MONDAY, AUGUST 20, 2007

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mrs. Hammond called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Fix present. No members were absent. Others present were: Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Ed Drobina, Brenda VanCleave, Jennifer Frommer, Tim Spenser, Todd Faris, Garry Wilcox, Jim Good, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF July 16, 2007, Regular Meeting. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS: There were no community comments.

4. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT:

A. Planning and Zoning Director’s Report. Mr. Schultz stated he had provided a written report and he would answer any questions.

(1) Board of Zoning Appeals (Mr. Schultz). Mr. Schultz stated he had provided a written report and he would answer any questions.

(2) Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mr. Hackworth) Mr. Hackworth stated Planning and Zoning met on August 14^th, and approved the demolition of the Big Bear store and UDF at Refugee Road and S.R. 256, and they will be replaced with a Gold’s Gym and Walgreen’s. He stated they had also moved the rezoning and preliminary development plan that is next on tonight’s agenda with several conditions.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and request for motion to approve rezoning and preliminary development plan for approximately 47 acres from M (General Industrial) to PC-2 (Planned Central Business/Mixed Use District) for Mayflower Village, a commercial, office, and townhouse development located west of Hill Road North just north of the railroad tracks (Good property). Mr. Schultz stated this was before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the 14^th for a public hearing and consideration by the Commission. He stated the applicant was proposing to rezone the 47-acre site and have the preliminary development plan approved. He stated it would be developed into a mixed use development that would include a commercial office and townhouse component. He stated the approximate 12.5 acre commercial component would include four outlots fronting Hill Road North and approximately 6 acres of specialty retail. Mr. Schultz stated the plan includes 192 townhouse units on 17 acres for a density of approximately 11.3 units per acre. He further stated there would be two curb cuts into the site; with a traffic signal proposed at the Meadows Boulevard intersection and a right-in/right-out adjacent to Town Square Drive. Mr. Schultz stated the project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the recently adopted Growth Management Plan. He stated the developer is proposing to downzone the property from Industrial to a Planned Central Mixed Use District, which would yield less intensive uses than an industrial zoning. Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning Commission approved this project with the 18 conditions contained in the staff report as well as the three additional conditions contained in his report to the Committee this evening. Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning Commission had amended Condition 13 to reflect the density as 11.3 units per acre for the townhouse complex. Mr. Schultz stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. Mr. Fix inquired what kind of impact this development would have on our water and sewer, would we be prepared to deal with it with our plant expansion project. Ms Gilleland stated she has had discussion with the developer regarding capacity issues, and they did not feel that would be a problem. She stated she was surprised to see this before the Committee so soon as she thought the development was a couple of years away. Mr. Tim Spenser stated he was present representing the development and he felt it would take a couple of years to develop the site. He stated they were planning on beginning construction on the back portion, the residential portion, of the property next year, and phasing in the remainder of the development. Mr. Spenser stated they would work with the City on their requirements. Mr. Fix clarified that our two units per acre requirement does not apply to multi-family developments. Mr. Hackworth stated citizens at the public hearing were concerned that this would develop into Section 8 housing and he did not feel that was the case as this appeared to be an upscale development. He stated there were also concerns with mounding between the townhouses and the Willow Pond subdivision, however, the grade at the railroad tracks appears to be substantial. Mr. Hackworth further stated there was concern about traffic congestion and the developer was doing a traffic study, and there was concern about the effect on the school district. Mr. Schultz stated there was also concern about stream preservation and the applicant is requesting to have that reduced to potentially include more office units. Mr. Spenser stated there were 18 conditions listed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and they were in agreement with all 18 of them. He stated the public comments did include the quality of housing and he would like to point out that they are having an area designated as specialty retail on the seven acre piece just east of the stream corridor. He stated this area would be created to a village feel. He stated on the residential portion they were hoping that whatever architectural elements they come up with for the specialty retail, a number of those would be picked up in the residential as well. He stated they also agreed to the condition that the development of the residential component would prohibit three bedroom units so it would not promote young starter families and children. Mr. Spenser stated this site has some challenges as it does have a tremendous amount of railroad tracks on one side, and it does have a stream corridor going right through it. He stated that is why they decided to request a mixed use zoning for the property. Mr. Spenser stated there is one primary entrance, one with restricted access, and he understands the need for good planning with the out lots and keeping the traffic restricted to the internal road. He stated they are open to any suggestions the City may have. Ms Frommer stated she did receive the traffic impact study and she had forwarded it to the traffic engineer. She further stated they will be reviewing it in detail with staff and the developer. Ms Frommer stated the development is large enough and the scope is comprehensive enough that it will be likely that traffic will be best handled using a traffic signal. Mrs. Hammond clarified the townhouses will go all the way back to the corner of the property. Mr. Hackworth stated he is concerned with flooding from the creek going through the property and Ms VanCleave stated she has a meeting scheduled with the developer’s engineer to discuss this issue further. Mr. Fix stated while the townhouses and retail are fine, he felt we wanted as much office space as possible in the development. Mr. Hackworth clarified that all commercial portions of the development will be required to apply for Certificates of Appropriateness from the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated the townhouse portion would not, and that is why one of the conditions was that elevations of the site be submitted and approved as part of the PUD. Mrs. Hammond clarified further the townhouses would fall under the Residential Design Guidelines, but it would be administrative approval. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve the rezoning and preliminary development plan for 47 acres from M (General Industrial) to PC-2 (Planning Central Business/Mixed Use District) for Mayflower Village, a commercial, office, and townhouse development located west of Hill road North just north of the railroad tracks (Good Property) with the 18 conditions approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Mr. Schultz stated the next step would be approval of the Final Development Plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Service Committee, and then Council. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

5. SERVICE DEPARTMENT

A. REPORTS:

(1) Utility Fees Review Commission Representative Report (Mr. Hackworth) Mr. Hackworth stated he had no report.

(2) Service Manager’s Report. Mr. Drobina stated he had provided a written report and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Fix stated Mr. Drobina’s report references that South Central Power is interested in renting 110 Diley Road. Mr. Drobina stated that was correct, South Central Power would like to have that property available for their employees rather than using hotels. Mr. Fix clarified the City does own the house and it will be scheduled for demolition at some point in the future. Mr. Fix further ascertained that in the cleaning and televising of sanitary sewer lines, there were a few areas where there has been tree root intrusion and that has been taken care of.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance to authorize the City Manager to modify the City’s public improvements procurement of professional design services. Ms Gilleland stated the Qualification Based Selection process is dictated by Ohio law and there have been some instances where we thought it would have been nice if we could have requested cost proposals as a part of the engineering design proposal, or some component of cost along with the design proposals. She stated Ohio law does not specifically permit that, and after talking with our attorneys, Ms VanCleave has worked with them to come up with this ordinance that allows us to modify those if we so desire. She stated this would allow us to reserve the right to request the top three firms to provide a cost proposal and scope of work. She stated this did not mean that we always wanted to base decisions on cost, perhaps never, but it would be nice to reserve that right. Mrs. Hammond stated this would prevent us from having to choose someone without having a clue if we were choosing the most expensive, the least expensive, or whatever. Ms Gilleland stated that it might prevent that; it would be one more piece of information we can consider if we so desire. Mr. Fix stated if we can find out costs up front he felt that was a very good idea. Mr. Fix moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

(2) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Perram Electric, Inc., for the project entitled Pickerington Signal Improvements ACS Lite, Phase I. Mr. Drobina stated with this project we will be changing all the incandescent bulbs out to LED light which will save us quite a lot in electric. He stated we will also be putting up three video detectors to get us prepared for the ACS light system we would like to put in next year. He stated this also includes putting in a battery back-up on the Diley Road/Hill Road traffic signal. Mr. Drobina stated we had received bids for the alternate, which was to install new boxes for the Walk/Don’t Walk, however, we have decided that is not necessary at this time. Mr. Drobina stated we did receive four bids for the project and Perram submitted the best bid. Mr. Fix moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

C. WATER UTILITY: No Report.

D. WASTEWATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE: No Report.

E. STREET MAINTENANCE. No Report.

F. STORMWATER: No Report.

6. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS.

A. WASTEWATER

(1) Wastewater Plant Expansion - Update. Ms VanCleave stated she had provided a written report and would be happy to answer any questions.

(2) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to apply for Water Pollution Control Loan Funds and Water Resource Restoration Sponsor Program Funds for the wastewater treatment plant expansion and water resource/protection project. Ms Frommer stated she had distributed the draft applications for these funds to the Committee this evening and the deadline for filing the applications is 5:00 P.M. tomorrow evening. Ms Frommer stated the main item she would like to discuss is the amount that you want to apply for. She stated further we have not been provided a cost estimate from the design consultant as yet, the most recent estimate for construction was approximately $8.8 million, and as yet there is no construction manager contract. Ms Frommer stated she had used the amount of $10 million and she felt that would cover the costs and provide for contingency funds. Ms Frommer stated the loan term was for 20 years, and she would like to point out the construction loan schedule in the application. Ms Frommer stated it was her understanding the design consultants felt you would apply for your Permit to Install on or about December 1^st, so she had used that date in the application. She stated following their guidelines, you could advertise for bids on April 1^st, open the bids on April 30^th, and the loan funds would be available on June 1^st. Mr. Fix clarified the interest rate using this program is 3.25 percent, which is lower than what we would get on the open market. Mr. Fix questioned why we did not indicate on the application that this project would promote sustainable growth, and Ms Frommer stated we would have to attach a copy of a sustainable growth plan, which we have not prepared. Ms Frommer stated if there were no other comments she would submit the application with the $10 million figure. She stated this is just the nomination form, there would still be an environment piece, some facilities planning information, etc. that would have to be submitted. Ms Gilleland stated the ordinance authorizing her to sign for the funds does not have to be submitted with the nomination form so there was no need for emergency language or anything of that nature.

Ms Frommer stated the second form she had submitted was the nomination form for Water Resource Restoration Sponsor Program funds for procurement of parkland. She stated after the last Council meeting she understood there was relatively clear direction to proceed in regard to two properties. She stated she had provided a memo to Council on July 31^st informing them that she would get the application together but they would recommend a consultant be employed as it relates to the purchase or management of the property. She stated further no study has been done that was more recent than 2004, and she had used the information in the WRSP grant filed in 2004 to put together this draft. Ms Frommer stated this also must be submitted tomorrow by 5:00 P.M. Ms Frommer stated she would like to confirm that the parcel being considered is the 88 acre parcel in its entirety, and that includes 40 acres of wetlands. Ms Gilleland stated she has had no conversation with the property owner. Mr. Fix stated as he understood it, this was for the purchase of Hickory Lakes. Ms Gilleland stated she had discussed with Council two different parcels, and this may not be something that Council wants to pursue. Ms Gilleland stated further this property would require a wetlands study, which is expensive and time consuming. Mr. Fix ascertained that if this is not submitted tomorrow, the next opportunity would be next year as these applications are considered once a year. Ms Gilleland stated she would not be in favor of submitting this as she has not had the opportunity to do any work toward verifying the appraisal, she does not have an operating plan for the facility, and she is not comfortable going forward with this given the information that we have right now. Mr. Hackworth clarified that if we were to submit this application and six months from now there was another piece of property that was more desirable, it could not be changed for the other property. Ms Frommer stated that was correct, the information submitted is property specific. Mr. Fix clarified that next year we would be able to make this same application only if it is in companion with a WPCLF loan. Mr. Fix stated if we acquired this property he didn’t know what we would do with it and Mrs. Hammond stated that was her concern as well. She stated we do not have any cost figures on what it costs to run it, how successful it is, or any of that information. Mr. Hackworth stated he had the same concerns as the other Committee members and if it came to submitting for Hickory Lakes or nothing, he would say nothing. Ms Gilleland stated she would agree with that because she does not like to go into things without having all of the questions answered, and she would feel very uncomfortable applying for this amount of money on something that has not been completely thought out. Mrs. Hammond stated she also was not in favor of submitting this application. Mrs. Hammond moved to forward an ordinance to Council authorizing the City Manager to apply for Water Pollution Control Loan Funds for the wastewater treatment plant expansion project; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

Service Committee recessed at 8:50 P.M., and reconvened in open session at 9:00 P.M.

(3) Review and discussion regarding draft agreement with W.E. Stilson Consulting Group, LLC, for project management on behalf of the City of Pickerington wastewater treatment plant expansion project. Ms Gilleland stated we have a design engineer for the project, we have an RFP in our possession and proposals for construction inspection and project management, and we will be hiring a firm to do that. She stated then, working on behalf of the City is another aspect and is something that staff has been doing with the assistance of Ms Frommer as the City Engineer. She stated, however, this would be a contract to have someone be the point person from the City’s perspective. She stated she had requested Ms Frommer put together a proposal from Stilson to be the City’s point person as our City Engineer, recognizing that this would be work outside the retainer and they need to be compensated for this work. She stated we do not have numbers right now because we need to discuss what we feel they should be involved with because we do want to give them the latitude to manage the project. Ms Gilleland stated she was just putting forward this concept to the Committee this evening and the actual contract will need to go before Council as it will probably be more than $25,000. Ms Gilleland stated we have the same arrangement with Stilson to be the project manager for Diley Road at a cost of $25,000 per year. She stated ODOT is the actual project manager of the Diley Road project, but Stilson has been working on the City’s behalf. Ms Gilleland stated once the details have been determined she will bring a fully developed contract back to Service Committee. Mr. Fix stated then that Ms Frommer was acting in this capacity now and is being paid the hourly rate. Mrs. Hammond stated Ms Frommer had distributed a memorandum listing some of the duties to be performed under this contract. Mr. Fix stated it was his understanding we had three choices. If we did a $25,000 a year contract, would the City be paying more than it was getting, would Stilson be putting in more time than they are getting paid for, or we don’t know yet. Ms Frommer stated we do not know yet, but it could be that Stilson would be putting in more time than they would be getting paid for. Mr. Fix stated the question before the Committee was whether or not, conceptually, it was a good idea to hire Stilson, Ms Frommer, for some number that will be determined, to be the City’s representative to oversee this whole project. Mr. Fix stated he was in favor of that and he hoped we could figure out the cost, and Mr. Hackworth stated before figuring out the numbers, the scope of work must be defined. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt everyone agreed in principal that we would like to have this contract, and once staff works out the details, the scope of work, etc., and determines the cost then they can bring it back to Committee.

B. TRANSPORTATION:

(1) Diley Road Improvements Project:

a. MORPC/ODOT Project – Update. Ms Frommer stated the project was filed by District Five and Central Office on July 27^th, and we expect to receive a bid opening date very shortly. She stated she was working with staff on a letter to provide the residents with an update and also to put an update on the City’s web site.

C. WATER: No Report.

D. STORMWATER. No Report.

7. CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Hammond stated she had nothing to bring forward this evening.

8. OTHER BUSINESS: No other business was brought forward.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Hackworth voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The Service Committee adjourned at 9:25 P.M., August 20, 2007.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk