04-17-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved proposed patio. The main restaurant entrance would remain unchanged. The site, owned by Kraus Anderson, will continue its shared parking agreement with the Brighton Village development. In late 2005 the City amended its Zoning Code to permit outdoor dining by Special Use Permit. Subsequently, Champp’s submitted for, and received approval of a Site Plan Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance to construct a patio on the west end of the existing restaurant. This plan was part of a larger project where the restaurant would be expanded into the existing vacant space that was formerly occupied by a liquor store. As noted in the applicant’s narrative, that plan has been abandoned. The Site Plan Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance approved in 2005 became null and void as it was not acted on within 6 months of its approval. Schiferl stated that he would like to verify that the one-day a year festival will not continue. Gundlach replied that she will contact the Public Safety staff on their procedures and will let Schiferl know what she has found out. Schiferl replied that he finds the concert an inappropriate use of the property as it affects all the property users and owners in the surrounding area. He indicated support of the proposed patio. O’Keefe asked what the seating capacity of the patio will be. Ken Norbi, NAI Architects, stated that it should seat around 80 people with the umbrella’s open, but it could get as high as 100 with banquet style seating. He added that the menu may be limited, the kitchen is already stressed, and that is why they have not proposed added dining in the game room area. Mann inquired if there are any plans to update the sign for the restaurant since it is falling apart. Norbi replied it is not part of this proposal, but there has been talk to replace it. Mann asked staff if there is any way to force them to fix the sign. Gundlach replied that there is nothing in the zoning code, but it potentially could be addressed in the nuisance ordinance. She added there is plenty of space to replace the sign and it can be handled as sign permit, which is an administrative application. Baker stated that there is no handicap parking shown. Gundlach stated that she does know that it will be addressed with the Brighton Village plan, but it can be added as a condition of approval that the appropriate handicap stalls be located near the restaurant door. Norbi replied that there are four handicapped spots indicated on the overall site plan, across the driveway east of Champps. Schiferl asked what would happen if the Brighton Village plan is not approved and how will it affect the parking for Champps. Gundlach replied that the joint parking arrangements are currently in place and those arrangements provide for adequate parking. Kraus Anderson would have to provide enough parking for the bank and Champps with their new site plan under those joint-use agreements. Nancy Grant, 1100 Robin Lane, stated that she has concerns with blocking access from Palmer Drive at Champps. Baker replied that there are currently two drives onto Palmer Drive and the western one would be closed, but the eastern drive by the bank will remain open. Gundlach added that staff is currently working with Kraus Anderson on a pedestrian friendly plan down Palmer Drive with access to the restaurant. Grant replied that for the residents behind the site the fastest exit and entrance is through the frontage road to go north bound on Silver Lake Road only. Baker stated that is the only place the frontage road goes, the rest is private property. Grant replied that she believes that it is public access and easement all the way to Palmer Drive. Gundlach replied that the frontage road only allows access around the southern part of the site, the lane within the development is a private road. Grant replied that there has been an argument between Sinclair and Kraus Anderson that road behind Sinclair’s is a public easement. Baker replied that a separate agreement between Sinclair and Kraus Anderson allows Sinclair to have access, but the road is still private property. Grant replied I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2007\04-17-2007.docPage 2 of 10