Dayton City Council work session debates A-3 large‑lot subdivision rules, 'ghost plat' and shared‑driveway limits

Dayton City Council members and staff spent a work‑session meeting reviewing a proposed A‑3 district that would allow large, unsewered residential lots as an interim use while preserving land for future sewer service.

City staff explained the A‑3 intent, saying the district would “reserve land resources for efficient future urban development” and allow temporary unsewered development that could be converted once regional sewer and water are available. “All of Dayton is within the Metropolitan Urban Services area, meaning that all of Dayton at some point in the future is going to be serviced by regional sewer and water,” a city staff member said.

The council discussed several code elements staff will bring back for formal review: where to draw the A‑3 boundary (council members discussed keeping it in northwest Dayton near Vicksburg and along areas adjacent to the planned Dayton Parkway), minimum lot sizes, whether to require public streets or allow private gravel streets, limits on shared private driveways, options for preserving undeveloped acreage (ghost platting, deed restrictions, conservation easements, covenants) and whether to encourage or require Planned Unit Developments (PUDs).

Why it matters: the A‑3 district is framed as a way to allow interim low‑density housing while protecting larger parcels so they can be serviced at higher densities in the future under Metropolitan Council policies. Council members repeatedly raised the need to avoid coding choices that would make later, orderly urban development difficult.

Key points from the discussion

- Boundaries and scale: staff identified a roughly 2,800‑acre study area in northwest Dayton; council members discussed trimming or adjusting the boundary where future Dayton Parkway alignment and existing land uses (including a tree farm and small parcels near Diamond Lake) could affect future road and utility planning.

- Interim unsewered development vs. future service: staff and council framed the A‑3 zone as allowing unsewered lots only as an interim step, with the expectation the area will be served by regional sewer and water in the future. Staff noted the city must show parcels can be served when urbanization occurs.

- Lot sizes and lot widths: council members debated minimum lot sizes. Options discussed included a 1.5‑acre minimum (recommended in the draft), a preference among some members for 2–3 acres, and specific lot‑width targets (the group selected a working minimum frontage of about 140 feet for the draft language to test how it works in practice).

- Shared private driveways and streets: council members discussed allowing private gravel access for small clusters but requiring public, paved streets when lots and traffic volumes reach a threshold. One council member said, “I would prefer that if you're having shared private driveways, it's limited to 3,” reflecting support for capping shared private access to small groups; the draft direction discussed allowing private streets that serve up to three lots and requiring paved public streets when the number of lots or traffic justifies it.

- Impervious surface and setbacks: staff proposed a 15% impervious‑surface cap for the district; council members favored raising that to 30% to align with other residential categories. The council agreed to a 10‑foot minimum side setback in the draft standards.

- Mechanisms to preserve land for future sewering: the draft lists four preservation tools — ghost platting (showing how land could be organized in the future), deed restrictions, conservation easements and covenants — and council members told staff to keep all four as options. Several members said a ghost plat helps the city and Metropolitan Council understand how the parcel could be urbanized later and could therefore be useful evidence when seeking future rezonings.

- Relationship to Metropolitan Council guidance: council members questioned the origin and enforceability of a frequently referenced 10‑acre minimum. A staff explanation cited Metropolitan Council planning materials and the Metropolitan System Plan as the regional framework; council members asked staff to research and document whether and how a 10‑acre averaging rule would apply to local code changes.

Next steps and staff direction

Council members asked staff to draft code language and bring the A‑3 proposal to the planning commission for review, with the following elements included for the planning commission’s packet: proposed boundary maps, minimum lot size options (1.5 vs. 3 acres), a recommended lot‑width standard (140 feet as a working test value), draft language on private streets and shared‑driveway limits (private/gravel for small clusters; paved public streets when thresholds are met), impervious‑surface cap (30% recommended by several members) and a clear description of preservation tools (ghost plats, easements, covenants, deed restrictions). Staff was also asked to document Metropolitan Council references about any 10‑acre guidance and any statutory basis staff identifies or that the council should consider.

The meeting produced no final vote; the discussion concluded with council direction to return a draft ordinance and materials to the planning commission and then to council for action.

Ending: Council members agreed the draft should be tested on an initial project and refined based on staff findings and feedback from the planning commission and the Metropolitan Council.