Dayton City Council — Transcript
Thursday, July 9, 2026
Accessory Buildings in Public Recreational (PR) District Ordinance Amendment
Sundance Greens Preliminary Plat and PUD Amendment (12th Edition)
Proposed Six-Month Interim Ordinance (Moratorium) on Site Plan Reviews
Votes (3)
Public Hearing for Ordinance 26x Amend Code 01 1000164
Dissent: None
Moved by Mr. Chair [7:12] · Seconded by Commissioner [Unknown] [7:12]
The discussion centered on correcting a perceived typo in the zoning code's table of uses for accessory buildings in the Public Recreational (PR) district. Staff initially recommended changing the ambiguous 'F' to 'P' (permitted use), but public commenters and most commissioners strongly advocated for 'C' (conditional use permit) to ensure proper review and conditions, especially given the varied nature of PR properties and potential impacts on adjacent areas. Commissioners noted the 'F' was likely a typo for 'C' due to keyboard proximity. There was general consensus that a Conditional Use Permit provides necessary oversight for accessory structures, particularly those requiring building permits over 200 sq ft.
Amending the Preliminary Plat and PUD of Sundance Greens and Sundance Greens 12th Edition
Dissent: Several Commissioners, including Jeff Sergeant, voiced strong opposition to the building's proposed location during deliberation, pending the city attorney's opinion.
Moved by Jeff Sergeant [8:23] · Seconded by Commissioner [Unknown] [8:24]
Staff recommended tabling this item due to an identified error in the city's zoning map which misrepresents the approved R3 zoning for parts of Sundance Greens. The applicant, Tom Dean, is seeking approval for a reconfigured 12th edition with fewer lots (48 vs. 58) and to relocate a maintenance building. Key concerns raised by staff and residents included a reduced driveway setback, reduced building setback (25 ft proposed vs. 50 ft PR district), a second driveway, and the overall impact on adjacent residential properties in Brayburn New Edition. Residents expressed strong opposition to the maintenance building's relocation, citing noise, light, traffic from commercial vehicles, loss of views, and property value impacts. The applicant countered that the maintenance building location was part of 2018 approved plans and that measures like lowering the grade and architectural design minimize impact. Commissioners stressed the need for a legal opinion from the city attorney regarding the validity of the 2018 approvals and how it affects their ability to require changes. The item and its public hearing were tabled for a month.
Adopting a Six-Month Interim Ordinance Moratorium Related to Site Plan Review
Dissent: Commissioners voiced general skepticism about the necessity and scope of the moratorium, suggesting alternative policy approaches.
The Planning Commission discussed a proposed six-month moratorium on site plan reviews for non-residential projects, intended to allow staff to study and recommend appropriate buffer zones between residential and non-residential land uses. This initiative stemmed from previous cases where non-residential developments (e.g., industrial building, assisted living center) were proposed too close to residential areas, leading to public concern. Commissioners expressed reservations about the moratorium, questioning its effectiveness, potential to halt desirable projects, and staff's capacity to find a 'silver bullet' solution. Alternative approaches, such as mandating Conditional Use Permits for non-residential projects adjacent to residential zones, were suggested as potentially more flexible and effective solutions to address buffer concerns.
Notable Quotes (14)
within the zoning code, we have a table of uses that list um every use as either permitted or an accessory permitted or conditional use permit or or not allowed. So, it's uh the first letter of each word as it applies to the public recreational district. For accessory buildings, we have an F. And so then the question has been for you know uh the past 30 years or so is what what is the intent of F? Is it a P? Is it a C?
My interpretation was it should be a C for conditional use. The table of uses lists permitted uses in the PR district. Most are operational uses other than accessory buildings as the loan structural use. My interpretation of the language in the reference section of code reads as there are three categories of uses...I don't believe this is coincidental and rather intentional.
Well, I'm in agreement that I think I would lean towards the COP too. In fact, very strongly lean towards the COP. I agree with everything that that uh you know that Eric just talked about. He didn't put a lot of work into this. Thank thanks for bringing this up to us in the first place.
I think it's evident to me that it is supposed to be a conditional use permit for accessory uh structures in the in the PR district. Uh, I agree with even the typo error that the C key is right next to the F key, right?
the reasoning why staff is recommending that this be uh tabled in writing the staff report we realized that uh the zoning map is an error. Uh the zoning map shows the whole entirety of the golf course as being public recreational. in reviewing the ordinance from the ordinance amendment of the zoning map in 2018. Um the planned uh lots were reszoned from uh public recreational to R3 that was never shown on our zoning map.
Have we gotten any opinion or anything potentially from the city attorney that the plans indicating the maintenance building on the approved plans in 2018 hold any type of water? as far as saying the council has approved the building even if it's tacitly or inadvertently they approved the building in this location.
But do we transfer that nuisance from where the current shop is down next to the parking lot by the uh the golf course and the bowling alley parking lot which is right behind all the new homes that they're developing on this new redesigned street or do we move it up to the neighborhood that's existing in Braburn and put that nuisance whatever you might quantify it in their backyard. Okay, that that's really in a nutshell what we're looking at here.
This was approved in 2018. And I do think there's there's definitely uh some some potential maybe setting the city up for some litigation cuz cuz that was discussed.
Sundance is asking you to let it move the course's least residentially compatible feature to where it invited people to live in 2018 while removing the existing maintenance building from where new homes are planned.
The proposed location is clearly non-conforming, does not represent the least impactful or most compatible configuration. Opposition for us neighbors is not just about a view. It's about personal enjoyment of our homes and neighborhood. The detrimental impact is entirely avoidable by making renovations at or near the current maintenance building location.
the council had suggested that we consider moratorum on uh the approval of site plans for non-residential projects. So um the interimm ordinance or otherwise known as a moratorum um would be a six-month um of call to prohibition to for the acceptance of site plan reviews for non-residential projects from August 1st through uh January 31st.
The other thing to consider is that and I've said this before this is a problem every single city has as far as how you create that buffer between competing uses. If you find if if we do this moratorum and you find that silver bullet solution, hold on to that and sell it. You will solve your water issue. You will solve your roundabout issues.
Well, and and maybe that's the I'm just I'm spitballing here to help solve the issue to to Jeff's point is maybe we just require CUPs on properties that abut residential and that allows us to to have some flexibility in what it is going in there.
So, zoning codes are written in a way to help >> ease that transition, >> but again, there's no silver bullet, >> right?
Ordinances & Resolutions (25)
Proposed amendment to correct a typo/error in the zoning code related to accessory buildings in the PR district.
Specific section of city code being amended by Ordinance 26x, relating to accessory buildings in the PR district.
Planned Unit Development agreement for Sundance Golf Course, outlining public benefits and deviations for its development.
Planning Unit Development zoning classification with specific guidelines for improved design.
Proposed amendment to the Sundance Greens PUD for the 12th edition, specifically regarding a maintenance building relocation.
Approved by the Council, a combination of social media policy and current communications policy.
Approved by the Council to solicit engineering services for the city.
City budget undergoing work sessions, looking to keep current tax rate.
Initially not approved, then approved by the Council after further explanation from the Park Commission.
Adjustments made for DCM farms, approved by Council.
Approved removal of a conflicting spot in the parking section by Council.
Approved by Council for the southwest area of the Dayton interchange.
Study approved by Council to assess facility needs over the next 5-10 years.
Approved by Council for the city-owned house on North Diamond.
City's comprehensive plan, referenced for growth numbers which are seen as underestimating.
Discovered to have an error regarding Sundance Greens 12th edition, necessitating tabling of the item.
Original and amended version for Sundance Greens 12th edition, subject to discussion.
City Council sign-off on the preliminary plat, referenced by Eric Supple regarding previous approvals.
General reference for regulations, setbacks, variances, and conditional use permits.
Referenced by Colette Engle for variance criteria.
Requested by Bruce Gartner as an alternative to denial for the Sundance Greens item.
Process under consideration for a six-month moratorium for non-residential projects.
Proposed six-month prohibition, also known as a moratorium, on non-residential site plan reviews.
From Oppedin, proposing an industrial building next to Dayton Mobile Home Park, contributing to moratorium discussion.
For Balsam, next to single-family homes, also contributing to moratorium discussion.