Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2007-08-01BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Committee of the Whole Meeting 4:45 p.m. August 1, 2007 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Commissioners (4) - Jenkins, Chapman, Schlather, 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 Information Management Specialist – Myers Deputy Director of Planning & Development - Cornish EXCUSED: Commissioners Dotson and Tripp DAC Liaison Roberts Supt. Gray reminded those present that a tour of the Watershed Areas is scheduled for Thursday, August 2, 2007 from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. starting at the Mulholland Wildflower Preserve on Giles Street. This tour will provide the public an opportunity to look at the Water Plant and provide input to the City as the scoping document is prepared. Anyone that is interested in the tour is welcome. There was not a quorum present at 5:00 p.m., so the Board proceeded with the discussion regarding the University Avenue project. University Avenue/Milstein Hall – Discussion Mayor Peterson requested that the Board consider a request from Planning Board Chair John Schroeder to address the Board concerning the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and concerns of that Board regarding the University Avenue project. No Board member objected. Commissioner Jenkins arrived at 5:05 p.m. Chair Schroeder addressed the Board to explain that the Planning Board is concerned that language (this language is located on page 6 of the MOU under item #7) is too broad as far as “the City” not objecting to the re-alignment of University Avenue. The Board does not want this language to interfere with the environmental review that needs to take place, and that alternatives should be explored. There might be an option that would not involve expanding over University Avenue. The current language in the MOU might limit the Planning Board’s options and they do not want to have restrictions placed on their review process. Mayor Peterson responded to Chair Schroeder that the Planning Board’s concern was duly noted. The following representatives from Cornell University were present to participate in the discussion: Shirley Egan, Associate Counsel David Cutter, Landscape Architect John Kiefer, Planning, Design, and Construction Director Andrew Magre, Architect 2 August 1, 2007 City Attorney Hoffman assured the Board that quite a bit of work has taken place since this item was last discussed on July 11, 2007. He stated that because of the timing issues, a revised MOU had not been distributed. He further stated that the Board’s consideration of the MOU and the discussion at today’s meeting would lead to changes and it would be more efficient to have those changes included in the printing of a revised MOU. He further explained that it should be understood who would be entering into the MOU with Cornell University. The request came to the Board of Public Works (BPW) because the City Charter gives authority over streets and sidewalks to the Board of Public Works. The MOU would be between the BPW and Cornell University to resolve the issue of site control in order for the project to move forward to other boards for review and consideration. The revised MOU would indicate that the BPW would be asserting its authority as provided for in the City Charter. City Attorney Hoffman suggested that Cornell should propose language for the MOU regarding the issues of easements for utilities and height/width of the public right-of- way. He further stated that he had received copies of Cornell’s research regarding the question of whether the Cortland/Seneca turnpike had ever been constructed, as well as documentation stating Cornell’s position. He provided copies of this documentation to Commissioner Schlather for his review and they briefly discussed the research. He further reported that a new version of the MOU would be available for review prior to the next meeting of the Board on August 8, 2007. Commissioner Schlather stated that the Board should discuss the threshold issue regarding what is the public right-of-way as a matter of historical standing and law. He further stated that in addition to the documents that City Attorney Hoffman provided, he did his own research as well. He stated that his research did not provide clear evidence that the City does not own University Avenue. He further stated that he would like the Board to discuss this issue prior to discussing parameters for the MOU. He further stated that the BPW has the responsibility to protect city resources. Ms. Egan explained that discussions at the last meeting had resulted in questions being raised about the historical research that had been conducted and stated that she would be happy to share the information with anyone who wants it. She further shared her thoughts regarding similar streets in the city and street set back requirements which would preclude a building going over a road. She stated that she found that those zoning requirements do not apply in this case. She further explained that she had collaborated with the Forest Home Historian (Bruce Brittain) with research on this project and he did not have any new information that she didn’t already have. She further stated that it is not Cornell’s intention to disrupt utilities under the road and that Cornell would re-locate utilities as needed at their expense. She explained that an easement has been drafted stating this and it has been given to the City Attorney for review. She further explained that Cornell’s engineers had been working with Supt. Gray concerning design guidelines and bridge guidelines and the proposed plan cannot be changed because the second story is needed on the building to connect the two buildings and allow free passage between them. She explained that research has also been conducted by Cornell regarding bridge heights in the area. She feels that the proposed design falls within the same range allowed for clearances in local bridges. Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the proposed design guidelines and right-of-ways for sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stops, crosswalks, snow removal areas, the roadways, and the proposed easement in the area of the proposed project. 3 August 1, 2007 Commissioner Schlather stated again, that the threshold issue needs to be resolved before proceeding with an MOU for an easement so that Cornell’s project can move forward. He stated that until the recent exchange of information, Cornell has rested on the determination that under State Law and Common Law University Avenue and Forest Home Drive are city streets and they have maintained that position. He further explained what his research had revealed as far as Cornell’s previous attorney’s opinions, correspondence and exchanges between Cornell and the City. He stated that arguments had been made by Cornell in 1982-1983 to convince the New York State Department of Transportation to make the determination that University Avenue was a public highway and that the City of Ithaca had title to it and had never abandoned the title to Cornell University and which could be confirmed by looking at the title for the property. Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding Commissioner’s Sclather’s research and opinion on the ownership of the property and the various maps, correspondence, and State records that were used to make this determination. City Attorney Hoffman explained that as the City Attorney he does not want to argue against the City, but that he cannot be as definitive as Commissioner Schlather regarding what property the City owns. He stated that there is a lot of information that needs to be reviewed, and both parties have switched their position over the years. This is a complex and difficult issue to figure out, which is further complicated by the question of air rights, which no one has addressed. Commissioner Chapman assumed role as Vice Chair. Mayor Peterson left the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Ms. Egan explained that what Commissioner Schlather talked about did happen twenty years ago. She stated that the poor condition of Forest Home Drive initiated the debate between Cornell and the City as to ownership because Cornell felt that it was a city street and the city should pay to make the necessary repairs to improve the condition of the road. The City felt Cornell was the owner and therefore it was their responsibility to repair the road. This controversial issue resulted in the question of ownership going to informal mediation with NYS DOT which determined that the City of Ithaca was responsible for repair and maintenance of the road. Therefore, by private agreement payment for the necessary repairs was made by the City of Ithaca, Cornell University, and the Town of Ithaca each paying for one-third of the cost. She further explained that she did extensive research on the issue of whether the turnpike was ever built. The review of required legal notices that were necessary in order to proceed with building a turnpike, and the lack of notices regarding the building of the Cortland/Seneca turnpike was very noticeable. She concluded from her research on the history of the building of turnpikes, that the property in question never became a State Turnpike. She stated that she believes this was a public road, and lots of those can exist without a deed indicating ownership, so then it becomes subject to public right-of-way which she believes is the case here. That is Cornell’s position because it had been a town street before Cornell University was even founded. She feels that it would be a waste of resources and time to have to take this issue through litigation. The road, as it is now, is in bad shape and needs to be re-built. She would like to see the proposed project started and then go back and spend the time establishing ownership. Cornell University wants the road to look nice and provide a nice driving experience for those traveling through campus which would be a win/win situation for both the City and the University. 4 August 1, 2007 Commissioner Schlather responded that the position that the road was never a turnpike may not be correct because there was a road on other deeds described as Dryden Road. An 1836 lithograph by Courier refers to Dryden Road because it goes to Dryden. It is in the same place as University Avenue to Forest Home Drive to Route 366 to Dryden. He further stated that, pre-Cornell University establishment there are deeds that refer to Dryden Road not University Avenue. He also stated that his research includes information regarding the New York State Department of Transportation, Cornell University, and City of Ithaca correspondence that debated the question of ownership twenty years ago. He encouraged City Attorney Hoffman to talk with previous city attorneys for the history of the debate that has taken place over the years. He reiterated the Board’s responsibility to protect the public’s right-of-way, even if it requires litigation. He urged the Board to please not surrender the rights of the public to meet the needs of a few potholes. Ms. Egan responded to Commissioner Schlather’s comments regarding ownership of the street and what boundaries existed at the time between the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca. She further stated that an example of a similar situation could be found at the location of the new central office for Cornell’s Lab of Ornithology which once sat on a public road. Cornell University reviewed the options at the time and the desired placement of the new offices was in the area of the road. This is the same situation being faced in the current project proposed by Cornell. In that case, Cornell University offered to re-design and re-build the road at their expense to get to the new offices. The road was totally moved, but the public still enjoys access to it. Cornell University’s intent with this proposed project is to improve the road, sidewalk, bike lanes, and bus stops for the public to enjoy as they drive through campus. She encouraged the Board to please consider the benefits of the proposal as they make their decision. City Attorney Hoffman suggested that discussion of ownership issues and the details of the proposed MOU take place at their next meeting on August 8, 2007. Supt. Gray reminded the Board that next meeting is the regular voting meeting and that the agenda includes discussion and possible vote on dog waste removal at the Temporary Off-Leash Dog Park on the Festival lands. He stated that he would add the continuation of the discussion regarding the University Avenue project and proposed MOU to the agenda as well. Ms. Egan asked the Board to provide her with a sense of the direction for a decision that they were considering so she would know how to proceed as far as providing any information to the Board to help clarify questions they might have. Commissioner Chapman voiced his appreciation for the time and energy that Cornell spent in preparing information for the Board. He further stated however that the Board only got the information a few weeks ago and they need time to review it further. He stated that it would be appropriate at the next meeting of the Board to have a round table discussion that focuses on the issue of threshold. He also has some concerns about ADA issues, which might need to be incorporated into the MOU. The Board agreed that they would need to use next week’s meeting time to further discuss Cornell‘s proposal and the details of the MOU to help them better understand the issue. Dog Park – Waste Removal - Resolution This item was not discussed and it has been placed on the agenda for the August 8, 2007 meeting for review and consideration. ADJOURNMENT On a motion the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Sarah L. Myers, IMS Carolyn K. Peterson, Mayor