Laserfiche WebLink
City of Centerville <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />July 8, 2020 <br /> <br />Council Member Lakso stated that the priority is to keep the water tower safe and secure. She <br />asked whether the south side of the property would remain unfenced and Administrator Statz stated <br />that there was a chain link fence along the south side of the property. <br /> <br />Mayor Love had concern for protection of the water tower, felt that a fence would add mitigation <br />of noise and the potential for recouping the costs of the construction based on language contained <br />in the Conditional Use Permit. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glaser stated that if the fence was constructed on City property assessment due to <br />failure to comply with the CUP would not be allowed. If constructed on their property then it <br />would be allowable through the 429 process or small claims litigation. He stated that notification <br />of pending action, providing an opportunity for them to discuss and take action prior to the City <br />acting would need to be provided to them. <br /> <br />Council Member Koski asked about ownership of the existing chain link fence on the south side <br />of the City owned property and Administrator Statz stated that he believed it was City owned. <br /> <br />Council Member Montain felt that a chain link fence would be acceptable. He felt that a wood <br />fence would echo noise and this should be looked at. Administrator Statz stated that staff is not <br />recommending refencing the west or south side of the tower property and is recommending the 8- <br />foot fence with the goal of mitigating noise. Further, the CUP calls for an 8’ tall wood privacy <br />fence. He stated that they are not obligated to construct all the way around the City’s property and <br />he felt that the north and east sides of the property make sense to assist in keeping items from <br />compromising the tower. <br /> <br />Administrator Statz stated that the City will need to ask that the fence be constructed soon, as the <br />timeline the construction of the fence as we have in the past. <br /> <br />Several Council Members felt that the City should work with the property owner for construction <br />of the fence as outlined in the CUP and constructed on their property with their maintenance <br />responsibility. It was also felt that something needed to be accomplished. <br /> <br />Mayor Love clarified that the consideration this evening was whether the City construct the fence <br />on their property or commence the legal process for constructing the fence on their property <br />pursuant to the failure of doing so as addressed in their CUP and beginning the formal process for <br />allowing for specially assessing the associated costs of said construction. <br /> <br />Motion by Council Member Koski, seconded by Council Member Lakso to Commence the <br />Legal Process to Construct an 8’ Wood Privacy Fence as Outlined in the Conditional Use <br />Permit on Alex’s Lawn & Turf property (South & East sides) Abutting the City Owned <br />Water Tower Property. <br /> <br />Administrator Statz clarified Council’s motion by stating that a letter was forwarded that they <br />needed to construct the fence previously and that another letter should be forwarded that the City’s <br />intent is to start the process to assess for the construction of a fence on their property due to their <br />failure to do so per language contained in the CUP. Council Member Lakso stated that this <br />notification may prompt them to complete the action requested by the City. <br />Page 5 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />