The purpose of this chapter is to provide a procedure for applying for conditional use permits (CUPs) and to provide a method for their processing. This chapter also describes the criteria or conditions to be applied to specific conditional uses as listed for each district in the district use chart, Chapter 17.52. Certain conditional uses may require additional criteria and are listed as separate chapters to this title (e.g., Chapter 17.72, Recreational Vehicle Parks).
(Ord. 475 § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 663 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2016)
A CUP is a Type III application as set forth in Title 19. The Bridgeport hearing examiner makes a final decision, which is appealable to the Douglas County superior court. A CUP is acted upon by the hearing examiner and shall be considered at a public hearing conducted pursuant to Chapter 19.05 and after proper notice as set forth in Chapter 19.03. A use for which a CUP may be approved must be specifically identified and allowed as a conditional use in the use district provisions of this title.
(Ord. 475 § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 663 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2016)
A. 
In addition to the requirements for a completed application as set forth in Section 19.02.020, an applicant for a CUP shall submit the following:
1. 
A nonrefundable fee established by resolution of the city council. The permit application shall not be considered complete without this fee having been paid in full;
2. 
If required, a completed SEPA environmental checklist.
B. 
Applications shall be processed as set forth in Chapter 19.02.
(Ord. 475 § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 663 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2016)
The hearing examiner may approve a CUP only upon finding that:
A. 
The proposal is compatible with the intent of the comprehensive plan for the city;
B. 
The proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood;
C. 
The surrounding neighborhood would not be negatively impacted by the size, arrangement or architectural design of the proposed use;
D. 
The proposal has no materially detrimental effects on neighboring properties due to excessive noise, lighting or other interference with the peaceful use and possession of said neighboring property;
E. 
The proposal has been designed to minimize adverse effects on neighboring property;
F. 
Landscaping materials are provided in sufficient quantities and locations to screen objectionable views, break up large parking areas, and present an aesthetically attractive appearance;
G. 
The proposal meets all other provisions of this title and/or Title 19.
(Ord. 475 § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 663 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2016)
The hearing examiner may impose any conditions upon granting the permit, subject to the following limitations:
A. 
The conditions imposed are reasonably calculated to achieve compliance with the standards identified in Section 17.64.050;
B. 
That such conditions are the minimum necessary to achieve these purposes;
C. 
That the proposed conditions will be in harmony with the terms of the comprehensive land use plan and this title;
D. 
That the proposed conditions will protect public health, safety and welfare.
(Ord. 475 § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 663 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2016)
The following are examples of the types of conditions which the hearing examiner may impose:
A. 
Require a performance bond or acceptable surety in an amount and with conditions satisfactory to the hearing examiner, providing for and securing to the city the performance of conditions imposed on the construction of improvements;
B. 
Specify a time limit within which actions related to the permit shall be begun or completed or both;
C. 
Require an annual review of the issued permit to assure compliance with any imposed conditions;
D. 
Increase the required lot size or yard dimensions;
E. 
Conditions related to automobile and pedestrian traffic control and design;
F. 
Requirements to install landscaping, fencing, screening, or other visual barriers to separate incompatible uses;
G. 
Controls on hours of operation;
H. 
Controls on the generation of noise, color, air pollution, wastes, vibration, traffic, or similar neighborhood concerns.
(Ord. 475 § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 663 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2016)