HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-13 Board of Public Works Meeting AgendaBOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Public Works will be held on Monday, October 28, 2013, at 4:45
p.m. in Common Council Chambers — Third Floor, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca,
New York.
Agenda
1. Additions or Deletions to Aaenda (Items 1 -6: 15 min.
2. Mayor's Communications
3. Communications and Hearings from Persons Before the Board
4. Response to the Public.
5. Reports
Special Committees of the Board
Council Liaison
Board Liaisons
Superintendent and Staff
Other Department Heads
6. Approval of Minutes
6.1 November 26, 2012 Meeting Minutes
6.2 May 13, 2013 Meeting Minutes
7. Administration and Communications
8. VOTING ITEMS
8.1 Buildings, Properties, Refuse and Transit
8.2 Highways, Streets and Sidewalks
8.3 Parkina and Traffic
8.4 Creeks, Bridges and Parks
A. Driving Range Project Abandonment and Reallocation of Funds --
Resolution
8.5 Water and Sewer
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS
9.1 Residential Parking Permit System Hardship Request for 301 Bryant Avenue
9.2 227 West Spencer Street Traffic Concern
9.3 Odd /Even Parking
9.4 Proposed Street Vending Policy Presentation
10.
For Your Information
11.
New Business
12.
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. Al meetings are voting
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 Agenda, October 28, 2013
8.4A Driving Range Promect Abandonment and Reallocation of Funds — Resolution
Newman Golf Course Manager Mike Addicott has reviewed the plans to build a driving range
at the golf course. He has found it to be an inappropriate venture, and requests that the
driving range money be reallocated to purchase a commercial debris blower, which will enable
staff to clear the greens and fairway of debris much quicker than the current system.
9.1 Residential Parking Permit System Hardship Request for 301 Bryant Avenue
Transportation Engineer Tim Logue has reviewed and provided a recommendation for the
Board's review to the enclosed request from a Cornell University student.
9.2 227 West Spencer Street Traffic Concern
In response to the request from new Ithaca residents to make improvements to their street,
Transportation Engineer Tim Logue has completed a traffic study and made recommendations
for the Board's review.
9.3 Odd /Even Parking
A subcommittee meeting was held in September to discuss odd /even parking.
9.4 Proposed Street Vending Policv Presentation
The Street Vending Subcommittee has met several times and is ready to propose a new street
vending, or mobile vending, policy.
K.athU Gelnrivi&o, ExecutCVe.4ssLsti2ot
For RAU gew,jawt. Vv,,
Ar,tiwro SL perii&tev�olent of Pu.bl.ic VVOKI S
October 23, 2ois
Page 2
8.4A Driving Range Project Abandonment and Reallocation of Funds — Resolution
WHEREAS, The Golf Course Manager has reviewed the site for a Driving Range and noted
the proposed site is the lowest area of the golf course where there are frequent drainage
issues, and
WHEREAS, the range would have to be closed frequently to keep balls from being plugged
into the ground making them impossible to retrieve by mechanical means, and
WHEREAS, the proposed area does not allow for an adequate safety buffer around the driving
range, and
WHEREAS, the development of the driving range will require the removal of several mature
trees, realignment of several fairways and the building of new greens at considerable cost, and
WHEREAS, the Golf Course Manager believes the reduced hours of operation from wet
conditions, along with only seasonal use of a driving range, would not be cost effective to
develop a driving range; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the plan to build a driving range be abandoned, and be it further
RESOLVED, That funds allocated to purchase driving range equipment be available to
purchase other needed equipment for the golf course.
Page 3
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 -6590
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Ray Benjamin Acting Superintendent
Telephone: 607 /274 -6527 Fax: 607/274 -6587
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Public Works
FROM: Ray Benjamin, Acting Superintendent of Public Works
DATE: October 17, 2013
RE: Request to Purchase Equipment
Golf Course Manager Mike Addicott has proposed abandoning plans to build a driving range and
to reallocate funds purposed to buy driving range equipment and put it towards purchasing a
commercial debris blower.
Mr. Addicott reviewed the plans to build a driving range, has evaluated the proposed site and
recommends that we abandon those plans for several reasons as stated in the attached memo.
Also, Mr. Addicott has looked at ways to make more efficient use of employee time. Currently
workers spend hours every day removing goose litter from the greens along with leaves and tree
litter from the fairways. A commercial debris blower would drastically reduce the time it takes
to do this daily task, allowing workers to pursue other enhancements to the golf course.
I am submitting a resolution to abandon the driving range and to re- purpose the funding for other
needed equipment for the golf course.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
REQUEST FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASE
ITHACA CITY GOLF COURSE (NEWMAN G.C)
October 3, 2013
Grassland Equipment Company delivered a Toro Pro force turbine debris blower to the golf course
maintenance department for trial purposes as a demo unit. I have evaluated and tested the machine
and its performance for two weeks and believe it would be a vital part of the equipment fleet.
With falling leaves soon approaching it is imperative to prevent leaves from accumulating on the turf.
This unit will clear nearly 11 acres per hour. The pro force turbine has many other uses as well.
• Clears all clumped grass clippings from mowed areas during wet periods
• Removes leaves, twigs, small branches from turf instead of damaging mowers
• Leaf removal prevents lost golf balls and contributes to more play and revenue
® Removes excess sand accumulation on greens and works sand into aeration holes
G Removes dew from turf to help prevent diseases (An important IPM strategy)
o Removes sand accumulation around bunker edges
• Clears cart paths, driveways, parking lots
o Gears goose litter from turf areas rather than hand shoveling and dragging which damages turf
and creates very strong odors and draws complaints from golfers
® Greatly improves productivity with limited staff
• The course will get favorable reviews and the difference will be noticed immediately
• Possibility of the course remaining playable longer into fall and early winter
With the many advantages this unit offers, the most important would be the increased productivity of
the maintenance staff and the improved aesthetics and playing conditions of the course.
While reviewing the operating budget of the golf course, there are line items which could be used for
the purchase. A line item was added in 2013 for $5000.00 (Line item "Other Equipment") for practice
range equipment. This project was reassessed and was dissolved due to layout and construction
inadequacies. There are a few line items which can be carefully thinned to account for the remaining
balance.
I have used these types of blowers for years and it has always been at the top of my list for non mowing
equipment.
I have attached the product documentation and accompanying quotes for consideration.
Driving Range Project
When I toured the golf course, 1 looked over the driving range proposal and discovered many
inadequacies with the scope of the proposed project. Listed below are the main areas of concern which
led to abandoning the project.
• Location- The site was the lowest area of the course and is the wettest location. The range
would have to be closed the majority of the time to keep balls from being plugged and lost.
• Due to the wet area the equipment used to pick balls would not be able to retrieve the balls due
to being plugged or height of grass because the mowers couldn't be used.
a Layout- The area would be located in an area that would need to be cleared of many mature
trees. The design required the relocation of existing holes with construction and grow in of new
fairways and greens at a very high cost.
Safety- The area did not accommodate the safety of other golfers on adjacent holes.
• Cost —The cost of construction, maintenance of the range and replacement holes would be
never be recovered through revenue and would continue to be shown as a deficit.
® Revenue- Based on experience, the cost outweighs revenue in most situations. Some of the
inherent problems are theft of balls, lack of enforcement, interference with play, increased
maintenance and labor hours and yearly purchase of replacement balls estimated at $3- 4,000.
Regards,
Michael Addicott- Golf Course Manager
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 607/274 -6530 Fax: 607/274 -6587
To: Board of Public Works
From: Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer °�
Date: October 21, 2013
Re: Residential Parking Permit System Hardship Request
301 Bryant Avenue
I am recommending denial of the enclosed Residential Parking Permit System
(RPPS) hardship request from Ms. Sheila Crowell, the current resident of 301
Bryant Avenue, Apartment 4.
The property is in a R -3A zone and the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone.
Therefore it is not eligible to get RPPS permits. The property has a driveway and,
it seems, some off - street parking.
Between chapter 260 of the City Code (Residential Parking Permit System) and
the BPW regulations implementing the same, there is limited guidance on how to
handle hardship requests. The BPW regulations simply state, "Residents may
file written appeals with the BPW for either hardship consideration or the denial
of permits by the City Clerk's Office." Section 260 -4 of the City Code provides a
little more guidance, stating that residents may apply to the BPW for a permit
not otherwise available in the following circumstances:
1. Where a home health care provider provides home health care to a
resident and regularly drives to the resident's home.
2. Where a resident has a short term health emergency.
3. Where residents living on a street within the Residential Parking Permit
Zone without on- street parking wish to purchase a permit for on- street
parking on a street where permits are required.
4. Such other instances of hardship (excluding self- created hardship) as the
Board of Public Works in their discretion determines sufficient for
issuance of additional parking permits.
In my opinion, Ms. Crowell's case falls closest to #4 above, but seems to be a self -
created hardship. She chose this apartment and is choosing to not pay for off -
street parking. I understand and sympathize with her financial situation, but in
my interpretation, granting the hardship case would not fit with Common
Council's intent in creating the Residential Parking Permit System.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment io workforce diversification." ro
Board of Public Works
c/o William J. Gray, P.E.
Superintendent of Public Works
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
To Whom it May Concern:
Sheila Crowell
301 Bryant Avenue, Apartment 4
Ithaca, NY 14850
RECEIVED
Del*. of Pubk Wwks
SEP 0 5 2013
we� aiwsim
2 September 2013
My name is Sheila Crowell, I am a resident of Bryant Avenue, and I would like to file a petition of
hardship in order to obtain a residential parking permit "A." I am a Cornell University student at 301
Bryant Avenue, and have been informed that I am not eligible to purchase a permit "A" based on my
housing number. Based on the apparent availability of permit parking on the 200 block of Bryant Avenue,
however, I would like to petition for hardship.
I have spoken to members of the City Clerk's Office on several occasions to inquire about purchasing a
residential permit. I was told that I was ineligible, because my house number was a mere two digits away
from qualifying for a parking permit for the 200 block of Bryant Avenue. When discussing my options
with the City Clerk's Office, I was told that I could park in the limited 24 -hour parking sections of
Collegetown, acquire a lease at a parking garage or residential lot, or file a petition for hardship. While
there is a limited section of 24 -hour parking on Bryant Avenue, these coveted spots are difficult to
acquire, and are frequently taken by residents from other streets. The small, uncovered parking lot next to
my apartment is leased at $1,000 for the school year - $1,800 for non - tenants. Compared to some
neighboring lots, $1,000 for a year is relatively cheap. I unfortunately do not have the financial means to
spend $1,000 on a parking spot.
I am a Cornell student on financial aid and Federal Work Study who selected housing on Bryant Avenue
based on its relatively low costs. I drive a used car. In order to save money for graduate school, I work
until after 11 PM three days a week, in a section of campus that is dimly lit. The public transportation
system, the TCAT bus, does not offer service near my office until after 12 AM. Getting home from work
at night was one of the main factors in my decision to keep a car on campus.
I understand that parking is limited and that residents within the 200 block should get first priority.
However, based on the empty stretches of permit parking during the hours that parking is restricted
(9AM -lPM or 1PM -5PM Monday through Friday, based on the section), there seem to be relatively few
residential parking permits that have been issued for Bryant Avenue. I would be more than happy to work
with the Board of Public Works to determine an appropriate deal. Please consider my difficult position,
especially given the exorbitant cost of living in Collegetown.
Sincerely,
Sheila Crowell
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 607/274 -6530 Fax: 607/2 -14 -6587
To: Board of Public Works
From: Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer
Date: October 22, 2013
Re: 227 West Spencer Street Traffic Concern
In response to the letter dated August 29th and the discussion at the Board
meeting in September, staff has investigated the concerns expressed about traffic
speeds and safety in the 200 block of West Spencer Street. We placed traffic
counting equipment and made two field visits to observe sight lines, vegetation
and other conditions. It is our recommendation that, in the short term, the
adjacent property owner trim roadside vegetation to improve sight lines, and
that, in the long term, that the Board should direct sidewalk construction along
the southeast side of the street (including removing the behind -the -curb parking
and installing a full height curb).
Traffic data was collected at the end of September and early October of 2013. In
response to traffic concerns raised by the previous owner of 227 West Spencer
Street in 2008, we had also collected traffic data, so we have data to compare over
the 5 year period.
Data from July /August 2008
Southbound direction:
• 57% of traffic is traveling in the southbound direction
• 85th percentile speed = 34 mph
• Percent of motorists traveling over 30 mph = 36%
• Percent of motorists traveling over 35 mph = 4%
Northbound direction:
•
43% of traffic is traveling in the northbound direction
• 85th percentile speed = 33 mph
• Percent of motorists traveling over 30 mph = 24%
• Percent of motorists traveling over 35 mph = 3%
Average daily traffic (combining both directions) = 6,428 vehicles/ day
"M Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 4a
Data from Sept, Oct. 2013
Southbound direction:
• 57% of traffic is traveling in the southbound direction
• 85th percentile speed = 32 mph
• Percent of motorists traveling over 30 mph = 23%
• Percent of motorists traveling over 35 mph = 2%
Northbound direction:
•
43% of traffic is traveling in the northbound direction
• 85th percentile speed = 30 mph
• Percent of motorists traveling over 30 mph =15%
• Percent of motorists traveling over 35 mph =1 %
Average daily traffic (combining both directions) = 6,565 vehicles/ day
As you can see, though traffic volumes are up by about 2% over the five year
period, speeds are down a bit. The vast majority of motorists are driving at the
speed limit (30mph) and the percentage of motorists driving over 35 mph has
dropped to 1%-2%.
At the base of the stairs to the property, the sight lines for pedestrians and
motorists are fairly good, however, trimming some of the vegetation along the
hillside may improve the sightlines to the south. According to the City Code, this
is responsibility of the adjacent property owner. One can see fairly clearly to the
north. Though we have not calculated the number of gaps in traffic that would
be available to cross the street, the traffic volumes do not indicate that this
specific location would be worse than many other locations in the City. It may
take a minute or two to get a good gap in traffic (and that may feel like 20
minutes to a pedestrian), but waiting, having a good line of sight and crossing at
a safe time will reduce the risk of any incidents. As noted at the Board meeting,
the property does have a driveway; if the residents would like to make changes
to their driveway to make it more accessible, we can work with them for any
street permit work. Alternately, it seems that a good longer term improvement
for them would be to construct a sidewalk on their side of the street to connect
them to the sidewalk leading toward Cayuga Street. A few parking spaces would
have to be removed, the curb would have to be brought up to full height, and the
sidewalk would have to be constructed, but this would not be complicated work.
If it does not rise to a priority in the sidewalk improvement districts, the
residents can apply for a street permit to do the work with a contractor.
Otherwise, it seems like it would be a good sidewalk project. Building the
sidewalk would reduce the need to cross the street when walking toward
downtown and modifying the driveway would reduce the need to cross the
street to an on -street parking space. Otherwise, it seems that it would be an
extraordinary use of public funds to make pedestrian crossing improvements for
the benefit of one property.
August 29, 2013
Svante L. Myrick, Mayor and Chair of Board, Public Works
Fourth Floor, City Hall
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mayor,
We are writing to ask for your help in making our family's life in Ithaca safe.
We are new residents at 227 West Spencer Street, 14850. We have two young daughters, ages 3
and 6. As the house is up on a steep hill, the only way we can come and go to and from our
house is by climbing down and up a stone staircase to and from West Spencer Street. We do this
multiple times per day, as this is the only way in and out for us.
Once we climb down the steps from our house to the street there is a small landing, but no
sidewalk to speak of on our side of the house, only a muddy and sludgy area (i.e., not walkable)
riddled with large potholes that within approximately ten feet turns into an unpaved parking
space for two or three cars. In order to access this parking space, we need to either walk through
the deep mud and debris, or walk on the road itself with our back to the traffic, which is quite
unsafe, especially with our two daughters in hand. Because the muddy potholes are the only way
to get from the landing to the parking on our side of the street, and that parking tends to fill up
anyway, we mostly choose to cross the street to the sidewalk on the opposite side, where we
usually park our cars. West Spencer, we have discovered, is a very busy street most of the day.
Critically, there is a blind spot for cars approaching into the city just behind the point where the
stairs meet the street.
Crossing the street has been a frightening experience each and every time. The cars zoom by,
often driving much above the speed limit of 30 MPH, and unaware that there might be young
children crossing the street. Additionally, and this is important: because of the curve and the
blind spot that it creates, the cars are not capable of seeing us waiting on the small landing, and
we cannot see them, until we have actually stepped into the road. When we estimate that there
might be a break in traffic, we all rush through the street hoping that there isn't a car that we
cannot see speeding through from either end.
Please keep in mind that since we moved here on August 15, 2013, the weather has been dry and
clear. We are quite concerned with the prospect of negotiating this passage daily with two young
girls in icy or snowy conditions.
This is a safety issue, a matter of life and death for our family.
We would therefore like to petition the Board of Public Works to request the following:
1. Install "children crossing/at play" and "slow" signs;
2. Pave the parking area on the north side of the street (the side of our house) and
pave a short path so that this parking is accessible from our landing without
stepping into the road. Alternatively, fix the potholes in the area that connects our
landing to the parking spaces as well as in the parking spaces themselves.
3. Install speed bumps for traffic approaching from both sides;
4. Create a crosswalk on West Spencer in front of our landing.
5. Lower the speed limit.
We would like to remind the City that although it tore down most of the residences on West
Spencer Street a few years ago and created the higher traffic situation on the street, families like
ours still live on this street and have to contend with the reconfiguration and increased traffic
created by the City. We hope that the City can do the right thing by alerting the motorists —who
are largely unaware of families on the uphill side of the street —to slow down and to be advised
of children who are routinely crossing the street. At the very minimum, the City should create a
crossroad with the proper signage to enable us to cross the street without endangering our lives.
We look forward to hearing back to you as soon as possible about our request as this is a life -
threatening situation.
Respectfully,
Dr. Irus Braverman, Professor of Law
SUNY Buffalo Law School
& Cornell University Society for the Humanities
A.D. White House
Gregor Harvey, music teacher
Both Residents, 227 West Spencer Street
Cc:
Acting Supt. of Public Works, Ray Benjamin
Aaron O. Lavine, City Attorney
Members of the Board of Public Works:
Claudia Jenkins, Vice -Chair
Robert Morache
Mitch Paine
Govind Acharya
Mark Darling
Jeanne Leccese
Donna Fleming
Larry Roberts
2
Proposed Street Vending Policy Summary
Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to establish a uniform City policy for the utilization of city
streets for the purpose of vending fresh, prepared and pre - packaged food products to
the general public. Retail or service -based vending is not covered under this policy.
Vending Permits
The types of permits that will be available are:
1. Seasonal — April 1 to October 31
2. Annual — April 1 to March 31
3. Temporary — for small events lasting no more than 5 consecutive days (i.e. sports
tournaments). These are not Special Events.requiring.3 or more permits.
4. Round -Up — Four or more food trucks located In..one location to make a community -
like setting.
5. Special Event — Applied for through the City Special Events Team, these events
require 3 or more permits (i.e. assembly, noise, parade., use of park, etc.). Food
vendors wishing to paMcipate must contact the event coordinator. Street vending
permits do not ir#dWe special event vending.
New applications rust be submitted each gear, or for each event.
Fees
1. Appkation Fee - $100, submitted with the application
2. Permit Fees (submitted,once pii cation is approved):
a. Snal - $780
b. Annual - $1,560
c. Temporary - $60 per day
d. Special Event - fees are determined by event coordinator
Rules of Operation
1. Food Trucks or Trailers only; No tents are allowed.
2. Vending sites are 25 foot length by 8 foot width.
3. Vendors shall not block or inhibit pedestrian traffic flow or emergency vehicles.
Page 11
k Vil
E,.
4. Vendors may not set up any closer than 200 feet from the
nearest restaurant, or 100 feet from any public or private
school. Vendors must obtain written permission from
restaurant owners to park closer than 200 feet.
5. Food trucks may not be closer than 50 feet from any street intersection.
6. Food trucks must be attended at all times.
7. Vendors set up in locations other than an approved vending site will be subject to
the revocation of their street vending permit without refund of fees.
8. No overnight parking allowed.
9. Food vendors must maintain the submitted food menu and prices throughout the
permit period.
10. Smoke and/or odors must be vented, filtered or disposed of to prevent the release of
odor into the surrounding environment. .
11. Vendors are responsible for trash and waste dtsoosal. No dumping is allowed in
City trash cans, grates, storm sue, or other arm.
12. Vendors shall keep public spaces within a 10 foot radius of their truck clean and free
of refuse generated from the operation of their food truck. `
13. No music, amptified sound, or repetitive noise may be played by the vendor that can
be heard outside of the vending site.
14. The City resorves the rift to move vendors for necessary maintenance and repairs
on City streets.
15. The City does not provide water or electric service to street vendors.
16. Applicant shall indemnify the City of Ithaca and hold it harmless with regard to any
and all claims.-arising from the operation of the site by the food vendor as herein
contemplated Arid permitted.
Hours of Operation
Four (4) separate vending times are available:
1. Breakfast — 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
2. Lunch — 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
3. Dinner— 4:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
4. Late Night— 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Page 12
Vending Zones:
1. Residential sites are for Lunch and Dinner times only. No -
vending may occur after 10:00 p.m.
2. Business /Commercial sites may be utilized for Lunch, Dinner
and Late Night times. No vending may occur after 2:00 a.m.
3. Sites specially labeled for breakfast vendors may not be utilized before 7:00 a.m.
Designated Vending Locations
1. Occupation of vending locations is on a first -come "- served basis each day.
2. Locations will not be reserved for specific vendor;
3. If a vendor finds a location that is not a designated vendft location, the vendor
must obtain, and submit to the City, written permission from aril restaurants and
businesses within 200 feet of the location to set up in that loceson.
Proposed Vending Locations:
Street Location
# Trucks
9keakfast
Lunch
dinner
Late Night
Cascadilla St. (dead end near Rick's Rental )
2
X
X
Chestnut St. Ext.
2
X
X
Eddy St. near Eddygate
2
X
Geneva St. between Green & Seneca
2
X
X
X
Grandview Ave . /Grandview Court (exception-
No Sunday vending due.4o church)
2
X
X
Pier Rd. cul de sac by clubhouse -
2.
X
X
Stewart Ave. between Williams and Stewart
Ave. Bridge
2
X
Stewart Ave. next to The Hot Truck
1
X
X
X
Thurston Ave. next to Lou%'s Lunchr truck
1
X
X
X
Titus Ave. cat# de sac by CVS
2
x
X
X
West End Paris Log
2
x
x
X
x
Willow Ave.
2
x
x
City Park
Auburn Park Adams Street sides
3
x
x
Baker Park Plain St. or Park.St:.
3
x
x
Bryant Park -
3
x
x
Cass Park
3 -4
x
x
Conway Park
3
x
x
Stewart Park
3 -4
x
x
Titus Ave. by Triangle Park
3
x
x
Washington Park
3
x
x
Wood St. Park (north side of street )
3
x
x
Page 13
Route -Base Vendors (ice cream trucks)
1. Ice cream trucks may be allowed in residential neighborhoods
with the submission of a map showing the route(s) that will be
followed.
2. Trucks may not stop for more than 15 minutes at a time. All
traffic and parking laws must be followed.
Signage
1. Each vendor may place 1 small sign no further than 50 feet in either direction from
their food truck (2 sign maximum) within the curb lawn.
2. One "Sandwich Board" may be placed outsidee of each food truck, per specifications
listed in City Code Chapter 272.
Enforcement
The City may revoke a street vending permit for:
1. Violations of the Rules of Ope #on;.
2. Dumping in City trash cans, grates, storm sewers, or other areas;
3. Fraud; or
4. Violation of any ordinances, regulations or laws.
Revocation of Permit
1. If a permit is revoked, the permit period, shall end immediately, and no refund will be
issued. No application for a now permit may be submitted for one year from the
expiratiem of the revoked. permit,
2. Appeals may be submitted for review to the Street Vending Subcommittee via the
Superintendent of Public Works.
Page 14
✓i�._si
L CID
C
C
W
5�
L
I
y�r
fi •'
!per ♦ } pp
k
"alkl
;.-
1
55 e
r �tJy
- i`T"'"�. � _ ... I n � 4'I ?�''. t a_; 11 � - • 4i I � l � � �� � �.. gas...: �' �. �
4 t�
1
r ` 1w ,
. S4
_ o
u I:.
4:,
low
°3N
-
w
S
I:
b
�a c'
ao.Is-;
aN
9
¢a °3o
a
asax
N
'TU(1
r�4
Aa
:1 9
i EB
N
a
IZ-iiZ, I
------------ - -
- - - --------------------
`ste� '�
7 `
t
4�4 L
I/
Cy,..— 7
`'t
4
W
g5
{T
,�
- _
.,4
�� -•1 - -
1'
W D
wa
7
w
1:
fi •'
!per ♦ } pp
k
"alkl
;.-
1
55 e
r �tJy
- i`T"'"�. � _ ... I n � 4'I ?�''. t a_; 11 � - • 4i I � l � � �� � �.. gas...: �' �. �
4 t�
1
r ` 1w ,
. S4
_ o
u I:.
4:,
low
°3N
-
w
S
I:
b
�a c'
ao.Is-;
aN
9
¢a °3o
a
asax
N
'TU(1
r�4
Aa
:1 9
i EB
N
a
IZ-iiZ, I