The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes & Information From Meetings in 1987 i l S T EWART PARK ADV=S ORY GROUP l q%- 4AME ADDRESS PHONE ORGANIZATION iusan Blumenthal 305 Mitchell St. 272-3931 (H) Planning & Development Margo Clynes 306 Elm Street 273-4305 (H) Circle Greenway :harles Dunlop Box 283 387-7041 (B) Finger Lakes Park Commission Trumansburg, N.Y. 14886 Sean Killeen 111 Orchard Place 273-6615 (H) Common Council Barbara Ebert 120 North Cayuga St. 273-6633 (B) Historic Ithaca Carol Seligmann 115 Eastwood Terrace 273-8966 (H) Youth Bureau Betsy Darlington 204 Fairmont Ave. 273-0707 (H) Conservation Advisory Council Ben Nichols 109 Llenroc Court 273-6523 (H) Board of Public Works Roger H. Farrell 120 Eastwood Terrace 273-0295 (H) Cayuga Bird Club Leslie Chatterton City Hall Ext. 246 Landmarks Preservation Commission Robert Cutia 1701 North Cayuga St. 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 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 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 January 28, 1987 The Honorable John C. Gutenberger Mayor of The City of Ithaca City Hall Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Mayor: We cannot help wondering at your continued lack of response to our letters and inquiries to you about Citizens to Save joining the Stewart Park Advisory Group. In our November 18, 1986, letter to you we asked that the functions and powers, "the charge to the committee" of SPAG be defined. We feel it important that we be informed of what our responsibilities would be before accepting those responsibilities. We made it plain in our November and December 3rd letters, as well as in conversations with you, that we are eager to help you in this matter. Is your silence because you have not yet formulated the responsibilities and powers of SPAG? We think it important that the responsibilities and powers of such a publicly appointed group be spelled out for the members and for the public. Upon hearing from you, we would like the same courtesy extended to us which was extended to the Tompkins County Federation of Sportsmen, Circle Greenway, Historic Ithaca, Cayuga Bird Club, and others -- that we be permitted to appoint our own representative to SPAG. We look forward to hearing from you. With all best wishes. Cordially yours, D4 - � L�7x l Doria Higgins for Citizens to Save Stewart Park i / / ep `'43 tqx tvM�9 NO ex ?.0 Skis N ?.�O � / CSTI G etA`C = \ tAVCty i h ��tq y OF x ,ry ee / y NO 'e. q / \ Ski ?. r� Cq z3/ S 6 c, AV C P t V U R S 3 / f a Ui i i I ` oacc�� A), T�H�AC�AY�O�U BEAU PROPOSED PARKING ING 0 I _ i i t I r 1 0 5No cv PROPOSE PARKING t GQ.� 0/ rn in In a WILLIAM DOWNING ASSOCIATES DATE 17 FEB 871 JOB NUMBER I PROJECT TITLE SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER z ARCHITECTS DRAWN BY TJK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 m THE DEWITT BUILDING. ITHACA,NEW YORK 14850 SCALE 1'.40' i A� COQ, / 0 \ ` AT i 1 P4 Poo co :.......... ......... i �. PROPOSED — — — — 8TRUCTURE . 3,000 8F LOT SIZE PARCEL A 17,800 80 0 SF I i PARCEL B 12,600 y A PARCEL C 13,860 TOTAL 43,760 SF Li TOWN OF ITHACA LL� � o Lu ZONING ORDINANCE SUMMARY -7 �Ox CURRENT. CLASSIFICATION R-15 FRONT YARD SET BACK 25 FT SIDE YARD SET BACK 15 FT REAR YARD SET BACK 30 FT MAXIMUM HEIGHT 30 FT MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE 20 % / y`1GP MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 FT GP MINIMUM LOT DEPTH 150 FT Ln - — — —In -- — \ NOTEi MNING BOARD APPROVAL FOR THIS In is USE WILL BE NECESSARY. b JOB NUMBER PROJECT TITLE SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER �* WILLIAM DOWNING ASSOCIATES DATE » FEB 8 7 z ARCHITECTS DRAWN BY TJK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROPOSAL A 2 m THE DEWITT BUILDING, ITHACA,NEW YORK 14850 SCALE 1'=40 J� ♦ i A: co ♦ \ '�� A A r — gk'NQ FOR 8 PROPOSED?`'. LOT SIZE TWO STORY : ESTRUCTUREPARCEL A 17,800 SF 3,600 SF t PARCEL B 12,600 o .* TOTAL 30,400 SF 000000e Z TOWN OF ITHACA i ZONING ORDINANCE SUMMARY L — —] � � ° �� O� CURRENT CLASSIFICATION R-15 5 FRONT YARD SET BACK 25 FT SIDE YARD SET BACK 15 FT REAR YARD SET BACK 30 FT MAXIMUM HEIGHT 30 FT MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE 20 % J MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 FT GPy MINIMUM LOT DEPTH 150 FT NOTE: MNING BOARD APPROVAL FOR THIS Ln Ln USE WILL BE NECESSARY. WILLIAM DOWNING ASSOCIATES DATE 17 FEB 871 JOB NUMBER PROJECT TITLE SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER ARCHITECTS RAW ? DNBY TJKI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROPOSAL B 3 Z OR THE DEWITT BUILDING, ITHACA.NEW YORK 14850 1 SCALE 1':40' ' f .....iTl;q �� RECEIVED MAR 12 1987 CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT CODE 607 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM To: /Mayor John C. Gutenberger John A. Dougherty H. Matthys Van Cort From: Jon Meigs Re: Schedule or Stewart Park Design Process Date: March 11, 1987 I spoke with Kathy Wolf, of Trowbridge-Trowbridge, March 5th about a tentative schedule for the remainder of the design work, keyed to presentations and meetings involved at each design stage. The schedule as originally set out last year, though modified, still provides a valid framework. Five of the seven public information sessions in the schedule have been held, and the design stage is roughly at the point it calls for. Kathy feels that more useful comment can be gained from sessions involving SPAG than from the others, and that any SPAG sessions will be public meetings, as they could be combined. If that would be acceptable to SPAG the rest of the schedule could look like this: Mar. 26 Public Information Session #6 and SPAG meeting, presenting Revised Preferred Plan incorporating input from the March 3 meeting, and Preliminary Phasing Apr. 8 Public Information Session #7, with Final Design and Phasing incorporating input from Feb. 19 Apr. 22 Presentation to Planning and Development Committee of Final Design and Phasing, with any appropriate modification from April 15 "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" -2- At this point, Trowbridge's work under the current contract would be virtually complete; all that should remain would be to finish the written record/final report. Though no specific reference is made, in the contract or related project documents, to a final presentation to Common Council, it would probably be appropriate to make an official presentation of the plan and report document. The scope and time for this depend partly on whether any action other than formal receipt is sought. Subsequent to this it may be desirable to present it to the Board of Public Works, though Trowbridge's participation at that time might not be covered by the current contract. Please let me know your thoughts on the above schedule so space can be spoken for; and also if you have other matters that need to be discussed. JM/mc TROWBRIDGE • TROWBRIDGE ASLA Environmental Designers, Landscape Planners and Landscape Architects February. 26, 1987 Stewart Park Final Report Preliminary Outline I. Site Improvements Details and Technical Guidelines A. Lake Edge Treatment - Details - Technical Guidelines B. Roadways - Details - Technical Guidelines C. Pedestrian Paths, Walkways & Bike Paths - Details - Technical Guidelines D. Lighting - Details - Product & Manufacturing Specifications E. Park Furniture - Details - Product & Manufacturer Specifications 1. Benches & Seating 2. Picnic Tables 3. Trash Receptacles II. Building Renovation A. Picnic Pavilion - Programming - Priority Remedial Actions - Restoration/Renovation Guidelines - Materials & Color Selection B. Dance Pavilion - Programming - Priority Remedial Actions - Restoration/Renovation Guidelines - Materials & Color Selection 1345 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca,New York 14850 607 277-1400 C. Boat House - Programming - Priority Remedial Actions - Restoration/Renovation Guidelines - Materials & Color Selection D. Nev Pavilion - Programming - Materials & Color Selection III. Planting A. General Park Planting List B. Formal Garden Area Planting C. Naturalized Planting & Creek Edge and Bird Sanctuary D. General Maintenance and Pruning Guidelines IV. Cost Estimates V. Project Phasing 0 RECEIVED FEB 11 1987 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: Mayor John C. Gutenberger FROM: H. M. Wr9 Cort RE: Approval Process DATE: ePruay , 1987 Trowbridge is at the point in his work on Stewart Park where he needs some sort of formal approval from the City before proceeding. I would suggest that you make one final attempt to convene a quorum of SPAG personally requesting that they come to review the work. After that, the Planning and Development Committee of Council (and subsequently the full Council ) should review and act on the study to date. It's up to you whether you feel it is advisable to include the BPW in this process or simply to go straight from SPAG to the Committee of Council . I would guess that each time that we take this for a vote to Council that we will face a full blown effort on the part of the Committee To Save Stewart Park to scuttle the plan and halt any further study of the park which is, of course, a potential drawback to having a formal approval of the work at this point. However, I think it is important that we do get some sort of approval now before Trowbridge proceeds with further detail design. I would appreciate you calling me about this as soon as possible so that plans could be made to set this approval process in motion. /skb "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" i Statement by Citizens to Save Stewart Park before the Mayor and Common Council , February 4, 1987. I am Doria Higgins making a statement for Citizens to Save Stewart Park. We have attended hopefully and in good faith all five (to date) of the Trowbridge public presentations for redesign of Stewart Park. It seems clear that we the public have been invited to these meetings to be convinced and persuaded rather than to be listened to or to have our input honored. At the last meeting we asked that Mr. Trowbridge's landscaping of the land surrounding the Youth Bureau, land which is so important in the approach to the park, be presented to SPAG and the public. Our request has been denied by Planning and Development even though the Mayor has clearly stated that the Youth Bureau is part of Stewart Park and even though it was included as such in the Niederkorn Plan for Stewart Park. We wonder why it is now excluded. We think these landscaping plans should be presented for public review. We do not want the lovely approach to the lake and park further hidden with inappropriate land- scaping. We would also like to go on record tonight in calling your attention to one among the Trowbridge proposals we consider particularly destructive to the peace and beauty and safety of the park. Mr. Trowbridge proposes radically changing the spacious, one-way loop at the southern end of the park, which presently permits leisurely walking and biking and driving and which is much enjoyed. He plans to shorten it and to narrow it and to make it two-way and dead-end, with turnaround in front of the lake and with parking (presently thinly dispersed along the entire length of the loop) constricted to both sides of a short span of the road directly in front of our beautiful lake and to a small parking lot elsewhere. These changes will result in traffic congestion, danger to pedestrians and will constitute a traffic barricade to what is now free movement in the park, as well as being aesthetically unpleasing. We hope Common Council will not vote in favor of a plan such as this. We think Mr. Trowbridge should be reminded that his own telephone survey to which he and his staff devoted so much care and time (at taxpayer expense since the NYSCA grant pays only a fraction of his contract) showed that the only changes a majority of the public wants at Stewart Park is improvement of the restrooms. He should be reminded that over 7,000 people have signed a petition requesting that Stewart Park not be redesigned but instead be properly maintained and restored. He should be reminded that Common Council Resolution of November 5, 1986, explicitly stated that, "Any design development should reflect as accurately as possible the expressed concern of the community to restore, preserve and maintain the character of Stewart Park." We are grateful to you for that mandate. It should be enforced. The process of spending time and money on devising schemes to change Stewart Park against the wishes of the community should be stopped. 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, N.Y. OR 120 NORTH CAYUGA STREET 113TIC ITHACA ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 &TOMPKINS COUNTY. NEW YORK RECEIVED F EB 2 19 � January 30, 1987 Mr. John Dougherty, Cha' Stewart Park Advis Group Department of is works City of I ca 108 Green Street ca, NY Dear Mr. Dougherty: At the last meeting of the Advisory Group you indicated to me that another meeting of that group would be scheduled in the near future. Since two weeks or more have elapsed, I am writing to inquire as to whether the committee intends to meet, and if so, when? In addition, I would like to comment on the recent public presentation (January 21) by Mr. Trowbridge, which I attended. I found it very regrettable that 1) the presentation was scheduled so as to conflict with the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission' s regularly scheduled meeting and, therefore, Leslie Chatterton, a SPAG member, was unable to attend the Stewart Park presentation, while I was not able to attend the ILPC meeting as I usually would; 2) only three SPAG members--Sue Blumenthal, Jon Meigs, and myself--attended that presentation; and 3) the presentation was not moderated by an outside, ' third party' who could fairly and evenly direct questions to Mr. Trowbridge, while keeping the audience under control. Scheduling a public presentation is always a problem, however, the persons responsible for this should at least be aware of the usual conflicts with other city meetings. I am told that there are approximately fifteen SPAG members, and it cannot be impossible . to schedule a meeting which the majority of these persons can attend. Furthermore, I believe that one role of the Stewart Park Advisory Group is to listen to public input--from the respective constituent groups (such as Historic Ithaca) and from the public at large--so as to focus discussion on the resolution of needs and concerns. It is unfortunate that all SPAG members cannot or do not attend the public presentations, at which other views are often aired. How can we ' advise ' if we do not know what the interested members of the public are thinking? DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF TOMPKINS COUNTY LANDMARKS John Dougherty, SPAG Chair January 30, 1987 Page 2 Lastly, I would again like to encourage the City of Ithaca to find a moderator for all future public presentations in order to avoid the continuing saga of public free-for-alls. Both SPAG members and non- SPAG members alike were 'guilty' of poor behavior at the last event. I have one final request: Could I please receive some formal notice of the timetable under which Mr. Trowbridge and his firm are operating? The fact that he is so near a final product is somewhat disconcerting to me in light of the fact that SPAG has not met to discuss anything yet. It would seem that SPAG could/should do the work of coordin-&t ng-input so that the ccsnsuitan-t- -can find it useful to his eventual product. Is this what the Stewart Park Advisory Group is intended to do, or am I wrong? I expect to be hearing from you soon concerning the next scheduled SPAG meeting. I would most definitely enjoy the opportunity to meet the other 50% of the committee whom I have yet to encounter. Thank you. Sincerely, CCff Barbara E. Ebert Executive Director cc: John Gutenberger s Jon Meigs �y 1Ty,Q RE GE IV ED MAR-31 1987 'y. EIsl4 'ro 0 c�q�ItATEO`� 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 M E M O R A N D U M To: S.P.A.G. Members �1 From: John A. Dougherty l� U� Re: Meeting Date Date: March 30, 1987 STEWART PAR '` , , P.-UBLIC.- ME - y'Sponsored y14 City 7�3 'IRM Wl , ; , y,At t-24 4 i a n Co"i Cham' &*r cityMiil " - "'The sixth in A series of preientatioins will, {Xjunction vyi seetingfthe-StewarPark. ► roup. It iivit "onthe details of design �► op ,r 4( plans for th jor k. ea .reS nciudir� 'coury boat uss, egoo pla groped.,: �mgmon$�; p III dirtg froml�the visii Y tan presentation and disciiion in �ibf,6t. R t Wr�, - J: " :: py• 'PIM We are holding a Stewart Park Advisory Group meeting on Thursday, April 2, 1987 in the Common Council Chambers . This meeting is in conjunction with the public meeting as shown in the above notice published in the Ithaca Journal . The work being done by Peter Trowbridge is rapidly drawing to a close. SPAG will be asked to make a recommendation to the Common Council concerning this work at the end of the project. The public presentation will be an important opportunity to make sure you are aware of the latest developments. Your attendance at this meeting is vital to your ability to form a well thought out opinion. The meeting will be chaired by a neutral third party from the Community Dispute Resolution Center. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Citizens to Save Statement Before Ithaca, 47. 077--to- on Ctuncil April 1 , 1987 I am Doria Higgins speaking for Citizens to Save Stewart Park, a group that was formed last June, 1986. Since then we have presented statements representing broad community views to this Council on four occasions; in August we stated our view that Stewart Park does not need restructuring; in October we handed you over 6,000 signatures to a petition requesting that Stewart Park be properly maintained, restored and preserved, and that it not be redesigned; in November we handed you more signatures, bringing the total to well over 7,000, and we pointed out to you that the Trowbridge telephone survey, paid for by the City, also showed that the only change the majority of the community wants at Stewart Park is better restrooms; in February 1987 we advised you that public input at the Trowbridge public meetings was being ignored and was in no way incorporated into his plans though presumably such incorporation is the purpose of the meetings. Tonight, regrettably, we feel we must bring up an issue which has come to our attention during our careful monitoring of the Stewart Park redesign process. This issue is one which cannot properly be ignored by people of good conscience -- it concerns the large quantity of inaccurate information which has been fed, either deliberately or inadvertently, to the public about the decision to restructure the park, and it concerns the way in which this misinformation has been used to create the false impression that deci- sions involved in changing the park have been sanctioned by the community and are based on community choice and community participation. It is important tQ_realize-ttr this false impression camouflages the fact that it is �W Board of Pubic-W a Mayor, the Department of Planning and Development and-ft=he- ovth urea who have been and are the movers behind these Stewart Park- decisions. The determination to redesign Stewart Park was made by the Board of Public Works, with Planning and Development concurring, in May (or earlier) 1983. (See attached memo documenting this, marked "received May 16, 1983." The original SPAG consisted only of the Mayor, BPW, P&D and the Youth Bureau (documented by SPAG memo J�l , attached). In September 1983, this four person group chose Mr. Niederkorn (PERC) as consultant. It was not until six (6) months later, by which time the Niederkorn Plan was well under way, that the en ar edSGA the so-called—''citizens' group" was formed and hadits first-meeting the last day of Februar (See minutes first meeting 11 attached or documentation. ). And yet, in a September 18th Ithaca Journal article (see attached) and elsewhere, the Mayor misrepresented these facts and claimed that a "citizens' group" (SPAG) had decided Stewart Park needed to be changed, that a "citizens' group" decided to hire a consultant, and that a "citizens' group" chose Tom Niederkorn (PERC) as that consultant. r Page 2 But, in fact, the decision to redesign Stewart Park and the hiring of a consultant, contrary to the Mayor's assertion, was not decided upon by a "citizens' group" but by a small , four member City Hall group. This series of inaccuracies did not stop when the Niederkorn plan was put aside but continued with the Peter Trowbridge plans. At the March 3, 1987, meeting of SPAG, the Mayor asked for a vote of approval of the Trowbridge plans despite the fact that the final plans had not yet been presented. The only SPAG member present not affiliated with City Hall, Barbara Ebert of Historic Ithaca, Inc., said she could not in good conscience vote for or against the plans without further study. Because of her firm stand, no vote of approval of the Trowbridge plans took place but, instead, a vote was taken on a simply worded question of whether Mr. Trowbridge should or should not continue to work on his plans for the Park, and the word approval was specifically deleted from the motion and no vote of confi ena ce was taken. The vote was for him to continue. It was, therefore, inaccurate and misleading for the Common Council liaison to SPAG to report to Common Council , and I quote from the March minutes, "There was a vote of confidence in Mr. Trowbridge's work to date, and a vote for him to continue ..." And it was inaccurate for the Mayor to concur with that statement, which he did (on the tape --though not in the minutes. ) It was inaccurate and misleading for the Superintendent of BPW to announce publicly, as he did that same week on WHCU, that "SPAG had approved" the Trowbridge plans. It was inaccurate and misleading at the March meeting of Planning and Development Committee for the Chairwoman to say, as she did, that though there was "still disagreement over the park road system" "the major proportion" of people were "in agreement" with the Trowbridge plans; and it was inaccurate and misleading for the Director of P&D to say at that meeting, as he did, that the "majority of SPAG" had "approved the Trowbridge plans." All of this was said with reporters present. To his credit, the liaison to SPAG, Sean Killeen, at the end of the P&D meeting, clearly stated that the March 3 SPAG vote had been only for Mr. Trowbridge to continue. This gives us a total of five City Hall officials who have, in this past month alone, at one time or another, intentionally or inadvertently, misrepresented the facts about the SPAG vote so that it incorrectly seemed that a "citizens' group" had approved the Trowbridge plans. No matter how one interprets these inaccuracies, they reflect badly on Common Council . Finally, we would like to point out that even the enlarged 13 member SPAG is most decidedly not a community group. At first glance it might seem so, but a more careful scrutiny reveals that only three of its 13 members are not affiliated with City Hall. SPAG is not a "citizens' group." And any votes it takes will not reflect the wishes of the community, but of City Hall. The fact is that tote decision to change Stewart Park is not the community's decision or choice. And the fact is that the decision to change Stewart Park is against the wishes of the community as the Trowbridge telephone surveyawn the 7,000 signatures to our petition clearly attest. 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 70vg iia A, inion With .res t to ch. Park ' topped roads 'and MUM areas portion of wetland was,designated and flower gardens. among other the Cornell Biological$tattoo. Maya of Ithaca A I UMNIOH changes. Sonia of then remain to- Man also dedded at this time t9 Stewart Park, as we know it to- day; others do not.. Sive Nature a hand ley c rating a la- day.is the result of over-96 years of cThe amusement parka, trolley soon and a duck pond,straighten- constant change produced by,both � � the he tracks, hotel and naval training fa- *Sand deepouing Fail Creek, and Man and Nature. It is living test;- cility were removed by Man, while pcteadlidp the lake sborelk►e forth-. mony to the adage that "there is Sy the pier,"tower;swimming facilities ward, ' ��> nothing so constant as change."' and a number of tray_were remov- . By the early a9li0s#bad become Mother Nature created Cayugainvo v�d �Fje+ ed by Nature., Man end Nature' apparent to many I lite commu- Luke with a swamp at its southerns oined forces in removing 00 niov- 'pity that the park was beginning to end; that swamp is ,now known as Iuk.S au k as i's studio,as financial problems and suffer.frogs, the impoct Of the in- Stewart Park. 1V s Ithaca's climate forced the Whar- creasing'numbers and speed•of cars 0 .. In the 1890s some of this swamp- 1 .7 d1wwSwe ton Bros. company to move to in thq park,as.wall as the impact of , land was purc" by the Casca-• warmer climes in Hollywood. Cali- diseases.-^-.duck f -A .nimals.. dills,School and turned into a lake- forma.. To addrey'thepe concerti; aqd side athletic facility, which duced an amusement park, trolley In the early 1930s. a master plan consider the totur0 at'. '$tewvt included a magnificent boathouse tracks, picnic and dance pavilions, for. the"Stewart Park area was do- Park, a dtiaens' coat Use, the and gymnasium that still$tends to. alagoon. x900-foot-long wooden veloped by,;the Ithaca firm of He- Stewart Park Advisory Group.was 2B.iy�9 day, although it has.severely date Piee, a water and observation tow- watt and MetzW.MetAt the time the established in 1983. It upas made up riorated as both Man and Nature er, tram, a movie studio, a hotel, a city dump+ whim was located at of members front the Tompkins have taken their tolls. naval training facility, swimming Stewart Park, was transformed County Federation of Sportsmen.. Ia succeeding years, Man intro- facilities, tennis courts; black- into Newman Golf'Course and-a Conservation Adyisory- Council, �, _........ ,. Circle Greenway, Finger bakes Park Commission, Historic Ithaca. Cayuga Bird Club, and the city's Youth Bureau AdvisQry ,Board. Landmarks Preservation Commis- sion, Planning and Development Board, Common.-Council- Board of Public Works, mayor and city staff. As the advisory group's work proceeded, it became clear to its no•}-stat, members that the 1934 master plan u.cdt%,40rh needed updating to deal with 50 lah well years of change and to address the future of the park: The group se- (44,4,0;*y. lected the local firm of Planning and Environmental Research Con- sultants(PERC)from a lar&c num- ber of appfiicauts. ' 140IL$ U �5 X0'0 19q 8g Capital Impr Qrrag+t s Pr•ogrFun Project Request lj Submitting Agenc 1. Project Title C•�T�N�'df� tT c�iY'� Y�"r ��?A'1 XX 2. Project description and location t't �an r6v't 14.K 'rte ijsInnyviv�I-t, -6 U. L 3. Project justification (need) U�tLCLib'Y �2.i �• �'► +LT D�Stvu 1/lv�S CGS YWV)+/" If ^�iirh Tl6'n+ 7'N � YfGS �'L.S �i Relationship -to other projects and proposed or potential ,�� 2.Gdf11- o .: e-s•-�. w6opask V 9,9,,A f cAv�� 04zs 5. Project status (circle appropriate status).- Previously tatus)-Previously proposed: New (status of-plans/specs) : . not .funded - rejected by CIRC/Council unnecessary (describe why) deferred by CIRC/Council . of egun . partially funded, requesting additional .. _-_prFeitainary plans underway funds plans complete . funded - not yet begun specs complete design stage-prelim/final out to bid out to bid -"under construction complete 6. Estimated project cost and funding TOTAL CAPITAL BUDGET & RESERVES 0 TER RESOURCES Funded P.ecuested Funded P.ecr.,ested Plans & Specs wc. 2 p ram Land Construction Equipment Crher TOTAL Sources of other resources as indicated above i r si e i CITY OF ITHACA 10S EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STREETS & FACILITIES DIVISION JOHN A. DOUGHERTY TELEPHONE: 272-1718 ASSISTANT TO THE CODE Edi SUPT OF PUBLIC WORKS July 1 33 To: John Gutenberger Bob Cutia Barbara Lund John Meigs From: Jack Dougherty Date: July 1, 1983 Re: -Meeting A meeting of w(Stewart Park Advisory. Group) will be held in the conference room atStreets and Facilities Building at 2:30 PM on Thursday, July 7, 1983. We will be putting our ideas on paper for pre- sentation to prospective consultants. This_ is a very important meeting. Please make every effort to attend. "Ar.Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Prpgram' i a • STEWART PARK ADVISORY GROUP FIRST MEETING 28 February 1984 MINUTES PRESENT: Margo Clynes, Ben Nichols, Geoffrey Gyrisco, John Gutenberger, Bob Cutia, Jack Dougherty, Jon Meigs, Sean Killeen, Frank Gardner, Leonard Mankowski and Tom Niederkorn 1. Long-range development objectives being considered were shown in graphic form and briefly explained. Included were: Extension of the shoreline Expand and improve the golf course area Waterway connection between the golf course area and the Cass Park area Increase development potential of the shoreline adjacent to the No. 9 fairway Maintain and enhance the natural habitat of the bird sanctuary Revise parking and traffic plan in the park Enhance family picnic opportunities Restore boathouse Restore and develop historical potential of pavilion area Improve public access to the waterfront and lake 2. Each of the development objectives was discussed individually to the extent that current thinking allowed this to happen. An 18 hole design possibility for the golf course was discussed and reasons offered why this was not considered to be satisfactory. It would not produce m. satisfactory layout and the environmental costs would be too high. The idea of improving the golf course but at the same time maintaining the buffering and habitat qualities of bird sanctuary was well received. 3. The theory behind extending the shoreline was presented as were several of the alternative configurations which have been considered. Interest in this development possibility was high and Margo expressed a hope that swimming could be reintroduced in some form in the Stewart Park area. Swimming in Fall Creek, near its mouth, might be an acceptable alternative if this were a more feasible solution to the turbidity problems. 4. Use of the biological field station as part of the revised golf course was considered and discussed in some detail. Gyrisco inquired as to whether there might be better uses for the field station, given its natural environment, than a golf course. Possibilities were to be considered. -`0 RAI ED CITY OF ITHACA 109 EAST GRF_Ff�J S T FlFFT ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 May 19, 1987 Ms. Ashley Miller 118 Cascadilla Avenue Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Ashley: 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 continuing involvment of the Conservation Advisory Council 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 OPPOrfunity Employer with—A9.,IA,on Program" 4 i 1 Q May 19, 1987 Page 2 3 Final drafts of Trowbridge's design report will soon be furnished to you, or Conservation Advisory Council's representative, 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. 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. look forward to seeing you or another C.A.C . representative there! Sincerely, John C . Gutenberger Mayor- , fX! �pORAt CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 May 19, 1987 Ms. Barbara Ebert Executive Director Historic Ithaca 120 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Barbara: I am sorry that you will not be able to attend the upcoming Stewart Park Advisory Commission meeting. Considerations of scheduling dictated that date, which is unfortunate because you have been perhaps the most consistent in your attendance at these sessions, and your comments and contributions to discussion have, I think, been valuable. ' thank you for the interest you have shown, and hope that you will keep it up as any approved designs are implemented. I know you recognize the im- portance of ongoing oversight of an activity that may be decided on following an intensive - not to say exhaustive - design process. SPAG is intended to help provide that oversight during implementation, to give that continuity and perspective. However, the immediate issue is acceptance or rejection of the design. A copy of the design report will be sent you and the other SPAG members soon. Though you may not be able to participate in what I hope to be a quorum meeting, you are most welcome to attend the June 24th Planning and Development Committee of Council, at which they will consider a recommendation for Council action in July. If it would be convenient to comment in writing, please don't hesitate, either. Thanks again for your interest and continued involvement. Sincerely, John C. Gutenberger Mayor "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Citizens to -Save Stewart Park n 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 / (607) 273 6450 PRESS RELEASE April 3, 1987 CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK SUPPORT THE PARTS OF TROWBRIDGE PLANS FOR STEWART PARK WHICH CALL FOR MAINTENANCE RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION After review of the Trowbridge presentation of design plans for Stewart Park at the public meeting April 2, Citizens ' to Save Stewart Park is pleased to support his plan to remove the gabions (rocks encased in steel mesh recently installed as . part of the Niederkorn Plan) from Fall Creek and instead' to level the precipitous bank by moving the road back and smoothing the grade so that there is a gentle merging of water's edge and water. We think this is a good idea ecologically and aesthetically and applaud the idea of making the water's edge easily accessible to people once more. We are pleased that he is advocating renovation of the boathouse and pavilions. We support his general proposal to establish a better ecological balance with native flora and fauna along the Fall Creek basin area, along the area bounding the Bird Sanctuary and the lagoon. We support those aspects of his plan which are in keeping with our position which urges proper maintenance , preservation ' and restoration for the park. 1 i 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 May 20, 1987 Mr. Henry Theisen, Secretary Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce Clinton House Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Theisen: We write to you in the understanding that it is your custom to read letters such as this aloud to the Board of the Chamber of Commerce. Citizens to Save { is a group devoted to preserving the beauty of Stewart Park . On May 11 we hand delivered a letter to Mr. Becker asking to meet with the Board of the Chamber of Commerce to discuss our concerns about the Chamber moving next to the park with plans to use park land for parking and access roadway. We were told by Mr. Becker that the Chamber Board deemed it "inappropriate" to meet with us, although he agreed to meet with us himself. We would like you to know that we very much regret not being given the opportunity to present our concerns to the Board as a whole, and we are writing in the hope that the Board will reconsider this decision and will decide to give us an opportunity to meet with you. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK By Doris Higgins TOMPKINS COUNTY RECEIVED MAY 28 1987 ' CHAMBER t OF COMMERCE 122 W. COURT ST. • PO BOX 147 • ITHACA, NEW YORK 14851 • 6071273-7080 TO: Members of the Board of Directors FROM: Henry W. Theisen, Corporate Secretar Aor DATE: May 27, 1987 RE: Enclosed letter from Doria Higgins On Wednesday afternoon, May 20, ,Doria Higgins brought a letter to me as corporate secretary and asked me to read it at the Board meeting that evening, as part of correspondence. Since I was not going to the meeting, I promised Ms. Higgins that I would deliver it to the Chamber office so it would be read by the acting secretary, Col . Comstock. Through inadvertence I did not deliver the letter, so I am herewith sending you each a copy for your information. i Ot�9 RECEIVED MAY 29 1987 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 807 MEMORANDUM To: Commissioners of Public Works Mayor Gutenberger From: John A. Dougherty Re: Stewart Park Ra Costs Date: May 27, 1987 The following is in answer to your request regarding costs of establishing a ranger-type position for Stewart Park. We presently pay the Six Mile Creek Gorge Ranger $7.00 an hour. I would suggest that the Stewart Park Ranger position, if established, be a 40-hour week at $7.00 an hour for ten weeks beginning June -2.7. Costs 1 . Salary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . $2,800 2. Clothing .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 3. First Aid Kit .. . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4. Gas and Oil . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . 100 5. Motorbike Rehabilitation . . 200 The City purchased two motorbikes for use on the Commons a number of years ago. These bikes were never used to any great extent and are in storage at the Police Department. Deputy Chief Pagliaro indicates that one of these bikes would be available for this use, but would need some work to make operable. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" t '1 f 1 I �' j Statement of Citizens to Save Stewart Park to the Mayor and Common Council, June 3, 1987 Stewart Park Land Should Not Be "Leased" to The Chamber of Commerce As spokesman for Citizens to Save Stewart Park, I would like to say a few words tonight, about Stewart Park and the proposal to give or "license" parts of it to the Chamber of Commerce for an access road, one full parking lot and possibly part of another. Firstly, we feel such use of park land is not in the interests of the public good.. Aesthetically, when one now looks towards Route 34 and the proposed Chamber building and parking lots, one still sees a lovely screen of trees and grass. That section of the park still protects the sense of privacy and serenity and beauty of the park. No matter how skillfully and carefully the Chamber architect designs, there will be some disruption of this pleasant screen. Also, since the Chamber wants high visibility, it would be defeating its own purpose if it preserved the present trees and shrubbery. Parking lots filled with the many cars and large recreational vehicles the Chamber hopes to attract, will not increase the beauty of Stewart Park. The Chamber of Com- merce is commerce. Why should they move into our recreational areas? Promoting tourism is one thing -- co-opting our recreational space for their lobbying purposes is quite another. Proper city planning should keep these activities separate. Secondly, we think the plan for the Chamber to move out of the City into a small Town lot adjacent to Stewart Park is exactly the kind of central city evacuation this City should be fighting to stop, not to implement. The. City and the Chamber should not be merely "trying" to find a good location in the City for the Chamber, they should find a good a on for it in the City. We must preserve the vitality and integrity of the City. Thirdly, the lot the Chamber is negotiating to acquire is obviously too small for its purposes. It's only sixty feet wide! The lot is even too small for its present residential zoning category -- a residential category furthermore which does not include usage such as the Chamber proposes. It just doesn't make sense for the Chamber or the City to be working to install the Chamber in such narrow quarters. This becomes a matter of public concern when public land is needed to make such a lot functional for the Chamber. Finally, and we think most importantly from the viewpoint of the public good, it is not right, it is not proper for Common Council to give away public park land to a private organization which is also a political lobby group and which only a few years- back tried to start a Political Action Committee. You can use whatever euphemism you want -- call it "licensing" or call it "easement," it still amounts to giving Stewart Park land to the Chamber and they could not function down there without this.- . "giveaway." We think you will be violating the public trust invested in you if you vote to give (or "license") this park land to the Chamber of Commerce. 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, NY 14850 -th.t ttn,dwa`!t PAI, &E-t b%bye's*W RECEIVEC JUN 12 1987 Statement of Citizens to Save Stewart Park�une 11 , 1987 on "The Stewart Park Design Plan Manual" of Trowbridge-Trowbridge At the beginning of his manual Mr. Trowbridge says that his plan was "prepared to generate" restoration and maintenance and preservation guide- lines. But although he uses the word "restoration" on almost every page, this is not a preservation and restoration plan. It is a redesign plan and, in fact, there is scarcely a square inch of the park that is not redesigned and changed. In many instances- these changes diminish or destroy beauty that is there now. For example, to the spacious 60 foot wide Southern Loop road he has applied the same design principles he used in College Town and has narrowed it to a mere 16 feet, thus creating a road that will be dangerous both to pedestrians and cyclists and a liability for the City. For another example, Mr. Trowbridge proposes screening the newly and delightfully repainted carousel with a "low concrete wall with a colorful tubular steel railing . . . to integrate it with the rest of the playground equipment." To "integrate" the merry-go-round with the rest of the play- ground will be to hide its unique charm and beauty. This manual was supposed to have provided maintenance guidelines for the park, but it does not do so. It provides no specifics regarding maintenance procedures or priorities for buildings or for landscape -- there are no pruning schedules, no planting suggestions or plans -- just a list of trees and bushes at the back of the manual . In this respect we are exactly where we started from. While there are elements of the plan which we could support, we hesi- tate to do so lest it be claimed that such support carry over as well to many of the undesirable changes proposed. Because of this mixture of some constructive elements with undesirable ones, we suggest that the items and in this plan be most rutinize riori nd then se p arate u on -- 711 at one time and wi respect or and attention o e overall character of the park. We have started this process ourselves. With disappointment after waiting so long and so hopefully for this plan, we repeat our original stand: Stewart Park is a delightful and beauti- ful and much enjoyed place now. It needs to be properly maintained, restored and preserved. Itooes not need to be redesigned. f TROWBRIDGE • TROWBRIDGE ASLA Envkommntal Designers.Landscape plannersand Landscape Architects :-'---F-EWTO-F June 15. 1987 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, • r Peter Trowbridge , Principal 1345 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca,New York 14850 807 277-1400 Annendix 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 fail 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, ttie following improvements fall into the three stages of recommended development. 1. Stage One Improvements To begin immediately and take place in the next two pears 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. Patti 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 e u1pnlent 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 nest 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 PlaygroundSpra y Pool Contract witri 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 Comp-Lex- Overlook omp- e Overlook Pavilion Municipal Pier Phasing Matrix PHASING MATRIX Stagee One: 0-2 wears Stwe Tvo: 2-5- -ars Stage Three ars OVERALL PARK IMPROVEMENTS Stage One ROADWAY AND UTILITIES THE ROADWAY REDEVELOPMENT COULD TAKE PLACE IN ryVO STAGES. USING THE FLAGPOLE AS A MID-POINT, REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN 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 INA 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. INSTALL NEW LIGHTING STANDARDS ALONG PARK ROADWAY. G. INSTALL NEW PARK SIGNAGE ASSOCIATE WITH ROADWAY, "'`�-----� AREA ;"ge One S" c Two 3 e Three A. REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT ON A. INSTALL PREFABRICATED A. ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF EAST AND SOUTH SIDE OF CASCADILLA F1220g'�IVIDE ROWING DOCK BOATHOUSE BOATHOUSE ON FALL CREEK B. REMOVE PARK STORAGE NEEDS B. RESTORE EXTERIOR FROM B OATHOU SE .A.ND RELOCATE OF B OATHOUSE AND CONSTRUCT TO LAKE STREET D.P.W.. NEW DECKING ON NORTH SIDE. C. RESEED AND VEGETATE THE AREAS I YVHERE ASPHALT HAS BEEN REMOVED. C. REHABILITATE INTERIOR REMOVE VEGETATION AS REQUIRED OF BOATHOUSE ON FALL CREEK TO ENABLE NEW PIPRAP AND ROWING DOCK D. CONSTRUCT EXTERIOR IATALKS AND ENTPYDC) 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 8 Stage one 3tge 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 nVAN S FROM PARK B, CONTINT TE TO ESTABLISH AND 'r'r ALKIN Y MANAGE VEGETATION C. REGRADE POND SHORELINE AND CREATE ISLAND li=H SUBMERGED C. CONSTRUCT NEVI FOOTBRIDGE EARTHEN DAM TO I SLAN D D. SELECTIVELY CLEAR DETERIORATED D. INSTALL NET71 BENCHES VEGETATION FROM SHORELINE E. DEVELOP Vv'ALK"YVAY AROUND POND E. ESTABLISH VEGETATION ON INSIDE EDGE OF POND j F. BEGIN TO REPAIR AND INSTALL RIPRAP ON LAKE SHORELINE AREA C Stage On S Tvo Stage Three A. REMOVE GAB IONS ALONG A. CONSTRUCT NEW PATH ALONG UPPER 1 SHORELINE TO ACCOMODATE SLOPE AND INSTALL BENCHES NEW GRADING B. RELOCATE ROAD BACK FROM WATER'S EDGE TO ACCOMODATE B. MAINTAIN SLOPE WITH MOV71NG NEW GRADING PROGRAM C. REGRADE SHORELINE AND INSTALL C. MAINTAIN PURPLE OSIER 'WILLOW RIPRAP AT TOE ;r'r'ITH PERIODIC PRUNING* D.REVEOETATE WATER'S EDGE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLANTING AREA D Stege One Stage Too Stage Three A. CONTRACT WITH ARCHITECT TO A.UNDERTAKE DEVELOPMENT OF LAP-7001.1 TO DESIGN LAGOON PAVILION TO PAVILION AND BOAT DOCKS ACCOMODATE RE STROOM S AND B OAT RENTAL AREA E Stege One Sigge Too Stage Three A. REGRADE SHORELINE ALONG FALL CREEK B. ESTABLISH VEGETATION A.LO3IG FALL CREEK: INSTALL TOPSOIL ON EXISTING GAB IONS AND PLANTWITH SHRUB AND GRASS SPECIES C.DEVELOP FOOTPATH AROUND SOUTH GLADE D. INSTALL ADDITIONAL BENCHIS E. ESTABLISH VEGETATION IN SOUTH GLADE AREA F Stage One Siege Too Stage Three A. CONSULT WITH NYSDEC REGARDING INSTALL IMPOUNDMENT STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT OF FISH HABITAT IN TO MAINTAIN WATER LEVEL IN LAGOON POND FOR ICE-SKATING, AND TO ENCOURAGE FISH HABITAT B. DRED"GE LAGOON AREA G ;tape on Stage Tvo Stage Three A. REGRADE SHORELINE USING* A.INST.AlL NEW BENCHES FILL FROM DREDGING* AND PICNIC TABLES B. ESTABLISH VEGETATION ALONG LAGOON EDGE C. DEVELOP BEACH AREA ALONG LAC,OON EDGE AREA H Stage OaeStage Tvo Stage Three A. RECONSTRUCT ROADWAY AND CONSTP.UCT 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 Ose 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 Three L_ge Tvo A. REMOVE TENNIS COURTS FROM A. INSTALL BBQ'S AND AREA J AND RESEED WITH GRAS I S PICNIC 741-LES IN AREA B. REMOVE BASEBALL BACKSTOP FROM AREA J C. REMOVE PARKING FROM THE "BEND IN THE ROAD' D. UNDERTAKE PLANTING OF NEW SPECIMEN TREES AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE WEST FIELD E. B EGIH INSTALLING PICNIC TAB LE S AND B B Q'S AREA K Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three A. FILL SHORELINE TO REPLACE A. ADD NEW PICNIC TAB LE S, BBQ'(S FILL WHICH HAS BEEN ERODED, REBUILD RIPRAP B. CON STRUCT OVERLOOK INCLUDING NEW B ATTEREDrATALL V71TH BENCHES AND BOLLARDS AREA L Stege On Stege Tvo Mage Three A. CONTRACT WITH APRESERVATION A. CREATE WALKWAY BET%VEEN A. RESTORCE HISTORIC ARCHITECT TO DEVELOP RESTORATION TEA PAVILION AND MAIN DETAILS TO TEA PAVILION PLANS FOR THE PAVILION COMPLEX TEA PAVILION B. INSTALL B ENCHE S AND LIGHTING ALONG WALKWAY CONNECTING TEA PAVILION TO MAIN PAVILPON COMPLEX AREA M Stege Oi.e Stage Tva Stage Three A. RELOCATE PLAY EQUIPMENT A. RECON STRUCT AND RELOCATE A. AUGMENT PLAY EQUIPMENT WITH T'O OPEN UP EAST-'AVE ST SPRAY POOL LARGE SCALE PLAY STRUCTURE ON CONNE(MON IN PARD SOUTH END OF PLAY AREA B. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN WOODCHIPS B. ADD NEW BBQ'S AND BENCHES B. INSTALL 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 Stage Twa Sieg'6,,Three �a A. REMOVE ASPHALT FROM A. RENOVATE A. CONSTRUCT CE ; BETWEEN PAVILIONS DANCE PAVILION AND PICNIC COURTYARD AND ERC'*OLA PAVILION TO MAKE B. RESEED AND VEGETATE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE AREA BEr-KEEN PAVILIONS C. REMOVE MAINTENANCE FUNCTIONS FROM DANCE PAVILION B. DEVELOP CONSTRUCTION AND RELOCATE TO LAKE STREET DOCUMENTS FOR CENTR&JL DPW. MAINTAIN A SMALL STORAGE COURI-f ARD AREA ASSOCIATED 'A-ITH THE PAVILION COMPLEX D. CONTRACT WITH A PRESERVATION ARCHITECT TO REVIEW DANCE PAVILION AND PICNIC PAVILION RESTORATION E. UNDERTAKE FUNDRAISING EFFORT FOR PAVILION COMPLEX RE STORATION AREA O Stage One Stage Tvo 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 Stege One Stage Two Stage Three A. DEVELOP CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL PIER. i B. CONSTRUCT MUNICIPAL PIER AREA Q Stage One FA. e Tvo Stage Three A. REMOVE DIAGONAL ROADWAY STALL PEDESTRIAN PATH A. COMPLETE MEMORIAL GARDEN LEADING^* TO MAIN PAVILION TEM AND DEDICATE RESTORATIOPd CONPLEX A. IN STALL FORMAL GARDEN AND B. REMOVE MANICURED HEDGES ASSOCIATED PATHSWITH COMMUNITY TO OPEN UP SPACE SPONSORSHIP- RELOCATE AND IxdCORPORATE ROSE GARDEN TO THIS C. BEGIN TO ESTABLISH NEW AREA. VEGETATION B. INSTALL ADDITIONAL BENCHES,, D. IN STALL B ENCHE S SIGNAGE AREA R Stage One Stage 1"vo Stage Three A. RELOCATE PATH AND ENTRY A. CONSTRUCT SANCTUARY C:ATE TO FUERTES BIRD SANCTUARY B. REVEGETATE SHORELINE ALONG DRAINAGE WAY AREA S Mage One Stage Two Stage Three A. RELOCATE BACKSTOP TO A. INSTALL NEW PICNIC TABLES AREA S AND BENCHES B. ADD PICNIC TAB LES ALONG NORTH SIDE OF SPACE AND INSTALL BBQ'S C. BEGIN TREE PLANTING ALONG EDGE OF SPACE Y" a S �.L a ►S app a�s�� A vTav Cost Estimate COST ESTIMATE STEWART PARR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1987 Preliminary Draft The Cost Estimate outlined below is divided into sections that correspond to the sections of the Park as they are described in the Manual. All site-work improvements are included. Renovation and restoration of existing p b sis not included in the castes te. Architectural restoration costs will need to be generated based on restoration p All costs are 1957 costs and will need to be adjusted for inflation on an annual basis. Gast Estimate Summary_ Area A:Cascadilla Boathouse and Rowing Docks 375,251.00 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:B eachlLake Shoreline 18,687.00 Area J: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 O:Lake Shoreline 85,686.00 Area P:Municipal Pier 481,620.00 Area Q:Mayor Stewart Memorial Garden 86,204.00 Area R:Fuem-s Gate-Lagoon Edge 7,521.00 Area k.East Field 64,400.00 Area T:Rail%ray 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 Roadway,Parking and Slorm-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 Boaftwe,the proposed B oathouse deck that overlooks the Wildlife Pond,the roving dock for the csscsdilla B oat Club,and general landscaping and shoreline stabilization. Restoration of the Boathouse strucutre itself is not included in the estimate. Area A Cascadilla B oathouse and Roving Docks along Fall Creek Est. Quan. Unit Cost Tot$1 1. Roving Dock a. Prefab Dock $40,000. $50,000. $50,000. b. Conc. 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 SY 173,800. 3. Stone Veneer Seat Wa1L 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. 350.0011000 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 e. Water Fountain 1 650.00 Ea. 650. (wall mounted) 8. Paths a. 8' Stone Asphalt 120 L.F. 10.00 L.F. 1,m b. 6' Stone Asphalt 170 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 1,360. Total $328,340.00 15%Contingency 49,351.00 Total Area A $377,691.00 Area B Wildlife Porus 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. Regrade 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 Sigrage 4 75.00 Ea. 300. 7. Paths a. 4' Sand 650 L.F. 1.80 L.F. 1,170. Total- 88,720.00 15%Contingency 13,308.00 Total Area B $102,028.00 Area C Fall Creek Shiorchm Est Quer. Unit Cost Total 1. Grading 4,000 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. $26,000.00 2. Landscaping a. Seeding 38,000 S.F. 350.0011000S.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' Shane Asphalt 350 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 2,800.00 Total- $54,080.00 15%contingency $ 8,112.00 Total Arca 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. i�ec'r-1 r uiiutiue 30 Tables 1200.tper set 36,000.00 arud chairs c. Water Fountain 1 650.00 Ea. 650.00 4v all mounted) Total- $172,740.00 15%Contingency $25,911.00 Total Area D $198,651.00 Area E South Glade Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Establish Vegetation on Existing Gabiors 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. 350.0011000 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%Contingency. 4,290.00 Total Area E $32,890.00 Area F Lagoon Est. Quari. Unit Cost Tavel 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. 350.0011000S.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. Duan. 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. 350.0011000 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- $46,173.00 159 Cont me�acy 6,926.00 Total Area H 53,099.00 Area I Beach Lake Shoreline Est. Quan. 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. Nest 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 J West Field Est uan. 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. (duan Unit Cat Total 1. Overlook Wall 155 L.F. 175.00 L.F. 27,125.00 2. Cayuga Lake Shore Sub. 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. BBQ 8 500.00 Ea. 4,000.00 d. Bollards 5 980.00 Ea. 4,900.00 6. Paths a. 6' Stone 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 Flayground Est Quan. Unit Cost Total I 1. 1?emo--e and Relocate -- -- 2,500.00 Spray Pool* (includes plumbing and concrete) 2. Proposed Play Equip. a. Nev Swingset Small 1 $ 1,200. $ 1,2M.00 b. Nev Slide- Small 1 $ 900. $ 900.00 c. Nev Slide-Large 1 $ 1,100. $ 1,110.00 d. Nev Sand Box 1-25' Dia. $ 500. $ 500.00 e. Nev Large Play Unit 1 $10,000. $100000.00 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. 70875.00 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. BBQ 5 500.00 Ea. 20500.00 Total- $740731.00 15%Contingency 11,209.00 Total Area M $85,940.00 Area M Teal Pavilion Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Path a. 6' Stone Asphalt 200 L.F 5.00 L.F. 1,600.00 b. Concrete Pad 5" 1650 S.F. 3.50 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- $20,770.00 159 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. 3.50 S.F. 98,140.00 b. Concrete Paver: 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 1200.001set 16,800.00 b. Bollard Lights 10 980.00 Ea. 9,800.00 c. Other Lighting Total- $484,890.00 15%Contingency 72.733.00 Total Area N $557,623.00 Area O Lake Shoreline Est. Ouan. 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. 350.0011000 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- 74,510.00 159 Contingency 11,176.00 Total 85,686.00 Area P Municipal Pier Est. Ouan. Unit Cost Total 1. Construct Neer Pier 300 L.F. 1335 L.F. 400,000.00 2. Furnishings a. Perm. Benches 10 900.00 9,000.00 b. Bollard Lighting 10 980.00 9,800.00 Total- $418,800.00 159 Contingency 62,820.00 Total Area P 4811620.00 r Area Q. Mayor Stewart Memorial Garden Est. Qwn. Unit Cost Toil 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. 16,200.00 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 15%Contingency 11,244.00 Total Area Q $86,204.00 Area R Fuertes Gate- Lagoon Edge Est. uan. Unit Cost Total 1. Landscaping a. Trees 9 300.00 2,700.00 b. Shrubs 80 48.00 3,840.00 Total- $6,540.00 1596 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 8aiilvay Fence Est. Own. Unit Cost Total 1. Fence 2,600 L.F. 25.00 L.F. 65,000.00 Total- 65,000.00 159 Contingency 9,750.00 Total Area T 74,750.00 Area U Park Entrance Est. uan. 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. 2,2W.00 Total- 17,930.00 15%Contingency 2.689.00 Total Area U $34,619.00 Area's Lake Shoreline Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Cayuga Labe Share 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 3,600.00 b. Nev Svings 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 15%Contingency 14,318.00 Total Area Y 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. 350.0011000 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- 27,660.00 159 Contirrge_y 4.149.00 Total Area W 31,809.00 r Area X ParkvideRoadvay, Parking and Storm Water System Est Quan. Unit Cost Total 1. Demolition of Existing Road and Parking a. 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. Nev Roadway a. Nev Asphalt Roadway and Parking Areas 309,365.00 181 - 1200 L.F. 221 - 1600 L.F. 40' - 400 L.F. 44' - 700 L.F. 66' - 825 L.F. b. Nev 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. Sheet Lights 25 2,600.00 Ea. 65,000.00 5. Bury Overhead Utilities -- ------ coordinate with NY SEG Total- 969,105.00 159 Contingency 145,365.00 Total Area X $1,114,470.00 �� 3 RECEIVED JUN 17 1987 dune 16. 1* Trowbridge-Trowbridge 1345 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Gentlemen$ My husband and I would like to mess Dur opinion on your road planning for,,We feel that it would be dangerous especially when she road would be very narrow and in some plames having parking on both $idea. go cannot understand when ever seven thousamd signatures were collected to leave the park alone with the a"eptien of keeping the ground beautiful and the buildings in top shape. The park was given to us to enjoy so why aro there a hand- ful of people trying to do what they watt with the park. very truly yours. Vicky and Barlow .bean 605 N. Tioga St. Itk . N.Y. 14850 cc : Mayor Gutenburger V P! y Comments on the Stewart Park Draft Design Plan June, 1987 At the June 11/87 meeting of SPAG, we were assured by Mayor Gutenberger 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 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 doing 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 arena 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 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 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 its 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 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 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 reports claim that east-west circulation through the park is hampered by the present playground a.rr angc rnent. Fut 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.) oufd similar obstruc- tions to dirt bikes be placed at the other ends of the trails, to the west? An effective barrier - that cant 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. Its 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? 15. I would prefer keeping the DPW"s current, and very attractive, signs weale. 4 Zar at the entrance to the park. The proposed entranceway seems too grand, S4"` OruLA.""`S� 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 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 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 publics 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. �-y � � �u� i RECEIVED JUN 18 Olt 204 Fairmount Ave. Ithaca, NY 14850 June 18, 1987 :payor Joie Gutenberger City of Ithaca Dear Gutie : I am enclosing a coy of-the comments I've sent to Trowbridge & Trowbridge oni I think ,you probably favor a yes vote on the overal 1 "concept " so I want you to understand my reasons for planninf to voteio." First of all I don t mink any of us have a perfectly clear Idea of what a 'yes" vote would mean* If we don't know, the public certainly doesn't know. The elan has some good features. But regardless of .my own feelings , I feel an obli ation to represent the sentiments of the people of Ithaca The idea Of ffiajor charges in the park seems to get a negative reaction from a great majority. A "yes" vote would be arrogant and undemocratic, given these sentiments* As I understand the meaning of a "yes" vote, a "no" vote could end up with the same results. Common Council could decide that specific Darts of the plan would be implemented, Capon the advice of SPAG and the public. The plan could still be used as a resource for ideas. But with the 'public so opoosed to major changes , I simply cannot in good conscience vote "yes." One thing I would like to have clarified at our next meeting is the procedure, should the 'plan be aonroved. Would the 'plan then be generally publicized and would there be hearings on it so the public could comment; before Co*rmon Council voted? Most people in the city are unaware of the new plan' s contentst -- all they have had a chance to remark on was the original plan. It could well be that 'people will like the new plan, but they should have an chance to see it, consider it, and comment on it It public hearing. Thanks! Sincerely, Betsy Darlington 4id✓�—Sv q Cvwtilr �� —T`o— �liv' � +Lci ti iLU iu CYC,:-t�v,�a N 44 L A i BCC: Jack Dougherty Jon Meigs Zet POS f;`00 q�°bltAtfcO CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET } ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Peter Trowbridge FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger DATE: June 24,1987 RE: Comments on Appendix to Stewart Park Design Plan Manual ; Your proposed appendix is excellent and, I "believe, really makes sense out of the vast array of topics that have been discussed these many months. The appendix (as finally adopted) will serve as a true planning & development document for future decisions. I. -do have a flew comments, .however: 1. Improvement of the bathrooms and re-location of the concession stand seems to be omitted. I assume these items would fall under the heading of "pavilion restoration" but perhaps they should be mentioned. 2. "Relocate tennis courts" shows up in both Stage One and Stage Three. This is confusing. 3. Perhaps under Stage One an item should be added such as "develop a coordinated design detail program" which would consider and recommend a uniform (and appropriate) signage system, style of lighting fixtures, furniture styles, etc. 4. Will the suggested fishing decks in lagoon interfere with ice skating in the winter time? 5. I am confused about Area "N" where in Stage One it talks about removing asphalt from between pavilions and re-seeding this area and then in Stage Three it is suggested to construct a central courtyard. Shouldn't construction of the new courtyard be in Stage One? "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Memo to Peter Trowbridge June 24, 1987 Page 2 6. Area "A" cost figures do not agree on summary page and detail page ($378,281,000 vs. $377,691,000) . 7. To my untrained eye (and mind) the addition of so many new items seems a little overwhelming. Adding up the items I come up with 226 additional trees, 110 additional picnic tables and 65 additional benches. 8. Lastly - you have still not convinced me on a few items. a. I don't think we should narrow the width of the roads. b. I'm not sure the bridge to the island in the duck pond is a good idea. Perhaps the island should be "peopleless". c. The Pergola connecting the two pavilions may block views and may not really add that much to the park. I want to commend you and your staff for an excellent report. It will aid us greatly in the decision making process. ��QF IT��9 c�RpO1tA7E� CITY OF ITHACA 106 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 COMMON COUNCIL CODE 607 T01 Trowbridge - Trowbridge , Landscape Architects FROM l Dan Hoffman DATE: June 26, 1987 EE 1 Comments on 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 plans 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 wideA,Acentrally 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 letfblks figure out on their own. 6 . The proposed lagoon pavillion and associated uses would represent greatly intensified use . Havinglit overhang the water invites main- tenance headaches . The fishing platforms 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 „Perm al Comments_.on the an Manual by Barbara E. Ebert, member o e 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 continent 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 continents to be incorporated into the final Design Plan document. Barbara E. Ebert De*v Wt �^e#-uAj ow �Ap-t iink-r its June 26, 1987 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 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, 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 FallCreek Regrading.............................................................................................. 9 Fuertes Bird Sanctuary Gate................................................................................. 9 WaterfrontPier....................................................................................................... 10 TheWaterfront Bulge........................................................................................... 10 Playground............................................................................................................... 10 West Field Change of Usage................................................................................. 11 Lighting -- Bollards and Street Lamps................................................................ 11 ParkEntrance 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 clearly 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 clutter 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 enorinous 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. r' 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. r 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 close 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 'ARK 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 O-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-1 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. „LOQ IT�d eco RECEIVED JUL 1 1987 CITY OF ITHACA 10B 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: 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 ' RECEIVED JUL 21 1987 Comments on the raft Design Plan , �'r�►'��W��c SLAC, "`^�'~�'e's June, 1987 C4aw�3UL,-O- coni .-.fo At the June 11/87 meeting of SPAG, we were assured by Mayor Gutenberger 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 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 doing 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 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 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 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.AYes to proposals for the Fall Creek bank: regrading so a gentle �w(� -'�— 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 cant be entirely removed (and if covering them would work). CZ.S —roes _lo,_S -T-A, CrmV_ ,e A,,, ci fvDOe_� C� �Sh�� •, 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. Z 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 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. U. 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 reports claim that east-west circulation through the park is hampered by the present playground arrange rnent. 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.) ould similar obstruc- tions to dirt bikes be placed at the other ends of the trails, to the west? An effective barrier - that cant 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. Its 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? Als-, w(Au'- iwe w a ✓ c�c�S1�4 a�k +1,, ley o o..? 15. I would prefer keeping the DPW's current, and very attractive, signs Looe W.alf�4 2.0', at the entrance to the park. The proposed entranceway seems too grand, SA-*"` s�""`�"•cs� 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 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 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 publics 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.S . The difficulty for each of us on SPAG is to separate out our own desires for the park from what the people of Ithaca want. For example , from an ecological point of view, I aulfn 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 miE.ht be sparked by these birds? Further comments on the Stewart Park Draft Plan from Betsy Darlington, representing Conservation Advisory Council July, 1987 VL0Le An indicates items that C.A.C. has approved. If an item lacks CAC_ "an *, it is a comment made by Darlington, individually. 1�a c` e-1 A plan equals--and is only as good as--the sum of its parts. yit, However, to date, the plans specific recommendations have not been discussed by SPAG. I appreciate the fact that Trowbridge & Trowbridge invited further comments and I welcome this opportunity to expand on the comments I sent in earlier. Those initial comments would have been much longer, had I known we were not going to have a real discussion of plan elements. ------------- I. First of all, I would like to suggest immediate approval of a resolution calling for improved bathrooms and stabilization of historic park buildings. These should not have to wait until SPAG reaches a decision on the rest of the plan. II. On page 2 of the Draft Plan, under Principles of the Park Design Plan, there is an eloquent statement of what the park is, and what it means ..to people. Yet the essence of the plan itself is to make numerous changes, in virtually every nook and cranny of the park. As the community has said repeatedly, "Don't chane the ark!" Many of the changes called for in the plan do not preserve the "unique attributes which embody the character of the park," but instead, eliminate them by cluttering and fancifying what we already have and enjoy. The next section lists those items (beyond bathrooms and mainten- ance) which I think people in the city would approve of. The section following that will list items I personally think might be good, but which I am not sure of the public"s reaction to. All other specifics of the plan I think would cause varying degrees of anger among the many people who use the park. III. Things people probably would like Road system: keeping roadway just as it is, with parallel parking allowed in areas where it currently exists. No additional parking lots. I am pleased that the final report will retain the present road system, with just one possible exception (along Fall Creek). Areas A&B (duck pond, boat house): a. renovation of boathouse so it could be used by groups, and so it wouldn't look so dilapidated. If the room is large enough for big groups, winterizing it sounds good. b. renovation of bathrooms in boathouse. c. rehabilitation of present dock d. a diversified shoreline in the pond, with native wetland plants. 2 e. boat rentals in or next to boat house (not in plan). f. keeping the lake shoreline around pond as it is, rather than putting rip-rap there. Erosion does not seem to be a problem � here. C },'; g. keeping the dense shrubbery and trees which currently encircle " the pond and which provide such good habitat for small birds. h. raking floating algae out of the pond. (Not a big job.) Areas C,D,E,F,G,H (Fall Creek shore, glade, lagoon, parking circle) a. a more gradual slope to Fall Creek in one section. b. removing as many gabions as possible. c. planting on remaining gabions IF shrubs would be kept trimmed low and not become a visual barrier. Comment: the wire on the gabions will rust out eventually, leaving a mess. If soil and plants can be put on top of them, couldn't soil and plants be put there instead of them? d. rip-rap where erosion really is_a problem (get an expert s advice on this). A more natural shoreline is preferable wherever possible. But people do seem to enjoy scrambling around on those big rocks, so they're not so bad. e. keeping the lagoon just as it is, with possibly some recontouring to permit more wetland vegetation. f. a few more benches near lagoon. g. perhaps more shade trees and picnic tables in the glade area. Comment: I disagree that the south glade and the lagoon are underutilized. At least on weekends, a number of people use these areas - fishing, playing ball, picnicking, relaxing, etc. Moreover, I think people fishing would resent having the area more crowded (as it would be if there were a pavilion, boat rentals, etc.). Comment: cantilevered docks would not decrease erosion (erosion isn't a problem in the lagoon anyway). Any structure built next to or on a body of water generally increases erosion problems. I'm glad to hear these docks will be dropped from the final plan. Area I (western lake shore): having a pebble beach. (Though if this would be too much of an encouragement to illegal swimming, it should be dropped.) It would greatly facilitate putting in canoes, windsurf boards, etc., and would look nice. One question: would the pebbles wash away? Would other debris be kept cleared off by maintenance crews? Areas 7,K (west field and western lake shore): keeping these areas essentially as they are. More shade trees would be ok as long as they wouldn't obscure the open views of the lake. Areas I,M (playground, tea pavilion): a. keeping playground essentially as it is. (And dont remove t 3 any play equipment just because it seems to be "not consistent with established typology." Kids couldn't care less about this, and what's there is used and liked. b. renovation of tea pavilion as needed. c. keeping an uncluttered lake shore--that is, no battered bulge. d. possibly moving sprinkler--if this is indeed needed for safety reasons. Areas N,O (main pavilions and shore in front of them): a. removing concrete ramp to water. b. renovation of picnic pavilion and dance pavilion, and, of course, improving bathrooms, and making dance pay. again look like its twin. c. keeping the big community bbq pit. Plan does not mention this, but it isn't pictured. Was this an inadvertent omission or would it be removed or relocated? These are a valued community facili4%1, and numerous groups would be very upset at their removal or relocation. They serve a useful function, are under an attractive roof, and are appropriately located. d. Initially, I thought moving the concession to the dance pavilion was a good idea. However, as it is now, parents and kids can keep an eye on one another between the stand and the play area. This is important. If it would be on the west side of the pavilion, with a big open counter so seeing--and getting--back and forth would still be easy, then such a change would be fine. Area Q (flagpole): any garden should be kept simple and in keeping with the low-keyed style of the park. Area R (entrance to bird sanctuary): keeping present entrance, with at most a small sign, and a barrier of some sort to keep out wheels. The current entrance has a wonderful air of mystery to it--where is this going to lead? have I discovered a path no one else knows about? Area S (east field): no opinion (wow!) Areas UJ (entranceway, rr tracks): a. keeping present "Stewart Park" signs and general appearance of entranceway. b. sidewalk from Youth Bureau c. bench for people waiting to be picked up (instead of elaborate structure). Areas VW (area of park east of pavilions): a. relocating tennis courts (but should be done in stage 1, not stage 3, at least if they're removed from west field in stage 1, as in draft plan). Could they go farther to the northeast? b. keeping area as it is. t 4 IV. Things I think would be ok but am not sure about the publics reaction to: A. Roadway: 1. pulling it back along Fall Creek to allow for a gentler grade down to the creek. 2. removing connection between the park road and the north spur that leads to courtyard so that stretch of pavement could be used for skate-boarding and freestyle biking (maybe even improve it for these uses). (It"s fun to watch, too, so others at the park would enjoy having such a thing there.) B. Not replacing the swans after they die. (People won"t like this!) Ism of two minds about removing the fencing. We dont want people damaging duck nests, etc., but perhaps the vegetation would be dense enough to keep people out. The fence is ugly. C. Stone seat wall and grass slope down to the water in front of main pavilions. D. Big trees along east edge of park and toward rt. 13. E. Rip-rap (not gabions) on shore, but only where erosion is truly a problem and not where it is just imagined. It should be recognized than in some places (e.g. along Fall Creek) a degree of erosion is not only inevitable but also acceptable. Comment: at least in some places, the current rip-rap looks like big chunks of concrete. Is there a more attractive stone that could be used? F. Woodchips around play equipment sounds like a good idea. G. Lighting: no opinion at this point. Some misc. comments: 1. The draft plan states that the "Lagoon Pavilion" is the only new structure proposed in the park. Since there are, in fact, numerous new structures proposed, this wording should not appear in the final plan. 2. I am relieved to hear that the big willows around the duck pond and on the south side of the boathouse will not be removed. They are essential as windbreaks, as retainers of the bank, and for shade and beauty. However, I note that in the phasing appendix of the draft plan, it says "remove vegetation as required on Fall Creek to enable new rip-rap and rowing dock." What vegetation does this refer to? Grass? 3. The proposed 120-foot-long dock is unneeded and would attract too high a volume of motorized boat traffic. This would be a problem for rowers from the boat club as well as people in other small craft. It would also be noisy and smelly for people sitting along the shore. 4. I am relieved that you plan to keep the roads as they are It 5 except perhaps for pulling the roadway back a bit from the Fall Creek shore to allow for a gentler slope to the creek. 5. The lagoon pavilion, the battered bulge, the pier, the pond overlook pavilion, the bridge to the island, the extensive decking on the boathouse, the pergola, the jetty, new entrance signage and bird sanctuary signage, the entrance drop-off construction, and the art-in-the-park circle, are all examples of changes that the people of Ithaca have said they do not want. Not wanting these things does not imply that people are being negative. On the contrary, wanting the park to remain essentially unchanged is a very positive attitude. While it is true that eliminating these items would leave us without the Trowbridge Plan, it is untrue that this would mean we are left without any viable plan. I, III and IV of these comments constitute a plan that would be acceptable to most park users. 6. The concept of "historical compatibility" is one I don't buy. We need compatibility with current usage and current values. Just because something existed or was proposed (e.g. the pergola) in the "good old days" does not make it good. For instance, Stewart Park was once-the site for movie-making. No one is suggesting we revive that scheme. Some of the park features that once existed, or were proposed but never implemented, were more in keeping with the grandiose style of the movie-making period of the park than with current casual usage. 7. The pier would be a visual obstruction to people along the shore. More important, it would be a serious liability. The water is too murky to find a person who slips below the surface (which is why swimming isn't allowed) and the lake is so shallow that a person violating the rules and diving off the pier s end would break his neck. Maintenance would also be a headache (no pun intended!) what with ice and storms constantly battering it, and gulls using it you-know-how. 8. Is there really a need for a fence along the railroad tracks? The trains make only 3 round trips a week and they move slowly. A fence could result in injuries to kids challenged to climb it, but the train has caused none, as far as I know. A fence would be ugly. 9. The idea that the view of the lake from the north end of the duck pond "is experienced by few park users" is incorrect. The path itself gets heavy use, and the many little spots where one can leave the path and stand on the edge of the lake are very popular. An overlook structure would detract from the natural feel of the area. 10. There does not seem to be a problem with erosion on the lake shore around the duck pond. The ground surface feels very solid--I am not sure what its made of. Solid rock? In any case, It 6 rip-rap is not needed there and would significantly detract from the natural appearance of the shoreline. 11. I am glad to hear (in the July 9 meeting) that there is no plan to remove the tangle of shrubs around the duck pond. 12. The park currently is heavily used, without ever feeling uncomfortably crowded. To "develop a program for the boathouse that increases opportunities for public use" is not needed. If the space is available, let people come up with their own programs to use the space. The city shouldn't be in the business of developing programs. I RECEIVED JUL 2 1987 Cayuga Bird Club 159 Sapsucker Woods Rd. Ithaca, NY, 14850 Hon. Mayor John C. Gutenberger June. 28) 1187 City of Ithaca City Hall Ithaca, NY, 14850 Dear Mayor Gutenberger: This letter is in reference to the Stewart Park Advisory Group. Dr. Sam Weeks, current representative of the Cayuga Bird Club to SPAG, has asked to be relieved of his responsibilities in this group. Accordingly, I have asked Roger Farrell, of Eastwood Terrace, to represent the Cayuga Bird Club on the Stewart Park Advisory Group, Dr. Farrell has served as Club Treasurer for many years, and has a deep interest in the preservation of natural habitat during the development of Stewart Park. Dr. Farrell has asked that his wife Le Moyne Farrell, be empowered to act as Club Representative in his absence. I believe you will find both Roger and LeMoyne Farrell to be deeply interested and valuable members of the Stewart Park Advisory Group. Thanking you for your time and kind attention, I remain Very truly yours, Ri hard G. Evans President, Cayuga Bird Club 23 June 1987 RECEIVED J U L 6 1987 To: Peter Trowbridge, Designer Lesign Planner 1345 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca, NY 14850 From: Roger H. Farrell ( ► s��, Cc �S N� � ) (J . - � Le Moyne A. Farre 11 /a, 120 Eastwood Terrace l Ithaca, NY 14850 Subject: Survey of Park Use:Sunday, 21 June 1987 C kkw"i s Pc"c raj) 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- fyTing 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 alreaLkk.\ 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. 00 Sons appeare 71-can and fuuctioni-ng. -2- Trowbridge Plan Suggestion: -Waterfowl/Swan Pond: This needs regular skimming of a gae. a ema a 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 e 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. �m� �� 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 �s 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 exerts 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 POP! I cc : Trowbridge SPAG members lk- b� Cvv,, w,oe,, C�vr c I M �y .gyp ,J`� _ ' � ,) J ' �� a. � �• '� �� •,q 1 L�)h:h,�? "�j��IFT )) ty A� �y� r'. 1 � , � 1 •wa P y ��1 �f, W.. ., ,,. •'i • (��ri ,� `ham ^J� nY- �' .� w f :,I „I i t..i 1 14r, I �- , �• _.,�' },,it ^,.1''"1�'p I t , 1 ✓17.1 _ . .. M I �:_'■„'lucil� .� .. �,.�.e:Y7i ,q .... r?��♦��i-,_ `��/.�ca lr. ��+.r` D� 120 NORTH CAYUGA STREET �� ' ' �• C Aa ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 &TOMPKINS COUNTY. NEW YORK RECE�V�� COMMENTS ON THE ESIGN 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 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. WYLLIE DRY CLEANING, INC. 425 WEST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 PHONE 273-4500 July 7 , 1987 To the Mayor and all members of Common Council On the second Saturday of every June for the past 30 to 40 years devotees of old Ithaca High School Athletics gather on the West Field of Stewart Park. There are 150-200 of us. Most of us live here , but some come from as far away as Albuquerque to enjoy the serenity of the park and its views up the lake and across to the golf course. How .lucky we are to have such a gentle , comfortable place to assemble and we would hate even the thought of any of the changes we have heard discussed. We would be outraged to find our accustomed area had been turned over to the barbequers by some unwanted plAn to change the park. I am involved in a business in Ithaca where daily dozens of people come. Many of them discuss these threatened changes and all are absolutely opposed to any alterations except improved restrooms. I find the proposed billboard signs at the entrance to the park to be utterly incongruous with the surroundings. In fact, not one of the Trowbridge proposals is compatible with the ideas of anyone with whom I have talked. I can't believe that the present city government is willing to dismiss the thousands of people who last year said that they wanted no changes in the park. All these people and many, many more still do not want Stewart Park altered in any way. Very earnestly, Robert 0. Wyllie i Revised Outline Stewart Park Design Plan Manual July 9, 1957 I. Intr,.d ]ction . Back{�roitiicf of park planning B. Summar; of existing conditions inthe park C. Description- ',7f 1 N36-=3 contract for design development T C e 1 T.T+ Use a 7l } 7 Guide e 1r• An ce !' F�ser'KT--i+jt Yr. Cha ter One: � ';': ,�? �. • Manual .� :,�l� - _�11�.�./._t2�. . . r:..;.:: '; _ _ :i and Restoration in Steri hart Park A. Short and long range planning 1. resign Development Flan . Sty,-cart Park Management Flan �,. Annual Maintenance Schedule _ i q. FarK It 'I,.:iTr'si��ert�; B. Model. for Par: decision making �T:r.:T 1. Roe cf a Park Commission oversee park pii_nnin :_r.c' l'r'T n��na;,I:=ment and development pment iss�}es 'mug aestd membership b. priorltrfr tasi.s 1 a .?-- f;--iLiRalN yI anUrban, .firrs}&r/Park Manager i and management in the part: a. it r1.ininf r of �rr!'•T:T1 .1 1r'. development of maintenance schedules I I. CLtaj=.:•I r:!. C17erVj11W 1r3 .rh*- Park D 1 Plan of the Design Plan iii, . Concept r'la-ns Park Desian Plan TTT r-T'- t''= �L.�•Lt.t'�i_,k'Li" Lt?= : The :? ..,:l Plan in D e}a-: 1 � -i~itJLon :Ine- actions and ot.-IL'i es . 'Section i ='r%- ai:,_iC!iIs and '_'T.}ei:t1 Y E'er t_. ! I Th2'`-1,A- actions :�n',i� '-1�Jjef til�-`~s' i,. i :'al-a- :,:c.'Ii$ and c'bi''r:ta;e-a Ji-action i 1 '!:'- actions or1s aIId -ob1��:ti�r�;'-:r 3 `. ii-j t'i.-}} t ct7.I3 ii14-{ TNC -� n TTgi.:n- :1•f:tiam'+�7'i r{L.•.._ (.� k• '=,= _ (., 7�tsC_ V,-'- Tl.TL E{;__ t- actions and.rfi.L:, +tT i�•;_ I % ": icn Nine- rtions an,-Jtt{F :tiT7e- F 1 i V _i i� Four: Park A n and Tr-�',Yi--T?-•Y:',,::n G V. �•�1,J(.,��Jl y�.}�l.r.}1 =�l y'r 1'rilln�+.:}�lilYiit•=_.i1�3 1111�1 vi •Y11y'v ia4 �f��i+•.�Yi31iY_ A. l- ri, Structures and their adjacent iter 1. Proposed Preservation and New Construction Guidelines a. Boathouse 1. e fisting conditions 2. proposed�i se image h. Fiance Pavilion 1. e nstirin conditions 2. proposed image c. Picnic Pavilion 1. existing conditions 2. proposed image d. Tea Pavilion 1. e:tsting conditions 2. proposed image e. New Structures 1. proposed)sed ima je 2. Preservation Guidelines for Sites adjacent to historic structures j. Detail Design Development. eTy :pant. Review., Phasing rn Funding ning a. role of pre-servation expert 1). role of Park Commission in programming and revcie';,7 1. Stage One 81�11'v.}llir �JLt '111it1":iil i. 'c!lIIII"tI?Ti!_{ri.} ♦!iii♦:= T Recommendations for guiding on-going maintYll'�11ce o park structures 11. Par.. Furnishings (lighting, benches-, tables ates lbdbgsry ==,Tat?.r fountains, pli T, equipment Vti lFit trash receptacles, _ ) 1. Deiir_ition of park furni hing ,.. E::isting ! on.,l tlons of wa 1. furnishings �. T {. 1 3. Historic cljmpat billty of park furnishings 4. Proposed TraserTat1Arand 1 e Furnishings YI i1 :s Recommended s flee: f ati"_ns, detail=' an"•_l ttit=i`�;r.r,,,� tt{•-f11't;n r• f _} itt}1t ;t i+, r ,, i ;•..:<='y;'{ :. .�..-•- •allill•-IS•.+tlfi.ii•. a':lr Il'_:•inn maint�,,-nanc_:�• and ph- .s-:-.+ improvement of park furnishings C. Roads and Pati,.1 1. Fisting conditions 2. ri11_=ed guidelines for roads,and paths;-} - !ad r - pat, 3pv :12i.Lt1Yns T SIioI4 ai1'•_1 long t=:Lrl.l ri:"•:l.C_l mafil!}"'nail5,•:r �jii"-.,� !_�r�'r~•'lt.�"}!li::'ilei i�:�:_'1_,�'`._� for on-goin rrl a!itr'' 'a�ti'y i`,f +j•}:1i?r ;r,:i paths Vii. i. _ 111111 rl-_��:1.-L1•� l a i•: �v1r1-� it L 1 _na 1.•: : roads�= an.... a�.h D. T''1a., + --c 1. E fisting Conditions Proposed guidelines sidelines for park planting _';. Role of urban forester 'park manager in planting reviewand management 4. Planting concept and species Lists C :�1. •+ rel' !. i :: r•;' s- ..,} i;._.,, s ,3.n=::3 1=s=gig term pir3nt.�rig ma�iyn_`trna nce an �:i? ;.�:._�;�=�ti T�}: .___�.Y_. Y Yc=�Il {,r 1 ons for4. on-V=•.in1 li ainti311LL Ice t•_i par!:.*,. i:.—'a l ,n j E. ` h%nreline Improvements 1. E tsting conditions ::. pT"'or,�.�_ed Guidelines for �1ioreline Imrrover lents 1 1 ape=:ificat ons and illustxativns of improvement: 4. Shicrt and Ionc, terra shoreline maintenan=-e and &vil` z=rnell" i'. uY° ie<:ot imendati_en's for cin-g6inQ� 17 iaintenaIi=:e of -ri;.�r= II'le ; TTT.. _11_twt•Cl 1 _ L•h_._tllg A. Phasin ! RY1:=mend tions B. pli_s n'='' Matrix T,'i I. sA jtr;en.: i« A � � taiT = TIr 7:fTi�lll iT �Y and 3L��e:txLT :llu a_ s -t• �stimat i �. _• ITi �� 1 _ .iier �vnr :rtr _r31L _ Manual; 11 '1ila 11 + { tj=T. they T,%7e" 7 evice 1 L+r .t ,�.nc. ho'. i.'i.:; :1 addressed n revice�_ed manual 1 v a d 3 JUL ' 81987 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS DEPARTMENT Or on the PLANNING&DEVEI.OPP 14- DRAFT tDRAFT VERSIOIT of the STEVART PARK DESIGN PLAIT MANUAL 1} Major issues concerning the Manual A)Preservation terminology(as related to buildings) -The differentiation between structures,objects and sites is confusing. The manual needs to define the different approaches or combinations of approaches as they apply to the plan and be more specific about ghat is meant by: 1)conservation; 2)stabilization; ;?restoration; 4)rehabilitation(Leslie Chatterton). -The Design Plan Manual has not satisfactorily advised the client of what options are available for preservation or of details which facilitate proper rehabilitation of any structure(Historic Ithaca). -There are too many"preconceived notions"about preservation and restoration provided in the design details(Historic Ithaca). -None of the visual or verbal suggestions concerning existing buildings be approved "in concept"or otherwise without a qualified preservation consultant's re v-iew(Historic Ithaca). -The concept of'stabilization'has been omitted and needs to be addressed. Historic Ithaca recommends that this activity be directed by a qualified preservation consultant and that it be a stage one activity(Historic Ithaca). -The Design Plan Manual does not provide appropriate specifications and cost accounting for the rehabilitation/preservation projects associated with park structures(Historic Ithaca). -Preservation of buildings be undertaken by a preservation expert and not be taken directly from the Design Plan Manual(CSSP). B)Compatibility_(related to: 1;new construction,2)alteration of existing buildings, 1)the introduction of new elements i.e.bollards,light standards,signage,play equipment.) -Agreement that compatibility may include specific design motifs already existing in buildings but should not be limited to borrowing motifs. Specific concerns regarding compatibility: 1)size and scale of decking on boathouse; 2)motion and visual compatibility of overlook structure and lagoon pavilion,- 3)size,scale and materials of paved stepped courtyard between dance and picnic pavilion; 4)design considerations for the construction of the pergola; 5)width of municipal pier; a}introduction of seavalis; 7)type and style of park furniture,light standards,fencing and signage. 8)size,scale and form of the park entry gates and the bird sanctuary gate; 9)style of neer play equipment(Leslie Chatterton, ILPC) C.Process for the Implementation of Design Plan Manual -Must clarify between design guidelines/suggestions and specific detail recommendations(Cummings). - Ithaca Landmark Preservation Committee(ILPC)is concerned about the responsibility for overseeing implementation of the design plan as it affects the issue of design compatibility of the proposal. "ILPC review of design proposals for the park concerning buildings, structures,and other elements of the built environment v.ould support the stated principles of the plan and ensure that alterations and neer construction proceed in a manner harmonious Frith the building, structure or object as Drell as the overall surroundings."