CITY OF
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Shoreline Fire Department Headquarters
Shoreline
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Fimia,
Gustafson and Ransom
STAFF: Bob Olander,
Shoreline Planning Commission
PRESENT: David Harris, Chair; Commissioners Michael Broili, Sid Kuboi,
Robin McClelland, and Chakorn Phisuthikul
I.
WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS, PURPOSE AND GROUND RULES
Mayor
Hansen convened the meeting at
II. BACKGROUND AND CHRONOLOGY OF
COTTAGE HOUSING IN SHORELINE
a. Burden
developers for high quality projects
b. Limit
of 8 cottages within 1,000 feet from any point in the City
c. Minimum
of 700 square feet on main floor
d. Reduce
potential density bonus to 1.75
e. Maximum
of 8 units per development
f. Limit
parking and community buildings to 18 feet in height
g. Cottage
entry toward streets and minimum 40 feet width of common open space
h. Borders
of private open space not to exceed 2 feet in height
i. Increase
parking to 2 per unit plus guest parking; 50% of parking to be in garages
j. Use
of architectural screens rather than solid board fences
He
concluded that the Greenwood Cottages would be the only development in
Shoreline that would meet the requirements under the proposed amendments.
III. PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING COTTAGE HOUSING
David
Harris, Planning Commission Chair, also provided some background on the
evolution of cottage housing issues in Shoreline. He pointed out that a Commission vote to
repeal the cottage housing ordinance failed by a vote of 4-4, although this
should not be interpreted that there is significant opposition to cottage housing. Most Commissioners agree with the cottage
housing concept and believe the amendments will help cottages fit into the
communities. He said the strategy should
be to address all forms of housing, and cottages are considered one element. He said while the Commission doubts the
proposed amendments will resolve all concerns, it concurred that the City
should adopt an overall housing strategy.
He noted that the Planning Commission does not feel these amendments are
necessarily urgent, since cottages are not critical to the Growth Management Act
(GMA) housing target numbers. Mr. Harris
affirmed Councilmember Fimia’s clarification that some people oppose cottage
housing in single-family residential areas.
IV. ROUNDTABLE DIALOGUE WITH
COMMUNITY MEMBERS
Mayor
Hansen invited community members to the table in groups to comment on cottage
housing.
Councilmember
Fimia noted that newly elected Council members Cindy Ryu,
(a) David
Fagerstrom, Shoreline, noted there have been discussions in the past about
funding trusts for achieving affordable ownership of housing. However, cottage housing is not affordable
housing. He urged the Council to
consider making affordable housing a part of the overall housing strategy.
Commissioner
McClelland noted that while cottage housing is an opportunity to provide a
choice of smaller houses, it was never intended to meet the definition of
affordable housing. She felt there has
been a general misunderstanding of this issue.
The City has been trying to meet its GMA housing targets, which are
separate from affordable housing goals.
She agreed there should be an overall housing strategy and an inventory
of housing so the City can get a better understanding of the housing supply.
Mr.
Fagerstrom discussed the potential of achieving GMA goals and affordable
housing through purchasing density compliance credits from other jurisdictions
that exceed their infill requirements.
He said a strategy to create low-income housing would be “great,” but it
would require a community commitment to build trust funds so people could
afford the down payment. He reiterated
the need to make affordability an element of the overall financial plan.
Mr.
Kuboi suggested that each member of the community have an opportunity to speak
before engaging in dialogue with individual citizens.
(b) David
Matthews, Shoreline, neighbor of the Greenwood Avenue Cottages, urged the
Council to support the proposed amendments.
He quoted that “the only thing people hate worse than urban sprawl is
density.” He asked the Council not to
“trash” the whole idea but to encourage developers to build like the Greenwood
Cottages, which are well-designed and fit the neighborhood.
(c) Jim
Soules, Seattle, developer of the Greenwood Avenue Cottages, said building
smaller homes on smaller lots is an idea dating back to the 1920’s and
1930’s. He said the changing
demographics have increased the demand for cottage housing, since 60% of
(d) Mike
Nelson, Shoreline, resident of the Greenwood Cottages, felt the City should be
more concerned with the texture and diversity of housing, noting that the
community is not a “monolith.” Cottage
housing intermixes with other buildings and structures and adds to that
community texture. He said Shoreline
residents want more pedestrian-friendly opportunities, and the only way to
achieve it is to have a little more density “here and there.” He said he was attracted to the cottages
because they fit his lifestyle and they create a sense of community. He said the neighbors gather for weekly
events and watch each other’s homes while on vacation. He said the community that is created by
well-designed cottage housing is so powerful that it has attracted people from
across the nation.
(e) Darlene
Feikema, Shoreline, resident of the Greenwood Cottages, said the cottages
appealed to her because of the close community feeling they create. She said it is a special type of housing that
addresses the needs of single women, and she does not want others to lose this
important housing choice. She said
cottage housing is not for everyone, but neither is any other kind of
housing. She felt there should be a
continuum of housing where people can make a choice and select what fits their
lifestyle. She noted that cottages fit
in much better than some other options, noting that four large mansions could
have been built in place of the Greenwood Cottages. Referring to a newspaper article, she
contended that the special characteristics of cottage housing meet the
community and security needs of women.
She urged the Council to adopt the proposed amendments and maintain
cottage housing in Shoreline.
(f) Brian
Ducey, Shoreline, resident of the Greenwood Cottages, felt the City should
address the housing needs of the older demographic, who desire housing choices
that differ from the type of homes in which they were raised. He urged the Council to consider the proposed
changes and make affordable living still available in a context the community
can accept. He said despite the anger
over poorly-designed cottage housing units, the community needs to “get over
what has been done” and do what is needed to lift the moratorium.
Mayor
Hansen stated that although cottage housing is not considered affordable
housing in the traditional sense, it is more affordable than what it is
competing against.
(g) John
Bulman, Shoreline, commented that the Reserves cottage housing development does
not fit that neighborhood, which is surrounded with more expensive homes. He described the poor design and lack of
sidewalks and parking, noting that cars will park outside the development due
to the lack of space. He expressed
disappointment with the overall development, noting that it is not “high-quality
infill.” He said only one out of 11
developments in Shoreline has been successful, so he would give cottage housing
in Shoreline “a failing grade.” He felt
the burden should be placed on the City to ensure quality rather than having
developers “come in and see what they can get away with.” He said developers
negotiate for the least amount in order to make it as highly profitable as they
can. He said the Planning Commission
must consider how to make houses fit into the neighborhoods.
(h) Mark
Deutsch, Shoreline, expressed support for the proposed amendments and for
cottage housing in general. He said the
recent changes to the Comprehensive Plan have addressed the issue related to
the zones in which cottage housing should be located. He felt the Planning Commission made its best
effort to amend the ordinance so that future cottage developments meet high
standards. He said it is probably not
possible to identify all the needed amendments, so the best approach is to take
the best guess and move forward. He
advised that before making a final decision, the City should compare its
ordinance with other cities that seem to have had more success with cottage
housing. He pointed out that the
Comprehensive Plan is a policy statement for housing, if not a strategy, and
that the Council has expressed interest in considering affordable housing next
year. Since Shoreline is an
Commissioner
Kuboi wondered if people were attracted to cottage housing because they are
actively seeking a sense of community, or if it results from living in a
cottage housing setting.
Mr.
Soules responded that cottage home buyers are a socially and environmentally
conscious group looking for this type of product. They are often people who think about
sustainability and energy conservation.
Councilmember
Fimia said the real “sticking point” for most people seems to be the issue of
allowing more houses on a plat than the underlying zoning. She asked Mr. Soules how other cities are
addressing this issue and if it is economically feasible to build cottage homes
without providing a bonus density.
Mr.
Soules said other cities think of cottage housing in terms of “equivalent
density,” meaning that the number of units increases but the number of people
remain about the same. He suggested that
Shoreline conduct a survey to find out how many people live in its cottage
housing developments, noting that 11 permanent residents live in the 8 cottages
on
Continuing,
Mr. Soules explained that cottage housing provides a detached housing choice
for those who still want the single-family neighborhood experience. He explained the economics of the cottage
housing industry and the value of land versus home ratio. He said cottage housing costs more per square
foot because of the cost of land. He
noted that that undeveloped lot in the City of
(i) Tim
Carroll, Shoreline, said the
Ms.
Feikema addressed the issue of demand, noting that some people decided to buy
cottage homes before even coming to Shoreline to see them.
Councilmember
Gustafson asked for the rationale behind Mr. Soules’ written recommendations.
Mayor
Hansen reminded the group that there may be other citizens who wish to
speak.
(j) Christina
Spencer, Shoreline, asked for clarification of Amendment B, the limitation on
building 8 cottages within 1,000 feet from any point. She wondered if this would allow building 8
cottages for every ten lots (the lots having approximately 100 linear feet on
one side). She felt cottage homes thus
far have not been compatible with existing neighborhoods, and this 1,000 foot
rule would create a lot more density.
Commissioner
Broili said he understood Amendment B would actually provide for a distance of
2,000 feet separating different cottage housing developments.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen pointed out that one would have to have over two contiguous 7,200
square-foot, single-family lots in order to build the minimum required number
of four cottage houses under the proposed 1.75 bonus density.
Ms.
Spencer said the
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen noted that another property on
Mr.
Carroll said that development had a fair amount of resistance, but in the end
it was accepted. He emphasized that this
development is very different from the
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen pointed out that minimum lot sizes have increased; first from 2,500
square feet, then to 5,000 square feet, and then to the current 7,200 square
feet. He wondered how people were
responding to the change in lot size. He
felt that although design review can cause a lot of “headaches” and added
expenditures, it might be a way to address the issues of quality and
compatibility and allow cottage housing to move forward. He said he has always had difficulty
resolving the issue of setbacks and the relationship of front yards to side and
backyards, but he felt this is an important factor in the debate on cottage
housing. He said he appreciates Mr.
Soules’ recommendation on the reduction in base height to 15 feet, but he would
also like some discussion about what constitutes reasonable setbacks.
There
was brief discussion about subjectivity and the difficulty of determining
compatibility since everyone has different preferences and opinions.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen said it would be preferable for people to know what types of
development are allowed in a given zone.
Mr.
Soules said one of his recommendations is that a cottage housing developer must
submit a plan for what types of conventional development could take place, in
addition to a cottage housing plan. He
noted that the Meridian Cottages are so dense because it was built in an R-8
zone when the bonus density was doubled.
Traditional development would allow for up to eight homes on the same
parcel.
(k) Randy
Hughes, Shoreline, asked for clarification of the proposal to limit development
of 8 cottages within 1,000 feet from any point.
He said many people have understood the proposal to mean that cottage
housing developments could be within 1,000 feet of each other. He asked staff to clarify for the Council,
Commission, and audience if the distance is actually 2,000 feet between cottage
housing developments.
Mayor
Hansen clarified that the recommendation is to limit cottage housing
developments to 8 cottages within 1,000 feet from any point. The Planning Commission’s intent was that
there would be 1,000-foot radius circles, and circles would not be allowed to
intersect. This means that there would
effectively be 2,000 linear feet between any two developments.
Mr.
Hughes felt this should be clarified in writing so people have a chance to
study and consider it. He said this
clarification might make a difference in the outcome on cottage housing.
Commissioner
Broili said if sounds as if Mr. Hughes would be amenable to cottage housing if
the City can come up with a solution to meet his needs. He said he would like to find a way to meet
the community’s needs and the needs of cottage housing.
Mr.
Hughes said the Council and Planning Commission have a duty to clarify to the
public, since there has been so much confusion surrounding the 1,000-foot
rule. He said people wouldn’t be
fighting it so hard if the City had clarified its position earlier.
Mayor
Hansen clarified that there is no 1,000-foot rule, only a recommendation at
this point.
Mr.
Fagerstrom said he likes the idea of addressing quality through design review,
but he fears it means different things to different people. He favored a design review process that
includes the public, City staff, and professionals in determining what
compatibility means.
(l) Peter
Agnos, Shoreline, concurred with the previous speaker, noting that the public
has not had much opportunity to provide input.
He questioned whether Planning Commission members were Shoreline
residents, and suggested that cottage housing would fail if put to a public
vote. He said the City is asking
citizens to accept amendments for something it doesn’t want in the first
place. He said if the City wants cottage
housing to be compatible, then it should “have an open meeting and let us
participate.” He felt the public should
be directly involved in the design review.
He also felt the City should be more proactive, noting that people are
frustrated because they feel they have no voice. He said they would likely accept some type of
cottage housing if they had a voice in the matter.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen clarified that residing in Shoreline is a prerequisite for serving
on the Planning Commission.
Commissioner
McClelland pointed out that hundreds of hours have been spent in open public meetings
and public hearings debating the issue of cottage housing. She said there have been many opportunities
for the public to get involve and voice their opinions. She said this is evidenced by the fact that
the people present tonight already know each other.
Mr.
Agnos noted that there is a great deal of misinformation in the public because
people get their information secondhand.
He said people generally do not get involved directly, pointing out that
only a few of the 55,000 Shoreline residents have attended this meeting
tonight.
Commissioner
McClelland suggested that citizens share the burden of disseminating accurate
information by correcting misstatements and encouraging people to attend public
meetings.
Mr.
Agnos advised that the people most directly impacted by cottage housing would
be the best candidates for getting the community involved in the
discussion.
(m) Jean
King, Shoreline, said she never knew anything about cottage homes until she got
a letter asking that she sell her home so they could build a new cottage
housing development. She said this
request offended her, adding that cottage housing does not fit into single
family neighborhoods. She said she does
not want cottages next to her or on busy streets with traffic and school
children.
Mayor
Hansen noted that people seeking property make offers on homes from time to
time, but people do not have to sell to them.
(n) Paul
Tychsen, Shoreline, said he has never received a good answer to the question of
why the underlying zoning in single-family neighborhoods can be doubled under
the cottage housing provision. He said
it is not fair that a builder can come into Shoreline, fill out a simple
checklist, and automatically double the density from the standard listed zoning. He said there is also not a good answer to
the question of why cottage housing can’t be done in higher density zones where
it’s more appropriate and feasible. He
said some cottage housing projects represent a stark contrast to the character
of well-established neighborhoods, and many people oppose them on this
basis. He said the projects have not
even come close to meeting the standard that they be compatible with the
existing neighborhood.
Chair
Harris said the cottage housing bonus density does not change the underlying
zoning; it is an allowance for increasing the density if it meets the design
requirements in the code.
Mayor
Hansen left the meeting at
(o) Martin
Kral, Shoreline, said he lives in close proximity to the Meridian Park Cottages
and the Ashworth Avenue Cottages. He
said he argued strenuously against having two lots joined which eventually
formed the Meridian Park Cottages because he felt it would not fit the aims of
the cottage housing ordinance. He said
both developments have many inadequacies that still need to be corrected,
pointing out that three of the
Mr.
Nelson felt the debate was not so much about density but about “ugliness moving
in next door.” He said there is poorly
designed housing everywhere, whether it’s cottage housing or conventional
development, so the focus should be put on how to execute quality
developments. He said focusing only on
cottage housing and trying to force density into multi-family housing zones
will impact the diversity of housing. He
said the community would lose texture and diversity and become “ghettoized” if
cottage housing is forced into small parts of the City. He concluded that Shoreline residents want to
see good housing developments no matter what the type.
There
was a question of whether the current proposal allows cottage housing in R-8
zones. Chair Harris clarified that it
did, but the open space and separation requirements would probably nullify the
ability to make cottages feasible in R-8 zones.
Councilmember
Fimia said the issue would likely come down to design review and neighborhood
planning, since it seems neighborhood planning made the difference in other
cities. She felt the discussion should
hereafter be in the context of neighborhood plans. She asked if it is economically feasible to
build 8 cottage homes in an R-8 zone.
Mr.
Soules explained that under such a scenario, the property would have a higher
cost-per-square-foot value. So it is not
economical because the cost per unit of land and improvements would be
higher.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen said the generally accepted rule for land-to-home value is 1:2; so
on a $300,000 parcel, the value of the house should be $600,000 for a total
land/improvement of $900,000. If the lot
can be divided, it brings the individual lot price down to $150,000. He said this is why it becomes economically
feasible to build more smaller houses versus fewer
large houses.
Councilmember
Fimia wondered if cities subsidize land and if tax incentives are feasible way
to move forward.
Mr.
Soules replied that cities do not generally subsidize the land unless they are
pursuing some kind of affordable housing goal.
He added that tax incentives are too complicated to administer. He pointed out that
Councilmember
Ransom pointed out that cottage housing has not only been a major issue for the
past two years but also in the recent election.
He expressed the point that cottage housing is multi-family housing and
should be considered like apartments or condominiums, which really means
restricting them to an R-12 zone. He disagreed
with the estimate that Shoreline lots cost upwards of $300,000, noting that
lots on the east side of I-5 can range from $100,000-$120,000. He noted that people would have the right to
appeal cottage housing if it were restricted to higher density zones. He felt the Planning Commission should
consider the fact that the last election was very clear there are not four
votes on the City Council to keep the cottage housing code.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen emphasized the importance of discussing the issues and gathering
information rather than projecting what future Councils might do.
Commissioner
Broili said the role of the Planning Commission is to consider testimony, look
at evidence and the City code and make recommendations to the City Council without
thinking about Council’s directives. He
went on to explain the environmental and sociological reasons he supports the
cottage housing concept. He said over
the past 50 years the average household size has decreased while house size has
increased, all while cities struggle to accommodate more density. He said it makes sense to consider ways to
reduce the size of homes so they are more in line with the available land mass
that serves a given population. He
alluded to a number of newspaper articles commenting on the lack of housing
choices for senior citizens and other demographics. He concluded that the objection is not
cottage housing itself, but the way it’s being
done. He felt the community’s needs
could be met through design review and the proposed amendments.
Commissioner
McClelland pointed out that many people have large enough parcels to add
density through accessory dwellings and other means without the cottage housing
ordinance. She said the opportunity to
create equivalent density by having a couple more people living in the same
space without greater environmental impact seems like a reasonable concept, but
perhaps Shoreline is not ready for it yet.
She agreed that the design of the
Commissioner
Kuboi said the 1,000 square-foot size restriction on cottages has been a
recurring theme in Planning Commission meetings, which he felt to be the
biggest single element of the compatibility question. He asked if building 1,200-1,500 square-foot
cottages would be feasible, or if there would be a size between 1,000-2,000
square feet that people would find more amenable.
Mr.
Soules explained that single adults and couples have always been the target
market for cottage housing, and good designs can be achieved in a 1,000
square-foot flan.
He
said this target market starts to get lost as cottages get bigger. He said other cities such as
Commissioner
Phisuthikul expressed the view that cottage housing provides a needed housing
choice for Shoreline. He felt the
proposed 1.75 density bonus would make cottage housing more acceptable, noting
that the bonus density is a privilege for developers who demonstrate that
additional density can be achieved without adverse impacts. He said this privilege must be earned through
quality and design, which is what the proposed amendments try to achieve.
Councilmember
Gustafson thanked everyone who participated in the forum, particularly members
of the Planning Commission, who have spent so much time and effort on cottage
housing. He thanked Mr. Soules for
providing specific recommendations. He
said he continues to have an open mind and still has to study the issues.
Chair
Harris said he has enjoyed talking to different people about this issue. He pointed out that every neighborhood has
unattractive and dilapidated housing, yet people are quick to criticize a few
houses because they do not fit their definition of “compatible.” Since Shoreline is an infill community, he
advised that the City think about how it wants to guide neighborhood
redevelopment in the future. He said
Shoreline needs a variety of small, medium, and large houses, so he is an
advocate of housing for everyone.
(p)
Mr.
Soules said the density could either be more people or more dwelling
units. He said cottage housing aims to
provide more dwelling units without any greater impacts.
Commissioner
McClelland clarified that the GMA goal is number of households, not necessarily
number of people.
V. SUMMING UP-NEXT STEPS
Mr.
Cohen outlined the next steps for the cottage housing debate. On January 23 the
City Council will hold a public hearing, with possible action planned for the
following weeks. He noted that the
current moratorium expires
Mr.
Olander encouraged the community to provide any additional written comments or
voicemail messages to the
On
behalf of the Council and Planning Commission, Deputy Mayor Jepsen thanked all
participants and members of the audience for donating their time and effort to
this issue.
Councilmember
Fimia said she intends to propose the formation of a smaller workgroup to
refine any proposals to see if some consensus can be reached before a package is
forwarded to the Council.
VI. ADJOURN
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned at
/S/