Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes & Information From Meetings in 1985 IT �Rp0l3AX A CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET a ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF MAYOR TELEPHONE: 272-1713 John C. Gutenberger CODE sol Mr. Alexander E. Soule 2 Bald Hill Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Soule: Thank you for your letter of January 13, 1985 and for sharing your suggestions with us in regard to the improve- ment of Stewart Park. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the committee, for their review. Again, thank you for taking time to write to me with your ideas. Sincerel , John C. Gutenberger Mayor x CC: Thomas Niederkorn w/attach. Jack Dougherty w/attach.,. v 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program' _ p FROM: '� ALEXANDER E SOULE 2 BALD HILL RD 4 ITHACA NY ` 1 4 9985 14850 jam !3 J- v e. i e cN K 4 "t StNcQ ock tYe_ sc.L9 cs . t n�n�fJ ro v� l�cv�r ar k a.,aC w a�- �S' O �lI /a-c e. .0 o c.,ft i.rq Sid 01 Sha Ila Cv _(- d� 4e 14L c id a ac u s �v 1S o Sh��� � Th a . Jr_t2 1.i�I/ Y e t� //e- j / _ L I,< ce oief- 7 r4llt coal -1-j- f,, �i<( �r' �✓ lhe_ r �o 1� Me root) wa ! ` �'o �CkIf i a � 0 v E, 14L e- le- /W4 7l r r- wa lou, caA✓ d 46cv1"^` OLr ea 44-0 e r e IS - to 4na_ ke 4L jf/(Pl . GA-I- a LAND ea 7a kr-. t,% I Yee of �.f�aT O�v I-Lie _ Fa c-r 1;'nA /m x r-IA""A e-ow/410 tt d kcoL c (� fh� recti r e co. e� 4x (CCGe OL 0ck� Thi sW/!hZ iA- Caro. 1 GIf- �J lo,c-ej a A,, 7K2. stoup �0WAro( $ -0 411 �- a r,00-4 —al J -;I/, 7a A w o d.v> S> 9 -o ivy baay, W a�n� -4y F 7I� 'OFa n�aa� a a b � v� P S b/) e p�s s j�J �f1 p.I�, J -a y ► a 4V ewa� a Y-1 V4 vl�tl. kp vp-a /a Y 'Baa CITY OF ITHACA CONTRACT ROUTING SHEET OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Please review and, if you approve, sign, date, and forward to the next individual. Return to J. A. DOUQHERTY for final processing. CONTRACT SUMMARY: Project Title: STEWART PARK IMPROVEKRM MASTER PLAN Period Covered: November 1983---September 1984 Financial Terms: Total contract bid price not to exceed $29,784.00, to be paid in five installments as set out in contract (unless otherwise agreed in writing by City and contractor). Essence of Preparation and presentation of a master plan for needed Agreement: and desired improvements to Stewart Park, including lakefront park, bird sanctuary, golf course, and water bodies, in acoordance with Schedule A attached to contract. Comments: Project authorized by Board of Public Works and Common Council; contractor approved by Common Council. Funding to be accomplished with $20,000 set aside for project in current budget, and $15,000 additional to be appropri- ated from FY 84 budget. TO: J. Dougherty, Assist. to Supt. PW, Signature; L, �' �r-� Date: J. Gutenberger, Cb. , Streets Comn.BPW T. Niederkorn, P.E.R.C.(contractor) P. Tavelli, City Atty. E. Holman, B&A Z Mayor From: J. Dougherty, DPW Date: 15 November 1983 FOR SERVICES INDEPENDwr CONMCTOR Made this day of November 198 3 between THE CITY OF ITHACA, a municipal corporation with offices at 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, hereinafter called the "City" and PLANNING/ENVIRMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS 310 West State Street, Ithaca, New York, hereinafter called "The Contractor" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City requires certain services to be performed mc)re particul- arly set forth in Schedule "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the Contractor is desirous of performing such services and the City is desirous of contracting with the Contractor to provide such services, NOW, in consideration of the covenant$, conditions, and provisions con- tained herein, it is hereby AGREED as follows: 1. The contractor agrees to perform the services set forth in Schedule "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof in a manner and at such time or times as is satisfactory to the City. 2. The contractor shall be paid for providing such services as follows: Dec. 7, 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$4,467.60 Jan. 18, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,935.20 Mar. 7, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,446.00 May 2, 1984. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,956.80 On acceptance of final plan and public presentation, as per schedule A: 2,978.40 TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED:--- $29,784.00 *Unless otherwise agreed in writing by both parties. Contractor: PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH OONSULTANTS page 2. 3. The relationship .of the contractor to the City is that of an independent contractor. As such, the contractor shall receive no fringe benefits from the City including but not limited to medical insurance, retirement benefits, worker's compensation, disability, unonployment insurance or any other benefits or remuneration other than that set forth in paragraph 2 hereinabove. 4. The City may terminate this contract at any time without cause, in which case the contractor shall be paid pro rata for the satisfactory work performed to date of termination. 5. The contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless from any claims against the City arising from the negligence of the contractor. CITY OF IIMCA by _✓ � -- ,� 1_ Date: MAYOR OONr'RACIOR by Date: x/83 J L1CriYJV ilial Rate: City Atterney BAND ADMINISTRATION OOMIT= BY s Chairperson, B&A CD m, SCHDULE A STEWART PARK IMPROV ENIS MASTER, PLAN SCOPE OF PROJECT Preparation of a comprehensive plan for improvements to the Stewart Park complex comprising lake front pa.rkjbird sanctuary, golf course, and associated water features, including repairs to features to be retained; replacement of certain features determined to be inappropriate to the function, purpose and appearance of the complex; and installation of features intended to upgrade the complex as determineddesirable. The plan shall consist of text and drawings necessary to explain the various features and improvements in sufficient detail to permit the sub- sequent design of facilities and the preparation of construction documents for the implementation of individual improvements according to a phased plan, or as determined necessary or desirable by the City. It should incorporate a schedule of recommended phasing and priority for the vari- ous plan components. In coordination with the appropriate City depart- ments, the consultant contractor shall prepare a final list of facilities, activities and improvements to be incorporated in the-plan. Consideration shall be given to factors of efficiency of operation and maintenance, to the greatest extent compatible with considerations of user convenience, access and amenity. Landscape design shall be a major component of the plan. The existing character of the site shall be respected in the design of new features, while not limiting the exercise of freedom in designing such additions and changes to enhance the interest and variety of the different areas of the complex and subareas of each. Suggestions shall be made for typical treat- ments and for special features, including but not limited to sturctures and landscaping of historic interest; vehicular access, circulation and parking; and access and use by persons in wheelchairs. Compatibility of design of new features with those to be retained is essential, in order to minimize the potential for visual and esthetic disruption and to result in a coordina- ted whole at each stage of plan implementation. Design of impMements shall take into account the special characteristics of the complex with respect to soils, topography and proximity to water table, and shall include sufficient hydrological and other investigations as needed to determine the feasibility of incorporating lake swinming into the final development, as well as other rmre intensive uses of the lake and waterway resources than presently occur at the complex. The design of services and support systems shall be compatible with those currently in use by the City off-site, and shall connect with them as appropriate. Included in the plan shall be a projection of the estimated costs for each phase of the improvements. In addition, the consultant shall identify any probable sources of non-local funding assistance for the various phases and components of the plan, including programs which may directly or indirectly contribute to planning or implementation of recreation facilities, waterway and lake dredging, historic preservation, and other activities. Schedule A, page 2. Necessary evaluation of the environmental impacts of the overall plan and its components will be undertaken by the City, but consultants will be required to take environmental concerns into account in plan preparation, understanding that some components may have significant impacts, and designing them to be responsive to the objective of minimizing negative effects. PLAN KBMISSION AND PRESENTATION Submission of a preliminary plan, including tentative cost estimates for major work items, is required by April 30, 1984; and submission of a completed plan by August 31, 1984. The consultant will be expected to make at least one presentation of the preliminary plan to the City, and one public presentation of the completed plan. Conferences and consulta- tions with City officials, staff and others involved with the project locally will be scheduled and conducted as necessary and convenient. All presentations and meetings with local personnel will be conducted in Ithaca. Twenty (20) copies of the preliminary plan, and fifty (50) copies of the canpleted plan, exclusive of presentation drawings and other large-size graphic materials, will be required by the above dates. Two (2) sets of preliminary presentation drawings, and five (5) sets of final drawings, etc. , including one reproducible set, will be required. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES The City will make available to the consultant, to the extent possible, existing base data concerning the complex, including maps; aerial photo- graphy; maintenance and improvement history; information on users, activi- ties and programs; plans and other prescriptive or descriptive documents relating to the complex and to recreation; Public Works and Youth Bureau policies, standards and procedures applicable; engineering, water and sewer, streets and facilities; archival material concerning the history of the complex, etc. The City will assist the consultant, to the extent feasible, in obtaining additional infonnation required. The City will also insure that necessary environmental analyses of the plan and its component parts are conducted at the appropriate times. Contact person and project coordinator for the City will be Mr. John A. Dougherty, Assistant to the Superintendent of Public Works, who will be assisted and advised by other City staff and agencies as he determines necessary and desirable, i • *s. Schedule A, page 3. SCOPE OF WORK 1. Assemble and Review Existing Data. Existing data which describe and measure present conditions in the park complex will be assembled and reviewed. This would include information related to land use, recreation demand, traffic and parking, utilities, water currents, water quality, vegetation, soils, boating demand, ve- hicular and pedestrian accessibility, condition of park structures, operating and maintenance costs and prob- lems, improvements planned by public works,, and.sim-- ilar pertinent information. Interviews with staff, key officials and selected individuals will be made to assess attitudes about the present use of the park and its future potential. It is understood that all existing information that is presently available to the City will beprovided to the consultant at no charge, including maps, air photos and reports. Because of the off-season nature of the time period within which the plan is to be prepared, it is anticipated that only limited original data will be ob- tained at this stage. Additional needed data will be identified, however, and, with City assistance, obtained to the maximum extent possible within the limitations of time, season of the year and budget. 2. Spatial,Functional and Structural Analysis. Analyze current land use activity for each element of the plan, apparent trends, and the structural condition, usefulness, and restoration potential of major buildings. Each of the major park functions will be analyzed and evaluated in terms of space and facilities available and suitability of present use. Existing park-related local policy will be reviewed for appropriateness. Natural, operational and legal constraints will be identified and assessed. Based on interviews and supporting data, alternative roles and functions for the several components of the park complex, and strengths and limita.t: ons of each, will he developed for discussion with staff and others as determined. 3. ' Prepare Schematic Sketches. Environmental and land use information gathered in 1 and 2 above will be used to establish a framework for assessing .park potential. Matrices will be developed to facil.i.t:at e evaluation of possible land use categories in terms of social and en- vironmental values. The matrices will indicates restraints as well as opportunities and will provide rationale and support for the preparation of schematic sketches for the Schedule A, page 4. park plan. Such sketches will be largely concep- tual and diagrammatic showing relationships between land uses, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and park facilities. Discussion of alternatives with staff and officials at this point will be important. 4. Special Studies. Two issues fundamental to the park's future development will be given special emphasis. One relates to the possibilities of shoreline enhancement and the second involves the feasibility of golf course expansion. Opportunities for expanding the park .to the north by diking and filling portions of Cayuga Lake will be examined. Calculations on the present shoreline con- figuration, water flow and wind will be entered into a computer program and. verified by existing aerial photographs and other data. At this stage, data not presently available or easily obtained will be assumed. The verified computer .program will be used to assess the likely impact on water-circulation of design changes in the shoreline configuration and alterations of the lake and creek bottom. Suitable uses of filled land, and other possibilities for improving water and shoreline use, will be determined. Golf course expansion potential will be evaluated by ex- amining need, present layout and the feasibility of using part or all of the bird sanctuary and biological field station for this purpose. Alternatives and recommendations for the future use of these three areas (golf course, sanctuary, field station), including the eastern bank of the inlet, will be prepared. 5. Develop Preliminary Site Plan. Reaction to the schematic sketches (work item 3), and information from the special studies (work item 4) will be incorporated into the prep- aration of preliminary site plan for the entire complex. Included in the plan will be the spatial and functional relationships and linkages of all parkland uses and activities, a vehicular circulation and parking layout, shoreline treatment, lakeshore modifications, the location and use of park structures, the location and treatment of major landscaping elements .and magnitude-of-cost estimates for major improvements. Det:alled design drawings and specifications of renovated or new park structures and landscaping features will not be possible in this study but . clear indications of the substance and character of such improvements will be given. y Schedule A, page 5. ' 6. 'Develop Conc_ept_•of_'VisualForms and Materials. Pre- pared' concurrently with, and as a part of, the pre- liminary site plan will be a landscape design plan for the park. This plan will include consideration of pedestrian circulation, modification of existing land forms, generalized drainage patterns, visual linkages and sequences, and the use of landscaping to separate or define functions, spaces and structures, frame views, create visual interest and provide shade, back- drops and wind protection. Criteria will be established for the selection of plant material. suited to the en- vironmental characteristics of the site and compatible with existing vegetation. The location and, type of major or critical plant groupings will be indicated and rec- ommendations made for plant succession as important older trees deteriorate or die. 7. Preparation of Final Plan and Phasing. Modification of the preliminary site plan and landscape design plan will be made based on review and discussion with City staff and officials. The final park plan will include appro- priate modifications. Narratives and graphics will be prepared to describe and illustrate recommended improve- ments in the complex. The final plan will also include a recommended priority listing for all improvements and an implementation sequence to facilitate phasing of con- struction and minimize disruption of normal park use. Potential funding sources for various aspects of the park's long-range development will be explored in con- junction with the City staff. 8. Report Reproduction and Presentation. In accordance with specifications in the RFP 20 copies of all written material and 2 sets of drawings will be provided at the preliminary plan stage. Fifty copies of all final plan narratives and 5 sets of final drawings, including one reproducible set, will be provided. The consultant will be available for public presentations as required. Schedule A PROTECT SCHEDULE WORK ITEM NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 1. Assemble and review existing data 2. Spatial, functional and structural analysis 3. Prepare schematic sketches 4. Special studies 5. Develop preliminary site plan with narratives 6. Develop concept of visual forms and materials 7. Present preliminary plan review feedback 8. Prepare final Man and phasing 9. Report production 10. Present final plan 0 CITY OF/TfIA CA -D,EPAR 7-N,6N T OF Pl/6Z/C &01?1(S TOMPIOIIS C011NrY, NEW YORI( B/D OPEN/NG 4PI?14 9 i �e/n Z711,4 9 &CCIA(e PjYE�an/ PAa1-g,JGEL 1 HO VAh1 EC F��[oNST. QUQn. Descr�pfior� 8c.nes CAA�T2l9C�IrP ea/�beS l7<GrFN E'lT MO. TH C9 iN .Z-7#WC* X;w9C 9 Alh Lf eR4 Y TH�fq 60 eo eo o-o yo Fau dATionl EP4ACFMEwT- 2966,0 - 3 YiQ - 38'0 34. 66a D I� T1118ER AGCRV1 �eb*P4gMNT C6 � /Sd o �� 66 yf 232o= 29 o °° 9537'6 2 ad e � yo 0o Qv oo ee TOTAL 13/D ,oleic 6 11 2 7Sa6 13 3 27 F — 8 00 — 389,76 — 9 a - Z gs.. /.D S 4E-C OR./T /v a N E 57. 66 AI0 5 7, 8-040 ND AlE NO NE 6-7,, ,6,6 Un C-y, ADPL. eod,-1?ETE oc �9De' S`fD 66 253 g-- e " 3-E64- ' 3Sg19 y FEB 1 1985 SUED]ro a 1] RA?EO CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TELEPHONE: 272-1713 PETER D. NOVELLI, P.E. CODE 607 CITY ENGINEER M E M O R A N D U M To: Mayor John Gutenberger John A. Dougherty Streets & Facilities Committee, BPW From: Peter D. Novelli PDA) Re: Repairs to Stewart Park Pavilion Date: January 31 , 1985 Enclosed for your use is a copy of the report "Structural Investigation of the Stewart Park Pavilion." Please review. I would like to solicit bids for construction before March. Encl . cc: Thys Van Cort "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" a REPORT STRUCTURAL_ INVESTIGATION OF THE STEWART PARK PAVILION CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK Prepared by: Peter D . Novelli, P. E. City Engineer City of Ithaca Assisted by: Thomas W, West Junior Engineer Arthur M. Santora Sr, Engineering Aide December, 1984 INTRODUCTION L The Stewart Park pavilion has, for some time, shown symptoms of structural distress. Uneven floors, poorly fitting doors and windows, deteriorating foundation piers and decayed or sagging wood structural members all point to more serious problems. Because of concerns for 1 ) assessing needed maintenance on the pavilion, 2) maintaining its structural integrity, and 3) insuring the safety of the public, and because the pavilion figures prominently in the proposed Master Plan for Stewart Park, it has become obvious that a detailed structural investigation of the pavilion would be necessary. At the request of Superintendent of Public Works Dougherty, the City Engineer's office performed a structural evaluation of the Stewart Park pavilion. Results and recommendations are presented herein. It is not the intent of this Report to make detailed recommendations on restoration of the pavilion's architectural features. This should be considered as a separate project. BACKGROUND The Stewart Park pavilion is a shingle-style, hip-roofed, wood frame structure built between 1890 and 1900 (see historical data, Appendix C). It measures approximately 60 by 40 feet, with a 51 by 35 foot addition to the south. The pavilion is platform-framed, with 1-inch tongue and groove flooring extending under the stud walls. . Rafters are exposed. The arches (three on the north, two each on the east and west), each contain small glass panes and double doors. The pavilion has a veranda on three sides, supported by pairs of wood columns. The building is supported over a crawl space by brick and concrete piers spaced from 6 to 18 feet apart. The north, east and west walls of the pavilion rest on concrete footings and block walls. The floor system is supported on 6 by 8 inch built-up timber girders. SOILS AND GROUNDWATER Soil borings near the site (Appendix B) reveal typical profiles for the lake area, consisting primarily of layers of silts and fine sands, with traces of peat and clay. Groundwater level was measured at 6 feet below grade (elevation 381 feet) during this investigation. Normally the ground- water elevation can be expected to rise and fall with lake level , except that it will be 1 to 2 feet higher because of capillary action in the soil . The presence of moisture, combined with the poor load bearing capacity of these ,soils, results in extremely poor conditions. Foundation loads on these soils should generally be under three to four thousand pounds per square foot (_psf). It is also important to note that, under 100-year flood conditions and even at more frequent flooding, soils under the pavilion will be completely saturated with a resulting decrease in stability. 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION Drawings 1 and 2, Appendix A, show the foundation Plan and Framing Plan, respectively. Piers and footing walls have suffered displacement, probably due to frost heave, settlement or excessive loading. Neither piers nor walls extend below grade, and thus they have no protection against frost action. Piers lean, and they have often settled such that they no longer carry any girder load. This has forced some girders to carry loads at twice their intended span, causing deflection and even failure in some cases. Spot elevationsat finish floor level (Drawing 5) show variations in floor elevation, with a maximum differential elevation of 6 inches. Existing soil bearing pressures under piers range from 3500 to over 10,000 psf. This is considered excessive for these soils. In spite of the damp conditions under the building, very little decay was found on wooden members. The only exception is those timbers abutting the newer concrete porches, which rotted at some locations. This was probably caused by entrapped moisture between concrete and wood. The rest of the structure is basically sound. Several wooden columns are in various stages of decay, some beyond repair. These should be carefully restored or replaced, but they do not pose an immediate threat to the structural integrity of the pavilion. ALTERNATIVES 1. Pier Repair and Replacement The simplest and least costly solution would be to modify or replace those piers that lean, have settled, or are too small in area to adequately distribute their loads. Girders would be individually jacked into position, and either new piers built under them or existing piers shimmed up to proper height. This procedure would cost three to five thousand dollars. While relatively inexpensive, this alternate may not fully solve the problem. Pier systems are not a desirable foundation for the poor soil conditions at the pavilion. Piers concentrate structural loads at a series of points rather than spreading them out in a uniform manner. Even when repaired, the piers would load the soil at 3500 to 10,000 psf; this is excessive. Also, there is an almost certain possibility that the pavilion will experience continued differential settlement and frost heave with a pier foundation system. 2. Construction of Grade-Beam System This scheme would include: a. jacking of building at pier locations; 2 b. removal of existing piers; c. construction of a grid of reinforced concrete grade beams, with beams intersecting monolithically at each pier location; d. construction of short replacement piers to transfer load from girders to grade beams, and at such an elevation that major floor deflections are eliminated. See Drawing 3, Appendix A for construction details. Grade beams would spread loads over a wider area. Resulting soil bearing loads would range from 1000 to 1300 psf. These loads are within the allow- able bearing capacity of these soils. Since the grade beams would form a rigid grid, any differential settle- ment or movement would be taken up by the building as a whole. In effect, the pavilion would "float" as a single rigid unit rather than deflecting at various points. Because of the limited clearance in the pavilion crawl space (2 to 3 feet) working conditions would be difficult. Removal of all or part of the floor would simplify construction. This would, however, compromise the structural integrity of the building, since the floor system is tied into the walls. Removal and replacement of the floors would also add 4 to 5 thousand dollars to the cost. The cost of installing the grade beam system, including jacking and pier and wall replacement, is estimated at over $24,000. While this scheme offers many advantages over the pier alternate, the building is still somewhat susceptible to frost action, and construction will be extremely difficult in the limited space. For an additional $5,000, the building could be jacked up to one foot in additional height. This would improve working conditions, and might, therefore, reduce construction costs. 3. Construction of Footing System This alternate includes: a. jacking of entire building to approximately 1 foot above existing foundation; b. removal of all piers and walls; c. excavation of trench, 4 feet deep, around building perimeter and through the center on a North-South axis; d. construction of reinforced concrete footings; e. construction of block or concrete walls to support the pavilion along its perimeter and at mid-span; 3 f. installation of steel beams spanning from east and west to the center footing, eliminating need for numerous piers. See Drawing 4, Appendix A, for construction details. All work would be performed in sections so that, at most, one-quarter of the building would be undermined and jacked at a time. Soil bearing loads would be comparable to those of the grade-beam system, ranging from 1200 to 1400 psf. The footings would accommodate a degree of differential settlement, but would not equal the rigid grid of the grade-beam foundation. The footing system would not be susceptible to frost action, being founded below the depth of frost for the Ithaca area. The cost for this foundation is estimated at $30,000, including jacking, foundations and steel girders. RECOMMENDATIONS The third alternate - a footing system - provides an excellent long- term foundation for the pavilion but at highest cost. Only the grade- beam system offers an advantage (greater rigidity and resistance to differential settlement) at a slightly lower cost. Both systems would reduce soil bearing loads to acceptable levels and reduce detrimental effects of settlement and subsequent structural distress. The footing system is unaffected by frost action. The pavilion is a building of historical significance. Costs of renovation. may be considerable, and the results will be expected to endure for many years. In view of this, it seems reasonable to provide a reliable foundation system even if the initial cost seems high. Both the grade-beam and the footing system should be designed and bid as alternates. Each system has considerable merit, and actual construction bids should weigh heavily in the final selection. 4 APPENDIX A 1 E f. installation of steel beams spanning from east and west to the center footing, eliminating need for numerous piers. See Drawing 4, Appendix A, for construction details. All work would be performed in sections so that, at most, one-quarter of the building would be undermined and jacked at a time. Soil bearing loads would be comparable to those of the grade-beam system, ranging from 1200 to 1400 psf. The footings would accommodate a degree of differential settlement, but would not equal the rigid grid of the grade-beam foundation. The footing system would not be susceptible to frost action, being founded below the depth of frost for the Ithaca area. The cost for this foundation is estimated at $30,000, including jacking, foundations and steel girders. RECOMMENDATIONS The third alternate - a footing system - provides an excellent long- term foundation for the pavilion but at highest cost. Only the grade- beam system offers an advantage (greater rigidity and resistance to differential settlement) at a slightly lower cost. Both systems would L reduce soil bearing loads to acceptable levels and reduce detrimental effects of settlement and subsequent structural distress. The footing system is unaffected by frost action. The pavilion is a building of historical significance. Costs of renovation may be considerable, and the results will be expected to endure for many years. In view of this, it seems reasonable to provide a reliable foundation system even if the initial cost seems high. Both the grade-beam and the footing system should be designed and bid as alternates. Each system has considerable merit, and actual construction bids should weigh heavily in the final selection. 4 �..i APPENDIX A I sonar" oa / OHC0.CTt FaOTING f�MAfOMiV OOT Mw COMCPI<t I O\ p p ED E3 A ti E3 p p p A q p p p cox<wc<f,w.aWRs Awo � fTONI VIC0.OANp IOOTNAfy - TwaWanauT. ❑ ❑ p p p ❑ 0 - — a p ❑ p 0 i FOUNDATION PLAN STEWART PARK 6C.At{ 11wOr PAVILION RESTORATION EXISTING FOUNDATION PLAN om• FNlm! OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER CITY OF ITHACA,NEW YORK FKOVES CITY ENOINEEfl CONTRACT NO, I SHEET NO I OF 5 FILE NO.E$5570 •wooD • �rIDDR�Np ouT urc o♦ �rw000 -_ CONG0.L[G rORCN fNt.TN\NG I etAxn] �tnmf ' � p•�_moi iIOGK WAIL oa R�1 E c v G r:.e[.meta Co..—I SECTION A__ 4'AEC 3-•10" A� F— r DrouNwTiewcw I . a �J i fw000 f\nor�wa tK.M r '.fJ i[f FIC4 ,OurOt rACG Or Yl [ OATWN WAII �N4 "j a Demi DG Sj N `/ I- M� R w ,t-Y.f• Ranmi '0 i.ocxE3 E3 wall terse _r_ -- Tnt0. I I I CONCRtT�� ,,.. CON RETE I Y1CR /IOOT�N4 SEDT ION 6 S 4a¢ 'WOOD TIDOR.N4 'WOOD iNCATN\NO o E�3 ED t-t.ee E3o-x"Nei EOGe bl— ED1•c RCTt OOT—O c-t.ei 1 O• 1W \CR Sl CT IMA ` c PLAN STEWART PARK PAVILION RESTORATION EXISTING FRAMING PLAN o : �• -- OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER reeve CITY Or ITHACA. RER YORK CITY ENf Ia[[R CO.Y..CT R0. fN[Ef NO 2 Or] 1.1.1 aOC e!]1D woo0 sRaaouw s-a.�aona ean4+s h aawt a..�.*a•r .r� .�.�..4. — I II �w".sa II ALTERNATE SILL � FOR PERIN ER PIER ii / M`hoaveo.�w/R SCAI �2•r-a p - t(i-cw.[n. a ._....- ---t r�r _Kir r•u• E f ,a , ink-- a!di a'-it rn ru'• ro•• r-o a•-��. A.,u.. 'y •..�, bI ti r a.wa GOu[REl -A—�4M DET Ill -GRADE BEAM AND PIER ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ - - -- is'L"P[�JO✓7Aa[AV. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ - - }' 1 O4• o•-Y �''v lo'-r P�_'�o'.a• r.: is s_ IW �y.Y L-If -- ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ li ❑ { J f E uP eoiTa r PLAN GRADE BEAM AND PIER i � euALL I'41:SL 4I7 � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ P ff I .-`_-E• ar STE WART PARK PAVILION RESTORATION FOUNDATION PIAN PROPOSED SC ALLIQ GRADE BEAM FOUNDATION »s Tww OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER Raorlo CiiT 0E ITHACA•NEI YORK CITY FRa IR[[R CONTRACT KON T NO 5 Of I �fllE RO � �E,•re.w x.,. ' �eavuT co'y.c re ...cohcatw^.o _� DEOCN A—] ]'r r / / /•]at DwP4•rli'O/C t / III ti i� � t I SLCI10Ly A B •i EA IE �4..,�,a.. A ovcPlwc.,vvlcK L - {, -- -- Y — --- -- \. -- �d Il•1, 0o vE4.Y4 p1 _ A � I b li j GR0°T I I 6) / 10/'E lIC f f.BAP6 1\ I Y — TNGW4N?YaItK I �-,• �y � J I I y I A , � 9CCTIQN_B_ 9�AL6.11415t 00 A b o n I 00 I bl ave t evert •a CM � I STE WART PARK I a r PAVILION RESTORATION LA PROPOSED I-QUNDATION PLAN SPREAD FOOTING FOUNDATION SCA OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER MI r•°r.° CITt OF IIaAC F,MEW I.— TI Expla FEa Lpll alCl xp IaaEll MO E OF] —ENG ]lp COMCRT.TL PORCN cc kY0 a 4.01 tY.Ya �Na IN i p W T re.ea aa+ T o J ♦Loy ♦1.0Y ♦LY .LEO ♦iA6 U ' Li qa Li g rtAO r1Le - rt.Da Ti% ♦Y.N 7 W r rL.1a Y.Y� gt ♦Y.Y KAo ♦4S\ - R�I:•;V+ 4i1YA\ �W 4.L f-1i e Y v -Avi C-• 1'4 r WOMEN'S MEN a ANTE 10ANTE- BOOMf y +r W♦ ♦4 td i a 4''e.•[y � e, r WOMCIIS MC ' UE k-ALL O Y. s•L�_t'IQa%'_.