Plan Council Minutes 1996 08-20-96 UNITED CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE
Committee Minutes-Planning Council
Date of Meeting-August 20, 1996 Location: 111 W. Fox Street
Time Convened: 9:30 AM Time Adjourned: 12:05 PM
ATTENDEES
Darren Sloniger The Development Group
John Spender Western Engineering
Ralph Pfister YBSD
Jim Nanninga City of Yorkville
Jeff Palmquist Lannert Group
W.A. Dettmer City of Yorkville
Joe Wywrot City of Yorkville
J.T. Johnson City of Yorkville
Tonv Graff City of Yorkville
Dean Edmeier The Edmeier Group
Greg Gabel GBL Land Developers/for Inland
OLD BUSINESS -None
NEW BUSINESS
PC96-19 PRELM41NARY PLAN -SUNFLOWER ESTATES -INLAND/Greg Gabel
Greg Gabel
This is an update from planning at the last Planning Commission to give members here an update of what they are
planning to do. This approximately 90 some acres next to Yorkville. The zoning is B-3 highway commercial with
provisions in the annexation agreement to develop up to 60 acres M-1, or R-2,with R-2 being 12,000 sq. 1ft
minimum lots. Inland, at this time is now planning for the R-2,60 acres, and to leave the remainder into the B-3
Highway Commercial. A couple of odd lots have already been sold as B-3 Highway Commercial. Here is the
concept plan, with the typical lot being 80'.x 150', the average lot size is 14,000 some sq. ft. "There has been
absolutely no engineering done on this site,so this is a planners rendition. When we get into preliminary plans
some things may have to be rearranged. Is the comprehensive plan correct in showing this as commercial,
transitioning to manufacturing, being devided by the schedule'? The city, because of the annexation agreement that
goes a little bit out, and also in the comp plan, back then we had shown a road going up to the regional collector.
As I remember, the reason was we thought we ought to take some of the impact off this intersection,but I think
that changes now with this land use. We had some discussions about #71, and we'll get into more. That is my
next point. This residential doesn't need three access points, if the city prefers it here, we can certainly do that,and
1 think Jeff pointed to it, to make this a more viable commercial piece if we do get an access here, and then maybe
we can stub some kind of cul de sac or something in here so we don't have too many entrances into these
businesses. There arc already m
two entrances here right now on Route 47. The other thing we ay want to consider
is this dedicated Scott Dr. and maybe combining I entrance for the whole thing, that is out of our control,but it
will impact planning on the site and we need some direction on that, and how you want to handle Scott Drive.
This intersection will line up with Wchrli's subdivision/Grcenbriar. That is the overview,and we do have one little
neighborhood park on the site. To the West is the Harris property, and I figured access would be from a toad that
continues Westward and Northward and comes out at 71. One or the other should go through, and this preliminary
plan is probably going to change so if a stub is needed it is not a problem. Palmquist: I would still advocate some
71 access, but I would be flexible, if w-e could ultimately get over to 71, and there is some apprehension to make
that connection from 71 up to the collector too direct, we wouldn't want too much traffic going through the
subdivision. I have to balance accessibility,being able to disperse the people and not congesting 47. Studies agree
that you don't want people cutting through the subdivision. The other concern is that I understand that this may
be too long of a stretch of roadway to meet codes, and Inland is seeking any vanances, therefore we will have to
watch distances on these intersecions. As we build and fan out we can make more of this highway commercial,
than to do it all residential. So this is really a secondary entrance designed to serve these 2 commercial pieces,
rather than as a second access to the subdivision, so I think we really need to think about this between the staff and
all the rest of the community, with just one access into the site and making this intersection better,and before that
bringing secondary access down Rte 71. This parcel was annexed about 3 years ago. Ralph: I don't think it is in
YBSD. Its$1500.00 per acre. Lets hope its annexed. With regard to Route 71 Jim, your point was well taken
about a road stub to the West which would connect the subdivisions internally because it would be residential,and
if this didn't have access to 71,certainly the next project over should, and then you can get to 71 and West that
way,but Greg needs to look at his engineering to determine that, and the adjacent property will go residential if it
goes anything. Assuming anything that far West will be single family R-2, so it won't be a conflict of that
connection. What about a park site perhaps on the Western edge so that it can be combined with the property to
the West. Acre to acre and a half, and then the next one comes in and, now the park plan shows a larger park,
this was really targeted as this whole area West and South of Greenbnar as it develops,there should be some kind
of larger community park. This was not anticipated as residential, so it didn't show a park on this site.
Eventually do a small park to create something in here to add a little excitement,where there is a bank of lots,and
have these lots facing a neighborhood park,would the city accept a 2 acre park? Roughly the size of Gazebo Park
on 47. The comment on that from a urban design standpoint is that those parks are great, from an efficiency
standpoint. Park districts in cities move away, unfortunately from the smaller acre to two acre parks and going to 5
to 7 acres because doing fewer of those, and making them larger as they are easier to maintain, to mow and so on,
for better or worse, that is the trend. It's something to consider whether it should be accepted or not. I would hate
to loose open space in any particular project, but it has to be pointed out that as the city continues to look at these
there is going to be that kind of cost to consider. Intention here is to create a little excitement and some premium
lots in the center of the subdivision. Are you looking to create some action on Scott Drive? How does the city feel
about that. Joe: I can't see leaving it the way it is, either vacate it, or turn it into a frontage road that will wrap all
the way around the corner, or something like that. Again. Inland is looking for direction from city on that. We
should extend it at least up to the access road out to 47, and maybe up as far as Greenbnar. Is there a separate
parcel between Scott and 471 Yes, you couldn't say that if you vacate you're enlarging your commercial parcel,
you're just taking away the grid access. Yes. Is that zoned M-1' JT: I think they are Grandfathered. They have
been there a long time. There has to be some kind of existing zoning on Silica Sand. Inland has tried to buy it,
and you can't buy it. With that road gone, it would certainly enhance the commercial potential of that parcel. To
the East and South Inland has sold that to someone,but it maintains B-3 zoning. What is going to happen,and in
all honestly is that those lots hadn't been designed yet. If they should grow where would you perceive them
growing and would those lots be sacrificial" Yes, there would be lots lost. Have you looked at where it
discharges'' I'm just going by the topo. Would you be diverting to Greenbnar' No, it would go to the next creek
West. This we have to be careful with also, this goes through Fox Lawn. Now, does this help to divert any away
from the Elizabeth area'.' I don't think it goes that way. -taybc just in the corner at the top. Greenbnar intercepts
all that and that does not go through Elizabeth. Jim. Well, where arc you in the process Greg, we were surprised
you wanted to come here today. Greg: Where we arc right now, we have talked about the concept and we
appreciate all the comments from the staff and the Plan Commission, and we need to hire an engineer now and
start doing preliminary plans. We Just wanted to make sure we were upfront with c%-cry body and got all the
comments before we spent money on engineering as it wouldn't be productive. Now we will do some preliminary
plans and come back with preliminary plans in about 2 months.
PC96-13 - Final Platt for The Development Group/Darrcn Slonigcr- Fox Mill
This is for final plat for The Development Group/Darrcn Slonigcr. Darren: I thought we were working out the
final engineering today. Jim: And the final plat. Darren: We don't have final plat. Jim: Well, we need to talk
about that too. If you arc going to the next Planning Commission, you're going to need it. Darren: OK. You
should have final plat to us ahead of Planning Council on 9/3/96 before going to Planning Commission on(correct
date is 9/t t). Can Joe or Jctf review final plat and give us a report on the 3rd. OK with all. The plat would be
primarily for utilities, and maybe emergency :icccss. In regard to how ownership is split, do they own the unit
and the foot print under it? So there should be a plat to split it up right. Yes. Because of ownership, do you
understand''The Plan Commission did not hear this, because it had not been through committee yet, as it wasn't
really ready The big issue is storm water retention, and drainage for the site, its a very tight site, and the retention
that can be supplied is only about 20%of what our ordinance would require. So the issue then is that this is right
down by the Fox River and perhaps this would be the site in town where we are just going to let it go and get it in
the river and downstream before all the other flood waters come to the river. I don't know if we want to set a
precedent to do that because if we do,certainly the next person up stream is going to want the same consideration.
