Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Industrial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EDA reviews Oppadan Inc. concept plan for 200,000‑sq‑ft speculative building; members raise concern about warehouse concentration
Summary
Oppadan Inc. presented a concept plan for a 200,000‑square‑foot speculative industrial building on Dayton Parkway; EDA members questioned the value of adding more speculative warehouse space and noted sewer and utility extension costs.
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Industrial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oppadan Inc. presented a concept plan to Dayton’s EDA on Feb. 18 for a 200,000‑square‑foot speculative industrial building on a >32‑acre parcel at Dayton Parkway and 117th Avenue North. The property is currently zoned agricultural and would require rezoning to I‑1 (industrial) and a preliminary plat. The applicant told the EDA the proposal focuses on a first phase building and is not seeking a planned unit development.
Staff noted the comprehensive plan already includes industrial and business‑park designations in the area, which support warehouse and distribution uses. Several EDA members expressed concern the market already has available speculative space—members pointed to still‑available space in nearby recent buildings—and questioned whether another large speculative warehouse is the best path to increase local job and tax base benefits. One member suggested restricting warehouse‑only buildings in some areas so facilities must include operations or manufacturing tied to the tenant.
Staff said the project will require significant utility extensions (water and sewer) and that the applicant and/or future developers will need to address those costs. The EDA discussed that moving Dayton Parkway around an existing pond could make early construction of the building unlikely because truck access and docks would be constrained; staff said further discussion will occur with planning commission and council in March.
No incentives (TIF or other) were identified in the packet; staff said the area is largely developed and that sewer/water extension would be a project cost. The EDA did not take a formal vote and asked staff to pass comments to the applicant and to continue review during upcoming commission and council consideration.

