Clayton leaders weigh three paths to revise residential zoning; consultant recommends targeted review or overlays

Clayton — At a joint work session, council members and the Planning Commission reviewed three options to address complaints about the city’s consolidated residential zoning and discussed forming a review committee to recommend next steps.

McBride Bridal, the planning consultant, laid out the options: maintain the current RSD structure; conduct a targeted review of the land‑use plan and zoning code to identify limited changes; or reinstate the prior R‑1, R‑2 and R‑3 districts with separate dimensional standards. "The first option would be to maintain the current zoning structure," the McBride Bridal consultant said, summarizing pros and cons for each approach.

Why it matters: speakers said the choice affects housing supply, neighborhood character and the city’s ability to respond to market and infrastructure pressures. Council members and commissioners repeatedly emphasized public engagement and legal/administrative limits, noting Plan Clayton and the implementation strategy must be aligned before code changes are applied.

Supporters of a measured change said smaller minimum lot sizes in many recent developments allow more infill housing and can help grow the tax base and local businesses. "If we don't grow, there's only one thing you do — die," a council member said during the meeting, arguing for policies that enable new housing and economic activity.

Opponents cautioned against blanket remapping and highlighted process constraints in specific areas. Commissioners and staff described Village of North Clayton as an example: despite vacant lots and infrastructure, many parcels are held by a single developer and subject to HOA covenants that require architectural approvals and restrict modifications. Staff explained that combining lots or changing development standards there requires plan modification and owner consent, procedures that can be costly and time consuming.

The consultant said reinstating separate R‑class districts would give clearer differentiation among single‑family neighborhood types but would require substantial reworking of code sections, remapping boundaries and reviewing entitlements. A targeted review or overlay approach would allow the city to focus on problem areas without remapping the whole city, the consultant added.

Council members also contested how much community input informed the original Plan Clayton. Meeting discussion cited participation figures in the consultant report (the report listed roughly 75 contributors, and a staff check identified 26 registered Clayton voters among that list) and a Plan Clayton approval date of May 3, 2019. One commissioner said re‑engaging residents now would help produce more broadly accepted outcomes.

Next steps: a council member proposed forming a review committee composed of council members, planning commission representatives and citizens to identify gaps, map problem areas, and recommend actions. No formal ordinance or code amendments were approved at the meeting; the session ended with the chair adjourning and recessing for five minutes before the council meeting.

Specifics discussed at the meeting included examples such as a 33‑acre proposed development (101 homes) at Taywood and Westbrook that was voted down because of water and traffic concerns, and a consultant observation that other jurisdictions sometimes use lot minimums as small as 5,000 square feet to enable denser infill development. The consultant cautioned about unintended development patterns and infrastructure strain if the city simply reduces lot minimums without additional analysis.

The work session did not produce a formal decision. Officials said they would refine options, consider overlays or a targeted review, and return with recommendations for public engagement and a potential review committee.