Clayton planning commission tables decision on restoring R‑1/R‑2/R‑3 zoning after consultant briefing and public concerns
Loading...
Summary
The commission heard a consultant—s review of Plan Clayton and a 2021 code consolidation that created the RSD district, took public comment on notice and lot-size impacts, and voted to table formal action while requesting clearer direction from city council and scheduling a follow-up meeting Dec. 8.
The Clayton Planning Commission on Oct. 27 heard a consultant—s report on the city—s residential zoning districts and voted to table any formal recommendation while seeking further direction from City Council.
Planning consultant Max Merritt, of McBride Bridal Clarion, told the commission the 2018 comprehensive land use plan known as Plan Clayton emphasizes compact, walkable mixed‑use neighborhoods and that a subsequent zoning update consolidated multiple single‑family districts into a single RSD (residential single‑unit) district to simplify the code and encourage infill. "Hello, everyone. I am Max Merritt. I'm with the planning consultant McBride bridal Clarion. I've been the city's planning consultant for approximately 11 or 12 months now," Merritt said while presenting options for the commission.
Merritt outlined three options: keep the current consolidated RSD and follow the comprehensive plan; conduct a targeted review of the land‑use map and zoning code to determine whether differentiated low/medium/high single‑family districts should be reintroduced; or restore distinct R‑1, R‑2 and R‑3 districts with remapping and code amendments. He noted the RSD base minimum lot size cited in the presentation was 0.15 acre and that prior urban residential minimums had been reduced from about 7,500 square feet to 6,500 square feet in the consolidated code.
Why it matters: Residents and commissioners framed the debate as a balance between protecting the city—s rural and neighborhood character and creating housing opportunities. Several speakers said the consolidated district leaves very different lot types governed by a single set of rules, creating confusion about what future development would look like and how it would be noticed to property owners.
Public concerns: During the three‑minute public comment period, several residents asked for clearer notice and more time for outreach. Gloria von Fonostock said she wanted to know who decides which option is chosen: "Who decides which option do you pick? Is that you guys? Is that you? Or is that the city? Who decides? The council?" Leanne Bustos focused on lot sizes, saying, "If you're in the smallest 1 with 7,500 square feet, maybe going to 6,800 isn't the biggest deal in the world. But if you're in the the folks that have 20,000 square feet, and then all of a sudden you're seeing the the new lots go down to 6,800 square feet. You're really seeing that, like, woah." Other commenters raised parcel‑level concerns (a rezoned corner at Winger and Hoke and a roughly 10‑acre change at Hoke and Westbrook) and called for regional coordination with neighboring jurisdictions.
Commission discussion and next steps: Commissioners debated the tradeoffs. One commissioner said reverting to separate R‑1/R‑2/R‑3 districts without broad public engagement would "usurp the public voice," while others argued a targeted review could address mismatches between plan, code and current market conditions. Commissioner Sabrina (last name not specified) reminded attendees that commissioners are volunteers: "We're volunteers up here. We're taking our time away from our family, to be up here."
The commission voted to close public comment and subsequently to table the discussion on residential zoning districts; the chair declared the motion carries. Commissioners asked staff to seek clearer guidance from City Council about the desired outcome (whether the council expects the commission to choose among the three options or provide a range of recommendations). The commission scheduled a follow‑up discussion for Dec. 8 and approved the 2026 Planning Commission meeting schedule.
What wasn—t decided: The commission did not adopt any code amendments or map changes. No formal vote was taken to restore R‑1/R‑2/R‑3 districts; the motion on the floor was to table further action pending additional review and council direction.
What to watch next: Staff will summarize the commission—s questions for council and report back at the Dec. 8 meeting. The commission suggested that any targeted review include parcel‑level mapping, an analysis of existing lot sizes and clearer outreach to affected property owners.
