CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

 

JANUARY 12, 2006

 

 

The meeting was called to order by President Gore at 7:00 p.m.

 

Mr. Gore welcomed Leah Sellers to her first Council meeting.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Mr. Marshall,  Ms. Sellers, Mr. Fogt, Mr. Gore, Mr. Burke, Mr. Reams, Mr. Pleasant

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  Director of Administration House, Finance Director Morehart, Law Director Aslaner, Clerk Patterson

 

REPORTERS PRESENT:  Ryan Horns – Journal Tribune, Lois Gruenbaum – WUCO

 

CITIZENS PRESENT:  Ken Kraus, Brian Elmore, Dick Noland, John Cunningham, Sean Cunningham, Eric Phillips, Brian Bornino

 

REORGANIZATION:

 

1.     Elect President.  Mr. Pleasant nominated John Gore, seconded by Mr. Marshall.  Motion was made to close the nominations.  Affirmative voice vote was unanimous.  Mr. Gore was elected President.

 

2.     Elect Vice President.  Mr. Fogt nominated Ed Pleasant, seconded by Mr. Burke.  Motion was made to close the nominations.  Affirmative voice vote was unanimous.  Mr. Pleasant was elected Vice President.

 

3.     Appoint Clerk of Council.  Mr. Gore nominated Connie Patterson for Clerk of Council, seconded by Mr. Fogt.  Affirmative voice vote was unanimous.

 

4.     Review Rules of Procedure.  Mr. Gore referred the Rules of Procedure to Public Affairs Committee, who will meet once the members are appointed.

 

5.     Appoint Council Committees.  Committees will be appointed at the January 26th meeting.  Mr. Gore asked Council members to let him know which committee they wish to serve on and he’d try to accommodate them.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  There being no additions or corrections, the minutes for the meeting on December 15, 2005 were approved as written.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:  Ms. House stated the Mayor would like to give his State of the City Address at the January 26th Council Meeting, because he was unable to attend this evening.

 

Work on the City Hall roof has begun.  All sections, except the slate, will be repaired and/or replaced.

 

Staff is currently working on the list of streets to be paved in 2006.  Hope to open bids in March.  In addition to the $1M for paving, there is $1M for urban paving, which the City shares responsibility with ODOT.  It will include Elwood Avenue, north to Echo Drive, which is SR31, the balance of Elwood Avenue back to Main Street and then Elwood at Main down Main Street south to Eighth Street.  All of the handicap ramp work along Main Street will be finished prior to paving.

 

REPORT OF CLERK OF COUNCIL:  No report.

 

REPORT OF LAW DIRECTOR:  Mr. Aslaner requested an Executive Session at the close of the meeting to discuss pending litigation.

 

REPORT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR:  Mr. Eric Phillips reported that the Planning Commission has completed their review of the update to the Design Review Process.  Goal is to have the rewrite to City Council in February or March. 

 

Mr. Phillips noted that Honda got both the car and truck of the year.

 

Mr. Reams asked about the article that was in the Columbus Dispatch regarding Glacier Ridge Development.  He noted an upcoming meeting that was mentioned and asked for details.  Mr. Phillips was not aware of any meeting and was surprised to see that in the article.  He said the meeting may be with Millcreek Township.

 

HEARING OF CITIZENS:  Sean Cunningham addressed Council.  He is a junior at Marysville High School and is participating in the Foreign Exchange Program.  He and approximately 40 other students will be traveling to Spain in March as part of this program.  To offset costs, the school is holding a Celebrity Dinner on February 25, 2006.  He invited all Council Members, the Mayor and Director of Administration to help out by being a celebrity waiter.  A contract was distributed, which should be completed for those interested in participating and returned to Mr. Cunningham.

 

Mr. Pleasant commented that he has participated in this event before.  It is fun and is a very good program for financial assistance and encouraged everyone to participate in it.

 

Mr. Gore read a letter from Mr. Jerry Buerger, Superintendent of MRDD asking City Council to declare the Month of March 2006 “Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities Month”.  Motion was made to put a resolution for this request on the consent calendar and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. Gore  YES  Mr. Burke  YES  Mr. Reams  YES  Mr. Pleasant  YES  Mr. Marshall  YES  Ms. Sellers  YES  Mr. Fogt  YES

 

Motion passed.

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

The “RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO COOPERATE WITH AND ALLOW THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO COMPLETE THE GATEWAY MARYSVILLE PROJECT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY RC5521.01” was presented for first reading, title only.  Ms. House explained the City is sharing a grant with ODOT, which requires the City’s participation with them.  Motion was made to pass the emergency and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. Burke  YES  Mr. Reams  YES  Mr. Pleasant  YES  Mr. Marshall  YES  Ms. Sellers  YES  Mr. Fogt  YES  Mr. Gore  YES

 

Emergency passed.

 

The resolution “DECLARING THE MONTH OF MARCH 2006 “MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES MONTH” AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY” was presented for first reading, title only.  Motion was made to pass the emergency and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. Reams  YES  Mr. Pleasant  YES  Mr. Marshall  YES  Ms. Sellers  YES  Mr. Fogt  YES  Mr. Gore  YES   Mr. Burke  YES

 

Emergency passed.

 

Motion was made to waive second reading, public hearing and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. Pleasant  YES  Mr. Marshall  YES  Ms. Sellers  YES  Mr. Fogt  YES  Mr. Gore  YES  Mr. Burke  YES  Mr. Reams  YES

 

Motion passed.

 

Motion was made to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.

 

Motion was made to waive third reading, title only and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. Marshall  YES  Ms. Sellers  YES  Mr. Fogt  YES  Mr. Gore  YES  Mr. Burke  YES  Mr. Reams  YES  Mr. Pleasant  YES

 

Motion passed.

 

Motion was made to pass the legislation and the question put, stood:

 

Ms. Sellers  YES  Mr. Fogt  YES  Mr. Gore  YES  Mr. Burke  YES  Mr. Reams  YES  Mr. Pleasant  YES  Mr. Marshall  YES

 

Resolution 1-06 passed.

 

Mr. Gore recalled changing the rules of procedure for acting on resolutions.  Mr. Reams noted Rule 23 states that an exception to the rule would be legislation of condolences or congratulations.  Mr. Aslaner stated he recalls researching this when it was brought up by the Public Affairs Committee and found that the Ohio Revised Code does not differentiate between ordinances and resolutions and any piece of legislation requires three readings.  The City Charter directs the City to laws of non-charter cities and that’s what the law of a non-charter city states.  He feels the Charter would have to be changed to make a change.

 

Mr. Gore would like to see a committee formed to review the Charter to see if there is anything that may need to be addressed. 

 

ORDINANCES

 

The ordinance “TO AMEND CHAPTER 1145, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE” was presented for second reading, public hearing.  Motion was made to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.  Mr. Cunningham asked if Council had any questions.  Ms. Leah Sellers asked if Mr. Cunningham believed PUD’s would change the fate of Marysville and this is the development of choice as far as residential growth in the coming years.  Mr. Cunningham responded Planning Commission’s understanding is what’s been coming to them most recently has been the PUD approach, because a lot of land currently being developed has a lot of geographic traits to it that people are trying to preserve to make it the nicest possible development and still try to preserve some of the natural environment. They want to maximize their property and have

some of those accouterments that make it a pleasant place to live.  He noted Galbury Meadows as an example, which will have not only housing, but recreation facilities.  Planning Commission sees this as a coming trend. 

 

Ms. Sellers stated she too sees it as a good thing, but based on her experience with Delaware County, sees that it’s a development that’s brought with a lot of conflict and there is a lot of litigation, referendum action for these kinds of developments.  She asked why that would be.  Mr. Cunningham responded from Planning Commission’s vantage point, one of the reasons they like the PUD approach is that during the Planned Unit Development process, the Planning Commission has ample opportunity to say no to things.  That could cause some litigation because the developer is not happy with that.  It is within the Planning Commission’s rights.  He noted if you come under Chapter 1105 of the Code and you want to do a development and you dot your “I’s” and cross your “T’s”, the Commission is pretty much committed and has to approve that development.  A PUD allows you to say no and you can tell them what you would rather see instead. 

 

Ms. Sellers noted a concern for a change made in Section 1145.21, going from a two-part Council approval process to only one Council approval process in the preliminary development plan, is that Council loses oversight on the final changes to any plan.  She asked Mr. Cunningham to explain why Council would want to give up the right for a second approval?  Mr. Cunningham explained that Council is actually approving the final development plan.  It ends up being an overlay map in the zoning, which becomes part of the code of the City.  Whatever Council approves is going to restrict the development to that zoning, and that is the decision that is before Council.  It’s the platting and the layout of the property that Planning Commission has been charged with and does have the authority over the entire platting process up and through the final plat.  The main reason for the reduction in the number of times it comes before Council is that a developer would come before Council with a piece of property, and in order to do what they want to do with the PUD or anything, they need to change the property from say A-R, because you can’t really do much with a PUD with A-R property, to S-R or R-1 so that they can then approach it with the PUD and accomplish what they want.   At the point if they were to come back to Planning Commission and Planning Commission were to say they were not very impressed with the PUD and didn’t feel it would be good for the community, the developer may walk away and Council has already rezoned the property.  In the new process, they will only zone it once and that zoning will only stick if Council approves the final development plan.  The only thing left after that point is the final platting, and Planning Commission already has that responsibility. 

 

Ms. Sellers noted that there are non-substantive changes, that under the current code, Council would have authority to review before the plan is approved.  Mr. Cunningham stated Planning Commission did inject some of that language to expedite the process, but these non-substantive changes would not affect density or the layout of the homes.  It would mainly impact engineering.

 

Ms. Sellers noted the criteria under the preliminary plan approval and the final plan approval are somewhat different from the Planning Commission’s perspective and asked why that is?  Relating to these differences when establishing any criteria, she stated the City is not really bound by any statute when it comes to PUD’s.  Cities can do this under home-rule power.  She asked by establishing these criteria, is there a problem with limiting yourself to certain factors that you really don’t have to limit yourself to?  Mr. Cunningham responded that was true, but this helps keep the Commission on track more than anything else.  Planning Commission feels this criteria is broad enough to give them latitude.  Ms. Sellers feels, for the point of clarity, that the criteria should be identical for preliminary and final.  The criteria available to Council under this legislation should be identical to what is available to Planning Commission on the back end.  She noted Section 1145.21 (5).

 

Ms. Sellers feels Planning Commission should not only look at the streets going to be built within the PUD, but also the routes outside the PUD.  Mr. Cunningham stated Planning Commission is currently doing that on a regular basis.  Ms. Sellers noted that was not part of the criteria.

 

Mr. Fogt asked Ms. Sellers if the items mentioned above are worthy of amending the legislation?  Ms. Sellers said yes; she felt these were valid concerns.   She suggested conforming 1145.12 criteria to 1145.21 criteria.  Also, add in the criteria that the streets and thoroughfares affected and proposed….  Ms. Sellers will work with Planning Commission to determine proper language. 

 

The ordinance “TO AMEND CHAPTER 1137, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE” was presented for second reading, public hearing.  Motion was made to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.  Public Hearing will be held on January 26th at 7:00 p.m.

 

The ordinance “TO AMEND SECTION 1105.02, COORDINATION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WITH SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE” was presented for second reading, public hearing.  Motion was made to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.  Public Hearing will be held on January 26th at 7:00 p.m.

 

The ordinance “AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $1,900,000 OF NOTES IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) PURCHASING MOTOR VEHICLES AND RELATED EQUIPMENT THEREFOR, (II) ACQUIRING A PUMPER TRUCK FOR THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE, AND ALL

NECESSARY APPURTENANCES RELATING THERETO, AND (III) PAYING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTING, RESURFACING AND IMPROVING CITY STREETS, WITH RELATED EQUIPMENT AND ALL NECESSARY APPURTENANCES, AND RETIRING NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR SUCH PURPOSE; AND APPROVING THE FORM OF OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELATING TO THE NOTES” was presented for second reading, public hearing.  Motion was made to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.

 

“AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE, ADOPT AND ENACT THE 2005 REPLACEMENT PAGES TO THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES; TO REPEAL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; TO PUBLISH THE ENACTMENT OF NEW MATTER AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY” was presented for first reading, title only.  Mr. Gore commented that this legislation adopts and enacts all the 2005 changes made to the Codified Ordinances of the City of Marysville.  Motion was made to pass the emergency and the question put, stood: 

 

Mr. Fogt  YES  Mr. Gore  YES  Mr. Burke  YES  Mr. Reams  YES  Mr. Pleasant  YES  Mr. Marshall  YES  Ms. Sellers  YES

 

Emergency passed.

 

COMMENTS OF COUNCIL PERSONS AND GENERAL DISCUSSION

 

1.     Parks & Recreation Representative.  Mr. Marshall reported that Parks & Recreation Commission met on December 20 and discussed realigning some field-usage fees.  He noted people reserve the fields then don’t show up.  There are others who could have been using it had they known it was available.   If people have something invested, they will be more likely to cooperate in using the field or canceling the reservation. Legislation is expected on the next Council agenda. 

 

The topic of South Park development was mentioned.  He asked for an update from Administration.  Mr. Cunningham stated the developers for Adena Pointe have agreed as part of the approval of the final plat that they would dig the pond, it is part of the record.

 

Mr. Reams reminded everyone of the Frozen Nose 4-Miler on January 21, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. 

 

Mr. Gore thanked Council for their vote of confidence in electing him President.

 

Motion was made to go into Executive Session at 7:40 p.m. to discuss pending litigation, seconded by Mr. Pleasant and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. Gore  YES Mr. Burke  YES  Mr. Reams  YES  Mr. Pleasant  YES  Mr. Marshall  YES  Ms. Sellers  YES  Mr. Fogt  YES

 

Motion passed.

 

Executive Session adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

 

Regular session reconvened at 8:20 p.m.

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.