Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dayton Parkway Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dayton council rejects proposed Dayton Parkway master plan after residents and commissioners raise alignment concerns
Summary
The Dayton City Council voted 5–0 to decline acceptance of a city‑initiated master plan for Dayton Parkway, citing unresolved concerns about the road alignment’s impact on existing homes and the need for more transportation analysis. Residents testified that the proposed route would affect long-standing properties.
The Dayton City Council unanimously voted not to accept a draft Dayton Parkway master plan after months of review and public comment. Council members said they were not prepared to endorse the plan as a policy document while questions about the proposed road alignment and impacts on existing homes remain unresolved.
City planner presented the master plan as a guidance document intended to inform the next comprehensive plan update in 2028, describing land‑use recommendations for a town center, street‑hierarchy design and public‑space ideas. Staff told the council the plan followed public outreach that included an online survey and several public meetings and joint work sessions with the planning commission.
But several council members, planning commissioners and residents urged the council to pause acceptance and ask staff to do more work on transportation. Planning commissioners had recommended denial at their November meeting because they wanted a broader transportation focus, and speakers at council — including long‑time residents Scott Schutte and April Johnson Richter — said the proposed alignment would cut across established properties, risking the loss of homes and rural character.
Schutte, a 32‑year resident, said the road alignment seemed to ‘wander’ through properties and urged the council to explore alternative, more direct routes that avoid residences. Richter said the plan as drawn would slice through family land that has been in her family for decades and asked the council to preserve neighborhood character.
Council members pressed staff on the plan’s status as a guidance document versus a binding policy. Staff said the draft was intended as a starting point for development conversations and could be revised before being considered for the comprehensive plan.
In a motion to not accept the document, council members said they wanted more analysis and clearer direction on transportation alignment before adopting any guidance that developers might rely on. The motion to not accept the master plan carried 5–0. Council members agreed to return to the topic with additional staff analysis and options for routing and property‑impact mitigation.
Next steps: staff said they will bring back additional transportation‑focused analysis and options for further discussion before any final policy adoption.
