Planning Commission

STERLING HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL May 14, 2015 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission held May 14, 2015. Mr. Reinowski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present at roll call: Benjamin Ancona, Al Kollmorgen, Stefano Militello, Donald Miller, Jeffrey Norgrove, and Leonard Reinowski Members absent at roll call: Paul Jaboro, Excused Edward Kopp, Excused Gerald Rowe, Excused Also in attendance: Donald Mende, City Planner Clark Andrews, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Militello, supported by Kollmorgen, to approve. Ayes: Militello, Kollmorgen, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski Nays: None Absent: Jaboro, Kopp, Rowe Motion carried. PPCM-1143 – VERIZON WIRELESS / Jonathon Crane-CW Consultants Requesting Special Approval Land Use for a Cellular Tower in a C-1 (Local Convenience Business) district - North Side of 19 Mile Road between Schoenherr Road and Freeport Drive in Section 1. Property Address: 13901 19 Mile Road. Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. Mende to provide background on the case. Mr. Mende stated that this case is for a Special Approval Land Use for a cellular telephone tower. The property is located on the north side of 19 Mile Road and is in the Sunny Square Shopping Center. The property is zoned C-1 (Local Convenience Business) and the parcel dimensions are 240’ fronting on 19 Mile Road with a depth of 400’. The petitioner intends to construct an 80’ tall monopole for wireless carriers and the Sterling Heights zoning ordinance does permit Wireless Communication Towers in a C-1 zoning district, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and must meet all conditions of the ordinance requirements. Mr. Mende stated that in addition to the monopole, which is located to the rear of the building, a 12’ x 14’ lease area is proposed that would encircle the tower, as well as a 12’ x 17’ enclosed lease area for a natural gas powered generator, which is located at the north end of the parking lot. The proposed equipment room for the tower will be located in the existing building adjacent to the monopole. The property that directly abuts the request to the east and to the north is the Brookline Subdivision developed with single family homes. Mr. Mende also stated that a number of concerns were identified with the proposed cellular tower site plan when reviewing the site plan with the zoning ordinance along with the general standards that the Planning Commission must determine are met before approval of the Special Approval Land Use. 1. Location of the monopole. The monopole will make vehicular traffic more hazardous than is normal as its location interferes with the vehicular turning movements and traffic flow, and access to off-street parking, refuse containers and drive-through lane stacking. It extends directly into the maneuvering lane. 2. Location of the natural gas generator. The location of the generator immediately abutting a refuse dumpster enclosure is a concern. Refuse dumpsters are emptied on a Planning Commission Regular Meeting of May 14, 2015 Page 2 regular basis and Code Enforcement often times responds to damaged enclosure complaints where the refuse truck or container has hit the enclosure walls. 3. Communication Tower Design. All communication towers, antennas and related facilities are to be designed and constructed to minimize their visual impact to the greatest extent possible, by means of tower placement, screening and landscaping. No screening or landscaping has been provided in this case. Mr. Mende stated that the petitioner has indicated that there is a lack of service in this area thus the need for the tower placement at this location. Mr. Mende also indicated for the audience’s benefit that there has been a lot of talk about the health effects of cellular towers but wants to let it be known that, as long as these towers are in compliance with the FCC requirements, the Federal laws, they cannot be denied based on perceived health risks and strictly from the site plan point of view, the concerns indicated are strong enough that a recommendation has been made for denial for the placement of the tower at this location. Mr. Reinowski asked the petitioner to come forward to make his presentation. Mr. Jonathon Crane, Petitioner, 1126 N. Main, Rochester, MI, stated he is a Civil Engineer, Land Use Planner, and an Attorney. He provided his phone number (248-650-8000) for anyone that has an issue, problem, or concern with this. Robert Prosbello, Real Estate Site Acquisition Specialist, working for Verizon Wireless, was in attendance, as well as Chris Wilcox, Radio Frequency Engineer. Mr. Crane stated that this site meets all criteria relative to height setbacks, and is a permitted Special Land Use within the C-1 (Local Convenience Business) district. Mr. Crane also gave a background on the wireless service industry including its tremendous growth. Currently there are 13 antennas in the Sterling Heights community with this being the 14th, basically within 36 square miles. This tower is needed and they are very precise in their locations. Of the 13 sites in Sterling Heights, there has never been a complaint from neighbors, Fire and Safety, and Code Enforcement. Verizon is what they consider a good corporate resident. They maintain their properties to the highest standards, along with safety conscious and pollution conscious. The criteria required for evaluation is 3-fold: the design to protect natural resources, health, safety and welfare as well as the social and economic well-being of those in the land use activity. What is being proposed is for the 80’ monopole, as pictured in the site plan, which is less than the height of two telephone poles, to be placed immediately adjacent to the building and protected by two bollards and then the generator be placed in the rear next to the dumpster enclosures and protected it with bollards. Mr. Crane stated with the drive-thru concern is that there are 170 linear feet which is enough for 8 – 9 cars. In addition, the distance from bollard to bollard is in excess of 30’. As far as the landscaping, they are correct that there is no landscaping in the site plan due to this being located in the back of a shopping center but will work with the city on what is necessary. Mr. Crane stated that Verizon meets every requirement and general standards on location, design, size, and character along with operation and safety measures. He feels it relates harmoniously with adjacent land uses and feels there will be no impact on neighboring housing along with any traffic with the monopole and generator. Mr. Crane asked the City Attorney, since there is not a full board, what it would take to get an approval. Mr. Andrews stated that five affirmative votes out of the six commissioners present. Mr. Crane stated that he would like to hear from the residents and asked if he could come back with a revised site plan that addresses each issued raised. Mr. Crane presented a drawing with the site as it exists right now, a drawing of the site with the proposed monopole, along with another showing it with a monopine, to look like a tree. He does not recommend this but is authorized to offer it. Mr. Crane also presented coverage maps showing the coverage of surrounding sites along with pin pointing 19 Mile and Schoenherr. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of May 14, 2015 Page 3 Mr. Kollmorgen asked if these sites are Verizon and what about the other sites. Mr. Crane stated yes, they are Verizon and they co-locate with all of them. Each one of the towers has to have at least one other carrier on them. Mr. Crane then presented a drawing, showing smaller cells, exactly the site it will be servicing. The last drawing presented was an aerial photograph. Mr. Miller asked that these are only Verizon cell towers and no others are showing in the drawings. Mr. Crane stated that there are no available towers to co-locate to and yes, there are other Verizon towers and preceded to show the Verizon sites and other locations such as the Edison Tower. Mr. Kollmorgen asked why they can’t use the Edison Tower. Mr. Crane stated they have a monopole adjacent to the Edison Tower. But to answer the question, it is a company decision that Verizon does not locate on the Edison Towers. A couple of smaller carriers do but Verizon does not. He stated that under the ordinance you are required to show any and why you can’t located on any towers and Verizon looked at a half mile and there were no sites available. They did look at other sites locations but this proposed site best fits their needs. Mr. Norgrove asked Mr. Crane that he said he was willing to work with the city and would come back in front of the board, and does he not want the board to vote because of some issues that may come up. Mr. Crane stated that is correct. Mr. Norgrove mentioned that he does have concerns with the 3 items brought up by Mr. Mende. Mr. Norgrove prefers that Mr. Crane get with Mr. Mende and revise the proposal. He has way too many questions at this point regarding the dumpsters and fire risks in the building, just to name a few. Mr. Militello asked Mr. Crane if the generator could be moved away from the dumpsters Mr. Crane stated that they could move the generator away from the dumpster. Mr. Kollmorgen asked Mr. Mende if the fire department approved or reviewed this request. Mr. Mende stated they are not included as part of the Special Approval Land Use that’s just the Planning Commission deciding whether this land use is appropriate for this location. If it is given approval it will then go through normal site view process at that point. At that time, the Fire Department will become involved. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Crane if there are any restrictions on putting a petroleum based generator next to a retention pond. Mr. Crane stated there are no city restrictions or environmental protection agency restrictions. They do natural gas as a corporate policy. Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. Crane that substantially all the other towers are taller, why are they going with such a short one and how does it affect the coverage range. Mr. Crane stated that as they get more sites they do not need the height and this is smaller cell area. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of May 14, 2015 Page 4 Mr. Reinowski opened the public hearing for any questions or comments from the public. Mr. James Belk, 13968 Peterboro in Sterling Heights, does not believe another tower is needed since there are already 18 other towers total in the area. He does not feel the landscaping is adequate and asked if Verizon will be owning the property or leasing from the Shopping Center. Mr. Crane stated they will be leasing. Ms. Paula Sellers, 13946 Billette Drive of Sterling Heights, has a signed petition from neighbors opposing the tower and also thinks the landscaping is inadequate. She has submitted a copy of the signed petition. Mr. Ancona mentioned as a point of reference that all commissioners have received copies of all correspondence, the petition, and letters from residents. Ms. Agnus Siegle, 43006 Freeport Drive, Sterling Heights, is questioning why this particular area is being picked out in regards to Mr. Crane’s drawings showing the large red area as “unsatisfactory” but this large red area doesn’t seem to be affected. Mr. Walter Kugawa, 13920 Peterboro, Sterling Heights, opposes the proposal. Mr. Kugawa is a Verizon customer and has never dropped a call. Mr. Adam Vasburg, 13993 Peterboro, Sterling Heights, opposed the proposal. Mr. Vasburg does have concerns with the value of his home and believes the tower to be unsightly. Mr. David Wolff, 43077 Freeport , Sterling Heights, opposed the proposal. Mr. Dan VanHecke, 43029 Freeport, Sterling Heights, opposed to proposal. Mr. Reinowski asked for any other questions from the board. Mr. Kollmorgen stated that since Mr. Crane needs 5 affirmative votes out of the 6 commissioners present, he suggests a motion to postpone. Mr. Crane stated that he would like to cover just a few more points that were brought up by the public audience, the first being the generator. It wouldn’t be exercised everyday but would be during the daytime hours for about 20 minutes and with the landscaping, he counted the trees and there were 26 trees, with one being dead. He is willing to work with any other landscaping issues. Mr. Crane would like to work with Mr. Mende on the issues and would like to postpone. Motion by Kollmorgen, supported by Miller, in the case number PPCM-1143 – Verizon Wireless/ Jonathon Crane, CW Consultants, to postpone the request for a Special Approval Land Use for a Cellular Tower in a C-1 (Local Convenience Business) district until the June 11, 2015 meeting. Mr. Norgrove stated that he hopes that the petitioner gets with Mr. Mende to rectify all problems discussed. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any questions on the motion. None. Ayes: Kollmorgen, Miller, Norgrove, Ancona, Militello, Reinowski Nays: None Absent: Jaboro, Kopp, Rowe Motion carried. Mr. Mende stated that he wanted the audience to know that since this is a postponement to a certain date that no new post card mailings will go out. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of May 14, 2015 Page 5 Mr. Norgrove asked that if there were any more correspondence with this case if they could be forwarded to them prior to the next meeting. Mr. Mende stated that any correspondence received prior to the meeting with be included with the packet or will be provided at that meeting. Mr. Ancona would like to bring up the condition of the property and would like to be able to talk about this issue. Mr. Mende stated that he has taken note on that issue and will get with the Code Enforcement Office regarding the landscaping, trash, and debris. CASE PPCM-1144 – Ryan Road, LLC Requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development conceptual plan – West side of Ryan Road between 19 Mile Road and Lake Forest Drive in Section 16. Property Address: 43311 – 43431 Ryan Road. Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. Mende to provide background on the case. Mr. Mende stated that the petitioner is requesting approval of a Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD). The development consists of three vacant parcels that dimension 133’ x 568’ each. The combined frontage on Ryan Road totals 399’ with a combined area of 5.2 acres. The Villa Mara single-family residential development lies immediately to the west of this proposal. To the east, across Ryan Road, are the Vineyards single-family and condominium developments. Two of the three parcels are owned by the City (Lot 2 and Lot 3 per the drawing presented). Those properties were acquired as part of the Ryan Road widening and reconstruction project that was done a number of years ago and have remained as excess parcels after that project was completed. At the regular City Council meeting of April 21, 2015, City Council approved the sale of these two lots to the petitioner so that they may proceed with the processing of development plans for this proposal. As part of the Purchase Agreement, approved by the City Council and distributed to the Board members, there were a number of conditions that were agreed upon between the two parties, the City Council and the Petitioner. 1. By means of a Declaration of Easements, Covenants and Restrictions, Ryan Road LLC will be obligated to construct Lisa Marie Gardens as an eleven (11) lot single-family development. 2. The eleven lots are large, with the smallest over a quarter-acre in size. 3. The new residential development will have a cul-de-sac with access from the existing stub street (Lisa Marie Drive) in the Villa Mara Subdivision. There will be no access to Ryan Road, so cut-through traffic is limited. 4. The developer/builder is obligated to construct single-family residential homes commensurate with elevations submitted as part of the proposal. The first level of any residential construction shall be all brick. The square footage of the three models ranges from 1,985 up to 3,690 square feet. Side entrance garages are mandatory, and all construction access, while this development is being constructed for the road and for the home sites, will take access off of Ryan Road so the existing subdivision will not be impacted. Mr. Mende stated that the intent of the PUD provisions of the Zoning Ordinance is to allow more efficient use of land consistent with the requirements of the city’s Master Land Use Plan. This PUD option in the ordinance was recently approved by City Council and this is the first Residential Plan being proposal under this new ordinance. The approval of the conceptual plan is completely in character with the surrounding neighborhood by way of the lot sizes, square footage, design, landscaping as well as density. It also allows for a combination of the two city surplus parcels with an adjoining vacant parcel to improve the size and aesthetics of the residential development and complies with all standards of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Mende Planning Commission Regular Meeting of May 14, 2015 Page 6 stated that since this is a planned unit development, this is a recommendation by the Planning Commission that will go on to City Council. Mr. Mende concluded that they have no objections to the approval of the plan. Mr. Reinowski requested the petition to come forward for his presentation. Mr. Fazal Khan, Petitioner, stated he has the option to purchase the parcels and is proposing 11 lots which will all be similar with the surrounding lots and housing. Mr. Militelllo asked Mr. Khan if he would be building himself or selling the lots. Mr. Khan stated that he will be hiring a builder and has been talking with a few builders already. Mr. Reinowski asked if any other questions from the Commissioners. None Mr. Reinowski opened the public hearing for questions and comments from the public. Mr. Gregory Thomas, 43248 Gina Drive, Lot 29, Sterling Heights, stated his home/subdivision backs up to the proposed lot. This subdivision pays association dues and would like to know if this new development will have to pay association dues, because it states in his building association manual that “any future buildings would have to join the association and pay dues”. He is, however, in favor of the proposal. Mr. Brian McMichael, 43266 Gina Drive, Sterling Heights, indicated he is not opposed to the proposal but he does live directly behind one of the lots and his concern is with the maintaining of the 50 feet behind his property. He has currently been maintaining this area for the past 20 years and has planted trees. His other concern is with the construction traffic. Mr. Jason Lagerould, 43471 Ryan Road. He is wondering if there is a drainage plan for this development. Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. Mende if he could answer any of the public questions. Mr. Mende stated that concerning the construction traffic, the petitioner has indicated and is agreeable that all construction traffic will take access off of Ryan Road. Mr. Mende also stated that this will be a site condominium subdivision and as a result, will have their own association. There is landscaping proposed for the Ryan Road frontage and they will be responsible for that area. Mr. Militello asked Mr. Mende if there is a separate drainage line. Mr. Khan stated that there will be rear yard drainage. Mr. Gregory Thomas again came forth to the Board with the association manual reading its content on having to join the association and pay dues which is signed by the City. Mr. Clark Andrews, Assistant City Attorney, stated that he believes that what the condominium documents essentially say is that the person that developed the Villa Mara Subdivision had the option to include additional land in the subdivision and this is not that situation here. This is an independent person that owns the property that has chosen to develop it as a site condominium and that a site condominium, by law, is required to have a separate condominium association. This provision appears to be that if in fact that the developer of Villa Mara Subdivision had decided to increase the size by adding additional property to the subdivision, that they would be agreeing they would be subject to the same restrictions listed in the manual. Mr. Andrew believes that this provision does not apply to this new development. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of May 14, 2015 Page 7 Mr. Brian McMichael, 43266 Gina Drive, Sterling Heights, came forth again stating that he feels the same association fee should apply because of the fact that Gina Drive will be used as the one-way into the subdivision. Mr. Andrews stated that Gina Drive is a public drive and neither association is responsible for the maintenance of the road and he also stated that anyone that wants to develop land has an option to do it either as a site condominium project or as a single-family subdivision and the site condominium process is shorter than for subdivisions. Under the Condominium Act, a site condominium has to have a separate condominium association for their development. And since this is being done as an independent development, and not an addition to the existing subdivision, then there is no legal requirement that that be done. Mr. Militello asked Mr. Khan that in his bylaws for his site condominium, that if the condo association will be taking care of the landscaping. Mr. Khan stated that the owners will be maintaining their own lots and the association will take care of the common areas. Mr. Norgrove just wanted to clarify that the Board does not have the authority to make people join