CITY OF PICKERINGTON

SERVICE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2006

 

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

 

1.         ROLL CALL.  Mr. Hackworth called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Hackworth present.  No members were absent.  Others present were: Judy Gilleland, Jeff Fix, Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Ed Drobina, Brenda VanCleave, Jennifer Frommer, Mark Carlson, Russ Henestofel, Ray Michalski, Dave Dozer, Sean Casey, Dan Horne, Bruce Engelhart, Bill Yaple, Robert Spiker, Usama Fayyaz, and others.

 

2.         A.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 13, 2006, Work Session regarding Access Management Plan.  Mrs. Hammond moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Hackworth and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

B.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 13, 2006, Regular Meeting.  Mrs. Hammond moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Hammond, and Mrs. Riggs 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 in April the Board of Zoning Appeals approved two items, and there are three items on the May agenda.  Mr. Hackworth clarified the items approved in April included a deck variance in Windmiller Ponds and a side rear yard setback variance at 51 Homestead Drive. 

 

            (2)        Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mrs. Hammond) Mrs. Hammond stated Planning and Zoning met this past Tuesday, and approved an outdoor patio for Marroni’s Restaurant in the old downtown.  She stated they also approved a modular classroom for Diley Middle School, a gazebo for Pickerington Central High School, a site plan for the location behind Rod Huffman’s Insurance on S.R. 256, a preliminary development plan for an assisted living facility that will be south of the Pickerington Health Care Center on S.R. 256, and a preliminary development plan for the Zane property.       

 

B.                 ACTION ITEMS: 

 

            (1)        Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance accepting the final plat for Ashton Crossing commercial subdivision.  Mr. Schultz stated in Planning and Zoning Commission approved the final plat at their January meeting.  He stated the subdivision would have seven out lots on approximately 13 acres behind the Holiday Inn, with a detention pond located just north of the Holiday Inn.  Mr. Schultz stated access would be from Freedom Way through a private drive that would extend approximately 270 feet into the site; however, there would be no access to S.R. 256.  Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning approved the request with six conditions.  Mr. Schultz stated the stream mitigation plan, conservation easement, and five-year monitoring plan in Condition 1 has already been approved by the City, the EPA, and the developer, so that condition can be removed.  Mr. Hackworth stated the draft ordinance indicates a unanimous vote at this meeting, and clarified should the vote not be unanimous that portion of the draft ordinance would be corrected before the ordinance goes to Council.  Mr. Hackworth inquired if all of the properties could be accessed by a sidewalk as he noticed there were sidewalks only on one side.  Mr. Schultz stated since that is a private drive we recommended one side for a sidewalk, and the further you go south the roadway will abut the right-of-way to the exit ramp, so the uses will just be to the south side of the roadway.  Mr. Hackworth stated he was not sure if Freedom Way had sidewalks, and Mr. Schultz stated he was not sure, but he would check on that.  Mr. Hackworth stated since a hotel is near, and there may be other restaurants, it would only make sense to have sidewalks on Freedom Way.  Mr. Schultz stated as each site develops, they will need Certificates of Appropriateness through the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Mr. Fix clarified the developer has agreed that lot 8 will be designated for a detention pond.  Mr. Schultz stated that is the lowest point on the site.  Mr. Hackworth stated it was his understanding our agreement states it will be the City’s responsibility to maintain the mitigation of the creek.  Ms Gilleland stated that has yet to be determined, however, more than likely the City will be responsible, but we are still working on that.  Mr. Schultz stated we would require the developer to create an association to maintain the private roads, the detention basin, and the like.  Ms Gilleland stated if in the event there are no sidewalks on Freedom Way, this might be the time to place that requirement on the development.  Mr. Schultz stated we might be able to require them to place sidewalks on the property the developer owns along Freedom Way.  Mr. Hackworth stated he just didn’t see the sense in requiring sidewalks on one side of the street.  Mr. Schultz stated the reason we wanted a sidewalk along the road is because there will likely be several commercial uses and we wanted to give pedestrians a place to walk.  Mr. Hackworth stated he understood there might be a second hotel in that area, and it seemed it would be safer to have sidewalks so guests can walk to the restaurants, etc.  Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have the condition added that sidewalks are required on the portion of the property they own along Freedom Way or that they abut.  Mr. Hackworth moved to approve the draft ordinance accepting the final plat for Ashton Crossing commercial subdivision with conditions 2 through 6 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the additional condition that sidewalks be required along the property the developer owns or abuts along Freedom Way; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

            (2)        Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance approving the Violet Township Maintenance Building use of Fairfield County Water.  Ms Gilleland stated she would request this be continued on the agenda for the next meeting. 

 

            (3)        Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance regarding Impact Fee Exception for the violet township Maintenance Building Sanitary Sewer Fair Share for the Violet Township Maintenance building.  Ms Gilleland stated she would request this be continued on the agenda for the next meeting. 

 

            (4)        Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance regarding a Sanitary Sewer Fair Share agreement with Violet Township.  Ms Gilleland stated she would request this be continued on the agenda for the next meeting. 

 

            (5)        Review and request for motion to approve a Preliminary Plat for Stone Creek Station Commercial Subdivision located just south of Kohl’s for Equity Land Investment, LLC.  Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary plat at their April 11, 2006, meeting.  He stated this is the second of a three step process, and after it is reviewed by this Committee this evening Planning and Zoning will review it for Final Plat approval, Service will review it for Final Plat approval and forward it to Council.  Mr. Schultz stated the developer is proposing to develop an approximately 18-acre site just south of Kohl’s into two large parcels fronting the proposed Stone Creek Drive, and two out lots would front S.R. 256.  He stated Stone Creek Drive would be extended and would divide the property in a north/south orientation, per the adopted Thoroughfare Plan.  He continued that the developer was proposing a retail development north of the proposed road extension and office uses south of the proposed road extension.  Mr. Schultz continued that this area presently has 16,000 square feet of office space in three buildings.  He further stated the developer is requesting three curb cuts to the retail development and three curb cuts to the office development from the Stone Creek Drive extension.  He continued that off site detention would be located just west of the site on the Nicodemus property.  Mr. Schultz stated with regard to the curb cuts, the easternmost curb cut into the office development, per the traffic impact study they prepared, the engineer indicated that curb cut should be eliminated.  Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning approved the preliminary plat with 12 conditions that appear to be typical for a project this large.  Mr. Schultz stated the applicant, Mr. Dan Horne, is present this evening and he can answer any questions the Committee may have.  Ms Gilleland stated we are working with the developer of this project on a TIF, and that portion of the project will be coming through Finance Committee.  Mr. Dan Horne stated he is present representing Equity Land Investments, and Mr. Russ Henestofel of EMH&T, their engineers, is also present this evening.  Mr. Hackworth clarified there was a 60-foot right-of-way that would widen out to 72 feet at the four-lane section.  Mr. Horne stated the right-of-way will stay at 60 feet, but they will grant a bike path/sidewalk easement.  Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Horne has spoken with Kohl’s and they are getting an agreement with Equity to allow them to use the rear portion of the Equity development to access Kohl’s truck dock, and part of Kohl’s approval was that, if they have that access, that the intersection just north of Picktown Carry Out will be eliminated.  Mr. Horne stated during the final plan and final plat, the city engineer will have the opportunity to review these intersections for turning radius, etc.  Ms Gilleland stated the last she saw there would be a boulevard at the entrance, and Mr. Horne stated there would not be a boulevard because it would not line up with across the street.  Mr. Horne stated he did not see any major problems with staff’s recommendations.  Mr. Schultz stated as each building comes in for Certificate of Appropriateness approval, that is when the set back variances will be done, he just wanted to make sure, up front, that the developer was aware the variances will be required based on the plan being reviewed today.  Mr. Schultz stated further if the property to the west gets rezoned before they build these buildings, variances might not be required.  Mr. Hackworth moved to approve the preliminary plat for Stone Creek Station Commercial Subdivision; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

C.        ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN:  Mr. Hackworth stated a work session was held earlier on this issue, and we hoped to have the final plan and draft legislation for the next meeting. 

