Laserfiche WebLink
<br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />Table for further review (if the developer feels they can revise the plat to meet the <br />requirements of a PUD and voluntarily revise their timelines to satisfy the school <br />needs) or recommend to Council to deny the plat based on the plat not meeting the <br />minimum standards as put forth in the PUD section of Ordinance #4 <br /> <br />In reviewing the submitted material, I found a couple of items on which to report. First, <br />there is not a 20% minimum of common open space included in the plat. This is a <br />mandatory requirement of the City's PUD section of Ordinance #4. Second, the <br />Ordinance requires some questions be addressed in writing from the developer in regards <br />to the actual proposed subdivision. I :fuxed the PUD section of the Ordinance to the <br />developer so that they may complete this task. Last, the Ordinance requires that the PUD <br />not negatively impact the City's ability to provide services including the local school <br />district. I do not think this can be achieved with the currently proposed timing of the <br />development. The school district superintendent indicated that the school capacity issue <br />will not be resolved until the Fall of2002. <br />