e e e e e call to order the uh work session uh for the a3a district John thank you you I we're going to run short on time so I'm going to raise through these a little bit so um R 32 brief history thank you Amy oh hey what you that thank you z um so the the council sometime ago I directed a staff to look at um allowing large lot subdivisions and conversations with met Council um all of Dayton is with the Metropolitan Urban Services area meaning that all of Dayton at some point in the future it's going to be serviced by uh Regional sewer and water um so the short answer is we cannot have permanent large unwed Lots um they would allow us to have um unsur development as an interm use meaning that we're preserving land for the future uh service of with and water whenever that's going to happen whether it's 10 years or 50 years um so with the A3 District again the intent is for density is one home per 10 acres although the minimum lot size is up to the council so the uh for tonight I have six questions well I have kind of an explanation of the purpose of the A3 district and then six questions let's see okay um A3 District the intent here is uh that the district is to allow residential development with a gross density of four units per 40 acres within the following guidelines and I I'm going to go through these one by one can I back you up a bit oh it it repeats so okay yep so a is Reserve Land Resources for efficient future Urban Development so an example this is stone stonar stone um this was a project that was done around 2000 I believe um half acre lots with a large open space B is to identify land characteristics required to support future urbanization so the example here is this is our ultimate sewer map so the assumption is um whatever development that we allow or unur development um we're ensuring that that project can be serviced in the future we're not being a roadblock to Future Urban Development C is to allow no more than 25% of of developable land in a project to be developed reserving larger future Urban urbanization Parcels other example here is Wildwood Spring so I don't know when this was developed but it was planted with a ghost planted mine once sewer and water becomes available so um on this map there's a few lots that are outlined in red uh to provide an example of you know here's the parcel with you know whe whether it's two acres or five acres and showing how it could be uh subdivided into multiple Lots once SE is available this is probably the best example that we would have of what we're trying to do today of what could be done in the future so is this this really to say we need to go PL yes okay could impact having a maximum lot size as well that we haven't really talk a whole lot about if we truly want to preserve 25% over cabin of that D is to protect future urbanization Parcels with temporary development easements or agreements easements indeed restrictions and so here the question is if if we're trying to um you you've got you know just say 40 acres you have four houses on 40 acres is it four 10 acre Parcels or is it four lots that are you whether it's an acre or two acres or whatever that minimum lot size is and then we reserve the rest of it for some future use you know how do you reserve that is it a conservation easement is it a de restriction um with Wildwood Springs I don't believe there's anything that I'm aware of no no one was here when that was pled then e is to provide for the resoning of the future Urban urbanization Parcels to residential zoning classification and densities consistent with the Met Council policy at that time so um right now the density that the Met Council gives us is three units per acre um that will increase to 4 and A2 with the next three and a half three and three and a half at the 2050 plan um so the example here is uh the the aerial photo on the left was uh I'm going to say 9 to 10 acre Parcels at that time and then how those houses show today um at three units acre it's probably less than that that's the idea okay six questions number one is this the right area so in discussions with the Planning Commission the direction was Northwest uh Dayton that's roughly 2,800 Acres um assuming that the density is one home for 10 acres you have to have 20 acres in order to sub by benefits 29 Parcels uh potentially I'm going to say probably around 100 new homes this is all post to 2050 staging uh most of it is post 250 some of it is 140 the I was the one that suggested pushing it a little bit further east um but now that I've been thinking about it more I'm starting to wonder if that was a good idea because Dayton Parkways literally right on the eastern boundary and garant this area is all guided low density residential but if there's an area that potentially could become a different land use in the future it could be what's what's right along dayon Parkway depending on what they you're saying that bump out the bump out so from uh yeah yeah not just yeah not even maybe on the other between the planning commission's Direction was Park we don't have an alignment through that section and so kind of follows Anar and then it follows the prop Lin and that area is going to be a challenge anyway because there's no roads so it'll be hard to Cluster development to pull a road in it will be so just saying to pull that bump out back to I think so I mean the idea was to put some tillable land in it so if the market wants it at least we have land to do it but it also might be more difficult down the road when if that use becomes different once the roads through y well in according to this there's only one property that would qualify anyway um no about yes I think that technically Dayton Parkway schedule it would be these three would be this well again we don't know the exact date in Parkway alignment but what I've seen is there's that house here in that triangle it shoots right through it and comes down here actually maybe I got it wrong yeah it'd be these three so the ones adjacent to Dayton Park on both sides there's no Road there where does vickburg go right here East that's the red yeah so it potentially would be I mean these ones down by Diamond Lake I guess I'm less concerned about because they're little they just sub divide but these are all tillable land Parcels that you know I guess the the my fear is that making sure staff has the right direction on not hurting future development too because that's one of the things we have to make sure we don't screw up otherwise people might like the Met Council might be coming down on us and presenting evidence that we we' thought about it type of thing seems to me using Vicksburg is the is the line is The Logical division she' leave it there that's where it's at today I think you have east of that is doll heimer's and West soest some of the H yeah so this whole chunk right here is all dohmer up to the line so Vicksburg is over here yeah Zanzibar is right here and so I'm just saying Zanzibar it becomes Dayton Parkway this is the land adjacent to Dayton Parkway that might even be better suited for medium and high density residential which would make it more difficult to throw something in there but there's low density clustered I like it where it is yeah I just think it that still works because who knows how long the tree farm will be there I guess and and that white area that's in there you know is that land and uh okay pretty open if it's sold as it but so we're good with the area as it got you good I'm good have any concerns to me to make more sense to go right down zand bar but whatever when it happens I won't be here anyway I will I'll be right there and I'll be complaining about it all so okay so we're good with this boundary sounds can we do anything on the south side or I mean I know we moved it now but and you know what it seems like we can revisit this yeah for sure maybe we should okay uh plan commission had discussions on streets so the question of requiring public streets or private or or allowing private streets and then also paved or unpaved my vote is private and gravel so so looking back at at the examples you had shown shown with I I think it's got to be a mix and the reason you look back at the examples you show showed with the the homes from the that were 10 acres and then went down to a third of an acre or whatever it was like that's a great example of why it needs to be mixed um we don't know quite where the roads are going to be do we really want to Plat roads in right away today or being you know when these come along not knowing how the road network is going to be laid out so going back to how do you preserve you know 75% of the land for development like one way would be to require ghost planting you know and Grant ghost planting can change so you come up with an idea today might be bad a bad idea 50 years from now how does that impact the question of public I don't think and that's that's exactly why John I I said both it it should be both if we know there's going to be example we one of these Parcels that is in the future Zanzibar extension maybe we want to we want to have a public Street there maybe we want to get the right away for that but if it's you know not in our Network or future network crit streets make it very hard to enforce anything law enforcement your parking speeding on graev stre technically import when I think of a private Street I think more about private shared driveway just a driveway um and so to me the question really if you think about the diversity that we could potentially have an open Farm build of 80 acres becoming something versus 20 acres being split into two Lots to me it's more of a function of the number of lots the more Lots you have the more likely a paav street should be required and that makes sense CU that's also when like if it's just two people sharing a single driveway we probably not going to need the cops to come in but like you've got 80 houses or even 10 yeah then you have more people you got more traffic and then we are going to need some additional enforcement so I think that makes a lot of sense it should be a function of how many lots are involved or how many houses specifically okay public and private is there concern about fire access if it's gravel even if it's only serving two houses if it's not maintained properly zero conc okay I'm assuming if it's private I'm assuming it's going to be narrow it's not going to meet our standards correct um I mean we have standards for driveways so that's why I want to allow private to allow it to be narrower and that's why I think it depends on the number of hes CU same thing if you got 10 users it needs to be wider yeah yeah sorry I want to say like you're going to end up with like a 16t wide Gravel Road versus a 30 it could be narrower it's just two people in my opinion I mean we it's a private driveway we we have standards for gravel driveway oh got it yeah but that's not 16 ft it's depends on for a driveway I mean the idea is you can get a truck that's wide just recommend we have had issues on sh driveways one was down here out of John quill Shar driveway one guy had like somebody was coming in and out or commercial vehicles um and they had arguments constantly over we dealt with them numerous times I in Cil B previous too um so just to be aware if they're touching at the end and they're shared yeah you're always going to neighbor issues and if they have a shared driveway you can have neighbor issues but I think we should be a little more stronger about telling them that it's their issue now our this otherwise we end up with 16 feet driveways that's a lot and yeah so P public and private I think it leads into the next question though before we wrap this one up but I think you need to think about how you can put that in the code if you codify like if you need a number Lots then we need to talk about what's that magic number and I get it subjective but well can we just mandate these reps assuming we can meet the public benefit to everyone's sa satisfaction but I still think it's good to have guidelines because otherwise it seems so I would say like once you pass Five you need to have a public like like I or like I think we need to have an absolute at this point it has to be you have no choice and at this point like two it can be private cuz you got two people you would hope two people can work their out if it's 10 you're past that point in between two and 10 maybe that is where it's negotia if it's five and they're th000 ft apart yeah I just I think of go PE we should just is it I mean do you write it because you said if it's five and they're 1,000 ft apart yeah are we preventing them from doing a shared driveway or or at five or the public at more at five or more is when it triggers the the they have to be public right you know what I'm saying we I would discourage sh driveways no matter I would prefer that if you're having shared private driveways it's limited at three just from I know about other cities but that doesn't mean it's right for our city you're limited yeah that's where I was going you're limited to three but that doesn't preclude them from doing each individual longer driveways longer other Ro the reality is no one's going to be putting people are going to be minimizing the driveway links yeah cuz they're unless they are ultra wealthy and if they're ultra wealthy they're not going to they're going toy the whole I say they're going to buy all the acres and do what they want anyway right so so shared private driveway is limited to up to three parcels and Beyond three then it has to either be an individual driveway and or well if we're going to have a code where there's a PUD option I think it's easier to put a number in there and then leave the option for PUD I don't think is I don't think going PUD is the right answer for everything I'll get the more later but I think it's better to think about this as here's the ordinance and maybe we can come up with some exceptions in the Pud to make it work if it's not obedi [Music] now so private streets up to three in gr and we're going to have whatever we decide like we're we're as we go through some of these projects we'll have to adjust to it and figure out this idea didn't work you know and paved versus gravel same thing it seems like once you become public I would prefer pav y mhm I agree and obviously they're going to cap the length once that happens but that also helps preserve land for future development anything else on streets um minimum standard so starting with the lot size so um the plank Mission has gone back and forth a little bit uh 1 1.5 acres is the smallest that we discussed I still like three basically 1.5 is likely and this is all buildable lamp is the minimum to probably meet you know septic design with a backup septic for a larger home so I I generally prefer the larger Lots but I'm just thinking of places you know where the Topography is going to dictate what can be carved out of it and and built on or if you had a 20 acre parcel one's one and A2 one's 18 and2 that's meeting a lot of good needs too but it's more how it works out and lays out actually like you said with the just seems yeah just seems to me to be we need more flexibility because of the terrain things that can come into play and maybe that 1.5 has got 14 acres of wetland behind it you know it's not really a it's not really one and a half you all that space so what do you so I'm okay with the highlighted highlighted column and just to be clear that's n acre so that's one and a half of Acres of High Ground Y is that consensus I prefer I'd prefer two but I'll I mean I'm one I if I'm outvoted I'm outvoted but I prefer it at least two okay um any other thoughts from the council members to make sure John has the right direction here or questions I'm fine with one and a half yeah lot worth 160 ft um that's in there because it's twice the 80 ft for an R1 District so the assumption is you just split in a half well that's the assumption but if they build the home right in the middle they're bad yeah or they were intentional or intentional right well then we then we can't assume they're going to split I'm okay going smaller to my personally versus bigger more because they're going to be making choices on how they lay it out I'm more concerned about making sure we have lots that can someday present a way that if we were to orderly develop it and show to the Met counil hey we thought about it ghost platting like it could be long narrow Lots as long as we can show a ghost plat that hey some day this guy gets to sell off the back portion of his property I could care less I me it might be that you have to have two large lots to make yeah assemblage will have to happen if they if you do it assemblage yeah I wouldn't go like a ton smaller than 160 though like are you saying like 100 or no I thinking 120 120 and reason being same thing is if they actually put a smaller home on it you could easily split that into today's lot standards because when it becomes something else it's likely more likely to come 50 and 60 foot wide Lots than it is 80 foot y y sure are we leaving but on on the other token are we leaving enough space there for them to if we're saying 160 and are we leaving enough space for both to divide and put between I think the division is more going to happen in the rear of the lot I I don't disag with you I'm just what are you thinking are you thinking bigger yeah bigger than 160 yeah cuz if we're thinking they're going to split it in half and take half from one parcel and half from the neighbors and they put the home on dead on Center is there enough room there I think of the example John showed up there Nature's Crossing that had how it went from wedges six it went from the left to the right y it didn't matter yeah it went it went behind there and all the houses right along what's the road um Zachary yeah Zachary I mean they were their original homesteads and God they have to be what 120 fo so we just took the back of them it like that they're larger Lots yeah they're wider Lots standard quarter they're wide Lots wide Ramblers your argument is that they're probably not going to split it down the middle it's going to be split yeah and ultimately that's the biggest burden is going to be on staff first because they evaluate is understanding how does this present if we have to check the boxes of all these little things this development we're looking at on North Diamond what's the what's on that one 200 I have a feeling most of these Lots will be bigger than what I said probably but I I kind of think 160 seem but if we're going to have one and a half acre at a minimum that's where I was thinking get 160 is going to be difficult yeah yeah with the 3 to one lot depth that your wi would or your depth would be three times the 160 to get to the one and a half acres but the 1.5 is buildable so the actual is probably going to be bigger than that most most sits are pretty old to build buildable not all like a big think of a big farm field it's all buildable tell you with that drain tile you're putting your basement left and right I mean I'm not against the 160 you're going bigger I just I don't I think that when the Market's going to dictate it so we're probably spending a little meaning like it's more about showing what it might become in the future which is subjective to begin with than it is this number here well so yeah I just don't want the 160 to preclude something happening that's why I was leaning towards smaller okay where are we at go right in the middle 140 are we doing one point or what are we doing I don't okay subjective we just need to give John some direction personally I to me would you want it so that if you split it you got at least 60 foot wide lock all right so that's that's one to one and if you want a buffer like Peter said it's 140 160 so I mean I don't think there's a wrong answer there we just got to pick one let's pick 140 see how it works have the first ones come in and be like oops that didn't work we're going with 140 I'm only real hard fast on one of these that's the side side bag okay 140 3T I had my way it' be 1520 um lock depth is going to vary so I I'm going to assume there's not an opinion on minimum lock dep uh same thing with set setbacks are all the same well mostly the same 10 not never less you were talking about side I almost I almost feel like this might be one place where be warranted to have wider simply for as you were talking about like yeah if the whole point is that you can develop more we're going to run into issues where you're right up on your property line and now you want to put a driveway in there like I almost would go up a little bit if our long-term plan is to have this redevelop into something else and and if we think about it right if we're putting these on public streets we're going to have the infrastructure there to support another driveway on that street to put a house in between two houses we're not going to have to build it's going to it's going to allow that future development to happen there instead of cutting around and doing a bigger development like Nature's Crossing it might allow one or two pop up to go so help me out with the 10 like if you an R1 you'd already that's the set back 10 so if you were building on a bigger lot I if you choose to go up right up to the lot minimum of 10 ft you're just choosing to shift your house all the way to one side of the lot and you're making that choice probably because you see value that maybe you can sell off a future lot someday if you don't care most people would probably put the house closer to the middle so to me I don't know if the 10 matters that much because it's more given the people the op as long because that's what things are developing at anyway our current standard anyway where the sidey setback is really going to come into play is when someone wants to put in a shed or a garage after they built their house they got to figure that out when they build their house and I but I don't think we're going to see I mean the difference is in r one and R3 today we're seeing commercial Builders or or big box Builders right Nationwide I don't think we're going to see that here correct that's why they'd probably go further away from the town no so these are going to be Custom Homes and you're going to get people who are going to build 10 feet off of each lot line because that's what they want they want that that big long house because we're giving it to I don't know if I'd see that happening I follow where you're going that's that point that's what I'm afraid of and that's why I would I would suggest we we curb it with where we can what do you mean curb it go to Just well if we if we do want them to to be able to divide off the sidey yard yeah we do we do require one so if we're at 140 lot with minimum yep and you took 10 off each side that's 120 foot wide home that's big that's really big expensive footings I mean it's it's a you know a 6 8,000 probably an 8,000 foot home not saying that might not happen right it's big deal but but very rare but you put a fourcc car garage on a house and and you put the garage next to to the living dwelling instead of in front it doesn't take long to get that length yeah and you're not adding a I mean your footings are the same size depending on how you're doing it what do what do you want to set it for or what are you thinking I don't I don't have any I'm you're just you need a number no I'm working through it right now the tan are you just saying I'm I'm saying well if if we're if we're wanting to to use that sidey yard as potential future development we need to think about this number then the sidey yard setback how would it impact future development well ideally they would build against one of the setbacks side yards right so it leaves the rest of the other half it leaves the other if you wanted yeah yeah can you encourage people to say one one side of your house has to be against the I think you can tell them the logic for it but they're going to make their own choice you're putting up a multi-million if it's ghost Planet they get this spot anyways so yeah you can require that so if you ghost PL and you know whether okay you're going to build on one ghost lot or two ghost Lots it's limited to wherever that area is you're not building across all five Lots or something you get at the 10 not less you'll set i' go 15 20 but that's me I just don't want to see it less than 10 yeah I I seriously doubt you're going to see somebody put something on X number of Acres at 10 feet right and then this guy put it at 10 feet he's going to say I'm getting mine on the other side right M 10 10's fine I'm good with 10 we're good for 10 okay um impervious surface so I I have 15% um that's an arbitrary number what would you say that the said that whole area on on the on the north side of rain tree those are all three in AC Lots what's their percentage do you think anybody I don't per what was that last lot that we just saw the Planning Commission that had to have the what was the cup for it yeah the current went up to 30ish right 20 20 something yeah I kind of think that we should just change this to 30 30% in PR I think off the top of my head I think the re district is 30% and the R2 is 50 yeah it is that's what yeah that's why I would on 30 just looking at the other I would accept 30 I would not go any higher than 30 be hard to put that much stuff it would be if you have a big lot it's just more it's more you're thinking about the small you're thinking about the smallest lot the one and a half yes you're thinking about the small lot cuz on four you're not going to yeah I I'm good with the 30 i' go up moving along okay so here's the hard one um the mechanism of preserving land for future sewer development the examples are given it here is Ghost planning deed restrictions conservation easements or Covenants gr every project could be very different and you can just say okay here are four options one of these is going to work has to work for every project I mean if that's an option I like that CU it's leaves it so open-ended for the whoever wants to develop it if I have to pick I'd pick ghost plaing out of those four but I prefer it depends on your parcel yeah that's what yeah so like if you got a complete egg field and you subdivide off 10 lots and the rest egg you're not going to want nothing on it you just want to farm it that's why I don't understand why we need deed restrictions if it has no building entitlements so if if we require these to be PUD would this constitute the public the public benefit I don't think so because it would be preserved anyways there's an exception where you can see where there's hatch lines in here um any parcel that touches the hatch lines has to be a conservation ement by the current ordinance which I got issue with that as to De developers and public but because you can't just say give me something because the city said so you got to pay for it by Park you have a problem with a declaration like that because it's a taken yeah it's taken I agree so from that standpoint is it could meet the public benefit even though we require it we can't just take it but to meet the public benefit and they give it to us that is a public benefit yeah and the and the ghost platting with future roads would be a public benefit if they got it right when it came time sometimes getting it wrong is also helpful I I don't think it's going to be difficult to understand whether it's right or wrong when we do these okay so I'm hearing keep all four of these as options well how would a conservation eement work to preserve land to me that's taking land and saying it's never going to be Y which is fine but that's not preserving um Urban no it does the opposite but yeah exactly so how is that why is that one here that should be like the be it's stating that the the environmental value has a higher value than the development development value okay that we're going to preserve these Woods you know as it is and protect it from development or preserve the Wetland as it is and not just take it out and put a stupid holding pond in yeah I think that's more of the public benefit than it is one thing if it's a public conservation easement that does take that out of the net density calculations from the Met Council so there is a benefit to the city for doing that and what would be an example of a covenant like you can't do anything on the land but again you're restricting it to its current use like if it's a farm field and they leave 75% of the lot still farming we're not going to say you can't Farm it and they can't do anything else with it cuz that's own that's I don't understand maybe the need for a covenant let's see it's a covenant that can only be used agure not as a commercial use but it's not allowed because it's in A1 District apparently that's not true okay okay we're good on that don't remember that what number is I would one thing John I think would sorry if we going back with Urban preservation to me the most important thing is what does staff think they need to present this to the Planning Commission and Council as far as will a ghost plat help you prove to the point that hey we're doing it right if someone ever ask us like the met counil we can develop it we don't have to develop it at three and a half mil an acre that's not what anyone's saying but we can develop it at a greater density than what we approved initially so using Wildwood Springs as an example um it looks good on paper it' be very difficult to implement right so that's my question to you and and staff in general because when these people come in that might go to our next question is why they're steered towards a PUD or not is how easy it is for us to do some of this stuff and prove it and you know like if ghost platting helps you staff write a better story for met counil then we're going to then we should require it's even in the Met council's documents so yeah they'll sending on to me that's the one that that maybe should be required the other three are kind of like well I mean it it does help us I I don't know that the conservation E I think that those those are going to be beneficial I didn't get where the deed and Covenants did Del leave but uh so I get an example of the covenants okay if your ghost if your lot has a ghost plot for two lots you only build on one half of it and the other half you know you can put in a pole bar or septic system but it's not a house so the Covenant would be based on not not the 40 acres that we're talking about subdividing it's the it's the two acre and a half Lots next to each other that one person owns and they're allowed to build only on half of it to prevent what I I was talking about earli got it okay got it I don't can leave them up there anything okay uh PL PUD or not a PUD so again with PUD um there's flexibility in lot sizes and dimensions and all that other stuff there has to be a public benefit to it and this is probably more trial and er as as we review projects to answer your question should it be required I don't think it should be I think we should write the code like it's not but I think it should be an option just like any other yeah and it can be I'm I'm cool with that okay and so the code might seem a little bit more restrictive and trying to fit you know square peg in our own hole but we got a PUD to fix the oneoff is there is there a reason where like back to like even the number of homes you know we have three homes with the private driveway versus public is there a number that where we want to see a p I think the Pud is so unique like you could have a 20 acre partial it's only becoming two lots and because of topography whatever features we want to preserve that you might be able to meet the public benefit just like that with things that they can do and it's like makes complete sense even though it's a gravel driveway and two lots and you know like conservation ements could really come into play because to protect certain things if topography and wetlands are yep okay I've got all my answers that's a route I still want to get back to the original the the what is where we what is with the 10 anre thing I would really like to know where that's coming from but do you know and I know that we talked to that Council and they have nothing as far as how they can yeah because I mean if somebody came up to us and said you know I got five acres I want to split it why why why would we have a problem with that if they can make it work just as we're talking here M I don't and and the averaging thing I don't understand that either their initial document that wasn't in there the Met cil's document so they just said figure it out so that you can ghost plot it and 2 and a half acres you know has X number of lots on it so sure So within the boundary Metro Wide U Council supports 10 acre lots as a minimum lot I there's a butt coming and then our discussion is we go round and round on this what you want to know where the 10 acres came from I want to know where the state statute or where the hammer is and I've never been able to get that in the six eight years I've been on here where is their hammer it says if you guys go below 10 we're going to um okay you won't find it we had the M Council here do you remember that discussion yeah she went into the ditch okay so this is from the M council's letter and just summ so the council may require loc local government units to modify their comprehensive plan or parts thereof that do not conform with the metropol Metropolitan system plan so it goes back to the the mech I'm going to say the me council's comprehensive plan yep and referring to as where is it in the statue that allows the Met Council to to restrict it to 10 acres yes I I want to know where where anything is if we go below 10 why is that a violation ining and and the conversation we had with my Council was well you she said we weren't in compliance with our comp plan except then she walked on a path that made it clear that she for lack of better term was in the ditch um she said she was referring to an interim use plan that doesn't exist today right but that's what she fell back on so if we have somebody that has say five acres or let's say mean I got 18 Acres well I'm not why can't I split it exactly that's a question yes so that's where I'm at that lot or a 5 acre lot I I mean there's one not not far that the guy's been at asking why can't I split this thing I don't understand why we why we have a problem with that um and I know the M Cil didn't like it they won't like it don't care okay because I'm playing a little devil's advocate here Dennis but if F if you had a bunch of lots if you had a bunch of people split five acre lots y I think it's going to be a bigger burden on staff to understand are we what are we maybe jeopardizing in the future yep it will be I agree with that but that guy with five acres gets to split and if it's a choice between you know this is going to be more work or they got this Freedom I'm there I just think I'm nervous about more work for our staff to get it right meaning that are we did we really think about everything 10 15 20 years from now well and maybe we we set up guidelines that say here's the trunk lines don't block them uh but the trunk lines are a little arbitrary they are and that's why I'm not too worried about blocking them but I I just think this this this focus on 10 acres is going to derail a lot of this stuff so I don't and I don't know where it's coming from um that stuff across from uh the whole uh is that Wildwood Springs is that the whole place across from rain stre Northeast yeah it's functioning just fine yeah and it's probably always going to be that way and it's probably always going to be that they did Ghost plot but there's no incentive there to right well it's C so we we do have a land owner that wants to subdivide it what stopping them is the cost of the sewer trunk fees yeah I can see where that be is not cheap so it's $330,000 in fees and $10,000 in escrow and you have a lot that so I have a problem with the averaging Acres I don't I just don't understand where that's coming from and it keeps being hammered on us and I'm like I I don't know where this is coming from I don't like it just to be clear to the other council members here is when this came up with the Planning Commission meeting one of the things that I pushed back on was I want direction from Council do something if we're going to do something less than 10 acres and get creative I want direction from Council because you guys need to figure out how we can do this cuz we're kind of trying to appease the Met console VI what staff's saying so you guys are the ones that need drive if we're going to do anything less and then we can figure it out get suggestions I would like to go less than 10 yeah you guys need to figure out if we can legally do that because I think there's a question out there and that's what we need to answer if we can make what we just talked about all work Sand's the 10 acre thing the averaging 10 acre thing what would you average to maybe why do we have to why do we have to so you why we might have to again so I'm example would be say the 120 Acres of field along Dayton Parkway where Dayton Parkway eventually go through along Zanzibar sure so you're saying that we could just let that all become one and a half ACR Lots all of it sure yeah I don't know that I have a problem with that I have no problem with that zero CU I mean the other one you could do is I know met Cil would but I don't know of course they would they absolutely would I know how to present that one um they'll find out I I I just don't I mean if we're allowing I mean here's the here's where I'm at and if we're allowing up the minimum lot size in this to be one and a half acres that's my my theory thought is three acres is where we should be at then oh if you're going to just allow everything if we're going to allow one and a half three acre minimum lot size if you're going to take out the 10 acre one per 10 acre average well you're saying if we remove the 10 average you'd prefer to go up to three figer locks oh no no no cuz you were asking for a minimum of like how small can you be to do this to do the subdivide well then we're at three right cuz if we're at three acres I you're thinking two lots you get two lots out of three acres yeah yeah okay we got to cuz we got to play that way there's at least some math that goes into that yeah there's some math that goes into that we can get two lots out of three acres we're at 629 yeah we are yeah well again I would just say that that is something that the counil really needs it's one thing to say yeah let's do it it's another thing to make sure you guys are all 100% on board with the potential legalities of it or non silence sounds like that will still be up there I have dire to bring forward an ordinance Amendment to the Planning Commission I'd prefer not to hear it unless we know what council's direction is because what's what's the point of it that answer yeah well the rest of it is still rest is good the rest of it yeah I think it I personally I follow what Peter's saying but I personally would probably up the minimum lot size if we're going to just say to not average 10 yeah I'm yeah one I could get behind that I like make get through the me what do you mean through the back so we're back we don't even need to talk we don't need to talk to the me don't even call don't call just do it reques plan no no it does not no it does not no it does not why come back to me and and at the next meeting explain why explain why because if we're still guiding this land for identity don't know so timing wise attention this is going the March I don't want you following for