 

5.         SERVICE DEPARTMENT

 

A.        REPORTS:

 

            (1)        Utility Fees Review Committee Representative Report (Mr. Hackworth).  Mr. Hackworth the Committee was reviewing rate schedules to bring our utilities to self-sustaining levels.  He stated the Committee would meet next Monday and would address those schedules at that time.   

 

B.         ACTION ITEMS:  No Action Items. 

 

C.        WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE.  Mr. Drobina stated he had no report this evening.   

 

D.        WASTEWATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE.  Mr. Drobina stated he had nothing to report this evening.  

 

E.         STREET MAINTENANCE.  Mr. Drobina stated he had no report this evening.      

 

F.         STORM WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE.  Mr. Drobina stated he had no report this evening. 

 

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

 

6.         ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS

 

A.        WASTEWATER

 

            (1)        Wastewater Plant Expansion - Update.  Ms Frommer stated the meetings are proceeding, and the City has acquired the services of Malcolm Pirnie to study some options for potential expansion of the wastewater plant.  Ms Frommer stated one of the actions being considered is an emerging technology that has been tested outside the State of Ohio.  She stated to move forward with this we would need to do a pilot test on this technology prior to design.  She stated this is basically a test run of this technology to see how well it works for our particular situation.  She stated piloting testing is a very common requirement the EPA puts on people when they want to consider a new technology.  Ms Frommer stated Ohio Water Development Authority has funds for research and development of new technologies in the water and wastewater field and she suggested the City avail themselves of that grant program.  Ms Frommer stated that grant application is due June 1st of every year and the Committee has a draft ordinance tonight to allow the City Manager to submit an application for those funds on behalf of the City.  Ms Frommer stated she spoke with Malcolm Pirnie this afternoon and those costs look to be in the range of $350,000 for the pilot test and the grant requires a 50 percent match, not necessarily in cash.  She stated it would be roughly a $150,000 match on the City’s part, however, a good part of that could certainly be in labor and other work done for the pilot.  Ms Frommer stated it would certainly provide some good data for you to make further decisions on expansion of the wastewater plant.  Mr. Hackworth stated we learned there are some issues with the EPA on this, and he would like to make this grant contingent upon the EPAs decision.  Ms Gilleland stated she felt it would be best to apply for the grant, and if the EPA does not approve the pilot test program we would not proceed with it.  Ms Frommer stated the announcement of the grant will not be made until the end of October, and between now and then we should know whether or not the EPA will recognize the results of a pilot.  Ms Frommer clarified the technology being considered is Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge or “IFAS.”  She stated a little older version with a different manufacturer was done in Blacklick Estates and for the first few years it did exactly what it was intended to do.  She stated supposedly there was a notion of problems on the operational side over time that led to a red worm infestation.  She stated all wastewater technologies take advantage of the growth of bugs to help break down what is in the wastewater, so a little of that is not unheard of, but a lot of it is not good.  She continued EPA is concerned, and anticipating the results of your pilot and another pilot being done in northwest Ohio right now, to change their minds on the fact that maybe it was operator error that caused that and not necessarily that the technology itself is bad.  Mrs. Riggs clarified this technology does not exist in the State of Ohio, but is in use in Texas, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania, so it is relatively new to Ohio.  Ms Frommer stated the pilot test that is going on in the City of Freemont, Ohio, is almost half way through.  She stated although that pilot takes advantage of a different kind of IFAS technology it is a similar concept with the same goals.  She stated we will convene a meeting with the EPA before this proceeds much further, but because the grant application has a once per year application submittal date, it was determined it would be a good idea to get this legislation started so we can keep these options open.  Mr. Hackworth stated if we can use this technology, for another 800,000 gallons per day, it would bring the cost of our expansion down to between $3 to $4.7 million as opposed to the $12 million we have been looking at in the past.  Mr. Hackworth stated he felt it would be good to go forward with this legislation, as we will know before the grant is announced if the EPA will consent to our performing the test.  Mr. Fix stated the down side would be that we invest the money, the test fails, and then we have to spend the other money anyway.  Ms Gilleland stated that was correct.  Mr. Hackworth stated the program is just new to Ohio, and the EPA has approved the other pilot test in Ohio.   Ms Gilleland stated she was just asking this be forwarded so we did not miss the opportunity for the pilot grant.  Mrs. Hammond clarified we can submit for the grant and if the EPA does not approve the pilot test, then we can pull our application from consideration.  Mr. Hackworth moved to approve and forward the draft ordinance to submit a grant application to the Ohio Water Development Authority’s Research and Development grant program for the wastewater treatment plan IFAS pilot test project; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

