05-05-2014 Council Work Session Minutes

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 5, 2014 APPROVED 46 if much of the reason that people keep bees isn't the pleasure they receive from watching 47 the bees on their own property. 48 49 Council Member Roeser said the discussion is now if the council wants to consider 50 changing the city regulations and, if so, how will public input be received in order to find 51 the best route on that process. 52 53 Mayor Reinert noted that discussion of this topic started as a resident request to change 54 the regulations. For that individual, it's pretty clear now that the regulations the council 55 would consider won't allow them to have the bees. 56 57 Comments were received from the audience. 58 Stillwater resident explained their regulations; 59 If you're allergic to bees, this is a big issues (very personal); 60 Twenty -five feet from property lines is not enough; 61 - Mother who has an eight year old son who is a bee keeper; wouldn't allow it if it 62 were dangerous; 63 Concerned about grandchildren visiting; 64 - Have lived near a farm that kept bees and experienced the bees moving to nearby 65 properties; 66 - Beekeepers wear special suits; why is that if the bees don't sting? 67 68 The mayor indicated that discussion of the matter would continue at a future work 69 session. 70 71 1. Mattamy Homes Presentation - Rick Packer, a representative from Mattamy 72 Homes, gave a presentation on a mixed -use development proposal for 350+ acres in the 73 northeast area of the city. The area is guided per the comprehensive plan 74 for a mixed -use of low- medium density residential and commercial development. No 75 formal Land Use Application has been submitted by Mattamy Homes to the city at 76 this time but the developer wishes to present some general concepts and ideas to the city. 77 78 Council comments after the presentation included: 79 - The commercial area seems forced — perhaps homes in that area would be better; 80 The proposed buffering (from I35E) is creative and positive; 81 - Lot width as low as 50 feet is a concern; 82 Lot size overall seems small but more review of the project is acceptable. 83 84 Mr. Packer reviewed the process that the developer would like to see, with construction 85 beginning at the end of 2015. 86 87 Community Development Director Grochala reviewed the transportation aspects of the 88 area, noting that the highway interchange improvements are already in place. The 89 proposed road structure for this development would require a traffic review to confirm 90 information about traffic that was recently compiled in a traffic study. 2