Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I open the session. Welcome to the farewell greeting.

I praise faithfully the flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands.

A nation under God, indivisible, with freedom and justice for all.

And now the call for names. Commissioner Goertz.

Present.

Commissioner Strada.

Yes.

Commissioner Törnes is not present.

I have not received any message.

Commissioner Wendt.

Present. Commissioner Saro. Vice Chair Johnson. Present. And Chairman Ohler is also present. Do we have an application for an apology or should we wait for Commissioner Törnes to come? Ich dachte, unsere Richtlinie besagt, dass die Person nicht entschuldigt ist, wenn sie weder den Vorsitzenden noch das Personal angerufen hat.

Ich hoffe, er wird noch kommen.

Hoffentlich wird er nun. Wir machen dann einfach weiter. Wir vermerken ihn als abwesend. Gibt es Ergänzungen, Streichungen oder Korrekturen zur heutigen Tagesordnung? So I know that Commissioner Wayland mentioned that we had the joint meeting. If that should have been in the protocol instead of August 12th. Personally, I wasn't what you... Also, wir sind bei Ergänzungen und Streichungen für die Sitzung.

Korrekt. Ich war meiner Zeit voraus bei der heutigen Tagesordnung.

Bei der heutigen Tagesordnung. An einem Punkt, und ich verlasse mich da auf Ihr Ermessen, mein Vorschlag, und natürlich entscheidet die Mehrheit der Gruppe, aber bei so signifikanten Änderungen am vorliegenden Dokument, sollten wir vielleicht innehalten und einfach sagen, was machen wir als Nächstes? So I think that this evening is just a footnote for our chairman. Is that? That's good. So there are no further additions, amendments or corrections. We would move on to citizen participation. There is no one, no member of the public here, so we skip that and come to the approval of the protocol from July 8th. Haben wir einen Antrag? Ja, Commissioner Wendt. Nun, wir waren bei unserer Arbeitsweise etwas nachlässig, also könnten wir Änderungen diskutieren und dann einen Antrag stellen oder das formelle Verfahren einhalten. Haben Sie eine Änderung für das Protokoll?

Nur eine Ergänzung. Und zwar gab es am Ende unserer regulären Sitzung eine Diskussion über eine bevorstehende Sondersitzung. Das Protokoll spiegelt derzeit nur die heutige anstehende Sitzung wider. Aber wir hatten am 13. Juli die gemeinsame Sitzung mit dem Stadtrat. Ich sehe eine Erwähnung der gemeinsamen Sitzung in den Berichten der Kommissare, aber sie meinen, dass dies auch im Protokoll stehen sollte. Ist das richtig? Das ist mein Vorschlag, wenn die Gruppe das auch so sieht, weil dort nächste Sitzung steht. Die nächste Sitzung war am 13. Juli. A special session or a regular session would be... I see a joint session under C. The Commission discussed the logistics for the upcoming session of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Would it be sufficient to simply add it on July 13? As it is also stated in the employee report... I leave it to the group, but that would be my suggestion. So thanks. This is the only note on the protocol.

Are we agreed that we can simply add... Reguläre Tagesordnung C, gemeinsame Sitzung, Logistik der bevorstehenden Sitzung des Stadtrats und der Planungskommission am 13. Juli 2026. Eine Korrektur muss vorgenommen werden.

Können wir einfach nächste Sitzung, 13.

Juli 2026, ändern wir es vom 12. August. Es ist eine etwas andere Art von Sitzung. The joint session is not a regular session. That's the only reason I'm against it. Because. That's how I see it too. It said down here that there will be one down here. It's actually our sessions. The difference.

I mean, I see it mentioned three times. Under C joint session, in the employee report and in the report of a commissioner. Maybe to round it all up.

Sie schlagen also vor, unter C gemeinsame Sitzung anzugeben, dass sie am 13. Juli stattfindet. Damit es in diesem Abschnitt steht und die nächste Sitzung so belassen, wie sie ist, da dies die reguläre Sitzung ist. Können wir uns per Konsens einigen? Ist das akzeptabel? I file the application to change the protocol in relation to the joint session of C. For, excuse me, do not let me go back. The protocol from July 8th for the Planning Commission. We change point C under regular daily order. Ich meine unter der regulären Tagesordnung, sagen wir. Gemeinsame Sitzung. Die Kommission diskutierte die Logistik für die bevorstehende Sitzung des Stadtrats und der Planungskommission am 13. Juli 2026.

Gibt es einen Unterstützer? Wer ist dafür? Gibt es Gegenstimmen? Der Antrag wurde einstimmig angenommen.

Now you need an application for approval of the protocol. Now we have to approve the protocol. Now we have to approve the protocol. What kind of fun. How changed? Is there an application for approval of the changed protocol from July 8, 2026? I approve the approval of the protocol from. Was that July 8, 2026? How changed? Do we have a supporter? Two. All for it.

Is there an opposition? No one is against it. The protocol is approved and we can continue with our agenda. Point A, revised proposal for the city forest. Could you explain that to us, employees?

At the council meeting on May 18, 2026, the council returned the matter to the Planning Commission. We held the joint meeting in July and on August 3rd the staff presented an alternative word of mouth to the council to receive feedback that seemed less restrictive for properties with an existing one-family or two-family house. Based on this discussion, the staff does not believe that there is a majority in the council that would vote for the original proposal of the planning commission or the slightly softer wording presented by the staff on 3 August. Based on this, I went and It is further reduced. So I will go through this and then we will open the discussion. With the definitions, we could go both ways. You will find that I let a restructuring of all definitions follow, although there could be a temporary delay. So if we have the feeling that the definitions belong back to this regulation and they are then too redundant. Is that okay? But that's what I did. I made some reorganizations, because some of the feedback was that it would be difficult to follow. So I tried to make it more user-friendly. The table for extraordinary trees was removed. There was also feedback that it could be confusing for a normal person to find out what is extraordinary and what is not. Der ursprüngliche Vorschlag der Planungskommission begann mit 30 Zoll. Ich habe es dann auf 28 Zoll Durchmesser in Standardhöhe reduziert und einige der Bäume ausgeschlossen, die ursprünglich nicht als außergewöhnlich galten. Ich mache also mehr Bäume. Nach Größe, aber nicht nach Typ. So that could also go in both directions. But that was part of the feedback that I got from some of the people I think that I... The feeling is that three are very supportive, two are strictly against it and two are more in the middle and a little more hesitant. To a certain extent, I'm trying to win these two votes. I'm excited. There's a lot of it, too. And if there's a feeling that I've gone a little too far, we can take it back at any time. But I have... After some of the questions that went in the direction of why housing construction gets more credits than some commercial uses. No, the new one. It felt like maybe with neighborhood businesses. I understand, with some urban multi-family homes, urban mixed-use, urban mixed-use, it's about maximizing these areas. But neighborhood businesses and municipal facilities are a softer type of business, more, as I said, more neighborhood-oriented. No, maybe you could be upgraded to a credit and require that more trees are kept there. And then there is also the discussion, should everyone be the same, whether 0.5, which means fewer trees, or all 1, should be upgraded. So to get back to what I heard from the city council, at least for the moment, was that no replacement for dead, dying or dangerous trees is required. A part of this argument makes sense, because you don't want someone to drop a dead, dying or dangerous tree, because he thinks he doesn't have any money for replacement trees. So this is the current proposal number three of the staff. And then there is no restriction on the number of healthy trees that are felled on land with existing one or two family houses. However, we would ask that a tree-fall notification form be submitted for these trees. This is for follow-up, because, as I said, some questions from the city council were, how do we know that it works? How do we know how many trees are being felled? Is it really, and that would help us, to get a better feeling for how many trees, which size, where are being felled? I suggest that we do not limit the number of healthy trees, but basically link the time of the construction permit to it. Basically, for every healthy tree that is felled, you have to buy it in one year's waiting time up to the distribution of the construction permit. So if you drop three trees in one year, you would have to wait three years before you can apply for more than 500 square feet of land or a residential unit, a large garage or something like that. So we use that to some extent to close some of the laws that we wanted to approach so that you can't just drop five trees and only have to wait a year. And in addition, if you have to rebuild a residential unit, two residential units, next to buildings or a 500-foot construction site, you now have to meet the tree balance. You would have to meet the tree balance minimum further. At this point, you would have to plant at least more trees or care for your trees to achieve this goal. Recommend. There were several council members who removed the list of fees for violations from the settlement and wanted to include it in the fee list. And then I also added that there was the feeling, and I think also with some members of the Planning Commission, that there should be more alternatives for voluntary agreement. So what I added is what is called a voluntary agreement. It is, so to speak, a way that we could use to someone who, if a resident has fallen a tree, although of course we don't fall trees on private property per se. But if it's maybe a small entrepreneur or someone like that, that would give us the opportunity to find an alternative way if they don't have the necessary money to do it directly. So that's a big part of it that makes up a huge chunk again. Ich habe versucht, eine Art Überarbeitung dessen zu erstellen, was ich hinzugefügt, entfernt und neu organisiert habe. Falls noch einmal. Ich habe es zur Abstimmung gestellt mit der Idee, dass wir, wenn wir das Gefühl haben, dass dies vom Rat verabschiedet werden soll, und wir glauben, dass es eine Mehrheit findet, sie die Gelegenheit haben, dies heute Abend zu tun. If the votes are not enough for this evening, it would be postponed to another session. So I'll leave it at that point. As always, your discussion. I think first questions if there are specific questions that I can answer before we get into the discussion to help people understand what we have done. Yes, please clarify questions first.

