City Council Agenda and Packet 1982 11 03

Home Browse Search

4IM 411 • 10/19/82 Page -6- Attorney Rautenstraus stated he assumed what Mr. Yatchak was alluding was the argument made by the defendants in the suit that the suit was filed prematurely and that after cer- tain other events occur, then it could possibly cause an action to be filed. It was his feeling this would not be called a road map. Councilman Leery commented the implication is that when the building permit is issued, the same issue could be dealt with. Rautenstraus replied the Court did not speci- fically state this. But the judgement was that when the suit was filed; it was too early. Councilman Leary Wished to refer to a comment made previously on the Neodata issue and wished to reiterate that he felt the land was zoned incorrectly, a mistake made sometime ago. One of the speak- ers stated they did not have a problem with the zoning; the comment made was they would wel- come doctor's offices, etc . Unfortunately, zoning does not guarantee the use of the property and he felt at this time the proposal is something that is perhaps a better proposal than the City is likely to get with another developer who could come in and not operate the property. It was his opinion that the concern for the citizens will be much less from another developer. However, he felt this matter should be resolved; there was a significant legal matter in the issue that hasn't been resolved and felt uncomfortable with Council considering the Neodata building construction without the issue being resolved. It was his feeling that holding up the industrial revenue bonds would not accomplish resolution of the issue ; therefore he would vote for the industrial revenue bond ordinance then would Request for Declartory support a motion to seek a declatory judgement . Judgement Councilman Cussen Reiterated that he would like to see A. C. Nielsen Co . locate in Louisville; was concerned that we may not have mitigated the impact that may have on the quality of life in the area. The fact that 300+ residents on the Mesa have stated the proposal will impact the area, and felt as a councilmember he must help make that determination on whether to vote for the industrial revenue bonds . Referred to item 8 of the criteria for industrial revenue bonds - "There exists minimal adverse impact on the quality of life in the adjacent areas ."