THE ROZARKS SOUTHEAST ROSEDALE TRAILS PLAN

THE ROZARKS
SOUTHEAST ROSEDALE TRAILS PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 - 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

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

Page 19 Appendix 1 - 2010 Census Data: Zip Code 66103

Page 24 Appendix 2 - Neighborhood Master Plans Notes

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.

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 Steketees Slopes and at Mission Cliffs would provide a completed 4 mile loop system within Southeast Rosedale by late 2014.
*Please see Master Plan Map Page 14

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.

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 KCKs 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 I35 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.

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 Rosedales 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

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

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.

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.

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.

10

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 Clarks journey, to the homesteaders leaving for Santa Fe, California, or Oregon, to todays 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? Youll need a trail. Want to explore local flora and fauna in their native settings? Youll need a trail. Want to escape the madness of everyday life and take a deep breath of fresh air in a clean urban forest? Youll need a trail!

11

Economic Development Recreation, Health, & Wellness Transportation

TRAILS
Property Values Historic Preservation Green Space Preservation

12

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 Steketees Slopes and at Mission Cliffs would provide a completed 4 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. Steketees 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 rightof-way and within Fisher Park, connecting to a 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.

13

MASTER PLAN MAP

14

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: Book: Book: http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf07232806/pdf07232806dpi300.pdf Trail Solutions: IMBA's Guide to Building Sweet Singletrack 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:
Percentage of Overall Project 3% 3% 15% 1% 5% 2% 10% 20% 3% 3% 8% 2% 15% 2% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 100%

Task Site Assessment & Environmental Planning Trail Routing & Ecological/Landscape Design Invasive Species Eradication - Labor Corridor/Invasive Species - Materials/Equipment Corridor/Brush Clearing - Labor Trash Remediation - Labor/Materials/Equipment Trail Construction - Labor (General) Trail Construction - Labor (Skilled) Trail Construction - Materials/Equipment Areas of Difficulty - Planning, Engineering, & Design Areas of Difficulty - Labor Areas of Difficulty - Materials Finishing & Detail Work Reforestation & Restoration - Labor Reforestation & Restoration - Materials Beautification & Signage - Labor Beautification & Signage - Materials Environmental Education & Public Awareness Overhead TOTAL

15

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:
Rozark - Southeast Rosedale Trails 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
Percentage of Overall Project Estimated Cost 3% $5,111.50 3% $5,111.50 15% $25,557.52 1% $1,703.83 5% $8,519.17 2% $3,407.67 10% $17,038.35 20% $34,076.70 3% $5,111.50 3% $5,111.50 8% $13,630.68 2% $3,407.67 15% $25,557.52 2% $3,407.67 4% $6,815.34 1% $1,703.83 1% $1,703.83 1% $1,703.83 1% $1,703.83 100% $170,383.49

Task Site Assessment & Environmental Planning Trail Routing & Ecological/Landscape Design Invasive Species Eradication - Labor Corridor/Invasive Species - Materials/Equipment Corridor/Brush Clearing - Labor Trash Remediation - Labor/Materials/Equipment Trail Construction - Labor (General) Trail Construction - Labor (Skilled) Trail Construction - Materials/Equipment Areas of Difficulty - Planning, Engineering, & Design Areas of Difficulty - Labor Areas of Difficulty - Materials Finishing & Detail Work Reforestation & Restoration - Labor Reforestation & Restoration - Materials Beautification & Signage - Labor Beautification & Signage - Materials Environmental Education & Public Awareness Overhead TOTAL

16

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 topnotch 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.

17

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 Steketees Slopes and at Mission Cliffs would provide a completed 4 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

18

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 SEX AND AGE Total population Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 69 years 70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years 80 to 84 years 85 years and over Median age (years) 16 years and over 18 years and over 21 years and over 62 years and over 65 years and over Male population Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 69 years 70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years Number 13,934 1,264 935 741 763 1,593 1,869 1,324 954 860 819 802 653 484 299 211 146 115 102 29.4 10,858 10,578 10,026 1,155 873 7,257 647 475 375 394 762 997 732 561 485 443 423 336 248 137 92 68 Percent 100.0 9.1 6.7 5.3 5.5 11.4 13.4 9.5 6.8 6.2 5.9 5.8 4.7 3.5 2.1 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.7 (X) 77.9 75.9 72.0 8.3 6.3 52.1 4.6 3.4 2.7 2.8 5.5 7.2 5.3 4.0 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.4 1.8 1.0 0.7 0.5

19

80 to 84 years 85 years and over Median age (years) 16 years and over 18 years and over 21 years and over 62 years and over 65 years and over Female population Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 69 years 70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years 80 to 84 years 85 years and over Median age (years) 16 years and over 18 years and over 21 years and over 62 years and over 65 years and over RACE Total population One Race White Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native Asian Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Japanese Korean Vietnamese Other Asian [1] Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Native Hawaiian Guamanian or Chamorro

50 32 29.9 5,683 5,542 5,274 528 379 6,677 617 460 366 369 831 872 592 393 375 376 379 317 236 162 119 78 65 70 28.9 5,175 5,036 4,752 627 494

0.4 0.2 (X) 40.8 39.8 37.8 3.8 2.7 47.9 4.4 3.3 2.6 2.6 6.0 6.3 4.2 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.3 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 (X) 37.1 36.1 34.1 4.5 3.5

13,934 13,349 8,067 1,910 111 544 118 146 28 8 39 54 151 12 0 1

100.0 95.8 57.9 13.7 0.8 3.9 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

20

Samoan Other Pacific Islander [2] Some Other Race Two or More Races White; American Indian and Alaska Native [3] White; Asian [3] White; Black or African American [3] White; Some Other Race [3] Race alone or in combination with one or more other races: [4] White Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Some Other Race HISPANIC OR LATINO Total population Hispanic or Latino (of any race) Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Other Hispanic or Latino [5] Not Hispanic or Latino HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE Total population Hispanic or Latino White alone Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some Other Race alone Two or More Races Not Hispanic or Latino White alone Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some Other Race alone Two or More Races RELATIONSHIP Total population In households Householder Spouse [6]

0 11 2,705 585 73 53 146 177

0.0 0.1 19.4 4.2 0.5 0.4 1.0 1.3

8,560 2,146 247 636 26 2,951

61.4 15.4 1.8 4.6 0.2 21.2

13,934 5,080 4,117 37 24 902 8,854

100.0 36.5 29.5 0.3 0.2 6.5 63.5

13,934 5,080 2,018 59 37 8 0 2,683 275 8,854 6,049 1,851 74 536 12 22 310

100.0 36.5 14.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 19.3 2.0 63.5 43.4 13.3 0.5 3.8 0.1 0.2 2.2

13,934 13,934 6,077 1,672

100.0 100.0 43.6 12.0

21

Child Own child under 18 years Other relatives Under 18 years 65 years and over Nonrelatives Under 18 years 65 years and over Unmarried partner In group quarters Institutionalized population Male Female Noninstitutionalized population Male Female HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE Total households Family households (families) [7] With own children under 18 years Husband-wife family With own children under 18 years Male householder, no wife present With own children under 18 years Female householder, no husband present With own children under 18 years Nonfamily households [7] Householder living alone Male 65 years and over Female 65 years and over Households with individuals under 18 years Households with individuals 65 years and over Average household size Average family size [7] HOUSING OCCUPANCY Total housing units Occupied housing units Vacant housing units For rent Rented, not occupied For sale only Sold, not occupied For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use All other vacants

3,703 2,950 994 324 68 1,488 72 23 615 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

26.6 21.2 7.1 2.3 0.5 10.7 0.5 0.2 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6,077 2,963 1,570 1,672 778 425 223 866 569 3,114 2,338 1,326 123 1,012 190 1,740 704

100.0 48.8 25.8 27.5 12.8 7.0 3.7 14.3 9.4 51.2 38.5 21.8 2.0 16.7 3.1 28.6 11.6

2.29 3.15

(X) (X)

7,072 6,077 995 617 8 95 32 21 222

100.0 85.9 14.1 8.7 0.1 1.3 0.5 0.3 3.1

22

Homeowner vacancy rate (percent) [8] Rental vacancy rate (percent) [9]

4.1 13.6

(X) (X)

HOUSING TENURE Occupied housing units 6,077 100.0 Owner-occupied housing units 2,166 35.6 Population in owner-occupied housing 5,249 (X) units Average household size of owner2.42 (X) occupied units Renter-occupied housing units 3,911 64.4 Population in renter-occupied housing 8,685 (X) units Average household size of renter2.22 (X) occupied units 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

23

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)

24

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

25

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 saferoute 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

26

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

27