Permit approved for resort at Sol Duc

Published 1:30 am Saturday, March 7, 2026

PORT ANGELES — A Clallam County hearing examiner has approved a conditional use permit for a proposed 20-acre resort in the Sol Duc Valley, but with major conditions.

Hearing Examiner Stephanie Marshall issued her decision on Wednesday after a Feb. 5 hearing, planning department recommendations and the developer’s response to those recommendations, as well as considerable public input.

Marshall wrote that 999 Grouse Glen LLC’s Luminary Resort at Sol Duc would not be consistent with the county’s rural land-use policies or surrounding residential uses without changes to reduce the project’s scale and impacts.

Stricter conditions were necessary, she wrote, because “instead of proposing or accepting any limiting conditions that would increase compatibility, the Applicant steadfastly refuses to make accommodations to size, design or operating characteristics of the proposed resort in response to significant public comments and expressed concerns.”

In its conditional use permit application submitted to the county on Nov. 21, 2025, Grouse Glen proposed a year-round resort with 32 mirrored cabins of about 365 square feet each, a 4,800-square-foot community center with a caretaker residence, a 50-stall parking lot and pickleball courts developed in five phases. The plan also includes EV-charging parking stalls, saunas and propane fireplaces at each cabin site, and eight vehicle access points from Grouse Glen Way.

In a Jan. 29 report, planning department staff recommended approving Grouse Glen’s conditional use permit with conditions, including reducing the number of cabins from 32 to 20, limiting access points from Grouse Glen Way to two, and requiring an on-site manager, stormwater controls, an approved water system, a large on-site septic system and fire protection measures.

More than 30 Sol Duc Valley residents attended the Feb. 5 hearing. Their concerns — echoed in more than 40 written comments to the planning department — focused on the project’s compatibility with the character of the area, wildlife impacts, water resources and noise.

In response, planning staff issued a Feb. 11 addendum recommending two additional conditions: banning mirrored or reflective building exteriors and limiting resort operations to April through September.

Grouse Glen accepted most of the planning staff’s recommendations in its Feb. 23 reply, including requirements for an on-site manager, although it requested that person be present or immediately available only when cabins are occupied.

However, the developer strongly objected to several conditions, arguing that they lack a clear connection to county codes or specific impacts.

It called reducing the number of cabins to 20 an “arbitrary” cap not tied to evidence showing it was an appropriate limit. It objected to a ban on mirrored exteriors, writing “there is no Code prohibition for such finishes,” and explaining that the reflective design would reduce the cabins’ visual impact by mirroring the surrounding trees.

It also objected to limiting the resort to seasonal operation, contending that the county’s zoning rules for the RW5 district don’t allow for such a restriction.

It pushed back on being required to institute a wildlife habitat management plan, maintaining that the property contains no designated wildlife conservation areas and that requiring a study would impose obligations “not supported by the code or the record.”

Among her findings, Marshall wrote that allowing all 32 cabins would generate commercial-level traffic on a private gravel road used by nearby residents and exceed what is typical for a rural area. Limiting the project to 20 cabins, she concluded, would keep impacts at a reasonable level.

She also found Grouse Glen hadn’t provided sufficient evidence that the reflective surfaces would be safe for wildlife.

Any tree removal must be reviewed by the state Department of Natural Resources to determine whether it qualifies as timber harvest and requires state approval before clearing begins. The project also must keep existing vegetation for screening from Grouse Glen Way with any removal requiring an arborist report submitted to Clallam County.

The decision also requires Grouse Glen to apply for annexation into Clallam County Fire District 1 and prepare a fire protection plan to address emergency access and fire safety systems before the resort can open.

Grouse Glen also must design and apply for a Group water system from the state Department of Health before the resort can be built or operated.

“We were disappointed it wasn’t an outright rejection of the permit,” said Heather Cantua, one of the residents who had campaigned against the project. “But practically, we think the conditions get to the same result.”

Many of the conditions will require public comment periods and hearings.

“We plan to show up at every one of them,” she said.

Reached by text, Luanne Hinkle, who had served as Grouse Glen’s agent and representative, responded that she was no longer working with the company.

The hearing examiner’s decision may be appealed within 21 days by filing a land use petition with the Clallam County Superior Court clerk under the state’s Land Use Petition Act.

________

Reporter Paula Hunt can be reached by email at paula.hunt@peninsuladailynews.com.