THE CITY OF STREETSBORO, OHIO SERVICE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES. Monday, December 12, 2016

Transcription

1 THE CITY OF STREETSBORO, OHIO SERVICE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, December 12, 2016 This Service Committee Meeting was called to order on Monday, December 12, 2016 at 7:09 p.m. by Jeff Allen, Chairman. PRESENT: ABSENT: Tim Claypoole, Jeff Allen, Bridget Pavlick, John Ruediger, Jessica Timmons, Steve Michniak, Julie Field None. ALSO PRESENT: Glenn Broska, Mayor Paul Janis, Law Director Robert Reinholz, Fire Chief Darin Powers, Police Chief Jenny Esarey, Finance Director Joe Ciuni, City Engineer Bill Miller, Service Director John Cieszkowski, Planning Director Rob Peters, Economic Development Director Missy Hatch, Parks and Recreation Director Caroline Kremer, Clerk of Council Disposition of Minutes None. Old Business Discuss Meadow View Streetlights Mayor Broska gave an update. He said there had been a meeting with the people from Ryan Homes. They were in the process of obtaining a new developer for the development and they had assured the administration that they would work with the City. It was still Ryan Homes, but there was a new company backing them and the administration was confident in the changes they would be making and that they would come into compliance with the City s request for streetlights, it would just take time. Mrs. Field understood Mr. Cieszkowski was working closely with this neighborhood and wondered if he had anything to add. Mr. Cieszkowski said he could just echo the Mayor in that the City had been given an indication that the streetlighting would not be an issue moving forward. He said the administration had made it absolutely clear to Ryan Homes about the issues that the subdivision has had in the past and that when they were looking for a new developer they City did not want these issues to occur moving forward; streetlights were probably at the top of the list of issues.

2 Mrs. Pavlick mentioned there were lengthy discussions in the past when they wanted to go into new phases with a new developer (so this would be the second or third developer since Meadow View started). She wondered how the lack of a bond would affect this project as it moved forward and she wondered if they had sold all the lots in the previously negotiated expansion. Mayor Broska thought there may only be one or two lots left, all the rest of the lots in the phases had sold. The only thing left from those discussions was the streetlights; they had completed the sidewalks, striping and signage that the City had requested. Mayor Broska said Ryan Home had found a new developer because the old developer basically went broke and they had proposed some minor changes to the development because there were now wetlands that had not existed before years ago when this first came before Planning Commission the wetlands didn t exist as they do now, which had caused them to change some of the layout of the proposal. The wetlands were not an issue the City could do anything about; the only thing left was the streetlights. They did not put yard lights in so they had to put streetlights in. This new developer would be handling newer phases that had not been sold yet. Mrs. Pavlick wanted to be sure things were not moving forward until previous phases and issues had been dealt with, especially since there wasn t a bond. Mayor Broska emphasized that from now on everyone would have to get a bond, not a letter or credit or anything else. Mr. Allen asked for clarification on the performance bond requirement. Mr. Janis explained that the current Code provided for some security, one type of which was a performance bond but it allowed for other types. Since Mr. Janis had been with the City, he and Mr. Cieszkowski had required an actual performance bond, which was the best security the City could have and he recommended the City require that in the future. Mr. Allen clarified that there had been litigation that allowed them to continue with a letter from the bank stating they had the money to do the job. Mr. Janis said that was correct in this case. It was clarified that the new Meadow View developer had been informed that the City would require a performance bond in this case. Mr. Ruediger wondered if the City knew who the new developer was. Mayor Broska said they had not shared that with the administration; the people that would continue to build the homes would be Ryan Homes. Mr. Ruediger asked that if it was discovered that there was any affiliation with Neff, that Council be informed. Mayor Broska said the administration had already made that abundantly clear also. MOTION: TO INCLUDE AN UPDATE ON THIS TOPIC AT THE JANUARY SERVICE COMMITTEE MEETING. Moved by Mrs. Pavlick, seconded by Mr. Michniak. Upon voice vote, motion carried. Update on Boulder Creek Driving Range Mr. Michniak said he put this on the agenda because he wanted to see if Mr. Salemi had filed anything or approached the City with any sort of resolution since the last Council discussion on this topic. Mr. Janis said there had been a couple hiccups in the communications, but there was a Page 2 of 7

3 meeting scheduled for next week with himself and Mr. Salemi s attorney. Mr. Janis said nothing had happened since the last meeting, but he fully intended to report something at the next Council meeting. Mr. Michniak wanted to restate what the Council had kind of reached as a consensus at the last meeting. He thought City Council felt it was open to Mr. Salemi developing the driving range in a manner that worked as long as that development didn t violate the current City zoning regulations and as long as that development just was on the driving range; Council wanted to see him honor the previous court settlement agreement on the rest of the property and continue to run it as a golf course. Mr. Michniak said Mr. Salemi had explained that a lot of local golf courses were closing. Mr. Michniak felt this was Council s unofficial consensus and wanted to see if anyone felt differently. Mrs. Pavlick said she agreed with Mr. Michniak s recollection of the discussion. She added that no one wanted to bind anyone up into something that would be devastating to them and their business, but there were Codified Ordinances and regulations that every citizen, no matter what they were doing in town, had to follow. She thought it would come down to what was the underlying zoning in Mr. Salemi s mind; in her mind it never changed, this agreement was on top of the existing zoning, so when the agreement went away the underlying zoning still existed. There was referendum zoning, so if anyone wanted the zoning changed, they would have to take it to the public. Private citizens had done it recently; they weren t exempt from it just because it was a little old grandma that wanted to divide her property up. She said it wasn t that the Council didn t want Mr. Salemi to move ahead, it s just what it came down to. She thought he might have an uptick in his business because of the other local golf courses closing. She didn t want to see him not make money and not be able to enjoy his business, but he was a property owner/business owner in town and had to follow the rules like everybody else. She wanted to see something concrete. Mr. Michniak said he was still not clear since the last meeting: if Council wanted to vote to allow Mr. Salemi to stop running the driving range and put up housing similar to what he had put up already in that area, were there hurdles with the referendum zoning and with the old consent judgment entry agreement to Council even doing that. Mr. Janis answered that Council had a role in zoning, and any zoning change would have to be approved by the Planning Commission, and then be approved by Council, and then under referendum zoning, go to a vote of the people; so certainly Council had a role. Mr. Janis said it was the City s position under the consent decree the underlying zoning was there and once the deed restrictions were removed related to the consent decree you still had to deal with that, so obviously he felt the referendum zoning still applied, but Council would have a role in changing the zoning. Mr. Michniak said the referendum zoning would apply to any change of the driving range as well as the rest of the golf course. Mr. Claypoole clarified that a zoning change did not have to go through Planning Commission and City Council and then referendum vote; it could go straight to the ballot by the property owner getting signatures on an initiative petition. So if Council decided not to go with the proposed potential change, the property owner still had another avenue to do it. Mr. Janis clarified that if any land owner wanted a zoning change on his own property, he could go to the Planning Commission as a first step. If the Planning Commission did not approve it and refer it to City Council, then he could take out an initiative petition. Page 3 of 7

4 Mayor Broska asked if the driving range was included in the consent decree. Mr. Janis said the consent decree specified two parcels: the 88 acres that could be developed pursuant to the conditions in the consent decree, and the other parcel that was subject to the deed restrictions (which was no development for 20 years or longer depending on Council s reaction to a request) and the driving range was in the second parcel. Mr. Michniak was concerned that if Council decided to work a resolution because it understood the driving range was losing money and one didn t need a driving range to run a nice golf course, then in a year or two Mr. Salemi might try to get out of the rest of the agreement for the rest of the golf course and try to zone all of it the same as what might be allowed on the driving range now. Mr. Michniak thought years ago when the City entered into the agreement, the plan was that Mr. Salemi would run it as a golf course until he got older and then he would either sell it or develop it. So Mr. Michniak thought the ball was in Mr. Salemi s court at this point and he would have to make some decisions about what he wanted to do. Mr. Janis said the motion that was authorized by City Council at the last meeting authorized Mr. Janis to negotiate a resolution based on the discussions Council just had tonight, which was the same as was had a couple of weeks ago. Mayor Broska stated the negotiated resolution would not include changing the zoning. Mr. Michniak said it could not because it was the City s position that was contrary to law; Mr. Michniak said as this issue moved forward he wanted to continue to restate what the City s position was. Mrs. Pavlick asked if Mr. Salemi would have to bring a plan forward of what he wanted to do with the property, even if it was just in a discussion with the Law Director. Mrs. Pavlick said she wasn t comfortable just agreeing to amend the consent judgment giving him carte blanche to do whatever he wanted. She knew Boulder Creek wasn t 100% buildable, but one could still put some really nice homes out there, but she didn t want to necessarily do that (and wasn t able to buy the golf course from him). She wondered if Mr. Salemi should bring a plan forward because she was hearing a couple of different things from him and wanted to see something so everyone would be on the same page. She wanted to avoid getting too many multifamily type units in town which put a burden on the schools and the infrastructure because she wanted to be able to offer everyone the same good service and good living that the City had been able to offer to this point. She wanted a clearer plan of what Mr. Salemi wanted to do. Mr. Ruediger clarified that Mr. Salemi had said he wanted to develop a 55 and older community which wouldn t add burden to the schools. Mrs. Pavlick and Mrs. Field said that was just one idea that was mentioned, plus a party center and there could be other ideas; that s why Mrs. Field had voted no at the last meeting. Mr. Allen asked about the meeting that had been scheduled. Mr. Janis said the meeting was with Mr. Salemi s attorneys and it would be a week from today. Mr. Allen asked if the consent decree allowed the type of development Mr. Salemi wanted on the property because what was being built on that R-R zoning would really fit under R-3 zoning. Mr. Cieszkowski responded that Mr. Allen seemed to be referring to the 88 acres. The consent judgment allowed different dimensional requirements in terms of density on the 88 acres than the underlying R-R zoning district; that s why Page 4 of 7

5 there was a greater density in the single family Fairways of Boulder Creek development as well as the Fairways at Boulder Creek condo units. Mr. Allen asked for further clarification of what was allowed to be built. Mr. Janis explained that the driving range was not included in the 88 acres of the consent decree. He said the part with the golf course and the driving range had no zoning conditions like Mr. Cieszkowski just talked about; the only thing there was the deed restrictions. Once the deed restrictions came off, there was the underlying zoning which was R-R. Mr. Cieszkowski added that the consent decree superseded the underlying zoning for those 88 acres only. None of the consent decree that allowed the construction included the 13 acre driving range. Mr. Cieszkowski said there were parcel numbers in the consent judgment that he didn t believe were still accurate. Mr. Michniak noted that all of that preceded referendum zoning, so Mr. Salemi would need to go through the legal process to get where he wanted to be. Mr. Michniak added that he didn t think Council had a problem with Mr. Salemi building on the driving range, but did have a problem with him doing it with the rest of the course this early. Mr. Allen said it sounded like some stuff was missed. He thought they thought when they did it that it was all gonna be allowed under the consent decree. Mr. Allen believed that s what Mr. Salemi thought. Mrs. Pavlick asked that this topic before forwarded to the next Service agenda for an update to keep the topic active. Mr. Ruediger asked to have the update sooner since there was a meeting next week and this was possible litigation. MOTION: TO FORWARD THIS TOPIC TO THE DECEMBER 19, 2016 FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR AN UPDATE. Moved by Mrs. Pavlick, seconded by Mr. Michniak. Upon voice vote, motion carried. New Business T-6257 ODOT Preliminary Legislation to Pave SR 43 North Mr. Ciuni said this was a standard ODOT agreement to pave SR 43 from the square to the northern corporation line at Aurora. The project was listed at $875,000 at an 80% ODOT/20% City split and would be on their schedule for 2-3 years from now. This was just the standard mill and fill, no widening or curbs. Mayor Broska added that the City would be applying to AMATS this year for funding for a third lane and bilateral sidewalks from Market Square, which would be a separate project from this ODOT paving project. Mrs. Pavlick asked how this paving project would interact with the Frost Road Phase I project at the intersection of Frost Road and SR 43. She didn t want to do one project and then have the next project tear it all up again. Mr. Ciuni answered that this was preliminary legislation, ODOT was designing it in-house and would watch the construction in-house as well, so the City would need to try to coordinate the two projects. The Frost Road project was going out for bids again in January so it should be starting in 2017 and may be done by the time the paving project went through. He d Page 5 of 7

6 have to coordinate the projects; they could both be going at the same time. MOTION: TO MOVE THIS TO TONIGHT S REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. Moved by Mrs. Pavlick, seconded by Mrs. Field. Upon voice vote, motion carried. Discuss Annual Building Department and Engineering Department Contracts Mr. Cieszkowski had provided a memo and three items: CT s schedule of hourly fees, an independent contractor agreement from Russ Rodic, and GPD s schedule of hourly fees. He said the administration was proposing no changes to the firms or the individuals providing services for either the Building or Engineering Department. He asked that these be considered and then forwarded to the next meeting for approval to prevent a lapse in service. Mr. Ruediger asked about the fire protection review at $115/hour. Mr. Cieszkowski said it was a building plan review of sprinkler systems. Mayor Broska added that it was a pretty specialized field with extensive engineering type reviews regarding hydraulic flows, etc. to make sure the whole building was properly covered by sprinklers. MOTION: TO FORWARD THIS TO THE DECEMBER 19, 2016 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AS EMERGENCY LEGISLATION. Moved by Mrs. Pavlick, seconded by Mr. Ruediger. Upon voice vote, motion carried. Mrs. Pavlick explained some of tonight s procedures to all the high school students in the audience and invited them to come to the podium if they had any questions. Dedicate Maplewood Drive Mr. Ciuni said he and Mr. Miller had inspected Maplewood Drive with the owner and made a list of items to be corrected/completed because there had been a request from the owner to dedicate that street. The owner had the items scheduled and no action was needed now because the punch list was not resolved, but Mr. Ciuni wanted Council to be aware this was happening. It may not be ready until spring since the winter weather may prevent some of the work. The developer was anxious to get this done and the street would be acceptable once they complete these items. Mr. Ciuni suggested starting the three readings to dedicate the street, but Mr. Miller would work with the developer and then bring this topic back to the agenda when it was ready. Mrs. Field asked who was responsible for this short road until it was accepted/dedicated. Mr. Miller said Mr. Alvarez who worked for the Carlyle Management Company, it was not the few residents who lived on that street. Mrs. Pavlick didn t want to start the three readings or dedicate the street until it was certain all the required work was completed. Mr. Ciuni said the owner had assured him that he had already hired the contractor(s) to do the work. Mr. Miller said he had talked to some of the contractors about what needed to be done, but emphasized the City would not accept the road unless the punch list was fulfilled. When it was ready, it would go back on the agenda. Page 6 of 7

7 Citizens Comments None. Announcements The Safety Committee Meeting will immediately follow this meeting. There being no further business to be addressed by this committee, and upon motion by Mr. Ruediger, seconded by Mrs. Field, this meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m. ATTEST: Caroline L. Kremer, Clerk of Council Jeffrey M. Allen, Chairman ck Page 7 of 7