PL PACKET 06182024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 21, 2024 Page 3 1 Mr. Grittman noted he has not received any comments from residents. 2 3 Commissioner Rude noted birds are listed twice in the ordinance and asked which type of 4 birds would be kept outside as pets. There is some inconsistency in the mentioning of ducks 5 and geese. The definition of undeveloped property “human occupancy” should be changed to 6 “human use” instead. Mr. Grittman stated the term occupancy refers to use. Commissioner 7 Rude asked if a garden would be considered “undeveloped property” or would it be 8 developed. Mr. Grittman stated a garden would be an accessory use to a single family home. 9 Commissioner Rude referred to 91.56 under “D” the course on beekeeping and asked what 10 would be required to prove the owner is “trained”. The training should be acceptable to the 11 City Manager or designee. Commissioner Rude suggested that be added to the wording. The 12 consensus of the Commission agreed. 13 14 Commissioner Anderson asked about the same section and the allowance for nuisance 15 complaints. She asked if this would just be a call to City Hall. Mr. Grittman stated they could 16 ask the City to enforce the Code or go to court with a Tort claim. A defense they are 17 complying with City Code is not a defense if a nuisance is questioned. Mr. Grittman will look 18 into the source for this particular language. Commissioner Rude stated a lawsuit might be 19 more restrictive than we need to be. If the City brings action for nuisance that may be an 20 administrative proceeding. 21 22 Chair Socha referred to the license term. When thinking of two lots on a property that would 23 affect distances. She feels the wording “property” is sufficient. Commissioner Morita stated if 24 the wording of switching “lot” to “property” he would be in support of that. Mr. Grittman 25 stated “lot” would be more precise. Chair Socha asked why Staff does not support the license 26 term ending on 5/31 of each year. Mr. Grittman stated the administrative staff believes the 27 process currently used for chickens which is to issue the approval (license) at the time and not 28 require the beekeeper to come back every year for a renewal but use their property in 29 accordance with the terms of their approval. This would reduce the burden for administrative 30 staff and the license holder. The City always has the authority to review. Mr. Grittman stated 31 he believes since the chicken process has been successful, the City Manager hopes the 32 beekeeping process will be the same. Chair Socha suggested a 5-10 year license term be 33 implemented. The license does not transfer with the property. The consensus was to not have 34 annual renewal process for the licenses per staff’s recommendation. 35 36 Commissioner Anderson commented on the allergy portion and if a house next door is sold 37 and new people move in who could have an allergy. There needs to be a notification process. 38 It was suggested that if someone near a beehive can show they have an allergy then the license 39 could be revoked. Commissioner Hark stated if circumstances changed it would need to be 40 reviewed. Mr. Grittman stated this is not really a zoning ordinance. We are not allowed to 41 require someone to get the approval of their neighbors to get a zoning permit. This is a land 42 use issue. He has some concern about this clause all together. This may be beyond the City’s 43 authority. Commissioner Rude asked what happens if the neighbor refuses to sign. Nuisance 44 could include someone on an adjacent property reports they have an allergy. Nuisance 45 includes where someone has a documented allergy and should be included in the definition of 46 what a nuisance is. Notice would need to be provided. Chair Socha asked if the beekeeper