HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2017-12-11BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. December 11, 2017
PRESENT:
Vice Chair Jenkins
Commissioners (4) – McCormick, Morache, Warden, Greene
OTHERS PRESENT:
Information Management Specialist - Myers
Director of Engineering – Logue
Common Council Liaison – Fleming
Supt. of Public Works - Thorne
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities – Benjamin
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
Director of Parking – Nagy
EXCUSED:
Mayor Myrick
Call to Order/Agenda Review:
Supt. Thorne requested the addition of item 12A entitled “2018 Water and Sewer Rates
– Resolution”, and item 13B entitled “Seneca Street Sidewalks – Discussion Regarding
Widening the Sidewalk on the North Side of the 100 Block of East Seneca Street ”. He
also requested that item 9A entitled “A Resolution to Deny a Request for a Loading
Zone on Linden Avenue” be moved to the end of the meeting because Commissioner
Morache will recuse himself from that discussion/vote and leave the meeting.
No Board Member Objected.
Communications and Hearings From Persons Before the Board:
Mimi Mehaffy, part owner – Collegetown Bagels, addressed the Board to request an
overall solution to parking in Collegetown because raising the parking rates by 20% will
put a lot merchants out of business. Collegetown is one of the hardest areas to park in
the City due to all the construction occurring and the general lack of adequate parking
spaces. She would like to offer some ideas for assisting the businesses in Collegetown.
She feels the City should provide parking to businesses who in turn could bring
additional sales tax revenue to the City.
Response to the Public:
Commissioner Warden responded to Ms., Mehaffy, and requested that she send her
suggestions through e-mail to Board members who will all be happy to read them.
Reports:
CC Liaison Fleming reported that at the last Common Council meeting, Council voted 6-
3 in favor of developing a Memorandum of Understanding with Cornell University to
install a gate at the entrance to Ezra’s Tunnel. They also approved the West
State/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street enhancement project.
Commissioner Greene stated that it wasn’t clear to him about the recent vote to install a
gate at the entrance to Ezra’s Tunnel, why that item would not go to the Parks
Commission for consideration and then onto the Board of Public Works for review and
approval since the tunnel is in a natural area which falls under the purview of the Board
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
2
of Public Works. The discussion and vote at the Common Council meeting were the
first time he heard about the proposal.
CC Liaison Fleming responded that the Natural Areas Commission had weighed in on
the request and were in favor of the memorandum and installation of the gate.
Supt. Thorne explained that Cornell University wanted to “gift” the gate to the City of
Ithaca and pay for things for a certain period of time. There had also been a lot of
meetings where people expressed their opinions on the proposal.
CC Liaison Fleming further noted that Cornell University is not offering to pay towards
education of the public, the infrastructure or signage for the gate.
Commissioner Greene stated that it might be worthwhile to place this topic on a future
Board of Public Works agenda for discussion because it will impact the Department of
Public Works at some level in the future.
Supt. Thorne stated that staff have not even seen the design yet. There are questions
about the gate related to whether there will be a key so emergency personnel can get
into and through the tunnel when needed. This topic requires more discussion and
should also include consideration of the overlook at the top of the falls, and the rock
ledge at the top of the gorge. The gate is only part of the many pieces of work that
need to be done in that area.
Director of Engineering Logue stated that staff would be reviewing and discussing the
“City Center” project because the contractor wants to close an entire block of East
Green Street for a day sometime the week between the Christmas and the New Year
holiday. The closure is needed in order to accommodate a very large crane that needs
to be delivered and set up onsite for the project.
He further reported that there would be a public meeting on January 9, 2018 from 4-6
pm regarding the East State/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street retaining wall project. He is
putting together a press release about the meeting and wanted Board members to be
aware of it so they could place it on their calendars and plan to attend.
Asst. Supt. Benjamin reported that the house at 401 Lake Street no longer exists, crews
will finish cleaning up from the demolition by tomorrow night. In addition, crews have
completed repairs on the Albany Street Bridge that had been flagged by the state
inspector.
Supt. Thorne stated that the City received approval from the State to begin the
necessary repair work on the Thurston Avenue Bridge. Yard waste pick up is about
done for the season, so crews are doing routine maintenance on guardrails.
Asst. Supt. Whitney reported that work to lower and dim the street lights near the Water
Treatment Plant project has been completed by installing shields and dimmer switches.
The crews of the Water Division completed the re-route of the water main around
Treman Park to place it in an area where it can be solar powered. Crews are also
working on hydrant replacements and service requests. There will be two upcoming
retirements of long-time employees of the Water Department – Water Meter Technician,
Barb Frycek and Plumbing Inspector Marc Albanese. The position of plumbing
inspector will be re-created and will become a position within the Building Department.
Both employees have offered their services to assist in the training of new staff, which
he appreciates.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
3
Director of Parking Nagy reported that he has been working on the 2018 proposed
parking rates, holiday parking arrangements, and the repair of the elevator in the Green
Street garage. The Commons crew is ready with their equipment to provide for snow
removal on the Commons.
Supt. Thorne reminded Board members of the new meeting schedule for 2018 of just
one meeting a month. The next meeting of the Board will be Tuesday, January 16,
2018 at 6:00 p.m. in Common Council Chambers. Staff is working on the list of 2017
accomplishment and preparing the list of projects for the 2018 work plan. As soon as it
is done he will send courtesy copy to Board Members and Common Council members.
Staff is also working to put together the road work schedule for 2018; some of that work
will be contracted out – staff is working to determine how much of that work should be
done out of house.
New Presentations:
Parking in Collegetown: A discussion about parking from the business owner’s point
of view
Supt. Thorne stated that business owner, Mr. Sam Schuepbach, requested some time
to address the Board to discuss parking issues in Collegetown.
Mr. Schuepbach distributed a set of pictures to Board members that showed examples
of the issues that visitors to Collegetown encounter as they try to locate parking spaces.
He has been in Collegetown for 29 years, and feels that the Dryden Road parking
garage could be managed in a better way. He stated that he has not observed any
enforcement of the “no parking allowed” on the upper deck or the 72 hour parking limit
in the garage. The parking garage cannot and should not be used as a storage place
for student vehicles. With all the new construction occurring in and around Collegetown
right now, the 200 block of Dryden Road recently lost 8-12 parking spaces. Merchants
see parking spots for their customers being lost to construction, or vehicles taking up
two parking spaces and not being issued tickets. He would like to see the current long
term on street parking move to some of the City’s other parking garages instead of the
Dryden Road parking garage. He would also encourage the Board to not allow this type
of parking management to continue in Collegetown because of the negative impacts on
merchants and business owners who are losing customers because of the lack of
parking. He voiced his opinion that he feels the City is creating parking spaces in the
garage for affluent students to store their vehicles since the cost for parking is no issue
for them. Those spots needs to be given back to the businesses and customers in
Collegetown because without them many businesses will have to close. Many of those
businesses, including his, are well known to locals and visitors; however, they won’t be
able to patronize them if they can't find parking. He stated that the City could take care
of that problem right now, if it would begin to enforce the 72 hour time limit on parking in
one space because it open those spaces quickly. In addition, the many parking
equipment failures need to be addressed. The general public does not have access to
telephone numbers to use to contact the City when the gate at the parking garage is not
operational. The public will stop patronizing businesses in Collegetown if they cannot
depend upon being able to enter and exit the parking garage when they want to, they
will take their business downtown. He further stated that Ithaca is viewed as a City that
is very welcoming. However, when announcements are made regarding free parking
(Thanksgiving/Christmas holidays), they only pertain to the garages downtown. This
leaves Collegetown business owners feeling left out. Collegetown is part of the Ithaca
community and should be given the same benefits that downtown receives. This is an
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
4
ongoing problem, and the message from the City regarding free parking needs to
include both Downtown and Collegetown.
Director of Parking Nagy responded that he feels that Collegetown really needs a
“Business Improvement District” similar to the one downtown to support parking needs.
The merchants and businesses in Collegetown need representation, communication,
and financial support that such a district organization would provide. He stated that the
parking equipment at the Dryden Road garage is at least 12 years old and the City is
looking to replace it. He and Supt. Thorne are looking at new parking equipment with
the department’s 2018 budget, but it takes time. He explained that if the City could do a
transportation demand management study similar to Cornell University, and provide a
parking lot outside the City and bus transportation to and from that it might provide for
the needs of students that may not need their vehicles every day, and open up spaces
in the garage and on the street. As was stated earlier, there are a significant number of
affluent students for whom the cost of parking is no issue. Cornell charges $1,500 a
year for their remote lots and bus transportation. The City charges $200 a month for a
monthly permit to park in the Dryden Road garage so the cost is comparable. As far as
employees, the “workers special” program will not change in 2018, if workers buy their
permits in advance. Some employers purchase “tracer” tickets for their employees to
pay for parking which assists those minimum wage workers. All merchants and
business owner could purchase tracer tickets for their employees that could help with
retention since the price is very reasonable. The “workers special” is being promoted all
over the City. If the parking rates go up in 2018 it might open up spaces for shoppers
and restaurant customers which would assist them. The City is really trying to help the
businesses in Collegetown. When he first started working for the City in 2013 the cost
for a monthly parking permit at the Dryden Road garage was $240 month and
occupancy was 19%. Currently, the occupancy is now 73% over a 12 month average
with 92% occupancy when students are here. When the rates are raised in 2018, 20%
of the occupancy may be lost, but that will add between 38-40 parking spaces for
visitors to Collegetown which is what the businesses have been asking for. The goal for
the City is to open up parking spaces for Collegetown merchants and for short term
parkers and employees in Collegetown. That does not mean he is against adding
additional parking levels to the Dryden Road garage. There are also some streets
where occupancy is very high and the City should take a closer look at the rate structure
there for the meters to see if adjustments are needed; increases in price usually result
in changes in occupancy of those spaces, which in turn opens up additional parking
spaces that turn over more often allowing more people to park in those area. The City
is trying to find a parking rate that works for everyone - merchants, residents,
employees; however, it also needs to charge appropriately for those higher traffic area
spaces.
Commissioner Morache responded that what he is hearing from business owners is that
their customers cannot find parking spaces. He does think it is a good idea to raise the
parking rates in an effort to decrease the number of long term parkers in the spaces.
He also is wondering whether the number of monthly permits for the Dryden Road
parking garage could be limited to a fewer number. What about limiting number of
permits issued to first come first served. If the rate increase doesn’t open up parking
spaces and the Board is still getting feedback from businesses in the future, the City
should be flexible as far as adjusting parking rates to better meet merchant’s needs.
Director of Parking Nagy responded that the City, Cornell University, and the Downtown
Ithaca Alliance are working together as a group to come up with a transportation
demand management solution for the parking situation around the City. There are a
few possible locations that could be used for remote parking and bus transportation to
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
5
and from that are under consideration and discussion as far as liability and insurance
costs. He further noted that parking should be a 24/7 operation as far as staffing goes;
however, the City only staffs for 16 hours per day.
Supt. Thorne stated that staff wanted to let the Board and the public know what is going
on with the 2018 parking rates. The City does recognize that there is a huge parking
issue in Collegetown; and is installing what’s called a “Parker System” in the three
parking garages which they hope to complete by the end of this year. It is a system with
a video interface so if there is problem in one of the garages it can be used to assist the
public. In addition, the City is looking at getting new equipment in the Dryden Road
garage because it has been breaking down fairly regularly so staff is in the process of
obtaining quotes; there are also some structural repairs that need to be made to the
garage. Staff will put a capital project request together to present to Common Council
for the new equipment and structural repairs that are hoped to be repaired by the end of
the summer. Towards that goal, the City is conducting a feasibility study to increase the
Dryden Road garage by two additional levels. Staff is also looking to put together the
scope of work to conduct a comprehensive parking plan for the City and what pricing
should be since the operation of its parking garages is so very expensive. The City is
dependent upon all three garages, and all of them need repairs; the Green and Seneca
Street garages are both nearing their end of use so that City has to have a plan in place
about what will be done to meet parking demands around the City.
Director of Parking Nagy stated that it becomes very hard to get parkers to move their
vehicles every three days. He would rather spend the City’s efforts on Transportation
Demand Management plan, create a new parking lot, and purchase shuttles to and from
the lot because it would be cheaper for the parkers that have problems moving their car
every 72 hours.
Commissioner Greene noted another issue, a long term issue, is that when the new
zoning code was adopted for Collegetown, it eliminated the parking requirement. That
was a good intention; however, as the City works to determine how to pay for parking it
should look at payment in lieu of taxes or something that will serve the people living or
working in the new buildings. If the City allows buildings to go up with no or limited
parking, it might want to go back to the drawing board to see if that was a good idea.
The question to be answered is why should long-term residents be saddled with the
cost for parking as opposed to developers?
Commissioner Morache noted that the City has to watch the increase in development
because it will turn into increased rent. If parking gets constructed or the charge for
parking in off-site lots is high enough, that the cost to park should be put on the
individual who wants the parking. Why should renters pay for parking through
increased rent because of all the new development occurring. The City does need a
parking study to determine just what it should be charging for parking.
Supt. Thorne stated that the City is very dependent upon its parking garages and there
is not enough parking right now; however, the garages are very old and are in need of
significant repairs; and he does not know what the solution is. He agrees that a
comprehensive parking study will be very important in assisting the City in determining
how to best meet the need for parking and in a way that the parking pays for itself.
Commissioner Morache stated that when the City conducts the parking study it would
be a good idea to have a sub-committee of Board members that can work with staff to
prepare recommendations that would then go to the Board for review and discussion.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
6
Supt. Thorne noted that the City may also need the help of an outside consultant when
discussing how to address parking needs. He agreed that it would be good to have
representation from Common Council, the Board of Public Works and the Planning and
Development Board at such a meeting to conduct any study to help develop a plan.
He further stated that the Board of Public Works does need to approve the 2018
Parking Rates, and a resolution has been provided for that. He stated that not all
parking issues will be solved tonight, but the Board does need to vote on the resolution.
Approval of Minutes:
Approval of the August 14, 2017 and September 11, 2017 Board of Public Works
Meeting Minutes – Resolution
By Commissioner Warden: Seconded by Commissioner Marshall
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the August 14, 2017 and September 11, 2017 Board
of Public Works meetings be approved as published.
Carried Unanimously
Parking & Traffic:
Approval of the 2018 City of Ithaca Parking Rates – Resolution
By Commissioner Jenkins: Seconded by Commissioner Warden
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has considered the proposed 2018 rates for
municipal parking facilities in order to meet the adopted 2018 budget revenue
projection; and
WHEREAS, the following chart contains the entire rate structure for all rates within the
City for 2018; and
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby adopts the 2018 parking rates as
follows in the attached table; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all rates shall go into effect January 1, 2018, and shall remain until
the Board of Public Works directs otherwise; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works directs staff to study the inclusion of short-
term only parking spots in the Dryden Road Parking Garage and report back to the
Board on the feasibility thereof; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board directs staff to study the inclusion of short term only
parking spots in the Dryden road parking garage and report back on the feasib ility
thereof.
Monthly Permits
Actual
2017 Rates
Effective
1/1/17
Proposed
2018 Rates
Effective
1/1/18
Amount
Changed
Seneca Garage, Day and Night
All Levels, Full Access (24/7) $96.00/mo $100.00/mo 4% increase
Contract with Hotel1 $56.45/mo $57.56/mo
1.98%
increase CPI
Contract with Cascade Plaza, LLC $96.00/mo $100.00/mo 4% increase
Worker’s Special (M-F/10 hrs/day,
210 hrs/mo) $78.00/mo Discontinued
Part time Special (24/7, 105 hrs/mo) $67.00/mo Discontinued
Overnight Only Special (5pm-8am) $46.00/mo Discontinued
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
7
Primo Part time Special (24/7, 68
hrs/mo) $46.00/mo Discontinued
Green Street Garage, Day and Night
All Levels, Full Access $96.00/mo $100.00/mo 4% increase
Contract with Cascade Plaza, LLC2 $55.63/mo $56.73/mo
1.98%
increase CPI
Worker’s Special (M-F/10 hrs/day,
210 hrs/mo) $78.00/ mo Discontinued
Part time Special (24/7, 105 hrs/mo) $67.00/ mo Discontinued
Overnight Only Special (5pm-8am) $46.00/ mo Discontinued
Primo Part time Special (24/7, 68
hrs/mo) $46.00/mo Discontinued
Cayuga Street Garage, Day and Night
All Levels, including long-term storage $69.00/mo $71.00/mo 3% increase
Worker’s Special (M-F/10 hrs/day,
210 hrs/mo) $56.00/mo. $58.00/mo
3.6%
increase
Contract Cornell Rate $49.46/mo $54.22/mo
1.98%
increase CPI
Contract with County (Library)3 $69.00/ mo $71.00/ mo 3% change
Premium Area Rates $123.00/mo $127.00/mo 3% increase
Dryden Road Garage
Full Access (24/7) $164.00/mo $200.00/mo 22% increase
Worker’s Special (210 hrs/mo)
$133.00/mo $159.50/mo
20%
Increase
Part time Special (24/7, 105 hrs/mo)
$72.00/mo $86.50/mo
20%
Increase
Overnight Only Special (M-F/6pm-9am/
Free Weekends)
$133.00/mo $159.50/mo
20%
Increase
Primo Part time Special (24/7, 68
hrs/mo) $47.00/mo $56.50/mo
20%
Increase
Other Non-Meter Permit Parking
Contract with County (DSS)3 $51.00/mo $52.00/mo 2% increase
611 Buffalo St. Parking Lot Permit $25.00/mo $30.00/mo 20% increase
Weekly Rates
Actual
2017 Rates
Effective
1/1/17
Proposed
2018 Rates
Effective
1/1/18
Amount
Changed
Seneca Garage, Day and Night $30.00 $33.00 10% increase
Green Street Garage, Day and Night $30.00 $33.00 10% increase
Dryden Road Garage, 24 Hours $51.00 $61.00 20% increase
Hourly Rates4
Actual
2017
Rates
Effective
1/1/17
Proposed
2018 Rates
Effective
1/1/18
Amount
Changed
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
8
Hourly Rates4
Actual
2017
Rates
Effective
1/1/17
Proposed
2018 Rates
Effective
1/1/18
Amount
Changed
Seneca, Green, Cayuga Street Garages5
Per hour $1/hour $1/hour
Maximum $7/day $7/day No Change
Dryden Road Garage
0 – 24 $1/hour $1/hour
Maximum $15/day $15/day No Change
Bulk Purchase: Garage Tokens or Tracer
Tickets
$26.00/
40 hours
$26.00/
40 hours
No Change
Special Event Rate (weekend day entrance fee, 24 hour parking limit)
Downtown garages $5 $5 No Change
Parking Meters and Pay and Display
Surface Lot: Green Street Garage
$2.25/hour
No max.
$2.25/hour
No max. No Change
Downtown $1.50/hr
2 hr. max.
$1.50/hr
2 hr. max. No Change
Collegetown $1.50/hr
2 hr. max.
$1.50/hr
2 hr. max. No Change
Thurston & Stewart Ave. & Edgemoor $0.75/hr
9 hr. max.
$0.75/hr
9 hr. max. No Change
Foot Notes
1 – Volume discount rate for 104 spaces – see contract dated June 6, 2006. Rate
adjustment annually on 8/1 based on average increase in other rates, but not more than
3%
2 – Up to 100 permits in Seneca Street Garage at posted rate (except handicap permits,
are at special Cayuga Garage rate); up to 20 permits in Green Street Garage (these
permits will not be usable at any other garage), up to 150 permits in Cayuga Street
Garage, total not to exceed 250 permits. Right to purchase additional 150 permits at
posted rates – see contract dated June 6, 2006. Rate to change for first 250 permits
after August 1, 2007, “from time to time” based on percentage change in the CPI
between adjustment dates.
3 – The County’s Mental Health/Library agreement for 100 spaces in Green Street
Garage (and/or Lot D) has expired. The Board of Public Works agreed to transition the
rate charged to County employees to the full market rate over a period of five years.
Commencing in 2015, the rate is 100% of the market rate. County’s DSS agreement for
20 spaces on West State Street (in “Fire Station lot”) expires December 31, 2016
(needs to be negotiated).
4 – Fees charged: Downtown garages, 3:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday:
Dryden Road garage, 24 hours / 7 days.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
9
5 – The City has an agreement with TC3 that allows TC3 to issue passes for students,
clients, and customers, for which the City charges TC3 88 percent of posted rates for
the accumulated parking fees.
Carried Unanimously
Approval for the Distribution of One Hour Free Parking Passes to Downtown
Retailers - Resolution
By Vice Chair Jenkins: Seconded by Commissioner Morache
WHEREAS, the Downtown Ithaca Alliance proposed the distribution of one hour free
parking passes for the 2017 Holiday Season; and
WHEREAS, the parking passes would be intended for customers of downtown
businesses to thank them for shopping locally; and
WHEREAS, the costs of the parking passes will be paid for jointly by the City and
Downtown Ithaca Alliance; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby authorizes the distribution of one
hour free parking passes to downtown businesses beginning December 12, 2017, for
the 2017 holiday season; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That should a delegation of Collegetown businesses similarly wish to help
jointly fund the costs of the parking passes, there is similarly authority granted to the
City to issue those parking passes for the same time period.
