Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Buccaneers Cove Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission tables Buccaneers Cove mixed‑use rezoning after residents raise traffic and parking concerns
Summary
The City of Conway Planning Commission tabled a rezoning request for a mixed‑use planned development near Buccaneers Cove after residents and commissioners highlighted unresolved traffic, parking, lighting and compatibility issues; the applicant asked to defer and the commission voted to table until a complete submittal is provided.
The Conway Planning Commission on Aug. 6 tabled a rezoning request for parcels tied to a proposed mixed‑use plan development near Buccaneers Cove after extensive public comment and commission discussion about outstanding technical information.
Neighbors described the proposal — which staff said would include a multistory building with roughly 180 residential units (about 572 beds in the applicant's exhibit) and ground‑floor commercial space — as incompatible with the single‑family neighborhood at the subdivision entrance. Scott Saba, who lives at 921 Buccaneers Cove, said the development would change the character of the street and asked the commission to require "a thorough traffic study, infrastructure and infrastructure analysis, and careful consideration of how this project will affect the surrounding homeowners." He added, "This proposal would dramatically increase traffic at the entrance to our neighborhood where families, children, pedestrians, school buses travel every day." (Scott Saba.)
The applicant's engineer, Tommy Holt of G3 Engineering, told the commission the team had reduced building height and unit counts and had revised parking; he said staff comments were largely addressed and requested a deferral so a complete package could be submitted. Commission discussion focused on whether to hear public testimony tonight or to defer until the full parcel set was resubmitted. Several commissioners said repeated deferrals were not productive and favored tabling the item until the applicant returned with a complete submission and the outstanding technical materials, including the traffic impact analysis. The motion to table carried and staff said affected property owners would be re‑notified when the project is returned to the agenda.
Next steps: the applicant may resubmit the full package for re‑advertisement of the public hearing; the commission signaled it expects the traffic study, TRC review and clarified design modifications to be part of any complete resubmittal.
