PC 010908 - Laserfiche WebLink

fowl. She added that her computer crashed at minute 56. She requested that the consideration of the Minutes be continued, and during the two-week period, staff could review the revisions she had made so far, the Commission can likewise review the changes, and she can complete the missing gap. She pointed out that Commissioner Blank's discussion on his research of the falcon species was missing and should be included, rather than have the broad statement on page 7: "A general discussion of the term `fowl' ensued." She added that because the item has been appealed to the City Council, she wanted to ensure that the Minutes are as clear as possible. Commissioner Narum indicated that it was her understanding that this item was on the City Council agenda on Tuesday, January 15th. She inquired how continuing the consideration of the Minutes would affect that hearing. Ms. Decker replied that it could likely impact the City Council agenda item. She indicated that staff typically would like to have the approved Minutes as part of the packet to the City Council. She noted a scheduling problem because the item is being heard by the City Council on January 15th, and the next Planning Commission meeting is not until January 23rd. She called the Commissioners' attention to previous conversations between the Commission and staff regarding the preparation of Minutes and reminded them that the Minutes are not meant to be verbatim. She added that staff pays close to the content and intent of the proceedings. She noted that she did not recall verbatim what was discussed at the meeting and that the modifications proposed by Commissioner Fox appeared to be additional information to the draft Minutes. She added that she had not had the chance to compare both versions as she had just received Commissioner Fox's modifications and that both could be correct. She advised that unless the Commission were to vote or by consensus request that the Minutes be presented verbatim, staff would look into the modifications for the benefit of saving time for both the applicant and staff, and thereby proceeding with the Council hearing on January 15th Chair Blank proposed that each Commissioner go through whatever revisions they may have and then the Commission can decide if it wants to pursue Commissioner Fox's suggestion or if the individual revisions satisfy Commissioner Fox's concern. He added that he had some items that he recalled people had discussed, including a couple by Ms. Harryman, that were not included. He noted that it is important to include these discussions to have accurate Minutes. Ms. Decker directed the Commission to the note on the Minutes that staff confirms any proposed changes by reviewing the recorded proceedings prior to finalizing the Minutes. She indicated that any amendments or modifications proposed this evening would be checked for accuracy. Commissioner Fox stated that she would like items in blue added to minutes, after staff checks them for accuracy, rather than have the Commission go through each item one by one. She reiterated that she wanted to make sure that the comments regarding the definition of "fowl" as well as Ms. Harryman's statements about the Code are included. Chair Blank noted that he did not see Ms. Harryman's clarification that if the Commission believes the hawk can be considered a fowl, then it can make the finding; and if it did not believe the hawk can be considered a fowl, then it cannot make a finding. He added that this is a key PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2008 Page 4 of 28