PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY,
AUGUST 17, 2004
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
REGULAR
MEETING AGENDA
7:30
P.M.
1. ROLL CALL, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND INVOCATION. Council for the City of Pickerington met for a regular session Tuesday, August 17, 2004, at City Hall. Mayor Shaver called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Roll call was taken as follows: Mr. Wright, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Riggs, and Mayor Shaver were present. No members were absent. Others present were: Judy Gilleland, Frank Wiseman, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Chief Mike Taylor, Bob Mapes, Arlene Stoyer, Amy Green, Helen Mayle, George Hallenbrook, Stephanie Brobst, Tony Dill, Mike Maurer, Jeff Fix, Ira Weiss, Harry Myer, Larry Fast, Betty Hardin, Pastor Renee Russell, Kevin Grathwald, and others. Pastor Renee Russell of Agape Outreach Ministries delivered the invocation.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 2004, REGULAR MEETING. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mr. Parker seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino moved to amend the minutes to include the Memorandum from the Municipal Clerk that contained the verbatim portion from the last meeting; Mr. Parker seconded the motion. Roll call was taken on the motion to amend with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Nay,” and Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.” Motion to amend failed, 4-3. Roll call was taken on the minutes as submitted with Mr. Sabatino and Mr. Wright voting “Nay,” and Mr. Parker, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. O’Brien, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-2.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS:
A. Arlene Stoyer, 260 Diley Road. Ms Stoyer stated she would like to address the Diley Road expansion. Ms Stoyer stated she had requested an air quality study be done and questioned if that would be authorized. Ms Stoyer stated further she does not want to live on a five-lane road and questioned when a compensation package would be discussed with the residents.
B. Amy Green, 320 Diley Road. Ms Green stated she was also going to discuss the Diley Road issue. She stated she did not understand how council could vote on this project if it came off the table this evening, when she has never seen a compensation package and the City’s plan to take care of their residents. Ms Green further questioned if Council had seen the plan they would vote on tonight and what new information they may have received in the past two weeks. Ms Green stated residents are still asking the same questions and they keep hearing that ODOT will answer those questions after a plan is approved. Ms Green stated she felt Council was putting aside the resident’s concerns and using ODOT as an excuse. Ms Green stated the City has already purchased 350 Diley and took care of residents that were already leaving the City, but have not taken care of the taxpayers that remain. She stated if the City cannot do the right thing for the remainder of the residents she did not feel they had the right to vote on this tonight. Further, she questioned how many Council members have studied this project and the impact it will have on these residents. She stated the compensation package and the resident’s well-being should have been their first concern, not the plan to put a highway through her front yard. She continued that if the City can buy 350 Diley, they can buy her home so she can move and get on with her life. Ms Green stated if all this boils down to is money, then she will follow their lead and her main motivation will be money. She stated she wants the City to start being accountable for the impact they are causing on her life. Further she did not like the fact that many non-Diley Road residents believe Diley Road residents are narrow-minded people and they should lay down their arms and work with Council. Ms Green stated she is trying to do that and she is still getting no answers, so she is asking Council do the right thing and buy her house.
C. Ira Weiss, 11735 Eddington Avenue. Mr. Weiss stated he would also like to address the Diley Road issue. Mr. Weiss stated he is a resident of Violet Township, and along with other memberships, he is currently serving on the Committee revising the Violet Township Development and Transportation Plan. Mr. Weiss stated he fully supported Pickerington’s efforts to expand Diley Road to five lanes, and he appreciates the tough decisions Council must make. Mr. Weiss stated planning serves the future as well as current residents, and people coming here in the future will use Diley Road regardless of whether it is two lanes or five. He stated MORPC has projected that nearly 82,000 new people will move to Fairfield County by the year 2030, whether we like it or not. Mr. Weiss stated in the last decade the Pickerington/Violet Township population increased by 28 percent. Mr. Weiss stated more people will mean more vehicles on the roads, and looking at the projected population increases he felt the expansion was justified. Mr. Weiss stated with regard to automobile emissions, he felt it is far better to have cars traveling on Diley at posted limits rather than moving bumper to bumper at 20 miles per hour or not moving at all. Mr. Weiss stated this is not a drag strip, but rather a very thoughtfully planned parkway with grass and tree lined medians, turn lanes, and a 35 MPH speed limit. Mr. Weiss stated he would like to suggest that in the future no residences be built close to Diley Road, and Council should define “close.” He stated if Council worked with the builders they could make the land a certain distance from Diley a green space with lots of buffering between residences and the road. He stated he felt the builders would realize that taking the land out of the residential market place is the best solution because people will not want to live close to a thoroughfare. Mr. Weiss stated a previous City administration chose to rezone Diley from commercial to residential and, although unfortunate, that cannot be changed. He stated he felt we need a transportation system that will benefit all of our citizens, present and future, and an improved Diley Road traversing Pickerington, Canal Winchester, and Violet Township will provide efficient access to Columbus, Lancaster, and possible medical and commercial facilities. Mr. Weiss stated he supports the expansion of Diley Road.
Mr. Parker stated he would like to comment that previous administration did not rezone any land on Diley Road to residential, that is a mis-statement.
D. Jeff Fix, 674 Manchester Circle, N. Mr. Fix stated he appreciated the open dialogue that has occurred over the past several months between City Council and the citizens being affected by the expansion of Diley Road. Mr. Fix stated his front door is 150 yards from Diley Road, and with a six year old son and nine year old daughter, he was not excited about his son being that close to a major thoroughfare on his bike. Mr. Fix continued, however, he felt it was important that we expand Diley Road, and he understands the concerns of the people who live on or have property that abuts that road. Mr. Fix further stated Mr. Weiss had just spoken very eloquently about the reasons why Diley Road should be expanded. Mr. Fix stated Diley Road is one of three major collectors between Route 33 and I-70, and it is important to the businesses that are based here in Pickerington that that access is available to them. Mr. Fix stated the possibility of a hospital being built on Route 33 at Diley Road is a key to the growth of our community, a key to offset some of the tax base that we incur as citizens based on the residential development that goes on here. He further stated if that hospital is to come to fruition, Diley Road has to be improved to allow for traffic to get to and from it, and to allow for emergency vehicles to get to it. Mr. Fix continued, stating that money is a significant issue, and you cannot ignore the fact that taxes in Pickerington are extremely high. Mr. Fix stated ODOT has agreed to pay for this expansion for the most part, and if we only go to three lanes, all of that tax burden will fall on the citizens of Pickerington, and that does not make economic sense. Mr. Fix stated he felt it was understandable, but wrong, to blame the people that sit on this Council for the situation in front of us. He stated the cause for the need of expansion is the explosion of residential growth that is already happening up and down Diley Road. Mr. Fix stated the bottom line is this Council will vote to widen Diley Road to five lanes in the very new future, and as citizens we can fight City Hall or we can work with City Hall to make the best of a very difficult situation. Mr. Fix stated he strongly urged residents to lay down their arms and work with this Council, and he strongly urged this Council to work with these citizens who are being so significantly impacted. He stated he knew they would do the right thing.
E. Mr. Sabatino read a statement from Mr. John Darby regarding the Diley Road widening project that is Attachment 1 to these minutes.
F. Mr. Wisniewski read a statement from Richard and Denise Kaspar, 676 Theron Court, regarding the Diley Road widening project that is Attachment 2 to these minutes.
G. Mr. Wisniewski read a statement from Jay Williams regarding the Diley Road widening project that is Attachment 3 to these minutes.
Mr. Parker stated the hospital that has been referred to that would help our tax base, will be in Canal Winchester, not in the City of Pickerington. Mr. Parker stated he would suggest people go on the web site and see how their taxes have gone up or down in the past ten years. He stated he felt people need to become informed about their taxes and find out what is true about it. He stated he has been chastised for voting for the subdivisions on Diley Road. Mr. Parker stated not one of those subdivisions he voted on were zoned commercial in the Township, they were all zoned residential. He stated in Pickerington we have a situation that when they were coming into the City, you downzone from residential out of the township to agricultural, and then re-zone to residential. Mr. Parker stated at no point in time did they ever re-zone commercial property to residential on Diley Road. Mr. Parker stated the Diley Road portion of the development behind Kroger are commercial parcels that are sitting empty. Mr. Parker stated finally he would not apologize for zoning those areas residential that were in the township because now those people that will be driving up and down this road will be paying an income tax to the City of Pickerington, and he will not apologize for keeping the taxpayers base lower, not higher.
Mr. Sabatino stated he looked at some of the information provided to him by Stilson about the traffic counts and according to their figures Diley Road becomes qualified, count wise, to be five lanes 17 years out from now, in the year 2021. He stated there are some needs to accommodate the increased traffic, but it will not happen overnight.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Shaver stated there were no consent agenda items this evening.
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
A. RULES COMMITTEE. Mrs. Riggs stated Rules Committee met on August 2, 2004, and the minutes have been distributed. She stated she would answer any questions.
B. SAFETY COMMITTEE. Mr. Wisniewski stated Safety Committee also met on August 2, 2004, and the minutes have been distributed. He stated he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Wright stated he would like to have an update on the status of the Handicapped Garden. Mayor Shaver stated he had received questions on that as well. Ms Gilleland stated she would ensure an update on that was provided to the Mayor and to Council. Mr. Parker stated Ms Stoyer has requested an air quality study and he inquired if Safety Committee had taken action on that request. Mr. Wisniewski stated they had not.
C. SERVICE COMMITTEE. Mr. Hackworth stated Service Committee met on August 12, 2004, and the minutes have not been distributed as yet. Mr. Hackworth stated the legislation on tonight’s agenda regarding the transfer of land on Courtright Drive and S.R. 256 came out of that meeting and he would request three readings on that this evening. Mr. Hackworth stated this was just a land swap to clean up a right-of-way issue that was created when Courtright was realigned. Mr. Hackworth stated another item from that meeting on tonight’s agenda is a change order for the Stilson contract on the Diley Road work, and that is explained with the legislation. Mr. Hackworth further stated the final item on tonight’s agenda from that meeting is the legislation that would authorize the City Manager to accept funds from the Transportation Enhancement Program if we receive that grant. Mr. Sabatino stated the Service Committee agenda contained an item requesting a traffic impact study on the Diley Road widening on S.R. 256, and questioned if the Committee decided to bring that forward. Mr. Hackworth stated they had not.
7. REPORTS:
A. MAYOR. Mayor Shaver stated he continues to be involved with the wrapping up of the agreement with the Township, and hoped to have the final approval at the next meeting. He stated he had addressed the Senior Center today and a gentleman who had served in World War II, TSgt Wolford, was recognized after many years with a Bronze Star for his service. Mayor Shaver stated he was also pleased to attend the opening of the United Methodist Church’s Senior Daycare Center, that is the type of facility that is needed in this community and he hoped in the future we will have more senior housing and senior transitional services. Mayor Shaver stated he felt it was important to help those whose energies and efforts have aided our country and our city for so long.
B. LAW DIRECTOR. Mr. Mapes stated he would be happy to answer any questions.
C. FINANCE DIRECTOR. Mrs. Fersch stated she had distributed her financial information and she would be happy to answer any questions.
D. MANAGER. Ms Gilleland stated the Manager’s Report had been distributed and she would answer any questions. Ms Gilleland stated she would also like to mention that the Employee Awards Luncheon was held on August 5th, and five year service awards were presented to Wayne Patterson, Sandy Whittington, Paul Lane, Steve Carr, Frank Wiseman, and Susan Crotty. Ten year service awards were presented to Ralph Portier and Lynda Yartin. A 15 year award was presented to Eric Vannatta, and a 25 year award was presented to Greg Ellis. Ms Gilleland stated she would like to congratulate those employees as it is always gratifying when they can be recognized for their dedicated service to the City and to the citizens of Pickerington.
Mr. Parker stated he would like to make Council aware that there is a business in Columbus that does not want to take a chance on the smoking ban going to the voters and passing, and he wants to allow his employees to smoke in his facility. Mr. Parker stated he is currently looking to move his 110 employees from the City of Columbus so perhaps Ms Crotty can contact him regarding moving to Pickerington.
8. PROCEDURAL READINGS:
A. ORDINANCE 2003-102, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY
MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH STILSON CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COURTRIGHT ROAD, PHASE III,” First Reading,
Parker. (TABLED)
B. ORDINANCE 2004-41, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TRAFFIC CONTROL MAP TO RAISE SPEED LIMITS ON PORTIONS OF LONG ROAD AND EAST COLUMBUS STREET,” First Reading, O’Brien. (TABLED) Mr. O’Brien moved to remove from the Table; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wright, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0. Mr. O’Brien moved to adopt. Motion died for lack of a second.
C. ORDINANCE 2004-57, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER OF LANDS ON COURTRIGHT DRIVE TO CORRECT A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ERROR,” First Reading, Hackworth. Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Mr. Hackworth stated as he explained earlier, when Courtright Road was realigned it was moved to the south and that resulted in a couple of small slivers of land that need to be transferred by quit claim deed. Mr. Hackworth stated he would request three readings this evening. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0. Mr. Hackworth moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of three readings; Mr. Parker seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wright, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Suspension of Rules passed, 7-0. Second Reading. Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mr. Parker seconded the motion. Mr. Wright stated he would just like to make clear that this would make both parties whole. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0. Third Reading. Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
D. ORDINANCE 2004-58, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CHANGE ORDER TO THE CONTRACT WITH STILSON CONSULTING GROUP FOR THE DILEY ROAD AND S.R. 256 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,” First Reading, O’Brien. Mr. O’Brien moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Mr. O’Brien stated Council had been provided a memorandum detailing this change order from the Service Director. Mr. Wright stated this was basically a change order to compensate Stilson for work they have already provided because the project moved from one phase to multiple phases. Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
E. ORDINANCE 2004-59, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT FUNDS FOR THE DILEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT (ODOT NO. FAI-TR-207, PID NO. 75772) FROM THE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (TEP) AND THE DECLARATION OF IMMEDIATE NECESSITY AND EMERGENCY IN ORDER TO MEET ACCEPTANCE TIMELINES,” First Reading, Hackworth. Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Mr. Hackworth stated this would allow the City Manager to be able to accept funding under the TEP program, and must be in place by the end of September. Mr. Wisniewski clarified this was the $550,000 we have applied for to be used for the multi-use trail. Mr. Wright stated he would like to make clear this has nothing to do with the funding for five lanes or three lanes on Diley Road. He stated this has to do with once there is an expansion of some type, grant money is available to cover some of these recreational things. Mr. Sabatino clarified it refers to the Diley Road widening because it is in connection with the project. Mr. Wright stated the funding is available because there is a widening project, the funding is not available because the widening project is a certain size, width or whatever. If the widening project were not to happen, then the grant money would not be available and the City would not continue with the signing of the documents to receive that grant. Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker and Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wright, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.
F. ORDINANCE 2004,54, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH VIOLET TOWNSHIP REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF 362 ACRES AND TO REAFFIRM THE PREVIOUS PREANNEXATION AGREEMENTS OF SUCH ANNEXATION,” Second Reading, Mayor Shaver. Mayor Shaver stated at the conclusion of the procedural readings, Council would be going into an Executive Session, and would not vote on this ordinance until after that Executive Session.
G. ORDINANCE 2004-55, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH BARBARA DEWOLFE FOR THE PURCHASE OF 376 HILL ROAD SOUTH, PICKERINGTON, OHIO,” Second Reading, Wisniewski. Mr. Wisniewski moved to adopt; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Mr. Wisniewski stated this is approximately 10 acres located north of Pickerington Central High School on Hill Road. Mr. Wisniewski stated the majority of the funding will come from the Clean Ohio Fund and it will remain a passive park at this time. Mr. Parker stated Mr. Carr presented a document to Council speaking to the acquisition of the land, however, the cost of getting the park enhancements done was not provided. Ms Gilleland stated Council had been provided with a concept plan, so there have been no costs associated with any of the improvements. Mr. Parker stated before the next reading he would like to receive any costs that would be associated with this concept plan. Mr. Wright stated he would like to know if there was the possibility of getting an idea of estimated cost of what we would be looking at to put in these enhancements prior to the third reading. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would also like to have a timeframe of when some of these projections would occur. Mr. Sabatino stated then the concept plan provided is conceptual in nature and is just one possible idea. Ms Gilleland stated this was prepared as a requirement of the grant application, and is just a place to start. Mr. Sabatino then clarified this did not mean this is actually how it is going to be. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino and Mr. Parker voting “Nay,” and Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-2.
H. RESOLUTION 2004-17R, “A RESOLUTION TO REAFFIRM COUNCIL’S DESIGNATION OF A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE DILEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT,” Second Reading, O’Brien. (TABLED) Mr. O’Brien moved to remove from the Table; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wright and Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.” Motion to Remove from the Table passed, 5-2. Ms Gilleland stated prior to further discussion, Mr. Kevin Grathwald of Stilson Consulting Group, LLC, would address a few comments and take Council through the proposed alignment being considered this evening. Mr. Grathwald stated at the request of the City, various alternatives were examined and through the course of the analysis and discussions with property owners and residents, Alternative 7 was identified. He stated Alternative 7 is able to reduce the impact on properties and the number of permanent takes from 72 to 52 between Busey Road and the northern terminus. He stated those properties would be the ones within the shifted area where we are shifting over to undeveloped land or land that has not been platted at this point. He stated the net change in acreage required was an increase of .4 acres to incorporate the shift, and this is the result of not fully utilizing the existing right-of-way in front of the Cherry Hill subdivision. Mr. Sabatino clarified this proposal was submitted to ODOT and they have not given final approval as yet. Mrs. Riggs clarified the impact to the school was almost entirely eliminated with this alternative. Ms Gilleland stated the final design still has to be done and there may be field design changes as well. Mr. Grathwald stated he has been questioned regarding the right-of-way acquisition process, what value the property owners may be provided, etc., and that cannot be determined until we move into final design. He stated once we have identified the preferred alignment, we can start looking at specific issues and really focus on doing whatever can be done to mitigate potential problems. Mr. Grathwald stated further, based on the information that we have and the preliminary engineering that has been completed, they have identified properties that require relocation due to either the right-of-way being in the structure or the slopes, etc. required for the work actually being into the structure. He stated other issues that may result in potential relocation or total takes would be the proximity of the facility to some of the residences. He stated that determination cannot be made until we are further into design. Mr. Parker ascertained the reduction in takes resulted from the 20 foot shift, as the burden on the western side was increased and the burden on the eastern side reduced, and this resulted in fewer properties being impacted. Mr. Hackworth clarified on the east side of the road, the edge of pavement would be one to two feet from where it is today. Mr. Grathwald stated with regard to the right-of-way acquisition process, essentially as design moves forward and right-of-way plans are completed, we would move into the acquisition process. Mr. Grathwald stated the project is currently set up to be broken into two phases, both from a design standpoint, an acquisition standpoint, and a construction standpoint. He stated currently the vicinity of Preston Trails will be the dividing line between the two phases and that will allow the design and the right-of-way acquisition to proceed more quickly. Ms Gilleland stated we need to get to the final design stage so we will have all the information needed to determine which homes will be impacted and how much. Mr. O’Brien moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. O’Brien moved to amend the Ordinance to read “A Resolution to reaffirm Council’s designation of Preferred Alternative 7 for the Diley Road Widening Project,” Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion to amend. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion to amend passed, 6-0. Mr. Sabatino stated he agreed with Ms Gilleland in that we do not want to make decisions without all the information, and since we do not have ODOT’s final approval on this alternative we do not know if they will accept it. He stated further according to the figures worked out by ODOT and presented by Stilson, the need for a five lane road does not present itself until 17 years out, and he has requested a traffic impact study to be done on how this would impact S.R. 256 which, as defined by Stilson is already well over capacity. He continued that at the second public meeting, Mr. Yeaple from the Township, stated they will have a three-fourths of a mile project that will involve $5,000,000. He stated if the City received the same funding per mile we would have a lot more money to deal with right-of-way acquisitions and he felt that was the root of the problems we have. He also stated with regard to Mr. Fix’s statements, Planning and Zoning does not decide policy, it only determined applicability. Mr. Hackworth stated Mr. Sabatino stated Stilson has said S.R. 256 is at capacity, and what they have told Service Committee is that the intersections of S.R. 256 and Refugee and S.R. 256 and 204 are at capacity. He stated further they have also stated that in four to five years Diley Road, at two lanes, will be at capacity. Mr. Hackworth stated there has been an on-going study through Service and the effects of all traffic coming onto S.R. 256. He stated there has been a number of hardware problems on our traffic signals and those are in the process of being corrected. Mr. Hackworth stated once that is done there will be a traffic count on S.R. 256, and S.R. 256 will not be left to be over capacity. Mr. Hackworth stated he did not feel delaying the Diley Road project is a very good way to spend our City’s money. Mr. Wright stated he agreed this was a difficult decision that had to be made, and perhaps the five lane road is the best solution. He stated, however, he would like to make sure the City of Pickerington is being asked to provide a road for the citizens of Pickerington and not being asked to provide a road for the citizens of Canal Winchester and for ODOT’s changes on Route 33. Mr. Wright stated in the past several years Pickerington has planned appropriately for it’s growth along this area, and that growth has not created the need for five lanes. He stated the decision of ODOT to place an interchange at the end of Diley Road is what has necessitated the change to five lanes. Mr. Wright stated we need to make sure we have our facts correct and make the best decision as both citizens and Council members that we can make. He stated to imply that he does not care about the citizens of Pickerington because of past voting is a cheap shot to cloud the issue and the emotions involved. Mr. Parker stated he would like to disagree with the gentleman who does not live in the City, the easy vote for this Council would be to vote for this widening. He stated the hard vote would be to say “No,” when you know the traffic will be there. He stated there must be a balance between putting that road in and taking care of the residents who live there, because you need to be compassionate for these residents. He stated he felt these residents deserved compensation, and we talk about buying park space for $100,000 yet we can’t take care of these residents who have lived there for 20 and 30 years. Mr. Parker stated if this is going to be the plan, before the next reading he would like to know the addresses and what the takes will be, and to further ask the City Manager to evaluate if the City bought a home over there, and then resold it, what would be the approximate loss of value. Mr. Parker stated he would abstain this evening and make his decision if he can get the requested information by the next meeting. Mr. Sabatino stated with regard to Mr. Hackworth’s comments, Stilson has said we are not “at” capacity on those intersections, we are “beyond” capacity. He stated that is why he has such a concern about putting more traffic onto 256. Mr. Sabatino stated just as others felt the sewer plant could wait and were not afraid of killing the funding on that, he felt this project did not have to be done right away and he was not afraid of killing the funding on this. Mr. O’Brien stated after the construction two left-turn lanes will be turning northbound onto 256 off of Diley Road. Mr. O’Brien stated if the road is not improved 20,000 cars will come out one angular intersection and enter 256. He stated we are doing nothing to change the amount of cars coming out of there, but we are giving them two lanes to turn to help the flow a little bit better. He stated he did not understand the necessity for any sort of study when regardless of whether it is five lanes, two lanes, or whatever, coming off of Diley onto 256, the number of cars remains the same. Mr. Parker stated if were able to find an additional $500,000 for this boulevard, then we need to find additional money to help the residents who live out there. Mr. Wright stated if there did not appear to be a logical reason for a traffic study at Diley because the road is already going to be there, why would there be a logical reason for having a traffic study anywhere else in the City that exits onto 256, in particular the Courtright extension. He stated he believed we were holding something up for a traffic study there because we wanted to know how that would impact 256, so if we need a traffic study at one location, why would we disregard it for another. Mr. Hackworth stated the study going on is not a traffic study per se, it is looking at access points. Mr. Sabatino stated Mr. Hackworth did not know what type of study he was requesting because they would not consider it at Service Committee. He stated the road is already over capacity and it seems we are going to do what we can to make it more congested. Mr. Parker moved to Table; Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll call was taken on the motion to Table with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Nay,” and Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.” Motion to table failed, 4-3. Roll call was taken on the ordinance as amended with Mr. Parker abstaining, Mr. Sabatino and Mr. Wright voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-2.
Mrs. Riggs moved for an Executive Session under Section 121.22(G)(1), Personnel Matters; Section 121.22(G)(2), Purchase or sale of public property; and, Section 121.22(G)(3), Conference with the law director regarding pending or imminent court action; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.
Council entered Executive Session at 9:20 P.M., and reconvened in open session at 10:25 P.M.
ORDINANCE 2004-54, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH VIOLET TOWNSHIP REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF 362 ACRES AND TO REAFFIRM THE PREVIOUS PREANNEXATION AGREEMENTS OF SUCH ANNEXATION,” Second Reading, Mayor Shaver. Mr. O’Brien moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
10. LEGISLATIVE READINGS: NONE.
10. MOTIONS: There were no further motions.
11. OTHER BUSINESS: No other business was brought forward.
12. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Wisniewski moved to adjourn; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wright, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Parker voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:28 P.M., August 17, 2004.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
__________________________________
ATTEST:
___________________________________