×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Milton Comprehensive Plan Community Feedback

Please respond to the prompts in the PDF below to help us refine the Comprehensive Plan that will help determine what Milton becomes over the next 20 years.

We are in the process of rolling out a full draft of the 2044 Comprehensive Plan Update. During this rollout, we are hoping to solicit community feedback to ensure that we can efficiently address community desires. The plan is divided into two sections - the first, Volume I, is a succinct document covering some background for each plan element, the planning process and containing all of the goals and policies for each element. The second, Volume II, includes all the background research and analysis that informs the Plan. The PDFs below are not complete drafts, and contain only the first two elements - Land Use and Housing for Volume I and Land Use for Volume II.

24-04-Completion-Timeline-01

The map below is a reference map which includes many of the layers that we are using to determine future land use decisions. Map layers include a draft of the Future Land Use Map updated 4/4/2024, wetland impacted areas, tribal boundaries, existing zoning, vacant and redevelopable land, existing land uses and proposed subareas for future focused planning efforts. Turn on and off layers in the lower right corner and view the map legend in the upper right.

 

Please leave comments and respond to the prompts in the two documents (Draft of Volume I and Volume II) below. Thank you for your feedback!
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Guided Tour Full Document

Guided Tour

Hide
Here's a quick walk through Volumes I and II.
Powered by Konveio
Previous
Next
View all

Comments

Close

Add comment

in reply to Jacquelyn's comment

JJArango May 15 2024 at 4:40PM on page 30

We are tying housing typology to income categories because that is the direct guidance from the Department of Commerce. This is a compliance issue - we need to demonstrate to Commerce that enough of the city allows these housing types to accommodate our housing allocation. This is why we've drawn this connection so explicitely.
0 replies
in reply to Jacquelyn's comment

JJArango May 8 2024 at 1:36PM on page 30

1. The colors are proportional based on the number of dwelling units. This is a stacked bar charts. 2. The colors are the same between the FLUM and the bar charts to indicate where the majority of that type of housing will go. 3. I will work on making the text more legible. 4. The building typology is associated with the allocation because that typology can most feasibly provide the needed affordable housing. 5-6 it seems like perhaps a supplemental table would help to clear up the confusion. I am happy to add a table. The graphic is primarily there to visualize the relative size of the allocation to Milton's existing housing stock and to indicate where that type of housing is most likely to go.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 8 2024 at 2:56AM on page 30

There are so many problems with this unnumbered Figure. It would be far more effective for me to just talk you through it. The short list of issues are: 1}. the use of varying scales (e.g. one inch of a color bar equals 60 dwelling units). 2}. the use of the same (or nearly the same colors in the FLUM and the graphics. 3} low contrast colors and text ink color that make the information difficult to see and understand. 4}. the association with building typology with allocation amounts. 5}. missing information. 6}. the arrangement of, and the scale of, the visual representation of data makes for confusion....... Please... an in-person meeting would save us both a great deal of time and effort, and produce a far better result.
1 reply

Jacquelyn May 8 2024 at 2:39AM on page 30

I understood discussions at the Planning Commission meetings regarding the Extremely Low and Very Low Income dwelling units was that they were to be "primarily" in the Uptown Mixed-Use FLUM Strategy.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 8 2024 at 2:32AM on page 30

delete the dash after "low" or insert 'rise' after "low - "
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 8 2024 at 2:30AM on page 30

insert: 'and'
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 8 2024 at 2:29AM on page 30

Please be consistent with usage of abbreviations. In paragraph #1, FLUM is tied to its meaning; and later, it is used two times more. In paragraph #2, the Future Land Use Map is spelled out. The grammar rule I was taught was that abbreviated terms are fully spelled out, followed by their abbreviation in brackets and in bold font. This is done at the first occurrence of the term in each chapter. Thereafter in the chapter... only the abbreviation is used.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 8 2024 at 2:08AM on page 30

Please put "[AMI]" in bold font to make it easier to locate in the text for reference to understand what AMI means.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 8 2024 at 1:53AM on page 30

Based on Figure LU-?? (page 59) Pierce County's PSH allocation is 43 units. Why isn't the King County allocation for PSH units cited in the text? What about the King and Pierce County allocations for Non-PSH housing ?
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 8 2024 at 1:12AM on page 30

Should the two residential areas listed (urban and neighborhood) be capitalized and called 'strategies' as is done on page 32 for the legend for Figure LU-7 that lists all of the various areas as FLUM areas as "Strategies".
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 8 2024 at 1:05AM on page 30

Possible Rewrite: The city's current zoning districts are nearly identical to the 2015 FLUM....
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 8 2024 at 1:02AM on page 30

Suggestion... Bold font for "[FLUM]" to make it easier to find the first use of the abbreviation in the Housing Element and then understand what the abbreviation stands for.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 8 2024 at 12:59AM on page 30

Rewrite: to comply with HB 1220,.,......
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 8 2024 at 12:57AM on page 30

“Milton is responsible for providing 43 PSH units.” This reads as if the City of Milton government has to pay for and construct 43 PSH units. Is that what is being requires by HB 1220 ?
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 8 2024 at 12:52AM on page 30

