Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2007-06-06BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Committee of the Whole Meeting 4:45 p.m. June 6, 2007 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Commissioners (6) - Jenkins, Dotson, Chapman, Schlather, Tripp, Wykstra OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney - Hoffman Superintendent of Public Works - Gray Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney Common Council Liaison – Coles DAC Liaison – Roberts Deputy Director of Planning & Development – Cornish Transportation Engineer – Logue Asst. Civil Engineer – West Deputy Director for Economic Development – DeSarno Executive Assistant – Grunder ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: Superintendent Gray requested the addition of an item entitled “Request to Declare a Modified Strip of Land in the 100 Block of South Aurora Street as Surplus Property – Resolution” No Board Member objected. Superintendent Gray further requested that a substitute resolution entitled “Request for Encroachment Agreement at 506 Cliff Street” replace the one distributed with agenda packets. No Board Member objected. Mayor Peterson noted that an official announcement regarding “A Public Hearing for Sidewalks” had been made, and that the hearing would begin at 5:00 p.m. She requested the addition of that item to the agenda. No Board member objected. GIAC’s Proposed On-Street Parking – Request To Amend the Vehicle and Traffic Schedules to Create a Permit Parking Zone on Court Street for Employees of the Greater Ithaca Activities Center (GIAC) - Resolution By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by: Commissioner Tripp WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is authorized by Section 346 of the City Code, entitled Vehicles and Traffic, to adopt and to amend a system of Schedules in order to administer the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and WHEREAS, the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1640 (a)(22) allows the legislative body of a city with respect to highways to regulate the parking of vehicles in designated areas reserved for public business at or adjacent to a government facility, and WHEREAS, Section 346-4 of the City Code authorizes the Board of Public Works to adopt regulations in accordance with the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law and to adopt and to amend a set of Schedules to record such regulations, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has been petitioned to designate fifteen (15) on- street parking by permit only for employees of the Greater Ithaca Activities Center (GIAC), which is a governmental facility, and 2 June 6, 2007 WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is interested in experimenting with this type of parking and is willing to create such an on-street parking zone on Court Street adjacent to the GIAC building, and WHEREAS, a new Schedule should be created to record this regulation, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That Schedule XXXI, Governmental Facility Parking, be hereby added to the City of Ithaca Vehicle and Traffic Schedules to record the name of street, side of street, time limit; hours/days, location and rules for areas regulated in accordance with New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1640 (a)(22), and be it further RESOLVED, That Schedule XXXI, Governmental Facility Parking, shall include the following statement, “In accordance with the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1640 (a)(22) and the authority given to the Board of Public Works in Section 346-4 of the City Code, the following locations at or adjacent to a governmental facility are hereby regulated by the stated rules, and be it further RESOLVED, That Schedule XXXI, Governmental Facility Parking, be amended to add the following entry: Name of Street Side Time Limit; Location Rule West Court St. North 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 300 feet Parking Mon – Fri west of N. by City permit only Albany St. and be it further RESOLVED, That the permit that allows parking in this location shall be available only to active employees of the Greater Ithaca Activities Center, and be it further RESOLVED, That Board of Public Works requests that the Director of the Greater Ithaca Activities Center manage and administer the permits for employees at GIAC, resulting in permits issued by the Chamberlain’s Office. Commissioner Tripp stated that she would support this resolution with some reservations. She voiced concern that this restricted parking zone would create a burden for some neighborhood residents and other transient people who park in the neighborhood for a limited basis. City Attorney Hoffman stated that a question was raised about the interpretation of the State law which allows the City to take this action. He reviewed three opinions from the Office of the Attorney General that indicate that the statute allows the City to designate on street parking areas closest to the governmental facility in question. The opinions state that “it would generally be those areas on bordering highways that abut or are directly across from the facility; or that extend a reasonable distance from these areas.” In this case, some of the parking on Court Street is directly across the street from GIAC, some extends further to the west, and some is across from school district property and Immaculate Conception property. He further noted that the second opinion indicates, “factors to be considered in setting aside this kind of parking are in weighing the reasonableness of the proposed regulations, including the need for availability of alternate parking for other persons who need access to residences, businesses, or other facilities in the area”. He stated that when the Board discussed this issue before, they talked about the need for the residents on Albany Street to have some short-term parking in front of their residences, and that it is more reasonable to take the parking in an area where there are no residences. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously 3 June 6, 2007 Public Hearing on 2006 Sidewalk Assessments: Resolution to Open Public Hearing: By Commissioner Dotson: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing on 2006 Sidewalk Assessments be declared open. Carried Unanimously Elaine Weiner spoke on behalf of her husband Rueben Weiner and his brother Milton Weiner who own property on Elmira Road. The assessment for their properties includes a curb, that in reality does not exist. She stated that they also have a concern regarding the 25% administrative fee and whether they would receive an itemized bill to show what that fee includes. Resolution to Close Public Hearing: By Commissioner Dotson: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing on 2006 Sidewalk Assessments be declared closed. Carried Unanimously North Aurora Street – Sidewalk on 100 Block Transportation Engineer Logue distributed a drawing of the 100 Block of North Aurora Street that illustrates the proposed redesign of the block. He stated that staff held a follow-up meeting with merchants last week, and those who attended showed unanimous support for the proposal. The meeting focused on the redesign of the space between the curb and the face of the buildings, the location of trees, how to regulate the additional sidewalk space, and what on street parking and loading zones would remain. He noted that staff met with representatives from the fire department, police department, and community service officers (CSO) to get a sense of their needs and perspectives on parking, loading, and enforcement issues. Staff also met with the Disability Advisory Council (DAC) who expressed full support for this proposal. The only comment received was a request to get wider curb ramps in a couple of areas. Asst. Civil Engineer West answered questions as he made a presentation on the proposal. He explained the alternatives considered and how the final design was chosen. The final design will maintain approximately the same tree locations although in slightly different configurations. The trees need to be replaced because of their age and species. He noted that the area by Contemporary Trends and the Commons Market does not include enough space for outdoor dining as it will accommodate parking and a loading zone. They are proposing the relocation of the curb in some areas in order to install textured buffer strips in contrasting colors to provide a visual buffer for both motorists and pedestrians. The textured area will provide a boundary for people in wheelchairs or with walking sticks on the curb. He also noted that the DAC fully supports the redesign of the curb areas. Staff is also considering the installation of three new streetlights in order to provide appropriate pedestrian scale lighting. The current streetlights are in very poor condition. Asst. Civil Engineer West stated that the goal is to maintain as much of the existing pavement as possible. He noted that the stenciling of the outdoor dining spaces has been successful, and the City plans to continue to stencil the new enlarged dining areas as well. He noted that staff would like a straight path for pedestrians and at the same time be able to clearly delineate the space that can be used for outdoor dining. Transportation Engineer Logue stated that staff would like to come back next week and ask the Board to make a recommendation which would then need to go to City Administration Committee, and then ultimately to Common Council to request the creation of a Capital Project to fund the City’s portion of this project. He further stated that the City is also looking towards a portion of the project being paid for by sidewalks assessments. 4 June 6, 2007 Asst. Civil Engineer West explained that he prepared an estimate for the project, which is exclusive of the asphalt, because the asphalt cost would have been the City’s responsibility anyway. He estimated that it would cost $100,000 to $150,000 for this additional work. Of that estimate, approximately one-third is for the concrete for sidewalks and buffer strip, approximately half would be assessed to the property owner, and half would be a cost incumbent upon the City. He further stated the rest of the budget would be used for structural soil for the trees, re-setting of curbing, placing foundations for streetlights, pole boxes, conduit, and the streetlights themselves. Discussion followed regarding the cost of the project, the materials that would be used, the design of the enlarged dining spaces, creating transitional zones for pedestrians, the need to maintain a clear path for pedestrians, how the new curbing and textured surfaces would be installed, the design and placement of new street lights, the additional space the restaurants would gain for their outdoor dining, and how the cost would be shared amongst the business owners and the City. Asst. Civil Engineer West stated that he would put together a standard bid sheet. He is hoping to receive a proposal from Economy Paving who is currently working on the South Aurora Street bridge. He further noted that the City has a current contract with Economy Paving and he believes this work could be completed without exceeding their current contract; or come within 15% of it. Commissioner Tripp questioned why the City should pay any of the additional costs as many of the businesses on the block would be gaining a great value in the doubling of their outdoor dining spaces. Asst. Civil Engineer West responded that as policy makers, that is the Board’s decision. He identified a couple of practical limitations (including our standing agreements regarding the maintenance of the secondary Commons), the liability that is incurred by the tree grates, and the questionable health of the City street trees. Those are not costs that the City can share with the property owners. Replacing, or repairing those items pre-emptively is actually a savings to the City. Commissioner Tripp asked if the replacement of tree grates, and pavers were not included in the original water and sewer project. Asst. Civil Engineer West responded no; the plan by the Department of Public Works was that there would be a single trench down the street that would be approximately eight to ten feet wide and that it would be a trench restoration and a pavement patch. However, issues arose relative to the water main that had to be replaced, and the City ended up with the entire replacement of the pavement on the street. Commissioner Schlather asked if any of the affected properties are within the Commons assessment district. City Controller Thayer responded that the Commons assessment district is no longer in place. Commissioner Schlather stated that he understands there are costs involved with the repairs, but the piece that is not accounted for is that the City is licensing public lands to all of these property owners for their private purpose. Nine property owners will increase their dining areas significantly. He thinks this is great for the City, but also that it should be recovering some type of fee from those owners for the use of that space. Mayor Peterson stated the estimate from Asst. Civil Engineer West was only a preliminary estimate. She noted that Common Council, the Superintendent, and the City Attorney’s office have not seen it yet and she did not take his statement to mean that would be the final cost. Asst. Civil Engineer West responded that he will not know what the final cost is until Economy Paving submits a bid for the project and then policy decisions will need to be made. He stated that the Board would also need to determine how the costs are allocated; however, the work needs to be completed by the middle of August and any 5 June 6, 2007 procedure other than a direct sidewalk assessment is something that would require an action of Common Council and would probably take far longer to decide. DAC Liaison Roberts stated that the DAC fully supports this project. He noted that pedestrian traffic through that area has been difficult and this is the easiest way to solve that problem. The Rimland Project: Scott Whitham, Thomas Group Architects, addressed the Board to explain that they are assisting Jeff Rimland look at the feasibility of a project at the end of the Rothschild Building, where there are loading and parking areas and then up above where there currently is a TCAT bus shelter. Jeff Rimland explained that the concept of his buying surplus property from the City to develop a project started about a year and a half ago. In July 2006, the Board of Public Works asked him to appraise the portion of land that the City was proposing as surplus property and he has done that. He explained that the information distributed delineates the area that the BPW agreed to deem surplus and to sell to him. He has subsequently asked The Thomas Group to design a footprint for the project and has determined that it lacks 273 square feet. Extensive discussion followed on the proposed hotel project including the proposed height of the building, the number of rooms, what the minimum requirements are for a flag hotel in this space, where the entrance for the hotel would be located since it involves both Aurora Street and Green Street, where parking would be located, where and what off-site parking would be needed, and the location of loading areas. Mr. Whitham explained that Mr. Rimland met with Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit and they are in the process of designing a new bus shelter on Aurora Street, but they are waiting to work with them to make sure that the bus area on the Commons front of this new project will have some design and aesthetic unity. He stated that TCAT is excited about the fact that there might be something else happening in this location, which could support a design other than what they had originally proposed. City Attorney Hoffman stated that when the Board acted on this proposal one of the conditions was that any new construction extend to the retaining wall along the west side of the Aurora Street sidewalk. Right now, that retaining wall is open and it is on a slope so if the City had to get to it to do any work it could. If a building were constructed very close to the retaining wall but not up to it, access to the wall could become problematic for the City. Mr. Rimland responded that they were not asking for land up to the retaining wall and noted that it was not offered as surplus property. Superintendent Gray stated that retaining wall allows the road to exist at one elevation and the bank coming down to the parking lot at a different elevation. They are proposing to enclose that space and he thinks that could be addressed in the designing phase of the project. Mr. Whitham noted that in terms of design, that certainly would be an important piece to make sure that if the wall indeed exists that there is the ability to maintain it. Superintendent Gray stated that there is a storm sewer located under the proposed hotel that will need to be considered as the project is designed. Commissioner Schlather stated that he appreciates the efforts by Mr. Rimland and Mr. Whitham to try to make this project work. Mayor Peterson left the meeting. 6 June 6, 2007 City Attorney Hoffman stated that in relation to what the Board voted on in April, it would be helpful to know which conditions are being requested to change as well as the boundaries. He asked Mr. Rimland and Mr. Whitham to review the conditions incorporated into the resolution that the Board approved in April. Mr. Rimland responded that they had issue with one of the conditions relating to construction deadlines. He noted that because government agencies take the longest to move forward in a timely manner, it is possible that the project may not be completed in five years. The other issue is that the bank will commit to finance only if there is a clock ticking, so they need a more flexible way of getting through the process. He suggested that instead of the conversion title they take an option that the City holds the title to the property, while Rimland holds an option to buy the property within five years. If they are actively working towards completing the project, they can extend that option, so they do not lose their ability to buy the property. City Attorney Hoffman clarified that Common Council would decide the actual conveyance of this property. If Common Council did not want to use a competitive bidding process, it would then be transferred to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency. Superintendent Gray stated that the intention of the conversion title was for if the property were not going to be used for that purpose, it would revert back to the City. He further stated that if the Board was comfortable with the option clause, he could put together a resolution for next week that would accept the idea as a way to address item five in the original resolution. City Attorney Hoffman stated that he would like to work with the Superintendent on the wording of that resolution. Commissioner Schlather stated that with the proposed option, the City is preserving what it considers as the view shed, the pedestrian access, and all of the issues pertaining to permanent access for the maintenance of utilities and storm sewers. He stated that if this option were exercised, it would be for this specific project. If the project does not go forward, the City would retain ownership because it is not interested in having the land transferred to another developer. Common Council Liaison Coles stated that the issue is complicated further by the fact that it has been her understanding all along that this parcel of land was going to have housing on it and not a hotel. She is not sure how the rest of Common Council will feel about a hotel going in there. She stated that the issue is becoming quite complex especially since that the Board would be fine with the sale of the land as far as this project went forward and Common Council might feel completely the opposite. Discussion followed on the floor about what information Mr. Rimland and Mr. Whitham need to provide in order to move forward with the project. Commissioner Schlather announced that he would not be at the meeting next week and requested that the Board consider giving themselves Power to Act for the Committee of the Whole meeting on June 20, 2007 so he could participate in that meeting. City Water Supply – Scoping for EIS Commissioner Dotson explained that there were two issues related to the Water Source that need consideration; one is the consultant contract and the other is the scoping document. She noted that the Mayor had suggested that they leave the contract issue for another time and focus on the scoping document so it can be released for public input, and to set a date for the public hearing. Superintendent Gray explained that the Board adopted a draft-scoping document which will be used to create the final scoping document, and begin the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). He stated that he and Deputy Director of Planning and Development Jo Ann Cornish had set up dates for a public information meeting and to present the project and environmental process. That meeting will be followed by the public scoping meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 20, 2007, to receive public input as well as agency input in an open forum. Written input as well as agency input to the scope will 7 June 6, 2007 also be sought. Once those forums take place, and if the corrected draft is acceptable, it will be published by distributing it to the involved agencies, interested agencies, and to the public for comment. Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish stated that members of Common Council would like the opportunity to attend those meetings. A suggested date of Monday, June 18th has been selected for the information meeting that will include the consultants and members of other various boards. There will be a presentation, areas where people can go to ask questions, and then review of those questions and concerns. The public scoping period is when people will actually come and speak to the content of the document and to request the inclusion of items of concern to them. Once that meeting takes place there will be another public comment period where written comments would be accepted. Extensive discussion followed regarding what time frame the City should use for receipt of public comment because it has the option of 30, 45, or 60 days. City Attorney Hoffman stated that the Mayor favors a longer period, 60 days or as close to 60 days as possible. He pointed out that the Board’s meetings are currently scheduled for August 1, 8, and 15. If the Board were to choose 30 days, it could use the last meeting in July to start reviewing the public comments. He explained that the Board could start analyzing comments as soon as they are received and not wait until the end of the public comment period to start evaluating each comment. Further discussion followed regarding when to schedule the public information meeting and what day of the week works best for Board members and Common Council members. The Board agreed to hold the meeting on June 28, 2007 from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. City Water Supply – Consultant Contract This item was not discussed. Encroachment Agreement – 506 Cliff Street – Power-to-Act Resolution This item was not discussed. Electricity on the Commons This item was not discussed. ADJOURNMENT On a motion the meeting adjourned. Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson Information Management Specialist Mayor