Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sundance Greens PUD amendment tabled after neighbors raise concerns about maintenance building
Summary
The commission opened a public hearing on the Sundance Greens PUD amendment (twelfth addition) and tabled the item to the April 2 meeting so the applicant can provide renderings and more detail about a proposed 7,200 sq ft maintenance building. Several neighbors urged moving the building, stronger screening, clearer notices and answers on wetlands and traffic.
The Dayton Planning Commission opened the public hearing on a PUD amendment for the Sundance Greens twelfth addition on March 5 and agreed to table the item until April 2 after extensive public comment.
Staff had described the request as a reduction in the final phase lot count (from 58 to 48) and a proposed relocation of a maintenance area to the north side of the Sundance Golf Course. Staff recommended opening the hearing and continuing action to allow the applicant to provide building renderings, a landscape plan and operational details for the proposed maintenance building.
Tom Dean (the applicant) told the commission the maintenance structure had been contemplated since earlier approvals and described a residential‑style exterior, a 12‑foot sidewall and vegetative screening plans; he said he had pulled the item to return with clearer renderings and landscaping.
Several nearby homeowners told the commission they were unaware of the proposal’s details and raised concerns about visual impact, fuel tanks and outdoor machinery observed at the developer’s existing facility, groundwater and wetland protection, traffic for maintenance vehicles, and nighttime lighting. Eric Suppelt said, “My house is taller than 10 feet. I will see this on my windows,” and asked the applicant to work with staff to find an alternative location. Gary Feldhage said the applicant’s current operations at the main entrance show an “operational reality of maintenance” that could replicate at the proposed site.
Commissioners emphasized the need for visuals and for the applicant to explain building use and hours, typical vehicle types and screening measures. A motion to table the public hearing and continue action to the April 2 meeting so renderings and a landscape/screening plan can be provided passed by voice vote.
Next steps: The applicant is expected to present detailed renderings and additional operational and landscaping information at the April 2 meeting for the commission’s further consideration.
