CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2006

7:30 P.M.

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sabatino present. No members were absent. Others present were: Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Chief Mike Taylor, Steve Carr, Ed Drobina, Paul Lane, Mike Stacey, Oscar Rodriguez, Thomas Harris, Terry Harris, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 5, 2005, Regular Meeting. Mr. Wisniewski moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

3. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:

A. Parks and Recreation.

(1) Director’s Report. Mr. Carr stated he had provided a written report and he would be happy to answer any questions.

a. Parks Master Plan. Mr. Carr stated he had nothing further to report this evening.

1. Joint Parks District – Update. No Report.

b. NatureWorks Grant Project. No Report.

c. Sycamore Park Tennis Court Repair Project – Update. Mr. Carr stated the new fence installation was complete.

d. Violet Festival Board – Update. No Report.

B. Building Operations: No Report.

C. Service Department:

(1) Traffic Engineer

a. Review of recommended speed limit on Hill Road South. Ms Gilleland stated she had forwarded an e-mail from Mr. Yaple with Violet Township, and some discussion is still necessary between those involved regarding the information our engineer has supplied. Mr. Smith stated he felt the information was straightforward and he did not understand the confusion. Ms Gilleland stated Ms Frommer will ensure that the most recent request of March 7, 2005, is what they are looking for. Mr. Smith clarified that Ms Gilleland has spoken to the Township about the City taking control of both sides of the road and it is their preference to work this through the County. She stated the Township has stated they would facilitate the process, however, that can be complicated. Ms Gilleland stated she will continue to monitor this item.

D. Code Enforcement: Ms Gilleland stated there was no report this evening. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that Mr. Rausch had attended Council and stated there were inconsistencies in our enforcement and requested Ms Gilleland provide an update to the Committee. Ms Gilleland stated she speaks to Mr. Rausch quite frequently. Ms Gilleland stated we have just in the past year started the Property Maintenance as a real program, designating one person to this issue. She stated Mr. Rausch specifically referred to “For Sale” or “Open House” signs, and we do not allow for sale signs that are off site. Ms Gilleland stated Mr. Rausch is correct in that we have a prioritized enforcement of other signs that are not legal. She continued, for instance, there are a number of sandwich board signs downtown that are not specifically legal, and garage sale signs are not enforced. She stated as we have only one person doing enforcement, and he is not full time, we have to prioritize. Mr. Sabatino stated he has seen directional type Open House signs put up by real estate companies, and Mr. Wisniewski stated he has seen our Code Enforcement taking those down because they are not supposed to be up. Mr. Wisniewski further stated, however, as soon as they come down they go right back up. Mr. Sabatino clarified our Code does not allow off site for sale signs. Mr. Sabatino stated he sees these directional open house signs in every community. Mr. Smith stated this is an issue that the Property Maintenance Task Force could be reviewing so we can have a good shot at enforcement. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt we do have an enforcement program; we just do not have the staff to do it. Ms Gilleland stated Mr. Rausch knows that we are trying to work through issues. She stated if Council wants to allow directional signs on weekends, during certain hours, we can work through that. She stated she just needs to know what the priorities are, what is important to Council, and what they want us to enforce. Mr. Sabatino stated from his experience the directional open house signs are typically put up once during a listing, and he did not feel they were that offensive. He stated, however, some of the other clutter was another story. Mr. Sabatino stated he agreed with Mr. Smith that this might be an area that the Property Maintenance Task Force could review.

E. Building Regulations Department – Update. Mr. Stacy stated he had provided a report to the Committee and he would be happy to answer any questions the members may have. Mr. Stacy stated further he would like to point out that there are some sections in the Residential Code of Ohio that speak to a Residential Board of Appeals. He stated the City has not had a Residential Board of Appeals, however, he felt we should. Mr. Stacy stated he is not aware of any residential appeals being asked for, and commercial appeals go to the State of Ohio. He stated if it is a question of interpretation of the Code or if there is a different process they would like to use that is equally as good as what the Code requires, that is the sort of thing that can be heard by the Residential Board of appeals. Mr. Stacy stated he had provided recommendations regarding this Board in his report for the Committee to review. Mr. Sabatino stated since we do not have this Residential Board of Appeals, what other options would someone use. Mr. Stacy stated currently Safety Committee or Council could hear an appeal. Mr. Stacy stated he had provided information on addtional inspections we should be performing as well. Ms Gilleland stated if Safety Committee is amenable to looking at the additional inspections, staff would work on recommendations for fees, etc., and she would like to discuss the Residential Board of Appeals with staff members before bringing any recommendations to the Committee.

4. POLICE:

A. Chief’s Report. Chief Taylor stated his report had been distributed and he would answer any questions. Mr. Wisniewski stated the report provided by the Chief with regard to how the residents felt about making the alleys separating houses on West Church and West Borland one way from east to west was about even, and from West Columbus Street to West Church Street the majority of the residents would like to see the alley one way. Mr. Wisniewski stated there are a lot of safety issues in the old downtown area and he didn’t know what the answers were. Mr. Sabatino stated where Donley Concrete was accessing Borland Street, he thought we had a posted load limit sign of eight tons, and he thought those trucks were above that weight. Mr. Sabatino stated continued use of heavy trucks on Borland will cause a premature failure of that street. Mr. Sabatino stated Ms Gilleland was going to do some research as to the weight of those vehicles, and from a safety standpoint did we really want those trucks coming and going in a residential area. Mr. Sabatino stated the land Donely wants to give the City would give them access to S.R. 256, and Mr. Wisniewski stated that access point, however, would be 50 feet from the railroad tracks and that is never a good idea. Mr. Sabatino stated we had a couple of less than ideal choices. Mr. Wisniewski stated it was a possibility for Donley to build a road to go to the street on the other side of the tracks from their facility. Ms Gilleland stated she did not know what the railroad would have to say about that, but that would be another option. Ms Gilleland stated the Donley access issue was discussed in Planning and Zoning, and the reason the City required the dedication of land was so they would not have access out onto S.R. 256. Ms Gilleland stated if we provided access to S.R. 256 to Donely, there are still other businesses that utilize trucks so we would not be able to eliminate all of the truck traffic on Borland. She stated this is a tough area because there is a combination of industrial and residential uses. Ms Gilleland stated the Donley issue has been sent back to Service Committee for further review.

5. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith stated he had nothing to bring forward.

6. OTHER BUSINESS.

Mr. Smith stated the Committee had been forwarded a memo from Mr. Drobina regarding a resident’s request to lower the speed limit on Hill Road North. He stated the speed limit is presently 50 mph and the request was to lower it to 45 mph or lower. Mr. Smith clarified the request dealt with S.R. 256 north of Refugee Road. Mr. Smith stated he understood that our traffic signals were timed for the speed limit going north. Mr. Sabatino stated the determination of the speed however is the volume of traffic on the roads. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood the concern about access points and we are trying to resolve some of those. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood the entrance to Kohl’s south of the light, next to the drive-thru, was supposed to be a right in/right out only. Ms Gilleland stated that will occur when that property flips to the south. Mr. Smith stated there are very few times you can actually go 50 mph on Hill Road North because of the volume of traffic. Mr. Wisniewski stated lowering the speed limit would require the lights to be re-timed and a lot of other additional work. Mr. Smith stated that would be related to the traffic signal study and other things that are coming out of Service Committee. Ms Gilleland stated Service Committee will be discussing a comprehensive traffic study and she would like to take this request under advisement. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the traffic controlled the speed on Hill Road North.

Mr. Wisniewski ascertained with regard to the access to the Drug Mart center on Diley Road; we are proceeding with making that access right in/right out. Ms Gilleland stated the developer is not happy, however, we have to keep the safety of our residents as a top priority. Mr. Smith stated there is no way to safely rectify that situation without impacting the access to the businesses. Ms Gilleland stated we are preparing for the right in/right out to happen the first part of February. Mr. Sabatino clarified Ms Gilleland has discussed an alternate access point further from the Diley Road/S.R. 256 intersection, and that is not ideal because it comes in behind the shopping center. Ms Gilleland stated the developer has been informed we would be more than happy to work with them on any options they come up with to try and resolve this issue.

8. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Wisniewski moved to adjourn; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Smith voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The Safety Committee meeting adjourned at 8:28 P.M., January 9, 2006.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk