Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Decker indicated that the Planning Commission could continue the item and request that a <br />Code amendment be processed, then take action subsequent to the amendment. <br />Commissioner Blank indicated that Ms. Decker's suggestion is under the assumption that the <br />City Council will give this hypothetical Code amendment a priority, and it may not. He <br />indicated that this would prolong the process further. He reiterated that the hawk is not a fowl. <br />If the Planning Commission believes it is a fowl, then it has the option to approve this permit. If, <br />however, the Commission does not believe a hawk is a fowl, then the findings cannot be made <br />and the Commission can deny the application. He indicated that this would not be the only <br />application. <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that she agreed with Commissioner Blank. <br />Commissioner Narum indicated that she believed that the conditions for public health, safety, <br />and welfare could be made and would rather continue the item. She indicated that she would not <br />support Commissioner Blank's motion. <br />Commissioners Pearce and Blank stated that they disagreed that the public health, safety, and <br />welfare findings could be made and believed the current Code does not support that. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Blank, Fox, and Pearce. <br />NOES: Commissioners Narum and Olson. <br />ABSTAIN: None. <br />RECUSED: None. <br />ABSENT: Commissioner O'Connor. <br />Resolution No. PC-2007-5h denying Case PAUP-4 was entered and adopted as motioned. <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2007 Page 15 of 15 <br />