Laserfiche WebLink
Susan Griffiths read by title only Ordinance "C", Series 1995, "An ordinance amending Sections <br />15.04.030 and 15.04.100 of the Louisville Municipal Code concerning the issuance of building <br />permits and the determination of building permit fees." <br /> <br />Sisk restated his motion. He moved that Council approve Ordinance No. 1201, Series 1995, at first <br />reading and set it out for publication and set the public heating for October 3, 1995, and amend <br />15.04.100 on the second line from the bottom, by deleting the word "determination" and replace it <br />with "computation" and to capitalize the "t" in "the" just before "computation". Seconded by Mayer. <br />Roll call was taken. Motion passed by a 6 - 1 vote with Lathrop voting against. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 47, SERIES 1995 - FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN - RUBY <br />TUESDAY'S LOT 1, CENTENNIAL VALLEY PARCEL "H", FILING NO. 2 - CONTINUED <br />FROM 9/5/95 <br /> <br />Paul Wood, Planning Director, stated that the tree count had been increased by six trees and the <br />additional trees had been located so as not to encroach in existing or proposed utility easements. <br />Conceming the neon accent strip, the applicant had requested that Council approve that as proposed. <br />This resolution had two conditions of approval, as forwarded by Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Mayer, Sisk, Lathrop and Davidson disclosed that they had visited Ruby Tuesday's in Denver to look <br />at one of their facilities. <br /> <br />Davidson called for the applicant's presentation. <br /> <br />Bill Avery, Adams-Avery, Ltd., 1380 Lawrence Street, #870, Denver, CO 80204, introduced Doug <br />Chenowski, Regional Director of real estate for Ruby Tuesday, Jason Sherrill, Jason - Christopher <br />Associates, the landscape architects for the project, Brian Richtel, the real estate attorney for Ruby <br />Tuesday's, and Lester Shor, Steve Gettleman, and Jim Shipman representing HSG. He felt the tree <br />issue had been resolved. They requested that the channelized neon lighting, as is, be approved by <br />Council. They did not want it to be downlit. He did not feel the first condition of approval was <br />necessary since they had found other spots to plant the additional six trees needed and that had been <br />the reason to relocate the property line. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Council questions. <br /> <br />Keany was concerned about the white neon tubing, as stated on the PUD. The Ruby Tuesday's he <br />had visited had red neon tubing. <br /> <br />Avery stated that it should say red neon tubing. <br /> <br />Wood stated that the PUD detail should be specked out to require red lexon rather than clear. If the <br />tube is red, there could be opaque white and red letters. He stated that that could be a condition, if <br />that is Council's direction, as well as an amendment to the PUD. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />