Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chairman Wilson and embers of the Committee <br />City of LaPorte <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 21 <br /> <br />Requirement of the City of La Porte Development Ordinance and <br />would also receive a density bonus in the Zoning Ordinance. The <br />Greenway Corridor may become a public Greenway Corridor when and <br />if it is designated as such on the zoning map. Public Greenway <br />Corridors are to be acquired by the City of La Porte and main- <br />tained by the City of La Porte. For the purpose of this section <br />all commercial and industrial uses \V'ill be treated in the same <br />manner as single-family residential uses. The City of La Porte <br />should purchase and maintain or allow the development to proceed <br />without meeting the setback requirements accept in zoning map <br />designated conservation districts. <br /> <br />40) Parkway Corridor <br />Ci tizen comment indicates that the twenty (20) foot setback on <br />property adjacent to designated parkway corridors is inappropriate. <br />There will be affect of these requirements until and unless <br />parkways are designated on the zoning map. The intent of the <br />comprehensive plan and designated park1Jo,ay and setbacks adjacen't <br />to parkways is to achieve city beautification and to establish an <br />image of enviromental quality and concern with the City of La <br />Porte. Entry threshholds are an introgal part of the parkway <br />system as discussed in the city throughofare and beautification <br />plans passed by the City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission. <br />This setback is to be landscaped and maintained by the respective <br />property owners. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS: If the Planning and Zoning Commission wishes to achieve <br />the objectives of the Comprehensive plan the Ordinance sections <br />regarding parkways and parkway corridors should be retained. If <br />however, these requirements prove to be too costly then they <br />should be removed. <br /> <br />4l) Parking and Curb Requirements: <br /> <br />Citizen imput indicates that the term curb needs to be defined <br />to allow convenitial curb stops as well as poured curbing if <br />desired. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS: Staff sees no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and <br />this addition to the definition of section to allow curb stops <br />as opposed to solid curbs. This addition will make parking lot <br />drainage substainta11y easier to obtain and less costly. <br /> <br />42) Additional Setback Adjacent to Major Throughofares: <br /> <br />Citizen imput indicates that the requirement of an additional <br />five foot to ten foot setback of a structure from a major through- <br />of are should be deleted. Review of this requirement indicates <br />tha t proper throughofare planning as contained in the througho- <br />fare Flan removes the need for future right-of-way acquisition <br />and widening. <br />