APPROVED
Minutes of a Work Session
Pittsfield Charter Township Board of Trustees, January 13, 2003
E.A. Jackson Morris Hall, The Robert A. Lillie Service Center
6201 W. Michigan Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108
___________________________________________________________________________________
1.0 Call Meeting to Order
Supervisor Walter called the
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., a quorum was present.
2.0 Pledge of Allegiance led bySupervisor Walter.
3.0 Roll Call – all members present.
4.0 Open Meetings Act/Public Comment I None
5.0 Public Hearings/Presentations
Supervisor Walter explained that this meeting was about the configuration, layout, and appearance of the tank and pump station for the township water supply system. He introduced Robert Czachorski of Ayres, Lewis, Norris & May, Inc., township consulting engineer.
5.1 Presentation on Choosing Design for the New Water Tank.
Robert Czachorski introduced Bob Hart of Uppgrent & Associates, the architect for the project. Mr. Czachorski said he would present several options for the location and alignment of the tank and booster station on the proposed site, and also several renderings depicting what the tank might look like on the site. He said the focus tonight would be on the tank and booster station, and would not be about the transmission main, because the tank location was the most critical issue at this time. He said the first item for discussion was the tank’s location on the site; Mr. Czachorski pointed out three possible site locations on an exhibit for the Board. He said the tank could be placed on the front of the site (Option #1), on the middle of the site (Option #2), or at the back of the site (Option #3); he gave a brief explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of each location. He said the second item for discussion was the architectural and surface treatment of the tank, and that Mr. Hart had put together a collage showing some of the choices. He said the third item for discussion would be deciding on the two possibilities that exist for the tank roof, either a flat roof or a domed roof. He said a flat roof would be necessary if the township intended to use the tank as an observation platform for the park, but it would be more expensive. He said the domed roof is less expensive because the arch provides a natural support structure; if the roof was flat, structural steel and columns would be necessary inside the tank to support the roof. He said the fourth item for discussion would be the dimensions of the tank; the tank is a cylinder, so there are many combinations of height versus how big the footprint would be; the bigger the footprint or diameter of the tank, the shorter it can be made. He said the handout showed three different combinations of height and diameter, all of which are possible, with the shortest possible tank being 25 feet tall. If the tank is much shorter than 25 feet, the floor is large and complex, which increases the cost of the tank because it is more expensive to build floor slab than tank walls. He went on to say all of tonight’s illustrations are done with a tank height of 25 feet, with the idea that the township intended to minimize the profile of the tank on the site; however, if the tank were taller, the benefit would be that it would have a smaller footprint.
Supervisor Walter asked if there was also a water quality question. He wondered if shallow water spread over a large diameter would stagnate, versus a smaller diameter which could keep the water flowing.
Mr. Czachorski agreed that it is harder to mix a column of water that is short and spread out, and easier to mix a tank that is taller and smaller in diameter.
Supervisor Walter said that when height was discussed, mixing should be taken into consideration as well as the visual aspect.
Mr. Czachorski said he believed a 25 foot tall tank is still feasible from a mixing point of view, adding that the water quality was also affected by the level of chlorine residual. He said the engineers are starting to look at the chlorine residual that is currently in the system. He added that with a new five mile long transmission main and an additional five million gallons of storage, water will remain in those facilities for a period of time, causing a drop off in the chlorine residuals. He said the engineers have looked at the chlorine residuals in the last few days, and it appears that the residual levels in Pittsfield are high enough to prevent degradation below existing water quality standards. He then presented information on factors used to determine the vertical elevation of the bottom of the tank. He said there is a limit to how deep the tank can buried, because MDEQ does not want the finished floor level of the tank set below the ground water level for safety reasons; this is to prevent ground water from infiltrating the drinking water in the tank. He said the ground water table is probably between elevations of 810 and 820 feet, which represents the deepest the tank can be buried. He also said soil boring is in process along with ground water monitoring, so a good engineering determination of ground water levels can be done. He said the deeper the tank is buried, the more grading and site excavation is necessary. He added that this also presents some engineering challenges for the booster station, which must be built below the floor level of the tank.
