Shoreline Planning Commission Regular Meeting – May 1, 2025
Shoreline Planning Commission Regular Meeting – May 1, 2025
The Shoreline Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Thursday, May 1, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Shoreline City Hall. Chair Leslie Brinson called the meeting to order and presided. Present were Chair Brinson, Vice Chair Christopher Mosier, and Commissioners Lin and Povick. Commissioners Bradley Cabe, Colt Fry, and Lauren Hadley were absent with notice. Staff present included Andrew Bauer, Steve Szafran, Julie Ainsworth-Taylor, and Carla Hoekzema. The commission accepted the agenda and approved the prior meeting minutes, then spent the meeting discussing proposed development code amendments to eliminate citywide parking minimums.
Consent Calendar
- The agenda was accepted as presented.
- The Regular Meeting Draft Minutes of April 17, 2025 were accepted as presented.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No members of the public signed up to speak, and no oral public comment was given. Carla Hoekzema noted that a written comment had been forwarded earlier. The agenda listed a public comment item for Lewis Brown under the study item, but the minutes record no public comment and the transcript indicates no one signed up to speak; this discrepancy is noted.
Discussion Items
- Senior Planner Steve Szafran presented proposed changes to the Development Code to eliminate parking minimums citywide. The changes include revising the parking purpose statement, adding an administrative design review option, removing minimum parking requirements, deleting the parking reduction section, updating parking design standards, and amending access and circulation regulations, including consolidating drive-through uses and standardizing stacking space requirements.
- Staff noted that they researched other jurisdictions that have removed parking minimums, such as Spokane and Bellingham, and found that most rely on the Building Code for ADA-accessible parking rather than adding additional requirements.
- On the question of setting maximum off-street parking requirements, Commissioner Lin did not think it would be an issue given limited land availability, while Vice Chair Mosier thought it could mainly arise with redevelopment. Chair Brinson requested more information before deciding. Commissioner Povick suggested that areas like Fircrest should be exempt because of the large property size. Commissioners generally supported requiring landscaping and walking paths through parking lots as a way to naturally limit parking lot size. Chair Brinson noted that financial feasibility would constrain over-parking and that excess parking could be redeveloped later.
- On the question of limiting the number of vehicles allowed on middle housing lots, Vice Chair Mosier thought a limit would be difficult to administer and that impervious surface limits would inherently constrain parking. Chair Brinson felt a limit could serve as a protection for worst-case scenarios. Commissioner Povick asked about boats and nonworking vehicles being parked in the right-of-way. Staff indicated they would research parking enforcement issues and bring back more information.
- On the question of allowing parking within property setbacks, commissioners generally thought it should be allowed but requested more information and pictures. Discussion included concerns about side yard setbacks, surface water runoff, and preventing front yards from becoming rows of parking. Staff said they could bring back site layout concepts and more detail.
- On the question of requiring more accessible parking than the Building Code requires, there was consensus to rely on the Building Code. Commissioner Povick wanted to explore allowing homeowners to petition for an accessible on-street parking space, similar to practices in Seattle. Staff indicated they would check on that option.
- In general discussion, Commissioner Lin asked whether administrative design review is always done by the director; Senior Planner Szafran confirmed it is. Vice Chair Mosier asked whether right-of-way design is being considered as parking shifts to streets. Director Bauer explained that the Development Code primarily addresses private property and that curb and loading-zone management in the right-of-way is an evolving topic.
Key Outcomes
- The commission approved the agenda and the April 17, 2025 meeting minutes.
- The commission provided direction to staff on the parking code amendments, including general support for landscaping and walking path requirements, reliance on Building Code standards for accessible parking, and a request for additional research on vehicle limits, setback parking, and enforcement.
- Staff will refine the proposed amendments and bring back additional information, with further discussion anticipated at a future meeting, likely in June.
- Staff proposed canceling the May 15, 2025 meeting; the next meeting would be June 5, 2025. The June 19, 2025 meeting would also be canceled due to the holiday.
- The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Meeting Transcript
My button doesn't work. Okay. All right. We are here. I am going to call to order the planning commission regular meeting of Thursday, May 1st. Carla, will you do roll call? Yes, Chair Brinson. I'm here. Thank you. Commissioner Lynn? Yeah. Vice Chair Mosier? Yeah. Commissioner Povey? Here. Thank you. We have Commissioner Cabe, Commissioner Fry, and Commissioner Hadley, which are all absent with notice. So thank you. Okay. All right. Move to approval of the agenda. Anyone? Agenda is approved. Moving to approval of the meeting minutes. Does anyone have comments? Approved. That's my job. All right. Carla, do we have anyone signed up for public comment? We don't have anyone signed up. I did forward a written comment earlier, but that's it for Jennifer. Thank you. All right, then we will go straight to the study item. Development code amendments to eliminate parking minimums citywide. Take it away. Thank you. So we'll have to decide how we want to kind of go through these amendments, but um I'll start with kind of a brief uh PowerPoint. Um so we'll kind of review the potential changes. Um staff had presented the commission some questions in your staff report, and we can go through those with some discussion and then um maybe some uh direction when we come back if there's any changes that you want for the next uh meeting to talk about these amendments in June. Um so staff was here April 3rd, kind of introduced the subject, um, and we received um direction from you commission and also the council about where these would apply. Um there was some issues about parking enforcement that would come up. Um we asked questions about parking and circulation management, minimum parking requirements for certain uses, um, and then um accessible parking and electric vehicle parking. So we um got direction in there, we kind of incorporated those those changes in the in the document in your staff report, but we'll we'll go over there uh over those. Um so there's basically like six sub chapters for these code amendments, the first being the purpose section um in 2050. So now based on the guidance from the council and commission, um staff tried to uh revise those purpose statements to umphasize flexibility, safety in the environment over convenience and efficient efficiency of the city's parking facilities. Um in addition, staff is proposing to add um statements regarding um reduction of hardscape to further the city's um climate goals. Uh the next sub chapter has to do with design review, and this is building in an administrative design review process in order to change certain requirements that we could approve administratively if if someone proposes parking facilities that may not necessarily abide by the code but meet the intended purposes and and is actually comes out as a better product. Um we propose that we could do that. We could do that with the director's approval, not have to go back through code amendments or or like you know, any harder processes. Um the next sub chapter has to do with the minimum parking requirements and this because kind of the the meat of the section, and this is proposed to be cut.
openpublica.com