Does anyone have clarification questions?

Could you give an example for an explanation question?

An explanation question explains something.

what we actually want to suggest to the council. And I think, yes, maybe it could be a why, but not necessarily a we should. I guess that would make sense. Rather what we have done or what it means, instead of should we have it in here. And let's do our round question. Yes, I will. I changed my mind. If someone has a question, I will just call everyone individually for clarification questions for clarification questions. Commissioner Johnson. Yes, I have a question. It has with... Okay, wait a moment. I tried after... Oh yes. So it seems that somewhere along the way what was supposed to be 1, 2, 3 in ABC has changed because it sometimes changes things by itself. When it's automatic, so yes, when you... I think, where does it start? I think it starts with D. Because I wondered why every section started with a small a. So frustrating. Uh, if you look at B and C, it goes from B to a sub-point 1. C goes to a sub-point 1. You go to D, it goes to a sub-point a. Should be a sub-point 1. Unfortunately, it tries to think too much and sometimes makes automatic changes that I didn't want. And from then on, it should be corrected. So, and it's ... okay, so ... Es ist ein Frust mit der Formatierung. Okay, ich verstehe. Ich bin froh, dass alles stattdessen in die Gebührenordnung kommt. Ich denke, das ist gut. Meine Frage betrifft die Bürgschaft.

Auf welcher Seite ist das gelandet?

The new pages don't seem to have page numbers either. Wonderful. No, it's on the old one. I think there was something about a castle for people who would have to pay. And the question is, is this only valid for commercial purposes or for individual private houses where they would have to leave a castle for tree planting to protect themselves?

Where did it go?

I saw it. I think it depends on it. For the most part, these will mainly apply to construction projects. I marked it here. The majority of them will only refer to construction projects. Now, a construction project could also be the construction of a single-family house. And I can't remember.

There it is, townships and fulfillment security. Page 17 of 17. It was on page 33 or L.

All right. Originally page 33. Fulfillment guarantees or other suitable securities are required for five years. So if we need them, that gives us a little flexibility. But yes, if certain trees have to be re-planted that require this guarantee, the fulfillment guarantee, then that would be done that way. So you don't mean that every private citizen who builds something has to leave a guarantee? Well, at the moment, private citizens don't have to plant trees, unless they're building a new house.

Unless they're building a single apartment.

Yes, you're right, because it's a construction of this property. That's what I think. So I could check that. Now our documents speak for themselves. Most of the time we don't do that, unless we have doubts whether they would survive. Thank you. Guarantees and securities apply to everyone who makes a decision.

Every private person and businessman.

Yes. I can check again. If we ask for a guarantee, do we ask from everyone who does it? So I'll fly over it briefly and look it up. And does it also apply to the state insurance that the city has, why it exists? No, it's just about making sure that they actually plant something that survives instead of planting it and then goes in because they didn't take care of it. Because for private people we could say can, because many of our regulations on fulfillment guarantees for other things can also say, as I believe is stated in the general landscape design, that the head of community development can demand this if he thinks it is necessary. So if you want to enable flexibility, we could convert it from a must into a can. I'll wait and see what the others have to say. Thank you.

And that could be more, I guess, half clarification, half discussion.

I have no clarifying questions. I actually have one regarding the guarantee security. Is there a timetable for how high the guarantee should be or what the appropriate security would be? Is there a timetable for that? Seems like it's not defined otherwise. Normally, I think we would. I would usually assume, as with other things, that it is about the costs for the replacement, if the tree comes in. I mean, should we qualify that? I mean, it just seems very general. We could, because here it says how to calculate the replacement, which is basically the costs, the plant costs and an X number of years. From which I believe that it is only two or three. So we could say, we could determine how it is. Yes, I think if we mention that, we need more documents about what it is. I will mark that as a point where we can see whether there is a consensus on changing the formulation. Commissioner Gürtz, do you have any clarifying questions?

No question.

Commissioner Wen. Thank you, Ms. Chairman. Could you please give a general overview of the basics? Our earlier regulation, for example, said that everyone had to hold a certain minimum number of tree credits, and now it seems as if we were driving on two tracks.

And that's why it's a kind of fundamental question, since the mechanisms are different, if you please.

So what this does is... Once again, I know that some of the restructurations make it a bit more difficult to follow. There are still unusual trees, I'm just going to set them to 20. And again, 28 inches is not a magical number. But I, Kirkland, used 28, which is a little lower than 30, which in my opinion could compensate a little for the missing table. So we still have unusual trees and significant trees. We still kept the exceptions to a large extent. Der Rat fühlte sich damit sehr unwohl. Also habe ich das herausgestrichen. They feared it could mean that a community development director could go beyond what was approved and codified. But basically, the tree credits would only apply if someone was building something. The previous version said that if you fell a tree and didn't have enough trees on your property to fulfill the tree credits, you had to replant. The removal of a tree and the construction would trigger it. In this case, if you have a single-family house or an existing duplex and a tree grove, there is no requirement to fulfill the tree credits, not even with an extraordinary tree. There is no obligation to take any replanting. However, if you build something, this would require you to meet these requirements. So if you look at page 11 under G, I basically divided that into two sections. the limited distance between trees, any kind of closure. So if you build a new one-family house, two-family house, a one-bedroom apartment or a construction of over 500 square feet, where a significant or extraordinary tree has to be removed, you are obliged to get a permit for a limited distance between trees, which then comes into force. Basically, you have to follow all other regulations. Die einzige Ausnahme, die ich hier habe, ist, und auch hier ist es keine magische Zahl, aber drei schien mir einigermaßen angemessen. Wenn drei oder weniger bedeutende Bäume entfernt werden müssen, müssen Sie keinen Fachmann damit beauftragen, die Erhaltungs- und Ersatzpläne zu erstellen. Sie müssen sie zwar immer noch vorlegen, aber Sie können dies auf einem niedrigeren Niveau tun. Noch einmal. Das könnten zwei sein, das könnten drei sein, das könnte alles davon sein. I somehow chose three or less. So you still have to have a maintenance plan. You still have to have a replacement plan. You still have to fulfill the vouchers, be it through the maintenance of what is already there, through replanting or, in the last case, through a replacement service. That's what would come in handy. But you could definitely If it is not intended for development purposes, you should remove every healthy tree. The only thing I appreciate. I don't know if consequence is the right word, but the only thing that would be connected to it is that you would delay your ability to develop in the future. So if you cut down a tree, you have to wait a year. If you cut down five trees, you have to wait five years before we allow you to build something. So may I ask further questions?

Thank you. Just to make it clear, in the end we work with three different documents. Because if I look at page 9 and then look at the table of necessary minimum bond documents, And then the next document. I can see there are other numbers in there. I think it's page 5 of our package that contains the same table, but what are the requirements?

So for minimum goods it is different and also the categories of the zones. Also habe ich, wie gesagt, ich habe einen Teil meiner... Wenn Sie also davon sprechen, oh ja. Ich habe damit herumgespielt. Entschuldigung. Und die rote Linie sagt vielleicht etwas anderes aus. Also die rote Linie, das ist etwas verwirrend. Ich bin hin und her gegangen, weil ich, wie gesagt... Input erhalten. Wie ich schon sagte, es gibt fast drei Gruppen im Rat. Und ich versuche, einen Kompromiss zu finden. Und nochmal, einiges davon war. Warum machen wir es für Wohngebiete höher und nicht für Gewerbe? Some wanted both commercial and residential areas to be on a credit, which would mean that we would plant or keep more trees. Others wanted it lower. At one point I thought to myself, yes, that was a red line. Maybe we'll lower both to 0.5, but then I thought, no, I don't like that. So the clean version is next to what I present. I apologize if it's an older version of the Red Cross or because it came about, I thought, if you know, there were talks about it. I also have to say, some of it came from the fact that we received a reply from the Ministry for Natural Resources, which had a few rather minor comments. But one of the things she said was, if the trees are important to the city and your country and your municipal facilities are mostly self-managed, this should probably be on a higher level. Based on this comment and some comments on whether the city should not do what everyone else should do, I made the suggestion to raise the neighborhood businesses and community facilities to a higher level. It's in the meeting report. I tried to point out that this was based on your comments. And I think these are some of the things for the planning commission. And as I said, if that's the case, Where are we with the attempt to give it back to you? I don't know. Again, the attempt to find a compromise that we don't just mean me. The planning commission was all about protecting as many trees as possible. So are there ways we can do it differently? So I also tried to find ways to protect more trees, because we don't protect them in other places. That's why it came. It's not particularly ... Well, yes, it serves to clarify. Haben Sie sich eigentlich die Tabelle der Bau- und Volumenbestimmungen angesehen? Denn wir haben einen Standard, der die maximale versiegelte Fläche angibt und der variiert von Zone zu Zone. Zum Beispiel in der sogenannten Einfamilienhauszone liegt das Maximum bei 50% versiegelter Fläche. Aber wenn man zu einer der anderen Zonen geht, wie Nachbarschaftsgewerbe, sind 75 Prozent erlaubt. If I read the table correctly, 75 percent sealed area. So my clarifying question is, could a property that can be up to 75 percent sealed, according to your mathematical understanding and under the use of general rule of thumb, reach a tree loan per thousand square feet?

That is the clarifying question.

Now, that was a reason to leave TCMX and UMX out there, to leave these 90 percent. So it is quite clear that this should be significantly more. That means you can't build as much because you still have to try to keep trees. And it also has, let's see, a rear building distance of 15 in the NC zone. So a few more. There are slightly higher areas of distance. And not so much sealed area. So that's part of why I chose that. And as I said, it's also 75% for community services. But again, we have some, that's one thing we want. Because if it's important to us and I don't know what we're going to build next, but that was part of the consideration.

We can discuss this further when we come back to it.

I don't know if it's okay to move on to the next point. Commissioner Strada, do you have any more questions? And I don't know if that counts as a clarifying question, but the contractual agreement in it and these restrictions were legally checked whether we can do it like this at all. Because I know Edmunds just had something like that, how we should have a basic book restriction if you have a tree and it has to stand there forever. And I know that Edmunds had this case where they had to change their regulations and it was said that all these other cities were now changing their regulations to tree loans instead of contracts and basic book restrictions. So I just asked myself when we record this and then... can't be implemented. I can go through it and see who thinks about it. I mean, as soon as it starts to die or something, it would of course be something else. True. That makes absolute sense. That was a request from Berian, that's what they asked for. I think it came from Bern. So yes, I can check if there are legal changes that we can look at. Because for me, to zehn Jahre zu haben, oder wissen Sie, wenn jemand zwölf Bäume fällt, sind es jetzt zwölf Jahre. Ich weiß nicht, ob das vielleicht unterstützt würde. Ich wusste nicht, ob es etwas ist, das so sicher geprüft wurde. Damit wir nicht denken, wir tun etwas, während wir es eigentlich nicht tun. Also ja, ich kann nachsehen, ob es da... Gibt es noch weitere Fragen, oder war es das?

Das war es soweit. Ja. Overall, I have the feeling that we are probably not yet ready to send what we have in mind to the council, but I would like to let you know something very soon. Also in the knowledge that it will not be perfect and will not make everyone happy, but we have to do something. So the minimal, practical, acceptable beginning of a tree arrangement, whatever we can do to achieve that, I am determined to work on it until we have it. Um, further discussions. Nun, wir sehen auf unserer Tagesordnung, dass wir vielleicht kein Treffen im September haben. Das bedeutet, es wäre Oktober für uns und November für den Rat. Wir arbeiten schon eine ganze Weile daran. So it's up to the group. But I think we've all somehow said that we need something for the development aspect and then we can re-evaluate the fine-tuning. If this thing comes up with the agreement, we just say we'll continue without it. When there are legal problems in other cities and people complain, we take it out, out, we tell them out. But otherwise it's much better than before. We have adapted, or our employees have adapted to what the council wants, which is the final decision-making force. And I don't think we should wait any longer. We have waited and waited and they have turned it back on us. And yes, we had several sessions, but it's really not much different from what I read and the definition. And again, I don't think we can wait until November or December. because it will have an impact on the decisions of the ADUs, so that we never experience again what happened in the 13th street. Many houses are currently being built and bought. There are daily inquiries for homeless people. Let us buy your property, especially if you own part of an unbuilt plot. So for me, I agree, I trust the staff. Sie haben die Anpassung vorgenommen. Ich vertraue darauf, dass Sie die Tippfehler korrigieren werden. Sie werden das in Ordnung bringen. Und dann werde ich dafür stimmen, es weiterzuleiten.

Just a clarification on the matter in September. I will be at a conference during our regular meeting, if the planning commission wishes to have another meeting. I am available on the last Wednesday, so I mean on other days, but the last Wednesday in August or the first Wednesday in September would be possible evasion dates, if we want it cleaner before we hand it over. Als ich mit dem Vorsitzenden sprach, sagte ich nur, schauen wir mal, wie das Treffen läuft und wie wir uns fühlen. Ich werde also in dieser Woche einfach nicht hier sein. Ich werde in Chelan sein und dort hart arbeiten. Glauben Sie, dass der Stadtrat dies, so wie es jetzt ist, genehmigen würde? What are your thoughts on this? I think my goal is to get five votes. I don't know. A council member made it very clear that I don't know if she will vote for anything at all. A second council member did not express himself very much, but seems to orient himself quite strongly on the first. As I said, I have three who would have said goodbye to the original. Ich habe zwei, die nah an dem sind, was ich dem Rat präsentiert habe, aber noch nicht ganz. Ich habe wirklich das Gefühl, ich denke, dass diese beiden sowohl... Optisch ist 5 zu 2 etwas besser als 4 zu 3 und ich denke, es würde... Also das ist in etwa mein Standpunkt dazu. Once again, to be honest, it's not what the planning commission or I wanted it to be. However, we will... We will update the creation of a city forest and create a better city forest plan, which will provide us with much more data. And if we demand that people at least start to inform us when they cut down trees, we can get a better feeling for it. It will help us when people start building, planting more trees. So I think we could take it one more time. I agree, it may have to be revised one more time before it goes back and I agree with that if the planning commission feels better about it. I don't know if it will work out if it is more restrictive for existing single-family homes at the moment.

I vote for Commissioner Johnson.

I would rather approve it tonight, improve it later and pass it on, than to fight for it for months. This is my stand. I think we know that we have strong support in the community for tree protection. We know that the comprehensive plan gives the tree stock as a goal. We know that we want one. We know that our existing framework is not sufficient. I think where we still have to do convincing work at the council is Whether our proposal is a good proposal. Is it good for Milton? Do we have the data to support this? Do we have the research to support this? And I don't think there is a long history based on the tree report. Maybe it's ten years back or so, since 2010, 2011, something like that. The more information and data we can collect that prove that the tree stock is beneficial for the city, the more likely it is that we will find consent in the entire council. I think we have to do something. As long as we can convince that this is a reasonable plan that we can support and that will work as a starting plan, we should keep going. That's my opinion.

Commissioner Girtz. No comment.

No comment. All right. No, no apologies necessary. Commissioner Warne. Well, I still had a few clarification questions, but to To come back to the clarification questions from our package. Page 11, at the very bottom. This seems to be a very significant change. In the last sentence for the development of NR1-NR2 multi-family housing zones, a 50% reduction in any distance areas. That wasn't the original wording. That's a very big difference. So I wonder if that's just a or whether there was a logic to it.

I think that was my consideration, why only the, and I apologize, that should have been on the agenda as a point of advice. At the moment, I think the suggestion was the foreman's distance. I have a strange feeling. And maybe if the council or the planning commission is of the opinion, no, it only makes sense to take the foregarden. But I thought to myself, if you are willing to move it ten feet forward, it would then also be okay to move it ten feet back to protect a tree in the foregarden. And so that was my thought process, but I apologize. I really tried everything outside of ... Yes, that's a big change, especially when you talk about distance areas on the side. That's a big change in itself.

So I just wanted to understand if that's a... And maybe he knows the lateral area. Maybe I thought more about the front and back. Aber noch einmal, vielleicht wird es von 25 hinten auf 17,5 gehen. Oder ist das, wissen Sie, wieder das Maximum? Wenn Sie nur das Minimum beanspruchen können. Also, aber, ja, da bin ich.

Hier steht nur 50%. Da steht nicht bis zu.

Do I read that wrong? It says up to there. It says, it can be guaranteed, but under the criteria it says, the deviation must not be greater than the lost development potential in the tree protection zone. The idea behind it is, and I can clarify this at any time, that they aim to use the minimum they need to protect the tree and to maintain the necessary zone. So if you only need five feet, you only get five. If you look at the red line, it would be very helpful as a clarifying question, since you are familiar with it, to point out other major changes, like the ones I just mentioned. Let me take a quick look. I'll take a look at it. And again, maybe it's worth considering, you know, while I'm doing this, were the people satisfied with the old way or is there any kind of discussion about whether these changes... I mean, I don't know how often this would be used at all, but... Actually, it should stay that way, unless you think it's a good step. In which section does it say that again? If you look at page 11 of your package, that is under section G, tree pruning. In relation to the very last line on page 11, it is the very last sentence. So the current one that the planning commission originally recommended was 50 percent of the area in the foregarden.

