Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout004 07 83LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES April 7, 1983 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development Commission held in the city municipal building, April 7, 1983. Present: Chairman Richard Allen, Commission Members: Robert Allen, Pete Anderson, Ronald Nelson, Myrna Cain, Janet Williams, Council Representative Thomas Nield, City Attorney B. Lynn Winmill, Public Works Director Steven Smart, Building Inspector Danny Stuart, Deputy Clerk Dorothy Ward. Dee Stalder was excused. Meeting called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Allen. Chairman Allen asked for any corrections or additions to the minutes of March 3, 1983. Chairman Allen asked for a correction on the voting on Public Hearing Item: James Reilly, D.V.M., with this correction the minutes were approved as written. Ron Nelson seconded the motion, with all members voting in favor. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM- A proposal by Jame Reilly, D.V.M., 5011 Hawthorne Road for a variance from requirement of 300 foot seperation between an Animal Care Site and any residence, to a 50 foot requirement. Property is presently zoned General Residential (R-2). James Reilly, D.V.M., was present and said he had never had 300 feet between his present Animal Care Site and the residential area. He said he felt with the new stalls it would be cleaner, cut down on the odor and eliminate flies. He asked if the buffer zone,that had been required under his conditional use permit in March, 1983, could be lilac bushes. He was assured they would be permissable. Chairman Allen asked for testimony for or against the Animal Care Site variance. There being none, he opened it up for discussion from the commission. Janet Williams made motion to grant variance to James Reilly, D.V.M., from 300 foot requirement between Animal Care site and any residence to 50 foot requirement based upon the findings of fact. Conclusion of law that lands involved are of such size or configuration and have been developed lawfully prior to the zoning in 1972. Robert Allen seconded the motion, with roll call vote, Nield, yes; Nelson, yes; Robert Allen, yes; Anderson, yes; Cain, yes; Williams, yes; Richard Allen yes. A proposal by Boyd and Darline Crump for a conditional use permit to operate a Day Care Center at 5565 Yellowstone. Property is presently zoned General Commercial (C-2). Darline Crump, McCammon, Idaho, said they would like to operate a Day Care in the Chubbuck area as they saw a need for one. She said they had tried to overcome some of the problems that came up on their application on Pinewood Street. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: 2, Boyd & Darline Crump - Day Care Center Mrs. Crump said the house was on a ½ acre lot, they would provide a 4 stall parking area off the street and entire area would be fenced with chain link fencing and would haVe~a circle driveway to drop children off at site. She said they felt the home had good potential for a respectable and good Day Care Center. She said they would strive to go by the rulings and would work with Dan Stuart, Building Inspector. She presented a list of people who supported them in their endeavor for a Day Care Center. Chairman Allen asked for testimony in favor. Dell Peters, owner of Bell Trailer Court, and Idaho First National Bank, owners of property on Yellowstone & Siphon, had called the city offices stating they had no objection to the Day Care Center. There being no objections, Chairman Allen opened it up to discussion from the commission. Commission members discussed the driveway and the fencing of the area. Mr. Crump said entire front yard would be closed with no access. He said house would be used for Day Care Center only, no one would be living in it. Members asked Dan Stuart if house would meet standards for Day Care Center. Mr. Stuart stated he had not inspected the house; but before a permit was issued it would have to be brought up to code. He said it would handle 30 children. Thomas Nield said he felt it was an excellant location, busy area, but fencing should alleviate any problem. Robert Allen made motion to recommend to the City Council for approval the conditional use permit of Boyd and Darline Crump, that application met the findings of fact and the conclusion of law that it is an excellant area for a day care center since it will not create traffic problems or adversly impact the suurounding neighborhood; and that conditional use permit be granted based upon following conditions: 1. Boyd & Darline Crump c°mplYwith all other applicable orinances and statutes. 2. All outside play areas be seperated from Yellowstone and Siphon roads with a 6 foot fence. 3. Circular drive shall be installed with a 4 bay parking area which shall be approved bY city engineer. Pete Anderson seconded the motion. Roll call vote, Nield, yes; Nelson, yes; Robert Allen, yes; Anderson, yes; Cain, yes, Williams, yes; Richard Allen, yes. e A proposal by Bob L. Nestor, B & C Construction, Inc., for a conditional use permit to construct and operate a General Contractors business on the south ½ of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Boise, Payette Tracts (4900 Block of Valenty). Property is presently zoned General Commercial (C-2). Bob Nestor, was present and said property is already zoned Commercial and he felt his business would be compatible with other business in area. PUBLIC HEARING !TEM: Item 3 - B & C Construction Mr. Nestor said the building was designed by architect as a sales tool as well as a warehouse for his equipment. He said the rear yard would be fenced with a 6 foot fence, for security and all forms would be stored in a lean-to on the back of the building. He said they specialized in excavation and concrete. Chairman Allen asked for testimony in favor of B & C Construction. Rex Christensen, 5201 Lucky, said he felt this business would fit in with the other business in the area, that it was a good clean business and the type of business Chubbuck should encourage. There was no testimony opposed, Chairman Allen opened it up for discussion from commission. Parking was discussed and the access of trucks, if they would be backing out on to the street. Mr. Nestor said the building was designed for the trucks to enter lot from the back of the lot. Pete Anderson made motion to recommend to the City Council for approval the conditional use permit of Bob L. Nestor, B & C Construction, Inc., to construct and operate a General Contractors business in a General Commercial Zone (C-2), on south ½ of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Boise Payette Tracts. The finding of fact being it is a con~nercial zone and similar business located on same street. The conclusion of law have been met with the following conditions; 1. Loading be from back of building. 2. Parking problems be resolved before Design Review 3. All ordinances and statutes be adhered to. Janet Williams seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Nield, yes; Nelson, yes; Robert Allen, yes; Anderson, yes; Cain, yes; Williams, yes; Richard Allen, yes. A proposal by Glen A. Houghton, Houghton Cabinet Shop for a conditional use permit to operate a cabinet shop in a General Commercial Zone (C-2), Property is located on the south ½ of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Boise Payette Tracts (4900 Block Valenty Road). Bob Nestor, representing Mr. Houghton, said cabinet shop would be in his General Contractors building. Chairman Allen asked for testimony in favor of Houghton Cabinet shop. Rex ChriStensen, 5201 Lucky, said he felt this business to would be an asset to the Chubbuck area. There was no testimony in opposition. Chairman Allen opened it for discussion from commission members. Pete Anderson asked how they would dispose of the sawdust. Mr. Nestor said it would be handled through a vacumn system, that the main reason for this was the fire code. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: 4. Glen Houghton - Cabinet Shop Maria Houghton, 212 Adams, said they would take care of the disposal of the sawdUst themselves, that they would not have the city do it. Mr. Nestor said all paints and lacquers would be kept in a special room to meet the fire code. He said Mr. Houghton had been in business in the Pocatello and Chubbuck areas for several years. Robert Allen made motion to recommend to the City Council for their approval the conditional use permit of Glen A. Houghton, Houghton Cabinet Shop, to operate a cabinet shop on the south ½ of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Boise Payette Tracts. The findings of fact that is is in a General Commercial zone with similar businesses in area. The conclusion of law, that development generally compatible with existing uses. That the following conditions be applied: 1. All loading from back of building. 2. Parking lot problems to be resolved before Design Review 3. All ordinances and statutes be adhered to. Ron Nelson seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Nield, yes; Nelson, yes; Robert Allen, yes; Anderson, yes; Cain, yes; Williams, yes; Richard Allen, Abstained. A proposal by Pocatello Idaho Chubbuck Stake for a conditional use permit for construction of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Stake Center, fronting the north side of Stuart Avenue, north of Stuart Park. Property is presently zoned General Residential (R-2). Wayne T. Cottle, 4542 Ponderosa, introduced Mr. Vern Hancock, Architect, and he described the dimensions, 25,000 square feet, that it would have a Chapel, Cultural Hall, Baptismal Font, 25 teaching stations and approximately 241 parking spaces. Chairman Allen asked for testimony in favor. Mr. Rex Christensen, 5201 Lucky, said that with the Library and Stuart Park he felt it was a residential oriented building and would welcome them as neighbors. He said he felt it would beautify the area. There being no opposition, Chairman Allen opened it for discussion from the commission. Discussion followed on the driveway, Mr. Hancock said they would be double car driveways' with three entrances. He said the west side would be fenced with 5 foot chain link fence. He said they did not have an official survey, so they might have to modify the site plan. He said the street into the Library would be paVed by the Library and the Church, with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Discussion followed on the street fronting the Church and Mr. Hancock said they would pave between the present road and the Church property if it didn't involve to much property. He said the church had always been cooperative With cities, in these areas. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: 5. POCATELLO IDAHOCHUBBUCK STAKE Robert Allen made motion to recommend to the City Council for their approval the conditional use permit of the Pocatello Idaho Chubbuck Stake that the finding of fact, that it is in a General Residential area, and the area is devoted to similar uses - E.G. Library and Park. That the conclusion of law that permit sought will improve existing parking problems in area and general track record of church is good for construction and design of churches. Pete Anderson seconded the motion. Roll call vote, Nield, yes; Nelson, yes; Robert Allen, yes; Anderson, yes; Cain, yes; Williams, yes; Richard Allen, yes. OTHER BUSINESS: Rodney Clark, waiver of platting requirement on property surrounded by Stuart Avenue, opposite Stuart Park, west of the Portneuf Library and east of Hawthorne Road. Mr. Clark said property is being sold to non-profit group, and they did not know what the balance of the ground would be used for. Provisions have been made for the improvements to comply with the requirements of the City of Chubbuck. Attorney Winmill said that under the Local Planning Act of 1975, that if a piece of groung~is divided into three parcels and a road created you could not waive the platting. A lenghthy discussion followed as t°whether a street would be created. Mr. Clark said he had sold to the Library in 1974, and they had agreed when the time came for development that the Library would participate in the development of the street. Items discussed: 1. If church did not use road to the Library, if waiver of platting would be required. 2. How Mr. Clark would get to his property if road not developed, Mr. Clark stated he had no plans at present for the development of property. 3. Attorney Winmill said ordinances clearly states if subdivision or street not created, waiver of platting can be granted. 4. Mr. Hancock expressed concern that they could be held up for 90 days for platting, causing delays in starting construction. 5. If street leading into Library not used if platting requirement not be needed. The Church would have two accesses; which is all needed. Robert Allen made motion to recommend to the City Council they waive the platting requirements for Rodney Clark on the property surrounded by the Stuart AVenue, opposite Stuart Park, west of the Portneuf Library and east of Hawthorne. Waiver of plat based upon findings of fact, no street being created as Mr. Clark will retain control to that strip of land running in front of library. That no Subdivision being Created by this'-conveyance. It does not affect the Comprehensive Plan, because road that is being called fOr is being'protectedbY easement being protected, by.Mr.:.Clark Church will not use the fi~'~y.i foot road for acCess. OTHER BUSINESS: WAIVER OF PLATTING - RODNEY CLARK Pete Anderson seconded the motion, with all Commission Members voting in favor. B & C Construction, Inc., General Contractor, Bob L. Nestor, owner, for a waiver of platting requirement of the south lot adjoining 4990 Valenty. It was determined that no subdivision would be created or street developed. Attorney Winmill said ordinance clearly states if not creating streets or a subdivision a waiver of platting can be granted. Pete Anderson made motion to recommend to the City Council they waive the platting requirements for B & C ConstrUction, Inc., General Contractors, Bob Nestor, owner, on the south lot adjoining 4990 Valenty Road. That it would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, no subdivision being established and no street being created. Robert Allen seconded the motion. With all Commission Members voting in favor. 3. Design Review of sign for Treasure Chest, Consignment 2nd Hand Store, New and Old Items, 4807 Yellowstone. Dave Hemberg, representing the sign company, said sign would conform with signs~already on building. It would be a metal type, fitting flush with the building. There would be no interior lighting. Janet Williams made motion to recommend for approval to the City Council for Design Review of Sign for Treasure Chest at 4807 Yellowstone. Myrna Cain seconded the motion, with all Commission Members voting in favor. Janet Williams made motion to adjourn at 10:20 p.m, seconded by Myrna Cain, with all Commission Members voting in favor. Dorothy L. ~a~b~, Secretary • � w� :: � �� �.�+ � � • • is •• � • n This mattes having come before the Commission for public hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, cn M P-vt upon applicant's application for Tana glop as follows: Applicant: i A . 3kplu MUIMS CF FACr 1. Applicant has applied for: 2. The existing 1 land uses in the area are: to the north, to the east, to the south, to the west, 3. That the C'prehensive Plan designates this area as � 4. That the existing zoning of the property is _LS68, 5. That all legal requirements for notice of the public hearing have been fulfilled. 6. Owners of adjacent property haveybave not expressed the application. n n 7. Relevant criteria and standards for are set forth in 11.1 11, of this application -►.►,,,�7k ti 8. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria iwo----o standards are as follows: C. D. E. F. G. H. I. •• M 4 •' ti •EEO 1. The lands involved: C- a) are/aEe-net- of such size or ae , d) haves been so developed lawfully prior to the advent of zoning in 1972, that it would be impossible or that it would create a private hardship not required to protect the public interest to canpel the applicant to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Chubbndc Land Use Ordinance. 2. The private hardship we&/wag not created or allowed to occur by the applicant, the land owner, or any of their agents. 3. The private hardship was/was not ]mown or foreseeable at the time when the land in question, or an interest therein, were acquired. 4. The private hardship is io-.mat serious, ;nmxx3iate and unavoidable. S. Alleviating the hardship wii±/will not create a possible, present or future hardship for any other private party nor will it be contrary to the public interest. 6. The requested variance should be granted. DBCISION & OMER The Land Use & Development Canmission, pursuant to the foregoing, finds that the request of for a We: 24 1 A m Q TmV,--� motion bY: Janet Williams . S by PnhPrt Allan to adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Iaw and Order. Commissioner Richard Allen Cucimissioner Robert Allen CmV issioner Pete Anderson Cotmiissicner Tom Nie 1 d Cannissioner Ron Nel son Commissioner Janet Williams Commissioner Myrna Cain Commissioner Commissioner IV Voted yes Voted Yes Voted Yes Voted Yet Voted Yes Voted Yes Voted Yes Voted This mattes having come before the omnission for public hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, on Mit I t. 19"x, upon applicant's application far Conditional Use Permi t, as follows: • •; iI 11111WER •6 1. Applicant has applied for: C vim_ p- 'fie 2. The existing land uses in the area are: to the north, ; to the east, ; to the south, ; to the west, 3. That the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as fir* Iy eo-k L (&JM ekCI A L 4. That the existing zoning of the property is C:rFk)e QAC ( /zK ,%P -*-G( A 5. That all legal requirements for notice of the public hearing have been fulfilled. 6. Owners of adjacent property lave/have not expressed e L o K t_he application. 7. Relevant criteria and standards for axwtructicn of this application are set forth in LAX)IL USE KA d LOu E LOPAt FMI Ok4/kl 4t)cL 8. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria in standards are as hollows: I • , , . . . . A B. D. E. F. G. H. I. Conclusions of Law 1. The use for which the permit is sought Qft/will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 2. The permit sought -vdW/will not produce an adverse impact on the economic values of adjacent propP*-+ . es. 3. The permit sought /will not produce a negative impact on transportation facilities, public utilities, schools, public parks, or the natural environment any greater than had the strict terms of the Land Use Ordinance been satisfied. 4. The noise and traffic conditions generated by the use for which the permit is sought, when analyzed in conjunction with the voice and traffic conditions now existing in the vicinity cues/does not indicate that the permit should be denied. 5. The use for which the permit is sought shaWshall not work an unreasonable hardship upon surrounding property owners by virtue of the legal nature or by the impact of changes made in the landscape of the land. 6. The aesthetic qualifies of the proposed use /will not conflict with the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding lands. 7. The applicant has/haz-� shown that he has taken all reasonable steps to catply with the strict terms of the ordinance. 8. Adverse u%Nwt on other development within the City ::lll; -" 1 ^^'' be minimized by the applicant's use sought by the permit. 10. 11. The requested conditional use permit should be granted, subje� tile-=Wji MM, if , se 101\ Decision & order ThP Tand Use & Develo= ent CcnTnission , pursuant to the forming, • • z 13 w to Eil Motion bY= Robert Allen , sea-= by Pete Anderson to adapt the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. CO missioner Nield Commissioner Nelson Canmissianer Robert Allen Commissioner Anderson Commissioner Williams CommissiOner Cain Conmissioner Richard Allen Commissioner Commissioner voted Yes Voted voted Yes Yes Voted Yes Voted Voted Yes Yes Voted Yes Voted Voted Id :S �`Mal • iso• r FIAIDIWS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AMID ORDER This matter having ccm before the Catmission for public hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, on AAA),- 7' 19i'-** upon applicant's application for J ca " w - --' 1 Con itional Use Permit _ as follows: -�, cT�n.H.c a.�.�.aQ OL01 Location: s i Lot z o,,Q Applicant: ; 0 L . A.) E ST"EP-- MUIMS OF FACT 1. Applicant has applied for: 2. The existing land uses in the area are: to the north, to the east, to the south, to the west, 3. That the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Ak-4� 4. That the existing zoning of the property is 5. That all legal requirements for notice of the public hearing have been fulfilled. 6. Owners of adjacent property have/have-mot expressed approval of the application. ,--'N 7. Relevant criteria and standards for construction of this applicatian are set forth in L V Jd O� S. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria in standards are as follows: A. 54;tnn;,;Q, C/&� 0--$, so mac. B. ep,.I C. D. E. 8. G. H. Z. Conclusions of Law 1. The use for which the permit is sought /will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 2. The permit sought vWPX/Will not produce an adverse impact on the economic values of adjacent properties. 3. The permit sought ai M /will not produce a negative impact on transportation facilities, public utilities, schools, public parks, or the natural exmiroment any greater than had the strict terms of the band Use Ordinance been satisfied. 4. The noise and traffic conditions generated by the use for which the permit is sought, w1vm analyzed in conjunction with the noise and traffic conditions now existing in the vicinity &Y /does not indicate that the permit should be denied. 5. The use for which the permit is sought /shall not work an unreasonable hardship upon surrounding party owners by virtue of the legal nature or by the impact of changes made in the landscape of the land. 6. The aesthetic qualifies of the proposed use -Whb3./will not conflict with the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding lands. _ . — . _ — __ —a. .a• 8. Adverse impact on other development within the City will/w&-11- be minimized by the applicants use sought by the permit. 9. OPP 11. The requested conditional use permit should be granted, subject to the conditions, if any, set forth hereinafter. n 0. Decision & Order The Land Use & Develognent Cammi-ssion, pursuant to the foregoing, finds that the request of IS A.)E STb for a CD►� ITt 0A) IkL V.4 F #k. M V Sk 7'E} 1 'P f t I CAT I D#) Q.E 3 i4l.l. �D �,1l1AUC�s►J1'� STf4TUTE TD Motion by: Pete Anderson to adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. irew Catmi..ssioner Nie 1 d Ccmnissioner Nelson Conmissioner Robert Allen commissioner Anderson Commissioner Cain Commissioner Williams commissioner Richard Allen Commissioner Conmissioner Voted Yes Voted Yes Voted Yes Voted Yes Voted Yes Voted Yes Voted Yes Voted Voted n This matter having cane before the Commission for public hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, on Ai.1 L, 19,3, upon applicant's application for Cane-ia--i'oe-9 Conditional Use Pexmit/Va"3uc�rh,; t��, as follows: CAbW5 6z"F-0-AL- C c) A L Iocation: 5 i OF Lar Z A IJ IN LoT' 3 $O 1Z�e A4 V e TTE Applicant: (zLE,j A. 1A OV G. NTOA 1. Applicant has applied for: C'.r*ud t*'! c.9 N.4Ly 5E- Af&A4 )T 2. The existing land uses in the area are: to the north, ; to the east, ; to the south, ; to the west, 3. That the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as (rEq) EO. bL 60MA CIA L 4. That the existing zoning of the property is (rr-j) Lt AL 6otx p4 W IQ --GI AL. 5. That all legal requirements for notice of the public hearing have been fulfilled. 6. owners of adjacent property have/met expressed approval of the application. n 7. Pelevant criteria and standards for Construction of this application are set forth in L O� O A U s E 0"► ►J A� A)Cs S. The facts relevant tQ an evaluation of the relevant criteria in standards are as follows: A. s+wtILA�L- 'SU510Es6 F5 IA) AJOE4 C. D. E. B. G. H. I. Conclusions of Law n 1. The use for which the permit is sought /will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 2. The permit sought wii*/will not produce an adverse impact on the economic values of adjacent properties. 3. The permit sought �M/will not produce a negative impact on transportation facilities, public utilities, schools, public parks, or the natural environmnt any greater than had the strict terms of the band Use ordinance been satisfied. 4. The mise and traffic conditions generated by the use for which the permit is sought, when analyzed in conjunction with the mice and traffic conditions now existing in the vicinity done/does not indicate that the permit should be denied. 5. The use for which the permit Is sought sib/shall not work an unreasonable hardship upon surrounding property owners by virtue of the legal nature or by the impact of changes made in the landscape of the land. 6. The aesthetic qualifies of the proposed use wfiK/will not conflict with the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding lands. 7. The applicant haslhemmnet shOWn that he has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the strict terns of the ordinance. 8. Adverse impact on other development within the City will/wlimlm•w be minimized by the applicant's use sought by the permit- 9. ermit. 9. 4*-, A E %) F -LV P M E Yy T CxE &AA AU,Y CO wt Pr4Tl 4L IW W 116 C1,t CT-iJ is Use -5 lo. 11. The requested conditional use permit should be granted, subject to the conditions, if any, set forth hereinafter. Decision & Order The Land Use & Development Commission, pursuant to the foregoing, finds that the request of 6x( -&y A, A 0 wx y—k-r 0 a) for a co&)L(TIOA�P.L 0 SE -PF- 0-1wit -e-S szr feo*2rM lA) flu- LoAL) A) h- Mpm, 6ACAL O)t A u LA JA)It LOTS -jw -a& - o Ate sol-Ua� fF L t, e)P-4 JOA IVCE S AA)A STAT v 7'E S S H ALL AS- A&M E29=16 -W Motion bY: Robert Allen , seconded by Ron Nelson to adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. Commissioner Nield Commissioner Nelson Commissioner Robert Allen Commissioner Anderson Conraissioner Cain Catmti ssioner Williams Commissioner Richard Allen Comni,ssioner Commissioner . _. Voted Yes Voted Yes Voted Yes Voted Yes Voted Yes Voted Abstained Voted Voted n FINDINGS OF FACT. WNCLITSIODS OF IAW AMID ORDER This maths having come before the Commission or public hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, on ori r( 1 _ upon applicant's application for Change in TEMIJ Cmdi.ticnal Use Permit sF nee /moi a„ Unit -DM-R2 as follows: a$- J� - LA S Location: STL)A* r N\)F-k)Ve- 1. Applicant has applied for: @.oN4 r i o N A, L U 5 E PER-MI-r- 2. ER-M1T' 2. The existing land uses in the area are: to the north, to the east, to the south, to the west, 3. That the Camprehensive Plan designates this area as SW kR14L- -t* s ►LEN -r1 d,1 4. That the existing zoning of the property is CZ:g ire e-f4L Rgs.14*A AL 5. That all legal requirements for notice of the public hearing have been fulfilled. 6. Owners of adjacent property haves expressed approval of the application. 7. Relevant criteria and standards for construction of this application are set forth in LAI)A 05p- C>U 1 A) A tJ C6 8. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria in standards are as follows: A. ASELES if Q,69Wy AX -4t1 k B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. n Conclusions of Law 1. The use for which the permit is sought %AA4 i l not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 2. The permit sought wili/wi11 not produce an adverse impact on the economic values of adjacent properties. 3. The permit sought-w4l/wi11 not produce a negative impact on transportation facilities, public utilities, schools, public parks, or the natural environment any greater than had the strict terms of the Land Use Ordinance been satisfied. 4. The noise and traffic conditions generated by the use for which the permit is sought, when analyzed in conjunction with the voice and traffic conditions now existing ; ng in the vicinity dges/does not indicate that the permit should be denied. 5. The use for which the permit is sought shy/shall not work an unreasonable hardship upon surrounding property owners by virtue of the legal nature or by the impact of changes made in the landscape of the land. 6. The aesthetic qualifies of the proposed use wil+/will not conflict with the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding lands. n 7. The applicant has/-ne*- shown that he has taken all reasonable steps to caiply with the strict terms of the ordinance. 8. Adverse impact on other develOPWmt within the City w3 -11A - be minimized by the applicantIsuse sought by the Permit. 9. 'p w�.a�C" `�o�.�.��f- U.uO w A 11. The requested conditional use permit should be granted, subject to the conditions, if any, set forth hereinafter. rAQ Decision & order The Land Use & Developqent C=nission, pursuant to the foregoing, finds that the request of c,- -rE c c o )b A HO G HL)AB U4fi—' for a CoN A i T'td Aj A- L- U5i& F2� iT lY17KY1Tm-rrI'&I C Motion bY: Robert A llen 01 to adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact, CcmnissionerNie1d con rdssioner Nelson Conmissior,er Robert Allen Cm,missioner Anderson Commissioner Cain Commissioner Williams conmissioner Richard Allen Commissioner Commissioner Voted Yes Voted Voted Yes Yes Voted Voted Yes YPe Voted Voted yes Yes Voted Voted