Laserfiche WebLink
STAFF RECOMMENDATION <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 /> 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 faked the PUD section of the Ordinance to the <br /> developer so that they may complete this task. Last, the Ordinance requires that the PIJD <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 of 2002. <br />