Laserfiche WebLink
Decatur City Plan Commission <br /> January 7, 1999 <br /> Page Eight <br /> 3. The designation "Temporary Stormwater Detention" is insufficient. The applicant has <br /> reworded this to read "Interim" Stormwater Detention," assuring that stormwater detention will in <br /> fact be provided in perpetuity. <br /> 4. The plan did not appear to create an adequate facility for the drop-off of children who will be <br /> using the facility. This isn't a planning matter, and it can be worked out between staff and the <br /> applicant prior to the approval by City Council. <br /> Staff recommends approval contingent upon the above stipulation regarding parking, and the <br /> submission and approval of a site plan to the Departments of Community Development and Public <br />� Works. <br />' Mr. Schiller questioned if Millikin University will own all of the property and the Park District is <br /> responsible for the building project and leasing the property for 60 years, would the requirement <br /> for parking, if necessary, be upon Millikin University and not the Park District. Mr. Forgey stated <br /> that the requirement would be of Millikin University as the property owner. At this time the City <br /> is not requiring a dedicated crosswalk. <br /> Mr. Demirjian questioned if the current storm drainage is adequate. Mr. Prather stated that <br /> proper storm detention will be provided as required by the State. All storm water is flowing <br /> downhill and it may be better to relocate farther south once the outdoor fields are put in place on <br /> Macon Street. <br /> Mr. Ratekin stated that the note of interim detention was duly noted. The development will be <br /> served by a combined sanitary/storm sewer which is located on the east side of the railroad tracks. <br /> Engineering staff has not seen a plan so it cannot be addressed. <br /> Mr. Demirjian stated that it appeared three of the lots were taking the brunt of the water runoff. <br /> Mr. Prather stated the pipes will funnel the water to a containment area per requirements by the <br /> City and State. A plan will be submitted to the City for review. <br /> It was moved and seconded (Shampine/Setina)to forward Cal. No. 99-OS to City Council with <br /> recommendation for approval per staff stipulation. Motion carried with abstention by Mrs. <br /> Woolsey. <br /> Mr. Schiller questioned what would happen if the verbal agreements regarding the properties fall <br /> through. Mr. Koop stated that there are written agreements for all but one property. <br />