So its more of a political issue more than an engineering issue. Are you comparing that to a brand new site? Jim:
Are you giving credit to Grandfathering the service they have already? Joe: Well, no,as far as Grandfathering,
there is no Grandfathering. Either the site is going to comply or its not going to comply with the subdivision
regulation ordinance. You need to look at the proposed impervious areas and go through it either with the more
advanced computer simulations,or the old msz method to come up with a volume. Well,I think that is why we are
here, IT? Is that you do give credit for our service, I mean as it sits there today there is a certain hard surface,and
I think there is a legality there in that its sitting there with a certain hard surface and its running off today and then
you're going to develop and you're taking the position...OK, I still think the retention would still not comply to
what our ordinance would require. IT: What I'm looking at is what is up stream is our streets and the storm sewers
are now designed to run directly to the river. I don't want to have to change that,and if retention in this area is
done, they're going to have to have a release area that's probably going to be tied into that storm sewer that we
have. I want to make sure that what ever happens,were still allowed to nut our storm water off that hill, and we
don't do it that successfully now,but hopefully when everything is right its going to shoot to the river quick. And,
that's because of the steepness of the hill. Joe: Reading the drainage reports,and correct me if I'm wrong,but I
read in there is that the 100 year flow comes down Mill, which would be a bypass flow. The 100 year flow carried
by pipes of course, and the bottleneck maybe would be when they get down to the tracks, that pipe, but the pipe
they are putting in will carry the 100 year storm. Ralph: OK that's the 24 hour duration 100 year return period
storm, based on bulletin 70, and they will probably be bumping that one up again,but we didn't want to have a
problem with that one running in garage doors in the units, and IT mentioned before there is some talk of
increasing the size of the pipes under the tracks to the river. We had talked about a 24" in lieu of the 13". The
existing outlet is extremely shallow,only about a foot of cover over the existing pipe at Mill Street, and that is a
burden to the site and the general area, up and down the tracks because there is no way to get fall to create a storm
sewer system to tie into that outlet. Our storm sewer system is concentrated in the Western part of the site because
if you put very much slope they come out of the ground before you get very far away from them,because everything
is so flat. Robb Container has a depression, they have a truck dock that they have to pump out of every time it
rains, because they don't have a gravity outlet. This is a very tough site because of it,so if there is any possibility
that a 24" pipe is going to be installed where that 13" pipe is, if it could be 3'deeper it would benefit a whole lot of
people up and down the neighborhood. Then maybe retention wouldn't be required here, but then that fund could
be exchanged for a line along the river,or something as a trade off there, go with direct flow to the river. So we
could combine funds to try to get that bigger, deeper outfall to the river. Making it deeper would solve a lot of
problems. Everyone to the West could use an outlet to get under the tracks. There are some at irregular intervals,
and that has been an ongoing problem with the railroad. Then the thing to do is put a cost estimate on what it
would take to go to the river. and if the city «ants to discuss point funding of that? That would be a starting point,
what would it take to go all the way to the river -dollar wise? The other option is them buying the materials. J.T.
could talk to the roadmaster and see what's going to happen. If we could get that accomplished and lower that
storm sewer that would actually benefit the whole development & Robb Container. Would you ask John to put a
cost estimate on that one" And, J.T. to talk to the railroad. Some other pipe was discussed and might be available?
What there was I have enough to get to the tracks. Its ADS pipe - 24". 1 wonder if the RR will allow ADS in the
casing under the track. They should -so if l can cork the deal with the roadmaster, between him& I, it will be
with no permits. This is to the RR's benefit too, as it will improve their ballast and drainage, so thcc may be
willing to work a deal. Concerns with engineering comments. Pavement section -standards for a city street, is
that an ordinance? this is heavy pavement for the amount of traffic we will have. The argument is that this is
eventually may be maintained by the city. There would be a local road structure. is there evidence of bad soil? If
there is granular material at sub grade that would eliminate that. Its a private road in essence, but we have been
through a number of situations where the private drive becomes the city's so the one in the front needs 2 1/2 cross
section. Parking lot is standard. Will follow the ordinance requirement for parking lot. Where do you show the
trail and lights" The only reference to the pedestrian trail is paved as pan of this project in lieu of public sidewalk
along the tracks. Is the purpose for this an elderly complex only? These people need to have use now, there are no
guarantees that the elderly will ever matcnalizc. That is a misunderstanding. There was sidewalk shown on the
previous submittal along Mill Street, but its not here because we would want concrete sidewalk. Pretty big grade
change. But, that's city right-of-way-you can't make those changes up to city-right-of-way. The adjacent property
has a corrugated steel pipe where his road ditch would be with the top of the pipe sticking through the gravel..