                        (2)       D-Line Interceptor Sewer Phase IIIB – Update.  Ms Frommer stated the project is complete with the exception of clean up.  Ms Frommer stated we did have some issues with an easement that was previously approved and the dimension changed.  She stated the Committee had been provided a draft ordinance to rescind the original easement ordinance and substitute the new easement for the Wojnar property.  Mr. Hackworth clarified that the cost in the draft ordinance includes the amount approved in the previous ordinance as well as the additional funds for the increased size of the easement.  Ms Frommer stated the easement is 28 feet in lieu of the 20 feet in the original easement.  Mrs. Hammond moved to approve the ordinance and forward to Council; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0.     

 

B.         TRANSPORTATION: 

 

            (1)        Courtright Drive. 

 

                        a.         Courtright Drive Extension Project, Phase III  – Update.  Ms Gilleland stated she has no update this evening.         

 

(2)        Diley Road Improvements Project:

 

                        a.         MORPC/ODOT Project – Update.  Ms Frommer stated the Stage 3 plans will be going in this week, and right-of-way acquisition is proceeding.  Ms Gilleland stated we should have a batch of the right-of-way acquisitions for Service at the next meeting.   

 

                        b.         Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance vacating 0.341 acres, more or less, of Old Diley Road located southwest of S.R. 256, and 0.685 acres, more or less, of Old Diley road located south of Windmiller Drive, City of Pickerington, County of Fairfield, State of Ohio.  Ms Gilleland stated she would request this item be continued on the agenda for next month. 

                                   

            (3)        Cover/Ebright Connector

 

                        a.         Pickerington Health Care Access Road – Update.  Ms Gilleland stated she has no update this evening.    

      

            (4)        Traffic Signal Update.  Ms Frommer stated with regard to the grant application submitted to ODOT on the Refugee Road/S.R. 256 intersection, she had provided the Committee with maps showing the existing lane configuration and the proposed improvements/lane configuration.  She stated the application was submitted in April and was forwarded from District 5 to Central Office and will be considered by them on May 24, 2006.  She stated within the next two to three months after that we should know their decision.  Ms Frommer stated the project totaled roughly $3.22 million, of which we were requesting 90 percent be funded by an ODOT safety grant.  Mr. Hackworth stated Ms Frommer was going to see if the pre-emptive devices for all of the signals in our system could be included in this grant.  Ms Frommer stated that was correct, and ODOT did allow that.  Ms Gilleland stated this is a preliminary plan that we developed for the grant application. She stated it has not been worked through with property owners, and we will work on it in more detail as the project is designed. 

 

Mr. Hackworth further clarified that some of the items that were authorized by the traffic signal study have been accomplished, such as testing the conflict monitors and some maintenance type things.  Ms Frommer stated her staff was to give Mr. Drobina a description of the original list, the items that have been done, and what items they recommend be done.  Mr. Drobina stated they would also be reviewing the traffic signal at Columbus Street and Hill Road next week on improving the traffic through there. 

 

Ms Frommer further clarified that District 5 has been contacted regarding putting the signage at the S.R. 256/S.R. 204 intersection preventing right turns on red that Safety Committee proposed.  She stated ODOT is collecting data during the various timing program periods to be able to support installing this signage. 