Carried Unanimously
Water & Sewer:
Approval of 2018 Water and Sewer Rates – Resolution
By Commissioner Jenkins: Seconded by Commissioner McCormick
WHEREAS, in accordance with City Charter, the Board of Public Works has the
authority to set water and sewer rates; and
WHEREAS, staff has provided water and sewer usage projections for 2018; now,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works adopts the following water and sewer
rates and fees starting for bills due on or after January 1, 2018, and the rates are
effective until changed:
Basic Rates (per 100 cubic feet):
Existing 2017 2018
Water $6.43 $6.94
Sewer $5.80 $5.80
Minimum Billing (per quarter year)
METER
SIZE
CU FT
ALLOWED WATER SEWER TOTAL
Small 1,200 $83.28 $69.60 $152.89
1" 3,200 $222.08 $185.60 $407.68
1.5" 5,500 $381.70 $319.00 $700.70
2" 11,200 $777.28 $649.60 $1,426.88
3" 16,000 $1,110.40 $928.00 $2,038.10
4" 24,100 $1,672.54 $1,397.80 $3,070.34
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
10
6" 42,100 $2,921.74 $2,441.80 $5,363.54
Other Services
Unmetered sprinkler service: $12 per inch diameter per quarter
Metered water for circuses, carnivals contractors, etc., through suitable connection
at hydrant installed by Water and Sewer: charged by use, with minimum bill of $200
per day for the first 7 days and $50 per day thereafter.
Bulk Water for street sweepers, tank trucks, spray rigs, etc., available at the Water
building: $100 per load up to 500 gallons, and $25 per thousand over 500 gallons.
Meter removal, meter resetting, turning water off, or turning water on at curb stop:
$40 per event.
Residential Meter Testing: $75 if meter is found to be within industry tolerances; no
charge if out of tolerance.
Replacement of frosted or damaged residential meter:
During business hours – cost of the meter plus $50
After hours without a call-in – cost of the meter plus $125
After hours with a call-in – cost of the meter plus $220
Replace damaged AMR meter head, caused by owner/occupant negligence: cost of
new meter plus $60.
Special meter reading with corresponding bill: $45 per special read.
Data Logs: the first obtainable data log is free, delivered electronically in a PDF
format. Paper copies will be printed upon request at the cost of duplication. All
additional data logs shall be charged at $45 each delivered electronically. If a City
issue is found as a result of a data log, there shall be no charge.
All other special services: To be billed at cost (including overhead) with supporting
bill documentation.
Carried Unanimously
Discussion Items:
Lead Agency Concurrence for the Proposed Stewart Park Inclusive Playground
Supt. Thorne explained that information about the proposed Stewart Park Inclusive
Playground was provided to the Board for informational purposes only – no vote is
required if the Board supports having the Planning and Development Board be the
designated lead agency for the project.
Board members expressed their full support for the Planning and Development Board
being the lead agency for the project.
100 Block of East Seneca Street Sidewalk:
Planning and Development Board Chair – Garrett Blalock and Planning and
Development Board Member – John Schroeder joined the Board for discussion of this
topic.
Mr. Blalock and Mr. Schroeder provided the following information regarding the project:
The Planning and Development Board has for years been promoting a widening of the
sidewalk on the north side of the 100-block of East Seneca Street using the 6 feet of
extra Seneca Street width east of Cayuga Street (versus west of Cayuga Street). This is
the block housing the Hilton Garden Inn, the under construction Tompkins Financial
Corporation building, and the Dewitt Mall. To date, the Planning and Development
Board is unaware of actions to bring sidewalk widening to fruition, providing space for
wider sidewalks and a continuous row of street trees.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
11
The construction of the Tompkins Financial Corporation building on this block, and the
resulting demolition of the exciting sidewalk, presents a unique but soon-to-expire
opportunity to widen the sidewalk. In brief, the arguments for widening are:
• The 100-block of East Seneca Street is about six feet wider than blocks west of
Cayuga Street
• The 100-block is far wider than the width need to support two lanes of traffic
• The north-side sidewalk is insufficient in width, particularly at the entrance to the
Hilton Garden Inn and the Tompkins Financial Corporation building
• The parking lane on the north side of East Seneca only provides for parking for a
few cars
• The cost of widening the sidewalk now, while the block is under construction, is
far less than it will be in the future
The Planning and Development Board strongly urges the Board of Public Works to
consider this issue urgently and take appropriate action.
They also explained that this information is to follow up on a memo the Planning and
Development Board sent in January 2016 to Common Council and the Board of Public
Works recommending the pedestrian accommodations on the 100 block of East Seneca
street and West of Cayuga Street be made during the construction of the Tompkins
Trust Financial Corporation Building. This area is a hard, cold, barren, and harsh
landscape with no street trees. The new Tompkins Financial Corporation building will
be a very tall building, and the ability to plant trees on this crucial block is very important
and for visitors’ first impression of the area because it isn’t very pleasant to look at.
Trees are more likely to grow and be healthier on the west side of the street, and that is
also where most of the pedestrian entrances are located. By adding street trees to the
landscape in this area, it could be transformational by adding beauty, the walk ability
feel and would provide a beautiful view for everyone. They think that part of the work
for this project could be done as part of the Tompkins Financial Corporation’s project
and cost. The bank loved the idea and would like wider sidewalks and more trees as
well. There is a real need for a more pedestrian friendly landscape by the hotel and the
new bank building. However, the time for doing this work is running out if it is going to
be included as part of the bank’s project which will be completed in March. The current
plan for the bank’s project is to reinstall the curb where it was prior to the start of
construction of the building.
Supt. Thorne stated that this request would require additional engineering and planning
work on staff’s part to be done, and there may be catch basins that could be affected by
the proposed changes.
Director of Engineering Logue stated that that in order to do this work the City would
need a highway work permit from New York State. He explained that during site plan
review for the project, the widening of the sidewalk and planting of trees was discussed
and reviewed. The City approached New York State about the changes, and they were
not interested in doing such a project for just one building’s frontage. In addition, if this
work were done, it would be nearly impossible to include a bike lane on the street. If the
curb were moved it would remove the bike lane, so parking would have to be removed
to accommodate the bike lane, and parking is already limited downtown and it would not
be a great move for the City to undertake. There are also drainage considerations and
large cost implications.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
12
Supt. Thorne stated that he is not sure this work will happen before the bank project is
completed because there is a lot of engineering and other work to be done; however, he
is not saying that this work couldn’t be done in the future.
Commissioner McCormick stated that this street may be the only future west bound bike
corridor that connects efficiently up both East Hill and West Hill. The proposal he would
like to see would have that bump out by the Hilton Garden Inn go all the way down to in
front of the DeW itt Mall, remove the on street parking and add a bike lane – although
not by the DeWitt Mall. This is definitely a corridor that needs attention, and adding a
bike lane here has long been a priority for him, and improvements to the pedestrian feel
would be welcome.
Commissioner Morache noted that he agrees with the concept in principal with some
balance but it should be in the next block even though it means the bike lane would be
lost. He stated that parking demands are much greater here than a block away. Losing
parking a block away is more palatable than it would be in this block. There is also the
Ithaca Car Share spot to consider; this whole corridor warrants further study.
Director of Engineering Logue explained that it is not possible to have this work happen
as part of the bank project. If the City considers the proposal, then it should be done in
a more comprehensive way and for more than just one building frontage. If the Board
wants the City to take a serious look at this corridor to widen the sidewalk and plant
street trees, it would have to go on the Department of Public Works work plan and
would take months to develop. He will talk with the Transportation Engineer about
adding this project to the department’s 2018 work plan. Staff can start scoping out the
work that would be needed for the project in order to get an idea of the space that would
be needed.
Commissioner Morache left the meeting at 6:52 p.m. due to a conflict of interest with the
following item regarding 210 Linden Avenue.
Highways, Streets & Sidewalks:
A Resolution to Deny a Request for a Losing Zone on Linden Avenue
WHEREAS, the owners of 210 Linden Avenue have requested that a loading zone be
created along their street frontage as mitigation for a state fire code variance request
related to the height of the proposed building and aerial fire apparatus access; and
WHEREAS, staff agrees that there is not a need for a loading zone at this location for
any delivery or commercial reason; and
WHEREAS, staff has determined that this scenario could occur at numerous locations
around the City, likely the majority of tax parcels in the City; and
WHEREAS, staff and the Board of Public Works are concerned about the precedent
that would be set by granting the request; and
WHEREAS, if the BPW was to grant this request, the City would effectively restrict
parking on this portion of Linden Avenue forever because if the BPW allowed parking on
the street in the future or somehow otherwise modified the roadway as to lessen the
clear width (exclusive of parking) between the curbs, the building would likely not be
allowed to be occupied in accordance with the NYS Fire Code; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby denies the request for a loading
zone in front of 210 Linden Avenue.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
13
John Mancuso, attorney for applicant, joined the Board for discussion of this topic along
with the applicant and project designer Noah Demarest. Mr. Mancuso asked the Board
to reconsider the resolution to deny this request in light of some of the factors with
respect to this project and the timeline. He provided the following summary letter to the
Board to go with his request that the Board reconsider their decision to deny the
request.
“We represent 210 Linden Avenue, LLC (the "Owner"), the owner of real property
located at 210 Linden Avenue (the "Project Site") with respect to its request that a
loading zone be created along the street frontage of the Project Site as mitigation for a
recently identified requirement of the New York State Fire Prevention and Building Code
(the "Fire Code") related to the (height of the proposed building and aerial fire apparatus
access. We are in receipt of the proposed resolution denying this request on the
grounds that the Board of Public Works (the "Board") is concerned about the precedent
that would be set by granting the request. We respectfully request that the Board
reconsider the proposed resolution, which places the Owner's project in jeopardy, and
instead grant the Owner's request.
By way of background, the Owner is proposing to construct a 4-story (with occupied
basement) apartment wood-frame building with a total of 9 units and 36 bedrooms on
the Project Site (the "Project"). The Project is in the CR-4 Collegetown Area Form
District. On January 24, 2017, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board (the
"City Planning Board") approved the Transportation Demand Management Plan, and
granted Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval, for the Project as set forth in plans
submitted by the Owner's architects, Stream Collaborative (see https://lfweb.tompkins-
co.org/WebLink/13/doc/585638/Pagel.aspx).