That's something that would be in the best interest for them to finish that off on his end too. He needs to finish his
parking area also as part of his agreement. The 4'diameter manhole at the upstream end of the sanitary sewer
showed a clean-out because we thought we were going to extend that line for the future elderly housing,but if we
need that other manhole down here, we won't need that and we don't know when that elderly project will happen
if ever. That is a shorter stretch,but it should be down here. Next, tapping the valve in the 5"manhole,we don't
have a problem with that. Swapping the sanitary and water locations, no problem with that. The valve we've got
on the dead-end of the water main, is there an ordinance requirement that 8"valves go in a vault or box? Joe:No,
but I would recommend it go in a vault. I don't like valves in boxes. The bigger issue on the water main is the
second source of supply, and how is that going to be addressed, there should be a second source of supply. There is
nothing available close-by. He could come up to Van Emmon, so when the elderly complex is built he could just
continue on, and wrap up to Van Emmon,and that would be perfect. But, the fact that it isn't there now do we
want to get some kind of assurance, a letter of credit or something to that effect that that line would be installed.
Even with Robb Container would not like to have the water main?, if Sloniger didn't pick it up, if we would nun
the water main through an easement, it would just make their property more valuable. Its going to be very very
tight based on the way Robb Container is structured right now. They are very close to the lot line, and we would
have to go over onto Roger Olson's property to get a water main through there the way it sits now. With this plan
that gets torn down anyway, and that changes that. The city doesn't want to be stuck with a dead-end forever, if
this falls through. We need to look at it now, to see if it could be done now. This project can't afford that. Well,
can we get the easement, and a letter of credit. Not affordable now. Left unresolved at this time. On the spur, if
that isn't agreed to at this time the whole project is put on hold. The RR is still working on the process, and if the
spur line removal isn't possible, then the project would only be the 4 units and the 8 units, and not build the other.
Does the city want to approve a final without that agreement. We need that finalized. Without Robb Container,
you can't remove the spur, and they have indicated they won't let that go, because they want to keep their options
open as someone like Plano Molding or Amurol may want that piece and the spur. Sloniger purchasing spur,and
remove it. No even if thev sell it you would have to provide access to Robb with that spur. All of this is being
reviewed as one piece. Assuming that the spur could not be removed you need to bring a final that is actually
do-able project, and then make the other items a second proposal so you can move ahead. We can't give approval
for a final plat without that spur problem resolved. Splitting this you can start on the 4 unit, but it will cost to
reapply for phase 2, so the call is yours on this final plat. So if you attempt to split, then get copies to us for the
submittal and Jim will distribute. Based on Sept. 3rd Planning Council. Have we seen any architectural? Doesn't
have renderings here now. Are we tying in those elevations, etc. as it should be part of the package we are
agreeing to -the buck and steep roofs. It is appropriate to have a landscape plan as part of the final package. We
need to see a plan since there isn't enough room for a patio, screening or anything. at the back of the property as it
comes within 8' at the back and 3' to the sanitary line, and if it is within 3'of the wall, we don't want this as a
city_ sewer. It has to be as it serves more than one user. You'll never get a machine over it. Could we do sanitary
in front? They need to get an easement from Nelson, on the adjacent property. It would be to his advantage. He
has a problem anyway, and J.T can talk to him. Getting back to Jeffs plan, can tic contact PD. regarding security
& Fire Department, regarding the need for proper access for getting into buildings. Sidewalks should be on the
landscape plan also. With only a one car garage• people will have to park in the lot. Lighting will match city's in
front, and will meet standard in the back. Before we leave this you need your full packs to Judy. You arc pushing
your time table, so you need Joe&c Jeff saying yes by 9/3/96, or we can't make plans for the next Plan Commission.
PC96-18 PRELIM. PLAN - FOX HIGHLAND ESTATES &GOLF CLUB/Dean Edmeicr
The homes on the high side have been rc-designed and now arc 88 townhomcs and 171 single family units spread
along the golf course. Designed to make golf course living affordable. 259 total homes with a minimum of 10,000
square foot lots that have been re-distributed to be backed by open area. to give a more open feeling. The golf
course will be a full 72 par, such as Fox Bend with water features and rolling terrain across some of the highest
part of the county. This is not a story of hit and run, we like the city and the county and in essence not only want
to build these homes, but want to stay here and operate the course and the commercial;rounds. One new addition
is the office areas just to the south of the Club House which will be maintenance and an office on the ninth green
for management of all of our holdings. We try to do evcrything we can to be an asset to the community. Here we
estimate 30,000-35,000 rounds per year and plan to add a$1.00 sur-charge per round&fund a Yorkville H.S.
