4117 HOYT AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

H M 1 y William P. Srust Appeal 6-92 Page -3- qy K In applying Subsection "5', the Planning Director determined that the Paz 0 H °v alternative proposal of the Appellant did not satisfy these purposes. V1 �a zZp H 8. on June 4, 1992, the Planning Director of the City of Everett denied the H proposed reduction of the required perimeter landscaping. The Planning 0 o H 0 °o Director's decision stated that the "proposal does not provide superior rV H ' I quality landscaping that meets the intent and purpose of the landscaping The Planning Director also stated that y required in the Zoning Code". y the landscaping of the Appellant would not provide an adequate o m proposed buffer and separation as required by the Zoning Code. R o L° m 9. The review of the appeal is given pursuant to the provisions of EZC M m 41.180.C. EZC 41.180.0 sets forth jurisdictional authority of the y o Hearing Examiner to issue decisions with regard to appeals of the Planning Department or Planning Director. I❑ reviewing decisions, the Hearing Examiner must cansider the following criteria: 1. The nature of the use or proposed use of the subjrct property; 2. The purpose for the particular development standard which is being appealed; 3. The criteria used in making such an application of the development standard which is being appealed; (._ �;, I 4. The Appellant's basis for appealing the � application or the particular development standard; 1 5. The impact that the development standard requested 0 by the Appellant would have on the following: a. the proposed use b. surrounding properties C. public right-of-way d. environmentally sensitive areas e. other standards required by this Ordinance f. overall public health, safety,and welfare g. relevant policies of the Everett General Plan; and 6. Any findings and conclusions issued in writing by the Planning Department or Planning Director. t