Shoreline to join release of historic restrictive covenants on city-owned property

The Shoreline City Council unanimously authorized staff to participate in an amendment to release restrictive covenants on city-owned property in the North End County Estates plat. The council also authorized the city manager to execute the necessary documents.

City Attorney Margaret King explained the legal context: the covenants—some recorded as early as 1926 and applied to Block 1 in 1947—can limit use and housing form on lots and are considered private property rights that can supersede local zoning unless formally released under state law. She identified two covenants at issue on the subject parcel: one limiting development to detached single-family dwellings and a second historical racial restriction that limited ownership or residence to white or Caucasian people. "Although these covenants are illegal, the desire is to go ahead and remove them as part of this process," King said.

Public testimony included a realtor and neighborhood residents who said releasing the covenants would allow infill and higher-density development appropriate for the nearby light-rail subarea and support activation of the adjacent North City Community Park. Jack Malik, a realtor working with property owners, told council the release would allow homeowners to sell to developers and support the multimodal corridor planned around the station.

Council discussion referenced legal precedent (cited by council as Viking Properties v. Hull) that longstanding covenants remain effective on title absent release. Council members said the release would prevent an isolated pocket of single-family lots being encircled by higher-density zoning and encouraged the city to assist property owners pursuing the signatures and processes needed for a full amendment.

Outcome and next steps: Council voted unanimously to accept staff’s recommendation to participate in the covenant-amendment process and authorized the city manager to execute documents. Staff noted the release depends on the private owners' signatures where required by state law; if owners do not reach the necessary majority the covenant will remain in place. The city will follow the statutory procedure for removing restrictive covenants and may separately research other city-owned properties for similar historic covenants.