Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Davidson called for the applicant's presentation. <br /> <br />Rex Boatright, 9418 S Burgundy Circle, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, stated that they recently <br />received the staff report but they are willing to work through each item. He was available to answer <br />any questions. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Council comments and questions. He stated that he believes the lot is too small <br />for this proposal and he would not vott: to grant any waiver to any design guideline. He did not like <br />the proposed neon-banding signs. He stated that Council does not approve buildings where the total <br />building is a sign in itself. <br /> <br />Howard expressed his concern for the open space dedication and the foliage on the sight. He stated <br />that the City of Louisville takes pride in the landscaping on McCaslin and questioned the reasoning <br />for granting a waiver on 5,000 sf of lcmdscaping. <br /> <br />Keany stated that he understands the proposed signs to be open neon channel letters rather "than neon <br />banding. In response to public comme:nts, the Council has not approved any signage with exposed <br />neon tubing. He expressed concern for the building's orientation. He agreed with earlier comments <br />regarding landscaping and open space. <br /> <br />Mayer expressed concern for the number of waivers the applicant is requesting and questioned the <br />benefit to the City for granting them. He agreed with Keany regarding the building orientation. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that the requests for parking and landscape waivers are significant. He felt that the lot was <br />t~o small for this proposal. <br /> <br />Davidson moved that Council forward the Final PUD Development Plan for Carrabba's Italian <br />Restaurant - Lot lB - Centennial Valley Parcel H onto the Planning Commission with Council <br />recommendation for denial, seconded by Mayer. <br /> <br />Davidson called for further Council discussion. <br /> <br />Keany questioned recommending denial of the application as the applicant could modify the plans <br />based upon tonight's comments, or withdraw at this time and return with a different plan. <br /> <br />Davidson agreed that they could withdraw, however, the current plans would require such extensive <br />modification that they would need to be presented to Council before moving on to Planning <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Sisk agreed with Keany and suggested that Council forward the application to the Planning <br />Commission with their comments rather than the recommendation for denial. <br /> <br />23 <br />