion 102,028.00 Area C:Fall Creek Shoreline 62,192.00 Area D:Lagoon Pavilion 198,651.00 Area E: South Glade 32,890.00 Area F:Lagoon 93,437.00 Area G:Lagoon Shoreline 12,450.00 Area H:Art in the Park 53,099.00 Area I:Beach!Lakre Shoreline 18,687.00 Area 3:West Field 76,935.00 Area K:Lake Shoreline 108,175.00 Area L:Tea Pavilion 23,885.00 Area M:Playground 85,940.00 Area N:Central Pavilion Courtyard 557,623.00 Area 0:Lake Shoreline 85,686.00 Area P:Municipal Pier 481,620.00 Area Q:Mayor Stewart Memorial Garden 86,204.00 Area P:Fuuertes Gate-Lagoon Edge 7,521.00 Area S:East Field 64,400.00 Area.T:Railway Fence 74,750.00 Area U:Park Entrance 34,619.00 Area V: Lake Shoreline 109,774.00 Area W:Tennis Courts 31,809.00 Area X:Parkvide Roadvay,Parking and Storm-Water System 1,116 613.00 Total $3,897,269.00 Area A:The proposed costs for Area A include the entry court to the Cascadilla Boathouse,the proposed Boathouse deck that overlooks the Wildlife Pond,the roving dock for the cascadilla Boat Club,and general landscaping and shoreline stabilization. Restoration of the Boathouse strucutte itself is not included in the estima . Area A Cascadilla Boathouse and Roving Docks along Fall Creek Est. Quart. Unit Cost Total 1. Roving Dock a. Prefab Dock $40,000. $50,000. $50,000. b. Core. Bulk Head- 12"x4' 135 L.F. $70.00 L.F. 9,450. c. Decking 880 S.F. 18.00 S.F 15,840. d. Rip Rap Shore Stab. 120 S.Y. 40.00 S.Y. 4,800. 2. Decking 7900 S.F. 22.00 S.F 173,800. 3. Stone Veneer Seat Walls To Frost 175 L.F. 100.00 L.F. 17,500. 4. Stone Paving For Walks 1200 S.F. 12.00 S.F. 14,400. 5. Entry Gate(Stone Columns) 2-16"x16" 980.00 Ea. 1,960. 6. Landscaping a. Seeding 8400 S.F. 350.00/1000 S.F. 2,940. b. Trees 6 300.00 1,800. c. Shrubs 30 48.00 1,440. 7. Furnishings a.. Picnic Tables 4 1,800.00 Ea. 7,200. b. Deck Furniture 20 Tables 1,200.00 per set 24,000. and chairs c. Water Fountain 1 650.00 Ea. 650. (vall mounted) 8. Paths a. 8' Stone Asphalt 120 L.F. 10.00 L.F. 1,200. b. 6' Stone Asphalt 170 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 1,360. Total $328,340.00 1596 Contingency 49,351.00 Total Area A $377,691.00 Area B Wildlife Pond and Overlook Pavilion Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Overlook Pavilion 500 S.F. 28.00 S.F. $14,000. 2. Prefab Movable Floating Dock Bridge 4'x24' $2,800 $2,800. 3. Regale Pond Edge $2,500. 4. Lake Shoreline Rip-Rap 675 S.Y. 40.00 S.Y. 27,000. 5. Landscaping a. Trees 25 300.00 Ea. 7,500. b. Shrubs 175 48.00 Ea. 8,400. c. Perennials and Grasses 2500 S.F. 7.50 S.F. 18,750. 6. Furnishings a. Benches 7 900.00 Ea. 6,300. b. Interpretive Signage 4 75.00 Ea. 300. 7. Paths a. 4' Sand 650 L.F. 1.80 L.F. 1,170. Total- ,720.00 1596 Contingency 13,308.00 Total Area B $102,028.00 Area G Fall Creel:Shoreline Est Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Grading 4,000 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. $26,000.00 2. Landscaping a. Seeding 38,000 S.F. 350.00t1000S.F. $13,300.00 b. Trees 8 300.00 Ea. 2,400.00 c. Shrubs 60 48.00 Ea. 2,880.00 3. Furnishings a. Benches 5 900.00 Ea. 4,500.00 4. Paths a. 8' Stone Asphalt 220 L.F. 10.00 L.F. 2,200.00 b. 6' Stone Asphalt 350 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 2,800.00 Total- $54,080.00 15%Contingency $ 8,112.00 Total Area C $62,192.00 Area D Lagoon Pavilion Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Lagoon Pavilion&Boat Rental a. Open Air Pavilion 3150 S.F. 35.00 S.F. 110,250.00 b. Decking 1130 S.F. 18.00 S.F. 20,340.00 c. Prefab Floating Dock 6'x65' 5,500.00 5,500.00 2. Furnishings a. Deck F lillllflu a 30 Tables 1200.rper set 36,000.00 and chairs c. Water Fountain 1 650.00 Ea. 650.00 Nall mounted) Total- $172,740.00 159 Contingency $25,911.00 Total Area D $198,651.00 • Area E South Glade Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Establish Vegetation on Existing Gabions 3500 S.F. 600.0011000 S.F. 2,100.00 2. Grading 460 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. 3,000.00 3. Landscaping a. Trees 6 300.00 1,800.00 b. Shrubs 50 48.00 2,400.00 c. Seeding 12,000 S.F. 350.00/1000 S.F. 4,200.00 4. Furnishings a. Benches 7 900.00 Ea. 6,300.00 5. Paths a. 6' Stone Asphalt 1100 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 8,800.00 Total- $28,600.00 15 96 Contingency 4,290.00 Total Area E $32,890.00 Area F Lagoon Est. Quart. Unit Cost Total 1. Dredge Lagoon 12,500 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. 81,250.00 159 contingency 12,187.00 Total 93,437.00 Area G Lagoon Shoreline Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Grade Shoreline (included in Dredging, Area F) 2. Landscaping a. Seeding 19000 S.F. 350.00r1000S.F. 6,650.00 b. Trees 12 48.00 Ea. 576.00 3. Furnishings a. Benches 2 900.00 Ea. 1,800.00 b. Picnic Tables 1 1,800.00 Ea. 1,800.00 Total- $10,826.00 15%Contingency 1,624.00 Total Area G 12,450.00 Area H Fishing Decks and Art in the Park* *(excludes purchase of sculpture) Est. Quart. Unit Cost Total 1. Fishing Platforms 4@384 S.F ea. 18.00 S.F 27,648.00 2. Landscaping a. Seeding 7,500 S.F. 350.00/1000 S.F. 2,625.00 b. Trees 5 300.00 Ea. 1,500.00 c. Shrubs 75 48.00 Ea. 3,600.00 3. Furnishings a. Benches 6 900.00 Ea. 5,400.00 b. Picnic Tables 3 1,800.00 Ea. 5,400.00 Total- $46,173.00 154 Contingency 6,926.00 Total Area H 53,099.00 Area Beach Lake Shoreline Est. Quart. Unit Cost Total 1. Beach Grading 230 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. 1,500.00 Pea Stone 350 C.Y. 3.00 C.Y. 1,050.00 2. Landscaping a. Seeding 8,000 S.F. 350.0011000 S.F. 2,800.00 3. Furnishings a. Nay Swings 2 2,000.00 4,000.00 b. Picnic Tables 3 1,800.00 5,400.00 c. BBQ 3 500.00 1,500.00 Total- $16,250.00 15%Contingency 2,437.00 Total Area I $18,687.00 Area .1 West Field Est Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Landscaping a. Trees 35 300.00 10,500.00 3. Furnishings a. Picnic Tables 28 1,800.00 50,400.00 b. BBQ 12 500.00 6,000.00 Total- $66,900.00 159 Contingency 10,035.00 Total Area J 76,935.00 Area K Lake Shoreline Est. Quan Unit Cost Total 1. Overlook Wall 155 L.F. 175.00 L.F. 27,125.00 2. Cayuga Lake Shore Stab. 733 S.Y. 40.00 S.Y. 30,000.00 (Riprap and Grading) 4. Landscaping a. Trees 2 300.00 Ea. 600.00 5. Furnishings a. Benches 4 900.00 Ea. 3,600.00 b. Picnic Tables 12 1,800.00 Ea. 21,600.00 c. B B Q 8 500.00 Ea. 4,000.00 d. Bollards 5 980.00 Ea. 4,900.00 6. Paths a. 6' Shone Asphalt 280 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 2,240.00 Total- $94,065.00 15%Contingency 14,110.00 Total Area K $108,175.00 Area L Playground Est Quen. Unit Cost Total 1. Remove and Relocate -- -- 2,500.00 Spray Pool* (includes plumbing and concrete) 2. Proposed Play Equip. a. Neer Svingset Small 1 $ 1,200. $ 1,200.00 b. Nev Slide- Small 1 $ 900. $ 900.00 c. Hey Slide-Large 1 $ 1,100. $ 1,110.00 d. Nay Sand Box 1-25' Dia. $ 500. $ 500.00 e. Hey Large Play Unit 1 $10,000. $10,000.00 3. Carousel Fence a. Concrete Wall 175 L.F. 20.00 L.F. 3,500.00 b. Aluminum Fence 175 L.F. 45.00 L.F. 7,875.00 4. Landscaping a. Trees 24 300.00 Ea. 7,200.00 b. Wood Chips 6400 S.F. 1.29 S.F. 8,256.00 5. Furnishings a. Benches 5 900.00 Ea. 4,500.00 b. Picnic Tables 14 1,800.00 Ea. 25,200.00 c. BB Q 5 500.00 Ea. 2,500.00 Total- $74,731.00 15%Contingency 11,209.00 Total Area M $85,940.00 • Area M Tea Pavilion Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Path a. 6' Stone Asphalt 200 L.F 8.00 L.F. 1,600.00 b. Concrete Pad 5" 1650 S.F. 3.80 S.F. 6,270.00 2. Furnishings a. Movable Tables 10 1,200.00 per set 12,000.00 c. Water Fountain 1 900.00 Ea. 900.00 Total- $20,770.00 15%Contingency 3,115.00 Total Area L $23,885.00 Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total Area N Central Pavilion Courtyard 1. Construct Nev Pergola 4,000 S.F. 28.00 S.F. $112,000.00 2. Concrete Retaining Walls a. 12"Wide x 5' Deep 390 L.F. 175.00 L.F. 68,250.00 3. Paving a. Concrete-5" 25,300 S.F. 3.80 S.F. 98,140.00 b. Concrete Pavers 12,350 S.F 14.00 S.F. 172,900.00 4. Concrete Steps 400 L.F. 22.50 L.F. 9,000.00 5. Furnishings a. Movable Tables and Chairs 14 1200.00rset 16,800.00 b. Bollard Light 10 980.00 Ea. 9,800.00 c. Other Lighting Total- $484,890.00 15976 Contingency 72,733.00 Total Area N $557,623.00 Area 0 Lake Shoreline Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Grading 615 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. 4,000.00 2. Stone Steps 350 L.F. 110.00 L.F. 38,500.00 3. Landscaping a. Seeding 27,000 S.F. 350.00!1000 S.F. 9,450.00 4. Furnishings a. Picnic Tables 6 1,800.00 Ea. 10,800.00 b. Concrete Bollards 12 980.00 Ea. 11,760.00 Total- 74,510.00 15%Contingency 11,176.00 Total 85,686.00 Area P Municipal Pier Est. Quan_ Unit Cost Total 1. Construct Nev Pier 300 L.F. 1335 L.F. 400,000.00 2. Furnishings a. Perri. Benches 10 900.00 9,000.00 b. Bollard Lighting 10 980.00 9,800.00 Total- $418,800.00 15%Contingency 62,820.00 Total Area P 481,620.00 Area Q Mayor Stewart Memorial Garden Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Landscaping a. Trees 39 300.00 Ea. 11,700.00 b. Shrubs 150 48.00 7,200.00 c. Perennials 1000 S.F. 7.50 S.F. 7,500.00 2. Furnishings a. Benches 18 900.00 Ea. 16,203.00 3. Paths a. 10' Stone Asphalt 1950 L.F. 12.00 L.F. 23,400.00 b. 6' Stone Asphalt 1120 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 8,960.00 Total- $74,960.00 1596 Contingency 11,244.00 Toil Area Q $86,204.00 Area R Faeroes Gate- Lagoon Edge Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Landscaping a. Trees 9 300.00 2,700.00 b. Shntbs 80 48.00 3,840.00 Total- $6,540.00 15%Contingency 981.00 Total Area R $7,521.00 Area S East Field Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Grading 230 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. 1,500.00 2. Backstop 1 2,000. Ea. 2,000.00 3. Landscaping a Seeding 30,000 S.F. 350.11000 S.F. 10,500.00 b. Trees 23 300.00 Ea. 6,900.00 4. Furnishings a. Benches 7 900.00 Ea. 6,300.00 b. Picnic Tables 16 1,800.00 Ea. 28,800.00 Total- 56,000.00 15%Contingency 8,400.00 Total Area S 64,400.00 Area T Railvay Fence Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Fence 2,600 L.F. 25.00 L.F. 65,000.00 Total- 65,000.00 15%Contingency 9,750.00 Total Area T 74,750.00 Area U Park Entrance Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Entry Gate -------- 14,000.00 2. Landscaping a. Seeding 25,000 S.F. 350.0011000 S.F. 8,750.00 b. Trees 23 300.00 Ea. 6,900.00 3. 6' Asphalt Walk 380 L.F. 6.00 L.F. 2,280.00 Total- 17,930.00 15%Contingency 2,689.00 Total Area U $34,619.00 Area 4 Lake Shoreline Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Cayuga Lake Shore Stab. 317 S.Y. 40.00 S.Y. $12,681.00 2. Grading Earth Jetty 2350 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. 15,275.00 3. Landscaping a. Trees 5 300.00 Ea. 15,00.00 4. Furnishings a. Benches 4 900.00 3,601100 b. Nev Swings 7 2,000.00 14,000.00 c. Picnic Tables 23 1,800.00 41,400.00 d. BBQ 14 500.00 7,000.00 Total- 95,456.00 1596 Contingency 14,318.00 Total Area V 109,774.00 Area W Tennis Courts Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Nev Tennis Courts 1,600 S.Y. 10.00 S.Y. 16,000.00 2. Nev Fence 480 L.F. 12.00 L.F. 5,760.00 3. Landscaping a. Seeding 2400 S.F. 350.00/1000 S.F. 840.00 b. Trees 4 300.00 Ea. 1,200.00 4. 6' Asphalt Walk 370 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 2,960.00 6. Furnishings a. Water Fountain 1 900.00 Ea. 900.00 Total- 27,660.00 15%Contingency 4,149.00 Total Area W 31,809.00 Area X ParkvideRoadvay, Parking and 31orm Water System Est Quart. Unit Cost Total 1. Demolition of Existing Road and Parking EL Asphalt Removal 232,000 S.F. 1.25 S.F. 290,000.00 b. Curb Removal 4360 L.F. 2.00 L.F. 8,720.00 2. Const. Neer Roadvay a. Hey Asphalt Roadway and Parking Areas 309,365.00 18' - 1200 L.F. 22' - 1600 L.F. 40' - 400 L.F. 44' - 700 L.F. 66' - 825 L.F. b. Neer Curbing 3,910 L.F. 22.00 L.F. 86,020.00 3. Storm Drainage a. Catch Basins 35 2,500.00 Ea. 87,500.00 b. C.I. Pipe 3500 L.F. 15.00 L.F. 52,500.00 c. Trenching 3500 L.F. 20.00 L.F. 70,000.00 4. Street Light; 25 2,600.00 Ea. 65,000.00 5. Bury Overhead Utilities -- coordinate Frith NYSEG Total- 969,105.00 15%Contingency 145,365.00 Total Area X $1,114,470.00 . . Comments on the Stewart Park Draft Design Plan JUN June, 1987 DEKR1 DE, At the June 11/87 meeting of SPAG, we were assured by Mayor Gut b N1NG& and John Dougherty that a "yes" vote on the "overall concept" of the the draft plan would still mean that each separate part of the plan would have to be decided on by Common Council and SPAG, after receiving comments from the public. Even after a "no" vote, there is nothing to stop the city from considering specific recommendations of the plan. Therefore, the difference between a yes and a no vote is more psychological than real. The people of this city have made it abundantly clear that they like L I the park just as it is, except for the bathrooms, and perhaps some sprucing up of(deteriorating buildings. This is_a real credit to the _job the DPW has__been doin_over the years. A "yes" vote, though it really would mean about the same thing as a "no" vote, would be perceived by the public as ignoring the overwhelming sentiment that the park should not be changed. Because at some point (regardless of the vote) specific recommendations are likely to be considered by Common Council, I am addressing my comments to some of these specifics. 1. Raking out the algae and litter from the wildlife pond should have a high priority, as should the removal of some gabions along Fall Creek and covering of others. Litter (bottles and plastic cups, especially) from the water's edge all over the park, and the sprucing up of current historic buildings - and their bathrooms - also should have high priority. 2. Could all the gabions be removed and replaced with plants and/or large stones (rip-rap)? (Not only are they avoided by wildlife, they have a sterile, industrial appearance not in keeping with the park.) Would covering the gabions with soil and plants really work? That is, would there be sufficient covering to protect the feet of wildlife and waterfowl? 3. It is important that, in a given area, one objective be compatible with another. For example, plans to improve the wetland habitats of the wildlife pond and lagoon areas are incompatible with some of the construction proposals in those areas. In the lagoon, construction of a pavilion with concession stand and boat rentals, and the encourage- ✓ ment of fishing, would draw large numbers of people and their trash, fishing hooks, monofilament line, etc. If we want the lagoon to be an unspoiled edge to the bird sanctuary, we should not be attempting to increase use of the area. I am opposed to encouraging more fishing in the lagoon. (There already is a lot - I counted 19 fishermen on June 14th.) Ithaca abounds in good fishing spots. Why make this an even greater attraction of the park? Fish / hooks and fishing line are a real danger to waterfowl, and tangled lines hang from a couple of trees and the overhead electric wires. Hooks aren't 2 great in bare feet either, yet wading is one use suggested for the lagoon. The benches already there should be plenty. A pavilion and little fishing docks aren't needed. Nor are bathrooms, if they'd be in both i/ the boathouse and main pavilion. As for the wildlife pond, the same comments apply. A restaurant, complete with extensive decks over the pond for people to drop their trash from, and of course large numbers of people with their noise, would be inconsistent with the aim of making the pond a small wetland wildlife preserve. The boat rentals proposed for the lagoon would more logically go in the south or west side of the boathouse. This would provide more central access to the lake, creek, and lagoon. It is, afterall, a boathouse! Making the current boathouse attractive and useable, with bathrooms and perhaps a community room, makes some sense. But I am resistant to /2/ restoring it to its former bulky and imposing state. 4. There should not be a bridge to the small island in the pond. The island would become completely trampled and littered, and made unsuitable ✓` for the wildlife it's intended for. Far better that we be able to look across the water to an unspoiled spot! 5. I would also urge caution in removal of any plants around the pond. Removal or replacement of plants should only proceed under the advice of competent naturalists. The area has had a long time for plants suited to that location to establish themselves, and the variety is quite im- pressive, including plants which provide good food for wildlife as well as nesting sites. The massive willows along the shore are beautiful, and needed. Here's a partial list of plants that I noted on a recent walk around the pond: red osier dogwood, shadbush, wild grape, Virginia creeper, several viburnum species, staghorn sumac, slippery elm, mulberry, ash, honeysuckle, willow, box elder, walnut, wild cherry, basswood, cottonwood, black locust, alder, Russian (?) olive, privet, multiflora rose, poison ivy. The variety as well as density and tangle is ideal for small birds. The DPW has shown good sense in letting nature take its course here. As �l a result, the narrow path gives one a delightful sense of walking through a jungle. 6. An overlook shelter NW of the pond could become an attraction to groups of drinkers, etc., being out of sight from the rest of the park. This could make walks around the pond unpleasant, and also make the pond itself less attractive to wildlife. In other words, I think such a shelter would be incompatible with the goals for the pond area. Views from that spot can be enjoyed just as well without a shelter. 7. Yes to proposals for the Fall Creek bank: regrading so a gentle grass slope going down to the water; shrub willows or rip-rap instead of gabions where bank stabilization is really needed; covering the current gabions if they can't be entirely removed (and if covering them would work). S. Yes to tennis court relocation. 9. Yes to new plantings along rt. 13 and the eastern edge of the park generally. And I hope around the new Youth Bureau. 3 10. Concerning the central pavilions: a. Courtyard between the buildings should be flat, not stepped. Otherwise dancing and various other suggested uses for the space would be impossible. Small kids would require constant supervision in the area, and access for the handicapped would be a problem. b. Eliminate the pergola idea. It would be a real temptation to use it as a jungle gym, and its flimsy construction fip G 4414 PI-7-7' would never hold up. Also, it's too grandiose for the relaxed atmosphere of the park. Attractive paving in the courtyard would be plenty, in terms of tying the two buildings together architecturally. c. The pier is just the sort of substantive change that the public is so adamantly opposed to. In any case, we do not need a pier and a little "battered concrete" bulge along the lake ✓") shore and a jetty at the east end. (In fact, I imagine the bulge is more appropriately named than was intended. How would it hold up in heavy weather? Same question applies to the pier and jetty.) The views from the naturally curving shore are just fine as they are, and the large stones get people down next to the water (and seem popular with all ages). d. Could the State St. bricks be used around the buildings? ✓✓ ✓ e. Rather than replacing the old north-south road to the main pavilion with plants, how about simply eliminating the connection to the main park road? Then kids could use the old road for skate-boarding, bicycling, and roller skating. 11. The many public comments that the road through the park should be wider than proposed make sense to me, in terms of safety, both for drivers and for pedestrians, joggers, bicyclers. 12.. I disagree with the report's claim that east-west circulation through the park is hampered by the present playground arrangement. But other reasons for changing the set-up, as discussed in the draft, may be valid. I would like to hear more comments from parents on this before anything was implemented. (The current set-up was not a problem when my kids were little.) 13. A conspicuous gateway leading to the bird sanctuary could attract too many people to the area. A small sign, and perhaps a barrier to prevent nonpedestrians from entering, should be the most attention we want to draw to the area. (I would prefer no sign.) o Td similar obstruc- tions to dirt bikes be placed at the other ends of the trails, to the west? An effective barrier - that can't be propped open or broken off - that I have seen in other states, looks (from above) something like this: I see no reason to move the current sanctuary entrance to the west. It's fine where it is. 4 If a fancy entranceway should end up being approved, it should not include dovecotes, as in the draft proposal! Starlings and house sparrows would quickly move in. 14. I question the wisdom of having a water impoundment structure at the west end of the lagoon. Wouldn't this be a barrier to fish and other water creatures? I do not have a clear picture of what such a structure would be like. Could you spell this out in the final draft? 1S. I would prefer keeping the DPW's current, and very attractive, signs (o•le w.vae..4 zor at the entrance to the park. The proposed entranceway seems too grand, 51~4 and not consistent with the style of the park. Also a waste of money that could be used on more substantive park improvements. I also see V no need for an elaborate pickup-dropoff structure at the entrance. A park bench at that location should be plenty. 16. Any sculptures that are placed in the park should be sturdy and �2 suitable for climbing on, as well as attractive. 17. If any changes are made around the flagpole, I hope the current stone steps will be left as they are. They have a lovely archeological-ruin sort of look to them. Considering the public's strongly expressed approval for the park as it is and their distress at the thought of substantive changes to it, any such changes should be approached cautiously, and with ample opportunity for public comment. As one person put it, the park currently has a certain rough-hewn quality that is very appealing and distinctly "Ithacan," a quality that would be lost by fancifying or suburbanizing it. Betsy Darlington, SPAG rep. from C.A.C. 273-0707 204 Fairmount Ave. P.3 . The difficulty- for each of us on SPAG is to separate cut our own desires for the park from what the people of Ithaca want. For example , from an ecological point of view, I aan favor of the proposal to remove the swans from the duck pond. But these birds are very popular, a delight to children and adults alike. Their removal would be greeted with a torrent of protest. And who knows but what some young child ' s interest in the natural world might be sparked by these birds? - ' 4 L4 '11,,:s ; S Lotr644 C L 51441 It a* !� June 26, 1987 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 'yo1 Dear Mr. Mayor, members of SPAG, Common Council and others: We welcome being asked to submit our comments on the Trowbridge Stewart Park Design Manual (draft copy) to you and attached is an evaluation of it with our recommendations. While we appreciate the care and conscientiousness with which Mr. Trowbridge and staff have prepared this Plan we feel there are too many proposals in it which would diminish the beauty and enjoyability of the park for it to be accorded blanket approval. According to planning and traffic experts whom we have consulted both locally and at Syracuse and Harvard Universities and at the U.S. Department of Transportation, the proposed roadway with perpendicular parking, represents bad engineering and could be dangerous. There are many proposals which would unnecessarily disrupt established activities at the park. For instance, it is unlikely the Duck Pond could survive as a wildlife habitat if the Trowbridge proposals are implemented. We do not see how approval of such items could be justified. We think the two enormous signs proposed for the entrance to the park exemplify pervasive characteristics of the plan: there are two when one would do; they are large — each the size of a billboard — and seem to serve as barriers; they are out of keeping with the character of the park; they perform an unnecessary function — advertising the park; they are expensive; and they would effectively hide much of what is one of the anticipatory joys in approaching the park — seeing the lovely expansive view of the lake through the willow trees. We look forward to seeing many of you again at meetings about this matter which is so close to the heart of this community. With best wishes to all of you, ` cirL r Citizens to Save Stewart Park by Doria Higgins • ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE TROWBRIDGE STEWART PARK DESIGN PLAN MANUAL (Draft Copy) Including Recommendations and Suggestions CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK June 1987 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca,N.Y. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD 1 OUR BASIC POSITION CONCERNING TROWBRIDGE DESIGN PLAN 2 INTRODUCTION 3 PART I SPECIFIC PROPOSALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS — Only selected items are dealt with and only in broad terms. Omission from list does not imply approval. Roadways 4 Restoration of Existing Buildings 5 Duck Pond and Recontouring and New Deck and Island 6 Lagoon and Lagoon Pavilion and Boat Dock and Fishing Piers 7 Plantings 8 Fall Creek Regrading 9 Fuertes Bird Sanctuary Gate 9 Waterfront Pier 10 The Waterfront Bulge 10 Playground 10 West Field Change of Usage 11 Lighting — Bollards and Street Lamps 11 Park Entrance Sign 12 PART II Lost Pleasures and Upheaval of Park Usage 13 PART III CRITICAL COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROPOSALS AS THEY APPEAR IN MANUAL 15 PART IV OVERALL RECOMMENDATION OF CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK . 21 PART V MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION 22 MAINTENANCE AND MATERIALS 22 1 FOREWORD Park Beautiful--Redesign Could Damage We appreciate being asked to submit our comments and suggestions about the Trowbridge Stewart Park Design Plan Manual. We think the park is a place of great natural beauty with an elegant simplicity of design elements -- roadways, trees, lawn -- which permit a free and easy flow of human activity and enjoyment of lake, hills and sky. Arch Mackenzie, Associate Professor of Architecture at Cornell has written about the components of the park: "It would be easy to disturb these delicate features by even a few ill-considered improvements." "Why Is It Being Redesigned?" In three months last summer over 7,000 members of the community signed our petition urging proper maintenance, preservation and restoration of the park and requesting that redesigning be stopped. Over and over again those people asked us, "Why is Stewart Park being redesigned when it doesn't need it and people like it the way it is?" • 2 BASIC POSITION OF CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK WITH REGARD TO THE TROWBRIDGE STEWART PARK DESIGN PLAN MANUAL (Draft Copy) Past Year and Common Council Over the past year we and all those who signed our petition have strongly urged and supported any plans to properly maintain, preserve and restore the park. We think Common Council recognized the wishes of the community with their December 3, 1986 Resolution which instructed that "any proposed design development should reflect as accurately as possible the expressed concern of the community to restore, preserve and maintain the character of Stewart Park." Trowbridge Plan a Redesign Plan Mr. Trowbridge paid lip service to that resolution by stating in his manual "Three fundamental principles form the basis of the 1987 Stewart Park Design Plan: MAINTENANCE, PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION." But he did not carry out that promise and instead has presented a plan in which those principles are violated by almost every item proposed. His plan is not a maintenance or preservation or restoration plan. It is dearly a redesign. plan. Overdevelopment of Park It is a plan which presents an extraordinary over-development of the park and an overwhelming proliferation of proposals. Items which we might have supported individually become by sheer numbers undesirable. For example: we do not think the parks needs, as Mr. Trowbridge proposes, 226 new trees, 620 new bushes and 3,500 square feet of perennials and ornamental grasses. And there are a number of proposals which alone and by themselves would destroy or impair or duffer beauty which is in the park. Upsets Present Usage The Trowbridge plan upsets present usage of space in the park with proposals which allocate or constrict or prohibit usage of space now freely available. His park has, to an alarming extent, lost the commodious and accommodating quality of the park we now enjoy. Serious Maintenance Problems And finally it is a plan which would present enormous maintenance problems to a park which even now is in need of proper maintenance. 3 INTRODUCTION Evaluation Not Comprehensive Our evaluation is by no means comprehensive. We have not evaluated all of the proposals presented by Mr. Trowbridge, nor have we examined all of the ramifications of those proposals which we have evaluated. We should point out that omission of a proposal from our discussion in no way implies approval of the proposal by us. Disturbing Items Chosen We have chosen for analysis those items which seem most destructive to the present good functioning and beauty of the park and from those items we have especially chosen those whose implementation is scheduled "to begin immediately." Concern About Maintenance Budget Items It is important to note that the Trowbridge Appendix says that some of these items "fit into the annual operating budget allocated for the park's maintenance." Thus if the overall Trowbridge plan is approved "in concept" these items would not need further view by either Common Council or Budget and Allocation Committee. 4 SPECIFIC PROPOSALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ROADWAYS Present Roads Fine We think the present roadway and parking system is aesthetically pleasing, efficient and elastically accommodating for special occasions such as the Ithaca Festival and July Fourth flare ceremony. It tactfully lets the hard rock, stereo set separate themselves from quieter lake watchers. It has proven itself to be safe. Trowbridge Proposals Inappropriate The Trowbridge plan of spacing intermittent parking along a narrow roadway, a principle he used in Collegetown, is not appropriate for Stewart Park. The present diffused line of parallel parking along the roadway is much less visually obtrusive and objectionable than would be the intermittent perpendicular parking areas he proposes. Will Congest Parking His plan of drastically reducing the width of the present roads -- the spacious Southern Loop to a mere 16 feet and all other roads to a mere 22 feet -- and curtailing parking only to designated spots will undoubtedly cause congestion and most especially cause congestion along the lakefront exactly where we don't want it. Along the lakefront Mr. Trowbridge proposes perpendicular parking on both sides of these narrowed roads. While there is perpendicular parking now at the lakefront it is on only one side of a spacious road and, because parking is permitted elsewhere all through the park, it doesn't congest at the lakefront. Under the Trowbridge Plan more than half of all possible parking will be at the lakefront. Such congestion is aesthetically and emotionally unpleasing. Experts Say Dangerous We have talked to a number of planning and traffic officials both locally and at Syracuse and Harvard Universities and at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Across the board these experts have said that perpendicular parking on both sides of a one way 16 foot road is bad engineering and dangerous. The Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers recommends an "aisle", a road, of 25 feet if parking is to be perpendicular. We do not see how SPAG or Common Council or this city could justify demolishing a road system which is pleasing and efficient and safe, to build another system which is inefficient and unpleasing and dangerous, and do so at expense to the taxpayer of roughly one million dollars and against their stated wishes. We hope Common Council will not do so. 5 RECOMMENDATION (Roadways) We recommend that the present roadway system in Stewart Park remain unchanged and that the Trowbridge proposals for changing this roadway be deleted from his design plan. RESTORATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS Restoration Experts Needed We appreciate Mr. Trowbridge's generosity in going beyond the obligations of his contract by submitting redesign and restoration proposals for existing building. But we think that restoration experts should be developing these plans, particularly since the buildings in the park are currently being considered for possible landmark designation by our local Landmarks Preservation Commission. Experts Should Not be Encumbered The restoration experts should be called in at the beginning of the restoration process to do the job and not, as Mr. Trowbridge proposes in the case of the Boathouse, just to review plans already made by someone who is not a preservationist. The professional conservators should not be encumbered with plans devised by non-experts in the field. Particularly they should not be encumbered with proposals to add architecturally inappropriate new additions to an historic building such as the multi-level deck extending over the duckpond which Mr. Trowbridge proposes adding to the Boathouse. For further discussion of specific proposals see pages 18-19. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that restoration and preservation of existing buildings in Stewart Park be referred to professionals of proven competence in this specialized field. Because of the deterioration of the buildings we recommend that this project be given high priority. As necessary adjunct to this recommendation we must also recommend that all Trowbridge proposals concerning new construction and renovation of existing buildings be deleted from the design proposals. 6 DUCKPOND Sounds Commendable In the manual, Mr. Trowbridge says, "Restoration of the pond to create a more ecologically suitable wildlife habitat is suggested for the deteriorated duck pond." This sounds commendable but when one examines his proposals one finds that they are more likely to destroy the pond as a suitable wildlife habitat than enhance it as such. Habitat Harmed His proposals would not only considerably decrease the size of the pond, but would also intrude upon the privacy of the bird life in the pond to an extent that would most probably destroy it as a wildlife habitat. To The North At the northern end of the pond "the extensive recontouring" proposed would add about 30 feet to the width of the earthern bulwark around the pond and thus, of course, the same amount of space would be subtracted from the pond itself-- which is almost as small now as a pond can be and still accommodate swans which are a main attraction. The proposed lake overlook pavilion at the northern section would attract more people (possibly even our noisy stereo set because of tis seclusion) and this increase in traffic of people would decrease the seclusion and quietness of the pond for birds. For further comment on the Overlook Pavilion see page 15. To the South At the southern end of the pond the proposed addition to the boathouse, a multi-level deck extending out over the pond and running along the shoreline a good 100 feet "to create a zone for walking and strolling," would intrude large numbers of people most destructively right into this "ecological habitat" and would further decrease the space now available to birds. In the Middle In the middle of the pond the proposed island, (larger than the "island" there now) would be taken from bird use and given to human use by a floating bridge thus decreasing even more land and water available to the birds. Since the island and bridge would presumably need to be fenced, as is the pond now, this proposal would also destroy the pond as a circular space for the birds. RECOMMENDATION We think the duck pond should be thoroughly dredged and cleaned and then left alone. We do not think any other of the Trowbridge duck pond proposals should be implemented because they would be destructive to the pond as a bird wildlife habitat. 7 LAGOON AND PAVILION.BOAT DOCK,FISHING PIERS Too Busy The observation which can be made about so much of the Trowbridge Plan — that it seems directed toward filling all available space with plantings, structures or designated activities -- is appropriate here as well: one feels there is no space left to breathe. Needs Cleaning That's All The Lagoon as it now exists is a serene, still, inland body of water with grassy bank outlining the water's edge with the simplicity of Chinese brushwork. It badly needs dredging and cleaning but we do not think it needs to be filled up with fishing docks and boat piers and picnickers on a pavilion which hangs over and intrudes upon the serenity of the water. We think these plans are approaching an amusement park climate which we do not think fitting for this park. The lagoon has an air of spaciousness because of tis emptiness: it is not a large enough body of water to contain all the proposed new activity without becoming unpleasantly crowded. These proposals seem artificial and contrary to the way people presently enjoy the park. Lagoon Pavilion Obstructive We think introduction of such a high structure is obstructive rather than pleasing to the eye. It will hide the lagoon from many spots. We don't think the park needs another structure that is liable to deteriorate. RECOMMENDATION We think cramming the lagoon with pavilion, docks and piers will spoil it. It's not large enough to comfortably contain all this busyness. We recommend that these proposals be deleted from the plan. We think more information as to purpose, expense and effects of the impoundment structure need to be presented before it can reasonably be voted upon. For further comments see page 16. 8 PLANTINGS AND ATTENDANT MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS Space Filled An overview of the Trowbridge Plan shows a fairly constant characteristic of both filling space and confining space. We think the extraordinary number of plants he recommends for the park exemplifies this pattern. If all these plantings are approved and planted they will considerably diminish the openness and freedom of the park. Too Many Plants His planting list includes 226 new trees (all but 12 of them costing $300.00 a piece) 620 new shrubs, 3,5000 square feet of perennials and grasses and 152,300 square feet of seeding. He also recommends for the park 183 additional tables, 75 additional benches and 42 additional barbecues. We find these numbers unreasonable. View Hidden His proposal to plant a willow bush which grows 10-15 feet tall along Fall Creek will create a vegetation barrier between the Creek and the park, and it will hide the lovely vistas up Fall Creek and across to the golf course. As one old timer at the park said when told about this: "Who wants to come to the park and look at bushes?" Maintenance Burden And how are all these plants and grasses to be properly maintained? Even now in all its elegant simplicity the park is inadequately maintained. What will happen when so much space is filled with plantings? RECOMMENDATION: Stewart Park needs a planting schedule to insure replacement of present trees as they age. We are disappointed that this was not prepared by Mr. Trowbridge. We think this replacement schedule should be in hand before other planting suggestions are approved. We do not think his planting proposals, in any event, should be approved. The number of trees and plants he proposes is so large it lacks reasonableness, and too many of his proposals would be harmful to the beauty of the park. 9 FALL CREEK REGRADING AND GABIONS We were disappointed to learn on reading the manual that only a section of the gabions will be removed. We were also disappointed to learn that the regrading of the remaining shoreline will not make the water's edge accessible to people as we had hoped. On the contrary, we learn that tall growing shrubs will be planted along the shoreline which will constitute a vegetation barrier between creek and park and which will also screen the charming vistas up Fall Creek and across to the golf course. We do not think the road should be changed and so much money spent for such poor return. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that proposals to regrade and replant Fall Creek not be implemented. FUERTES BIRD SANCTUARY GATES It is a truism among ornithologists that as casual visitors increase birds tend to leave. The Trowbridge proposals concerning the Bird Sanctuary -- the elaborate attention-seeking gate, changing the entrance to a more prominent spot, constructing paths leading to it —would all impinge on the viability of the Sanctuary as a wildlife habitat by attracting more people to it. According to the people we have spoken to at Sapsucker Woods Ornithology Laboratory, many of the birds which children and adults take such delight in feeding along the lake shore and Fall Creek are there because of the Sanctuary to which they can safely return. If the Sanctuary becomes inhospitable to the birds, due to a large influx of people, we will not only lose the birds there but also many of the birds elsewhere in the park. The architecture of the 16-17 foot high gate is not in keeping with other park buildings. And it has a contrived quality with the dovecotes on top which we find inappropriate to the dignity of this park. We see as excessive the need for 9 trees at $300.00 each and 80 shrubs near the Sanctuary. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the Trowbridge proposals concerning the Bird Sanctuary not be implemented because it would damage the Sanctuary as a wildlife habitat and would indirectly decrease bird life elsewhere in the park. 10 PIER Some of us had mixed feelings about the pier. It is a charming idea to be able to walk out such a distance over the water. However, considerations of safety reluctantly led us to vote against it. The water is not considered safe for swimming and therefore it isn't safe to fall into. Barriers high enough and sturdy enough to protect children from falling off the pier would defeat its whole purpose. A safe and attractive pier in such a situation is a contradiction in terms. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the proposal for a pier be deleted from the plan — if the pier is attractive it won't be safe, and if it is safe it won't be attractive and enjoyable. For further discussion see page 19. WATERFRONT BULGE The Bulge seems inappropriate to the lake shore — an alien intrusion upon a beautiful spot. One can now clamber on rocks and feel dose to the water with a sense of the full sweep of the shoreline. The Bulge would become a visual obstruction -- those to the east could not look westerly past it and those to the west could not look easterly past it. It would cut up the sense of space at the shoreline. RECOMMENDATION: We think the Bulge would be an unpleasant visual blockade and intrusion upon the shoreline and recommend that it not be implemented. PLAYGROUND See discussion page 17. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the playground not be reorganized, rezoned and compartmentalized. The children obviously like it as it is. We recommend that the proposals for fanciful new equipment with "moving parts animated by wind and creating sound" not be approved. While we are sure this suggestion was made in good faith it shows an unawareness of how briskly and continuously the wind can blow at times in the park. Such equipment in such an environment could be dangerous and would be disturbing to the peace and quiet of the park. We recommend that the proposed new cement wall and fence around the merry-go-round not be approved. Among other disadvantages it would screen the children riding their beautifully repainted horses. 11 REMOVAL OF BARBECUE PITS FROM PARK AND CHANGE OF WEST FIELD TO A BARBECUE FIELD We had thought the omission in the manual of mention of the permanent barbeque pits at East Field was an oversight but we have learned that Mr. Trowbridge recommends that they be permanently removed from the park and that temporary pits be set up as needed. Mr. Trowbridge conducted a survey, at city expense, which showed that the only change a majority of the people wanted in the park was better restrooms, yet he ignores his own survey and plans major changes about the way people use the park. We do not think Mr. Trowbridge should be given the right to disrupt pleasantly established customs such as the large annual barbecues the Kiwanis and other groups hold at the corner of the picnic pavilion on East Field. For such groups West Field is too from the lake (the main attraction), too far from restrooms and too far from adequate shelter in case of rain. For further comments see pages 17-18. RECOMMENDATION We recommend non approval of the Trowbridge proposal to change West Field into a barbeque area. People should decide where they want to picnic and besides this proposal would displace all the young people who now energetically use it for baseball, lacrosse, frisbee, football, soccer, kite flying,etc. We think West Field should be left as it is and the permanent barbeque pits not only left but left where they are. LIGHTING The idea of placing 37 bollard lights (which are at eye level or lower) at the pier or tennis courts (or anywhere for that matter) seems most unfortunate. They will serve the purpose for the onlooker of screening his surround from him not of increasing his area of vision. People come to the park to see its beauty not to be blinded by lights. For further discussion of bollards and street lamps see pages 19 and 23. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the bollards and street lamps not be approved. 12 PARK ENTRANCE SIGNS We think these two signs, both of billboard proportions (11 feet high by 21 feet wide), one on each side of the road, are totally out of keeping with the character and dignity of the park. These enormous signs, filling space and hiding vistas, typify much of what we see as destructive to the beauty of the Park in the Trowbridge Plan. For further comment see page 20. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that these signs not be approved. 13 LOST PLEASURES AND UPHEAVAL OF PARK USAGE Over the years certain groups and ages have claimed special places for themselves at Stewart Park. Some have held their territories for a long time, others have just settled in. These established areas of usage in many cases work not only for the good of the users but for the safety and pleasure of all. We think the Trowbridge Plan disrupts or shifts about too many of these accepted areas of usage — by either delegating a different usage to an area or by introducing additional and incompatible usages to a groups' territory. The following groups will either be displaced or if they remain their areas will be changed in some fashion by the Trowbridge Plan. Baseball, lacrosse and frisbee players Kiwanis and other large annual barbeque groups Cyclists Beep baseball players People who enjoy sitting in their cars to watch the lake Roadside stereo set Fall Creek bird feeders Ducks and swans and their watchers at the Duck Pond Birds in the Fuertes Bird Sanctuary Baseball,Lacrosse and Frisbee Players Their territory, West Field, where an uncaught hard ball is comparatively safe to bystanders, will be turned over to barbecues and picnickers if the Trowbridge Plan is implemented. The players will be assigned to East Field which is only about half as large as West Field so there won't be room for as many players as before. The Kiwanis and other and Other Large Annual Barbeque Groups The permanent barbeque pits will be removed from the park and temporary ones set up as needed. The Kiwanis and others will either (not discussed in manual) be displaced to West Field or they will share their East Field spot with all the energetic young players from West Field. Cyclists The newly narrowed roads -- only 16 feet for one way and 22 feet for two way traffic-- can scarcely be considered comfortably safe for cyclists. Where will they go? 14 Beep Baseball Players These blind athletes have found a quiet spot for themselves where they can hear the beeps on specially designed softballs. But their spot unfortunately will be turned over to the extravagant (39 trees at $300.00 each and 150 shrubs among other items) Mayor Stewart Garden. Where will the beep players go? All available space in the park is being filled with Trowbridge proposals. We suspect that Mr. Stewart who gave such a lovely gift to the community would prefer that the beep baseballers keep their field. People Who Enjoy Sitting in Their Cars to Watch the Lake If these people can still find a parking spot they can stay where they are now, but it will be invaded. Because parking will no longer be dispersed throughout the park and because more then half of all parking will now be concentrated at both sides of the narrowed lakefront road, this area will become congested and noisy -- more like a typical parking lot -- and will no longer be as pleasant a place to sit in a car and watch the lake. Roadside Stereo Kids Their territory, along the edge of the most southwesterly of park roads, and therefore comparatively isolated, will be obliterated. The spacious road will be narrowed to a mere 16 feet and parallel parking eliminated. They will probably need to move to the lakefront, since more than half of all parking is allocated there, taking their music with them. Fall Creek Duck Feeders The gabions, most of which will remain, already repel ducks form that section of Fall Creek shoreline. The remaining section will be regraded and planted with a shrub that grows 10 feet tall and which will thus hide the waterline and the ducks, and form a vegetation barrier. It doesn't seem likely Fall Creek will remain a spot from which to feed the birds. Ducks and Swans and Their Watchers at the Duck Pond There are such severe encroachments planned upon the size and privacy of the pond that it is doubtful it will survive as a wildlife habitat. Among other proposals, the island in the middle will be enlarged and taken from the birds and given to people. Birds in the Fuertes Bird Sanctuary As ornithologists will tell you, in general the more people in a bird sanctuary the less birds. The birds in this sanctuary will be effectively dispossessed if the Trowbridge proposals to attract people to the sanctuary are implemented. Fewer birds in this Sanctuary means fewer birds elsewhere in the park (see Fuertes Gate section). 15 CRITICAL COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROPOSALS AS THEY APPEAR IN THE "STEWART PARK DESIGN PLAN MANUAL" DRAFT COPY. [The comments herein presented should not be misconstrued as comprehensive nor should any subject omitted from this critique be regarded as automatically acceptable as presented.] CONCEPT PLANS 2. Architectural Facilities The assertion that "the addition of a new park structure to the south glade, called the Lagoon Pavilion is the only new structure proposed in the park" is false. The extensive decking around the existing boathouse, the pavilion along the path around the duck pond, the proposed steel pergola and lattice pavilion between the existing dance and picnic pavilions, the lake pier, the gate to the bird sanctuary and the gate to the park are all major new structures being proposed for Stewart Park. DETAIL A-2 Boathouse Deck Overlooking Wildlife Pond Programatic motives for this decking are at best unclear. As proposed, it diminishes the architectural integrity of the boathouse, threatens the viability of the duck pond as a wildlife habitat, and duplicates the existing more appropriately scaled function of the existing duck pond overlook. This deck would be a significant addition to the general maintenance requirements of the park. DETAIL B-1 Wildlife Pond, Island and Floating Bridge The proposal for a floating bridge connecting a central island to the circumference path about the duckpond may subvert the stated intention for the duck pond to attract and harbour wildlife. DETAIL B-2 Overlook Pavilion This proposed pavilion would create a focus and an obstruction in an otherwise serene context. Its remote location might encourage mischievous or vandalous behavior and it would constitute yet another maintenance obligation. 16 DETAIL C-2 Regraded Shoreline of Fall Creek Details A and B of regraded Fall Creek shore suggest a proposed shoreline circumstance which would be inaccessible as a result of regrading and planting. DETAIL D-1 Lagoon Pavilion This proposed structure is architecturally incompatible with other existing architecture in the park. It constitutes yet one more new maintenance concern and may serve in conjunction with other alterations to the lagoon to diminish the unique and serene character of the lagoon. DETAIL G-1 Fishing Docks These docks are unnecessary intrusions into the lagoon. They too represent additional maintenance obligations and they would serve as needless subversions of the integrity of the lagoon. DETAIL H-1 Beach Shore This regrading of a portion of the lagoon in conjunction with lagoon pavilion, boat dock, paddle boat rentals and fishing platforms would in essence destroy the lagoon as a unified entity restricting its potential for multiple use and interpretation, prescribing or preordaining use according to a new less commodious conception. SECTION 5 Playground and Tea Pavilion The path of asphalt proposed to surround the tea pavilion is unnecessary and subverts this pavilion's existing adrift quality within the park's expansive lawn. The proposed additional benches and barbeques in this part of the park are far too numerous. 17 DETAIL K-1 Overlook Wall This battered concrete "seawall" is an alien intrusion in the Stewart Park lake shore continuum. The proposed bollards are likewise aliens resembling a regiment of androids along the water's edge. AREA M Playground Concept Diagram This proposal for the reorganization of the existing playground would involve considerable disruption and expense. The resultant reorganization would achieve the sort of zoning and comparmentalization which tends to trouble this entire park redesign. The existing play equipment and the existing layout with proper maintenance are perfectly suitable. AREA M Typology of Play Equipment • Play equipment should indeed remain tubular and transparent. The so-called "imaginative" play equipment option is extravagant, calling attention to itself to the detriment of its surrounding context. DETAIL M-2 Maintenance and Fencing The proposed fence around the carousel probably should not, as is suggested, mimic the existing or the proposed playground equipment. The carousel is, in the context of Stewart Park, essentially an animated pavilion, - that is it is a simple roof canopy with events beneath. Like the tea pavilion for example, it exists as an isolated event which seemingly floats upon and in counterpoint to the great green lawn of Stewart Park. Fencing surrounding the carousel should certainly not be mounted on a heavy concrete base thereby interrupting the ground plane. Proposed fencing should in no way interrupt the ground plane. Proposed fencing should in no way interrupt vision nor should it call attention to itself. A combination of a metal mesh with widely spaced primarily horizontal structural supports might be examined as an appropriate approach in this case. SECTION 4 West Field The substantial increase in permanent barbeque structures proposed in this area 18 is excessive. According to this conception the west field is to be fundamentally transformed from its present multiplicity of uses to a realm which is almost exclusively the domain of the backyard barbeque relocated. This scheme fails to recognize that it is illogical to assume that barbequers come to Stewart Park only to rub elbows with other barbequers. At the present time picnicking is not bound into a set of delineating precincts at Stewart Park, it is rather interspersed throughout the park offering a great variety of orientation, degree of isolation or community, and adjacent activity. It is difficult to imagine which would be more disconcerting, the sight of 40-50 empty picnic tables and 40-50 unused barbeque structures encircling the perimeter of the west field or that rare occasion when all these facilities might simultaneously be in use with the odor of charcoal lighter fluid and scorched hamburger dominating the park experience. Fixed picnic facilities need not and certainly should not be installed in order to accommodate the worst case scenarios (Memorial Day, Labor Day, or July 4). SECTION 6 Park Pavilion Complex & Pier DETAILS N-1, N-2 Pavilions, Pergola, Stepped Courtyard While the proposal to restore and rehabilitate the dance and picnic pavilions is laudible and most necessary, the proposed so-called pergola can in no way be regarded as either restoration or rehabilitation. This proposed pergola is new construction in what is architecturally the most sensitive part of the park. This new construction is quite simply not in sympathy or in character with the Vivian and Gibb pavilions which it is proposed to adjoin. In addition, this proposal recommends a third pavilion as part of the new pergola structure occupying the central axis established by the original pair, thereby further diminishing the character, quality, and integrity of the Vivian and Gibb architectural conception. This proposed "steel" pergola and lattice pavilion would constitute yet another major maintenance addition to the park to no discernible positive end. While the instinct to appropriately use the space between the two original pavilions is a good one, the proposed pergola and lattice pavilion would needlessly constrict and hamper varied use. In summary, the proposal for a new pergola and lattice pavilion would operate in conflict with the original Vivian and Gibb architectural conception embodied in the picnic and dance pavilions and would in addition operate against the best interests for the flexible and productive use of the space established by these pavilions. 19 DETAIL N-2 Pergola and Stepped Courtyard Space Rather than a simple platform for activity deferring to the grace of the adjacent Vivian and Gibb pavilions and the timeless beauty of the lake basin, this proposal for a courtyard space includes a new "steel" pergola, an additional pavilion grabbing the center established by the original pair, a stepped section further impairing certain uses, an array of patterns for paving, a serpentine stone sitting wall, miniature lighthouse light fixtures, android-like bollard light fixtures, and so on. Through this sort of excess this proposal loses sight of and trivializes the most essential aspects of this park and landscape. DETAIL 0-1 Waterfront Sea Wall Lights alluding to lighthouses placed between the dance and picnic pavilions and the lake shore while characteristic of a lite-hearted comic sense would unfortunately trivialize this critical point in the park. In addition, these fixtures would be most annoying as their light would emanate at approximately eye level. These miniature lighthouses and the android-like bollard lights proposed along the shoreline represent a kind of one-line joke sensibility which ought not be inflicted on this park in perpetuity. DETAIL P-1 Waterfront Pier While the proposed pier may in some sense recall piers which have existed in this location in the past, it is difficult to support it under present circumstances. A pier once existed in conjunction with swimming at Stewart Park. However, swimming is not now under consideration. Such a pier would not be usable for fishing. It would require railings for safety mitigating many of the most desirable effects of being out over the water. Such a pier would inevitably suffer regular damage from expansion and other movement of large masses of ice. It must be said that this pier would become yet one more significant maintenance chore were it to be constructed. DETAIL R-1 Fuertes Bird Sanctuary Gate Yet another maintenance addition, this proposed gate is ostentatious, overly busy, and again founded on a comic sensibility. As such it is out of context with both park proper and sanctuary. 20 DETAIL U-i Stewart Park Entrance Gateway This gate appears to have been in some measure inspired by the commercial strip. It functions as a form of billboard advertising the park's existence but not its character. Such effort is unnecessary and misrepresents the existing beauty and serenity of this landscape. It is excessive, ostentatious and imposes again needless addition of park maintenance. MAP 1 • Road and Paths In general all roadways within the park have been proposed to be constricted to a point'which is at best insufficient and at work dangerous. Vehicular turning radii are extremely tight. What has for some time existed as an easy graceful vehicular passage with a spotless record for safety is now recommended for a transformation into a constricted, halting alley threading through a series of single and double loaded parking lots. So much for pleasure cycling or for strolling along the road's edge. MAP 4 Planting Planting is grossly excessive. MAP 5 Park Furnishings Numbers of proposed new permanent barbeques, benches and tables are excessive. Proposed groupings tend to compartmentalize picnickers into charcoal broiled tracts within the park. 21 BASIC RECOMMENDATION OF CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK No Blanket Approval We urge that the Trowbridge Design Plan for Stewart Park not be given blanket approval. (And make no mistake -- "approval in concept" does mean approval. It means "this is the concept which we will implement.") Items Should Be Individually Voted Upon Because there are items in the Plan which would be destructive to the beauty and functioning of the park we recommend that each of the proposals and items in the Plan be carefully scrutinized, prioritized and then each separately voted on; but all voted on in the same session and always within the context of the overall design and character of the park. We do not see this recommendation as in anyway implying that there are items we approve of in the plan. Ideally, we would like SPAG and Common Council to acknowledge Mr. Trowbridge's contribution and thank him for it and let that be an end to the matter. We do not think this community should feel under obligation to spend money redesigning a park we do not want redesigned. Items Should Be Voted Upon Now Our recommendation concerning itemization and separate consideration of proposals should not be interpreted as meaning the items should be voted on separately through the years. The items in the plan should be voted upon now. A situation should not be set up for items to be voted upon or implemented without knowledge of the community. 22 MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION Blending of Old and New is Complex The Trowbridge master plan throughout attempts to blend the old historic fabric with new materials. This is done by means of "mimicking", that is to borrow or echo some details, in a simplified manner. This is a very complex and difficult process and seems to strain the perimeters of Mr. Trowbridge's assignment. Unless such encroachments of new upon old are very carefully detailed, scaled and rationally though out, we could end up with an unsavory hodge-podge of pavilions with severed hindquarters, cash n' carry pressure treated trellis work, and catalog bollards sprouting like fungi under replica Empire light standards. Should Call in Restoration Expert The problem of mixing historic periods with contemporary ones can be surmounted and even result in visually pleasing solutions, but restoration guidelines should have been established right at the beginning, and not referred to this late in a process well advanced in the wrong direction. MAINTENANCE AND MATERIALS Inadequate Maintenance Now The most common complaint about Stewart Park has been the lack of adequate maintenance. In the past, trees have been pruned improperly or not at all, the pavilions have suffered from leaking roofs and the furniture has become shabby. New Plans Increases Problems The new Trowbridge master plan incorporates a myriad of additional barbecues, light standards, bollards, tables, docks,benches and other park paraphernalia. Along with the new items there is an embellishing of almost all existing equipment, i.e. the refencing of the carousel, the sprouting of whirligigs on the playground, the decorative paving of courtyards. Some Specifications not Given To be able to evaluate either the type or amount of maintenance required for these additions, there have to be specifications for materials; these have not been provided. One can only speculate that all the new verandas, docks, floating bridges, entrance gateway, bird sanctuary toll-bridge, piers, etc. are to be constructed in pressure treated lumber (in which case the grounds and water would be polluted for a long time) or, are these elements built in cedar, redwood or no. #1 pine? The better grade lumber would have to be painted or stained on an ongoing basis. It is impossible to obtain realistic figures or estimate maintenance time on such sketchy outlines. 23 Some Specifications Inadequate Where there are details given, such as the street lanterns, the choices are inappropriate: grandiose luminating devices belonging in front of the Paris Opera. Along with the 19th century streetlights dispersed profusely are late 20th century large and small lit bollards. If bollards are to evoke the feelings of buoys, what are they doing planted in land? Consistency Important It is critical that visual details such as colors, calligraphy and scale of signage are carefully worked out and applied in a uniform fashion. The by no means modest entrance gateway, 11' x 42', shows a rather indecisive alphabet "built up arts & crafts", poorly spaced. The type used on the bird sanctuary towers is a "free-hand contemporary" menu style. Neither is desirable. And again what materials are the letters, background, methods of affixing, etc., etc.? The base for the roads and paths is given. What is the base for decorative pavers? The heaving of paving work in Ithaca has been a constant struggle, as seen in DeWitt Park and the Common. No Maintenance Schedules Basic, practical, usable guidelines for the Department of Public Works such as tree pruning and feeding, stock replacement schedules, new planting procedures, have not been provided. RECOMMENDATIONS Re establish priorities for what the park really needs. Temporary stabilization of structures is not even addressed. Cost estimates should not be provided on such vague concepts. The pier and footbridge would both require railings to comply with New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Codes. Park pavilion restoration should be included in stage one, rather than being relegated to a secondary position dependent upon fundraising. Instead of expensive and prevalent catalog items, i.e. tables, benches, barbecues, signs, this furniture could be custom built locally and offer community participation. / �IT$,99yh,I' tit` ag e y� —mar— ;•�: 1VRA7E_ D _ _ CITY OF ITHACA 106 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 COMMON COUNCIL CODE 607 TO: Trowbridge - Trowbridge , Landscape Architects FROM: Dan Hoffman DATE: June 26, 1987 RE: Comments on Stewart Park Design Plan Manual The latest plan for Stewart Park has obviously been affected by the heated public reaction to the previous Master Plan. The scale of changes proposed in this plan is considerably reduced, and the basic layout of the park is retained. Even so , this plan suggests 125 separate actions/changes , costing almost $4 million and affecting virtually every corner of the park. This degree of change is not consistent with the overwhelming public sentiment favoring the park "as it is." Also , considering the great amount of use the park now gets , at least during times of mild weather, I don't think it is necessary or desirable to add features to the park that will attract even more intense use . Stewart Park is most valuable as a green, un- cluttered open space for unstructured use and enjoyment. Here are some specific reactions to the draft plan: 1 . The double fence enclosing the railroad tracks seems unnecessary and potentially unattractive . 2. I have no objection to removing the tennis courts from the west field, thereby enhancing its open feeling, but I wonder if the pro- posed new location will spoil the vista of grass and lake from the new Youth Facility. Does interest in playing tennis at the park justify construction of a new facility, which stands out with its high fence and takes space from other uses? In any case , I support the removal of the excessively broad expanse of asphalt that now exists at the "elbow" of the roadway. 3. I 'm not convinced that the new layout of the roadway and parking system is an improvement. The constant alternating of wide and narrow sections seems less safe and makes the road seem less like a park boulevard and more like a series of small parking lots . While there are some problems with the present parallel parking system , I find perpendicular parking and backing into traffic more worrisome . 4. Piers have an intrinsic charm,{but on the relatively small lake- front of Stewart Park, a wide „centrally located one such as proposed in this plan could dominate and detract from the striking view of Cayuga Lake . Construction of such a pier seems like a very low priority to me , compared to saving the present park buildings. 5. The bird sanctuary gate seems large and imposing - and unnecessary; we needn't feel obliged to draw attention to every feature of the park; some things we can let folks figure out on their own. 6 . The proposed lagoon pavillion and associated uses would represent greatly intensified use . Having_ it overhang the water invites main- tenance headaches . The fishing platforms atforms strike me as unnecessary. 7 , I am skeptical that the proposed formal garden is the best use of space in a park that must serve so many people . Could something on a smaller scale be substituted for or even combined with the "Art in the Park" circle? 8. The formal pathways (lined with benches ) that connect the main pavillion complex with the tea pavillion and the garden look neat and symmetrical on an aerial perspective , but at ground level they interrupt what is now a very open greenspace that people feel free to wander through. 9 . I support the restoration of the dance pavillion , rehabilita- tion of the picnic pavillion, relocation of the concession stand and the replacement of the parking lot between the pavillions with a community courtyard and performance space . If those steps are taken, I 'm not convinced the pergola is necessary. Also , steps from the courtyard. represent a barrier. 10. I don't think the park needs additional lighting, and I am strongly opposed to the bollard designs suggested in the plan. 11 . Open areas should not be cluttered with more barbecues. They interfere with some other uses and are unused and unattractive most of the year. The west field especially should be kept open. 12. Shoreline treatment must be done very carefully. I now see that the gabions were a mistake . I am therefore suspicious of the rip- rap, bulkheads and concrete walls proposed for various points . Gradual sloping of the waterfront sounds like a better approach. 13. I support the careful cleaning of the duckpond, but not drastic changes to its surroundings. For me , the overgrown pathway around the duckpond is a quiet , little-used place of refuge . Removal of vegetation, "improvement" of the path, or creating a uniform shore- line with rip-rap would destroy its present charm. Construction of an overlook deck strikes me as another example of overdevelopment . The tiny island in the pond would be quickly trampled and "trashed" if a bridge were provided for it. Likewise , I fear that the massive deck proposed between the boathouse and the pond would focus too much attention (and litter) on an area supposedly intended for wild- life . I do agree , however, that the boathouse should be restored for community use . 14. The attempt to restore naturalistic wetland vegetation is crea- tive and sensible . I hope it can be implemented. The Trowbridge plan obviously represents much thoughtful study and consideration. Most of its components are not unattractive , if judged in isolation , but taken as a whole package they represent certain assumptions about the future of the park, such as the desrir- ability of creating new attractions and intensified use , and greater separation of activity areas , and the need to "improve" most areas of the park. Because of time constraints I have concentrated on my disagreements with the plan. Many of my disagreements are based on the fact that I do not share these underlying assumptions . Even so , I hope you will be able to consider each of my comments on its own merits , as you put together your final plan. Thank you for soliciting our reactions . cc : Common Council Mayor Gutenberger SP AG Citizens to Save Stewart Park June 26, 1987 Personal Comments on the Stewart Park Design Plan Manual by Barbara E. Ebert, member of the Stewart Park Advisory Group and Executive Director of Historic Ithaca, Inc. As a resident of the City of Ithaca, a member of the Stewart Park Advisory Group, and someone who has participated in public and private comment sessions on the Trowbridge Design Plan, I felt it necessary to comment on this proposal outside of my official capacity as Director of Historic Ithaca. In preparing Historic Ithaca' s comments I felt it was appropriate to cover areas of specific concern to that preservation organization; in my personal comments I wish to address other issues of concern. My first point--and one which I made during public comment sessions-- is my concern that the Design Plan is overplanned, placing too much emphasis on setting up areas for specific activities, special facilities for everyone' s whim and fancy, and crowding the park with what appears to be, "in concept, " more of everything. One gets that the impression that the plan allows for volleyball only in the volleyball area, fishing only from the fishing decks, and strolling only on the prescribed paths. The public comments received over the past few months and the results of Trowbridge' s own survey appear to have fallen upon deaf ears; what happened to maintenance and nicer restrooms? Obviously Trowbridge' s firm felt that the public should get more for its dollars--but more than it wanted? Worse still, the public was not even given what it requested, as there is no maintenance plan and better restrooms are years down the road. As to roads, while it is a great relief that the circulation pattern remains much as it is after hours of public debate, the current proposal to remove 232, 000 square feet of asphalt at a cost of $290, 000 seems ludicrous when accompanied by the proposal to put in more than 4700 linear feet of asphalt at a cost of $309, 365. What would the city be buying for this half of a million dollars? I believe, as do others, that the proposed parking lots and decreased road widths are a threat to public safety in the park. Before tampering with the broad avenues of the park, attention should be given to the concerns of parents, cyclists, joggers, and persons who stroll the park. If these people feel threatened by the decreased road widths as proposed in the Design Plan, then perhaps the designer should listen and act accordingly. At every point at which the Trowbridge firm went beyond its contractual obligation to provide the city with detail--for example, the light fixtures, the proposed pavilion design, the "restoration" views--they appear to have made inappropriate or stock selections. The majority of these items could not be properly discussed during the final public comment session, although there appears to be a growing consensus on the inappropriateness of several of these choices. Although the Stewart Park Advisory Group has been told repeatedly that to approve the Design Plan is to approve "its concept only, " the fact that the details will, thereby, also be approved "in concept" is very disagreeable to me. Personal Comments on the Stewart Park Design Plan Manual Barbara E. Ebert June 26, 1987 Page 2 In conclusion, I would like to comment on the Stewart Park Advisory Group' s role in this process. This mayor-appointed committee is composed of an unknown (to me) number of individuals representing various interest groups and the city. It is notable that a majority of the group are either employed by the city or serve as appointed members of other city committees. This would tend to produce a "representative sampling" focused on the city' s desires, which may or may not be in line with the public ' s desires. Until the meeting of June 11, 1987, the majority of the