�__ e' e'-a i STEWART PARK e- PAVILION RESTORATION FLOOR PL.A.N EXISTING 6LAl.L: ,; FLOOR PLAN ome OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER A.MOM.. oar.Iwnuu an O` CITY O.ITHACA•%EW YORK CITY [M\IMEEN CONTRACT N0. a%E[T NO 5 Of 5 FIL[NO.E3357D u parraFISHER ROAD W01ffi c TEST BOR 1 N G LOG EAST SYRACUSE. N.Y. 13057 PROJECT Stewart Park HOLE NO. B-3 LOCATION Sta. 16+65 SURF. EL. Ithaca, New York DATE STARTED 9/11/84 DATE COMPLETED 9/11/84 JOB NO. 84151 GROUND WATER DEPTH WHILE DRILLING 6.0' N — NO.OF BLOWS TO DRIVE SAMPLER 12' W1140# HAMMER FALLING 30' — ASTM D•1586.STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BEFORE CASING REMOVED C — NO.OF BLOWS TO DRIVE CASING 12" W/ # HAMMER FALLING '/OR — % CORE RECOVERY AFTER CASING REMOVED 5.0' CASING TYPE - HOLLOW STEM AUGER SHEET 1 OF 1 _Jw . SAMPLE SAMPLE © I DRIVE STRATA DEPTH :22 ( C i RECORD N DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL CHANGE DEPTH <Z PER 6" DEPTH 0.01- 1_ _- Au er - Brown moist SILT, trace clay, trace 1.5' Sam le fine sand • 4.0' 5.0 4.01- 2 1/1 Brown moist soft SILT, trace fine sand, WL V 6.0' 2/3 3 trace roots 6.0' 6.0'- 3 3/4 Gray wet loose fine SAND, little silt, i 8.0' _ 5/4 9 trace peat J! 8.0'- 4 3 10.0 10.08 4 6 10.0' 1 .0'- 5 5/6 Cray wet medium dense fine SAND, ' _ 718 13 trace silt 12.0' 12.01- 6 3/5 Gray wet medium dense fine SAND and 14.0' _ 6/7 11 SILT 15.015.01 _ 15.0' 15.0'- 7_ 2/1 Cray wet very soft SILT and fine SAND 16.5' -- 18.5' 8 2 Cray wet very. soft SILT, trace peat, 20.0 20.0' — 1/1 2 - -- trace fine sand --- - Bottom of Boring" ( 20.0' I ' FOR OFFICE USE ONLY BUILDING-STRUCTURE INVENTORY FOR1Nt UNIQUE SITE NO. DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION QUAD NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION SERIES ALIIANY,NEW YORK 1518) 474-0479 NEG. NO. YOUR NAME. S. Hector DATE:JUIy 1979 YOUR ADDRESS: 108 East Green Street TELEPHONE: 272-1713 ORGANIZATION (if any): Planning and Development Department ' IDENTIFICATION 1. BUILDING NAME(S): Stewart Park Pavil l ions and Boathouse 2. COUNTY: Tompkins TP4WCITY: Ithaca VILLAGE: 3. STREET LOCATION: 4. OWNERSHIP: a. pybllc %® Ex private ❑ 5. PRESENT OWNER: Llty Of Ithaca ADDRESS: City Hall : 108 E. Green 6. USE: Original: Amusement Park Present: Park 7. ACCESSIBILITY TO PUBLIC: Exterior visible from public road: Yes 10 No ❑ Interior accessible: Explain Public DESCRIPTION X. BUILDING a. clapboard ❑ b. stone ❑ c, brick ❑ d:board and batten ❑ MATERIAL: e. cobblestone ❑ f. shingle--*U g. stucco ® other: '). STRUCTURAL a. wood frame with interlocking joints ❑ SYSTEM: b. wood frame with light members ❑ (if kn(wn) c. masonry.load bearing walls❑ d. metal,.(explain) e. other 10. CONDITION: a:excellent ❑ b. good ❑ c. fair Rk d. deteriorated ❑ 11. INTEGRITY: a,t,?o iginal site:, b. moved ❑ if so,when? c:':[ist major alterations and dates.(if known): Not known 12- PHOTO: 13. MAP: Scale: 1" _ 1000 it Stewart Park Pavilions , & Boathouse Ithaca, NY 14. THREATS TO BUILDING: a.none known ❑ b. zoning❑ c. roads ❑ d. developers ❑ e. deterioration 0 f. other: Is. RELATED OUTBUILDINGS AND PROPERTY: a. barn❑ b. carriage house ❑ c. garage ❑ d. privy ❑ e. shed ❑ f. greenhouse ❑ g. shop ❑ h. gardens ❑ i. landscape features: Small animal zoo, duck pond j. other: 16. SURROUNDINGS O1 THE BUILDING (check more than one if necessary): a.open land ® b. woodland ❑ c.scattered buildings CD d.densely built-up ❑ e. commercial ❑ f. industrial ❑ g. residential ❑ h.other: recreational 17. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF BUILDING AND SURROUNDINGS: (Indicate if building or structure is in an historic district) Originally developed as a trolley amusement park, this park has been avail- able for the public's enjoyment for the last 75 years with a brief interrup- tion during its use by the film industry. Its location, at the south end of Cayuga Lake makes it an appropriate public space that should be maintained. 18. OTHER NOTABLE FEATURES OF BUILDING ANP SITE (inch in g'intcrior featur s-f kno Three shingle style pavilions remain in tie park. acgh is capped �y atw-- pitched hipped roof supported by exposed rafters, curved at the ends, and all incorporated large semi-circular arches at their ground level . The buildings are listed in order, east- to -west: - A large square building encircled by a veranda. Three large arches on the north face the water, and two on both the east and west, are comprised of SIGNIFICANCE (see attached sheet 11). DATE OF INITIAL CONSTRUCTION: 195. ARCHITECT: t BUILDER: 20. HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE: The only remaining building that was part of the Original trolley amusement park development is the main pavilion. The attached map, #1 shows the arrangement of these original buildings. The boathouse was built by Casca- dilla School , a private prepatory school for Cornell University, and was originally used as gymnasium. According to the present headmaster; Mr. Kendall , it was built around 1900, certainly not earlier than 1890, the bathhouse was built between 1910 and 1919 as a studio for the film industry. It was converted to a bath house between 1919 and 1929. (map #2). The tower, one of the original buildings, was built as a water tower with an electric pump. It was destroyed by Hurrican Hazel in 1955. 21. SOURCESFile #500 and #607 City Clerk of Ithaca Photos from Mr. Barber, Senior Engineer, City of Ithaca. Abt, p. 132 & 162-163. Sanborn Mapst 1910, 1919, 1940. Niedick, Arthur, A Sketch of the Theatres of Ithaca, 1842 19429 A Thesis 22. THEME: Stewart Park Stewart Park The area now known as Stewart Park was originally part of the James Renwick estate. It was Military Lot No. 88 which had been granted to Andrew Moody of the Revolutionary Army on July 9, 1790. It was then sold to James Renwick on December 12, 1790 and remained in that family, un- developed for 104 years. In the summer of 1894 the owners of the Ithaca Street Railway incorporated a Cayuga Lake Railway Company and purchased the lake property from the Renwick estate. A railway line was built from Railroad Ave. to the lake and Renwick Park, was the terminus for the line. The owners developed forty acres of the property as an amusement park "with dawns, woods and paths laid out by a landscape artist of the firm that planned Central Park in New York City, there was a landing where small boats were rented, a small zoological garden, a theater for vaudeville performances, and a pavillion where 'Patsy' Conway's band gave concerts during the summer months. " (Ab*. , p. 132, See map #1 ) Aware that trolley amusement parks were a passing fad,the new development was promptly sold to a group of local men who incorporated as the Renwick Park and Traffic Association, this group included E.G. Wyckoff, D.W. Burdick, F.C.Cornell , Charles H. Blood and Uri Clark. In 1915, the park was leased from this group by Theodore acid Leopold Wharton and remodeled it for film studios. (See map #2) The Whartons first came to Ithaca to film "Dear Old Girl of Mine" a film about college life starring Frances X. Bushman and Beverly Bayne. Attracted by the possibilities provided by the natural setting of .Ithaca for film production, Wharton Studios, Inc, was formed- and for the next five- years a number .of films including the series "The Exploits of Elaine" starring Lionel Barrymore and "The Mysteries of Myra" were made in Renwick-Park. The lot was sub--leased to the International Film Service and later to- the Metro Film Corporation and the Norma Talmadge Corporation. During the war a number of "propa- ganda" films were made here including the Patria series starring Irene Castle and Milton Sills. With the end of the war and the growth of Hollywood the film industry in Ithaca died. In 1921 , the City of Ithaca purchased the property. This occurred during the mayoral term of Edwin C. Stewart who died in office and left $150,000 -for development of a park. Herman Bergholtz, the original developer of the park, having owned the trolley company, was hired to restore some of the buildings. He was the electrical engineer who bought control of the street railway and electric light companies in 1891 and started trolley service up East Hill . Tn 1923, the Ciiy purchased the boat house from the Cascadilla School Association and in 1925 some additional land was given to the city by an ex-mayor, Henry St. John. In the early 30's the city undertook some improvements through the WPA project, adding the duck pond, extending the shoreline to the north and improving the inlet. Swimming at Stewart Park was possible until 1961 when it was banned because of the amount of silt and pollution in the water. The buildings in the park are in need of repair with immediate attention, saving money that will be required for more extensive repairs if they are `-� not attended to soon. Stewart Park Pavilions & Boathouse Ithaca, NY u 18. small glass panes within which double doors are contained. The veranda has double columned supports. - A Bandstand in the form of a small square, with three arches at each side resting on brick piers except at the corners where the supports keep the shingle siding. The interior is horizontal wooden siding. - The Boat House is the most complex in its massing, with an octagonal tower on the north side facing the duck pond. A veranda wraps from the south extend- ing across the full width on the east and covering much of the north side, projecting beneath theower. This veranda is placed on the second floor level , has exposed raf ers beneath and large curved brackets as supports. Stilts lend additional support. Beneath the roofline several layers of horizontal siding act as a cornice and as a decorative break with the shingle siding. On the west are two very�arge arches, the doors composed of diagonal siding; on the east two garage doors, partially glazed, and an open stairway can be seen at the first floor level . This was built by Casca- dilla School and not part of the amusement park development. Other pavilions in the park are: - A Canvas-topped 32-year-old carousel , with aluminum horses and featuring art deco streamlined ornamentation, neon lights, and stacked tulip motif, At the center is a three-sided music box. - An undistinquished cinder block refreshment stand. - A large cinder block and stucco pavilion, built to match the shingle one in scale and proportion, matched at the hipped roof. A large dormer extends across the north, revealing a second,story use. u APPENDIX D u JOB PAv4 Li o CITY OF ITHACA N Department of Pubfic Works SHEET NO. Bui4 i �odps OF Engineering Division w 108 East Green Street CALCULATED BY DATE / ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 CHECKED BY DATE V SCALE VEQ D L0..A05 QooF rp.05S r- CIE iwtJG P WA LLS STuf)5 Z4`ae-. 0.7 -:015F V, PL`l woo0 1- S ITISF Wo o D SN(�kx ES 2.0 P-/Sr Na 1NT• W4LL1•S ASS VMe IS I i+IG.K g0 �LF >=CIO oIL, 0.c- 2.o-*/sr- l" Fc-oog-u-Je, 9.4 #/sF -� 5*/SF C�O'TAC. IOK�eO_NTe4C► .i4Rl` _ 7800 SF 60, SINS�► (,0 �4.D Z #/L F )VoO.AA t- 20 Lop5�710 1 / to / _S S 04F �i so sv To;a Ro o f A R.� 8'2-g o s F 1 lZ o o F I-0 A.O = / 577 S'i o 1 i LoQ 5 T� L.� a L�- i.Z TO # L F l Go' LIV (.0Ar0 = 1 00 CITY OF ITHACA 'OB�__PA — wdo 0---t Department of Public Works SHEET NO. � OF— Engineering F_Engineering Division 108 East Green Street CALCULATED BY —rt--w DATE ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 QQ CHECKED 8Y_ U� DATE_ /—� ___ v SCALE -- i I LOO(L A( JA = 4' (50 3F Fcoe,t I L FLOo.k- Lo,40 = 16o P sc uUe- Q� � S P s F ftAo 6L z 43s' <0 * 1 1Z6o ��F MOO) PAF $eAtA LQNMT4.1 = 300 LF g EN D (�Jc, oo Cj z) 46 1600 40A,tZL. Sw�4 2 D r F L 0- c--j-(0),J 2 '^ 3� 0 38q C�>Cy� 3&1 t2oo 000)(lq 3 ) 6� ✓�OglCl 7W I;'�!'I+s t_Gam.yam 01.11 CITY OF ITHACA joB---S-P_,fAy.. ----"A P�_ F.�►�1 Department of Public Works SHEET NO. ' OF- Engineering F Engineering Division 108 East Green Street CALCULATED BY -rl/J� DATE ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 CHECKED BY DATE_ .. _. V SCALE ---- ----...--- G 21< 6ALS As : o.+q- L2 � = o,-7S Peri v-, er -4 3.37 s i ,,, �f � - 2vc o0 Q �{voo P- r cav`c f ►JD SPAS M-WL IiJki � r; CA t-1 2oao PAF Z (j NJ eMl_ �/ WA01-C; Cpm Q L) C) S f.4 n u _ M. w` w — 20oo P4'r 4W 61A 0 S 01 4P W 000 #��) � � � J �� ) Ci2 ► o �0m To C '.�T�� 7'F N 0 F .bio AJ--- IC maU�� �%%�701 i Vfri 4'. � Lala yR 011)1 CITY OF ITHACA Joe_ S.P_ PA J. Department of Public Works SHEET NO. OF Engineering Division 108 East Green Street CALCULATED BV �k DATE, — ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 CHECKED BY DATE 1-2-y-8 S V SCALE_ Mr< P s c As �ort� env (� AS > Fo,2 S f-kEA V - C61 S iN P��OF.uT N �I 11Q � 1 - f - `T i 1jp- L--"A of _ ba _ ------------ AGFA Ski S-)(. 7 �G - if c r 76 P51 8, 4q- S F Fu j c11Q 5 �:- 1E nI2_._ PE 1 i Use y PIPE e—' Ul_ PWK10101 I.V�qti n C.wm Y,Y 01 11 CITY OF ITHACA JOB xP PAV. --_SPREAD FooTe2 w�5 Department of Public Works SHEET NO. MAMS of Engineering Division 108 East Green Street CALCULATED BY 1s W DATE ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 CHECKED BY - DATE �./ SCALE -- Z Co t'3 T j AJ v o o S 3 EAM S 5 QA NS Soo A/Gf V, Zo Y.So a w#L _ ZoZS'000 L.-co ¢ 3 ,5� M _ Z.400 o ��,�' WIZx � 9 SS 107 V=- �7 k' fV S-7 000 _ -756 PSS ol; 12 3 8 (0. sf-70) — <- 14Soo Psi �ALLOIJ _ `3L0 _ „ 660 00 t 8S t%25 000 d��)�G�3 01411 FCC CITY OF ITHACA JOB- -� - r _FOR %444L Department of Public Works SHEET NO. OF Engineering Division 108 East Green Street CALCULATED BY 1w DATE ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850Zc f_g CHECKED BV_.�� E_---_._ DATE_ V SCALE Fo2 W,4 L I. FOOrt NC,, W&I 1000 PSF V"0. 14) V X7 1 1 110 = (0 00 (1.4 - �1� (0 1 g R 5 �as s tt � 1000 k 1•� i. 9Bo •�+ IM bo -IL4 Cr. R 2 o.� 44 �q SAS 0 04 = p � L 1 2 . 0 � � i0 = � O.Oo Z 4-0 C' o ( 6 A �z 1•`�•, vvvws-� 6'e- > O.00 S Q O o S- 6 b 12 0. c. or o. Qo 26 C�ZX�2> YMI(l(l;p1 I;1 i.i�. .,.. •...01.11 CITY OF ITHACA JOB rooter-�_/root., -r,0L(JA#J-5 ft Department of Public Works SHEET NO. CV y Of - Engineering Division ,,i 108 East Green Street CALCULATED By DATE _.. ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850 CHECKED BY /� DATE_ -Z!M- b S _-- SCALE I � I a.¢ 66 d VC u 611 - . V LA, _ (000 SG x (0- 5)(11. S7, _ 8 7 SO # PST NI loco r Z 13 6 M. t ► 3G2 c,r.w..01,11 CITY OF ITHACA �oB CENrR+4 L� �T jW=h, Department of Public Works SHEET NO. Of Engineering Division 108 East Green Street CALCULATED BVD/ / / DATE ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE r o, J 157 zoo z i � 0,6,7 � moo U 'T 3 soo #O/LF 'So )3.5) o � o c � np�Ll 1a 1;-tet n•. � baa,wo 01.11 CITY OF ITHACA JOB 01Ew 4� Foo T 1►.Y�_ Department of Public Works SHEET NO. OF- Engineering F-Engineering Division 108 East Green Street CALCULATED BY v' DATE_ ___ ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 CHECKED BV—_ ___ DATE SCALE -------- - ------- e ��� X D•I�o� �� OTI o9 C4.o S d S. s IM N -+U�V%A-ko % 113 13 (1 z) _ G 2140 Z �o _ O. oo S . � S # � �..� = Ste•.�' 0. 022 . 022 arc O o 0 0 2. u CITY OF ITHACA JOBCOQ-U-m m-s _. _ Department of Public Works SHEET NO. OF - Engineering Division „J 108 East Green Street CALCULATED BY DATE ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 CHECKED BVDATE z-�_ -_-- _ V SCALE ALLU14A-C3 e- L.eA-D o N V I HC) 2 Fh 1000 PSI P41— sv�eE o Fv T=6 t 3 (;740) 'Ci:S) 2z000 S 5ufF' E-A rT MA`1of - FYI MEMORANDUM To: File From: Jon Meigs Sub: A&I#a_IL "r, Stmmvt Faft Date: January`15, '1985 On January 4, 1985, I met with Schuyler County Planner Gil Smith to obtain information about the municipal pier recently built in Watkins Glen, as input to our thinking about construction of the pier proposed in our recently- adopted Stewart Park Improvement Master Plan. Aside from historical precedent, the idea of a pier in Stewart Park was seen primarily as a way of increasing public access to the water. Toward the end of the planning process, interest was expressed by a private entrepreneur in using the pier as dock for a lake towlt/dinner boat. This person had operated from the State Marina for one year, then moved his operation to Hammondsport on Keuka Lake for the subsequent period. Economic conditions there curtailed business, and he now wishes to return to Ithaca where he feels the operation can be viable on a long-term basis, especially if this opportunity can be realized. The market available in a larger community, with the annual and seasonal traffic associated with university and college, he feels can be developed to support such a business. He has indicated that his operation would likely be able to contribute to construction and/or maintenance of a pier that would accommodate his craft, which is now in the design stage. This entrepreneur wishes to commence operation as soon as possible; no later than 1986. The Stewart Park Plan proposed completion of the pier is 1996. Reprogramming would require funding, design, and commitment from the entre- preneur in the next year, steps which are contingent on a number of factors, some involving questions that similar facilities can offer input on, and which I discussed with Mr. Smith, as follows. Seneca Lake is similar to Cayuga in many ways, geologically and hydrologically: the inflow end is shallow and has a soft bottom. A large public park occupies broad frontage east of the Seneca inlet. However, Seneca's inlet is wider, deeper and longer than Cayuga's, and has less large tributaries, which with other conditions seems to have the effect of limiting silt influent. The Village of Watkins Glen occupies lake frontage at the southwest corner of the lake (the locational equivalent of Allen Treman State Marine Park) , and this is where the pier is sited. This frontage is bulkheaded, and water depth at the bulkhead on my visit appeared to be 2-3 feet; it was also clear, and the bottom appeared to be somewhat stony, with only a thin layer of mud. Water depth, then, is no major problem at this site. The pier projects from the bulkhead perhaps 300 ft. , crossing a breakwater at its outer end. East of the pier, sheltered by the breakwater, is a private 'i -2- marina with several finger piers perhaps 150' long, at which fair-sized cabin cruisers were docked; the Lakefront Development Plan (of which I obtained a copy, with pier plans) indicates that it will serve sailboats. Access from the public pier to a walkway atop the breakwater is proposed. The plan in- dicates provision for subsidiary docks on the west side of the pier with controlled access therefrom, which could be used by transient craft, in- cluding tour boats. The pier, about 15' wide, is of wood (treated construction grade lumber) on steel 'H' piles which were driven 130' or so, according to Smith; the piles are encased in concrete to below water level as corrosion protection. The pier was designed by Lozier Architects/Engineers, Rochester. A thin, clean pipe rail is mounted on the top edge. Lights are spaced every 40' or so on alternate sides; there are cleats for boat tie-up (though no access ladders) and benches, At the outer end the pier widens to about 24' square, where an observation shelter is planned; this will be glass-enclosed on 3 sides against wind. Smith indicated that this shelter may be used, perhaps on a continuing basis, as a base of operations by the local volunteer emergency squad, which seems to have a function similar to sheriff or Coast Guard Auxiliary in water safety. A coin-operated telescope is installed at the outer end, but had been removed for the season. Restroom facilities are located on land at the pier. Fishing is allowed from the pier, but not swimming, Thought is being given to construction of a new breakwater further out, and extending the pier. It seems likely that this is a long-range contingency, dependent on the success of other elements of the plan for the waterfront. Constraints operating on pier design were, according to Smith, primarily its bearing capacity; along with resistance to the effects of lake ice, this caused selection of steel piles. According to him it will support light vehicles, though Lozier's design drawing calls only for a superimposed live load of 100 p.s.f. The deck level is higher (about 4'4" above design water elevation) than desired, according to him, in order to meet the level of the top of the (new?) breakwater, though it appears that would be yet higher. The pier cost about $200,000 (roughly $45/sf) ; the tour boat entrepreneur interested in our pier indicated that both the cost and structure of the Watkins Glen pier were excessive, in terms of what he thought would be needed for a pier in Stewart Park which could accommodate hi-s operation. The facility was recipient of an ARC match, but Smith pointed out that this source is fast becoming problematical. It was done as a local economic develop- ment effort sponsored by the county IDA (though it is styled as a municipal fishing pier) ; the overall lakefront plan includes tourist-oriented development r -3- with a 150-room resort hotel/convention center, 50 units of luxury lakefront housing, public senior citizens' housing, and other public and private features. The only income features of the pier are the coin-operated tele- scope, a directory kiosk at the landward and bearing tasteful paid local advertising, and potential rental of the docks to be accessed from the pier. A coin-operated turnstile for access to the pier, installed at the start, discouraged use and was deactivated. Use of the telescope brought in $3000 in '84 at 25C a crack, leading Smith to estimate use of the pier at 75,000 under the assumption that perhaps one visitor in 6 or 8 used it. (This end of Seneca does, however, offer more of interest than does Cayuga, in my opinion.) No significant problems were encountered in construction. Smith pointed out, though, the need to obtain State approvals since the lake bottom is State- controlled; and the need to obtain approval for crossing the rail line that runs along the shore (N.B. , access to Youth Bureau site) . Since no programs or activities are connected with the pier; furnishing is limited; and construction is rugged, it is expected that operating costs will be minimal. Supervision/surveillance of the pier is provided by agreement with the operator of the adjacent marina, over and above whatever level local law enforcement and perhaps the volunteer lake patrol may provide; the foot of the pier is easily accessible by vehicle, and the pier is visible from a nearby Village street. The marina operator provides these services at no charge to the development corporation (presumably in return for the enhancement and improvement of the area and his operation) , though he is expected to share in returns from revenue-producing activities/facilities subsequently added to the pier, such as the docks proposed for the west side. Repairs will be the responsibility of the development coporation. Mr. Smith mentioned a few other in-State locations for further contact: Roseland park and the Canandaigua Sheraton tour boat, as well as the Skaneateles boats; I will check on these. JM/mc g l a v i n van i d ers t i ne 726 West Onondaga street to Syracuse, New York 13204 landscape architects 315-476-8362 October 7, 1985 Mr. John Dougherty Commissioner, Dept. of Public Works City Hall R'E I`;r i_Lr 108 E. Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Stewart Park, Ithaca Dear Jack: Your Committee interviewed firms two years ago for preparation of an updated Master Plan for Stewart Park, and selected us as part of the Niederkorn Team, based upon our experience "in waterfront park improvements and with demonstrated expertise in Historic Landscape Design". With a long and suc- cessful. background in both, I was discouraged to have heard through the gra- pevine about the attached RFP, and not to have received one - until one arrived today prompted by a phone call last week to the Planning Office. Further dismay took place upon reading it to discover that it appears to be a duplication of effort. The Stewart Park Master Plan update, presented to your Committee September 1984, was accompanied by alternative landscape designs at 100 scale which went far beyond the "programmatic" schemes normally prepared for "Master Plans", and referred to in the attached RFP. In addition, phasing and implementation plans of the Park Design were presented on several occasions to the community, and incorporated in the Final Report. The conceptual design solution addressed the function, aesthetics, vehicular circulation, terminal facilities, service, pedestrian circulation, vistas, mounds, screenings, planting and other waterfront park amenities. During the course of the work, it was stressed that the next step would be 40 or 50 scale, more detailed, design development drawings (for which 40 or 50 scale updated topographic mapping is needed). Such drawings would express design refinements and modifications, but within the framework of the Park Design that has been approved by the Committee and other groups representing the community. It's all part of the design process. As I interpret this Request for Proposal , the purpose "of the landscape designs will be to enhance the recreational value of the waterfront park, improve the pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and capitalize upon the historic significance of remnant buildings and plantings". We judge that this was accomplished in the "Master Plan" which was completed last year working with your Committee. Partners: James E. Glavin F.A.S.L.A. John Van Iderstine A.S.L.A. Associates: David A. Moorhead A.S.L.A. Robert J. McNamara A.S.L.A. Mr. John Dougherty Commissioner, Dept. of Public Works October 7, 1985 Page Two Having designed several large State and County Parks, nature centers and marinas, and having been involved with many Historical Landscape Design Projects including the classic Erie Canal Feasibility Study and Master Plan, I am perplexed and saddened by the recent turn of events. We feel that we provided a good, thorough, and well designed Stewart Park Plan, and that the purpose listed in the attached RFP has been substantially fulfilled. We, of course, hold to the recommendation that the next step of more detail design development be accomplished within the framework of the Park Design submitted with the Master Plan Report. In our opinion, it is the community accepted Park Design. We would be pleased to work with the City of Ithaca to carry out the next phase of this work, but seriously question the purpose and need for the tasks outlined in the attached RFP. Since we have already accomplished Items 1, 2, Phase and Implementation Plans of Item 4, and Item 5, does this RFP constitute a complete scrapping of the work done to date? We would appreciate additional information or advice regarding this. Very truly yours, GLAVIN & VAN IDERSTINE James E. Glavin JEG/mm Enclosure cc+enc: Mayor J n Gutenberger Tom Niede korn GLAVIN &VAN IDERSTINE LAP405CAPE ARCHI'MCTS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Ri OCT T 1985 ±rte z_-w 4 726 :7N^'C,p„q The City of Ithaca, Department of Planning and Devel opffimxl�ft iwrtereste�. in receiving proposals and qualifications from landscape architects/urban designers desiring to work with departmental staff to undertake landscape design studies for a major waterfront park facility, Stewart Park. Stewart Park is a 39 acre area at the head of Cayuga Lake, approximately 14 miles from Ithaca's central business district. The park 's initial devel- opment occurred in the 1890's by private individuals acquiring land for an institutional boat facility. The waterfront underwent further development in 1894 when the Ithaca Street Railway Company purchased the remaining land for "Renwick Park", a trolley amusement park. By 1900 the site was linked to the City by a new electric trolley line, and the promoters boasted of a picnic pavilion, dance pavilion, "tea" pavilion (later the street railway depot) and a water tower (no longer extant) all designed by the prominent local firm, Clinton Vivian and Arthur Gibb, in conjunction with the Landscape Architect William Webster (Rochester, New York) . The waterfront amusement park's popularity lasted through the first decade of the 20th century with performances by vaudeville road shows in the dance pavilion and band concerts held in the connecting courtyard. Further enhancements of a graceful lagoon, formal gardens and a 900 foot pier extending into the lake added to the park 's appeal . However, by 1907 the public's and the developer's interest in the park had waned, and in 1914 the site was rented to Wharton, Inc. a silent film studio. The City purchased Renwick Park and adjacent tracts in 1923, amassing the entire south shore along Cayuga Lake. In 1984 the City launched a 12-year project focussing on Stewart Park, by hiring consultants to produce a programatic Master Plan for the entire complex (180 acres that includes the lakeshore park, a 9-hole golf course and 2 natural wetland areas) . The Master Plan provided an inventory and assessment of all the park 's facilities and features, proposed a new program mix, landscape improvements, an analysis of principal buildings and an implementation schedule. In concert with this Master Plan, the City has commissioned a qualified local architectural firm to design a new Youth Bureau facility (currently housed in a W. W. II Butler bu ".4 that will echo the stylistic elements and siting of the surrounding WYstoric buildings. Stewart Park is the largest waterfront park in the Finger Lakes region, serving a metropolitan population of 45,000 and a constant flow of tourists during the summer-fall seasons. Due to the regional importance of this municipal park , the City of Ithaca is seeking proposals from qualified landscape design firms experienced in waterfront park improvements and with a demonstrated expertise in historic landscape design. The purpose of the landscape designs will be to enhance the recreational value of the waterfront park, improve the pedestrian and vehicular circu- lation, and capitalize upon the historic significance of remnant buildings and plantings. i REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Page 2 Tasks of the landscape architect/urban designer will include the following : 1 . Analysis of existing conditions 2. Design alternatives (1 " = 100' ) 3. Schematic designs (1" = 40' ) 4. Design development plans phasing plan, implementation strategy 5. Presentation of the proposed design stages to the Planning Staff, Common Council and Community In order to proceed upon this project, it is necessary that all qualifi- cations and supporting material be received at City Hall by 4:30, Friday, Oct.18,1985. All submissions should be mailed or hand delivered to the following address: Andrea J. Lazarski Department of Planning and Development City Hall 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 All submitted materials will be reviewed for experience in similar projects, for ability to work closely with City Staff and other members of the public, and for the ability to complete the work within a set time frame. It is anticipated that this work will commence in late fall of 1985. Contracts will be executed upon the approval of Common Council . Any questions pertaining to this request should be directed to Ms. Lazarski or Mr. VanCort at (607) 272-1713. �Og ITS SIA? CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 807 MEMO- TO: Herbert Brewer, Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce Carl Steckler, Cornell Railroad Historical Society Jack Dougherty, Supt. of Public Works Robert Cutia, Youth Bureau Director FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger y ,1 Gds DATE: February 3, 1986 SUBJECT: Meeting - February 20, 1986 - 4: 00 P.M. Mayor's Office This will confirm the meeting set for February 20, 1986 at 4:00 P.M. to discuss the exciting suggestion that Mr. Steckler has made to my office in regard to a possible display of a locomotive and a caboose in Stewart Park. Mayor: Mr. Carl Steckler of Cornell RAllroad Historical Society phoned and wotild very much appreciate a call back from - office - 256-2371 - 347-4837 - offi `�. he said that they have been given two locomotives by Gulf Oil Co. - one is operatible and the other is inoperatible - they have also been given a caboosle by the LeHigh Valley - they would like to put hte inoperative locomotive and coboose on display at Steawrt Park - it was suggested that perhaps the coboose could be used as-the Tourism booth - they have discussed this with Molly at the Chamber - and that perhaps it could somehow be tied to th Centennial,e tc. - basically he said they are facing two problems - they are k w looking or a permanent place - the two locomotives are in Philly and the coboose is in Reading, Pa. - they would like to move them all at once some e in the middle of Spring so need to know fairly soon. -�- Would you like an appointment scheduled with him? C)c) "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" 1 ITI�� •��� RA7E0 CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE 272-1713 CITY ATTORNEY CODE 607 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of Stewart Park Advisory Group FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger / DATE: Februrary 25, 1986 RE: Train Engine and Caboose The City has received an offer to have a train engine and caboose placed in the Stewart Park area. I have called a meeting of S.P.A.G. to be held at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 4, 1986, Common Council Chambers, to discuss this exciting proposal. Your attendance is requested. cc: Common Council Board of Public Works Herb Brewer A,,F•p:oj/,;'i"��'•m..!_.Fr.`;InvM w�ih an Allirmahvr A,,, .r naglg, T • I. . .. -rte• - . f _-- r r Ao or a '�v>, '�'�-... .+ tt'i`�?'�" ✓yw.-kn`a:r*yuy;'af'y 5E2�'... �s 3ter � - �.., a.:rexrY �. 6 �' C *.�� z�y � �[ SNI.: #,� i� ; � '.....•—.��` COLLECTION OF AONN C."RUE.F The flag emblem as shown on caboose No.95054 was uncommon the car which indicates that the caboose is equipped with a fuel on Lehigh Valley cars. Note the fuel oil filler plug on the right side of oil heater. r i ti Interior Lehigh Valley caboose } W FE-1 1 S ® l RAILROAD MODEL CRAFTSMAN 81 RECEIVED MAR 17 1986 MEMORANDUM TO: Joe Spano, Controller /j4v,�(7 FROM: H. M. Van Cort, Director, Planning and Dev. RE: BUDGET AND ADMINISTRAITON AGENDA, Additions To DATE: March 14, 1986 Please place the following two items on the agenda for the Budget and Administration Committee Meeting scheduled for March 20, 1986. (1) Bikeway Right-of-Way Acquisition--The Advisory Evaluation prepared by Francis and Co. for the six properties under consideration for acquisition indicates that the values for the rights-of-way to be acquired are from $20,300.00 for a 25-ft. easement to $25,735 for a 30-ft. easement. Council should allocate an amount adequate for acquisition of either the 25- or 30-ft.-wide easement and any court costs associated with acquisition through eminent domain. It is strongly recommended that this allocation not be taken from the existing West End Development line. Additional information will be submitted to the Committee at its meeting, supporting this request. (2) Stewart Park (NYSCA Grant for Design Development)--The New York State Council on the Arts has awarded $6500 to the City for preparation of design development drawings for Stewart Park. The BPW in its 1986 Budget Request asked for $15,000 for further design in Stewart Park. In a meeting held in late 1985, including the Mayor, members of Council, and representatives of BPW and DPW, it was decided that the $15,000 allocation would be held in abeyance until an action by NYSCA was announced. The Committee further recommended that the $15,000 allocation be used as a match for the NYSCA Grant. We therefore request that the $15,000 requested by BPW be set aside as a match to be used with the NYSCA Grant for preparation of design development drawings. HMVC :jv cc: BEA Members (mailed to home addresses) P. S. Jim Dennis asked me to mail this to you as a supplement to the BSA Agenda. Joe: If further distribution of this memo is required, would you take care of that? Thanks very much. Thys. IT s;,I(E3�1111�11 .� p�RAI CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 n ; MEMO TO: S.P.A.G. Members FROM : Mayor John C. Gutenberger DATE: April 17, 1986 SUBJECT:, Stewart Park Railroad Equipment Enclosed please find staff recommendation on train engine and caboose I proposal. May I please have your comments as soon as possible? ` ENC. CC: Carl Steckler Common Council t, Board of Public Works ` Herbert Brewer S % ti r za�tv� - ..An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" 4� IT URA760 CITY OF ITHACA 1013 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: Mayor Gutenberger From: John A. Doughert la"O"�4) Re: Stewart Park Ra 1 oad Equipment Date: April 8, 1986 Bob Cutia, Jon Meigs and I met to discuss the subject proposal and arrived at a number of recommendations. We do not feel that the proposed railroad equipment is a suitable display for Stewart Park. If the decision is made to approve, the equip- ment should not be allowed to dominate the park entrance. The engine has no historical significance to the area and has no value as such. The caboose, if used, could be better utilized as an active traffic generator; i .e. , as a structure for tourist information, etc. The proposal , while interesting, is not in keeping with the long- range goals of Stewart Park. The use of the equipment as a display might better be sited in the west end area where the railroad influence was more traditional . cc: R. Cutia J. Meigs "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" a_�_A IT yA, Al CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 MEMO TO: S.P.A.G. Members , ) FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger DATE: April 17, 1986 SUBJECT: Stewart Park Railroad Equipment Enclosed please find staff recommendation on train engine and caboose proposal. May I please have your comments as soon as possible? ENC. CC: Carl Steckler Common Council Board of Public Works Herbert Brewer "An Equal Opportunity Ernployer with an Affirmative Action Prngr-am" JIT %,b ...........cow, .°0� E � 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: Mayor Gutenberger From: John A. Dougherty i Re: Stewart Park Rall�oad Equipment Date: April 8, 1986 Bob Cutia, Jon Meigs and I met to discuss the subject proposal and arrived at a number of recommendations. We do not feel that the proposed railroad equipment is a suitable display for Stewart Park. If the decision is made to approve, the equip- ment should not be allowed to dominate the park entrance. The engine has no historical significance to the area and has no value as such. The caboose, if used, could be better utilized as an active traffic generator; i .e. , as a structure for tourist information, etc. The proposal , while interesting, is not in keeping with the long- range goals of Stewart Park. The use of the equipment as a display might better be sited in the west end area where the railroad influence was more traditional . cc: R. Cutia J. Meigs "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" %f i— T� i "'� 6�- � Suggested Process for Stewart park Date Task July 23- Aug 1, 1986 Survey of Historical Development of the Park Aug. 1-6, 1986 Analysis of Existing park Vegetation: Idenitification of all Tree and Shrub Species, Size, and Condition. Aug. 7, 1986 Public Informational Meeting #1. 1. Present Historical Survey and Analysis of park Vegetation. 2. Review Public Process of Master plan. 3. Obtain public Comment. Aug. 11-30, 1986 Enlarge Masterplan, Overlay on Survey to Determine Trees to be Removed, etc. Sept. 3, 1986 Staff Meeting. Sept. 5, 1986 Tom Brown, Expert in Conducting Recreation Surveys, contracts with Trowbridge-Trowbridge as Survey Consultant. Develop Preliminary Survey. Sept. 10, 1986 Staff Meeting. Sept. 15-16 1986 Revise & Finalize Survey Sept. 23-27 1986 Conduct Survey Sept. 29-30 1986 Tally Results of Survey Sept. 29, 1986 (4PM) SPAG and Common Council Meeting Oct. 8, 1986 Public Meeting #2 1. Review Overall Planning process for Stewart Park & Proposed Public Meeting Dates. 2. Summarize Survey Results and Implications. 3. Summarize Analysis of Existing Conditions- Feedback on Analysis and Survey. Oct. 27, 1986 Staff Meeting. Oct. 29, 1986 Public Meeting #3 1. Review Detail Design. 2. Alternative Character Sketches, Alternative Sketches of Proposed Changes (based on Survey). Nov. 17, 1986 SPA6 and Common Council Meeting Nov. 19, 1986 Public Meeting #4 1. Alternative Preliminary Design Development Plans. 2. Evaluate Pros & Cons per Alternative. Dec. 8, 1986 Staff Meeting Dec. 10, 1986 Public Meeting #5 Jan. 12, 1987 SPA6 and Common Council Meeting 1. Revised Preferred Alternatives. Jan. 14, 1986 Public Meeting #6 1. Revised Preferred Plan. 2. Preliminary Phasing Plan. Feb. 2, 1987 Staff Meeting Feb. 4, 1987 Public Meeting #7 1. Finalized Plan 2. Finalized Phasing ** End Trowbridge-Trowbridge Involvement * Al ED CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 )EPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT CODE 607 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR STEWART PARK DO YOU KNOW THAT - Common Council adopted the Master Plan for Improvement of the T,..", Stewart Park Complex as a general guide for improvement of the park through a series of projects that must first be individually approved by Council , then designed in detail , before being implemented? The purpose of these provisions is to encourage public discussion at each step in the plan's proposed program on whether and how a particular proposal is to be implemented. For instance, if the results of water quality testing (recommended as top priority by the plan) indicate any potential for freshwater swimming, public input will help determine the � '! r acceptable cost, type, and location of swimming area. Your input is needed now, to help define the approach to more detailed design of landscaping and improvements generally proposed in the master plan. This will help insure that necessary changes are compatible with the park's essential character and sense of place, and that Stewart Park maintains the special qualities and features that are under the increasingly heavy stresses of intensifying use caused by its popularity. (more) "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" -2- COME TO A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS YOUR IDEAS FOR STEWART PARK, WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PETER TROWBRIDGE, AT 7:30 P.M. , THIS THURSDAY, AUGUST 7TH, IN COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL. For further information contact Jon Meigs , 272-1713, ext. 224. -End- 8/5/86 End- 8/5/86 ITI U f6���i��1f�:�� •�.t moo•.. .��� RpORAT 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: Mayor Gutenberger From: John A. Doughert J G - ) d Re: Stewart Park R a�l oa Equipment Date: April 8, 1986 Bob Cutia, Jon Meigs and I met to discuss the subject proposal and arrived at a number of recommendations. We do not feel that the proposed railroad equipment is a suitable display for Stewart Park. If the decision is made to approve, the equip- ment should not be allowed to dominate the park entrance. The engine has no historical significance to the area and has no value as such. The caboose, if used, could be better utilized as an active traffic generator; i .e. , as a structure for tourist information, etc. The proposal , while interesting, is not in keeping with the long- range goals of Stewart Park. The use of the equipment as a display might better be sited in the west end area where the railroad influence was more traditional . cc: R. Cutia J. Meigs "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Proqram" -k—�,A IT �9 RECEIVED Finkrer Lake3 State Park and C'mMission CO RAte APR 2 11988 CITY OF ITHACA 1 O EAST GREEfV STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF NECEIVED I4TELEPHONE: E ' MAYOR CODE 607 n MEMO TO: S.P.A.G. Members FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger DATE: April 17, 1986 SUBJECT: Stewart Park Railroad Equipment Enclosed please find staff recommendation on train engine and caboose proposal. May I please have your comments as soon as possible? ENC. CC: Carl Steckler Common Council Board of Public Works Herbert Brewer G� a , �� �c "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" OITH9 ............. , ... RATE� CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 MEMO TO: S.P.A.G. Members a- FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger DATE: April 17, 1986 SUBJECT: Stewart Park Railroad Equipment Enclosed please find staff recommendation on train engine and caboose proposal. May I please have your comments as soon as possible? ENC. CC: Carl Steckler Common Council Board of Public Works Herbert Brewer _�,.,�,,. v� v� � ��,,, r(l�C �,i•./ ate'► • 40 eA� y 4107e aJ-t 6i� n Equal Opportunity Employer will an ittr nalive Action Program" A-A S 1TN9�, y. HbIRai s� Al CITY ©F 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: Mayor Gutenberger From: John A. DoughertyG� 0_0< Re: Stewart Park Ra�1 oad Equipment Date: April 8, 1986 Bob Cutia, Jon Meigs and I met to discuss the subject proposal and arrived at a number of recommendations. We do not feel that the proposed railroad equipment is a suitable display for Stewart Park. If the decision is made to approve, the equip- ment should not be allowed to dominate the park entrance. The engine has no historical significance to the area and has no value as such. The caboose, if used, could be better utilized as an active traffic generator; i .e. , as a structure for tourist information, etc. The proposal , while interesting, is not in keeping with the long- range goals of Stewart Park. The use of the equipment as a display might better be sited in the west end area where the railroad influence was more traditional . cc: R. Cutia J. Meigs "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program' -k—-.rA �4 ..............IT %•9 CITY OF ITHACA 106 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14650 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 MEMO TO: Members of the Stewart Park Advisory Group FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger J�L— $NJ . DATE: April 24, 1986 SUBJECT: Train Engine and Caboose Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter received from Mr. Herbert Brewer, Executive Director of the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce in regard to the above entitled matter for your information. ATTACH. CC : Carl Steckler Common Council Board of Public Works "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" TOMPKINS COUNTY CHAMBER OFCOMMERCE 122 W. COURT ST. • PO BOX 147 • ITHACA, NEW YORK 14851 . 6071273-7080 RECEIVED APR 23 198E MEMORANDUM TO: John Gutenberger, Mayor FROM: Herb Brewer DATE: April 22 , 1986 RE: Engine and Caboose in Stewart Park The Chamber is presently considering placing a permanent Tourist Office at Stewart Park and has no interest at this time in using the caboose. An engine and caboose would be an attraction in the Park, but a proper location should be further into the Park than proposed. - � ,��- - � We I -- V P y -r. � : r - M - xa � µ� _ - - - a,�. - - -.. cam-"` �. - �,~ - - -, . n .,-•w. �-r= - - - - - �aH A 2 �..- �� Ys -- - �', ,� , -- -- � W-0-t -,- 4 'k -€'ai y� �"�_ "'tea. -'�.,," 4 � - -- - ,t ' �_ k too noo 4=- ,.:s �.......- z4. _ tea _ -' r�axsa..'.'' -""'� - -.. �> - r - � cl u �v a Y F .- 4 � l -� .s,.c ... Wim.a..- -,sem. ` - - Y- -�" ,. - _ ` .<- �w —11 _ w � - r ... - } v _ ` _ � - x "� ` - `"' -* _ ., sem,` wn, R �s _ _ b` - ,1.-.� �`-" - ----n-- «-,e.. ter-- "z- 3a -� , ��§ 4 v gg - � nWONAT _ `��` .€+" -'rte - s,Z - Ma�C'r - 2 - < " � � _ '� zlw n - ry '` - .. - '.ate' ` -�+s -t^" .'-` , -z _ � c �+ y --' . arm` La 4- � �- _ -- V""F _ ^". - - - - _ _ Wit_-.-.. -_ a - _ _ �--'a-"�.-7 -,_ ..,u �, 4 it _ "-�a-. " - K .- ' _ Y ez_ � � � ggpgz - r s „ > - 2 - �'" �- _ - - - - ,� ,-•., . z - -- F - s K -v - - � � � - - �� . - ,`¢ �,. % J r _ _ _ C �y -2c -K' - s'- �� yp _ - _ cmc-s-r ¢ +± _ Z -- , g � 3 - �-- .'_ - - .r3- - ..cam-• -"a- , z w _ .,_ - � ate- --�' ,rte - _ - a..� � -.� 7,1 7 MAN _ �-�� - - -u . - - s - - N: Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, N.Y. Statement before Common Council , Ithaca, N.Y. , August 6, 1986 Is Leasing Public Land at Stewart Park to the Chamber of Commerce to Construct an Office Building in the City's Best Interest? We question the wisdom of locating the Chamber of Commerce on the periphery of the city -- on land which, while it is owned by the city, is actually within the boundaries of the Town of Ithaca. Is it in the City's or the Chamber of Commerce's best interest for the Chamber to locate as far from the heart of the city as it can get? Isn 't this exactly the kind of evacuation of center city that this Council and the City Planning Department should be fighting to stop? Stewart Park and adjacent city land is a precious community resource, a valuable public asset, our most beautiful lake frontage land. Every additional building constructed there, and most especially a business building, decreases the gracious and open ambience of the park and its vistas. Is it proper for the city to lease land for building purposes (which amounts to giving it away) to a private organization which is a registered lobby group in Washington and in Albany and which locally just a few years back was intent on forming a Political Action Committee? There are Chamber members themselves who feel the Chamber will be violating its own integrity if it accepts handouts from the city. The Chamber's job is to promote business and most times its goals and those of the city will ride tandem. But there will be times when those two interests are opposed. It is not right that at those times one be obligated to the other by what is essentially an unrevocable agreement -- an agreement which could only be revoked by the city buying the building the Chamber would build there. The Masterplan to alter Stewart Park says the park is overcrowded. We do not want more buildings at the park to increase that overcrowding. And may we respectfully remind you when you are looking at architect draw- ings for the Chamber of Commerce building and judging them that you remember that the original cost estimate approved by you for the Youth Bureau was $700,000 and that actual cost agreements for the Youth Bureau are now over $1 ,500,000 and will , very possibly, be even higher before the building is finished. FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, N.Y. Statement before Common Council , Ithaca, N.Y. , August 6, 1986 IMPOSING NEW DESIGN ON STEWART PARK CAN DESTROY ITS BEAUTY Stewart Park is a place of great natural beauty, landscaped and designed so that its beauty can be clearly seen and yet also permit free and easy flow of human activity. We think Stewart Park is a precious community resource and we urge proper maintenance, preservation and restoration of buildings, roads, landscaping and other facilities of the park. Because we are for Stewart Park, we are against the gaster Plan for Improvement of Stewart Park or any other plan, including whatever plan Mr. Trowbridge will present which would impose new designs or landscapaing on the park. We think that Common Council and the Mayor in voting for the Master Plan have shown an unawareness of how easily the beauty of the park can be destroyed by imposing new roads, new parking lots, new traffic patterns, etc. , upon it. The elements in the Master Plan which we can in good conscience support can be subsumed under maintenance, preservation or restoration. Therefore, we urge the Mayor and Common Council to discard in its entirety that part of the Master Plan for Improvement of the Stewart Park Complex which concerns the area we know as Stewart Park and to resolve instead to preserve, maintain, and restore that park as a place of great natural beauty and of gracious and efficient design. FOR PUBLIC RELEASE CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK Statement of Position Ithaca is most fortunate to have Stewart Park, a place of great natural beauty that has been landscaped and designed to let that natural beauty be clearly seen and yet also permit free and easy flow of human activity. There is an elegant simplicity to the main design elements of roadways, trees and grass, which allow large congregations to gather comfortably or small groups to feel a sense of intimacy. We recognize how unique such a combination is. We think Stewart Park should be treated as a precious resource, a precious community resource. We urge proper maintenance, preservation and restoration of buildings, roads, landscaping and other facilities of the park. Because we are for Stewart Park, we are against the new plan (Master Plan for Improvement of Stewart Park) or any other plan which would impose new design or landscaping on the park. It seems appropriate that the Board of Public Works in 1983 requested of the city long range guidelines for the park, but the answer should have been, as we now urge, to maintain, restore and preserve the park. Why, when we have a park of such great beauty and which absorbs people and their activities so superbly well , should we impose change upon it and at such great expense? We think the community is asking this question with a growing sense of outrage. We think the major elements of the new plan would not only mar the natural beauty of the park but would destroy those elements of the park design which permit such good use of the space for human activity. The elements in the new plan, which we can in good conscience support, can be subsumed under mainte- nance, preservation or restoration (with the exception of enlarging park land to the northwest, and this we certainly do support if the environmental impact studies also support it. ) Therefore, we urge the Mayor and Common Council to rescind their resolution and to discard in its entirety that part of the Master Plan for Improvement of the Stewart Park Complex which concerns the area we know as Stewart Park and to resolve instead to preserve, maintain, and restore that park because it is a place of great natural beauty and of gracious and efficient design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Addenda to Statement of Position Because our Statement of Position is based on recognition that Stewart Park is a naturally beautiful spot that is extraordinarily well designed and that, therefore, no new design should be imposed upon it, any analysis of the new Master Plan is essentially irrelevant; nevertheless, we feel there may be some value in focusing on some of the major errors in that plan. PARKING LOTS We are against construction of three large parking lots. At a cost of $748,000, they would provide less parking than is now available (see next item, "Road- ways") . The microclimates set up by three such large areas of asphalt would be unpleasant. The largest of the proposed lots (which would hold 340 cars) is over one-third larger than Woolworth's parking lot (which holds 200 cars) ; the second largest lot (180 cars) is almost as large as Woolworth's, and the third lot (112 cars) is more than half as large as Woolworth's. For an area as small as Stewart Park, these large lakes of asphalt are a significant consider- ation. The proposed isolation and screening of all three lots and the earth- mounds around two of them would create a possible breeding ground for muggers and other crime. Even hidden, such lots are unsightly introductions to the park. The earthmounds and plantings on them would obstruct the open vistas which constitute one of the natural beauties of the park. The proposed lots would be inconvenient. Most people using the park like being able to drive close to the area they choose to use. ROADWAYS We are against the proposed deletion of all roadways except new ones leading directly to the three proposed parking lots. It is pleasant to be able to drive around the park. It is convenient and in some cases necessary to be able to park near the area one wants to use. If traffic problems such as occasional speeding occur, they can surely be solved by other than deletion of the entire system (what about speed bumps?) . Parking along the ample space provided by the present roadway permits greatly increased parking during peak holidays. This expanded parking will not be available under the Niederkorn plan. On July 4, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. , 485 parked cars and 277 additional spaces along the road were counted. Total : 762. The proposed lots can only hold 600 cars and, because most roads have been deleted, possible overflow parking is greatly diminished. To remove well utilized roadways and build unattractive parking lots and new roads to those lots, at a total cost of $1 ,027,000, seems unconscionable to us. SHORELINE PROMENADE We do not think the proposed promenade would "enhance" the shoreline. A promenade "outlined" with "informal planting" would restrict present freedom of movement along the shoreline. It would limit the number of people who could gather along the shoreline. A large and joyous congregation, such as occurred during the flare ceremony July 4, 1986 (and other years) would not be possible. Lighting the proposed promenade would destroy the beauty and serenity of sunset watching. Lighting the promenade would create dark shadows outside the lit area and would create a possible climate for crime. "Informal planting" would usurp space better used by people. -2- WILLOWS We are against the wanton proposed "elimination of the willow row west of the pavilion . . . to allow more informal planting treatment. " There are 35 willows in this row just now reaching maturity and full beauty. These willows do not obstruct the view (as stated on page 49). They provide pleasant shade. They provide beauty. Because of their size and good health, they permit people to congregate near them and to move freely among them (which would not be true of the proposed new "informal planting treatment"). The plan faults these willows for being "a visual barrier" yet it proposes that in the same general area "earthmounds . . . 5-6 feet high . . . be created to relieve the flatness of the terrain." What kind of planning is this? CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND The children 's playground as presently laid out (actually children now play over the entire area of the park) is enormously enjoyed by the children -- why re- design it when they love it now? OVERALL Overall , the plan seems strangely inconsistent. It gives as rationale for redesign "serious overcrowding" "many times reaching saturation and beyond," yet the main thrust of the plan is a definite expansion of park use and, therefore, an increase not a decrease in overcrowding. How will creation of an Exhibit and Interpretive Center or developing Cascadilla Boathouse as a "facility with broad community use potential " and as a "commercial development" alleviate present so-called overcrowding? How will the recent decision not mentioned in the plan) to let the Chamber of Commerce build an office complex on par!: land help so-called present congestion? No matter how great the population growth of Ithaca may be, the acreage at Stewart Park will remain (even with some extension to the north) essentially the same. We think it is strange planning to increase usage of park facili- ties for an indeterminate number of people when the planners already define the area as overcrowded. We do not like the way the gracious open space of the park is divided into separate activity areas which are hidden and screened from each other by land- scaping and planting. Why should the "Family Picnic Area" be so carefully separated and hidden from the "Children 's Play Area"? All these separate little cells seem to suggest confinement and control , not freedom and enjoy- ment. The enormous amount of new planting deemed necessary to "delineate specific areas of the scheme" will not only restrict human movement by serving as barriers, but the space taken up by the plantings will be usurping space now available for human activity. Gatherings and activities such as the Ithaca Festival and the Flare Ceremony will no longer be possible, or at least not on as large a scale as in the past. The plan says the total estimated cost is 5.5 million dollars and that funding will be a "major challenge for the city in years to come. " It further says, however, that "these cost estimates . . . do not include professional fees, over- head and profit, legal and administrative expenses, testing, financial cost, and -3- similar items . . . because they cannot be foreseen at this time." In other words, we do not know the estimated total cost of the project. All we know is that it will cost considerably more than 5.5 million dollars. Many of those we have interviewed have expressed fear that "the next step will be an admission fee. " To us it seems a very precious privilege that such a lovely spot is accessible to all in our community and not just to those who could afford a fee. The city may now say they don't want to charge fees, but how else is the city going to pay for these extraordinary debts they are so casually assuming? We think the park is beautiful , that it is well laid out for easy and com- fortable human use, that it works marvelously well for the enjoyment of many, and we are for preserving it and we are against imposing new design upon it. We urge that the new plan be discarded in its entirety and that the Mayor and Common Council resolve instead to preserve, restore and maintain Stewart Park because it is now a spot of great natural beauty and of elegant and gracious design. -4- Petition to the Mayor and Common Council Not to Impose Drastic Changes on Stewart Park We do not want the willow row (35 trees) west of the Pavilion cut down. We do not want three large asphalt parking lots constructed, the largest of which will be larger than the lot behind Woolworths. We do not want all roads within the park removed. We do not want man-made hills created "to relieve the flatness of the terrain. " We do not want to spend 5.5 million dollars for such items. Although a few of the proposals in the plan would improve, the majority would damage the park and, because these worst proposals have the highest priority (the large parking lot is next to be built) , we do not think there is time to winnow out the bad from the good. Accordingly, we the undersigned respectfully urge the Mayor and Common Council to show they are sufficiently highminded to reverse a decision when the common good is involved, and that they discard the master plan to alter Stewart Park and halt any further implementation of that plan and not try to salvage it which might make it even worse. We urge proper maintenance, preservation and restoration of existing building, roads, landscaping and other facilities in the park. signature printed name address 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Signatures above collected by: name address r e N rn pehhVin, $j / Citizens to Save Stewart Park, 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, New York. I SAVE STEWART PARK boathouse, but they mention the possibility of finding a am amazed at how little response there has been suitable commercial enterprise to do it. The main to editorial and news stories concerning the pro- pavilion and the maintenance building will be posed "improvements" to Stewart Park, and to completely renovated, but•they will be developed at the two opinion articles by Doria Higgins and Tom YIEWPOINT great cost into one enormous enclosed concourse, Niederkorn published in the Ithaca Journal on including an interpretive center featuring Ithaca's June 26. Is the public not interested in Stewart Park or silent movie era. But the small pavilion appears to have are they unaware of what is proposed? Do they not «]i,at �xri�l ��; disappeared altogether so the possibilities of booking a realize the plan has been accepted by Common Council What 11 LL will 1 1 pavilion easily for club activities seem less rather than and is already being implemented? more. The children's play area is to be redesigned. How Broadly the plan, if carried out, will totally destroywe don't know, but it will be screened and separated n Stewart Park as we know it today and, over a period of 1 Lew park give US. . . from other activity areas by hills and plantings.So don't 10 years, completely rebuild the park. And at what expect any longer to be able to picnic happily in view of cost? A base price of $5.5 million is given but it-.is, 7. your small child playing on the swings. guestimated that this will rise to as much as $10.5 Why are we doing Why are we doing all this, who will benefit? I do not million. know. Certainly the organization I am most closely What will this new park give us? Will we be able to .0 concerned with, the Ithaca Festival, will not benefit. In swim in Cayuga Lake? No, almost certainly not. The, all this fact Stewart Park will cease to be the ideal Festival site. plan "cannot support a-positive recommendation on This year the Festival had four performance sites at Lake swimming.." Will the petting zoo return? No and ��7�• benefit? Stewart Park with easy access to all of them.These plans the(lurk pond will disappear and the swans will be sent. Who will �Jel n lefit? provide only one site. One site means cutting three- elsewhere. Will there be more parking, particularly quarters of the performances scheduled. And there along the lake shore? No. There will be almost no lake ceases to be any obvious location for group activities, shore parking. Three large lots will be constructed,one I do not know• craft demonstrations, food vendors, kite flying, etc. larger than the Woolworth's lot, all screened by hills Join the Citizens to Save Stewart: Park"and sign the and plantings, but in total providing no more parking petition now circulating through Ithaca. These can be than is available at present. Will there be more picnic of the duck pond, but there will also be a lit promenade found at the Community Self-Reliance Center, 301 areas? Yes, but you will-no longer be able to drive and an offshore island to interrupt the view and ruin South Geneva Street,at 15 Steps Gallery,407 W.Seneca through the park to these, so it will not be so easy to the effect of the flares and the sunset. And of course Street,and at Schooley's,the Commons. Unless you like take elderly or disabled friends with you. How about the willow trees will be cut down., change for the sake of change and paying for it too, More space for flares on the 4th of July along the lakel Is there no good in the plants? Yesf there•is, but it is dont just go t,o,sleep,and let it happen: �iersei►► : �►ei��iw>�ie� �5 jS �rR�P. rsg�►s alit�tb-r�l4atiilitate the, ---__i ----- ---------y----'-Sally GrUbb' WYE ^.,$f'. y v r TT,� We T8� a�a� . v o t', Vy■,ri` f " ?IEEtIt`N SEAR ,� n 3 �PAOE + UL's Z4,"";3g8� `� ., . al l�.1l y •..L:. 11(r.k Y'�'r..TB.a'.�},rfi w`i.f.�.'R�.aU,. 1•Y...— v.�_.,v...r Did You Know That ITHACA JOURNAL THE MASTER PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTM OF STEWART PARK July 16, 19, 1986 (eatinated cost 55 nulbon dollars,fixing of which"will be a major challenge for the city in rears to con e'l and which Is absedr being i ipiernwrted $94.45 1. would eliminate the willow row(35 trees)west of the Stewart Park Pavilion because they are a"visual barrier"and"to reflect a differentiation of function and allow more informal planting treatment" 2 and in the same general park area would create"man-made hills-not more than 5-6 feet high,""to relieve the flatness of the terrain"? aign our petition or writs the Mayor to haft the pion Clthvns To Save Stewart Perk 2 HAScmW Drive,Ithaca,N.Y.14750 ITHACA JOURNAL Mr. Mayor, Common Council: July 23, 26 , 1986 We want the buildings, roadways, X141.63 landscaping and other facilities at Stewart Park restored, renewed, preserved and maintained. Please do not alter, redesign, change, restructure Stewart Park.* *As is proposed in your Master Plan to Improve Stewart Park. Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive,Ithaca,N.Y. STEWART PARK ITHACA JOURNAL July 28 , 30, 1986 What right do the Mayor and Common Council �,,141.68 have to"lease"(which amounts to giving away)our most beautiful lake frontage land(next to or part of Stewart Park)to the Chamber of Commerce,a private organization,so they can construct an office building on it? 1.Write the Mayor or your alderman not to let the Chamber of Commerce build their headquarters at Stewart Park.The vote comes up August 6. 2. Read the letter by Sally Grubb, Director of the Ithaca Festival in the Ithaca Times,July 24. 3.Sign our petition to halt the plan to alter Stewart Park itizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive,Ithaca,N.Y. August 20, 1986 Mr. Thys Van Cort, Director Ithaca Department of Planning and Development 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Thys: This letter is in reference to the Niederkorn plan proposals for Stewart Park. After enlarging and overlaying a 100 scale print of the Master Plan original onto the City Engineering Department 's 40 scale base plan of the park, serious size discrepancies have been revealed. Implementation of the Plan's parking lot proposals will apparently severely reduce the size of usable open spaces in Stewart Park. According to the base plan, the existing area of Stewart Park, west of the RR tracks, is 24. 25 acres. The Master Plan has exaggerated the existing area of the park to almost 41 acres, this resulting in a false sense of spaciousness for the proposed activity areas. Attached is a list of the area requirements of the proposed parking lots, and the remaining areas for the open space proposals as they would fit on the existing park site. Both the Master Plan and Reality figures are based on the existing park acreage, and do NOT include any of the proposed 10 acres of fill to the northwest, nor the island proposal. incere y, iincipal ter J. Trobride, ASLA PJT:gb Calculation Summary : Parking Lot Acreage Requiring Removal Of 340 cars 2. 5 acres 33 Trees 2 Shrub Masses 113 care 1. 24 acres 1 Storage Shed Spray Pool 19 Trees 5 Shrub Masses 180 Care w/turnaround 1. 9 acres Tennis Courts 8 Trees 3 Shrub Masses Remaining Spaces After Installation of Parking Lots : Master Plan Reality Family Picnic 2. 09 Acres 1. 05 Acres Children's Play Area 3. 1 Acres 1. 5 Acres Garden at Flagpole 2. 3 Acres 1. 5 Acres Group Picnic (east of pavilions) 3. 15 Acres 1. 08 Acres Group Picnic (near lagoon) 2. 4 Acres 1. 3 Acres Tennis Courts 1. 3 Acres . 7 Acres Court Space inside pavilions 13, 200 sq. ft. 10, 200 sq. ft. Lagoon 1. 9 Acres 1. 16 acres i 3x �.�.�P . 3 3 ' The following is a partial list of concerns voiced by community members at the Stewart Park public hearing of August 7, 1966. Part A of this list details some of the positive and possibly compromisable aspects of the Master Plan. Part B contains some topics which the public finds controversial and need further attention. In addition, future community survey results will be utilized in our design process. A. Positive Aspects Retain identifiable activity areas and view to lake from parked vehicles. Provide a structural focal point and an architectural unity with the existing pavilions. Renovate existing buildings. Upgrade pedestrian connections between and within the park areas. Increase amount of land available for picnicking and passive recreation. Increase access to and use of shorelines. Remove unused swimming ramp and blend area into rest of shoreline. Provide a two-way road, well drained with moderated existing sharp turns and clearer organization. Improved approaches to suspension bridges. Additional bicycle racks in convenient/unobtrusive spots. Create a gathering space at pavilion site. Create a formal garden south of the pavilions to add color and texture, and form a visual link to the water's edge. Improvement of lagoon for fishing and skating by dredging and building a removable impoundment structure. Adding a warming shelter with toilets near the lagoon. Relocate tennis courts to less obtrusive location. B. Controversial Issues Segregated/concentrated parking areas. Restricted vehicular traffic movement in a "traffic spine. " Removing parking at pavilion area. Hard surface paths throughout the park. Lighted waterfront promenade. Interpretive Center. Removing some willows at shoreline. Berms. Fishing sites along Cayuga Lake shore. Addition of an island. Public docking on a pier/promenade - lake cruise ships. Eliminating duck pond. Relocating concession stand. Introducing "informal" plantings. Commercial development within the public park. The Master Plan outlines 38 major proposals concerning development in Stewart Park. This third section, Part C, is a list of our recommendations in response to each one that is applicable. The following numbers correspond to the attached Major Proposals listing. C. Preliminary Recommendations 1. Modify existing road to reduce excessive asphalt, yet retain aspects of existing parking. Retain a circulation loop. 2. Provide maximum lakefront parking spaces. 3. Park access has been currently altered. 4. Youth Bureau structure has been built. New maintenance building(s) should be located. 5. Agreed. 6. Has been constructed. 7. Not to be considered at this time. 8. Retain grass and treelined lakeshore, but consider low intensity lighting in y isolated or potential crime areas. 9. Not to be considered at this time. 10. Improve duck pond condition, provide greater public access to it, and retain as passive recreation area for all ages. 11. Not to be considered at this time. 12. Renovate maintenance building for public use and improve restroom facilities. 13. Agreed. 14. Agreed. 15. Agreed. 16. Upgrade existing children's play area. 17. Rehabilitate boathouse building for greater public use. 18. Agreed. 19. Maintain area for picnic use. Provide better access to suspension bridge for bikers and pedestrians. 20. Agreed. 21. Agreed. 22. Agreed. 23. Consider wind mitigation techniques. 24. Agreed. 25. Agreed. 26 - 36. Not applicable. 37. Retain maximum amount of existing vegetation. Keep planting naturalistic, except at formal garden which can serve as a focal point. 38. Create variety and interest through plant materials, and enhance lake views. MAJOR PROPOSALS OREPLACE EXTENSIVE ROAD AND PARKING SYSTEM WITH SINGLE CIRCULATION SPINE AND THREE PARKING AREAS. OPROVIDE LAKE "OVERLOOK" PARKING SPACES. ORELOCATE PARK ACCESS ROAD TO EAST SIDE OF "TIN CAN." REMOVE EXISTING ROAD. OBUILD NEW STRUCTURE TO HOUSE YOUTH BUREAU AND 4 PARK MAINTENANCE OPERATION. OHEAVY PLANTING TO CREATE A TOURIST SCREEN PARK FROM (D INFORMATION PLAZA TRAFFIC AND FORMALLY AND BUS STOP. ESTABLISH THE ENTRANCE. OCONSTRUCT MUNICIPAL PIER TO PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO DEEPER OFFSHORE WATER. DEVELOP URBAN FISHING PROGRAM. ENCOURAGE REESTABLISHMENT OF LAKE CRUISES. OCONSTRUCT PROMENADE WITH LOW INTENSITY LIGHTING EXTENDING THE FULL SWEEP OF THE LAKESHORE. OCONSTRUCT RETENTION DIKE AND EXTEND SHORELINE INTO THE LAKE NORTH OF DUCK POND. USE HYDRAULIC MATERIAL DREDGED FROM THE INLET TO FILL THIS EXTENSION AREA. lQ FILL DUCK POND. @PLACE ADDITIONAL DIKING AND FILL TO CREATE A SMALL ISLAND ABOUT 300 FEET OFFSHORE. OCONVERT PRESENT MAINTENANCE BUILDING INTO AN 12 INTERPRETIVE CENTER RELATED TO ITHACA'S SILENT FILM ERA. 13 REHABILITATE PICNIC PAVILION. PROVIDE FORMAL AREA FOR DANCING, CONCERTS AND 14 PUBLIC GATHERINGS. RECREATE SOME SENSE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL UNITY OF ORIGINAL VIVIAN AND GIBB DESIGN FOR THIS AREA. 15 REESTABLISH FORMAL,PUBLIC GARDEN SOUTH OF OD COURTYARD. INCLUDE MEMORIAL ROSE GARDEN AS A FEATURE OF THIS NEW ATTRACTION. 16 REDESIGN CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA. REHABILITATE BOATHOUSE BUILDING. CONSIDER COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE PUBLIC USE. 18 IMPROVE SHORELINE TREATMENT ALONG SOUTHWEST SHORELINE OF STEWART PARK. OREMOVE ZOO AND USE AREA FOR SMALL GROUP 19 PICNICKING. 2Q EXCAVATE DEEPER HOLES RANDOMLY IN LAGOON TO IMPROVE FISH HABITAT. OBUILD WATER IMPOUNDMENT STRUCTURE TO RAISE 21 WINTERTIME WATER LEVEL IN LAGOON FOR SKATING. OBUILD NEW REST ROOM AND WARMING SHELTER FOR 22 SKATERS. 23 BUILD AND LANDSCAPE MOUNDS TO SCREEN PARKING AND PROVIDE WINDBREAKS. 24 RELOCATE EXISTING TENNIS COURTS. OCONNECT FOOTBRIDGES TO FACILITATE USE BY 25 HANDICAPPED. OMAINTAIN INFORMAL FOOTPATH SYSTEM THROUGH 26 FUERTES SANCTUARY. SURFACE TRAILS WITH NATURAL MATERIALS. OREDUCE EROSION ALONG FALL CREEK BANKS. 21 RESTORATION SHOULD ALSO AIM AT IMPROVING FISH HABITAT. OCREATE NATURAL INTERPRETIVE TRAIL AROUND 28 BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION. 29 REALIGN THIRD FAIRWAY AND RESTORE AREA AROUND CITY'S OLD FIRE TOWER. RENOVATE OLD CLUBHOUSE AND USE AS SHELTER. REMOVE FIRE TOWER. OBUILD NEW GREENS AT HOLES THREE AND SEVEN. 30 REALIGN GREENS AT HOLES SIX, EIGHT, AND NINE. 31 BUILD NEW FAIRWAYS AND TEES FOR HOLES FOUR, SEVEN AND EIGHT. OMOVE FAIRWAY NINE AWAY FROM THE INLET AND 32 RELOCATE NINTH HOLE. OCONSTRUCT PONDS AND MOUNDS TO IMPROVE SURFACE 33 DRAINAGE AND ADD CHALLENGE. PONDS COULD BECOME USEFUL ARTIFICIAL WETLANDS IF PROPERLY DESIGNED. OBUILD PRACTICE RANGE 35 RELOCATE GOLF COURSE BETWEEN FAIRWAYS ONE PARKING AND INCREASE AND THREE. CAPACITY. 36 ESTABLISH PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION ACROSS THE INLET TO CASS PARK. A SMALL PONTOON BOAT WITH AN OUTBOARD MOTOR COULD PROVIDE A WORKABLE FERRY. 37 KEEP PLANTING NATURALISTIC AND INFORMAL THROUGHOUT PARK. INCLUDE EVERGREEN TREES AND SHRUBS IN ALL PLANTING PLANS TO ENHANCE YEAR- ROUND APPEARANCE. 38 DEVELOP OVERALL LANDSCAPING PLAN TO ACHIEVE VARIETY AND INTEREST, DEFINE AREAS AND ENHANCE VIEWS. ©�1TIrq� r RECEIVED SEP 23 195 gpORATEO CITY OF ITHACA 'IOB EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 COMMON COUNCIL CODE 607 MEMO TO: Susan Cummings, Chairperson, Planning & Development Committee Common Council Mayor Gutenberger FROM: Dan Hoffman`f''_ DATE: September 22, 1986 RE: Design Development for Stewart Park In the past few months we have witnessed a dramatic outpouring of public sentiment about Stewart Park. What is particularly unusual is the degree to which citizens seem united on this issue: they do not support the nature and scope of many of the changes envisioned for the park by the Master Plan we adopted over a year and a half ago. Certainly we have an obligation as elected representatives to acknowledge this public groundswell. Fortunately, in this case, we also have an excellent opportunity to incorporate the views of the public into any future Stewart Park decision-making, through the process that has been set up by the City's con- sultant, Trowbridge & Trowbridge. At the moment, I see a lot of worry and anger about what might happen to the park, and much confusion about what Trowbridge is doing. Are the consul- tants carrying out the Master Plan? Are they supposed to be "fixing it up?" Can they suggest an entirely different future for the park? I think Common Council should clarify Trowbridge's role, and should do so by allowing them to work with a "clean slate." I suggest that we officially "set aside" or suspend the Master Plan until Trowbridge's design development phase is over. This step is an act of good faith toward the public, a reassurance that no drastic changes will occur in the near future. It also allows the City's consultant to listen to the public with an open mind and then come up with proposals that enjoy the public's confidence - whether or not they fift in with the details of the current Master Plan. No one can deny that much effort went into the original Master Plan, and that there are many innovative and worthwhile ideas contained within it. Certainly the document can continue to serve as a resource. However, with some of its basic assumptions in question, and not supported by large numbers of people, I don't think it is appropriate for it to be a guide to or a con- straint on future park planning (ie. , by Trowbridge). By taking the Master Plan out of the picture, at least for now, we can concentrate on finding out what the community wants to see in Stewart Park, rather than what they don't want. Enclosed is a possible resolution which you can use as a starting point. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" I welcome your suggestions and modifications. I would hope that the Planning and Development Committee would address this issue at its Septem- ber or October meeting, so that Council has the opportunity to act before the Trowbridge process has gone very much further. Thanks for your consideration. enc: proposed resolution cc: Board of Public Works Jon Meigs Jack Dougherty Media i I Proposed RESOLUTION TO SET ASIDE STEWART PARK MASTER 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 Trbwbridgg &1'.Trowbridge for this task; and WHEREAS Trowbridge & Trowbridge expect to continue to work until at least January 1987 on this Oroject and have scheduled a series of public meetings to present findings and to gather public opinion about the Park; and WHEREAS public involvement in the consideration of the Master Plan, (which, prior to its adoption, centered almost exclusively on protection of the wetlands) has dramatically increased and broadened in scope over the past five months, and many members of the public have expressed great dissatis- faction with numerous elements of the Master Plan; now therefore be it RESOLVED that, in order to take full advantage of the present availability of the City's consultant, and in recognition of the desire of the public to take an active role in determining the future design of Stewart Park, that the Stewart Park Master Plan be set aside pending continued public discussion and the formulation of alternative design development plans by Trowbridge & Trowbridge; and be it further RESOLVED that the role of Trowbridge & Trowbridge be clarified as follows: - The Master Plan may serve as a resource but is not necessarily a guide to or a constraint upon further park planning; - Any proposed design development plans should reflect as accurately as possible the expressed concerns, desires and needs of the community; and be it further RESOLVED that, pending the outcome of the design development process, no changes shall be made to Stewart Park by the City, other than routine maintenance, without specific further authorization by Common Council. 1st Draft 9/22/86 Submitted by Dan Hoffman % RA7�� CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14B50 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 September 30, 1986 M s. Dorothy Mc I I roy 419 Triphammer Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Dorothy: Thank you for your letter concerning Stewart Park. Considering the controversy surrounding Stewart Park at the present time, your well stated objections and positive suggestions are most welcome. As a person who grew up in Ithaca, swam at Stewart Park and rode the "kiddie train" when it was there, I share your love for this fantastic Ithaca asset. Sincerely, ��/John�C. Gutenberger Mayor "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" August 20, 1986 Mr. Thys Van Cort, Director Ithaca Department of Planning and Development 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Thys: This letter is in reference to the Niederkorn plan proposals for Stewart Park. After enlarging and overlaying a 100 scale print of the Master Plan original onto the City Engineering Department's 40 scale base plan of the park, serious size discrepancies have been revealed. Implementation of the Plan's parking lot proposals will apparently severely reduce the size of usable open spaces in Stewart Park. According to the base plan, the existing area of Stewart Park, west of the RR tracks, is 24. 25 acres. The Master Plan has exaggerated the existing area of the park to almost 41 acres, this resulting in a false sense of spaciousness for the proposed activity areas. Attached is a list of the area requirements of the proposed parking lots, and the remaining areas for the open space proposals as they would fit on the existing park site. Both the Master Plan and Reality figures are based on the existing park acreage, and do NOT include any of the proposed 10 acres of fill to the northwest, nor the island proposal. incere , 1Vf eter J. Trowbri e, ASLA rincipal PJT:gb Calculation Summary: Parking Lot Acreage Reauirina Removal Of. 340 cars 2. 5 acres 33 Trees 2 Shrub Masses 113 care 1. 24 acres 1 Storage Shed Spray Pool 19 Trees 5 Shrub Masses 180 Care a/turnaround 1. 9 acres Tennis Courts 8 Trees 3 Shrub Masses Remaining Spaces After Installation of Parking Lots: Master Plan Reality Family Picnic 2. 09 Acres 1. 05 Acres Children's Play Area 3. 1 Acres 1. 5 Acres Garden at Flagpole 2. 3 Acres 1. 5 Acres Group Picnic (east of pavilions) 3. 15 Acres 1. 08 Acres Group Picnic (near lagoon) 2. 4 Acres 1. 3 Acres Tennis Courts 1. 3 Acres . 7 Acres Court Space inside pavilions 13, 200 sq. ft. 10, 200 sq. ft. Lagoon 1. 9 Acres 1. 16 acres (4� 3x 633 ? The following is a partial list of concerns voiced by community members at the Stewart Park public hearing of August 7, 1966. Part A of this list details some of the positive and possibly compromisable aspects of the Master Plan. Part B contains some topics which the public finds controversial and need further attention. In addition, future community survey results will be utilized in our design process. A. Positive Aspects Retain identifiable activity areas and view to lake from parked vehicles. Provide a structural focal point and an architectural unity with the existing pavilions. Renovate existing buildings. Upgrade pedestrian connections between and within the park areas. Increase amount of land available for picnicking and passive recreation. Increase access to and use of shorelines. Remove unused swimming ramp and blend area into rest of shoreline. Provide a two-way road, well drained with moderated existing sharp turns and clearer organization. Improved approaches to suspension bridges. Additional bicycle racks in convenient/unobtrusive spots. Create a gathering space at pavilion site. Create a formal garden south of the pavilions to add color and texture, and form a visual link to the water's edge. Improvement of lagoon for fishing and skating by dredging and building a removable impoundment structure. Adding a warming shelter with toilets near the lagoon. Relocate tennis courts to less obtrusive location. B. Controversial Issues Segregated/concentrated parking areas. Restricted vehicular traffic movement in a "traffic spine. " Removing parking at pavilion area. Hard surface paths throughout the park. Lighted waterfront promenade. Interpretive Center. Removing some willows at shoreline. Berms. Fishing sites along Cayuga Lake shore. Addition of an island. Public docking on a pier/promenade - lake cruise ships. Eliminating duck pond. Relocating concession stand. Introducing "informal" plantings. Commercial development within the public park. The Master Plan outlines 38 major proposals concerning development in Stewart Park. This third section, Part C, is a list of our recommendations in response to each one that is applicable. The following numbers correspond to the attached Major Proposals listing. C. Preliminary -Recommendations 1. Modify existing road to reduce excessive asphalt, yet retain aspects of existing parking. Retain a circulation loop. 2. Provide maximum lakefront parking spaces. 3. Park access has been currently altered. 4. Youth Bureau structure has been built. New maintenance building(s) should be located. 5. Agreed. 6. Has been constructed. y 7. Not to be considered at this time. a. Retain grass and treelined lakeshore, but consider low intensity lighting in y isolated or potential crime areas. 9. Not to be considered at this time. 10. Improve duck pond condition, provide greater public access to it, and retain as passive recreation area for all ages. 11. Not to be considered at this time. 12. Renovate maintenance building for public use and improve restroom facilities. 13. Agreed. 14. Agreed. 15. Agreed. 16. Upgrade existing children's play area. 17. Rehabilitate boathouse building for greater public use. 18. Agreed. 19. Maintain area for picnic use. Provide better access to suspension bridge for bikers and pedestrians. 20. Agreed. 21. Agreed. 22. Agreed. 23. Consider wind mitigation techniques. 24. Agreed. 25. Agreed. 26 - 36. Not applicable. 37. Retain maximum amount of existing vegetation. Keep planting naturalistic, except at formal garden which can serve as a focal point. 36. Create variety and interest through plant materials, and enhance lake views. MAJOR PROPOSALS OREPLACE EXTENSIVE ROAD AND PARKING SYSTEM WITH SINGLE CIRCULATION SPINE AND THREE PARKING AREAS. OPROVIDE LAKE "OVERLOOK" PARKING SPACES. ORELOCATE PARK ACCESS ROAD TO EAST SIDE OF"TIN CAN." REMOVE EXISTING ROAD. OBUILD NEW STRUCTURE TO HOUSE YOUTH BUREAU AND 4 PARK MAINTENANCE OPERATION. OHEAVY PLANTING TO CREATE A TOURIST SCREEN PARK FROM (D INFORMATION PLAZA TRAFFIC AND FORMALLY AND BUS STOP. ESTABLISH THE ENTRANCE. OCONSTRUCT MUNICIPAL PIER TO PROVIDE PUBLIC 7 ACCESS TO DEEPER OFFSHORE WATER. DEVELOP URBAN FISHING PROGRAM. ENCOURAGE REESTABLISHMENT OF LAKE CRUISES. OCONSTRUCT PROMENADE WITH LOW INTENSITY LIGHTING EXTENDING THE FULL SWEEP OF THE LAKESHORE. OCONSTRUCT RETENTION DIKE AND EXTEND SHORELINE INTO THE LAKE NORTH OF DUCK POND. USE HYDRAULIC MATERIAL DREDGED FROM THE INLET TO FILL THIS EXTENSION AREA. �Q FILL DUCK POND. PLACE ADDITIONAL DIKING AND FILL TO CREATE A SMALL ISLAND ABOUT 300 FEET OFFSHORE. CONVERT PRESENT MAINTENANCE BUILDING INTO AN 12 INTERPRETIVE CENTER RELATED TO ITHACA'S SILENT FILM ERA. 13 REHABILITATE PICNIC PAVILION. PROVIDE FORMAL AREA FOR DANCING, CONCERTS AND 14 PUBLIC GATHERINGS. RECREATE SOME SENSE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL UNITY OF ORIGINAL VIVIAN AND GIBB DESIGN FOR THIS AREA. 15 REESTABLISH FORMAI,;PUBLIC GARDEN SOUTH OF COURTYARD. INCLUDE MEMORIAL ROSE GARDEN AS A FEATURE OF THIS NEW ATTRACTION. 16 REDESIGN CHILDREN`S PLAY AREA. REHABILITATE BOATHOUSE BUILDING. CONSIDER COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE PUBLIC USE. le IMPROVE SHORELINE TREATMENT ALONG SOUTHWEST SHORELINE OF STEWART PARK. OREMOVE ZOO AND USE AREA FOR SMALL GROUP 19 PICNICKING. OEXCAVATE DEEPER HOLES RANDOMLY IN LAGOON TO 2Q IMPROVE FISH HABITAT. OBUILD WATER IMPOUNDMENT STRUCTURE TO RAISE 21 WINTERTIME WATER LEVEL IN LAGOON FOR SKATING. OBUILD NEW REST ROOM AND WARMING SHELTER FOR 22 SKATERS. 23 BUILD AND LANDSCAPE MOUNDS TO SCREEN PARKING AND PROVIDE WINDBREAKS. 24 RELOCATE EXISTING TENNIS COURTS. OCONNECT FOOTBRIDGES TO FACILITATE USE BY 25 HANDICAPPED. OMAINTAIN INFORMAL FOOTPATH SYSTEM THROUGH 26 FUERTES SANCTUARY. SURFACE TRAILS WITH NATURAL MATERIALS. OREDUCE EROSION ALONG FALL CREEK BANKS. 27 RESTORATION SHOULD ALSO AIM AT IMPROVING FISH HABITAT. OCREATE NATURAL INTERPRETIVE TRAIL AROUND 28 BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION. Y8 REALIGN THIRD FAIRWAY AND RESTORE AREA AROUND CITY'S OLD FIRE TOWER. RENOVATE OLD CLUBHOUSE AND USE AS SHELTER. REMOVE FIRE TOWER. OBUILD NEW GREENS AT HOLES THREE AND SEVEN. 30 REALIGN GREENS AT HOLES SIX, EIGHT, AND NINE. 31 BUILD NEW FAIRWAYS AND TEES FOR HOLES FOUR, SEVEN AND EIGHT. OMOVE FAIRWAY NINE AWAY FROM THE INLET AND 32 RELOCATE NINTH HOLE. OCONSTRUCT PONDS AND MOUNDS TO IMPROVE SURFACE 33 DRAINAGE AND ADD CHALLENGE. PONDS COULD BECOME USEFUL ARTIFICIAL WETLANDS IF PROPERLY DESIGNED. OBUILD PRACTICE RANGE 35 RELOCATE GOLF COURSE BETWEEN FAIRWAYS ONE PARKING AND INCREASE AND THREE. CAPACITY. 36 ESTABLISH PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION ACROSS THE INLET TO CASS PARK. A SMALL PONTOON BOAT WITH AN OUTBOARD MOTOR COULD PROVIDE A WORKABLE FERRY. 37 KEEP PLANTING NATURALISTIC AND INFORMAL THROUGHOUT PARK. INCLUDE EVERGREEN TREES AND SHRUBS IN ALL PLANTING PLANS TO ENHANCE YEAR- ROUND APPEARANCE. 38 DEVELOP OVERALL LANDSCAPING PLAN TO ACHIEVE VARIETY AND INTEREST, DEFINE AREAS AND ENHANCE VIEWS. s 1aW ,� RECEIVED coq•••.........••"�0� p�Ap7E0 CITY OF ITHACA , 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 COMMON COUNCIL CODE 607 MEMO TO: Susan Cummings, Chairperson, Planning & Development Committee Common Council Mayor Gutenberger FROM: Dan Hoffman DATE: September 22, 9956 RE: Design Development for Stewart Park In the past few months we have witnessed a dramatic outpouring of public sentiment about Stewart Park. What is particularly unusual is the degree to which citizens seem united on this issue: they do not support the nature and scope of many of the changes envisioned for the park by the Master Plan we adopted over a year and a half ago. Certainly we have an obligation as elected representatives to acknowledge this public groundswell. Fortunately, in this case, we also have an excellent opportunity to incorporate the views of the public into any future Stewart Park decision-making, through the process that has been set up by the City's con- sultant, Trowbridge & Trowbridge. At the moment, I see a lot of worry and anger about what might happen to the park, and much confusion about what Trowbridge is doing. �^e the consul- tants carrying out the Master Plan? Are they supposed to be "fixing it up?" Can they suggest an entirely different future for the park? I think Common Council should clarify Trowbridge's role, aid should do so by allowing them.to work with a "clean slate." I suggest that we officially "set aside" or suspend the Master Plan' until Trowbridge's design development phase is over. This step is an act of good.faith toward the public, a reassurance that no drastic changes will occur in the near future. It also allows the City's consultant to listen to the public with an open mind and then come up with proposals that enjoy the public's confidence - whether or not they flit in with the details of the current Master Plan. No one can deny that much effort went into the original Master Plan, and that there are many innovative and worthwhile ideas contained within it. Certainly the document can continue to serve.as a resource. . However, with some of its basic assumptions in question, and not supported by large numbers of people, I don't think it is appropriate for it to be a-guide to or a con- straint on future park planning (ie., by Trowbridge). By taking the Master Plan out of the picture, at least for now, we can concentrate on finding out what the community wants to see in Stewart Park, rather than what they don't want. Enclosed is a possible resolution which you can use as a starting point. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" I welcome your suggestions and modifications. I waulid hope that the Planning and Development Committee would address this issue at its Septem- ber or October meeting, so that Council has the opportunity to act before the Trowbridge process has gone very much further. Thanks for your consideration. enc: proposed resolution cc: Board of Public Works Jon Meigs Jack Dougherty Media Proposed RESOLUTION TO SET ASIDE STEWART PARK MASTER 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 Trbwbridgej4iTrowbridge for this task; and WHEREAS Trowbridge & Trowbridge expect to continue to work until at least January 1987 on this Oroject and have scheduled a series of public meetings to present findings and to gather public opinion about the Park; and WHEREAS public involvement in the consideration of the Master Plan!a(which, prior to its adoption, centered almost exclusively on protection of the wetlands) had dramatically increased and broadened in scope over the past five months, and many members of the public have expressed great dissatis- faction with numerous elements of the Master Plan; now therefore be it RESOLVED that, in order to take full advantage of the present availability of the City's consultant, and in recognition of the desire of the public to take an active role in determining the future design of Stewart Park, that the Stewart Park Master Plan be set aside pending continued public discussion and the formulation of alternative design development plans by Trowbridge & Trowbridge; and be it further RESOLVED that the role of Trowbridge & Trowbridge be clarified as follows: - fhe Master Plan may serve as a resource but is not necessarily a guide to or a constraint upon further park planning; - Any proposed design development plans should reflect as accurately as possible the expressed concerns, desires and needs of the community; and be it further RESOLVED that, pending the outcome -of the design development process, no changes shall be made to Stewart Park by the City, other thanutine maintenance, without specific further authorization by Common uncil. i 1st Draft 9/22/86 Submitted by Dan Hoffman i I O�1T� 8AT60 CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 September 30, 1986 M s. Dorothy Mc I I roy 419 Triphammer Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Dorothy: Thank you for your letter concerning Stewart Park. Considering the controversy surrounding Stewart Park at the present time, your well stated objections and positive suggestions are most welcome. As a person who grew up in Ithaca, swam at Stewart Park and rode the "kiddie train" when it was there, I share your love for this fantastic Ithaca asset. Sincerely, John C. Gutenberger Mayor "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" SEP 29 190 September 27, 1986 To the kayor• and Common Council: Because of a previous commitment, I cannot comme Zteltwenties n at the meeting for discussion of changes in tewdesign. As one who first visited the park in the and has gone there frequently since I returned to live here in 1947 , I have a special interest in retaining the special character of the area. Taking a paved , lighted walkway along the lake edge would destroy the present delightful informality of the lakeshore with its uninterrupted 'qreen expanse to the shore and the row of willows s shade . The shoreline curve is especially pleasing when viewed s ` one drives acwn Route 13. sleaze do not cut any of those willows . Parking lots with man-made m6unds to attempt to hide them would be far more intrusive than the present less concen- trated parking and also less flexible . Earth mounds would spoil the natural appearance of the area.. What disturbs me most is that the sggested design is based entirely on the periods of maximum use - weekends and week- day evenings in summer - with no consideration of users during the longer periods of less concentrated use - a full six months of cold weather plus weekdays during summer. One could no longer park close to the lake to watch from one ' s car a winter sunset or observe wintering flocks of gulls and ducks, nor could one eat ]inch in one ' s car on a cold late fall or early spring day while watching the lake, as I have seen people doing. One would have to get out of the car no matter how uncomfortable the weather. This would be espec3_&lly hard on olderpeople and the handicapped who who cannot face inclement wee�ther, but at present can enjoy the moods of the lake from their cars. I have one question: would relocating the tennis courts (one option) mean cutting, some of the trees in the former zoo area to make space for them? A possible alternative location for the tennis courts would be the city-owned land east of the railroad track instead of another building there for the Chamber of Commerce. This would increase the usable park area if that land were considered part of the park to be used for recreation. The possible future estension of Stewart nark by using dredging spoil to add a. spit north of the duck pond sounds like a, a cleasing addition. bincerely yours , n f yyll Dorothy NcIlroy �. ;f� 1986 Ithaca Journal October 3, 1986: and October 4, 1986: STEWART PARK PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING Sponsored by the City of Ithaca - 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, October 8,1986 Common Council Chamber,City Hall How many times have you been to the park this year? This is one among a series of questions in a public opinion, survey conducted to get a representative sample of data on park use and user satisfocfion. The results will be discussed at this meeting, along with a summary of the analysis of existing conditions, and a revie V of the overall design pro- cess and schedule. . This meeting is the second of a series in which the design consultant will review progress on preparation of plans and alternatives to .give an accurate picture of what sug- gested park improvements could be like. Public comment and suggestions made in these meetings will be valuable in giving direction in this process. Please come and participate! -»� (���i��� r ��f..+�•a A* °+¢� ycogPo��Q`� CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713 MAYOR CODE 607 MEMORANDUM TO: Common Council Board of Public Works Stewart Park Advisory Co i FROM: Mayor John Gutenberger DAT E: October 6, 1986 RE: STEWART PARK PETITION Enclosed please find text from the petition that was presented to Common Council on Wednesday, October 1st. For your information I have reviewed the 6286 signatures on this petition; 4114 (65:5$) of those signing do not live in the City of Ithaca. Of course, we know that City residents pay 100% of costs connected with Stewart Park. Enc. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" -PPS-ition to the Mayor and Common Council Not to Impose Drastic Changes on Stewart Park We do not want the willow row (35 trees) west of the Pavilion cut down. We do not want three large asphalt parking lots constructed, the largest of which will be larger than the -�Ot behind Woolworths. We do not want all roads within the park removed. We do not, want man-made hills created "to relieve the flatness of the terrain." We do not want to spend 5.5 million dollars for such items. Although a few of the proposals in the plan would improve, the majority would damage the park and, because these worst proposals have the highest priority (the large parking lot is- next to be built), we do not think there is time to winnow out the bad from the good. Accordingly, we the undersigned respectfully urge the Mayor and Common Council to show they are sufficiently highminded to reverse a decision when the common good is involved, and that they discard the master plan to alter Stewart Park and halt any further implementation of that plan and not try to salvage it which might make it even worse. We urge proper maintenance, preservation and restoration of existing building, roads, landscaping and other facilities in the park. ._ _.._,a. ..,, nr ;ntn'1 Hama arlrlY'Oee