Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBirchwood-Walnut_Valley_Plan Birchwood – Walnut Valley Neighborhood Plan The Committee Doris Abbey Darrell Bryant Phil Burch Sandra Dillon Sean Dunbar Rosemary Griffith Donna Hartsfield Buzz Holbrooks Russell Lemond Kathy Lewison Rich Livdahl Pat Racop Betty Scull Louis and Shirley Walker Bill Waller Edwin Don Wamble Becky Weaver Bob and Beth West Jeff Yates Staff: Walter Malone TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE The Neighborhood Plan Process ………………………………………………………. 1 Transportation ……………………………………………… 1 Open Space and Recreation ………………………………... 2 Commercial Redevelopment ………………………………. 2 Neighborhood Quality ……………………………………… 2 Infrastructure ………………………………………………. 3 Background Information Area Boundaries ……………………………………………. I Population …………………………………………………… I Circulation Streets …………………………………………………. II Bike Plan ……………………………………………… II Bus Routes ……………………………………………. II Master Parks Plan …………...……………………………... III Proposed Land Use Plan ……………………………………. III Zoning ………………………………………………………... IV Survey Results General ………………………………………………………. V Infrastructure ……………………………………………….. V Traffic ………………………………………………………… VI Schools ………………………………………………………... VI Housing ……………………………………………………….. VI Zoning ………………………………………………………… VI Parks and Recreation ………………………………………... VI Crime …………………………………………………………. VII Neighborhood Life …………………………………………… VII Demographics ………………………………………………… VII APPENDIX Infrastructure Needs Identified i Birchwood-Walnut Valley Neighborhoods Plan Process: In April 2002, an organizational and informational meeting was held to start the neighborhood plan effort. Households who responded to the Fall 2001 survey of some 4400 households and businesses were invited. (Note: the response rate to the mail survey was approximately 10.5 percent.) Approximately a dozen households decided to continue involvement with developing a plan. The group of residents while small did comprise all geographic areas with the Plan area. After five months the group prepared a draft plan and distributed it to neighborhood organizations within their planning area for comment. Based on the survey many in the area having positive feelings about the current conditions with many more choosing not to respond at all. The group working on the plan found that for those issues which are concerns, a solution often seemed realistically not possible (such as the traffic concerns on Shackleford or Green Mountain). However there are some things which can and should be addressed within and for the area, the following items are achievable and will help build on the positives while mitigating at least some of the negatives. Transportation: Goal Statement: Improve the flow of vehicles in and through the neighborhood to reduce negative impacts to area residents. Action Statements: • Monitor the Immanuel Baptist Church access on Breckenridge Drive to assure that it is not used as a cut through (by-passing two all way stops) and negatively impacting residential property owners along Kings Mountain Drive. • From Immanuel Baptist Church ban right-turns onto Shackleford Road and left-turns onto Breckenridge Drive to reduce the impact on the existing Walnut Valley residential neighborhood. (Alternative, have the bans limited to Sundays and Wednesday nights, and any other ‘high-activity’ nights, to be defined later) • Enforce the “No Through Trucks” requirements on Shackleford Road and Green Mountain Drive. 1 • Assure that good north-south connections are established from Cantrell Road to Markham/Chenal Parkway such that the Walnut Valley area is not further negatively impacted by north-south traffic. • Install Bike lanes along St. Charles Boulevard from Hinson Road to Green Mountain Drive and Green Mountain Drive from Mara Lynn to Rainwood Road. • Install lane delineators (bollards) between the opposing left-turn lanes on Shackleford Road for Birchwood and I-630. • Enforce the “No Blocking Street Intersections” through out the area (such as Birchwood Drive, Aspen Drive). • Re-stripe the Shackleford Road – I-630 intersection to better delineate the left turn movements, Birchwood Drive left with left turn guiding markings through the intersection and Birchwood Drive intersection. • Sign Birchwood Drive as a right turn only on to Shackleford Road. • Bring Mara Lynn up to standard, three lanes wide. • Enforce Stop Signs and speed limits throughout the neighborhood (i.e. Green Mountain) Open Space and Recreation: Goal Statement: Retain open space and green areas throughout the neighborhoods with non-vehicular connections. Action Statements: • With the loss of 20 acres of green space, preserve the existing pockets of green space in the neighborhood such as the green belt along Grassy Flat Creek, Nature Trail area around Terry Elementary and the wooded area north of Mara Lynn. • Develop a trail system along Rock Creek connecting Birchwood Park with City owned parkland at the northwest corner of Bowman Road and Markham, where possible include other existing open ‘green area’ along Rock Creek. • Develop a Fitness Trail on the property owned by the City at the northwest corner of Bowman Road and Markham. • Install Bike lanes along St. Charles Boulevard from Hinson Road to Green Mountain Drive and Green Mountain Drive from Mara Lynn to Rainwood Road. 2 Commercial Redevelopment (Land Use): Goal Statement: Maintain and reinvigorate existing retail areas to provide active retail for local residents. Action Statements: • The K-mart shopping center (if K-Mart moves out) should remain retail use. A change to office or multi-family use will change the existing traffic patterns. This, with other changes, would have a significant negative impact on the area. • The Mega-Market - Wilson’s Center should be filled with retail activities, which prevent the area from being used for negative purposes. Neighborhood Quality: Goal Statement: Preserve the welcoming attractive neighborhood where current residents are proud to live and others wish to reside. Action Statements: • Clean-up and maintain the Barksdale right-of-way south of K-Mart to provide a positive green space for the area and to prevent this from being an eyesore and ‘hang out’ by removing the asphalt and planting the area. • Increase efforts of the Neighborhood Associations and Property Owners Associations to talk and work together on issues through out the area. • Maintain the hillside along Markham west of Shackleford Road. 3 Infrastructure: Goal Statement: Maintain the public rights-of-way and streets to assure safe and pleasurable use. Action Statements: • Need to increase maintenance activity on streets, sidewalks and drainage ways through out the area (i.e. potholes, rutted streets, over grown sidewalks, and drainage ways). • Bring all streets up to standard (i.e. middle section of Mara Lynn). • Reclaim the sidewalks along the north side of Mara Lynn west of Terry Elementary School and if necessary take measures to prevent the sidewalk from becoming ‘overgrown’ and covered with earth and vegetation. 4 Background Information Area Boundaries: The Birchwood -- Walnut Valley Plan Area is located in west Little Rock and is bounded by I-430 on the East; Rodney Parham and Hinson Roads on the North; Napa Valley and Bowman Roads (connected by Mara Lynn Road) on the West; and Kanis Road on the South. The Area is comprised of (2000) Census Tract 22.05, Blocks Groups 1 through 6 and Census Tract 24.04, Block Group 1. The Area lies in Township 2 North, Range 13 West, and fills most of Section 33 and parts of Sections 3, 4, and 34. Portions of Planning Districts 2 (Rodney Parham) and 11 (I-430) comprise this Area, which contains approximately 1,459 acres. (More than two-thirds of this acreage is found in the portion of the Area north of Mara Lynn Road.) Population: The 1990 Census listed the Area’s population at 7,218. The 2000 Census showed the Area to have grown to 8,677 persons, an increase of 1,459 (approx. 20%). A large majority of this growth (94%) can be attributed to an increase in the Area’s minority population. The Area’s White population increased about 1.5 percent from 1990 to 2000 (from 6,319 to 6,410 persons). But the Area’s Black population more than doubled (from 638 to 1499 persons). And persons claiming descent from other races, or more than one race, more than quintupled (from 170 to 859 persons.) Of these persons, 505 (approx. 58%) were of Asian descent. One-sixth (about 17%) of the City’s Asian population resides in the Walnut Valley Area. Race s in St u d y Ar e a - 1990 (pop . 7,218) Black 9% Oth e r 2% Wh i te 89% Race s in Study Ar e a - 2000 (p o p. 8,677) Black 17% Oth e r 10% Wh i te 73% Also of note is the increase in the Area’s Hispanic population, from 53 persons in 1990 to 309 persons in 2000. More than half (176) of these live in Census Tract 22.05, Block Group 6. This is the portion of the Study Area between Shackelford and Bowman Roads and between West Markham Street and Mara Lynn Road. I According to the 2000 Census, the study area contains about 4.74 percent of the total population of the City of Little Rock. Both Censuses showed most of the Area’s population to be concentrated in the portion of the Area north of West Markham Street (90% in 1990 and 93% in 2000). The 1990 Census showed 4,098 occupied housing units in the Area. The 2000 Census reported 4,436 households within the Area. This is an 8.2 percent increase in the number of households. These figures represent an increase in average household size from 1.76 persons per household in 1990 to 1.96 persons per household in 2000. Circulation: Streets – The street system is a modified grid using a curvilinear pattern. The system requires the use of collectors to get around the neighborhood. The area is surrounded by arterials making access of other sections of Little Rock more convenient. Arterials are designed to provide access through and around the urban area. Markham and Rodney Parham Road provide east-west connectivity. Both of these streets are classified as minor arterials. Bowman Road provides north-south (with Hinson Road) connectivity. One major circulation issue that affects the neighborhood is the north-south route, Shackleford Road. This road is an arterial to the south but a collector through the neighborhood. With the development pattern at Rodney Parham and Shackleford Roads and the southern connection as an arterial has resulted in Shackleford Road having an arterial ‘like’ traffic pattern. In the more commercial and multifamily north, one can find numerous collectors to help move traffic. They include: Rain Tree, Hinson Loop Road, Green Mountain Road, Merrill Drive, Shackleford Road and Breckenridge Road. In the more single-family south, one can find Green Mountain Road, Shackleford Road, St. Charles Boulevard and Mara Lynn. Bike Plan – The bicycle section of the Master Street Plan proposes a system of bikeways, lanes and routes. There are two such pathways shown which pass through this neighborhood. A Class I, Bikeway, is proposed to be located along Grassy Flat Creek. This would link Pleasant Valley to the north and the I-630 Trail to the south. A Bikeway is a right-of-way for bicycles, which is independent of the vehicular right-of-way. The second trail is a Class III, Bike Route. This path moves through the Birchwood area as a continuation of the I-630 Trail. Bus Routes – There are two bus routes, which touch the neighborhood. Route #8, Rodney Parham, moves along Rodney Parham as far west as Green Mountain Road before returning back to Rodney Parham and on to downtown. Route #5, West Markham, moves along Markham to Chenal Parkway before returning to Markham (via Shackleford Road) and on to downtown. Both of these routes pass through Hillcrest, passing near the State Capitol and Medical Center areas before arriving at the downtown transfer station. II Master Parks Plan: Three of the principles that the City of Little Rock Master Parks Plan is built on affect this neighborhood. One is the Greenbelt concept. Under this concept the Plan calls for a green belt along Grassy Flat Creek, which moves through the northern section of the neighborhood. This green belt can be used to provide recreational connections through the City as well as providing open space for the public’s enjoyment. The green belt would be a local connector to the three-trail loop proposed by the Plan – Earth Trail (Fourche Creek), Edge Trail – Arkansas River, Extreme Trail (ridges of western Pulaski County). The second concept is the 8-Block rule. This is where there would be an open space and/or recreational area within 8 blocks no matter where one was. The Plan calls for partnering with various organizations to achieve this goal, such as schools, churches, and others. There is only one public park in the area, Birchwood Park, which services the southern area well. If one considers the Terry Elementary play area and Walnut Valley Property Owners Park as serving to address the Plan’s recommendations, then the rest of the neighborhood is served using this rule. A third important concept with direct impact in this area is the urban forest goal. This goal proposes to plant trees in street rights-of way and manage open spaces to enhance a healthy urban forest and reduce fire hazards. And finally the proposal to upgrade five parks a year should help address some of the concerns expressed by those who responded to the survey. Proposed Land Use: The City’s Future Land Use Plan reflects a variety of considerations that influence the use of land. These include, but are not limited too, existing land use and zoning, current streets, the Master Street Plan, and Master Parks Plan. The Future Land Use Plan strives to ideally represent the best possible arrangement of land uses. The Study Area contains approximately 1,459 acres. (More than two-thirds of this acreage is found in the portion of the Area north of Mara Lynn Road.) The City of Little Rock has 22 Future Land Use Classifications, and nine of those are represented in the Walnut Valley Plan Area. A majority of the Area’s Future Land Use Plan (52%) is designated for Single Family use. (An additional one percent is classified for Low- Density Residential uses.) Approximately 11 percent of the Plan Area is designated for Multi-Family use. Commercial and Office categories (O, C, MOC, and CS) make up about one-third of the Area’s Future Land Use Plan. About 2 percent of the Area is reserved for Public / Institutional uses. Less than one percent of the Area’s Future Land Use Plan is designated for Parks / Open Space. A review of Planning Commission records shows no changes to the Area’s Future Land Use Plan through 1990. III Zoning: Zoning is the most common means of land use control employed by municipal governments in the United States. Zoning divides the community into districts and imposes different land use controls on each district. Zoning differs from the Future Land Use Plan in so far as zoning represents the land uses that are currently legally permissible in an area. The Future Land Use Plan represents a “perfect world” of land use arrangements. The City of Little Rock has 30 zoning classifications. The Study Area contains 18 zoning classifications; of which R-2 (conventional single family) is the largest, 45 percent of the area has single-family zoning. Multi-family, commercial, and office zones are found clustered around the Area’s primary roadways. Multi-family zones R4, R5, MF-18, MF-24, and PDR are included in the Area. A total of 13 percent of the Area is classified as one of these districts. Commercial zones represented in the Area include C1, C2, C3, C4, and PDC. Twenty-nine (29) percent of the Area is one of these commercial districts. Office zones in the Area are O1, O2, O3, and PDO. A total of 13 percent of the Area is zoned some form of office. Mixed uses are found in zones PRD, PCD, and POD. Less than ten acres are currently zoned as Open Space. Zoning in Ar e a Co mme r c i a l 29% Mult i-Family 13% Office 13% Single Family 45% IV Survey Results In October of 2001, 4,400 surveys were mailed to the area and 463 were returned to the Department of Planning and Development by the requested date of October 30, 2001. This represents a 10.5 percent response rate and is comparable to previous surveys conducted by the Department. Once the surveys were received, city staff coded the forms and entered the responses into a computer database. The coding sheets were spot checked against randomly selected survey forms. Any errors were corrected and two additional surveys were pulled to check for accuracy. As with most other surveys conducted in association with the neighborhood plan process, a hundred percent survey was done of the residents. A ten percent response rate provides a good picture of the needs and desires within the neighborhoods. The survey identified concerns of the study area, which could be addressed and suggested remedies and/or steps to alleviate the negative impacts. Overall survey statistics for the Birchwood – Walnut Valley Planning Area are presented below: General: The respondents appear to have a positive opinion of their area. Almost 88 percent of the respondents agree or strongly agree that their area is a good and safe neighborhood in which to live and work. Forty percent of the respondents are neutral on the statement that the neighborhood is continually improving, with almost 18 percent stating that the neighborhood is not improving. This indicates an area where the future growth and desirability are no longer a certainty. Most residents do believe that the area has many positive aspects. Fifty-five percent state that the ability to walk from home to shopping, schools, churches and other activities is important. Eighty-five percent polled support the local businesses and merchants. While a majority feels that the neighborhood is not improving, over 90 percent feel that the character and image of the area should be protected and preserved. When asked to name one business the respondent would add to the neighborhood; the answers given most are: no new businesses, grocery stores, and restaurants. Infrastructure: Residents generally feel that the infrastructure (streets, water, sewer) is in good condition within their area. Over 75 percent of the respondents feel that the condition of the streets and curbs in their area is generally good and almost 83 percent feel that the water lines are well maintained in their areas. While almost 56 percent of those polled have sidewalks in their neighborhood, 56 percent also are not willing to pay for sidewalk installation or repair (they are not necessarily the same persons). Over 78 percent feel that the trash and recycling pick up is adequate and 58 percent feel that residents should be required by the city to remove the green trash containers from the street after trash pick up. When asked to identify streets that are not in good condition; the top three answers are: Mara Lynn – potholes, Green Mountain Drive – potholes, and Autumn Road V – potholes. When asked to identify the location of drainage problems, the top three answers are: near Fox Run Apartments, in front of Kroger, and Green Mountain Drive. Traffic: As in most of Little Rock, respondents have some concerns about the traffic conditions in and around their area. Less than half of the respondents (49%) feel that the police presence in their area is adequate to enforce the traffic rules, which also reflects the 69.5 percent that feel that excessive speeding and too much traffic are problems in their area. Almost 70 percent feel that parking for the area businesses is adequate. When asked to identify the location of traffic speed problems, the top three answers are: Green Mountain Drive, Shackleford and Birchwood. Schools: The majority of the respondents answered the questions concerning schools as ‘neutral’. This could in part be related to the almost 80 percent of the respondents who do not have school aged children. (See demographics section.) Housing: As seen by earlier responses the area is perceived as good but with some underlying concerns. One is the need to maintain the quality of homes in the area. Almost 43 percent feel that stricter property maintenance standards should be developed and enforced in their area, but only about 30 percent feel that an economic hardship program should be developed to assist disadvantaged homeowners in maintaining their property. Sixty-two percent feel that the city’s rental inspection program is important. When asked to identify the impacts of multi-family housing in their area, the top three answers are: increased traffic volume, property values, and improves local commerce. Zoning: The responses to the land use/ zoning question show that residents do not want their area to change in character or use. The majority of the respondents feel that converting single- family homes from residential to other uses (65%) and combining building uses where people live above stores (42%) are not acceptable practices. A majority was also neutral (47%) on the statement that residents have enough say in the location of late-hour retail businesses in their neighborhood, with 38 percent feeling they don’t have enough say. Parks and Recreation: Almost 45 percent of the respondents feel that their area does not have adequate park facilities. Thirty-three percent feel that the parks are safe and well maintained, while almost 44 percent are neutral on this issue. (This may be because many do not feel they have any park facilities.) Sixty-five percent of the respondents agree that streets, parks and pathways need to be more pedestrian friendly, while still accommodating vehicles. VI When asked what improvements are needed in the area’s parks, the top three answers are: better lighting, better maintenance, and new equipment. Crime: Crime in general is not considered to be a problem by most residents of the area. Over 50 percent of the respondents feel that the lighting on the area streets is adequate to deter crime. When asked if the police patrols are regular enough to deter street crime, over 36 percent stated that more patrols are needed and 32 percent were neutral. Most feel that loitering (49%) and drug activity (48%) are not problems in the area. When asked what areas are potential for various types of crimes, the top three answers are: apartment complexes, convenience stores, and parks. Neighborhood Life: When asked what attracted the respondent to the neighborhood, the top three answers are: convenience/proximity, quiet/safe, and affordable homes. When asked what does the respondent like most about the neighborhood; the first two answers from the first question are repeated and 'friendly neighbors' is the third answer. When asked what one thing needed to be changed in the neighborhood, the top three answers are: less traffic/speeding, more sidewalks, more green areas/parks. Demographics: The majority of the respondents (63%) are age 41 and over and female (56%). Almost 71 percent of the respondents own their residents and have lived in the neighborhood on an average of 9.2 years. Also a very high percentage of the respondents do not have school- aged children in the residence (79%). VII APPENDIX: Identified Infrastructure Needs II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII