CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

MONDAY, APRIL 3, 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, Commander Steve Annetts, Steve Carr, Ed Drobina, Paul Lane, Mike Stacy, Lynn Boetcher, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2006, Regular Meeting. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski abstaining, and Mr. Smith and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

Mr. Smith stated Mr. Lynn Boetcher was present and would like to address the Committee this evening.

Mr. Boetcher stated he had addressed the Committee regarding the problems of school busses trying to make left hand turns onto Diley Road from the Cherry Hill subdivision. Mr. Boetcher distributed a statement to the Committee members (Attachment 1 to these minutes). Mr. Boetcher stated he was asking that a traffic study be initiated to determine if a traffic signal would be warranted at this location as there are 37 bus trips daily. Mr. Boetcher stated while the plans are being finalized for the Diley Road widening project it might be a good time to see if this intersection met the criteria for a traffic signal. Mr. Smith questioned if it would be possible to have the school busses reverse their routes and come out onto Hill Road instead of Diley Road, and Mr. Boetcher stated that would work for Pickerington Central, but in order to go to Diley Middle School and Pickerington Elementary it would not seem to work. Ms Gilleland stated she felt Mr. Boetcher had a valid question. She stated this is not something that needs to be taken into account or done with the Diley Road project, it is something could be done if the City determined it was necessary. Ms Gilleland stated, however, traffic signals run about $90,000 and we are already at our limit on the Diley Road budget. Mr. Sabatino stated by the time Diley Road is improved we may be able to find some funding. Mr. Sabatino stated although he agreed with everything Mr. Boetcher said, he felt the railroad crossing there presented a unique problem. Ms Gilleland stated our engineer did examine this intersection when they were doing the traffic studies to determine where the signals should go, this intersection did not indicate the need for a traffic signal. She stated it could, however, merit a signal today or perhaps three years for now, and as Mr. Sabatino stated we may be able to plan for it in our capital budget in the next couple of years. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt he would question the wisdom of sending 37 bus routes through the subdivision where there is a known issue, and this is a problem for the schools as well as the City. Mr. Wisniewski further stated it would be easier to get out onto a five-lane road than it is with the two-lane road, and he felt it is something we should look into in the future. Mr. Wisniewski stated he did appreciate Mr. Boetcher’s concern and Ms Gilleland stated if a traffic signal were put at that intersection it would certainly increase the volume of traffic through Cherry Hill as well. Mr. Boetcher stated the relocation of Diley Road down at the Drug Mart has really put a larger volume of traffic coming out Diley Road. Mr. Boetcher stated he thanked the Committee for their attention on this matter. Ms Gilleland stated she would ask Mrs. Yartin to put a note for the Committee to look at this issue again in six months.

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 the second charette was held in conjunction with the Parks Board meeting, with a large turn out from Stonebridge and Preston Trails. Mr. Carr stated Edsall’s presented a concept plan that showed some baseball/softball diamonds and soccer fields that met with quite a bit of opposition from those residents. He stated the residents requested Parks Board request Edsall to come up with a Plan B for this park and at the next meeting on April 24^th an alternative plan will be presented that won’t show such an intense usage. Mr. Sabatino stated he has been contacted about this by some residents, and there seems to be the belief that this park was to be a passive park. Mr. Carr stated he has heard that since he has been associated with the City, however, from our research we have not found any documentation that when the land was platted or accepted by the City that deed restrictions to that effect were required. Mr. Smith stated he was told that by his real estate agent when he moved into Stonebridge, but there is no documentation regarding this. Ms Gilleland stated we have researched through all of the Planning and Zoning, Service Committee, and Council minutes and we have found nothing designating this as a passive park. Mr. Sabatino clarified this property was donated to the City. Mr. Wisniewski stated that is a very large piece of land to have as green space, and he was not advocating it be fully developed out because there is no good access point to it from other than the neighborhoods, but to leave it as property that just has to be mowed is not reasonable either. He stated there should be at least a bike path or something. Mr. Sabatino stated he understood the intensity of the proposed plan is what has the residents concerned. Mr. Carr stated there is access to the park from Hill Road, however, we would have to put in a bridge across the creek, and he was not sure about the cost benefit of doing that. Mr. Carr stated we are also looking at a couple of other items that finished very high in the survey from the residents, and one that he is researching is the possibility of including a two-acre dog park in the far eastern end. He stated it may not go in there, but he was trying to find a use for 30 some acres of parkland that would benefit the community. Mr. Carr stated a 35 acre park, by anyone’s standards, is not a neighborhood park, it is a community park, so we are looking at some things that can be done on the far eastern end that might benefit the community. He stated further besides the dog park we are looking into other uses, such as a community garden, on the far eastern end that is as far away from the homes as possible. Mr. Sabatino clarified that in a dog park, it would be a fenced area where dogs are allowed to be off leash and the owners could play Frisbee or whatever with the dogs. Mr. Smith stated he had received several phone calls on this as well, and perhaps we could involve the residents of Stonebridge and Preston Trails in a specific charette to see what their definition of less intense would be. Mr. Carr stated we are trying to address all of the issues but also balance it with some of our community needs. Mr. Carr stated these are concept plans at this point, they have been put out to get the reaction, and we will go from there. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt Mr. Smith had a very good point, and if we have a group of people who have these concerns, if there is a way we can make them part of the solution that would be very good. Mr. Smith stated the alternate plan presented at the next meeting would take all of the comments and incorporate them into something that is acceptable to everyone. Mr. Smith stated he thought it was great that the residents were getting involved. Mr. Carr stated he did have a sign in sheet from the April 24^th meeting and he would be happy to facilitate something with the neighborhoods as far as getting the alternate plan to them before this meeting on the 24^th. Mr. Carr stated the other six park concept plans met with no resistance at all.

