02139requirements. Chairman Roy then read a letter from Dale Stein, owner of
the property north of Lot 1, complaining that the structure on Lot 1 would
be only 20' from his structure, and stating that a setback variance would
detract from the value of his home and would be a disservice to the purchaser
of Lot 1. Dave Lodgin of Diversified Builders felt the PRO would really be
doing Mr. Stein a favor, because with a conventional plat the setback would
be only 7 1/2' The public portion of the hearing then was closed. MR.
HATZENBUHLER MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, TO APPROVE V-88-79 BECAUSE HE
FELT THE APPLICANT HAD COOPERATED WITH THE CITY IN WORKING OUT A DIFFICULT
DEVELOPMENT AND BECAUSE IT APPEARED THAT THEY WENT TO GREAT•PAINS TO TRY TO
SAVE THE TREES; FURTHER, HE FELT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE
DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE AREA AND HE AGREED
THAT IF THIS WERE DEVELOPED IN A CONVENTIONAL MANNER A HOUSE COULD BE BUILT
7 1/2' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH MRS. DERLETH
VOTING NO.
V-89-79 RAGNAR E. GUSTAFSON - Variance to allow residential addition to extend
above permitted height of 30' at 7921 Cyprus P1. (RS-20)
Mr. Pearson said the method of calculating the height of the building
created the problem in this application. The house location places one
corner of the building rectangle down a sloped bank, thereby increasing the
height at this point, so the calculated theoretical height is 6' higher
than the actual height. In addition, the residence will not be rectangular
in shape, thereby increasing the area in which the four points are measured.
Mr. Pearson said there was no question of view blockage, and he recommended
approval. The public portion of the hearing was opened. The applicant
explained that the house had been moved onto this lot and a daylight
basement had been constructed under it. He said he needed the variance in
order to construct a stairway which would allow utilization of the entire
house, and he acknowledged that he had erred in getting the construction
going before he knew exactly what was required. His builder, Leonard
Hansen of 15321 132nd N.E., Kirkland, was present to answer any questions.
Frank Leifer of 810 12th Ave. N., is constructing a house right behind this
one and he asked to see a drawing of the proposed structure and he asked
how much higher the new peak of the existing roof would be. He said he was
not too worried about the height of the house as it currently was because
some trees already cut into the view, but if they were to add another wing
farther south that would concern him. He asked what the height would be on
the south side of the existing building. Mr: Pearson said the height of
each of the two wings would be the same, but only the first wing was being
built now. Mr. Leifer again stated he did not object to the current construc-
tion but he would object to the future wing. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka
advised the applicant that he should have some final drawings as he would
be limited to what is on file as to what variance.he asked for and received.
He said it was to the applicant's advantage to have the full building and
to ask for a variance of 211" on the full building, and that way he would
be entitled to build the full building; otherwise, he would be limited to
build only what was on file. The applicant asked for time to consider
this, and a short recess was announced. Following the recess, the applicant
asked for approval only of the portion of the building that he had submitted.
He said he was driving three children to school from Woodinville each day
so he did not want another delay which would be required for a resubmission.
Mrs. Medina asked him if -he was prepared for the possible consequence of a
variance not being granted for the balance of his addition, and he said he
would take his chances. The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Mrs. Derleth observed that the shape of the house and the unusual topography
of the lot work a hardship on the applicant because there is a very steep
dropoff which alters the height computation. She said this may not be an
ideal variance application, but he needs a variance only because he is
sited next to a gully. Mr. Leraas agreed. MR. BYRD MOVED, SECONDED BY
MRS. DERLETH, TO APPROVE V-89-79 BECAUSE THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD
NOT AMOUNT TO A REZONE, BECAUSE THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF TOPOGRAPHY
NOT GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA, AND BECAUSE .
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS
ENJOYED BY OTHERS IN THE SAME DISTRICT. Mr. Leraas questioned whether the
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 3 - January 16, 1980