And now this is a change for every area of ​​distance.

We have rules for ADUs. We have rules for the construction of property. If we go beyond a clarifying question and want to talk about what we think of the change, I would need the chairman's permission. Ahm, nein, wir sind mit den klärenden Fragen durch.

Aus meiner Sicht angesichts der Tatsache, dass wir ein staatliches Gesetz haben, das nun besagt, dass drei Wohneinheiten pro Grundstück möglich sind, Milton, sets out how this can happen, but three units per property. I mean, there are just a lot of moving parts in plot development. I experienced one of the first projects and I mean, you can get pretty surprising results. So I would tend to just say, okay, if you move it closer to the street, how many people does that concern? In contrast to a lateral or back border distance. I know it will be difficult with land in the background or with the development of plots. There are just so many moving parts. To be sure, I would go back to what we originally proposed, namely for the foregarden. And it can be applied and it was simply up to the formulation. And the other thing I want to say about any such change or other is. Maybe these are the things I heard from city fairs. Sometimes out of interest, sometimes not. But with the development that I observed in the circle of five minutes from the trial, pretty creative thinking takes place. And it is. It is very worrisome. So I think that's the only surprise that was in here. I think apart from that, yes. Once again, the addition of this idea, where I identified the voluntary compliance agreement, which offers a little flexibility.

And just another clarifying question is Go to page 5 with the points of reference that note the most important changes. I'm very curious to see if it would be legally sustainable if it really existed. To say, I think the idea is in a way good. The more trees you drop, the longer you have to wait for your approval. But I really wonder if that would be legally sustainable. And as I already said, in Kerplan it's like this. If you drop a tree, you have to wait a year. If you drop two trees, you have to wait two years. But they limit it to this one year. And that's exactly where they draw the line. I used this as a springboard and thought, if you want three cases, let's make three years out of it. So I can go through this with the lawyer and see if he feels comfortable with it at all.

Maybe two years are the limit anyway.

And that could mean, if you drop more than a certain number of trees, there is simply a upper limit. If we drop more cases, we could just say, if trees are dropped at all, a two-year development phase is valid, even if you only drop one, two or five. More.

Well, and one more comment on the clarification. Thanks to Commissioner Strada for expressing the Kirkland Regulation. But if you look at the Kirkland Regulation that was given to us and you go through the pages, it is page 12 at the top of the transcripts for Kirkland Chapter 95, tree farming and necessary landscape design. At 12 out of 49, number 5, they become more specific in terms of the type of permit. And so it seems to me when I read through it, as this is a topic in some different cases. It depends on whether you fall into significant trees or extraordinary trees. So it's more nuanced. Just to clarify, what is presented here is not the Kirkland Codex.

No, it's not.

I wanted to clarify this.

I presented large parts of the Kirkland Codex to the council. And after I did that, I still don't have the feeling that I would get the votes in the council. The other thing, because of the time and just a general feeling about the thing. I will say what I have observed at the council meetings is for me on many levels quite alarming and I leave it at that. I wonder if the council would let us work here again. So if the idea exists, let's just get this through and then continue to work on what was originally our hope. After the motto we will do it now and we can improve. Ich weiß nicht, wie eisenhart der Rat den Arbeitsplan genehmigt und sagt, das ist das, was ihr tun könnt und was nicht und was nicht. Ich verlasse mich also nicht darauf, einen zweiten Versuch zu bekommen. Sie können also erahnen, was ich sagen werde, nämlich, dass ich denke, wir sollten ein weiteres Treffen mit den Mitarbeitern haben, um wirklich alles durchzugehen und zu sagen, hier geht es nicht nur um Scriber, sondern hier gibt es eine echte Veränderung. So I'm just throwing that as an idea into the room. And that could be announced as a special session and would be publicly USW. Or it could be a simple meeting with the employees. But I would be open to something like that next week. The other thing is, the general concept of taking a step back and no longer asking everyone to keep a minimum number of tree points Sie haben da diese große Gesetzeslücke. Denn so wie ich diese Verordnung lese, ist es nicht wirklich klar, wann Mindestbaumpunkte erforderlich sind, besonders wenn man den Bericht der Mitarbeiter liest. But it seems to me, and I observed this during a five-minute walk from the Triangle Park, that developers simply buy property and then go through this process. They're waiting, so let them wait a year. I've been waiting for them for three or five years. So waiting seems to me not to be a sufficient punishment, but it's a start. But... For me, the biggest legal gap is that a developer buys and is then an owner. You can, as the employee report on page 6 says, remove the number of healthy trees on land with existing one or two-family houses without restriction. One begins to think about border regulations. I mean, we know, but I'm not going to claim that the Kahlschlagen will not be stopped with this law. What worries me after what I have observed from the citizens' and council's comments is that some people do not see this as a critical area, in my opinion, as we have a regulation for critical areas that protect wetlands and shore zones. So the country is, so to speak, closed for construction. For me, a tree falls into this category. Therefore, I ask the employees to present precedence cases to the Council that prove that there is a legal basis for this. You can protect the natural environment because of the ecological benefit it offers. So. So I see you agree too. I don't think so. that the problem is that they think it's illegal. They just don't want any regulation on a private basis or for individual residents and owners. They don't want any. I mean, they have emphasized owner rights, etc. several times. I agree that we can do it legally. I think it's valuable. We had a specialist here. I just don't believe that something will change the opinion of certain people. We have the economic plan for the Städtischen Wald here, which obliges us to present results in the next five years. Some of the arguments were, then prove it to me. So we have to start working on it. I, I...

I appreciate your... I can feel your pain. I think I just... But we have... I have proof photos in front of us. Look at what's being cut down there. We're obviously losing trees. But I can see that people are seeing it from a completely different perspective. But I just think you should print it fat. That won't stop the bald spots for construction projects. Not at all. And that's why I really... ein Problem mit dieser Verordnung. Jeder trägt eine Verantwortung. Zweitens, die Planungskommission, wir sind unsere Richtlinie nicht einmal wirklich durchgegangen, um zu sehen, wie wir das abmildern könnten. Wir könnten einen Plan aufstellen, wie viele gesunde, außergewöhnliche Bäume man fällen darf. Wir hätten, wir hätten das abmildern können. I appreciate your work very much, how you try, as you already know, to be the chairman of the United Nations and to try to keep all these countries on their toes. I would tend to want to hold another meeting next week so that people can just go through everything and clarify some things. For example, where does it say? The employee report on page 6 clearly states that there are no restrictions on the number of healthy trees that are felled on land with one or two trees. Wo steht das in der Verordnung? Es steht auch. Es, die Mindestbound Credits. Es spricht nicht darüber, dass man dies erhalten muss und wenn nicht, dann muss man es ersetzen. Ich denke einfach, dass noch etwas nachgebessert werden muss. Und ich schätze die Arbeit und die Mühe. I thank the Commission for taking part in this. We have a responsibility towards our future generation and it will make a difference, you know. So I would like to stop with Commissioner Strada. Thank you. Would you like to hear Commissioner Strada?

I also noticed the 50% reduction. And everything I thought was 3.5 feet away from my fence. That's a lot. I mean, because we have a house and then it goes into a duplex that is a few meters away from the back. And I think having that at 12.5 feet would be a bit extreme. Just because there's a tree there. We can, we can just in case there is no great consensus for a change. So just to be very clear, what is the proposal we are discussing right now? So the original version of the planned commission recommended was a. Extraordinary. With extraordinary trees. With extraordinary trees, you could basically apply for a deviation that says that you can make a reduction of up to 50 percent in the front garden. Instead of 20 feet, you could be up to 10 feet away from the front of the property. When I went through and tried to adapt everything, the thought came to me. Now, if we are ready to do this for the forecourt, we should also do it for the backyard, but that was not proposed and not adopted. So. And as I read it, it was any distance. In theory, instead of seven and a half, whatever that would be, you could have three and three quarters. My math is good. So I could put it back to the original state, which was only 50%. You could apply for up to 50% of the pre-garden distance.

I think closer to the street. I mean, that's the developer's option. Now, if it's a residential unit, ADU, you can already be in the back and may be in the back. And then you're even closer in the back area.

You should be closer to the house to which you belong. And I thought, I thought about the main house, but you're right. That allows more people. You can do that. I mean, it depends. You should have a tree that stands in the way. So I think as long as it was one thing that I didn't do it because of the council or someone else. If that's something that no one really wants to change, I'll put it back on the original. Okay, I see nods. I'm going to put it back to the original, because that's not. Yes, the original was. Yes, yes.

Oh, that's right.

And that was the intention.

Because you couldn't have three and then say, oh, I want the full 50 percent. We decide on the ratio correctly.

I mean, and as I said, the conditions say that you can only have as much as you need. That's the right thing to do. But let's make it clear to both of us. And the other comment or the other concern I have, why I would rather have another meeting to clarify the questions about the time. Because if. If we think we would have introduced a protection measure that says that you are not allowed to cut your property as a resident. And then the legal department comes and says, yes, that's not possible. And then it is painted and said goodbye. Then we have a cut without any protection. It's just the way it is. Ich meine, wir glauben, wir haben einen Schutz eingebaut und dann wird auf Stadtratsebene entfernt. Und ich meine, das alles kann in Zukunft noch geändert werden. Wir haben das also aufgeweicht. Es wurde immer weiter und weiter aufgeweicht. Und es könnte sein, dass es Dinge sind, bei denen wir sagen, nun, damit kann ich leben und damit auch. Es könnte wieder weiter aufgeweicht werden. For me, the question is, why don't we introduce something that we all or the majority of us believe in? And then it's up to the city council to stand for it. I can't. I mean, maybe the moral is too strong a term, but for me it's in the single-family homes where the damage is caused. Or possibly through the pure deforestation. And if we don't take them into account, except when they develop, because I have the feeling and maybe I'm wrong, that this is a council member who referred to Körkland. It felt like this council member just wanted... That there is an option. No unlimited option. But maybe he was clear to you. I don't know. Or this council member. I don't know. I just have the feeling that some in town council didn't like the absoluteness we presented to them. They wanted some play. Because they mentioned things like rocking. And it was always about where their children would play in the garden. And it was never said, we want to be able, we think the people should be right. Well, maybe there were a few who wanted to have the opportunity to simply beat their country to death if they wanted to. Because if you don't have protection measures, even though one of our goals is justice, then tenants are delivered to the well-being of their landlord or to the one who owns the property. Sie bekommen nichts, wenn derjenige, dem das Eigentum gehört, es nicht will, weil wir dann keinerlei Beschränkungen für Sie haben werden. Das ist meine Meinung dazu. Danke, Kommissar.

Kommissar Johnson.

Ich kann mich nicht an eine Zeit erinnern, in der der Rat unseren Arbeitsplan nicht akzeptiert hat. Normally they do that. And normally they refer things back to us. And I agree, this is a very strange town council. I am somewhat shocked by some of the things that are being said there. So my question is, maybe I understand it all wrong, but when it comes to a private property owner, Wenn er etwas anderes auf dem Grundstück bauen will, muss er sich an dieses weitere ADU halten. Sie können nicht alles abholzen, auch wenn Sie Ihr eigenes Heim oder vielleicht schon ein ADU haben. Sie können nicht einfach wahllos losziehen und den Baum fällen. Wenn Sie kommen und sagen, hey, ich werde ein ADU bauen und diese Bäume stehen im Weg. We would go through the whole process. The challenge is that if you buy a property and say, hey, I just own this property here. And then, according to the proposed codex, you could cut down many trees at will. That's why I tried to set a time frame according to the motto, well, you did that, but then you have to wait so long before you actually build something. So they can't just say, oh, I'm a house owner and two months later say, oh, I'm going to build something now. And now I've already fell the trees. But I thought the purpose here was to say, you come in, buy a house and think, oh, wait a minute, there's enough space for an ADU. Wir sagen, das können Sie nicht ohne eine Genehmigung tun, die uns vorschreibt, wie viele Bäume Sie behalten müssen. Vielleicht übersehe ich etwas. Nein, das ist korrekt. Wenn Sie es so tun, ist das der richtige Weg, wie man vorgehen würde. Aber nehmen wir an, Sie kommen und kaufen dieses Haus. That's exactly what we're trying to find out right now, whether there is a way. So if there are no restrictions, someone says, I just bought this house, I rent it or live there myself and don't build anything. Among what we have, you can just go in and demolish everything. And a year later they could come and say, oh, I want to build a house or an ADU now. And they already fell all the trees because they were allowed to. Well, we would force them to replant at this point, but that would not have protected the original trees. Wir versuchen also, eine Art negativen Anreiz zu schaffen, wissen Sie, nach dem Motto Zuckerbrot und Peitsche, dass man, wenn man Bäume fällt, dass wir sie warten lassen, was hoffentlich abschreckend wirkt. Wobei, wenn es nur ein Baum ist, müssen Sie ein Jahr warten. Das interessiert Sie dann. Sie hätten sie wahrscheinlich sowieso fällen können. Das ist auch egal. Aber wenn Sie drei, vier oder fünf Bäume fällen wollen, dann müssen Sie warten. If we could legally force them to wait five years, that would be a distraction from choosing the path through potholes, instead of being honest with us and going through the process. Well, I think by nature many people are not honest and the neighbors often do not express themselves because they are afraid of compensation measures. I know that citizens come to me and ask me to provide something because they do not want to appear themselves. That's why I, especially since I was in the council, have the feeling that another meeting won't bring anything. We have to tell the council, you make the decision. If you reject it, then we take it back. We have to take it to responsibility, not us. If you reject anything, you have rejected everything. And I challenge you to really define what the planning in the framework of our overall plan and for the future of our love to trees should do and to make it a moral responsibility for urban forestry. We are moving the wheel into focus. We have worked hard. That is why I say that I vote for it. It's not perfect, but it's better than what we had. I like a lot of what Körkland describes. You know, these can be handouts for the people for information, but at the moment we have to take the advice into account.

I am satisfied with the scope of the discussion at this point, to take an application.

This is with the changes that we have discussed in this session to pass on to the council. I make the request to advance the bill 2040. Is that correct? With the changes that we have discussed as a planning commission to pass them on to the council and to take them into responsibility. Please be a supporter for the request.

I don't think I have a supporter.

In this case, we should plan to deal with this in a workshop. On last Wednesday of this month or on the first Wednesday of next month, which is point Z of today's agenda to discuss when we plan to change. It's just a discussion.

We can change it.

Should this be declared as a public meeting? Yes, it should be. So basically, as I said, I'm at a conference when our normal meeting takes place. That's why it says here, we wanted to wait and see how things develop, whether we have to postpone it or postpone it or whether we can cancel it. Whatever. Also in diesem Fall würde ich sagen, wenn wir dort sind, können wir über das Datum sprechen. Falls es bestimmte Dinge gibt, ja, werde ich mit dem Anwalt prüfen, wie er meine Einschätzung zur Begrenzung der Felljahre sieht und ob das rechtlich Bestand hätte. Würden wir, ich überlege, von Ihrer vollständigen Arbeitsliste mit allem, was wir tun werden. Ich glaube, ich habe viele Notizen. I would like to bring you into the background, but could you repeat what that is so that we can make sure that we all know? Again. Partly I am not against another meeting. I know it's like the attempt to find the balance, to find out how to get through something and adapt during it. I will insert the definition again. I don't think we can say goodbye to the other definitions soon enough. So if we have it doubled, that's fine. I don't want to say goodbye without a definition. So I will insert it again. With regard to your statement regarding the time limitation and also some basic book restrictions, I will double check that. And then is there a consensus? To raise NC and CF to a credit. Or should it stay at half the credit? So these are the district business areas and the community facilities. This was based on the comments of the Ministry of Natural Resources. They suggested that we increase the requirements and could demand more trees. But we, there is a consensus on this. Then I will leave it at that. I will take the exception again. Back to up to 50 percent reduction in the foregarden.

And but I have a question about that.

Now that you have received approval from the planning committee, district community, district business, NC and community facilities on the same level of a tree. To treat credit per thousand. Gibt es eine Logik für die fünfzigstens Abstandsfläche oder? Ich glaube nicht, aber ich dachte nur, wir sollten das abdecken. Ja, denn ich denke mal. Also die Vorgartenabstände gelten für diese beiden Zonen. Grundsätzlich würden Sie darunter fallen, dass Sie eine Höhe von zehn Fuß haben könnten. You could apply for a height increase of 10 feet if you keep a tree or a reduction in the number of parking spaces could be granted. But you can't do both. So you can decide for one or the other. So if there was a tree where your parking space was planned, you could paint two parking spaces and keep a tree for it. That would make sense. That's what you would just do. Or if it means we're losing space back here, you could just apply to build a higher floor to keep it. So that's the option that was there before and that still exists. And I think that would just stay that way. And mixed use, that was covered under. It says these three and everything else is the other. Understood. Thank you. I think we'll see. Yes, the examination of securities and securities. We will formulate this a little clearer, what that means and how we calculate it. And then the other thing I did was that I removed the table and reduced it from 30 inches to 28 inches. That's enough. As I said, I had the feeling there was a certain give and take, maybe not as much as possible, but I had the feeling that Just a quick note. If we have enough differences between extraordinary and significant trees, it is advantageous from the point of view of tree lovers to recognize that it is about the maturity of a tree. And I know, for some reason there is a deviation from the table for extraordinary trees in the law that considered a strawberry tree to be mature.

You know, it was about the maturity of the trees. Like the giant tree or the Douglas. You will never reach this size. My counter-argument to someone who was against this table, who recognized that different species grow differently quickly and reach maturity at different diameters, is that you actually take additional points away from someone. So it's a disadvantage for the property owner? But it's actually only important if you consider how different we treat extraordinary and significant trees. I agree with 28, but you know... Yes, I'll look at it. I can look at it. I don't see a lot of strawberry trees in the area. They're more on the Clipmum Sound. Unfortunately, I don't think we have as many as we used to, but yes, a legitimate request.

Excuse me. Are there any incentives? Do we offer the owners any benefits? Not just to feel good, but something like tax incentives or something like that. Can we do something like that?

Free rainwater vouchers.

But... Nun, Sie können nicht meine. Dieses Gremium kann nichts bei Steuergutschriften machen. Sie könnten wieder etwas tun. Sie könnten fast wieder etwas tun. Wissen Sie, wenn Sie, wenn Sie über das geforderte Punktesystem oder Gutschriftsystem hinausgehen, erhalten Sie ein weiteres Stockwerk oder etwas mehr Fläche. Oder das kommt manchmal vor in bestimmten Bereichen. Again, I don't know if I mean, if anyone really wants it to be clearly presented next time. Hey, can we add that? That would be great. If not, it is definitely something that we can incorporate when we, with our, I mean, there was a certain movement in the council. I mean, there is definitely half of the council, a third of the council, who really want more coverage. Ich denke, wenn wir mehr Beweise, mehr Rückhalt, mehr Unterstützung vorbringen können, könnten wir mehr erreichen. Das könnte also definitiv und dazu gab es auch einige Aussagen. Vielleicht sollte man das also mit den Gedanken prüfen, dass wir und ich werde dem Rat klar sagen, dass der Plan ist, zurückzukommen, sobald wir unsere Studie haben. Sobald wir bessere Zahlen haben, werden wir mit Aktualisierungsvorschlägen zurückkehren. And maybe that's part of it, maybe even for single-family homes, that you can, for example, use more space if you protect trees. I don't know.

So we can check that. So it goes after a degree of complexity that will be saved for our next meeting on this topic.

I think as far as incentives are concerned, we are ... yes. But I appreciate the approach and I think there would be support for something else.

And we can even talk about it.

Frau Vorsitzende, darf ich eine Klärung zum Zeitlimit hinzufügen? Man fällt einen gesunden Baum. Wir haben keine Größe spezifiziert, aber ein Baum, ein Jahr Wartezeit. Fünf Bäume, fünf Jahre Wartezeit. Gibt es etwas Klares in der Verordnung, das besagt, dass wir das überprüfen werden? Oder wissen Sie, jemand könnte kürzlich einen Baum gefällt haben, aber vor zwei Jahren vier Bäume. So you could... ...react. We can't work with a reaction, can we? It has to start when we start. That's my question. Is that a reaction? How far do you look back? How does it work? So that would be the legal question. If you drop four trees and we set four years, what happens if a tree is dropped in between? I don't know. I'll have to think about it.

Or you've already dropped a few when you bought them. If you've already done it, I mean as soon as it starts to work. But yes, I will have to think about it again, because it is difficult not to restrict trees.

Ask a question.

Because again, the idea is that you don't want to say hey, but you have to have cases.

I had some pretty strange inquiries in my contract.

And that's the reality. Which is fine if someone just buys it, but we don't want to use it. The idea is that we try to slow down the developers somehow. And you can only do that in a certain way.

All right, I think we're done with that.

Can we set the time to which we will hold this meeting? And we do this in a public meeting, not in a workshop. Is that right? Yes, it will be a regular session. Regular session. We will basically, I don't know if you want to wait until we get to C, because technically there is a B, or if anyone just wants to do it. I, yes. Basically, we would only postpone our regular September session by a week or two. And if you then decide that you want the other topic, if you want me to bring it back, I can bring it to the next session. It's not that urgent, but it depends on how people think about it. I think we really just want to see the document so that we have enough time to give comments and feedback. That makes a lot of sense. It would be nice to have a clean, neat thing. Correct the format. And again I was in a hurry. So that gives me a little more time and I will ask Emily to go through this briefly with me. And yes, the processing time was currently a bit tight. If we want to go through the schedule briefly, very quickly. As I said, I would either be asked on the 26th or the 2nd. If Wednesday fits, as I said, I could also be asked on Thursday. The 26th is on Saturday.

I'm just looking at September. 26th of August or 2nd of September or the two Wednesdays before. Both should give me enough time to

Bin an beiden Tagen verfügbar. Sind Sie an beiden Tagen verfügbar?

Ja, ich bevorzuge den zweiten Geber.

Zweiten.

Aber ich kann beides.

Mr. Wen. Ich bevorzuge den 26.

August. Ich habe am Mittwoch, den zweiten August, eine sehr wichtige Verpflichtung. Aber vielleicht kann ich mich mit Manager Stahlnecker treffen und einfach sagen, hier sind alle meine detaillierten Anliegen. I will definitely be open every day, every day, every day, every day, every day, every day, every day, every day.

Unanimously.

There is no reason why I can't give it back on Friday or Thursday, as we normally do.

Yes, it has to be finished by August 20th, right? Your schedule with the package.

Short question. Just to clarify, our goal for the meeting is to check the changes that we talked about tonight. Is that our homework?

If we get that, we'll read it through and make sure that we're happy with all the changes.

I'll give you a nice clean copy. I just want to avoid what we just went through in a further cycle. No, that's part of it. There was a lot here. So, yes, it's basically about taking what we talked about tonight and cleaning it up. So we say on the 26th. This weekend are the Milton Days. Oh, that brings another... So I will and we will be free on the 21st. So on the 20th. It will come out on the 20th when everyone...

So yes, just to make sure that I corrected all the little strange things and the formatting and then made the corrections that we talked about. I will clarify a few things with the lawyer. I will inform you that this is a priority and try to clarify a few other things that I have heard so that it is very clear what we mean.

And then, provided that it goes through the council, we can still keep it as a point on our work plan to check some things again. I think at this point we are keeping it because that means that we have to have one within five years, which is more of a task for the staff.

But the whole point behind it is to enable us to revise it if necessary and to see how it works.

Now we have gone to point C before we have treated B. Now we know that the September meeting will not be cancelled. It will be postponed in consensus to August 26th. And now, I think, we should move on to point B, definition and introduction of the use table.

So that's kind of what's on the work plan. It falls more or less under the other things that have to be done. A few things. First of all, some things have appeared in the use table. One thing that sometimes occurs when you say goodbye to things too shortly. The Planning Commission has given some recommendations for changes to the use table, and then I think we made another change within one to one and a half months, a correction, and an older version was brought in, not the most up-to-date one. So things that have been approved have fallen out again. Apart from that, it was partly about public transport facilities and I had conversations about what that really means and so on. So my suggestion is and when it comes to that. So there is. Sound Transit is obviously coming through here. It is an essential public facility. We have to allow it. It comes through here. My suggestion after talking to you and other things is that you originally say we have a use that is called public transport facilities. Previously, the Planning Commission has approved this as permissible use in the business area and in the M1 area. It was accidentally removed. My recommendation is actually to do two separate things out of it. I recommend creating your own area for high-performance transport. I have proposed a definition for this and I would like to implement it by the end of the year. It currently has no absolute highest priority. So we still have a little time to check it out. But basically it's about creating a definition for high-performance transport that specializes in sound transit and then uses public transport. I have a revised definition that would cover things for Piers or Metro Transit, as they are very different. Instead of just doing it as permissible, as it has been decided so far, we should make high-performance transport a permissible use. So the hearing process would have to go through with a hearing officer. And it would only be permissible in these zones. If you look at page 43, it would be permissible in commercial industry and open spaces, i.e. the zones along the 99 d. I know you will ask why open spaces? Well, there is a tiny strip of access there that you have to cross. Therefore, it should best be recorded here. We are working on it. And again, since it is about Sound Transit, it is excluded. There are certain things that you don't have to do according to state law anyway. This is similar to what EF does, by obliging them to use them for permission, so that the public is included. As I said, I recommend that public transport facilities under community facilities remain permissible, but also become mandatory. In addition, they should also be allowed in the UMX zone, as there could potentially be something along the Meridian Street in the future, which would make sense. Another topic in the use table are the educational institutions. The school district spoke to us. You are currently checking whether you can implement things there. At some point, while we were making changes, the definition was lost for you. Therefore, I added the definition to the clarification. Die Definition stellt klar, dass sie Dinge wie Verwaltungsgebäude und Betriebshöfe umfasst, da es darüber Meinungsverschiedenheiten gab. Gehört das dazu? Gehört es nicht dazu? Könnten Sie einfach Regierungseinrichtungen nutzen, da sie staatlich sind, für Bereiche, die keine echten Klassenzimmer sind? Ich wollte alles unterhalten. So when we come to the definitions, this will clarify everything, but basically. For this, on page 42 of the educational institutions. educational institutions and I think it should be published. Please excuse me. I'm just trying to highlight everything up to the 12th grade or maybe it was already like that, but I think it's a highlight. It is a conditional use for residential areas. I would recommend simply allowing it in the zones for municipal institutions, because we have also allowed this in other state institutions. Basically, it would be that if you are not already there, Fadin, If, for example, we say that the school district in this case wants to buy a property and want to do something with it, it would have one of two options. You could apply for a municipal, you could apply for a limited use permit if it is in a residential area and want to go through the process of being a public hearing officer. Or if you want to change the property so that it is considered a municipal facility, then you would have to go through the planning commission with a public hearing and the city council with a public hearing to make these changes. In both cases, public hearings take place. It's just a matter of the way you might want to go. So that's kind of the recommendation. I'll just go through the things again. Does it make sense to add animal services to M1? That came about from conversations with people who look after themselves. Animal services are things like animal doctors, but there can also be some of the animal care facilities in the inner rooms that could be in order in an M1 zone. I think it's because we have the feeling that you have a special waste disposal.

You have to clean it.

It can't get into the sewage system. Or you don't have to separate it. It's still part of it. It is solid waste and it has to be regulated in the animal law.

Yes, just to clarify.

Anyway, I'll just throw that out of the way, because I said that some of the larger animal issues in the M1 zone could actually be more appropriate. But if you have the feeling, no, we just want to keep the producing trade and warehouses, then that would be okay. And then I added it, so I started worrying again about things that I think people will argue with me about. If you look at all zones under page 45, I got nervous that someone might try to argue with me. Now, it's not listed as forbidden, so it has to be allowed. And that wasn't the intention. So my suggestion to correct that would be to take up other uses that are not approved by 1744.0.13. Im Grunde besagt 17.04.40329 und das existiert bereits o, dass der Leiter der Gemeindeentwicklung oder in diesem Fall der Planungsmanager entscheiden kann, ob etwas sehr ähnlich ist. Wenn also jemand kommt und das, was er vorschlägt, im Grunde wie eine Autowaschanlage ist. Es ist nur geringfügig an, dass das passt. Das ist in Ordnung. Aber wenn Sie kommen und sagen, wissen Sie, wissen Sie. Whatever you want to do doesn't fit. It's not comparable to anything, but it's not on a ban list either. I can say, well, it's not comparable to anything else, so it's forbidden. So it's just a fine-tuning of a gap in the law that I feared someone would try to argue with me. And then we took the animal husbandry regulations back into the Milton Act. So we correct that in 45 under section 6. So these are all uses. I don't know if you want to stop here. Yes, let's see what we have. And then the definitions are basically just a new order and that's adding definitions to things that need them. All right.

So let's take a look at the use table. Commissioner Johnson, any questions or comments on this?

Have you not heard me? I have not.

Oh, you have nothing. I have. You have nothing. I support this in the big and whole. It seems reasonable to me. I like that the community is involved and that there is a possibility to give public comments. I like the other not approved uses. I think that probably helps a lot with the implementation. I have nothing further. I support Commissioner Girtz in the big and whole.

It looks good to me and I don't see any concerns.

I am glad that you are looking at things again when problems arise. I try to find all definitions. So when that comes back, I would welcome all definitions. But I think many of these decisions have to do with the definitions themselves. When you talk about the reconstruction of public transport facilities, we only mean bus stops or something. That's why I've been blabbering back and forth. So what is the definition for that? Das hängt sehr stark mit der Definition zusammen. Auf Seite 69. Eine öffentliche Verkehrseinrichtung ist eine Entwicklung eines öffentlichen Nahverkehrsanbieters, die dazu dienen soll, die gemeinschaftliche Nutzung multimodaler öffentlicher Verkehrsmittel wie Bus, Fan, Fahrgemeinschaften sowie Park and Ride Anlagen zu unterstützen oder zu fördern. Hohe Kapazität bezeichnet Einrichtungen, die zur Implementierung eines schienengebundenen öffentlichen Verkehrssystems erforderlich sind, welches insgesamt eine wesentlich höhere Passagierkapazität, Geschwindigkeit und Servicequalität bietet als herkömmliche öffentliche Verkehrssysteme, die hauptsächlich im allgemeinen Straßenverkehr operieren. Das ist also sehr spezifisch auf das ausgerichtete Sound Transit tut. Das andere umfasst Park-and-Ride-Anlagen als eine Option, wenn wir jemals diese Kapazität erreichen sollten. Ich weiß nicht. Maybe there will be a chance at the Meridian sometime. So if we are satisfied with that, then these are the definitions.

And is there a problem?

Because I remember that there were certain rules for additional residential units if you were in a quarter of a mile around a traffic center.

I just wanted to make sure that this was taken into account, because I know that the draft laws had different definitions for an important holding place that met the state requirements. So that's covered up and contains the ADUs and other things that occur in legislation. And that's a definition that we were given by our federal government.

And here, too, there is a formatting problem. I'll correct that. There's so much. We've dealt with the first two points, the change in educational institutions, a limited use permit. I have, so I say in advance, I think that if things like fire departments, police stations, schools, you know, buy all the land and then say we're coming to apply for a change. I think you should first apply for the change in terms of the zone allocation. So I'm a little confused about the two different approaches here. And maybe I have to take a closer look at the educational institutions. And I remember when we did that, it was the big religious institution that came and wanted to build a school. And that triggered a whole series of aha moments. How do we define school? What is public, what is religious? So, and I thought we had certain sizes or different levels. Or it got smaller. Religious institutions do that. So religious institutions, and it is clear that a school is not part of a religious institution. But we also have terms like high school and middle school. Since some of them do not fit clearly and have gone over to it. And we have to treat both public and private institutions at the same time. So we have gone over to educational institutions up to the 12th grade and vocational educational institutions. So we took these into account in the use table, but we actually didn't have any definitions for them. So I'm correcting that right now. And I... I don't know if it's important in view of some of the conversations I've had with potential developers and authorities and so on, but for me it seems that educational institutions should encompass everything that is related to the provision of the school. Are those the buses? Support services. The support services. Is that the administration? Is that the maintenance? Are these separate state institutions or do they fall under education? For me, they are all connected to school. They should all be connected to education. And that's why I make that clear in the definition. And then there was a question because we were under, where am I, under the category of public institutions and care use, which is in the middle of page 43. We allow state institutions as permissible use and community institutions. And so I was asked the question, if a school is a state institution and they allow state institutions as permissible use, should schools then not be treated in the same way?

Or the aspects that are connected to a school.

That's why I suggested that we equate them.

I think it has to be part of the decision what you include in the definition. And I understand the support services and you can look at it from an administrative point of view. But I think buses have a pretty significant impact. And I really have to think about it, but only at first glance. A bus, like when I drive past F, well, it belongs there. It's in an industrial area. That's a lot of buses, 40, 50 pieces that start in the morning. That's noise. That's environmental pollution. For me, the difference that I see when I try to figure this out is that I have to understand it even better. This package that comes in,

Because it was, it's just. That should actually be the only task. But then the trees came back and secondly, there is no, I would like to have done that by the end of the year.

Yes, we will. That has no high priority. We can take our time if necessary.

And then the other point, animal services in M1. From my earlier experience, this makes sense. Things like animal clinics, if you consider the noise pollution again. Some clinics have opened around the clock.

Pensionen und solche Dinge, die wären dort draußen vielleicht tatsächlich besser aufgehoben. Also ich könnte mir vorstellen, okay, dass das keine Störungen verursacht, zum Beispiel in einem Gewerbegebiet. Aber hier ist wieder die Frage, ist es eine Tierpension oder gehe ich nur rein, um ein neues Hundehalsband zu kaufen? Nun, ich würde gerne vor Ort mein Hundehalsband kaufen, aber wenn ich eine Pension suche, gilt das Einzelhandelsgeschäft, das ausschließlich Tierbedarf verkauft, als gewerbliche Nutzung.

The definition helps everything.

If you only sell things, you fall under. If you run a pension or a clinic, that's animal welfare. And that's allowed there. And then there's the other not approved use. I had to look at the 7413 and find out that it's a definition for similar use and the formulation in the table was confusing for me.

We can try to clean it up if we want to.

But I appreciate the thought, because I thought we would have made that clear enough in the use table and maybe it wouldn't have been taken over.

From a few weeks ago, for example, that a use is not explicitly approved by 17. I can play around with it to make it clearer what that means if we want to. But I welcome the effort to eliminate any uncertainty regarding

to someone who comes in. And just as you spoke of the people with whom you spoke about schools in general. And how, what is your philosophy? What do you think, what does the flow diagram look like? So I support the idea of formulating clearer. If it is not approved, that is, if it is not implemented, it will not take place. But how does that work with the definition of similar use, which in my opinion is a 10 percent change? So it could mean 10 percent more traffic. There are criteria in this definition. So it would be helpful to include that in the package.

All right.

Commissioner Strada, do you have any comments?

Which is hopefully a short question. So with educational institutions, with traffic institutions, where were these Was wären Sie ursprünglich gewesen?

Vor einigen Versionen gab es, glaube ich, so etwas wie eine Busdepotnutzung. Die aktuell geltende Fassung enthält eigentlich keine Definition für Bildung. Bildung. Es gibt keine Definition für Bus. Ich meine, der öffentliche Nahverkehr spricht von öffentlichem Nahverkehr.

Ich habe nicht das Gefühl, dass das in die Kategorie passt. So there have been some discussions about whether this is just a state institution, you know, and that led to this clarification.

We really wanted to clarify how we define things.

Now, for me, the required permission to use in the zones in 1 and 2.

So I imagine the Milton Way, because you won't put it in a residential area. I don't think it's a 500-sided street. But I imagine all of our main roads and how that works.

Now, if you think about where you have property, it's near the middle and elementary schools. And they currently have a maintenance facility there that is smaller and is connected to the administration offices in Oak Street, where the old Milton Elementary used to be. And up to a certain degree, the thing is, because they only expanded the administration. I mean, there was somehow the assumption that everything is there. So these are things you should think about again.

That's right. So yes, I will have to, yes, I thank you.

I don't know how to appreciate that.

And then the definitions. Basically two things. First, as we have found, while we are adding more and more definitions, we have reached something like 1708, 020 A1.30, A1. because we constantly insert these things in between and so on. Many cities have gone over to this or maybe already had it easy to use letters. We have done this for those in critical areas. I think that works very well. Part of it is simply a new organization in which you define 17.080 as a definition for A. So if you add one, you change this section, but you can add as many A's or B's as you need and so on. Some of it cleanses the whole thing, in my opinion, and makes it much easier for the future. And then I went through a few things, because there were old definitions again, because our use table used to be wider, which are still there. Instead of deleting them all, I did things like at the animal hospital, if you look at page 48. There are still definitions for animal hospitals, if we want to distinguish them one day, or for parking spaces. But I took it up under animal services. And I could take it up in the use table, but I think that's okay. Because I use Tier Services, it's in the definitions and you would go to the definitions and understand. So I tried to do that for the appropriate cases. There are some where I recommend changes or corrections. And then I also have one of my questions.

Let's see.

I did that. Should that, when I started to see through it, as I said, that was the trigger, were also the definitions for the construction law. And then I started to look at it. Now, electric vehicles have their own definitions and all of these are in the zone classification law. Signs have their own definition section. Does this also apply to wireless communication? Should all of these essentially be included in our definitions so that we don't have to go into different chapters and subsections? But that makes a lot of sense. Also werde ich daran arbeiten.

Ich sehe keine professionellen Büros. The logic behind it is, I think there are many good reasons for it, although I can understand why it was done that way, because it is very practical when you scroll through the pages. Now we are digital, people click on links and are directed directly there. Therefore, it is not such a big obstacle anymore. The other thing is that different parts of the zone allocation law can have different definitions for the same thing. And that's why I would encourage you to simplify this.

And I also think it's often easier because you don't have to add a new definition to our definition. But if we edit it, it's a thing I recommend. The stringing of the family definition. Historically, there was a kind of limitation on how many unaccompanied people can be considered a family if you do things. Basically, RCW 35 H 2214 raises the limitation for non-accompanied people. So it's really just an outdated definition, because people live like that anyway. Whether they are not married or whether they have help, whether they live with friends or whatever. It's a little bit back in a certain degree. I mean, if you allow a house with 12 children and can't prevent it, then it doesn't close out when it's really designed in such a way that it's more individual units, that we regulate it through the building regulations. If it appeared uncertain after the building regulations, there are still approaches, but basically there is no definition of family anymore. And if you, as I said, take the time and go through everything, it's actually just about connecting things and tidying up. Man. I added all tree definitions. Another thing that sounded like a good idea back then, but now has brought me into trouble, is on page 51. I don't know if that's the right expression, but children's day care in the apartment. So the state, I mean, children's daycare centers in private households are mostly licensed by the Ministry of Children, Youth and Families. In most cases, we said, if you are licensed for home care, then it is allowed, then it is. And the law, I think even the RCWs say that you have to allow it. We used to have a fixed number, but then the state changed its number. And I didn't think it was a good idea to have another number. So I just said it depends on the state's licensing. In the assumption that it is okay if the state licenses it. But for various reasons, the state then began to make exceptions for significantly larger numbers in home care. And as it looks, they even went on with it when they were loved. That's why they're trying to get back on their feet now. Wir hatten tatsächlich einen Fall, in dem sie mit dem Staat stritten, um 30, 40 Kinder betreuen zu dürfen. Und wir sagten, Moment mal, das geht nicht, da bekommt man doch Verkehrsprobleme. Wie dem auch sei. Ich habe hier wieder einen Punkt aufgenommen, der besagt, ja, man mag zwar als Kindertagespflege zu Hause lizenziert sein, aber wenn man mehr als 12 Kinder betreut, wird man als Kindertagesstätte eingestuft. So that corresponds to the original number again, I think. This regulation is a bit strange. The next children's daycare center, chapter 388, 115, no longer exists. So I just replaced it with the Ministry for Children, Youth and Families of the State of Washington, because they are responsible for it. I think that's all.

Take a look at the educational institutions again, think about it.

And do you know, we could use our thoughts again in September? Maybe at least with comments, since we will meet, but without the intention of being too pleasant. Is it okay if we send you things that we like by e-mail and then we can talk about them? Yes, feel free to send me things by e-mail.

I will collect them and answer them at the next meeting. Showed.

Or personally or whatever. Or per year. A kind of feedback loop. I can give feedback, right. If you have questions, thoughts or comments, I will answer them right away. I've met people. I got it done by e-mail. I got it done by phone. Es gab noch eine letzte Sache, die mit Bäumen, aber auch mit Definitionen zu tun hat. Das DNR hat empfohlen, eine Art Liste von Bäumen zu erstellen, die man nicht pflanzen sollte. Sie haben gefragt, ob wir vielleicht in Erwägung ziehen möchten, eine Definition oder Richtlinie aufzunehmen, wie zum Beispiel eine Liste empfohlener Bäume. Because I know that Pierce County and King County have many such lists, which trees are best and some even indicate which tree is best, depending on the width or whether you plant them on the street, whether they are five feet or three feet wide. So I can see if I can add that.

Are there any questions or thoughts?

There is no question. I think we have already completed our goal. Since we don't have a September meeting, we will have a meeting on August 26th. Can we go to the report of the employees? Hm? Milton Days? We will, hm, my department will be completely voluntary on site. We will be at the Milton Days at the urban tables. The framework will be part of our stand with some boards to interact with adults and children about resilience, climate change and similar topics and to collect feedback. We will also try to create a list of people who would like to be included in a distribution to receive notifications about upcoming information. Such things. We will be responsible for public works at the other end. There are a few. I think it's money from the BPA that flows to us and should help low-income households with new household appliances, such as washing machines. So if you know someone who is interested in it or is interested, they will be there to talk about it. Of course, the police always has great advertising gifts. Um, musicians. Um, over 60 sales booths. We looked at the food stalls, because we will all be there for lunch. So, Emily will take care of the morning and afternoon shift. Robert will be there for the afternoon and evening shift for the demolition. He will be there for most of the day. So if you can come, that would be great. If you can help, I know there will be a pickleball. If you have people who want to organize a tournament this year, it will all take place there. So that's the most important thing at the moment. Um, otherwise. All right. Report commissar. Commissar Strada.

Nothing to report. All right. Commissar Warne. Um, just for information, I got a postcard, surely everyone else too, about the day, the open door of the wash door, regarding their plans for 16th Street and Meridian Avenue. I mean, it's creative and, um, It concerns us, so this whole project and the new layout is something that has survived. You will have stands.

And that's it. Commissioner Girtz. Commissioner Saru.

Commissioner Johnson. I will be there on Saturday at the pickleball tournament in the park committee.

Mein Bericht ist nur, dass ich allen für ihre Hartnäckigkeit bei der Verfolgung dieser Baumschutzverordnung danken möchte. Es ist eine ziemliche Anstrengung. Alles klar. Unsere nächste reguläre Sitzung ist am 26. August. Alles. Damit ist die Sitzung beendet.