18 ATTACHMENT 04(A) - Laserfiche WebLink

the applicant submitted an application for a Code amendment. Ms. Decker noted that Code amendments were generally initiated by staff because of a need but that members of the community may initiate the discussion as well. She clarified that processing Code amendments were prioritized by the City Council and may or may not move forward. She noted that if no Code amendment is adopted, this would be a Code Enforcement issue. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether the applicant could request a variance, Ms. Decker replied that would not be possible because variances were processed for site development standards; this was a use, and staff interpreted the Code as such. She understood that the Commission's general opinion was that the hawk was supported, but that the conditional use permit findings could not be made under the definition of "fowl." She further understood that the Commission had made a motion to deny the application but would like staff to proceed with a Code amendment to address a wild and exotic animals. Commissioner Pearce asked if, in the event the City Council denies the application, the applicant can request a Code amendment and keep the hawk while the amendment is being processed. Ms. Harryman indicated that if the City Council denies the application and is not inclined to pursue a Code amendment, this would become a Code enforcement issue and the hawk would have to be removed. Chairperson Fox requested clarification, should the Commission bring up wild animal ordinances of other cities as a sample, if it is the City Council's priority-setting process that determines whether it will be pursued or not. Ms. Decker replied that was correct. She noted that it was not in staff's capacity to follow the Planning Commission's request for a Code amendment as this was an internal discussion and subject to the City Council's determination as to its priority. The Council may or may not direct the creation of a Code amendment to keep a hawk in an R-1 district. She cited the example of the residential sprinkler ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission, which had not previously been processed as a priority by the City Council. Commissioner Blank believed the wild animal ordinance should be addressed and did not believe that this would be the only occurrence of this kind of use. Chairperson Fox noted that the City Council sets its priorities usually in January of each year. Commissioner Blank indicated that this would be good timing for the City Council to consider whether this is or is not a priority. Ms. Decker indicated that the City has processed its work plan priorities. Commissioner Olson requested clarification regazding why this item cannot be continued and a Code amendment pursued. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2007 Page 14 of I S