In reliance on the approvals issued by the City Planning Board, including the story, unit
density and overall Project design, the Owner proceeded with closing its purchase of
the Project Site in the amount of $1.5 million. This included securing a mortgage in the
amount of $675,000. On July 5, 2017, the Owner secured a construction mortgage in
the amount of $815,000 in order to finance the construction of the Project as approved
by the City Planning Board. Thereafter, the Owner applied for and obtained a
demolition permit and foundation permit for the Project. The prior structure on the
Project Site has since been demolished and excavation has occurred for the proposed
foundation. To date, the Owner has invested approximately $200,000 in consulting,
demolition and excavation costs.
At no point during the approval process, the purchase of the Project Site, the closing of
construction financing, or the demolition and foundation excavation was the Owner
made aware of the requirements of Appendix D of the Fire Code related to Fire
Apparatus Access Roads. In fact, Appendix D of the Fire Code provides that it is not
mandatory unless specifically referenced in the adopting ordinance, and absent City
enforcement or disclosure during the approval process, there is nothing in the City Code
which would have alerted the Owner as to these requirements. It was not until October
2017 that the Owner was advised by the City of this recent change in the Fire Code,
which has now essentially rendered the Project, as approved by the City Planning
Board, incapable of being completed without relief from either the requirements of the
Fire Code or the removal of the few parking spaces located along the frontage of the
Project Site. As the City has acknowledged, it was only recently made aware of these
aerial access provisions and was unaware of them when the Project, among others,
were being reviewed.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
14
In order to apply to the State for a variance from the requirements of the Fire Code, the
Owner will be required to design and implement significant mitigation, such as steel
frames, rooftop stair access, and wider doorways and stairs, all of which are not
contemplated in the current design approved by the Planning Board, and would be at
significant cost to the Owner. Based on the Owner's initial estimates, the cost of
concrete and/or steel construction will be approximately $700,000-$1 million in
increased costs over the current wood-frame design. This amount was simply not
contemplated when the Owner (i) calculated the unit density necessary to develop a
Project with a reasonable rate of return; (ii) purchased the Project Site; or (iii) obtained
its construction financing. The other referenced mitigation measures would similarly
involve costly redesign efforts by the Owner and its consultants, including a loss of
units. Justifying these additional unanticipated expenses,-based on the unit density and
financial projections of the Project as relied on by the Owner and its lenders, will be
problematic.
On the other hand, the Owner's request that a loading zone be created along the street
frontage of the Project Site is clearly reasonable under the circumstances given the
City's unawareness of this issue and issuance of Project approvals, which the Owner
has now relied on to its detriment. Nor will granting the Owner's request result in
precedent. The law is well settled that a board acts arbitrarily only where it fails to set
forth its reasons for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts; critically, a
board need not adhere to prior precedent unless the cases bare sufficient factual
similarity (see, e.g., Moore v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 70 AD3d 950 [2d
Dept. 2010]). Such is not the case here because of the unique circumstances of this
case. Moving forward, an owner or applicant, including the Owner, is on notice of the
Fire Code requirements and can plan the design of any project accordingly, taking in
account project costs when acquiring and financing the project. Unfortunately, the
Owner in this case was unable to do so.
For these reasons, the Owner respectfully requests that the Board reconsider the
proposed resolution, which places the Owner's project in jeopardy, and instead grant
the Owner's request that a loading zone be created along the street frontage of the
Project Site. We look forward to appearing before the Board on Monday, December 11,
2017.”
Supt. Thorne asked whether the owner had done his due diligence before purchasing
the property by meeting with officials from the Building and Fire Departments in order to
get approval to proceed with the project.
Mr. Demarest responded in the affirmative and noted they had attended meetings and
met with code officials during their pre-building permit application meetings. Deputy
Building Commissioner Niechwiadowicz admitted that this requirement is something that
has been in the New York State Fire Code; however, the inspectors from the City
Building and Fire Departments only recently became aware of it. Prior to that, it was not
enforced nor on anyone’s radar. If the applicant had known about the requirement, he
would not have purchased the property. He further noted that officials from New York
State informed him that it is an optional requirement that the City can choose whether or
not to enforce.
Mr. Mancuso stated that he has discussed the issue with City Attorney Lavine and there
is some clarity that is needed about how future projects will be dealt with. Since this is
now a known requirement, future developers can mitigate it at the beginning of the
project since they know about it. Right now, this applicant doesn’t have that option
because the requirement was not brought to his attention until now.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
15
Mr. Demarest explained, in order to clarify for the Board about where the applicant and
project developer are currently in the project, that the project has been reviewed for its
engineering design, building permit requirements, fire department requirements, site
plan review requirements, demolition requirements for the existing building, and the
foundation has been constructed. One of the proposed mitigations from Fire Chief
Parsons is to construct a wider driveway adjacent to the current driveway; however,
there is no room to do that. If they were to do that, it would mean the loss of four
parking spaces - right now, only two parking spaces are affected. What they are asking
for is removal of those two parking spaces to give the Fire Department the 26’ access
that it needs for its apparatus in an emergency situation.
CC Liaison Fleming asked whether the project includes onsite parking or whether the
two parking spaces that would be loss are metered.
Mr. Mancuso responded that there are no meters and there will be no onsite parking for
the project.
Commissioner Warden stated that the issue for the Board is the precedent that would
be set if the request is approved because of its potential for major impacts to parking all
over Collegetown. Right now, there are two existing projects that he is aware of in this
situation – the 210 Linden Avenue project and a Novarr project. He wondered whether
the Board could “resolve” to not let this happen again, since this has big financial
implications for these projects.
Mr. Mancuso stated that after consulting with City Attorney Lavine about the situation,
the Board could “Resolve” based on particular financial implications, the unique site and
stage that project is at, to grant the request.
Supt. Thorne stated that the Board of Public Works has been asked to resolve the
problem by creating a loading zone. Personally, this is a big issue, since there is a lot of
development occurring all over the City and if the City is going to enforce the
requirement it will become a bigger problem with regard to parking. He would like to
discuss the project and proposed mitigations with Fire Chief Parsons and Deputy
Building Commissioner Niechwiadowicz before removing two parking spaces because
of the domino effect it will have on parking in the area and complaints from neighbors
that will be coming into the City. He does not like the proposed solution to the problem;
however, the question before the Board is whether this is an appropriate location for
loading zone.
Director of Engineering Logue stated that converting the two parking spaces into a
loading zone doesn’t make it compliant because New York State Fire Code needs 26’
street clearance and the street is only 22’. This is something the applicant can offer the
New York State Variance Board to come closer to meeting the requirements with his
variance application. However, the applicant does have the Fire Chief’s support for the
proposal - if they didn't, they could not proceed with the project or the variance. This
change will be for the life of the building.
Commissioner Greene stated that he is not in favor of creating a loading zone; however,
with the sequence of events that transpired for this project it appears that no one did
anything wrong. He would be interested in hearing from the planning department on the
request.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
16
Supt. Thorne agreed; he would like staff to meet with Fire Chief Parsons and Deputy
Building Commissioner Niechwiadowicz because the solution for the problem that is
agreed upon is going to permanent. Therefore, more discussion and thought needs to
be put into the proposed solution.
Commissioner McCormick stated that he was surprised to see the resolution to deny the
request based upon previous discussions of the Board. He is agreeable to either a
loading zone or natural curve bump out in order to mitigate the problem. Taking from
his experience as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the remediation is
permanent. The proposal does not dead-end the street, and this would be a very
unique and special solution for this particular property owner. Being a unique case he
could envision the other project coming to Board to grant a similar request. Beyond
that, he would not consider other cases since the code requirement is now known. This
doesn’t mean the City has lost all options on this street be it a mountable curb bump out
or bike lanes; there just won’t be cars parked in the two spots – it would become a
twenty-four hour loading zone.
Mr. Demarest stated that Director of Engineer Logue is correct that the street is 22’
wide; however, with a mountable curb bump out they would get a width of 26’ so a
mountable curb bump out might be a good solution, and people wouldn’t park there.
Director of Engineering Logue responded that it would depend upon what Fire Chief
Parsons will say - what is an obstruction versus a risk. The Fire Chief has a lot
discretion and according to the code it does provide him the authority to allow the
proposed plan for mitigation. It is strange how much lee-way there is in the code to
mitigate the problem based upon discretion.
Supt. Thorne agreed that the financial impact to the applicant does support the
argument, especially if the building had been built last year it would have been
approved. This is not unique and in most areas of the City projects will run into this so
the City will need to create a policy on how it wants to handle the requests. The
creation of a loading zone is a band aid and does not fix the larger issue. He knows the
applicant understands that; they have a hole in the ground plus they have followed all
the rules and complied with all the requirements enforced by the City. He also
understands and thinks its’ wrong what happened; however, he does not want to
minimize the future impacts of the proposed mitigation to the requirement .
Mr. Mancuso further noted that the bank won’t provide additional financing for the
project, the applicant has done everything they should as directed by the City.
Unfortunately for his client, this Board is the one they feel is in the best position to
approve the request with the proposed mitigation with the minimum impact.
Commissioner Greene summarized the discussion for the Board, and confirmed that
staff would like to have an internal discussion about the proposed solution and then
have the request come back to the Board for a vote. In lieu of that additional
information, the resolution should not be voted on today.
Commissioner McCormick stated that he would not support denying the request. He
doesn’t think that just because this is a “band aid fix” doesn’t mean it should not be a
loading zone. He requested that a resolution be provided for the Board to vote on in
January to approve the request.
Supt. Thorne stated that the Board does not have to vote on the resolution; if they don’t
vote to deny the request then it would be approved. That being said, this item should
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017
17
be tabled pending a meeting with the Building, Planning and Fire Departments to
discuss further.
Commissioner Warden stated that he feels strongly that a solution for this specific case
needs to be found because it’s unique and pausing for a month creates more financial
hardship for the applicant. He would like to resolve the situation as soon as possible.
Would there be any way to expedite this and have this case move ahead as its own
entity – perhaps a special meeting for the Board to vote on it.
Director of Engineering Logue responded that with the logistics of all the departments
involved, a meeting won’t happen in a week, and having the Christmas and New Year’s
Holiday in between does not help either.
Supt. Thorne explained that this resolution will not need to come back to the Board for a
vote because staff of the Building and Fire Department can take care of it. The only
issue for the Board is whether to create a loading zone or not.
Commissioner McCormick responded that in that case, shouldn’t there be a resolution
for the Board to approve the creation of a loading at its next meeting?
Board members expressed their support for the request as long as Fire Chief Parsons
and Deputy Building Commissioner Niechwiadowicz agree and support the proposed
mitigation.
Adjournment:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:45 pm
__________________________________ ________________________________
Sarah L. Myers, Claudia Jenkins,
Information Management Specialist Vice Chair