The Rozarks - Southeast Rosedale Trails Plan

THE ROZARKS SOUTHEAST ROSEDALE TRAILS PLAN

1

THE ROZARKS

SOUTHEAST ROSEDALE TRAILS PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

- Introduction

Page 3 - Project Background

Page 4 - Project Partners

Page 5 - Area Description

Page 6 - Area Demographics

Page 7 - Existing Conditions

Page 9 - Public Participation

Page 10 - Project Vision and Goals

Page 11 - Benefits of Trails

Page 13 - Proposed Trails Development

Page 14 - Master Plan Map

Page 15 - Trails Design and Construction Standards

Page 16 - Estimated Project Budget

Page 17 - Signage Plan

Page 17 - Future Maintenance Plan

Page 18 - Funding Strategies

Page 19 -

Appendix 1 - 2010 Census Data: Zip Code 66103

Page 24 -

Appendix 2 - Neighborhood Master Plans’ Notes

“THE WAY

THROUGH THE

TURKEY CREEK

VALLEY WAS

FIRST AN

INDIAN TRACE

AMIDST THE

WOODLANDS

AND

UNCULTIVATED

TRACTS OF

LAND.”

– MARGARET

LANDIS, 1976

FROM: THE WINDING

VALLEY AND THE

CRAGGY HILLSIDE

2

INTRODUCTION

Natural surface trail development in Rosedale is rooted in the desires of the surrounding

community: to be connected, to provide opportunities for active living, and to access the local, gorgeous

natural terrain. Trails within Mt. Marty Park, site of the Rosedale Arch and abutting Rosedale Middle

School, will be a key system piece in the vision for a larger, linked system known as “The Rozarks”.

This larger vision will connect the trail system within Mt. Marty Park through the Mission Cliffs hills

toward the west and through Rosedale Park.

Existing trail pieces were identified through an in-depth field study during spring 2013 by

Rosedale Development

Association Bicycle-Pedestrian

Coordinator, Brett Shoffner. The

amount of existing trails

throughout the Rosedale

community was astounding.

Unfortunately, almost all of these

natural trails were unsustainable

and unusable by the majority of

surrounding neighbors.

Natural surface trail development by Rosedale Development Association and project partners

will provide new links that connect people through nature to their surrounding neighbors and

neighborhoods. Trails will provide a safe opportunity for kids and adults to be active and enjoy the

complex local ecology, geological features, and historical sites. Bonds will be created socially between

people and ecologically between people and nature, creating community stewards who care deeply about

their place. Sustainable, accessible trails will help foster a sustainable, connected Rosedale.

3

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Rosedale Development Association, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City,

Kansas, Unified School District #500, Earth Riders Trails Association, Hilltop Neighborhood

Association, Mission Cliffs Home Owners Association, and local volunteers are undertaking the first

regional development of natural surface trails that will directly connect a local school and regional

historical site through currently underutilized parkland and open space. The active center of these

community nature trails will be located in Mt. Marty Park, connecting Rosedale Arch with Rosedale

Middle School, and will eventually include over four miles. The trails development is an actionable

implementation of many Rosedale neighborhood master plans that will provide neighborhood residents

with opportunities for active living and connections to access the local, gorgeous natural terrain. The

trails will also be used in conjunction with an environmental education curriculum at Rosedale Middle

School.

Phase 1 development began in September 2013 and was completed in late 2013 with the help of

over 70 different volunteers. The development timeline of Phase 1 was greatly accelerated by use of

mechanized trail building equipment by professional volunteers with the Earth Riders Trails

Association. Mechanized trail building not only performs the same amount of work that approximately

8-10 volunteers can in the same time (depending on terrain), but also provides a wider surface that can

easily be fine-tuned by finishing crews of trail builders and local volunteers.

Rosedale Development Association hopes to secure funding/donations to hire the mechanical

trail building crew for accelerated development of the Rozarks, particularly the Mt. Marty – Rosedale

Arch – Rosedale Middle School Trails: Phase Two, Phase Three, and Phase Four. With this assistance,

we anticipate that the entire Mt. Marty system of 2+ miles can be completed by mid-2014. Additional

funding for development within Steketee’s Slopes and at Mission Cliffs would provide a completed 4 ¼

mile loop system within Southeast Rosedale by late 2014.

*Please see Master Plan Map – Page 14

4

PROJECT PARTNERS

This natural surface trails development project is led by Rosedale Development Association in

conjunction with the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, Unified School

District #500, Earth Riders Trails Association, Mission Cliffs Home Owners Association, Hilltop

Neighborhood Association, and local residents and volunteers.

