Council pushes developer to resolve traffic and park access for proposed 172‑unit Dayton townhome project

A concept plan for about 172 townhomes on a 25‑acre site off County Road 81 prompted lengthy discussion at the Dayton City Council meeting on April 14 as council members and city staff pressed the developer on access, zoning and public‑infrastructure costs.

Dean Lauder, director of entitlements for David Weekly Homes, described a townhome scheme the company said reflected market demand. Staff and multiple council members said the city's General Mixed‑Use (GMU‑1) standards may not match realistic development outcomes and proposed rezoning to a medium‑density residential (RM) approach as an option.

The council's main concerns centered on transportation and public costs. Staff said the intersection at County Road 81 would likely require realignment and a roundabout if the site develops as residential; the roundabout and related realignment were estimated to be a multi‑hundred‑thousand to multi‑million‑dollar project depending on scope. Council members said a developer‑only cost allocation for that work would make the project difficult to finance and asked staff to explore cost‑sharing scenarios.

Wetlands, a sewer easement and a gas main running across the site are limiting constraints staff described; planners said that reduces flexibility for building placement and increases the site's engineering complexity. Commissioners and staff sparred over where a neighborhood park should go and whether the Rush Creek regional trail alignment could be used to provide safer connections to future open space.

Council and the developer also debated parking and unit mix. The plan included two enclosed spaces and two surface stalls per unit, which several council members and staff called excessive and likely to produce a “sea of garage doors.” Developer representatives said market demand tends to favor three‑bedroom units and that smaller units can stay on the market longer; councilmembers encouraged more variety in unit sizes and asked staff to examine parking standards so future projects can pursue narrower roads, on‑street or shared arrangements, and different guest‑parking designs.

No formal approvals were requested for the concept plan; staff characterized it as a high‑level review to identify constraints and gather council input. Council asked staff and the applicant to return with traffic engineering options, clearer cost estimates for intersection work (including roundabout scenarios), and more refined park/trail siting options before advancing preliminary plats or site plans.