Commission debates unit‑lot subdivision rules; staff to revise language, commissioners favor 4‑lot limit with recorded covenants and separate meters

Planning staff opened a lengthy discussion on unit‑lot subdivision rules (agenda item 7b), asking whether Milton should align unit‑lot subdivision limits with the city’s short‑plat (four‑lot) threshold and how to treat shared common‑area tracts such as stormwater or access tracts.

Staff member Steph said the city’s existing regulations allow the practice in some form but lack clear guidelines. “It is one of those weird ones that it's sort of allowed, but we don't have guidelines for it,” she said. Steph recommended requiring recorded covenants or joint‑use and maintenance agreements to document responsibilities for common areas rather than mandating formal homeowners associations in every case.

Commissioners debated the maximum number of saleable lots. Several commissioners said they preferred retaining a four‑lot limit to match the short‑plat definition in state guidance, while acknowledging other jurisdictions allow higher numbers (Edgewood 6; Fife and Sumner up to 9). Commissioner Dodson and others raised concerns about how common tracts for stormwater or private streets should be counted in the lot total; commissioners discussed three options: count shared common tracts within the four lots, allow four saleable lots plus separate common‑ownership tracts, or set a different local maximum.

Multiple commissioners supported a conservative approach. Commissioner Zarrow stated, “I like 4.” Commissioner Johnson and others suggested drafting language that permits up to a small number of dedicated common tracts (for stormwater, right‑of‑way or open space) while making the recordation of covenants explicit.

The commission also discussed utilities and metering. Staff reported other cities (Tacoma was cited) generally require separate utility meters unless there is an agreement that specifies allocation of charges; staff said the city’s preference would be separate utility meters to avoid billing disruptions for multiple households if a single account is unpaid. Commissioners gave clear direction that condominium‑style ownership should include recorded covenants spelling out ownership and maintenance responsibilities; Steph said she would strengthen the unit‑lot subdivision language to mirror binding‑site‑plan/CCR language already used elsewhere in the code.

Other topics included: whether ADUs and middle‑housing types should be covered, frontage and street‑improvement requirements triggered by the number of lots, and impact fees (staff noted ADUs currently pay a 50% impact fee per the city’s ADU rules and that council has discussed reviewing impact‑fee practices). Several commissioners asked staff for illustrative diagrams showing possible configurations and for clearer cross‑references to short‑plat and zoning chapters (examples cited included code references to short‑plats (16.28) and bulk/dimensional chapters (17.15a, 17.15b)).

By the end of the session commissioners reached a working consensus to: keep the saleable‑lot limit aligned with the short‑plat limit at four lots; require recorded covenants/joint‑use and maintenance agreements (CCR‑style language) for common areas; and require separate utility meters unless documented agreements are provided. Staff will revise the draft ordinance language, add clarifying definitions (including applicability to non‑stacked residential units), and return the item to the commission at a future meeting.

No formal vote was taken on substantive code changes; staff closed the item for further drafting and follow‑up.