HomeMy WebLinkAboutmidtownMIDTOWN
NEIGHBORHOODS
IITTL f
MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS AREA PLAN
October 2001
Planning Committee Co -Chairs:
Elliot & Dionne Kumpe
John Kevin Jones
Planning Staff:
Walter Malone, AICP
Vince Hustead
Quenton Burge
RESOLUTION NO. 11,225
A Resolution of the Board of Directors
of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas in
support of the Midtown Neighborhoods
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,
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 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
Midtown Neighborhoods Plan.
PASSED: Feb 5. 2002
ATTEST:
CITY(CLERK
APPROVED:
MAY
RESOLUTION NO. 141
A Resolution of the Planning Commission
of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas in
support of the Midtown Neighborhoods
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 PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Little
Rock does support the vision and goals as expressed in the
Midtown Neighborhoods Plan.
Adopted:
1 /zoa 1
ATTEST:
CHAIRMAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
THE PLAN
Process .............................. 1
The Plan .............................. 1
Infrastructure .............................. 3
Traffic and Transportation .............................. 5
Housing .............................. 8
Public Safety .............................. 9
Commercial Development .............................. 10
Parks and Recreation .............................. 11
Schools .............................. 14
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
General
.............................. II-1
Demographic
.............................. II-1
Housing Conditions
.............................. II-2
Circulation
Streets..............................
II-3
Bicycles
.............................. II-3
Bus Routes
.............................. II-3
Park System Master Plan
.............................. II-3
Crime Statistics
.............................. II-4
Zoning
.............................. II-5
Land Use Plan
.............................. II-5
SURVEY RESULTS
.............................. II -A
SURVEY, SUB -AREA DIFFERENCES
............................... II-D
r
MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN
Process:
After initial attempts to contact the recognized neighborhoods in the Markham to Cantrell,
University to Reservoir area, Staff developed background information on the area and distributed
a survey to all residential addresses in the area. In January 2001, an organizational meeting was
held to start the neighborhood plan effort. Some one hundred forty five households were invited
to this meeting. These were the households who indicated a desire to work on a plan from the
almost 4000 households who received surveys in October 2000.
Based on the survey results and concerns of those present at the January meeting, topic areas
were agreed to and a basic meeting schedule was set. Two co-chairs were selected, one from the
area west of Mississippi and one from the area east of Mississippi. A website was established for
the committee members to share and spread information. During the first few meetings the group
was narrowed to approximately 70 households, who still wished to participate. Over the next six
months, the committee met every other Thursday evening, spending two meetings per topic area.
(For these meetings, attendance ranged from under a dozen to over thirty citizens. But in all
cases the entire group of 70 households received minutes, drafts, etc.).
By June a draft was ready for review. This document was sent to the six neighborhood groups
located within the plan area, as well as city departments and the Plans Committee of the Little
Rock Planning Commission. No comments were received from the neighborhood groups or the
Commission (those from the city departments are attached at the back of this report). In addition,
the draft sent to the 145 households who had returned cards from the survey. Over the next
couple of months about a dozen comments were returned for the committee to consider.
A meeting was scheduled for late September 2001, with all 145 households invited, to review the
comments and agree to final draft language for the plan section. The final development step was
a meeting where citizens were given `dots' to place on the most important issues of the plan.
With the highest priority issues selected the committee presented the plan to the Little Rock
Planning Commission the end of November 2001.
The Plan:
After nine months of work and involvement by almost MA
households through the Plan Committee and survey
responses, the one issue of most concern is the need to protect
and improve the overall quality of the area. While most agree
that this is a good area, residents want to keep it that way.
With this plan the residents want to stress the importance of
putting in to place and enforcing regulations to prevent the
parking of RVs, boats and vehicles (junk) in the front yards of
homes in the area. This was by far the single item where residents wanted action.
There are ten additional actions, which have been identified as
important, or a priority by the residents. In no particular order
they are "the active enforcement of building and environmental
codes on both owner and rental houses, being sure to maintain
City standards". This continues the thoughts of the first priority
item — to protect and maintain the quality of homes in the area.
Improving the conditions of the two public parks — Meriwether
and Reservoir also is considered a high priority issue. There is no
agreement on what specifics should be done first to achieve this. Some of the more often
mentioned issues were a kiosk for Meriwether Park, upgraded playground equipment for
Meriwether Park, and better lighting in Reservoir Park.
Five infrastructure -traffic issues, which the neighborhood has identified as priorities, are three
1 kh
signa s.
Also of high priority is a desire for
Plan. The committee is aware of
work for the University corridor
Even though they do not concede
wish for the Land Use Plan in the
McKinley area to be shown for
true mixed -use development if the
a change to the City's Land Use
the ULI (Urban Land Institute)
and generally supportive of it.
the loss of Park Plaza Mall, they do
Markham to Lee, University to
`Mixed Use'. This is to allow for a
area is redeveloped.
The final priority issue for the Midtown Plan area is William's Elementary School. William's is
a magnet school and the residential want it as a neighborhood
school. This would help strengthen the neighborhood. Short of
M making the school a neighborhood school, residents propose that all
the seats allotted to the Little Rock district be given to neighborhood
children. Once neighborhood children have their seats at William's,
students from other parts of the city would be assigned if any seats
remain available.
The pages that follow contain The Plan, which the neighborhood through this planning process
believes is needed or desirable to maintain and strengthen the neighborhoods of the Midtown
section of Little Rock.
Infrastructure
Objective:
To maintain and enhance infrastructure to serve existing and new residents and promote
revitalization of the neighborhood
Strategies:
♦ Encourage better planning and use of master plans
♦ Incorporate phased development
♦ Provide pedestrian -friendly sidewalks with green space as a buffer between street and
sidewalk
♦ Repair and maintain roadways
♦ Install and repair curbs and gutters
♦ Minimize flooding on private property by improving street drainage
Proposed actions:
The higher priority items are: to develop a sidewalk plan(s) in the area, institute a
resurfacing program, and maintain the existing infrastructure by assuring utility
repair crew return the area it at least is previous quality (smooth/longevity).
1. Install a storm drain
• F Street between Hughes Street and Coolidge Street
2. Reconstruct streets
•
Florida Street
•
Iowa Street from Biscayne Street to Watt Street
•
Delray Street from Biscayne Street to Watt Street
•
Watt Street from T Street to S Street
•
Cease Street from Gillette Street to Shea Street
3. Institute a resurfacing program
•
McAdoo Street
•
Gillette Street
•
Gable Street
•
F Street
•
Shamrock Street
•
Florida Street
•
M Street
•
Indiana Street
•
Louwanda Street at Leawood
•
Markham Street
•
Markham and Rodney Parham intersection
•
Illinois Street
4. Repair sub -surface drainage
• Van Lee Street
• Gable Street
• F Street and Shamrock Street
• Van Lee, Louwanda, and Gillette intersection
3
5. Develop sidewalk plan
• East Side of Biscayne from Leawood to Evergreen (Collector)
• West Side of Van Lee from Rodney Parham to Louwanda (Cut —
Through)
• North Side of Louwanda from Van Lee to Leawood (Cut —Through)
• North Side of Leawood from Mississippi to Biscayne (Collector)
• East Side of Biscayne from Cantrell to end of existing sidewalk south
of Iowa (Collector)
• North Side of Leawood from Claywood to Gillette (Collector)
• West Side of Gillette from Van Lee to Linda
• East Side of Watt Street from T Street to S Street
• North Side of Illinois from Mississippi to Biscayne
• North Side of Linda from Biscayne to Evergreen
• North Side of Leatrice from Biscayne to the end of Leatrice
• South Side of Iowa from Watt to Biscayne
• West Side of Mountain from Evergreen to end of Mountain
• West Side of Loretta Lane from Leawood to Pamela
• Pamela Lane
• H Street from University to Mississippi
• North Side of Reymere from Biscayne to Reservoir Park
6. Maintain the existing infrastructure by requiring utility workers or
contractors to improve the quality (both smoothness and longevity) of
repairs to streets after utility work
7. Re -stripe Louwanda with reflectors in the `S' curve, to better direct traffic
flow
8. Shorten the length of time that contractors can close streets
4
Traffic and Transportation
Objective:
To ensure the safe and efficient movement of pedestrian, bike and vehicular traffic in,
around, and through the neighborhood in order to enhance quality of life
Strategies:
• Identify means of traffic calming
• Improve traffic flow and safety
• Ensure proper street and speed signage
• Enhance alternative transportation options
Proposed actions:
The higher priority items are: signal light at Mississippi, signal light at Markham and
Hughes, signal light at Rodney Parham and Van Lee, sidewalk and bicycle plan,
providing traffic calming devices, and improving the funding for traffic signals.
Pinnacle Point needs to be added to the 2001 City of Little Rock Street
Index
• Emergency services references this book and Pinnacle Point is not
currently listed, which is a serious concern for elderly residents. Traffic
Engineering needs to act on this immediately and not wait until plan is
completed and presented to the City of Little Rock.
2. Pinnacle Point needs street signage where it intersects Mellon Street
3. Install traffic signal at Mississippi & Leawood
• Traffic study completed 2/1/01 counted 16,000 cars traveling on
Mississippi per day, with an 85 index speed of 52 MPH. Mississippi speed
limit north of Markham is posted at 40 MPH, compared to south of
Markham, which is posted at 35 MPH.
• City averages 5 traffic signal installations per year. At the current rate,
this traffic signal would be installed in 2007. Traffic signal currently #26
on the priority list.
• Consider flashing intersection warning light as an interim measure
• Improve visibility, as Leawood wall impairs vision and is a safety concern
4. Install traffic signal at Markham & Hughes
• At the current rate of signal installation, it would be added in 2006. Traffic
signal currently #25 on the priority list.
5. Install traffic signal at Rodney Parham & Van Lee
• Consider flashing intersection warning light as an interim measure
6. Enforce school zone speed limits on Hughes and H Streets
Four schools use Hughes and H - Williams Magnet Elementary, Hall High,
Catholic High and Christ Lutheran School System.
• Add signs with flashing school zone lights
• Consider crosswalks for pedestrian safety
7. Improve pedestrian crossing at Markham & McKinley
• Paint pedestrian crossing on east side of McKinley
• Install pedestrian signal on the west side of McKinley
8. Move CAT buses to streets with traffic signals and improved visibility
• H Street has sight limitations that pose safety risk for bus traffic
• Consider re-routing bus west of Hall High School to a portion of
Evergreen using either Bryan or Hughes Street as a connector
• H STREET TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTS PENDING
9. Post speed limit sign on Loretta Street
10. Improve safety of turns at intersection of Mississippi & Iowa
• Consider "cars turning" warning sign
11. Provide traffic calming devices on streets where speeding is a safety
concern
• Mississippi Street
• H Street
• Evergreen Street
• Upper Mellon Street
• Leawood surface streets used for thru-traffic to / from Mississippi and
Rodney Parham
• Where limited options exist, increase the number of spot checks by
Little Rock Police Department to enforce stop signs and speed zones
(such as Louwanda, Ridgecrest and Loretta Streets)
6
12. Develop and implement sidewalk and bikeway plan for the neighborhood
• Sidewalks could provide increased pedestrian traffic due to perception of
increased walking safety
• Bike paths could serve a dual purpose of traffic calming and alternative
transportation by -ways
• Consider bike paths on key commuter streets to provide access to
neighborhood parks
13. Improve funding situation for installation of traffic signals
• Areas that warrant traffic signals must wait years for City of Little Rock
funding to improve their situations
• Examine improvement district application and determine pro's and con's
for Hall High / Leawood
7
Housing
Objective:
To maintain and enhance overall quality and value of housing
Strategies:
♦ Encourage pest control
♦ Promote trash clean-up
♦ Improve street lighting
♦ Enhance public landscaping
♦ Recognize private landscaping efforts
♦ Enforce code violations
♦ Utilize rental inspection program
♦ Improve street drainage
♦ Maintain city standards
Proposed actions:
The higher priority items are: the activity enforcement of all code violations,
prohibiting RVs, boats and junk cars in front yards, Identifying rental properties to
the city, improving the landscaping at University & Lee (Catholic High).
1. Encourage neighbors to be ever vigilant in fighting fire ants, mosquitoes
and other pesky critters
2. Increase frequency (number) of street lights
3. Improve landscaping along University at Catholic High
4. Clean up trash
5. Adequately staff and support rental inspection program to eliminate
backlog
6. Identify rental structure to ensure the city knows they exist and owners
can be contacted
• Go to assessors office to determine where the tax bill goes
7. Existing neighborhood groups implement "yard of the month" program
8. Minimize flooding on private property by improving street drainage
9. Actively enforce all code violations of owner -occupied and rental property
to maintain city standards
10. Reduce response time to `special' yard waste pick-ups
11. Prohibit RVs, boats and junk cars from parking on front yards
8
Public Safety
Objective:
To maintain integrity by providing a friendly and safe atmosphere to improve quality of life
Strategies:
♦ Reduce police response time
♦ Increase LRPD officer patrols and add neighborhood patrols
♦ Provide LRPD officers with equipment for mobile workstations
♦ Implement speed reduction initiatives
♦ Promote neighborhood awareness regarding crime -related issues
Proposed actions:
The higher priority issues are: increasing police patrols in the local parks and
targeted enforcement on Mississippi, Evergreen, H Street, Hughes, and Biscayne.
1. Reduce police response time
2. Increase patrols, especially in parks
3. LRSD school district -sponsored annual neighborhood meeting to address
school -related safety and security issues
4. "Community on Police Patrol' North Evergreen to Cantrell between
Hughes and Mississippi
5. Encourage local police to live in neighborhood by making resident
requirement for new hire
6. Install cameras in high traffic areas
7. Equip LRPD Officers with laptop computers in patrol cars and provide
software for mobile workstations
8. Enforce no tolerance speeding traffic violations especially 8 a.m. — 4 p.m.
around schools and on Mississippi
9. Operate a quarterly targeted enforcement plan on Mississippi, Evergreen,
H Street, Hughes and Biscayne
10. Make neighborhood crime statistics available to neighborhoods
associations and POAs quarterly, better publicize the police departments
quarterly meetings for neighborhoods and property owners
11. Facilitate neighborhood participation and awareness regarding crime -
related issues
12. Increase the number and lumens of streetlights in the neighborhood, such
as Louwanda and Rodney Parham Road
9
Commercial Development
Objective:
To increase the long-term viability of our retail, office, and medical centers and prevent
destabilization of surrounding neighborhoods
Strategies:
♦ Improve and increase retail development to meet local demand for goods and services
♦ Continue to service regional demand
♦ Transition to pedestrian -centric environment
♦ Increase green space and landscaping
♦ Revitalize declining commercial areas
♦ Support smart growth and positive in -fill development
Proposed actions:
The higher priority items are: change the land use plans for Park Plaza area from
University to McKinley and Lee to Markham to the Mixed Use designation.
1. Change land use plans for Park Plaza area stretching from the
northwest corner of Markham to University from commercial (C
classification) to mixed use (MX classification)
• This includes the area McKinley to University and Lee to Markham
• Mixed use area may include restaurants, lifestyle retail, entertainment
and multi -family housing
• Incorporate owner -occupied condos that are consistent with area home
values
• Utilize visual stair -stepping to take advantage of stadium effect of
terrain from I-630 view
• Embrace residential character of community and architectural rhythm
• Maintain appropriate scale and footprint
2. Maintain vested interest in new development in surrounding
neighborhoods
• The vitality of our neighborhood is dependent on the stability of
surrounding areas
10
Parks and Recreation
Objective:
To enhance safety, linkage, recreation and green space of the area to foster greater
enjoyment and pride in the neighborhood
Strategies:
♦ Ensure that parks are safe and well -maintained
♦ Enhance park facilities
♦ Expand recreational opportunities
♦ Develop compatible continuous linkage among various land uses
♦ Establish local liaisons between City of Little Rock Parks Department and
neighborhoods
Proposed actions:
The higher priority items are: upgrade Meriwether Park, upgrade Reservoir Park,
and empty trash containers in the parks at least weekly.
Upgrade Meriwether Park (10 acres)
• Build kiosk for posting notices about hours, pet ordinances, tennis
court lighting instructions, upcoming community events and volunteer
opportunities
• Regularly collect garbage and maintain park open spaces and facilities
• Correct drainage problems
• Install lighting for safety
• Through effective use of landscaping and gating, limit after hours park
use
• Upgrade playground equipment
• Provide picnic tables, park benches and garbage receptacles
• Build pavilion which could be used for community functions
2. Renovate Reservoir Park (35 acres)
• Develop light recreational facilities such as playground, walking trails,
bike trails, arboretum, bird watching information and educational
facilities (Use Allsop Park as model for upgrade)
• Build kiosk for posting notices about hours, pet ordinances, upcoming
community events and volunteer opportunities
• Patrol frequently to ensure safety of park
• Regularly collect garbage and maintain park open spaces and facilities
• Improve pedestrian, bike and vehicular access
• Repair roads damaged as a result of the winter ice storm clean-up
• Install lighting for safety
• Increase visibility by clearing underbrush
• Landscape to provide entrance appeal
• Install additional picnic tables
• Upgrade bathrooms
• Install additional picnic tables
• Upgrade facilities in disrepair
11
Improve active recreational facilities
• Build additional basketball courts and tennis court
• Install additional seating and improve conditions at softball field
• Add playground children's equipment
Promote community parks, including hidden gems, within City of
Little Rock park systems
• Include information about park amenities
• Promote volunteer opportunities
• Target local organizations like Boy / Girl Scouts, 4-H, churches and
neighborhood associations to take an active role in supporting local
parks
• Establish Friends of Park organization
4. Publicize requirements for using local parks for community events
• Include all information necessary to easily take advantage of this
opportunity
• Suggest ideas and contacts for activities on Earth Day, Arbor Day and
other special days
Partner with local schools to enhance park -like atmosphere on school
property
• Keep open green space
• Enhance existing equipment
• Upgrade facilities in disrepair
• Encourage community use of playgrounds and educational facilities
outside school times
6. Partner with local churches to enhance park -like atmosphere on
church property
• Keep open green space
• Encourage community use of playgrounds and educational facilities
outside church times
Construct trail system which will be accessible throughout the
neighborhood
• Make suitable for bicycles, roller blades, walking, jogging and other
leisure activities
• Plan biking trail connecting Meriwether Park and Reservoir Park
• Explore linking Grassy Flats bike trail between Reservoir Park and
Evergreen
12
8. Develop and implement neighborhood beautification program that
complements "City in a Park" mission of City of Little Rock Parks
Department
• Public and private flower gardens
• Public vegetable gardens
• Adopt -A -Park
• "Yard of the Month" program
• Landscaped trails, sidewalks and streets
9. Continue to support City of Little Rock Parks Department vision of
"City in a Park"
• Take steps to ensure that the City's 8-block plan comes alive in Hall High
neighborhood
10. Continue to work toward a neighborhood that is friendly to forms of
traffic other than vehicular
11. Keep the park clean and trash picked up
Enforce prohibition on private dumping in park dumpsters
Empty trash containers within the park at least weekly
13
Schools
Objective:
To ensure strong, vibrant, and safe schools in the Midtown Neighborhoods through an
ongoing relationship between the schools, students, parents, neighbors, business owners,
Little Rock School District and Board, and the City of Little Rock.
Strategies:
• Build a strong relationship between the schools, city, and neighborhoods to identify
issues, solve problems, and accomplish goals concerning neighborhood schools.
• Ensure that all neighborhood children can attend a public school in the
neighborhood.
• Ensure safe and well -maintained school grounds.
• Beautify school grounds.
• Extend the use of school grounds and buildings through regulated neighborhood
activity on school grounds.
Proposed actions:
The higher priority items are: Encourage the Little Rock School District to convert William's
Elementary to a neighborhood School or at least to fill the Little Rock allotment of seats to
neighborhood children (first).
1. Invite school officials to address Neighborhood Associations
2. Encourage the Little Rock School Board to designate Williams Elementary
School as a neighborhood school rather than a magnet or fill the Little Rock
allotment of students with children from the neighborhood — immediate area.
3. Encourage the Little Rock School District to provide routine maintenance to
school grounds, including mowing and edging the grass, trimming bushes
and trees and removing all dangerous articles (i.e. broken bottles, broken
tree limbs) and trash from school grounds on a daily basis.
4. Work with the Little Rock School District to develop a landscape design to
minimize maintenance and increase aesthetic value to students and
neighbors.
5. Explore and develop supplemental ways to maintain and improve grounds
using City and neighborhood volunteers and groups.
6. Establish and publish guidelines for organized use of school grounds, ball
fields, and outside facilities by neighborhood groups.
7. Establish and publish guidelines for organized use and scheduling of school
buildings and indoor facilities by neighborhood groups for after-hours
education, meetings and gatherings.
14
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SURVEY RESULTS
SUB -AREA DIFFERENCES
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
General Data:
The Study area is bounded by Cantrell Road — north, Markham — south, University Avenue —
east, and Reservoir Road/Grassy Flat Creek — west. This is a developed area of north central
Little Rock. The entire area has been within the city limits for about forty years, with the last
annexation in November 1961. The Hall High area was totally within the city limits six years
earlier — September 1955. The subdivisions located in the study area generally occurred at the
time of annexation and after. Within the Hall High subarea, the subdivisions date from 1957
through 1960, with the area around Park Plaza Mall completed by 1967. The Leawood area was
mostly platted between 1959 and 1963, with several smaller subdivisions in the seventies and
eighties.
The area is rolling, with a general rise to the northwest. The only significant floodway/floodplain
is along the Grassy Flat Creek. The creek forms a portion of the southwest boundary of the study
area.
Demographic:
The study area does not conform to Census Tract or Block Group boundaries. Thus the data
available for review here is limited. Total population of the study area peaked with the 1970
Census, at 9293 people. In 1990, there was some rebound from that in 1980. The east half (Hall
High area) peaked in 1970 with 5794 people and has experienced drops of 780 and 590 people,
each of the succeeding Census. The west half s (Leawood area) high point was the 1990 Census,
with 4108 people. After a significant increase from 1960 to 1970, fourfold, there was a drop of
200 people in 1980. A twenty-five percent increase in population followed the next decade.
Page II - 1
The percentage of non -white population has gone from almost nonexistent in 1970 (0.5 percent),
to over 6 percent in the Hall High area and 5 percent in the Leawood area. This is significantly
less than the City average of over 35 percent non -white. The major reason for this difference is in
the size of the black population.
The number of rental units as a percentage of all units has increased approximately fourfold from
1960 to 1990. Starting at 10.9 percent, rental
units increased by over 70 percent each of the
succeeding decades. By 1980 just under third of
the units were rental. In 1990 the rental market
accounted for just under-40 percent of the
occupied units. This is close to the City average
of 44 percent renter occupied units for 1990.
The percentage of one -person households has
seen a steady increase each Census from just
under- 11 percent in 1970 to about 36 percent in
1990. This is a little higher than that for the City
of Little Rock (32 percent).
The percentage of female -headed households
with children has actually gotten smaller over the decades starting at seven percent of the
households in 1970 and ending with 4.4 percent in 1990. This is a significantly lower percentage
that that for the City (10 percent). One should note that the absolute number of families headed
by females has been rather steady between 217 to 205 families (households).
Housing Conditions:
During the early winter of 2001, Little Rock Housing Inspectors conducted a windshield survey
of the Hall High -Leawood neighborhoods to identify substandard or unsafe residential structures.
Out of the approximately 3900 residential units, only one was identified as unsafe and four as
substandard. All of these troublesome structures are located north of Evergreen generally from
Biscayne to Mellon. This is either side of Mississippi south of Cantrell Road. The inspectors
also identified some 40 tracts of land, which could become `weed lot' problems in the spring or
summer months. These vacant lots are scattered throughout the neighborhoods. Some are lots,
which could be built upon and about a dozen are `open space' tracts along creeks, ponds, etc. In
general the neighborhoods are in good health, and the low number of problem residential
structures is a positive sign for the area.
The City Rental Inspection program first round inspections have been completed for this area.
The first round inspections found 100 percent compliance for single-family units. During 2001
and 2002 these units will have their second round inspections. (The neighborhoods can help the
City by identifying to the City single-family structures they believe have become rental.) The
duplexes within the Hall High -Leawood neighborhoods have all been inspected for the first time.
Ninety-eight percent of these units were found to be in compliance. As with the single-family
units, the duplexes are scheduled to have second round inspections either this year or next year.
Of the large complexes (4 to 176 units) the first round inspections found 100 percent compliance.
For two of these complexes second round inspections have been successfully competed. The
remaining complexes within the Hall -Leawood neighborhoods area are scheduled for second
round inspections through early 2003.
Page 11-2
Circulation:
Streets. The street system is a modified grid. The eastern half is more closely configured in a
grid pattern, while the western half is more curvilinear. The system allows for some movement
around the neighborhood without the need to access the arterial system.
The area is bounded by arterials making access to other sections of the City convenient. Arterials
are designed to provide access through and around the urban area. Markham and Cantrell Roads
provide east -west connectivity. Markham is a minor arterial and Cantrell Road is a principal
arterial. North -south connectivity (primarily south) is provided by Mississippi and University
Avenue. Mississippi is a minor arterial and University Avenue is a principal arterial. Rodney
Parham Road is also a minor arterial and provides connection to the northwest and southeast.
There are several collectors in the area. These roads are designed to get people and products from
the neighborhood to the arterial system. In the eastern half of the study area Hughes, H, and
Evergreen Streets provide this function. In the western section of the study area Biscayne Drive,
Evergreen, Louwanda Drive and Leawood Boulevard provide this function.
Bicycles. The City Master Street Plan also proposes a system of bike ways, lanes, and routes.
Within the study area there are several Class III and Class I bike routes recommended. Class III
routes are signed but have no additional lanes provided — bikes and cars share the road. These
routes include Reymere Drive from Reservoir Park to Biscayne, Biscayne from Reymere Drive to
Leawood, Leawood from Biscayne to Mississippi, Evergreen from Biscayne to Bryant, Bryant
from Evergreen to H Street, H Street from Mississippi to University. Class I routes are separate
bike `roads' with no motorized vehicles. Class I routes within the area are proposed to be along
Grassy Flat Creek and through Reservoir Park.
Bus Routes. There are four bus routes, which pass by or cross the study area. Route #1 is on a
portion of Cantrell Road from Mississippi to McKinley. This route proceeds through the Heights
and Hillcrest to Downtown. Route #5 is along Markham. It continues west to the
Markham/Chenal Parkway area and east via the Capitol View neighborhood and State Capitol
complex to Downtown. Route #8 passes through the study area from east to west on H Street to
Mississippi to Markham and on to Rodney Parham Road. The route continues west to the I-
430/Shackleford Road commercial area on Rodney Parham Road and east via Hillcrest to
Downtown. Route #22 passes on Cantrell Road. It proceeds west to the Pleasant Valley
neighborhood west of I-430 and east through Hillcrest to Downtown. Between these four routes
the area has good to fair east -west access. The ability to get to southern sections of Little Rock
(or North Little Rock) would require a transfer downtown.
Park System Master Plan:
There are two parks shown on the City's Parks System Master Plan within the study area.
Meriwether Park is a neighborhood park located on Florida Avenue. The park is developed and
contains a ball field, tennis courts, playground and picnic table. Meriwether Park is 9.5 acres.
The second park is Reservoir Park. Reservoir Park is a community park located off of Cantrell
Road with access via Reymere Drive into the Leawood neighborhood. The park is developed and
contains a ball field, basketball court, tennis courts, picnic and play areas and a pavilion.
Reservoir Park is 58 acres. The Park System Master Plan recommends acquisition of Jackson
Reservoir for inclusion into Reservoir Park.
The Park System Master Plan also includes `green fingers'. Green fingers are the area along a
creek or drainage channel. The intent is to acquire a 100-foot or wider corridor along the creek
with the desire to allow for paths and maintaining open space. Grassy Flat Creek is one of these
green fingers and is given a first priority for acquisition.
Page II - 3
Crime Statistics:
SIX MONTH SUMMARY OF CRIME INCIDENTS
(First six -months of 1999 to 2000)
1)�S'NEWITIE1
Murder
0
1
Suicide
2
4
Rape
2
0
Sexual misconduct
2
1
Indecent exposure
4
1
Aggravated Assault
22
17
Simple Assault
33 (5 family)
49 (14 family)
Bomb Threat
4
0
Terroristic Threat
47
43
Arson
0
4
Robbery
5
14
Burglary
Residential
29
38
Non-residential
12
13
Shoplifting
21
23
Larceny
206
214
Stolen Vehicle
27
32
Accident
267
40
Drugs
7
16
Harassment
39
42
Disturbance
76
63
Curfew/loitering
1
10
(Note: one police call may result in numerous incidents)
The figures for 1999 and 2000 do not indicate that there has been an improvement in the crime
situation within the neighborhoods. When reviewing the figures one must remember that the
commercial areas along University and Cantrell are included. In any case, the violent crime
(murder, rape, assault, robbery and burglary) figures show a steady to slight increase in
occurrences. Residential burglary increased by over 30 percent and the number of domestic
assault almost tripled.
The figures should be viewed as a warning for the residents to not sit back but rather to get
involved in their neighborhoods. They bear watching. A comparison between just two years is
not always a good indication of systematic change. But these figures should not be ignored
either.
Page II - 4
Zoning:
Most of the area is zoned `R2', Single Family Residential (almost 85 percent). There is no
industrial zoning within the study area. Commercial zoning is mostly `C3', General Commercial.
Land zoning `C3' can be found at the Markham -University Avenue intersection and along
Cantrell Road from Reservoir Park to Hughes Street. The final area of `C3' zoning is at the
Rodney Parham -Markham Street intersection. Within the 1C3' strip along Cantrell Road is an
area of `C1', Neighborhood Commercial (at Foxcroft) and a couple of `C4', open display
commercial parcels between Mississippi and Kentucky. The total area zoned commercial is 5.6
percent of the study area.
The office zoning within the study area
is either `03', General Office or
Planned Office Districts.- Between
Evergreen and C Street there are a
couple of `03' areas. The remaining
office classified land is scattered along
the strip `C3' on Cantrell Road as a
transition to residential uses. Only 3.1
percent of the study area is zoned
office.
In addition to the `R2', Single Family
there is `R4', Two -Family Residential,
`R5', Urban Residential, `MF 12' &
`MF24', multifamily 12 units and 24 units per acre respectively as well as planned residential
districts. Almost all of this zoning is along the south side of the strip commercial on Cantrell
Road. The multifamily use is functioning partially as a transition from the commercial to the
single-family homes. Two small multifamily areas are in the Evergreen — H Street area west of
University Avenue functioning as a transition from office to single-family uses. The final area is
on Markham between Markwood and Wingate. Just over 6 percent of the area is zoned
multifamily.
There have been three zone reclassifications within the study area during the last five years. All
three are near Cantrell Road from Reservoir Park to Watt Street. Two are either side of Pavilion
in the Park. One is to the west from single family to Planned Office District (some three acres)
for a three-story office building. The other is south of Pavilion in the Park from multifamily to
office `03' (some 1.8 acres). The final reclassification was a revision to an existing Planned
Office District on Watt Street. In the overall scheme of the study area these changes are minor
and do not reflect a change in the use mix of the area.
Land Use Plan:
The adopted Land Use Plan recommends three areas for commercial use. The Markham
University Avenue intersection and Cantrell Road from Reservoir Park to Hughes Street are the
large commercial areas with a smaller amount of commercial shown for the Rodney Parham -
Markham intersection.
Office use is shown along University Avenue south of Evergreen and south of Lee Avenue to C
Street. A scattering of office is recommended with the commercial strip along Cantrell Road
partially as a transition to less intense uses.
Multifamily use is recommended as a transition south of the commercial strip along Cantrell
Road. Two smaller areas are shown as a buffer from the office along University Avenue. There
is one additional multifamily area on Markham between Markwood and Wingate.
Page II - 5
There are numerous Public Use areas shown on the Plan. A large area at Evergreen and
Mississippi is shown for Public Use. North of Lee Avenue at University Avenue is a large public
use area as is the area between McKinley — Hughes, H and Evergreen. A scattering of public uses
is shown from Watt to Georgia, south of Cantrell Road and north of Illinois. The final public use
area is between Van Lee and Serenity north of Rodney Parham Road.
The remaining area is Single Family except for a public park on Florida between N and L Streets
and a scattering of property owner parks/ponds (Wingate Lake, Foreman Lake, and off
Normandy). The single family use area accounts for 70 percent of the study area, with only 22
percent of the area recommended for non-residential uses.
There have been three Land Use Plan Amendments
in the last five years. The two most recent are
small, less than 2 acres. In June of 2000 a change
from Single Family to Suburban Office was
approved. This was for 3 lots which front Park
Plaza Mall on McKinley. Each was constructed as
single-family homes. The second change (August
1999) was from Multifamily to Office on Andover
Court. The site is between as existing shopping
mall (Pavilion in the Park) and a condo
development. The third area of change (November
1996) was in the area around Georgia Street
initiated at the request of the Meriwether
Neighborhood Association. This package of
changes reduced the density to more closely that of the existing development. Most of the change
was from Multifamily to Low Density Residential or Single Family.
Page 11-6
Survey Results
The survey was mailed to 3965 residents and businesses in the Hall High and Leawood areas.
This is a one hundred percent survey of all residential units within the study area. Addresses
were obtained from the city geographic information system, thus only those residential units with
addresses recorded in the system were sent surveys. Over 22 percent of the surveys were
returned (approximately 890 surveys). This is a good response rate for a mail survey. One must
remember that this type of survey does not provide a statically accurate picture of the
neighborhood. However, the results are a valid representation of needs and desires for the area,
though some issues may be over emphasized. Those responding are likely to be the most
concerned about the neighborhood and most involved. As long as one stays at a general level and
uses the survey as one of many sources of information, it is unlikely that these results would
significantly mislead. However they should not be taken as absolute.
The respondents tended to be homeowners (92.8 to 7.2 percent). Those filling out the survey
were more mature. 51.6 percent were over 55 years of age, while only 23.9 percent under 40
years of age. On average, those responding to the survey have lived in the area for over 16 years.
The average number of persons per household was 2.27 people. When asked `what places they
would show visitors' by far the most common response included the River Market (over 10
percent of respondents mentioned it). There were a group of three responses, which were sited
about five percent of the time. They include: the malls/strip centers, nothing, and the State
Capitol building. Two responses can be found on over three percent of the surveys. They
include: the neighborhood/homes and Heights/Kavanaugh Boulevard. When asked what `they
would avoid showing visitors' the most common response was nothing (over 5 percent). At
between two and three percent of respondents, the east Little Rock, southwest Little Rock, the
area south of Markham/1-630/12t' Street and Downtown were mentioned.
The neighborhoods are considered to be a good and safe place to live (81.8 percent agree, with
only 7.2 percent disagreeing). Residents generally believe the neighborhood will either stay as is
or improve in the future (42.6 percent believe it is improving, while 17.1 percent think it is not).
There were two questions asked related to issues or concerns, which should be changed or were a
problem. Based on responses to these questions (more than ten mentioned) many do not find
anything of concern or that they would change in the neighborhood. However, the lack of
maintenance of some homes is causing concern. Some have gotten to the point of being called
`eye sore'. The need to `better maintain' or `reconstruct' existing streets also appeared in
response to both questions. The lack or need for both curb/gutters and sidewalks appears
frequently. Crimelbreak-in concerns were also raised multiple times to these questions. Finally
the problem of high traffic speeds was raised. Issues with high mention to one question and less
to the other included truancy/kids hanging out. Traffic issues of cut-thru, congestion, and lack of
adequate streetlights also fall in this group. Finally, the need to better maintain and make safe
existing city parks was listed.
The infrastructure (roads and utilities) is in good condition in the opinion of most area residents.
Only 5.6 percent believe that the water utility lines are in poor maintenance, while 18.1 percent
believe the streets are not well maintained. Few respondents named any one location, however
backyard flooding was mentioned numerous times. Several respondents mentioned McAdoo just
north of Markham and various locations along Biscayne as flood problems. When asked to list
streets in need of repair or in poor condition, many were given but few streets were mentioned
repeatedly. The most commonly mentioned (more than ten times) streets were: `H', Hughes,
Indiana, Leawood & Louwanda, McAdoo and all streets in the area (city). The second group
(mentioned 5 to 10 times) include: Biscayne, Evergreen, Florida, Illinois, `M', Markham, and
Pine Manor. Sidewalks are lacking in much of the area, 60 percent of those responding feel there
Page II - A
are not adequate sidewalks to support current foot traffic. One should note that only 20 percent of
respondents do not think that being able to walk to services, shopping, school, etc. is important.
Residents are about evenly split on the condition of existing sidewalks, leaning toward a
maintenance problem (32.4 percent -- well maintained, 37 percent -- poorly maintained).
However a majority of residents are unwilling to pay additional fees for the repair or install
additional sidewalks (54.9 percent). Most respondents believed that waste pick-up and recycling
services are adequate (81.7 percent). It is worth noting that 72.7 percent of respondents think the
city should require that the green trash containers be removed from the street.
Traffic speed and/or volume are considered a problem by a majority of residents (56.3 percent).
The use of traffic calming devices to reduce speeds is considered a good idea by about the same
percent of respondents. The neighborhood is fairly split on whether there are sufficient police
patrols to enforce traffic laws (39.4 percent believe there are, 34 percent believe there are not).
Traffic speed is an issue on all major and secondary streets as well as a few local streets. Many
people mentioned their street, but the most commonly mentioned streets were: Biscayne,
Cantrell, Evergreen, Georgia, `H', Hughes, Leawood, Louwanda, Markham, Mississippi, and
University (in alphabetic order). Another set was mentioned numerous times, including: Florida,
Linda, Plaza/Lee/Hughes, Rodney Parham, Shamrock and Van Lee (in alphabetic order). Non-
residential uses do not seem to be creating a major parking problem for the neighborhood (67.2
percent feel there is adequate parking). There may be some small localized problems since just
under 10 percent believe there is not adequate parking. There are most likely localized safety and
congestion problems around schools, since 27.3 percent believe there is a problem and 24.9
percent believe there is not a problem.
There is a sizable minority who believe structures in the area are not well maintained. Over a
third (37.4 percent) believe there is a need for stricter residential property standards and believe
school property is not well maintained (35.7 percent). The neighborhood is also split on whether
the City should provide assistance for maintenance to those in need (29 percent agree, 34.7
percent disagree). There is support for the City's proactive rental inspection program, with 47.9
percent in support and only 13.5 percent opposed to it.
These neighborhoods are established with few vacant lots still available. When asked about
subdividing a structure into multiple units, respondents were strongly opposed (75.1 percent, only
13.7 percent supported). A similar percentage was opposed to the addition of any new multi -unit
residential development (73.4 opposed, only 6.4 percent supported the idea). Most people want
the area to stay basically the same. They are against the idea of converting a residential structure
for a non-residential use (72.1 percent, only 8.6 percent supported the idea). The idea of
introducing mixed -use structures (residential, above, and non-residential, below) was also not
looked on favorably (45.9 percent against, only 20 percent supportive). When asked about `what
any new commercial building should include', by far the most common response dealt with
parking usually `adequate parking' or `parking design'. The second most common response dealt
with the need for landscapingibuffering. The next most common responses were: an indication
that no new commercial should be added and the need to preserve/add trees. No specific type of
use received ten or more mentions from the respondents. A Walmart/K-Mart/variety type of
business was the most mentioned with eight responses.
Generally the respondents to the survey believe there are adequate park and recreation facilities in
the area (55.1 percent). A quarter (25.6 percent), however, feel there is a need for additional
services. When asked what kind of recreational facilities should be added, almost sixty
respondents said none. But the most mentioned facility was a walk/jog/bike trail by 37
respondents. A playground for children was the next most mentioned (with 22 responses). And
18 respondents mentioned a neighborhood pool. Maintenance of the existing parks was
mentioned by over twenty respondents (more for Meriwether, 22, than Reservoir, 15). The only
PageIl -B
other facility to receive ten or more mentions was sidewalks (with 10 mentions). There is some
support for the idea of adding bicycle lanes on existing streets (41.2 percent), but there is a
significant minority who are against the idea (29 percent). There are a large percentage (65.4
percent) of the respondents who believe that there is a need to make streets, paths, and etc. more
`pedestrian friendly'.
