Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zone Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denying Lees’ zone change for 163‑acre glamping proposal
Summary
After public comment and staff concerns about fire risk, water and remote road access, the King County Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of a zone-change request to allow a small glamping resort on 163 acres near Sky Haven Mountain Retreat.
The King County Planning Commission on Aug. 13 recommended that the County Commission deny a zone change requested by Nathan and Deanna Lee that would reclassify roughly 163 acres near Sky Haven Mountain Retreat from agricultural to RU‑10 for a proposed glamping resort.
Commissioners, staff and several nearby property owners focused on safety and infrastructure. Staff said five mailed public comments opposed the change and highlighted concerns about fire, remote road access and water availability. Steve Foyse, a Saint George property owner who lives adjacent to the site, said, “I am against this,” and described the ten‑mile dirt approach from Highway 14 and how slippery ruts and limited grading already leave visitors stranded. Sherry Robinson, a Sky Haven Unit 1 property owner, told the commission the proposed transient rentals would “threaten…our safety and destroy our tranquility,” citing trespass, trash and wildfire risk.
Applicants said the site contains three buildable pockets on steep terrain, that they hold water rights on both parcels, and that they plan seasonal operation with an on‑site caretaker during the summer and a winter closure. An applicant told the commission they would “have a 24 caretaker” while open, would pursue required fire‑department permitting, and aim for a dark‑sky certification to limit disruptive uses.
Commissioners pressed the applicants and staff about emergency response times and road improvements. Commissioners noted the nearest fire station is several miles away; staff said fire and road mitigation details would be reviewed during a conditional‑use permit, but that those requirements are typically not resolved at the zoning stage. Several commissioners emphasized that the county’s current concerns with wildfire behavior and limited year‑round access make approving a new short‑term‑rental use premature.
A motion to recommend denial of the ordinance (Ordinance 20‑25‑24) was moved and seconded and carried. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the County Commission for final action.
What happens next: The County Commission will consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation at a future agenda. Any formal proposal would still need CUP permitting and fire‑safety approvals before operations could begin.
