My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1995 09 05
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1995 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1995 09 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:40 PM
Creation date
4/20/2004 9:25:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
9/5/1995
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1995 09 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Lester Shor, HSG Louisville, LLC, explained that Ruby Tuesday puts more money in their <br />infrastructure than most entrepreneurs in the restaurant business. He virtually guaranteed the <br />landscaping to be premiere and magnificent. He was upset that the corporate representatives of Ruby <br />Tuesday's did not attend the meeting, as was Sisk. <br /> <br />Mayer wanted more trees. He was concerned about pedestrian traffic coming into the restaurant area <br />from the hotels. He felt there should be a sidewalk in the common drive. <br /> <br />Kraeger stated that the parking isles are common paths for pedestrians. <br /> <br />Mayer suggested that the landowner plant trees along the storm sewer, and if the city had to come <br />in to do some repairs on the storm sewer, the City be responsible for replacing the landscaping. He <br />asked if it were possible for the landowner to assume that responsibility under the PUD. <br /> <br />Avery stated that planting trees in the proximity of the storm sewer would be in violation of the City's <br />Public Works Department rules. <br /> <br />Tom Phare, Public Works Director, stated that he was not concerned about the trees damaging the <br />72" pipe. His was concerned about the cost to the City of replacing the landscaping. He felt the trees <br />should be off-set as far as possible. <br /> <br />Avery suggested a license agreement with the landowner as a condition of approval to enable them <br />provide landscaping in the easement. <br /> <br />Lathrop was concerned about the lighting. <br /> <br />Avery stated that their lighting was substantially different from Applebee's, as he displayed in photos. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that neon banding is prohibited by the Gateway Design Guidelines and this <br />development is not in compliance with the legal requirement of the Guidelines. He explained that if <br />Council decides to change the criteria for Ruby Tuesday's, they will be deciding to change the criteria <br />for the entire Gateway standard. He liked Ruby Tuesday's, but could not support their lack of <br />meeting the Guidelines. <br /> <br />Howard was concerned about the landscaping in the easement. <br /> <br />Davidson called for the applicant's summary. <br /> <br />Avery stated that trees in the easement is a question for the City to resolve. He felt they had <br />exceeded the "spirit" and intent of the Gateway Design Guidelines. He suggested a continuance for <br />the City to decide what applies and what can be done. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.