Trustee Conner asked if the tank was built, as an example, 75 feet tall, would water need to be pumped into it.
Mr. Czachorski said yes, that’s why there is a practical limit to how high the tank can be built, because the intention is to be able to fill the tank with the pressure that’s available from YCUA. He said the limit of the height of the tank is probably around 40 or 50 feet, and explained that the grade elevation that would come into the tank is probably around 870 to 880 feet. This would be the hydrostatic water level of the pressure from YCUA; therefore, as long as the top of the tank is below that, it could be filled.
Trustee Conner inquired if the determination of the tank’s shape will be based on the engineer’s calculations.
Mr. Czachorski said yes, that, for example, the tank couldn’t be placed on the highest point of the site and built to be 75 feet tall because the pressure from YCUA would not be sufficient to fill it. He said the engineers would make sure the tank is designed so that it could be filled using the pressure supplied by YCUA. He went on with the presentation, stating the next point would be the location of the booster station relative to the tank. He said the booster station could go in front, on the side, or behind the tank. He said the engineers considered putting the station in front of the tank to help shield the tank from view, especially if the booster station were designed to look like a single room schoolhouse or farm structure. However, since the front dimension of the booster station is 40 to 60 feet, and it is shorter than the tank, it would look like a speck in front of the tank rather then shielding it from view. The booster station would be put on the side if the tank was going to be used as an overlook. Finally, if the station was behind the tank, it would not be seen at all from Textile Road.
Clerk Lirones pointed out that the booster station would be more visible from the mobile home park if it was in back of the tank.
Mr. Czachorski said that was correct. He said there is a fairly decent tree line there that shields the site a little; however, at this time of year, one can see right through the tree line.
Trustee Conner asked what would be visible from the top of the tank if it was used as an observation deck.
Mr. Czachorski said observers would be able to see the tree line and the lower portion of the site, but could not see over the trees.
Supervisor Walter said the original idea for using this as an observation deck came up because a Parks and Recreation Commission grant application was submitted a few years ago for this site. The application included an observation deck to be built down in the wetland area. However, there were two concerns about an observation deck on the tank: first, as Mr. Czachorski pointed out, the wetland could not be seen from this location, and second, if people were allowed on top of the tank, maintaining security of the township’s drinking water was an issue. He said unless any of the Board members wanted to keep the observation deck as an option he would be willing to drop it.
Trustee Brostrom said at one time there was a tentative plan for ball fields on this site. He asked if the proper placement of the tank could still make that an option.
Supervisor Walter said he didn’t think so, the Township has plenty of land elsewhere for ball fields. He said the idea is not to have a large number of people there, but still to keep it open for some picnic areas, with access from Saline Meadows for the residents there.
Trustee Brostrom said that was a good idea, and should be taken in consideration in terms of the tank’s placement.
Clerk Lirones said in general she favored the placement shown in Option #2. She then asked how much a flat roof would add to the cost of the structure.
Mr. Czachorski said he had spoken with representatives of the companies that manufacture these tanks. They indicated that a flat roof would add 5% or 6% to the cost of the tank, or about $100,000.00 in this case.
Clerk Lirones asked if the additional internal support structure needed for a flat roof would require additional maintenance.
Mr. Czachorski said not necessarily.
Clerk Lirones then asked how much the dome would add to the height of a 25 foot tall structure.
Mr. Czachorski said it’s about 10% of the diameter; with a 25 foot tall structure having a 185 foot diameter; it would add about 18 feet.
Clerk Lirones clarified with Mr. Czachorski that on a 25 foot tank it would be another 18 feet to the top of the dome.
Trustee Conner referred to illustrations provided by Mr. Hart, and asked if the renderings depicting circular barns could be an idea for the design of the tank.
Mr. Czachorski asked Mr. Hart if the renderings were of circular pump houses.
Mr. Hart said the renderings were of actual circular barns and were shown as an idea that could be incorporated into pump house structures.
Mr. Czachorski remarked that the tank could be disguised to look like a circular barn.
Trustee Conner asked if something like that could be done for $100,000.00 as opposed to doing the flat roof.
Mr. Hart said if he were to offer his opinion on a domed roof versus a flat roof, he would go for the flat roof and keep the structure as low and simple as possible. From an aesthetic standpoint, he recommended against using pilasters or other decorative surface treatments to attempt to disguise the tank.
Mr. Czachorski then pointed out the two photo illustrations which showed one structure with a domed roof and the other structure with a flat roof, both with the same diameter.
Supervisor Walter asked if the photos were taken at eye level from the street, and noted that the flat roof showed more of the tree line behind it.
Clerk Lirones asked if the tank shown closest to the street was actually the lowest.
Mr. Czachorski said yes to both questions, but the tank shown closest to the street was buried more. He went on to finish with the architectural options, saying the booster station could be made to look like several things, for example a single room schoolhouse, barn, or farmhouse. He said if the station were put behind the tank, it could just look like a normal utilitarian municipal structure. He said landscaping could range from something elaborate with a lot of terraces and plantings, to something very simple and naturalized that fits in with the rural characteristics of the site. He then said all of the renderings were shown without any fencing, but from a security standpoint fencing was needed, adding that a high chain link fence was not the only option. In closing, he said the options presented tonight represented all the variations of the site the engineers could think of, and he hoped to leave tonight with an idea of where the township would like the tank and booster station placed on the site. He said it was important to get the tank designed and have the plans in the hands of the regulatory agencies by the beginning of March 2003 in order to meet the more aggressive schedule that has these facilities coming online around June 1, 2004.
Supervisor Walter asked where the best placement for the tank was from a hydraulic standpoint.
Mr. Czachorski said hydraulically he likes the locations of Option #2 or Option #3.
Clerk Lirones said she had thought the engineers would like Option #1, right by the road.
Mr. Czachorski said he liked the idea of being right by the road because it reduces the length of the piping and access road; however with that option he likes the tank high. He said the rendering shown with the tank closest to the road shows the tank buried as deep as possible, and any burial presents a lot of engineering problems. He said taking the eight or nine possibilities he presented tonight, the engineers came up with three renderings which certainly don’t represent an exhaustive list of possibilities, but are three feasible options. He then displayed Option #1 which showed the tank on the front of the site with an overlook. He said the grading on the site would slope up to cover the front half of the tank, so the observation deck would be located in the back half of the tank, shown as a crescent on the drawing. He said burying the tank, as shown in the illustration, would make engineering difficult for hydraulic reasons. The pumps have to be located at about the bottom level of the tank or a little deeper, with the floor level of the pump station a couple of feet below the pumps. This could cause a situation where the bottom level of the pump station is 5 to10 feet below the bottom level of the tank; therefore, if the tank is buried deep the pump station is buried even deeper. If the booster station is located on the front or side of the tank it would be placed uphill, which compounds the problem of the bottom level of the tank causing the bottom level of the booster station to get deeper.
Clerk Lirones asked if the township wanted to place the tank in that same location without the observation deck, would it still present the same problems with the booster station.
Mr. Czachorski said it would still present the same problems.
Supervisor Walter asked if the booster station would have to go behind the tank at that location.
Mr. Czachorski said yes, the floor level of the tank shown in this option is at an elevation of 815 feet, which means the floor level of the pump station might be at 810 feet. At this location’s grade level, which is 835 feet, the floor level on the booster station would be 25 to 30 feet deep, which is very deep from a structural standpoint. He also expressed concern about providing adequate drainage for protection against flooding. If something were to happen to one of the pumps or one of the fittings, the whole floor level would flood with no way to get the water out. He said ideally the engineers would like to see the pump station floor level at a grade at which a gravity drain could be installed. That way, if something does happen, the water drains out of the station and no damage is caused to the pumps or the motors.
Trustee Brostrom asked if it was necessary to excavate the deep floor level in this location, or could the tank and booster station sit higher in order to have a more shallow excavation.
Mr. Czachorski said it was possible for them to sit higher.
Trustee Brostrom said with the tank being visible, he would like to find a compromise height and do some evergreen planting to conceal it from the road.
Mr. Czachorski said this location was picked for the observation platform because of the hill on the site, which meant less grading would be necessary to build the platform.
Clerk Lirones asked how high the tank would be with the flat roof if it were not buried.
Mr. Czachorski said it would look more like the second photo illustration, which has a floor slab elevation of 825 feet, which is a more feasible vertical elevation of the tank from a groundwater standpoint.
Supervisor Walter asked if the second location shown in the drawing for Option #2 was moved halfway to the railroad tracks and slightly north, would the access road’s entrance line up with Marton Road, thus avoiding additional traffic problems due to turns.
Mr. Czachorski said there would be no problem sliding the tank north and west, but it would depend on where the booster station was put.
Supervisor Walter said it seemed as though in Option #2, the idea was to put the booster station to the west or to the south.
Mr. Czachorski said Option #2 shows the booster station located to the southwest, which puts the booster station down hill which is the ideal engineering solution. He said if the tank were moved northwest on the site, the booster station would no longer be downhill as much.
Supervisor Walter asked if the booster station was put to the south would it then be downhill.
Mr. Czachorski said if the booster station was put to the south or behind the tank, then it would be downhill.
Clerk Lirones said the railroad there is very active and there are also fires along the right of way every now and then, so from a safety standpoint, the booster station should not be that close to the tracks.
Supervisor Walter said there would need to be a strip of grass or stones there to serve as a firebreak, and commented that the access road could also act as a firebreak.
Mr. Czachorski then showed the Board two photographs of the tank disguised as a stone wall, one with a flat roof and one with a domed roof, in the Option #2 location. He said the photograph with the flat roof shows how much vertical elevation a domed roof adds.
Trustee Conner asked if there would be water in the dome.
Mr. Czachorski said no, the dome would just be structural.
Supervisor Walter asked if the internal columns for a flat roof would be poured concrete.
Mr. Czachorski said he believed they would be. He then moved on to the drawing depicting the third location, Option #3, stating this was a simple, ordinary looking structure, with no decorative surface, showing a domed roof which is less expensive. He said the tank and booster station in this rendering have been placed as far back on the site as possible to reduce its profile, adding that the photo illustrations were misleading, giving a narrow view. He suggested the Board members drive out to the site and hold the renderings up to get a better idea of what the tank looks like on the horizon.
Supervisor Walter asked if security questions for Option #3 had been considered because it was hidden from view but close to a lot of people due to proximity to the mobile home park, allowing opportunity for mischief to occur.
Mr. Czachorski said that was certainly a consideration, but he wasn’t sure if there was much of a security difference in either of the locations set further back on the site.
Clerk Lirones said it was important to bear in mind that when reducing the view from Textile Road, the view is increased for Saline Meadows. She said for that reason she is favoring the second location, Option #2, and likes the flat roof. She then asked if the Township would be spending more money if the tank was placed as shown in Option #3 because it is so far back.
Mr. Czachorski said locations #2 and #3 are both at the same finished floor elevation, so from a pumping point of view the cost would be the same. However, Option #3 would be more expensive because it is far back on the site and would require a longer access drive and piping.
Clerk Lirones asked if it was possible that the money saved placing the tank in a back location with a domed roof would be expended because of the extra piping.
Mr. Czachorski said perhaps that may be the case. He went on to say the other point about the illustration for Option #3 is the booster station is made to look more like a utilitarian structure. He said he wanted to stress that any combination of all the options identified would be feasible, and from an engineering standpoint the most important thing would be to have the booster station downhill from the tank.
Mary Ellen Wall, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, asked where the security fencing would be in relation to the tank and the overlook.
Mr. Czachorski said it seemed as though the overlook and fence option work in opposition to each other, and it wouldn’t make any sense to have them in the same option.
Ms. Wall then asked how the fence would be designed to surround Option #3.
Mr. Czachorski said it would be a square shape around the tank.
Ms. Wall said the Parks and Recreation Commission hopes the field will not be split up by a service road. They want to keep as much open space as possible for two reasons: number one for parking, and number two for a picnic pavilion and play area. She said they would also like to see trails in the wooded area.
Supervisor Walter said the Parks and Recreation Commissioners and staff may want to go out and walk the site. He said his recollection from walking the site previously was that there was a plateau that went down to another plateau.
Ms. Wall said Parks and Recreation had plans to walk the site tomorrow at 1:00 pm.
Supervisor Walter suggested coordinating engineering with Parks and Recreation to design the access point and road location, depending on what option is picked.
Ms. Wall again stated the Commissioners did not want to see the field split up and she felt the design shown in Option #1 was a good option.
Clerk Lirones said she didn’t believe the tank would have a negative effect on what Parks and Recreation is planning here, and the park should end up with a nice parking area without putting in a separate road. She said from a safety stand point, Option #1 is not looking as positive as the other options.
Supervisor Walter said Option #2 looks good, because it then leaves the widest part of the field open for picnicking and landscaping.
Ms. Wall said Option #2 was good as long as the service road was down along the railroad tracks.
Treasurer Skrobola said it seemed as if everyone was headed in the same direction and he also favors Option #2 with the adjustments Supervisor Walter suggested of moving west and north. He said this would also address Ms. Wall’s concern about splitting the field.
Trustee Brostrom said if there was a dual service road, the point where the road leads to the tank could be gated so the public would not be confused. He then asked if the booster station would have to be within the security fence.
Mr. Czachorski said the booster station would have its own security.
Treasurer Skrobola said he also favored the flat roof for the purposes of aesthetics. He added that the $100,000.00 cost in relation to the cost of the total program is not that material, however, he would not advise an overlook.
Trustee Conner asked if the road would need to lead to both the tank and the pump station.
Mr. Czachorski said the access road is more for the booster station. He said there is very little maintenance required for the tank. He said if the tank is moved north and west on the site, the access road could come off the existing road, turning towards the railroad tracks, and then hugging the railroad tracks to go back behind the tank to get to the booster station.
Supervisor Walter suggested branching off and putting the parking lot closer to the woods. He said that would leave the biggest vista in terms of the open land there to work with.
Trustee Conner asked what area would be the most benign position if the tank started to leak.
Mr. Czachorski said the water would all go to the same place, which would be down the hill into the wetland on the site.
Supervisor Walter said at the lowest point, there is a drain that runs between the mobile home community and the site, which runs east to the wetland.
Trustee Marine said he had to question expending $100,000.00 for the flat roof if the observation deck was not to be done. He said to him the bigger question would be the effect extra piping, different engineering features, different heights, or different architectural treatments would have on the cost. He said it would be a good to have an idea how each placement affects the cost, along with some of the designs and features discussed.
Mr. Czachorski said he believed the most significant impact on the cost would be things like burying the tank very deep with the booster station in front and uphill. He said whether the tank roof is domed or flat, or whether the booster station is on the rear of the site or on the front would be minor costs.
Supervisor Walter asked if the booster station had to be close to the tank.
Mr. Czachorski said no, and if the decision is to put the booster station behind the tank, it will probably be put far enough downhill to have a gravity drain.
Clerk Lirones said she is still in favor of the flat roof but did not see burying the tank as a necessity. She said she knows the engineering problems of burying the tank are vast and suggested the Board should look away from burying the tank.
Treasurer Skrobola said he agreed with that. He said saving the cost of burying the tank and the engineering associated with that puts the $100,000.00 differential between the dome roof and the flat roof more in perspective to the total cost.
Clerk Lirones said she didn’t think a lot of time and effort should be spent on trying to bury the tank, because she did not believe it was a necessity. She said with the booster station behind the tank she didn’t feel a need to make it look like anything more than a utilitarian building.
Supervisor Walter said that besides the flat roof, if it is done, he would like to see some sort of nice architectural treatment done to protect the value of the park. He said he did not want to discourage the public from using the area by just having a plain looking tank.
Treasurer Skrobola said he thought that could be accomplished without adding a great deal to the architectural features of the tank or the pump station. He said he would prefer to see the investment made in planting trees to give a more natural screening.
Trustee Conner said he didn’t know if he could agree with the cost of $100,000.00 for the flat roof if it was not to be used as an observation platform.
Trustee Burhop said she didn’t mind the domed roof and felt a flat roof would not be worth the extra $100,000.00. She said she would rather spend the $100,000.00 on the stone treatment that had been shown as an option for the tank’s surface.
Mr. Czachorski said the stone treatment could easily add over $100,000.00 to the cost.
Supervisor Walter asked if there were any concrete treatments that would look good.
Board members, Mr. Czachorski, and Mr. Hart discussed different types of materials, treatments and their cost. Samples of various treatments were shown to the Board by Mr. Hart.
Trustee Brostrom asked if 25 feet tall by 185 feet in diameter were optimal tank dimensions.
Mr. Czachorski said yes, with a volume of five million gallons, a tank anywhere between 25 and 50 feet tall would be a typical height for the tank. He said much shorter than 25 feet would cause a lot of floor slab to be built, and anything taller than 50 feet will be too tall.
Trustee Brostrom asked if the wall surface would increase or decrease with the height, or would the total area be the same.
Mr. Czachorski said the wall surface is proportional to the circumference. He said the shorter you make the tank the less veneer you would need.
Clerk Lirones said she withdraws her objection to the dome after looking through the brochures and seeing that it looked fairly attractive.
Trustee Burhop asked Mr. Czachorski to again explain the efficiency of a dome and what makes it stronger.
Mr. Czachorski said the dome has a natural arch shape versus something that is flat and would need a lot more structural support.
Trustee Brostrom said he felt fine about the dome roof as long as there was an attractive treatment of the outer wall.
Trustee Marine asked if the dome would increase the surface area and amount of veneer.
Mr. Czachorski said no, whether a flat top or dome is put on the tank still has the same footprint and wall height.
Trustee Marine asked if the veneer would have to be put on the dome.
Treasurer Skrobola said no, but the dome is visible where the flat roof is not.
Trustee Marine asked what the veneer prices would be. He said he was not overly concerned about improving the picnic ground by putting on veneer. He said the site should be made to look more like a park, and spending a lot of money on veneer is much less worthwhile than spending more on trees.
Clerk Lirones said she thought it was worth a certain amount of money without covering the whole dome.
Mr. Hart said he thought the Township would either accept the tank for what it is or try to make it blend with the site. He said the site is like a gateway to the woodlands and farm area. He suggested using the tank as a marker with the name of Pittsfield or the name of the park on it to be treated like a façade, but that he would not suggest trying to disguise it too much.
Trustee Brostrom suggested maybeParks and Recreation could get together with their planner and think about the landscaping.
Ms. Wall said if a resolution is approved about the placement, Parks and Recreation Commissioners and staff could go out as a group to get some ideas that could be incorporated.
Supervisor Walter said if the Board could make the fundamental decision of placement and going with the dome tank, then Parks and Recreation could make suggestions for landscaping.
Ms. Wall said she thought that was a good idea.
Mr. Czachorski said all that was needed tonight was to know where to put the tank and booster station. He said the details of the parking lot, the access road, and the landscaping are all going to be incorporated into the contract with the booster station which falls a few months after the schedule for the tank.
Supervisor Walter said this needs to be done in conjunction with the plan for the park because of grants that will be going in parallel with this to develop the parks portion.
Mr. Czachorski said the engineers did want to coordinate their preliminary site plan with Parks and Recreation to make sure that where the access road and the parking lot are shown works with the tank. He said that would need to be done in the next few weeks.
Supervisor Walter said there may need to be some delineation of the property that is going to be assigned to Utilities and creation of a separate parcel, due to the expectation of reimbursement for this project through the Utility Fund for the land that is dedicated for this purpose. He said this will be important when going for the parks grant.
Ms. Wall said the deadline for this round of grants is April 1, 2003 which adds to the urgency. She also said she didn’t know about the part the Utilities department played in this.
Supervisor Walter said this is a Utilities project and has to do with payment for the land. He said the Utilities Fund or this project should pay its fair share of the cost of the land. But in order to do that, the township would need to delineate the parcel in order for Parks and Recreation to go for a grant.
Trustee Marine asked if there was any difference in cost related to the location of the tank.
Mr. Czachorski said he was not able to give Trustee Marine an answer tonight, but he could certainly go back and put some numbers together to give to the Board.
