Shoreline Planning Commission Regular Meeting – September 5, 2024

The Shoreline Planning Commission held a regular meeting on September 5, 2024, from 7:00 PM to 8:45 PM in the Council Chamber at Shoreline City Hall. Chair Christopher Mosier presided. The primary study item was the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update, focusing on the first draft of the Middle Housing Code, including residential design standards, unit preservation, and neighborhood commercial uses. The Commission provided direction to staff on several key topics.

Consent Calendar

• Agenda approved as presented.
• Regular Meeting Draft Minutes of August 15, 2024, accepted as presented.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No oral public testimony was given. However, two written public comments were submitted by Jeff Morgan and Carmel Gregory and were noted by the Chair as available on the meeting calendar page.

Discussion Items

• Middle Housing Residential Code:
  • Townhouses in NR3: Staff proposed allowing all six required forms of middle housing (including townhouses) in NR3, as defining townhouses differently was problematic. Commission agreed that townhouses should be allowed, with concerns addressed through dimensional and design standards.
  • ADU Counting Toward Unit Caps: The question was whether ADUs should count toward the maximum number of units on a lot when middle housing is developed. Vice Chair Brinson and Commissioners Fry and Cabe argued ADUs should not count due to lot coverage and practical constraints; Commissioners Povick and Hadley thought they should count for simplicity and community impact. Chair Mosier proposed a compromise: if an existing home is retained (unit conversion), the homeowner can add two ADUs without counting them toward the unit cap, but if the home is demolished, ADUs count. This was supported by several commissioners.
  • Multiple Principal Units as Detached Homes: Commissioners concurred that multiple principal units on a lot can be detached homes (like two single-family homes) rather than forcing a middle housing form. This continues existing practice.
  • Building Design Standards (Massing/Articulation): Commissioners supported a light-touch approach. Vice Chair Brinson and Chair Mosier suggested focusing on facade length (e.g., stepping back beyond 15 feet) for larger developments, rather than complex modulation standards. Commissioner Fry preferred simplicity for single-lot projects.
  • Unit Preservation and Conversion: Staff presented incentives such as lot coverage discounts, reduced parking, and flexible setbacks for retaining existing homes. Commissioners agreed to explore these further, specifically wanting to ensure enough space for new units. Chair Mosier requested examples and noted concerns about tree retention and impervious surfaces. There was consensus that converted garages should not require additional parking. Discussion included deconstruction regulations and non-conforming structure rules.
• Neighborhood Commercial Code:
  • Permitted Uses: Commissioners generally agreed with the proposed list (cafes, personal services, small markets, daycare, breweries, professional offices) but raised questions about retail and whether grocery stores could be allowed in some zones. Staff noted they would refine the list.
  • Location: Support for limiting to arterial streets. Commissioner Cabe liked including corners of local streets. Chair Mosier suggested a distance threshold similar to ground-floor non-residential. Dead ends and cul-de-sacs were not supported.
  • Floor Area and Parking: Vice Chair Brinson saw no need for different size limits between NR3 and NR2. Parking was controversial: staff proposed no required parking in NR3 and a maximum in NR2. Some commissioners (Povick, Hadley) worried that no parking would reduce accessibility and business viability; others (Brinson, Fry) argued no parking aligns with walkability goals. ADA parking was suggested as an important addition.
  • Site Improvements: Commissioners stressed the need for solid waste screening, especially for eating/drinking uses. Chair Mosier supported requiring right-of-way improvements (sidewalks) as a location condition, to be discussed with Public Works.
• General Growth Concern: Commissioner Povick expressed concern that Shoreline is building faster than any other city and warned of potential liability if growth outpaces infrastructure, particularly regarding parking and street safety. She advocated for a 2.0-tier approach rather than 2.5.

Key Outcomes

• Townhouses: Allowed in NR3, regulated by design standards (consensus).
• ADU Counting: Staff to explore a compromise where existing units can convert without ADUs counting toward the cap; otherwise, ADUs count. Further analysis needed for NR2 vs. NR3 differentiation.
• Detached Units: Permitted as multiple principal units (consensus).
• Design Standards: Light touch approach; staff to consider facade length threshold (e.g., >15 feet) for modulation requirements on larger buildings.
• Unit Preservation: Staff to continue researching incentives (lot coverage discounts, parking reductions, flexible setbacks) and report back. No additional parking required for garage conversions.
• Neighborhood Commercial: Staff to refine use list, consider ADA parking, explore location maps for arterial corners, and coordinate with Public Works on right-of-way improvements. No parking required in NR3 (but non-binding discussion); maximum rather than minimum parking in NR2.
• Next Steps: Next briefing to Council on September 30, 2024. Next Planning Commission meeting on September 19, 2024, will include a public hearing on the Commute Trip Reduction Plan and further Comprehensive Plan discussion.