Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sundance Greens PUD Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press commission to move Sundance maintenance building; commission tables PUD amendment for legal review
Summary
Public commenters and commissioners clashed over a proposed maintenance building relocation at Sundance Greens; residents said the new location would harm views, create noise and drainage problems, and urged denial. Staff recommended tabling after spotting zoning‑map discrepancies; the commission tabled the PUD amendment for further legal review.
The Dayton Planning Commission on July 9 heard hours of public comment and debate over a PUD amendment and preliminary‑plat changes for Sundance Greens’ 12th edition, focused on the proposed relocation of the golf‑course maintenance building. Staff recommended tabling the amendment after finding a discrepancy in the zoning map that omits a 2018 rezoning; commissioners agreed legal review and corrected public notice were necessary before deliberating a final action.
Staff said the 2018 preliminary plan and PUD contained a range of waivers and public‑benefit commitments and noted that the latest proposal reduces the number of lots (what was approved in 2018 was 58 lots; the current submission shows 48) and reconfigures street layout. Crucially, staff told the commission the zoning map currently depicts the entire golf course as PR (public recreation) even though certain lots were rezoned in 2018, creating a notice and jurisdictional issue.
Scores of nearby homeowners told commissioners the proposed maintenance building site — now proposed near Polaris Lane — would replace a green‑space view with an industrial maintenance yard, aggravate noise and lighting impacts, and risk property values. “Sundance can’t integrate new home sites with new tees in 2026 while asking you to let it rescind the same amenity the Braeburn Trails development relied on in 2018,” Bruce Gartner said, summarizing residents’ concern that the proposal changes the amenity buyers relied upon.
Tom Dean, the applicant, said the location and need for a new building have been discussed since the 2018 approvals and described design reductions he said would mitigate impacts (reduced square footage to about 6,000 square feet, lower peak height and added landscaping). He also said operations generally begin about 7 a.m. and are largely daytime activity.
Commissioners pressed staff to obtain an opinion from the city attorney on whether approved 2018 plan sets effectively established the maintenance‑building location or require fresh review. Chair opened and then closed the public hearing after testimony and commissioners moved to table the PUD amendment and associated preliminary‑plat action to the next month so staff can correct the zoning map and seek legal guidance.
The commission did not reach a decision on the substantive merits and will revisit the petition after the zoning map and notice are corrected and the city attorney has reviewed whether prior approvals preclude further action.
