The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1145RESOLUTION NO. II~~ A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding multifamily housing density. WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, desires to achieve a reduction in the density of multifamily housing developments; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned with the increasing imbalance between multifamily and single-family housing within the City, and the availability of a mix of housing options for Kent resident; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned with the City's ability to provide in a timely manner the public facilities and services necessary to support the increase in multifamily development; and WHEREAS, the City Council Planning Committee considered the issue related to multifamily housing density, including the health, safety and welfare of the community, in a meeting on August 24, 1987, and endorsed Options B and C as outlined in the Planning Department's "Report on Multifamily Density'' dated July, 1987; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the aforementioned "Report on Multifamily Density" and the Planning Committee recommendation and the reasons therefore, at a workshop on September 8, 1987; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a balance of housing options that meets the needs of the citizens and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and community; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby endorses Options B and c presented in the Planning Department's July 1987 "Report on Multifamily Density." Section 2. The City Council hereby directs the Planning Department, Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner to undertake actions necessary to proceed with Options B and C in the aforementioned "Report on Multifamily Density", which includes input from the public on the Report and the recommended options. Passed at a regular City of Kent, Washington this day of Concurred in by the J &(11= , 1987. ATTEST: meeting of the City Council of the ~day of ~~ 1987. Mayor of the City of Kent, this /~ ~~~"-- DAN KEt~EHER, MAYOR I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. /11~ , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the IS-day of ~~ , 1987. BRENDA JACOBE 05160-170 - 2 - City of Kent, Washington Planning Department James P. Harris, Planning Director James M. Hansen, AICP, Principal Planner Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Project Manager Dan M. Stroh, Lead Project Planner Lenora W. Blauman, Project Planner Libby Hudson, Planner/Cartographer TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary • i I. Introduction II. I I I. IV. A. Purpose of Report • . • B. Community Concern Over Residential Density •• Scope of Study and Findings A. Scope of Study • • . • B. Findings 1. Multifamily Development 3 6 2. Multifamily-Zoned Land • 12 C. Summary of Findings .••• • 20 Policy Options for Consideration A. Option A: 11 Across the Board 11 Reduction . . . . . . . . . 20 B. Option B: Graduated Scale Reduction . . . . 21 c. Option C: Rezone of 11 0verzoned 11 Areas . . . . . . 22 D. Option D: Application to Newly Annexed Areas . . . . . . 23 E. Option E: Elimination of the MRH Zone . . . . . . . . 24 F. Option F: Reduction Based on Environmental Constraints . . 25 Summary of Report 26 Appendices A. B. Council Resolution No. 1123 Multifamily Development Data 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Listing of all Multifamily Developments Listing of Developments at Application or Construction Stage Cross-Reference Listing of Developments Table: Units and Density by Neighborhood -All Multi- family Developments Table: Units and Density by Neighborhood -Developments prior to 1980 Table: Units and Density by Neighborhood -Developments from 1980 to 1987 C. Multifamily Lands Data 1. 2. 3. 4. Listing of Multifamily Land Inventory Table: Multifamily Lands - Development Status by Zone Table: Multifamily Lands - Development Status by Neighborhood Table: Multifamily Lands - Vacant Land by Neighborhood and Zone Appendices (continued) 5. Table: Multifamily Lands - Underdeveloped Land by Neighborhood and Zone 6. Table: Scenario for Full Development of Vacant Land 7. Table: Scenario for Full Development of Underdeveloped Land 8. Table: Scenario for Partial Development of Underdeveloped Land EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT ON MULTIFAMILY DENSITY This report addresses Council Resolution #1123, concerning housing density in Kent. It concentrates on the issue of multifamily density reduction, a key issue raised by the resolution. The related issue of single-farnily incentives will be covered in a future report. Existing Situation In studying the density issue, the Planning Department undertook a complete survey of multifamily development and multifamily-zoned lands in the city. Data on existing dwellings and on multifamily-zoned lands were entered and analyzed on a microcomputer. Patterns and trends in past development were thus identified, as was a picture of the City•s potential for future multifamily growth. Some surprising findings emerged from the study. With 8,950 apartments and condominiums today, the City•s housing stock is predominantly multifamily: 59% multifamily vs. 35% single family. (The balance of dwellings are mobile homes.) As recently as 1970, this situation was approximately reversed. ln 1~70, 1:1u ltifarni ly accounted for less than a third of all dwellings (2b%), single family for two-thirds (b6%). Today, the City has 6,9~4 more multifamily dwellings than it had in 1970, an increase of 358%. In this - i - decade alone, the number of multifamily units has more than doubled, from 4,104 units in 1979 to 8,950 today. In the same eight-year period, the only growth in single-family units has been through annexation. In fact, if recent annexations were not included, the City would show a net decrease in single-family dwellings between 1980 and today, \tdth single-family demolitions outpacing new construction. The rapid increase in multifamily housing has resulted in heavy population growth. Since 1970, the City's population of 16,275 has almost doubled, with the vast majority of new residents housed in apartments and condominiums. Recent growth is concentrated in the East Hill Subarea and the residential areas of the Valley Floor. While the number of multifamily dwellings has increased rapidly, the average size of developments has also been growing. The average multifamily development prior to 1980 held less than 30 units; the average size of projects built since 1980 is 110 units. This rapid growth of multifamily in recent years has greatly stressed the City's ability to provide necessary public facilities and services (streets, water and sewer, police and fire protection, etc.). Whether the City can keep up with this growth in an effective and timely manner is a critical issue. Whether the City wishes to maintain the current trend towards a housing stock increasingly dominated by multifamily units is a related issue. The balance and diversity of the housing supply, and availability of housing options for the City's residents, are the essence of the issue here. To evaluate various options for reaucing multifamily density, all multifamlly- zonea lands in the city were surveyed. This includes 1175.8 acres in the following categories: MRH (40 units per acre), ~0 acres MRM (23 units per acre), 654 acres MRG (16 units per acre), 353 acres MRD (10 units per acre), 78 acres Of the 1176 acre total, just over half is fully developed. The balance of 570 acres is considered available for development. Of this, 415 acres are vacant; the remaining 155 acres are "underdeveloped." That is, these properties are in a substantially less intensive use than is permitted by their zoning district. They are seen as prime candidates for conversion to multifamily uses. The full report provides breakdowns of available land by neighborhood location and zone. Given the available land in each zoning district, the potential for additional multifamily units and population was calculated under two scenarios. Scenario 1 shows a potential 10,699 additional multifamily units and 1~,255 residents added to the city. Scenario 2, with a more conservative assumption on - i i - conversion of "underdeveloped" land, shows an additional 8,592 units and 15,466 residents. Under both scenarios, the East Hill Subarea experiences the greatest increase, with the Valley Floor neighborhood close behind. Policy Options for Consideration The report sets forth six policy options for accomplishing the multifamily density reduction presented in Resolution #1123. A mechanism is discussed for carrying out each option. The amount of affected acreage and number of potential units are identified. Finally, a brief evaluation is provided for each option. Option A: "Across the Board" Reduction This is perhaps the simplest of the options. Through a text amendment of the zoning code, the density ceiling for each multifamily-zoned property in the city would be reduced. Option A would result in a decreased development potential of 1,807 units (21%). This is a straightforward approach. While accomplishing a substantial reduction in development potential, it is not a major departure from the existing Zoning Ordinance. However, this option may be perceived as less than equitable. This is because the less-dense zones absorb the same percentage reduction as the higher-density, higher-impact zones. Option B: Graduated Scale Reduction Under this approach, the higher existing density ceilings receive the greater percentage reduction, and vice versaa As in Option A, this approach would be accomplished by a text amendment of the zoning code, and all multifamily-zoned properties would be affected. The net reduction is 1,740 potential units, a decrease of 20.2%. This approach addresses the equity issue raised by Option A, targeting land with the greatest potential density for the largest percentage cutbacks. It is comprehensive, affecting all multifamily property in the city and achieving the full 20% reouction desired. It would bring Kent closer into line witll the multifamily density ceilings of other area localities. One negative point is that the approach is somewhat more complex than Option A. Option C: Rezone of "Overzoned" Areas In this site-specific approach, lands identified as "overzoned" would be rezoned to lower densities. Two such areas have been tentatively identified Hithin the city's Housing and Community Development Neighborhood Strategy Area. Together, they comprise approximately 3l.o acres of MRM-zoned land and 3.6 acres of MRG-zoned land. Rezoning the two areas to MRU would result in a reduction of 482 potential units (5.6% of the citywide potential.) -iii - This option would provide for zoning more consistent with the City's Housing ana Community Development policy of conserving single-family housing within the Neighborhood Strategy Area. It would benefit the lower income residents of the neighborhoods and help to protect older residential areas near the downtown core. On the negative side, this approach affects only selected multifamily properties and does not approach the 20% reduction sought by the resolution. Option D: Application to Newly-Annexed Areas This approach provides for reduced densities in areas recently annexed to the city. The East Hill Wel I #2 Annexation Area, annexed last April, would be directly affected. Of the area designated multifamily on the city's East Hill Subarea Map, 160 acres are either underdeveloped or vacant. Should all of this area be zoned Rl-7.2 rather than multifamily, a reduction in development potential of 1,077 units would result. This approach provides for a substantial reduction relative to full implementation of the Comprehensive Plan designations. Zoning a larger area as single family rather than multifamily should assist the complementary goal of encouraging single family development. Further, no "downgrading" of existing zoning is necessary. On the other hand, this option does not improve the housing balance or reduce densities in the pre-annexation areas. Option E: Elimination of the MRH Zone This option involves elimination of the MRH zone from the Zoning Code and Zoning Map. All MRH property would be redesignated MRM. This approach would affect approximately 57 acres of available land, resulting in a reduction of Y64 potential units. This option may be justified basea on a comparison of Kent's upper density limit with that of other area cities. Kent's 40 units per acre in the high density zone is greater than the corresponding limit in five of six other area cities surveyed. However, this approach is not distributed over the full city and it represents a net reduction in potential units of only 11%. Option F: Reduction Based on Environmental Constraints This is a site-specific approach, involving identification of areas which are zoned at densities beyond their environmental suitabilities. Three such areas have been tentatively identified. Rezoning these areas to the RA (Residential/Agricultural) Zoning District would result in a decreased development potential of ~79 units (11.4%). This approach has the dual benefits of protecting environmentally vulnerable areas and of protecting potential residents from environmental hazards. However, it is of limited effect because -iv - much of the applicable land would not be suitable for multifamily development in the first place. It is also not a comprehensive approach to the density reduction issue. Note on the Impact to Existing Multifamily Development In most situations when zoning changes on a property, a legally-established development which is not consistent with the new zoning becomes a 11 nonconforming use.11 The nonconforming use is subject to special restrictions, including limits on expansion and reconstruction. However, multifamily developments in existence as of January 1, 1984 fall under a special residential exception and are not deemed nonconforming in terms of density provisions. Therefore, action on density reduction has no real effect on multifamily development in place prior to 1984. Extension of the same exception to existing multifamily development built since January l, 1984 will require a code amendment. - v - ZONING POLICY OPTIONS FOR REDUCING POTENTIAL MULTIFAMILY UNITS Reduction Option A. Across-the-board 20% reduction of potential density in all multi- family-zoned districts. B. Graduated scale reduction in multifamily zones. c. Rezone "overzoned" areas - involves reducing potential density in certain neighbor- hoods. D. Annexation areas -involves implementation of single- family zoning in areas planned for multi-family use. E. Eliminate the MRH zone - involves rezoning to MRM. F. Environmentally Sensitive Areas -involves rezoning to low-density residential in these areas. Number Units Affected 1 ,807 1,740 482 1 ,077 964 979 ercent Reduction in Potential Multifamily Units 21% 20.2% &.6% * 11.2% 11.4% Comments Requires text amendment to zoning code. Text amendments require public hearings before the Planning Commission. Requires text amendment to zoning code. Text amendments require public hearings before the Planning Commission. Requires zoning map amendment. Map amendments require public hearings before the Hearing Examiner. Requires zoning map amendment. Map amendments require public hearings before the Hearing Examiner. Requires both text and map amendments to zoning code. Public hearings before both Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner are required. Requires zoning map amendment. Map amendments require public hearings before the Hearing Examiner. * Percentage not calculated since these lands are not presently zoned for multifamily residential use. I. Introduction A. Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to give the Council a picture of the impacts of several policy options aimed at density reduction on undeveloped multifamily zoned lands, per Resolution #112~. These alternatives have been discussed before, but only on a general level and without full knowledge about the extent of their impacts. It is intendeu that the data provided in this report will assist the Council in its evaluation of a preferred policy direction. The current report deals exclusively vii th the issue of mu 1 t ifamily density reduction. The issue of single- family incentives is an important part of the Counci I •s overall approach to density reduction and will be addressed in the final report on Resolution #1123. B. Community Concern Over Residential Denslty In December 1986, the Kent City Council passeu Resolution #112~. The Resolution referenced a number of concerns regarding the City•s rapid growth and the proliferation of multifamily housing. Among these were the impacts of uncontrolled growth on the City•s infrastructure and its ability to provide necessary public services, the projected Paae 1 proportion of multifamily development to single-family residential development, and adherence to the City's Comprehensive Plan goals of environmental suitability and neighborhood preservation. The Resolution referenced a major survey of public opinion on Kent housing issues, conducted in 1985 by Hebert Research, Inc. This firm interviewed a random sample of 200 Kent households on their opinions regarding housing availability, diversity and problems. Both owners and renters agreed that a good variety of housing currently exists in Kent. However, almost two-thirds of homeowners (66%) and more than half (52%) of renters, agreed that there are too many apartments in Kent. Respondents were further asked in an open-ended question to identify Kent's main housing problems. The top two problems cited both related to multifamily development. "Too many apartments" was the most frequently cited problem; "housing too crowded" was the next. This survey indicates a strong community concern about the developing housing densities in Kent. Resolution 1123 also referenced the City's Comprehensive Plan as providing policy guidance on the issues of housing density and choice. This long-range planning document sets forth major City policies designed to guide Kent's future. The current City-wide plan is divided into several "elements" which address specific substantive areas. Within the Housing Element, neighborhood preservation is a major objective: "to maintain and improve the existing residential neighborhoods on the East and West Hills" (Objective 2, Goal 1 of the Housing Element). An orderly pattern of residential growtn and balanced mix of development types are critical to this Comprehensive Plan objective. Under the Natural Environment Element, a number of goals and objectives relate directly or indirectly to housing density and residential growth. ~1ong these are the goals of preserving local water resources and open space throughout the City, and of ensuring the preservation of ecosystems and protecting their aesthetic values. A balanced and orderly pattern of housing growth is a key towards achieving these environmental goals and objectives. Citing the above concerns and the City's Comprehensive Plan, Council Resolution 1123 set forth tt1ree major points regarding housing policy: l. The intent of Council to achieve an average density reduction of 20 percent on undeveloped Page 2 multifamily zoned lands throughout the City. 2. For unincorporated areas near Kent, the Council's intent to seek an interlocal agreement with King County establishing a 20 percent reduction in permitted multifamily densities on undeveloped lands. 3. The Council's desire to promote the development of single-family housing through a combination of permitting, zoning and planning changes. The current report concentrates on the multifamily development issues raised by Council. It covers an extensive computerized database on multifamily developments and available multifamily-zoned lands developed by the Planning Department over the past severa 1 months. It identifies broad trends and patterns in the data, broken out on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. Finally, the interim report identifies and analyzes several alternative methods of achieving the intended 20 percent reduction in permitted densities of available multifamily zoned land. It attempts to set forth some of the pros and cons associated with each alternative. II. Scope of Study and Findings A. Scope of Study In the Spring of 1987, the Planning Department undertook a comprehensive survey of multifamily development within the City. Through field visits, staff assembled two bodies of data: 1) an inventory of multifamily developments within all zoning districts (Multifamily Development Inventory) and 2) an inventory of all land zonea Multifamily Residential (Multifamily Lands Inventory). For the IJeveloprnent Inventory, ttle following information was assembled on all multifamily developments: date built, project type lapartment or condominium), zoning district, quarter-section map location, acreage, number of units, and density (units per acre). A cross-reference listing was developed to account for alternative names associated with some developments. A pending projects list was drawn up to show proJects currently under construction or in the pre-construction phase. The data could then be aggregated to provide a picture of development trends in multifamily housing, such as the rate of increase in new multifamily units, and changes in average project size over recent years. Page 3 For the Multifamily Lands Inventory, staff collected data on all land zoned Multifamily Residential. These include lands zoned MRD (duplex multifamily), MRG (garden density multifamily), MRM (medium density multifamily) and MRH (high density multifamily). For each cluster of multifamily-zoned land, data was gathered on the following: zoning districts, quarter-section map location, acreage fully developed in multifamily dwellings, acreage fully developed in other (non-multifamily) uses, acreage underdeveloped (at a density or type significantly less intensive than the permitted multifamily designation), and vacant acreage. This information was gathered in order to understand the potential for future multifamily development in the City. Acreage fully developed in multifamily or other uses is considered not available for further development; acreage underdeveloped or vacant is considered available for potential future multifamily development. With this data, the potential numbers and distribution of additional multifamily units can be calculated under various development scenarios. Beyond the view provided by the aggregate data, a more refined picture of the City's housing dynamics may be seen in the spatial distribution of the data. For instance, what areas of the City have traditionally absorbed the bulk of multifamily units? Are there significant differences in the densities of multifamily housing in various sections of the City? What areas of the City have the greatest development potential for new multifamily units? To answer questions such as these, data in the Multifamily Development Inventory and Lands Inventory were associated with the basic geographic unit used by the U.S. Census Neighborhood Statistics Program. The 1~80 Federal Census divided the City into twelve census neighborhoods. Four of these occur in the West Hill subarea: Cambridge, Grandview, Midway and West Hill Neighborhoods. Three occur on the Valley Floor: Downtown, Meeker and South Central. Four comprise the East Hill subareas: ~enson Center, East Hill, Lower East Hill, and Scenic Hill. The remaining neighborhood is known as 11 Balance of City.11 (See Map, Figure 1.) Using these census areas, data can be broken down to examine development patterns for each neighborhood and to compare one neighborhood to another. Given the need to manage and analyze a substantial amount of information in the two inventories, the study was well suited to computer application. Accordingly, both inventories were entered and analyzed through Lotus 1-2-3 on the Hewlett-Packard Vectra Page 4 Figure 1 I~ rj' X': NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES \ \ \! , t:;~;jSJI{l ·,·~ ······ ' CITY MAP KENT KINO COUNtY microcomputer, which ~1as invaluable in analyzing the data and generating the tables and graphics required. Microcomputer analysis provided a more detailed and thorough understanding of the data than would otherwise have been practicable. B. Findings 1. Multifamily Developments The City of Kent currently has 8,950 multifamily dwelling units (apartments and condominiums) within 182 separate developments. This compares to 5,381 single-family units. As a percentage of all housing, multifamily now accounts for approximately 59 percent, single-family 35 percent. (The small balance of dwellings are mobile homes.) The mix of housing units has changed substantially over the last 20 years (See Figure 2). In 1980, housing was divided almost equally between single-family and multifamily units: single-family constituted 45.b percent of the total; multifamily, 47.4 percent. As recently as 1970, the current situation was approximately reversed. Single-family accounted for roughly 2/3 of all housing units (66.3%), multifamily less than 1/3 (26.4%). In abso 1 ute nur11bers, today the City has 6,994 more multifamily units than it had in 1~70, an increase of 3b8 percent. In this decade alone, the number of multifamily units has more than doubled, from 4,104 units in 1979 to the 8,9b0 units today. In the same eight year period, single-family units have increased by only 471 units, or 9.b percent. In fact, if recent annexations were not included, the City would show a net decrease in single-family units between 19~0 and today, with single-family demolitions outpacing new construction. The waves of multifamily residential growth in the last two decades have resulted in a tremendous increase in Kent•s population, almost doubling between 197U and today. The official Census count for 1970 was 16,27b; toaay the City has well over JO,OOO residents. While a small amount of the increase is due to annexations, the vast majority is based on the growth of multifamily units. This trend continues. In addition to the 8,9SU units included above, an additional 870 units in 11 developments are currently under construction or in the pre-construction stage. Pnae 6 Housing Unit Mix 1970 Kent's Housing Mix: Figure 2 1970/1987 Housing Unit Mix 1987 Mob;lc Home (6.27.) ~-...-:;,..__,_ s;nglc FomHy (35.27.) The distribution of multifamily units may be examined by Census neighborhoods (See Figure 3). By a large measure, the predominant number of multifamily units are found in the East Hill subarea. East Hill Neighborhood itself, with 2,956 units, comprises a full third of the City•s multifamily units. Benson Center, Lower East Hill and Scenic Hill add another 2,772 units for a total o,728 units in these four neighborhoods of East Hill. This is 64 percent of all multifamily units in the City. The next highest number of multifamily units occurs in the Valley Floor. With 1,687 units, the Meeker Neighborhood alone comprises 19 percent of the City total. Downtown and Scenic Hill include an additional 675 units, giving the Valley Floor subarea a total 2,362 units, for 26 percent of the City total. The West Hill Neighborhoods of Cambridge, Grandview, Midway and West Hill comprise a combined total of only 802 units, for Y percent of the City total. The small balance of units are found in the 11 Balance of City .. Neighborhood, which accounts for less than 1 percent of the City total. Recent growth in multifamily housing has been very uneven, with some neighborhoods altogether bypassea and others receiving massive shares. (This is due in part simply to the availability of multifamily-zoned land, discussed below.) With the data developed, growth in multifamily units during this decaae may be examined neighborhood by neighborhood. Commensurate with its current leading position in multifamily units, the East Hill subarea received a major share of the City•s multifamily growth this decade. The East Hill Neighborhood prior to 1Y80 had 1,145 multifamily units. During the last 8-1/2 years, 1,811 new units have come on line, a 158 percent increase. Likewise, Benson Center, Lower East Hill and Scenic Hill have received an additional 1,704 units, a similar 160 percent increase. The Valley Floor received a much smaller share of recent residential growth. Meeker Neighborhood, with 1,00j units prior to lY80, increased by b84 units (68%). The Downtown Neighborhood saw a minimum increase, with only o4 units addea to the 330 existing prior to 1980 (16% increase). The South Central Neighborhood had Page 8 Figure 3 Multifamily Housing Units 3 2956 2.8 2.6 2.4 7 ~ 0 2.2 VJ .~ 2 c :) b,......_ 1.8 ·-VJ Eu 0 c 1.6 '+-0 +' VJ -:J 1.4 :J 0 2..c Lf-1.2 II)'-" .0 E 1 :J z 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 / ~ ~ v IUW/ v-:; 1376 v v ~ ~ ~ v:: v v:: / v 799 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 597 ~ 384 v; ~ v:; ~ ~ ""'-L'. ~ ~ .c..~.c.. / v v L::li v L::li v v: 192 T T ~ 58 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 27 rTl ~ I I BC BOC CM DT EH GR LEH MD MK sc SH WH Census Neighborhoods only 12 additional unit, for a 4 percent increase. Recent growth in the West Hill subarea has been slow relative to East Hill, but significant in terms of its percentage increase. With a modest 252 units through 197Y, 550 units were added this decade, a 218 percent increase. Significant gains have occurred in the Cambridge, Grandview and Midway Neighborhoods, while the West Hill neighborhood is wholly unchanged. The size of multifamily projects shows a strong trend toward larger developments. This may be seen by looking at all multifamily developments prior to 1980 versus those built since 1980. The average size prior to 1~80 was 29.7 units: 4,104 units in 138 developments. The 4,846 units built since 1980 have been within only 44 projects, for an average size of 110 units. This includes the City•s largest apartment complex, the 576 unit Jonathan•s Landing, built in 1986. In fact, of the largest ten developments within the City, eight were built since 1980: Jonathan•s Landing (576 units, 1986); King•s Place (366 units, 1980); Riverwood (336 units, 1985); Sunrise Pointe (329 units, 1985); Hampton Bay at the Lakes (304 units, 1986); Kent Terrace (247 units, 1Y81J; the Shires (2"1"1 units, 1~1;6); and La ~'lirage (20b units, 1985). This summary includes only a small completed portion of 11 The Lakes 11 , which will eventually be the City•s largest multifamily development by far. Eventually this one project will comprise some 2,429 apartments and condominiums. The size of multifamily developments varies considerably from one neighborhood to another (see Figure 4). Considering only those projects of significant size, lU units or greater (which includes 96 percent of all multifamily units), the smallest tend to occur in the Downtown Neighborhood. The larger developments are found in the East Hill and Meeker Neighborhoods, which both average project sizes well over 100 units. The average density for all multifamily developments in the City currently is 21.6 units per acre. For the City as a whole, the average density of projects built in this decade (1~.0 units per acre) is actually somewhat less than projects constructed prior to 1980 (22.4 units per acre). Apparently, this is due to the very high densities of early multifamily developments. Page 10 Figure 4 Average Density Multifamily Housing City of Kent 28 26.4 26 24 22 20 18 QJ L u 16 4: L QJ 14 Q. [/) ~ 12 c :::J 10 8 6 4 2 0 BC BOC CM DT EH GR LEH MD MK sc SH WH Census Neighborhoods Significantly, the City-wide pattern does not hold for the neighborhood absorbing the most multifamily units, East Hill. Projects in that neighborhood increased in density by almost one unit per acre during the past decade. The average development density prior to 1980 was 17.6, as compared to 18.4 on developments built since 1980. More significant than the densities within individual multifamily developments are the aggregate housing densities (single-family, plus multifamily and mobile homes) developing within the City. With the prodigious growth of rnultifamily housing discussed above, residential densities as a whole have increased substantially within the past two decades. The phenomenal increase in the numbers of multifamily units, and thus overall residential densities, has greatly stressed the fabric of public infrastructure and public services. The question arises as to just how fast the City can adequately cope with the increased residential density. 2. Multifamily-Zoned Lands Within the City of Kent are some 1,175.8 acres of land zoned for multifamily development, within four zoning districts. The largest portion of this land is zoned MRM, Medium Density Multifamily, with some 6b4 acres (5b%). Under the existing Zoning Code, MRM land may be developed at a maximum density of 23 units per acre. The next largest category is MRG, Garden Density Multifamily, with 353 acres (30%), and a maximuru permitted density of 16 units per acre. Some YO acres (8%) are zoned MRH (High Density, 40 units per acre); the balance of /8 acres (7%) falls into the MRD Zone {Duplex Multifamily, maximum ten units per acr·e). It should be noted that the recent lY87 annexations are still in the interim Rl zoning. Since they include no multifamily-zoned land at this time, they are not included in the Land Inventory. Of the 1,176 acre total, just over half {60b acres, bl%) is fully developea, either in existing multifamily projects or in other fully intensive uses. The balance of 570 acres (49%) is considered available for development. Of this "available" land, 155 acres are considered "underdeveloped". For example, a single-family dwelling within an MRM district is underdeveloped. The land value at full development potential of 23 Page 12 VJ 11) L u <{ 600 500 400 300 200 100 [ZZ] MF Figure 5 Multifamily Zoned Lands City of Kent MRD MRG MRM MRH IS: SJ Other Dev. WZJ Under. ~ Vac. multifamily units per acre far surpasses the land value at single-family density. While such land is currently developed and in use, it is a prime candidate for conversion to multifamily use. The remaining 415 acres of 11 available 11 multifamily lands are currently vacant. While the MRM district includes the largest amount of multifamily-zoned land, it is more built out than MRG-zoned land. Only 36 percent of the MRM land remains available for development (238 acres). Some 57 acres of MRH land and 6.4 acres of MRD land remain available (see Figure 5 for zone-by-zone breakdm'ln). On a neighborhood basis, the largest amount of available multifamily land is found in the Meeker Neighborhood, on the Valley Floor (see Figure 6). With almost 258 acres of vacant multifamily land, this neighborhood has over five times the amount of vacant land as the next most available neighborhood. The majority of this is already allocated to the Lakes project. A small amount of underdeveloped land also is found in Meeker, for a total 265 acres available for multifamily development. The other Valley Floor neighborhoods include much lesser amounts of available land. Downtown has approximately 12 acres of vacant multifamily land and 34 underdeveloped acres, for a total 46 acres available for multifamily. South Central has 12.5 acres available (o.3 acres vacant, 7.2 acres underdeveloped). The four Neighborhoods of the East Hill Subarea include almost half of all city land zoned multifamily (5713 acres, 4~%), in the following order from greatest to least share: East Hill, Lower East Hill, Benson Center, Scenic Hill. Of the total, approximately 100 acres are vacant. About the same amount, 102 acres, is underdeve 1 oped. In summary, almost 35 percent of multifamily-zoned land in the East Hill Subarea is currently available for development. A relatively small amount of multifamily land is found in the West Hill Subarea. Cambridge's 65 acres constitutes the largest share; the remaining West Hill neighborhoods add another 33 acres. Of these 98 acres, 38 acres (~~%) are either underdeveloped or vacant. The West Hill and Midway neighborhoods of the West Hill Subarea include no vacant or Page 14 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 (IJ Ill 140 L u <{ 120 100 80 60 40 20 """'"""' "'"' 0 '/_./ I I BC BOC V/1 Figure 6 Available Acreage Multifamily Zoned Land ['._ "' " "'~"' ~~ " ~'\: t//: ""' """~"' ~ // "'-·""-~ 0 0 I"' "' I 0 I I I I I CM DT EH GR LEH Census Neighborhoods Underdeveloped " '\,. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'\: ~ ~ ~ ~ ""'~" I)_)_ I L"'-~J // I I I I MD MK sc SH IS:\] Vacant I WH underdeveloped multifamily-zoned land. Only 13.2 acres of multifamily land is found within the 11 Balance of City 11 Neighborhood, with approximately 6 acres of this either underdeveloped or vacant. Given the amount of vacant and underdeveloped land within each zoning district, the potential for additional multifamily units can be calculated for the City as a whole and for each Census Neighborhood. To do this, a percentage of the vacant and underdeveloped acreage within each zoning district is multiplied by the maximum permitted density for that zone. This was done under two development scenarios. Both assume no change in the existing zoning, and simply show the potential ultimate consequence of no action. Under both scenarios, there is assumed to be full development of all vacant multifamily-zoned land, at the maximum permitted density. (An important single exception is the MRG-zoned land within the Meeker Neighborhood. Potential units here were adjusted for the 2,429 limit placed on the Lakes property as a condition of its 1979 rezone.) The difference in the two scenarios is in the treatment of underdeveloped land. The first scenario assumes 100 percent development of all underdeveloped land, i.e., that all multifamily-zoned lands under a significantly less intense use will be converted to multifamily. The second scenario assumes 50 percent development of the underdeveloped lands. That is, half the multifamily lanas in less intensive uses are likely to be converted; the other ha 1 f wi ·11 stay in the existing use. Under Scenario l, an additional 10,6~7 units would be added to the City•s multifamily stock. Adding the 29o units currently unaer construction (not included in the Land or Project Inventories) the total lU,992 units would amount to a 123 percent increase over the City•s current 8,9oU units. Under Scenario 2, with conversion of only half the underaevelopea lands, H,o92 multifamily units would result, roughly doubling the City•s multifamily stock. (Figures ~ and 10 illustrate development potentials under Scenarios 1 ana 2, respectively.) Numbers of additional multifamily units may be converted to estimated population increases Page 16 Figure 7 Potential Multifamily Units 3.2 100/100% Development Scenorio 3156 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 (IJ ~ 2 c :Jr-... (IJ -"'0 1.8 7 ~ 2601 / ~ ~ v; ~ v / ~ ~ 0 c '..;:) 0 1.6 c (IJ (!) :J -tJ 0 O_r: 1.4 0...!--....._, . 1.2 0 z 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1583 v / ~ ~ ~ / v; / 1016 ~ ~ ~ ~~-~ ~ ~ ~ pbU 0// / v v v r-T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 405 ...,C".l, / / / v v / .t:...W / _117 195 v-:: / r7l / / / ~ ~ 0 / ~ / 0 I I I BC BOC CM DT EH GR LEH MD MK sc SH WH Census Neighborhoods Figure 8 Potential Multifamily Units 50/100% Development Scenario 3.2 ..;)VIL 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 {/) .~ 2 c =:Jr-.. {/) _1] 1.8 0 c :;:; 0 1.6 c {/) (1.) :J +' 0 O.r: 1.4 n..r--. 1.2 0 z 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 z= 0 y ~ v; v ~ 1574 v 1 "2:(\;::: ~ v;, v-: v v ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ bbb 605 / v v ')'?f; IT': / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 362 / v v v 195 v v 204 v ,... / OL ~ ~ ~ ~ '/ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 l7l I I I BC BOC CM DT EH GR LEH MD MK sc SH WH Census Neighborhoods using a simple multiplier, e.g., 1.8 persons per household. At this estimated household size, Scenario 1 would eventually result in 19,255 additional multifamily residents of the City; Scenario 2 would result in an additional 15,466 residents. On a neighborhood basis, the additional units and population would of course correlate with the areas of available multifamily-zoned land noted above. Under either scenario, the East Hill Subarea will experience the largest multifamily population increase: 9,448 persons under Scenario 1. Of this 9,448 within the East Hill Subarea, two neighborhoods would receive the major share: East Hill, with an additional 2,849 residents and Lower East Hill, with some 4,682 additional persons. The Valley Floor Subarea will follow, with 8,026 additional multifamily residents. The largest share of these is within the Meeker neighborhood, with 5,681 of the subarea total. Scenario 1 projects an additional 1,570 residents in the West Hill subarea, with the balance of 211 in the "Balance of City" neighborhood. What percentage of this projected development will actually take place is, of course, unknown. This will ultimately depend on area demographics, regional and national economies, market conditions and other factors affecting private investment decisions. The scenarios simply project the potential development which could occur under current zoning standards. If anything, the scenarios understate the potential for multifamily development, for three reasons. rirst, multifamily is permitted as a conditional use in several zones principally designated for non-residential use, including CC (Community Commercial), DC {Downtown Commercial) and 0 (Professional and Office). Applications for conditional uses are exceedingly difficult to forecast, and no attempt was made to do so here. Second, owners may subdivide existing multifamily-zoned lots, creating new development potential on lots which currently appear to be fully utilized. Third, the development potential of newly annexed areas and areas to be annexed in the future is not included in tnese projections. Page 19 C. Summary of Findings Clearly, the City of Kent has experienced unprecedented rates and levels of multifamily development in recent years. With some 870 units currently under construction or in the pre-construction stages, there is every indication that the high rates of multifamily development will continue. Whether the City can absorb these rates of increase in residential units and population is a critical issue. Improved streets, water and sewerage, police and fire protection and other services must be provided as the new units come on line. Whether the City wishes to continue the recent trend towards a housing stock increasingly dominated by multifamily units is a related issue. The above scenarios show the tremendous potential for multifamily development to continue to outpace single-family construction. The balance and diversity of the housing supply, and viable housing options for the City•s residents, are the essence of this issue. III. Policy Options for Consideration The data and discussion in preceding sections have shown why there is concern over the issue of multifamily density, by describing the existing situation and showing the strong potential for multifamily development. This section of the report identifies several alternative approaches for accomplishing the intended ~0 percent density reduction expressed in Council Resolution 1123. Discussion under each option sets forth a mechanism for carrying out the approach, identifies in general the properties and numbers of units affected, and provides an evaluation of each option. An important point is noted here regarding 11 The Lakes 11 • This is a 242 acre phased development of apartments and condominiums, which has been under construction since l98S. At present only 33o units are completed; another L54 units are 1n the advanced stages of permit approval. To date, ~1~ acres of the Lakes site is unaeveloped. This is shown as MRG-zoned vacant land in the Lands Inventory. At maximum 16 units per acre for the f~kG Zone, this represents a development potential of 3,o04 units. However, in the scenarios for the existing situation and all alternatives below, a de-facto limit of ~,094 has been set for this property (2,42~ established as a condition of the rezone, less 335 units cornp 1 eted to date). Option A: 11 Across the Board .. Reduction This is perhaps the simplest and most straightforward of the alternatives identified. The maximum permitted density in each of the four multifamily zones would be reduced by LU percent. The MRH density ceiling would go froru 40 to 32, MRM from 23 down to 18, MRG from 16 to 13, and MRD would go from the Page 20 current ceiling of 10 down to a maximum of 8 units per acre. This action could be accomplished by a text amendment of the Zoning Code, initiated either by the Council or Planning Commission. The text change would simply reset the upper density limits for each of the four multifamily zones. No change would be required to the existing Zoning Map. All multifamily-zoned properties in the City would be affected by the change. Under the adjusted density limits, full development of all underdeveloped and vacant multifamily-zoned lands (excluding the Lakes) would result in an additional 6,798 units. This compares to the development potential of 8,605 units under the existing Code, a decrease of 1,807 units. On the positive side, such an approach is fairly simple, easily understood by the public and straightforward in implementation. It is not a major departure from the existing Zoning Ordinance, but it does accomplish a substantial reduction in the development potential for new units. It is equitable from the standpoint that the percentage reduction is applied uniformly to all multifamily-zoned lands. On the other hand, an across-the-board density reduction may be vieHed as inequitable since it is the higher density developments which strain municipal services and cause the highest level of environmental impact. Also, actual densities sometimes do