Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-06-12 Board of Public Works Meeting AgendaBOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OFFICIAL NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING A meeting of the n Common Council Chamberrslc Works ollor,, City Hall, 08 East Green Street Ithaca, New York. Agenda 1. Additions or Deletions to Agenda (Items 1 -5: 15 min. 2. Ma or's Communications 3, Communications and Hearin s from Persons Before the Board 4. Responmto— i 5. Reports Special Committees of the Board Council Liaison Board Liaisons Superintendent and Staff Other Department Heads 6. Approval 7. Administration and Communications 8, VOTING ITEMS 8.1 Buildings Properties Refuse and Transit 8.2 Hi hwa s Streets and Sidewalks (15 min.l A. Bicycle Boulevards /Neighborhood Greenways — Resolution 8.3 Parking and Traffic 8.4 Creeks Bridges and Parks 8.5 Water and Sewer 9. DISCUSS 9.1 Review of Unused City Property (30 min.) 9.2 Community Gardens, Part II (30 min.) 10. New Business 11. Adjournment If you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you to fully participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 607 - 274 -6570 at least 48 hours before the meeting. The Board of Public Works meets on the second, third and fourth Wednesdays of the months at 4:45 p.m. All meetings are volog meetings, opening with a public comment period. Meeting agendas are created from prior public input, Department operating, planning issues, and requests made to the Superintendent. The Board reserves the right to limit verbal comments to three minutes and to request written comments on lengthy or complex issues. This information may then be used to create committee agendas, with the speaker or author invited to attend. Notes for BPW Aaenda Auaust 6, 2012 8.2A Sicvcle Boulevards /Nel hborhood Greenways — Resolution The topic of Bicycle Boulevards has come up in previous discussions and resulted in a certain your level of nfusion. Tim Logue adoptions il develop . At the Common Co ncil ev I plans have beenaccepted, adopted, endorsed,N and approved, and several other terms which don't come to me at this moment. While I think this is a very good plan for improving the City's multi -modal approach to diversifying our transportation system, I am not sure that we will be in a position to start any new programs or work projects in the next several years. Just the pavement markings for this program exceed the work capacity of our pared down sign crew budget in recent budgets. We are not in a position to maintain what we have, let alone to expand the work load, no matter how well intended. 9.1 Review of Unused city Property returned tBoard's n recent 1,1 2013 budget I wr to followg notes for our agenda o October 9201: "The Mayors proposed 2012 budget includes revenue of approximately $125,000 s. derived from the sale of some excess or underutilized proper that the City ly, this While the City sells old dump trucks, police cars, and copy revenue was meant to reflect the sale of property which has colleted in City hands for any of a long list of reasons, from tax sale of abandoned property, to the remnants of property taken for street construction or realignments. Attached is a list of City-owned property and a pre - selected list of underutilized properties for the Board's review prior to making recommendations to Common Council of properties that could be sold to make up the revenues proposed in the draft budget. A long range view of this issue would lead me to recommend a list which consisted of as many properties as possible. While some money is already in the proposed budget, returning more property into private hands encourages fuller utilization of the property and can improve the City's position by reducing costs, increasing the tax base, and perhaps utilizing dollars from the sale of a capital asset to pay down the Citys capital debt. Reduced debt can reduce annual budgets, improve bond ratings and provide greater flexibility in future budgets. " The following notes are written for August 6, 2012: The City has still not sold land to fulfill its obligation adopted with the 2012 budget. Staff still feels the recommendations of October and November 2011 are a valid start on an effort to divest unused or underutilized property. In light of the current 2013 proposed budget, with its staffing and work load implications, staff feels that this effort should be reinforced and perhaps accelerated. Since Common Council is the only body which can dispose of city land, any Board of Public Works action becomes a recommendation to Council. Some of our initial recommended parcels are moving forward (213 and 215 West Spencer Street, Cherry Street parcel) and some are stalled (321 Elmira Road, 700 block East Seneca Street). After the Board's previous discussion, we have acquired a survey of the Elmira Road corridor in order to consider the various odd parcels the City owns along that street which are not needed as part of the right -of -way. I have also reviewed the Chamberlain's list of Page 2 Notes for BPW Aaenda. Auaust 6.2012 8.2A Bicycle Boulevards /Neighborhood Greenways — Resolution The topic of Bicycle Boulevards has come up in previous discussions and resulted in a certain level of confusion. Tim Logue and Kent Johnson have developed the plan for your review and adoption. At the Common Council level, plans have been accepted, adopted, endorsed, approved, and several other terms which don't come to me at this moment. While I think this is a very good plan for improving the City's mulfi -modal approach to diversifying our transportation system, I am not sure that we will be in a position to start any new programs or work projects in the next several years. Just the pavement markings for this program exceed the work capacity of our pared down sign crew budget in recent budgets. We are not in a position to maintain what we have, let alone to expand the work load, no matter how well intended. 9.1 Review of Unused City Property City property has returned to the Board's agenda because it was a recent topic during our 2013 budget discussion. I wrote the following notes for our agenda of October 19, 2011: "The Mayors proposed 2012 budget includes revenue of approximately $125,000 derived from the sale of some excess or underutilized property that the City owns. While the City sells old dump trucks, police cars, and copy machines annually, this revenue was meant to reflect the sale of property which has collected in City hands for any of a long list of reasons, from tax sale of abandoned property, to the remnants of property taken for street construction or realignments. Attached is a list of City -owned property and a pre - selected list of underutilized properties for the Board's review prior to making recommendations to Common Council of properties that could be sold to make up the revenues proposed in the draft budget. A long range view of this issue would lead me to recommend a list which consisted of as many properties as possible. While some money is already in the proposed budget, returning more property into private hands encourages fuller utilization of the property and can improve the City's position by reducing costs, increasing the tax base, and perhaps utilizing dollars from the sale of a capital asset to pay down the City's capital debt. Reduced debt can reduce annual budgets, improve bond ratings and provide greater flexibility in future budgets. " The following notes are written for August 6, 2012: The City has still not sold land to fulfill its obligation adopted with the 2012 budget. Staff still feels the recommendations of October and November 2011 are a valid start on an effort to divest unused or underutilized property. In light of the current 2013 proposed budget, with its staffing and work load implications, staff feels that this effort should be reinforced and perhaps accelerated. Since Common Council is the only body which can dispose of city land, any Board of Public Works action becomes a recommendation to Council. Some of our initial recommended parcels are moving forward (213 and 215 West Spencer Street, Cherry Street parcel) and some are stalled (321 Elmira Road, 700 block East Seneca Street). After the Board's previous discussion, we have acquired a survey of the Elmira Road corridor in order to consider the various odd parcels the City owns along that street which are not needed as part of the right -of -way. I have also reviewed the Chamberlain's list of Page 2 approximately 150 properties. I have attached the original recommendations from October 2011 that have been partially acted on. We will create the next set of recommended properties for your consideration, probably starting with Elmira Road. 9.2 Community Gardens, Part II The Board had supported the idea of community gardening as brought forth in the Loaves & Fishes request for a garden site. Rob Morache has collected a little more information to add to the discussion. It will also require some legal research to answer open questions about use of park land. I also wanted to pass on the thank you note from Sharon Clarke of Loaves & Fishes. WUUMMj, Crud, P.E. SuP6riwteV oleV L of PubLLc WOrky ,JuLU 27, 2012 Page 3 8.2A Bicycle Boulevards /Neighborhood Greenways - Resolution A Resolution to Declare Lead Agency Status for the Environmental Review of Bicycle Boulevard Plan Adoption /Implementation WHEREAS, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEAR) and the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQR), Section 176 of the City Code, require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, SEQR and CEQR both provide for an uncoordinated review for "Unlisted" projects that involve more than one agency, and WHEREAS, the proposed adoptionfimplementation of the Bicycle Boulevard Plan is an "Unlisted" action under SEAR and is an "Unlisted" action under CEQR; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the aforementioned plan. Page 4 of txtte 1 �PoRCTEO CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 OFFICE OF THE MY ENGINEER Telephone: 607274 -6530 Fax: 607274 -6587 To: Board of Public Works From: Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer 'hlt- Kent Johnson, Junior Transportation Engineer Kvilz Date: July 26, 2012 Re: Bicycle Boulevards /Neighborhood Greenways Please find enclosed our draft plan for Bicycle Boulevards /Neighborhood Greenways in the City of Ithaca. We have written this plan based on the paper produced for the Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council by Tom Knipe, feedback from neighbors at meeting in Fall Creek and Southside, and feedback from other stakeholders such as GIAC, West State Street merchants, the Police Dept, Fire Dept, and BPAC. We have also spent many hours discussing with staff the routes, intersection treatments, traffic calming options, funding and construction strategies and related topics. Though we feel that this plan is in a state ready for approval, it may be wise to have a public continent period before adopting it, say for 30 days. I've sent it to Common Council, but there may be other boards or committees that you'd like to circulate the plan to as well. That said, as far as I can tell, the only other approvals that would be necessary would be approvals for funding by Common Council. In preparing the plan for adoption, staff has discussed what level of approval the Board's approval would convey and how much of the plan is included in the action of adopting it. With the exception of the treatment for the intersection of Clinton and South Plain Street (for which we do not have a specific recommendation just yet), we are comfortable with all the proposals in the plan. If the BPW is comfortable with this approach, we would only come back to the Board for the Clinton /Plain decision and the regulatory traffic control changes or if something beyond the plan was proposed. I would be happy to discuss this further. In starting the environmental review for adoption of the plan, we have noted that most of the actions are changes to traffic control, and are thus Type 0 actions according to CEQR /SEQR, requiring no further environmental review. The one exception to that is traffic calming, which seems to be a gray area. It's not traffic control in a strict sense (it's only partially discussed in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices), but it does fit within some interpretations of traffic control. So, for the purposes of the environmental review of the bicycle boulevard plan, we are going to consider it an "Unlisted" action and go through the environmental review process. We've included the lead agency declaration for your consideration and the short environmental assessment forms, too. at EW W Oppon mq Employer with a commitment to worms me divcmificxrion." 0 CITv SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NORM Project Information: To be completed by applicant or project sponsor. Dale: 6 /"Im I. Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: CITY OF ITNA6* alt YLLE 6...aVAPID J. Project Location: v AQUvS crry STRastS 4. Is Proposed Action: 1kNow o Expansion o Modification/Alteralion 5. Da. the project briefly: INSTAILA 1r. If IMAwirT sAIWr I S,fr4H5, ANO TFAFILL CAa .. rq 6. Precise Location (Road Interscelions, Prominent landmarks, etc. nr pmvidc map) 5F_E wrAP 7. Amount of Land Affected: Initially 3A Ultimate) 9.9 .11td Acres or S . Fl. S. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? #..Yes o No If No, describe briefly: 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project: #Residential o Industrial n Agricultural o Parkland/Open Spacc •Commercial o Other Describe: 10. Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or ultimately, from governmental agency (Federal, State or Local): tkYes o No Ao aeP"4 "S ABC "1 If Yes, List Agency Name and Pcrmit/Approval Type: ww 94T r. OL1' Anse -r Se AGOV ►Roan 1WW A"/.& cc AND /,& VFW Are off 5T*r• • FeO. 1 I. Doc. any aspect of the action have a currently valid permil or approval? o Yes KNo If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: 12. As a result of proposed action will existing perrnitlapproval require modification? o Yes s9LNo I certify that the informatinal provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: Cw.>✓'r,. '&� DATE: 61nhi. O PREPARER'S TITLE: 7 r .R 1R wA of *M ..1 sr r ajwmziz REPRESENTING: CITY of w t:Hom,stuy seer fam.dac SHORT ENV[RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Part II To Be Completed By Staff In order to answer the questions in this Short Environmental Assessment Form (SFAF), the prepsrer is in use curtentl available inlbrmelim concerning the ottl and We liked impacts of the action. ame of P jaut: Bic cle Boulevard I. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter ❑ O4 more than one acre of land? '_. Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site or to any I I site designated a unique natural noun or critical environmental arm by a local or state agency? 1. Will the project alter or have any effect on an existing waterway? I rA 4. Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality' I I (z i. Will the proijml affect drainage (law nn adjacent sites? K t, Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant (m animal spmies? ly, 7. Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality'? a x. WIII the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views rI per or vistas known to be important to the community: n. Will the project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, pre - historic, or 1 N paleontological importance or any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark district? 10. Will the project have an effect on existing or future recrcalional opportunities? 1-1 a( 1 1. Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing I 1 1114, transportation systems? 12. Will the project cause objectionable odors. noise, glare, vibration, or electrical a Q9 disturbance as a result of the project's operation during construction or after completion? 11 Will the projml have any impact on public health or salbly? 14. Will the prujecl afleci the existing community by directly causing a growth in u it paramount populations of more than 5 percent over a one -year period OR have a negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? 15. Is there public controversy concurring (he project? Ll jQ If any question has been answered YES, a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) is necessary. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: &41, O .r..+ DATE: G —v 17. PREPARER'S TITLE: l'uu(.c �7c�.rxwTwt(..t ext�.wat REPRESENTING: sm of 17wwc -t I:\Bicycles \Bike Blvdx\env rev\Bike Blvd City SEAF Pan tide: 1 I uvaru�wwarae,sv I�M�' �•� Yal,I�,M OG✓M��[YarY�.1s.AV 61] 30 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1- PROJECT INFORMATION fin hot cnmMwed hu m...I!,.nl ..r !l eem c..,.ne.... I. APPLICANT /SPONSOR ?. PRO.IFCI NAME CRY ofldMc.T nicyulc iWUlcvaN 3. PROJECT LOGlK1N'. Ma,kjyh. Cilyofllhma County Tompkms n. PRECISE LOCATION Ramat amen ,. am asset alpmsetlbre. Worrumor Idlldlmlka, ec.. w pmvMe fret) Vanua hlea ust. imlldmig p smons of Traits St., Caseuddlu Avc., lake Ave.. Willow Aw:.. Adams SL, Lewis SL, Madison ST.. Canes dill. SL, Third SL, Filih St., Park Place, Coon St., Buffalo SL, Cam SL, Cleveland Ave., Plain St., and Wood SL 5. MOPOSED ACTION IS ❑✓ Ras ❑ Eapownn ❑ MotllarauavMMreOOa S. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIERY IMdlbui 1n of p sentrn1 lNnkmog , Yrect NIKna, Dad ImfRe L01mInK devleCV NI unprove isax1 oohs MIN B1eyde users. ]. AMOUNTor LANDAFFECTED. I.malee In1Wly 3.9 .11c, Ullmm 'Mon" B WILL PROPOSED AC DON COMPI V WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER FXISTINI I AND USE RESTRICTIONS? O Yes 11 Na If No. de.raihe hreay S. WHAT IS PRESENT IANO USC IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ❑✓ Pavgn.IWl ❑ ualwupl ❑✓ Coma¢W ❑ Almon. ❑ Polar VO1. Smaa' ❑ Other Domains 10. DOES ACTXNJ INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEOERAL STATE OR LOCAL)? ❑✓ Yee ❑ Na If Yon. Inl ag.mr(.I rem. am pen.aVappnwek. No approvals am rry'd now. may ultimately be needed fmm the IIPW. and/or CC, anBm the DPW (,rate m&., federal nppm,Bl. may he mq'd if stole S dlor federal grants are used). It C ES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENT[ Y VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAII ❑Yre 21 Not N Ym. Im agamAs) name am IremWappwels 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL MSTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑ Yen ❑✓ Ne I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMMIR 3N PROVIDED ABOVE 6 TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Appa:anatlmsor name. Karl Johnson, Junior Tmnsponalion linginaer Beb. 625/12 Ste: w. L..,,i_ If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 PART II- IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be complif by Leap Amalfitano A DOESACTIONE'XCEEDANYTYPE ITFFIESHOIO IN 6NYCRR, PARTIi gyps, cam Too levlew pacessanduse the FULLEAF, Yee Z No R. WILL ACTION RECENE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROWOEO FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 61761 11 No. a npgeWU dxJMalen rrey W supereabd lri enotler YnyolyeE eparry. Yea E] Ne C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WAN THE FOLLOWING_ (Aremers Trey W twnmmtten, a tota lo) C1. Exabne mr "fit' surface or gfvudrralBr quMty a prnvly, Wale Ievela. anal Lane petition, add waste IronuLten w disposal, fpnnWl br prrnon ,vmin:pe or edodvq lloblems? ExpMdbrelly' No C2. Alfier ,agrcolWrl.Archaeabglml, hrsfotf, or other natural of Wdrm rpeourcas: ormmmuNly or nNotfberleed denfic yExplan bW* No Ca. VWW llon w dune, can. anellhsn or widlifo spores, sIfilficmi nabvda, or IMaMenae or thrown emd apeglaaT FxpMm broil, No C4. A uonamwys exaamr Prins or Mxah s o6cillly adpan, . w a connote in uu, or Intensity of nee in We a over ..on. mlarice " Ggam bnelN No CS. Growth, cube went dnwbpnwnl. ur MW W arihdu¢ hi lu the vduwd M the pmpocN a;hi Explain Loch, No Cfi, Uwg In ~ on roon lifli of filer elnrh not Weather! m C1fS? Explain Folly No. C T. Ober lrnlpecto clertgea M use of ether quendy or type of energy)? Explain beefy: No. D. WILT TIE PROJECT ITAVE AN IMPACT ON TI IF FNVIROtMENTAL CLNRACTERISTICS TI AT CAUSED THE ESTABL ISHMFNT OF A CRITICAL ENVRONMENTAL AREA LEA)I ❑ Yea O No 6 Yea, expleoi briefly F. R THERE, OR IS THFRF LRFI Y TO RF CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENT AI ADVERSE ENVRONMENTAI. IMPACTS? ❑ Yrs By No 6 Yos, oxyben brat, PART ■ - DETERMNIATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) R45TRUCTIONS: For each adverse fiRecl itlen6fied above, dfilarminewMlherdosubsgnM1al, large.Importantoiothery slgnlfiranl .Each effect steal Ime assessed In connection wiN ifs (a) Writing (Le. urhan or mTVl), (b) probability of occurring. (q duration; (d) Irrew hoolity, (e) geographic Moral and (1) magnnlude. It cecessary, and attach ffil or refinance supporting mationals. Ensure that explanations contain suffkNM dotal W final that all ral l adverse imparts have lean denbffsel and adequalety addrssed. It quesllon 0 01 Pad II was rhetic W Left, the delerminotion of egnifican ce must tivduule line potential hoped of the proposed action on the envirnmental chercterislba of Fe CEA. ri CMLo IM1R CN it . fininxamahWnnann nano gtlnnlwly W.... nn eNTnap/InleMenvnxryeclxwncM1 MAY nxxer. Ilonwggtle MFlLWIe1hp FDl1 FAF owe• prepare a posrrre dedarenon. NOT tNx Wxlnyou Mwr Uelamnee,horonmetal imports AND abOVeantldny of recalpU thecldlgn. oupprepnOnoSeUapwnWLL NOT rsuv m any sgnif 1 Wnerse errvironmenlW impxls AND provide. on aveLfimema xv roteasary. the reasons euppodion, INa tletermirelnn bRLI? Print or T,,c Norn. of R.ilboal erns I aW Aenc, Till o e,mare,ble Oflicifor Si,ni of Ronpor.M. OIBmr m Land Ai Syrelum al For,., pr drier.l for ofipnnnoto ai nr, v i or: U I )p v1 1 City of Ithaca Bicycle Boulevard Plan A plan for a network of low - traffic & traffic - calmed bicycling routes Approved by the City oflthaca Board of Public Works on Prepared by: City of Ithaca Engineering Office August 26, 2012 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Introduction In recent yews, the City of Ithaca has made a concerted effort to improve conditions for bicycle users; new bike lanes have been painted, new multi -use trails have been built, and many new bike racks have been installed. However, little progress has been made in creating a City -wide network of on- street bicycling facilities suitable for new riders, families, children, and others who prefer routes with lower motor vehicle traffic volumes /speeds that conveniently connect to key Ithaca destinations. To provide for these users, the Engineering Office, the Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Council, and volunteers have been researching the feasibility of creating a "Bicycle Boulevard" network in Ithaca. Cities such as Portland, OR, Berkeley, CA, Tucson, AZ, Minneapolis, MN, and Madison, WI have successfully created such networks. Bike Boulevards are not bike lanes; rather, they me low- traffic and /or traffic- calmed routes where bicyclists and motorists share the travel lanes and where bicycle travel is generally prioritized and encouraged over motor vehicle travel. In most cases, the routes do not impact on- street puking. Network designs differ from city to city but they all share similar attributes such as: Traffic calming - Signs and pavement markings - Convenient routes - Prioritize bicycle use What this plan is, and isn't Luis Obispo, CA This plan has been developed at the request of the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works (BPW) to facilitate them review of the concept, route selection, and infrastructure improvements being recommended by the Engineering Office. This plan outlines the recommended physical design of the proposed Bike Blvd. network including an initial route selection (which roads), a description of signs, pavement markings, and traffic 2 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT calming devices. This plan also includes a planning -level cost estimate. These are the key items necessary for the BPW's review, and subsequent approval. In an effort to keep this plan as clear and to- the -point as possible, it does not discuss possible future expansions of the initial Bike Blvd. network and it does not discuss in detail how other existing and planned bicycling improvements tie into the Bike Blvd. network. The proposed Bike Blvd. network is just one component in the larger effort of improving bicycling conditions throughout the City of Ithaca. Other efforts include the installation of bike lanes and bike racks, and continued progress on the Cayuga Waterfront Trail. Also, there are certain routes that were initially planned to be part of the Bike Blvd. network (like an east /west connection between The Commons and the West End) that were removed because standard bike lanes were deemed more appropriate due to the higher traffic volumes, or were removed because they are planned to be part of a separate effort (like a Titus Ave. spur, which will be part of an upcoming effort to form a route up to South Hill). Goals The primary goal of this initiative is to increase the level of bicycle use within the City of Ithaca, particularly in `The Flats" area. Though some people currently do travel via bicycle in Ithaca, bicycles are not utilized to the level they could be. Improving bicycling facilities will encourage existing bicyclists to ride more often and will encourage those hesitant of bicycling to give it a try. To achieve the goal of increasing bicycle use, two factors are addressed: 1. Safety — First and foremost, a reasonably safe bicycling environment is necessary. Bicycle users face two key hazards: Colliding with a fixed object or falling (most common types of crashes, but generally result in little injury), and collisions with motor vehicles (which seldom occur, but can result in severe injury). Even if certain streets pose little risk to inexperienced cyclists or young riders, increasing the perception of safety or further reducing the possibility of negative interactions would be important to increase ridership. To maximize safety (and the perception of safety), routes with lower motor vehicle speeds 3 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT and volumes have been selected, and, where speeds and/or volumes may be too high, traffic calming measures could be used. 2. Convenience — Bicyclists (like motorists and pedestrians) benefit from easy -to- follow, direct routes that make good connections to popular destinations. Clear and informative way - finding signage will guide bicycle users to and along the Bike Blvd. routes, and will connect them to key destinations as well as to other bicycling facilities, such as nearby bike lanes and the Cayuga Waterfront Trail. Convenience will also be improved by formally allowing two -way bicycle travel on a 3 -block section along Cascadilla Creek that currently only allows for one -way traffic, and by re- orienting four stop signs to decrease delays for bicyclists. A secondary, related goal is to install traffic calming devices to reduce the negative impacts of motor vehicles on residents and pedestrians, as well as bicyclists. These traffic calming measures will coordinate with, and increase the effectiveness of; existing traffic cahning devices throughout the City. Over the past decade various traffic calming devices have been installed in the City, and numerous citizen requests have been made for traffic calming in additional locations. Traffic calming adds to the overall quality of life in neighborhoods and makes the streets more livable and more bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Overview of Plan The recommended Bike Blvd. network is composed of two primary north/south routes (Tioga St. & Park/Com/Plain St.) and a few low- traffic/traffic- calmed connectors in the Northside Neighborhood area and in the South -of -the -Creek Neighborhood area The network is located in `The Flats' area of Ithaca; the hilly areas were not deemed suitable for Bike Blvd. treatments (due in part to the steep grades and in part because of the traffic characteristics of the streets). The map on page 6 illustrates the locations of the recommended routes. (Note: additional Bike Blvd. segments may be added in the future.) 9 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT This implementation plan can be broken down into two basic components: physical infrastructure elements, and non - infrastructure actions. See pages 7 to 12 for more detailed descriptions of individual measures. Infrastructure elements: 1. Way - finding signs and pavement markings 2. Speed limit lowered to 25mph 3. Traffic calming measures (primarily speed humps /tables) 4. Revised stop sign orientations 5. Conversion of the 100 block of Lake Av. and the 100 block of S. Cascadilla Av. to allow two -way bicycle travel Non - infrastructure actions: I. Collaborate with the general public, emergency service providers, and other stakeholders to ensure appropriate initial Bike Blvd. designs. 2. Work with City decision - makers to secure policy support and a funding mechanism for initial construction and ongoing maintenance of the Bike Blvd. system 3. Provide limited initial and ongoing general information to the public about Bike Blvds. and how to behave as bicyclists and motorists on them 4. The Engineering Office to make connections with organizations (such as Way2Go and R1Bs), events (such as bike rodeos), and City departments (such as IPD) to facilitate education and encouragement activities that relate to bicycle use, particularly along the Bike Blvd. network E DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Proposed Bike Boulevard /Neighborhood Greenways of Htwc NY .el• .. - L mons •i v Ili FF %epen0 Reulp ,�f .—C. ,F'4F rWUM1Vn�.M .m lid 14 A o ew vmo Fn a "I' ..�a..4:.,o.. MpnsNM04� ^�m.rvd m DRAFT DRAFT DRAFi- Description of Measures — Infrastructure elements 1 Way - finding signs and pavement markings — Though 'The Flats' area of Ithaca is relatively small, the roadway network can be confusing for bicyclists to navigate, particularly for those new to Ithaca, because of the diversions caused by one- way streets, the diagonal block layout in the Northside Neighborhood, and the dense tree canopy that can hinder one's sense of direction. Additionally, those familiar with using motor vehicles may not be aware of the lower -traffic routes that are quite suitable for bicycle use. Way - finding signs are intended to serve two purposes: to identify the locations of the Bike Blvd. routes and to identify key destinations proximate to the routes. The design of the way- finding signs should be consistent with the ones detailed in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), such as the design used in Portland, OR (see Figure 2); however, some communities use other sign designs (see Figure 3). Small Bike Blvd. tags are Figure proposed for installation on street signs along the routes . (similar to the arrangement shown in Figure 4). Most communities that have Bike Blvd. networks install painted bicycle and /or text markings onto the roadways Figure 4 to highlight the presence of the route (the design shown to the right (Figure 5) is used in San Luis Obispo, CA). In Ithaca, such pavement markings will prove difficult to keep in a good state of repair due to snow plow use and because the City of Ithaca currently does not have equipment to paint such markings, so contractors would likely need to be hired routinely. To keep costs down, it is recommended that pavement markings be limited (at least initially) to a small number ( -60) of high - priority locations and rely mostly on Figure 5 7 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT the way - finding signs to identify the routes. If this approach is found to be insufficient in practice, then the City can pursue an expanded installation of pavement markings as necessary. The design of the symbol is recommended to be a bicycle icon with the text "BLVD" placed above, similar to the one shown in Figure 5 (see appendix A). Alternately, or in addition to the painted markings, concrete icons /markets could be placed in the streets along the Bike Blvd. routes (similar to the red concrete dot in the Albany /Court St. intersection). Though more expensive initially, long - lasting concrete may be less expensive overall than regularly re- painting symbols. 2. Speed limit lowered to 25mph — Though municipalities in New York cannot have area -wide speed limits less than 30mph, municipalities can post speed limits as low as 25mph along designated streets'. It is recommended that the speed limits along each of the routes be lowered to 25mph for the following reasons: - To improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians — Statistically, if a person is hit by a vehicle travelling 4Omph, death will result in about 80% of cases, at 30mph, there is about a 40% likelihood that the person will be killed, and at 20mph, pedestrians will die in about 5% of collisions. Therefore, even though a 5mph change seems small, in this range (30mph to 25mph) the safety improvement could be quite substantial. The reduced speed will also decrease stopping distances necessary for motor vehicles (about 150' rather than about 200i3), which will reduce the likelihood of collisions in the first place. - To improve comfort for bicyclists — The speed of the motor vehicles would be 5- 1Graph greater than bicycling speeds rather than 10 -15mph over bicycling speeds which will encourage motorists to pass bicyclists at a more comfortable speed. a 1643 of the NYS Vehicle & Traffic Law states that, ..... No such speed limit applicable throughout such city or village or within designated areas ... shall be established at less than thirty miles per hour. No such speed limit applicable on or along designated highways within such city or village shall be established at less than twenty five miles per hour ..." r National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1999. Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries. Available at: http: / /www.nhtsa.gov /people /injury/research /pub/hs8090l2.h=l A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2004. 1:1 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT - To increase awareness of Bike Blvd. routes — the 25mph signs (in addition to the way - finding signs and pavement markings) will alert road users to the fact that special conditions exist along these routes. 3. Traffic calming measures — Along most of the recommended Bike Blvd. network the motor vehicle speeds and volumes are currently low enough to be considered conducive to a safe and comfortable bicycling environment for the targeted demographic of children 11 years old and up, families bicycling with children ages 8 and up, and for those new to bicycling in traffic. In other locations, higher traffic speeds and /or volumes demand some level of traffic calming to pull the speeds and/or volumes back to levels that are more supportive of bicycling. The types of situations that are most applicable for traffic calming include intersections with busier streets (such as where Plain St. crosses Clinton St.) and locations along a Bike Blvd. route (such as the 500 and 800 blocks of Tioga St.). In regard to the extent of the traffic calming measures being considered, it is recommended that minimal measures be installed initially (primarily to keep costs manageable but also to avoid changing traffic patterns too much, which might concern some residents) and then observe conditions to see if additional interventions are necessary after the Bike Blvd. network is completed and people have had some time to adjust to the new conditions. Below are listed the recommended initial measures. - Install a series of speed humps/tables along the Bike Blvd. routes. Higher priority locations for these devices are: a 500 & 800 blocks Tioga St. a 200 block Madison St. a 100 block Cleveland Av. a 400 block Willow Av. other locations may be considered as well based on traffic speeds, volumes, and citizen requests. Install a small island or curb bump -out on the north side of the Tioga/Court intersection to prevent northbound motor vehicle traffic, but not bicycling traffic, and upon which to install Bike Blvd. signs (similar to the one shown in Figure 6). The traffic volume in this section of Tioga St. is around 2,500 vehicles per day, I7 DRAFT DRAFT DRAM which is near the upper threshold of what can be considered appropriate for a Bike Blvd. Install curb bump -outs or an in- street median on Clinton St. at the Plain St. intersection so that pedestrians and bicyclists can more safely cross Clinton Street. Clinton St. can be time - consuming to cross at this location example of a traffic- diverting island/bump- out and signage used to prevent motorists (but not bicyclists) from entering the street. because it can often take some time to find a suitable gap in traffic in which to cross both lanes at the same time. (Note: a more detailed analysis is required at this intersection to determine whether a traffic signal or all -way stop is warranted; which may be more appropriate than traffic calming measures.) - Install a large center median at the end of Wood St. at the Meadow St. intersection. This median would slow motorists making a turn from Meadow St. onto Wood St. and would be a convenient location for Bike Blvd. signage. - Install a small center median at the end of Plain St. at the Elmira Rd, intersection. This median would slow turning motorists and would be a convenient location for Bike Blvd. signage. - Similar to the Tioga/Court intersection above, install an island/curb bump -out at Seneca/Corn (northbound) and Green/Com (southbound) to prevent northbound traffic north of Seneca and to prevent southbound traffic south of Green. This measure will reduce cut -thm traffic along Corn St. to levels more conducive to bicycling. (Note: some additional traffic calming along Plain St. may be warranted to mitigate traffic diverted from Com St.) 4. Revised stop sign orientations — Bike Blvd. networks generally re- orient stop signs to reduce bicycling delays where feasible and appropriate. In Ithaca there are four such intersections that make sense to reorient the stop signs: Lewis /Aubum/Adams, Lewis/Utica (4-way stop to 2 -way stop), Madison/First, and Madison/Second. It is not anticipated that these changes would increase motor vehicle volumes or speeds. 10 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT S. Conversion of the 100 block of Lake Av. and the 100 block of S Cascadilla Av to allow two -way bicycle travel — These blocks are currently designated as one -way, presumably for the purpose of limiting cut -thru motor vehicle traffic. However, these streets carry very low levels of traffic and would make a good two -way bicycling route. In fad, observations by staff indicate that bicyclists are ,gyp currently traveling in both directions along these segments and no significant problems have arisen from such use. Therefore, it is recommended that these streets continue to be signed to prohibit motor vehicle access in the southeast direction, but new signs be added to allow legal bicycle access (see Figure 7). The recommended way to achieve this condition is to make the street segments two -way, but to prohibit entry by motorists at the intersections of Lake/Monroe, Cascadilla/Cayug signs used on a street in Massachusetts that permits one -way travel for motor vehicles and two- way travel for bicyclists. a, and Cascadilla/Sears. It is recommended that the north side of Cascadilla Ave. remain one -way for all traffic. Along the south side of the street it is recommended that a lomph advisory speed limit be established (such an advisory speed is already posted along the north side of the street). Description of Measures— Non - infrastructure elements The Engineering Office plans to engage in the following types of non- infrastructure activities: 1. Collaborate with the general public, emergency service providers, and other stakeholders to ensure optimal initial Bike Blvd. designs. 2. Work with City decision -makers to secure policy support and a funding mechanism for initial construction and for ongoing maintenance of the Bike Blvd. system 3. Provide limited initial and ongoing general information to the public about Bike Blvds., and how to behave as bicyclists and motorists when traveling along them 4. The Engineering Office to make connections with organizations (such as Way2Go and RIBs), events (such as bike rodeos), and City departments (such as IPD) to 11 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT support education and encouragement activities that relate to bicycle use, particularly along the Bike Blvd. routes. Other, related items It is recommended that standard bike lanes be installed in the 200 & 300 blocks of N. Tioga St. to connect the Bike Blvd. network to The Commons. Due to the more significant traffic volumes in this location, it has been deemed not suitable for Bike Blvd.-type treatments. The installation of these bike lanes will necessitate the removal of approximately 13 on- street parking spaces. Two bike lane designs are feasible; one design would remove on- street parking from the east side of the street, a second design would 'chicane' the travel lanes so that some on- street parking could be retained on each side of the street. With the chicane design, on- street parking could remain in front of the County Court House and in front of Town Hall/Post Office. Additionally, it is recommended that standard bike lanes be installed in the 200, 300 & 400 blocks of Third St. to connect the Bike Blvd. network to the Farmers Market (which will have a minimal impact to on- street parking; though it will require changing the DMV's driver test parking location). As with the Tioga St. location, this segment carries too great a volume of vehicles to be appropriate for a Bike Blvd, treatment. Along both of the street segments mentioned above, it is recommended that the speed limit be reduced to 25mph and that way - finding signage is included. Cost Estimates — initial and ongoing costs It is estimated that the construction of the entire initial Bike Blvd. network will likely cost around $90,000 to $100,000 if constructed entirely by City crews, if the signs and pavement markings we modest, and if the traffic calming measures are simple in design. However, the cost might total up to around $200,000 or more if larger, higher quality traffic calming measures are built, if any unanticipated complications arise, and/or if a portion of the work will be performed by private contractors. A planning -level cost estimate is provided below. Once a funding source is identified (such as a City Capital Project, or a state or federal grant), a more detailed cost estimate can be developed. 12 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT In addition to the initial costs, there will be ongoing maintenance costs — primarily, repainting worn pavement markings. The ongoing costs will depend in large part on what types of measures are initially installed. It is estimated that annual average costs will be in the mid- hundreds of dollars to a few thousand dollars. Plannino -level cost estimate Item Quantity Est. cost Unit Total Bike Blvd. pavement markin s 62 $200 each $12,400 Route signs 85 $200 each $17,000 Traffic calming devices 9 $4,000 each $36,000 Install 25 mph signs 25 $200 each $5,000 Install bike lanes 4400 $2 linearft. $8,800 Misc. sign adjustments $4,000 Sub total Contingency (15 %) Overall project total $83,200 1 $12,480 E95,680 Project implementation options A variety of implementation options can be considered; below are the three most promising methods: 1. Establish a City Capital Proiect. Pros: The Bike Blvd. network could be built over a short period of time (1 -3 years). Cons: Need to use 100% City funding. 2. Seek state or federal Brant funding. Pros: The City would only need to pay a small portion ( -20 %) of the total project costs, and, because outside funding would be used, higher- quality traffic calming measures, signs, and pavement markings could be used. Cons: Low chance that the City would be awarded the funding. 3. Incrementally build network during other street work projects. Pros: Lower costs if Bike Blvd. measures are installed in conjunction with other street work. Cons: Very slow implementation rate, discontinuous Bike Blvd. parts would not function as a system until most of the work was completed. This option is not recommended on its own, but could be used to supplement option I or 2; for example, N. Tioga St. will be undergoing major rehabilitation work in the next few years and Bike Blvd. elements (e.g. traffic calming) could be added to the project for a lower cost than if the elements were added later. 13 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Appendix A — Recommended Bicycle Boulevard pavement marking design (not drawn to scale). The marking design to be either 4' wide and 17' tall on narrower streets and 6' wide and 26' tall on standard width streets. or 72" 72" or 108" 64" or 96" 72" or 108" 14 tRt gc ti lt� 9'. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14650 -5690 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER Telephone: 607/274 -6530 Fax: 607/274 -6587 To: Board of Public Works From: William J. Gray, P.E., Superintendent of Public Works Date: October 14, 2011 Re: Unused City Properties I recommend that the City divest itself of certain properties that are currently unused. I have reviewed a list of City-owned properties provided by City Chamberlain Debra Parsons to determine which properties might be surplused and returned to the property tax rolls. Although many of the properties on this list are currently used for City facilities or activities a significant number of properties are not used by the City or a licensee. As per discussion with Steve Thayer, I am recommending properties that would have a good chance of being purchased and would either return significant benefit to the City or would reduce our maintenance and / or administrative expenses. The properties that are recommended for sale on this first list do not include all unused properties. The importance of divesting of these properties can not be over - stated. The City suffers from an artificially limited tax base due to the large number of properties owned by tax exempt institutions. In addition, ownership of properties implies some responsibility for maintenance and the costs associated with maintenance. Sale of unused properties not only provides immediate revenue generation but, by putting the property back on the tax rolls we will receive annual payment of property taxes. Many of our unused properties have the potential to generate even greater property tax revenue if developed for housing or other uses consistent with zoning. A brief description of the following properties is attached: • 709 East Seneca Street - unused residential parcel, 0.17 acre, assessed $50,000 . 213, 215 West Spencer Street- unused residential parcels, 0.47 acre, assessed $124,000 • 199 Floral Avenue - unused residential parcel, 0.19 acre, assessed $20,000 • 321 Elmira Road - decommissioned pump station, 0.4 acre, assessed $189,000 . 715 Willow Avenue - unused public land, 0.75 acre, assessed $44,000 • 324 - 346 Floral Avenue - unused residential parcels, 2.1 acres, assessed $90,000 • Cherry Street Industrial Park - undeveloped industrial land, 8.25 acres, assessed $825,000 I recommend that these properties be considered for sale by the City as soon as possible. Subsequent or expanded lists can be developed. 'An Equel 01,1unlly Employer �Ilh a vammltmenl to norklorte dlrenllicallon.' Surplus City Property 700 block East Seneca Street. Tax parcel 68.-2-9.2 This 0.17 acre parcel was acquired by the City in 1980 as part of the acquisition of the old East Hill School site. The parcel is zoned R -3A. The assessed value of the land is $50,000. The parcel has remnants of a sidewalk and play structure once part of the school. The sidewalk runs from the North West corner of the property to the center of the property where it ends in an abrupt drop. The derelict playground equipment is rusted and hazardous and has not apparently been maintained in decades. The East side of the property has some mature trees. The West side of the property is used for parking by the neighboring property without permission. The parcel is abutted by multi -unit residential structures on similarly sized parcels. 705 East Seneca Street has an assessed value of $400,000 which generates $5052 in property taxes. A, y Q f �0 100 -_ -- '95 50 .ED[ I STREET EDDY i I 02 i�6fi �I BB 1 c 116.8 w 6e 6 Sp L I r— n,� { 1A w � IN c 65 14 ', t M - - - - - - 3a 88] G 66 0143 —EB— 85bi 66 85.53 n m LL 5 N � i e6 y lli ys N (� m f9 IN Im tV N N m L I I 66 062 6 QUARRY STREET _NOR'fK-'.. _ - - U W 283. Z•. 9' 26s 2 e1 5s co 132s IN >O>U o II:, r -6; F = o U 99s N33s N s 43 �JI I e 49 I { ' S01e I s _ fo '. r on I 26 � I � N , rr I � I m I s 44s 11 II 2ABs wl 50sV 49s - - - _ _.� - - - AVENUE STEWART Y1 _ - 106 s' rll s' { IN 566 ass nb sl'., pl6 a.61 I rl.. a0 213 West Spencer Street 215 West Spencer Street- Tax parcels 93.-7-3, 93.-7-5.1 These two properties are 0.47 acre acquired by the City for widening West Spencer Street to two lanes. The parcels are zoned R -3b. The combined assessed value is $124,000. Prior to acquisition by the City the smaller parcel had a single family wood frame residence and the larger parcel had a 12 unit wood frame apartment building. The parcels have street frontage on West Spencer Street as well as South Cayuga Street. Although the property has a dramatic elevation difference from Spencer to Cayuga this did not preclude its earlier uses. 220 West Spencer has a multi -unit residential structure on a 0.21 acre parcel. It has an assessed value of $350,000 which generates approximately $5,000 in property taxes. 199 Floral Avenue, Tax Parcel 58. -8 -3 This 0.19 acre parcel lies between the Inlet and Floral Avenue just south of the Route 96 Bridge. The parcel has an assessed value of $20,000 and is zoned R -3a. The neighboring 0.09 acre parcel has a single family residential structure. The assessed value is $120,000. mi�,Mm u O NVNI\ � O W U @ Q M O � I X Q M o � 0') o \ Ee e 4 s w OD I O +/ { 0 \ \ Ln W Q U CD Q X CD i 321 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel 122.-2-1 This 0.4 acre parcel is situated on the south side of Elmira Road between Friendly's Restaurant and the Honda dealership. The parcel has an assessed value of $189,000. The small brick sewage pump station on this parcel was recently de- commissioned. The parcel has a curb cut on Elmira Road. There is a small creek on the north side of the property. 715 Willow Avenue, Tax Parcel 16:1 -4.2 This 2.2 acre site on Willow Avenue is located between the driveway for TCAT and DPW and the Inlet Glass and Mirror Company. The property was acquired in 1994 and has been used to stockpile construction materials and TCAT buses. The assessed value is $130,000. The property is zoned P -1. The Department of Public Works currently plans to use the northerly 1.5 acres for a new salt storage structure as well as a stockpile yard. The front 0.75 acres could be subdivided off with frontage on Willow Avenue. The neighboring Inlet Glass and Mirror parcel is 0.38 acres and is assessed for $50,000 for land and an additional $230,000 for improvements. 3 Q "Rom, sowo�,mooi. asaii"FM J W u Q' N n XI a ■ ■ how PJ U ti A U Cl) @ Q U y! t J 0 324 334,338, 342 346 Floral Avenue: Tax Parcels 97. -1 -1, 97.1-2 97. -1 -3, 97. -1- 4. 97.-1 -5 These five parcels comprise 2.1 acres on the West side of Floral Avenue south of Cedar Creek. They were acquired in a tax sale in 1942. The parcels are zoned R -3a and have a total assessed value of $90,000. 380 -390 Floral Avenue has two multi -unit residential structures (24 units) on a similar 1.74 acre parcel. The assessed value of that property is $860,000 which generates approximately $12,900 in property taxes. Cherry Street. Tax Parcel 100.-2-1. The parcel at the end of Cherry Street contains 8.25 acres and is assessed at $825,000. The property is bounded on the east by railroad property and on the west by lands abutting Cayuga Inlet. This wooded parcel is generally flat. The southerly end of the property is frequently occupied by squatters. The neighboring 2.88 acre parcel at 240 Cherry Street has a land assessment of $253,000 with a total assessment of $1,290,000; this generates over $19,000 in property tax annually. The site could be sub - divided into two three acre parcels as well as leaving land for right of way. If a right of way were extended along the entire westerly property line there would be opportunity to extend water mains far enough south to loop across the railroad property and into the Benderson properties thus improving water service and dependability in the area. N d 4 1Y.PEM1WFIpe [NSA EL:. 1 YW4/'I9] d 1111FIL It I'y LL rI1 fp °,�NI r WID6 1 YsY Nx �Pl b. V H35 ANII'I / r r 5CP " -p' -f4 p +'� 1 „•E ? „s 0•e ^y"x) Nee °ee,ail°.a. O S6GEp : _a fl °idsh 1 2 >f`s_;15° f: ujj 1 b y EE JeTE', 1 F z E3 d of nN MEP IWa P[WP.Y6 y1 M .Yy sE°EU[E n[ a� W NE »wo efwE'.YL. w.m 1 V 4 N � �b 1➢ 11[YEOM Aue sDaswrm 1 : S y Ew srgn AKnq "f °[ imE NW a4w. tl ■ W'a Kai a �e� N o t uG9eMSruu vR 9 PAQEEL A 1 d REY064 XILTex PARCEL C e w pf ias wLE u. Anse i RI EET e[ rAx MAS w. Im �i -I AaaE IF, +11 sq. Gr. `+595 AI 2 ` ° °s s ® 4 Ni PgacE� REV eEM PWE0.�M.D. � L y i Q VAa° °[ TAx NEP Nr. IAmA 6 [a i r t Yf_°c \'r 1• O AYfA a 4r'bl [T kyi g1 � "i\ M •M S PMceL c ♦; yl p aYb ,Rig .y' t Was \yy�Pe'•gE, y 4EV \W MILnu WfIIYLa 3it'ja�` © ! �' E{Y 'Y[ ®�I V �Y O µp y6f pN M. AYM WM1., a Al °i nx NxLYV I°[.s -Lrf Tx1 a i Aa[q= g. a$3rAC¢EE 3 J „�O,Cvb 6 0 � E � W i � N CITY oG IYNACA ucfe. Rfro P. 14 .F 1' n 4 ?_ Tgtt MAP Ne. ILR -a -4 y Y Pq �A ' t�i 9'p x���r2iSj if3'9��4 Yb $+l FMS +Y 4 WALIAM L. LYNE0. �RAi 1 aS e d i L6Ea iD1 P. °31 MfY[ 5O\ ixvo a 50 BOUNDARY MAP CAYUGA INLET SURVEY INLET ISLANO SUBSTTDTE PARK LANDS - 'PARCEL IY CITY DF Ir9hCA, 'LDMPRINS Cl-, N.Y. y `\ 04 L DATEL: MARI.Y 8,1995 SALE I " -ft so oaf' T.L. MILLER P.[., EAKIYEea9 {SURJEMRS •( L Lwwm[rais Irmg NEW Y°aK ANS .ItIN1A -[IL ^u EYDAwruttma°pq Page 1 of 2 Bill Gray - Re: Fwd: Loaves & Fishes Garden Site (potentially) From: Robert Momche <robmorache @gmail.com> To: Kathrin Gehring <kgehring @cityofithacaorg> Date: 7/25/2012 5:11 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: Loaves & Fishes Garden Site (potentially) CC: Aaron Lavine <alavine @cityofithacaorg DonFlemin <dflemn g ci o fthaca.o r >, Svante Myrick <MayorMyrick @cityofithaca.org >, Bill Goldsmith <wwgl @comell.edu >, Govind Acharya <govind73 @gmail.com >, Jeanne Leccese <jeanneleccese @gmail.com >, Mark Darling <mdarling59 @gmail.com >, Claudia Jenkins <suziedl60 @gmaiI.corn>, Bill Gray <BILLG @cityofithacaorg >, Erik Whitney <erikw @cityofithaca.org >, Ray Benjamin <RAYB @cityofithaca.org >, Sarah Myers <SARAHM @cityofithaca.org >, Larry Roberts <lanyroberts @hotmail.cwm> Hi everyone, In some of my research on community gardening, I have been presented with text from the NYS Environmental Quality bond Act of 1986, and the Environmental Protection Act, related to Park Projects. Both text sections list "community gardens" as acceptable uses in parks. I can share this info in full later, but have to depart to a meeting presently. 1 see no reason we should not pursue this request. Sony I had to miss Monday's meeting. Rob on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Kathrin Gehring <k ehrin ci[vofithaca.o$> wrote: I just looked it up, and it is zoned P -1 (municipal park). The name on the map says " Titus Triangle." Would we still be able to move forward with their request even If it is designated parkland? >>> Svante Myrick 7/25/2012 3:16 PM >>> Is that site a park? Svante Myrick Mayor, City of Ithaca 108 E. Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607 - 274 -6501 >>> Kathrin Gehring 07/25/12 3:08 PM >>> FYI Kathy Gehring Executive Assistant Superintendent of Public Works 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850 (607 274 -652 (607)_ 2746587 Fax >>> Slow Foal Finger Lakes food 7/25/2012 2:50 PM >>> file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \billg\Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwise \501028A4coimain... 7/26/2012 Page 2 of 2 Kathy, Thank you again for all your help in getting us onto the agenda for this past Monday's meeting. Would you be able to convey the below to Mr. Gray, the Mayor and Commissioners? We (Rev. Christina Culver, Director of Loaves & Fishes and I) are very grateful for their support and suggestions for other possible garden sites. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners: Thank you all for your enthusiastic support for the Loaves & Fishes Garden Project. We (Rev. Christina Culver, Director of Loaves & Fishes and I) especially appreciate that you took the time to suggest other potential sites. We left the meeting this past Monday (July 23) and immediately went to see some of the sites recommended by various Commissioners. We were very excited by the prospect of site on South Titus near Fair Street along the Creek. We would like to pursue getting permission to used part of this site as quickly as possible. In addition to good sunlight the site offers us several other conditions that we feel are especially important to the success of the project in its early stages. It has benches nearby and trees for shade to allow people to rest while working or enjoying the garden. It is very close to low -income housing and within a residential neighborhood and near Titus Towers and other elder housing. And, of course, it is within comfortable and safe walking distance from Loaves & Fishes. Please let us know how best to proceed with making a proper request to use this site. If possible, we would like to use the space until next Spring. Thank you again, for your support of this venture. Sharon Clarke, Volunteer, Loaves & Fishes Sharon Clarke "so little the forest's glory left in the mushroom soup" file://C:\Documents and SettingOillg \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrywise\501028A4coimain... 7/26/2012 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations New York Codes, Rules and Regulations TITLE 9. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. SUBTITLE I. OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION. n CHAPTER IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. C3 SUBCHAPTER B. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOND ACT OF 1986. PART 437. MUNICIPAL PARR PROJECTS. (Statutory authority: Environmental Conservation Law, SS 52- 0901[4], 52- 0909[l)[e]; Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law, S 3.09[8]) Historical Note: Part (SS 437.1- 437.11) added by renum. Part 296, Title 6, filed Sept. 1971; repealed, filed Aug. 10, 1972; new (SS 437.1- 437.6) filed April 13, 1987 eff. May 4, 1987. Copyright ® 2012 CCH Incorporated or its affiliates New York Codes, Rules and Regulations C] New York Codes, Rules and Regulations C3 TITLE 9. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. r3 SUBTITLE I. OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION. [] CHAPTER IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. rl SUBCHAPTER B. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOND ACT OF 1986. C2 PART 437. MUNICIPAL PARK PROJECTS. 9 NYCRR 437.1. Eligibility. Projects eligible for funding for municipal park projects may be either acquisition projects or development projects. (a) Acquisition projects. (1) Projects which shall be eligible for funding for acquisition shall be lands, waters and structures for public outdoor or indoor recreation uses, including new facilities or additions to existing facilities dedicated to public outdoor or indoor recreation such as parks, forests, natural areas and beaches. Types of acquisition which will be considered for funding shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (i) areas with frontage on oceans, sounds, rivers, streams, lakes, canals, estuaries or reservoirs that will provide water -based public recreation, water access and open space preservation opportunities, or the acquisition of water bodies themselves; (ii) land for creating water impoundments to provide water -based public recreation opportunities; (iii) areas that provide passive recreation opportunities, such as open space areas, forests, flood plains and wetlands; (iv) natural and environmentally significant areas and preserves and outstanding scenic areas where the objective of acquisition is to preserve the scenic, environmental or natural values; these areas must be open to the general public for recreation use to the extent that this will not cause the natural attributes of the areas to be seriously impaired or lost; (v) land for day -use picnic areas, neighborhood playgrounds and tot -lots, areas adjacent to school playgrounds, and competitive nonprofessional sports facilities as well as more generalized parklands; (vi) structures which are appropriate for use primarily for outdoor or indoor public recreation activities, such as skating rinks, swimming pools and court facilities; and (vii) existing recreational facilities, including environmental education centers. (2) Means of acquisition. Acquisition may be accomplished through purchase, transfer, gift or process of eminent domain. (3) Accelerated acquisition of environmental resources. The office may, at the commissioner's discretion, accelerate procedures for acquisition of critical environmental areas due to imminent threat to environmental resources or an unexpected and temporary opportunity for acquisition. The commissioner may also consult with the commissioner of Environmental Conservation regarding the possible availability of other funds for such acquisition. (4) The following types of acquisition are not eligible for assistance under this Part: (i) acquisition of historic sites and structures, unless it is clearly demonstrated that the acquisition is primarily for recreation purposes and that the historic aspects are a corollary to the primary recreation purposes; (ii) acquisition of facilities of primarily educational or cultural interest, including but not limited to museums, libraries and theaters; (iii) acquisition of areas or facilities designed to be used primarily for commercial semiprofessional and professional arts and athletics; (iv) acquisition of areas and facilities to be used solely for game refuges or fish production purposes; (v) acquisition of property containing luxury lodges, motels, full- service restaurants, inns and similar facilities which will be operated by the municipality or a concessionaire primarily to provide patrons with food and sleeping quarters; (vi) acquisition of land for agricultural uses; (vii) acquisition of lands on which no recreational opportunity will be provided within three years of acquisition, unless the municipality can demonstrate to the commissioner's satisfaction that immediate acquisition of such land is necessary and that provision for specific and appropriate recreational facilities will occur within a reasonable time; (viii) acquisition of less than full title in lands, unless the municipality can clearly establish that any unacquired interests will not have a significant impact on the environmeat or the recreational uses intended for the lands. (5) Appraisals. Generally, the fair market value standard will be used as the basic measure of grant assistance for acquisition projects. The municipality shall secure at least one appraisal of the appropriate type for each parcel to be acquired. If the property Is valued at $100,000 or more, two appraisals must be obtained. If the property is valued at less than $5,000, a short -form appraisal may be used at the discretion of the commissioner. Appraisals shall be prepared by an active consultant appraiser in accordance with the requirements of the office. (b) Development and improvement projects. (1) Projects which shall be eligible for assistance may be either new construction or rehabilitation of existing facilities, or a combination of both, and may include projects to provide for recreational activities, access to park areas, health and safety needs and protection and enhancement of significant natural elements. (2) A project may consist of the complete or partial development of one area operable as a distinct recreational unit, such as a city park or village playground, or it may consist of a series of similar installations on a number of geographically separated areas, such as picnic facilities in a number of parks. In all cases, the project must be a logical unit of work to be accomplished in a specific time frame. (3)(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, projects will be funded only on facilities owned by or leased to the municipality or for which the municipality has acquired an easement. No project will be funded for leased property unless: (a) the lease cannot be revoked at will by the lessor; and (b) the term of the lease is sufficient, in the commissioner's judgment, to ensure a period of public use of at least 23 years from the date on which the check for the final payment on the project is issued by the State Comptroller and to assure compliance with section 437.6 of this Part. (ii) A project may be carried out on State -owned land provided that a memorandum of understanding or comparable agreement between the municipality and the State agency having jurisdiction over the land has been executed which: (a) states the purpose of the project and the conditions under which it is to be carried out; and (b) contains terms and conditions sufficient in the commissioner's judgement to ensure a period of public use of at least 23 years from the date on which the check for the final payment on the project is issued by the State Comptroller and to assure compliance with section 437.6 of this Part. (4) Development. The following are examples of the types of facilities which are eligible for State assistance under this section: (i) playing fields, playgrounds, rifle /pistol ranges and archery ranges; (ii) tracks, courts, golf courses and gymnasiums; (iii) picnic facilities - tables, fireplaces, shelters and related facilities; (iv) trails - turnouts and trails for nature walks, hiking, bicycling and exercising; (v) swimming facilities - beaches, pools and lifeguard towers; (vi) boating facilities - marinas, docks, berths, ramps, lifts, storage and sewage facilities;. 4 (vii) fishing, hunting and camping facilities - piers, access points, site preparation, fireplaces and tent platforms; (viii) winter sports facilities - Alpine and Nordic skiing, speed or figure skating and ice hockey rinks; (ix) camping facilities - site preparation, tables, fireplaces and tent platforms; and (x) conm,anity gardens - land preparation, perimeter fencingr -� perennial plantings, storage bins and sheds, irrigation systems, benches and walkways. (5) Related facilities. The following types of development which aid in the delivery of recreation may be eligible for funding: (i) facilities to provide barrier -free access - the adaptation of new or existing outdoor or indoor recreational facilities and support facilities for use by disabled patrons; (ii) support facilities - roads, parking areas, utilities, sanitation systems, warming huts, shelters, visitor information huts, kiosks, bathhouses, walkways, pavilions, rest rooms, locker rooms, first -aid rooms and equipment rental facilities; (iii) operation and maintenance facilities - maintenance buildings, storage areas, administrative offices, dame, erosion control works, fences, sprinkler systems and directional signs, provided that such facilities support the operation and maintenance of the recreation resource on which they are located; (iv) beautification - landscaping, renovation, clearing of areas damaged by natural disasters, screening, removal, relocation or burial of overhead powerlines, and dredging, where the need for such activities is not caused by inadequate maintenance; and (v) energy conservation elements - solar energy systems, earth berms, windowshading devices, improved lighting insulation and facilities for assuring the efficient use of energy in recreation facilities. (6) The following types of development projects are not eligible for assistance under this Part: (i) operational equipment for boating facilities, such as buoys, life jackets, ropes or boats; (ii) marinas that do not demo nstrate an equitable method of allocating berth space, including established limits for space allocated for commercial charter fishing or sightseeing boats; (iii) community garden equipment and supplies such as fertilizer, seeds, tools, water hoses, gardens planned as commercial enterprises; (iv) facilities designed primarily for commercial semiprofessional or professional arts or athletics, such as theaters, stadiums and rodeo arenas; (v) facilities that are to be used exclusively by disabled patrons unless they are part of a recreation area or facility which serves the general public, (vi) mobile recreation units, including playmobiles, skatemobiles, swimmobiles, show wagons, puppet wagons and porta- bleachers; (vii) informational materials and leaflets; (viii) beautification and renovation projects that are part of a regular maintenance program; (ix) indoor facilities that are not, or do not directly support, public recreational activity, including auditoriums, libraries and study areas; and (x) roads constructed outside the boundaries of the recreation area which are not, in fact, access roads whose principal use is to serve the recreation area. (7) Special situations. The following types of development projects may be eligible for funding if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the commissioner that such funding will be for public park and recreation purposes which are consistent with this Part: (i) indoor multipurpose recreational facilities - indoor facilities appropriate for use for a variety of public recreational activities by all segments of the population, and related facilities which aid in the delivery of such recreational activities, as described in paragraph (5) of this subdivision; (ii) educational institutions - recreation areas or facilities developed on the lands of public schools and colleges and universities for coordinated use by the general public and school groups, provided that they are not part of the normal and usual program responsibility of the educational institution and that the facilities are made available for public use on an equitable basis; (iii) spectator facilities - amphitheaters, bleachers and other seating areas related to playing fields and other eligible facilities, provided such facilities are not designed primarily for commercial professional or semiprofessional arts or athletics, nor intercollegiate or interscholastic sports; (iv) interpretive facilities - interpretive facilities that provide for the observation or interpretation of natural and environmental resources, including arboretums, aquariums, nature and environmental exhibits, nature interpretive centers and small demonstration farms; (v) natural heritage institutions - institutions such as zoos, botanical gardens, arboretum, and aquariums that own, care for and interpret for the public, living or systematically organized collections of biological specimens. outdoor display facilities that portray a natural environmental setting that serves the specimen's physical, social, psychological and environmental needs are eligible. Traditional outdoor caging facilities and animal pens are not eligible, although grant assistance can contribute to the renovation of such facilities to achieve a more natural environmental setting as described above. Basic winter /adverse weather housing quarters that are separate and distinct from enclosed viewing and display areas, and which are used in direct support of outdoor display facilities, are also eligible; (vi) food service - food service facilities whose primary purpose is to serve those participating in recreational activities. Restaurants whose primary clientele is not the users of the recreational facility are not eligible; (vii) cabins - simple cabins which are part of a recreational camping experience. Motels, inns and lodges are not eligible; (viii) group camps - group camps which are not intended for use by a particular organization but will be available to all on an equitable basis; and (ix) utility rights -of -way - recreation facilities placed on utility rights -of -way where those facilities are not required to be provided by the utility itself. Historical Note: Sec. added by ran=. 296.1, Title 6, filed Sept. 1971; repealed, filed Aug. 10, 1972; new filed April 13, 1987; amd. filed Jaa. 9, 1989 eff. Jan. 30, 1989, Amended (b)(3). Copyright 02012 CCH lncm -te witsa0i0at- New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Cj New York Codes, Rules and Regulations TITLE 9. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. SUBTITLE I. OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION. CHAPTER IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. SUBCHAPTER C. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT. PART 441. PARR PROJECTS. (Statutory authority: Environmental Conservation Law, S 54 -0911; Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law, S 3.09[8]) Historical Note: Part (SS 441.1- 441.3) added by renum. Part 372; repealed, filed May 13, 1966; new (SS 441.1 - 441.5) filed Nov. 29, 1994 eff. Dec. 14, 1994. Copyright o 2012 CCH Incorporated or its aRiHate New York Codes, Rules and Regulations d New York Codes, Rules and Regulations d TITLE 9. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. Q SUBTITLE I. OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION. CHAPTER IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. SUBCHAPTER C. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT. C3 PART 441. PARK PROJECTS. 9 HYCHH 441.1. Eligibility criteria. (a) Eligible projects shall include planning relating to or the structural assessment, acquisition, improvement, development, preservation, restoration or rehabilitation of lands, waters or structures for the use by all segments of the population for park, recreation or conservation purposes. (b) Eligible acquisition projects shall include, but are not limited to, acquisition during the project term or within one year prior to the application deadline date of a permanent easement in or fee title to land$ which: (1) are appropriate for use as parklands, metropolitan or shoreline parks, bikeways, trailways, greenways, and /or waterway access; (2) comprise buffer zones or viewsheds if, in the opinion of the office, the acquisition is necessary to enhance or protect the value of existing recreational or environmental resources; or (3) contain natural, scenic or open space resources that are unique, rare, or of statewide or regional significance. (c) Eligible development projects include but are not limited to; (1) playing fields, playgrounds; tracks, courts, rinks, or gymnasiums; (2) trails, greenways, community gardens or small agricultural �_py demonstration projects; (3) facilities for swimming, boating, picnicking, camping, fishing, hunting or other recreational activities; (4) bandshells, amphitheaters, outdoor stages and related facilities; (5) site- related interpretive or educational facilities such as arboretums, botanical gardens, flora and fauna protection projects, zoos, aquariums, nature and environmental exhibits, wildlife management facilities, or nature interpretive centers; (6) landscaping, screening, fencing, sprinkler systems, or dredging; (7) improvements necessary to facilitate access for disabled patrons; (8) infrastructure and ancillary facilities, provided that such facilities support the operation and maintenance of the recreation resource on which they are located. Historical Note: Sec. added by renum. 372.1; repealed, filed May 13, 1966; new filed Nov. 29, 1994; amd. filed Aug. 19, 1997 eff. Sept. 3, 1997, Amended (b)(2), (c)(8); Amended July 27, 2009, effective August 12, 2009. E