5114 NARBECK AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

,-, A Description: The subject prcperty is Lot 9 of a ahort plat approved in 1986. The subject lot is smaller than the other lota in this ahortplat, aince after obtaining preliminary ahort plat approval at which time ii contained 12,500 square feet and met minimum lot eize , the right-of-xay for Narbeck Avenue crae realigned and extended to the south property line of the plat which caused the lot to fall below the minimum lot size to 11,911 equare feet. A. Front Yard Requirement 1. Findinge: The subject property fronte on an unimproved right-of-way of Narbeck Avenue that will eventually be improved to provide access to the vacant property aouth of the � ehortplat. There are two poasible acenarios for development of � thie right-of-way. Oae ie that it would be developed ae a' reaideatial etreet to provide access to reaidential development on the vacant land to the south. The other acenario ie that it Would de•�elop ae an arterial atreet to carry traffic north and south fr�m Mukilteo Boulevard to the 60th Street S. W. office park area in addition to residential development. Ia this caee it would pose.'hly carry up to 5,000 tripa per day. Ae the street ie extended to the south and other homea are conetructed, they will be required to meet the Eront yard setback. In addition there is no topographic featurea on this lot that 'i would prevent a redesign to meet the front aetback requirement. 2. Concluaion: In the event it ehould develop as an arterial, a reduction in front yard aetback rrould not be desirable becauee of the noise impacte from the traffic. In addition, if [he front yard reduction wae allowed, the setback of thie etructure from Narbeck Avenue would not be in conformance with the front yarde of exiating and future development. B. Rear Yard Requirement 1. Find3ng: Since both the house to the hest and the proposed house are oriented to the north, the yard space between the two atructur=e will function as side yard even though technically they ar: designated front and rear yards. 2. Conclusion: Since the rear yard actually will function as a aideyard, it would be reasonable to reduce the rear yard i requirement. j If the etructure was relocated on the lot to west, the front I setback could be met. Thia would require that the variance ! requeated for rear setback be increased from five feet to ' fourteen feet which would atill leave an eleven foot rear yard which should be adequate eince it functiona as a aide yard. , C. Groas Floor Area Ratio: 1. Find3n8s: The lot slopes to the eaet and the applicant is propoeing to take advantage of that natural slope by further excavation to add living apace on a lower level. � -2-