CITY OF PICKERINGTON

SERVICE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2005

 

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

 

1.         ROLL CALL.  Mr. Hackworth called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, and Mr. O’Brien present.  No members were absent.  Others present were:  Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Ed Drobina, Jennifer Frommer, John Gallagher, Richard Ricketts, Jeff McInturf, Jeff Monebrake, Jim Watkins, Todd Farris, Mark Phillips, Jerry Dailey, Kevin Grathwol, and others.

 

2.         A.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF September 29, 2005, Special Meeting.  Mr. Parker moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0.  

 

B.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 13, 2005, Work Session regarding Stormwater Study.  Mr. Parker moved to approve; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

C.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 13, 2005, Regular Meeting.  Mr. Parker moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

3.         COMMUNITY COMMENTS:  There were no community comments. 

 

4.         PLANNING AND ZONING

 

A.        REPORTS:

 

                       (1)         BZA Report.  Mr. Schultz stated there were four cases approved in October and there are no cases on the agenda for November. 

 

            (2)        Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mr. O’Brien) Mr. O’Brien stated Planning and Zoning Commission met on Tuesday, November 8th.  He stated there were three public hearings before that meeting.  Mr. O’Brien stated during the meeting the Commission recommended the applicant requesting to rezone 194 West Church Street reapply for a planned office zoning as the requested C-2 zoning was not appropriate for that zoning.  Mr. O’Brien stated the Commission also approved and forwarded the request to rezone this building, 100 Lockville Road, and the Final Development Plan for the Retreat at Spring Lakes to this Committee and those are on the agenda tonight.  He stated they also approved the Certificate of Appropriateness for the site plan, landscaping, and comprehensive sign for the Factory Card Outlet just north of Kohl’s on Postage Drive.  Mr. O’Brien stated the Commission also approved a conditional use for a drive thru window for pick up only for PaPa Joe’s Pizza at the old Dairy Queen. 

 

B.                 ACTION ITEMS: 

 

            (1)        Review and request for motion to approve Final Development Plan for the Retreat at Spring Creek.  Mr. Schultz stated as Mr. O’Brien indicated, Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Final Development Plan with 11 conditions, and this Committee approved the Preliminary Development Plan last month.  Mr. Schultz stated the Committee had been provided a draft ordinance with the 11 conditions from Planning and Zoning.  Mr. Schultz stated the only outstanding issue from the meeting last month dealt with the left hand turn lane, and the Committee had been provided a letter from the County Engineer indicating the left hand turn lane into the development would be required prior to the occupancy of any condominium units, and the entrance to the Church property must be realigned with Sandpiper Lane across the street.  Mr. Schultz stated the developer has agreed to those two requirements.  Mr. Ricketts stated he is the attorney representing Beazer Homes and he would be happy to answer any questions anyone might have.  Mr. Ricketts stated Mr. Schultz is correct, the developer has agreed to the two requirements of the County Engineer and the 11 conditions set forth at Planning and Zoning Commission.  Mr. Ricketts further stated most of the 11 conditions have in fact already been addressed or are being addressed.  Mr. Ricketts stated he would like to point out one thing, and it is really an issue that relates to the Church and not the developer, but that is the fact of the issue regarding a future bike path which the Church has agreed to do.  He stated that path would go across the Church property, but at this point in time, since there is no linkage with the school that makes any sense, and since we don’t know where the development on the Church site will be, the general suggestion has been that when that property is developed by the Church, that will be the logical time to make the determination of the exact location of where that bike path will be.  Mr. Ricketts continued the Church is in agreement that they are going to put the bike path in at the point in time that the property is developed on their site.  Mr. Hackworth clarified that when this property was annexed it came in as PR-10, so we have improved it from a straight PR-10.  Mr. Schultz stated the maximum density could be 10 units per acre, and as we went through the rezoning we requested the Church put a covenant on this land where there would be no apartments, and they agreed to that.  Mr. Hackworth clarified a second entrance to this development would occur after the adjacent property is developed.  Mr. Schultz stated a public hearing on this issue is scheduled before Council on December 6th.  Mr. Hackworth moved to approve with the 11 conditions listed in Exhibit A and forward to Council; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

            (2)        Review and request for motion to approve a rezoning of 100 Lockville Road (City Hall) from AG Rural District to “O” Suburban Office District.  Mr. Schultz reviewed his report presented to the Commission.  He stated when we expand the building it needs to be done appropriately.  Mr. Hackworth clarified this parcel was approximately one and one-half to two acres.  Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the rezoning request.  Mr. Hackworth moved to approve the rezoning of 100 Lockville Road and forward to Council; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

C.        ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN:  Ms Frommer stated the Committee members had received a draft plan a few months ago for review.  She stated it may require a few work sessions to completely review all the information.  Mr. Hackworth stated with budget hearings this month and new Council members coming on in January, if there were no objections he would like to continue this on the agenda and try and schedule a work session sometime in January.      

 

5.         SERVICE DEPARTMENT

 

A.        REPORTS:

 

            (1)        Utility Fees Review Committee Representative Report (Mr. Hackworth).  Mr. Hackworth stated the Utility Fees Review Committee will meet on November 21st, so he did not have an update this evening.   

 

B.         ACTION ITEMS:  None. 

 

C.                 WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE. 

 

                        (1)        Review and discussion of water connection options.   Mr. Drobina stated he had sent the letter out to residents who were not currently connected to the City’s water system, and out of 53 letters sent out he has received 8 responses.  Mr. Hackworth summarized we would do legislation allowing these individuals to connect at the current tap fee rate plus $10 per foot front footage.  He stated further they would have the same two options that were offered in the past, placing it on the tax roles by a lien or paying it with the water bill, also secured by a lien.  Mr. Drobina stated the deadline to reply to this letter was yesterday, so he would have an ordinance prepared to bring to Service at their next meeting.

 

D.        WASTEWATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE. 

 

            (1)        Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to submit the EPA 208 Plan.  Ms Frommer stated within the past two weeks there had been a very informative meeting with Canal Winchester representatives that was attended by the City Manager, Mr. Drobina, legal counsel, and herself, as well as the County.  She stated they discussed the possibility of including Canal Winchester in the agreement with the City and the County.  Ms Frommer stated the attorneys were working on some palatable language to add to the agreement, however, that has not been finalized as of today.  Mr. Hackworth stated he understood there was some concern that by entering into this we might be violating the 1996 water and sewer agreement.  Ms Frommer stated that was Canal Winchester’s concern, but it is not shared by the City’s attorney.  Ms Frommer stated the EPA will be releasing their draft at the end of December and it was our goal to have your agreement referenced in the draft.  She stated they have a draft, but the new language and execution by all three parties would be new to the EPA.  She stated if this did not come out of Service Committee until December, it would likely not be included in the EPA draft that is released. Ms Frommer stated this Committee has an agreement, but you do not have the new language with regard to Canal Winchester.  Ms Gilleland stated the agreement could be amended at any point on Council floor.  Mr. O’Brien stated he would not vote to send this to Council until he saw the legislation.  Mr. O’Brien stated it was his understanding that the 208 Plan being released in December is very preliminary, and we are letting them know we are continuing to work on this.  He stated if we send it without Canal’s concurrence, or this agreement, then we have honored our obligation to say we are working on it.  He stated if we add Canal later we can notify the EPA.  Ms Frommer stated EPA is seeking information from the communities, everyone coming to a consensus as much as possible by the time the draft is released.  She stated if they do not have an agreement from you they will still publish the draft, and they understand after several meetings with us that you are moving forward.  Ms Frommer stated the purpose of the agreement, in its current form, was just to acknowledge we are going to serve what we are going to serve, the County will serve what they are going to serve, by the boundary map that was established by all the parties, and if at any point in the future we cannot follow through on our service commitments we may enter into negotiations for a separate written agreement with the County, and if Canal is added, with Canal.  Mr. O’Brien stated he understood that, but the question was can we submit that?  He stated that is what we sat out to do and Canal came up later.  Mr. O’Brien stated we need to be on time, submit on time, we don’t need to be late waiting on someone else.  He stated we should submit on behalf of the City of Pickerington and Fairfield County, which is what we said we would do.  Mr. Hackworth clarified that if we added Canal at a later time the EPA would not recognize it until the next time they did an update of their plan.  Ms Frommer stated the draft EPA plan has a six month comment period on it, but they are not intending that more information would come in after the December date, it would just be public comment that they would be receiving at that time.  Mr. Hackworth ascertained the EPA’s goal is to update it yearly, however, the last time it was updated was 2002.  Ms Gilleland stated what we recommended was that the agreement that we reviewed several months ago be forwarded out of this Committee, and the legislation would authorize the City Manager to sign that document.  Mr. O’Brien stated he agreed with authorizing the City Manager to sign the existing agreement.  Mr. Hackworth moved to approve and forward to Council the ordinance authorizing the City Manager to submit the existing 208 Plan agreement; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

E.         STREET MAINTENANCE. 

 

            (1)        Annual Street Repaving Project – Update.  Mr. Drobina stated the project is complete.  Mr. Hackworth requested this item be removed from the agenda.        

 

F.         STORM WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE. 

 

            (1)        Long Road/Bowen Road Stormwater – Update.  Mr. Hackworth stated this item can also be removed from the agenda. 

 

G.        TREE COMMISSION.  Update.  Mr. Drobina stated he had no update. 

 

6.         ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS

 

A.        WASTEWATER

 

            (1)        Wastewater Plant Expansion - Update.  Ms Frommer stated we are still working on a staff level and she should have information for the Committee after the holidays. 

           

            (2)        D-Line Interceptor Sewer Phase IIIB – Update.  Ms Frommer stated the contract was signed approximately 10 days ago and the project has a 90 day duration.  Ms Frommer stated the project should be complete about the first of February.   

 

B.         TRANSPORTATION: 

 

            (1)        Courtright Drive. 

 

                        a.         Courtright Drive Extension Project, Phase III  – Update.  Mr. Schultz stated he is still waiting for further information from the developer. 

 

            (2)        Diley Road Realignment:

 

                        a.         Diley Road/256 Intersection Improvement Project, Phase II – Update.  Mr. Drobina stated this project is complete.  Mr. Hackworth asked that this item be removed from the agenda.   

 

                        b.         Diley Road/256 Intersection Improvement Project, Phase III – Update.  Mr. Drobina stated this project is also complete.  Mr. Hackworth asked that this item be removed from the agenda. 

 

 (3)       Diley Road Improvements Project:

 

                        a.         MORPC/ODOT Project – Update.  Ms Frommer stated the Diley Road widening project is proceeding, and the right-of-way acquisition phase has been initiated.  Ms Frommer stated Mr. Grathwol, the project manager, is present tonight and he can give the Committee an update on the project.  Mr. Grathwol stated the project was initially split into two phases to better accommodate the acquisition process.  He stated based on the timetable and decisions on when the best time is to sell the project, we ended up with two schedules for completion of right-of-way acquisition and plan development, and ODOT felt it would be appropriate to recombine the project as a single project.  He stated a benefit is that you will avoid potential conflict of two contractors occupying the site.  He continued the acquisition right-of-way plans for the northern half have been completed and acquisition is proceeding.  Mr. Grathwol stated preliminary right-of-way plans are in for review with the District for the southern half of the project and we should be getting comments back any day.  Mr. Grathwol stated a meeting was held with Canal Winchester and Violet Township to coordinate tying in the two projects, and Canal is moving full steam ahead right now.  He stated Canal’s project will tie in with the City’s project just north of Busey Road and we have worked out the details to ensure they bring everything up to that agreed upon point. 

           

Ms Frommer stated last month a modification request on the engineering contract was submitted to this Committee last month based on anticipation of services for noise barriers, utility relocation, retaining wall on the McDowell property, and some issues on the raised medians and a modification of a traffic signal from a span wire to a mast arm installation.  Ms Frommer stated since there were several questions at last month’s meeting, Mr. Grathwol was present this evening to answer them.   Ms Gilleland stated one of the issues last month dealt with the irrigation system and where we want to go with that.  Mr. Grathwol stated there were several options available depending on what type of system the City desired.  They range from a fully automated system to a manual system that would require City employees to go out and physically turn on the each valve and then go and shut them off.  Ms Frommer stated there were also questions regarding the work that would be required to switch from a span wire to a mast arm installation on the traffic signal.  Mr. John Gallagher stated in doing this switch it requires a different pole because the heads hang differently and changes the entire design.  Ms Gilleland stated the mast arm option was her choice, however, if Council preferred the span wire that would be fine.  Mr. O’Brien stated mast arms are fine, his question was that these were all Stilson costs, we do not yet see the actual cost of the irrigation system, etc.  Ms Frommer stated that was correct and at present the project plans are at a state where they are proceeding through quantities and getting a good tight construction estimate.  She stated should you decide to do these changes they would be reflected in that estimate.  Mr. Grathwol stated the construction of the irrigation system could be anywhere between $120,000 to $140,000 and Mr. Gallagher stated the project cost would be increased roughly $25,000 for the mast arm versus the span wire traffic signal per intersection. 

 

Mr. Grathwol stated with regard to other costs, noise barriers have been discussed in the past and were identified for four locations, Cherry Hill, Georges Creek, Sheffield, and Manchester.  He stated presently the estimated cost to put noise walls in all four locations is approximately $1.2 million.  Ms Gilleland stated we will drop Georges Creek and Ms Frommer stated that will change the cost you have before you.  Mr. Grathwol stated that would decrease the cost of noise wall construction by about $400,000. 

 

Mr. O’Brien stated with regard to the irrigation issue, we have a landscape maintenance contract and the contractor goes out and waters the flowerbeds here in town.  He questioned if that cost can be calculated out to the square footage of the beds on Diley Road so that cost is known.  Ms Gilleland stated that would be an option. 

 

Mr. Dailey stated he would like to clarify that when this project was negotiated the engineering firm did not miss any of these items.  He stated they were all discussed and different decisions were made. Mr. O’Brien stated he understood due to the magnitude of the project and the type of funding it is that it is going to be a long drawn out process, but it just seems the project cost just continually rises and there has not been a shovel in the ground yet.  Ms Gilleland stated some issues, such as the utility relocation, we just did not have the information years ago when the contract was approved.  She stated there have been no new decisions on that. 

 

Mr. Hackworth moved to approve the revised design budget for the Diley Road Improvements – Final Design Services and amend the current contract with W.E. Stilson Consulting Group in an amount not to exceed $100,700; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

                        b.         Noise Barriers – Update.  Ms Gilleland stated she had nothing new to report on this issue. 

 

            (4)        Cover/Ebright Connector

 

                        a.         Pickerington Health Care Access Road – Update.  Ms Gilleland stated we are still negotiating.  

      

            (5)        Traffic Signal Study - Update.  Mr. Gallagher stated he had provided a report to the Committee on the evaluation of the present condition of the S.R. 256 signal system.  Mr. Hackworth stated if he understood this report, Refugee Road appears to be where we will have major problems in the coming years.  Mr. Gallagher stated it appeared that would be the major problem.  Mr. Hackworth stated if another road goes behind Kohl’s out onto Refugee Road, would that help with the S.R. 256 and Refugee Road intersection, and Mr. Gallagher stated it would help a great deal. Mr. Hackworth stated the goal was to have a highly efficient lighting system, and that is where we are headed.  Mr. Gallagher stated that was correct.  Mr. O’Brien stated he would like to know the potential of an hour-glass configuration in areas where we do not have a lot of right-of-way.  Mr. Gallagher stated you could probably squeeze in a turn lane here and there, but that is nowhere near enough to solve the problem at some intersections.  Mr. O’Brien stated further we will need to put our foot down and say that traffic signals will not be added unless the traffic studies say they will be added.  Mr. O’Brien stated this can be discussed when we are doing the Access Management Plan.  Ms Frommer stated the report provided was not the final report, but they were just trying to give the Committee some information on what was being done and where they are.  Mr. Parker questioned if we have been talking to ODOT about the timing on the traffic lights that we gave them control over. Mr. Gallagher stated ODOT has made some adjustments, but they are not where he would like to see them.  He stated tweaks have been made to individual intersections, however, we are still lacking tweaks to the progression and ODOT has avoided that issue.  Mr. O’Brien stated he agreed that the progression needs to be improved.  Mr. Dailey stated it is the progression that we are having trouble getting ODOT to look at.  He stated he would like to have time to work with ODOT a little more to try and get them to understand what we want before we take any more formal action.  Ms Frommer stated they were trying to get the peak traffic models so they can analyze some of the things that are plugged into those models that result in how they time the signals.  She stated they have received one of the models and they are waiting on the other two models.  Mr. Hackworth clarified this Committee should have a final report in approximately three weeks.    

 

C.        WATER: 

 

            (1)        Wellfield Investigation – Update.  Ms Gilleland stated she did not have an update this evening.   

 

D.        STORMWATER.  No Report. 

 

7.         CHAIRMAN.    Mr. Hackworth stated he had nothing to bring forward.

 

8.         OTHER BUSINESS. 

 

A.        Review and discussion of Supplemental Water Agreement with Canal Winchester.  Ms Gilleland stated the request is still that we look at extending the 12 month agreement to 18 months.  She stated, in addition, they continue to ask about the Canal Pointe wellfield and they have a proposal from Mr. Hedges to study the Canal Pointe wellfield and they want to proceed with that.  Ms Gilleland stated she would like to continue this on the agenda for next month if possible.  Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have this remain on the agenda. 

 

            Ms Frommer stated the Committee had received a copy of correspondence from ODOT requesting your support to install a median cable barrier on I-70.  Mr. O’Brien stated it appeared this would be a very small portion in our area.  Ms Frommer stated as long as ODOT got this legislation by the spring that would be fine as they will be doing the project sometime next year.  Ms Frommer stated she would provide this to the law director so legislation can be prepared. 

 

9.         ADJOURNMENT.  There being nothing further, Mr. O’Brien moved to adjourn; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, and Mr. O’Brien voted “Aye.”  Motion carried, 3-0.  The Service Committee adjourned at 9:25 P.M., November 10, 2005.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk