Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, the roll call for today, the June 10th meeting, Commissioner Gertz?

Present.

Commissioner Strader?

Present.

Commissioner Ternes?

Present.

Commissioner Whalen? Here. Commissioner Zarro? Here. Vice Chair Johnson is absent and asked to be excused, and Chair Oller is present.

Madam Chair, may I make a motion? Yes. Move to excuse Commissioner Johnson from tonight's meeting.

Do I have a second? I'll second that. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Johnson is excused. Now, are there any additions, deletions, or corrections to today's agenda? Hearing none, let's move on to public participation. If you would like to participate, you are welcome to speak. You don't have to, but since you're here, welcome. And if you would like to, you are welcome to come up. You can say no. This is now, it's now. No, I mean, not during our meeting. This is the time for you to make comments. And would you please state your name and where, if you're from Milton?

Yeah, my name is Keanu, Keanu Songkwan. I have a general interest to invest in Milton, so just trying to familiarize myself more just with how things run here and they're operated and where I want to put my money, whether it's here or elsewhere. One question, and I just happened to come across this meeting from gathering more information from being here the other day. Outdoor storage regulations, is this, and it says accessory use regulations, is this referring specifically to residential, commercial, or this regulation as a whole for the city?

This is just a time for you to comment. It's not a back and forth.

Oh, I was just, sorry. That's what I was saying. I didn't know if I was time to ask questions.

So that's why I was like, you can state your question and then it's possible later. Yeah.

I mean, I haven't had time to do much research other than what I'm just reading right now. So I was just curious from like what these. were addressing, because it just says Milton Municipal Code, but I don't know if it's referring to commercial, if there's any zoning that this is specific towards, if it's residential, and then just being I have multiple businesses throughout Washington State and I'm looking to relocate them out of specific cities because of problems that I have had within those cities and just the bureaucracy and the laws that are in place within those cities and the regulations. So I guess just kind of figure out exactly what this specific addition to 1744 outdoor storage is and then... Again, sorry, I literally am just reading these as I walked in here. Let's see what else. I think this is all that you guys are discussing, I believe. Sorry, I know I can't ask questions, but I think that's it, right? Yeah. Okay. Oh, and then is it trees, I believe? Is there another one? I don't know, I guess it's hard without asking questions, so I guess.

I would encourage you to come during hours and talk to our planning department in Milton. For sure. Answer your questions too, yeah.

Definitely, yeah, so I guess I'm the only one here, so.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Yeah, definitely.

All right. All right, that closes public participation. We'll move on to approval of the minutes from May 13, unless there are any changes.

There's one typo. It should be under staff reports, second bullet point. It should say building C and D would be temporarily in the council chambers, not temporary. So it's corrected on the one for you to sign. I see it here.

Are there any other corrections minutes? Hearing none.

I move to approve the minutes as amended.

All right. Do we have a second? Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. May 13 minutes as amended are approved. Now we'll move on to the public hearing for general use regulation standards section.

All right. So just a real quick note. Emily roar is our new permit tech I have recruited her to help on Wednesday night meetings, so that she can run the computer and be the tech and i'm not trying to do both jobs so. you're happy to have her here also means I can make her do the minutes. So, so for the public hearing, yes, this is the draft code we're looking at adding subsections point one 7.1 80 and point one 90 to. chapter 1744 which is general use regulations as well as amend 1744-200 these are all would be standards and regulations for accessory uses that are related to commercial businesses and so in the use table it identifies which accessory uses can go with in which zones, so in this case, so these are outdoor storage, outdoor sales, and drive-through facilities and animal shelters, kennels, and pet shops are all related, are all allowed in certain commercial zones as an accessory. I mean, you have to have a primary business, this would be something you would add on, you'd have a restaurant, you could add on a drive-through, and then these would be the regulations that are hopefully added to it just to make it hopefully fit in best with the community. Related to some of the comments that were made, there are separate for residential houses and properties. There are different codes related if something for outdoor storage, if it became a nuisance or something, we would regulate those under a nuisance law. As previously discussed last week again outdoor storage. outdoor sales drive through facilities and animal shelters so at this point, we could open the public hearing. And then, after the public hearing the next. yeah and then it's on the it's on the agenda later for discussion and possible adoption or recommendation.

Right, so we open the public here. Yes.

So you're opening at?

Opening at 6.07 PM. Any comments on that? I think we'd be welcome to now if you wanted to. Not prepared? It's not a QA, unfortunately.

Correct.

Entertaining today, guys.

I guess my statement would be if there's any study that's looking into the economic impact and how that would potentially affect it positively or negatively for the city of Milton, would that increase tax dollars, decrease tax dollars? Would it create an undue burden on businesses that are existing here? Would it cause undue tax cost, maybe, for Regulate? Has there any been, like, any studies on implementation of the regulations? Are there special uses that would be applied or that could be used within the code? Or, again, if there's any, like, public study that you guys have done or would be able to share on that, I would definitely be open and interested to looking at that. tax dollars is a huge impact and pretty much the thing that keeps the city of Milton alive. So I think taking a look at that regardless of what is being implemented in code is definitely important to be aware of and, you know, have some sort of economist or somebody that's specialized in that area to understand what that might look like, pros and cons from that side of things just before like passing stuff off and allowing things to just happen regardless of what they are.

Real quick, I forgot to ask, could you state your name again, please? Oh. And city. And city.

Keanu Songkwan, city. I'm all over the place. I'm part-time everywhere. Tacoma, Edgewood, Roy. Where do you live? I have residences in all of those cities. So depending, sometimes I might be in Arizona, sometimes I might be here. So I'm back and forth, but primarily right now I'm looking to either be in Milton or Edgewood.

Thank you.

All right. The public hearing will close at 6.10 p.m. All right. That brings us to the regular agenda and general use regulations standards sections.

Okay sorry I was looking at the minutes instead of the agenda all right so carrying that over. The is I guess at this point you guys looked at it last week I did make a few corrections based on. A few of the comments that were made a couple corrections so basically it's just is there looks like I did not make a recommended action, but if the planning Commission felt they wanted to it would be a really easy one to do tonight. So basically if there's any questions comments from the planning Commission and then, if the feeling is to make a motion tonight to recommend it to counsel it could go tonight or come back next month.

Is there any discussion on this? Yes, Commissioner Whelan. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have some questions. One of them, under the outdoor storage section, page seven of 41, I noticed that A2, which starts with the header of surface, I'm glad to see that there's a discussion in there about properly storing items relative to their impact on water. Is there somewhere else in our code that talks about hazardous materials or is that a nuisance code thing? I just wanted to understand if that was somewhere else, because I would think if someone has a business, let's say pest control, or someone's got a business where they've got very flammable chemicals, where would we find in our code that says you have to abide by certain safety criteria?

Okay, because the building code does a lot with how you store, especially when it comes to hazardous things appropriately. So like you know we had a human. occupation they mark that they supposedly have we reach out to them, we figure out how much we talked to the. In this case we talked to the fire department, he goes no that's well under but it's usually the building code that comes in if it's something where they're leaking. Things that are stormwater kicks in so if they have, and we have occasionally I know we've got a couple sites right now we're investigating that appears that maybe they have trucks or different things that might be leaking into the stormwater system that are stormwater investigation starts okay.

May I ask another question? On that same subsection, but number four, letter B, I was trying to envision what it was talking about when a maximum height allowed by a zone a building wall shall not exceed a maximum height. And I was trying to have a picture in my mind. We have a business grocery outlet that used to be a hardware store and they had like a nursery center out there. Is that what this is referring to or is this in general?

It's probably unnecessary, but I think the idea is that if you're using your wall as part of... And you're just fencing around at the fencing part has to meet the fencing code and obviously the wall is the wall, so it doesn't have.

Oh fencing limit, I think, is what it was it's trying to say okay and.

You built like a brick fencing wall right that's not going to be you know it has to meet the fencing we're all not a structure rule so. Okay, because people can have things that are much taller than what our fencing code right if you're building that's one thing if you're if you're building a wall as a fence, you know I was just down in Arizona and they everything's. brick or cement block they don't actually use wood, because they have any so all their fences are solid.

Right. And if I may, Madam Chair, another question. And that is on page nine of 41, number eight. and I wanted to be clear about the intent. I'll just read it. Limit sound emanating from ordering board speakers or other speaker systems to a level that is not audible from residential. Should it be to residential?

Yeah, from residentially used properties. So if you're standing on a residential property, you shouldn't be able to hear it.

okay it's not talking about the source sending the sound to the residential okay and could you please identify what would be the criteria if someone has a drive-through in the vicinity of their residence and they hear the speaker i do they have to Does this speaker box have to abide by the nuisance sound code that specifies the decibel levels that can be?

I think this would take precedent. And so hopefully we don't have too many of those. But if I'm trying to think, there's not that many that are next to residential anyway. But yeah, if you based on this, if you're standing on your property and you can hear it, then they need to do something, whether that's Maybe it's vegetation, maybe it's a wall, maybe it's a fence, maybe it's a different, turning it down, adjusting it, so they're gonna have to do something so that you can't hear it.

Right, but in a commercial center, or it's residential, and that would not include mixed use? So if there was a mixed use building, residence is either within the site or on top?

If I might, it says detrimental to occupants of other nearby properties.

Okay. Okay.

Yeah, so I think it would include all of that.

Okay, wonderful. And then the last question is, I was looking for animal shelters, kennels, and pet shops on our table of uses under the accessory section.

So it's probably not an accessory, is it? It's probably a main, yeah, so it's not an accessory. I think it's,

I see animal service. Now, I might have an old print. This was done in April of 2026. And animal services is listed in the non-residential use category.

So... Yeah, so... Yeah, so 1746-200 was already adopted in our code, but it references Sumner's. So this is... We're... We're no longer going to use Sumner's code or Sumner's services for animal shelters. So what all this is doing is instead of referencing Sumner's, it's referencing ours that was adopted last month. Okay. So that's all we've done here. I would think, yeah, so animal services are allowed as a non-residential use.

Okay. So this is not an accessory use.

That is not an accessory. That is correct.

Okay, so we'd have to make a change on the title when it goes to council. The other change, and it's my last comment, thank you for your patience, fellow commissioners, has to do with the table of use footnotes. Footnote number six says see Sumner Municipal Code.

Oh, so we need to correct that as well.

So, but again, this was a print on April 8th, so maybe, I'm not sure the timing with... And there's actually...

So the table of uses will be coming to Planning Commission in the next couple months. What I think happened is, which sometimes does happen with codes, is whenever we last added something, we did a couple of corrections or a couple of things we adjusted. Well, whatever that template was used was actually from two ago. So we actually lost a couple things that we had put on there. So there's some things that were on the code that disappeared without a vote. So we need to make sure they get back on there. So I will include that footnote when those come back with those items as well.

And at the next round, I'd have another question, but I want to give time to others. Thank you.

Are there more comments, more discussion on accessory use standards? Anyone? Hearing nothing.

So for round two, I would just say drive-through facilities. When this topic came to the Planning Commission about a year ago, when we were ambitious about updating with our comprehensive plan, I remember that there were several schematics and sketches of possible configurations, and I didn't see them here. Has that concept been gone away with?

I didn't hold them. It felt like maybe more than was needed for what we have looking at some other cities those I had pulled from for Chris. But, looking at some other cities and looking at some of this it. It almost felt like a little bit of overkill because i'm not sure how much vacant space, we have because it had to do with a lot of if you've got two lanes and this and that and. Anyway, so I did pull those.

Okay, I just didn't want to think I missed something. Thank you so much. Those are my questions.

Okay, so it looks like we didn't make more changes, did we? Do you have notes?

No, I don't see any changes other than I will make note that the first three are accessory use regulations and the last one is just a regulation change.

Okay. Are we ready to move this on to Council? Do I have a motion? Yes. Commissioner Gertz, do you move to recommend to City Council that they adopt our draft code language for accessory use standards?

Yes, I'll make the motion.

Right, is there a second?

I'll second that.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Passes. We'll move on to regular agenda B, comprehensive plan amendments.

Thank you, . So last month, I just mentioned and got the timeline for the comprehensive plan. So just a reminder, the comprehensive plan can be updated only once per year by state unless there's an emergency. And updates can include a private request as well as any requests from the Planning Commission or Council. We did get one privatization, private application. It is, the application is included. And the second page, page 13, has the area that we're talking about. So the private application is the area that is sort of striped. It is currently zoned urban residential multifamily. Future land use map is urban residential. The same property owner owns the Surprise Lake Plaza to the right, to the east, and the first little red box to the south. He has a potential buyer for both the striped property and the small one on Taylor. to possibly put in some maybe multifamily is what they're looking at, probably townhomes, something to that extent. They would like to make it all the same zone, so they are requesting that it go from urban residential to uptown mixed use. It would be both the future land use map as well as there would be a zoning that would come with it as well next month. They will have a representative at the hearing as well. I told them they weren't required to come tonight, but that I recommended they come for sure for the public hearing. So if there's any questions, again, their comprehensive plan amendment request is included, so you're welcome to kind of look through what they're talking about. Staff supports the change as the property to the west is multifamily, the property to the north and the south is uptown mixed use, what they're proposing. Is kind of again it's sort of in between it probably could have gone either way, so I think it helps them sort of have a consistent density for those two properties. And so that's their recommend so anyway staff has no opposition to it and things that there is some value in that obviously that will in it eventually will become a recommendation with the planning Commission agrees. And then it'll go to counsel for approval and it'll accept it'll go the land use and the zoning will go together, because they have to be the same so. We can pause here if there's any questions or further information you want me to bring back at next money next meeting, and then I will discuss the other couple things that we're going to be on the COMP plan changes this year right any comments or questions we're here.

I agree, I don't see any reason to. not grant their wishes it's already mostly overlapping that zone anyway and it's surrounded on the other side by an apartment complex so it's in between an apartment complex and businesses i don't i don't see a problem with that personally any other comments or Yes, Commissioner Whalen.

So, Manager Stahlnecker, I did a little study on our zoning bulk and table regulations and see that there are some significant differences in building height. The Uptown Mixed-Use District is an extra 20 feet taller. There is no... minimum size square foot for the building. And the setback is very different when you compare one to the other. So yeah, it has a much higher density. So is there going to be buffering that will be done between the multifamily, the URM and the urban Excuse me, uptown mixed use?

So, let's see. It falls under... So it does fall under the uptown mixed use guidelines, the standards that would come in. So there are the design guidelines that they would have to go through. Let's see. Yeah, so the reason why it doesn't have required perimeter landscaping, but that's because, like I said, the uptown mixed use would require them to do certain things. They still have a limit of what they can, you know, they have to have landscaping if they're doing parking lots. they still have to have, if they take any trees down, they'll have tree replacements and as such, so.

Okay, well, it was just understanding what the change would represent.

Yeah, I can provide a little bit more of a breakdown for that at the next meeting.

And thank you, it was very helpful in the staff report to have the schematics that you presented. It was very, very helpful for the clarity and getting a sense of things, so thank you for that.

That's all. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? Yes, Commissioner Strater.

So when I was looking at the map, I see that the lot sort of splits. Like when this map was created, when the changes were made, it looks like it could have either gone to uptown mixed use and then sticking into the urban residential multifamily. but the decision was made to make it urban residential multifamily and not uptown mixed use. And I just, I... What was the reason? I know you couldn't split it.

Yeah, so the previous zoning down there was actually just business. Okay.

Industrial.

Oh no, you're right. It was industrial.

Okay.

Those, yeah. Excuse me. Yeah, it was really weird. The lots of the east and the three lots below were actually light manufacturing industrial. Okay. And then this one was just the multifamily. And so, yes, so that was part of our thing of that doesn't make sense. So we just sort of carried it down, but we didn't change that one.

Okay.

I just saw it. Is there a reason why it went?

Yeah, because the line, it just sort of sticks that in. And then otherwise it'd stick out. So I didn't know if the parcel to the west had a feeling about what that would be. I didn't know if that was the reason. So it was just a choice had to be made which way.

Yeah, so the last round we just left it the way it was and we fixed the fact that it didn't make sense to have manufacturing down there.

All right, thank you. There's nine properties on our side, our side, the Milton side that are in Edgewood, is that right?

That's correct. Okay. So however they did the annexation, those, I don't know if they were little ones or if they were big ones, but yes, they are actually part of Edgewood.

All right, just curious.

And they also own the street on that section, but we own the street on either side. That makes it fun.

All right. So that's for information only. We don't have any other action. Is there any other questions or discussion? Okay.

Let us... I have just one quick one. Yes. Manager Stahlnecker? On this topic with the comprehensive plan update, maybe it's old school. I was drilled in to the idea of quasi-judicial and applicant-specific, site-specific. Has state law changed now so that

So that's a really good question.

Oh, sorry.

No, you're talking about the fact that it's the zoning versus the comp plan.

That and just the issue of, you know, when I started decades ago, it was when it's quasi-judicial, you do not have ex parte conversations. So there was a lot of guardrails around.

So I was under the understanding that it would be a two-track, that the comp plan, which is legislative, And that, because it was we're talking one lot that that would be quasi judicial and would go to the planning here planning Commission, a pasta a not this applicant, but a possible applicant for next year, who is an attorney argued with me that I was incorrect. So I reached out to my planning and our attorneys and because we are changing the comp plan, it makes the zoning legislative because they have to agree. If we weren't changing the comp plan and we were just doing a zone, like for some reason, which we really don't have, but let's say in our, we have neighborhood residential and we have two zones. We have an NR1 and an NR2. So if someone came and said, I have an NR1 property, I want it to be an nr to that's just changing the zoning, that is what's called quasi judicial it actually is treated more like a project it wouldn't even come to the planning Commission I don't believe it just goes straight to the hearings examiner. But because this one is with the COMP plan it makes it all legislative and it gets to go through us, so I learned something you learn something.

Okay, so it isn't, but URM is a residential classification, and UMX is a mixed-use classification, so.

So we're all good. Okay. Yes, I was thinking the way you were, and like I said, it's for a future project, and she was insistent, so I went to mine, and they said, no, he did recommend that we adjust our code so it's clearer, but he said, yes, we would run it together because they have to be together.

Okay, got it, thank you so much, thank you for the education.

Then just to finish up on the comp plan, I am working, it's a really rough pink lined markup from the public works director of things that we are going to adjust in the existing capital facilities, so I will get that in a nice clean copy by next month. So basically what we're trying to do is with these, you're trying to, a lot of grants, when they want to know that whatever you're going for grant money with for a capital facility, so if it's a new road or a new water tower or something, one of the questions they will ask is, is it in your six-year capital improvement plan? Is it in your comp plan? So our comp plan and if you haven't had a chance to zip through it, it was in one of the links I sent to you, it has all the visions and goals that we are supposedly trying to do. It does include that for electrical water, all of our utilities and city hall and the facilities it talks about what it is so every year, I say what are we changing, and so what like here. We're no longer doing the substation replacement. We're no longer, we had talked about maybe doing a joint facility with fire. Obviously that's not happening, but we are having to replace the water because we had a water line break under I-5. So they basically updated and right now it's from 2026 to 2031. it'll be 2027 through 2032. So we will bring you a nice clean copy next meeting that shows all of those. I did go through, I thought we had missed a couple state recommended, but I'm not finding any of them. So maybe we were able to fix those at the council level. So I don't think there's anything from that level. I did find a couple typos always that I'm not sure they have to come through us, but we will fix on our next clean copy. So, all right, now I'm done with comp plan if there's no other questions.

Let us move on to regular agenda C, the proposed community forest preservation.

All right. So at the May 18th, 2026 city council meeting, the council referred the matter back to the planning commission. This is to adopt a new code to address Community forest preservation, I have tried to summarize what I think some of the questions were and some of the issues, I think we need to address I know some of you were in attendance or may have listened to it, so there might be some added to it. I am coordinating the. Um, we are offering, um, the planning commission to join the city council at next month's study shut session, which would be on July 13th for a joint city council planning commission meeting. And, um, I will have a representative from the department of natural resources who is And their focus is to discuss the importance of community forest preservation, urban forestry, and codes that would be appropriate. They are reviewing ours as well, so they may have some suggestions. So that will be after our next Planning Commission meeting. But I think it's important because there was, it's a very new council and it may have been a different outcome on the old council just because the goals and policies and everything came out of that council. So I think it's important for one, them to recognize your role. I don't think some of them completely comprehend what the Planning Commission, what your role is, what you're trying to do, and then also be able to talk about this topic and make sure we're on kind of the same page. So everyone can check their calendars and let me know afterwards, or if you know today, or if you need to let me know in the next couple days, if you're able to attend, I think that could be really useful. The idea is we would... I've done these at a different jurisdiction. We would just basically put tables down on the ground, put mics out. We would open the meeting with both groups if we have a quorum. We're in here, so it will be projected like we normally would, but it'll be a slightly different format in that it's a discussion and different things. See how it goes. Going back to page 17, what I heard Of the questions and concerns were. Should we wait until after the urban for study plan before we enact any code, I think the biggest concerns kind of where is this too strong too big of a step for neighborhood residential properties. considering right now we don't regulate them at all and then now we're gonna not only are we gonna permit them and we're gonna limit the number they can cut and we're gonna require them to replant depending on how many trees they have that that's too big of a gap or is that too big of a gap again should we regulate trees on developed neighborhood residential properties at all there was questions on how the tree credits were determined why is it one per thousand could it be half could it be You know, could it be less? There was an argument for the fact that we should be permitting it because it helps protect property owners from unlicensed individuals. Again, the code would be that you would have to get a permit. You don't have to hire someone, but if you hire someone and you're not doing the work yourself, we'd check and make sure that they're licensed and bonded and they have the proper permit. paperwork. There was questions of why does the tree code not address city property. Concerns that the penalties were were too high for a resident property owner and tied to that is ensuring people are aware of new laws when in place. So I felt that there was support for requiring a permit prior to tree removal as there was a lot of questions well how many trees are being cut down well we don't know how many trees are being cut down because we have nothing to track how many trees are being cut down. And there was, again, this idea that we would be protecting property owners. So I feel like there's definitely some support for that. The question kind of comes in, so that's on the next page, I sort of have what I think is what we need to be looking at is should we consider delaying or, and these were also some suggestions that came out of council, but also maybe slightly from staff, should we delay or eliminate the fees for tree permits? or just, you know, I mean, because we haven't set them. And when we do take it back, we will come back with a recommended. I didn't expect it to be much, maybe $75. Consider eliminating or reducing the tree credit for the replacement for removing trees on neighborhood residential properties if no development is occurring. So the idea is if it has a house on it, it's in neighborhood residential, maybe we require them to get a permit, but maybe we're not requiring them to, plant any trees to keep the cost down. Or maybe we require less. Because eight credits, if you only have one tree and you take the one tree down and now we're saying you have to plant eight trees, there's an expense to that. Eight credits. Which is going to be four to eight trees depending on how you do that. Consider exception process for people, because right now it's a exceptional tree you basically don't really have a reason to take it down unless it's dying or you're building something so should we have some sort of exception for aesthetics purposes. Consider reducing or delayed penalties, we definitely there was agreement to remove the penalties from the code and placed in the fee schedule so. That's not a big deal either way. We are in theory trying to get most of the fees out of the code anyway. It gives us a little more flexibility to adjust for that. And then if there's anything else that other people heard either at the meeting or in the community, I will open it to whatever, I don't know if we got reactions first or questions or comments.

I do have a few questions. This is a very long list of questions for us from Council, some of which are philosophical in nature and don't even have anything to do with the Tree Code necessarily. I feel like it's such a huge, almost like fire hose worth of questions that to be more effective, I would rather focus on a few priorities that we decide are priorities to talk about because ensuring people are aware of new laws when in place, how does that fall on the Planning Commission versus actually the City Council or even anybody? I think that some of these things are a little bit, this is like a shotgun splatter everywhere, what are we doing kinds of questions when we really need to get a tree code done. So I'd like for us to focus on remaining really effective in what we need to do and maybe help council understand what their role is, is almost like a separate issue to me. I don't know, am I wrong?

No, and that's why I tried on 18, maybe to pull it in. And if you feel like some of those aren't yours as well, but that was more my, that's why I was sort of like, this is what I was hearing.

This is what I think we should be maybe working on.

yes getting the word out it is staff and council it's mostly staff which i did talk to them about that we had talked about having flyers getting it out on facebook getting it i mean we had talked about all the things we had discussed that it was a concern at planning commission to make sure people were aware so yes that is something that is on staff to make sure that happens with anything we do um so yes

Any other comments, questions, starting on this side?

I'd just like to note that, yeah, you guys, I know, spent months on this, right? Three months, four months? It was a long time that you guys worked on this. But, yeah, I can understand, you know, getting you inundated with this big package. And I think the cost is probably the biggest issue to me. I mean, it did seem like that, you know, the expense was awfully high and expensive. And definitely that would be one of the things I think we should look at for sure. Other than that, I mean, yeah, it should be, you know, push it back to them and, you know, this is what you guys labored for for four months or whatever it was and appreciate the work and effort that you guys put into it, yeah.

I think this list of questions, there is not a single one on here that we did not ask of ourselves. So I'm wondering if there is any work for us to do before that person comes and chats at the July meeting to everyone, or will that person come in and just maybe blow the whole thing up anyways? I would definitely be open to, for the sake of appeasing counsel, to get this done in the meantime, reducing the penalties, eliminating the fee for the permits. I don't know about reducing the credit requirements. That's kind of the whole thing. But for the sake of appeasing counsel, I'd be open to reducing fees, absolutely, and then see what everyone says in July, and everything might change anyways.

I think it might be wise to hold off on the fees until we have the study, but requiring permits seems really important. It will protect people. Yeah, it will protect people from, like, unlicensed individuals. It might protect them from, they're not aware of, like, a drainage issue that the tree imposes by removing it, or a sloped terrain. I think the council almost passed it when they realized that they could put it on the fee schedule versus the other means of collecting the, in fee of lieu of, or the fines for taking down a tree without a permit. So, yeah.

Commissioner Whalen. I did attend council meetings where this was discussed. And I think that there's a mix of a lot of issues in play. I think it's, and you may feel this as a planning commissioner, and I know I felt it, new person. It's just, wow, I'm making rules that are affecting people. And so I sense a little bit of a trepidation on many fronts. I personally, that we should forward the ordinance as we presented it. The whole goal was to accomplish something that was comprehensive, brought as many people into the process as possible, It came in with a reasonable set of standards. You may remember I made the comment, we all could find codes that are a lot more strict, two and three times more the quantity of tree credits, for example, required. I mean, you can find code with much more strict rules. I favored something like this. This is a reasonable, meaningful ordinance. And the goal was, let's get rid of the loopholes. and I have to commend Manager Stalnaker for trying to salvage and quick do a rewrite of things, and it just created an instability in the overall basis for the code, which was everybody's involved in it. I understand the property rights perspective. It wasn't overtly said, but that was my personal take on it that that was a level of concern for people. there's so many rules already with what we can and can't do on our property. And putting it in a basic term, we all benefit from trees. There are huge psychological, biological, I mean just health issues for people as well as the environment, green infrastructure, storm, there's just so many benefits and maybe the urban forester can do a bit of a presentation that really helps people to understand that a tree is a much cheaper way to go than what you're going to have to do to replace what that tree does for us for the cost of having to rake leaves and make space for it and keep our gutters clean. It's just, and it's an asset that we all share so that When an individual says they're my trees, I'm gonna cut them down. I don't wanna rake leaves anymore or whatever reason that may be. They're not just affecting themselves. they're affecting the integrity of the whole ecosystem. And we're at a point where we are really losing trees. I have some handouts that I copied just from Puget Sound Regional Council, a census tract analysis. We're at 21% tree canopy coverage, 22%. Most goals for tree canopy coverage go to the 35 to 40%. And it just seems to me that why get into a deeper hole? So I'm heartened to hear that the commission is solid in their support of working now to deal with the issue, understanding that we were gonna keep on working on this and make it better. But we'd have a tool that our planning staff could use with some flexibility in there to help do the right thing. If you visit the Puget Sound Regional Council website, you'll see there's presentations and an effort to put together the architects and city planners to say, you can increase housing and you can save mature trees. And by saving a mature tree, you are doing so much more to remove it. It's gonna take you, I think the slides are 25 years to, get back to where you were. I look forward to participating in the study session. I'm truly sad to see that, again, you have to administer our code without really having the support you need in the code to have people do the right thing and It's troubling and I'm not saying this is what council is doing But in general when people point out a particular development, oh, that's so horrible look at all the trees they're cutting and Then when you have a conversation, oh, but don't tell me what to do with my trees That's not fair the cost issue You know, if you had a piece of jewelry stolen from you and the criminal showed up and said, well, I got your $5,000 piece of jewelry, I'll give you 50 bucks. So penalties need to be inspiration to not do the whole thing. There are other forms of penalties. There could be, and that may be part of the discussion, is to come up with a few menu of ideas of alternatives. But this idea of saying, well, if you've lived here for a while, you get a pass. I don't think we're in a place we can operate that way anymore with what we are losing. And for people who look at it from a fairness perspective, I just wonder what their response is as parents talking to someone who says, I don't have kids in the school system, never did, never will. Why do I have to pay all those school taxes? And you know it's a big chunk of your property taxes. What would be that parent's response? It's for the good of all. And that's how I look at this tree protection and retention code. Strengthening, enhancing, building a resilient urban forest is just such a benefit to us. So on these suggested items to address, that's council's decision what they want to charge for tree permits. Reducing credits, I completely disagree with that. We all need to be operating under the same rules. reduced or delayed, we can be strategic about that a little bit, but penalties moving from the code to the fee schedule, when are they updated? When is it reviewed? And it certainly makes an impact to somebody who's reading the code to realize, oh, trees do have a value. And a reminder, that's the arborist, it's a plant guide to plant appraisal. It's a You Google it and there it is. Here's the costs. So these were not willy-nilly numbers that just fell out of the sky. And the person who helped me understand the Burien Code said, and in fact, what you see in the Burien Code is less than what that appraisal guide states. So on the issue of, there was a, how are tree credits determined? I think that's a valid question. And I can provide resource material that's real user friendly to explain. We had three ways to do it. You count the trunks, you count the canopy, or you do a tree density based on the size of the trunk because there's a correlation with the size of the trunk to the size of the canopy. And unless the city's gonna invest in LIDAR, do drone assessments, measuring the canopy's gonna be pretty tough. And just counting trunks you know, three little trees versus, I just went out and measured one of the trees on my property. It is, it was over 60 inches in size and in diameter. And I was just, wow, that's one tree on my property. And from my perspective, while there's a lot of things I'd love to see strengthened in this code, I look at that and say, that's one tree and I only get nine credits, and my tree is twice the size than the threshold for an exceptional tree. I'd love to see the, you know, I could see a lot of things to fine tune, but we need to get a code in place and come back with a skilled forestry perspective. And I'm so excited and congratulate you on finding a grant and finding the funding so that we can really turn this into a project. And as far as ensuring people are aware of new laws, You can make a plan for that from door hangers, inserts and utility bills, Facebook. I'll steal one of Commissioner Strader's observations is what about just going to the L&I website and sending a blurb to everybody listed as a person who cuts trees? So I agree with Chair Oller's observation. It was a big shift in mindset, and I think it was just a blast of questions. And I think there is strong support on council for this. They just need a little more information and justification. And hopefully in their council meeting in July, they'll approve it, so. Yes, I'm passionate about it, and I'm sorry I took your time. Commissioner Strader?

I'll keep it brief. I just agree with what everyone else has said. I'm on board. I was at the meeting. I understood, because I had listened to the Burien, because I was curious, well, what happened when Burien did this? theirs almost derailed right at the meeting where they were going to approve it to go on their consent agenda at the next meeting. And a council member said, what about this fee, or not the fee, the penalty? It's so high, and they did a break and had this, met with the lawyers and came back, and they had a solution, which was, because his was, it's five days after, you know, how do we tell everybody in five days? That didn't seem fair. And so they came up with a solution and, but they kept that fee amount in, or the penalty amount in. So there's ways to do it. I just feel like Council just, they had these questions that were, at that meeting they just didn't know how to proceed and then the change just made more confusing and i appreciate it coming back to us um because i wasn't sure which way it was going to go so and i i was appreciative of it coming back versus dying because it didn't look like anyone was going to make a motion to do anything so i'm and which means it would have just died so i'm glad to have it back fine tune it because i it took me some time to get behind it because I have a lot that's undeveloped with a lot of trees. And at first I thought, well, wait a minute, I did think they're my trees. And then I realized after I sat with it, they're not really my trees. They're just the trees on the property when I bought it. I would love to have them stay. And this gives a reason, a way for them to, stay and not just get clear cut. So I was disappointed that it didn't go forward the way we had given it to them. I really am thankful there's gonna be a meeting where they can all, you know, they can get behind it and sit with it like we did and what you did before I came. And I look forward to the council meeting, the joint one. because I think it just needs more information for them to be comfortable.

Yeah. I mean, given that we are going to have the study session on July 13th. Yeah. And to your point, Commissioner Zorro, like maybe we don't do more work that we're just going to discuss again and go over again. How much, what is our goal for this evening?

Part of it is just to bring it back because it was, that was our charge. My charge was to bring it back. I do think, I think I underestimated or overestimated the support I thought was there. Like I said, I don't in my head, because we were all, I mean, there was like, yeah, how do we do this? But there was really full support for doing something and getting it in. And I thought that was the charge we had from council, but again, council's new. And so I do feel like, and too often what happens is like, cause I did bring it to like three meetings. But it wasn't until the last meeting that all of a sudden there's all these questions being raised and all this pushback, and then you're trying to fix things and different things. So I guess it wasn't the last meeting. But anyway, I think it may very well just be education of what we're trying to do, why we're trying to do it, certain things, how it impacts, and make sure that they're aware of Again, these are the goals and policies there are in the comp plan and are in the in the community so yeah I think we're okay. If the feeling is since we've got this meeting again and I was feeling like Oh, we want to get this adopted, we want to get it in, and I think we need to back up so in this case, we have the study session in July. And it may come out and they will have a meeting after that so then hopefully I can get you know, maybe we get a good feel out of that meeting at the study session or the next meeting in July. And then we can come back knowing we just need to recommend it back, or yes, they want us to change a couple things. My thing is, I would recommend us taking the fees out. I think that seemed to make them more comfortable. And maybe that we keep them the same, but again, they can adjust them if they really desire. I did reach out to talk to the guy in Burien, but he was unavailable for like a month and a month and a half as soon as I called. So I think he might be back, so I'll see if I can get some, yeah, or if you, I know that you spoke to him, so I know some of the information you have. So we will just provide them more information. We will have the meeting, I think, with DNR will be really good because this is what they do. And then we will circle back in August, probably.

I'm comfortable tabling the discussion until we can talk directly to council. Do we have consensus on that or do we want to make a statement of any kind? Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Is there a merit to the idea of having heard council's concerns to have ad hoc committees start doing some of our own homework to look into, for example, I'm going to pass around Puget Sound Regional Council's census tract for tree canopy coverage done in 2024. So I just wonder, is there an interest in that, or am I the only tree nerd willing to invest time like that to shift the perspective? I mean,

to provide okay because i know that like i said i know that this is your passion and you have done a lot of extra work about this which we've appreciated if you have those things so that i okay i'm not having to extra look i would be happy to put together some informational packets for that study session ahead of time so that okay i'll be like they're coming and here here's all the backup for why the planning commission feels this is important so okay i would be happy to put that together if that's

Okay, so is there anyone else who would be interested in participating in that? If not, okay, that's fine. Okay, all right, so it would be just a conference room, no, just a, like here.

Provide information that you've got, we can go through it, and then I'll try to put it together. Now that I have Emily, I'm gonna have so much more time. I just have this feeling.

Well, and the other thing is, understand, I think the education is needed for a shift in awareness. You know, 30, 40, I mean, back in the 70s, when you made an airline reservation, it was, you want the smoking section or the non-smoking section? I mean, that isn't even in people's mindset anymore, but that was normal in the 60s and 70s. So I remain hopeful. and thankful. So just pass these handouts to Manager Stalnick and you'll put the packet together, okay. All right, thank you. Thank you for the discussion.

We are done with regular Agenda C then for now, knowing that we're going to discuss it further. That moves us on to staff reports.

I am off tomorrow. And I will be off most of the last week of June or the first week of July I guess whatever that week is I will be off most of that week so just a heads up for that. Other than that we have new carpet in both finance and the community development building C and finance also has new paint they feel like they're. They have been loved, so stop in and see the new improvements. Nothing else at this time, I don't think. That moves us to- Oh, and I should thank Olaf, who was part of the moving crew for all of that. Commissioner Gertz in his day job. Here, here.

It was a good team building experience for them. You know, crammed in here, different departments.

And so you were responsible for all of the internet inter. And the computers working.

All of our computers for finance and development. We were on that side. We had a curtain in the middle. Finance was on this side. Like I said, all of our computers, all of our telephones, everything was in here. So we just ran everything out of here for, what, two and a half weeks?

Printers?

Yeah, we had the printer. We had the postage machine, coffee maker.

I didn't do the coffee maker. I can't take credit for that.

And it ran really smoothly. We did it in a half a day, and we unloaded in a half a day. Wow. It was very nice. And so, yeah, Emily was here for two weeks. We moved in here for two weeks. Now she's finally back at her real desk.

Well, let's move on to commissioner reports. Let's start. And you don't have to give a report, but you are certainly welcome to at this time. Commissioner Strader.

Nothing to add.

Commissioner Whalen. Thank you. I'm hoping that we can do a agenda item on lessons learned as we went through this major ordinance process to see how we could improve. And I don't know if the commission would rather wait till we're all done or you wanna make it soon, but I always find that's valuable or what are the takeaways? How could we do better? What do we wish we had sort of a thing? So that would be one thing. And in that discussion, I would reiterate my wish. It's been many years since I've brought it up, but if we could have our documents with the numbers, but each line numbered, that when we start to dig into the text, we could say line number such and such, and we'd all know exactly what we're looking at instead of third paragraph down on page 12, second sentence. So that's kind of a formatting issue, but it's a wish as a way to help us navigate our documents, and hopefully it won't make the work you have to do, Manager Stallnecker, with managing documents more problematic. And... And thank you for giving us a printout of the current zoning. It's a little easier to read in this size. And the last question is, once we get through this 2026 comprehensive plan update, could we get a printout of the comp plan? Or, I mean, originally there was a promise of a booklet and I never got a booklet.

I got the book. The books are over there from the original one if you want one. There's quite a few of them.

Okay.

I thought I sent that out as a maybe.

I must have missed the memo. Because it is handy to be able to just flip open a page real quick and say, ah, 60% of the city is residential or there's X amount vacant land. But it becomes out of date, I know. But anyway, that's just a request. Thank you. Commissioner Kurtz?

No report from you.

All right, Commissioner Zaro. Just a huge shout out to Commissioner Whalen. I really appreciate your enthusiasm and your passion about the trees. I feel like you're really leading the charge and I really appreciate all the extra time you spend on it.

Yep, and I'll second that. The trees are a good thing.

I just have my final report. I have a question for Commissioner Whalen. How many years have you served on the Planning Commission now?

I was appointed to the Commission. I never asked to be on the Commission. I was appointed in January of 2002. Next year's your 25th anniversary.

Next year we need to do something for Commissioner Whalen's 25th anniversary.

Okay.

And I think we are done. Next regular meeting is July 8th. We have our study session July 13th.