Milton planning commission begins review of tree-protection rules; commissioners favor in-lieu fund and monitoring

Planning staff presented an initial draft of revisions to Milton's landscaping and significant tree protections and asked the Planning Commission for direction on several policy choices, including definitions of "significant tree," replacement ratios, exemptions for single-family lots, and an in-lieu fee option to fund replanting.

Staff said the item would take time to refine: "At this point, I feel like it's gonna take some time for staff to sort of take all that information and come up with sort of maybe a central document," and noted staff had located a 2003 community forest plan that could inform longer-term work on urban forestry.

The discussion covered technical and policy specifics. Staff noted the state commonly uses diameter at breast height (DBH, measured at 4.5 feet) and said some jurisdictions treat trees 6 inches DBH and larger as significant while others use 10 inches. The commission reviewed the city's current replacement table (for example, the existing table requires multiple replacement trees for each removed tree and distinguishes by DBH ranges) and discussed that the present ratios can be difficult for developers to meet in practice.

Multiple commissioners said they liked the idea of an in-lieu fee or "tree fund" as an option when replacement requirements would exceed best landscaping practice for a development. One commissioner described examples used by other jurisdictions, noting voucher programs in Pierce County and Tacoma that subsidize tree planting for residents. Commissioners also supported a five-year monitoring requirement so that developers must replace plantings that fail.

Commissioners raised enforcement and scope questions: the draft currently exempts trees on existing single-family and duplex lots from the significant tree provisions, a point some commissioners said merits reexamination for "underdeveloped" lots with large acreage. Staff said they want clearer language prohibiting indiscriminate clear-cutting of undeveloped property and requiring a tree survey prepared by a licensed arborist when trees are removed.

Other topics covered included whether to treat evergreen and deciduous replacement separately, whether certain hedge species (arborvitae, juniper) should count as replacement trees (staff proposed they not count), and the possibility of a heritage-tree designation for exceptional specimens. Commissioners suggested keeping the table straightforward rather than adopting a complex credits or tier system used in larger cities.

No formal motion or vote was recorded on the tree-protection draft; staff will return with refined language and replacement-calculation options for future commission review. Commissioners asked staff to compare Milton's table with similar cities (Covington, Des Moines, Camas, Seattle) and to consider the use of a standard tree-calculator and a possible five-year survivability monitoring requirement.