5131 HARBOR LN 2016-01-01 MF Import

2. That such variance Ls necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantral property right of the appellant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. Finding: The plat map (Exhibit 6) illustrates that the top of a steep bank establishes the eastern edge of the b�iildable site area for parcels 7-9 at Harbor Ridge. The development trend is for houses to be locaLed as far east as possible in order to access the northeasterly view of Mt. Baker. The alignment of the bank at parcela 6,7, and tl allows for each house to move inereasingly easterly, providing views past �ue another to the northeast. The steep bank turns in direction at parcel 9, moving the buildable area further to the west, sincc views to the northeast will be obstructed cy houses _ocated on parcels 7 and 8. The covenants (Exhibit 8, Article 5.8) for Harbor Ridge iakes this fact into account by providing that the height of parcel 9 should not be constrained by covenant as are lots 1-8. Vie�is at Harbor IIidge therefore are property rights protected by height covenants on all other similar� parcels in the same vicinity, but these covenants are specifi�ally Waived at parcel y, the Kleins' pareel, recognizing that any house to be built on Parcel 9 might need to exceed the 25 foot height limit in order to enjoy the same viea rights. Conclusion: The variance is necessary to preserve a property right of the applicant possessed by owners of other property in the same vicinity and zone. 3• That the authori.^ation of such variance Will not be materially detrimflntal to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity or zone in whicl� Lhe property is located. Findtng: Because of Lot 9's unique location, elevation and separation from neighboring parcels the raquested height variance slzould not adversely affeet the properties to the north, south� east or west. Lot 9 is subject to covenants and restrictions of the Plat of Harbor Ridge and building plans are subjeet to review by the Arehitectural Control Committee who all oWn lots in Harbor Ridge. The Kleins' plans have been reviewed and approved by that committee (see Attachment 4). Public Norks had no comment o❑ this proposal. i Conclusion: Granting the variance should not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity and zone. 4. That the granting of such variance aill not adversely affect the Comprehensive General Plan. Findin : The Comprehensive Ylan designates the area Single Family Residential (3 dwelling units per acre). The proposed use is a single family residence on a four acre site. Conclusion: Granting the variance would not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATIOIJ: APPROVE the variance as requested by •r.pplicant. Prepared by ��wl/. �%7 Reviewed by�� s � _ 376oF