planning commission recommendation:deny the proposed ... · ma-3: the proposed map amendment made...

I. Background In the spring of 2017 at the direction of the Council staff published a request for Comprehensive Plan amendment applications. There were four that the public submitted with three that are under consideration as part of this process. All the submittals are for map amendments. Staff has included the Council in discussions associated with these amendments through the process at multiple study sessions (DATES). II. Summary

MA-1: The proposed amendment made by Ronary, LLC (Petersen Bros.). The amendment proposes to designate three parcels totaling approximately 13.98 acres west of 136th Avenue East and South of 24th Street East from Interchange Commercial (IC) to Light Industrial (M-1) to allow industrial uses at this location. (See Exhibit A).

Planning Commission Recommendation: Deny the proposed amendment and retain Interchange Commercial (IC) to continue to support the commercial uses at this location and to provide supporting uses to the neighboring industrial districts.

MA-2: The requested amendment made by Sumner Meadows, LLC (Enslow) and proposes to designate approximately 9.78 acres from LDR-2 to LDR-3 and approximately 11.41 acres from LDR-2 to MDR with subsequent rezone from LDR-8.5 to LDR-4 and LDR-8.5 to MDR respectively (see Exhibit B).

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve modified proposal and designate approximately 23.05 acres from Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) to Low Density Residential-3 (LDR-3) for the purpose of increasing density from Low Density Residential 8,500 to Low Density Residential 6,000. (see Exhibit B).

DATE: April 11, 2018 TO: Mayor William Pugh, and City Council FROM: Eric Mendenhall, Senior Planner RE: 2017 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments – Executive Summary

MA-3: The proposed map amendment made by CC and Kristina Edwards for approximately 2.78 acres north of Elm Street from LDR-1 to MDR to allow for duplex development. (see Exhibit B)

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment.

I. INTRODUCTION The process for amending the City Comprehensive Plan is specified in the Sumner Municipal Code section 18.56.147 and in the state Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A) and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). SEPA analysis of the proposed amendments and various alternatives is contained in the City of Sumner 2017 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, March 2018 Addendum that was issued on March 8, 2018. On July31, 2015 the City of Sumner issued the City of Sumner 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update-Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, August 2015 (FSEIS). II. POLICY ANALYSIS

Only those amendments which are found to be in substantial compliance with all criteria listed below shall be approved (SMC 18.56.147(N)):

1. An amendment is necessary to resolve inconsistencies between the Sumner comprehensive plan and other city plans or ordinances; or, to resolve inconsistencies between the Sumner comprehensive plan and other jurisdictions’ plans or ordinances;

2. Conditions have so changed since the adoption of the Sumner comprehensive plan that the existing goals, policies, objectives, and/or map classifications are inappropriate.

3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the overall intent of the goals of the Sumner comprehensive plan.

4. The proposed amendment is consistent with chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act), the countywide planning policies (CPP) for Pierce County, and the applicable Multi-county planning policies (VISION 2040). [NOTE: Criteria 4 refer to policies in the GMA, Countywide Planning Policies, and VISION 2040. These amendments are incorporated into the Proposed Action Alternatives and discussed under Chapter 3, Section 3.6 “Relationship to Plans and Policies” in the DSEIS.]

DATE: March 29, 2018 TO: Mayor William Pugh, and City Council FROM: Eric Mendenhall, Senior Planner RE: 2017 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments – Staff Report

5. Where an amendment to the comprehensive plan map is proposed, the proposed designation is adjacent to property having a similar and compatible designation, or the subject property is of sufficient size, or other conditions are present.

6. Environmental impacts have been disclosed, and measures have been included to reduce possible adverse impacts.

7. Potential ramifications of the proposed amendment to other comprehensive plan elements and supporting plans have been considered and satisfactorily addressed.

Action Alternatives 1 through 4 are being analyzed by the City of Sumner to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map. All of these alternatives are also analyzed in the SEPA Addendum and are discussed here in detail as it relates to the seven criteria above. The SEPA Addendum also contains an analysis of potential impacts.

A. Why the Amendments are Being Proposed The City of Sumner is considering map amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent Zoning Map changes to reflect the Comprehensive Plan Map changes.

B. Description Proposal and Alternatives Applicant’s Proposal’s: MA-1: The proposed amendment made by Ronary, LLC. The amendment proposes to designate three parcels totaling approximately 13.98 acres west of 136th Avenue East and South of 24th Street East from Interchange Commercial (IC) to Light Industrial (M-1) to allow industrial uses at this location. (APN: 0420123067, 0420123068 and 0420123069).

Staff’s Recommendation:

MA-1: Deny the proposed amendment made by Ronary, LLC. and retain the three parcels totaling approximately 13.98 acres west of 136th Avenue East and South of 24th Street East as Interchange Commercial (IC) to continue to support the commercial uses at this location and to provide supporting uses to the neighboring industrial districts. (APN: 0420123067, 0420123068 and 0420123069). (See Exhibit A)

Applicant’s Proposal’s:

MA-2: The requested amendment made by Sumner Meadows, LLC and proposes to designate approximately 9.78 acres from LDR-2 to LDR-3 and approximately 11.41 acres from LDR-2 to MDR with subsequent rezone from LDR-8.5 to LDR-4 and LDR-8.5 to MDR respectively (see Exhibit B). (APN: 0520192145, 0520193173, 0520193074, 9225000053, 9225000035, 9225000034, 9225000040 and 0520193705).


MA-2: Modify the applicant’s proposal and designate approximately 23.05 acres from Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) to Low Density Residential-3 (LDR-3) for the purpose of increasing density from Low Density Residential 8,500 to Low Density Residential 6,000. (see Exhibit B). (APN: 0520192145, 0520193173, 0520193074, 9225000053, 9225000035, 9225000034, 9225000040 and 0520193705).

Applicant’s Proposal’s:

MA-3: The proposed amendment made by CC and Kristina Edwards for approximately 2.78 acres north of Elm Street from LDR-1 to MDR to allow for duplex development. (see Exhibit B)(APN: 9225000141)


MA-3: Approve the proposed amendment made by CC and Kristina Edwards for approximately 2.78 acres north of Elm Street from LDR-1 to MDR to allow for duplex development (see Exhibit A). (APN: 9225000141) III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA ANALYSIS Only those amendments which are found to be in substantial compliance with all criteria listed below shall be approved (SMC 18.56.147(N)):

1. An amendment is necessary to resolve inconsistencies between the Sumner comprehensive plan and other city plans or ordinances; or, to resolve inconsistencies between the Sumner comprehensive plan and other jurisdictions’ plans or ordinances;

According to the Land Use Element policy 1.3.1 the Comprehensive Plan is to “Annually review development regulations to remove unnecessary requirements and to balance environmental protection, public participation, and housing and economic development goals.” The City Council and Planning Commission provided an opportunity to the general public to provide amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are consistent with the desire to provide public input and process to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan and address changing conditions and ensure consistency with other city plans and ordinances.

2. Conditions have so changed since the adoption of the Sumner comprehensive plan that the existing goals, policies, objectives, and/or map classifications are inappropriate.

The economic climate has improved since the last Comprehensive Plan update. The prior amendments were made in the shadow of the Great Recession. Now that the housing market is going strong there is an increased demand for housing in Sumner. The current land use designations either do not support sufficient housing or type of housing for the

proposed amendments. However, in regards to the Interchange Commercial to Light Industrial request, the Great Recession hit the commercial lands harder as industrial permits continued through the recession while residential and commercial slowed significantly over the same time period. It has taken longer for these properties to gain market demand. However, recently there has been significant commercial interest in these properties. Therefore, staff doesn’t recommend changes at this time to the Interchange Commercial designation.

There would be no changes to the Comprehensive Plan text as part of this cycle.

3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the overall intent of the goals of the Sumner comprehensive plan.

Land Use: Alternatives 1 through 3 are consistent with the overall intent of the goals of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and balance “…residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses.” (Policy 1.3, Land Use Sub-element). The amendments redesignate and rezone areas that provide for “orderly development within the Sumner Community” and “Ensure appropriate transitions so that more intensive uses do not adversely impact adjacent uses” by providing adequate setbacks and buffering between industrial and residential uses (Goal 1 and Policy 1.1, Land Use Sub-element). The redesignation/rezone of the residential map amendments under Alternatives 1 and 2 encourage “infill development on vacant properties with existing public services and public utilities” and developing in “areas with existing or planned public facilities” given the availability of water and sewer in the vicinity (Policy 1.2, Land Use-Sub-element).

Economic Development: All Alternatives are consistent with the overall intent of the Economic Development Element and would provide adequate land for different kinds of businesses and development to support this element. Additional residential densities would create future rooftops that would support existing businesses and potential new businesses in Sumner. The amendment also supports economic development by seeking and maintaining “a strong diverse economy with a variety of different types and sizes of business, industry, and employment” (Goal 1, Economic Sub-element) and providing “adequate land for different kinds of businesses and development” (Policy 1.1, Economic Development Sub-element). The retention of IC, Interchange Commercial would further the policy of developing “clean” industries that “do not degrade the natural and built environment” (Policy 1.7, Economic Development Element).

Community Character: Alternatives 1 through 3 would meet the overall goals and policies in the Community Character Element and retain and promote the pedestrian oriented single and multi-family development envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment would promote development that would “Maintain and enrich Sumner’s quality of life encompassed in its friendly, small town atmosphere” (Goal 1, Community Character Element) and “maintain a complete community and compatible in character and design, containing housing, shops, work places…essential to the daily life of residents.” (Policy 1.2, Community Character)

Environment Element: The Draft SEIS contains analysis of impacts and proposed mitigation for All Alternatives and analyzed for impacts in the DSEIS and Alternatives 1 through 3 would meet the overall goals and policies related to air, water, noise, critical areas, and resources. All of the Alternatives would implement policies and regulations for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consistent with Policy 1.1; and meet all required stormwater management requirements consistent with Policy 1.4. Noise impacts and proposed mitigation are presented in Section 3.8 of the DSEIS. There are critical areas (e.g. wetlands, streams) within the action area that will have protections in place with current city code (Policy 3.2). Alternative 1-3 would result in the development of lands presently in agricultural use or production, however, as analyzed in Section 3.6 of the DEIS, these lands are not of long-term commercial significance given location, surrounding urban land uses, high land values and lack of a transfer of development rights (TDR) program.

Housing Element: The Housing Element generally promotes the “preservation of existing housing stock” (Goal 1) and providing “a range of housing types” and “variety” for all economic segments of the community (Goal 2 and Policies 2.2, 2.3, 2.4).

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would continue to allow residential development. Alternatives 1 and 2 would increase the density and variety of housing stock in town. Currently, only 6.8% of all residentially zoned properties are zoned LDR-6,000, while 66% are zoned LDR-7.2 to LDR-12. Another interesting fact is that LDR-8.5, represents the largest designation at 36.2%. Additionally, Medium Density Residential zoning designation represents approximately 16.2% (see Exhibit X).

Alternative 3 is the no action alternative and wouldn’t change current availability or variety.

Transportation: Alternatives 1through 3 would be consistent with the goals and policies in the Transportation Element and the Transportation Plan and consistent with the City’s adopted Six-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).

All Alternatives are not significantly different than the land use designations that the traffic impact analysis and impacts and mitigation analyzed and discussed in Section 3.7 of the 2015 DSEIS.

Overall, the Transportation Element goals and policies are supported and specifically listed as follows: Overall Goal; Goal 2, Goal 3, Policies 3.6, 3.8, 3.9; Goal 4; Goal 5; Goal 6, Policies 6.2; and Goal 7.

Capital Facilities: The City is required to plan for and provide for capital facilities to serve additional growth. The proposal would support the overall goal of providing “effective, efficient and quality capital facilities and public services at the level of service necessary to support a growing community” (Goal 1, Capital Facilities and Public Services Element). The Action Alternatives have been analyzed in the EIS and impacts to sewer, water, and stormwater services addressed. New development will have to connect and improve the service to the area as a condition of development. The area is presently served by City of Sumner water and sewer, but upgrades to the system may be necessary. Stormwater drainage design will be required to meet the Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual. In all Alternatives the level of service for these facilities will be maintained. The Draft SEIS

analyzes impacts and mitigation for Public Services and Utilities in Sections 3.9 and 3.10, respectively.

4. The proposed amendment is consistent with chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act), the countywide planning policies (CPP) for Pierce County, and the applicable Multi-county planning policies (VISION 2040).

All Action Alternatives were analyzed in the Addendum to the SEIS for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and found to be consistent. See Chapter 3, Section 3.6 “Relationship to Plans and Policies” for consistency with GMA, Countywide Planning Policies, and VISION 2040.

5. Where an amendment to the comprehensive plan map is proposed, the proposed designation is adjacent to property having a similar and compatible designation, or the subject property is of sufficient size, or other conditions are present.

Alternative 1 would retain the approximate 13.98 acres of Interchange Commercial (IC) lands and prevent the redesignation/rezone the property to M-1. Surrounding properties to the north and west are zoned IC include a Holiday Inn Express, Washington Tractor (John Deere Dealer), and proposed Candlewood Suites, Brank’s Restaurant, Burger King, and Gas Station. The M-1 designation would be incompatible with these adjacent uses due to potential for noise, vibration, and truck traffic.

The Union Pacific railroad runs parallel to the eastern property line. The Light Industrial District is located to the east of the property on the other side of the railroad berm creating a physical boundary that separates the uses from Interchange Commercial. Properties to the north are zoned Interchange Commercial and would also be impacted by industrial development.

Alternative 1 proposes to designate approximately 23.05 acres from Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) to Low Density Residential-3 (LDR-3) for the purpose of increasing density from Low Density Residential 8,500 to Low Density Residential 6,000. The surrounding properties include apartments and commercial to the south, single-family residential and multifamily residential to the west, north and east. There is also an assisted living facility to the west. The proposal to increase density for single-family development would contain less or equal housing density and be consistent with the surrounding zones and land uses.

Finally, the proposal to designate approximately 2.78 acres north of Elm Street from LDR-2 to MDR to allow duplex development to occur would be consistent with the surrounding land uses. To the north is vacant land, to the west and south are a mix of multi-family, small lot single-family and a mobile home park of similar density. Duplexes on the property would be similar in use to those in the vicinity.

Alternative 2 would change the approximate 13.98 acres parcels from Interchange Commercial (IC) to M-1. Surrounding properties to the north and west are zoned IC

include a Holiday Inn Express, Washington Tractor (John Deere Dealer), and proposed Candlewood Suites, Brank’s Restaurant, Burger King, and Gas Station. The M-1 designation would be incompatible with these adjacent uses due to the light, noise, storage and general character of light-manufacturing.

The Union Pacific railroad runs parallel to the eastern property line. The Light Industrial District is located to the east of the property on the other side of the railroad berm. Properties to the north are zoned Interchange Commercial and would also be impacted by industrial development.

This also proposes to designate approximately 9.78 acres from LDR-2 to LDR-3 and approximately 11.41 acres from LDR-2 to MDR with subsequent rezone from LDR-8.5 to LDR-4 and LDR-8.5 to MDR respectively The surrounding properties include apartments and commercial to the south; single-family residential and multifamily residential to the west, north and east. There is also an assisted living facility to the west. The proposal to increase density for single-family development would be consistent with the surrounding zones and land uses; however, the MDR zoning would be less consistent with the surrounding single-family uses. MDR would have increased density, and the bulk and scale of the new residential would be inconsistent with single-family residential uses.

Finally, the proposal to designate approximately 2.78 acres north of Elm Street from LDR-2 to MDR to allow duplex development to occur would be consistent with the surrounding land uses. To the north is vacant land, to the west and south are a mix of multi-family, small lot single-family and a mobile home park of similar density. Duplexes on the property would be similar in use to those in the vicinity.

