City Council Minutes 2002 07 16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting July 16, 2002 Page 16 AVISTA ZONING AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN RECONSIDERATION Councilman Sisk recused himself from the discussions relative to the Avista Zoning and Final Development Plan Reconsideration. Davidson asked that the record reflect that Mayor Pro-tem Sisk was excused from the Avista Zoning and Final Development Plan Reconsideration discussions. City Attorney Sam Light reported on a problem with the Avista expansion legal description. He explained that, a SA acre parcel belonging CDOT was inadvertently included in all of the legal descriptions. He stated that one remedy would be to have Council recall or reconsider the zoning ordinance and the resolution that approved the final development plan for Avista Hospital. He explained that the usual procedure to reconsider is to pass, by motion, reconsideration of the zoning ordinance and the resolution. He requested a motion to reconsider Ordinance No. 1380, Series 2002, and Resolution No. 19, Series 2002, on August 6, 2002. MOTION: Davidson moved that Council reconsider Ordinance No. 1380, Series 2002 and Resolution No. 19, 2002, and set the date for reconsideration for August 6, 2002, seconded Levihn. All in favor. Brown excuxed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Sam Light updated Council that the Centennial Valley Properties IV has been dismissed by the Court, therefore the settlement funds will be forwarded to Koelbel. With respect to the Centennial Valley Properties II litigation, Light requested direction and confirmation with respect to retaining special counsel to assist in the lawsuit. He requested approval of retaining Mr. Edward Gleason, of the Colorado Springs Law Firm, Mulliken, Gleason, Weiner, Whitney, Jolivet, P.C. Keany voiced his concern with the appointment of a Colorado Springs attorney to represent Louisville. He noted that the travel time and availability for conferences were of particular concern to him. He voiced his preference for appointment of a local attorney, if credentials and skills are comparable, to assist with the lawsuit. Light stated the purpose for obtaining Mr. Gleason is to deal with litigation of fee issues. He did not expect any conferences requiring travel and stated either firm would be suitable. Levihn concurred, and voiced preference for Caplin & Ernest. Sisk stated that Council member Brown expressed his preference by email. Sisk preferred that the City Attorney choose a co-counsel he would feel comfortable working with. 16