Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Final Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission forwards Hunter's Path Phase 3 final subdivision plan after resident drainage and tree-line concerns
Summary
The commission recommended approval of Hunter's Path Phase 3 final subdivision plan (97 lots) with staff conditions; nearby residents raised concerns about a revised lot layout that places a previously planned tree buffer inside new lots and about stormwater maintenance responsibilities.
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Final Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Clayton Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the final subdivision plan for Hunter's Path extension Phase 3, a 97-lot single-family project along Westbrook Road, after residents expressed concerns about changes to lot lines, a tree-line buffer and stormwater maintenance.
Staff described the submission as a final development plan for a 37-acre property proposing 97 single-family homes, roughly 11 acres of open space (about 29% of the site), two access points (including a Westbrook Road entrance), sidewalks, new street lighting and multi-use path elements. The plan is submitted as straight RSD zoning for the final plan; staff recommended approval subject to addressing Clayton Planning and Engineering comments prior to council review.
John Bills, representing developer DDC Management, told the commission the submission largely follows earlier preliminaries and that this phase was routed under straight RSD zoning. "We decided to go the RSD route, the straight zone route, which really, if you look at it, you know, what we did in the first 2 phases. We're doing it's gonna be the exact same houses," Bills said; he also said the builder is the same as earlier phases and that needed clearing would be limited to what is required for stormwater and construction.
Several long-time residents from Mount Royal Drive and adjacent streets objected during public comment after comparing the preliminary and final plans. Residents said a 38-foot tree buffer that appeared in the approved preliminary layout was incorporated into two lot parcels on the final plan, which they said placed responsibility for the buffer and a berm adjacent to an existing retention pond in private hands rather than preserved as common buffer. Bill Sider and other neighbors requested the tree buffer be maintained as HOA-owned open space instead of being included inside new lot lines; Debbie Cook said, "For 40 years, we've taken care of that tree line, and we've used it as a buffer from the tornado, from storms. That tree line is important, especially to us that are right there."
Bills responded that the final plan reflects a revised wetland delineation that required shifting lot lines and creating an open-space lot elsewhere, and that dead trees would be removed but that the developer was not proposing wholesale clearing of healthy woodland where not required for construction or storm infrastructure. He said the ponds and storm basins associated with the new subdivision would be maintained by the HOA once established.
Commission members pressed the applicant on stormwater limits of disturbance, required clearing, and the location of construction turnarounds that will be removed when road connections are completed. Commissioners also asked staff about the plan’s compliance with RSD standards; staff confirmed the submission meets RSD requirements for a final plan and recommended forwarding the application to council with conditions to resolve city planning and engineering comments.
A motion to recommend approval with staff conditions passed by roll call: Mr. Bills — no; Mr. Foley — yes; Mr. Muncie — yes; Ms. Pritchett — yes; Ms. Williams — yes. The commission will forward the recommendation to council for its July 17 meeting. Residents were advised that the developer expects to own and maintain open-space elements until the HOA is formed, and that final construction and clearing extents will be shown on the final construction documents required prior to building.
Speakers quoted in this article — John Bills (developer representative) and several residents — spoke during the presentation and public-comment period; their remarks about tree buffers and maintenance responsibilities are reflected above.

