Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dcm Farms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs density, drainage and commercial trade‑offs for 91‑acre DCM Farms concept plan
Summary
The planning commission reviewed the DCM Farms 91‑acre concept plan featuring ~262 lots and roughly 11 acres of proposed commercial space; discussion centered on sewer access and drainage raised by nearby homeowners, configuration of villas/townhomes, road alignment, and whether speculative commercial acreage is prudent.
The Dayton Planning Commission spent the bulk of its Sept. 5 meeting on a concept plan for DCM Farms, a roughly 91‑acre development that staff and the applicant described as a mix of single‑family homes, villas/townhomes and about 11 acres earmarked for commercial uses.
Staff framed the plan as a PUD (planned unit development) that would allow deviations from R‑3 standards in exchange for public benefits, and suggested design features including berming and landscaping along Fernbrook, a landscape median on 113th/114th similar to Rush Creek Parkway, reservation of right‑of‑way for future roundabouts, and trails. Staff also warned that some intersections should be realigned to meet spacing guidelines (about 660 linear feet) and recommended clarity on the public benefit that justifies PUD deviations.
Applicant Tom Dean, who identified himself and his Dayton address at the meeting, summarized project history and said the concept had been pared from earlier options to a single plan. The applicant described an expected product mix that staff estimated in the discussion (figures in staff and applicant remarks varied): roughly 262 lots overall, about 59 single‑family homes and numerous 40‑foot villas and townhome units. Dean said he expects phased construction and active builder interest.
Neighbors raised detailed concerns. Resident Lee Holquist told commissioners he has experienced persistent standing water and has pumped groundwater from his property "every 6 minutes" since nearby work started; he asked the city and developer to address drainage, mosquito control, and to limit construction hours. Commissioners and staff acknowledged the complaint and said engineering review and grading/storm‑sewer design would be required as the project advances; staff also noted the utility approach may include stubbed sanitary connections for future homeowners.
Commissioners focused on a number of points they want clarified before later formal applications: the total commercial square footage and whether the market supports 80,000+ sq. ft. of retail; whether some commercial acreage should become higher‑density residential or apartments if commercial tenants are not secured; the placement of villa/townhome product relative to ponds and existing single‑family homes; driveway and front‑yard setback tradeoffs; the functional utility of alley loading for certain lots; and how roundabout proposals would interface with county road authorities.
Several commissioners favored preserving flexibility: requiring more detailed floor‑plans and PUD review for large or industrial‑style cultivation/manufacturing uses, and asking the applicant to produce a Plan B (residential/townhomes) if commercial demand proves weak. Staff said larger engineering questions (grading, pond sizes, and sanitary/storm connections) remain for subsequent submittals and that the concept plan does not require a commission decision tonight. The commission closed the public hearing after reading one emailed comment urging a landscape median and buffering of commercial from homes.
Next steps: staff will incorporate commissioner comments into future plans; the commission flagged parking, commercial sizing, drainage mitigation, and clear PUD public‑benefit statements as items to address before any formal plat or rezoning request.
