Laserfiche WebLink
«N)5-30SS <br />February 22, 2005 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />Rear 35 ’, 50 ’97’, 7'NO CHANGE <br />LcA Side (west)15 ’. 15'105’, 102'NO CHANGE <br />Right Side (east)15’. 0’05ONO CHANGE <br />structural Coverage <br />Total Lot Area <br />41,521 s.f. (0.953 acres) <br />I'otal Structural Coverage <br />Allowed: 6,228 s.f. (15%) <br />Proposed: 4,960 s.f (12%) <br />Hardeover Calculations <br />(Thc.se calculations are estimations as a hardcover analysis was not submitted and most <br />of this hardcover has existed since prior to adoption of the current zoning regulations) <br />Hardcover <br />Zone <br />Total Area in <br />Zone <br />Allowed <br />Hardcover <br />Existing <br />Hardcover <br />Proposed <br />Hardcover <br />75 - 250 30% of the <br />property’s area 25%0%NO CHANGE <br />250 - 500 60% of the <br />property’s area 30%t55%NO Cl lANGE <br />The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not provide for difTercnt hardcover regulations for <br />business zoned districts. I his is mainly because the City has very little area zotied for <br />business (appro,ximately 2% of the entire City) and the issue has been overlooked in the <br />past. However, the Navarre area is located very close to fake Minnetonka and many <br />businesses exist within the 75 ’-250 ’ zone and beyond. Becau.se Navarre originally <br />developed long bclorc any zoning regulations were in place, many of the sites do not <br />comply with the current code. Although hardcover calculations we»e not required or <br />submitted, the site probably contains somewhere around 55% hardcover within the 250 ’- <br />500 ’ zone with probably nothing within the 75 ’-250 ’ zone. The applicants have not <br />proposed any increase in the hardcover levels however, a hardcover variance would be <br />part of any commercial site plan appioval. <br />Access <br />Acce.ss to this site is at two locations: Shoreline Drive at the center of the front lot line <br />for the street level businesses, and through tfe Keaveny site to the direct ea.st olTof Kell> <br />Avenue for the lower level. StalT inquired about the legality of this shared access with <br />both building owners ami it is clear there are no ea.sements existing for this shared access. <br />Should the Planning Commission wi.sh to approve this commercial site plan review and <br />ultimately the u.se, the building owner should be required to obtain an easement for a <br />shared acce.ss. Staff feels this may be problematic should Mr. Keaveny wish to sell lor <br />redevelopment, which could alTect such an ea.sement over the long term.