 

C.        WATER:  Mr. Drobina stated he had no report this evening. 

 

D.        STORMWATER.  Mr. Drobina stated he had nothing to report this evening.   

 

7.         CHAIRMAN.   

 

A.        Discussion regarding Cherry Hill Retention Pond.  Mr. Hackworth stated he was contacted by a resident in Cherry Hill regarding the 1.6 acre retention pond at the northeast corner of Diley Road and the railroad tracks, and the suggestion is this area be used for some type of recreation for the kids in the neighborhood.  He stated the deed apparently reflects that we need to determine that is no longer needed as a retention pond.  He stated the pond does occasionally have water in it when we have heavy rains, but it is normally dry.  Ms Frommer stated that detention pond was created a number of years ago as a city sponsored project, and there was extensive background on the need for the project.  She stated she could provide the Committee with the data that led to it, and she and Ms VanCleave could look at it and see what is actually happening out there.  She stated she would be very cautious in doing anything there until it is looked at thoroughly.  Mr. Hackworth stated the question he was asked was if we could put a basketball court or something in there.  Ms Gilleland stated we would have to determine if we needed it for detention, and we have a number of other park improvements that we are not funding.  Ms VanCleave stated further that this would be very close to a five lane road.  Ms Gilleland stated we will start by looking at the drainage needs. 

 

Mr. Hackworth stated he had received some affidavits from Mr. Ebright about the water taps, and requested Ms Gilleland review these affidavits from former Mayor Randy Hughes, Councilman Doug Parker, and former City Manager, Joyce Bushman. 

 

Mr. Hackworth stated with regard to the Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission, the Fairfield County Engineer is raising a lot of questions about the traffic count at Pickerington Road and U.S. 33, and if they do a median and make that a right-in/right-out, the traffic counts will drop and we will lose the justification for an interchange.  Ms Frommer stated it was her understanding that ODOT fully intends to apply to ODOT’s funding arm to fund an interchange at Pickerington Road. 

 

Mr. Hackworth requested the discussion of the Cherry Hill Retention Pond, the Ebright water tap issue, and the U.S. 33/Pickerington Road interchange be added to the agenda for the next Service Committee. 

 

8.         OTHER BUSINESS. 

 

