Laserfiche WebLink
City of Centerville <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />October 27, 2021 <br />Council Member Mosher thanked Mayor Love for the explanation of this process. Administrator <br />Statz emphasized this is how policies are made and brought to the Legislature. He also noted he <br />could get you in contact with the appropriate legislative representative to discuss further concerns. <br />Motion by Council Member Lakso, seconded by Council Member Mosher to Approve <br />Consent Agenda Item #4. All in favor. Motion carried. <br />5. Encroachment Agreement, 1784 Meadow Lane - Fence <br />Administrator Statz stated City code requires fencing around an outdoor pool. Council Member <br />Lakso wondered about requirements of property owner if existing fence had to be moved. <br />Administrator Statz stated removal of a fence in a drainage and utility easement is usually <br />temporary. Council Member King was concerned residents may not understand the definition of <br />this city code. Administrator Statz provided a variety of options for the property owner during this <br />process. <br />Mayor Love provided other options such as fencing around only the pool or use pool covers. <br />Council Member King questioned if tabling this until City Council members have a complete <br />understanding of this agreement. <br />Motion by Council Member Lakso, seconded by Council Member Koski to Approve Consent <br />Agenda Item #5. All in favor. Motion carried. <br />VIIL OLD BUSINESS <br />1. Sutton Transport <br />a. Site Plan <br />b. Conditional Use Permit <br />c. Final Plat <br />Administrator Statz explained nothing has changed since this was originally shown to the City <br />Council. Sutton Transport is looking to complete the process by approving the permits and plans <br />that have been shared but not yet approved. <br />Council Member Lakso noted no issues were directed to Planning and Zoning back in August. <br />Council Member Koski questioned why the approvals are delayed. Administrator Statz stated <br />disagreements between the property and land owner pushed it back a month and it never was <br />approved. City Attorney Glaser added participants had to close on the agreement before the City <br />could approve the plans. <br />Council Member Koski wondered if all three can be approved in one motion. He also wanted <br />clarification on differences between the resolution and the Conditional Use Permit. <br />Administrator Statz requested a separate motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit and also <br />stated the Resolution has to come before the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit. <br />Page 5 of 7 <br />