As one might expect there is some concern about crime in the area. There is a desire to see more
police patrols, with the hope that this increased visibility would reduce crime (43.1 percent, 25.1
percent do not feel this is needed). Truancy is not a major problem in the area (only 15.5 percent
believe it is, 29 percent do not). The response may indicate some localized problems. Loitering,
in general, appears to also be localized since half (50.5 percent) the respondents do not believe
there is a problem, while less than a quarter (21.7 percent) of respondents feel there is. The
location and number of streetlights also appears to be a localized problem with only 29.5 percent
of respondents feeling additional lights are needed to deter crime. Finally drug activity in the
area is not perceived to be a major problem by the respondents (55.1 percent not a problem, 10.8
percent is a problem).
Page II - C
Survey Sub -area Differences
A review of the surveys to determine any difference between sub -areas finds the following.
While respondents from throughout the entire area have a positive opinion of the neighborhood,
those west of Mississippi have the highest percentage that responded that the area was good and
is improving. People in this area more often gave positive marks for the area infrastructure —
streets, water and sewer lines. The northeast sector, between Mississippi and University north of
H Street, had the lowest percentage of respondents who felt that the streets were in good
condition.
While the respondents from east of Mississippi were more likely to believe there were adequate
police patrols to control traffic related issues, they were also more likely to believe there were
problems. The respondents north of H Street and east of Mississippi were most likely to indicate
there were speed and/or congestion problems on the area streets. Those south of H Street but east
of Mississippi were most likely to indicate a problem with `on -street' parking from non-
residential uses.
With a public high school and middle school as well as private schools, those on the eastern side
of Mississippi were more likely to believe there were problems related to schools. They believe
that school building maintenance was poor, as well as having concerns about street safety
surrounding schools -- congestion and speed. Truancy was also perceived to be a problem by
more respondents in this area. In the area north of H Street, the highest percentage of respondents
identified this to be a problem (with a quarter of the respondents).
Respondents from the area west of Mississippi were most likely to believe stricter housing
maintenance standards needed to be enforced. Those east of Mississippi and south of H Street
were least likely to agree with this. For other housing and land use issues a north -south rather
than an east -west difference appears. Those north of H Street and Evergreen tended to be more
supportive of the rental inspection program. Respondents in this area tended to be less against
multi -unit residential developments.
The southern half of the survey area tends to be more homogenous — single family detached
homes. This may be part of the reason for less opposition to multi -unit structures. While there
was little support for mixed -use development in the survey area, those in the northern half of the
area showed some support with a little under a quarter believing it is a good idea. Respondents
from this area were also less negative about conversion of a single-family house to commercial
use.
With two parks in the north half of the survey area; those respondents in the south half were more
likely to believe there were inadequate park/recreation facilities. Most of the area was supportive
of bike lanes and making streets more pedestrian friendly. The area east of Mississippi and north
of H Street was most supportive of adding bike lanes and the area south of H Street and east of
Mississippi was least likely to support the idea of pedestrian friendly streets and lanes.
Most of the area respondents believed there were enough streetlights to deter crime and ranged
just over 40 percent who felt a need for more police patrols to help deter crime. The area south of
Evergreen and west of Mississippi did find a need for more streetlights (45 percent) and that more
police patrols were needed (46 percent). Those north of H Street and east of Mississippi were
most satisfied with police patrols and least concerned about loitering and the occurrence of drug
activity in the neighborhood.
Page II - D
APPENDIX
Planning Committee members:
Ralph & Georgianne Billingsley
Becky Boyd
Shaunna & Bruce Branch
Virginia A. Brissey
Betty Brock
Chris Bryan
Keith Buchanan
John Burnett
Lana & Rob Burns
Donna & Tom Callaway
Richard Campbell
Brad Cazort
Mrs. P. R. Childers
Craig S. Corder
Robert Cromwell
Bob Dalton
Lucille DeGostin
Jane Evans
Frances H. Fitzgerald
Bobbye Floyd
Carl Glenn
Jessie R. Green
Joseph B. Hendrix
Cheryl Hodges
Fred & Beverly House
Chip & Kerry Johnson
Cindy Johnson
Jordan Johnson
John K. Jones
Lucille Kelly
Elliot & Dionne Kumpe
Joe Kuykendall
Ann Kyle
Gregg Ledbetter
Thad Luther,
Floyd & Rebecca Martin
Drew & Joanie Mashburn
Erin Mason
Ray McCollough
Kerry & Sherry McDonnell
Jeff McNeil
Betty & Richard Meyer
Jeff & Susan Milligan
Kristi & Scott Moody
Peter Mory
Ms. Pat W. O'Donoghue
John J. & Emma Jane Ohnemus
Leslie M. O'Malley
Nell O'Neal
Rick Peltz
Susan Pfeifer
Virginia Porta
Clay Price
Janet L. & Lottie Pulliam
Deanna & Joel Scott
Frank A. Smith
Donald E. Steely
Janet Stewart
Handy Stinson
Thomas Stuart
Thecia J. Taylor
Mrs. Debi Taylor
Britt & Debbie Thompson
Jim Van Hook
Brenda Welch
Dorothy Willoughby
Jonathan J. Wolfe
Ginny N. Wood
Malone, Walter
From:
Webre, Mark
Sent:
Thursday, April 19, 2001 2:59 PM
To:
Malone, Walter
Subject:
Leawood Plan
Walter:
I am pleased to see such a comprehensive plan for this area in light of the neighborhood's density
and how it supports our efforts toward implementing the parks master plan. One other
consideration is the respect of natural drainage areas and maintaining them in their natural
capacity. Let me know if we can be of any help.
Mark Webre
Design Division
Little Rock Parks and Recreation
501-371-6853 phone
501-371-6832 fax