A.        Review and discussion regarding utility service on Wright Road (Slingluff property).  Mr. Michalski stated he and Mr. Dozer were present this evening to provide information to the Committee and answer any questions.  He stated prior to this meeting they had provided a copy of their development plan to the Committee members detailing their project.  Mr. Michalski stated they are not trying to avoid the impact fees and if the City is so inclined, the developer will agree to donate those impact fees to the school district, without adding any additional students to the schools. He stated as far as income taxes are concerned, they estimate about $16,000 per year on the low end. Mr. Michalski stated they are projecting these offices to be professional office space for doctors, engineers, architects, CPAs, lawyers, etc.  He stated they had provided an estimated daily usage for sewer for this project to the Committee this evening.  (Attachment 1 to these minutes)  Mr. Michalski stated they would probably not start construction of these buildings until about the end of 2008, but they were looking for a commitment for the utilities so they will be ready when the construction begins.  Ms Frommer inquired if there would be anything in the building that would be generating waste other than normal restroom facilities that we need to be aware of.  Ms Gilleland stated the information provided was assuming these would be the typical tenants, and Mr. Michalski stated that was correct.  Ms Frommer stated the letter refers to existing flows in the Pickerington Road sewer, and she questioned where they were proposing to connect to the sanitary sewer.  Mr. Michalski stated it would be going down Wright Road on Diley Road.  Ms Frommer stated she had assumed they were talking about connecting to the Sheffield sanitary sewer line, so she had not even contemplated Diley Road, and Mr. Michalski stated they currently cannot get there.  Ms Gilleland clarified the developer would bring the line in from Diley; the City would not do that.  Ms Gilleland stated she would like more information on the phasing of the project, as she understood the initial phase would be development of the historical house on the site and then adding one office building in 2008.  Mr. Michalski stated that was correct, the initial development would be of the historic home on the site into an office building and the first new building would not be constructed until about 2008.  Mr. Hackworth clarified that currently the site has a septic system and a well.  Mrs. Hammond stated in the declaration of covenants they are stating the offices will be professional, such as lawyers, real estate, etc.  She stated it also states they may be used by barbers, beauticians, etc.  She stated that she would be inclined to believe that a barber or beautician would use a lot more water and sewer than the other uses.  She stated further a beautician may not generate the kind of money they have indicated for a lawyer or doctor’s office, so the figures provided are based purely on speculation.  Mr. Hackworth stated his concern is that the residents have voiced a number of concerns and the approach taken by the developer and the Township is to try and enforce it with deed restrictions, and it takes a civil action to enforce deed restrictions.  He continued a civil action must be handled by the courts and by that time the issue, such as noise, has gone away.  He stated deed restrictions are very difficult to enforce actions of individuals on properties like that.  Mr. Hackworth stated since there is a possibility that a JEDD could require the property owner to abide by the City’s ordinances, would the developer be opposed to that?  Mr. Michalski stated they are in the Township now and they are covered by their noise ordinances, etc.  He further stated they are not trying to avoid anything, and they cannot speak to the adequacy or inadequacy of the law enforcement being able to enforce ordinances.  He stated further they were not anticipating a lot of noise coming out of office buildings.  Ms Gilleland questioned if they would be able to develop the current historic home as an office without City services, and Mr. Michalski stated they could.  Ms Gilleland stated, as she understood it with the property already zoned in the Township that could already happen.  Mr. Hackworth stated with the widening of Diley Road, the City needs to take a look at the best use of the property on either side of Diley Road.  He stated from his standpoint, he would have liked to have some time to study that issue and provide infrastructure and some amount of protection to the residents in that area.  Mr. Hackworth stated the Township has rezoned this property, and although the market they are aiming for is accountants, doctors, etc., that is all speculation.  Mr. Michalski stated the same thing could have been said about the development this Committee discussed earlier this evening.  Mrs. Riggs stated with all due respect, the prior project fit in the area where they were proposing it.  She stated this is an area that has been residential, and there has been no commercial.  She stated there has to be more thought to this project.  Mr. Michalski stated there has been a great deal of thought in this project.  Mr. Dozer stated the market he is after is professional offices.  Ms Gilleland stated it is a beautiful looking project and we would love to have this project in many areas of the City.  Mr. Schultz clarified that the deed restrictions could only be modified with the consent of the neighboring properties.  Mr. Hackworth stated, as he understood it, as the current property owner if you do not transfer those rights to a new property owner, then the deed restrictions can never be restored.  Mrs. Hammond clarified it states the owners of the lots who adjoin and abut this property have a right to enforce the deed restrictions and they cannot be changed without those property owner’s consent.  Mr. Hackworth requested Mr. Schultz review the legislation adopted by the Township regarding the rezoning of this property and brief this Committee at the next meeting. 

 

Mr. Bruce Englehart stated he resides at 176 Knightsbridge Drive in the Sheffield subdivision.  Mr. Englehart distributed an excerpt from the February 9th minutes of this Committee.  He pointed out in those minutes, Mr. Michalski stated the residents had an opportunity to look at the covenants and were satisfied with them.  He stated attached to those minutes he had provided a copy of the two different invitations to meetings from the developer.  The first invitation was for a meeting on June 29, 2005, and most of the residents opposed the development that evening.  The second invitation was to a private meeting, by invitation only, for six couples to attend on September 8, 2005.  Mr. Englehart stated none of the other residents have seen those covenants or had a chance to review them; yet, Mr. Michalski told this Committee that the residents had approved these covenants.  Mr. Englehart stated they are the ones who will be affected by this development and they are the ones who will have to deal with it.  Mr. Englehart stated the residents have concerns with security, design control, and leasing issues.  He stated this development is right in the middle of their neighborhood, it is not on a corner somewhere, it is in the middle of their neighborhood.  Mr. Englehart stated he agreed this is a great development, but why isn’t it set in another area that is zoned for that purpose.  He stated the Township rezoned the property and now the residents are stuck with it, even though there are other areas within the City far better for this type of use. 

 

Mr. Robert Spiker, 173 Knightsbridge Drive.  Mr. Spiker stated his concern with this development is not only the people that work there, but also all of the people going in and out of this facility.  He stated it is not just 65 or 75 people.  Mr. Spiker stated he works in Whitehall and he sees what happens with retail businesses when developers change, and it is not good.  He stated this is right in their subdivision and their children will have to live with it.

 

Mr. Usama Fayyaz, 23 Grisby Lane.  Mr. Fayyaz stated his family lives in the house that is beside the present motorcycle course and when this property develops they will have problems with kids cutting through their yard to get to the development.  He stated security is a major concern and they do not want to have to deal with worrying about these kids safety.  He stated further, with this being a commercial property, it will probably be very well lit and at night that will take away their privacy.  He stated at night when he studies in his room, his window looks directly onto this property and he just does not want to deal with that. 

 

Mr. Bill Yaple stated he lives directly across the street, about 100 feet from this proposed development.  He stated with what he heard tonight about the development being built in phases, he has a picture of two, three, or four years of construction traffic, noise, etc., right next to his home.  He stated he is concerned about his children with the nails, the waste, the trash, and everything that goes with a construction site that will go on for several years.  Mr. Yaple further stated there is a public sidewalk within a dozen yards of where this property would be, this endless construction.  Mr. Yaple stated they are opposed to putting this development in because it is like a little finger of land that is surrounded by all residential; and this is the strangest use he has ever seen.  Mr. Yaple stated for the residents of the subdivision this will wreak havoc with privacy issues and resale issues.  He stated his property is also directly on Diley Road and now he is getting hit with missing some of his backyard because of the road widening, so he is getting hit on both sides.  He questioned what was left. 

 

Mr. Fix stated he would assume the developer has a Plan B so if the City of Pickerington, for whatever reason, decided not to offer utilities; there is another way utilities could be provided to the site so it could still be developed.  Mr. Michalski concurred that was probably correct.  Mr. Michalski stated when the application for rezoning went to the Violet Township board, they gave notice to everyone.  He stated the covenant conditions and restrictions were part of the whole process and the neighbors had a right to see them as a matter of public record.  He stated if they did not see them it was because they did not request them.  Mr. Hackworth requested Mrs. Yartin provide Mr. Englehart and the other residents present this evening with a copy of the deed restrictions that the Committee had received, which she did at that time.  Mr. Fix stated, as he understood it, the property has been zoned by Violet Township and whether or not this body decides to provide utilities, the developer will find a way to get utilities and develop the property.  He stated the question before us is not whether or not this is a good use of the land, it is not whether or not it will affect the property owners around it, it certainly will, it is unfortunate, but it is part of what is going on.  He stated the question before us is whether or not we want to provide utilities and eventually whether or not we want to see a financial benefit to this community, to the schools, in joining with the Township in an economic development.  Mr. Fix stated while he understood the emotions about the property, he felt at this point they are misplaced before the City of Pickerington since it has already been rezoned.  He continued he understood the question is not whether this is a good idea, the question is whether the utilities should be provided by us and whether or not the economic development, in conjunction with the Township, is a good idea.   Mr. Hackworth stated he did not feel the water issue was a big problem, however, as far as capacity, the sewer is our biggest issue.  He stated over the next few years we are right to the limit of our capacity until we get our plant expanded.  He stated further this is the first time he has heard about connecting to the sewer on Diley Road so he would like to have staff look at this situation.  Mr. Hackworth continued that there were some issues about lighting and requested Mr. Schultz review what kind of lighting restrictions are required by the Township.  Mr. Hackworth stated the City is meeting with the EPA and we may be six months or more out from knowing if the EPA will allow the expansion we are requesting.  Mr. Hackworth stated there would be no decision on this issue this evening. 

 

9.         ADJOURNMENT.  There being nothing further, Mrs. Riggs moved to adjourn; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Riggs, and Mrs. Hammond voted “Aye.”  Motion carried, 3-0.  The Service Committee adjourned at 9:55 P.M., May 11, 2006.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk