18 ATTACHMENT 04(A) - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pearce agreed with Commissioner Blank's comments, respected the art of falconry, and was not entirely opposed to the concept. She had trouble fitting this application into an ordinance which addressed fowl and noted that one dictionary defined "fowl" as "all birds," and another defined "fowl" as "poultry." She noted that there was no consistency among the definitions and that she tended to be more conservative. She did not believe that a hawk belonged in a fowl ordinance and would prefer to discuss a Code amendment for wild and exotic animals. Commissioner Olson noted that he would not want to live next door to a chicken coop but would not have a problem living next door to this use. He had exposure to falconry in the past and had accompanied a friend who trained a peregrine falcon. He did not believe this was a serious safety issue and added that his small Shih Tzu dog could have been taken by any of the wild hawks near his home in town but did not believe it plausible. He agreed with Commissioner Pearce's assessment that this should not be part of the "fowl" definition and would support a Code amendment to address this issue directly. He was opposed to rejecting this use out of hand and did not see it in any way as equivalent to cockfighting; he added that there was no gambling, nor was it a group affair. He would like the legal side of this issue to be cleaned up and addressed in that way. Commissioner Narum noted that her former brother-in-law was a master falconer and that she would feel comfortable living next to a falcon; she would have more concerns living next door to chickens. She did not believe this was a serious safety issue and added that a Code amendment would be necessary to properly identify the use, as opposed to using the definition of "fowl." She would like the conditions of approval to specify that the use be limited to one falcon at a time. Chairperson Fox noted that her opinion was more aligned to Commissioners Blank and Pearce and believed that developing a Code amendment to address a wild animal ordinance was another discussion. She believed that the Commission agreed that a hawk was not a fowl and did not believe the conditional use findings could be made under the Municipal Code. She believed the current application should be denied on that basis and that the Planning Commission could not create entries to the Municipal Code. She would like staff to return with a wild animal ordinance so the Commission may consider this application under those parameters. She believed that this current application should be denied because the hawk is not a fowl. She indicated that there is a mountain lion in the wild near Mohr Elementary School where she lives and although it has not attacked anyone, she does not want to see it caged as a pet two doors down in a residential neighborhood. If the City desires to allow wild animals to be kept as pets in residential areas, there needs to be a broader discussion and must consider State law, the possibility of escapes, and other issues. She indicated that she agreed with Commissioners Blank and Pearce. Ms. Decker asked the Commission if it wished to consider continuing this item so that staff may return with examples of different wild animal ordinances. She noted that the Code amendment that allowed up to four chickens was specific, but required a use permit. The Code amendment would not read that it was by right, but that a conditional use permit maybe required along with the ordinance. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2007 Page 12 of 15