Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHeightsHeights Neighborhood Action Plan April 2003 Neighborhood Associations Prospect Terrace Neighborhood Association Heights Neighborhood Association Forest Park Neighborhood Association Steering Committee Joe & Patricia Finch Jr. Norman Hodges Judy Belford Nancy Blair Jim & Kathy Johnson Myra Jones Paul Ward Rick Kreth Thomas Reinhart Jane Jesclard Ellen Gray Margaret Edelmann Frances Ross Laura Stanley Caroline Stevenson Richard H Fleming Elizabeth Gunn Joel Mroczkowski Larry Preston Mallory W Crank John Joyce Ginger Murray McEntire Planning and Development Brian Minyard Vince Hustead Page 1 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 2 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS: 3 PREFACE 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 Introduction 5 History 5 Existing Land Use 5 Zoning and Future Land Use 6 Infrastructure 7 Circulation 7 Parks and Open Spaces 8 Existing Housing 9 Topography 10 Crime 10 Socio-economic conditions 11 Population 11 Race 11 Age 12 Income 12 SURVEY 13 Analysis 13 Tabular Results 19 Copy of Survey 21 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTION STATEMENTS 23 Housing 23 Zoning 24 Future Land Use 24 Parks and Recreation 25 Infrastructure 27 Infrastructure Rankings 31 MAPS 47 Existing Land Use 47 Future Land Use 49 Existing Zoning 51 Master Street Plan 53 Census Tracts 55 Letters of Support and Comments 59 Page 3 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan PREFACE In the Spring of 2002, city staff contacted the Neighborhood Associations of Prospect Terrace Neighborhood Association, Heights Neighborhood Association, and Forest Park Neighborhood Association to develop the Heights Neighborhood Action Plan. A mail survey was conducted with a mass mailing to 2500 area residents in July 2002. That survey had a 26% return rate. The first public meeting was held on September 30, 2002 to discuss whether the residents wanted to draft a Neighborhood action Plan. Informational meetings were held from October 2002 to March 2003 to draft the neighborhood action plan. In April 2003, a meeting was held to approve and make final adjustments to the plan. Major concerns expressed by the review steering committee were: • The issue of accessory dwellings in their area. • The repair work done by contractors and both public and private utility companies when streets are cuts • The drainage problems in the entire neighborhood, but not limited to: open ditches, lack of continuous maintenance and cleaning of existing drains and standing water • Implementation of a “Heights Trail” as a linear park The following plan is the result of the meetings held. Page 4 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS INTRODUCTION The boundaries for the study area include an area of the city from the Little Rock Country Club and Allsopp Park in the east to Cammack Village, McKinley Street, and University Avenue in the west. The area in between stretches from the Little Rock & Western Railroad to the north down to Allsopp Park Road, Lookout Street, “L” Street and Evergreen Street in the south. The Heights Study area is a developed, predominately residential area. Most of the non-residential activity is located on Kavanaugh Boulevard from Cantrell Road to University Avenue. The topography of The area includes a steep slope at the northern boundary and Cantrell Hill along the edges of the eastern boundary. Most of the study area is a level plain north of Cantrell Road. The Arkansas River lies just outside the northern boundary. The numbers 1,2 3 and 4 refer to the survey study areas. See the section on Surveys for a complete analysis of the survey. HISTORY Pulaski Heights, consisting of the current Heights and Hillcrest areas, was chartered in 1891. Little Rock’s first suburb, Pulaski Heights catered to affluent families who could afford a horse and buggy for transport to and from town. The area offered superb views from a lofty 300 feet above Little Rock, providing freedom from the heat, insects, and disease of the city. This and early draws like the Little Rock Country Club, who developed their current location in 1901, brought many families to live there. But, real growth did not start until 1903 when the first streetcars began service to the area. By 1905, when Pulaski Heights incorporated, 400 people already called it their home. Growth continued as attractions such as Forest Park, the most popular park of its day, and Mount St. Mary’s Academy brought more and more people to the area. Finally, the City of Little Rock struck a deal with Pulaski Heights offering fire and police protection, garbage pickup, and street maintenance in exchange for incorporation. In 1916 the town of Pulaski Heights, population 4500, became the ninth ward of the City of Little Rock. EXISTING LAND USE Single-family detached units dominate the study area. Most of the multi-family and low-density residential uses are located along Pierce Street between Evergreen and “O” Streets. Crestwood Manor is located next to Allsopp Park on Lookout Drive. Page 5 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan There are many public institutional uses including churches, schools, and a post office. Prospect Terrace Park, Allsopp Park, Little Rock Country Club, and two open areas on Scenic Boulevard and Garfield Street are areas of parks or open space. Most of the non-residential activity has concentrated in an area bounded by Kavanaugh Boulevard on the north and east, Cantrell Road, and University Avenue. A large area of office and multi- family uses are located on University Avenue between Evergreen and “O” Streets. ZONING AND LAND USE The zoning in The Heights area is predominantly residential with 98.6% of the area zoned as R2, or PRD. Of the 1887 residential buildings in the area, 1881 are classified as single-family homes. The Little Rock Country Club is shown as an R-2 Single Family with a Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.). Other residential zoning is reflective of the high density residential developments located along Pierce Street between Evergreen and “O” Streets (R-4, R-5, MF-12, and PRD), the apartments on Kavanaugh Boulevard (R-5), and the houses on St. John’s Place (PRD). The St. John’s Seminary is zoned R-2 with a Conditional Use Permit for dormitory style housing. The City of Little Rock Department of Housing and Neighborhood Programs reports that in the Heights Areas there have been 21 single-family rental units, five (5) two-unit (duplexes), and one multi-family consisting of seven units inspected in their rental property inspection program. 90% of the single-family units, 99% of the duplexes, and 100% of the multi-family unites inspected were found in compliance to code. A second round of inspection is due for those units not found in compliance. Non-residential office and commercial space occupies a small only 1.4% of the study area concentrated in the Heights Commercial District in the southwest corner. A small pocket of land on Normandy Road is the only open space (OS) zoning located in the study area. Properties zoned for office development are located on University Avenue at Evergreen and “O” Streets (O-3). Smaller properties zoned for offices are also found in the 10-block business district located between Cantrell Road and Kavanaugh Boulevard (O-1, O-3, and POD). Properties zoned for commercial development are located in an area bounded by Kavanaugh Boulevard, University Avenue, Polk Street and Cantrell Road (C-3, C-4, and PCD). These properties form the core of the Heights neighborhood business district. A smaller group of businesses are located further east on Kavanaugh Boulevard between Harrison Street and Cantrell Road (C-3, C-4, and PCD). There is no industrial zoning in the study area. Within the plan area there is one fire station and one post office as well as three homes recognized by the state preservation office, AHPP, as National Register Properties. Nearby there is a public library and three public schools: an elementary, a junior high, and a high school. To the north is Rebsamen Park and to the southeast is Alsopp Park. Prospect Terrace Park, Allsopp Park, and two open areas scattered through the Heights are zoned PR (Parks and Recreation). Page 6 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 01 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 New House Starts "Replacement" House Starts In recent years the area has witnessed a steady rate of reinvestment and renewal with over $57 million spent on additions (283 permits) and renovations (420 permits) between 1990 and 2000. 104 new building permits were issued during the same period. Of the 90 permits classified as single-family residential, the average construction cost was $310,353, nearly twice the citywide average of $161,629. During the 90’s another trend arose where a demolition permit would be issued for an existing single-family home, then a few months later a building construction permit for a new single-family home would be issued for the same address. The average construction cost for these new “replacement” houses was $417,131, over 34% higher than the average new construction cost in the area. This trend peaked in 1998 with six (6) different occurrences, but has since dwindled. INFRASTRUCTURE Little Rock Wastewater reports that in the first five (5) months of 2001, the Heights area had eight (8) instances of overflow and twenty-four (24) line blockages. Excessive rain and roots or rocks clogging a line caused the vast majority of these problems. Central Arkansas Water reports no complaints or pressure problems in the area. But many of the lines in the area are over fifty years old and will inevitably need replacing in the future. The Little Rock Department of Public Works reports that all roads in the area are in good to fair condition with the exception of sections of Taylor, University, and V Streets where they lack a curb and gutter. Public Works also reports seven (7) localized drainage problems within the area – generally an open ditch that floods in heavy rains. CIRCULATION Most of the street system in the area is gridiron. This type system is most predominating north of Cantrell Road with an exception of the streets connecting to N. Grandview Street east of University. South of Cantrell Road the street system switches to a curvilinear pattern due to the hilly terrain in the southern part of the study area. Two Principal Arterials serve the study area: Cantrell Road and University Avenue south of Cantrell. Cantrell Road is built as a four-lane road to a modified Master Street Plan standard calling for a 70-foot wide Right-of-way (ROW). Cantrell Road also serves as State Highway 10. University Avenue is built as a four-lane road with a raised median from W. Markham Street to Cantrell Road. Kavanaugh Boulevard south of Cantrell is the sole Minor Arterial serving the study area linking W. Markham Street to Cantrell Road. The Master Street Plan lists Van Buren as having a modified Page 7 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan standard of a 70-foot ROW with a three-lane cross section. For most of its distance, Van Buren is two-lanes wide with the exceptions at major intersections where the street is three-lanes wide. There are four Collector Streets serving the study area, with the primary function of traffic collection from residential streets to arterial streets or activity centers. A secondary function of collector streets is to provide access to adjoining properties. The streets designated, as collectors are University Avenue north of Cantrell Road, Kavanaugh Boulevard from Cantrell to University, Taylor Street north of Kavanaugh, and McKinley from Cantrell to Kavanugh. The City’s Bicycle Plan shows three bikeways within the study area. The first route is a Class I Bikeway in Allsopp Park linking Lookout Drive to Kavanaugh Boulevard. A Class I Bikeway is defined in the Master Street Plan as a bicycle-only facility with a 10 – 13 feet wide paved area when built to standard. A Class II Bikeway is shown along Kavanaugh Boulevard from Van Buren Street to Pine Valley Road. A Class II Bikeway is also shown on Lookout Drive from Allsopp Park Road to the Class I Bikeway in Allsopp Park. A Class II Bikeway shares the Right-of-way with city streets and requires an additional 10 feet of paving on the street for the bike lane. There are no Class III Bikeways (defined as no additional Right-of-way or paving) shown in the study area. The Central Arkansas Transit System (CATA) provides two regularly scheduled bus routes for the area. Route 1, Pulaski Heights, operates on Monday through Saturday and serves stops located on Kavanaugh Boulevard. Route 21, University Avenue operates on Monday through Saturday and serves stops located on Cantrell Road, Kavanaugh Boulevard, and University Avenue. CATA does not provide service to the area on Sunday. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Three large parks are located in the vicinity of the Heights study area but are separated from the neighborhood due to topography and the absence of connecting streets. The 2001 Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan lists Murray Park and the Rebsamen Golf Course as Large Urban Parks of more than fifty acres designed to provide for the recreation needs of the entire city. Murray Park provides public access to the Arkansas River and large amounts of open space for recreation. Rebsamen Golf Course is a public golf course in contrast to the private golf course located at the Little Rock Country Club. However, both Murray Park and Rebsamen Golf Course are located outside the north boundary and physically separated by a steep slope and may be accessed from the neighborhood by two different circuitous routes. Rebsamen Golf Course and Murray Park are connected by the “Take it to the Edge” Trail, a system of hiking and bike trails built to link parks located along the bank of the Arkansas River. Allsopp Park is also listed as a Large Urban Park of more than fifty acres and includes facilities for tennis, basketball, and hiking. Allsopp Park is split into two different parts with the north part located inside the study area. However, the north leg of Allsopp Park is also physically separated from the study area by a hill and may be accessed by a circuitous route from Lookout Street and Allsopp Park Road. Allsopp Park may be accessed from the nature trail entrance located on Kavanaugh at Crestwood. Only one small park is located inside the study area. Prospect Terrace Park, located off Kavanaugh on “L” Street, sits at the south boundary of the study area. Prospect Terrace Park is shown as a Mini-park designed to serve the needs of the neighborhood immediately surrounding Page 8 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan the park. The Parks Master Plan does not show small-scale parks located north of Cantrell Road inside the study area. The 2001 Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan also include non-park facilities in the “Eight-block” concept. The concept states that each household in Little Rock should be within an eight-block radius of some form of park or green space amenity. An area of Open Space is located on Scenic Drive and is zoned PR (Parks and Recreation) and is shown as Park/Open Space on the Future Land Use Plan. The specific use of the property is to provide an undeveloped area for natural vegetation and wildlife. The vegetation in the Open Space area on Scenic Drive also serves to prevent soil erosion. The Parks Master Plan also considers public school facilities, such as those found at Forest Park Elementary School, as an element of the eight-block strategy of providing open space to the public. The Parks Master Plan shows the property north of the Little Rock Country Club as a Potential Recreation Opportunity, which may be further developed in the future. Although, the property owned by the Little Rock Country Club is shown as Park/Open Space on the Future Land Use Plan, the club grounds are private property and not open to the general public. EXISTING HOUSING An analysis of the 2000 Census Housing data for the Heights shows that the Heights matches the City of Little Rock in the percentage of housing units occupied by owners and renters. Throughout Little Rock, 57% of housing units are owner occupied, while 43% are renter occupied. In the Heights, 58% of housing units are owner occupied, while 42% are renter occupied. Using the drive by or “windshield” survey method, the housing units throughout the area was determined to be in satisfactory condition. The highest density of housing units is located in the southern portion of the study area. 1,967 housing units were included in the analysis, excluding housing located in Census Block 5002. 1 Heights Housing Tenure Owner Occupied 58% Renter Occupied 42% 1The Heights Study Area is divided between Census Tracts 16 and 22.01. The majority of the Heights are located in Census Tract 16. Most of Block Group 5 lies outside the study area and was subtracted from Census Tract 16. Block 5002 Group 5, Census Tract 16, covers a large portion of the study area. Block 5002 was excluded from this study since it includes a high density of housing units located outside the study area. A majority of the housing units located in Block Group 5 are located on Lilac Terrace and Tree Tops Lane where a high number of rental units are located at a very high density. Census Blocks from Census Tract 22.01 include only Census Blocks 1001, 1014 –1021, 2000 – 2003, 2013, 2016, and 2017. Page 9 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Little Rock Housing Tenure Owner Occupied 57% Renter Occupied 43% See map showing Census Blocks located in the study area in the map section of this book. TOPOGRAPHY The north part of the study area is separated from Murray and Rebsamen parks by a steep slope down from the study area to the plain of the south bank of the Arkansas River. The east side of the study area is bounded by Cantrell Hill, which wraps around from Riverfront Drive to the north to Allsopp Park Road in the south. The area known as the Heights is separated from the Hillcrest area by the low-lying area at Allsopp Park. To the west, Cantrell Road follows a ridgeline, after crossing University Avenue in an indentation, from the Heights to the business area located at the intersection of Mississippi Street. The heart of the Heights study area is a broad level plain conducive to a grid street pattern from the top of Cantrell Hill to McKinley Street. The Arkansas River floodplain, located outside the boundaries of the study area, is located at the bottom of the hill at Palisades Drive and Scenic Boulevard. CRIME 0 20 40 60 80 100 2000 2001 Rape and Sexual MisconductRobbery Assualt Burglary General Larceny Vehicle Theft Drug Related Crimes Traffic Accidents Alcohol Related In the first six (6) months of 2001 there were 529 reported offences filed in the Heights area. These reports consisted of 77 different types of offences ranging from a request for information to aggravated assault. Because more than one type of offence might be reported for the same incident, these numbers don’t perfectly reflect the frequency of crime in the area. The crime statistics for the first half of 2001 shows very little change from the corresponding half of 2000 with the one exception of a drastic (75%) reduction of traffic accidents. Page 10 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS POPULATION2 The combined population in the study area for the year 2000 population was approximately 5,028 residents while the population of the City of Little Rock was 183,133. RACE3 The 2000 Census showed that Whites made up the majority of residents living in the Heights with a 99% majority, with 4,382 residents. Of the remaining 1% of the Heights population, 101 residents claimed African American decent, 63 residents claimed Asian decent, 7 residents claimed American Indian decent, while 18 residents claimed Some Other race. The census showed that 33 residents claimed two or more races. Heights Race Wh i t e s 99% All Ot hers 1% Percentage of Other Races in Heights Asian Alone 31% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 3% Black or African American Alone 50% Two or more 16% As a whole, the 2000 Census showed more racial diversity for the City of Little Rock with 100,848 Whites (55%), 74,003 African Americans (40%). The remaining 5% of the population consisted of 3,032 Asian decent, 500 American Indian and Alaska Native, 64 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 2,348 responses for Some Other race, and 2,338 responses for Two or more races. City of Little Rock Races White Alone 55% All Others 5% Black or African American Alone 40% Percentage of All Other Races Citywide Asian 37% Two or more races 28% American Indian and Alaska Native 6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 1% Some Other Race 28% 2The Heights is divided between Census Tracts 16 and 22.01. The majority of the Heights are located in Census Tract 16. Most of Block Group 5 lies outside the study area and was subtracted from Census Tract 16. Block 5002 Group 5, Census Tract 16, covers a large portion of the study area. Block 5002 was excluded from this study since it includes a high density of housing units located outside the study area. A majority of the population living in Block Group 5 is located on Lilac Terrace and Tree Tops Lane where a high number of rental units are located at a very high density. Census Blocks from Census Tract 22.01 include only Census Blocks 1001, 1014 –1021, 2000 – 2003, 2013, 2016, and 2017. 3About 424 residents did not respond to questions about race. Page 11 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan AGE4 An analysis of the 2000 Census data on Age reveals that the age of residents in the Heights did not differ greatly from the citywide percentages. The data revealed that persons ages 18-64 made up 63% of the citywide population with 116,571 residents. The number of residents in the Heights ages 18-64 made up 62% of the population with approximately 3,140 residents. Persons in the less than the age of 18 citywide made up 25% of the population with 45,235 residents. Persons in the less than the age of 18 made up 21% of the population with about 1,036 residents. Persons over the age of 65 citywide consisted of 12% of the population with 21,327 residents. In the Heights, persons over the age of 65 consisted of 17% of the population with around 852 residents. Overall, the Heights varies from the citywide percentages with a 3% higher percentage of persons aged 65 and over balanced out with a 3% lower percentage of persons aged 18 and less. Age of He ights Re s ide nts 19 to 64 78% 18 and les s 10% 65 and over 12% Age of Little Rock Re s ide nts 19 to 64 63% 18 and les s 25% 65 and ov er 12% INCOME5 Annual household income data from the 2000 census are not yet available at the Census Tract level. The available data at the time of the plan was written provides the annual income data for the City of Little Rock. The annual household income ranges included in the 2000 census range from less than $10,000 to over $150,000. The percentages of the Household Annual Income data for Little Rock can be broken into three categories with 63% making less than $50,000, 26% making between $50,000 and $100,000, while 12% make more than $100,000. In 1989 the average household income of the area was approximately $49,000, a full 54% higher than the citywide average of $26,889 in the same year. 4The Heights is divided between Census Tracts 16 and 22.01. The majority of the Heights are located in Census Tract 16. Most of Block Group 5 lies outside the study area and was subtracted from Census Tract 16. Block 5002 Group 5, Census Tract 16, covers a large portion of the study area. Block 5002 was excluded from this study since it includes a high density of housing units located outside the study area. A majority of the population living in Block Group 5 is located on Lilac Terrace and Tree Tops Lane where a high number of rental units are located at a very high density. Census Blocks from Census Tract 22.01 include only Census Blocks 1001, 1014 –1021, 2000 – 2003, 2013, 2016, and 2017. 5 The latest information available concerning income for the 2000 Census is based on a 1999 estimate. All percentages are rounded to the nearest percent. Page 12 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Mail Survey Results QUESTIONNAIRE METHODOLOGY The survey forms used by the City of Little Rock were a refinement of previous neighborhood surveys. A saturation mailing was performed with addresses obtained from the GIS system. Surveys were mailed along with a letter explaining the planning process, a card to return to state that a person wanted to be on the committee and a postage paid return envelope. Of the 2500 surveys mailed, 655 were returned to the city by September 1, 2002. City staff coded the forms and entered the answers into a computer database. The spreadsheet was spot-checked against randomly selected survey forms. Any errors were corrected and two additional surveys were pulled to check. The 26.2% percent return rate provides a good response for a mail survey and should provide a good representation of the study area. The survey was conducted to identify concerns and problems so that they could be addressed with suggested remedies and/or steps to lessen the negative impacts. Overall statistics for the Heights area will be presented by topic. For the remainder of this section, all percentages noted have been rounded down to the nearest whole number unless carried out to tenth of a percent. Numbers may not add up to 100% because of this rounding. This also applies if two categories have been added together. All percentages hereafter refer to respondents of the survey, not actual residents. GENERAL More than 95% polled agree or strongly agree (a/sa) to questions that state that the Heights is a good and safe place to live, work. 76% stated that the ability to walk from home to shopping, schools, church, etc. was important. Area 3 agreed slightly more (84%) than the overall, but it should be noted that most of the shopping is in or adjacent to Area 3. 93% believes (a/sa) that the Heights supports its local businesses and merchants and 79% agree or strongly agree that the neighborhood is continually improving. Area 1 (60%) and those identifying as renters (50%) believes less strong that the neighborhood is continually improving. The responses to the “one businesses that you would add” are a discount store, ice cream/yogurt shop and a variety store (in that order). INFRASTRUCTURE On the condition of streets, answers were fairly uniform. 57% agree or strongly agree that street conditions are generally good. 94% agree or are neutral on the topic of whether water lines are well maintained. 43%, overall, stated that they have sidewalks in their neighborhoods. Respondents were against (52%) or neutral (23%) as to paying for sidewalk improvements, with a smaller amount, 25%, willing to pay. 37% agree (a/sa) that some drainage problems occur on their block. Most (82%) agree (a/sa) that trash and recycling service is adequate and most (56%) believe (a/sa) residents should be required to remove the green trash containers from the street. Infrastructure had two open ended questions. The responses to “streets that are not in good condition” were Kavanaugh, Hawthorne, Pierce and Grant (in that order). The responses to “identify the location of drainage problems” were Kavanaugh, Hawthorne, Stonewall and Beechwood (in that order). Page 13 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan TRAFFIC Generally, about half of the respondents believe that police presence is adequate in the neighborhood, but that there are problems with speeding and too much traffic. 49% of people say traffic-calming devices to reduce speeding are a good idea while 22% are neutral and 27% disagree (d/sd). Of those people identifying as business owners, 38% agree (a/sa), a drop of 12% from the overall. 46% of respondents say parking for businesses is adequate and only 27% say that it is not. 53% of the people responding state the CATA bus stops and routes adequately serve the area. However, of those identifying as renters, only 41% believe that the coverage is adequate. On the topic of excessive speeding, there was a split with 50% of people say that many streets suffer from it while the neutral and disagree (d/sd) are combined to 50% of the responses. Respondents from area 2 (58%) felt more strongly and those in area 4 (41%) felt less strong than the overall. The responses to “locations where traffic problems occur” were Kavanaugh, Cantrell, Taylor and University (in that order). SCHOOLS Slightly more than half (41% agree and 12% strongly agree) said that school buildings are well maintained. 65% of the respondents thought that a partnership of business and residents would benefit the schools while only 1% did not agree. The respondents were neutral on the positions that traffic was congested around the school (52%). 27% of people in Area 2, the location of the public school, stated that there was congestion there versus 18% overall. Truancy is a not a problem (2% a/sa overall versus 0.8% in area 2). HOUSING Respondents were generally in favor (34% a/sa) or neutral (35%) on stricter standards for maintenance of housing. The concept of a program to assist economically disadvantaged homeowners gained 25% agree and strongly agree while 40% disagreed (d/sd). Of note, 41% of the renters and 35% of the people in Area 1 agreed with the statement, while 48% of the people in Area 3 disagreed (d/sd) with the statement. The statement of allowing existing homes to be torn down and replaced with larger homes having a positive impact on the neighborhood was supported by 42% of the respondents. Each area was unique in its support or non-support. Areas 1 and 4 are at opposite ends of the spectrum with the most people in are 1 disagreeing (d/sd) and the people in area 4 agreeing (a/sa). The following chart shows the differences. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Overall 14.6 % 28.0 % 22.4 % 17.5 % 17.3 % Area 1 11.1 % 19.4 % 26.8 % 23.1 % 19.4 % Area 2 8.8 % 28.0 % 25.6 % 16.0 % 21.6 % Area 3 17.0 % 31.3 % 18.1 % 18.1 % 15.3 % Area 4 19.4 % 32.4 % 20.7 % 11.6 % 15.5 % 52% believe (a/sa) the rental property inspection program is important while only 9% of the respondents believe that higher density residential units can be compatible with the neighborhood. Page 14 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan ZONING Only 37% of respondents concurred that the combined use of buildings where people live above stores and offices are good for the neighborhood 30% disagreed (d/sd). However, 50% of those identifying as business owners agreed (a/sa) with the statement. The neighborhood is against or neutral on the issue of whether converting single-family homes into office or commercial is acceptable. 19% stated that it is acceptable (a/sa) while 59% disagreed (d/sd). 25% disagree (d/sd) that residents have enough say in the location of late night retail businesses, 24% agreed that residents do have enough say, while half (50%) of respondents were neutral on this issue. PARKS AND RECREATION In the survey area, there are two parks: the north ravine of Allsopp Park is to the southeast and Prospect Park, in two parcels on L Street and Crestwood. Baker Park is located in Cammack Village, and was noted in several surveys in the margins. Out of the respondents, 34% (a/sa) stated that the area has adequate park facilities for all age groups while 43% (d/sd) do not. Respondents in Area 2 were more in support (46% a/sa) while people in Area 3 (55%) disagreed with the statement. Maintenance of parks is split with 40% in agreement (a/sa) and 41% neutral. On the issue of restricting trails for hiking only (i.e., prohibit biking on trails), 29% (a/sa) believe such restrictions should be put in place and enforced, while 29% disagree (d/sd), and 40% of the respondents were neutral. 65% of respondents agreed (a/sa) that streets, parks, and pathways should be developed and/or improved to be more pedestrian-friendly while still accommodating vehicles. Suggested improvements included adding a park, maintenance, safety concerns and adding a dog run area (in that order). CRIME Lighting on Heights streets is adequate to deter crime according to 48% of respondents while 30% stated that they were not adequate. Area 1 showed 56% in agreement and 38% in Area 2 agreed on the street lighting issue. Respondents were almost evenly divided on the issue if police patrols were regular enough to deter street crime, 30% agreed, 33% neutral and 35% disagreed. In area 2, 50% disagreed that police patrols were adequate. On loitering, 60% thought that it was a not a problem, while 25% were neutral on the topic. Two thirds of the respondents did not believe that drug activity was a problem in the Heights. Drug activity was more of a perceived problem in Area 1 and those identifying as renters (11.7% and 10.5%) as opposed to the overall of 6%. NEIGHBORHOOD LIFE Multiple responses were allowed on each question. Multiple topics in each question were subdivided and treated as separate responses. Of the responses to the question of what attracted you to the neighborhood, they are the atmosphere, location and housing stock in that order. Atmosphere considers landscaping, beauty, character, charm, history, etc. As to what they like the most about the neighborhood, location, quietness, people and the atmosphere are the top four responses in that order. The question of what would you change in the area gathered the following responses: Design review, reduction of crime, and reduction of traffic, also in that order. Design review considered topics such as controlling the design of new homes, limiting the size of new homes and to designate it as a historic district. DEMOGRAPHICS Demographics are based on the primary persons completing the survey. The respondents were evenly divided into age groups with 24% from 25 - 40, 21% from 41 - 54, and another 53% over Page 15 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan 55. Slightly more female answered the survey than males (57% vs. 43%). The average length of residency is 12.82 years with 90% owning their home. The average family size is 2.39 persons and 26% of households having school age children. 8% of all respondents own businesses in Heights. OWNERS VERSUS RENTERS: Renters and owners varied in the expected areas. While 82% of the owners agree/strongly agree (a/sa) that “in general, the neighborhood is continually improving”, only 50% of the renters thought the same. It should be noted that of those respondents that identified as renters, 63% live in area 1. Area 1 includes the apartments and condos at Evergreen and University. Also, 41% of the renters agreed/strongly agreed that the “existing CATA bus stops and route adequately serve the area” while 53% of homeowners agreed/strongly, agreed with the statement. More renters than homeowners (41% vs. 23%) agreed “an economic hardship program should be developed to assist disadvantaged homeowners in maintaining their property. The last major difference is that the renters (65%) thought that the “city’s rental inspection program is important” verses 50% of the homeowners. Drug activity in the area is another topic on which the renters disagreed with the homeowners. 10% of the renters agreed/strongly agreed that it was a problem while only 5% of homeowners did. The disagree/strongly disagree was similar with 65% of homeowners and 63% of renters agreeing. The average residency of renters is 6.0 years while the average residency of owners is 13.5 years. The overall average length of residency is 12.82 years. BUSINESS OWNERS 47 business owners responded to the survey. 40 live in the area and seven live outside. Business owners differed on two topics with the general respondents. On the subject of traffic calming efforts being a positive thing, only 38% of business owners agreed//strongly agreed while 49% of the overall respondents and 51% of respondents that live in area 3 agreed/strongly agreed. Area 3 included the business district. A point of interest is that the highest response rate is in Area 2 with a 57% agree/strongly agree. The other topic was “combined building uses where people live above store and office are good for the neighborhood.” 50% of the business owners agreed/strongly agreed which is much higher than the overall of 37% or females with 34%. MALE VERSUS FEMALE The following differences are noted in the comparison of the male versus the female respondents. Housing issues showed the most differences between the sexes. On the issues of an economic program to assist disadvantaged homeowners, males agree (a/sa) 18% and 48% disagree (d/sd) while women were evenly split with agree (a/sa) at 32% and disagree (d/sd) at 32%. Allowing homes to be torn down and replaced with larger homes showed differences also. 15% more men agreed /strongly agreed than disagree/strongly disagree while 14% more women disagree/strongly disagreed than agreed/strongly agreed. On the issue of rental inspections, 60% of women agree (a/sa) that it is important and 41% of men agree (a/sa). One note is that of the renters that responded, 62% are female. This may contribute to the higher importance placed on this by women. Page 16 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Analysis of Area Differences in Survey Results Some differences were realized when analyzing the different areas. Below are the differences broken into sub-areas with a description of each sub-area. At the right is a graphic showing the four areas. These four areas were delineated by staff to better understand the survey results. The areas were based on subdivisions, development patterns and neighborhood associations. AREA 1 Area 1 is described as the area bounded clock-wise by Brentwood Road (starting at the intersection with McKinley Street), University Avenue, Kavanaugh Boulevard, Polk Street, Cantrell Road, Taylor Street and continuing to the south west of Edgewood and Wildwood, Evergreen Drive, University Avenue, Cantrell Road, and McKinley Street. See map on preceding page for exact area. When asked if your neighborhood was continually improving, Area 1 agreed (a/sa) less than any other area with 60%. The other areas ranged form 81% to 87%. The city’s rental inspection program was very important to respondents in Area 1 (66% a/sa). It should be noted that almost two-third of the respondents that identified themselves as renters lived in area 1. The other three areas ranged from 46% – 48%. Area 1 noted that there was a drug problem in the area (11% a/sa) while the other areas ranged from 2% in Area 4 to 7% in area 2. AREA 2 Area 2 is described as the area bounded clock-wise by Cantrell Road (Starting at Taylor Street), Allsopp Road, North Lookout, “L” Street and just west of Edgewood and Wildwood Streets and Taylor Street. See map on preceding page for exact area. Respondents in Area 2 were more concerned with excessive speeding (58% a/sa) while those in area 4 were less (41% a/sa). Respondents in this area were also more concerned with traffic conditions around the schools (27% a/sa) with the other areas ranging from 7% to 20%. Note that the elementary school is in this area. AREA 3 Area 3 is described as the area bounded clock-wise by Hawthorne Road (Starting at University Avenue), Harrison Street, north and east to Little Rock & Western Railroad tracks, the east Page 17 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan boundary of the Little Rock Country Club property not to include Sherrill Heights, Cantrell Road, Polk Street, Kavanaugh Boulevard, and University Avenue. See map on preceding page for exact area. On the topic of being able to walk from home to shopping, businesses, schools, etc being important to them, respondents in area 3 ranked the highest with 84%. The commercial district of the Heights is in this area. 55% of Area 3 respondents disagree that the Heights area has enough city parks for all age groups. AREA 4 Area 4 is described as the area bounded clock-wise by the Little Rock & Western Railroad tracks (starting at the Cammack Village Limit), south and west to Harrison Street, Hawthorne Road, and University Avenue. See map on preceding page for exact area. On the topic of allowing existing homes to be torn down and replaced with larger homes being a positive thing for the neighborhood, Area 4 had a 51% agree/strongly agree rate. The lowest was area 1 with 30% while areas 2 and 3 had 36% and 48% respectively. Areas 3 and 4 have seen much more of this activity than the others. Page 18 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 19 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 20 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 21 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 22 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTION STATEMENTS * The goals, objectives, and action statements are listed in priority order. Participants were given dots to vote on their important items. The votes were tallied and the goals and objectives are listed in that order from most important to least important. Housing Goal: Maintain the integrity while improving the housing stock in the Heights neighborhood. ♦ Restrict the number of new accessory dwellings in the Heights. Enforce Conditional Use Permit regulations for accessory dwellings, i.e parking, occupancy, utility hookups, etc. Require that all development or redevelopment must go through the C.U.P process. • Limit the amount of parking available for accessory dwellings. • Prohibit multiple utility hook-ups on property zoned R-2 Single Family. • Limit the number of occupants in, size of, and scale of accessory dwellings. ♦ Vigorously enforce current zoning regulations for rental and accessory dwellings. • Report code violations to Code Enforcement • Work with Housing and Neighborhood Dept on rental inspections to vigorously enforce regulations. • The owner shall occupy one of the structures on the lot in R-2 and R-3 zoning when an accessory dwelling is on the lot. ♦ Vigorously enforce parking regulations in the Heights area including the amount of parking available for rental and accessory dwellings. Smaller homes are removed to make room for The homes in this neighborhood are varied large mansions. In size and building materials. Page 23 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Zoning Goal: Maintain existing zoning in the Heights area, except in instances where it conflicts with the Future Land Use Plan. ♦ Require all non-residential development to submit a PZD for zoning changes. We do not support any zoning changes that are in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan. Any change must be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. ♦ Promote vigorous enforcement of Landscaping Ordinance. This is a portion of the shopping district on the left and existing houses on the right. Future Land Use Goal: Maintain Future Land Use as shown in the Heights area. ♦ We do not support any zoning changes that are in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan. Page 24 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Parks and Recreation Goal: Improve the maintenance of the area parks and implement a new linear park – “The Heights Trail” ♦ With the unavailability of new land for parks, develop a "Heights Trail" to connect Allsopp Park, Kavanaugh commercial district, Grandview Park, Murray Park and the Edge Trail. This would allow residents to access the citywide trail system. • Develop trail along Kavanaugh Boulevard, University Avenue, Scenic Drive, through Grandview Park and connect to the Edge Trail in Murray Park. The trail is proposed to be pedestrian friendly. This shall be achieved by providing street trees, promenades, lighting, benches, trash receptacles, multiple accessibilities, water fountains (both drinking and decorative) and other treatments that set it up as community identity. Build the Kavanaugh Blvd. segment first starting at University Ave. proceeding east on the north side of the road. • Encourage Tree Planting in the neighborhood. • Appeal to the University of Arkansas to be a partner in the "Heights Trail" with possible placement on their side of the street. • Appeal to the University of Arkansas to make park on the Cammack Property accessible to neighborhood residents. • Advertise plan for the "Heights Trail" with an appropriate graphic. ♦ Beautify Crestwood Park on “L” and Southwood Streets. ♦ Beautification of Park area at the entrance of Prospect Terrace and Kavanaugh Boulevard. ♦ Increase maintenance standards at existing parks. ♦ Improve sidewalk system. • Extend sidewalk with a bridge on North Taylor Street to go over creek. Grandview Park on North Scenic and the University of Arkansas property (the Cammack Property. These are two photos along the path of the Proposed Heights Trail. Below is the entrance at Allsopp Park. Page 25 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 26 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Infrastructure Goal: Have a good quality and well-maintained infrastructure network, including roadways, sidewalks and drainage systems, within the neighborhood, which is designed and works to produce a safe and attractive neighborhood environment. ♦ Increase the level of quality on repair work occurring in the neighborhood • Hold publicly owned utilities accountable to the same ordinances and regulations for street repairs that private utilities must follow when work is completed. • Hold the city accountable to the same regulations a commercial contractor must follow when performing utility work in streets. • Encourage the city to hire more inspectors to monitor cuts in the rights of ways. • Develop a system that eliminates sequential trenches cut in the street where no one is responsible for the resurfacing of the street. Potholes are prevalent in the area. Both public and private contractors should be held to the highest standard when patching streets after utility cuts. ♦ Build and maintain sidewalks according to the Master Street Plan hierarchy. Build and maintain sidewalks according to neighborhood priorities. • Build a sidewalk on at least one side of Kavanaugh west of University Avenue so people can access bus stops. • Construct or improve sidewalks in the Kavanaugh business district. See "Heights Trail". • Build a sidewalk on N. Taylor Street over the creek to extend pedestrian access to the north part of the neighborhood. • Build a sidewalk on Kavanaugh Blvd. at Tyler on the south side. Install a sidewalk/bridge over the creek on North Taylor to continue the pedestrian access to the north. Page 27 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan • Encourage the University to build a sidewalk along the north side of Hawthorne Street and the west side of University Avenue where the University property fronts Hawthorne and University Streets. See "Heights Trail". • Install sidewalk on south side of Kavanaugh from “L” and Crestwood to the “O” and Crestwood intersection. ♦ Encourage the city to purchase and use a leaf vacuum machine to remove leaves with autumn curbside pickup as North Little Rock does. ♦ Improve storm drainage system in the area. • Maintain existing drainage structures in a better state. • Preserve and keep streams in a natural state to prevent flooding and icing. • Restart tri-annual program of cleaning open ditches and drainage ways and the inspection of culverts. • Improve storm drainage on Hawthorne between University and McKinley to eliminate ditches. • Preserve historic Crestwood Drive retaining will and extend curb and foundation thereof west to stop street sub-base deterioration and eliminate drainage erosion. ♦ Streets and Maintenance: Maintain streets to meet or exceed Master Street Plan standards. • Do not support permanent street closures in the neighborhood. • Enforce better coordination of street repairs between utilities and city repaving program. • Force utilities to fill potholes and cuts when they are responsible. This would require the utilities to inform the city exactly where they are cutting the street. This could be done with little expenditure from the city. • Work with Public works to develop a program to install improvements with PW labor and money or materials donated by citizens. • Eliminate sidewalk waivers. • Have public works evaluate the viability of the existing one-way streets in the area. These two photos shot along Kavanaugh Boulevard show the discrepancy of the curb and gutters in commercial district. This section of street needs a safe pedestrian sidewalk on both sides of the street. Page 28 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan ♦ Reduce noise pollution in the neighborhood. • Enforce the city's noise ordinance. • Advertise the city's noise ordinance. • Establish a "noise enforcement" zone within the neighborhood. ♦ Improve parking conditions in the neighborhood ♦ Improve traffic conditions in the neighborhood. • Work with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department to install a left turn signal on Cantrell Road that would allow protected left turns on Kavanaugh Boulevard from Cantrell Road. • Add speed signs and enforce existing speed limits to prevent speeding in the neighborhood. • Place a stop sign at the north end of University at Palisades to reduce speeding. These photos are of Kavanaugh Boulevard Between University Avenue and McKinley Street. This area needs major work including storm drainage, curb and gutter and sidewalks. This area is a priority for the plan. Page 29 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 30 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 31 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 32 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 33 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 34 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 35 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 36 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 37 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 38 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 39 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 40 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 41 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 42 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 43 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 44 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 45 of 56 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan Page 46 of 56