Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zone Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends two zone changes in Strawberry Valley and Long Valley Estates
Summary
The King County Planning Commission on Oct. 8 recommended that the county commission approve two zone changes: Daniel R. Shapiro’s one‑acre parcel from R‑1 Half to R‑1 (ordinance 2025‑32) and Gary and Don Marie Dam’s 22.4‑acre parcel from AG to R5 (ordinance 2025‑33). Both recommendations passed by voice vote.
The King County Planning Commission voted Oct. 8 to recommend two separate zone changes to the county commission.
Dan (Daniel R.) Shapiro joined the meeting by phone to request that Parcel 45‑33, a roughly one‑acre lot in Strawberry Valley Estates, be reclassified from R‑1 Half to R‑1 so it would conform with county preferences and allow a possible second dwelling. Shapiro told commissioners he had previously combined two lots and that he was aware of homeowners‑association restrictions; he said he had no intention of violating HOA rules. “I wasn’t really planning on doing anything that would require an R‑1 zoning,” Shapiro said, adding he sought the change to avoid future conflicts. Shannon, the planning staff member, reported one emailed correspondence opposing a second home but said staff found the application otherwise in order and that notice requirements had been met. The commission moved and seconded a recommendation to approve the zone change (ordinance 2025‑32); the motion passed by voice vote.
The commission then considered an application by Gary Gilbert Dam and Don Marie Dam to rezone about 22.4 acres near Long Valley Estates from agriculture to R5 to allow subdivision into two residential R5 lots (ordinance 2025‑33). Staff confirmed that required notices were posted and that one member of the public had emailed comments included in the packet. No one spoke during the public comment period. Commissioners discussed lot adjacency and site conditions and then moved to recommend approval to the county commission; the motion carried by voice vote.
Both recommendations are advisory to the county commission, which will consider the final zoning decisions. The applicants and staff emphasized compliance with homeowners‑association restrictions and that the staff reports documented the findings supporting the recommendations. The commission recorded no roll‑call vote totals for either recommendation; the chair called the actions by voice and declared the motions carried.
The planning commission adjourned debate on the two items and moved on to subsequent agenda business, including several ordinances and a separate, lengthy discussion about moderate‑income housing policy.
