My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WS 06-02-2009
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Packets
>
2009
>
2009 Council Work Session Materials
>
WS 06-02-2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2018 7:28:42 PM
Creation date
5/29/2009 4:48:32 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Efforts <br />Below is the list of issues that were identified at the February 17t" Planning <br />Commission meeting. <br />• Variance standards (comply with state law — remove county standards) <br />• Cell tower regulations <br />• Recycling standards * <br />• Landscaping standards (aim for sustainability goals <br />• Special Use Permits (SUP) — add or subtract uses that require a SUP <br />• Setbacks standards for commercial & industrial uses <br />• Exterior building materials — neighborhood context <br />• Subdivision regulations — specifically minor subdivisions & lot combinations <br />• Fencing regulations (specifically on lakeshore property) <br />• Shoreland Ordinance <br />• PUD / PRD amendment standards * <br />• Parking standards — examine the use of pervious pavers <br />• Site plan requirement for interior renovations " <br />• Cash deposit requirements <br />• Rezoning requirements — strike requirement of petition for non -city initiated <br />requests (per Commission discussion at April work session) <br />• Entire Site Plan section — existing sections are too broken up and appear as <br />! "stand-alone" requirements (per Commission discussion at April work <br />session) <br />• Temporary Sign standards (added per 5/18/09 email from City Manager & <br />Council member Phillips) <br />*Items considered priority by Planning Commission. <br />The items with an asterisk (*) were noted as priority items by the Planning <br />Commission. Missing from this list was a Commission desire to have a more <br />comprehensive land use packet. This item isn't noted on the list because it was <br />thought that the item could be accomplished in the short term without needing to <br />work through a lengthy code amendment. Since February, staff prepared a new <br />land use packet. This packet is attached but hasn't yet been put into use. The <br />purpose of this packet was to provide more detailed information on: <br />• Required submittals <br />• Review timeframes <br />• Development review committee meetings <br />• Neighborhood meetings <br />The Commission reviewed this packet in April and provided suggested revisions <br />. to staff. These revisions have been incorporated into the draft attached to this <br />memo. Time permitting, the Commission will conduct another work session in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.