Alternative 3 would retain the existing zoning on all proposed parcels. No action alternative.

6. Environmental impacts have been disclosed, and measures have been included to reduce possible adverse impacts.

The environmental impacts have been disclosed and analyzed in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) prepared for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update. An Addendum to the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) was issued on March 8, 2018. All alternatives examined fall within the original scope, finding, and mitigation of the alternatives examined in the 2015 Final SEIS.

7. Potential ramifications of the proposed amendments to other comprehensive elements and supporting plans have been considered and satisfactorily addressed.

The proposed amendments would comply with all other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and associated area plans. These areas are outside of the area plans, with the MA-2 located near the East Sumner Neighborhood Plan area and would not have any impacts to

the proposed area plan. The MA-1 proposal is near the Manufacturing Industrial Center Overlay (MICO) and if approved would likely trigger a future amendment to include the area into the MICO. However, it is not the preferred alternative and has not been considered as part of the MICO. Retaining the land as commercial would allow for supporting commercial services to the MICO.

IV. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 5, 2018 on the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and approved with a 7-0 vote a recommendation for Council to approve Alternative 1 Map Amendments. V. MAP AMENDMENTS Exhibits: A Map of Alternative 1 Comprehensive Map Amendments B Map of Alternative 2 Comprehensive Map Amendments C Map of Alternative 3 Comprehensive Map Amendments D Memo on lot diversity

PIERCE COUNTYKING COUNTY

SR-410

SR-167

PUYALLUP RIVER

WHITE (STUCK)

RIVER

ComprehensivePlan MapCity Of Sumner

/SOURCE: City of SumnerCommunity DevelopmentDepartment, 2018

DISCLAIMER:The City of Sumner does not make any warranties or

representations with regard to the accuracy of this map.No reliance should be placed upon this map for thelocation of any easement, street, road, highway, orboundary line or other matter shown on this map,

and no liability is assumed by the City of Sumner forthe correctness thereof.

Scale:

COMPREHENSIVE ZONING DESIGNATIONS:

0 0.50.25Miles

OVERLAYS:Central Business DistrictGeneral CommercialInterchange CommercialNeighborhood CommercialMixed Use DevelopmentHeavy IndustrialLight Industrial

High Density ResidentialMedium Density ResidentialLow Density Residential 3Low Density Residential 2Low Density Residential 1Residential ProtectionUrban VillagePublic-Private Utilities & Facilities

C = Cluster Overlay**Note: Additional clustering requirements

apply in designations not included with a "C" based on critical area regulations.

**Note: Refer to cluster overlay provisions.

C

Sumner City LimitsSumner UGA

MIC Core OverlayParcels

MIC Zone

Town Center Area - Countywide Center

East Sumner Neighborhood -Center of Local ImportanceEast Main St Design Strategy Area

Exhibit A

ericm

Typewritten Text

ericm

Typewritten Text

ericm

Typewritten Text

ericm

Typewritten Text


SR-410

SR-167

PUYALLUP RIVER

WHITE (STUCK)

RIVER


/ADOPTED: 07-27-2015ORDINANCE NO: 2531PLOTTED ON: 03-10-2016, JAMSOURCE: City of SumnerCommunity DevelopmentDepartment, 2015




Scale:


0 0.50.25Miles






C



MIC Zone



ericm

Typewritten Text

ericm

Typewritten Text

ericm

Typewritten Text

ericm

Typewritten Text

ericm

Typewritten Text

Exhibit B


SR-410

SR-167

PUYALLUP RIVER

WHITE (STUCK)

RIVER


/ADOPTED: 07-27-2015ORDINANCE NO: 2531PLOTTED ON: 03-10-2016, JAMSOURCE: City of SumnerCommunity DevelopmentDepartment, 2018




Scale:


0 0.50.25Miles






C



MIC Zone



Exhibit C

20090413 Counci Study Session Lot sizes Memo.doc Page 1 of 8

Memorandum

Summary On February 28th the City Council held a retreat to discuss the City’s Vision Statement in the Comprehensive Plan and current development. The City Council directed staff to prepare options for addressing concerns about residential density and intensity of development. One of the overarching concerns was the desire to have a mix and diversity of lot sizes that would be suitable for a variety of housing styles and housing needs. The purpose of this study is to answer two questions: 1. What is the diversity of existing single-family residential lots in the City? 2. What is projected diversity of future single-family residential lots in the City? Existing Residential Lot Size Diversity The analysis focused on those existing residential lots located in a residential zone that contain a single-family house. This analysis was done using the Assessor land use codes provided in the tax parcel data (last updated November 2008) with some modifications based on staff knowledge of the City. As indicated in Table 1 and Figure 1, there are 2,134 single-family residential lots meeting this criterion. Generally, there is a wide variety of diversity within the City, with 40.6% of the lots less than 7,200 square feet and 52.7% between 7,201 s.f. and ½ acre. Seven percent (7%) are over ½ acre in size. The smaller lots tend to be clustered around the older platted lots in town as well as some of the newer traditional neighborhood designed subdivisions. Larger lots are the south of Thompson and east of Valley Avenue.

DATE: April 13, 2009 TO: Mayor David Enslow and Members of the City Council FROM: Ryan Windish, Planning Manager CC: Paul Rogerson, Community Development Director RE: Residential Lot Diversity Study


Table 2 and Figure 2 show a more refined breakdown of lot sizes that are potentially available under various development scenarios.

Figure 1:

Existing Residential Lot Sizes

41%

52%

7%

100 s.f. to 7,200s.f.7,201 s.f. to .5 acre.51 acre and up

Table 1: Existing Residential Lot Sizes for Single Family Residential Uses Combined Categories

Lot Size Percentage of Total No. of Lots 100 s.f. to 7,200s.f. 40.6% 8667,201 s.f. to .5 acre 52.7% 1124.51 acre and up 6.7% 144TOTAL 100.0% 2134


Table 2: Existing Residential Lot Sizes for Single Family Residential Uses

Lot Size Percentage of Total No. of Lots 100 s.f. to 4000 s.f. 1.9% 40 4,001 s.f. to 4,800 s.f. 5.6% 119 4,801 s.f. to 5,760 s.f. 9.8% 210 5,671 s.f. to 6,000 s.f. 5.9% 125 6,001 s.f. to 6,800 s.f. 13.4% 287 6,801 s.f. to 7,200 s.f. 4.0% 85 Subtotal 40.6% 866 7,201 s.f. to 8,500 s.f. 15.1% 323 8,501 s.f. to 9,600 s.f. 11.7% 249 9,601 s.f. to 12,000 s.f. 12.8% 273 12001 sf to .5 acre 13.1% 279 Subtotal 52.7% 1124 .51 acre to 1 acre 3.7% 80 1.01 acre to 2 acre 1.5% 32 2.01 acre to 3 acre 0.9% 20 3.01 acre to 4 acre 0.3% 6 4.01 acre to 8 acre 0.1% 3 8.01 acre and more 0.1% 3 Subtotal 6.7% 144 TOTAL 100.0% 2134


Figure 2:

Residential Lot Sizes for Single Family Residential Uses

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

No. of Lots

Lot Size Categories

No. o

f Lot

s

100 s.f. to 4000 s.f.4,001 s.f. to 4,800 s.f.4,801 s.f. to 5,760 s.f.5,671 s.f. to 6,000 s.f.6,001 s.f. to 6,800 s.f.6,801 s.f. to 7,200 s.f.7,201 s.f. to 8,500 s.f.8,501 s.f. to 9,600 s.f.9,601 s.f. to 12,000 s.f.12001 sf to .5 ac..51 ac. to 1 ac.1.01 acre to 2 acre2.01 acre to 3 acre3.01 acre to 4 acre4.01 acre to 8 acre8.01 acre and more


Existing Vacant Residential Lot Sizes Table 3 and the graph in Figure 3 show the existing residential lot sizes for vacant parcels in the City. Approximately 29% of the lots are up to 7,200 s.f. and over ½ acre in size. About 42% are at 7,201 s.f. to ½ acre in size.

Table 3: Residential Lot Sizes for Vacant Properties Lot Sizes Percent Total No. of Lots 0 s.f. to 4,000 s.f. 15.6% 28 4,001 s.f. to 4,800 s.f. 3.9% 7 4,801 s.f. to 5,760 s.f. 3.9% 7 5,671 s.f. to 6,000 s.f. 0.6% 1 6,001 s.f. to 6,800 s.f. 3.9% 7 6,801 s.f. to 7,200 s.f. 1.1% 2 Subtotal 29.1% 52 7,201 s.f. to 8,500 s.f. 9.5% 17 8,501 s.f. to 9,600 s.f. 12.8% 23 9,601 s.f. to 12,000 s.f. 9.5% 17 12001 s.f. to .5 ac. 10.1% 18 Subtotal 41.9% 75 .51 ac. to 1 ac. 7.3% 13 1.01 acre to 2 acre 9.5% 17 2.01 acre to 3 acre 5.6% 10 3.01 acre to 4 acre 0.6% 1 4.01 acre to 8 acre 5.0% 9 8.01 acre and more 1.1% 2 Subtotal 29.1% 52 Total 100.0% 179


Figure 3

Number of Vacant Residential Lots by Lot Size Category

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1

Lot Size Category

Num

ber o

f Lot

s

0 s.f. to 4,000 s.f.(1)4,001 s.f. to 4,800 s.f.4,801 s.f. to 5,760 s.f.5,671 s.f. to 6,000 s.f.6,001 s.f. to 6,800 s.f.6,801 s.f. to 7,200 s.f.7,201 s.f. to 8,500 s.f.8,501 s.f. to 9,600 s.f.9,601 s.f. to 12,000 s.f.12001 s.f. to .5 ac..51 ac. to 1 ac.1.01 acre to 2 acre2.01 acre to 3 acre3.01 acre to 4 acre4.01 acre to 8 acre8.01 acre and more

Future Residential Lot Sizes and Diversity The analysis focused on vacant lots in the residential zones and the estimated development capacity based on minimum lot sizes in the zone. This was not a fully thorough capacity analysis in that it didn’t remove critical areas, roads, etc. from the land capacity. Rather, the lots were narrowed down to those that were at least 2.5 times the minimum lot size and then divided by the minimum lot size. This creates uniformity across the board, and if anything, skews toward a greater number of lots than would actually be possible. However, for comparing generally what the number and distribution of future lots, it should suffice. Staff can do greater detailed work if it is the desire of the Council. Table 4 and Figure 4 show that 57.6% of the new lots will be in an LDR-8,500 zone and LDR-12,000 zone. This is prior to the traditional neighborhood design option or other lot reductions. About 24% of the lots would be in the remaining LDR zones (LDR-4,000, LDR-6,000, and LDR-7,200) with MDR taking 16% and HDR taking 2.3% of the lots at 4000 s.f..


Table 4: Number of Future Lots By Zone Zoning Number of Lots Percent of Total HDR 19 2.3% MDR 133 16.2% LDR-4 72 8.7% LDR-6 56 6.8% LDR-7.2 69 8.4% LDR-8.5 298 36.2% LDR-12 176 21.4% Total 823 100.0%

Figure 4:

Future Lots by Zone as a Percentage of the Total

2%16%

9%

7%

8%37%

21% HDRMDRLDR-4LDR-6LDR-7.2LDR-8.5LDR-12

Conclusions The lot sizes through out the City are diverse with greater numbers of smaller lots being constructed in the subdivisions over the last 10 years. However, the existing residential single-family lots are skewed toward larger lots with about 60% being greater than 7,200 square feet.


Likewise existing vacant lots are also skewed toward larger lots with approximately 72% over 7,200 s.f. and 42% between 7,200 s.f. and ½ acre in size. As the city develops under the existing zoning districts there will be about 57% of the lots developed in LDR-8,500 and LDR-12,000 zoning and at the corresponding minimum lot size. Overall, the lot sizes diversity that exists today, will generally be carried out in the future with a similar pattern; larger lots to the east of Valley Avenue and on the east hill in LDR-12 and LDR-8.5 zones. Attachments: Maps: A. Existing Single Family Residential Lots B. Existing Vacant Single Family Residential Lots C. Description of Methodology

WO

OD

AV

VA

LL

EY

AV

SR410 HWY E

SR410 HWY W

80TH ST E

MAIN ST

SR

16

2 E

13

4T

H A

V E

FR

YA

R A

V

SR

167 H

WY

N

SR

16

7 H

WY

S

AL

DE

R A

V

ACADEMY ST

MAPLE ST

CH

ER

RY

AV

WILLOW ST

PARK ST

E M

AIN

STATE ST

KIN

CA

ID A

V

72ND ST E

PE

AS

E

TRA

FFIC

AV

SU

MN

ER

AV

16TH ST

WASHINGTON ST

VALLEY AV E

THOMPSON ST

RIV

ER

GR

OV

E D

R

RY

AN

AV

ED

GE

WO

OD

DR

E

ELM ST

ME

EK

ER

EVERETT

RAINIER ST

SILVER ST

WE

ST V

AL

LE

Y H

WY

E

BO

NN

EY

AV

VOIGT ST

W MAIN ST

WR

IGH

T A

V

HU

NT

AV

GARY ST

LE

WIS

AV

HOUSTON RD E

BO

CK

AV

MASON ST

PIONEER WY E

ZEHNDER ST

NORTH ST

142

ND

AV

E

56TH ST E

ST

EE

LE

AV

BO

YD

VIL

LA

GE

DR

75TH STCT E

HUBBARD

ROBINSON RD

RIVERWALK DR

E P

ION

EE

R

ME

AD

E A

V

55TH ST E

HARRISON ST

RA

ILRO

AD

ST

LIN

DEN

AV

LANGDON ST

GAULT ST

70TH ST E

RAMP S

R410 RPN1

W

14

1S

T A

V E

63RD STCT E

15

1S

T A

V E

RAM

P S

R410 R

PF1 E

14

6T

H A

V E

BRIDGE ST

18TH ST

57TH ST E

CHESTNUT ST14

7T

H A

V E

RIV

ER

ST

ELIZABETH ST

53RD STCT E

74TH ST E

GU

PT

I L A

V

148

TH

AV

E

SR410 C

ION E

5TH AV NE

MEADE-MCCUMBER RD E

74TH STCT E

78TH STCT E

NAR

RO

W S

T

ADELE ST

14

1S

T A

VC

T E

78TH ST E

67TH STCT E

MO

UN

TA

IN C

IRC

LE

BO

YD

AV

MAYBELL ST

E MAIN ST

SR410 CIOF W

14

4T

H A

V E

143

RD

AV

CT

E

TA

CO

MA

AV

CHRISTINA DR

RAINIER CT

14

4T

H A

VC

T E

64

TH

ST

CT

E

54TH STCT E

SU

MN

ER

AV

75TH STCT E

56TH

ST E

AL

DE

R A

V

HARRISON ST

143R

D A

VCT E

SU

MN

ER

AV

14

1S

T A

V E

146TH AV E

14

2N

D A

V E

BO

NN

EY

AV

RAMP SR410 RPF1 E

74TH ST E

RAINIER ST

GU

PT

IL A

V

WO

OD

AV

VA

LL

EY

AV

SR410 HWY E

SR410 HWY W

80TH ST E

MAIN ST

SR

16

2 E

13

4T

H A

V E

FR

YA

R A

V

SR

167 H

WY

N

SR

16

7 H

WY

S

AL

DE

R A

V

ACADEMY ST

MAPLE ST

CH

ER

RY

AV

WILLOW ST

PARK ST

E M

AIN

STATE ST

KIN

CA

ID A

V

72ND ST E

PE

AS

E

TRA

FFIC

AV

SU

MN

ER

AV

16TH ST

WASHINGTON ST

VALLEY AV E

THOMPSON ST

RIV

ER

GR

OV

E D

R

RY

AN

AV

ED

GE

WO

OD

DR

E

ELM ST

ME

EK

ER

EVERETT

RAINIER ST

SILVER ST

WE

ST V

AL

LE

Y H

WY

E

BO

NN

EY

AV

VOIGT ST

W MAIN ST

WR

IGH

T A

V

HU

NT

AV

GARY ST

LE

WIS

AV

HOUSTON RD E

BO

CK

AV

MASON ST

PIONEER WY E

ZEHNDER ST

NORTH ST

142

ND

AV

E

56TH ST E

ST

EE

LE

AV

BO

YD

VIL

LA

GE

DR

75TH STCT E

HUBBARD

ROBINSON RD

RIVERWALK DR

E P

ION

EE

R

ME

AD

E A

V

55TH ST E

HARRISON ST

RA

ILRO

AD

ST

LIN

DEN

AV

LANGDON ST

GAULT ST

70TH ST E

RAMP S

R410 RPN1

W

14

1S

T A

V E

63RD STCT E

15

1S

T A

V E

RAM

P S

R410 R

PF1 E

14

6T

H A

V E

BRIDGE ST

18TH ST

57TH ST E

CHESTNUT ST14

7T

H A

V E

RIV

ER

ST

ELIZABETH ST

53RD STCT E

74TH ST E

GU

PT

I L A

V

148

TH

AV

E

SR410 C

ION E

5TH AV NE

MEADE-MCCUMBER RD E

74TH STCT E

78TH STCT E

NAR

RO

W S

T

ADELE ST

14

1S

T A

VC

T E

78TH ST E

67TH STCT E

MO

UN

TA

IN C

IRC

LE

BO

YD

AV

MAYBELL ST

E MAIN ST

SR410 CIOF W

14

4T

H A

V E

143

RD

AV

CT

E

TA

CO

MA

AV

CHRISTINA DR

RAINIER CT

14

4T

H A

VC

T E

64

TH

ST

CT

E

54TH STCT E

SU

MN

ER

AV

75TH STCT E

56TH

ST E

AL

DE

R A

V

HARRISON ST

143R

D A

VCT E

SU

MN

ER

AV

14

1S

T A

V E

146TH AV E

14

2N

D A

V E

BO

NN

EY

AV

RAMP SR410 RPF1 E

74TH ST E

RAINIER ST

GU

PT

IL A

V

Scale:

−0 500 1,000250

Feet

City of Sumner

Lot Analysis

Legend

Parcels

Residential Uses in Residential Zones

0 sf - 4,000 sf

4,001 sf - 4,800 sf

4,801 sf - 5,671 sf

5,672 sf - 6,000 sf

6,001 sf - 6,800 sf

6,801 sf - 7,200 sf

7,201 sf - 8,500 sf

8,501 sf - 9,600 sf

9,601 sf - 12,000 sf

12,001 sf - 0.5 a

0.51 a -1 a

1.01 a - 2 a

2.01 a - 3 a

3.01 a - 4 a

4.01 a - 8 a

8.01 a or greater

Residential Uses inResidential Zones

Page 1 of 3

ryanw

Typewritten Text

Attachment A-1

VA

LL

EY

AV

SR410 HWY E

SR410 HWY W

16

0T

H A

V E

PA

RK

ER

RD

E

64TH ST E

SU

MN

ER

-TAP

PS

HW

Y E

ELM ST E

MAIN ST E60TH ST E

GR

AH

AM

AV

16

6T

H A

V E

EA

ST

VA

LL

EY

HW

Y E R

IDG

E W

ES

T D

R E

66TH ST E

WASHINGTON ST

15

4T

H A

VC

T E

16

2N

D A

V E

16

8T

H A

V E

MEADE-MCCUMBER RD E

GARY ST

62ND STCT E

BO

CK

AV

67TH STCT E

43RD ST E

63RD STCT E

166TH

AV

CT E

65TH STCT E

15

8T

H A

V E

16

4T

H A

V E

DAFFODIL STCT E

RAMP SR410 RPN1 W

41ST ST E

RAMP S

R410 RPN1 E

PUYALLUP ST

44TH ST E

56TH ST E

15

1S

T A

V E

RAMP SR410 RPF1 W

55TH ST E

15

3R

D A

V E

52ND STCT E

44TH STCT E

40TH ST E

15

9T

H A

V E

GARDEN ST

47TH ST E

50TH ST E

15

2N

D A

VC

T E

55TH STCT E

15

2N

D A

V E

48TH ST E

15

3R

D A

VC

T E

ELM ST

58TH ST E

54TH STCT E

42ND ST E

53RD STCT E15

1S

T S

TC

T E

48TH STCT E

49TH STCT E

50TH STCT E

15

5T

H A

V E

46TH STCT E

52ND ST E

49TH ST E

156

TH

AV

CT

E

46TH ST E

E MAIN ST

15

8T

H A

VC

T E

16

0T

H A

VC

T E

47TH STCT E

164TH

AV

CT E

45TH STCT E

45TH ST E

43RD STCT E

63RD ST E

15

9T

H A

VC

T E

15

2N

D A

VC

T E

PA

RK

ER

RD

E

15

8T

H A

VC

T E

52ND ST E

54TH STCT E

15

9T

H A

VC

T E

RAMP SR410 RPN1 E

16

6T

H A

V E

66TH ST E

43RD ST E

64TH ST E

15

2N

D A

VC

T E

153

RD

AV

CT

E

54TH STCT E

15

3R

D A

VC

T E

E MAIN ST

63RD STCT E63RD STCT E

43RD ST E

15

4T

H A

VC

T E

15

2N

D A

VC

T E

16

2N

D A

V E

52ND ST E

VA

LL

EY

AV

SR410 HWY E

SR410 HWY W

16

0T

H A

V E

PA

RK

ER

RD

E

64TH ST E

SU

MN

ER

-TAP

PS

HW

Y E

ELM ST E

MAIN ST E60TH ST E

GR

AH

AM

AV

16

6T

H A

V E

EA

ST

VA

LL

EY

HW

Y E R

IDG

E W

ES

T D

R E

66TH ST E

WASHINGTON ST

15

4T

H A

VC

T E

16

2N

D A

V E

16

8T

H A

V E

MEADE-MCCUMBER RD E

GARY ST

62ND STCT E

BO

CK

AV

67TH STCT E

43RD ST E

63RD STCT E

166TH

AV

CT E

65TH STCT E

15

8T

H A

V E

16

4T

H A

V E

DAFFODIL STCT E

RAMP SR410 RPN1 W

41ST ST E

RAMP S

R410 RPN1 E

PUYALLUP ST

44TH ST E

56TH ST E

15

1S

T A

V E

RAMP SR410 RPF1 W

55TH ST E

15

3R

D A

V E

52ND STCT E

44TH STCT E

40TH ST E

15

9T

H A

V E

GARDEN ST

47TH ST E

50TH ST E

15

2N

D A

VC

T E

55TH STCT E

15

2N

D A

V E

48TH ST E

15

3R

D A

VC

T E

ELM ST

58TH ST E

54TH STCT E

42ND ST E

53RD STCT E15

1S

T S

TC

T E

48TH STCT E

49TH STCT E

50TH STCT E

15

5T

H A

V E

46TH STCT E

52ND ST E

49TH ST E

156

TH

AV

CT

E

46TH ST E

E MAIN ST

15

8T

H A

VC

T E

16

0T

H A

VC

T E

47TH STCT E

164TH

AV

CT E

45TH STCT E

45TH ST E

43RD STCT E

63RD ST E

15

9T

H A

VC

T E

15

2N

D A

VC

T E

PA

RK

ER

RD

E

15

8T

H A

VC

T E

52ND ST E

54TH STCT E

15

9T

H A

VC

T E

RAMP SR410 RPN1 E

16

6T

H A

V E

66TH ST E

43RD ST E

64TH ST E

15

2N

D A

VC

T E

153

RD

AV

CT

E

54TH STCT E

15

3R

D A

VC

T E

E MAIN ST

63RD STCT E63RD STCT E

43RD ST E

15

4T

H A

VC

T E

15

2N

D A

VC

T E

16

2N

D A

V E

52ND ST E

Scale:

−0 500 1,000250

Feet

City of Sumner

Lot Analysis

Legend

Parcels


0 sf - 4,000 sf

4,001 sf - 4,800 sf

4,801 sf - 5,671 sf

5,672 sf - 6,000 sf

6,001 sf - 6,800 sf

6,801 sf - 7,200 sf

7,201 sf - 8,500 sf

8,501 sf - 9,600 sf

9,601 sf - 12,000 sf

12,001 sf - 0.5 a

0.51 a -1 a

1.01 a - 2 a

2.01 a - 3 a

3.01 a - 4 a

4.01 a - 8 a

8.01 a or greater


ryanw

Typewritten Text

Attachment A-2

EA

ST

VA

LL

EY

HW

Y E

LA

KE TA

PPS P

KW

Y E

24TH ST E

142N

D A

V E

EV

ER

GR

EE

N W

Y S

E

MO

NT

EV

ISTA

DR

SE

CO

TTA

GE

RD

E

EL

IZA

BE

TH

AV

SE

29TH ST E

FOREST CANYON RD E

32ND ST E

16TH ST E

14

8T

H A

V E

ISA

AC

AV

SE

156TH

AV

E

64TH ST SE

8TH ST E

67TH LN

SE

61ST ST SE

34TH ST E

67TH ST SE

STEWART RD

LA

KE

TA

PP

S P

KW

Y R

P E

20TH ST E

14

6T

H A

V E

FR

AN

CIS

AV

SE

23RD ST E

22ND ST E

TE

RR

AC

E V

IEW

LN

SE

71ST ST SE

63RD ST SE

16

0T

H A

V E

HA

ZE

L L

P S

E

FR

AN

CIS

LP

SE

JA

ME

S P

L S

E

EL

IZA

BE

TH

LP

SE

HA

ZE

L L

N S

E

70TH ST SE

HA

ZE

L A

V S

E

16

0T

H A

VC

T E

LIN

DS

AY

AV

SE

14

5T

H A

VC

T E

30TH STCT E

HA

ZE

L P

L S

E

AL

EX

AN

DE

R P

L S

E

KE

NN

ED

Y A

V S

E

24TH ST E

14

2N

D A

V E

HA

ZE

L A

V S

E

29TH ST E

24TH ST E

LIN

DS

AY

AV

SE

EA

ST

VA

LL

EY

HW

Y E

LA

KE TA

PPS P

KW

Y E

24TH ST E

142N

D A

V E

EV

ER

GR

EE

N W

Y S

E

MO

NT

EV

ISTA

DR

SE

CO

TTA

GE

RD

E

EL

IZA

BE

TH

AV

SE

29TH ST E

FOREST CANYON RD E

32ND ST E

16TH ST E

14

8T

H A

V E

ISA

AC

AV

SE

156TH

AV

E

64TH ST SE

8TH ST E

67TH LN

SE

61ST ST SE

34TH ST E

67TH ST SE

STEWART RD

LA

KE

TA

PP

S P

KW

Y R

P E

20TH ST E

14

6T

H A

V E

FR

AN

CIS

AV

SE

23RD ST E

22ND ST E

TE

RR

AC

E V

IEW

LN

SE

71ST ST SE

63RD ST SE

16

0T

H A

V E

HA

ZE

L L

P S

E

FR

AN

CIS

LP

SE

JA

ME

S P

L S

E

EL

IZA

BE

TH

LP

SE

HA

ZE

L L

N S

E

70TH ST SE

HA

ZE

L A

V S

E

16

0T

H A

VC

T E

LIN

DS

AY

AV

SE

14

5T

H A

VC

T E

30TH STCT E

HA

ZE

L P

L S

E

AL

EX

AN

DE

R P

L S

E

KE

NN

ED

Y A

V S

E

24TH ST E

14

2N

D A

V E

HA

ZE

L A

V S

E

29TH ST E

24TH ST E

LIN

DS

AY

AV

SE

Scale:

−0 500 1,000250

Feet

City of Sumner

Lot Analysis

Legend

Parcels


0 sf - 4,000 sf

4,001 sf - 4,800 sf

4,801 sf - 5,671 sf

5,672 sf - 6,000 sf

6,001 sf - 6,800 sf

6,801 sf - 7,200 sf

7,201 sf - 8,500 sf

8,501 sf - 9,600 sf

9,601 sf - 12,000 sf

12,001 sf - 0.5 a

0.51 a -1 a

1.01 a - 2 a

2.01 a - 3 a

3.01 a - 4 a

4.01 a - 8 a

8.01 a or greater


Page 3 of 3

ryanw

Typewritten Text

Attachment A-3

WO

OD

AV

VA

LL

EY

AV

SR410 HWY E

SR410 HWY W

80TH ST E

MAIN ST

SR

162 E

134T

H A

V E

SR

167 H

WY

N

SR

167 H

WY

S

FR

YA

R A

V

E M

AIN

AL

DE

R A

V

ACADEMY ST

MAPLE ST

CH

ER

RY

AV

WILLOW ST

PARK ST

STATE ST

KIN

CA

I D A

V

VALLEY AV E

72ND ST E

PE

AS

E

TRAFF

IC A

V

SU

MN

ER

AV

ED

GE

WO

OD

DR

E

16TH ST

THOMPSON ST

WASHINGTON ST

PIONEER WY E

RIV

ER

GR

OV

E D

R

RY

AN

AV

ELM ST

ME

EK

ER

EVERETT

RAINIER STW

ES

T V

ALLE

Y H

WY

ESILVER ST

BO

NN

EY

AV

VOIGT ST

56TH ST E

HOUSTON RD E

W MAIN ST

E PIONEER

WR

IGH

T A

V

HU

NT

AV

LE

WIS

AV

MASON ST

ZEHNDER ST

5TH AV NE

NORTH ST

142N

D A

V E

53RD STCT E

ST

EE

LE

AV

BO

YD

GARY ST

VIL

LA

GE

DR

75TH STCT E

HUBBARD

ROBINSON RD

RIVERWALK DR

ME

AD

E A

V

55TH ST E

HARRISON ST

RAIL

RO

AD

ST

LIN

DEN

AV

LANGDON ST

GAULT ST

70TH ST E

RAMP S

R410 RPN1 W

INTE

R A

V N

E

29TH

ST

NE

141S

T A

V E

RAM

P S

R410 R

PF1 E

146T

H A

V E

BRIDGE ST

18TH ST

57TH ST E

CHESTNUT ST

147T

H A

V E

RIV

ER

ST

ELIZABETH ST

74TH ST E

GU

PT

I L A

V

63RD STCT E

148T

H A

V E

SR410 CIO

N E

74TH STCT E

63RD ST E

78TH STCT E

NARRO

W S

T

ADELE ST

141S

T A

VC

T E

78TH ST E

67TH STCT E

148T

H A

VC

T E

MO

UN

TA

IN C

IRC

LE

BO

YD

AV

147T

H A

VC

T E

MAYBELL ST

AM

BA

R A

V

SR410 CIOF W

144T

H A

V E

143R

D A

VC

T E

TA

CO

MA

AV

CHRISTINA DR

RAINIER CT

144T

H A

VC

T E

64T

H S

TC

T E

54TH STCT E

AL

DE

R A

V142N

D A

V E

GU

PT

I L A

V

143R

D A

VCT E

RAINIER ST

HARRISON ST

141S

T A

V E

146TH AV E

56TH

ST E

E PIONEER

SU

MN

ER

AV

RAMP SR410 RPF1 E

75TH STCT E

SU

MN

ER

AV

BO

NN

EY

AV

WO

OD

AV

VA

LL

EY

AV

SR410 HWY E

SR410 HWY W

80TH ST E

MAIN ST

SR

162 E

134T

H A

V E

SR

167 H

WY

N

SR

167 H

WY

S

FR

YA

R A

V

E M

AIN

AL

DE

R A

V

ACADEMY ST

MAPLE ST

CH

ER

RY

AV

WILLOW ST

PARK ST

STATE ST

KIN

CA

I D A

V

VALLEY AV E

72ND ST E

PE

AS

E

TRAFF

IC A

V

SU

MN

ER

AV

ED

GE

WO

OD

DR

E

16TH ST

THOMPSON ST

WASHINGTON ST

PIONEER WY E

RIV

ER

GR

OV

E D

R

RY

AN

AV

ELM ST

ME

EK

ER

EVERETT

RAINIER STW

ES

T V

ALLE

Y H

WY

ESILVER ST

BO

NN

EY

AV

VOIGT ST

56TH ST E

HOUSTON RD E

W MAIN ST

E PIONEER

WR

IGH

T A

V

HU

NT

AV

LE

WIS

AV

MASON ST

ZEHNDER ST

5TH AV NE

NORTH ST

142N

D A

V E

53RD STCT E

ST

EE

LE

AV

BO

YD

GARY ST

VIL

LA

GE

DR

75TH STCT E

HUBBARD

ROBINSON RD

RIVERWALK DR

ME

AD

E A

V

55TH ST E

HARRISON ST

RAIL

RO

AD

ST

LIN

DEN

AV

LANGDON ST

GAULT ST

70TH ST E

RAMP S

R410 RPN1 W

INTE

R A

V N

E

29TH

ST

NE

141S

T A

V E

RAM

P S

R410 R

PF1 E

146T

H A

V E

BRIDGE ST

18TH ST

57TH ST E

CHESTNUT ST

147T

H A

V E

RIV

ER

ST

ELIZABETH ST

74TH ST E

GU

PT

I L A

V

63RD STCT E

148T

H A

V E

SR410 CIO

N E

74TH STCT E

63RD ST E

78TH STCT E

NARRO

W S

T

ADELE ST

141S

T A

VC

T E

78TH ST E

67TH STCT E

148T

H A

VC

T E

MO

UN

TA

IN C

IRC

LE

BO

YD

AV

147T

H A

VC

T E

MAYBELL ST

AM

BA

R A

V

SR410 CIOF W

144T

H A

V E

143R

D A

VC

T E

TA

CO

MA

AV

CHRISTINA DR

RAINIER CT

144T

H A

VC

T E

64T

H S

TC

T E

54TH STCT E

AL

DE

R A

V142N

D A

V E

GU

PT

I L A

V

143R

D A

VCT E

RAINIER ST

HARRISON ST

141S

T A

V E

146TH AV E

56TH

ST E

E PIONEER

SU

MN

ER

AV

RAMP SR410 RPF1 E

75TH STCT E

SU

MN

ER

AV

BO

NN

EY

AV

Scale:

−0 530 1,060265

Feet

City of Sumner

Lot Analysis

Legend

Vacant Uses in Residential Zones

area

0 sf - 4,000 sf

4,001 sf - 4,800 sf

4,801 sf - 5,760 sf

5,761 sf - 6,000 sf

6,001 sf - 6,800 sf

6,801 sf - 7,200 sf

7,201 sf - 8,500 sf

8,501 sf - 9,600 sf

9,601 sf - 12,000 sf

12,001 sf - 0.5 a

0.51 a - 1 a

1.01 a - 2 a

2.01 a - 3 a

3.01 a - 4a

4.01 a - 8 a

8.01 a or greater

Parcels

Vacant Uses inResidential Zones

Page 1 of 3

ryanw

Typewritten Text

Attachment B-1

EA

ST

VA

LL

EY

HW

Y E

LA

KE TA

PPS P

KW

Y E

24TH ST E

MO

NT

EV

ISTA

DR

SE

CO

TTA

GE

RD

E

FOREST CANYON RD E

EV

ER

GR

EE

N W

Y S

E

EL

IZA

BE

TH

AV

SE

160T

H A

V E

67TH ST SE

29TH ST E

148T

H A

V E

ISA

AC

AV

SE

34TH ST E

156T

H A

V E

64TH ST SE

22ND ST E

8TH ST E

32ND ST E

16TH ST E

67TH LN

SE

61ST ST SE

69TH ST SE

LA

KE

TAP

PS

PK

WY

RP

E

STEWART RD

68TH ST SE

146T

H A

V E

FR

AN

CIS

AV

SE

23RD ST E

20TH ST E

162N

D A

VC

T E

163R

D A

V E

71ST ST SE

63RD ST SEH

AZ

EL

LP

SE

FR

AN

CIS

LP

SE

JA

ME

S P

L S

E

EL

IZA

BE

TH

LP

SE

HA

ZE

L L

N S

E

70TH ST SE

HA

ZE

L A

V S

E

72ND ST SE

68TH LP SE

160T

H A

VC

T E

LIN

DS

AY

AV

SE

145T

H A

VC

T E

30TH STCT E

65TH ST SE

HA

ZE

L P

L S

E

163R

D A

VC

T E

62ND ST SE

LIN

DS

AY

DR

SE

61ST PL SE61ST ST SE

29TH ST E

24TH ST E24TH ST E

29TH ST E

HA

ZE

L A

V S

E

LIN

DS

AY

AV

SE

71ST ST SE

62ND ST SE

EA

ST

VA

LL

EY

HW

Y E

LA

KE TA

PPS P

KW

Y E

24TH ST E

MO

NT

EV

ISTA

DR

SE

CO

TTA

GE

RD

E

FOREST CANYON RD E

EV

ER

GR

EE

N W

Y S

E

EL

IZA

BE

TH

AV

SE

160T

H A

V E

67TH ST SE

29TH ST E

148T

H A

V E

ISA

AC

AV

SE

34TH ST E

156T

H A

V E

64TH ST SE

22ND ST E

8TH ST E

32ND ST E

16TH ST E

67TH LN

SE

61ST ST SE

69TH ST SE

LA

KE

TAP

PS

PK

WY

RP

E

STEWART RD

68TH ST SE

146T

H A

V E

FR

AN

CIS

AV

SE

23RD ST E

20TH ST E

162N

D A

VC

T E

163R

D A

V E

71ST ST SE

63RD ST SEH

AZ

EL

LP

SE

FR

AN

CIS

LP

SE

JA

ME

S P

L S

E

EL

IZA

BE

TH

LP

SE

HA

ZE

L L

N S

E

70TH ST SE

HA

ZE

L A

V S

E

72ND ST SE

68TH LP SE

160T

H A

VC

T E

LIN

DS

AY

AV

SE

145T

H A

VC

T E

30TH STCT E

65TH ST SE

HA

ZE

L P

L S

E

163R

D A

VC

T E

62ND ST SE

LIN

DS

AY

DR

SE

61ST PL SE61ST ST SE

29TH ST E

24TH ST E24TH ST E

29TH ST E

HA

ZE

L A

V S

E

LIN

DS

AY

AV

SE

71ST ST SE

62ND ST SE

Scale:

−0 530 1,060265

Feet

City of Sumner

Lot Analysis

Legend


area

0 sf - 4,000 sf

4,001 sf - 4,800 sf

4,801 sf - 5,760 sf

5,761 sf - 6,000 sf

6,001 sf - 6,800 sf

6,801 sf - 7,200 sf

7,201 sf - 8,500 sf

8,501 sf - 9,600 sf

9,601 sf - 12,000 sf

12,001 sf - 0.5 a

0.51 a - 1 a

1.01 a - 2 a

2.01 a - 3 a

3.01 a - 4a

4.01 a - 8 a

8.01 a or greater

Parcels


Page 3 of 3

ryanw

Typewritten Text

Attachment B-2

VA

LL

EY

AV

SR410 HWY E

SR410 HWY W

160T

H A

V E

PA

RK

ER

RD

E

SU

MN

ER

-TAP

PS

HW

Y E

64TH ST E

ELM ST E

MAIN ST E

EA

ST

VA

LL

EY

HW

Y E

60TH ST E

GR

AH

AM

AV

166T

H A

V E

RID

GE

WE

ST D

R E

66TH ST E

WASHINGTON ST

154T

H A

VC

T E

162N

D A

V E

168T

H A

V E

MEADE-MCCUMBER RD E

GARY ST

62ND STCT E

BO

CK

AV

67TH STCT E

43RD ST E

63RD STCT E

166T

H A

VC

T E

RAMP SR410 RPN1 E

65TH STCT E

158T

H A

V E

164T

H A

V E

DAFFODIL STCT E

RAMP SR410 RPN1 W

SO

UTH

TAPPS D

R E

41ST ST E

PUYALLUP ST

170T

H A

V E

44TH ST E

56TH ST E

151S

T A

V E

RAMP SR410 RPF1 W

55TH ST E

153R

D A

V E

52ND STCT E

44TH STCT E

40TH ST E

159T

H A

V E

GARDEN ST

47TH ST E

50TH ST E

152N

D A

VC

T E

55TH STCT E

152N

D A

V E

48TH ST E

153R

D A

VC

T E

58TH ST E

54TH STCT E

42ND ST E

ELM ST

53RD STCT E151S

T S

TC

T E

48TH STCT E

42ND STCT E

163R

D A

VC

T E

49TH STCT E49TH ST E

46TH STCT E

50TH STCT E

39TH STCT E

155T

H A

V E

52ND ST E

43RD STCT E

156T

H A

VC

T E

46TH ST E

E MAIN ST

158T

H A

VC

T E

160T

H A

VC

T E

47TH STCT E

164TH

AV

CT E

45TH STCT E

45TH ST E

63RD ST E

159T

H A

VC

T E

WASHINGTON ST

64TH ST E

52ND ST E

66TH ST E

PA

RK

ER

RD

E

152N

D A

VC

T E

43RD ST E

54TH STCT E

158T

H A

VC

T E

166T

H A

V E

54TH STCT E

152N

D A

V E

RAMP SR410 RPF1 W

63RD STCT E

153R

D A

VC

T E

43RD STCT E

152N

D A

VC

T E

63RD STCT E

E MAIN ST

43RD ST E154T

H A

VC

T E

52ND ST E

153R

D A

VC

T E

170T

H A

V E

162N

D A

V E

VA

LL

EY

AV

SR410 HWY E

SR410 HWY W

160T

H A

V E

PA

RK

ER

RD

E

SU

MN

ER

-TAP

PS

HW

Y E

64TH ST E

ELM ST E

MAIN ST E

EA

ST

VA

LL

EY

HW

Y E

60TH ST E

GR

AH

AM

AV

166T

H A

V E

RID

GE

WE

ST D

R E

66TH ST E

WASHINGTON ST

154T

H A

VC

T E

162N

D A

V E

168T

H A

V E

MEADE-MCCUMBER RD E

GARY ST

62ND STCT E

BO

CK

AV

67TH STCT E

43RD ST E

63RD STCT E

166T

H A

VC

T E

RAMP SR410 RPN1 E

65TH STCT E

158T

H A

V E

164T

H A

V E

DAFFODIL STCT E

RAMP SR410 RPN1 W

SO

UTH

TAPPS D

R E

41ST ST E

PUYALLUP ST

170T

H A

V E

44TH ST E

56TH ST E

151S

T A

V E

RAMP SR410 RPF1 W

55TH ST E

153R

D A

V E

52ND STCT E

44TH STCT E

40TH ST E

159T

H A

V E

GARDEN ST

47TH ST E

50TH ST E

152N

D A

VC

T E

55TH STCT E

152N

D A

V E

48TH ST E

153R

D A

VC

T E

58TH ST E

54TH STCT E

42ND ST E

ELM ST

53RD STCT E151S

T S

TC

T E

48TH STCT E

42ND STCT E

163R

D A

VC

T E

49TH STCT E49TH ST E

46TH STCT E

50TH STCT E

39TH STCT E

155T

H A

V E

52ND ST E

43RD STCT E

156T

H A

VC

T E

46TH ST E

E MAIN ST

158T

H A

VC

T E

160T

H A

VC

T E

47TH STCT E

164TH

AV

CT E

45TH STCT E

45TH ST E

63RD ST E

159T

H A

VC

T E

WASHINGTON ST

64TH ST E

52ND ST E

66TH ST E

PA

RK

ER

RD

E

152N

D A

VC

T E

43RD ST E

54TH STCT E

158T

H A

VC

T E

166T

H A

V E

54TH STCT E

152N

D A

V E

RAMP SR410 RPF1 W

63RD STCT E

153R

D A

VC

T E

43RD STCT E

152N

D A

VC

T E

63RD STCT E

E MAIN ST

43RD ST E154T

H A

VC

T E

52ND ST E

153R

D A

VC

T E

170T

H A

V E

162N

D A

V E

Scale:

−0 530 1,060265

Feet

City of Sumner

Lot Analysis

Legend


area

0 sf - 4,000 sf

4,001 sf - 4,800 sf

4,801 sf - 5,760 sf

5,761 sf - 6,000 sf

6,001 sf - 6,800 sf

6,801 sf - 7,200 sf

7,201 sf - 8,500 sf

8,501 sf - 9,600 sf

9,601 sf - 12,000 sf

12,001 sf - 0.5 a

0.51 a - 1 a

1.01 a - 2 a

2.01 a - 3 a

3.01 a - 4a

4.01 a - 8 a

8.01 a or greater

Parcels


Page 2 of 3

ryanw

Typewritten Text

Attachment B-3

Lot Diversity Study Methodology: 1. Original data set was made up of vacant and single-family residential lots zoned for a residential use (LDR, MDR, and HDR) within the existing City limits defined as follows: Vacant: All lots with the tax assessor land use code of vacant residential. In some cases the lots were also in an open space or agricultural or other category but were counted because of potential for future development under existing zoning. Lots were removed that 1. Were under city or public ownership including PSE lands. 2. Lots under 1000 square feet 3. Lots that had “Major Problems” as described by the tax assessor Single-family Residential: All lots with one single-family residence (some may contain an accessory dwelling unit).

2. Single-family Residential Data Analysis a. Data set was sorted by lot size (AREA SF) b. Data set was categorized into lot size ranges based on minimum lot sizes

allowed under various scenarios. For example, the minimum lot size in LDR-4,000 is 4000 square feet, while 5,760 is 80% of 7, 200 as follows:

Table of Lot Sizes 100 s.f. to 4000 s.f. 4,001 s.f. to 4,800 s.f. 4,801 s.f. to 5,760 s.f. 5,671 s.f. to 6,000 s.f. 6,001 s.f. to 6,800 s.f. 6,801 s.f. to 7,200 s.f. 7,201 s.f. to 8,500 s.f. 8,501 s.f. to 9,600 s.f. 9,601 s.f. to 12,000 s.f. 12001 sf to .5 ac. .51 ac. to 1 ac. 1.01 acre to 2 acre 2.01 acre to 3 acre 3.01 acre to 4 acre 4.01 acre to 8 acre 8.01 acre and more

c. The total number of parcels per Lot Size category were totaled and the lot

size for the category was averaged.

ryanw

Typewritten Text

Attachment C

d. Data was then summarized and percentages calculated for each Lot Size category (see above). Graphs were made based on the number of total lot sizes and percentages of the total.

3. Vacant Lots Data Analysis a. Data set was sorted by lot size (AREA SF) b. Data set was categorized into lot size ranges based on minimum lot sizes

allowed under various scenarios (see above). c. Lots were tallied and percentages of the total lots calculated.

4. Future Lots Analysis a. The vacant lot data set was further refined by eliminating lots that were

less than 2.5 times the minimum lot size. b. Remaining lots were divided by the minimum lot size for the zone to

estimate potential lots that could be created. c. Lots were tallied and percentages of the total lots calculated.

planning commission recommendation:deny the proposed ... · ma-3: the proposed map amendment made...

Documents