Council declines to adopt Planning Commission's PDD recommendation for Warner Village subdivision

Clayton City Council on Jan. 13 refused to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation to rezone 183.1044 acres near Sweet Potato Ridge Road and North Main Street to a Planned Development District (PDD) and to approve a preliminary development plan for the Warner Village subdivision. The council vote on Ordinance 0012502 failed 4-3 after a lengthy presentation and public comment period.

Planning staff presented the application (case PC 24-4), saying the proposed PDD would allow a mixed residential subdivision that the applicant described as a conservation-oriented neighborhood with 529 homes, approximately 68 acres (about 47%) of open space, three access points to Sweet Potato Ridge Road, eight stormwater basins, and neighborhood parks. The developer indicated the subdivision would provide a mix of lot sizes and products, including a 100-unit build-to-rent component, and said water and sewer would be provided by the city of Union (staff supplied a capacity confirmation from Union).

Clete Behnken, land planner with KZF Design, presented the plan and emphasized open-space preservation, pedestrian connections and variable lot sizes intended to create views to parks and reduce outward pressure on surrounding farmland. Developer representatives identified two national/regional builders they said would participate and told council they expect construction to take six to ten years, with infrastructure and traffic impacts to be addressed by developer-funded studies and mitigation.

Residents voiced repeated concerns about drainage and bedrock/karst conditions on the site, the adequacy of stormwater detention basins, traffic impacts on Sweet Potato Ridge Road and nearby intersections, school capacity (Northmont City School District) and neighborhood character. Several nearby homeowners described past drainage problems and said prior developers did not follow grading plans. Multiple speakers asked whether detention basins would increase mosquito problems and whether the city or developer would be liable if runoff affected existing homes.

Council members pressed the applicant on traffic mitigation, drainage and long-term build-out commitments. Staff and the developer said the project would require a final development plan and additional studies (traffic, detailed drainage design, utility plans, architecture, landscaping) before any building permits. Planning Commission had recommended approval with conditions including a minimum lot width of 60 feet for proposed lots and additional items to be resolved at final plan submittal (renaming a street, submitting agency comments, addressing staff and engineering comments).

On the ordinance vote (Ordinance 0012502), Councilmember Bachman moved to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation; Councilmember Merkel seconded. Roll-call votes were recorded as: Farmer (no), Henning (no), Gorman (no), Merkel (yes), Kelly (no), Bachman (yes), Stevens (yes). The motion failed (3 yes, 4 no), so the rezoning and preliminary plan were not adopted and the applicant may revise the application and return to Planning Commission.

City staff and the applicants noted that the next steps would include completion of required studies, potential resubmission to Planning Commission, and return to council for final development plan review if the applicant chooses to continue. Several residents and councilmembers asked staff to ensure that traffic, drainage and school-capacity impacts be resolved prior to any further approvals.

The rejection does not prohibit the developer from revising and resubmitting; staff said a final plan would be required and that approval would be subject to review of traffic, stormwater, utilities and other engineering and landscaping details.