Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zone Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denying proposed commercial rezoning for Heritage Acres
Summary
Following a lengthy public hearing with neighbors and family members, the planning commission voted to recommend denying a requested rezoning of Heritage Acres from R‑5 to C‑2 and asked staff to prepare ordinance options (e.g., RV allowances by parcel size) as an alternative path.
After hearing applicant testimony and more than a dozen public comments, the King County Planning & Zoning Commission recommended denying a proposed zone change that would reclassify Parcel 8‑7‑8‑30 (Heritage Acres) from R‑5 to C‑2.
Applicant Brent told the commission the family’s 5‑acre parcel historically hosted multiple trailers and family reunions and that the family sought a permanent solution because surrounding parcels had been subdivided. “We are not here to develop the property,” Brent said, and he said the family would record deed restrictions to bar future commercial enterprises if the rezoning were approved.
Neighbors and nearby residents urged denial. Mary McElhone, who lives across the street, said rezoning to commercial would create a path for future uses she described as inconsistent with the surrounding residential character and cited code language that ties business licenses to certain commercial recreational uses. “Commercial zoning requires another land use…business license is required,” McElhone told the commission, citing the county code section shown in public materials.
Other residents described repeated dust, trespass, and traffic impacts during busy holiday weekends and warned that spot rezoning would set a precedent. Lee Reinhart said he had called the sheriff previously and described a reported incident involving alleged property damage; Reinhart asked for stronger enforcement rather than a zoning change.
Commission discussion reflected those tensions. Several commissioners said they sympathized with the family’s desire for a long‑term fix, but were reluctant to set a spot‑zoning precedent that might allow future commercial uses, even where the applicant offers deed restrictions. One commissioner suggested revising residential code to scale allowable RVs to parcel size; another said a countywide ordinance change would be a preferable, broader remedy.
On a motion, the commission voted to recommend denial of the R‑5 to C‑2 change (motion recorded by speakers in the transcript) and separately asked staff to return options for an ordinance amendment (examples discussed: allowing two RVs per acre or parcel‑size rules) that could address the family’s needs without commercial rezoning.