Stewart Park Advisory Group had not met; previous SPAG meetings were called belatedly or were just poorly attended. At that June meeting two new members were appointed to the group, at what seemed to be the penultimate moment--our 'going out of business sale. ' So, meeting for the first time as a organized group, we were asked to think and vote as if we had had regular meetings and were all equally familiar with the material at hand. The process of study and production of the Stewart Park Design Plan Manual has taken many months, and the process of review of the Plan was given just one night. Fortunately, members of the Stewart Park Advisory Group felt that this was not adequate time, and discussion and possible decision was postponed for several weeks. Hopefully, this next SPAG meeting will not be the last, for this proposal needs a great deal more attention and serious discussion. Thank you for this opportunity to present written comments to be incorporated into the final Design Plan document. Barbara E. Ebert I '‘1 t_ a ���� y I(TTjg +[ �i m; CITY OF ITHACA 'I 0E3 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT.DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM To: Trowbridge . Trowbridge Members of SPAG Members of Citizens to Save Stewart Park From: Leslie Chatterton, Preservation/Neighborhood Planner and SPAG Member Re: Stewart Park Design Plan Manual Date: June 30, 1987 This memo is written in response to the consultant's request for comments concerning the Stewart Park Design Plan Manual. These comments include opinions expressed by the Ithaca Landmarks.Preservation Commission (ILPC) at the regular monthly meeting held on June 17, 1987. The manual presents a relatively clear, readable picture of present conditions and projected plans. It addresses many timely issues which if ignored or postponed would eventually have negative impacts on the park. This is par- ticularly evident in view of maintenance concerns which are becoming increasingly critical over time. The consultant's acknowledgment of preservation, restoration, and maintenance as fundamental principles guiding the design plan reflect general public interest as expressed in the initial survey and at public meetings. Within the text of the design plan, however, preservation terminology pertaining to proposals for buildings, structures, objects and sites is sometimes confusing. Conservation, stabilization., restoration, and rehabilitation are definitive terms, descriptive of various preservation approaches. The approach or combination of approaches selected for any specific structure should be accurately identified in the "objectives" and "actions" proposed in the plan. Aside from the three fundamental principals noted, many of the proposals in the design plan do call for either new construction, substantial alteration of exist- ing buildings and the introduction of new elements, such as the bollards, lights standards, signage, and play equipment. In such cases compatibility may include, but should not be limited to borrowing specific design motifs from existing structures as noted in the plan such as the diamond detail at the base of the pavilion columns. Particular concerns prompted by the new proposals include: An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" -2- . The size and scale of decking proposed for the north facade of the boathouse. . The functional and visual compatibility of the overlook structure and the lagoon pavilion. . The size, scale and materials of the paved stepped courtyard between the dance pavilion and the picnic pavilion. . The design considerations for the construction of the pergola, (recognizing this as an adaptation of the original colonnade proposed in the Vivian and Gibb design). . The width of the municipal pier. . The introduction of the seawalls. . The type and style of park furniture, light standards, fencing and signage. . The size, scale and form of the gates at the park entry and the bird sanctuary. . The style of new play equipment. The ILPC is the body appointed by the Mayor to preserve and protect the City's historic, architectural and cultural resources. Among the resources identi- fied in the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance is ". . .. any structure, memorial or site which has special character, special historical and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca, including site of natural or ecological interest." (§32.2) The ILPC is practised in the review of design proposals within the context of accepted criteria and has consistently found that preservation standards are flexible enough to sanction compatible changes that occur over time as well as incorporate the requisites of contemporary use. ILPC review of design proposals for the park concerning buildings, structures, and other elements of the built environment would support the stated principles of the plan and ensure that alterations and new construction proceed in a manner harmonious with the building, structure or object as well as the overall surroundings. Finally, in reference to the upcoming meeting of July 9, it may be useful to follow the organizational system used in the manual. Using this format SPAG members could discuss the design plan in terms of the "objectives" and the "actions" proposed for each of the nine park "areas", as they are delineated in the plan. . Ideally, this would help to ensure the SPAG discussion is neither overly detailed or uselessly general. LC/mc cc: Mayor John C. Gutenberger ^^ 11 fF_ 1-1nrTnI • CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 141350 OFFICE OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS JOHN A. DOUGHERTY TELEPHONE: 272-1713 SUPERINTENDENT CODE 607 M E M O R A N D U M To: Stewart Park Advisory Group From: John A. Dougherty, Chairman Re: Meeting Date Date: July 2, 1987 An official meeting of the Stewart Park Advisory Group will be held on Thursday, July 9, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. in the second floor conference room of City Hall . The purpose of this meeting will be to approve the design development plan for Stewart Park, including the design plan manual as presented by Peter Trowbridge. Comments received from all interested parties since our last meeting will be reviewed. I will have a proposed resolution drafted for your consideration at the meeting. Please plan to attend. It is important that our recommendation be available for the Board of Public Works and the Common Council . "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" July 3, 1987 2 Hillcrest Drive Ms. Leslie Chatterton Ithaca, N.Y. Preservation/Neighborhood Planner Department Planning and Development City Hall Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Dear Leslie : We have read with interest your memorandum to Trowbridge - Trowbridge and look forward to discussing it with you. However , we feel we must take immediate urgent exception to your suggestion that the next SPAG meeting follow the organizational format of Peter' s Design Manual and discuss his nine park "areas" in turn. Our reason is this : the Trowbridge proposal which would cause most upheaval and change in the park and which has been scheduled in Stage One "to begin immediately" if the Plan is approved is not discussed or even mentioned among the nine park areas. We refer of course to the drastic narrowing of the roadways and the introduction of perpendicular parking on both sides of the road in front of the lakeshore as well as perpendicular parking elsewhere. This proposal has been called both bad engineering and dangerous by traffic experts we have consulted. If the Plan is approved '!in concept this item can be implemented at once without further review. Peter does not mention this enormously important item until towards the end of the manual. We think this item, if for reasons of public safety alone , should be first on SPAG agenda as it is first on the agenda of Department of Public Works to implement if the Trowbridge Plan is approved. Sincerely, Doria Higgins for Citizens to Save Stewart Park cc : Trowbridge SPAG members b Cvtir, w,ov, Coy.►•,c■ r ... . 61. : . , t'''''', 'r•" M .�. . .I.ft) :::4.4' .,F ,.-' ,,,,,' ,X1'a 'I :- --..'s.:0- ,- '` 1,� ÷ '' . 441,-; , ��t♦ v g ' � r�K' �.L. -t* , .� -' r �l' r. r}� ' 4t,"141-. � 1 e . `. t o r 1 - M �y �R.y e,�ri�{.� , +"_' " - a� r 9 S " �' tM C ' ii! 111 .4.041f it ;7 g q . �� ' ' a _ ' -lk: W' \ - n ei �i, . '< y i., ...yam w 41 uu rI ...'. + w- ' — �`� r'�.;y. _ e � �R`D ire , � ,:' .'w B.n�...- �� °R.----1, �,-.��a.�Y �1.. '. ' ,.,,p � v i� -`2-1-r` a i 9•lIT1id.. �''' . L tip."' , n ..t : -f.\ '' r y '1 ,y'.; it- 41+ 1 `�""�? tt � w� �y+/Ni�lr/v4::-.� bli 'Iii,. dr%.71.): '�� 774 Op„��.�a� �i dw ,���i ;to.•' -.f�t ,�gt vim' �/+ ..?f, Y 99M w �� A yy _ t f '�4' �-y�-,.Q: +i. 47 ..• �•, .110t ,. 'it! B !pI, ju, � ' „ v'.'4!,- 4 1 ` �,J.��ioY D� i� p .�!- c . .jgnn _=Y•7 .. `r, 'wt., er / r.(�wor.1 AtWra s.�N w 1�y,���34,r, ,,, l eul' t p'..',4'�J�jy a G- 1 .��l n 'i ;,� /,'. �R;� e�y3i �."JW`yIL'ii t'I .�.�'�-F4 1 „4 Iir �° :� __. RIRip �� ie for ` .4 Zer r .IA& ,= rn, '41 I"27•..;;; '1. IQ'. Vi-. —'t. R.A'0®e '�'�tMXil®751 �1 :F 'AMA'', A� do 11►V• l vytiFi L Cpffi ITUAOA,4 \ —6 ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850 &TOMPKINS COUNTY. NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING&DEVEII OPMENT COMMENTS ON THE STEWART PARK DESIGN PLAN MANUAL AND APPENDICES PRODUCED BY TROWBRIDGE & TROWBRIDGE, CONSULTANTS Comments Prepared By: Barbara E. Ebert, Executive Director During a meeting held in January of 1987 between Peter Trowbridge and members of the Historic Ithaca Board and staff, a major subject of agreement amongst all involved was the need for MAINTENANCE of Stewart Park, now and in the future. At that time, Mr. Trowbridge assured us that maintenance would be discussed, and that a clear plan for current and continued maintenance would be one outcome of his study. Unfortunately, no substantive discussion of maintenance issues is included in either the Design Plan Manual or its Appendices. Historic Ithaca feels that this is an inexcusable oversight, given the current deteriorating state of the park, and given the results of Trowbridge' s own survey of public opinion which highlighted the need for increased maintenance. Good maintenance should be a "Stage One" activity; there is not a section of the park which would not benefit from better care. A second area of concern for Historic Ithaca is the use of the words 'Preservation' and 'Restoration' without providing the necessary verbal specifics, but only visual images. Throughout the Design Manual, the word PRESERVATION is an escape mechanism used by the Trowbridge firm to salve the public ire, which sadly leaves the reader to assume that it has only one definition. This is patently false; there are many directions which 'preservation' of the Stewart Park buildings could take, and Trowbridge has not advised us of the options available. While it is asserted that a preservation consultant would better qualified to discuss the specifics of building repair, the Design Plan has visually provided us with lots of preconceived notions about 'preservation' and 'restoration. ' It is Historic Ithaca' s recommendation that none of the Design Plan' s visual or verbal suggestions concerning existing buildings be approved, "in concept" or otherwise, without a qualified consultant' s review. This is particularly important since, during the Stewart Park Advisory Group meeting of March 3, 1987, John Doughterty, Superintendent of Public Works, indicated that he would like to begin the rehabilitation of the Boathouse this summer. None of the information which the Design Plan has presented would facilitate the proper rehabilitation of that, or any other, structure. DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF TOMPKINS COUNTY LANDMARKS :7 ref ►r .. iy • r - 1 Comments on the Stewart Park Design Plan Manual Page 2 While preservation and restoration--although undefined--are clearly in the Design Plan vocabulary, the concept of STABILIZATION has been curiously omitted. First, and foremost, the Boathouse needs immediate stabilization, whether or not this is a specified Stage One activity. As with all rehabilitation/preservation efforts, this stabilization should be directed by a qualified preservation consultant with the assistance of a structural engineer. If the fate of the existing buildings must be dependent upon the fundraising done during Stage One, then stabilization of the Boathouse is all the more imperative. Mr. Trowbridge has publicly stated that work on the Boathouse is a high priority; does it not follow that stabilization should occur sooner rather than later, and most specifically within the first two years? In light of the discussions on building issues held during the public comment sessions and the evidence that the existing buildings required serious and immediate attention, Historic Ithaca is deeply dissatisfied with ABSENCE OF APPROPRIATE SPECIFICATIONS AND COST ACCOUNTING FOR THE REHABILITATION/PRESERVATION PROJECTS. If the Trowbridge firm was unwilling or unable to address these concerns, then it was its responsibility to make this known in a timely fashion so that a qualified consultant could be retained. As is, the Design Plan Manual is inadequate in at least two areas of immediate concern-- STABILIZATION and MAINTENANCE. A final comment on the Stewart Park Design Plan Manual: Perhaps the most significant flaw in this proposal is its failure to provide for LONG RANGE PLANNING. If one fact became apparent during this study process, it must be that our current system for park planning is chaos. Historic Ithaca would like to recommend--as we had hoped that the Trowbridge Plan would--that the City of Ithaca constitute a PARK COMMISSION, much like the other citizen advisory boards now in place, to act as overseer on planning and maintenance issues for all city parks. It is further recommended that this commission consist of not less than eight members, chosen because of their specific expertise; included should be an ecologist/conservationist, a naturalist, a botanist or horticulturist, a landscape planner, a preservationist, an ornithologist or similarly qualified person, a marine biologist or person qualified to address issues of marine wildlife, and a member of the Board of Public Works. Representatives of other user groups and interested citizens could be added if necessary. The creation of this commission would hopefully provide the kind of full-time, active attention to the increasingly important issues of care and maintenance of our public parks that is desperately needed. In a city with the public facilities and resources of Ithaca, a Park Commission is long overdue. If there are any questions regarding these comments, please address them to Barbara E. Ebert, Executive Director, Historic Ithaca, Inc. , 120 North Cayuga Street, Ithaca, or call (607) 273-6633. -Dolt I DIES IIC N IID:,AN MANUAL Cflay ©1° Dimes. New Yuri° I9o7 Prepared for the Department of Planning and Development and Department of Public Works City of Ithaca New York Funded in Part by a Grant from the Architecture, Planning and Design Program of the New York State Council on the Arts Prepared by: Trowbridge-Trowbridge Landscape Architects Ithaca, New York 1986-1987 Revised Outline Stewart Park Design Plan Manual July 9, 1987 I. Introduction A. Background of park planning B. Summary of etsting conditions in the park C. Description of 1986-87 contract for design development II. Chapter One: How to Use the Manual to Guide Maintenance, Preservation and Restoration in Stewart Park A. Short and long range planning 1. Design Development Plan 2. Stewart Park Management Plan ?,. Annual Maintenance Schedule 4. Park r k Improvements 1 B. Model for park decision making I. Role of a Park Commission to oversee park planning and review management and development issues a. suggested membership b. priority tasks I � 2. Role of an Urban Forester/Park Maiage r to oversee mainte a ce and management in the park a. training of crews b. development of maintenance schedules I I I. Chapter Two: Uverview of the Park Design Plan A. Principles of the Design Plan B. Concept Plans C. Park Design Plan IV.. Chapter Three: The Design Plan in Detail 1 A. Section One- actions and objectives B. Section Two- actions and objectives C. Se ction Three- actions and objectives D. Section Four-actions ard objectives E. Section Five- actions and objectives Section Six- actions and objectives 1 .J�. r:l v.i Six- and % rl G. Section Seven- actions and objectives Section H. Section Light- actions and objectives I. Section Nine- actions and objet tines • i V. Chapter Four: Park Management and Improvement Guidelines A. Park Structures and their adjacent sites 1. Proposed Preservation and New Construction Guidelines a. Boathouse 1. etsting conditions 2. proposed image b. Dance Pavilion 1. e sting conditions 2. proposed image c. Picnic Pavilion 1. existing conditions 2. proposed image d. Tea Pavilion 1. existing conditions 2. proposed image e. New Structures 1. proposed image 2. Preservation Guidelines for Sites adjacent to historic structures 3. Detail Design Development, Review, Phasing and Funding a. role of preservation expert b. role of Park Commission in programming and review 4. Stage One Building Stabilization Recommendations 5. Recommendations for guiding on-going maintenance of park structures B. Park Furnishings (lighting, benches, tables, gates, l:bqs, water fountains, play equipment, trash receptacles, signage) 1. Definition of park furnishings Existing conditions of park furnishings - Historic 3. istoric comnpatability of park furnishings 4. Proposed Preservation and New Furnishings Guidelines 5. Recommended specifications, details and illustrations 6_ Recommendations for on-going niaintenan;e and phased improvement of park furnishings C. Roads and Path 1. Existing conditions 2. rop�:fsed ;guidelines for roads and p:t t ip: 3. =load and path specifications 4. Short and ong term road maintenance and development issues 5. L Recommendations for on-going maintenance of roads and paths D. Plantings 1. Fisting Conditions 2. Proposed guidelines for park plantings • 3. Role of urban forester park manager in planting review and management 4. Planting concept and species lists 5. Short and long term planting maintenance and development issues 5. Recommendations for on-going maintenance of park plantings E. Shoreline Improvements 1. Existing conditions 2. Proposed Guidelines for Shoreline Improvements 3. Specifications and illustrations of improvements 4. Short and long term shoreline maintenance and development issues long 1 5. Recommendations for on-going maintenance of shorelines VI. Chab4er Five: Phasing A. Phasing Recommendations•J B. Phasing Matrix :'I I. Appenciix A. Illustrative Views, visual images and suggestions B. Cost Estimate Design Compilation of SPAG and citizen comments regarding Design I a ival Draft an4 how they we re addressed in revised manual lal _ Proposed Model for Park Decision-Making Common Council - Approval of DD Plan - Approval of Management Plan - Approval of Annual Capitol Improvement Plan - Appointment of Park Commission and Park Manager(paid) - Designation of annual maintenance and improvement budget Park Commission - Implement DD Plan - Develop, approve and oversee the implementation of Park Manag{ement Plan 7 �3 �y `y'/� r } - Approve and oversee the implementation of an annual maintenance schedule - Recommend the selection of a Park Manager and the selection and training of a Park Crew - Approve. of the selection of consultants for mayor capitol protect= NV Park Manager - Develop Park coordinate capital improvement prcc:_e s - Develop Park Management Plan t `d a" - Develop and implement annual maintenance schedules and annual improvement program (in-house and consultants) - Coordinate training of park management crew Park Crew I Consultants - Horticulture skills - Architects - Forestry Skills - r--srr v t i_j Consultants - Basic construction skills - Landscape Architects Fo}e t / orticulLI..:L js s _ I Design Development Plan Approval of Design Development Plan means: PA � F 1. Adoption of the proposed park decision-making process including Park Commission and Park Manager 2. Agreement in overall vision of the park 3. Basic agreement on proposed area objectives and actions 4. Agreement on Park Guidelines, Chapter Four 5. Agreement on Phasing Recommendations as listed in Chapter Five Stewart Park Management Plan Management Plan - Overall Objectives and Actions are those expressed in the DD Plan - Maintenance schedule would be listed for each park area - Annual improvements will be identified for a 5 year period: -in-house improvements -work with consultants - Technical wrlanting, plan (phased) will be �3repal ed using the planting lists provided in the Trowbridge PLal with the' massings and species indicated as a guide Annual Maintenance Schedule Park Improvements - Grass cutting - Praning In-Home Bench 1 1 st.t l• - P painting - ?