The URL can be used to link to this page

03-02-2021 Council Packet - SpecialCITY OF I Federal Way Centered on Opportunity CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Remote Meeting March 2, 2021 Notice: Pursuant to Governor Inslee's Proclamation 20-28, all in -person meetings are prohibited until further notice. The Mayor and Council encourage you use one of the following ways to participate in the meeting: • Watch the meeting live via Federal Way YouTube Channel • Call in and listen to the live meeting: (888) 788-0099 or 253-215-8782 • Public Comment may be submitted via email here, or sign up to provide live comments here • Zoom meeting code: 917 5435 4769 Meeting password: 541260 Special Meeting — 4:30 p.m. 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. COMMISSION INTERVIEW • Human Service Commission • Council Deliberation 3. ADJOURNMENT Special Meeting — 5:00 p.m. i►yi1=1 =101►"IleZe]N17=1:7 2. STUDY SESSION — HOUSING ACTION PLAN • Staff Introduction: Brian Davis, Community Development Director • Consultant Presentation • Council Questions/Discussion 3. PU`ft4Cee4DM,MENfTto COUNCIL(Qcityoffederalway.com or complete a citizen comment request form (found here) prior to the meeting, to provide comments via telephone during the meeting. All comments are limited to 3 minutes each. 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION • Collective Bargaining Pursuant to RCW 42.30.140(4)(b) 5. ADJOURNMENT Regular Meetings are recorded and televised live on Government Access Channel 21. To view Council Meetings online please visit www.cityoffederalway.com. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 2, 2021 ITEM #: 2 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: HOUSING ACTION PLAN UPDATE POLICY QUESTION: N/A COMMITTEE: N/A MEETING DATE: N/A CATEGORY: ❑ Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ® Other STAFF REPORT BY: Brian Davis, Director of Community Development DEPT: Community Development Attachments: 1. Staff Report from Brian Davis 2. Memo from BERK Consultants 3. A summary of code change suggestions 4. Visual preference survey results Options Considered: N/A — No action required at this time MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: N/A MAYOR APPROVAL: N/A Committee / Initial/Date /t COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A DIRECTOR APPROVAL: "PV / 2-24-21 Initial/Date Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: N/A BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED First reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED—11/2019 RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: February 24, 2021 TO: City Council Members VIA: Jim Ferrell, Mayor, .. FROM: Brian Davis Community Development Director SUBJECT: March 2 Study Session — Housing Action Plan Update Financial Impacts: The Housing Action Plan is funded by a $100,000 grant from the Department of Commerce. Other than staff time needed to manage the project and coordinate with consultants, there is no cost to the City. Background Information: At the April 21, 2020 regular meeting, the City Council approved the acceptance of a $100,000 grant from the Department of Commerce and contract with BERK Consultants to conduct a Housing Action Plan with the following scope of work: • Develop and conduct a stakeholder involvement program to gather community input and preferences, which includes input from various groups involved in providing and serving housing within the City • Evaluate City data needs, collecting data, and providing a technical memo/ report to the City and stakeholders • Provide analysis of existing and projected housing needs by various types and affordability • Review existing policy/regulation analysis and providing suggested changes/ strategies in the effort to encourage/allow needed housing • A Draft Housing Action Plan for presentation to citizens, stakeholders, and the Council for adoption Meetings have been held with the Planning Commission, an advisory committee, and City Council. A survey has been conductive on visual preferences for housing, and a public open house will be held in late March to present draft strategies for review and feedback. The March 2 Study Session will provide the consultant team valuable feedback from the Council to ensure the project is on a course consistent with Council direction. Rev. 7/18 Attached are three documents to aid the study session discussion: 1. Update memo from BERK Consultants 2. A summary of code changes suggestions 3. Visual preference survey results Rev. 7/18 :ill BERK MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2021 TO: Federal Way City Council FROM: Kevin Ramsey, Associate Principal, BERK Consulting RE: Housing Action Plan Council Study Session Briefing Meeting Objectives Phone: (206) 324-8760 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98121 www.berkconsulting.com 11 Summarize the Federal Way Housing Action Plan (HAP) work to date and key findings. ® Solicit councilmember feedback on a set of preliminary objectives for the HAP that are consistent with Department of Commerce requirements. These objectives will be used to focus the development of housing strategies to include in the HAP. u Preview timeline for project completion, including roles for council involvement and action. Project Background In 2019 The City of Federal Way received a $100,000 grant from the Washington State Department of Commerce to prepare a Housing Action Plan (HAP). The goal of a HAP, as stated in RCW 36.70A.040, is "to encourage construction of additional affordable and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing types and at prices that are accessible to a greater variety of incomes, including strategies aimed at the for -profit single-family home market." To receive the full funding from this grant, the Federal Way HAP must be adopted by City Council before June 31, 2021. To support the development of this HAP, Federal Way dedicated a portion of its grant funding to the Subregional Housing Action Framework described below. Federal Way also contracted with BERK Consulting and MAKERS Urban Design and Architecture to support the development of a HAP for the City of Federal Way. This HAP can build upon the Subregional Framework to support coordination with other housing efforts in the South King County subregion. At the beginning of the HAP process, the consultant team invited each City Council member to an individual interview to gain a better understanding of their priorities and concerns. We spoke with six councilmembers in all. This input shaped how we approached the planning process in collaboration with city staff. SUBREGIONAL HOUSING ACTION FRAMEWORK Cities participating in the South King Housing and Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP) collectively participated in the development of a Subregional Housing Action Framework. To fund this effort, Federal Way, Auburn, Burien, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila each contributed $17,000 of their $100,000 HAP grant u._ funds. Key deliverables from this analysis included: 1. Fact Packets for the subregion and each city summarizes how each city performs in critical topic areas, such as housing trends, affordability, housing need forecast, and an employment profile. 2. A Housing Context Assessment that identifies the methodology of data collection, expands on existing policy tools, and evaluates their potential impact with regards to intended outcomes. 3. A Housing Strategies Framework that identifies housing policies, tools, and incentives, summarizes current use in each jurisdiction, and evaluates their potential impact for achieving intended results. This framework serves to inform the development of the Federal Way HAP. Summary of Progress to Date Requirements for a HAP are in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.600(2) and are listed in the chart below with an update on the city's progress. (a) Quantify existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households, with documentation of housing and household characteristics, and cost -burdened households; (b) Develop strategies to increase the supply of housing, and variety of housing types, needed to serve the housing needs identified in (a) of this subsection; (c) Analyze population and employment trends, with documentation of projections; (d) Consider strategies to minimize displacement of low-income residents resulting from redevelopment; Complete The Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) contains this information. The HNA was presented to the Planning Commission on December 16, 2020 and the Land Use and Transportation Committee on January 4, 2021 In Progress The Subregional Framework identified a set of relevant strategies. Building on this work and guidance from city staff, the consultant team then conducted a Housing Policy and Code Audit focused on barriers to new affordable and market rate housing production in Federal Way. City staff and the consultant team are using this Audit, engagement findings, input from the Advisory Group and Planning Commission to develop a set of preliminary strategies for consideration by City Council. Complete Included in the Housing Needs Assessment. In Progress Drawing upon strategies in the Subregional Framework and an assessment of local market conditions and programs, BERK is developing preliminary strategies for minimizing displacement for consideration by City Council. February 24, 2021 City of Federal Way I Housing Action Plan 2 (e) Review and evaluate the current housing In Progress element adopted pursuant to RCW The consultant team has completed a draft Housing Policy and Code Audit. 36.70A.070, including an evaluation of success This document reviews goals and policies in the Federal Way Comprehensive in attaining planned housing types and units, Plan Housing Element and evaluates regulatory barriers to achieving goals achievement of goals and policies, and and through a thorough audit of the city's land use, zoning, and development implementation of the schedule of programs code. It will be included as a section in the draft HAP. and actions; (f) Provide for participation and input from In Progress community members, community groups, local Efforts have included: builders, local realtors, nonprofit housing ■ The project websitel advocates, and local religious groups; and ■ A newsletter for project updates available for interested parties ■ Facilitation of four stakeholder Advisory Group meetings ■ An Advisory Group survey to gain input on preliminary strategies ■ Interviews with additional stakeholders and community members, including a local church group ■ A Visual Preference Survey directed towards city residents ■ Presentations at Planning Commission meetings, LUTC, and Council with opportunities for public comment. ➢ Planning Commission; Housing Actin Plan Introduction 8/5/2020 ➢ Planning Commission; Housing Needs Assessment 1 2/16/21 ➢ LUTC; Housing Needs Assessment 1 /4/21 ➢ Planning Commission; Code Audit & Subregional Framework 1/20/21 ➢ Planning Commission; Summary to Date 2/17/21 ➢ Council Special Session 3/2/21 (g) Include a schedule of programs and actions Not Started to implement the recommendations of the HAP. This content will be developed following the selected priorities and strategies and be included in the draft HAP for council review and consideration. 1 https://www.cityoffederalway.com/page/city-federal-way-housing-action-plan I February 24, 2021 City of Federal Way I Housing Action Plan 3 Key Findings to Date HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Nearly 40% of all households in Federal Way are cost -burdened (over 13,000 households in total). Cost burden is most common among both owner and renter households with incomes below 50% of area median income (AMI). Black, indigenous and persons of color (BIPOC) households disproportionate experience housing cost -burden compared to White households. E The rate of new housing production in Federal Way is not keeping pace with demand or comprehensive plan growth targets. One reason is the lack of multifamily housing construction since mid-2017 following a moratorium on multifamily housing permits and an increased impact fee to support the Federal Way School District. There has also been a lack of "missing middle" housing such as townhomes and multiplex formats. The underproduction of housing is contributing to intense competition for available housing which is driving up housing costs faster than the incomes of residents. Federal Way needs to add about 6,800 new units before 2040 to accommodate population growth and account for past underproduction. This equates to an average production of 339 additional units each year, a 68% increase over recent housing production trends. The city needs a diversity of new housing types, including both rental and ownership products that cater to a variety of income levels and housing needs. This includes "missing middle" housing types such as townhomes and condominiums that can support more affordable homeownership opportunities. The planned Link light rail stations in Federal Way provide an excellent opportunity for the city to encourage new higher -density housing production in a location where residents will have access to jobs and opportunities. HOUSING POLICY AND CODE AUDIT E The goals and policies in Federal Way's Housing Element are generally supportive of encouraging construction of both affordable and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing types and at prices that are accessible to a greater variety of incomes. New housing production is limited by code provisions that present regulatory barriers and disproportionate impact fees. • The highest impact opportunities to reducing code barriers include: 11 Relaxing off-street parking standards El Introducing form -based code approaches in place of strict lot -size and density requirements ° Relaxing ground floor commercial requirements in all but critical block frontages to provide more flexibility for single -purpose multifamily residential projects 11l February 24, 2021 City of Federal Way I Housing Action Plan 4 VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY ■ A strong majority of 226 surveyed Federal Way residents responded positively to images of several housing format that could be encouraged in the HAP. These include duplexes and triplexes in single family zones, townhouses in multifamily zones, and apartments or condominiums in commercial and downtown zones. Survey responses were sensitive to different building designs. Images with the lowest scores included heavily paved areas with no landscaping, garages as a predominate feature, a lack of private entry definition, or monolithic or messy designs. See Housing Options Visual Preference Survey Results Summary in the meeting packet for additional findings. February 24, 2021 City of Federal Way I Housing Action Plan 5 Preliminary Draft Objectives for Council Consideration Based on the study findings as well as input received from Council members, the Planning Commission, the Advisory Group, and city staff, we proposed five draft housing objectives around which to organize potential strategies to include in the HAP. We are seeking City Council feedback on these preliminary draft housing objectives. Also included in this table are descriptions of the kinds of housing strategies most likely to support achievement of each objective. The HAP will include a refined set of specific and actionable strategies and schedule for implementation. Council input on specific strategies to consider is encouraged. Encourage new development to Strategies that address financial and regulatory barriers to new housing construction, expand housing choices with a focus on allowing for a diversity of new housing types that can meet a diversity of housing needs across the income spectrum. Support equity in Strategies that make it easier to build housing types that support homeownership, homeownership opportunities such as townhomes and condominiums. Also, programs that support households to overcome barriers to homeownership —particularly barriers faced by people of color. Enhance the character and Strategies that ensure new kinds of allowable housing include design standards that livability of existing promote compatibility with existing communities and enhance livability overall. neighborhoods Promote complete communities Strategies that help ensure alignment of new housing development with other by tying housing production infrastructure investments, services, and amenities needed to support opportunity and with improved infrastructure, livability for both existing and new residents. resources, and amenities Help residents to stay in their Strategies that support the preservation of existing affordable housing and reduction homes of displacement pressures on existing residents. L� February 24, 2021 City of Federal Way I Housing Action Plan 6 Next Steps The consultant team and city staff are working towards to the development of a draft HAP for consideration by City Council. There will be several more meetings to gather feedback on draft materials. 3/17/2021 Planning Commission Late March Residents of Federal Way 4/1/2021 4/7/2021 4/21/2021 5/3/2021 6/15/2021 LUTC Special Session Planning Commission Briefing on draft housing strategies Online Open House to present draft strategies for review and feedback Briefing on draft housing strategies Briefing on refined strategies and plan development Planning Commission/Public Public hearing on Draft HAP LUTC Review and feedback on Draft HAP City Council Final HAP for vote on adoption "All February 24, 2021 City of Federal Way I Housing Action Plan Federal Wav Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Review & Code Audit February 24, 2021 This summary report presents a review of housing related goals and policies in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan as well as an audit of the zoning code through which many policies are implemented. The code audit provides MAKERS' comments, considerations, and recommendations for updates to the zoning code that would be consistent with both Federal Way housing policies as well as the goals of a housing action plan, as described in RCW 36.70A.040: "to encourage construction of additional affordable and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing types and at prices that are accessible to a greater variety of incomes, including strategies aimed at the for -profit single-family home market." While the bulk of this audit is organized by Title 19 code section, we've also included overarching summary comments sections at the beginning, including key findings and a summary of key housing code issues that relate to some or all zones. An evaluation of Federal Way's success in attaining planned housing types and units is provided separately in the Housing Needs Assessment. MAKERS architecture and urban HAP Code Audit Summary Contents Section 1: Key Findings and Code Update Priorities..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Section 2: Comprehensive Plan Review and Implementation Considerations....................................................................................................... 5 Section3: Code Audit and Considerations..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 SummaryComments..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 GeneralObservations....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 PermittedResidential Uses Summary.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 MAKERS architecture and urban desi HAP Code Audit Summary Section 1: Key Findings and Code Update Priorities Comprehensive Plan Review Findings • Current housing related policies generally support encouraging housing production that can meet a diversity of needs consistent with the goals of RCW 36.70A.040. They also support the code update opportunities and considerations outlined below. High Impact Code Update Opportunities • Relax off-street parking standards for just about every housing type. There's substantial room for improvement here. • Consider using a form -based approach rather than the current strict lot size/density requirements in the RM and BN zones. • Relax ground floor commercial requirements in most commercial zones, most notably in the CC, CF, and BC zones to require storefronts on only those most critical block frontages and allow greater market flexibility for single purpose residential on other side streets or less critical arterial frontages. • Begin evaluation to eliminate lot size requirements for all but small lot single family detached in the RM zones in favor of more flexible density provisions. Additional Code Update Considerations • Reorganize and streamline permitted use and dimensional standards so they are easier to locate, understand, and apply. • Consider expanding opportunities for duplexes and triplexes strategically in the RS zones, in sync with updates to design standards to ensure neighborhood compatibility. • Relax the strict zone edge (higher intensity zones adjacent to single family zones) to reduce barriers to development. • Amend regulations for senior/special needs/transitional housing with more prescriptive and predictable standards on location and development size. • Relax key landscaping buffer standards and open space standards to make missing middle housing and apartment development more economically and physically feasible, particularly in the RS and RM zones. • Revisit the CC-C and CC-F building height, streetscape, and parking standards to ensure higher design quality for this important TOD area. MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 3 HAP Code Audit Summary Zoning Map and Opportunities Reaction i I L �i ry o a Edgm-d Federal Way • RS-7.2 is by far the most prominent zone. But these areas are largely built out with vacant land generally occupying the "hardest to build" sites. Furthermore, the well -established and insular single family subdivisions tend to make it very challenging at best to adjust regulations to allow more "missing middle" housing types. Same goes for the second most prominent zone, RS-9.6. • The RM-zones appear to have some development opportunities, though perhaps some or most of these could be on more physical challenging sites (more site analysis would be needed to confirm). . The City has substantial significant wetland - constrained areas. • The City's commercial and mixed -use zones are clearly the most substantial opportunity for integrating new/future housing within the city. This comes in the form of redevelopment of underperforming commercial developments with single story buildings and surface parking lots. MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 4 HAP Code Audit Summary Section 2: Comprehensive Plan Review and Implementation Considerations The table below presents housing -related concepts, goals and policies in the 2015 Federal Way Comprehensive Plan that are typically implemented in the zoning code. The right column, "Implementation Comments / Considerations", identifies the portion of the zoning code that implements (in part or whole) the concept, goal, or policy. Notes in italics are additional comments or considerations associated with implementing the concept, goal, or policy. The major conclusion of this review is that current housing related policies already open the door to the code update concepts that are noted in the code audit. Section 3 presents a more detailed discussion of issues in the code that present barriers to the achievement of key Housing Element goals and policies. Section 3: Code Audit and Considerations Summary Comments Topic I Comments/considerations Code organization The combination of land use, dimensions, and parking standards is one of the most complex arrangements that MAKERS has reviewed. For example, setback standards in most cities are set at the zone level, with opportunities for minor modifications — in this case the setbacks are set for individual land uses AND by zone. This creates significant opportunity for internal conflict or inconsistency, causes enormous code bloat and duplication, and likely makes application difficult and unpredictable. Similarly, the huge size and stretched format of the standards tables, including their extensive amount of regulatory notes, makes it highly difficult to navigate the code and identify applicable text. Consider consolidating permitted land use, dimensional, and parking standards in their own self-contained chapters, and add cross-references and supplemental use standards as needed. MAKERS architecture and urban HAP Code Audit Summary Permitted Residential Uses Summary This table provides a clear view of where residential uses are permitted in Federal Way. RS Use / Zone SE* 5 7.2 9.6 15 35 BN BC CC-C CC-F PO* OP* CE* Sin le -family ADU V Cottage housing V V / I / / Duplex V V V V Triplex V V Townhouse V V Multifamily Senior citizen or special needs housing d d V Social service transitional housing V V V V V V Convalescent centers — Nursing homes** V V V V d Group homes** V V V V Notes V = the use is permitted *Zone was not reviewed