12-20-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Not Approved MOTION APPROVED. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Public Hearings: VN05-05 & LP05-11 Variance request and site plan review for Champp’s Restaurant at 2397 Palmer Drive Consideration of a variance and site plan review application to allow an outdoor patio and additional parking within the side and front yard setbacks, respectively. The site plan review is for the proposed patio. The proposed patio will be connected to a new limited-service bar/restaurant that Champp’s plans to construct in adjacent space that was leased to a liquor store operator. Zisla inquired if Kraus-Anderson would be removing the existing trees. Michael Gross, Kraus- Anderson, replied that the existing trees would be removed and replaced. O’Brien asked who owns the property, Champps or Kraus-Anderson. Gross answered that Kraus-Anderson owns the property, but that Champps is a separate entity. Schiferl stated that he does believe that the applicant has proven it’s hardship case. Steve Wagenheim, the owner of Champps New Brighton, approached the Commission and stated that the restaurant is trying to improve the restaurant and its business in the summer. Schiferl replied that he believes that this project should be considered as part of the Brighton Village development. Zisla and O’Brien stated that this project would be an asset to the community. Zisla stated that the commission has been very tolerant and flexible in modifying the reuse of a facility. Schiferl replied that his concern is that the variance is tied to the land and that if Champp’s leaves, any new owners would be able to use these variances on the building and parking. Fernelius stated that the commission could recommend changing the zoning of the area to a B-4, similar to the zoning for Main Street Village, which has relaxed set back guidelines. However, the biggest difference is that Main Street Village was a planned unit development and has different control mechanisms ensure conformance to the zoning code. Rezoning is a separate process and would take additional time. Zisla stressed that Champp’s is a strong anchor business that would like to improve itself, so if changing it to B-4 is necessary to meet all of the zoning codes then do it. Howard inquired if there is a second site plan that would not encroach into the setback. Fernelius stated that there is not a second site plan, but after discussion with the restaurant manger, site plan could be modified, however it would eliminate some parking. Schiferl asked for a clarification of the shared parking with the Brighton Village development. Gross replied that Champp’s lease agreement allows access for parking on the adjacent property just to the east. There is a cross easement between the restaurant, bank and Brighton Village for shared parking, however he did not know the exact number of stalls. Gross expressed concern that if parking is taken away from the Brighton Village development and included in the parking requirements for Champp are that it may put the redevelopment of Brighton Village into jeopardy. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2005\12-20-2005.doc