Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Masterplan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dayton work session narrows land‑use choices as council weighs density and scope
Summary
City staff presented three land‑use options for Dayton’s town‑center master plan and sought council guidance on density, mixed‑use assumptions and a proposed southwest business park. Staff scheduled an open house for Sept. 17 and will incorporate comments before formal hearings.
City staff laid out three land‑use options at an Aug. 27 Dayton City Council work session, asking councilmembers to indicate which elements they preferred as the city moves a town‑center master plan toward public review.
"The goal here tonight is essentially to take the land use and make decisions on what elements you like," said Speaker 3, the staff presenter, summarizing the purpose of the meeting. Staff emphasized the draft assumes the city's existing minimum of about 3 units per acre and does not yet incorporate a separately proposed future change to 4 units per acre.
Why it matters: the city must balance an overall unit target while shaping where commercial, mixed‑use and residential growth will locate. Staff said the existing land‑use baseline for the master plan boundary is roughly 5,099 units and that all three options would exceed that figure; later in the meeting staff provided a slightly different baseline figure discussed as part of internal calculations. Councilmembers debated whether to raise high‑density minimums (Option 1 keeps 15 units/acre; Options 2 and 3 use 20 units/acre) or to target still higher minimums in some mixed‑use areas to meet long‑term housing goals.
Supporters of higher minimums said raising density on smaller acreage can preserve low‑density neighborhoods elsewhere. One councilmember urged caution: "We can't master plan this bigger area," saying a 640‑acre study can confuse the public and recommending staff clarify scope and, if needed, rebrand the document as a future land‑use study rather than a full master plan.
On mixed use, staff explained the draft assumes 60 percent of mixed‑use acreage will develop residentially and that the minimum for mixed‑use in the map is currently set at 12 units per acre; members discussed raising that assumption to 16–20 units per acre in targeted nodes to achieve more housing without expanding high‑density footprints.
Staff also described Option 3, which proposes a light business‑park use in the southwest corner of the plan boundary, noting it would require buffers and parcel adjustments to respect adjacent neighborhoods. Several councilmembers asked staff to show wetlands, shoreland boundaries and topographic contours on revised maps to make buildable acreage and impervious‑surface limits clearer.
What comes next: staff said they will hold an open house on Sept. 17 at the Villa Activity Center in the Historic Village, incorporate public and council comments into revised materials, then return the plan to planning commission and city council for formal adoption hearings.
Ending: Council gave staff direction to refine the maps, clarify the study boundary and provide shoreland, wetland and staging detail for the public open house and subsequent public hearings.