(Leslie Chatterton, ILPC). -A Park Commission be established to oversee planning and maintenance issues for all city parks. The park commission should be comprised of not less than 8 members chosen for their specific expertise including an ecologist/conservationist,naturalist,ornitholigist,marine biologist,botanist or horticulturist,landscape planner,preservationist,member of Board of Public Vorks. Representatives of other user groups and interested citizens could be added if necessary (Historic Ithaca). -Clarification is necessary to determine Vhether the approval of the Design Plan "in concept only"also means that details gill be approved "in concept". - Ample time should be taken in the process of revievring the Design Plan Manual(Ebert). -SPAG should accept the Trovtridge Plan and create a specific review process for future decisions including review of building proposals Frith ILPC and revieve•of park proposals with an ongoing park comission. D.The Role of SPAG - ILPC recommends to the committee that the meeting agenda follow the organization used in the Design Plan Manual. ILPC recommends the discussion of the design plan in terms of the "objectives"and the "actions"proposed for each of the/line areas(L.Chatterton, ILPC). -SPAG's membership is focused on the city's desires which may or may not be in line v1th the desires of the public(Ebert). -SPAG has not met consistently as a complete body(Ebert). E.Park Maintenance -The report contains "...no substantive discussion of maintenance issues" in the Design Plan Manual or its appendices and that this is an "inexcusable oversight"(Historic Ithaca). -Appropriate maintenance procedures should be a"Stage One"activity(Historic Ithaca). -Maintenance plan has not been provided as requested by the public(Ebert) -Plan presents new maintenance problems with additional elements(CSSP). F.Concerns about the level of design detail in the Trovibridee Plan. -This is a redesign plan and does not concern itself,as promised frith maintenance,preservation and restoration(CSSP). -The Trowbridge firm went beyond its contractual obligation by providing too much detail in the plan and that:a)the selection of details are inappropriate, and,b)the approval of the Design Pian "in concept only'also means that details will approved "in concept"(Ebert). - "Excessively designy'(Ruether). - "The addition of so many new items seems a little overwhelming" (Gutenberger). -The park is overdeveloped(CSSP). -Fro not increase the intensity of use of the park. Retain charachter as "green uncluttered open space for unstructured use"(Hoffman). -Plan restricts multiple uses of spaces(CSSP). G.Park Furnishings - In 'Stage One'include a"coordinated design detail program"which mould ,r.onsider and recommend a uniform,appropriate signage,lighting,park benches,etc.(Gutenberger). -No additional lighting in the park and no bollard lighting(Hoffman). 2) Specific design issues in the Design Plan Manual A.Roadway and parking facilities -Proposed parking lots and decreased road vridths are a.threat to public safety in the park. Recommend that attention should be given to the parents,cylists, joggers and strollers in the park concerning the road design(Ebert). -Do not narrovr the vtidth of the roads(Gutenberger). -Concern expressed about the narrov mess of proposed road and parking on both sides of the road(The Dean's). -Do not change the roadvray(Kendrick). -Leave the road as is(Tallman). -Avoid planting bushes close to the road(,Tallman -Viden proposed road(Darlington). -Support the removal of parking areas between the central pavilions(Ruether). -Retain parellel parking and vide roads vthile adding stone curbing(Ruether). -Do not approve of the proposed roadway(Hoffman). -Opposed to any road changes(CSSP). B.Vildlife Pond/Cascadilla Boathouse - Increasing the intensity of use at the boathouse(decking,restaurant,etc.)is not compatible vrith the objective of improving vrildlife habitat in the pond(Darlington). -Reduce the scale of the proposed deck around the boathouse(Hoffman). -Size of decking is too large(Cummings). -Opposed to deck overhanging pond(CSSP). -Boat rentals should be incorporated into the boathouse program and not into the Lagoon Pavilion(Darlington). -Plant removal and replacement should be coordinated by a naturalist. Existing vegetation should be preserved(Darlington). -Oppose recontouring and planting of pond(CSSP). -Overlook Shelter should be excluded(Darlington). -Do not include bridge to island(Darlington). -Oppose bridge to island 4(CSSP) -Do not include bridge to island(Gutenberger). -Do not include Bridge to island(Hoffman). -Rake algae and cleanup litter from the pond(Darlington). -Do not change the character of the overgrown pathvray surrounding the wildlife pond(Hoffman). -Restore boathouse(Hoffman). C.Fall Creek Edge -Remove some or all gabions along Fall Creek edge as suggested in the manual(Darlington). -Oppose regrading of Fall Creek edge and concerned that only a section of existing gabions be removed(CSSF). D.Lagoon - Increasing intensity of use(boat rental and fishing piers)is incompatible with the idea of increasing the quality of the lagoon for wildlife(Darlington). -Fishing should riot be increased(Darlington). -Do riot build pavilion and bathrooms(Darlington). -Opposed to any structure on lagoon including pavilion and fishing decks(CSSP). -Need further study concerning eater impoundment structure at westend of the lagoon(Darlington). -More information on impoundment structure on the lagoon(CSSP). -Not convinced of the need for the Lagoon Pavilion and do not like the fishing platforms(Hoffman). -Lagoon pavilion looks too much like a Bob Leathers playground and too expensive(Ctuamings). -Concern that the fishing decks will interfere with winter ice skating(G uten berger). E.Central Pavilions and Plaza -Courtyard should be flat for handicap access(Darlington). -Eliminate pergola(Darlington). -Pergola may block viers and be an unnecessary addition to park (Gutenberger). -Retain road surface between main park road and pavilions but close it off to traffic for children's play and skateboarding(Darlington). -Supports proposals between central pavilions with the exception of the pergola(Hoffman)_ -Too many levels in central plaza-simplify(Cummings). -Discuss bathroom improvement and concessions relocation here(Gl jtenberger). F.Pier -Likes the inclusion of the pier(Tallman). -Pier may detract from lake vier. Not a high priority(Hoffman). -Do not include the pier(Darlington). -Prefer one-level pier over a wide,two-level pier(Cummings). -Oppose the proposal for a waterfront pier bercausze "if it is safe it won't be attractive and enjoyable"and if it "is attractive it won't be safe"(Guess Vho??7- that's right,CSSPO. G.Lake Edge -Do not include the bulge in front of the central pavilions(Darlington). -Oppose the "waterfront bulge"(CSSP). -Do not include proposed jetty(Darlington). -Lake edge should be as gently sloped as feasible to increase access to the grater's edge(Hoffman). H Gate y to Bird Sanctuary -Do not relocate gateway(Darlington). -Do not make gateway conspicuous(Darlington). -Proposed gateway is to large and imposing(Hoffman). I.Park Entry -Current attractive entr 4=signs should be retained(Darlington) -Eliminate bus drop-off at entry-bench is adequate(Darlington). J.Flagpole/Memorial Garden -Retain current stone steps around flagpole(Darlington). -Reduce the scale of the Memorial Garden,perhaps combining vith the art in the park area(Hoffman). IC.P1as/graurtd -Create a low continuous hedge with a fence inside around the playground/road edge(Ruether). -Do not like colored playground equipment(Cummings). -Carousel fence as dram is too heavy(Cummings). -Oppose any reorganization or rezoning of playground and oppose the fence as detailed around the carousel(CSSP). L.Tennis Courts -Relocate tennis courts as suggested in the report(Darlington) -Agreement vrith the removal of the existing tennis courts but not convinced that they should rebuilt in proposed location(Hoffman). M.Planting -Support nevr plantings along rte 13,the eastern edge of park and around the Youth Fiureau(Darlington). -Cupport the concept of establishing naturalistic Vetland vegetation in wildlife pond and lagoon areas. -Opposed to planting proposals,Concerned that park is overplanted(CSSP). -Planting replacement schedule should be prepared by Trovrbridge-Trovbridge before nevr planting suggestions are approved(CSSP). -?Maintenance program for existing and proposed plantings should be prepared(CSSP). N.Provision of public restroom facilities. - The need for better restrooms has not been adequately addressed as requested by the public(Ebert N.- 0. Miscellaneous Comments -Fence around the railroad is unnecessary and unattractive(Hoffman). -Do not increase the number of barbeques,particularly in Nest Field(Hoffman). -Eliminate bollards- "too clunky"(Cummings). Proposed Model for Park Decision-Makin Common Council Approval - Approval of Management. Plan - Approval )f Annual Capitol Improvement Plan ,,p j x ointme,it of Park Commission and Parr Manager(paid) Designation of annual maintenance arra improvement budget V rr Park Commission i rri l!:men t•Lei' Plan Develop approve and oversee f1 e,- implementation �s; �:' 1'-. •J 1 11 `�1:1 v n 1-1. lin '1 Park Management Plan - :y-ylppr,:;ve a.l�: .^ l oversee the implementation of an annua t -intt+S lati V schedule - R*'x Ui73mi?nd the :sem e tion of a Park Manager and the selection and tr.ainin�' of a Park. Crew �:proT.e-e o tl-,,e selection o �:on to its for m4l jt ca- Park ManagLr Develop n co riiat: capital improvement process - ;r=.?; l,�,r:, Parki .'•::Ianagement.Plan 1 _ - Develop zind im}}lenient annual maintenance annual improvement:Tement p•-o ram (in-house-- sand consrU an.°_) i•_oor(:ti.iat, k,,raini.lg of park mttnagi'i1.!'nt cr";!'Y I TT Park Crew Consultants - Horticulture skills - liltnhityl:t.' t_?3}rsi.i ... i 1- Preservation C .l-.•13 ,1.t?i._ - Basic. construction skills - rTT:�ijl-'_a_:j rtr:. i"ii�_•ii:•:��. :_ i�. Design Development Plan Approval of Design Development Plan means: 1. Adoption of the proposed park decision-making process including Park Commission and Park Manager 2. Agreement in overall vision of the park ,j_ Basic agreement on proposed area objectives and actions 4. Agreement on Park guidelines, Chapter Four Agreement on Phasing Recommendations as listed in Chapter Fite Stewart Park Management Plan IMan t�gement Plan •J Overall Objectives and Actions are those expressed in the DD Plan Maintenance schedule T,%ould be listed for each park area - Annual improvements will be identified for a ` ;year period: -in-house improvements -TivTo li with consultants r� + 7 7 { r- Te Technical planting 1 (phased) T•.Tf(l a prepared � si igg the la- iirri - � �LinL:.as �lalj:.,in_ pl�.ii ,Y__ .... 1 ,J 1 rJ1L� t is r ov e ; t?. a oT,%.', iii: Plan r:r t r a s i1c�_-j ?I" 1�.1-•:.+ in �:.1=- Tr�- YY r�rl.:+�er'i��Il vYl rI the TT�3�• ;In!:: _tilr+ _.::c'=_ i n'.tic:ate=_i :s a =7'_.ide Annual �j +J •1 Annual Maintenance Schedule Paris IInprOyements - J:;s_ _ i itii, T r �Tl' l - frun ng - Painting j.-ei=: i : :is:ictic-ria and nLs,a1ati: n, - .Building tatJilizatioii - Lighting ins•.al ati1_;ri - Pj.=;�,tiIn annuals - ii+ installation - Ranting - P:agrou.Lai:_+ JILL:=.ajlati'::iii: - Ree or -JiJJ u}:• removal ..:f al - Removal if fencing L'II,`iag I'{•=rrsult 1}- 'Road J. {^'v'LL_• J ��=v vl'v`:l •.i,'-.iA�.iiv ULI ?in;� Trr,'=�"r�*Tfsr•i; rjfic _. 1_t lt__- 1 i::' • as - Lake ane.J F;:,,1111 Creel: Edge Improvements j+= =i'1'i -n:�habiliration and r..;.}• r_1.tion rat :t T.{?Ts i' T T structures, furnishing tryr r-i: 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 Con<:er11s Concern Tvw, i0onsiztent17 expressed to clarify the distinction betTveen a design gwdleline or st_iggestion and a specific design detail or planning recommendation. This led to concern regarding whether the approSral of the Design Pl=an "in concept _n'O also meant details vould be approved "in concept". In addition, ions_:range planning,implementation and o-t'erseeing of the Design Plan —as exprezzed aY a major concern. tL; onse to Citizen Concerns -The manual mill clean;r distinguish ghat this design de7elopment plan intenvlhs to provide in Chapter One:Hov to Use the Manual to Guide MainteiianK_e..rY'r�'1•'�,�ti�t11 rtSi< Restoration n SteT,.aT't Park. -The manual 7ll propose a model for park decision-making in Chat.,ter One including :-he 1'eation of ararL Commission to undertake and revne7v' •pe<;ifi<;desi_n pro-DnsaLs for the part: concerning buildingS.. truc;tiu'es:wmd element:of the t-tulr en,%rivOriment. Thin Commis:ionA—_)_old ensure that alterations and nes'c 3nstr}.I-:_tion pri7<:zed' 'm a manner harmonious,rith the uildin%structure or otiect av Tell as the o'r'"r"dfl ,7yT . .a: - The manual will be restructured to remove illustrations and visual isu.a:_e . of<le'ail • to the sip pendix of the report. In so doing:the manual-rill e;learl• svr.er to r i 8=13":i11 guidelines vhlesh would be adopted in this report from illurtnative detail? =vhi<h " uli'j `-•e t ndertaken b7 experts in the future and are not inten<jed,to l e adopted. 2_ Level of Detail in the Park Pian Citizen Concerns 1_.oncern re:eardin'_the the level of detaill o2 this design de e—lr_,vment p .a_ian-J 'h:it i* a .t.a$T f';i�r:�a-ral[;=ad X1213_�"?rimes-I_ned wwe.-.prw e4 r I.o =.�1 Citizen CL'nt.e*:'nz lr• . i -Tlie Design Plan will ensure that the multiple use .f spaces is pr'esertred in the pt-irt,. It should be'•irt pllfied in response to-citizens noncernz about its o'terdevel ,p.e:j or G;'erdesigned appearance.Specific recommendations are listed in the discws-:'ion of areas vhich follo v in Pert IT. -The Manual rill'-hift emphasis to guidelines for presery tip ori:design and rye'veiopment cv opposed to illwtratin detail image.. 3_ Preservation Terminology 'Citizen Concern. Concern regarding olarlt7o2 preservation terminologIras it pertain• to •t.r?l•:tures: obiects and site:;,•as expressed. The need to define the different. _gppr._iey he,or combinations of approaches as they appl 7 to the plan acid be more Specific iat_ul That is meant 'Dv conservation,stabilization, restoration and rehabilitation 778S ex r re.%7er.. The attitude that too m`►n�r 'preconceived notion.•'atout preservation and, were provided in the details vas eonsistentljr pointed out.Concern re_ardin! the at-sense of cost accounting for rehabilitationi preser'ration *projects ass>>+4_*:i:rtTe<,'with park strixtures T'as expressed. + n es=}Gnse To iY:tiwen Concerns -The Design Plan l ewitlal gill ad,Ase the client of,rhel options are a nemIatle for presenation in chapter Four and of detailz Thin.-_facilitate propel' rer_at'dlit4tiuri �` the pearl.'.-hiVoric structtu•es and surrotulding l-andscapes -'on li llmtion from ',LP'and H4'orin Ithaca.Till'guide the de.r__I omen'of-`_-izi lel:le'a f. r the l reser.ration#Ef park str-w1ures. -Design detail.• -J.11 zap.-eor as il11 trati-re;riees in the Appendi..of the marrzal an di Chapter Four will focims in-depth on Proposed guidelines fur Prese.-vwiur-i--ani Ne- Con.nruction in the -i he concept of stabilization=trill be addressed in charter Four. -The manual ,AAI incltAe specification:and cost accotu:tinn for the rehabilitati.on:'pr'e'%er't'ation projects,as-Soci&ted Erith park z7tr'.o weo ii tlie`r ere pro:riled !>-?an appropriate expert in the field. 4- Compatibility of Design Details as related to: 1_ ney construction,- 2- alteration of existing buildings; 3- the introduction of ney elements CitiZen Concerns tiuJdre'ozin'g compatibilitsr of jeal:Yn detail• T'az?a concern expressed partir ularIv in relation to The f•o110 vine item t �d.,G and --de of-de::kill: In },i�r�thi ilse: F,l.inction and visual comp,.---atlbihly of o'rerlook £truntilre a i;;io'=_+ton pa-:lion; and materials of paved step e4 court lard 'OetTireen di-ince and Pic-nic pw.7:12.I,on; i.Design considerations for the construction of,the pergola, of municipal pier.: 6. introduction of sear,alis: .Tape I pe and sildt of park Pwniture,light standards,fencing and signage: 8.Size.scale and form of the park entr7 gates an-d :rd the bi - ?A_II-.CtU8_f 7!. Ette.- 9.-: L 7t7 e of ne 7v pla.,;,?equipment. Resvonse to Citizen Concerns -The mL:mual T.All provide more in-depth guidelines for the Selectiori o'.IL7 parr,details.. signs, lighting,park benches and discuss them in light of historic C'OmPatibllit781id maintenanoe recommendations. (Chapter Four) -The need for a�,00rdinwed design detail program 7ihich vould cI-n_-sidIer;:anJ recommend uniform,appropriate Signpage..lighting, park benches... still te a. Stage One;antivit.1,;,r&commended in the manwl. 5. Park Maintenance Citizens Concerns Continual concern regarding the of maintenance alis the def initiof I of main:enar.-Ce as it s'ertadns to this Jmanual-ww:7 •exr-ez-:?Qd. -hr- focuzion mainteriance procedures as aStage Cine,:v.'!iVit7 mraz expressed. Ztgporise to Citizens Concerns -Theldantx-d 7AII propose model for park decision-maRing in ChapterC-11ne. v1LIi,',AI--,L Till add the development of maintenance schedules as a Stage One acti"vit-7 to be c.-arfied o u t t.v a Parll.M an Lzq e r. - The Manual vill empl.,,asize maintenance and phazing, in Cha-ptTer Z Fovx. vta. e One 'CT not constituting maintenance schedulez. ---an to tued to maintenane.-es�chedules;=_T.d minor short-term-car I,, -The Mi-=int2l T-All emphasize guidelines in Chapter Four which Tvrillfacilitate maintenan� s tJecisions. 6- RoadMay and Parking facilities Citizens Concerns There isar--onsensnis among the --mmments receivted that the road'7av az proposed in the plan Is too narrov-and that the fperpendlicullar va=trldn gweasare an-IJ perhas m re da , erMian file rretf�aralle1Dal-jig con ic u atiof_onern essed f or the saIetv of pedestrian and hasall m been exr�r cvc-lists ff the. i-1 A nafro7,re.,_J '-Jerexv! R2L-wnse tel Citizen Conc.ernw-:? .he roaxi must.,at some time, be repaired. A".That time the road vidih and alignment mwill be �'u;�t i;yr�i ed at a total width of''6'on the t tro-ifas-portly in.A 22' -.J i`ring. ;3.re: Tvrith a 4'designate{i bike mute 1inl.ing the park entrance and rile�otlt}i�sia�9e liiia.to The Cdr t Bikeva.-7 is recommended. -The me-gra--loop road gill be designated as an 18'vide road without a.de .i;r.wed t ike route UP-.c;wize of::£+f Gt y :C+TLYSjeY'�liS�Ily. -Tt 1:: the opinion of Trowbridge-Tr+armtrldge that the exi's'ting rocpinrrav conTig-.1ration is not optimal. The telephone survey7 conducted b x the firm revealed TI—E.—al the roadmvaT in its current condition,is problematic due to a number of issues. ?_ Planting Ci.:..�r.:izat i s•l.on•:=ergs.• -Some�:on<rern regarding,the gIzntit r of plantings vw expressed. I:+esire fool• planting sx,hedule,detailPd plntins plan grd detailed maimt_onanle zF:he 1'.e 7w =_,t.,re y Ya . Response to C itiZen Concerns -The manual =gill emphasize the need to develop end implement a.planting ar_d pl;_z*.t maintencince schedule in Stage One and outline hoer the schedule cat: f!lllo-1 the :De ign d".'elopment plea q�� ing it designated species selections c--T J �=lar�t maszft—,=. -The maltizil 7-All recommend the ;appointment of a cit--fr_:rester:tpar�.,_A ager oversee planting and plant maintenance in the park. 8_ Public restrooms c=itizen Concern Upgraded restroom faiilitie should be a priority. !goon ►_ t'• Citi-en Cnncerns -The my nual 7till emphensize resinoom development in The re}iabilitation'_,f tile. `ud ia;a Ili Y -and pi; ic pavillon. - The m;-jnu5l "'ill emph;aziZe restroom rehabilitation ;irid :3 . �a'jta e One;y.;_ti.;.it.. I3_ Specific Design issues by Area Section 1: Cascadilla Boathouse and Pond Citi en's Concerns - A concern that the proposed decking is too large and out of s<,�ale Tvith the historic character Lcter or wilding Tpii expressed Concern that increased intensitj,-of use of the b oathous?e mw.,,be in cortifflict ;!*kh the enhan.-Cement of the Tvildlife habitat in the pond T-ms expressed. r sals to recontoim and revlant the Viljlife Pond seleclivel-kr remo-ve and replant v -S 'Ice edge and pond. ;m- d restore pathTvav around pond are "--ei.- egetz & L` ation bet7een lai Lig met renth caution by certain citizens'rwho suggest that ain ecologist be in-s I-e4 in the design process. -Proposed ffloating bridge to the wildlife island and overlook pw-Alii of concern. Zggponse to Citizen Concerns - Interior and exterior boathouse restoration vill be conducted under the suver7ision of--a q-Lv-31 i f i e d is r e s e r rat i o n:on s ul t an t. -Restoring the boathouse and the wildlife pond to their optimum 52i<j historic, 'LlSeS 15XIA t,,onditions should not be conflict of w.es. - Then the 7-rildlife. pond is impro-ved,it will be done so with the C-vJvice of an ecolog--,is!/natwalist or--a trained earl:manag gerAwban forester. -Overj jlao parlioranj bridge to island are Phase Three developme-DAts.-7rhiVh Toil. te ,Ieci.,-Jed upon b;?,the Coun,,^il unUer the recommendettion of the Paut Commission, an-iJ pro,posedl peark manager. Section 2 - Fall Creek Shoreline Citizen Concern;,:? I A concern that asection of the existion gavionsare r ---oe, mmenje,.-J to t, remoile,&-d from F-: ll Creek was ex-res-7ed. Concern that vlantna,along the resra ed horp4:1-ie ,voigd obstruct were exrressed. Response to Citizen Cnno-erns The manual-will prorsoze that -when the road is recons.1mvted the,-:�mount ofg-b-,-ions to L ,L)e rem aver -,vull tle determined by the Park Commission. e t :�ruv:d will el-lea-rl-exp-esis that plantingalong the w er's F ,h raL i-f' oil-c-ur along the entire 'Length grid that proper priming and management io: ensizin!z tliat and ;nater acicessibilit,-is not o-cStructed. Section Fishing Lagoon 'iti7en Co-,,,erns i L. LE C*-1.-:,+.i*�.r--rn that the le. oon is o-verdse,:.-eloped 7iaz ex.vress:&.J. It 7w-felt .1-4 o,vev-,e-%,-e.'-opment was inconvi-nent rwith preser7mUn of 4a-eclonfor.,L:1,71- hat-itai. Concert,. t1h.aA the lagoon structure vas too Iarse d an -ithe �-d an,-'i thatJesign not compati"e Tvi+h iiiaiing piers are seen as an unnecessary f feature and`dditionc+i fC ainten��2i':=e burden. k!sponse to r,"1tizen k.or.Cern. I.l. iiio'v'e ilsalallg••se'.•.,a from the lagoon. Remove "imp-e"of lagoon pavilion to Appendix and provide guidelines for NeMr Park Structures in Chap Figur. Recommend design of pwv ilio n by architect overseen by Park: ��mmission. .Pro-ri-Je more in-depth information on the impoundment structure propose;j for the lagoon. Section 4 - Vest Field i_itisen_ Concern.. Concern that the 'Vest Field is programmed'r-Ath too many bbd and picnic:areas 7:l ex-pre.Zed. Furthermore concern that re•.reation zw being displace.;frim this.irea ''-w expressed. response to citizen Concerns - The number of picnic tattles acid bbq's in the Test Field gill be re':juced an,-j the recommendation that determinations of numbers of picnic tables-.and btxfs be carried Out t--r the t ark:miina'gerin future planning rril1 be made. .} l •l i rt n., .gyp both 7, s �-r_ Ti i;i i` ix yl, to -TI.B l:'lali, v'a:l'::�i �•I'opo.•�.:-ori open:rf••�':i=1Ii t.'otll the Easy. �,��2d �e:t ise-•; •Mite :fie= t.IY provide flexible zp,ace for sports_1cii-�Aties by-8nk7'•_rOUp 'S.Sto1!.h it is.es tco 1_tie dire•— for that-r--urr---o e. Section 5 -_Playground and Tea Pavilion Cil.izen 3_oncerns - C' nf-,z-I1 1c'ay„pf've.j r--l.bi1t t. ti1form itI? .' around':%I' 'n:_1 :r•_�. :_ - r=-:'..r=:;. -11-once r '_o1cer nregarding, egoSaing, p la-;7 equipment being too __-e t d 3..._ :: priority'it-.m"'w expressed. -Concerti w'as expressed about the paring around the tea pa'r11ion. f2e -on.e to Citizen. Concerns -The manual 7riil rvm01ie the image of the carousel fence and Tr11: i.i4.1iiies or fence detallz;:-u-A ple:,i equipment in i_hapter F�+ur; Prrpos-ed r'1'ezet—,._;t on and New,F,«I'nishi n='Cuidelilies. -1'i<'_-stcratit_1�y 1 } e Te `i !_I y v "� reh.- � t1 I n i 1 t}' i 3 .I.�-.. pe - *ci l'iCl i± � 1 � I t 1` 1 '�P'�4: 11 Il ila�'Lit �t'i1� '.ti a 1 I 1'_ ' 11'va}'-:'�,'1 LIi .. 11 vil 1. it's. -1.Ii elines for tsuil�iin., ;and"site re toration will be pro'n'e J 1I1`_:l;.t'tYi' � i_Ir ;=!nd '-.i1 'e o: e n3 *- h e Park C ommiss.an. Section 6 - Park Pavilion Complex and Fier n ~itiSer� concern-,ii - Concern reaardin�f�the �.:iep-p- d'':ourt'nwd a•an Obstacle and O-k erl v<complex'ere d. expresse -Concern rea�+rdinZ the wompatibilit 7 and apprt tpriateness of c;rsJgn det.-: lE- 1. . t__J eraoi?:. lishtly pavin—in the court- := --'as e.{pre'vse:j. -The neem to prioritize bathroom concessions and discus'--concession rr_.ioc' wion''''w expressed. - Def inin, 's,re-e'r'imtion'in this area Tra:!consistent1v commented on. -A range or positive, neaati-e and ambivalent reelings abol t the pergola 7w exppres'ed. -"on,-.ern reaardina the safetI7of the pier Tvais expressed:its Tridth:form and de-ign details. Rfsponse to Citizen Concerns -The manual Trill relocwe det:Bil images to the Appendix and emphasize guidelines for Preservation in Chapter Four. - B illards -'''til be removed From images and recommei'1'-a`vions. -Z,k tt�'liis'ttion,preser',;ation,rehabilition,�7nd reconstru tion o t%he pa%,j li=`.:- 3�i'•rt �.:-- rite Trill be discuz ed in-depth in Chapter Four. -The man-tial Trill =mpha:-izeDesi-;,,n Guideline=for details-w relate:: to both site ,d bliildina lmpro-mmento 1n this area. ;l hapter Four - The S1.=Szlzl-'rill emsi-t'w-we the role of a pre-er ation--c-er P-erk Co1 fi;i'sr—r—:-- re;'ie,.Iti n g ,Jetei led design of this area. + - Vith regards to the pier: . the LLtaL:ual '�.'{111 relll0're ima'jes of p4er to the bollards Trill be remo-Fed f rom pier: the me*li 9l will re<:��mm�'r1�7 rel=lil'_:;fin pier; . t:.he manLk-d -ill emphazize design guidelines for the pier in Chapter Four. Section 7 - Major Stuart Memorial Horticultural Area .-1ti-7en Concern--:! _ilt•:e�li i'•_-_,�vii'1• the sc-ale and main'.enan`:J��f the Memorial �=,ir-,Ien 7t'� e;ifi'L-.se.j. E2. ponce to Citizen. C�r ern- The matvu.,a1 will ems>has; e community 01,Unsorsh2p - n-d fll;yintetler• r:it p}-: `.y:+ea yy L 1af 1 i'v� _L -1 - -e-11 phasing over time to ai=''-`_uar`:j inc:rease:J meunterianise. Section 8 - East Meld and Stevart Park Entrance Gateway Areas S, T, T 7 citizens Concerns Concern v-±. expressed about size,scale and form of the proposed eniTamns'gatevay. Zt28 =+73138 to Citi-gen Concerns - Tiie manual Fill remove image of gatevay to the Appendix. - The manual ill emphasize Design GWdelines for park entry gate in Chapter Fo-lur. Section 9 - Northeast Lakeshore, itg_ and Tennis Courts{Areas , V} lltiZens ev.prereil a equestion atbout the relocation of the tennis cjurt•into this area. Resf'onse to Citizens Loi ;erns Reconstri :tion of the tennis court will Vi=e dependant on the appro,ral of the Pas' : auimi_cion arid Common Council in:It ge Three. .1 t, �7 July 1987DECEIVED "x- 29 198.7 To : Trowbridge and Trowbridge 1345 Mecklenberg Road Ithaca NY 14850 r From : Roger H. Farrell (member SPAG, CAC ) . Le Moyne A. Farrell (alternate representative e Subject : Stewart Park Design Planaor 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 Miles 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. S 15 ) The proposed pier will be an attractive nui'.ance. 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 read. 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 , riot 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 Nerving the public. A lot of effort has done 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. RECEIVED AUG 10 1987 CITY OF ITHACA 1O EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF July CITY ATTORNEY 309 1987 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 Ms. Doria Higgins 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Referenda on Local Laws Passed by Common Council Dear Ms. Higgins: You have asked me for some information concerning the availability of public referenda to review acts of Common Council . You referred specifically to Stewart Park and the decisions of Council relating to the- - ter plan and proposed plans. The general law in New York is that a municipality may not submit a proposition to a referendum in the absence of express statutory authority. See McCabe V. Voorhis, 243 NY 401 ; 1981 Opinions the State Comptroller No . 81-344; 1986 Opinions of the State Comptroller No . 86-8. This means that there must be a specific state law which authorizes such a referendum before the City could voluntarily or involuntarily put that matter on the ballot . New York Courts are phrased this in different ways. A few of examples are as follows: " [referenda] are not authorized by the city home rule law and are therefore void . Their effect is to enable the voters of the City to go over the heads of their elected representatives and wield legislative power by direct action. All legislative power originates in the people. That is the basis upon which democratic government rests. Ours is a representative democracy, however , on which the will of the people is carried into effect by orderly procedure. " Newman v. O'Leary, 206 Misc . 175 ( 1954) . "Cities like other governmental units under the American system, still have a representative form of government . Direct action by the electors has not yet been adopted in the government of municipalities of the State of New York, and is only permissible when specifically provided by statute. " Hathaway v. City of Oneonta, 148 Misc . 695. The only state statutes that I am aware of authorizing referenda similar to that which you asked about are contained in the Municipal Home Rule Law Sections 23 and 24. Section 23 requires a referendum when any of the following occur : A. New city charter is adopted B. A change is made in the make up of Common Council C. Any new elective offices are created or abolished , or the powers of any elected officials are transferred or curtailed D. Changes are made in the boundaries of a ward or other district E. Changes are made in a provision of law relating to public utility franchises F. Reductions are made in the salary of a city officer or increases his hours of employment if such have been fixed by state statute G. A change is made in the civil service commission Under Section 24 referenda on petition are available if the required number of signatures is obtained within a 45 day time period for the following local laws: A. Law dispensing with public notice requirement as a condition of official action. B. Laws relating to public bidding , purchases or contracts C. Laws relating to assessment D. Laws relating to the exercise to the power of condemnation E. Laws relating to the auditing of accounts F. Changes in laws relating to the alienation or leasing of real property ( this is also consistent with City Charter Section 3.8 Subdivision 40) G. Any increases in salaries of an elective officer during his term of office H. Special laws relating to apportionment r As you can see from this list , I am very doubtful that any authorizations or appropriations for Stewart Park changes would be subject to referendum. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me. Ver truly yours, J� Paul D. Bennett Assistant City Attorney PDB/blh cc : Mayor Gutenberger-s! Ralph Nash , City Attorney U-CE1v ED s u Lel o l%7 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 July 9 , 1987 The Honorable John C. Gutenberger The Mayor of Ithaca City Hall Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mayor Gutenberger: 1 . It seems clarification is needed concerning the June 3 Resolution of Common Council endorsing "the concept of allowing the Chamber of Commerce to use city land as presented by the Chamber of Commerce in their most recent plan labeled 'modified Proposal A ' . " The maps the Chamber passed out to Common Council members June 3 were labeled "Proposal All not "modified Proposal A. " At earlier dates another map also labeled "Proposal All had been passed out to both Planning and Development Committee and BPW . These two different maps with the same label and many different dates , differed, in that in one, the proposed parking lot on the Bowman lot was contained on that lot , and in the other the parking lot extended over onto park land. It was this discrepancy that I tried to clarify at the May Common Council meeting when Ms. Cummings was unwittingly misinforming Common. Council about the situation. The map passed out by the Chamber June 3 and which the Common Council had in hand when they voted, and which was labeled "Proposal All has been filed at the City Clerk ' s Office by one of the Aldermen. We think this matter should be clarified by the record. Which of these plans is being implemented? What is "modified Proposal A"? How will those bodies and committees who have further responsibility in this matter be informed about which proposal they are making decisions about? If the map Common Council had in hand is different from "modified Proposal All , does their vote still have legality? r r 2. The City Clerk's Office does not have on file Environmental Impact Assessment Forms for either the Youth Bureau, which is on park land, or for the park land designated in "modified Proposal A" for use by the Chamber of Commerce. Could you tell me why these two forms have not been completed? This is particularly important to us because both of these two cases involve use of park land for non-park uses. Sincerely , CITIZENS TO /SAVE T ^� B y bL_1 x Ooria Higgins -y.M®1� ao; .m c�Ap�RA7E0�� CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14BBO OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 M E M O R A N D U M TO: S.P.A.G. B.P.W. FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger DATE: November 30, 1987 RE: Stewart Park Landmark Designation For your information please find enclosed a memorandum from Leslie Chatterton regarding the above entitled matter. Enc. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" RECEIVED NOV 2 3 1981 ,PpO`q"pTEO CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14950 ITHACA LANDMARKS TELEPHONE: 272-1713 PRESERVATION COMMISSION CODE 607 TO: Mayor Gutenberger , Common Council , Planning Board FROM: Leslie Chatterton RE: Stewart Park Landmark Designation DATE: November 20, 1987 At the regular monthly meeting held on November 18, 1987 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to withdraw the August 24, 1987 recommendation to designate Stewart Park as a local landmark. The Commission as directed by the Planning Board is currently working to refine and clarify the designation and will hold a public hearing on the modified proposal within the next two months. LAC:eh 0-hd-STEPK.LAC "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" RECEIVED DEC 7 1987 CITY OF ITHACA 109 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM To: John Dougherty Superintendent of Public Works From: H. Matthys Van Cort Director, Planning & Development //k*�t4p Re: December 15 SPAG Meeting Date: December 4, 1987 Members of SPAG subcommittee feel that the format of the next SPAG meeting can strongly affect the direction of the discussion regarding The 1987 Stewart Park Preservation Goals and Guidelines. With this in mind we would like to propose a mediator from the Community Dispute Resolution Center be engaged to act as facilitator, as was done for the June 11th public meeting. I expect that the bulk of the meeting will be taken up with a report by SPAG subcommittee members on the following items : a. reporting on the process of completing the final draft b. responding to questions and comments from SPAG c. making recommendations and introducing resolutions These suggestions were discussed with the Mayor and have met with his approval . I would like to speak further about this with you as soon as convenient. HMVC/mc cc: Mayor John C. Gutenberger "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" (� l7`(��j3�7� ��rs"!�� p�IAC RECEIVED DEC 2 1987 } 1 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. 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. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" 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 Iia i _t prob ems: 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, V: 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, V: 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 J, 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 Guidelirb 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. " " U, c: drop-off area need be no more than a park bench. rcECEIVED DEC 9 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of :Stewart Pam Advisory Group (SPAG) FROM: Citizens to Save Stewart Park b,� �v v 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 . - RECEIVED DEC 2 � 1987 STEWART PARK ADVISORY GROUP Meeting of December 15, 1987 7:30 P.M. Attending: Betsy Darlington, Margo Clynes, Barbara Ebert, Sean Kit:=en, Ben Nichols, LeMoyne Farrell , Jon Meigs, C�cris Ivey, John Gv_enberger, John Dougherty, Leslie Chatterton, Charles Dunlop Absent: Susan Blumenthal , Carol Seligmann The following resolutions were adopted by the Stewart Park Advisory group: 1 ) WHEREAS, Common Council , on April 2, 1986, approve-= the expenditure of $21 ,500 for preparation of "design develc=ment drawings" for Stewart Park, and the City subsequently ^--.red Trowbridge an(i 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.?.A.G. and numerc::s organizations and individuals within the City have recommenced that a principal component of the design _evelopment 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. s;bcommittee 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 she S.P.A.G. subcc-=-rnittee and the subcommittee finds the document meets the objective of providing preservation and maintenance gL;=celines, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That S.P.A.G. recoraends to Common Ccu ncil the adoption of all goals stated in the OStewart Park 1987 Preservation Goals and Guidelines", spec. . cally: Goal One: Establish a Park Commission Goal Two: Preserve Historic Structures and their Landsc=pe Setting Goal Three: Preserve and Enhance the --"-verall Park Lands cape Goal Four: Protect and Beautify the S�-oreline Goal Five: Preserve and Enhance Park :---:!ad and Path Syst=:mss Goal Six: Preserve Passive and Info=~ Recreation Act -+ities, Preserve Limited Active Recreation and Enhanc= Water Related Activities Goal Seven: Coordinate Park Furnishir.