Laserfiche WebLink
City of Centerville <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />October 13, 2021 <br /> <br />Motion by Council Member Koski, seconded by Council Member Mosher to Adopt Ord. <br />#117, Second Series - Amending City Code Chapter 156, §102, Home Occupations as <br />presented. All in favor. Motion carried. <br /> <br />c. Ord. #XXX, Second Series – Amending City Code Chapter 156, §111, Fence <br /> <br />Administrator Statz again stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing <br />where minimal comments were received regarding the item. He stated that the modifications <br />would allow for fences to be placed at the front edge of the home rather than 10 feet back. He <br />stated that staff provided research regarding neighboring communities’ requirements being the <br />same as the proposed language. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding the difference between 6 foot and decorative fencing and <br />Administrator Statz stated that the existing language regarding a decorative fence is from the front <br />of the home to the road right-of-way remains the same. <br /> <br />Motion by Council Member Koski, seconded by Council Member Mosher to Adopt Ord. <br />#118, Second Series – Amending City Code Chapter 156, §111, Fence as presented. All in <br />favor. Motion carried. <br /> <br />2. Rehbein Commercial – Amended Development Agreement <br /> <br />Administrator Statz stated that this was a simple change to the previous agreement allowing for a <br />Letter of Credit in the amount of $50,000 and a Letter of Credit. He stated that he believes this is <br />a great compromise between the City and the developer, believes the City is well protected and <br />that this may be a better practice in the future for commercial developers. <br /> <br />Attorney Glaser reassured the Council that the City was protected for a longer timeframe, the same <br />procedures have been requested by the developer for the Sutton development and this added for a <br />smoother process. Attorney Glaser stated that is frees up working capital for the developer, giving <br />them more flexibility. <br /> <br />Council Member Koski requested a definition of a bond. Attorney Glaser stated that this type of <br />bond is a surety bond (insurance device/ensures the project will be completed) rather than a bond <br />that the City would sell to an investor in return for money/loan. Administrator Statz stated that <br />further into the development phases that this bond would be converted into a warranty bond <br />covering infrastructure after the warranty period has expired. Council Member Mosher asked what <br />happens upon completion of the project. Attorney Glaser stated that the bonds are for public <br />infrastructure and the LOC remains until the lots are developed. Council Member King asked <br />what items would be covered by the LOC. Administrator Statz stated items that the developer is <br />responsible for and if those same items are not completed in time the city has avenues to make <br />draws on it to complete the items. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glaser assured City Council the staff is doing everything they can in order to cover <br />any inflation/rising costs, protecting the City from outstanding liabilities, etc. <br /> <br />Page 5 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />