• Comment

Central Landing PUD on planning agenda

Posted: August 15, 2014 - 6:58pm

A rezoning of the proposed Central Landing site to PUD is on the Conway Planning Commission agenda for Monday night.

The mixed-use development, whose fate is dependent upon voters approving a plan to renew a 1/8-cent sales tax for road improvements, is the city’s current plan for the 220 acres now referred to as the old airport. The area is now zoned I-3 (Intensive Industrial). Jim Wilson and Associates, the developer of Central Landing, has requested the rezoning to Planned Unit Development. Monday night’s meeting is open to the public and will serve as a public hearing on the PUD.

Also on the agenda is an annexation and rezoning requested by Hal Crafton of Rush Hal Properties.

The annexation request involves 143 acres around the Round Mountain peach orchard, which Crafton has purchased. He has also presented a preliminary review to the planning department for a subdivision called The Orchard at Round Mountain.

Crafton submitted a second preliminary review for a subdivision called Nahlen Cove, to be located on Nutters Chapel Road adjoining Catherine Place. He is also requesting a rezoning to PUD. A note attached to documents filed with the planning department says PUD zoning is needed “due to the reduced front yard setback, lot sizes and reduced street right of way.” Crafton has also requested a variance for narrower streets.

Other items on the agenda include:

• A request by James Branch to rezone property at Meadowlake Road and West Street from R-2 to O-3.

• A request from Scott Hayes to rezone property at Factory and Monroe Streets from R-2A to O-2 and a conditional use permit to allow a temporary bank while a new Arvest Bank is built.

• A request from DT Real Estate for a rezoning from O-1 to RU-1 on property on Dave Ward Drive near Donaghey Avenue and a request for a conditional use permit to allow a mini storage and general retail there.

The planning commission will meet at 7 p.m. at the Conway District Court building on Parkway.

(Staff writer Rachel Parker Dickerson can be reached by email at rachel.dickerson@thecabin.net or by phone at 505-1236. To comment on this and other stories in the Log Cabin, log on to www.thecabin.net. Send us your news at www.thecabin.net/submit)

  • Comment
Comments (21) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
arkansasobserver
3274
Points
arkansasobserver 08/18/14 - 02:52 pm
1
0
More development!

You go, Hal!

arkansan
1038
Points
arkansan 08/18/14 - 03:48 pm
3
0
But......

Didn't they already sign a contract with the developer?

What's the point with even discussing rezoning with the public. It's just a mere formality. We already know the out come before the meeting has been held.

Lilly03
635
Points
Lilly03 08/19/14 - 08:38 am
2
0
BINGO! That's the way it

BINGO! That's the way it works around these parts.

Igor Rabinowitz
8820
Points
Igor Rabinowitz 08/19/14 - 10:33 am
1
2
Lilly03
635
Points
Lilly03 08/19/14 - 04:28 pm
4
0
Smoke and Mirrors not facts

Not facts -
This isn't a vote for all roads, it's just a vote for the roads the developer wants going to the shopping center.
the other bad roads will still be bad. You will just look fancy driving over the potholes in your new shirt from Dillards

Elmer Fudd
3799
Points
Elmer Fudd 08/19/14 - 10:39 am
1
0
Igor

any other thread you plan on posting this on? Why not buy a full page ad in the LCD? Oh someone already has this in the plan. I understand.

Igor Rabinowitz
8820
Points
Igor Rabinowitz 08/19/14 - 11:56 am
0
2
No different

No different than the same old people coming up with the same old charges over and over again.

Fact > Nonsense (ie vituperative rage)

Elmer Fudd
3799
Points
Elmer Fudd 08/19/14 - 12:45 pm
2
0
It

is obvious to me you think building new and not taking care of existing problems first where all of us common folks live is the way to go. Have you driven the streets in this City? You are so obvious. Excuse me I am being cynical. I will not have anything else to say about this subject as it relates to you sir.

Igor Rabinowitz
8820
Points
Igor Rabinowitz 08/19/14 - 01:12 pm
0
2
Have you not seen the money for streets in this program?

First of all I'm not all that horrified by the streets in this town, but whatever.

What you propose: Spend money on streets

What is proposed: Advance additional revenues, providing additional funding for streets.

What you propose drains the cash reserve with no clear reoccurring income.

What is proposed is robust funding for streets - and additional items - well into the future.

You got to think past today.

Stella3
243
Points
Stella3 08/19/14 - 03:09 pm
5
0
Downtown Businesses

I wonder what the downtown merchants think about all this. We toss up an arch and a fountain. We hang flowers and put little statues everywhere. We announce plans to build a park and improve drainage. We tell them and everyone else that 'historic downtown Conway' is the place to be. And then we insist that we need another 75+ retail spaces in other developments. (And isn't UCA also thinking more retail on Donaghey?)

All those numbers above could easily be wrong if our average incomes can't sustain all of this 'progress' in addition to what we already have. Sure, it'll be nice and Conway will look great, if all the stores get filled...and stay filled.

And in the end, will downtown survive?

####

Back to Top