in this audit. **Use was not reviewed in this audit. Consolidated Comments and Considerations Cottage housing Consider expanding cottages to the RS 9.6 zone, which covers a sizeable area. Duplexes and triplexes: As noted in definitions, these housing types currently fall under the umbrella of "dwelling unit, attached" in the use charts. More explicitly naming the types would help improve clarity, predictability, and public awareness. Townhomes: This use could also be considered for allowance in the BN and BC zones, possibly with the condition that they are part of a (horizontally) mixed -use development or designed with live -work opportunities. There is a potential opportunity for duplexes, triplexes, and to a lesser extent, townhouses, to be allowed in the RS 7.2 zone — and potentially the RS 9.6 zone too. These are large areas of the city. The opportunity is limited, however (especially in the RS 9.6 zone), by the age and development pattern of the subdivisions in these zones, creating challenges in physical integration Typical curvilinear street designs in the RS 7.2 and 9.6 zones also make access to services and amenities more challenging. Senior citizen or special needs housing The RM zone standard, "The city will determine the maximum number of residents and the number of dwelling units", based on the nature of residents, configuration of the facility, and architecture, is a concerning arbitrary standard that opens the door to housing MAKERS architecture and urban HAP Code Audit Summary discrimination. Consider a more accepted and objective measure of development size such as units per acre (with clarification for how occupancy rooms or suites are calculated). Social service transitional housiM. The BN, BC, CC-F, and RM zones have a standard saying, "minimum of one unit and no more than five percent of the total dwelling units in a mixed -use development", significantly reduces feasibility since this type of housing is not often mixed in with market -rate apartments. The BN, BC, and CC-F zones have a standard saying,'The city will determine the maximum number of residents and the number of dwelling units", based on the nature of residents, configuration of the facility, and architecture, is a concerning arbitrary standard that opens the door to housing discrimination. Consider a more accepted and objective measure of development size such as units per acre (with clarification for how occupancy rooms or suites are calculated). MAKERS architecture and urban d HAP Code Audit Summary Federal Way Housing Action Plan Housing Options Visual Preference Survey Results Summary Participation The survey was hosted on SurveyMonkey.com. The survey had 39 image -related questions, followed by several demographic questions at the end of the survey. The survey recorded 226 responses between January 8, 2020 and February 11, 2021, and the typical completion time was nine minutes. Format 36 image -based multiple-choice questions and 3 open-ended questions asked respondents to assess a range of "missing middle" housing buildings and multifamily buildings. The images included a mix of architectural styles and configurations. The 36 image questions were divided into three categories: single-family areas, multifamily areas, and commercial/downtown areas. Each image was captioned with a list of notable design features. Respondents were asked whether they would like each example in the respective area. Respondent's choices for these questions were the following: 5. Yes — en thusiastica IV 4. 3. Neutrallunsure 2. Pro bablynot 1. Absolutely t)dt! An average score for each question was developed. An average score of 5 is highly positive, 3 is neutral, and 1 is highly negative. Key Findings Generally positive reception. Participants, including both homeowners and renters, responded positively to many of the images presented. A majority of survey -takers answered either "enthusiastic" or "acceptable" to examples of several different housing types, including duplexes and triplexes in single-family zones, townhouses in multifamily zones, and apartments and mixed -use buildings in downtown zones. Renters show even more support. In all but approximately 3 images, renters more enthusiastically support the images. Where images included renter amenities like outdoor shared deck space, ratings among renters were very high. Duplexes and triplexes in single family zones are supported. All scored positively except for modern or garage -dominated images. MAKERS architecture and urban design HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Townhouses in multifamily zones are supported. Townhouse images received very high scores except when dominated by paving and garages. Mixed results on 3-4-story apartments/condos. While most owners viewed these building types generally neutrally or negatively, renters viewed them positively. Apartments/condos in commercial and downtown zones are supported. Across the board, most participants viewed these building types favorably, except when monotonous, monolithic, or messy. Renters particularly appreciated outdoor common space like courtyards and decks. Design matters. Images that received low scores typically included heavily paved areas with no landscaping, garages as a predominate feature, a lack of private entry definition, or monolithic or messy designs. Demographics Of the 226 respondents: • 91% are Federal Way residents 88% live in single-family areas ® 86% own their homes (see Figure 1) • 44% spend more than 30% of income on housing • 12% identify as people of color 50% are between 46 and 64 years old; and about a quarter are older and a quarter are younger Figure 1. If you live in Federal Way, do you own or rent your home? Different situation 5% (8) Rent 10% (17) Own 86% (150) MAKERS architecture and urban design HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Page 2 Figure 2. Zoning map r i City of Federal Way 15�� r.tiwnf Comprehensive Plan Zoning 3. Designations r•" Land Use Element � v�1-arYrM *wars' vtw•rr w+r.ra+N.. f1N i2kn le sir t2vn f1 lLb1n p rCavYerlaq �� # OI-.- OrM r � n � V'4� �i•6��W ■W-abM2 ~ } � IrYdIY�M.. � Ir•M�r�10r �p.�,. pQC.. � C GO Ilce1 � o.q O�I�r • it. ._ter C .. � r.�.11�1ra�n 1Nu-r u+r�mehn - .. r p..' Ca dId :0. 11i'1M�M p �� r2m.1u.liatin 1m�.ru.rrs�n '.4, i ON 0� NYW s �.a.�a.....oao. • A.w�aY wsrw w w2anu O rw aw. r r s ae..vvr+...o�.rM+wwr+r_�n.r �.11r�=ar00�..i.r O o�.e w/aw w�lfID10. O ONNs 1p/p O c.0 04.210 FTR O C—d ArwrwM �211 -~ _.� N Lj O O —O alo oft— No"I °"" *D"" ti w - ' rr�a w Federal Way MAP II-2 o�. W. el MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 3 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Single Family Zones - Missing Middie Types The first question series asked about a range of duplex and triplex home styles' appropriateness in single family zones. Participants generally viewed the images positively, except for modern or garage - dominated images. Renters showed even stronger support. Top -rated Images Corner Duplex Duplex Separated garages, entries, roof variation Owner/Renter Response Q43: Own Q43: Rent 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Average score: 3.6 Owner/Renter Response Q43: Own Q43: Rent 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Average score: 3.5 Yes -enthusiastically! X Yes -acceptable Probably not Absolutely not! Neutral/unsure MAKERS architecture and urban design HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Page 4 Bottom -rated Image Triplex Modern, garages to rear off alley, entries, faSade variation Owner/Renter Response 43: Rent r 0% 10°/ 20% 30"k 40% 50 % 60 70% 60% 90% 100 /. Average score: 2.5 Multifamily Zones - Townhouses and 3-4-story Apartments/Condos The second question series asked about townhouse and 3-4-story apartment/condo styles' appropriateness in multifamily zones. Participants viewed the townhouse images favorably (except where paving dominated the landscape) and generally had a neutral to negative response to the apartment/condo images. However, renters showed support for all, especially for images that showed landscaped courtyards or other renter amenities. Top -rated Images Townhouse Garages to rear off alley, entries, roof variation Owner/Renter Response Q43: Rent 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 60% 90% 100% Average score: 3.7 Note, this image received the top score across all images on this survey. Yes - enthusiastically! E Yes - acceptable Probably not 0 Absolutely not! Neutral/unsure MAKERS architecture and urban design HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary i.1 Townhouse Buildings front private internal drive, Owner/Renter Response separate garages, entries, roof variation, landscape 3-story Residential Faces internal courtyard, parking underneath, faSade/roof variation, balconies Q43: Own Q43: Ft"C 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Average score: 3.4 Owner/Renter Response 943: Dwn Q43: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40-A 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Average score: 3.0 Yes - enthusiastically! 0 Yes - acceptable Neutral/unsure MR Probably not M Absolutely not! MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 6 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Bottom -rated Image Townhouse Building fronts private internal drive, separate garages, entries, roof/faSade variation Owner/Renter Response Q43: Own Q43: Rent 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 700,'a 80°110 90% 100% Average score: 2.5 Yes -enthusiastically! 0 Yes -acceptable Neutral/unsure Probably not E Absolutely not! MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 7 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Commercial/Downtown Zones --Apartments/Condos The third image series asked about the appropriateness of 5-8-story apartment/condo home styles in the commercial and downtown zones. There was an overall positive response amongst both owners and renters. The top -rated image shows a mixed -use building with a pleasant street level environment, balconies, extensive fagade variation/modulation, and stepbacks on upper floors. In these larger buildings, participants supported both traditional and modern styles. Again, renters scored images with outdoor amenity space very positively. No images stood out as the bottom -rated image, but participants generally showed less support for types that were monotonous, monolithic, or messy. Top -rated Image 5-story Mixed Use Underground parking, fagade modulation, mix of materials, balconies, wide sidewalk 0 Yes -enthusiastically! Figure 3. Renters scored this image with an outdoor deck especially positively. Owner/Renter Response Q43: Own 09f. 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Average score: 3.4 ■ Yes -acceptable Neutral/unsure N Probably not Absolutely not! MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 8 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Image Question Results An average score of 5 is highly positive, 3 is neutral, and 1 is highly negative. Single -Family Areas W — �o W U >in Yes - enthusiastically! E Yes -acceptable Neutral/unsure Image ¢ Probably not E Absolutely not! 3.6 Q1 Would you like this in single family areas? Notable design features in the above example: - Corner duplex- Garages/driveways and covered front r entries on opposite streets- Modulated fagade and roofline 2 3.1 Q2 Would you like this in single family areas?Notable design features in _ the above example:- Duplex- Front driveways/garages and covered front r k entries (separated)- Modulated roofline and fagade r� R I 0-. t0. :0Y -.,. .D. SD'. 6D'. -0. e0• .O,tOp, *Slightly less support among renters. 3 3.2 Q3 Would you like this in single family areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Modern duplex- Front driveways/garages (separated) - Modulated facade- Low fence MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 9 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary 4 3.5 Q4 Would you like this in single family areas?Notable design features i the above example:- Duplex- Separated garages/driveways and cover front entries- Modulated fagade and roofline A.—M: 225 Sk,q b: 1 i `� —_- mlhusiAslic_ —iMI 11. - -67 4v Absalulgy�4 OX 101E !BX ]OX 4OX 5O1k 6OX AX BOK 90X 1001: 5 + 2.7 Q5 Would you like this in single family areas?Notable design features i y the above example:- Duplex- Front driveway/garage and covered entri t. (separated) A— 224 Sk,ppM 2 ` - - Srniel funllu_ 1Afa lbM1Y nn� 1b. A11Re yim� BOX 9OX 1O0X 6 3.3 Q6 Would you like this in single family areas?Notable design features in ., the above example:- Duplex - Garages/driveways to the rear off an alley - Separate covered entries- Modulated roofline and fagade Artsvtvea 225 Sk,ppM 1 re. aV.^ � y � .ccwlaa� rverOY/uneur- O1k 1OX 7 3.0 Q7 Would you like this in single family areas?Notable design features in yy the above example:- Modern duplex- Garages/driveways to the rear off an - - alley- Separate covered entries- Modulated fagade AnsxerM 225 Ski M 1 Yes Yee _ IMlvq/unw� ��J Nobebly na� *Slightly less support among renters. MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 10 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary 8 3.0 Q8 Would you like this in single family areas?Notable design features I the above example:- Stacked duplex (one unit over the other)- Porch and entries on first and second floors- Driveway to side and garages i . rear t Ansrrered 225 Sk,g 1 } .l•} Yes mthusiastK- e � I f1j} �� R�If'm'+r-r �ti yam• xs¢plab� ft,e Iyn� Resolutely na- o� .. x� IbA LO► e0% clbY �RIY IOW1d0► 9 2.8 Q9 Would you like this in single family areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Triplex - Garages/driveways to the rear off an alley - Separate covered entries- Modulated roofline and fagade rnthuA 1kM s I 401 oil aaPtae:— rkavtlhesw- f TI�, �� Y Absolutely n� OY. 10% ]OY. 30!a 10X SOY: 60`A )0% BO% 90% 10014 10 _ 2.5 Q10 Would you like this in single family areas?Notable design features i the above example:- Modern triplex - Garages/driveways to the rear off alley- Separate covered entries- Modulated fagade mtM1usustk. • k. � � � i —MAIM i_� ' r1e.uaron.u� a •� �� 1 � � wne.aYn� - _ — Aesomlmy no� ow tow xox a. - t,n ._� r~.. -� �• r_- +a.} *Significantly more support among renters. 11 2.8 Q11 Would you like this in single family areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Triplex- Separated single -car garages/driveways- Separate covered entries- Modulated roofline and fagade 1...i..A 22- Skif'ta M1l 2 rniM1uaiaslK� ® l I tl�Iral/unsui� iTw�= Ptoeably n� AMolulNy oo� MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 11 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary 12 2 6 Q12 Would you like this in single family areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Triplex- Separated two -car garages/driveways- Separate covered entries- Modulated roofline and fagade *Significantly more support among renters. 13 Do you have any comments on the specific 90 written comments features that are acceptable or unacceptable in the single family images above? Multifamily Areas C �v qu-N& �o jtj Yes -enthusiastically! E Yes -acceptable i Neutral/unsure Question/Image Q ® Probably not 0 Absolutely not! 14 3 7 Q14 Would you like this in multi -family areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Three -unit townhouse building - Garages/driveways to the rear off an alley - Separate covered entries- Modulated roofline and fagade �i i� R.aavr rc� MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 12 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Multifamily Areas - - a, rnW rt3 " L Q jtj Yes -enthusiastically! 0 Yes -acceptable a Neutral/unsure Question/Image Q Probably not 0 Absolutely not! 15 3 0 Q15 Would you like this in multi -family areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Townhouse building- Separated garages/driveways facing the street- Separate covered entries - Modulated roofline and facade �.•kw�N- n xlollr� <4x.linnylu� c-. tin .. , z-. w Ica ra- ... .n •c. +:r_ 16 . 2.5 Q16 Would you like this in multi -family areas?Notable design features irl the above example:- Townhouse building fronting on a private internal _- • drive- Separate covered entries - Modulated roofline and facade 4 r 4 *Significantly more support among renters. 17 3.4 Q17 Would you like this in multi -family areas?Notable design features i the above example:- Townhouse building fronting on a internal private drive- Separated garages/driveways and covered entries- Modulated roofline and facade- Trees and landscaping- Private balconies 4A �, ion. ^o•. .o. io. so, 6— 71, MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 13 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary In I e] Will Multifamily Areas a, CPv �o jtj Yes - enthusiastically! E Yes -acceptable 11 Neutral/unsure Question/Image Q Piobabtynot 0 Absolutely not'. 3.0 Q18 Would you like this in multi -family areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Townhouse building - Separate covered entries - Modulated roofline and fagade- Garages/driveways to the rear off an alley ±jib 'w a 1n ate. v. �In spa in and p. lun *Significantly more support among renters. 3.2 Q19 Would you like this in multi -family areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Townhouse building - Garages/driveways to the rear off an alley - Separate covered entries, - Modulated roofline and fagade walLlV nn■ nanlnlll Hn- V� lA� TT .a � [a iCY R� q► VPi COL *Significantly more support among renters. ` —� 3.0 Q20 Would you like this in multi -family areas?Notable design features in the Two-story building Covered facing above example:- apartment - entries the street- Modulated roofline and facade- Surface parking in back ` .iYuNY� •YMYI.� 1 np� MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 14 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Multifamily Areas a, - �v rC i law i Q >tA Yes - enthusiastically! 0 Yes -acceptable 0 Neutrat/unsure Question/Image Q Probably not E Absolutely not! 21 2 7 Q21 Would you like this in multi -family areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Three-story residential building - Shared covered entry facing the street- Facade modulation- Parking in back off an alley l 22 2.9 Q22 Would you like this in multi -family areas?Notable design features in �1 the above example:- Three-story residential building- Mix of covered and surface parking- Fagade and roofline modulation- Decorative entry - Balconies - A I { i irM6ilJy� T �y 23 2.6 Q23 Would you like this in multi -family areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Three-story walk-up residential building- Surface parking in back- Fagade and roofline modulation- Fenced/landscaped - setback ",who o. ioe- m� sr w. in �px +et. �r. w. i�• MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 15 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Multifamily Areas a, CM fli �o W u >tA .Yes - enthusiastically! EYes-acceptable Neutral/unsure Question/Image Q M Probably not 0 Absolutely not! 24 3 0 Q24 Would you like this in multi -family areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Three-story residential building facing internal courtyard- Parking underneath- Facade and roofline modulation- Balconies `` Not - on .�.. ■"„""_ *Significantly more support among renters. 25 3.0 Q25 Would you like this in multi -family areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Four-story residential building- Parking underneath- ' Fagade and roofline modulation- Courtyard entry with landscaping f ■ 4q. Y *Significantly more support among renters. 26 Do you have any comments on the specific 56 written comments features that are acceptable or unacceptable in the multi family images above? MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 16 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Commercial/Downtown Areas v C31v "o jj t Yes -enthusiastically! E Yes -acceptable Wj Neutral/unsure Question/Image Q Probably not 0 Absolutely not! 27 f -, 3, 1 Q27 Would you like this in commercial/downtown areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Six -story building with modern design - Live -work units on the ground floor- Residential units above with loft units i} on the top floor- Underground parking- Balconies I• f i 4T hQ% Goy- 7OU 28 3.2 Q28 Would you like this in commercial/downtown areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Six -story building- Commercial on ground floor and residential units above- Underground parking - Varied fagade materials- Various decks and balconies ill I• RYwINw•� JA not •.o:. Gm. '�o} x0•.lo•. lar. •� _ �" *Slightly less support among renters. 29 3.1 Q29 Would you like this in commercial/downtown areas?Notable design 1 features in the above example:- Five -story building- Commercial use on — ground floor and residential units above- Setback from street with retail parking in front- Fagade and roofline modulation owl MOWN �� r— MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 17 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Commercial/Downtown Areas tv CM a) "o (IJ U > Ln Yes - enthusiastically! M Yes -acceptable ■ Neutral/unsure Question/Image Q ® Probably not M Absolutely not! 30 3 2 Q30 Would you like this in commercial/downtown areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Five -story building- Commercial use on ground floor and residential units above- Underground parking - Small corner open space- Upper level building stepback COW •� o., �a. �. ,�3 �o+ 4r. uh xi .r. nr we. 31 2 $ Q31 Would you like this in commercial/downtown areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Six -story building with modern design - Commercial use on ground floor and residential units above- Underground parking- Balconies a� Ilk MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 18 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Commercial/Downtown Areas a, Cn(, 1-o _ jtj M Yes -enthusiastically! Yes -acceptable Neutral/unsure Question/Image Q Probably not Absolutely not! 32 i 2 9 Q32 Would you like this in commercial/downtown areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Six -story building - Commercial use on ground floor and retail parking on second floor- Residential units above - Underground parking- Facade modulation- Balconies 104 i � ; rvvvxlmi w_ • - W. r L O5; ,0% 20Y. 30". �0� SOY 6P. ]Pb099P� 100•.. 33 3 4 Q33 Would you like this in commercial/downtown are able design features in the above example:- Five -story building- Commercial use on ground floor and residential units above - Underground parking- Fagade modulation and mix of materials- Balconies- Widened sidewalk E �nVnlnee- A vi oLnLly no- _ ' Apaolu�N.Y Oh i0ti ]Pw lOk n0'a SP'. 60ti '!0. PP,. 90t IOP+ 34 3.0 Q34 Would you like this in commercial/downtown areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Five -story residential building- Elevated stoops on ground floor- Underground parking- Mix of fagade materials ,a, . u,l Ian• „I _^, P,oL y� Absol W ny ml_ _. *Significantly more support among renters. MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 19 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Commercial/Downtown Areas a, CYI v L_o >ai U Ln Yes - enthusiastically! ■ Yes -acceptable ■ Neutral/unsure Question/Image Q 0 Probably not N Absolutely not! 35 2.8 Q35 Would you like this in commercial/downtown areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Five -story residential building- Elevated stoops on ground floor- Fagade and roofline modulation- Mix of fagade materials- Structured parking behind the building r i c,ombiv� A-11,16y noy_ o,. in, :o-, 3m, An boy ccy roe �n fsv tx. 36 3.1 Q36 Would you like this in commercial/downtown areas?Notable design features in the above example:- Six -story residential building with modern design- Upper level deck for residents- Underground parking- Fagade modulation r,,- ., .iR,r._ 1, Amowir.v m� *Significantly more support among renters. 37 2.9 Q37 Would you like this in commercial/downtown areas?Notable design r features in the above example:- Seven story residential building(s) with } modern design- Underground parking- Internal courtyard- Sky bridge- Fagade modulation ,,,...1 :7 . _ P P-1y. n� Ab.ol—ly— ow imn XM. � 1Y+ fA WM1 4". R". f'0'. F]A+'• *Significantly more support among renters. MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 20 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary Question/Image Commercial/Downtown Areas a, �o >(IJ U Ln Yes -enthusiastically! ■ Yes -acceptable 0 Neutral/unsure Q Probably not 0 Absolutely not! 38 2 8 Q38 Would you like this in commercial/downtown areas?Notable design O � features in the above example:- Eight -story residential building- ,/ Underground parking- Fagade modulation and a mix of materials- Balconies- Landscaped front yard 0 jog OF 1 i ry • c,oemivn� �I�L7 amowi.;r jr3 — nm—I Comments and Demographic Data Please see the attached demographic data and comments on single family, multifamily, and commercial area images. MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 21 HAP Visual Preference Survey Summary