Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4808 Staff AnalysisMay 19, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7-- NAME: Potter Street Conditional Use Permit (Z-4808) LOCATION• The east side of Potter Street just north of 38th Street (3715 Potter Street) OWNER/APPLICANT: Carl Steven Woolbright PROPOSAL: To convert an existing one story garage to a 640 square feet dwelling unit on one lot that is zoned "R-2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a residential street (Potter Street). 2. Compatibility_ with Neighborhood This site is abutted by single family uses on three sides with a municipal park located to the west. The garage is an existing building. The garage is only 1.3 feet off the north property line, but the house located to the north has a substantial side yard. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkin The applicant has proposed using the existing gravel drive as both access and parking. 4. Screenin, and Buffers The applicant is proposing to use the existing trees and shrubbery to meet landscape requirements. May 19, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 5. Analysis The existing accessory building does not meet setback requirements (3' required in side yards, 1.3' existing and 6' from the main structure, 2' existing). The applicant, however, has not proposed any additions to the nonconforming structure and the use is not detrimental to the surrounding area. The single family structure located to the north has a more than adequate side yard setback. The staff does feel, however, that the applicant should double the width of the existing drive and pave it for a length of 301. The widening of the drive would allow unobstructed access to both dwelling units. Finally, the applicant must live in one of the units on -site. 6. City Engineerinq Comments None. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, provided the applicant agrees to double the width of and pave the access drive for a length of 30'. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 11 ayes and 0 noes to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.