Clerk Lirones asked if Mr. Czachorski could tell the Board which location is most or least expensive.
Mr. Czachorski said as far as the access road and piping are concerned, Option #1 is the least expensive and Option #3 is the most expensive. He said this is based on road costs and the cost of piping which could be a $50,000-$60,000 change.
Clerk Lirones asked if everyone liked Option #2.
All Board members agreed that they did like Option #2 with the dome and the booster station behind the tank.
Supervisor Walter said he wanted to look at the possibility of using some type of color on the tank, and also the possibility of using the Pittsfield logo.
Ms. Wall said she liked the idea of moving the tank to the west.
Supervisor Walter asked how soon Mr. Czachorski could have a rough idea of the site, so the township could identify the parcel of land to be carved out.
Mr. Czachorski said he was hoping to have a preliminary site plan for review in the next couple of weeks. He said perhaps there could be a meeting set up sooner than that to sketch out some ideas.
Trustee Brostrom asked if it was possible to create a colored textured look with the concrete.
Mr. Czachorski said he would have to check with the manufacture about adding color and adding texture to the concrete.
Mr. Hart suggested having the tank painted by an artist or the public under a controlled environment and using it as a piece of artwork.
Supervisor Walter said he thought a lot of progress had been made tonight.
Clerk Lirones asked what the total height of the tank was and would it be buried.
Mr. Czachorski said because the site has a natural slope, the front of the tank will be buried about five feet and the back of the tank will not be buried. He said the tank itself will be 25 feet tall and the dome adds 18 feet, for a total of 43 feet.
Supervisor Walter asked if the tank was tall enough that a communication company might want to locate a cell phone antenna there.
Mr. Czachorski said he did not believe so because the tank is below the tree line.
Clerk Lirones asked Mr. Czachorski to point out on the display where the tank will be located.
Mr. Czachorski pointed to Option #2 in the middle of the site. He said the tank would be moved a little further to the north and straight west.
Clerk Lirones said it should not be too close to the railroad for safety reasons.
Mr. Czachorski said they would move the tank over as far west as they could.
Clerk Lirones asked if the booster station will be located behind the tank.
Mr. Czachorski said yes.
Supervisor Walter said the booster station may also be a little further down the hill with the drive opposite Marton Road.
Trustee Burhop asked if the vibrations from the railroad would affect the tank.
Mr. Czachorski said he was not sure, but would check with the manufacturer. He said the most critical concern is the floor slab.
Supervisor Walter said if that turns out to be a problem, the tank may need to be located at the location for Option #1 and moved to the east. He asked Mr. Czachorski how soon he would be able to find out the information.
Mr. Czachorski said he would call the manufacturer tomorrow morning.
Trustee Brostrom asked how the soil was treated so there is no shifting and settling that would cause cracking.
Mr. Czachorski said the engineers are currently getting soil borings on the site and the tank manufacturer designs the foundation so there is no differential settling.
Trustee Marine asked if there had been any other proposed sites for the tank.
Mr. Czachorski said one other site had been considered, but the site was perfectly flat so the tank would be highly visible, and the location was directly adjacent to the wetlands there. He said the engineers did not think it was a suitable site.
6.0 Approval of Minutes, 7.0 Consent Agenda, 8.0 Items
from the Treasurer, 9.0 Items from the Clerk, 10.0 Items from the
Supervisor/Assessor, 11.0 Items from the Office of Public Safety, 12.0 Items
from the Office of Municipal Services/Planning and Zoning,
13.0 Items from the Parks & Recreation Department, 14.0 Unfinished
Business,
15.0 New Business, and 16.0 Public Comment II-none.
17.0 Adjournment by Supervisor Walter at 9:02 p.m.
_____________________________
Yolanda Holmes, DepartmentAssistant
RecordingClerk
PittsfieldCharter Township
_____________________________
Christina L. Lirones, Clerk
PittsfieldCharterTownship
_____________________________
James R. Walter, Supervisor
PittsfieldCharter Township
MINUTES APPROVED, AS CORRECTED, AT THE PITTSFIELD CHARTER TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 28, 2003.
