My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1982 10 19
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1982 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1982 10 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:20 PM
Creation date
7/8/2009 3:18:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
10/19/1982
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1982 10 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
<br />10/19/82 <br /> <br />Page -6- <br /> <br />Attorney Rautenstraus stated he assumed what <br />Mr. Yatchak was alluding was the argument <br />made by the defendants in the suit that the <br />suit was filed prematurely and that after cer- <br />tain other events occur, then it could possibly <br />cause an action to be filed. It was his <br />feeling this would not be called a road map. <br />Councilman Leary commented the implication is <br />that when the building permit is issued, the <br />same issue could be dealt with. <br />Rautenstraus replied the Court did not speci- <br />fically state this. But the judgement was <br />that when the suit was filed; it was too early. <br /> <br />Request for Dec1artory <br />Judgement <br /> <br />Wished to refer to a comment made previously <br />on the Neodata issue and wished to reiterate <br />that he felt the land was zoned incorrectly, <br />a mistake made sometime ago. One of the speak- <br />ers stated they did not have a problem with the <br />zoning; the comment made was they would wel- <br />come doctor's offices, etc. Unfortunately, <br />zoning does not guarantee the use of the <br />property and he felt .at this time the proposal <br />is something that is perhaps a better proposal <br />than the City is likely to get with another <br />developer who could come in and not operate <br />the property. It was his opinion that the <br />concern for the citizens will be much less <br />from another developer. However, he felt <br />this matter should be resolved; there was <br />a significant legal matter in the issue that <br />hasn't been resolved and felt uncomfortable <br />with Council considering the Neodata building <br />construction without the issue being resolved. <br />It was his feeling that holding up the industrial <br />revenue bonds would not accomplish resolution of <br />the issue; therefore he would vote for the <br />industrial revenue bond ordinance then would <br />support a motion to seek a dec1atory judgement. <br /> <br />Councilman Leary <br /> <br />Councilman Cussen <br /> <br />Reiterated that he would like to see A. C. <br />Nielsen Co. locate in Louisville; was concerned <br />that we may not: have mitigated the impact that <br />may have on the quality of life in the area. <br />The fact that 300+ residents on the Mesa have <br />stated the proposal will impact the area, and <br />felt as a counci1member he must help make that <br />determination on whether to vote for the <br />industrial revenue bonds. Referred to item <br />8 of the criteria for industrial revenue bonds - <br />"There exists minimal adverse impact on the <br />quality of life in the adjacent areas." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.