5131 HARBOR LN 2016-01-01 MF Import

r �. - That such variance is necessary for the preservation antl enjoyment of' a substantial property right of the appellant po;sessed by the oxners 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 buildable site area j; , for parcels 1-9 at Harbor Ridge. The development trend is for houses to be located as far east as possible in order to accesa the nurtheasterly vlew of Mt. Baker. The alignment of the bank at �;� parcels G,�, and 8 allous for each house to move increasingly easterly� providing views past one another to the northeast. The � steep bank turns in dlrection at parcel 9, ruoving the buildable area i further Lo the West, since vieNs to the northeast Will be obstructed i by nouses located on parcels 'j and 8. 4. The covenants (Exhibit 8, Article 5.8) for Harbor Ridge takes this faet into account by providing that the height of parcel 9 should not be constrained by covenant as are lots 1-8. Views at Narbor Ridge therefora are property rignts protected by height covenants on all other similar parcels in the same vicinity, but these covenants are specifically waived at percel 9, the Kleins' parcel, recognizing that any house to be built on Parcel 9 might need to exceed the 25 �'oot height limit in order to enjoy the same view 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. That the authorization of such varianee will not be materially detrimental to the public uelfare or injurious to property in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located. Finding: Because of Lot 9's unique location, elevation and separation from neighboring parcels the requested height variance should not adversely affect 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 subject to review by the Architectural Control Committee Wlio all oun lots in Harbor Aidge. The Kleins' plans have been reviewed and approved by that committee (see Attachment 4). Public Works had no comment on this proposal. Conclusion: Granting the variance should not be materially I detri[aental to the public Welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity and zone. That the granting of such vac•iance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive Ceneral Plan. Finding: The Comprehens.tve Plan designates the area Single Family Residential (3 dwelling units per acre). The proposed use is a single family residence on a four acre site. Conelusion: Granting the variance would not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. -Z-