Loading...
Plan Council Minutes 2004 01-22-04 Page 1 of 9 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE APPROVED WITH Plan Council Meeting Minutes CORRECTIONS City Hall Conference Room 2-12-04 Thursday,January 22,2004 9:30 A.M. Attendees: City Administrator Tony Graff City Planner Mike Schoppe Public Works Director Eric Dhuse Planning Coordinator Anna Kurtzman City Engineer Joe Wywrot Jeff Freeman—EEI Sergeant Ron Diederich—YPD (arrived 10:30) John Whitehouse—EEI Assistant Fire Chief Tim Fairfield—BKFP (until 11:15) Guests: See attached MINUTES None. PC 2003-19 BRISTOL CLUB 1 %MILE REVIEW Gregg Gabel was in attendance though not on the agenda. He stated that he received a memo from Deputy Clerk D'Anna stating that PC 2003-19 Bristol Club would be on the agenda today. Administrator Graff allowed them to do a presentation. Attorney Rick Williams representing Laycom gave a brief presentation. Laycom owns approximately 122 acres at the southwest corner of Galena Road and Cannonball Trail known as Bristol Club. An Annexation Agreement and Planned Unit Development(PUD)was entered into which provides for 112 single-family homes on 25,000/square foot lots (minimum). The property is not contiguous to the United City of Yorkville and it is not known when this will occur. The developer would like to proceed and has decided to reduce the density by having the lots be a minimum of 3 acres. The developer has proposed to plat the development with Kendall County and the City will review under it the 1 '/2-mile review. When the property has contiguity, it will be annexed to the City under the estate zoning classification and governed by those regulations. Mr. Gabel asked the status of the City's review. He stated that they have submitted engineering and landscape plans and he thought the review was this morning. Mr. Graff stated that City Attorney John Wyeth has met with Planning Coordinator Anna Kurtzman to review the PUD amendment and is drafting a memo that he is expecting to receive later in the week. John Whitehouse with Engineering Enterprises, Inc. (EEI) stated that the engineering review is basically complete but needs to be finalized based on the PUD amendment. Mr. Schoppe stated he received a revised landscape plan which he commented on in a memo a few weeks ago but he has not seen the revised plat or engineering plan. Mr. Schoppe stated that he assumed any current plans addressed the issues discussed at the September Plan Council meeting. Mr. Gabel stated that nothing has been changed because there wasn't a consensus at that meeting. Mr. Graff stated that it needs to be determined if the City is reviewing this as a 1 %-mile estate zoning for the City versus just a 1 '/2-mile review for the county. This needs to be clearly stated in the PUD Page 2 of 9 amendment so the staff understands what their review comments are related to. He indicated that a concept plan for the Rosenwinkle property, which makes the Bristol Club property contiguous, is due in to the City in the next 4-6 weeks and they hope to go before the Plan Commission in April. He stated with this imminent, Attorney Wyeth should request from States Attorney Tim McCann an intergovernmental agreement with Kendall County for jurisdiction. This would eliminate the 1 '/z-mile review as it would be reviewed under the City's estate zoning. He stated that he would be speaking with Mr. McCann and after this would have a better timeline for this to proceed. He stated he would contact Mr. Williams with the information. Mr. Graff suggested that there be a staff meeting and a meeting Anna Kurtzman, Joe Wywrot and Rick Williams to discuss the PUD amendment. The intergovernmental agreement and PUD amendment could be brought before the City Council at the February 3, 2004 Committee of the Whole (COW)meeting. He estimated that this would go before the Plan Commission in March. PC 2003-28 TANGLEWOOD TRAILS—1 %-MILE REVIEW Bob Nelson the owner/developer gave a presentation to the Council. Mr.Nelson is new to the area so he gave a brief history of his company which was begun in 1987 and he gave the locations of his developments in Batavia,North Aurora and St. Charles. He will be closing on property located on Highpoint Road just south of Legion Road next to the Tucek farm on February 2, 2004. The 67 acre parcel will have 39 lots varying in size from 40,000 square feet to over two acres. He has met with Kendall County whose ordinance requests 40,000 square foot lots and is still requesting them. The homes will be on well and septic and he outlined the location of detention areas and walking/bike paths. While addressing City Engineer Joe Wywrot's January 14, 2004 memo it was discussed that the county's new RPD2 zoning is in conflict with the City's estate zoning. Mr. Graff explained that if the developer is looking to annex to the City in the future (anywhere in the next 3-7 years)the Plan Council will recommend to the Plan Commission that some of Mr. Wywrot and Mr. Schoppe's comments get incorporated into the agreement. Mr.Nelson stated that he hadn't planned on annexing so he would have to research this further. There was some discussion on the proposed revision for the Land Plan for the corridor south of Legion Road. The Yorkville-Bristol Sanitary District has indicated that this area will be serviceable in the future so the Land Use Plan is being revised but will probably not be adopted by the City Council in the next 6-9 months. Mr. Graff noted that looking at the development's lot sizes; this is probably the type of zoning that will be proposed for the area. He stated that well and septic is agreeable at this point and if the property is annexed in the future,the homeowners will not be forced to switch to city water and sewer. Mr. Graff explained the annexation process to Mr.Nelson and recommended City Attorney Dan Kramer contact Mr. Nelson's attorney, John Martin,to discuss this further. Mr. Graff asked Mr.Nelson if he was agreeable with any of Mr. Wywrot's comments. The following items were discussed: o Roadway stub - Mr. Wywrot suggested moving a roadway stub (future connection to Ronhill Subdivision) one lot to the north in order to improve sight distances on Tanglewood Trail. Mr. Wywrot commented that there is a crest in the road that occurs close to the lot line one lot north and it is a safety consideration to move the stub. Mr.Nelson indicated he would not like to do this as the soil supports the present location of the road however he would have his engineer review this. b Page 3 of 9 o Cul-de-sac islands—Mr. Nelson indicated per the county,the cul-de-sac islands are being deleted. o Sidewalks—Mr.Nelson stated that the county does not want sidewalks or trees in the ROW. Mr. Nelson indicated the location of a pathway through the subdivision on his plan which amounts to a one-sided sidewalk. Mr. Wywrot commented that the City's ordinance requires sidewalks on both sides of the street or a trail system adjacent to every lot. He noted that the changes Mr.Nelson indicated puts him closer to compliance with the City's standard. Mr. Schoppe stated that the City standard is for a paved path and he recommended that a hard asphalt trail be located at the very least on one side of the street. Changing the location of the path from behind lots 37, 38 and 39 to the front of the lots was also discussed. o Streetlights - Mr.Nelson indicted on his plan where the streetlights will be placed. o Highpoint ROW—Mr.Nelson indicated that he has been requested to add an additional 45' of ROW along Highpoint Road for a total of 90'. Mr. Wywrot clarified that the total ROW for Highpoint is 80' so the developer needs to dedicate 40' plus an additional landscape buffer. Mr. Nelson agreed. o Easements—Mr.Nelson agreed to providing easements adjacent to all roadways and along the perimeter of all lots. o Detention basins—Mr.Nelson agreed that the detention basins should conform to the county's stormwater ordinance. o Water tower site-Mr. Whitehouse indicated that EEI has identified a potential location for a water tower on the property south of this however there are a few locations in this subdivision that would satisfy the elevation requirements for a tower. A determination still needs to be made if there will be a well and treatment facility at the site as well. Mr.Nelson stated he was not excited about having a water tower in the subdivision. Mr. Graff stated that this should be addressed in an annexation agreement and he suggested that EEI verify the location of the tower so that this could be discussed further. o Right-of-Way and Road Design-It was suggested to round off the ROW at intersections. Mr. Wywrot requested the bituminous pavement width be increased to 28 feet whereas the county requires 24 feet. Mr. Graff explained that the Plan Commission and City Council support the 28'. Curb and gutter are not required. Mr.Nelson stated he would take the position with the county that the City is dictating 28'. Mr.Nelson agreed to the binder thickness of 2.5 inches. The group reviewed Mike Schoppe's January 16, 2004 memo and discussed the following: • Lot sizes—Mr. Schoppe noted that the lots sizes do not conform to the City's standards however the plan could be done as a PUD in an estate district. The significant amount of open space justifies the lot size and width as presented. He stated that this subdivision would come under the City's Estate Class I. • Comprehensive Plan—the proposed plan is consistent with the Comp Plan. o Wetland Delineation -A wetland delineation should be done and the City forwarded a copy. Mr. Nelson agreed to this. • Existing vegetation - A general description of existing vegetation should be provided. • Front-yard setbacks - Front yard setbacks should be revised to 50' to be consistent with the City's ordinance. Mr.Nelson indicated that the county's requirement is 30'. Director of Public Works Eric Dhuse noted that the county likes a larger rear-yard setback to allow for septic fields. • Stormwater Basin Slope—a slope of not greater that 10:1 was recommended for both esthetics and erosion control. Mr.Nelson stated that the county wanted him to incorporate more bounce and flat useable space. Mr. Wywrot and Mr.Nelson took a closer look at the plan and found that the shape Page 4 of 9 of the pond could be shifted to accommodate this. Mr.Nelson stated he would take a closer look the plan. o Landscape Plan—this should be revised to illustrate the proposed screening in the open space along East High Point Road. Mr.Nelson asked for and was provided with a copy of the landscape ordinance . The Council further discussed city water in the area,the promotion of the use of city water, combining the water service to this property along with the Tucek property, and the annexation of this property. Administrator Graff recommended a meeting between Mr.Nelson,his attorney and representatives from the Tucek property to discuss future water service in the area. Mr. Graff asked Mr. Whitehouse if he could develop an estimated cost of extending a watermain into this area. Mr. Dhuse asked if Mr.Nelson's attorney was preparing a backup SSA for the HOA. Mr.Nelson stated that he has suggested this to the county and he is open to this. Mr. Graff explained the City's street naming ordinance to Mr.Nelson and he stated that he would look into this. The Plan Council recommended the 1 '/2-mile review to the Plan Commission subject to Mr. Wywrot's and Mr. Schoppe's recommendations. This will be before the Plan Commission on February 11, 2004. PC2003-29 WHIPERING MEADOW UNITS 1 & 2—FINAL PLAT Mr. Graff asked Rich Young with Kimball Hill Homes if he had any comments/questions on Mrs. Kurtzman's January 16, 2004 memos. Mr. Young stated that he will comply with her recommendations. Mr. Schoppe indicated that he has only reviewed Unit 1 because he was not aware that both units were on the agenda. He indicated that he needed the Unit 2 plat and that he felt that the comments will probably be similar. Mr. Young stated that he went over Mr. Schoppe's January 16, 2004 memo and in general he did not have any problems with the comments. His only concern was for comment#3 under Final Engineering concerning drainage structures being relocated out of the 40' landscape easement. He stated that he needed to verify if he had enough room to have the 40' easement. Mr. Schoppe explained that the easement needs to be increased to 40' to reflect the landscape treatment south on Cannonball Trail in order to keep it consistence. Mr. Young did not feel this would be a problem. Mr. Wywrot noted that there are existing utilities along Cannonball Trail and he recommended that they not grade the berm directly over the utilities. Mr. Young stated he would look at the grading. Mr. Whitehouse's January 15, 2004 engineering report was discussed. Mr. Young stated that he and Brain Rieger from V3 Consultants, Inc. went over the report and feel that most of the items are not a problem and have been addressed on the revision of the engineering. Mr. Whitehouse stated that the biggest engineering issue is stormwater management. There are questions on how the large central basin(Lot 452) is going to function and discharge. It is proposed to discharge through Cannonball Estates into an old 10"tile that crosses Faxon Road then into an 8"rear-yard storm sewer and finally into the Cannonball Estates storm sewer system, which is a ten-year design. Mr. Page 5 of 9 Whitehouse recommended an almost zero release rate and minimizing the outlet to a 4" diameter. The basin will hold runoff from a 100-year storm. Mr. Whitehouse also discussed the rear-yard infiltration system that is being promoted. This will minimize the amount of water that will even get to the basin. He also noted that the old tile under Faxon Road will be replaced when the road is reconstructed. Mr. Wywrot commented that it would be replaced with small diameter PVC and probably should be revised to be replaced with a 12"RCP. The pond design was further discussed (depth, capacity, duration of holding water, etc). Mr. Schoppe noted that his letter asked for detailed information on the proposed planting for the Natural Vegetation Infiltration Area. This should address the possibility that the basin could on occasion hold water for more than 72 hours so they can select materials accordingly. The future Faxon Road extension was discussed. Mr. Whitehouse stated that if the geometry for this has been incorporated in the final plat, it is not reflected on the engineering plans. The ownership of Lot 451 was discussed and Mr. Young indicated that this will be owned by the HOA and Mr. Schoppe asked that this be indicated on the plat. Mr. Whitehouse stated that it was indicated that this lot was access to the property on the south(Frank Yabsley's property). He stated that he needed information regarding the existing driveway to the property. The location of the driveway was discussed and Mr. Whitehouse suggested that it come out on Old Faxon Road. It was suggested to get a comment from City Attorney Dan Kramer regarding the easements rights of the existing property. Mr. Dhuse noted that the name of Old Faxon Road should be changed in an effort to keep things consistent. There are no addresses on Old Faxon Road at this time. Assistant Fire Chief Tim Fairfield stated that it be preferable to see the name changed to something else while no one lives on it. The Council discussed alternate names and it was suggested to call the road Yabsley Way. Mr. Graff stated he would talk to Mr. Yabsley to see if his name could be used. Mr. Wywrot suggested that they check with AMG Homes regarding the name because they are improving the road. It was decided to move this on to the Plan Commission. Mr. Graff requested Unit 2 comments from Mr. Schoppe. Mr. Whitehouse stated that if he could get a response to his comments back from the developer by January 28, 2004 he will reduce his memo to the Plan Commission. The developer stated that their concern is running a model on the restrictor. Mr. Whitehouse stated that if the storm water issue was the only issue without a conclusion, it could be presented to the Plan Commission subject to engineering. Mr. Schoppe asked if the final landscaping plan could be submitted by January 28, 2004. If the storm water issue is not resolved, he will also comment to the Plan Commission that it is subject to final engineering. PC 2003-13 RUNGE PROPERTY—PRELIMINARY PLAN Mr. Graff noted that Mr. Schoppe stated in his January 16, 2004 memo that he had not received revised preliminary plans on this property. He stated that he was expecting the revised Preliminary Land Plan, Preliminary Engineering Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plans to review. Mr. Graff stated that the annexation of this property is still under discussion. Mrs. Kurtzman stated that there was a staff meeting scheduled for January 23, 2004 to discuss open space and the commercial area and a meeting on January 29, 2004 with City Attorney Dan Kramer to discuss the annexation language. Mr. Graff asked Mr. Fiascone if they wanted the preliminary plan and preliminary plat incorporated into the annexation agreement and Mr. Fiascone stated that at this point they would like to do this. Mr. Graff asked the Plan Council if they would like to get the annexation language solidified before doing the complete plan review. They discussed that the annexation language effects the preliminary plan and vice Page 6 of 9 versa. Mr. Graff suggested that staff review meeting be scheduled to look at the preliminary plan as part of the annexation discussions. After everything is worked out, a preliminary plan could be submitted to the Plan Commission in March. This could coincide with the annexation being approved by the City Council. The Council agreed this was a good idea. Mr. Graff asked Mrs. Kurtzman to coordinate meetings such as she did with the Grande Reserve development. Mr. Schoppe stated that in November 2003 he was given a draft of the annexation agreement for review and he asked if there was a revised draft prepared. Mrs. Kurtzman stated that the comments were given to Attorney Kramer who is revising the agreement but he is not finished yet. Mr. Graff stated that the revised draft will probably not be ready by the January 29, 2004 meeting which was scheduled to discuss staff comments with Attorney Kramer and to get the revision moving. He stated that Attorney Kramer has questions regarding what is being recommended and the legal conformity to the subdivision ordinance and zoning. Mr. Graff stated that some comments are leaning toward a Planned Unit Development(PUD) which the petitioner is not looking requesting. Mr. Graff stated that this might be similar to the Northgate development. Mr. Graff asked Gary Weber with Gary R. Weber Associates, Inc. and Matt Fiascone with Inland if they reviewed Mr. Whitehouse's January 15, 2004 memo and if there was anything they wanted to highlight. Mr. Weber gave an overview of the revisions; changes in the court house area; road radius changes in three locations and they provided a 30' access easement to the commercial area. Mike Mondus with Spaceco, Inc. addressed storm water management issues. Mr. Mondus explained that their analysis of the detention areas has to be refined but they are confident that the detention basins have enough volume. In regards to compensatory storage, Mr. Whitehouse has asked them to use a different method of calculation which they are in the process of doing. They feel they can make the volumes work. Mr. Whitehouse noted that they did not include the compensatory storage area in the detention calculations. Mr. Mondus stated that they did not include this because this area will be restored to a more naturalized state with less runoff. Mr. Whitehouse discussed the Rob Roy Creek buffer issue (how much is commercial, setbacks, etc). Whatever is done in the commercial area will impact the compensatory storage volume because more of the existing Rob Roy Creek flood plain is being filled. If straight zoning is given to the commercial area without identifying open space and setbacks then the City may be locking itself into storm water management issues. He stated that it would be good to see a delineation on the commercial area as to the setback. Mr. Mondus stated that their analysis demonstrates that the function of the width of the buffer from the creek is not so much a function of storm water management as esthetics. Ultimately,the amount of filling that the developer wants to do to maximize the commercial area does not cause increases in flood heights. It is more a planning issue than an engineering issue. Jeff Freeman with EEI explained the normal way of providing compensatory storage; using cross-sections rather than grouping it into one larger area downstream. He stated that if a certain cross-section is filled, then generally between this filled section and the next cross-section additional compensatory storage volume is provided. In this area, the compensatory storage is being squeezed together on the north side of the property and not being provided to the south. The reasons for this are 1)they looked at the design storm and this design did not raise water surface and 2)the design storm will probably never happen but there are other types of storms that they want to protect against. He stated that it will have to be a policy decision as to if this is an appropriate way to provide compensatory storage. Mr. Graff stated that this isn't a policy decision because there is an ordinance to follow. If they are not following it,they will need to ask Page 7 of 9 for a variance. Mr. Fiascone stated that he felt it was a policy issue because if compensatory storage was not allowed to be unified in one area it would diminish the ability to have a commercial area. If compensatory storage is forced on to the commercial site, setbacks will be increased, available parking areas will be decreased,pad areas will decrease and the area for a"big box" store is decreased. This will discourage commercial development. Mr. Freeman explained why standard engineering practices and the requirements of the ordinance are hard to apply due to the location of the creek. Mr. Whitehouse explained that the developer's compensatory storage is based on filling a certain amount of the flood plain adjacent to the commercial area and this creates a setback issue from Rob Roy Creek. The width of the setback from Rob Roy Creek affects the compensatory storage. Mr. Graff stated that he would have to present this as a policy question to the City Council. Mr. Whitehouse stated that another major issue for the property is how it will be served by sanitary sewer. He stated that they recommended an elevation for the interceptor and Mr. Fiascone stated that this information was provided to Deuchler. Mr. Whitehouse stated that the Plan Commission also brought up an issue of a north/south collector road. They recommended that the road immediately east of the park be the one to extend to Baseline Road. He stated that the layout has not been changed to address this recommendation. ROW issues were discussed. Mr. Whitehouse recommended that the number of lots remain the same,the ROW width be increased to 66' in accordance with the ordinance,the pavement width be increased to 30' and lot size be reduced to a minimum of 11,640/square feet. He stated that the overall impact on the subdivision will be minimal and the road and ROW widths would not be compromised. Mr. Fiascone stated that the internal ROW could be addressed by having 5' easement on each side of the road. This would give 70' of ROW, increase setbacks and not change the lot sizes. Mr. Whitehouse agreed and demonstrated how an easement along the road could widen the ROW and how it would affect sidewalks and setbacks. Mr. Fiascone stated that they needed direction as to how to treat the ROW width on Baseline Road as well as the internal roads. Mr. Wywrot stated that the City needed to coordinate a meeting with Sugar Grove to discuss Baseline Road. Mr. Graff recommended that the ROW issue be resolved before the plan goes to the Plan Commission however he was unsure if he could get a meeting scheduled with Sugar Grove in enough time. He stated that he could probably get direction on the internal roads. Mr. Graff stated that the internal ROW issue will be discussed at the COW meeting and he will ask the Council for their input. There was further discussion on the realignment/relocation of roads,the future use of Baseline Road, access from the subdivision to Route 47 and the commercial area, a stub road on the southeast side of the development to the neighboring property and the internal road network. The purchase of a lot for a pressure reducing center by NICOR was discussed. Mr. Graff suggested a meeting with Deuchler as well as Sugar Grove. He stated that he would have City Secretary Annette Williams set up the Sugar Grove meeting and he asked Mr. Wywrot to schedule the Deuchler meeting. The Plan Council recommended that the developer resubmit the preliminary plan based on the staff's direction on ROW widths for internal roads and Baseline Road. A timeline for the annexation and Page 8 of 9 preliminary plan was discussed. It was determined that the preliminary plan and annexation agreement would be before the Council at the February 3, 2004 COW meeting where the Council will be asked for input on the ROW and compensatory storage issues. The preliminary plan will then be before the Plan Commission on March 10, 2004. PC 2001-06 GRANDE RESERVE UNITS 4 & 6—FINAL PLAT The following comments from Mrs. Kurtzman's January 15, 2004 memo were discussed: • Minimum lot widths - Mrs. Kurtzman revised her comment by reporting that she received the information she needed this morning and upon review the minimum lot widths for the number of lots is fine. She stated that she would like to take a look at this again right before final approval to verify nothing has shifted after the reviews. • Regional Trail- She stated that clarification was needed as to if the trail was outside the 100-year flood plain and regarding ownership or easement of the trail. Separate lots or easements for the trail were discussed. Mr. Whitehouse stated that the trail was addressed under the provisions for storm water management easements. These easements allow for the location of a pedestrian and/or bike trails within the easement. Mr. Schoppe asked if this was consistent with the annexation agreement in terms of the ownership. Mr. Schoppe stated that in the annexation agreement there is an exhibit that outlines what open space land is owned by the City and what is owned by the HOA. Mrs. Kurtzman stated she would have to verify this. Mr. Schoppe questioned if the trail along the lake meets the standard of being a minimum of 40' from the lot line. He stated that the annexation agreement states that the parks and trails will be developed to the Park Development Standards adopted in September 2003. This requirement is one of those standards. There was further discussion regarding the trail and its proximity to the lot lines and the flood plain. Tim Winter with PDG stated that there was a provision in the annexation agreement stating that they could get closer to the lot lines. Mr. Graff read the annexation agreement which states that bike paths would be kept as far away from residential lot lines as possible using a 40' setback as a guideline and in no event will a bike path be located closer than 10' from a residential lot line. The developer agreed to review and relocate the trail one half foot from the high water line which should keep the trail as far away from the lot line as possible. Mr. Schoppe stated that he was unable to complete the review for Unit 6 and would have it done within the next week. The following comments from his January 17, 2004 memo regarding Unit 4 were discussed: • Bio-swale underdrains - Mr. Schoppe indicated that typically a bio-swale will have a gravel drain and an underdrain in it to insure that the water moves out in the event that the permeability of the soil is unsatisfactory. He stated that it is anticipated that the sandy soil in this area will be permeable enough not to need the underdrain however if it is not,then the underdrain will be needed. The engineering and purpose of the underdrain was discussed and Mr. Schoppe stated he would provide the developer with more information regarding them. Mr. Graff reviewed the bio- swale exhibit in the annexation agreement which does not indicate underdrains. • Low flow channels - Mr. Schoppe commented that portions of the channels are probably not a good area to plant emergent zone vegetation. He recommended that a wet mesic community would be more appropriate for this area. The developer indicated that they are addressing this. • Final Landscape Plans - Mr. Schoppe indicated that the Final Landscape Plan for Units 4 & 6 had not been submitted. The developer indicated that they submitted them on January 21, 2004. Mr. Schoppe asked if they addressed prairie plantings in the basins, a management plan, street trees and N *+ Page 9 of 9 screenings. He stated that the Landscape Plans need to have this level of information on them and that the wetland submittal should be consolidated with the Landscape Plan. Mr. Wywrot commented that all lots should be numbered not lettered on the final plats. The developer agreed to this. He also questioned if there should be a separate landscape plan for each unit bound to the Engineering Plan. Mr. Schoppe stated that he would prefer to see a separate Landscape Plan for each unit however it does not need to be bound with the engineering. John Whitehouse's comments on Units 4 & 6 were reviewed: • Erosion Control Plan- Mr. Whitehouse recommended that a reference to the Erosion Control Plan and the latest revision date of the plan be referenced on the cover sheet of each unit. • Low point of intersecting roads -Mr. Whitehouse demonstrated how the profile of the intersection could be changed in order to have water flow into inlets and not pool in the road. • Length of gutter flow -Mr. Whitehouse made some suggestion regarding gutter flow which should not affect the grading plan. Inlet capacity was discussed and Mr. Whitehouse suggested adjusting highpoints. • Sewer pressure testing- Mr. Whitehouse recommended that a note regarding the pressure testing of all sewers crossing over water mains be noted on the plat. Televising the sewers was discussed and Mr. Whitehouse stated that this would be fine. • Street"M" - Mr. Whitehouse stated that there should be a note on the plans indicating that the pavement of this road will be thicker due to heavy traffic volume. Mr. Whitehouse complimented the final plats by stating it was an outstanding presentation. There was further discussion regarding exhibits to bring to the Plan Commission for review, easements,the recording of the plats,preliminary plat approval (Units I A 1) and final plat approval (Units 1-3). Mr. Graff recommended that the final plats be revised according to staff comments and resubmitted to the Plan Council for review at the February 26, 2004 Plan Council meeting. After this review,the final plats can move on to the March 2004 Plan Commission. Additional Business None. Meeting adjourned at 2:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jackie Milschewski, City Clerk