scholarship program through that for seniors entering college. Sponsorship of the H.S. Golf Team,as they plan to
implement one. With the banquet facilities the school district will have reduced or no cost rates. There will also
be generating sales tax revenues,and property values will feed back into the School District. In regard to future
development and in the extensive market analysis focusing on this area including Western DuPage,Kane and
Kendall, the bottom line is that 47&71 are hot areas where future development is flowing naturally out of DuPage
County and Western Cook. This is a very high impact area. Next, they have been searching for a solution to the
sanitary sewer situation,for this project and for Roppolo. Now the city in combination with Edmeier are seeking
permits to build the sanitary sewer along the ComEd easement. They settled on a proposal to front fund the city
project, the city having final approval on the project, and it would have to be a city project to get approval from
ComEd for use of the right-of-way,but they would actually fund and build the sewer from here down to Van
Emmon, over to State and then the 1 block to the site on State. With Edmeier doing the front funding and
construction they would participate in the recapture the way the city does in other projects. They analyzed the
situation and no one was coming forward with the 1 or 2 million to resolve the problem,so they decided to make
an agreement with the city to fund this project. They will be working with the city and ComEd to work it out- To
do all of these things and make it economically feasible, the bottom line is that they want to keep the single family
in the S 175,0004200,000. range much like you find away from a course. Golf Course living at a price you can
attain. Normally homes this size on a golf course would be S34400,000. This is a preliminary plan and the
townhome foot prints are not available at this time. This is concept and the starting step to preliminary. The city
is asking that everyone building along the ComEd to put a 10' wide paved path there to tie into the Riverfront,and
thev will do that. As we move along with the construction of the sewer can we leave a stone path,and then the city
can perhaps get a grant to pave it. With the final survey, they will identify the lots identified by color as to the
11,000-11,999 sq. ft. will be one color, and so on. Also the lots backing to open space will be identified in the
same fashion. There are some problem areas relating to the topography and number of units. Economically this is
laid out to make the larger golf course with all the amenities, and the sewer happen. But. the city cannot
recommend reducing lot size. Edmeier is working to make the minimum amount of lots under 12,000 sq. ft.
Mostly the dominant number of those lots will back to the trees along here. The width will stay consistent with the
12,000 sq. ft. lots. Some arc cut down by 10 to 20 feet. The width will be consistently at 80'. At this point the lots
that are less than 12.000 sq. ft. and do not back to an open area amount to 19%.almost all of those are along here,
and we are working on that. Attached are 88 out of the 259 total(33%),and we are counteracting that by bending
them around the trees, and tucking them into berms, trying to open up the square footage. From a security
standpoint, of the total project is, 35%of the project is single and townhomes 64 116 is open with the golf course
and breaking that out, 28%single family, 7'6 for attached housing. The density level is 5.3 units per acre,and on
housing 2.7 5 single family, and that comes out to 3.3 per acre, not including any acknowledgment of open space.
This project they won't be having their cake and eating it to in terms of 10%townhomes on the golf course. That
is fundamentally a trade oil And. as far as strategy. they will have to go back to the Planning Commission before
spending hundreds of thousands on planning and engineering. J.T While it is an amenity to have a public golf
course in the community, and there is no doubt about it, and everyone can use it, but I don't see the parks portion
of this subdivision being done yet. or some way to pay the Parks Board. Right now its a commercial venture,and it
should be a very good one. You're going to make money off of that, and I don't think its a trade of yet. I think the
Planning Commission is going to look at that too. You guys will make monev. This is a devils advocate position.
According to statistics from a tew Nears ago. the totals spent per round including other amenities was S65.00. So if
you're looking at 35,000 round a year. you're looking at about 52.000,000 generation of sales. On an overall
report. Edmcier will include all of those figures will be covered. From a park standpoint we can't Just go out and
play golf like you can go to a park and play ball or something. Now, the city is aware that the S 1.00 per round is
there but there arc a lot of places where a 51.00 sur-charge goes to the Park& Rec. Board. or a resident discount
that can be given to the Park Board. Edmcier has discussed as another bridge to the city, for city residents being a
public course within the city that city residents be eligible to purchase with some portion going to the Parks,etc.
From a city standpoint this needs to be a consideration. Everything going on here, including the fronting of the
sewer, even though it will be recaptured, does have an impact on the number of homes. [is the big picture showing
what other communities have expenenced with sunilar amenities added into it, and the smaller picture, as
precisely as possible within our marketing analysis to examine what kind of money to expect. We recognize your
good reputation, and your concept will probably be well received by a lot of people. And, your intention is to own
and operate the Golf Course, and if at some point you decide to sell the course then your good work with the
community is lost when someone else comes in and changes all of that. Edmeier will make a provision for that in
the covenant, that is a good point, and perhaps the city or park district would have an option or first right of
refusal. We aren't there yet,but its an option. Now, there is the ordinance to consider on length of road leading
to a cul de sac. The main road may be too long,so instead of coming back for variances,this needs to be covered,
and you need to look to see where this will tie in,or it may not tie into Roppolo any more. Land planner put that
back in to line up, so we need to check that so we can trade it around so they will meet with Roppolo before he goes
ahead with roads. The long straight road is a city concern, the entry road is a split boulevard type entrance.
Along this run down to the golf course entrance,and there will be stop signs, etc. to slow cars down. Second,the
road way would have some fencing and street scapes as well as driveway designs showing. We are working on a
detailed layout of this portion showing exactly how it will look. Is this design typical? No this is somewhat out of
the ordinary. From a practical point of view, it is an attempt to keep the golf course road here. As for breaking it
up with another point, going into the adjacent development we could move some stubs to meet up. We have to
look at some street designs to meet the need to slow traffic down. Perhaps some structural islands to break it up.
Speed will be brought up as a concern at Planning Commission,and safety has to be assured. There are some
specific things that need to be done to meet up with Country Hills roads and also RoppoIo's development. But,you
need to meet the city ordinance or show an alternative. Land planner needs to get plats for Country Hills and
Roppolo. This needs to be coordinated with Country Hills outside of this meeting. The city needs to see more,and
should really see an aerial photo. Will you be bringing us phasing? Work will be completed in five phases, land
owner is still holding these pieces of phase five, so that he has to build in other areas first. That is why phase five
is where it is. Phase two is to get in and to the golf course area to start golf course construction. Phase five is
sitting on valuable property so that if this doesn't go, he will profit instead of loose. These questions will be
answered with plats for each individual phase of development. Edmeier will lay this out and then city will leave
them alone to build this development. In regard to the City's sewer addition, Siebert is the engineering company, it
is a City project and Edmeier is a sub-contractor,so they will be applying for permits, topo, etc. Was the Plan
Commission looking for comments on minimum size lots, etc. The feeling was 10%Wile,but they want to see
ammunition re: brick, garages, six-twelve pitches, to be real quality and not a transient location. Once they have
the tree survey Edmeier can show placement, and you can see that. There are certain things that need to happen.
Road lengths, sewer, and other ordinances can't be changed. Edmeier will examine each of the items with the city
and will meet requirements on 99.9%of these, the point is the PUD. gives vehicle. Croy agrees this one looks good
from the trail, to the sewer to the school. The point is the city cannot vary on that water main,or the length of that
road, or that sewer and we know its frustrating,but if you follow the subdivision control ordinance first and then
find you can't in an area then we can try to work it out. The Planning Commission is willing to make some
compromises, but they haven't indicated how much. Edmeier mentioned in the beginning doing a golf cart trail
rather than a sidewalk system because of the golf course. No, that was not Deans impression. They arc promoting
empty nester type environment. Some driveways will have a T. so coming to street head first. Carriage walks?No.
From C.O W. Dean is aware and this will play into the recapture, there is going to be an increase, we arc actually
going to S2000. Dean does not pay that money. The other city fees, planning fees'' Consulting fees'? No, but we
arc going to an hourly rate. We arc looking at setting up a recapture for this whole area. We think it may be about
S 1035. per house and it will go toward the sewer. We arc splitting it into two parts and the cost will be split, and
as soon as the lower end is paid for(the part considered public) we keep collecting fees and it goes into our sewer
fund. The city will charge for Joe's work, and there is a fee for developers work. The city is working on a chart.
There will be liquor license available as a part of a restaurant. Edmeier not interested in a tavern license. Broken
windows arc homeowners responsibility.
No other comments.
Adjourned 12:10 P!/t