Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council opens public hearings and gives first reading to two zoning amendments affecting Enumclaw Airport and commercial/light-industrial uses
Summary
The council opened public hearings and heard staff reports on Ordinance 28-37 (airport zoning setbacks and building height adjustments) and Ordinance 28-38 (expanded permitted uses including arts/vocational schools, gyms, and animal care standards); planning commission recommended approval and staff recommended first reading.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At its May 26 meeting, the Enumclaw City Council opened two public hearings and received staff reports on zoning amendments intended to clarify development standards.
Senior planner Winston Larson summarized Ordinance 28-37, which would amend the airport zoning district to reduce minimum side-yard setbacks from 20 feet to 10 feet and to allow accessory structures abutting residential districts up to 18 feet tall. "[The proposal is to] reduce the minimum side yard setbacks in the airport zoning district from 20 feet to 10 feet," Larson said, noting the amendment implements the 2024 comprehensive plan and that the planning commission recommended approval.
The council also heard Ordinance 28-38, which staff described as amendments to expand permitted uses in commercial and light-industrial zoning districts to include arts and vocational schools, gyms and fitness centers, health studios, and to add definitions and standards for animal shelters, daycare and boarding (including inside-pen requirements, setbacks from residential zoning, and waste-disposal standards). Larson said the changes are intended to resolve zoning inconsistencies and improve compatibility with surrounding residential areas.
Both items were presented for first reading after the council closed the hearings; no final adoption votes were taken tonight. Staff recommended the council either adopt the ordinances as presented, reject and direct further review, or modify and adopt as amended. The planning commission had recommended approval for both ordinances following earlier public hearings.