��:-L:-..11 and installation - Lighting installation - Building -tabilizat lain } { Planting annuals - ✓iii installation - L•_.int,Ln .: 1• _ • r - Planting - •i':+7Tgrount:1 installations - Tree VI shrub r: :V rT i - Removal of fencing Consultants nt=; _ it�•� _ - Road reconstruction a d"t itls - Building Improvements - Lai:e and Fall Creel: Edge I_.:;.rovernr:.+-,t_ - Pond rehabilitation bilitation %.nd rest.ratio n - j-atl:.';i.iay, new structures, furnisning : Conqentte Chapter One Overview of the Park Design Plan Principles of the Design Plan Concept Plans The Park Design Plan Chapter Two The Design Plan in Detail Section 1: Cascadilla Boathouse and Pond Section 2: Fall Creek Shoreline and South Glade Section 3: Fishing Lagoon Section 4: West Field Section 5: Playground and Tea Pavilion Section 6: Park Pavilion Complex and Pier Section 7: Mayor Stewart Memorial Horticultural Area Section 8: East Field and Stewart Park Entrance Gateway Section 9: Northeast Lakeshore, Jetty, and Tennis Courts Chapter Three Design Guidelines 1. Roads and Paths 2. Signage 3. Lighting 4. Planting 5. Park Furnishings 6. Shoreline Improvements Appendix Phasing Recommendations Cost Estimate • • iirmeflplies ®ff the Turk IDeeriEIIn Run Three fundamental principles form the basis of the 1987 Stewart Park Design Plan; MAINTENANCE, PRESERVATION,and RESTORATION. MAINTENANCE Maintenance includes those day-to-day activities conducted to keep the park clean, safe and in good physical condition. Maintenance includes repair and replacement of park furniture, lighting and fencing; painting and repair of buildings; pruning and planting trees, shrubs and flowers; mowing; repair and stabilization of eroding shorelines, regrading, repair of roads and walkways,etc. Maintenance practices impact the character and quality of the park environment, as well as how the park is used. Park furniture or trees that are incompatible with the desired park character detract from the overall park experience. The intent of the plan and guidelines in this manual is to provide a level of detail to ensure that park maintenance is carried out in a manner that preserves and enhances the desired park character. PRESERVATION, The essence of Stewart Park is its informal use and passive character. Described for its "serenity", "spaciousness" and "open vistas" by so many citizens, the park has a unique emotional feeling which evolves out of its openness and transparency. The park is experienced as a continuous plane of trees and grass meeting water on three sides. One has a sense that the park goes on forever. This feeling of openness contributes to a sense of safety and comfort in the park. Therefore, preservation of Stewart Park includes preserving these unique attributes which embody the character of the park. Furthermore, priority should be given to flexible, multi-use space, as opposed to active recreation facilities. Landscape planting should also reinforce and preserve this informal character. Generally, large trees that frame rather than block views to water and landscape are preferred. RESTORATION Restoration in Stewart Park is a priority concern. Many of the currently recognized problems associated with the park have resulted from years of wear and tear and neglect. In the following pages detailed guidelines for park restoration are outlined on three priority levels. I. Architectural Restoration The major structures in Stewart Park are not only architecturally interesting and unique, but of local,if not national,historic significance. The picnic and dance pavilion complex were conceived and constructed as a grand civic gesture in the late 19th century , while the boathouse, circa 1894, is a significant example of the shingle style of architecture. Currently, only the picnic pavilion is accessible to the general public. The Stewart Park Design Plan calls for restoration of these structures and their historical features, as focal points for programming and activities in the park. II. Historic Landscape Restoration Restoration of historic landscapes will not only enrich the park experience for users but provide an appropriate setting for historically significant park structures. The Park Design Plan restores landscape areas surrounding major park structures to reflect their historic use and relationship to the overall park character. III. Nature Area Restoration Restoration of nature-like landscapes in the park will improve the ecological habitat for fish, birds, and wildlife and will create education and recreation opportunities for park users. Additionally, it will improve the visual quality of currently neglected or damaged landscapes in the park. Areas designated for nature-like restoration include the pond, Fall Creek shoreline, the South Glade and the lagoon. 2 7 July 1987 /� To : Trowbridge and Trowbridge 9 198 1345 Mecklenberg Road Ithaca NY 14850 DEPARTMENT J', PLANNING&DEVE'Q , From: Roger H. Farrell (member SPAG, CAC ) Le Moyne A. Farrell (alternate representative SPAG), , ,�i�/, '(_ Subject : Stewart Park Design Planner After reading your Stewart Park Design Plan , we find that the plan needs a list of priorities with rationale. We said at the SPAG meeting that , without these , this elaborate plan would be questioned by the general public , representatives of which we spoke to in the Park on July 21 , and which formed our first opinion to you. Here are our comments. 1 ) The planting of bushes and trees and the memorial center interfere with the present space for games and picnicking. • 2 ) The open flat space is flexible and accommodates crowds for bi-centennial celebrations , the Ithaca Festivals , fraternal group • meetings , and barbecuing for crowds. The Plan interrupts this space. 3 ) The plan removes the large barbecuing pit which would prevent groups from having a pit to use in what has become seasonal celebrations. 4 ) The wooden platform as designed around the Boat House and Main Pavillion presents a barrier to the disabled, a difficulty Le Moyne personally appreciates because of physical rehabilitation following surgery. 5 ) The drawings express a gentrification of a wide open people' s park , a tone that we found did not address the population that uses the park. 6 ) The illustrations show a lack of appreciation for the needs of wildlife. In the section discussing the wildfowl pond, the bridge and - platform by Cascadilla Boat House will bring too many people into the area for wildlife to tolerate the environment. 7 ) The furniture in the drawings seems redundant since the number and use of benches now is adequate when the park is full . 8 ) The style of the buildings is elegant but that is not the style of the audience using them. The Cascadilla Boat Club members want the Boathouse to be renovated for the Club' s use , for the present tenants to be removed, and the gymnasium to be renovated so that it can be used. 9 ) The signage focuses on the Bird Sanctuary which needs trail bike stiles to restrict traffic to pedestrians. At present , the Sanctuary is left for those who want to explore it , not simply exploit it. 10 ) The signs leave nothing to a visitor' s imagination . The Park is O. K. per se and doesn' t need to draw larger crowds. "Page 2 , from RRF and LAF to Trowbridge 11 ) The more crowds that are drawn , the more costly the maintainance , which is adequate -- except for mending the two footbridges. 12 ) The Plan does not make the public bathrooms accessible to the disabled. On the West side a ramp could make the women ' s bathroom accessible without the present stairs. 13 ) A naturalist needs to advise on the revision and maintainance of the pond and shoreline. The present path allows pedestrians to intrude into areas used for nesting by the swans. The plan emphasizes human access , not avian access , comfort and breeding potential of the present swan pair. Removing the swans as the Plan provides could prove controversial with the public. 14 ) The overall design incorporates too much planting of bushes and trees which will require maintainance. 5 15 ) The proposed pier will be an attractive nuisance. People do swim there now , and the pier will encourage divers and jumpers who can injure themselves in such shallow water , which is too murky for swimming as is. 16 ) The "historic" theme in the revival of the Cascadilla Boat House is gentile , but the Boat Club does not want crowds there either. If the Design is approved, the swans must be relocated since drawing more park users to that area will stress them continually. 17 ) A major advantage of the present road system in the Park is that users of the Park have their territories to which they can drive easily and park conveniently at the side of the road. We believe the proposed narrowing of the roads and the establishment of artifically located parking areas will either be ignored by the users or else will be detrimental to the use of the Park. 18 ) Interviewing Park users at the Kiwanis Barbeque on June 21 showed that all were unanimous in a. not wanting anything new in the Park design , not roads , furniture , fencing , building renovation ; b. finding present gabions o. k. but not wanting the shoreline changed in any way ; c. agreeing that present signage was unobtrusive , though boaters want a "NO WAKE" area assigned to the Fall Creek inlet , where they practice in rough weather ; d. approving of the easy-to-clean-and-maintain character of the present Park design and the present efficiency of the DPW staff in maintaining the Park ; e. and, finally , valuing the wide open space as it now exists in Stewart Park. As city taxpayers , the Design Plan overwhelmed us with its complex pseudo-historic style. We do not support city expenditure to gentrify what is already naturally beautiful and efficient in serving the public. A lot of effort has gone into the drawings and details of the Plan , and we appreciate that effort. But we believe that the planners should sign off now on this , and let SPAG deal with the presentation to Common Council of ideas from the Plan. We feel it will be contentious. August 19, i 987 SPAG Subcommittee Resolution The Subcommittee of SPAG unanimously recommends to the SPAG that the P & D Committee consider establishment of a Park Commission with binding review powers. The function of the Parks Commission will be to assess priorities for city parks based upon a comprehensive approach that responds to the character of each park. It is recommended that the Park Commission be comprised of a group of appointed professionals.and include local participation. Commission membership should include professionals ftoni each of the following disciplines: • Ecology/Conservation Botany and/or Horticulture Ornithology Aquatic Biology Landscape Architecture Architectural Preservation A representative of local citizen and user groups and a member of the BP W should also serve on the Parks Commission. It is further recommended that a staff position of Parks Manager be created to carry out the directives of the Parks Commission as well as to oversee the day-to-day maintenance of the city parks. • /\ - a—✓UVX � d�C 4- l 444-r EC� � � T The Stewart Park Advisory Group Subcommittee recommends: D ._---- T I. That SPAG pass a resolution advising Common Council to take immediate SEP 2 2 1987 steps to: a. Stabilize historic buildings, starting with the Cascadilla Boathouse b. Renovate existing bathrooms PLANM;N ," = c. Establish a Parks Commission as outlined in the Trowbridge Guidelines, .except that the commission should have jurisdiction over all city parks, not just Stewart Park 'The Commission's first task,_-t ewever, would be to deal with pressing problems at Stewart Park. d. Rescind the Niederkorn Plan II. That SPAG approve the goals for Stewart Park as listed in Trowbridge's "Stewart Park 1987 Goals and Guidelines." III. That SPAG recommend that the Parks Commission use the Trowbridge Guidelines -- as a resource to be consulted when considering improvements for Stewart Park. specific proposals should be implemented only after approval by Common Council. Common Council should seek, and take into consideration, public comment on any major changes proposed by the Commission. The subcommittee does not recommend adopting the guidelines unconditionally. It should be made very clear that acceptance of the Guidelines by SPAG does not mean that the members have given their stamp of approval to each specific recommendation contained therein. Asa subcommittee, we agree4 with the overall Trowbridge Goals, and with the usefulness of the Trowbridge Guidelines as a resource for future planning. However, each of us various specific items in the Guidelines to be unacceptable. n !� geta„rz 3 Specific items in the Trowbridge Guidelines that I have some question about: 1. P. 7, item #2: Complete restoration of the Boathouse to its original character might mean ending up with a far larger, more imposing and grandiose structure than is desirable for the site. ►1.— 2. P. 8, item C #3: While have no real objection, other than cost of installation and maintenance, to putting a path from the tea pavilion to the main pavilion complex, I also see no need for one. 3. P. 8, item C #4: Does the Tea Pavilion's prominence need enhancing? 4. P. 8, D #3: same comment as for 2, above. If a new garden is put in, a single path to the pavilions would probably be good, however. 5. P. 9, #3: Any new trees along the roadway might best go on the south side, so as to shade the road while not obstructing views across the park to the lake. 6. P. 10, B #1: The whole question of riprap (large stones intended to limit erosion) should be researched before shore stabilization measures using riprap are taken. There is some evidence that riprap in fact increases erosion. (E.g. see TIME, August 10/87, page 45.) At least part of'Fe- problem, I believe, is that water swirls around the stones, washing away the soil. If this turns out to be the case, perhaps a return to a gently graded shoreline with no riprap would be preferable. It might be noted that the least erosion along the lake shore is in the western area where there currently is no riprap, though there could be other reasons for this. One possibility would be to remove the riprap from a small area where erosion is currently a problem, fill and regrade so a gentle slope, and then monitor the area to see whether it holds up better than riprapped areas. Whatever is done, the shore will undoubtedly need periodic maintenance. 7. P. 10, B #2: A jetty might just become a trap for debris and be another maintenance headache. 8. P. 10, C #2: Fishing does not need any further encouragement in the lagoon. There already is a great deal of fishing there, and to some extent fishing is incompatible with the goal of improving the lagoon as habitat for wildlife, especially waterfowl. 9. P. 11: Ism ambivalent about the various recommendations for road changes, and in some cases, they seem inconsistent with the Aoals stated in the first paragraph. T c",„,L4) Item A #5, c: more parking along t lakefront.rea y Heeded? I am in favor of installing low speed bumps to slow down the traffic. While high ones could be a hazard, low ones should not be. Speed bumps are used in many other public parks. 10. P. 13, A #2: I have not seen a need for path improvements. 4 11. P. 13, B #1: How about moving the tennis courts to GIAC df'the Chamber of Commerce's new site? (Or reclaim the spot the city has decided to license for the Chamber of Commerce's parking lot, and put the courts there. There is some question as to whether the so-called "licensing" of that space is really legal anyway.) 12. P. 13, D #1: any new dock should be kept simple, and be easily removeable for the winter. Also, it should be kept in mind that structures such as bulkheads built intro fast-moving water can cause erosion problems. 13. P. 14, #1: park nches, tables, etc. should not be discarded until they are worn out. At that time, they could be replaced with ones considered compatible with the other park furnishings. 14. P. 14, #4: Care should be taken to keep the entrance to the park simple. 15. P. 15, second column: I am not in favor of a new structure at the lagoon nor of a pier. While stated on page 15 as low priorty items, pages 48 and 52 in the phasing section suggest consideration of these items 1 .azi 2W ' column: relocated concession should have clear visibility between t e play area and the counter, so parents and kids can keep track of one another. 17. P. 22, last para.: I am not in favor of having a pergola. 18. P. 28: native species in the lists should be preferred to exotics. 19. P. 36, #2: riprap and bulkhead along Fall Creek could increase erosion problems. 20. P. 36, #i3• abions that are not to be removed should be covered with soil and plant' soon as the seasons allow. 21. P. 35, #7: any impoundment structure for the lagoon should be in place only in winter and only when lake level is low. 22. P. 39: In general I think the current parallel parking works well and should net- be ta,.r � 23. P. 40: see earlier comments. Also, 6-foot. wide paths (item a.) would be much too wide. 24. P. 42, b: avoid play equipment with "wind-generated sound or moving parts." 25. P. 43, top: I do not favor moving the entrance to the Fuertes Sanctuary. However, some type of low-key barrier to bikes might be a good idea at the entrance (east of the lagoon). ,Kale\ 5 26. P. 43, #6: do not include Fuertes Sanctuary in any improved network of paths and bikeways. 27. P. 45, #7: Signs to "highlight the main activitiy areas of the park" are not needed. 28. P. 46, g: would lights only 12-14 feet high be too easy to smash? 