5

AREA DESCRIPTION

Rosedale is a four square mile community in southeast Wyandotte County, Kansas City, Kansas

(KCK). Its borders are the Kansas River to the north, County Line Road/47th St. to the south, State Line

Road to the East, and 18th St. Expressway to the West. The area was its own municipality before being

annexed by KCK in 1922.

Rosedale is considered part of KCK’s urban core and is within a short drive of many popular

locations throughout the Greater Kansas City metropolitan area, including the Country Club Plaza,

Westport, Village West, downtown KCMO and KCK, and the Johnson County suburbs.

Rosedale businesses enjoy the central location, with easy access to major highways, including I-

35 and the 18th St. Expressway (US-69). The University of Kansas Medical Center is located within the

community and is a major employer in the area. Housing values have increased and crime has decreased

in recent years. Rosedale is a prime location for new businesses and for families to grow.

6

AREA DEMOGRAPHICS

Rosedale is an urban, low socio-economic, underserved, ethnically diverse neighborhood of

nearly 14,000 residents. Based on 2010 census data, its median household income was $37,200,

compared to the U.S. median of $50,220 and the Kansas median of $48,400. School district data shows

that, in the 2011-2012 school year, of the 930 students in Rosedale’s three public elementary schools,

21% were Black and 53% were Hispanic, with 89% of the students classified as economically

disadvantaged based on eligibility for free or reduced lunches. 45% of students are English Language

Learners. Population density ranges from 1000-10,000 persons per square mile.

Rosedale is a district area located in Wyandotte County, Kansas. In 2012 rankings, Wyandotte

County ranked 100th of the 100 ranked counties in Kansas on health factors and 97th of 100 in health

outcomes. Adult obesity in Wyandotte County is 38%, compared to the national rate of 25%. Perhaps

even more alarming, local research shows that 51% of elementary school children in the Rosedale area

are overweight or obese, compared to 33% of children in the US.

*For full demographic data, please see Appendix 1 – 2010 Census Data: Zip Code 66103

7

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The area in which the Rozarks will be developed is primarily densely wooded urban forest

extending along the Turkey Creek bluffs. Topographic relief in the area is over 130 feet. Much of the

area has remained free from any development, while other parts showcase the historical remains of old

Rosedale. While seemingly secluded, the Rozarks are accessible to a variety of people through

neighborhood connections, like trail spurs or sidewalks.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

8

TOPOGRAPHY STREETS & PROPERTIES

EXISTING TRAIL

Existing trails were mapped through

an in-depth field study during spring 2013

by Rosedale Development Association

Bicycle-Pedestrian Coordinator, Brett

Shoffner. The quantity of existing trails

throughout the Rosedale community was

surprising; unfortunately, nearly all of these

existing trails were unsustainable,

overgrown, and unusable by the majority of

surrounding neighbors.

9

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Trail development within Rosedale is direct, on-the-ground implementation of many

neighborhood master plans. Nature trail development, neighborhood walkability, and community

connectivity are mentioned in these plans:

47th

and Mission Road Area Concept Plan – 2000

39th

Street Corridor Plan – 2003

Rosedale Master Plan – 2005

City-Wide Master Plan – 2008

Rosedale Green Corridor Trail Network and Revitalization Study – 2010

Rosedale Environmental Action Lab – 2010

Southwest Boulevard/Merriam Lane Corridor Master Plan – 2011

Sidewalk and Trails Master Plan for Unified Government/Kansas City, Kansas – 2012

Healthy Communities Wyandotte Recommendations for a Better Future – 2012

*For more information, please see Appendix 2 – Neighborhood Master Plans’ Notes

Rosedale Development Association hosted

a public meeting on September 23, 2013 to

solicit input about the proposed trails

development. The week before the meeting, 94

bilingual flyers were distributed to the adjacent

property owners and residents. Responses from

this meeting and through comments and letters

obtained via the informative flyer were

overwhelmingly positive. Rosedale neighbors are excited to see a long-talked about development

happening in their backyards.

10

PROJECT VISION AND GOALS

Rosedale Development Association (RDA) has formalized a trails development partnership

agreement with Earth Riders Trails Association (ERTA), supporting three primary objectives:

1) Protect the land that they manage,

2) Increase the number of visitors to the lands through the creation and management of

singletrack trails, and

3) Accomplish these objectives through an efficient and economical combination of volunteer

and professional labor.

RDA and ERTA believe these

objectives will be achieved through an

active focus on system connectivity,

accessibility, stewardship, biodiversity,

enjoy-ability, partnerships, and

sustainability. By involving people

throughout the process, we hope that

people will remain involved in their

communities after project completion.

RDA has also formalized partnership

with the primary land manager, Wyandotte

County Parks and Recreation, through a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to

assist with trails development on public land

at Mt. Marty Park. RDA is working to

secure formal partnerships for trails

development on private land.

11

BENEFITS OF TRAILS

Trails have connected people and places in the Kansas City region since before the area was

settled. From Native American hunting trails, to Lewis and Clark’s journey, to the homesteaders leaving

for Santa Fe, California, or Oregon, to today’s urban explorers, trails have played an important part in

shaping Rosedale and greater Kansas City and connecting people throughout place and time.

By connecting people, trails provide fundamental socio-economic opportunities. Home values

are higher near areas with trails. Hikers, trail runners, mountain bikers, and nature lovers spend

hundreds of millions of dollars yearly supporting local economies and small businesses. Residents form

weekly groups to walk, run, or ride the trails. Areas with trails provide a superior quality of life location

that appeal to new businesses and attract new residents.

Trails connect people to nature in a way that no other single recreational or natural feature can.

Want to get the feeling of being deep in the backwoods? You’ll need a trail. Want to explore local flora

and fauna in their native settings? You’ll need a trail. Want to escape the madness of everyday life and

take a deep breath of fresh air in a clean urban forest? You’ll need a trail!

12

Economic Development

Transportation

Green Space Preservation

Historic Preservation

Property Values

Recreation, Health, & Wellness

TRAILS

13

PROPOSED TRAILS DEVELOPMENT

Development of natural surface trails within Mt. Marty Park, linking Rosedale Arch and

Rosedale Middle School, is scheduled for four phases of “stacked loop” style development. The initial

Phase 1 development began in September 2013 and was completed in late 2013 with the help of over 70

different volunteers. The development timeline of Phase 1 was greatly accelerated with the use of

mechanized trail building equipment by professional volunteers with the Earth Riders Trails

Association. Mechanized trail building not only performs the same amount of work that approximately

8-10 volunteers can in the same time (depending on terrain), but also provides a wider surface that can

easily be fine-tuned by finishing crews of trail builders and local volunteers. This phase provides a loop

trail that connects the Arch to the school via the historic quarry grounds in Mt. Marty Park.

Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4 of Mt. Marty Park trails development will progress as

funding/donations allow. With mechanized trail building assistance, we anticipate that the entire system

of 2+ miles can be completed by mid-2014. Remaining reliant on volunteer trail building crews will

significantly extend this timeline through 2014 and likely into 2015.

Additional funding for development within Steketee’s Slopes and at Mission Cliffs would

provide a completed 4 ¼ mile loop system within Southeast Rosedale by late 2014. Again, remaining

reliant on volunteer trail building crews will significantly extend this timeline through 2015 and possibly

even into 2016.

Steketee’s Slopes trail development, approximately 1.17 miles, would occur primarily on private

land and RDA has been given initial blessing by the landowner. RDA is currently working to formalize

a trail easement and development agreement. Additional trail development will occur on public right-

of-way and within Fisher Park, connecting to a ¼ mile crushed limestone trail.

Mission Cliffs trail development will occur on the common tract parcel owned by the Mission

Cliffs Home Owners Association and on existing public right-of-way. A 1 mile loop will be formed

around the subdivision area and link to other trails across Minnie Street north of all existing homes.

14

MASTER PLAN MAP

15

TRAILS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

Design and construction of natural surface singletrack trails have strict sustainability standards

detailed by the United States Forest Service (USFS) and International Mountain Bike Association

(IMBA). The Rozarks will be held to all standards outlined within the following publications:

Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf07232806/pdf07232806dpi300.pdf

Book: Trail Solutions: IMBA's Guide to Building Sweet Singletrack

Book: Managing Mountain Biking: IMBA's Guide to Providing Sweet Riding

Earth Riders Trails Association (ERTA) has collaborated with land managers throughout Kansas

City, designing and constructing 100+ miles of sustainable singletrack since 2001. Based on the amount

of volunteer hours it takes to construct sustainable singletrack on our regional terrain, ERTA has

recently standardized cost at $7.60 per linear foot of trail, or $40,000 per trail mile, with the approximate

breakdown of planning, design, construction labor, equipment, materials, and associated costs:

Task

Percentage of

Overall Project

Site Assessment & Environmental Planning 3%

Trail Routing & Ecological/Landscape Design 3%

Invasive Species Eradication - Labor 15%

Corridor/Invasive Species - Materials/Equipment 1%

Corridor/Brush Clearing - Labor 5%

Trash Remediation - Labor/Materials/Equipment 2%

Trail Construction - Labor (General) 10%

Trail Construction - Labor (Skilled) 20%

Trail Construction - Materials/Equipment 3%

Areas of Difficulty - Planning, Engineering, & Design 3%

Areas of Difficulty - Labor 8%

Areas of Difficulty - Materials 2%

Finishing & Detail Work 15%

Reforestation & Restoration - Labor 2%

Reforestation & Restoration - Materials 4%

Beautification & Signage - Labor 1%

Beautification & Signage - Materials 1%

Environmental Education & Public Awareness 1%

Overhead 1%

TOTAL 100%

16

ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET

Costs for completion of the Rozarks – Southeast Rosedale Trails are estimated to be $170,383.49

for approximately 4.246 miles of natural surface singletrack trail, including all materials, equipment,

labor, etc. This cost estimate could be greatly reduced with the usage of mechanized trail building

equipment and hiring a professional trail crew. Mechanized trail building not only performs the same

amount of work that approximately 8-10 volunteers can in the same time (depending on terrain), but also

provides a wider surface that can easily be fine-tuned by finishing crews of trail builders and local

volunteers. Budget details are below:

Area Planned Mileage Estimated Cost

Mt. Marty Phase 1 0.756 $30,336.77

Mt. Marty Phase 2 0.492 $19,742.98

Mt. Marty Phase 3 0.36 $14,446.08

Mt. Marty Phase 4 0.468 $18,779.90

Steketee's Slopes 1.17 $46,949.76

Mission Cliffs 1.0 $40,128.00

Total 4.246 $170,383.49

Rozark - Southeast Rosedale Trails

Task

Percentage of

Overall Project Estimated Cost

Site Assessment & Environmental Planning 3% $5,111.50

Trail Routing & Ecological/Landscape Design 3% $5,111.50

Invasive Species Eradication - Labor 15% $25,557.52

Corridor/Invasive Species - Materials/Equipment 1% $1,703.83

Corridor/Brush Clearing - Labor 5% $8,519.17

Trash Remediation - Labor/Materials/Equipment 2% $3,407.67

Trail Construction - Labor (General) 10% $17,038.35

Trail Construction - Labor (Skilled) 20% $34,076.70

Trail Construction - Materials/Equipment 3% $5,111.50

Areas of Difficulty - Planning, Engineering, & Design 3% $5,111.50

Areas of Difficulty - Labor 8% $13,630.68

Areas of Difficulty - Materials 2% $3,407.67

Finishing & Detail Work 15% $25,557.52

Reforestation & Restoration - Labor 2% $3,407.67

Reforestation & Restoration - Materials 4% $6,815.34

Beautification & Signage - Labor 1% $1,703.83

Beautification & Signage - Materials 1% $1,703.83

Environmental Education & Public Awareness 1% $1,703.83

Overhead 1% $1,703.83

TOTAL 100% $170,383.49

17

SIGNAGE PLAN

Signage for the Rozarks will conform to all USFS/IMBA Trail Design standards, as well as local

park standards provided by the Unified Government Parks and Recreation Department. TC Odegard of

Emerge Sign and Lighting has committed to

providing Rozark trail signage at minimal

cost to the overall project while the Unified

Government has also pledged signage

support through their Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) with Rosedale

Development Association. We expect top-

notch trailhead, trail name, feature, and directional signage for the Rozark trails project.

FUTURE MAINTENANCE PLAN

Maintenance needs are minimal for sustainably designed and constructed natural surface

singletrack trails. Once or twice a year, growth will have to be trimmed back from the trail tread with a

string trimmer and from the trail corridor with

loppers or handsaws. Local trail stewards and

neighborhood volunteers can easily provide

this maintenance free of charge with

equipment from the Earth Riders Trails

Association (ERTA) in partnership with

Rosedale Development Association (RDA).

Everyone can help maintain and keep our

community trails beautiful by practicing the “Leave No Trace” ethic. RDA is currently recruiting trail

stewards for Rozark trail sections as they are completed.

