CITY OF
PICKERINGTON
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, JANUARY
13, 2005
WORK SESSION
DISCUSSION OF
TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
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 and Mr. O’Brien present. Mr. Parker arrived at 7:00 P.M. No members were absent. Others present were Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Frank Wiseman, Jerry Dailey, John Gallagher, Jennifer Frommer, and others.
Mr. Gallagher stated he had provided the Committee members with a summary of the decisions that have been made by this Committee for the Thoroughfare Plan to date. He stated he had also provided a list of items that still need to be resolved.
Mr. Gallagher stated with regard to if we should show Columbus Street being stubbed at Pickerington Ponds as per the MORPC plan, he would like to clarify how the Committee felt on this issue. Mr. Gallagher stated the Franklin County and MORPC plans show this stubbed, and the City of Columbus does not. He stated Columbus has stated, however, they are going to follow the MOPRC plan. Mr. Hackworth clarified this area is not inside the city limits. Mr. Gallagher stated if he recalled correctly, Violet Township’s plan does show this stubbed off as well. Mr. Hackworth stated then, what we need to consider is the effect it would have on us. He stated his concern would be how much traffic this would put on Diley Road to get to the metro parks. Mr. Wiseman stated he felt we wanted to make sure that Busey Road happened at the same time or before we cul de sac that east/west corridor. Mr. Hackworth stated there were a few questions that can be addressed later, however, it seemed the Committee did not have a problem with Columbus Street being shown as stubbed at Pickerington Ponds.
Mr. Gallagher stated the next issue he would like to discuss would be the Hill Road Connector. Mr. O’Brien stated he felt the Hill Road Connector should be shown on our plan and Mr. Hackworth agreed.
Mr. Gallagher stated the next item was the designation of Minor Collectors in residential areas. Mr. Hackworth stated he did not like traffic going through residential areas, and it would be his desire to see if we could figure out a way to cut those short cuts off somehow. Mr. Wiseman stated the difficulty would be that we would cut off access for emergency services. Ms Gilleland stated staff could look into this and come back with comments at the next meeting. Mr. Hackworth stated he would appreciate staff looking into this.
Mr. Gallagher stated we want some type of north/south Refugee/Long Road connector. He stated he had done a modification on what was discussed earlier as we had shown Fuller’s Way extended straight down, however, there has been an issue with the condos and if we could get a road through there. Mr. Gallagher stated he had reviewed this with Mr. Schultz and although he did not feel it was out of the question, it would be difficult. He stated they did find, however, going past the police station and pushing west toward the city limits might be better. Mr. Hackworth stated he felt we needed this connector as we will probably have future development up in that area. He stated it was his opinion we should designate some sort of connector in there. Mr. Hackworth asked Mr. Gallagher to see what could be done on this.
Mr. Gallagher stated the final item for discussion was if we should show an east/west Pickerington/Diley connector north of Busey. Mr. O’Brien stated he felt aligning something with Opportunity Way would be the most sensible. Ms Gilleland stated she had questions about using Opportunity Way as a by-pass and Mr. Gallagher stated he did not feel that was the intent, it would just be lined up with what is on the other side of Hill Road. Mr. O’Brien stated he would not want to rule this possibility out completely.
2. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Hackworth closed the work session at 7:23 P.M., January 13, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk
CITY OF PICKERINGTON
SERVICE COMMITTEE
OF COUNCIL
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, JANUARY
13, 2005
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, Frank Wiseman, lance Schultz, Jerry Dailey, Jennifer Frommer, John Gallagher, Tony Dill, Dale Kocarek, and others.
2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 9, 2004,
Work Session. Mr. Parker moved to
approve; 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.
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 9, 2004, Regular Meeting. Mr. Parker moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth 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 will be one case for BZA in January. He continued the owners of 42 W. Columbus Street were requesting a variance to allow residential use in the C-2 zoning district. He stated the property was commercial and is being converted to residential. Mr. Parker clarified this is the Richter House.
(2) Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mr. O’Brien) Mr. O’Brien stated Planning and Zoning met on Tuesday and approved the landscape and signage for the ReMax building on S.R. 204, and approved the comprehensive sign plan for Stonecreek Diner, the former Bill Knapp’s restaurant. Mr. O’Brien stated during the reorganization of the Commission, Doug Blake was elected Chairperson and Tory Kramer was elected Vice Chair.
Mr. Hackworth stated if there were no objections he would move to item 6.A.(1)a. on the agenda, the Wastewater Treatment Plant Stress Test update.
Mr. Kocarek stated the Committee members had been provided with a copy of his report for their review. He stated what they had tried to do was make the existing wastewater treatment plant work a little harder than it normally has to by shutting down half of the bioreactor tanks and clarifier tank. He stated basically everything else remained on line. Mr. Kocarek stated he was looking to obtain City comments and City input prior to submitting the document to the Ohio EPA. Mr. Kocarek stated Pickerington is one of the only communities, and perhaps the only community, in Ohio that the EPA has given permission to look at an increase in capacity based on demonstrated performance. He stated they were basically trying to determine if there was additional capacity in the system beyond it’s official rated value of 1.2 MGD. Mr. Kocarek stated the plant maintained compliance during the entire time of the testing, and based on suggestions from the Utility Department they sought to run the test through a continuous period of time over several weeks rather than periods of time a few days here and a few days there. He stated by doing this they were trying to make observations on any subtle changes in the microbiology of the activated sludge. Mr. Kocarek stated he felt this test could buy the City a certain amount of capacity so you can step back and look at the future direction they was to go in. Mr. Hackworth clarified the City has an NPDES permit for 1.8 MGD, that is the old one, and then we had a new one for 3.5 MGD. Mr. Kocarek stated what EPA would do now would be to reconcile the NPDES permits. Mr. Kocarek stated if the City concurs, the next step would be to submit the report to the Ohio EPA for their review and comments. Mr. Wiseman stated he felt the report verified we could handle more capacity. Ms Gilleland stated, however, we do need to keep the ball rolling as far as planning for expansion. Mr. Wiseman stated we want to be cognizant that if other entities along the stream start using up some of the capacity, we need to be aware of that to make sure we can keep our 3.5 MGD capacity.
Mr. Hackworth stated he would return to the agenda.
B. ACTION ITEMS:
(1) Review and discussion regarding characteristics of public streets versus private streets. Mr. Schultz stated he felt there would be commercial developments in the City where streets would be extended. He stated presently we do not have a policy of it they should be public or private streets. Mr. Schultz stated from a zoning perspective, all public streets are approved by Planning and Zoning Commission, Service Committee, and Council. He continued private streets with six or more lots go through the same process, however, private streets with five or less lots are approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms Frommer stated a list had been prepared for the Committee as an example of characteristics between public and private streets. She stated from an engineering standpoint the concern was that the part of the Code that states the City has the ability to ask that all streets, public or private, be built to public standards is there for a reason, that of public safety. She stated further from an engineering standpoint they felt the City should do what they can to maintain some control over it. Mr. Wiseman stated as he understood it, Mr. Schultz was trying to find if the Committee is okay with the process as it is now, or did they want some other process to handle the classification of a street. Ms Frommer clarified there have not been many developments that come in with five or less lots. Mr. Hackworth stated it was his opinion that we would want public standards on private streets. He stated further there were other issues to consider such as storm drainage, sidewalks, speed limits, etc. Mr. O’Brien stated he felt the question was if we want to require private streets be built to public standards. Mr. Schultz stated as our Code is currently written, if they are developing five lots or less, he does not have the authority to require a public street. Mr. Hackworth asked if Mr. Schultz could research this to see what we would have to do and bring it back to the Committee.
(2) Review and discussion regarding signage at Solomon Carpets. Ms Gilleland stated Mr. Solomon had come to Service Committee last month and requested the City purchase a sign for him because of the fact that he felt the streetscape project adversely affected the signage that he had. She stated the City had requested he remove his signage and the City paid for the new sign that is currently on his building, and he would like the City to consider purchasing a perpendicular sign. Ms Gilleland stated she had requested time to review what signage is permitted, but the second question is if the City is interested in purchasing the sign. Ms Gilleland stated her question was if the City felt any obligation to assist the property owner by purchasing the sign. She stated she understood the issue, but it was her recommendation that the City not purchase the sign for the property owner. Mr. Hackworth clarified the City had purchased the current sign and Mr. Solomon was requesting we purchase a second sign. Mr. Hackworth ascertained there was no written agreement between Mr. Solomon and the City that the City would purchase this sign. Mr. O’Brien stated there have been instances where Planning and Zoning Commission have approved these perpendicular signs for businesses in the old downtown. It was the recommendation of the Committee that the City not purchase a sign for Mr. Solomon, and if he desired a perpendicular sign he could go through the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mrs. Gilleland stated as she understood it, she would inform Mr. Solomon that the City is not interested in participating financially, however, that did not stop him from approaching Planning and Zoning Commission and discussing a perpendicular sign with them.
5. SERVICE DEPARTMENT
A. ACTION ITEMS:
(1) Review and of draft fee schedule analysis and recommendations, Part II – Stormwater, Building Regulations, Planning and Zoning fees. Mr. Hackworth stated he would request this be continued on the agenda for the next meeting. Ms Gilleland stated Mr. Plunkett has had a problem with getting everything ready for the Committee due to the power outages in his area, but he planned on attending the next meeting.
(2) Review and discussion regarding Service Complex. Mr. Wiseman stated the City did purchase the property next to the Service area on Hereford Drive. He stated he wanted to discuss the issue of what the City wants to do with the Service Complex, such as do we want to keep it at the same location it is, or do we want to move the Service Complex to another area. Mr. Wiseman stated if we want to move the complex, the logical place seemed to be next to the Police Department since we already have land in that area. Mr. Wiseman stated the downside to expanding where they are currently located is that they are next to a residential neighborhood. Ms Gilleland stated she would like to point out that any new facility is years down the road. Ms Gilleland stated if we use the house we purchased on Hereford to relocate our Building Department and Construction Inspection Department, there will be a few more vehicles and more traffic going in and out. Mr. Hackworth clarified it would be possible to put the entrance to the house through the current Service Department entrance, with parking in the back of the house, and have it screened from the neighbors. Mr. Wiseman stated if the Service Department were to move, this location would be very good for the Parks Department as it had easy access to the park. Mr. O’Brien ascertained the existing Service Complex is in very good shape with the exception of the old metal building that has been re-sided. Mr. Wiseman stated he was not requesting a decision this evening, he just wanted to bring it to the Committee’s attention for them to think about.
(3) Review and discussion regarding Commercial Deduct Meters. Mr. Wiseman stated we have a current commercial property in the City that would like to have a deduct meter because the water he uses in part of his process does not go into our sanitary sewer system. Mr. Wiseman stated he does not like deduct meters because they do not promote the conservation of water, and when you have a deduct meter you are reducing the amount of income that is going to the wastewater side. He stated without balancing that somewhere down the road you will have an inconsistency in what revenue is going into the wastewater plant. He stated, however, he could see there were other values to a commercial property that if it is a small amount we are able to provide them with a deduct meter, you get those values back. Mr. Wiseman stated his recommendation to the City would be to allow the ability of a commercial property to come before Service Committee to request a deduct meter for their facility if it is for a process or service oriented role, that it does not get back into our sanitary sewer system. Mr. Wiseman stated he did not feel a developer should get a deduct meter to water the lawns of their model homes. Mr. Hackworth stated if there was a business who used a lot of water, was not putting it into the sanitary sewer, and we were drawing income tax from them, we should consider their request on a case-by-case basis. Mr. O’Brien stated he concurred they should be allowed to make their request to Service Committee. Ms Gilleland stated the business requesting the deduct meter was Donley Concrete, and they would like an answer as soon as possible. Mr. Wiseman stated it would require a legislative change because it is currently denied by ordinance. He stated he could prepare draft legislation giving Service Committee the authority to review on a case-by-case basis a commercial entity’s request. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have Mr. Wiseman prepare the draft legislation for this Committee to review at the next meeting.
B. WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE.
(1) Review and discussion of Pickerington Hills Water Main Loop Project. Mr. Wiseman stated he would like to have this remain on the agenda and he would have a recommendation for the Committee at the next meeting.
C. WASTEWATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE.
(1) Review and discussion regarding tertiary sand filter replacement. Mr. Wiseman stated he would like to provide a final report on this issue next month.
(2) Mr. Wiseman stated he had provided a summary to the Committee of the difficulties created by the recent storm events and our responses to them. Mr. Wiseman stated the City was looking into purchasing a generator. Ms Gilleland stated with regard to switching two projects on the CIP she would like to make sure everyone knew we would be displacing one project for another, that everyone understood what project was being displaced and the implications of putting it off for one year. She stated these project were planned in this order for a reason, so it needs to be a conscious decision to switch these projects. Mr. Wiseman stated the one project was a line replacement and he felt we could do some things to the manholes along the creek that will reduce the amount of in-flow so that could come off as less of an important factor. He stated Lakes Edge is a lift station we have wanted to get rid of, and he did not see a problem with switching the two projects, getting rid of the Lakes Edge lift station and doing the line replacement next year. Mr. Hackworth clarified the cost of the lift station project was less than the line replacement project, however, he would use some of that to do the work on the manholes along the creek. Mr. Wiseman stated when we do change the flow out of the Lakes Edge over to D-Line, which be over by Windmiller, that goes down into another lift station by Long Road. He stated we will have to do the calculations to make sure that force main line that comes out of there is the right size, or at least the pumps are the right size, to handle the extra flow. He stated, therefore, there may be some extra costs to do that. Mr. Hackworth clarified we are not ready to put this project out to bid right now. Mr. Hackworth summarized that Mr. Wiseman’s recommendation would be to switch CIP projects WW05 with WW03 considering the situation. Mr. Wiseman stated as long as the Committee is comfortable with switching the two projects, and that is reflected in the minutes, he did not require any other action this evening. Ms Frommer stated this D-Line project makes that lift station no longer a lift station, it makes it a regular manhole. Ms Gilleland stated she would like to get a letter out to the residents and let them know that Service Committee is recommending CIP project WW05 be switched with WW03. All Service Committee members stated they concurred with changing the projects. Ms Gilleland stated it might move the project along if the Committee authorized the bidding of the project tonight. She stated the bids will come to this Committee for review and a recommendation of award to Council. Mr. Hackworth moved to authorize the bidding of the D-Line Phase III-B project when the engineer and Service Director feel it is appropriate; Mr. Parker seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, and MR. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.
Mr. Wiseman stated the force main from the water plant that handles all our discharge from the water plant is 4600 feet long. He stated we have been experiencing some really long run times for our pumps, and we have determined there is a blockage in that line in a number of different spots. He stated we have also determined the pumps are operating properly and the problem is in the line. He continued we plan to go into that line and we will have to cut a section out to see if we can clean it and backwash it. Mr. Wiseman stated based upon what we find, we are going to try and shorten this line by taking it into a manhole or connect it to another force main so we can get it to about 2500 feet. Mr. Wiseman stated he just wanted to make the Committee aware we will be working on this line.
D. STREET MAINTENANCE. Mr. Wiseman stated we are collecting debris from the storm and we will need to apply for a permit from the EPA to store the leaves and limbs that we have.
E. STORM WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE.
(1) Long Road/Bowen Road Stormwater – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated we are still working on the north side and that should help alleviate some of the problems. Mr. Wiseman stated we are seeking legal counsel on how to handle the dirt pile issue. Ms Gilleland stated because it is on private property we need to determine how to handle this situation.
F. TREE COMMISSION. Update. Mr. Wiseman stated Tree Commission will be presenting Service Committee with some recommendations for changes in their fee structure. He stated he was not sure when that would be ready for the Committee’s review.
G. SCIP (Formerly Issue II Program) – Application Submitted. Mr. Wiseman stated we will not hear anything on our application until January or February.
6. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS
A. WASTEWATER
(1) Wastewater Plant Expansion (CIP# 02-03-005) – Update.
a. Wastewater Treatment Plant Stress Test Update. Mr. Hackworth stated Mr. Kocarek had provided this update earlier in the meeting.
B. TRANSPORTATION:
(1) Courtright Road.
a. Courtright Road Extension Project, Phase III – Update. Mr. Schultz stated he had provided the Committee with a memo concerning this extension through Wellington Park. He stated he met with Virginia Homes, the developer there, and they are willing to consider converting that from a residential street to a major collector, however they do not want to incur a financial hardship through the loss of lots or the cost of widening the road. Mr. Schultz stated it appeared approximately 22 lots would be eliminated and Virginia Homes was to provide him with the information on how much that would cost them, but he has not received that figure as yet. Mr. Schultz stated he would just like to know how the Committee would like him to proceed on this issue. Mr. Wiseman stated he would be talking to the County as they would actually prefer to serve the sanitary sewer in that area. He stated it appeared they are willing to provide the sanitary and have the City provide water. Mr. Schultz stated he felt we had the ability to move some of the 22 lots into the open space because it would be in the City zoning at that point. He continued it had gone through rezoning in the Township and all of the lots on the northern portion abut Chevington Place and those residents were upset with this development and wanted those lots to be larger. Mr. Schultz stated the lots that abut the northern portion are 90 to 100 foot lots and the remaining ones are 70 foot lots. Mr. Schultz stated again the developer is willing to talk to us about this issue. Ms Gilleland stated when she spoke with Mr. Yeaple at the Township, he was not sure the connector would ever go over to Milnor Road as there is one other piece of property involved. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to pursue this as much as we can, see how many lots can be moved and get the cost down as low as possible. He stated the way the road is plotted out now it would be a dead end. Mr. Schultz stated he thought the developer was waiting to start development until they are annexed into the City, and that would be approximately March or April. He continued they were also waiting for the decision from Mr. Wiseman and the County regarding the sanitary service. Mr. Schultz stated Phase I, which is in the northeast corner, has already been platted in the Township and construction drawings are approved so they could start that at any time. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have Mr. Schultz see how many lots could be moved and perhaps explore some other options to get the cost down as much as possible. He stated if they were going to build the road as a part of the project, this is a good opportunity for the City. Mr. Schultz stated he would try and get more information for the Committee.
b. Review and request to approve draft ordinance to amend Ordinance 2004-57 to clarify the vacating of a portion of the road right-of-way to Courtright Drive. Mr. O’Brien inquired what needed clarified on this. Mr. Schultz stated he understood the title company needed this to be formalized for the transfer of the land. Mr. O’Brien moved to forward this legislation to Council; Mr. Parker seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.
(2) Diley Road Realignment:
a. Diley Road/256 Intersection Improvement Project, Phase II – Update. Ms Frommer stated we have an extensive punch list that is being managed right now. She stated the weather has not been helpful lately. She stated we have approximately $75,000 retainage we are holding on the project.
b. Diley Road/S.R. 256 Intersection Improvement Project, Phase III – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated we are still in the right-of-way acquisition phase and the project is still scheduled to begin in the spring.
(3) Diley Road Improvements Project:
a. MORPC/ODOT Project (CIP#98-03-005 and 03-03-005) – Update. Ms Frommer stated Stage 2 plan review is due March 3rd and there is a progress meeting next week.
(4) Cover/Ebright Connector (CIP#02-03-010)
a. Pickerington Health Care Access Road – Update. Ms Frommer stated she spoke with the interim law director and they are getting up to speed on what has to be done.
(5) I-70/S.R. 256 Joint Improvements Project with Reynoldsburg and ODOT – Update. Mr. Gallagher stated we are working with ODOT on the signage and lane marking. He stated the lane marking cannot be done until the weather is warmer, however, ODOT has agreed to put in the signage the City was requesting.
(6) Traffic Signal Update. Mr. Wiseman stated the controller replacement is scheduled on the CIP for next year.
(7) Traffic Improvement Plan (TIP) – Update. Mr. Hackworth stated this was discussed at the work session earlier this evening. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to schedule another work session just prior to the next Service Committee meeting if possible. He stated he would like to schedule the work session for February 10, 2005, at 6:30 P.M.
(8) Review and request for motion to approve Change Order 4 to Columbus and Center Street Streetscape Project. Mr. Wiseman stated a number of items were added to the project and at the end of the project we negotiated prices. He stated the total of the change order is $42,180.88 and should finish up the project. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve the Change Order and forward to Council; Mr. Parker seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.
(1) Wellfield Investigation – Update. Mr. Wiseman stated as we are talking with Canal Winchester about their water plant within our water service agreement, they also have a wellfield within our service area agreement that may add some capacity and we want to consider that in discussions with them. Ms Gilleland stated the Mayor of Canal Winchester may come to the next Service Committee meeting to discuss these issues with the Committee.
D. STORMWATER. No Report.
7. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hackworth stated he had nothing to bring forward.
8. OTHER BUSINESS.
A. Ms Gilleland stated the Committee had been provided a draft ordinance and contract for the position of City Engineer. She stated this was a one year contract and would place an engineer on site. She stated the ordinance and contract state the services will be provided for up to 24 hours per week, and she would like that deleted. Ms Gilleland stated she did not feel we wanted to limit ourselves and the engineer would be on site according to a schedule arranged with the City Manager and the Service Director. Mr. Hackworth moved to forward to Council with the correction Ms Gilleland had mentioned; Mr. Parker seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.
9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Parker moved to adjourn; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, and Mr. O’Brien voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The Service Committee adjourned at 10:15 P.M., January 13, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk