Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Wilson and i tubers of the Commission <br />City of LaPorte Pag ~2~ <br />-„ ANALYSIS: Without additional demonstrated need,this requirement <br />should be removed pursuant to the citizen imput. <br />43 ).Section 4-101: <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 />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 />44) Section 10-605 (10): <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 />ANALYSIS: Only require curb stops <br />only where 'the parking lot adjoins <br />only require the five. foot setback <br />public right-of-ways.- Note that no <br />mention in this five foot setback ar <br />instead of solid curbs and <br />public right-of-ways. Also, <br />on parking areas adjacent to <br />landscaping requirements are <br />~ea. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />John D. Armstrong <br />David Paul issen <br />John Joerns <br />