×

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 II

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, nor are they completely refined - we are still in the process of finalizing technical data. Please let us know if you believe there are content omissions that need to be addressed, or if there are changes to the goals and policies that you would like to see to better further the community vision.

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%
Comment Drag

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
Previous
Next
View all

Comments

Close

Jacquelyn May 23 2024 at 2:20AM on page 30

Question
I noticed that both counties have cited emergency housing needs (10 in King, and 15 in Pierce). Does that have to be addressed in our Comp-Plan?

Jacquelyn May 23 2024 at 2:16AM on page 30

Is there a need to express housing data as percentage of land area - as well as an actual number of dwelling units; and should those numbers be disaggregated per county per income bracket? per income category?

Jacquelyn May 23 2024 at 2:08AM on page 30

What is the AMI that was used for calculating the income brackets? Is there a weighted average of the combining both countys' data?

Jacquelyn May 23 2024 at 2:04AM on page 22

Suggestion
It would be helpful to note the Pierce County Ordinance and King County Ordinance that provided the housing growth targets after Commerce published the results of its HAPT allocation model.

Jacquelyn May 23 2024 at 1:34AM on page 16

Numbers for projected population growth listed in Existing Conditions Report (May 2023) page 45 - has different numbers for population totals. Maybe a footnote would help explain how the numbers were generated for to Fig. LU-3 vol.1. {Thanks for the clarity in saying fig. LU-3 represents both counties.}

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 8:38PM on page 22

Volume 2, page 35. The narrative beneath Figure LU-24. Pierce and King County Housing Combined Allocations says: "When projecting the County's average household size of 2.54 people ...."

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 8:31PM on page 22

Question
Please double check all the numbers and correct the narrative. Will the document presented to the Planning Commission for our May 29, 2024 public hearing be thoroughly proof-read to correct the document layout, numbers, mapping data, and remove duplicative material, the duplications etc.?

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 8:26PM on page 22

Question
Thank you for Figure LU-28 in Volume 2, titled: Development Capacity Assumptions. In studying the table, it seems that the assumptions are based on the higher of the two maximum density numbers listed for each zoning district within the future land use designation. I am concerned that measuring capacity at the highest of the density allowed- sets us up for overestimating our capacity because we do not require development to be at the maximum allowed density. I do not want to go through having to take "reasonable measures" again. >>> Are there other methods for calculating capacity?

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 7:59PM on page 21

Suggestion
Density numbers are too high for neighborhood residential and Town Center. Perhaps stating that maximum density is achievable through a density bonus system.

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 7:55PM on page 21

Question
How will the infill of middle housing ‘work’? Is it that any legal lot takes up to 3 or more dwelling units- regardless of lot size? >>> Is it true that duplexes cannot have additional land area requirements as is currently the case in Milton’s RS and RMD zones (a.k.a. the predominately single family home land usage)?

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 7:41PM on page 30

79 units- this should be 62 units. 44 for 50% to 80% AMI (King: 8, Pierce 36); plus 18 for the 80% to 100% AMI (King: 3, Pierce: 15). It would help to tabulate the numbers in the narrative.

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 7:29PM on page 30

Understanding the color bars as representing both an income bracket and a quantity of housing per income bracket, for the Pierce County 'Existing Housing' color bars, it appears that Milton has 3 times as many middle housing dwelling units as it has single family housing units.

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 7:21PM on page 26

Suggestion
I will be sending a separate email to Framework and Manager Stahlnecker listing a few examples of goals and policies to address the need for enhancing & protecting our tree canopy, design and development guidelines, urban forestry, and climate change that may be suitable to incorporate into our Comp-Plan.

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 7:16PM on page 24

Suggestion
Along with the theme of distinctly different names for future land use designations -[FLUD]- vs zoning districts -[ZD]-.... please use subarea-plan names that are different from the FLUDS and ZDs.

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 7:12PM on page 21

Suggestion
It is important to cite density in terms of dwelling units per net-acre and jobs per net acre.

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 7:06PM on page 21

Question
Will there be a change in minimum lots sizes for what is currently the RS and RMD zoning districts? How is it that 10 DU/ac. is possible for the RS zone with a net density of 5.45 DU/ac.?

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 5:59PM on page 17

Suggestion
Some of the strategies listed seem more correct to use as zoning district names; e.g. 99 Business Dist., M1, Uptown Zone, Town Center MX. >>> Consider more generic names for the designations. >>> Some of the listed strategies listed seem to be of the same general classification. Uptown Zone, 99 Business District, could be categorized as Urban Commercial. A Manufacturing category could have small-scale industrial and small-scale manufacturing zoning districts. I know that there many possibilities.....

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 5:34PM on page 17

strategy, or future land use designation? When discussing one item, please the same one nomenclature throughout the document.

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 5:27PM on page 62

Suggestion
City of Buckley's glossary of terms conflicts with those of the MMC. I submit that a large portion of the terms used in this glossary are not even used our Comp-Plan. >>> I question the need for a glossary. >>> If there is a need, remove all of the defined terms that are not used in in this document, and for those terms that are used - use the definitions as specified in the MMC; and put them at the end of the element that they relate to.

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 1:53AM on page 21

Suggestion
Many of the Future Land Use Designation names do not match the names listed in the legend for figure LU-5 on page 32 of Volume 1. The legend is labeled 'Strategies', but on this page the term Land Use Designations is used; and just below that. It causes confusion when multiple terms are used to mean the same thing, and in this case. Instead of saying Land Use Descriptions, consider - Key Attributes.

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 1:18AM on page 21

Suggestion
I ask that we have a more in-depth explanation of the housing densities and job densities before sending the Draft Comp Plan onto Council. There is much that is still much too vague. I would value a better understanding to the logic behind the setting of the numbers.

Jacquelyn May 22 2024 at 1:11AM on page 13

Suggestion
After working with Volumes 1 and 2, I find that it is very cumbersome. It seems more sensible to not divide an individual element into 2 volumes separated by over 100 pages. Consolidating all the information into a single element would prevent the duplication of narration and the charts/diagrams/maps that is in the Land Use Elements Volumes 1 & 2. . An executive summary at the start of each element could replicate the intent of the Volume 1 concept, and then the Volume 2 material could follow.

Jacquelyn May 21 2024 at 10:10PM on page 21

Question
Future Land Use Designation -[FLUD]-, Neighborhood Center -[NC]- housing density question: Three out of the four NCs are surrounded by FLUD Urban Residential {12 or 18 DU/ac.}. Why is the NC housing density lower than the FLUD Urban Residential density?

Jacquelyn May 21 2024 at 8:51PM on page 21

Question
Besides the density maximums, What is the difference between the Town Center Future Land Use Designation -[ FLUD ]- and the Neighborhood Center FLUD ?

Jacquelyn May 21 2024 at 8:43PM on page 30

It would be much easier to understand this diagram it the King County 2044 Allocation color blocks were listed directly above the Pierce County 2044 Allocation color blocks -- with both county's color blocks aligned to the left margin of the start of each income tier. That way, it would be easier to see that King County has not allocated any allocation for the 31% to 50% AMI tier.

Jacquelyn May 21 2024 at 6:55PM on page 18

Question
How does Vision Statement 1 relate to Parks and Open Space?

Jacquelyn May 21 2024 at 6:50PM on page 17

missing letters and words?

Jacquelyn May 21 2024 at 6:47PM on page 30

Question
Is Section-8 Housing considered to be Non-PSH?

Jacquelyn May 21 2024 at 5:59PM on page 16

Question
Is the mis-match in numbers a result of PSRC projections vs. King and Pierce Countys' allocations ?

Jacquelyn May 21 2024 at 4:58PM on page 16

The chart to the left shows a yr-2044 growth of 295 housing units (3742 minus 3447), but the narrative says 223 housing units.

Jacquelyn May 21 2024 at 4:01PM on page 15

The Milton's portion of the Interurban Trail that goes through King County should be marked by a green color.

Jacquelyn May 21 2024 at 2:27PM on page 15

When looking at the PAA in northeast Milton, the boundary line looks like a heavier dashed line that what is shown in the legend.

Jacquelyn May 21 2024 at 2:24PM on page 15

Suggestion
Please remove the white line marking the southern end of Milton's portion of the Interurban Trail; it makes it look like a roadway. ||| Further research indicates that the error is with the County map on their transportation mapping-layer. 12th Street East aligns with the remaining fragment on the west side of Highway 99. ||| I just spoke with Tony Depaul at the Pierce County Tax Assessor office. I brought the issue to his attention.... he suggested downloading the county's centerline file.

Jacquelyn May 20 2024 at 7:10PM on page 15

This comment applies to all labels and discussions regarding Milton's annexation area. Delete "Planned", and replace with "Potential". PSRC's Vision 2050 Briefing on Annexation (March 2019) page 6 - states the following: "...Many urban unincorporated areas have been designated and affiliated with an adjacent city. These areas are referred to as “potential annexation areas” in King, Pierce, and Kitsap counties, and as “municipal urban growth areas” in Snohomish County." || Has Pierce County changed what PAA stands for?

Jacquelyn May 20 2024 at 7:03PM on page 11

Thank you; The dark outline of the yellow shapes helps very much with their visibility.

Jacquelyn May 20 2024 at 7:00PM on page 10

Question
Do the differing sizes of the gear-shaped logos represent varying levels of importance, or volume of times spoken of by the community, or urgency of need, or...? If there is no meaning to the size of the logo, then why are the logos sized differently?

Jacquelyn May 20 2024 at 6:45PM on page 69

Council's March 2023 Retreat included a presentation regarding the re-drawing of Milton's flood plain(s), floodway(s), and flood zone(s) in association with WSDOT's Gateway Project connecting SR 167 and Interstate-5. Why are we using 2017 data?

Jacquelyn May 20 2024 at 6:32PM on page 69

the PROS Plan lists this parcel when inventorying Parks and Open Space.

Jacquelyn May 20 2024 at 6:30PM on page 69

Why are only portions of the play fields on the public school campus highlighted in green? It appears that the playfield surrounded by the running track is not highlighted in green.

Jacquelyn May 20 2024 at 4:53PM on page 21

Question
Several months back, the commission was told that the density numbers were not an expression of a minimum and a maximum density-range; we were told that the numbers were maximums for the different zoning districts associated with the named Future Land Use Designation. | Requests have been made at prior meetings to correct the presentation of the density information and to give a better explanation of the intent of the zoning and associated density limits within the designations. It is important to add that our zoning regulations allow for the developer/builder to build at any density up to the maximum density | When will the corrections be made?

Jacquelyn May 20 2024 at 4:09PM on page 18

Question
How does Vision Statement 3 relate to Parks and Open Space?

Jacquelyn May 20 2024 at 3:23PM on page 18

Remove this diagram and the next several like it. Comingling so many impacts and characteristics into the ‘Land Use Intensity’ scale (vertical axis) is not helpful.

Jacquelyn May 20 2024 at 3:22PM on page 18

This graphic shows 3 Neighborhood Centers, but the Land Use Intensity Diagram shows only one. The graphic does not support the diagram.

Jacquelyn May 20 2024 at 3:20PM on page 18

If the purpose of the diagrams (pages 34 through 39 in Volume 1) is to show which specific Vision Statements are to be applied to specific areas of the FLUM of Milton, then a very different graphic representation is needed.

Jacquelyn May 20 2024 at 3:16PM on page 18

Suggestion
Thank you for the footnotes. The footnotes to the diagram indicate that the Land Use Intensity Curve is the result of evaluating different criteria for each Future Land Use Designation, and that the differing metrics displayed are the result of subjective analysis.

April Elliott May 13 2024 at 6:40PM on page 21

Suggestion
Revise Density numbers to state 'up to". Example for Uptown Mixed Use. Density: Up to 20-30 Dwelling Units per Acre. 8 Jobs per Acre.

There's been recent examples of jurisdictions enforcing the lower number as the minimum per acre.

April Elliott May 13 2024 at 6:29PM on page 15

Suggestion
Formatting comment: Is there a way to split these two pages so that one is focused on types and the other is focused on population? Format so that it doesn't break pages mid-sentence?

April Elliott May 13 2024 at 6:25PM on page 14

Question
Is 1-4 missing?

April Elliott May 13 2024 at 6:20PM on page 2

Suggestion
Sabbatha is no longer on Planning Commission
View all