Laserfiche WebLink
#OS-3085 <br /> - Febru�ry 22,2005 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> ' Rear 35', 30' 97', 7' NO CHANGE <br /> Left Side (west) 15', 15' 105', 102' NO CHANG� <br /> Right Side (east) 15', 0' 0', 0' NO CHANGE <br /> Structural Covera e <br /> Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage <br /> 41,521 s.£ (0.953 acres) Allowed: 6,228 s.f. (15%) <br /> Proposed: 4,960 s.f. (12%) <br /> Hardcover Calculations . <br /> (These calculations are estimations as a hardcover analysis was not submitted and most <br /> of this hardcover has existed since rior to ado tion of the current zoning regulations <br /> Hardcover Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed <br /> Zone Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover <br /> 75 —250 30% of the 25% 0% NO CHANGE <br /> roperty's area <br /> 250—500 60% of the 30% �55% NO CHANGE <br /> property's area <br /> The City's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for different hardcover regulations for <br /> business zoned districts. This is mainly because tlie City has very little area zoned for <br /> business (approximately 2% of the entire City) and the issue has been overlookecl in the <br /> past. However, the Navarre area is located very close to Lake Minnetonka arid many <br /> businesses exist within the 75'-250' zone and beyond. Because Navarre originally <br /> developed long before any zoning regulations were in place, many of the sites do not <br /> comply with the current code. Although hardcover calculations were not required or <br /> submitted, the site probably contains soniewhere around 55% hardcover within the 250'- <br /> 500' zone with probably nothiiig 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 plaii approval. <br /> Access <br /> Access to this site is at two locations: Shoreline Drive at the center of the front lot line <br /> for the street level busiiiesses, and tluough the Keaveny site to the direct e�st off of Kelly <br /> Avenue for the lower level. Staff inquired about the legality of this shared access with <br /> both building owners and it is clear there are no easements existing for this shared access. <br /> Should the Plaruiing Coiluiiission wish to approve this commercial site plai� review and <br /> ultimately the use, the building owner should be required to obtain an easemelit for a <br /> shared access. Staff feels this niay be probleinatic should Mr. Keaveny wish to sell for <br /> redevelopment, which could affect such au easement over the long term. <br />