Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />WHEREAS, during the public testimony on the Application, various <br />concerns were raised by residents in the adjacent residential neighborhood, as well as <br />by the City's Police Department, regarding the impacts the Project would have on the <br />neighborhood, including safety, traffic, noise and crime; and <br />WHEREAS, during the Planning Commission's deliberations at the <br />October 24, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission found that the Application <br />would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the residential <br />neighborhood adjacent to the Project, and that the Project is not consistent with the <br />City's General Plan, the West Valley Specific Plan, and the City's Zoning Ordinance; <br />and <br />WHEREAS, based on the above referenced findings, the Planning <br />Commission denied the Application; and <br />WHEREAS, a timely appeal of the denial of the Application was <br />received by the City Clerk ("Appeal"); and <br />WHEREAS, on December 5, 2006, the City Council of the City ("City <br />Council") conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Appeal of the Application <br />at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the proposed Appeal <br />and the Application were heard, and the Appeal and the Application were <br />comprehensively reviewed and considered; and <br />