Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Airport Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council holds first reading on airport zoning changes to shorten side-yard setbacks

Enumclaw City Council · May 26, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Enumclaw City Council held a public hearing and gave first reading to ordinance 28‑37, which would reduce side-yard setbacks in the airport zoning district from 20 feet to 10 feet and allow an 18‑foot accessory structure height where the district abuts residential property; the planning commission recommended approval.

The Enumclaw City Council opened a public hearing May 26 and heard a staff presentation before giving first reading to ordinance 28‑37, which proposes changes to the city’s airport zoning district.

Winston Larson, senior planner, told the council the proposal would “reduce the minimum side yard setbacks in the airport zoning district from 20 feet to 10 feet” and would amend a footnote to allow structures up to 18 feet in height where the airport district abuts residential zones. He said the amendments are intended to make development standards more adaptable while keeping new uses compatible with aviation operations and surrounding uses.

Larson said the planning commission reviewed the amendments and, following a public hearing on April 23, recommended the council approve the proposal. He also said the amendments were incorporated into the city’s approved 2024 comprehensive plan and were included on the city work plan earlier this year.

The council opened the public hearing and invited comment; no on‑the‑record public testimony was recorded for this item before the council closed the hearing and proceeded with first reading. The staff memo and findings of consistency were provided to council as part of the agenda packet.

Because this was a first reading, the council did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting; staff answered council questions about how the change would apply and explained options to adopt as presented, reject, or modify and adopt as amended at a subsequent meeting. The council closed the hearing at 7:12 p.m. and scheduled next steps consistent with a first‑reading process.