Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Capacity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Snoqualmie planning commission hears analysis showing shortfall in lower‑income housing
Summary
Consultants told the Snoqualmie Planning Commission that the city lacks sufficient land capacity to meet state‑assigned housing targets for households at 0–50% AMI, pointing to zoning changes, two city‑owned sites and possible annexation to close the gap; staff said more mapping, financial incentives and an annexation study are next steps.
The Snoqualmie Planning Commission on Tuesday heard a land‑capacity analysis from consultants at Burke that concluded the city currently falls short of state‑required housing capacity for lower‑income households and outlined rezoning, incentive and annexation options to address the deficit.
Mona Davis, the city’s community and economic development director, introduced the consultants and the scope of the update. Firdress Oneiza, the project manager for Burke, said the audit looked at the comprehensive plan and zoning code for gaps and compliance with King County, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and state requirements.
“We found that right now you have a deficit in housing requirements by the state,” Oneiza said, and consultants emphasized the largest shortfall is in the 0–50% area‑median‑income (AMI) band.
Stephanie Heimarge, a senior planner with Burke, described the land‑capacity methodology and the income‑band approach the state uses. “So 735 for 0 to 50 AMI,” Heimarge said, citing the city’s target for the 2020–2044 period. Heimarge added that much of the city’s current vacant or redevelopable land is zoned for housing types that typically serve higher AMI bands, leaving a notable gap at the lowest income level.
Heimarge identified two city‑owned candidate sites where rezoning could add capacity: an Area A site the city owns that is heavily encumbered by critical areas (about 13 acres, of which consultants estimated roughly 1 developable acre) and a southern Gateway Park site. “22 units is based on about an acre of that actually being developable,” Heimarge said about Area A, and she estimated that rezoning Area B to allow upper‑story residential could yield “about 91 units” under base zoning assumptions.
Consultants cautioned that mapped critical areas, floodplain constraints and site‑specific wetland studies reduce usable acreage and that developers will often perform more detailed site work that can alter the modeled capacity. The consultants also said their baseline model does not assume adaptive reuse (office‑to‑residential conversions) unless explicitly modeled.
On tools to increase capacity, consultants recommended code changes such as applying the R‑3 zone where appropriate, allowing upper‑story residential in commercial zones, and selectively increasing height limits to add units. They discussed affordability tools—mandatory inclusionary requirements and incentives such as the multifamily tax exemption—and the tradeoffs each carries. Heimarge described the tax exemption options in broad terms as multi‑year property tax relief used in other jurisdictions to encourage development that includes affordable units.
The commission discussed whether Snoqualmie should pursue annexation of unincorporated portions of its urban growth area (UGA) if city limits cannot accommodate the target. Oneiza said King County expects the city to demonstrate efforts within city limits first; if a deficit remains, annexation and prezoning of UGA parcels could be the next path. The consultants said they will test UGA parcels for utility availability and likely phasing and return with a more detailed annexation study.
Votes at a glance: the commission approved a motion to remove New Business Item 2 (the historical design review application) from the agenda (motion by the Chair; second by Vice Chair Mirzak; approved). The June 15 minutes were moved for approval by Vice Chair Mirzak, seconded and approved. The meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m.
What’s next: Burke and city staff said they will finalize the land‑capacity and UGA analyses, prepare proposed policy and code amendments, produce parcel‑level maps tying capacity to specific properties, and conduct public outreach (events and HOA meetings). The consultants presented a fast‑track schedule targeting July–August for internal revisions and September–November for submittals to King County, PSRC and the Washington State Department of Commerce.
The commission asked staff to return with parcel‑level maps, clearer descriptions of how incentives (including the multifamily tax exemption) would affect tax revenues and school impacts, and a more explicit annexation work plan. Staff also acknowledged a separate pending debate about temporary use permits downtown would return to a future agenda for fuller discussion.
