08-15-1985 Public Hearing - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Chairman Wilson and ~nbers of the Commission • pity of LaPorte Page 5 conditional, or accessory within each particular district. The terms "more restrictive" or "less restrictive" do not apply in the proposed zoning Ordinance, and are not a useful means by which to study the proposed zoning Ordinance. By way of further explanation, it should be noted that a reference to "more restrictive", or "less restrictive", was contained in Section 2-703. In the previous section, staff indicated, consistent with the philosophy of the proposed zoning ordinance, that this reference to "more restrictive", or "less restrictive", be removed. Therefore, if the previous analysis is followed, reference to "more restrictive", or less restrictive", is moot, and should not be attempted. ANALYSIS: Make no change in Section 2-800 of the proposed zoning Ordinance. 8) Secton 4-103: Citizen comment indicates that this section, which applies to setbacks in the case of through lots, does not state whether the minimum setback of twenty (20) feet applies to the rear yard or the front yard. Again, this is a matter of administration and has little impact upon objectives as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, except for the general observation that all required yard setbacks improve the safety and appearance of the City. It should be noted that the requirement covered in Section 4-103 is substantially similar to our current • requirement for setbacks on double fronted lots as contained in Section 10-400 of Ordinance 780. ANALYSIS: Clarify according to the comment, and designate -that the minimum rear setback shall be twenty (20) feet in the case of a through lot in a residential district. 9) Section 4-104: Citizen comment indicates that this section should be revised to effectively remove setbacks in the case of commercial developments. Again, it should be noted that setbacks in residential, commercial, and other developments do generally further the goals of aesthetics and particulary safety as set forth within the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission has already required commercial setbacks of twenty (20) feet in the recently passed Development Ordinance. ANALYSIS: In furtherance of the objectives set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that there he no change to this section. 10) Secton 5-404 (2)(a)(2): Citizen comment indicates that this section, which pertains the proximity of R3 structures from a public or private street •