Commission approves PUD amendment to allow live-work units at Prince Street and Reedy Road

The Conway Planning Commission voted to amend a planned unit development to allow live-work units on the north parcel at the southeast corner of Prince Street and Reedy Road, approving the staff-recommended 13 conditions.

Applicant John Pennington told the commission the request would allow four live-work units on the north parcel and noted that, under the existing MF-1 density designation, the site could already accommodate the maximum allowed units by right. Pennington said he viewed the amendment as a way to impose architectural and development controls that would otherwise be unavailable if the property were developed piecemeal.

Pennington said, “you guys are volunteers, and I do appreciate the time that you do come up here,” and described the live-work design as a “best of both worlds” that fronts Prince Street to buffer townhomes to the south. He also described Prince Street’s character as changing and noted traffic counts he cited as “8,000 cars a day.”

Planning staff member Ryan (first name only in the record) summarized staff analysis, noting differences between what is allowed “by right” under MF-1 and what the amendment would permit, including reduced setbacks and the live-work use. Ryan said the original PUD document could not be located in city files and that neighbors holding covenants and restrictions would need to pursue civil remedies outside the city’s zoning process.

Ron, another planning staff member, described additional reviews required after the commission action: “there's gonna be a parking exception that's gonna be required, which will have to be approved by council. We'll have to review drainage, and there's gonna be an access because of the spacing between the 2 access points.” Ron said drainage and other engineering issues would be handled during site development review.

Commission member Laurie Quinn explained the body’s role and said that if the commission approved the amendment the matter would stop with the commission; if denied it would go to City Council. With no speakers in opposition, a motion to approve the amendment with the 13 conditions listed in the staff report passed. The transcript does not specify which commissioners moved or seconded the motion or the numeric vote tally.

The commission and applicant acknowledged several development challenges — utility conflicts, on-site detention, parking and access — that must be resolved during site development review, and staff indicated a required parking exception would need council approval later in the process.