Planning commission recommends approval of Hunters Path extension preliminary plan amid drainage, tree-line concerns

The Clayton Planning Commission at its March 2025 meeting recommended that City Council approve a preliminary subdivision plan (case PC25-01) to extend the Hunters Path subdivision with 97 single-family homes on a 37.098-acre parcel owned by Lagos Properties Inc. and proposed by DDC Management LLC.

The proposal would keep the site’s RSD (residential single-unit district) zoning and, as presented to the commission, would provide about 11.06 acres (29.4 percent) of open space, two access points (an entrance on Westbrook Road and an extension of Falls Road), sidewalks, streetlighting and stormwater basins. Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council provided all city planning and engineering comments are addressed; the commission added a requirement that existing dead trees along the north and east property lines be cleared and replaced with new plantings.

The commission’s recommendation matters because the Planning Commission’s action sends the application to City Council for a final decision; the applicant cannot proceed to final development plans and construction until Council approves subsequent plats and required technical studies, including a traffic impact study.

The proposal and next steps

Zoning staff told commissioners the preliminary application (received Feb. 28, 2025) does not request a zoning change. The applicant, Ross Benfelt of DDC Management LLC, said Arbor Homes — the builder on the adjacent Hunters Path phases — would likely be the construction partner for the extension. Staff outlined that the plan calls for 97 single-family lots at approximately 2.61 units per acre, two stormwater basins, new streets, sidewalks, lighting and a multi-use path along Westbrook Road, and that final development plan submittals must include a traffic study and detailed engineering for utilities, grading, stormwater, building architecture and landscaping.

Benfelt said the development’s stormwater will be routed to retention basins that release water at a reduced rate compared with current overland flows. “You’re not going to have those big rushes of the water like you’d see today during storm events,” Benfelt said, describing the proposed basins’ outlet control. He also said the design team is coordinating a traffic-impact memorandum with Clayton engineering staff.

Public comments: drainage, ponds, tree line, trash and staging

More than a dozen nearby residents spoke during the public-comment period, raising recurring concerns about drainage, the existing detention pond system, the preservation and condition of the tree line that backs several lots, construction trash and staging, and potential traffic impacts.

William Sider of 5902 Mount Royal Drive said he opposed the development in principle but added, “if we’re doing this, let’s do it right,” and urged the city and developer to ensure storm sewers, basin capacity and creek clearance so runoff does not back up into existing detention ponds. Several other residents described standing water behind homes, a history of tornado and wind damage leaving dead trees in the tree line, and prior problems with maintenance after an original homeowners association became defunct.

Tanya Sites, who said she paid a premium for a semi-wooded lot and was told the adjacent land would not be developed, said, “We paid extra for this particular lot for those reasons. So we do not want to see the street go through.” Other residents pressed the applicant and staff for details about whether the new basins would outlet to the existing creek (staff and the applicant confirmed the basins would outlet into that creek) and whether the creek would be widened or dredged (the applicant said it would not; staff said it is a protected waterway and such work would not be permitted).

Residents also reported prior problems with construction debris and contractors parking in existing streets; applicant and staff representatives said they have relayed those concerns to Arbor Homes and would discuss construction staging and trash mitigation, and that construction parking and staging will be required inside the future project footprint rather than in the existing subdivision.

Commission action and conditions

After discussion, Acting Chair moved to recommend approval with the conditions listed by city staff and two added items: that the developer address all Clayton Planning and Clayton Engineering Department comments at final plan submittal and that existing dead trees along the north and east property lines be removed and replaced with new plantings. The motion was seconded and passed on a roll-call vote: Commissioner Muncie — yes; Commissioner Pritchett — yes; Commissioner Williams — yes. The commission’s recommendation is advisory; City Council will hold a public hearing and make the final decision.

What remains to be submitted

If City Council approves the preliminary plan, the applicant must submit a final development plan and plat for each phase. Staff noted required submittals the preliminary application did not include: a completed traffic study (to assess impacts on area roads and recommend road improvements if needed) and a full development plan set with detailed utilities, grading, stormwater and architectural drawings. The applicant said the traffic-impact memorandum is under review by Clayton engineering staff and the formal traffic study will follow city approval of the final study scope.

Background and context

Staff said the site lies near the intersection of Westbrook Road and Union Road and is surrounded by parcels partly outside Clayton (Inglewood and Trotwood were shown on the materials). The plan was presented as consistent with Plan Clayton’s future land-use designation for single-family homes. Staff cited relevant Clayton code guidance chapters for the RSD district and subdivision design standards during the analysis presented to commissioners.

The commission’s recommendation at this stage is a recommendation to City Council; any conditions imposed by City Council or additional technical findings required at final plan will control the content of construction plans and permits.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Recommend approval of preliminary subdivision plan PC25-01 (Hunters Path extension) with staff conditions and additional requirement to remove and replace dead trees along the north and east property lines. Mover: Acting Chair (name not specified on the record). Second: Commissioner (name not specified). Vote: Muncie — yes; Pritchett — yes; Williams — yes. Outcome: approved (recommendation to City Council). Notes: Final approval requires City Council public hearing; final plans must include a traffic study and detailed engineering.

- Procedural and housekeeping votes recorded earlier in the meeting (all roll calls show the three members present voting in favor unless noted): approval of minutes for the Dec. 16, 2024 meeting — approved; adoption of procedural rules for the meeting — approved; approval of the 2025 Planning Commission schedule — approved; appointment of Mr. Foley as chair for 2025 — approved (Foley absent); appointment of Mr. Muncie as vice chair — approved; appointment of Barbara Sim as commission secretary — approved; motion to adjourn — approved.

Next steps

The commission forwarded its recommendation to City Council. City Council must schedule a public hearing, consider the technical studies (including the required traffic study), and make a final determination. The applicant, DDC Management LLC, said it will submit required final materials if Council approves the preliminary plan.