CITY OF CHARDON JOINT SERVICE & LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING Meeting Minutes January 10, 2017

Transcription

1 CITY OF CHARDON JOINT SERVICE & LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING Meeting Minutes January 10, 2017 Service Committee Members present: Andy Blackley, John Mallen Legislative Committee Members present: Chris Grau, Dave Lelko Also Present: Doug Courtney, City Engineer Jim Gillette, Law Director Paul Hornyak, Director of Public Service Joe Koziol, Times Courier Becky Repasky, Secretary Randy Sharpe, City Manager Jeff Smock, Councilman John Mallen, Chairman, called the Service Committee meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Roll was called. Chris Grau, Chairman, called the Legislative Committee meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Roll was called. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Mallen asked for approval of the November 29, 2016 minutes. Mr. Blackley made the motion to approve the minutes. It was seconded by Mr. Mallen. All approved. Mr. Grau asked made a motion to approve the August 31, 2016 minutes. It was seconded by Mr. Lelko with adding Mr. Yaney and Chief Niehus to the attendance record. All approved. NEW BUSINESS CONSIDER PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO EXEMPT SIDEWALK INSTALLATION AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 905 Mr. Mallen reviewed the previous Service Committee s decision for Battles Court. Mr. Gillette explained the proposed legislation provided to the Committees. Mr. Gillette noted Mr. Blackley s comments about private streets by saying the intention was not to make a requirement that sidewalks be installed on private streets. Mr. Gillette said the intention was to address those situations where a private street is a continuation of a public street. Mr. Gillette said the preferable language should read the property owners abutting a public street and private street is an extension of a public street. Mr. Blackley said that addresses his concerns because street is an all-encompassing term and it needs to be differentiated. Mr. Blackley reinforced the idea that there are private roads throughout the City that have been accepted by City Council under the PUD Ordinance and these particularly do not have sidewalks as part of that. Mr. Blackley said wherever a sidewalk was required as part of the PUD, the intent is not to waive that requirement stipulated by Council and Planning Commission. Mr. Blackley explained for example, Ryan Homes Development would be required to have sidewalks, and could not waive it. Mr. Lelko asked Mr. Gillette if this legislation were to go through, for Battles Ct. in particular, if Council said to put sidewalks in the future, could it still be mandated. Mr. Gillette explained the way it is drafted is there would be an elimination of Battles Ct. and that would be permanent, and the only way under this legislation to change is if the property owner s decided they wanted to have sidewalks. Mr. Blackley asked Mr. Lelko if there is a scenario the City would say put sidewalks in on Battles Ct. Mr. Lelko said not there. Mr. Blackley said this is meant to be highly restrictive. Mr. Lelko said this includes the west end of Court Street. Mr. Gillette explained 1

