HomeMy WebLinkAboutUpper_BaselineUUppppeerr BBaasseelliinnee
NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd PPllaann UUppddaattee 22000055
Plan Update Process
Staff received a request from the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association
to update the Neighborhood Plan, which includes their area. In addition, the
Neighborhood Association asked that the Plan area be enlarged to include
their new expanded area (the 65th Street Industrial Park). This area was
included for the Update. In early 2005, Planning Staff sent requests to other
agencies on information related to the accomplishments for the Plan area.
During February and March 2005 responses were received by the Planning
Department and Staff began work examining physical change in the
neighborhood. A report on the changes in the neighborhood with current
demographics was developed.
In May of 2005 Staff contacted the former committee members and other
groups to gage interest in forming a committee to review and update the Plan.
Little interest was shown. With only limited interest, it was decided to conduct
the update with each group reviewing the document independently rather
than forming a committee. Staff met with the Upper Baseline Neighborhood
Association and O.U. R. Neighborhood Association to discuss the Plan and
update process. Both groups reviewed the Plan independently over the late
summer and early fall of 2005 and provided suggested changes and
additions.
Only minor (Action Statement) alterations were suggested. Staff distributed
these changes to the other groups. After a short period of review and no
comment received the updates were incorporated into the Plan document.
Following is the Update Report with the proposed changes. The full
Neighborhood Plan has been modified to include the updates to the Plan
section.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan Existing Conditions Update
Geography
The original area rests East of Geyer Springs Road and South of I-30 to the City
Limits. The territory added to the neighborhood plan is north of I-30 to the
Fourche Bottoms and extends from Patterson Road on the west, to the city limits
on the east. The new areas primary use has been industrial and is geared
toward such activity.
Socio-Economic Characteristics
The overall demographic profile of the area have remained fairly consistent with
those reported in the original document. The bulk of the population (59%) is
African Americans. The only other significant ethnic groups in the area are: white
(27%), and Hispanic\Latino (8%). Within the Plan area the population is found
only in the original plan area. Baseline Road is the Census dividing line with
Tract 41.08 to the south and Tract 41.07 to the north. Census Tract 41.07 is less
dense (people per area) with a population of 3150. Of these, African Americans
represent 49% of the population, while whites represent 42% of the population.
Census area 41.08 holds a population of 5802, of these, 21% are white, while
72% are African American.1
While both areas are predominately African American, Census Tract 41.08 has
an overwhelming majority at an approximate ratio of 3 to 1. Since 1990 the
population of the Census Tract 41.08, has become increasingly African American
(from 54% to 72%), while simultaneously losing inhabitants. The loss of
population is relatively small at 43 people.
Census Tract 41.07 has undergone some notable changes as well. The 1990
Census data reported that 70% of the population was white and only 28% was
African American. Since 1990 there has been a loss of White population while
there has been an increase in the African American population. The result of
which is an area which was 70% white now has a plurality of African Americans.
Racial distribution
Census Tract Population White Black
41.07 3150 42% 49%
41.08 5802 21% 72%
The age grouping of (19 to 64) represents the bulk of the neighborhood
population, 58%. This group is followed closely by those under the age of 18,
who represent 35% of the population. There is a small group of seniors, over the
age of 65, who represent only 7% of the population. It is worth noting that during
the 1990s the under 18 group increased by over 5 percentage points while the
other groups dropped (over 65 almost 2 percentage points and the 19-64 group 3
percentage points). The area has become younger.
The 1990 Census reported that there were 3,597 total households in the
neighborhood. Ten years later there was a net loss of 213 households in the
neighborhood, leaving the total households at 3,384. Of the 3,384 households,
29% are single parent. The majority of single-parent households in the area
(24%) are headed by women, while men lead only 5 percent. The 1990 Census
showed that Single Parent Homes were primarily led by women at a ratio of
approximately 7 single female parents for every single male parent. The 2000
census shows that there has been a net gain of single parent households but the
ratio of female to male single parents reduced, it is now five single female
parents to every one single male parent.
The median income of the Neighborhood has gone up, but inflation may be the
source of a great deal of the improvements. Census Tract 41.07 went from
$18,494 in 1990 to $27,985 in 2000. Census Tract 41.08 went from $21,374 in
1990 to $26,687 in 2000. Pulaski County median household income was
1 These residents claimed a single ethnicity, while few others reported multiple ethnicities. Multiple
ethnicities were not included in these figures.
$26,883 in 1990 increasing to $38,120 in 2000. Arkansas state household
median income was $21,147 in 1990 increasing to $32,182 in 2000. Thirteen
percent of the families in the neighborhood have an income that is below the
poverty level but this still represents some improvement from the previous report.
Existing Housing Conditions
The neighborhood now includes just below four thousand residential structures.
There are 1450 structures in Census Tract 41.07, of these 7% are vacant.
Census Tract 41.08 has 2343 structures, of these 14% are vacant.
The area as a whole contains high-density rental property as well as duplexes
and smaller rental properties. There is 1043 medium to high-density rental units
in the area2, of these 19% are vacant. There are 505 buildings that have twenty
or more units, of these 19% are vacant. Single-family homes represent the
largest number of structures, at 1748, of which 4% are vacant. Mobile homes
are scattered about the neighborhood in parks and single unit locations. There
are approximately 736 mobile homes, of which 19% are vacant. There are a
total of 433 vacant housing structures in the neighborhood, which represents
12% of the housing structures in the area.
2000 Housing CT 41.07 CT 41.08
Structure Type Number of Structures Number of Structures Total Units
Single Family 593 1155 1748
Multi-Family Duplex 0 90 90
Multi-Family (3-4 Units) 111 244 355
Multi-Family (5-9) 242 184 426
Multi-Family (10-19) 45 127 172
Multi-Family (20-49) 46 29 75
Multi-Family (50 or more) 130 61 191
Mobile Home 283 453 736
Totals 1450 2343 3793
2000 Vacant Housing CT 41.07 CT 41.08
Structure Type Number of Vacant Units Number of Vacant Units Total Units
Single Family 26 48 74
Multi-Family Duplex 0 11 11
Multi-Family (3-4 Units) 0 32 32
Multi-Family (5-9) 14 77 91
Multi-Family (10-19) 13 56 69
Multi-Family (20-49) 0 11 11
Multi-Family (50 or more) 0 0 0
Mobile Home 53 92 145
Totals 106 327 433
2 Medium to High-Density ranging from duplexes to multi-family units containing 19 or less rental spaces.
The housing tenure and ownership of the neighborhood is leaning towards
renters, at 56% of the households while owners constitute 42%. The numbers
from 1990 suggest that ownership of homes as a percentage is falling (48-52 to
42-56 owner–renter). The average household size in the neighborhood is 2.65
people per household. The household size has been relatively stable and shows
little differentiation from the 1990 Census. The vacancy rate may partially
explain the loss of the population, with a noticeable but relatively small reduction
of occupied structures when compared to the 1990 Census.
Non-Residential Conditions
The areas of commercial activity remain unchanged with the addition of the
activity at the corner of Dividend Street and Scott Hamilton. Baseline Road,
Scott Hamilton, and Geyer Springs remain a staple of commercial activity in the
neighborhood. There is a wide assortment of services offered: fueling stations,
banks, fast-food restaurants, specialty shops, and more. Interstate 30 serves as
a major source of outside capital for the area. There is a concentration of
commerce around the Interstate leaving the majority of the land to residential
use. The commercial facilities are relatively sound in regard to aesthetics and
functionality, which is reflective of effective maintenance through time by owners
and renters.
Educational facilities3 in the area have remained in place and in tact. In addition
there are several churches, a city impound lot, and city maintenance facilities,
which are distributed about the area. The Metropolitan Vocational School gained
additional facilities and investment at just under $2.5 million in improvements.
Office uses are still located on Geyer Springs Road and Baseline Road. State
owned facilities include the Arkansas State Police Headquarters and the
Department of Environmental Quality, which are both located off the I-30 frontage
road.
Existing Land Use
Residential land use is the most prevalent in the area. The uses can be broken
into single-family residential, which is the most prevalent of the residential types,
and multi-family residential, which would include the multiple unit complexes in
the area.
The neighborhood roadways are in reasonable condition but many lack
sidewalks. Additional pedestrian accommodations to service the large number of
children, which are prevalent within the neighborhood, would be beneficial.
There has been no additions or losses in Multi-Family residential units. The two
largest complexes, Quail Valley Apartments and The Pines Apartments, appear
to be in reasonably good condition and operating.
There are mobile home parks and single mobile homes scattered throughout the
area. Large parks (those over 70 spaces) are located off Doyle Springs Road,
Smith Circle, Larry Circle, South Heights, and Sunset Lane.
3 Upper Baseline Elementary, McClellan High School, Metropolitan Vocational School.
Commercial land use is fairly diverse throughout the neighborhood but is
concentrated near I-30 and several other major streets. The use of the
commercial space is dedicated to, but not exclusive to: motels, real-estate
offices, restaurants, convenience stores, shopping centers and more.
There are five major commercial shopping centers in the area, which represent
226,452 square feet of usable commercial space. The rental rates for the spaces
are comparable to rates of similar spaces in East Little Rock and Jacksonville.
There is little evidence that suggests a significant change in the commercial
activities since the original neighborhood action plan was written.
Information was gathered by Arkansas Business, which makes no attempt to verify the information.
Area Shopping Centers Total Square Feet Occupancy Rate
Baseline Shopping Center 20000
Baseline Square 30800 89%
Colony South 27000 0%
Geyer Springs Shopping Center 129971
Windamere Plaza 67636
There is a small but relatively stable base of office space being rented in the
area. Much like the commercial space there has been little if any development in
this sector. There are five major office buildings that provide 275,407 square feet
of space. The leasing rates of the buildings are fairly comparable, except for
8017 I-30 Office Building, which has rates nearly twice the amount as others.
Information collected by Arkansas Business, which makes no attempt to verify data.
Area Office Facilities Leaseable Square Feet Percent Occupied
8017 I-30 7425 100%
Little Rock Corporate Center 137782 67%
Williamsburg Center 10000
1-30 @ Scott Hamilton 64200
I-30 @ Geyer Springs 56000
There is an industrial sector that is part of the neighborhood. Most of the added
area is an industrial park. A variety of industrial activities can be found in the
neighborhood, but the sector serves primarily as a warehousing district. The
leasing rates for the industrial space are generally negotiable and comparable to
warehousing prices in the Little Rock MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area ).
Existing Zoning
The following zoning can be found in the neighborhood, R-2 Single Family, with a
minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet is the most common. The study area
currently has 2056 acres zoned as R-2.
The remaining residential is multifamily or manufactured housing. Currently 0.75
acres has the zoning designation of R-7A for manufactured homes.4 R-4 zoning
is the two-family or duplex district and there are currently 17 acres designated for
such use. The final residential zoning designation within the neighborhood is
multifamily in nature and is classified “Urban Residential District”, (R-5) which
allows developments of up to 36 units per gross acre. Currently, close to 26
acres have been zoned R-5 in the study area.
Commercial zoning is fairly straightforward and comes in one of four varieties, of
which all are represented in the study area. C-1 zoning or “Neighborhood
Commercial District”, is aimed at attracting commercial activity oriented towards
small personal, neighborhood “type” business. The area currently contains one
acre for C-1 activity. C-2 or “Shopping Center District” is oriented towards large
commercial developments such as malls and shopping centers. The study area
contains 9.7 acres of designated C-2 zoning. C-3 or “General Commercial
District” covers a broad range of commercial uses. The study area contains 87.1
acres of this type of zoning. C-4 zoning or “Open Display Commercial District”
generally means that goods to be sold may be openly displayed, i.e. lumberyard
or car lot. 13.6 acres are designated for this type of use.
Office space is yet another zoning designation, which comes in three variants, of
which two are in the study area. O-1 or “Quiet Office District” is currently
occupying 0.3 acres of land in the study area. O-3 or “General Office District”, is
the most prevalent office zoning and allows freestanding office buildings that
serve a wide variety of purposes. O-3 currently occupies 20.8 acres within the
study area.
Industrial zoning in the study area is quite extensive and occupies a great deal of
land. Industrial zoning is broken into three designations, of which two are in the
study area. The more prevalent of the two is the I-2 or “Light Industrial” zoning,
which has 1501.5 acres. Light Industrial zoning allows for development of
general industrial uses such as light manufacturing and assembly. I-3 or “Heavy
Industrial District” is for development of industrial activities that are generally
objectionable or hazardous in nature. The study area contains 21.3 acres of
“Heavy Industrial” zoning. There is also zoning for “Mining” (M) in the study area,
151.9 acres. Mining is extraction of natural resources such as minerals,
agricultural goods, as well as forestry.
OS is the zoning designation for “Open Space”, or an area used as a buffer zone
between zoning districts. The study area currently has 6.2 acres designated as
OS. PR is the zoning designation for “Parks and Recreational Space”, active and
passive recreation is promoted through environmental conservation and human
interaction with nature. There is 0.76 acres of PR in the study area.
PRD or “Planned Residential Development” is an area that has proposed
residential use in a mixed-use district. There are 12.84 acres allotted this zoning
designation. PCD or “Planned Commercial Development” designation is used
4 Use of the property does not always match the zoning designation, i.e. a mobile home could be zoned R-2
if on a single lot.
when commercial mixed-use development is proposed. A mix of residential,
office, and commercial is permitted. The study area has 4.7 acres of PCD
zoning. PID zoning or “Planned Industrial Development”; the area has 11.1
acres for such use. POD or “Planned Office Development” represents 0.75 acres
of the plan area.
Zoning Acreage Description Qualifications
R2 2055.9 Single Family District Minimum lot size. 7000 sq/ft
R4 17.02 Two Family District, Duplexes Minimum lot size. 7000 sq/ft
R5 25.64 Urban Residence District Apartments Max 36 Units per gross acre
R7A 0.75 Manufactured Home District Subdivision 12 family units per net saleable acre
C1 1.04 Neighborhood Commercial Development Small personal service uses, neighborhood oriented
C2 9.68 Shopping Center District Large Scale Commercial Projects (Malls, Centers)
C3 87.1 General Commercial District General Sales and Service uses.
C4 13.6 Open Display Commercial District Large Open Showroom (Lumber Yard, Car Lot)
O1 0.36 Quiet Office District Residential Structures converted to office uses
O3 20.76 General Office District General Office Uses in Freestanding Structures.
OS 6.15 Open Space buffer zone between converse land uses
M 151.8848 Mining Mineral Extraction, Agriculture, and Forestry
PCD 4.74 Planned Commercial District Mixed Residential, Commercial and Office uses
PID 11.12 Planned Industrial District Mixed Warehousing and Manufacturing
POD 0.75 Planned Office Development Office development with allowances for variation
PR 0.76 Parks and Recreation District
Active and Passive Recreation is conducted amongst
nature
PRD 12.84 Planned Residential Residential Uses in Mixed Structures
I2 1501.477 Light Industrial
Warehousing and Some light manufacturing and
assembly
I3 21.3 Heavy Industrial Generally Objectionable or hazardous in nature.
Future Land Use Planning
The neighborhood is primarily a residential district that is supported by a
commercial base. This base is located on the I-30 corridor and other major
roadways of the area. The future use of the land in the neighborhood is aimed at
improving the environmental factors that are created through sustained land use
over time.
Industrial use in the neighborhood was formerly less than a percentage point of
the future land use plan, or 3.3 acres. The addition of the “new” area into the
neighborhood plan has increased the significance of this classification to 34% of
the future land use planning, or 1308 acres. Light future land use, presently it
accounts for less than a percentage point or 3.6 acres.
Single Family Residential future land use was the most significant statistical
representation in the former report and remains a very significant part of the
future land use plan. The area covered by the update contains 26% or 942 acres
identified for single-family use. The previous report contained 997 acres or 48%
of the area was designated for this use. While there has been a significant
reduction in the percentage of the area proposed for single-family use, only a net
loss of 55 acres occurred. The land proposed for Low Density Residential
development accounts for 6% or 224 acres, which is about 8 acres less than in
the previous report.
Building Permit Information
Building permits for the area between January 2000 and January 2005 show that
there has been very little new construction on single-family homes. The bulk of
the new homes were built in the year 2003, there were 4 new structures added
totaling $400,931 invested. In the year 2002 only one single-family permit was
issued. The lack of new construction could be a result of the neighborhoods
status as a developed area, or has reached the maximum amount of sustainable
development allowed by zoning regulations.
There may have been few new single-family homes built but the permits for
renovations and additions shows, continued investment in the area. There has
been $279,260 cumulatively invested in adding square footage to pre-existing
structures, while renovations accrued $900,983 in additional investment.
A total of eleven structures have been scheduled, or are already demolished
which were found to be unsuitable for repair or use. There are a total of 21
properties that have been found to have vacant and\or unsafe structures mainly
from Census Tract 41.08.5
Multi-Family residential development has not experienced any new construction.
There have been efforts to improve the existing structures as permits were
issued for renovations totaling $885,027. 2004 was by far the most active year in
regard to multi-family renovations with 31 permits issued.
Development in the public sector has also infused some needed capital in the
area through the improvement of schools, churches, and other necessary city
facilities. The Metropolitan Votech was by far the biggest investor, adding
$2,721,800 in new development and renovations, followed by McClellan High
School that added a new classroom and invested $1,684,000. The total
cumulative public/quasi-public funds invested in renovations, additions, and new
buildings, was $6,490,731.
There was only one permit issued for construction of a new office building, which
was issued in September of 2003. The office building at 8000 Scott Hamilton
Drive was renovated with $1,022,380 in September of 2000. The Arkansas
Electric Cooperative was the largest investor in the area by adding $1,850,000 in
building improvements. Office buildings as a cumulative whole accounted for
$3,106,380 in renovations and additions.
Commercial development in the area has been relatively stable with three
businesses added, one built in 2003 and the remaining two in 2004. The
businesses added were a Laundromat, a McDonald’s, and Professional
Educators. There were no permits issued to renovate commercial buildings
between 2000 and 2004. In January and February of 2005, 2 permits for
renovations were issued bringing the cumulative commercial investment to
$1,338,000.
5 See Supplemental Information, Code Enforcement establishes the criteria to meet unsafe & vacant
standards.
The Upper Baseline Neighborhood encompasses one of Little Rock’s industrial
centers, which produces a variety of products. The permits issued for industrial
uses were fairly limited but in existence. There was only one new building permit
issued since the last report was released. The building permit was issued in the
year 2001 for a metal storage facility. Two permits are issued for additions to
preexisting buildings and two for renovations. The grand total of capital invested
in Industrial expansion or improvement comes to $2,832,000.
Goal Completions
The update process began by sending a request to departments of the city to
ascertain what goals had or had not been completed. There were several
departments that were ask for information but only a few returned a response.
The Parks and Recreation Department reported that mulch had been put on a
trail between the end of Warren Drive to the Southwest Police Parking Lot. Also,
Audubon Arkansas and the City of Little Rock have worked closely together to
begin restoration of the Fourche Creek Park that will contain an environmental
education center in the future. There has been a partnership between Baseline
Elementary and the City that has resulted in summer programs for the past
couple of years.
The Public Works Department reported that “signalization timings have been
improved, all equipment has been updated, and traffic signals on 65th have been
interconnected. A traffic signal installation began in February of 2005 at Baseline
and Stanton Road. Signal timing has been improved on Geyer Springs and
Young Roads, traffic counts are reviewed annually for adjustment.
The Department of Community Programs included a list of groups and contact
information for the area.6 The Police Department has not provided any germane
information that could be included.
6 See Supplemental Information
UPDATE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Department of Housings and Neighborhood Programs list of unsafe structures:
Unsafe Vacant List
FID ADDRESS APT WARD UNIT FILE
LOC MTH YR MEMO
164 3925 Arapaho Tr 7 Oct 2003 Razed & Removed
183 5511 W. Baseline TR 35 7 2 Jan 2003 Occupied
184 5813 Baseline 66 6 2 May 2003 No change
239-240-241 4001-03-05 Bruno Triplex 6 2 Feb 2004 Repairs in progress
242 4106 Bruno 6 5-05776 1 Jan 2002 Occupied
273 3507 Coffer Ln TR 24 6 5-04647 5 Aug 1998 New TR in place
274 3507 Coffer Ln TR 30 6 2 Nov 2003 TR removed / space vacant
314 8318 Doyle Springs TR 36 7 5-05794 5 Feb 2002 No change
352 9811 Geyer Springs 3 7 5-05664 5 Oct 2001 No change
394 9406 Lew Circle 6 2 Dec 2003 Invalid Address, possibly 9409?
445 19 Old Glory Ct East 7 Dec 2003 Some repairs, not complete
446 21 Old Glory Ct West 7 Dec 2003 Some repairs, not complete
447 24 Old Glory Ct South 7 Dec 2003 No change
534 8519 Scott Hamilton 2 Feb 2004 No change
537 5319 Southboro Rear 6 Apr 2003 Occupied
538 3404 Spencer Ln Dec 2003 No change
539 3405 Spencer Ln Dec 2003 TR removed / space vacant
540 3408 Spencer Dec 2003 No change
603 3701 American Manor 6 5-00387-90 No change
604 3700 American Manor 6 5-00383-86 No change
CITY-FUNDED PROGRAMS IN UPPER BASELINE AREA
YYIIPP SSIITTEESS
GREATER SECOND BAPTIST CHURCH Operated by:
5615 Geyer Springs Road Greater Second Care Center
Little Rock, AR 72209 5615 Geyer Springs
Road
569-9988 Little Rock, AR 72209
569-9988 570-7777 (Fax)
Nicole Henderson, Site Coordinator Fred Harvey, Site Director
563-3349
email: nhenderson@greatersecond.org
YYoouutthh eennggaaggeedd aatt ssiittee:: 3344
STEP UP SUPPORT CENTER Operated by:
9010 Hilaro Springs Road Step Up Support Center
Little Rock, AR 72209 9010 Hilaro Springs Road
565-1333 (Work) 565-1653 (Fax) Little Rock, AR 72209
565-1333 565-1653 (Fax)
Tony Crofton, Site 1 Coordinator Ruth Nash, Site Director
565-1333 (Work) 417-8912 (Pager) email: Stepup1333@yahoo.com
email: Tony_c40@yahoo.com
Youth engaged at site: 25
Site 2 Coordinator (Hispanic)
565-1333 (Work) 744-5496 (Cell)
email:
Youth engaged at site: 42
NNEEIIGGHHBBOORRHHOOOODD--BBAASSEEDD PPRREEVVEENNTTIIOONN PPRROOGGRRAAMMSS
PROMISELAND MINISTRIES-UNIVERSIDAD de PROMISA
Operated by:
8923 Sunset Lane Road Promiseland Ministries
Little Rock, AR 72209 8923 Sunset Lane Road
570-0048 (Work) 570-0090 (Fax) Little Rock, AR 72209
570-0048 (Work) 570-0090
(Fax)
Maricella Garcia, Site Coordinator Antoine Scruggs, Site Director
email: Apromise1@aol.com
Youth engaged at site: 30
STEP UP SUPPORT CENTER-OUR CLUB Operated by:
9010 Hilaro Springs Road Step Up Support Center
Little Rock, AR 72209 9010 Hilaro Springs Road
565-1333 (Work) 565-1653 (Fax) Little Rock, AR 72209
565-1333 565-1653 (Fax)
Chastity Nash, Site Coordinator Ruth Nash, Site Director
email: Stepup1333@yahoo.com
Youth engaged at site: 54
2005 Additions/Amendments:
Neighborhood and Housing Revitalization
• Preserve residential quality of neighborhood—no daycares, cottage
industries, etc. operating out of homes.
• Increase code enforcement in Valley Drive area (5500-5900 blocks)
and on Old Glory Court--Clean up trash.
• Require landlords to screen tenants.
• Require rentals to be maintained in a high quality manner, holding
landlords accountable in municipal courts.
• Enforce rental inspection on Old Glory and Valley Dr. & Southboro Ct.
• Encourage commercial zoning on main arterials--Baseline Rd, Geyer
Springs.
Public safety:
• Increase Police presence to eliminate drug activity in Valley Dr./Old
Glory and Southboro Ct. areas and prostitution in same area and along
Sunset and Scott Hamilton and Baseline Roads.
Traffic Control:
• Work w/ Public Works to implement traffic calming on Loetscher Lane.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 15
• Evaluate possibility of putting a traffic signal at Loetscher Lane &
Baseline Road, widening Loetscher and adding sidewalks, or making
Loetscher Lane one-way going south.
UUppppeerr BBaasseelliinnee
NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd AAccttiioonn PPllaann
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 16
TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss
PPRREEFFAACCEE 1199
EExxiissttiinngg ccoonnddiittiioonnss
EExxiissttiinngg CCoonnddiittiioonnss 2211
EExxiissttiinngg CCiirrccuullaattiioonn 2211
SSoocciioo--EEccoonnoommiicc CCoonnddiittiioonnss 2222
EExxiissttiinngg HHoouussiinngg CCoonnddiittiioonnss 2233
NNoonn--RReessiiddeennttiiaall CCoonnddiittiioonnss 2244
EExxiissttiinngg LLaanndd UUssee 2244
EExxiissttiinngg ZZoonniinngg 2277
FFuuttuurree LLaanndd UUssee 2288
BBuuiillddiinngg PPeerrmmiitt IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn 2299
PPoolliiccyy PPllaann
EExxeeccuuttiivvee SSuummmmaarryy 3322
NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd aanndd HHoouussiinngg RReevviittaalliizzaattiioonn GGooaall 3333
HHuummaann SSeerrvviiccee GGooaall 3355
PPuubblliicc SSaaffeettyy GGooaall 3377
TTrraaffffiicc CCoonnttrrooll GGooaall 3388
IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree GGooaall 3399
EEccoonnoommiicc GGooaall 4411
IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn 4433
AAppppeennddiixx AA
TThhee SSuurrvveeyy 4466
TThhee SSuurrvveeyy RReessuullttss 5511
AAppppeennddiixx BB
IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree nneeeeddss aass iiddeennttiiffiieedd bbyy PPuubblliicc WWoorrkkss ((1122//77//9988)) 5555
Appendix C
SSuummmmaarryy ooff MMaarrkkeett AAnnaallyyssiiss ((SSeepptteemmbbeerr 11999988)) 6655
Appendix D
CCiirrccuullaattiioonn SSyysstteemm MMaapp 7711
EExxiissttiinngg ZZoonniinngg MMaapp 7722
ZZoonniinngg CCllaassssiiffiiccaattiioonnss aanndd DDeessccrriippttiioonnss 7733
EExxiissttiinngg LLaanndd UUssee MMaapp 7777
EExxiissttiinngg FFuuttuurree LLaanndd UUssee PPllaann MMaapp 7788
FFuuttuurree LLaanndd UUssee CCaatteeggoorriieess 7799
AAppppeennddiixx EE
DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt ooff PPuubblliicc WWoorrkkss CCoommmmeennttss 8822
PPoolliiccee DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt CCoommmmeennttss 8855
DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt ooff HHoouussiinngg aanndd NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd PPrrooggrraammss CCoommmmeennttss 8866
AAppppeennddiixx FF
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 17
11999999 PPllaannnniinngg TTeeaamm 9900
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 18
PPrreeffaaccee::
In mid-1998, City of Little Rock Planning staff contacted the O.U.R., Upper
Baseline and Windamere Neighborhood Associations to begin a planning process
in an area bound by I-30, Geyer Springs Road to the city limits, Hilaro Springs
Road, and north along the Little Fourche Creek to the intersection with I-30.
Support for the neighborhood plan was apparent and City staff “kicked-off” the
process with a mail survey to area addresses. Post cards requesting persons to
participate in the development of the neighborhood action plan were also
distributed.
The committee was formed and development of the plan began in January of 1999.
There were several exchanges between committee members and city staff from
various departments. City departments represented included Economic
Development, Housing and Neighborhood Programs, Planning and Development,
Police and Public Works. These meetings were integral in the development of the
goals, objectives and action statements for the plan.
The results of the surveys, along with the residents’ personal knowledge from living
in the area, were used to develop the goals. Once a set of goals was drafted work
began on the development of the objectives. These objectives and action statements
serve as the means for addressing the goals. Committee members focused on
building codes, economic development, land use, zoning, infrastructure, and
transportation issues.
In July of 1999, the committee members hosted a Town Hall Meeting to allow
comments and solicit support of the Plan. The meeting provided residents an
opportunity to discuss any additional issues or concerns to be addressed in the
completed Neighborhood Action Plan.
The Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan area contains a large number of
non-conforming uses. As part of implementation of the plan, the committee has
begun a review of the Future Land Use Plan and the area zoning. The residents
wish to allow existing uses the opportunity to conform to the Future Land Use Plan
and area zoning. The committee members will contact property owners in the area
and encourage those persons to consider a change to the Future Land Use Plan
and to proceed with the rezoning of their property.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 19
The committee has expressed concern with limiting future development in the area.
Their focus is to make recommendations, which insure quality growth, but still
allows the same diversity of development that is scattered throughout the
neighborhood.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 20
EExxiissttiinngg CCoonnddiittiioonnss::
The Upper Baseline Neighborhood area is located south of I-30, east of Geyer Springs
Road, following along the city limits to Hilaro Springs Road then continuing north
along the Little Fourche Creek. The area falls within Census Tracts 41.07 and 41.08
and the Geyer Springs East Planning District. Land use, zoning, circulation, and
topography maps from the Geographic Information System (GIS) were used to define
the study area’s characteristics. In addition, the City of Little Rock Department of
Planning and Development physically analyzed the study area using the “windshield
survey” method.
The area began developing in the 1960s as a suburb of Little Rock and in the late
1960s the City began annexation of the area. By the mid-1980s, most of the area was
within the corporate limits of Little Rock. Annexation #257 in 1985 “took-in” more
than 1,000 of the 2,000 acres in the study area. Municipal water and sewer services
were in existence prior to the annexation.
There have been many changes in the area since its days as a Little Rock rural suburb.
Business uses line Geyer Springs Road from I-30 to the Baseline Road intersection.
Baseline Road has become more commercial than residential. The area began
developing with service trades in the mid-1970s and continued through the mid-1980s.
Development during the 1990s has been very limited with the addition of 22 structures
in the area. As of December of 1998, there has been no new construction activity in
the plan area since May of 1997.
The Upper Baseline Study area is a part of what is commonly referred to as southwest
Little Rock. The area lies in a quadrant south of I-30 and east of Mabelvale. It is
predominately slow sloping and the majority of the streets are laid out in a modified
grid pattern. The area is in the Fourche Creek Drainage Basin, which contains 21,600
acres and the Little Fourche Creek is the eastern boundary for the study area. Flood
plains are in close proximity to the Little Fourche Creek and the smaller drainage
tributaries throughout the area. Soil types in the area allow for slow absorption rates
and during rainfall several areas experience street and yard flooding.
Existing circulation:
Typical of a grid pattern, the major arterials in the area run along section lines. The I-
30 access road and Baseline Roads connect east to west and Geyer Springs and Scott
Hamilton Drive/Hilaro Springs Road connect north and south. Each of the arterials
allows residents’ access to travel in their own neighborhood or to other areas of Little
Rock. I-30, the area’s northern boundary is accessible via Geyer Springs or Scott
Hamilton Drive. This allows residents easy access to other parts of the city or other
parts of central Arkansas. I-30 intersects with Interstates I-430, I-440, I-630, and I-40
facilitating movement within and outside the city limits of Little Rock.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 21
Baseline Road, a principal arterial, is functioning at or near capacity as is Geyer
Springs Road and Scott Hamilton Drive north of Baseline Road. Six neighborhood
streets function as collector streets, which allows residents movement to the arterial
street network. North of Baseline Road, Stanton Road and Doyle Springs Road
function as north/south collectors. South of Baseline Road, Valley Drive and Rinke
Road serve as east/west collectors and Sunset Lane and Reck Road via Pine Cone
Drive serve as north/south collector. There is a proposed connection from Rinke Road
to Sunset Lane shown on the Master Street Plan which should be made before Rinke
Road and Sunset Lane can function as true collectors.
Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) provides bus service to the area. The
Mabelvale-Downtown and the Mabelvale-UALR Bus Routes serve the area’s western
edge. A third route in the area follows Scott Hamilton Drive to Baseline Road then to
Stanton Road. The route is referred to as the 65th Route and connects to downtown.
Planned bike paths and bikeways in the area are limited. A portion of the Southwest
Little Rock Loop Bikeway has been identified in the area. This is a Class III Bikeway
(no separation or special signage). A Class I Bikeway (separate bike lanes) has been
identified for Sunset Lane continuing to the Little Fourche Creek.
Socio-economic characteristics:
The 1980 population for the area was reported at 3,480 persons within the city and
6,940 outside the city. In 1990 the population of the area was approximately 9,300. By
1990 the entire population was included within the city limits. This is roughly 5% of
the total city population. The area can be divided into “north of Baseline Road”--
where population was 3,500 in 1990-- and “south of Baseline Road”-- where
population was 5,800. Based on the current population estimates, the population of the
area is approximately 8,800. There has been a steady decline in population in the area
over the previous 20 years.
1990 Census for the area indicates the area is 55% white, 44% black and 1% other.
The percentages of the area are significantly higher than city totals 64.7% White,
34.0% Black, and .3% Other. The Hispanic population (not a racial group) accounts
for 1.1 % of the population.
Census Area Population Percent White Percent Black Percent Other
41.07 3,511 70.0%28.3%0.7%
41.08 5,845 45.4%53.6%1.0%
1990 Census data
The majority of the population falls into the age group of 18 – 64. Sixty-one percent of
the population is 18-64 years of age, followed by persons under the age of 18. Nearly
30% of the population is under 18 and the remainder of the population is over the age
of 65 (9%).
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 22
Age Count Percent of
Total
Under 18 2,784 29.8%
19-64 5,749 61.4%
Over 65 823 8.8%
Total: 9,356 100.0% 1990 Census data
One-person households comprise 26.3 percent of the population. One-parent
households (single parents with children) account for 18% of the total (3557)
households. This is above the citywide total for one-parent households of 11.4%. The
single female heads of household rate is 15.7% compared to 10% citywide.
Census
Area
% Persons
Over 65
Total # of
Households
Single Parent
Household %
Male
Single Parent
Household %
Female
41.07 12.6% 1,415 1.7%12.9%
41.08 6.5% 2,142 2.7%17.6%
1990 Census data
Incomes in the area are significantly lower than citywide incomes. Sixty-nine percent
of the households have incomes below $30,000 and nine percent have incomes above
$50,000. The city rate of incomes below $30,000 is 38.1%, while 22.2% of the
households citywide have incomes above $50,000.
Low to moderate-income data for the area indicated by the 1990 Census depicts 51.1%
of the population falls into this category.
Census Area Median
Household
Income
Less than $30,000
Household Income
# Low to Moderate
Income Families
% Low to
Moderate Income
Families
41.07 $18,494 72.1% 771 54.5%
41.08 $21,374 65.9%1048 48.9%
1990 Census data
Existing housing conditions:
There are approximately four thousand housing units in the area. Roughly 1600 units
are south of Baseline Road and 2400 units are north of Baseline Road. Rental
Inspection Program information, furnished by the Department of Housing and
Neighborhood Programs, indicates one mobile home, two single-family residences, and
five multi-family structures are unsafe. Three single-family units and four multi-
family structures were determined to be substandard.
There are large apartment complexes located both north and south of Baseline Road.
In addition to the complexes, there are additional two, four and eight unit structures
scattered throughout the area. Overall, the apartment complexes are in satisfactory
condition with the exception of those previously noted which are working to meet code
standards.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 23
According to 1990 Census data, of the 4,003 housing units in the area, 89% are
occupied. There are 1,750 single-family homes in the area, 850 mobile or
manufactured homes and 1,350 multi-family units. Of the units, 48% are owner-
occupied and 52% are renter-occupied. The persons per household rate for the area is
2.53 for owner-occupied units and 2.66 for renter- occupied units.
Non-residential conditions:
Along Baseline Road and Geyer Springs Road, commercial activities are quite
numerous. These activities cover a variety of uses including dine-in restaurants, fast
food drive-through, specialty shops, gas stations and banks. These establishments
serve the southwest neighborhoods and persons traveling through the area on I-30.
The majority of the commercial use facilities are in good condition.
There is an elementary school and a high school in the study area, located at Baseline
Road and Hilaro Springs Road and Geyer Springs Road south of Baseline Road,
respectively. A vocational technical school is also located on Scott Hamilton Drive at
I-30. Several churches, a city maintenance facility, the city impound lot, utility
substations, and a now vacant retirement home are also located in the area.
Office uses are located on Geyer Springs Road and Baseline Road. State-owned
facilities include the State Police Headquarters and the Department of Environmental
Quality, both of which are adjacent to the I-30 Frontage Road.
Existing land use:
The Department of Planning and Development collected land use data on a parcel by
parcel basis. Data was recorded in the field based on actual observations using the
“windshield” method.
Residential development generally falls into three categories. The first category is
single family housing development which has occurred during the last 25 years. The
second category of residential development is apartment complexes or multi-family
developments and the final is residential developments, which are scattered rural or
semi-rural developments. Although the plan area has been developing as a rural
suburb of Little Rock for over fifty years, the influx of residential development began
during the 1970s.
The street system in the area is laid out in a modified grid pattern, which allows limited
access into the residential developments. The dominate land use in the neighborhoods
is single family detached residential.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 24
Multi-family developments are scattered throughout the area. There are two large
complexes along Baseline Road. Quail Valley Apartments and the Pines Apartments
are located at 5300 and 5813 Baseline Road, respectively. Another complex, Auxora
Arms Apartments is located east of Hilaro Springs Road and south of Baseline Road.
Complexes in the neighborhoods are located on Dreher Lane, Southhaven Court, and
Valley Drive. Windamere Townhouses are located at 5601 Dreher Lane and
additional units are located at Southhaven Court and 8501 Dreher Lane. A large area
of duplexes and quadraplexes are located along Southboro and Southwick. There are
also units located off Hilaro Springs Road on American Manor.
There are mobile home parks and single mobile homes scattered throughout the area.
Large parks are located off Doyle Springs Road (in excess of 70 spaces), Smith Circle
and Larry Circle (in excess of 70 spaces), South Heights (in excess of 100 spaces) and
Sunset Lane (in excess of 75 spaces).
There are three public schools in the area, Upper Baseline Elementary School and
McClellan High School, along with Metropolitan Vocational School.
The commercial land uses are scattered throughout the area with commercial uses
along Geyer Springs Road and Baseline Road. Additional commercial nodes include I-
30 and Geyer Springs Road, Geyer Springs Road and Baseline Road and Baseline
Road and Scott Hamilton Drive. These uses include restaurants, motels, shopping
centers, real estate offices, gas stations, etc. State offices are located on the I-30
Frontage Road (the State Police Headquarters and the Department of Environmental
Quality).
There are approximately 226450 square feet of retail space available in the area
according to the Arkansas Business Report, Office-Retail-Warehouse, Lease Guide. In
the same report there was an estimated 9 million square feet of retail space available in
the greater Little Rock area (Upper Baseline Neighborhood Plan area is 2.5% of the
total space available). The occupancy rate for the greater Little Rock area was
estimated at 91.7 percent while the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Plan area indicates
88.6 percent occupancy rate.
Building permits issued in the area for commercial uses from January 1990 to
December 1998 peaked in 1994 with four permits issued. The uses included a motel,
auto parts store and a strip center anchored around a Wal-Green Drug Store (there
was two permits issued for this project). The total construction dollars in 1994 was
$2.7 million. There was no new activity in the area during 1998 and 1999.
The following information is reported from a survey performed by Arkansas Business.
Arkansas Business makes no effort to independently verify the information in the
survey. The listing does not reflect 100 percent of the properties in the area. For more
information contact Jeff Williams, Editor Arkansas Business at 501-372-1443.
Shopping Center in the Area
Commercial Center Total Sq. Ft. Occupancy Rate Lease Rate
Baseline Shopping Center 18,000 100% $3
Baseline Square 30,800 100% Varies
Colony South 136,000 77% $7.50
Geyer Springs Shopping Center 129,971 97% Market
Windamere Plaza 20,000 66% $6.50
Total:226,452
*Arkansas Business/Office Retail/Warehouse – 1999
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 25
Shopping center lease rates are comparable to rates in central and east Little Rock and
rates in Jacksonville.
Office development in the area has been limited. From January 1990 to December
1998, one permit for an addition of 4,218 square feet was issued to the Arkansas
Cooperative Electric in 1991.
According to Arkansas Business, there is a total of 275407 square feet of office space
available for rent in the area with a 27.6 percent occupancy rate. Once again,
Arkansas Business did not independently verify survey results.
Office Facilities in the Area
Office Center Rentable Sq. Ft. Percent Occupied Lease Rate
8017 I-30 7425 0% $14.25
I-30 @ Geyer Springs 56000 0% $4
Little Rock Corporate Center 137782 68% $3-$6
Williamsburg Center 10000 70% $6
I-30 @ Scott Hamilton 64200 0% $6.50
Total:275407
*Arkansas Business Office/Retail/Warehouse – 1999
Public institutional uses consist of public and quasi-public facilities that provide a
variety of services to the community such as schools, libraries, churches or utility
substations. Within the boundaries of the study area there are three public schools
and several churches identified. The City of Little Rock has two separate facilities, a
maintenance facility and the city impound lot, located in the northeast portion of the
study area.
Several industrial uses exist in the area including the Arkansas Cooperative Electric
site. A large potion of the site is currently vacant. Warehouse activities in the area
listed by Arkansas Business are 7821 Doyle Springs Road (92 percent occupancy rate
and a negotiable lease rate) and I-30 at Scott Hamilton Drive which has 143,800
square feet, of which all is available at a lease rate of $2.75 per square foot.
The following chart summarizes the current existing land uses for the area. As
indicated, 94.4% of the structures represent some form of residential. Traditional
single family “stick-built” homes represent 61% of the structures. Twenty-seven
percent of the structures are mobile or manufactured housing and 6.4% represent a
type of multi-family dwelling.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 26
Structure Type # of Structures % of Total
Single Family 1,899 61.00
Mobile Home 834 27.00
Multi-Family Duplex 45 1.40
Multi-Family (3-6 Units) 59 2.00
Multi-Family (7-20 Units) 87 3.00
Grocery Store 2 .06
General Commercial 47 .40
Restaurant 13 1.50
Office 25 .80
Medical Facilities 5 .05
School – Elementary & High School 2 .03
Vocational School 1 .15
Public Institutional 12 .24
Industrial Uses 61 .37
Utilities 8 2.00
Total 3,100 100.00
City of Little Rock, Department of Planning and Development
Existing zoning:
Of the area, approximately 1,600 acres is zoned R2 single family residential.
Approximately 40 acres is zoned for multi-family residences and 1 acre is zoned R7A or
mobile home park.
Commercial zoning is located along Baseline Road, Geyer Springs Road and the I-30
Frontage Road. The total acreage of commercial zoned property is approximately 100
acres of which approximately 85 acres is zoned C3, general commercial. Two acres,
which represents more than one development, is zoned as Planned Commercial District
(PCD).
Office zoning is scattered along Geyer Springs Road and Baseline Road.
Approximately 20 acres is zoned for office uses with the majority of the zoning
dedicated to O3 zoning or general office uses.
Open space zoning consists of a 50 foot by 1,019 foot strip of land buffering the
Arkansas Electrical Cooperation and the adjoining neighborhood and a site adjacent
to the now closed retirement home on Mize Road.
Approximately 275 acres is zoned for industrial uses. This zoning is in an area
adjacent to I-30 east of Stanton Road and north of Community Lane to the eastern
study area boundary.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 27
Zoning Acres Percent of Total
C1 .32 .02
C2 9.68 .45
C3 85.42 4.20
C4 9.11 .42
I2 274.94 13.47
O1 .42 .02
O3 21.31 1.03
OS 2.38 .10
PCD 2.00 .09
PRD 12.84 .62
R2 1,594.66 77.61
R4 14.52 .71
R5 25.88 1.22
R7A .75 .04
Total: 2,054.23 100.00 City of Little Rock, Department of Planning and Development
Future land use:
The area is shown for a variety of uses on the Future Land Use Plan. Commercial
uses comprise 158 acres, Mixed Office Commercial 25 acres and Office 20 acres. Of
the 246 acres shown for Industrial uses, the majority is located east of Doyle Springs
Road adjacent to I-30. Also 26 acres are shown as Service Trades District a category
which provides for a selection of office, warehousing and industrial park activities that
primarily serve other office service or industrial businesses. There are 167 acres
shown as Parks and Open Space. These areas are adjacent to creeks and waterways in
the area.
Public Institutional, public or quasi-public facilities which provide a variety of services
to the community such as schools, libraries, churches and utility substations, comprise
85 acres in the area.
Residential uses include single family, multi-family and mobile home designations.
The area is made up of single-family (998 acres), low density residential (232), mobile
home (52 acres) and multi-family (44 acres).
(Developed and Undeveloped Lands)
Future Land Use Acres Percent of Total
Industrial 3.36 .16
Light Industrial 242.54 11.81
Commercial 158.18 7.70
Office 20.12 .98
Mixed Office Commercial 25.27 1.23
Service Trades District 26.12 1.27
Single Family 997.90 48.58
Low Density Residential 232.34 11.31
Multi-Family 44.19 2.15
Mobile Home 52.14 2.54
Parks & Open Space 167.42 8.15
Public Institutional 84.65 4.12
Total: 2054.23 100.00
City of Little Rock, Department of Planning and Development
Building permit information:
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 28
An examination of the building permit data from January 1990 to December 1998
indicates construction of single family units to be almost nonexistent. In the eight-year
reporting period, three new single family units have been added. The average
construction value of these units is $44,400. No additional multi-family units have
been added in the area.
Construction of nonresidential structures for the eight-year period is estimated at $4.55
million and peaked in 1994 with a construction value of $2.7 million. Second was 1991
with construction dollars reported of $947,000. The area has seen no new
nonresidential construction since May of 1997.
Reinvestment in the area due to residential renovations has accounted for $1,063,394
and additions $210,874.
Demolition information from January 1990 to December of 1998 indicates a net loss of
18 single-family units and three commercial structures. Twelve of the 18 structures
were demolished in 1991, 1992 and 1993.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 29
Construction Permits Upper Baseline Neighborhood Plan Area
1991 - 1998
Year Single
Family
Multi-
Family
Commercial Office Industrial Public/
Quasi-
Public
1991 2 -- 2 1 1 --
1992 -- -- 3 -- -- 1
1993 -- -- -- -- -- --
1994 -- -- 4 -- -- 1
1995 1 -- -- -- -- --
1996 -- -- 1 -- -- 4
1997 -- -- 1 -- -- --
1998 -- -- -- -- -- --
1999 -- -- -- -- -- --
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 30
City of Little Rock, Department of Planning and Development
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 31
EExxeeccuuttiivvee SSuummmmaarryy::
This Neighborhood Action Plan was prepared by the Upper Baseline Neighborhood
Plan Area Steering Committee and facilitated by the Department of Planning and
Development of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. The purpose of the Action Plan is to
guide current and future development opportunities in the area.
The Committee focused on six goals that pertain to the following issues:
¾ Economic Development
¾ Human Service
¾ Infrastructure
¾ Neighborhood Revitalization
¾ Public Safety
¾ Traffic and Transportation
The Committee then formulated objectives, which would lead to the accomplishment of
each goal. After the objectives for each goal were agreed upon, the Committee began
to develop the action statements that would prove the goals attainable. In July 1999,
the Committee presented the Goals, Objectives and Action Statements at a Town Hall
meeting. Based on comments received, the steering committee modified the Action
Plan to address key issues raised at the Town Hall meeting.
The Committee was presented with a list of projects by the City of Little Rock Public
Works Department and asked to rank these projects in priority order. The Committee
determined this was an impossible task. They did however rate three projects as the top
priorities because they addressed safety issues regarding pedestrians-- particularly
children.
¾ Construct Scott Hamilton Drive to a four-lane roadway with five lanes at major
intersections and place sidewalks on both sides of the roadway from 81st Street
to Baseline Road
¾ Construct sidewalks on both sides of the roadway on Hilaro Springs Road from
Baseline Road to 98th Street
¾ Install a traffic signal at Baseline Road and Stanton Road
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 32
Other projects have been listed under the traffic and transportation goal and the
infrastructure goal, which were determined to be important to the revitalization of the
neighborhood; however, due to city funding limitations no one project was rated more
important than another. The listing of these projects are included for consideration by
the city should funds become available through alternative funding sources such as
federal grant programs, a bond issue or the passage of a sales tax.
Neighborhood and Housing Revitalization Goal
Improve safety and the overall appearance of the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action
Plan area. The neighborhoods will create an environment that supports independence
and personal development by planning and developing a healthy community.
Objectives:
Increase the level of code enforcement in areas where housing complaints and
violations are high (housing, abandoned auto and premise).
Identify and increase the amount of city services in areas where they are severely
needed.
Review the future land use and zoning classifications to determine the
appropriateness for revitalizing or stabilizing housing, infrastructure and
improve the overall appearance of the plan area.
Establish clear standards and expectations with absentee landlords.
Action Statements:
¾ Work with code enforcement officers to reduce the number of “junk cars” and
trash on private property in the area
¾ “Clean-up” business at 8509 Doyle Springs Road
¾ Locate a permanent dumpster site, on city-owned property, for the placement of
yard waste
¾ Encourage low density residential developments in the area
¾ Review existing zoning in the area
¾ Review existing future land use classifications in the area
¾ Require all rental units (single-family and multi-family) be maintained in a
high-quality manner (lawns and structures)
¾ Enact state law to grant the City of Little Rock the authority to hold out-of-state
property owners accountable in municipal courts
¾ Advocate strong enforcement and an adequate budget for the rental property
inspection program
¾ Upgrade all two-inch water lines to the minimum current standard of the city
¾ Extend wastewater lines in the area and provide affordable access to all
residents
¾ Preserve residential quality of neighborhood—no daycares, cottage industries,
etc. operating out of homes.
¾ Increase code enforcement in Valley Drive area (5500-5900 blocks) and on Old
Glory Court--Clean up trash.
¾ Require landlords to screen tenants.
¾ Require rentals to be maintained in a high quality manner, holding landlords
accountable in municipal courts.
¾ Enforce rental inspection on Old Glory and Valley Dr. & Southboro Ct.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 33
¾ Encourage commercial zoning on main arterials--Baseline Rd, Geyer Springs
Human Services Goal
Develop facilities to address the social service needs of the area, which include
recreational, cultural and employment opportunities.
Objectives:
Develop programs that provide tutoring and training for employment.
Encourage programs directed toward the social service needs of youth in the
area.
Encourage programs directed to the social service needs of the senior citizens
in the area.
Ensure children have safe travel to and from schools in the area.
Action Statements:
¾ Work with the Little Rock School District to ensure children are safe when
loading and unloading school buses
¾ Work with the Little Rock School District and the City of Little Rock
Public Works Department to implement better school crossing on Baseline
Road for children attending Baseline Elementary School and Geyer
Springs Road for children attending Cloverdale/Watson Elementary
School as well as Geyer Springs Road for children attending McClellan
High School
¾ Provide positive organized/structured activities for young children
¾ Encourage partnership between the Baseline Elementary School and the
City of Little Rock (Parks and Recreation Department) to upgrade and add
recreational activities at the school sites (multi-purpose court for
combination of uses such as tennis and basketball)
¾ Provide neighborhood sponsored activities for the elderly (cards,
handicraft, music, etc.)
¾ Provide transportation to the Southwest Community Center and the
Adult Center on 12th Street for senior citizens
¾ Work with the Alert Centers and Neighborhood Associations to identify
elderly citizens needing assistance with home maintenance and lawn
service and assist with providing the services
¾ Provide recreational activities in the Crenshaw Drive and Lew Drive area
(basketball courts and playground equipment)
¾ Compile a list of available tutors in the area and distribute it through the
Alert Centers and Neighborhood Association newsletters
¾ Form a partnership between McClellan High School and the Metropolitan
Vocational Technical Center to develop internship/work study programs
for area youth
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 34
¾ Encourage local businesses to participate in internship/training programs
Public Safety Goal
Assure that city government aggressively deals with crime and safety issues in the
neighborhoods.
Objectives:
Take immediate action against all drug activity in the area.
Take immediate action against all gang activities.
Create programs that will reduce the public safety concerns of all residents in
the neighborhood.
Reduce speeding and incidents of vandalism in the area through police
vigilance and enforcement.
Eliminate crime in the area and rid the area of real and perceived crime
problems to foster a secure environment.
Action Statements:
¾ Make the Police Department aware of problem areas and request an
increase of patrol officers in the area
¾ Increase the number of COPP Officers in the area
¾ Increase police presence to eliminate drug activity in the areas of Stanton
Road and Regina Circle, Lew Drive and Crenshaw Drive, Doyle Springs
Road and Mariette Circle and Pine Cone Drive and Arapaho Trail
¾ Enforce teenage curfews around the apartment complexes located on
Crenshaw Drive, Valley Drive and Lew Drive
¾ Enforce the city noise ordinance in the Crenshaw Drive, Valley Drive and
Lew Drive areas
¾ Enforce the city noise ordinance in the Arapaho Trail and Pine Cone Drive
area
¾ Increase police enforcement of speed limits on thoroughfares such as
Doyle Springs Road, Pine Cone Drive and Stanton Road
¾ Increase police enforcement of speed limits on residential streets,
particularly Mize Road and Southwick Drive
¾ Enforce the “no truck traffic” on residential streets statute on Doyle
Springs Road, Harper Road, Jamison Road, Mize Road and Pine Cone
Drive
¾ Encourage neighbors to report any suspicious activity to the Police
Department and Alert Centers in the area
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 35
¾ Increase Police presence to eliminate drug activity in Valley Dr./Old
Glory and Southboro Ct. areas and prostitution in same area and along
Sunset and Scott Hamilton and Baseline Roads.
Traffic Control Goal
Ensure safe and efficient movement of traffic in, around, and through the
neighborhood.
Objectives:
Improve traffic flows and safety in the area.
Examine installation of traffic calming devices on residential streets.
Eliminate truck traffic, accessing the city impound lot, on residential streets.
Actions Statements:
¾ Install a traffic signal at Baseline Road and Stanton Road
¾ Adjust the timing of the traffic signal at Young Road and Geyer Springs
Road to allow motorist exiting Young Road additional time to access
Geyer Springs Road
¾ Place a left turn protection arrow at the traffic light on Geyer Springs Road
and Young Road and allow for a longer cycle for east/west Young Road
traffic
¾ Work with Public Works Department to implement traffic calming tactics
on Sunset Lane
¾ Work with Public Works Department to implement better traffic calming
tactics on Southwick Drive
¾ Work with Public Works Department to implement traffic calming tactics
on Pine Cone Drive
¾ Place signs indicating “no truck traffic” on Harper Road, Hogan Road and
Mize Road
¾ Place signs indicating no “truck traffic” on Pine Cone Drive from Reck
Road to Hilaro Springs Road
¾ Work w/ Public Works to implement traffic calming on Loetscher Lane.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 36
¾ Evaluate possibility of putting a traffic signal at Loetscher Lane & Baseline
Road, widening Loetscher and adding sidewalks, or making Loetscher
Lane one-way going south.
Infrastructure Goal
Implement an adequate infrastructure network, including roadways and drainage
systems, within the neighborhood, that is designed and works to produce a safe and
attractive neighborhood environment.
Objectives:
Create a system that links the community internally and externally to other
areas for all modes of transportation.
Identify and correct drainage problems in the neighborhood.
Identify and construct neighborhood curbs, gutters and sidewalks where
needed.
Install street lamps, where needed, for safety.
Action Statements:
¾ Construct Scott Hamilton Drive to a four-lane roadway with five lanes at
major intersections and place sidewalks on both sides of the roadway
from 81st Street to Baseline Road
¾ Construct sidewalks on both sides of the roadway on Hilaro Springs Road
from Baseline Road to 98th Street
¾ Construct sidewalks throughout the area, more specifically in areas within
five blocks of schools, which are used by children as routes to the area
schools
¾ Construct Sunset Lane to Master Street Plan standards (36 foot asphalt
surface roadway with curb, gutter and sidewalks) from Baseline Road and
extend to connect to Rinke Road
¾ Construct Rinke Road to collector standards (36 foot asphalt surface
roadway with curb, gutter and sidewalks) from Sunset Lane to Geyer
Springs Road
¾ Add curb, gutter and sidewalks on Dreher Lane from 8500 Dreher Lane
south to Baseline Road
¾ Widen Community Road (26 ft.) and install curb and gutter
¾ Reconstruct and enclose drainage structure at American Manor east of
Hilaro Springs Road
¾ Eliminate drainage problems in the Stanton Road/Manchester Drive area
(drainage ditch located on the back property line) from Manchester Drive
to Stanton Road near Baseline Road
¾ Eliminate standing water at Auxor Lane and Baseline Road
¾ Eliminate drainage problem at Harper Road and Jamison Road
¾ Eliminate drainage problem at Community Lane and Community Road
¾ Eliminate drainage problem on Pine Cone Drive
¾ Eliminate drainage problem at Burris Road and Community Road
¾ Eliminate drainage problem at 6 Potomac Street
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 37
¾ Eliminate drainage problem on Windamere Drive
Economic Development Goal
Create a competitive and adaptable economic environment that encourages
investment and diversity of employment opportunities.
Objectives:
Promote public investment in improvement and facilities to encourage
private reinvestment in the neighborhood areas.
Encourage and establish neighborhood-oriented businesses.
Retain existing businesses, and when necessary, find new businesses to
replace those that close.
Action Statement:
¾ Patronize locally-owned businesses
¾ Approach businesses to advertise in Neighborhood Association
newsletters
¾ Recognize local businesses that are a positive contribution to the
neighborhood
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 38
¾ Work with the Chamber of Commerce, the Arkansas Economic
Development Commission and the City of Little Rock Economic
Development Department staff to actively pursue retail and office uses in
the area to fill currently vacant buildings
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 39
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 40
IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn::
The first step of the implementation process for this Action Plan is to gain
acknowledgement and support by the City of Little Rock Planning Commission and
Board of Directors. With the governing bodies support, the action statements may be
presented to city departments and other key organizations for implementation. The
success of the Action Plan will take involvement by all parties, (city, private sector, and
neighborhood residents).
The area was annexed in the early 1980s and “brought-into” the city, primarily, as R2
single family zoning. Much of the area was “built-up” which resulted in most of the
non-residential uses being classified as nonconforming uses. Many of the area
businesses are considered by the neighborhood to be “good neighbors” and the desire
of the area is to allow these activities to continue to occur.
Economic vitality is a concern of the residents. The area is losing commercial
establishments and limited construction activity has taken place during the 1990’s.
With the assistance of the Chamber of Commerce, the Arkansas Economic
Development Commission and the City of Little Rock Economic Development staff the
committee proposes to develop a marketing strategy for the area to entice new mixed
uses to occur in the area.
As a part of the process the committee members, with assistance of city staff, will
review the existing zoning in the area and make recommendations for changes. With
the recommendations, city staff will contact area property owners to consider a
rezoning of their properties.
The Future Land Use Plan for the area will also be reviewed to determine uses that
will allow development to occur and remain compatible with the neighborhoods.
Affected property owners will also be contacted with recommendations of the
Committee for a change to the Future Land Use Plan. Changes will be presented to
the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors on behalf of those property
owners who agree that a future land use classification change would be beneficial to
the area.
Based on comments received from the Public Works Department the committee has
determined several items listed in the Infrastructure Goal will be accomplished in a
timely manner. These items will remain in the plan as a monitoring tool for the future
and with the present limited funding for infrastructure projects the committee would
like to acknowledge some of these items are “short term fixes” to a more significant
problem.
The committee is concerned with the health and safety of all residents in the area.
Street flooding, yard flooding, the lack of proper drainage structures leads to standing
water, insect infestation and water born diseases. The installation of curb and gutter
on area streets would assist in the elimination of standing water in the area. Also the
correction of drainage problems in the area, cleaning of drainage structures, would
assist in elimination of standing water.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 41
The Committee did not recommend any changes to the Master Street Plan. However,
the Committee does request several streets in the area, including Scott Hamilton Drive,
be constructed according to Master Street Plan standards. The completion of this
roadway, with sidewalks, is the number one priority by the committee members, surveys
respondents, and participant of the Town Hall meeting. The Committee is well aware
of the difficulty of acquiring funds to construct needed projects citywide. Area residents
are concerned with the safety of children walking along Scott Hamilton Drive and
Hilaro Springs Road. The narrow road, open drainage, and lack of sidewalks force
children and motorists to share the street. Sidewalks will provide an alternative walking
space and give the roadway back to the motorists.
The Committee understands that, for the most part, traffic signals are put in place after
a traffic study is completed and a signal is warranted based on the volume of traffic.
To their knowledge, a traffic volume study has not been conducted for the intersection
of Baseline Road and Stanton Road. A traffic study may not indicate traffic volumes
in the area warrant signalization at this intersection; however, area residents who
travel this section of roadway quite frequently feel a traffic light is needed to protect
motorists. Stanton Road has direct access to the area north of I-30 via an overpass.
The two other streets with access-- Geyer Springs Road has an excessive amount of
traffic and Scott Hamilton Drive is a narrow roadway. Motorists choose Stanton Road
because the traffic volumes are lower and the roadway is well constructed. Persons
wishing to turn left at Baseline Road are placed in extremely dangerous situations.
Traffic on Baseline Road is also excessive and without the protection of a traffic signal
motorists are forced to turn in less than ideal situations.
The Committee, as a part of implementation, will address the concerns of Housing and
Neighborhood Programs with regard to more owner occupied housing. The survey
indicated a high percentage of responses that rated owner occupied housing as “very
important” and “the type of housing” as a major factor in attracting persons to the
neighborhood. The Committee determined this was an item that would take a
considerable amount of commitment from both city staff and neighborhood residents.
The Committee sees this task as an identification process, of financing available to
allow resident units to become owner occupied, and educational, to “get the word-out”
that such funding is available. This will also be addressed as a part of the marketing
strategy to encourage mixed uses to occur in the area.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 42
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 43
THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO HELP PLAN FOR THE FUTURE OF YOUR
NEIGHBORHOOD. Over the next year, a Neighborhood Plan will be developed for
the area indicated on the enclosed map. A Neighborhood Plan is a tool used by the
City Board of Directors, the Planning Commission and City Staff when making
decisions that affect an area. The attempt is to define a community consensus in
terms of goals and objectives for future development or redevelopment of an area.
Resident involvement is essential in drafting this important document.
To guide in the planning process, a Task Force of area residents will be set up to represent all
geographic locations along with area business owners. The survey results will be presented to the
Task Force to give an indication of the views of area residents and the perceived issues relating to
land use, circulation, and community services. Should you wish to participate on the Task Force
complete the enclosed card and return it to the Office of Planning and Development on or before
September 18, 1998.
All responses are confidential; the survey does not need to be signed and
requires no name, address, or other identifying information. No postage is
necessary. When you have completed the survey please return in the
envelope provided.
Thank you for your time and interest in completing this survey. If you have any questions
regarding the survey or want to know more about the planning process, please call Chandra
Foreman or Donna James at 371-4790. Thanks so much! We really appreciate your help in
shaping a plan for community action.
Please rate the following by importance to you:
Reducing local traffic on residential streets:
TVery Important TImportant TSomewhat Important TNot Important
Improved public transportation (bus times, bus routes):
TVery Important TImportant TSomewhat Important TNot Important
Reducing illegal dumping and/or litter in the area:
TVery Important TImportant TSomewhat Important TNot Important
More affordable housing units:
TVery Important TImportant TSomewhat Important TNot Important
More owner occupied housing units:
TVery Important TImportant TSomewhat Important TNot Important
Curbing nightclub activity (regulate the closing times):
TVery Important TImportant TSomewhat Important TNot Important
Increased street lighting for pedestrian safety:
TVery Important TImportant TSomewhat Important TNot Important
Do you have a problem obtaining any of the following? (Please ( ) all that apply.)
T affordable day care
T day care at a convenient location
T after-school activities for children
T weekend recreational activities for children
T activities and/or work opportunities for teens
T summer programs for children
Which issues are most important and should be addressed in the Neighborhood Action Plan?
(Please ( ) 7 of the items of most importance.)
R Youth Center R Traffic
R Youth Tutoring Activities R Teen/Adult Drug Abuse
R Youth Sports Activities R Street Lights
R Litter R Blight
R Road Repair R Public Transportation
R Crime R Gang Activity
R Graffiti R Noise
R Other ______________________
Of each of the items on the following list, mark on the scale, of 1, 2, or 3 of how bad the problem is
with 1 being the worst case 2 being neutral and 3 being not bad:
_____Condition of houses
_____Number of cars parked on the street (not in driveways)
_____Traffic speed on neighborhood streets
_____Traffic speed on major streets
_____Traffic volume on neighborhood streets
_____Traffic volume on major streets
____Motorist who are not residents of the neighborhood driving through neighborhoods to
avoid intersections and traffic congestion on busy streets
_____Street intersections
_____Crime (break-ins)
_____Crime (drug activity)
_____Gang activity
_____Drainage
_____Condition of alleys
_____Condition of sidewalks
_____Condition of park facilities
_____Expansion of businesses, churches, institutions, etc.
Identify any other problems not listed above:
a. ___________________________________________
b. ___________________________________________
Identify the top 2 problem street intersections:
a. ___________________________________________
b. ___________________________________________
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 44
What attracted you to this neighborhood?
R People R Schools R Type of Housing
R Convenience to Work R Convenience to Retail R Other
Please specify other. ___________________________________
How do you rate the condition of the streets in your neighborhood?
R Needs no repair R Needs minor repair R Needs major repair
Do you have sidewalks in you neighborhood?
R Yes R No
If you have sidewalks in your neighborhood how do you rate the condition?
R Needs no repair R Needs minor repair R Needs major repair
Are there drainage problems on your street?
R Yes R No
If yes, where? __________________________________________________
Is there a need for any of the following social services in or near your neighborhood? (Please ( )
3 of the items of most importance.)
R Counseling R Job information
R Day care R Senior citizens’ activities
R Prenatal care R Youth sports and recreation
R Youth tutoring R Youth job counseling or training
Do you feel you have adequate access to government services?
City Services (City Departments response to request)
R Safety (Police response time, Fire response time)
R Housing (Response to reports of weed lot violations, Response to reports of Code Violations)
R Streets/Drainage (Response of repairs of “pot-holes”, Cleaning of ditches for better water
flow)
R Other ____________________________________ (Please define)
R County Services (County Assessor, County Tax Collector, etc.)
R State Services (Employment Security Division)
R Federal Services (Social Security Administration)
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 45
Is there a need in the neighborhood for more business in the area?
(Please ( ) 4 of the items of most importance.)
R Grocery store R Convenience store with gas pumps R Bank
R Drug store R Fast food restaurant R Barber/Beauty Shop
R Hardware store R Eat-in restaurant R Service Station with
limited auto repair
R Liquor store R Dry Cleaner R Neighborhood business
(Other) ___________________
R Professional Office (Accountant, Attorney, Realtor, etc.) R Clinics (Dental, Medical,
Optical)
What type of park facilities do you travel outside your neighborhood to utilize? (Please ( ) all that
apply.)
R Trails (Walking Jogging, Biking)
R Conservation Hiking
R Playground
R Picnic Area
R Athletic Ball Fields and or Courts
R Passive Open Areas
Do you think that the City should promote preservation of trees and other green or open space in
neighborhoods?
R On public property R On private property
Which of the following best describes the current city’s landscape requirements? (Please () 1
item.)
R The City currently requires too much landscaping
R The current landscaping policy is adequate and should not be changed
R The City needs to increase the amount of landscaping required
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 46
How long have you lived at your present address?
R 0-3 years R 4-7 years R 8-12 years R more than 12
years
What is your age?
R 18-21 R 22-29 R 30-39 R 40-49 R 50-64
R 65-79 R 80 or over
What is your highest level of education?
R Some high school R High school graduateR Some post–secondary school or college
R College graduate R Post graduate
Do you own or rent your house/apartment? R Own/buying R Rent
Do you live in a:
R Single family house
R Manufactured or a mobile home
R Multi-family, 4 units or less
R Multi-family, more than 4 units
Are you:
R Single or Widowed, with no children at home R A single parent
R Married, no children at home R Married, with children at home
R Widowed, with children at home
Are you: R Male RFemale
How many persons live in this household?
_____ Number of adults (18 and over) _____ Number of children (Under 18)
Please indicate the number of children in each age category.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 47
Under 1 year old __________
1 – 4 years old __________
5 – 10 years old __________
11 – 13 years old __________
14 – 17 years old __________
What is your yearly household income:
R Below $15,000
R $15,000 through $30,000
R $30,000 through $45,000
R $45,000 through $75,000
R $75,000 through $100,000
R Over $100,000
The following map has been divided into five sub-areas. Please indicate by
circling the letter of the sub-area in which you live.
(map provided in original survey)
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PLEASE INDICATE
BELOW:
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 48
UUppppeerr BBaasseelliinnee NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd PPllaann SSuurrvveeyy RReessuullttss
SSeepptteemmbbeerr 11999988
In August of 1998, 3,720 surveys were mailed to the area and 364 were returned to the
Department of Planning and Development by the requested date of September 18,
1998. This represents a 9.8% response rate and is comparable to previous surveys
conducted by the Department. Once the surveys were received city staff coded the
forms and entered the responses into a computer database. The coding sheets were
spot checked against randomly selected survey forms. Any errors were corrected and
two additional surveys were pulled to check for accuracy.
Although less than ten percent of the surveys were returned, the response rate is typical
of previous mail surveys conducted by the Department of Planning and Development.
The survey identified concerns of the study area which could be addressed and suggest
remedies and/or steps to alleviate the negative impacts. Overall survey statistics for the
Upper Baseline Planning Area are presented below:
Questions related to traffic and transportation and basic infrastructure were asked to
determine needs for improvements in the area.
Of those responding, 54% felt the streets in their neighborhood needed minor repair.
Nearly 30 % felt no repairs were needed and 12.6% felt streets were in need of major
repairs. Sixty percent of the respondents did not have sidewalks in their neighborhood
but of those with sidewalks there was a 50/50 split of no repair and need for minor
repair. Drainage was addressed with 29% of the population indicating there were
drainage problems in the area.
Respondents were asked to identify the two most difficult intersections. The
intersections identified most frequently were:
Geyer Springs Road and Baseline Road, Stanton Road and Baseline Road, Geyer
Springs and I-30, Scott Hamilton and Baseline Road, and Stanton Road/I-30/Access
Road. Many of the written comments addressed the need for improvements to Scott
Hamilton from I-30 to Baseline Road (widen, curb and gutter, sidewalks).
Survey respondents were also asked to identify social services needed in or near the
neighborhood. The top three listed were senior citizen’s activities, youth job
counseling or training and more availability of job information. In addition, persons
were asked to identify additional businesses needed in the area. Clinics (Dental,
Medical, and Optical) and hardware stores both received the top number of responses.
A eat-in restaurant and a service station, with limited auto repair, were also popular
responses.
Respondents were asked if they felt preservation of trees and other open spaces in the
neighborhood were important. Over fifty percent felt preservation of public property
was important. Fifteen percent (15.4%) felt preservation on private property was
important and 27.2% felt preservation on both public and private properties were
important.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 49
A request was made of respondents to their opinions on the current city landscaping
policies. Over thirty-five percent (36.9%) did not respond to this question. Over thirty
percent (31.6%) felt the city should increase the current landscaping requirements,
27.7% felt the current requirements were sufficient, and 3.8% felt the city required too
much landscaping.
Persons were asked what types of recreational activities they currently travel outside of
their area to utilize. Nearly half (48.9%) travel to utilize picnic facilities, 38.7 % travel
to utilize trails (walking, jogging and biking) and 32.1% of persons travel outside of the
area to utilize playground equipment. Nearly thirty percent (29.4%) travel to utilize
athletic ball fields and or courts, 23.4% travel to utilize passive open areas and 15.1 %
travel for conservation hiking trails.
Survey respondents were also asked to identify issues by importance to them.
Respondents identified the following as “very important”: reducing illegal dumping
and/or litter in the area (68%), increased street lighting for pedestrian safety (69.8%),
more owner-occupied housing units (45.89%), reducing traffic on local streets (42%),
curbing nightclub activity (37.4%), adequate public transportation (27.7%), and more
affordable housing units (26.6%).
Respondents were presented a list of services and they were asked if there was a
problem obtaining these services in the area. Weekend recreational activities were
identified most often as an unavailable service. Activities and/or work opportunities for
teens (including summer programs) were the second most listed inaccessible services.
After-school activities for children were listed as the third most unavailable service.
The top five issues respondents felt should be addressed in a Neighborhood Plan, listed
in order of number of occurrences, were crime, gang activity, litter, teen/adult drug
abuse and road repair.
What attracted persons most to the neighborhood was the rural character and type of
housing, followed by convenience to work. Forty percent of the survey respondents
have lived in the area for more than 12 years while 28% have lived in the area less than
three years.
The demographic section of the survey was used to compare the survey respondents to
those responding to the 1990 Census. All groupings were not indicative of the 1990
Census data.
Persons with incomes above $15,000 responding to the survey were 19.8% and
according to the 1990 Census data this rate is much higher at 36.1%. Persons with
incomes above $100,000 is more comparable at .80% responding to the survey and
1.0% reported in the 1990 Census data.
Age “break-downs” responding to the survey were representative of the 1990 Census
data available. Persons less than 18 years of age represented 26.0% of the population
for survey respondents and 29.8% of the population from the 1990 Census data.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 50
Persons over the age of 18 represent 74.0% of the population for persons responding to
the survey and 70.2% of the population reported in the 1990 Census data.
Of those responding to the survey, 66.0% owned their homes and 30.0% were renting.
According to the 1990 Census data available for the area, 48.4% were owner-occupied
units and 51.6% were renter-occupied.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 51
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 52
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 53
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 54
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 55
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 56
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 57
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 58
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 59
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 60
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 61
Summary of the Market Analysis (September 1998)
In June of 1998 the City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development entered
into contract with Tom Herrin Associates (THA) to review and analyze the current
condition of the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan area. As a part of the
development of the Market Analysis, THA examined development possibilities and best
uses of land in the area. The report also explored the ramifications of development and
redevelopment, for the short and long term good of the neighborhood. THA also
provided recommendations for new public infrastructure and other actions, which could
result in improvements leading to revitalization of the Upper Baseline Neighborhood
Plan area.
The report was prepared and presented using insights concerning the overall growth and
development of the Little Rock Metropolitan Area, which provides a better understanding
of the market forces which influence the development of the Upper Baseline
Neighborhood Action Plan area. “Given its superior access to the metropolitan market,
the neighborhood should be a thriving and dynamic location for housing and business
development. However, a close review of the data shows that the neighborhood has
pockets of poverty, some poor and deteriorating housing, and areas which are effected by
the socially deteriorating impacts of crime, neglect, and abandonment. Many
opportunities are available for redevelopment and renewal in the neighborhood.”
The Market Analysis included a review of the neighborhood’s demographics to
determine the potential demands for redevelopment, including in-fill, with consideration
given to the supply of residential, commercial, industrial and service uses. The study
examined the demand for each market segment and the potential of each to develop, or be
redeveloped, in the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan area. The study included
recommendations for actions to guide redevelopment and/or public and private
investments.
The Little Fourche Creek coupled with the Union Pacific Railroad line to the south and
east provides a significant barrier to expansion. Unless a large and expensive drainage
improvement is made little development to the south and east are likely according to
THA.
Incomes in the plan area is generally low. All of the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Plan
area falls within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (DHUD) defined
low and moderate income area even though parts of the neighborhood is not low and
moderate income. Low and very low income limits in Little Rock and North Little Rock,
based on a family size of four, is less than $33,750 (low) and $21,100 (very low).
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 62
Neighborhood and housing data and forecast indicates the area contains vacant tracts,
which could be developed as in-fill sites. The market implication for the area is likely to
be small and scattered developments. It is unlikely that large mixed use developments
will be proposed since vacant sites are small and in some cases will require drainage and
access improvements. Since the neighborhood is varied in demographic and income
characteristics, it will require several types of housing. Rental housing is more attractive
to low and moderate income residents.
Presently there are 8 multi-family housing development located in the area. These
developments fall into three categories. First, large market rate apartment projects
renting units in the $300 - $460 range; second, scattered small apartment developments
with units that rent for prices which are comparable to those of the large developments, or
which rent for lower rents, and thirdly two large subsidized apartment projects. THA
assumes that only a few large market rate apartment projects will be developed in the
neighborhood since few sites presently exist which would be suitable.
As planning proceeds it will be necessary to determine to what extent mobile homes will
provide affordable housing in the neighborhood in the future. This issue is more of a
planning issue than a market consideration since the existing mobile home parks and site
in the neighborhood are, for the most part, below standard.
The commercial core area can be redeveloped but planning for redevelopment will
require addressing traffic and access problems. Several factors are considered when
retailers look for a location to build. Whether, or not, neighborhood residents constitute a
viable market for retail establishments. Generally speaking, the Upper Baseline
Neighborhood Plan area households are less numerous in the upper income categories
and more numerous in the lower income categories. The importance of these figures are
the impact they have on a retailer’s decision to locate in an area.
Another factor to consider by retailers is if an area is growing in population. It is unlikely
that the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Plan area will grow if new housing is not built in
the area. THA also estimated the square footage by the year 2000 and land requirements
according. Based on the estimates, a total of 6.1 acres additional retail would be needed,
given the income and retail sales potential of area households. THA also concludes the
area has few large sites for retail development thus it is likely that the retail development
which does occur will be located on, or near, small parcels along major arterials. Every
effort should be made to encourage retail locations that have good pedestrian access to
residences.
The area has few office buildings. They are located along I-30 and at scattered locations
along major and minor arterials. According to the City’s Goals and Policy Report,
“Office space has played a major role in the expansion of the urbanized area of Little
Rock, particularly in the I-630 and I-430 corridors. By a wide consensus, most
development practitioners in the Little Rock area expect these corridors to intensify their
office space offerings, while not anticipating any major expansion in other areas”.
THA indicates a trend to watch is the continued development of state offices and
facilities in the Little Rock area. The State Capitol Complex has a large array of offices,
some of which are ancillary to state government. As new offices become necessary the
State may look outside the Capitol Complex for locations, as with the location of the
State Police Headquarters in the plan area and the Natural Resources Complex in west
Little Rock.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 63
THA estimates the need for additional office space in the range of 45,000 to 60,000
square feet by 2000. This is based on the assumption the plan area will capture 15% of
midtown and 10% of downtown forecasted employment. THA also assumes this office
space will be located either along I-30 or along the major arterial streets in the
neighborhood i.e. Baseline Road and Geyer Springs Road.
With respect to warehousing and light industrial developments THA indicates the area is
a prime location. The area is has rail access, is centrally located in Little Rock, has large
industrial parks located to the north and east, and has excellent access to the metropolitan
freeway system via I-30. The area also has a good supply of labor that is trainable for
warehousing and light industrial jobs; however, there are only a limited number of sites
in the area for this type of development. For this reason, THA finds there is limited
justification for additional warehousing and light industrial manufacturing. He also
indicates these activities may be compatible along I-30 if modern design and other site
development standards are followed.
THA concludes that demand figures, as shown in the report, will not be realized unless
the City improves infrastructure in the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Plan area to a
quality comparable, or better than that found in any other Little Rock Neighborhood. If
the area is to compete with other areas of the City for new residents then the
neighborhood will need to be attractive, present a well maintained appearance, and have
facilities, services, and amenities which are good enough to affect potential home
owners’ decisions to locate there. Drainage and flooding problems will need to be
addressed; traffic will need to be controlled; water and sewer service must be available at
high quality levels.
Based on the complete assessment Tom Herrin Associates developed the following
recommendations as a part of the Market Analysis for the area.
¾ A comprehensive study of housing conditions in the Upper Baseline Neighborhood
should be prepared. The neighborhood is presently showing signs of distress
including crime, some housing deterioration, and out-migration of the neighborhood
residents. The study should emphasize stopping the deterioration of housing, limiting
demolition of single-family homes and finding techniques to encourage the sale of
new and rehabilitated housing to persons who do not now reside in the
neighborhoods.
¾ Documentation of the condition of existing housing in the neighborhoods including
mapping, structural surveys, occupancy data and information, ownership and other
information which will be helpful in determining where, and how, to address
problems of housing deterioration, structural loss, and the destructive social
conditions (crime, drugs, etc.) which are associated with poor housing conditions.
¾ Develop at least 75+ new single-family homes at carefully selected locations
throughout the neighborhood. Many of these units should be subsidized either
through interest subsidy housing programs, infrastructure loans or grants, or through
programs such as Habitat for Humanity.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 64
¾ Develop at least 75+ multi-family apartments at carefully selected locations
throughout the neighborhood. Many of these units should be subsidized through
programs such as tax credits, historic preservation loans, grants or other subsidies.
Many of the programs sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development could be used to develop new apartments and other scattered site rental
housing.
¾ Review of the data presented shows 45.7% of the units in the area to be single family
in 1990 and 54.3% multi-family (including mobile homes). A 50/50 split for new
development seems reasonable but can be adjusted by neighborhood area to reflect
conditions at the time a housing development is proposed.
¾ Encourage development of in-fill commercial sites at I-30’s intersections with
neighborhood major arterials including Geyer Springs Road and Scott Hamilton
Drive. I-30 access road locations also provide a few sites for new commercial and
office development.
¾ Encourage the development of in-fill office locations along the major arterials (Geyer
Springs Road and Baseline Road) serving the neighborhood. However, very careful
consideration should be give to traffic flow, access, and control should be included in
the planning for development of new office sites.
¾ Encourage home ownership throughout the neighborhood by converting public and
other rental housing units to occupant ownership.
¾ Continue public infrastructure development based on neighborhood residents input,
engineering and planning studies, and Little Rock’s capital programming. Emphasis
should be placed on street lighting, sidewalk construction, curb and paving
improvements, park development, and other neighborhood amenities, which
encourage and promote security and neighborhood residents’ interaction. A goal of
infrastructure development should be to strengthen neighborhood residents’
identification with their neighborhood as a good, safe, and attractive place to live and
work. An added advantage of neighborhood identification will be that the
neighborhood will become more attractive to outsiders as a good place to live, and
thus, will be more marketable as a place to live and raise children.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 65
¾ Establish cooperative planning and outreach programs which are tied to public and
private institutions located in the neighborhood i.e. state government offices such as
State Police Headquarters, the Little Rock Public Housing Authority, and federal
government offices. Every effort should be made to involve these agencies and
entities in overall planning for the neighborhood.
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 66
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 67
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 68
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 69
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 70
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 71
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 72
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 76
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 77Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 77
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 78
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 79
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 80
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 81
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 82
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 83
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 84
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 85
UUppppeerr BBaasseelliinnee
NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd AAccttiioonn PPllaann
11999999 PPllaann DDeevveellooppmmeenntt TTeeaamm
NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd AAssssoocciiaattiioonnss::
OO..UU..RR..
UUppppeerr BBaasseelliinnee
WWiinnddaammeerree
SStteeeerriinngg CCoommmmiitttteeee::
MMiillttoonn AAnnddeerrssoonn BBrrooookkss BBaallll RRoommoonnaa BBaallll
PPeeaarrll BBuuttlleerr JJiimm CCaassttlleebbeerrrryy CCllaauuddiinnee FFoorrttee
GGeeoorrggee GGaarrrreetttt PPaatt GGeeee RRaallpphh HHaasskkiinnss
KKeennnneetthh HHoobbbbss CCyynntthhiiaa JJoohhnnssoonn HHeerrbbeerrtt LLoouukkss
AA..DD.. NNuutttt JJooee CC.. RReeyynnoollddss DDeewweeyy TTaapplliinn
DDoorriiss TTaapplliinn
CCiittyy SSttaaffff::
HHaarroolldd FFoorrdd,, PPuubblliicc WWoorrkkss
CChhaannddrraa FFoorreemmaann,, PPllaannnniinngg aanndd DDeevveellooppmmeenntt
DDoonnnnaa JJaammeess,, PPllaannnniinngg aanndd DDeevveellooppmmeenntt
JJaammeess KKiilllliioonn,, HHoouussiinngg aanndd NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd PPrrooggrraammss
VVaalleerriiaa TTaattee,, HHoouussiinngg aanndd NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd PPrrooggrraammss
Upper Baseline Neighborhood Action Plan 86