Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- - 1 <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />City of Centerville <br />October 23, 2002 <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />IV. PUBLIC HEARING(S) <br /> <br />1. Proposed Ordinance 70 and 71 <br /> <br />Mayor Swedberg opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. <br /> <br />Mayor Swedberg indicated he did not have any major issues with Ordinance #70. He <br />then said he is pleased that the emphasis is on health and sanitation. <br /> <br />Mayor Swedberg indicated he would like to change business zones to commercial zones <br />because he does not feel that this is a good use for the mixed-use zone. <br /> <br />Mayor Swedberg asked ifthe City meant 30 days on page 5. On Page 6 he would like the <br />recommendation to come to Council and not the City Clerk. He then said he would like <br />to limit this sort of activity to 9:00 p.m. On page 7 of 13 under E. he would like to <br />eliminate the number of times the police can come into the business as he feels they <br />should be going in whenever it is necessary. He also said he thought 10 business days <br />was adequate to relocate the business rather than 30 days. On page 8 he asked if the City <br />does have a code. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft explained that the compilation of all ordinances is the City's code. <br /> <br />Mayor Swedberg questioned who would be the qualified schools for determination of <br />licensure. City Attorney Hoeft indicated he was fme with the Mayor's conunents <br />regarding changes but said he would reconmlend leaving the number of times the police <br />can enter because if the language is not in there the police can not go in unless they have <br />consent or suspicion of illegal activity and that language would give them the right to <br />check the business out at least six times per year. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft commented that on page 4 of 13 with the language granted only for <br />business zones may need to be modified further because the City used to allow on special <br />use permits and then went away from that into having zoning classifications with <br />permitted uses and conditional uses and special uses within those areas. He then said the <br />City may need to amend Ordinance #4 if the City has not spelled out where it is allowed <br />in the zoning code. <br /> <br />Council Member Travis indicated that part of the intent of splitting Ordinances #70 and <br />#71 was because there is something in Ordinance #4 regarding distances from areas so <br />there is only one spot in town that would allow for adult oriented businesses. <br /> <br />Council Member Capra questioned whether the liability insurance requirement was <br />higher than what the City requires of the liquor license holders. Council Member Nelson <br />said she thinks it is but feels that is warranted. <br /> <br />Page 2 of 15 <br />