Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clayton committee debates whether to split consolidated RSD and tighten zoning definitions
Summary
A Clayton City Council planning committee reviewed Plan Clayton and the city's revised zoning code; staff presented why multiple prior residential districts were consolidated into RSD and committee members questioned whether the single-class approach forces inappropriate higher-density outcomes and conflicts with existing subdivision covenants. Members asked staff to map densities by corridor vs. rural areas and scheduled follow-up work for July 9.
The Clayton City Council planning committee spent its meeting reviewing Plan Clayton and the city's zoning code changes, focusing on whether the consolidated residential single-unit district (RSD) should be split into smaller, more specific categories.
Colin, the city's development director, presented the history behind the 2019'1-2022 zoning overhaul and explained the numeric standards that followed. "We reduced about 20 zoning districts down to 10," he said, describing the move that combined several former residential classifications into one RSD and created other districts such as RCD1/RCD2 and RMX. Colin said the current RSD base is 0.15 acres (about 6,534 square feet) and described RCD1 (up to 9.99 acres) and RCD2 (10 acres and above) minimums and setbacks as part of his explanation.
Committee members responded with concerns that a single RSD label removes useful gradations the city previously used (R1'R3, UR1) and can create mismatch when applied to older neighborhoods with deed covenants. "If it is zoned that way, it makes things more difficult unless they're asking for that zoning change to deny," one committee member said, describing how a developer who follows zoning rules can still seek rezoning and how prior councils sometimes approved changes that residents did not expect.
Members also debated geographic differentiation: several suggested placing higher-density development near major thoroughfares and business centers and preserving lower densities in agricultural or rural-feeling areas. One member who reviewed neighboring jurisdictions said Brookville, Englewood and Union still retain three residential categories (small, medium and large) and use corridors to guide denser housing.
The committee raised practical questions about infill and lot splits: smaller setbacks in RSD can conflict with older subdivision building lines and covenants, potentially forcing property owners to seek variances or vacate deed restrictions. "You can't grandfather yourself into something that doesn't exist," a participant noted when discussing how newer zoning habits interact with historic covenants.
Members discussed other practical tools, including conditional-use processes, buffer and landscaping requirements at subdivision entrances (citing Hunter's Path), and the risk that language in plans that equates "rural" with "blighted" could unintentionally invite tax-increment financing (TIF) or redevelopment strategies. One participant referenced a court challenge in Norwood and said courts have checked overbroad redevelopment claims.
The committee directed staff to circulate Colin's presentation and asked members to review the Plan Clayton maps to propose where different density tiers might be appropriate. The group set a follow-up meeting for July 9 at 7 p.m. and asked members to come prepared with suggested zoning gradations and mapping observations.
The meeting closed with no public comments recorded.
The committee's next steps are to (1) receive Colin's presentation materials, (2) map potential density gradations tied to corridors vs. rural areas, and (3) return on July 9 with concrete suggestions for whether to restore multiple residential tiers or modify RSD standards.
