|
_ Chairman Wilson and mb~ers ~of t"he Conmitte'e '_.' ` `~ `'' ;-' ~`~~'
<br />Pa e` 2"1"
<br />"• .. .~ ~ `City, of LaPorte ~ ~ ~"' "' g~ ~~
<br />Requirement of the City of ~ La Porte ~~bevelopm:erit ' ~Ordtiance and
<br />would also receive a density bohus'` in E'he ,Zo{n;ng" Ordin'anc~e~ The
<br />O Greenway Corridor may become ~a public Greeriway, `Co~r~`ido~r"wti~eh and
<br />if it is designated as such 'on the z'on~irig, map'.' Public Gr~enway
<br />Corridors are to be acquired by ~ the City `~of~. La ` Po"rte'"an'd'`•inain-
<br />tamed by the City of La Porte. For tlie.purp'ose,_,o,f' }this section
<br />all commercial and industrial. uses, wil~',` be ~treat'`ed ' in ' the same
<br />manner as single-family residential uses. `' The City,. o'f 'La:..Porte
<br />should purchase and maintain or allow the d~evelopm'en+t to. proceed
<br />without meeting the setback requirements""accept'r;'in~ 'zon.ing map
<br />designated conservation district:,. t •, ~~ . ~' ' ~ ~ ,
<br />40) Parkway Corridor ~ ," '
<br />Citizen comment indicates ,tYi`a~t , th'e ~tw~enty, "~(20,) ,'foo't' ~se'ttia'ck on
<br />property adjacent to desigYia_t`ed:parkway;co:rridors 'is napp;rop'riate.
<br />There will be affect ~of the'se' r.equ;irements.~~ unt'il.:'~ and unless
<br />parkways are designated ~~on~ .the_~ zoning~_`map' " The' "intent of the
<br />comprehensive plan and .d esig;nated ." par)c'way "and ,setback's "a'd'jacent
<br />to parkways is to achieve' city beauti.f ication .'and. ,to ~"establ'i'sh, an
<br />image of enviromental equality and concern .wi.tli;' the''~City of La
<br />Porte. Entry threshhol'd's ,are an ", introgal" .part;'~of' they' parkway
<br />system as discussed in the ' ci"ty. t'hroug:hofar,'e' arid, beauti"fic,ation
<br />plans passed by the City o,f" La.` Porte" Plan"n.hg and, Zon irig Commission.
<br />This setback is to be landscaped" and' maintained. by the, ,r.espective
<br />property owners. ~ q - - ~. :.. _ ..
<br />..,-
<br />ANALYSIS: If the Planning and~,Zonin.g; Coinmi'ssion wishes `to''"achieve
<br />the object iv es of the Comprehensive' plan ~:th~e " Ord-in.ance :'sections
<br />regarding parkways and parkway corridors should be ;reta'ined'. If
<br />however, these requirements prove to be too costly then they
<br />should be removed.
<br />41) Parking and}Curb Requirements:
<br />~~ -
<br />Citizen imput indicates .that,. tti'e term curb_~ needs to b'e~ d'efined
<br />to allow convenitial"„"c'urb;;:s;tops` as wel`Y`"as~ `poured' ~~cur'bing if
<br />desired. ~.~~~.- , t ... :. ~ .. , ..:°:~~.
<br />" ;-" ,~";
<br />:, ,-.
<br />ANALYSIS: Staff sees no con~'1`ct with the ~Comprehensiv~e_Pla'n and
<br />this addition to the definitidn ~ of sect"TCSn 'to "allow' ~'cur13 `'stops
<br />as opposed to solid curbs. ,"This addition will .make ,parking lot
<br />drainage substaintally easier to obtain Wand less costly-;,t:..".,=-'-:~::
<br />42) Additional Setback Adjacent" to"~Major~,Thresuglofaresz " ~ ~~
<br />Citizen imput indicates that' the ~r"equ~rement~ `of ~an additional
<br />five foot to ten foot setback of a ,true"tore from a major- through-
<br />ofare should be deleted. Review_;of this 'requireme'n't `indicates
<br />that proper throughofare planning`" as,"~contain~ed in t~tie"th'~ougho-
<br />fare plan removes the need for' futi'ure~fight=of-wa'y` acquisition
<br />and widening.
<br />
|