Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission defers Snow Hill Estates after heated debate over 19 curb cuts and tree preservation
Summary
Commissioners deferred a 43‑lot Snow Hill Estates proposal amid disagreement over 19 driveway cuts onto East Country Club Drive versus options that would preserve large stands of trees; staff was directed to return with alternatives and a traffic analysis.
The Conway Planning Commission on April 2 deferred action on the Snow Hill Estates subdivision after an extended discussion about traffic safety on East Country Club Drive and competing proposals to preserve a mature tree canopy.
The applicant proposed a 43‑lot subdivision, with 35 lots served by 19 shared driveways on East Country Club Drive and eight lots served by four driveways on Highway 905. Staff said the Unified Development Ordinance requires internal streets for major residential subdivisions and that the technical review committee, fire, public‑works and construction services had flagged safety concerns: East Country Club is a 45‑mph collector with roughly 6,000 average daily trips (ADT) and Highway 905 carries over 10,000 ADT in places.
The applicant’s representative argued the shared‑driveway approach would allow significantly less site clearance, preserve the tree canopy and produce larger, elevated lots suited to the floodplain: “We’re trying to work with the existing conditions that are there and this is the best way to do that by reducing the footprint on the remainder of the property,” the representative said. The developer’s counsel added the team has pursued conservation options and sought ways to monetize the fronting lots while preserving the remainder of the tract.
Commissioners voiced repeated safety concerns. One commissioner said, “I can't support driveways coming out on it. I can't,” citing the road’s speed, curvature, limited lighting and nearby development coming online. Other commissioners said they found the preservation argument compelling but asked the applicant to return with fewer curb cuts, alternatives such as cul‑de‑sacs, single‑loaded service roads, or a reduced number of access points, and with a traffic analysis from TRC or engineering consultants that quantifies risk.
A motion to defer passed; staff was directed to work with the applicant on reducing the number of access points on East Country Club Drive, to explore options to guarantee preservation of the interior wooded parcel (such as conservation easements or development agreements), and to return with traffic data and alternative access configurations.
What’s next: The applicant will revise the design to reduce curb cuts, provide more detailed traffic/ADT analysis and tree‑preservation proposals, and return to the commission for further consideration.
