Laserfiche WebLink
2/7/84 Page -17- <br />Ms. Bostwick stated she was not aware of <br />the height restrictions that were discusssed, <br />but she could think of nothing that would <br />not visually impact commercial development <br />or the freeway all the way into Louisville. <br />As members of the Mayor's Task Force had <br />stated, didn't think that our comprehensive <br />plan showed what our City would look like, <br />and if we arE~ serious about what we want <br />our City to be then this is the time to <br />say no to something. It was her opinion <br />Council shou_1d repeal the ordinance and <br />make a serious decision in the future. <br />Councilwoman Morris Councilwoman Morris asked if Attorney <br />Letter from James Cederberg Rautenstraus would read the letter from <br />Against the Application James CederbE~rg, which all councilmembers <br />Originator of the Referendum had received, since he could not be attend- <br />Petition ance this evening. She asked that it be <br />read for all public participation. Attor- <br />ney Rautenstraus read Mr. Cederberg's letter <br />in its entirety which urged Council to <br />repeal Ordin<~nce #808. <br />Applicant's Presentation Mayor Meier asked Mr. John Alshuler if <br />he would like to comment at this time. <br />He did not. <br />Mayor Meier continued the public hearing <br />anal asked if there were any public questions. <br />Charles Van De Boogaard Mr. Van De Boogaard stated that he didn't <br />626 Lilac Court have a question but would like to make a <br />Against the Application few comments. Since it was his feeling <br /> that one of the purposes of the public hear- <br /> ing was to have direct input to City Council's <br /> deliberation on current questions, he would <br /> like to recommend that City Council repeal <br /> the action of the former City Council that <br /> took place in December. He felt failing <br /> to repeal the ordinance that Council was <br /> or.~ the right track in trying to resolve <br /> these question areas. If we can't repeal <br /> it: then at least Council is going in the <br /> right direction and he wished to commend <br /> them for that. He assumed that someone can <br /> construe the labor of this Council as anti- <br /> gz-owth. That is a matter of choice of words, <br /> rE~porting jargon, etc. He preferred to <br /> view councilmembers as maintenance of quality <br /> of life. and felt that was really what the <br /> ok~jective of City Council should be. Mr. <br /> Van De Boogaard felt this had been done by <br /> tYie comments of the other people that this <br />