29. P. 46, i #2: keep "Stewart Park" entry signs as they are. 30. P. 47, f: removing vegetation on Fall Creek to accommodate new riprap and rowing dock Would result in more serious erosion problems there. Same comment on next page, item c. 31. The phasing recommendations need careful reevaluation. It appears that much more is included in Stage One than could possibly be done in that time, even if money were available. Stage One should start with only the most essential items. Frills can come later. 32. P. 48: If any trees are removed along Fall Creek in connection with regrading the shoreline, they should be replaced after regrading is complete. 33. P. 49, Area G, stage One: First priority should be to clean trash out of the water. 34. P. 50, H, stage one, d: omit this idea. (Sculpture in the circle and around the lagoon.) 35. P. 50, Area J, stage one, c: would trees here obstruct views of the lake? d: I don't think people want or need more bbq's and picnic tables along edges of West Field. 36. P. 53, Area T, a: One alternative to a fence along railway would be a thick wall of prickly vegetation such as black raspberries. Or an attractive post-and-rail fence could be installed with a solid mass of roses climbing over it (to keep kids from doing same!). Same page, Area U, b: no need to relocate the existing entrance columns. " U, c: drop-off area need be no more than a park bench. • i 2 In my role as the representative from the Conservation Advisory Council, I would like to pass on to SPA to a Parks Commission or to Common Council the • o t e that a footbridge, with handicapped access, . .:r be erected over rte. 13 at a point where the road comes near Stewart Park. The bridge would not cross the rr tracts, but would descend to a new sidewalk which would lead to the park entrance. We recognize that such a bridge would be expensive, but the value to city residents and to the park itself could outweigh the cost. At the very least, the city should find out how much such a bridge would cost. Many cities, both in the U.S. and in other countries, have such bridges and have apparently not felt that the cost was prohibitive. Benefits of such a bridge: 1. The park would be made far more accessible to city residents who can't drive to the park or who prefer not to, and to people on bicycles or in wheelchairs. (While a new sidewalk from the north end of Cayuga St., passing under the rte. 13 bridge, and leading to the park entrance would be better than nothing, it would not`be-es-tise€al ar a footbrid�ge.) m.n Ce.ccst a a.��. ce.0 w i<D 2. Parking and traffic problems in the park would be lessened, perhaps enough to eliminate any need for new parking lots or other parking alterations. Such cost savings should be weighed against the cost of the bridge. 3. Fewer cars in the park would lessen road wear, another cost saving. 4. Fewer cars in the park would make the park more attractive. t • .,q11 1 % ? i ant "\jO�RATEO CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM CODE 607 H.MATTHYS VAN COAT,DIRECTOR To: Thys Van Cort From: Leslie Chatterton �- Re: Stewart Park Advisory Group Date: October 29, 1987 The SPAG subcommittee has completed work with Paula Horrigan with respect to preparation of the final draft of the Stewart Park Preservation Goals and Guidelines . The subcommittee would like to suggest the following schedule for releasing the manual to SPAG and members of the public. 1 . Meeting with Paula Horrigan, Barbara Ebert, Leslie Chatterton and Thys Van Cort to review objectives and activities of the subcommittee (November 2-6) f '5' 2 . Meeting with Mayor Gutenberger, Thys Van Cort, Jack Dougherty, Barbara Ebert and Leslie Chatterton to review activities of the subcommittee, schedule the next SPAG meeting and prepare the agenda (November 4-11) 3 . Distribution of the final draft of the Stewart Park Preservation Goals and Guidelines to SPAG members, along with announcement of the next SPAG meeting date (November 12-19) Attached for your information are three resolutions prepared by the subcommittee for presentation at the next SPAG meeting and a proposed cover letter to include with copies of the final draft when they are distributed to SPAG members for review. LC/mc Enclosures (disk #6) An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" r 1 frtriT171.1 m ; CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM To: SPAG Subcommittee Members Betsy Darlington, Barbara Ebert, LaMoyne Farrell From: Leslie Chatterton Re: Stewart Park Preservation Goals and Guidelines Date: October 30, 1987 Here is the long awaited final draft! I remember we discussed a preliminary review by our group before distributing the manual to the full SPAG -- to make sure all is as we expected. I have also enclosed a draft of the cover letter we composed to send with the final draft. I would appreciate your comments on the few changes I have made to the letter before we send it to the full SPAG. Please contact me regarding these matters at your earliest convenience. LC/mc Enclousres ���► app 9e by �I or 0k:den i4,5 • v , 9c • • "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" , DRAFT MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Stewart Park Advisory Group (SPAG) From: SPAG Subcommittee Members Leslie Chatterton, Betsey Darlington, Barbara Ebert, LaMoyne Farrell Re: Final Draft of the Stewart Park Preservation Goals and Guidelines Date: October 29, 1987 You will recall that at the last meeting of SPAG a subcommittee was created to work with staff from Trowbridge-Trowbridge with preparation of the final draft of the Stewart Park Preservation Goals and Guidelines. During the past four months this subcommittee has thoroughly reviewed all four chapters of the manual and has discussed positive and negative elements of the guidelines. We feel that the goals of the manual address the concerns of SPAG and community members regarding preservation, restoration and maintenance of the park. Although individual subcommittee members had reservations about particular guidelines and details, we nevertheless agree that the Stewart Park Preservation Goals and Guidelines serve as a valuable resource for future planning and maintenance of Stewart Park. Enclosed is the final draft of the Goals and Guidelines for your review. When evaluating the plan we ask SPAG members to keep in mind that any major changes proposed for the park will undergo further public hearings as part of Common Council 's budgetary process. The subcommittee will present its report and make recommendations to the full SPAG, at its next scheduled meeting (to be announced) . .1rA I d; 'Ir0 ►%-_-= - �R�°bRA?EO-= CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Stewart Park Advisory Group (SPAG) FROM: SPAG Subcommittee Members Leslie Chatterton, Betsey Darlington, Barbara Ebert, LeMoyne Farrell RE: Final Draft of the Stewart Park .Preservation Goals and Guidelines DATE: November 12, 1987 You will recall that at the last meeting of SPAG a subcommittee was created to make recommendations to Trowbridge-Trowbridge during preparation of the final draft of the Stewart Park Preservation Goals and Guidelines. Over the past four months this subcommittee has thoroughly reviewed all four chapters of the manual and has discussed positive and negative elements of the guidelines. We feel that the goals of the manual address the concerns of SPAG and community members regarding preservation, restoration and maintenance of the park. Although individual subcommittee members had reservations about particular guidelines and details, we nevertheless agree that the Stewart Park Preservation Goals and Guidelines serve as a valuable resource for future planning and maintenance of Stewart Park. Enclosed is the final draft of the Goals and Guidelines for your review. When evaluating the plan we ask SPAG members to keep in mind that any major changes proposed for the park will undergo further public hearings as part of Common Council 's budgetary process. The subcommittee will present its report and make recomendations to the full SPAG, at a meeting tentatively scheduled for mid December. LAC:eh xc:Common Council Board of Public Works' Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Planning & Development Board 0-hd-SPAG.LAC An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" ' - 'w@ i 1CO • r003 CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 NOVEMBER 16, 1987 MEDIA RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: MAYOR JOHN C. GUTENBERGER 272-1713 EXT. 231 STEWART PARK 1987 PRESERVATION GOALS AND GUIDELINES MAYOR JOHN C. GUTENBERGER AND THE STEWART PARK ADVISORY GROUP (SPAG) HAVE RELEASED THE STEWART PARK 1987 PRESERVATION GOALS AND GUIDELINES. COPIES WERE DISTRIBUTED TO SPAG, COMMON COUNCIL, BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD LAST WEEK. REMAINING COPIES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 3RD FLOOR, CITY HALL, UNTIL THEY RUN OUT. WORK ON THE NEW MANUAL BEGAN IN SPRING OF 1986. AFTER COMMON COUNCIL APPROVED THE EXPENDITURE TO ENGAGE A CONSULTANT, THE CITY CONTRACTED WITH THE FIRM OF TROWBRIDGE - TROWBRIDGE TO PREPARE THE MANUAL. TROWBRIDGE STAFF BEGAN THE TASK BY CONDUCTING A USER INFORMATION SURVEY AND CONTINUED TO SOLICIT COMMUNITY INPUT ON USE AND DESIGN ISSUES An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" BY HOLDING A SERIES OF SEVEN PUBLIC MEETINGS WHILE WORK WAS IN PROGRESS. THE STEWART PARK ADVISORY GROUP PROVIDED FURTHER INPUT AND GUIDANCE FROM A VARIETY OF INTEREST GROUPS SUCH AS THE CASCADILLA BOAT CLUB, THE CAYUGA BIRD CLUB AND CIRCLE GREENWAY. AT THE JULY 9, 1987 SPAG MEETING A SUBCOMMITTEE WAS CREATED TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO STAFF FROM TROWBRIDGE - TROWBRIDGE DURING PREPARATION OF THE FINAL DRAFT. OVER THE PAST FOUR MONTHS THIS SUBCOMMITTEE HAS THOROUGHLY REVIEWED ALL FOUR CHAPTERS OF THE MANUAL AND AS A RESULT FEELS THAT THE GOALS ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF SPAG AND THE COMMUNITY REGARDING THE PRESERVATION, RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PARK. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO AGREED THAT THE GUIDELINES CONTAINED IN THE MANUAL SERVE AS A VALUABLE RESOURCE FOR FUTURE PLANNING AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PARK. THE SPAG SUBCOMMITTEE WILL PRESENT ITS REPORT AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FULL SPAG AT A MEETING TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR MID DECEMBER. - 30 - 4 r.K.9is CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 141350 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR • TO: Mayor John Gutenberger FROM: H. Matthys Van Cort, Director, Planning and Development rimucl-e'.- RE: December SPAG meeting DATE: November 19, 1987 As we discussed in your office on November 9th, the format of the next SPAG meeting tentatively scheduled for mid-December can strongly effect the direction of the SPAG discussion re: the Stewart Park Preservation Goals & Guidelines. The SPAG subcommittee, during their work with Trowbridge staff, formulated a proposal for conducting the meeting, which I have discussed with you. Their principal suggestions are: 1 . to engage a mediator from the Community Dispute Resolution Center, as was done for the June 11 , 1987 public meeting. 2. to allow Barbara Ebert and other SPAG subcommittee members Betsey Darlington, teMayne Farrell and Leslie Chatterton to conduct the bulk of the meeting including: • a) .setting the agenda b) delivering a report on the process of completing the final draft c) discussing questions and comments from SPAG d) making recommendations and introducing resolutions I would appreciate your discussing this proposal .with SPAG Chairperson, Jack Dougherty. Please let me know if you have •further thoughts on this matter. HMVC:eh 0-hd-SPAGmet.Thys An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" . 2 ':,, __..---611..T444, ...... FAA... ;`j,,, 7nr •� c-- 2 OM , ' ; 1 % ..• DEPARTMENT OF ''PPo "'�O�" PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CODE 607 To: Members of SPAG or any other body charged with care of Stewart Park From: Betsy Darlington, rep. to SPAG from Conservation Advisory Council, and member of the SPAG Subcommittee Nov. 22, 1987 Each of us on the subcommittee of SPAG agreed with the overall Trowbridge Goals, and with the usefulness of the Trowbridge Guidelines as a resource future planning. However, each of us found various specific "Guidelines" to be unacceptable. It should be noted that in Chapter 2, "Preservation Goals," guidelines sometimes become confused with goals. In my role as the representative from the Conservation Advisory Council, I brought my own reservations about the Guidelines to our Nov. 18th meeting. We agreed on the following statement of reservations. Most members had not yet had time to go through the Goals and Guidelines carefully. After they have done so, they may submit further statements on their own. 1. P. 8, item #2: Complete restoration of the Boathouse to its original character might mean ending up with a larger, more imposing structure than people need or want for the site. 2. P. 9, item C #3: We see no need or desire for a path connecting the tea pavilion to the main pavilion complex. The cost of installation and maintenance are further objections to a new path. (Let worn-out, trampeled turf be a guide to installation of any new paths.) 3. P. 9, item C #4: Does the Tea Pavilion's prominence need enhancing? 4. P. 9, D #3: If a new garden is put in, a single path to the pavilions should be enough. Maintenance problems of a garden could place too heavy a burden on the already understaffed DPW. i 5. The whole question of riprap (large stones intended to limit erosion) should be researched before shore stabilization measures using riprap are taken. There is some evidence that riprap in fact increases erosion. (E.g. see TIME, August 10/87, page 45.) At least part of the problem may be that water swirls around the stones, washing away the soil. If this turns out to be the case, perhaps a return to a gently graded shoreline with no riprap would be preferable. One possibility would be to remove the riprap from a small area where erosion is currently a problem, fill and regrade to a gentle slope, and then monitor the area to see whether it holds up better than riprapped areas. C411.11 km/164 4" WS riAlti_d_ , ..”..istf)'(-- 4tfer ofri„,,,1074i ekt, /vim vvvv vaglx1:71 7)447511 (�����'' "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Pr r m" 4444 --1/14C649 dir- 2 Whatever is done, the shore will undoubtedly need periodic maintenance. 6. A jetty might just become a trap for debris and be another maintenance headache. A jetty should be a very low priority item. 7. We are in favor of installing low speed bumps to slow down the traffic. While high ones could be a hazard, low ones should not be. Speed bumps are used in many other public parks. 8. P. 12, end of 3rd para.: Just because walkways were once "historically proposed" does not necessarily make them a good idea. 9. P. 14, A #2: Is there really a need for path improvements? 10. P. 14, B #1: How about moving the tennis courts to GIAC or Cass Park or the Chamber of Commerce's new site? (Or reclaim the spot the city has decided to license for the Chamber of Commerce's parking lot, and put the courts there (if they'd fit in the space). There is some question as to whether the "licensing" of that space is really legal anyway.) 11. P. 14, D #1: Any new dock should be kept simple, and be easily removeable for the winter. Also, it should be kept in mind that structures such as bulkheads built into fast-moving water can cause erosion problems. Before anything is built specifically to accommodate the Cascadilla Boat Club, it should be determined if the club intends to remain in that location. 12. P. 15, #1: Park benches, tables, etc. should not be discarded until they are worn out. At that time, they could be replaced with ones considered compatible with the other park furnishings. 13. P. 15, #4: The entrance to the park should be kept simple. 14. P. 16, second column: We are not in favor of a new structure at the lagoon nor of a pier. While stated on page 16 as low priority items, pages 52 and 56 in the phasing section suggest consideration of these items in stage one! A pier would have major liability problems: people diving off into shallow, murky water and breaking their necks, for example. It would also be a maintenance headache and an obstruction to the view along the shore. We feel that an unimpeded view of the lake must be maintained. A new structure at the lagoon would be incompatible with the goal of improving the lagoon for wildlife, as a transition zone to the Fuertes Sanctuary. 15. P. 23, 2nd column: Relocated concession should have clear visibility between the play area and the counter, so parents and kids can keep track of one another. 16. P. 23, last para.: A pergola would be an unnecessary expense, a maintenance headache, a hazard to kids who would surely climb on it, 3 and a frill of the type to which people have expressed strong opposition. 17. P. 31 ff: Native species in the lists should be preferred to exotics. 18. P. 39, #7: Any impoundment structure for the lagoon should be in place only in winter and only when lake level is low and only if the DEC or other knowledgeable people advise that it would not be ecologically harmful. 19. Removal of vegetation along Fall Creek and the lake shore near the nature pond could well increase erosion problems. 20. P. 40, #3: Gabions that are not to be removed should be covered with soil and plantings as soon as the seasons allow. 21. P. 42: No need at this time for more lakefront parking. 22. P. 44: 6-foot-wide paths (item a.) would be much too wide. Three feet, maybe? 23. P. 46, b: Avoid play equipment with "wind-generated sound or moving parts." (The children themselves provide these in abundance!) 24. P. 47, top: We see no point in moving the entrance to the Fuertes Sanctuary. However, some type of low-key barrier to bikes might be a good idea at the entrance (east of the lagoon). 25. P. 47, #6: Fuertes Sanctuary should not be included in any improved network of paths and bikeways. This would only lead to overuse and abuse of the preserve. 26. P. 49, #7: Signs to "highlight the main activity areas of the park" are not needed. 27. P. 50, g: Would lights only 12-14 feet high be too easy to smash? 28. P. 50, i #2: Keep "Stewart Park" entry signs as they are. 29. P. 51, f and g: Removing vegetation on Fall Creek to accommodate new riprap and rowing dock could result in more serious erosion problems there. Same comment on next page, item c. 30. The phasing recommendations need careful reevaluation. It appears that much more is included in Stage One than could possibly be done in that time, even if money were available. Stage One should start with only the most essential items. Frills can come later, and in small doses. 31. P. 52: If any trees are removed along Fall Creek in connection with regrading the shoreline, they should be replaced after regrading is complete. 4 32. P. 53, Area G, stage One: First priority should be to rake trash and algae out of the water. 33. P. 54, H, stage one, d: Do people really want sculptures in the circle east of the lagoon? (If at all, it should come in the very last stage.) How would they be protected from vandalism? 34. P. 54, Area 3, stage one, d: Do people want or need more bbq's and picnic tables along the edges of West Field? (At most, put this in stage 3). The GuidelinD call for an enormous increase in these facil- ities--many more than would probably be desirable. 35. P. 57, Area T, a: One alternative to a fence along the railway would be a thick wall of prickly vegetation such as black raspberries. Or an attractive post-and-rail fence could be installed with a solid mass of roses climbing over it (to keep kids from doing same!). A hedge of multiflora rose would also serve the purpose, though there are some ecological objections to its use. Same page, Area U, b: no need to relocate the existing entrance columns. it " U, c: drop-off area need be no more than a park bench. I filig 1174"'\ bfe.,a4:e- (_.,,G1,16"7-4- jet_ii_ix:e7 !e 111)1 NOV 2 4 1981 DEPARTMENT O PLANNING&DEVELOP A` ,s. ;:' ®° : CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS JOHN A. DOUGHERTY TELEPHONE: 272-1713 SUPERINTENDENT CODE 607 MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Stewart Park Advisory Group (SPAG) From: John A. Dougherty, Chair Subject: Meeting of SPAG Date: November 23, 1987 The final DRAFT of the "Stewart Park Preservation Goals and Guidelines", • under the guidance of our sub-committee, has been completed. I am calling a meeting of the entire SPAG to discuss and make recommendations on the guidelines. This meeting will be held in the Common Council Chambers on Tuesday, December 15, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. Your copy of the guidelines was sent to you on November 12, 1987. If you did not receive it, please contact the City Planning Department immediately. Please make yourself familiar, in detail , with this manual . Our ability to resolve the process that will result in a recommendation depends on the ability and willingness of each member to make a decision. cc: Trowbridge & Trowbridge Common Council Board of Public Works Doria Higgins Tom Niederkorn An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" MEMORANDUM TO: Members of Stewart Park Advisory Group (SPAG) FROM: Citizens to Save Stewart Park b5 pv RE: CSSP Thoughts About "Stewart Park Preservation Goals and Guidelines" and Possible SPAG Recommendations DATE: December 9, 1987 We would like to support the recommendation of the SPAG Subcommittee to you (November 12 Memo) "that the Stewart Park Preservation Goals and Guidelines serve as a valuable resource for future planning and maintenance of Stewart Park. " (underlining ours) We support this recommendation in that we do not think the "Guidelines" pretend to be, nor should they be, considered as plans to be approved or disapproved in concept, or as plans to be implemented. We hope your recommendation to Common Council will be clear in recommending "Guidelines" only as a "resource" and not as "plans. " We also think it important and hope you will so recommend that any and each action proposed at any time for the park be carefully scrutinized and debated by Common Council. We retain our strong reservations* concerning items proposed in the earlier "Design Plan Manual" which reappear in the "Guidelines" particularly concerning the proposed roadway and parking changes. We also feel there is too strong an emphasis in the new document on paths and "landscaping." And we think the scale of Stewart Park precludes using it as an "Art Park. " Cass Park is much better scaled for this purpose. There are two items proposed in the Guidelines which we hope you could recommend to Common Council for immediate implementation. 1. We think the proposal on page 7 for a Parks Commission should be given immediate consideration. The experiences of the last few years surely have made clear to all of us the need for ongoing professional overseeing of changes proposed, not only for Stewart Park, but for other Ithaca City parks as well. 2. We think the suggestions on page 17 for stabilization of the park buildings should be reviewed by architectural restorers and, if approved by them, implemented immediately. There is one section of the Guidelines we think should be deleted. We found Chapter Four, "Recommended Phasing Actions" confusing, and in many ways meaningless; and we think it could be 2- to SPAG re Guidelines misused. The scheme it uses of dividing the park into 23 areas, Area A through Area W, and, with few exceptions, placing all proposed actions into Stage One of that particular Area, essentially recommends immediate implementation of all the actions proposed without any thoughtful indication of real priorities. In the few exceptions to this we found the phasing poorly conceived--for instance in Area A, landscaping around the Boathouse is planned for Stage One and restoration of the Boathouse is planned for Stage Two. We think deletion of the entire chapter now will save confusion and headaches later on. We would also like to suggest that you give some consideration to recommendations which could resolve the dilemma of having the Niederkorn Plan still operable. It seems to us that a recommendation that it be rescinded would be appropriate. In closing we would like to express our appreciation to Ms. Chatterton, Darlington, Ebert, and Farrell for the long hours of study and discussion which they have devoted to this project. We think they have performed an important service for the community. We also think it was extremely generous of Mr. Trowbridge and staff to contribute so much of their professional time in responding to comments from the community and trying to incorporate such comments into their final document. *See our June, 1987 , Analysis and Evaluation of the Trowbridge Stewart Park Design Plan Manual. Citizens to Save Stewart Park, 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, NY (607) 273-6450 r? .•%•. 61i:111171 ' 6 11T 1 CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 9 4850 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT CODE 607 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR STEWART PARK ADVISORY GROUP Tuesday, December 15, 1987 at 7 : 30 Common Council Chambers City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2 . Introduction of Facilitator 3 . Consultant's Remarks 4. Committee Report 5 . Public Comment 6. Resolutions "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" 4/1 f ✓e- 5d Gu17os aim/ veal by 0d � L of !o, ,q,d, r�� !�!/ l�vi/`d► 441 !' f L= 1'.CSV1,I f7Uz., STEWART PARK ADVISORY GROUP r t,-ed Meeting of December 15, 1987 31987 7:30 P.M. ' Attending: Betsy Darlington, Margo Clynes, Barbara Ebert, Sean Killeen, Ben Nichols, LeMoyne Farrell , Jon Meigs, 2cris Ivey, John Gu=enberger, John Dougherty, Leslie Chatterton, Charles Dunlop Absent: Susan Blumenthal , Carol Seligmann The following resolutions were adopted by the Stewart Park Advisory Sroup: 1 ) WHEREAS, Common Council , on April 2, 1986, approved the expenditure of $21 ,500 for preparation of "design develcoment drawings" for Stewart Park, and the City subsequently hired Trowbridge and Trowbridge for this task, and WHEREAS, the Stewart Park Advisory Group (S.P.A.G.; was reactivated to provide guidance to the Trowbridge staff, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board, the S.P.A.G. and numerous organizations and individuals within the City have recommended that a principal component of the design development plan should consist of guidelines for preservation and maintenance of Stewart Park, and WHEREAS, at the invitation of Trowbridge and Trowbridge a S.P.A.G. subcommittee was created to work with the consultant's staff on preparation of the final draft, and WHEREAS, the final draft entitled, "Stewart Park Preservation Goals and Guidelines" has been reviewed in depth by the S.P.A.G. subcommittee and the subcommittee finds the document meets the objective of providing preservation and maintenance guidelines, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That S.P.A.G. recorrends to Common Council the adoption of all goals stated in the "Stewart Park 1987 Preservation Goals and Guidelines", specifically: Goal One: Establish a Park Commission Goal Two: Preserve Historic Structures and their Landscape Setting Goal Three: Preserve and Enhance the 2verall Park Landscape Goal Four: Protect and Beautify the Sroreline Goal Five: Preserve and Enhance Park =cad and Path Systems Goal Six: Preserve Passive and Informai Recreation Activities, Preserve Limited Active Recreation and Enhance Water Related Activities Goal Seven: Coordinate Park Furnishir_s BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the guidelines stated in Chapter Three of the "Stewart Park 1987 Preservation Goals and Suidelines" shall serve as one of several resources for implementation of the goals. -2- 2) WHEREAS, Common Council , on April 2, 1987, approved the expenditure of $21 ,500 for preparation of "design development drawings" for Stewart Park and the City subsequently hired Trowbridge and Trowbridge for this task, and WHEREAS, in fulfillment of its contract with the City, Trowbridge and Trowbridge has prepared the "Stewart Park 1987 Preservation Goals and Guidelines", and WHEREAS, the first goal of the Preservation Goals and Guidelines calls for the establishment of a Parks Commission to act as overseer on planning and maintenance issues in the park, and WHEREAS, public support and desire for such a Commission has been strongly expressed by community groups and individuals, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That the S.P.A.G. recommends to Common Council the creation of a Parks Commission to be the first action implemented from the Preservation Goals and Guidelines, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That S.P.A.G. recommends that Common Council arrange to provide the Parks Commission with adequate staff support, such as the Parks Manager, as mentioned in goal #1 of the "Stewart Park 1987 Preservation Goals and Guidelines", page 6. 3) WHEREAS, Common Council on January 2, 1985, adopted the Stewart Park Master Plan as the "official concept plan for that area", and WHEREAS, Common Council on April 2, 1986, approved the expenditure of $21 ,500 for preparation of "design development drawings" for Stewart Park, and the City subsequently hired Trowbridge and Trowbridge for this task, and WHEREAS, in fulfillment of its contract Trowbridge and Trowbridge has prepared the "Stewart Park 1987 Preservation Goals and Guidelines", and WHEREAS, the 1987 Preservation Goals and Guidelines reflect community concerns to restore, preserve and maintain the character of Stewart Park, and WHEREAS, the existence of two separate plans can cause confusion and can restrict effective use of the "Stewart Park 1987 Preservation Goals and guidelines", NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That S.P.A.G. recommends that Common Council rescind the Stewart Park Master Plan as the "official concept plan for that area". I -3- i 4) BE IT RESOLVED That the S.P.A.G. recommends to Common Council that stabilization of Stewart Park buildings as suggested on pages 17 and 18 of the "Stewart Park 1987 Preservation Goals and Guidelines" be reviewed and acted upon as soon as practicable. The above resolutions were passed by the members as follows: Resolution No. 1 . . . .Unanimous Resolution No. 2. . . .Unanimous Resolution No. 3.. . .Passing vote of 9 to 3 Resolution No. 4. . . .Passing vote of 11 to 1 4114011 /-4L ohn A. Dougherty,i�airma Stewart Park Advisory Group copies to: Board of Public Works Common Council S.P.A.G. Mayor Planning Director City Engineer Asst. Supt. of Public Works Parks & Grounds Supervisor 15 December 1987 To: Stewart Park Advisory Group From: Le Moyne Farrell AT -k' A ' Subject : 1987 Preservation Coals and Guidelines for Stewart Park Here are some comments in response to the Coals and Guidelines : Positive : -Suggestion that a City Parks Commission be set up containing professional ecologist, aquatic biologist, ornithologist, land- scape preservationist , citizens , and BPW representatives . -Renovation of Pavillions , fencing for carrousel , moving play areas away from traffic and parking, and moving of rose garden to Flag Pole area. -Placing shrubs that support wintering birds with fruit , i .e . , plantings along shoreline near the Sanctbary to protect the sanctuary. Perimeter of Park' s inner grounds could use windbreaks . Negative : -Changes in parking and road pattern not efficient for emergency vehicles or user circulation of vehicles . Paths are redundant. -Park furnishings as designed are not appropriate for elderly or disabled since they are backless . Present lighting seems adequate given closing rules of Park. Adequate picnic tables exist now. -Shoreline: No more rip-rap be laid or removed, since -,•rerpoval will disrupt shoreline and injure trees now in the area. No use of the Lagoon shoreline should be encouraged, since the water is turgid and collects garbage now; laughing boats there or building a Gazebo adds traffic to an already sensitive environment . -Tennis courts : These are costly recreation elements , both to remove and maintain. Real user research is needed to determine their value . -Lagoon: Impounding this water in winter for skating would increase wear and tear on Park and disrupt acquatic life which hibernate in the unfrozen stream in winter. The Park needs to rest in winter. Concerns : -The Cascadilla Boat CLub has made a pfaposal for floating docks at the Boathouse landing which could be winterized in the building to prevent winter damage. Mr. Rogovich' s plan needs to be intergrated in the renovations of the Boathouse. -The Barbecue Pit needs a covered flue to guide smoke from area rather than removal to a different area in the Park. -Insuffid'e. t planning occurs in designing the east side of the Park lawn space to help Youth Burea activities. Proposed RESOLUTION TO FORM A PARKS COMMISSION (Draf Suggested by Citizens to Save Stewart Park c L f a I!J A i SAN 2 8988 � l . 1 WHEREAS parks and green spaces are important elements i ma ' a community a healthy and attractive place to live; and p'A ' ,,j ! 2 WHEREAS American planners and critics have noted that parklands are today an endangered species, (distinguished critic Ida Louise Huxtable, in speaking about the "death of a city by development" has said "Human amenities? Urban aesthetics? Public Good? None of it balances against private profit," and Norman T. Newton, Professor Emeritus of Landscape Architecture at Harvard University has said , " . . .often it is not a question of dishonesty or greed or malice on the part of public officials but only a matter of failure to comprehend the vitally important social value of the parks they would so thoughtlessly destroy. " ) ; and 3 WHEREAS recent political decisions in Ithaca concerning our parklands and open spaces highlight the fact that the parks in Ithaca are endangered (Vide: July 1, 1986 , Common Council Resolution to let the Chamber of Commerce erect an office building on a site "adjacent to" but actually inside the boundaries of Stewart Park, and vide: Mayor Guten- berger February 7, 1985, information packet to Assemblyman McNeil which said the "desire to put available land to its highest and best use" is the reason the city is removing Inlet Island and Southwest Parks from park usage and making that land available "for commercial and indus- trial development. " ) ; and 4 WHEREAS because of these reasons there is an urgent need for the protection, preservation, and advocacy of our public parks and open spaces, and the hope that they can be increased rather than diminished; now, therefore, be it 5 RESOLVED that a Parks Commission for the City of Ithaca be formed to serve as protector, preserver, and advocate of our public parks and open spaces, and that the Parks Commission function as a review committee for proposed changes, a setter of priorities and a guardian of proper park care, similar to the way the independent Arts Commission and the independent Landmarks Commission function for Central Park in New York City, and that all proposed changes to the design and layout of public parks, all proposals to alienate public parks and accompany- ing 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 (with more specific review by specialists if deemed necessary) 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, and be it further 6 RESOLVED that such Parks Commission be independent of all and any city agencies such as the Department of Planning and Development and the Department of Public Works; and be it further 2 - Park Commission 7 RESOLVED that this Commission consist of members of known professional expertise in relevant scientific-technical areas; and in aesthetic areas; and of members of the park user population such as, for example: ecologist/naturalist landscape architect old and sedentary botanist or horticulturist painter parents of young ornithologist sculptor children aquatic biologist architect members hard rock architectural preservationist music groups and be it further 8 RESOLVED that a member of the Department of Public Works and a member of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission be appointed as liaison members to the Parks Commission to ensure smooth coordination between those bodies in developing maintenance and management procedures and establishing priorities and long-term goals for all of the city parks; and be it further 9 RESOLVED that it is premature to establish or define the role of "Park Manager" or "staff support" as recommended by SPAG, and that instead the Parks Commission should first be established and that it should, at a later date, based on experience, decide what kind of staff support it need; and be it further 10 RESOLVED that the Parks Commission start with a clean slate and that it not be burdened with earlier decisions made regarding the Trowbridge "Stewart Park 1987 Preservation Goals and Guidelines" but that the "Goals and Guidelines" serve, among other documents, as a planning resource. 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, NY 14850, (607) 273-6450 r` w 4 \ 1 _____J.,, ....04:; .,...,4,.;---- ..--r-- \__, Cayuga Lake tom i 4--, Pier ��� (�� / I/ ' , ; . S _0 . i _.-/''._:---:-f":-f:---:--'-':": 'fl- <blit:.*4.449.411"°*ili----14111)374-7:::*:-D'I. 0 p P • o,', ,ems *ii, Seawall / i / ® Afe J'a I �� 4 l o,/,ss. i ofiii. ''''"'\,-.?„,__ _i. -, .,....0-3- „o 3 5 ' - . 8 111°'aL4 7 '' '-f-----2.-}:77L--\'/4' ' \nr-1:\7-.1":'' '° ////// \,,,,(M-B 0 Tea % 0 at , . r 1 -,----, . 401 I "moo)", ., : , , , 0 .o r_, ura ,r., __, / :7.C:5/ 4 ,,,, __ ___-_-__I r, e 1 ,,,do /0 --,,, . ✓ 0 St man -b C 4� ,1 0 itio s„„ ..„„i- tib ' 0 , af, • j ..►. s o CL .,J/( �-,..James Gibbs fi iry) %,',..' East Field '/ _ �J \ Pla ground C� \�, 5 \ 1 5 Formal Garden O (� / En ante � N. ,' "' L✓ M, or Stent MemOrtal/ �� / \\ �I 1, fir ,, . y \ ' ,\�. // s \ / E — �. ,, o "Art In ` f , d 4r_? •. 1 :P uertes Ga to - ---- -� " - / / .,� i V -. h \ \\ _ \t :. � ' %�/� � / ' _ � . � om % ��% � , i 1.akdvt, p*VM" . . T h \ ? ,ems ',\ A . y 1 i 0 a — \ .,�. ea. p^a { Vii . s �+ . .litigiVos..4t.:,\, a, „.....111 . , Roviing Dock.4-S7SA.:• ' .° Fiala „w a ,i i ,\ ; West / ..- .. •.... , 0 \.' ' ' ,..• -- • , • -„ ww A t- 0 0 ,_1 ''.' '' ' '6) i �, 1 2 • O r Lago°" purl+ Glade /' / • pavilion / ''''' ''7 ,.. 0 r, ' i : /4. (b \-ks-7,,t\ __:,,,,,,, / . Go" / - Cpurse _�� �g�ia9