18

FUNDING STRATEGIES

Much of the design and construction of the Rozark – Southeast Rosedale Trails will be

performed by local volunteers and neighborhood residents. This sweat equity will be vital for the

completion and community ownership of this project. Rosedale Development Association (RDA) hopes

to secure funding/donations to hire the mechanical trail building crew for accelerated development of the

Rozarks, particularly the Mt. Marty – Rosedale Arch – Rosedale Middle School Trails: Phase Two,

Phase Three, and Phase Four. With this assistance, we anticipate that the entire Mt. Marty system of 2+

miles can be completed by mid-2014. Additional funding for development within Steketee’s Slopes and

at Mission Cliffs would provide a completed 4 ¼ mile loop system within Southeast Rosedale by late

2014. Potential sources of funding include:

KEEN Effect Environmental Grant

Specialized Bicycle Dealer Grant

The Sunflower Foundation – Trails Grants

Kansas – Recreational Trails Program (RTP)

International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA) Grant Programs

National Forest Foundation Grant Programs

National Environmental Education Foundation Grant Programs

Family Foundations

Corporate Sponsorships

Private Donations

Many, many others

19

APPENDIX 1 – 2010 CENSUS DATA: ZIP CODE 66103

DP-1-Geography-ZCTA5 66103: Profile of General Population and

Housing Characteristics: 2010

2010 Demographic Profile Data

NOTE: For more information on confidentiality protection,

nonsampling errors, and definitions, see –

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/dpsf.pdf.

Subject Number Percent

SEX AND AGE

Total population 13,934 100.0

Under 5 years 1,264 9.1

5 to 9 years 935 6.7

10 to 14 years 741 5.3

15 to 19 years 763 5.5

20 to 24 years 1,593 11.4

25 to 29 years 1,869 13.4

30 to 34 years 1,324 9.5

35 to 39 years 954 6.8

40 to 44 years 860 6.2

45 to 49 years 819 5.9

50 to 54 years 802 5.8

55 to 59 years 653 4.7

60 to 64 years 484 3.5

65 to 69 years 299 2.1

70 to 74 years 211 1.5

75 to 79 years 146 1.0

80 to 84 years 115 0.8

85 years and over 102 0.7

Median age (years) 29.4 ( X )

16 years and over 10,858 77.9





Male population 7,257 52.1

Under 5 years 647 4.6

5 to 9 years 475 3.4

10 to 14 years 375 2.7

15 to 19 years 394 2.8

20 to 24 years 762 5.5

25 to 29 years 997 7.2

30 to 34 years 732 5.3

35 to 39 years 561 4.0

40 to 44 years 485 3.5

45 to 49 years 443 3.2

50 to 54 years 423 3.0

55 to 59 years 336 2.4

60 to 64 years 248 1.8

65 to 69 years 137 1.0

70 to 74 years 92 0.7

75 to 79 years 68 0.5

20

80 to 84 years 50 0.4








Female population 6,677 47.9


5 to 9 years 460 3.3

10 to 14 years 366 2.6

15 to 19 years 369 2.6

20 to 24 years 831 6.0

25 to 29 years 872 6.3

30 to 34 years 592 4.2

35 to 39 years 393 2.8

40 to 44 years 375 2.7

45 to 49 years 376 2.7

50 to 54 years 379 2.7

55 to 59 years 317 2.3

60 to 64 years 236 1.7

65 to 69 years 162 1.2

70 to 74 years 119 0.9

75 to 79 years 78 0.6

80 to 84 years 65 0.5








RACE


One Race 13,349 95.8

White 8,067 57.9

Black or African American 1,910 13.7

American Indian and Alaska Native 111 0.8

Asian 544 3.9

Asian Indian 118 0.8

Chinese 146 1.0

Filipino 28 0.2

Japanese 8 0.1

Korean 39 0.3

Vietnamese 54 0.4

Other Asian [1] 151 1.1

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islander

12 0.1

Native Hawaiian 0 0.0

Guamanian or Chamorro 1 0.0

21

Samoan 0 0.0

Other Pacific Islander [2] 11 0.1

Some Other Race 2,705 19.4

Two or More Races 585 4.2

White; American Indian and Alaska

Native [3]

73 0.5

White; Asian [3] 53 0.4

White; Black or African American [3] 146 1.0

White; Some Other Race [3] 177 1.3

Race alone or in combination with one or

more other races: [4]

White 8,560 61.4

Black or African American 2,146 15.4

American Indian and Alaska Native 247 1.8

Asian 636 4.6


Islander

26 0.2

Some Other Race 2,951 21.2

HISPANIC OR LATINO


Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 5,080 36.5

Mexican 4,117 29.5

Puerto Rican 37 0.3

Cuban 24 0.2

Other Hispanic or Latino [5] 902 6.5

Not Hispanic or Latino 8,854 63.5

HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE


Hispanic or Latino 5,080 36.5

White alone 2,018 14.5

Black or African American alone 59 0.4

American Indian and Alaska Native

alone

37 0.3

Asian alone 8 0.1


Islander alone

0 0.0

Some Other Race alone 2,683 19.3


Not Hispanic or Latino 8,854 63.5

White alone 6,049 43.4

Black or African American alone 1,851 13.3

American Indian and Alaska Native

alone

74 0.5

Asian alone 536 3.8


Islander alone

12 0.1

Some Other Race alone 22 0.2


RELATIONSHIP


In households 13,934 100.0

Householder 6,077 43.6

Spouse [6] 1,672 12.0

22

Child 3,703 26.6

Own child under 18 years 2,950 21.2

Other relatives 994 7.1



Nonrelatives 1,488 10.7



Unmarried partner 615 4.4

In group quarters 0 0.0

Institutionalized population 0 0.0

Male 0 0.0

Female 0 0.0

Noninstitutionalized population 0 0.0

Male 0 0.0

Female 0 0.0

HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Total households 6,077 100.0

Family households (families) [7] 2,963 48.8

With own children under 18 years 1,570 25.8

Husband-wife family 1,672 27.5

With own children under 18 years 778 12.8

Male householder, no wife present 425 7.0


Female householder, no husband

present

866 14.3


Nonfamily households [7] 3,114 51.2

Householder living alone 2,338 38.5

Male 1,326 21.8


Female 1,012 16.7


Households with individuals under 18

years

1,740 28.6

Households with individuals 65 years

and over

704 11.6

Average household size 2.29 ( X )

Average family size [7] 3.15 ( X )

HOUSING OCCUPANCY

Total housing units 7,072 100.0

Occupied housing units 6,077 85.9

Vacant housing units 995 14.1

For rent 617 8.7

Rented, not occupied 8 0.1

For sale only 95 1.3

Sold, not occupied 32 0.5

For seasonal, recreational, or

occasional use

21 0.3

All other vacants 222 3.1

23

Homeowner vacancy rate (percent) [8] 4.1 ( X )

Rental vacancy rate (percent) [9] 13.6 ( X )

HOUSING TENURE

Occupied housing units 6,077 100.0

Owner-occupied housing units 2,166 35.6

Population in owner-occupied housing

units

5,249 ( X )

Average household size of owner-

occupied units

2.42 ( X )

Renter-occupied housing units 3,911 64.4

Population in renter-occupied housing

units

8,685 ( X )

Average household size of renter-

occupied units

2.22 ( X )

X Not applicable.

[1] Other Asian alone, or two or more Asian categories.

[2] Other Pacific Islander alone, or two or more Native

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander categories.

[3] One of the four most commonly reported multiple-race

combinations nationwide in Census 2000.

[4] In combination with one or more of the other races listed.

The six numbers may add to more than the total population,

and the six percentages may add to more than 100 percent

because individuals may report more than one race.

[5] This category is composed of people whose origins are

from the Dominican Republic, Spain, and Spanish-speaking

Central or South American countries. It also includes general

origin responses such as "Latino" or "Hispanic."

[6] "Spouse" represents spouse of the householder. It does not

reflect all spouses in a household. Responses of "same-sex

spouse" were edited during processing to "unmarried partner."

[7] "Family households" consist of a householder and one or

more other people related to the householder by birth,

marriage, or adoption. They do not include same-sex married

couples even if the marriage was performed in a state issuing

marriage certificates for same-sex couples. Same-sex couple

households are included in the family households category if

there is at least one additional person related to the householder

by birth or adoption. Same-sex couple households with no

relatives of the householder present are tabulated in nonfamily

households. "Nonfamily households" consist of people living

alone and households which do not have any members related

to the householder.

[8] The homeowner vacancy rate is the proportion of the

homeowner inventory that is vacant "for sale." It is computed

by dividing the total number of vacant units "for sale only" by

the sum of owner-occupied units, vacant units that are "for sale

only," and vacant units that have been sold but not yet

occupied; and then multiplying by 100.

[9] The rental vacancy rate is the proportion of the rental

inventory that is vacant "for rent." It is computed by dividing

the total number of vacant units "for rent" by the sum of the

renter-occupied units, vacant units that are "for rent," and

vacant units that have been rented but not yet occupied; and

then multiplying by 100.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census

24

APPENDIX 2 - NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLANS’ NOTES

1. 47th

and Mission Road Area Concept Plan – 2000

a. Town Hall Meetings – Issues prioritized include: less asphalt, more green; pedestrian

links; and, easy biking/walking/connection to parks. (Pages 7-10)

b. Neighborhoods – Connection “connect people within and between neighborhoods” (12)

c. Key Elements for Design and Development concepts - #1) “Pedestrian linkages

throughout the area, providing access between and among neighborhoods and

commercial development, and enhancement of pedestrian crossings” (13)

2. 39th

Street Corridor Plan – 2003

a. Conceptual Plan – Park/Open Space and Amenities (15-16)

i. “This development should be tied to the corridor through the addition of parkland

on the north and south sides of Lake Street, at the intersection with Minnie

Street.” (15)

ii. “A multi-purpose trail should be incorporated into the corridor to improve the

pedestrian accessibility of the resident within the corridor and connections to

surrounding areas. The general alignment of the trail should follow 39th

Street

and Lake Streets serving as the main east and west connection….The trail should

use the park (Fisher) as a central point to make connections to the north along

Springfield Street to Rosedale Middle School….Additional connections to the

surrounding areas should be made through the use of the natural topography,

particularly east and south of Minnie Street.” (16)

b. Development Policies (17-18)

i. “Connections throughout the neighborhood, with special attention to pedestrians,

should be preserved and enhanced.” (18)

ii. “Expand and improve the park and open space system in the corridor and

surrounding neighborhood when possible.” (18)

c. Design Concepts (19-24)

i. “Eventually, this park system could be further developed with neighborhood

trails, following natural areas, and linking other neighborhoods together.” (22)

ii. “Where parks and conservation areas meet, the opportunity exists to develop

interpretive elements, such as natural environment education nodes along the

trail.” (22)

3. Rosedale Master Plan – 2005

a. The Rosedale Plan – Major Components (Chapter 6)

i. Pedestrian Connectivity (6-3)

ii. “A comprehensive pedestrian trail system is recommended for Rosedale. This

designated trail would connect centers, green space, and neighborhoods to each

other.” (6-3)

iii. “The connection of the individual parks and open space parcels should be pursued

through the creation of a trail network that serves the area” (6-8)

iv. “The Rosedale Plan calls for a comprehensive pedestrian/bicycle trail to be

developed in the study area. The trail system would bring continuity to Rosedale

by connecting neighborhoods, open space, and centers. The trail system would be

used as a form of recreation and as a means of getting to and from community

activities….When possible, trails should be linked to existing trails in neighboring

communities to improve overall connectivity” (6-9)

25

v. “The natural amenities in Rosedale provide definition to the area and should be

enhanced and expanded. The creation of a defined trail system that links parks,

other amenities, and neighborhood centers should be pursued” (6-14)

b. Design Guidelines (Chapter 7)

i. Public or Open Spaces

1. “Link open spaces throughout the community through a variety of

methods, including trails or greenways….” (7-3)

2. “Public or open spaces should generally support the linear function of a

corridor, such as trails and greenways.” (7-11)

c. Implementation (Chapter 8)

i. “Utilize natural features, water features, topography, and vegetation” (8-5)

ii. “Enhance the bicycle and pedestrian network” (8-5)

4. City-Wide Master Plan (2008)

a. Parks, Open Space and Trails (61-66)

i. Recommends a comprehensive greenway and trail system to connect all parks,

schools, and other community cultural amenities.

5. Rosedale Green Corridor Trail Network and Revitalization Study – 2010

a. PURPOSE AND GOALS – PAGE 2

b. ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES – PAGE 3

c. PUBLIC PROCESS – PAGES 4-7

d. TRAIL NETWORK ANALYSIS – PAGES 12-23

e. DESIGN GUIDELINES – PAGES 24-31

f. NATURAL ECOLOGY – PAGES 32-35

g. PUBLIC HEALTH – PAGES 36-37

h. REVITALIZATION AND REDEVELOPMENT – PAGES 38-41

i. IMPLEMENTATION – PAGE 42

6. Rosedale Environmental Action Lab – 2010

a. “….green spaces that children can experience and manipulate with their own hands

should be considered essential to an urban community.” (1)

b. Rosedale is unique for an urban community in that it is built upon bluffs which are

difficult to develop. The bluffs adjacent to the school are densely landscaped and lend

themselves to be urban woodland of sorts. To incorporate this resource, trails will be

added throughout the woodland connecting two important nodes in the locality; the

environmental lab and the historical Rosedale Arch. The trails can be used for field study

and interaction with the natural world as part of the outside portion of the lab.” (2)

c. Guiding Principles (2): Education is the key to behavioral change, nature in a reachable

location, a promotion of healthy eating, a real world experience curriculum, to increase

environmental awareness, a central gathering node, a usable space, an adaptable

environment, and, an expandable program.

d. Connections (3) –

i. “A system of trail ways linking nodes such as parks, shopping and dining, and

other activities will also link the Rosedale Middle School and the environmental

lab. Accessible trails encourage a connection between students and their natural

world. The trails located in the urban wild land adjacent to the environmental lab

will be beneficial to incorporate field study type lessons of native plant species

26

and identification. This also helps promote an active and healthy lifestyle the

green corridor is committed to.” (3)

ii. “Rosedale should work to use the approximately 16 acres of urban wild land

surrounding the school to connect to Fisher Park….” (3)

iii. “Rosedale should work to connect the historical marker, Rosedale Arch, to the

environmental lab with the trail system.” (3)

e. “The historical marker, Rosedale Arch, should serve as a visual “gateway” to the

community gathering node through the trail system” (4)

7. Southwest Boulevard/Merriam Lane Corridor Master Plan – 2011

a. “One of the major topics discussed at every public meeting and every session with

business owners was the need for better pedestrian and bicycling systems” (63)

b. GOALS (66-69)

i. “Become a healthier community. Promote active lifestyles to make it easy and

safe to walk and bike. Encourage trails and recreation, bike lanes, urban farming,

permanent farmers market, corner markets, and access to healthy foods.” (66)

ii. “Take advantage of existing area community assets such as local parks, schools

and other public investments as central focus points of neighborhood development

and make them accessible to everyone” (67)

iii. “Create compact, connected walkable neighborhoods that provide safe,

convenient and comfortable sidewalks, but also have interesting places to walk to

– such as parks, schools, stores and civic institutions.” (67)

iv. “Embrace efforts to involve students within the community. Create opportunities

for a middle school urban environmental lab, safe routes, and after-school and

youth activities.” (67)

v. “Promote a variety of transportation choices. Dependence on cars will continue

until it is safe, convenient and comfortable to walk, bicycle and use transit as an

alternative.” (69)

vi. “Promote ease of access through the community.” (69)

c. IMPLEMENTATION

i. Public Open Space (74) – “Creation of public plaza and green open space to link

and strengthen the future trail systems and environmental enhancement areas is

critical. A regulatory approach could include development flexibility for the

creation of these place-making and linkage spaces. Provisions for public artwork

in these spaces would be encouraged.”

ii. Recreational Trail Access (75) – “Inventory open space assets to support

additional youth-related recreational activities within and adjacent to the

Corridor.”

iii. Identify Walking Routes (75) – “Understand and develop walking routes for

greater safety and ease of access through the Corridor.”

iv. Safe Routes to School (77) – “Collaborate with City to pursue additional safe-

route programming.”

v. Public and Private Schools (77) – Partner with area schools to identify and

implement outdoor urban labs and other hands-on environmental education….”

8. Sidewalk and Trails Master Plan for Unified Government/Kansas City, Kansas – 2012

a. Plan Goals (1)

i. Improve the health and well-being of residents

27

ii. Provide a safe, convenient and attractive transportation alternative to the

automobile

iii. Provide a sidewalk and trail network that meets the needs of all skill levels and

physical abilities

iv. Connect major activity centers and destinations within the County

v. Connect to surrounding local and regional pedestrian bicycle networks

9. Healthy Communities Wyandotte Recommendations for a Better Future – 2012

a. Environmental Infrastructure

i. Provide physical activity opportunities throughout the county

ii. Improve neighborhood safety through infrastructure developments

iii. Create stronger neighborhoods through infrastructure developments that promote

social connectedness

iv. Pursue policy changes that ensure improvements to environmental infrastructure

v. Launch an educational campaign to inform the public about infrastructure

improvements and strategies to lead an active life

The Rozarks - Southeast Rosedale Trails Plan

Documents

Transcript of The Rozarks - Southeast Rosedale Trails Plan