|
Chairman Wilson and ~nbers, ,pf,.the Commission
<br />City of LaPorte ~ `f. `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Page 20
<br />are npt , located. .so ~ as to, provide the highest and best use of
<br />~~ certain property,;', that when Greenway Corridors are located by the
<br />~~~,; Compr,eherisive~';P1,an,.on the zoning.map, that the City of La Porte •
<br />„ shoulc] purchase .them;., and there should be no additional setback
<br />_ _~~`requirements imposed; ,on uses, located adjacent to Greenway Corri-
<br />_ ~.~dors. it_" is.',.~clear that a definition for Greenway Corridor needs
<br />to be includ,eci~win ,tli°e~Ordinance. .Further, the Ordinance contains
<br />j~ de,.tailed 'arid „', complex requirements regarding said Corridors.
<br />These requirements "need to b.e discussed very carefully by the
<br />Planning arid. Z,pn.ing .Commission and" a determination needs to be
<br />made regarding the .'relationship „o"f, these Ordinance sections to
<br />the goals established in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehen-
<br />sive Plan establishes city-wide networks for open space, recrea-
<br />t~ional facilities, parkland, and conservation needs. If these
<br />goals are ~to 'be adopted as: desirable ,by the City Council, provi-
<br />sions stiou.ld be 'mad,e for parkT~arid location, open spaces, recrea-
<br />tional ,facilities, and',. ~ conservation areas and other areas of
<br />.scenic ,pre,servatiori on ~ the map and within the text of the Zoning
<br />Ord~inance.° The Steering Committee, "based upon the recpmendation
<br />from the .planriing~,co,nsultants, adopted these objectives as sound.
<br />" The Planning,arid "Zoning Commission, when it passed the Open
<br />' Apace and. ~ Pedestrain "System, Plan,, the Recreational Facilities
<br />;~Plari, and the Beau'ti,fication and Conservation Plan also adopted
<br />>incl.u:sio'ri of " the,se~, amenities 'and; needs as a litigimate goal for
<br />' ' the City'' of La Porte. The Zon"irig Ordinance and Zoning Map as
<br />proposed attempts to provide for the above-mentioned goals and
<br />needs, and, also attempts to...establish locations for these ameni-
<br />. ~ .ties. As, ;proposed, Greenway Corridors are locations of parks,
<br />conserva,ti:on areas and, :related open spaces upon certain desig- •
<br />Hated 'zoni`ng map locations." `The vast majority of these map
<br />designations are included in currently existing public right-of-
<br />way. The Ordinance also requires that properties developed
<br />adjacent to"any designated Greenway Corridor at a minimum setback
<br />of 'twenty (20) feet from said Corridor. The setback is from
<br />.either the Greenway Corridor. itself or the rightof-way line.
<br />.The setback pertains .to all.: developments, from single family
<br />'~resi:clential 'to ~ industrial . ~ Ma`intenarice of the setback areas is
<br />by private citizens and by the public sector on the public right-
<br />, of-ways. This maintenance scenario sets up a situation of ack-
<br />ward ~ma,interiance responsibil-ty'..~~',,, ~ .~,":
<br />~~ `ANALYSIS: Greenway Corridors ,need: ~to be defined in the Ordinance.
<br />All Greenway Corridors should be~ privately owned and subject to
<br />the setback requ:irem:ent,.. except .for Greenway Corridors located
<br />adjacent to single family~~res-id-ential developments, in which case
<br />. ,the setback would only apply if the development is located adjacent
<br />'~ to, .. a. designated conservation district, located as such on the
<br />zoning ,map. I,n the case of multi-family developments, the setback
<br />would;~apply next to. ,. ,the Greenway Corridor, however, the multi-
<br />. ,. `:.family developer would. receive credit under the Parkland Dedication
<br />
<br />
|