Laserfiche WebLink
PA MM <br />-oft s <br />� AMC� <br />William P. Brust <br />Appeal 6-92 <br />Page -4- <br />of <br />ng and <br />10. reening <br />Lequi emea s. Included ins forth therpose,purposes ishprotectioniof visualbuffers <br />and physical separations between land uses of varying intensities on <br />abutting properties. Also included in the purposes, is protection of <br />privacy and mitigation of the impacts from noise, light, and uglaare. <br />Also, the retention of natural vegetation is identified as a p pis <br />The Planning Director's decision to dosl- <br />yosese f tthea landscapingt and <br />tive <br />consistent with EZC 35.020 and the purP <br />scr-•eening requirements. <br />11. The Appellant's reason for appealing the application of the development <br />(landscaping) standard he tosecure <br />toff Everettmore psc standardse for existsparking. <br />Adequate parking per <br />without the proposed additional parking spaces. <br />12. The impact from the reduced landscaping to the property to the south <br />The reduced <br />would be that it would provide less iswills not nbe detrimental <br />visuel screen, according to the Appellant,there is <br />because he also :.wns that property. The Appellant stated that <br />no intention to sell the adjoining property and therefore the impact to <br />him would be minimal. <br />13. The Appellant indicated that the reduced landscaping will pthe rovide <br />additional parking and thus <br />right-of-way. with additional parking, will ki avelonsss imi[e,nott e asmuch of the <br />public right-of-way will have to be used for parking purposes. <br />14. No environmentally sensitive area is involved with this request. <br />15. The Appellant submitted that the overall public health, safety, and <br />welfare would be ppellant impacted <br />improveme is crea created by the removal ofDirector's denial. vehicles <br />ccording <br />to the App + safetyvehicles <br />from the public right-of-way and the elimination of disruption f. <br />traffic flow could be significant. <br />16. The Appellant contended that other properties in the area do not have <br />the articular,restrictivethe dscaping Appellant standards <br />submitt d that. imposed <br />another the <br />parcelsubject <br />landownedproperty. In particular, <br />by him has been exempt from the strict landscaping standards. The <br />landscaping <br />reduced <br />l of land owned by the <br />allowed far the r t retention other eo treeas <br />Appellant part of he landscaping <br />plan. No vegetation or tree retention exists for this proposal. Thus, <br />it is not a similar situation to that as cited by the Appellant. <br />It <br />