Planning commission recommends denying Lees’ zone change for proposed 163‑acre glamping site; advances APA and ordinance updates

The King County Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 13 recommended denying an application by Nathan and Deanna Lee to rezone about 163 acres near Sky Haven Mountain Retreat and the North Fork area from agricultural (AG) to RU‑10 to allow a low‑density “glamping” resort. The commission’s recommendation to deny will be transmitted to the King County Commission for final action.

Commission staff told the panel the applicants propose roughly 14–25 guest units located on three buildable areas of the parcel, intend seasonal operation with a 24‑hour on‑site caretaker and plan to pursue required permits. Staff said they received five written public comments, all opposed, and flagged water‑rights, septic and Department of Environmental Quality approvals as items that would be addressed at the conditional‑use and permitting stages.

Members of the public and several commissioners urged caution. Neighbor Steve Foyse told the commission he opposes the zoning change because the access road is rugged, worst in wet months, and that tourists unfamiliar with remote driving conditions have to be rescued, placing burdens on neighbors and emergency services. “It represents a hazard that I’m not sure we’re prepared to deal with,” Foyse said. Sky Haven property owner Sherry Robinson said transient guests would increase trespass, wildfire risk and noise and would damage the neighborhood’s character. Randall Aaron Meyer, another nearby owner, described limited cell coverage and repeated rescue calls to the sheriff’s office.

The applicants responded that they live on the property, will require 4‑wheel‑drive access, will provide a full‑time caretaker while open, will work with the fire department on mitigation (including limiting or removing on‑site fire pits if required) and said the project would focus on “dark‑sky” stargazing tourism rather than ATVs or heavy‑truck uses.

During commission deliberations several members said the proposed glamping use could be lower impact than full residential subdivision but concluded that, given the present road, water and fire‑response constraints and the community objections, recommending denial was appropriate. A motion to recommend denying ordinance 20‑25‑24 carried and will be placed on the county commission’s agenda.

In other business the commission reviewed proposed revisions to General Plan chapter 8 (the water conservation element) to respond to state comments. Staff described new requirements staff added at the state’s request: a county‑level water budget projection, coordination language with local water providers and a development‑committee review process that would require new subdivisions to demonstrate water sufficiency and include required water‑conservation provisions in CC&Rs for new developments. Commissioners asked how the county would demonstrate enforcement; staff said the county can require CC&Rs as a condition of final approval and can withhold permanent approvals if developers fail to meet commitments.

The commission also discussed moderate‑income housing challenges (infrastructure costs, impact fees and incentive models). Commissioners agreed this is a complex, statewide problem and voted to table further action pending staff research and commissioner follow‑up on potential incentives used in neighboring cities.

The panel recommended approval of an Agricultural Protection Area proposal intended to protect an active grazing operation from encroaching development pressures; the recommendation carried. The commission also recommended approval of ordinance revisions to align county subdivision rules and right‑of‑way dedications with state code and the county master transportation plan.

The meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m.