Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council holds first reading of airport zoning changes to shrink 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

At first reading, staff said Ordinance 2837 would reduce side-yard setbacks in the Enumclaw Airport zoning district from 20 to 10 feet and allow a lower accessory-structure height (up to 18 feet) where the airport abuts residential lots. Planning Commission recommended approval and staff asked council for a first reading and additional questions.

Enumclaw’s City Council opened a public hearing and gave first reading to Ordinance 2837, a proposed amendment to the airport zoning district that would reduce minimum side-yard setbacks and update height allowances.

Senior Planner Winston Larson told the council the amendment 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 a structure up to 18 feet in height where the airport zoning district abuts residential property. Larson said the changes are intended to "offer clearer and more adaptable development standards within the airport zoning district" and to ensure future projects remain compatible with aviation operations and surrounding uses.

Larson summarized the review history: the council adopted the airport zoning regulations in February 2025, the city received a request to reduce setbacks on January 23, 2026, the change was added to the 2026 work plan, and the Planning Commission reviewed and on April 23, 2026 recommended approval. Staff presented findings and a consistency analysis as part of the staff report and recommended the council proceed with first reading.

Mayor opened the hearing for public input; no members of the public spoke before the council closed the hearing. Council members asked clarifying questions and were invited to request further analysis or modifications before a subsequent reading. No formal vote on final adoption was taken at the May 26 meeting.

The council will determine whether to adopt the ordinance as drafted, reject it, or modify and adopt an amended version at a future meeting.