=s BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the guidelines stated '.n Chapter Three c. the "Stewart Park 1987 Preservation Goals and Gluidelines" shall serve as one of several resources for implementatir n 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 71 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". -3- 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 1n �� 0 , � ohn A. Dougherty, . airma Stewart Park Advisory Grou 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 ....2 ...,....... ,. ....,...,..; .., ........,,oi:: O�I� 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 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" 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 12/15/87 RESOLUTION Re: Rescinding the 1985 Stewart Park Plan 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 1987 Stewart Park Goals and Guidelines, now THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that S.P.A.G. recommends that Common Council rescind the Stewart Park Master Plan. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14650 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR 12/15/87 RESOLUTION Re: Parks Commission 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 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. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" 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 12/15/87 RESOLUTION RE: Adoption of Stewart Park 1987 Preservation Goals and Guidelines 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, 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. recommends to Common Council the adoption of all goals stated in the Stewart Park 1987 Preservation Goals and Guidelines, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the guidelines stated in the Stewart Park 1987 Preservation Goals and Guidelines shall serve as a resource for implementation of the goals. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" 1 s.. Doria Higgins for Citizens to Save` 3t rV;-j4 E before Common Council January 6, 1988 . Let Us Ask the Attorney General's Office For an Opinion on the Stewart Park-Chamber of Commerce Issue. As you know, we have spoken to you on several occasions about the legal propriety of various city actions concerning city park lands. On December 9, 1987 we sent a letter to Mayor Gutenberger with an attached statement asking for a moratorium on the city 's decision to make Stewart Park land available to the Chamber of Commerce until the legalities of that action had been more thoroughly studied . We cited a number of court decisions which we had been told by lawyers had bearing and which suggested that the city may have acted without proper authority. In reply we received a letter from City Attorney Nash enclosing an abstract of a 1980 opinion from the NYS Attorney General 's Office concerning the leasing of waterfront property in Kingston, NY on which opinion Mr. Nash said he had "relied ." Since receiving that letter we have talked to the lawyer who was city attorney in Kingston at the time and to a lawyer at the NYSP&R&HP but it was not clear to them that this opinion about waterfront property in Kingston applied to our local situation. We think the best way for Ithaca to get an answer to this question is for the city to ask the Attorney General 's Office for an opinion about our local situation. We have drafted a letter, hopefully for the city ' s signature asking the Attorney General 's Office to address the question of whether the city of Ithaca had the authority to license the use of a part of Stewart Park land for non-park purposes and under circumstances which seem to indicate a longer period than the one year term of the revocable license. We have discussed our letter with a lawyer at the Attorney General ' s Office and even read the letter to one lawyer there. We told him that we did not want to question this matter if it was clear that the city did have authority for their action. He said it was a "worthwhile question" in that the answer is not immediately clear. He saw the "operative factors" as less than the details we had given but said that leavin them in would give them a clearer picture of the overall situation.-Ihcre e we ask 4%0- ycv not cvt f4%c 1e.t+er, it So Mr. Mayor we ask you to send this letter. If indeed the city does have the authority for the Stewart Park action the city will be vindicated and you will have gained an increase in public good will by responding to and reassuring a community which has become increasingly concerned over recent procedures and decisions about park lands. And if it turns out that the city does not have authority for the Stewart Park action, the sooner we learn so the better. Draft of letter for possible signature of Ralph Nash, City Attorney Mr. Peter Schiff, Deputy Solicitor General Attorney General Department of Law Room 220 Albany, NY 12224 Dear Mr. Schiff: We would like your opinion on the following licensing action by the City of Ithaca. The city is making available to Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce, a private non-profit organization, a portion of city Stewart Park land for the purpose of constructing an asphalt parking lot and an asphalt access road to serve the new office and visitors center building which the Chamber pians to build on a town lot contiguous to the city park land. The Chamber has not yet acquired this lot. Because the town lot is too small (only 60' wide) to contain the parking (up to 81 vehicles per hour) and access road necessary for the Chamber purposes, and because no other land is presently available for these purposes, this lot can only be made workable for the Chamber if the city makes some of the park land available to them. This single lot is now in the process of being rezoned, for the Chamber by the Town of Ithaca, from R-15 to a "Special Land Use District" a category devised by the Town in 1984. The area of the park land involved is on the periphery of the park and not part of the main recreational area, but it does serve as a green buffer zone from a local thoroughfare. The park land is being made available by the City to the Chamber by means of a revocable one year license. But the City will be under moral obligation to renew yearly since the Chamber will have gone to considerable expense in buying the lot, removing several buildings now on it, and constructing a new building. For the city to deny renewing the license under such conditions would be in effect to waste the money the Chamber will have expended. One other factor which may be considered relevent to your opinion is that there has been considerable protest by the public against what they see in this plan as both a diminishment of and an intrusion upon a much loved public park. In fact it was in response to protest from the community that the city decided to relinquish its earlier plan to let the Chamber build the office building itself in the park. The question we would like to have addressed is does the City of Ithaca have the authority to license park land to a private organization for non-park purposes and under circumstances which seem to involve a longer period than the one year term of the license? We will appreciate receiving your opinion on this matter. Sincerely yours, Ralph Nash City Attorney Dmft- GonAsv.red toy C. hLec1r fu _'qve 'ct-et/'i-t Oai'k Z t-h licvccT- rwe , T141C,Cc, K. Y- 273 -b -4S'p IT :00 RATE0 CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14650 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CITY ATTORNEY CODE 607 January 27 , 1988 James D. Cole, Esq. Assistant Attorney General New York State Department of Law The Capitol Room 218 Albany, New York 12224 Dear Mr. Cole: The City of Ithaca owns and operates Stewart Park located at the southern end of Cayuga Lake in the City of Ithaca. At the extreme easterly edge of said park stands the newly constructed City Youth Bureau building, with appurtenant parking areas. The Chamber of Commerce of Tompkins County has expressed an interest in erecting a new structure just across the municipal line in the Town of Ithaca and licensing a small portion of Stewart Park property to provide secondary vehicular access to its new building and additional parking adjacent to the City' s parking facilities. Can the City enter into one-year revocable license agreements with the Chamber of Commerce for the above use of its parkland for adequate consideration without first obtaining a special act of the State Legislature? .I appreciate your attention to this request. Yours ver truly, R h Nash Ci torney RWN:blh �A fO n ` FES 1. 6 1988 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF LAW ROBERT ABRAMS ALBA\1',NY 12224 Attorney General 0.PETER SHERWOOD Solicitor General Telephone: (518) 474-3429 February 10 , 1988 0 Ralph W. Nash, Esq. City Attorney City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Nash: I have received your January 27, 1988 letter inquiring whether State legislation is needed in order for the city to enter into a one-year revocable license with the chamber of commerce for the use of city parkland. The New York State Department of Parks and Recreation is the agency that advises the Governor concerning special State legislation to authorize the alienation of parkland. Thus, that agency is uniquely qualified to advise you as to whether a State act is required under the circumstances you have described. Thus, the New York State Department of Parks and Recreation should first be given the opportunity to respond to your question. Very truly yours, J ES D. COLE Assistant Attorney General in Charge of Opinions IT -� c�Ap�RptEO CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CITY ATTORNEY CODE 607 February 17, 1988 y Lawrence N. Marcus, Counsel Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Agency Building #1 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12238 Dear Mr. Marcus: I am herewith enclosing copies of my earlier letter of January 27th to Mr. Cole in the Department of law and a copy of his response of February 10th. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Your very truly, Rat Nash Ci 1 torney RWN:blh enclosure bcc: John 'arterberger, Mayor All Aldezpersons Doria Higgins April 6 , 1988 Doria Higgins for Citizens to Save Stewart Park at Ithaca Common Council As those of you who have seen our proposed plan , for a Parks Commission know we have in general supported the Trowbridge plan for a Parks Commission. But from the beginning . we have felt that the suggested composition of members was way overloaded on the side of science and technology. In view of the two tasks propsed in the resolution to be presented to you tonight for an interim parks commission, we think the proposed composition of members is even more of a flaw. One of the two tasks proposed for the interim commission is to make recommendations to you concerning the organization, procedures , tasks , responsibilities etc of the permanent commission. For this reason we think it important that you have more informed generalists on the commission and less technicians. We think y ou should appoint more fea PIC asxs to the Commission who are familiar with the park as a park, with the park as it functions in the enmmi?nity, with the park as it functions on gala ocassions with thousands of people such as the Ithaca Festival and the park as it functions with only a few. You need a higher proportion of members who have a professional oVtrllll OVtra I) understanding of the Abeauty and Aaesthetics of the park. We hope you can modify tonights proposed resolution to accomodate this suggestion. Statement of Citizens to Save Stewart Park at Common Council . April 6 , 1988 Concerning Use of Festival band as Substitute Acreage for Inlet Island and Southwest Parks. We were surprised, perhaps naively, that the clear , undeniable , hard and fast facts which were presented to you in our March 7 memorandum concerning the use of the Festival band as the substitute acreage required for the alienation of Inlet Island and Southwest Parks have made no difference to the City Administration in its actions concerning the alienation. Perhaps some of you have not read our statement or not read Mr. Nash' s March 1 memorandum about the issue , or perhaps some of you simply don' t comprehend the practical importance and significance of the facts. _ It is difficult to believe that if the facts were understood that the City would not change its course of action. The City is following a no-win, dead-end course which is not only wasting the City' s own time but the time of everyone involved. We do not think it is an exageration to say that the course the City is on could be viewed by some as an outright scam. Tonight we would like to make our March 7 statement part of the record and make some additions to it in tonight's statement. And we would also like to clarify for you the unavoidable importance of some of the facts involved. First, the Act of the New York State Legislature (signed into law August 1 , 1985) which empowered the City of Ithaca to alienate Inlet Island and Southwest Parks specifically states that the land offered by the city as the obligatory substitute acreage "must be used for park purposes by the city. " In other words , tthe as t o h1 A d o City cannot give the Festival Land to the Sate Parks &fartmentA and still fulfill its obligation to the State of New York (as described in the Legislative Act) because then the Festival Land would not be city land to be used for park purposes by the city but it would be state park land with use determined by the State . Some have argued that it makes no difference if the land is owned by the City or the State as long as it is park land. But it makes a big difference in that State Parks intends to 2. r' 0V Oka vis use the land to enlarge Treman Marina. Marina slots^are not routinely available to city residents or anyone , they are allotted by lottery. It could be the case that all of the new docks were won by people in Alaska, people in Alaska that is rich enough to own boats and to travel to Ithaca. The Festival Land which is now available to all in the community, rich and poor alike , would no longer be available to community residents. That is point number one . Point number two is this : there are strong, solid , legal grounds for thinking that the Festival Land is already park land. The courts of our state have established legal precedents that lands publicly used over a period of time as public park land becomes park land by a process known as "implied dedication. " Mr. Nash' s March 1 memorandum in no way at all resolves this question. If the Festival Land is park land now, it cannot function as the obligatory substitute acreage . And the City Administration would be taking away from the community not only an inner city park -- Inlet Island Park -- but would also be giving away what is a most charming and delightful piece of city park land -- the Festival Land. In other words , this City Administration, under the pretence of preserving the status quo , would be depriving its citizens of two parks. This would be a most serious breach of the public trust. We understand that the City is in process of acquiring new park land at Six Mile Creek and we most heartily support this. It is a splendid idea and you are all to be complimented wk#)it is acquired . , but it does not mitigate misuse or abuse of city park land elsewhere in the city. Mr. Nash' s memorandum cites three of the court decisions which we had listed in our earlier memoranda to the Mayor and Common Council. If you read his memorandum carefully you will note that there is a, perhaps unwilling, sleight of hand effect in his presentation of those three cases. He presents two of them as though he were presenting them as argument that the Festival Land is not 3 park land. But if you read his wording carefully you will see that those cases , even as discussed by him, support the concept of dedication of park land by4implied dedication of long continued use . In fact , we became aware of those three Court cases which we passed on to Mr. Nash, in two memoranda -- one from New York City Parks Department and the other from New York State Parks Department, and in both of these memoranda the three cases discussed by Mr. Nash were presented as support of the idea that land which has been long used by a community as park land becomes park land. The only one of the three cases discussed by Mr. Nash in which the Court decided that the land in question was not park land was- the case of Pearlman v. Anderson . The memorandum sent to us by the New York City Parks Department which discusses this same case , says , "The result may have been different had there been stronger evidence of continuous public use sufficient to constitute an implied dedication." And this brings us to the new information we would like to add to our March 7 statement. In that statement we alluded to all the many members of the community who think the Festival Land is part of Cass Park and who have continuously over the years used the Festival Land as park land-, including the charming yearly Kite Festival which is held on the Festival Land and is advertised in the local media as being held at Cass Park. But we did not mention the important fact that the Festival Land has been maintained over many years by the City Parks maintenance people as well as by the State Parks maintenance crew. Until about 5 or 6 years ago all of the Festival land was maintained and molded by the City Park maintenance crew. At that -time a large part of the Festival Land was roughed up by bulldozer and was not subsequently mowed by City Parks crews but the rest of the Festival Land continued to be mowed and maintained by City Parks crews until two years ago , when the State Parks put in their new sixth pier: at that time the State maintenance crew took over the task of mowing and maintaining the Festival Land. So this is point number three : the Festival Land ` 4. ((tt f1ft either in part or in whole , has been maintained 11 by either City or State Parks maintenance crews over a number of years. In closing let me say that we are still blessed with open spaces in the city and still surrounded by hills most of which still have more trees and meadows than houses. Perhaps because of this we do not realize how enormously important public open space and public park space will increasinly become as the entire area becomes urbanized and suburbanized. Please do not continue to treat our public open spaces and public parks with the disregard you have manifested toward them over the past few years. Let us guard and preserve and maintain our public parks and let us where possible add to this precious inventory of park land. �,.d � t n,t� aM• rk f