Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chairman Wilson and.~ mbers of the Commission .. <br />. City of LaPorte ., <br /> <br />Page 22 <br /> <br />ANALYSIS: Without additional demonstrated need, this requirement <br />should be removed pursuant to the citizen impute <br /> <br />43) Section 4-10l: <br /> <br />Citizen comment indicates that throughofares designated on the <br />throughofare plan (but in which no right-of-way currently exists) <br />should not be an impediment to the location of buildings, unless <br />the right-of-way is purchased by the City of La Porte. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS: This requirement all ready exists within the Development <br />Ordinance. With limited space, the addition of buildings within <br />designated throughofare locations could ultimately make future <br />throughofare right-of-way acquisition prohibitively costly. <br />Also, the City of La Porte is not the only public entity responsible <br />for throughofare acquisition, and coordination among these public <br />governments is critical. Frustration of ultimate throughofare <br />acquisition could prove virtually fatal to the economic development <br />of the City of La Porte. This section should be left as is. <br /> <br />44) Section lO-605 (lO): <br /> <br />Citizen comment indicates that the five foot setback required <br />surrounding parking areas is not needed. Further the requirement <br />of a solid curb surrounding the parking area is questioned. <br />Anaylsis indicates no particularly safety or asthitic concern <br />addressed by these requirements. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS: Only require curb stops instead of solid curbs and <br />only where the parking lot adjoins public right-of-ways. Also, <br />only require the five foot setback on parking areas adjacent to <br />public right-of-ways. Note that no landscaping requirements are <br />mention in this five foot setback area. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br />John D. Armstrong <br />David Paulissen <br />John Joerns <br />