The only way that I can get to '79' dwelling units is by adding the allocation for the 'Median Income'. Based on the Figure LU-?? (page 59) --- > The King County allocation for the 50-80% plus the 80-100% is 8 + 3 = 11. The Pierce County allocation for the 50-80% plus the 80-100% is 36 +15 = 51. Adding the two counties for the two income categories yields: 11 + 51 = 62. < ---Adding the allocation for the 100-120% category for King and Pierce Counties: 3 +14 = 17. 17 plus 62 yields the 79 that is listed in the text. I can easily understand the mistake. The Figure LU-?? on page 59, groups the Low. Moderate, and Median Income categories as Middle Housing. Please edit the paragraphs under the heading, HOUSING TYPES BY INCOME BRACKET, to clearly state the allocation numbers for each income category for each county. It is problematic to so rigidly tie housing typology to the various income categories.
1 reply

Jacquelyn May 7 2024 at 4:28AM on page 27

The information on page 53 (the matrix) showing the - connectivity of \ expression of \ support for - the 12 Vision Statements with various Land Use Goal indicates that all 12 Vision Statements are supported by various Land Use Goals. Additionally, the figures on pages 34 through 39 also tie each one of the 12 Vision statements to the Land Use Element. But that is very different from the message conveyed by pages 20/21. Pages 20/21 indicate that Vision Statements 5, 7, 8, 9, & 12 are not - supported by / addressed / connected to - the Land Use Element. It seems to me that pages 20/21 and 26/27 need to be redone to match the information presented on page 53 and pages 34 - 39. On the other hand.... maybe Pages 20/21 are correct, and all the other pages need to be consistent with the message on pages 20/21. Please make the repeated topic of connectivity between Vision Statements and various Comprehensive Plan Elements express the same message. Thank you.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 7 2024 at 4:03AM on page 23

insert comma
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 7 2024 at 3:56AM on page 17

Is the entirety of the gray shaded areas north and south of Milton's Interurban Trail in southwest Milton altogether removed from Milton's Potential Annexation Area?
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 7 2024 at 3:53AM on page 16

"..... anticipated to grow by 712 people..." would be more congruent with the rest of the sentence which cites current population and the 2044 projected population in exact numbers.
0 replies
in reply to JJArango's comment

Jacquelyn May 7 2024 at 3:48AM on page 15

Thank you for your reply. The change in our boundary since 2004 when Fife annexed into Milton's Potential Annexation Area adjoining the southernmost portion of Milton's Interurban Trail is one thing. But does your reply mean what the that the WSDOT property associated with the Gateway Project (connecting Hwy 167 with I-5) is no longer in Milton's PAA too?
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 7 2024 at 3:38AM on page 22

Please be consistent... Are the paragraph headers in all capitals when identifying a new topic (e.g. RESIDENTIAL) or first letter of each word capitalized (e.g. Town Center, Uptown, and Neighborhood Commercial). Thank you.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 7 2024 at 3:29AM on page 9

Please delete these graphics, they are depressing to look at.... Is this the image that Milton wants to project? Is this the way the Consultant views Milton and the people, homes, trees, buildings, bicycles...? The graphic's theme does not help to elevate the document, or to make the document any easier to understand or to navigate.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 7 2024 at 3:25AM on page 10

Sadly the icons look like the Covid 19 Virus icon. Please change the theme / art work to a more positive symbol.
0 replies
in reply to Jacquelyn's comment

JJArango May 6 2024 at 8:48PM on page 22

This is a typo.
0 replies
in reply to Jacquelyn's comment

JJArango May 6 2024 at 8:33PM on page 19

Thanks for this comment - the bracket is there to highlight the connection between density and walkability. Milton does not have enough resources to create universal sidewalks, so the intent is to focus infrastructure investment in the locations where it will serve the highest volume of people with strategic routing into the community.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 6:24PM on page 22

A jurisdiction's algorithms.... This is very important information to be more clearly emphasized every time it is appropriate in this document. Each jurisdiction uses its own methodology (and timeframes) for analyzing, calculating, and establishing growth target allocations. This issue has caused significant problems for Milton's Comprehensive Plans in the past. This issue is exacerbated by the fact Milton is in two counties. Why is only Pierce County's methodology cited? Please cite King County's methodology for population and housing allocations. *** Again, amalgamating the final allocations from multiple jurisdictions further adds to the confusion. Please... throughout the document, always list the allocation numbers for King and Pierce Counties separately and also as a sum total of both counties. Thank you.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 6:11PM on page 22

73,925 is now the third number cited in this draft-document for Milton's projected population in year 2044. {p. 30 LU-5 cites 9,427; p. 30 LU-6 cites 9,219; and p. 42 cites 73,925}. Please make corrections by double checking the source data.
1 reply

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 6:06PM on page 22

Figure LU-4 on page 29 does not estimate population. The figure is entitled "Existing Land Use Makeup 2022".
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 6:03PM on page 22

Thank you for adding text that lists the allocations for Housing & Jobs for both counties as well as the aggregate total. Are the correct Jobs & Housing allocation numbers for each county listed in parenthesis accurately? The the Jobs numbers seem high and unlikely to be equal for both counties.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 5:52PM on page 22

2 problems, & a comment: A}. 441 plus 441 = 882; not 1341. B}. 1341 Jobs allocation disagrees with Page 30's LU-6 and Text on Page 31 that cite 1361 as the Jobs allocation. Please make correction(s).
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 5:14PM on page 22

Now the third different allocation quantity for Jobs. Page 43: Population aggregate allocation of 295 (245 Pierce and 50 King Counties) . Page 30: Fig. LU-6 cites 203. Page 31: text cites 223. Please make corrections.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 4:56PM on page 17

Please add the boundary for the Milton/Fife Overlap of Potential Annexation Areas.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 4:47PM on page 16

Is there a more mild word to use instead of expected... perhaps likely, or projected, or anticipated....
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 4:34PM on page 16

Sentence rewrite/// Figure LU-3 is a map showing actual parcel usage based on parcel data from King and Pierce Counties. This map should not be understood as a zoning map. Because the counties maintain the data, they are responsible for the level of accuracy of the information.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 4:24PM on page 16

Fig. LU-3 (p. 28) and Fig. LU-4 (p. 29) cite the year as 2022 for the data.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 4:13PM on page 16

Targets = the plural
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 4:12PM on page 16

Question: Is it correct to understand that Population-Housing-Jobs growth allocation have to be met on a per county basis? If that is correct, then amalgamating King and Pierce County's growth allocations together - without also citing them as separate numbers- actually makes for confusion rather than clarity.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 4:08PM on page 16

Please make clear in Fig. LU-6 whether both counties are included, as is done in Fig. LU-5 (p. 30). Perhaps it would be even more helpful to cite the Population-Housing-Jobs growth allocations per county in Fig. LU-6 (p.30) and text (p.31).
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 4:00PM on page 16

Data indicated in Fig. LU-6 (p.30) and the text (p. 31) for Milton's jobs target/allocation is 1,361 jobs - a 64.38% increase. So, our housing and population allocations are both under 9% --- but our jobs allocation is over 64% ?? That seems terribly out of balance. Is the allocation cited an error?
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 3:50PM on page 16

The text indicates Milton's housing target/allocation is 223 dwelling units [a 6.09% increase], but Fig. LU-6 indicates a target/allocation of 203 dwelling units [a 5.4% increase]. Please review and correct the information.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 3:37PM on page 16

Add "projection" after 2044 in the title.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 3:35PM on page 16

9,427 Milton's yr. 2044 projected population for both Counties. Fig. LU-5 says 9,427; a 8.17% increase from year 2022. Fig. LU-6 says 9,219; a 5.78% increase. Please correct the 2044 population projection number.
0 replies
in reply to Jacquelyn's comment

JJArango May 6 2024 at 2:24PM on page 15

Answer
Thank you for this comment, and for catching these instances of mis-categorization. Please let me know if you see further discrepancies in the new map and I can update them. If it is easier to mark up the pdf attached to the original email, please don't hesitate to do so, I can add those comments in (Angelie can print the PDF on 11x14 pages at City Hall). I will update LU 4 to reflect these changes. We are going off of Pierce County Assessor data, so it is likely that where there are discrepancies, I have just misinterpreted the use code.
0 replies
in reply to Jacquelyn's comment

JJArango May 6 2024 at 1:38PM on page 15

Answer
We collapsed the categories because there are over 30 land uses in the original map. I will add additional information about what is included in each of the categories. Duplexes are a separate land use but as of 2022 ADUs were not categorized as separate from single family - I suspect that they will be in the future.
0 replies
in reply to Jacquelyn's comment

JJArango May 6 2024 at 1:34PM on page 15

This has been resolved in the latest version, and the boundaries have been clarified to reflect Pierce County's 2023 changes to the PAAs.
1 reply
in reply to Jacquelyn's comment

JJArango May 6 2024 at 1:26PM on page 10

Got it! Thanks!
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 6 2024 at 2:48AM on page 19

Vision Statement 7 [VS-7] should apply to all of the city. I cannot tell if the graphic is saying that VS-7 applies only to Uptown Mixed Use and Neighborhood Residential, or the graphic is saying that VS-7 applies to the five FLUM Strategies that it is 'bracketing. Also, Page 20/21 indicate that VS-7 is not dealt with in the Land Use Element.
1 reply

Jacquelyn May 3 2024 at 8:59PM on page 27

?? "The spread below matches Milton's ..." ?? The sentence needs more accurate wording. What is being shown is how a Land Use Goal embodies, exemplifies, or implements the a Vision Statement(s). The components of the two pages are: the Vision Statements, the Land Use Goals, and a matrix. The matrix shows the co-relationship (the intersection) of each Land Use Goal to a particular Vision Statement(s). I do not yet have a good word(s) to describe the entirety of the components.
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 3 2024 at 7:43PM on page 10

why the same blue as is being used for Vision Statements 1 through 6 ?
0 replies

Jacquelyn May 3 2024 at 7:41PM on page 15

why is this boundary line being shown?
0 replies
View all