18 ATTACHMENT 04(A) - Laserfiche WebLink

Supplemental Material Item 18 -Attachment 4(a) 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 noted that it had taken some time for staff to become informed on the art of falconry in order to process the application. She noted that the Planning Commission had inquired several times when this item would be agendized, and staff noted that in order to come up to speed on licensing, falconry, and other related matters, it had been a much more lengthy process than usual. Staff had wanted to ensure presenting a comprehensive report that would provide the decision-makers the information they needed to render a decision. Ms. Decker stated that there had been many scheduling conflicts with respect to trying to coordinate a Planning Commission meeting date with the applicant's schedule and obligations; however, staff had been requested by the applicant to bring this item forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. She 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. She noted that in the past, projects with applicants who have not been able to attend have been automatically continued. She inquired whether this was the first time a hearing item would be heard without the applicant. Ms. Decker advised that applicants generally attended hearings and that they commonly requested a continuance if they were unable to attend. She noted that there had been no substitute representative available to attend the Planning Commission meeting for this item and that the applicant had informed staff that it was acceptable to go forward with this hearing. She noted that this may appear to be unusual but that staff had the appropriate direction and request from the applicant to proceed. Commissioner Blank indicated that he had quickly scanned the Commissioner's Handbook and did not see specific guidance regarding this issue. She asked Ms. Harryman for clarification on this matter. Ms. Harryman noted that it is normal for an applicant who cannot appear to have the item continued, but in this case, she agreed with Ms. Decker that the hearing could be held and the item heard. Chairperson Fox asked the Commissioners how they would like to proceed. Commissioner Pearce noted that if the applicant had requested that the item move forward, she would like to see it move forward as well. Commissioner Olson concurred. The Commissioners indicated genera] agreement with Commissioners Pearce and Olson. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2007 Page 1 of 15