BriarwoodPlan i
Briarwood Area Neighborhood Plan
Briarwood Plan Committee:
Paul Allen, Marc Arnold, Don Cathell, Neil Denmam, Stephanie Deree, Russell Hildebrandt, Jane
Hurley, Jonathan Hermani, Linda McNutt, Jo Kathryn Mitchell, Joe Moix, Lisa Michau-Myers,
Kaki Roberts, Joe Rossi, Lula Sager, Cindy Sears-Clemmons, Roxanne Tackett, Jake Tidmore,
Mike Townsend, Jim Wilkes, Betty Wineland, Kathleen Woldorf, Robert and Dovie Young
Briarwood Executive Committee:
Charles Black, Julie Cox, Dana Deree, Nora Harris, Jerry Larkowski, Mary Lou May, Linda
McNutt, Ed Montgomery, Martin Ronis, Dale Schlesier, Nonie San Pedro, Jake Tidmore
City Staff:
Robert Fureigh, PE; Walter Malone, AICP
ii
Table of Contents
Briarwood Plan Page
Introduction 1
Infrastructure 2
Safety – Traffic 4
Safety – Crime 5
Land Use & Zoning 6
Appendix I: Existing Conditions
Historical & Environmental Background I-1
Neighborhood Conditions I-1
Socio-economic Profile (1990) I-2
Public Safety I-3
Existing Zoning Pattern I-4
Existing Land Use Pattern I-4
Land Use Plan I-5
Recreation and Open Space I-5
Master Street Plan and Circulation I-5
Mass Transit I-6
Bike Routes I-6
Appendix II: Neighborhood Survey
Survey Findings II-1
Survey II-3
Appendix III: City department comments
Police
Public Works
1
BRIARWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
Introduction
In late December 1998, the Briarwood Neighborhood Association contacted the Planning &
Development Department about developing a neighborhood plan. During the spring of 1999,
Staff met with members of the Briarwood Neighborhood executive committee about the plan
process, area and survey questions.
The plan area was determined to be from University Avenue on the east to Grassy Flat Creek and
from Markham Street on the north to I-630. The basic process for plan development was agreed
upon and the executive committee reviewed surveys used for other neighborhood plan areas as a
guide for their survey.
Staff reviewed the existing conditions – land use, zoning, housing conditions, transportation, etc.
A draft ‘existing conditions’ was developed and provided to the executive committee. Once the
basic survey questions were developed, the survey was distributed to neighborhood residents and
businesses. Staff compiled the results from the survey and distributed them to the executive
committee.
Based on the survey summary and existing condition information together with their knowledge
of the area, the executive committee identified three basic topics or ‘Goal’ areas to be discussed.
The three topic areas for the Plan were determined to be Infrastructure, Safety, and Land
Use/Zoning. A chairperson was selected and the neighborhood plan committee was charged with
development of the plan around the three topic areas.
Persons who had indicated an interest in working on the plan were contacted. This group met
during the fall of 1999 to develop the Plan for the Briarwood Neighborhood Area. The plan
committee drafted four goals with action statements and returned them to the Neighborhood
executive committee. The executive committee was asked to set a neighborhood wide meeting to
discuss and accept the Plan.
Staff distributed the ‘draft ‘ Plan to the Plans Committee of the Little Rock Planning Commission
and various city departments for comment. All comments were received by Friday, February 18th
and forwarded on to the executive committee for consideration. The neighborhood meeting was
scheduled for Saturday, February 26, 2000. Approximately 60 people attended the neighborhood
meeting on the Plan. Those present after discussion of the issues in the Plan, voted unanimously
in support of the Plan.
The City Department comments were placed into an appendix of this report. The completed draft
was distributed to the Planning Commission and Board of Director in the Spring of 2000. The
neighborhood requested a resolution supporting the vision and goals presented in this Plan.
2
INFRASTRUCTURE
GOAL: Have an adequate infrastructure network (drainage and
roadways) within the neighborhood, which is designed and works
to produce a safe-attractive neighborhood environment.
Objective: Identify and correct drainage problems in the area.
Action Statements (in rank order):
1. Correct drainage problems along
Briarwood ditch (erosion and yard
flooding)
2. Correct drainage yard flooding
problems behind homes on Oriole
Circle #3
3. Correct drainage problems along ditch from Wingate
Lake (along Hiawatha and Apache) to 5th Street and
Rodney Parham Road.
Correct drainage problems at Rodney
Parham/Mississippi and I-630 area.
4. Keep drainage ways clear of debris or choking
vegetation.
Wingate – Apache Ditch
Objective: Improve residential neighborhood street surfaces and maintain residential
street widths.
Action Statements (in rank order):
• Resurface the following streets.
1. Briarwood Dr. (Hughes to Mississippi); Apache Rd. (Mississippi to Rodney Parham); and
Sandpiper (Hughes to McKinley)
2. Oriole Circle
3. Bluebird Dr., Bobwhite Circle,
Cherokee Circle, Flag Rd., Hughes
Street
• Repair concrete streets.
1. Templin Trail (Marguerite to
Tomahawk)
2. Carrilon Rd. (Hughes to Flag)
3. Bertwood Dr. (Briarwood to
Apache)
3
• Add handicap ramps.
1. Markham/Mississippi intersection
2. Along Mississippi Street
3. Markham/Hughes intersection
4. Remaining sidewalk locations in
neighborhood
• Add signal at Hughes and Markham Streets.
• Repair and improve railing on Sun Valley over
Briarwood ditch.
4
SAFETY –TRAFFIC
GOAL: To make Briarwood a safer area for driving, walking and children
playing.
Objective: Identify and correct traffic safety problems in the area.
Action Statements:
• Install traffic signal at Hughes and Markham -- number one priority
(The following action statements are in no particular order of important)
• Install traffic signal at Hughes and 12th Streets
• Increase the number of spot checks by
Little Rock Police Department to enforce
stop signs and speed zones.
• Mark all primary neighborhood streets
with speed limit signs (Apache, Briarwood,
Choctaw, Flag, Hiawatha, Sun Valley, etc.)
of 25 mph or less and enforce them,
especially in the mornings and afternoons
when children are present.
• Install more anti-speeding devices on
troublesome streets (Apache, Choctaw,
Flag, Marguerite, Sun Valley) to slow traffic or find other alternatives.
• Enforce speed limits on major streets around neighborhood (Markham, Mississippi, Rodney
Parham)
• Enforce speed school zone speed limits on Hughes & add cross walk.
• Add intersection warning sign on north
bound Hughes for Hughes – Marguerite
intersection.
• Work to move CAT Buses to major streets
(off from Briarwood Dr. to Markham).
• Work to move through school bus traffic to
major streets (off of Hiawatha/Apache).
• Add streetlight at the Marguerite – Hughes
intersection.
5
SAFETY – CRIME
GOAL: To maintain and improve safety in the Briarwood Neighborhood.
Action Statements
• Organize more crime watch areas.
• Increase the number of police patrols in
the neighborhood.
• Encourage the Neighborhood Association
to bring in the apartment managers and
management companies as members
(possibly the residents)
• Increase awareness of services provided
by the Police (Home vacation Watch,
Home security checks)
• Explore options for children’s safety
programs – local, state, national
• Work with mail delivery people to help
watch the neighborhood.
6
LAND USE AND ZONING
GOAL: To maintain the character of homes in the Briarwood Neighborhood.
Objective: Provide design guidelines for the area.
Action Statements:
• Identify rental property in the
neighborhood to maintain the
character of the neighborhood
• Provide design guidelines for
remodeling (uniform for the
area)
• Need special ordinance to
regulate the design and
locations of garages and storage
buildings
• Coordinate land use to allow a
plan for a property-owners
neighborhood park with a pool
along Marguerite.
I
Appendix I
Existing Conditions
Historical and Environmental background
The neighborhood area for this plan is between Markham and I-630 from University Avenue to
John Barrow Road. The development is about 30 years old. The development pattern is a
modified grid. The uses are separated with more intense (commercial) uses along University
Avenue and Rodney Parham Road. Multifamily uses serve as a transition from these intense uses
to the almost totally single family area from Hughes to Rodney Parham Road.
The area generally drains to the southwest. The highest areas are along Markham at Mississippi
and McKinley. While there are areas of localized flooding concern, usually erosion and some
flooding, most of the neighborhood is not within a flood prone area. The exception to this is
along the western boundary. The Rock and Glassy Flat creeks have a floodway, which parallels
Cunningham Lake Road. The hundred-year floodplain crosses Cunningham Lake Road to take in
about a dozen homes and several businesses.
Neighborhood Conditions
A windshield survey of the structural conditions was completed in June 1999. This survey found
no substandard or dilapidated structures. One ‘weed lot’ was identified in the area. This lot was
the only negative reported by the inspectors for this area of Little Rock.
Since 1990 only one residential unit (a single-family house) has been removed from the study
area. Two units (single-family houses) were added, with an average construction value of
$61,500. The only other structure added was a church valued at almost $100,000. There has
been no new construction since 1991.
Reinvestment in the neighborhood as shown by renovation and addition permit activity has
continued. The greatest number of permits issued was in 1990 with seven. The average value of
these permits was over $6300. Since 1990 two to four permits per-year have been issued. In the
early nineties the average value was around $10,000. Since 1994 the value has been less than
$4000 per permit. The permit activity though low shows continuing investment by the residents.
II
As part of the Rental Inspection Program over 700 units have been inspected. Most of these units
are in six complexes, which are located either along the eastern or western edges of the
neighborhood. The first round inspections found 73 percent of the units in compliance. The
second round inspection effort is set to start soon in this area. There was no concentration or area
of special need identified by the survey of rental units.
Socio-economic Profile (1990 Census)
The information used to produce this analysis is from the 1990 Census. Census Block Group
level data is used. The boundaries of the Study Area and Census geography do not match.
Therefore, in this section a slightly larger area is used. The boundaries are 12th Street, University
Avenue, Markham and Rock Creek (an area north of Markham from Hughes to Mississippi, south
of Amherst Drive is also included).
Approximately two percent of the City’s population
can be found in the Study Area. The racial
composition of the area is slightly more white than
that for the City (80 to 65 percent, respectively).
The area is 18 percent Black and 2 percent Others;
while the City is 34 percent Black and 1 percent
Others. One should also note that as much as half
the Black population is actually south of I-630 in the
University Park North Subdivision.
As is true for the City as a whole approximately 63
percent of the population are in the workforce age group (18-64). However the over 64 age group
accounts for over a quarter of the population. This is twice the City level. Further the percentage
of those ‘less than 18’ is low (half the City level). These numbers suggest a population, which is
aging (whose children are grown).
The number of one-person households is high – over
45 percent. The City average is 32 percent. The
difference is in the single female households, which
in the Study Area accounts for a third of all
households. This compares to 20 percent for the
City. The number of single parent households is
low-3.7 percent of all households. This is a third
that of the City. The household profile together with
the age information would suggest an aging
population and reducing household size.
The ratio of female to male is higher in this area 58 to 42 compared with 54 to 46 for the City.
All this information points to an aging population with a number of widow households.
The owner/renter ratio is lower than that for the City (49/51 compared to 56/44). This is due in
part to the fact that single units structures account for only 52 percent of the housing units in the
Study area, while they account for 62 percent of the housing units in the City. The occupancy
rate is good – approximately 97 percent. This compares well to the City rate of 90 percent.
0
20
40
60
80
Percent
White Black Other
Race
Racial Distribution
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percent
Total Female Parent
Household Type
One Adult Households
III
Public Safety
Crime Incidents for the First Six Months
Does not include University businesses
1998 1999
Suicide 2 2
Rape 1 0
Sexual misconduct 0 2
Aggravated Assault 8 3
Simple Assault 17 8
Terroristic Threat 7 6
Domestic Disturbance 2 8
Robbery – Nonresidential 2 4
Robbery – Residential 2 0
Burglary – Residential 10 10
Burglary – Nonresidential 3 2
Breaking/entering 3 2
Larceny from vehicle 25 37
Larceny from building 1 1
Larceny Miscellaneous 19 7
Stolen Vehicle 11 9
Drugs 1 1
Disturbance 16 34
Truancy 1 1
For violent crime (murder, rape, assault, robbery and burglary), the neighborhood seems to be
holding fairly steady. Assault, simple and aggravated, showed a significant decline. Only
Domestic Disturbance showed an increase. These numbers indicate a fairly stable and low crime
neighborhood.
No significant change was shown for property crimes. The one area of increase was larceny from
a vehicle. However, miscellaneous larceny showed a significant drop. In general then property
crimes also have been stable and do not indicate a high crime neighborhood.
Disturbance calls more than doubled. This can be an indication that there are activities starting
which cause the neighborhood some concern. One should remain watchful and investigate
interdiction programs to assure that the situation does not become a problem.
IV
Existing Zoning Pattern
Most of the study area is zoned R2 – single-family. This is the typical residential classification
west of University Avenue. ‘R2’ allows for 7000 square foot lots with one residential unit per
lot. The area is developed as a single-family detached neighborhood. There are several duplex
(R4) and various multifamily classified areas around the neighborhood. Most of the multifamily
is along Rodney Parham Road (the west boundary) of the area. This is a major arterial in the
City. The multifamily and nonresidential uses lining the arterial are a common development
pattern in Little Rock. There are four apartment complexes along or close to Rodney Parham
Road. Another large area of multifamily is along McKinley Street west of a major shopping and
commercial area. The multifamily zoning in this area is meant as a ‘transition’ from the business
area to single-family.
The remaining areas are zoned C3 or PCD,
commercial classifications or O3/O1, office
classifications. The ‘O3’, general office,
areas are generally along major roads –
Rodney Parham Road, University Avenue or
Markham Street. They are adjacent to
commercial or multifamily areas. The
orientation of the development is directed
away from the single family homes and
toward the major street. There is one ‘O1’,
quiet office, area. It is located on Hughes
Street at Capitol Avenue. The use is a
church.
Most of the ‘C3’, general commercial, is located between McKinley Street and University
Avenue. This area is part of a regional commercial and business area. A hospital complex and
shopping mall with other office and commercial buildings are located in this general commercial
zone area. The remaining commercial zoned land is along Rodney Parham Road or Markham
Street near Rodney Parham Road. These areas are smaller shopping center or other commercial
businesses.
For the most part the study area is development and the zoning pattern and uses patterns agree.
Major changes in the zoning pattern are not likely in the near future.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The existing land use pattern is predominantly single-family. Uses other than single-family are
located along the east and west sides of the neighborhood. Generally speaking, the middle of the
study area is single-family detached homes. East and west of the single-family area are public
(schools/churches) and multifamily uses. This change in use starts at Hughes Street on the east
and Ouachita (Rodney Parham Road) on the west.
On the east side, McKinley Street is the dividing line between residential and nonresidential uses.
The eastern edge is generally commercial with some office and public uses. (The area is almost
totally zoned commercial.) The western edge does not have as ‘clean’ a change in use. Starting
on the west side of Rodney Parham, commercial uses are introduced. Along Markham Street the
area is totally commercial; however, south of Markham there is a pocket of approximately four
dozen homes.
The existing land use and zoning patterns are almost identical.
Zoning
SF
67%
MF
10%
I
0%
O
3%
C
20%
V
Land Use Plan
The adopted Land Use Plan reflects the existing use and zoning pattern of the area. Most of the
study area is shown as single-family use. There are two large areas of multifamily use shown on
the Plan. The first is either side of Rodney Parham Road south of Apache. There are three
existing multifamily complexes in this area. The second is west of McKinley Street and south of
Plaza. There are three large apartment complexes and numerous duplex and quadplex units in
this area.
Two large commercial areas are shown on the
Plan. The largest is between University
Avenue and McKinley Street –regional
shopping and hospital area. The second area
is south of Markham from Rodney Parham
Road west. This is a strip commercial area of
various types of commercial businesses. A
smaller area of commercial is located along
Rodney Parham Road, south of Markham
Street.
One office area is on the Plan, along Rodney
Parham Road, south of Markham Street. The
remaining areas are shown for Public Use.
All the Public Use areas are either churches
or schools – public or parochial.
Recreation and Open Space
Within the Neighborhood Plan area there is no public park land. Adjacent, to the southwest, is
Kanis Park, which has tennis court/basketball/baseball and a pavilion. Because of the location
and physical barriers, this park is not seen as a part of the neighborhood. There is not a
neighborhood park – public or private.
At Henderson Middle School and the Lutheran School, there are athletic fields and other play
equipment. However both of these areas are physically separate from the neighborhood and not
viewed as available for neighborhood recreational purposes.
Most of the apartments have a small green area or common club-house facility. These amenities
provide some of the recreational needs for the apartment dwellers, but do nothing for the
homeowners. The one area open to all is an open space corridor along I-630. A Bike Path is
located in the open space corridor.
Master Street Plan and Circulation:
The street system within the study area is a modified grid. The streets are primarily in a grid
layout with some curvilinear and cul-de-sac streets which break-up the flow.
Located immediately to the north of an interstate freeway with two entrance ramps provides easy
access to other sections of the metropolitan area and state. The ramps are on the eastern and
western edges of the area. There are two north-south arterials, University Avenue and Mississippi
Street, on the edges of the neighborhood. These roads provide connections to the freeway and
other sections of the City. Markham Street is an east-west arterial, which provides a northern
edge to the neighborhood. All of the arterials are improved. (Markham and Mississippi have
reduced design standards.) A fourth arterial passes through the area, Rodney Parham Road, in a
Land Use Plan
C
20%
PI
13%
SF
52%
MF
9%
O
1%
PKOS
5%
VI
northwest-southeast direction. Rodney Parham starts in this area and continues into west Little
Rock.
There is only one collector in the area, Hughes Street. The purpose of a collector is to get people
and goods for the neighborhoods to the arterial system. However with Hughes Street being one
of the few streets to cross the interstate, the road also functions as a connector between Markham
and 12th Streets.
Mass Transit (Bus routes):
Several bus routes service all or part of the area. However Route 5 is the only one to pass
through the area (east-west). This route continues east through the medical complexes and on to
downtown. To the west, the route continues down Markham Street to the commercial districts
along Markham-Chenal and Bowman Roads.
The other routes primarily serve the regional commercial center between McKinley and
University Avenue. One route continues south on University Avenue to UALR and the
commercial centers at Asher and University Avenues. To the north the route goes through the
Heights and on to downtown. The remaining two routes are part-time service, each connects to
downtown. From this area one route continues south to UALR and southwest Little Rock. The
other route continues west on Rodney Parham Road to the commercial district west of I-430.
Bike routes:
The Master Street Plan has only one Bike route shown for the study area. That is a Class I Bike
Route along the interstate freeway. A Class I Bike Route is separated from vehicular traffic and
used solely by bikes.
I
Appendix II –
Neighborhood Survey
Summary findings
The survey was mailed to 1511 residents and businesses in the Briarwood Neighborhood area.
This is a one hundred percent survey of all the residential units within the study area.
Approximately 19 percent of the surveys were returned (just short of 300 surveys). This is a
fairly good response rate for a mail survey. One must remember that the survey does not provide
statically accurate picture of the neighborhood. However, the results are a valid showing of needs
and desires for the area, though they may be over emphasized. Those responding are likely to be,
the most concerned about the neighborhood and most involved. As long as one stays at a general
level and uses the survey as one of many sources of information, it is unlikely that these results
would significantly miss lead. However they should not be taken as absolute and gospel.
The respondents are primarily homeowners (80.5 to 19.5 percent). They tend to be older, 36.7
percent over 65, only 26.6 percent under 40. They are also long time residents, with an average
of 13.3 years in the neighborhood. Most of the respondents do not have school age children (81
to 19 percent). The average household size of those responding is approximately 2 persons. Just
fewer than five percent of the respondents are minority.
Generally speaking those responding to the survey like the neighborhood and have a positive
outlook for the neighborhood. The area is perceived as ‘good and safe’ by most respondents –
about 90 percent. When asked to indicate what attracted them to locate in this neighborhood 30.1
percent indicated due to the ‘convenient location’. The next two most commonly mentioned
reasons were that the neighborhood was ‘clean and attractive’ (19.1 percent) or ‘quiet’ (13.1
percent).
What respondents liked most about the neighborhood is the ‘convenient location’ (26.3 percent).
The next two most commonly mentioned items were that the neighborhood was ‘quiet’ (22.7
percent) or that there were ‘friendly neighbors’ (20.9 percent). The current character and image
are what residents want to see. About 96 percent believe the character and image should be
preserved and protected. However less than fifty percent believe the area is improving, with over
eleven percent believing that the area is declining. (This is a time to stay watchful, to assure the
neighborhood maintains its quality.) The ability to walk in and around the neighborhood to find
services is important (over 66 percent). Most respondents indicated they also support local
merchants (83.7 percent).
Most of the respondents believe the streets and curbs are in good condition (67.5 percent).
However some respondents think that Briarwood Drive has not been repaired properly (almost 29
percent of those responding). The most commonly mentioned street problem was Briarwood
Drive (12.1 percent), with Mississippi mention the next most often (5 percent). As for the other
infrastructure issues, the water utilities are well maintained – over 78 percent. There is some
feeling that there are not adequate sidewalks; of those who responded, over fifty percent believe
there is a lack of sidewalks. Where sidewalks exist, they are generally in good condition (17
percent disagree). The only infrastructure item which is an issue for the neighborhood is drainage
(36 percent believe there to be a problem, 40 percent do not). The maintenance issues of street
sweeping and trash pick are not major issues in the neighborhood. The street sweeping schedule
is adequate to meet the area needs (14.9 percent disagree) and trash/recycling pick up is adequate
– 76.8 percent.
II
Reinforcing the strong desire to protect the character and image of the neighborhood, respondents
do not support the conversion of Single Family homes to nonresidential uses (71.5 percent). The
idea of a Mixed-Use development is also not in keeping and is desired by only seventeen percent
of the respondents. The one change desired is for a neighborhood park (50 percent). When asked
what they wanted in a park 13.5 percent said a safe playground. The next most commonly
desired things were a swimming pool and picnic tables (7.1 and 6 percent respectively). There is
some concern about the safety and upkeep of the existing recreational areas, Bike Path and Kanis
Park. About 31 percent have concerns about park safety (Kanis) and over 17 percent have safety
concerns for the Bike Path. However the largest group of respondents has a neutral option (44
and 44.5 percent respectively) on these issues.
Most of the respondents believe the area has adequate streetlights to deter crime (about 51
percent) and that loitering is not a major problem (45.8 percent). However there remains a desire
to increase the police patrols or visibility of the police (approximately 41 percent) with over 42
percent wanting a neighborhood Alert Center for this area.
Traffic issues, as usual, are a concern. The respondents believe that the traffic speeds and
volumes are excessive (almost 53 percent) and that traffic calming devices should be used (over
59 percent). The two most commonly mentioned intersections needing a signal were
Markham/Hughes (27 percent) and Mississippi/Apache (6.4 percent). Most of the respondents
believe that CATA bus routes should be limited to major streets such as Markham, Hughes and
Mississippi (over 54 percent). Generally speaking the respondents believe there is adequate
parking available (about 60 percent). A majority (over 50 percent) would like to see more
pedestrian friendly designs. Only 29.5 percent of the respondents do not believe the police are
adequately enforcing the traffic laws.
The Schools are perceived as well maintain, with about 6 percent disagreeing. Most of the
neighborhood was speaking of Brady Elementary. Truancy has not been a concern in the
neighborhood (about 7 percent said it was). The respondents were split on whether traffic speed
and volume around the schools was a safety issue (36.5 percent –yes, 20.9 percent – no).
However a large majority of respondents believe partnerships between businesses and/or the
neighborhood with the schools should be formed (over 58 percent).
Generally the respondents believe maintenance of private structures should be strictly enforced
(approximately 52 percent) and that the rental inspection program is important (69 percent). Over
64 percent of respondents believe that the City should require trash containers be removed from
the street. There is some desire that assistance be provided for ‘those in need’ (41.8 percent to
23.9 percent). Approximately 8.5 percent of the respondents indicated a need to assist
homeowners with yard maintenance.
1
Circle the number that most closely fits your agreement with the following
statements. Please complete the survey and return in enclosed envelope.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
GENERAL
1 The Briarwood area is a good and safe neighborhood in which to live, work, worship, go to
school, shop, and play.
1 2 3 4 5
2 Our area supports its local businesses and merchants. 1 2 3 4 5
3 In general, the neighborhood is continually improving. 1 2 3 4 5
4 The character and image of our area should be preserved and protected. 1 2 3 4 5
5 The ability to walk from home to shopping, businesses, schools, churches, and neighborhood
activities is important to me.
1 2 3 4 5
INFRASTRUCTURE
6 The condition of the streets and curbs in my area is generally good. 1 2 3 4 5
7 Water (clean and waste) lines are well maintained in our area. 1 2 3 4 5
8 Sidewalks in the Briarwood area are adequately maintained. 1 2 3 4 5
9 The Briarwood area has enough sidewalks to support current foot traffic. 1 2 3 4 5
10 I would be willing to pay all or part of the sidewalk installation/repair cost on my residence or
business property over five to ten years.
1 2 3 4 5
11 Some drainage problems exist on my block. 1 2 3 4 5
12 The trash and recycling pick-up at my residence or business is adequate. 1 2 3 4 5
13 Potholes on Briarwood area streets are properly fixed. 1 2 3 4 5
14 Residents should be required by the City to remove green trash containers from neighborhood
streets.
1 2 3 4 5
15 The current street sweeping schedule for the Briarwood area is adequate to remove debris
from neighborhood streets.
1 2 3 4 5
16 List streets that are not in good condition and describe the problems.
_____________________________________________
17 What would be an adequate street sweeping schedule?
________________________________________________________
TRAFFIC
18 The police presence in our area is adequate to enforce traffic rules. 1 2 3 4 5
19 Many streets or intersections in the Briarwood area suffer from excessive speeding or too
much traffic.
1 2 3 4 5
20 Traffic-calming devices that reduce speeding and the volume of vehicles in our area are a
good idea.
1 2 3 4 5
21 Parking in the Briarwood area is adequate. 1 2 3 4 5
22 CAT bus routes should be limited to nonresidential streets, such as Markham and McKinley to
reduce traffic and wear on neighborhood streets.
1 2 3 4 5
23 List locations where traffic signals should be located.
_______________________________________________________
SCHOOLS
24 In our neighborhood school buildings and properties are well maintained. 1 2 3 4 5
25 Our area residents and businesses should form a partnership with the schools to improve the
learning environment for the children.
1 2 3 4 5
26 Traffic conditions around the schools are unsafe and congested. 1 2 3 4 5
27 Truancy is a problem for our area residents and businesses. 1 2 3 4 5
HOUSING
28 Stricter property maintenance standards should be developed and enforced in our area. 1 2 3 4 5
29 An economic hardship program should be developed to assist (financially or otherwise)
disadvantaged homeowners in maintaining their property.
1 2 3 4 5
30 The city’s rental property inspection program in our area is important. 1 2 3 4 5
31 What areas of property maintenance do area residents need help in?
_____________________________________________
ZONING
32 Combined building uses where people live above stores and offices are good for the
neighborhood.
1 2 3 4 5
33 Converting single-family homes from residential to office or commercial use is acceptable. 1 2 3 4 5
34 Residents have enough say in the location of late-hour retail businesses and other commercial
buildings in the neighborhood.
1 2 3 4 5
2
PARKS AND RECREATION
35 Our area parks and recreation facilities are safe and well-maintained. 1 2 3 4 5
36 The bike path along I-630 is safe and well-maintained. 1 2 3 4 5
37 A neighborhood park should be located in the Briarwood area. 1 2 3 4 5
4 5 38 Streets, parks, and pathways should be developed and/or improved to be more pedestrian-
friendly while still accommodating vehicles.
1 2 3
39 What kinds of recreational facilities should be built in a Neighborhood park?
______________________________________
CRIME
40 The lighting on our area streets is adequate to deter crime. 1 2 3 4 5
41 Little Rock police patrols are regular enough to deter street crime. 1 2 3 4 5
42 Loitering is a problem in some parts of our area. 1 2 3 4 5
43 The Briarwood area needs a Neighborhood Alert Center. 1 2 3 4 5
NEIGHBORHOOD LIFE
44 What attracted you to your neighborhood?
_____________________________________________________________
45 What do you like most about your neighborhood?
__________________________________________________________
46 If you could change one thing about the area, what would it be?
________________________________________________
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION (NOTE: Briarwood Neighborhood Association
does not extend west of Rodney Parham Road).
47 I believe that the Briarwood Area Neighborhood Association is generally working in the best
interest of the neighborhood.
1 2 3 4 5
48 Have you ever attended a Neighborhood Association meeting or social event? ____ yes ____ no
49 Have you ever paid Neighborhood Association dues? ____ yes ____ no
50 Have you ever read the Neighborhood Association Newsletter? ____ yes ____ no
51 Briefly describe why you have or haven't been involved with the Briarwood Area
Neighborhood Association and provide any other comments about the Association.
________________________________________________________
DEMOGRAPHICS (information for primary person completing survey - this
information is used for comparison of survey respondents versus profile of the
neighborhood)
52 Your age: ____18-39 ____40-64 ____65 & Over
53 Race: ____White ____Black ____Other
54 Based on the enclosed map, which part of the area do you live in?
A B C D E F G H
See Map
Below
55 Do you own or rent your home? own rent
56 How long have you lived in the area? years
57 How many people live in your household, including you? No.
58 Do you have school-aged children? yes no
59 Do you have any additional comments you would like to make?
________________________________________________
Please fill out the enclosed card if you would like to participate on the Neighborhood
Plan Steering Committee.
Appendix III: City Department Comments