Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning of 9630 Clayton Road to G‑1 commercial
Summary
The Ladue City Council approved Bill 2377‑A on second reading to rezone 9630 Clayton Road from D‑Residential to G‑1 Commercial. City staff noted the property’s long commercial history and that a recent text amendment will require a Special Use Permit for certain uses that border residences.
The Ladue City Council voted unanimously June 16 to rezone 9630 Clayton Road from D‑Residential to G‑1 Commercial, approving Bill 2377‑A on second reading.
City Planner Andrea Sukanek summarized the request during the public hearing, saying the building at the site was constructed in 1928 as a filling station and later used as offices. She told the council the parcel was zoned commercial until 1945 and is currently the only property within the Clayton Road Business District that is not zoned G‑1. Sukanek also noted that a May text amendment to Ordinance 1175 requires a Special Use Permit for any new use on properties rezoned to G‑1 that border residential property on more than one side; that requirement will apply to the site.
City Attorney Erin Seele stated for the record that the notice of public hearing, the Code of Ordinances (Ordinance 1175), the application file and staff report were made part of the official record. On the second reading, Mayor Nancy Spewak read Bill 2377‑A and Council Member John Howell moved approval. The roll call vote recorded Council Members William Brennan, Harold Burroughs (via TEAMS), John Howell, Stacey Kamps and Tim Kaufmann voting “Aye”; there were no “Nay” votes.
The rezoning changes the legal zoning designation of the parcel; any specific commercial use that triggers the May text amendment will require a Special Use Permit and associated conditions before operations commence. The council closed the public hearing on the rezoning earlier in the meeting and proceeded to adopt the ordinance on second reading.
No speakers recorded formal opposition during the public hearing in the meeting minutes. The council did not specify a timetable for implementation or any immediate site development permits beyond noting the SUP requirement in the recently adopted text amendment.
