DRAFT

CITY OF ROCKY RIVER

JANUARY 24, 2005

Regular meeting of Council was called to order by Mrs. Bobst, President of Council, at 8:06 p.m.

Council Members Present: Mr. Potterfield, Mr. Frost, Mr. Hurtuk, Mrs. Bartolozzi,

Mrs. Bobst

Absent: Mr. Gollinger, Mr. Hagan

Administration: Mayor Knoble, Mr. Linden, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Lesiecki, Mr. Patterson

Law Director: Mr. Matty

Press: Mrs. McKenzie

The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mrs. Bobst announced that the meeting was being recorded by a resident.

MOTION:

Moved by Mrs. Bobst, seconded by Mr. Frost, that the reading of the minutes of the Legislative Meeting of January 10 and the meeting of the Committee-of-the-Whole and Executive Session of January 18 be waived and that the minutes be accepted as amended.

Discussion: In the minutes of January 10, motions for Ordinance 4-05 were made by Mr. Hagan, not Mrs. Bobst.

Vote: Potterfield - aye Frost - aye Hurtuk - aye

Bartolozzi - aye Bobst - aye

5 ayes 0 nays PASSED

Minutes of the January 18 meeting of the Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee will be considered in committee.

Before the Mayor's report, President Bobst announced consideration of a request made by Mr. Potterfield, for a de novo hearing of the variances granted by the BZA to Rye Croft Row. She began by stating that the purpose was to review two variances granted for Rye Croft Row, 22614 Center Ridge Road, on January 13 by the BZA to see if Council wished to hold a denovo hearing. The first variance allows a front setback of 25' and the second, a side yard setback of 14'. The Riviera West Condominium Association, across the street from the proposed development, has requested that Council review the two variances.

To clarify Council's powers and responsibilities, Mrs. Bobst then read Article VI, Section 2, (1)(B) from the City's Charter:

"Any decision of the Board granting a variance or exception shall not be final and take effect until the seventh (7^th) day after the date of the decision by the Board. During such time period, the applicant, the Director of Community Development, or any elected official of the City may request a review by Council of the decision of the Board. A request for review may be granted by Council if it finds and determines that one or more matters at issue in such a request affect or involve a purpose of the City's development code or the intent of Council is said code's adoption and if such request receives an affirmative vote by five (5) members of Council. She paused to note that this was the first half of the charge. The Charter continues, "If such an affirmative vote is received, Council shall hear the request de novo, with all interested parties having the opportunity to be heard and present evidence in support of their respective position. Council may affirm, reverse, amend or modify the decision of the Board. Should Council fail to hear and decide the request within thirty (30 ) days after the date of the decision of the Board, the decision of the Board shall be final and take effect subject to law. Council may only reverse, amend or modify the decision of the Board by an affirmative vote by five (5) members of Council."

Mrs. Bobst reiterated that only the two granted variances would be discussed. A third variance was denied, so the issue of density would not be discussed this evening. She then turned to Mr. Potterfield who had received the request.

Mr. Potterfield called upon Mr. Matty who first responded to a letter dated January 20, 2005, received from Mr. Mark Stockman of Kahn Kleinman, written on behalf of his client, Aberdeen Investments, Inc. Mr. Matty explained that, by Charter, Council's power of review is limited to variances granted by the Board. Council has no legislative or charter authority concerning denials.

Mr. Potterfield continued, noting that he had received the request by residents of Riviera West relative to Rye Croft Row. He asked if their representative would like to speak.

Tom Kemer, 22701 Center Ridge Road, came forward and said that their issue concerned the best use of the land. Allowing the development to build at 25' v. the 50' required in front would bring it closer to the street. There could be a safety factor involved. The side variance granted is 14'. In examining site plans, he noted that in one case, a patio would be only 5' from Tiffany Ridge. He asked Council to review the variances to protect property values and to be sure that suburbia is not removed from Rocky River.

Mark Stockman, Esq. of Kahn Kleinman represented the developer. He asked Council to defer to the expertise and careful deliberation by the BZA in the two granted variances. Many factors were presented at the hearing and the variances were fully considered.

In the front yard variance, he noted that this development would not come further forward than adjoining properties, thus maintaining the sight line. To the west, a 25' variance was also recently approved. Because the construction will be angled, 25' will be the minimum, 33' the maximum.

In the side yard, they will maintain 14' as a minimum setback, and this will widen toward the back of the property. This will allow larger homes on the property. Decks will not be allowed in the rear, only ground-level patios.

Mr. Potterfield noted that minutes from the meeting had been received and the vote on the front yard issue was 4-1; on the side yard, 3-2.

Mrs. Bobst indicated that she appreciated the detailed minutes written by Mary Ventimiglia. She also noted that Commissioner Beirne had provided an aerial view as well as supporting documentation of materials reflected in the minutes.

Mr. Potterfield asked if both variances need to be considered with a single motion. Mr. Matty said that they did not and recommended that they be considered separately. He reminded Council members that the Charter gave them, as the only reasons for reconsideration, a purpose in the City's development code or the intent of Council in the code's adoption.

MOTION:

Moved by Mr. Potterfield, seconded by Mr. Frost, that the front yard variance from a 50' setback to a 25' setback granted by the BZA be reviewed by Council on practical difficulties.

Discussion: Mr. Potterfield noted that the BZA had spent considerable time on the issue, and that the vote was not unanimous, but was 4-1. Riviera West, located across the street, from the proposed project, would be impacted by the front yard setback. Mrs. Bobst noted that the condominium development is not directly across the street, but one lot to the east. She further noted that a 25' setback would be in keeping with other setbacks in the area, and it would seem to make sense to keep the sight line even on the street.

Vote: Potterfield - aye Frost - nay Hurtuk - nay

Bartolozzi - nay Bobst - nay

1 aye 4 nays DEFEATED

Moved by Mr. Potterfield, seconded by Mr. Frost, that Council review the BZA variance granted to Rye Croft Row for a side yard setback of 14' v 20' side yard setback required under the Code.

Discussion: Mr. Potterfield commented that this was a closer vote, 3-2. Mrs. Bobst remarked that it is interesting that many residential lot lines are closer than 14'. In this development it is the minimum and becomes wider.

Vote: Potterfield - aye Frost - aye Hurtuk - nay

Bartolozzi - nay Bobst - nay

2 ayes 3 nays DEFEATED

Mrs. Bobst thanked residents who attended the meeting.

MAYOR'S REPORT:

Last week the Mayor distributed a proposed policy for driveway apron clearing for older residents and disabled residents living alone. In the absence of Council comments, the Mayor has made small changes and will implement the policy. Applications will be available from the Safety-Service office and the Senior Center.

Sgt. Gulas of the Marine Patrol has been notified that the Lake Erie Safe Boating Council has presented the Sima Marine Award for its top boating organization of the year to the Rocky River Marine Patrol. This is in addition to the ODNR award won for the past seven years.

Discussion: Mrs. Bobst mentioned that she had read in the Plain Dealer of a meeting of mayors and school superintendents and wondered if the Mayor would receive a copy of the minutes of the meeting. The Mayor was unsure because the meeting was called by the County commissioners and was not a meeting of the Mayors and Managers Association.

LAW DIRECTOR'S REPORT:

Mr. Matty has received a revised proposed agreement between the City and ASCAP for the music used by the City. He will review it with Mr. Patterson and come to Council with an ordinance if necessary.

The Law Director also noted that with two members absent, unless ordinances were at a third reading, passage would not be possible this evening, as six members are required to suspend the three-read rule. Resolution No. 14-05 has a deadline of February 1.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Finance Committee: A preliminary agenda has been prepared for the daytime meeting on February 3 and evening meeting on February 7. At this point, Mr. Hurtuk also plans to hold the Public Hearing on February 14.

Planning, Zoning & Economic Development Committee: Mr. Potterfield noted tonight's meeting and announced that he would like to schedule another meeting for February. It was decided that the next meeting would be held on Tuesday, February 22 at 7:00 p.m.

Safety Committee: Mr. Frost announced that the Working Group on Animal Control Laws would meet tomorrow evening to finalize their recommendations to the Safety Committee. He will work with them to set a date for the presentation.

COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:

Mrs. Bobst announced that she has received a letter from the Director of the airport inviting a representative to the quarterly meeting on February 22. Mr. Gollinger customarily represents Council.

Correspondence has been received from Mark Stockman of Kahn Kleinman. (Exhibit "A") Mr. Matty has responded earlier to the letter.

Next week is the fifth Monday of the month, and Council will not be in session. The next meeting will be a Committee-of-the-Whole on February 7, with a Finance Committee meeting tentatively scheduled for February 3.

A meeting for those interested in expressing their views on a skate park was held last Thursday. The meeting addressed very difficult community issues. Mrs. Bobst thanked school officials and the City's administration for working together well on the issue.

A DARE graduation was held with members of Council in attendance, as well as Mayor Knoble.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION:

Mary Pappadakes, 22875 Laramie Drive, addressed Resolution 1-05. She thanked Mayor Knoble for his efforts to beautify the City and move forward. As a co-owner of property across the street, she and her tenants are looking forward to the changes which will be brought about by this legislation.

Doug Burns, 19330 Riverwood Avenue, (Also Resolution No. 1-05) discussed the parking problem of residents on Riverwood because of the lack of parking for businesses on Wooster. He said that ordinarily, business owners park on their street to save spaces behind their businesses for customers, and residents have difficulty moving cars or finding spaces close to their houses. A petition was circulated some time ago to prohibit parking on the street from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., but without support from the unaffected end of the street, it failed to win the 70% necessary. He hopes that this is successful in restoring parking to his neighborhood.

Steve Dever, 2126 Wooster Road, (Also, Resolution No. 1-05), thanked the Mayor for exercising leadership. He expressed his opinion that the property in question has been a problem since 1923 when it was built. He said that if successful this will benefit the community by beautifying the corner which will affect the quality of the neighborhood and provide a needed bus shelter for elderly residents at Cliff Towers and customers of the shops on Wooster. He had no personal animus toward Mr. Spremulli who has always been a good neighbor and courteous, but he feels that the City will benefit from a garden spot on Wooster which will upgrade a neighborhood with many vacancies. This could be a catalyst for beautification of the neighborhood. In short, he is in favor of moving forward and acquiring the property.

Bob Kelly, 20177 WestHaven Lane, addressed Ordinance No. 2-05, the rezoning on Lake Road. He asked about the status of the ordinance. He was told that it is pending before the Planning Commission which continued the item until its meeting of February 15. Mr. Kelly also asked about notification. Mr. Matty responded that property owners will be notified when the ordinance is returned from the Planning Commission and a public hearing is held by Council

RESOLUTION NO. 133-04 BY EARL W. POTTERFIELD

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN KNOWN AS THE ROCKY RIVER MASTER PLAN

The Master Plan is being reviewed by the Planning Commission and is scheduled for further review by the Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee.

RESOLUTION NO. 1-05 BY MAYOR WILLIAM F. KNOBLE

A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO APPROPRIATE A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN CERTAIN REAL ESTATE

2^ND READING

The Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee review of this resolution will continue with a view toward a recommendation when their work is complete.

ORDINANCE NO. 2-05 BY EARL W. POTTERFIELD

AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS AUDITOR'S PERMANENT PARCEL NOS. 301-17-001, 301-17-005, 301-17-006 AND 301-17-018 FROM THEIR PRESENT CLASSIFICATION OF LOCAL BUSINESS TO MULTI-FAMILY (MF-R5), AS FURTHER DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"

Mr. Potterfield noted that this ordinance has been referred to the Planning Commission. It will be reviewed at their meeting on February 15.

RESOLUTION NO. 14-05 BY PAMELA E. BOBST

AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT ROCKY RIVER PARK

1^ST READING

Mrs. Bobst noted that because only five members of Council were present, no ordinances on tonight's agenda could be passed. She indicated that a memo dated 1/20 had explained the application for a grant. A donation of $20,000 had come from the Rocky River Recreation Foundation had made these improvements a possibility, and with a deadline of February 1, Mrs. Bobst explained that a date for a Special Meeting will be discussed at the conclusion of tonight's meeting.

Mr. Patterson, Director of Recreation, came forward to further explain this resolution. He said that the establishment of the Parks and Recreation Foundation four years ago and their very successful hole-in-one contest had made the project of solving the erosion problem at Rocky River Park possible. This project will also add to handicap accessibility. At the top of the hill, space will be provided for memorial plantings which are frequently requested. Also featured will be a concrete block deck. He thanked Christine Jurs for her preliminary design and cost estimate, and Kory Koran for his assistance in preparing the proposal.

ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS UNDER CONSENT

ORDINANCE NO. 3-05 BY BRIAN F. HAGAN

AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY-SERVICE TO PURCHASE OFFICE SUPPLIES UNDER THE STATE COOPERATIVE PURCHASING ACT FROM OFFICE MAX

2^ND READING

This ordinance was discussed last week at the Committee-of-the-Whole.

ORDINANCE NO. 5-05 BY LINDA S. BARTOLOZZI

AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SAFETY-SERVICE DIRECTOR TO PURCHASE ONE (1) 2005 3/4 TON PICK UP TRUCK WITH SNOW PLOW PACKAGE FOR THE SERVICE DIVISION UNDER THE STATE COOPERATIVE PURCHASING ACT FROM BOB ROSS BUICK AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $20,168.50

2^ND READING

ORDINANCE NO. 9-05 BY BRIAN F. HAGAN

AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 153.131, OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ROCKY RIVER ENTITLED "HEALTH BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BARGAINING UNIT" AND AS FURTHER DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"

1^ST READING

This ordinance will bring the Code into conformance with agreements between the City and the WWTP employees.

ORDINANCE NO. 10-05 BY BRIAN F. HAGAN

AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 153.151 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ROCKY RIVER, ENTITLED "UNIFORM ALLOWANCES FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BARGAINING UNIT" AND AS FURTHER DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"

1^ST READING

See discussion for Ordinance No. 9-05.

ORDINANCE NO. 11-05 BY BRIAN A. HURTUK

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT BANK CREDIT CARDS FOR PAYMENT FOR PURCHASES AT CITY FACILITIES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

1^ST READING

ORDINANCE NO. 12-05 BY ROBERT S. FROST

AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 139.01 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ROCKY RIVER ENTITLED "COMPOSITION" AS FURTHER DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A"

1^ST READING

ORDINANCE NO. 13-05 BY BRIAN F. HAGAN

AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY-SERVICE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH CONSERVE AIR COMPANY FOR THE GENERAL MAINTENANCE AND EMERGENCY REPAIR OF HEATING AND COOLING SYSTEMS SERVICING THE BUILDINGS OWNED BY THE CITY OF ROCKY RIVER FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR NOT TO EXCEED $30,000.00

1^ST READING

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:

A tentative time for the special meeting was set for Wednesday, January 26 at 8:00 a.m. A notice will be posted 24 hours before the meeting as required by Code.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION: NONE

As there was no further business by members of Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.

_______________________________ _______________________________

Pamela E. Bobst Misao Kurokawa

President of Council Clerk of Council

Please note: This is a draft copy of the minutes of the Legislative Meeting of January 26, 2005. These minutes may be revised or amended at the next Legislative Meeting.

DRAFT

CITY OF ROCKY RIVER

JANUARY 24, 2004

Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee

The meeting of the Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Potterfield, at 7:03 p.m. in the David J. Cook Council Chambers.

Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee Members Present:

Mr. Potterfield, Mrs. Bartolozzi, Mr. Hurtuk

Absent: Mr. Gollinger

Council Members present: Mrs. Bobst

Administration: Mayor Knoble

Law Director: Mr. Matty

At the beginning of the meeting, Mrs. Bobst announced that all participants should be aware that their comments were being recorded by a resident.

Mr. Potterfield opened the meeting, called to discuss two topics, by introducing the first topic, Resolution No. 1-05, which states an intent to appropriate a fee simple interest in certain real estate.

Mr. Matty recalled that in his tenure as Law Director, he has had two experiences with appropriations on Center Ridge; for each, the City has retained a special counsel because such counsel is needed. He went on to introduce Anthony Coyne from Mansour Gavin Gerlock and Manos, who will act as special counsel for this appropriation as he did with the prior appropriations.

Mr. Coyne outlined the general procedure:

• •The statutory regulations are covered by the Ohio Revised Code under Section 163 which includes preparatory language, guides and advisories. Under home rule, cities use their charters as a guide. Reasons for eminent domain may be many, as cities may need to acquire property for any public use-a city hall, public school, park, parking lot, senior center, road or elimination of slum or blight.
  
  
• •A Council resolution identifies the property subject to appropriation and purchase at fair market value.
  
  
• •Once passed, the property owner is served with notice.
  
  
• •Negotiations follow in an effort to determine the fair market value.
  
  
• •An ordinance to use eminent domain is passed. At this point, the City, through its special counsel, initiates eminent domain which, in Cuyahoga County, is handled by the Probate Court. The petition is filed; just compensation is included.
  
  
• •At this point, the owner has the opportunity to file an answer, contesting the right to appropriate and/or the valuation of the property. If the judges uphold the right to take the property but there is no agreement on the compensation, the matter may go to a jury trial.
  
  
• •A jury hears testimony from appraisers and economic development experts and determines the fair market value. The City must either pay this compensation or abandon the project.
  
  

Mr. Potterfield clarified his understanding that the two salient points are the right to take the property for public use and the valuation. Mr. Coyne agreed.

Mrs. Bobst asked, in general terms, about the length of the project. Mr. Coyne responded that the legislative process, resolution and ordinance, are determined by the City. Following passage, the petitions can be filed quickly; the property owner has the right to file an answer within 28 days. A hearing may be held within 5 days, but in this county, generally the process is more deliberate, with a mutually agreeable schedule for pretrials, etc. Mr. Coyne estimated that, generally speaking, the process can be complete within 9 months unless unusual issues are raised.

Mr. Potterfield asked if Council had questions or comments, and hearing none, opened the meeting to comments from the public.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION: NONE

Mr. Potterfield then asked for Administration input. Mayor Knoble noted that in the past, this property has had a non-conforming use, although he does not believe that the current use of auto repair is a pre-existing non-conforming use. The issue is that a vibrant retail community of six stores and a four-store plaza on Wooster are plagued with inadequate parking. Since the Mayor has resolved not to take residential property because of zoning and other issues, that leaves the existing garage facility that was a non-conforming gas station. He then outlined new uses for the property:

• •Citing a desperate need to relocate the RTA bus stop, the City plans an enclosed bus shelter on the front of the property facing Wooster.
• •Behind the shelter will be a mini-park, not with playground equipment, but with landscaping to beautify the area.
• •Behind the park will be a landscaped mini-parking area with approximately 10-12 spaces for public use, but not for overnight parking. It will be mainly for patrons of the 10 area businesses.
  
  

The Mayor indicated that the goal of the Administration is to keep the area strong and allow patrons to park easily and walk to stores. Presently there is less than one space available per store on the street and approximately 3 per store in the plaza.

Mr. Potterfield asked if the merchants have attempted to buy property to enhance their parking. The Mayor pointed out that there is no property to acquire which is not residential other than this facility.

Mr. Frost asked if there were planned restrictions on parking. The Mayor responded that this would be open public parking, but not overnight.

Mrs. Bobst asked how this would impact the problem of patrons parking on residential side streets. The Mayor indicated that this has been a problem on Riverwood, for owners of the first six or seven houses from Wooster. The Safety-Service Department has had many complaints from residents about parking in front of their homes.

Mr. Potterfield noted the absence of Mr. Gollinger, the ward Councilman. He proposed deferring a recommendation to Council until Mr. Gollinger is able to be in attendance and that was the consensus of the committee.

The second topic, sewer tie-in fees, has had a long history, summarized by the Mayor. He noted that consideration was initiated by the Administration, going back before last year. The committee reviewed these fees in conjunction with a number of related fees. It was precipitated by the Mayor's realization that in some cases, many hours were spent by City crews who sometimes had to tear up streets to connect new construction into the sewer system. Without fees, there was no way for the City to recoup its costs. An ordinance was drafted and passed that resembled one prepared for the City of Solon. The situation unraveled because there were two separate and distinct issues involved: the right to tie into the City's existing sewer system and who will do the actual tie-in and pay for it. The ordinance did not define either issue, and the cost per unit for multi-family developments did not take into account situations where housing units were replaced, and did not grant credit for existing connections. These problems were brought forward by new developments such as Beachcliff Row and Hamlets West.

The Mayor asked Director Koran to look at the situation based upon his experience in regional planning and an internet survey of other communities. With the cooperation of Commissioner Beirne, he formulated a schedule of residential and commercial tie-in fees which vary with the facility; it provides for the tie-in to be done by the developer with on-site City inspectors whose time will be billed to the contractor. The end result provides for more clearly defined charges and their application. This proposed fee schedule is more in keeping with communities in our area and is more workable than our current ordinance. The problem which remains is the adjustment of charges for those few parties who have applied for permits in the interim period.

Mr. Potterfield asked if anyone has paid the fees in the current structure. The Mayor said that Hamlets West has paid for three units which it wished to begin immediately. Mr. Potterfield noted that the City allows builders to break projects into components for construction and apply for permits accordingly. The Mayor confirmed that that has always been the City's policy.

Mr. Hurtuk agreed that the current charges are excessive. He asked if it is possible to backdate or make changes retroactive.

• •The Mayor indicated that there were situations in which the City had given developers a list of fees which did not include any of the charges; when developers returned for a permit, fees had been imposed in the meantime, and the Mayor did not feel this is fair. There was no indication given to developers that the fees were under scrutiny and about the change.
• •Mr. Matty said that a moral claim can be filed by anyone who feel he has been somehow harmed by the lack of communication in the change of fees. He said that the code is the code and must be applied regardless of the situation.
  
  

The Mayor agreed with Mr. Hurtuk's opinion that the Administration, through the Building Department should have taken steps to either notify those affected or post through some means other than minutes.

Mr. Hurtuk asked how many units have been proposed during this period. The Mayor estimated easily 100 (Beachcliff Row 27, Center Ridge, 35, Chandler on River Oaks 42, Wynwood 2 or 3, E. Asplin, 11). He said that if moral claims were the only way to reimburse those who paid higher fees, the City could do it.

Mr. Matty explained that the situation was difficult and acknowledged the presence of an objector in the audience. In the bigger picture, no matter what Council decides to do, if there is a moral claim allowed, Council must replenish the tap-in fund. It cannot create exceptions, rebates or refunds without paying the difference to the sanitary sewer fund from City funds.

• •Mrs. Bobst asked if a budget line item has been created for tap-in fees. The Mayor said that for 2005, it has not.
  
  

Mr. Potterfield noted that there can be problems with seemingly routine sewer connections. In his ward, some unique drainage problems existed on Pocono and Goldwood, for instance, and were a consistent source of irritation. The problem was in the designed capacity which was overloaded by new development on Center Ridge. Approximately 7 or 8 years ago, an interceptor was installed by the City, paid for by taxpayers, which directs the overflow directly to Spencer Creek This is an example of the consequence of redevelopment areas along Center Ridge. He therefore, does not see the fee structure as too excessive.

• •Mr. Hurtuk indicated that he was offended by the suggestion of those outside the development business world who feel that there must be more than enough money to cover any contingency. He commented that he would not favor legislation which created a burden on anyone based upon situations created in the past. He feels that the current tap-in fees are somewhat excessive.
  
  

Mr. Potterfield stated that it was not up to him to determine what developers charge. He does feel, however, that the City bears many unknown costs and must compensate in other areas. Recovering some of these costs is a practical matter.

• •Mr. Hurtuk indicated that he feels the Mayor's recalculation is reasonable.
  
  

Mr. Matty suggested that when considering the issue, not to be concerned about backdating. However, he raised the issue of the redevelopment credit for those that actually take a structure out of the system and replace it with other units, not receiving credit for what was taken out of the system. The Building Commissioner can determine if a unit has been taken out. If adopted, the tap in fee as originally determined does contain valid fees until amended, so this missing component of credits for units removed from the system could be considered. If appeals are to be considered, by ordinance, they should be routed through the BZA. If the City grants rebates or waivers of fees, then it must pay, or the fees will not be valid for the next applicant.

• •The Mayor said that it is not his intention to consider waivers in the future and has no need to place provisions in the legislation. When a reasonable fee is in place, waivers will be unnecessary; the current fees are not reasonable. He feels that some of Councilman Potterfield's sentiments are anti-development. He has tried to be fair, looking at other cities' fees to be certain that Rocky River is competitive. He requested that if the committee cannot come to an agreement, Council as a whole act to keep the City moving forward.
  
  
• •Mr. Potterfield asserted that he has never said that he discouraged development, and that he does not think that. He would like to cultivate redevelopment which benefits the City. His approach may be different, but he does not discourage development.
  
  

Mr. Hurtuk recommended that some time be taken during the Committee-of-the-Whole to continue the dialogue on this issue and see if a recommendation can be made to Council. Mrs. Bartolozzi agreed.

Mr. Potterfield said that he had no problem with that approach. He posed a question: if a single family home is replaced by another single family home but the connection is in a different location what charges would apply?

• •Mrs. Bobst observed that, in that case, the developer would be responsible for the physical tie-in, so the only charge would be inspection by the City. There are three aspects: 1) the connection 2) inspection of the connection 3) impact of the tap-in itself.
  
  

Mr. Potterfield noted that the discussion will continue at the Committee-of-the-Whole in two weeks. He indicated that the committee has other pending discussion topics, e.g Building Department recommendations and Resolution 1-05.

Mr. Matty requested that at that meeting, a consensus be reached and a recommendation made so that he can begin to prepare legislation for review. Without such guidance, he is unable to draft an ordinance.

• •Mrs. Bobst asked if Council were to amend the current fees, whether they could be enacted and applied to current applicants. Mr. Matty said they could.
  
  
  
  

There was no further discussion from Council, and following a motion by Mr. Potterfield, seconded by Mrs. Bartolozzi, and a unanimous affirmative vote, the meeting was adjourned at

8:01 p.m.

_______________________________ _______________________________

Earl W. Potterfield, Chairman Misao Kurokawa

Planning, Zoning and Economic Clerk of Council

Development Committee

Please note: This is a draft copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee of January 24, 2005. These minutes may be amended or revised at the next Legislative Meeting.

DRAFT

CITY OF ROCKY RIVER

JANUARY 26, 2005

The Special Meeting of Council was called to order by Mrs. Bobst, President of Council at 8:00 a.m.

Council Members Present: Mr. Gollinger, Mr. Potterfield, Mr. Frost, Mr. Hurtuk (8:07)

Mrs. Bartolozzi, Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Bobst

Administration: Mayor Knoble, Mr. Patterson

Law Director: Not required or requested

Mrs. Bobst opened the meeting with a statement that its purpose is to discuss Resolution 14-05.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION: NONE

RESOLUTION NO. 14-05 BY PAMELA E. BOBST

AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT ROCKY RIVER PARK

2^ND READING

Moved by Mrs. Bobst, seconded by Mr. Gollinger, that the rule requiring that Resolution No. 14-05 be read on three separate days be suspended, and that Resolution No. 14-05 be placed upon its passage:

Discussion: With a February 1 grant application deadline, this resolution must be passed without delay.

Vote: Gollinger - aye Potterfield - aye Frost - aye

Bartolozzi - aye Hagan - aye Bobst - aye

6 ayes 0 nays PASSED

Moved by Mrs. Bobst, seconded by Mr. Gollinger, that Resolution No. 14-05 be passed as read:

Discussion: As discussed at last week's meeting, Mr. Patterson has prepared a memo outlining the additional financing and the plans for the site. Mr. Gollinger asked about plans if the grant were not to be received. Mr. Patterson indicated that because of erosion problems, the situation would be revisited and discussed. Mr. Gollinger then asked about the nature of the improvements. Mr. Patterson mentioned the terraces which would address erosion and provide additional seating for

the summer band concerts, and the addition of handicap accessibility.

Vote: Gollinger - aye Potterfield - aye Frost - aye

Hurtuk - aye Bartolozzi - aye Hagan - aye

Bobst - aye

7 ayes 0 nays PASSED

As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:08 a.m.

__________________________________ _____________________________

Pamela E. Bobst Misao Kurokawa

President of Council Clerk of Council

Please note: This is draft copy of the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 26, 2005. These minutes may be amended or revised at the next Legislative Meeting.