2 he drafted the legislation this way, is because if this is to not going to be a permanent solution and it was a temporary or indefinite solution where Council can go back and may want to require sidewalks, then at some time in the future they can be included in the sidewalk maintenance program or it can be required of property owners to install sidewalks pursuant to Mr. Lelko clarified that it could be non-permanent. Mr. Gillette said this legislation would be permanent if the property owners are exempted from the Sidewalk Maintenance Program. Mr. Gillette continued by saying that could be temporary or it could be indefinite into the future. Mr. Blackley said the petition by the property owners triggers this issue. Mr. Gillette clarified it is if the City wants sidewalks. Mr. Lelko agreed and said this includes any streets; and asked if in the future Council could require sidewalks. Mr. Gillette said Council could, but it may cause an uproar. Mr. Gillette said anything Council decided it wanted to do, could be done by a change in circumstance. Mr. Gillette said the other comment he has is it requires the owners of the property that abut a public street and the owners that abut a private street, which is an extension of a public street, requires either to approve this or to come to back and request sidewalks. This allows those abutting private property to have say in this also. Mr. Blackley agreed. Mr. Blackley asked how Council can determine if pedestrian safety will not be significantly reduced. Mr. Lelko said regarding Ms. Hill, this has nothing to do with cost consideration. Mr. Lelko said in his opinion, this particular circumstance is being on the corner which is not driven by cost. Mr. Lelko continued by saying if Ms. Hill lived on another corner, he would not be having this discussion. Mr. Lelko said being on Battles Ct. there is a certain set of circumstances that raise a good point that something can be done. Mr. Grau commented there is a financial consideration for Ms. Hill. Mr. Lelko said he is not basing his decision on whether someone should repair their sidewalk or not on the cost. Mr. Lelko suggested a longer time to pay it back. Mr. Lelko said this legislation refers to where the City would not want sidewalks to be required to be fixed. Mr. Blackley said that is the point of the legislation to not be grounded on financial hardships. Mr. Lelko said he is surprised to see the west end of Court Street included in this legislation because now it becomes removing sidewalk. Mr. Blackley said the property owners would still have to petition to Council to remove those sidewalk and Council could deny it based on safety. Mr. Lelko referred to the Connectivity Plan by stating the City wants to make the whole City accessible by sidewalk. Mr. Lelko said he does not agree with the statement and he wants to make sure the decision is being consistent with what the City is trying to do. Mr. Lelko said there are questions on how to proceed with the Sidewalk Program because the two concerns are connected; and removing Battles Ct. from the Sidewalk Program. Mr. Hornyak commented that aside from Ms. Hill having deficiencies on Battles Ct., there are other property owners that have deficiencies and they have also been notified. Mr. Grau asked if there is deteriorated sidewalk to be found, whose cost is it to fix. Mr. Hornyak said the property owner s but this is giving them the option not to fix the sidewalks and be excluded from the Sidewalk Program. Mr. Grau clarified on what is to be removed and put in its place after the sidewalk is gone. Mr. Hornyak said he is unsure of the intent, but all property owners on Battles Ct. would have to sign a petition to be exempt from the Sidewalk Program. If granted, they would have to remove the sidewalk or stone that is there, and re-establish with lawn. Mr. Blackley agreed and said reasonable investigation can be done, and if like in Ms. Hill s circumstance, there is something that looks like sidewalk and is deteriorated, it can be rearranged into a flower bed, reused or put in a lawn. Mr. Gillette said it is still a right-of-way and would need to be treated as such. Mr. Lelko asked if Battles Ct. can be removed from this round of the Sidewalk Program. Mr. Gillette said if it is put in, it can be taken out. Mr. Lelko suggested looking at the Sidewalk Program as a whole in consideration with this legislation as they fit together and taking Battles Ct. out of this round. Mr. Blackley said that has been considered and asked what would be the justification for doing that. Mr. Lelko said because there is a likelihood the sidewalks will not be required and it is under appeal. Mr. Blackley suggested keeping Battles Ct. in, and placing the responsibility on the property owners to petition for removal. Mr. Hornyak asked when will the City Engineer and Police Chief be included in the legislation. Mr. Hornyak said the Police Chief may say it is unsafe to put people in the street and he may not sign off on this. Mr. Gillette said the legislation takes place whenever the petition is filed. Mr. Blackley advised having a discussion with the Police Chief ahead of time. 2

3 Mr. Grau asked if the petition transfers with home ownership. Mr. Gillette said yes and if a new property owner moves onto the street and wants sidewalks, they will have to convince all other home owners on the street to put sidewalks in. Mr. Blackley said majority of property owners would have to sign a petition for the procedure. Mr. Grau said he does not think this should be included into the discussion today with the Sidewalk Connectivity Plan. Mr. Grau said Court Street drew his attention as well because that is a frequently used walkway. Mr. Grau says he believes cars have access through there. Mr. Blackley said Council could reject any petition if it wishes. Mr. Grau said homeowners there enhanced their properties. Mr. Lelko asked if this legislation allows for portion of streets to have no sidewalks because that would be what Court Street is. Mr. Gillette said no. Mr. Hornyak said the west end of Court becomes private like Battles Ct. Mr. Hornyak said six homes have sidewalks and lead to business. Mr. Gillette said it is not a thru street or connects to another public street. Mr. Smock asked if the legislation can name specific streets that are permitted for petition and considered by Council. Mr. Smock commented he does not like Court Street being included in this legislation. Mr. Blackley said it can be modified by zoning classification to only be residentially zoned areas. Mr. Blackley said it could be a potential thru street. Mr. Smock said part of the requirements is where sidewalks do not currently exist and there is currently sidewalk there and Council could never approve a waiver on that. Mr. Lelko asked if the property owners would have to wait till the sidewalks are deteriorated. Mr. Gillette said deteriorating sidewalks would be included in the Sidewalk Maintenance Program and secondly, if property owners petition where there have always been sidewalks, pedestrian safety issues arises. Mr. Smock commented Court Street has already been repaired and once they begin to deteriorate, they will be the City s responsibility to repair. Mr. Blackley said there is no list of streets. It only receives attention once property owners have signed a petition to waiver. Mr. Gillette said even though Court Street is not a thru street, it is connecting to businesses, which can be a determination based on pedestrian safety, there has to be sidewalk there. Mr. Grau clarified that if a petition was presented to Council, it can be denied. Mr. Gillette said yes. Mr. Grau said he okay with that, and it be noted that Court Street is probably not going to be granted a waiver. Mr. Grau asked if there is currently signage on Court Street that says it is not a thru street. Mr. Hornyak said he is unsure. Mr. Blackley suggested modifying the legislation based on zoning classification to only apply to residential zoning. Mr. Lelko agreed. Mr. Smock asked what Randall Court is zoned as. Mr. Courtney said residential. Mr. Blackley said wherever Mr. Gillette feels appropriate to add in to state a street must be in a residentially zoned area. Mr. Lelko asked about Sixth Avenue. Mr. Courtney said that is zoned industrial. Mr. Lelko asked what is Carson zoned. Mr. Courtney said that is private. Mr. Lelko asked if this legislation only includes Battles Court and Randall Court. Mr. Blackley said yes. Mr. Sharpe asked why Carson does not apply, even though it is private. Mr. Blackley explained it is a subdivision and was originally approved and sidewalks were not required as part of the installation and we should not go back and make them install sidewalks. Mr. Lelko said it is not automatically requiring private streets to install sidewalks. Mr. Lelko asked only the public portion of Battles Court can be included in this legislation. Mr. Gillette said yes. Mr. Gillette asked if the trail on South Street will be done. Mr. Blackley said no because that is part of the Home Owner s Association. 3

4 Mr. Grau clarified that property owners in a PUD could not remove sidewalks because that would violate the original PUD. Mr. Gillette said yes. Mr. Grau asked if the legislation should be updated by Mr. Gillette then have the committees return for a vote. Mr. Blackley said no, the committees can vote based on the modifications and explain to Council what has been decided. Mr. Blackley made a motion that Service Committee recommends approval with the modified section , installation required with the qualification that in paragraph B, the Law Director insert language that would limit the area that qualifies for a waiver to residentially zoned areas. Mr. Gillette commented it also include the language previously regarding private streets be connected to a public street. It was seconded by Mr. Mallen. The motion carried 2-0. Mr. Lelko asked if this will be presented at the February Council meeting. Mr. Sharpe said yes. Mr. Grau made a motion to accept Service Committee s recommendation with recommended changes to It was seconded by Mr. Lelko. The motion carried 2-0. Mr. Lelko said the entire Council should meet to discuss how financially the City will maintain the sidewalks in the future. Mr. Lelko also suggested prioritizing sidewalks and the order they will be addressed with potential costs. Mr. Lelko said he does not agree with the Connectivity Plan and starting in the Chardon Avenue area. Mr. Blackley said that will be for Mr. Hornyak and Staff to list what sidewalks should be first and Mr. Courtney may need to do preliminary engineering for possible ditch enclosures or culverts. Mr. Lelko agreed and is concerned about costs for other items. Mr. Blackley commented the City has been diligent in the cycles for repairing sidewalks and the lifespan on the sidewalks can be five to ten years. Discussion was held on connecting Chardon Park Estates to South Hambden and to Mel Harder. Mr. Lelko said the connectivity study was well worth it identifying where attention is needed but driven on their formulas. Mr. Smock addressed Mr. Lelko s concern of the City taking over the maintenance of the sidewalks, by saying after the eight year cycle and all sidewalks are fixed, the City should be fine before needing to spend money on repairs. Mr. Hornyak is hoping for beyond ten years before repairing sidewalks. Mr. Sharpe said with the infill program, the more that is connected, the more the City is agreeing to plow. Mr. Sharpe explained that raises the question if service is increased with more sidewalk, or if that level of service is lowered by one person plowing when they get there or is another plow and maintenance staff added to plow which is a continuing cost to the City. Mr. Lelko agreed sidewalk plowing is important to the residents but at what cost. Mr. Blackley agreed that sidewalk plowing is important especially school routes. Mr. Lelko said it could be cut back as a possibility to only school routes but is a discussion that needs to be had. Mr. Blackley asked if the Service Committee report should be recommending Council as a whole meet to discuss sidewalk prioritization. Mr. Sharpe said the program came out of the Service Committee, which met many times before it was brought to Council as a whole and that was the method the City was going to continue with because of the amount of meetings and the amount of time required. Mr. Sharpe said if Council wishes to meet as a whole it can, it may take longer. Mr. Blackley suggested asking Council as a whole if they would like Service Committee to decide or meet as a whole to decide. Mr. Lelko agreed. Mr. Smock commented more can be accomplished in less time if the Service Committee takes it on and brings a working document to Council that includes funding and a narrowed discussion. Mr. Blackley said Staff will need to prepare basic information needed to make decisions on prioritization. Mr. Lelko asked if the cost will be significantly less than what is being done today. Mr. Courtney said yes because sidewalk issues now will not be as big an issue later on. 4

5 Mr. Smock suggested a discussion be held on increasing the cost the City takes on to fund the maintenance. Mr. Grau asked how numbers are provided to Council based on the list from Staff of prioritized locations. Mr. Blackley said the basic suggestion of priority can be a starting point. Mr. Sharpe said options can be presented accompanied with cost. Mr. Blackley said residents can be included in the prioritized list. Mr. Grau said the majority of questions he gets from residents is about sidewalks so clarification of the process is important. Mr. Smock said the funding discussion should include assistance for residents and how they pay for the sidewalks. There was no further business for the Legislative Committee. Mr. Grau made a motion to adjourn the Legislative Committee. It was seconded by Mr. Lelko. The Legislative Committee adjourned at 8:58 a.m. UPDATE ON THE CHARDON PARK ESTATES STREET PROEJCT AND MEADOWLANDS DRIVE EXTENSION, MOFFET AVENUE AND CANFIELD PROJECTS Mr. Mallen reviewed his memorandum provided to the Committee. Mr. Blackley asked if the sewers are in good condition. Mr. Courtney said sanitary and storm are in good shape. Mr. Hornyak said there is a need for more storm sewers. Mr. Blackley asked if anything under the new pavement will be put in. Mr. Courtney said yes. Mr. Courtney said new curbs will be put in and new drive aprons will be put in. Mr. Courtney explained some of the streets are flat and the potential for maintaining the curb and gutter section is for constructability issues with concrete curbs which makes it easier to maintain than flat asphalt streets. Mr. Courtney said new curb drains will be able to go under instead of behind the curb which will minimize damage to tree lawns and tree roots. Mr. Sharpe said a raised curb is a deterrent for people driving over it to park on lawns. Mr. Smock asked for clarification on not using type 6 curb potentially. Mr. Courtney said it is similar to what is there now, but it would be vertical pavement instead of a rolled curb. Mr. Hornyak said it will be similar to the entrance to the Woods of Burlington. Mr. Lelko asked if that will take care of Chardon Park Estates. Mr. Courtney said not necessarily because they are only doing the curb section; streets with curbs now. It is the uncurbed sections that are not a part of this project. Mr. Blackley asked when this will go out to bid for the Chardon Park Estates. Mr. Courtney said February. Mr. Mallen asked if the Chardon Park Estates Project is in the Capital Improvement. Mr. Sharpe said yes. Mr. Courtney said the streets in Chardon Park Estates are part of a larger project that will be advertised in February and will include Canfield Drive, Canfield Ext. and Moffett Avenue. Mr. Courtney explained Moffett Avenue will be similar to the project in Chardon Park Estates. Mr. Courtney said Canfield Drive will be pavement repair and curb repair for deteriorated pieces. Mr. Courtney explained Canfield Ext. will include pavement, curb repairs and reconstruction of the cul-de-sec to address drainage and ice issues, new drive aprons, storm sewer installation for the drainage issues. Mr. Courtney explained the Meadowlands Drive Extension Project will include construction of the City property from Loretto and will be 1,000 ft. of pavement to include water and storm mains and modification of the traffic signal at the intersection. 5

6 Mr. Mallen asked for the timeline. Mr. Courtney said the bids will be opened the 24 th and it will go before the February Council meeting for award. Mr. Courtney provided an update on the clearing for Meadowlands Extension. Mr. Grau asked how homeowners will access their driveways. Mr. Courtney said they will have to ask neighbors across the street to use their driveway for parking while their drive aprons are redone. Mr. Hornyak said proper notifications will be given to residents to plan. Mr. Blackley asked how long residents will be out of their driveways. Mr. Hornyak said five working days. EXECUTIVE SESSION none ANY OTHER BUSINESS - none ADJOURN Mr. Blackley made the motion to adjourn. Mr. Mallen seconded it. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 a.m. Respectfully Submitted: Rebecca Repasky, Secretary JOHN MALLEN, CHAIRMAN 6