Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's party time. There he is. Got some dogs. Well, you know, did you swim from your jaw? Yeah. Awful. Weird. Who's starting, sir? Good evening, everyone. I'd like to welcome you to the Milton Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, March 11th, 2026. Would you please uh join us in the flag salute? And Commissioner Zoro, would you lead us? Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Next order of business is our roll call. Commissioner Bole here. Commissioner Oler present. Commissioner Johnson present. Commissioner Zoro here.

Vice Chair Whan present. Next item. And before we go to that, I do want to just make a public announcement. Own my stuff. Uh last month our meeting was not held because there was a thought that we did not have a quorum and I take responsibility for not having switched off default mode. Our bylaws state that a majority of the members of the planning commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. So the fact that we have five members at the moment means that a quorum as I understand things now would have been three. We had three at the past meeting. So I apologize to those who made the effort to come and we just were in default mode thinking and uh I apologize for any inconvenience. So, yes, Commissioner,

I looked at it as you were uh as you were being kind for the opinions of uh Commissioner Oer and that's why we didn't have the meeting is because you appreciated her input so much that we should probably hold the meeting. That's what I thought. Yeah. Right. I mean, that's Yeah. And most of our committees are the majority. Yeah.

Thank you, Jacqueline. Just want to own it. Um, so, uh, we're on to item number three, election of the chair and the vice chair. And we have a pretty detailed listing of what it takes, but it it just it's pretty simple. Does everyone understand? And I'll ask a few times for the more shy folks for a nomination. And I'd like to start off the nominations. And I'd like to nominate Commissioner Bole for position of chair for 2026. Other nominations? I'd like to nominate uh Commissioner Oer. Okay.

I'd also like to nominate Commissioner Oer. Um just for my understanding, do we do chair completely separate from vice chair and then we'll move on to that? Perfect. Yes.

Yeah. So, we'll run through. I'm sorry. I should have just highlighted a few things for our audience and reminder for us all. We'll go through the chair. I'll ask a few times in case there's folks who are shy or thinking about it. And uh the vote for the nominations are in the order that the nominations are made. And so, first any other nominations for chair. Okay. So, the first person nominated, Commissioner Bole. All those in favor for electing Commissioner Bole to be our chair for 2026, please signify by saying I.

I. So that looks like two correct two to three. Okay. All those in favor of electing So that motion failed just to be clear. Uh all those in favor of electing Commissioner Oler as chair, please signify by saying I. I Okay, we have five in favor of Commissioner Oler for chair. Next will be vice chair. Anyone like to open up nominations for vice chair? I move to nominate Commissioner Johnson for vice chair.

Okay. Any other nominations? I'd like to nominate Commissioner Bole for vice chair. And do we have any other nominations? One more time. Okay. Hearing none, uh, Commissioner Johnson was nominated first for vice chair for 2026. All those in favor of Commissioner Johnson as vice chair for 2026, please signify by saying I. I. I.

We have a three to two votes. So, Commissioner Johnson will be our vice chair for 2026. So, next thing, Commissioner Oler, are you ready to take the gavvel or would you like to take the gavl next month? You too. We can continue since you're prepared to with so many discussions of the All righty. Significant. Well, we have Commissioner Vice Chair. Do you want to take on the meeting or would you like to wait till next month in the event of I'm happy to do it? But uh Jacine, I respect you. Let's just go ahead and wait till the next meeting. Okay. All right.

Fine. Thank you for that for us.

You're welcome. Definitely. Okay. So, we're on to item four, additions, deletions, and corrections to tonight's agenda. Anybody have any topics or corrections? Seeing none, we now have item five on our agenda, public participation, and that is for a public hearing on our proposed community forest preservation uh regulations as they stand at the moment. So, do we have a sign-in sheet? I'll run over and get that. Excuse me. We're doing public participation Or are we doing the minutes?

Yeah, we'll correct it.

Thank you. It takes a village. I've really learned that this week. I think it's only Wednesday.

It's only Wednesday. It's the time change. public participation for the purpose of making a comment as a member of our community to address any issue that you feel the planning commission should be made aware of. And are there any members of the audience who have a public comment just in general? Seeing none. Okay, we're moving along to the approval of the minutes for December 10, 2025. Any corrections or edits? Anyone? No. No.

So, may I have a motion, please, to approve the minutes? Yes. Move to approve the minutes as amended October 7th, 2026, which passed 4 to zero. What I'm country Yeah. So the minutes and it's December 10th. It's for December 10th. December 10th. Okay. But it has the Oh, I'm sorry. We usually have the motion at the top. I'm reading the previous motion. Yeah. Um I move to move the December 10th 25. Usually at the top it says what the motion is. Okay.

Last week's motion. So we have a motion made by Commissioner Johnson. Say it again. Second. A motion. I want the motion to approve the December 10th 20. You're good. It can't be that it can't be. We didn't have a January meeting. We canled the February meeting. It is the December meeting. We didn't meet yesterday. We literally haven't met since December. Yes, that is correct. Um, whatever you all want because this is telling me it's either the 10th or it's it's the 10th. We did not meet. Today's the 11th. Today's the 11th of March. So, I can say 11th, right? What? So, we're we're on We're doing the minutes. You know what? I think we all should go out and have a soda.

Usually, this is easy. I want to approve the minutes that are in the meeting agenda tonight. Now you put the date on it that you want, but it is showing me You're losing it. December 10th. It is showing me October 7th. You're good. You said it. I said it correctly. The first Okay. Okay. So, just to clarify, a motion's been made to approve the minutes for December 10, 2025. Correct. A motion's been made by Commissioner Johnson. It's been seconded by Commissioner Zaro. Yes. Any comments? Seeing none, we need All those in favor, please indicate by saying I.

I. Any opposed? The motion passes 5 to zero. Now we're on to the public hearing. Okay. Uh so, manager Stalenecker, would you like to just give a brief overview and uh Yes.

before we start the public hearing? Thank you, planning commission members. Um, so before us is um it's PLN 2026-00001 proposed community forest preservation. This would be adding a section to our code. Um, so the planning commission work plan in 2025 identified reviewing and updating the landscaping section. Yeah, thank you. Way too loud. It's verb. Yeah, it's reverbing. She's already got enough problems over here because I sit next to you. Um, and so part of that includes

better

um tree replacement and per the discussions that staff had and then community the um planning commission had, it really felt that this area needed to be pulled out and have its own new section. Um, we've received a lot of input from the from the public. We held um some information at the last Milton days that really showed that um the residents of Milton were supportive and kind of wanted to make sure that we are maintaining our trees and our in our urban forest. And so tonight is the first um public hearing that this this is the public hearing that the planning commission holds. they will eventually make a recommendation to the city council who will hold a second public hearing prior to their um adoption or at least taking action on it if they support it. Um so the draft is attempting to outline more specific definitions and requirements for the permitting process to sort of identify and protect those trees that have the most value. um update the tree replacement to more of an industry norm, allow an inloo of option, and direct the city to establish an urban forest management plan. Um there my anticipation is that there is not an adoption tonight there. It's not recommended um that there will be more discussion, but we wanted to make sure that we were getting public input early on as we were re um amending and revising this version.

Okay. Thank you for that, Minister Stalenecker. So, I'd like to open up the public hearing at 6:14 p.m. And uh we have some people signed up to offer comments during the public hearing period on the proposed community forest preservation regulations. First is Jackie Strader. you just say your name and the city you live in. Thank you.

Um Jackie Strader, Milton, Washington. Um I support a tree code and I support trees. However, I have some thoughts. um they're a little disjointed as um I go through it, but I own an undeveloped lot and I live on what by this code would be considered an underdeveloped lot and I have two other underdeveloped lots in or in Milton. And on my undeveloped lot, I have 16 exceptional trees, seven significant trees, and they're in a in four groves that based on the way the code is written could potentially make the lot unbuildable. Um, it's like this. if this was it's 90 by 210. And so as you're um making your decisions, it's deciding um how to go about it because to look to certain people in town who live in on lots that I love my trees. To me, it's like a cathedral when I'm when we're sitting out there looking up at them. But someday we won't own it. And if it has zero value, then we've been paying taxes and storm water and everything on a lot that based on this current code could potentially be unbuildable or of significantly reduced value if there's only a very small size lot. And I know I've talked with um the planning manager about that concern and I believe that there will be some allowance made. It's just looking at it overall. I also believe that the in order to protect trees, if it's true

that the majority of Milton protect believes in protecting trees, then it should apply to all the lots because there are some lots that are that are not considered underdeveloped that have significant trees. And shouldn't we want to save those trees too rather than um just the ones that are developer attractive? Um I like Kirkland's code because they have a minimum number of trees and if you're below that number, you can't take a tree down. I believe it's three trees or five trees. And so if you want to take down your tree, you can't if you don't have the minimum number or it's possible. It's been I was ready last month and so the thoughts are now all disjointed. But they had a system in place. They had thought of all these different ways of meeting it. And I really like the way their code was done. I also appreciate what Coington's trying to do. I like what Burian's trying to do. I looked at Bellingham. I like how they're looking at it. There's, you know, a lot of thought in it and I just think this is a really good start. I hope we keep doing it. Um, it's just, it concerns me because it might be taking from some people expecting some people to sacrifice for the majority and I think that that's going to make it difficult to pass. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. So, the next person we have signed up to speak on the regulations as they stand at the moment is Linda Flanigan. If you'd come on up and name the city you live in. Thank you. I'm Linda Flanigan. I live in Milton over in the mobile park. I am late to this party, so I'm just here mostly to find out what's going on. My main concern is all of the huge spots that are being just laid bare and all of our forests are just going away. That eyes sore over along the freeway, I don't know what it's for. I don't know what it's doing. It acres and acres and hundred acres of trees just gone. The watershed is ripped aside. The whatever they want to call that cult thing that's going on, they call it a church over by the lake. The wershed into the lake has been totally ruined. They're putting up apartments, houses, and they're just taking everything down. And so I'm very concerned about that. And the rest I'm just here to find out. Thank you.

Thank you. Could you spell her last name, please? Uh, it's Flanigan. F L A N I G A N. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Uh, is there anyone else who wishes to comment? Yes, please come forward and say your name and the city you live in, please.

So, my name is Barbara Buck. I live in Milton. So just listening to all this, I just read through um the proposed, you know, draft of this ordinance, which I think is fantastic, long time coming. But again, you know, based on the comments from this last young lady, wouldn't it make a lot of sense with all the development happening around Milton and we are all all are feeling it. We all see it. What about a moratorium on even cutting down a tree until this ordinance gets put into place? Because again, if you look at what happened on Milton Way and Porter right on the corner, it's a travesty. I have videos of old growth trees, huge trees falling to the ground, you know, and if you've been in this city long enough, that lot sat with beautiful trees on it for so many years and then all of a sudden one day gone down to dirt. Awful. And I'm very much a fan of maintaining the topography here in Milton and having the trees. And I get that we also need to grow and develop as a city, but I don't think that we need to be a clear-cut side of the hill. When you're coming north on I5, all you see is the sign of Milton and no trees. So, thank you. Hey.

Okay. Is there anyone else? Okay. Thank you for your comments. Thank you for making the time to come on out and uh join in the process. And so I will now close the hearing at 6:21 p.m. Okay. So Amandra Stalenecker, would you like to start?

Yeah, I'd like to continue. Um that was um first obviously appreciate the comments and letting people know that um you're not too late to the party because the whole point is we are really at the beginning of it and that's part of why we wanted to um have input from the residents and the public early. So um as I said the draft we've been working on for a couple weeks. Um, planning commissioner Whan um, last month provided a copy of Burian's um, and suggested that it might be a good place for us to to use as the the template. Um, I I do agree that it is a really good um I have um a really good setup. It covers a lot more than what we had originally started looking at. Um I don't have um a strong it it doesn't hurt my feelings if the planning commission feels like we want to use that more as the starting base than trying to kind of adapt what we've already done. Um, I did take this time the Berian code since I had a little bit more time to look at it and sort of um, let's see. So that so this has so the first section has our red line. Um, and then looking at the Burian code. Um, the other thing that, you know, obviously if you want, if you're feeling like you like that one better as a whole, I'm happy to take it and we can kind of look through it and add if there's any concerns or things we want to change or develop. So, I guess first I'd just like a feel of yes, we're like we want to discuss Burian's code or no, we want to stick with what we're working on because if we want to discuss Burian's code, I would love to just kind of go through and each section with it and get a feel of what people are thinking. So, it looks like there's a consensus to

go through Birian.

Okay. And just a quick thing, I'm going to uh uh confirm that all the commissioners got the email. Thank you, manager stacker for forwarding it. And I'll pass these out to the audience. that is uh Bureans face forward to the public simplifying their rules relative to their uh tree replacement program. So, I'm just going to step away for a moment and be right back and I'll leave the floor to Manager Stalenecker for the moment. So, they have a user guide. Um we don't that isn't standard for ours. So we can look through and see if that is something we feel like would need to be

kept or if it's sort of duplicates. Um, you know, but so that part I'm not 100% sure on just because I like I said, I don't know if that's something they have in every one of their sections. Correct.

Um, and if it is, is that something we want to start or not start? So that part I'm not sure about. um the purposes obviously I would mesh the purposes we've been working on and see if there's anything that they um appreciate you know that we would like to add and then it goes into applicability exemptions permitting and review authority which is all you know that's the fine-tuning of the procedures of how we do it so I guess I think it makes sense those first three or more just sort of high level is there any thoughts comments on um A, B, and C, which is 010, 020, and 030.

Okay. Anyone with comments? I have a couple questions. Commissioner Bole, uh, do you have another copy of this for Commissioner Johnson? I can't I'm having problems with my email. My city email. Oh, yeah. Did you with the stuff that she sent out? Yeah, I the stuff for today. Yeah. Awesome. hears us. Did it just come today? Yes. Yes, that was I haven't been home. That's why then. So,

um I had a question about um we've got So, we've got the page 7 through 12 or 13 is the draft and then we redline the draft. So, what we're suggesting is maybe we toss that for the most part and start with 21. Okay. And sort of maybe mesh some of what we've talked about into 21, but instead of keep fixing what we've got. Oh, 21. Totally Berian code. Yes.

Totally. Start with Berian's code as our template and then decide as our Yeah. And then see if there's anything. Obviously, you know, it'd be easy to go through and switch everything out to Milton, but kind of see what their requirements are and then decide if we want to amend from that seems to be on page 12 that minimum tree replacement ratio. Is that already in our code? That's the thing.

So, um, Berian takes a different approach which we'll, um, I'm happy to explain now and then we'll get to it a little more in depth. instead of having a strictly tree replacement ratio, what they do is they say depending on the size of your property, you have to have so many credits. So, I think it's one credit per like a thousand square feet. So, if you are an 8,000 foot lot, you need eight credits. And then it says if you're retaining a very large tree, that might be worth six credits, right? I read all that in here. So, we would sort of we would but I was wondering what's in our code right now. I never had time to look. Our code is pretty close. It's a little bit different. Um, but it's pretty close to what's on page 12.

Okay, that's what I I recalled from years back. Um Um, while I got the floor here, I just had a couple things for people to keep in mind is that um keep in mind the rationality of enforcement. um you know, people are going to cut trees down on weekends and this and that and the other and we're limited on resources for enforcement for anything around here. Um not that that's an excuse. um we still need to put it in the code, but I just see things like um preemptive meetings with the city or you know before development so everybody's on the same page and understands the code and what trees can be cut down and what trees absolutely cannot be cut down. you get something like the there on the corner

um that was mentioned of Porter and and Milton Way. You know, they could have kept a tree or two there, but you know, it did it slip through the cracks, you know, who knows? But um I definitely think uh enforcement and uh and education with developers uh is going to be key for keeping our trees. I mean,

so with with large development projects, they have to turn in what trees they're keeping, what trees, um, they have to do all that as part of the process. Um, the challenge with that property is they reusing part of it. Um, their storm water is going where most of the trees are being taken down. So that challenge with that, which this will hopefully tighten that so they won't have quite as much flexibility to do that as they did under the current code. Um, I think the enforcement challenge will be more if we really want to do it for individual houses that are already developed. What's ironic about that is trees are the best for storm drainage.

Yeah. But we also require them to put in giant massive overg and this will hopefully Yes. It it will get us better tools than what we've had in the past to um but we do with developers meet with them. they have to provide stuff. Um, yeah. Okay, fair enough. I'm off my soap box. Thank you for the time. Yes, Vice Chair Johnson.

Thank you. I agree with Commissioner Royal. I mean, Theres, this is a better start than what we've had in the P. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I had this off. That's my alarm. Um, we have to do something because I believe it has to be fair for all sides. People that are not developing their property and people that are uh going to develop their property, underdeveloped or whatever. And so we can't penalize one group in the city for a developer and rules to allow them to do certain things. So everything should be sort of equal on the requirements and that's and I understand uh from the audience that is a need and we do have some properties and when I look at the church property and all the trees that were taken down there and I haven't the replacements are different and then we've also talked about with

uh oh Mike uh did some there go did it it stopped I think it's the rain

it's intentional But it we've talked about it before is with this ordinance we want to develop a way to see what trees we want in Milton. What type of canopy do we want in Milton? What is fair? Is it the circumference of the tree or where in the credits are? And so um I like variance. I think it's fair, but I did not focus in on to the as to the person who has undeveloped property in the future of what would happen for that piece of property.

I did I didn't focus on that on the Berian one. I don't know comments. I found the Burian and thank you so much Commissioner Whan for finding that and sharing it with us. I think it's really helpful. It's a lot simpler. It's as you as you go through it, it's very easy to understand and it seems like it simplifies a lot of things. So, I agree that it's a great starting point. I like it. Thank you for sharing it. You're welcome.

Um, generally I agreed uh I like the Birian code. But I was against the credit system at first because it seemed al um unnecessarily um confusing and um to be too much. But I do agree the Berian credit system seems to be very straightforward. Um as far as what um manager Stallenecker was asking about user guide, if we don't have a user guide anywhere else, I say nix it. Um if it's truly just summarizing what they're going to read anyways. Um, purpose. I agree with mashing it into our existing purpose. Um, combining them. I'm sure there's a lot of overlap. Um, yeah. Okay. And I will say my intent is to take comments tonight, kind of try to embed it into this code so that next month we have a draft that is now our draft that we can then look at and adjust if we need to. So,

thank you. U I'll add on just uh user guide. It's it's handy, but perhaps uh a useful place would be in that citizen forward web page that we provide. Uh I think I don't know Burian's strategy for their municipal code. Uh and it could be that they just um that's their standard. I don't know. But it it gives a lot of useful information in terms of the overall uh goal which is all lots are going to be affected

undeveloped. So that's a vacant lot. Uh developed lots uh tree removal as a result of development activity. Tree removal because somebody's doing maintenance. It it just seemed to be a broader approach. Uh, and as far as applicability, uh, that what they have works for me. So, uh, so now we're on to 19.26.040. So, I figure I'll go through because I think of the tree protection is 040 and 050. Um so O4 is the idea of what is an exceptional tree which is idea that this is a tree that we want to protect at a higher rate. Um so it starts and it talks about you know that it's any tree for the most part um 30 in or greater. It talks about that we are um that we are regulating it on all lots. So that is something that would be new. Right now if it's an existing single family or duplex property, we don't regulate if people cut down their trees no matter the size. So that would be something new that the city would do is if you have a large tree on your private property or if you don't have enough credits and you want to cut them down, they would need to get a permit and and different things. So that would be something that we'd have to do um a real good job of education. I will say that 10 years ago, I hardly ever got anyone calling and asking if they needed a tree permit. Weekly get calls from people. So, people sort of are on that assumption that they probably need a tree permit. So, I think I think the education will go easier and I think people will not be surprised, but it will be an education step if we decide to move that way. Um, and so it talks about, you know, the size of that. And then it does have a table because

there are certain trees that either could be an exceptional tree um at a smaller threshold. And then um yeah, so it depends. it kind of says there's some trees that might be different and so we want to recognize that and again we can take theirs I can look and compare it with um there are some great standards from Seattle King County Pierce County Tacoma who have done more work on this because they have bigger staffs and see what their thing thinking is um it also t you know this also mentions in this that there's certain trees that they just don't consider no matter the size a red alder an ash black cottonwood Ble cherry are just never going to be exceptional because of the type of tree they are.

Like they're bad. They're Well, yeah. I mean, they're basically saying they're not. Yeah, you can cut them down. They have their place, but but yes, they're a weed.

So, that would be the idea is, you know, we would review that. Um, and then with that, if you look on page 26 is where it starts talking about credits. And so the first table um talks about so again it would be our um we'd have to look at our zones but we have our basic residential zones. It has basically one tree credit per thousand square ft of development. So again if you're making 8,000 foot lots it would be um eight tree credits. And then if you look on page 27 it tells you how you get those credits. So, if you're keeping a six to, you know, if you're planting or keeping um a 6 to 10 inch, see if I read this rightly. Yeah. Um tree, you're going to get a credit for that. If you're, you know, so if you are keeping a larger a 30 inch or greater exceptional tree, you get nine credits for that. So, if you have an 8,000 foot lot. You have one exceptional tree. You keep it. You've met your criteria. We're not requiring you to plant any additional trees on this level. The um flip side, and this is where it does give some equitability that we don't have right now. So, right now, if you have a lot that has 10 trees and you need to cut down eight of them, you're replacing eight times however many that replacement tree is. If you have a lot that has zero trees, we're not requiring you to do any tree replacement or any tree planting other than maybe some front, you know, street trees or something

in our current in our current code. So, what this would say is, okay, there's zero trees on this lot. You at least have to get eight credits. So, it's having people plant trees on vacant lots, but not penalizing people as much on lots that have trees. And hopefully that will balance that out a little better. So that's sort of the heart of the whole idea um of that. So I'm going to stop there and again this gets you a better idea of how that tree credit works and how we're feeling on that. Okay. So just to be clear, you just highlighted some key points on 19.26040 and 0.050, correct? Just those two

correct sections. Okay. So uh going around on those two sections and again this is just big picture concepts what makes sense concerns uh anyone have any yes chairman

it was brought up earlier about um the the lots that have not been developed and like a fear that that would be overregulation on those lots. I'm reading this is 0040 exceptional trees C lot undergoing development three exceptional trees may be removed if retention limits constructable building coverage less than 85% of the maximum building coverage. Is that something that we feel adequately like protects those homeowners who have those kinds of lots?

Okay, thank you for that question. And uh so maybe highlight that question about the mechanics and do you have any comments manager stalenecker on yeah so I yeah so I think the idea is if if in most cases we're going to say you're going to we're going to prioritize keeping that exceptional tree but if that exceptional tree is right in the center and this says you know you can't really it would make it so you really couldn't develop it then yes we will let you you're going to have to do the credits or you know different things but it does sort of you you may have to do some replacements, but it it does allow exceptional trees to be taken down under certain circumstances.

So, I can do a little bit of digging too if that is the right number. What's the thought on that? And what are the what's the algebra so to speak? I looked at what are we talking about? What is Berian? I'm sorry to interrupt.

Uh but just what does Berian mean by building coverage? Is it the same thing we mean? uh in other areas of the code they talk about developable area. So, uh, the terms and such ought to just be clear, I'm so I would just love to see some examples of how that 85% number uh works out. And then secondly, I'm sorry, chairman er on that topic. Any other feel free, please.

Okay. But uh but right beneath that um Roman numerals IV4 under so they're talking about whoops it's blanking lot undergoing development and it's talking about uh departures may be granted in order to prevent removal or potential damage to an exceptional tree. And um they do highlight a few uh so that's something else for us to really think about is in terms of staff that of okay you have this tree it's it's exceptional uh maybe there's some ways we can adjust our zoning code and I'm really worried about doing this kind of business but uh perhaps a convers conversation with Burian's Forester to say, "Does this get used a lot?" I've read material that says builders don't necessarily go on board with um uh uh incentives or exceptions type of things. And so there's just a lot of caveats. So I think that'll take a lot of looking into to just see is that the way that we want to go. Do we want to wait a year to see what would be uh reasonable negotiation? I mean it may instead of taking out a tree maybe the rules for where the driveway goes are different or

Yeah. And that's if you look under next month is it talks about having some incentives so or at least some options. So, like maybe the the um exceptional tree is in the backyard um and it says, "Okay, if you're willing to keep it, we're willing to give you instead of a 20ft front yard setback, we can go up to a 10 foot setback just to protect that tree." So it gives us or like there's some parking things or there's some incentives to say we will compensate in some one area if you keep if you know if just shifting it a little bit would keep that tree then staff and the city is willing to do that. So those are some things to look at to see if you're comfortable with those that would keep that tree.

But yes, Vice Chair Johnson. Um, for me, I really want us to try to get this done this year and not put off because of what happened at Porter and Milton White. I we know we have to make adjustments for growth, but that was the s and when I looked at the property on 23rd, I still think a stronger tree uh ordinance would have prevented and saved more trees. The other thing is in this and I haven't seen it yet when I mentioned the last meeting were those trees that are invasively known in Washington state. And so in the code if we provide a link to what the current status is in Washington and say our canopy in Milton adheres to the Washington state that these trees are not allowed. We all love the butterfly bush that grows into a tree, but it's invasive. So, that's a choice we have to look at. Uh, and again, I mentioned earlier about what type of trees do we want? It has to do with that. Um, and trying to adhere to our climate and things that don't invade and hurt other trees that we have that are in indict u nature's wise here.

So, a prohibited tree list or these are or the link Yes. I would suggest just going with the Washington State University Cooperative Extensions current list because they keep it updated. Yeah. Well, the Department of Revenue Resources has it also at the state and so I think the code is the state has as well, but as long as we have something know that that mic is having issues. Oh, it's me today. Don't worry,

Commissioner Bole. believe this we should move forward on this and stay on this. Um, absolutely. Uh, we've kicked this can down the road at least since I've been on the commission at least three or four times. So, uh, I'd like to see this uh, extended out and some some teeth to this because I mean it's just moving up the road. We've gone from the we were talking about this development here. What do you think's going to happen when the fire station goes in? Yeah. When the fire station goes in, how many trees are over there behind Canon Electric? That thing's going to be wiped out. I guarantee you. Got to do it before the permit. So, we might be a little late on that, but it depends on the funding.

Yeah. Keep voting for the fire department and you're going to keep building buildings. Any other u comments on 040? Uh, Commissioner Bole or 050? Commissioner Zaro? Um, for example, if I have a single family home on a lot that currently has zero trees, are we saying once this passes, every single family home in Milton that has zero trees better get out there and get to it? No. Okay. So, it what it does do is it says if you um if you decide to build an ADU

or if you just I think it's like 500 square feet, if you're going to add on to your home, then we would look at requiring you to also um plant trees. So, if you currently don't have any trees, there's nothing that would kick in. It would only be if you had, I think, an exceptional tree that we would have to um that might prevent you from cutting it down without going through a process. Okay. Thank you. And if you want to plant trees, you will not be penalized. Correct. And the city is actually on a totally side note tangent, we're hoping in the fall the city itself is actually looking at maybe having some trees available for people who want to plant. So nice. That's a side note. Yeah.

Uh other comments? Uh I'll just say briefly that one of the things I appreciate is the exceptional tree table with threshold diameters at standard height is just that acknowledgement that various species become a really sizable uh valuable tree u at at less than u 30 in many cases. Uh, and if the tree isn't on that list, then the number is if the tree standing there is 30 in diameter standard height, it's considered exceptional. And the rules for exceptional trees apply. So that's the point of that table. It's not saying those are the only trees you can plant or whatever. And on 050, I'll just make the comment that uh I like the idea of uh uh requiring a minimum number of tree credits per thousand square feet because we have lots that are of great variety uh in size. It's very proportional. So, if you have a if you're in a zone where the minimum lot size is 4,000 square feet, okay, there's there's a guideline for you. If you have a 10,000 square foot lot, there's a number for you. You've got 10,000 square feet times the one. So, I think it's pretty straightforward and and manageable. But yes, this is a lot of verbiage. I'm not saying this is the perfect thing and there's a few things I'd add to the code overall, but I appreciate the interest to just say this might be a good interim, see how it works and we'll keep a subcommittee going on this whatever. So, uh, and I also appreciate, uh, underneath that

table that says required minimum tree credits. Uh, I like that there's examples in the code, so it's just it's easy for someone who's plowing through all of this material. And I also uh appreciate that it's really specifying whether the lot is that doesn't meet the minimum tree credits. What do they have to do to get into conformance? uh if trees are being cut later on in the code it talks about well we want you to keep some of them and then you can do replacement for the others. So it seemed mechanically uh responsive to a variety of different circumstances and uh I think that was it on 050 for me. So uh shall we go on to 0.06 060 tree removal not associated with development.

So yeah, so 060 and 070 deal with um tree removal. The first is with not associated with development. um looking at um so again if if it's already developed or it's completely vacant and they don't know what they want to do with it, it kind of works through what they are allowed to take down, what they're not. Um it talks about, you know, that for significant trees, depending on your size of your lot, it kind of limits them. So again, it's preventing people from going in and clear cutting. Um, it also talks about that you still have to meet the tree credit. So, if it's a vacant lot, but you feel for some reason you need to remove a certain tree at a certain size, you would still then have to replace it or have make sure you're still above the credits for that size property. Um, and it has limit, you know, once you've replaced trees, they have to stay there for so long. Um, and they do have to come in and get a permit. So we're making sure that they meet all of those different issues. Um if they are saying that it is um forest management plan, you know, they have to have a force management plan, that kind of thing. So that's that first section for just um if you're not associated with development. So they have you have a permit, they have to show that a significant tree has a risk. um or it's on the prohibited, we don't need it. It's dead or likely. So, they have to have somebody who's and again, this is requiring someone who is a professional to come in and demonstrate that to provide us a report and a study that shows that and they still have to and then we would also look at those minimum credits.

And then you got to pay to have the guy take the tree down. And then you have to pay to have the guy take the tree. You got a permit, you've got an arborist, and you've got uh I would assume a professional doing it hopefully and your time because you have a tree that's overgrowing on your neighbors. You don't want to looks like a Saturday job to me. Um I had a question. Hard to hide those stumps. Okay. So we're just going to stay on 060 for the moment. Yeah, let's just do 060. Okay. Just because it's enough different. Okay. So, Commissioner Bole, you want to get us started with any questions or

um for 060, tree removal not associated with development? Nope, she just answered my questions on that.

Okay, I I'll fill in the gap there for a moment and just note that the table 19.26.060-1 060-1 significant tree removal allowances, no permit required. Again, there is something that's discussing based on your lot size, how many trees can be removed per 12 months. I don't know how that works. Is it 12 months since the last one was done or how that that would be a question again for Burian to know how do you and are we okay with them not having to do a permit? I mean, it seems like a really cheap permit might be a safer bet.

Okay. That's a significant tree, not an exceptional tree. Correct. Or significant or a heritage tree. It's significant. Well, the significant tree is a significant tree is different than an exceptional tree. Yeah. We go back the table.

I'm sorry. No part of it, too. Uh, I I'm I'm either way on it, but I tend to feel that um I I guess it's about the permit structure and how you base it. Uh because I know that in many cases it's just, hey, we want you to come in, pay the $10. It's more expensive staff timewise, but here we're chatting with you about what the rules are just so you don't trip into a problem that you didn't anticipate because you didn't understand something. So, I'm not opposed to it, but um I think what Burian is just trying to say is I took it as, you know, here's this idea that if you're doing maintenance u or you've got a hazardous tree or there's reasons why things would be exempted, but if you wanted more daylight um as long as this threshold of minimum tree credits stays and everybody's abiding by that minimum um tree credit per lot size, etc. Um I I think it's I think it might address a comment that was made earlier, but that was heritage trees or exceptional trees. Anyway, I'm talking in circles, but I I'll just point out the chart and say I think there's merit there. And if staff feels that a permit is advantageous, uh please just keep it inexpensive. Um,

and there are times when we don't, there are things like in the shorelines and the critical areas that doesn't require permit per se, but it does say you must notify the city ahead of time. So maybe it's something where we just say you need to notify us. So my intent is not to want to find people. My intent is to make sure they are aware of the rules and the guidelines. So it might be something like that. And another comment, if some of these things are starting to spin around in your head, the email that uh I asked Manager Stalctar to to send out with the handouts, there was that matrix that just really made it very user friendly to understand when a permit's required, whether it's a major or a minor permit. Um, and try to help people parse through the situation. Um, so any other comments on 06?

Brian obviously has a graphic designer on staff. Um, I, you know, this is a probably a side issue that just I wondered as we were reading through this doesn't touch on those kinds of things that when Commissioner Bole brought up it's a hazard to your neighbor. this isn't that kind of uh this this doesn't touch on those kinds of disputes when your neighbor says I think you should cut your tree down. It looks like it's going to fall on my house or it's leaning over its leaves are dropping onto my roof. Like those kinds of disputes aren't covered by this plant at all. Correct.

No, those become civil issues. I mean, yeah. So, if if a neighbor believes then, you know, one neighbor A believes neighbor B's tree, then they have to amongst themselves figure out if it is or not. Um and it's a civil issue. Ours is just whether or not again if if neighbor A if neighbor B take gets does a study and say oh my yes it is a liability and different things then they could apply to have it removed but we don't get into disputes with that completely separate. Yep.

I was more referring to in my defense uh me being a good neighbor knowing that my tree is hanging over my neighbor's house. That's I wasn't insinuating that I didn't like my neighbor's tree. Uh but uh anyways, I got a couple comments here which since we're going back and forth about trees and somebody mentioned Kirkland's code. I just remind everybody that um when we had the big windstorm last year and that lady was killed, you know where she was killed? She was killed in Kirkland. And you know, if you ever drive through uh bridal trails and all that and it's beautiful fur trees, cedar trees as far as the eye can see, but they do not allow people to thin out those trees or anything. You cannot touch those trees. And so you just have to remember that it could become a hazard. You know, we build houses and there's a tree two foot around 4 foot from the foundation. I see that as a hazard. Some people do not. And then when it comes down, it comes down. And uh so I I I'm all about tree protection and canopy protection and all that, but we have to keep in mind that at some sometimes uh a tree does need to be taken down. But and so I'm going to be focusing on the replanting and the credit system um more than the policing. I'll leave that up to the city.

Yes. Uh, Vice Chair Johnson.

Oh, thank you. Okay. When I look at page 28 dealing with the tree removal not associated with development and then I go over to page 29 and I look at tree removal associated with development activity, I question why is there more requirement for one not associated with development versus one associated with development? And on uh the tree removal on 28 there's an dates of the calendar days and expiration days but I don't see the same thing. Um I am from when I read it before you know you look at 192670 tree removal associated with development significant trees and emotional emotional excuse me exceptional trees shall be retained major major major and then back on to 28 it's minor minor minor don't develop property have major trees

so I think maybe I'm reading it wrong no so I think part of it is um if a property is already developed, we're really only regulating when they can take down a tree. When you switch over to development activity, it's actually they're doing 07. They're also doing 080. So they're they're having to we're looking at what they can remove, what they have to maintain, what they have to protect, and they have to do a full study for us,

right? Um, so I think it's the idea is that even though it's in some ways less dictated, um, it's because they're having to provide us a lot more documents. And you can say that in fewer words. How about for when the permits expire and the issue dates under the developed activity? I might have I thought that would have been at about the same area and I couldn't quite see that. 070 B 070B 180 days.

Okay. But over here there's a permit application within 60 days. So I'm just looking for you know what is the difference in the some of the rules for a person who owns their property versus somebody having a property they already sold for development. So the the associate with development means that they have also applied for the permit permit. So they they have come in and they are saying already done that

they're they're doing they're doing a site plan. So, as part of their site plan, they have to provide us a plan of what keep trees they're keeping, where's their storm. So, it's gonna it's a longer process for us to review. It's going to it may or may not need a hearing. So, you know, so you're going through all that and then once they get approved all that, they may have, you know, they may not. Now, most of the time they do take the trees down right away, but they may not. They may um be working on some other stuff first. where if you're coming in on a property that has a house, you're coming in because you want to cut the tree down right away.

Okay. I want to follow up on that. So, we have the tree removal for not develop not for development, but a person owns the property. They have all these trees. See minor tree. They may have major tree. I'm let's take it one step back own property say 2 acres 1 acre is full glove okay has lots of trees I'm not planning on developing it all right but I'm telling you that now I go ahead and take down major trees that also show smaller trees But I in my mind I know I'm going to sell it in a year. You see where I'm

So it's I think the minor in the major is the type of permit not the type of tree. Does that help? Yes and no. Because we people aren't always honest. So what I'm saying is how do we prevent a person who owns property taking advantage of this where they should really be under this?

Well, so if you're under 28 on page 2829, um it's basically I mean it's saying you can only take down if you look at the table on page 29, you're only able to take down depending on your size of your lot one or two trees per year. So it's it's again it's it's limiting. You might be able to take down one tree or maybe two trees, but we're if you're developing we might say yes, you can take down 12 trees, but you're you but you're maintaining these credits and everything. So is that can I make a comment? Yeah, because I know you've studied this code probably more

a little bit more and boy when you start reading so many cities approach this with So anyway, enough said. Uh, I share the same concern and I've seen it happen already. There's word in the community. Yes,

we're discussing improving the standards for protecting our community's urban forest and I've already witnessed people just they're just cutting them down kind of thing. So, I looked at Kirkland's code which is above my bandwidth to really grasp. It's like three times as long, at least twice as long as Burian's at least. Um, but they have something in their code and the website for Kirkland also has a, you know, a public face of some really helpful tools calculating the diameter. But one of them is a questionnaire as to what kind of permit you need. And it asks the question, have you removed a tree in the last 12 months? Have you removed a tree in the last 24 months? So that's a look back. And my question to staff is if we put a rule in there in our code now and says that basically says if you've cut a tree down 12 months ago, uh that is going to have a bearing or an impact on what you can do now. In Kirkland's case, they tell you you're not going to get a permit for a year. They I I was surprised a little bit. Kirkland's pretty strict. They've got very strong fines. They I mean anyway, uh but that I I sense that's what you're saying is somebody planning ahead saying, "Well, gee, it says I can remove x amount of significant trees." So that's a tree that's under 30 inches in diameter, and it lets me do it, but it's only it's limited to how many you can do per lot, per 12 months. So that I think the goal is a sense of slowing down the deforestation because unless we have a code in our

zoning code that promotes building tree houses, you know, it's hard to put a person where a tree is. And so it is a real seessaw and and and tussle. So would it help next meeting to try to come up with some various examples? Um, yes. Yes. And then try to see if I can apply the code to it and see what that would mean in practical standpoints, especially the things we fear most, the clearcut today. Undeveloped.

Yeah. So, you know, one that's just a normal lot with three trees and then an underdeveloped, you know, look maybe I'll look at um Mrs. ministator's tree one lot and see what it would do to her lot and pull some and see what it would do and that would give you a better feel of how this impact all of us including me how this would impact. Right. Thank you. That sounds very good. Yes, Commissioner.

How are we treating the uh statemandated squeeze in of affordable housing and three ADUs on your property and we're supposed to be encouraging people to build out yet, you know, where where some of these uh uh where some where some of these lots they're where that ADU's got to go, there's a tree right there. You know what I mean? And then maybe that's their only tree. So, you're fighting the statemandated rules with your own tree code. So, we've got this side going, "Yeah, yeah, let's build ADUs." And then you got this saying, "No, no, no. You got a tree there." is would the would the would there be enough room left on the property to replant?

You're talking about the challenge of my job. Um so the way the state yes the state says that we have to allow like two ADUs for a single house but it also allows us but it has to fit within it basically says within the guidelines that we allow a current single family house. So, you know, if someone puts in a ginormous single family house and they've taken up 40% of the lot and we limit structures to 40%, they can't put ADUs in because they've maxed out the um our limit on structures. Um the the tree code would be the same if they Now, most likely, I mean, we do have um setbacks and stuff, so they could plant trees in those setbacks to make up for it. Yeah.

And if anything act and what we're saying with like this code is right now again you could plant you could we have ADUs being built right now you can take down trees on an existing lot and there's no requirement for any replanting. This code would say um whether you take them down or not you have to meet the the um point criteria and so if you don't have any trees you're going to plant trees. If you need to take down trees you're definitely going to have to plant trees. So it actually kind of increases the trees if people are building ADUs where right now they're not there. But if yes, if it's like there's if the tree there's nothing that says that the ADUs have to ignore the tree. If anything, it actually says the tree code could prevent an ADU,

right? I would didn't want to use the word trump, but it uh the tree code would trump the ADU code. Supersedes. There you go. There you go. prior. Yeah, it's the priority. Commissioner Zaro, anything on 060 that got your attention? Not on this section. Thank you.

So on 060, there's one thing I wanted to make mention u and it is uh 006 and I'm reading the version that I asked to get sent out because I need the indents. I'm I'm not as sophisticated a reader, but um it's 060 and it is uh number two and it is uh a f excuse me number three. And I'll just read the text. The following process shall be used for calculating the required minimum tree credits for a lot or lots that are being subdivided to determine tree retention and replacement. I'm sorry, which section are you in? Is it 060?

But that does not match. So, okay. I'm sorry. 050 minimum five credits. I have Thank you for keeping me on track. I'm dead and looking behind. You're going behind. Okay. 0503. Middle of page 27.

Okay. So, number three. Uh, the required minimum credits shall be applied to the develop of the short plat or subdivision. and they denote that it excludes critical areas, buffers, public rightway, private rightway, shared driveways, public trails, and then they give an example. So, I just point that out and thank you for helping me stay accurate with the 0.050 050 and the number three under that that they're basically in that example explaining more clearly that you start out with a lot and in their example it says it needs to have 20 credits. It's a 20,000 square foot lot uh with uh one tree or one credit per it gets to 20 credits to keep it simple. And then it talks about a short plat of four lots and they're specifying two tree credits per newly created lot. Well, if you're creating four lots and you have to have two credits per lot for the trees, you've got extra trees that you've got to have credits for on that site. And they further explain that it could be a combination on other lots, but it sets a floor that when you're subdividing property, that was another concern for me was someone comes in and says, "Well, my lot's 20,000 square feet." you know, I I how are the rules going to play out when I make a subdivision or a short subdivision? So, this code attempts to address that by designating a minimum number of credits per lot within the subdivision and that the remaining that have to be accommodated can happen in a preservation tract or such. So, just wanted to point that out of of just the idea of there's a lot of detail that they've

seem to have worked through. And I hope that's going to be useful to give flexibility, but not say, well, I'm creating a subdivision and I'm going to put all the trees on one tract and then everybody else has no trees on the rest of the subdivision. They're trying to spread out the wealth, I guess. So, that was 050. 060 the significant trees which are the smaller ones. I I think that was the main thing. Any other questions on 060? Thank you for letting me digress.

I had one uh go back to uh three actually just above it. Um the the fee in lia does that even work?

Does it even pencil out on anything? for any project, sidewalks, whatever. When people say, "Well, I'm just going to pay the in fee in lie of fee, does that pencil out? Does it go into a fund?" I know that with sidewalks, it's supposed to go into a fund and get used within four years or six years or whatever. Do they even work? I'm totally against them. I mean, it never seems like the money gets spent. it gets ab absolved in some other project somewhere for some uh you know for some warehouse or something you know what I mean we don't see it the

so we so for the sidewalks we've been doing we we don't get a lot of inloo of but yes there are places where you know comet street off of fifth a it deadends onto I5 there's no other sidewalks around it we have done in lie of and we are using those money to do the sidewalk projects we are now um because we've done 19th we're doing sidewalks on 23rd um so yes that in lie of money um is in its own account Michelle tracks it and we use it um for sidewalks

I'm not a fan I'm just saying I mean these houses here 15 and again years ago and now people are parking in the rideway there's people over on the other side because it overflows from this house and they're parking in the ditch and dragging mud in the road. It if you got cars there, how are people going to walk? If you had a sidewalk, people could walk, make them put the thing in. I don't know what the rationale was there because usually what the times we do in lie of was when it it just there's nothing around it and it's not on our you know we sort of the public works department has a schedule of where we're trying to do sidewalks and we're trying to connect those missing links and so if it's in those areas that's all developed and it just seems like it would be really out of place to and then you get because people say why the city make you do this little bit of sidewalk in the middle of nowhere. We will use that money to fill those in.

Yeah, I know. I've got this lecture before. Yeah. So, I would like to I would like to remove the in lie of fee. So, from this and again I don't I can see why you're frustrated that these So, they put all these houses in across the street. They didn't make them put in sidewalks. You're talking on tents. I'm talking on tenth. I'm talking on Yeah. Can I speak to tents, Laurel? Because it's a long time ago. I think you're talking on Juniper or No, I'm Laurel. Laurel right here on Laurel. I'm talking about the the You're talking about the string of new houses from where we're sitting. Yes.

Okay. Uh that was the result of old code that we had that wasn't nimble enough and there could have been more, but that development precipitated our new frontage improvements that said if you do such and such, you have to do curb gutter sidewalk. The issue as I heard and maybe it's a myth or a legend is that what was done on 10th caddy cornered behind us where I'm pointing was involved u uh boundary line adjustments and I somehow the way the rules were written in Milton it was it wasn't they weren't creating new lots they were just moving things around we didn't have a code that said when you develop doesn't matter how you're doing it if you do x amount amount of development you have to do curb gutter sidewalk and it might be something worth looking at again because I think there was questions well what if somebody builds an ADU in the back do they have to do frontage improvements so there's that is in our code and I'm not it may be in the subdivision title

so the subdivision code yeah so I think it's in the sub in it might be in the street I think it's I don't think it's in the subdivision I think it's in the street um that again Yes, if you are now building a house where there hasn't been a house, you do have to do frontage and we do on it in and on depending on what it is, the public works director can approve an inlue of and there are times we do because it makes we feel that money is better spent fixing a hole on 19th or a hole on 23rd and event and then I think 27th's going to be next. for trying to do, you know, those major thorough affairs than having one lot of sidewalk where it's never going to devel.

I came up here and spoke in front of council 15 17 years ago when this thing went in and I asked why didn't sidewalks get put in and they told me they paid an inla fee. I don't know about that. So I would like this is why he's against it. So I would like this in lua fee removed. Why give them why give them an out? We want trees or not?

I again I don't know if it makes sense with this particular credits. I'll have to look at it under our current code. I want it in a lie of because the way our current code is is again you take a lot. This lot doesn't have any trees. They don't have to put any trees on it. This lot has 20 trees. We now tell them they have to put 200 trees. They can't put 200 trees. The way we've been it's been managed over the last 10 years is like well tell us what you can't you know I mean we we do make them put in as many as they can but there's usually a gap where we just say well they can't put it they can't reasonably put those trees on there and they don't have to do anything. So I would like I'd rather them pay into and then we can use that to plant trees elsewhere once we've maxed them out. Now with the credits does it make sense? It may not be because our credit system is very reasonable. So There are times I think the in lie of makes sense and it should never be the first priority. It should always be once you've done everything else. But I I hear what you're saying and we can

and I agree it does look at it. It does say last. It says first, second, and if fee in lie of is last.

So the other add-on to that is what would that cost be? I've had the pleasure of talking with a few urban foresters who say you got to think maintenance for several years acquisition of the tree. It's there's components involved in what constitutes that fee in loo. So that's going to be an area of research as well. And uh just in that vein, I would say I I think one area that I I wish was stronger in Burian and I hope maybe we change that is to require performance five years out from development. Burian in a few cases it seems to me says two years. So that while it's in my brain um making that but so with the fee and loo it's the last way to remedy instead of a developer saying well I'll pay the I'll pay the fine that's just the cost of doing business that makes it easier for me to move my equipment around and

and like I said I will say that my desire for inl was based on the current system we have feeling like we were losing something and I had no way capturing it. I don't know with the credits if that actually becomes an issue because the credits seem very reasonable to me. So, I will look into that a little more and maybe we don't need it. Uh but as a commission, we don't determine what the inlua fee is. We don't determine what the um permit fees for tree removal. We don't do any of that. No. But we could suggest this is what it's made of. What do we think it's going to cost to acquire the tree? What is it going to be to maintain? Because

it could be based on these things. And like I said, so like for streets, we have our engineers every so often give us how much does it and it isn't just putting it's like what does it cost to design it, prune it. Um for us it would I'm just saying like for sidewalks it would be what does it take to design it? What would it take to put it in? And then we come up with a linear. So however many liter feet you pay this much higher than the installation you know but trying to recover what that realistic is. So anyway but yes but you can put you could if we do in le of you could say it needs to include the cost of the tree the installation of the tree and

five years maintenance you know you you could put that in there. You can't put a price on love for a tree. All right so that was 060. Correct. We're on to 0.070. That is right. 070. Tree removal associated with development activities.

With 070. So, like I said, I think 070, 080, and 090, and 100, I believe, all sort of are tied together in the fact that someone comes in, they're wanting to put in town houses or they're wanting to put in a new store. um they have to look at what trees are there, what they're going to um keep, what do they want to remove if they remove it, what are they have to replace it with, how do they protect the trees that are there so they don't destroy them while they're doing development. Um so those are all sort of blended th those are all steps that they do those with us and again I will say we we're learning all the time. Um but they are supposed to do a preliminary plan um with the land use and then when they do their civil there should be the final. I will say there's been a couple projects lately that um they didn't do it when they got to the civil stage it was kind of like oh wait a minute these civil things need to go here. We're going to have to take down more trees. So we are from a staff perspective trying to figure out how to um find steps to prevent that from happening. Um and some of this will help with that to make sure that they are doing a better job of thinking through that so that their people are talking within themselves.

Comments on on the portion of the code 0070.080.090 090 100 the first three sections I mentioned were associated with development activity and 100.100 was about replacement of trees. Yes, vice chair Johnson. Uh I would like to ask staff if for instance thinking back if we said this was our code accepted it and this is what we've had would we have handled Porter and Milton way differently and resolved that some of the old trees they would have had to keep some of the old standard trees. I mean, because what I keep hearing is that we can take them down and you just replant other trees that are equivalent of the type, but it takes I'd be dead before.

I think it does. So, how do we feel how strong this is? I I think the idea of categoring the exceptional tree

um we have by having higher standards on that Um, I think that will help because it was sort of like, well, if you take down this many trees, you can replace it. And it didn't, it didn't feel like it had enough, you know, teeth to say you have to keep certain trees or you have to fix your thing. And then also didn't necessarily specify all the time what um, trees you could replace with. and and so some of that was it that you know so this will tie that in. I I'm not sure you know we talked about wanting to make sure that a tree is a tree and not just a hedge that is very tall and I don't know if that language is in here but I'll make sure it is because it's a

it is okay. Yeah, because that again those are some of the things that have traditionally been allowed or there wasn't a lot to stop it. So this prevents those that these will help us with that. Then I also want to look at 19th and Emerald Way with the big property that's being sold and on a hillside. You know, it's a hill lot of old trees there. So, I haven't looked at the schedule of what their plat looks like except for the fact of what's going on emerald I think rather than 19th. But will this protect some of those trees? that is already in process. So, it's it's under the current rules, not the new ones.

Right. No, I understand that.

But they are they're um they are trying to keep a a good chunk of the trees on the upper hillside. Um their storm water is at the bottom because that's where we've gotten caught the last couple is all of a sudden civil comes in and says, "Oh, we can't put that there." and it wasn't, you know, and things have to change. And so there's some things we're looking out for that have been used in and I don't think they were necessarily intentional. I think they were just maybe not certain parts talking as well to each other from a developer standpoint. So um but it would again looking at that in the future um like I said they they will end up having to plant a bunch of trees. They are actually one that I think will end up paying us in in lie of for some of the trees they take down which will allow us to encourage planting other places that maybe don't have trees provide people with trees. Um so

yeah we don't want any we want the in lie of instead of putting a sidewalk the development right next to a park. Okay. So the 19th and that one will have sidewalks. It's going to actually decide it'll finish it and it'll finish it. So again, if the sidewalks are on a major street next to other sidewalks, we make them put in the sidewalks. Yes. So it'll it'll connect from the park all that one will connect from the park all the way up and all the way down. And I believe it connects to the sidewalk on Alder Alder or Emerald. Sorry, I get my and we'll actually have

So, if you're going uh north on 19th and then you hit that corner, it's going to go up to the right towards the water tower, the back road to the water tower. Yeah. So, that corner property they're looking at and it will so in that case they are putting in frontage. So, they will do they'll connect all the way around and I believe there's sidewalks on Emerald at the other end of that whole square. So they will connect all that and we will have that piece all checked. If we could get back on because we're half hour topics and our future argue with me about fridge you come argue with me file a lawsuit against the city of in fees not being used properly.

Uh no um one other question on this section before we go. If an arborist comes in, uh, do they determine, um, the age of the tree, does that come into play of whether a heritage tree is maybe not going to make it based on the history of the age of the tree? Does that have anything to do with the in lie of or sorry, I'm back on that. Can I jump in on that and just say it seems that there's something in the code that talks about a qualified professional doing a risk assessment. So just on your earlier example of well what about a tree that not a problem for me but could be my neighbor a risk assessment I would think would whether it's is it dead

the age of the tree as well. So the characteristics I think there's two so I think there's two different things going on here. one their code has um get it in the right order um exceptional trees which are 30 diameter or on that list and then I think anything else that's on that list is considered um substantial

exceptional so significant exceptional they have like that it says heritage so I think that would be if right now Milton doesn't have any heritage cheese so I think it would be like if Milton had a tree in a park or a tree somewhere that we felt this tree has historic um significance to the city of Milton, then we could designate it, I think, as a heritage tree. But there's no actual like and so I don't know if it even makes sense to have a heritage tree category. But there's it's not based on necessarily numbers. I think that one's based more on at least that's Yeah. if if there's a cultural feeling like you know in the park

it's gone there's nothing we can do about it there is like there's a tree in the park that was specifically planted an oak and so that might be something worth being a heritage tree being a heritage tree that says hey parks department you can't just go cut it down whatever you want because we have designated it a as long as they're determining the age of the tree and its lifespan the arborist Yeah, they're looking at that's why I I would think they're looking at Yeah. the health, the age, the size, if it's been damaged, does it have bugs, does it have ivy? They're looking at all that. Gotcha. Next section.

So, would the council have to approve things for say this tree is the heritage tree? Like when you look at the one out here? So, as far as I know, is there any language in here on what determines the heritage? So, that might be something we need to add. Yeah, we need to determine that, too.

You know, we talk about the history of Milton, how it's losing it every year. And so, like this tree here, the one up there, certain trees, uh, somebody had called me a long time ago and said, "Can't you save the house as a historical heritage house on the lake?" Because it used to be where everybody came and got food or something. And I came to the city and they said there was nothing we could do. So, a couple of quick comments on my just looking at other cities, landmark trees, heritage trees. It's sort of a section that's in of its own. Um, and if it can be on private property as well. Of course, the owner has to uh agree to it, but there is that sort of thing out in code. And if there's an interest to figure out those special trees that we want to protect um for the sake of history um we can do more research on that on that theme. So um any other questions Commissioner Bole? Okay. Commissioner Zaro, anything on 0708 090100? Anything chair?

Nothing at this time. Okay. I like how you kept that open. Nothing at this time.

Um, so yeah, starting on page 35, I believe. Yes. So 35 talks about maintenance. Um, and then 36 and is alsures, how we do stop work. Um, 37 and 38 talk about what fines those would be. So again, um, a lot of times our stuff is not in code. It can be in code. We go back and forth on how much should be in the fee schedule, how much should be in here. But those are something that we could look at is um, how are we feeling about those codes? Do we really, you know, depending on the tree? I guess I I do come back to it's one thing if someone if a developer comes in and clearcut something and you're like, "Okay, you should know better." But if you know someone who's lived here for 40 years, they cut a tree, they didn't think about it. Um how do we, you know, is it just a replacement? Do we want to find them on top of it? Where is that flexibility? So those are things I do think we need to kind of think about. Um, but is there anything I guess in that last little section again it's more procedural how you know that they can do a performance bond. Sometimes it's not right to plant the tree until after it also may be that you know we want to make sure

it's alive three years or five years from now

here in the footnotes under the uh it's on it's for fines it's a table 19.26160 261601 fines. And when you go to the bottom of the footnotes, footnote one says trees protected through easements, tracks, or similar mechanisms such as grove easements, native growth protection easements, or native growth retention area. I didn't see anywhere in here the definition for native growth protection easement or native growth retention area. So I don't think we have anything specifically named that we do it would like

state thing NGP is a state okay um but it could include for us there are uh tracks that may you know they maybe they developed it and they said we're going to keep this area like that green belt there the hilabost kind of behind in that area generally

so and this is for things that are not within you know if if it's in a critical area wetland and shoreline. Those are whole different codes that protect all those. But yes, there there could be places where, hey, we made this development and we decided to keep all our, you know, a bunch of our tree, especially under here, we decided to keep a bunch of trees here and everyone, you know, for our credits. Well, then maybe that gets a designation of some sort and if they cut, then it would I'm just wondering you do it now or has it already been done or like I I guess I just don't understand. I'll hold up those terms for sure. All right. So, we all have definitions because I don't Yeah.

And I get that it's a state thing, but who would put that in and do we even have any of those? So, does it even make sense or put it for something else? I still remember seeing them on plans of certain things that people gripe because you can't build on it or do anything with it, but you still got to pay taxes on it. Yeah,

I'll just add for those of you that may have looked at earlier editions of what I handed out with the indents of the Burian code where it had all the blue ink and the underline the more recent email that went out this morning that was all black ink. But if you go to the Burian website and you look up this chapter, anything that's underlined in the email that Manager Stalenecker forwarded on my behalf, if you go to the Burian website and you hover over something that's underlined, a little dialogue box uh appears with the definitions or a reference to another part of the code. So someone using the web

Oh, like the table number. Yeah. Yeah. All all of that anything another table if you the email that went out. Uh yes, everything was black ink finally to manager staller's preference. Um understood I deleted all of the when I downloaded I did not have their links in but underlined words on the email that was sent out on my behalf. Those that's an indication of how Burian's municipal code is displayed on the web. you hover over something that's right

highlighted and you get more information. So that might help with understanding um on the commissioner comments on that the last few sections mentioned 101 or excuse me 110. What page are we on? 39 37 38 39.

Oh okay. Okay. So, maintenance, inspection, procedures, stop work orders. I appreciate that's in there because there's something right there for staff to say, "Hold your horses. This has to be addressed before you get to go further instead of trying to fight your way back on something like that." Um, uh, let's see. Uh, comment on the fines. I think that's going to be education. I see the merits of it because you're trying to incentivize doing the right thing. I don't know. Perhaps a conversation with Burian would just be so how do you handle, you know, the and and cite some hypotheticals to see uh how they would handle things where it isn't somebody who really should know better. You know, chainsaws first and then

some he finds there. Yeah. Yeah. Are we going to go over how how hefty they are? Do we all think that's justified? I think they're insane. The fees? Yes. Oh, I I thought they're awfully high. Yeah, I get that they're meant to be a deterrent, but come on. That it does seem excessive. Yeah,

considering most of our other stuff is probably not nearly that. So, can we can we make that a footnote that says can we get some justification? What is this what the what the word is in the world of trees? Is this uh is this an outlier? Um but again to try to make it something that's just not the cost of doing business to eliminate a tree stump $10,000. And I am wondering about the stump as well. What is so what is the value in the stump if the treere's already been see evidence? So they do like tree stumps do play a role in forestry, right? $10,000 worth.

I mean I'm not going to argue that. I'm just saying that's probably why. But yeah, I I Okay. Yeah. So that's going to so more of the procedural stuff. We'll do more digging in if questions come up. Um, I will ask Bian about the tree stuff because they talk about snags. They, you know, anyway, um, but if you could legally take down the tree, seems like you could legally Yeah. Right. So, how does that all work? And, and they've been at it. This, this was passed in 2022, October 2022. Well, a maple tree will grow back easily. Uh, cottonwood tree will definitely grow back easily. Yet, that stump still has life in it.

So, I think that's maybe that's what they're looking at. I don't. So the one question uh worthy of a conversation uh citizen comment brought up. What about since the word is out we do a moratorum on cutting trees? I mean can we though? The city council would have to I don't know that I support that because it would it would make it really hard for anything coming forward. I have been telling people anybody I talk to on like preops like hey we've got a new tree code coming so you know hence we're seeing the cut down right now before the new code goes in sadly no it it's more like it's going to be different so um

I mean to me some of this is actually will help developers in some ways this is not a bad this is a I think a much more equitable I got a significant tree that's got to come down but afford it. No, I I'll go through the proper channels if we just had the insurance people talking to us. I probably shouldn't have said that. It's, you know, I saved my exceptional tree. 800 bucks for the arborist. I'll tell you what, I won't sleep very good tonight with all this wind. There they go. Branches down.

Okay. So, it sounds as though the planning commission as a as a majority is not particularly in favor of suggesting to council, you know, we're in the works. This is going to take a few months. What do you think about a moratorum? I think this I mean realistically on tree cuts. I mean personally I want to save every tree and hug them all. But let's be honest, I just don't see the council doing that.

Could still ask but so it's more about during manager stalenecker's staff report to council the bringing up the topic. I mean, I think we liter again, depending on what the the planning commissioner wants to do, I think we could legitimately I mean, even next month, it's possible that this could be in a form if not, okay, the month after and then it's to council and then, you know, so we're talking two to three months we could probably have this if we're comfortable with it. And again, it's a starting point. Nothing says you can't come back and again, we still need to do the rest of the landscaping section. So,

all right. And the last thing is is are there uh people of intense interest who would want to really uh brainstorm with manager stalenecker going through chapter verse from a word nerd perspective or a scenario perspective beta testing things. Is there is there anybody besides me who would you want to work have a workshop time a a workshop time or yeah it could be another meeting or it could be formal meeting that we just like we could do it as a workshop study session so it still is a open we'd still adver depending on how many of us there are we could still advertise it but we wouldn't necessarily have to do it in this format

right I'd be open you'd be open to it okay and I know that for people who have their career to come in an in extra time is a huge ask. So I was thinking we it would be less than a quorum. It would be a subcommittee that would meet at manager stalenecker's meeting table probably and just kind of run through it with other questions and fine-tune it, move it along as fast as possible if that would be helpful for manager stacker. Um manager stoneer is not opposed.

Not opposed. Okay. Um, yeah, I could send I mean, do you want me to send out if you could send out sort of a hey, this was brought up. What is the interest? Again, if there's well, if there's three of us right now, that would be a quorum. So, um, but we just if it was then if there was three people, then we would just advertise. But Monday, that'll change. Monday there'll be it still would How did you have six? We'll worry about that. Anyway, I will send something out. Yes, we are. So, some proposed ideas whether it's in your office to just help you through or sitting here public could be there or not, but

to move this through as quickly as we can to help this get to council because they're probably going to need a study session on it and then yeah, it's I yes, I have it for the I think it's tentatively on the May study session. Okay. So, with the idea that we would or maybe it's the April study session. I think it's potentially on the April station session if by any chance we are able to make a recommendation in April. So I have that placeholder. Okay. Well, at least you can bring your puppy in every other Friday. Yeah, my puppy came in some for dinner. But all right. Um Okay. So, we have enough on this and thank you so much for your attention to detail and for public's patience. And

uh any final closing comments on that topic? Okay. So, we're moving on to the next agenda item.

So, normally at the end of the year, first of the next year, um we sort of make a work plan and um I present to city council that way they've approved it since um the planning commission is to, you know, works to recommend and study stuff for them. So, what I have before you is simply everything on here I think is basically carryover. Um, new section for significant trees we're working on. Um, we still need the rest of the landscaping review parking. Um, though I think we're under the threshold for some of the state stuff I thought was coming. So, we have a little bit of flexibility there. Though, I still think it'd be worth I think we all felt like it needed to be looked at and brought up to date. Um and then to bring back at some point the design standards. Um short-term rentals was a carryover from last year. Um and then zoning updates and comprehensive plan amendment. Um I do I will let you know we do have one um private application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. So that is on the docket if I'm saying that properly. So when we come summerish um that will be included and you'll get all the information on that. So that will include both the map change request and staff at this point um is fairly supportive of the change. So but there is one and I will bring more information at that later.

Where did the change request come from it? So, it's the property owner is requesting it. Um, it's for some property down near uh Meridian and Taylor.

Can we Can I just interject a moment? It's sight specific, applicant specific quasi judicial rules apply. So, I thought it did for the zoning portion. And so, I was thinking we were doing two tracks, but I um have clarified with um our land use people that and and I do think it might be worth cleaning up the code is because the zoning is tied to a comp plan change. It's not actually a site specific because they can't. So it would basically so if the area was all let's say an area which we don't have but let you know if everything was zoned when we used to have like everything was zoned residential or the comp plan was residential and we had a you know our single family and our slightly more duplexy smaller single family. If you were going from one single family to this other single family, but you weren't changing the comp plan, then it would go to the herring examiner as a sight specific reszone and it doesn't come here at all. My understanding and I is that because you are changing the comp plan and the zoning has to match that it actually isn't a sight specific and it will come through planning. That was new to me because I had been telling everybody the opposite and I had not this project but I had a different project that may or may not next year request it. She goes, "I don't think that's the right way." And I said, "Well, I will follow up." And so, um, I was confirmed that yes, we can do it. It will be all one package, which makes more sense. Um, and then I will adjust the code just to make it clear. So, yeah. Okay. So, this is what I have. I don't know. Again, this is a lot for this year, but I don't know if anyone has any thoughts, if we're taking anything off, adding anything. I will be quiet now.

Yes, Vice Chair Johnson. I do see where we will have a lot busy. So, we're going to do they're in order of importance. I I'm assuming

not necessarily. Oh, because um I think you know finishing these significant trees and the landscaping, but the parking issue on easements and different things. I think that is one thing we really need to do following the trees and the landscaping because it's a major issue our park unless those park the off- streetet parking in our city. So, I hope that stays at number three and that the way the list is here. My suggestion,

I mean, I don't have any additions. It might be useful to do anything that's easy. Probably anything that's lowhanging fruit or things that we feel like we can knock out to group them like we did last time. So, uh, Commissioner Bole. Oh, I was suggesting that we pay an inlua fee on the parking standards and move on to the establishment of regulations for shortterm rentals. Okay. Um so moving I don't think that's the consensus of the commission. Are you I agreed with what uh commissioner Okay. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Zaro,

I have nothing to change with the lists. I agree um knocking out the lowhanging fruit would be um satisfying and get us off to a good start.

Okay. Okay. Uh for myself, I appreciate the periodic updates uh portion of the planning commission work plan. Presenting this to council fortifies uh budget requests and things planning going forward and also gives us us a sense of some of these projects can take our comp plan took what four years. I hope our shoreline master program doesn't go through that. But I mean, it gives you a heads up and uh an awareness of work to be done. And I would say that uh on that theme of what's upcoming is we're going to need specialist help when it comes to an urban forestry program and achieving those goals. So that uh it's not a periodic update, but it's sort of a long range planning topic that maybe there's a new segment we could have on the work plan to say thinking of the future. Um I'm okay. Uh the short-term rental regulations I'm not I think with the sequence that's there is good, but that's council's decision. um if you could speak u in a few moments on uh the zoning update refinements um as something that's different from the comprehensive plan amendments which all have to go into a docket by the end of February and then come the summer we start working on it if my recollection is correct. So last, yeah, so last year, so you can only do one conference to plan update a year. Um, so yeah, last year we did one. We'll do one this year, probably, like I said, my my hope is to like late summer kind of work on that with the idea of getting that adopted early fall. Um, so um, similar to last year, there may be some zoning updates

that go with that. um or if there's little more corrections. I just, you know, I kind of leave it there for if there's some things that we discover that either the wording is just not right or something contradicts or I nothing specific at this time. Okay.

I don't think but there might be some small things that aren't necessarily huge policy changes but more just corrections that need to be add or subtracted. So that's sort of kind of a placeholder for that. Um and I will say that I and I could like I said I could make another category down here. Um we we have I don't anticipate much work of it happening this year but we are applying for a grant and if we get that grant we will look at doing a sub area plan I think I mentioned it before on basically the 99 strip to try to coordinate um you know what's going there what what's the vision meet with the the different property owners coordinate with what Sound Trans is doing what DOT wants to do and that will um if we get the grant that would be most of that would be next year.

Okay. And stuff. So that could be a kind of a maybeish thing on there.

So on that topic of our zoning code, I don't know if this is something that's the purview of the planning commission, but u uh site plan requirements as I look at the city uh citizens portal and I start looking at applications and just say gosh the site plan just there's so much missing. It's so we have done that work in the past for what makes a complete application and what's required and so I'll just we can have a conversation later because this is probably going to keep us busy as it is but I'm concerned about the explicitness of our site plan requirements. I do have a question having witnessed unit lot development uh in my neighborhood to just wonder does that area of our code need to have any fine-tuning work done and u I would love to see some policy on food trucks um as well again that's sort of like just putting it out there for future work I think what's in print is going to keep us busy um so this goes to council and they determine priority

and may add or delete items of concern. Okay. So, that completes uh our regular agenda 8B. So, we're on to staff reports followed by commissioner reports. Are we going to recommend this to council? Uh would you like to do a motion? Go for it. Okay. I I move to recommend our 2026 work plan to the city council. Good catch.

Good catch indeed. And motion's been made by Chair Oler, seconded by Vice Chair Johnson to present the uh draft 2026 planning commission work plan to council as presented in our packet. Any further discussion? All right. Thank you. Um, all in favor signify by I. I. Any opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Thank you for that. Uh, now we're done with 8B. So, staff reports.

Um, I'll just be real quick. Um, our permit tech, Jaden, has put in her notice. She'll be done at the end of the month. she is taking a new position um with Redton Fire District something to that effect as sort of a next step up permit tech. So I'm happy for her. Um and but I will be hiring. So if it's basically looking for someone I mean obviously if they have government and or construction experience that's a plus but mainly it is an entry- level position. So, someone who maybe has a couple years of office work or some schooling or something um is welcome to apply. Oh, I might be interested.

Do you need to just have a nice comfy government job office with you or be right around the corner? Oh, I hear everything too. That'd be something. And then real and then at the end of the month, I believe it's the last Monday of the month is the um fire department's um neighborhood meeting for the new fire department that's going in. And I will note that based it is a conditional use permit and based on the changes that the planning commission made this last round when we were doing procedures that we not only notified the property owners at 500 ft but we also notified all the tenants. So like there's an apartment complex they got individual notices. So realizing that something like that does have impact on

um the people who live near there and they may have questions and so we wanted so that was based on the changes that the planning commission made and what that's March 30th at what time and where 5:30 in this room. Okay. Wonderful. March 30th. Monday March 30th. 5:30. Okay. Here it commissioner reports. N

uh I wanted to congratulate our new chair er and vice chair Johnson um will be running the show here for us next year. Uh thank you for the nominations. Um I apologize for getting on you about in lie of stuff. Uh it's one of my bugaboos and I don't know how I let it distract me like that. I'm just going to say that I should eat before I come to the meetings. I might be a little hangry right now. So, I apologize. Uh, but yeah, congratulations everybody. Thank you. You have tempered it well over the years.

Excuse me, Chair Oler. just wanted to say that I will do my best committee and support you all. All right. Uh for myself, congratulations to our new officers. I wish best um always willing to be of help and support and thank you for taking on the the role. And uh I don't have anything else to report at the moment. So, um, next regular meeting will be Mon, uh, excuse me, Wednesday, April 8th and 6 o'clock. And, uh, just a a reminder, we pay attention to our emails. Eker is going to u possible times for having a workshop, a small and a quorum could be a quorum depending upon our and we'll work from there. So, so having completed our agenda, I will close our meeting at 8:02 p.m. Thank you.