HomeMy WebLinkAboutBF172399-001VORTHVITEIII-I IiIEST PARK
SIT'E PLAN
Prepared by
Anita Russe-.1.mann
Eay I )'1'7
A neighborI-Rood pare should be an integral part of
the surrounding comri.unity. Its design should reflect both
social and physical characteristics unique to ti-le neigh-
borhood., serving all. its varied needs. A park design must
seek to preserve and enhance the aesthetic and environ-
mental features of tfie comcmun:ity. It should be pleasing
to look at from afar, as well as pleasing to be in., The
successful hark should be seen as a part of a greater
whole, serving as a unifying force in all aspects of the
neighborhood's everyday life - social, emotional, aesthe-
tic, physical, and environmental. It is with these values
in mind that I have designed the Northview ,vest park site.
Hopefully my planning, process as well as the site plan itself
reflect these ideas.
The site is located behind Northview hoad Viest, off
of Coddington Road in the Town of Ithaca. (see figure 1
for exact location;. It falls within a subdivision being
developed by tiAllis and Henry Bilker.. The land was acquired
from the Hilkers as a result of a policy adopted by the
Tot.n in 1975. The policy states that ''Tile Town intends
to require from every subdivision developer the setting
aside of up to 10j of the land to be developed within a
subdivision for parks, or money, in lieu of land, at a
fair market value, to provide .open space areas in each
population center." At present there are 12 developed
units on Nor thvi.ew vest and Coddington in the immediate
vicinity of' the park. 'There are approximately 35 homes
�Ilo'Lt.(It��MV.= <'-36.'7d' .3
1°'Z4'Vi-.(OUT' IWV,- 4�) 1.50'
«j.b+80.43 a, 16'Lt.OW) 1l+v, -G13.90' (tiiTIZ--k7
° � _; 34` Y.t • (P'r�/ I tv✓. ° C. I F3. $U � f"'C 'f;Ei'•J!. E}��
FU AE TAL P{?'E (u�.P7 y';�,L�AI_ END A`J % 6
SE,�10► v EACH
Y �
�I
• , lso'(AT
�
Al
= - `
3_1 t��
,
A\K
'----yam- _ 47. 57 'i�-O% �y.' .e S.� �r t '
p \ W fL
N8at4g'-Llb`
wATE` 0119. z ¢• `- - '' i'-- ' • t
\s.e�l,ce � '�A'F�At.(T/P.; -- _ ►
0
N B3� 4g•: obv o- I Z.7Q!
5 •- New Cvs=.Ft.•E�' `�-C�:� 't�- /... __ -_ l �a Z oq L \�-O / F
/ 61. S4' _l . 84•) N>_ �.i �., �� A T E � '--- •�. 33 "3 •
SB3°q�•� IfO.pp� dam_ kv
110.Op, -_ St33 =48'_bb`
� s
_ - of •3? �' ��-_ y
Sq
1Is.
tiv � Nrr � I
on. Nor thview load.
My first step was to determine the needs and desires
of tine .residents, for this is trhe most important factor
in determining what type of park should be built. l de-
signed a questionaire to determine the sociological char-
acteristics of the neighborhood and to get the ideas and
comments of the residents regarding the park. (see figure 2).
Following; a brief cover letter informing them of my pro-
ject, T administered the surveys door to door. Out of 46
auestionaires administered, 1 received 28 responses. Fig-
ure 3 shows a summary of the statistical. data.
The comments and suggestions 1 received on the question -
afire and from talking to the residents revealed a widespread.
concern that tine site be left as natural as possible. In
general, the residents on l;orthview west expressed enthu-
siasm for a dark and for play activities. The residents on
1`orthview saw little need for a park and preferred to :have
the site left ip its natural state, with some n2 turn- trails
and sitting; areas if anything. The survey rpsul is added
a new dimension to my project in that the question had be-
come not merely what: k ird of park: to design, but whether
a nark should be built at all. The subdivision ordinance
states that land or money must be allocated for a. park,
but what if a park isn't needed or wanted? by recommenda-
tion is that in every case in which park land is acquired
in this manner a user needs survey be conducted before
funds can be allocated by the Town for construction. The
policy should P amended so that if it is determined that
-2-
126 EAST SENECA STD 6ET
ITHACA, IVEW YORK
14-850
NORTHVIEW _[TEST PARK SURVEY QUESTIONAIRE
1. Address: - - - - -- - --- --
2.
Type of dwelling
One family house
Two family house —
Numbe::- of apartments
3.
Number of persons in this ho:_!sehol.d
__, _ _ _ __ ."
4.
What are the age _-anges ofpe-sons
in this household and their sex.
Ex. age gro .p 23-30 1F; 3M
0-5 16-22
46-60
6-10 23-30
61-75
11-15 31-45
over 75
5.
Do you rent this apartment or house?
b.
What kind of park do you want?
7.
On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being most
important, indicate the im-
portance to you of including the following
activities in the park.
Picnic area Play area for
small children
_
Sitting area Play area for
older children
Natural area
and adults.
8. Check 4 activities you feel are most needed.
Basketball court Swings _ Picnic tables _
Ice skating area Climbing apparatus_
Sand pile r! Tennis backboards
Are there any other activities and equipment yo:.i woi,ld suggest?
9. When a conceptual plan has been developed would you be interested
in attending a neighborhood meeting to review it?
10. How impo-i-tant :is it to you that the nat!iral feat :res of the site
be preserved?
1.1. Do yo�� have any other comments or s:iggestions?
I. P C i' i T _'-, `1 I C' ,
1`TCi.r t�',�%1.£:Zd JiCic C
IroT.-t,;1 v _1_ev t..c S t;
„1 !iT,/1J �l. .l 1 jLr 0,'l_ 8
0- 6-10 i 1-1 5 1 6--22 2.3- i0 ' 31-1' 5 46-60 61- Total
6 - 3 11 8 11 18 7 66
2 )+ 5 4 2 12 5 1 35
II.II:FC,-11'” ;1,CE (_.'- C;,.:1;i i-::'iL 1 '.CrTI iTTES) (:kale: 1-5, 5 most im-portant)
1
2 3 �+_
Priority
Picnic ,yrea
8
2 2 1
4'S
:�iLting Area
2
5 4 5
1,14
Nlat��ral : rc-�a
4
2 2 4
7
;=3
Pl a ,r children
1
1 0 5
1 1
#1
P' ay Area-c1_der children
1
1 6 3
6
y 2
�T ri r"� ri rn k' n i` '� '�
:..C" ].VI -LE,-3 F L- r.OSl T�EEDr
Basketball 10 ( out of 28 possible)
Ice slating 10
Sand Pile 11
Swi1-t s 12
Climbing 11
Tennis 11
Picn-ic tables 12
Other fireplace, charcoal grill, volleyball
Fir11T,e 3
a park is not wanted or needed, the land can Y'amain 17ndc--
veloped.
The statistical data .revealed thn t the rasi.dents were
in favor of play equipment, which contradicted somewhat
t
with the comments they made. fart of this contradiction
Was the fault of the Cluestionaire design. As a result, I
formulated a. list of pro's and con's from the comments, I
received and from my own observations, regarding the do sire -
ability of designing a park in accordance with the statis-
tical data, and the desir. eability of any park at all. In
favor of a play park Was the lack of existing play areas
nearby. There are no playgrounds or facilities for public
use Within Walking or easy traveling distance. However,
there is an abundance of natural recreative resources in the
immediate area.. Six -mile creek, N .Y.S.E.G. right of way,
and acres of open land provide great opportunities for
recreation. I also observed that most of the households
With children provided play equipment. what could not
be provided by the resident because of size could not be
provided in the park either, because of its small size.
The strongest argument against a park Was the fact that there
is so much open space. Another con was that the people
on NorthvieW Road, where the bulk of the population lives
felt that they wouldn't use the park. Many of them have
children who are no longer at home, and those who do have
young children felt LAat Coddi.ngton (toad is too danFer•ous
fer them to cross, as it must be to Qt to the Park site.
If indeed it is the case that the park would to used by 12 �
-3-
fUM i,l._i.r s t too VCr,. ...;)gk it would br hard to justify spend-
ing money to build a park Urn i':"ier'e .are many things with
h "Liter pricrit',' Mat IiE:ed to be done in the arc: such as
paving W drai_..aac imrrov'rmonts. Anotner factor, against
a park was that the lots in Lhe neighborhood are quite
large, 2r.ci Most _ _ v;.Ic. felt that they would picnic and re-
lax In t:!..IT' own yards and not at u park.
.
in iiddi tior t;. the survey y feedback and sociological
data, several other fact --ors went into toe determination Of
;earl; type, if n pnrk at all. WAKE facilities were pros 'n dis-
cussed i t t i �� e=: �. � and cons ns above. Toe funding; for the park
is allocated from the Town ' s park fund. The approximate
availabic funding, subject to approval by the Toun Board,
is 05,000. The _arid was acquired through the subdivision
policy. Labor and mainitaina nce will be provided by the
Highway ghway Department. Future development and population
growth in the useI' area is imprdbable. At most c more units
may be built in the near future-. The most important consid-
eration in determining park type besides the needs and de-
sires of the residents was the environmental characteristics
of the site. Topography is shown on figure 1. The site
is gently slopi.nr with a slope of approximately 6y. The
soil type: is Rhinebeck silt loam. It has some drainage'
problems and is also subject to slight erosion. Vegeta-
tion is very thick. The ON is covered with low scrubby
bushes, wild grasses, weeds, and small trees. There are
very fcw trees over 10 feet in height. Were is plot of dead
brush a lno. M r all, passage through the site is difficult.
`v;ildl.ife :is abundant, in the form of birds, insec is and ro-
dents. Along the souttern boundary of the site flows a
small stream. Direction of flow is eastward. The stream
J-
is no more than 2 or 3 feet wide at any place, and is gvi�Je
shallow. During; the summer I would expect that it may even
run dry.
On the basis of the survey results, environmental
characteristics, personal observations, existing facilities,
funding, and future development, I decided that a park was
desireable, however not a built up play area, byt as na-
tural an area as possible. I formulated d a preliminary
conceptual design. ( see figure 4) . !although the lack
of extensive play activities somewhat contradicts the sur-
vey results, I feel my plan is a rood compromise given the
.limitations imposed by the size and environmental features.
It incorporates both active and passive participation, and
offers activities for all segments of the neighborhood
population, not just the dominant age group. I presented
my plan along with my observations, survey results, and other.
data I had collected at a meeting to which I invited all the
residents of Eorthview Road and Northview West. Seven
households were represented. They reacted favorably to
my conclusions and offered suggestions which I utilized
in developing; my final plan. They felt that no picnic
area was needed, no play equipment, and no landscaping.
The consFnsus was that t le park should contain trails .for
walking, jorEi_ng and bicycle riding-, sitting areas, and a
graded and cleared Barra for informal ball games and ploy.
e
tl
A
Astcad of landscaping they felt KhaL thinning', rnQ clearing
tire dead brusn vni some low lying busnes was sufficient.
These SuEEestiaras were compatible with my own Aelings
and were incorporated into my final site desirn. (See
figure 5). The plan allows room for future additions and
alterations should they be desirM, such as the addition:
of rore bonches, picnic tables, and small scale play equip-
ment. I would recommend Wat two years after its co: pla-
tion feedback from the neighborhood A solicited to determine
whether any changes suould be made. Regarding construction
of the park, I recommend that the path surface be cleaped
and maintained in its natural state, as any other surface
would be unsuitable for running and bicycling witn the ex-
ception of blacktop, which would be aesthetically unsuit-
able. The benches and footbridge are to be constructed
of naturally finished wood. In clearing; and chinning the
site, the vegetation must be left as natural as possible,
being modified only in those areas designated on the plan.,
in vhich greatest use is probable.
3
w
z
CE
w
cc
0
:a
Unanimously carried.
NORTHVIEW ROAD WEST PARK (South Hill Estates)
Mr. Fabbroni reported that although a deed was prepared
for the above -mentioned park in Willis Hilker's South Hill Estates
Subdivision on Northview Road (Nest, it was never accepted by the
Town Board and that the Board should consider accepting the deed.
Supervisor Schwan said it was not accepted because there was a
temporary road there. Mr. Fabbroni said there is a 20 .ft. ease-
ment and -access to the site. The Highway Superintendent said the
road is in satisfactory condition. The Town Attorney asked the
Board not to accept the deed at this time; that he would examine
it and the abstract of title and check the description..
Motion by Supervisor Schwan; seconded by Councilman Powers,
RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney is hereby instructed -to examine
deed from Willis Hilker, developer of South Hill Estates, to the
Town of -Ithaca, and the abstract of title for the Northview Road
West park in the Willis Hilker South Hill Estates Subdivision and
bring same up to date, and make a recommendation to the Board at
the next regular meeting.
Unanimously carried.
CO. -RIU1V ICAT IOZ S
Supervisor Schwan read a letter dated January 27, 1976
from the Belle Sherman PTA thanking the Town Board for its deci-
sion to provide a crossing guard for the Mitchell Street -Vine
Street intersection for the safety of the children in the area.
Supervisor Schwan read a letter from Lyman E. Baker to
the City of Ithaca Water Department (dated January 5, 1976) re-
garding sewer problems at his residence at 257 Pennsylvania Avenue.
It appears the sever line was not set deep enough initially to
serve his basement. There was discussion as to what the Town's
cc 8 L r Fi3bbronl
E, Bergen