CITY OF PICKERINGTON

SERVICE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2004

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA

7:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Hackworth called the Service Committee to order at 7:00 P.M., with Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. O’Brien present. No members were absent. Others present were Mike Sabatino, Judy Gilleland, Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Frank Wiseman, Judge Luse, Tom Fourtune, and others.

2. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and discussion regarding amendment to Access Management Plan at the Luse/Zane property. Mr. Schultz stated at the Service Committee meeting on July 8^th, the applicant had requested a curb cut and traffic signal at the Luse/Zane property across from the PYAA facility. He stated the Committee had requested a Traffic Impact Study on the requested curb cut and traffic light based on the proposed concept plan and potential future uses. Mr. Schultz stated staff reviewed a Preliminary Traffic Impact Study prepared by Stilson Consulting, and has the following recommendations. The first, being the best alternative for the City, is to delay this decision for six months while a more detailed analysis is completed for the S.R. 256 area between Diley Road to the north and the railroad tracks to the south. He stated lane additions, the Courtright Road extension, and Diley Road impacts should be included in the analysis. Mr. Schultz stated the second alternative is to allow the access point with the proper turn lanes, have the developer place money in escrow for a traffic signal to be installed at a future date and location as determined by the City, and change the current access to a right-out only. He stated details would be worked out regarding a temporary access, the escrow amount, and design details that should be included in the ordinance to amend the City’s current Access Plan for Council approval. Ms Gilleland stated if the Committee approved the second alternative, she would like to have the provision that staff will work with them on a staff level. Ms Gilleland stated curb cuts and traffic signals do need to have Council action to amend the Access Management Plan. Judge Luse stated he would like to point out that should the new access on S.R. 256 be approved, the current access at the Pickerington Medical Center would be eliminated. Mr. Wiseman stated the second option provides to leave the current access, but make it a right-out only onto S.R. 256. Mr. Hackworth clarified there was an agreement entered into in 1989 between the City of Pickerington and the owner of the property at that time, that stated future development of this 15 acres would have to access from Black Cherry Drive. Judge Luse stated that was a covenant on the property that was recorded and filed with the County Recorder. Ms Gilleland stated the City would not recommend a traffic signal at this time. Mr. Tom Fortune stated he is the developer of the Zane property, and they thought it might be helpful in the immediate area if they had a perpendicular service road that ran parallel to S.R. 256 that proceeds north from the subject access road and ties into Old S.R. 256 that would provide ingress/egress to the Rutherford Auto Body Shop, and that might eventually allow the termination of the access point from S.R. 256 onto Old S.R. 256. He stated it would also provide rear access for his proposed retail center. Mr. Schultz stated when he presented this two weeks ago, the suggestion was made that if Rutherford would agree, access from the proposed service road would bring them out at the traffic signal. He stated he would have to meet with Rutherford Auto Body on this issue. Mr. Schultz stated the requested curb cut would then access three sites and the access to Old S.R. 256 would be eliminated. He stated this had not been discussed with the auto body shop as yet. Mr. Schultz stated Rutherford is the only business that has a curb cut off of Old S.R. 256. Mr. O’Brien stated based on this new information and as Mr. Schultz has not had a chance to speak with Rutherford as yet, and since there are negotiations with PYAA and Seton Parish Church to access off of Courtright Road, he felt the first alternative that would give the City six months to study the area and determine the best action to take was the best alternative. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve Option A, to delay this decision for six months while a more detailed analysis is completed for the S.R. 256 area between Diley Road to the north and the railroad tracks to the south, and that lane additions, the Courtright Road extension, and Diley Road impacts be included in the analysis; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. Parker stated the applicant is trying to build some commercial buildings and he felt the Committee should help them in any way they could to get them started. He stated if this option would help them get started then he was in favor of it. Mr. Hackworth stated Option A would not include a temporary curb cut. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt Option A would hinder the development. Mr. Parker ascertained the widening of S.R. 256 in this area is included in the Capital Improvements Plan, however, he did not know how far in the future that would be. Mr. Parker stated if a curb cut is put in right now, and then we come back and widen the road to three lanes, that could be torn up and changed. He stated this would be a temporary thing to get them started, and if this Committee did not want to get them started and give them a temporary curb cut, he would be open to anything this Committee wanted to do. Mr. O’Brien stated he was not looking at is as hindering or helping the developer of this property, he was looking at a way to protect the motorists that have to deal with the rest of that road at this point in time. Mr. O’Brien stated he felt a light would make the road fail, and an unsignalized intersection is not any better. Mr. Parker stated he was not in favor of giving a light at this time, and they were only asking for the temporary curb cut now. Mr. Sabatino stated the developer does have a legal instrument that grants them what they are asking for. Mr. O’Brien stated he was just asking for more time to continue to study the area as the staff has recommended. Mr. O’Brien stated the Traffic Impact Study the Committee received was very preliminary. Mr. Sabatino stated he is not a member of Service Committee, but if he were, he would vote for the second option allowing the temporary curb cut. Mr. Hackworth stated there are a lot of traffic problems on S.R. 256, especially in that area, and he wondered if there were a way these people could have a temporary curb cut so they can get started, and then still implement Option A. Mr. O’Brien stated in that area there is the Good property, the property in front of the other medical center that is undeveloped, and several other undeveloped properties along there. He questioned if the City should just continue to fill it up before we have any plans on how to deal with the problem, or look at the big picture. Mr. Parker stated property owners have rights, and if they want to develop their property they should be allowed to do so. He further stated in a perfect world, things would happen in sequence, but things come at different times for different reasons. He stated S.R. 256 is not perfect from Refugee Road to Interstate 70, and it will not be perfect from Refugee Road to the old village, and we have to try to do the best that we possibly can. He stated he still felt they should be allowed to have the temporary curb cut to get started, and yet let the City have the time to study where the light should be and all of that. Mr. Hackworth stated there are access problems with property further up as well. Mr. Fortune clarified with Option A the City would be delaying the decision on both the curb cut and the traffic signal. Mr. O’Brien stated he agreed with Mr. Parker that S.R. 256 is not perfect, but he felt we should learn from lessons learned and not repeat the same history. He stated he felt we should look to improve the process a little better and try to build the road before we have so many committed access points that it is hard to change. Mr. Hackworth clarified that Mr. Fortune is proposing to build a retail center on the front three to three and one-half acres of his property as soon as possible, however, he has no immediate plans for the rear portion. Judge Luse stated if he gets the City’s support, he would like to go ahead and develop his engineered plans and get started this building season if he could. Mr. Wiseman stated the one thing the engineer was trying to make clear was that there should only be one additional traffic signal on S.R. 256 between the one at Drug Mart and the one at Courtright. Mr. Wiseman stated granting the access would not change our ability to continue to study the best location of the signal. Mr. O’Brien stated if there is a four way intersection where PYAA is at, he did not think we would be able to convince them to access off of Courtright. Mr. Wiseman stated that is a very valid point. Judge Luse provided the Committee with a rendering of the buildings he was proposing to develop, and he stated he could not build a development without knowing where the access is. He stated they would like to have a traffic signal at the proposed access, however, he understood that decision would not be made right now. He further stated he would like to know about the curb cut so he could start the development. Roll call was taken on the motion to approve Option A with Mr. Parker voting “Nay,” and Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-1.

3. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Parker moved to adjourn; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Mr. Hackworth, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Parker voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The Special Service Committee meeting adjourned at 7:28 P.M., July 20, 2004.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk