114782 027658
• 03/ 03 01:47:37 PM
Filed & Recorded in
Official Records of
RESOLUTION NO. 11,478 CAROLYN STALEY —
--- PULASKI COUNTY
CIRCUIT /COUNTY CLERK
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAY0kesAXbP0 THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE
ROCK, ARKANSAS IN SUPPORT OF THE 65TH
STREET WEST NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN.
WHEREAS, the area residents formed a Planning Committee to develop a
neighborhood plan; and,
WHEREAS, the residents and other "stakeholders" in the area participated in
public meetings to discuss and identify concerns to include in the plan; and,
WHEREAS, after several months of work by the Planning Committee, a set of
goals and objectives were developed and presented to the Neighborhood Associations,
City Departments, Plans Committee of the Little Rock Planning Commission as well as at
a neighborhood meeting to review the draft; and,
WHEREAS, this Plan (Goals and Objectives) provides a way for both
neighborhood based groups and others working in and around the neighborhood to
advance the desires and meet the needs of the residents; and,
WHEREAS, comprehensive planning must include not only interests of the
neighborhood immediately affected but the interests of the City as a whole; and,
WHEREAS, local government encourages and supports neighborhood -based
coalitions that develop individual neighborhood organizations, articulate neighborhood
views on community -wide issues, and facilitates the planning process; and,
WHEREAS, advocacy planning by neighborhoods is an acceptable and legitimate
role for citizens and professional planners.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,
ARKANSAS.
Section 1. The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock does support the
vision and goals as expressed in the 651h Street West Neighborhoods Plan.
Adopted:
March 18, 2003
ATTEST:
OR I 'Y CL
.y
Draft -- February-28, -2002•
65th Street West Neighborhood Action Plan
Area Neighborhood Associations
Meadowcliff / Brookwood, Bevery A. Nelson President
South Brookwood / Ponderosa, John B. Honea President
Town and Country, Richard Gillert President
Steering Plan Committee Members:
Chuck Bishop
Thresa Clemons
John B. Honea
Evelyn Hughes
Beverly A. Nelson
Edward Nelson
Jean Pierpaoli
Tom Sipes
Bryan Williams
Rhonda Williams
City Staff:
Quenton Burge, Planning and Development
Donna James, Planning and Development
Boyd Maher, Planning and Development
Richard Gillert
John Hughes
Bob Pierpaoli
William A. Tolley, Jr. P.E.
Special Thanks to the Brookview Baptist Church for providing meeting space within their
facility for the Plan Committee Meetings.
65° Street Wen Neighborhood Anion Plan
Draft — February 28, 2002 • •
Policy Plan
65 I Street West Area
Neighborhood Action Plan
Prepared by:
65`h Street Neighborhood Action Plan Steering Committee
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201 -6863
December 2001
3 6P SVM Wm Neighborhood Action Plen
—Draft---February-28F2002 —
Table of Contents:
Policy Plan
Housing Goal
Land Use and Zoning Goal
Infrastructure Goal
Parks and Recreation Goal
Public Safety
Existing Conditions
Census Population and Housing Units
Annexation Activity and Subdivision Development
Future Land Use Plan
Future Land Use Plan Amendment
Current Zoning
Rezoning and Subdivision Activity
Existing Land Use
Shopping Centers /Office Buildings/Warehouse Buildings
New Construction and Reinvestment in the Area
Building Permit Data
CATA Bus Service
Master Street Plan Street Classification
Bike Paths, Bike Routes and Bikeways
Master Parks Plan
Area Schools
Crime Data
Rental Inspection Program
Substandard Streets
Appendix I
City of Little Rock Zoning Classification and City of Little Rock Future
-Land Use Plan Descriptions & Classification and Descriptions
Area Zoning Map
Future Land Use Map
Appendix H - (Survey Results)
Appendix HI - (Departmental Comments)
4
5
7
9
11
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
21
22
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
28
29
30
35
38
44
4 65° Sued Wet Neighborhood Aeiav Plan
Draft — February 28, 2002 • •
Housing Goal:
To stabilize and increase property values in the 65h Street West Neighborhood Action Plan
area and Champion the neighborhood as an environment that supports independence and
personal development while recognizing and respecting the diversity of its residents.
Objective:
➢ Hold property owners accountable for the appearance and condition of their property.
Action Statements:
Increase participation and membership in neighborhood associations
Require property owners, residing outside of the city, to maintain a local point of contact
person to correct violations of city code
Establish ordinances that will increase the penalties for noncompliance incrementally, so
that with each successive violation, the penalty increases
Objective:
➢ Strictly enforce building codes, especially for rental property.
Action Statements:
• Advocate strong enforcement and an adequate budget for the rental property inspection
program
• Bring substandard housing up to code
• Require enforcement of fencing, screening and buffering requirements to ensure non-
residential sites are not visible from the street or neighboring residential properties -
• Complete rental inspection program in the area and maintain the 2 year cycle for
inspections
• Encourage better maintenance of yards and housing in the area
• Lodge a complaint with City's Code Enforcement Office if structures appear unsafe or if
weeds on vacant lots become overgrown
• Establish clear standards and expectations for absentee landlords
• Request a report of actions taken by code enforcement officers
Objective:
➢ Encourage demolition of vacant and abandoned buildings if renovation and reuse does not
occur within two years.
Action Statements:
Work with Code Enforcement to remove burnt and unsafe buildings
Work with state legislature to establish Long -Arm Statute to prosecute absentee property
owners
Objective:
➢ Encourage new single - family housing be compatible in architecture and mass with the
existing housing type in the area.
Action Statements:
• Oppose any additional mobile home parks from locating in the area
• Discourage the placement of any additional manufactured housing in the area
65* Stt Wot Naghboftod Ac ion Plm
Housing Goal:
Page 2
Objective:
➢ Encourage property owners to have pride in their property's appearance.
Action Statements:
• Discourage area residents from parking vehicles on lawns and non - designated parking
areas
• Require that all rental and owner occupied units (both single - family and multi - family) be
maintained in a high - quality manner (both lawns and structures)
• . Promote pride in home and yard appearance
Objective:
➢ Manage the insect and animal populations in the area.
Action Statements:
• Work with Housing and Neighborhood Program's Animal Control Division to control or
manage the stray cat population of the area
• Inform residents through Neighborhood Association Newsletters and Association meetings
to contact Little Rock Solid Waste Collections when mosquito spraying is desired
• Request Animal Control work with neighborhoods to manage the wild animal population
of the area to discourage a potential rabies epidemic
6 65^ Streit Wnt Neighborhood Anion Plen
Draft — February 28, 2002 • .
Land Use and Zoning Goal:
Work to establish compatibility between land use and zoning in the area, as well as
compatibility of residential and non - residential uses.
Objective:
➢ Ensure that non - residential development and multi - family development in the area be
limited to areas currently reserved for such uses on the Future Land Use Plan or in areas
currently zoned for non - residential and multi - family uses.
Action Statements:
• Limit expansion of non - residential developments to areas shown as non-residential on the
Future Land Use Plan
• Limit the development of multi - family development to areas shown as multi - family and low
density residential on the Future Land Use Plan
• Explore changing the Future Land Use Plan in the area along the Fourche Creek to be
representative of the 100 -year floodplain
• Explore changing the Future Land Use Plan to limit multi - family and low density residential
developments to occur on currently zoned properties
Objective:
➢ Promote protection of natural areas through development of zoning initiatives.
Action Statements:
Ensure significant environmental features and functions are preserved
Develop and implement an ordinance for the preservation of undisturbed natural spaces
Rezone area, currently owned by the City of Little Rock, adjacent to the Fourche Creek and
N. Chicot Road to Undisturbed Natural Spaces
Objective:
➢ Protect the residential integrity of the neighborhood by maintaining adequate separation or
sufficient buffering between residential and non - residential uses.
Action Statements:
• Set up a review committee to monitor rezoning requests before they are presented to the
Planning Commission and /or the Board of Directors
• Ensure the Planning Department keeps the review committee informed of pending changes
in the area
• Encourage low density multi - family to take place on currently zoned vacant lands within
the neighborhood
• Oppose the rezoning of additional lands to multi - family
• Discourage the conversion of existing single - family residences into non - residential uses
• Non - residential developments within the neighborhood should be low volume traffic
generating businesses
• Support home based businesses which are limited to the existing guidelines of the current
zoning ordinance
• Office uses in the area placed on streets with collector classification should be small scale
(medical services, legal services, financial services) and larger scale office developments
limited to arterial classifications and above
65° Soap Wet Neighborhood Anion Plm
—Draft---February-28i-200 —
Zoning and Land Use
Page 2
Oppose any further expansion of the automobile industry into the neighborhood
Stop the heavy dirt and debris hauling trucks from using the road adjoining the property at
8804 Mabelvale Pike where three residences are greatly disturbed by dust, exhaust fumes
and noise pollution created by these heavy diesel trucks and require the use of an existing
roadway and utilities right -of -way along the north line of the NE' /o of the SE '/4 of Section
34, Township 1N, Range 13W for moving their goods. This right -of -way provides access
to an existing paved street within an Industrial Park which is approximately 150 -feet east
of where the hauling road now intersects Mabelvale Pike.
Objective:
➢ Review the appropriateness of the Future Land Use Plan and existing zoning
classifications in the area every three (3) to five (5) years.
Action Statements:
• Determine if the areas identified on the Future Land Use Plan for non - residential uses are
sufficient to meet the demand
• Determine if existing zoning classifications compromise the interest of revitalization and
stabilization of the neighborhood
• Request that planning staff reexamine allowable conditional and special use permits in R -2
areas and restrict allowances that generate traffic in otherwise calm neighborhoods
• Expand the requirement of notification of adjacent property owners to notification of the
neighborhood for changes in land use that currently require variances
• Aggressively enforce zoning violations that impair housing and the neighborhood (i.e. auto
repair businesses, multiple families living in one structure)
• Encourage non - residential uses continue to be located along University Avenue and 1-30
and not infiltrate into the neighborhood
65° Sven Wat Neighborhood Mu.. Plm
Draft — February 28, 2002 •
Infrastructure Goal:
•
Implement an adequate infrastructure network, including roadways and drainage systems,
within the neighborhood, that is designed and works to produce a safe and attractive
neighborhood environment.
Objective:
➢ Identify and construct neighborhood curbs, gutters and sidewalks where needed.
Action Statements:
• Construct Mabelvale Pike to a 36 foot roadway (Back of Curb to Back of Curb) with a 4
foot sidewalk on the south side of the roadway from Forbing Road to the intersection of
North Chicot Road; Construct North Chicot Road to a 36 foot roadway with a sidewalk on
the east side of the roadway from the north intersection of Mabelvale Pike to the south
intersection of Mabelvale Pike to allow separation between school children and motorists
• Realign North Chicot Road at the intersection with Mabelvale Pike and construct the
section of North Chicot Road from the intersection of North Chicot Road and Carolina
Drive to Residential Master Street Plan Design Standards (Curb, Gutter and a Sidewalk on
the east side of the roadway) to allow motorists and school buses ease in negation of the
narrow roadway and allow school children a place to walk outside the roadway
• Construct Grace Road from Mabelvale Pike to North Chicot Road to Master Street Plan
Design Standards (with Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk on the south side of the roadway)
• Widen and resurface roadway which travels through Hindman Park from West 65`h Street
north to the low water bridge which accesses the golf course
Objective:
➢ Identify and correct drainage problems in the neighborhood.
Action Statements:
• City take responsibility for cleaning Young Creek from the "bridge" on Mabelvale Pike
north to the Fourche Creek south of the Hindman Municipal Golf Course
• City identify the reason for year -round standing water in Pin Oak Ditch (between lots 7
and 15 of the Town and Country Subdivision) and correct the problem (determined if a
leaking water or wastewater line)
• Public Works conduct a study to determine the feasibility and alternatives for long term
solutions to eliminate the drainage problems of Young Creek
• Public Works maintain a Bi -Yearly maintenance schedule of all drainage ditches within
the City of Little Rock
• Replace the "off -set' box - culvert at North Chicot and Carolina Drive with a straight -in
box - culvert to eliminate two 90 °turns which trap debris clogging the drainage structure
• Perform yearly cleaning of ditch behind homes on Grace Drive (on the south side)
• Correct drainage problems near 20 Sheraton Drive
Objective:
➢ Create a system that links the community internally and externally to other areas of the
city with all modes of transportation.
65^ St. W ct Neighborhood Amon Plan
-Draft---February-28;-20
Infrastructure Goal:
Page 2
Action Statement:
Upon improvements (road widening) place signage along Mabelvale Pike indicating the
roadway is a designated bike route from Baseline Road to the intersection with South
University Avenue
Maintain the current level of city bus service in the area and work with Central Arkansas
Transit Authority (CATA) to plan additional bus routes
Objective:
➢ Ensure significant environmental features and functions are preserved.
Action Statements:
* City perform yearly maintenance on the city owned wooded property located on the north
side of North Chicot Road near Hindman Park and the south intersection of Mabelvale
Pike
Objective:
➢ Identify and increase the amount of city services in areas where they are needed.
Action Statement:
Improve solid waste collection in the area, both household garbage collection and yard
waste; Customer household collection is not being performed on a weekly basis, in some
instances customers are being "missed" for several consecutive weeks and yard waste
collection is not performed in a timely manner once residents call for a special pick -up
Objective:
➢ Improve traffic flow and safety in the area.
Action Statement:
+ Adjust the traffic signal at Forbing Road and South University Avenue (west side of South
University Avenue) to allow motorist traveling north on South University Avenue to make
a left -hand turn when a train is crossing the section of Forbing Road (east of South
University Avenue)
10 65° Ste Wen Neighborhood Action Plan
Draft — February 28, 2002 • •
Parks and Recreation Goal:
Provide safe and sufficient active and passive recreational opportunities to meet the needs of
residents while protecting the existing environment and natural sound barriers, which preserve
the quiet, rural residential nature of the area.
Objective:
➢ Provide additional safe recreational areas for children and families through
implementation of the Parks and Recreation Department Master Plan provision for
placing neighborhood parks in close proximity to all Little Rock neighborhoods.
Action Statements:
• Expand Hindman Park with play equipment for children ages 1 — 6 years
• Enhance the Meadowcliff School as a neighborhood park with the addition of play
equipment for children ages 1 — 6 years, add additional equipment for all other children
and amenities to entice parents to also visit the facilities with their children
+ Support the Parks and Recreation Department's efforts to secure funding for the purchase
and maintenance of active and passive recreational space, possibly the real estate transfer
tax in the amount of $100 on $100,000 sale of real property
• Place a neighborhood park in Town and Country near North Chicot Road, Loretto Lane
and Mabelvale Pike with play equipment for children ages 1 — 6 years, picnic tables (one
in each corner of the park large enough for 8 people) and a walking track for parents
around the perimeter
• Place a neighborhood park in Winston Terrace with play equipment for children ages 1— 6
years, picnic tables (one in each comer of the park large enough for 8 people) and a
walking track for parents around the perimeter
• Place a neighborhood park in Beverly Terrace near Grace Road and Mabelvale Pike with
play equipment for children ages I — 6 years, picnic tables (one in each corner of the park
large enough for 8 people) and a walking track for parents around the perimeter
• Place a neighborhood park at the intersection of Mabelvale Pike and N. Chicot Road next
to the north property line of the Church with play equipment for children ages 1— 6 years,
picnic tables (one in each corner of the park large enough for 8 people) and a walking track
for parents around the perimeter
Objective:
➢ Ensure parks are safe and maintained.
Action Statement:
+ Maintain the 65`" Street entrance to Hindman Park
Objective:
➢ Provide bicycle lanes on area streets.
Action Statement:
Add bicycle lanes (Class I or II) to roadways as streets are widened, resurfaced or
otherwise reconstructed
11 656 Svm Wnl NeighC rhm Ac on Plan
Parks and Recreation Goal
Page 2
Objective:
➢ Promote protection of natural areas, systems and urban forestry initiatives.
Action Statements:
• City aggressively purchase all lands within the Fourche Creek 100 -year floodplain in the
study area. Also, stop the commercial operations of stripping topsoil and disposing of tree
trimmings and construction site clearing material, such as concrete, asphalt, soil and other
debris. This would allow the floodplain to heal and return to its former mixed hardwood
- and pine forest nature. The area should be added to Hindman Park and other City owned
park lands in the study area to form one continuous park and natural forest for citizens to
go and commune with nature for restoration after a stressful period of work.
• Clean up underbrush on city -owned property located on North Chicot Road and Mabelvale
Pike
12 65^ Strom Wen Neighborhood Acuon Plan
Draft — February 28, 2002 is •
Public Safety Goal
To provide a safe environment for area residents, businesses and visitors.
Objectives:
➢ Improve proactive communications between residents and law enforcement.
Action Statements:
• Make Police Department aware of problems in the area and request an increase of patrol
officers when situations arise
• Request more frequent police presence — by various means such as more frequent car
patrols, bicycles and mobile alert centers to reduce vandalism, burglary, etc.
• Expand the City's Community Oriented Police Program (COPP)
• Request the City enforce the noise ordinance concerning loud music from vehicles driving
through the area
Objective:
➢ Reduce speeding and traffic hazards in the neighborhood.
Action Statements:
• Increase police enforcement of speed limits on residential streets, particularly Carolina
Drive, Sheraton Drive, Brookview Drive
• Increase police enforcement of speed limits on thoroughfares, such as S. University
Avenue, W. 65b Street, Mabelvale Pike, N. Chicot Road, McDaniel Drive
• Aggressively enforce traffic signal laws on S. University Avenue especially at the
intersections of W. 65`s Street and Mabelvale Pike
Objective:
➢ Familiarize neighborhood with crime prevention practices.
Action Statements:
Educate residents of the importance of CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design) to reduce the probability of becoming a victim
Reeducate residents and expand the crime watch program to the entire neighborhood
Inform residents of Police Department Numbers to call when requesting assistance
• Immediate Emergency Assistance- 911
• Non - Emergency Incidents 371 -4829 or 371 -4830
• Traffic Problems and Radar Enforcement Request 918 -3900
• Vacation Home Reports- 918 -3500
13 6S' Svw Ww Nughb.6 Acd.v P1.
Draft — February- 28,.2002 —
Existing Conditions
65th Street West Area
Neighborhood Action Plan
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
December 2000
14 65° Street West Ncighborbood Action Plan
Draft — February 28, 2002 0 •
Introduction
The 65h Street West Neighborhood Plan is designed to guide current and future development in
the area in accordance with the needs and desires of the residents and businesses of the area. The
study area is composed of block group 2 and 3 of census tract 20.01 and block group 4 and 9 of
Census tract 41.03. The plan is located
65th Street West Neighborhood in a portion of three separate planning
g districts, 65th Street West (Planning
Action Plan Boundary District 12), Geyer Springs West
(Planning District 15) and Otter Creek
i
(Planning District 16). The plan area is
located in the eastern portion of Planning
i Jl
. District 12, the northern portion of
.r "EgN00N ti,'i ��
r i anon ,.ASS " >; 1,,,,` $ Planning District 15 and the northeastern
portion of Planning District 16. The
topography of the area is for the most
part "flat" with the Fourche Creek
bounding the area on the north.
There are three _ Neighborhood
.
Association located within the plan area:
Meadowcliff/Brookwood, South
Brookwood and Town and Country. An
area west of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department reaching to I -430 is not
covered by a Neighborhood Association.
The 65s Street West Plan area is located in southwest Little Rock in township IN range 13W
sections 24, 26, 33, 34 and 35. More specifically the physical boundaries of the plan area are
Falls Boulevard to the north following the Fourche Creek southwesterly to the intersection with I-
430 following I -430 to the intersection with I -30. Turning east and following I -30 to the
intersection of S. University Avenue and following S. University Avenue north to the intersection
of Falls Boulevard. This map visually describes the boundaries of the action plan area.
Census Population & Housing Units
1990 census data indicates there are 2103 housing units in the area and a population of 4532.
This is an average of 2.16 persons per household, which is comparable to the City of Little Rock
1990 data of 2.17. The area comprised 1.20 percent of the total City of Little Rock 1990
population.
An analysis of the 1990 census data has been performed for the area. As indicated there are three
associations in the area and an area not covered by a Neighborhood Association. For the most
part these areas follow census block group boundaries. This divides the area "neatly" for
analysis. The area of Meadowcliff/Brookwood (BG 02 CT 20.01) comprises the larges
percentage of the population at 43.03 percent and 39.42 percent of the total housing units. The
remainder of the area is comparable in population and housing units. The South Brookwood
Association (BG 03 CT 20.01) has 26.32 percent of the population and 28.29 percent of the
housing units, the Town and Country Association (BG 04 CT 41.03) contains 17.48 percent of the
population and 17.55 percent of the housing units and the area with no association (BG 09 CT
41.03) holds 13.17 percent of the population and 14.74 percent of the housing units.
15 65^ S.., W.t Neighborhood Action Phn
- Draft - February 28 -200
Multi- family units in the area are located in the South Brookwood Association (255 units), Town
and Country Association (113 units) and the no association (78 units) areas. According to the
1990 census there are 169 mobile homes in the area and the bulk of these are located in the Town
and County Association area and in the area not covered by an association.
Owner occupied units is 62.5 percent in the plan area and 56.2 percent citywide. Association
areas within the plan area are not divided as evenly. Meadowcliff/Brookwood is 79.8 percent
owner occupied, Town and Country is 58.2 percent owner occupied, the area not covered by an
association is 50/50 percent owner /renter occupied and the South Brookwood Association is 46.6
percent owner occupied. Vacancy rates in the areas covered by an association range from 7.2
percent to 8.4 percent. In the area not covered by an association the vacancy rate is 18.7 percent.
Income ranges in the area are from under $5,000 to $125,000 - $150,000. The largest percentage
of household incomes falls into the range of $20,000 - $25,000. In 1990 the area was 35.8
percent - low to moderate income- according to standards set by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). The area with the largest percentage of low to moderate-income
families was the area not covered by an association (50.6 percent). This area had more than 20
percent of the households with incomes below $10,000 and the largest number of single -parent
female households (9.5 percent).
Racial composition of the area is predominately white (88.50 percent) compared to 1990 data for
the City of Little Rock as a whole of 64.7 percent. The male / female population of the area is
similar with 48.5 and 51.5 percent respectively.
Annexation Activity and Subdivision Development
The area began developing as a suburb of the City of Little Rock prior to annexation beginning in
1957 and ending in 1980. The area saw a series of 13 annexations over this 23 -year time period.
One annexation ( #43 in 1959) was a part of a general election. All other annexations were by
Table 1. Annexation Activity
Date
Annexation
Name
1/7/57
#31
Part of Meadowcliff Add
1/2/58
#36
art of Meadowcliff Add
2/2/59
#40
art of Meadowcliff Add
9/22/59
#43
General Election
9/19/60
#50
art of Meadowcliff Add
1/16/61
#52
Brookwood IstAdd
9/18/61
#57
Brookwood Add
12/3/62
#61
Brookwood Park Add
9/2/65
#77
Brookwood 2nd Add
7/5/66
#82
Ponderosa Add
7/3/79
#203
Riggs Island
12/18/79
#218
-30 Corridor
6/318
#220
ay Meadow
Subdivision development also began in the late
infrastructure and street systems are completed
developed. (Table 2. Subdivision Development)
petition of the property owner. The
Meadowcliff Addition was the first area to
petition for annexation in the plan area in
1957 and was annexed by 1960. From 1961
to 1965 the Brookwood Addition was
annexed into the city and in 1966 a portion of
the Ponderosa Addition was annexed. In
1979 three annexations 4186 (Hindman
Park), #203 (Chicot Road/Forbing Road/1 -30)
and 4218 (Town and Country Subdivision
and non - residential adjacent to I -30) resulted
in a large portion of the remainder of the area
becoming a part of the City of Little Rock. In
1980 Bay Meadow Court area was annexed
into the corporate limits thus completing
annexation activities in the area. The table
list details of the annexation history of the
plan area. (Table 1. Annexation Activity)
1950's. Final plat dates usually indicate when
and residential lots are ready to be sold and
16 65` Svm W., Neighborhood Action Plan
Draft — February 28, 2002 • .
Table 2. Subdivision Development
Subdivision
N Lots
Date Platted
Betty Jean
Lots 1 -8
Beverly Terrace Addition
Lots 1 -43
Brookwood
Lots 1 -176
Brookwood
Lots 176 -309
Dickey Subdivision
Lots 1 -31
raceland Acres
9/6/88
ansford Addition
30 Mini Storage
Lots 1 -2
abelvale Industrial Park
Lots 1 -7
McMinn Addition
Lot A
eadowcliff
Lois 1 -535
Id Oak Addition
Lot 1
Orbit Subdivision
Tract C, E, F, G
11/2/84
ne Henderson
12/4/8
azkside Place
Lots 1 -3
Peoples South Subdivision
Lots 1 -35
Ponderosa
Lots 1 -87
Richmond
Lots 1 -28
Southwest Commercial
Town and Country Estates
Block 3 Lots 1 -35
Town and Country Estates
Block 4 Lots 1 -26
Town and Country Estates
Block 5 Lots 1 -28
Town and Country Estates
Block 6 Lots 1 -11
Town and Country Estates
Block 7 Lots 1 -17
rigon Addition
of 1
8/26/88
ogelsherg
ots 1 -3
Winston Subdivision
ots 1 -92 and Lots 1 -28
Future Land Use Plan
The Future Land Use plan represents a reflection of a wide variety of considerations, which
influence the uses of land. These include the existing land use pattern, current zoning, the
existing street pattern and the Master Street Plan, environmental characteristics and community
goals and objectives. The Future Land Use Plan should represent a reasonable prediction of the
future arrangement of land uses in an area, given the various factors impacting the uses of lands.
The City of Little Rock has 22 Future Land Use classification. The 65h Street West plan area
contains 13 of these designations according to the City's GIS. These classifications, acres and
percent of total acreage are shown on Table 3 — Future Land Use Plan Acreages. The areas,
which have developed, have done so as predominately single — family thus the Single - Family
Future Land Use classification comprises the largest portion of the acreage (1604 acres) followed
by Parks and Open Space (842 acres). The majority of the area shown on the Future Land Use
Plan as Parks and Open Space is the floodway and/or a portion of the flood plain on each side of
the Fourche Creek and the Hindman Park and Municipal Golf Course. When looking at the
development pattern in the area in terms of residential designation approximately 50 percent
(47.06 %) is classified on the Future Land Use Plan as some form of residential. This also
17 65" Sued Wet Neighborhood Action Plan
Draft -- February-28 200 —
combined with areas which are designated as "green space" approximately 70 percent (69.32 %)
of the area has developed in a lower intensity.
Table 3. Future Land Use Plan Acreages
Classification Acres % of Total
Single - Family
1604
42.21%
Parks/Open Space
842
22.16°/
Service Trades District
442
11.63%
Suburban Office
181
4.76 ° /
Commercial
173
4.55°/
Public Institutional
130
3.42%
Light Industrial
102
2.68 ° /
Mixed Office Commercial
91
2.39%
Industrial
73
1.92%
Low Density Residential
66
1.74°/
Mixed Commercial Industrial
51
1.34%
Multi- Family
42
1.11%
Office
3
0.08°/
Non - residential classifications are
predominately along arterials and the I-
30 Freeway. A large portion of the
area is designated for Service Trades
District (442 acres). Suburban Office
and Commercial each contain
approximately the same acreage (181
and 173 respectively) followed by
Public Instructional (130 acres).
Combining industrial type
classifications (Light Industrial 102
acres, Industrial 73 acres and Mixed
Commercial Industrial 51 acres) these
represent 5.94 percent of the total
acreage of the area, which would rank
industrial type uses as the fourth largest
Future Land Use classification. (See
Appendix II for definitions of Future
Land Use Classifications.)
When comparing the plan area to citywide percentage of totals the two are somewhat similar.
The city contains three areas the plan does not (agriculture, mining and transitional) but these two
are very small percentages of the total City acreage. Combined these two groups comprise less
than three percent of the City total acreage. The following chart (Acreage Percentage of Total —
Future Land Use Plan) graphically represents plan percentages and citywide percentages of
Future Land Use classifications.
Acreage Percentage of Total - Future Land Use Plan
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
�
70.00%
a
60.00%
Plan or.
and Use
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
and use
0.00%
Agriculture Commercial Industrial Mining PK?OS Public Troritioml Office ResldeotiO
loitV ..d
o City Future Land Use o Plan Future Land Use
18 65° Street Wert Neighborhood Action ?In
�
a
Draft — February 28, 2002 • •
Future Land Use Plan Amendment
Three Planning District Plans cover the area: 65'1' Street West (PD 12), Geyer Springs West (PD
15) and Otter Creek (PD 16). A total of seven plan amendments have been approved within the
area.
There have been nine changes to the 65'b Street West District Plan since adoption in February
1987. None of these changes have occurred in the plan area.
The Geyer Springs West District Plan was adopted in April of. 1998 and has seen 25 changes. In
the plan area 8006 Mabelvale Pike was changed from Single - Family to Light Industrial in
December 1999. In June 1999, a change was made from Single Family to Service Trades District
and Suburban Office at 9620 Baseline Road. An area of Single Family to Mixed Use was made
on Mabelvale Cutoff west of the Chicot Road intersection in December of 1995.
The Otter Creek District Plan was adopted in October of 1984 and has seen 21 changes. Four of
these changes have occurred in the plan area. One was in February 1995, and consisted of a
change from Single Family, Multi- Family and Light Industrial to Mixed Office Industrial, Mixed
Office Warehouse, Mixed Office Commercial, Public Institutional & Parks /Open Space. In
December of 1995 the area, which was previously changed to Mixed Office Warehouse, was
changed again this time to Mixed Office Industrial. In May of 1990 the area east of the Arkansas
Highway and Transportation Department was changed from Single Family to Strip Development
and an area west of Chicot Road and north of I -30 was also changed from Single Family to Strip
Development in early 1990.
Current Zoning
Zoning is the basic means of land use control employed by local governments in the United
States. Zoning divides the community into districts and imposes different land use controls on
each district, specifying the allowed uses of land and buildings, the intensity or density of such
uses, and the bulk of buildings on the land. Although, the conceptual and legal basis for zoning
was laid out in the 1920's the major impact was not felt by local governments until the period of
rapid building that followed World War II. Traditional use regulations have separated land uses
into four basic categories: residential, commercial, industrial and agriculture. The City of Little
Rock separates mining from agriculture and office from commercial general zoning
classifications.
When comparing the City of Little Rock to the plan area, in general zoning classifications with
the exception of industrial each have very similar characteristics. Residential comprises a large
percentage of each. In the plan area residential is associated with approximately 90 percent of
the total acreage and citywide residential acreage is approximately 74 percent (Table 4. Acreage
Percent of Total — Zoning). The general classification of zoning represented in the plan area
includes commercial (211 acres), industrial (151 acres), office (23 acres), residential (3408 acres)
and open space (5 acres) (Table 5. Zoning Acreage by Classification). Although, there are some
areas with scattered non - residential zoning, for the most part, the non - residential zoning is located
adjacent to S. University Avenue and along I -30 Frontage Road. The multi - family zoning (MF-
18) is located adjacent to Chicot Road near the intersection with Mabelvale Pike. (See Appendix
H for definitions of Zoning Classifications.)
19 65' S. War Neighborhood Acu. P1.
— - - —Draft — February28, -200
Table 4. Acreage Percentage of Total
- Zoning
Rezoning and Subdivision Activity
Table 5. Zoning Acreage by Classification
- Plan Area
Classification
City Zoning
Plan
Zoning
Agriculture
0.24%
0.00%
Commercial
6.200/
5.58%
Industrial
12.57%
3.97%
fining
2.170/
0.00%
Office
3.200
0.61%
blic Instructional
01120/
0.000/
111ansitional
0.690/
0.00%
esidential
73.810
89.71%
Open Space
1.010
0.14%
Rezoning and Subdivision Activity
Table 5. Zoning Acreage by Classification
- Plan Area
Classification
Acres
% of Total
C3
53
1.407/b
C4
153
4.04%
I2
147
3.867/.
MF18
32
0.850/c
03
23
0.61%
OS
5
0.14%
CD
4
0.12%
DC
1
0.02%
DI
4
0.11%
PRD
3
0.08%
R2
3367
88.62%
R6
4
0.10%
117A
21
0.06%
Historical data (1990 -1999) indicates the area has filed for 21 "straight rezoning" (53.09 acres)
and the Planning Commission has approved 15 of these for a total of 33.17 acres. For the most
part these were in the area of S. University Avenue, Wanda Lane, Baseline Road, Chicot Road
and I -30. There have been 12 Planned Development request filed and the Planning Commission
has approved 7 of these cases. "Straight zonings" and Planned Developments combined indicate
seven of the cases approved were for industrial activity (13.75 acres) and 15 cases were for
commercial activity and 38.70 acres. One case was filed and approved for a Planned
Development in 1999 located on Baseline Road near 1 -430. The request was to change three
acres from R -2 zoning to a PDI.
Subdivision activity has been limited in the area with activity being for seven plats. Four were
final plats, one was a revised plat and two were for preliminary platting activity. The largest was
in the Zoel Subdivision (10.02 acres) and represented three lots. This case was approved in May
_ 1996, and a second case was approved in February 1996, for .79 acres 1 lot. Two of the cases
were approved in 1998 (5.37 acres and 2 lots and 1.37 acres and 1 lot) and one was approved in
1999 (1.65 acres and 2 lots).
20 W Street West Neighborhood Action Plan
Draft — February 28, 2002 • •
Existing Land Use
In a field survey the Department of Planning and Development determined the area had
developed with five primary uses: residential, public institutional, office, commercial and
industrial. The "windshield" method survey was used to make this determination.
Table 6. Existing Land Use - Structure Types
Total Number of Structures
2789
Variable Recreation
2
Church
8
Club
1
ating/Diinking Establishment
3
Schools
4
Single Family Residential
1570
Apartment Complexes over 20 units
3
Hotel/Motel
6
Accessory Building Residential
990
Duplex Units
4
Apartment Complex 3 - 6 Units
2
Apartment Complex 7 - 20 Units
38
Food Sales
3
Apparel Sales
1
Household Goods/Repair
2
Specialty Shops
1
Motor Service
68
General Commercial
7
Office
23
Government Offices
13
Food Manufacturing
1
Metal Manufacturing
4
Other Manufacturing
1
Wood/Paper Storage
6
Metal Storage
14
Vehicle Storage
3
Fire Station
I
General Storage
9
Outbuilding, Excluding garage
1
Residential development generally
falls into three categories. Single -
family housing developments,
which have occurred during the
past 25 years, apartment complexes
or multi - family developments and
the final is residential development,
which are, scattered rural or semi -
rural developments. - As indicated
previously the plan. area began
developing in the mid- 1950's and
by the late 1970's was primarily
what we "see today ". Residentially
little to no growth has taken place
in the area over the past 20 years.
The area is predominately single -
family detached housing with
apartment complexes located along
N. Chicot and Mabelvale Pike.
There is an estimated 450
apartment units in the area.
Located adjacent to Baseline Road
is a mobile home park with 35
mobile homes.
Public institutional uses consist of
public and quasi - public facilities
that provide a variety of services to
the community such as schools,
libraries, churches, utility
substations or parklands. Within
the boundaries of the plan area is
an elementary school, a park
facility and several churches. The
chart summarizes the current
existing land uses for the area according to the cities GIS. (Table 6. Existing Land Use —
Structure Types)
Shopping Centers /Office Buildings/Warehouse Buildings
Shopping centers in the area are limited. There is a small strip development adjacent to S.
University Avenue near Wanda Lane. This development houses a barbershop and three office
uses. For the most part establishments are single "stand alone" structures housing one business
activity. The area has numerous automobile related activities. The I -30 Frontage Road is home
21 65° Suat Wat Nmgbbor and Action Plan
Draft --February-28;-20
to several types of commercial establishments (home furnishings, home repair, motorcycle
- dealership, churches, miniature golf, etc.). The nonresidential activities in the area are very
diverse although many are destination type businesses and not considered neighborhood
commercial type activities.
New Construction and Reinvestment in the Area
Building permit data was collected for the years 1990 through 1999 for the plan area. The permit
data obtained was new construction, renovation activity, residential additions and demolition
_.- activity. New construction in the area has been predominately non - residential. Only three new
units have been added to the area: two in 1993 (both modular homes) and one in 1998
(manufactured home). The area has lost 15 residential units over this same period. Seven of the
units lost were in the 5000 to 8000 block of Mabelvale Pike.
All additions in the area totaled $610,896 (this includes storage buildings, garages and a $270,000
addition to the school facility). Residential addition (which adds living space to a structure)
construction dollars totaled $318,050. Residential renovations to the area totaled $789,902. The
following chart indicates the yearly renovation and addition funds expended as well as the
average funds expended yearly. (Table 7. Average Renovation and Addition Activity)
Table 7. Average Renovation and Addition Activity
Year
Renovation
Construction
Dollars Permitted
Average Renovation
Single - Family
Addition
Construction
Dollars Permitted
Average Addition
Single - Family
1990
$71,956
$14,391
$32,000
$32,000
1991
$51,000
$8,500
$88,150
$17,630
1992
$1,200
$1,200
$23,500
$7,833
1993
$36,400
$9,100
$38,50
$38,500
1994
$173,500
$21,688
$9,00
$4,500
1995
$101,690
$14,527
$44,90
$11,225
1996
$82,694
$13,782
$22,00
$11,000
1997
$107,705
$11,967
$33,00
$16,500
1998
$98,007
$12,251
$12,00
$6,000
- 1999
$65,7501
$9,393
$15,0001
$7,500
Residential reinvestment in a neighborhood can be illustrated by the amount of renovation and
addition funds expended.
Renovation activities usually
represent where housing
stock "lags behind" and in a
majority of the cases funds
_ . expended are to repair "fire
damage" or to "bring the
house up to code ". Funds
expended for addition in
living space to the structure
usually indicate a strong
commitment to the
neighborhood. There is no
22 65° Stm Wen NeighEO ood Ac on Plea
Reinvestment in the Neighborhood
$45.90
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,900
$20,000
$15,000
.._
$1 D,DDO
-
$5,000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
---- -Average aenov4on Single.Fam1y - Average Aen8lon Sn91e781*
22 65° Stm Wen NeighEO ood Ac on Plea
Draft — February 28, 2002 • .
true pattern to examine to establish a "commitment to the neighborhood" in the plan area. Funds
increased and decreased yearly over the reporting period. For citywide comparison of renovation
activity and addition activity 1999 was used. The average renovation activity for 1999 was
$17,107 and the average addition funds expended in 1999 was $43,988. The plan area is well
below the 1999 citywide average for both renovation and addition activity. The chart indicates
neighborhood reinvestment to the area in the form of additions and renovations. (Reinvestment
in the Neighborhood— Page 21)
The following table indicates real estate activity in the area (Table 8. General Listing of Housing
offered in the Area). This data was obtained from a Multiple Listing Service site and indicates
"asking prices ". Data was not available for sales prices or the number of days on the market,
which are both true indicators of real estate activity.
Table 8. General Listing of Housing offered in the Area
Subdivision
Bedrooms
Baths
Built
Sq. Ft.
Price
S Sq. Ft.
eadowcliff
3
1
1955
100
$39,500
$39.50
eadowcliff
3
1.5
1956
1008
$43,500
$43.15
Brookwood
3
1
1964
945
$44,500
$47.09
raceland Acres
3
1
1955
1206
$47,000
$38.97
rookview
3
1.5
1961
1200
$49,900
$41.58
rookview
3
1
1971
950
$49,900
$52.53
Brookwood
4
11
1961
1296
$51,500
$39.74
Brookwood
3
1
1960
957
$57,900
$60.50
eadowcliff
3
2
1960
1400
$59,000
$42.14
Brookwood
3
2.5
1963
1304
$59,000
$45.25
eadowcliff
3
2
1959
131
$59,000
$44.83
Brookwood
4
2
1966
1522
$59,50C
$39.09
eadowcliff
3
1
1965
1325
$59,900
$45.21
Brookwood
3
1
1970
1224
$60,000
$49.0
eadowcliff
4
1.5
1958
159
$62,900
$39.41
raceland Acres
4
2
1920
1318
$67,500
$51.21
Ponderosa
3
2
1963
1450
$67,900
$46.83
own & Country
4
2.5
1979
2392
$78,500
$32.8
own & Country
3
2
1963
22001
$89,9001
$40.8
Building Permit Data
As indicated only three residential units have been added in the plan area since 1990. Non-
residential activity since 1990 has seen 25 permits issued for a total of $3,588,896 construction
dollars and approximately 84,000 square feet of commercial and office space added to the area.
In 1996 the City of Little Rock expended $1,034,872 for Fire Station #11. The following table
identifies non - residential permit activity in the plan area for the years of 1990— 1999. (Table 9.
Non - residential Building Permit Activity)
23 65" Street Wut Neighb rhood Action Plnn
Draft = February-28—,200
Table 9. Non - Residential Building Permit Activity
Year Bld. Permits Non - Residential Square Feet Added
199
4
$453,800
7,400
1991
3
$200,225
11,546
199
1
$60,000
1,206
1993
2
$90,000
2,400
199
3
$149,000
3,600
1995
1
$500,000
11,990
1996
4
$1,395,656
11,900
1997
4
$248,000
2,432
1998
2
$406,000
25,575
1999
I
$86,215
6,000
CATA Bus Service
Bus service is somewhat minimal in the area. There are two routes that service the area:
Mabelvale- Downtown and Mabelvale -UALR. Both routes travel University Avenue from Asher
Avenue to the intersection of Mabelvale Pike and W. 65'b Street respectively. Once on Mabelvale
Pike the bus travels into the plan area on Sheraton/Mabelvale Pike then out of the. plan area on
Forbing Road/Geyer Springs Road to Baseline Road. Traveling west on Baseline Road to the I-
30 Frontage Road, then south to the Southwest Hospital/Mabelvale W. Road. East passed
Mabelvale Elementary School, north on Chicot Road to Baseline Road, then traveling the same
northern pattern as the southern pattern. The Mabelvale - Downtown route continues to downtown
by connecting to Route 16 (South Highland -UALR which continues to the downtown area by
way of Wright Avenue to Main Street).
Master Street Plan Street Classifications
There are three Master Street Plan
classifications of streets (other than
residential) located within the plan area.
These are collector streets, principal
arterial streets and a
freeway /expressway. The following
briefly describes these classifications and
their functions along with the streets,
which are designated to each
classification.
A collector street is the traffic connection
from residential streets to arterial streets
or to activity centers, with a secondary
function of providing access to adjoining
property. Street design speed is
generally 30 mph with a minimum
pavement width of (back of curb to back
Master Street Plan
Road Classifications
� 11
IAA LVA
~ --''y-
- - -.' 't. j.iaL
MIBEWALE
1 i.7 sheets
✓, /{ 1� _
24 66* So West Ncighborho Action Plan
Draft — February 28, 2002 •
•
of curb) 31' or 36'. Sidewalks are to be constructed on both sides and 5'wide in commercial
areas or one - sidewalk 4' wide in residential areas (a minimum of 5' from back of curb). The area
contains two collectors — Mabelvale Pike and W. 65th Street.
A principal arterial's primary function is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic
generators or activity centers within an urban area. Roadway design within a developed area
included 110' rights-of-way and for the construction of two 37' travel lanes with a 14' median.
Sidewalks are required on both sides five foot wide and located at the property line. Design
speeds are generally 45 mph. One principal arterial, S. University Avenue, is located within the
planning area.
I -30 Freeway is the southern boundary of the planning area. These roadways are generally part of
the freeway network and design standards are established by the federal government. The
primary function is to serve through traffic of long distance trips and is always designed as full
access control road. The spacing of freeways is variable since they relate to regional
transportation needs. The map labeled Master Street Plan Road Classification indicates the
various street types in the plan area.
Bike Paths, Bike Routes, Bikeways
There are three classes of bike facilities located in the City of Little Rock. A Class I bikeway is
the total separation between automobile traffic and bicyclist. In some cases these facilities are
constructed when connections are needed and
no roadway exists. This is the case within
the action plan area with the Fourche Creek
South Trail, which connects the Arkansas
River to Mabelvale Pike and the Brodie
Creek Trail, which connects Cooper Orbit
Road to the Fourche Creek West Trail.
A Class II bikeway (paved bike lanes on a
shared roadway) is located in the area
designated by the 65b / Lanehart which
connects Stagecoach Road to Chicot Road.
Two Class III bikeway (only special signage
to denote a bike route) are also located in the
area. One connects 65`s Street and Mann
Road via Chicot Road. The second connects the Fourche Creek and Chicot Road via Baseline
Road/Mabelvale Pike. The (Designated Bike Routes) map indicates the bikeways in the area.
Master Parks Plan
The area contains approximately 850 acres designated as green spaces by the cities future land
use plan. This area is primarily along the Fourche and Brodie Creeks. The city owns apark sites
in the area the Hindman City Park and Municipal Golf Course. The park occupies 210 acres of
gently rolling, tree covered land adjacent to two of the principal tributaries of the Fourche Creek.
Construction began on Hindman Park in 1965 with the construction of a ball field and playground
facility. The 18 -hole golf course and clubhouse were developed in 1971, with assistance from the
US Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Additional recreational facilities were added in 1976 and
1977 to provide a wide range of recreational opportunities for the park visitors. Hindman Park
25 65^ Street Wat Neighborhood Action Plan
Draft = February 28; 200 •
was named after Biscoe Hindman, whose estate contributed $50,000 toward the development of
the park.
Current park facilities include a softball diamond,
playground equipment, basketball court, tennis court,
picnic tables, restrooms a maintenance building and as
stated an 18 -hole golf course with clubhouse. The
graphic indicates designated open spaces desired by the
City of Little Rock as a part of the Chain of Parks but the
' lands which are not currently owned (lands adjacent to
the creek beds) are priority two which is the lowest set by
the city for acquisition. A lake with fishing pier is
— proposed to the south of the golf course (north of Forbing
Road west of Chicot Road). This facility is on the short-
range plan for development by the Parks Department.
Area Schools
_. In the 1999'— 2000 school year, the Little Rock School District "redrew" the attendance zones to
accommodate the "middle" school concept. This shifts sixth graders to junior high and ninth
_. graders to high school. In the past, the boundaries of the attendance zones changed due to
fluctuations in the numbers and addresses of children enrolled in the public school system. In
general, these boundaries were not drawn along neighborhood lines, which promoted integration
between neighborhoods. A large percentage of the student population traveled by bus or private
vehicle to their assigned school, which in some cases was quite far from their neighborhood. The
neighborhood school concept is hopeful to allow children to remain in their neighborhood for
educational needs thus allowing the school facility and parents to view the facility as a
neighborhood center. It is important to remember that neighborhood schools provide the basic
needs for education for children, which in -turn makes it an ideal foundation in a neighborhood.
Schools also act as an integral part of the community's cohesion by not only providing
educational needs but the facility also serves the community as a meeting place for neighborhood
organizations.
One elementary school is located in the plan area at 25 Sheraton Drive. There are approximately
250 students enrolled in kindergarten through fifth grade at this facility (Meadowcliff Elementary
School). The school facility recently expended $270,000 in addition construction funds to the
facility.
Crime Data
Data was supplied from the Little Rock Police Department for a six -month comparison of January
1 — June 30, 1999 and January 1 — June 30, 2000. This data was reviewed to analyze criminal
activity in the area. As indicated on the following chart violent crimes increased by 21 percent
from 1999 to 2000 while non - violent crimes fell by 20 percent for the same time period
(Comparison of Violent Crimes and Property Crimes — Page 26). There were no homicides
reported in the areas during this time period.
Other areas of interest were that harassment calls fell by 31 percent (32 calls- 1999, 22 calls -
2000), simple assault calls fell by 10 percent (72 calls —1999, 65 calls — 2000), terrorist threat
26 65^ Sven Wor Neighborhood Ac ion Plan
Draft — February 28, 2002 • •
calls fell by 46 percent (59 calls — 1999, 32 calls — 2000) while criminal mischief increased by 12
percent (43 calls — 1999, 48 calls — 2000).
Comparison of Violent Crimes and Property Crimes
65`s Street West Neighborhood Action Plan Area
(1999 vs. 2000 January — June)
Rental Inspection Program (Housing 7/17/00)
The follow information is the up -to -date statistics regarding the Rental Inspection Program for the
65th Street Area Neighborhood Action Plan area. These stats were compiled and reported as of
January 2001.
Dwelling Units Inspected: 534
Dwelling Units Declared Unsafe:
Dwelling Units Remaining to be Inspected: 128
Dwelling Units Inspected on 2 year Cycle: 210
Dwelling Units Repaired:
Total Rental Units: 662
27 6P Sven Wm Neighborhood Anion Plv
1999
2000
% Change
Violent Crimes
Homicide
0
0
0%
Rape
2
2
0%
Robbery
Business
4
8
100%
Individual
2
2
0%
Aggravated Assault
27
30
11%
Subtotal
33
40
21%
Property Crimes
Burglary
Business
19
26
- 37%
Residential
47
11
-77%
Larceny
236
183
-23%
Vehicle Theft
32
46
44%
Arson
0
2
0%
Subtotal
334
268
-20%
Rental Inspection Program (Housing 7/17/00)
The follow information is the up -to -date statistics regarding the Rental Inspection Program for the
65th Street Area Neighborhood Action Plan area. These stats were compiled and reported as of
January 2001.
Dwelling Units Inspected: 534
Dwelling Units Declared Unsafe:
Dwelling Units Remaining to be Inspected: 128
Dwelling Units Inspected on 2 year Cycle: 210
Dwelling Units Repaired:
Total Rental Units: 662
27 6P Sven Wm Neighborhood Anion Plv
Draft= February-28,-2002
Note: The number of rental units in the area maybe inconsistent with the data reflected above.
There is no notification process when a single - family unit becomes a rental unit and vise versa
and the area inspectors must rely on "word of mouth" to pass along this information. The data
provided above is to the best of the Code Enforcement Officers knowledge of rental units in the
area.
Substandard Streets
The area began development prior to annexation by the City of Little Rock therefore; the streets
have not been constructed in accordance with the Master Street Plan design standards. Mabelvale
Pike is a two -lane roadway with open ditches for drainage and no sidewalks. W. 65th Street has
been constructed somewhat to the design standard (with four travel lanes and sidewalks on a
portion of the street). S. University Avenue is a four -lane boulevard roadway but there are not
sidewalks in place for the majority of the plan area.
Based on the City of Little Rock past history when a property owner approaches the city for
development or redevelopment in an area additional necessary rights -of -way are obtained and the
streets are "brought up to standard ". This would include the construction of sidewalks. With the
limited redevelopment activity in the area sidewalks have not been put into place.
28 65° Sum Wet Neighborhood Action Plan
Draft — February 28, 2002 • 0
Appendix I
City of Little Rock Zoning
Classification and Descriptions,
0
City of Little Rock Future Land Use Plan
Classifications and Descriptions
29 66° Svect Wet Neighborhood Action Plen
�l
Q
Q
A
pal
m
t
:QD
a
Ll
�I11k�
a
'Vmr
t
v
Q
Q f
e
E.
a
i
Draft — February 28, 2002
Outline of Zoning Classifications and Descriptions
The City of Little Rock, with the exception of the State Capitol Zoning District and theCentral
Little Rock Zoning Area Downtown, is divided into the following 34 zoning districts:
"R -1" — Single Family District
For large lot single - family development with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet.
This district is the least utilized of the several single - family zones.
"R -2" — Single Family District
For conventional single - family development with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square
feet. This district is the predominant single - family district within the City of Little Rock
west of University and south of Asher Avenue.
3. "R-3"- Single Family District
For small lot single - family development with a minimum lot of 7,000 square feet. This
district is the predominant single - family district within the City of Little Rock north of
Asher Avenue and east of University.
4. "R -4" - Single Family District
For development of duplex dwellings with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet.
5. "NF -6" - Multifamily District
For apartment development at a maximum of six dwelling units per acre. This district is
used predominantly in the west and southwest portions of the City generally for upper
income and condominium type developments.
6. "MF -12" - Multifamily District
For apartment development at a maximum of 12 units per acre. This district is used
predominantly in the west and southwest portions of the City as a transition zone between
lower and higher density residential developments.
7. "W- 18" - Multifamily District
For apartment development at a maximum of 18 units per acre. This district, which is
predominantly located west of University, is primary "MY" District for construction of
apartments in the suburban area.
8. "NE-24" - Multifamily District
For apartment development at a maximum of 24 units per acre. This district is utilized
throughout the City; however, the majority of this district is located in the northwest
portion of the City. It is generally developed in close proximity to higher intensity uses
either office or commercial.
31 65° Sueet Wm Neighborhood Acfion Phn
9. "R -5" - Urban Residence District
For apartment development at a maximum of 36 units per gross acre.
10. "R -6" — High Rise Apartment District
For apartment development at a maximum of 72 units per gross acre. This district is the
High -Rise Apartment District and is the least utilized of the several apartment zones.
This district is primarily located in the core of the City north of Asher Avenue and east of
University.
11. "R -7" — Mobile Home District
For mobile home parks at a maximum of eight dwelling units per gross acre. This district
is utilized for creation of rental mobile home parks only.
12. "R -7A" — Mobile Home District
For mobile home subdivisions proposing lot sales for placement of mobile home units.
The maximum permitted density is 12 family units per net saleable acre.
13. "0-1" — Quiet Office District
For office use providing for conversion of residential structures in older neighborhoods to
uses compatible with existing residential neighborhoods.
14. "0-2" — Office and Institutional District
For large tract office and institutional development. This district provides for the high -
rise office development.
15. "0-3" — General Office District
For development of freestanding offices serving a broad range of public needs.
16. "C -1" — Neighborhood Commercial District
•--For development of small personal service uses. This district allows uses that are
generally neighborhood oriented.
17. "C -2" — Shopping Center District
For development of large -scale commercial projects such as shopping malls.
18. "C -3" — General Commercial District
For development of a broad range of general sales and service uses.
19. "C -4" — Open Display Commercial District
32 65° Sum Wat Neighborhood A Non Plan
Draft — February 28, 2002 • •
For development of a range of uses requiring open display of merchandise such as
automobiles, mobile homes, and building materials.
20. "I -1" —Industrial Park District
For development of an efficient well- designed industrial park. This district encourages
the development of park -like settings with significant landscaping and design effort.
21. "1 -2" - Light Industrial District
For development of general industrial uses including light manufacturing and assembly.
22. "I -3" — Heavy Industrial District
For development of industrial uses of an objectionable or hazardous nature. This district
normally includes uses that emit a high level of noise, dust, odor, or other pollutants thus;
requiring separation from residential or other more sensitive uses.
23. "AF" — Agriculture and Forestry District
For sites utilized as farming or other rural activities. This district is also utilized for
recreational uses.
24. "M" — Mining District
For sites utilized as mineral extraction, forestry, or agriculture. This district much like
the Heavy Industrial District should be separated from residential or other more sensitive
uses.
25. "OS" — Open Space District
For use as a buffer zone between uses, a protection zone for difficult topography, and to
preserve natural conditions. This district is most often utilized to buffer one land use
from another such as apartments, office, or commercial development from single family.
26. "F" — Floodplain District
For regulation of usage of flood prone lands to protect the water flow and to reduce
flooding effects.
27. "PZD" - Planned Zoning Development
A process for owners /developers to utilize when it is desirable to present a unified site
plan and plat for City review. There are four (4) Planned Unit Development districts
utilized in the process for multi use developments. There are:
a. "PRD" — Planned Residential
This district is used when residential uses are proposed in a development of
mixed use permitted.
33 65^ Smet Wm Neighborhood Action Plm
-Draft---February-28r200 - - - - -�- - - - --
b. "POD" — Planned Office
This district is used when office development is the intended principal use. Some
commercial and residential is permitted when made a part of thereview process.
C. "PCD" — Planned Commercial
This district is used when commercial mixed -use development is proposed. A
mix of residential, office and commercial is permitted.
d. "PID" — Planned Industrial
This district is used when warehousing, manufacturing or similar uses are
proposed in a mix of uses.
28. "PD" — Planned Development
A process utilizing the same submittal and review procedures as a "PUD" except, that
this process permits development of single use projects exclusively, these districts are:
a. "PD" — Residential
This district permits residential projects of any density with no mix of other uses.
b. "PD" — Office
This district permits projects that involve a single office use or building (no mix
of uses).
C. "PD" — Commercial
This district permits projects that involve a single commercial use or building (no
mix of uses).
d. "PD" — Industrial
This district permits projects that involve a single industrial use or building (no
mix of uses).
34 66° Svw War Ndghborhood Anon PI n
tYf
MEW
mom
wf
0 ■ - If T -
ul
Draft --February-28T-2002 —
Future Land Use Categories
SF Single Family Residential – This category provides for single - family homes at densities
not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre. Such residential development is typically
characterized by conventional single family homes, but may also include patio or garden
homes and cluster homes, provided that the density remain less than 6 units per acre.
LDR Low Density Residential – This category accommodates a broad range, of housing types
including single- family attached, single family detached, duplex, townhomes, multi-
` family and patio or garden homes. Any combination of these and possibly other housing
types may fall in this category provided that the density is between six (6) and ten (10)
dwellings units per acre.
MF Multifamily Residential – The multifamily category accommodates residential
development of 10 to 36 dwelling units per acre.
MH Mobile Home Park – This category accommodates an area specifically developed to
accommodate mobile homes.
O Office – The office category represents services provided directly to consumers (e.g.,
legal, financial, medical) as well as general office, which support more basic economic
activities.
SO Suburban Office – The suburban office category shall provide for low intensity
development of office or office parks in close proximity to lower density residential areas
to assure compatibility. A Planned Zoning District is required.
MCI Mixed Commercial and Industrial – This category provides for a mixture of commercial
and industrial uses to occur. Acceptable uses are commercial or mixed commercial and
industrial. A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is mixed commercial and
industrial.
MOC Mixed Office and Commercial – This category provides for a mixture of office and
commercial uses to occur. Acceptable uses are office or mixed office and commercial.
A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is mixed office and commercial.
STD Service Trades District – This category provides for a selection of office, warehousing,
and industrial park activities that primarily serve other office services or industrial
businesses. The district is intended to allow support services to these businesses and to
provide for uses with an office component. A Planned Zoning District is required for any
development not wholly office.
MX Mixed Use – This category provides for a mixture of residential, office and commercial
uses to occur. A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is entirely office or
commercial of if the use is a mixture of the three.
MXU Mixed Use Urban - This category provides for a mix of residential,' office and
commercial uses not only in the same block but also within the same structure. This
category is intended for older "urban" areas to allow dissimilar uses to exist, which
support each other to create a vital area. Development should reinforce the urban fabric
cresting a 24 -hour activity area. Using the Planned Zoning District or the Urban Use
36 65^ S"er Hest Neighborhood Amm Plan
Draft — February 28, 2002 • 0
District, high and moderate density developments that result in avital (dense) pedestrian
oriented area are appropriate.
LI Light Industrial — This category provides for light warehouse, distribution or storage uses,
and/or other industrial uses that are developed in a well - designed "park like" setting.
I Industrial — The industrial category encompasses a wide variety of manufacturing,
warehousing research and development, processing, and industrial related office and
service activities. Industrial development typically occurs on an individual tract basis
rather than according to an overall development plan.
C Commercial — The commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale
sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities.
Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve.
CS Community Shopping — This category provides for shopping center development with
one or more general merchandise stores.
NC Neighborhood Commercial — The neighborhood commercial category includes limited
small -scale commercial development in close proximity to a neighborhood, providing
goods and services to that neighborhood market area.
NODE Existing Business Node — This category provides for the existence of a sufficient
concentration (minimum of 3) of longterm established businesses on both sides of a
major street. The businesses must be contiguous or in close proximity. A. Planned
Zoning District is required.
A Agriculture — It is the intent of this category to encourage the combination of agricultural
uses of the land. The agricultural classification also provides for a transition between
rural areas and the urban fringe, where it would be appropriate to preserve existing rural
land use, prior to annexation into the city.
M Mining — The mining category provides for the extraction of various natural resources
such as bauxite, sand, gravel, limestone, granite or other. Mining uses will include
assurances that these resources be property managed so as not to create a hazard,
nuisance or the disfigurement or pollution of the land.
PK/OS Park/Open Space — This category includes all public parks, recreation facilities, green
belts, flood plains, and other designated open space and recreational land.
PI Public Institutional - This category includes public and quasi - public facilities, which
provide a variety of services to the community such as schools, libraries, fire stations,
churches, utility substations, and hospitals.
T Transition — Transition is a land use plan designation, which provides for an orderly
transition between residential uses and other more intense uses. Transition was
established to deal with areas, which contain zoned residential uses and nonconforming
nonresidential uses. A Planned Zoning District is required unless the application
conforms to the Design Overlay standards. Uses, which may be considered, are low -
density multifamily residential and office uses if the proposals are compatible with
quality of life in nearby residential areas.
37 65� Sven Wm Neighborhood M6d Ple
Draft — February 28, 2002 • •
65" Street West Neighborhood Action Plan
Survey Summary
Page 1
There were 2013 surveys mailed to the 65" Street West Neighborhood Action Plan area. The survey's
were mailed to all addresses (residential and non - residential) contained in the City's GIS system. Of this
238 were returned by the November 3, 2000 requested due date. This represents an 11.8% response rate.
Although this survey method is not a statically accurate survey, the Planning Department does feel it is an
acceptable method for receiving "feed- back" from area residents. This survey method allows for the
person completing the form to indicate his/her pleasure or displeasure with a particular activity in the area
while remaining totally anonymous. While these results may not accurately reflect the desires of the
neighborhood as a whole. The information provides a good base point for committee members and city
staff to begin with the development of an Action Plan.
The following map indicates the proposed 65h Street West Neighborhood Action Plan area and the survey
subareas. Also included is the survey summary. Please note the percentage of respondents reporting to
each category in most cases do not add to 100% due to some respondents not answering all the questions.
65th street west
Neighborhood Action Plan Boundary
(Plan Area Outlined in Bold — Fourche Creek, 1-430, 1 -30, University Avenue. Subareas designated by
letters A — E.)
39 65° Sued Won Neighborhood Action PI=
February-2872001.
65th Street West Neighborhood Action Plan
Survey Summary
Page 2
General
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Our area is a good safe neighborhood in
8.82%
'M4832%`
25.21%
12.61%
3.36%
which to live and/or work.,
al
The ability to walk from home to shopping,
26.89%
;,,28.99 " /d
28.15%
10.50%
3.78%
businesses, schools, churches, and
o" aye
neighborhood activities is important to me.u;w
Yes
10.92%
No
t j 13%
Area residents shop at local businesses and
10.50%
44'.96 °l0
18.91%
16.39%
7.98%
merchants (within a mile).
2.52%
11.34%
21.85%
20.17%
In general, the neighborhood is continually
5.04%
24.37%
23.95%
° 32t7j7, °f"!
10.50%
improving.
a,.•
F#'
The character and image of our area should
5882, %qs
29.83%
4.62%
2.10%
1.26%
be protected and preserved.
6.30r1K-33.6
°10
27.31%
7.14%
2.94%
-- When combining `strongly agree' and `agree' approximately eighty-eight percent (88.14 %) of the
respondents indicated the character and image of the neighborhood should be preserved. When asked to
name a business to add to the area a neighborhood grocery store was the number one requested business to
be added. Respondents also indicated the desire for a dry cleaner, restaurants and a home improvement
business.
Infrastructure
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
The condition of the streets and curbs in my
9.24%
^ 60M, %Ai
8.40%
13.03%
6.30%
area is generally good.
al
Water (clean and waste) lines are well
14.29%
"55 46°fa
20.17%
5.88%
2.94%
maintained in our area.
§ t�
Do you current have sidewalks in your
Yes
10.92%
No
t j 13%
neighborhood?
( Fys ;
I would be willing to pay all or part of the
2.52%
11.34%
21.85%
20.17%
sidewalk installation/repair cost on my
residence or business property over five to
F#'
ten years.
1,
How do you rate the condition of streets in
6.30r1K-33.6
°10
27.31%
7.14%
2.94%
your neighborhood?
. `:
Some drainage problems exist on my block.
10.08%
19.75%
� 1gN25 %a'
13.03%
The trash and recycling pick -up at my
16.81W
8.82%
10.92%
2.10%
residence or business is ade uate." 9
; �n
Residents should be required by the city to
26.05,9V
18.91%
10.92%
7.56%
remove green trash containers from the street
a
after trash pick -up.
,��.,
Our area has enough sidewalks to support
4.62%
11.76%
15.13%
28.15 %;
31:93 %*
current foot traffic.
NiUK-
Basic infrastructure and city services (streets, curbs, water lines, garbage collection) in the area
appear to be adequate according to the survey respondents. 86.13 % of the respondents did not
have sidewalks in their area and 58.41% would not be willing to pay all or part of sidewalk
installation/repair over a time period (combining disagree and strongly disagree). Also to the
question concerning adequacy for supporting current foot traffic almost 60% (60.08 %) responded
40 65' Seem Wut Neighborhood Action Plan
Draft - February 28, 2002 • •
65'h Street West Neighborhood Action Plan
Survey Summary
Page 3
negatively. Streets listed, as not in good condition were Mabelvale Pike, N. Chicot Road,
McDaniel Drive and Grace Road.
When asked to identify locations with drainage problems respondents indicated several
intersections along Mabelvale Pike, McDaniel Drive, 65h Street, N. Chicot Road and University
Avenue. Drainage problems were also listed in Hindman Park.
Traffic
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
The police presence in our area is adequate to
4.62%
;? 27:31°16•
23.95%
25.63%
15.13%
enforce traffic rules.
? =`
Traffic - calming devices that reduce speeding
29.83%
^ 40.34%
11.34%
8.82%
6.72%
and the volume of vehicles in our area is a
=
idea.
good
-
Parking for our area businesses is adequate.
9.24%
;' :3,8, .q6%e
36.55%
1 3.78%
1.26%
Additional CATA bus stops and routes
7.98%
15.55%
49 58-,"
12.18%
7.14%
should be added to the area.
3.36%
7.14%
y
12.18%
Many streets or intersections in our area
26.98%
3,1`:93%
21.85%
11.76%
2.50%
suffer from excessive speeding or too much
traffic.
Approximately 70% of the respondents (29.83% strongly agree and 40.34% agree) feel traffic-
calming devices to reduce speeds on residential streets is a good idea. Over 55% of the
respondents also indicated many streets and intersections suffer from excessive speeding and a
high number of vehicles (58.91 %). A few of the streets listed were N. Chicot Road, Mabelvale
Pike, McDaniel Drive, 65h Street, University Avenue. These streets were also listed as "cut -
through" streets for motorist to avoid traffic congestion on the interstate and/or University
Avenue.
Schools
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
The school buildings and properties are well
2.94%
22.69%
. =48:32 %6=
10.50%
5.04%
maintained.
? =`
Our area residents and businesses should
15.55%
" 39150%
30.67 %*
2.10%
1.26%
form a partnership with the schools to
improve the leaming environment for the
children.
-
Traffic conditions around the schools are
5.46%
16.81%
.. 52:94%
11.34%
1.68%
unsafe and congested.
Truancy is a problem for our area residents
3.36%
7.14%
• !60:•50 0/c
12.18%
and businesses.
Almost 70% of the respondents indicated they did not have school-aged children. They did
however (55.05 %) indicate the need for partnering with area schools to improve the learning
environment for the area children.
41 65^ S.. Wog Neighborhood Action Plan
Draft - -February-28, -200
65' Street West Neighborhood Action Plan
Survey Summary
Page 4
Housing
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Stricter property maintenance standards
29.38 %,
28.57%
24.79%
8.40%
4.20%
should be developed and enforced in our
12.18%
21.43%
30.25%
20.59%
5.46%
area.
r'.?
An economic hardship program should be
15.97%
^:32;7:7 %0'
26.89%
7.98%
11.76%
developed to assist (financially or otherwise)
„ +.
�-'
disadvantaged homeowners in maintaining
¢' '•: `; M;`
their property.
5.04%
13.87%
,44112 %.
18.91%
11.76%
The city's rental inspection program is
; ;, 39:92%
31.09%
20.59%
0.84%
important to our area.
„.r r':.
at
Over 70% of the respondents feel the city's rental inspection program (71.01 %) has benefited the
area. In addition to the current regulations respondents fell more stringent property maintenance
standards should be developed and enforced (57.95 %). For the most part respondents commented
on the negative impacts of multi - family housing to an area. Some of the reasons listed were
crime, devaluation of property, noise and traffic.
Zoning
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Combined building uses where people live
3.36%
9.66%
4•,40.34 %;
17.65%
20.59%
above stores and offices are good for the
12.18%
21.43%
30.25%
20.59%
5.46%
neighborhood.
Converting single- family homes from
4.20%
11.76%
17.23%
30.67%
: t 32:72 %'
residential to office or commercial uses is
$
�-'
acceptable.
¢' '•: `; M;`
Residents have enough say in the location of
5.04%
13.87%
,44112 %.
18.91%
11.76%
late -hour retail businesses and other
commercial buildings in the neighborhood.
at
-- The respondents indicated clearly that the conversion of single- family housing into commercial or
office uses is not an acceptable alternative. When combining strongly disagree with disagree
_. responses 63.44% indicated they were not in favor while combining strongly agree with agree
only 15.96% were amenable.
Parks and Recreation
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Our parks are safe and well maintained.
5.04%
18.49%
!` 36:55%
21.43%
10.50%
Park trails should be restricted for hiking
12.18%
21.43%
30.25%
20.59%
5.46%
only (i.e., prohibit biking on trails).
Street, parks, and pathways should be
22.69%
37 39%
25.21%
3.36%
2.52%
developed and/or improved to be more
$
pedestrian - friendly while still
¢' '•: `; M;`
accommodating vehicles.
*t 't
31.93% of the respondents did not agree with the statement that our parks and safe and well -
maintained while 36.55% remained neutral on the statement. The only statement, which raised
over a 50% combined response rate, was that of area recreational facilities should be developed to
be more pedestrian friendly while still accommodating vehicles (60.08 %).
42 65° S°cet Wat Naghb rh° Action Plan
Draft - February 28, 2002 • is
65th Street West Neighborhood Action Plan
Survey Summary
Page 5
Crime:
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
I
Disagree
The lighting on our area streets is adequate to
14.29%
'A9 08F /a::
13.45%
24.37%
7.14%
deter crime.
Little Rock police patrols are regular enough
2.95%
20.25%
20.68%
. 34:.1,8°/x:
17.30%
to deter street crime.
Loitering is a problem in some parts of our
9.66%
25.63%
2773% �
19.75%
6.72%
area.
• tJ.,`'tvfi4
44,
Drug activity is a problem in our area.
12.24%
14.77%
38�40°7ot
16.88%
3.38%
53.37% of the respondents indicated street lighting was adequate but 51.48% did not agree that
the Little Rock police patrols were regular enough to deter street crimes in the area. When asked
to list crime potential areas respondents indicated Hindman Park, multi - family housing units in
the area and various locations along University Avenue and 65'" Street.
Neighborhood Life: When asked "What attracted you to the neighborhood ?" Most responses
were similar indicating affordability, location, proximity to work, schools, recreational activities
and shopping. "What do you like most about your neighborhood ?" A large number of the
respondents indicated what attracted them to the neighborhood was also what they liked most
about the area. In addition many indicated their neighbors and the neighborhood, as a whole was
a definite plus. "If you could change one thing about the area, what would it be ?" More
stringent and better enforcement of property maintenance standards, fewer rental units, reduce the
barkingdog population, encourage more young families to move into the area, not allow parking
on the street or on lawns, reduce the amount of cut - through traffic in the area.
Demographics: The majority of the persons responding to the survey were ages 55+ (50.84 %),
22.27% each were ages 25 -40 and 22.69% were 41 -50. 58.40% of the respondents were female.
45.99% of the respondents lived in subarea A. Persons responding from other subareas included
2.95% from sub area E, 5.06% from sub area D, 13.08% from sub area C and 19.41% from sub
area B. 13.50% of the respondents did not respond to this question. 16 years was the average
years of residency. However, 42% of the respondents have lived in the area 20+ years. 82.77%
of the respondents own their home and there is a 2.02 persons per household for those
responding. 71.89% of the respondents did not have school-aged children. Only 6.30% of the
respondents are area business owners. Of the respondents owning business 48% own businesses
in subarea A and 32% own businesses in subarea B.
When comparing 1990 Census Data to the demographics of the respondents to the survey (portions of
Census Tract 20.0 land 41.03) 62.5% of the residents were homeowners, owner occupied units consisted of
2.43 persons per household, renter occupied units 2.29 persons per household and 51.5% of the residents
were female. Owner occupied units has the greatest inconsistency with 82.77% of the survey respondents
being homeowners. To give an indication of the significance of the fewer persons per household the total
number of units reported in the 1990 Census Data (2103 total units) was multiplied by the persons per
household for owner occupied units (2.29 persons per household). This is an estimated population of 4815
persons in 1990. The survey persons per household (2.02 persons per household) were also multiplied by
the total number of units reported in the 1990 Census Data that gives an estimated population of 4248.
This indicates a significant decrease in population for the area (567 persons). It is important to remember
this only suggest a loss of population because not all factors have been taken into consideration. This has
been applied to those persons who responded to the survey only and not the actual composition of the
neighborhood.
43 65' Swm Wet N6ghborhood Action Plan
City of Little Ilk
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72201 -1334
Phone: (501) 371 -4790 Fax: (501) 399 -3435 or 371 -6863 Subdivision
MEMORANDUM
TO: DONNA JAMES, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
FROM: VV--WALTER MALONE, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
DATE: JANUARY 2, 2002
In response to your memorandum of December 21, 2001, the Planning and Development
Department comments on the draft Neighborhood Plan are as follows.
• Under the Housing Goal, we do not believe the objective "Require new single - family
housing be site built homes" to be constitutional. A statement to the effect that all new
single- family housing had to meet or exceed Little Rock building codes might be tried.
• Under the Land Use and Zoning Goal, the action statement suggesting changing the Land
Use Plan for Multifamily or Low Density residential classifications where not already .
zoned could be explored but we can not say at this time that such a change(s) is
appropriate or advisable.
Under the Land Use and Zoning Goal, for the objective "promote protection of natural
areas through development of zoning initiatives"; at this time we do not have the
resources to explore this issue. If the neighborhood wishes to proceed with this issue,
additional groups need to be included. Ideas will need to be exchanged. Research will
have to be done. And finally hearings will have to be held. If the Board decides to
reallocate resources, we will work with others to explore this issue.
• Under the Land Use and Zoning Goal, the staff has reviewed the conditional and special
use permit processes several times in the last few years. A more specific request to look
at one or two uses (which are deemed to be traffic issues) would be appropriate for the
neighborhood to forward to the staff for Planning Commission review in the next review
package.
cc Jim Lawson, Director Planning & Development
Police Department 700 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -1329
ITS �7U [/]_.7:�►� 111111_1
- -. TO: Ms. Donna James, Planning and Development
FROM: Lawrence Johnson, Chi
RE:' 65b Street Neighborhood Action Plan
_ - DATE: _ = January 15, 2002
-- One of the goals of the Southwest Patrol Division is to provide a quality uniformed police
service to the citizens we serve. We strive to accomplish this goal by a means of a set of
=. objectives intended to promote professionalism, a spirit of community awareness, and to
compliment all police services available to our citizens. Some of these objectives coexist with
many of the action statements presented by the 65' Street Steering Committee. Some of these
objectives include but are not limited to:
Reducing traffic accident occurrences in the Southwest area of Little Rock by providing
extra patrol at high accident intersections.
Assigning additional personnel for special traffic enforcement at high accident
intersections and extra patrol at businesses that are frequently victims of crime.
Maintaining a close working relationship with the COPP Officers assigned to our
Division and exchange information to effectively reduce crime and solve problems within the
community located in the Southwest area of Little Rock.
Shift Supervisors will schedule their personnel so that all districts are adequately manned
and additional coverage is provided for special assignments so that supervisors can increase
patrol at designated problem areas. This would include various areas where traffic law
enforcement, loud music violations, gang activity, and vandalism may be occurring. Current
redistricting allows our supervisors the flexibility to assign additional personnel in problem areas
where criminal activity is a problem or traffic enforcement is a concern. This will take place on
January 12, 2002.
S !
Ms. Donna James, Planning & Development
January 15, 2002
Page 2
We enthusiastically encourage the neighborhood leaders in the 65"' Street Neighborhood
Action Plan to form neighborhood watch groups. By actively encouraging their neighbors to
become involved they will create an excellent way to elicit community problems and forward the
information to the Police Department. Officers frequently attend these meetings along with their
supervisors and they are outstanding ways to exchange information. For example, officers can
recommend what phone numbers should be called for various situations in an effort to promote a
more.efficient response to the individual's or neighborhood's problem. Officers from time to
time receive information about narcotics activity that had gone undetected by Police personnel.
The Southwest Substation has quarterly meetings with the citizens who live in Southwest Little
Rock and the neighborhood watch groups provide an excellent means to inform the community
when and where these meetings will take place.
Citizens are encouraged in quarterly and neighborhood meetings to contact the Police
Department's Crime Prevention Unit for security surveys. The Crime Prevention Unit personnel
are very well versed in techniques to help discourage criminal activity. This includes the new
concept called "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design."
The Officers of the Police Department who work at the Southwest Substation are hard
working Officers and do their best to provide a safe environment for the citizens, businesses and
visitors in the Southwest community of Little Rock.
LJ:pdm
Department of 701 West Markham
Public Works Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 371 -4475
Fax(501)371 -4843
MEMORANDUM
TO: DONNA JAMES, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
FROM: BOB TURNER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: 65TH STREET NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN
DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002
of
As you requested, we have reviewed the subject plan. Comments on sections relevant to
this Department follow.
Action Statement: Stop dirt and debris hauling from property adjacent to 8804
Mabelvale Pike.
Comments: Public Works has investigated this activity on more than one occasion and
does not believe it has the authority to either stop the activity or to require hauling to be
relocated to the suggested location. Our inquiries have revealed no obvious City
ordinance violations resulting from either the excavating or hauling operation. Rerouting
the hauling to the suggested area appears to require access across private property. In
short, we believe that the dirt and debris hauling operations do not run afoul of any city
ordinance and we therefore lack any authority to require another use.
Action Statement: Construct Mabelvale Pike from Forbing Road to North Chicot
Road and Chicot Road between its north and south intersections with Mabelvale Pike
with 36 foot wide roadway and sidewalks.
Comment: This work is included in Public Works' unfunded infrastructure needs
database.
Action Statement: Realign North Chicot Road and construct Carolina Drive from its
intersection with North Chicot Road to Master Street Plan standards.
Comment: This work is included in Public Works' unfunded infrastructure needs
database.
Action Statement: Construct Grace Road from Mabelvale Pike to North Chicot Road
to Master Street Plan standards.
Comment: This work is included in Public Works' unfunded infrastructure needs
database.
•
Action Statement: Take responsibility for cleaning Young Creek from Mabelvale
Pike north to Fourche Creek.
Comment: Young Creek is on Public Works' major ditch maintenance list and is cut
and sprayed annually and then more extensive maintenance is performed every 2 -3 years.
Action Statement: Identify the reason for standing water in Pin Oak Ditch and correct
the problem.
Comment: Public Works will look into this to determine if a utility leak is causing the
standing water and will contact the utility if a leak is found.
Action Statement: Conduct a study to determine feasibility of long -term solutions to
Young Creek drainage problems.
Comment: Young Creek drainage improvements are on the City's unfunded
infrastructure needs database.
Action Statement: Maintain a bi- yearly maintenance schedule of all drainage ditches
within the City of Little Rock.
Comment: Funding and crew limitations do not allow maintenance of all ditches
every two years. However, Public Works maintains a "Major Ditch Maintenance List"
and attempts to perform major maintenance on all these ditches every 2 -3 years. Most
ditches, whether on the major list or not, are cut and sprayed annually. Smaller ditches
are maintained when calls are received asking for maintenance.
Action Statement: Replace "off set" culvert box at North Chicot and Carolina Drive.
Comment: This work is on the City's unfunded infrastructure needs database.
Action Statement: Perform yearly cleaning of ditch behind homes on Grace Drive.
Comment: This ditch is not on the Major Ditch Maintenance list but is cleaned and
sprayed annually.
Action Statement: Correct drainage problems near 20 Sheraton Drive.
Comment: It is not clear from the action statement what the problem may be. Public
Works will investigate the matter further.
Action Statement: Improve solid waste collection in the area and yard waste
collection is not performed on a timely manner when pick up calls are made.
Comment: Public Works is not aware of persistent service problems in this area.
Persons not receiving garbage service should call 888 -2208. Because of a higher -than-
normal volume of calls, city crews have been working overtime and yard waste
collections have been somewhat slower than usual.
Action Statement: Adjust the Traffic signal on University at Forbing to provide for a
left turn onto Forbing for north bound travel on University when a train is crossing
Forbing.
Comment: The light has been corrected to allow this turn.
Please contact me if you have any further questions.