My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2017 12 19
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2017 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2017 12 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:14:00 PM
Creation date
1/17/2018 9:49:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2017 12 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 19, 2017 <br />Page 10 of 17 <br />Mayor Muckle noted the drainage options are different in each option He asked if we <br />can install this sequentially so not to undo work previously done. Adettiwar stated option <br />2 builds on option 1 so you aren't redoing work, each option builds on the earlier work to <br />stage the work. <br />Mayor Muckle stated the slide is not important to open space, but is to the homes uphill. <br />He asked if doing the drainage work and monitoring the inclinometers would keep the <br />slide from moving uphill to the homes Adettiwar stated yes it should stop breaking away <br />up the hill, but that could be affected by another 500 -year or 1000 -year flood event. <br />Having the inclinometers installed is important for watching the data for ground <br />movement <br />Mayor Muckle stated we might want to minimize impact on open space and maximize <br />the safety of the homes. He supports the RFP; perhaps not boring all over the open <br />space, but should install the inclinometers. <br />Councilmember Keany moved to direct staff to complete the RFP for options 1-5 and <br />also to take the urgent steps that were recommended to move those forward <br />immediately; specifically, the continuous monitoring, signage, and fencing if needed <br />Mayor Muckle seconded. Voice vote all in favor <br />DISCUSSION/DIRECTION — CONSIDERATION TO AMEND THE LOUISVILLE <br />MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT BEEKEEPING IN AREAS OTHER THAN <br />RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 6.24 BEES <br />Planner Dean stated beekeeping is currently permitted in all residential zoning districts <br />except high density and the Agricultural Zoning District. There is no permit required. The <br />maximum number of colonies is 2-8 depending on lot size and is unlimited if hives are at <br />least 200 feet from all property lines There is a 10 -foot setback required from side and <br />rear property lines and they are not allowed in the front yard Council has received a <br />request from bee keeping advocates to consider permitting beekeeping in other zoning <br />districts, including commercial and industrial areas and downtown. They feel this will <br />promote the pollinators, be educational, and increase the bee population. <br />Dean stated there has been a significant loss in honey bee populations over the last <br />three years due to industrialized agriculture, use of insecticides and, climate change <br />Honey bees are vegetarian and forage up to a 2 5 mile radius Apprximately 5% of the <br />population is allergic to bee stings Staff feels allowing this in other zone districts will not <br />likely create a proliferation of bees in town. Other front range jurisdictions permit <br />beekeeping in commercial and industrial zoning districts (or all zoning districts) including <br />Arvada, Longmont, Littleton, Denver, Fort Collins. <br />Considerations <br />O Number of colonies <br />O Setbacks/hive placement <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.