18 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 4 DRAFT PAUP-4. Jennifer Hosterman Application for an animal use permit to allow ared-tailed hawk to be kept in the rear yard accessory structure of an existing residence located at 2922 Chardonnay Drive. Zoning for the property is PUD-MDR (Planned Unit Development -Medium Density Residential) District. Ms. Decker introduced Ms. Amos, Project Planner, and noted that the applicant was not present. She stated that there had been many scheduling conflicts connected with this item in trying to coordinate a Planning Commission meeting date with the applicant's obligations. She added that staff had been requested by the applicant to bring this item forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. She acknowledged that it had taken some time to get the item before the Commission; however, staff had to educate themselves on the details of the art of falconry and believed the staff report was complete and accurate. Chairperson Fox inquired whether the Commissioner's Handbook addressed the absence of the applicant during a public hearing and whether this was the first time that an item had been heard by the Planning Commission without the applicant being present. Ms. Decker advised that applicants generally attended hearings and that they [applicants] commonly requested a continuance if they were unable to attend. She noted that there had been no substitute representative available for this item and that the applicant had directed staff that it was acceptable to go forward with this hearing. Commissioner Pearce noted that if the applicant had requested that the item move forward, she would like to see it move forward as well. The Commissioners indicated general agreement. Chairperson Fox stated that this was the first time she had seen an item go forward without the applicant and understood that it was acceptable to the applicant that the item be heard without the applicant present. Ms. Amos presented the staff report and detailed the background, scope, and layout of the proposed application. Ms. Decker presented an overview of the information placed on the dais. She noted that Commissioner O'Connor had inquired whether a homeowners association (HOA) would govern or enforce the CC&R's. She added that staff understood that there was no active HOA within this PUD. She noted that the CC&Rs did default to state that any owner within the PUD may enforce the CC&R's as he or she saw fit. Staff believed that the applicant's request was. ti - consistent with the directive to conform with all local laws and regulations. She noted that staff had no knowledge of any owner trying to enforce various issues within the PUD. She noted that this location met the setback requirements with respect to accessory structures. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the meaning of the phrase in the CC&R's "which might obstruct or interfere with the rights of other owners which might be noxious, harmful, or unreasonably offensive to other owners," Ms. Harryman replied that if there was an existing HOA, the HOA Board might consider a neighbor's action that might be noxious DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 12/12/2007 Page 1 of 9