My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
02-18-13 Special Meeting of La Porte City Council
LaPorte
>
Agenda packets
>
City Council
>
2013
>
02-18-13 Special Meeting of La Porte City Council
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2013 8:26:57 AM
Creation date
4/3/2025 3:05:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
La Porte TX
Document Type
Agenda PACKETS
Date
2/18/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
6.Allow simple plan sets to be reviewed quickly while more complex <br />reviewed in the background. To expedite simpler plan sets, establish and use a priority <br />process rather than a chronological (first come-first served) policy. <br /> <br />7.Establish a simplified fence permitting process. The current system is both time <br />consuming and expensive and is a source of consistent frustratioTo <br />expedite standard fence replacements in the same location, do no <br />formal surveys. Utilize standard details as a condition of appr <br />attachment of runners and pickets, etc.). If a fence is on a cone, <br />perhaps require consent from the neighbor to waive the site plan <br />further relaxation, the site plan requirement for new fences cou <br />location restrictions being issued as permit conditions. <br /> <br />8.Upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy, paper inspection files should be purged. <br />Maintaining the paper copies of plan review comments, permits, a <br />takes considerable staff time. The content of these files is ge <br />that has been or should have been entered into the NaviLine permit file. <br /> <br />9.Establish a consistent philosophy to utilize PUDs to simplify, rather than complicate, <br />development applications. Several people who were interviewed reported that the <br />current implementation of PUDs actually makes approval of a project more difficult, <br />rather than facilitating the unique situations they are intended <br />with the organizational culture initiatives previously discussed <br />PUDs to facilitate development, rather than as a mechanism to add additional <br />requirements, should be encouraged and enforced by management an <br /> <br />C.Site Plan Review Process <br />Findings <br />The site plan review process affects a wide variety of businessee first interaction an <br />applicant has with the City. As currently structured and administered, the prs confusion <br />for many applicants and creates a poor first impression. <br /> <br />Recommendations <br />1.Compile and agree upon staff review comments before meeting with the applicant. <br /> <br />2.Establish appropriate review protocol between the Planning and Fire Departments. <br />Evaluate need for fire marshal to be involved with site plan review; consider whether or <br />not one Fire Department representative can handle all fire-related review comments. <br />8 Planning Department Review Consulting <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.