CITY OF PICKERINGTON

SERVICE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2004

 

WORK SESSION

6:30 P.M.

 

1.         ROLL CALL.  Mr. Hackworth called the Service Committee Work Session to order at 6:30 P.M., with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, and Mr. O’Brien present.  Others present were Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Ed Drobina, Jennifer Frommer, John Gallagher, and others.

 

2.         SCHEDULED MATTERS:

 

A.        Discussion regarding Traffic Improvement Plan.  Mr. Hackworth stated in trying to start discussion on the Traffic Improvement Plan he would like to break the topics down into some bullet points and discuss the top four or five this evening.  Mr. Hackworth stated the first topic to address would be East/West Routes. 

 

Mr. John Gallagher stated if a decision could be made on some of the bigger items it might eliminate some of the smaller topics.  Mr. Gallagher stated east/west routes are one of the biggest issues to consider.  He stated the major east/west route in town is Refugee Road, and that is pretty much all we have.  He stated he thought the main question would be if we could live with Refugee Road being the only major east/west route that we have.  He continued, if we feel we can in the short term, can we in the long term, and that is what the Thoroughfare Plan is supposed to address.  Mr. Hackworth stated he did feel we needed another east/west route.  Ms Gilleland stated Columbus Street also is an east/west route.  Mr. Hackworth stated that is 25 mph, and Mr. Gallagher stated he had assumed Columbus Street is one we did not want to do, but perhaps that was a wrong assumption.  Mr. O’Brien stated current conditions make getting to Refugee somewhat difficult as there are intersection problems going up Center Street to Milnor Road, and if Refugee is our east/west route, you need to be able to get to it.  Mr. Gallagher stated the east/west routes include Tussing/S.R. 204; Refugee Road; and on the south side of town, Busey Road.  Mr. Gallagher stated the problem is the Township does not see Busey Road as a major carrier, it is listed on their Thoroughfare Plan as a collector.  Mr. Gallagher stated there is a big gap between Busey and Refugee. Mr. Gallagher stated Courtright/Stemen is a possibility, but it does not connect.  Ms Gilleland clarified Courtright terminates about a quarter of a mile past the post office. 

 

Mr. Parker stated if Refugee Road is going to be five lanes it will have to have curbs and gutters, and he questioned if we knew what the city of Columbus was going to do with Refugee Road from Brice Road on over.  Mr. Gallagher stated he had not looked into that, however, it is listed as a major traffic carrier on their Thoroughfare Plan.  Mr. Parker stated he would like to know what Columbus planned to do with Refugee.  He stated further he did feel we needed another route somewhere between the downtown area and Refugee Road.  Mr. O’Brien stated both the Township Plan and ours looks for Allen Road to connect someday up to Mink Street and that area.  Mr. O’Brien stated we could address two issues at once with just the north/south corridor they are intending with Allen Road, if we could jointly extend Stemen coming on through to Courtright.  Mr. Hackworth stated the basic question was if we needed another minor arterial road going east to west, and, obviously, the answer is yes.  Mr. Gallagher stated the Thoroughfare Plan and Transportation Improvement Plans are planning documents.  Ms Frommer stated at this point they were just trying to establish if the Committee felt we needed more east/west connectors, and, if so, what general areas are logical.  She stated if this Committee saw value in a Courtright/Stemen connector or extension, they were committed to finding a way to make it happen. 

 

Mr. Gallagher stated with regard to the Mink Street interchange, he had been asked to find out where the Township would like to see an interchange.  Mr. Gallagher further stated unofficially, MORPC realizes there is a need for an interchange somewhere in that area, but they have no official opinion on where it should be.  Mr. Gallagher stated Reynoldsburg does not include it on their Thoroughfare Plan as it is somewhat outside of their city limits.   Mr. Gallagher stated it was the County’s position that the interchange should go at Mink, and about six years ago they even did an interchange justification study to prove that it needed to be there.  Mr. Hackworth clarified Fairfield County and Licking County both felt the interchange should be at Mink.  Mr. O’Brien stated he did not think ODOT’s study area for the east corridor went out as far as Mink Street.  Mr. Gallagher stated he thought that was correct, however, the study they are doing now does go out that far because it is being done jointly with District 5 as they are doing their Interstate 70 study.  Mr. Hackworth clarified that Mr. Gallagher would like to know if Service Committee agreed they felt the City should support the interchange at Mink Street. Mr. Hackworth further clarified Tollgate Road was not being considered for an interchange.  Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Hackworth all concurred the City should support the Mink Street location for an interchange. 

 

Mr. Gallagher stated as far as the U.S. 33 interchange, ODOT has made the decision the interchange will be located at Pickerington Road, however, the Township’s Plan shows Allen Road as the preferred location and Pickerington Road as the alternate location.  The Service Committee concurred they would recommend the City’s Plan should also show Allen Road as the preferred location and Pickerington Road as the alternate location. 

 

Mr. Gallagher stated as far as north/south routes, Allen Road is seen as the other major north/south traffic carrier.  Mr. O’Brien stated this was entirely outside of the City limits and it seems our Plan is close to the Township’s Plan.  Mr. Gallagher stated the major difference between the two Plans is that we are trying to make a continuous connection between the two future interchanges and the Township’s Plan does not do that.  Mr. O’Brien stated he felt we might have to revisit this area after the development in that area is platted.  Mr. Gallagher stated what he understood was that everyone was in agreement on that side of the County that some form of Allen Road, and a connection thereof, would be what we look at to be our arterial route on that side of the City, and also that it be made a continuous route in one way or another to the proposed Mink Street interchange. 

 

Mr. Hackworth stated the Committee agreed we need another east/west connector somewhere between Refugee Road and Busey Road and he requested Mr. Gallagher provide some recommendations for the Committee to consider.  Mr. Gallagher stated he felt the engineer’s opinion was firm that the Hill Road Connector should be built.  Mr. O’Brien stated he had never seen the options on that connector and he would like to see those as well as other options that should be considered. 

 

Mr. Hackworth stated there were several other issues to be discussed regarding the traffic issues and as it was time to convene the Service Committee meeting, he would like to set another work session for December 9, 2004, at 6:30 P.M., just prior to the next Service Committee meeting to complete the review of these issues.  All Service Committee members concurred with that date and time. 

 

Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to thank everyone for their input this evening. 

 

3.         ADJOURNMENT.  There being nothing further, Mr. Hackworth closed the work session at 7:30 P.M., November 11, 2004.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk

 

CITY OF PICKERINGTON

SERVICE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2004

 

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

 

 

1.         ROLL CALL.  Mr. Hackworth called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, and Mr. O’Brien present.  No members were absent.  Others present were:  Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Ed Drobina, Jennifer Frommer, John Gallagher, Jeff McInturf, Bob Nelson, and others.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 14, 2004, Regular Meeting.  Mr. O’Brien moved to approve; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Hackworth 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 there were no cases in October and there are none scheduled for November.       

 

            (2)        Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mr. O’Brien) Mr. O’Brien stated Planning and Zoning met on November 9th, and they had two rezoning public hearings.  He stated the first dealt with just less than three acres immediately adjacent south of the Kohl’s property, and the second dealt with 77.86 acres at the Sycamore Creek Community Church.  He stated the Commission had approved both of those rezonings and forwarded them for Service Committee to review this evening.  Mr. O’Brien stated the Commission had also approved a sign plan for the S.R. 256 Company located near Advance Auto Parts, and they approved the Commercial Design Guidelines for the expansion of the Winfree and Associates accounting firm on Hill Road, which included moving their access slightly so it aligns with the curb cut across from them on S.R. 256. 

 

B.         ACTION ITEMS: 

 

            (1)        Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance rezoning 2.81+/- acres located west of S.R. 256/Stonecreek Drive intersection and south of the Kohl’s Department Store from R4 (Residential District) to C3 (Community Commercial District) for NOCA Retail Development, Ltd.  Mr. Schultz stated NOCA is requesting the rezoning of this property so they can combine it with the 13 acres that is south of Kohl’s and the Zuravsky property for a retail shopping center.  He stated the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan and the future Growth Management Plan that we are presently preparing.  He stated access to this site would be from the extension of Stonecreek Drive, which is a TIF project that was established in 2001.  He stated the subject 2.81 acres is not in the TIF area, but the City is working with the developer to include it in the TIF.  Mr. Schultz stated the City is requiring a traffic impact study for the area south of Kohl’s and on Refugee Road to determine the location of future traffic signals, turn lanes, road widths into this development and, ultimately, into the 100 acres owned by Nicodemus located behind the Big Bear and fronting Refugee Road.  Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning Commission approved the rezoning with the condition that the traffic impact study be completed, reviewed, and accepted by the City prior to any Certificate of Appropriateness approval for any building in the subject area.  Mr. Schultz stated it is anticipated it will take approximately eight weeks to complete the traffic impact study.  Mr. Nelson stated the Nicodemus tract is presently zoned residential and what they would like to do is to keep the storefront aligned with the front of Kohl’s.  Therefore, they were proposing to rezone the 2.81 acres from R4 to C3.  Mr. Hackworth clarified the issue before the Committee this evening was strictly for the rezoning of the property.  Mr. Parker clarified the vote of the Planning and Zoning Commission was unanimous.  Mr. Parker moved to approve the proposed rezoning with the conditions set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

            (2)        Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance rezoning 77.86+/- acres located at 8110 Refugee Road from R1 and R2 (Residential Districts) in Violet Township to C2 (Central Business/Mixed Use District) in the City of Pickerington (upon annexation) for Sycamore Creek Community Church.  Mr. Schultz stated the applicant entered into a pre-annexation agreement with the City nearly three years ago, and the City and Township have agreed to settle the pending lawsuit and proceed with the annexation.  Mr. Schultz stated approximately 37.85 acres on the western and northern portion of the site is proposed to be rezoned to PR10 and the remaining 40 acres would be rezoned to C2, and that encompasses the Church area.  Mr. Schultz stated the pre-annexation agreement said from a zoning perspective it would allow one-half of the property to be zoned PR10 and the 37 acres is less than half of the property, and the remaining land to be zoned C2 with council manic action approving the conditional use of a Church and recreational use in the District.  Mr. Schultz stated a traffic impact study would be required for this area, however, when Kroger developed in this area they did a study and it may be possible that study would just need updated and expanded for this property.  Mr. Schultz stated he would need to get with our engineers to determine what needs to be done.  He further stated from a development standard perspective the PR10 district, where the condominiums would be located, would have to get approval from Planning and Zoning Commission, Service Committee, and City Council.  The C2 district allows commercial uses, however, the commercial uses would have to get building materials and site plan approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning approved the proposed rezoning with the conditions that the pre-annexation agreement be adhered to, that the third reading of City Council for approval of the zone change request shall not occur until the City officially accepts the annexation of the subject land, and that a traffic impact study is required.  Mr. O’Brien stated at the public hearing held before Planning and Zoning, Mrs. Bucilla, who owns property adjacent to this property, clarified there was no potential effect upon her property other than the required buffering between the two properties.  Mr. O’Brien stated the PR10 area is looking like the typical pinwheel, one-story, condo development and the commercial development is like the Creek Bend development.  Mr. McInturf stated he was present representing Sycamore Creek Community Church and he stated an actual plan has not been done yet, but the intent of the Church is to sell the minimal amount of acreage, probably 25 acres or less, and, of that, probably not more than 18 acres would be for condo development and the rest would be office and retail.  Mr. Hackworth clarified Planning and Zoning Commission did not see any problems as it was pretty much covered by the pre-annexation agreement.  Mr. Hackworth further clarified the property is currently zoned R1 and R2 in the Township.  Mr. Hackworth stated he had just received the information on this rezoning this evening and he had not had time to review it thoroughly.  Mr. McInturf stated they do not have a contract for the development yet, but the Church does want a high quality development.  He stated the Church wants to use as much of the property as possible for community related recreational trails, nature trails, and that sort of thing.  Mr. O’Brien stated the issue this evening is just the rezoning, it will go back through the Planning and Zoning process for any development on the property.  Mr. Parker clarified the vote in Planning and Zoning was five to one, and the individual who voted against it did not make his concerns known.  Mr. Parker stated he had just read some literature about condominium developments and the revenue they generate versus commercial, and the condos generate more money than commercial.  Mr. Schultz stated the pre-annexation agreement allows up to half of the property to be PR10, and 37 acres is just less than half. Mr. Schultz stated a public hearing on this issue is scheduled before City Council on December 7, 2004.  Mr. Hackworth clarified a survey would be required to delineate the PR10 and the C3 zoning areas.  He stated he was very reluctant to approve this request at this time.  Ms Gilleland stated she has had several conversations with the Church and she has reviewed the pre-annexation agreement, and she felt this was appropriate for the pre-annexation agreement.  Mr. Hackworth stated his concern was putting PR10 zoning in there.  Ms Gilleland stated this is an appropriate mix of the zoning.  Mr. McInturf stated he felt the process was in place to deal with any development, the Church was just trying to get through the zoning portion so they could find someone to come in with a development plan that will address any questions.  Mr. Parker stated this annexation agreement is not just one annexation, there are eight or nine that are tied together and they have been waiting three years for this to come through.  Mr. Parker stated if this is moved to Council it would just keep them on their timeline.  He stated this could be tabled at Council or it could be voted down at Council.  Mr. Parker stated he understood Mr. Hackworth’s concerns, but he felt the pre-annexation agreement spells out specifically what portion they can have condos on.  Mr. Parker further stated with the PR designation that gives the City much more control over what goes in on that property.  Mr. Parker stated he felt this should be moved forward to Council and between now and the time it goes to Council Mr. Hackworth could get all of his questions answered.  Mr. McInturf stated they were trying to negotiate a contract with a condo and retail developer, and they need to move forward with them.  Mr. McInturf stated until they get the zoning they cannot ask the potential developer to do drawings or enter into a contract.  Mr. Parker moved to approve the proposed rezoning request with the conditions set forth by Planning and Zoning Commission; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0.  

 

            (3)        Review of draft fee schedule analysis and recommendations, Part II – Stormwater, Building Regulations, Planning and Zoning fees.  Ms Gilleland stated it would be her recommendation that Mr. Plunket come to the next Service Committee meeting to go through the study with the Committee members.  Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have this continued on the agenda for the December meeting. 

 

5.         SERVICE DEPARTMENT

 

A.                 WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE. 

 

            (1)        Water services to Pearl Lane and Florence Drive (CIP# 98-01-002) – Update.  Mr. Hackworth stated he did have a question regarding the assessment agreement.  He stated as he understood it stated if the residents did not hook up to the water line within a year they had to pay the front footage fee.  Ms Gilleland stated she had received some information on that from Mr. Wiseman and unfortunately he is ill this evening.  She stated she understood Mr. Wiseman had spoken to the attorney and requested that clause be removed from the agreement, and the attorney thought it would be better to encourage people to sign up sooner rather than later, but they were fine with removing that clause.  Mr. Drobina ascertained this clause was for people who wanted to sign up and pay for it now, but may not get around to putting the line in for a year.  Mr. Drobina stated he felt this project was complete and so far 23 residents have either started arrangements or connected to the water line. Mr. Hackworth stated this project can be removed from the agenda. 

 

            (2)        Review and discussion regarding water line connection for areas of city currently not on line.  Mr. Hackworth stated the Committee had received a draft memorandum this evening that Mr. Wiseman had prepared.  Mr. Hackworth stated as he read the memorandum, there were 51 homeowners in the City that have water available, but have not connected to the water system.  Mr. Drobina stated Mr. Wiseman would like to set up an agreement similar to the Pearl and Florence residents so they would have the same opportunity, but he is recommending they be charged the front footage fee.  Ms Gilleland stated the residents would be offered this option for a specific period of time, such as six months, and if the Committee wishes to do this she will have legislation at the next meeting.  Mr. O’Brien stated if this Committee does not receive the draft legislation until the next meeting, it would be close to the time the 2005 rates become effective.  He stated he felt the legislation should read “current year rates” as opposed to “2004 capacity fee.”  Ms Gilleland stated she concurred with Mr. O’Brien on that issue.  Mr. Hackworth stated he would like the draft legislation to be on the agenda for the next meeting.  

 

B.         WASTEWATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE. 

 

            (1)        Review and discussion regarding tertiary sand filter replacement.  Mr. Drobina stated they plan on restarting the filter next week.  He stated they have been running a stress test on the wastewater plant since October 27th and that test will end tomorrow.  Mr. Drobina stated the plant has been running well, even without the filter.  Mr. Drobina stated R.D. Zande will have a report on the stress test, hopefully by the next meeting.     

 

C.        STREET MAINTENANCE. 

 

            (1)        Annual Street Repaving Project – Update.  Mr. Drobina stated the paving project is complete for this year.  Mr. O’Brien clarified the handicap ramps have not been done in the RaMar and Pickerington Hills area.  Ms Frommer stated that contract is with the County right now and the pre-construction meeting should be scheduled very soon.  Mr. O’Brien clarified the ramps are still supposed to be completed this year.  Mr. Hackworth stated this could be removed from the agenda. 

 

D.        STORM WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE. 

 

            (1)        Long Road/Bowen Road Stormwater Study – Update.  Mr. Drobina stated he had met with Mr. Hartman and the engineering has been completed.  Mr. Drobina stated they hope to start some work out in that area as soon as next week.  Ms Frommer stated the proposal submitted for the Corps of Engineers grant was basically Mr. Hartman’s report.  She stated she had received feedback that with the addition of a sewer and water component on how fixing the stormwater problem in that area would help and enhance water systems and put less stress on the sewer system, they would feel pretty comfortable backing it and providing some grant funding for that study.  She stated she was working to nail down what that scope would look like and get a final approval from them.  She stated then there would be a formal application procedure. 

 

E.         TREE COMMISSION.  Update.  Mr. Drobina stated the Tree Commission brochure will be printed and it will be on the City’s web site.  He stated 150 trees were planted last week and he would like to get another 150 planted yet this winter. 

 

F.         SCIP (Formerly Issue II Program) – Application Submitted.  Ms Frommer stated she is waiting to hear a date for preliminary hearings, however, the official award would not occur until after the first of the year, and if funded, the funds will not be released until January. 

 

6.         ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS

 

A.        WASTEWATER

 

            (1)        Wastewater Plant Expansion (CIP# 02-03-005) – Update.  Mr. Drobina stated he had already addressed the stress test. 

 

B.         TRANSPORTATION: 

 

            (1)        Courtright Road. 

 

                        (A)       Courtright Road Extension Project, Phase III (CIP#s 03-03-011 and 03-03-012) – Update.  Ms Frommer stated she had no update at this time.       

 

            (2)        Diley Road Realignment:

 

                        (A)       Diley Road/256 Intersection Improvement Project, Phase II – Update.  Ms Frommer stated the contractor had just requested a 12 day time extension due to rain, and that would take the completion up to right at Thanksgiving. 

 

                        (B)       Diley Road/S.R. 256 Intersection Improvement Project, Phase III – Update.   Ms Frommer stated we are in preliminary property acquisition stages and the project is to begin next spring. 

 

(3)        Diley Road Improvements Project:

 

                        (A)       MORPC/ODOT Project (CIP#98-03-005 and 03-03-005) – Update.  Ms Frommer stated engineering design is proceeding. 

 

                        (4)        Downtown Revitalization Project Phase III, IV, and V and West Columbus Street Public Parking Lot (CIP#s 02-06-001, 03-06-001, & 03-06-003) – Update.  Mr. Drobina stated this project is complete. Mr. Hackworth stated this can be removed from the agenda. 

 

            (5)        Cover/Ebright Connector (CIP#02-03-010)

 

                        (A)       Pickerington Health Care Access Road – Update.  Ms Frommer stated this has been turned over to the attorney. 

 

            (6)        I-70/S.R. 256 Joint Improvements Project with Reynoldsburg and ODOT – Update.  Ms Gilleland stated the right-in/right-out turn into the Turnberry has been completed.  Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to see signage letting people know what lane to be in for the interstate, etc.  Mr. O’Brien stated there is still the problem for people coming south not realizing there is now only one left hand turn lane.  Mr. Hackworth clarified the timing on the traffic signals is being worked on by ODOT.   

 

            (7)        Traffic Signal Update.  Mr. Gallagher stated the hardware issues they were aware of have been taken care of.  He stated the next step will be to move forward with other projects that were identified and we are waiting for the budget process to be completed to see what we can do.          

 

            (8)        Traffic Improvement Plan (TIP) – Update.  Mr. Hackworth stated this was discussed at the work session earlier this evening.  He stated another work session has been scheduled for 6:30 P.M. on December 9th to continue discussion. 

 

C.        WATER: 

 

            (1)        Wellfield Investigation – Update.  Mr. Drobina stated Mr. Wiseman was working on this project. 

 

D.        STORMWATER.  No Report. 

 

7.         CHAIRMAN.    Mr. Hackworth stated he had nothing to bring forward. 

 

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

 

9.         ADJOURNMENT.  There being nothing further, Mr. Parker moved to adjourn; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, and Mr. O’Brien voted “Aye.”  Motion carried, 3-0.  The Service Committee adjourned at 8:55 P.M., November 11, 2004.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk