HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2017-03-27BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. March 27, 2017
PRESENT:
Mayor Myrick
Commissioners (5) – Darling, Greene, Warden, Jenkins, McCormick
OTHERS PRESENT:
Supt. of Public Works - Thorne
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities – Benjamin
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
Common Council Liaison – Fleming
Information Management Specialist - Myers
Director of Engineering – Logue
Director of Parking – Nagy
EXCUSED:
City Attorney – Lavine
Call to Order/Agenda Review:
There were no additions to or deletions from the agenda.
Mayor’s Communications:
The Mayor had no communications for the Board at this time.
Communications and Hearings from Persons Before the Board:
Lou Cassaniti, “The Hot Dog Guy”, addressed the Board to express his full support for
the City’s Street Food Vending Policy. He encouraged the Board to allow as many
vendors around the downtown area as possible, particularly near The Commons. He
thanked the City and the Board for establishing the program, which has become a
means by which young entrepreneurs may start a business.
David West, Chair of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council, addressed the Board
regarding the recent distribution of the City’s Working Group recommendations
regarding boards and committees’ in an effort to consolidate and better utilize them and
the volunteers’ time. He noted that the recommendations propose to combine the
Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council with the Disability Advisory Council. His personal
opinion is that seems like a good plan; however, he would encourage the Board of
Public Works to request a connection be established between the Board and the new
proposed “Mobility Commission”. It will be important for conversations to continue
between the Board of Public Works and the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory
Council/Disability Advisory Council. He would request that be included in the
recommendations. He also noted that administrative staff support for all the
commissions which will vastly improve their work and the flow of information to
everyone.
Response to the Public:
Mayor Myrick felt that it would be good for the Board of Public Works to have discussion
about the proposed recommendations for the city’s boards and committees at a meeting
in the near future. The Board needs to ensure that communication between the new
commissions is maintained with them. He also expressed his thanks to Mr. Cassiniti for
coming his support of Street Food Vending Policy.
Reports:
CC Liaison Fleming reported that Common Council will be holding a Committee of the
Whole meeting on Wednesday, March 29, at 6:00 p.m. to review the proposed
recommendations from the Working Group on boards and committees.
Commissioner Darling, BPW Liaison to the Planning and Development Board, reported
that there was a special meeting of the Board on March 22nd to review the draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Chain Works project on South Hill. The project
will have direct impacts on the city’s Department of Public Works, traffic circulation,
funding through the Sidewalk Improvement District program, and impacts on
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes March 27, 2017
2
construction of connections between downtown and the project for both vehicles and
pedestrians. Once the development on the project begins, the impact on traffic flow will
be studied through the neighborhood. He noted, that if there is an existing problem with
traffic flow, the developers are not required to mitigate it.
Director of Engineering Logue stated that two requests for proposals have been sent
out; one for the assessment of the possible vertical expansion of the Dryden Road
Parking Garage, and the other is for the design study of the five corners intersection at
Dryden and Ithaca Roads to determine if the traffic signal should be rebuilt or the
intersection reconstructed into a round-about.
He further reported that staff reviewed the work zone on East Seneca Street for the
Tompkins Trust Company project related to pedestrian access. Staff met with the code
inspector from the building department for the project; in order to accommodate
pedestrians and meet code requirements for safe passage of pedestrians in front of the
work zone, it would require that one lane of traffic be removed. The reasons being the
infrastructure that would need to be built for pedestrians is required to be covered to
ensure safety of pedestrians, and the cost (up to $20,000/month) make the requirement
at this stage of the project unreasonable. Staff will ensure in the future that new
projects make accommodations for pedestrians before work is commenced.
Completion date for the project is estimated to be March 2018. The contractor has
done a great job with posting signage for pedestrians in multiple places, more than is
required.
There was a construction coordination meeting for the development in Collegetown last
week. The next meeting is this Friday, at which staff will be meeting with
representatives from the Johnson School project and NYSEG to determine whether
NYSEG can continue to replace gas mains; however that will mean College Avenue
would be closed again this summer, which staff don’t want but are investigating.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the lack of pedestrian access by the
Tompkins Trust Company project, and the impacts and costs related to requiring the
contractor to mitigate the problem so that the area is accessible. Board members did
express the need to ensure that in all future construction projects, pedestrian access is
planned for and maintained for the duration of the project.
Asst. Supt. Benjamin reported that the annual spring street cleaning will begin on
Monday, April 3rd. Work on the retaining wall at Six Mile Creek is on hold since it is
weather dependent and the recent rains and melting of snow have caused high water in
the creek.
Asst. Supt. Whitney reported that for the past year and a half, engineers at the Water
and Sewer Department have been working to double check old records with the new
digital data system regarding lead pipes still in use in the City of Ithaca. There are
5,450 total water services in city of Ithaca, out of that 521 have lead piping dating back
to the 1930’s. The City tested 60 of these for lead and the results ranged from non-
detectable to well within normal limits. Earlier this month, the department sent letters to
those property owners to provide them with information on the different options they
could choose on how to handle and use their lead service in safety. As a result of those
letters, staff have been fielding calls (15 so far) from property owners about those
options; at this point 12-15 of those property owners want to have their service
replaced. He estimates that the average cost to replace the lead pipes in these
residential areas to be somewhere between $2,000 and $7,000 depending on location,
other utilities involved, and work involving the road pavement. (A copy of the letter dated
March 9, 2017 will be attached to the minutes).
Director of Parking Nagy distributed color coded on-street parking occupancy maps as
the result of the first run of occupancy rates with the license plate readers. Staff will be
collecting this data routinely in order to establish appropriate on-street parking rates
around the City. The data includes information on occupancy for both day and night
time rates. The ideal occupancy range for every street is around 85%, anything other
than that the parking rate should be adjusted either up or down accordingly to bring the
occupancy up. He reported that during the daytime, the data shows that there is
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes March 27, 2017
3
definite turn-over on the street, which is the goal. If anyone has questions, he
encouraged them to call him.
CC Liaison Fleming wondered whether, according to the occupancy data presented
today, if it was being suggested that the City could have differential rates for parking?
Director of Parking Nagy responded yes, that once there is more data and numbers are
known for the entire city it could be a possibility.
Supt. Thorne reported that staff are working on the LED street light conversion for all
street lights in the city of Ithaca. The first step is for the City to purchase the lights from
NYSEG, and then convert them over to LED. The City will be contacting a company
called “Light Smart”, that is well known for their work converting street lights to LED
across the Northeast part of the country, to conduct a study first to determine the best
way to achieve this goal.
He further reported that staff will be attending training for asbestos abatement work.
That will mean that the City will have staff that can do asbestos abatement work where
needed. It will enable the City to increase efficiency in a cost-effective manner.
The Department of Public Works has some positions open at the Water and Sewer
Department, a construction engineer for Streets and Facilities, and a Financial
Management Assistant position. Some good candidates have been interviewed, and
they hope to fill the positions very soon. The department is always looking for people to
work.
New Project Presentation:
Street (Mobile) Vending Policy Presentation:
Executive Assistant Servoss and Council and Committee member, Cynthia Brock,
joined the Board for presentation and discussion of this topic.
Executive Assistant Servoss reported that there were multiple meetings held over a
period of months to discuss the current street vending policy, and what changes should
be made to better accommodate vendors and administrative oversight of the program.
The information contained in the PowerPoint presentation for this topic will be attached
to the minutes of the meeting.
The following proposals were highlighted for the Board:
Options for Types of Permits – change to annual or seasonal to be consistent with other
permits (i.e. outdoor dining and mobile vending on the Commons). Retain the same
temporary and special event permit process for street food vendors (apply through
event organizer and subject to an additional fee).
The term “administrative fee” will be used rather than “application fee”
Change rate structure from current on-street parking rate to the rates established by
Chapter 170 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Use of City Real Property”.
The only change in approved vending locations would be on Eddy Street at the Corner
of Dryden Road. There are two parking spaces there; however, there is not enough
room for two trucks. The proposal is to change that spot to one space for one truck and
then add some additional spaces around the Collegetown area.
There are sixty-two (62) potential vending sites.
There are thirty-one (31) vending spots located within city parkland (Stewart, Cass,
Thompson Parks, etc.). Common Council would need to make the determination and
approve the use of city parkland for this purpose. Therefore, after approval from the
Board of Public Works for the mobile street vending policy, it will need to go through the
City Administration Committee and then on to Common Council for final approval.
This street vending policy allows vendors to have options for where they want to vend
and for what hours, and premium rates for specific locations. In discussing the policy it
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes March 27, 2017
4
should be noted by the Board that it was developed based upon current staffing. If the
policy were to become more complicated there is no ability by staff to police and enforce
the rules; the proposed policy fits with the resources available.
Posted signage at the parking locations for street vendors contains specific language
about the parking requirements for each parking spot; that way when not in use by the
vendor the spot can be used by others. However, if others are in the reserved spot
during the hours designated for vending and the vendor cannot park, they can have the
police ticket and tow the vehicle away.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the following topics: vending rates
in general, should there be different rates for downtown and Collegetown, vending
requirements for special events, flat rates versus premium rates, vending hours for
breakfast, lunch or dinner, and what to do if vendor wants to move from location to
location depending upon time of day.
Commissioner Greene, who served on the street food vending committee, explained
that at meetings within the last couple of weeks the topic of whether the vendor’s annual
fee could be a mechanism to make sure they have all the necessary paperwork. In
conjunction with that, could the City ask vendors to submit additional permit applications
and paperwork to vend during special events or should their current paperwork suffice.
In a sense, holding street food vendors to a little higher standard than a typical vendor
for a special event. Right now, this question is unresolved; however, it will have to be
addressed soon. In addition the 200’ set back rule will become problematic in the future
as additional development occurs in the City. Committee members were advocating to
use zoning as a way to regulate the use and activity of food trucks around the city - as
opposed to establishing multiple sites around the City. We know that in Collegetown
where a lot of development is taking place there will be conflicts. The question that
needs to be answered is should the City evict the street vendor to accommodate the
new development; more thought and discussion needs to occur to determine how to
resolve some of these lingering issues. It was clarified that there will be two different
rates – one for the downtown area and one for the Collegetown area.
Common Council Liaison Brock agreed with those comments, and stated that it would
be good to have sub-committee meet to flush out these unresolved issues. However,
the sub-committee wanted to bring these recommendations to the Board now, because
they would like the proposed new fees approved by no later than April 1st, which is the
start of the next vending season. The policy as it is now, is still a work in progress.
Mayor Myrick asked whether current members of the street food vending sub-committee
are willing and able to continue to meet to resolve these lingering issues. He noted, that
it appears, from the sub-committee members present, that they are.
Mayor Myrick asked Board members if they were comfortable moving and voting on the
policy and proposed changes to the rate structure today; understanding that the sub-
committee will continue to meet to work on the unresolved issues and report back to the
Board in the future with their recommendations.
Board members expressed this support for the proposed policy and fees, and agreed to
vote on them at today’s meeting.
