Taming The Commercial Strip Through Comprehensive Planning
William A. Polk	© & Author Info

Abstract

This paper explores the negative aspects of commercial strip development and, through case studies in Conway, Arkansas, examines ways in which thoughtful comprehensive planning may avoid many of those negative aspects.

Introduction

We who are involved with the enlightened profession and/or practice of city planning are not without blemish. We have our own set of stock terms which often involve concepts and activities as well as individuals. Some are acronyms such as "pud's" and "nimby's". Others are less benign terms such as "fly-by night developer" and the ominous "urban sprawl". These last two are similar to the subject of this session, in that they are said with an understood sneer and a mutually agreed upon disdain. These two terms, like our subject, Strip Commercial, are not usually defined, but just accepted as undesirable.

The term, Strip Commercial, has been incorporated into our jargon to the extent that the words may be used in either order, Strip Commercial or Commercial Strip and they are equally acceptable. We also assume, when using these terms, that, without elaboration, we all have a full understanding of what we mean and what problems are implied. Assumptions without investigation are often faulty.

Sometimes, it is good to review an overly familiar term such as ìcommercial stripî and examine a few of its characteristics before we start talking about ways to avoid its propagation. And most communities would prefer to avoid the development of more commercial strips, or at least avoid the negative repercussions.

The Characteristics Of And Problems With Commercial Strips

We're not just talking about the proportions. We're also talking about the other attributes that tend to become a part of the prototypical commercial strip. Those attributes, rather than the actual proportions of the commercial zoning district are the major concerns.

Ten obvious attributes that produce most of the negative impacts of commercial strip zones have been identified. These can be grouped under four categories of sprawl, traffic, aesthetics, and future land use.

SPRAWL

1. Blight - Strip commercial zones tend to have a blighting effect on surrounding residential areas.
2. Lack of Buffers - Strip commercial zones are often not adequately buffered from surrounding residential zones.
3. Proliferation of Strip Commercial - Due to their blighting effect and lack of adequate buffering, strip commercial zones tend to proliferate along roads.
4. Sprawl - The proliferation of strip commercial zoning often exacerbates sprawl development.

5. Curb Cuts - The numerous curb cuts typical in strip commercial development create many turning movement opportunities that lead to the development of multi-lane parking lots masquerading as roads.
6. Lack of Access - When strip commercial zoning is deep, with frontage only on one road, the access is inadequate for the traffic being generated by the project and the single road can not accommodate the traffic, particularly the turning movements.

7. Parking - The tendency to place all the parking between the buildings and the roadway leads to vast expanses of asphalt and a degraded visual environment.
8. Life Expectancy of Buildings - Commercial strip buildings typically do not age well. Consequently, over time, the buildings become eye sores.
9. Vacancies - Due to the limited life expectancy, strip commercial projects tend to become empty and derelict.

10. Future Land Uses - There is a tendency to develop all the land along the highway as commercial and seal off the land to the rear from access or to limited access only through commercially developed areas.

A Case Study On The Avoidance Of Strip Commercial Development

The population of Conway, according to a 1985 special census, was 23,073. This was a significant increase over the 1970 population of 15,510 and the 1980 population of 20,375. Since then the population has continued to grow, and in the spring of 1996, a special census tallied a population of 35,993. The estimated population in the spring of 1999 is about 42,000.

Conway is a town of three colleges located on Interstate 40 about 30 miles north of Little Rock. Many people who are not familiar with Conway assume that it is a bedroom community for our state capitol. However, as a net importer of workers, Conway has a significant and expanding industrial base, an active downtown and a growing commercial sector which continues to pressure the city to provide additional commercial zoning to accommodate the new businesses which pop up at the rate of several a week.

In the late 1980's and early 1990's, the city leaders continued to discuss the negative impacts of strip commercial development, along with all the other problems created by rapid growth, and in 1991, these concerns were reflected in the Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in the early fall. This Comprehensive Plan did not show any new strip commercial development, but indicated that commercial development should take place in the appropriate clusters shown on the map.

This Comprehensive Plan served the needs of the city for just a few years, as the city limits had, within a couple of years, extended beyond the limits of the area covered by the plan. Consequently, another Plan was developed and adopted in the summer of 1996.

Much public input was sought and gained during the development of this plan. The draft plan was published in full color in the local newspaper with a response form that could be filled out and sent to the Planning Department. The draft plan was made available for review and written response during the week in the Planning Department and over several weekends at the public library.

This plan (now called the Growth Plan) looked very different from the one adopted in 1991, and a significant difference had to do with the placement and treatment of new commercial areas.

New commercial areas are shown on the 1996 Growth Plan as red dots placed on identified intersections of roads which are classified as either arterials or collectors. The dots are of three different sizes and are labeled with the letters NC, NS or CS. The dots are also placed in the middle of a square of hatching. The legend on the map and the text on the back of the map explain the significance of the different dots and the hatched squares. The smallest red dots (NC or Neighborhood Convenience Center) indicate desired areas of about two acres with neighborhood commercial zoning. The middle-sized red dots (NS or Neighborhood Shopping Center, fewer in number) indicate desired areas of about 15 acres with neighborhood commercial zoning. The largest two red dots (CS or Community Shopping Center) indicate desired areas of about 40 acres with large shopping center commercial zoning. The hatched area around each dot indicates that it is to be buffered with appropriate transitional zones.

The intent of the Growth Plan is for the new commercial areas to be no larger in area than what is indicated on the plan. When that size is reached, further commercial rezoning should not take place contiguous to the commercial zoning district and appropriate buffer zones should then be established to surround the commercial area. The Growth Plan does not require that the parcels be placed on a single corner of the indicated intersection, nor be divided between the corners. It is basically a first come, first served process.

Conway's Experiences With the Plan

WalMart Rezoning Request

WalMart determined that another super center would be appropriate on State Highway 286 on the west side of Conway. Unfortunately, no property of an adequate size that met their zoning requirements was readily available. In October of 1996, four months after the adoption of the new Conway Growth Plan, WalMart chose to seek rezoning to C-3 Highway Commercial for a 17.5 acre parcel to provide a parcel for a 148,704 square foot Supercenter and two outparcels. The property submitted for rezoning was zoned RMH Mobile Home District and the majority of it was being used for a mobile home park, which was heartily disliked by the neighbors until this rezoning request was submitted (Figure 1: WalMart Rezoning Request).

This rezoning was sought on State Highway 286 (a major arterial running east and west) between Salem Road to the west (a minor arterial running north and south) and Farris Road to the east (a collector running north and south), but without access to either of these north-south roads. The Growth Plan for the city indicated that a commercial area of about 15 acres in area for a Neighborhood Commercial shopping cluster would be appropriate for the intersection of Highway 286 with Salem Road. No commercial zoning was indicated as appropriate for the intersection of Farris Road with Highway 286, though 2.8 acres of developed commercial zoning was already in place on the southwest corner of the intersection and a further 9.6 acres was commercially zoned, though undeveloped, on the southeast corner of the intersection.

The intersection of Salem Road and Highway 286 already had 18.84 acres of contiguous commercial zoning in place. This WalMart rezoning request, if approved, would have resulted in a commercially zoned area 36.34 acres in area where the Growth Plan called for only 15 acres. This would obviously have been 2.4 times the area indicated on the Growth Plan.

The property submitted for rezoning has 554.32 feet of frontage on the north side of Highway 286, a maximum east-west dimension of 660 feet (a notch was omitted from the southeast corner) and a north-south depth of 1324 feet. When looking at the dimensional characteristics of this property, it obviously would not qualify as strip commercial, as it is over twice as deep as it is wide. However, it should be examined to determine if it exhibits any of the aforementioned undesirable characteristics of strip commercial.

SPRAWL

1. Blight - This rezoning would have the potential to blight the properties to the east and northwest, that are currently zoned R-1, with the property to the northwest already developed as a single family subdivision. Blighting is not likely to the north, south and southwest due to the existence of an elementary and a middle school to the north, C-3 zoning to the south and an apartment complex to the southwest.
2. Lack of Buffers - This property is not appropriately buffered to the east and northwest. It does, in fact, serve as a buffer for commercially zoned property across Highway 286 to the south. Due to existing conditions, it is unlikely that appropriate buffering to the east and northwest can be achieved in the future.
3. Proliferation of Strip Commercial - Due to the zoning and nature of the surrounding area, it is most likely that the blighting effect would lead to further commercial rezoning to the east.
4. Sprawl - The likely proliferation of strip commercial to the east would not necessarily lead to sprawl development, as the surrounding property tends to be fairly densely developed already. This development would be more akin to infill development.

5. Curb Cuts - This development, including the two outparcels, would have created from four to six additional curb cuts within 555 feet. Since two of these curb cuts were to be about 24 feet from the eastern and western boundaries of this property, the curb cuts would have been spaced an average of 162 to 97 feet apart. This property was projected to generate roughly 7,000 to 12,000 turning movements into and out of this property every day. The two lane road in front of this parcel was known to be accommodating between 10,400 and 14,000 vehicle trips per day. The new turning movements would involve a significant number of the cars already on the road, but would take an already congested section of road and cause it to resemble a parking lot during some periods of the day.
6. Lack of Access - This property is 2.39 times as deep as it is wide, with its access only from the narrow dimension. Two access points for the WalMart Supercenter were planned with additional access points for the two outparcels not addressed. The applicants indicated that they would expect to be able to install a stoplight at one of the entries at some point. It appears that a stoplight would be needed, due to the large number of cars on the road and the significant number of turning movements generated by the parcel. This property would benefit from additional access points from other roads. It does appear to lack adequate access.

7. Parking - The proposed site plan did show all the parking between the Supercenter and Highway 286. It also showed two outparcels which would partially shield the large expanse of parking. It would have a negative impact on the visual environment, though not as negative as it would have without the outparcels.
8. Life Expectancy of Buildings - The Supercenter was proposed to be built of concrete block and metal frame construction. This is a typical construction in strip commercial and would have about the same life expectancy as most strip commercial construction.
9. Vacancies - As WalMart has a history, even within the City of Conway, of constructing and abandoning buildings, it would appear that a vacancy of these buildings (including the out parcels) would be likely at some point.

10. Future Land Uses - Due to the existing development around this property, it would not block future access or development of the surrounding parcels, as the land to the west and north is already developed and the property to the east is readily accessible from Highway 286 and/or Farris Road.

When this proposed rezoning is evaluated in the light of the ten negative characteristics of strip commercial zoning, it can be seen that it suffers from the negative implications of eight of the ten.

These negative implications appeared to be very evident to the surrounding property owners and many others within a mile or so radius. While it is highly unlikely, based on the testimony at the public hearing, that these citizens performed any sort of sophisticated analysis of the implications of this rezoning, they certainly registered their disapproval.

Due to the anticipated size of the crowd at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, this particular public hearing, and only this hearing, was moved from the 81 seat City Council room in City Hall to a nearby church with seating for 240. On the evening of the public hearing, it was very difficult to gain access to the church where all seats were filled, virtually all available floor space was taken by standees and people stood in the entry and outside the building. While the rezoning had some supporters, the overwhelming majority of the people were in opposition.

This was the first group in Conway to organize to the point that they were wearing matching buttons and carrying matching notebooks and mass produced signs in protest of the potential rezoning. This tactic has since been copied in Conway by other groups in opposition to various proposed projects. This group also relied upon letters to the local newspaper and all involved entities to get their message across.

From a planner's point of view, the testimony of the opposition to the rezoning request was interesting, in that the Growth Plan was cited over and over as a primary basis for not approving the rezoning.

The Planning Department received 21 letters regarding this rezoning request prior to the meeting, addressed to either staff, the Planning Commission, or to another party with a copy furnished to the Department. These letters were copied and enclosed in the packet sent to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Of those 21 letters, 19 were opposed to the request and 15 of those 19 mentioned the Growth Plan, in one way or another, as a reason to refuse the rezoning request.

The Planning Commission voted unanimously, to racous acclaim, to recommend denial of the rezoning request. The request was then withdrawn before it was acted on by the City Council.

Property Owners Group Rezoning

The nineteen parcels involved in this 57 acres are irregularly shaped and have about 1512 feet of frontage on the south side of State Highway 286 and around 125 feet of frontage on Nutters Chapel Road (a continuation of Farris Road south from Highway 286). This property has a maximum east-west dimension of about 2222 feet (0.42 miles) and a maximum north-south dimension of approximately 1644 feet (0.31 miles). The submission indicated the area to be 57 acres, but it was later found to be over 60 acres.

The Growth Plan does not indicate that any commercial zoning is appropriate at the intersection of Nutters Chapel Road (and Farris Road coming from the north) and State Highway 286. However, as already noted above, this intersection has a commercially zoned and developed parcel of 2.8 acres on the southwest corner of the intersection and 9.6 acres of commercially zoned, but as yet undeveloped property on the southeast corner of the intersection. The Growth Plan indicates, to the east, that the intersection of Donaghey Avenue (a major arterial) with State Highway 286 is appropriate for about two acres of commercial zoning. After the adoption of the Growth Plan, 2.82 acres on the southwest corner of this intersection was rezoned to a commercial zone. This submitted rezoning request butted up to the western boundary of that commercially rezoned property, but did not extend over to Donaghey Avenue.

The request by the 19 property owners, if granted, would have resulted in commercial zoning stretching from Donaghey Avenue to Nutters Chapel Road (a distance of one-half mile) and an extension of existing commercial zoning and development another 470 feet to the west.

This proposed rezoning, like the WalMart rezoning request, does not have the proportional characteristics of typical strip zoning. An examination of the proposal is appropriate to determine if it exhibits any of the ten undesirable characteristics of strip commercial zoning.

SPRAWL

1. Blight - This rezoning would have the potential to blight the properties across Highway 286 toward the east, and the property to the southeast, the south and the southwest, which are currently zoned R-2, and R-1 with property in all the cited directions already developed as single family residential, though some of the property does not directly abut this property. Blighting will not happen to the east on the north end, and to the west on the north end as these areas are already zoned C-3 . Blighting also will not happen across Highway 286 toward the west, as that property is occupied by the University of Central Arkansas.
2. Lack of Buffers - This property is not appropriately buffered from the property noted above as being subject to the effects of blighting. Due to the shallow depth of the property separating this proposed rezoning from the residentially developed property it does not abut and other existing conditions, it is unlikely that appropriate buffering from the properties subject to blighting can be achieved in the future.
3. Proliferation of Strip Commercial - As this proposed rezoning would fill in all the available space for potential commercial zoning in this area on the south side of Highway 286, it would not have the potential for encouraging proliferation on that side of the highway. However, there is some potential on the north side where it is now zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and R-2 Duplex. That potential is somewhat diminished by the stated intent of the University of Central Arkansas to extend its boundaries south to State Highway 286. It is possible, over time, with inadequate buffering, that the commercial zoning could eat its way into the abutting subdivisions.
4. Sprawl - As proliferation of the strip commercial is not a high probability, this rezoning would not increase sprawl. As with the WalMart proposal, this development would also be more akin to infill development.

5. Curb Cuts - No site plan was submitted for this proposed 57 acre rezoning. The Parking Lot Ordinance for the city would allow a curb cut every 60 to 80 feet (dependent upon the width of the drives), centerline to centerline. It is then possible for this property to have a high range of 18 to 25 curb cuts along Highway 286. It would be likely that some number of curb cuts significantly lower than this range would actually be built, but it would all depend upon how the land was subdivided and developed. The street frontage along Nutters Chapel Road could be expected to support only two curb cuts. With two lane Highway 286 carrying about 15,000 vehicle trips per day and with this project projected to generate somewhere between 8,300 and 18,800 turning movements per day upon full development, it appears that the curb cuts along Highway 286 will create severe traffic congestion.
6. Lack of Access - This property does have access to two different roads, but the access to the secondary road is limited. Due to the large size of the property, it appears that the access being primarily off only the one two-lane road would have a further congesting effect on that road.

7. Parking - Without the submission of a site plan, it is not possible to determine exactly how the parking would be situated in regard to the buildings and access roads in this proposed rezoning. If an internal road network were built to serve this property, or if the entire 57 acres were built as a single, integrated project, it would be more likely that Highway 286 would not end up lined with parking lots. However, history of development in the Conway area would lead one to the assumption that acres of parking along the highway are more likely than not to happen.
8. Life Expectancy of Buildings - There is no evidence to indicate what sort of buildings would be built on this property. Life expectancy is more apt to be a problem for buildings built in close proximity to a busy highway, just because of the sorts of projects that are generally built in these areas. With the information available, only a tendency toward short life expectancies could be established. The primary factor working against this is the depth of the property, which might encourage developers to build more substantial buildings.
9. Vacancies - With the information available, it appears that this property would have a greater tendency to encounter vacancies after a number of years than would commercial areas which do not abut a busy highway. However, the depth of the property, if utilized in a large project, could help to encourage development which would have a greater staying power.

10. Future Land Uses - Due to the existing development of the majority of the land around this property, it would not block future access or development of the bulk of the surrounding parcels. The development of the land separating this property from the subdivision to the south would be difficult, due to the shallowness of the property.

It can be seen that this rezoning would lead to blighting of a significant portion of the surrounding property, particularly as it would be difficult to provide appropriate buffering. It could also lead to limited proliferation of the commercial zoning. The rezoning would create severe traffic problems because of the curb cut and access problems. However, the other negative characteristics of strip commercial developments do not appear to be as preordained as in the WalMart rezoning attempt. Most of the other characteristics could be avoided by good design. Unfortunately, the City of Conway does not have adequate safeguards in place to assure good design. Bad design would lead to the development of a number of the remaining negative characteristics evident in strip commercial development.

The surrounding, opposing property owners took their cues from the groups opposing the WalMart rezoning and organized themselves within and between subdivisions. They developed letter writing campaigns to the Planning Commission, the local newspaper, and the members of the City Council. No letters were sent to the Planning Department, but several petitions with hundreds of signatures of people in opposition to the rezoning were presented at the Planning Commission meeting. The opposition also wore buttons and waved signs. Again, the incongruence of the request with the Growth Plan was noted over and over as a reason for not rezoning the property.

The Planning Commission, with one abstention, voted to recommend denial of the rezoning request. The petition for rezoning was withdrawn during the City Council committee meeting and before the City Council could take action.

The Sequel

After the discouraging results of their rezoning attempt, it could be expected that the 19 property owners along State Highway 286 (now Dave Ward Drive and State Highway 60) would seek some other way to develop their property. This did not prove to be the case. In June of 1998, after the one year required waiting period, the property owners returned with a request to rezone the property they had submitted in 1997 along with additional property to the south and east. They asked to rezone 33 acres to a general office district and 38 acres to a highway commercial district. After a long discussion, I persuaded the applicants to change their request to ask for general office zoning for the entire area with a conditional use permit to allow restricted retail uses on the 38 acres. These retail activities would be subject to whatever conditions might be put in place by the Planning Commission and the City Council. It would have been better for the conditional use permit to be for a smaller area, but the applicants would not yield on the area question. It would have been even more preferable if no new commercial uses were to be proposed for the area. However, with the impending widening of the road, there was concern that the City Council might dismiss the traffic problems that would be created by the potential development and rezone the entire 38 acres to allow intensive commercial uses.

Restricted retail activities, as defined in the Conway Zoning Ordinance, allows uses that typically do not have as negative an impact on the surrounding areas as do other retail uses and that are typically designed to serve surrounding neighborhoods. They include uses such as restaurants without drive through windows, bookstores, drugstores and florists.

A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 15, 1998. The crowd was much more restrained in their opposition. One subdivision was still adamantly opposed to any rezoning and two subdivisions were mixed in their reactions with their property owner association presidents wanting to negotiate. The request was held in committee to allow further discussion among interested parties.

Three meetings were held involving different mixes of the applicants, the neighbors, Planning Commission members and Planning Department staff. As a result of these meetings, significant changes in the request were made. A creek runs through the middle of the project and the rezoning request for the area west of the creek was changed to one for a quiet office district. A 50 foot strip along and parallel the residential subdivisions to the south was removed from the request to provide a minimal buffer between any office development and the existing homes (Figure 3: South Conway Center Rezone). A list of conditions to be applied to the 38 acres submitted for the restricted commercial use (Figure 4: South Conway Center Conditional Use) was developed. These conditions are as follows:

• Only two curb cuts for public roads only are allowed on Dave Ward Drive. The curb cut to the west is to line up with the proposed main entry to the University of Central Arkansas. The curb cut to the east is to be for right turn exits only.
• Public street access has to be provided from Nutters Chapel Road across the creek to South Donaghey Avenue.
• Only two curb cuts for public streets only are allowed on South Donaghey Avenue.
• No parking is allowed between any buildings and Dave Ward Drive and South Donaghey Avenue.
• All parking and loading areas must be screened from Dave Ward Drive and South Donaghey Avenue by buildings and/or berms, with the berms not less than four feet high.
• For the 38 acres, the total floor area of all buildings may not exceed 200,000 square feet.
• For the 38 acres, the total floor area devoted to restricted retail uses may not exceed 150,000 square feet.
• No less than 70% of the total area of the 38 acres must be open space not covered by buildings, parking or paving.
• Two of the buildings may be up to 50,000 square feet in area. All other buildings must be 20,000 square feet in area or less.
• The uses Billiard or pool parlor, Ice vending machine establishment and Laundromat listed under the definition of restricted retail uses are not allowed in this area.

On July 20, 1998, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning and conditional use requests, and on August 11, 1998, the City Council approved the rezoning requests and the conditional use request. They also added a number of other conditions to the conditional use permit. They are:

• The owners will make a good faith effort to retain the existing trees on the property, given the constraints of the development of the property.
• Lights are to be no higher than the buildings with shielding or directional beams to keep light from polluting neighboring areas.
• Drainage for the property must meet city code requirements.
• Signage must meet city code requirements.
• The hours of operation for any business in this area are to be from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm.
• Fencing no less than six feet in height must be provided across the southern border with Catherine Place (an abutting subdivision).
• The undeveloped property shall be maintained in an aesthetically pleasing manner and meet all city code requirements.
• Businesses not allowed by local, state or federal laws, rules or regulations shall not be allowed.

Some of these additional conditions are redundant, but the City Council put them in to help reassure surrounding property owners that the other requirements of the city would be met.

Again, let us look at the negative aspects of commercial strip zoning and how this property would rate.

SPRAWL

1. Blight: No blighting is apt to occur, since the only abutting property that could be blighted is to the north, and the University of Central Arkansas is quickly acquiring this property for their own uses. The office zoning to the south and west and the churches and duplex zoning to the east are not likely to suffer from any blighting effect of the commercial activities.
2. Lack of buffers: The property is buffered to the north by the University of Central Arkansas, to the east by existing commercial, institutional and duplex zoning, to the south by office zoning and to the west by office and commercial zoning.
3. Proliferation of strip commercial: No further proliferation of commercial is apt to occur, because of buffering, existing commercial zoning to the east and west and expansion of the University of Central Arkansas to the north.
4. Sprawl: Any potential projects on this property will not be sprawl, but will be infill development.

5. Curb cuts: Curb cuts are constrained to two each on Dave Ward Drive and South Donaghey Avenue and one is required on Nutters Chapel road. Curb cuts will not be a problem.
6. Lack of access: Access is guaranteed from three major roads. Access is not a problem.

7. Parking: Parking is allowed no closer to Dave Ward Drive and South Donaghey Avenue than the buildings and all parking and loading areas must be screened from these two roads by buildings and/or four foot tall berms. The negative aesthetic aspects of parking should be minimized.
8. Life expectancy of buildings: There are no assurances, but the configuration of the project should help encourage more substantial buildings.
9. Vacancies: Vacancies are less likely due to the configuration.

10. The development of this project should place no constraints to access of the property behind this commercial development.

This project does not appear to create, to any marked degree, any of the problems usually associated with strip commercial zoning. Because of the restriction on building area, even the volume of traffic should be no higher than that expected from this area if it were to be fully developed with offices.

WalMart Revisited

Lessons Learned

When citizens have been involved in the development of a plan, they become much more committed to the plan and will rise to defend it.

Projects not described in this paper have demonstrated that other citizens, when confronted with a rezoning request which they do not see as being in their best interests, are willing to ignore the congruence of the request with the plan. However, in one instance in September of 1997, the Conway City Council rezoned property in congruence with the adopted Growth Plan in spite of heated objections of dozens of people who made up the majority of citizens in the area.

Commercial strip development is not offensive just because of its geometrical proportions.

Strip commercial development is offensive because of the characteristics which tend to develop because of its geometrical proportions.

A list of offensive characteristics of strip commercial development has been developed. This list is not all inclusive or definitive. Each jurisdiction seeking to deal with strip commercial development should determine if this list includes all those characteristics they wish to avoid and if it might include characteristics they do not find offensive.

The format of a comprehensive plan can help discourage the development and spread of commercial strips.

The comprehensive plan can not preclude the development of most of the offensive characteristics of strip commercial development, it can only discourage their development.

Other controls are needed in order to keep the offensive characteristics of strip commercial development from developing.

Cities should determine what are the most offensive characteristics of strip commercial development to their citizens and develop controls to preclude their development.

Major retailers can be persuaded to locate where it is most advantageous to the city, rather than where it is most advantageous to the retailer and where it will cause the city significant problems.

Unfortunately, Conway, Arkansas has not yet developed the controls necessary to preclude the development of most of the offensive characteristics of strip commercial development.

The City does have a Parking Lot Ordinance which requires minimal separation of curb cuts and does require internal landscaping once a parking lot accommodates more than 25 cars. This ordinance has done much to upgrade the aesthetic environment of new commercial development. It has not forced it to be superior, but it has kept it from being abysmal.

A sign ordinance was passed in 1996 which keeps signs from being too frequent or too large (by the standards of the ordinance). It is evident that it is making significant differences in the visual environment of new developments.

The Conway Subdivision Ordinance does not allow blocks longer than 1800 feet. This minimal requirement (which would be reduced to 1320 feet in a rewritten, but as yet unadopted new subdivision ordinance) does help to provide additional roads penetrating the strip commercial developments and providing at least minimal access to the property behind them.

With the advent of a new city administration in 1999, it is anticipated that a significant number of new controls will be considered to help alleviate the city's growing pains.

It is evident that significant controls are necessary in order to keep commercial zones from being the bad neighbors they too often turn out to be. Other cities have been developing those controls and we look forward to exploring the experiences of those cities.

William A. Polk
Planning Director
City of Conway, Arkansas