Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />June 11, 2024 <br />Page 3 <br />1 draft which included requirements that all neighbors within 100 feet had been notified, and <br />2 certified that none of those neighbors had documented bee sting allergies. <br />3.3 The language is modified to require only a single application (rather than the PEC’s draft <br />4 which required an annual renewal). Instead, the approval would lapse if the beekeeper either <br />5 discontinued the operation, or was found to be out of compliance with the requirements of <br />6 the code. <br />4.7 The proposed language is modified to authorize the City Manager to approve the course of <br />8 education submitted by the applicant. <br />9 <br />10 The PEC made three additional modifications related to (F) License Term; (G) Allergy Issues; <br />11 and (I) Location. The changes are summarized as: <br />12 <br />13 (F)Staff added to the approval section to create an administrative renewal for licenses <br />14 on an annual basis, unless the City Manager finds that the request requires City Council <br />15 review. <br />16 <br />17 (G)License Limitations for Allergies. The ordinance creates a requirement for <br />18 potential applicants to survey neighboring property owners as to “medically documented” <br />19 allergies. The original language in the PEC version required documentation for all <br />20 property owners within “100 feet” of the subject parcel. Administration of this <br />21 requirement may prove complicated, and as such, the standard is proposed to be limited <br />22 to “abutting property”. <br />23 <br />24 (L)Location – Planning Staff modified the original draft language that required a 200 <br />25 foot separation between hive placements and any property zoned other than R-1, Single <br />26 Family. Instead, Planning Staff proposes that on any property “abutting” non-R-1 <br />27 property, the hive shall be located as far as practical from the non-R-1 boundary. It is <br />28 believed that the 200-foot buffer distance would be difficult to manage, and would <br />29 exempt many R-1 parcels from eligibility. <br />30 <br />31 Councilmember Jenson asked about location and asked for explanation of R-1 and non-R-1 <br />32 properties. Mr. Grittman stated the belief is the beekeeper is a resident of a single family home in <br />33 a single family neighborhood. Apartment buildings would not have any beekeepers near them. <br />34 <br />35 Councilmember Stephens asked how the City ensures communication is sent to affected <br />36 residents and Mr. Grittman stated neighbors are notified in mailing. Councilmember Stephens <br />37 asked how it can be confirmed that notification was done and Mr. Grittman responded that would <br />38 be a function of the City. <br />39 <br />40 Mayor Webster asked for more information on allergies and if a neighbor receives a notice and <br />41 has an allergy, would they come to the Council Meeting where that request was reviewed. They <br />42 could also submit in writing to the City their concern. Mayor Webster noted if someone had an <br />43 allergy to bee stings they would need to publicly disclose health information. Mr. Grittman stated <br />44 the original thought was the applicant would collect information from the neighbor. This would <br />45 be the process for approaching the City with the allergy information. <br />46 <br />7