18 ATTACHMENT 04(A) - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Blank noted that if this item were to be continued and the Commission adopted an animal ordinance, the conditional use permit finding under the fowl item could not be made anyway. He believed that the only option would be to not approve the application and, as part of the motion, request that staff return with alternate language. He added that the applicant could appeal the decision to the City Council within 15 days of the Commission's action. Chairperson Fox understood that the passage of a new ordinance would require two readings and time. She stated that the Planning Commission cannot make a finding based upon a proposed but not adopted Municipal Code amendment. Ms. Decker suggested continuing the item and noted that should the passage of a new amendment be prioritized, considered, and approved, staff would support having the existing application modified rather than having the applicant submit a new application. Commissioner Pearce expressed confusion and inquired how a potential Code amendment and this application could be processed simultaneously. Ms. Decker indicated that the application would be put on hold or held in abeyance until the Code amendment process was completed. Ms. Decker indicated that this maybe similar to the chicken applications, which she believed were held until the Code amendment was processed. Commissioner Blank indicated that he respectfully disagreed with Ms. Decker and indicated that this situation was different than that of the chickens. He noted that the chickens were allowed in the current Code, then the Planning Commission made a finding, and then there was the Code amendment. There was no hold status for the chicken applications. Chairperson Fox noted that she supported denying this application and then discussing a Code amendment separately. She did not support putting on hold an item that had been an issue for 14 months. Commissioner Blank moved to deny PAUP-4 as the required use permit findings could not be made as the hawk did not conform to the definition of "fowl." Chairperson Fox seconded the motion. Commissioner Blank proposed that staff come back with information on wild animal ordinances. Ms. Decker proposed that the issue be considered under Matters Initiated by Commission Members. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Narum regarding the next step, Ms. Decker noted that the Planning Commission would need to request that staff return with language or examples of an ordinance amendment(s); she noted that if the City Council should uphold the Planning Commission's decision if appealed, the applicant would probably need to remove the hawk from the premises. Ms. Harryman noted that if the City Council were to uphold the Planning Commission's decision, she did not believe the applicant would need to remove the hawk from the property if EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2007 Page 13 of 15