ROLL CALL

PUBLIC HEARINGS

In the matter of the request of Servman, LLC for Zoning Map Amendment 18.660 and PRO SP06-13, motion to [postpone] the matter until the next earliest possible meeting for the developer to come back with relevant questions answered and additional options provided for this property, such that the Planning Commission can make a determination to City Council at that time. Stipulations provided by the Planning Commission are: 1) The Finance group to review the financial information forwarded by the petitioner for relevance and understanding if that is correct relative to the payback timeframe; 2) An analysis done relative to the road and if it is required that based on the traffic there is going to be a need for further development of the road, which might involve the City to any extent and what those costs are associated with that item; 3) The developer providing [a list of] the different variances that he is requesting or has alluded to in his documents and what those variances are worth in real dollars in a real world situation; 4) A response from the developer and/or the City Attorney relative to the requirements about the easements and how that would be worded in the PRO going forward; 5) Further information [being provided] about the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority such that it can be provided by either the Applicant or the City to further educate the Planning Commission on its use in communities in Michigan and the benefits of [its use]; 6) A request that the developer contemplate other developments of the property, such that if he were to look at a Cluster Option, what the impact financially would be to the property to him such that the Planning Commission can understand better the request for the zoning; 7) [Confirmation that] the developer must remove all of the trees, and what exactly is the contamination, and does that require all of the trees to be removed; 8) Clarification by the City Attorney of the use of the PRO anywhere else in the City, so the Planning Commission can determine whether this is setting a precedent, particularly regarding 45% versus 25% of land use for the different developments of the 107 units; 9) The possibility of clarification of the [perimeter concept landscape plan] and whatever that might look like; 10) [The Applicant providing a rendering of] what one of the units might look like, since density seems to be the issue here; 11) In regards to the sanitary sewer, the City needs an answer from the developer as to whether or not there is sufficient capacity for this type of development in that area given the current infrastructure; 12) The financial analysis must be totally counted, [describing] the total burden on the City, fully accounting for the roads, infrastructure, tax revenue, etc., [to determine that] the project is feasible for both the developer and the City; 13) Access for fire trucks through two entries, as the [proposed plan] has one access for a fire truck, and what are the legal ramifications of this design; 14) Determination by the City Attorney’s office of the future ramifications to the City of Novi if this development does not go through, as far as contaminated land; what would the City be liable for, etc.; 15) The Applicant providing a tree inventory or something on which the City can make a judgment call; 16) The Applicant providing R-4 setbacks on the next plan to be submitted for review; 17) The Fire Marshal looking at the setback proposed between the houses again, and would the design require sprinklers in the homes or would that be a recommendation from him; and 18) The Applicant providing a wetland determination on the site. Motion carried 7-0.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

In the matter of Beck North Units 15-18, SP06-12, motion to approve the Preliminary Site Plan subject to: 1) A Planning Commission Waiver of a three-foot ROW berm south of the driveway on Hudson Drive; 2) The conditions and items listed in the Staff and Consultant review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan; for the reasons that the Petitioner will meet all Ordinance requirements, it complies with the Master Plan and is consistent with the development in the area. Motion carried 7-0.

In the matter of Beck North Units 15-18, SP06-12, motion to approve the Stormwater Management Plan subject to: 1) The conditions and items listed in the Staff and Consultant review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan, for the reason that there is a park-wide detention basin that this project will utilize. Motion carried 7-0.

ADJOURNMENT

SCHEDULED AND ANTICIPATED MEETINGS