Approval of the City of Ithaca Street Vending Policy - Resolution
By Mayor Myrick: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works approves the proposed
Street Food Vending Policy dated March 2, 2017 as amended; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the fees, as indicated in section V.B. entitled “Permit Fees” outlined
in the Street Food Vending Policy be established based upon the rates in the City of
Ithaca Municipal Code Chapter 170, entitled “Use of City Real Property” effective April
1, 2017.
Carried Unanimously
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes March 27, 2017
5
Buildings, Properties, Refuse & Transit:
Request for Encroachment Agreement for 308 East Seneca Street - Resolution
By Commissioner Darling: Seconded by Commissioner McCormick
WHEREAS, Mike Wells, on behalf of the business operating from 308 East Seneca
Street (Tax Map Parcel No. 62.-5-14), in the City of Ithaca, with said property being
owned by Bridge Coast Enterprises, LLC, has requested an encroachment
agreement/license from the City into the adjacent airspace of the street right-of-way for
East Seneca Street; and
WHEREAS, the encroachment consists of the following:
Lighting fixtures and an awning 92 inches above the sidewalk extending from the
building into airspace by thirty inches (of which 22 inches are within the City right of
way) along the southern face of the building located at 308 East Seneca Street to
encroach for a span of approximately 14.5 feet, and encompassing approximately 28
square feet of air space above the City right-of-way, which is shown on drawings
submitted with the Application for Use of City Property, incorporated into this resolution
by reference; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed lighting fixtures and awning will not interfere
with the sidewalk or right-of-way as currently constituted; and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent does not anticipate any conflicts in the near future with
public works uses or needs; and
WHEREAS, the 2017-18 schedule of fees for use of City-owned property requires an
initial application fee of $100 for new licenses, but stipulates that the annual use fee
shall be waived for minor encroachments; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby grants the request for an
encroachment at 308 East Seneca Street, as proposed, contingent upon the execution
of a license/agreement, submission of the required application form and fee (and
renewal fees for any subsequent terms) and proof of required insurance; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, upon consultation with the Superintendent and City
Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute a license/agreement allowing said
encroachment, revocable upon 90 days’ written notice by the City in the event that the
encroached upon City property is required for any City purpose, and containing the
usual terms and conditions, including those specified in Chapter 170 of the City’s
Municipal Code.
Carried Unanimously
Highways, Streets, and Sidewalks:
Authorization to Enter into Agreement with Cornell University for Erection of a
Fence Along Fall Creek Drive - Resolution
By Commissioner Warden: Seconded by Commissioner Darling
WHEREAS, Cornell University proposes erection of a fence attaching to an existing
stone wall along Fall Creek Drive; and
WHEREAS, the stone wall is relatively low with a wide, flat top, from which people enjoy
views of the gorge, but also unintentionally invites people to climb, stand or rest on it
posing safety and welfare concerns related to falls into the gorge; and
WHEREAS, although ownership of the land on which the stone wall sits is not clear, and
may rest with an unknown third party, the City and Cornell as adjacent property owners
to the unclaimed property (City as owner of the Fall Creek Drive right of way and Cornell
as owner of the adjacent parcel) are interested in pursuing an agreement to enable
Cornell to erect the fence; and
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes March 27, 2017
6
WHEREAS, as part of its gorge stewardship, Cornell asked the City for permission to
erect, on a voluntary basis, a fence at the stone wall to deter public access to the
Cornell Gorge Parcel from the Stone Wall and Cornell obtained from the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission a Certificate of Appropriateness on April 14, 2015
to construct a black metal picket fence with finials on top of the stone wall; and
WHEREAS, City staff are supportive of Cornell’s voluntary erection of a fence at the
stone wall, and are in agreement that the fence will serve mutual public health, safety
and welfare interests; and
WHEREAS, to the extent City Code Chapter 170 “Use of City Real Property” applies,
the Board supports entry into an agreement with Cornell University to authorize
installation of the fence; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Board of Public Work authorizes, upon the advice of the City
Attorney and Superintendent of Public Works, the Mayor to execute an agreement with
Cornell University to govern the installation of the fence and responsibilities for the
fence and stone wall.
Carried Unanimously
Parking and Traffic:
Resolution to Grant Hardship Request for 109 Parker Street for the Residential
Parking Permit System
By Commissioner Jenkins: Seconded by Commissioner Greene
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works (BPW) has promulgated regulations, adopted
June 9, 2004, for implementation of the Residential Parking Permit System (RPPS),
which was established by Common Council on May 6, 1998 after an act of the New
York State Legislature; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 260-4 of the City Code and in accordance with
the BPW regulations, the BPW may grant hardship requests; and
WHEREAS, 109 Parker Street is on a street within the residential Parking Permit Zone
without on-street parking and is within the R-2 zoning designation; therefore allowing up
to four permits per multifamily dwelling; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby grants up to four residents of 109
Parker Street to purchase permits for the Residential Parking Permit Systems, in
accordance with the above-mentioned regulations.
Carried Unanimously
Water and Sewer:
Appeal of Water and Sewer Bill for 105-07 East York Street - Resolution
By Commissioner McCormick: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2016 through January 7, 2017 there was a constant
water leak of 16-20-CF/hr. at 105-107 East York Street which resulted in a total usage
of 115-HCF, 5-times the normal water usage; and
WHEREAS, an out of range letter was sent to the Customer as a result of the February
2, 2017 high water meter reading and the Customer scheduled and met with a City
Water Meter Technician on February 23, 2017 to perform a data log and determine the
time frame and likely cause of the leak; and
WHEREAS, the leak apparently was the result of a malfunctioning toilet tank valve
where all the water went through the water meter and out to the sanitary sewer; and
WHEREAS, the customer responsible for the water and sewer bill totaling $1,418.45
has requested a payment plan be arranged with the City Chamberlains Office to enable
them to pay the bill; now, therefore be it
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes March 27, 2017
7
RESOLVED, That the $1,418.45 current water bill not be subject to late fees or interest
and a 1-year payment plan be set up by the Chamberlain’s Office with the
understanding that if the Owner should let payment lapse the balance will be re-levied
to the City tax bill for the property. The Owner will need to go to the Chamberlains Office
with the first payment to set up this repayment plan within 30-days of the date of this
Resolution.
Carried Unanimously
Discussion Items:
Public Art Commission Request for Approval of Ithaca Youth Bureau Building as
a Potential Mural Location – Resolution
By Commissioner Darling: Seconded by Commissioner Warden
WHEREAS, in 2010, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) created a mural
and street art program to beautify blank walls within the city while providing local artists
from all sections of the community an opportunity to showcase their work; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several City-owned sites for inclusion
on the list of potential sites in the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission’s Mural and
Street Art Program by resolution on May 19, 2010 and has approved additional sites for
inclusion in the program since that time; and
WHEREAS, as a result of this approval, the PAC has worked with more than 50 artists
to install murals on City-owned property throughout the city, and the response to the
new murals has been overwhelmingly positive; and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Youth Bureau (IYB) has asked the PAC to consider the exterior
of the IYB building as a location for future murals to help brighten up the building and
make the building look more kid- and community-friendly; and
WHEREAS, the PAC would like to consider the IYB building as a location for future
murals and will work with IYB staff to ensure that any proposed murals meet the IYB’s
goal for the space; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works approves the Ithaca Youth Bureau
building for inclusion on the list of potential sites for the PAC’s Mural and Street Art
Program; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the PAC will continue to work with Planning Department staff to
conduct a mutually acceptable public input procedure for engaging nearby businesses,
residences, and/or business and neighborhood associations for each specific project;
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the PAC will work with the City Attorney to ensure that any art mural
RFP or contract with a participating artist reflects and accommodates the needs and
constraints of the City.
Youth Bureau Director Klohmann joined the Board for discussion of this topic.
Commissioner Warden reported that he investigated what the siding material is on the
Youth Bureau building related to future painting of any mural on it. He determined that
the surface is such that any paint on the surface would be permanent and probably
soak into the concrete. That would mean any painted mural would have to be
maintained and removal of same back to the original surface would only be possible at
significant cost. He is concerned that a new mural installation would put additional
burdens on an already stretched Department of Public Works regarding its
maintenance. Other than those concerns, he thinks the idea is fabulous and would put
life back into the building.
Youth Bureau Director Klohmann stated that she understands the concern about the
surface of the building and understands the permanence of such a mural. However,
she and the rest of the staff are very excited with the idea of a mural being painted on
the building. The mural would bring attention to all the great things that the Youth
Bureau does, and create an inviting and welcoming feel to everyone.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes March 27, 2017
8
There are murals at Cass Park, one of which has been there for 20 years, and the other
a couple years. All three murals are weathering well with a power washing every now
and then by staff. As far as future maintenance of the mural, she stated that Youth
Bureau staff would take on the maintenance themselves rather than adding it to the
workload of the Department of Public Works. She has been in touch with the Planning
and Economic Development Committee about the mural and the concept for what kind
of design should be painted on the building.
Supt. Thorne voiced his curiosity as to whether consideration had been given to
installing panels (like the ones on the Tompkins County Public Library) to display murals
rather than to paint directly on the surface of the building. His concern is about the
permanency of paint on the surface of the building if it turns out that the appearance of
the mural is lacking and not what everyone had hoped it would be – if the mural was on
a panel, the panel could just be removed. He noted that the Youth Bureau is still one of
city’s newer buildings, so that does add to his concerns, along with the fact that
sometimes people’s opinions vary on what art is, so if a mistake is made it would be
very easy to just put up another panel.
Youth Bureau Director Klohmann responded that the staff of the Youth Bureau would
prefer to have the mural painted on the concrete surface of the building. However, if the
Department of Public Works would prefer panels, then some of the designs proposed
for the wall would not be able to be accommodated on a panel because of the curvature
of the walls. She noted that she understand the concerns about the permanency;
however, it is her understanding that staff of the Youth Bureau do not have to accept
just anything. Any mural on the building would showcase the services offered by the
Youth Bureau that would display what people value the Youth Bureau for in the
community. She has seen some of the proposed artists’ work and some of it she would
consider museum quality.
Supt. Thorne explained that he does not want to be thought of as someone who is anti-
art, he is concerned about putting something on the building that will be there
permanently.
Commissioner Darling supports the proposal since the question of what the surface of
the outside of the building has been answered, so the Board should support the
request.
Commissioner Greene stated that the goal of a public art mural on the building shows
great vision. He does share the concern raised about the permanency of such a mural
versus temporary panels that would provide flexibility in future. The main issues are to
ensure that such a mural will not damage the outside of the building, and is the Board
sure it wants a permanent piece of art here or should it explore other options for how
public art work might be displayed for the building.
Commissioner Warden reported that he has noticed more and more when he travels to
different municipalities that artwork is being displayed on similar types of buildings. It’s
a nice way to know, from a distance, what kind of place you’re going to and it can be a
good feeling. The installation of panels may be more expensive but would provide for
flexibility in the future versus the permanency of painting directly on the surface of the
building, and the Board needs to consider that as a decision is made.
Youth Bureau Director Klohmann stated that the Youth Bureau submitted a proposal to
the Community Arts Partnership for funds for the mural. The funds are provided by
private donors, so if they are approved, there would be no cost to the City for the
installation of the mural. She noted that many years ago there was a panel mural inside
the building; when it was removed staff then had the problem of what they should do
with the it because it's someone’s art work. This is also a question to consider, what
should be done with them when they are no longer on display? She can go back to the
staff of the Youth Bureau to make sure that a mural painted on the outside surface of
the building is what they want and support.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes March 27, 2017
9
Mayor Myrick questioned whether this resolution would be placed on the Board’s next
agenda for a vote.
Board members expressed their support for the proposal, and suggested that they vote
on the resolution today – which no one objected to.
A Vote on the Resolution Resulted As Follows:
Carried Unanimously
Request for a Street Permit Fee Waiver from Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services
Lynne Truame, from Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS), joined the Board
for discussion of the request.
Mayor Myrick referred to the letter submitted by INHS regarding this unplanned nor
anticipated additional cost that would be imposed because of the sidewalk closures for
this project. INHS is constrained by a very tight budget with no room for flexibility in
project costs, so any additional expenses (which could be significant) at this point,
would have to be absorbed by them. (See letter attached to minutes).
Mayor Myrick stated that the City has heard the same from other developers; however,
they have not submitted appeals. He asked what separates this project from, say the
other projects going on Collegetown and downtown that would want a waiver.
Ms. Truame responded that this project consists of affordable housing, and INHS is
constrained by a specific budget amount for the project. Any costs over and above the
approved budget that have to be paid for by INHS may not be reimbursed accordingly.
Right now, the project already has had fairly large cost overages related to the loss of
the contractor that INHS has had to absorb. New York State laws do not allow INHS to
reimburse themselves for the additional expenses - thus the request.
Commissioner Darling voiced his opinion that since the sidewalks are reported to be
constructed and completed by the end of May that the Board approve the request as
long as the sidewalks are in and approved by the end of June. The Board of Public
Works is in a position right now where they could agree to waive the fee given the
location and since the project will provide affordable housing. In addition, if INHS had
been aware of the fee when the project was being planned and the budget for it
prepared, they could have staged the project differently so as to not remove the
sidewalks.
Mayor Myrick stated that the same thing could also be said for other contractors around
the City facing the same fee.
Commissioner Greene noted that most of those contractors would have a way to
recover the additional costs.
Director of Engineering Logue stated that INHS’s fee has been calculated based on the
fact that there are two sidewalks closed. The Board of Public Works established the fee
structure so that it varies based upon the location of the project. Only one block of
INHS’s project is in a commercial zone and the rest is located in residential areas. In
addition, the area of the project where the project is being construction (the Northside
neighborhood) is considered a residential zone. He would suggest that the fee be
based upon both blocks being in the residential zone.
Commissioner Warden shared two concerns of his; one is if the Board makes a blanket
waiver for INHS, then it is setting precedence for future appeals/waivers. The fact that
the project will provide affordable housing and their funding is limited by New York
State, what Director of Engineering Logue suggested would be a legitimate justification
for the waiver that the projects in Collegetown could not use. In addition, in this
particular area and for this particular project, he does not see any issues with
pedestrians using the sidewalk on the other side of the street rather than the one that is
closed. This project is completely different from the Tompkins Trust Company project
as far as access to a sidewalk. It will be important if this request is granted, be it to
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes March 27, 2017
10
either change the fee or provide a full waiver that the reasons why the Board acted this
way relate to the fact that the project is located in a residential neighborhood, and it will
provide affordable housing, which are important points. He stated that at this time he
would not support a full waiver of the fee.
Commissioner Greene stated that he is leaning towards Commissioner Darling’s
approach, plus the project is providing for the public good with affordable housing. He
would request that INHS submit for reimbursement whatever the cost ends up being.
He would encourage INHS, in good faith, to request reimbursement for the cost of the
fee; if any reimbursement is made it would come back to the City.
Ms. Truame responded that it would be November before reimbursement, if any, is
made to INHS. The proposal to reduce the fee is not ideal, but the decision is up to the
Board.
CC Liaison Fleming suggested that INHS’s request be granted given the justification
outlined above, the fact that the fees were implemented after the project was approved,
and they are fulfilling their responsibility to the City to provide affordable housing. If
these reasons are clear and specific, it should prevent further appeals to the Board.
Commissioner McCormick noted that there are certain concessions and tax breaks
given to INHS through the Industrial Development Agency for this project, so it would
not be wrong to include that information in the waiver. As far as appeals from other
developers about the fee, if they will provide six affordable housing units then a waiver
could be granted without question.
Ms. Truame stated that INHS would likely not be making this type of request for a
waiver in the future, since they now know about the fee and will plan and incorporate it
into their budget for projects. If INHS had prior knowledge of the fee when beginning
the processes for approval of the project, it would have been included in their plans.
Supt. Thorne questioned whether or not the City should push back its deadline
(currently April 15th) for implementation of the new fee structure relative to similar
existing projects around the City. Recognizing that a lot of projects did get started,
budgeted and financed for before the policy was changed, it might not be a bad idea to
push the effective date to maybe July 1st. That would be another way to address future
appeals that may be submitted to the Board for the same or similar reasons. The main
goal of the new fee structure was to make developers aware of the need requirement to
provide pedestrian access during their projects. The new fee structure would then
affect new projects, not existing and approved projects. He feels that would be a
cleaner way to implement the new fee structure.
Commissioner Warden stated that one of the reasons the fees were increased related
to various construction projects around the City creating accessibility issues for
pedestrians due to the closure of adjacent sidewalks. He feels that INHS’s project in
this particular area of the City is a project that has the least impact of pedestrians. If the
Board supports their request for a waiver, then it may have to hear requests from other
developers for an appeal to the fee. However, that will not correct or help existing
problems in high density areas of the City. The fee won’t necessarily resolve this
problem, but it may provide some incentive to developers to close sidewalks for the
shortest time possible. The goal of the fee increase is clear; however, it needs to be
implemented in a fair and consistent way – if that means the deadline gets pushed
back, then he would support that.
Commissioner McCormick stated that he would prefer to keep the deadline date already
established and grant this request from INHS. People walk more in the summer, other
projects, with the implementation of the new fee structure, will, hopefully have pressure
to open up sidewalks to pedestrians as soon as they can because of the additional
costs. At this point, he hasn’t seen requests for other waivers, so he would suggest that
until the Board does, that the current deadline be kept in order to ensure and maintain
access for pedestrians for the upcoming construction season.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes March 27, 2017
11
Mayor Myrick stated that if this waiver is granted, then most likely the Board will see an
increase in additional requests for waivers from other developers.
Ms. Truame stated that the goal of INHS is to have the sidewalks completed by the end
of May.
Director of Engineering Logue stated that since the fees don’t go into effect until April
15th, there might be a period of six weeks where a fee would be incurred that could
result in a cost of about $1,200 based upon the rate for residential areas. This would be
a lower cost than initially estimated, and if there is a possibility of some type of
reimbursement, keeping the effective date might make sense. In addition, as has been
said, there is an existing sidewalk across the street for pedestrians to access, unlike
some other projects.
Supt. Thorne stated he has heard some complaints from developers, which are
legitimate on Dryden Road that a building was built the way it was based on certain
rules and this new fee structure is not going to incentivize them because no adjustments
are going to be made necessarily to accommodate pedestrians. If maintaining the
sidewalk wasn’t part of the original budget or plan, he would support phasing in the new
fee structure slower.
Commissioner Greene wondered whether there are some sites such as the one noted
on Dryden Road that make this a flawed policy?
Supt. Thorne responded zoning regulations in some areas require the building to be
built right next to the sidewalk, so there is no way to provide access on the sidewalk
unless the right-of-way is used; there are going to be unavoidable obstructions with
certain projects. In addition, in some cases the fee won’t discourage the use of the
sidewalk for the project because to some, a monthly fee of $20,000, is just a drop in the
bucket.
Mayor Myrick proposed that given this is an INHS project providing affordable housing,
which the City has use for, and the 2017 budget doesn’t require a certain amount of
revenue from this new fee structure, he would propose adjusting the rate to the
residential rate rather than the commercial rate, and provide a one month delay in the
effective date so the Board can decide what to do going forward. That proposal might
leave a two week period of cost to INHS.
Supt. Thorne stated that the Board should make a determination regarding the date of
implementation for this new fee structure soon. He suggested June 1st.
The Board supported that date for implementation. Director of Engineering Logue will
provide a resolution for the Board to vote on at their next meeting.
A Draft Resolution to Establish Guidelines for the Repair or Reconstruction of
Pedestrian Connections Between the Sidewalk and Street
WHEREAS, around the City in many locations are pedestrian connections in the public
right-of-way between the public sidewalk, which runs generally parallel with the street,
and the street itself; these connections usually take the form of concrete slabs, steps, a
staircase, or a ramp; and
WHEREAS, it has been the policy and practice of the City that these connections are
there for the private benefit of the adjacent property owner and are therefore the
responsibility of the adjacent property owner; and
WHEREAS, as a matter of practice, when the City sponsors a construction project that
would modify these connections (and particularly when the connections are not in a
state of good repair), the City has offered to rebuild the connection at the property
owners cost; and
WHEREAS, if the property owner declined this opportunity, the City would typically
remove the connection as serving no public benefit; and
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes March 27, 2017
12
WHEREAS, from time to time, adjacent property owners have appealed or will appeal
that these connections serve some public purpose and ought to be reconstructed at the
City’s cost or in some cost sharing arrangement; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works desires to establish a set of criteria to assist in
evaluating such appeals with the expectation that the criteria will provide guidance to
staff, Board Commissioners, and the public; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works establishes the following criteria as
guidance to assist in decision making in cases when an abutting property has appealed
for City participation in the cost of repairing or reconstructing pedestrian connections
between the public sidewalk and the street:
• The City is sponsoring a construction project that affects an existing pedestrian
connection as described above;
• Due to the City project, there would otherwise be no pedestrian access to the
street curb from the sidewalk due to a steep slope or retaining wall;
• The vertical distance between the top of curb and sidewalk is at least 4 feet;
• The proposed condition would otherwise have a longitudinal distance of more
than 150 feet to some other pedestrian access to the street, such as a driveway apron,
a set of stairs, a concrete slab, or a ramp;
• The Police Chief and Fire Chief have agreed that the stairs would provide an
emergency services benefit;
• The Transportation Engineer has agreed that either a mid-block crossing is
appropriate or that the construction of the stairs is not likely to lead to a significant
pedestrian or traffic safety issue;
And, be it further
RESOLVED, That these criteria are not meant to be the exclusive criteria to be used in
decision making and that other factors may be considered as needed; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That it is not the intention of the Board of Public Works to commit the City
to future maintenance of such pedestrian connections should they be approved for one
time funding and that it is the expectation of the Board that maintenance of the
pedestrian connections will still be the responsibility of the abutting property owners in
accordance with the City Code.
Director of Engineering Logue stated that he hopes the resolution captures all the
criteria the Board wants. It states that the City shall proceed under its existing policy
relating to work on private property. If the City is going to be doing work in a location
that will impact private property, a letter will be sent to the property owner explaining the
work it will be undertaking, and inquire as to whether the owner would like repairs made
at the same time, in which case the City would bill the property owner. The property
owner would then be responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructure in the future.
If the property owner would like to appeal the cost of the work or the future maintenance
responsibilities, it can make a written appeal to the Board of Public Works.
Commissioner Darling noted that with no specific cost in the resolution it means
that each case will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. By implementing this
procedure the City will be able to ensure that all the work is done according to
code and safely. Any appeal for stairways would require approval by the Board.
Commissioner Warden stated that with the sidewalk/stairway work on East
Spencer Street will probably involve utilities into the building. Should the
homeowners be made aware of that upfront so that, if they want, they can make
arrangements to coordinate with work on the sidewalk?
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes March 27, 2017
13
Director of Engineering Logue responded that the City typically will inform the
property owner of all the possible impacts. Further, once the plan proposed by
the property owner is approved, staff would bring it to the Board to determine
what the city/property owners’ cost would be.
Commissioner Darling stated that it would be nice to determine a maximum
amount that the city would pay for any type of project so that can be shared with
the with the public as they submit an appeal.
Mayor Myrick requested that this item be placed on the agenda for a vote at their
next meeting on April 10th.
Board of Public Works Meeting Date:
Mayor Myrick explained that in response to his request to the Board to possibly
change its meeting date to better accommodate his schedule, and the domino
effect it would have on not only other boards/committees, but staff that he has
been rethinking the request. He shared the idea of rather than changing the
meeting date of the Board that perhaps there could be just one meeting of the
Board rather than two each month. He would prefer that because it would mean
that his schedule could be adjusted so that he could attend more meetings than
he has been able to recently. He stated that this is only an idea, but he asked
Board members and staff to think about what it would mean to just have one
meeting a month as far as timing for certain items, and whether it would work or
not.
Commissioner Warden responded that changing to one meeting a month would
affect the “Goldsmith Rule”; which would be problematic.
Commissioner Darling wondered whether there was a need for all staff to be at
every meeting of the Board, and whether to better accommodate their schedule,
they could attend on an as needed basis depending upon agenda topics.
Mayor Myrick responded that it could be problematic to not have staff at every
meeting, due to the fact that there are so many variable questions that arise with
discussions that might not be able to be answered until appropriate staff can
attend the meeting. It would mean continuing the discussion at a future meeting
when pertinent staff would be in attendance.
Supt. Thorne stated that there are a lot of items that come before the Board that
could, perhaps, be handled by staff administratively. Most recommendations
from staff are approved by the Board. That way, any appeals for staff decisions
could come to the Board as the appeals Board.
Mayor Myrick responded that that suggestion has been the trend for the past six
years; however, that could change as board members and staff come and go.
So, that would be something that he would have to give more thought to.
For the time being, the current meeting schedule of the Board should remain,
and he will take more time to think about his suggestion and also do research to
see how other municipalities function. Sub-committees could be created for
special topics/requests/projects that come up which would meet in between the
regular meeting of the Board. The recommendation from the sub-committee
would then come to the full Board for review and approval.
Discussion followed on the floor with Board members sharing various thoughts
on the suggestion, such as having an “agenda” planning meeting, could the
smaller sub-committee vote on time sensitive matters, the responsibilities of the
Board outlined in the City Charter, the valuable service the Board provides to the
public to voice their concerns on a regular basis, and the importance of utilizing
staff and their suggestions or recommendations.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes March 27, 2017
14
Commissioner Darling pointed out that it should be kept in mind that the Board of
Public Works may be impacted by the recommendations from the Working Group
on re-organization/consolidation of the current city boards and committees; right
now that is unknown.
Mayor Myrick stated that everyone also needs to be mindful that the schedule of
the Board, right now, works for everyone. In addition, since tonight is
Commissioner Darling’s last meeting, the Board will have two vacancies that will
also impact its ability to meet due to the possibility of quorum issues. He will be
at the next Board meeting, so this discussion can be continued then.
Mayor Myrick recognized and extended his sincere thanks and appreciation to
Commissioner Darling for his time, commitment, expertise and knowledge to both
the Board of Public Works and as the liaison to the Planning and Development
Board. He acknowledged the significant time investment such a liaison position
involved, and the benefit it provided to the Board of Public Works with the ability
for input to flow between both boards regularly. He stated that Commissioner
Darling’s expertise in sustainability issues was invaluable to both Board. He
noted that Commissioner Darling had a very pragmatic way of working on and
considering the issues that come before the Board, and he appreciated his
consistency in doing what’s right and following agreed upon procedures of the
Board, which in some cases, was not always easy to do based upon different
information provided with the many different appeals made to the Board.
The other Board members agreed, and expressed their thanks to Commissioner
Darling for his service on the Board.
Adjournment:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
___________________________ __________________________
Sarah L. Myers, Svante L. Myrick,
Information Management Specialist Mayor
Street Food Vending Policy
City of Ithaca Board of Public Works
January 23, 2014; Modified September 14, 2015
DRAFT (3/2/17)
1 | Page
I. 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 [CB1][KS2]will not be covered under this policy. The Farmer’s
Market at DeWitt Park has a separate License Agreement and does not fall under this policy.
II. Definitions
CITY PARKS – All city-owned or managed land that constitutes parks, playgrounds, parking,
outdoor passive and active recreation areas (whether paved or unpaved), natural areas adjacent to
public waterways and bike paths. This term does not include the Ithaca Commons.
FOOD CART (PUSHCART) - A wheeled device, not required to be licensed as a vehicle that is
equipped and approved for use as a mobile food vending unit. Food Cart/Pushcart shall not mean a
stand, booth, truck or trailer.
FOOD TRUCK – A registered motor vehicle designed to be mobile, portable and not
permanently attached to the ground from which food (either pre-packaged or prepared on site) is
sold or given away.
HERITAGE PERMIT – A permit only available to a vendor who has operated in the same
location under previous City permits issued prior to October 1, 2003. The heritage permit shall
only apply to that previously permitted location. A heritage permit may be transferred with
written permission from the Superintendent of Department of Public Works.
PERMIT – Written proof of permission to use city-owned real property or parking space for a
short period of time, in no case exceeding one year.
PREMIUM LOCATION – Approved vending locations within the Collegetown and college-
oriented areas.
PRIVATE SITE – Any privately owned or leased property where use of the property for
commercial purposes, including mobile food vending, is restricted to persons who have the written
permission of the owner or lessee of the property and is in accord with current zoning
restrictions[CB3].
PUBLIC STREET [CB4]– Includes the entire publicly-owned right-of-way for a street and any
public parking, sidewalks and curb lawns associated with the street.
SPECIAL EVENT – Events requiring three or more of the following permits shall require a
special event permit from the City’s Special Events Team: Noise, Assembly and Parade, Street
Closures, Vending, Alcohol, or Use of Parks or City Property.
STANDARD LOCATION – Approved vending locations in all other areas of the City of Ithaca
not mentioned in “Premium Location” above. These include Downtown, Commercial and
Parkland areas and are listed as “Downtown Commercial” locations in Chapter 170 of the City
Municipal Code.
DRAFT (3/2/17)
2 | Page
STREET VENDING – The use of city streets for maintaining a temporarily stationary condition
for a portable vehicle from which food items for purchase by members of the public are
dispensed.
TEMPORARY PERMIT – Typically more than transitory, but, unless otherwise specified
herein, not exceeding five consecutive days in duration, and not recurring more than four times
in a year. These events do not fall under the requirements for a Special Event Permit.
VENDOR – Any person or business offering for sale any food or beverages from a truck or cart.
DRAFT (3/2/17)
3 | Page
III. Application
A. Procedure
1. A Vendor must submit a Street Vending Permit Application to the Superintendent of
Public Works along with the application administrative fee and all required
documentation as listed on the Application Instructions. Incomplete applications will not
be accepted.
2. All applications must be reviewed by the Superintendent of Public Works or a designee
prior to approval or denial.
3. Once an application is approved, the applicant may choose a vending location(s) from the
list of currently available locations.
4. Vending may not begin until the first day of the month following approval as long as
approval is issued by the 20th of the month. If the application is approved after the 20th
day of the month, vending may begin the first day of the second month (i.e. if application
is approved June 15th, vending may begin July 1st; if application is approved June 23rd,
vendor must wait until August 1st).
B. Application Selection Criteria
Street Vending Permits will be awarded on a first come first served basis, per VII.E.
Designated Vending Locations.
C. Grounds for Denial of Application
Failure to provide any required documentation as listed in the Application Instructions or
for such other grounds as provided for in this policy.
IV. Vending Permits
A. Types Available
1. Annual vending permits are in effect for up to one year from April 1 through March 31.
Seasonal vending permits are from April 1 through October 31. New Renewal
applications must be submitted each year. There is no guarantee a vendor will be granted
the same location(s) from year to year. Vendors may change locations on a quarterly
basis.
2. Temporary permits may be issued for small events (i.e. food truck roundups, sports
tournaments) that do not last more than five (5) consecutive days and which would not
otherwise be considered Special Events (events requiring three or more permits as listed
above in II. Definitions “SPECIAL EVENT”).
3. Special Event permits are applied for through the City’s Special Events Team. Vendors
that wish to participate in special events must contact the event coordinator to make
arrangements. The City’s Annual or Seasonal Street Vending Permit does not include
vending at special events vending.
4. A Heritage Permit is available only to a Vendor who has operated under a previous City
permit issued prior to October 1, 2003 in the same permitted location. The Heritage
DRAFT (3/2/17)
4 | Page
Permit shall apply only to that previously permitted location. Vendors must complete the
Permit application process and pay a one-time fee of $100. Heritage Permit holders are
subject to all parts of this Street Vending Policy, except that Heritage Permit holders will
be allowed to occupy and operate in the permitted location at all times.
5. Route-Based Vendors (Ice Cream Trucks/Tricycles) follow a continuous route through
city streets or parks, stopping for short periods of time to dispense/sell pre-packaged food
items.
B. Placement of Permit Certificate
Permits must be conspicuously displayed.
C. Vending Permit Forfeiture
Should a food vendor wish to forfeit his/her Street Vending Permit in order to voluntarily
discontinue vending food on City streets, the permit fee will be refunded on a pro-rated
basis. If a vendor is not satisfied with the location s/he chooses, the City will work with
the vendor in order to relocate to a more suitable site (not currently occupied).
V. Fees
A. Application Administrative Fee
Application packets must be accompanied by a $100 application administrative fee,
including annual renewals, upon submittal to the Superintendent of Public Works.
Failure to submit this fee will be grounds for denial of the application. The application
administrative fee is non-refundable and is not credited to the permit fees (NB: the
application administrative fee will cover administrative costs such as advertising,
background checks, and sign installation.)
B. Permit Fees
1. Base pPermit Fees have been established in accordance with Chapter 170 of the City of
Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Use of Real City Property”are determined by the
location requested, taking into account the zone and time limits per location. (see
Appendix A) Quarterly fees must be paid at least 10 days prior to the end of the quarter.
Additional fees for Premium or Standard Locations shall be added to the base fees
according to Chapter 170-10 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code for the Collegetown or
Downtown areas of the city (See Attachment A).
2. Temporary Event Permit - $60 per day (see IV.A. Vending Permits above for definitions
of each permit).
3. Heritage permit annual fees will be determined by the Superintendent of Public Works
and approved by the BPW in July of each yearin accordance with Chapter 170-10 of the
City of Ithaca Municipal Code.
3.4. Route-Based Permit – Fees will be based on the Seasonal Permit Fee for a
Standard Location.
C. Payment Schedule
DRAFT (3/2/17)
5 | Page
Permit fees must be paid quarterly, and all fees must be received at least 10 days prior to
the next quarter annually. All fees are nonrefundable, unless otherwise specified in this
policy.
VI. Requirements
A. Required Documentation to be Submitted with Application
1. A copy of a New York Sales Tax Certificate (NYS Taxation & Finance Office (800) 225-
5829) www.tax.ny.us.
2. Insurance Certificate of Liability in the amount of $1,000,000 naming the City of Ithaca
as an Additional Insured (Contact your local insurance company for more information).
3. Proof of Workers’ Compensation and Disability Coverage required by New York State.
Please note the “ACORD” form is no longer acceptable proof of workers’ compensation
coverage. Contact New York State Workers’ Compensation at 1-866-802-3604 or visit
their website at www.wcb.state.ny.us with questions; or
Completed NYS Workers’ Compensation and/or Disability Insurance exemption
certificate, if the applicant is not required to provide such coverage. Contact New York
State Workers’ Compensation at 1-866-802-3604 or visit their website at
www.wcb.state.ny.us with questions.
4. Tompkins County Department of Health Department Certificate [(607) 274-6688].
Please note: any Vendor who will be selling or distributing food must go through
Tompkins County Health Department. We cannot, and will not, allow food vending
without a Health Department Certificate.
5. Description of food items offered for sale, for informational purposes only.
6. Description of the mobile vending unit, including the unit’s dimensions (length and
width), and a copy of the vehicle registration. A copy of the NYSDMV required
automobile insurance for the mobile vending unit is also required. A photographic image
of the unit is optional.
7. A written waste disposal plan for all trash, water, grease, and other materials. City Staff
will review the description, and modifications may be required before a permit will be
issued.
8. Proof of 501(C)(3) designation, if applicable.
9. Copy of the Fire Department permit for solid, liquid, or gas fired cooking/heating
appliances, if applicable (see Section B Propane Usage, below).
10. Vendors wishing to operate in or near city parks must participate in a background check,
performed by the City. The authorization form to conduct a background check must be
signed and submitted with the application packet. The background check will be
completed within a reasonable timeframe. City staff and Ithaca Police Department will
review the results and determine eligibility for vending. Convicted sexual offenders will
automatically be disqualified from vending in/near parks and playgrounds.
11. Ice cream trucks/tricycles must submit a map showing the planned route.
B. Propane Usage
DRAFT (3/2/17)
6 | Page
Propane usage requires a permit for the use of LPG under City Code Chapter 181: Fire
Prevention Code. The permit is available through the City of Ithaca Fire Department.
1. All propane piping and fittings shall be maintained in accordance with the Mechanical &
Fuel Gas Code of New York State.
2. All propane tanks are required to be secured from tampering, damage or upset. All hoses
and plumbing between the tank and appliance is required to be protected from being
damaged or disrupted and not located in the public way.
3. Cooking and heating equipment shall not be located within five (5) feet of LPG Tanks.
4. Outdoor cooking that produces sparks or grease-laden vapors shall not be performed
within five (5) feet of a canopy used for cooking.
5. Minimum one (1) fire extinguisher 10-B rated, K extinguisher for cooking with vegetable
oil.
6. Fire Treatment Certification or Label required (NFPA 701, ASTM E84, or CPAI 84) for
all tents, canopies, and membrane structures used for cooking with LPG. Ground covers
under cooking equipment shall be fire resistant, or treated with a fire retardant.
7. Eight (8) feet shall separate cooking trucks using LPG from other buildings
8. Twenty (20) feet shall separate cooking trucks using LPG from other non-cooking trucks
or membrane structures.
9. Food trucks can be only grouped with maximum aggregate size of 400 square feet, with
like uses. (Non-cooking with non-cooking or cooking with cooking.) Six (6) foot fire
breaks between every 400 square feet of grouped trucks.
10. Fourteen (14)-foot fire lane shall be maintained at all times.
VII. Operations
A. Vendor Responsibilities
Vendors receiving permits shall:
1. Comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations ;
2. Properly remove or dispose of all litter and trash created by the vendor’s activities and
within the vendor’s location;
3. Refrain from operating their food truck after the permit expires and when the permit is
suspended or revoked;
4. Surrender their permit promptly upon its revocation, suspension, or other termination;
5. Display a copy of their New York State Sales Tax Certificate on their food truck;
6. Defend, indemnify, save and hold harmless the City of Ithaca from any and all claims
arising from the vendor’s use of Ithaca City streets and property and shall be so duly
insured in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 naming the City as additional insured; and
7. The Vendor will not discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment,
subcontractor, supplier of materials or services, or program participant because of actual
DRAFT (3/2/17)
7 | Page
or perceived: age, creed, color, disability, domestic violence victim status, ethnicity,
familial status, gender, gender identity or expression, height, weight, immigration or
citizenship status, marital status, military status, national origin, predisposing genetic
characteristics, race, religion, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. , or weight.
8. All vendors/permit holders shall cooperate with City of Ithaca and Tompkins County
Department of Health employees.
B. Rules of Operation
1. Street Vending Permits are for Food Trucks or Trailers only in parking spaces designated
by the Board of Public Works. Tents and separate grills are not allowed to be used for
vending on City streets.
2. Vending sites are approximately 2530 foot long (25 feet long parking lane plus 5 foot
buffer) by 810 feet wide [KS5](8 feet wide parking lane plus 2 feet of tree lawn or right of
way) and [CB6]vendors are required to keep all of their equipment within their assigned
site.
3. Vendors shall not block or inhibit pedestrian traffic flow [CB7]nor allow emergency
vehicular traffic to be impeded because of vending operations.
4. Food trucks must be attended at all times.
5. Vendors set up in locations other than an approved vending site will be subject to two
warnings with fines, and then revocation of their street vending permit without refund of
fees.
6. No overnight parking (2:00 – 6:00 a.m.) allowed unless otherwise noted on permit.
7. Smoke and/or odors must be vented, filtered or disposed of in a manner so as to
reasonably prevent the release of offensive smoke and/or odor into the surrounding
environment.
8. Vendors are responsible for trash and waste disposal. No dumping is allowed in City
trash cans, grates, storm sewers, grass or other areas.
9. Vendors shall keep public spaces within a 25 foot radius of their truck clean and free of
refuse generated from the operation of their food truck.
10. Vendors shall keep repetitive noise, music or amplified sound within the 25 foot radius of
their food truck within the noise limits established by City rules, laws or guidelines.
11. The City reserves the right to move vendors without advance notice for necessary
maintenance and repairs on City streets.
12. The City does not provide water, sewer, or electric service to street vendors.
13. 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 and permitted.
14. Transfer or sale of any current vending permit is prohibited without written authorization
from the Superintendent of Public Works.
C. Hours of Operation
DRAFT (3/2/17)
8 | Page
1. Breakfast – 7:00 6:30a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
2. Lunch – 10:30 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
3. Dinner – 4:304:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
4. Late Night – 9:3010:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. (Vending operations for Late Night locations
may not begin before 10:00 p.m.)
5. Setup may begin no more than 30 minutes prior to operating; take down/cleanup may
extend no more than 30 minutes after closing.
D. Vending Zones
1. Residential sites are for Lunch and Dinner times only[CB8]. Vending hours are generally
10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. No vending may occur after 10:00 p.m.
2. Business/Commercial sites may be utilized for Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner and Late Night
times. No vending may occur after 2:00 a.m. Parking in vending zones is prohibited
from 2:00 - 6:00 a.m.
3. Sites specially labeled for breakfast may not be utilized before 7:00 a.m[CB9].
4. Vendors scheduled for Late Night Only locations may begin set up at 9:30 p.m. each
night. No vending may occur before 10:00 p.m.
E. Designated Vending Locations
1. Vending locations shall be authorized by the Board of Public Works. The Board may
consider comments from the Parks Commission, city staff and the public.
2. Vending locations shall be posted with appropriate parking regulation signs that indicate
the days, times and limitations for parking. Vending locations will be posted as tow
away zones in order to assure permittee’s use of the site.
3. On-street vending locations will typically be one or two vehicle lengths – multiples of 25
linear feet of curbline parking. Parking area vVending locations will include be
comprised of one, or two spaces with an additional 8 5 foot wide space located between
each vending space.
4. Each vending location will be evaluated annually. In the event that a restaurant moves
into a building within 200 feet of an existing vending location, that location may be
moved in accordance with this policy as soon as the next month and at the discretion of
the Board of Public Works.
F. Guidelines for New Vending Locations
1. New vending locations may be submitted to the Superintendent of Public Works for
consideration by the Board of Public Works. Proposals for additional vending sites must
be submitted in writing with a specific description of the site, a drawing showing the
nearest intersecting streets and neighboring occupancies (businesses, parks or
residences). If approved by Board resolution, a new vending site will be included in the
list of authorized vending locations.
DRAFT (3/2/17)
9 | Page
2. Vendors may not set up any closer than 200 linear feet from the nearest brick-and-mortar
restaurant, or 100 linear feet from any public or private school (measured from nearest
entrance point), unless authorized by the Board of Public Works.
3. Food trucks may not be located any closer to the intersection than the “No Standing Here
to Corner” sign. This may be modified according to line of sight, traffic patterns, and
evaluation by the City Traffic Engineer.
VIII. Permitting
A. Location Assignments
1. Vending locations will be available for up to twelve months. The vVending year will be
comprised of four quarters that begin on the first of the month following application
approval, in accordance with III.A.4. above.
2. Vending locations will be assigned on a first come, first servediced basis.
3. The City retains the right to return to the following lottery system, should the
Superintendent of Public Works find it to be necessary:
a. Lotteries shall be conducted quarterly according to the school year calendar,
approximately ten (10) days in advance of the next vending quarter. The mobile
vending site lottery shall be advertised no less than five calendar days in advance
of the lottery date. Participants in the vending site lottery will be randomly
assigned the first, second, third, etcetc. choice for selecting a site. In the event
that a participant wishes to select more than one site, that participant may make a
second selection after all other participants have made a first choice. Subsequent
rounds will follow, if needed.
b. Participation in the vending site lottery requires prior approval of a street vending
permit application as described in III. Application. The street vending permit
application must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the vending site lottery
date. (NB: Street vending permit applications and permit application fees for the
first vending site lottery must be submitted by February 14, 2014. All conditions
and requirements of the permit must be satisfied by February 21, 2014. The
quarterly permit fee must be paid by February 28, 2014.)
4. Upon assignment of a vending site, the permittee may occupy the site for up to twelve
months. If the permittee wishes to retain her/his assigned location continuously for
twelve months, quarterly permit fees must be received by the Superintendent’s Office at
least 10 days prior to the end of the quarter. If quarterly vending fees are not received,
the permittee will forfeit the site at the end of the quarter and the site will be offered as a
vacant site. It is solely the responsibility of the permittee to remit payment in a timely
manner.
5.4. In the event that a permittee wishes to discontinue use of a vending location, the
permittee must advise the Office of the Superintendent of Public Works in writing. The
permittee may re-submit an approved application for street vending permit; no
application administrative fee will be charged if the permit is resubmitted within twelve
months of its initial approval. Quarterly vending Permit fees are non-refundable unless
otherwise specified in this policy.
DRAFT (3/2/17)
10 | Page
B. Route-Based Vendors (Ice Cream Trucks)
1. Ice cream trucks may be allowed in residential neighborhoods, as approved by the
Superintendent of Public Works or designee.
2. Ice Cream Truck Applicants must submit a map with the application showing the route(s)
that will be followed.
3. Trucks may not stop for more than 15 minutes at a time. All traffic and parking laws
must be followed.
3.4. Trucks must abide by existing City Noise Ordinance regulations.
IX. Signage – City Code Chapter 272
1. All signage must follow the rules and regulations specified in City Code Chapter 272.
2. Each vendor may place a maximum of 2 small signs (no larger than 2 ft. by 2 ft.) in any
area between the curb and sidewalk (curb lawn) that is within a 25 foot radius from the
food truck.
3. One “Sandwich Board” may be placed outside of each food truck, per specifications
listed in City Code Chapter 272.
X. Litter Control & Waste Removal
1. Vendors are responsible for trash and waste disposal. Vendors shall provide a container
for trash and litter attached to or within five (5) feet from their trucks. Vendors shall be
responsible for the removal of all litter or trash placed in their containers. No dumping is
allowed in City trash cans, grates, storm sewers, or other areas.
2. Vendors shall keep public spaces within a 25 foot radius of their truck clean and free
from paper, peelings, oil and grease spills and refuse of any kind generated from the
operation of their food trucks.
XI. Enforcement
A. Violations
The City may fine a vendor, or terminate/revoke a street vending permit for cause,
including the following:
1. Violations of the Rules of Operation;
2. Dumping in City trash cans, grates, storm sewers, or other areas;
3. Fraud, misrepresentation or false statements in the permit application;
4. Fraud, misrepresentation or false statements made in connection with the selling of food;
5. Violation of any ordinances, regulations or laws applicable to the holder of such a permit;
or
6. Conduct of the business permitted in an unlawful manner or in such a way as to constitute
a menace to the health and safety of the public.
DRAFT (3/2/17)
11 | Page
B. Revocation/Termination of Permits
1. If the permit is revoked or terminated for cause, the permit period shall end immediately,
and no refund will be issued. Notice of proposed suspension or revocation of a permit for
street vending shall be given in writing, setting forth specifically the grounds of the
complaint.
2. Any applicant whose permit is revoked under this regulation may not reapply for another
permit until the expiration of one year from the date of revocation.
C. Appeals
1. The Superintendent of Public Works shall have the right to suspend, terminate or re-
instate a Street Vending permit. Such decisions shall become effective immediately.
2. The vendor shall have a right to an appeal hearing on the proposed revocation or
suspension before the Board of Public Works or its designee no later than ten (10) days
after requesting such a hearing in writing.
STREET VENDING SUBCOMMITTEE•Ray Benjamin, Assistant Supt. for Streets & Facilities•Cynthia Brock, First Ward Alderperson•Jim D’Alterio, Youth Bureau Recreation Supervisor•Donna Fleming, Third Ward Alderperson•Jonathan Greene, Board of Public Works Commissioner•Eric Hathaway, Transportation Engineer•Julie Holcomb, City Clerk/Public Information Officer•Kent Johnson, Jr. Transportation Engineer•Graham Kerslick, Fourth Ward Alderperson•Tim Logue, Director of Engineering•Frank Nagy, Director of Parking•Kathy Servoss, Executive Assistant
AGENDA•Permit Types•Application Fee•Permit Fees•Vending Locations•Zoning Considerations•Next Steps
TYPES OF PERMITS•Annual (April 1 – March 31) or •Seasonal (April 1 – October 31)•Temporary/Special Event•Route-based (Ice Cream Truck)
APPLICATION ADMINISTRATIVE FEE•$100 Administrative Fee charged Annually for Annual or Seasonal Permits
PERMIT FEESCurrently based on the On-Street Parking Rate:$1.50 per HourFee based on rent per square foot, established in City Code Chapter 170, Use of City Property300 Square FeetPer Vending Location
PERMIT FEES BY SQUARE FOOT•Premium LocationsCollegetown or College-oriented areas•Standard LocationsAll other Downtown Commercial areas•Base RatesUse of City Property Rate Schedule
WHY 300 SQUARE FEET?•Standard parking spaces are 20’ long x 8’ wide•Food trucks/trailers are often up to 25’ long•Current policy states an 8’ buffer must be between food trucks/trailers•Therefore, 25’ long + 4’ (8’/2’=4’) = 29’ long (round up to 30’)Standard Parking Space:
WHY 300 SQUARE FEET?•Standard parking spaces are 20’ long x 8’ wide•Add 2’ in width to include space in the right-of-way/tree lawn for customers to stand while being served = 10’•30’ long X 10’ wide = 300 sq. ft.Mobile Vending Parking Space:
VENDING LOCATIONSAPPROVED Address# of SpotsStewart Park5Pier Rd.1Thurston Ave2Eddy St. @ Dryden Rd.21Eddy St. @ E. Seneca St.2College Ave. (200 Block)1Stewart Ave. near Williams1Stewart Ave. near University2Marshall St. @ Thompson Park2Cascadilla St. @ Conway Park1Park Place @ Washington Park2Address# of SpotsW. State St. (200 Block)2S. Geneva St. (100 Block)1E. Green St. (100 Block)2S. Titus Ave. @ Triangle Park2Wood St. @ Skate Park2S. Plain St. @ Baker Park1West End Parking Lot2N. Tioga St. @ Buffalo St.1Cass Park (6 locations within the park)12 Total # Approved Spots 45
VENDING LOCATIONSAddress# of SpotsStewart Park1Thurston Ave.1N. Cayuga St. across from IHS2Cornell St. near Belle Sherman Elem.1N. Cayuga St. @ DeWitt Park2Court St. @ GIAC1W. State St. (100 & 300 Blocks)2N. Titus Ave. (500 Block)2PROPOSEDAddress# of SpotsCherry St.2Floral Ave. @ Cayuga Waterfront Trail1Park Rd. @ Cayuga Waterfront Trail1Taughannock Blvd.1Total Proposed New Sites 17Total # Vending Sites 62
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS•31 vending spots at 10 locations are zoned P-1 zones.•Common Council needs to make a determination that allowing food truck operations at these locations are appropriate use of public property/parkland.
NEXT STEPS1.BPW approval of policy revisions, with an effective date2.BPW recommendation to Common Council 3.Notify current permit holders of new permit fees4.Advertise new permit fees
DISCUSSION…1.Requirement for Registration vs. Permit to Operate in Special Events2.Other Questions?
Street Vending PolicySite #LocationVending Times # of SpotsFee Rate ZoningVar. Req'd1A Stewart Park - near BoathouseLunch, Dinner2 Standard P-11B Stewart Park - Playground Lunch, Dinner1 Standard P-11C Stewart Park - Concession DriveLunch, Dinner1 Standard P-11D Stewart Park - NE CornerLunch, Dinner2 Standard P-12 Pier Road - Newman Golf CourseBreakfast, Lunch, Dinner1 Standard P-13 N. Cayuga St. near IHSSchool Days - Dinner; Weekends - Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner 2 Standard P-14 Thurston Avenue Lunch, Dinner, Late Night3 Premium R-3a X5 Eddy St. @ Dryden Rd. Late Night2 1 Premium U-16 Eddy St. @ E. Seneca St. Lunch, Dinner, Late Night2 Premium R-3b X7 College Avenue (200 Block) Lunch, Dinner, Late Night1 Premium MU-18 Stewart Ave. near WilliamsLunch, Dinner, Late Night1 Premium R-3a X9 Stewart Ave. near University Ave. Lunch, Dinner, Late Night2 Premium U-110Cornell St. near Belle Sherman Elementary SchoolSchool Days - Dinner; Weekends - Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner 1 Standard R-1a ?11 Marshall St. @ Thompson ParkLunch, Dinner2 Standard P-1 X12 N. Cayuga St. @ DeWitt ParkBreakfast, Lunch, Dinner2 Standard P-113 Court St. @ GIACSchool Days - Dinner; Weekends - Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner 1 Standard P-1 X14 Cascadilla St. @ Conway ParkLunch, Dinner1 Standard P-1 X15 Park Place @ Washington ParkLunch, Dinner2 Standard P-1 X16A W. State St. (300 Block) Lunch, Dinner, Late Night1 Standard CBD-6016B W. State St. (200 Block) Lunch, Dinner, Late Night2 Standard CBD-6016C W. State St. (100 Block) Late Night1 Standard CBD-6017 S. Geneva St. (100 Block) Late Night1 Standard CBD-8518 E. Green St. (100 Block) Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, Late Night2 Standard CBD-1401920 N. Titus Ave. (500 Block) Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner2 Standard B-2a X21 S. Titus Ave. @ Triangle ParkLunch, Dinner2 Standard P-1 X22 Wood St. ParkLunch, Dinner2 Standard P-1 X23 S. Plain St. @ Baker ParkLunch, Dinner1 Standard P-1 X24 Cherry Street Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner2 Standard I-125 Floral Ave. @ CWTLunch, Dinner1 Standard P-1 XApproved & Proposed Vending LocationsAttachment APage 1
Street Vending PolicySite #LocationVending Times # of SpotsFee Rate ZoningVar. Req'd26 Park Rd. @ CWTLunch, Dinner1 Standard R-3a X27 Taughannock Blvd. Late Night1 Standard WF-228 West End Parking LotBreakfast, Lunch, Dinner, Late Night2 Standard WF-229 N. Tioga St. Lunch, Dinner, Late Night1 Standard CBD-5030A Cass Park - Children's Garden LotBreakfast, Lunch, Dinner2 Standard P-130B Cass Park - Babe Ruth Field LotBreakfast, Lunch, Dinner2 Standard P-130C Cass Park - Union Field LotBreakfast, Lunch, Dinner2 Standard P-130D Cass Park - Rink LotBreakfast, Lunch, Dinner2 Standard P-130E Cass Park - North Parking LotBreakfast, Lunch, Dinner2 Standard P-130F Cass Park - Northeast Parking LotBreakfast, Lunch, Dinner2 Standard P-1Highlight = proposed vending sitesAttachment APage 2
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Grecn Stre€t Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
OFFICE oF THE CrrY ATToRNEY
Aaroo O. Lavinq City Attomey
Robert A. SaracharL Assist&t City Atlomey
I(rin Rah€rty, A$sistant City Attomey
Kevin livine, Assistant City Attomey
Jody Andrew, Executive Assistant
Telephone: 607 /27 +6504
Falr.: 6071274-6507
MEMORAND UM
To:Board of Public Works
Office of the City Attomey
Mrch 9, 2017
Resolution to authorize license to Cornell for erection offence on Fall Creek
Drive
From:
Date:
Subject:
Comell University has proposed erwtiou ofa feoce atiaching to an existing stone waii along Fall
Creek Drive. The stone wall sits on the edge ofa gorge wall that is eroding. The eroding
mndition of the gorgg the gorge view and stone wall pose a public safety hazard in that the
public is not effectively deterred from viewing the gorge from such stone wall. Comell and the
City agree that the fence would address these concerns by preventing climbing standifl& or
sitting on the stono wall, thereby prwanting falls into the gorge tom this section of Fall Creek
Drive.
Onrnership ofthe land on which the stone wall sits is not clear, and may rest with an unknown
tlrird party. As suctr, this agreerrent is frarned as a license between the two adjac€nt Foperty
owners (City as owner of the Fall Creek Drive riglt ofway and Comell as owner ofthe adjacent
parcel) to allow Co,rnell to erect the feoce.
The proposed fe,nce was approved for'a Certificate ofAppropriateness by the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Committee on April 14,2015
"An Equal Opportuoity Employcr with a comnitm€ to wo dorcc divErsification."
1
Draft 08.19.2016, SKE; rev.08/22/2016;rev.8/29/2016; rev.1/30.2017; rev.1/31/2017; rev. 3/08/2017 KF; rev
3/08/2017 SKE
Memorandum of Understanding
Between the City of Ithaca and Cornell University
Concerning
A Certain Stone Wall and Proposed Fence on the
Southerly Side of Fall Creek Drive in the City of Ithaca
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made as of the ______day
of ______, 2017 by and between the City of Ithaca (“City”) of City Hall, 108 East
Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850, Attention: Superintendent of Public Works, and
Cornell University (“Cornell”) of 116 Humphreys Service Building, ___ Dryden
Road, Ithaca, NY 14850, Attention: Director of Facilities Management (IPP-
Facilities); and
Whereas, Fall Creek Drive is a public street, owned and maintained by the
City and located within the Cornell Heights Historic District (designated in 1989
under the City of Ithaca Municipal Code §228-3, and also listed on the New York
State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989); and
Whereas, Cornell owns a parcel of land identified as Tax Parcel # 30 – 1- 1
in the City whose northerly boundary in the vicinity of Fall Creek Drive was the
top of the northerly bank of the gorge or rim of the gorge (“Gorge Rim”) as it
existed in the 19th century, above Fall Creek (“Cornell Gorge Parcel”), which Gorge
Rim has gradually moved northward due to erosion while the Cornell Gorge
Parcel’s property line remains spatially in its historic location; and
Whereas, the portion of Fall Creek Drive that is relevant to this MOU lies at
the bend in Fall Creek Drive where its northeasterly terminus runs South from
2
Thurston Avenue and turns at roughly a 90-degree angle to the West and
continues westerly more or less parallel with Fall Creek Gorge for some distance
(“Fall Creek Drive”); and
Whereas, there is a stone wall located along Fall Creek Drive in the area
where Fall Creek Drive turns from South to West, the relevant part of which stone
wall being the portion that runs westerly for some distance parallel with Fall
Creek Drive (the “Stone Wall”); and
Whereas, the present course of Fall Creek Drive in the relevant area was
the result of various street and lot changes made early in the 20th Century and the
Stone Wall was likely built around that time or shortly thereafter; and
Whereas, it is not known for certain who built the Stone Wall; it (a) abuts
the paving of a public street, Fall Creek Drive, (b) acts as an old-style guard rail to
guide south-bound vehicles from Thurston Avenue to the right (West) instead of
inadvertently driving straight toward the Fall Creek Gorge without any intervening
obstacle, and thus could be considered a part of the facilities of the public street,
and (c) is apparently not located within either the Cornell Gorge Parcel or the
City’s 40-foot wide street boundary; these factors are not dispositive of
ownership and it is possible that the land beneath the Stone Wall belongs to a
third party dating to the original lay-out and development of the Cornell Heights
subdivision . The City constructed a metal guide rail just to the North side of the
Stone Wall within the past 10 years approximately; and
Whereas, when it was built, the Stone Wall was likely placed at some small
distance North of the Gorge Rim as it then existed, but decades of weather and
water run-off from Fall Creek Drive and other drainage systems in that area have
eroded and moved the Gorge Rim further North and continued leave a high, steep
3
drop-off to the creek bed below and also leave little or no suitable terrain for the
foundation of any fence to be placed between the Stone Wall and the top of the
Gorge Rim; and
Whereas, the Stone Wall is relatively low and has a wide, relatively flat top,
that allows people to enjoy views from the Stone Wall, but also allows people to
climb on top of the Stone Wall, and stand, sit or lie down on it (collectively
“Climbing on the Stone Wall”), which actions have often been observed by Cornell
and City employees; and
Whereas, the parties agree that viewing Fall Creek Gorge from the Stone
Wall serves a public purpose but that Climbing on the Stone Wall is not in the
interest of public health, safety and welfare and has the potential to endanger
and seriously harm individuals who may fall by accident or otherwise into the
gorge and City and other municipal first responders attempting to rescue or
recover individuals who have fallen; and
Whereas, as part of its gorge stewardship, Cornell asked the City for
permission to erect, on a voluntary basis, a fence at the Stone Wall to deter public
access to the Cornell Gorge Parcel from the Stone Wall; and
Whereas, the City’s Department of Public Works determines it is in the
interest of public health, safety and welfare for the City to grant Cornell
permission to erect, on a voluntary basis, a fence at the Stone Wall; and
Whereas, Cornell obtained from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission a Certificate of Appropriateness on April 14, 2015 to construct a
black metal picket fence with finials (the “Fence”) on top of the Stone Wall (the
location being designated 323 Fall Creek Drive) (the “Location”), a copy of which
is attached as Exhibit A hereto; and
4
NOW THEREFORE, the City is willing to allow Cornell to erect the Fence at
the Location upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Memorandum of
Understanding (“MOU”):
1 The City hereby grants a license to Cornell to construct, keep and
maintain, and from time to time, to repair or replace, the Fence in the
Location, at Cornell’s sole cost and expense for a term of thirty (30yrs)
years. This grant shall include initially and from time to time thereafter,
a temporary license to additional space along Fall Creek Drive for
construction or repair space, to be arranged and agreed upon between
the parties in advance of any such temporary usage.
2 Cornell agrees to construct, keep and maintain the Fence and the
Fence’s points of attachment to the Stone Wall in a structurally sound
and cosmetically presentable condition for the term of this MOU.
Cornell agrees to obtain any building permit or other permits that are
applicable to initial construction and installation and any future repair or
replacement, at its sole cost and expense. Cornell may repair or replace
the Fence with the same type of Fence or with a fence that is different in
appearance or materials, provided that Cornell obtains approval, if
applicable, for the different fence from the City’s Board of Public Works
and the Ithaca Landmarks Commission or successor municipal agencies,
if any. Henceforth the term “Fence” shall include any subsequent
different fence unless a contrary meaning is apparent.
3 The Parties agree that the Fence shall be the responsibility and property
of Cornell for the duration of this MOU and no rights in the Fence may
5
be obtained by the City by adverse possession or use or otherwise
without due process of law, except as provided herein.
4 The Parties agree that the license granted by the City is not an interest
in real property and no rights in real property are granted by the City in
or to the Stone Wall and the ground beneath it and none may be
obtained by Cornell by adverse possession, necessity, use, or otherwise.
5 Prior to initial construction and installation and subsequently in the
event Cornell plans to perform maintenance, repair, or replacement of
the Fence, Cornell shall in each instance notify the City in writing at least
fifteen (15) days in advance of the planned work to coordinate any
street or lane closure, caution signage, or other matters of concern to
the Parties. In the case of emergency, Cornell may give any notice that
is feasible such as by telephone call or email and in case advance notice
is not feasible, then notice after-the-fact shall be given as soon as
practicable.
6 When from time to time the City, in its sole reasoned discretion, needs
to accomplish the City’s public works and services, including but not
limited to maintaining, repairing or replacing the Stone Wall, snow-
plowing, road repaving, sidewalk and guide rail work, garbage and
recycling pick-up, and repairing or replacing public utilities and storm
water facilities in the area of the Fence, the City agrees to use
reasonable care (and to require the same of its contractors) in the
execution of its public works and services to safeguard the Fence from
damage or loss and if the Fence has to be removed to facilitate the
public work, to reinstall it in the same or better condition. If the Fence
6
or any part of it has to be removed temporarily to accomplish the work,
then, if practicable under the circumstances (which clause shall modify
the full remainder of this sentence), the City shall give Cornell at least
fifteen (15) days advance written notice to enable Cornell to provide
secure, temporary fencing of approximately the same dimensions and
provided with secure anchorage so as to serve the same purpose and
function as the Fence whenever the site is not being actively worked on
and attended by City employees or contractors, including nights and
weekends.
7 Nothing in this MOU shall require Cornell to maintain, repair, or replace
the Stone Wall beyond using reasonable care in attaching and in the
course of maintaining, repairing and replacing the Fence, except as
provided by this MOU. Nothing in this MOU shall require the City to
maintain, repair, or replace the Stone Wall, including such measures as
may be required for continued attachment of the Fence. Nonetheless
the parties recognize the potentially precarious nature of the Location
due to erosion. They may (and are encouraged), but are not required,
to give each other notice of changes in natural or human-made
conditions that they may notice affecting the Stone Wall or the Fence.
The parties agree to discuss from time to time as needed any measures
or cooperative actions that would be mutually beneficial to maintaining
or prolonging the Stone Wall and Fence. Nonetheless, the Parties also
recognize that despite reasonable efforts, the time may come when it is
no longer physically feasible or practical or economical to maintain
either or both the Fence or the Stone Wall due to the progress of
7
natural conditions at the site or accidental damage (such as from a
vehicle severely damaging one or both) and agree to explore
alternatives that would be in the interest of the public health, safety,
and welfare and Cornell’s gorge stewardship.
8 Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this MOU shall require
Cornell to maintain the Fence in perpetuity and Cornell’s undertaking
herein is voluntary. Cornell may relinquish its right to maintain the
Fence by giving one-hundred-twenty (120) days advance written notice
(“Notice of Relinquishment”) to the City, at the end of which time
Cornell shall dismantle and remove the Fence and repair cosmetically
the points of attachment of the Fence to the Stone Wall or elsewhere,
unless Cornell has received, at least thirty (30) days before the
expiration of the Notice of Relinquishment, a written notice from the
City that the City wishes to take over the Fence and become solely
responsible for the Fence at its sole cost and expense (“Notice of Take
Over”). Upon delivery of a Notice of Take Over from the City, the Fence
shall become the property of the City and this MOU shall terminate.
9 In the event that Cornell is not maintaining the Fence in a structurally
sound or cosmetically presentable condition as required herein, the City
may give one-hundred-twenty (120) days advance written notice,
specifying the ways in which the Fence is not structurally sound or
cosmetically presentable to Cornell to remedy the Fence’s condition
(“Notice to Remedy”). Before the end of the Notice to Remedy period,
Cornell agrees to and shall have remedied the condition unless either (a)
weather conditions or conditions affecting letting of contracts or
8
obtaining labor and materials, or other conditions beyond Cornell’s
reasonable control cause delay in which case Cornell shall have more
than 120 days if it notifies the City of the delay and is proceeding
diligently and in good faith and completes the work to remedy within a
reasonable time thereafter; OR (b) Cornell gives the City a Notice of
Relinquishment at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the
Notice to Remedy, in which latter case either (i) Cornell shall dismantle
and remove the Fence and repair cosmetically the points of attachment
of the Fence within not less than ninety (90) or more than one hundred
eighty (180) days from Cornell’s Notice of Relinquishment in which case
this MOU shall terminate effective upon removal and cosmetic repair of
points of attachment; OR (ii) the City gives Cornell a Notice of Take Over
within ninety days (90) days of Cornell’s Notice of Relinquishment, in
which case the Fence shall become the property of the City and this
MOU shall terminate.
10 In the event Cornell fails or refuses to maintain the Fence after Notice to
Remedy and fails or refuses to give its Notice of Relinquishment, then
the City may either (a) give Notice of Take Over, or (b) dismantle and
remove the Fence and dispose of it as it may see fit as freely as if the
Fence were City property and send Cornell an invoice for the City’s
expenses for removal and disposal including overhead and less salvage
value actually used or received by the City.
11 Cornell agrees to and will indemnify and hold the City harmless on
account of claims, law suits, demands, orders or judgments asserted by
third parties for injuries (including death) or property damage occurring
9
or arising solely as the result of the Fence or its condition or its
maintenance, to include indemnification for the City’s reasonable
attorneys’ fees and expenses of defense, and not due to the Stone Wall,
or potential City contributory negligence. Cornell is not obligated to
indemnify and hold the City harmless on account of challenges to the
City’s authority or decision to enter into this MOU. Notwithstanding the
foregoing sentence, all physical characteristics of the fence, including
but not limited to its height from the ground; its resistance to being
climbed, scaled, or jumped; its structural integrity; and its resistance to
collapsing, leaning, subsiding, shifting or otherwise moving, whether
suddenly or gradually, whether or not in concert with the Stone Wall;
shall constitute conditions solely attributable to the Fence or its
condition or its maintenance for purposes of this MOU.
12 The City agrees that Cornell’s duty to indemnify, defend or hold the City
harmless shall not extend to those portions of any claims, actions,
judgements, or awards asserted or arising against the City that are solely
attributable to the conditions of any one or combination of the
following: Stone Wall, Fall Creek Drive, or the metal guiderail. In the
case that either Party demands or has reason to anticipate that it may
demand defense and indemnification (“Demanding Party”) from the
other Party (“Indemnifying Party”) pursuant to this MOU, it agrees to
put the Indemnifying Party on written notice of the facts as soon as
practical but in any event not later than five (5) business days after the
matter comes to its attention and give the Indemnifying Party the
opportunity to investigate and defend either in cooperation with the
10
Demanding Party, or with the approval of the Demanding Party, under
the control of the Indemnifying Party’s attorneys, unless the Parties’
positions as to potential negligence in the matter are irreconcilably in
conflict, in which case the obligation to defend shall abide the
determination of negligence and final judgment by a court of competent
jurisdiction and exhaustion of appeals.
13 Each Party represents and warrants to the other that it has and will at all
times maintain a program of general liability insurance adequate to
support their respective indemnification responsibilities as set forth in
paragraphs 11 and 12..
14 The Parties agree to attempt in good faith to resolve through prompt
communication and negotiation any dispute, claim or controversy
arising out of or relating to this MOU. Either Party may initiate
negotiations by providing written notice in a letter to the other Party,
describing the nature of the dispute and the relief requested. The other
Party shall respond within fifteen (15) business days in writing with a
statement of its position on the matter and describe its recommended
solution. If this exchange does not result in a settlement of the Parties’
differences, then a senior executive representative of each Party shall
meet at a mutually agreeable time and place within forty-five (45)
business days from the initial letter to exchange information and
positions and attempt in good faith to resolve the issues.
15 If either Party brings a suit or cause of action against the other, it shall
be brought and tried in Supreme Court of New York held in and for
Tompkins County, NY.
11
16 If any notices are required or desirable to be given by one party to the
other party then, except in case of emergency, they shall be sent by US
Postal Service, overnight delivery service such as FedEx, email, or
personal delivery
If to the City: Superintendent of Public Works, Ithaca City Hall, 108
East Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850, with a copy to the City Attorney
at the same address; and
If to Cornell: Director of Facilities IPP-Facilities Management,
Humphreys Service Building, 639 Dryden Road, Ithaca, NY 14853,
with a copy to University Counsel, 300 CCC Building, 235 Garden
Avenue, Ithaca, NY 14853.
17 This agreement is subject to the Laws of New York.
18 Should any provision or portion of a provision of this MOU be deemed
contrary to law or unenforceable or against public policy, the remainder
of this MOU shall be reformed to the extent necessary to give effect and
meaning to the balance of the MOU and all its remaining provisions shall
survive and remain in full force and effect.
19 This MOU may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be a
duplicate original.
20 This MOU contains all the terms, prior understandings, representations
and agreements between the Parties and may not be modified orally or
in any other manner except by written agreement specifically referring
to this MOU and signed by the Parties.
12
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be signed on the day
and year indicated following each signature.
For: The City of Ithaca
By:__________________________ Dated:_____________________
Title:_________________________
For: Cornell University
By:__________________________ Dated:_____________________
Title:_________________________
ILPC Meeting – 04/14/2015
Resolution – RF
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by K. Olsen.
WHEREAS, 323 Fall Creek Drive is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as
designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989,
and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in
1989, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness, dated March 27, 2015, was submitted for review
to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by David Cutter on
behalf of property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two
narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for
Changes(s); (2) two sheets of photographs depicting the existing conditions and a
rendering of the proposed changes; and (3) a drawing titled Proposed Fencing
Plan, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has determined that landscape features and view sheds are character
defining features of the Cornell Heights Historic District, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
the installation of a black metal picket fence on top of the stone wall located
along the south side of Fall Creek Drive near 323 Fall Creek Drive for the
purpose of improving pedestrian safety in this area, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is
required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate
impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC
meeting on April 14, 2015, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property
and the proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell
Heights Historic District is 1898-1937.
While the date of construction for the natural stone wall along Fall Creek Drive
is unknown, it is materially and visually consistent with other landscape features
1
ILPC Meeting – 04/14/2015
Resolution – RF
built in the Cornell Heights Historic District during its period of significance and
is identified in Section 7 of the National Register Nomination as likely being an
original landscaping feature within the district.
On March 13, 2012, the ILPC reviewed an application submitted by Cornell
University for the installation of a 42”-high, black, vinyl-coated chain link fence
on top of an existing metal guardrail on the north side of the natural stone wall.
The Commission found that the proposal was not in keeping with Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards #2 and #9 and denied the requested Certificate of
Appropriateness. In its resolution, the Commission stated that: the fence, as
proposed, would create a visual, as well as physical, barrier that would isolate the
stone wall from the rest of the district; that installation of the proposed fence
would result in a severe negative impact on the historic view shed in this unique
location; that the modern man-made material of the proposed fence, its size
(particularly its height), and its scale were not compatible with the material, size,
and scale of the low natural-stone wall; and that the height of the proposed fence
was additionally problematic for the negative impact it would have on the view
from this historic overlook, altering the unique character and historic integrity of
this location within the district.
On October 11, 2012, the ILPC reviewed another application submitted by
Cornell University for the installation of a 42”-high, black, stainless-steel wire
mesh fence on top of an existing guardrail in the same location. The Commission
found that the proposal was again not in keeping with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards #2 and #9 and again denied the request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness. In its resolution, the Commission stated that: in spite of the
increased transparency of the netting material proposed, the fence continued to
create a visual, as well as physical, barrier that would isolate the stone retaining
wall from the rest of the district and its installation would result in a negative
impact on the historic view shed in this unique location; the modern man-made
netting material of the proposed fence, its size (particularly its height), and its
scale remain incompatible with the material, size, and scale of the low natural-
stone retaining wall, and the height of the proposed fence continues to be
problematic for the negative impact it would have on the view from this historic
overlook, altering the unique character and historic integrity of this location
within the district.
The proposal now before the Commission differs from the proposals submitted
on March 13, 2012 and October 11, 2012 in the following respects: a 36”-high
black steel, picket-style fence will be attached to the top of the natural stone wall
in lieu of a black, vinyl-coated chain link or stainless steel cable netting fence
installed on the guardrail fronting the wall.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine
that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect
on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either
2
ILPC Meeting – 04/14/2015
Resolution – RF
the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the
neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural
and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed
change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the
architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section
228-6 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the
Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the
Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-6C, and by the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case
specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and
contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as
little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both
the historic character of the individual property and the character of the
district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and
preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features
and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new
construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the
property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to
protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction
shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the
essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment
would be unimpaired.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of a
36”-high, black, picket-style fence with finials on top of the natural stone wall
will remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that
characterize the property. The placement of the fence on top of the natural
stone wall unites the two elements and does not creates a visual or physical
barrier between the historic wall and the district, as was the case with the earlier
proposals. The relatively small picket size (1” square) and generous picket
spacing (3 ¾”) create a transparent fence that does not block or substantially
obscure the historic view shed from this location.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed fence is
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the
property and its environment. The use of a modern man-made material and
application of contemporary constructions techniques will differentiate the new
fence from the historic stone wall.
3
ILPC Meeting – 04/14/2015
Resolution – RF
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed fence can be removed in the future
without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property
and its environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a
substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance
of the Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it
further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the
proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code,
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: M. McGandy
Seconded by: K. Olsen
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, K. Olsen, J. Minner, M. McGandy, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein
Vacancies: 0
Notice: Failure on the part of the owner or the owner’s representative to bring to the
attention of the ILPC staff any deviation from the approved plans, including but not
limited to changes required by other involved agencies or that result from unforeseen
circumstances as construction progresses, may result in the issuance by the Building
Department of a stop work order or revocation of the building permit.
4
Re.: Building Permit #: TBD
At the regular monthly meeting held on April 14, 2015, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission approved the following work at the natural stone wall located approximately
at 323 Fall Creek Drive, as more particularly described in the attached resolution:
The installation of a black metal picket fence with finials on top of the natural stone
wall on the south side of Fall Creek Drive.
The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission appreciates your efforts to preserve the
historic and architectural character of the Cornell Heights Historic District.
Please note that the work approved under this Certificate of Appropriateness must be
completed within twenty-four months of the date of the meeting at which the work was
approved.
Bryan McCracken
Historic Preservation Planner
Secretary to the Commission
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Certificate of Appropriateness