A King County hearing examiner has rejected two key variances required for a Redmond couple who wish to build a 1,500-square-foot house on a 2,300-square-foot lot across from the tennis courts in Aubrey Davis Park.

The applicants had requested variances from the city to allow narrowed setbacks from adjacent properties and increase the gross floor area and the amount of impervious surface allowed in the code. The present allowed limit for gross floor area coverage is 45 percent. The applicant was asking for 77 percent.

The 25’ wide by 92’ long lot at 2206 71st Ave S.E. is zoned R-96 for a residential structure with a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet. The lot, originally some 6,000 square feet, was cut in half when the state condemned land for construction of the lid over Interstate 90 in the 1970s. Yet, it still remains a legal lot.

While the size of the lot was the primary point of contention, neighbors are also at odds with the design of the house, which they contend is too tall and out of character from the rest of the homes along 71st Avenue S.E.

Hearing examiner Ann Watanabe denied the applicant’s request to increase the maximum floor area from 45 to 77 percent. Also denied was to increase the amount of impervious surface area coverage from 40 to 52 percent. The final variance — to reduce the setbacks from the property’s boundaries — was approved with conditions.

In her decision, Watanabe referred several times to the City of Mercer Island’s Comprehensive Plan.

She specifically cited goals in the plan that state that the Island, outside the Town Center, remains principally a low-density, single-family residential community. Another goal is that the city ‘achieve’ additional residential capacity in single-family zones through flexible land use techniques and in-fill development.

Within her decision, the examiner did specifically point out that the applicant has the right to build a single-family home on the lot. As such, the lot size was not an issue in the variances to be considered.

The neighbors and others who testified, said that the size, appearance of the home, extra traffic, shadows and removal of existing trees would be detrimental to the neighborhood.

Yet, the hearing examiner did not agree.

“The proposed house would be different from other homes [in the neighborhood] but the proposed variances would not alter the neighborhood’s character.