Township Board Minutes - December 16, 2002

Mr. Stuart called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Independence Township Library.

Roll Call Present: Kelly, McCrary, Rosso, Stuart, Travis, Wagner, Wenger

Absent: None

Mrs. McCrary thanked the DPW and Facilities Management staff for the wonderful job they did with holiday decorations and the holiday caroling. She wished the Board and community a Happy Holiday season and a Happy New Year.

Mr. Travis also wished everyone a Happy Holiday and Happy New Year.

Mr. Wenger wished everyone peace and contentment this holiday season. He noted the hours that the Township office would be open to receive property tax payments.

Motion by Travis, supported by Wenger, to approve the Minutes of December 3, 2002, as submitted. The motion carried unanimously.

Motion by Travis, supported by Wagner, to approve the Authorization of the Accounts Payable for Purchase Requisitions, dated December 17, 2002, for the total amount of $41,921.14. The motion carried unanimously.

Motion by Travis, supported by Rosso, to approve the authorization of the Accounts Payable Check Run, dated December 17, 2002, for the amount of $408,945.97. The motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Stuart noted that under New Business, item #4: Appointments to Boards and Commissions had been removed and item #6: Manulife Insurance had been added. He also added two closed sessions: Union Negotiations and Pending Litigation.

Motion by Travis, supported by Wagner, to approve the Agenda as amended. The motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Stuart explained that the Public Forum offers individuals in the audience the opportunity to address the Township Board on an issue that is not on the agenda. He asked that those who wish to speak do so from the podium, state their name and address, and limit their comments to not more than three minutes, understanding that the Board will not necessarily take action on their comments this evening.

Hugh Murphy, 8685 Michigamme, introduced himself as the artist who would be displaying his works in the conference room next month.

Dick Carlisle, Township Planner, gave a brief history of the site and an overview of what has happened to this proposal to date. He said that the essential elements remain as reviewed earlier. The major difference is that one of the considerations that both Springfield Township and Independence Township had, the relocation of Deerhill and alignment with Big Lake Road, was denied by the Federal Highway Administration. As a result, Springfield Township reconsidered the original plan and approved it in concept with some conditions applied to it that were more technical in nature. This proposal is now before this Board to request approval of the concept and the project as well as the concept that is being proposed this evening. It was his opinion that this proposal is the best possible one under current circumstances. He noted that as a result of completed traffic studies a number of improvements have been shown on the plans. These include: lane widening on Dixie Highway, the widening of Deerhill so that there is both a right and left hand exit from Deerhill onto Dixie Highway, and the arrangement of the entry and exit to the church to avoid traffic going back into the subdivision. The church has also agreed to change the school’s start time from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. to avoid conflict with the vocational school. He stated that the balance of his comments and those that came from Springfield Township involved more technical issues with the plan such as landscaping, buffering, lighting, etc. The Applicant has agreed to address these comments and the conditions that have been placed upon them by Springfield Township which are as strict or stricter than those that would be imposed by Independence Township.

Steve Joppich, Township Attorney, explained that the consent judgment would be an order entered by the court that contains terms governing how the property can be used. He explained how the consent judgment process would proceed and what it would address (i.e. principal permitted uses and accessory uses, buffering, landscaping, signage, lighting, utilities, storm drainage, incorporation of current plans, school start and finish times, construction activities on Deerhill Drive, etc.). This third amendment to the consent judgment would take precedence over prior consent judgments.

Randy Ford, Township Engineer, elaborated on traffic issues as they related to the site. He said that the current plan reflects the geometrics of the driveway approach off of Deerhill Drive being skewed to discourage eastbound turns onto Deerhill Drive by parishioners. He said that there had been some consideration in having a second traffic light installed at Deerhill and Dixie Highway. The Oakland County Road Commission felt that a more extensive traffic signal analysis would need to be done to determine how the two signals could be timed to work in conjunction with each other. The applicant has proposed to wait and see how the alterations to Dixie Highway and Deerhill function before further exploring the installation of a traffic signal. With regard to the utilities, he commented that there would need to be an intergovernmental agreement between the two townships. Independence Township will provide both water and sewer to the development. Storm drainage is per both communities’ standards. The applicant will be providing on site detention and are meeting the Township’s requirements.

Roger Meyers, legal counsel for the petitioner and owner of the property, highlighted points from his resubmittal letter to the Board regarding the changes to the proposed project and the procedure being pursued for approval. He said that the church has done everything within its control to try to deal with the traffic concerns and propose a project that will be an asset to the community. He said that this evening they were seeking approval of the conceptual plans, authorizing the development of this project in accordance with the plans that are before the Board this evening and in accordance with the conditions that will be included in the text to the amendment to the consent judgment.

Jeff Huhta, P.E., Nowak and Fraus, further explained changes that have been made to the plan taking into consideration the recommendations from the Traffic Consultant and as a result of the completed traffic studies.

Mr. Stuart opened the meeting for public comment.

Karen Sedlak, 7111 Deerhill Drive, questioned what the future development of the site would be. She felt that it was important that the drive be skewed to prevent cut-through traffic. She was also concerned that the proposed sign does not comply with the Township ordinance.

Mr. Stuart said that the conceptual plan before the Board, if approved, would be what goes into the consent judgment.

Mr. Carlisle said that the use for the areas labeled as undeveloped or undisturbed will need to be approved by the respective township boards. The sign will have to be in compliance with ordinance specifications.

Mr. Meyer said that included in the amended consent judgment would be that those areas shall remain undisturbed/undeveloped. If there is a desire in the future to develop those areas for any use it would have to come back before the Board and the applicant would once again have to get permission to amend the consent judgment. This is identical to a PUD.

Russ Walker, 7666 Deerhill Drive, was concerned with eastbound traffic on Deerhill Drive. He wondered if the property that is part of the PUD could be used to enhance the drive to make it impossible for anyone to turn east back into the subdivision. Perhaps make Deerhill a boulevard.

Mr. Stuart said that signage and design of the road should prevent left turns into the sub, however, it would be impossible to monitor this on a constant basis. There will also be signs preventing right turns into the church lot from westbound Deerhill Drive.

Mr. Huhta said that they had proposed a median approach to the Road Commission, however, they rejected it. They said that it would cause problems for roadway maintenance, turn arounds, etc.

Jameson Vitale, 7879 Deerhill Drive, said that going left out of the sub to southbound Dixie Highway is difficult in the mornings. He wondered why Big Lake could not be relocated since there is open space to the south of it along Dixie Highway.

Mr. Stuart said that this had been explored but the land is privately owned and there has been some controversy with Springfield Township regarding the use of that property.

Lori Auchterloni, 7228 Dark Lake Drive, wondered if would be possible for Mr. Stuart to go back to the Oakland County Road Commission to readdress the issue of the median and the traffic signal versus taking a wait and see approach.

Mr. Stuart said that he had met with the Road Commission regarding the boulevard and they are not flexible with their decision. Regarding the signal, he said that a more in-depth study would need to be done to determine if this is a possible solution. He said that this possibility has not been completely dismissed.

Gale Smith, 7325 Deerhill Drive, felt that the issue of cars coming off southbound I-75 and trying to turn left into Deerhill Drive had not been addressed. He believes that the short left turn lane between Big Lake Road and Deerhill Drive will be the sight of many accidents. School buses will have a particularly difficult time turning.

Mr. Carlisle said that at this time there simply is no solution to the problem.

Helen Wilde, 7150 Deerhill Court, asked what the projected parish size and enrollment for the school is.

Mr. Huhta explained that the church is proposing a 2,500 member sanctuary (maximum capacity). The service schedule is: Sunday- 10:00 a.m. to Noon and 5:45 p.m. –8:00 p.m.; Tuesday –7:00 –8:30 p.m. (1,500 member maximum); Saturday- 7-9 p.m. (1,000 member maximum). The school will include an elementary and middle school with a total student capacity of 250 students and a high school with a student capacity of 250. Total school capacity is therefore 400 students with a staff of 35 people. The school schedule is Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Al Gaulin, 7040 Scenic Ridge Drive, said that based on those numbers there could be as many as 600 cars coming to this site 30 minutes before and after a service. He felt that this would be a traffic nightmare.

Lisa Pollock, 7254 Dark Lake Drive, summarized all of the concerns voiced this evening and shared several alternatives/solutions that the neighboring residents had come up with. She asked that a resident of the neighborhood be kept up to date and notified of future decisions as they effect this proposal.

Craig Bennett, 5369 Pheasant Run, asked what the next step would be if this amendment to the consent judgment is approved this evening.

Mr. Carlisle said that now it is a matter of addressing the comments of both the Springfield Township Board (which have already been done) and the Independence Township Board and revising the plans for a finalization by this Board that will be reflected in the consent judgment.

Mr. Joppich further explained that the consent judgment will provide a mechanism for the final site plan to be approved. It will allow the final site plan to go to the Planning Commission if it needs to and then return to the Township Board.

Mrs. McCrary asked if this would be considered one parcel.

Mr. Joppich said there would be one property description attached to the consent judgment.

Mr. Carlisle said that it will be one plan for two parcels governed by one consent judgment.

Mr. Stuart asked if, as part of the consent judgment, the Independence Township property would be rezoned to a single zone. He felt that this should happen and that all of the commercial zoning should be removed.

Mr. Joppich said that is essentially how it is being set up. The judge does not have the power to affirmatively write in an order that a property is rezoned. This can only be done by the Township. He is trying to create a land use authorization in the consent judgment for this property. This is a court order that stipulates that the land can only be used as indicated on the site plan. After the consent judgment is entered the Township will have the power to rezone it. Provisions in the consent judgment will allow for that.

Mr. Stuart asked if language was being put into the consent judgment that the light at the intersection will be pursued and installed if it is approved by the Oakland County Road Commission. He felt that this was important and should be done.

Mr. Joppich said that he could look into this.

Mr. Wenger asked for more clarification on the procedures and what happens if issues are unresolved.

Mr. Joppich indicated that are to be no outstanding issues at the time that the Board approves the consent judgment and it gets entered with the court. It should be back to this Board sometime in January. Once the consent judgment is approved it is merged with the approved concept plan. This is then taken to and entered with the court.

Mr. Kelly was concerned that the applicant had not received anything in writing indicating why the FHA had denied the relocation of Deerhill Drive.

Mr. Huhta said that the church has used every possible measure to get this information.

Mr. Travis suggested that there be a signal installed before a certificate of occupation for this site is issued. He also suggested conditioning any approvals that the Township grants on exploring every possibility of signalization at that location and to have that operational before the church begins its full-time operations as a school, church and daycare.

Mrs. McCrary asked who would pay for the signalization.

Mr. Stuart said that the applicant would probably have to pay for it. He suggested that all concerned citizens send letters to the Oakland County Road Commission requesting a signal at that intersection.

Motion by Stuart, supported by McCrary, to approve the concept plan for the Apostolic Church of Christ conditioned and only effective upon finalization and Township Board approval of a third amendment to the consent judgment applicable to the subject property and further conditioned upon the comments of the Board members this evening, the comments of Dick Carlisle as stated in his report of November 7, 2002, and the comments of Randy Ford (HRC) in his report of December 3, 2002.

Roll Call AYES: Rosso, Stuart, Travis, Wagner, Wenger, Kelly, McCrary

NAYS: None

Randy Ford, HRC, presented his report of December 2, 2002, in which he summarized the results of the Paramus Drive Drainage Study and subsequent recommendations. The cost for option A is approximately $266,000.00 including the road resurfacing that will be necessary due to the construction impacts. The cost for option B would be approximately $235,000.00, utilizing HDPE plastic pipe. The crux of the Paramus Drive drainage problem is that three quarters of the impervious area in the drainage district (constituting 157 acres) outlets unrestricted. The current drainage infrastructure is inadequate to handle the runoff generated from this area. Of the two options Mr. Ford suggested that Option A was the most appropriate as the roadway should not become flooded during a 10 year storm event, which is the criteria under the Township’s Development Design Standards for new developments.

Mr. Stuart asked if it had been determined what percentage of the drainage problem can be contributed to the new homes that were built by the school district.

Mr. Ford said that the homes to the east drain into the detention basin. The homes to the west account for 3.7 acres out of a total of 157 acres in the district that drain unrestricted to Paramus Drive. The school property is about 28.8% of the total flow.

Mr. Wenger asked if there was any problem getting on their site to assess the problem.

Mr. Ford said that there was none.

