Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dayton council adopts A3 zoning changes, lowers impervious cap to 25%
Summary
Council amended the 2040 comprehensive plan and A3 zoning to allow interim rural residential development (2 units per 20 acres), accepted planning commission tweaks (160 ft min lot width) and directed reducing impervious coverage from 30% to 25%. The package will move to Met Council review.
Dayton City Council voted to adopt amendments to the city’s 2040 comprehensive plan and to the A3 rural zoning district, advancing a framework for limited interim rural residential development in northwest Dayton while preserving longer‑term urbanization options.
What was approved: the council approved language allowing two units per 20 acres under the A3 district with additional flexible design guidelines intended to "ghost‑plat" future urban lots and reserve developable parcels for later urban services. The Planning Commission’s change to increase minimum lot width from 140 feet to 160 feet was accepted.
Impervious coverage and other tweaks: During discussion council directed staff to reduce the maximum impervious surface cap in the A3 examples from 30% to 25% (to better safeguard open area while meeting Met Council guidance). Staff said Met Council had reviewed earlier materials and was generally comfortable with the approach; the city will submit the package for required interjurisdictional review and Met Council action (staff estimated a 120‑day review window).
Why it matters: The A3 amendment provides a formal pathway for very low‑density interim development in parts of the city that are not yet served by sewer and water, while setting expectations for future conversion to urban zoning when services become available. Councilmembers stressed the intent is to allow limited occupancy that does not preclude future higher‑density development once infrastructure is extended.
Next steps: Staff will submit the amendment package to neighboring jurisdictions and the Met Council for review; projects will still require individual land‑use approvals (and may require deed restrictions or development agreements to preserve future urbanization parcels). Council also asked for cleaner draft language to address a small set of editorial errors in the packet before final filing.
Vote: motion carried by the council (recorded vote in meeting packet).