Mr. Carr stated further he would like to bring to the Committee’s attention that between two lots on Cherokee Court in the Shawnee Crossing park, there is a small piece of property that juts out between those two properties, Lots 205 and 209. He stated one of the property owners has indicated that he and his neighbor would like to purchase that small piece of property. Mr. Carr stated Edsall has suggested that we approach those two property owners and propose a trade out and get an easement for a pedestrian access off of Cherokee Court. He stated one of the problems with the Shawnee Crossing neighborhood park is there is no access from the neighborhood. He stated he wanted to get the Committee’s thoughts on if they wanted us to pursue discussions with the two residents about trying to obtain a pedestrian easement, and if they are opposed to that, about the possibility of selling off that little section that juts out. He stated obviously we would not put any amenities that close to side yards. Ms Gilleland stated she thought it was a great idea to approach the property owners regarding access. She stated if they would be interested in that, then we could trade them for the rest of that small piece of land. Mr. Carr clarified the Committee had no objections to pursuing discussion with the two property owners regarding a trade off of an easement for the remaining property. Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not feel the property owners would want the pedestrian traffic in their yards, and he felt we should see if they were interested in purchasing the land as a whole if that was the case. Mr. Smith clarified that we did purchase this parkland.

1. Joint Parks District – Update. No Report.

b. NatureWorks Grant Project. No Report.

c. Sycamore Park Tennis Court Repair Project – Update. Mr. Carr stated this project should begin after daily temperatures rise above 75 degrees.

B. Building Regulations:

(1) Review and discussion regarding Maintenance Bonds. Ms Gilleland stated staff had met to discuss different issues, however, she did not have an update for the Committee this evening.

Mr. Stacy stated he had provided a report to the Committee and he would be happy to answer any questions. He stated he has submitted the Residential Building Design Standards and we are waiting for their determination of whether the regulations conflict with the Ohio Residential Code. He stated they must respond within 60 days with their determination. Mr. Stacy further stated with regard to the Residential Appeals Board, he had contacted other jurisdictions and they all use their Board of zoning Appeals for this function. Ms Gilleland stated she will be presenting draft legislation for the Committee to review adding this requirement to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

C. Service Department:

(1) Traffic Engineer

a. Review of recommended speed limit on Hill Road South. Mr. Drobina stated the speed study has been completed and the County is planning on installing their speed limit signs this week, and the speed limit will be 45 MPH both ways from Busey Road up to where you hit the wastewater plant, and it will then go to 25 MPH. Mr. Smith stated he would like to have this item removed from the agenda.

Mr. Smith stated the Committee had received a report from the engineer regarding the discussion at last month’s meeting regarding “No right turn on red” signage at S.R. 256 and S.R. 204/Tussing Road. Mr. Smith stated the report indicated that signal timing/coordinate timing offset changes at the Tussing Road and Winderly Place intersection would reduce the backups at 256 and 204. Mr. Sabatino inquired if there was a time frame on how long it would take ODOT to evaluate the timing and see if that solves the problem. Mr. Smith stated he would like to have this item on the next agenda so we can see if this has been resolved.

D. Code Enforcement: Ms Gilleland stated there was no report this evening.

E. Building Facilities – Update. Ms Gilleland stated there was no update this evening.

4. POLICE:

A. Chief’s Report. Commander Annetts stated Chief Taylor’s report had been distributed and he would answer any questions. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had attended the recent DARE Graduation and he was very disappointed by the lack of attendance from local officials. He stated he felt with something as important as our children and their programs, there should be more support from all of the local officials.

Mr. Wisniewski inquired if it would be possible for the police department to provide Council with data regarding what type of establishments bring more crime to cities, as far as retail type establishments, so that as we go forward with future development that is something we take into consideration as to how many more officers or how much more crime can we expect by that development and what are the offsetting costs. Ms Gilleland stated that is a good point, and she thought our impact fee study took that into account when the proportioned the police cost on commercial, retail, etc. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood that, he would just like to see what types of development caused more crime. Commander Annetts stated he would see what they could do.

(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Pickerington Local School District for Extraordinary police services. Mr. Smith stated the Committee had received the proposed contract and ordinance and clarified that our current contract will be expiring and this is a renewal contract. He further clarified the hourly fees for the next three school years have been renegotiated. Mr. Wisniewski clarified this is for the schools inside the city limits. Mr. Smith moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

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

6. OTHER BUSINESS. No other business was brought forward.

7. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Wisniewski moved to adjourn; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Smith voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The Safety Committee meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M., April 6, 2006.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk