Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Cypress Crossing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents successfully oppose high-density rezoning west of Cypress Crossing; commission recommends denial
Summary
After multiple residents raised concerns about traffic, drainage and property values, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of an R‑5 rezoning application for a large, small‑lot subdivision near Highway 165/Cypress Crossing.
The North Little Rock Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of a rezoning request that would have permitted a dense single-family subdivision west of the Cypress Crossing neighborhood, after sustained public comment from residents worried about traffic, drainage and community character.
Dustin Welch of Holloway Engineering presented the proposal for approximately 246 small-footprint single-family homes with lot widths as narrow as 30 feet. The developer said the product was designed to be more attainable amid rising construction costs and that the plan would provide a secondary connection that the city has sought for years.
Multiple residents from Cypress Crossing and nearby streets spoke in opposition. Steven Hart, who said he lives on Bodark Lane in Cypress Crossing, described the community as a small, gated neighborhood that invested about $25,000 in its entrance and said he feared the proposal would add substantial through-traffic: “We are a very close community...to have 200 plus homes with maybe at least 2, you bring in 500 more cars through our area.”
Other residents raised separate but related concerns about erosion and drainage along a ditch behind properties, describing unstable ground and prior washouts. Ed Williams said the area’s soils and pothole-prone road conditions made additional traffic hazardous; Glenn King, a former Little Rock police officer, highlighted safety and traffic‑flow concerns at the Highway 165 corridor. Residents sought larger homes and lower density to match the character of adjacent lots.
The developer and engineer responded to questions and said the proposal included stormwater measures and that a bill of assurance and property-owner association would provide maintenance for drainage. They also said they would accept a locked Knox‑box style fire gate for emergency vehicle access rather than an open vehicular pass-through, if that was preferred.
After discussion, the commission took a roll call and recorded unanimous “No” votes to recommend the rezoning; the matter will proceed to city council with the commission’s recommendation to deny.