not approach permitted densities, especially in the MRH zone where up to 40 units per acre are allowed. Therefore, the lower density zones (MRU and MRG) may be seen as more severely impacted by this alternative than the higher density zones (~1Rt<l and f•IRH). Option B: Graduated Scale Reduction Option B employs a graduated scale of density reduction, witt1 higher percentage reduction, taken on higher density zones, and vice versa. A formula was developed to determine the percentage reduction needed in each zone in order to achieve the desired 20% reduction in development potential. This formula takes into account the density ceiling of eact1 zone relative to all other zones. ln this way, the percentage reduction in each zone is directly based on that zone 1 S relative density. For MRH, the resulting percentage reduction is 29.92%; tor MRM, 17.20%; for f•1RG, 11.97%; and for MRD, 7 .48%. Applying these percentage reductions to existing density ceilings, the resulting ceilings would be as follows: MRH, 28; MRfv1, 19; MRG, 14; and MRU, 9. As in Option A, this approach would be accomplished by a text change of the Zoning Code, initiated either by City Council or the Planning Con~ission. All Page 21 multifamily-zoned properties in the City would be affected. Under Option B, full development of underdeveloped and vacant land (excluding the Lakes) would result in an increase of 6,865 units. Compared to the current development potential of 8,605 units under existing Zoning Code densities, this approach represents a reduction of 1,740 potential units (an overall 20.2% reduction). In support of Option B is that it addresses the equity issue raised by the "across the board" approach. This approach targets the lands with the highest potential development density for the largest percentage cutbacks. Another point in favor is that Kent• higher density zones (MRH and MRM) permit more units per acre than comparable zones in most other area jurisdictions; reduction of the density ceilings in these zones would bring Kent onto a par with other localities. Like Alternative A, this approach is fairly easy to accomplish by means of a text amendment to the Zoning Code. It is comprehensive in that it would affect all multifamily property in the City, and would accomplish the desired 20% reduction. On the negative side, this approach is somewhat more complex then the "across the board" option. Option C: Rezone of "Overzoned" Areas Under this alternative, certain multifamily-zoned areas would be identified as having been "overzoned," given existing uses onsite and on adjacent lands. tAreas considered inappropriately zoned due to environmental constraints are covered under a separate alternative below.) This approach is site-specific, affecting only those properties identified as "overzoned." It \/Ould be accomplished by amendment of the Zoning Map, initiated by City Council. Two such "overzoned" areas have been tentatively identified, both in the Downtmm Neighborhood. Both are located within the City•s Neighborhood Strategy Area (NSA), the priority target area for Federal Community Development Block Grant projects. For over ten years, the City has been using Block Grant funds for repair and rehabilitation of single-family housing within the NSA; substantial numbers of houses have been repaired and conserved. Yet, designation of port ions of the area as MRG and ~1R~1 runs counter to the goal of conserving the less intensive single-family uses. The higher density zoning here appears counterproductive to conservation of these neighborhoods• single-family character, and counterproductive to the City•s community development goals. The first area is known as the South of Willis district. Approximately oO acres in size, it is bounded on the north by Page 22 Willis Street, on the south by the M2 Zone, on the East by the Burlington Northern Railway, and on the west by South Sixth Avenue. This area is currently designated MRM. The second area lies at the northwest end of 11 North Park, .. just east of State Route 167. Just under six acres in size, this section is currently designated MRG. Option C would amend the Zoning Map by redesignating each of these areas to a lower density zoning, perhaps MRD. This zoning category is more consistent with the lower intensity single-family housing which characterizes both areas, and which the City's Housing and Community Development strategy has worked to maintain. Of the 50 acres zoned MRM in the south of Willis area, some 31.5 acres are underdeveloped and 4 acres are vacant. This represents a development potential of up to 816 multifamily units. Of the 58 acres zoned MRG in the North Park area, some 3.6 acres are available for development, representing a development potential of 57 units. Rezoning these two areas to MRD would result in a net decrease in development potential of 482 units. This represents a 5.6% reduction in the City-wide multifamily potential. On the positive side, this alternative would make the City's zoning actions more consistent with the City's Housing and Community Development policy of conserving single-family housing within the target neighborhoods. This would benefit low-and moderate-income residents of the neighborhoods, and help to protect the older existing neighborhoods near the dmmtown core. A negative consideration is that this alternative affects only selected multifamily properties. Although affected lands are selected in a rational and systematic manner, some property owners may feel unfairly 11 Singled out 11 as the development potential of their property is reduced. Option D: Application to Newly Annexed Areas This approach provides for reduced zoning densities in areas recently annexed to the City. Typically the zoning densities of newly annexed areas are based on Comprehensive Plan designations, converted into consistent zoning categories. Under Alternative D, the full density potential of the Comprehensive P ·1 an wou 1 d not be exercised in zoning the new annexations. This is an option available under the standard process for setting initial zoning on newly annexed areas, Section 15.0~.055 of the L.oning Code. The City recently annexed two large areas, known as East Hill Water Company Annexation Numbers 1 and 2. Determination of the initial zoning on the two areas currently is in process, Paae ~3 and typically is completed within six months of annexation. For the first annexation, this option has no real bearing. The property shown as multifamily on the Comprehensive Plan Map is already developed as multifamily. For the second annexation, this alternative is quite significant. The East Hill Water Company No. 2 annexation includes approximately 410 acres, bounded on the North by S.E. 240th St., on the south by S.E. 256th, on the east by ll6th Ave. S.E. and on the west by 94th Ave. Of the area designated multifamily on the East Hill Subarea Plan, 160. l acres are either underdeveloped or vacant. This includes 126.5 acres designated MF12 l7-12 units per acre), and 33.6 acres designated MF24 (12-24 units per acre). Th zoning designation closest to the Comprehensive Plan designation MFlL is ~1RD, 10 units per acre. The closest zoning designation to MF24 is MRM, 23 units per acre. If the entire area of the annexation shown as MF12 on the Comprehensive Plan Map were zoned MRD, the development potential on underdeveloped and vacant land would be 1,265 units. Likewise, with the entire area designated by the Plan as MF24 zoned to MRM, the development potential is 772 additional units. For the area as a whole, full articulation of the Comprehensive Plan densities through zoning would result in 2,037 potential multifamily units. With the same area zoned Rl-7.2 (single-family, 6 units per acre) the development potential would be 960 units, a reduction of 1,077 units. This option results in a significant reduction relative to full articulation of the Comprehensive Plan designations. The newly annexed land affected has the potential for rapid growth, so that this option may make a difference in the near future. The zoning of affected areas as single-family rather than multifamily should in itself promote single-family growth at the expense of multifamily increase, and thus improve the balance of housing choices. Further, this alternative does not affect exist1ng zoning densities; therefore, no 11 downgrading 11 of existing zoning will occur. On the negative side, this alternative does not address housing densities within pre-annexation boundaries, and thus does not improve the housing balance or· reduce densities in the pre-annexation area. Another concern is that owners of affected properties may feel 11 Singled out,11 as only owners in the neHest annexation area would be directly affected. Option E: Elimination of the MRH Zone This is a straightforward approach. It would be accomplished through text and map amendments of the :Loning Code, initiated by City Council. All MRH properties would be re-designated MRM on the Zoning Map, and the MRH Zoning Page 24 District would be eliminated from the Code text. This alternative would affect approximately 46.8 acres of underdeveloped land, and 9.~ acres of vacant land. Most of this is located in the Lower East Hill Neighborhood, with a smaller amount in Scenic Hill and the balance Downtown. At the current development ceiling of 40 units per acre, these 56.7 acres of available MRH-Zoned land represent a development potential of 2,268 units. Though the acreage is small, the number of potential units is over a fifth the potential units at full development of all available multifamily land in the City at existing densities. With the MRH land rezoned to MRM, the development potential will become 1,304 units, a decrease of 964 units. There is strong support for this option, based on the relative laxity of Kent's upper density range in comparison with other area jurisdictions. Six local cities were surveyed to determine the density ceiling of their highest density multifamily district. Kent's 40 units per acre is higher than five of the six other cities surveyed. On the other hand, only 56.7 acres of land are affected by this alternative, of which just under 10 acres are vacant. While a 964 unit decrease is significant, this approach is not comprehensive, nor is it distributed over a large portion of the City. Option F: Reduction Based on Env1ronmental Constraints As in Option C, this approach involves a systematic identification of areas which are zoned at densities beyond their apparent capacity. In this case, the zoning mismatch is due to environn~ntal constraints. Like Alternative C, this is a site-specific approach, affecting only those properties identified as subject to serious environmental constraints. Action would involve amendment of the Zoning Map, initiated by City Council. Three such areas have been tentatively identified. The first is an 8.b acre area of MRM-zoned land in the Grandview Neighborhood. It is located on the site of Kent Highlands Landfill, a potential hazardous waste site unsuitable for residential development. Rezoning this area to an agricultural designation, as the balance of the Landfill is zoned, would remove the development potential of 195 units. The second area is a man-made wetland just north of State Highway 516, in the Cambriage Neighoorhood. A large portion of the area is covered in standing water, and there is a good chance the area would be considered a wetland subject to Corps of Engineers wetlands jurisdiction. The low-lying area includes some b.~ acres of vacant MRM-zonea land. Rezoning this area to an agricultural designation would Paqe 2o remove the development potential of 144 units. The third area is located at the western edge of East Hill, in the Lower East Hill Neighborhood. It appears that portions of tracts zoned MRG, MRM and MRH are subject to steep slopes which are unsuitable for higher density residential development, and are shown on the City's Hazard Area Development Limitations Map. A preliminary estimate suggests the following areas as inappropriate for development due to the steep slopes: approximately 5 acres zoned MRM, 12 acres zoned MRH, and 5 acres zoned MRG. Based on the estimates, the environmentally constrained land in this area currently zoned multifamily represents a development potential of 675 units. This alternative has the dual benefits of protecting areas of environmental constraint from intensive residential development, and of protecting potential residents from environmental hazards. A negative point is that this option is not a comprehensive approach to the residential density issue. It is of limited effect because much of the land included under this approach is not practicable for multifamily development in the first place. IV. Summary of Report This report has presented extensive data on multifamily projects and multifamily-zoned land within the City. It has reviewed some of the broad trends in the rate and characteristics of multifamily development, distribution of development by neighborhood, and the availability of underdeveloped and vacant multifamily-zoned land by zoning district and neighborhood. It has shown some of the reasons for the emergence of housing density as an important issue to City residents. Finally, the report has laid out several alternative strategies for addressing the density issue. With the tremendous change in Kent's housing mix in the last two decades, this emerging issue addresses the very identity of the City and what it is to become. At this point, the City Council should weigh the effects of each of the six strategies discussed above against the objective of reducing multifamily density. The Council should evaluate, using its own criteria, which option(s) best achieves the goal of density reduction. Once the preferred policy direction has been identified, the staff will develop the requisite amendments for Planning Commission and City Council review. Page L6 )> ""C ""C fT1 :z 0 ....... n fT1 Vl Appendix P. RESOLUTION NO. //~ I WHEREAS, at the recent Town Hall meeting held on October 21, 1986, residents of the Kent area expressed concerns over the City's rapid growth and the proliferation of multiple family developments, in particular; and WHEREAS, according to a study conducted by Hebert Research, Inc. in October, 1985, the main housing problems cited by Kent residents were the profusion of apartments and overcrowding; and WHEREAS, the City council is concerned with the adverse impacts of uncontrolled growth on the City's infrastructure and its ability to deliver efficient services to residents; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned about the projected proportion of multifamily development to single-family residential development; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make multifamily residential development consistent with its comprehensive plan goals of environmental suitability and neighborhood preservation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby declares its intent to establish a goal of achieving an average density reduction of twenty percent (20%) on all undeveloped multifamily zoned lands throughout the City. This density reduction would be achieved through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code • .. Section 2. The City Council hereby directs the Planning Commission to defer action on the East Hill commercial zoning amendments until an update of the overall East Hill Subarea Plan is completed. Section 3. The City Council hereby declares its intent to seek an interlocal agreement with King County to also establish a twenty percent (20%) reduction in permitted multifamily density on undeveloped lands located in unincorporated areas ~e~r Kent. section 4. The City Council desires to promote the development of single-family residential use and, to this end, directs the City staff to study the following planning strategies and report their findings to the City Council: a. To streamline the permit process in order to expedite the issuance of building permits for single-family residences; b. To develop more flexible building standards for single-family residences without compromising public safety or quality; and c. To propose zoning and comprehensive plan changes which would help to create additional opportunities for single-family residential development. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this /~day of ~e-1986. Concurred in by the Mqyor_!?f the s:iof Kent, this ~ day of 'Vo.u..d,tA , 1986, c '·--.. \ ~· \l_:_~L~ __ ~.__;~ DAN KCLLEHER 1 MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE ~~N~Y CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~/~ /'lfiLLH~ILL AMSCJN; ACTING CITY ATTORNEY Appendix B-1 Multifamily Project Inventory ALPHA Sort Project Address Date Apt./Condo Acreage No. units Density Map Neighborhood Zone Ala Maria Apts. 23820 S. 30th Ave. 1977 A 1.34 44 32.8 10 MD MRH 2 Apple Lane Apts. 26037 116 SE 1973 A 0.48 7 14.6 39 EH MRM 3 Benson Crest Village Apts. 10705 SE 238th 1969 A 1.44 36 25.0 28 BC MRM 4 Benson Trace Condos 10705 SE 238th 1985 c 0.75 12 16.0 28 BC cc 5 Bensonita Apts. 10714 SE 238th Street 1975 A 0.17 4 23.5 28 BC MRM 6 Bernasconi Apts. 22307 84th Ave. 1971 A 0.33 6 18.2 26 DT GC 7 Bouldron Apts. 220 W. Meeker 1973 A 0.25 11 44.0 20 DT DC 8 Bourier Apts. 21813 84th Ave. s. 1935 A 3.60 5 1.4 26 BOC CM 9 Brentwood Apts. 4822 S. 252nd Pl. 1978 A 1.42 27 19.0 13 WH MRM 10 Briarwood Apts. 23829 30th Ave. S. 1971 A 0.50 16 32.0 10 MD GC 11 Brookside Apts. 10825 SE Kent-Kangley Rd 1978 A 3.37 72 21.4 39 EH 0 12 Canyon Crest Apts. 1267 Canyon Dr. 1971 A 0.54 9 16.7 34 EH MRM 13 Caravelle Condos 23804 102nd Ave. SE 1981 c 1.26 28 22.2 28 BC MRM 14 Caravelle N. Condos 23804 102nd Ave. SE 1978 c 1.40 24 17.1 28 BC MRM 15 Carriage Row Condos 4622 s. 272nd 1983 c 4.51 62 13.7 24 CM MRG 16 Chateau 13 1313 W. James 1980 c 0.69 13 18.8 3 MK MRM 17 College Inn Apts. 23644 Pacific Hwy. *1974p A 0.37 11 29.7 10 MD GC 18 Colonial Court 826 Fourth Ave N. 1977 A 1.00 16 16.0 2 DT MRG 19 Colonial Square 116th Ave. SE 1981 A 2.37 43 18.1 39 MD MRM 20 Colony Park 5621 Kent-Des Moines Rd. 1963 A 1.49 24 16.1 16 MK MRM 21 Court I 1411 w. James Ct. 1976 A 9.70 220 22.7 14 MK MRM 22 Court II 1601 W. James Lane 1977 A 7.45 162 21.7 14 MK MRM 23 Court III 1615 W. Smith St. 1979 A 5.39 100 18.6 14 MK MRM 24 Crystal Apts. 23653 Pacific Hwy. 1967 A 0.62 30 48.4 10 MD GC 25 C. Williams 4-plexes 10814 SE 260th 1975 A 1.10 12 10.9 39 EH 0 26 Davis Duplexes 631 S. Third Ave. 1965 A 0.55 10 18.2 18 DT MRM 27 DeWitt & Hills Apts. 703 First Ave. 1979 A 1.29 24 18.6 18 DT MRM 28 DMSPS Apts. 855 Fourth Ave. N. 1986 A 1.26 16 12.7 2 DT MRG 29 Downtowner Apts 644 Fifth Ave. 1985 A 0.90 14 15.6 18 DT MRM 30 Dragness Apts. 208 E. Meeker *1974p A 0.14 6 42.9 20 DT GC 31 Duchess of Kent 718 State Ave. 1972 A 0.50 27 54.0 2 SH MRM 32 East Hill Apts. 10618 SE 254 Pl. 1974 A 6.90 120 17.4 35 EH MRM 33 East Valley Apts. 21724 84th Ave 1974 A 0.45 5 11.1 26 BOC CM 34 Ellis Apts 631 Third Ave. 1963 A 0.45 11 24.4 18 DT MRM Multifamily Project Inventory ALPHA Sort Project Address Date Apt./Condo Acreage No. units Density Map Neighborhood Zone 35 ETTL Apts. 25040 Pacific Hwy. 1971 A 5.41 12 2.2 11 MD GC 36 Farrington Ct. 512 Kenosia 1971 A 2.90 120 41.4 33 SH MRH 37 Gaslight Apts. 217 First Avenue s 1920 A 0.10 4 40.0 18 DT MRM 38 Green River Estates 1840 Central Place s. *1974p c 4.05 90 22.2 22,42 sc MRM 39 Green River Townhouses 335 Alder Lane 1965 A 0.62 8 12.9 22,42 sc MRM 40 Halsen Apts. 713 Second Ave s. 1978 A 0.86 16 18.6 18 DT MRM 41 Hansen Apartments 211 East Gowe Street 1920 A 0.07 6 85.7 20 DT GC 42 Heather Ridge Condos 9623 s 248 1967 c 4.30 84 19.5 32 EH MRM 43 Hi Valli Apts. 10215 SE 239 1977 A 0.72 16 22.2 28 BC MRM 44 Hidden Ridge 23816 100th Ave. 1960 A 0.60 19 31.7 28 BC MRM 45 Hidden Ridge II 23816 100th Avenue 1975 A 2.80 25 8.9 28 BC MRM 46 Holly Glen 1802 Maple Ln 1979 c 5.11 86 16.8 42 sc MRM 47 Holly Tree Apts. 619 First Ave S. 1966 A 0.35 11 31.4 18 DT MRM 48 Iolani Apts. 24441 Pacific Hwy. s. 1971 A 0.22 9 40.9 10 MD GC 49 Jeanne Apts. 10225 SE 239 1967 A 0.30 12 40.0 35 BC MRM 50 Jonathan's Landing 23240 88th Ave S. 1986 A 31.09 576 18.5 30,31 LEH MRM/MRH 51 Joy Lyanne Apts. 10605 SE 238th St. 1975 A 0.64 14 21.9 28 BC MRM 52 Kent Apts. 1064 N. Central 1925 A 0.78 3 3.8 2 DT GC 53 Kent Fifth Ave Apts. 731 s. Fifth Ave. 1972 A 2.10 22 10.5 19 DT MRM 54 Kent Fourth Ave. Townhouses 525 Fourth Ave S. 1986 c 0.50 9 18.0 18 DT MRM 55 Kent Gardens Apts. 21734 84th s. 1982 A 1.38 31 22.5 26 BOC CM 56 Kent Highland Apts. 1245 l.leiland St 1965 A 0.47 13 27.7 33 EH MRM 57 Kent Hill Townhomes 25426 106th SE *1974p c 6.37 82 12.9 35 EH MRM 58 Kent Summit Apts. 132 N. Summit 1979 c 1.57 28 17.8 33,41 LEH MRM 59 Kent Ten Apts. 937 Third Ave. s. 1960 A 0.16 10 62.5 18 DT MRM 60 Kent Terrace Apts. 25426 98th Ave S. 1981 A 10.74 247 23.0 32,43 SH MRM 61 Kent Townhouses 702 S. Fifth Ave. 1966 A 0.90 25 27.8 18 DT MRM 62 Kentbrook Apts. 9725 S. 248th St. 1980 A 8.61 198 23.0 32 EH MRM 63 Kenthurst Apts. 1111 1.1. James 1973 A 1. 11 34 30.6 3 MK MRM 64 Kenton Ridge 23913 111th Place 1975 A 10.00 204 20.4 29 BC MRM 65 Kentwood Park Apts. 814 l.loodford Ave N. 1975 A 0.18 2 11. 1 2 LEH MRM 66 King's Place I & II 10811 SE 239 1980 A 20.57 366 17.8 29 BC MRM 67 La Mirage 11212 Kent-Kangley Rd. 1985 A 9.30 206 22.2 39 EH MRM 68 LaFranchi Apts. 758 State Ave. N. 1971 A 0.34 6 17.6 2 DT MRM Multifamily Project Inventory Project 69 Lake Villa Apartments 70 Lakes: Bridgewater 71 Lakes: Hampton Bay 72 Lavelle/Rasmussen Apts. 73 Lincoln Gardens 74 Linda Lee Apts. 75 Lone Cedar Apts. 76 Lora Lynn Apts. 77 Lowell Apts. 78 Maple Lane Apts. 79 Maple Lane Ct. Apts. 80 Mardi Gras Apts. 81 Meadowdale 82 Headowridge 83 Meeker Street Apts. 84 Helbern Apts. 85 Milbourn Apts. 86 Hill Creek Vista 87 Mobile Mansions 88 North Park Apts. 89 North Woodford Apts. 90 Olympic Skyline Condos 91 One Hundredth Ave. Apts. 92 O'Brien Garden Apts. 93 Panorama Pl. Condos 94 Parklane Apts. 95 Parkside Apts. 96 Parkside Village 97 Parkview Apts. 98 Patricia Apts. 99 Primilani Apts. 100 Quail Ridge 101 Rai Apts. 102 Red Carpet Apts. ALPHA Sort Address 10615 SE 250th Place 23420 Russell Rd. 6305 S. 238 St. 311 N. First 10910 Kent-Kangley Rd 408 N. Central Ave. 1231 W James Street 23721 108th Avenue SE 226 1/2 s. First 1419 Maple Lane 1601 Maple Lane 24009 104th SE 420 Alder Lane 25120 98th Pl S 308 W Meeker Street 412 W. Meeker 411 Alder Lane 106 Kensington Ave. s. 24426 Pacific Highway S. 701 First Avenue N. 703 N Woodford 23510 100th Ave. 23740 100 Ave SE 534 S. Sixth Ave. 25002 Lake Fenwick Rd. 817 N. Woodford Ave. 826 N. Woodford Ave. 9612 SE 252 St. 149 Reiten Rd. 10830 SE Kent-Kangley Rd 24860 96th s. 11020 SE Kent-Kangley Rd 24853 96th Ave. 24440 Russell Rd. Date Apt./Condo Acreage No. units Density Hap 35 4,6 4,6 20 1980 c 8.25 190 23.0 1986 c 3.50 31 8.9 1986 A 19.50 304 15.6 1971 A 0.16 5 31.3 1981 1955 1978 1975 1973 1972 1979 1969 1975 1985 1975 1973 1980 1980 1968 1930 *1974p 1980 1981 1981 1979 1967 1967 1980 1985 1965 1965 1969 1968 1965 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A c A A c A A A A A A A A A 7.80 0.23 0.35 0.17 0.36 0.32 2.80 1.50 0.64 4.15 0.12 0.19 0.50 0.61 1.59 0.19 0.33 6.80 0.70 0.36 2.73 0.33 0.33 4.30 0.66 0.57 0.52 18.92 1.10 3.45 176 11 4 4 20 6 58 61 16 96 4 5 10 12 6 12 8 108 15 6 42 12 12 98 10 10 9 436 8 82 22.6 39 47.8 20 11.4 3 23.5 28 55.6 20 18.8 21 20.7 21-2,41-2 40.7 37 25.0 21,41 23.1 32 33.3 20 26.3 20 20.0 10 19.7 10 3.8 10 63.2 45 24.2 2 15.9 28 21.4 28 16.7 19 15.4 13 36.4 10 36.4 10 22.8 32 15.2 10 17.5 39 17.3 32 23.0 39 7.3 32 23.8 14,15 Neighborhood Zone EH HRM HK HRG HK MRG DT DC EH DT MK BC DT sc sc EH SH SH DT DT SH SH MD DT LEH BC BC DT CM LEH LEH EH SH EH EH EH SH MK HRH GC HRM MRM DC MRM MRM MRM MRM MRM DC-1 DC HRM MRH GC MRD MRM MRG MRM MRH MRM HRM MRM MRM HRH 0 HRM MRM MRM MRM Multifamily Project Inventory Project 103 Rice Apts. 104 Ridgeview Apts. 105 Riverfront Condos 106 Riverview Estates 107 Riverwood Apts. 108 Riviera South Apts. 109 Royal Firs 110 Scenic Ct. Apts. 111 Scenic Hill Apts. 112 Scenic View Condos 113 Scorpio Apts. 114 Sequoia Village 115 Sheldon Apts. 116 Shido Apartments 117 Shires 118 Shoff Apartments 119 Skyline Park Apts. 120 Skylite Court Apts. 121 Skyview 122 Smoke Tree Court 123 Southwood Square 124 State Street 5 125 Stratford Arms 126 SU'TIIlit Apts. 127 SU'TIIlit Terrace 128 Sun Vista Condos 129 Sunrise Estates 130 Sunrise Pt. I & II 131 Sunset Vista Apts. 132 Swiss Gables 133 Terrace Olympus 134 Terry Villa Apts. 135 Timberon Apts. 136 Titus Corners Apts. ALPHA Sort Address 218 1/2 First Avenue s 1401 ~. Smith St. 8503 S. 259 St. 8420 S. 266 St. 24620 Russell Rd. 10716 SE 238th St SE 240 317 E. Titus St. 127 Kensington Ave. s. 326 E Titus Street 10626 SE 238 11328 Kent·Kangley Road 503 s. Fourth 815 ~oodford Avenue N. 11033 SE 251 328 1/2 ~ Meeker St. Military Rd. 406 E. George St. 1027 ~-Smith 720 ~. ~ashington Ave. 10610 SE 264 St. 704 N. State 11126 SE 256th St. 115 SU'TIIlit Ave. 102 SU'TIIlmit Ave. 1258 ~ei land 23612 100 Ave. SE 10925 SE 254 Place 2431 S. 248 St. 4635 s. 255 308 SU'TIIlit Ave N. 3012 240th St. 24835 96th s 405 E. Titus Date Apt./Condo Acreage No. units Density Map 1914 A 0.70 4 5.7 20 1967 A 7.34 171 23.3 14 1978 c 1.68 31 18.5 41 1980 A 0.29 12 41.4 42 1985 A 17.50 336 19.2 14,15,17 1975 A 0.33 12 36.4 28 1987 A 8.19 186 22.7 38 1957 A 0.25 6 24.0 20 1966 A 0.90 16 17.8 10 1975 c 0.55 12 21.8 20 1967 1986 1971 1975 1986 1950 1983 1972 1967 1973 1980 1971 1985 1974 1973 1968 1973 1985 1981 1981 1967 1973 1965 1980 A A A A c A A A A A A A A A A c A A c A A A A A 0.34 5.16 0.33 0.30 22.70 0.12 12.20 0.33 0.39 0.88 5.80 0.16 4.81 0.64 0.64 2.90 2.28 19.08 3.75 3.41 2.00 0.68 0.41 0.26 9 116 8 8 211 5 192 8 8 17 104 5 86 12 24 60 46 329 87 66 32 22 8 9 26.5 22.5 24.2 26.7 9.3 41.7 15.7 28 39 10 2 36 20 7 24.2 2 20.5 2 19.3 3 17.9 40 31.3 2 17.9 36 18.8 33 37.5 33 20.7 33,34 20.2 28 17.2 36 23.2 11 19.4 13 16.0 33,34 32.4 10 19.5 32 34.6 20 Neighborhood DT MK sc sc MK BC BC DT SH DT BC EH DT LEH EH DT GR LEH MK BOC EH SH EH LEH LEH LEH BC EH MD CM LEH MD EH DT Zone DC-1 MRH HRH HRM MRM MRM MRM GC HRM MRH MRH HRH MRM MRM MRG DC-1 HRM MRM MRM MRM MRM MRM Interim MRM MRD MRM MRM MRM MRH MRM MRM GC MRM MRH Multifamily Project Inventory Project 137 Totem Townshouses 138 Twin Crest Ct. 139 Twin Firs 140 Valley Apts. 141 Valley High Condos 142 Valley Hill Apts. 143 Valley View Apts. 144 Valli Kee 145 View Mount Apts. 146 Village Green Apts. 147 ~est Ridge Condos 148 ~hitehouse Apts. 149 ~hittington ~ells 150 ~oodland Estates Apts. 151 Z Un·named 152 Z Un-named 153 Z Un-named 154 Z Un-named 155 Z Un-named 156 Z Un-named 157 Z Un-named 158 Z Un-named 159 Z Un-named 160 Z Un-named 161 Z Un-named 162 Z Un-named 163 Z Un-named 164 Z Un-named 165 Z Un-named 166 Z Un-named 167 Z Un-named 168 Z Un-named 169 Z Un-named 170 Z Un-named ALPHA Sort Address 25449 104 SE SE 238ST 25732 115th Ave SE 1209 ~ ~illis 23601 112 Ave SE 717 State St. 1208 E Smith 23401 104th Ave. SE 10335 SE 240th Pl. 10445 Kent-Kangley Rd 24815 Lk Fenwick Rd. 9929 SE 244 Reiten Rd. 4821 Kent-Des Moines Rd. 22307 84th Ave. S. 23840 Pac Hwy S 24882 96th Avenue 25058 Lk Fenwick Rd 25239 Lake Fenwick Rd 413 N. Propect 4804 Lake Fenwick Rd 4809 Lake Fenwick Rd 4811 Lake Fenwick Rd 608 Alvord 616 SUITITlit 639 5th Avenue 818 N. \oloodford 9007 Smith Street Cloudy & 4th First Ave N. Fourth Ave N. Fourth Ave N. Fourth Ave N. Fourth Ave N. Date *1974p 1979 1982 1979 1979 1971 1971 1975 1986 *1974p 1985 1966 1980 1973 1930 1971 *1974p *1974p 1986 1970 *1974p *1974p *1974p 1976 1974 1920 1975 1978 *1974p *1974p *1974p *1974p *1974p *1974p Apt./Condo Acreage No. units Density A 1.10 36 32.7 A 0.81 18 22.2 A 4.20 67 16.0 A 0.63 6 9.5 c 5.03 80 15.9 A 0.41 16 39.0 A 0.30 12 40.0 A A A c A A A A A A c A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 11.77 1.64 4.68 6.04 1.93 0.53 8.31 0.50 0.62 0.33 1.39 1.28 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.39 0.30 0.31 0.17 0.44 0.44 0.12 0.26 0.23 0.33 0.17 114 24 93 90 41 14 198 4 11 2 14 10 5 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 9 2 2 2 2 2 9.7 14.6 19.9 14.9 21.2 26.4 23.8 8.0 17.7 6.1 10.1 7.8 33.3 11.8 23.5 11.8 5.1 6.7 6.5 23.5 4.5 20.5 16.7 7.7 8.7 6.1 11.8 Map 35 28 39 10 29 2 33 28 28 40 12,13 34 10 13 44 10 32 13 13 33 13 13 13 2 33 19 2 33 2 2 2 2 2 2 Neighborhood Zone EH CC BC CC EH MRG DT MRM BC MRM SH MRM EH MRM BC Interim BC MRM EH MRM CM MRM EH MRM SH MRH MK MRM LEH GC MD GC EH MRM CM MRM CM MRD LEH R1·7.2 CM MRM CM CM LEH LEH DT LEH EH DT DT DT DT DT DT MRM MRM HRM MRH HRM MRM MRH HRD MRD MRD MRD MRD MRD Multifamily Project Inventory ALPHA Sort Project Address Date Apt./Condo Acreage No. units Density Map Neighborhood Zone 171 Z Un-named Fourth Ave N. *1974p A 0.31 2 6.5 2 DT HRD 172 Z Un-named Fourth Avenue N. *1974p A 0.17 8 47.1 2 DT HRD 173 Z Un-named James Street *1974p A 0.20 2 10.0 2 DT HRD 174 Z Un-named North Alvord Street 1965 A 0.40 2 5.0 33 EH MRH 175 Z Un-named SE 256th Place 1985 A 4.48 30 6.7 39 EH HRD 176 Z Un-named SE crnr ~illis/4th *1974p A 0.16 5 31.3 10 DT HRM 1n z un-named Second Ave N. *1974p A 0.12 2 16.7 2 DT HRD 178 Z Un-named s~ crnr 256/116 *1974p A 4.48 30 6.7 39 EH HRD 179 Z Un-named Third Ave. N. *1974p A 0.26 2 7.7 2 DT HRD 180 Z Un-named ~est~illis 1930 A 0.18 3 16.7 18 DT HRH 181 Z Un-named 11236 SE 244th Street *1974p A 4.80 2 0.4 36 EH Interim 182 Z Un-named 24254 SE 104th Ave. *1974p A 0.23 2 8.5 36 EH Interim Appendix B-2 Multifamily Project Inventory Kent Planning Department Multifamily Projects Currently At Application/Construction Stage Project Address Apt./Condo Acreage No. units Density Map Neighborhood Zone Bend of the River Apts. Green River Road A 3.75 72 19.2 41 sc MRM B&C Duplexes Fourth Avenue N. A 0.51 4 7.8 2 DT MRD Hills Apts. 23524 100th Ave. SE A 0.64 9 14.1 28 BC MRG Island Park Apts. (lakes) James Street A 16.60 254 15.3 4 MK MRG Kensington Green Apts. S Fifth Ave. A 1.48 30 20.3 19 DT MRM Kent Apts (Stipek) S 262nd & Maple Lane A 4.00 67 16.8 41 sc MRM Kent Meadows 248th Avenue A 3.30 40 12. 1 35 EH MRG Maple Lane Estates 1662 Maple Lane A 0.79 16 20.3 42 sc MRM River Pointe Apts. S. 259th St. A 11.00 120 10.9 41 SH MRH/R1 Stonecreek Apts. 9626 S. 252nd St. A 3.04 70 23.0 32 EH MRM Victoria Ridge s. 272nd & Lk Fenwick Rd. A 10.98 188 17.1 24 CM MRG SUMMARY: Projects Currently at Application/Construction Stage Total acreage: 56.1 Total units: 870.0 Average No. Units 79.1 Average Density: 16.1 Kent Planning Department Appendix B-3 Multifamily Project Inventory Cross-Reference Listing Sort by Current Name Sort by Non-current Name Current Project Name Bensonita Apts. Bouldron Apts. Briarwood Brookside Apts. Colonial Square Fourth Ave. Apts. Green River Townhouses Hi Valli Apts. Hidden Ridge Kent Summit Apts. Kent Terrace La Mirage Lake Villa Apts. Lincoln Gardens Linda Lee Apts. Loti Apts. Lowell Apts. Hi lbourn Apts. North ~oodford Apts. One Hundred Ave. Apts. Quail Ridge Red Carpet Apts. Sequoia Village Valley Hill Apts. ~illow Brook AKA (also known as) Teeter Condos D & J Apts. Fireside Royal Development SOH Properties Un-named Tide Apts. Shurbon Apts. Town and Country Apts. Kent Condos Randall Apts. Mastro Development Kent Estate Condos Kent Gardens Evergreen Apts. ~heeler Apts. Un-named Casa La Nor McAlpine Apts. SOH Properties Comstock Club Brenner Apts. High Valley Vista State St. Apts. Court III AKA (also known as) Brenner Apts. Casa La Nor Comstock Club Court Ill D & J Apts. Evergreen Apts. Fireside High Valley Vista Kent Condos Kent Estate Condos Kent Gardens Mastro Development McAlpine Apts. Randall Apts. Royal Development SOH Properties SOH Properties Shurbon Apts. State St. Apts. Teeter Condos Tide Apts. Town and Country Apts. Un-named Un-named ~heeler Apts. Current Project Name Red Carpet Apts. Milbourn Apts. Quail Ridge ~i llow Brook Bouldron Apts. Linda Lee Apts. Briarwood Sequoia Village Kent Summit Apts. Lake Villa Apts. Lincoln Gardens La Mirage North ~oodford Apts. Kent Terrace Brookside Apts. Colonial Square One Hundred Ave. Apts. Hi Valli Apts. Valley Hill Apts. Bensonita Apts. Green River Townhouses Hidden Ridge Fourth Ave. Apts. Lowell Apts. Loti Apts. Appendix B-4 Kent Planning Department Units and Density by Neighborhood All Multifamily Projects through 1987 CENSUS NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECTS NO. UNITS AVG. UNITS/PROJECT AVG. DENSITY/PROJECT Benson Center 23 1376 59.8 21.6 Balance of City 4 58 14.5 13.6 Cambridge 9 292 32.4 14.3 Downtown 47 384 8.2 25.0 East Hill 35 2956 84.5 17.9 Grandview 192 192.0 15.7 lower East Hill 17 799 47.0 21.5 Midway 11 291 26.5 25.6 Meeker 14 1687 120.5 19.6 South Central 7 291 41.6 21.6 Scenic Hill 13 597 45.9 26.4 \.lest Hill 1 27 27.0 19.0 =================================================================== TOTALS 182 8950 49.2 21.6 Kent Planning Department CENSUS NEIGHBORHOOD Benson Center Balance of City Cambridge PROJECTS Downtown East Hill Grandview Lower East Hill Midway Meeker South Central Scenic Hill \.lest Hill 16 3 5 42 23 0 16 9 10 6 7 Appendix B-5 Units and Density by Neighborhood All Multifamily Projects Prior to 1980 NO. UNITS AVG. UNITS/PROJECT AVG. DENSITY /PROJECT 637 39.8 22.8 27 9.0 10.6 64 12.8 14.5 330 7.9 25.7 1145 49.8 17.6 0 0.0 0.0 223 13.9 21.7 161 17.9 26.7 1003 100.3 21.3 279 46.5 18.3 208 29.7 30.8 27 27.0 19.0 ===================================================================== TOTALS 138 4104 29.7 22.4 Kent Planning Department CENSUS NEIGHBORHOOD Benson Center Balance of City Cambridge PROJECTS Downtown East Hill Grandview Lower East Hill Midway Meeker South Central Scenic Hill West Hill 7 4 5 12 1 2 4 1 6 0 Appendix B-6 Units and Density by Neighborhood All Multifamily Projects Completed 1980 through May 1987 NO. UNITS AVG. UNITS/PROJECT AVG. DENSITY /PROJECT 739 105.6 18.7 31 31.0 22.5 228 57.0 14.0 54 10.8 19.5 1811 150.9 18.4 192 192.0 15.7 576 576.0 18.5 130 65.0 20.7 684 171.0 15.6 12 12.0 41.4 389 64.8 21.2 0 0.0 0.0 ===================================================================== TOTALS 44 4846 110. 1 19.0 . ~ I Multifamily Land Inventory Area 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 16 17 17 Zone Neighborhood Map MRM GR 1 MRM GR 9 MRH MD 10 MRH MD 11 MRG CM 24 MRM CM 13 MRM CM 16 MRM 1./H 12 MRM 1./H 13 MRG MK 6 MRG MK 4 MRG MRG MRG MRM MRM MRM MRM MRM MRM MRM MRM MRM MRM MRM MRM MRM MRG MRD MRM MRM MRM MRH MRH MK MK MK MK MK MK MK MK MK MK MK MK MK MK BOC MK DT DT LEH LEH LEH DT SH 4 7 8 14 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 17 19 23 3 44 2 2 20 30 2 20 20 Kent Planning Department Total Ac. 12.2 8.5 1.3 3.8 15.5 42.1 6.3 3.7 3.3 62.0 133.5 19.0 10.3 17.3 50.6 1.0 1.3 1.2 10.8 8.4 6.3 5.6 23.5 1.5 0.3 3.5 0.4 5.8 45.0 9.8 21.9 19.1 2.8 1.3 MF Dev. 12.2 0.0 1.3 3.8 15.5 19.0 0.0 3.7 3.3 19.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.2 1.0 1.3 1.2 10.8 1.0 1.7 5.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.4 2.2 3.2 0.0 21.9 4.3 0.3 0.5 % 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 45.1% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 31.5% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.5% 27.0% 100.0% 0.0% 32.9% 0.0% 43.5% 100.0% 38.2% 7.0% 0.0% 100.0% 22.3% 11.5% 38.4% Appendix C-1 Other Dev. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 7.4 88.5% 4.6 73.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 37.2 82.7% 9.8 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 10.9 56.9% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% Underdev. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.5 0.8 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26.6% 67.1% o.o% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.5% 88.5% 61.6% Vacant 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.1 6.3 0.0 0.0 42.5 130.0 19.0 10.3 17.3 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.3 2.0 0.0 3.6 4.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 % 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 52.6% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 68.5% 97.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 42.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 73.4% 0.0% 100.0% 56.5% 0.0% 61.8% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% MF Pending 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 1 l Multifamily Land Inventory Area 17 17 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 29 29 30 31 31 32 33 33 34 34 35 Zone Neighborhood Map MRH LEH 33 MRH SH 33 MRM DT 18 MRM DT 19 MRM EH 40 MRM EH 43 MRM EH 32 MRM EH 34 MRM EH 33 MRD LEH 33 MRD MRD MRM MRH MRH MRG MRM MRG HRG MRH HRM MRM MRH MRM MRM MRM MRM MRM MRG MRH HRM MRM MRH HRM EH EH LEH LEH LEH LEH BOC LEH BOC SH sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc BC BC BC BC BC BC 33 34 30 30 31 31 26 26 25 41 41 42 22 21 41 42 42 22 28 28 28 29 38 37 Kent Planning Department Total Ac. 3.6 6.8 34.5 15.5 7.3 7.6 73.1 18.6 10.3 14.1 0.7 9.5 13.5 25.1 39.1 17.2 1.1 6.9 2.9 6.8 8.0 0.8 1.1 2.5 6.3 0.7 8.7 2.3 10.6 17.7 4.3 36.2 27.5 1.4 MF Oev. 0.0 5.1 7.6 2.0 0.0 7.6 % Other Dev. 0.0% 0.5 74.8% 0.0 22.1% 2.7 12.8% 2.3 0.0% 0.0 100.0% 0.0 26.3 8.2 4.1 1.5 36.0% 28.2 44.1% 7.0 39.8% 0.0 10.6% 10.8 0.0 0.0% 0.3 3.6% 0.0 0.0% 22.3 89.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 2.7 33.3% 0.8 100.0% 1.1 100.0% 1.3 52.8% 0.9 14.9% 0.0 0.0% 8. 7 100.0% 2.3 100.0% 8.2 76.8% 9.8 55.3% 3.7 86.5% 35.2 97.3% 8.4 30.7% 1.4 100.0% 0.7 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 % Underdev. % 86.0% 20.4% 68.1% 51.3% 27.7% 14.0% 3.1 0.0% 1.4 7.8% 23.5 14.9% 8.0 0.0% 2.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 5.6% 1.9% 38.6% 4.1 37.7% 0.4 0.0% 4.3 41.7% 0.0% 76.6% 0.0 100.0% 96.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.5% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 39.1 100.0% 17.2 100.0% 1.1 100.0% 1.5 21.9% 2.9 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 1.2 15.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.7 26.8% 4.6 73.9% 0. 7 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.7 6.5% 1.3 7.2% 0.0 . . 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 10.0 36.2% 0.0 0.0% Vacant 0.0 0.3 0.7 3.3 5.3 0.0 14.5 3.0 1.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 13.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 6.8 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 6.7 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0% 4.9% 2.0% 21.0% 72.3% 0.0% 19.8% 16.3% 18.4% 12.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 10.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 78.1% 0.0% 100.0% 51.6% 0.0% 0.0% 20.5% 11.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 33.1% 0.0% HF Pending 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • ~ ;: Multifamily Land Inventory Kent Planning Department i ! ~ Area Zone Neighborhood Hap Total Ac. HF Dev. % Other Dev. % Underdev. % Vacant % HF Pending 36 HRG EH 36 37.0 22.6 61.2% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 14.4 38.8% 0.0 :; 37 HRH EH 36 16.2 15.7 96.9% 0.0 0.0% 0.5 3.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 ! 37 HRH EH 35 24.9 21.5 86.5% 0.0 0.0% 3.4 13.5% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 37 HRH EH 39 55.3 42.0 75.9% 1.1 1.9% 7.8 14.0% 4.5 8.2% 0.0 38 HRG SH 40 2.1 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 2.1 100.0% 0.0 39 HRH EH 40 17.8 10.6 59.3% 0.0 0.0% 1.7 9.6% 5.5 31.1% 0.0 40 HRD EH 39 4.3 4.3 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 41 HRG EH 39 4.1 4.1 100.0% 0.0 o.or. 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 42 HRD CH 13 1.3 1.3 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 43 HRG soc 27 5.8 0.0 0.0% 5.8 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 44 HRG EH 35 3.3 3.3 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% o.o 0.0% 0.0 45 HRD SH 32 3.2 0.0 0.0% 3.2 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 J ._; ·.:'1 . ' •, .. . ·· Appendix C-2 Kent Planning Department MULTIFAMILY ZONED LANDS INVENTORY: Development Status by Zone Zone Total Acreage MF Developed Other Developed Underdeveloped Vacant MF Pending MRD 78.1 10.6 61.1 0.0 6.4 0.5 MRG 353.2 78.9 5.8 22.3 246.3 17.2 MRM 654.1 340.3 75.4 86.2 152.1 9.1 MRH 90.4 33.3 0.5 46.8 9.9 11.0 =================================================================================================== 1175.8 463.1 142.7 155.2 414.7 37.8 Appendix C-3 Kent Planning Department MULTIFAMILY ZONED LANDS INVENTORY Development Status by Neighborhood Neighborhood Total Acreage MF Developed Other Developed Underdeveloped Vacant MF Pending Benson Center 97.72 66.73 1.54 11.91 17.54 0.64 Balance of City 13.25 1.54 5. 75 3.96 2 0 Cambridge 65.16 35.72 0 28.44 0 Downtown 103.59 15.3 42.23 33.87 12.19 1.99 East Hill 289.92 170.63 46.08 24.08 49.13 3.04 Grandview 20.67 12.2 0 0 8.47 0 Lower East Hill 170.15 49.99 31.92 63.84 24.4 0 Midway 5.08 5.08 0 0 0 0 Meeker 352.68 75.53 12 7.25 257.9 16.6 South Central 30.28 17.79 0 7.17 5.32 4.54 Scenic Hill 20.19 5.55 3.22 2.15 9.27 11 'Jest Hill 7.08 7.08 0 0 0 0 =================================================================================================== 1175.77 463.14 142.74 155.23 414.66 37.81 Appendix C-4 Kent Planning Department MULTIFAMILY ZONED LANDS INVENTORY VACANT LAND by Neighborhood and Zone MRD MRG MRM MRH Neighborhood Total Benson Center 0.0 1.8 15.8 0.0 17.5 Balance of City 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Cambridge 0.0 0.0 28.4 0.0 28.4 Downtown 4.6 3.6 4.0 0.0 12.2 East Hill 0.0 14.4 34.8 0.0 49.1 Grandview 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 8.5 Lower East Hill 1.8 5.4 14.5 2.7 24.4 Midway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Meeker 0.0 219.0 38.9 0.0 257.9 South Central 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 5.3 Scenic Hill 0.0 2.1 0.0 7.1 9.3 \.lest Hill 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ======================================================================= 6.4 246.3 152.1 9.9 414.7 Appendix C-5 Kent Planning Department MULTIFAMILY ZONED LANDS INVENTORY UNDERDEVELOPED LAND by Neighborhood and Zone MRD MRG MRM MRH Neighborhood Total Benson Center 0.0 0.7 11.2 0.0 11.9 Balance of City 0.0 2.9 1. 1 0.0 4.0 Cambridge 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Downtown 0.0 0.0 31.4 2.5 33.9 East Hilt 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.0 24.1 Grandview 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lower East Hill 0.0 18.7 3.0 42.2 63.8 Midway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Meeker 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 7.3 South Central 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 7.2 Scenic Hill 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.2 West Hit t 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ===============================================~======================= 0.0 22.3 86.2 46.8 155.2 Appendix C-6 Kent Planning Department MULTIFAMILY ZONED LANDS INVENTORY Full Development Scenario VACANT LAND Neighborhood Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units MRD @ 1D/acre MRG @ 16/acre MRM @23/acre MRH @40/acre Totals Benson Center 0.0 0 1.8 28 15.8 362 0.0 0 17.5 391 Balance of City 0.0 0 0.0 0 2.0 46 0.0 0 2.0 46 Cambridge 0.0 0 0.0 0 28.4 654 0.0 0 28.4 654 Downtown 4.6 46 3.6 58 4.0 91 0.0 0 12.2 195 East Hill 0.0 0 14.4 230 34.8 799 0.0 0 49.1 1029 Grandview 0.0 0 0.0 0 8.5 195 0.0 0 8.5 195 Lower East Hill 1.8 18 5.4 86 14.5 334 2.7 109 24.4 547 Midway 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Meeker 0.0 0 219.0 2094 38.9 895 0.0 0 257.9 2989 South Central 0.0 0 0.0 0 5.3 122 0.0 0 5.3 122 Scenic Hill 0.0 0 2.1 34 0.0 0 7.1 285 9.3 319 'West Hill 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 ================================================;==================================== 6.4 64 246.3 2530 152.1 3499 9.9 394 414.7 6487 Note: Potential units in the Meeker Neighborhood adjusted for the 2429 limit placed on the Lakes property as a condition of its 1979 rezone. Appendix C-7 Kent Planning Department MULTIFAMILY ZONED LANDS INVENTORY 100% Development Scenario UNDERDEVELOPED LAND Neighborhood Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units MRD @ 10/acre MRG @ 16/acre MRM @23/acre MRH @40/acre Totals Benson Center 0.0 0 0.7 11 11.2 258 0.0 0 11.9 269 Balance of City 0.0 0 2.9 46 1. 1 26 0.0 0 4.0 71 Cambridge 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.0 23 0.0 0 1.0 23 Downtown 0.0 0 0.0 0 31.4 722 2.5 98 33.9 821 East Hill 0.0 0 0.0 0 24.1 554 0.0 0 24.1 554 Grandview 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Lower East Hill 0.0 0 18.7 300 3.0 68 42.2 1687 63.8 2054 Midway 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Meeker 0.0 0 0.0 0 7.3 167 0.0 0 7.3 167 South Central 0.0 0 0.0 0 7.2 165 0.0 0 7.2 165 Scenic Hill 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 2.2 86 2.2 86 IJest Hill 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 ===================================================================================== 0.0 0 22.3 356 86.2 1982 46.8 1871 155.2 4210 Appendix C-8 Kent Planning Department MULTIFAMILY ZONED LANDS INVENTORY 50% Development Scenario UNDERDEVELOPED LAND Neighborhood Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units MRD @ 10/acre MRG @ 16/acre MRM @23/acre MRH @40/acre Totals Benson Center 0.0 0 0.7 6 11.2 129 0.0 0 11.9 135 Balance of City 0.0 0 2.9 23 1.1 13 0.0 0 4.0 36 Cani>ridge 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.0 12 0.0 0 1.0 12 Downtown 0.0 0 0.0 0 31.4 361 2.5 49 33.9 410 East Hill 0.0 0 0.0 0 24.1 277 0.0 0 24.1 277 Grandview 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Lower East Hill 0.0 0 18.7 150 3.0 34 42.2 843 63.8 1027 Midway 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Meeker 0.0 0 0.0 0 7.3 83 0.0 0 7.3 83 South Central 0.0 0 0.0 0 7.2 82 0.0 0 7.2 82 Scenic Hill 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 2.2 43 2.2 43 \Jest Hill 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 ===================================================================================== 0.0 0 22.3 178 86.2 991 46.8 936 155.2 2105