an association. He also added just a suggestion for Mr. Brian McMichaels that he may want to get with the developer on leaving the trees that he has planted. Mr. Reinowski called for a motion. Motion by Militello, supported by Kollmorgen, in the Case Number PPCM-1144 – Ryan Road LLC, to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the request of a Planned Unit Development conceptual plan based upon the facts presented and depending upon additional findings presented at the public hearing, and due to the fact that: 1. The proposed plan meets all applicable provisions of Section 22.03, and provides for an efficient and aesthetic use of vacant property; 2. The proposed plan is in keeping with the physical character of the city and the area surrounding the development. Mr. Andrews asked if the Planning Commission thinks that the construction traffic issue is important, that they should put in a recommendation to the City Council that a condition be added that the Master Deed of that project include a provision requiring that the construction traffic use Ryan Road. Motion by Militello, supported by Kollmorgen, to amend the approval with the add condition relating to construction traffic. Ayes: Militello, Kollmorgen, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski, Ancona Nays: None Absent: Jaboro, Kopp, Rowe Motion carried. PZ15-1135 – PLANNING COMMISSION / CITY COUNCIL Proposed text amendments to Zoning Ordinance No. 278 amending Article 24 Environmental Provisions, Article 29 Administration and Enforcement, Article 31 Definitions, and any other technical corrections related to Zoning Ordinance No. 278 (adopted September 13, 1989, as amended). Mr. Reinowski called for Mr. Mende to discuss the case. Mr. Mende stated that this is a proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that addresses and updates the City’s single-family residential landscape regulations. The City’s ordinances do not currently define any minimum front and side yard minimum landscaping Planning Commission Regular Meeting of May 14, 2015 Page 8 expectations for single-family zoned lots. This deficiency has led some homeowners and occupants to eliminate landscaping altogether or, instead, simply install lawn and grass all the way to the edge of the home on the site. Aesthetically, a lack of a defined landscaped area diminishes the character of the yard and detracts from the enhancements established in neighboring yards. Beyond aesthetic concerns, a lack of landscaping can lead to water flow, soil erosion, and similar concerns. The proposed ordinance would amend and establish certain regulations which include the following:  Definitions – Residential Landscaped Area. Residential Landscaped Area will be inserted into the Zoning Ordinance and defined as the surface area immediately adjacent to a residential home. The Residential Landscaped Area will only be required for one-family residential home sites (new and existing) and will be required to extend at least 3 feet outward from the home but limited to no more than 10% of the total natural ground cover area in the front yard, excluding right-of-way (and side yards for corner lots). It may be interrupted by other design features on the site, including but not limited to porches, driveways, and sidewalks.  Plant Material. The Residential Landscaped Area must consist of 70% living plant material, including but not limited to bushes, shrubs, and flowers. Plant material to not exceed 4 feet in height and shrubs must be at least 18 inches wide. The remaining exposed ground must be covered with natural or artificial ground cover.  Administrative and Enforcement. The requirements of the Residential Landscaped Area will be set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and adopted by reference in the Property Maintenance Code, with enforcement through the Code Enforcement and the Ordinance Board of Appeals process. Code Enforcement will create and maintain a minimum landscaping plan that will be used as a guide, which has been provided as backup for the board as a sample plot plan. Just as the ordinance now gives new construction 1 year for installing lawn, this ordinance will have the same time limit. Mr. Mende stated that as a related amendment, the City Council will be considering changes to the Code of Ordinances (Property Maintenance), which will enhance the City’s firewood storage regulations to eliminate multiple piles and non-uniform storage as well as cross reference the proposed residential landscaping regulations of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Mende also stated that the City works hard to stay up with the neighborhoods and property values with spring clean-up events and is organizing a city wide clean-up day that will be hosted by the Department of Public Works and Waste Management. Minimum landscape standards currently exist for other zoning districts and adding this new language for single- family will create increased neighborhood aesthetics, uniformity to other relevant sections of the zoning and property maintenance ordinance, and a strengthened regulatory process. Since this is a zoning text amendment, this is a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any questions from the Board. Mr. Kollmorgen stated he had a suggestion that OBA (Ordinance Board of Appeals) that it be referred to as Board of Ordinance Appeals. Mr. Mende stated the OBA or Board of Ordinance Appeals would be the body to hear any violation to this ordinance. There is also in place, found in the Property Maintenance Code, an Administrative Appeals process, which is an administrative review process with city administration to make it quick and simple for the homeowners that are exceeding our minimum standards but obviously meeting the intended standards. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of May 14, 2015 Page 9 Mr. Kollmorgen stated that then the Administrative Appeals could be overruled by the OBA. Mr. Mende stated that this is correct if someone appealed the Administrative Appeals decision. Mr. Norgrove asked Mr. Mende if the issue of people painting their driveways will be addressed or is that addressed in the ordinance as it sits now. Mr. Mende stated that he would need to check with the building official. This would come under the Concrete Ordinance not under this ordinance. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Mende if the city has adopted the Property Maintenance Code and all portions of it. Mr. Mende stated yes it has adopted the Property Maintenance Code. Mr. Andrews stated the Property Maintenance Code has been adopted and may be time to adopt the next cycle. We are currently working under the 2009 version and it was adopted with some administrative changes. Mr. Reinowski asked if any more questions from the Board. There were none. Mr. Reinowski opened the public hearing for questions or comments from the public. There were none. Motion by Militello, supported by Norgrove, in the Case Number PZ15-1135 – Planning Commission / City Council to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve amending Articles 24, 29, and 31, and any other technical revisions to Zoning Ordinance #278. Ayes: Militello, Norgrove, Reinowski, Ancona, Kollmorgen, Miller Nays: None Absent: Jaboro, Kopp, Rowe Motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Militello, supported by Ancona, to approve the minutes of April 09, 2015. Ayes: Militello, Ancona, Kollmorgen, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski Nays: None Absent: Jaboro, Kopp, Rowe Motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Reinowski stated for the record that everyone received copies of a letter from Susan Strohower dated May 13th regarding the cell tower and another message from Paula Sellers dated May 13th along with a letter with a number individuals who signed a petition opposing the cell phone tower. David and Kathy Walters also submitted a letter dated May 12th. Mr. Norgrove asked if Mr. Ancona wanted to address the condition of the property that was mentioned earlier. Mr. Ancona stated that Mr. Mende had and he is good. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of May 14, 2015 Page 10 OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS – MASTER LAND USE PLAN UPDATE Mr. Mende stated that Mr. Nick Lomako, representing Wade Trim & Associates, is present and if the Planning Commission recalls back in February, it was discussed at the Planning Commission that they were undertaking a new Master Land Use Plan amendment and looking at the city’s recreation plan that has to be updated in order to qualify for any grant funding from the State of Michigan as well as a non-motorized transportation plan. The State of Michigan requires the Master Land Use Plan be updated every five years. Mr. Mende stated that Mr. Lomako is here to give a brief overview of his company and his team. Mr. Lomako stated he is privileged to introduce himself and his team that will be working with the Planning Commission on the update of the Master Plan and the schedule. Mr. Lomako stated that Wade Trim is a national consulting firm and headquartered in Detroit. Along with this team, they have asked other firms to join them such as livingLAB , a firm who specialize in non-motorized transportation and recreation planning, Archive D.S. who specialize in design and place making, and Randy Book from Colliers International, an international real estate advisory firm, to make this a market driven plan. Mr. Lomako stated that also in the material is an Organizational Chart which is a work plan divided up showing the specific tasks at hand with the task leaders, a project profile information sheet, a program schedule, and a master plan evaluation checklist. This checklist would help them understand what the expected outcome of the project is and he would like for the commissioners to complete the checklist and forward back to Mr. Mende. Mr. Kollmorgen asked Mr. Mende if they were still at 95% developed or what is it now? Mr. Mende stated they still like to say they are 95% developed but with the update of the Master Plan and this analysis of the existing land use, more definite numbers will be produced. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Norgrove stated the Planning Commission bylaws have not been updated since 2008 and would like to revisit this in the future for any updates. Mr. Mende stated that he could provide everyone a copy of the bylaws and then everyone can review and discuss at an upcoming meeting. Mr. Reinowski stated that a copy of the bylaws along with any suggestions would be a good start. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Militello, supported by Miller, to adjourn. Ayes: Militello, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski, Ancona, Kollmorgen Nays: None Absent: Jaboro, Kopp, Rowe Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Benjamin Ancona, Secretary Planning Commission