4117 HOYT AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

'v "M � MJ William P. Brust Appeal 6-92 Page —5— CONCLUSIONS 1. The Planning Director of the City of Everett denied a request of the Appellant for a modification of the landscaping and screening requirements for the property at 4117 Hoyt Avenue, Everett, Washington. Paisuant to Table 35.1, the type of landscaping required for this property would be either a Type I landscaping with a ten ftot wide strip or a Type II landscaping with a 15 foot strip. Type I _anlscaping is defined in EZC 35.050(A) and Type II landscaping is defined in EZC 35.050(B). This ty_e of landscaping is required because the subject property is zoned B-2, while the adjacent property to the south has a residential zoning designation. 2. The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional authority to hold a hearing and to review the appeal. This authority is set forth in EZC 41.180. The criteria for review of the appeal are set forth in EZC 41.180.C. 3. The Planning Director's decision of denial was consistent with the criteria of EZC 35.020. The criteria of EZC 41.180.0 for the appeal of the Planning Director's decision have been reviewed. The proposal of the Appellant for reduced landscaping standards does not satisfy the criteria of EZC 41.180.C. In particular, the proposed landscaping reduction does not satisfy the purposes as set forth in EZC 35.020 and as identified in finding #10. 4. The proposed alternative landscaping plan, as submitted by the Appellant, does not satisfy the purpose for the landscaping development standards as set forth in EZC 35.020. It does not provide an adequate visual buffer and physical separation between the residential and commercial land uses which have varying intensities. Further, it does not minimize the impacts of noise, light, and glare or provide adequate privacy to the adjoining property. It also does not reduce the visual monotony of the exp nse of the paved parking lot which is on the subject property. 5. The Planning Director's decision to deny the alternative landscaping proposal is reasonable. The alternative plan did not achieve landscaping that is a superior quality then would be achieved if landscaping is developed pursuant to code standards. 6. The reduction of the landscaping standard, as proposed by the Appellant, does not provide superior quality but reduces the amount of landscaping. Although the main purpose of the proposed reduced landscaping is to provide additional parking, no additional parking is required. 7. The reduction of the landscaping will be detrimental to the surrounding properties and to the abutting property. Although the property is owned by the Appellant, there is the possibility, although not a probability0c that the land in the future will be sold.