PC 121207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker noted that staff would interpret these documents to indicate merely examples of what large and small fowl could be as they relate to size of fowl. Commissioner Pearce inquired how the Webster’s definition of “fowl” had come to be used. Ms. Harryman replied that was the dictionary kept in the City Attorney’s office. Commissioner Pearce noted that Black’s Law Dictionary did not contain a definition of the word “fowl.” Ms. Decker noted that animals and birds that people have historically kept, such as chickens, geese, and pigs, were listed; it was not the City’s intent that those constitute only fowl. Likewise, the list including sheep and cattle would not preclude any other kind of livestock considered for agriculture, such as llamas, horses, goats, or Shetland ponies. Similarly, these limitations generally addressed the numbers of birds or animals. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Chairperson Fox noted that staff has previously indicated that the applicant was not present and thus invited members of the public to speak on this item. Commissioner Blank disclosed that he had exchanged several emails with Mr. Carl and had a telephone conversation relative to the subject. Chairperson Fox noted that there appeared to be technical difficulties with the camera and the overhead projector. Dan Carl noted that he appreciated the staff and Commission work that had gone into the review of this item. He noted that after many months since a simple question on September 2006, the Commission now is hearing this item. He appreciated staff’s and the Commissioners’ time and stated that he realized that Commissioners have thankless jobs, people do not always agree or are upset with decisions, the Commission makes tough decisions which can get overridden if someone does not like the decision. He thanked the Commission for its service and said it is appreciated. [Staff was unable to assist in resolving the technical presentation issues and was not able to make copies because there was a problem with the toner.] A recess was called at 8:15 p.m. to enable the speaker to display screen shots for his statement. Chairperson Fox reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Chairperson Fox apologized and noted that the visual projector appeared to not be working and staff was not successful in trying to get it to work; thus, there would be no visuals. Mr. Carl believed that good municipal codes and consistent enforcement were the same as good fences, which made for good neighbors, leading to happy and safe neighborhoods. He spoke in opposition to this application, asked that it not be approved, and asked that it be acted on at this meeting. He noted that the initial notice had been made 15 months ago and added that it would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2007 Page 10 of 19