Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Airport topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council hears first reading on airport zoning amendments to reduce 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 recommended Ordinance 28-37 to reduce side-yard setbacks in the airport zoning district from 20 to 10 feet and to clarify maximum building heights where the airport district abuts residential zones; Planning Commission recommended approval and staff provided findings supporting consistency with the comprehensive plan.

The Enumclaw City Council opened a public hearing and heard staff recommendations for Ordinance 28-37, a municipal code amendment that would reduce side-yard setbacks in the airport zoning district and clarify height limits where that district abuts residential zones.

Senior Planner Winston Larson presented the staff report, explaining that the amendments would lower minimum side-yard setbacks from 20 feet to 10 feet in the airport zoning district and would allow accessory-structure-like heights in areas adjacent to residential properties. Larson said the proposed changes advance the city’s 2024 comprehensive plan goal of compatible aviation operations and regional transportation integration. "The proposed amendments contribute to the implementation of our existing 2024 comprehensive plan by offering clearer and more adaptable development standards," Larson told the council.

Larson reviewed the amendment history: the council adopted the airport zoning regulations in February 2025, the city received a request to reduce setbacks on January 23, 2026, and the city work plan included the item for this year. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 23, 2026, and voted to recommend approval.

The council opened and then closed the hearing after staff comments; staff recommended the city close the hearing and give first reading. No public testimony was offered during the hearing. The council did not take final action at the meeting; the item was advanced to first reading with staff direction and a future opportunity for further council action during subsequent readings.