PC 121207 - Laserfiche WebLink

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. Ms. Decker recommended that the Planning Commission may wish 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 may be required along with the ordinance. 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. Chairperson Fox understood that the passage of a new ordinance would require two readings and time. Ms. Decker noted that should the passage of a new amendment be prioritized, considered, and approved, staff would support the existing application be modified rather than have the applicant submit a new application. Chairperson Fox noted that she supported denying this application and then discussing a Code amendment separately. 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. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2007 Page 14 of 19