Mr. Wenger ask if there is anything in Mr. Ford’s report that would indicate that there is definite responsibility of the school district causing a certain percentage of this problem.

Mr. Ford said that 28% of the whole drainage district is the school’s calculated flow. This includes detained and undetained portions of the site.

Mr. Wenger asked if these figures could be contested by other engineers.

Mr. Ford indicated that other engineers would conclude the same numbers.

After much discussion about who should be included in the S.A. D., if the School District should be held at all accountable, and if funding might be possible through Chapter 20 of the drain code, the following motion was made:

Motion by Rosso, supported by Wagner, to table this and instruct the Attorney to review the potential for a Chapter 20 petition and determine how that would effect the spreading of the cost of this project. The motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Stuart said that he had spoken with the West Bloomfield police officers that were in attendance and informed them that the details they had provided were not sufficient and it involved some consideration of the ordinance, which the Township Attorney had not reviewed. He recommended that they submit a more detailed application that can be reviewed by the Attorney.

Motion by Wagner, supported by McCrary, to remove this item from the agenda. The motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Leon Genre, Assistant Director of Building Department, requested modifications to the building permit and plan review fee schedule. The last modification was in 1994. Adopting a standardized fee schedule will increase permit fees 10% to 15% on average, depending on the type and use of the building. One and two family residential will not increase much and some projects may decrease. Non-residential fees will increase, reflecting the inspection time required for large projects. Commercial plan review fees have never covered the cost of this time consuming service, therefore an increase in plan review fees are in order. The adoption of the B.O.C.A. plan review schedule will accomplish two goals: (1) the fees will increase, covering the hours required to complete a full plan review and (2) defending a nationally recognized fee schedule is much easier. The proposed changes would take place in January of 2003.

Motion by Wagner, supported by Wenger, to approve the new Building Permit and Plan Review Fee Schedule as detailed in Mr. Genre’s memo of 12/9/02 and to take effect January, 2003. The motion carried unanimously.

Mrs. McCray requested that the submitted resolution be considered by the Board to support a request that the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) fund an access management study for the M-15 corridor. A similar resolution might also be passed to ask support from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) or Genesee County planning.

Motion by Wagner, supported by Travis, to adopt the following resolution for both MDOT and SEMCOG:

RESOLUTION

FOR M-15 CORRIDOR ACCESS MANAGEMENT STUDY

WHEREAS, the Charter Township of Independence is one of seven communities in the M-15 corridor that has met regularly since 1995 to encourage improvements on M-15 to make travel safer, to reduce congestion and to improve air quality; and

WHEREAS, the Road Commission for Oakland County and the Genesee County Road Commission and other affected agencies have participated in these meetings to improve transportation on M-15; and

WHEREAS, those meetings resulted in a $140 million plan to improve M-15; and

WHEREAS, the Michigan Department of Transportation has been helpful in funding a number of small-scale, short-term projects to improve traffic operations and safety in specific locations; and

WHEREAS, the Michigan Department of Transportation has recently completed a draft environmental impact statement that identifies a preferred alternative for improvements to the corridor; however, no funding is available under Michigan Department of Transportation 5-year plan; and

WHEREAS, the Michigan Department of Transportation has provided information on access management strategies to maintain the capacity of the existing M-15 while funding for the long-range, preferred alternatives is identified;

NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Charter Township of Independence supports the request to the Michigan Department of Transportation for funding to develop an access management plan that will maintain the capacity and safety of the existing M-15 corridor, until long-range funding for the corridor is identified.

This item was removed from the agenda.

Molly Lynch, Library Director, requested permission to purchase a 3M-model 7210 patron self check out machine at a cost of $34,500.

Motion by Rosso, supported by Wagner, to approve the purchase of a 3M-model 7210 patron self check out machine at a cost of $34,500. The motion carried unanimously.

Motion by Wagner, supported by Travis, to approve the amended Adoption Agreement and Board Resolution. The motion carried unanimously.

Motion by Wagner, supported by Rosso, to enter into Closed Session at 10:25 p.m. The motion carried unanimously.

Motion by Wagner, supported by Rosso, to reopen the Regular Meeting at 11:30 p.m.

Motion by Wagner, supported by Travis, to adjourn at 11:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dale A. Stuart, Supervisor
Joan E. McCrary, Clerk