Clayton City Council on an evening vote rejected a proposal by Shanghai Enterprises LLC to rezone a 30.4242-acre property near Westbrook Road and Taywood Road from RSD (residential single-unit district) to PDD (planned development district), a change staff said would allow a preliminary plan for detached homes on narrower lots.

The vote came after staff presented the application as Planning Commission case PC25-02 and recommended approval with conditions; staff’s packet described a preliminary plan for 98 single-family homes, three access points, right-of-way dedication for a multiuse path, and about 5.87 acres (19.29%) of open space. Planning staff told council the applicant would need to submit final development plans and a traffic study before construction permits could be issued.

The issue drew extended public comment and detailed responses from the applicant’s representative, Ben Schilling, who described engineering measures he said the developer would use to address neighbors’ drainage and safety concerns. “That basin will be sized to handle the flows from the development and to not increase the release rates from our development,” Schilling told council, describing a wet (retention) basin with a safety shelf and a swale to capture runoff before it reaches rear yards east of the site.

Why it matters: Council members and nearby residents said the proposal would increase traffic and could worsen flooding unless engineering measures and long-term maintenance obligations were carefully defined. Residents also pressed the developer about subsurface rock and whether bedrock conditions could make construction more expensive or affect how foundations are built.

Key details and debate

- Staff summary: Ellen Snyder, presenting the application, said the preliminary plan organizes roughly 98 single-family lots, includes new street and utility infrastructure and requires coordination with county and utility agencies. Snyder identified Plan Clayton chapters and city code sections that guide review and said Planning Commission recommended approval with specified conditions.

- Applicant response: Ben Schilling and Jason Lu (applicant) addressed drainage and traffic. Schilling said the developer had completed a traffic study that staff and a third-party reviewer had cleared, and that no off-site improvements were “triggered” by the study. He described plans for a multi-use path along Westbrook and right-of-way dedication along the frontage.

- Resident concerns: Multiple neighbors urged the council to deny the rezoning or require stricter protections. Questions included the projected home count (materials circulated different numbers; one commenter cited 92 on a slide while another referred to “103”), the depth of bedrock encountered in geotechnical borings, and who would maintain the proposed swale and basin. A resident who reviewed the geotech report summarized that roughly 29 borings were taken and several had “refusal” (very shallow rock) around 10 feet, raising concerns about foundation and utility construction costs.

- Stormwater and safety: The applicant confirmed the basin would be a wet basin with a safety shelf and said the swale would be placed within an easement designed to prohibit modification; he said maintenance could be assigned either to the city or to an HOA. Council and residents asked for clarity on long-term maintenance and whether easements or restrictive covenants would be used.

Council action

- Ordinance: Ordinance 00725-10 (Shanghai Enterprises LLC — rezoning RSD to PDD and approval of preliminary subdivision plan for parcel M601032090025, ~30.4242 acres).
- Motion: Motion to reject the ordinance (mover: Merkel; second: Henning). (Recorded on the council agenda as a motion to reject the recommended rezoning.)
- Vote: Yes — Council Member Farmer; Council Member Henning; Council Member Gorman; Council Member Merkel; Council Member Kelly (5). No — Council Member Bachman; Council Member Stevens (2). Outcome: Ordinance rejected.

What was not decided: No final development or plat was approved; staff reminded the council that any future subdivision or final development plan would require additional engineering review, a finalized traffic study (if needed), and public hearings.

Community context and follow-up

Residents repeatedly asked that any future approvals include explicit language about who will maintain drainage easements and the basin and whether covenants or deed restrictions could preserve buffers. Several asked the council to require stronger stormwater guarantees at the final plan stage. The council vote leaves the developer able to revise and resubmit, but the rezoning as presented was turned down.