Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council Hears First Readings for Airport and Commercial Zoning Changes
Summary
At its May 26 meeting the Enumclaw City Council heard staff presentations and gave first readings to two zoning amendments: Ordinance 28-37 (airport zoning setbacks and height rules) and Ordinance 28-38 (expanded uses including gyms and animal care with new standards). No public testimony was offered; both items were returned to staff for next steps.
Enumclaw — The City Council on May 26 received staff reports and held first readings for two municipal code changes affecting the airport zoning district and allowable uses in commercial and light industrial zones.
Winston Larson, the city’s senior planner, told the council Ordinance 28-37 would reduce minimum side-yard setbacks in the airport zoning district “from 20 feet to 10 feet” and amend a footnote to allow certain accessory structures up to 18 feet in height where the airport zoning district abuts residential property. Larson said the amendments are intended to align the zoning code with the Enumclaw Airport’s operational needs and the city’s 2024 comprehensive plan and noted the planning commission recommended approval on April 23, 2026.
On Ordinance 28-38, Larson described a package of changes to allow arts and vocational schools, gyms and fitness centers, health studios, and animal-related uses in targeted commercial and light industrial districts. He said the proposal also adds definitions and standards for animal shelters and daycare/boarding facilities to address compatibility concerns, including requirements for indoor pens, setbacks from residential zoning, and waste disposal standards.
The mayor opened both items to public comment; no speakers offered testimony and the hearings were closed. Staff outlined three options for council on each ordinance: adopt as presented, modify and adopt, or reject and direct further review. Council members asked procedural questions but did not substantially amend the proposed text at the meeting.
Because both matters were at first reading, no final vote was taken; staff said they will return with any recommended edits and next steps in the ordinance process.
