Snoqualmie committee reviews code changes to boost downtown storefront retail to 90%

Interim Community Development Director Mona Davis brought two linked proposals to the Community Development Committee on April 7, asking the committee to forward Agenda Bill 25035 and Agenda Bill 25036 to the City Council for action.

Davis said the proposals would amend the Snoqualmie Municipal Code Title 17 to tighten downtown retail-use rules and update standards that reference the code in the Snoqualmie Ridge SR1 mixed‑use final plan. The Planning Commission recommended the package following public outreach to the Downtown Business Association and the Ridge Merchants Association, Davis said.

Under the recommended changes, the minimum ground‑floor storefront retail requirement in the Downtown Historic District overlay would rise from 75 percent to 90 percent. The proposal also would enlarge the overlay to include all parcels zoned BR1 and select parcels along Falls Avenue, remove parcels zoned OS2 (open space) from the overlay, and eliminate the municipal-code retail‑waiver process that previously allowed exceptions to the retail requirement.

Davis told the committee the amendments and supporting materials had been posted in the committee packet and that the proposals are scheduled for City Council first and second readings: Agenda Bill 25035 is scheduled for first reading April 14 and second reading April 28, with a possible effective date of May 5 if adopted. Agenda Bill 25036 would be considered by resolution at the City Council’s May 12 meeting to amend SR1 conditions and development standards to reference the updated code.

Committee members pressed staff on two implementation details: the time a property owner must demonstrate a “good‑faith” effort to lease to a retail tenant, and how to handle past practice of permitting nonretail uses in ground‑floor spaces. Planning materials and the packet identified a change in the time allowance; staff said the intent in the draft code is to extend the minimum marketing/offer period so property owners must document a longer effort than the existing rule. Committee members flagged inconsistent wording in the packet (120 days vs. 180 days) and asked staff to correct and clarify the final language before Council consideration.

Council members and staff also discussed the waiver process. The Planning Commission originally considered a tighter waiver process, but the city attorney advised that waivers subject to appeal to the City Council could expose individual council members to personal‑liability risk, the packet states. Planning commissioners ultimately recommended removing the waiver process entirely; committee members debated that choice, with some saying removing waivers prevents property owners from delaying retail occupancy while waiting for higher‑rent, nonretail tenants.

Members of the committee noted outreach in 2024 and said business owners on the Ridge and in downtown supported stronger retail emphasis to drive pedestrian traffic. The package’s supporters told committee members that some medical and corporate tenants can pay higher per‑square‑foot rents than typical downtown retailers, which has in prior years encouraged nonretail uses on prime corners; the proposed changes aim to preserve a storefront retail character.

The committee agreed to forward the bills to the City Council on the schedule Davis described and asked staff to correct the written packet where the 120/180‑day language conflicted and to return with a clarified final draft for Council readings.

Davis said staff would coordinate with the Planning Commission and with King County grant managers (where relevant) before the Council hearings. The committee did not take a final ordinance vote; it forwarded the items for Council consideration and asked staff to return with corrected code text and clear language on the marketing/waiver provisions.

The committee also directed staff to summarize public comments and the Planning Commission’s matrix in the Council packet.