Burien Planning Commission hears public concern, asks staff for options on proposed housing code and citywide rezones

Shelly Park, chair of the City of Burien Planning Commission, opened a special meeting and public hearing on April 30, 2025, to consider proposed amendments to Title 19 of the Burien Municipal Code and a citywide rezoning intended to implement middle‑housing requirements and portions of the Burien 2044 comprehensive plan. The hearing began at 6:10 p.m. and closed at 6:23 p.m.; the commission extended the public‑hearing record for further discussion at a subsequent meeting.

Senior Planner Chaney Skadsen told the commission the proposals respond to recent state bills and the city’s new comprehensive plan. “The vision for the future is that all types of homes are affordable, abundant, safe, and accessible to all Burien residents, now and in the future, regardless of income, race, family structure, household size, personal ability, or life stage,” Skadsen said, summarizing the housing chapter that guides these amendments.

Nut graf: The package would replace several single‑family zones with a three‑tier residential suite (R‑1, R‑2, R‑3), update dimensional standards and unit allowances, establish middle‑housing typologies, add limited neighborhood commercial in some residential areas, and create bonuses for proximity to qualifying transit and for preserving naturally occurring affordable housing. Commissioners and residents debated parking, shoreline and tree protections, open‑space minimums, and how to define qualifying transit stops; the commission directed staff to return with clarified options and additional definitions before making a final recommendation to city council.

What staff proposed: Skadsen summarized the main elements of the draft code and map amendments. The amendments replace existing single‑family zone labels (for example, RS 7,200 and RS 12,000) with R‑1, R‑2 and R‑3. Key numeric changes described in staff materials include:

- R‑1: minimum lot size proposed at 6,000 square feet; baseline maximum units per lot of three (counting ADUs); a bonus unit is available (maximum four) if the lot is within the defined proximity to a qualifying transit stop or if one unit is income‑restricted and protected by a recorded restrictive covenant for 50 years.

- R‑2: smaller minimum lots and reduced front setbacks than existing single‑family rules; baseline of four units per lot; a preservation bonus can add one unit (for example, raising the maximum to six units) if an existing structure that serves low‑ or moderate‑income households is preserved.

- R‑3: the most permissive of the three new zones; proposed minimum lot size is 3,000 square feet and front yard setback as small as 10 feet. R‑3 has a baseline of four units with up to two bonus units available (up to seven units in specific bonus scenarios). Skadsen cautioned that meeting all development standards on small parcels would make the higher counts unlikely in practice.

Skadsen described how the proposals interpret two state bills referenced in the presentation as “House bill 11 10” (the middle‑housing bill) and “House Bill 13 37” (ADU bill), both passed in 2023, and a later Senate bill referenced in the packet. The staff packet also included a SEPA addendum and explained that the amendments implement policies in the Burien 2044 comprehensive plan approved in 2024 and that the planning commission is expected to forward a recommendation to city council in June.

Bonuses, affordability and transit: Under the draft language a transit proximity bonus is available for sites near qualifying transit stops; if the bonus is used off‑transit, an affordable unit must be income‑restricted at 60% AMI for rentals or 80% AMI for ownership, recorded by a restrictive covenant for 50 years. Skadsen said the team will adopt a definition for qualifying transit stops rather than embedding a static map, and recommended limiting qualifying stops to major transit routes identified in the RCW (for example, rapid bus lines such as Burien’s H and F lines and Sound Transit routes). Commissioners asked whether the map used in outreach—showing larger areas covered by smaller local routes—was appropriate to adopt or whether the city should follow the letter of state law.

Neighborhood commercial and performance standards: The package would permit limited “neighborhood commercial” uses in R‑2 and R‑3 (and on certain R‑1 core lots). Staff said allowable neighborhood commercial would be small‑scale convenience retail, cafes/restaurants and small professional offices subject to performance standards: hours of operation proposed at 8 a.m.–8 p.m., an interior net floor area cap cited in the packet at 1,500 square feet, and a cap on outdoor seating at 1,000 square feet. The draft applies existing code language that exempts small commercial structures (under 3,000 square feet) from minimum customer parking requirements. Commissioners asked staff to return with a clear, neighborhood‑specific definition of permitted uses and a list of explicitly prohibited uses (for example, pawn shops, gun stores and payday lenders were suggested by a commissioner as items to explicitly bar).

Open space, recreation and building form: The draft would require on‑site private or common recreation/open space scaled to unit type (staff cited a baseline of 200 square feet per ADU or cottage unit, 250 square feet per two‑bedroom unit, and 300 square feet per three‑bedroom unit, with private open space such as patios, balconies or rooftop decks eligible to partially satisfy the requirement). The code retains a 35‑foot height limit in the residential zones and contains design provisions intended to reduce garage‑dominated facades.

Environment, site development and shoreline: Skadsen emphasized that critical‑areas protections, the Shoreline Master Plan and the 2021 King County Surface Water Design Manual (and the associated NPDES permitting processes) would remain applicable to development proposals. For sites with shorelines or wetland constraints, the shoreline permitting process (substantial development permits, conditional use permits, peer review and SEPA as applicable) typically lengthens review and can add years and cost to projects, staff said.

Public testimony and community concerns: During the public hearing several residents urged protections for shorelines, trees and neighborhood character, and asked for greater notice and outreach for land‑use changes near Lake Burien. Gretchen Erickson said, “The commission is not abiding by the shoreline master plan,” and asked that areas around Lake Burien remain R‑1; Chestine Edgar (speaking for the Lake Burien Shore Club) said the zone shown around Lake Burien was confusing and urged that it remain R‑1 because of site constraints and shoreline buffers. Other public commenters from Seahurst, Shorewood and nearby neighborhoods voiced worries about parking spillover, loss of daylight and neighborhood character if higher intensities are allowed in some areas. Several residents supported ADUs and smaller‑scale middle housing near high‑capacity transit. The commission acknowledged the comments and asked staff to return with clarifications.

Commission discussion and directions to staff: Commissioners pressed staff for more detailed language and options on several topics before recommending the package to city council. Specific directions and requests recorded during deliberations included:

- Prepare a distinct, neighborhood‑focused definition for “neighborhood commercial” (separate from the city’s broader “convenience retail” definition) and return with a draft that explicitly lists allowed and disallowed uses; consider a limited list of prohibited uses and clarify whether laundromats and other uses belong in R‑1/R‑2/R‑3.

- Provide clearer transit‑buffer language and options for how the city will identify qualifying transit stops (staff said they would propose objective criteria tied to service level and Sound Transit/rapid routes rather than a static map).

- Return with options on open‑space sizing (including whether a single flat area or split private/public areas is preferred for cottage housing), minimum porch/patio sizing and playground thresholds, and alternatives to the proposed walkway minimum (staff noted the 5‑foot figure in the packet and commissioners suggested looking at ADA‑related standards such as 42 inches).

- Look into solid‑waste staging and collection requirements and circulation/loading standards for neighborhood commercial and townhome typologies.

- Clarify how existing structures would be treated if they propose neighborhood commercial uses (whether an interior net floor‑area cap includes kitchens, storage and restrooms) and whether exceptions are appropriate for conversions of existing buildings.

Actions, votes and procedural outcomes: The commission took several formal procedural steps during the meeting. The record shows the following outcomes (tallies reflect commissioners present):

- Removal of the director’s report from the agenda — motion passed unanimously (tally: yes 5, no 0).

- Approval of minutes of April 9, 2025 — approved (tally: yes 5, no 0).

- After extended discussion, the commission recorded a nonbinding vote (by show of thumbs) to leave the preliminary rezoning map as drafted rather than change R‑2/R‑3 designations citywide. The recorded thumbs results: Sam Ostrander, Hayden Campbell, Jessica Ivy and Chair Shelly Park signaled support for leaving the map as presented; Commissioners Joshua Halpin and Heidi Turner signaled opposition (thumbs down). Commissioners asked staff to proceed with the ordinance language while returning with targeted options for sensitive areas (for example, around Lake Burien) if a comprehensive plan map amendment is requested in the future.

- The commission voted to extend the public hearing and continue the item to a future meeting (motion to continue to the next meeting was seconded and passed unanimously; tally: yes 5, no 0). Staff said a special meeting on May 21 is under consideration and the commission’s next regularly scheduled hearing on the matter will be May 28; staff intends to deliver refined language and options ahead of the next session and to return to council with a recommendation in June.

What remains unresolved: Commissioners did not adopt final definitions for qualifying transit stops, neighborhood commercial uses, open‑space sizing, or a finalized set of prohibited uses. Several members asked staff to present clear alternatives in a follow‑up meeting rather than to make those choices on the floor.

Ending: The commission closed the hearing and directed staff to return with the clarified definitions and a short menu of alternatives that address transit‑bonus eligibility, neighborhood commercial permitted uses and performance standards, open‑space metrics for middle housing, and solid‑waste and access standards for townhome and mixed site designs. The matter remains under active review and will return for further public comment and deliberation at upcoming meetings in May and June.

(Reporting note: quotes and on‑the‑record attributions above come from the meeting transcript and public testimony given April 30, 2025. The planning commission session was hybrid and included several in‑person and Zoom participants.)